| 摘要(英) |
Burland (1987) proposed that geotechnical analysis includes the assumptions of three models: Geologic Model, Ground Model and Geotechnical Model. The geologic model expresses the geological conditions of the site, including geological history, geological materials, groundwater and formation conditions, etc. The ground model represents the physical and mechanical properties of the geo-materials. The geotechnical model consists of theoretical or simplified assumptions of a predictive model for the analyzed case. In order to achieve a more representative geotechnical analysis result, the uncertainty of the three models must be considered. In the current study, we have focused on the importance of the geological model in a typical geotechnical analysis.
In this study, the impact of the geological model uncertainty on the National Highway No. 3 (NH-3) landslide event was discussed from the perspective of slope stability and debris run-out parameters. Yeh et al. (2021) obtained the sliding planes dip angles of NH-3 from three sources, which are: (1) the regional geological map of the Central Geological Survey, MOEA; (2) site investigation on the sliding plane after the sliding event; (3) the LiDAR data. Yeh et al. (2021) used the Monte Carlo simulation and the limit equilibrium method to calculate safety factors, and finally obtained the probability of failure of slope sliding, however, without considering the volume change of the sliding block due to the change of the dip angle. In this study, we have incorporated the change of debris volume with dip angle in the Monte Carlo Simulation. The results show that with the change of the dip angle (rotation at slope crest), the failure probability is 26.5% (as compared to Yeh et al. (2021) at 20.6%) with regional geological map information; 4.1% (as compared to Yeh et al. (2021) at 2%) with site investigation information after the sliding event; close to 0% with LiDAR-derived data (similar to Yeh et al. (2021)). The above results indicate that different surveying methods may result in different data accuracy. LiDAR-derived dip angle yielded the smallest standard deviation among the three investigation methods, therefore the probability of failure is relatively small.
To explore the uncertainty of joint distribution on the debris run-out parameters, this study established a set of numerical models that are similar to the landslide case through on-site investigation reports. A number of corresponding numerical models were established by changing the number of the joints along the strike and dip directions of the slope. The debris run-out parameters, including the slope crest displacement, toe run-out distance, debris accumulation width and area of each model are analyzed using point estimate method. Probability Density Function of each parameter is analyzed and the risk assessment (probability of exceedance) of each debris run-out parameter was then calculated. The results show that the uncertainty of dip joints has a greater impact on the slope crest displacement than that of the strike joints; the run-out distance of this case is not affected by the uncertainty of the joints, and there is a very high probability that the highway is directly covered by the landslide debris; the width of the accumulated debris is not affected much by the distribution of joints. Finally, the variability of strike joints has a large effect on the coverage area of the accumulated debris. |
| 參考文獻 |
1.Bárdossy, G., & Fodor, J. (2001). Traditional and new ways to handle uncertainty in geology. Natural Resources Research, 10(3), 179-187.
2.Christian, J. T., Ladd, C. C., & Baecher, G. B. (1994). Reliability applied to slope stability analysis. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120(12), 2180-2207.
3.Fenton, G. A., & Griffiths, D. V. (2008). Risk assessment in geotechnical engineering (Vol. 461). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
4.Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. (2003). 3 Dimensional Distinct Element Code User’s Guide. Minneapolis, MN: Itasca Consulting Group Inc.
5.Juang, C. H., Zhang, J., Shen, M., & Hu, J. (2019). Probabilistic methods for unified treatment of geotechnical and geological uncertainties in a geotechnical analysis. Engineering geology, 249, 148-161.
6.Raychaudhuri, S. (2008, December). Introduction to monte carlo simulation. In 2008 Winter simulation conference (pp. 91-100). IEEE.
7.Wang, L., Hwang, J. H., Luo, Z., Juang, C. H., & Xiao, J. (2013). Probabilistic back analysis of slope failure–a case study in Taiwan. Computers and Geotechnics, 51, 12-23.
8.Wyllie, D. C., & Mah, C. (2004). Rock slope engineering. CRC Press.
9.Yeh, C. H., Dong, J. J., Khoshnevisan, S., Juang, C. H., Huang, W. C., & Lu, Y. C. (2021). The role of the geological uncertainty in a geotechnical design–A retrospective view of Freeway No. 3 Landslide in Northern Taiwan. Engineering Geology, 291, 106233.
10.行政院農業委員會水土保持局 (2020年3月9日)。水土保持技術規範。水土保持技術規範-行政院農業委員會水土保持局全球資訊網。https://www.swcb.gov.tw/Home/laws/laws_more?id=72279a8c50f3445e8d564a8d4577342e
11.社團法人中華民國大地工程學會 (2011年2月)。國道3號3.1公里崩塌事件原因調查工作總結報告。交通部。
12.曾鴻儒、盧賢秀、俞肇福、歐祥義、林嘉琪(2010年4月26日)。順向坡滑動肇禍 國道邊坡總體檢。自由時報。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/390808
13.羅佳明、鄭添耀、林彥享、蕭震洋、魏倫瑋、黃春銘、冀樹勇、林錫宏和林銘郎 (2011)。國道3號七堵順向坡滑動過程之動態模擬。中華水土保持學報，42(3)，175-183。 |
[Endnote RIS 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 (2025-8-1以後開放)
plurk
funp
live
udn
HD
myshare
netvibes
friend
youpush
delicious
baidu
Google bookmarks
del.icio.us
hemidemi
facebook
twitter
google
reddit