臺灣的高速公路系統自1978年發展已近五十年，總里程已達千餘公里。在高速公路路網的擴張與公眾對高度行車舒適性的期望之下，如何在有限的維護經費下選定合理的養護維修決策成為交通部高速公路局的主要課題。目前，高公局主要依賴人工巡查進行養護維修決策，但此方法容易受人為因素影響，決策者間可能存在差異。為了提高養護維修決策的科學性和一致性，本研究經文獻回顧評估後，選擇以日本維護管理指數（Maintenance Control Index, MCI）為基礎，建立適用於臺灣高速公路的養護維修工法決策樹模型。本研究首先進行國內外相關文獻回顧，確定決策樹模型的考量參數和維修門檻值，構建出初始版本的養護維修工法決策樹模型。同時為了確保模型的準確性和實用性，研究透過專家問卷對決策樹模型進行了校驗和調整，取得與現今實務上較為相近的決策樹模型，並於最後透過中區養護工程分局斗南工務段做為案例評估路段，以AASHTO 鋪面力學經驗績效模型模擬未來損壞及演示模型實際使用之情形。研究結果表明，基於MCI和量化損壞程度的決策樹模型能夠提供更科學和有效的養護維修建議，有助於提升臺灣高速公路的整體鋪面狀況。本研究最終期望能提供一個實用的工具，幫助提升臺灣高速公路養護維修決策的效率和效果，並為未來的研究和實踐提供參考。

With the expansion of the freeway network and the public's expectation for high quality of driving comfort, how to select reasonable Maintenance and Rehabilitation (M&R) decisions with limited budgets has become a major topic for the National Freeway Bureau (NFB) of Taiwan. At present, the NFB mainly relies on manual inspections to make M&R decisions, but this method is easily affected by human factors, and there may be differences among decision-makers. To improve the scientificity and consistency of M&R decisions, this study chose to use the Maintenance Control Index (MCI) as the basis to establish a M&R decision tree model suitable for Freeways in Taiwan after a literature review. This study first conducts a review of relevant literature, determines the parameters and M&R thresholds of the model, and constructs an initial version. At the same time, to ensure the accuracy and practicality of the model, the study verified and adjusted it through expert questionnaires and obtained a decision tree model that is closer to the current. In the end, through the NFB Dounan Branch as a sandbox, using AASHTO MEPDG to simulate distress and demonstrate the actual use of the model in the future. The results show that the decision tree model can provide more scientific and effective M&R recommendations, which can help improve the overall pavement condition of freeways in Taiwan. This study ultimately hopes to provide a practical tool to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of freeway M&R decisions in Taiwan and provide a reference for future research and practice.

Chhote, L. S. 1998. Pavement Condition Rating System-Review of PCR Methodology. Manual. Resource International, Inc.
E17 Committee. 2021. Practice for Computing International Roughness Index of Roads from Longitudinal Profile Measurements. ASTM International.
E17 Committee. 2023a. “Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys.” ASTM International.
E17 Committee. 2023b. “Practices for Simulating Vehicular Response to Longitudinal Profiles of Traveled Surfaces.” ASTM International.
Florida Department of Transportation. 2022. “2022 Flexible Pavement Condition Survey Handbook.”
Gharaibeh, N., A. Wimsatt, S. Saliminejad, J. R. Menendez, A. J. Weissmann, J. Weissman, and C. Chang-Albitres. 2012. Implementation of new pavement performance prediction models in PMIS: Report. Texas. Department of Transportation.
HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD. 1962. “The AASHO Road Test.”
Idaho Transportation Department. 2011. Pavement Rating Manual. Manual. Idaho Transportation Department.
Karan, M. A., T. J. Christison, A. Cheetham, and G. Berdahl. 1983. “Development and implementation of Alberta’s pavement information and needs system.” Transportation Research Record, 938: 11–20.
Lee, C. 2007. “Alligator Cracking Performance and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Pavement Preservation Treatments.”
Mallela, J., L. T. Glover, R. Y. Liang, and E. Y. Chou. 2009. “Guidelines for Implementing NCHRP 1-37A ME Design Procedures in Ohio: Volume 2—Literature Review.” Ohio. Dept. of Transportation.
Olidis, C., and D. Hein. 2004. “Guide for the mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures materials characterization: Is your agency ready.” 2004 annual conference of the transportation association of Canada.
Onyango, M., J. Owino, I. Fomunung, and W. Wu. 2019. Traffic Data Input for Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) for Tennessee. Tennessee. Department of Transportation.
Sayers, M. W., T. D. Gillespie, and W. D. O. Paterson. 1986. Guidelines for conducting and calibrating road roughness measurements. World Bank technical paper. Washington, D.C., U.S.A: World Bank.
Scullion, T., and R. Smith. 1997. “TxDOT’s Pavement Management Information System: Current Status and Future Directions.”
Stampley, B. E. 1993. Pavement Management Information System Concepts, Equations, and Analysis Models. Texas Department of Transportation Research and Technology Transfer Office.
Visintine, B. A., A. L. Simpson, and G. R. Rada. 2017. Validation of pavement performance measures using LTPP data: Final Report. Report No. FHWA-HRT-17-089. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Vu, K. D. 2022. 2020 State of the Pavement Report. California Department of Transportation.
Wang, Z., and T. Pyle. 2019. “Implementing a pavement management system: The Caltrans experience.” International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 8 (3): 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2019.02.002.
Yoon, Y., S. Hassan, and F. Q. Chowdhury. 2022. Calibration of WVDOH IRI-based PSI and SCI Equations. 30. Final Report.
交通运输部公路科学研究院. 2019a. 公路技术状况评定标准. 中华人民共和国行业标准.
交通运输部公路科学研究院. 2019b. 公路沥青路面养护设计规范. 北京市: 人民交通出版社股份有限公司.
交通部高速公路局. 2017. “高速公路養護手冊.”
交通部高速公路局. 2023. “高速公路計程電子收費階段交通資料蒐集支援系統使用手冊.”
（公社）日本道路協会. 2013. 舖装の維持修繕ガイドブック.
吉田 武. 2018. 道路における利用者との接点としての舗装の維持管理の効率化. 筑波大学システム情報工学研究科.
周家蓓, 李美慧, 蔡鎮宇, and 邱宜謙. 2005. “路面品質績效量測系統之開發.” 鋪面工程, 3 (3): 13–22.
周家蓓, 林世泰, and 郭彥樑. 2004. “市區道路柔性鋪面管理與維護準則研究.” 運輸計劃季刊, 33 (3). https://doi.org/10.6402/TPJ.200409.0537.
国土交通省道路局. 2016. 舗装点検要領.
土木学会. 1995. “舗装工学.”
廖小媛. 2009. “以力學-經驗準則探討溫度與重車載重對高速公路柔性鋪面之影響.” 國立中央大學.
李寧. 2019. “鋪面自動化檢測於北區高速公路之應用.” 鋪面工程, 17 (1): 11–18.
王詩瑜. 2019. “MCI 應用於臺灣國道一號鋪面調查之可行性評估.” 桃園市: 國立中央大學.
舗装調查・試験法便覧. 2007. Tōkyō, Tōkyō: 日本道路協会, 丸善出版事業部(発売).
金伯陽. 2022. “利用 AASHTO MEPDG 建立台灣國家高速公路鋪面管理系統之鋪面績效模型架構.” 國立成功大學.
首都高速道路株式会社. 2021. 都道首都高速 1 号線等に関する維持、修繕その他の管理の報告書.
黃文正. 2009. “力學經驗鋪面設計法應用於台灣瀝青混凝土鋪面.” 國立成功大學.