Analysis of bridge structure selection using a hybrid decision-making technique

• Autorzy: Jakiel, Przemysław , Fabianowski, Dariusz

Warianty tytułu

PL

Analiza wybranych konstrukcji mostowych z zastosowaniem hybrydowej metody decyzyjnej

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Implementation of sustainability principles in civil engineering has increased the substantive range of bridge engineering. The consideration of additional criteria, in particular ecological and social ones, requires the design process to be supported by appropriate tools. It refers especially to large bridge elements which affect their load-bearing capacity, e.g. girders or decks. The aim of this paper is to develop an original MCDA (Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis) method as a potential tool to support a decision-making process in the selection of material and design alternatives for bridge main girders. Therefore, an advanced hybrid algorithm was created consisting of the following methods: EA FAHP+FDEMATEL+ZUM (Extent Analysis Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process + Fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory + Zero Unitarization Method), applied at the structure design stage. The pre-dimensioned alternatives selected for analysis were then subjected to an evaluation process based on a complex set of criteria arranged in a hierarchical control structure (HCS). The algorithm has been applied based on the example of a medium span slab-and-girder bridge, assuming 6 alternative concepts of girders, different in material and dimensions. The hybrid method was compared with the EA FAHP method. Analysis results obtained based on judgments from 3 teams of Decision Makers (DM) indicate effectiveness of the proposed algorithm and its practical aspect, which may contribute to improved quality and safety of bridge structures.

PL

Celem artykułu jest opracowanie oryginalnej metody MCDA, jako narzędzia wspierającego proces podejmowania decyzji przy wyborze wariantów materiałowo-konstrukcyjnych mostowych dźwigarów głównych. W związku z tym stworzono zaawansowany algorytm hybrydowy, składający się z metod EA FAHP + FDEMATEL + MUZ (Metoda Unitaryzacji Zerowanej), stosowany na etapie projektowania konstrukcji. Rozpoznanie literatury z przedmiotowego zagadnienia wskazuje na brak publikacji. Wybrane do celów analizy, uprzednio zwymiarowane warianty zostały następnie poddawane procesowi oceny na podstawie złożonego zbioru kryteriów, transponowanych na sterującą strukturę hierarchiczną (HCS). Aplikację algorytmu wykonano na przykładzie mostu płytowo-belkowego o średniej rozpiętości przęsła, przyjmując 6 alternatywnych koncepcji dźwigarów. Uzyskane wyniki analizy, porównane z metodą EA FAHP wskazują na efektywność proponowanego algorytmu oraz jego aspekt praktyczny, mogący się przyczynić do podniesienia jakości i bezpieczeństwa konstrukcji mostowych. Do głównych cech proponowanego modelu należy zaliczyć: strukturę sterującą HCS, umożliwiającą szybkie dostosowanie algorytmu do zmian wymogów technicznych i uwarunkowań rynkowych, możliwość uwzględnienia w procesie projektowania nietypowych rozwiązań, np. dźwigarów kompozytowych, uniwersalność w zastosowaniu dla innych rodzajów konstrukcji budowlanych. Za najbardziej znaczący wkład niniejszych badań uznano uwzględnienie interakcji pomiędzy kryteriami. Charakteryzuje je niezmienność w funkcji czasu, osiągana jako efekt długoterminowy dzięki agregacji ocen.

• Czasopismo: Archives of Civil Engineering
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: Vol. 70, nr 3
• Strony: 579--593
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 37 poz., il., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Jakiel, Przemysław

• Opole University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Opole, Poland,

autor

Fabianowski, Dariusz

• Opole University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Opole, Poland,

Bibliografia

• [1] J.P. Carvalho, L. Bragança, and R. Mateus, “Optimising building sustainability assessment using BIM”, Automation in Construction, vol. 102, pp. 170-182, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.02.021.
• [2] M.F. Castro, R. Mateus, F. Serôdio, and L. Bragança, “Development of Benchmarks for Operating Costs and Resources Consumption to be Used in Healthcare Building Sustainability Assessment Methods”, Sustainability, vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 13222-13248, 2015, doi: 10.3390/su71013222.
• [3] Road transport in Poland in the years 2020 and 2021. Warsaw, Szczecin: Statistics Poland, Statistical Office in Szczecin, 2023.
• [4] A. Žnidarič, V. Pakrashi, E. O’Brien, and A. O’Connor, “A review of road structure data in six European countries”, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning, vol. 164, no. 4, pp. 225-232, 2011, doi: 10.1680/udap.900054.
• [5] J. Bień, M. Kużawa, M. Gładysz-Bień, and T. Kamiński, “Quality control of road bridges in Poland”, in Maintenance, Monitoring, Safety, Risk and Resilience of Bridges and Bridge Networks, B. N. Bittencourt, D. M. Frangopol, and A. T. Beck, Eds. London: CRC Press, 2016, doi: 10.1201/9781315207681.
• [6] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antuchevičienė, and O. Kapliński, “Multi - criteria decision making in civil engineering: Part I – a state of the art survey”, Engineering Structures and Technologies, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 103-113, 2015, doi: 10.3846/2029882X.2015.1143204.
• [7] E.K. Zavadskas, J. Antuchevičienė, and O. Kapliński, “Multi-criteria decision making in civil engineering: Part II – applications”, Engineering Structures and Technologies, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 151-167, 2015, doi: 10.3846/2029882X.2016.1139664.
• [8] P. Nowotarski, J. Pasławski, and P. Dallasega, “Multi-criteria assessment of lean management tools selection in construction”, Archives of Civil Engineering, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 711-726, 2021, doi: 10.24425/ace.2021.136498.
• [9] B. Szewczyk, G. Śladowski, and K. Ratoń, “Impact of decision model structure on the selection of a telecommunications tower footing reinforcement alternative”, Archives of Civil Engineering, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 309-321, 2021, doi: 10.24425/ace.2021.137170.
• [10] D. Jato-Espino, E. Castillo-Lopez, J. Rodriguez-Hernandez, and J.C. Canteras-Jordana, “A review of application of multi-criteria decision making methods in construction”, Automation in Construction, vol. 45, pp. 151-162, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.013.
• [11] I.J. Navarro, V. Yepes, J.V. Marti, “A Review of multicriteria assessment techniques applied to sustainable infrastructure design”, Advances in Civil Engineering, art. no:6134803, 2019, doi: 10.1155/2019/6134803.
• [12] V. Penadés-Plà, T. García-Segura, J.V. Martí, and V. Yepes, “A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable Bridge Design”, Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 12, art. no. 1295, 2016, doi: 10.3390/su8121295.
• [13] N.B. Chaphalkar and P.P. Shirke, “Application of multi-criteria decision making techniques for bridge construction”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 3617-3626, 2013.
• [14] P. Jakiel and D. Fabianowski, “FAHP model used for assessment of highway RC bridge structural and technological arrangements”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 4054-4061, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.12.039.
• [15] H. Malekly, S. Meysam Mousavi, and H. Hashemi, “A fuzzy integrated methodology for evaluating conceptual bridge design”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 4910-4920, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.12.024.
• [16] I.J. Navarro, V. Yepes, and J.V. Martí, “ Sustainability assessment of concrete bridge deck designs in coastal environments using neutrosophic criteria weights”, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 949-967, 2019, doi: 10.1080/15732479.2019.1676791.
• [17] H-C. Liu, FMEA Using Uncertainty Theories and MCDM Methods. Singapore: Springer, 2016, doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-1466-6.
• [18] L. Abdullah and N. Zulkifli, “ Integration of fuzzy AHP and interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL: An application to human resource management”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 4397-4409, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.021.
• [19] Y-C. Chou, C-C. Sun, and H-Y. Yen, “Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and technology (HRST) based on an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach”, Applied Soft Computing, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 64-71, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2011.08.058.
• [20] M. Dytczak, Selected methods for multi-criteria decision analysis in civil engineering. Opole, Poland: Opole University of Technology, 2012 (in Polish).
• [21] D. Fabianowski and P. Jakiel, “An expert fuzzy system for management of railroad bridges in use”, Automation in Construction, vol. 106, art. no. 102856, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102856.
• [22] A. Yazdani-Chamzini, S. Shariati, S.H. Yakhchali, and E.K. Zavadskas, “Proposing a new methodology for prioritising the investment strategies in the private sector of Iran”, Economic Research, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 320-345, 2014, doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2014.947150.
• [23] PN-EN 1991-2 Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges.
• [24] J. Williams, “The Ongoing Evolution of FRP Bridges”, Public Roads, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 16-19, 2008.
• [25] P. Ziehl, M. Engelhardt, T. Fowler, F. Ulloa, R. Medlock, and E. Schell, “Design and Field Evaluation of Hybrid FRP/Reinforced Concrete Superstructure System”, Journal of Bridge Engineering, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 309-318, 2009, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000002.
• [26] L. Weiwei and T. Yoda, Bridge Engineering. Classifications, Design Loading, and Analysis Methods. Butterworth- Heinemann, 2017.
• [27] PN-EN 1992-2:2005 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 2: Concrete bridges. Design and detailing rules.
• [28] EN 1993-2:2006 Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part 2: Steel bridges.
• [29] EN 1994-2:2005 Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures – Part 2: General rules and rules for bridges.
• [30] D-Y. Chang, “Application of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 649-655, 1996, doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2.
• [31] Y-M. Wang and T.M.S. Elhag, “On the normalization of interval and fuzzy weights”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 157, no. 18, pp. 2456-2471, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2006.06.008.
• [32] E. Fontela and A. Gabus, The DEMATEL Observer. Switzerland, Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Center, 1976.
• [33] S-L. Si, X-Y. You, H-C. Liu, and P. Zhang, “DEMATEL Technique: A Systematic Review of the State-of-the-Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, art. no. 3696457, 2018, doi: 10.1155/2018/3696457.
• [34] B. Chang, C-W. Chang, and C-H. Wu, “Fuzzy DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1850-1858, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.114.
• [35] J. Li, C-H.Wu, C-W. Chen, Y-F. Huang, and C-T. Lin, “Apply Fuzzy DEMATEL to Explore the Decisive Factors of the Auto Lighting Aftermarket Industry in Taiwan”, Mathematics, vol. 8, no. 7, art. no. 1187, 2020, doi: 10.3390/math8071187.
• [36] T.L. Saaty, Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh, USA: RWS Publications 1994.
• [37] F. Franceschini and D. Maisano, “Design decisions: concordance of designers and effects of the Arrow’s theorem on the collective preference ranking”, Research in Engineering Design, vol. 30, pp. 425-434, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00163-019-00313-9.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/ace.2024.151003