Bridge Risk Assessment

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Computers & Industrial Engineering 54 (2008) 513–525 www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

An integrated AHP–DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment q
Ying-Ming Wang a b

a,*

, Jun Liu b, Taha M.S. Elhag

c

c

Institute of Soft Science, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350002, PR China School of Computing and Mathematics, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 0QB, Northern Ireland, UK School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, The University of Manchester, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK Received 14 January 2006; received in revised form 5 September 2007; accepted 6 September 2007 Available online 14 September 2007

Abstract The traditional analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method can only compare a very limited number of decision alternatives, which is usually not more than 15. When there are hundreds or thousands of alternatives to be compared, the pairwise comparison manner provided by the traditional AHP is obviously infeasible. In this paper we propose an integrated AHP–DEA methodology to evaluate bridge risks of hundreds or thousands of bridge structures, based on which the maintenance priorities of the bridge structures can be decided. The proposed AHP–DEA methodology uses the AHP to determine the weights of criteria, linguistic terms such as High, Medium, Low and None to assess bridge risks under each criterion, the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method to determine the values of the linguistic terms, and the simple additive weighting (SAW) method to aggregate bridge risks under different criteria into an overall risk score for each bridge structure. The integrated AHP–DEA methodology is applicable to any number of decision alternatives and is illustrated with a numerical example. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bridge risk assessment; Analytic hierarchy process; Data envelopment analysis; Maintenance

References: Adey, B., Hajdin, R., & Bruhwiler, E. (2003). Risk-based approach to the determination of optimal interventions for bridges affected by ¨ multiple hazards. Engineering Structures, 25(7), 903–912. Bowen, W. M. (1990). Subjective judgements and data envelopment analysis in site selection. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 14(2), 133–144. British Highways Agency (2004). Value Management of the Structures Renewal Programme. Version 2.2. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444. Ertay, T., Ruan, D., & Tuzkaya, U. R. (2006). Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Information Sciences, 176(3), 237–262. Johnson, P. A., & Niezgoda, S. L. (2004). Risk-based method for selecting bridge scour countermeasures. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 130(2), 121–128. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Berlin: Springer. Liu, F. H. F., & Hai, H. L. (2005). The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier. International Journal of Production Economics, 97(3), 308–317. Lounis, A. (2004). Risk-based maintenance optimization of bridge structures. hhttp://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc47063/nrcc47063.pdfi. Noguchi, H., Ogawa, M., & Ishii, H. (2002). The appropriate total ranking method using DEA for multiple categorized purposes. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 146(1), 155–166. Ramanathan, R. (2006). Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers and Operations Research, 33(5), 1289–1307. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26. Saen, R. F., Memariani, A., & Lotfi, F. H. (2005). Determining relative efficiency of slightly non-homogeneous decision making units by data envelopment analysis: A case study in IROST. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 165(2), 313–328. Seifert, L. M., & Zhu, J. (1998). Identifying excesses and deficits in Chinese industrial productivity (1953–1990): A weighted data envelopment analysis approach. Omega, 26(2), 279–296. Shang, J., & Sueyoshi, T. (1995). A unified framework for the selection of a Flexible Manufacturing System. European Journal of Operational Research, 85(2), 297–315. Shetty, N. K., Chubb, M. S., Knowles, N. C., & Halden, D. (1996). A risk-based framework for assessment and prioritisation of bridges. In J. E. Harding, G. A. R. Parke, & M. J. Ryall (Eds.), Bridge Management 3: Inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp. 572–579). London: E & FN Spon. Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A., & Hadad, Y. (2000). An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. International Transactions in Operational Research, 7(2), 109–124. Stein, S. M., Young, G. K., Trent, R. E., & Pearson, D. R. (1999). Prioritizing scour vulnerable bridges using risk. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 5(3), 95–101. Takamura, Y., & Tone, K. (2003). A comparative site evaluation study for relocating Japanese government agencies out of Tokyo. SocioEconomic Planning Sciences, 37(2), 85–102. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29. Wang, Y. M., Chin, K. S., & Yang, J. B. (2007). Three new models for preference voting and aggregation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(10), 1389–1393. Yang, J. B. (2001). Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Research, 131(1), 31–61. Yang, T., & Kuo, C. (2003). A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 128–136. Zhang, X. S., & Cui, J. C. (1999). A project evaluation system in the state economic information system of China: An operations research practice in public sectors. International Transactions in Operational Research, 6(5), 441–452.