Hazard assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis of proposed bridge and tunnel strike prevention solutions
Green, Christopher (2026)
2026
Rakennustekniikan DI-ohjelma - Master's Programme in Civil Engineering
Rakennetun ympäristön tiedekunta - Faculty of Built Environment
Hyväksymispäivämäärä
2026-07-30
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202607308629
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202607308629
Tiivistelmä
Insufficient vertical clearance is a key factor in one type of bridge and tunnel strike. This occurs because of aging infrastructure that fails to satisfy current standards, and it is economically infeasible to correct the issue on a wide scale.
This study was an attempt to classify the relative benefits of a variety of bridge strike mitigation alternatives that attempt to address the issue in a more cost-effective manner. Alternatives considered were a do-nothing alternative, rebuilding low-clearance infrastructure, static signage, flashing signage, sensor-activated alert, hanging chains, GPS, and sacrificial guard beam.
The work referred to a thesis that occurred parallel to this one which included the experimental results of tests performed on professional drivers to determine how effective various mitigations were relative to each other. The drivers interacted with the various alternatives in a virtual reality environment. In addition to the simulation results, data from several public sources were utilized to form a basis to match the test results to real world observations.
In addition to the effectiveness of proposed bridge strike mitigation alternatives that were studied, a hazard analysis was performed. This analysis provided a comparison of the hazards potentially introduced by each of the alternatives and the hazard presented by bridge strikes themselves.
Both effectiveness and hazard analysis were combined with other relevant criteria to perform a multi-criteria decision analysis. The method of analysis was an extended VIKOR approach to rank alternatives by competitive advantage according to uncertain criteria scores.
The result was a template for decision makers to develop and refine according to their preferences to aid in determining the best option for their project to address a problematic low-clearance bridge.
This study was an attempt to classify the relative benefits of a variety of bridge strike mitigation alternatives that attempt to address the issue in a more cost-effective manner. Alternatives considered were a do-nothing alternative, rebuilding low-clearance infrastructure, static signage, flashing signage, sensor-activated alert, hanging chains, GPS, and sacrificial guard beam.
The work referred to a thesis that occurred parallel to this one which included the experimental results of tests performed on professional drivers to determine how effective various mitigations were relative to each other. The drivers interacted with the various alternatives in a virtual reality environment. In addition to the simulation results, data from several public sources were utilized to form a basis to match the test results to real world observations.
In addition to the effectiveness of proposed bridge strike mitigation alternatives that were studied, a hazard analysis was performed. This analysis provided a comparison of the hazards potentially introduced by each of the alternatives and the hazard presented by bridge strikes themselves.
Both effectiveness and hazard analysis were combined with other relevant criteria to perform a multi-criteria decision analysis. The method of analysis was an extended VIKOR approach to rank alternatives by competitive advantage according to uncertain criteria scores.
The result was a template for decision makers to develop and refine according to their preferences to aid in determining the best option for their project to address a problematic low-clearance bridge.