## 3 Model Validation and Discussion of the Obtained Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Alternative** & **C1** & **C2** & **C3** & **C4** & **C5** & **C6** & **C7** & **C8** & **C9** & **C10** & **C11** \\ \hline Type & Max & Max & Max & Max & Max & Min & Max & Min & Max & Max & Max \\ \hline Weight & 0.161 & 0.036 & 0.023 & 0.044 & 0.105 & 0.202 & 0.096 & 0.075 & 0.033 & 0.067 & 0.157 \\ \hline A1 & 0.521 & 0.394 & 1.000 & 0.991 & 0.583 & 0.847 & 0.334 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.653 \\ \hline A2 & 0.307 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 0.667 & 0.872 & 0.285 & 0.999 & 0.862 & 0.000 & 0.352 \\ \hline A3 & 0.041 & 0.489 & 1.000 & 0.552 & 0.500 & 0.985 & 0.060 & 0.995 & 0.991 & 0.000 & 0.621 \\ \hline A4 & 0.714 & 0.376 & 1.000 & 0.474 & 1.000 & 0.681 & 0.128 & 0.986 & 0.898 & 1.000 & 0.635 \\ \hline A5 & 1.000 & 0.303 & 1.000 & 0.381 & 0.917 & 1.000 & 0.103 & 0.987 & 0.898 & 1.000 & 0.505 \\ \hline A6 & 0.113 & 0.702 & 1.000 & 0.012 & 0.833 & 0.863 & 0.241 & 0.994 & 0.479 & 1.000 & 0.297 \\ \hline A7 & 0.091 & 0.104 & 1.000 & 0.981 & 0.333 & 0.941 & 0.036 & 0.994 & 0.539 & 1.000 & 0.457 \\ \hline A8 & 0.040 & 0.282 & 1.000 & 0.209 & 0.750 & 0.844 & 0.097 & 0.999 & 0.718 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\ \hline A9 & 0.312 & 0.536 & 1.000 & 0.536 & 0.417 & 0.794 & 1.000 & 0.993 & 0.646 & 1.000 & 0.269 \\ \hline A10 & 0.096 & 0.383 & 1.000 & 0.113 & 0.250 & 0.926 & 0.145 & 0.999 & 0.826 & 0.000 & 0.346 \\ \hline A11 & 0.041 & 0.729 & 1.000 & 0.729 & 0.083 & 0.809 & 0.277 & 0.988 & 0.718 & 0.000 & 0.245 \\ \hline A12 & 0.128 & 0.524 & 1.000 & 0.677 & 0.167 & 0.876 & 0.150 & 0.998 & 0.539 & 0.000 & 0.343 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The weighted matrix decision. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Road Section** & **Label** & **Si\({}^{+}\)** & **Si\({}^{-}\)** & **Qi** & **Rank** \\ \hline A1 & R-418 & 0.077 & 0.216 & 0.736 & 1 \\ \hline A2 & R-418b & 0.137 & 0.148 & 0.519 & 2 \\ \hline A3 & R-419 & 0.170 & 0.127 & 0.428 & 6 \\ \hline A4 & R-425 & 0.145 & 0.150 & 0.507 & 3 \\ \hline A5 & R-425a & 0.161 & 0.133 & 0.451 & 4 According to the data from Table 8, alternatives numbered 3, 4, 6 and 10 meet the conditions of effective maintenance according to the maintenance plan, while budget redistribution is carried out for the remaining sections. In this way, the cost criterion is corrected and the prioritization model is reapplied only for those sections that did not satisfy in the first iteration. Therefore, in Table 9. is presented the new ranking of the remaining nonurban roads using the TOPSIS method. From the second iteration shown in Table 10, it can be seen that, by maintenance monitoring and control at 70% of the observed maintenance period, the condition of system efficiency is satisfied for the sections under rank number 2, 3 and 6. The remaining sections enter the repeated iteration process until the moment when the MRI value for all those sections is not within the limits of acceptable values (0.9 \(\leq\) MRI \(\geq\) 1.1). The ideal MRI value is 1 when BCWS is equal to ACWP. However, if a deviation of 10% is taken, MRI values in the range of 0.9 to 1.1 are adopted as acceptable.