進階搜尋


下載電子全文  
系統識別號 U0026-0406201310584100
論文名稱(中文) 臺灣航空器事故模型分析暨機場安全管理系統績效評估
論文名稱(英文) Analysis of Aircraft Accident Model and Performance Evaluation on Airport Safety Management System in Taiwan
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 交通管理學系碩博士班
系所名稱(英) Department of Transportation & Communication Management Science
學年度 101
學期 2
出版年 102
研究生(中文) 邵珮琪
研究生(英文) Pei-Chi Shao
學號 R58971098
學位類別 博士
語文別 英文
論文頁數 145頁
口試委員 指導教授-張有恆
共同指導教授-陳占平
口試委員-呂錦山
口試委員-鄭永祥
口試委員-鄭至甫
口試委員-徐村和
口試委員-陳昭宏
口試委員-陳方元
中文關鍵字 飛航事故  航空器失事  航空器致命事故  卜瓦松回歸  機場安全管理系統  分析網路程序法  模糊理想解排序偏好法 
英文關鍵字 Occurrences  Accidents  Fatalities  Poisson regression  Airport SMS  ANP  Fuzzy TOPSIS 
學科別分類
中文摘要 航空失事可能導致死亡與巨額損失,在2001年至2010間,根據台灣民航局2011年的統計,其國籍民用航空業之渦輪噴射機類的全毀飛航事故統計中,每百萬離場次數之平均失事率是世界同型機種的2.3倍;另一方面,根據台灣飛航安全調查委員會在2000年至2010年間的統計,參考國際民航組織事故分類,發生頻率最高的最大飛航事件為衝出/偏出跑道類別(Runway Excursion),與地面碰撞類別(Ground Collision),顯示了台灣的飛安績效,對國際民航組織在提昇機場安全上,仍有進步的空間,是故,機場安全管理系統(Airport Safety Management System, SMS)的執行,越發顯得格外的重要。
論文主要以ICAO事故分類來進行台灣在1985年至2010年間所發生的飛航事故分類統計,再依據事故類別的數據特性以卜瓦松機率分配 (Poisson probability distribution) 進行分析,繼而利用卜瓦松回歸(Poisson regression)進行影響台灣飛安失事率的各類事故判別。研究結果顯示,影響航空器失事率的前五名事故主類別依序為:(1)起飛、降落與地面作業(Takeoff, Landing, and Ground Operations); (2)航空器(Aircraft); (3)雜項(Miscellaneous); (4)天氣(Weather); (5)航行間 (Airborne);影響航空器失事率最明顯原因為發生於機場場面的「起飛、降落與地面作業」主類別航空器事故,因此,機場安全管理系統(SMS)作業更顯得重要。為了解台灣機場SMS績效,本研究再藉由產、官與學術界的專家學者進行問卷調查,利用分析網路程序法(ANP)獲取各要項與要素的權重,並利用模糊理想解排序偏好法(Fuzzy TOPSIS)進行台灣桃園機場公司、高雄與台北松山國際機場的SMS各要項與要素的績效評估與排序,繼而訪談三個機場的高階SMS經理,對照績效排序結果進行歸納及驗證。
根據機場SMS績效排序研究結果顯示:台灣機場SMS整體績效評估依序為桃園、高雄與松山機場。根據訪談的內容與機場SMS績效評比結果得知: SMS要項中的 C2 安全風險管理,C3安全保證與C4安全提升之間存在影響關係;此外,不同的機場性質將影響機場安全政策與安全文化的履行,如: 國有控股機場公司、國營機場、軍用與民用機場,是故,一個提供全方位服務的機場須能快速而有效率的反應機場使用者的需求。研究結果首次揭櫫台灣機場安全管理系統績效評比,並遵循ICAO 國家民用航空安全計畫(SSP)的安全目標進行研究,除了提供台灣航空主管機關、機場管理單位與航空公司在安全風險管理作業上的方向及資源分配依據外,亦有利安全培訓的發展,降低飛航事故的發生。
英文摘要 Aviation accidents can cause fatalities and a tremendous loss of property. For the decade from 2001 to 2010, the average accident rate involving turbojet aircraft hull loss in Taiwan exceeded the world average by 2.3 times per million departures, as calculated by the Taiwan Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) in 2011. According to the records of Taiwan Aviation Council (ASC) from 2000 to 2010 in Taiwan, the top two rankings for occurrence are Runway Excursion (RE) and Ground Collision (GCOL), which indicated a poor safety performance in comparison with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) safety targets in reducing runway excursion events and ground collision events. Particularly these two categories of occurrences happened at the ground of airports, therefore, the airport Safety Management System (SMS) is extremely important.
This research is divided into two parts, the first part is to determine the pattern of aviation accidents, and to use ICAO occurrence categories to describe the classification of aviation occurrences (accidents, serious incidents and fatal accidents) in Taiwan from 1985 to 2010. Then, based on the data, Poisson probability distribution is used to describe pattern of the number of occurrences, and then Poisson regression is used to determine the importance of the ICAO occurrence categories. The most significant occurrences were (in descending order): (1) Takeoff, Landing, and Ground Operations; (2) Aircraft; (3) Miscellaneous; (4) Weather; and (5) Airborne.
Based on the results of part one research, the category of Takeoff, Landing, and Ground Operations is the most significant occurrence which often happens at the ground of airport. Thus, airport safety is extremely important. In order to know the performance of airport Safety Management System (SMS) in Taiwan, the airport SMS performance was evaluated by the experts of airline industries, government and academic area via questionnaire survey. This study acquires the weights and rankings of the SMS components and elements via Analytic Network Process (ANP) method, and afterward the fuzzy Technique of Ordering Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (fuzzy TOPSIS) method is used to evaluate and rank the SMS performance of Taiwan Taoyuan (TPE), Kaohsiung (KHH) and Taipei Songshang (TSA) international airports. Finally, the rankings of these airports are determined.
Based on the results of overall airport SMS performance, the rankings of three international airports are in the order of TPE, KHH and TSA. According to the interview with top SMS managers, the performance evaluations of three airports are affected by the three components, C2 (Safety risk management), C3 (Safety assurance) and C4 (Safety promotion). Since the nature of an airport can affect the implementations of safety policy and safety culture, such as government-owned incorporated, governmental, civil-military airports do, a full-service airport shall efficiently respond to the requirements of stakeholders under dynamic and uncertain situations.
The findings of this research are the first time in Taiwan to uncover the airport SMS performance ranking to comply with ICAO SSP safety targets, and the results can provide aviation authorities, airport administrators and airlines companies in Taiwan with a direction for safety risk management and allocation of materials and resources to conduct safety training in order to prevent aviation occurrences from happening.
論文目次 摘 要 iii
ABSTRACT iv
誌 謝 vi
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xiv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1
Chapter 1 Introduction 2
1.1 Research Background and Motivation 2
1.2 Research Purpose 4
1.3 Research Scope 5
1.4 Research Framework 5
Chapter 2 Analysis of an Aircraft Accident Model in Taiwan 8
2.1 A Study of Taiwan Aviation Safety Record 9
2.1.1 ICAO Aviation Occurrence Categories 11
2.1.2 Aviation Occurrence Data 12
2.2 Poisson probability distribution 13
2.2.1 Fitting a Model 13
2.2.2 Over- or Under-dispersion Test 15
2.3 Empirical Study and Summary 16
2.3.1 Estimation of Poisson Regression on the ICAO Grouping Categories 18
2.3.2 Takeoff Landing and Ground Operation (TLGO) 19
2.3.3 Airborne 21
2.3.4 Weather 22
2.3.5 Aircraft 23
2.3.6 Miscellaneous 24
Chapter 3 Review of International Airports Safety Management Systems 26
3.1 Introduction to Safety Management System 26
3.2 Definition of ICAO SMS 29
3.3 International Airport SMS Implementation Overview 32
3.4 SMS Literature reviewing 36
3.5 Summary 44
Chapter 4 Performance on Airport SMS 45
4.1 Performance by Analytic Network Process 45
4.2 Establishment of airport SMS components and elements 49
4.3 Performance by Fuzzy set theory 58
4.4 Performance by Fuzzy TOPSIS 60
4.5 Stage of data collection 63
4.6 Empirical Study of Airport SMS performance evaluation 66
4.6.1 The weights of airport SMS 67
4.6.2 The performance of airport SMS evaluation 79
4.6.3 Interview and summary 95
Chapter 5 Discussions and Conclusions 98
5.1 Conclusions of Analysis of an Aircraft Accident Model 98
5.2 Conclusions of Airport SMS Performance Evaluation 99
5.2 Research Contributions 101
5.3 Future Research 102
References 103
Appendix 1: ICAO Sample Operation Grouping Categories 109
Appendix 2: Framework for ICAO Certified Aerodrome SMS 111
Appendix 3: International Airport SMS Documentations 113
Appendix 4: The first stage experts’ questionnaires 118
Appendix 5: The second stage experts’ questionnaires 132
Appendix 6: The questions and answers for A, B, and C international airport SMS operations 140
參考文獻 1. Airport Council International (ACI), 2012. Airport Excellence in Safety: APEX Reference Document Version 1.2, ACI, Montreal, 6.
2. Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission, 1996. Aircraft accident investigation report 96-5: China Airlines Airbus Industrie A300B4-622R, B1816, Nagoya Airport. Aircraft and Railway Accidents Investigation Commission, Japan.
3. Alghamdi, A., 1993. A Comparison of Accident Rates Using Likelihood Ratio Testing Technique. Transportation Research Record, No. 1401, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 50-54.
4. Australia Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), 2005. Developing a Safety Management System at Your Aerodrome, AC 139-016 (0).
5. Aviation Safety Council (ASC), 2009. Taiwan Flight Safety, Taipei, Taiwan.
6. ASC, 2002. Aviation Occurrence Report, ASC-AOR-05-02-001, In flight breakup over the Taiwan strait northeast of Makung, Penghu Island, China Airlines flight CI611, Boeing 747-200, B-18255. Aviation Safety Council, Taipei.
7. ASC, website, http://www.asc.gov.tw/asc_ch/index.asp (Feb. 11, 2012).
8. Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S.S, 2012. A hybrid approach integrating diagram, AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for sustainable city logistics planning. Applied Mathematical Modelling 36, 573-584.
9. Azimi, R., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Fouladgar, M. M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Basiri, M. H., 2011. Ranking the Strategies of Mining sector Through ANP and TOPSIS in a SWOT Framework. Journal of Business Economics and Management 12(4), 670-689.
10. Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L .A., 1970. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science 17, 141-164.
11. Bhaumik, S.K., Sujata, M. and Venkataswamy, M.A., 2008. Fatigue failure of aircraft components. Engineering Failure Analysis 15, pp. 675-694.
12. Borenstein, S., Zimmerman, M., 1988. Market incentives for safe commercial airline operation. American Economic Review 78, 913-935.
13. Breen, B.C., 1999. Controlled Flight into Terrain and the enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 14 (1), 19-24.
14. British Standards Institution (BSI), 1996. Guide to Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, British Standards Institution, London.
15. Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), 2000. Aircraft Accident Investigation Report: China Airlines Airbus Industry A300B4-622R, B1814, Taoyuan Dayuan. Civil Aeronautics Administration, Taiwan.
16. Civil Aeronautics Administration, 2011a. State Safety Program, 1st ed. Civil Aeronautics Administration, Taiwan.
17. Civil Aeronautics Administration, 2011b. Civil Aerodrome Design and Operation Standards: Appendix 7 Framework for SMS. Civil Aeronautics Administration, Taiwan.
18. Civil Aeronautics Administration, 2012a. Kaohsiung International Airport Safety Management Manual. Civil Aeronautics Administration, Kaohsiung.
19. Civil Aeronautics Administration, 2012b. Taipei International Airport Safety Management Manual. Civil Aeronautics Administration, Taipei.
20. Civil Aeronautics Administration website, http://www.caa.gov.tw/ (Feb. 11, 2012).
21. Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K., 1990. Regression-based test for overdispersion in the Poisson model. Journal of Econometrics 46, 347-364.
22. Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K., 1998. Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge University Press, New York, 78.
23. Cardoso, S.H., Maurino, D., Fernandez, J., 2008. Methodology to Estimate Individual and Overall Performance Indicators for Airport Safety Management Systems. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2008, Washington DC, USA, Paper #08-0197.
24. Chen, C., Klein, C.M., 1997. An efficient approach to solving fuzzy MADM problems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 88, 51-67.
25. Chou, C.C., Liu, L.J., Huang, S.F., Yih, J.M., & Han, T.C., 2011. An evaluation service quality using fuzzy weighted SEVQUAL method. Applied Soft Computing 11, 2117-2128.
26. Chen, CT., 2000. Extension of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 114, 1-9.
27. Chen, S.H., 1985. Ranking fuzzy numbers with maximizing set and minimizing set. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17, 113-129.
28. Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L. 1992. Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: method and application. New York, Springer-Verlag, 466-467.
29. Chang, Y.H., Yeh, C.H., 2002. A survey analysis of service quality for domestic airlines. European Journal of Operational Research 139 (1), 166-177.
30. Chang, Y.H., Yeh, C.H., 2004. A new airlines safety index. Transportation Research B 38 (4), 369-383.
31. Dubois, D. and Prade, H., 1978. Operation on fuzzy numbers, The International Journal of Systems Sciences 9(6), 613-626.
32. European Process Safety Centre, 1994. Safety Management Systems: Sharing Experiences in Process Safety, Institution of Chemical Engineers, London.
33. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2006. Preventing injuries caused by turbulence, AC120-88A.
34. Federal Aviation Administration, 2007. Introduction to Safety Management System for Airport Operations, AC 150/5200-37.
35. Federal Aviation Administration, 2010. FAA Runway Safety Initiatives. International Civil Aviation Organization High-Level Safety Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
36. Federal Aviation Administration, 2012. FAA Office of Airport Safety Management System Desk Reference, Version 1.0.
37. Golbe, D.L., 1986. Safety and profit in the airline industry. Journal of Industrial Economics 34 (3), 305-318.
38. Gupta, R.C., 1977. On characterizing distribution by the ratio of variance and mean. Mathematische Operationsforschung und Statistik 8 (4), 523-527.
39. Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 1997. HSG65: Successful Health & Safety Management, Health and Safety Executive. Health and Safety Series Booklet, London, 7-8.
40. Hilbe, J.M., 2007. Negative Binomial Regression, 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press.
41. Hsu, Y. L., 2008. From reactive to proactive: using safety survey to assess effectiveness of airline SMS. Journal of Aeronautics, Astronautics and Aviation A 40(1), 41-48.
42. Hsu, C.C., 2009. Evaluating and Analyzing Performance index for the Free Bus- An Empirical Case of Free City Bus. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Central University, Taoyuan County, Taiwan, 56.
43. Hsu, Y. L., Li, W.C., Chen, K.W., 2010. Structuring critical success factor of airline safety management system using a hybrid model. Transportation Research E 46 (2), 755-767.
44. Hudson. P., 2001. Safety Management and Safety Culture The Long, Hard and Winding Road. Occupational Health & Safety Management Systems Proceedings of the First National Conference, Crown Content; Melbourne, Australia, 5-15.
45. Hunter, D.R., Martinussen, M., Wiggins, M., O’Hare, D., 2011. Situation and personal characteristics associated with adverse weather encounters by pilots. Accident Analysis and Prevention 43, 176-186.
46. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making Method and Applications, A State-of-the Art survey. New York, Spring-Verlag.
47. International Air Transportation Association (IATA), 2008. Safety report 2008. International Air Transportation Association, Montreal, Canada.
48. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 1983. Airport operational service Part 8, 1st ed., Doc 9137, ICAO, Montreal.
49. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 2001a. Annex 13 - Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation ninth edition. International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada.
50. International Civil Aviation Organization, 2001b. Manual on Certification of Aerodromes, 1st ed., Doc 9774, ICAO, Montreal.
51. International Civil Aviation Organization, 2006. Working paper: Directors General of Civil Aviation Conference on a Global Strategy for Aviation Safety, Appendix, ICAO, Montreal.
52. International Civil Aviation Organization, 2008. Aviation Occurrence Categories Definitions and Usage Notes. ICAO, 1-18.
53. International Civil Aviation Organization, 2009a. Safety Management Manual, 2nd ed., Doc 9859-AN/474, ICAO, Montreal.
54. International Civil Aviation Organization, 2009b. Annex 14 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, vol. 1. Aerodrome Design and Operations, 5th ed. ICAO, Montreal.
55. International Labor Organization (ILO), 2001. ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems (OHS-MS): Information Note. International Labor Organization Office, Geneva.
56. Jovanis, P.P., Chang, H.L., 1986. Modeling the relationship of accidents to miles traveled. Transportation Research Record 1068, 42-51.
57. Law, W.K., Chan, A.H.S., Pun, K.F., 2006. Prioritising the safety management elements: a hierarchical analysis for manufacturing enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems 106 (6), 778-792.
58. Liou J.H., Tzeng, G. H., Chang H. C., 2007. Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model. Journal of Air Transport Management 13, 243-249.
59. Liou, J.H., Yen, L. Tzeng, G. H., 2008. Building an effective safety management system for airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management 14, 20-26.
60. Lord, D., Mannering, F., 2010. The statistical analysis of crash-frequency data: A review and assessment of methodological alternatives. Transportation Research A 44 (5), 291-305.
61. Mahdavi, I., Mahdavi-Amiri, N., Heidarzade, A. & Nourifar, R. 2008. Designing a model of fuzzy TOPSIS in multiple criteria decision making. Applies Mathematics and Computation 206, 607-617.
62. McDonald. N., Corrigan. S., Daly. C., Cromie. S., 2000. Safety management systems and safety culture in aircraft maintenance organizations. Safety Science 34, 151-176.
63. The International Labor Organization (ILO), 2001. The ILO document ILO-OSH 2001- Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems.The International Labor Organization, 3-18.
64. Ott, R.L. and Longnecker, M. 2010. An introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis, 6th Ed.. Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 166-167.
65. Petrilli, R.M., Roach, G.D., Dawson, D., Lamond, N., 2006. The sleep, subjective
fatigue, and sustained attention of commercial airline pilots during an international pattern. Chronobiology International 23 (6), 1357-1362.
66. Pohekar, S.D. and Ramachandran, M., 2004. Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning-a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev, 8 (4), 365-381.
67. Raghavan, S., Rhoades, D.L., 2005. Revisiting the relationship between profitability and air carrier safety in the US airline industry. Journal of Air Transportation Management 11(4), 283-290.
68. Rose, N.L., 1990. Profitability and product quality: economic determinants of airline safety performance. Journal of Political Economy 6, 944-964.
69. Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw Hill.
70. Saaty, T.L., 1996. The analytic network process, RWS Publications.
71. Saaty, T.L., 1999. Fundamentals of the analytic network process. International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Kobe.
72. Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 2006. Decision making with the Analytic network process: Economic, Political, Social and Technological Applications with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks, New York: Springer.
73. Saaty, T.L., 2008. Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making; why Pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process. Royal Academy of Sciences, Spain, Series A. Mathematics 102(2), 251-318.
74. Sage, A.P. and White, E.B., 1980. Methodologies for risk and hazard assessment: a survey and status report. IEEE Transaction on System, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-10, 425-441.
75. Samel, A., Wegmann, H.M., Vejvoda, M., 1997a. Aircrew fatigue in long-haul operations. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29 (4), 439-452.
76. Samel, A., Wegmann, H.M., Vejvoda, M., Drescher, J., Gundel, A., Manzey, D., and
Wenzel, J., 1997b. Two crew operations: stress and fatigue during long-haul night flights. Aviation space and environmental medicine 68 (8), 679-687.
77. Shao, P.C., Chang, Y.H. and Chen, J.H., 2013. Analysis of an aircraft accident model in Taiwan. Journal of Air Transport Management 27, 34-38.
78. Stolzer, J.A., Halford, C.D., and Goglia, J.J., 2008. Safety Management Systems in aviation. Ashgate Publishing Limited, England, Farnam, 28 and 205-207.
79. Taoyuan International Airport Corporation (TIAC), 2012. Aerodrome manual volume 4: Safety Management System. Taiwan, Taoyuan.
80. Teng, J.Y., 2005. Project evaluation: methods and applications. Taiwan Ocean University Logistics Management Center, Taiwan, Keelung.
81. Torlak, G., Sevkli, M., Sanal, M., Zaim, S., 2011. Analyzing business competition by using fuzzy TOPSIS method: an example of Turkish domestic airline industry. Expert System with Applications 38, 3396-3406.
82. Tran, P.N., Boukhatem, N., 2008. The Distance to the Idea Alternative (DiA) Algorithm for Interface Selection in Heterogeneous Wireless Network. MobiWac, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
83. Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), 2008. Guidance on Safety Management Systems Development, AC107-001.
84. Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), 2009. Safety Management System Implementation Procedures for Airport Operators, 300-002.
85. Transport Research Board (TRB), 2007. Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) report 1: Safety Management System for Airports, Vol. 1. TRB, Washington, D.C..
86. Wamg, T.C., Chang, T.H., 2007. Application of TOPSIS in evaluation initial traing aircraft under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems and Applications 33, 870-880.
87. Wilke, S., Majumdar, A., Ochieng W.Y., 2012. Holistic approach towards airport surface safety, Transportation Research Record – Aviation 2300, 1-12
88. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (UK CAA), 2003. The Management of Safety: Guidance to Aerodromes and Air Traffic Service Units on the Development of Safety Management Systems, CAP 728.
89. UK CAA, 2011. Licensing of Aerodromes, CAP 168.
90. Washington, S.P., Karlaftis, M.G. and Mannering, F.L., 2011. Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis, 2nd Ed. CRC Press, A Chapman and Hall Book, 293.
91. Yager, R.R., 1980. On a general class of fuzzy connection, Fuzzy Set and System 4(2), 235-242.
92. Yeh, C.H., 2003. The selection of multiatribute decision making method for scholarship student selection. International Journal of selection and Assessment, 11(4), 289-296.
93. Yoon, K. and Hwang, C. L., 1985. Manufacturing Plant Location Analysis by Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Part I–Single-Plant Strategy. International Journal of Production Research 23(2), 345-359.
94. Young, S., Vlek, J., 2009. An analysis of the causes of airfield incursions attributed to ground vehicles. Journal of Airport Management 3, 299-308.
95. Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8, 338-353.
96. Zhang, W., 2004. Handover decision using fuzzy MADM in heterogeneous networks. Wireless Communications and Networking, IEEE Conference (WCNC) 2, 653-658.
97. Zimmermann, H.J., 1991. Fuzzy Set Theory-And its application (2nd ed.). Springer.
98. Zimmermann, H.J., 1996. Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications, third ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-04-09起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2020-04-09起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw