ArticleScientific reports2025
A jamming risk warning model for TBM tunnelling based on Bayesian statistical methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dynamic risk assessment and mitigation effect evaluation of TBM jamming based on BPNN-BN coupling model.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive jamming risk assessment framework for Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) jamming accidents during excavation. Using real-time boring data and Bayesian conditional probability, a novel risk warning model is proposed to enhance safety and efficiency of tunneling projects. Through statistical analysis of excavation parameters, distinct patterns between jamming and normal excavation states are identified. A comprehensive jamming perception index (η) is introduced that synthesizes multiple parameters to accurately identify jamming states with a recognition rate of 95%. This integrated approach overcomes the limitations of single-parameter analysis and provides improved accuracy in jamming risk assessment. Additionally, a quantitative model for calculating jamming probability is developed, accounting for differences in sample size between jamming and normal excavation sections. The refined model yields realistic estimates of jamming probability, with an average of 94% in jamming sections and 7% in normal excavation sections. Furthermore, geological analysis shows that the Class Ⅲ surrounding rock is the most suitable for excavation and has the lowest jamming probability. This finding emphasizes the importance of considering geological conditions in excavation planning to effectively mitigate jamming risks. In conclusion, this research provides a practical framework for the prediction and management of TBM jamming accidents, contributing to enhanced safety and efficiency in tunneling projects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.