博碩士論文 110325601 詳細資訊



以作者查詢圖書館館藏 、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 、以作者查詢全國書目 、勘誤回報 、線上人數：120 、訪客IP：18.191.176.81
姓名 安琪拉(Angela Louise Antonio)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 土木系營建管理碩士班
論文名稱
(Development of a Risk-based Maintenance Prioritization Framework for Taiwan Highway Bridges)
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中) 橋梁維護的優先順序通常根據橋梁構件的狀況來決定，而未考慮整體橋梁可能崩壞或倒塌的風險。目前，臺灣公路橋梁使用交通部（MOTC）所規定的DER&U方法進行檢測，檢測後由橋梁各個構件的D、E、R，與U值計算整體的橋梁狀況指標（Condition Index, CI）。然而，此方法的實施過程中存在諸多問題，例如：（1）橋梁狀況指標CI無法正確反應橋梁實際狀況之差異，具有相似CI值的橋梁其崩壞風險未必相同；（2）CI的計算是基於構件劣化情況的扣分機制，具大量橋梁構件的橋梁，其CI值相對會較低；（3）儘管所有D、E、R和U的檢測數據對於橋梁的整體狀況具有重要意義，但構件的U值仍然是目前維護優先順序的決定性因素。
因此，為了解決這些問題，本研究對不同國家使用的橋梁狀況指標（包括基於風險建立的指標）進行文獻回顧，參酌各國的檢測結果以及指標的建立方式，建立適合DER&U檢測方式的橋梁風險評估架構以計算橋梁的風險指標（Risk Index, RI）。本研究從台灣地區橋梁管理資訊系統（Taiwan Bridge Management System, TBMS）中隨機選擇的七種不同類型的橋梁，計算其CI和RI以驗證本研究之成果。結果顯示，重要構件劣化最嚴重的橋梁會具有最高的RI值，即維護優先順序為最高；而非重要性構件即便劣化嚴重該橋梁的RI值會較低，其維護優先順序亦較低。因此，本研究所建立的橋梁風險評估架構可凸顯整體橋梁可能的崩壞風險，可供橋梁管理機關於擬定橋梁維護優選排序決策時之參考。
摘要(英) The priority of bridge maintenance is usually determined based on the condition of bridge components, without considering the risk of collapse of the bridge. At present, Taiwan′s highway bridges use the DER&U method regulated by the Ministry of Communications (MOTC) for inspection, and the overall bridge condition index (CI) is calculated from the D, E, R and U values of each component of the bridge after inspection. However, there are many problems in the implementation of this method, such as: (1) the bridge condition index CI cannot correctly reflect the difference in the actual condition of the bridge, and the risk of collapse of bridges with similar CI values may not be the same; (2) the calculation of CI is based on a point-deduction mechanism of component deterioration, and the CI value of bridges with a large number of bridge components will be relatively low; (3) although all the detection data of D, E, R and U are important for the overall condition of the bridge, however, the U value of the component becomes the decisive factor in the current maintenance priority.
Therefore, in order to solve these issues, this study reviews the bridge condition indexes (including risk-based indexes) used in different countries, and establishes a bridge risk assessment framework suitable for DER&U inspection methodology to calculate the risk index (RI) of bridges, taking into account their inspection results and establishment of indexes. In this study, seven different types of bridges were randomly selected from the Taiwan Bridge Management System (TBMS) to calculate their CI and RI to verify the results of this study. The results show that the bridge with the most deterioration of important components will have the highest RI value, that is, the maintenance priority will be the highest. Even if the non-critical component is severely deteriorated, the RI value of the bridge will be low, and its maintenance priority will be lower. Therefore, the bridge risk assessment framework established by this study can highlight the possible collapse risk of the overall bridge, which can be used as a reference for bridge management machines when formulating bridge maintenance priority decisions.
關鍵字(中) ★ 橋梁狀況指標
★ 橋梁風險指標
★ 橋梁維護優選排序
★ DER&U檢測		 關鍵字(英) ★ bridge condition index
★ bridge risk index
★ bridge maintenance prioritization
★ DER&U methodology
論文目次 摘 要 I
ABSTRACT II
ACKNOWLEDGMENT III
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV
LIST OF FIGURES VII
LIST OF TABLES IX
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research Problem 2
1.3 Research Objectives 3
1.4 Limitations 3
1.5 Research Flowchart 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Bridge Inspection Methods 6
2.1.1 China 8
2.1.2 Japan 8
2.1.3 South Korea 9
2.1.4 United States of America 9
2.1.5 United Kingdom 13
2.1.6 South Africa 15
2.1.7 Finland 16
2.1.8 France 18
2.1.9 Germany 19
2.1.10 Norway 21
2.1.11 Sweden 23
2.1.12 Denmark 24
2.1.13 Summary of Bridge Inspection Methods 26
2.2 Bridge Condition Indices 27
2.2.1 Ratio-based approach 27
2.2.2 Weighted Averaging approach 29
2.2.3 Worst-conditioned component 37
2.2.4 Qualitative Method 42
2.2.6 SR approach 45
2.2.7 Risk-based Approach 46
2.3 Taiwan bridge inspection practice and condition indices 47
2.3.1 Bridge Inspection Method 47
2.3.2 DER&U Rating 47
2.3.3 Bridge condition index 48
2.4 Bridge Deterioration and the Collapse of Nanfang’ao Bridge 50
2.4.1 Defects related to Deterioration 50
2.4.2 The Collapse of Nanfang’ao Bridge 51
2.5 Risk Assessment 52
2.5.1 Quantitative Approach 53
2.5.2 Qualitative Approach 55
2.5.3 Semi-Quantitative Risk Analysis 56
2.6 Chapter Summary 56
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 59
3.1 Risk Identification 60
3.2 Development of Bridge Risk Index (RI) 60
3.2.1 Deterioration State (DS) 60
3.2.2 Critical Component Rating (CCR) 62
3.2.3 Component Risk Factor (CFR) 63
3.3 Chapter Summary 63
CHAPTER 4: DEVELOPMENT OF A RISK-BASED BRIDGE MAINTENANCE FRAMEWORK 64
4.1 Risk Identification 64
4.2 Risk-based Bridge Maintenance Prioritization Framework 64
4.2.1 Determination of Deterioration State (DS) 65
4.2.2 Classification of Component Critical Rating (CCR) 67
4.2.3 Component Risk Factor (CRF) 73
4.2.4 Bridge Risk Index (RI) 73
4.3 Bridge Maintenance Prioritization Framework 76
4.4 Validation 77
4.4.1 Sample Calculation 77
4.4.2 Bridge A 79
4.4.3 Bridge B 81
4.4.4 Bridge C 86
4.4.5 Bridge D 91
4.4.6 Bridge E 98
4.4.7 Bridge F 102
4.4.8 Bridge G 104
4.4.9 Results 106
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 109
5.1 Conclusion 109
5.2 Anticipated Research Outcome 111
5.3 Future Research 111
REFERENCES 112
參考文獻 1. Ryall, M.J., Bridge Management, Second Edition. 2009, London: CRC Press.
2. Rashidi, M. and P. Gibson, Proposal of a methodology for bridge condition assessment. Australas Transp Res Forum, 2014. 2011: p. 1-13.
3. Darban, S., H. ghasemzadeh tehrani, and N. Karballaeezadeh, Presentation a New Method for Determining of Bridge Condition Index by Using Analytical Hierarchy Process. 2020.
4. Liao, H. and N.-J. Yau, Development of Various Bridge Condition Indices for Taiwan Bridge Management System, in 28th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2011). 2011, International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction (IAARC): Seoul, Korea. p. 911-916.
5. Adu-Gyamfi, Y., et al., Synthesis of National and International Methodologies Used for Bridge Health Indices. 2016, Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 52.
6. Price, W.I.J., Highway bridge inspection: principles and practices in Europe. IABSE reports = Rapports AIPC = IVBH Reports, 1982. 38.
7. Organisation for Economic Cooperation Development Road Research Group, Bridge Inspection: A Report. 1976: Organisation for Economic Cooperation Development Road Research Group.
8. Vaghefi, K., D. Harris, and M. Ahlborn, Application of Thermal IR Imagery for Concrete Bridge Inspection. 2011.
9. Jeong, Y., et al., Bridge inspection practices and bridge management programs in China, Japan, Korea, and U.S. Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 2018. 3: p. 126-135.
10. Ministry of Land Infrastructure Transportation and Tourism, Bridge Inspection and Diagnosis Manual, I. Ministry of Land, Transportation, and Tourism, Editor. 2017.
11. Liao, H.-K., et al., Comparison of Bridge Inspection Methodologies and Evaluation Criteria in Taiwan and Foreign Practices, in 34th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining (ISARC 2017). 2017, International Association for Automation & Robotics in Construction (IAARC): Taipei, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
12. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Bridge Inspector′s Reference Manual (BIRM). 2012, Washington D.C.
13. Hanley, C., et al., Integrating multivariate techniques in bridge management systems. Journal of Structural Integrity and Maintenance, 2017. 2(3): p. 143-151.
14. Hearn, G., Bridge Inspection Practices. 2007, Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
15. Highways England, CS 450 Inspection of highway structures. 2020, Highways England: United Kingdom.
16. ATKINS, CSS Bridge Condition Indicators, Volume 3: Evaluation of Condition Indicators. 2002, County Surveyors’ Society: Lincoln, UK.
17. Committee of Transport Officials, TMH 19 Manual for the Visual Assessment of Road Structures. 2018, South Africa: The South African National Roads Agency SOC Limited.
18. Friedland, I., AASHTO/FHWA International Technology Scan: Bridge System Preservation and Maintenance. 2003.
19. Söderqvist, M. and M. Veijola. FINNISH PROJECT LEVEL BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. 2000.
20. Finnish National Road Administration, Finnish Bridge Repair Manual (SILKO), ed. Bridge Engineering. 1997, Helsinki, Finland: Finnish National Road Administration.
21. Thomas Everett, P.W., Harry Capers, William Cox, Thomas Drda, Lawrence Hummel, Paul Jensen, David Juntunen, Tod Kimball, Glenn Washer, Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance in Europe. 2008: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of International Programs.
22. Norwegian Public Roads Administration, Handbook for Bridge Inspections. 2005, Norway.
23. Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Ontario Structure Inspection Manual (OSIM). 2008, Ontario, Canada.
24. Hammad, A., J. Yan, and B. Mostofi, Recent Development of Bridge Management Systems in Canada in 2007 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada. 2007: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
25. Committee of Transport Officials, TMH22 Road Asset Management Manual. 2013, South Africa: Committee of Transport Officials.
26. Rummey, G.D. and L. Dowling. Towards a uniform bridge management system for Australia and New Zealand. in Austroads Bridge Conference. 2004. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
27. Dowling, L. and G. Rummey, Guidelines for Bridge Management: Structure Information. 2004, Sydney, Australia: AUSTROADS.
28. Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Transport, Guideline and Commentary of Safety Inspection and In-depth Safety Inspection for Structures-Bridge. 2012, Sejong.
29. Lojze Bevc, et al., Review of Current Practice for Assessment of Structural Condition and Classification of Defects. 1999.
30. Omenzetter, P., et al., Risk based bridge data collection and asset management and the role of structural health monitoring. Vol. 7983. 2011.
31. Kim, D., Y. Lee, and M.-j. Lee, Development of Risk-Based Bridge Maintenance Prioritization Methodology. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2018. 22.
32. Taheri amiri, M., et al., Bridges Risk Analysis in View of Repair and Maintenance by Multi Criteria Decision Making Method (Case Study: Babolsar Bridges) Bridges Risk Analysis in View of Repair and Maintenance. 2019. 7: p. 91-114.
33. Ibrahim, F., S. Abu Dabous, and I. Alsyouf, Bridge Risk Assessment using Integrated Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis and VIKOR Approach. 2020. 1-5.
34. Nie-Jia Yau and H.-K. Liao. Development of Bridge Management System in Taiwan. in The 5th International Conference on Construction Project Management & 2nd International Conference on Construction Engineering and Management. March 2007. Singapore.
35. Yau, N. and H.-K. Liao, Indices for Fast Assessment of Bridge Condition in Taiwan. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2015. 752-753: p. 689-697.
36. Tserng, H.P. and C.-L. Chung, Health Assessment and Maintenance Strategy for Bridge Management Systems: Lessons Learned in Taiwan. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 2007. 13(3): p. 235-246.
37. Mutsuyoshi, H. PRESENT SITUATION OF DURABILITY OF POST-TENSIONED PC BRIDGES IN JAPAN. 2001.
38. Gaal, G.C.M., Prediction of Deterioration of Concrete Bridges, in Civil Engineering and Geosciences. 2004, Delft University.
39. Garini, E., Collapse of the Nanfangao bridge in Taiwan. 2019.
40. Taiwan Transportation Safety Board, Final Report Released on Nanfangao Sea-Crossing Bridge Collapse. 2020: Taiwan.
41. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 31000:2018(en) Risk management — Guidelines. 2018. 16.
42. Duphily, R.J., Space Vehicle Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) Guide. 2009.
43. Thompson, P.D., J.O. Sobanjo, and R. Kerr, Modeling the Risk of Advanced Deterioration in Bridge Management Systems. Transportation Research Record, 2013. 2360(1): p. 52-59.
44. Paulsen, C., et al., NISTIR 8179 Criticality Analysis Process Model: Prioritizing Systems and Components, U.S.D.o. Commerce, Editor. 2018. p. 94.
45. Kalathil, M.J., V.R. Renjith, and N.R. Augustine, Failure mode effect and criticality analysis using dempster shafer theory and its comparison with fuzzy failure mode effect and criticality analysis: A case study applied to LNG storage facility. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2020. 138: p. 337-348.
46. Jaderi, F., et al., Criticality Analysis Using Risk Assessment-Based Maintenance of a Petrochemical Company. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 2014. 23: p. 2033-2037.
47. US Bureau of Reclamation, Best Practices and Risk Methodology. 2019: United States of America.
48. Decò, A. and D.M. Frangopol, Risk assessment of highway bridges under multiple hazards. Journal of Risk Research, 2011. 14(9): p. 1057-1089.
49. Straub, D., et al., Reliability analysis of deteriorating structural systems. Structural Safety, 2020. 82: p. 101877.
50. Deng, L., W. Wang, and Y. Yu, State-of-The-Art Review on the Causes and Mechanisms of Bridge Collapse. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2015. 30: p. 04015005.

指導教授 姚乃嘉, 廖先格 審核日期 2023-2-1
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題，請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407，或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明