JP4247160B2 - Support priority decision support system and method for existing bridges - Google Patents

Description

  The present invention is suitable for determining the priority of quantitative and objective measures that enable efficient and effective repair and reinforcement measures with limited financial resources for the maintenance required for existing bridges. The present invention relates to a system and a method for determining priority of measures for existing bridges.

In Japan, the mountainous area occupies most of the country and there are many rivers, and the distance from the river source to the ocean is short, so the soundness of the bridge straddling the river has an important meaning. Have a high level of maintenance.
However, the number of bridges is large and enormous costs are required for maintenance. If measures such as repairs and reinforcements are taken unplanned, they cannot be handled with limited financial resources. Therefore, although it is necessary to select a bridge for which countermeasures should be taken, not only are the elements for the selection complicated, but the judgment of the chooser is not uniform, and if the number of the chooser is small, there will be a bias. In many cases, it cannot be unified.
In such a case, it is necessary to adopt a quantitative evaluation method in the evaluation, and to select candidates for bridges to take measures based on objective judgment, and such decision-making is applied to existing bridges. The technology is disclosed in various fields, not limited to the determination of the priority order of measures to be taken.

For example, Patent Document 1 discloses, as “group decision analysis method and information management / decision support device”, an information calculation processing / storage device having means for calculating information by the group decision analysis method, and this information calculation An information input device and an information output device respectively connected to the processing / storage device are provided. The input decision problem name, the questionnaire survey result data and the hierarchical structure model are analyzed by the information arithmetic processing / storage device, and the collective A method and apparatus for supporting effective decision making is disclosed.
This group decision analysis method and information management / decision support device adopts the AHP method and ISM method as decision analysis methods, and proposes a specific method for analyzing collective consensus of multiple experts, etc. At the same time, it is possible to create rules for complex judgments necessary for solving problems and to simplify complicated questionnaire styles, so that general users can easily use the rules.

Further, Patent Document 2 describes, from the same applicant as Patent Document 1, “maintenance planning support method and apparatus”, inspection / maintenance information, status of facilities equipped with a large number of systems and equipment such as nuclear power generation facilities. For monitoring / diagnostic information, etc., the decision making method is used to evaluate the importance of multiple alternatives such as inspection target equipment, and based on this importance, a maintenance plan such as the priority order of inspection target equipment is established. In the planning method, a method for evaluating the alternatives in groups is disclosed.
Even in this maintenance planning support method and its apparatus, the AHP method and the ISM method are used as decision analysis methods. However, when there are a large number of alternatives, it is not possible to ensure consistency in the evaluation related to these, Since the accuracy of the priority order, which is the evaluation result, is also affected, the alternatives are divided into multiple groups, common alternatives are included, and evaluation is performed for each group. To make adjustments based on alternatives. Therefore, it is possible to carry out highly accurate evaluation even when the number of alternatives increases.

Furthermore, Patent Document 3 discloses a decision support apparatus capable of executing processing incorporating an absolute evaluation method centered on a paired comparison in the hierarchy analysis method as “a decision support apparatus and operation method thereof based on the hierarchy analysis method”. Has been.
In this decision support device, using absolute evaluation and quantitative values as well as paired comparisons, it is possible to calculate even if there are many alternatives, making it easy to input and calculate data from hierarchical structure creation It becomes possible. In addition, since absolute evaluation values and quantitative values can be handled, it can be used without the need to convert qualitative numerical values qualitatively, and this has the effect of greatly reducing the time and calculation time for data exchange.

JP-A-4-216164 Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 6-110872 JP-A-9-69051

  However, in the invention disclosed in the above-mentioned Patent Document 1, a concrete method for analyzing collective consensus of a plurality of experts by adopting AHP method and ISM method as a decision analysis method is proposed. At the same time, while trying to rule out complex judgments and complicated questionnaire forms necessary for problem solving, it is possible to realize collective consensus analysis and simplify complex rules and questionnaires. AHP method and ISM method itself, providing new methods based only on the characteristics of those methods, concrete analysis method based on the new method and its efficiency, or new method and AHP method Therefore, there is a problem that simplification and efficiency cannot be achieved more than the AHP method and ISM method.

  Further, in the invention disclosed in Patent Document 2, although the idea of grouping alternatives and ensuring consistency of evaluation between groups through a common alternative is made, individual alternatives in the group As shown in FIG. 5 of Patent Document 2, the evaluation is performed by comparing the superiority between the valves, and as shown in FIG. This is implemented for each factor of level 2-2 shown in Fig. 3 of Patent Document 2, such as the actual track record of failure. At the same time, there are limits to the number of alternatives even if they are divided into groups. There was a problem that left behind.

Patent Document 3 uses a technique that is more advanced than Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 2 and that can be calculated even when there are a large number of alternatives by using absolute evaluations and quantitative values as well as paired comparisons. It has succeeded in facilitating data input and calculation from structure creation.
However, these paired comparisons and quantitative evaluations or absolute evaluations are apparent with reference to FIG. 6 of Patent Document 3, but qualitative criteria and quantitative criteria are in a parallel relationship, and both are independently and independently evaluated. The weights are calculated for each of them, and all these weights are added to determine the importance of each alternative as an overall weight. The qualitative evaluation scale and the quantitative evaluation scale must be consistent. For example, even if the sum is taken, there is a problem that the accuracy of the overall weight is not guaranteed and the reliability of the evaluation is affected. In addition, there is a possibility that a range that does not match the range that matches the range of qualitative evaluation and the range of quantitative evaluation may be generated, and qualitative evaluation and quantitative are added to the total weight obtained by adding all individual weights. There is a possibility that the overlapping range of evaluations and the range where one side is missing may be different for each evaluation, and there is still a problem that the reliability of the overall evaluation cannot be ensured.

  The present invention has been made in response to such a conventional situation, and is obtained in advance for each evaluation item related to the determination of the priority order of measures for existing bridges using the hierarchical decision making method or is obtained by calculation. The priority determination index is calculated by taking the sum of the product of the importance and the quantitatively expressible data related to the previous evaluation item for each alternative, and using this index, repair and reinforcement etc. Enables support to determine the priorities of existing bridges for which countermeasures are taken, and realizes high-accuracy evaluation by applying qualitative and quantitative evaluations without excess or deficiency. It is an object of the present invention to provide a countermeasure priority ordering support system and method for existing bridges that can easily cope with the increase or decrease of evaluation items with little effort.

In order to solve the above problems, a bridge database and bridge for storing bridge data relating to an input section, a main body section, an output section, and an existing bridge are provided. And an importance database for storing importance data for evaluating the performance of the building, and the importance data includes a plurality of seismic performance, load bearing performance and durability performance used for evaluation necessary for repair and reinforcement of existing bridges. At least one evaluation item by performance, at least one common evaluation item among the evaluation items by performance below the plurality of evaluation items by performance, and a plurality of performance evaluation items existing at a layer below this common evaluation item The first subordinate evaluation item common among the evaluation items, the evaluation items other than the common evaluation item existing below the plurality of performance-specific evaluation items, and the evaluation item other than the common evaluation item exist below 2 sub-evaluation items (hereinafter, these evaluation items are collectively referred to as total evaluation items in this claim), the importance for each evaluation item for each performance, and the importance for each common evaluation item. , A priority order determination system for existing bridges including the importance of each evaluation item other than the common evaluation items and the importance of each of the first and second sub-evaluation items, and the bridge data is for multiple existing bridges. Basic data including at least an ID capable of recognizing each bridge and a bridge position, and at least one characteristic that can be expressed quantitatively corresponding to each of the first and second sub-evaluation items related to the bridge. The main body includes a function capable of selecting either the importance data stored in the importance database or the importance data obtained by newly determining the importance for each of the total evaluation items. General comment Select the analysis model from the analysis model database that stores the analysis model of the analysis to be executed in order to form a consensus of multiple opinions when determining the importance for each item, and convert it to multiple opinions input from the input unit The consensus building calculation unit that calculates the consensus building value using the importance for each total evaluation item, and reading the consensus building value calculated by this consensus building calculation unit and calculating the importance for each total evaluation item is important. Read out the bridge data related to a plurality of bridges stored in the bridge database in advance or input from the input unit as an evaluation target for determining the priority of measures and the importance calculation unit as the degree data, using the ID as a key, Of common evaluation items, evaluation items other than common evaluation items, and first and second sub-evaluation items existing below the performance-specific evaluation items stored in the importance database Read out the necessity data and extract the characteristic data corresponding to the first and second lower evaluation items of the bridge data by using the first and second lower evaluation items of the importance data as keys. Or, the first and second lower evaluation items of the characteristic data included in the bridge data are used as a key, the common evaluation items existing in the lower layer of the evaluation items by performance, the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items, the first and second The importance of the lower evaluation items is extracted, the sum of the product of the characteristic data and the importance is calculated as a priority determination index for each seismic performance, load bearing performance and durability performance, and multiple existing ones are set using the priority determination index as a key. It has a measure priority calculation unit that calculates the priority of measures for bridges, and further calculates the sum of the product of the importance and priority determination index for each evaluation item by performance as the total measure priority. , Priority index , Measures priority or be one that outputs at least one of the comprehensive measures priority, further as a condition of importance performance importance of all first sub evaluation items that exist in the lower layer of the common evaluation items If any one of the second subordinate evaluation items existing below the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items is different among the evaluation items according to the performance, the common evaluation item is used. Even if the evaluation items other than are common, the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items are separated in the lower layers and the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items and the importance of the second lower evaluation item are provided. is there.

The countermeasure priority order determination support method for the existing bridge according to the invention described in claim 2 is a method invention in which the countermeasure priority determination support system for the existing bridge described in claim 1 is regarded as a method invention. This is a measure priority determination method that determines priority for repair and reinforcement using importance data for evaluating data and bridge performance. Importance data is necessary for repair and reinforcement of existing bridges. Common evaluation items that exist among the evaluation items for each performance among the seismic performance, load-bearing performance, and durability performance used for various evaluations, and at least one of the evaluation items for each performance under the evaluation items for each performance A first subordinate evaluation item that exists in a lower layer of the common evaluation item and is common among a plurality of evaluation items by performance, and an evaluation item other than the common evaluation item that exists in a lower layer of the evaluation items by performance A second subordinate evaluation item (hereinafter, referred to as a total evaluation item in this claim) that exists below the evaluation item other than the common evaluation item, and a plurality of performance-specific evaluation items The importance level for each evaluation item, the importance level for each common evaluation item, the importance level for each evaluation item other than the common evaluation item, and the importance level for each of the first and second lower evaluation items are stored in the importance database. The bridge data includes basic data including at least an ID capable of recognizing each bridge and a position of the bridge for a plurality of existing bridges, and each of the first and second lower evaluation items related to the bridge. At least one characteristic data that can be expressed quantitatively is stored in the bridge database, and stored in the bridge database in advance or input from the input unit as an evaluation target for determining countermeasure priority. The process of reading the bridge data related to the current bridge using the ID as a key and selecting whether to read the importance data stored in the importance database in advance or to calculate the importance data obtained by newly determining the importance for each evaluation item Analysis model for analysis to be performed in order to form a consensus on multiple opinions when newly determining the importance for each total evaluation item The process of selecting an analysis model from the analysis model database that stores and calculating the consensus value using the importance for each total evaluation item related to multiple opinions and storing it in the importance database, and the consensus value is important Read from the degree database, calculate the importance for each total evaluation item and store it as importance data in the importance database, and newly from the importance database Read out the importance of the common evaluation items, evaluation items other than the common evaluation items, and first and second sub-evaluation items existing below the evaluation items by performance of the calculated importance data. Extract each characteristic data corresponding to each lower evaluation item of the bridge data by using the first and second lower evaluation items as keys, or specify the first and second evaluation items of the characteristic data included in the bridge data. Extract the importance of the common evaluation items, evaluation items other than the common evaluation items, and the first and second sub-evaluation items existing below the evaluation items according to performance as keys, and calculate the product of the characteristic data and the importance The sum is calculated as a priority determination index for each seismic performance, load bearing performance and durability performance and stored in the priority database, and the priority determination index stored in the priority database is read out. The sum of the product of the priority of each evaluation item by performance and the process of calculating the priority of measures for multiple existing bridges as a key and storing it in the priority database is calculated as the overall priority of measures. And storing in the priority database, and outputting at least one of the priority determination index, the priority or the overall countermeasure priority stored in the priority database, and stored in the importance database in advance. If it is selected to read the importance data, the common evaluation items existing in the lower layer of the evaluation items according to the performance of the importance data stored in advance, the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items, the first and second subordinate items The importance of the evaluation item is read, and the first and second lower evaluation items of the importance data are used as keys to correspond to the first and second lower evaluation items of the bridge data. Extract each characteristic data or use the first and second subordinate evaluation items of the characteristic data included in the bridge data as a key. Extract the importance of the evaluation item and the first and second sub-evaluation items, and calculate the priority by calculating the sum of the product of the characteristic data and the importance as a priority determination index for each seismic performance, load bearing performance and durability performance. The process of storing in the priority database, the step of reading the priority determination index stored in the priority database, calculating the countermeasure priority of multiple existing bridges using this as a key, and storing it in the priority database, and by performance Calculating the sum of the product of the importance for each evaluation item and the priority determination index as the overall countermeasure priority and storing it in the priority database, and the priority stored in the priority database Outputting at least one of a degree determination index, a priority order, and an overall countermeasure priority order, and, as a condition of importance, the importance of all first sub-evaluation items existing below the common evaluation item If the degree is common among performance-specific evaluation items, but any one of the second lower-level evaluation items existing below the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items differs between performance-specific evaluation items, Even if the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items themselves are common, the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items, including the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items, are separated in the lower layers, and the importance of the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items and the second lower evaluation items It is to be prepared.

In the support priority determination support system and method for an existing bridge according to the present invention, when determining the priority of measures such as repair and reinforcement to be applied to the existing bridge, the seismic performance evaluation and load resistance performance related to the priority determination are determined. By using the hierarchical decision-making method for each evaluation item existing under the three evaluation items of evaluation and durability performance evaluation and evaluation items according to these three performances, the importance is obtained in advance, or Seismic performance evaluation and load bearing performance are calculated by taking the sum of the product of this importance and the quantitatively representable data obtained for each alternative that requires priority determination. A priority determination index is calculated for each evaluation and durability performance evaluation, and this index can be used to support the determination of priorities for existing bridges that take measures such as repair and reinforcement for each performance evaluation. It is. Therefore, by using the hierarchical decision-making method, multiply the product by associating the qualitative importance obtained by comparing each evaluation item with the quantitative values such as physical quantities related to the characteristics of each evaluation item. Therefore, the evaluation range is not excessive or deficient, and the evaluation with quantitative and high accuracy can be executed.
In addition, each evaluation item can be changed individually, and those that can be expressed quantitatively, such as physical quantities related to the characteristics of the item, can be changed independently of the evaluation item. It is possible to easily cope with increase / decrease and increase / decrease of evaluation items with little effort.

The countermeasure priority order decision support system for an existing bridge according to an embodiment of the present invention will be described below with reference to FIGS.
FIG. 1 is a system configuration diagram of an existing bridge countermeasure priority determination support system according to an embodiment of the present invention.
In FIG. 1, the countermeasure priority order determination support system for an existing bridge has a configuration in which an input unit 1 and an output unit 3 are connected to a main unit 2, and a bridge database 4, importance database 5, analysis model is connected to the main unit 2. A database 6 and a priority order database 7 are connected.
The main body 2 further includes an importance calculation unit 8, an agreement formation calculation unit 9, and a countermeasure priority calculation unit 10. Before describing these components, a database provided will be described.

First, the bridge database 4 stores the bridge data 11, and the contents of the bridge data 11 include an ID using a bridge number or code, a bridge name, a route name on which the bridge is installed, and a jurisdiction. Basic data 12 such as civil engineering offices, route data 13 related to traffic conditions and transport functions, environmental data 14 related to bridging environments such as the effects of salt damage environments and anti-freezing agents, construction costs required to take measures Construction cost data 15 related to the bridge, structural data 16 related to the superstructure and substructure of the bridge and the ground, and changes in specific parts of the main member, changes in main parts other than the specific part, and bridges such as secondary members Deformation data 17 relating to the deformation of the constituent members is stored.
The data structure of the bridge data 11 stored in the bridge database 4 is stored as a list for each bridge as shown in Table 1, but the items of the basic data 12 shown as basic specifications in Table 1 With regard to any of the above, it is possible to search among a plurality of bridge data by using it as a key. In particular, an ID for recognizing a bridge that is input as a bridge number in Table 1 is used as a key when reading the bridge data 11 during calculation by the main body 2.

In Table 1, in addition to the basic data 12 shown as basic specifications, as the evaluation items of the bridge, in addition to the three types of performance evaluation items of the seismic performance evaluation item, the load resistance performance evaluation item, and the durability performance evaluation item, these 3 Common evaluation items common to the types of performance evaluation items are mainly shown.
The common evaluation items include route data 13 such as traffic conditions, transportation functions, secondary disasters, etc. as the importance of the route, the above-mentioned environmental data 14, or construction cost data 15 such as approximate countermeasure construction costs. Further, for example, traffic conditions are classified as road width (number of lanes), total vehicle traffic, and large traffic, and a “situation” column is provided for each, which includes two lanes, 5,000 Quantitative data such as 15% is input.
The seismic performance evaluation item and the load resistance / durability performance evaluation item include structural data 16 and deformation data 17 as structural properties and deformation, respectively.
In the present embodiment, the load resistance performance evaluation item and the durability performance evaluation item are handled as one column, but may be separated separately.
As described above, the evaluation items corresponding to the evaluation items such as the common evaluation item, the seismic performance evaluation item, the load bearing performance evaluation item, and the durability performance evaluation item have a hierarchical structure, and are expressed quantitatively with respect to the lowest evaluation item. Possible figures and qualitative evaluations are entered as situations.

These evaluation items can be changed. Even if new evaluation items that are desirable to be added to the seismic performance evaluation are generated due to the development of the evaluation method, for example, it is possible to provide them in the lower layer of the evaluation items related to structure or deformation in Table 1. Needless to say, the evaluation items may also be classified into common evaluation items as long as they are related to the load bearing performance and the durability performance.
As shown in Table 1, once the evaluation items are determined, the survey of the situation does not require expertise enough to determine the evaluation items, and even workers who have experience in the field can easily measure. Since it can be grasped, it is easy to obtain data.

2 to 5 show the hierarchical structure of the evaluation items shown in Table 1. FIG. 2 is a conceptual diagram showing a hierarchical structure in which the overall countermeasure priority is set to level 1, and the performance-specific priority among the evaluation items shown in Table 1 is set to level 2. FIGS. 3 to 5 are conceptual diagrams showing the hierarchical structure of evaluation items related to the priorities by performance of the hierarchical structure shown in FIG. 2 to 5, the overall countermeasure priority is set to level 1, and then the priority for each performance such as earthquake resistance, load resistance, and durability is set to level 2. On the other hand, level 3 Evaluation items such as bridging environment, rough measure construction cost, structure and deformation are arranged.
Level 4 is configured for each of these levels 3, and traffic conditions, transportation functions, and the like are arranged. Further, as level 5, road width and total vehicle traffic are arranged. Alternatives are shown for each level 2 performance from the A bridge to the N bridge, but this is evaluated for each performance, and the final comprehensive countermeasure priority (level 1) is determined by integrating those evaluations. This is to decide.
In each alternative, for the evaluation items listed in the final level (for example, level 5) of the hierarchical structure, numerical values etc. are input as the situation shown in Table 1, and these acquire raw data Some of them are available numerically, while others are obtained as qualitative evaluations and cannot be expressed in digital values.
Therefore, as shown in the evaluation items and evaluation point list of Table 2, simple evaluation points for the evaluation items are determined in correspondence with the levels of priority. In the present embodiment, the lower the evaluation score is, the lower the priority is. However, the higher the evaluation score is, the lower the priority may be.

  By using simple evaluation points in this manner, it is possible to quantitatively express items that cannot be measured or items that must be qualitatively subjected to initial evaluation. In addition, it is possible to perform evaluation uniformly by providing a uniform range for simple evaluation points, and in this embodiment, a range of 1 to 4 evaluation points. However, if unfairness arises between items to be evaluated by deciding evaluation points in a unified manner, there is no particular limitation on a certain range, and between items to ensure fairness. Weighting may be performed.

In Table 2, for example, the importance of routes categorized as common evaluation items, and the volume of large vehicles placed under the traffic situation can be expressed quantitatively, but the percentage of data is not used as a simple evaluation point as it is, 1 to 4 simple evaluation points. In addition, there is no quantitative and measurable type of superstructure placed under the structure and superstructure structure that are classified as seismic performance evaluation items. 1 to 4 simple evaluation points are assigned to simple digits and Gerber digits respectively.
In this way, simple evaluation points are obtained uniformly, and the evaluation points are listed in the rightmost column of Table 1.

In Table 1, in addition to basic specifications, common evaluation items, and performance evaluation items for earthquake resistance, load resistance, and durability, the breakdown of construction costs and auxiliary data on the deformation status that became the basis for the deformation are entered. ing. By inputting these data into the bridge data 11, it is possible to confirm whether the evaluation items are input as evaluation points. In addition, it is effective for grasping in time series by the survey date data of basic specifications.
In addition, the main member in the evaluation item of deformation in Table 1 refers to a structural member of the bridge body among members constituting the bridge. Specifically, it refers to main girder, horizontal girder, vertical girder, anti-tilt frame, horizontal frame, floor slab, support, falling bridge prevention device, frame, and foundation. Moreover, a secondary member means members other than the structural member of a bridge main body among the members which comprise a bridge. Specifically, it refers to telescopic devices, drainage facilities, pavements, ground cover, railings, guard fences, curbs, attachments, sleeve retaining walls, median strips, lighting, signs, inspection / sound insulation facilities. Furthermore, a specific member means the member which has big influence especially on the performance which the soundness evaluates among main members. Specifically, in the seismic performance evaluation, it refers to the support, the bridge prevention device, and the foundation. Horizontal, floor, frame, foundation). In this embodiment, the evaluation item is level 5 as the final level, but the number of layers is not particularly limited.
The bridge data 11 stored in the bridge database 4 shown in FIG. 1 has been described above.

Next, the importance database 5 will be described. If the bridge database 4 is data on the alternative side, the importance level data 18 stored in the importance level database 5 is data relating to the importance level of the evaluation items described above in the alternative data.
As the importance data 18 stored in the importance database 5, the importance 19 for each seismic performance evaluation item and the breakdown 20 for each evaluation item are stored, and the importance 21 for each load resistance evaluation item and the breakdown for each evaluation item. 22 further stores the durability 23 for each durability performance evaluation item and the breakdown 24 for each evaluation item. In addition, the level 25 by performance related to seismic performance, load bearing performance and durability performance of level 2 is stored.
The specific data structure of the importance data 18 is as shown in the importance list in Table 3.

As shown in Table 3, the evaluation items corresponding to each level are on the left half, the right half is the importance of the breakdown by evaluation item obtained corresponding to those levels, the importance by evaluation item, Stores the importance by performance for determining the overall countermeasure priority.
The breakdown of importance for each evaluation item of level 3 to level 5 is the breakdown 20 for each evaluation item, the breakdown 22 for each evaluation item, and the breakdown 24 for each evaluation item in FIG. 1, and the importance for each evaluation item is the product of each. 1, importance 19 by seismic performance evaluation item, importance 21 by load bearing performance evaluation item, and importance 23 by durability performance evaluation item. The importance by performance for each level 2 earthquake resistance, load resistance, and durability shown in the rightmost column is the importance by performance 25 in FIG.
In the present embodiment, the AHP method is used as a method for calculating the degree of importance for each evaluation item. The AHP method is also introduced in Patent Documents 1 to 3 described above, and is already a popular method. Table 4 to Table 7 show how to calculate the importance using the AHP method in the present embodiment. Will be described with reference to FIG.

Table 4 shows the importance of each level of priority by level 2 according to the level of importance of seismic performance, load bearing performance, and durability performance by those with specialized knowledge on bridge measures. It is a table | surface when judging. Enter 1 for the same item, and enter the numerical value while comparing other items. For example, if it is judged that the load resistance is slightly more important than the earthquake resistance, the load resistance of A (column) 3 is entered in the column of B (row) seismic performance, and 1/3 of the reciprocal is entered in the column of B load bearing performance of the seismic performance of A which is the diagonal element. Such a comparison is performed for all combinations, and each sum is obtained for each column. In the example of Table 5, the earthquake resistance is 1 + 3 + 2 = 6, the load resistance is 1/3 + 1 + 1 = 2.333, and the durability is 1/2 + 1 + 1 = 2.5. The input numerical value is defined as a measure of importance in the AHP method, and is 1 when A and B are equally important, 3 when slightly important, 5 when important, Use 7 if it is very important, use 9 if it is absolutely important, and use the reciprocals of the diagonal elements. 2, 4, 6, and 8 are used complementarily.
When each element is divided by the sum of each column obtained in this way, in the seismic performance column, 1/6 = 0.167, 3/6 = 0.5, 2/6 in order from the top row. = 0.333. Similarly, in the column of load bearing performance, the values are 0.143, 0.429, and 0.429, respectively, and in the column of durability performance, the values are 0.2, 0.4, and 0.4, respectively. When this element is summed for each row and an average value is taken, it becomes a weight vector and is input in the right column as the importance. That is, the importance level of the earthquake resistance is (0.167 + 0.143 + 0.2) /3=0.170, the importance level of the load resistance is (0.5 + 0.429 + 0.4) /3=0.443, and the durability performance. Is (0.333 + 0.429 + 0.4) /3=0.387.

  The maximum eigenvalue λmax shown in the lower part of Table 4 is a weight vector, that is, the importance is multiplied by the element of each column, the sum is obtained for each row, and further divided by the weight vector of each element. Calculated as an average. Specifically, 0.170 is multiplied by 1,3,2 which is an element of the seismic performance column, similarly 0.443 is multiplied by 1 / 3,1,1 and 0.387 is 1 / 2,1. , 1 times. The sum is calculated for each row, and the sum of the rows of earthquake resistance, load resistance, and durability performance is 0.170 * 1 + 0.443 * 1/3 + 0.387 * 1/2 = 0.511, 0.170 * 3 + 0, respectively. .443 * 1 + 0.387 * 1 = 1.340, 0.170 * 2 + 0.443 * 1 + 0.387 * 1 = 1.170. When these sums are divided by the weight vector of each element to obtain an average value, (0.511 / 0.170 + 1.340 / 0.443 + 1.170 / 0.387) /3=3.018. The consistency index (C.I.) is expressed by the following formula (1). If this numerical value is smaller than 0.1, it is considered effective (consistent). Evaluation is also considered effective.

Similarly, the level 3 evaluation items existing in the lower level of the seismic performance of level 2 that are the importance of route, bridge environment, construction cost, structure, and deformation are also shown in Table 5 by carrying out a pair comparison in the same manner. The indicated importance can be calculated.
Furthermore, Table 6 shows the results of calculating the importance of traffic conditions, transport functions, and secondary disasters existing as Level 4 below the route importance in the Level 3 evaluation items. The result of calculating the importance of the road width, total traffic volume, and large vehicles (traffic volume) existing in the lower layer of the traffic situation is shown.
A summary of the results of Table 4 to Table 7 is the importance list shown in Table 3. The importance levels in Tables 4 to 7 are those whose sum is 1, so the importance levels at each level described in Table 3 are also 1 and are shown as a breakdown by evaluation item. The importance for each evaluation item as the product of the importance of levels 3 to 5 is 1 as the sum of the seismic performance, load resistance and durability of level 2. On the other hand, the level 2 importance of performance is also independently summed to 1. This is a priority for each level of seismic performance, load bearing performance and durability performance, and at the same time the final goal of level 1 Since it is required to determine the general countermeasure priority, it is normalized and used as a weight.

The importance data 18 stored in the importance database 5 in FIG. 1 has been described above. Next, the analysis model database 6 will be described.
The analysis model database 6 stores a geometric mean model 27 and a collective decision-making stress model 28 as analysis model data 26. The analysis model data 26 is a model for forming a group consensus, that is, making a decision by a group. The importance data 18 described above is calculated by performing a paired comparison as shown in Tables 5 to 8, and it is conceivable that the AHP method is executed with a plurality of personnel forming an agreement. . This is in order to determine priorities that are fairer and more accurate by eliminating the allegiance alone or by widely adopting the opinions of experts from different positions.
In order to perform this group consensus formation, there are a geometric mean model 27 and a group decision making stress model 28 as known methods. Of course, these are only examples in the present embodiment, and other models may be used.

The geometric average model 27 will be described with reference to Table 5. For example, when there are three group members A, B, and C, the load resistance performance is 3 in the current seismic performance column. Suppose that this numerical value is determined to be 3 for A, 1 for B, and 2 for C. In such a case, the geometric average of the three is the cube root of the product of 3, 2 and 1, specifically 1.817.
Therefore, 1.817 is stored in the column of load bearing performance in the column of the seismic performance, and 1 / 1.817 = 0.550 is stored as the diagonal element.
Thus, the geometric average model 27 is a model that calculates the product of the numerical values related to the opinions of a plurality of members and calculates the power root of the number of members.

Next, the group decision stress model 28 will be described with reference to Tables 8 to 12. Now, the evaluation results of the evaluation criteria C1, C2, and C3 of the three evaluators P1, P2, and P3 are respectively Table 8 (P1 evaluation result), Table 9 (P2 evaluation result), and Table 10 (P3 evaluation). Result). Respective weight vectors W11, W12, W13,..., W33 are obtained, and these weight vectors are collected as shown in Table 11. In Table 11, when the ratings wk1 to wk3 are set to 1/3 in the column C1, respectively, the weight vector values P1 to P3 are multiplied by the rating, and the weight vectors WC1 to WC1 of the respective evaluation criteria according to the ratings. Find WC3. For example, the weight vector WC1 of C1 in Table 11 is 0.290. Moreover, if ej is calculated as an average of evaluators, e1 = 0.290 / 3 = 0.097. Using this ej, (wk1 * W11−e1) ² = 0.009.

When this value is obtained from a matrix of C1 to C3 and P1 to P3, it is as shown in Table 11. When the sum is obtained for each evaluation standard, 0.013, 0.006, and 0.013 are obtained, and when the sum of the whole is obtained, 0.032 is obtained, which is a decision-making stress.
In Table 11, an equal 1/3 was adopted as the rating value, but the rating value that minimizes this decision-making stress is selected as shown in Table 13, and the weight vectors WC1 to WC3 at that time are important for each evaluation criterion. It is a degree. That is, in Table 12, WC1 = 0.286, WC2 = 0.363, and WC3 = 0.351.
These group decision-making methods or group decision-making models are not limited to these as described above, and the degree of importance may be determined appropriately by any method or model.

Returning to FIG. 1, the priority database 7 which is the last database will be described. The priority database 7 stores priority data 29. The priority data 29 stores the results calculated by the main body 2. Specifically, the priority data 29 is a priority determination index 30. Measure priority 31 is included.
The data structure of the priority order data 29 will be described with reference to Tables 13 to 17. Table 13 shows the data structure of the priority order data 29. In the left column, evaluation items are stored for each level related to the priority order for each performance level 2, and for each level 3, 4 and 5 and for each hierarchy. ing. Furthermore, the importance is stored corresponding to each. The importance shown in Table 13 is the importance by evaluation item in Table 3. In FIG. 1, importance 19 by seismic performance evaluation item, importance 21 by load resistance evaluation item, and importance 23 by durability performance evaluation item. It is shown by.

Next, the data shown as A bridge to J bridge in Table 13 is the priority determination index 30 shown in FIG. 1, which is a simple evaluation point and important points included in the bridge data 11 stored in the bridge database 4. This is expressed by the product of the importance levels 19, 21, and 23 for each evaluation item regarding the earthquake resistance performance, load resistance performance and durability performance included in the importance data 18 stored in the degree database 5. By obtaining the sum of the products for each performance, it is possible to calculate the priority determination index 30 for each performance. For example, in Bridge A, the total importance related to earthquake resistance is 2.025, which is larger than 1.928 of Bridge B in the right column, so priority is given to earthquake resistance. Is high.
In addition, in Table 13, 10 alternatives up to the J bridge in the rightmost column are evaluated, and for each, a priority index that is the sum of the product of importance and simple evaluation score for each evaluation item It has been demanded.
The countermeasure priority order 31 is obtained as an order obtained when the alternatives included in the bridge database 4 are arranged in order of priority using the priority determination index 30 as a key. Therefore, it is possible to evaluate the priority order according to performance. For example, the bridge A mentioned earlier has the seventh highest priority in terms of earthquake resistance, but fourth in load resistance and seventh in durability. Furthermore, the priority determination index in the lower column is obtained by multiplying the priority determination index for these three performances by the corresponding importance by performance, and the priority determination index in the lower column is 2.564, giving priority to comprehensive measures. It can be seen that the rank is sixth.

The priority determination index 30 and the countermeasure priority 31 obtained in this way have a data structure as shown in Tables 14 to 17 with the countermeasure priority 31 in each performance as a key with respect to the data structure shown in Table 13. Can also be sorted. Tables 14 to 17 show the results of sorting in descending order of priority according to comprehensive evaluation, seismic performance evaluation, load bearing performance evaluation, and durability performance evaluation.
By summarizing in this way, you can understand the existing bridges according to the priority order at a glance. Tables 14 to 17 are summarized as a list for each priority order, but display basic data and other data for elements or evaluation items that should be used as final decision materials.
As described above, the existing bridge countermeasure priority determination support system according to the present embodiment includes four basic databases.

Next, returning to FIG. 1, the three components of the main body 2 will be described. First, the importance calculator 8 will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 6 is a system configuration diagram showing details of the importance calculation unit of the countermeasure priority order determination support system for the existing bridge according to the present embodiment.
1 and 6, the importance calculation unit 8 calculates importance data 18 stored in the importance database 5 described above. However, in the countermeasure priority order determination support system for the existing bridge according to the present embodiment, the importance level data 18 does not necessarily have to be calculated by the importance level calculation unit 8, and numerical values calculated or evaluated externally are input unit 1. May be stored in the importance database 5. The importance calculation unit 8 calculates the new importance data 18 when the importance data 18 is not stored in the importance database 5 in advance, or stores it in the importance database 5 even if it is stored. It is a calculation part used in the case.

As shown in FIG. 6, the importance calculation unit 8 includes an importance data selection unit 40, an importance calculation unit 41, and a consistency index calculation unit 42. The importance level data selection unit 40 is a selection for executing selection of which importance level data 18 is selected from the importance level data 18 stored in advance or whether new importance level data is separately calculated. Part.
The importance calculation unit 41 is a calculation unit for executing the calculation when the importance data 18 is newly calculated. Specifically, as described above, first, a hierarchical structure is constructed by listing the evaluation items shown in FIGS. 2 to 5 from the upper layer to the lower layer without omission. The constructed evaluation item is stored in the importance database 5 via the input unit 1. At this stage, the evaluation items of level 2 to level 5 in Table 3 are only stored, but a paired comparison as shown in Tables 4 to 7 is performed for these evaluation items using the AHP method. As a result, the importance levels of the evaluation item breakdown column, the evaluation item column, and the performance column in Table 3 are calculated.
In this calculation, the evaluation items listed for each level are copied on the display screen of the output unit 3 so that the evaluator can input evaluation elements and diagonal elements via the input unit 1 while watching this. Keep it. In this way, the importance level calculation unit 41 calculates the importance level. The calculated result is transmitted to the matching index calculation unit 42, and the matching index calculation unit 42 calculates the maximum eigenvalue and the matching index to determine whether or not the result is valid. A specific determination method will be described later with reference to FIG.

When there are a plurality of evaluators, the importance calculation unit 41 accesses the consensus building calculation unit 9 to form a collective consensus. The consensus building calculation unit 9 will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 7 is a system configuration diagram showing details of the consensus building calculation unit of the existing bridge countermeasure priority order determination support system according to the present embodiment.
In FIG. 7, the consensus building calculation unit 9 includes an consensus building model selection unit 43, a geometric mean calculation unit 44, and a collective intention stress calculation unit 45. As described above, only the geometric mean computing unit 44 and the collective intention stress computing unit 45 are not suitable for group consensus formation. If any consensus can be formed, the present embodiment It is not limited to the geometric mean computing unit 44 or the collective intention stress computing unit 45.
When the importance calculation unit 41 inputs that there are a plurality of evaluators via the input unit 1, the importance calculation unit 41 accesses the consensus building calculation unit 9 and activates the consensus building model selection unit 43. The geometric mean computing unit 44 or the collective intention stress computing unit 45 is selected. This selection may be made by the evaluator selecting the consensus building model selection unit 43 on the display device of the output unit 3 as to which operation unit to select and interacting with it. The consensus building model selection unit 43 may make a selection. Further, both may be calculated so that both results can be referred to.
When the geometric average calculation unit 44 is selected by the consensus model selection unit 43, the geometric average calculation unit 44 selects the geometric average model 27 from the analysis model database 6 and, as described above, each evaluator The importance is calculated by calculating the geometric mean of the evaluation values.

On the other hand, when the collective intention stress calculating unit 45 is selected by the consensus building model selecting unit 43, the collective intention stress calculating unit 45 selects the collective decision making stress model 28 from the analysis model database 6, and Tables 8 to The calculation as described with reference to 12 is performed, the rating is adjusted so that the decision-making stress is minimized, and the importance is calculated. When the consensus building model is selected and the importance is calculated, the importance using the evaluation value by the evaluator is calculated in advance in the importance calculating unit 41, and the importance for each evaluator is matched. The consistency index is calculated by being transmitted to the degree index calculator 42, and the consistency index calculator 42 checks the validity of the evaluation regarding the importance. A method for checking the effectiveness related to the importance using a specific consistency index will be described later with reference to FIG.
When the consistency index is calculated by the consistency index calculator 42, for example, if a reference value of 0.010 cannot be satisfied, the importance is calculated again or there are a plurality of evaluators. If this is the case, collective consensus formation is performed again, and further evaluation is performed by selecting an evaluation item so that the consistency index satisfies the reference value. The result of the calculation of the consistency index may be displayed on the display screen of the output unit 3 from the consistency index calculator 42. In addition, candidates are displayed on the output unit 3 so that the evaluator can select from the result, such as calculation of importance, group consensus formation, or selection of evaluation items, for example, touch panel type or keyboard type via the input unit 1 It is recommended that candidates can be selected.
When the consistency index satisfies a predetermined criterion, the importance calculation unit 8 transmits the importance calculation result to the output unit 3 for display or transmission to another device or the like. Etc. so that the data of the result can be used.
These importance levels are stored in the importance level database 5 and are in a state as shown in Table 3 and can be calculated by the countermeasure priority order calculation unit 10.

The countermeasure priority order calculation unit 10 of the main unit 2 will be described with reference to FIG. FIG. 8 is a system configuration diagram showing details of the countermeasure priority order calculation unit of the countermeasure priority order determination support system for the existing bridge according to the present embodiment.
In FIG. 8, the countermeasure priority order calculation unit 10 includes an evaluation target selection unit 46, a priority determination index calculation unit 47, and a countermeasure priority order determination unit 48.
First, the evaluation target selection unit 46 selects a range to be evaluated. That is, select an alternative that takes measures. For example, referring to Table 14, in the present embodiment, ten existing bridges from the A bridge to the J bridge are alternatives, and these are the evaluation target range. The selection of the evaluation target range specifically means an operation of reading the bridge data 11 stored in the bridge database 4 using the ID included in the basic data 12 as a key.
In the present embodiment, the countermeasure priority order calculation unit 10 selects, but the importance degree calculation unit 8 may select the priority in advance. Since the range of the evaluation target is determined separately from the calculation of importance, the timing may always be before the priority determination index is calculated in the priority determination index calculation unit 47. The evaluation target selection unit 46 only needs to be able to transmit the information to the priority determination index calculation unit 47 and is not included in the countermeasure priority calculation unit 10.
Since the importance calculated in the importance calculation unit 8 after the alternative is selected in the evaluation target selection unit 46 is stored as the importance data 18 in the importance database 5, the priority determination index calculation unit 47 accesses the importance database 5 and reads the importance data 18. Alternatively, the importance calculation unit 8 may store the importance in the importance database 5 and simultaneously transmit it to the countermeasure priority calculation unit 10 in parallel.

The priority determination index calculation unit 47 extracts the bridge data 11 corresponding to each evaluation item from the bridge data 11 previously read by the evaluation object selection unit 46, using the evaluation items included in the importance data 18 as keys. And, the importance 19 by the seismic performance evaluation item, the importance 21 by the load performance evaluation item 21 and the importance 23 by the durability performance evaluation item included in the importance data 18, and the simple evaluation points obtained from the extracted bridge data 11. The sum of products is calculated for each performance as a priority determination index. Therefore, it is possible to evaluate the priority of countermeasures for each level 2 earthquake resistance, load resistance, and durability performance. The key may be an evaluation item included in the bridge data 11 instead of the evaluation item included in the importance data 18, and in that case, included in the importance data 18 corresponding to the evaluation item. Extract importance. That is, any evaluation item may be used as a key as long as the evaluation items included in each item can be associated with each other.
Further, the priority determination index calculation unit 47 calculates a comprehensive priority determination index by taking the product of the importance for each performance and the priority determination index for each earthquake resistance, load resistance, and durability performance. By this calculation, it is possible to acquire data for the level 1 comprehensive countermeasure priority in consideration of the weight for each performance.

In this way, with the evaluation item as a key, the product is calculated so that the importance for each evaluation item and the simple evaluation point correspond to each other. In addition, in the operation for calculating the sum, quantitative characteristic data in the bridge data corresponding to each evaluation item is obtained. Can be multiplied by the degree of importance evaluated for each evaluation item, so that the characteristics of the alternative can be evaluated without excess or deficiency for each evaluation item.
Furthermore, since the importance level data 18 and the bridge data 11 are made to correspond to each evaluation item, both of them can be corrected independently, so that effort is required for addition of bridge data and improvement or correction of the evaluation method. It can be handled with less, and data maintenance and management become easier.
The result regarding the priority determination index calculated by the priority determination index calculation unit 47 is displayed on the output unit 3 or output as data so that it can be transferred from the output unit 3 to another device. Further, it is stored in the priority order database 7.
From the result obtained by the priority determination index calculation unit 47, the priority determination index is used as a key for sorting (sorting). That is, countermeasure priority is obtained by arranging the alternatives in descending order of priority determination index. It is the countermeasure priority order determination unit 48 that performs this rearrangement. The countermeasure priority order determination unit 48 reads priority determination indices from the priority order database 7 and rearranges them using them as keys. This result is also stored in the priority database 7. Although the countermeasure priority order determination unit 48 has been described as reading the priority determination index 30 from the priority order database 7, it may be read directly from the priority determination index calculation unit 47.
Examples of the data structure rearranged in this way are as shown in Tables 14 to 17 described above. Table 14 is a data structure in which the priority is determined according to the overall priority determination index, and Tables 15 to 17 are sorted by earthquake resistance, load resistance, and durability performance, respectively.

As described above, support for determining priorities for taking measures such as repair and reinforcement for existing bridges is provided by using the support priority determination support system for existing bridges according to the present embodiment. .
Ultimately, the evaluator can make a comprehensive judgment based on factors not necessarily included in the calculation while referring to the list as shown in Table 13 or Tables 14 to 17. is there.
According to the present embodiment, data maintenance is easy, and it is possible to support determination of a priority order that is rational and highly reliable according to the purpose.
In the present embodiment, the three performances of earthquake resistance, load resistance, and durability performance are shown. Of course, it is preferable to provide three of these, but the required accuracy, number of data, cost, etc. Of these, one or two performances may be selected and performed.

Next, an embodiment in the case where the above-described countermeasure priority order determination support system for a bridge is regarded as a method will be described with reference to FIGS. 9 to 12.
FIG. 9 is a flowchart showing the steps of the countermeasure priority order determination support method for the existing bridge according to the present embodiment. In FIG. 9, step S <b> 1 is a step of inputting alternative plan (bridge) data to the bridge database 4. In the present embodiment, this input step is included in the flowchart, but this step is not necessarily included as an embodiment of the invention. Step S2 is an importance calculation step. Details of step S2 are described in FIG.

FIG. 10 is a flowchart showing the detailed process of step S2 of the countermeasure priority order determination support method for the existing bridge according to the present embodiment.
In step S2, importance level data is first selected in step S21. When existing importance data is selected, the process proceeds to step S4. When selecting existing importance data, the importance database 5 is accessed and read from there, but if there is a plurality of importance data, the desired importance data is read from there appropriately. It is preferable that the contents of the importance data can be identified by some kind of display so that selection is possible. In addition, it is preferable that new and existing can be selected first, and when existing is selected, display can be performed so that any existing data can be selected from the existing data.
If new importance level data is to be created, the process proceeds to step S22 to select the necessity for consensus building. If consensus building is necessary, the process proceeds to step S3, and if not necessary, the process proceeds to step S23.
Since consensus building involves evaluation by a plurality of evaluators, it can be expected to improve the accuracy of priority determination.
Step S23 is an evaluation item importance creation step. Specifically, if even evaluation items have not been determined, first, hierarchical evaluation items as shown in FIGS. 2 to 5 are created. Hierarchical level evaluation items will be created for basic performance such as earthquake resistance, load resistance and durability.
After the evaluation item is determined or when the evaluation item is determined in advance, the evaluation item is read from the importance database 5 and described in Tables 5 to 8 as described in Step S231 of FIG. A pairwise comparison of each evaluation item is performed with reference to the table.

Next, as described in step S232, the importance between the elements at each level is calculated. Further, in step S233, the consistency index (CI) is calculated.
This C.I. I. In step S234, the reference value is compared with 0.1. If it is less than or equal to 0.1, it is assumed that the consistency is satisfied, and the range is expanded to the calculation of the importance of the entire hierarchy in step S235. If a matching index greater than 0.1 is obtained in step S234, the process returns to step S231 to perform pair comparison between elements at each level.
When the necessity for consensus formation is affirmed in step S22, the process proceeds to the consensus formation calculation process in step S3.

FIG. 11 shows a detailed flowchart of step S3 of the countermeasure priority order determination support method for the existing bridge according to the present embodiment. In step S3, first, the number of persons to be evaluated is input in step S31. In the system, the number of people (N) may be input via the input unit 1 of FIG. After entering the number of people, a consensus building model is selected in step S32. For example, as described in the embodiment of the system, there are a geometric mean model as shown in step S33 and a group decision stress model as shown in step S36. Any other model may be used as long as group decision making is possible.
When the geometric average model is selected in step S33, the importance for each evaluator is calculated in step S34. The importance can be calculated as many as the number of evaluators. Of course, it is carried out for each evaluation item. When calculating the importance, the steps shown in steps S231 to S234 in FIG. 10 are executed, and the calculation of the importance for each evaluator is completed.
Step S35 is a step of collecting opinions by geometric averaging. The specific contents of aggregation in this step are the same as those described in the description of the embodiment of the system, and will not be repeated.
On the other hand, when the group decision stress model is selected in step S36, the importance for each evaluator is calculated in step S37. In this case, steps S231 to S234 in FIG. 10 are similarly executed. In step S38, the group decision stress is minimized and the rating value of the evaluator is determined. Since this content has already been described with reference to Tables 8 to 12 in the description of the embodiment of the system, a description thereof will be omitted.
In step S3, each model is selected and collective decision making is performed. After consensus is formed, the process proceeds to step S235 in the same manner as when the consensus formation calculation process is not performed, and the importance of the entire hierarchy is calculated. .
In step S24, the importance level for each evaluation item calculated in step S23 or the confirmation for each evaluation item aggregated in the consensus building calculation step S3 is confirmed. Although this confirmation is included in the present embodiment, this confirmation can be performed at the stage where the evaluator can confirm the result calculated in step S23, step S35 or step S38. This need not be included in the embodiment.
That is, it does not have to be part of the embodiment of the invention, and merely shows the operations of the evaluator and the worker.
When the importance for each evaluation item is calculated, or when selection of existing importance data is completed, the process proceeds to a countermeasure priority order calculation step in step S4.

Details of step S4 will be described with reference to FIGS. FIG. 12 is a detailed flowchart of step S4 in the countermeasure priority order determination support method for the existing bridge according to the present embodiment.
In FIG. 9, in step S41, the evaluation target range is selected. The selection of the evaluation target range is the same as the contents described above as the system, but the candidate selection as an alternative to the existing bridge is performed, and the ID is used as a key from the bridge database 4 shown in FIG. Choose an alternative. Step S41 is divided into selection of the evaluation target range as step S411 and reading of the evaluation item data of the target bridge as step S412, that is, reading of the bridge data 11, as shown in detail in FIG.
This step S41 is arranged as the first step of step S4 in the present embodiment. In particular, the selection from the bridge database and the reading of the data need to be performed in the order of selection after the calculation of the importance. If it is before the process of subsequent step S42, 43, 44, it may be anytime.
When selection of alternatives and reading of the data are completed in step S41, a priority determination index is calculated for each evaluation item in steps S42, 43, and 44. This index is as described above, and the storage in the database and the reading of data from the database are the same as those described as the system including the timing and the like, and are therefore omitted. The same applies to the steps included in the method described above or the steps related to the method described later.

In step S42, first, the importance database 5 is accessed in step S421, and the item-by-item importance relating to the importance for each seismic performance evaluation item is read from the importance data 18 stored in the importance database 5. Then, the bridge data 11 corresponding to each evaluation item is extracted from the previously read bridge data 11 using the evaluation items regarding the earthquake resistance included in the importance data 18 as keys. Then, the sum of the product of the importance 19 for each seismic performance evaluation item included in the importance data 18 and the simple evaluation point obtained from the extracted bridge data 11 is calculated as a priority determination index for the seismic performance. The key may be an evaluation item related to the earthquake resistance included in the bridge data 11 instead of the evaluation item related to the earthquake resistance included in the importance data 18, and in that case, the importance corresponding to the evaluation item may be used. The importance included in the data 18 is extracted.
Further, in step S423, the data in the bridge database 4 is rearranged using the priority determination index as a key, and the priority order of the anti-earthquake performance measures is determined.
In parallel or in series with the earthquake resistance calculation, calculations relating to load resistance performance and durability performance, that is, steps S431 to S433 and steps S441 to S443 are executed.
After step S42, 43, 44 is complete | finished, it transfers to step S45 and the comprehensive countermeasure priority order is determined. The details are as shown in FIG. 12. First, in step S451, the importance 25 classified by performance is read by accessing the importance database 5, and then the performance calculated in steps S42, 43, and 44 in step S452. Another priority determination index is read out, and the total priority determination index is calculated by multiplying this by the weight data classified by performance read in step S451 as a weight, and finally, the overall countermeasure priority is determined in step S453.
In order to determine the priority order in steps S42, 43, 44, and 45, as described above, data is rearranged using the priority determination index as a key. As the data structure indicating the result, as described in the embodiment of the system, Table 13 and Tables 14 to 17 can be cited.
The calculated countermeasure priority is displayed by the output unit 3 as at least one of seismic performance, load bearing performance, durability performance, and overall performance.
In addition, the priority determination index and the overall priority determination index for each performance, as well as the seismic performance, load bearing performance, durability performance, and overall countermeasure priority are stored in the priority database 7.

In FIGS. 9 to 12, the flow chart of each process includes a database, an input unit, and an output unit, which are intended to show specific cooperation between software and hardware in each process. Specifically, what kind of hardware is used in each process is shown. The countermeasure priority ordering support method for the existing bridge according to the present embodiment basically grasps the countermeasure priority order support system for the existing bridge as a method, and data exchange in each process is performed with the system. It is the same.
As described above, the countermeasure priority order determination support method for the existing bridge according to the present embodiment can provide the same effects as the countermeasure priority determination support system for the existing bridge.

The support priority determination support system and method for existing bridges according to the present invention makes a plan when a local government or the like orders a repair / reinforcement project for existing bridges with limited financial resources. Can be used as a reasonable practical tool. In addition, it can be used as a tool for consulting companies to undertake planning and as a tool for proposals.
Furthermore, it can be used as a system for cooperation with civil engineering companies, consulting companies, and local governments and countries, and can be widely used in industry.

It is a system block diagram of the countermeasure priority order decision support system of the existing bridge concerning an embodiment of the invention. FIG. 3 is a conceptual diagram showing a hierarchical structure in which a general countermeasure priority is set to level 1 and each performance priority among the evaluation items shown in Table 1 is set to level 2; FIG. 3 is a conceptual diagram showing a hierarchical structure of evaluation items related to seismic performance among the performance priorities of the hierarchical structure shown in FIG. 2. FIG. 3 is a conceptual diagram showing a hierarchical structure of evaluation items related to load-bearing performance among the priorities by performance of the hierarchical structure shown in FIG. 2. It is a conceptual diagram which shows the hierarchical structure of the evaluation item related to durability performance among the priorities classified by performance of the hierarchical structure shown in FIG. It is a system configuration | structure figure which shows the detail of the importance calculating part of the countermeasure priority order decision support system of the existing bridge which concerns on this Embodiment. It is a system configuration | structure figure which shows the detail of the agreement formation calculating part of the countermeasure priority order decision support system of the existing bridge which concerns on this Embodiment. It is a system configuration | structure figure which shows the detail of the countermeasure priority order calculating part of the countermeasure priority order decision support system of the existing bridge concerning this Embodiment. It is a flowchart which shows the process of the countermeasure priority order decision support method of the existing bridge concerning this Embodiment. It is a flowchart which shows the detailed process of step S2 of the countermeasure priority order decision support method of the existing bridge which concerns on this Embodiment. It is a flowchart of the detailed process of step S3 of the countermeasure priority order decision support method of the existing bridge which concerns on this Embodiment. It is a flowchart of the detailed process of step S4 of the countermeasure priority order decision support method of the existing bridge which concerns on this Embodiment.

Explanation of symbols

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 ... Input part 2 ... Main-body part 3 ... Output part 4 ... Bridge database 5 ... Importance database 6 ... Analysis model database 7 ... Priority order database 8 ... Importance calculation part 9 ... Consensus formation calculation part 10 ... Countermeasure priority calculation part 11 ... Bridge data 12 ... Basic data 13 ... Route data 14 ... Environmental data 15 ... Construction cost data 16 ... Structural data 17 ... Deformation data 18 ... Importance data 19 ... Importance by seismic performance evaluation item 20 ... Breakdown by evaluation item 21 ... Importance by load bearing performance evaluation item 22 ... Breakdown by evaluation item 23 ... Importance by durability performance evaluation item 24 ... Breakdown by evaluation item 25 ... Importance by performance 26 ... Analytical model data 27 ... Geometric mean model 28 ... Collective intention Decision stress model 29 ... priority data 30 ... priority decision index 31 ... measure priority 40 ... importance Data selection unit 41 ... Importance calculation unit 42 ... Consistency index calculation unit 43 ... Consensus building model selection unit 44 ... Geometric mean calculation unit 45 ... Group intention stress calculation unit 46 ... Evaluation target selection unit 47 ... Priority determination index calculation Part 48 ... Countermeasure priority order determination part

Claims (2)

A bridge database that stores bridge data related to the input section, the main body section, the output section, and the existing bridge; and an importance database that stores importance data for evaluating the performance of the bridge, and the importance data is stored in the existing bridge. Among the seismic performance, load bearing performance and durability performance used for evaluation necessary for repair / reinforcement, at least one evaluation item for each performance and at least one of the evaluation items for each performance below the evaluation items for each performance Existing common evaluation items, a first lower evaluation item existing below the common evaluation item and common among the evaluation items classified by the plurality of performances, and a lower layer of the evaluation items classified by the plurality of performances An evaluation item other than the common evaluation item and a second subordinate evaluation item existing below the evaluation item other than the common evaluation item (hereinafter, in the present claim, these evaluation items are combined to give a total evaluation item) And the importance for each of the plurality of performance evaluation items, the importance for each common evaluation item, the importance for each evaluation item other than the common evaluation item, and the first and second It is a countermeasure priority determination system for existing bridges including the importance of each lower evaluation item,
The bridge data corresponds to basic data including at least an ID capable of recognizing each bridge and a position of the bridge for a plurality of existing bridges, and the first and second lower evaluation items related to the bridge. Each containing at least one quantitatively representable characteristic data,
The main body has a function capable of selecting either importance data stored in the importance database or importance data obtained by newly determining the importance for each total evaluation item,
The analysis model is selected from an analysis model database that stores an analysis model of an analysis to be executed in order to form a consensus on a plurality of opinions when determining the importance for each of the total evaluation items, and from the input unit A consensus building calculation unit that calculates a consensus building value using the importance for each of the total evaluation items related to the plurality of input opinions;
An importance calculation unit that reads the consensus building value calculated by the consensus building calculation unit, calculates the importance for each of the total evaluation items, and sets the importance data,
Read out bridge data related to a plurality of bridges stored in the bridge database in advance as an evaluation object for determining countermeasure priority or input from the input unit, using the ID as a key,
Read the common evaluation item, evaluation items other than the common evaluation item, and importance level data of the first and second lower evaluation items existing in the lower layer of the performance-specific evaluation items stored in the importance database in advance. The characteristic data corresponding to the first and second lower evaluation items of the bridge data is extracted using the first and second lower evaluation items of the importance data as keys, or Using the first and second subordinate evaluation items of the characteristic data included in the bridge data as a key, the common evaluation items existing in the lower layer of the evaluation items by performance, evaluation items other than the common evaluation items, the first And extracting the importance of the second lower evaluation item, calculating the sum of the product of the characteristic data and the importance as a priority determination index for each of the seismic performance, load bearing performance and durability performance, The priority determination index is used as a key to calculate the priority of countermeasures for the existing bridges, and the sum of the products of the importance and the priority determination index for each evaluation item for each performance is used as the overall countermeasure priority. It has a measure priority calculation unit to calculate,
The output unit outputs at least one of the priority determination index, the countermeasure priority, or the total countermeasure priority;
While the importance of all the first lower evaluation items existing below the common evaluation item is made common among the evaluation items according to the performance, the second existing existing below the evaluation items other than the common evaluation item If any one of the lower evaluation items is different among the evaluation items according to the performance, even if the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items are common, the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items are included or less. An existing bridge countermeasure priority ordering support system, characterized in that it is provided with evaluation items other than the common evaluation items and importance levels of the second lower evaluation items separated from each other. A measure priority determination method that determines priority for repair and reinforcement using bridge data on existing bridges and importance data for evaluating bridge performance,
The importance data includes the evaluation items for a plurality of performances among the seismic performance, load bearing performance and durability performance used for the evaluation necessary for repair and reinforcement of the existing bridge, and the evaluation data for each of the plurality of performances. At least one common evaluation item among the evaluation items by performance, a first sub-evaluation item that exists below the common evaluation item and is common among the plurality of evaluation items by performance, and the plurality of performances An evaluation item other than the common evaluation item existing in a lower layer of another evaluation item, and a second lower evaluation item existing in a lower layer of the evaluation item other than the common evaluation item (hereinafter, in the present claim, these evaluation items The total evaluation items together), the importance for each of the plurality of performance-specific evaluation items, the importance for each common evaluation item, the importance for each evaluation item other than the common evaluation item, The first and second subordinate reviews Stored in the importance database includes the importance of each item,
The bridge data corresponds to basic data including at least an ID capable of recognizing each bridge and a position of the bridge for a plurality of existing bridges, and the first and second lower evaluation items related to the bridge. Each containing at least one quantitatively representable characteristic data stored in the bridge database,
A step of reading bridge data related to a plurality of bridges stored in the bridge database in advance as an evaluation target for determining countermeasure priority or input from an input unit using the ID as a key;
Selecting whether to read importance data stored in the importance database in advance or to calculate importance data obtained by newly determining the importance for each evaluation item;
If new importance level calculation is selected, an analysis model for analysis to be executed in order to form a consensus among a plurality of opinions when determining the importance level for each total evaluation item is stored. Selecting the analysis model from the analysis model database, calculating a consensus value using the importance for each of the total evaluation items related to the plurality of opinions, and storing it in the importance database;
Reading the consensus value from the importance database, calculating the importance for each total evaluation item, and storing it as importance data in the importance database;
Of the common evaluation item, the evaluation items other than the common evaluation item, the first and second sub-evaluation items existing in the lower layer of the evaluation item according to performance of the importance data newly calculated from the importance database Read out the importance and extract the characteristic data corresponding to each lower evaluation item of the bridge data using the first and second lower evaluation items of the importance data as a key, or include them in the bridge data The first and second evaluation items of the characteristic data to be used as keys, the common evaluation item existing in the lower layer of the performance-specific evaluation items, the evaluation items other than the common evaluation item, the first and second lower evaluation items The priority level database is calculated by calculating the sum of the product of the characteristic data and the importance level as a priority determination index for each of the seismic performance, load bearing performance and durability performance. And the step of storing in,
Reading the priority determination index stored in the priority database, calculating the countermeasure priority of the plurality of existing bridges using this as a key, and storing it in the priority database;
Calculating the sum of products of the importance for each evaluation item for each performance and the priority determination index as a total countermeasure priority and storing it in the priority database;
Outputting at least one of the priority determination index, the priority, or the overall countermeasure priority stored in the priority database,
If it is selected to read out the importance data stored in the importance database in advance, the common evaluation item and the common evaluation existing below the evaluation item for each performance of the importance data stored in advance Read out the importance of the evaluation items other than the items and the first and second lower evaluation items, and use the first and second lower evaluation items of the importance data as the keys, and the first and second of the bridge data. Each characteristic data corresponding to the two lower evaluation items is extracted, or exists in the lower layer of the performance-specific evaluation items using the first and second lower evaluation items of the characteristic data included in the bridge data as a key. Extracting the importance of the common evaluation item, the evaluation items other than the common evaluation item, and the first and second lower evaluation items, and calculating the sum of the product of the characteristic data and the importance And storing the priority database Shin performance, by calculating a priority determination index for each load performance and durability,
Reading the priority determination index stored in the priority database, calculating the countermeasure priority of the plurality of existing bridges using this as a key, and storing it in the priority database;
Calculating the sum of products of the importance for each evaluation item for each performance and the priority determination index as a total countermeasure priority and storing it in the priority database;
Outputting at least one of the priority determination index, the priority, or the overall countermeasure priority stored in the priority database,
While the importance of all the first lower evaluation items existing below the common evaluation item is made common among the evaluation items according to the performance, the second existing existing below the evaluation items other than the common evaluation item If any one of the lower evaluation items is different among the evaluation items according to the performance, even if the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items are common, the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items are included or less. A measure priority order determination support method for existing bridges, wherein the priority levels of the evaluation items other than the common evaluation items and the importance levels of the second lower evaluation items are provided separately.