You are on page 1of 15

An analytical

The use of an analytical hierarchy
hierarchy process in pavement process

maintenance priority ranking
Rezqallah H. Ramadhan, Hamad I. Al-Abdul Wahhab and
Salih O. Duffuaa
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia

Keywords Analytical hierarchy process, Priority rules, Saudi Arabia
Abstract This paper describes the use of an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in determining the
rational weights of importance of pavement maintenance priority ranking factors. These weights
were obtained by capturing the local people’s perception towards this vital part of the pavement
management system (PMS). In this regard, different groups of individuals were asked to estimate
the weight of importance in pavement maintenance of different factors for ranking pavement
sections. These factors were road class, pavement condition, operating traffic, riding quality, safety
condition, maintenance cost, and the overall importance of the road section to the community. The
AHP method of pair-wise comparison was employed to get the factor weights, which were compared
with the weights obtained from the direct assignment method. It was concluded that the two
methods were statistically similar which confirms that the results of the direct assignment method
can be used safely with a sound reliability and consistency. This conclusion comes from the fact that
the AHP method has a high reputation and applications, and it uses a high-precision technique for
obtaining the weights (priorities) of alternatives or items. Priority factor weights were used in
developing a pavement maintenance priority ranking procedure for a road network. This procedure
was validated by real case studies, and found to be logically and efficiently able to handle the ranking
of a huge number of pavement sections for maintenance and repair.

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

1989. for dealing with complex technological. factorial rating method. 1993). and (2) optimization methods. A useful feature of the AHP is its applicability to the measurement of intangible criteria along with the tangible ones through a ratio scale. economic.1 setting can directly influence the effectiveness of available resources that are. It is an approach. (1994).JQME the final decision on maintenance program execution. These methods can be divided into two broad groups: (1) ranking methods.. The priority index (PI) used in this study for pavement maintenance priority has the following form: (1) where: PI = Priority index for any section (out of 100). The ranking methods are subdivided into those based on a composite index determination and those based on economics (Karan. The analytical hierarchy process method One of the methods used to scale and quantify measurements is the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The quality of priority 5. Each of these factors has a specific weight of importance to the priority rank. etc. Delphi method. The composite index method considers several factors that affect the priority rank. pavement function. Different approaches can be used to develop a priority-combined index for pavements. and sociopolitical problems. 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. In AHP. a . developed by Saaty in the 1970s. AHP aims at quantifying relative priorities for a given set of alternatives on a ratio scale (Saaty. 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. and it has been applied by many researchers (Chen et al. traffic level. the primary judgment of the decision maker (Sharaf.0. These approaches include the unique sum approach. 1993. and fuzzy set theory (Zhang et al. 1993). Fj = Factor “j” value (out of 100). Composite index ranking method The composite maintenance priority index was the method selected for this study. 1982). utility theory. This method is relatively simple and gives close to optimal results. Saaty and Vargas. Sharaf. Wj = Factor “j” weight of importance to priority ranking. in most cases. 1994. 1993). KFUPM-RI. Nigyuan and Haas. Examples of these different methods are detailed in Haas et al. and ΣWj = 1. 1984).. 1990.

a nine-point scale will be sufficient to do the comparisons between items. 27 Compromises between adjacent attributes can be made when greater precision is needed. the major drawback in the use of AHP is the effort required to make all pair-wise comparisons (Millet and Harker. indifference. This scale can be defended for the following reasons (Saaty. As the size of the hierarchy increases. and acceptance. and absolute. (3) The human brain has a psychological limit for simultaneous comparisons of 7 ± 2 items. the number of required pair-wise comparisons increases exponentially. Once accepted and followed. and that the subjective consideration is quantified in a structured framework. weak. Therefore. However. The AHP differs from other conventional scoring methods in the following (Hagquist. 1990). and knowledge to structure the hierarchy of the problem. experience. each of these is subdivided into a trichotomy of low. AHP has many advantages over conventional scoring methods such as an increase in accuracy and consistency. (4) AHP combines both objective measures and subjective preferences in the form of criteria weights. medium. strong. 1990): (1) The human ability to make qualitative distinctions is well represented by five attributes: equal. very strong. the AHP shows how to connect elements of one part of the problem with those of another to obtain the combined outcome (Saaty.ratio scale between one and nine is used to give the relative preference between An analytical two alternatives. only the objectives (facts) are quantified. 1987). (2) AHP uses one-to-one comparisons to assign criteria importance weights. 1994): (1) AHP uses a set of one-to-one comparisons to evaluate alternatives under each criterion. It depends on imagination. Typically. and experience to provide judgments. These pair-wise comparisons are the smallest in decisions. intuition. (3) AHP does alternative comparisons and criteria weighting in separate steps. The AHP incorporates judgments and personal values in a logical way. The totality requires nine values and they may be consecutive. For finer classification. This mind capacity has something to do with the number of fingers. It also depends on logic. (2) There is a practical method often used to evaluate items by classifying the stimuli into a trichotomy of regions: rejection. and high. Also the AHP is complex in terms of a higher level of detail required by the evaluators when asked for their preferences . 1982). resulting in nine shades of meaningful distinctions. This scale is able to capture a great deal of information and hierarchy has proven to be extremely useful due to the fact that the AHP is somewhat process scale independent (Harker and Vargas.

the last two criteria are judged to be ordinal (qualitative). If aij = α. accident level. prioritization). In pavement management. Since roads can be ranked according to riding comfort or disruption. 1990) When a group of activities (factors) are considered for evaluation by a group of people.JQME and opinions. The basic feature of this model is that. and since the data regarding vehicle operating costs are difficult to obtain. projects or sections) to be evaluated. predicted future traffic. These facts make the sections’ comparison based on a nine-point scale for several criteria rather a difficult task. They developed a multiple criteria composite index for evaluating a set of alternatives relative to a combination of ordinal (qualitative) and cardinal (quantitative) criteria. then aji = 1/α. In this modeling several factors were considered such as the pavement condition index (PCI). 28 Another contribution in using AHP in pavement prioritization is the work done by Cook and Kress (1994). percentage of commercial vehicles. vehicle operating costs. present traffic. and in a pavement network there are a huge number of sections considered for evaluation. for a given number of alternatives N (e. The quantified judgment on pairs of activities ci. If C i is judged to be of equal relative importance as C j . for project-level evaluations where a few sections are to be considered simultaneously.g. then aij = aji = 1. numerical values are available. Principles and background of AHP (Saaty. Rule 2. Thus the matrix A has the form: (3) . α ≠ 0.g. the main objectives of this group are: (1) to provide judgment on the relative importance of these activities. and (2) to insure that the judgments are quantified to an extent which also permits a quantitative interpretation of the judgment among these activities (factors). However. and cj are represented by an n- by-n matrix (2) The entries aij are defined by the following entry rules: Rule 1. and riding disruption.1 any modeling process (e. AHP is an effective method for analysis. Obviously aii = 1 for all i. a relative set of K1 ordinal and K2 cardinal criteria are established. usually many factors are considered in 5. This model has been incorporated in a menu-driven software package called a multi-attribute ranking system (MARS). In all but the last two criteria.

. Weight vector calculation In mathematical terms. To reduce the excessive computing time needed to solve the problem exactly. what is left is to assign to the n contingencies C1.. . To find the priority vector or the weight of each factor included in the priority ranking analysis. w2. normalize the column). and so on.. If the first component of this vector is divided by the first component of the estimated solution vector W. Having recorded An analytical the quantified judgments of comparisons on pairs (Ci. The elements in each resulting row are added and the sum is divided by the number of the elements in the row. W (equation 4 or 5) obtaining a new vector W′ (equation 6). Cn a set process of numerical weights w1. the 29 eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue is to be determined from matrix analysis.. the second component of W′ by the second component of W.. Mathematically. Cj) as numerical entries aij in hierarchy the matrix A. One of the approximation methods to get the weight of each factor in the pair-wise comparison process is described below. and when normalized becomes the vector of priorities (weights). An approximate calculation method for the principle eigenvalue. This is a process of averaging over the normalized columns. the principle eigenvector is computed. C2 . wn that should reflect the recorded judgments. this process is shown below: (4) or in general: (4a) where aij is the entry of row i and column j in a comparison matrix of order n.where the aij is the relative importance of activity i to activity j. C3 . a new vector W′′ is created (equation 7). a good estimate of that vector can be obtained by dividing the elements of each column in the comparison matrix by the sum of that column (i. λmax is as follows: the matrix of comparisons is multiplied on the right by the estimated solution vector. and due to the results of complex numbers.e. Mathematically λmax comes from the following equations: (5) .. The sum of components of W′′ divided by the number of components in this vector gives an approximation value of λmax (equation 8).. w3 . and the eigenvalue is a measure of consistency. The eigenvector of the comparison matrix provides the priority ordering (weight).

where λmax ≥ n. If the numerical value of the judgment (comparison) in the (2. maintenance cost. as shown later. It is possible to estimate the departure of consistence (inconsistency) by the difference “λmax-n” divided by “n-1”. only n-1 pair-wise comparison judgments are needed. The value of (λmax-n)/(n-1) which is called a consistency index (CI). pavement condition. and the overall importance of road section to community. riding quality. 1990). For example. This index is further used to calculate the consistency rating (RI) as detailed in (Saaty. In this study. 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. . all other data can be logically deduced from them.1 or (6a) 30 (7) (8) Comparison matrix consistency Consistency in the pair-wise comparison matrix means that when basic data are available. It should follow that 3A2 = 6A3 or A2 = 2A3 and A3=1/2A2. then the matrix would be inconsistent. safety condition. then A1 = 3A2. if activity A1 is threee times more important than factor A2 and factor A1 is six times more important than factor A3 .3) position is different than 2. In doing a pair- wise comparison to relate n activities or factors so that each one is represented in the data at least once. and A1 = 6A3. 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. The evaluation of these factors was done by quantifying them and assigning an index (out of 100) to each one according to logic and engineering background as detailed by Ramadhan (1997). operating traffic. Evaluation of priority factors The factors included in this study were road class.JQME (6) 5. It turns out that the consistency of a positive reciprocal matrix is equivalent to the requirement that its maximum eigenvalue λmax should be equal to the number of factors “n”.10 or less is considered acceptable. A consistency rating of 0. and as shown in Tables I and II.

c OT: operating traffic in vehicles per day. d RQ: riding quality index (out of 100). maintenance priority g See Table II below. Table I. b PC: condition index (out of 100). MCOST: maximum incurred Evaluation of pavement maintenance cost in the network under study. VIP usage. f MC: maintenance cost index (out of 100). factors Sub-factor Level Index Road class See (1) above – Road is passing through CBD? Yes 100 No 0 Road is near official building or used by VIPs? Yes 100 No 0 Operating traffic (ADT) See (3) above – Table II. MADT: maximum ADT incurred in the study network. The overall importance factor is calculated using similar methodology of determining the priority index using the following equation: . SN: skid number (out of 100) measured by any skid resistance measuring equipment such as Mu meter. PCI: pavement condition index determined by any condition survey methods (out of 100). e SC: safety condition index (out of 100). collector = 50. operating traffic. arterial without alternatives = 100. and local = 25. PR: pavement roughness in cm/km. It was quantified by the following sub-factors: road class. this factor is one of the non-measurable maintenance priority factors. alternative roads at maintenance time. measured by any roughness measuring equipment such as bump integrator.Factor Tool used An analytical hierarchy Road class RC indexa process Pavement condition PC = 100-PCIb Operating traffic OT = 100*(ADT/MADT)c Riding quality RQ = 100* (RI/MRI)d Safety condition SC = 100-SNe 31 Maintenance cost MC = 100* (1-COST/MCOST)f Importance to community See g below Notes: a RC: road class index (out of 100). arterial with alternatives = 75. and other public road utilization factors. Availability of alternative roads during maintenance? No 100 Sub-factor values Yes 0 determination for Road is near other important public centers? Yes 100 importance to No 0 community factor Importance to community – road utilization In this study. ADT: average daily traffic. distance from center business district (CBD). MPR: maximum allowable pavement roughness in cm/km.

32 SWi = weight of importance of the sub-factor. highway and pavement maintenance department officials (managers) and engineers. Only one-half of the pair-wise comparison needs to be entered since the other half is the reciprocal of the entered one. . special spreadsheets were prepared to calculate the factor weights of importance. i. Mean and standard deviation values for all factors and sub- factors were determined. IF = importance to community factor value (out of 100).1 where. weights of importance (out of 1. Part I was for collecting the respondent’s opinion about the weight of importance of the seven priority factors. λmax. 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.0. Data collection The information needed for this study was the priority factor weights as determined by different groups of people using the road network. For this purpose. and ordinary road users. Table IV shows another typical example for the individual weight of importance calculation. The individuals included in the survey were: academics in the area of traffic. pavement maintenance.JQME (9) 5. In these two parts. Tables III and IV show typical examples of one data entry for priority factor weight determination.00) for all factors or individual group. and ordinary people in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were included in this survey. consistency index (CI). highway. The procedure followed in the preparation of this questionnaire was detailed in Ramadhan (1997). 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. Part II was to quantify the “importance of road to community” factor. governmental and private pavement agencies. municipalities. pavement maintenance supervisors and technicians. consistency rating (CR) are reported. and ΣSWi = 1. i. qualified non-pavement individuals. Universities. by assigning importance weights for the six sub-factors. The data of Parts I and II were entered into spreadsheet files for processing and analysis. For Parts III and IV. 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. SFi = value of sub-factor. and pavement management. Part III was designed for the AHP method to pair-wise compare all the seven factors considered in Part I. a specially designed questionnaire was prepared in four parts. In these two tables.

33 Factor 6 Maint.00 4.00 3.50 Factor 5 Safety condition 0.00 1.00 1.093 1.= calculation example 6.11 2.25 0.00 1.00 1.50 1.20 0.074 0.00 Group 6 Others 9.035 0.50 0.R.00 5.00 1.00 8.00 1.032 1.068 0.00 0. Eigenvector 0.00 0.99 Group 3 Engineers 2.I. = C.11 2.00 30. Eigenvector 0.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 9.50 4.00 1.50 0.00 Table III.33 0.00 1. Factor 7 hierarchy class condition traffic quality condition cost Importance Total process Factor 1 Road class 1.189 0.323 0.00 1.00 1.13 0.00 Factor 7 Importance 2. = C.50 1.50 0.000 Typical AHP Consistency λmax= C.00 2.25 0.00 3.00 4.00 0.25 12.00 2.092 0.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 1. Group 6 Academicians Managers Engineers Supervisors pavement Others Total Group 1 Academicians 1. cost 2.I.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 2.11 0.011 of Part IV .329 0.00 1.50 1.97 Group 2 Managers 1.00 0.009 of Part III Group 5 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Non.00 8.25 0.00 3.248 0.50 1.R.58 Group 5 Non-pavement 9.00 0. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 An analytical Road Pavement Operating Riding Safety Maint.00 6.014 0.17 5.50 1.00 2.33 4.00 Table IV.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 0.08 Factor 3 Operating traffic 1.33 0.33 0.70 Factor 4 Supervisors 4.000 Typical AHP Consistency λmax= C.012 0.00 Factor 2 33 Pavement condition 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 8.00 8.00 0.00 3.00 1.50 Factor 4 Riding quality 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.= calculation example 7.00 2.00 1.117 0.225 0.130 0.117 0.00 1.069 0.00 15.00 27.

1 6.1 65 Operating traffic 21.3 8. Data analysis Tables V-VII show the summary of all collected data of the survey in terms of average.6 8.7 1.7 5.7 2.5 30 Operating traffic 13. and replicates.4 6.4 6.5 30 Summary of the Maintenance cost 10. the consistency index “CI” and the consistency rating “CR” determine how consistent and repeatable the AHP pair-wise comparisons are.5 65 16.2 6.JQME The eigenvector column in Tables III and IV corresponds to the principle 5.9 5. Dev.4 8. N Road class 13.6 11. Dev. Safety condition 15.2 7.4 65 16. N Road class 16.8 30 Pavement condition 19.4 65 14.2 30 Riding quality 12.2 8.8 65 Used by VIB 17.0 65 16. Dev. Supervisors 10.6 6.6 11.5 5.3 5.6 10 collected data of Part IV Other road users 3. in the two figures. Further.1 65 Summary of the Distance from other collected data of Part II important building 16. the pavement condition and safety condition factors had the highest average Direct assignment method AHP method Factor Average St.8 8.5 65 13.6 30 Table V.5 7.9 10 Engineers 20. standard deviation. λmax which is determined using the equations 5 to 8 presented before.1 65 9.10 were considered 34 acceptable.4 5. Alternative at maintenance 13.1 65 Table VI.8 10 Table VII.4 65 13.1 eigenvalue.6 6.4 30 Direct assignment method Factor Average St.6 10 .1 8.0 0.5 6. is calculated according to equation 4.0 30 collected data of Parts I Importance to and III community 15.2 10 Managers 26. N Average St. Only those entries that had a consistency rating less than 0. and included in this study.2 65 AHP method Factor Average St.0 7.7 10 Summary of the Non-pavement qualified 4. In the direct assignment method. N Academicians 34. Dev. The eigenvector column.7 65 Distance from CBD 15.

Since the weightings are calculated based on pair-wise comparisons. This order is shown in Table V. as collected in Part IV of the data collection questionnaire. Table II shows that the importance to the community is quantified mostly by operating traffic followed by whether the road is used by VIPs or passes by important official locations. respectively. This agreement strengthens the direct assignment method since the AHP method is considered one of the pioneering psychometric-based methods for prioritization. engineers. 1997) was also used for this comparison. as Table V indicates. as discussed later. Furthermore. safety condition and importance to community factors had almost equal weightings of 16 per cent. in the AHP method the situation is different. which was a result of AHP pair-wise comparisons. etc. The maintenance cost process was the least important factor. This part of the data collection was not duplicated by the AHP method. 15.0 per cent for the direct assignment method and AHP method. in both methods. 5. the non-parametric statistical Kendall test of independence (STATISTICA. as measured by standard deviation.weightings. . AHP method collected data showed that pavement condition. which demonstrates the individual tendency to prefer assigning numbers ending with 0s and 5s such as 0. or not. and (2) checking the equality of the means of the two methods using the t-test (Montgomery. Only a few people used full-scale numbers between 0 to 9. in the direct assignment method. This preference is due to the fact that academicians are usually more exposed to new prioritization techniques. are extremely biased towards numbers ending with 0 and 5. non-pavement qualified. Another comparison between the two methods is shown in Figure 1. and ordinary road users. if they are not taking this responsibility.1 and 5. individuals. and pavement managers are mostly close to the maintenance priority decision makers. it was clear that people 35 closely agreed in rating the maintenance cost as the least important factor as measured by the standard deviations of 6. The results of Table V were for factor and sub-factor weight adjustment for individuals estimating the weightings. 1984). However. However. hierarchy among individuals about the pavement condition factor. The order of importance for the individual groups participating in the data collection was academics followed by pavement managers. Thus. The statistical comparison technique has two steps: (1) checking the equality of the variances of the two methods using the F- test. 10. the results did not show a numerical bias towards any specific number. Generally. These two comparisons showed that the results of the two methods are statistically similar with a positive correlation. supervisors. considerably above the other factors. and that the least important factor was the maintenance cost. This suggests that the AHP method can present subjective preferences with greater precision. An analytical there was a substantial disagreement.

CW2 = 0. and one to six for sub-factors). in the following manner: (10) where CWi = corrected overall weight of factor i. CW6 = 0.1 Percentage of total surveyed 50 40 30 36 20 10 Figure 1.143. CW4 = 0. .134.154. Corrected weights: CW1 = 0. 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 Factor weight adjustment The weights of importance of all priority factors’ as well as the sub-factor of importance to the community. Ej = individual experience factor for individual j. and CW7 = 0.205. the final form of the developed maintenance priority ranking procedure is: (11) where.125. are to be adjusted for the individual experience factor. i = factor number (one to seven for priority factors. CW5 = 0.JQME 60 5. as per the results obtained from Part IV of the data collection questionnaire. obtained from Table V. Final model form From the results of previous sections. CW3 = 0. Wj = factor weight as estimated by individual j.107.131. PI = priority index (out of 100). and j = individual number out of the total number of individuals n.

and F7 = Importance to community (IF) obtained the following sub-factor weights equation: (12) where. The assumption made. was that only those selected sections were in need of urgent maintenance and repair. and SW6 = 0. and all the situations considered in the model development. In these two case studies.215. Thus.139.77 and 0. On average.146. F4 = Riding quality (RQ). and the allocated funds for maintenance were not enough to cover all these sections. Model validation The priority ranking model was generated from the local experience and opinions of different people representing local perceptions regarding maintenance priority. SFi = Sub-factor values obtained from Table III and.95. SW2 = 0. To quantify this comparison. two case studies were considered. 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. therefore. The ranking results in the two case studies were also compared statistically using the non-parametric Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r s ). the results obtained from this model should compare with current adopted procedures based on engineering judgments. the developed procedure correlated with the engineering . process F2 = Pavement condition (PC). SW3 = 0. The sections in these case studies were selected to represent a complete range of all maintenance priority factors. It was found that the two cases had rs values of 0. 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.160. F3 = Operating traffic (OP). 37 F5 = Safety condition (SC). 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. in these two case studies.187. the priority procedure should be implemented to rank these sections. Fi are the priority factors that are evaluated as shown in Table III. F6 = Maintenance cost (MC). and considering the limitations in the engineering judgment.157. SW5 = 0. SW4 = 0. The association between the engineering judgment ranking and the one of the developed procedure was determined. and are as An analytical follows: hierarchy F1 = Road class. IF = Importance to community factor. Corrected weights: SW1 = 0.

and on the results of the comprehensive ranking procedure building and validation. 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. (4) Pavement condition had the highest weight of importance in priority ranking followed by safety condition. importance to community. Therefore. which can handle a relatively small number of pavement sections at the same time. riding quality. the surveyed individual groups – academicians. J. (5) The developed procedure can adequately and efficiently rank a huge number of pavement sections for maintenance. and all of these sections cannot be efficiently considered by the engineering judgment. operating traffic. (2) As measured by the AHP method. W. Transportation Research Board. the developed procedure can efficiently. T. References Chen. economically. Dossey. X. 103-11.1 correlation. unlike the engineering judgment. However. and systematically cope with any pavement network of any size. Therefore. Weissmann. DC. Generally the road networks consist of a very big number of pavement sections. 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. Conclusions Based on the processing and analysis of collected data. This agreement strengthens the direct assignment method since the AHP method is considered one of the pioneering psychometric-based methods of prioritization. road class. adjustment for this effect was necessary. and Hudson. which can be considered an acceptable level of 5. Transportation Research Record 1397. (1993). pp. Washington. . 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. (3) The AHP method did not show any numerical bias presented by the direct assignment method of data collection.. R. engineers. non-pavement qualified. and road users – showed statistically different results in their opinions regarding the priority factors’ weights. “URMS: a graphical urban roadway management system at network level”.JQME judgment was 86 per cent. where numbers ending with 0 and 5 were significantly presented.. and finally the maintenance cost.

11. MA. Decision Making for Leaders. Release 5. Vol.A. W. Management Sciences. 96-102.T. DC. and Kress. PhD dissertation. hierarchy Haas. Saaty. and Haas. Dhahran. . L. pp. “Municipal pavement management system”. Karan. R. pp. A Program of Study in Pavement Management. Ramadhan. E. 39 Harker. and Vargas.. University of Texas at Austin. pp. pp. I. Saaty. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. NY. Z. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM). STATISTICA Manual. 179- 90. pp. TX. Florida. “A multiple-criteria composite index model for quantitative and An analytical qualitative data”. 34-8. Transportation Research Board. P. Zhang. Dhahran. L.G. and Harker. pp. (1994). L. “Globally effective questioning in the analytic hierarchy process”. N. Hagquist. R. 48. (1997). (1994). Montgomery. (1982). Modeling of Pavement Condition and Maintenance Priority Ranking for Road Networks. M. DC. STATISTICA (1997). StatSoft. Logic of Priorities. Sharaf. Final Report. Programming Pavement Maintenance for Al-Jubail Road Network. W. L. T. R.L.T. Modern Pavement Management. European Journal of Operational Research. Hudson. T. (1994). (1990). (1993). Washington. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. “The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytical hierarchy process”. North Holland. Amsterdam. Lifetime Learning Publications. Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Managing Pavements.R. W. (1993). “High-precision prioritization using the analytical hierarchy process: determining state HPMS component weighting factors”. D. Transportation Research Board. J.L. Saaty.C. North Holland. “Comprehensive ranking index for flexible pavement using fuzzy sets model”. and Hudson.R. No. Kluwere Nijhoff Publishing. (1987). Transportation Research Board.G. (1994). Civil Engineering Department.H.Cook. 367-79.). Singh. Transportation Research Record 1397.). Kluwere Nijhoff Publishing.F. KFUPM-RI (1989). No. USA. pp. Vol. Transportation Research Board. 33 No. T. “Ranking versus simple optimization in setting pavement maintenance priorities: a case study from Egypt”.. New York. (second ed. Design and Analysis of Experiment. CA.D. Research Institute. Boston. John Wiley & Sons. RWS Publications. Saudi Arabia. 78. 1383-403. 7-14. Transportation Research Record 1397. Vol. “Special implementation of pavement management for large highway network in developing countries”. European Journal of Operational Research. PA. Pittsburgh. R. (1984). and Zaniewski. Texas. Belmont. M. Training Course Notes by the Center of Transportation Research. Transportation Research Record 1429. and Vargas. 88-98. P. (1984). Washington DC. I. Krieger process publishing company. Ningyuan. 1. Washington. (second ed. (1982). (1990). Millet.