Stochastic Earthmoving Fleet Arrangement Optimization Considering Project Duration and Cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Earthmoving is one of the main processes involved in heavy construction and mining projects. It requires a significant share of the project budget and can dictate its overall success. Earthmoving related activities have a stochastic nature that affects the project cost and duration. In common practice, the equipment required for a project is selected using average operating cycles, neglecting the stochastic nature of operations and equipment. Ultimately this can lead to rough estimates and poor results in meeting the projects’ objectives. This research aims to provide a decision-support tool for earthmoving operations and achieve the best arrangement of equipment based on project objectives and equipment specifications by utilizing historical data. Operation simulation is identified as an efficient technique to model and analyze the stochastic aspects of the cost and duration of earthmoving operations in construction projects. Therefore, two simulation models—namely the Decision-Support Model and the Estimation Model, have been developed in the Symphony.net modeling environment to address the industry needs. The Decision-Support Model provides the best arrangement of equipment to maximize global resource utilization. In contrast, the Estimation Model captures more of the project details and compares various equipment arrangements. In this paper, these models are created, and the modeling logic is validated through a case study employing a real-world earthmoving project that demonstrates the model’s capabilities. The decision support model showed promising results in determining the optimized fleet selection when considering equipment and shift variations, and the cost model helped better quantifying the impact of the decision on the cost and profit of the project. This modeling approach can be reproduced by others in any case of interest to gain optimal fleet management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".