Multitiered Prioritizing Method Using Urgency Scale for Bridge Deck Rehabilitation
Publication: Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 23, Issue 4
Abstract
Timely implementation of bridge deck rehabilitation is important for sustaining the serviceability of bridges. With the chronic underfunding of infrastructure rehabilitation, the application of an accurate prioritization method is needed in order to maximize the investment effects of the limited budgets allocated for bridge deck rehabilitation. The prioritization methods currently used to plan bridge deck rehabilitation projects have evolved to the point where multiple attributes such as functional, economic, social, political, and environmental impact are integrated to determine the relative importance of rehabilitation needs at a network level. However, integrated scale-based prioritization methods measure the physical condition of an individual bridge deck as a part of these multiple attributes so it is possible for an individual bridge deck in physically urgent condition to be delayed to later fiscal years, at which time its further deteriorated condition may exceed the minimum condition limit. Therefore, a method is needed whereby this undesirable outcome is handled during the decision-making process. The objective of this paper is to propose a multitiered prioritization method that takes two hierarchical selection steps based on the urgency scale and total prioritization scale to prioritize rehabilitation projects in order to minimize the potential problems in the existing prioritization methods while maintaining the strengths of existing integrated prioritization methods. The urgency scale is defined as the severity level of the physical condition of an individual bridge deck for rehabilitation. It is calculated by estimating the acceptable time frame within which a rehabilitation project can be delayed until the physical condition of the bridge deck goes beyond the minimum threshold for rehabilitation. The proposed multitiered prioritization method is applied to a concrete bridge deck network as a case study. The results of the proposed method are compared to the results of other commonly used prioritization methods to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This paper was peer-reviewed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and a poster was presented at the TRB Annual Meeting in Washington, District of Columbia in January 2015.
References
AASHTO. (2007). Maintenance manual for roadways and bridges, Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2011). The manual for bridge evaluation, 2nd Ed., Washington, DC.
Alvisi, S., and Franchini, M. (2009). “Multiobjective optimization of rehabilitation and leakage detection scheduling in water distribution systems.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 426–439.
ASCE. (2013). “2013 report card for America’s infrastructure.” ⟨http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/documents/2013-Report-Card.pdf⟩ (Jan. 13, 2015).
Bai, Q., Labi, S., Sinha, K., and Thompson, P. (2013). “Multiobjective optimization for project selection in network-level bridge management incorporating decision-maker’s preference using the concept of holism.” J. Br. Eng., 879–889.
Chen, C., and Flintsch, G. (2007). “Fuzzy logic pavement maintenance and rehabilitation triggering approach for probabilistic life-cycle cost analysis.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1990, 80–91.
Flintsch, G., and Chen, C. (2004). “Soft computing applications in infrastructure management.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 157–166.
Frangopol, D., Gharaibeh, E., Kong, J. S., and Miyake, M. (2000). “Optimal network-level bridge maintenance planning based on minimum expected cost.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1696, 26–33.
Frangopol, D., and Liu, M. (2007). “Maintenance and management of civil infrastructure based on condition, safety, optimization, and life-cycle cost.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., 3(1), 29–41.
Fwa, T. F., Sinha, K. C., and Riverson, J. D. N. (1990). “Influence of rehabilitation decisions on pavement maintenance planning.” J. Transp. Eng., 197–212.
Gokey, J., Klein, N., Mackey, C., Santos, J., Pillutla, A., and Tucker, S. (2009). “Development a prioritization methodology for maintaining Virginia’s bridge infrastructure systems.” Proc., Systems and Information Engineering Design Symp. 2009, IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society, NJ, 252–257.
Ham, D. B., and Lockwood, S. (2002). National needs assessment for ensuring transportation infrastructure security, AASHTO, Washington, DC.
Hastak, M., Cui, Q., Safi, B., and Gokhale, S. (2005). “A decision support system for infrastructure rehabilitation planning.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Computing in Civil Engineering 2005, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Hatami, A., and Morcous, G. (2011). “Developing deterioration models for Nebraska bridges.”, Nebraska Dept. of Roads, Lincoln, NE.
Kahraman, C., and Çebi, S. (2009). “A new multi-attribute decision making method: Hierarchical fuzzy axiomatic design.” Expert Syst. Appl., 36(3), 4848–4861.
Liu, M., and Frangopol, D. (2005). “Maintenance planning of deteriorating bridges by using multiobjective optimization.” Transp. Res. Rec., 11-S, 491–500.
Marinis, G., Gargano, R., Kapelan, Z., Savic, D., and Tricarico, C. (2006). “Multiobjective optimal rehabilitation of hydraulic networks based on the cost of reliability.” Proc., 8th Annual Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symp., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Menendez, J., Siabil, S., Narciso, P., and Gharaibeh, N. (2013). “Prioritizing infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation activities under various budgetary scenarios: Evaluation of worst-first and benefit-cost analysis approaches.” Transp. Res. Rec., 2361, 56–62.
Patidar, V., Labi, S., Sinha, K. C., and Thompson, P. (2007). “Multi-objective optimization for bridge management systems.”, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Pohekar, S. D., and Ramachandran, M. (2004). “Application of multi-criteria decision-making to sustainable energy planning—A review.” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 8(4), 365–381.
Radomski, W. (2002). Bridge rehabilitation, Imperial College Press, London.
Rangaraju, P. R., Amirkhanian, S. N., and Guven, Z. (2008). “Life cycle cost analysis for pavement type selection.”, South Carolina Dept. of Transportation, Columbia, SC.
Rao, R. V. (2007). Decision making in the manufacturing environment: Using graph theory and fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods, Springer, London.
Šelih, J., Kne, A., Srdić, A., and Žura, M. (2008). “Multiple-criteria decision support system in highway infrastructure management.” Transport, 23(4), 299–305.
Sinha, K. C., Labi, S., McCullouch, B. G., Bhargava, A., and Bai, Q. (2009). “Updating and enhancing the Indiana bridge management system (IBMS).”, Indiana Dept. of Transportation, Indianapolis.
Smith, R. (2002). “Integrating pavement preservation into a local agency pavement management system.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1795, 27–32.
Thoft-Christensen, P. (1995). “Advanced bridge management systems.” Struct. Eng. Rev., 7(3), 151–163.
Valenzuela, S., de Solminihac, H., and Echaveguren, T. (2010). “Proposal of an integrated index for prioritization of bridge maintenance.” J. Br. Eng., 337–343.
Walls, J., III, and Smith, M. (1998). “Life-cycle cost analysis in pavement design.”, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Wang, E. (2005). “Infrastructure rehabilitation management applying life-cycle cost analysis.” Proc., 2005 ASCE Int. Conf. on Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Wang, F., Zhang, Z., and Machemehl, R. (2003). “Decision-making problem for managing pavement maintenance and rehabilitation projects.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1853, 21–28.
World Bank. (2015). “Municipal infrastructure rehabilitation project.” ⟨http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=104231&piPK=73230&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P008417⟩ (Nov. 14, 2015).
Yoon, Y., and Hastak, M. (2016a). “Condition improvement measurement using the condition evaluation criteria of concrete bridge decks.” J. Transp. Eng., 04016054.
Yoon, Y., and Hastak, M. (2016b). “Enhancement of integrated prioritization method using urgency scale.” Proc., Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., Turskis, Z., and Tamošaitienė, J. (2009). “Multi-attribute decision-making model by applying grey numbers.” Informatica, 20(2), 305–320.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 23 • Issue 4 • December 2017
Copyright
©2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 12, 2015
Accepted: Mar 17, 2017
Published online: Jun 9, 2017
Discussion open until: Nov 9, 2017
Published in print: Dec 1, 2017
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.