现有液化识别方法对比分析
|
摘要
场地液化实时监测和报警是减轻液化灾害的新途径,其核心技术是建立依据强震记录对液化场地进行反演识别的方法。采用统一样本,其中尽可能多地包含软土场地地震动记录,按场地类别对目前国内外现有的Suzuki法、Miyajima法、KY法和SY法等4种主要液化识别方法的可靠性进行了对比分析,提出评价结果及改进建议。分析表明:对全部样本,SY法、Suzuki法、KY法和Miyajima法识别成功率依次为98%、85%、77%和52%;Suzuki法、KY法和Miyajima法的成功率受场地类别影响显著,随场地变软而明显降低,对D类场地识别成功率均在55%以下;Suzuki法、Miyajima法和KY法均采用与绝对周期相关的参数作为判别指标,而软土与液化场地上存在明显交叉,极易导致误判;SY法选取地震动参数的相对变化作为识别指标,即使对D类场地成功率也达到92%,但其方法中仍有若干细节需要进一步探讨和改进。
Liquefaction real-time monitoring and warming techniques are novel ways to mitigate liquefaction hazard.The key point is to establish a reverse liquefaction detection method based on seismic records.In this paper,the reliability analysis of the existing liquefaction detection methods,i.e.Suzuki method,Miyajima method,KY method and SY methods,are presented using same sample data which include as many seismic records on soft sites as possible.Assessing results and improving aspects of the methods are proposed.The analysis indicates:the success detection rates on the collected samples by SY method,Suzuki method,KY method and Miyajima method are 98%,85%,77% and 52%,respectively;site category influence on success detecting rates are principally notable;with site softening the success rates by Suzuki method,KY method and Miyajima method decrease and are all under 55% for detecting D sites;a parameter correlated with absolute periods are selected as a detecting index in Suzuki method,Miyajima method and KY method,hence the values on soft sites and liquefied sites cross,resulted in misjudge;selecting a relative change of ground motion parameters as a detecting index in SY method,some details in the method need deep discussing and improving even though its success rates for detecting D sites reach 92%.
Liquefaction real-time monitoring and warming techniques are novel ways to mitigate liquefaction hazard.The key point is to establish a reverse liquefaction detection method based on seismic records.In this paper,the reliability analysis of the existing liquefaction detection methods,i.e.Suzuki method,Miyajima method,KY method and SY methods,are presented using same sample data which include as many seismic records on soft sites as possible.Assessing results and improving aspects of the methods are proposed.The analysis indicates:the success detection rates on the collected samples by SY method,Suzuki method,KY method and Miyajima method are 98%,85%,77% and 52%,respectively;site category influence on success detecting rates are principally notable;with site softening the success rates by Suzuki method,KY method and Miyajima method decrease and are all under 55% for detecting D sites;a parameter correlated with absolute periods are selected as a detecting index in Suzuki method,Miyajima method and KY method,hence the values on soft sites and liquefied sites cross,resulted in misjudge;selecting a relative change of ground motion parameters as a detecting index in SY method,some details in the method need deep discussing and improving even though its success rates for detecting D sites reach 92%.
引文
[1]孙锐,袁晓铭.13WCEE及11SDEE会议地震液化研究综述[J].世界地震工程,2006,22(1):188-192.SUN Rui,YUAN Xiao-ming.Summarization of earthquake liquefaction on 13th WCEE and 11th SDEE[J].World Earthquake Engineering,2006,22(1):188-192.
[2]胡聿贤,张郁山,梁建文.基于HHT方法的场地液化的识别[J].土木工程学报,2006,39(2):66-77.HU Yu-xian,ZHANG Yu-shan,LIANG Jian-wen.HHT based identification of site liquefaction[J].China Civil Engineering Journal,2006,39(2):66-77.
[3]KOSTADINOV M V,YAMAZAKI F.Detection of soil liquefaction from strong motion records[J].Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,2001,30:173-193.
[4]SHIMIZU Y,WATANABE A,KOGANEMARU K,et al.Super high-density real time disaster mitigation system[C]//Proceedings of 12th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering.Auckland,New Zealand:Silverstream,2000.
[5]SUZUKI T,SHIMIZU Y,NAKAYAMA W.Characteristics of strong motion records at the liquefied sites and judgment for liquefaction[C]//Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.Paris,France:Balkema,1998.
[6]MIYAJIMA M,KITAURA M,NOZU S.Detective method of liquefaction using strong ground motion records[C]//Proceedings of 3rd China-Japan-US Trilateral Symposium on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering.Kunming,China:[s.n].,1998:133-140.
[7]YUAN X M,SUN R,CHEN L W,et al.A method for detecting site liquefaction by seismic records[J].International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,2010,30(4):270-279.
[8]TOWHATA I,PARK J K,ORENSE R P,et al.Use of spectrum intensity for immediate detection of subsoil liquefaction[J].Soils and Foundations,1996,36(2):29-44.
[2]胡聿贤,张郁山,梁建文.基于HHT方法的场地液化的识别[J].土木工程学报,2006,39(2):66-77.HU Yu-xian,ZHANG Yu-shan,LIANG Jian-wen.HHT based identification of site liquefaction[J].China Civil Engineering Journal,2006,39(2):66-77.
[3]KOSTADINOV M V,YAMAZAKI F.Detection of soil liquefaction from strong motion records[J].Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,2001,30:173-193.
[4]SHIMIZU Y,WATANABE A,KOGANEMARU K,et al.Super high-density real time disaster mitigation system[C]//Proceedings of 12th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering.Auckland,New Zealand:Silverstream,2000.
[5]SUZUKI T,SHIMIZU Y,NAKAYAMA W.Characteristics of strong motion records at the liquefied sites and judgment for liquefaction[C]//Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering.Paris,France:Balkema,1998.
[6]MIYAJIMA M,KITAURA M,NOZU S.Detective method of liquefaction using strong ground motion records[C]//Proceedings of 3rd China-Japan-US Trilateral Symposium on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering.Kunming,China:[s.n].,1998:133-140.
[7]YUAN X M,SUN R,CHEN L W,et al.A method for detecting site liquefaction by seismic records[J].International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,2010,30(4):270-279.
[8]TOWHATA I,PARK J K,ORENSE R P,et al.Use of spectrum intensity for immediate detection of subsoil liquefaction[J].Soils and Foundations,1996,36(2):29-44.
版权所有：© 2023 中国地质图书馆 中国地质调查局地学文献中心