# A Multiobjective Decision-Making Model for Risk-Based Maintenance Scheduling of Railway Earthworks
## 5 Conclusions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Slope** & **Type** & **Failure** & **Maintenance** & **Damage** & **Maintenance** & **Annual** & **User Delay** & **Reliability** & **Unity of** & **Unity** & **Moultly** & **MaxUT** & **Rank** \\
**ID** & **Type** & **Mechanism** & **Level** & **Description** & **Option** & **Con(MMC)** & **Cost (UDC)** & **RII** & **Impervement** & **Utility of** & **Unity** & **Moultly** & **Moultly** & **MaxUT** \\
**049** & **Sol Cutting** & **Rotational** & **Do** & **Mechanism** & **Overstep asset** & **Rograding** & **2098.00** & 1370.99 & 1.53 & 0.33 & 0.02 & 0.98 & 0.33 & 179 \\ \hline
**000** & **Em behavioural** & **Rotational** & **Do** & **Mechanism** & **Overstep asset** & **Rograding** & **1514.00** & **7413.78** & **1.50** & **0.25** & **0.09** & **1.00** & **0.25** & **180** \\ \hline
**531** & **Em behavioural** & **Rotational** & **Do** & **Mechanism** & **Overstep asset** & **Rograding** & **2890.00** & **0.00** & **1.56** & **0.44** & **0.00** & **0.96** & **0.44** & **181** \\ \hline
**116** & **Sol Cutting** & **Rotational** & **Do** & **Mechanism** & **Overstep asset** & **Rograding** & **2482.00** & **18313.26** & **1.60** & **0.39** & **0.22** & **0.92** & **0.39** & **182** \\ \hline
**472** & **Em behavioural** & **Rotational** & **Do** & **Mechanism** & **Overstep asset** & **Rograding** & **5290.00** & **19842.27** & **1.78** & **0.66** & **0.23** & **0.80** & **0.66** & **183** \\ \hline
**271** & **Sol Cutting** & **Rotational** & **Do** & **Mechanism** & **Overstep asset** & **Rograding** & **5042.00** & **0.00** & **1.59** & **0.64** & **0.00** & **0.94** & **0.64** & **184** \\ \hline
**378** & **Sol Cutting** & **Rotational** & **Do** & **Mechanism** & **Overstep asset** & **Rograding** & **4900.00** & **0.1892.55** & **1.82** & **0.56** & **0.56** & **0.78** & **0.56** & **185** \\ \hline
**527** & **Sol Cutting** & **Planar** & **Do** & **Mechanism** & **overstep** & **Mechanism** & **Overstep** & **clame-** & **278.50** & **86490.52** & **1.74** & **0.03** & **1.00** & **0.83** & **0.03** & **186** \\ \hline
**664** & **Em behavioural** & **Rotational** & **Do** & **Mechanism** & **Overstep asset** & **Rograding** & **17442.00** & **111343.65** & **2.37** & **0.99** & **0.77** & **0.48** & **0.99** & **187** \\ \hline
**390** & **Sol Cutting** & **Rotational** & **Do** & **Mechanism** & **Overstep asset** & **Rograding** & **130900.00** & **0.00** & **1.55** & **0.95** & **0.00** & **0.89** & **0.95** & **188** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Lowest ranked slopes using MAUT. The methodology is demonstrated on the Irish Rail network. Having established the current safety level using the reliability indices calculated across the entire network, multiple performance objectives or goals were considered looking at a range of attributes, failure scenarios and maintenance options. The MAUT model provides a systematic assessment procedure for making objective uncertainty-based decisions. It can adapt to the needs of the decision-maker by incorporating their preferences into its ranking and can present results in a transparent manner. Three attributes were used in this case study to rank the slopes, which would return the greatest benefit from investment. The increase in reliability index was considered to be twice as important as the other two attributes used in this study, namely maintenance cost and track downtime. The individual scaling factors for all the attributes were determined and aggregated into one single utility function, which was then optimized to determine the optimal schedule. The slope that ranked highest objectively contributes the most to the realisation of the decision-makers' defined goals. MAUT is a flexible framework that can be modified to accept more or fewer attributes as required and can be used to remove subjectivity from key investment decisions. It explicitly allows the user to integrate choice and risk preferences. Conceptualization, I.S., C.R. and K.G.