| 研究生: |
施忠賢 Shih, Chung-Hsien |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱: |
具拱形開口磚牆在水平返覆加載下之實驗研究 Experimental Study of Masonry Wall with Arch Opening under Horizontally Cyclic Loading |
| 指導教授: |
張嘉祥
Chang, Ja-Hsian |
| 學位類別: |
博士 Doctor |
| 系所名稱: |
規劃與設計學院 - 建築學系 Department of Architecture |
| 論文出版年: | 2011 |
| 畢業學年度: | 99 |
| 語文別: | 中文 |
| 論文頁數: | 208 |
| 中文關鍵詞: | 歷史建築 、砌體 、具拱開口牆體 、補強 、層間位移角 |
| 外文關鍵詞: | Historic Building, Masonry, Brick Arch, Strengthen, Drift Angle |
| 相關次數: | 點閱:127 下載:9 |
| 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 |
本研究以實驗來探討磚造歷史建築中,具拱開口牆體在水平返覆加載下之完整結構行為以及不同補強工法之效益。試體包括三道無補強不同軸壓之單拱試體(WU1、WU2及WU3)、一道中軸壓雙連拱試體(WU4)及四道不同補強工法之單拱試體(WS1~WS4)。WU1及WU2損壞後並進行拱下緣嵌扁型不銹鋼補強試驗(WR1、WR2)以研究損壞後補強效果。單拱試體尺寸為239cm×203cm (寬×高),雙連拱試體尺寸為251cm×203cm (寬×高),厚度均為1B厚。實驗過程採油壓傳動器衝程位移控制。實驗結果顯示無補強試體約在2/1000層間位移角時拱肩產生起始裂縫。另加軸壓之試體,可提昇其起始開裂強度及極限加載,且強度隨軸壓加大而加大。四種補強工法中,拱下緣嵌扁型不銹鋼之試體WS1在水平耐力提昇以及延緩中度破壞之發生,均較其他三種工法顯著。綜合實驗結果,本研究建議歷史建築結構評估時,針對低中軸壓拱開口磚牆,可以層間位移角2/1000做為起始破壞點,4/1000為性能極限點,高軸壓拱開口磚牆則可以3.5/1000作為性能極限點。在試體實驗之外,本研究以SAP2000程式模擬不同位置及長度之裂縫發展,進行非線性分析,以探討實際拱開口磚牆受地震力作用時之裂縫發展及破壞機制。此外,並以簡化模式推導拱開口牆體之水平耐力估算,此估算與試體極限加載相較,在具拱形開口牆體受低、中軸壓作用時,其差值在6%以內,受高軸壓作用時,其差值在9%以內,可應用於實際具拱形開口磚造建築物之耐力評估及補強設計。
In this study, the structural behavior and the effect of different strengthening method for historic masonry walls with arch openings under horizontally cyclic loading are investigated by experiment. There are three un-strengthened single arch specimens (WU1, WU2 and WU3) loaded under different additional vertical loads. One un-strengthened double arch specimen is loaded under medium vertical load. For the other four strengthened single arch specimens (WS1~WS4), different wall strengthening methods are employed. Specimen WR1 and WR2 are the retrofitted specimens of WU1 and WU2 which are imbedded steel straps into arch intrados for studing the effect of post damage retrofit. All single arch specimens are manufactured in the size of 239cm×203cm (W×H), and the size of double arch specimen is 251cm×203cm (W×H). The experimental system is controlled by the input stroke of actuator. Results obtained from the three un-strengthened specimens show the initial crack occurred at a drift angle of approximately 2/1000. Furthermore, the initial crack strength and ultimate load of specimens with additional vertical load increase as the vertical load increase. A comparison of the four strengthened specimens reveals that the method (steel straps imbedded into arch intrados) used to strengthen specimen WS1 is the most effective in increasing the ultimate load as well as delaying the occurrence of medium damage. Based on the test results, we suggest that drift angle 2/1000 could be assigned as the initial damage point, and drift angle 4/1000 could be the ultimate performance point for assessment of historic building sustained low or medium bearing, while the ultimate performance point is drift angle 3.5/1000 for the assessment of historic building sustained high bearing. In this study, in addition to the specimen test, a method for evaluating the ultimate load of a brick wall with arch opening has been developed from a simplified model. Comparing the ultimate load evaluated and that obtained from test specimens, the difference is less than 6% for low or medium bearing and less than 9% for high bearing. This simplified model is suitable for assessment of historic building with arch opening.
1. 王貞富(2002)《磚造歷史建築物震害及耐震評估研究》,國立成功大學建築研究所博士論文。
2. 王貞富,張嘉祥(2002)〈磚牆灰縫剪力強度及面內力作用下牆體破壞行為實驗探討〉《建築學報》,第41期 : 93-106。
3. 內政部營建署(2006) 《建築物耐震設計規範及解說》,內政部營建署營建雜誌社。
4. 內政部營建署(2008)《建築物磚構造設計及施工規範》,內政部營建署營建雜誌社。
5. 內政部營建署(2011)《混凝土結構設計規範》,內政部營建署營建雜誌社。
6. 中華民國國家標準(1959)《CNS1127 R3042 建築用普通磚檢驗法》(已廢除),經濟部標準檢驗局。
7. 中華民國國家標準(1993)《CNS1010 R3032 水硬性水泥墁料抗壓強度檢驗法》,經濟部標準檢驗局。
8. 中華民國國家標準(2007)《CNS382 R2002 普通磚》,經濟部標準檢驗局。
9. 林武壯(2009)《低降伏鋼應用於歷史建築清水磚拱修復補強之實驗研究》,國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
10. 林裕鈞(2007)《歷史建築清水磚牆受面外力作用下之結構行為與補強研究》,國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
11. 林耀宗(2005)《磚造歷史建築牆體結構行為研究》,國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
12. 施忠賢,張嘉祥(2008) 〈古蹟建築磚砌牆體現地面外加載試驗及評估應用-以兩個磚造古蹟為例〉《文化資產保存學刊》,第3期 : 27-40。
13. 施楚賢,徐建,劉桂秋(2003) 《砌體結構設計與計算》,中國建築工業出版社。
14. 胡復凱(2011)《磚造歷史建築壁體面外行為及評估探討》,國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
15. 徐明福,黃斌,張嘉祥,侯平君,曾憲嫻,吳玉成(2008) 《國定古蹟「原日軍台灣步兵第二聯隊營舍」調查研究暨修復計畫》,成大研究發展基金會。
16. 高小旺, 王金妹, 王菁(1996) 〈典型磚砌體房屋震害預測方法〉《建築結構》,第7期: 3-7, 41。
17. 陳明生(1994) 《紅磚、砂漿與其介面之基本力學性質研究》,國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
18. 陳拓男,張嘉祥,陳嘉基(2004) 〈歷史建築磚牆施加鋼網補強之實驗研究〉《第16屆建築研究成果發表會論文集》,中華民國建築學會。
19. 陳拓男,張嘉祥(2009)〈磚牆在面內水平加載下之位移推估及其耐震評估應用〉《建築學報》,第68 期增刊(技術專刊) : 15-34。
20. 陳拓男,張嘉祥,謝鎮宇(2009) 〈清水磚牆貼附鋼絲網補強在水平加載下之分析計算及實驗比較〉《建築學報》,第70 期增刊(技術專刊) : 1-20。
21. 陳奕信,許茂雄,劉宜珮(2002) 〈RC構架內砌磚牆承受面內水平載重之強度與剛度分析〉《建築學報》,第41期 : 129-153。
22. 陳奕信(2003)《含磚牆RC建築結構之耐震診斷》,國立成功大學建築研究所博士論文。
23. 陳清泉,高健章,蔡益超,陳國顯(1984)《紅磚與磚牆力學特性之研究試驗》,國立台灣大學工學院地震工程研究中心。
24. 曾凱瀚(1994)《磚墩與磚牆基本力學性質試驗研究》,國立成功大學建築研究所碩士論文。
25. 黃斌(2005)《國定古蹟原台南測候所修復工程工作報告書》,成大研究發展基金會。
26. 張義震(2005)《歷史建築台中州廳修復工程設計書圖》,張義震建築師事務所。
27. 張嘉祥,林裕鈞,胡復凱(2010)《廣間型磚造歷史建築壁體面外行為及評估探討研究成果報告》,行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告NSC 98-2221-E-006-206。
28. 張嘉祥,陳嘉基,蘇彥豪(2002) 〈建築物連牆出入口地震力破壞實驗探討〉《第14屆建築研究成果發表會論文集》,中華民國建築學會。
29. 韓興興(2007)《台南市市定古蹟原台南縣知事官邸第二期修復工程設計書圖》,韓興興建築師事務所。
30. ASTM(2009)《ASTM C952-02 Standard Test Method for Bond Strength of Mortar to Masonry Units》.
31. Chen, Y., A.F. Ashour, S.W. Garrity(2006)Modified four-hinge mechanism analysis for masonry arches strengthened with near-surface reinforcement, Engineering Structures, 29(8) : 1864-1871.
32. CSI (2010) Analysis Reference Manual For SAP2000, ETABS, and SAFE, ISO# GEN062708M1 Rev.2, Berkeley, California, USA, Computers and Structures, Inc.
33. De Luca, A., A. Giordano, and E. Mele (2004) A simplified procedure for assessing the seismic capacity of masonry arches, Engineering Structures, 26: 1915-29.
34. Giordano, A., E. Mele, and A. De Luca (2002)Modelling of historical masonry structures: comparison of different approaches through a case study, Engineering Structures, 24(8):1057-69.
35. Heyman, J. (1969) The safety of masonry arches. International Journal of Mechanical Science, 11:363-85
36. Heyman, J. (1982) The Masonry Arch, Ellis Horwood Ltd., New York.
37. Loo, Y., and Y. Yang(1991)Cracking and Failure Analysis of Masonry Arch Bridges, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.117, No.6 : 1641-1659.
38. Melbourne, C. and P. Walker(1990) Load Test to Collapse on a Full Scale Model Six Metre Span Brick Arch Bridge, Contractor Report 189, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of Transport, U.K.
39. Oliveira, D. V., I. Basilio, and P. B. Louren(2010) Experimental Behavior of FRP Strengthened Masonry Arches, J. of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 14(3):312-322.
40. Stepanek, P., M. Zlamal, and M. Filip (2006) Masonry structures with and additional reinforcement, 10th Int’l Conference on Inspection, Appraisal, Repairs & Maintenance of Structures, 371-378.
41. Triantafillou, T. C. (1998a). Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded FRP laminates. J. Compos. for Constr., ASCE, 2(2),96–104.
42. Triantafillou, T. C. (1998b). Strengthening of masonry structures using epoxy-bonded FRP laminates. Errata. J. Compos. for Constr., ASCE,2(4), 203.
43. Valluzzi, M. R., M. Valdemarca, and C. Modena (2001). Behavior of Brick Masonry Vaults Strengthened by FRP Laminates, J. of Composites for Construction, ASCE, 5(3):163-169.
44. Wallfast Ltd. (1999). Repairing Brick Arch Structures, Beam End Fixing. ©1999 Tri-Bar Systems. Wallfast Ltd. Available at: http://www.wallfast.co.uk/pdf/TB18.pdf. Accessed 26 July 2011.
45. Wykamol Group (2010). Repair of Failed Brick Arch Lintels using Thor Heliforces Bars and Grout Ties. ©2010-2011 Wykamol Group. Available at: http://thorremedial.com/lintel-reinforcement/applications.html. Accessed 26 July 2011.