MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060249893 · doi:10.1061/41109(373)35

Simulation-Based Multiple Heavy Lift Planning in Industrial Construction

2010· article· en· W2060249893 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hosein Taghaddos, Simaan AbouRizk, Yasser Mohamed, Ulrich Hermann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsPCL Construction (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduleLift (data mining)Process (computing)Lifting equipmentEngineeringComputer scienceConstruction engineeringSystems engineeringOperating systemMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heavy lifting in industrial construction involves the installation of prefabricated modules and equipment weighing up to 1000 tons. Placing a prefabricated module requires a specific crane with a minimum capacity and specific configurations and riggings. Site construction process should follow a certain sequence. If the required cranes are not available or the predecessor modules or structures are not built yet, the module has to be stored in a storage area. Prior to lifting a module, several supporting tasks must take place including adjusting the location, configuration, and rigging of the crane and preparing the ground beneath the crane. Therefore, planning multiple heavy lifts is a complex process. However, it has a significant impact on the cost, schedule and safety of the project. This study employs a simulation-based approach to produce a heavy lifting planning system for mobile cranes. This system assists the project manager and lift engineer in decisions regarding the selection of mobile cranes and their locations and configurations for different lifts. It also produces a schedule that reduces the total cost and enhances the schedule of the project. This system is under implementation on an industrial plant in the province of Alberta, Canada.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207