Soft Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 22, pp 7407–7421 | Cite as

Decision support model for the selection of asphalt wearing courses in highly trafficked roads

  • Daniel Jato-EspinoEmail author
  • Irune Indacoechea-Vega
  • László Gáspár
  • Daniel Castro-Fresno


The suitable choice of the materials forming the wearing course of highly trafficked roads is a delicate task because of their direct interaction with vehicles. Furthermore, modern roads must be planned according to sustainable development goals, which is complex because some of these might be in conflict. Under this premise, this paper develops a multi-criteria decision support model based on the analytic hierarchy process and the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution to facilitate the selection of wearing courses in European countries. Variables were modelled using either fuzzy logic or Monte Carlo methods, depending on their nature. The views of a panel of experts on the problem were collected and processed using the generalized reduced gradient algorithm and a distance-based aggregation approach. The results showed a clear preponderance by stone mastic asphalt over the remaining alternatives in different scenarios evaluated through sensitivity analysis. The research leading to these results was framed in the European FP7 Project “DURABROADS” (No. 605404).


AHP Fuzzy logic Monte Carlo methods Multi-criteria decision-making Road management TOPSIS 



The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant Agreement No. 605404. This paper reflects only the authors’ views, and the Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. The authors wish to thank the participants of the DURABROADS Work Package 2 (ACCIONA Infraestructuras S.A., European Union Road Federation and Inzenierbuve SIA) for their inestimable contribution to the research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abadie J, Carpentier J (1969) Generalization of the Wolfe reduced gradient method to the case of nonlinear constraints. In: Fletcher R (ed) Optimization. Academic Press, London (U.K.), pp 37–47Google Scholar
  2. Aczél J, Alsina C (1987) Synthesizing judgements: a functional equations approach. Math Model 9(3–5):311–320. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Aczél J, Saaty TL (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. J Math Psychol 27(1):93–102. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick J (2008) A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 187(3):1422–1428. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Benítez J, Delgado-Galván X, Izquierdo J, Pérez-García R (2012) Improving consistency in AHP decision-making processes. Appl Math Comput 219(5):2432–2441. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bian F, Cai H (2012) Choice of crack repairing material for asphalt pavement based on AHP. J Test Eval 40(7):1–4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bozóki S, Fülöp J, Koczkodaj WW (2011) An LP-based inconsistency monitoring of pairwise comparison matrices. Math Comput Model 54(1–2):789–793. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bozóki S, Rapcsák T (2008) On Saaty’s and Koczkodaj’s inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. J Global Optim 42(2):157–175. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK, Peldschus F, Turskis Z (2008) Multi-objective decision-making for road design. Transport 23(3):183–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BSI (2016) BS EN 13108 - Bituminous mixtures. Material specifications.
  11. Cafiso S, Di Graziano A, Kerali HR, Odoki JB (2002) Multicriteria analysis method for pavement maintenance management. Transp Res Rec 1816(1816):73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chai T, Draxler RR (2014) Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci Model Dev 7(3):1247–1250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang J, Chen D, Hung C (2005) Selecting preventive maintenance treatments in texas : using the technique for order preference by similarity to the ideal solution for specific pavement study-3 sites. Transp Res Rec 1933(1933):62–71Google Scholar
  14. Chehovits J, Galehouse L (2010) Energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions of pavement preservation processes for asphalt concrete pavements. National Centre for Pavement Preservation, OkemosGoogle Scholar
  15. Chou C (2003) The canonical representation of multiplication operation on triangular fuzzy numbers. Comput Math Appl 45(10–11):1601–1610. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Chou YT (1990) Reliability design procedures for flexible pavements. J Transp Eng 116(5):602–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collins F, Africa B (2017) Infrastructure development as a key driver of sustainable social and economic development. 24th Annual FIDIC-GAMA conference, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  18. Davis CF, Campbell GM (1995) Selection of pavement markings using multicriteria decision making. Transp Res Rec 1509(1509):28–37Google Scholar
  19. de Carvalho EP, dos Santos A, Ma TF (2008) Reduced gradient method combined with augmented lagrangian and barrier for the optimal power flow problem. Appl Math Comput 200(2):529–536. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Dijkstra TK (2013) On the extraction of weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Central Eur J Oper Res 21(1):103–123. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Đukicin Vuckovic S, Đordevic J, Milankovic Jovanov J, Ivanovic Bibic L, Protic B, Đordevic T, Ivkov M (2017) The development of transport infrastructure and attitudes of the local population: a case study from the republic of serbia. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish J Geogr. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. EAPA (2007) Long-life asphalt pavements-technical version. European Asphalt Pavement Association, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. EEA (2014) Adaptation of transport to climate change in Europe (No. 8). European Environment Agency, Luxembourg. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. European Comission (2014) Core network corridors (No. 13)Google Scholar
  25. European Commission (2006) Examples of assessed road safety measures. ROSEBUD 1:7–66Google Scholar
  26. Filippo S, Martins Ribeiro PC, Kahn Ribeiro S (2007) A fuzzy multi-criteria model applied to the management of the environmental restoration of paved highways. Transport Res Part D Transport Environ 12(6):423–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grzybowski AZ (2012) Note on a new optimization based approach for estimating priority weights and related consistency index. Expert Syst Appl 39(14):11699–11708. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grzybowski AZ (2016) New results on inconsistency indices and their relationship with the quality of priority vector estimation. Expert Syst Appl 43:197–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hammersley JM, Handscomb DC (1964) Monte carlo methods. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hammond GP, Jones CI (2008) Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proc Inst Civil Eng Energy 161(2):87–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jahanshahloo GR, Lotfi FH, Izadikhah M (2006) Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision-making problems with fuzzy data. Appl Math Comput 181(2):1544–1551. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Jato-Espino D, Rodriguez-Hernandez J, Andrés-Valeri VC, Ballester-Muñoz F (2014) A fuzzy stochastic multi-criteria model for the selection of urban pervious pavements. Expert Syst Appl 41(15):6807–6817. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jato-Espino D, Blanco-Fernandez E, Carpio-García J, Castro-Fresno D (2016) Decision aid system founded on nonlinear valuation, dispersion-based weighting and correlative aggregation for wire rope selection in slope stability cable nets. Expert Syst Appl 54:148–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Joumard R, Nicolas J (2010) Transport project assessment methodology within the framework of sustainable development. Ecol Ind 10(2):136–142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kao C (1998) Performance of several nonlinear programming software packages on microcomputers. Comput Oper Res 25(10):807–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim RY (2014) Asphalt pavements. CRC Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koczkodaj WW (1993) A new definition of consistency of pairwise comparisons. Mathe Comput Model 18(7):79–84. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Koczkodaj WW, Szarek SJ (2010) On distance-based inconsistency reduction algorithms for pairwise comparisons. Logic J IGPL 18(6):859–869. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Kucukvar M, Gumus S, Egilmez G, Tatari O (2014) Ranking the sustainability performance of pavements: an intuitionistic fuzzy decision making method. Autom Constr 40:33–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lasdon LS, Waren AD, Jain A, Ratner M (1978) Design and testing of a generalized reduced gradient code for nonlinear programming. ACM Trans Math Softw 4(1):34–50. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Lidicker J, Sathaye N, Madanat S, Horvath A (2013) Pavement resurfacing policy for minimization of life-cycle costs and greenhouse gas emissions. J Infrastruct Syst 19(2):129–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lin H (2010) An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Comput Educ 54(4):877–888. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Litzka J, Goger T, Malimban C (2008) Performance indicators for road pavements (No. 354). European Cooperation in Science and Technology, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  45. Microsoft Corporation (2013) MS excel 2013. Redmond, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63(2):81–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moretti L, Di Mascio P, D’Andrea A (2013) Environmental impact assessment of road asphalt pavements. Mod Appl Sci 7(11):1–11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nemry F, Demirel H (2012) Impacts of climate change on transport: a focus on road and rail transport infrastructure. Joint Research Centre (European Comission), Luxembourg. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nicholls JC, Carswell I, James DJ (2012) Durability of thin surfacing systems in the UK after nine years monitoring. 5th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume congress, Istanbul (Turkey) (P5EE-113), pp 1–12Google Scholar
  50. Nikolaides A (2008) Very thin surfacing: a beneficial and cost effective alternative to traditional surfacing materials for flexible pavements. 1st ICTI China Beijing, Beijing (China), pp 131–140Google Scholar
  51. Nikolaides A (2014) Highway engineering: pavements, materials and control of quality. CRC Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Noori M, Tatari O, Nam B, Golestani B, Greene J (2014) A stochastic optimization approach for the selection of reflective cracking mitigation techniques. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 69:367–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. OECD (2005) Economic evaluation of long-life pavements. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  54. Peláez JI, Lamata MT (2003) A new measure of consistency for positive reciprocal matrices. Comput Math Appl 46(12):1839–1845. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. Sandberg U, Kragh J, Goubert L, Bendtsen H, Bergiers A, Biligri KP, et al. (2010) Optimization of thin asphalt layers-state-of-the-art review. Linköping (Sweden). ERA-NET ROAD Project “Optimization of thin asphalt layers”Google Scholar
  57. Sarja A (2010) Reliability principles, methodology and methods for lifetime design. Mater Struct Mater Et Constr 43(1–2):261–271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sivilevicius H (2011) Application of expert evaluation method to determine the importance of operating asphalt mixing plant quality criteria and rank correlation. [Eksperthindamise meetodi juurutamine asfaltbetoonitehase kvaliteedikriteeriumi ja liigituse korrelatsiooni määramiseks]. Baltic J Road Bridge Eng 6(1):48–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sivilevicius H, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2008) Quality attributes and complex assessment methodology of the asphalt mixing plant. Balt J Road Bridge Eng 3(3):161–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tabaković A, McNally C, Gibney A, Cassidy S, Shahmohammadi R, King S, Gilbert K (2014) Recycling: road construction in a post-fossil fuel society. Report of laboratory and site testing for site trials, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  61. Tervonen T, Lahdelma R (2007) Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 178(2):500–513. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. The MathWorks I (2014) MATLAB R2014b, Natick, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Leest AJ, Van Harstkamp SB, Meijer JPR (2009) Decision support model for road pavements based on whole life costing, life cycle assessment and multi-criteria analysis. [Modelo de apoyo a las decisiones para firmes basado en el coste total durante la vida útil, la evaluación del ciclo de vida y el análisis multicriterio]. Carreteras 4(166):28–41Google Scholar
  64. Vose D (1996) Risk analysis: a quantitative guide. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolfe P (1963) Methods of nonlinear programming. In: Graves RL, Wolfe P (eds) Recent advances in mathematical programming. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 67–86zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  66. Wu Z, Flintsch GW, Chowdhury T (2008) Hybrid multiobjective optimization model for regional pavement-preservation resource allocation. Transp Res Rec 2084(2084):28–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Xing EP, Ng AY, Jordan MI, Russell S (2003) Distance metric learning, with application to clustering with side-information. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 18:1473–1480Google Scholar
  68. Yeniay O (2005) A comparative study on optimization methods for the constrained nonlinear programming problems. Mathe Probl Eng 2005(2):165–173. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Inf Control 8(3):338–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Peldschus F, Turskis Z (2007) Multi-attribute assessment of road design solutions by using the COPRAS method. Balt J Road Bridge Eng 2(4):195–203Google Scholar
  71. Zavadskas EK, Liias R, Turskis Z (2008) Multi-attribute decision -making methods for assessment of quality in bridges and road construction: state-of-the-art surveys. Balt J Road Bridge Eng 3(3):152–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GITECO Research GroupUniversidad de CantabriaSantanderSpain
  2. 2.KTI (Institute for Transport Sciences)BudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations