2020
DOI: 10.3390/app10020498
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling the Optimal Maintenance Scheduling Strategy for Bridge Networks

Abstract: An optimal maintenance scheduling strategy for bridge networks can generate an efficient allocation of resources with budget limits and mitigate the perturbations caused by maintenance activities to the traffic flows. This research formulates the optimal maintenance scheduling problem as a bi-level programming model. The upper-level model is a multi-objective nonlinear programming model, which minimizes the total traffic delays during the maintenance period and maximizes the number of bridges to be maintained … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lee et al (2016) assessed multiple types of budget and greenhouse gas emission constraints and used a bilevel solution method, wherein the lower level was solved by dynamic programming, while the upper level was fixed by a Lagrangian dual. Mao et al (2020) introduced a repair schedule problem for a bridge network and utilized a bilevel solution method, wherein the lower traffic assignment problem was solved by existing methods, while the upper repair schedule problem was addressed by simulated annealing. Guo et al (2020) considered the cost uncertainty, path dependence, and budget constraint of the entire road network and used a bilevel-like solution method, which was a two-stage bottom-up method, to solve the problem.…”
Section: Review Of Solution Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lee et al (2016) assessed multiple types of budget and greenhouse gas emission constraints and used a bilevel solution method, wherein the lower level was solved by dynamic programming, while the upper level was fixed by a Lagrangian dual. Mao et al (2020) introduced a repair schedule problem for a bridge network and utilized a bilevel solution method, wherein the lower traffic assignment problem was solved by existing methods, while the upper repair schedule problem was addressed by simulated annealing. Guo et al (2020) considered the cost uncertainty, path dependence, and budget constraint of the entire road network and used a bilevel-like solution method, which was a two-stage bottom-up method, to solve the problem.…”
Section: Review Of Solution Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The optimization problem about the losses turns into a maintenance sequence planning issue. Mao et al 32 . considered the optimal maintenance scheduling problem as a bi‐level programming model, and the proposed bi‐level model was transformed into an equivalent single‐level model.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Genetic algorithm was applied to find the optimal maintenance plans by accommodating the performance requirements and tight budget constraints. Mao et al (2020) designed an optimal maintenance scheduling strategy that was formulated in the form of two levels. The upper level incorporated a multi-objective non-linear programming model, which aimed at minimizing the total traffic delays during the maintenance period and maximizing the total number of bridges to be repaired.…”
Section: Optimization-based Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The urgency scale was defined according to the physical condition of the bridge deck while the total prioritization scale was constructed as a result of integration of the normalized values of performance, economic and criticality scales. It is worth mentioning that most of the prioritization and maintenance optimization models are deterministic and don't model the inherent uncertainties of the construction process, which usually don't lead to optimal solutions (Mao et al, 2020;Wu et al, 2017). Also, some of the maintenance prioritization models were mainly driven by preferences of domain experts and subjective rankings, which may not be necessarily applicable to be generalized to be applied elsewhere (Safa et al, 2014;Jahan et al, 2012).…”
Section: Multi-criteria Decision Making-based Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%