Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/15596
標題: 土石壩監測警戒值之探討—以鯉魚潭大壩為例—
Warning Level of Embankment Dam Instrumentation-Using Liyutan Earth Dam as a Study Case-
作者: 朱英茂
Chu, Ying-Mao
關鍵字: embankment dam instrumentation
土石壩監測
potential failure mode
warning level
潛在破壞模式
警戒值
出版社: 土木工程學系所
引用: 1. 台灣省中區水資源局,「鯉魚潭水庫竣工報告」,PP.59-67,1999。 2. 台灣省鯉魚潭水庫管理局 “鯉魚潭水庫定期監測分析工作-大壩動態分析報告”,1995。 3. 林祥欽,演變的美國現代化水壩安全管理模式,大壩與安全,2002。 4. 林祥欽,水壩安全評估新工具:強化水壩安檢和觀測的淺在損壞模式分析,大壩與安全,2005。 5. 林祥欽,蓄水壩潛在潰決模式分析石施綱要與蓄水壩安全管理,財團法人中興工程顧問社,2006。 6. 巫茂松,鯉魚潭土石壩滲水量推估之研究,中興大學碩士論文,2006。 7. 陳利明,水壩監測及安全評估工作實務(上),中興工程,第31期,1991。 8. 陳冠亨,土石壩滲流相關之破壞型態與參數探討,交通大學碩士論文,2006。 9. 劉芳志,「鯉魚潭壩體滲流量影響因素研究」,私立逢甲大學,碩士論文,2003。 10. 劉明怡,薛強,大霸風險評估程序之探討,中興工程,2006。 11. 經濟部水利處中區水資源局,鯉魚潭水庫九二一震後報告,1999。 12. 經濟部水利署中區水資源局 “鯉魚潭水庫初次使用安全評估報告”,2002。 13. 經濟部水利處中區水資源局,鯉魚潭水庫安全監測分析工作總報告,2001。 14. 樓漸逵,水壩的安全和風險管理,水庫壩體監測及檢測與安全診斷教育訓練講義,2006 15. 樓漸逵,基於風險的大壩安全監測,寶二水庫安全監測教育訓練教材,2007。 16. 潘南飛,工程統計,全威圖書有限公司,2002。 17. Christian Kutzner, Eartg and Rockfill Dams, A.A.Balkema, Publishers, 1997. 18. Dunnicliff, J. Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance, John Wiley & Sons, 1988. 19. Durham Geo Slope Indicator , Guide to Geotechnical Instrumentation,2004 20. FERC,Engineering Guideline,Chaper 9,Instrumentation and Monitoring,Florida, 2005a﹒ 21. FERC,Engineering Guideline,Chaper 14,Dam Safety Performance Montitoring Program, Florida, 2005b。 22. Foster, M., Fell, R. and Spannagle, M. Statistics of embankment dam failures and accidents, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v 37, n 5, p 1000-1024, 2000a. 23. Foster, M., Fell, R. and Spannagle, M. Method for assessing the relative likelihood of failure of embankment dams by piping, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, v 37, n 5, p1025-1061, 2000 b. 24. P.Erik Mikkelsen , symplsium on field Measurements in Geomechanics, ,Oslo,Norway,September, FMGM 2003. 25. Stateler, Jay et. Development of Performance Parameters for Dam Safety Monitoring, ASDSO Conference.Atlanta,Georgia, 1995. 26. SINCO, 2007. 27. USACE(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) ,Instrumentation of Embankment Dams and Levees,1999 a。 28. USACE , Reliability Analysis and Risk Assessment for Seepage and Slope Stability Failure Modes for Embankment Dams,1999 b. 29. USACE, Structural Drformation Surveying,2002. 30. USBR(,Embankment Dam Instrumentation Manual, 250 pp., Denver, Colorado, January 1987.。 31. USBR(U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), TADS (Train Aids for Dam Safety), Module: Evaluation of Embankment Dam Stability and Deformation,1988a。 32. USBR ,TADS , Module: Evaluation of Seepage ,1988b。 33. SINCO,http://www.slopeindicator.com/index.html, 2007
摘要: 土石壩監測工作之功能主要為避免壩體發生破壞,儀器讀數超過警戒值,可儘快針對缺失進行加固工作,避免造成潰壩後果。因此,關鍵監測儀器之警戒值設定對水壩安全是必須的,尤其在蓄水和水壩運轉剛開始之最容易發生潰壩時期,更為重要。另外設定警戒值,除了能對上述水壩安全的問題給予合理和有效的管理,還能簡化繁重的讀數分析工作,將分析工作重點化。 本文章以鯉魚潭大壩為例,嘗試建立以潛在破壞模式觀念為主之大壩監測工作內容,首先以確定壩體潛在破壞模式為第一步驟,再依潛在破壞模式評估出關鍵監測量在於壩體心層孔隙水壓力、壩體滲流量、壩體與左壩座交界處之變位量、壩體邊坡變形量等。並根據關鍵儀器,詳細了解氣壓式水壓計、傾斜儀、水平變位計、量水堰等儀器原理構造與誤差,確定監測資料精度與判斷是否具代表性,再根據壩體滲流與變形理論分析模擬、統計與實際監測數據訂定警戒參考值,供壩安全管理之參考。 基於壩體滲流量深受降雨量影響之特性,經本文檢討,非豐水期時可利用流線網法、理論法與統計法評估壩體滲流量警戒值;受壩座及下游坡面入滲雨水影響作用,必須由圖示法評估壩體滲流量警戒值。孔隙水壓力之理論分析法可能被儀器誤差或滲透係數影響產生差異,建議以統計分析法。壩體變形之極限值可根據理論分析值訂定;平時壩體變形量建議警戒值,則由經驗值及實際測量值訂定。
The primary purpose of instrumentation is to provide data to evaluate the safety of embankment dam by obtaining quantitative data on its performance, and to detect problems at an early and preventable stage. Instrumentation data should establish warning levels to indicate an acceptable level of performance for the dam during the first impounding and long-term operation. This study use Liyutan earth dam as a case basing on potential failure mode concept to establish warning levels. According to design data and historic events, there are three potential failure modes in this dam, dam seepage, core pore-water pressure, settlement and horizontal (longitudinal and transversal direction) movement are the key instruments. As the result of analysis and discussion, Liyutan dam seepage is categories into wet period and dry period, wet period is affected by rain down factor seriously, dry period is not. Flow-net graphical, theoretical and statistical methods is suit for evaluation seepage warning level in dry period, figuring method is suit for wet period. Theoretical analysis of pore-water pressure is not concord with actual measurements; it may be affected by instrumental error or influence permeability coefficient different from theories value .It is proposed to use statistical analysis method of actual measurements to evaluate warning level of pore-water pressure. The Limit value of dam deformation can be decided by theoretical analysis, warning level of dam deformation could be evaluated from experience value and actual measurements.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/15596
其他識別: U0005-2108200715003800
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-2108200715003800
Appears in Collections:土木工程學系所

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.