MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367323216 · doi:10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-13109

Planning of Mobile Crane Walking Operations in Congested Industrial Construction Sites

2023· article· en· W4367323216 on OpenAlexaff
Kamyab Aghajamali, Ala Nekouvaght Tak, Hosein Taghaddos, Ali Mousaei, Saeed Behzadipour, Ulrich Hermann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Construction Engineering and Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsPCL Construction (Canada)University of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLift (data mining)Modular designMotion planningObstaclePlannerTower craneEngineeringRoboticsSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceMobile robotObstacle avoidanceRobotSimulationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trend toward more compact designs and congested site layouts makes it challenging for lift planners to provide feasible lift paths for mobile cranes, confronting the added risk of potential collisions when maneuvering through on-site obstacles. In some cases, particularly in congested industrial modular projects, it is inevitable for mobile cranes to walk with loads to a position with sufficient clearance to perform the lifts and place the objects in their final set position. This study contributes to the body of knowledge by introducing a comprehensive lift planning framework to plan complicated lifts involving mobile crane walking operations. Due to the lack of reliable and accurate plans for such lifts in practice and the added complexities, they are often eluded by practitioners compared with the more straightforward pick-and-set scenarios. This study proposes an algorithm for optimized planning of crane walking–involved lift operations borrowing an obstacle avoidance technique from robotics. The proposed path planner thoroughly considers site constraints and crane configurations to prevent collision between the crane body and the load with preinstalled objects. Actual case studies are presented to validate the efficiency of the proposed algorithm. The system generated the presented real-world lift in less than 5 min, satisfying the operations’ optimality, safety, and feasibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Construction Engineering and ManagementSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207