Title

地工合成材加勁防砂壩之側向承載能力之數值研究

Translated Titles

Numerical Evaluation of Lateral Bearing Capacity of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Earth Dam

DOI

10.6342/NTU201701627

Authors

謝嘉

Key Words

地工合成材 ; 加勁 ; 防砂壩 ; 側向承載力 ; 數值分析 ; Geosynthetics ; Reinforcement ; Check Dam ; Lateral Bearing Capacity ; Numerical analysis

PublicationName

臺灣大學土木工程學研究所學位論文

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

2017年

Academic Degree Category

碩士

Advisor

陳榮河

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

加勁擋土結構的設計可分為 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSEW)與Geosynthetics Reinforced Soil Composite (GRSC) 的兩種設計理念。前者之設計理念是將加勁材視為背拉構件(tie-back wall),後者則將加勁材與土壤視為複合材料進行設計。GRSW系統相較於MSEW系統,加勁材不需具有高強度,牆體的自立性較佳,有利於對抗牆面撞擊及牆基受淘刷。因此,本研究採用PLAXIS 3D數值軟體,研究以兩種地工合成材(地工格網與蜂巢格室)加勁兩種防砂壩(開口壩與梳子壩)在土石流衝擊力之作用下的壩體變形、加勁材受力狀況與壩體破壞模式。影響因子包含:(1)加勁材垂直間距與加勁範圍之影響;(2)壩基淘刷對側向承載能力之影響;(3)受巨礫撞擊時之影響等。 由研究結果發現,在變形方面,開口壩以凸出變型為主,梳子壩則是凸出變形加上壩柱推移。最大變形都約為壩高的2 %,而壩翼及壩基(跌水處)附近會發生土壤的擠壓破壞。在相同加勁材用量下之開口壩,受土石流衝擊時之側位移,以蜂巢格室開口壩(1.648 cm)明顯小於地工格網開口壩(4.821 cm),蜂巢格室梳子壩(3.226 cm)則與地工格網梳子壩(3.365 cm)差別不大。改變地工格網垂直間距可知,間距縮小趨於GRSC時,抑制側向變形能力較佳。在淘刷方面,MSEW因淘刷導致側向極限承載力下降的幅度比GRSC大。在開口壩中,以地工格網加勁較蜂巢格室加勁者易受淘刷影響,梳子壩則相反。以蜂巢格室加勁之梳子壩受淘刷後承載力驟降(約40 %),而地工格網加勁者下降則不明顯(小於10 %)。

English Abstract

The design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls can be classified into two types according to the design concept: Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSEW) and Geosynthetics Reinforced Soil Wall (GRSW). The former is designed and constructed in the same manner as a tied-back wall; while the latter is treated and designed as a composite material. In this study, the finite element software, PLAXIS 3D, was used to analyze the behavior of two types of geosynthetic-reinforced earth dams (open-type and slit-type), which were reinforced with geogrids and geocells, respectively, and subjected to the impact force from debris flows. The influencing factors investigated were as follows: (1) the vertical spacing and zone of reinforcement; (2) scouring; (3) impact from boulders, etc. The result of analysis indicated that deformation of both dam types bulged at their middle heights, with the maximum deformation about 2% of the dam height. Moreover, passive soil failure occurred within the two flanges and in the base of the structure. With the same amount of different reinforcements, the geocell open-type dam displaced less than the geogrid open-type dam, but the difference was not much for slit dams when they were subjected to quasi-static lateral pressures induced by debris flows. In addition, with reduced vertical spacing of geogrid layers, the dam tended to behave as a GRSW and had better resistance to lateral deformation. The effect of scouring in reducing ultimate lateral bearing capacity was more significant for MSEW than GRSW. For open-type dams, the effect of scouring was more serious for geogrid dam than geocell dam. However, the effect was reversed for slit dams. The lateral bearing capacity of geocell slit dam after scouring decreased significantly (about 40%); while that of geogrid dam is only less than 10%.

Topic Category 工學院 > 土木工程學研究所
工程學 > 土木與建築工程
Reference
  1. 朱晟維(2016),“蜂巢格室擋土結構於土石流防護數值分析”,國立台灣大學土木工程研究所,碩士論文。
    連結:
  2. 吳政諺(2016),“加勁護岸之側向承載力之數值研究”,國立台灣大學土木工程研究所,碩士論文。
    連結:
  3. 沈哲緯(2005),“蜂巢格室加勁土壤之力學特性”,國立台灣大學土木工程研究所,碩士論文。
    連結:
  4. 林德貴、黃伯舜、黃隆明(2010),“梳子壩在土石流作用下之三維數值分析”,中華水土保持學報 41(1),49-60。
    連結:
  5. 段錦浩、尤繁結、劉正川、林信輝、陳樹群、林昭遠、連惠邦(1997),“陳有蘭溪治山防災整體治理規劃報告”,行政院農委會水土保持局。
    連結:
  6. 施瑋庭(2014),“應用地工合成材加勁擋土牆防治土石流之研究”,國立台灣大學土木工程研究所,碩士論文。
    連結:
  7. 連惠邦(2005),“土石流防治工法之研究評估”,行政院農委會水土保持局,73-76。
    連結:
  8. Brandl, H. (2011), “Geosynthetics Applications for the Mitigation of Natural Disasters and for Environmental Protection”, Geosynthetics International, 18(6), 340-390.
    連結:
  9. Wu, J.T.H. (1994), “Design and Construction of Low Cost Retaining Walls – The Next Generation in Technology”, Colorado Transportation Institute, U.S.A.
    連結:
  10. Wu, J.T.H. and Pham, T.Q. (2013), “ Load-Carrying Capacity and Required Reinforcement Strength of Closely-Spaced Soil-Geosynthetic Composites”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 139(9), 1468-1476.
    連結:
  11. Yang, K. H., Wu, J. T. H, Chen, R. H., Chen, Y. S. (2015), “ Numerical Study on Lateral Bearing Capacity and Failure Mode of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Barriers”, Japanese Geotechnical Society, Special Publication, 2(67), 2302-2306.
    連結:
  12. 山口伊佐夫(1985),“防砂工程學”,國立台灣大學森林系譯,150-174。
  13. 中華水土保持學會(2015),“水土保持手冊-工程篇”。
  14. 行政院公共工程委員會(2013),“公共工程施工綱要規範—第02838章加勁擋土牆—地工合成加勁材”,行政院公共工程委員會。
  15. 池谷浩(1980),“土石災害調查法”,日本山海堂,39-45。
  16. 黃玉珍、李錦浚、李元智(2007),“混凝土梳子壩’阻功效之研究”,水土保持學報,39(1),111-126。
  17. 黃宏斌、楊凱鈞、賴紹文(2007),“土石流對梳子壩之撞擊力研究”,台灣水利學報,55(1),41-58。
  18. 詹錢登(2000),“土石流概論”,科技圖書股份有限公司。
  19. 謝國正(2014),“台灣地區北部區域雙溪水庫可行性規劃檢討(4) ”,經濟部水利署水利規劃試驗所,2-29。
  20. Gobla, M., Paul, D., Swihart, J., Crum, D., Reinsch, S., LaVassar, J., Falk, J., and Frobel, R. (2008), “Geotextiles in Embankment Dam”, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
  21. Hu ̈bl, J., Suda, J., Proske, D.,Kaitna, R.,Scheidl, C. (2009), “Debris Flow Impact Estimation”, International Symposium on Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering, Paper: A56.
  22. Pham, T. (2009), “ Investigating Composite Behavior of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil (GRS) Mass”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado, Denver, USA.
  23. PLAXIS (2015), “PLAXIS 3D 2015”, Plaxis bv P.O. Box 572, 2600 AN DELFT, Netherlands.
  24. Strouth, A., Pritchard, M., Roche, D., and VanBuskirk, C. (2012),“Geotsynthetic Reinforced Soil Walls for Debris Flow Barrier in Whistler, B.C. ”, Geosynthetics, https://www.kwl.ca/sites/default/files/2012%20Geosynthetics-FitzCkDB-OCR.pdf.