International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials

  • 제6권2호
  • /
  • Pages.87-100
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 1976-0485(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-1315(eISSN)
한국콘크리트학회 (Korea Concrete Institute)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

AHP-Based Evaluation Model for Optimal Selection Process of Patching Materials for Concrete Repair: Focused on Quantitative Requirements

  • Do, Jeong-Yun (Research Institute for Environment and Construction, Kunsan National University) ;
  • Kim, Doo-Kie (Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Kunsan National University)
  • 투고 : 2012.03.14
  • 심사 : 2012.05.21
  • 발행 : 2012.06.30
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The process of selecting a repair material is a typical one of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems. In this study Analytical Hierarch Process was applied to solve this MCDM problem. Many factors affecting a process to select an optimal repair material can be classified into quantitative and qualitative requirements and this study handled only quantitative items. Quantitative requirements in the optimal selection model for repair material were divided into two parts, namely, the required chemical performance and the required physical performance. The former is composed of alkali-resistance, chloride permeability and electrical resistivity. The latter is composed of compressive strength, tensile strength, adhesive strength, drying shrinkage, elasticity and thermal expansion. The result of the study shows that this method is the useful and rational engineering approach in the problem concerning the selection of one out of many candidate repair materials even if this study was limited to repair material only for chloride-deteriorated concrete.

키워드

과제정보

연구 과제 주관 기관 : National Research Foundation of Korea

참고문헌

  1. ACI546.3R-06. (2006). Guide to the selection of materials for the repair of concrete.
  2. ACI546R-04. (2004). Concrete Repair Guide, 2004.
  3. ACI548.1R. (2004). Guide for the use of polymers in concrete.
  4. ACI201.2R. (2004). Guide to Durable Concrete.
  5. Al-Zahrani, M., et al. (2003). Mechanical properties and durability characteristics of polymer-and cement-based repair materials. Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(4) 527- 537.
  6. Ashby, M. (2000). Multi-objective optimization in material design and selection. Acta Materialia, 48(1), 359-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6454(99)00304-3
  7. Ashby, M. F. (2005). Materials selection in mechanical design, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  8. Ashby, M. F., & Johnson, K. (2002). Materials and design: The art and science of material selection. In Product design (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  9. Bamkin, R., & Piearcey, B. (1990). Knowledge-based material selection in design. Materials and Design, 11(1), 25-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3069(90)90086-Y
  10. Beushausen, H. D., & Alexander, M. (2007). Performance of concrete patch repair systems. Advances in Construction Materials 2007, 255-262.
  11. Chawalwala, A. F. (1999). Material characteristics of polymer concrete. Technical Report, University of Delaware Center of Composite Materials.
  12. Chen, R.W., et al. (1994). A systematic methodology of material selection with environmental considerations. Electronics and the Environment, IEEE International Symposium, Pittxburgh, PA, May 1994, pp. 252-257.
  13. Cusson, D., & Mailvaganam, N. (1996). Durability of repair materials, Concrete International-Design and Construction, 18(3), 34-38.
  14. Danish Standards Association (2004). Repair of concrete structures to EN 1504. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  15. Do, J. (2009). Performance configuration and optimal selection of patching repair materials for concrete structure using AHP, 1st Asia Pacific Young Researchers and Graduates Symposium, Kunsan, pp. 43-51.
  16. Edward, C. (2007). Concrete design, service life and repair strategy: A new European standard.
  17. Emmons, P. P. H. (1995). Performance criteria for concrete repair materials. Phase 1, DTIC Document.
  18. Emmons, P. P. et al. (2000). Selecting durable repair materials, performance criteria. Concrete International, 22(3), 38-46.
  19. EN1504-series. (2002). Products and systems for protection and repair of concrete structure. Definitions, requirements, quality concrol and evaluation of conformity.
  20. Fitch, P. P. E., & Cooper, J. S. (2004). Life cycle energy analysis as a method for material selection. Journal of Mechanical Design, 126(4), 798-804. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1767821
  21. Holloway, L. (1998). Materials selection for optimal environmental impact in mechanical design. Materials and Design, 19(4), 133-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3069(98)00031-4
  22. ICRINo. 320.2R. (2009). Guide for selecting and specifying materials for repair of concrete surfaces.
  23. ICRINo.320.1R. (1996). Guide for selecting application methods for the repair of concrete surfaces.
  24. ICRINo.330.1. (2006). Guide for the selection of strengthening systems for concrete structures.
  25. Ishii, K. (1996). Material selection issues in design for recyclability. The Second International EcoBalnce Conference, Tsukuba, Japan.
  26. Jalham, I. S. (2006). Decision-making integrated information technology (IIT) approach for material selection. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 25(1), 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCAT.2006.008669
  27. Jee, D. H., & Kang, K. J. (2000). A method for optimal material selection aided with decision making theory. Materials and Design, 21(3), 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3069(99)00066-7
  28. Keoleian, G. A. et al. (2005). Life cycle modeling of concrete bridge design: Comparison of engineered cementitious composite link slabs and conventional steel expansion joints. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:1(51)
  29. Kosednar, J., & Mailvaganam N. P. P. (2005). Selection and use of polymer-based materials. In the repair of concrete structures. Journal of performance of constructed facilities, 10(3) 229-233.
  30. Liao, T. W. (1996). A fuzzy multicriteria decision-making method for material selection. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 15(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-6125(96)84211-7
  31. Mailvaganam, N. P. P. (2001). Concrete repair and rehabilitation, issues and trends. Indian Concrete Journal, 75(12), 759-764.
  32. McDonald, J., et al. (2000). Development of performance criteria for dimensionally compatible cement-based repair materials. ACI Special Publications, 193, 441-458.
  33. Nabhan, F. (2007). Selection of repair materials using expert advice. Indian Concrete Journal, 81(6), 51-54.
  34. Rao, R. V. (2006). A material selection model using graph theory and matrix approach. Materials Science and Engineering, 431(12), 248-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2006.06.006
  35. Rao, R. V. (1954). A decision making methodology for material selection using an improved compromise ranking method. Materials and Design, 29(10), 1949-1954.
  36. Rao, R. & Davim, J. (2008). A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 35(7), 751-760. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-006-0752-7
  37. Raupach, M. (2006). Concrete repair according to the new European standard EN 1504. Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
  38. Rizzo, E. M., & Sobelman M. B. (1989). Selection criteria for concrete repair materials. Concrete International, 11(9), 46-49.
  39. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw- Hill, New York.
  40. Saaty, T. L. (1990). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation (Decision-Making Series). New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
  41. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision, The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
  42. Saaty, T. L. (1994). Fundamentals of decision making. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
  43. Saaty, T. L. (1994). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26.
  44. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
  45. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas L. G. (1987). Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 32(1), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(87)90275-X
  46. Sapuan, S. (2001). A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. Materials and Design, 22(8), 687-695. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3069(00)00108-4
  47. Shanian, A., & Savadogo, O. (2006). A material selection model based on the concept of multiple attribute decision making. Materials and Design, 27(4), 329-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2004.10.027
  48. Singh, V. (2005). Selection of polymers for repair and rehabilitation of RC structures. Indian Concrete Journal, 10 35-38.
  49. Sirisalee, P. P., et al. (2004). Multi-criteria material selection in engineering design. Advanced Engineering Materials, 6(12), 84-92. https://doi.org/10.1002/adem.200300554
  50. Smith, R. L., Bush R. J., & Schmoldt D. L. (1997). The selection of bridge materials utilizing the analytical hierarchy process, Notes.
  51. Smith, R. L., Bush R. J., & Schmoldt D. L. (1995). A hierarchical model and analysis of factors affecting the adoption of timber as a bridge material. Wood and Fiber Science, 27(3), 225-238.
  52. Smith, W. F., & Hashemi J. (2006). Foundations of materials science and engineering (4th ed.). New York: Mcgraw Hill.
  53. Steeves, C. A., & Fleck N. A. (2004). Material selection in sandwich beam construction. Scripta Materialia, 50(10), 1335-1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.02.015
  54. Stuart, J. A., & Sommerville, R. M. (1998). Materials selection for life cycle design. IEEE.
  55. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process, An overview of applications. European journal of operational research, 169(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
  56. Vargas, L. G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 18(1), 2-8.
  57. Vaysburd, A., et al. (2000). Performance criteria for selection of repair materials. ACI Special Publications, 192, pp. 931-948.
  58. Vaysburd, A. et al. (2000). Selecting durable repair materials, performance criteria-field studies. Concrete International, 22(12), 39-45.
  59. Vokurka, R. J., Choobineh, J., & Vadi, L. (1996). A prototype expert system for the evaluation and selection of potential suppliers. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(12), 106-127. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579610151788
  60. Yurdakul, M. (2004). AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 146(3), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2003.11.026
  61. Zahedi, F. (1986). The analytic hierarchy process: A survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 16, 96-108.
  62. Zahedi, F. (1986). The analytic hierarchy process: A survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 16(4), 96-108. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.16.4.96
  63. Zhou, C. C., Yin, G. F., & Hu, X. B. (2009). Multi-objective optimization of material selection for sustainable products, artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm approach. Materials and Design, 30(4), 1209-1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2008.06.006

피인용 문헌

  1. MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING IN CIVIL ENGINEERING. PART II - APPLICATIONS vol.7, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3846/2029882x.2016.1139664
  2. Green material selection for sustainability: A hybrid MCDM approach vol.12, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177578
  3. Evaluation of the Compatibility of Repair Materials for Concrete Structures vol.11, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-017-0208-5
  4. Decision Support Model for Design of High-Performance Concrete Mixtures Using Two-Phase AHP-TOPSIS Approach vol.2019, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1696131
  5. Selection of Sustainable Supplementary Concrete Materials Using OSM-AHP-TOPSIS Approach vol.2019, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2850480
  6. Development of a Novel Magnetic Brake Shoe for Mine Hoists Based on Nano-Fe3O4 and Nd-Fe-B Additive vol.13, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.2174/1872210513666190308133036
  7. 비용효율을 고려한 자기 충전형 콘크리트의 CCD 실험설계법 및 가중 다목적성 기반 다목적설계최적화(MODO) vol.24, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.11112/jksmi.2020.24.3.26
  8. Assessment of effective patching material for concrete bridge deck -A review vol.293, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123520
  9. Optimal Selection of High-Performance Concrete for Post-Tensioned Girder Bridge Using Advanced Hybrid MCDA Method vol.14, pp.21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14216553