岩土力学 ›› 2025, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (7): 2085-2094.doi: 10.16285/j.rsm.2024.1279CSTR: 32223.14.j.rsm.2024.1279

• 基础理论与实验研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

基于标准贯入试验的液化判别方法对深埋砂土适用性研究

范猛1, 2,李敬军1, 2,杨正权1, 2,刘小生1, 2,朱凯斌1, 2,赵剑明1, 2   

  1. 1. 中国水利水电科学研究院 流域水循环模拟与调控国家重点实验室,北京 100038; 2. 水利部水工程抗震与应急支持工程技术研究中心,北京 100048
  • 收稿日期:2024-10-18 接受日期:2025-01-12 出版日期:2025-07-10 发布日期:2025-07-08
  • 通讯作者: 杨正权,男,1980年生,博士,正高级工程师,主要从事土动力学与土工结构抗震研究。E-mail:yangzhq@ iwhr.com
  • 作者简介:范猛,男,1997年生,博士研究生,主要从事土动力学与土工结构抗震研究。E-mail:fanmeng@edu. iwhr.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家重点研发计划课题(No.2024YFF1700505,No.2024YFF1700504);中国水科院基本科研业务费专项项目(No. GE0145B052021);中国水科院科技成果转化基金专项项目(No.GE121003A0032024,No.GE121003A0032022)。

Applicability of standard penetration test based liquefaction assessment methods for sandy soil in deep layer

FAN Meng1, 2, LI Jing-jun1, 2, YANG Zheng-quan1, 2, LIU Xiao-sheng1, 2, ZHU Kai-bin1, 2, ZHAO Jian-ming1, 2   

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China; 2. Engineering Research Center on Anti-Earthquake and Emergency Support Techniques of Hydraulic Projects, Ministry of Water Resources, Beijing 100048, China
  • Received:2024-10-18 Accepted:2025-01-12 Online:2025-07-10 Published:2025-07-08
  • Supported by:
    This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program Project (2024YFF1700505, 2024YFF1700504), the Special Project of Basic Scientific Research Business Expenses of China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (GE0145B052021) and the Special Project of the Technology Transfer Fund of China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (GE121003A0032024, GE121003A0032022).

摘要: 我国水利工程建设面临着强震、深厚覆盖层的复杂环境条件,深埋砂土的液化判别问题日益突出,但现有的基于标准贯入试验(standard penetration test,简称SPT)的液化判别方法均具有一定的深度适用范围,无法与目前的工程需求相匹配。分析了国内外基于SPT液化判别方法的差异,总结了砂土液化的3个主要影响因素:土体环境、土体性质、动荷载,并探究了各因素对计算结果的影响。同时,在理想场地条件下,计算了不同方法下深埋砂土的临界标贯曲线。结果表明:由于参数计算方法不同,各方法在相同埋深下的临界标贯击数存在差异;临界标贯曲线随细粒或黏粒含量增加呈现出不同的变化趋势;在相同条件下,临界标贯击数随震级或峰值加速度的增大而升高。目前基于SPT的国内外液化判别方法具有不同的深度适用范围。临界深度或临界上覆有效应力对深埋条件下砂土的液化判别影响也值得进一步分析。

关键词: 深埋砂土, 液化判别, 标准贯入试验, 地震

Abstract: China’s water conservancy projects are constructed under complex environmental conditions, including strong earthquakes and thick overburden layers, which exacerbate the challenges in assessing liquefaction of deep-buried sandy soils. Current SPT (standard penetration test) -based liquefaction assessment methods have limited depth applicability, failing to meet engineering demands. This study analyzed the differences between domestic and international SPT-based liquefaction assessment methods, summarized three primary factors influencing sand liquefaction: site environmental conditions, soil intrinsic properties, and dynamic loading characteristics, and investigated their impacts on calculation results. Under ideal site conditions, critical SPT blow count curves for deep-buried sandy soils were calculated using various methods. The results reveal that discrepancies exist in critical SPT blow counts among different methods at identical burial depths due to variations in parameter calculation algorithms. The critical blow count curves demonstrate distinct evolution patterns with increasing fines content or clay content. Under equivalent conditions, the critical blow counts exhibit positive correlations with both seismic magnitude and peak ground acceleration. Existing SPT-based liquefaction evaluation methods show varying applicable depth ranges in international practice. The influence of critical depth or critical effective overburden stress on liquefaction potential assessment for deeply buried sand deposits requires further investigation.

Key words: sandy soil in deep layer, liquefaction assessment, standard penetration test, earthquake

中图分类号: TU 441
[1] 赵武胜, 周帅, 解佩瑶, 高厚, 秦长坤, 陈卫忠, . 考虑初衬−二衬界面效应下隧道地震易损性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(S1): 477-490.
[2] 余小越, 许明, 谢强, 蔡宇, 刘先珊, 甘峰帆, . SH波在三角形山体地形中的散射与能量分布规律研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(8): 2639-2649.
[3] 刘健, 夏勇, 江权, 陈涛, 贺维国, 范国刚, 熊先涛, 郑虹, . 强烈构造区硬梁包水电站地下洞室群围岩变形破坏特征与泸定地震响应分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(7): 2265-2280.
[4] 刘红帅, 杨健生, 宋东松, 孙强强, . 近场脉冲和非脉冲地震动作用下干砂场地响应的离心振动台模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1429-1441.
[5] 杨景泉, 郑长杰, 丁选明, . 竖向入射P波激励下饱和土中管桩地震响应[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(5): 1477-1488.
[6] 董建华, 杨博, 田文通, 吴晓磊, 何鹏飞, 赵律华, 连博, . 新型防液化抗滑桩研发与地震响应振动台模型试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1084-1094.
[7] 杨艳霜, 闫磊, 张占荣, 刘永莉, 崔臻, 彭剑承, 亢兆鹏, . 基于三相孔隙介质模型的地震动传播特性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(4): 1109-1121.
[8] 王滢, 刘嘉怡, 高盟, 孔祥霄, . 地震作用下深海含气能源土动力特性试验研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(2): 457-466.
[9] 刘文静, 邓辉, 周昕. 地震作用下含双层韧性剪切带高陡岩质边坡动力响应研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(11): 3534-3548.
[10] 蔡晓光, 徐洪路, 王海云, 李思汉, 李莹, .

土工格栅加筋土挡墙水平地震系数研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(10): 3033-3044.

[11] 何颖, 陈雅, 尹奔驰, 刘中宪, 刘旭, . 频率相关等效线性山谷交错场地多点地震动模拟[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(10): 3280-3288.
[12] 钱法桥, 邓亚虹, 慕焕东, 杨楠, 刘凡, 王梦晨, . 基于小波变换和拟动力法的边坡地震稳定性评价方法[J]. 岩土力学, 2025, 46(1): 88-96.
[13] 周桓竹, 刘圣安, 李斌, 陈炜昀, 苏雷, 郑俊杰, 郑烨炜, . 穿越变化地层的沉管隧道接头地震响应的解析解[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(S1): 289-298.
[14] 马建勋, MOHAMMED El Hoseny, 庞盼望, 李文枭, 闫洪祥. 考虑土−结构相互作用的地下室层对高层建筑地震反应影响研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(9): 2808-2822.
[15] 谢周州, 赵炼恒, 李亮, 黄栋梁, 张子健, 周靖, . 基于振动台试验的不同含石率土-石混合体边坡地震动响应差异性研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2024, 45(8): 2324-2337.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!