Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Personal computers & Commercial Engineering 54 (2008) 513–525 www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

A built-in AHP–DEA method for bridge risk analysis q Ying-Ming Wang

a b

a, *

, Jun Liu w, Taha M. S. Elhag



Institute of Soft Research, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350002, PR Chinese suppliers School of Computing and arithmetic, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Shore Highway, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 0QB, Northern Ireland, UK School of Mechanical, Aeronautical and Civil Engineering, The University of Manchester, L. O. Field 88, Stansted M60 1QD, UK Received 14 January 2006; received in modified form your five September 2007; accepted six September 3 years ago Available online 13 September 3 years ago

Abstract The traditional analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method can only compare a really limited quantity of decision alternatives, which is not often more than 12-15. When there are hundreds or thousands of alternatives to be compared, the pairwise evaluation manner provided by the traditional AHP is obviously infeasible. In this paper we recommend an integrated AHP–DEA methodology to evaluate bridge dangers of hundreds of connection structures, based on which the maintenance priorities from the bridge constructions can be made the decision. The proposed AHP–DEA method uses the AHP to look for the weights of criteria, linguistic terms including High, Method, Low and non-e to evaluate bridge hazards under every single criterion, the data envelopment research (DEA) approach to determine the values with the linguistic conditions, and the straightforward additive weighting (SAW) strategy to aggregate connection risks beneath different requirements into an overall risk rating for each connect structure. The integrated AHP–DEA methodology applies to any volume of decision alternatives and is illustrated with a numerical example. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights appropriated. Keywords: Link risk examination; Analytic structure process; Data envelopment examination; Maintenance goal

1 . Introduction Bridge risk assessment can often be conducted to look for the priority of bridge structures for routine service. For example , Adey, Hajdin, and Bruhwiler (2003) presented a risk-based approach to determining the optimal ¨ involvement for a connect subject to multiple hazards. Johnson and Niezgoda (2004) presented a risk-based method for ranking, comparing and choosing the most suitable bridge check countermeasures using the

This research was supported by the UK Anatomist and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under the Scholarhip No . GR/ S66770/01 and in addition supported by the National Normal Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under the Grant No . 70771027. * Matching author. Tel.: +86 591 87893307; fernkopie: +86 591 87892545. E-mail address: [email protected] com (Y. -M. Wang). 0360-8352/$ -- see entrance matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. Every rights reserved. doi: 12. 1016/j. cie. 2007. 2009. 002



Con. -M. Wang et approach. / Computers & Industrial Engineering fifty four (2008) 513–525

risk priority numbers (PRNs) in failing modes and effects analysis (FMEA). Stein, Young, Trent, and Pearson (1999) produced a risk-based method for evaluating the risk connected with scour danger to connection foundations. The risk of scour failure was defined as the merchandise of the probability of keep an eye on failure or heavy damage and the expense associated with inability, adjusted by a risk adjustment factor based upon foundation type and form of span. Shetty, Chubb, Knowles, and Halden (1996) proposed a risk-based framework intended for assessment and prioritization of bridges needing remedial work, which involves risk evaluation, rankings of bridges in terms of risk, design of remedial action for each and every bridge, and optimal allocation of resources for remedial work on different connections. Risk is usually quantified because the product of probability of failure and consequences of failure. Lounis (2004) offered a risk-based approach intended for bridge protection optimization that takes into account a number of and possibly...

References: Adey, W., Hajdin, 3rd there�s r., & Bruhwiler, E. (2003). Risk-based method of the dedication of optimum interventions intended for bridges affected by ¨ multiple hazards. Engineering Buildings, 25(7), 903–912. Bowen, W. M. (1990). Subjective conclusions and info envelopment analysis in internet site selection. Pcs, Environment and Urban Devices, 14(2), 133–144. British Freeways Agency (2004). Value Administration of the Set ups Renewal System. Version installment payments on your 2 . Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making models. European Journal of Detailed Research, 2(6), 429–444. Ertay, T., Ruan, D., & Tuzkaya, U. R. (2006). Integrating data envelopment evaluation and discursive hierarchy to get the center layout style in manufacturing devices. Information Sciences, 176(3), 237–262. Johnson, G. A., & Niezgoda, S. L. (2004). Risk-based method for selecting bridge scour countermeasures. Journal of Hydraulic Anatomist, 130(2), 121–128. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, T. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Berlin: Springer. Liu, F. H. F., & Hai, They would. L. (2005). The voting analytic structure process means for selecting distributor. International Journal of Production Economics, 97(3), 308–317. Lounis, A. (2004). Risk-based protection optimization of bridge structures. hhttp://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc47063/nrcc47063.pdfi. Noguchi, H., Ogawa, M., & Ishii, L. (2002). The proper total rank method employing DEA for multiple grouped purposes. Log of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 146(1), 155–166. Ramanathan, R. (2006). Data envelopment analysis intended for weight derivation and assimilation in the discursive hierarchy method. Computers and Operations Exploration, 33(5), 1289–1307. Saaty, To. L. (1980). The a fortiori hierarchy procedure. New York: McGraw-Hill. Saaty, Big t. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy procedure. European Diary of Detailed Research, 48(1), 9–26. Saen, R. F., Memariani, A., & Lotfi, F. H. (2005). Deciding relative efficiency of a little bit non-homogeneous making decisions units by simply data envelopment analysis: A case study in IROST. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 165(2), 313–328. Seifert, L. M., & Zhu, J. (1998). Identifying excesses and deficits in Chinese language industrial output (1953–1990): A weighted data envelopment analysis approach. Tissot, 26(2), 279–296. Shang, L., & Sueyoshi, T. (1995). A unified framework intended for the selection of a versatile Manufacturing System. European Journal of Operational Research, 85(2), 297–315. Shetty, N. T., Chubb, Meters. S., Knowles, N. C., & Halden, D. (1996). A risk-based framework pertaining to assessment and prioritisation of bridges. In J. E. Harding, G. A. Ur. Parke, & M. L. Ryall (Eds. ), Connection Management three or more: Inspection, maintenance, assessment and repair (pp. 572–579). London, uk: E & FN Spon. Sinuany-Stern, Z .., Mehrez, A., & Hadad, Y. (2000). An AHP/DEA methodology pertaining to ranking making decisions units. Worldwide Transactions in Operational Research, 7(2), 109–124. Stein, S. M., Young, G. K., Trent, L. E., & Pearson, Deb. R. (1999). Prioritizing search vulnerable links using risk. Journal of Infrastructure Devices, 5(3), 95–101. Takamura, Sumado a., & Develop, K. (2003). A relative site evaluation study for relocating Japanese government agencies away of Tokyo. SocioEconomic Organizing Sciences, 37(2), 85–102. Vaidya, O. H., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic structure process: An understanding of applications. European Record of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29. Wang, Y. M., Chin, T. S., & Yang, L. B. (2007). Three new models pertaining to preference voting and collectiong. Journal of the Operational Study Society, 58(10), 1389–1393. Yang, J. M. (2001). Guideline and utility based certain reasoning approach for multiattribute decision examination under questions. European Log of Operational Research, 131(1), 31–61. Yang, T., & Kuo, C. (2003). A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology pertaining to the features layout design problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 128–136. Zhang, Times. S., & Cui, M. C. (1999). A project analysis system in the state financial information approach to China: A great operations study practice in public sectors. Foreign Transactions in Operational Research, 6(5), 441–452.