Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Prioritize of Concrete Pavement

alireza Ameri

Authors

alireza Ameri

Keywords:

pavement: AHP, prioritize, CRCP, JPCP, PCP, JRCP

Abstract

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a structured technique for dealing with complex decisions that was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1980 year. It provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions. The base of this model is comparing variables by pair wise by Matrix relationship. In this way, pair wise of the effective variables on the concrete Pavement were considered and based on relative weights the output was extent. In the present research, combination of Indexing system Method with Analytical Hierarchy Process has been applied to assess the prioritize of concrete Pavement. By this process, classification and qualification of the numerous types of concrete Pavement would be accessible The findings of the research show that the Continuous Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) with (0/051) point promotes in first rank among 4 studied Pavements and thus it is the most appropriate Pavement , in contrast Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP) with (0/15) point goes down to the last rank. Prestressed Concrete Pavement (PCP) and Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP) with (0/015,0/017) points are located in next ranks

Downloads

How to Cite

Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for Prioritize of Concrete Pavement. (2013). Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 13(41), 19-28. https://socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/view/

Download Citation

References

J. Barzilai, W. Cook, B. Golany (1987) Consistent weights for judgements matrices of the relative importance of alternatives. 6(3), 131-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6377(87)90026-5

J. Barzilai, F. Lootsma (1997) Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART. 6(3), 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199705)6:3

Valerie Belton, Tony Gear (1983) Gear, on a shortcoming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. 11(3), 228-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(83)90047-6

Valerie Belton, Tony Gear (1985) The legitimacy of rank reversal-A comment. 13(3), 143-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(85)90052-0

L. Meade, A. Presley (2002) R&D project selection using the analytic network process. 49(1), 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.985748

James Dyer (1990) A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process". 36(3), 274-275. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.36.3.274

E. Forman (1990) AHP Is Intended for More Than Expected Value Calculations. 36, 671-673.

Patrick Harker, Luis Vargas (1987) The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process. 33(11), 1383-1403. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1383

Hamed Fazlollahtabar, Iraj Mahdavi (2009) User/tutor optimal learning path in e-learning using comprehensive neuro-fuzzy approach. 4(2), 142-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.001

Lawrence Leung, Dong Cao (2001) On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy. 132(1), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(00)00111-9

C. Hwang, K. Yoon (1981) 'Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications.

H. Mianabadi, A. Afshar (2008) "Multi attribute Decision Making to rank urban water supply Scheme" water and watershed journal, v19, n66. 34-45.

G. Limon, Y. Martinez (2006) Multi0criteria modeling of irrigation water Marked at basin level : aspsnish Case Study, Eropiangeornal of operational of Research. 313-336.

F. Lootsma (1993) Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. 2(2), 87-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.4020020205

Ido Millet, Thomas Saaty (2000) On the relativity of relative measures - accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. 121(1), 205-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00040-5

Prasanta Dey, Eugene Ramcharan (2000) Analytic hierarchy process helps select site for limestone quarry expansion in Barbados. 88(4), 1384-1395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.07.011

Reay-Chen Wang, Tien-Fu Liang (2004) Application of fuzzy multi-objective linear programming to aggregate production planning. 46(1), 17-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2003.09.009

Ramakrishnan Ramanathan (2006) Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. 33(5), 1289-1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2004.09.020

T. Saaty (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Thomas Saaty (1986) Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. 32(7), 841-855. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.841

Thomas Saaty (1987) Decision making, new information, ranking and structure.Mathematical Modelling. 8, 125-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/0270-0255(87)90555-0

Thomas Saaty (1994) Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. 74(3), 426-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90222-4

Thomas Saaty (1987) RANK GENERATION, PRESERVATION, AND REVERSAL IN THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY DECISION PROCESS. 18(2), 157-177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1987.tb01514.x

Thomas Saaty, Masahiro Takizawa (1986) Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. 26(2), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90184-0

T. Saaty, L. Vargas The legitimacy of rank reversal.

T. Saaty, L. Vargas, R. Wendell (1983) Assessing attribute weights by ratios. 11, 9-13.

Thomas Saaty, Luis Vargas (1993) Experiments on rank preservation and reversal in relative measurement. 17(4-5), 13-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-7177(93)90171-t

Bertram Schoner, William Wedley (1989) Ambiguous Criteria Weights in AHP: Consequences and Solutions*. 20(3), 462-475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1989.tb01561.x

Bertram Schoner, William Wedley, Eng Choo (1992) A rejoinder to Forman on AHP, with emphasis on the requirements of composite ratio scales.Decision Sciences. 23(2), 509-517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1992.tb00403.x

Bertram Schoner, William Wedley, Eng Choo (1993) A unified approach to AHP with linking pins. 64(3), 384-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90128-a

Bertram Schoner, Eng Choo, William Wedley (1997) A Comment on 'Rank Disagreement: A Comparison of Multi‐Criteria Methodologies'. 6(4), 197-200. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199707)6:4

T. Stewart A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice.

Evangelos Triantaphyllou (2001) Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. 10(1), 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.284

Marvin Troutt (1988) Rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function. 16(4), 365-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(88)90073-4

Luis Vargas (1994) Reply to Schenkerman's avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision support models. 74(3), 420-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(94)90221-6

H. Mianabadi, A. Afshar (2007) Fuzzy group Decision Making and its Application in water Resource Planning and Management. 12-13.

Mousavi, S. Chitsazan, M; Mirzaei, Y; Shaan, H. M; B Mohammadi (2010) 'Integrating remote sensing and GIS to find potential suitable areas for ground water. 3.

S. Watson, A. Freeling Assessing attribute weights.

S. Watson, A. Freeling (1983) Comment on: assessing attribute weights by ratios.