Network level bridges maintenance planning using Multi-Attribute Utility Theory

References

• Arif, F., Bayraktar, M. E., & Chowdhury, A. G. (2015). Decision support framework for infrastructure maintenance investment decision making. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(1), 04015030-1–04015030-15. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ATKINS. (2002). CSS bridge condition indicators, Volume 3: Evaluation of condition indicators. Lincoln: County Surveyors Society. Retrieved from TAP website: http://bit.ly/2oBt9me
   Google Scholar
• Bush, S., Henning, T., Ingham, J. M., & Raith, A. (2014). An agent-based framework for improved strategic bridge asset management. In Austroads Bridge Conference, 9th, 2014, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Chase, S., Adu-Gyamfi, Y., Aktan, A., & Minaie, E. (2016). Synthesis of national and international methodologies used for bridge health indices. US Department of Transportation. Retrieved from Department website: http://bit.ly/2p8xbne
   Google Scholar
• Chen, K., & Miles, J. C. (2004). ITS handbook 2004: Recommendations from the world road association (PIARC). Boston, MA: Artech House, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Chung, J. W. (1994). Utility and production functions: Theory and applications. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Claudio, D., & Okudan, G. E. (2009). Utility function-based patient prioritisation in the emergency department. European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 4(1), 59–77. doi:10.1504/EJIE.2010.02957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• COST Action TU 1406. (2015). Quality specifications for roadway bridges, standardisation at a European level [project]. Retrieved from http://www.tu1406.eu/about-tu1406/the-project
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, G., Ellis, D. R., & Stockton, W. R. (1999). Techniques for manually estimating road user costs associated with construction projects (Vol. 3). Texas, USA: Texas Transportation Institute. Retrieved from Texas Transportation website: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/cmd/407730.pdf
   Google Scholar
• de Almeida, A. T., Cavalcante, C. A. V., Alencar, M. H., Ferreira, R. J. P., de Almeida-Filho, A. T., & Garcez, T. V. (2015). Multicriteria and multiobjective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis (Vol. 231). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• de Almeida, A. T., Ferreira, R. J. P., & Cavalcante, C. A. V. (2015). A review of the use of multicriteria and multi-objective models in maintenance and reliability. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, 26(3), 249–271. doi:10.1093/imaman/dpv010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bruyn, S., Korteland, M., Markowska, A., Davidson, M., de Jong, F., Bles, M., & Sevenster, M. (2010). Valuation and weighting of emissions and environmental impacts. In Shadow prices handbook. Delft: CE Delft. 10.7788.25a ENG .
   Google Scholar
• Deterne, J. (2010). Report on BEXPRAC. Conference of European Directors of Roads.
   Google Scholar
• Dong, Y., Frangopol, D. M., & Sabatino, S. (2015). Optimizing bridge network retrofit planning based on cost-benefit evaluation and multi-attribute utility associated with sustainability. Earthquake Spectra, 31(4), 2255–2280. doi:10.1193/012214EQS015M
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Figueira, J. R., Greco, S., Roy, B., & Słowiński, R. (2013). An overview of ELECTRE methods and their recent extensions. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 20(1–2), 61–85. doi:10.1002/mcda.1482
   Google Scholar
• Frangopol, D. M., & Liu, M. (2007). Bridge network maintenance optimization using stochastic dynamic programming. Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(12), 1772–1782. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garmabaki, A. H. S., Ahmadi, A., & Ahmadi, M. (2016). Maintenance optimisation using multi-attribute utility theory. In U. Kumar, A. Ahmadi, A. K. Verma, & P. Varde (Eds.), Current trends in reliability, availability, maintainability and safety: An industry perspective (pp. 13-25). Lulea: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Guitouni, A., & Martel, J.-M. (1998). Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. European Journal of Operational Research, 109(2), 501–521. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00073-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hegger, S., & de Graaf, D. (2013). Vergelijkende LCA studie bruggen [LCA Comparative Study of bridges]. Rotterdam: BECO.
   Google Scholar
• Hens, T., & Rieger, M. O. (2010). Financial economics: A concise introduction to classical and behavioral finance. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hooks, J., & Frangopol, D. (2013). LTBP bridge performance primer (Report No. FHWA-HRT-13-051). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-attribute utility theory. In Multi-criteria decision analysis: Methods and software (pp. 81–113). John Wiley \ & Sons Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781118644898.ch4
   Google Scholar
• Ismaeel, M. (2016). Performance based budget allocation model for water networks. Concordia University. Retrieved from https://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/981481/
   Google Scholar
• Jano-Ito, M. A., & Crawford-Brown, D. (2017). Investment decisions considering economic, environmental and social factors: An actors’ perspective for the electricity sector of Mexico. Energy, 121, 92–106. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keeney, R. L., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2007). M13 practical value models. In W. Edwards, R. Miles, & D. von Winterfeldt (Eds.), Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications (pp. 232–252). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkwood, C. W. (1999). Strategic decision making: Multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets. Engineering Economist, 44(2), 208–211.
   Google Scholar
• Kouwenhoven, M., de Jong, G. C., Koster, P., van den Berg, V. A., Verhoef, E. T., Bates, J., & Warffemius, P. M. (2014). New values of time and reliability in passenger transport in the netherlands. Research in Transportation Economics, 47, 37–49. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krishnamurty, S. (2006). Normative decision analysis in engineering design. Decision Making in Engineering Design, 4(4), 21–33.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, H., & Markowitz, H. M. (1979). Approximating expected utility by a function of mean and variance. The American Economic Review, 69(3), 308–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LiCalzi, M., & Sorato, A. (2006). The pearson system of utility functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 172(2), 560–573. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.10.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. (2010). Representing risk preferences in expected utility based decision models. Annals of Operations Research, 176(1), 179–190. doi:10.1007/s10479-008-0381-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Middleton, M. R. (2006). Decision Analysis using Excel. San Francisco, CA: University of San Francisco. Retrieved from http://treeplan.com/chapters/modeling-attitude-toward-risk.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Min, H. (1994). International supplier selection: A multi-attribute utility approach. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 24(5), 24–33. doi:10.1108/09600039410064008
   Google Scholar
• Patidar, V. (2007). Multi-objective optimization for bridge management systems (Vol. 67). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
   Google Scholar
• Pujadas, P., Pardo-Bosch, F., Aguado-Renter, A., & Aguado, A. (2017). MIVES multi-criteria approach for the evaluation, prioritisation, and selection of public investment projects. A case study in the city of Barcelona. Land Use Policy, 64, 29–37. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rashidi, M., & Gibson, P. (2011). Proposal of a methodology for bridge condition assessment. Australasian Transport Research Forum, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1990a). Decision making for leaders: The analytic hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world (2nd ed.). University of Pittsburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1990b). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stipanovic, I., Høj, N., & Klanker, G. (2016). Multi-objective bridge performance goals. In Jaap Bakker , Dan M. Frangopol , & Klaas van Breugel (Ed.), Life-cycle of engineering systems: Emphasis on sustainable civil infrastructure (pp. 280–288). Delft, The Netherlands: CRCPress.
   Google Scholar
• Stratt, R. W. (2010). Bridge management a system approach for decision making. School of Doctoral Studies European Union Journal, 2, 67–108. doi:10.1504/IJFERM.2016.083010
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., Ivanković, A. M., Matos, J. C., & Casas, J. R. (2016). WG1, Technical Report, Performance Indicators for Roadway Bridges of Cost Action TU1406. Retrieved from TU1406 website: http://bit.ly/2pGnRGn
   Google Scholar
• Sun, B. (2016). Operational decision making for medical clinics through the use of simulation and multi-attribute utility theory (Electronic Thesis and Dissertations). Paper 2452. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/2452
   Google Scholar
• Tao, Z., Zophy, F., & Wiegmann, J. (2000). Asset management model and systems integration approach. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1719, 191–199.
   Google Scholar
• Thevenot, H. J., Steva, E. D., Okudan, G. E., & Simpson, T. W. (2006). A multi-attribute utility theory-based approach to product line consolidation and selection. In ASME 2006 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. 441–450). doi:10.1115/DETC2006-99506
   Google Scholar
• Thinkstep. (2015). Description of the CML 2001 method. Retrieved from http://www.gabi-software.com/support/gabi/gabi-lcia-documentation/cml-2001/
   Google Scholar
• Tighe, S., Eng, P., & McCabe, B. (2005). Incorporating user delay cost in project selection: A Canadian case study. In 1st Annual Inter-University Symposium on Infrastructure Management. Waterloo, ON.
   Google Scholar
• TNO-MEP. (2004). Toxiciteit heeft zn prijs [Toxicity has its price]. The Netherlands: Rijkswaterstaat, Ministry of Transport and Water management.
   Google Scholar
• Triantaphyllou, E., Kovalerchuk, B., Mann, L., & Knapp, G. M. (1997). Determining the most important criteria in maintenance decision making. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 3(1), 16–28. doi:10.1108/13552519710161517
   Google Scholar
• Van Dam, K. H., Nikolic, I., & Lukszo, Z. (2012). Agent-based modelling of socio-technical systems (Vol. 9). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1945). Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., & Goodrum, P. M. (2005). Use of conceptual road user costs for a rapid roadway construction decision making system. In Construction Research Congress 2005: Broadening Perspectives (pp. 1–11). San Diego, CA
   Google Scholar
• Wardman, M., Chintakayala, P., de Jong, G., & Ferrer, D. (2012). European wide meta-analysis of values of travel time. University of Leeds, Paper prepared for EIB, ITS.
   Google Scholar