A Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Approach for Bridge Maintenance Management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infrastructure age in the US/Canada are beyond half their expected service life. With billions of dollars invested annually, an increase in number of decisions towards maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement (MRR) activities are expected. Customer (infrastructure user) opinions are sometimes sought when major infrastructure-related decisions are made by conducting surveys, community meetings, etc. However, with consumers becoming more involved in economic, environmental, and social issues related to infrastructure, a process for ensuring customer demands are addressed would be valuable to all stakeholders involved. In this thesis, using bridge as an example, an innovative expert-based decision-framework has been proposed and developed using the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) approach. The framework comprises of three major elements. First a hierarchical evidential reasoning (HER) framework is proposed and developed for condition assessment of bridges by classifying bridge elements into Primary, Secondary, Tertiary and Life Safety-Critical elements. Respective indices are calculated in addition to an overall bridge condition index. The HER framework enables combining different distress indicators and propagating both aleatory/epistemic uncertainties using either Dempster-Shafer or Yager's rule. Importance and reliability factors (collectively termed "credibility factor") are introduced based on bridge element importance and reliability of collected data. Second, QFD implementation has been demonstrated with the following applications: (i) Inspection Prioritization (ii) Decision-Making between Replacement and/ or Rehabilitation scenarios. For inspection prioritization, an Inspection House of Quality is prepared for translating consumer demands (WHATs) into inspection requirements (HOWs) and demonstrated using data developed from Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) inspection manual. For the decision-making scenarios, a case study is furnished for a bridge located in Victoria, BC. Finally, the infrastructure-user's expectations are dynamic given the changing economic conditions, technologies, environmental regulations, etc. A hidden Markov model (HMM) is utilized for predicting such dynamic customer response by using probabilities of focus areas that are of interest to the infrastructure-user as hidden parameters. Using the 2005 California Transportation's customer survey, a case study is presented for demonstrating the application. This new expert-based framework has an ability to enhance decision-making by addressing uncertainty in collected inspection data, facilitating customer input into MRR procedures and by predicting customer expectations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it