Bridge management method and bridge management device

Abstract

To easily determine measures for a plurality of bridges.SOLUTION: A bridge management method comprises: a grouping step of grouping a plurality of bridges installed in similar environments into the same group; an estimation step of estimating a priority level, which is an index indicating the necessity of repair or reinforcement for the bridge, for the plurality of bridges included in the group; an extraction step of extracting at least one sample bridge from a plurality of bridges included in a group based on the estimated value of the priority by the estimation step; an actual measurement step of actually measuring physical properties related to the priority of the sample bridge; a first determination step for determining a measure to be taken for the sample bridge based on an actual measurement value in the actual measurement step; and a second determination step of determining a measure for another bridge excluding the sample bridge among the plurality of bridges included in the group based on the estimated value of the priority in the estimation step and the measure for the sample bridge in the first determination step.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present disclosure relates to a bridge management method and a bridge management device. [Background technology]

[0002] For example, Patent Document 1 discloses a management system for managing bridges. In Patent Document 1, for each piece of specific information corresponding to each bridge, a priority for carrying out repairs on the corresponding bridge is calculated based on the corresponding importance information and damage level information. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0003] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2005-180164 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0004] However, since bridge managers manage a large number of bridges, deciding on repair measures for each of them would require a great deal of effort, time, and cost. For this reason, it is desirable to be able to easily decide on measures for multiple bridges.

[0005] An object of the present disclosure is to provide a bridge management method and a bridge management device that can easily determine measures to be taken for multiple bridges. [Means for solving the problem]

[0006] In order to solve the above problem, a bridge management method according to one embodiment of the present disclosure includes a grouping process for grouping multiple bridges located in similar environments into the same group; an estimation process for estimating a priority ranking, which is an indicator of the need for bridge repair or reinforcement, for multiple bridges included in the group; an extraction process for extracting at least one sample bridge from the multiple bridges included in the group based on the priority ranking estimated by the estimation process; a measurement process for measuring physical properties related to the priority ranking of the sample bridge; a first determination process for determining measures for the sample bridge based on the measured values ​​by the measurement process; and a second determination process for determining measures for bridges other than the sample bridge among the multiple bridges included in the group, based on the priority ranking estimated by the estimation process and the measures for the sample bridge by the first determination process.

[0007] The similar environment may also include at least one of the same district, the same route, and the same river.

[0008] In addition, in the estimation process, the priority level is estimated based on one or more of a plurality of elements related to the bridge, and the plurality of elements may include the importance of the bridge, the soundness of the bridge, the specifications of the bridge, the structural type of the bridge, the material of the bridge, the history of the bridge, and the results of regular inspections of the bridge.

[0009] In the estimation step, the priority ranking may be estimated by weighting and adding the evaluation values ​​of a plurality of elements related to the bridge.

[0010] In addition, in the estimation step, a distribution may be estimated that associates the estimated value of the priority rank with the number of bridges among the plurality of bridges that correspond to the estimated value of the priority rank.

[0011] In the extraction step, the bridge having the largest estimated priority value among the plurality of bridges may be extracted as the sample bridge.

[0012] In the extraction step, a bridge having a median estimated value of priority rank among a plurality of bridges may be extracted as a sample bridge.

[0013] In addition, in the actual measurement step, a load test may be performed in which a test load is applied to the sample bridge, and at least one of the deflection and strain of the sample bridge may be measured.

[0014] In addition, in the first determination step, the actual measurement value from the actual measurement step is compared with a predetermined first threshold value, and if it is determined that the actual measurement value is greater than or equal to the first threshold value, repair or reinforcement measures are decided for the sample bridge, and if it is determined that the actual measurement value is less than the first threshold value, monitoring measures using a specified sensor or imaging device are decided for the sample bridge.

[0015] In addition, in the second determination step, a boundary value, which is an estimated value of the priority ranking corresponding to the first threshold, is identified based on the difference between the actual measurement value and the first threshold, and repair or reinforcement measures are determined for bridges among other bridges whose estimated value of the priority ranking is equal to or greater than the boundary value, and monitoring measures are determined for bridges among other bridges whose estimated value of the priority ranking is less than the boundary value.

[0016] In addition, the bridge management method may further include an ordering step for determining the order in which the measures determined by the first determination step and the second determination step are executed, and the ordering step may determine an order in which measures for bridges with a large estimated priority value by the estimation step are prioritized.

[0017] In the grouping step, a plurality of bridges installed in similar environments are grouped into the same main group, and a plurality of bridges different from the plurality of bridges included in the main group and installed in similar environments are grouped into the same group but into a sub-group different from the main group. In the estimation step, priority rankings are estimated for the plurality of bridges included in the main group, and priority rankings are estimated for the plurality of bridges included in the sub-group. In the extraction step, at least one sample bridge is extracted from the plurality of bridges included in the main group based on the estimated priority ranking for the main group. In the actual measurement step, the priority rankings of the sample bridges for the main group are measured. Physical properties related to the above are measured, and in a first determination step, measures for the sample bridge for the main group are determined based on the measured values ​​from the measurement step, and in a second determination step, measures for other bridges included in the main group excluding the sample bridge are determined based on the estimated priority ranking for the main group and the measures for the sample bridge for the main group, and measures for the multiple bridges included in the sub-group may be estimated based on the estimated priority ranking for the sub-group, the measures for the sample bridge for the main group, and the measures for other bridges included in the main group excluding the sample bridge.

[0018] In order to solve the above problems, a bridge management device according to one embodiment of the present disclosure includes a computing device that performs bridge management processing, and the computing device groups multiple bridges installed in similar environments into the same group, estimates a priority ranking, which is an indicator of the need for bridge repair or reinforcement, for the multiple bridges included in the group, extracts at least one sample bridge from the multiple bridges included in the group based on the estimated priority ranking, determines measures for the sample bridge based on actual measured values ​​of physical properties related to the priority ranking of the sample bridge, and determines measures for the other bridges included in the group, excluding the sample bridge, based on the estimated priority ranking and the measures for the sample bridge. [Effects of the Invention]

[0019] According to the present disclosure, it becomes possible to easily decide on measures to be taken for multiple bridges. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0020] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a flowchart illustrating the flow of a bridge management method according to this embodiment. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 shows an example distribution of priority rank estimates associated with the number of bridges. [Figure 3] FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of determining measures for other bridges in the second determination step. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating another example of determining measures for other bridges in the second determination step. [Figure 5] FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating another example of determining measures for other bridges in the second determination step. [Figure 6] FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a modified example of the bridge management method. [Figure 7] FIG. 7 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of a bridge management device. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0021] Hereinafter, embodiments of the present disclosure will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. Dimensions, materials, and other specific numerical values ​​shown in the embodiments are merely examples for ease of understanding and do not limit the present disclosure unless otherwise specified. In this specification and drawings, elements having substantially the same functions and configurations are designated by the same reference numerals to avoid redundant explanation, and elements not directly related to the present disclosure are not shown.

[0022] (Bridge management method) Fig. 1 is a flowchart illustrating the flow of a bridge management method according to this embodiment. As shown in Fig. 1, the bridge management method according to this embodiment includes a grouping step (S10), an estimation step (S11), an extraction step (S12), a measurement step (S13), a first determination step (S14), a second determination step (S15), and an ordering step (S16).

[0023] In the bridge management method of this embodiment, each step is basically performed by a person. However, at least some of the steps may be performed by a machine such as a computer. Furthermore, the person performing each step is, for example, the bridge manager, but is not limited to the bridge manager and may be any person depending on the actual operational status of the bridge, such as a third party entrusted with management by the bridge manager. Furthermore, each step is not limited to being performed by the same person, and at least some of the steps may be performed by other people, thereby achieving the bridge management method of this embodiment. For ease of explanation, the following description will be given assuming that each step is performed by a bridge manager.

[0024] First, an overview of the bridge management method of this embodiment will be described. First, the administrator groups multiple bridges into groups, estimates specific indicators (described below), and extracts at least one bridge from the multiple bridges included in the group. Hereinafter, the extracted bridge may be referred to as a sample bridge. In other words, a group containing multiple bridges corresponds to the population from which the sample bridge is extracted. The administrator performs actual measurements on the sample bridge and determines management measures for the sample bridge. Based on the estimated specific indicators and the management measures for the sample bridge, the administrator determines management measures for the other bridges excluding the sample bridge. In this way, the bridge management method of this embodiment determines management measures for multiple bridges. Each step will be described in detail below.

[0025] (Group process (S10)) In the grouping process, the administrator groups multiple bridges located in similar environments into the same group. Similar environments include at least one of the same district, same route, and same river. In similar environments, the natural environment around the bridge and the artificial load on the bridge caused by vehicles passing over the bridge are assumed to be similar.

[0026] For example, the administrator may group multiple bridges located in a specific town or village within the management area into one group. The administrator may also group multiple bridges located on a specific route, such as a national or prefectural road, within the management area into one group. The administrator may also group multiple bridges located on a specific river within the management area into one group. Grouping is not limited to being based on only one of the conditions of same district, same route, and same river, but may also be based on two or more of the conditions.

[0027] Furthermore, the administrator may group multiple bridges with the same level of soundness among multiple bridges in at least one of the following conditions: the same district, the same route, and the same river. In other words, grouping may be done taking into consideration the condition of soundness in addition to the conditions of the same district, the same route, and the same river. Note that soundness refers to each of the multiple levels of bridge soundness, and specifically refers to the soundness assessment levels I to IV in the inspection guidelines published by the government.

[0028] Considering that sample bridges are extracted after grouping, by including multiple bridges installed in similar environments in the group during the grouping process, it is possible to reduce the variation in the characteristics of the multiple bridges included in the group. This allows the administrator to extract appropriate sample bridges. As a result, the administrator can appropriately determine management measures for the multiple bridges.

[0029] (Estimation process (S11)) After the grouping step, the manager performs the estimation step. Here, the bridge management method of this embodiment uses a "priority rank," which is an index that indicates the need for bridge repair or reinforcement. In the estimation step, the manager estimates this priority rank for multiple bridges included in the group. That is, in the estimation step, an estimated value of the priority rank associated with each of the multiple bridges included in the group is identified.

[0030] The priority ranking is estimated based on one or more of a plurality of bridge-related factors. The bridge-related factors include the importance of the bridge, the soundness of the bridge, the specifications of the bridge, the structural type of the bridge, the materials of the bridge, the history of the bridge, and the results of periodic bridge inspections. Note that the bridge-related factors used to estimate the priority ranking are not limited to the examples given above, and may include any bridge-related factors.

[0031] In this way, in the estimation step, the priority ranking is estimated based on various elements related to the bridge, so that an appropriate priority ranking can be estimated for each bridge included in the group.

[0032] More specifically, the priority ranking is derived by the following formula (1).

number

[0033] In formula (1), "K" indicates the priority level. "Xm" indicates the evaluation value of the mth element related to the bridge, and more specifically, it is the value obtained by quantifying the various elements exemplified above using a specific method. "Am" indicates a preset coefficient, which corresponds to the mth element. The coefficient "Am" is set for each corresponding element. "n" indicates the number of elements.

[0034] As shown in formula (1), the priority score "K" is obtained by multiplying the evaluation value "Xm" of the mth element related to the bridge by the coefficient "Am", performing this for each element, and adding up the multiplication results for each element. In other words, in the estimation process, the priority score "K" is estimated by weighting and adding up the evaluation values ​​of multiple elements related to the bridge.

[0035] In this way, in the estimation process, the evaluation values ​​of multiple elements related to the bridge are weighted and added to estimate the priority ranking, so that the contribution of each element to the priority ranking can be appropriately adjusted, and an appropriate priority ranking can be estimated.

[0036] As described above, in the estimation process, the priority rankings of the multiple bridges included in the group are estimated. More specifically, in the estimation process, a distribution is estimated that associates the estimated priority rankings with the number of bridges among the multiple bridges that correspond to the estimated priority rankings.

[0037] 2 shows an example of a distribution in which the estimated priority rank is associated with the number of bridges, where the horizontal axis represents the estimated priority rank and the vertical axis represents the number of bridges.

[0038] In the estimation process, the bridges included in the group are sorted in ascending or descending order of the estimated priority ranking, and the distribution is estimated by counting the number of bridges corresponding to each estimated priority ranking, like a histogram.

[0039] In this way, by estimating a distribution in which the estimated priority ranking values ​​and the number of bridges are associated, the degree of variation in the estimated priority ranking values ​​can be intuitively grasped.

[0040] In the estimation step, it is sufficient to estimate the priority ranks for the multiple bridges included in the group, and estimation of the distribution in which the estimated priority ranks are associated with the number of bridges may be omitted.

[0041] (Extraction process (S12)) Following the estimation step, the administrator performs an extraction step in which the administrator extracts at least one sample bridge from among the multiple bridges included in the group based on the priority ranking estimated in the estimation step.

[0042] More specifically, in the extraction process, the administrator extracts the bridge with the median estimated priority ranking value from among the multiple bridges included in the group as the sample bridge. In Figure 2, the median estimated priority ranking value is shown by a dashed line.

[0043] In addition, if there are multiple bridges whose estimated priority ranking is the median, any one of the multiple bridges whose estimated priority ranking is the median may be used as the sample bridge, or all of the multiple bridges whose estimated priority ranking is the median may be used as the sample bridge.

[0044] As will be described later, after the extraction process, a measure for the sample bridge is determined, and measures for the other bridges excluding the sample bridge are determined based on the measure for the sample bridge. Based on this, by selecting the bridge with the median estimated priority value as the sample bridge, it is possible to identify a standard bridge in the group as the sample bridge, and as a result, it is possible to determine appropriate measures for multiple bridges in the group to which the sample bridge belongs.

[0045] In the extraction step, the administrator may extract, as a sample bridge, a bridge having the maximum estimated value of priority rank from among a plurality of bridges.

[0046] By selecting the bridge with the highest estimated priority value as the sample bridge, it is possible to determine safer measures for multiple bridges in the group to which the sample bridge belongs.

[0047] In the extraction process, the administrator is not limited to extracting the bridge with the median or maximum estimated priority ranking value among the multiple bridges included in the group as the sample bridge, but may also extract any bridge among the multiple bridges included in the group as the sample bridge.

[0048] (Measurement process (S13)) Following the extraction process, the administrator performs a measurement process, in which the administrator measures the physical properties of the sample bridges that are related to the priority ranking.

[0049] More specifically, in the actual measurement process, a load test is performed in which a test load is applied to the sample bridge. For example, a predetermined vehicle with a known weight may be used as the test load. In the load test, at least one of the deflection and strain of the sample bridge is measured when the test load is applied to the sample bridge.

[0050] Here, it is estimated that the greater the deflection and strain measured in the load test, the greater the need for repair or reinforcement. Based on this, the deflection and strain measured in the load test are an example of a physical property related to the priority ranking of the sample bridge.

[0051] The measurement step is not limited to a load test, and may involve, for example, a physical property test such as a compressive strength test in which a portion of the sample bridge is core-sampled and the compressive strength of the core sample is measured. In the example of a compressive strength test, the measured compressive strength corresponds to an example of a physical property related to the priority ranking of the sample bridge.

[0052] In this way, in the actual measurement process, physical properties related to the priority ranking of the sample bridge are actually measured, making it possible to understand the relationship between the estimated value of priority ranking in the estimation process and the physical property values ​​related to the priority ranking in the actual measurement process.

[0053] Furthermore, in the measurement process, measurements are only taken of the sample bridge, which reduces the effort, time, and cost required for the measurements compared to when measurements are taken of all bridges in the group.

[0054] Furthermore, since a load test is carried out in the measurement process, deflection and strain, which are examples of physical properties related to the priority ranking of the sample bridge, can be measured non-destructively.

[0055] (1st decision step (S14)) After the actual measurement step, the administrator performs a first determination step. In the first determination step, the administrator determines measures to be taken for the sample bridge based on the actual measurement values ​​obtained in the actual measurement step.

[0056] In the first determination step, measures for the sample bridge are determined based on actual measurement values, so that realistic measures can be determined for the sample bridge.

[0057] More specifically, in the first determination step, the actual measurement value obtained in the actual measurement step is compared with a predetermined first threshold value. The first threshold value is set appropriately depending on the type of specific physical property measured in the actual measurement step. The first threshold value can be set arbitrarily based on the manager's management policy, etc. For example, if the management policy is to perform preventative repairs or reinforcement as early as possible, the first threshold value may be set to a relatively small value. Furthermore, if the management policy is to limit bridges to be repaired or reinforced to those that are most in need, taking into account the effort required for repair or reinforcement, the first threshold value may be set to a relatively large value.

[0058] In the first determination step, when the actual measurement value is compared and determined to be equal to or greater than the first threshold value, it is inferred that the need for repair or reinforcement is greater than the comparison reference value, and therefore a repair or reinforcement measure is determined for the sample bridge. Note that either repair or reinforcement may be determined.

[0059] In the first determination step, if the comparison of the actual measurement value determines that the actual measurement value is less than the first threshold, a monitoring measure using a predetermined sensor or imaging device is determined for the sample bridge. The predetermined sensor may be any sensor capable of monitoring the condition of a bridge, such as a strain gauge or an optical sensor. The imaging device may be any imaging device capable of monitoring the condition of a bridge, such as a visible light camera or an infrared camera.

[0060] In this way, in the first determination step, whether to repair or reinforce the sample bridge, or to monitor it, is selected based on the actual measured values ​​of the physical properties related to the priority level. In this way, the bridge management method of this embodiment can determine appropriate measures for the sample bridge.

[0061] Here, the first threshold is used as a boundary to select whether to perform repair or reinforcement measures or monitoring measures. However, measures other than "repair or reinforcement" or "monitoring" may be determined as measures for the sample bridge, or the content of the measures may be determined in more detail. For example, a measure called "observation" may be performed when monitoring is not necessary. In this case, a second threshold lower than the first threshold may be set, and if the actual measurement value is less than the first threshold and greater than or equal to the second threshold, monitoring measures may be determined, and if the actual measurement value is less than the second threshold, observation measures may be determined. Furthermore, in the second determination step described below, a boundary value (first boundary value) that is an estimated value of priority level corresponding to the first threshold is identified. In a similar manner, a boundary value (second boundary value) that is an estimated value of priority level corresponding to the second threshold may be identified, and measures for bridges other than the sample bridge may be determined using the boundary value (second boundary value).

[0062] (Second decision step (S15)) Following the first determination step, the administrator performs a second determination step. In the second determination step, the administrator determines measures to be taken for the bridges other than the sample bridge among the multiple bridges included in the group, based on the priority ranking estimated in the estimation step and the measures taken for the sample bridge in the first determination step. Hereinafter, for ease of explanation, the bridges other than the sample bridge among the multiple bridges included in the group may be simply referred to as "other bridges."

[0063] Fig. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of determining measures for other bridges in the second determination step. Fig. 4 is a diagram illustrating another example of determining measures for other bridges in the second determination step. Fig. 5 is a diagram illustrating another example of determining measures for other bridges in the second determination step.

[0064] In the second determination step, a boundary value, which is an estimated value of the priority level corresponding to the first threshold value, is identified based on the difference between the actual measurement value obtained in the actual measurement step and the first threshold value. In Figures 3 to 5, the "boundary value" is indicated by a dashed vertical line.

[0065] In the second determination step, repair or reinforcement measures are determined for bridges among the other bridges whose estimated priority ranking values ​​are equal to or greater than the boundary value. Either repair or reinforcement may be determined. Also, in the second determination step, monitoring measures using a predetermined sensor or imaging device are determined for bridges among the other bridges whose estimated priority ranking values ​​are less than the boundary value.

[0066] For example, suppose that a bridge with a median estimated priority ranking among multiple bridges in a group is extracted as a sample bridge, and actual measurements are obtained for that sample bridge through a measurement process. Furthermore, since the actual measurements of the sample bridge indicate physical property values ​​related to priority ranking, they are presumed to substantially correspond to the estimated priority ranking of the sample bridge.

[0067] 3, if the difference between the actual measurement value from the actual measurement process and the first threshold is zero, the actual measurement value of the sample bridge and the first threshold are the same, and therefore the estimated value of the priority rank of the sample bridge corresponds to the first threshold. In other words, in this case, the median value of the estimated values ​​of the priority ranks of the multiple bridges included in the group corresponds to the first threshold, and this median value is identified as the boundary value.

[0068] Then, as shown in Figure 3, in the second determination step, repair or reinforcement measures are determined for bridges among the other bridges whose estimated priority ranking is equal to or greater than the boundary value, i.e., bridges whose estimated priority ranking is equal to or greater than the median value. On the other hand, in the second determination step, monitoring measures are determined for bridges among the other bridges whose estimated priority ranking is less than the boundary value, i.e., bridges whose estimated priority ranking is less than the median value.

[0069] 4 also shows a case where the actual measurement value obtained by the actual measurement step is greater than the first threshold, i.e., the actual measurement value exceeds the first threshold. In this case, the difference between the actual measurement value and the first threshold, i.e., the amount by which the actual measurement value exceeds the first threshold, corresponds to the amount of decrease in the priority match estimate value relative to the median of the priority match estimate values. The amount of decrease and the amount of increase are associated such that the greater the amount of increase, the greater the decrease. In the second determination step, for example, a table associating the amount of increase with the amount of decrease may be prepared in advance, and the amount of decrease may be estimated from the amount of increase by referring to the table.

[0070] In this case, as shown in Figure 4, the estimated priority rank "KL", which is a value smaller than the median of the estimated priority rank by the amount of decrease, corresponds to the first threshold value, and the estimated priority rank "KL" is identified as the boundary value.

[0071] Then, as shown in Figure 4, in the second determination step, repair or reinforcement measures are determined for bridges among the other bridges whose estimated priority ranking values ​​are equal to or greater than the boundary value, i.e., bridges whose estimated priority ranking values ​​are equal to or greater than the estimated priority ranking value "KL." On the other hand, in the second determination step, monitoring measures are determined for bridges among the other bridges whose estimated priority ranking values ​​are less than the boundary value, i.e., bridges whose estimated priority ranking values ​​are less than the estimated priority ranking value "KL."

[0072] 5 shows a case where the actual measurement value obtained in the measurement process is smaller than the first threshold, i.e., the actual measurement value does not reach the first threshold. In this case, the difference between the actual measurement value and the first threshold, i.e., the amount by which the actual measurement value does not reach the first threshold, corresponds to the increase in the priority rank estimate value relative to the median of the priority rank estimate values.

[0073] The unachieved amount and the increase amount are associated with each other such that the increase amount increases as the unachieved amount increases. In the second determination step, for example, a table in which the unachieved amount and the increase amount are associated with each other may be prepared in advance, and the increase amount may be estimated from the unachieved amount by referring to the table.

[0074] In this case, as shown in Figure 5, the estimated priority rank "KH", which is a value that is larger than the median of the estimated priority rank by the increase amount, corresponds to the first threshold value, and the estimated priority rank "KH" is identified as the boundary value.

[0075] Then, as shown in Figure 5, in the second determination process, repair or reinforcement measures are determined for bridges among the other bridges whose estimated priority ranking values ​​are equal to or greater than the boundary value, i.e., bridges whose estimated priority ranking values ​​are equal to or greater than the estimated priority ranking value "KH". On the other hand, in the second determination process, monitoring measures are determined for bridges among the other bridges whose estimated priority ranking values ​​are less than the boundary value, i.e., bridges whose estimated priority ranking values ​​are less than the estimated priority ranking value "KH".

[0076] In this way, in the second determination step, measures for other bridges are determined based on the priority ranking estimates and measures for the sample bridge. Therefore, in the second determination step, measures for other bridges can be determined without conducting actual measurements of the other bridges. In other words, the bridge management method of this embodiment makes it possible to determine measures for multiple bridges included in a group with minimal actual measurements, thereby reducing the burden of bridge management.

[0077] In the second determination step, a boundary value, which is an estimated value of the priority level corresponding to the first threshold, is identified based on the difference between the actual measurement value obtained in the actual measurement step and the first threshold, and measures for other bridges are classified by the boundary value. This allows appropriate measures for other bridges to be determined.

[0078] (Sequential process (S16)) The administrator performs the ordering step after the second determination step. Note that the ordering step may be omitted.

[0079] In the ordering step, the manager determines the order in which to execute the measures determined in the first determination step and the second determination step. In the ordering step, an order is determined in which measures for bridges with larger estimated priority scores in the estimation step are prioritized. Specifically, in the ordering step, the order in which measures are executed is determined so that measures are executed for bridges corresponding to the larger estimated priority scores in descending order.

[0080] This allows measures to be taken on bridges that are deemed to be in high need of repair or reinforcement to be given priority, thereby improving safety in terms of social infrastructure.

[0081] As described above, in the bridge management method of this embodiment, measures for other bridges are determined based on the priority ranking estimates and measures for the sample bridge. Therefore, in the bridge management method of this embodiment, measures for other bridges can be determined without conducting actual measurements of the other bridges. In other words, in the bridge management method of this embodiment, measures for multiple bridges included in a group can be determined with minimal actual measurements.

[0082] Therefore, the bridge management method of this embodiment makes it possible to easily decide on measures for multiple bridges, which in turn reduces the burden of labor, time, and cost involved in bridge management.

[0083] (Variations in bridge management methods) FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a modified example of a bridge management method. In this modified example, the grouping process groups two types of groups, a main group and a sub-group. More specifically, in the grouping process, a plurality of bridges installed in a similar environment (first similar environment) are grouped into the same main group. Furthermore, in the grouping process, a plurality of bridges different from the plurality of bridges included in the main group and installed in a similar environment (second similar environment) are grouped into the same group, a sub-group different from the main group.

[0084] In the estimation step, the priority rankings of the bridges included in the main group are estimated. Furthermore, in the estimation step, the priority rankings of the bridges included in the sub-group are estimated.

[0085] In the extraction step, at least one sample bridge is extracted from the plurality of bridges included in the main group based on the estimated priority ranking for the main group. In the actual measurement step, physical properties related to the priority ranking of the sample bridge for the main group are measured.

[0086] In the first determination step, measures to be taken for the sample bridges of the main group are determined based on the actual measurement values ​​obtained in the actual measurement step.

[0087] In the second determination step, measures for bridges other than the sample bridge among the multiple bridges included in the main group are determined based on the estimated priority ranking for the main group and measures for the sample bridge for the main group.

[0088] Furthermore, in the second determination step, measures for the multiple bridges included in the sub-group are estimated based on the estimated priority ranking for the sub-group, measures for the sample bridge for the main group, and measures for the other bridges included in the main group excluding the sample bridge.

[0089] More specifically, in the second determination step, a boundary value, which is an estimated value of priority rank corresponding to the first threshold, is identified based on the difference between the actual measurement value obtained in the measurement step for the sample bridges in the main group and the first threshold. Of the estimated values ​​of priority rank for the sub-group, the estimated value of priority rank that is the same as the boundary value identified for the main group is identified as the boundary value for the sub-group. Repair or reinforcement measures are estimated for bridges of the multiple bridges included in the sub-group whose estimated value of priority rank is equal to or greater than the boundary value for the sub-group. Monitoring measures are estimated for bridges of the multiple bridges included in the sub-group whose estimated value of priority rank is less than the boundary value for the sub-group.

[0090] For example, as shown in Figure 6, when the actual measurement value of a sample bridge in the main group is smaller than the first threshold, the amount by which the actual measurement value in the main group does not reach the first threshold corresponds to the amount by which the estimated priority ranking value increases based on the median of the estimated priority ranking values ​​in the main group.

[0091] In this case, as shown in Figure 6, in the main group, the estimated priority ranking value "KH", which is a value larger than the median of the estimated priority ranking values ​​by the increase amount, corresponds to the first threshold value, and the estimated priority ranking value "KH" is identified as the boundary value.

[0092] Next, as shown in FIG. 6, among the estimated priority values ​​for the subgroup, the estimated priority value "KH" having the same value as the "KH" identified in the main group is identified as the boundary value in the subgroup.

[0093] As shown in Figure 6, repair or reinforcement measures are estimated for bridges in the subgroup whose estimated priority ranking is equal to or higher than "KH," while monitoring measures are estimated for bridges in the subgroup whose estimated priority ranking is lower than "KH."

[0094] In this way, in this modified example, although actual measurements are taken of sample bridges in the main group, in the sub-group, measures for multiple bridges included in the sub-group can be estimated without extracting or measuring sample bridges. Therefore, in this modified example, measures for more bridges can be estimated more simply, making it possible to further reduce the burden of bridge management.

[0095] (Bridge management device) Next, a modified example in which each step of the above bridge management method is mechanically executed will be described. Fig. 7 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of a bridge management device 100. As shown in Fig. 7, the bridge management device 100 includes an input / output device 110, a storage device 112, and a calculation device 114.

[0096] The input / output device 110 includes any output device that presents various types of information to an administrator or the like. The output device may include, for example, a display device such as a liquid crystal display that displays various images and various types of information. The input / output device 110 also includes, for example, an input device such as a keyboard or touch panel that accepts input operations by an administrator or the like.

[0097] The storage device 112 is configured with a non-volatile storage element such as a hard disk drive, flash memory, etc. The storage device 112 stores a database 120 that includes a collection of various data related to at least the bridges installed in the management area.

[0098] The arithmetic device 114 includes one or more processors 130 and one or more memories 132 connected to the processors 130. The memory 132 includes a ROM in which programs and the like are stored and a RAM as a work area. The processor 130 executes various processes in cooperation with the programs stored in the memory 132. The processor 130 functions as a management processing unit 140 by executing the programs.

[0099] The management processing unit 140 executes processes corresponding to the grouping step (S10), estimation step (S11), extraction step (S12), first determination step (S14), second determination step (S15), and ordering step (S16) among the steps shown in Fig. 1. Note that the actual measurement step (S13) in Fig. 1 may be performed by someone other than the management device 100, for example, a person. The management processing unit 140 only needs to be able to use the actual measurement values ​​obtained in the actual measurement step (S13).

[0100] More specifically, in the grouping step, the management processing unit 140 groups multiple bridges that are installed in similar environments into the same group. For example, the management processing unit 140 may perform grouping by referring to information on the installation locations of the bridges stored in the database 120.

[0101] In the estimation step, the management processing unit 140 estimates a priority rank, which is an index showing the need for bridge repair or reinforcement, for each of the bridges included in the group. In the extraction step, the management processing unit 140 extracts at least one sample bridge from among the bridges included in the group based on the estimated priority rank.

[0102] In the first determination step, the management processing unit 140 determines measures to be taken for the sample bridge based on the actual measurement values ​​of the physical properties related to the priority ranking of the sample bridge.

[0103] In the second determination step, the management processing unit 140 determines measures to be taken for the bridges other than the sample bridge among the bridges included in the group, based on the estimated value of the priority level and measures to be taken for the sample bridge.

[0104] In the ordering step, the management processing unit 140 determines the order in which to execute the measures determined in the first and second determining steps. The ordering step may be omitted.

[0105] The details of each process executed by the management processing unit 140 are the same as those described above for the bridge management method, and therefore will not be described here.

[0106] As described above, the bridge management device 100 of this embodiment determines measures for other bridges based on the priority ranking estimates and measures for the sample bridge. Therefore, the bridge management device 100 of this embodiment can determine measures for other bridges without using the results of actual measurements of those other bridges. In other words, the bridge management device 100 of this embodiment can determine measures for multiple bridges included in a group using only the results of minimal actual measurements.

[0107] Therefore, the bridge management device 100 of this embodiment makes it possible to easily decide on measures for multiple bridges. As a result, the bridge management device 100 of this embodiment makes it possible to reduce the burden of labor, time, cost, etc. involved in bridge management.

[0108] The management processing unit 140 of the bridge management device 100 may execute processing including the aspects shown in the modified example of the bridge management method described above.

[0109] Although the embodiments have been described above with reference to the accompanying drawings, it goes without saying that the present disclosure is not limited to the above-described embodiments. It is clear that a person skilled in the art can conceive of various modifications or alterations within the scope of the claims, and it is understood that these also naturally fall within the technical scope of the present disclosure. [Explanation of symbols]

[0110] 100 Management device 114 Arithmetic equipment S10 Grouping process S11 Estimation process S12 Extraction process S13 Measurement process S14 1st decision process S15 2nd decision process S16 Sequential process

Claims

1. a grouping step of grouping a plurality of bridges installed in similar environments into the same group; an estimation step of estimating a priority level, which is an index indicating the need for repair or reinforcement of a bridge, for the plurality of bridges included in the group; an extraction step of extracting at least one sample bridge from the plurality of bridges included in the group based on the priority ranking estimated by the estimation step; a measuring step of measuring physical properties related to the priority ranking of the sample bridge; a first determination step of determining measures to be taken for the sample bridge based on the actual measurement values ​​obtained in the actual measurement step; a second determination step of determining measures to be taken for bridges other than the sample bridge among the plurality of bridges included in the group, based on the priority ranking estimated in the estimation step and measures to be taken for the sample bridge in the first determination step; Bridge management methods, including:

2. The bridge management method according to claim 1 , wherein the similar environments include at least one of the same district, the same route, and the same river.

3. In the estimation step, the priority ranking is estimated based on one or more elements of a plurality of elements related to the bridge, 2. The bridge management method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of elements include the importance of the bridge, the soundness of the bridge, the specifications of the bridge, the structural type of the bridge, the materials of the bridge, the history of the bridge, and the results of periodic inspections of the bridge.

4. 4. The bridge management method according to claim 3, wherein in the estimating step, the priority level is estimated by weighting and adding evaluation values ​​of the plurality of elements related to the bridge.

5. The bridge management method according to claim 1 , wherein the estimation step estimates a distribution that associates the estimated priority rank with the number of bridges among the plurality of bridges that correspond to the estimated priority rank.

6. 2. The bridge management method according to claim 1, wherein in the extraction step, a bridge among the plurality of bridges having a maximum estimated value of the priority rank is extracted as the sample bridge.

7. 2. The bridge management method according to claim 1, wherein in the extraction step, a bridge having a median estimated value of the priority rank among the plurality of bridges is extracted as the sample bridge.

8. 2. The bridge management method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement step comprises carrying out a load test in which a test load is applied to the sample bridge, and measuring at least one of deflection and strain of the sample bridge.

9. In the first determination step, The actual measurement value obtained by the actual measurement step is compared with a preset first threshold value, When it is determined that the actual measurement value is equal to or greater than the first threshold value, a repair or reinforcement measure is determined for the sample bridge; The bridge management method according to claim 1 , wherein, when it is determined that the actual measurement value is less than the first threshold value, a monitoring measure using a predetermined sensor or imaging device is determined for the sample bridge.

10. In the second determination step, a boundary value that is an estimated value of the priority level corresponding to the first threshold value is specified based on a difference between the actual measurement value and the first threshold value; The repair or reinforcement measure is determined for a bridge among the other bridges whose estimated priority value is equal to or greater than the boundary value; The bridge management method according to claim 9 , wherein the monitoring measures are determined for a bridge of the other bridges whose estimated value of the priority rank is less than the boundary value.

11. further including an ordering step of determining an order of executing the measures determined by the first determining step and the second determining step; 2. The bridge management method according to claim 1, wherein the ordering step determines an order in which measures are given priority to bridges having larger estimated priority values ​​in the estimating step.

12. In the grouping step, Multiple bridges installed in similar environments are grouped into the same main group, A plurality of bridges different from the plurality of bridges included in the main group and installed in a similar environment are grouped into a sub-group that is the same group but different from the main group; In the estimation step, The priority ranking is estimated for the plurality of bridges included in the main group; The priority ranking is estimated for the plurality of bridges included in the subgroup; In the extraction step, at least one sample bridge is extracted from the plurality of bridges included in the main group based on the estimated value of the priority ranking for the main group; In the measurement step, physical properties related to the priority ranking of the sample bridges in the main group are measured, In the first determination step, measures for the sample bridges of the main group are determined based on the actual measurement values ​​obtained in the actual measurement step; In the second determination step, measures for bridges other than the sample bridge among the plurality of bridges included in the main group are determined based on the estimated priority ranking for the main group and measures for the sample bridge for the main group; 2. The bridge management method of claim 1, wherein measures for the plurality of bridges included in the sub-group are estimated based on the estimated priority ranking for the sub-group, measures for the sample bridge for the main group, and measures for bridges other than the sample bridge among the plurality of bridges included in the main group.

13. A computing device that performs processing to manage the bridge is provided. The computing device Multiple bridges installed in similar environments are grouped into the same group. estimating a priority ranking for the plurality of bridges included in the group, the priority ranking being an indicator of the need for bridge repair or reinforcement; extracting at least one sample bridge from the plurality of bridges included in the group based on the priority ranking estimate; determining measures for the sample bridge based on actual measured values ​​of physical properties related to the priority ranking of the sample bridge; A bridge management device that determines measures to be taken for bridges other than the sample bridge among the plurality of bridges included in the group based on the estimated priority level and measures to be taken for the sample bridge.

Images