Wakchaure, S S and Jha, K N (2012) Determination of bridge health index using analytical hierarchy process. Construction Management and Economics, 30(2), pp. 133-149. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Owners of bridges all over the world are facing the task of maintaining them within limited resources. The allocation of resources among the competing deteriorating bridges is a difficult task. Bridge health indices are used for deciding the priority of bridges for maintenance, and for the allocation of resources. Ascertaining the relative importance of bridge components is a prime requirement in the development of the indices. Based on the available literature and preliminary discussions with experts in this field, the bridge components were grouped into seven categories and a questionnaire was developed. The responses to the questionnaire were used in the analytical hierarchy process for deciding the weights (relative importance) of each bridge component. Consequently, based on the literature review, different condition states were defined, and a quantification of different distress types, corresponding to each of the condition states, was made. The weights and condition states of different bridge components were used to develop a bridge health index. The condition states were obtained using visual inspection, according to the definition. The index can be applied easily by different stakeholders for ranking a number of bridges in a bridge stock for maintenance actions, thereby optimizing resources.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytical hierarchy process; bridge; bridge health index |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, visual inspection, literature review, relative importance, analytical hierarchy process, owner, distress, quantification |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, professional practice, risk assessment, data collection methods, sociology, measurement and scaling, decision-making and optimization, structural engineering |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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