This article was downloaded by: [Politecnico di Milano Bibl]

On: 14 November 2013, At: 07:09

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering:

Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and
Performance
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsie20

Multi-criteria decision-making system for selecting an

effective plan for bridge rehabilitation
a b c b
O.M. Salem , Richard A. Miller , A.S. Deshpande & Tejas P. Arurkar
a
Department of Civil Engineering , Syracuse University , Syracuse , USA
b
Department of Civil Engineering , University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , USA
c
Department of Civil Engineering , Auburn University , Auburn , USA
Published online: 19 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: O.M. Salem , Richard A. Miller , A.S. Deshpande & Tejas P. Arurkar (2013) Multi-criteria decision-making
system for selecting an effective plan for bridge rehabilitation, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance,
Management, Life-Cycle Design and Performance, 9:8, 806-816, DOI: 10.1080/15732479.2011.615843

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.615843

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
Vol. 9, No. 8, August 2013, 806–816

Multi-criteria decision-making system for selecting an effective plan for bridge rehabilitation
O.M. Salema, Richard A. Millerb, A.S. Deshpandec* and Tejas P. Arurkarb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Syracuse University, Syracuse, USA; bDepartment of Civil Engineering,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA; cDepartment of Civil Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, USA
(Received 29 December 2010; final version received 25 July 2011; accepted 15 August 2011; published online 19 September 2011)

The managers of the US transportation infrastructure face the challenge of restoring the aging highway
infrastructure system and making it perform more reliably, safely and efficiently at minimum cost and with minimum
disruption. The process selection of an appropriate construction plan for rehabilitation/reconstruction of a bridge
requires its evaluation on the basis of qualitative and quantitative metrics such as construction cost, effect on
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013

surrounding businesses and communities and the flow of traffic, etc. Traditional decision-making methods that are
focused on costs alone are not equipped to address the multi-objective nature of the decision-making process. This
article presents an example demonstrating a decision-making system based on the analytical hierarchy process that
can be utilised to transparently extract quantitative weights which reflect the relative importance of both qualitative
and quantitative objectives of a project and select a bridge construction plan that best meets the objectives.
Keywords: accelerated construction; bridge construction; multi-criteria decision-making process

1. Introduction costs, maintenance of traffic, quality of work, safety of

The US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is
promoting the philosophy of accelerated construction
of bridges in order to mitigate the impact of
reconstruction on the flow of traffic, enhance quality
of work and safety. Prefabricated bridge components,
non-traditional innovative contracts (AþB contracts,
lane rental contracts, etc.) have successfully been used
in accelerating construction of bridges in several
projects in the last decade (FHWA 2006a, 2006b,
2006c, 2006d, 2006e). The decision to use non-
traditional construction methods in order to accelerate
construction of a bridge is often driven by the need to
minimise the impact on the flow of traffic on highly
congested highways. This decision is easier to justify in
bridge projects where the traffic volume and conse-
quently the user costs are extremely high. In many
smaller projects, non-traditional methods and in-
creased initial construction cost are required but low
traffic volume and user costs make it difficult for the
decision makers to justify the extra expenditure
required for accelerated rehabilitation of a bridge.
The decision-making process for identifying an
optimum strategy for bridge rehabilitation is essen-
tially a multi-objective decision-making process that
requires optimising multiple objectives which are
influenced by a number of factors such as
construction costs, future rehabilitation costs, user
motorists, safety of construction workers, safety of
pedestrians, impact on surrounding communities and
businesses, consideration of impact on sensitive
ecosystems, etc. The decision-making process essen-
tially involves trade-offs between the requirements
imposed by these factors. The impact of a particular
bridge rehabilitation plan on some factors (e.g.
construction and future rehabilitation costs, impact
on traffic) is easy to quantify, while it is not possible to
accurately quantify the socio-economic impacts. This
necessitates the development of a decision-making
process that allows the decision makers to transpar-
ently analyse the efficacy of various bridge rehabilita-
tion plans in fulfilling a multitude of quantifiable and
non-quantifiable objectives.
2. Review of decision-making models
El-Diraby and O’Connor (2001) presented a model for
evaluating bridge construction plans. This method
helps designers evaluate impact of each bridge design
and construction plan using 22 metrics including
safety, accessibility, carrying capacity, schedule per-
formance and budget performance. In this model, the
decision makers provide relative importance (weights)
of these metrics. Then each plan is evaluated for its
performance on these metrics. A score is calculated for

*Corresponding author. Email: adeshpande@auburn.edu

ISSN 1573-2479 print/ISSN 1744-8980 online

Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2011.615843
http://www.tandfonline.com
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
each plan by summing the product of weight of each
metric and its score on the metric using the following
formula:
Fi ¼ðWs  Si Þ þ ðWa  Ai Þ þ ðWc  Ci Þ
 
þ ðWt  Ti Þ þ ðWb  Bi Þ þ Wq  Qi ð1Þ
where Si, Ai, Ci, Ti, Bi, Qi are scores of ith bridge
construction plan for safety, accessibility, carrying
capacity, schedule, budget and project specific factors
rated on a scale of 1–10 with 10 being the best score
and Ws, Wa, Wc, Wt, Wb, Wq are weights for safety,
accessibility, carrying capacity, schedule, budget and
project specific factors for that particular project. The
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013
construction plan with the highest score is considered
to be the best amongst alternatives. This model
depends on expert opinion to provide the relative
weights for various metrics. The involvement of
quantitative and qualitative metrics in the decision-
making process could make it difficult for the decision
makers to justify the trade-offs.
Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems (PBES)
framework (Ralls 2006) is another attempt to develop
a decision-making framework for accelerated con-
struction of bridges. This framework consists of a
simple flow chart for high level decision making, a
matrix for detailed analysis of various factors affecting
decision making. This decision-making process pro-
vides for the decision maker to assign weights (relative
quantitative importance) to various factors but does
not provide any methodology for it. In absence of a
transparent system, the process of assigning weights to
various qualitative factors such as safety, environment,
impact on local businesses and communities can prove
to be difficult and contentious.
The decision-making systems discussed in the
previous section identify the problem accurately but
they are not able to provide justifiable and mathema-
tically robust methodology to quantify the relative
importance of various quantifiable and qualitative
factors. While Bridge Construction Plan (El-Diraby
and O’Connor 2001) provides us with numerical values
for weights, PBES include a cursory discussion about
the weights. The difficulty in assigning weights to
various factors stems from the fact that the factors
involved in the decision-making system are qualitative
(e.g. safety, impact on surrounding communities and
businesses, environmental impact) as well as quantita-
tive (costs, impact on traffic flow). The literature
suggests that weighting methods that allow decision
makers to choose weights directly, without a compre-
hensive analysis of trade-offs, do not guarantee that
the weights are theoretically valid and are difficult to
defend (Sinha et al. 2009).
807
2.1. Review of methods for establishing relative
weights
Review of research literature reveals a number of
methods developed for establishing relative importance
of various objectives in a project. A number of direct
weighing methods developed for establishing weights
include allocation of points on a scale of 1–100 to
various objectives (Sinha et al. 2007), ranking various
objectives on the basis of their perceived importance
(Barron and Barrett 1996) and assigning various
objectives to categories and then assigning weights to
the category itself. These methods do not capture the
relative preference of the objectives of the decision
makers effectively. Observer derived weights method,
on the other hand, estimates weights of various
objectives based on regression analysis of unaided
subjective analysis of objectives by multiple respon-
dents (Hobbs and Meier 2000). Gamble method of
weight derivation introduces an element of risk in the
analysis by assigning a weight for one objective at a
time by asking the decision maker to compare a ‘sure
thing’ and a ‘gamble’ (Sinha et al. 2007).
The swing weighting method asks the decision
maker to consider a hypothetical alternative bridge
construction plan where all goals are at their worst
levels. Then decision maker identifies the goal that they
would want to ‘swing’ from its worst level to its best
level. In this way, all goals are ranked based on their
perceived importance to the decision maker. The most
important goal perceived by survey respondents is
assigned a weight of 100, and then weights are assigned
to other criteria in proportion to their importance
(Joubert et al. 2003). The indifference trade-off method
allows the decision maker to explicitly define the trade-
offs that they want between various goals/objectives in
a project. This method forces the decision makers to
focus on the most desirable goal from an alternative.
This method requires very experienced decision
makers who have often made such choices in the
past. This method, though superior to the previously
described methods, results in weights that are less
range sensitive than those predicted by the normative
model. The readers are directed to Sinha et al. (2007)
for an excellent and detailed discussion of multi-
criteria decision-making methods in transportation
projects.
A problem faced in weight assignment of
qualitative variables is the difficulty in presenting
the assessment in quantitative terms. Zeng et al.
(2007) noted that experts sometimes found difficulties
in selecting a single number for comparison and
argue the advantage of allowing a range values for
comparison, such as 3–6, rather than a definitive
number. This can be overcome by using fuzzy logic
 808 O.M. Salem et al.
which is modelled on human communication. Fuzzy
logic allows the assessment of the weights of various
in linguistic terms such as ‘low importance’, ‘medium
importance’, etc. This method allows for acceptable
approximation of qualitative terms using logical
arguments. The readers are directed towards Chan
et al. (2009) for an excellent review of fuzzy sets and
fuzzy logic.
3. Analytical hierarchy process
The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty 1980)
provides us with a tool to quantify these qualitative
trade-offs between various objectives to extract a
single set of weights which reflect the level of
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013
importance of each of the factors in the overall
decision making. AHP is based on three fundamental
principles of decomposition of objective into sub-
objectives, comparative judgements and hierarchical
composition or synthesis of priorities (Forman and
Selly 2001). AHP not only supports decision makers
by enabling them to structure complexity and exercise
judgement, but also allows them to incorporate both
objective and subjective considerations in the decision
process.
AHP allows the decision makers to model complex
problems into a hierarchical structure showing the
relationship between the ultimate goal, the objectives
(factors), sub-objectives (sub-factors) and alternatives.
Pairwise comparisons are used to compare the relative
importance of each factor with other factors using
numerical/verbal scale. The eigenvectors of the ma-
trices obtained from the pairwise comparisons reflect
the relative importance of each of the factor in the
decision-making process. Finally, the same pairwise
comparison method can be used to evaluate the
proposed solutions for their efficacy in achieving the
goals. AHP is suited to the problem of identifying the
most suitable bridge construction strategy because
there exists hierarchy of importance across the various
objectives in a project. AHP effectively captures
decision makers’ preferences for relative weights using
pairwise comparison. Also, by virtue of its inherent
structure, AHP is an appropriate method when the
analysis involves the use of relative weights in a
multivariate value or utility function framework (Sinha
et al. 2009).
AHP has been validated through significant body
of research over last two decades. The method has
been used for many wide-ranging applications such as
comparing technologies (AbouRizk et al. 1994), forest
management (Mendoza and Sprouse 1989), setting
priorities (Reynolds 1997), resource management
(Peterson et al. 1994), resource allocation (Saaty
1977a), risk assessment (Kangas 1993), transportation
infrastructure management studies (Saaty 1977b),
personnel selection (McIntyre et al. 1999), facility
management benchmarking (Gilleard and Wong
2004), selection of demolition techniques (Abdullah
and Anumba 2002), dispute resolution (Cheung et al.
2002), contractor selection (Fong and Choi 2000),
project management (Al-Harbi et al. 2001), etc. A
decision-making system based on AHP to optimise the
investment in rehabilitation of roads is currently being
used by the city of Zurich (Rafi et al. 2005).
The decision-making model presented in this
research study uses the well-established eigenvector
method for calculating weights. The AHP method
has been extensively researched by the operations
research community and its efficacy and robustness
for multi-criteria decision making has been validated.
Other methods such as weighted least squares
method (Chu et al. 1979), logarithmic least squares
method (Crawford 1987), gradient eigenweight meth-
od, least distance method (Cogger and Yu 1985),
geometric least squares method (Islei and Lockett
1988), goal programming method (Bryson 1995),
logarithmic goal programming approach (Bryson and
Joseph 1999), a fuzzy programming method (Mi-
khailov 2000) and robust estimation method (Lipo-
vetsky and Conklin 2002) could be potentially used.
Vaidya and Kumar (2006) provide an excellent
review of the use of these methods in conjunction
with the AHP. The method presented in this article
can be modified if the user wants to explore alternate
implementation of AHP.
4. The bridge construction decision-making model
In allowing the decision makers to derive ratio scale
properties (opposed to arbitrarily assigning them),
AHP is a compensatory decision methodology because
alternatives that are deficient with respect to one or
more objectives (factors) can compensate by their
performance with respect to other objectives. In this
study, the goal is to develop a decision-making process
which helps to complete the construction/rehabilita-
tion of the bridge in the most cost-effective and safest
manner with least disruption to the flow of traffic,
surrounding communities and businesses. The factors
affecting the successful completion of this goal can be
classified as costs, traffic flow, safety, impact on
communities, local economy and environmental con-
cerns that are associated with the bridge project. These
factors have been determined in consultation with
industry experts and confirmed by an extensive survey
of the officials from the State Department of Trans-
portation in US and Canada (Salem et al. 2007). The
relative primacy of the factors is dictated by the project
requirements.
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 809

The relative importance (weight) of sub-criteria with

4.1. Steps in decision making
The decision-making process proposed in this manu-
script involves the development of decision hierarchy,
construction of comparison matrices, calculating
weights by using approximation of eigenvalues, check-
ing the consistency of comparison matrices, evaluate
the potential construction plans using the relative
weights of various criteria defined in the decision
hierarchy.
The development of decision hierarchy begins with
defining the overall objective or goal. In a typical bridge
construction project, the goal could be the completion
of the construction/rehabilitation of a bridge in the
most economical and safe conditions, with the least
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013
respect to the criterion at one level above can be
determined by calculating the eigenvector of the matrix.
The consistency of all the matrices must be checked to
verify the reliability of the judgements of the decision
maker. Saaty (1980) defined a measure of consistency of
a matrix called the consistency index (CI).
lmax  1
CI ¼ ð2Þ
n 1
where lmax is the maximum eigenvalue and n is the size
of the comparison matrix. For a perfectly consistent
matrix of pairwise comparisons, the CI would be zero,
because the eigenvalue would be equal to the order of

disruption to traffic, community, businesses and the
environment around the site. The decision hierarchy can
be tailored to the goals of the construction process. This
model is versatile in this regard because it does not
prescribe certain criteria for the evaluation of bridge
construction plans. The broad goals of the project can
then be further subdivided into sub-criteria such as
costs, impact on traffic flow, safety, societal impact,
impact on local economy and environmental impact.
Thus, the hierarchy clearly describes the project’s
objectives. This process is very amenable to feedback
by several stakeholders in the decision-making process.
The comparison matrices are then constructed to
determine the potency with which the various elements
in one level influence the elements on the next higher
level, so as to compute the relative strengths of the
impacts of the elements of the lowest level on the
overall objective. Each element is then evaluated
against each of its peers in relation to its impact on
achieving the objective of the parent element. These
evaluations are termed as pairwise comparisons and
take the form of matrices. This step can be used to
involve multiple experts to evaluate the factors that fall
within the domain of their expertise. The scale for these
comparisons, A ratio scale (Table 1), developed by
Saaty (1980) is used to facilitate pair-wise comparison.
the matrix (Saaty and Vargas 1982). A pairwise
comparison based on quantitative judgements could
potentially result in a perfectly consistent matrix.
However, it is difficult to maintain this consistency
when the judgements are qualitative in nature. Hence,
as a general rule, perfect consistency cannot be
expected and is not required by AHP, and the
computed CI will be greater than zero. The consistency
of judgements in the pairwise comparisons can be
calculated by finding the consistency ratio (CR). The
CR can be defined as the ratio of CI and random index
(RI) (Saaty and Vargus 1982).
CR ¼ CI=RI ð3Þ
RI is a predefined value of average CI for a matrix
of a certain size. The RI, for various different order
random matrices, was calculated by Saaty (1980) by
randomly creating 500 positive reciprocal matrices of
various sizes (1 6 1 to 15 6 15) and calculating the
CI of each matrix. The probability distributions of the
CIs were then studied and values for RI were
recommended. If the calculated CR for a given matrix
is 0.10 or less, the inconsistency is generally considered
to be acceptable for the evaluation of the decision
hierarchy (Saaty and Vargus 1982).

Table 1. Pairwise comparison scale.

Intensity of
importance Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective
3 Weak importance of one over Experience and judgement slightly favor one activity over another
another
5 Essential or strong Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another
7 Demonstrated importance An activity is strongly favored and its dominance demonstrated in
practice
9 Absolute importance The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible
order of affirmation
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between Used facilitate compromise between slightly differing judgements
two judgements
 810 O.M. Salem et al.
Each project would have a number of activities that
need to be evaluated in order to determine the best
alternative that would suit the project. The final
weights for sub-criteria can be obtained by multiplying
the weight (from the eigenvector) with the weight of
the corresponding criteria one level up higher in the
hierarchy. Each alternative is evaluated for its effec-
tiveness in achieving the objective stated in each sub-
criterion using pairwise comparison.
Sensitivity analysis can be performed to see how
well the alternatives perform with respect to each of
the criteria as well as how sensitive the alternatives are
to changes in the importance of the criteria. Sensitivity
analysis is the study of how the variation in the output
of a model can be apportioned qualitatively or
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013
quantitatively to different sources of variation and
how the output of the given model depends upon the
information fed into it (Saltelli et al. 2000). Sensitivity
analysis of the decision-making model which uses AHP
requires checking the change in output for small
change in the input. This would entail changing the
pairwise comparison values for every factor and
conducting the entire analysis. This will have to be
done for every factor at many different levels. This
process is computationally intensive and it can take a
significant amount of time. Commercially available
software programs such as Expert Choice1 can be
utilised to conduct sensitivity analysis.
The unique features of this decision-making model
include developing a transparent hierarchy of project
priorities, the potential to analyse the performance of
the construction plan using qualitative and quantita-
tive criteria at the same time, ease of compartmenta-
lised feedback and evaluation by subject experts and
selection of an appropriate construction plan using a
Figure 1. Decision-making process.
robust, proven method of multi-criteria decision
making. The decision-making process can be illu-
strated using the following flow chart (Figure 1).
4.2. Illustration of the decision-making system: the
Guernsey 513 bridge
In an effort to better manage highway infrastructure
assets, the Ohio Department of Transportation started
several initiatives aimed at reducing the problems
associated with the reconstruction of roadways. One
initiative, Strategic Initiative #9, ‘Build Bridges Faster,
Smarter and Better’ identified bridges as a significant
source of delays in the rehabilitation process of
roadways. The decision-making model developed in
this study is illustrated using a SI#9 pilot project in this
section.
The Guernsey 513 bridge, which was one of the
pilot projects in the Strategic Initiative #9 study, is
located in Quaker City, Ohio; a rural town located
approximately 50 miles west of Columbus. This bridge,
located over the Leatherwood Creek on the State
Route 513, is the only north-south thoroughfare
through the town. Closure of the bridge would have
resulted in a 20 mile detour for automobiles and a 40
mile detour for trucks and buses. This route is used by
school buses; hence, the long detour was a concern. If
the bridge had been rehabilitated using part-width
construction, it would have resulted in one-lane,
signal-controlled traffic and would have potentially
caused safety concerns for drivers and construction
workers. The Ohio Department of Transportation had
a 16-day window between end of the regular school
year and the beginning of the summer school classes to
reconstruct the bridge. The Quaker City holds an
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
annual Ohio Hills Folk Festival. The festival is a major
revenue generator for the people and the Quaker City
as a whole and hence it was imperative that the bridge
be complete and operative before the festival started.
The decision to accelerate the construction of this
bridge was not based on commonly used metrics such
as initial construction costs, traffic flow, rehabilitation
costs, user costs, etc. The decision-making process is
illustrated using this project.
4.2.1. Development of decision hierarchy
The objective of the decision-making process was to
identify the most appropriate bridge construction plan.
Each construction plan needed to meet certain criteria.
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013
These criteria included cost of construction (C), effect
on flow of traffic (T) on state route 513, safety of
stakeholders (S), effect on surrounding communities
(P), impact on local economy (B) and environmental
impact (E). Some of these criteria were further divided
into sub-criteria. Safety of stakeholders was further
classified into: safety of motorists (MS), safety of
construction workers(CS), safety of pedestrians (PS).
The effect on surrounding communities was further
classified into: ensuring access to community (AP),
acceptability of the duration of the detour to the
community (DP), access to emergency services (EP),
local events (LP): Ohio Hills Folk Festival, School
closing, etc. The regional economic impact was
classified into: access to local businesses (AB), accept-
ability of the duration of the detour to local businesses
(DB), congestion (CB), supply route to manufacturing
units (SB). The environmental impact of construction
was classified into: air pollution (AE) and noise
pollution (NE).
The three alternative construction options consid-
ered included accelerated construction with complete
closure, partial width construction and traditional
construction. The accelerated construction option
Figure 2. Decision hierarchy.
811
involved construction of a two-span structure consist-
ing of two-way post-tensioned precast concrete mod-
ular slabs on an existing reinforced concrete
substructure. Longitudinal post-tensioning was
planned to create continuity over the support and to
enhance the positive moment resistance. Lateral post-
tensioning was planned to compress the joints between
the modular slabs to prevent cracking of the joints.
The traditional method involved construction of a
standard cast in place bridge deck. The goal of the
decision-making process was to find the best possible
alternative to serve the purpose of early completion
with a high safety level and minimum disturbance to
the community and the environment surrounding the
project site. The resulting hierarchical structure is
presented in Figure 2.
4.2.2. Comparison of objectives
The overall comparison describing decision maker’s
evaluation of relative importance of high level objec-
tives is shown in Figure 3.
The first row of the matrix demonstrates the
importance of construction cost with respect to the
other factors under consideration. In this case, con-
struction cost was considered slightly more important
than flow of traffic, safety of stakeholders and
environmental impact (by an intensity of 2 as per the
Figure 3. Overall pairwise comparison.
 812 O.M. Salem et al.
Figure 4. Pairwise comparison: social factors.
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013
Figure 5. Pairwise comparison: economic impact.
Figure 6. Pairwise comparison: cost.
ration scale). The construction cost was considered to
have the same importance as impact of construction on
the affected communities due to the small window of
construction available on account of school schedule
and the Ohio Hills Folk Festival. Construction cost
was considered to be significantly more important than
regional economic impact as the closure of this bridge
was not considered to have significant impact on local
manufacturing facilities.
In the same fashion, all the sub-criteria are
evaluated against one another using the pairwise
comparison. Figures 4–6 show the matrices devel-
oped by performing pairwise comparison for the sub-
criteria of regional economic impact (access to
businesses, detour acceptability, congestion, supply
route to manufacturing units) and the effect on
surrounding communities (access to community,
detour duration acceptability, access to emergency
services, local events). Similarly, comparison matrices
were created for all sub-criteria. Finally, each bridge
construction plan was evaluated for its performance
on various sub-criteria at the lowest level of the
hierarchy.
4.2.3. Checking consistency of judgements
Figure 7 lists the consistency indices, random indices
and the CRs.
It can be seen from Figure 7 that all the matrices
are consistent as their CR is less than 0.10.
4.2.4. Establishing relative contribution of criteria in
achieving overall goal
The pairwise matrices created in the previous step were
used to calculate the eigenvectors of the matrices. The
eigenvalues establish the weight vector for the compar-
ison matrix at the criteria level. The eigenvector
associated with the principal eigenvalue of a matrix
‘A’ can be calculated using the following formula:
Ak e
lim ¼ Cw ð4Þ
k!1 eT A K e
where e is the column vector unity and eT, its
transpose, C is a constant and w is the eigenvalue.
This formula can be numerically approximated using
the following:
1X n
aij
wi ¼ P ð5Þ
n j¼1 nk¼1 akj
where aij ¼ element located in row i and column j of
the decision matrix and k represents the number of
elements in a column. The final weights for a sub-
criterion can be obtained by multiplying the weight
(eigenvalue) with the weight of the corresponding
criteria one level up higher in the hierarchy shows the
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 813

pairwise comparison of the estimated construction
costs of the three bridge construction plans under
evaluation.
4.2.5. Evaluation of alternatives
The available plans were then compared to identify the
plan that best achieves the objectives. The matrix of the
sub-criteria eigenvalues is multiplied by the transpose of
the final sub-criterion weights (Figures 8 and 9).
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013
The final score of bridge construction strategies
was:
(1) Accelerated construction with complete clo-
sure: 0.52
(2) Partial width construction: 0.25
(3) Traditional (cast in place) construction: 0.23
On the basis of this analysis, it is clear that
accelerated construction met the objectives of the

Figure 7. Consistency values for matrices for the Guernsey 513 project.

Figure 8. Final evaluation criteria.

 814 O.M. Salem et al.
project in the most effective manner. The construction
of the bridge was accelerated with partial lane closure,
and prefabricated elements were used to ensure
minimum disruption of traffic.
4.2.6. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis can be used to determine the effect
of change of relative weight of one objective on various
alternatives. As discussed earlier, sensitivity analysis
cannot be performed efficiently without the use of
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013
Figure 9. Evaluation of alternatives.
Figure 10. Sensitivity analysis using Expert Choice1.
software programs. Figure 10 shows a representative
output of sensitivity analysis using Expert Choice1. In
the figure, the criteria (objectives) are represented by
vertical bars, and the alternatives are displayed as
horizontal line graphs. The intersection of the alter-
native line graphs with the vertical criterion lines shows
the priority of the alternative for the given criterion, as
read from the right axis labelled Alt%. The criterion’s
priority is represented by the height of its bar as read
from the left axis. The overall priority of each
alternative is represented on the overall line, as read
from the right axis. When performing sensitivity
analysis, one can graphically move the criteria bars
vertically to change their importance and observe the
impact of the change on the overall AHP analysis.
5. Discussion
AHP is a robust methodology, but it can become
unwieldy when there are a large number of criteria
defined to meet project objectives. Most state depart-
ments of transportation (DOTs) have a major invest-
ment backlog in the face of increasing budgetary cuts.
This often results in, sometimes justifiable tendency to
put excessive importance on initial construction costs.
The decision-making model cannot counteract the
inherent biases of the users. The user(s) of this model
have the power to set priorities amongst various
factors that need to be considered in decision making.
If the user has a predetermined bias towards one
factor, the results of the analysis will be affected by it.
Even with the use of this decision making system, the
decision making process could potentially favour
 Structure and Infrastructure Engineering
alternatives with low construction costs due to the
inherent bias of the decision makers.
6. Conclusions
This article presents a holistic decision-making system
to address the challenges faced in modernising the
rapidly decaying infrastructure under strict budgetary
conditions. There is a consensus in the transportation
community that analysis cost, safety (of construction
workers, motorists), impact on traffic flow, impact on
local communities and businesses, impact on environ-
ment needs to be a part of the decision-making system
when selecting the construction philosophy for a
bridge rehabilitation project.
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013
The traditional decision-making process, which
relies on comparison of costs alone, will not be able
to address the requirements imposed by the need to
maintain traffic flow, to ensure minimum impact on
local businesses and communities, less disruption of
environment and ecosystems. The multi-criteria deci-
sion-making system presented in this article provides
the decision maker with a mathematically sound and
robust tool to transparently include the trade-offs
between various qualitative and quantitative factors in
the decision-making process. In many cases, the
acceleration of construction cannot be justified by
cost savings alone but is required on account of
location-specific factors. The decision-making system
discussed in this article will prove to be valuable to
transportation agencies in such projects.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the
funding and support provided by the Midwestern Regional
University Transportation Centre for this study.
References
Abdullah, A. and Anumba, C.J., 2002. Decision model for
the selection of demolition techniques. In: Proceedings of
the international conference on advances in building
technology, 4–6 December, Hong Kong, 1671–1679.
AbouRizk, S., Mandalapu, S., and Skibniewski, M., 1994.
Analysis and evaluation of alternative technologies.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 10 (3), 65–71.
Al-Harbi, K.M.A., 2001. Application of the AHP in project
management. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 19 (1), 19–21.
Barron, F.H. and Barret, B.E., 1996. Decision quality using
ranked attribute weights. Management Science, 42 (11),
1515–1523.
Bryson, N., 1995. A goal programming method for generat-
ing priority vectors. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 46, 641–648.
Bryson, N. and Joseph, A., 1999. Generating consensus
priority point vectors: a logarithmic goal programming
approach. Computers and Operations Research, 26, 637–
643.
815
Chan, A., Chan, D., and Yeung, J., 2009. Overview of the
application of ‘fuzzy techniques’ in construction manage-
ment research. Journal of Construction Engineering &
Management, 135, 1241–1253.
Cheung, S.-O., Suen, H.C.H., and Lam, T.-I., 2002.
Fundamentals of alternative dispute resolution processes
in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering &
Management, 128 (5), 409–417.
Chu, A., Kalaba, R., and Spingarn, K., 1979. A comparison
of two methods for determining the weights of belonging
to fuzzy sets. Journal of Optimization Theory and
Applications, 27 (4), 531–538.
Cogger, K. and Yu, P., 1985. Eigenweight vectors and least-
distance approximation for revealed preference in pair-
wise weight ratios. Journal of Optimization Theory and
Applications, 46, 483–491.
Crawford, G., 1987. The geometric mean procedure for
estimating the scale of a judgment matrix. Mathematical
Modeling, 9, 327–334.
El-Diraby, T. and O’Connor, J., 2001. Model for evaluating
bridge construction plans. Journal of Construction
Engineering & Management, 127 (5), 399–405.
FHWA, 2006a. Prefabricated bridge elements and systems –
all projects – by state [online]. Available from: http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/prefab/allstate.htm [Accessed
10 December 2009].
FHWA, 2006b. Prefabricated bridge elements and systems –
elements and systems – total prefab bridge [online].
Available from: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/prefab/
total.htm [Accessed 10 December 2009].
FHWA, 2006c. Prefabricated bridge elements and systems –
elements and systems – total superstructure systems
[online]. Available from: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
bridge/prefab/super.htm [Accessed 10 December 2009].
FHWA, 2006d. Prefabricated bridge elements and systems –
elements and systems – superstructure: decks [online].
Available from: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/prefab/
decks.htm [Accessed 10 December 2009].
FHWA, 2006e. Prefabricated bridge elements and systems –
elements and systems – substructures: bent caps [online].
Available from: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/prefab/
bentcaps.htm [Accessed 10 December 2009].
Fong, P.S.W. and Choi, S.K.Y., 2000. Final contractor
selection using the analytical hierarchy process. Con-
struction Management & Economics, 18 (5), 547–557.
Forman,E.H.andSelly,M.A.,2001.Decisionbyobjectives–howto
convince others that you are right. Singapore: World Scientific.
Gilleard, J.D. and Wong, P.Y.L., 2004. Benchmarking
facility management: applying analytic hierarchy process.
Facilities, 22 (1/2), 19–25.
Hobbs, B. and Meier, P., 2000. Energy decision and the
environment: a guide to the user of multi-criteria methods.
Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Islei, G. and Lockett, A., 1988. Judgemental modelling based
on geometric least square. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research, 36, 27–35.
Joubert, A., Stewart, T.J., and Eberhard, R., 2003. Evalua-
tion of water supply augmentation and water demand
management options for the city of Cape Town. Journal
of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 12, 17–25.
Kangas, J., 1993. A multi-attribute preference model for
evaluating the reforestation chain alternatives of a forest
stand. Forest Ecology and Management, 59, 271–288.
Lipovetsky, S. and Conklin, W., 2002. Robust estimation of
priorities in the AHP. European Journal of Operational
Research, 137, 110–122.
 816 O.M. Salem et al.
McIntyre, C., Kirschenman, M., and Seltveit, S., 1999.
Applying decision support software in selection of
division director. Journal of Management in Engineering,
15 (2), 86–92.
Mendoza, G. and Sprouse, W., 1989. Forest planning and
decision making under fuzzy environments: an overview
and analysis. Forest Science, 35, 481–502.
Mikhailov, L., 2000. A fuzzy programming method for
deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 341–349.
Peterson, D., Silsbee, D., and Schmoldt, D., 1994. A case of
resource management planning with multiple objectives.
Environmental Management, 18, 729–742.
Rafi, A.-A., Hajdin, R., and Welte, U., 2005. Optimierung-
sprozesse im Management der Strassenerhaltung (MSE).
Bern, Switzerland: Eidgenössisches Departement für
Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation.
Ralls, M., 2006. Framework for prefabricated bridge
elements and systems (PBES) decision-making. In:
Downloaded by [Politecnico di Milano Bibl] at 07:09 14 November 2013
Transportation research board annual conference, 22–26
January, Washington, DC.
Reynolds, K., 1997. Setting priorities for maintenance and
restoration projects with the analytic hierarchy process
and SMART. In: 1997 ACSM/ASPRS/RT convention,
Vol. 4: Resource Technology. Bethesda, MD: American
Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 163–
170.
Saaty, T., 1977a. A hierarchical approach to optimum
determination of hospital requirements. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania.
Saaty, T., 1977b. A scaling method for priorities in
hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychol-
ogy, 15, 234–281.
Saaty, T., 1980. The analytical hierarchy process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. and Vargus, L., 1982. The logic of priorities.
Application in business, energy, health, transportation.
Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Salem, O., et al., 2007. Accelerated construction of bridges:
the path towards a holistic decision making system. In:
Proceedings of annual conference of transportation re-
search board, 21–25 January, Washington, DC.
Saltelli, A., Chan, K., and Scott, E., 2000. Sensitivity
analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sinha, K.C., Labi, S., and Thompson, P., 2007. Transporta-
tion decision making: principles of project evaluation and
programming. New York: Wiley.
Sinha, K.C., et al., 2009. Establishing the weights of
performance criteria: case studies in transportation
facility management. Journal of Transportation Engineer-
ing, 135 (9), 619–631.
Vaidya, O. and Kumar, S., 2006. Analytic hierarchy process:
an overview of applications. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research, 169, 1–29.
Zeng, J., An, M., and Smith, N.J., 2007. Application of a
fuzzy-based decision making methodology to construc-
tion project risk assessment. International Journal of
Project Management, 25 (6), 589–600.