MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956114766 · doi:10.22260/isarc2019/0024

Automated Mathematical-Based Design Framework for The Selection of Rigging Configuration

2019· article· en· W2956114766 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... ISARC · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffset (computer science)Modular programmingRowComputer scienceEngineering drawingEngineeringReliability engineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated Mathematical-Based Design Framework for The Selection of Rigging Configuration Seyed Mohammad Amin Minay Hashemi, Sanghyeok Han, Jacek Olearczyk, Ahmed Bouferguene, Mohamed Al-Hussein and Joe Kosa Pages 172-178 (2019 Proceedings of the 36th ISARC, Banff, Canada, ISBN 978-952-69524-0-6, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: Modularization in construction involves erection of large and heavy prefabricated modules at the job site. Modules, especially in industrial plants, are required to be lifted without any tilted angles vertically and horizontally to prevent applying bending moments to the lifting lugs and structural components. Configuration of rigging elements, which are the link between the crane hook and the module, plays a vital role in the load distribution to the rigging components. In practice, designing a rigging assembly to ensure safe and successful lifts is a time-consuming and tedious process relying heavily on guesswork, especially when the module’s center of gravity is offset. In addition, the pitch angle of the module remains unknown until it is lifted, thus raising safety issues regarding the failure of rigging components. To overcome these limitations, this paper proposes a mathematical-based design framework which consists of: (1) collecting the module information; (2) designing a preliminary configuration by selecting the rigging components from the database; (3) Optimizing the number, size and capacity of the rigging components selected for the preliminary configuration in order to ensure that positions of module and spreader bars are set on parallel lines without tilted angles; and (4) reporting the list of used rigging components and visualizing their configuration as the output. To validate this framework, this paper uses a case study which designs the optimal rigging configuration for a 4-point pick module based on the inventory availability. Keywords: Crane rigging; Automation; Center of gravity offset DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2019/0024 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
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