Abu Dabous, S (2008) A decision support methodology for rehabilitation management of concrete bridges. PhD thesis, Concordia University, Canada.
Abstract
Managing the existing bridge infrastructure has become a major social and economic concern in North America. This is due to the critical conditions of the deteriorated bridges and the limited funds available to repair their deficiencies. Most transportation agencies make bridge investment decisions based on a combination of some form of quantitative data analysis and the subjective judgments of decision and policy makers. The subjective nature of the decision making process easily raises questions about whether the investment decisions are being developed in a fair, equitable and systematic manner. This dissertation presents a decision support methodology developed for the rehabilitation management of concrete bridges in general, and for bridge decks in particular. A probabilistic bridge condition assessment method is developed. This method is consistent with the current practice in bridge inspection and the Markovian approach to model deterioration. A means to rank bridge projects is presented, which makes use of a hierarchy structure to represent the problem and rank the different bridge projects using the Multi Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT). A method to evaluate the available rehabilitation strategies is discussed. This method uses a modified Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Monte Carlo simulation technique to evaluate the weights for the different rehabilitation strategies available for each project. A decision making technique to select a recommended work program that maximizes benefits to the network and to the users is developed. The developed methodology has the potential to be extended to other bridge components and to be the foundation for a comprehensive bridge management system. The significant features of this methodology can be summarized as follows: (1) It is consistent with the current practice in bridge management condition assessment and deterioration modeling. (2) It employs a multiple-criteria decision making process; (3) it has the flexibility to allow engineers to utilize their experience and judgment in the decision making process; and (4) It combines the network and the project levels of the bridge management process and performs effectively within a limited budget.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision support; flexibility; utility theory; bridge management; decision making; deterioration; investment; policy; rehabilitation; Monte Carlo simulation; simulation |
| Index terms: | concrete bridge, investment decision, dissertation, bridge project, modelling, multi-attribute utility theory, judgment, inspection, Monte Carlo simulation, decision-making process, engineer, transportation agency, program, decision-making, methodology, repair, data analysis, decision support, management system, deterioration, strategy, utility theory |
| Subjects: | profession, research dissemination and communication, dispute resolution, modelling and simulation, data analysis and analytics, economic analysis, material degradation and durability, analytical methods, management, software systems, research methods, maintenance engineering, decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, decision-making and optimization, quality assurance, transportation engineering, economic theory |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Business Strategy, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here