Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 工學院
  3. 土木工程學系
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60977
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor游景雲(J-Y You)
dc.contributor.authorWei-Yuan Chengen
dc.contributor.author鄭維元zh_TW
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-16T10:39:28Z-
dc.date.available2013-08-15
dc.date.copyright2013-08-14
dc.date.issued2013
dc.date.submitted2013-08-13
dc.identifier.citation參考文獻
1. Bhowmik, N. G. and M. Demissie (1994). 'The Great Mississippi River Flood of 1993: An Impetus Toward Sustainable Floodplain Management in the United States?', Water International, 19:4, 161-165, DOI: 10.1080/02508069408686224
2. Bobee, B. and P. F. Rasmussen (1995). 'Recent advances in flood frequency analysis.' Reviews of Geophysics 33(S2): 1111-1116.
3. Brown, J. P., B. Contini, et al. (1972). 'An economic model of floodplain land use and land use policy.' Water Resources Research 8(1): 18-32.
4. Camerer, C. F. and H. Kunreuther (1989). 'Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications.' Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 8(4): 565-592.
5. Fernandez, B. and J. D. Salas (1999). 'Return period and risk of hydrologic events. I: Mathematical formulation.' Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 4(4): 297-307.
6. Fernandez, B. and J. D. Salas (1999). 'Return period and risk of hydrologic events. II: Applications.' Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 4(4): 308-316.
7. Gomez, B., L. A. Mertes, et al. (1995). 'Sediment characteristics of an extreme flood: 1993 upper Mississippi River valley.' Geology 23(11): 963-966.
8. Gui, S., R. Zhang, et al. (1998). 'Overtopping reliability models for river levee.' Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124(12): 1227-1234.
9. Heine, R. A. and N. Pinter (2012). 'Levee effects upon flood levels: an empirical assessment.' Hydrological Processes 26(21): 3225-3240.
10. Hey, D. L. and N. S. Philippi (1995). 'Flood reduction through wetland restoration: the Upper Mississippi River Basin as a case history.' Restoration Ecology 3(1): 4-17.
11. Katz, R. W. and B. G. Brown (1992). 'Extreme events in a changing climate: variability is more important than averages.' Climatic Change 21(3): 289-302.
12. Kousky, C. (2010). 'Learning from extreme events: risk perceptions after the flood.' Land Economics 86(3): 395-422.
13. Kousky, C. and H. Kunreuther (2010). 'Improving flood insurance and flood-risk management: Insights from St. Louis, Missouri.' Natural Hazards Review 11(4): 162-172.
14. Lord, W. B. (2011). 'Flood Hazard Delineation: The One Percent Standard.' Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 95(1): 7.
15. Lund, J. R. (2002). 'Floodplain planning with risk-based optimization.' Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 128(3): 202-207.
16. Madsen, H., P. F. Rasmussen, et al. (1997). 'Comparison of annual maximum series and partial duration series methods for modeling extreme hydrologic events: 1. At‐site modeling.' Water Resources Research 33(4): 747-757.
17. Michel‐Kerjan, E. O. and C. Kousky (2010). 'Come rain or shine: Evidence on flood insurance purchases in Florida.' Journal of Risk and Insurance 77(2): 369-397.
18. Montz, B. and E. C. Gruntfest (1986). 'Changes in American urban floodplain occupancy since 1958: The experiences of nine cities.' Applied Geography 6(4): 325-338.
19. Myers, M. F. and G. F. White (1993). 'The challenge of the Mississippi flood.' Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 35(10): 6-35.
20. Olsen, J. R., P. A. Beling, et al. (2000). 'Dynamic models for floodplain management.' Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 126(3): 167-175.
21. Olsen, J. R., P. A. Beling, et al. (1998). 'Input-output economic evaluation of system of levees.' Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 124(5): 237-245.
22. Olsen, J. R., J. H. Lambert, et al. (1998). 'Risk of extreme events under nonstationary conditions.' Risk Analysis 18(4): 497-510.
23. Philippi, N. S. 1994. Revisiting Flood Control: An Examination of Federal Flood Control Policy in Light of the 1993 Flood Event on the Upper Mississippi River. Wetlands Research Inc., Chicago, Ill.
24. Philippi, N. S. (1995). 'Spending Federal Flood Control Dollars.' Wetlands Research Inc.
25. Pinter, N. (2005). 'One step forward, two steps back on US floodplains.' Science 308(5719): 207-208.
26. Pisarenko, V. (1998). 'Non‐linear growth of cumulative flood losses with time.' Hydrological Processes 12(3): 461-470.
27. Pisarenko, V. (1998). 'Non‐linear growth of cumulative flood losses with time.' Hydrological Processes 12(3): 461-470.
28. Rasmussen, P. and D. Rosbjerg (1991). 'Application of Bayesian principles in regional flood frequency estimation.' Advances in Water Resources Technology (ed. G. Tsakiris), Balkema, 65-75.
29. Rasmussen, P. and D. Rosbjerg (1991). 'Evaluation of risk concepts in partial duration series.' Stochastic Hydrology and Hydraulics 5(1): 1-16.
30. Rasmussen, P. F. and D. Rosbjerg (1991). 'Prediction uncertainty in seasonal partial duration series.' Water Resources Research 27(11): 2875-2883.
31. Rosbjerg, D., H. Madsen, et al. (1992). 'Prediction in partial duration series with generalized pareto‐distributed exceedances.' Water Resources Research 28(11): 3001-3010.
32. Simonovic, S. P. and H. Fahmy (1999). 'A new modeling approach for water resources policy analysis.' Water Resources Research 35(1): 295-304.
33. Stewart, M. G. and R. E. Melchers (1997). Probabilistic risk assessment of engineering systems, Chapman & Hall London.
34. Strupczewski, W. (1969). 'Determination of probability distribution of maximum discharges on the basins of all observed floods.'
35. Tobin, G. A. (1995). 'The levee love affair: a stormy relationship? 1.' Journal of the American Water Resources Association 31(3): 359-367.
36. Tung, Y.-K. (2005). 'Flood defense systems design by risk-based approaches.' Water International 30(1): 50-57.
37. Tung, Y. K. and L. W. Mays (1981). 'Risk models for flood levee design.' Water Resources Research 17(4): 833-841.
38. Vrijling, J. (2001). 'Probabilistic design of water defense systems in The Netherlands.' Reliability Engineering & System Safety 74(3): 337-344.
39. Wang, Z. and L. Ormsbee (2005). 'Comparison between probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and flood frequency analysis.' Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 86(5): 45-52.
40. White, G. F. (1945). Human adjustment to floods: a geographical approach to the flood problem in the United States, University of Chicago.
41. Windsor, J. S. (1973). 'Optimization model for the operation of flood control systems.' Water Resources Research 9(5): 1219-1226.
42. Zhu, T. and J. R. Lund (2006). Economic-Engineering Theory of Flood Levee Height and Setback. World Environmental and Water Resource Congress 2006@ sExamining the Confluence of Environmental and Water Concerns, ASCE.
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60977-
dc.description.abstract摘要
台灣四面環海、地形變化大,且地理位置位於熱帶、副熱帶季風氣候區交界處,年雨量以及瞬間降雨強度都屬世界之最,再加上眾多的人口及高度的經濟發展程度,使得洪災來臨時,經常產生巨大的洪災損失。為了避免洪災事件的發生,經常以修築堤防系統作為主要的防災的手段。
而在以往堤防系統設計之初,多以定常性的風險概念為基礎來決定保護標準,並未考慮到氣候變遷導致極端水文事件頻率增加,以及堤防保護對社會經濟、人口發展之影響,有可能造成堤防系統所提供的保護越好,卻在洪災發生時,造成更多的洪災損失之情形發生。也因為如此,從前以風險效益分析,來考量堤防系統的經濟效益最佳狀況,有可能產生參數評估不符合實際狀況的失誤,導致決策的結果不佳。
本研究提出一套考慮了堤防效應以及環境變遷,並以卜松隨機損失為基礎的堤防系統檢視方法:以分析設計回歸週期( )來劃分堤防系統發揮效用的時間區間,以保護標準回歸週期( )來進行堤防保護程度的折減與修正,以定常性的替代風險( )簡化非定常性現象對洪災的影響,最後再以提高堤防保護的邊際防洪效益( )來判斷保護標準變動所帶來的影響。應用以上方法,期望能夠修正以往在期望平均損失概念,應用在堤防系統設計、分析中的可能錯誤,避免堤防保護的加強反而造成額外更多洪災潛在損失的狀況發生,並且使堤防系統的設計與分析能夠更接近符合狀況,以最佳的成本發揮最大的效益。
關鍵字:堤防效應、氣候變遷、堤防系統分析、回歸週期
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractAbstract
Taiwan is in the subtropical and tropical monsoon climate zone with heavy precipitation. As a highly developed country with large population, flooding is always causes serious economic losses. In order to minimize impact, levee systems are a common implementation used to protect to cities. Engineers usually design levees based on concepts of risk assessment, but the non-stationarity has not been considered before. Under nonstationary condition, risk of extreme hydrological events increases and continuous social development could also reduce the effectiveness of the flood prevention system. For this reason, previous flood control projects based on risk-benefit analysis may be inaccurate in describing flood events, resulting in poor decision making by the management.
This study re-examine the frequency analysis methods and risk model based on the Poisson random process, while taking into account both climate change and levee effect. The time interval of levee benefit can be determined by using the “analysis return period (Td)” while the reduction level of protection standard can be found using the “protection standard return period (Ts)”. The phenomena of unsteady condition are simplified using “substitute risk (Psus)”, and finally, marginal benefits of levee protection are used to determine the effects of variation in protection standard. Applying these methods, this study aims to revise past methods that are based on expected average loss to prevent situations where an increase of levee protection actually causes higher losses in an event of a flood, and most importantly, to make the design of levee systems more in line with reality and provides maximum benefit at a minimum cost.
Key words: Levee effect, Climate change, Levee protecting system analysis, Return period
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T10:39:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
ntu-102-R00521305-1.pdf: 921716 bytes, checksum: ead1c4f64b5e5c8f4fef497e994f69c3 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2013
en
dc.description.tableofcontents目錄
口試委員會審定書 I
誌謝 II
摘要 III
Abstract IV
目錄 V
圖表目錄 VII
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究動機與目的 2
1.2 研究架構 3
第二章 文獻回顧 5
2.1 極端氣候對於洪水頻率分析的影響 5
2.2 洪災事件的發生對於都市成本與人口經濟衰退之影響 7
2.3 防洪工程與風險損失之關係 9
第三章 堤防設計分析基礎理論 11
3.1 堤防設計分析概念說明 11
3.1.1 期望平均損失 11
3.1.2 卜松隨機損失 12
3.2 折現率的作用 13
3.3 平均損失的推估 14
3.3.1 以Extreme Value Distribution Type I推估平均損失 15
3.3.2 以Gamma distribution推估平均損失 16
3.4 期望等待時間 18
3.5 風險的變動 19
3.6 堤防系統的成本效益最佳化 23
第四章 堤防效應及氣候變遷對風險、損失的影響 24
4.1 定常性條件下的損失分析 25
4.1.1 定常性條件下長期損失概念比較 26
4.1.2 定常性條件下單次損失概念比較 27
4.2 非定常性的損失分析 29
4.2.1 堤防效應因子的概念模型 30
4.2.2指數型堤防效應因子作用下的堤防系統「分析設計回歸週期」 31
4.2.3線性型堤防效應因子作用下的堤防系統「分析設計回歸週期」 35
4.2.4指數型堤防效應因子作用下的堤防系統「保護標準回歸週期」 37
4.2.5線性型堤防效應因子作用下的堤防系統「保護標準回歸週期」 40
4.2.6 堤防保護標準回歸週期與分析設計回歸週期的概念與應用 42
4.3 風險及損失的變動與簡化 45
4.3.1 風險指數增加的等量風險定常性簡化 46
4.3.2 風險線性增加的等量風險定常性簡化 48
4.3.3 風險指數增加的等量損失定常性簡化 49
4.3.4 風險線性增加的等量損失定常性簡化 51
4.4 堤防系統保護標準與損失之模式分析 54
4.4.1 模擬堤防系統損失與保護標準變動關係之模型 54
4.4.2 模擬過程與參數設定 55
4.4.3 災害規模影響 56
4.4.4 損失係數變動模擬 60
4.4.5 洪災規模機率密度函數之變異係數變動模擬 62
第五章 結論與建議 65
5.1 結論 65
5.2 建議 66
參考文獻 67
dc.language.isozh-TW
dc.subject堤防系統分析zh_TW
dc.subject堤防效應zh_TW
dc.subject氣候變遷zh_TW
dc.subject回歸週期zh_TW
dc.subjectReturn perioden
dc.subjectClimate changeen
dc.subjectLevee effecten
dc.subjectLevee protecting system analysisen
dc.title洪水風險頻率分析模型及堤防效益之分析探討zh_TW
dc.titleThe Examination of Flood Frequency/Risk Analysis
and Levee Effect
en
dc.typeThesis
dc.date.schoolyear101-2
dc.description.degree碩士
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee胡明哲,陳憲宗,許永佳
dc.subject.keyword堤防效應,氣候變遷,堤防系統分析,回歸週期,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordLevee effect,Climate change,Levee protecting system analysis,Return period,en
dc.relation.page80
dc.rights.note有償授權
dc.date.accepted2013-08-13
dc.contributor.author-college工學院zh_TW
dc.contributor.author-dept土木工程學研究所zh_TW
顯示於系所單位:土木工程學系

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
ntu-102-1.pdf
  未授權公開取用
900.11 kBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved