岩土力学 ›› 2024, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (5): 1517-1526.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2023.0878

• 岩土工程研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

国内外静力触探液化判别方法对比检验

张思宇1, 2, 3,李兆焱1, 2, 3,袁晓铭1, 3   

  1. 1. 中国地震局工程力学研究所 地震工程与工程振动重点实验室,黑龙江 哈尔滨 150080; 2. 河北省地震灾害防御与风险评价重点实验室,河北 廊坊 065201;3. 地震灾害防治应急管理部重点实验室,黑龙江 哈尔滨 150080
  • 收稿日期:2023-06-20 接受日期:2023-08-28 出版日期:2024-05-11 发布日期:2024-05-08
  • 通讯作者: 李兆焱,男,1982年生,博士,副研究员,主要从事岩土地震工程、土动力学等方面的研究。Email:hkjlizhaoyan@163.com
  • 作者简介:张思宇,男,1996年生,博士研究生,主要从事岩土地震工程、土动力学研究等方面的工作。E-mail:zhangsiyu960424@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(No. 52378543);河北省地震灾害防御与风险评价重点实验室开放基金资助项目(No. FZ223105)。

Comparison and validation of cone penetration test-based liquefaction evaluation methods

ZHANG Si-yu1, 2, 3, LI Zhao-yan1, 2, 3, YUAN Xiao-ming1, 3   

  1. 1. Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150080, China; 2. Hebei Key Laboratory of Earthquake Disaster Prevention and Risk Assessment, Langfang, Hebei 065201, China; 3. Key Laboratory of Earthquake Disaster Mitigation, Ministry of Emergency Management, Harbin, Heilongjiang 150080, China
  • Received:2023-06-20 Accepted:2023-08-28 Online:2024-05-11 Published:2024-05-08
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (52378543) and the Opening Foundation of Hebei Key Laboratory of Earthquake Disaster Prevention and Risk Assessment (FZ223105).

摘要: 静力触探试验(cone penetration test,简称CPT)具有独特优势,使其成为了海上风电工程的主要勘察方法。海上风电工程位于液化易发区,因此研究基于CPT液化判别方法的适用性和可靠性就成为亟待解决的突出问题。详细介绍了4种国内外具有代表性的CPT液化判别方法,并采用理论分析及大量CPT液化实测数据检验,对现行的美国国家地震工程研究中心(National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research,简称NCEER)方法、《岩土工程勘察规范》(GB50021-2001)方法(岩规法)、《软土地区岩土工程勘察规程》(JGJ 83-2011)方法(软土规程法)和《建筑工程抗震性态设计通则》(CES 160: 2004)方法(通则法)等4种方法进行对比检验,提出了4种主要方法的评价结果。结果表明:NCEER法液化判别临界线在低烈度区存在不合理的回弯现象,在高烈度区存在临界值增大过快的问题,在Ⅶ度区深层偏于危险,在Ⅸ度区深层明显偏于保守,在Ⅶ、Ⅸ度区浅层和Ⅷ度区判别结果较好;岩规法液化判别临界线存在很大的问题,液化判别临界线随深度递减,液化判别时在Ⅶ度区浅层偏于危险,在深层明显偏于危险,在Ⅷ、Ⅸ度区浅层偏于保守,在深层偏于危险;软土规程法液化判别临界线在土层深度约6 m处存在不合理的回弯现象,在Ⅶ度区浅层判别较好,在Ⅸ度区浅层偏于保守,在不同烈度区深层均偏于危险;通则法液化判别临界线是符合目前认知的,在不同烈度区和深度下的判别效果是最好的。研究成果可为相关规范修订和工程应用提供参考与支持。

关键词: 海上风电工程, 地震效应, 原位测试, 静力触探测试, 液化场地判别

Abstract: Cone penetration test(CPT) has been widely used in offshore wind power projects due to its characteristics. Offshore wind power projects are located in areas prone to liquefaction. It is particularly important to study the applicability of CPT-based liquefaction evaluation methods. In this paper, four representative CPT liquefaction evaluation methods are introduced in detail. These include the method from the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), the method from the Code for investigation of geotechnical engineering (GB 50021―2001), the method from the Specification for geotechnical investigation in soft clay area (JGJ 83―2011) and the method from the General rule for performance-based seismic design of buildings (CES 160: 2004). Through the analysis of the critical liquefaction lines of four methods and the test using the CPT liquefaction database, the applicability of the four methods was analyzed. The results indicate that the critical liquefaction line of National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) method turns back in the Ⅶ intensity site, the critical value increases too fast in the Ⅸ intensity site, and the evaluation is dangerous in the deep layers in the Ⅶ intensity site and obviously conservative in the deep layers in the Ⅸ intensity site. The NCEER method shows better evaluation results in the shallow layers of Ⅶ and Ⅸ intensity sites and in the Ⅷ intensity site. There is a problem in the critical liquefaction line of the Chinese investigation of geotechnical engineering code method. The critical value decreases with depth. The evaluation is dangerous in the shallow layers of the Ⅶ intensity site and more dangerous in the deeper layers, while in the Ⅷ and Ⅸ intensity sites, it tends to be conservative in the shallow layers and dangerous in the deeper layers. The critical liquefaction line of Chinese specification for geotechnical investigation in soft clay area method turns back at a buried depth of about 6 m, and the evaluation is dangerous in the deep layers. This method shows better evaluation results in the shallow layers of Ⅶ intensity site, while in the Ⅸ intensity site, it tends to be more conservative in the shallow layers. However, in various intensity sites, it consistently leans towards danger in the deeper layers. The Chinese general rule for performance-based seismic design of buildings method has a high and balanced discriminant success rate for different seismic intensities and buried depth of sand. The analytical results provide theoretical basis and support for the revision of relevant specification and engineering applications in China in the future.

Key words: offshore wind power project, seismic effect, in-situ test, cone penetration test, evaluation of liquefaction site

中图分类号: TU 470
[1] 李顺群, 蔡田明, 张勋程, 张丙坤, 杨长松, 周光毅, 周燕, . 冲击荷载作用下非饱和场地的三维应力响应[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 477-484.
[2] 朱建民, 郑建国, 于永堂, 蔡晶, 夏辉, . 新型电控式钻孔剪切仪的研制及测试验证[J]. 岩土力学, 2023, 44(S1): 687-697.
[3] 易明星, 朱长歧, 王天民, 刘海峰, 马成昊, 王星, 张珀瑜, 瞿茹, . 启东某场地自升式平台插桩可行性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(S2): 487-496.
[4] 李雨浓, 刘畅, 王立伟, . 地震效应下三维非均质土坡稳定性极限分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(6): 1493-1502.
[5] 陈树峰, 孔令伟, 罗滔, . 超固结粉质黏土水平应力释放特征与 静止侧压力系数计算方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2022, 43(1): 160-168.
[6] 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.
[7] 严健, 何川, 晏启祥, 许金华. 雀儿山隧道冰碛地层冻胀力原位测试及计算分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(9): 3593-3602.
[8] 王国富,曹正龙,路林海,王 蓉,王 丹,韩 帅,. 黄河冲积层静止土压力系数原位测定与分析[J]. , 2018, 39(10): 3900-3906.
[9] 于永堂,郑建国,刘争宏,张继文,. 钻孔剪切试验及其在黄土中的应用[J]. , 2016, 37(12): 3635-3641.
[10] 陈国兴 ,金丹丹 ,朱 姣 ,李小军 , . 河口盆地非线性地震效应及设计地震动参数[J]. , 2015, 36(6): 1721-1736.
[11] 李得建,赵炼恒,李 亮,程 肖. 地震效应下非线性抗剪强度参数对裂缝边坡稳定性影响的上限解析[J]. , 2015, 36(5): 1313-1321.
[12] 周 辉 ,胡善超 ,卢景景 ,王竹春 ,张传庆 ,渠成堃 ,李 震,. 煤矿深井巷道掘进全过程围岩变形破坏原位测试[J]. , 2015, 36(12): 3523-3530.
[13] 崔永圣 ,马 林 ,刘宏岳 ,黄佳坤,. 珊瑚岛礁工程地球物理方法初探[J]. , 2014, 35(S2): 683-689.
[14] 金丹丹 ,陈国兴 ,董菲蕃 , . 多地貌单元复合场地非线性地震效应特征二维分析[J]. , 2014, 35(6): 1818-1824.
[15] 钱建固 ,马 霄 ,李伟伟 ,黄茂松 ,王卫东,. 桩侧注浆抗拔桩离心模型试验与原位测试分析[J]. , 2014, 35(5): 1241-1246.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!