Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Application of maintenance actions at the right time results in the saving of
considerable maintenance funds. This is due to the fact that pavements can be
restored, with limited funds, to a near perfect level of service, when of a fair
condition, compared to the cost needed to bring the pavement to the same level,
when the pavement is allowed to deteriorate to a poor condition. This right
maintenance timing can be captured if pavements are evaluated periodically and
managed in a rational systematic manner. One of the main activities of any
pavement management system (PMS) is maintenance priority ranking. The
priority setting or ranking process, as used in PMS, aims to rank pavement
sections in an order of urgency for maintenance and repair. The importance of the
prioritization process in PMS comes from the fact that it is the main step before
The authors wish to acknowledge the Civil Engineering Department and Research Institute of
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals for supporting this research. Acknowledgement Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 1, 1999,
is also due to the Ministry of Communication, Municipality of Riyadh, and Municipality of pp. 25-39, MCB University Press,
Dammam in Saudi Arabia, for their cooperation in data collection. 1355-2511
JQME the final decision on maintenance program execution. The quality of priority
5,1 setting can directly influence the effectiveness of available resources that are, in
most cases, the primary judgment of the decision maker (Sharaf, 1993).
Priority analysis is a systematic process that determines the best ranking list
of candidate sections for maintenance based on specific criteria such as
pavement condition, traffic level, pavement function, etc. Various methods and
26 schemes are used for priority analysis ranging from simple listing based on
engineering judgment to true optimization based on mathematical
formulations. Examples of these different methods are detailed in Haas et al.
(1994). These methods can be divided into two broad groups:
(1) ranking methods; and
(2) optimization methods.
The ranking methods are subdivided into those based on a composite index
determination and those based on economics (Karan, 1984).
where:
PI = Priority index for any section (out of 100);
Wj = Factor j weight of importance to priority ranking;
Fj = Factor j value (out of 100); and
Wj = 1.0.
(3)
where the aij is the relative importance of activity i to activity j. Having recorded An analytical
the quantified judgments of comparisons on pairs (Ci, Cj) as numerical entries aij in hierarchy
the matrix A, what is left is to assign to the n contingencies C1, C2 , C3 , ..., Cn a set process
of numerical weights w1, w2, w3 , ..., wn that should reflect the recorded judgments.
The eigenvector of the comparison matrix provides the priority ordering
(weight), and the eigenvalue is a measure of consistency. To find the priority
vector or the weight of each factor included in the priority ranking analysis, the 29
eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue is to be determined from
matrix analysis. One of the approximation methods to get the weight of each
factor in the pair-wise comparison process is described below.
(4)
or in general:
(4a)
where aij is the entry of row i and column j in a comparison matrix of order n.
An approximate calculation method for the principle eigenvalue, max is as
follows: the matrix of comparisons is multiplied on the right by the estimated
solution vector, W (equation 4 or 5) obtaining a new vector W (equation 6). If
the first component of this vector is divided by the first component of the
estimated solution vector W, the second component of W by the second
component of W, and so on, a new vector W is created (equation 7). The sum
of components of W divided by the number of components in this vector gives
an approximation value of max (equation 8). Mathematically max comes from
the following equations:
(5)
JQME (6)
5,1
or
(6a)
30
(7)
(8)
Quantification of consistency
It is usually very difficult to identify n-1 comparisons which relate all factors
or activities and of which one is absolutely certain. It turns out that the
consistency of a positive reciprocal matrix is equivalent to the requirement that
its maximum eigenvalue max should be equal to the number of factors n. It is
possible to estimate the departure of consistence (inconsistency) by the
difference max-n divided by n-1, where max n. The value of (max-n)/(n-1)
which is called a consistency index (CI). This index is further used to calculate
the consistency rating (RI) as detailed in (Saaty, 1990). A consistency rating of
0.10 or less is considered acceptable.
In this study, the special spreadsheet files were prepared to calculate the
weights of the priority factors as well as the weight of importance of all
individual groups included in the data collection survey, as shown later.
Data collection
The information needed for this study was the priority factor weights as
determined by different groups of people using the road network. The
philosophy was that all classes of road users need to be presented in this study
to reflect the wide spectrum of opinions ranging from ordinary road users to the
pavement management specialists.
For this purpose, a specially designed questionnaire was prepared in four
parts. Part I was for collecting the respondents opinion about the weight of
importance of the seven priority factors. Part II was to quantify the
importance of road to community factor, by assigning importance weights for
the six sub-factors. In these two parts, the respondents were asked to fill a blank
column by a value out of 100 that reflect the importance weight of the priority
factors and sub-factors. Part III was designed for the AHP method to pair-wise
compare all the seven factors considered in Part I. Part IV was for a pair-wise
comparison of the individual groups which participated in the survey to
quantify the effect of each person involved in this survey. The procedure
followed in the preparation of this questionnaire was detailed in Ramadhan
(1997).
The individuals included in the survey were: academics in the area of traffic,
highway, pavement maintenance, and pavement management; highway and
pavement maintenance department officials (managers) and engineers;
pavement maintenance supervisors and technicians; qualified non-pavement
individuals; and ordinary road users. Universities, municipalities,
governmental and private pavement agencies, and ordinary people in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were included in this survey.
The data of Parts I and II were entered into spreadsheet files for processing
and analysis. Mean and standard deviation values for all factors and sub-
factors were determined. For Parts III and IV, special spreadsheets were
prepared to calculate the factor weights of importance. Tables III and IV show
typical examples of one data entry for priority factor weight determination.
Table IV shows another typical example for the individual weight of
importance calculation. In these two tables, weights of importance (out of 1.00)
for all factors or individual group, max, consistency index (CI), consistency
rating (CR) are reported. Only one-half of the pair-wise comparison needs to be
entered since the other half is the reciprocal of the entered one.
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
An analytical
Road Pavement Operating Riding Safety Maint. Factor 7 hierarchy
class condition traffic quality condition cost Importance Total process
Factor 1
Road class 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 0.50 8.00
Factor 2 33
Pavement
condition 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.33 4.08
Factor 3
Operating
traffic 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 1.00 8.50
Factor 4
Riding
quality 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.50 1.00 8.50
Factor 5
Safety
condition 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.33 0.50 4.33
Factor 6
Maint.
cost 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 15.00
Factor 7
Importance 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 11.00
Table III.
Eigenvector 0.130 0.248 0.117 0.117 0.225 0.068 0.093 1.000 Typical AHP
Consistency max= C.I. = C.R.= calculation example
7.074 0.012 0.009 of Part III
Group 5
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Non- Group 6
Academicians Managers Engineers Supervisors pavement Others Total
Group 1
Academicians 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.11 0.11 2.97
Group 2
Managers 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.13 0.11 2.99
Group 3
Engineers 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.33 0.20 0.17 5.70
Factor 4
Supervisors 4.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 0.33 0.25 12.58
Group 5
Non-pavement 9.00 8.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 27.00
Group 6
Others 9.00 9.00 6.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 30.00
Table IV.
Eigenvector 0.329 0.323 0.189 0.092 0.035 0.032 1.000 Typical AHP
Consistency max= C.I. = C.R.= calculation example
6.069 0.014 0.011 of Part IV
JQME The eigenvector column in Tables III and IV corresponds to the principle
5,1 eigenvalue, max which is determined using the equations 5 to 8 presented
before. The eigenvector column, in the two figures, is calculated according to
equation 4. Further, the consistency index CI and the consistency rating CR
determine how consistent and repeatable the AHP pair-wise comparisons are.
Only those entries that had a consistency rating less than 0.10 were considered
34 acceptable, and included in this study.
Data analysis
Tables V-VII show the summary of all collected data of the survey in terms of
average, standard deviation, and replicates. In the direct assignment method,
the pavement condition and safety condition factors had the highest average
AHP method
Factor Average St. Dev. N
40
30
36
20
10
Figure 1.
Comparison of last digit 0
bais for the two data 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
collection methods
Last digit of weight assigned
(10)
where
CWi = corrected overall weight of factor i;
Wj = factor weight as estimated by individual j;
Ej = individual experience factor for individual j, obtained from Table V;
i = factor number (one to seven for priority factors, and one to six for
sub-factors); and
j = individual number out of the total number of individuals n.
where,
IF = Importance to community factor;
SFi = Sub-factor values obtained from Table III and,
Corrected weights: SW1 = 0.160, SW2 = 0.146, SW3 = 0.187, SW4 = 0.215,
SW5 = 0.139, and SW6 = 0.157.
Model validation
The priority ranking model was generated from the local experience and
opinions of different people representing local perceptions regarding
maintenance priority; therefore, the results obtained from this model should
compare with current adopted procedures based on engineering judgments. To
quantify this comparison, two case studies were considered. Two sets of
pavement sections in need of urgent maintenance were selected from Jubail
industrial city road network and Dammam municipality road network in Saudi
Arabia. The sections in these case studies were selected to represent a complete
range of all maintenance priority factors, and all the situations considered in the
model development. The assumption made, in these two case studies, was that
only those selected sections were in need of urgent maintenance and repair, and
the allocated funds for maintenance were not enough to cover all these sections.
Thus, the priority procedure should be implemented to rank these sections.
In these two case studies, priority ranking was determined by the
engineering judgment as provided by the pavement maintenance management
personnel in consultation with other engineers in the road departments. The
developed procedure was applied for all pavement sections in these two cases
and then the results were compared to those provided by engineering judgment.
The ranking results in the two case studies were also compared statistically
using the non-parametric Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r s ). The
association between the engineering judgment ranking and the one of the
developed procedure was determined. It was found that the two cases had rs
values of 0.77 and 0.95. On average, and considering the limitations in the
engineering judgment, the developed procedure correlated with the engineering
JQME judgment was 86 per cent, which can be considered an acceptable level of
5,1 correlation.
These two case studies showed that the developed procedure for
maintenance priority ranking gives a good match with the engineering
judgment methods being currently adopted by maintenance management
departments. However, the developed procedure was based on objective
38 measurements as well as the local experience parameters that were provided by
both pavement specialists and other road users in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Generally the road networks consist of a very big number of pavement sections,
and all of these sections cannot be efficiently considered by the engineering
judgment. Therefore, the developed procedure can efficiently, economically, and
systematically cope with any pavement network of any size.
Conclusions
Based on the processing and analysis of collected data, and on the results of the
comprehensive ranking procedure building and validation, the following
conclusions could be drawn:
(1) The direct assignment method of collecting individuals opinions about
the weight of importance of priority factors showed a good agreement
with the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) pair-wise comparison
method. This agreement strengthens the direct assignment method since
the AHP method is considered one of the pioneering psychometric-based
methods of prioritization.
(2) As measured by the AHP method, the surveyed individual groups
academicians, engineers, non-pavement qualified, and road users
showed statistically different results in their opinions regarding the
priority factors weights. Therefore, adjustment for this effect was
necessary.
(3) The AHP method did not show any numerical bias presented by the
direct assignment method of data collection, where numbers ending with
0 and 5 were significantly presented.
(4) Pavement condition had the highest weight of importance in priority
ranking followed by safety condition, importance to community, road
class, riding quality, operating traffic, and finally the maintenance cost.
(5) The developed procedure can adequately and efficiently rank a huge
number of pavement sections for maintenance, unlike the engineering
judgment, which can handle a relatively small number of pavement
sections at the same time.
References
Chen, X., Weissmann, J., Dossey, T. and Hudson, W. R. (1993), URMS: a graphical urban roadway
management system at network level, Transportation Research Record 1397,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 103-11.
Cook, W.D. and Kress, M. (1994), A multiple-criteria composite index model for quantitative and An analytical
qualitative data, European Journal of Operational Research, No. 78, North Holland,
pp. 367-79. hierarchy
Haas, R., Hudson, W.R. and Zaniewski, J. (1994), Modern Pavement Management, Krieger process
publishing company, Florida.
Hagquist, R.F. (1994), High-precision prioritization using the analytical hierarchy process:
determining state HPMS component weighting factors, Transportation Research Record
1429, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 7-14. 39
Harker, P.T. and Vargas, L.G. (1987), The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saatys analytical
hierarchy process, Management Sciences, Vol. 33 No. 11, pp. 1383-403.
Karan, M.A. (1984), Municipal pavement management system, A Program of Study in
Pavement Management, Training Course Notes by the Center of Transportation Research,
University of Texas at Austin, TX.
KFUPM-RI (1989), Programming Pavement Maintenance for Al-Jubail Road Network, Final
Report, Vol. I, Research Institute, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM),
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Millet, I. and Harker, P.T. (1990), Globally effective questioning in the analytic hierarchy process,
European Journal of Operational Research, No. 48, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 88-98.
Montgomery, D.C. (1984), Design and Analysis of Experiment, (second ed.), John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Ningyuan, L. and Haas, R. (1994), Special implementation of pavement management for large
highway network in developing countries, Proceedings of The Third International
Conference on Managing Pavements, Vol. 1, Transportation Research Board, Texas, pp. 179-
90.
Ramadhan, R.H. (1997), Modeling of Pavement Condition and Maintenance Priority Ranking for
Road Networks, PhD dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran.
Saaty, T.L. (1982), Decision Making for Leaders, Kluwere Nijhoff Publishing, Lifetime Learning
Publications, Belmont, CA.
Saaty, T.L. (1990), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, (second ed.), RWS Publications, Pittsburgh,
PA.
Saaty, T. L. and Vargas, L.G. (1982), Logic of Priorities, Kluwere Nijhoff Publishing, Boston, MA.
Sharaf, E. (1993), Ranking versus simple optimization in setting pavement maintenance
priorities: a case study from Egypt, Transportation Research Record 1397, Transportation
Research Board, Washington DC, pp. 34-8.
STATISTICA (1997), STATISTICA Manual, Release 5, StatSoft, USA.
Zhang, Z., Singh, N. and Hudson, W.R. (1993), Comprehensive ranking index for flexible
pavement using fuzzy sets model, Transportation Research Record 1397, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 96-102.