IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i7p2718-d1363943.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Variable-Weight Model for Evaluating the Technical Condition of Urban Viaducts

Author

Listed:
  • Li Li

    (School of Mechanics and Engineering Science, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200044, China)

  • Huihui Rao

    (School of Mechanics and Engineering Science, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200044, China)

  • Minghao Wang

    (School of Mechanics and Engineering Science, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200044, China)

  • Weisheng Mao

    (Shanghai Municipal Maintenance Management Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200023, China)

  • Changzhe Jin

    (Shanghai Municipal Maintenance Management Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200023, China)

Abstract

Urban viaducts play a crucial role in transportation infrastructure and are closely linked to urban resilience. Accurate evaluation of their structural technical condition forms the basis for the scientific maintenance of urban viaducts. Currently, there is a lack of technical condition evaluation specifications for viaducts in China, and the existing bridge specifications that are similar do not fully align with the facility composition characteristics and maintenance management needs of viaducts. Therefore, this paper presents a technical condition assessment model for viaducts, based on existing bridge specifications. Considering the frequent damage to ancillary facilities of viaducts, the utilization of maintenance resources, and the impact on traffic operations, the model proposed in this paper adopts the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to introduce a new indicator layer for ancillary facilities. Subsequently, the weight values and deduction values of each layer of the model, as well as the findings of damage recorded in the new components, were determined using the Group Decision-Making (GDM) method and the Delphi method. This process forms a constant-weight evaluation model for assessing the technical condition of viaducts. Finally, to account for the impacts of significant damage to low-weight components on the structural condition, the variable-weight method was adopted to establish a comprehensive evaluation model with variable weights, which was then validated using practical viaduct examples. The results indicate that the variable-weight model provides a more accurate representation of the technical condition of viaducts, especially when components are severely damaged. Furthermore, this study examines the suitable conditions for implementing the constant-weight evaluation model and the variable-weight evaluation model, demonstrating that the variable-weight model is recommended when there is a significant disparity in the scores among the viaduct components, whereas the constant-weight model is applicable in other scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Li Li & Huihui Rao & Minghao Wang & Weisheng Mao & Changzhe Jin, 2024. "A Variable-Weight Model for Evaluating the Technical Condition of Urban Viaducts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2718-:d:1363943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2718/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/7/2718/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mandic, Ksenija & Delibasic, Boris & Knezevic, Snezana & Benkovic, Sladjana, 2014. "Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 30-37.
    2. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 521-530.
    3. Di Zio, Simone & Castillo Rosas, Juan Daniel & Lamelza, Luana, 2017. "Real Time Spatial Delphi: Fast convergence of experts' opinions on the territory," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 143-154.
    4. Thomas Wilbanks & Jayant Sathaye, 2007. "Integrating mitigation and adaptation as responses to climate change: a synthesis," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 957-962, June.
    5. Sajida Perveen & Md. Kamruzzaman & Tan Yigitcanlar, 2017. "Developing Policy Scenarios for Sustainable Urban Growth Management: A Delphi Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-27, October.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. V. G. Venkatesh & Abraham Zhang & Eric Deakins & Sunil Luthra & S. Mangla, 2019. "A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach to supply partner selection in continuous aid humanitarian supply chains," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1517-1550, December.
    2. Karanik, Marcelo & Wanderer, Leonardo & Gomez-Ruiz, Jose Antonio & Pelaez, Jose Ignacio, 2016. "Reconstruction methods for AHP pairwise matrices: How reliable are they?," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 279(C), pages 103-124.
    3. Flavio Martins & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili & Agatha Oliveira, 2020. "Design Thinking Applied to Smart Home Projects: A User-Centric and Sustainable Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    4. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    5. Wu, Zhangsheng & Li, Yue & Wang, Rong & Xu, Xu & Ren, Dongyang & Huang, Quanzhong & Xiong, Yunwu & Huang, Guanhua, 2023. "Evaluation of irrigation water saving and salinity control practices of maize and sunflower in the upper Yellow River basin with an agro-hydrological model based method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    6. D’Inverno, Giovanna & Carosi, Laura & Romano, Giulia & Guerrini, Andrea, 2018. "Water pollution in wastewater treatment plants: An efficiency analysis with undesirable output," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(1), pages 24-34.
    7. Nermin Kişi, 2019. "A Strategic Approach to Sustainable Tourism Development Using the A’WOT Hybrid Method: A Case Study of Zonguldak, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    8. Ayodele, T.R. & Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O. & Odigie, O. & Munda, J.L., 2018. "A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1853-1869.
    9. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    10. Patricija Bajec & Danijela Tuljak-Suban, 2019. "An Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process—Slack Based Measure-Data Envelopment Analysis Model for Evaluating the Efficiency of Logistics Service Providers Considering Undesirable Performance Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    11. Abareshi, Maryam & Zaferanieh, Mehdi, 2019. "A bi-level capacitated P-median facility location problem with the most likely allocation solution," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-20.
    12. Datu Buyung Agusdinata & Wenjuan Liu & Sinta Sulistyo & Philippe LeBillon & Je'anne Wegner, 2023. "Evaluating sustainability impacts of critical mineral extractions: Integration of life cycle sustainability assessment and SDGs frameworks," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 746-759, June.
    13. Xinxin Liu & Xiaosheng Wang & Haiying Guo & Xiaojie An, 2021. "Benefit Allocation in Shared Water-Saving Management Contract Projects Based on Modified Expected Shapley Value," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(1), pages 39-62, January.
    14. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    15. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    16. Hossein Yousefi & Saheb Ghanbari Motlagh & Mohammad Montazeri, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making System for Wind Farm Site-Selection Using Geographic Information System (GIS): Case Study of Semnan Province, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-27, June.
    17. Moumita Palchaudhuri & Sujata Biswas, 2016. "Application of AHP with GIS in drought risk assessment for Puruliya district, India," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(3), pages 1905-1920, December.
    18. Kadir Kaan GÖNCÜ & Onur ÇETIN, 2022. "Evaluation Of Location Selection Criteria For Coordination Management Centers And Logistic Support Units In Disaster Areas With Ahp Method," Prizren Social Science Journal, SHIKS, vol. 6(2), pages 15-23, August.
    19. Tommaso Ortalli & Andrea Di Martino & Michela Longo & Dario Zaninelli, 2024. "Make-or-Buy Policy Decision in Maintenance Planning for Mobility: A Multi-Criteria Approach," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-18, May.
    20. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:7:p:2718-:d:1363943. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.