以離心模型與機率方法模擬液化引致淺基礎或樁基礎建築物沉陷之研究

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：48

、訪客IP：3.135.188.58

姓名

黃宏海(Huynh Hoang Hai) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

土木工程學系

論文名稱

以離心模型與機率方法模擬液化引致淺基礎或樁基礎建築物沉陷之研究
(Centrifuge modeling and probabilistic approach for liquefaction-induced settlement of structures with shallow or pile foundations)

相關論文

★ 以離心振動臺試驗模擬緩衝材料中廢棄物罐之振動反應	★ 緩衝材料在不同圍壓下之工程性質
★ 具不同上部結構之樁基礎受振行為	★ 基盤土壤液化對上方土堤位移的影響
★ 回填與緩衝材料之動態強度	★ 砂質土壤中柔性擋土牆在動態載重下的行為
★ Effect of Vertical Drain Methods on The Soil Liquefaction	★ Centrifuge Modelling on Failure Behaviours of Sandy Slope Caused by Gravity, Rainfall and Earthquake
★ 微生物膠結作用對砂質土壤性質的影響	★ 基盤土壤液化引致的側潰對上方土堤之影響及其改善對策
★ 土壤液化引致側向滑移對樁基礎之影響及其對策	★ 挖掘機鏟斗上土壤黏附問題的基礎研究
★ 低放射性廢棄物最終處置回填材料於不同配比下之工程力學特性	★ 以離心振動台試驗探討基盤振動方向與坡向夾角對側向滑移之反應
★ 應用時域反射法於地層下陷監測之改善研發	★ Seismic response of sheet pile walls with and without anchors by centrifuge modeling tests

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 (2027-12-31以後開放)

摘要(中)

本研究使用中央大學地工離心機進行6組離心模型振動台試驗，探討不同型式建築物於可液化地盤之沉陷與受震行為，地盤條件為相對密度55%之土層，總地盤厚度為16.4 m，地下水位距離地表之深度為2 m。建築物基礎型式分為淺基礎與樁基礎，基礎尺寸依照建築物大小分為10 m (L) × 6.8 m (W) 及6.8 m (L) × 4.8 m (W)，建築物基礎與地盤間之接觸應力皆為71 kPa。此外，本研究利用圓錐貫入試驗 (Cone penetration test, CPT) 之錐尖阻抗值進行簡易液化評估，依據簡易評估流程建立液化引致之地表及建築物沉陷超越機率曲線。
當輸入基盤最大加速度為0.08 g (AI = 0.4 m/s)、0.17 g (AI = 1.7 m/s)及0.35g (AI = 7.4 m/s)時，可得以下結論: (1) 對淺基礎而言，大尺寸之淺基礎 (大1.5倍) 沉陷量可分別降低43% (0.033 m)、31% (0.030 m)及12% (0.020 m)；(2) 對淺基礎而言，大尺寸之淺基礎 (大1.5倍) 建築物傾斜角分別增加50%、12%及5%；(3) 對樁基礎而言，大尺寸之基礎 (大1.5倍) 沉陷量可分別降低69% (0.051 m)、55% (0.050 m)及21% (0.034 m)；(4) 對樁基礎而言，大尺寸之基礎 (大1.5倍) 建築物傾斜角可分別降低30%、14%及8%；(5) 對小型建築物而言，使用樁基礎形式之建築物沉陷量可分別降低5%、4%及3%。對大型建築物而言，使用樁基礎形式之建築物沉陷量可分別降低48%、38%及12%；(6) 當液化發生時，外加載重之應力增量(∆σz)受影響範圍深度等於基礎寬度(B)。根據試驗結果反算，可建立修正外加載重之垂直應力增量曲線，用以估計液化發生時土壤之有效覆土應力。意即當土壤液化發生時，土壤仍有殘餘強度其有效覆土應力不為零

摘要(英)

This study considers the building′s performance at liquefaction sites and when using the centrifuge at National Central University. Six experiments are tested wherein the uniform liquefiable sand with 55% of relative density. Two kinds of foundations (shallow and pile foundations) with different widths and lengths were placed with the same contact pressure of 71 kPa. The large foundation (Foundation L) was 10.0 meters length and 6.8 meters width (prototype). The small foundation (Foundation S) was 6.8 meters length and 4.8 meters width (prototype). Furthermore, this study employs a cone penetration test to assess liquefaction-induced settlements (CPT). A simplified process for establishing the probability of exceeding settlement curve.
The results showed that (1) For the shallow foundation, when the foundation dimensions are larger (1.5 times difference), settlement dramatically decreases to 43% (0.033 m), 31% (0.030 m) and 12% (0.020 m) under the base input motions of 0.08g (AI = 0.4 m/s), 0.17g (AI = 1.7 m/s), and 0.35g (AI = 7.4 m/s). (2) For the shallow foundation, when the foundation dimensions are larger (1.5 times difference), the tilting angle of structure increases by 50%, 12% and 5% under the base input motion of 0.08g (AI = 0.4 m/s), 0.17g (AI = 1.7 m/s), and 0.35g (AI = 7.4 m/s). (3) For the pile foundation, when the foundation dimensions are larger (1.5 times difference), the settlement decreases to 69% (0.051 m), 55% (0.050 m), and 21% (0.034 m) under the base input motion of 0.08g (AI = 0.4 m/s), 0.17g (AI = 1.7 m/s), and 0.35g (AI = 7.4 m/s). (4) For the pile foundation, when the foundation dimensions are larger (1.5 times difference), the tilting angle of structure increases by 30%, 14%, and 8% under the base input motion of 0.08g (AI = 0.4 m/s), 0.17g (AI = 1.7 m/s), and 0.35g (AI = 7.4 m/s). (5) For the small structure, using the pile foundation instead of the shallow foundation reduces settlement by only 5%, 4%, and 3% under the base input motion of 0.08g (AI = 0.4 m/s), 0.17g (AI = 1.7 m/s), and 0.35g (AI = 7.4 m/s). For the large structure, when the pile foundation is used instead of the shallow foundation, settlement reduces by 48%, 38%, and 12% under the base input motion of 0.08g (AI = 0.4 m/s), 0.17g (AI = 1.7 m/s), and 0.35g (AI = 7.4 m/s). (6) During soil liquefaction, the vertical stress increment due to surface loading (∆σ_z) only affected with a depth equal to the foundation width (B). From the back analysis. a modified vertical stress increment due to surface loading curve established, which can be used to estimate the effective overburden pressure in the liquefaction soil layer, meaning that the soil′s effective overburden stress is not zero during liquefaction and retains some residual strength.

關鍵字(中)

★ 離心模型
★ 機率方法
★ 樁基礎
★ 淺基礎
★ 土壤液化

關鍵字(英)

★ Centrifuge modeling
★ Probability approach
★ Pile foundation
★ Shallow foundation
★ Soil liquefaction

論文目次

TABLE CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
摘要 ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
TABLE CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
NOTATIONS x
1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 What is the problem? 1
1.2 Is there any solution to predict the liquefaction-induced settlements? 2
1.3 What is the structure of this thesis? 2
2 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 Historical case earthquake liquefaction damage 4
2.2 Foundation settlement studies caused by liquefaction 7
2.3 Vertical stress increment due to loading 7
2.4 Cone penetration test (CPT) for prediction of the liquefaction-induced settlement 9
2.5 Summary 10
3 CHAPTER 3.CENTRIFUGE MODELING AND PROBABILISTIC ASSESSMENT 12
3.1 Introduction to geotechnical centrifuge modeling 12
3.2 Scaling law 12
3.3 Test facilities 13
3.3.1 Shaking table and the geotechnical centrifuge 13
3.3.2 Data acquisition system 15
3.4 Instruments and apparatus 17
3.4.1 Container and pluviation apparatus 17
3.4.2 Sensors 19
3.5 Test material 20
3.6 Probabilistic Approach 21
3.6.1 Roberson and Wride proposed a modified CPT-based liquefaction model in 1998 21
3.6.2 Probabilistic assessment of the settlement caused by liquefaction at each CPT sounding 22

3.6.3 Maximum likelihood estimation of model bias factor 24
3.6.4 Procedure for probabilistic settlement exceedance curve 25
4 CHAPTER 4. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 26
4.1 Test procedures 26
4.1.1 Test design 26
4.1.2 Preparation process 29
4.1.3 Input seismic motion 33
4.2 Determination of parameters and measurements 34
4.2.1 Acceleration time history 34
4.2.2 Peak base acceleration, PBA 34
4.2.3 The ratio of excess pore water pressure 35
4.2.4 Settlements 35
4.2.5 Tilting angle 36
4.2.6 CPT analysis and estimate model bias factor using maximum likelihood 36
4.2.7 Probabilistic settlement exceedance curve 37
4.2.8 The stress increment due to loading 38
4.3 Comparison of test results 38
4.3.1 Peak base acceleration, PBA 39
4.3.2 Acceleration time history 39
4.3.3 The ratio of excess pore water pressure 46
4.3.4 Settlement 53
4.3.5 Tilting angle 56
4.3.6 CPT analysis for predicting the probability of liquefaction 57
4.3.7 Model bias factor 61
4.3.8 Probabilistic settlement exceedance curve 62
4.3.9 Modification of the stress increment during liquefaction 64
5 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 66
5.1 Conclusions 66
5.2 Recommendations and future works 67
6 REFERENCES 68
APPENDIX 71
1 The assumption for the evaluation of liquefaction using the CPT data 71
2 The spreadsheet to estimate the model bias factor 71
3 Moment earthquake magnitude (Mw) 72
4 Comparison of model bias factor with Juang et al. (2013) 72

參考文獻

6 REFERENCES
[1]. Adalier, K., Elgamal, A., Meneses, J., Baez, J.I., “Stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in non-plastic silty soil,” Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 571-584. (2003).
[2]. Andrianopoulos, K.I., Papadimitriou, A.G., Bouckovalas, G.D., “Bounding surface plasticity model for the seismic liquefaction analysis of geostructures,” Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, Vol. 30, No. 10, pp. 895 - 911 (2010).
[3]. Ang, A.H.S., Tang, W.H., “Probability concepts in engineering,” 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, (2007).
[4]. Bertalot, D., Brennan, A.J., “Influence of initial stress distribution on liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundations,” Geotechnique, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp. 418 - 428 (2015).
[5]. Bertalot, D., Brennan, A.J., Villalobos, F., “Influence of bearing pressure on liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundation,” Geotechnique, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 391 - 399 (2013).
[6]. Coelho, P., “Shallow Foundations Exposed to Seismic Liquefaction: A Centrifuge Basesd Study on the Level and Mitigation of the Effects,” SERIES report, Project No. 227887 (2013).
[7]. Dashti, S., Bray, J.D., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M., Wilson, D., “Mechanisms of seismically induced settlement of buildings with shallow foundations on liquefiable soil,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng, Vol. 136, No. 1, pp. 151 – 164 (2010a).
[8]. Dashti, S., Bray, J.D., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.R., Wilson, D., “Centrifuge testing to evaluate and mitigate liquefaction-induced building settlement mechanisms,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng, Vol. 136, No. 1, pp. 918 – 929 (2010b).
[9]. Das, M.B., “Principle of geotechnical engineering, 7h Edition” (2010.)
[10]. Edwards, A.W.F., “CPT based liquefaction resistance analyses evaluated using case histories,” M.Sc. thesis, Department of Civil Environmental Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Technical Report CEG-98-01 (1972).
[11]. Elgamal, A., Lu, J., Yang, Z., “Liquefaction-induced settlement of shallow foundation and remediation: 3D numerical simualtion,” J Earthq Eng, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 17 – 45 (2005).
[12]. Florin, V.A., Ivanov, P.L., “Liquefation of saturated sandy soils,” In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference Soil and Mecahnics and Foundation Engineering. Vol. 1, pp. 107-111 (1961).
[13]. Hayden, C., Zupan, J., Allmond, J., Kutter, B., “Centrifuge tests of adjacent mat-supported buildings affected by liquefaction,” J. Geotech. Geoinviron. Eng. Vol. 141, No. 3, 04014118 (2015).
[14]. Ishihara, K., Yoshimine, M., “Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquake,” Soils Found , Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 173-188 (1992).
[15]. Ishihara, K., Zhou, Y.G., Shamoto, Y., Mano, H., Chen, Y.M., Ling, D.S., “Observation of post-liquefaction progressive failure of shallow foundation in centrifuge model tests,” Soil Found, Vol. 55, No. 6, pp. 1501-1511 (2015).
[16]. Jafarian, Y., Mehrzad, B., Lee, C.J., Haddad, A., “Centrifuge modeling of seismic foundation-soil-foundation interaction of liquefiable sand,” Soil Dyn Enrthq Eng, Vol 97, pp. 184-204 (2017).
[17]. Juang, C.H., Yuan, H., Lee, H., Lin, P.S., “Simplified CPT-based method for evaluating liquefaction during earthquakes,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 129, pp. 66-80 (2003).
[18]. Juang, C.H., Li, K., Fang, Y., Liu, Z., Khor, E.H., “Simplified procedure for developing joint distribution of amax and Mw for probabilistic liquefaction hazard analysis,” Journal of Geotechincal and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 134, pp. 1050-1058 (2008).
[19]. Juang, C.H., Ching, J., Wang, L., Khor, E.H,. Ku, C.S., “Simplified procedure for estimation of liquefaction-induced settlement and site-specific probabilistic settlement exceedance curve using cone penetration test (CPT),” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 50, pp. 1055-1066 (2013).
[20]. Ku, C.S., Juang, C.H., Chang, C.W., Ching, J., “Probabilistic version of the Robertson and Wride method for liquefaction evaluation: Development and application,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 27 – 44 (2012).
[21]. Lee, C.J., Wei, Y.C, Kuo, Y.C; “ Boundary effects of a laminar container in centrifuge shaking table tests,” Soil Dyn Enrthq Eng, Vol. 34, pp. 37 - 51 (2012).
[22]. Liu, L., Dobry, R., “Seismic response of shallow foundation on liquefiable sand,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng, ASCE 123 (6), pp. 557-567 (1997).
[23]. Lopez, C.F., Modaressi, F.R.A., “Numerical simulation of liquefaction effects on seismic SSI,” Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, Vol. 28, pp. 85-98 (2008).
[24]. Madabhushi, G., “Centrifuge modeling for Civil Engineers,” Technology & Engineering (2014)
[25]. Manski, C., Lerman, S., “The estimation of choice probabilities from choice-based samples,” Econometrica, Vol. 45, pp. 1977-1988 (1977).
[26]. Mason, H.B., Trombetta, N.W., Chen, Z., Bray, J.D., Hutchinson, T.C., Kutter, B.L., “Seismic soil-foundation-structure interaction observed in geotechnical centrifuge experiments,” Soil Dyn Enrthq Eng, Vol. 48, pp. 162 - 174 (2013).
[27]. Mehrzad, B., Haddad, A.H., Jafarian, Y “Centrifuge and numerical models to investigate liquefaction-induced response of shallow foundation with different contact pressure,” Int. J. Civ. Eng, Vol. 14, pp. 117-131 (2016).
[28]. Okamura, M., Inoue, T., “Preparation of fully saturated model ground,” Physical modeling in geotechnics. In: Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on Physical Modellling in Geotechnics (ICPMG 2010}, pp. 147 – 152 (2010).
[29]. Robertson, P.K., “Performance based earthquake design using the CPT,” In Proceedings of the IS Tokyo Conference. CRC Press/Balkema, Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 3–20 (2009a).
[30]. Robertson, P.K., “Interpretation of cone penetration tests — a unified approach,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 1337–1355 (2009b).
[31]. Robertson, P.K., and Campanella, R.G., “Liquefaction potential of sands using the cone penetration test,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, pp. 384–403 (1985).
[32]. Robertson, P.K., and Wride, C.E., “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 442–459 (1998).
[33]. Scott, R.F., “Solidification and consolidation of a liquefied sand column” Soils Found, Vol. 26, pp. 23–31 (1985)
[34]. Taylor, R.N., “ Geotechnical Centrifuge Technology. Taylor and Francis”, (2005)
[35]. Wu, Y.M., Shin, T.C., Chang, C.H., “Near Real-Time Mapping of Peak Ground Acceleration and Peak Ground Velocity Following a Strong Earthquake” Bulletin of the Seismological Society America, Vol. 91, pp. 1218 – 1228 (2001).

指導教授

洪汶宜(Wen-Yi Hung)

審核日期

2023-1-12

推文