MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling Microtunnel Boring Machine Penetration Rate Using a Mechanistic Approach

2022· article· en· W4295799731 on OpenAlexaff
Saeid Moharrami, Alireza Bayat, Simaan AbouRizk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenetration (warfare)Penetration rateRate of penetrationComputer sciencePenetration testGeotechnical engineeringMechanical engineeringGeologyEngineeringOperations researchDrilling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting the productivity of microtunneling construction projects is challenging, due to the complexities of this trenchless excavation method. One of these complexities is estimating the microtunnel boring machine (MTBM) penetration rate due to the complex nature of the interactions between the MTBM and the ground. In the present study, a novel mechanistic approach based on the theory of contact mechanics is proposed to determine the underlying mechanics of the MTBM penetration rate. Using the proposed mechanistic approach, an analytical model of the MTBM penetration rate is developed, and a mechanistic relationship between the MTBM penetration rate and its influential factors, namely soil properties, operational loads, and cutterhead characteristics, is established. The proposed approach is expected to provide substantial mechanistic insight with respect to MTBM penetration rates by (1) modeling penetration rates of MTBMs into soils, (2) identifying the factors that influence penetration rates based on a fundamental theoretical approach, and (3) providing a useful tool for evaluating MTBM penetration rates based on the combined influences of ground properties, operational loads, and cutterhead characteristics.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Construction Engineering and ManagementSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207