1 / 24

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

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.

haru
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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Agenda Identification and organization of decision criteria Defining decision-making criteria Multi-criteria decision-making Examples Software to assist with analysis

  6. 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.

  7. 1. Criteria Organization

  8. 2. Defining Criteria (Example) Criteria Sub -Criteria Definitions

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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).

  15. 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

  16. Results

  17. Results

  18. 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

  19. Results

  20. Results

  21. 5. Software

  22. Criteria Comparisons

  23. Results

  24. 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

More Related