MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150220544 · doi:10.1061/9780784412329.088

Application Potential of Ultra-Wide Band Radar for Detecting Buried Obstructions in Construction

2012· article· en· W2150220544 on OpenAlexaff
Junhao Zou, Ming Lu, R. Karumudi, Xuesong Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueConstruction Research Congress 2012 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsPCL Construction (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGround-penetrating radarRadarFlooding (psychology)EngineeringPipeline transportUrbanizationCivil engineeringConstruction engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need of sustainable urbanization drives construction engineers to explore the underground space to improve quality of life, meet with the challenges of population growth, and satisfy increasing infrastructure demands for utility pipelines and subways. However, unexpected obstructions or heterogeneous ground conditions make underground construction a risky operation, increasing construction cost while presenting additional safety hazards. Examples include (1) high pressure underground water stops a tunnel boring machine (TBM); (2) breaking an existing water main leads to flooding the downtown area; and (3) hitting an unexpected gas line causes an explosion. To a certain extent, all of those accidents can be attributable to the lack of cost-effective technology for detecting buried underground obstacles. The current practices such as geotechnical test holes and ground penetration radars (GPR) have their limitations in revealing underground situations. Meanwhile, the emerging technology of ultra-wide band (UWB) radar holds the potential to provide a cost-effective, non-destructive detection method. In this paper, a critical review of current practices and established methodologies is given. The functionality, working mechanism and application potential of UWB radar technologies in underground construction are described. Preliminary lab testing results are presented. Research findings are summarized and further research plans are discussed in conclusions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstruction Research Congress 2012Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207