請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4970
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 郭安妮(On-Lei Kwok) | |
dc.contributor.author | Wei-Chen Chang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 張暐承 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-15T17:50:38Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-08-22 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-15T17:50:38Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2014-08-22 | |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2014-08-19 | |
dc.identifier.citation | [1]. Abate G., Massimino M.R., Maugeri M. and Wood D.M. (2010). “Numerical Modelling of a Shaking Table Test for Soil-Foundation-Superstructure Interaction by Means of a Soil Consitutive Model Implemented in a FEM Code” Geotech Geol Eng (2010) 28:37-59.
[2]. Ahmad J.M. and Radu P. (2004). “Solutions for Mitigating Soil Liquefaction Effects a Numerical Study” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004, Paper No. 3016. [3]. Bartlett S.F. (2011), “1D Ground Response Analysis” Introduction to Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, lecture 8 – Ground Response analyses, page 3. [4]. Baydaa, H.M., Ling, X.Z. and Xu, P. (2011) “3D FEM Numerical Simulation of Seismic Pile-supported Bridge Structure Reaction in Liquefying Ground” Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 3(4): 344-355. [5]. Bernard R. W., Jason T. D., and Thomas S. (2012). “Guidelines for Estimation of Shear Wave Velocity Profiles” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. [6]. Byrne P.M., Park S.S., Beaty M., Sharp M., Gonzalez L. and Abdoun T. (2004). “Numerical Modeling of Dynamic Centrifuge Tests” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 3387. [7]. Chang D., Travasarou T. and Chacko J. (2008). “Numerical Evaluation of Liquefaction-Induced Uplift for An Immersed Tunnel” The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008. [8]. Cheng Z. (2003). “Implement the Rounded Mohr-Coulomb Model to Opensees” Term Project, ECI 284 Theoretical Geomechanics, Winter 2003. [9]. Ebrahimian, B. (2013). “Numerical Modelling of the Seismic Behaviour of Gravity-Type Quay Walls” Engineering Seismology, Geotechnical and Structural Earthquake Engineering, Chapter 11. [10]. Elgamal A., Yang Z., Parra E. and Ragheb A. (2002). “Computational modeling of cyclic mobility and post-liquefaction site response” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 22 (2002) 259-271. [11]. Elgamal A., Yang Z., Parra E. and Ragheb A. (2002). “Modeling of cyclic mobility in saturated cohesionless soils” International Journal of Plasticity 19 (2003) 883-905. [12]. Evelyne F. and Hormoz M. (2007). “Nonlinear numerical method for earthquake site response analysis II— case studies” Bull Earthquake Eng (2007) 5:325-345. [13]. Fattah, M. Y., Abbas, S. F. and Karim, H. H. (2012). “A Model for Coupled Dynamic Elasto-Plastic Analysis of Soils” Journal of GeoEngineering, Vol.7 No. 3, pp. 089-096, December 2012. [14]. Green, R. A., Mitchell, J. K., and Polito, C. P. (2000). “An Energy-Based Excess Pore Pressure Generation Model for Cohesionless Soils” John Booker Memorial Symp.-Developments in Theoretical Geomechanics, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 383-390. [15]. Hasancebi, N, and R Ulusay (2007). “Empirical correlations between shear wave velocity and penetration resistance for ground shaking assessments” Bull. Eng. Geology and the Environment, 66:203-213. [16]. Hashash. (2012) “DEEPSOIL V5.1user manual and tutorial” Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. [17]. Hashash, Y.M.A., Phillips, C., and Groholski, D.R. (2010). “Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis” Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,5th . [18]. Idriss, I.M., and Sun, J. (1992). “User’s Manual for SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits,”, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, California [19]. Jafarzadeh F., Faghihi D. and Ehsani M. (2008). “Numerical Simulation of Shaking Table Tests on Dynamic Response of Dry Sand” The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17. 2008. [20]. Jishnu R.B., Naik S.P., Patra N.R. and Malik J.N. (2013). “Ground response analysis of Kanpur soil along Indo-Gangetic Plains” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 51 (2013) 47-57. [21]. Lai T., Elgamal A., Yang Z., Wilson D.W. and Kutter B.L. (2004). “Numerical Modeling of Dynamic Centrifuge Experiments On A Saturated Dense Sand Stratum” 11th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering and 3rd Int. Conf. on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 7th - 9th January 2004, University of California, Berkeley. [22]. Matasovic, N., and Vucetic, M. (1993). “Cyclic Characterization of Liquefiable Sands” Journal of Geotechnical Enginerring. 119 ,1805-1822. [23]. Matasovic, N., and Vucetic, M. (1995). “Generalized cyclic-defradation-pore-pressure generation model for clays” Journal of geotechnical engineering, 1995.121:33-42. [24]. McGann, C., and Arduino, P.. “Site Response Analysis of a Layered Soil Column (Total Stress Analysis)” OpenSees examples page, Retrieved from http://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/Site_Response_Analysis_of_a_Layered_Soil_Column_(Total_Stress_Analysis) [25]. McGann, C., and Arduino, P.. “Effective Stress Site Response Analysis of a Layered Soil Column” OpenSees examples page, Retrieved from http://opensees.berkeley.edu/wiki/index.php/Effective_Stress_Site_Response_Analysis_of_a_Layered_Soil_Column [26]. McKenna, F. and Fenves G.L. (2014). “The OpenSees command language manual, version1.2.” Pacific Earthquake Engrg. Research Center, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley. (http://opensees.berkeley.edu). [27]. Phillips, C., and Hashash, Y.M.A. (2009). “Damping formulation for nonlinear 1D site response analyses” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 29(7),1143-1158. [28]. Pitilakis K., Kirtas E., Sextos A., Bolton M., Madabhushi G. and Brennan A. (2004). “Validation by Centrifuge Testing of Numerical Simulations for Soil Foundation Structure Systems” 13th WorldConference on Earthquake Engineering 2004, Paper No.2772. [29]. Puzrin, A.M. (2012). “Constitutive Modelling in Geomechanics” Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Chapter 13. [30]. Rayhani T. and Naggar E. (2009). “Numerical Modeling of Seismic Response of Rigid Foundation on Soft Soil “International journal of geomechanics, ASCE 2008, 336-346. [31]. Rober A., Peter H., and James W. (1999). “Progress Toward a Safer Future Since the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake” U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 151-99, Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1999/fs151-99/ [32]. Stewart, J. (1997). “Key Geotechnical Aspects of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake” nisee, National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering, University of Califormia, Berkeley. Retrieved from http://nisee.berkeley.edu/loma_prieta/stewart.html [33]. Stewart J. P., A.O.L Kwok, Y. M.A. Hashash, N. Matasovic, R. Pyke, Z. Wang and Z. Yang (2008). Benchmarking of Nonlinear Geotechnical Ground Response Analysis Procedures, PEER Report 2008/04, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. [34]. Yang Z., Elgamal A., Adalier K. and Sharp M. K. (2004). “Earth Dam on Liquefiable Foundation and Remediation: Numerical Simulation of Centrifuge Experiments” Journal of engineering mechanics, 2004.130:1168-1176. [35]. Yang Z. (2010) “OpenSees Geotechnical Simulation Capabilities” U. C. Sand Diego, Retrieved from http://www.soilquake.net/opensees/ [36]. 李哲安, (2012).「一維與二維振動對砂土液化行為之影響」,國立台灣大學工學院土木工程學系碩士論文 [37]. 黃正佑, (2005). 「含細粒料砂土之盤剪實驗研究」, 私立中原大學土木工程學系碩士學位論文 [38]. 江國良 ,(2000).「飽和砂土受反覆荷重作用後之不排水受剪行為」,國立台灣大學土木工程學研究所碩士論文 [39]. 張文忠, 陳志芳, 林德洪, 謝明志, 盧又彥, (2013) 「沉箱式碼頭動態模型試驗之數值模擬」第35屆海洋工程研討會論文集 國立中山大學 2013年11月 [40]. 任芬頤, (2006). 「盤剪方式影響疏鬆砂土相對密度之研究」, 私立中原大學土木工程學系碩士學位論文 [41]. 王金山 ,(2004). 「共振柱試驗之土壤動力性質」 ,國立中央大學土木工程學系碩士論文 [42]. 翁作新, 陳家漢, 彭立先, 李偉誠, (2003). 「大型振動台剪力盒土壤液化試驗(II)—大型砂試體之準備與振動台初期試驗」, 國家地震工程研究中心報告, 報告編號:NCREE-03-042 [43]. 翁作新, 陳家漢, 程漢瑋, 吳繼偉, (2006). 「大型振動台剪力盒土壤液化試驗(III)—飽和越南砂試體受振沉陷之探討」, 國家地震工程研究中心報告, 報告編號:NCREE-06-019 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/4970 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 當地震發生時,不同的地址狀況會使傳達的地震波產生改變,並產生放大或縮小的作用,而當地震波經過土層及岩盤時,波的性質會因為經過不同的土層而有所改變,可能改變的性質有頻率、振幅等等。在地震工程中,我們可以利用地盤反應分析理論來求得不同土層在震波之影響下會有甚麼樣的改變及反應。
地盤反應分析可分為時間域及頻率域來求解,在頻率域中之土壤行為可假設為線性及擬線性,而在頻率域中只能進行總應力分析,也就是無法考慮孔隙水壓之狀況;在時間域的土壤行為可假設為線性及非線性,並可做有效應力之分析,得到孔隙水壓之激發狀況。頻率域之分析是較為常見的分析方式,因為其所需之參數及步驟相較簡單,然而近年來有效應力的分析越來越多人關注,因為已發展了有效應力分析的基本參數選取及步驟,其相關研究也越來越多,但是有效應力分析在實際案例上的應用還是很少,對於參數上的選定及孔隙水壓之模型的適用性還有待釐清,本研究的目標是回顧近期有效應力動態分析之數值模擬並把總應力及有效應力之結果進行比對及討論,希望能釐清不同的參數對於有效應力分析結果之影響,並建立有效應力分析參數選取之準則或建議。本研究中進行的數值模擬包括一系列的簡易假想地址、動態三軸試驗及大型振動台試驗。而使用的數值模擬軟體有DEEPSOIL及OpenSees。 為了比較總應力及有效應力分析之結果差異,首先會進行不同假想地址之模擬比較,其中的土壤材料包含了砂土及黏土;接下來是對砂土進行動態三軸試驗之數值模擬比較,而最後是模擬大型振動台試驗;所有的數值分析都會將有效應力分析及總應力分析之結果做比較及討論。 模擬結果得到:當較小振幅時,任何分析分法的結果都十分接近。當振幅較大時,有效應力分析之結果開始與總應力分析有差異。在黏土層中所激發之孔隙水壓比砂土層來的小。用單一元素作模擬時,其結果和實驗室的數據相近。在DEEPSOIL中有模擬到類似液化的情形發生,而其孔隙水壓比也有達到1。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In the discipline of geotechnical earthquake engineering, theoretical site response analyses can be performed to evaluate how geologic deposit responds, in terms of particle motion and pore water pressure generation, when it is subjected to earthquake shaking.
Site response analyses can be classified according to their solution domain, the type of soil model employed, and whether pore water pressure response is considered. In common practice, frequency-domain total-stress site response analyses are often performed because parameter selection and code usage are relatively simple. Time-domain total stress site response analyses have become more popular because benchmarking studies had been performed to set up the proper parameter selection procedures and evaluate the differences between the ground motions predicted from frequency-domain and time-domain total stress analyses. On the other hand, effective-stress time-domain site response analyses are rarely performed because the parameter selection protocols for the soil material model and pore water pressure generation scheme are not available. The objective of this research is to review the currently available computer programs for effective-stress dynamic analyses and to compare the solutions from total stress and effective stress dynamic analyses. In this research, a series of numerical simulations had been run for simple hypothetical site conditions, cyclic triaxial tests and shaking table tests. From the simulation results, it is observed that the acceleration and pore pressure response predictions from different effective stress models are generally similar when the input motion level is low. However, at large input motion, the pore pressure response predictions from different effective stress models can be very different, even if the acceleration response predictions are similar. In addition, the pore pressure prediction model from OpenSees (compared to that in DEEPSOIL) seems to have a better performance as it is able to reproduce the shaking table test data on liquefied sand. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-15T17:50:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-103-R01521124-1.pdf: 28347533 bytes, checksum: 55846260d2036410924194d1717a4a7e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 論文口試委員審定書 I
致謝 II 中文摘要 III ABSTRACT V TABLE OF CONTENTS VII LIST OF FIGURES IX LIST OF TABLES XII CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 MOTIVATION 1 1.2 OBJECTIVE 2 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS 2 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 3 2.1 SITE RESPONSE ANALYSIS 3 2.1.1 Overview of site response modeling 3 2.1.2 Theoretical Site Response Modeling 3 2.1.3 Previous research related to effective stress dynamic analysis 15 2.2 LABORATORY & PHYSICAL TESTS WITH DYNAMIC LOADING 17 CHAPTER 3 NUMERICAL MODELING 30 3.1 INTRODUCTION 30 3.2 NUMERICAL MODELING OF SIMPLE HYPOTHETICAL SITES 30 3.2.1 Site condition and analysis model 30 3.2.2 Input motion 32 3.2.3 Simulation results 32 3.3 NUMERICAL MODELING OF CYCLIC TRIAXIAL TEST 34 3.3.1 Soil properties and analysis model 34 3.3.2 Simulation results 35 3.4 NUMERICAL MODELING OF SHAKING TABLE TESTS 35 3.4.1 Site condition and analysis model 35 3.4.2 Simulation results 36 CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 74 4.1 CONCLUSIONS 74 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 75 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 地盤反應與土壤液化之數值模擬研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Numerical Modeling of Site Response and
Soil Liquefaction | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 102-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 翁作新(Zuo-Xin Ueng),葛宇甯(Yu-Ning Ge) | |
dc.subject.keyword | DEEPSOIL,OpenSees,有限元素分析,地盤反應分析,有效應力分析, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | DEEPSOIL,OpenSees,effective stress,site response analysis,site effect, | en |
dc.relation.page | 79 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2014-08-19 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 工學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 土木工程學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 土木工程學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-103-1.pdf | 27.68 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。