Using genetic algorithms in solving the one-dimensional cutting stock problem in the construction industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the United States, vast amounts of construction waste are produced every year. Construction waste accounts for a significant portion of the municipal waste stream of the United States. One-dimensional stocks are one of the major contributors to construction waste. Cutting one-dimensional stocks to suit needed project lengths results in trim losses, which are the main causes of one-dimensional stock waste. Although part of such waste is recyclable such as steel waste, reduction in the generation of waste can enhance the stock material usage and thereby increase the profit potential of the company. The traditional optimization techniques (i.e., linear programming and integer programming) suffer some drawbacks when they are used to solve the one-dimensional cutting stock problem (CSP). In this paper, a genetic algorithm (GA) model for solving the one-dimensional CSP (GA1D) is presented. Three real life case studies from a local steel workshop in Fargo, North Dakota have been studied, and their solutions (cutting schedules) using the GA approach are presented and compared with the actual workshop cutting schedules. The comparison shows a high potential of savings that could be achieved.Key words: construction waste management, waste reduction, genetic algorithm, GA, cutting stock problem, CSP, optimization, reinforcement steel optimization, rebar optimization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".