校舍耐震評估、補強執行策略－台南市實例

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Strategies of School Buildings-Tainan City as an Illustration

10.6377/JA.200912.0008

李元墩(Yuan-Duen Lee)；王水文(Shui-Wen Wang)；蔡柄權(Bin-Chuan Tsai)；陳金松(Jin-Song Chen)；吳仕捷(Shih-Chieh Wu)；陸正威(Chen-Wei Lu)；王海秀(Hai-Hsiu Wang)

耐震評估 ； 補強 ； 進度管理 ； 財務管理 ； 溝通策略 ； Seismic Evaluation ； Retrofit Strategies ； Pace Management ； Financial Management ； Communication Strategies

建築學報

70_S期（2009 / 12 / 31）

39 - 54

繁體中文

校舍耐震評估、補強在與地震搶時間，但是傳統評估結果大多以拆除重建爲主，在固定經費限制下，一年能改善的校舍棟數有限。爲加快腳步，臺南市自94年起，先進行全面性初步評估，再依據其結果，對耐震係數較低者進一步詳細評估，並透過學術單位審查，檢驗詳評結果與補強方案。建立審查機制之後發現，傳統評估、補強作法有很大改善空間。比較六年來的差異，在經費方面，92至95年以6.16億元更新14棟校舍，平均每棟校舍花費4,400萬元；至實施審查制度之後，96至97年以2.56億元，更新25棟校舍，平均每棟校舍花費1,024萬元；在時間方面，前4年更新14棟校舍，後2年更新25棟校舍，將原本2年更新7棟的速度，提升至2年更新25棟，使18棟校舍提前達到安全標準。本文說明此項差異背後的策略思惟，並闡述詳評、補強、審查經驗與全案推動規劃思考。依據三年來的執行經驗，從進度管理、財務管理、溝通策略，提出對教育部、營建署、縣市政府與詳評技師的建議。整個專案的功能在以更少的經費，讓達到安全標準的校舍更多、進入安全標準的時間更早。

Key factors of success in seismic evaluation and retrofit lie in competing with earthquakes; however, most of the school buildings were demolished from traditional evaluation system. There is a limitation in the ability to improve the number of buildings in a year under a fixed budget in the government. In order to speed up the pace, Tainan City Government has carried out an overall preliminary evaluation since 2005. According to the results, those with lower seismic coefficient must be further evaluated and academically inspected to examine the evaluation results and retrofit programs. After establishing the inspection mechanism, it was found that there is still a big space for improvement in the traditional evaluation and retrofit approach. Comparing the differences for the last 6 years, it was found that 616 million in NTD was spent from 2003 to 2006 on renovating 14 school buildings. An average of 44 million was spent on each building. After the inspection system came into effect, 256 million was spent from 2007 to 2008 on renovating 25 school buildings, with an average of 10.24 million on each building. On the aspect of time, the first 4 years were spent on renovating 14 buildings, while the latter 2 years were spent on renovating 25 buildings, thereby, increasing the speed of renovating 7 buildings in 2 years to 25 buildings in 2 years. This accelerated the safety improvement of 18 buildings in time. This article explains the strategies of this difference behind the scenes, as well as interprets the experiences of evaluation, inspection and retrofit with the entire case. It also points out suggestions to the Ministry of Education, Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior, local governments and technician, based on pace management, financial management, and communication strategies. The success of the project lies in using lesser funds, renovating more buildings with higher safety standards as early as possible.

1. Ph.D. diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
2. Bae, Sang-Seok.(2006).Florida, USA,Florida State University.
3. Chatterjee, S.(1986).Types of synergy and economic value: the impact of acquisitions on merging and rival firms.Journal of Strategic Management,7(2),119-139.
4. Earthman, G. I.(1995).A statewide study of student achievement and behavior and school building condition.Annual Meeting of the Council of Educational Facility Planners,Dallas, TX:
5. Hill, D. A.(2008).Minnesota, USA,Capella University.
6. Ibekwe, L. A.(2007).Minnesota, USA,Capella University.
7. Jacobs, D. C.(2005).South Africa,Pretoria University.
8. Julian, J. L.(2008).New York, USA,Columbia University.
9. Environmental Energy Study Institute (EESI)
10. department of educational leadership and policy studies, dissertation, Virginia tech campus
11. OECD(2001).The relationship between capital investment and pupil performance: an analysis by the United Kingdom, PEB exchange, Programme on educational building, 2001/12, OECD publishing, doi:10.1787/772776755627The relationship between capital investment and pupil performance: an analysis by the United Kingdom, PEB exchange, Programme on educational building, 2001/12, OECD publishing, doi:10.1787/772776755627,未出版
12. Pochran, Judith Miller(2006).School, college, and university financial management: Legal issues, outcomes, trends, and guidelines for educational personnel.Alabama, USA:Alabama University.
13. Ruiz, M. L. D.(1986).New York, USA,Syracuse University.
14. Stefanovic, J. V.(2008).New Jersey, USA,Stevens Institute of Technology.
15. Valkiria, D. N.(2008).School building condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York city public schools: a mediation model.Journal of Environmental Psychology,28(3),278-286.
16. 建築物實施耐震能力評估及補強作業要點
17. 建築物耐震設計規範
18. 內政部營建署(2000)。建築物實施耐震能力評估及補強方案。
19. 姚昭智(2008)。建築景觀維護與耐震補強之應用。第九屆結構工程研討會，高雄市:

1. 鄭明淵、陳清山、吳育偉(2014)。中小學校舍耐震評估─以演化式支持向量機推論系統為評估方法。建築學報，87，103-119。