(1) 2 (2) 5.4 5.8.4 2 5.2 (3) 1.8 1) 36
2) PS 3) N N PS 37
10 20m N G hg h PS N (1) G h G/G 0 h 3 1) G 0 PS PS 38
N V s G 0 40% Gh 1 S 0.11% G/G 0 h G/G 0 h H-D 2),3) R-O 4) 5),6),7) τ G 0 γ = 0 r 1 ( ) 1+ G0 γ / τ f τ = G γ α G 0 τ γ : (>0), r: (1) 4 γ γ γ 2 = 1 1 1 π + r r γ γ + r 2 r 1 G h l n γ h = α π π 1 r + 1 G0 G G 0 G 1 = G0 1+ γ /γ r G G = 1 0 τ = τ 1+ α τ a / a r y r 1 ( τ ) y f G 0 G 0 1 2 y 1 G 0 f /2 0 r y (1+) 39
(2) 8) 10m 2m 2.5m 9) 1~2m 1~2m (3) V s =3.0km/s V s =700m/s V s =300m/s 10) EE 1) 3 pp.5.2-5.62000. 2) Kondner, R.. : Hyperbolic Stress-strain ResponseCohesive SoilsProc. ASCESM1pp.115-153 1963. 3) MODIFIED HARDIN-DRNEVICH 33 pp.1181-1184,1979. 4) Jennings, P. C. : Periodic Response of a General Yielding Structure, Proc. ASCEEM2pp.131-1631964 5) GHE 25 1999. 6) Wakai, A., Ugai, K., i, Q., Matsuo, O. and Shimazu, T. : Dynamic elasto-plastic analysis of the sliding displacement during earthquakeproc. Int. Sym. on Deformation and Progressive Failure in Geomechanics pp.635-640, 1997. 7) 10 pp.805-8101999. 8) pp.219-2241989. 9) : pp.102,1997. 10) pp.438,1987. 40
(1) 5.5 (2) (3)(1) (2) (1) D E F D E F D E 1) 2) - F (2) 0 3m 20kN/m 2 0.2kgf/cm 2 41
1) 1997. 2) () 1999. (1) (2) (3) (4) D 50 10% D Uc Fc Pc Gc (5) Ip w (6) 1),2) (1) 10m (2) 20m (3) D 50 10mm 10% D 1mm (4) 35% Fc 30% Pc 15% Ip 15 (1993) (1995) 1 42
2 1) 1997. 2) () 1999. 5.5.1 (1) (2) (3) (4) 4 F (1) F 1) F 5.5.2-1 1.0 F F F R F = 5.5.2-1 F R R N ( ) N 43
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 20 K 0 K 0 44
K 0 K 0 N K 0 N 2) a) R (1995) 1) 2) 1) 2) 20 5% 1015% 15 20 230 R (dilatancy ) (Cyclic Mobility) Cyclic Mobility 45
b) max max ' max max V σ τ = 5.5.2-2 max τ ' σ V F 5.5.2-3 max 1)4) v v d g r ' max max σ σ α = 5.5.2-3 r d r =1.00.015z d max α g V σ ' σ V 1964 1983 200gal r max max d 5) Spectrum Intensity (SI) 6),7) 3) a R F b) 46
(2) 1) 1997. 2) () 1999. 3) 1960. 4) 1988. 5) 23 pp. 675-6781995. 6) SI 28 pp. 1325-13281993. 7) N0.610/-45pp. 83-961998. 5.5.2 F (1) P 1) 5.6-1 P F 5.6-1 ( )( )dz z F P = 20 0 0.5 10 1 z (m) 1 ( F F 1 )=0 47
2 5.6-1 100.5z F F F P F P 1 ( ) P P 1 = 0 P 0 5 < P 5 15 < P P < 15 P (2) 1 2 N 10 25 1) (D r ) (F ) (γ max ) (ε vd ) 2) 48
3) 4) 5) 6) ( ) FEM DEM 7) 8) 1) Vol.28No.4pp.23291980. 2) Nagase, H. and Ishihara, K.iquefaction-induced compaction and settlement of sand during earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 65-76, 1998. 3) Peiris, T. A. and Yoshida, N.Modeling of volume change characteristics of sand under cyclic lording, Proc., Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 1087, 1996. 4) 52 -App. 222-2231998. 5) 1995. 6) 52 -App. 246-2471998. 7) 1994. 8) 52 pp. 612-6131989. 49
5.5 m 1983 1) 2% 5m 2),3) 1923 4 1964 12m 2) 1906 2m 3) 2),3),4) 1995 5) 2 1 H11.10 15 P 1/100 50
H8.12 2 5m 100m 5m 1) : 376-6pp.211-220,1986. 2) Hamada, M. and O Rourke, T. D. (Eds.): Case study of liquefaction and lifeline performance during past earthquake,vol.1 Japanese case studies, Technical Report NCEER-92-001,1992. 3) O Rourke, T. D. and Hamada, M.(Eds.): Case study of liquefaction and lifeline performance during past earthquake,vol.2 Japanese case studies United States case studies, Technical Report NCEER-92-002,1992. 4) 376-6pp. 221-229, 1986. 5) Hamada, M., Isoyama, R. and Wakamatsu, K.: iquefaction-induced Ground Displacement and Its Related damage to ifeline Facilities, Special Issue of Soils and Foundations, Japanese Geotechnical Society, pp.81-97,1996 (1) m 1),2) 3) 51
(i) FEM 4) 5) (ii) 6) (i) (ii) H11.10 (a) 5.7.2-1 D g H = 2 10 α m D g H m α % 52
D Dg = 2 4 2 20. 10 + 49. 10 + 10. H H 5.7.2-2 D (m) (m) (m) H (m) (b) D = ( + ' ) 21H 2 θ 5.7.2-3 32 / H H N D H ' H θ N 17. N N = 5.7.2-4 ' σ / 100 + 0. 7 σ v ' 1997.3 (a) v ( 100m ) 7090% 1.22.0% (b) 1.01.5% 1.01.5% δ g = k H θ 5.7.2-5 δ (m) g H : (m) θ (%) k 7090% 0.770.96 53
1997.8 80% (a) ( 100m ) ( )1.5% (b) 100m ( )1.2% 2 1999.9 (a) = α 10 2 H w 5.7.2-6 H w F d (b) = 250 5.7.2-7 ( N 1 ) av ( N1) av (m) N 98kN/m 2 N (c) δ = e 3. 35X 5.7.2-8 δ (m) X (m) (d) 6.37X S = 0.8 e 5.7.2-9 S (m) (2) 54
H8.12 (a) q N q N = C C K γ x 5.7.2-10 S N P N (tf/m C s S (s50m C =1.050ms100mC =0.5100msC =1.0) S S S C N K P N ( P 5C =0.05P 20 =(0.2 P -1)/320P C =1) N γ (tf/m 3 ) x (m) q = C C H + γ ( x H )} S { N N N 2 ) CN γ 5.7.2-11 N q (tf/m C (=0.3) H N (m) γ (tf/m 3 ) 2 ) 1) pp.53-701998 2) - - pp.12-171995. 3) No.596/-43,189-208 1998. 4) 47-6 55
1999. 5) 7 NO.813PP253-2791995. 6) 2 pp.309-312. 56
1 3),4) 1) :,pp.87,1997. 2) :, pp.70,1999. 3) : pp.76-81,1999. 4) Vol.41No.1pp.20-251999. 10-3 10-4 1/2 1 57
SHAKE 1) max eff eff = max 5.8.2-1 G h 5.8.2-1 0.70 0.40 6030% 2) 0.65 3) G h 10-3 4),5) 6) 7) 2 3) 6) 1) 2) 1) 10-2 2) (5.8.2-1) 58
1) Schnabel, P.B.,ysmerJ. and Seed,H.B.SHAKE A Computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites, Report No. EERC72-12, University of California, Berkeley, 1972 2), 19 pp.105-108, 1987. 3) pp.253-256, 1996. 4),,, 13 2 pp.29-34, 1999. 5) SHAKE pp.14-311994. 6),pp.72-73,1999. 7),, No.493/-27pp.49-58,1994. 0.5 1) 1),2),3) 4),5) 6),7) 2) 59
8),9) eff N eq u/ ' 0 G h 10) 1) No.505/ pp. 49-58, 1994. 2) IQCA pp.165-1741993. 3) Tobita, Y. and Yoshida, N. An isotropic bounding surface model for undrained cyclic behavior of sand: imitation and Modification, Proc., International Symposium on Pre-failure Deformation Characteristics of geomaterials, Sapporo, pp.457-462, 1994. 4) ee, M.K.W, and Fin, W.D.. : DESRA-2, Dynamic Efficient Stress Program for Earthquake Response Anarysis of Soil Deposits with Energy Transmitting Boundary Include Assesment of iquefaction Potential, The University of British VolumbiaFaculty of Applies Science1985. 5) AISS pp.125-1341993. 6) Ishihara, K. and Towhata, I. : One-dimensional Soil Response Analysis during Earthquake Based on Effective Stress Method, Journal of the Faculty of EngineeringVol.XXXX,The University of Tokyo, pp.656-700, 1991. 7) 29 4 pp.27-561990. 8) 23 pp.941-9421988. 9) pp.982-9851998. 10) pp.93-981998. (1) 2 3 (2) (1) 1) 60
2 1995 2) 2 1 10 100m (FEM) (BEM) 61
2 5 (2) 1/41/6 1/8 62
1) 1991. 2) Vo pp.86-92 1996. 3) () 4) )1986. 5) 2000. 63