MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324837604 · doi:10.1061/41069(360)78

Productivity Analysis of Horizontal Directional Drilling

2009· article· en· W2324837604 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Adel, Tarek Zayed

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrenchless technologyProductivityEngineeringDirectional drillingCrewPipeline transportOperations researchDrillingEnvironmental engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid increase of new installations, replacement and repairs of pipe utilities, the demand for trenchless excavation methods with minimum disruption to the public such as horizontal directional drilling (HDD) has increased. Canadian National Research Council reports that rehabilitation of municipal water systems would cost $28 billion from year 1997 to 2012 (NRC 2004). Contractors, engineers, and decision makers are always facing a challenge of how to estimate the cost of new pipe installation using the HDD due to the presence of subjective factors. The HDD process involves a large number of factors to be considered for productivity prediction and cost estimation. Therefore, an emergent need for developing a dedicated HDD productivity model is currently undertaken to meet industrial needs. The presented research aims at identifying the main factors that affect productivity of HDD operations and designing a productivity model. A neurofuzzy approach is utilized to design the HDD productivity prediction model for underground pipe installations in clay soil. The neurofuzzy system is developed based on actual project data that are collected through interviews, phone calls and questionnaire surveys. Results show that crew and operator skills and pipe diameter greatly affect the HDD productivity and the project as a whole.

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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207