›› 2017, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (12): 3643-3648.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2017.12.032

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于台湾集集地震数据的CPT与SPT液化判别方法比较

董 林1, 2,王兰民1, 2,夏 坤1,袁晓铭2   

  1. 1. 中国地震局兰州地震研究所 黄土地震工程重点实验室,甘肃 兰州 730000;2. 中国地震局工程力学研究所,黑龙江 哈尔滨 150080
  • 收稿日期:2015-12-30 出版日期:2017-12-11 发布日期:2018-06-05
  • 作者简介:董林,男,1985年生,博士研究生,助理研究员,主要从事岩土地震工程方面的研究工作。
  • 基金资助:

    中国地震局地震预测研究所基本科研业务专项(No.2013IESLZ03);甘肃省青年科技基金计划(1606RJYA228)。

Comparison of CPT-based and SPT-based liquefaction discrimination methods by Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake data

DONG Lin1, 2, WANG Lan-min1, 2, XIA Kun1, YUAN Xiao-ming2   

  1. 1. Key Laboratory of Loess Earthquake Engineering, Lanzhou Institute of Seismology, China Earthquake Administration, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China; 2. Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150080, China
  • Received:2015-12-30 Online:2017-12-11 Published:2018-06-05
  • Supported by:

    This work was supported by the Basic Research Fund of Earthquake Prediction Institute of the China Earthquake Administration (2013IESLZ03) and the Youth Science and Technology Fund Plan of Gansu Province (1606RJYA228).

摘要: 利用集集地震静力触探试验(CPT)数据,对基于CPT测试的Robertson 液化判别方法和Olsen方法进行了检验,两个方法对液化点判别成功率分别为82.61%和80.43%,对非液化点判别成功率分别为31.82%和44.32%。CPT液化判别方法对液化点判别基本可靠,但对非液化点判别准确性较差。对集集地震标准贯入试验(SPT)数据,美国地震工程研究中心(NCEER)推荐的SPT液化判别方法对液化点和非液化点判别成功率分别达到92.41%和94.35%。SPT方法判别成功率非常高,整体准确性远高于CPT方法。另一方面,CPT的土分类图可以同时反映土的种类与强度,甚至可以对集集地震液化土与非液化土进行区分。对于细粒土的液化初判,CPT土分类图也优于SPT方法中的黏粒含量指标。因此,土分类图是CPT的优势所在。

关键词: 集集地震, 液化, 静力触探试验, 标准贯入试验

Abstract: Using CPT data from the Chi-Chi earthquake, CPT-based liquefaction discrimination methods proposed by Robertson and by Olsen are inspected. The prediction success ratios of the two methods are 82.61% and 80.43% for the liquefied sites, but 31.82% and 44.32% for the non-liquefied sites, respectively. CPT-based methods are reliable for liquefied soils, but not effective for non-liquefied soils. For comparison, the SPT-based liquefaction discrimination method recommended by National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research of USA is tested using data from Chi-Chi earthquake, the prediction success ratio of the procedure is 92.41% and 94.35% for liquefied and non-liquefied sites, respectively. The SPT-based method demonstrates higher prediction success ratio than that CPT-based methods. However, CPT-based soil type chart can reflect soil strength and soil type simultaneously, and can differentiate liquefied soils from non-liquefied soils in Chi-Chi earthquake. Moreover, for the preliminary discrimination of clayey soils liquefaction, CPT-based soil type chart is also better than the clay content which has been always used.

Key words: Chi-Chi earthquake, liquefaction, cone penetration test, standard penetration test

中图分类号: 

  • TU 443

[1] 许成顺, 豆鹏飞, 杜修力, 陈苏, 韩俊艳, . 基于自由场大型振动台试验的饱和砂土 固-液相变特征研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(7): 2189-2198.
[2] 张恒源, 钱德玲, 沈超, 戴启权. 水平和竖向地震作用下液化场地群桩基础 动力响应试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(3): 905-914.
[3] 马维嘉, 陈国兴, 吴琪, . 复杂加载条件下珊瑚砂抗液化强度试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(2): 535-542.
[4] 熊辉, 杨丰, . 文克尔地基模型下液化土桩基水平振动响应分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2020, 41(1): 103-110.
[5] 李兆焱, 袁晓铭, 孙锐. 液化判别临界曲线的变化模式与一般规律[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3603-3609.
[6] 杨洋, 孙锐, 陈卓识, 袁晓铭. 基于土层常规参数的剪切波速液化概率计算公式[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(7): 2755-2764.
[7] 汪俊敏, 熊勇林, 杨骐莱, 桑琴扬, 黄强. 不饱和土动弹塑性本构模型研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2323-2331.
[8] 邹佑学, 王睿, 张建民, . 可液化场地碎石桩复合地基地震动力响应分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(6): 2443-2455.
[9] 庄海洋, 付继赛, 陈 苏, 陈国兴, 王雪剑, . 微倾斜场地中地铁地下结构周围地基液化与变形特性振动台模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(4): 1263-1272.
[10] 魏 星, 张 昭, 王 刚, 张建民, . 饱和砂土液化后大变形机制的离散元细观分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(4): 1596-1602.
[11] 裴向军, 朱 凌, 崔圣华, 张晓超, 梁玉飞, 高会会, 张子东. 大光包滑坡层间错动带液化特性及 滑坡启动成因探讨[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(3): 1085-1096.
[12] 李晶, 陈育民, 方志, 高晗, 飞田哲男, 周葛, . 减饱和砂土缓倾场地的液化性状分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(11): 4352-4360.
[13] 王丽艳, 巩文雪, 曹晓婷, 姜朋明, 王炳辉. 砾钢渣抗液化特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(10): 3741-3750.
[14] 许成顺, 豆鹏飞, 杜修力, 陈苏, 韩俊艳, . 液化自由场地震响应大型振动台模型试验分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(10): 3767-3777.
[15] 高冉, 叶剑红, . 中国南海吹填岛礁钙质砂动力特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(10): 3897-3896.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!