An integrated space-based building maintenance management model using multi-objective optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to minimize cost and minimize building condition. Weibull distribution approach was employed to generate deterioration curves over time. The third floor of Concordia University’s Engineering And Visual Arts (EV) Complex in Montreal, Canada, served as a case study to test the maintenance model and determine the optimal maintenance activities to be performed. Design/methodology/approach This research has demonstrated that there is insufficient fund allocation for the maintenance of non-residential buildings. Therefore, this research focused on designing and developing a maintenance optimization model that provides the type of spaces (architectural system) in a building. Sensitivity analysis was used to calculate weights to validate the model. Particle swarm optimization, based explicitly on multiple objectives, was applied for the optimization problem using MATLAB. Findings Following 100 iterations, 13 non-dominant solutions were generated. Not only was the overall maintenance cost minimized, but the condition of the building was also maximized. Moreover, the condition prediction model demonstrated that the window system type has the most rapid deterioration in educational buildings. Originality/value The model is flexible and can be modified by facility managers to align with the required codes or standards.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".