Books and journals Case studies Expert Briefings Open Access
Advanced search

A multi‐attribute ranking method for bridge management

Saleh Abu Dabous (Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada)
Sabah Alkass (Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada)

Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management

ISSN: 0969-9988

Publication date: 4 May 2010

Abstract

Purpose

–

A bridge network is a major capital asset that requires continuing investment in order to maintain the network within acceptable limits of safety and serviceability. Ranking and prioritizing procedures have been widely used by several departments of transportation to select bridges for intervention and to distribute the available funds among competing projects. The available ranking and prioritizing procedures have various drawbacks, and an improved, rational ranking and prioritizing procedure is needed. The paper aims to address these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

–

The requirements and characteristics of an innovative ranking and prioritizing method are identified during interviews with professionals involved in bridge management. Based on these requirements, multi‐attribute utility theory (MAUT) is selected to develop the method. A technique to develop utility functions based on the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is discussed. A hierarchy structure that captures the decision‐making elements is presented. A case study is used to demonstrate the applicability and the validity of the proposed ranking method.

Findings

–

The research findings have identified the decision objectives and the criteria essential to rank and prioritize bridge projects, and these are included within a framework to rank and prioritize bridge projects while incorporating experts' input in the process.

Practical implications

–

The proposed framework includes weights for the various objectives and recommends utility functions to evaluate the different attributes. In addition, the framework provides flexibility to adjust the weights and to modify the utility functions to reflect network‐specific characteristics. This method can be used by departments of transportation to rank bridges in a network, even incorporating conflicting criteria, and it can be integrated within an already implemented bridge management methodology.

Originality/value

–

Ranking and prioritizing projects are essential steps in bridge management. Current methods for ranking and prioritizing bridge projects are associated with various drawbacks. This paper proposes an innovative ranking method for bridge networks, based on MAUT. This theory provides flexibility for the decision makers in expressing their degree of satisfaction with each bridge attribute.

Keywords

  • Bridges
  • Decision making
  • Analytical hierarchy process

Citation

Abu Dabous, S. and Alkass, S. (2010), "A multi‐attribute ranking method for bridge management", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 282-291. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981011038079

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2010, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes

You may be able to access teaching notes by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us

To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below

You may be able to access this content by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.
Rent from Deepdyve
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us
Emerald Publishing
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
© 2021 Emerald Publishing Limited

Services

  • Authors Opens in new window
  • Editors Opens in new window
  • Librarians Opens in new window
  • Researchers Opens in new window
  • Reviewers Opens in new window

About

  • About Emerald Opens in new window
  • Working for Emerald Opens in new window
  • Contact us Opens in new window
  • Publication sitemap

Policies and information

  • Privacy notice
  • Site policies
  • Modern Slavery Act Opens in new window
  • Chair of Trustees governance statement Opens in new window
  • COVID-19 policy Opens in new window
Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

  • Something didn’t work…

    Report bugs here

  • All feedback is valuable

    Please share your general feedback

  • Member of Emerald Engage?

    You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here.
    You can also find out more about Emerald Engage.

Join us on our journey

  • Platform update page

    Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

  • Questions & More Information

    Answers to the most commonly asked questions here