Article

Received 24.07.2022

Revised 10.11.2022

Accepted 15.12.2022

Retrieved from Iss. 112, 2022

Pages 53 -61

Davydenko, O. (2022). ANALYSIS OF THE WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL CONDITION OF BRIDGES BY THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS. Automobile Roads and Road Construction, (112), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.33744/0365-8171-2022-112-053-061

ANALYSIS OF THE WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL CONDITION OF BRIDGES BY THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

Oleksandr Davydenko

In the system of operation of the transport structures of the highway network of Ukraine, the ranking of bridges as necessary for repairs is determined according to the rating formula of the technical condition. The integral formalized rating assessment was adopted in the system of operation of the highway bridges of Ukraine under the normative document DSTU-N BV.3-23: 2012 (DSTU 9181: 2022 from 01.01.2023). Transport structures. Guidelines for evaluation and prediction of the technical condition of highways. The weight coefficients of the group of bridge elements are components of the formula on which the direction depends on the assignment of the technical condition. Obtaining normalized weight ratios are insufficient and require justification. In practice, there has yet to be an established procedure for creating hierarchies. First, the generation of goals and criteria for hierarchies depends on the industry and the tasks the author chooses to decompose a complex system. In our study, a complex system is a transport structure with seven groups of elements for the bridge through a water obstacle with regulatory structures; six groups of elements for the bridge without regulatory structures; Five groups of elements for the overpass. Three groups of elements: run structure, support, and supporting parts, foundations are the necessary elements of the bridge

highway bridge, expert rating, hierarchy, weight coefficients, reciprocal matrix, pairwise comparison matrix, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), technical condition
  1. DSTU-N B V.2.3-23:2012. (2012). Transport structures. Guide to assessment and forecasting of the technical condition of highway bridges. Kyiv: Ministry of Regional Development, Construction and Housing and Communal Services of Ukraine.
  2. Barzilai, J., Cook, W.D., & Golany, B. (1992). The analytic hierarchy process: Structure of the problem and its solutions. In F.Y. Phillips & J.J. Rousseau (Eds.), Systems and management science by extremal methods (pp. 361-371). Boston: Springer US.
  3. Saaty, T.L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281.
  4. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill International Book Co.
  5. Saaty, R.W. (1987). The analytic hierarchy process – what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5), 161-176.
  6. Xu, K., & Xu, J. (2019). A direct consistency improvement method for the probability-hesitant analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Access, 7, 9445-9458.
  7. Zhang, H., et al. (2016). Analyzing Saaty’s consistency test in pairwise comparison method: A perspective based on linguistic and numerical scale. Soft Computing, 22(6), 1933-1943.
  8. Saaty, T.L. (2001). Deriving the AHP 1-9 scale from first principles. In Proceedings of the International symposium on the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh: Creative Decisions Foundation.
  9. Synenko, M. (2018). Saaty’s method decision-making on the example of a small business enterprise. Business and Intellectual Capital, Intelekt XXI.

https://doi.org/10.33744/0365-8171-2022-112-053-061