Tunnel-Boring Machine Positioning during Microtunneling Operations through Integrating Automated Data Collection with Real-Time Computing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to develop an automated and cost-effective solution to guide the advance of a tunnel-boring machine (TBM) during microtunneling and pipe jacking operations. Pros and cons of currently available TBM guidance systems are evaluated. A simplified TBM guidance system is proposed based on integration of automated data collection with real-time computing. The TBM’s position in terms of point coordinates is continuously and automatically surveyed by a robotic total station, thus making it feasible to derive any line and level deviations from as-designed tunnel alignment in real time. Furthermore, given the coordinates of three observation points on the TBM, the attitudes of the TBM, which are described by three rotation angles of yaw, pitch, and roll, can be determined by a vector observation algorithm. Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to assess errors of point positioning and attitude determination by the proposed solution. For concept proving and application demonstration, a hardware-software integrated prototype system was developed in house and validation experiments were successfully conducted in terms of: (1) automated surveying of multiple targets; (2) attitude determination for a moving object that mimicked a working TBM; and (3) field installation and testing based on an ongoing project.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it