Development of a predictive safety control algorithm using laser scanners for excavators on construction sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a laser scanner–based predictive safety system for excavators. Blind spots on excavators and operators’ carelessness cause majority of fatal accidents, such as those in which deaths occur due to collisions with objects on a construction site. A proper safety system can enhance the safety of construction vehicles on construction sites. In this study, a safety control algorithm for collision avoidance was developed utilizing kinematics and a dynamic model based on the working area and object behavior predictions. The object behaviors were predicted by considering human pace states since excavators often operate in tandem with workers. Combining the data collected from static obstacles and moving objects, the researchers identified a safe working space. In the case of moving objects, the researchers predicted the probabilistic reachable area of workers via hypothesis testing and state estimation utilizing the estimated position and velocity information obtained by a laser scanner. Hypothesis testing was conducted to identify worker pace states, such as standing still, walking, jogging, and running, using estimated velocity. The working area was predicted via working part kinematic analysis of an excavator. Safety indices, such as time to collision (TTC) and warning index (x), were employed to define the safety level of an excavator in operation in the TTC–x domain. The safety level consists of safe, warning, and emergency braking levels. Furthermore, the researchers developed a control algorithm to avoid collision of the excavator with static and moving objects. Tests of the developed reachable area of a worker were conducted utilizing laser scanners. In addition, a simulation-based performance evaluation of the developed safety control algorithm was conducted with test results employing the excavator swing dynamic model.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".