A Hierarchical Model and Analysis of Factors Affecting The Adoption of Timber as A Bridge Material


  • Robert L. Smith
  • Robert J. Bush
  • Daniel L. Schmoldt


Timber bridges, decision modeling, analytical hierarchy process, marketing


The Analytical Hierarchy Process was used to characterize the bridge material selection decisions of highway engineers and local highway officials across the United States. State Department of Transportation engineers, private consulting engineers, and local highway officials were personally interviewed in Mississippi, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin to identify how various factors determine their choice of a bridge material. The Analytical Hierarchy Process was used to quantify this subjective data and to model the selection decision for different groups of decision-makers. Prestressed concrete was the material of choice in the majority of cases. This was followed by reinforced concrete, steel, and timber. Local highway officials chose timber more often than did either group of engineers. These results indicate that timber will remain a niche market for bridge applications.


Clapp. V. 1990. Timber bridges in the real world. Wood Design Focus, Fali: 19-20.nDrucker, P. 1983. Managing for business effectiveness. Strategic management. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Pp. 64-77.nDrucker, P. 1984. Marketing management. 5th ed. Prentics Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. P. I.nExpert Choice. 1992. Decision support software. Version 8. Expert Choice, Pittsburgh, PA.nFederal Highway Administration (Fhwa). 1992. National bridge inventory data. U.S. Department of Transportation.nFederal Highway Administration (Fhwa). 1993. National bridge inventory data. U.S. Department of Transportation.nHarker, P. 1989. The art and science of decision-making: The analytic hierarchy process. Pages 2-28 in The analytic hierarchy process: Applications and studies. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.nHarker, P., and L. Vargas. 1987. The theory of ratio scaled estimation: Saaty's analytic hierarchy process. Mgmt. Sci. 33(11):1383-1403.nHollander, M., and D. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric statistics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.nJohnson, K. 1990. Timber bridge design, engineering and construction manual. 4th ed. Wheeler Consolidated, St. Louis Park, MN.nLeviti, T. 1991. Thinking about management. The Free Press, New York, NY.nLuppold, H. M. and Associates. 1990. Southern pine usage and timber bridge status of ten southeastern state highway departments. Holly Hill, SC. 89 pp.nNational Industrial Conference Board (NCIB). 1964. Why new products fail. The National Industrial Conference Board Record, New York, NY.nSaaty, T. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. Mc-Graw Hill, New York, NY.nSaaty, T. 1993. Expert choice: Decision support software user manual. Version 8. Expert Choice, Pittsburgh, PA. P. 90.nScott, J., and S. Keiser. 1984. Forecasting acceptance of new industrial products with judgment modeling. J. Marketing 48(Spring):54-67.nSinclair, S. 1992. Forest products marketing. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. 403 pp.nStanton, W. J. 1978. Fundamentals of marketing. McGraw Hill, New York, NY.nTimber Bridge Initiative Program (Tbip). 1990. Crossings newsletter, sponsored by the Timber Bridge Information Resource Center, Morgantown, WV.nUnited States Department of Agriculture (Usda). 1989. Rural bridges: An assessment based upon the national bridge inventory. Office of Transportation, Washington, DC.nUnited States Department of Agriculture (Usda). 1993. The national timber bridge initiative—A status report. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.n






Research Contributions