臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

國道三號大溪龍潭段63K+935~73K+185間（總長9.25公里）為國內第一次於道路主線段上大規模鋪設剛性鋪面，本路段自民國82年8月通車至今已屆22年，根據國道歷年來維護資料顯示此路段維修頻率低，且未曾辦理大規模重新鋪築。紀錄顯示此剛性鋪面路段所經歷的主要維護，以提升鋪面平坦度為要，包括通車初期於民國84年與後續使用階段間於89年、90年與94年曾進行部分路段鋪面刨磨工程，此外則為接縫填縫劑之例行性更換及零星板塊挖除修補等局部養護。相較於前後相鄰約同等長度之柔性鋪面，均曾依其損壞狀況不同分別進行1至3次不等之全面重新刨鋪，於養護規模上似有差異，故本研究擬以實際案例探討兩種不同鋪面材料型式於生命週期內之總成本與碳排放量。
為以量化方式驗證剛性與柔性鋪面之工程成本與碳排放量差異，本研究蒐集國道三號大溪龍潭段及其前後相鄰約同等長度之柔性鋪面自通車至今近22年之大量工程標案資料，建構一套合理的資料架構；並將未結構化之工程標案資料彙整為可供本研究分析使用之結構化資料。所得之剛性鋪面與接鄰柔性鋪面歷年維護資料，利用生命週期成本分析（Life cycle cost analysis，LCCA）與生命週期評估(Life cycle assessment, LCA)之方法，計算評估剛、柔性鋪面之初始建設成本、維護成本、用路人成本與部分生命週期階段的碳排放量，進行兩種鋪面之總成本效益與碳排放量比較。本研究分析結果可供高速公路主管機關參考，並於未來於選定鋪面類型時，將經濟與環境之觀點同時納入，以永續之觀點進行決策。

The 9.25 km (5.8 mile) Daxi-Longtan section of National Freeway No. 3 was the first large scale concrete pavement of major highway in Taiwan. Based on the recorded maintenance data for the past 22 years since its opening, concrete pavement has shown much lower frequency of maintenance and consequently lower maintenance costs than that of asphalt pavement. The major maintenance works involve diamond grinding, full depth and partial depth patch, joints resealing, and a few slab replacements. This study conducted life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) on the concrete pavement and two conjunctive sections of asphalt pavement with the same length, one at each end of the concrete pavement section. The LCCA approach considers not only direct agency costs (initial construction costs and maintenance costs) but also extra user costs induced by congestion at maintenance work zone. The LCA mainly focused on CO2 emission of paving materials preparation, transportation, and construction equipment operation. The results show that for the first 22 years, the ratio of life cycle costs of concrete pavement over that of asphalt pavement is 1.11. On the other hand, the ratio of CO2 emission of concrete pavement over that of asphalt pavement is 1.34. Researchers also conducted the forecasting analysis for a total life of 40 years. It is found that both types of pavement have almost the same life cycle costs and CO2 emission. Since a relatively large portion of the user costs and CO2 emission of concrete pavement are caused by traffic congestion during maintenance, it is believed that both extra user costs and CO2 emission can be reduced significantly if the fast-track concrete pavement maintenance method can be adopted.

論文口試委員審定書 I
誌謝 II
摘要 III
ABSTRACT IV
目錄 V
圖目錄 VIII
表目錄 X
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 1
1.3 研究範圍 2
1.4 研究內容及流程 2
第二章 文獻回顧 4
2.1 生命週期成本分析(LCCA) 4
2.1.1 生命週期成本分析背景 4
2.1.2 生命週期成本分析架構與步驟 5
2.2 用路人成本 11
2.2.1 用路人成本範疇架構 11
2.2.2 用路人成本相關研究 12
2.2.3 用路人成本計算工具 15
2.3 生命週期評估(LCA) 18
2.3.1 LCA發展背景 18
2.3.2 LCA主要架構 18
2.3.3 LCA模式類型 20
2.3.4 鋪面LCA相關研究特性分類 21
2.4 結合LCCA與LCA觀點 26
2.4.1 環境排放與經濟成本並列綜合討論 26
2.4.2 生命週期評估環境影響成本化研究 29
2.4.3 二氧化碳排放量轉換為貨幣價值 32
2.5 小結 34
第三章 建立LCCA與LCA研究架構 35
3.1 生命週期成本分析程序 35
3.2 研究路段範圍與方案選擇 35
3.3 建立LCCA架構與機關成本 39
3.3.1 分析週期設定 39
3.3.2 剛柔性鋪面結構設定 40
3.3.3 機關成本 41
3.4 用路人成本 47
3.4.1 用路人成本項目採用 47
3.4.2 用路人成本計算工具 49
3.4.3 施工速率與模式 60
3.4.4 用路人成本試算 69
3.5 建立LCA架構與排碳量盤查分析 73
3.5.1 LCA步驟與架構 73
3.5.2 材料製造階段 73
3.5.3 維護施工階段 76
第四章 LCCA與LCA分析結果與討論 78
4.1 分析路段車道數差異調整 78
4.2 LCCA各成本組成分析 80
4.2.1 新建成本分析 80
4.2.2 維護成本分析 80
4.2.3 用路人成本分析 82
4.3 LCCA生命週期總成本綜合分析 84
4.3.1 生命週期成本支出流動圖 84
4.3.2 生命週期總成本比較 85
4.4 LCA碳排放量分析 87
4.4.1 材料製造階段 87
4.4.2 維護施工階段 88
4.5 LCCA與LCA綜合分析討論 90
第五章 結論與建議 96
5.1 結論 96
5.2 建議 97
參考文獻 99
附錄一、柔性鋪面歷年維護工程契約單價 104
附錄二、剛性鋪面歷年維護工程契約單價 105
附錄三、柔性鋪面歷年維護項目位置統計表 106
附錄四、剛性鋪面歷年維護項目位置統計表 111

[1]The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 § 303 (1995).
[2]Wilde, W. J., Waalkes, S., & Harrison, R. (1999). Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. (FHWA/TX-00/0-1739-1). Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin.
[3]Walls, J., & Smith, M. R. (1998). Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design. (FHWA-SA-98-079). Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
[4]FHWA. (2002). Life-cycle cost analysis primer. (FHWA-IF-02-047). Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
[5]FHWA. (2003). Economic analysis primer. (FHWA IF-03-032). Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration.
[6]Chan, A., Keoleian, G., & Gabler, E. (2008). Evaluation of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Practices Used by the Michigan Department of Transportation. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 134(6), 236-245. doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2008)134:6(236)
[7]Evans, M. (2011). Using Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Highway Project Development. California Department of Transportation.
[8]Di Mino, G., Salvo, G., & Noto, S. (2014). Pavement Management System model using a LCCA-microsimulation integrated approach. Advances in Transportation Studies, an international Journal 2014 Special Issue, Vol. 1.
[9]Zhang, H., Keoleian, G. A., & Lepech, M. D. (2008). An integrated life cycle assessment and life cycle analysis model for pavement overlay systems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering, Varenna, Lake Como, Italy
[10]Mallela, J., & Sadasivam, S. (2011). Work Zone Road User Costs - Concepts and Applications. (FHWA-HOP-12-005). Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
[11]宋柏勛，(2010)，資產管理機制應用於國道柔性鋪面維護之研究－以國道三號為例，博士論文，國立中央大學土木工程學系。
[12]Batista dos Santos, B. M., de Picado Santos, L. G., & Pissarra Cavaleiro, V. M. (2014). Refinement of a simplified road-user cost model. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Transport, 167(6), 364-376.
[13]Jiang, Y. (1999). A Model for Estimating Excess User Costs at Highway Work Zones. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1657, 31-41. doi: 10.3141/1657-05
[14]Yang, N. (2010). Optimization of highway work zone decisions considering Short-term and Long-term Impacts. (Doctoral Dissertation), University of Maryland.
[15]NJDOT. (2015). Road User Cost Manual. Department of Transportation, The State of New Jersey.
[16]EPA. (2006). Life cycle assessment: principle and practice. Ohio, US: Environmental Protection Agency.
[17]ISO. (2006). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework (Vol. ISO 14040:2006(E)): International Organization for Standardization.
[18]張又升，(2002)，建築物生命週期二氧化碳減量評估，博士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所。
[19]Santero, N. J., Masanet, E., & Horvath, A. (2011). Life-cycle assessment of pavements. Part I: Critical review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(9–10), 801-809. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.03.010
[20]Santero, N., Masanet, E., & Horvath, A. (2010). Life cycle assessment of pavements: A critical review of existing literature and research. (SN3119a). Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, USA.
[21]Yu, B. (2013). Environmental Implications of Pavements: A Life Cycle View. (Ph.D. Dissertation), University of South Florida.
[22]Kendall, A. (2004). A dynamic Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Comparing Bridge Deck Designs. (Master thesis), University of Michigan.
[23]Rister, B., & Graves, C. (2002). The Cost of Construction Delays and Traffic Control for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Pavements: Kentucky Transportation Center Research, University of Kentucky
[24]Chan, W. C. (2007). Economic and Environmental Evaluations of Life Cycle Cost Analysis Practice: A Case Study of Michigan Dot Pavement Projects. (Master of Science Thesis Dissertation), University of Michigan
[25]Stripple, H. (2001). Life cycle assessment of road. A pilot study for inventory analysis. Rapport IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, 1-96.
[26]Institute, A. (2006). A life cycle perspective on concrete and asphalt roadways: embodied primary energy and global warming potential. Ottawa, Canada: Cement Association of Canada.
[27]Huang, Y., Bird, R., & Heidrich, O. (2009). Development of a life cycle assessment tool for construction and maintenance of asphalt pavements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2), 283-296. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.06.005
[28]Prather, M., & Ehhalt, D. (2001). Atmospheric chemistry and greenhouse gases. In F. Joos & M. McFarland (Eds.), Climate change 2001: The scientific basis, Chap. 4 (pp. 239-288). New York: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[29]Gschösser, F., & Wallbaum, H. (2013). Life Cycle Assessment of Representative Swiss Road Pavements for National Roads with an Accompanying Life Cycle Cost Analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(15), 8453-8461. doi: 10.1021/es400309e
[30]Aurangzeb, Q., & Al-Qadi, I. (2014). Asphalt Pavements with High Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Content. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2456, 161-169. doi: 10.3141/2456-16
[31]Santero, N., Loijos, A., Akbarian, M., Ochsendorf, J., Hub, C. S., & Room, M. (2011). Methods, impacts, and opportunities in the concrete pavement life cycle. Report for Concrete Sustainability Hub.
[32]Yu, B., Gu, X., Ni, F., & Guo, R. (2015). Multi-objective optimization for asphalt pavement maintenance plans at project level: Integrating performance, cost and environment. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 41, 64-74.
[33]Kendall, A., Keoleian, G. A., & Helfand, G. E. (2008). Integrated Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Model for Concrete Bridge Deck Applications. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 14(3), 214-222. doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2008)14:3(214)
[34]Tol, R. S. J. (1999). The Marginal Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The Energy Journal, 20(1), 61-81.
[35]Pellecuer, L., Assaf, G. J., & St-Jacques, M. (2014). Influence of pavement condition on environmental costs. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 140(10), 04014050.
[36]Chang, C. M., Vavrova, M., Smith, R. E., & Tan, S. G. (2015). A Multi-Objective Asset Management Approach to Evaluate Maintenance Strategies for Funding Allocation. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets.
[37]洪志銘、蕭代基、林桓億，(2012)，環境影響評估與開發計畫的社會效益成本評估之應用及檢討分析，行政院環境保護署。
[38]陳一昌等，(2012)，交通運輸工程碳排放量推估模具開發可行性研究式建立與效益分析之研究，交通部運輸研究所。
[39]錢玉蘭等，(2014)，國家重要濕地社會經濟價值評估計畫擴充案成果報告，內政部營建署城鄉發展分署。
[40]交通部台灣區國道新建工程局. (1990). 北二高剛性路面建造講習.
[41]Embacher, R., & Snyder, M. (2001). Life-Cycle Cost Comparison of Asphalt and Concrete Pavements on Low-Volume Roads; Case Study Comparisons. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1749, 28-37. doi: 10.3141/1749-05
[42]陳郁青，(2004)，應用生命週期成本分析於高速公路路面養護方案之探討，碩士論文，中華大學土木工程學系。
[43]行政院主計總處，(2016)，營造工程物價指數。
[44]行政院公共工程委員會，(2014)，公共工程價格資料庫。
[45]陳順興，(2002)，剛性鋪面刨磨工法之研究，碩士論文，國立中央大學土木工程學系。
[46]陳永林，(2003)，HDM-4運用於國內高速公路養護管理之研究，碩士論文，國立中央大學土木工程學系。
[47]交通部臺灣區國道高速公路局，(2015)，國道高速公路電子收費交通資料蒐集支援系統。
[48]交通部臺灣區國道高速公路局，(2016)，日交通量參考值。
[49]交通部統計處，(2014)，交通部統計查詢網，Retrieved Jun 3rd, 2016, from http://stat.motc.gov.tw/mocdb/stmain.jsp?sys=100
[50]林國顯等，(2001)，2001年台灣地區公路容量手冊，交通部運輸研究所。
[51]Special Report No. 209: Highway Capacity Manual (1994). Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
[52]Curry, D. A., & Anderson, D. G. (1972). Procedures for Estimating Highway User Costs, Air Pollution, and Noise Effects (National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 133). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
[53]交通部臺灣區國道高速公路局，(2011)，施工之交通管制守則。
[54]林國顯等，(2010)，行車成本調查分析與交通建設計畫經濟效益評估之推廣應用，交通部運輸研究所。
[55]行政院主計總處，(2014)，薪資及生產力統計資料。
[56]李英豪、李釗、陳世晃，(2009)，剛性鋪面維護及補強技術之研究，社團法人中華鋪面工程學會。
[57]吳國洋，(2011)，混凝土製品應用於土木工程之減碳效益評估，(碩士論文)，國立中央大學土木工程學系。
[58]The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model (GREET). (2015). from Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., and University of Chicago, Center for Transportation Research
[59]倪佩貞等，(2009)，運輸部門能源與溫室氣體資料之構建與盤查機制之建立(2/3)－建立溫室氣體排放盤查、登錄、查驗標準與機制，交通部運輸研究所。
[60]行政院環境保護署，(2015)，台灣產品碳足跡資訊網，Retrieved Jun 3rd, 2016, from https://cfp.epa.gov.tw/CARBON/EZCFM/FUNCTION/PLATFORMINFO/FLFOOTPRODUCT/MODULUSDATABASE.ASPX
[61]周家蓓，(1995)，剛性鋪面糙度值之研究，財團法人台灣營建研究中心。
[62]Santero, N. J., Masanet, E., & Horvath, A. (2011). Life-cycle assessment of pavements Part II: Filling the research gaps. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(9–10), 810-818. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.03.009
[63]葉文宗，(1991)，剛性路面快速整修之可靠度分析，碩士論文，國立國立臺灣大學土木工程學系。