簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 陳福成
Chen, Fu-cheng
論文名稱： 浚填砂土水位對動力夯實成效影響之研究
The Effects of Water Levels on Dynamic Compaction for Reclaimed Soils
指導教授： 陳景文
chen, Jing-wen
學位類別： 博士
Doctor
系所名稱： 工學院 - 土木工程學系
Department of Civil Engineering
論文出版年： 2008
畢業學年度： 96
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 195
中文關鍵詞： 數值模擬 、三軸圓錐貫入試驗 、單點夯擊試驗 、水位 、動力夯實 、錐頭阻抗 、地盤改良
外文關鍵詞： Numerical simulation, Water level, Dynamic compaction, Triaxial Cone Penetration Test (TCPT), Single-point Impact Test (SIT), Cone resistance, Soil improvement
相關次數： 點閱：110  下載：4 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 本研究利用自行研發之實驗系統與數值模擬配合實際案例，探討浚填砂土地下水位對動力夯實成效之影響。在不增加夯擊能量的情況下，預先降低地下水再進行動力夯實，土壤之有效動應力可望增加，進而增加改良深度，亦可縮短等待超額孔隙水壓消散的時間，以縮短工期。本研究因此研發室內控制排水條件之單點夯擊試驗及自動圓錐貫入儀，探討浚填砂土在不同水位及排水條件下，受夯擊後之改良成效與孔隙水壓消散速率並與現地消散試驗比較。此外，亦設計實驗探討單點夯擊試體之邊界效應。
    同時，本研究研發三軸圓錐貫入試驗(Triaxial Cone Penetration Test, TCPT)來模擬現場在降低水位夯擊改良後，水位回升是否影響其改良強度。TCPT更與傳統反覆三軸試驗(Cyclic Triaxial Test, CTT)進行關聯性試驗，發現正規化三軸貫入阻抗尖峰值與抗液化反覆剪應力比之間，有良好之關聯性。接著利用數值方法模擬實際案例進行分析，探討地下水位對動力夯實成效之影響。
    實驗結果發現，無水位試體之改良成效均大於含水位試體，又低水位試體之改良成效均大於高水位試體。從高水位降低至低水位時，夯擊後雖然有效動應力僅增加約5 %，但其貫入阻抗卻可增加超過50 %。從探討整體性成效之改良率(Improvement ratio) 與貫入功 (Penetration work) 顯示，無水位或低水位試體之整體成效最佳，且最大改良率大都發生在水位以上。單擊試驗所得到之超額孔隙水壓消散速率約為現地試驗之300~1000倍，應與尺度及排水條件相關。而消散速率隨著開孔率增加而增加，隨著水位降低而減小。高水位時，除了不排水條件外，其它開孔率試體夯擊後之錐頭阻抗分佈與完全排水條件者相近，而低水位時，不論排水條件為何，其錐頭阻抗普遍增高與乾土試體者相近。數值模擬現場結果亦顯示在低地下水位時夯擊之優越成效。地下水位從地下3 m降低至地下6 m 以下再夯擊，其土層有效動應力最大可增加50 % 以上。顯見預先降水動力夯實工法值得進一步研究發展，同時提供大地工程師在面對日益嚴苛的基礎耐震設計規範時，多了一種經濟有效的地盤改良工法替代方案。

    Through the self-developed experimental system and testing program as well as the numerical technique on the filed practice, the study presents the effects of water level on Dynamic Compaction (DC) for reclaimed soils. Instead of increasing applied energy of DC, the dynamic compaction under a pre-lowered groundwater table would increases the effective dynamic stresses on the soil mass which leads to a deeper improved depth; and the excess pore pressure is also reduced which could shorten the waiting period and construction period. Hence, Single-point Impact Test (SIT) and Automatic Cone Penetrometer (ACP) were developed to perform the dynamic impacts under different water levels and drained conditions to evaluate the improvement effectiveness and dissipation rate. Besides, the boundary effect in the SIT was also investigated and discussed through a developed test set-up.
    Meanwhile, the normalized cone resistance in dry and saturated soils under certain effective confining pressure were performed by the developed Triaxial Cone Penetration Test (TCPT) to investigate if any difference exists between before and after recovery of groundwater level. Besides, a series of correlation tests between TCPT and Cyclic Triaxial Test (CTT) were performed and resulted in a well correlation. The numerical technique was also adopted to simulate the field practice and to figure out the effects of groundwater level on the performance of dynamic compaction.
    The test results indicate that after impacts, the effectiveness of dry soils is greater than that of soils with water levels; and the effectiveness of soils with lower water level are better than that with higher water levels. When the water level is lowed from high level to low level, it is found that after impacts, a minor increment of effective dynamic stresses with 5 % in average can increase a great amount of cone resistance over 50 % in average. Through the evaluations on Improvement Ratio and Penetration Work, the dry soils or soils with low water level demonstrated their best performance than others with water levels. In addition, the maximum values of Improvement Ratios are mostly found at dry soils above the water levels. The dissipation rates of excess pore pressures measured in SIT are 300 to 1000 times of that measured in field pilot test which might be attributed to the scale effect and different drained conditions. The dissipation rate increased with the raising of opening ratio and decreased with the lowering of water level. At high water level, the post-impacted cone resistances of soils in partial drained conditions are close to that in full drained condition; while at low water level, all the post-impacted cone resistances of soils are close to that of dry soils in spite of their drained conditions. In numerical simulation, the superiority of dynamic compaction under lower groundwater table is verified. It is indicated that the effective dynamic stress induced by impact can be increased over 50 % as the groundwater table is lowered from -3 m to -6 m. The Pre-dewatering DC, therefore, proves worthwhile for a further development and provides the geotechnical engineer a cost-effective alternative on the soil improvement when facing the progressively severer regulation in seismic design for foundation.

    Abstract in Chinese I Abstract III Acknowledgement V Contents VII List of Tables XI List of Figures XII List of Photos XVI Notations XVII Chapter 1 Introduction 20 1.1 Background and Motivation 20 1.2 Research Objectives and Procedure 24 1.3 Achievement Overview 25 1.4 Outline of Dissertation 26 Chapter 2 Relevant Theory and Literatures Review 28 2.1 Pre-dewatering Dynamic Compaction 28 2.1.1 Groundwater Table and Ground Vibration 28 2.1.2 Waiting Period and Construction Period 29 2.1.3 Effective Energy and Depth of Improvement 31 2.1.4 Water Source for HSE Management 31 2.1.5 Limitation to Pre-dewatering DC method 31 2.2 Dynamic Compaction Review 32 2.2.1 History of Dynamic Compaction 32 2.2.2 Propagation of Dynamic Stresses 33 2.2.3 Construction Procedure for DC 35 2.2.4 Single Impact Energy 35 2.2.5 Effective Depth of Improvement 37 2.2.6 Waiting Period 39 2.2.7 Groundwater Table 39 2.2.8 Stresses in Soils under Dynamic Loading 40 2.3 Cone Resistance in the soils 45 2.3.1 Correction Factor for Effective Confining Pressure 45 2.3.2 Used for Soil Classification and Characterization 47 2.3.3 Used for Evaluate Liquefaction Resistance of Soils 48 2.4 Cyclic Triaxial Test for Liquefaction Resistance 51 2.5 Numerical Simulation 54 Chapter 3 Single-point Impact System 56 3.1 Introduction 56 3.2 Single-point Impact Test (SIT) 57 3.2.1 Capillary Rise of Reclaimed Soils 57 3.2.2 Introduction to SIT 65 3.2.3 Instrumentation 70 3.2.4 Impact Equipment 72 3.3 Automatic Cone Penetrometer (ACP) 72 3.3.1 Introduction 72 3.3.2 Major Components and Capacity 74 3.3.3 Calibrations 74 3.4 Boundary Effects of Soil Column 77 3.5 Limitations of Test Setup 80 3.6 Data Acquisition System 80 3.7 Experiment Program 82 3.7.1 Soil Properties and Preparation of Soil Column 82 3.7.2 Test Procedures 86 3.7.3 Test Conditions 86 3.8 Interpretation for Results of SIT 89 3.8.1 Impact-induced Pore Pressures 89 3.8.2 Effective Dynamic Stresses 99 3.8.3 Cone Resistance and Improvement Ratio 100 3.8.3 Penetration Work 105 Chapter 4 Triaxial Cone Penetration Test 108 4.1 Introduction 108 4.2 Major Components and Concerns 110 4.3 Test Equipment and Data Acquisition 113 4.4 TCPT for Water Level Recovery 114 4.4.1 Simulation Tests 114 4.4.2 Modified Cone Resistances 115 4.5 Correlations with Liquefaction Resistance of Reclaimed Soils 117 4.5.1 Experiment Execution 118 4.5.2 Interpretation for Test Results 122 4.5.3 Correlation between and (CSR)Nc=15 126 4.6 Conclusive Remarks 130 Chapter 5 Numerical Simulations Using Program FLAC 131 5.1 Introduction 131 5.2 FLAC 2D Program 132 5.2.1 General Introduction 132 5.2.2 Large Deformation in Simulation on Dynamic Impacts 133 5.3 Model building 134 5.3.1 Analytical Model and Meshes 134 5.3.2 Boundary Conditions and Monitoring Configuration 134 5.4 Soil Parameters and Field Measurement 136 5.5 Dynamic Contact Pressure and Contact Time 138 5.6 Interpretation for Simulation Results 141 5.6.1 Depth of Crater 141 5.6.2 Impact-induced Pore Pressures 143 5.6.3 Effective Dynamic Stresses 147 5.6.4 Effects of Groundwater Table 154 5.6.5 Conclusive Remarks 155 Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 160 6.1 Conclusions 160 6.2 Recommendations 163 References 165 Appendix A Technical Specifications of Sensors 174 A-1 Sensors for Single-point Impact Test (SIT) 175 A-2 Sensors for Automatic Cone Penetrometer (ACP) 182 A-3 Sensors for Triaxial Cone Penetration Test (TCPT) 184 Appendix B Technical Specifications for Data Acquisition System 188 Author Information 194

    1. Baldi, G.., Bellotti, R., Ghionna, V., Jimiokowski, M., and Pasqualini, E. (1981) “Cone
    Resistance of a Dry Medium Sand,” Proceedings of the 10th International Conference
    on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Sweden, Vol. 2, pp. 427-432.
    2. Cai, Y. Q., Chen, R. W. and Xu, C. J. (2005) “Numerical analysis of dynamic
    compaction using large deformation theory,” Journal of Zhejiang University
    (Engineering Science), Vol. 39(1), pp. 65-69.
    3. Castro, G. (1975) “Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility of Sands,” Journal of the
    Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101 (GT6), pp. 551-569.
    4. Chan, K. C. (1981) “An Electropneumatic Cyclic Loading System,” Geotecnical
    Testing Journal, ASTM, Vol. 4 (4), pp.183-187.
    5. Chang, C. P. (2005) “A Study on Simulation of Dynamic Compaction Using Numerical
    Method,” Master Thesis, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan.
    6. Chang, H. W., Wen, N. T. and Lee, R. T. (1999) “The attenuation effects of wave in
    sandy soils during impacts,” Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference on
    Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, pp. 354-361.
    7. Chen, F. C., Chen, J. W., Lin, P. C. and Lee, W. F. (2007) “An Evaluation for
    Effectiveness of Pre-dewatering on the Dynamic Compaction,” Proceedings of the 6th
    Cross-strait Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Tanjin, pp. 288-288.
    8. Chen, F. C., Tseng, T. J., Chen, J.W. (2007) “A Case Study and New Concept of SoilImprovement Techniques on Reclaimed Land,” Proceedings of the 17th International
    Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Lisbon, pp. 1282-1286.
    9. Chen, J. W and Chen, F.C. (2008) “The Penetration Experiment to Predict Liquefaction
    Resistance of Reclaimed Soils,” Ocean Engineering, Vol. 35/3-4, pp. 380-392. (SCI)
    10. Chen, J. W., Chen, F. C., Huang, C. S., Chen, C. C. and Hsieh, B. J. (2007) “The
    Penetration Experiment to Predict Liquefaction Resistance of Reclaimed Soils,”
    Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Current Researches in Geotechnical Engineering
    in Taiwan, pp.B3-10-01～B3-10-07.
    11. Chen, J.W., Chen, F. C. and Chen, C. C. (2007) “Liquefaction Resistance of Reclaimed
    Soils through Triaxial Tests,” Proceedings of the 29th Ocean Engineering Conference in
    Taiwan, pp. 691~696.
    12. Chen, J. W. and Liao, J. M. (1996) “A study on Engineering Properties of Reclaimed
    Land improved by Dynamic Compaction,” Proceedings of the 18th Ocean Engineering
    Conference in Taiwan, pp. 748~757.
    13. Chen, J. W. and Liao, J. M. (1996) “A study on Soil Improvement on Sandy Layer by
    Dynamic Compaction,” Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Theoretical
    and Applied Mechanics, Taiwan, Vol. 2, pp. 508-514.
    14. Chen, J.W., Liao J.M., Tsai, H.C. (1998) “The Analysis of Stress under Larger Scale
    Compaction Test in Sand Layer,” Proceedings of the 22nd National Conference of
    Mechanical Engineering, Taiwan, Vol. 2, pp. 263-270.
    15. Cheng, C. Y., Wang, C. C., Hsieh, B. J., Chen, Y. L. and Lu Y. C. (1999) “A Study ofDynamic Compaction Efficiency,” Proceedings of 8th Conference on Current
    Researches in Geotechnical Engineering in Taiwan, pp.1294-1307.
    16. Chu, J. C. and Lu, X. (2004) “Analysis of the Properties of DCM by dynamic FEM,”
    Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 26(4), pp. 561-564.
    17. Chuang, C. H., Lin, Y. T. and Su, P. C. (2005) “A case study on Environmental
    Influence induced by Construction of Dynamic Compaction,” Proceedings of the 11th
    Conference on Current Researches in Geotechnical Engineering in Taiwan, pp.
    I04-1-I04-6.
    18. Das, B. M., (1998) Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, 4th edition, PWS
    Publishing Company.
    19. DeAlba, P., Chan, C. K., Seed, H. B. (1975) “Determination of Soil Liquefaction
    Characteristics by Large-scale Laboratory Tests,” Report No. EERC 75-14, Earthquake
    Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
    20. Ding, Z. Z. and Zheng, Y. R. (2002) “Numerical Simulation on Saturated Cohesive
    Ground by Heavy Tamping Method,” Underground Space, Vol. 22(2), pp. 137-141.
    21. Fan, W. Y., Shi, M. Y. and Cho, Y. H. (1980) “Several issues on Heavy Tamping on
    foundation improvement,” Proceedings of Conference on soil improvement, Beijing,
    pp. 7-15.
    22. Finn, W.D.L., Pickering, D.J., and Bransby, P.L., (1971) “Sand Liquefaction in Triaxial
    and Simple Shear Test,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
    ASCE, Vol. 97 (SM4), pp. 639-659.23. Hansbo, S., (1978) “Dynamic Consolidation of Soils by a Falling Weight,” Ground
    Engineering, Vol. 11(5), pp. 27-36.
    24. Itasca Consulting Group, (1999) User’s Manuals of Fast Lagrangian Analysis of
    Continua, Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. Vol. I, II, III, IV.
    25. Japan Architecture Association (1988), Recommendation for the Design of Building
    Foundations, Japan, Page 146.
    26. Japan Railway Association, JRA (1996), Specifications for Highway Bridges and
    Commentary, Part V: Seismic Design.
    27. Jessberger, H. L. and Beine, R. A. (1981) “Heavy Tamping: Theoretical and Practical
    Concepts,” Proceedings of the 10th ICSMFE, Sweden, Vol. 3, pp. 695-699.
    28. Jiang, P., Li, R. Q. and Kong, D. F. (2000) “Numerical Analysis of Large Deformation
    Impact and Collision Properties during Dynamic Compaction,” Chinese Journal of
    Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 20(2), pp. 222-226.
    29. Kong L. W. and Yuan J. X. (1998) “Study on Surface Contact Stress and Settlement
    Properties during Dynamic Consolidation,” Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
    Engineering, Vol. 20(2), pp. 86-92.
    30. Lee, C. C., Chen, F. C., Chen, J. W. and Lee, W. F. (2007) “Experiment and Simulation
    of Dynamic Impacts on Reclaimed Soils,” Proceedings of 2007 Conference on
    Computer Applications in Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Tamkang University,
    Taiwan, pp. 781-786.31. Leonards, G. A., Cutter, W. A., and Holtz, R. D., (1980). “Dynamic Compaction of
    Granular Soils,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
    106(GT1), pp. 35-44.
    32. Li, B. P. (1993) “Finite Element Method Analysis of the Mechanism of Dynamic
    Compaction,” Master Thesis of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou.
    33. Li, B. P., (2005) “Numerical Analysis on Pore Pressure of Clay under Shock Load”,
    Explosion and Shock Waves, No.25 (3), pp. 281-284.
    34. Liao, J. M. (1999) “Stress Distribution of Sand Stratum during Dynamic Compaction,”
    Ph.D. Dissertation, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan.
    35. Lin, H. W. and Chang H. W. (1996) “Improvement effects and mechanical mechanism
    of dynamic consolidation method,” Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on
    Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Taiwan, Vol. 2, pp. 337-344.
    36. Lukas, R.G. (1995). Dynamic Compaction, Federal Highway Administration,
    Publication No. FHEW-SA-95-037.
    37. Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M. (1997) Cone Penetration Testing in
    Geotechnical Practice, Taylor & Francis.
    38. Mackiewicz, S. and Camp, W. (2007) “Improving Soil Density. Study Evaluates the
    Effectiveness of Three Ground-Improvement Methods,” CE News, Vol. 19(2), TRIS
    Online.
    39. Massarsch, K. R. (1999) “Deep compaction of granular soils,” International LectureSeries on Geotechnical Engineering and Its Development in the 21st Century, Zhejiang
    University, Hangzhou.
    40. Mayne, P. W. and Jones, J. S. (1984) "Impact Stresses during Dynamic Compaction,”
    Geotechnique, Vol. 109(10), pp. 1342-1346.
    41. Mayne, P. W., Jones, J. S. and Dumas, J. C. (1984) “Ground Response to Dynamic
    Compaction, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,” Vol. 110(6), pp. 757-774.
    42. Menard, L. and Broise, Y. (1975) “Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Dynamic
    Consolidation,” Geotechnique, Vol. 25 (1), pp. 3-18.
    43. Ministry of the Interior (MOI), (2005) Seismic Design Code of Building, Taiwan.
    44. Mitchell, J. K. (1984) “Soil Improvement－State-of-the-Art-Report,”Proceedings of
    the 10th ICSMFE, Sweden, Vol. 4, pp. 509-521.
    45. MOI (Ministry of the Interior) (2005), Seismic Design Code for Building , Taiwan.
    46. Ni, S. H. (2000) “Investigations on Soil Liquefaction Areas in Central Taiwan during
    921 Chi-Chi Earthquake,” Research report of National Center for Research on
    Earthquake Engineering, NCREE-00-015, Taiwan.
    47. Olsen, R. S., (1997) “Cyclic Liquefaction Based on the Cone Penetrometer Test,”
    Proceedings of NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
    Technical report: NCEER-97-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering
    Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, pp. 225-276.
    48. Pan, James and Hwang, Z. M. (1995) “Soil Densification by Dynamic Consolidationfor Formosa Heavy Industries Corp., Formosa Plastic Group,” Sino-Geotechnics, No.
    51, pp. 35-50.
    49. Resources Engineering Services Inc. (RESI), (2000).” The Final Report of Additional
    Ground Investigation Project for CAPCO No.6 PTA Plant,” Taiwan.
    50. Resources Engineering Services Inc. (RESI), (2006)”Pilot Test Report of Dynamic
    Compaction on S/R Foundation of Conveyer System for DSC,” pp. 18-25, Taiwan.
    51. Robertson, P. K. and Campanella, R.G. (1983) "SPT-CPT correlations", Journal of the
    Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 109(10), pp. 1449-1459.
    52. Robertson, P. K. and Campanella, R.G. (1985) “Liquefaction Potential of Sands using
    the CPT,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111(3), pp. 384-403.
    53. Robertson, P. K. and Wride, C. E. (1997) “Cyclic Liquefaction and Its Evaluation
    Based on the SPT and CPT,” Proceeding of NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of
    Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical report: NCEER-97-0022, National Center
    for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, pp.
    41-87.
    54. Robertson, P. K., and Wride, C. E., (1998) “Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential
    Using the Cone Penetration Test,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.35, pp. 442-459.
    55. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M. (1971) “Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil
    Liquefaction Potential,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE,
    Vol. 97(SM9), pp. 1249-1273.56. Seed, H. B. (1976) “Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction Effects on Level Ground during
    Earthquakes,” Liquefaction Problems in Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE National
    Convention, Philadelphia, pp. 1-104.
    57. Seed, H. B., Idriss, I. M. and Arango, I., (1983) “Evaluation of Soil Liquefaction
    Potential Using Field Performance Data,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
    Division, ASCE, Vol. 109(3), pp. 458-482.
    58. Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F. and Chung, R. M. (1985) “The Influence of
    SPT Procedure in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluation,” Journal of Geotechnical
    Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 111(12), pp.1425-1445.
    59. Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y. (1983) “Empirical Correlation of Soil Liquefaction
    Based on SPT N-value and Fines Content,” Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 23(4),
    pp. 56-74.
    60. Wang, Q. P., Xie, N. G.. and Shi, X. L.(2004) “Fluid-solid Dynamic Coupling Analysis
    of Foundation Soil during Large Deformation by Dynamic consolidation,” Journal of
    University of Science Technology Beijing, Vol. 26(4), pp. 345-348.
    61. Wei, David (1997) “Study on Stress Distribution of Sand under Dynamic Compaction,”
    Master Thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan.
    62. Wetzel, R. A. and Vey, E. (1970) “Axis-symmetric Stress Wave Propagation in Sand,”
    Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 96(SM5), pp.
    1763-1786.
    63. Wiss, J. F., (1981). “Construction Vibrations: State-of-the-Art,” Journal of theGeotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings of the ASCE, Vol. 107(GT2), pp.
    167-182.
    64. Woods, R. D., (1968) “Screen of Surface Waves in Soils,” Journal of the Soil
    Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 94(SM4), pp. 951-979.
    65. Wu M. B. and Wang Z. Q. (1989) “Numerical analysis of the mechanism of dynamic
    compaction,” Engineering Investigation, Vol. 3, pp. 1-5.
    66. Xu C., Li J. S. and Zhao C. F. (2004) “ Effects of Pre-compaction and Dewatering on
    Dynamic Consolidation of Soft Subsoil,” Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
    Vol. 26(5), pp. 607-611.
    67. Yamada Masatoshi (1982) “Dynamic Consolidation Method,” Lecture material issued
    in Conference on Present Situation and Development of Soil Improvement for Soft
    Ground, Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp. 89-97.
    68. Yang, Y. S. (2002) “Study on the Dynamic Compaction Method Characteristics of
    Hydraulic Landfilled at Offshore Industrial Zone in Yu-Lin,” Master thesis of National
    Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
    69. Zhou, J., Zhang, S. F., Jia, M.C. and Wang, G.Y. (2006) “Theoretic Research Situation
    and Latest Technical Progress of Dynamic Consolidation Method,” Chinese Journal of
    Underground Space and Engineering, Vol. 2(3), pp. 510-516.

    下載圖示 校內：2010-02-13公開
    校外：2010-02-13公開
    QR CODE