台灣離岸風場開發已有時日，但現階段仍多參考國外工程案例及半經驗公式進行相關規劃，且針對目前台灣西部近海海床土壤參數之大量數據成果，尚未擁有完整之資料庫，因此本研究透過收集台灣各離岸風場之環境影響評估報告、海床土壤調查報告、紀實報告(Factual Report)及地質詮釋報告(Ground Interpretation Report)等資料，彙整大量地工參數數據如單位重γ、細粒料含量FC、液性限度LL、塑性限度PL、SPT-N值、錐尖阻抗qc、袖套摩擦fs、孔隙水壓u2等，且依循不同種類之參數，求取各自常見之統計值，如資料總數、平均值、存在範圍區間等，建立屬於我國西部離岸風場海床土壤之地工設計參數資料庫，以提供設計單位快速瞭解台灣西部海床土壤基本特性。
此外，由於我國彰化近海離岸風場土壤剖面多為互層排列，土壤特性及地工設計參數變異性極高。依據中華民國國家標準(CNS 12387-1988)之建議，台灣陸域工程進行土壤種類判斷時，依據美國統一土壤分類法(unified soil classification system , USCS)進行判別。而目前離岸風場現地調查主要採用圓錐貫入試驗(Cone Penetration Test, CPT)，另搭配土壤鑽孔全取樣室內試驗成果，製作土壤地質詮釋報告(Geotechnical Investigation Report)，但由於以CPT進行土壤分類時多未進行取樣，其判別土壤種類成果可能與依循物性試驗進行之統一土壤分類法分類成果不同，進而造成給定設計土層之地工參數之誤差。
因此本研究為確認CPT土壤分類法與統一土壤分類法之判別成果差異性，藉由參考本研究建立之我國西部離岸風場海床土壤地工設計參數資料庫，並透過台電一期風場為分析目標，進行詳細之物性試驗成果比對，釐清CPT土壤分類法於台灣西部近海離岸風場之適用性，再依實際之台電風場設計為例，經由實際計算基樁軸向承載力、地盤反應分析、土壤液化潛勢評估等常見之工程應用，探討地工設計參數不確定性對離岸風場基礎設計之影響。

Due to the high variability of soil properties and geotechnical design parameters of offshore wind farms in Changhua, Taiwan, and the soil geological interpretation report was made by the current site investigations of offshore wind farms mainly use the Cone Penetration Test (CPT), combined with the results of the borehole sampling indoor test.And because most samples were not taken when CPT was used for soil classification,the results of soil classification may be different from the classification results of the unified soil classification method recommended by the Republic of China National Standard (CNS 12387-1988),which causes errors in design soil geotechnical parameters of the soil layer.
Therefore,in order to confirm the difference between the CPT soil classification method and the unified soil classification method,this study uses the seabed soil geotechnical design parameter database of the offshore wind farm in western Taiwan, and used the phase 1 of Taiwan power company offshore wind farm as the analysis target.Carry out physical test results comparison to clarify the applicability of the CPT soil classification method to offshore wind farms in western Taiwan, and then according to the data of the phase 1 of Taiwan power company offshore wind farm,common engineering applications such as calculation of the axial piles capacity,site-specific ground response analysis, and evaluation of soil liquefaction potential, explore the influence of the uncertainty of geotechnical design parameters on the foundation design of offshore wind farms.

參考文獻
1. ASTM D6528-07(2011). “Standard Test Method for Consolidated Undrained Direct Simple Shear Testing of Cohesive Soils,” ASTM Compass.
2. ASTM D1586-11 (2011). “Standard test method for standard penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel sampling of soils,” ASTM Compass.
3. ASTM D-2487-11(2011).“Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes.(Unified Soil Classification System)” ASTM Compass.
4. ASTM D5311M-13 (2013). “Standard for load controlled cyclic triaxial strength of soil,” ASTM Compass.
5. ASTM D1587 (2015). “Standard Practice for Thin-Walled Tube Sampling of Fine-Grained Soils for Geotechnical Purposes,” ASTM Compass.
6. ASTM D3441 (2016). “Standard test method for mechanical cone penetration testing of soils,” ASTM Compass.
7. ASTM D2166-17(2016). “Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil,” ASTM Compass.
8. ASTM D6913M-17(2017).“Partical Size Distribution(sieve),”ASTM Compass.
9. ASTM D7928-17(2017).“Partical Size Distribution(hydrometer),”ASTM Compass.
10. ASTM D4318-17(2018).“Standard Test Methods for LL PL and PI of soils,”ASTM Compass.
11. ASTM D5778.23108 (2020). “Standard Test Method for Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils,” ASTM Compass.
12. ASTM D4767 (2020). “Standard Test Method for Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test for Cohesive Soils,” ASTM Compass.
13. ASTM D7181-20 (2020). “Standard Test Method for Consolidated Drained Triaxial Compression Test for Soils,” ASTM Compass.
14. BSH(2014). “Standard Ground Investigations-Minimum requirements for geotechnical surveys and investigations into offshore wind energy structures, offshore stations and power cables.”
15. BSH (2015). “Standard Design Minimum requirements concerning the constructive design of offshore structures within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).”
16. DNVGL-RP-C207 (2017). “Statistical representation of soil data.”
17. ISO 18512-2007(2016). “Soil quality — Guidance on long and short term storage of soil samples,”
18. Ben He, Shaoli Yang, Knut H. Andersen (2021)“Soil parameters for offshore wind farm foundation design A case study of Zhuanghe wind farm” journal of Engineering Geology, Vol.285, pp.1-8.
19. DNVGL-RP-C207 (2017). “Statistical representation of soil data.”
20. Wpd Taiwan (2018)，「Geotechnical Interpretation Report (GIR) based upon main geotechnical investigations」，Yunlin offshore wind farm
21. Orsted (2018)，「Geotechnical Investigation Field Report」，Zhunan offshore wind farm
22. Wpd Taiwan (2020)，「Geotechnical Interpretation Report (GIR) based upon main geotechnical investigations - Main Text」，Guanyin offshore wind farm
23. Orsted (2020)，「Changhua offshore windfarm Geotechnical site Investigation Report」，Changhua offshore wind farm
24. Braja M. DAS, Khaled Sobhan(2014), 8th Edition,Principles Geotechnical Engineering, Cengage Learning., Canada
25. Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M. (1997). “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice,” Blackie Academic, EF Spon/Routledge Publ., New York.
26. Lehane, B. M., Schneider, J., and Xu, X. (2005). “The UWA-05 method for prediction of axial capacity of driven piles in sand.”
27. Jardine, R. J., Chow, F., Overy, R., and Standing, J. (2005). “ICP design methods
for driven piles in sands and clays.”
28. James Schneider, Mark Randolph, Paul W. Mayne (2008)“Analysis of Factors Influencing Soil Classification Using Normalized Piezocone Tip Resistance and Pore Pressure Parameters.” journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, ASCE-1090-0241, pp.1569-1586.
29. Kolk, H. J., Baaijens, A., and Senders, M. M. (2005). “Design criteria for pipe piles in silica sands.”
30. Nadim, F. (2015)“Accounting for Uncertainty and Variability in Geotechnical Characterization of Offshore Sites,” Geotechnical Safety and Risk V, pp. 23-34, IOS Press.
31. Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D., and Greig, J. (1986). “Use of piezometer cone data”, ASCE Specialty Conference, June.
32. Robertson, P.K. 1990. “Soil classification using the cone penetration test.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.27, No. 1,pp.151–158.
33. Ramsey, N. (2002). “A Calibrated Model for the Interpretation of Cone Penetration Test(CPTs) in North Sea Quanternary Soils,” Offshore Site Investigation and Geothechnics, pp.26- 28 November, London, UK.
34. Robertson, P.K. (2009). “Interpretation of cone penetration tests —an unified approach,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.46, No. 11, pp.1337-1355.
35. Robertson, P.K., (2010). “Soil behaviour type from the CPT: an update,” 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing,CPT’10, Huntington Beach, CA, USA. Vol.2, pp.575-583.
36. Robertson, P.K., K.L. Cabal(2014), 6th Edition,Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering, Gregg Drilling and Testing, Inc., California
37. Robertson, P.K., Wride, C.E. (2016) “Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on SPT and CPT. Proc. NCEER Work-shop on Evaluation of Liquefaction”
38. Robertson, P.K. (2016)“Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system — an update” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol.53
39. Schnabel, P. B. (1972). “SHAKE: A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites,” EERC Report 72-12, University of California,Berkeley.
40. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M. (1971). “Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 97(SM9), pp.1249-1273.
41. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M. (2001). “Liquefaction Resistance of Soil : Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,” Journal of the Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.127, No.4, pp.297-313.
42. 中華民國國家標準 CNS 12387-1988 (1988) ，「工程用土壤分類試驗法」。
43. 內政部營建署 (2011)，「建築物耐震設計規範及解說」。
44. 行政院農委會動植物防疫檢疫局 (2021)，「特定物品輸入核准辦法」。
45. 台灣電力股份有限公司(2012)，「彰濱海域地質調查研究地質調查鑽探試驗分析工作」，台電一期風場。
46. 台灣電力股份有限公司(2013)，「台電彰化離岸風力發電計畫(南區海氣象觀測塔)-地質鑽探與試驗報告書」，台電一期風場。
47. 行政院農委會動植物防疫檢疫局 (2015)，「特定物品輸入核准辦法」。
48. 中國鋼鐵股份有限公司(2016)，「離岸風場區塊開發29號風場海域調查工程地質調查工作成果報告書」，中能風場。
49. 台灣電力股份有限公司(2018)，「離岸風力發電第二期計畫技術服務工作地質鑽探調查結果報告書」，台電二期風場。
50. 哥本哈根基礎建設基金(2018)，「彰化西島離岸風力發電計畫環境影響說明書」，西島風場。
51. 哥本哈根基礎建設基金(2018)，「彰化彰芳離岸風力發電計畫環境影響說明書」，西島風場。
52. 哥本哈根基礎建設基金(2018)，「彰化福芳離岸風力發電計畫環境影響說明書」，西島風場。
53. 達德能源(2018)，「雲林離岸風力發電廠興建計畫環境影響說明書」，允能風場。
54. 台灣綠色電力綠色潔淨能源(2018)，「海峽離岸風力發電計畫(27 號風場)場址地質調查工作報告書」，海峽風場。
55. 台灣綠色電力綠色潔淨能源(2018)，「海峽離岸風力發電計畫(28 號風場)場址地質調查工作報告書」，海峽風場。
56. 台灣電力股份有限公司(2019)，「台電一期-鑽探及海域調查記錄表」，台電一期風場。
57. 台灣電力股份有限公司(2019)，「台灣電力公司離岸風力發電第一期計畫-示範風場新建工程-離岸風場地質調查報告書」，台電一期風場。
58. 東京電力公司(JERA)(2019)，「海能風力發電-海域地質鑽探報告」，海能風場。
59. 林炳森、李豐博、賴聖耀 (1986)，「荷氏錐貫入試驗與土壤動態性質關係」，地工技術，第16期，第51-62頁。
60. 郭玉樹、曾姿郡 (2014)，「海域大地調查於離岸風場規劃、設計與建置期間之角色」，地工技術，第142期，第51-58頁。
61. 郭玉樹、王昱凱、曾韋禎、許博凱 (2014)，「離岸風機基礎設計與驗證考量」，地工技術，第142期，第7-16頁。
62. 郭玉樹、柴駿甫 (2018)，「科技部補助產學合作計畫-離岸風場地工設計參數資料庫建置與應用」成果報告，科技部及中國鋼鐵股份有限公司。
63. 古志生 (2001)，「 CPT土壤分類及液化評估之研究」，博士論文國立成功大學土木工程研究所，台南。
64. 林聖旋(2009)，「CPT評估黏土不排水剪力強度之不確定性」，碩士論文，國立台灣科技大學營建工程系，
65. 張倖偉 (2017)，「彰濱外海離岸風場地工模型雛形建立」，碩士論文，國立成功大學水利及海洋工程研究所，台南。
66. 林筠蓁 (2019)，「彰化地區離岸風場三維工程地質模型研究」，碩士論文，國立成功大學水利及海洋工程研究所，台南。
67. 葉逢昇 (2019)，「彰化地區離岸風場土壤液化潛勢實驗研究」，碩士論文，國立成功大學水利及海洋工程研究所，台南。
68. 張凱竣 (2019)，「考量 CPT參數不確定性之離岸風場海床土壤液化險量評估」，碩士論文，國立成功大學水利及海洋工程研究所，台南。
69. 吳育霖 (2020)，「打擊樁軸向摩擦阻抗分析」，碩士論文，國立成功大學水利及海洋工程研究所，台南。
70. 徐宇君 (2021)，「以有限元素數值模型模擬基樁打擊貫入行為」，碩士論文，國立成功大學水利及海洋工程研究所，台南。
71. 經濟部能源局網站，「離岸規劃場址專區遴選結果公告」。
(https://www.twtpo.org.tw/gas.aspx?id=3268)
72. 文昌邱貿易股份有限公司網站
(http://www.wenchang.com.tw/cetacean/front/bin/ptdetail.phtml?Part=H-3750&Category=102863)