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
÷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¿¡ ÀÇÇØ¼¸¸ 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·ÏÇϰí ÀÖ¾î 2004³â¿¡ ¹ßÇ¥µÈ ¿Ü±¹ÀÎ °Ç¼³ ±Ù·ÎÀÚµéÀÇ ¾ÈÀü ´ëÃ¥¿¡ ´ëÇÑ
spssÅë°è ÆÑŰÁö¿Í AHP(¿ì¼±ÀûÀÎ Á߿䵵 °áÁ¤ ÆÑŰÁö) 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´ëÇÏ¸é¼ 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 ÆÇ´ÜµÈ´Ù.
ƯÈ÷
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 ÁøÇàÇϰí 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´ãÇϰí ÀÖÀ¸¸ç
¿©±â¼ ¿¬±¸ÇÑ ½ÇÀûÀ§ÁÖ·Î ¿¬±¸ºÎºÐÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿´´Ù. Çб³ ¹× ±â¼ú¼öÁذú ÇöȲ¡°¿¡¼ ÀÚ¼¼È÷ ¼Ò°³Çϰí 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 ÇØ¾ç 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 ÇØ¾ç¿¬±¸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 ÆÇ´ÜµÇ¾î À̸¦ Çб³¿¡ Á¤º¸Á¦°øÇÑ´Ù.
[3]
°Ç¼³¾ÈÀü ºÐ¾ß °øµ¿¿¬±¸ Âü¿©
°Ç¼³¾ÈÀü
ºÐ¾ß¿¡ ´ëÇØ¼´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 ÅäÀǰ¡ °¡´ÉÇÔ.
¿¬¼ö±¹ÀÇ
°ü·ÃºÐ¾ß ¿¬±¸ ¹× ±â¼ú¼öÁذú ÇöȲ
[1]
»ó´ë±¹°úÇÐÀÚÀÇ ¿¬±¸¼Ò
Unit
of marine technology and engineering ¿¡¼´Â 30¸íÀÇ ¿¬±¸¿øµéÀÌ ¿¬±¸¿¡ Á¾»çÇϰí 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 ¿¬±¸¸¦ Çϰí 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» °¡Çϰí 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 ÆÇ´ÜµÈ´Ù.(÷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¤ÀÌ¾î¼ »ó´ë°úÇÐÀÚÁß 3¸íÀ» ±¹³» ´ëÇп¡ Ư°Çϵµ·Ï ¹èÄ¡Çϰí 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«ÇÏ¸é¼ ½Ç¹« Àû¿ë °¡´ÉÇÑ ±¸Á¶¾ÈÀü ±âÁØÀ» ¿¬±¸Çϰí Àú³á¶§¿¡´Â ¼³°è»ç¹«¼Ò¿¡¼ ½ÇÁ¦ ¼³°è¿¡ Âü¿©ÇÏ¿© »ê․¿¬ Çù·ÂÀÇ ¸ð¹üÀ»
º¸À̰í 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±¸¸¦ Çϰí ÀÖÀ¸¸ç ÀÌ ºÐ¾ß ½Ç·ÂÀÖ´Â °úÇÐÀÚ·Î ¿¬±¸¼Ò¿¡¼ Æò°¡Çϰí 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¿©Çϰí 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±¸¸¦ Çϰí ÀÖ´Ù.
|