本文針對一套適用於低層RC及加強磚造之耐震評估法─簡化推垮分析，以華盛頓大學RC柱試體與13座國內RC柱試體，驗證其柱構件分析模型的準確性，並根據驗證結果檢討誤差原因，更新分析模型，再以更新後分析模型對同樣試體重新比對，驗證更新效果。
本研究比對分析與試驗之破壞模式、最大強度、降伏變位以及性能曲線圖形，比對結果發現分析模型對軸力過大，即 大於0.7之試體，或混凝土抗壓強度超過69MPa( 700kgf/cm2 )且 大於0.4者，無法以程式進行分析。而性能曲線比對結果呈現華盛頓大學試體強度有全面低估或強度異常下降的情形，國內RC柱試體大致準確，但剪力強度略為高估。而整體破壞模式比對結果顯示對撓曲破壞之判定準確，但部分剪力與撓剪破壞試體之破壞模式判定有誤。最大強度比對結果呈現華盛頓大學試體強度皆略為低估，國內RC柱試體則大致準確。降伏變位比對結果顯示所有試體之變位皆高估。
針對上述誤差，本文更新分析模型之P-Δ效應考慮方式，握裹滑移變位公式，以及撓剪破壞之判定方式，更新後模型可有效改善性能曲線強度低估與強度異常下降問題，並提升剪力破壞模式判定的準確度。唯剪力破壞模式之性能曲線仍有部分強度略為高估，部分剪力與撓剪破壞模式判定有誤。

The thesis is aimed at improving the accuracy of an analytical model for reinforced concrete (RC) columns. The model is part of a seismic assessment method called Simplified Push-Over Analysis (SPOA) used for low-rise RC and confined masonry building structures. Before the improvement was made, the model was verified with the column specimen databank of University of Washington (UW) and 13 domestic RC column specimens. The analytical and experimental capacity curves were compared and discussed. According to the comparison, the analytical model was modified. The modified model was then compared with the same specimens to verify the effect of the improvement.
In the comparison, failure mode, maximum strength, yielding displacement, and the shape of capacity curve were discussed. It was found that the analytical model cannot apply to columns with the axial load ratio ( ) higher than 0.7, or columns with the compressive strength of concrete higher than 69 MPa (700kgf/cm2) and higher than 0.4.
The comparison before improvement showed that the analytical model may misjudge the failure mode for the columns fail in flexure-shear or shear. It also under-estimated the strength for most of the specimens of the UW databank and slightly overestimated the shear strength for the domestic specimens. The comparison for yielding displacement showed obvious overestimate for all specimens.
Modifications for the P-Δeffect consideration, the formula for bond slip displacement, and the determination of flexure-shear failure were made. After the modification, the analytical model shows better accuracy in failure mode, maximum strength, and yielding displacement. The analytical capacity curves fit well with the experimental ones. However, it still slightly overestimates the shear strength.

1. 葉勇凱 等，『鋼筋混凝土建築物耐震能力詳細評估分析方法 (推垮分析)』，NCREE-09-015，國家地震工程研究中心技術報告，台北，2009。
2. 宋裕棋 等，『鋼筋混凝土建築物耐震能力評估系統SERCB』，http://sercb.dyndns.org/SERCBWeb/Default.aspx
3. 蔡克銓、黃世建、鍾立來，『校舍之耐震評估與補強講習會』，國家地震工程研究中心技術報告，NCREE-05-014，台北，2005。
4. 劉子暐， 『簡化推垮分析法驗證之研究』，碩士論文，國立成功大學，台南，2008。
5. ATC, ”Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings.” ATC-40 Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 1996.
6. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, 2011.
7. FEMA, “Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,” FEMA 356 Repost, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, 2000.
8. 鍾立來 等，『校舍結構耐震評估與補強技術手冊 第二版』，NCREE-09-23，國家地震工程研究中心技術報告，台北，2009。
9. University of Washington, ” PEER Structural Performance Database,” ( http://www.ce.washington.edu/~peera1/ ), 2003.
10. 楊智斌，『新城國中校舍實尺寸柱桿件之耐震測試研究』，碩士論文，國立台灣科技大學，台北，2005。
11. 翁樸文，『鋼筋混凝土短柱受剪破壞之耐震行為研究』，碩士論文，國立台灣科技大學，台北，2007。
12. 張旭福，『鋼筋混凝土短柱補強措施之定量研究』，碩士論文，國立成功大學建築系，台南，1993。

13. Elwood, K., “Shake Table Test and Analytical Studies on the Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frame,” Ph. D Dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 2002.
14. Sheu, M. S., “A Grid Model for Prediction of Monotonic and Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections transferring Moment,” Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1976.
15. 杜怡萱，『RC學校建築振動台試驗與耐震診斷分析研究』，博士論文，國立成功大學建築研究所，台南，2004。
16. Berry, M., Parrish, M., Eberhard, M., “Peer Structural Performance Database User’s Manual,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,Berkeley,2004.
17. 中國土木水利工程學會，『混凝土工程設計規範與解說(401-93)』，2005。
18. Eligehausen, R., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V.,”Local Bond Stress-Slip Relationship of Well-Confined Relationship of a Deformed Bar Under Generalized Excitations,”Report NO. UCB/EERC 83/23, pp.169, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley. CA.1983.
19. Hawkins, N. M., Lin, I. J., and Jeang, F. L., “Local Bond Strength of Science for Cyclic Reversed Loadings,” Bond in Concrete, Applied Science Publishers, pp. 151-161, London, UK, 1982.
20. Otani, S., and Sezen, M. A., “Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete frames durings Earthquakes,” Structure Research Series No.392, pp.551.,University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1972.
21. Alsiwat, Jaber M. and Saatcioglu, Murat, “Reinforcement Anchorage Slip under Monotonic Loading,” J. Struct. Eng. N. Y., v 118, n 9, p.2421-2438, Sep 1992.
22. Lehman, D. E., and Moehle, J. P., “Seismic Performance of Well-Confined Concrete Bridge Columns,” Report NO.PEER-1998/01, pp. 316, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 2000.
23. Sezen, Halil and Setzler, Eric J., “Reinforcement Slip in Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, v 105, n 3, p.280-289, May/June 2008.
24. AIJ, “AIJ Structural Design Guidelines for Reinforced Concrete Building,”Architectural Institute of Japan,1994.
25. Priestley, M. J., Verma, M., and Xiao, Yan, “Seismic Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering,Vol. 120, No.8, pp.2310-2329, 1994.
26. Ang, B. G., Priestley, M. J. N., and Paulay, T. “ Seismic shear strength of circular reinforced concrete columns.” ACI Struct. J., 86(1), 45-59.,1989.
27. Wong, Y. L., Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. “Response of circular reinforced concrete conlumns to multi-directional seismic attack.” ACI Struct. J., 90(2) 180-191, 1993.