2011年3月11日，日本發生規模 9.0的東北地方太平洋近海地震，引發海嘯並導致福島第一核電廠之核子事故。眾多應用核能之國家為確保核電廠抗災能力皆啟動其核電廠安全性之全面檢核，台灣亦由原子能委員會要求台灣電力公司依據美國「地震危害分析資深委員會(Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee, SSHAC)」所訂定第3層級(以下簡稱SSHAC Level 3)之程序，進行地震危害度之重新評估，其中亦包含核電廠場址之地盤反應分析(Site Response Analysis, SRA)。本文基於波傳理論進行地盤反應分析軟體STRATA之驗證，並根據PWR廠井下觀測資料，利用頻率響應函數(FRF)進行地層轉換函數運算，與傳統之經驗地層轉換函數比較，並根據現有地層參數建立PWR電廠預估理論地層模型，將模型輸入STRATA進行地表震動特性之預估，同時比較不同模型之影響，藉此探討一維波傳之假設於PWR電廠地層之適用程度，以及以現有資料所建立之預估模型是否足以描述PWR電廠地層特性。

On March 11, 2011, the Magnitude 9.0 earthquake with its epicenter at northeast Pacific Ocean stroke Japan, the earthquake triggered a powerful tsunami that caused the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Hence, many countries initiate a comprehensive inspection of their nuclear power plants to make sure they have enough disaster resilience. The Atomic Energy Council (AEC) of Taiwan also requests the Taiwan Power Company (TPC) to follow the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 3 process to reevaluate seismic hazard, including the Site Response Analysis (SRA) of the nuclear power plants. This research will first verify the site response analysis program, STRATA, based on one-dimensional wave propagation theory. Then, in order to establish the site response analysis model, the down-hole array data of the PWR plant is analyzed by using the Frequency Response Function (FRF) and is compared with the traditional Empirical Transfer Function (ETF). According to the new SASW and MAM data along with the reinterpreted P/S logging data, the best estimate and lower and upper range VS profiles are developed during the seismic hazard and screening procedure. The site response model proposed in this study is developed based on these new site-specific shallow Vs profiles. Finally, the site model of the PWR plant is adopted to evaluate the ground responses of minor to moderate earthquake events by using STRATA based on the Darendeli model.

Andrade, J. E., & Borja, R. I. (2006). Quantifying sensitivity of local site response models to statistical variations in soil properties. Acta Geotechnica, 1(1), 3-14.
Beresnev, I. A., & Wen, K.-L. (1996). Nonlinear soil response—A reality? Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 86(6), 1964-1978.
Darendeli, M. B. (2001). Development of a new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves: The university of Texas at Austin.
Guide, R. (2007). 1.208 A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion. US NRC, March.
Guide, U. N. R. (1997). 1.165. Identification and Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion.
Hardin, B. O., & Drnevich, V. P. (1972). Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. Journal of the Soil mechanics and Foundations Division, 98(7), 667-692.
Hashash, Y., Groholski, D., Phillips, C., Park, D., & Musgrove, M. (2011). DEEPSOIL 5.0, user Manual and Tutorial. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
Idriss, I., & Sun, J. (1991). Users’ manual for SHAKE91: a modified version of SHAKE for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soil deposits. Centre for Geotechnical Modelling, University of California, Berkley, Calif.
Juang, J.-N. (1994). Applied system identification: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kaklamanos, J., Bradley, B. A., Thompson, E. M., & Baise, L. G. (2013). Critical Parameters Affecting Bias and Variability in Site‐Response Analyses Using KiK‐net Downhole Array Data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(3), 1733-1749. doi:10.1785/0120120166
Kottke, A. R. (2010). A comparison of seismic site response methods.
Kottke, A. R., & Rathje, E. M. (2009). Technical manual for Strata: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Berkeley, California.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering: Pearson Education India.
Kwok, A. O., Stewart, J. P., Hashash, Y. M., Matasovic, N., Pyke, R., Wang, Z., & Yang, Z. (2007). Use of exact solutions of wave propagation problems to guide implementation of nonlinear seismic ground response analysis procedures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(11), 1385-1398.
Lee, C.-P., Tsai, Y.-B., & Wen, K.-L. (2006). Analysis of nonlinear site response using the LSST downhole accelerometer array data. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 26(5), 435-460.
Lysmer, J., Bolton Seed, H., & Schnabel, P. B. (1971). Influence of base-rock characteristics on ground response. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 61(5), 1213-1231.
Ostadan, F., & Kennedy, R. (2014). Consistent site-response/soil-structure interaction analysis and evaluation. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 269, 72-77.
Schnabel, P. B. (1972). SHAKE: A computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. EERC Report 72-12, University of California, Berkeley.
Thompson, E. M., Baise, L. G., Tanaka, Y., & Kayen, R. E. (2012). A taxonomy of site response complexity. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 41, 32-43.
Tsai, C.-C., & Chen, C.-W. (2014). A comparison of site response analysis method and its impact on earthquake engineering practice. Paper presented at the 2nd European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology.
Zalachoris, G. (2014). Evaluation of one-dimensional site response methodologies using borehole arrays.
Zeghal, M., Elgamal, A.-W., Tang, H., & Stepp, J. (1995). Lotung downhole array. II: Evaluation of soil nonlinear properties. Journal of geotechnical engineering, 121(4), 363-378.
BWR4電廠、BWR6電廠、PWR電廠106年~110年地震觀測資料分析工作-108年度成果報告書修訂版(2020)
林炳森(1990)，“地震波在土壤中之傳動與放大”，地震工程暨耐震設計研討會(I)，國立中興大學，台中，七十九年六月二十一、二十二、二十三日。
姚竣介，「台灣垂直陣列地盤反應之研究」，碩士論文，國立台灣大學工學院土木工程學系，台北(2020)