Evaluation of Projects for Rehabilitation of Highway Bridges
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 120, Issue 1
Abstract
This paper presents a decision‐support system for selecting the best set of strategies (projects) for bridge rehabilitation and replacement on a highway network, specifically during a long‐range planning of the bridge funding needs for budgeting and legislative purposes. The proposed methodology recognizes the following aspects of the decision problem faced by the bridge engineer: (1) Multiple‐attribute nature of bridge deficiencies; (2) risk impact of the predicted deterioration of the bridge; and (3) uncertainty due to the subjectively estimated decision variables. Based on a systems approach, the decision theory concepts of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM), utility theory, and decision making under risk (DMUR) are applied in formulating a decision‐support system, with the estimates of the decision variables represented as fuzzy numbers. Modeling the predicted deteriorated state (condition) of the bridge as state fuzzy probability vectors, the feasible strategies for bridge rehabilitation and replacement are evaluated under each probable state of the bridge. The evaluation of projects at each bridge site is based on the possibility distributions of the expected fuzzy utilities, which are computed as a benefit index of each feasible strategy. An example application is also described to illustrate the application of this decision‐support system.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Ang, A. H.‐S., and Tang, W. H. (1984). Probability concepts in engineering planning and design: Volume II; decision, risk, and reliability. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.
2.
Blin, J. M., and Whinston, A. B. (1973). “Fuzzy sets and social choice.” J. Cybernetics, 3, 28–36,
3.
Bradley, J. V. (1976). Probability; decision; statistics. Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
4.
“Bridge inventory, inspection, and appraisal program (BRINSAP).” (1984). Manual of Procedures. Safety and Maintenance Operations Division, Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT), Austin, Tex.
5.
“Bridge management systems.” (1987). Rep. FHWA‐DP‐71‐01; Demonstration Proj. No. 71, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C.
6.
Chen, C., and Johnston, D. W. (1987). “Bridge management under a level of service concept providing optimum improvement action, time, and budget prediction.” Rep., Center for Transportation Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.
7.
Farid, F., Johnston, D. W., Chen, C., Laverde, M. A., and Rihani, B. S. (1988). “Feasibility of incremental benefit‐cost analysis for optimal allocation of limited budgets to maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of bridges.” Rep. No. FHWA‐DP‐71‐02, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C.
8.
Hudson, S. W., Carmichael, R. F., Moser, L. O., Hudson, W. R., and Wilkes, W. J. (1987). “Bridge management systems.” National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Rep. 300, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
9.
Kaufmann, A., and Gupta, M. M. (1985). Introduction to fuzzy mathematics; theory and applications. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, N.Y.
10.
Kaufmann, A., and Gupta, M. M. (1988). Fuzzy mathematical models in engineering and management science. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., The Netherlands.
11.
Klir, G. J., and Folger, T. A. (1988). Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and information. Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
12.
Kulkarni, R., and Van til, C. (1984). “Manual for the selection of optimal levels of service.” NCHRP Rep. 273, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
13.
McFarland, W. F., Rollins, J. B., and Dheri, R. (1983a). “Documentation for incremental benefit‐cost technique.” Tech. Rep. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex.
14.
McFarland, W. F., Rollins, J. B., and Harris, F. (1983b). “Documentation for integer programming technique.” Tech. Rep. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex.
15.
Recording and coding guide for the structural inventory and appraisal guide of the nation's bridges. (1979). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC.
16.
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, and resource allocation. McGraw‐Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y.
17.
Saito, M., and Sinha, K. C. (1989). The development of optimal strategies for maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of highway bridges; Final Rep. Vol. 5: priority ranking method. Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis, Ind.
18.
Shirole, A. M., and Hill, J. J. (1987a). “Systems approach to bridge structure rehabilitation or replacement decision making.” Bridge engineering, Vol. 1; Transp. Res. Record 664, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
19.
Shirole, A. M., and Hill, J. J. (1987b). “Systems approach to bridge structure replacement—priority planning.” Bridge engineering, Vol. 1; Transp. Res. Record 664, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
20.
Sinha, K. C., et al. (1989). The development of optimal strategies for maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement of highway bridges; Final Rep. Vol. 1: the elements of Indiana bridge management system (IBMS). Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis, Ind.
21.
Sobanjo, J. O. (1991). “A decision support methodology for the rehabilitation and replacement of highway bridges,” PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex.
22.
“The status of the nation's highways and bridges: conditions and performance and highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation programs.” (1989). Annu. Rep. of the Secretary of Transp. to the Congress of the United States; Committee Print 101‐2, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
23.
Stukhart, G., James, R. W., Garcia‐Diaz, A., Bligh, R. P., and Sobanjo, J. (1989). “Study for a comprehensive bridge management system for the state of Texas.” (Draft) Rep. 1212‐1, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex.
24.
Subramanian, B., Schafer, D., and Tyler, J. (1983). “Documentation for dynamic programming technique.” Tech. Rep. prepared for Federal Highway Administration, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex.
25.
Watson, S., Weiss, J., and Donnel, M. (1979). “Fuzzy decision analysis.” IEEE Trans. System, Man., and Cybernetics, SMC‐9.
26.
Whalen, T. (1987). “Introduction to decision making under various kinds of uncertainty.” Optimization models using fuzzy sets and possibility theory. J. Kacprzyk and S. A. Orlovski, eds., D. Reidel Publishing Co., The Netherlands.
27.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). “Fuzzy sets.” Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 120 • Issue 1 • January 1994
Pages: 81 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jun 22, 1992
Published online: Jan 1, 1994
Published in print: Jan 1994
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.