Multi-State ABC Decision Tool and Economic Modeling
Download
1 / 24

FHWA-sponsored pool funded study, TPF 5(221), Technical Advisory Committee - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 89 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Multi-State ABC Decision Tool and Economic Modeling Toni Doolen, PhD August 2011 School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering Oregon State University. FHWA-sponsored pool funded study, TPF 5(221), Technical Advisory Committee. Overall Project Objective.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha

Download Presentation

FHWA-sponsored pool funded study, TPF 5(221), Technical Advisory Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Multi-State ABC Decision Tool and Economic ModelingToni Doolen, PhDAugust 2011School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing EngineeringOregon State University


FHWA-sponsored pool funded study, TPF 5(221), Technical Advisory Committee


Overall Project Objective

  • What: A tool to help analyze different alternatives and determine which construction approach for a specific bridge project is preferred. Focus is on being able to compare conventional and accelerated construction approaches.

  • Who: Transportation specialists and decision-makers


Project Goals and Target Users

  • Goals of Project

    • Bring Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC) to ordinary (bread and butter) bridges

    • Create a tool that can communicate decision rationale

    • Assist users of ABC elements in making ABC standard process (standardization)

  • Target User Population

    • Project managers

    • Engineers

    • Project owners

    • Program planners


Agenda

Identification and organization of decision criteria

Defining decision-making criteria

Multi-criteria decision-making

Examples

Software to assist with analysis


1. Criteria Identification

  • TAC team members along with research team developed a comprehensive list of criteria that are relevant to the decision of when to use ABC tools/methods for a project. Each criteria was defined and sub-criteria were defined, as appropriate.


1. Criteria Organization


2. Defining Criteria (Example)

Criteria

Sub -Criteria

Definitions


3. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

  • AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) is a decision- making technique designed to select the best alternative from a set of alternatives evaluated against several criteria.

  • The decision maker performs pair-wise comparisons that are used to develop an overall priority ranking for each alternative.


3. Analysis Details

  • The hierarchy organizes the decision-making process

    • The factors affecting the decision, i.e. criteria and sub-criteria, progress from general to particular

    • A decision maker can insert or eliminate levels and elements. Less important criteria and sub-criteria can be dropped from further consideration.

New Sub-Criteria


AHP Analysis Details (continued)

Indirect Costs

9

8

9

7

8

7

6

Direct Costs

6

5

4

4

5

3

3

1

2

2

Schedule Constraints

Direct Costs

9

8

9

7

8

7

6

6

5

4

4

5

3

3

2

2

1

Site Constraints

9

8

9

7

8

Direct Costs

7

6

6

5

4

4

5

3

3

2

2

1

  • Comparisons between criteria and between sub-criteria are performed using data from actual measurements or using a qualitative scale.


AHP Analysis Details (continued)

Direct Costs

Alt B

Alt A

9

8

9

7

8

7

6

6

5

4

4

5

3

3

1

2

2

Indirect Costs

Alt B

Alt A

9

8

9

7

8

7

6

6

5

4

4

5

3

3

1

2

2

  • Comparisons are also used to assess the extent to which one alternative satisfies a criteria over another alternative.


AHP Analysis Details (continued)

  • To obtain the priorities (relative weights) of criteria, importance levels are normalized.

  • Priority of each criterion is determined by averaging normalized weights.


AHP Analysis Details (continued)

  • Overall priorities are calculated for each alternative after weighting normalized priorities for each criteria and after weighting the extent to which each alternative satisfies each criteria and sub criteria.

  • Select the alternative with the highest utility level (overall priority).


Example: CopanoBay Bridge in Texas

  • Connecting the cities of Rockport/Fulton and Lamar

  • 11,010 feet long, with a 129' wide and 75' tall navigation channel

  • Data for this project was obtained from Texas DOT

  • Alternatives Compared: Cast in Place (Conventional method) versus Pre-Cast Caps (ABC method)

  • Best Alternative: ABC is highly preferred

  • Critical Factors: Schedule Constraints and Site Constraints


Results


Results


Example: Clear Creek Bridge in Oregon

  • Located on Clear Creek, Gulick Lane

  • Existing Bridge length: 29’ steel girders on concrete vertical abutments

  • Data for this project was obtained from Oregon DOT

  • Alternatives Compared: Conventional construction versus ABC

  • Best Alternative: Conventional

  • Critical Factor: Direct Costs


Results


Results


5. Software


Criteria Comparisons


Results


Contact Details

Toni L. Doolen, PhD

Oregon State University

doolen@engr.orst.edu

541-737-5641

Benjamin Tang, P.E.

Oregon DOT, Technical Services

Benjamin.M.Tang@odot.state.or.us

503-986-3324


ad
  • Login