中美抗震规范地基土液化判别方法的比较研究
|
摘要
地震时地基土体液化导致地基强度或刚度的损失、结构产生不均匀沉降、土坝产生滑坡等,是造成建筑物破坏的主要原因之一。以我国现行规范GB 50011—2001《建筑抗震设计规范》为基础,结合美国国家地震研究中心(NCEER)建议并由美国现行规范ASCE/SEI 7-05(Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures)推荐的液化判别方法,介绍了中、美抗震规范的地基液化判别方法,对两国规范地基土液化判别方法所考虑的主要因素及其可靠性进行了分析比较,并给出了一个对比分析实例。结果表明,虽然两国规范都采用以标准贯入试验(SPT-N)为主的经验判别方法,但美国规范考虑的液化影响因素较为全面一些,而我国规范的地基液化判别标准在某些条件下偏于保守,且在某些条件下又偏于不安全。在综合分析比较的基础上,对我国规范地基土液化的判别方法提出了若干修订建议,可供我国规范今后修订时参考。
The foundation soil liquefaction leads to the loss of soil strength or stiffness,structural non-uniform subsidence,earth dam landslide and so on,which is one of the main reasons of building damage.On the basis of current standard GB 50011—2001 'Code for seismic design of buildings',combined with the 'NCEER' judging method proposed by United States National Center For Earthquake Engineering Research and American standard ASCE/SEI 7-05 'Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures',this paper summarizes the methods of judging liquefaction between Chinese and American codes,and then calculates and compares the judging method factors and reliability about the foundation soil liquefaction in the two criteria.Finally an example analysis is comparatively performed.The research results illustrate that although the standard penetration test empirical judgments approach(SPT-N)has been adopted by the two codes,there exist many specific differences between the two codes.For example,American code considers more influence factors on the liquefaction,but Chinese code judgment tends to be conservative in some cases and unsafe in other cases,which may lead to very different judgment results between the two codes.This paper finally provides a number of suggestions to amend the method of foundation soil liquefaction of GB 50011—2001 and the relevant conclusions can be referenced for future code revisions.
The foundation soil liquefaction leads to the loss of soil strength or stiffness,structural non-uniform subsidence,earth dam landslide and so on,which is one of the main reasons of building damage.On the basis of current standard GB 50011—2001 'Code for seismic design of buildings',combined with the 'NCEER' judging method proposed by United States National Center For Earthquake Engineering Research and American standard ASCE/SEI 7-05 'Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures',this paper summarizes the methods of judging liquefaction between Chinese and American codes,and then calculates and compares the judging method factors and reliability about the foundation soil liquefaction in the two criteria.Finally an example analysis is comparatively performed.The research results illustrate that although the standard penetration test empirical judgments approach(SPT-N)has been adopted by the two codes,there exist many specific differences between the two codes.For example,American code considers more influence factors on the liquefaction,but Chinese code judgment tends to be conservative in some cases and unsafe in other cases,which may lead to very different judgment results between the two codes.This paper finally provides a number of suggestions to amend the method of foundation soil liquefaction of GB 50011—2001 and the relevant conclusions can be referenced for future code revisions.
引文
[1]郭继武.建筑抗震疑难释义[M].北京:中国建筑工业出版社,2005.
[2]任金刚,王玉芳.饱和砂土地震液化研究方法概述[J].海河水利,2006(3):51-53.
[3]GB 50011—2001建筑抗震设计规范[S].2008.
[4]ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum design loads for buildingsand other structures[S].American Society of CivilEngineers(ASCE),2005.
[5]Youd TL,Idriss I M,Ronald D,et al.Liquefactionresistance of soils:Summary report from the 1996NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops onevaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils[J].Journalof Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,2001,127(10):817-833.
[6]陈国兴.岩土地震工程学[M].北京:科学出版社,2007.
[7]Juang C H,Tao Jiang,Andrus R D.Assessingprobability based methods for liquefaction potentialevaluation[J].Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering,American Society ofCivil Engineers,2002,128(7):580-589.
[8]汪明武,罗国煜.可靠性分析在砂土液化势评价中的应用[J].岩土工程学报,2000,22(5):542-544.
[9]佘跃心.砂土液化判断方法可靠性评价[J].岩土力学,2004,25(5):803-807.
[10]Seed HB,Tokimatsu K,Harder LF,Chung R M.TheInfluence of SPT procedures in soil liquefactionresistance evaluations[R].Report NO.UCB/EERC-84-15.Berkeley:University of California Berkeley,1984.
[11]陈国兴,谢君斐,张克绪.砂性土液化势的评估方法[J].地震学刊,1996(3):11-22.
[2]任金刚,王玉芳.饱和砂土地震液化研究方法概述[J].海河水利,2006(3):51-53.
[3]GB 50011—2001建筑抗震设计规范[S].2008.
[4]ASCE/SEI 7-05 Minimum design loads for buildingsand other structures[S].American Society of CivilEngineers(ASCE),2005.
[5]Youd TL,Idriss I M,Ronald D,et al.Liquefactionresistance of soils:Summary report from the 1996NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops onevaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils[J].Journalof Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,ASCE,2001,127(10):817-833.
[6]陈国兴.岩土地震工程学[M].北京:科学出版社,2007.
[7]Juang C H,Tao Jiang,Andrus R D.Assessingprobability based methods for liquefaction potentialevaluation[J].Journal of Geotechnical andGeoenvironmental Engineering,American Society ofCivil Engineers,2002,128(7):580-589.
[8]汪明武,罗国煜.可靠性分析在砂土液化势评价中的应用[J].岩土工程学报,2000,22(5):542-544.
[9]佘跃心.砂土液化判断方法可靠性评价[J].岩土力学,2004,25(5):803-807.
[10]Seed HB,Tokimatsu K,Harder LF,Chung R M.TheInfluence of SPT procedures in soil liquefactionresistance evaluations[R].Report NO.UCB/EERC-84-15.Berkeley:University of California Berkeley,1984.
[11]陈国兴,谢君斐,张克绪.砂性土液化势的评估方法[J].地震学刊,1996(3):11-22.
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