New life‐cycle costing approach for infrastructure rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Several rehabilitation planning methods are reported in the literature for public infrastructures, such as bridges, pavements, sewers, etc. These methods, however, are limited to specific types of infrastructures. The purpose of the present research is to develop a novel and generic method for Maintenance and Rehabilitation Planning for Public Infrastructure (M&RPPI), which aims at determining the optimal rehabilitation profile over a desired analysis period. Design/methodology/approach The M&RPPI method is based on life‐cycle costing (LCC) with probabilistic and continuous rating approach for condition states. The M&RPPI uses a new approach of “dynamic” Markov chain to represent the deterioration mechanism of an infrastructure and the impact of rehabilitation interventions on such infrastructure. It also uses genetic algorithm (GA) in conjunction with Markov chains in order to find the optimal rehabilitation profile. A case study is presented with a comparison between the traditional Markov decision process (MDP) and the newly developed method. Findings The new method, which generates lower LCC, is found practical in providing a complete M&R plan over a required study period, compared to a stationary decision policy with the traditional MDP. In addition, GA is found useful in the optimization process and overcomes the computational difficulties for large combinatorial problems. Research limitations/implications The implementation of the developed models is limited to only four alternatives/actions. However, the developed models and framework are superior for MDP. Practical implications The developed methodology and model play essential roles in the decision‐making process. Originality/value The new method is beneficial to researchers and practitioners. It is developed for a single facility; however, it provides a major step towards a broader infrastructure management system and capital budgeting problems.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".