³»¿ë¾øÀ½8
³»¿ë¾øÀ½9
³»¿ë¾øÀ½10
      ±¹¹®À̷¼­
Main

À̷¼­

¿Ü±¹¿¬±¸

±â°í¹®

Çмú»ó

ÀÚ°Ý°ü°è

¹æ¼ÛÃ⿬

°Ç¼³¾ÈÀü½Ç¹«

ÃâÆDZâ³äȸ
[Á¤³âÅðÀÓÇà»ç]


¿µ¾î½Ç¹«½ÇÀû

Áß±¹¾î ½Àµæ±â

¼Ò¹æ±â¼ú»ç ½Àµæ±â



¿Ü ±¹ ¿¬ ±¸

¿Ü ±¹ ¿¬ ±¸

 1. ±Í±¹º¸°í¼­ ¹× Çà»ç ÀÏÁ¤Ç¥

 2. ¸íÇÔÀÚ·á     3. »çÁøÀÚ·á

 4. ÀÚ·á³í¹®     5. ÀÚ·áÃ¥ÀÚ

 6. º»Àο©±Çº¹»ç ¹× ÃâÀÔ±¹ Áõ¸í

 7. °­ÀÇ TipÀÚ·á  

 8. ¿¬±¸ÀÚ·á(Ã¥ÀÚ)

Á¦¸ñ ¾øÀ½

ÀÚ·áÃ¥ÀÚ

An Analysis of Safety Control Effectiveness

 

SON, Ki Sang


Department of Safety Engineering, Seoul National University of Technology, 172 Gongleung-Dong, Nowon-Gu, Seoul, 139-703 Korea




Abstract


The cost of injuries and "accidents" to an organization is very important in establishing how much it should spend on safety control. Despite the usefulness of information about the cost of a company's accidents, it is not customary accounting practice to make these data available. Of the two kinds of costs incurred by a company through occupational injuries and accidents, direct costs and indirect costs ; the direct costs are much easier to estimate. However, the uninsured costs are usually more critical and should be estimated by each company. The authors investigate a general model to estimate the above costs and hence to establish efficient safety control. One construction company has been pilot for this study. By analyzing actual company data for three years, it is found that the efficient safety control cost should be 1.2-1.3% of total contract costs.


Keywords: Safety control effectiveness; Accident; Safety control costs


1. Introduction


Safety management expenditure has been invested very differently in different fields of business despite the fact that in Korea there of Government guidance to suggest how to determine "Standard Safety Management Cost" for different classes of construction work [1]. While these classes are useful for planning more safety control measures, it is considered by the government that for giving greater flexibility, and having contractors self safety management conditions, differentdegrees of safety management expenditure might be available. For example it is considered by the Government that concentrated safety investment should be given in the following critical work areas; (¥¡)foundations; (¥¢) grading and backfilling; (¥£) reinforced concrete construction; (¥¤) steel construction; and (¥¥) water proofing. The expenditure on safety management for each of these areas might depend on the work process rateand other factors depending on the likelihood of accident occurrence.


In order to determine the most appropriate level of safety management investment a new practically oriented method of estimating direct costs, general insurance costs and compensation, and various indirect costs such as due to work stoppages, time taken to reach compromises, legal costs, cleaning of debris after an accident, and the costs associated with demoralization of the work force should be considered. An area of particular difficulty is the estimation of the indirect costs associate with the particular structural accident. Unfortunately it is difficult to determine these costs as usually no records are kept.


The level of safety management investment for each type of work must be subject to review and clarification to ascertain its cost effectiveness. Accordingly, it is appropriate that a detailed model be established for the optimum level of safety management investment. Such a model is possibly best set within the overall financial objectives of a particular enterprise. It need not relate, necessarily, to underlying engineering notions of structural safety. The present study focuses on the experiences of the SI Construction Company over a period of three years [2].


From the analysis of the data available, it is possible to deduce a criterion for the optimal expenditure on safety management. The whole treatment takes account of events and accidents only during construction. The results are compared with other empirical and numerical values.


2. Model for estimating safety control costs

2.1 Theory of safety control costs


Fig. 1 depicts a well-known relation between safety performance and total costs [3]. The higher the design, implementation and construction safety levels to be achieved, the lower will be the overall expected costs, because of the smaller probability of accident. However, to achieve thesehigher levels of safety will require extra costs, costs which normally have to be borne by the contractor. Hence, it pays the contractor to ascertain the minimal overall expected total costs [4].


Some limits can be set to the curves in Fig. 1. Thus, it is clear that under a perfect state of safety, there will be no accidents and hence no costs associated with them. Conversely, to achieve a perfect state of safety¡¡implies that the costs are infinite. An achievable state of safety will lie somewhere between these two extremes (5). By adding the expected accident or damage costs and countermeasure control costs, the total expected costs curve for the structure could be obtained.


Fig. 1 Cost of safety





Evidently this curve has a minimum point T(n) for the total cost where the derivative of the total expected cost is zero. The total expected cost can be divided into two categories: (¥¡) direct; and (¥¢) indirect. The direct costs will include property damage, costs of injury and the costs involved in taking care of the dead.


The indirect costs are more difficult to determine. They relate primarily to loss of individual productivity, the loss of system productivity, and the unpredictable costs of insurance and litigation. It is often the case in practice that the indirect costs exceed the direct costs.

 

Direct countermeasure costs will include design changes principally for safety, provision of safety personnel, installation and management of safety systems, safety education, and training programs. The indirect countermeasure costs also may be restrictions on system operation.



2.2 Modeling for reasonable safety control cost


The minimum total expected costs of damage and accident prevention will be considered the criterion for setting optimal safety levels.

Fig. 2 depicts the annual total expected cost T(n). This is the total costs in year n as a function of year n:

T(n) = H(n) + G(n)                 (1)

Where H(n), is the annual cost of accidents, and G(n) is the annual countermeasure (or control) cost. R* depicts the minimum cost point.


Fig. 2 Total expected cost curve



G(n) in Fig. 2 can be represented as a function of the total contract amount and the investment cost as follows:


G(n) = P(n)[1 + R(n)]                        (2)


Where 

G(n) is the countermeasure costs invested for industrial accident prevention in year n,

R(n) the (countermeasure costs/total contract amount) of S construction company in year n,

P(n) the totalcontract amount of S construction of R(n).

Also let P(n) be taken as a constant amount in each year n.


The function H(n) can be obtained from statistical data for the accident rate, the directcosts of damage and loss per worker, and the number of workers per accident, as follows:


H(n) = DC + IC                               (3)


Where DC is the expected direct cost, IC the expected indirect cost. The direct cost can be given as:


DC = N(¥á) × dc                               (4)


Where N(¥á) is the total number of workers involved in accidents in year n, dc the direct cost of damage and loss pre worker and  the accident rate.



The total number of workers involved in accidents can be represented as a function of the accident rate as follows;


N(¥á) =  ¥á×regular time workers              (5)


Where¥á= (the number of  "accident" workers/number of workers)  100 and where the number of regular time workers can be obtained from the total costs of the project, being the proportion of labor for the project divided by the unit labor wage rates and the number of working days.


Since the accident rate decreases as the investment rate increases it is possible to develop a correlation between them. This can be done by regressing the accident rate  on the investment rate R as follows:

¥á= f(R)                                           (6)



For simplicity the indirect costs can be assumed to be  the direct costs of damage and loss. This allows the maximum loss cost H(n) to be represented as:

H(n) = (1 +¥â ) {N(¥á) × dc}                       (7)

It has been suggested that the indirect losses might be up to four times the direct costs(6) but in practice it seems extremely difficult to estimate this ratio.

Once the above expressions have been obtained it is possible to select R* as the reasonable investment and safety control rate.


Table 1. Collection of direct of loss(1 US$ = £Ü800 won, unit £Ü 1000won)


Item

10.01.1992-

12.31.1992

01.01.1992-

12.31.1992

01.01.1992-

12.31.1992

01.01.1992-

12.31.1992

Total

Total amount paid of industrial

accident insurance

85,903,710

US$85mil

270,444,000

US$2.7bil

211,029,520

US$2.1bil

150,183,500

US$1.5bil

717,560,730

US$7.1bil



3. Case study for analyzing effect of safety management


3.1 Direct and indirect costs of damage and loss


 In order to illustrate the above concept a pilot study was conducted for the SI Construction Company. Three years of statistical data were used. For these years the direct costs of loss and damage for the company amounted to total 97,560,720(US$896,950). The indirect costs amounted to ,097,314,000 won (US$ 11,371,642). Thus, the ratio of direct to indirect costs is 1:1.5.


The statistical data for the Company indicated that the direct costs constitute mainly the industrial accident insurance costs. In addition, it is clear that the indirect costs are considerably less than has been suggested in the literature.


It is likely that the difference may depend on the Company operating practices, including their safety management processes, but also on costs related to death and injury applicable to a particular country (Tables 1 and 2).


3.2 Reasonability review of current safety control cost

The data for the SI Construction Company shows that for the eleven years between 1985 and 1995 the accident rate has decreased steadily and was inversely proportional to the amount invested in safety control (see Fig. 3 and Table 3) (7). It should be noted that the 1988 Government decreed "Safety Control Cost Recommendations" (1) were easily met in most subsequent years. It is also clear that there is an apparent limit to the reduction in accident rates that can be achieved.

 

Table 2. Collection of indirect cost of loss(1 US$ = £Ü800 won, unit £Ü 1000won)

Item

10.01.1992-

12.31.1992

01.01.1992-

12.31.1992

01.01.1992-

12.31.1992

01.01.1992-

12.31.1992

Total

Compensation including judged amount

108,000

218,524

57,000

44,190

427,714

Liquidated damage

-

-

94,500

-

94,500

Cost of litigation

7,000

25,000

11,000

8,000

51,000

The third party compensation

-

11,000

15,000

4,000

30,000

Labor cost due to accident investigation

15,000

26,500

18,400

16,250

76,150

Loss of work productivity due to work stoppage

19,000

31,800

84,200

5,500

140,500

Loss of equipment stoppage

-

-

60,000

-

60,000

Property damage

-

7,000

35,000

4,500

46,500

Loss of machine equipment and tools

12,000

1,950

148,000

9,000

170,950

Total

161,000

321,774

523,100

91,440

1,097,314



3.3 Comparison with national figures


The above results may be used with to estimate the effect of safety management for the particular case of the SI construction company, used here as a bench mark.


The following were used in the analysis:


¡Ü Total Contract Amount - this is the domestic Government contract amount for all construction, increased by 5% per annum to allow for inflation during the year.

¡Ü Number of Accident Workers - obtained from data collected by the Korean Department of Labor[1].

These include deaths.


¡Ü Direct Cost of Loss - as for the SI Construction Company, the direct costs were taken as the industrial accident insurance costs for each year increased by 5% per annum to allow for inflation during the year.

Fig. 3 Interrelation curve concerning Table

 

¡Ü Indirect costs - based on data obtained for the SI Construction Company, this was taken as 50% greater than the direct costs (see above).


¡Ü Amount of Loss Per Accident Worker - this was taken as the total amount of loss divided by the number of accident workers. The definition of "Accident workers" is given above.


¡Ü Number of Accident Workers - this was estimated as the target contract amount divided by the contract amount per accident worker.


¡Ü Estimated Loss - this was estimated from a number of accident workers multiplied by the loss amount per accident worker.


¡Ü Loss Prevention Efficiency Rate(%) - this was taken as the total loss amount divided by the total contract amount multiplied by 100.


Table 3. Interrelationship between safety control costs and accidents, 1985-1995

Kind

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

The number of injured workers Accident rate(%)

113

54

94

50

50

47

64

73

37

9

15

Safety control cost/ Total project amount(%)

4.99

2.80

5.42

2.94

3.31

1.62

1.41

1.48

1.22

0.35

0.40

Cost of safety control

(hundred millions won)

0.62

0.53

0.47

2.38

2.52

6.16

10.8

19.65

16.64

17.15

27.44

Total selling amount

(hundred millions won)

600

510

460

450

400

770

1200

2047

1293

1244

2033



Fig. 4 Target accident rate


Fig. 4 shows the analysis and calculation procedure. Table 4 gives the historical calculations for 1993 1995 and the predicted results for 1996.


 It is seen that the predicted loss prevention efficiency rate is 1.72% on the total contract amount (or project cost) for 1996. This gives an indication of the savings predicted to be made due to losses associated with accidents.


 ¿Ü±¹Ã·´Ü»ê¾÷±â¼ú ´Ü±â¿¬¼ö °á°úº¸°í¼­

(    ¿¬¼ö±¹ :   Æ÷·çÅõ°¥    )


¡Ø ±Ô°ÝÀ» ÁؼöÇÏ¿© Áֽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù.

 

    ¿¬±¸°úÁ¦¸í : ±¸Á¶¹° ¼Õ»óÀÇ ¾ÈÀü°ü¸®¿Í ½Å·Ú¼º È®º¸

Safety Management and Reliability and Maintenance of degrading structures

¼­¿ï»ê¾÷´ëÇб³ ¿Ü±¹Ã·´Ü»ê¾÷±â¼ú»ç¾÷¿¡ ¼±Á¤µÇ¾î ¿¬¼ö¸¦ ¼öÇàÇÑ º»ÀÎÀÇ ¿¬±¸º¸°í¼­¸¦ ¼­¿ï»ê¾÷´ëÇб³¿¡¼­ Á¤ÇÑ ¾ç½Ä¿¡ µû¶ó ´ÙÀ½°ú °°ÀÌ Á¦ÃâÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

    


                              ․Á¦Ãâ¼­·ù : 1. ¿¬±¸º¸°í¼­

                                           2. Âü°í¼­·ù

                                           3. Ãâ±¹ ¹× ±Í±¹ È®Àμ­(¿©±Ç »çº»µî)

                                           


                                Á¦ÃâÀÏÀÚ : 2005. 2

                                     


                                        ․¼Ò    ¼Ó : »ý»êÁ¤º¸´ëÇÐ ¾ÈÀü°øÇаú


                                        ․¼º    ¸í :  ¼Õ  ±â  »ó   (ÀÎ)


 

2003Çг⵵ ¿Ü±¹Ã·´Ü»ê¾÷±â¼ú ¿¬¼ö¹æ¹® ¿¬±¸º¸°í¼­

( ¹æ¹®±¹ : Æ÷·çÅõ°¥  )

   ¿¬ ¼ö ÀÚ

¼º      ¸í

¼Õ ±â »ó

¼Ò¼Ó±â°ü ¹×

ºÎ  ¼­  ¸í

»ý»êÁ¤º¸´ëÇÐ ¾ÈÀü°øÇаú

Á÷ ±Þ

ºÎ±³¼ö

¿¬  ¶ô  ó

TEL

02-970-6388

FAX

02-978-4806

  ¿¬±¸°úÁ¦¸í

±¹      ¹®

±¸Á¶¹° ¼Õ»óÀÇ ¾ÈÀü°ü¸®¿Í ½Å·Ú¼º È®º¸

¿µ      ¹®

Safety management and reliability and maintenance of degrading structures

   ¿¬¼ö±â°£

 2005 ³â 1 ¿ù 3 ÀÏ ¢¦  2005 ³â 1 ¿ù 24 ÀÏ

 (¿¬¼ö±¹ µµÂøÀÏÀÚ ¢¦ ¿¬¼ö±¹ Ãâ¹ßÀÏÀÚ)

 

 ÁÖ¿ä¹æ¹®±â°ü ¹× Á¢ÃË¿¬±¸ÀÚ (¿µ¹®)

¹æ¹®±â°ü¸í(¼ÒÀçÁö)

ÁÖ¿ä ¸é´ã ¿¬±¸ÀÚ

¿¬ ±¸ ³» ¿ë

¼º    ¸í

¼Ò¼ÓºÎ¼­ ¹× Á÷À§

Technical University of Lisbon Instituto Superio Technico , Lisbon Portugal

Carlos

 

Guedes

 

Soares

Professor unit of Marine Technology and Engineering Technical University of Lisbon

Tel+351-1-841-7607

Fax+351-1-847-4015

1. safety of ship structure

2. risk analysis of ship structure

3. un certainty modeling in plate duckling

4. maximum still-water load effect

5. probabilistic model

6. establishment of target safety level

(½ÅûÀÇ Ã·ºÎ 4ÂüÁ¶)

Instituto deciencias de la constrcction

Eduardo Torroja

Madrid

SPAIN

Carmen Andrade

Dr Industrial Chemistry

Chemistry and Physics of Construction Materials

Tel +34-91-302-0440

Fax+34-91-302-07-00

½Ã¸àÆ®ÄÜÅ©¸®Æ®ÀÇ ¿øÀç·á¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±âÃÊ¿¬±¸, ö±ÙºÎ½Ä, Áß¼ºÈ­µî ÄÜÅ©¸®Æ® ³»±¸¼º ¹× ¹®È­Àç À¯Áö°ü¸®, º¸¼öº¸°­

(÷ºÎºÎ·Ï pp15~19ÂüÁ¶)

¹æ¹®¿¬¼ö³»¿ë ¹× ¼º°ú


[1] °­¿¬

 ¹Ú»ç, ±³¼öµé¿¡°Ô ¹ßÇ¥Åä·Ï »ó´ë °úÇÐÀÚ Prof Carlos Guedes Soares ¿äûÀ¸·Î An Analysis of Safety Control effectiveness (Vol 68, No   , June 2000, Joural of Reliability Engineering & Safety system) SCI³í¹®Áý¿¡ º»ÀÎÀÌ °ÔÀçµÇ¾ú´ø ³»¿ëÀ¸·Î ¹ßÇ¥ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

 °Ç¼³ÇöÀå¿¡¼­ »ç°í ¿¹¹æÀ» À§ÇØ ¾ÈÀü °ü¸®ºñ¸¦ ÅõÀÚÇØ¾ß Çϴµ¥ ÀûÁ¤ ÅõÀÚºñ¿ë°ú ÃÖÀû¾ÈÀüÈ®º¸ »çÀÌÀÇ ¼öÇаü°è½ÄÀÌ ¾øÀÌ Á¤ºÎ¿¡¼­ ±ÔÁ¤ÇÑ ±âÁØ¿¡ ÀÇÇؼ­¸¸ ÁöÃâÇÏ´Â ¼öµ¿ÀûÀÎ ÅõÀÚ¸¦ ±¹³»°Ç¼³ ÇöÀå¿¡¼­ ¼öÇàÇØ ¿Ô´Ù. ±¹³» óÀ½ÀÌ°í ±¹Á¦ÀûÀ¸·Îµµ óÀ½ÀÎ º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ °³¹ßµÈ °ü°è½ÄÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© ÃÑ °ø»ç±Ý¾×(=¸ÅÃâ¾×)´ëºñ ÃÖÀû ¾ÈÀü¿¹¹æºñ¿ëÀ» »êÃâÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾î °ø»ç ½ÃÀÛÀü¿¡ °èȹ¼º ÀÖ´Â ¾ÈÀüºñ¿ë¿¹»ê ÀýÁ¤ÀÌ °¡´ÉÇÏ°Ô µÈ´Ù.

 »ó´ë±¹ÀÎ Æ÷·çÅõ°¥ °Ç¼³ÇöÀå¿¡µµ ¿Ü±¹ÀεéÀÌ ¸¹ÀÌ Âü¿© ÇÏ´Â °ø»çµéÀÌ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁö°í ÀÖ¾î ¾ÈÀü¹®Á¦°¡ ½É°¢ÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î Àνĵǰí ÀÖ¾î »ó´ë °úÇÐÀÚÀÇ ¿¬±¸¹æÇâ¿¡ À¯ÀÍÇÑ ÀÚ·á¿Í ¹æ¹ý·ÐÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù.(»çÁø pp 12 ÇÊÀÚÀÇ Àå¸é)


[2] ¿¬±¸Çù·Â

 ±¹³»ÀÇ ¿Ü±¹ÀÎ °Ç¼³±Ù·ÎÀÚµéÀÇ ¾ð¾î ¼ÒÅë Àå¾Ö·Î ÀÎÇÏ¿© ´õ¿íÅ« »ç°í ¹ß»ýÀ» ±â·ÏÇÏ°í ÀÖ¾î 2004³â¿¡ ¹ßÇ¥µÈ ¿Ü±¹ÀÎ °Ç¼³ ±Ù·ÎÀÚµéÀÇ ¾ÈÀü ´ëÃ¥¿¡ ´ëÇÑ spssÅë°è ÆÑÅ°Áö¿Í AHP(¿ì¼±ÀûÀÎ Áß¿äµµ °áÁ¤ ÆÑÅ°Áö) µÎ°¡Áö¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿©, 1Â÷ ÀÎÅͺä Á¶»ç 2Â÷ ¼³¹®Á¶»ç·Î ÁøÇàµÈ °á°ú¸¦ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿© »ç°í¿¹¹æ ¹æ¹ýÀ» Á¦½ÃÇÏ´Â methodology·Î Á¦½ÃÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ó´ë °úÇÐÀÚÀÇ °ËÅ並 °ÅÃÄ ¾Õ¼­ ¾ð±ÞµÈ ¡°Accident of foreign worker at construction" SCI³í¹®ÀÎ RE&SS Àú³Î¿¡ °ÔÀçÅä·Ï ÇÕÀÇÇÏ¿´´Ù.

 ¶ÇÇÑ, »ó´ë°úÇÐÀÚ°¡ Á¤ºÎ·ÎºÎÅÍ ¹ÞÀº ¿¬±¸¿ë¿ªÀÎ ¡°»ê¾÷»ç°í Á¶»ç ¹× ´ëÃ¥¡±Áß¿¡¼­ °Ç¼³¾÷ ºÎºÐ¿¡ Å« µµ¿òÀÌ µÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °ÍÀ¸·Î ±â´ëÇϸ鼭 º»ÀΠü·ùÁß¿¡ ÅäÀǸ¦ °®´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

 Á¦Á¶¾÷¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¤º¸ ¶ÇÇÑ ¿äû½Ã Á¦°øÅ°·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¾ÈÀü¿¡ °üÇÑ ÁýÁßÀûÀÎ Çѱ¹ÀÇ ¼öÁØÀÌ ¾Õ¼± °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆǴܵȴÙ.

 Æ¯È÷ Æ÷·çÅõ°¥ÀÇ Æ¯¼º»ó Á¶¼±°øÇÐÀÌ ÁýÁߵǰí ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î º¼¶§ ±¹³»¿ÍÀÇ Çù·ÂÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ¼³¸íÇß°í ¼­¿ï»ê¾÷´ëÇб³ Åä¸ñ°øÇаú ±â¼ºÅ±³¼öÀÇ Àü°ø°ú ¿¬°èµÇ¾î ¿¬±¸½ÇÀûÀ» Àü´ÞÇß°í »óÈ£ ±³·ù¹æ¹ýÀ» ã¾Æ¼­ 2005³âµµ¿¡ Çѱ¹¿¡ ÃʺùµÇ¾î °­¿¬°ú ±â¼ú±³·ù Á¤º¸±³È¯À» ¿äûÇÏ¿´´Ù. Çѱ¹¿¡¼­ ¿¬±¸±â°ü¿¡ °øµ¿¿¬±¸¿øÀÌ µÇ´Â ¹æÇâÀ» °è¼Ó ÃßÁøÇØ ³ª°¥ ¿¹Á¤ÀÌ´Ù.


[3] ¿¬±¸Áöµµ

 ÇÊÀÚ°¡ ±¹³»¿¡¼­ ÁøÇàÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Â ºÎ»êÇ× ¹Ù´å¹° ¿°µµ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Ã¶±Ù ÄÜÅ©¸®Æ® ±¸Á¶ÀÇ ÄÜÅ©¸®Æ® ÀúÇ×Àº ±âÁ¸¿¬±¸°¡ ÀÖÀ¸³ª ÆóŸÀ̾ È¥ÀÔµÈ ÄÜÅ©¸®Æ®ÀúÇ×À» Àü±âÀûÀ¸·Î ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ´Â ½ÇÇè°á°ú´Â À¯ÀÍÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ¾ÆÀ̵ð¾î¸¦ Á¦°øÇÏ¿´´Ù.


[4] ¿¬±¸Á¤º¸Á¶»ç

 Technical University of Lisbon ¹Ø¿¡ °øÇдëÇÐÀÎ Instituto Superior Technico¿¡¼­ »ó´ë°úÇÐÀÚ´Â Department of naval architecture and marine engineering unit of marine engineeringÀ» ´ã´ãÇÏ°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç ¿©±â¼­ ¿¬±¸ÇÑ ½ÇÀûÀ§ÁÖ·Î ¿¬±¸ºÎºÐÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. Çб³ ¹× ±â¼ú¼öÁØ°ú ÇöȲ¡°¿¡¼­ ÀÚ¼¼È÷ ¼Ò°³ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

 Çб³Àüü¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¶Á÷°ú unit of marine technology and engineering ¿¡¼­ÀÇ ¿¬±¸½ÇÀûÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù.

 5°³ ¿¬±¸±×·ì Áï marine environment, marine dynamics and hydrodynamics, marine structures, ship design and maritime transportation, safety relaiabjlity and maintenance

1) marine dynamics and hydro dynamics ±×·ì¿¡¼­´Â

․Safe Passage and Navigation(SPAN)

․Advanced Method to Predict Wave Induced Loads for High Speed Ships

(WAVELOADS)

․VTS Management(COMFORTABLE)

․Identification and Simulation of Ship Manoeuvring

․Optimum Concept to Produce and Load with Underwater Storage(OCTOPLUS) 

2) Marine seructures ±×·ì¿¡¼­´Â

․Reliability Methods for Ship Structural Design(SHIPREL)

․Optimum Structural Design of Ships Made from Advanced Fibre Reinforecd Plastic Materials(COMPOSITES)

3) marine environment ±×·ì¿¡¼­´Â

․Probabilistic Methodology of Coastal Site Investigation for Stochastic Modelling of Waves and Currents(WAVEMOD)

․Computer System for Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of Polluting Maritime Accidents

․Rogue-Waves-Forecast and Impact on Marine Structures(MAXWAVE)

․Hindcast of Dynamic Processes of the Ocean and Coastal Areas of Europe(HIPOCAS)

․Safe Floating Offshore Structrues Structures under Impact Loading of Shippped Green Water and Waves(SAFE-FLOW)

4) Shipdesign and maritime transportation ±×·ì¿¡¼­´Â

․Software Architectures for Ship Product Data Integration and Exchange(SEASPRITE)

․Maritime Virtual Enterprise Network(MARVIN)

․The European Maritme Virtual Institute(EVIMAR)

․Life-Cycle Virtual Reality Ship System(VRSHIPS-ROPAX)

․Prodabilistic Rules-based Optimal Design of Ro-RO Passenger Ships(ROROPROB)

․Tools and Routines to Assist Port and Improve Shipping(TRAPIST)

5) Safety Reliability and maintenance ±×·ì¿¡¼­´Â

․Optimised Fire Safety of Offshore Structures(OFSOS)

․Safety of Shipping in Coastal Waters(SAFECO)

․Casualty Analysis Methodology for Maritime Operations (CASMET)

․Safety and Economic Assessment of Integrated Management of Multimodal Traffic in Ports(INTRASEAS)

․Tools to Optimise High Speed Craft to Port Interface Concepts(TOHPIC)



¹æ¹®¼º°úÀÇ ÇâÈÄ È°¿ë¹æ¾È


[1] »ó´ë°úÇÐÀÚÀÇ Çѱ¹ ¿¬±¸±â°ü Âü¿©

¨ç Æ÷·çÅõ°¥ÀÇ ±¹°¡Æ¯¼º»ó Çؾç Á¶¼±°øÇÐÀÌ Æ¯È÷ ÁßÁ¡¿¬±¸µÇ°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç ÀÌ ºÐ¾ßÀÇ ´Ù¾çÇÑ ¿¬±¸ °á°ú Áï ÇØ¾ç ¿ÀÀÏ ´©Ãâ»ç°í, Á¶¼± ±¸Á¶¹° ¼³°è ¹× ±¸Á¶¹° ¼Õ»ó ¿¹Ãø±â¼ú, È­Àç ¿¹Ãø±â¼úµéÀÌ ±¹³» °ü·Ã ±â°ü°ú Á÷Á¢ ¿¬°èµÉ ¼ö ÀÖµµ·Ï Çؾ翬±¸¼Ò¿Í ¿ì¸®Çб³ Åä¸ñ°øÇаú ±â¼ºÅ ±³¼ö¿Í ¿¬°èÅä·Ï ÇÑ´Ù.

¨è 2005³âµµ¿¡ Çѱ¹¿¡ Ãʺù Ư°­µî ±â¼úÁ¤º¸±³È¯À» ÃßÁøÇÑ´Ù.

¨é ±¹³» ±³¼ö ÁöÁ¤ ¿¬±¸½ÇÀ» °ú±âºÎ·ÎºÎÅÍ ½ÂÀÎ ¹Þ±â À§ÇÑ °øµ¿¿¬±¸¿øÀ¸·Î ±¸¼ºµÇµµ·Ï ÇÑ´Ù.


[2] ¼­¿ï»ê¾÷´ëÇб³ °Ç¼³ ´ëÇаú ÀÀ¿ëÈ­ÇдëÇÐ ±³·ùÃßÁø

¨ç °Ç¼³´ëÇаú´Â ÁÁÀº Çб³°£ ±³·ù»ó´ë°¡ µÉ°ÍÀ¸·Î ÆǴܵǾî À̸¦ Çб³¿¡ Á¤º¸Á¦°øÇÑ´Ù.


[3] °Ç¼³¾ÈÀü ºÐ¾ß °øµ¿¿¬±¸ Âü¿©

°Ç¼³¾ÈÀü ºÐ¾ß¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â »ó´ë°úÇÐÀÚ º¸´Ù ¾Õ¼­ ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ÀÎÁ¤ ¹Þ¾Æ ÇâÈÄ ¿¬±¸¿¡ Áöµµ°¡ °¡´ÉÇÏ°í ¶ÇÇÑ 2005³â 9¿ù À¯·´Áö¿ª Safety & Reliability °¡ »ó´ë°úÇÐÀÚ ÁÖ°üÀ¸·Î ¸®½ºº»¿¡¼­ ¹ßÇ¥µÉ ¿¹Á¤À¸·Î ±¹³» °úÇÐÀÚ Âü¿© ¹× »óÈ£ÀÇ°ß ±³È¯ ¹× ½ÉÃþ ÅäÀÇ°¡ °¡´ÉÇÔ.

 

¿¬¼ö±¹ÀÇ °ü·ÃºÐ¾ß ¿¬±¸ ¹× ±â¼ú¼öÁØ°ú ÇöȲ


[1] »ó´ë±¹°úÇÐÀÚÀÇ ¿¬±¸¼Ò

 Unit of marine technology and engineering ¿¡¼­´Â 30¸íÀÇ ¿¬±¸¿øµéÀÌ ¿¬±¸¿¡ Á¾»çÇÏ°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç(÷ºÎºÎ·Ï pp 1~16), Angelo Teixeira-accident analysis/human factor, pedro Ant'ao-structural reliability, yarden garbatov(romanian)-reliability-based maintenance and corrosion material °ü·Ã ¿¬±¸¸¦ ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

 ¿¬±¸³í¹®Àº SIC ±ÞÀú³Î¿¡ 50 ÆíÀÌ ÇöÀç °ÔÀçµÇ¾î ÀÖ°í, ±× ¿Ü Æ÷·çÅõ°¥ ±¹³» ÇÐȸÁö °ÔÀç¿Í ±¹Á¦ Çмú ¹ßÇ¥³í¹®Àº  ÆíÀÌ µÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù.(÷ºÎºÎ·Ï pp 1~16)


․Seakeeping                               ․Spectral Models of Sea States

․Non-linear Motions and Loads             ․Probabilistic Models of Wave Parameters

․Ship Manoeuvring and Loads              ․Time Series Models of Wave Parameters

․Dynamics of Propulsion Plants             ․Remote Sensed Data

․Probabilistic Models of Motions and Loads ․Wave Generation Models

․Computaional Fluid Dynamics             ․Modelling the Marine Pollntion

․Instrumentation and Measurement          ․Tide and Current Modelling

                                            ․Oceanographic Instrumentation and                                                     Measurement




․Collapse of Metal Structures               ․Computer Aided Ship Design

․Fatigue and Fracture of Marine Structures  ․Ship Product Modelling

․Impact Strength of Structrues              ․Plate Developing and Nesting

․Composite Materials                       ․Yacht Design

․Probabilistic Based Design                 ․Maritime Transportation

․Experimental Analysis of Marine Structures



․Reliability of Marine Structures

․Reliability Based Structural Maintenance

․Reliability and Availability of Equipment

․Safety of Shipping and Damaged Stability

․Industrual Risk Analysis



[2] »ó´ë¿¬±¸±â°ü Á¶Á÷

IST(Instituto Superior Technico)´Â Æ÷·çÅõ°¥¿¡¼­´Â ÃÖ°íÀÇ ±³À°±â°üÀÇ ´ëÇÐÀ¸·Î¼­ ¸í¼ºÀÖ°í »êÇп¬ÀÌ ÀߵǾî ÀÖ´Â ´ëÇб³·Î¼­ ¼­¿ï»ê¾÷´ëÇб³¿¡¼­ º¥Ä¡ ¸¶Å·ÇÒ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¼öÁØÀ¸·Î Æò°¡µÇ°í ÀÖ´Ù.






[3] Á¦2¹æ¹®±â°ü ½ºÆäÀα¹¸³ °Ç¼³ ¿¬±¸¼Ò

Institute de Ciencias de la Construction Eduardo Torroja(½ºÆäÀÎ ¸¶µå¸®µå ¼ÒÀç)

1) ±³·®¿ëÀÇ polymer composite(elementÀº Á¢ÂøÁ¦·Î) »ï°¢Çü À¯°ø°íÁ¶À§¿¡ ¾Æ½ºÆÈÆ® topping ÇÑ ÈÄ ±¸Á¶ÇÏÁß ½ÇÇèÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ Æ¯º°ÇÑ ¿¬±¸ ÀÎ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù(÷ºÎºÎ·Ï pp 15~19ÂüÁ¶)

2) ÄÜÅ©¸®Æ® öµµ ħ¸ñ °í¼Óöµµ¿ëÀÇ Fatigue test´Â Çã¿ë±Õ¿­ÆøÀÌ µÉ ¶§±îÁö °è¼ÓÇÏÁßÀ» °¡ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.(¸íÇÔ pp 13 ÂüÁ¶)

3) ¾Ë·ç¹Ì´½ °ñÁ¶ °æ·® °ÝÀÚ¹ýÀÇ ¾ÐÃà°­µµ Å×½ºÆ®/µ¿»óÀûÀ¸·Î ÈÚ°­µµ Å×½ºÆ®¸¦ Çϴµ¥ ¾ÕÀ¸·Î ¿¬±¸¿¡ °í·ÁÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î ÆǴܵȴÙ.(÷ºÎºÎ·Ï pp 15~19 ÂüÁ¶)

4) ö±ÙÄÜÅ©¸®Æ® ´Ù°ø½½¶óºêÀÇ ÈÚ°­µµ/Àü´Ü Å×½ºÆ®/°¡ ±¹³»Àû¿ë»ç»óÀ¸·Î Æò°¡µÈ´Ù.(÷ºÎºÎ·Ï pp   15~19 ÂüÁ¶)

5) Çѱ¹ KOSEF-½ºÆäÀÎ CSIC °£ÀÇ ±³·ùÇùÁ¤ ü°á·Î 2004³â 2¿ù ½ºÆäÀÎ ¸¶µå¸®µå ÇöÁö¿¡¼­ °³ÃÖÇÏ¿´°í 2005³â 5¿ù Çѱ¹¿¡¼­ °³ÃÖµÉ ¿¹Á¤À̾ »ó´ë°úÇÐÀÚÁß 3¸íÀ» ±¹³» ´ëÇп¡ Ư°­Çϵµ·Ï ¹èÄ¡ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.(¸íÇÔ pp 13)

6) Safety reliability ºÐ¾ß¿¡¼­ º»Àΰú À¯»çõ°øÀ¸·Î º¸¾Ò±â ¶§¹®¿¡ Drpeter Tanner´Â ½Ç¹« bridge design ¼³°èÀڷμ­ ¿¬±¸¼Ò¿¡ ±Ù¹«Çϸ鼭 ½Ç¹« Àû¿ë °¡´ÉÇÑ ±¸Á¶¾ÈÀü ±âÁØÀ» ¿¬±¸ÇÏ°í Àú³á¶§¿¡´Â ¼³°è»ç¹«¼Ò¿¡¼­ ½ÇÁ¦ ¼³°è¿¡ Âü¿©ÇÏ¿© »ê․¿¬ Çù·ÂÀÇ ¸ð¹üÀ» º¸ÀÌ°í ÀÖ´Ù.

IABSE REPORT-Saving buildings in central and Eastern Europe", "Safety, Risk and Reliability-Trends in Engineering" conterentereport, "Risk Assessment and Risk Communication in Civil Engineering", CIB report, Evaluacion de extremos meteorologicos aplicados al codigo Technico dela Edificacion", Nota Technica µî Áֿ俬±¸¸¦ ÇÏ°í ÀÖÀ¸¸ç ÀÌ ºÐ¾ß ½Ç·ÂÀÖ´Â °úÇÐÀÚ·Î ¿¬±¸¼Ò¿¡¼­ Æò°¡ÇÏ°í ÀÖ¾úÀ½(÷ºÎºÎ·Ï pp 41~58)

7) Safety reliability ºÐ¾ß¿¡¼­ ¶Ç´Ù¸¥ ¿¬±¸ÀÚ Dr Angel arteaga´Â Euro code 1¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ±ÔÁ¤À» Á¦Á¤Çϴµ¥ °è¼Ó Âü¿©ÇÏ°í ÀÖ¾úÀ¸¸ç(÷ºÎºÎ·Ï pp 33), "Bond Between FRP and Concrete Elements Exposed to Dynamic Loads while the adhesive is curing", NCAPC, "Reliability Based calibration of Load Combinations For Fire Design Situation", "Fine Safety Conterence in Madrid, 19-21, Octob 2004, "Mechanical Tests on new FRP pultruded profile for bridge decking"µî Áֿ俬±¸¸¦ ÇÏ°í ÀÖ´Ù.