MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402012491 · doi:10.9734/jsrr/2024/v30i92346

Impact of Geotechnical Engineering on Infrastructure Lifespan and Maintenance Costs

2024· article· en· W4402012491 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Nyame

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scientific Research and Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineeringCivil engineeringGeotechnical investigationScheduleEngineering economicsFoundation (evidence)Construction engineeringTransport engineeringGeotechnical engineeringBusinessComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To examine the impact of geotechnical engineering on infrastructure lifespan and maintenance costs. Problem Statement: The roles of geotechnical engineering in civil engineering infrastructures cannot be underestimated. It cuts across sub-divisional professions such as structural engineering, geology, mechanical engineering, construction engineering, environmental engineering, hydraulic engineering and so on. However, the study has great influence on the lifespan of infrastructure and their maintenance costs. Thus, more studies and literature surveys are still needed to reveal crucial information to geotechnical engineers, government, private sectors and related organizations. Significance of Study: This technical review critically examines the need to study the influence of geotechnical engineering on infrastructure lifespan and maintenance costs. Methodology: Recent relevant published articles, books and journals in the area of geotechnical engineering in relation to its impacts on the lifespan of infrastructure and their relevant maintenance costs were consulted. Discussion: In this technical review paper, the fundamental knowledge of geotechnical engineering and its interrelationship with infrastructure lifespan and their maintenance costs was examined. Applications of geotechnical engineering in relation with practicing fields were listed to include underground structures, roads and airports, supporting ground structures and excavations, subgrades and ground structures, foundation engineering and assessments of slope stability. Infrastructure life cycle was stated to comprise of four phases which include planning, preparation, procurement and implementation. Reference was made to a study on the effects of geotechnical risks on cost and schedule in infrastructure projects. It was concluded that slope Instability was the most significant risk factor based on both cost and schedule impacts having mean values of 3.06 and 3.02 respectively with reference to the survey results achieved from 47 professionals in the construction industry. The findings were recommended for governmental agencies and industry professionals whose professionalism is into infrastructure projects in order to recognize how geotechnical conditions influence time and cost overruns. Conclusion: Geotechnical engineering has great influence on the lifespan of infrastructure and their maintenance costs.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scientific Research and ReportsSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207