MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404243408 · doi:10.3390/buildings14113583

Reliability-Centric Maintenance Planning for Bridge Infrastructure: A Novel Method Based on Improved Electric Fish Optimization

2024· article· en· W4404243408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yiming Wang, Yuxin Wang, Jun-sheng Ni, Haodong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueBuildings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Reliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringFish <Actinopterygii>Computer scienceEngineeringMedicineBiologyFisheryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bridge infrastructure provides an important effect on contemporary transportation networks, and its upkeep is significant for ensuring public safety and reducing economic impacts. Nevertheless, the aging and degradation of bridge structures present considerable challenges for asset managers, who must navigate the necessity of maintenance against constrained financial resources. Conventional maintenance approaches typically emphasize reactive repairs, which can result in elevated lifecycle expenses and risk structural integrity. This paper introduces an innovative framework aimed at optimizing bridge maintenance expenditures while maintaining structural safety. The proposed methodology incorporates a reliability-based deterioration model, an intervention effect model, a financial model, and an optimization model empowered by an Improved Electric Fish Optimization (IEFO) algorithm. The framework is demonstrated through a case study of a reinforced bridge framework designed according to the standards of Canadian highway bridge design. The findings illustrate that the proposed methodology can substantially lower lifecycle costs by investigating the most economical maintenance strategies, including minor repairs that can postpone the necessity for expensive major interventions. The optimal scenario identified by the IEFO algorithm yielded lower equivalent uniform annual costs in comparison with the traditional scenario focused solely on major repairs. This research advances the field of data-driven maintenance planning for bridge infrastructure, empowering asset managers to make well-informed decisions that effectively balance cost and safety considerations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBuildingsSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207