Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
標題: 不同引道擋土結構型式之力學行為研究
Study on Mechanical Behavior of Different Access Road with Retaining Structures
作者: 楊政勳
Cheng-Hsun Yang
關鍵字: Plaxis computer program
opposite tendon
U-type retaining wall
Plaxis 電腦程式
U 型擋土牆
引用: 1. 內政部營建署 (2001) ,'建築物基礎構造設計規範'。 2. 交通部公路總局(2007)'道路工程參考圖'。 3. 廖瑞堂(2008),'坡地災害防治對策及案例',科技圖書股份 有限公司。 4.丁兆鋒、吳沛沛 (2009) ,'U型槽結構設計與分析',鐵路工程 學報。 5.交通部(2009) '公路橋梁耐震設計規範'。 6. Brooker, E. W. and Ireland, H. O. (1965), 'Earth Pressure at Rest Related to Stress History,'Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-15. 7. Coulomb, C. A. (1776), Essaisurune Application des Regles de Maximiset Minimum Relatifs̀ quelques Problems de Statiquè l'Architecture, Mem. Acad. Roy. des Science,Paris, Vol. 3, pp. 38. 8. Das, B. M. (2011), Principal of Foundation Engineering, 7th edition, CENGAGE Learning. 9. Mononobe, N.(1929),'Earthquake-Proof Construction of Masonry Dams,'Proceedings, World Engineering Conference 9, 176-182. 10. Okabe, S. (1926), 'General Theory of Earth Pressure,' Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers,12(1). 11. PLAXIS bv (2010), PLAXIS 2D Reference Manual, P. O. Box 572,2600 Delft, Netherlands.
摘要: 於地狹且人口密集的台灣為爭取更大的生活空間,高架或是地下化則成為必然之途徑,則平面接高架的引道或是平面接平面的U型地下引道成為設計者之必然考量。本論文針對引道擋土牆之範例,利用一般工程設計方法及Plaxis電腦程式探討其相關工程力學行為,研究結果顯示: 1. 以懸臂式擋土牆或 U 型擋土牆為擋土措施之地下引道於相同淨高、淨寬及地質情況下,U 型擋土牆引道結構,不需考慮底面滑動及傾覆問題,鋼筋使用量及開挖土方量較少,且所需使用之擋土樁長度較短,顯示 U 型擋土牆引道有較佳之力學行為及經濟性。 2. 高架式引道若擋土牆高度較高,可於牆體接近頂部之水平方向施加對拉鋼鍵 如此可縮小擋土牆之斷面 以獲得較大之工程效益。,, 3. U 形槽車行地下引道擋土牆,其牆身頂部水平位移比懸臂式擋土牆車行地下引道為低,牆身最大水平土壓力也較懸臂式擋土牆車行地下引道擋土牆為小。 4. 鋼索對拉式高架式引道擋土牆牆身頂部最大水平位移比懸臂式擋土牆車行地下引道小,最大主應力數值也減少甚多。
The over or under pass is the essential way to increase the living space in limited land and more populations of Taiwan. Then, the overpass or underground (U-type) access connecting the plane road and overpass or connecting the plane roads is the necessary consideration for designers. This thesis aims at access retaining walls as examples through the engineering computation and Plaxis computer program to study their relevant mechanical behaviors. From the analyzed results, it indicates that (1). Under the same net height, width and geological condition, the cantilever and the U-type retaining wall are used in the underground pass for comparison. The U-type retaining wall shows the superiority for no consideration in base sliding and overturning, lower use of steel, minor excavation and short length of retaining piles. It is apparently in good mechanical behavior and economy for U-type retaining wall. (2).The opposite tendon can be properly used in which the overpass retaining wall is higher. In this way, the cross section of overpass retaining wall can be reduced to achieve higher engineering efficiency. (3).The horizontal displacement at the top of wall for U-type retaining wall is lower than that of cantilever-type. The resultant horizontal force acting on the wall is also smaller for U-type retaining wall compared with cantilever-type. (4). The horizontal displacement at the top of wall for retaining wall with opposite tendon is lower compared with that of higher cantilever retaining wall. The maximum principal stress for retaining wall with opposite tendon is also significantly reduced.
其他識別: U0005-2704201510403800
文章公開時間: 2015-05-11
Appears in Collections:土木工程學系所



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