To ABC or Not?
Accelerated bridge construction (ABC) strategies can help reduce onsite construction time, minimize traffic and environmental impacts, improve work zone safety, and deliver longer lasting and more durable bridges. ABC strategies include technical innovations and management techniques such as prefabricated bridge elements, state-of-the-art equipment, new material technologies, and innovative contracting methods. In the early stages of a construction or rehabilitation project, decision-makers must assess whether elements of ABC are achievable and effective for a specific bridge location. These decisions can be difficult since multiple criteria and diverse (sometimes opposing) perspectives need to be considered. This article describes the development of a new decision tool for assisting project planners in the assessment of the applicability and effectiveness of ABC at specific locations. In 2009, the Oregon Department of Transportation initiated a pooled fund study with the charge of developing a tool that could assist decision makers in identifying whether ABC should be applied to a specific project. A technical advisory committee was convened that identified the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as the best technique for this project. AHP prioritizes multiple criteria, integrates both quantitative and qualitative criteria, and provides a summary ranking of alternatives, based on the multiple criteria. The pertinent data used for an AHP analysis are generated by performing pairwise comparisons between criteria, subcriteria, and alternatives. These pairwise comparisons are made using both a numerical and qualitative scale. The results are used to obtain importance weights for decision criteria and to identify the extent to which various alternatives meet these decision criteria. The technical advisory committee developed a hierarchy of criteria relevant to decisions about determining the best construction methods to apply to bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects. The final hierarchy consists of two levels. The highest level consists of five criteria, each of which is further specified by two to nine subcriteria. To check the completeness and robustness of the criteria, validations of the process were conducted using actual bridge projects in Texas and Iowa. The cases validated existing decisions about the best construction alternatives to apply to a specific project. In parallel with testing and validating the approach, an AHP software tool was developed. The tool has been tested successfully on projects from seven states. A final version of the software will be available for download at the Federal Highway Administration’s Web site.
- Record URL:
-
Availability:
- Find a library where document is available. Order URL: http://worldcat.org/oclc/1586080
-
Authors:
- Doolen, Toni L
- Tang, Benjamin
- Saeedi, Amirali
- Emami, Samin
- Publication Date: 2011-11
Language
- English
Media Info
- Media Type: Print
- Features: Figures; Photos; Tables;
- Pagination: pp 8-15
-
Serial:
- Public Roads
- Volume: 75
- Issue Number: 3
- Publisher: Federal Highway Administration
- ISSN: 0033-3735
- Serial URL: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/
-
Publication flags:
Open Access (libre)
Subject/Index Terms
- TRT Terms: Alternatives analysis; Analytic hierarchy process; Bridge construction; Case studies; Construction management; Decision support systems; Evaluation and assessment; Highway bridges; Multiple criteria decision making; Pooled funds; Rehabilitation; Software
- Identifier Terms: Oregon Department of Transportation
- Geographic Terms: Iowa; Texas
- Subject Areas: Bridges and other structures; Construction; Highways; Maintenance and Preservation; I53: Construction of Bridges and Retaining Walls; I61: Equipment and Maintenance Methods;
Filing Info
- Accession Number: 01361659
- Record Type: Publication
- Files: TRIS
- Created Date: Jan 30 2012 2:52PM