论文部分内容阅读
土壤液化在美国和中国的地震区域频繁发生,然而,两国在评估液化的风险方面方法有所不同。文章比较了两国采用的普遍工程做法和先进的分析方法,并在方法的兼容性、方法的分歧和从这些方法中学到什么这三方面进行总结,尤其是如何处理细屑/粘土粒带来的影响。两国常用的“干净”沙的液化触发曲线基本一致,但是用粘土粒含量作为控制变量的方法可能会导致不保守的结果,因此不推荐使用。标准灌入试验(SPT)是两国都经常使用的研究方法,可直接比较。圆锥贯入试验(CPT)在美国使用普遍,近来在中国也有广泛使用,文章以1976年唐山地震得到的液化案例讨论和说明了应用CPT的优点。
Soil liquefaction occurs frequently in the seismic regions of the United States and China, however, the two countries differ in their methods of assessing the risk of liquefaction. The article compares the common engineering practices and advanced analytical methods used in the two countries and summarizes the three aspects of method compatibility, methodological differences and what to learn from these methods, and in particular how to deal with fines / clay grains Impact. The liquefaction trigger curves of the “clean” sand commonly used in the two countries are basically the same, but the method using the clay particle content as the control variable may result in an unconservative result and is therefore not recommended. Standard pour-in test (SPT) is a frequently used research method in both countries and can be directly compared. Cone penetration testing (CPT) is commonly used in the United States and has recently been widely used in China. The article discusses and illustrates the advantages of CPT using the liquefaction case from the Tangshan earthquake in 1976.