中文摘要
鋼構橋樑構腐蝕程度也因所處環境而不同，為考量鋼構橋樑本身結構安全或現有鋼構橋樑後續維修成效及未來新建鋼構橋樑塔之防蝕設計，了解影響鋼構橋樑防蝕能力之程度及防蝕管理對策為設計及維修之重要課題。本研究旨在研究影響鋼構橋樑腐蝕性的要素指標，並進行分析，整理出研究的構面。透過問卷調查和收集回饋意見，以AHP層級分析法計算各評估要素的相對權重和重要性排序。以下為本研究的主要研究成果。
一、專家問卷之鋼構橋樑腐蝕性關鍵的影響因子構面，包括：「品質」、「安全」、「成本」、「進度」、「風險」等五大構面。
二、整體構面之權重分析結果，環境條件構面權重值0.248，排序第一，腐蝕控制方式構面權重值0.164排序2，塗料防腐性構面權重值0.158排序3，材料條件構面權重值0.15排序4，維護方式構面權重值0.143排序5，腐蝕速度構面權重值0.138排序6。
三、跨構面權重分析結構面權重值彙總表，本研究依整體權重排序進行整體排序。可以看出在評估準則權重部份以濕度為第一，達0.087，地理位置為次之，達0.08，陰極保護系統為第三，達0.058，而構材接合方式及構材形狀為最低（第24），僅0.011。
關鍵字：鋼構橋梁、腐蝕性指標、層級分析法

Abstract
The degree of corrosion of steel structure bridge beams also varies depending on the environment. To investigate the structural safety of steel structure bridges or the effectiveness of subsequent maintenance of existing steel structure bridges, as well as the corrosion prevention design of new steel structure bridge towers in the future, understanding the degree of impact on the corrosion prevention ability of steel structure bridges and corrosion prevention management strategies is an important issue for design and maintenance. This study explores and analyzes the factors and indicators that are considered when affecting the corrosion of steel bridges, and organizes the aspects of this study. Through the distribution and recovery of questionnaires, the valuable opinions of the interviewees are compiled, and the AHP hierarchical analysis method is adopted. Calculate the relative weight and importance ranking of each evaluation factor. The research results related to this study are excerpted below.
1. Expert questionnaire on the evaluation aspects of the formwork support construction method for high-ceiling floors in technology factories, including five major aspects: "quality", "safety", "cost", "progress", and "risk".
2. The weight analysis results of the overall facets: the environmental condition facet has a weight value of 0.248, ranking first, the corrosion control mode facet has a weight value of 0.164, ranking 2, the paint anticorrosion facet has a weight value of 0.158, ranking 3, and the material condition facet has a weight value of 0.164, ranking 2 0.15 ranks 4, the maintenance method facet weight value 0.143 ranks 5, the corrosion speed facet weight value 0.138 ranks 6.
3. Cross-facet weight analysis: Summary table of structural facet weight values. This study conducts overall ranking based on overall weight ranking. It can be seen that in the weight part of the evaluation criteria, humidity is ranked first, reaching 0.087, geographical location is second, reaching 0.08, cathodic protection system is third, reaching 0.058, and member joint method and member shape are the lowest (No. 24), only 0.011.
Keywords: steel bridge, corrosion index, analytic hierarchy process

參考文獻
中文文獻
1. 中華民國防蝕工程學會(2013)。塗裝檢驗員培訓課程級別1學員手冊。中華民國防蝕工程學會。
2. 李家順、延允中、孟伯鈞（2013），鋼橋塗裝常見缺失及後續改善對策--以102年考評縣府鋼橋為例=，臺灣公路工程，39卷12期，頁2-31。
3. 邱贊儒(2003)，建立混凝土橋梁耐久性評估方法之研究，中央大學土木工程學系碩士論文。
4. 柯賢文(2001)。腐蝕及其防制。全華科技圖書股份有限公司。
5. 范鴻達（2013），受鹽害腐蝕之鋼筋混凝土橋梁長期耐震行為，國立臺灣科技大學營建工程系博士論文。
6. 荘秋明（2008）。鋼構橋梁建築腐蝕之非破壞性檢測。技師期刊，(50)，40-47。
7. 張勁泉，宿健，陳壽山，何玉珊(2008)。鋼鐵材料之腐蝕與防蝕。人民交通出版社。
8. 陳志華(2011)。鋼結構原理與設計。天津大學出版社。
9. 陳尚德（2015），鋼筋混凝土橋梁鋼筋腐蝕危害地圖建立與應用，國立臺北科技大學土木工程系土木與防災碩士班（碩士在職專班）碩士論文。
10. 陳敏祐(2018)，都會區橋梁生命週期成本分析與評估系統建置，國立臺灣科技大學營建工程系碩士論文。
11. 黃景楓(2016)，腐蝕對鋼板結構細部力學行為之影響研究，國立高雄第一科技大學營建工程研究所碩士論文。
12. 賈駿祥(2004)。台灣地區橋樑工程之發展。臺灣公路工程，30(12)，2-24。
13. 劉益雄、翁榮洲、黃兆龍、羅俊雄（2006）。台灣沿海環境橋樑腐蝕現況調查及耐久性基因探討。防蝕工程，20(1)，13-30。
14. 鄧振源，曾國維，1989，「分析層級法的內涵特性與應用（上）」，中國統計學報，二十七卷六期：l5-27
15. 謝松林(2006)。鋼構通信鐵塔防蝕能力評估模式之研究。國立成功大學土木工程研究所碩士論文。
16. 魏豊義、吳覺、蔡文逹等(1998)。鋼鐵材料之腐蝕與防蝕。中國材料科學學會。
英文文獻
1. Badri, M. A. (2001). A combined AHP–GP model for quality control systems. International Journal of Production Economics, 72(1), 27-40.
2. Fontana,M.G. (1986),“Corrosion Engineering (InternationEditions,Third Edition)”, New York:McGRAW-Hill.
3. Roodhooft, F., & Konings, J. (1997). Vendor selection and evaluation an activity based costing approach. European journal of operational research, 96(1), 97-102.
4. Saaty, T. L(1980)., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw-Hill.
5. Timmerman, E. (1986). An approach to vendor performance evaluation. Journal of purchasing and Materials Management, 22(4), 2-8.
6. Weber, C. A., & Desai, A. (1996). Determination of paths to vendor market efficiency using parallel coordinates representation: A negotiation tool for buyers. European journal of operational research, 90(1), 142-155.
7. Weber, C. A., Current, J. R., & Desai, A. (1998). Non-cooperative negotiation strategies for vendor selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 108(1), 208-223.
8. Yahya, S., & Kingsman, B. (2002). Modelling a multi-objective allocation problem in a government sponsored entrepreneur development programme. European Journal of Operational Research, 136(2), 430-448.