五種土壤液化分析方法的假設統計分析

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：44

、訪客IP：3.142.252.185

姓名

廖致焜(Chih-Kun Liao) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

土木工程學系

論文名稱

五種土壤液化分析方法的假設統計分析

相關論文

★ 由地震引起的房屋倒塌率與保險費率試算：以台灣為例	★ 台灣累積絕對速度(CAV)地震危害度分析
★ 利用極值理論探討最大可能地震規模:以台灣為例	★ 以台灣地震開發的新地動數據庫
★ 以離心模型試驗探討凹形邊坡之穩定性	★ 影響土壤液化機率之不確定性分析和主要因素：以台灣中部為例
★ 根據切片法原理建立穩定數圖表進行邊坡穩定性分析	★ 評估土壤液化最佳地動強度量值
★ 基於多個非本地經驗關係預測土壤剪力波速(Vs)下之新方法	★ 考慮不同時間跨度下的台北土層液化機率
★ 台灣本地土壤液化數據庫之應用	★ 以SPT-N結合Vs-N之經驗模型進行土壤液化評估
★ 機率式地震危害度分析的解析解計算方法	★ 建立台灣CAVSTD-GMPE模型並應用於地震預警
★ 土壤液化羅吉斯迴歸模型與台北及高雄的液化機率圖	★ 土壤液化評估法中之各參數的敏感度分析

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 (2026-12-31以後開放)

摘要(中)

自1971年Seed與Idriss提出土壤液化的簡易評估法後，時至今日，已有多位學者利用當地的土壤液化資料庫，建立多種不同的液化評估法，而本研究計畫針對不同液化評估法進行保守度之評估。首先參考Hwang et al. 提及的方法，其中包含：HBF法、NCEER法、AIJ法、JRA法以及B&I法，分別模擬三種地震條件，分別為小地震情況下(Mw = 6.5, PGA = 0.1 g)、中地震情況下(Mw = 7.0, PGA = 0.3 g)以及大地震情況下(Mw = 7.5, PGA = 0.5 g)對蒐集之土層進行安全係數之評估，對此將分析出安全係數進行初步保守度之排序。
考量到隨機抽樣之影響，本研究採用變異數分析和假設檢定來分析液化安全係數的統計。結果顯示，在小、中地震情況下，JRA法與其他四種方法相比相對保守。然而，在大地震情況下，從統計假設檢定的角度來看，JRA法與HBF、NCEER和B&I法的液化安全係數可以被認為是相等的。另一方面，AIJ法在不同地震情況下分析得到之安全係數皆高於其他四種評估法。最後，將AIJ方法與每種地震情況下最保守的方法進行比較時，差異大約為平均安全係數的30-33%（小地震）、24-27%（中地震）和10-25%（大地震）。

摘要(英)

Since Seed and Idriss introduced a simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential in 1971 [1], scholars have developed various liquefaction assessment methods using local soil liquefaction databases. This research project aims to evaluate whether the results from different methods are statistically equal based on statistical hypothesis testing under three seismic conditions: small earthquake (Mw = 6.5, PGA = 0.1 g), moderate earthquake (Mw = 7.0, PGA = 0.3 g), and large earthquake (Mw = 7.5, PGA = 0.5 g). Liquefaction safety factors were computed for of the collected soil layers, based on which this study was proceeded using hypothesis testing and other analytics.
Considering the influence of random sampling, this study employs analysis of variance and hypothesis testing to analyze the statistics of liquefaction safety factors. The results indicate that the JRA method is relatively conservative compared to the other four methods under small and moderate earthquake scenarios. However, under large earthquake scenarios, the liquefaction safety factors from HBF, NCEER, and B&I methods can be considered equal from the perspective of statistical hypothesis testing. On the other hand, the AIJ method yields higher safety factors across different earthquake scenarios. Finally, when comparing the AIJ method with the most conservative method under each seismic scenario, the differences are approximately 30-33% (small earthquake), 24-27% (moderate earthquake), and 10-25% (large earthquake) of the average safety factors obtained by the AIJ method.

關鍵字(中)

★ 土壤液化
★ 液化評估法
★ 變異數分析
★ 假設檢定

關鍵字(英)

★ Soil liquefaction
★ Liquefaction assessment method
★ ANOVA
★ Hypothesis test

論文目次

摘要 i
Abstract iii
誌謝 v
目錄 vii
圖目錄 ix
表目錄 xiii
第一章緒論 1
1-1 前言 1
1-2 研究動機 1
1-3 研究目的 2
1-4 論文架構 3
第二章文獻回顧 5
2-1 土壤液化 5
2-1-1 液化發生機制 5
2-1-2 液化造成的破壞 6
2-2 標準貫入試驗 7
2-3 貫入能量修正 7
2-4 土壤液化評估法 8
2-4-1 雙曲線函數法（HBF法） 8
2-4-2 美國NCEER法 10
2-4-3 日本建築學會法（AIJ法） 13
2-4-4 日本道路協會液化評估法（JRA法） 15
2-4-5 B&I法 17
2-6 變異數分析 (Analysis of Variance, ANOVA) 20
2-7 假設檢定 21
第三章研究方法 27
3-1 土壤資料建立 27
3-1-1 強震測站場址工程地質資料庫 27
3-1-2 工程地質探勘資料庫 28
3-2 液化安全係數評估 29
3-3 單因子變異數分析 30
3-4 假設檢定-右尾檢定 32
第四章研究結果與討論 37
4-1 安全係數分析結果 37
4-1-1 台北資料點： 37
4-1-2 高雄資料點： 37
4-2 不同液化評估法保守度一致性 38
4-2-1 台北資料點 38
4-2-2 高雄資料點 39
4-3 不同液化評估法保守度排序 40
4-3-1 台北資料點 40
4-3-2 高雄資料點 42
4-4 不同液化評估法保守度差異 44
第五章結論與建議 85
5-1 結論 85
5-2 建議 86
參考文獻 87
附錄一：台北土壤一般物性資料 91
附錄二：高雄土壤一般物性資料 101

參考文獻

[1] Seed HB, Idriss IM. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 1971;97(9):1249-1273.
[2] Hwang JH, Khoshnevisan S, Juang CH, Lu CC. Soil liquefaction potential evaluation-An update of the HBF method focusing on research and practice in Taiwan. Engineering Geology 2021;280:105926.
[3] Kramer SL. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1996.
[4] 倪勝火與賴宏源，九二一集集大地震後續短期研究-921地震引致中部縣市土壤液化地區之調查。台北市：國家地震工程研究中心，(2000)。
[5] 黃俊鴻、陳正興、楊志文與譚志豪，集集地震土壤液化之調查與分析。地工技術，第七十七期，第51-64頁，(2000)。
[6] Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Finn WDL, Harder LF, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Liao SSC, Marcuson WF, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe II KH. Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 2001;127(10):817-833.
[7] Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). Recommendations for the Design of Building Foundations. 2001. (in Japanese).
[8] Japan Road Association (JRA). Road Bridge Specifications: Part V Series of Earthquake Proof Design. 1996. (in Japanese).
[9] Boulanger RW, Idriss IM. CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California, Davis, CA, 2014.

[10] Patel S, Naik V, Patel P. An analysis of application of multiple comparison tests (post-hoc) in Anova in recently published medical research literature. National Journal of Community Medicine, 6(01), 117-120.
[11] Ntumi S. Reporting and interpreting One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using a data-driven example: A practical guide for social science researchers. Journal of Research in Educational Sciences (JRES) 2021;12(14):38-47.
[12] Hassan A, Samy G, Hegazy M, Balah A, Fathy S. Statistical analysis for water quality data using ANOVA (Case study–Lake Burullus influent drains). Ain Shams Engineering Journal 2024;15(4):102652.
[13] Hınıslıoğlu S, Bayrak OÜ. Optimization of early flexural strength of pavement concrete with silica fume and fly ash by the Taguchi method. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 2004;21(2):79-90.
[14] Brooks R, Udoeyo FF, Takkalapelli KV. Geotechnical properties of problem soils stabilized with fly ash and limestone dust in Philadelphia. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 2011;23(5):711-716.
[15] 黃俊鴻、陳正興與莊長賢，本土HBF土壤液化評估法之不確定性，地工技術，第一百三十三期，第77-86頁，(2012)。
[16] Hazen A. Hydraulic Fill Dams. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 1920;83:1717-1745.
[17] Terzaghi K. Erdbaumechanik auf Bodenphysikalischen Grundlagen. Vienna: Deuticke; 1925.
[18] Ishihara K. Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes. In Proc. of the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 1985;1:321-376.

[19] 王春煌、郭漢興與王如龍，標準貫入試驗打擊能量差異性探討，地工技術，第十六期，第14-22頁，(1986)。
[20] Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM. Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1985;111(12):1425-1445.
[21] Cetin KO, Seed RB, Kiureghian AD, Tokimatsu K, Harder Jr. LF, Kayen RE, Moss RES. Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 2004;130(12):1314-1340.
[22] 國家地震工程研究中心，強震測站場址工程地質資料庫，(2009)。
[23] 經濟部地質調查及礦業管理中心，工程地質探勘資料庫，(2024)。
[24] Fisher RA. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd; 1925.
[25] 劉一忠，商用統計學，台北市：三民。
[26] Searle SR. Linear Models for Unbalanced Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
[27] Hocking RR. Methods and Applications of Linear Models Regression and the Analysis of Variance. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1996.
[28] Bittner AC. Analysis-of-Variance (ANOVA) Assumptions Review: Normality, Variance Equality, and Independence. In Proc. of the XXXIVth Annual International Occupational Ergonomics and Safety Conference Virtual Conference, USA, 2022;28-33.
[29] Neyman J, Pearson ES. IX. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 1933;231(694-706):289-337.
[30] Shaver JP. What statistical significance testing is, and what it is not. The Journal of Experimental Education 1993;61(4):293-316.
[31] Banerjee A, Chitnis UB, Jadhav SL, Bhawalkar JS, Chaudhury S. Hypothesis testing, type I and type II errors. Industrial psychiatry journal 2009;18(2):127-131.
[32] Lieber RL. Statistical significance and statistical power in hypothesis testing. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 1990;8(2):304-309.

指導教授

王瑞斌(Jui-Pin Wang)

審核日期

2024-6-19

推文