Analytical solution for deep rectangular structures subjected
to far-?eld shear stresses
H.Huo a ,A.Bobet
a,*
,G.Ferna
′ndez b ,J.Ram?′rez a
a
School of Civil Engineering,Purdue University,550Stadium Mall Drive,West Lafayette,IN 47907-1284,United States
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,University of Illinois,Urbana,IL,United States
Received 9May 2005;received in revised form 15August 2005;accepted 10December 2005
Available online 28February 2006
Abstract
Underground structures located in seismic areas have to support the static loads transferred from the surrounding ground under nor-mal working conditions,as well as the loads imposed by any seismic event.Typically underground structures have cross section dimen-sions much smaller than the wave length of ground peak velocities,in which case inertial forces can be neglected and the structure can be designed using a pseudo-static analysis,where the seismic-induced loads or deformations can be approximated by a far-?eld shear stress or strain.Current close-form solutions for deep rectangular structures subjected to a far-?eld shear stress are approximations that do not consider all the relevant variables.An analytical solution is presented in this paper for deep rectangular structures with a far-?eld shear https://www.doczj.com/doc/9517142212.html,plex variable theory and conformal mapping have been used to develop the solution,which is applicable to deep rectangular structures in a homogeneous,isotropic,elastic medium.The solution shows that the deformations of the structure depend on the relative sti?ness between the structure and the surrounding ground,and on the shape of the structure.The analytical solution has been veri?ed by comparing its predictions with results from a ?nite element method and from previously published data.ó2006Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.
Keywords:Deep rectangular structure;Relative sti?ness;Seismic design;Pseudo-static analysis;Analytical solution
1.Introduction
The ?nal support system of underground facilities in seismic zones must be designed to support static overbur-den loads as well as to accommodate additional deformations imposed by earthquake-induced motions.Seismic-induced deformations of underground structures can be produced by direct shearing displacements of active faults intersect-ing the structure,by ground failure,or by ground shaking.Most of the analytical work done so far has concentrated on the evaluation of the e?ects of ground shaking.
There are two basic approaches in present seismic design.One approach is to carry out dynamic,non-linear soil–structure interaction analysis using ?nite element or
?nite di?erence methods,where inertia forces are included.The input motions in these analyses are time histories emulating design response spectra.Input motions are applied to the boundaries of a ‘‘soil island’’to represent vertically propagating shear waves.In the second approach,the pseudo-static approach,inertia forces are neglected.The earthquake loading is simulated as a static far-?eld shear stress or strain applied at the boundaries of the ground where the structure is embed-ded.In the pseudo-static approach soil–structure interac-tion may or may not be considered.When the interaction is included in the analysis,?nite element or ?nite di?er-ence methods are typically used;analytical solutions exist which provide relationships to evaluate the magnitude of seismic-induced displacements or strains in underground structures (Penzien and Wu,1998;Penzien,2000;a com-prehensive review is provided by Hashash et al.(2001)).If soil–structure interaction is neglected,it is assumed that
0886-7798/$-see front matter ó2006Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.tust.2005.12.135
*
Corresponding author.Tel.:+17654945033;fax:+17654961364.E-mail address:bobet@https://www.doczj.com/doc/9517142212.html, (A.Bobet).
https://www.doczj.com/doc/9517142212.html,/locate/tust
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 21(2006)
613–625
Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology
incorporating Trenchless Technology Research
the structure follows the deformations of the ground. This is the free?eld approach(Hendron and Ferna′ndez, 1983;Merritt et al.,1985),where relationships are obtained based on the premise that the structure must accommodate the free-?eld deformations without loss of its integrity.This may not be entirely correct since the presence of the structure,if more rigid than the ground, would decrease the deformations of the surrounding ground.Although this e?ect may appear to bring predic-tions on the safe side,this is so only when the structure is sti?er than the surrounding ground.If the structure is more?exible than the ground,predictions may be unsafe because the liner distortions are larger than the free?eld deformations.To account for this e?ect Hendron and Ferna′ndez(1983),and Merritt et al.(1985),suggested to consider ground deformations compatible with the strain concentration imposed by the presence of the opening.
Analytical relationships are presented in this paper fol-lowing the pseudo-static approach to estimate seismic-induced distortions(racking mode)in deep rectangular underground structures,and taking into account the inter-action between the soil and the structure.These relation-ships can be an e?ective tool for practitioners.They allow readily identi?cation of the variables controlling the magnitude of the distortions and thus provide an insight into the behavior of the structure.The insight gained from the analysis can be used to optimize potential numerical remodeling e?orts by identifying pertinent parameters for sensitivity analysis.Estimates obtained from analytical relationships can also be used in pre-feasibility and feasibility studies to obtain early and relatively accurate assessment of structural requirements.Finally,analytical relationships can also be used to check the validity of the results obtained from numerical modeling.
2.Methodologies for seismic-induced structure deformations
The subject of ground-support interaction has been trea-ted by numerous researchers(Savin,1961;Timoshenko and Goodier,1970;Peck et al.,1972;Einstein and Sch-wartz,1979;Hendron and Ferna′ndez,1983;Merritt et al.,1985;Penzien and Wu,1998;Penzien,2000;Hashash et al.,2001;Bobet,2003),and it has concentrated mostly on circular cross-sections.A circular cross section may be appropriate for lifelines and deep tunnels,but for shallow structures(e.g.,cut-and-cover)and some mines a rectangu-lar cross-section is more common.A close-form solution for deep rectangular tunnels has been proposed by Penzien (2000).
Current seismic design approaches for circular tunnels proposed by Hendron and Ferna′ndez(1983),and Merritt et al.(1985),and for rectangular tunnels proposed by Penz-ien and Wu(1998),and Penzien(2000),suggest the use of simpli?ed relationships to estimate both the seismic-induced longitudinal as well as the circumferential strains in tunnel liners.Three assumptions are usually made:
(a)The dynamic ampli?cation of stresses associated with
a stress wave impinging on the opening is negligible.
This assumption is correct if the wave length of peak velocities is at least eight times larger than the width of the opening(Hendron and Ferna′ndez,1983).
Under these conditions the free-?eld stress gradient across the opening is relatively small and the seismic loading can be considered a pseudo-static load.The wave length can be estimated as V s/f;where V s is the shear wave velocity and f,the frequency of vibra-tion of peak ground motions.In most underground openings pseudo-static conditions are usually satis?ed.
(b)Plane strain conditions are assumed on any section
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tunnel.
(c)Linear elastic deformations of ground and structure.
In general racking of the structure(ovalization of the structure due to shear waves traveling perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the structure)is the most critical deformation.In a pseudo-static analysis,the shear wave motions can be approximated by a far?eld constant shear stress or shear strain.The magnitude of the far?eld shear stress s?is equal to the shear modulus,G,of the soil times the shear strain of the soil,c?.That is:
s ff?G c ffe1TThe free?eld shear strain c?can be obtained as:
c ff?v s=V se2Twhere v s is the peak particle vibration velocity,an
d V s is th
e shear wave velocity o
f the soil.
Wang(1993)ran dynamic parametric analyses on rect-angular structures with di?erent dimensions and sti?nesses. He found that the?exibility ratio of the structure,F,corre-lates well with the structure’s deformations.The?exibility ratio is expressed as:F?Ga=S1b,where a and b are the dimensions of the structure(Fig.1),G is the shear modulus of the ground,and S1=1/D1with D1equal to the displace-ment produced on the structure by a unit lateral concen-trated force applied to the top of the
structure.
614H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology21(2006)613–625
Penzien(2000)proposed an approximate method to evaluate the racking deformation of deep rectangular tun-nels subjected to a far?eld shear stress.It is an approxi-mate solution because of the assumption that the load transfer between the ground and the structure takes place only through shear stresses at the interface,and the defor-mations of a rectangular opening are approximated by those of a circular opening.Penzien showed that the defor-mations of the structure depend on the relative sti?ness,or the sti?ness ratio,between the ground and the structure. The relative sti?ness is de?ned with the parameter k stru/ k soil,which is the ratio between k stru,the sti?ness of the structure and k soil the sti?ness of the soil.k stru is equal to the magnitude of a uniform shear stress applied to the perimeter of the structure that produces a unit displace-ment of the structure;and k soil=G/b,where G is the shear modulus of the soil and b is the height of the structure.The relative sti?ness is the inverse of Wang’s?exibility ratio.
The normalized deformation of the structure,or the ratio between the structure deformation(D stru)and the free-?eld ground deformation(D?),D stru/D?,can be obtained by:
D stru D ff ?
4e1àvT
1te3à4vTK stru
soil
e3T
where v is the Poisson’s ratio of the ground.When the structure is much sti?er than the surrounding ground (i.e.,k stru)k soil),k stru/k soil is very large and the deforma-tion of the structure approaches zero.This corresponds to a very rigid ring embedded in a much softer material;the ring will keep its shape no matter the deformation that the surrounding material undergoes.On the contrary,if the structure is much more?exible than the surrounding ground(i.e.,k stru(k soil),k stru/k soil is very small,and the deformation of the structure,D stru,is4(1àv)D?.This is as if the structure does not exist and the solution corre-sponds to the deformation of the opening.Note that the value4(1àv)D?is exact for circular openings subjected to a far?eld constant shear stress,but it is an approxima-tion for rectangular openings.Another important assump-tion made in developing Eq.(3)is that ground displacements are imposed to the structure only through shear stresses at the interface,thus neglecting the contribu-tion of any normal stresses.
A new theoretical solution is proposed in this paper. Two are the keynote factors:(1)the new solution considers the contribution of both normal and shear stresses at the interface;(2)it considers the actual deformations of a rect-angular opening.The work presented in this paper is part of an on-going research to develop practical solutions for seismic design of cut and cover rectangular structures. 3.Theoretical framework
As with other analytical methods,the following assump-tions are made in the solution proposed herein:1.Deep rectangular structure inside an in?nite medium.
2.Plane strain conditions in any section perpendicular to
the longitudinal axis of the structure.
3.Elastic response of the structure and surrounding
ground.
4.Pseudo-static analysis.The seismic deformations of
ground and structure can be approximated by a con-stant far-?eld shear stress or strain.
The solution of any problem in elasticity must satisfy force equilibrium,compatibility of deformations,and boundary conditions.This is equivalent to?nd an Airy stress function U such that:
r2er2UT?0e4Twhere$2is the Laplacian operator.
In2D Cartesian coordinates,the stress components can be expressed as:
r x?
o2U
o y2
;r y?
o2U
o x2
;s xy?à
o2U
o x o y
e5Tand the strain components,in plane strain,are:
e x?
o u x
o x
?
1
E
?e1àv2Tr xàve1tvTr y
e y?
o u y
o y
?
1
E
?e1àv2Tr yàve1tvTr x
e6T
where E is the Young’s modulus of the material and v is the Poisson’s ratio.
Complex variable theory and conformal mapping tech-niques have been used for the solution of problems con-cerning rectangular openings in an in?nite medium (Mindlin,1940,1948;Muskhelishvili,1954;Sokolniko?, 1956).The fundamental theories of complex variable and conformal mapping have been extensively described by Muskhelishvili(1954),and later on by Savin(1961)and Timoshenko and Goodier(1970).A number of researchers have successfully implemented this technique into di?erent disciplines of engineering:(Theocaris and Petrou,1989; Theocaris,1991;Motok,1997;Gercek,1997;Exadaktylos and Stavropoulou,2002;Exadaktylos et al.,2003).For cir-cular tunnels the method has been very e?ectively used by Verruijt and coworkers(Verruijt,1997,1998;Strack and Verruijt,2002).
According to complex function theory,any biharmonic function(for example,the Airy stress function)can be expressed as:
U?Re? z uezTtvezT e7Twhere U is the Airy stress function;z is a complex variable and z is the complex conjugate of z;u(z)and wezT?v0ezT?d vezT=d z are two analytic complex functions,also known as‘‘complex potential functions’’.The stress compo-nents can be expressed in terms of complex potentials as: r xtr y?2?u0ezTt
r yàr xt2i s xy?2? z u00ezTtw0ezT
e8T
H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology21(2006)613–625615
The displacements in plane strain are:
2Geu xti u yT?e3à4vTuezTàz u0ezTàwezTe9Twhere u x and u y are horizontal and vertical displacements, respectively;G is the shear modulus of the material,G= E/[2(1+v)].
Fig.1shows the problem to be solved:a rectangular structure in an in?nite medium subjected to a far-?eld stress s?.Complex variable theory is used to determine stresses and deformations of the ground,while structural theory is used to?nd stresses and deformations of the https://www.doczj.com/doc/9517142212.html,patibility of normal and shear stresses and displacements is invoked at the interface between the ground and the structure to solve the problem.Thus,the approach followed consists of the solution of two initially independent problems:(1)the ground with a rectangular opening;(2)the structure.
For the ground the objective is to?nd the two complex potentials,u(z)and w(z).The Airy stress function for the ground can be expressed as:
U?U0tU?e10Twhere U0is the Airy stress function corresponding to the in?nite medium without the rectangular opening,and U* is the Airy stress function that includes the presence of the rectangular opening.
The two complex potential functions are:
uezT?u0ezTtu?ezT
wezT?w
0ezTtw?ezT
e11T
where u0(z)and w0(z)are the complex potentials corre-sponding to the in?nite medium without the opening,and u*(z)and w*(z)are the complex potentials that account for the presence of the opening.The complex potential functions depend on the boundary conditions,which are gi-ven by the known stress?eld at in?nity,s?,and by the stress ?eld at the interface between the ground and the structure, which is unknown and depends on compatibility of defor-mations between the ground and the structure.This intro-duces an additional level of di?culty since the solution depends on the solution itself.However,numerical simula-tions show that the shape of the normal and shear stress dis-tribution at the interface is rather independent of the dimensions of the rectangular opening and of the elastic properties of the ground and structure.In fact the shear stress can be well approximated as uniformly distributed around the perimeter of the structure,and the normal stress as linearly distributed(see Fig.2).This stress distribution follows the symmetry of the problem;there are two anti-symmetric axes:one vertical and the other one horizontal through the center of the structure.Thus,a complete solu-tion can be obtained if the stress distribution at the interior boundary is known.Note that only the distribution of the stresses is required;the actual values are obtained by estab-lishing compatibility of stresses and deformations between the ground and the structure.The?nal loads on the struc-ture will result from the addition of the seismic loads,which are the ones discussed in this paper,and the static loads from the overburden(not shown in Fig.2).
The Airy stress function and the complex potentials for the in?nite plate(no structure)subjected to the far?eld stresses s?are:
U0?às ff xy
u0ezT?0
w
ezT?i s ff z
e12T
Conformal mapping allows the transformation of the rectangular opening to a unit circle(Churchill,1960).The transformation is performed with the holomorphic func-tion(Savin,1961):
z?xefT?
a0
f
ta1fta2f2táááe13T
where a0,a1,a2,etc.,are complex constants.
The complex potentials u*(f)and w*(f)can be found from the following equation(Muskhelishvili,1954;Savin, 1961):
2p i u?efTt
Z
c
xerT
x0erT
u?0erT
d r
ràf
?
Z
c
f0
1
ti f0
2
ràf
d r
2p i w?efTt
Z
c
x0erT
u?0erT
d r
ràf
?
Z
c
f0
1
ài f0
2
ràf
d r
8
>>>
<
>>>
:
e14Twhere u*(f)and w*(f)are the two complex potentials in terms of f;r denotes any point on the unit circle;c is the
unit circle;and f0
1
and f0
2
are two boundary functions de-?ned as(Muskhelishvili,1954;Savin,1961):
f0
1
ti f0
2
?f1ti f2àu0erTt
xerT
u0
erTtw0erT
"#
e15Twhere f1and f2are:
f1?à
I
àr y
d x
d s
ts xy
d y
d s
!
d s
f2?
I
r x
d y
d s
às xy
d x
d s
!
d s
e16T
where r x,r y,and s xy are the stresses at the perimeter of the opening,and the integrals are performed along the contour of the
opening.
616H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology21(2006)613–625
4.Analytical solution
The conformal mapping of a rectangle can be approxi-mated with the following terms (Savin,1961):
z ?x ef T
?aR 1f tea t a T2f tea à a T224f 3tea 2à a 2Tea à a T80f 5
!
e17T
where a =e 2k p i =cos(2k p )+i sin(2k p );k is a mathematical parameter related to the shape of the opening k ,k =a /b ,the ratio of the length ‘‘a ’’and the height ‘‘b ’’of the rect-angular opening.The following equation relates the size of the opening,given by a and b ,the aspect ratio k ,and the parameter k .k ?a =b ?
1tcos 2k p à16sin 22k p à1
20sin 2k p sin 4k p 1àcos 2k p à16
sin 22k p t120sin 2k p sin 4k p e18T
For k <1/4,the length is larger than the height (a >b );for k >1/4,the length is smaller than the height (a
R ?1
21tcos 2k p à1sin 22k p à1
sin 2k p sin 4k p àáe19TThe rectangle ABCD in the ‘‘z ’’plane,shown in Fig.3,is transformed into a unit circle A 0B 0C 0D 0in the ‘‘f ’’plane.Point A 0in the unit circle corresponds to point A in the rect-angle,and so on.Note that ABCD is in a clockwise direction,whereas A 0B 0C 0D 0is counter-clockwise.This is so because the selected conformal mapping function transforms in?nity in the ‘‘z ’’plane into the origin in the ‘‘f ’’plane,and vice versa.In other words,the area of interest (the ground)in the ‘‘z ’’plane is outside the rectangle,which corresponds to the area enclosed by the unit circle in the ‘‘f ’’plane.
The distributions of normal and shear stresses at the perimeter of the rectangular opening are also shown in Fig.3.These are the stresses imposed on the ground by the structure.Identical stresses,but with opposite sign are applied to the structure (see Fig.2).The magnitude
of the shear stress s i ,which is unknown,is constant along the perimeter of the rectangle.The normal stress has a linear distribution on the four sides of the rectan-gle with a maximum magnitude p i 1along the side of length ‘‘a ’’and p i 2along the height ‘‘b ’’;both magnitudes are unknown.The positive sign of the normal stress denotes compression whereas the negative sign denotes tension (decompression given the initial static loading due to the overburden).
According to the Cauchy theorem,the ?rst integral of the ?rst equation in (14)is zero because the function inside the integral is analytic along the unit circle c (Churchill,1960;Timoshenko and Goodier,1970).The integral along the unit circle on the right-hand side of (14)is composed of four integrals:one for each segment A 0B 0,B 0C 0,C 0D 0and D 0A 0on the unit circle (see Fig.3).The integrals are solved analytically using Taylor series expanion of the functions inside the integrals (Huo,2005).
The functions u (f )and w (f )depend on p i 1;p i 2and s i .Compatibility of deformations between the ground and the structure are needed to solve for p i 1;p i 2and s i .The dis-placements of any point of the ground at the interface,given by Eq.(9)must be the same as the displacements of the same point of the structure.Points at the corners and centers of the sides of the rectangle are chosen to impose compatibility of deformations.Also,the structure must be in self-equilibrium.Based on moment equilibrium,the relation between p i 1and p i 2is:p i 1a 2?p i 2b 2
e20T
The structure is assumed to deform only due to bending (deformations of structural elements due to axial forces are neglected).This is a common assumption in structural mechanics.The structure deformations,in plane strain,are given by:
D stru ?e1àm 2S Tes i D s i tp i
2D p i 2
Te21T
where m s is the Poisson’s ratio of the structure,D s i is the deformation of the structure due to a shear stress s i ,and D p i 2is the deformation of the structure due to a linear nor-mal stress distribution given by p i 1;p i 2,with the condition p i 1a 2?p i 2b 2.D stru is the structure’s distortion,and is equal to the di?erence between the displacements of the top and bottom of the structure (see Fig.4).The actual values of D s i and D p i 2,can be obtained analytically or numerically from structural analysis.For the case of a rectangular structure with width ‘‘a ’’and height ‘‘b ’’with an interior central column,with members’sti?ness:lateral walls,(EI)w ;top and bottom slabs,(EI)s ;central column,(EI)c ,the deformations are:
D s i ?124k b 4
2eEI Tc k eEI Ts t1eEI Tw
h i tk 2eEI Ts 3k 2eEI Ts t2
eEI T
w h i 2eEI Tc
t1eEI Tw t3k
eEI T
s D p 2i ?14b 41c k s t1w h i tk s 7k s t5
w
h i 1c
t1w
tk s
e22Tz plane
p 1i
p 2i
a
i
i
A B
C
D
A‘
B‘
C‘D‘
1
(a)(b)
Fig.3.Conformal mapping H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 21(2006)613–625617
There is a mismatch between the dimensions of the struc-ture and the opening,with a di?erence equal to the thick-ness of the structure members.This introduces errors in the formulation,which may be important because the thick-ness of structural members may not be small compared to the size of the opening.This is generally the case for rectan-gular structures because its resisting elements must with-stand signi?cant bending moments.This issue is discussed later with the veri?cation of the analytical solution.
The D s i=D p i
2,ratio depends on the shape of the structure
and not on its absolute dimensions.Taking as reference the sti?ness of one of the structure members(E s I s),and express-ing all the other element sti?nesses as a function of the refer-ence member,Eq.(22)can be written,in a general form,as:
D s i?K sekT
E s I s
k b4
D p i
2?
K pekT
E s I s
b4
D s i=D p i
2?
K sekT
K pekT
k
e23T
where the parameters K s(k)and K p(k)depend on the shape of the structure and on the Young’s modulus and dimen-sions of the members of the structure.For a rectangular structure with no central column and members of equal sti?ness(E s I s),the above equations reduce to:
D s i?e1tkT
24E s I s
k b4
D p i
2?
e1tkT
60E s I s
b4
D s i=D p i
2?
5
2
k
e24T
Imposing compatibility of deformations between the structure and the ground at the interface,one gets:p i
1
?
p i
2
k
p i
2
?M s itN s ff
s i?L s ff
e25Twhere
where j=(3à4m)for plane strain.The functions f1(k), f2(k),etc.are included in Appendix1.Note that the coe?-cients M and N depend only on the shape of the structure, k,and on the Poisson’s ratio of the ground,m.The param-eter L also depends on the sti?ness of structure and https://www.doczj.com/doc/9517142212.html,bining Eqs.(23)and(26),one gets:
Hence the parameters M,N,and L depend only on:the Poisson’s ratios of the structure,m s,and ground,m;on the shape of the structure,k;and on the factor X?E s I s=Gb3, which is a measure of the relative sti?ness between the ground and the structure.Both factors,k and X are non-dimensional.
Fig.5is a plot of the parameters M and N as a function of the aspect ratio of the structure,k and Fig.6is a plot of L with k,and with the relative sti?ness,X,computed for a rect-angular structure with uniform thickness.The values of the Poisson’s ratios are taken as m=0.35and m s=0.15.As it will be discussed later the e?ect of the Poisson’s ratios is small.
The free?eld ground distortion,D?,is de?ned as the dis-placement di?erence between a point on the top slab of the structure and a point on the bottom slab,due to the free ?eld ground deformation c?.Thus,
D ff?c ff b?s ff
b
G
e28TNormalization of the structure’s deformation with respect to the free?eld ground deformation results in:
D stru
D ff
?
G D stru
s ff b
?e1àm2
s
T?N D p i
2
teM D p i
2
tD s iTL
G
b
e29T
M?j f1ekTtf2ekTj f3ekTtf4ekT
N?
f5ekTà0:076j ?j f3ekTtf4ekT f6ekT
L?à
e1àm2
s
TN D p i
2
àa
G
1t1
k
àá
j?Nf
7
ekTtf8ekT tN1à1
k
àá
f9ekTtf10ekT
èé
e1àm2
s
TM D p i
2
tD s i
àa1t1
àá
j?Mf
7
ekTtf11ekT tM1à1
àá
f9ekTtf12ekT
èé
e26T
M?j f1ekTtf2ekTj f3ekTtf4ekT
N?
f5ekTà0:076j ?j f3ekTtf4ekT f6ekT
L?à
e1àm2
s
TNàE s I s
Gb3
k
p
1t1
àá
j?Nf
7
ekTtf8ekT tN1à1
àá
f9ekTtf10ekT
èé
e1àm2
s
TMtK sekT
p
k
àE s I s
Gb3
k
p
1t1
àá
j?Mf
7
ekTtf11ekT tM1à1
àá
f9ekTtf12ekT
èé
e27T
618H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology21(2006)613–625
Combination of Eqs.(29)and (23)results in:D stru D ff ?e1àm 2
s Tf NK p ek Tt?MK p ek Ttk K s ek T L g Gb 3E s I s
e30T
This is a general equation that relates the geometry of the structure and the properties of the ground and the structure.
Eqs.(29)and (30)show that:(1)the normalized struc-ture displacement is independent of the absolute size of the structure;in other words the normalized displacement depends on k =a /b ,the ratio of length to height of the structure,which is a measure of the shape of structure;(2)the normalized displacement depends on the relative sti?ness between the structure and the surrounding ground,and not on the absolute sti?ness of the structure or the ground.The relative sti?ness ratio is given by X ?E s I s =Gb 3.If the structure is much more rigid than the surround-ing ground,X approaches in?nity and the deformation of the structure approaches zero.If the structure is much more ?exible than the ground,X approaches zero and the normalized deformation of the structure becomes equal to the deformation of a rectangular opening.5.Veri?cation of the analytical solution
A series of ?nite element analyses has been carried out with ABAQUS (ABAQUS,2002)to verify the accuracy of the analytical solution.The numerical tests simulate the problem of an in?nite isotropic,homogeneous,elastic medium (the ground)containing an elastic rectangular structure subjected to the far ?eld shear stress s ?(Fig.1).The veri?cation is performed assuming that the structure has no interior columns and the sti?ness of lateral walls,top and bottom slabs is the same.It has been found that the analytical solution provides best results,compared to those of the numerical model,when the dimensions a and b used in the equations correspond to those of the opening.Thus,in the following discussion a and b are measured from the interior of the structure (i.e.,from wall to wall,rather than between the axes of horizontal and vertical members).The reason for this is the constrain that the thickness of the structure slabs imposes on the ground
H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 21(2006)613–625619
behind,and thus for practical purposes the‘‘e?ective’’structure dimensions are those of the opening.
In the analyses,the following parameters are assumed: length of the structure,a,varies from4to8m,and12m; the height of the structure,b,remains constant at4m(this corresponds to structure shapes given by k=1,2and3, respectively;note that a and b are dimensions of the open-ing);Poisson’s ratios of the ground and the structure are 0.35and0.15,respectively.The results are obtained for dif-ferent sti?ness ratios X.
Fig.7provides a comparison between analytical predic-tions and numerical results for a wide range of relative sti?-nesses ratios,ranging from X=0to10.The range of sti?ness ratios used in the comparison extends beyond those typical in normal engineering practice.However, the sti?ness range encompasses values encountered in min-ing industry and/or temporary supports for civil structures, and the extreme values are used to provide the full range of results from the analytical solution.The predictions are acceptable,with maximum errors smaller than about 12%,and typical errors in the range2–8%.The errors may be due to some of the approximations made for the
development of the analytical solution,which include:(1) the linear normal stress distribution,or the constant shear stress distribution at the interface;(2)the number of terms used for the conformal mapping function z=x(f);(3) computation of integrals with Taylor series expansion;(4) e?ects of non-negligible thickness of structural elements given the size of the opening.The di?erences obtained with the analytical solution are,however,small enough such that it can be used for practical purposes.
Fig.7shows that the normalized structure deformation is very small when X is larger than5.It also shows that the normalized deformations increase as the shape factor,k, increases.As the sti?ness ratio decreases,the structure deformations increase very quickly towards those of a rect-angular opening without a structure.Fig.8plots some of the data shown in Fig.7,but for relative sti?nesses smaller than one,and highlights the deformations of structures softer than the surrounding ground.If the structure has the same sti?ness as the ground,the structure deformations will be those of the free?eld.This occurs for square struc-tures(k=1)with a sti?ness ratio of about0.14.As the shape of the structure is more elongated,the sti?ness ratio increases;for k=3,the structure has the same deforma-tions as the free?eld for a sti?ness ratio of0.5.As the sti?-ness ratio decreases below0.1,the normalized deformations increase very quickly.At the limit,when X=0(i.e.,there is no structure),the normalized deforma-tions are:3.774,3.469and3.844for aspect ratios k=1,2 and3,respectively.These results compare very well with the numerical results,which are:3.744,3.428and3.654. The errors are smaller than5%.
The e?ect of the soil’s Poisson’s ratio is small for square structures,as shown in Fig.9,but it may be signi?cant as the aspect ratio increases,particularly for structures with small sti?ness ratios(see Fig.10).For soils,the range of the Poisson’s ratio is smaller than that shown in Figs.9 and10,with values typically in the range of0.2–0.4;thus its in?uence is even smaller.
As already mentioned,the normalized structure defor-mation depends only on the sti?ness ratio X and on the aspect ratio k.In other words,the results do not change with the sti?ness of the structure or the ground,or with the actual dimensions,length and height,of the structure as long as X and k,remain the same.Two series of numer-ical analyses have been carried out in ABAQUS to check this conclusion.
In the?rst series,the Young’s modulus of the structure elements E s and/or the shear modulus of the ground G are
620H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology21(2006)613–625
changed,keeping the sti?ness ratio X ,and the shape ratio k ,constant.The thickness of the slabs and lateral walls of the structure is always 1m,and the Poisson’s ratios of the structure and the ground are 0.15and 0.35,respec-tively.Table 1contains the results of the normalized struc-ture displacement obtained both with the analytical solution and with ABAQUS.The Young’s modulus E s of the structure material ranges from 3000to 30,000MPa,and the shear modulus of the ground G ,from 10to 100MPa.Some of these values are not realistic but are included here for theoretical purposes to investigate a wide range of values where the analytical solution should still hold.The sti?ness ratio is always X =0.391.Table 1(a)contains the results for a square structure (k =1),and
Tables 1(b)and (c)the results for rectangular structures with k =2,and 3,respectively.The numerical results,D stru /D ?(normalized structure distortion),are insensitive to the imposed changes of sti?ness of soil and structure,which indicates that the relative sti?ness is indeed a nor-malizing factor.
In the second series the relative sti?ness is kept constant while the aspect ratio is changed.The results are tabulated in Tables 2(a)–(c),which correspond to k =1,2,and 3,respectively.In each case the dimensions of the structure are changed while their ratio is the same.The Poisson’s ratios of the structure and the ground,and the moment of inertia of the structure,are the same as in the ?rst series.Table 2show that the normalized structure distortions,D stru /D ?are indeed insensitive to the actual dimensions of the structure.
Further validation of the proposed analytical solution has been done by comparing its predictions with those obtained from Wang (1993)using the ?exibility ratio and Penzien (2000)using the relative sti?ness ratio.Two cases are considered for the comparisons.In the ?rst case the structure has internal dimensions a =4,8,and 12m,and b =4m,and thickness of all members 1m.In the second case the internal dimensions are a =13m,and b =3m,with member’s thickness 1m.The two cases are used to illustrate the e?ects of changes on k ,and X while the changes on Wang (1993)?exibility ratio are small.In all cases the Poisson’s ratio of the soil is m =0.35,and of the structure,m s =0.15.Results have been obtained for di?er-ent sti?nesses of the ground,G ,and of the structure ele-ments,E s .A comparison of the results obtained with the various solutions is shown in Fig.11.Note that for Wang’s and Penzien’s output the dimensions of the structure are measured from axis to axis (i.e.,the size of the opening plus half the thickness of the slab on each side),while for the analytical solution the internal dimensions of the opening are used.The results of the analytical solution bracket Wang’s and Penzien’s results but the di?erences illustrate the combined e?ects of k and X ,which are not incorpo-rated in Wang’s or Penzien’s solutions.For about the same ?exibility ratio,the analytical solution provides di?erent results because structures with di?erent aspect ratio,k ,and sti?ness ratio,X ,can have the same ?exibility ratio,F .In general,however,the analytical solution compares well with previous results for ?exibility ratios smaller than about 1.0–1.5,which correspond to structures sti?er than the surrounding ground or slightly softer.For softer struc-tures,with ?exibility ratios larger than 2,distortions pre-dicted from the analytical solution increase much faster than those from Wang (1993)and Penzien (2000).For very large ?exibility ratios (i.e.,no structure)the analytical solu-tion predicts normalized distortions equal to those of an unsupported opening (3.774,3.469and 3.844for aspect ratios k =1,2and 3,respectively;note that those agree with theoretical and numerical solutions,as indicated before)while Wang’s and Penzien’s are 2.4–2.8and 2.6,respectively.In Wang’s analysis the type of elements used,
H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 21(2006)613–625
621
which were beam elements with rigid connections,could have introduced constrains in the deformation of the ground.This issue could explain why the results are close
to those of a circular opening.Additional di?erences may be due to inertia e?ects in Wang’s dynamic simulations,which would not be found in a static analysis.In Penzien’s
Table 2
Normalized structure deformation with constant aspect ratios Structure length a (m)
Structure height b (m)
Aspect ratio k Sti?ness ratio X D stru /D ?ABAQUS D stru /D ?Analytical Error (%)(a)k =1,m =0.35,m s =0.154410.3910.4030.416 3.26610.3910.3910.416 6.48810.3910.3790.4169.810101
0.391
0.392
0.416
6.1
(b)k =2,m =0.35,m s =0.15842
0.3910.9320.972 4.312620.391 1.1030.97211.916820.3910.9210.972 5.5201020.391 1.0680.9729.0
(c)k =3,m =0.35,m s =0.1512430.391 1.098 1.2019.418630.391 1.231 1.201 2.424830.391 1.196 1.2010.43010
30.391 1.304 1.2017.9
Table 1
Normalized structure deformation with constant sti?ness ratio Structure Young’s modulus E s (MPa)
Structure moment of inertia I s (m 3)
Structure length a (m)Structure height b (m)Aspect ratio k Ground shear modulus G (MPa)Sti?ness ratio X D stru /D ?ABAQUS D stru /D ?Analytical Error (%)
(a)k =1,m =0.35,m s =0.1530000.083441100.3910.42010.416 1.0
60000.083441200.3910.43320.416 4.090000.083441300.3910.37950.4169.612,0000.083441400.3910.39010.416 6.615,0000.083441500.3910.39780.416 4.618,0000.083441600.3910.41340.4160.621,0000.083441700.3910.40980.416 1.524,0000.083441800.3910.37780.41610.127,0000.083441900.3910.37930.4169.730,0000.0834
4
1
100
0.391
0.3801
0.416
9.4
(b)k =2,m =0.35,m s =0.1530000.083842100.3910.9210.972 5.560000.083842200.391 1.1230.97213.490000.083842300.391 1.0560.9728.012,0000.083842400.391 1.0020.972 3.015,0000.083842500.391 1.1340.97214.318,0000.083842600.391 1.0110.972 3.921,0000.083842700.391 1.0560.9728.024,0000.083842800.391 1.1010.97211.727,0000.083842900.391 1.0340.972 6.030,0000.0838421000.391 1.0990.97211.6
(c)k =3,m =0.35,m s =0.1530000.0831243100.391 1.196 1.2010.460000.0831243200.391 1.273 1.201 5.790000.0831243300.391 1.243 1.201 3.412,0000.0831243400.391 1.145 1.201 4.915,0000.0831243500.391 1.304 1.2017.918,0000.0831243600.391 1.329 1.2019.621,0000.0831243700.391 1.321 1.2019.124,0000.0831243800.391 1.401 1.20114.327,0000.0831243900.391 1.301 1.2017.730,0000.083
12431000.391 1.297 1.2017.4
622H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 21(2006)613–625
analysis the di?erences may be due to the approximation of
a rectangular opening by a circular opening.
6.Summary and conclusions
The seismically induced deformations imposed to an underground structure can be approximated with a pseudo-static analysis where the seismic motions are applied far from the structure as a shear stress or shear strain.
Available close-form solutions for rectangular structures are approximate and are based on assumptions that may not re?ect how stresses are transferred from the ground to the structure through the interface.A new analytical solution has been presented in this paper that addresses some of the shortcomings of previous solutions.The new solution is based on complex variable theory and confor-mal mapping.The new solution has been obtained with the following assumptions:(1)deep rectangular structure inside an in?nite medium;(2)plane strain conditions in any section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the structure;(3)homogeneous and isotropic ground;(4)elas-tic response of structure and surrounding ground;(5) pseudo-static analysis.
The stress distribution at the interface between the ground and the structure(interior boundary values)is decided after a series of numerical simulations,which show that the distributions of the normal and the shear stress at the interface are quite independent of the dimensions of the structure and of the elastic properties of the ground and the structure.The shear stress can be accurately approximated by a uniform distribution around the perimeter of the structure,and the normal stress by a linear distribution.These distributions are consistent with the symmetry of the problem.The actual magnitudes of normal and shear stresses at the interface are determined by imposing compatibility of deforma-tions between the structure and the ground and by equi-librium of the structure.
The results obtained from the analytical solution are veri?ed with numerical simulations,which show that the errors obtained with the solution are typically smaller than 2–8%.The analytical solution shows that the ratio between the structure displacements and the free?eld ground dis-placements,D stru/D?,only depends on the relative sti?ness between the structure and the surrounding ground and on the shape of the structure.These parameters are de?ned as follows:relative sti?ness,X?E s I s=Gb3,aspect ratio,k= a/b.The sti?ness ratio is a dimensionless factor which relates the sti?ness of the structure(E s I s)with the sti?ness of the ground G and the height of the structure‘‘b’’.The aspect ratio k is the ratio between the length‘‘a’’and height ‘‘b’’.The dimensions that should be used in the analytical solution are those of the opening,measured from internal wall to internal wall.A structure with a shape ratio k will have the same deformations as a structure with a shape factor1/k,since one structure is the90°rotation of the other one.The normalized structure deformation decreases with the increase of X.For X=0,the deformation of a rectangular opening is recovered.When X is very large, the normalized structure deformation approaches zero. This is the solution of a rigid ring embedded in a much softer medium.For the same X,the normalized structure deformation increases with the aspect ratio k.The normal-ized structure deformation increases with the decrease of the ground Poisson’s ratio,even though the in?uence of the Poisson’s ratio is small.
The analytical solution has been veri?ed by comparing its predictions with those obtained from a numerical method and those from Wang(1993)and Penzien(2000). The analytical solution predicts larger deformations than those from Wang and Penzien for?exibility ratios larger than two,which may be due to some of the limitations imposed in their analysis.
The following provides a step-by-step procedure on how to use the solution,which can be done on a spreadsheet:
(1)Determine the internal dimensions of the opening a
and https://www.doczj.com/doc/9517142212.html,e a>b.
(2)Find the aspect ratio k=a/b,and factor k from
Eq.(18).
(3)Find the sti?ness ratio X.
(4)Use structural analysis to?nd D s i and D p i
2
,the defor-mation of the structure due to shear and normal stresses distributions,as shown in Fig.2.For simple structures use Eqs.(22)or(24).
(5)Find parameters M,N,and L,from Figs.5and6or
from Eqs.(26)or(27).Supporting equations can be found in Appendix1.
(6)Find normalized structure distortions,from Eq.(29)
or(30).
H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology21(2006)613–625623
Acknowledgements
The research has been supported by the National Sci-ence Foundation,Structural Systems and Hazards Mitiga-tion Program,under Grant CMS-0000136.This support is gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix1
The functions needed to obtain parameters M,N,and L in Eqs.(27)and(28)are:
f1ekT?A d0tB l0àA dàB l
f2ekT?àA d0tB l0tA dàB l
f3ekT?RA2b
k
tB2c R kà
RA2b0
k
àB2c0R k
f4ekT?RA2b
k
àB2c R kà
RA2b0
k
tB2c0R k
f6ekT?
X3
i?1
a i
f7ekT?R2A2b
k2
tR2B2ck
f8ekT?
R P
i?1
a i
f9ekT?R2A2b
k2
àR2B2ck
f10ekT?
R
P
i?1
a i
à3ta1à2a2t2a3
1ta1à6a2t10a3
t
1
k
R
P3
i?1
a i
1ta1t2a2t2a3
à3ta1t6a2t10a3
t1t
1
k
R1t
13
12
P3
i?1
a ie1à3a2T
"#
f11ekT?RA dtRB l
f12ekT?1t1 k
eàRA dtRB lTwhere,
k?a
b
?
1tcos2k pà1
6
sin22k pà1
20
sin2k p sin4k p
1àcos2k pà1
6
sin22k pt1
20
sin2k p sin4k p
R?
1
2e1tcos2k pà1
6
sin22k pà1
20
sin2k p sin4k pT
a1?1tcose2k pT
a2?à
1
6
sin2e2k pT
a3?à
1
20
sine4k pTsine2k pT
X3
i?1
a i?a1ta2ta3?1tcose2k pTà
1
6
sin2e2k pT
à
1
20
sine4k pTsine2k pT
A?1tcose2k pTt
1
2
sin2e2k pTà
1
4
sine4k pTsine2k pT
B?à1tcose2k pTà
1
2
sin2e2k pTà
1
4
sine4k pTsine2k pT
b?
???
2
p
p
à1t2k
c?
???
2
p
p
à2k
d?à
???
2
p
2p
t1à2kt
1
2p
ln
1àcos k p
1tcos k p
l?à
???
2
p
2p
t2k
b0?0:416à0:117ln
1tcosek pà3p=8T
1àcosek pt3p=8T
à0:009ln
1àcosek pà3p=8T
1tcosek pt3p=8T
à0:556arctan
sinek pTtsine3p=8T
cosek pTtcose3p=8T
tarctan
sinek pTtsine3p=8T
cosek pTàcose3p=8T
àp
!
t0:022arctan
sinek pTàsine3p=8T
cosek pTàcose3p=8T
tarctan
sinek pTàsine3p=8T
cosek pTtcose3p=8T
tp
!
c0?0:416à0:038ln
1àcosek pt3p=8T
1àcosek pà3p=8T
à0:084ln
1tcosek pt3p=8T
1tcosek pà3p=8T
à0:182arctan
sinek pTtsine3p=8T
cosek pTàcose3p=8T
tarctan
sinek pTàsine3p=8T
cosek pTàcose3p=8T
!
f5ekT??e0:707t2:121a2à5a3Te0:19t0:19a1à0:92a2t0:92a3Tàe0:207t0:5a1à2:121a2Te1:38à0:46a1t0:38a2t0:38a3T
e0:207t0:5a1à2:121a2Tte0:707t2:121a2à5a3T
t
13e0:38à2:76a2T
12e1t9a
2
T
à
à3ta1à2a2t2a3
1ta1à6a2t10a3
à0:08
X3
i?1
a ià
13
12e1à3a2T
624H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology21(2006)613–625
t0:407arctan àsinek pTtsine3p=8Tcosek pTtcose3p=8T
àarctan sinek pTtsine3p=8Tcosek pTtcose3p=8T
!
d0?0:208à0:089ln 1tcosek pà3p=8T1àcosek pt3p=8T
à0:032ln 1àcosek pà3p=8T1tcosek pt3p=8T
t0:589arctan sinek pTtsine3p=8Tcosek pTtcose3p=8T
tarctan sinek pTtsine3p=8T
cosek pTàcose3p=8T
àp
!
l0?à0:208à0:152ln 1tcosek pt3p=8T1tcosek pà3p=8T
t0:030ln 1àcosek pt3p=8T1àcosek pà3p=8T
à0:238arctan sinek pTtsine3p=8Tcosek pTàcose3p=8T
tarctan sinek pTàsine3p=8Tcosek pTàcose3p=8T
!
t0:147arctan àsinek pTtsine3p=8Tcosek pTtcose3p=8T
àarctan sinek pTtsine3p=8Tcosek pTtcose3p=8T
!
t0:203arctan sinek pTàsine3p=8Tcosek pTàcose3p=8T
àarctan sinek pTtsine3p=8Tcosek pTtcose3p=8T
!
References
ABAQUS User’s Manual,2002.Hibbit.Karlsson and Sorensen,Inc., Pawtucket,RI.
Bobet,A.,2003.E?ect of pore water pressure on tunnel support during static and seismic loading.Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology18,377–393.
Churchill,R.V.,https://www.doczj.com/doc/9517142212.html,plex Variables and Applications,second ed.
McGraw-Hill Book Company,New York.
Einstein,H.H.,Schwartz, C.W.,1979.Simpli?ed analysis for tunnel supports.Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,499–518.
ASCE,GT4.
Exadaktylos,G.E.,Stavropoulou,M.C.,2002.A closed-form elastic solution for stresses and displacements around tunnels.Interna-tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science39(7), 905–916.
Exadaktylos,G.E.,Liolios,P.A.,Stavropoulou,M.C.,2003.A semi-analytical elastic stress–displacement solution for notched circular
openings in rocks.International Journal of Solids and Structures40, 1165–1187.
Gercek,H.,1997.An elastic solution for stresses around tunnels with conventional shapes.International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science34(3–4),Paper No.096.
Hashash,Y.M.A.,Hook,J.J.,Schmidt,B.,Yao,J.I.,2001.Seismic design and analysis of underground structures.Tunneling and Underground Space Technology16,247–293.
Hendron,A.J.,Ferna′ndez,G.,1983.Dynamic and static design consid-erations for underground chambers.In:Howard,T.R.(Ed.),Seismic Design of Embankments and Caverns.ASCE,New York,pp.157–197.
Huo,H.,2005.Seismic design and analysis of rectangular underground structures.Ph.D.Thesis,Purdue University,West Lafayette,IN. Merritt,J.L.,Monsees,J.E.,Hendron Jr.,A.J.,1985.Seismic design of underground structures.In:Proceedings of the1985Rapid Excavation Tunneling Conference,vol.1,pp.104–131.
Mindlin,R.D.,1940.Stress distribution around a tunnel.Transactions of the ASCE,1117–1153.
Mindlin,R.D.,1948.Stress distribution around a hole near the edge of a plate under tension.Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Stress Analysis5,56–57.
Motok,M.D.,1997.Stress concentration on the contour of a plate opening of an arbitrary corner radius of curvature.Marine Structures 10(1),1–12.
Muskhelishvili,N.I.,1954.Some Basic Problems of the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity.Noordhoof Ltd.,Groningen,The Netherlands. Peck,R.B.,Hendron Jr.,A.J.,Mohraz,B.,1972.State of the art of soft-ground tunneling.In:Proceedings of the RETC1972,vol.1,pp.259–285.
Penzien,J.,2000.Seismically induced raking of tunnel linings.Earthquake Engineering and Structure Dynamics29,683–691.
Penzien,J.,Wu, C.L.,1998.Stresses in linings of bored tunnels.
Earthquake Engineering and Structure Dynamics27,283–300. Savin,G.N.,1961.Stress Concentration around Holes.Pergamon Press, London,UK.
Sokolniko?,I.S.,1956.Mathematical Theory of Elasticity.McGraw-Hill, New York.
Strack,O.E.,Verruijt, A.,2002.A complex variable solution for a deforming buoyant tunnel in a heavy elastic half-plane.International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics26, 1235–1252.
Timoshenko,S.P.,Goodier,J.N.,1970.Theory of Elasticity.McGraw-Hill Publishing Company,New York.
Theocaris,P.S.,1991.Peculiarities of the arti?cial crack.Engineering Fracture Mechanics38(1),37–54.
Theocaris,P.S.,Petrou,L.,1989.From the rectangular hole to the ideal crack.International Journal of Solids and Structures25(3),213–233.
Verruijt,A.,1997.A complex variable solution for a deforming circular tunnel in an elastic half-plane.International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics21,77–89.
Verruijt,A.,1998.Deformations of an elastic half plane with a circular cavity.International Journal of Solids and Structures35(21),2795–2804.
Wang,J.N.,1993.In:Seismic Design of Tunnels:A State-of-the-Art Approach,Monograph.Monograph7.Parsons,Brinckerho?,Quade and Douglas,Inc.,New York.
H.Huo et al./Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology21(2006)613–625625
安全风险管理大家谈 近期，为认真学习贯彻部党组关于全面实施安全风险管理的部署要求，深入推进“整治干部作风、严肃职工两纪”安全专项活动，在全局组织开展“安全风险管理大家谈”活动。 通过对《全面推行安全风险管理确保运输安全持续稳定》的学习，知道什么是安全风险管理？在铁路系统全面推行的安全风险管理，就是要结合铁路安全工作实际，通过风险识别、风险研判和规避风险、转移风险、驾驭风险、监控风险等一系列活动来防范和消除风险，形成一种科学的管理方法。重点是要抓好风险识别、风险评价和风险控制等要素。为什么要推行安全风险管理？随着高铁迅速发展、路网规模不断扩大、新技术装备大量投入使用，安全基础薄弱所带来的安全风险将更加突出。切实解决安全管理存在的突出问题，已是极为紧迫的工作。为破除铁路安全基础薄弱的“顽疾”，必须增强安全风险防范意识，引入安全风险管理方法。对于安全风险管理我们该怎样做？首先各层级能够及时全面掌握生产过程中本单位、本部门的风险控制点；其次明晰和落实安全管理责任制度，加强人员管理，提高设备质量；再次制定相应处理措施和搞好安全风险应急处置措施；最后转变职工思想，提高职工安全意识。 为了推动活动深入开展，本班组广泛宣传安全风险管理基
本知识、讲清活动目的和意义的基础上，动员和组织职工结合“7.23”事故调查通报和近期全路发生的几起事故，认真查找、分析总结自身和职工工作中容易出现的安全风险源。例如，职工下班离开工作场所前，必须切断各种电源，熄灭火种，清理垃圾，锁闭门窗，确保室内各项安全；作业人员在更换雨刮器等登高作业时，要系好安全带，防止滑落造成伤害；作业完毕后，做到“工完料净场地清”；更换完磨耗件后确认复位并做制动试验等等安全风险源。同时工长还要做好关键时间，关键岗位的监控；做到逐级负责、专业负责、分工负责、岗位负责；查找工作中的盲点和威胁安全的风险点，发现作业人员在作业中存在的安全风险源要及时指出并制止危险行为，班后会要作出分析，制定出相应的措施，防止问题的重复性发生。对本班组职工提出的好做法和意见建议，班组也要逐条、逐项组织职工学习、讨论，以取长补短。这样就充分调动职工的积极性，提高职工的警惕性。让职工做到“人人守安全，人人保安全”、“高高兴兴上班来，平平安安回家去”。 这次活动不仅牢固了广大干部职工的安全风险意识，也极大的提高了职工参与安全风险管理新思路的积极、主动性。截止目前，共排查出涉及本班组安全风险源35个，其中35个风险源已在受控范围之内，为确保安全生产打下了基础。
applied biosystems 7500荧光定量PCR 仪 绝对定量绝对定量实验实验实验简易简易简易操作流程操作流程 SDS 2.0
7500定量PCR 仪 绝对绝对定量定量定量实验实验实验简易简易简易操作流程操作流程 1. 双击桌面图标 ，或从Start >All Programs > Applied Biosystems > 7500 Software >7500 V2.0开启软件。进入主界面后选择Advanced Setup 。 2. 默认进入Setup 下的Experiment Properties 界面 2.1 输入实验名称 （Experiment Name ） 2.2 确认仪器型号 2.3 在实验类型中，选择Quantitation-Standard Curve 2.4 选择试剂种类 2.5 确认运行模式 3. 进入Setup 下的Plate Setup 界面，编辑基因（Target ）及样本（Sample ）：
3.1 在 的基因，并在Target 记的荧光基团及淬灭基择NFQ-MGB ；荧光淬灭基团（如BH 界面中设置基因及样品。利用 rget Name 中编辑基因名称，Reporter 和Quencher 淬灭基团。对于Quencher 的选择，如果是如果是TAMRA 探针，请选择TAMRA ；如果是其BHQ ），请选择None 。 添加新 encher 中选择所标MGB 探针，请选 果是其他形式的非
还可以利用其他按钮将之前已添加的基因进行保存(Save Target)或删除 (Delete Target)。利用添加新的样本，并编辑样品名称。 3.2在界面中进行样品板的排布。利用鼠标单选 或拖曳以选择反应孔，然后勾选左侧的基因及样本，同时在Task选项中 指定该反应孔的类型（S代表标准曲线数据点，U代表未知样本，N代 表阴性对照）。 3.3设置标准曲线：利用鼠标单选或拖曳以选择反应孔（一般情况下，每个 梯度设置三个副孔），而后勾选左侧的基因，在Task选项中选择S，然后 在Quantity中输入拷贝数。按照相同操作，完成标准曲线其他数据点的设 置（建议设置5个梯度）。 4.在Setup下的Run Method界面中，设定反应条件。
安全风险管理大家谈心得体会 近期，为进一步提升安全管理水平，确保安全生产持续稳定，运转车间结合车间安全生产工作，开展了安全风险大家谈活动，经过大中修和焊接施工过程中存在的安全重点风险源排查，以及时发现和消除安全隐患。并认真学习了段有关"安全风险管理"的文件精神，深刻领会了通过实施安全风险管理，增强安全风险的防范意识，构建安全风险的防控体系，达到强化安全基础、最大限度减少或消除安全风险、确保铁路安全为目的的指导思想和主要内容。 通过此次活动和有关文件精神的认真学习，要不断强化全员安全风险管理意识，开展安全风险控制活动，用风险理论来指导安全生产实践。针对近期天气异常、设备变化大的实际，准确研判安全风险点，采取有效措施，狠抓安全风险控制责任落实，全力确保运输安全万无一失。 此次"安全风险管理大家谈"活动，使全体干部职工切实把"三点共识"、"三个重中之重"和安全风险意识根植于思想深处，明确了两个认识，即：安全风险可以砸了自己的"饭碗";风险管理可以保住自己的"饭碗".通过统一干部职工的思想认识，为确保安全奠定了坚实的思想基础。 为确保风险点判定准确，车间要求工区每日的安全预想，要做到人人知道安全风险点、人人参与风险控制。结合现场作业实际，制定了调车长、连结员、值班员、助理值班员主要行车岗位安全风险卡和管理人员风险职责，做到"一人一卡，一岗一卡",要求上岗人员必须熟练掌握风险卡中安全
风险点和控制措施。 安全风险管理是系统性工程，以"安全第一、预防为主、综合治理"的思路，构建安全风险控制体系，就是要加强对安全风险的全面分析、科学研判，科学制定管控措施，最终实现消除安全风险的目标。
Applied Biosystems ViiA?7实时荧光定量PCR仪V1.X相对定量简易操作流程
1.双击桌面图标，，或从Start>All programs>Applied Biosystems>ViiA7Software>ViiA7Software v1.X开启软件。进入主界面后选择“Experiment Setup”。 2.选择“Setup”下的“Experiment Properties”界面。 2.1输入实验名称(Experiment Name)。
2.2选择Block类型。 2.3选择相对定量实验类型，“Comparative C T”。 2.4选择试剂种类。Taqman探针法选择“Taqman Reagents”，SYBR染料 法选择“SYBR Green Reagents”。 2.5选择运行模式。普通试剂选择“Standard”，快速试剂选择“Fast"。 3.选择“Setup”下的“Define”界面设置基因名称(Target)和样品名称(Sample)。
3.1在“Targets”下点击“New”，添加待测基因。在“Target Name”中编 辑基因名称，“Reporter”和“Quencher”中选择所标记的荧光基团及淬灭基团。对于“Quencher”的选择，如果是MGB探针，请选择NFQ-MGB；如果是TAMRA探针，请选择TAMRA；如果是其他形式的非荧光淬灭基团则选择None。 3.2在“Samples”下点击“New”，添加待测样品。在“Sample Name”中 编辑样品名称。 3.3在“Analysis Settings”下选择合适的“Reference Sample”（对照样 品）和“Endogenous Control”（内参基因）。
( 安全管理 ) 单位：_________________________ 姓名：_________________________ 日期：_________________________ 精品文档 / Word文档 / 文字可改 安全风险管理大家谈(新编版) Safety management is an important part of production management. Safety and production are in the implementation process
安全风险管理大家谈(新编版) 为进一步增强干部职工的安全风险意识，有效防控安全风险，解决安全生产中的突出问题，健全完善安全风险管控机制，确保安全生产持续稳定，我们石家庄客运段开展了为期三个多月的“安全风险管理大家谈”活动。 在铁路职工中掀起的安全风险大家谈”活动，号召全体职工立足本岗，围绕自身安全风险意识和风险措施落实存在的问题进行专题讨论，它将有助于全体职工将安全风险意识根植于思想深处，贯穿到运输生产的全过程，增强提高安全生产的自觉性；有助于全体职工牢固树立安全共识，做到任何时候都把安全作为大事来抓，把安全放在第一位来考虑，任何影响安全的问题都要立即解决，从而掌握安全工作的主动权；有助于将安全风险防范落实到各个工作人员，把安全风险降低到最低限度，形成全员推进安全风险管理的良好态势，从而进一步推进铁路安全生产持续稳定发展。
作为石家庄客运段高铁车队的一员，我所在的京桂一组以列车长王曼丽为组长各列车员为组员进行了安全风险大讨论。大家在会上畅所欲言，结合自己的实际岗位讨论了是如何做好安全工作的。不仅与大家分享了自己的经验，同时也能吸收别人的做法来提高自身。身为高铁动车组的乘务员，不仅要做好车内的旅客服务工作，更要保障旅客的生命安全，只有自身提高了安全意识和警惕性，旅客的安全才多一分保障。 第一，自身安全意识要增强。结合“学标、贯标”活动，加强自身知识的积累，认真学习新的铁路旅客运输规程，对修改的部分更要加强辨识，主动落实动车组列车服务质量规范的规章制度，同时加强列车运行的接算站示意图的学习，为旅客提供接续列车的转乘和时间的规划服务；根据车队每日发布的安全预警，确保个人风险点的判定准确，要求人人的安全预想要做到人人知道安全风险点，人人参与风险监控，做到人人为安全着想；车队按照简单、实用的原则，结合现场作业实际制定了岗位安全风险控制卡和各岗位人员风险职责，同时各岗位起到互控作用，列车长与列车员、列车员与
中海达Hi-RTK简易操作流程 中海达RTK系列产品以其简单易懂、人性化的操作赢得客户好评，下面以GIS+手簿HI-RTK2.5道路版本为例，简要说明其操作流程。 一、软件界面 HI-RTK为九宫格菜单，每个菜单都对应一个大功能，界面简洁直观，容易上手，如图1 图1 其中1、2、3、5项为重点使用项目，基本涵盖了碎部测量和各种放样功能，2.5版本增加了向导功能，该功能可以引导新手从新建项目开始到测量进行设置，由于其他版本并没有此项功能，因此本文重点说明如何用1、2、3、5项菜单完成一次测量工作的流程。 二、使用流程 1、新建项目 点击“项目”图标，进入项目设置界面，如图2
图2 点击“新建”图标，进入输入界面，如图3 图3 2.5版本默认了将当天日期作为新建项目名称，如果不想用，也可以自己输入要用的名称，界面上的“向上箭头”为大小写切换，“123”为数字字母切换，输入完毕后点击“√”，新建项目成功，点击“×”，返回九宫格菜单。如图4
图4 2、设置参数 点击九宫格菜单第三项“3.参数”进入参数设置界面，界面显示为坐标系统名称，以及“椭球、投影、椭球转换、平面转换、高程拟合、平面格网、选项”七项参数的设置，如图5
图5 首先设置椭球，源椭球为默认的“WGS84”，当地椭球则要视工程情况来定，我国一般使用的椭球有两种，一为“北京54”，一为“国家80”工程要求用哪个就选哪个，点击框后面的下拉小箭头选择。 再设置投影，方法为：点击屏幕上“投影”，界面显示了“投影方法”以及一些投影参数，如图6 图6 工程一般常用高斯投影，高斯投影又分六度带、三度带、一点五度带等，选什么要视工程情况而定，工程需要三度带就选三度带，需要注意的是如果工程需要一点五度带则要选择“高斯自定义”，选择方法也是点击显示框右边的下拉小箭头选择，选择好投影方法后，我们要修改的是“中央子午线”，修改方法是双击中央子午线的值，再点击右上角“×”旁边的虚拟键盘按钮，调出小键盘修改，注意修改后格式一定要和以前一样为×××：××：××.×××××E如图7
编号：AQ-BH-07307 ( 文档应用) 单位：_____________________ 审批：_____________________ 日期：_____________________ WORD文档/ A4打印/ 可编辑 安全风险管理大家谈心得体会 Experience of safety risk management
安全风险管理大家谈心得体会 备注：每次经过学习之后总想着把自己学习到的经验记录下来，这会在潜移默化中濡染到生活中的其他事情，做事更加具有目的性，做事更加具有连贯性，不再是一股脑去做，步步摸棋。 一直以来，无论对于旅客还是铁路，安全出行、平安归来都是大家共同的愿望。 安全是铁路永恒的主题。当前，铁路工作引入安全风险管理方法，构建安全风险控制体系，提高铁路安全管理的科学化水平，是铁路继开展“服务旅客创先争优”活动后的又一重要举措，彰显了铁路对待安全工作的积极态度。 2012年，铁路运输安全工作面临着新的挑战。我们要深刻吸取“7?23”事故教训，牢固树立安全发展理念，始终把确保高铁、客车和人民群众生命财产安全放在一切工作的首位，继续强化安全基础建设，全面推进安全风险管理。铁路要实现持续、稳定的科学化发展，安全是必要的前提。 在目前召开的全国铁路工作会议上提出了新思路，铁路将在“十二五规划”的开局之年暨2012年，全面推进安全风险管理。铁路各
级部门要根据本单位、本部门的实际情况，制定切实可行的安全风险制度，适度拉大安全风险奖励机制，把安全风险责任落实细化到班组和岗位上，增强全路广大职工保安全的风险意识，形成全员共保安全的良性循环。 那么，安全风险管理的举措好在哪里？ 好就好在它尊重铁路安全生产规律，循序渐进地提高安全管理的科学化水平。任何事物都有规律可循，铁路发展也要讲究科学。铁路的发展还是需要一个循序渐进的过程，想一蹴而就达到铁路大发展的目的的想法是不现实的。我们应该看到，近年来高铁的发展过于快速，人员素质、行车设备等短板效应已日益显现，给铁路安全、持续、稳定发展构成了一定的威胁。尊重铁路安全生产规律，确立安全风险管理的新思路，从根本上提高铁路安全管理的科学化水平，最大限度地减少或消除安全风险，从而实现运输安全的长治久安。 近期，为进一步提升安全管理水平，确保安全生产持续稳定，开展了安全风险大家谈活动，经过大中修和施工过程中存在的安全
QPS-201加样流程和Step One Plus仪器的仪器操作 要准备的东西： 1.八排管和盖子 2.96孔细胞培养板 3.移液器：10ul,20ul,100ul,200ul。 4.枪头10ul,20ul,100ul,200ul或者300ul。 5.200ul和600ul的PCR管。 6.试剂：QPk-201，上下游引物，cDNA，去RNA酶的PCR水 7.注意事项： A.引物的储存浓度100nm，工作浓度：5-10nmol,引物要过量，上下游引物要先混匀在一起，然后再加。内参actin和目标基因的引物都要混匀。混匀后的引物可用半个月，用时要反复混匀，水样的东西混20下，油状的（酶）东西至少要混30下。 B.试剂配总管用，cDNA和酶mix配一管，引物和水配一管。混匀之后，再分别加到管子里。为什么试剂要配总管呢？cDNA模板量很少，所以加多加少对实验影响很大，酶加10ul，样多，少量的东西要想混匀，必须放在大量的东西里这样再去混匀，就可以使每个管子里的样品都能保证是一致的。 C.内参和目标基因都要跑3个复孔，取平均值，差异CT值要在0.5之内，如果Ct值>0.5，结果就不可信，要重新再做。 （一）QPk-201加样流程： 用QPk-201做样品体系是20ul的。 cDNA :2ul PCR水：6ul 上下游引物共：2ul 酶MIX：10ul 一共是20ul体系。 把cDNA :2ul和酶mix：10ul共12ul配一管。 把引物：2ul和水6ul共8ul配一管。 以下以样品为例，加样流程如下： 目标基因STOB1，样品六个，编号：1,2,3,C5，C6，C7 内参基因actin
我对铁路安全风险管理的心得体会。作为一位铁路员工我深入理解安全的重要性，安全第一这句话也时刻铭记在广大铁路职工的心中，从铁路部分的管理到铁路职工的一言一行，都是将安全放在了首位，这次铁路将安全风险管理引进来，这是一个创举，一个传统与现代科技的紧密结合，一个行业不断进步的见证。安全风险管理，顾名思义，触及安全就有风险，就要对其进行认真管理。安全文化是企业的重要组成部份，它已文化为载体把安全风险管理的强迫性和文化管理的柔韧性有机的结合起来，通过文化的手段和文化的气力去引导职工、凝聚职工、鼓励职工，促使职工把遵章守纪，安全生产作为自觉、自律、自动的行为，把企业的安全融入个人的理想寻求，使安全生产有序可控、长治久安。安全是铁路的永久主题。在目前运输安全还不能完全依托先进设备和技术得以保障的情况下，要确保运输生产的长治久安，就必须坚持现代管理发展方向，当前铁路安全要素和情势变化的基础上，创新铁路安全管理的重要举措，是新时期强化铁路安全管理的必由之路。在进步设备、科技保安全能力的同时，更加重视从文化的角度研究和分析安全规律，发挥人的作用，不断提升管理水平，强化安全保障能力。为进一步学习安全风险管理，提升安全风险意识，确保安全生产延续稳定，我们要从一线职工着手，从最简单的风险源辨识，到风险源的查找，将安全风险管理应用到各项工作中去,从安全风险的概念，到安全风险的辨识和安全风险的分析和总结，从管理上深入，从意识上进步，在行动中见证，在实践中将安全与风险结合并应用，始终把安全放在第一位，把人民的利益放在第一位，把建设现代化铁路放在第一位，为安全风险管理打下坚实基础。所谓安全意识，就是人们头脑中建立起来的生产必须安全的观念，也就是人们在生产活动中各种各样有可能对自己或他人造成伤害的外在环境条件的一种戒备和警觉的心理状态。安全风险管理大家谈实行安全风险管理，条件是强化安全风险意识，关键是加强安全风险进程控制，重点是抓好安全风险管理基础建设，目的是消除安全风险。预防为主是实现安全第一的条件条件，也是重要手段和方法。隐患险于明火，防范胜于救灾，固然人类还不可能完全杜绝事故的发生，实现绝对安全，但只要积极探索规律，采取有效的事前预防和控制措施，做到防范于未然，将事故消灭在萌芽状态，交通事是可以大大减少乃至可以免的。安全第一是做好一切工作的试金石，是落实以人为本的根本措施。坚持安全第一，就是对国家负责，对企业负责，对人的生命负责。铁路是大联动机，需要各系统、各部分、各工种之间密切配合、协同作业。任何一个环节、一个进程出现了闪失都将会对整体结果产生影响。一定要建立良好的群体意识，相互帮助，相互保护，相互协作，密切配合，这是保障安全驾驶的重要条件。所以，进程控制不正确、不到位本身就是一种严重的风险，随着铁路新技术、新设备的大量采用，这类风险将逐渐加大，已成为一种亟待解决的主要风险源之一。加能职员、设备、管理、技术之间的调和配合，加强各环节之间的进程控制，是有效解决风险的管理的根本途径。
applied biosystems StepOne/StepOnePlus 荧光定量PCR仪 绝对定量实验简易操作流程 绝对定量实验简易操作流程 SDS 2.2
StepOne/StepOnePlus定量PCR仪 绝对定量实验简易操作流程 绝对定量实验简易操作流程 1.双击桌面图标，或从Start > All Programs > Applied Biosystems > StepOne Software> StepOne Software V2.2开启软件。进入主界面后选择Advanced Setup 。 2.进入Setup下的Experiment Properties界面： 2.1输入实验名称（Experiment Name） 2.2选择仪器型号 2.3 2.3在实验类型中，选择Quantitation-Standard Curve
2.4选择试剂种类 2.5选择运行模式 3.进入Setup下的Plate Setup界面，设置基因（Target）及样本（Sample）： 3.1在左边界面中设置基因及样本。利用 按钮添加新 的基因，并在Target Name中编辑基因名称，Reporter和Quencher中选择所标记的荧光基团及淬灭基团。对于Quencher的选择，如果是MGB探针，请选择NFQ-MGB；如果是TAMRA探针，请选择TAMRA；如果是其他形式的非荧光淬灭基团（如BHQ），请选择None。
也可以利用其他按钮保存（Save Target）或删除（Delete Target）已添加的基因。利用 按钮添加样本，在Sample name中编辑样本名称。 3.2在右边 界面中进行样品板的排布。利用鼠标单选或拖曳以选择 反应孔，然后勾选左侧的基因及样本，同时在Task选项中指定该反应孔的类型（S 代表标准曲线数据点，U代表未知样本，N代表阴性对照）。 3.3设置标准曲线：利用鼠标单选或拖曳以选择反应孔（一般情况下，每个梯度设置三 个副孔），而后勾选左侧的基因，在Task选项中选择S，然后在Quantity中输入拷
安全风险管理工作制度示 范文本 In The Actual Work Production Management, In Order To Ensure The Smooth Progress Of The Process, And Consider The Relationship Between Each Link, The Specific Requirements Of Each Link To Achieve Risk Control And Planning 某某管理中心 XX年XX月
安全风险管理工作制度示范文本 使用指引：此管理制度资料应用在实际工作生产管理中为了保障过程顺利推进，同时考虑各个环节之间的关系，每个环节实现的具体要求而进行的风险控制与规划，并将危害降低到最小，文档经过下载可进行自定义修改，请根据实际需求进行调整与使用。 各（区）队、科室： 为全面辨识、管控矿井在生产过程中，针对各系统、 各环节可能存在的安全风险、危害因素以及重大危险源， 将风险控制在隐患形成之前，把可能导致的后果限制在可 防、可控范围之内，提升安全保障能力，根据公司要求并 结合我矿实际，特制定本办法。 一、总则 安全风险分级管控是指在安全生产过程中，针对各系 统、各环节可能存在的安全风险、危害因素以及重大危险 源，进行超前辨识、分析评估、分级管控的管理措施。单 位主要负责人是本单位安全风险分级管控工作实施的责任 主体,各业务科室是本专业系统的安全风险分级管控工作实
施的责任主体。 二、“安全风险分级管控”组织机构 （一）成立“风险分级管控”工作领导组： 组长：高刚 常务副组长：苏显峰 副组长：张年富李树坤王力 成员：关长福许海龙龚哲常维辉李云南纪佩野各区队负责人 领导组下设办公室，办公室设在技术科。 （二）领导组职责 1、矿长是安全风险分级管控第一责任人，对安全风险管控全面负责。 2、安全副矿长负责对安全风险分级管控实施的监督、管理、考核。 3、各副矿长具体负责实施分管系统范围内的安全风险
编号：SM-ZD-37088 “安全风险管理大家谈”大讨论活动实施方案Through the process agreement to achieve a unified action policy for different people, so as to coordinate action, reduce blindness, and make the work orderly. 编制：____________________ 审核：____________________ 批准：____________________ 本文档下载后可任意修改
“安全风险管理大家谈”大讨论活 动实施方案 简介：该方案资料适用于公司或组织通过合理化地制定计划，达成上下级或不同的人员之间形成统一的行动方针，明确执行目标，工作内容，执行方式，执行进度，从而使整体计划目标统一，行动协调，过程有条不紊。文档可直接下载或修改，使用时请详细阅读内容。 推进铁路科学发展、安全发展，把安全风险管理贯穿到铁路工作的各个方面，是实现铁路运输安全长治久安的战略举措。根据段文件精神，结合本车间实际，现制定大讨论活动实施方案如下，请各党支部严格遵照执行： 一、成立车间活动领导小组 组长：党总支书记车间主任 副组长：各党支部书记 成员：车间行管人员各党小组长 二、活动的目的 为认真贯彻落实部、局、段各级指示精神、为建设平安和谐新昌南、为保证新车间成立后各项工作的全面展开，车间党总支按上级要求开展“安全风险管理大家谈”大讨论活动。通过安全风险意识培育、安全风险识别研判、安全风险
过程控制、安全风险应急处置、安全风险管理评估考核等一系列活动，防范和消除安全风险，确保车间安全生产的持续稳定。 三、活动的意义 开展此项活动，要把车间全体干部职工的思想统一起来，达成共识，充分认识到安全是铁路永恒的主题，是各项工作的重中之重，使干部职工思想得到进一步教育，安全风险意识得到进一步增强，工作热情得到进一步激发，合力构建安全风险的防控体系，从而实现安全风险的“预先控制，超前防范”的良好氛围，为实现车间20xx年各项目标任务和创建运用检车模范车间提供思想保证。 四、活动期限：XX年XX月XX日起至XX年XX月XX 日止，为期XX个月。 五、活动实施方案： 1、车间成立的活动领导小组组长和副组长，要按照“领导负责、专业负责、分工负责、岗位负责”的原则，全面负责“安全风险管理大家谈”大讨论活动的组织领导。小组成员和班工长要全面落实“安全风险管理大家谈”大讨论活动
CopyCaller Software简易操作流程 简易操作流程
CopyCaller Software 简易操作流程 CopyCaller Software软件能够简便、快速地分析来自于Applied Biosystems品牌实时荧光定量PCR仪的TaqMan? Copy Number Assays实验数据。 1.准备实时荧光定量PCR数据 1.1在Applied Biosystems?品牌实时荧光定量PCR仪上运行TaqMan? Copy Number Assays实验，实验类型设置为绝对定量，每个样品 推荐做4个重复，具体设置请参考TaqMan? Copy Number Assays 实验手册。 1.2分析实验数据 将阈值线手动设定为：0.2 自动基线设为：ON 1.3导出包含Ct值的实验数据文件，文件类型选择为.txt或者.csv。 2.使用CopyCaller Software软件分析数据 2.1 打开CopyCaller Software软件 双击桌面图标，或从Start > All programs > Applied Biosystems > CopyCallerSoftware> CopyCaller开启软件。
2.2双击图标，导入.txt或者.csv的文件，选择需要分析的一个或 者多个文件，点击open，选中的文件将会出现在软件的Assay Selection界面。 2.3分析实验数据 如下图所示，在○1assay selection界面中选择所要分析的数据，○2点击绿色图标分析，弹出分析设置界面，如果实验中包含已知基因拷贝数的样品，选择○3with calibration sample，在calibrator sample下拉选项中选择用做校正的样品名称，在calibrator sample copy number中输入拷贝数；如果实验中没有已知拷贝数的样品，选择○4without calibration sample, 在most frequent sample copy number中输入本次实验中大多数样品预测的拷贝数。点击○5 Apply分析实验。
安全风险管理大家谈心得体会 [模版仅供参考，切勿通篇使用] 安全风险管理大家谈心得体会 近期，为进一步提升安全管理水平，确保安全生产持续稳定，重点维修车间结合车间安全生产工作，开展了安全风险大家谈活动，经过大中修和焊接施工过程中存在的安全重点风险源排查，以及时发现和消除安全隐患。并认真学习了段有关"安全风险管理"的文件精神，深刻领会了通过实施安全风险管理，增强安全风险的防范意识，构建安全风险的防控体系，达到强化安全基础、最大限度减少或消除安全风险、确保铁路安全为目的的指导思想和主要内容。 通过此次活动和有关文件精神的认真学习，要不断强化全员安全风险管理意识，开展安全风险控制活动，用风险理论来指导安全生产实践。针对近期天气异常、设备变化大的实际，准确研判安全风险点，采取有效措施，狠抓安全风险控制责任落实，全力确保运输安全万无一失。 此次"安全风险管理大家谈"活动，使全体干部职工切实把"三点共识"、"三个重中之重"和安全风险意识根植于思想深处，明确了两个认识，即：安全风险可以砸了自己的"饭碗";风险管
理可以保住自己的"饭碗".通过统一干部职工的思想认识，为确 保安全奠定了坚实的思想基础。 为确保风险点判定准确，车间要求工区每日的安全预想，要做到人人知道安全风险点、人人参与风险控制。我觉得应该按照"简单、实用"的原则，结合现场作业实际，制定了线路工、道口工、探伤工、焊接工等主要行车岗位安全风险卡和管理人员风险职责，做到"一人一卡，一岗一卡",要求上岗人员必须熟练掌握 风险卡中安全风险点和控制措施。 当前要面临道岔大修工作，要加强民工的安全教育培训工作，特别要加强近期（节后刚回来）的安全教育培训工作，重点检查施工过程中作业防护问题，走行轨摆放要"平行",坡度要控制好，确保施工过程中安全可控。封锁前慢行阶段的准备工作，必须严格按章办事，严禁准备工作过头。([ ])气割作业时，氧气与乙炔的摆放距离需大于5米以上，完成气割后将氧气与乙炔转移至安全地点。高行程起道机要同起同落，每机一人负责操作机械，一名职工配合才做并注意指挥人员口令、手势，一定要有专人统一指挥，枕木垛垫实，摆放平整。 安全风险管理是系统性工程，以"安全第一、预防为主、综 合治理"的思路，构建安全风险控制体系，就是要加强对安全风 险的全面分析、科学研判，科学制定管控措施，最终实现消除安
广州石化化工区 定量装车系统操作规程 广州石化化工一部 2008年3月
目录 1 概述 (2) 1.1 定量装车系统 (2) 2 定量装车系统操作说明 (2) 2.1 上位机系统预备知识 (2) 2.1.1硬件平台 (2) 2.1.2软件平台 (2) 2.1.3鼠标器操作 (3) 2.2 系统应用详细说明: (3) 2.2.1启动控制系统及开票系统计算机 (3) 2.2.2屏幕画面的分类及相关操作 (4) 2.2.3装车台控制 (4) 2.2.4参数表 (6) 2.2.5报警查看 (7) 2.2.6趋势画面 (7) 2.2.7操作记录 (9) 2.2.8管理页面 (9) 2.3 系统安全与维护 (10) 2.3.1系统硬件系统的安全与维护 (10) 2.3.2系统软件系统的安全与维护 (11) 3 定量装车系统操作说明 (11) 3.1 系统构成及设备简单说明 (11) 3.1.1上位计算机操作系统 (11) 3.1.2MicroLoad控制器 (11) 3.1.3215型气动数字控制多级关断阀 (11) 3.2数控阀流程原理示意图： (12) 3.3定量装车系统设备启动及操作 (13) 3.3.1Smith MicroLoad控制器操作说明 (13) 3.3.2定量装车系统设备故障原因及处理方法 (15) 4 发货流程 (16)
1概述 本操作手册适用化工区装车台定量装车系统。该手册主要介绍了系统的功能，运行环境及操作使用说明，操作工通过本手册可了解并掌握该系统的基本构成及操作。该系统主要由以下三个部分组成：定量装车系统、开票管理系统及流量计数据采集系统等组成。 1.1 定量装车系统 定量装车系统主要由批量控制器、质量流量计、气动式数字控制多级关断阀、单路溢油静电保护器等组成，与流量计数据采集系统共用一套上位机系统，完成对6个鹤位3种化工产品的定量装车控制。 主要设备包括： ●DELL计算机：GX280 1台 ●批量控制器：ML-XP-STD-1 6台 ●气动数字控制多级关断阀：215 6台 ●单路溢油静电保护器：SLA-S-IIB 6台 2定量装车系统操作说明 2.1 上位机系统预备知识 2.1.1硬件平台 本系统的硬件平台为DELL操作站，通过安装在操作站上的以太网卡与PLC进行在线数据通讯。 2.1.2软件平台 本系统的软件平台为Windows XP 简体中文版操作系统，Windows XP 简体中文版操作系统是一种多任务窗口式操作系统。该控制系统主要采用鼠标器操作，用来激活各种应用目标（Object）的方式，使操作工能非常直观地进入各种操作状态。
定量分析方法重点 整理 -CAL-FENGHAI-(2020YEAR-YICAI)_JINGBIAN
1、公共管理：是一门研究公共组织尤其是政府组织的管理活动及其规律的学科。公共管理研究的内容：①公共组织的结构、功能、环境和运行机制； ②行政管理体制改革、中央与地方的关系；③市场经济条件下政府的职能与作用、政府与市场、政府与企业、政府与社会的关系；④公共人力资源的开发与利用；⑤公共管理中的规划、计划与决策、监督与控制，公共项目评估，行政立法、司法和执法；⑥公共信息管理和咨询服务；⑦财政管理、教育管理、科技管理和文化管理。 2、定量分析方法的主要内容 系统模型与系统分析、线性回归预测分析、社会调查程序与方法、统计分析方法、线性回归预测分析、马尔可夫预测方法、投入产出分析方法、最优化方法（线性规划、运输问题、动态规划、资源分配问题）、评价分析方法、层次分析法、对策论、风险型决策与多目标决策、管理系统模拟、排队论、系统动力学方法、网络计划方法 3、为什么在系统分析中广泛使用系统模型而不是真实系统进行分析？人类认识和改造客观世界的研究方法，一般有实验法和模型法。实验法是通过对客观事物本身直接进行科学实验来进行研究的，因此局限性比较大。公共管理问题大多是难以通过实验法直接进行研究，广泛使用系统模型还基于以下五个方面的考虑：①系统开发的需要只能通过建造模型来对系统或体制的性能进行预测；②经济上的考虑对复杂的社会经济系统直接进行实验，成本十分昂贵；③安全性、稳定性上的考虑对有些问题通过直接实验进行分析，往往缺乏安全性和稳定性，甚至根本不允许；④时间上的考虑使用系统模型很快就可得到分析结果；⑤系统模型容易操作，分析结果易于理解 4、系统分析的要点和步骤 要点(1)任务的对象是什么即要干什么(what)； (2)这个任务何以需要即为什么这样干(why)； (3)它在什么时候和什么样的情况下使用即何时干(when)； (4)使用的场所在哪里即在何处干(where)； (5)是以谁为对象的系统即谁来干(who)； (6)怎样才能解决问题即如何干(how)。步骤 (1)明确问题与确定目标。当一个有待研究分析的问题确定以后，首先要对问题进行系统的合乎逻辑的阐述，其目的在于确定目标，说明问题的重点与范围，以便进行分析研究。 (2)搜集资料，探索可行方案。在问题明确以后，就要拟定解决问题的大纲和决定分析方法，然后依据已搜集的有关资料找出其中的相互关系，寻求解决问题的各种可行方案。 (3)建立模型。为便于对各种可行方案进行分析，应建立各种模型，借助模型预测每一方案可能产生的结果，并根据其结果定性或定量分析各方案的优劣与价值。(4)综合评价。利用模型和其他资料所获得的结果，对各种方案进行定性与定量相结合的综合分析，显示出每一种方案的利弊得失和效益成本，同时考虑到各种有关因素，如政治、经济、军事、科技、环境等，以获得对所有可行方案的综合评价和结论。（5）检验与核实。 5、简述霍尔三维结构与切克兰德“调查学习”模式之间的区别。 1）霍尔三维结构将系统的整个管理过程分为前后紧密相连的六个阶段和七个步骤，并同时考虑到为完成这些阶段和步骤的工作所需的各种专业管理知识。三维结构由时间维、逻辑维、知识维组成。霍尔三维结构适用于良结构系统，即偏重工程、机理明显的物理型的硬系统。2）切克兰德“调查学习”模式的核心不是寻求“最优化”，而是“调查、比较”或者说是“学习”，从模型和现状比较中，学习改善现存系统的途径，其目的是求得可行的满意解。适用于不良结构系统，偏重社会、机理尚不清楚的生物型的软系统。3）处理对象不同：前者为技术系统、人造系统，后者为有人参与的系统；4）处理的问题不同：前者为明确、良结构，后者为不明确，不良结构；5）处理的方法不同：前者为定量模型，定量方法，后者采用概念模型，定性方法；6）价值观不同：前者为一元的，要求优化，有明确的好结果（系统）出现，后者为多元的，满意解，系统有好的变化或者从中学到了某些东西。
风险管理课程心得体会（精选4篇） 风险管理课程心得体会1 根据总行开展的“基础管理提升年”和“风险文化大讨论”等风险管理教育活动的精神，在分行内控合规部门等相关部门的宣传、组织下，我认真、深入地参加了这次学习活动。通过这次主题教育活动，进一步提高了我的风险防范意识，强化了合规经营的观念，明晰了岗位的责任，充分认识到这次主题教育活动的意义和重要性。 通过学习进一步认识到依法合规经营对我行经营管理的重要性和紧迫性，深刻认识到违规经营造成案件高发的危害性，使我更加认识到当前内控管理工作面临的严峻形势。作为一名农业银行风险管理人员，我深知依法合规经营是现代商业银行经营管理的基本原则，也是坚持正确的经营方向的保证，更是金融企业自我发展自我保护及防范金融风险的根本所在，只有坚持了合规经营才能确保我行各项工作健康快速发展。下面是我在学习相关内控制度及管理办法后的几点心得体会： 一、加强合规文化教育，是提高经营管理水平的需要 开展合规文化教育活动对规范操作行为，遏制违法违纪和防范案件发生具有积极的深远的意义。一方面，统一各级领导对加强合规文化教育的认识，使之成为企业合规文化建设的倡导者，策划者、推动者。当今社会是一个知识经济社
会，各种新事物不断涌现，新业务、新知识更是层出不穷。形势的发展要求我们不断加强学习，全面系统地学习政治理论、金融业务、法律法规等各方面的知识，不断更新知识结构，努力提高综合素质，更好地适应全行业务提速发展的需要。按照“一岗双责”的要求，认真履行岗位职责，特别是要注重加强对政治理论、经济金融、法律法规等方方面面知识的学习，不断提高自身的综合素质，增强明辩事非和拒腐防变的能力，做到在大是大非面前立场坚定、头脑清醒。同时，进一步端正经营指导思想，增强依法合规审慎经营意识，把我行各项经营活动引向正确轨道，推进各项业务健康有效发展。 二、提高个人思想素质和风险防范意识，增强依法合规经营的理念 加强个人的法律法规、规章制度学习，加强思想教育，这是从源头上杜绝违规违章行为的重要手段。加强对员工的风险防范教育，使大家都认识到社会的复杂性和银行经营风险的普遍性，认识到银行本身就是高风险行业，必须把风险防范放在第一位。每天从自己的岗位做起，自觉遵守各项规章制度，自觉抵制各种违纪、违规、违章行为，要根除以信任代替管理，以习惯代替制度，以情面代替纪律，珍惜自己的职业生涯，视制度如生命，纠违章如排雷，增强风险防范意识和自我保护意识，提高规范操作，从源头上预防案件的发生。 三、加强内控管理，更新服务意识，树立正确的银行经
安全风险管理大家谈心 得体会 集团企业公司编码：（LL3698-KKI1269-TM2483-LUI12689-ITT289-
安全风险管理大家谈心得体会一直以来，无论对于旅客还是铁路，安全出行、平安归来都是大家共同的愿望。 安全是铁路永恒的主题。当前，铁路工作引入安全风险管理方法，构建安全风险控制体系，提高铁路安全管理的科学化水平，是铁路继开展“服务旅客创先争优”活动后的又一重要举措，彰显了铁路对待安全工作的积极态度。 2012年，铁路运输安全工作面临着新的挑战。我们要深刻吸取“723”事故教训，牢固树立安全发展理念，始终把确保高铁、客车和人民群众生命财产安全放在一切工作的首位，继续强化安全基础建设，全面推进安全风险管理。铁路要实现持续、稳定的科学化发展，安全是必要的前提。 在目前召开的全国铁路工作会议上提出了新思路，铁路将在“十二五规划”的开局之年暨2012年，全面推进安全风险管理。铁路各级部门要根据本单位、本部门的实际情况，制定切实可行的安全风险制度，适度拉大安全风险奖励机制，把安全风险责任落实细化到班组和岗位上，增强全路广大职工保安全的风险意识，形成全员共保安全的良性循环。
那么，安全风险管理的举措好在哪里？ 好就好在它尊重铁路安全生产规律，循序渐进地提高安全管理的科学化水平。任何事物都有规律可循，铁路发展也要讲究科学。铁路的发展还是需要一个循序渐进的过程，想一蹴而就达到铁路大发展的目的的想法是不现实的。我们应该看到，近年来高铁的发展过于快速，人员素质、行车设备等短板效应已日益显现，给铁路安全、持续、稳定发展构成了一定的威胁。尊重铁路安全生产规律，确立安全风险管理的新思路，从根本上提高铁路安全管理的科学化水平，最大限度地减少或消除安全风险，从而实现运输安全的长治久安。 近期，为进一步提升安全管理水平，确保安全生产持续稳定，开展了安全风险大家谈活动，经过大中修和施工过程中存在的安全重点风险源排查，以及时发现和消除安全隐患。并认真学习了段有关“安全风险管理”的文件精神，深刻领会了通过实施安全风险管理，增强安全风险的防范意识，构建安全风险的防控体系，达到强化安全基础、最大限度减少或消除安全风险、确保铁路安全为目的的指导思想和主要内容。 通过此次活动和有关文件精神的认真学习，要不断强化全员安全风险管理意识，开展安全风险控制活动，用风险理论来指导安全生产实践。针对近期天气异常、设备变化大的实际，准确研判安全风险点，采取有效措施，狠抓安全风险控制责任落实，全力确保运输安全万无一失。