本研究比較四種地盤受震反應分析模式，包括基於一維波傳理論之DEEPSOIL軟體所提供之頻率域等值線性總應力分析模式與時間域非線性有效應力分析模式，以及利用有限元素分析軟體PLAXIS 2D中之HSsmall與UBC3D-PLM 土壤組成律分別建立地盤模型所進行之時間域非線性分析，先以假想地盤案例進行各模式之初步比較，並用以模擬成大土木-國震中心1-g離岸風機縮尺模型振動台試驗之地盤反應，以探討不同模式分析結果與試驗成果的異同。其中，振動台試驗案例之輸入運動包括頻率2Hz的正弦波，以及具遠域特性與近斷層脈衝特性之地震紀錄各一，並分別調整至數個不同振幅，故當中涵蓋了未液化、局部液化與全面液化等情境。根據未液化案例之模擬結果，DEEPSOIL頻率域總應力分析所得地盤加速度歷時與試驗結果在大部分案例中大致相近，但對地盤顯著頻率未有合理掌握；PLAXIS採HSsmall組成律所得加速度反應則在部分情況下偏劇烈，但地盤反應顯著頻率則與試驗結果差異有限。液化案例之模擬結果則顯示，DEEPSOIL時間域有效應力分析中在不同輸入運動下所得結果變異性很大；其中，正弦波輸入運動造成特別快速之超額孔隙水壓激發，並在較淺層處易發生可觀之超額水壓激發延遲；此外，其能夠模擬出試驗中所觀察到液化後不同高程間之加速度相位差，液化前加速度反應常被過於放大；然而，地震輸入運動下所模擬得之超額水壓較試驗結果小，將導致液化程度之低估。PLAXIS採UBC3D-PLM組成律之超額孔隙水壓模擬結果隨輸入運動之變異性較小，隨高程之變化亦較不明顯，並同樣在正弦波輸入運動下所得數值相對於試驗結果偏高，地震輸入運動下則偏低；加速度歷時反應則與試驗結果相對較接近，但因模擬所得液化程度差異而使其頻率特性有所不同。

This study compared four different site response analysis methods, including the frequency-domain equivalent linear total stress analysis module and the time-domain nonlinear effective stress analysis module provided by the software DEEPSOIL, as well as the time-domain nonlinear analysis using the finite element software PLAXIS with the ground modeled by HSsmall and UBC3D-PLM constitutive models, respectively. Preliminary comparison was firstly made by performing the response analysis of hypothetical sites by the aforementioned methods; then, the seismic ground response of the 1/25-scale shaking table test was simulated, and the analysis results were compared with the test results. The input motions of the shaking table test included 2 Hz sinusoidal waveforms, and both far-field and near-fault pulse-like seismic records with various acceleration amplitudes. Based on the simulation results of the non-liquefied case, the acceleration time histories obtained by the frequency domain analysis of DEEPSOIL were roughly close to the test results in most cases, but the predominant frequencies of the site were not well captured. The acceleration obtained by PLAXIS analysis using HSsmall model was intense in some cases, but the predominant frequencies of the ground response approximated those in the test. Regarding the liquefied cases, the simulation results indicated that the time domain analysis of DEEPSOIL exhibited great diversity under different input motions. The acceleration of PLAXIS analysis using UBC3D-PLM model was relatively closer to the test results, but the spectral characteristics of the ground response were not accurately reproduced.

1. Beaty, M.H., Byrne, P.M., “UBCSAND constitutive model version 904aR”, February 2011.
2. Brennan, A.J., Madabhushi, S.P.G., “Measurement of coefficient of consolidation during reconsolidation of liquefied sand”, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2011.
3. Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Engin, E., Engin, H.K., “Validation of empirical formulas to derive model parameters for sands”, 2010.
4. Chen, C.H., Ueng, T.S., Lee, W.C., “Large scale biaxial shear box tests on shaking table”, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6, 2004.
5. Chiou, J.S., Chen, C.H., Ueng, T.S., “Evaluation of dynamic properties of large saturated sand specimen in the shear box”, 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering ,Taipei, Taiwan, October 12-13, 2006.
6. Demir, S., Özener, P., Aydin, C., “The influence of improved soil zone on liquefaction response”, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering for Protection and Development of Environment and Constructions, 2019.
7. Haeri, S.M., Kavand, A., Rahmani, I., Torabi, H., “Response of a group of piles to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading by large scale shake table testing”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2012;38:25-45, 2012.
8. Haigh, S.K., Eadington, J., Madabhushi, S.P.G., “Permeability and stiffness of sands at very low effective stresses”, Geotechnique 62, No. 1, 69–75, 2012.
9. Hashash, Y.M.A. , “DEEPSOIL user manual v7.0”, 2020.
10. Hashash, Y.M.A., Park, D., “Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion propagation in nonlinear site response analysis”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, September 2002.
11. Hashash, Y.M.A., Phillips, C., Groholski, D.R., “Recent advances in non-linear site response analysis”, International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 2010.
12. Hayati, H., Moss, Robb E.S., “Site response analysis considering strain compatible site period”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 92; 17 Jan, 2017 : 551-560, 2017.
13. Kim, S.R., Hwang, J.I., Ko, H.Y., Kim, M.M., “Development of dissipation model of excess pore pressure in liquefied sandy ground”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Vol. 135, Issue 4, 2009.
14. Ko, Y.Y., Chen, C.H., “On the variation of mechanical properties of saturated sand during liquefaction observed in shaking table tests”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105946, 2020.
15. Ko, Y.Y., Li, Y.T., ”Response of a scale-model pile group for a jacket foundation of an offshore wind turbine in liquefiable ground during shaking table tests”, Earthquake Engineering & Structure Dynamics. 2020;49:1682–1701, 2020.
16. Ko, Y.Y., Li, Y.T., Chen, C.H., Yeh, S.Y., Hsu, S.Y., “Influences of repeated liquefaction and pulse-like ground motion on the seismic response of liquefiable ground observed in shaking table tests”, Engineering Geology, 2021.
17. Koga, Y., Matsuo, O., “Shaking table tests of embankments resting on liquefiable sandy ground”, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 162-174, 1990.
18. Kostadinova, M.V., Towhata, I., “Assessment of liquefaction-inducing peak ground velocity and frequency of horizontal ground shaking at onset of phenomenon”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 4, Vol. 309-322, 2002.
19. Kramer, S.L., Hartvigsen, A.J., Sideras, S.S., Ozener, P.T., “Site response modeling in liquefiable soil deposits”, 4th IASPEI / IAEE International Symposium: Effects of Surface Geology on Seismic Motion, Santa Barbara, CA, 2011.
20. Mei, X., Olson, S.M., Hashash, Y.M.A., “Empirical curve-fitting parameters for a porewater pressure generation model for use in 1-D effective stress-based site response analysis”, 6th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering 1-4, November 2015.
21. Mei, X., Olson, S.M., Hashash, Y.M.A., “Empirical porewater pressure generation model parameters in 1-D seismic site response analysis”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 114 (2018) 563–567, 2018.
22. Molnar, S., Cassidy, J.F., Dosso, S.E., “Site response studies in Victoria, B.C., analysis of Mw 6.8 Nisqually earthquake recordings and shake modelling” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada ,August 1-6, 2004.
23. Park, D., “Soil damping formulation in nonlinear time domain site response analysis”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, March 2004.
24. PLAXIS B.V., “PLAXIS 2D material models manual”, 2020.
25. PLAXIS B.V., “PLAXIS 2D reference manual”, 2020.
26. PLAXIS B.V., “PLAXIS 2D tutorial manual”, 2020.
27. Puebla, H., Byrne, P.M., Phillips, R., “Analysis of CANLEX liquefaction embankments: prototype and centrifuge models”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, October 1997.
28. Sajana, S., Giuseppe, L., Alessandro, P., “Numerical modelling of site response at the LSST downhole array in Lotung’’, SECED 2015 Conference: Earthquake Risk and Engineering towards a Resilient World, 2015.
29. Seed, H.B., “Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential for level ground during earthquakes”, 1975.
30. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., “Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analysis”, Report No. EERC 70-10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, 1970.
31. Sung. Y.C., Chang, K.C., Chen, C.H., Ueng, T.S., Liu, K.Y., Chen, C.H., Dung, S.Y., Wang, S.C., Chiu, Y.T., “Study on dynamic behavior of bridge pile in dry and saturated sand through shaking multi-layer shear box test”, Journal of the Chinese Institute of Civil and Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 127–139, 2014.
32. Ueng, T.S., Wang, M.H., Chen, M.H., Chen, C.H., Peng, L.H., “A large biaxial shear box for shaking table test on saturated sand”, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2006.
33. Wang, B., Zen, K., Chen, G.Q., Zhang, Y.B., Kasama, K., “Excess pore pressure dissipation and solidification after liquefaction of saturated sand deposits”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, June 2013.
34. Wobbes, E., Beuth, L., Vuik, C., Stolle, D., “Modeling of liquefaction using two-phase FEM with UBC3D-PLM model”, 1st International Conference on the Material Point Method, 2017, Procedia Engineering 175 (2017) 349 – 356, 2017.
35. Ziotopoulou, K., Boulanger, R., “Site response analysis of liquefying sites”, 2012.
36. 內政部營建署，「建築物耐震設計規範」，2011
37. 余孟勳、顧承宇、賴瑞應、謝明志，「有效應力動力分析於圓筒式碼頭性能」，第 36 屆海洋工程研討會論文集，2014。
38. 李宜庭，「液化地盤中群樁基礎縮尺模型振動台試驗」，國立成功大學土木工程研究所，碩士論文，2020。
39. 柯永彥，「飽和砂土受震液化時力學性質變化特性之研究」，科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告，2014。
40. 張暐承，「地盤反應與土壤液化之數值模擬研究」，國立台灣大學土木工程研究所，碩士論文，2014。
41. 陳銘鴻，「土壤液化成因、災害與復健」，國家地震工程研究中心，2002。