Multiobjective Optimization for Project Selection in Network-Level Bridge Management Incorporating Decision-Maker’s Preference Using the Concept of Holism

Bai, Qiang; Labi, Samuel; Sinha, Kumares C.; Thompson, Paul D

doi:10.1061/(asce)be.1943-5592.0000428

Cited by 19 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To help asset managers prioritise their bridge maintenance activities, the authors take into account five different factors (safety, service, cost, sustainability, and reputation) that influence values perceived by stakeholders. Other approaches to MR&R project selection for single-category portfolios can be found in [158], [159], [160], [161] [162] and [163].…”

Section: Equipment and Asset Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of asset management literature on multi-asset systems

Petchrompo

Parlikad

2019

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article gives an overview of the literature on asset management for multi-unit systems with an emphasis on two multi-asset categories: fleet (a system of homogeneous assets) and portfolio (a system of heterogeneous assets). As asset systems become more complicated, researchers have employed different terms to refer to their specific problems. With an objective to facilitate readers in searching conducive studies to their interests, this paper establishes a novel classification scheme for multi-unit systems in accordance with essential features such as diversity of assets and intervention options. Moreover, discerning differences in characteristics between cross-component and cross-asset interactions, we select three types of potential multi-component dependencies (performance, stochastic, and resource) and extend their notions to be applicable to multi-asset systems. The investigation into these dependencies enables the identification of problems that could exist in real industrial settings but are yet to be determined in academia. Ultimately, we delve into modelling approaches adopted by previous researchers. This comprehensive information allows us to offer the insights into the current trends in multi-asset maintenance. We expect that the output of this review paper will not only stress research gaps on multi-asset systems, but more importantly help systematise future studies on this aspect.

show abstract

Section: Equipment and Asset Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of asset management literature on multi-asset systems

Petchrompo

Parlikad

2019

Reliability Engineering & System Safety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the study by Bai et al ( 12 ), one of the standard methods in network-level bridge management for maintenance project selection problems, multi-attribute utility function method, is examined. The authors point out a certain weakness in this method, which is the addition of utility values of the project candidates to obtain a total utility value for each.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors point out a certain weakness in this method, which is the addition of utility values of the project candidates to obtain a total utility value for each. It is shown in their study that such an additive computation of total utility value of a candidate project or candidate project portfolio may cause biased solutions because the additivity property does not always hold ( 12 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Additive Utility Function Always a Sufficient Method in the Project Prioritization Process? Bridge Management Perspective

Kalan

Kurkcu

Özbay

2019

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prioritization of maintenance activities in bridges has great importance in bridge asset management systems as they are mentioned in MAP-21. One of the most commonly used prioritization methodologies in bridge management systems is multi-attribute utility theory process. In this study, the problem is defined as using the additive functional form in this process without testing additive independence (AI) assumption, which is one of the properties of multi-attribute utility theory. This study aims to emphasize the strength of the use of multiplicative functional forms when the multiplicative form is proven to be more appropriate by AI assumption test. To demonstrate this vital point, mathematical expressions are derived for the feasible regions of indifference curves. Then, the optimum region for both additive and multiplicative approaches are calculated using these analytical expressions to demonstrate the difference between the two relation to maximizing utility. This comparison is aimed at preventing suboptimal decisions because of the use of the additive approach when the multiplicative approach is more representative of the actual decision-making process. The relevance of this claim is also demonstrated using a simple hypothetical scenario. Findings of the paper provide valuable insights to decision makers and policy makers about the importance of choosing the most appropriate functional form for utility functions employed in a prioritization. We hope that policy makers at state departments of transportation will use the comparative analysis of the effect of utility functions on the final project selection process presented in this paper as part of their routine decision-making process.

show abstract

“…The bridge-level model separated fixed and variable costs of treatments and duly considered actions whose life-cycle benefit exceeds their initial variable costs, which was one of the features that made this tool different from Pontis. Bai, Labi, Sinha, and Thompson (2013) proposed a method that first evaluated the network performance of each candidate project portfolio using networklevel performance measures prior to employing a multi-attribute utility function, and then identified the optimal portfolio with the best network performance. The authors indicated that their method effectively incorporated decision-makers' preferences into decision making, avoided possible bias by relaxing the assumption of additivity (i.e., addition of individual project utility values to obtain a total utility score), and interpreted investment performance directly in terms of raw performance measures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Scheduling of Infrastructure Repair and Maintenance: Volume 2—Developing Condition-Based Triggers for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Treatments

Zhang¹,

Labi²,

Fricker³

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even for the right treatment, improper timing can have consequences: premature application (treatment is applied too early) could mean wasteful spending even if users enjoy the benefits of higher pavement condition; deferred or delayed application (treatment is applied too late) could result in higher user costs due to poor condition and even reduced asset longevity. The objectives of this research were to establish the optimal condition or timing for each of the standard M&R treatment types typically used by INDOT; quantify the consequences of departures from such optimal conditions or timings; and to establish the optimal M&R treatment schedule for each asset family. The study focused on three asset types and their treatments: 1. Painting of Steel Bridges. A painting decision tree was developed, to serve as a framework that would enable INDOT to consider other maintenance treatment types, namely spot repair/painting and overcoating. 2. Bridge Deck Maintenance and Rehabilitation. Life-cycle condition-based deck M&R strategies based on different trigger results were proposed and presented. 3. Pavement Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Replacement. A framework was established to find the optimal scheduling for multiple treatments and recommend appropriate long-term M&R strategies for flexible and rigid pavements on different functional classes.

show abstract

Multiobjective Optimization for Project Selection in Network-Level Bridge Management Incorporating Decision-Maker’s Preference Using the Concept of Holism

Cited by 19 publications

References 18 publications

A review of asset management literature on multi-asset systems

A review of asset management literature on multi-asset systems

Is Additive Utility Function Always a Sufficient Method in the Project Prioritization Process? Bridge Management Perspective

Strategic Scheduling of Infrastructure Repair and Maintenance: Volume 2—Developing Condition-Based Triggers for Bridge Maintenance and Rehabilitation Treatments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About