カテゴリー Ⅰ 日本建築学会構造系論文集第 83 巻第 743 号,35-45,2018 年 1 月 J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ, Vol. 83 No. 743, 35-45, Jan., 2018 DOI

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "カテゴリー Ⅰ 日本建築学会構造系論文集第 83 巻第 743 号,35-45,2018 年 1 月 J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ, Vol. 83 No. 743, 35-45, Jan., 2018 DOI"

席昌韩
5 years ago
Views:

1 カテゴリー Ⅰ 日本建築学会構造系論文集第 8 巻第号,,8 年月 J. Struct. Constr. Eng., AIJ, Vol. 8 No.,, Jan., 8 DOI 非線形次元 FEM による大地震時の中層 RC 建物の地盤 - 基礎 - 建物連成系の応答に関する基礎的検討 BASIC STUDY ON RESPONSE OF SOIL-FOUNDATION-STRUCTURE INTERACTION SYSTEM OF MIDDLE-RISE RC BUILDING USING NONLINEAR -DIMENSIONAL FEM AGAINST STRONG EARTHQUAKE 中村尚弘 *, 鈴木琢也 *, 東城峻樹 *, 宮津裕次 *, 重野喜政 *, 濱田純次 *, 中村壮志 * *, 高田明伸 Naohiro NAKAMURA, Takuya SUZUKI, Takaki TOJO, Yuji MIYAZU, Yoshimasa SHIGENO, Junji HAMADA, Soshi NAKAMURA and Akinobu TAKADA Since it is impossible to deny the possibility that buildings are attacked by earthquakes beyond the design level, the estimation of the response of buildings against such extremely strong earthquake is demanded. In this paper, the behavior of middle-rise RC buildings which are not designed by dynamic analysis are studied against the earthquake up to times for the design level using detailed -dimensional nonlinear FEM considering soil-foundation-structure interaction. The analysis results are studied and compared with those of simpler equivalent linear soil model. ) Ss ) (a) SRC Building ) (b) Base Isolated Building ) Fig. Example of D FEM analysis for soil-structure interaction system -- FEM Fig. (a) ), (b) ) (b) ). * * * * * * 広島大学大学院工学研究科教授博士 ( 工学 ) 竹中工務店技術研究所主任研究員博士 ( 工学 ) 竹中工務店技術研究所研究員修士 ( 工学 ) 広島大学大学院工学研究科助教博士 ( 工学 ) 竹中工務店技術研究所主任研究員修士 ( 工学 ) 竹中工務店技術研究所研究員博士 ( 工学 ) Prof., Hiroshima Univ., Graduate School of Eng., Dr.Eng. Chief Researcher, R&D Institute, Takenaka Corp., Dr.Eng. Researcher, R&D Institute, Takenaka Corp., M.Eng. Assist. Prof., Hiroshima Univ., Graduate School of Eng., Dr.Eng. Chief Researcher, R&D Institute, Takenaka Corp., M.Eng. Researcher, R&D Institute, Takenaka Corp., Dr.Eng.

E RC FEM -- ) Penzien 8) 9) -- Table List of representative section (Column) Concrete Size Strength (mm) Main reinforcement F Fc -8 8 -D(SD)

Upper: -D9(SD) Lower: -D9(SD) F Fc -8 -D(SD9) -D(SD9) Table Weight of each floor (kn) F F F F F F RF 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 Table Eigen-period of each

Fig. ) RC ) Table Push-over Fig. Table T(s)=.HH:(m) Fig.,,,, D C B Y A,,,, X RFL FL FL FL FL FL FL(GL),8,8,8,8,8,8 Z,,,, 8 X δ (mm) Fig.

2 E RC FEM -- ) Penzien 8) 9) -- Table List of representative section (Column) Concrete Size Strength (mm) Main reinforcement F Fc D(SD) F Fc D(SD9) Table List of representative section (Beam) Concrete Size Main reinforcement Strength (mm) (End of beam position) RF Fc - Upper: -D9(SD) Lower: -D9(SD) F Fc -8 -D(SD9) -D(SD9) Table Weight of each floor (kn) F F F F F F RF Table Eigen-period of each model Eigen-Period (s) Approximate Period (s).8. FEM RC -- RC m.8m.m Fc SD9KSS8 SD SD9 mm R 88mm 8 mm mm mm Table, Table BRAIN ). Fig. Fig. ) RC ) Table Push-over Fig. Table T(s)=.HH:(m) Fig.,,,, D C B Y A,,,, X RFL FL FL FL FL FL FL(GL),8,8,8,8,8,8 Z,,,, 8 X δ (mm) Fig. Plan and framing elevation of the building Fig. Model image of the building Fig. Skeleton curves Q (kn) y=/ rad (=8 mm) u=/ rad (= mm) /rad /rad F F F F F F

F/ rad (=9mm) / rad ( 8mm) y=/rad u=/rad ( mm) h=% Table Fig. Vs FEM -- Shigeno ) Multi-Hardening ) LS-DYNA Mohr-Coulomb Masing - ) ) Tsujino 8) G-h- ()() H-D.=.8%, h max=%.=.%, h max=% G-h- Fig. h=.% Rayleigh G / G h h / () () f.

3 F/ rad (=9mm) / rad ( 8mm) y=/rad u=/rad ( mm) h=% Table Fig. Vs FEM -- Shigeno ) Multi-Hardening ) LS-DYNA Mohr-Coulomb Masing - ) ) Tsujino 8) G-h- ()() H-D.=.8%, h max=%.=.%, h max=% G-h- Fig. h=.% Rayleigh G / G h h / () () f. f G. () n m G G ref () ref G G ref V s m ref n =. () f Table f Tsujino FEM.m m GLm 8 Rigid Fig.(a) (b) /. max ( G / G ) No. GL(m) - Depth (m) Mass density (t/m ) Vs Table Profile of Soil Table Profile of Soil Table Profile of Soil Fig. Distribution of shear velocity V S for each soil model Fig. Dynamic displacement characteristics of Soil (Beam elem.) Hole GL(m) Soil Soil Soil G/G.8... Vs Vp Soil Poisson s property ratio bottom Vs.... Shear strain P P a) Modeling image (b) Mesh image Fig. Mesh model for pile and soil P P Sand Clay. GL(m) h max bottom h P P f (kpa) -. Sand Sand Clay Sand.8... Base No. Depth (m) Mass density (t/m ) Vs Vp Soil Poisson s property ratio. h max f (kpa) Clay Sand Sand Clay Sand.8... Base No. Depth (m) Mass density (t/m ) Vs Vp Soil Poisson s property ratio. h max f (kpa) -8.8 Clay Sand Sand Base bottom Vs C/L

4 P, P, P 9) PHC Table 8 GL-m m m m Fig. bottom m N-M-M TAKEDA Mc, My, Mu Acceleration (Gal) Table 8 Profile of pile Soil Length P P P Mass Fc E Poisson s h density No. (m) D(mm) (MPa) (GPa) ratio (t/m ) P for corner, P for Surrounding position except corner, P for the other position - Mu My Mc M M= [Ke]= M Mu My Mc Keep [Ke]: Element stiffness matrix (a) (b) Fig.8 Model Image of after Maximum Strength m.8m m m Fig.9 FEM Analysis model for soil-structure interaction system Kokuji L Kobe max.8 (.s) - 8 Time (s) Fig. Time history acceleration of input wave (Kobe L x.) Fig. 8 A () B TAKEDA Rayleigh h=% ) ) -- FEM Fig.9 + L.,.,.,. E Fig. Newmark-=/. Fig.9 L. Fig. Fig. Fig. GL-m.% GL-m. GL-8m. 8

5 ࡀ ࡁ ࡓ ࠋ Fig. ᘓ ᒙ㛫ኚᙧゅศᕸ ࠋᆅ ~ 㝵 Jࡀ - 㸪 ಸධຊ Jy 㐩ࡍ ࡀ㸪 ಸධຊ Ju 㐩ࡋ - Soil Soil ࠋᆅ 㸪 ᆅ Jࡀ ࠋ㹼㝵 ኚᙧ Soil ࡀ㐍ᒎࡋ㸪 ಸධຊ γy. ಸ㸪. ಸධຊ Ju ᗘ Fig. Maximum acceleration for each soil model (Phase: Kobe) Soil Lx Lx. Lx.. (Jmax)max. (Jmax)max (Jmax)max Soil Soil.. Period (s). KobeLx. KobeLx. KobeLx.. Period (s).. Period (s) Lx Lx. Lx Fig.9 ᆅ -ᇶ -ᘓ 㐃ᡂ 㸪ᆅ 㹼 ᛂ ᛶ ウࡍ ࠋධຊᆅ㟈 ᡞ L ಸ㹼 ಸ ࡍ ࠋ Fig.㹼㸪ᘓ ᮺ ᛂ 㸦 ࠎᘓ ຍ ᗘ ᒙ. Jy Ju Lx Lx. Lx -.. 'M ቑศ'I ồ 㸪ࡇ ๓ࢫ I ຍ ࡇ ࡎ A ࡘ ᛂ ᛶ ࡍࠋFig. ຍ ᗘศᕸ Lx Lx. Lx ࠋᆅ ධຊ ࡁࡉ ᘓ ᛂ ຍ ᗘࡀᑐᛂࡍ ഴ.. Max. curvatute (/m) (a) Soil ࠋ 㸪M-M-N 㛵 Ỵᐃࡉ ࡓ ࡆ ቑศ 㸪. ಸ௨ ධຊ ᮺࡀ ຊ 㐩ࡍ ࡓ ࠋ Lx - Lx..... Lx Lx (a) Soil (b) Soil (c) Soil Fig. Maximum distortion angle of pile -. - ಸ. ಸධຊ ࡋࡓࠋࡇ ᚋ ᆅ Ju - ࠋᘓ ᛂ ᗋ ኸ ࡘ ࡍࡀ㸪ᘓ 㝵㠃ෆ ࡓ ᅗ 㸪ᆅ ಸ㹼 ಸධຊ 㸪ᆅ 㸪 Lx Lx. (a) Soil (b) Soil (c) Soil Fig. Maximum drift angle of building ᛶ ࡋ㸪 ࡓࡇ ࡌ ࡌ ࡓ 㸪 ᐃࡋࡓࠋ A㸦ᮺ せ ࡀ ຊ 㐩ࡋࡓ 㸪 ࡋࡑ せ ᛶ ႙ኻ - Lx Lx. Lx Lx. ศ 㝖 ᐃࡋࡓࠋᮺ ኚᙧゅ ኸ P ᮺ 㛫ኚᙧゅ㸪ᮺ ኚᙧゅ㸧 ࡍࠋᅗ ᐇ 㸪Fig.8 ࠋᒙ㛫ኚᙧゅ㝵 ኚᙧ ᕪ ᅇ ኚᙧ Jy. - ࡍ 㸧㸪 B㸦 ຊ 㐩ᚋ ຊ ಖᣢࡍ 㸧 ࡋ Lx Lx. Ju 㸲㸬ᆅ ᇶ ᘓ 㐃ᡂ ᛂ ᛶ (a) Soil (b) Soil (c) Soil Fig. Maximum acceleration of building Jy ಸධຊ㸪 ಸධຊ ࠎ㸣㸪㸣 ᗘ ࡗ 㸪 ࡎ ረ ᛶ ࡀ ࡁࡃ㐍ᒎࡍ ᯝ ࡗ ࠋFig. ᆅ 㠃 ᛂ ࢫ ࢡ 㸦h=%㸧 ࡍࠋ Fig. Response spectra on ground surface (Phase: Kobe) Soil Acceleration (Gal) Acceleration (Gal) Acceleration (Gal) Fig. Maximum shear strain for each soil model (Phase: Kobe) Lx Lx. Lx Soil - Soil ᗘ ࡁ ᕪ ࡀぢ ࠋࡇ ᆅ ᮺ ረᛶ - ᆅ 㸪ᆅ 㸪ධຊ ࡁࡉࡀ ࡗ ᘓ ᛂ ຍ - ࡀ ࡀ㸪㸯㝵㝵 ຍ ᗘ ᕪ ẚ ᑠࡉ ࠋ Lx Lx. Lx - -. Iu - Lx Lx... Max. curvatute (/m) -. Iu Lx Lx.... Max. curvatute (/m) (b) Soil (c) Soil Fig. Maximum curvature of pile 9

6 y. Fig. Fig... % % % % Fig. u, :. :. u, A B Fig. Fig. u A u B GL-8m B u Fig. A B A A - E C A B C D E (a) Soil Lx. (b) Soil Lx. Fig.8 Maximum distortion angle of pile u A A - E C... Max. curvature (/m)... Max. curvature (/m) (a) Soil Lx. (b) Soil Lx. Fig.9 Maximum curvature of pile u Shaking Direction Shaking Direction A B C D E A Fig.8 A A E C A Fig.9 A Fig.. A GL-m Fig.8 A E C M-N 8kN Fig. M- TAKEDA M-N Mc, My, Mu Mu Mu (P) (P) Fig.. Moment (knm) Moment (knm) Corner s Mu-N My-N Moment (knm) Left (A) Right (E) Axial force (kn) Axial force (kn) Fig. M-N curve of pile (Soil, Lx., G.L.-m) Corner s - Left (A) Right (E) Curvature (/m) Fig. M-φ relationship of pile (Soil, Lx., G.L.-m) Shaking Max Disp.: 9.cm Time:.s Disp. Scale: times Fig. Behavior of building, pile and soil (Soil, L. input) Moment (knm) - Center Center Mu-N My-N Center (C) - Center (C) Curvature (/m)

/ Fig.. Fig. Sway Rocking Fig. --.. Fig. Fig. Fig. GL-m Fig. GL-8m Table 9 8, Fig. A B A B Fig. N-M Mu Fig. Table 9 Maximum shear strain γ (L.

Soil GL-m...8.. Fig. Behavior of building, pile and soil (Soil, L. input) Fig. Behavior of building, pile and soil (Soil, L. input) Max. distorsion angle (rad.

8.8 Soil Soil Soil... Fig. Comparison of maximum distortion angle Column.. Fig. Comparison of ratios of pile distraction and column yielding. Max Disp.:.9cm Time:.s Disp.

7 / Fig.. Fig. Sway Rocking Fig Fig. Fig. Fig. GL-m Fig. GL-8m Table 9 8, Fig. A B A B Fig. N-M Mu Fig. Table 9 Maximum shear strain γ (L. input) Max γ Soil Depth where Ratio of γ γ: Around γ: Around γ: Corner of model γ is largest. (γ/γ) corner pile center pile the soil model Soil GL-m... 8 Soil GL-8m...9. Soil GL-m Fig. Behavior of building, pile and soil (Soil, L. input) Fig. Behavior of building, pile and soil (Soil, L. input) Max. distorsion angle (rad.) Ratio of failure Sway Ratio:.9 Rock. Ratio:. Fig. Behavior of building, pile and soil (Soil, L. input).8. Bottom of Sway Ratio:. Rock. Ratio:.8 Bottom of Sway Ratio:. Rock. Ratio:. Bottom of Column.8.8 Soil Soil Soil... Fig. Comparison of maximum distortion angle Column.. Fig. Comparison of ratios of pile distraction and column yielding. Max Disp.:.9cm Time:.s Disp. Scale: times Column failure Max Disp.:.cm Time:.s Disp. Scale: times Column failure Max Disp.:9.cm Time:.s Disp. Scale: times Column failure Soil Soil Soil.... Soil max.. Soil max.. Soil max..

8 Fig. A B L L Fig.8,. Mu % A B A Fig.8(a) B (b) u TAKEDA (, Mu) A B % A Fig.9,. A B Fig.9 (a) A B A Soil failure ratio Soil failure ratio. Time (s) Time (s). failure ratio failure ratio.. Time (s) Time (s) Kobe Lx. Hachinohe Lx. Fig.8 Time history of failure ratio of pile y u Kobe Hachinohe (a) Soil Lx. (b) Soil Lx. Fig.9 Maximum drift angle of building - - Kobe Hachinohe (a) Soil Lx. (b) Soil Lx. Fig. Maximum distortion angle of pile - - (a) Soil Lx. (b) Soil Lx. Fig. Maximum curvature of pile L. Xeon E- v,. GHz, 8.8 GFLOPS / SHAKE.~ ) u u - - Kobe Hachinohe Max. curvatute (/m) Max. curvatute (/m) y u

9 Fig. NL L,. A y u NL y Lx. Lx Lx u Lx (a) Soil (b) Soil (c) Soil Fig. Maximum drift angle of building NL - - Lx Lx Lx - Lx. - (a) Soil... (b) Soil (c) Soil Fig. Maximum distortion angle of pile NL - u - u Lx Lx Lx - - Lx.... (a) Soil Max. curvature (/m) (b) Soil Max. curvature (/m) (c) Soil Fig. Maximum curvature of pile Max. curvature (/m) y u (a) max.fig. (b) max.. (c) max. SHAKE G-h- G-h-.. SHAKE Seed Fig. NL,, N, N SHAKE... SHAKE. ) y NL N N y u u NL N N u - u NL - N - N Max. curvature (/m) Max. curvature (/m) (a) Kobe Lx (b) Kobe Lx. (a) Kobe Lx (b) Kobe Lx. (a) Kobe Lx (b) Kobe Lx. Fig. Maximum drift angle of building Fig. Maximum distortion angle of pile Fig. Maximum curvature of pile (Comparison between NL and for Soil ) (Comparison between NL and for Soil ) (Comparison between NL and for Soil ) - -

10 L ) A B A B ) SHAKE.% SHAKE G-h- JSPS 899 ) Nakamura, N.: Resilience of Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction System, What is Structural Design to Keep Resilience and High Level Safety, PD paper of Annual Meeting, AIJ, pp.-,.8 (in Japanese),--,, PD,pp.-,.8 ) The Japan Electric Association, Technical Guide for Nuclear Power Station Seismic Design, JEAG,.(in Japanese),, JEAG,. ) Nakamura, N., et al.: Study on Response and Damping Characteristics for High-rise Building during the Off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake using D FEM Model, The rd National Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, OS-,.9 (in Japanese), FEM,, OS-,.9 ) Hamada, J., et al.: Seismic Numerical Analysis of d Raft Foundation with Grid-Form Deep Mixing Walls Supporting a Base Isolated Building, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (Transaction of AIJ), No. pp.9-9,. (in Japanese),,,, pp.9-9,. ) Sugimoto, M. and Onimaru, S.: Effect of Foundation Damage on Superstructure Damage during an Earthquake, AIJ Journal of Technology and Design, No., pp.9-,. (in Japanese),,, No., pp.9-,. ) Taga, K., et al.: Research on Design Input Ground Motion and Design Method of Building for Uemachi Fault Earthquake: Part Basic Policy of Input Ground Motion and Design Method of Building, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan, B-, pp.-8,.8 (in Japanese), :,, B-, pp.-8,.8 ) Hasegawa M., and Nakai S.: Basic Research on Effective Input to a Foundation, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (Transaction of AIJ), No., pp., 99. (in Japanese), :,,, pp., 99. 8) Penzien, J., Scheffey, C.F., and Parmelee, R.A.: Seismic Analysis of Bridges on Long s, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol.9, EM, pp., 9. 9) Miyamoto, Y., et al.: Study of Performance Evaluation of a Structure Supported on Foundation, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (Transaction of AIJ), No. pp. 9-,. (in Japanese),,,, pp.9-,.9 ) BRAIN, TIS, ) Ishikawa, Y., et al.: Study on Hysteresis Model for Earthquake Response Analysis of RC Building, Part- Comparison of Hysteresis Model, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan,, C-, pp.-,.9 (in Japanese), : RC ( ),, C-, pp.-,.9 ) AIJ Standard for Lateral Load-carrying Capacity Calculation of Reinforced Concrete Structures (Draft), AIJ, pp.-, ( ),,pp.-, ) AIJ: Seismic Response Analysis and Design of Buildings Considering Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, (in Japanese) :, ) Shigeno, Y., et al.: Numerical Analyses of a d Raft Foundation with Gridform DMWs Under Large Earthquake Load, paper No. 9, Proc. WCEE, Santiago, Chile,. ) Kashiwa, H., et al.: Seismic Response Analysis of Damages of the Kobe Earthquake in 99 and the Tokachi-oki Earthquake in, 9 th Symposium for Dynamic Interaction of Structure and Soil, AIJ, pp.8-8,.(in Japanese),, 9,, pp.8-8,. ) Hirose, H., et al.: Nonlinear lateral soil resistance around pile considering the effect of pile arrangement in pile group, Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering (Transaction of AIJ), No., pp.-,.8 (in Japanese),,,, pp.-,.8 ) Yoshida, H., et al.: Study on influence of multi-dimension input by three-dimensional effective stress analysis, Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting, Architectural Institute of Japan,, B-, pp.9,.8 (in Japanese),,, B-, pp.9,.8 8) Tsujino, S., et al.: A simplified practical stress-strain model in multi-dimensional analysis, Proc., International Symposium on Pre-Failure Deformation, Characteristics of geomaterials, Sapporo, pp. -8, 99. 9) Nakai, S.: Lessons Learned from Analysis of Damage due to the Tohoku Earthquake, Problems and Seismic Design for Soil and Foundation Structure against Strong Earthquake, PD paper of Annual Meeting, AIJ, pp.-,.9 (in Japanese) :,, PD,pp.,.9 ) Nakamura, N.: Three Dimensional Energy Transmitting Boundary in the Time Domain, Frontiers, Built Envi., (accessed: --) ) Nakamura, N.: Improvement of energy transmitting boundary in the time domain, Paper No., Proc. WCEE, Santiago, Chile,.

11 BASIC STUDY ON RESPONSE OF SOIL-FOUNDATION-STRUCTURE INTERACTION SYSTEM OF MIDDLE-RISE RC BUILDING USING NONLINEAR -DIMENSIONAL FEM AGAINST STRONG EARTHQUAKE Naohiro NAKAMURA *, Takuya SUZUKI *, Takaki TOJO *, Yuji MIYAZU *, Yoshimasa SHIGENO *, Junji HAMADA *, Soshi NAKAMURA * and Akinobu TAKADA * * Prof., Hiroshima Univ., Graduate School of Eng., Dr.Eng. * Chief Researcher, R&D Institute, Takenaka Corp., Dr.Eng. * Researcher, R&D Institute, Takenaka Corp., M.Eng. * Assist. Prof., Hiroshima Univ., Graduate School of Eng., Dr.Eng. * Chief Researcher, R&D Institute, Takenaka Corp., M.Eng. * Researcher, R&D Institute, Takenaka Corp., Dr.Eng. Since it is impossible to deny the possibility that buildings are attacked by earthquakes beyond the current design level, the estimation of the response of buildings against such extremely strong earthquake is demanded. In this paper, the behavior of middle-rise RC buildings which are not designed by dynamic analysis are studied against the earthquake up to times for the design level using detailed -dimensional nonlinear FEM considering soil-foundation-structure interaction. type of soil models (Type, Type and Type) and story building models are used for the analysis. These models are considered with the nonlinear effect of both soil and buildings and the soil structure interaction effect, and analyzed by large scale FEM. The input earthquake level is from. to. times of the Level design earthquake. Since the calculation load of these analyses is very heavy even by the current computer system, the method to reduce the load is necessary. In this paper, equivalent nonlinear model of soil was studied. Based on these study, following results are obtained. ) In the model of the hard soil, as the input increased, the plasticity of the building advanced, but the plasticity of the pile did not proceed. In the soft soil model, as the input increases, the plasticity of the pile progresses but the progress of the plasticity of the building was small. Also, in the model of the second type of general ground, as the input increased, both the plasticity of the building and the pile advanced. These qualitative properties are almost the same as the previous studies. On the other hand, quantitative evaluation is necessary to apply it to real problems. Regarding Level and higher input levels, it is not clear how much accuracy the existing model has. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the accuracy of these models and study to make more suitable model. ) We compared the models A and B which changed the behaviors of the piles after the ultimate stress. As a result, model A, which loses stiffness after ultimate stress, does not necessarily have the larger response than model B. In the case where the response of model B is large, the subsequent seismic motion is inputted, and the maximum response value is generated there. It is considered that the difference of the vibration characteristics of the coupled system in that state is the cause of the difference of the maximum response value. ) We investigated the equivalent linearization of the ground for the purpose of reducing the analysis load. In the general equivalent linear model based on SHAKE, the response accuracy decreased when the level exceeding the application limit of shear strain, especially in the soft soil. We proposed a method that uses the equivalent linear soil model based on the response of columnar model considering the nonlinearity of the ground, and explained the efficiency of the model. ( 年月 9 日原稿受理, 年 9 月日採用決定 )

JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 31 No. 6 Dec

31 6 2011 12 JOURNAL OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING VIBRATION Vol. 31 No. 6 Dec. 2011 1000-1301 2011 06-0159 - 08 1 1 1 1 2 1. 150080 2. 100124 1 2 3 P315. 93 TU 43 TU41 A Shaking table test