五種土壤液化分析方法的假設統計分析

NCU Institutional Repository > 工學院 > 土木工程研究所 > 博碩士論文 > Item 987654321/94415

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: http://ir.lib.ncu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/94415

題名:	五種土壤液化分析方法的假設統計分析
作者:	廖致焜;Liao, Chih-Kun
貢獻者:	土木工程學系
關鍵詞:	土壤液化;液化評估法;變異數分析;假設檢定;Soil liquefaction;Liquefaction assessment method;ANOVA;Hypothesis test
日期:	2024-06-19
上傳時間:	2024-10-09 14:41:46 (UTC+8)
出版者:	國立中央大學
摘要:	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）。 ;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.
顯示於類別:	[土木工程研究所] 博碩士論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
index.html		0Kb	HTML	22	檢視/開啟

在NCUIR中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

社群 sharing

資料載入中.....