(3.236.214.19) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/06 22:16
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:張惟森
研究生(外文):Wei-Sen Chang
論文名稱:Turkey Flat試驗場之地盤反應分析
論文名稱(外文):Site Response Analysis of Turkey Flat Test Site
指導教授:蔡祁欽蔡祁欽引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chi-Chin Tsai
口試委員:陳正興邱俊翔
口試委員(外文):Cheng-Hsing ChenJiunn-Shyang Chiou
口試日期:2016-06-17
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中興大學
系所名稱:土木工程學系所
學門:工程學門
學類:土木工程學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2016
畢業學年度:104
語文別:中文
論文頁數:91
中文關鍵詞:場址效應地盤反應分析盆地效應
外文關鍵詞:site effectsite response analysisbasin effect
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:46
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究為Turkey Flat盲預測試驗之場址效應預測的進一步延伸。試驗場位於美國加州帕克菲爾德郡之聖安地列斯斷層上,目的是為了解當試驗場受場址效應的影響時,能否利用地盤反應分析方法來預測地表的實際反應情形。在過去,各參與者根據現地試驗資料選用合理的參數分析,而本研究乃根據弱震之量測值發展出試驗場之最佳擬合參數進行分析,同時與其他研究者及大會公布之標準參數的分析結果比較,以驗證參數調整對預測之改善情形,並針對其差異進行探討。此外,試驗場同時也為谷地構造,其地表反應譜之分析結果可能因盆地效應而影響預測之準確性,故本文將透過簡易的半盆地模型進行二維度之地盤反應分析,以評估盆地效應之影響是否干擾盲預測試驗之預測結果。
在本研究中,首先針對土壤動態參數(剪力波速與非線性曲線)的選擇對預測結果之影響;之後評估不同參數於東西向和南北向之預測情形;接著探討輸入地震點位對預測結果之差異,最後由二維度之地盤反應分析結果判斷試驗場邊緣受盆地效應影響之情形。經分析後發現: (1)文中探討之三種分析參數中,使用最佳擬合參數之分析會較佳。(2)由剪力波速及非線性曲線之影響的比較,在地盤反應分析時以剪力波速的差異對預測結果產生影響最大。(3)由於試驗場為南北狹長之地形,除邊界之影響外,土層亦存在著異向性,使得兩方向預測情形有明顯差異。(4)不同輸入地震點位分析中,以D3測點分析較為理想,且R2之預測較R1佳。(5)透過簡化之半盆地模型二維度的地盤反應分析中,發現週期在0.1秒時,地表反應譜之峰值會隨著接近邊界有明顯變化,亦證明試驗場邊緣有受盆地效應之影響。


The study is about Turkey Flat blind prediction of site effect. The test site is located at the Parkfield segment of the San Andreas fault. The objective of Turkey Flat experiment is to estimate site response during ground motion that through site response analysis. In the past, the participants selected reasonable data to perform analysis base on laboratory measurement. According to the weak motion result, the best parameter for site response analysis is developed for the prediction. At the same time, through comparison with the results using different parameters by other participant and these officially recommended, we find out a better prediction using the parameter in this study and discuss their differences. Moreover, the test site is a shallow valley. Because the basin effect might impact on the response spectrum, we also perform 2D site response analysis with simple basin model. The purpose is to know whether blind prediction is might affect basin effect or not.
In the study, we evaluate the following issue: (1) how variable soil parameters (shear-wave velocity and nonlinear curve) can affect the result (2) prediction result for the different parameter in east-west direction and north-south direction, (3) how the various input motions affect the prediction result, (4) how the basin effect on the edge of test site is validated using of the 2D analysis. We found: (1) Among the used soil parameters in the study, using the prefer 2016 model provide the best result. (2) The shear-wave velocity can significantly dominate the prediction result compared to the effect of nonlinear curve. (3) Due to the valley aligned in the EW direction, the anisotropic behavior of sediment in the test site significantly influence the prediction result. (4) From the analysis about input various motionsD3 provides the best results and then R2 is better than R1 based on the analysis of various input motions. (5) Based on the 2D ground response analysis, the peak of response spectrum (i.e. 0.1 sec) increases dependently on the distance to the edge, indicating that the basin effect affects the edge of test site.


誌謝 i
中文摘要 ii
Abstract iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 vi
表目錄 viii
第一章 緒論 1
第二章 文獻回顧 3
2.1 Turkey Flat盲預測試驗 3
2.2 場址效應與一維地盤反應分析 4
2.2.1 場址效應 4
2.2.2地盤反應分析 6
2.3 盆地效應與二維地盤反應分析 11
2.3.1 盆地效應 12
2.3.2 二維地盤反應分析 12
2.4 分析參數對結果之影響 14
第三章 研究主題與方法 22
3.1 概述 22
3.2 試驗場資訊 22
3.2.1 研究區域位置 22
3.2.2 井下陣列 23
3.2.3 土層資訊及非線性參數 23
3.3 輸入地震 24
3.4 分析方法 25
3.4.1 最佳參數之選定 25
3.4.2 殘差分析評估 27
3.4.3 二維盆地模型之分析 28
第四章 分析結果與比較 47
4.1 各點位反應譜之比較 47
4.2土壤參數 49
4.2.1剪力波速之影響 49
4.2.2非線性曲線之影響 50
4.3不同方向地震分析之結果討論 51
4.4 不同輸入地震點位之分析結果討論 52
4.4.1 利用R1點位分析 52
4.4.2 利用R2點位分析 53
4.4.3 殘差比較 53
4.5 盆地效應之影響 54
第五章 結論與建議 87
參考文獻 89


Biot, M. (1941), ”A Mechanical Analyzer for the Prediction of Earthquake Stresses,”
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.31, pp. 151-171.
Cramer, C. H., and Real, C. R. (1990), Turkey Flat, USA Site Effects Test Area:
Report 5, Weak-Motion Test: Statistical Analysis of Submitted Predictions
and Comparisons to Observations, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Tech.
Rept. 90-2.
Darendeli, M. (2001), “Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus
Reduction and Material Damping curves”, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Texas.
Haddadi, H. R., Shakal, A. F., and Real, C. R. (2008), “Comparison with other Turkey
Flat Recordings,” GEESD IV, Conference Proceedings, California, USA, May.
2008.
Hardin, B. O. and Drnevich, V. P. (1972b) “Shear Modulus and Damping in Soil:
Design Equations and Curves,” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Div., ASCE, Vol.98, pp. 667-692.
Hashash, Y. M. A, Groholdki, D. R., Phillips, C. A., Park, D, Musgrove, M. (2012)
“DEEPSOIL5.1, User Manual and Tutorial.” 107p.
Housner, G. W. (1941) “Characteristics of Strong-Motion Earthquakes,” Bulletin of
the Seismological Society of America, Vol.31, pp. 19-31.
Hudson, M. B., Beikae, M., Idriss, I. M. (1994) “QUAD4M, User Manual,” 72p.
Idriss, I. M., Lysmer, J., Hwang, R. N., Seed, H. B., (1973) “QUAD-4, User Manual.”
79p.
Kwok, A. O. L., Stewart, J. P., and Hashash, Y. M. A. (2008), “Nonlinear
Ground-Response Analysis of Turkey Flat Shallow Stiff-Soil Site to Strong
Ground Motion,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.98,
No. 1, pp. 331-343.
Lambe, T. W. (1973), “Predictions in Soil Engineering”, Geotechnique, Vol.23, No. 2,
pp. 149–202.
Pitilakis, K., Riga, E., Anastasiadis, A., Makra, K. (2015), ” New Elastic Spectra, Site
Amplification Factors and Aggravation Factors for Complex Subsurface
Geometry Towards the Improvement of EC8”, 6th International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Invited Lecture, Christchurch, New
Zealand, Nov. 2015.
Real, C. R. (1988). Turkey Flat, USA Site Effects Test Area: Report 2, Site
Characterization, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Tech. Rept. 88-2.
Real, C. R., and Cramer C. H. (1989). “Turkey Flat, USA Site Effects Test Area:
Report 3, Weak-Motion Test: Prediction Criteria and Input Rock Motions,”
Calif. Div. of Mines Geology, Tech. Rept. 89-1.
Real, C. R., and Shakal A. F. (2005), “Turkey Flat, USA Site Effects Test Area:
Report 7, Strong Motion Test: Prediction Criteria and Data Formats,” Dept. of
Conservation CSMIP, Rept. OSMS 05-01.
Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer, J., and Seed, H. B. (1972), “SHAKE: A Computer Program
for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites,” University of
California, ERRC Report
Seed, H. B., Ugas, C., and Lysmer,J. (1976), ”Site-Dependent Spectra for
Earthquake-Resistant Design,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol.66, NO.1, pp. 221-243.
Tucker, B. E., and Real, C. R. (1986), “Turkey Flat, USA Site Effects Test Area: Report 1, Needs, Goals, and Objectives”, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Tech.
Rept. 86-1.
Tsai, C. C., and Hashash, Y. M. A. (2005), “Turkey Flat, USA Site Effects Test Area:
Strong-Motion Predictions Phase II,” University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
Rept. pp. 12-13.
土質工學會 (1983), 土質地震工學, 日本。
邱煌傑 (1996), “花蓮大比例尺模型地震試驗之地盤振動反應分析”, 國立台灣大學
土木工程學研究所碩士論文。


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔