首页> 外文期刊>Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering >Assessment of liquefaction evaluation procedures and severity index frameworks at Christchurch strong motion stations
【24h】

Assessment of liquefaction evaluation procedures and severity index frameworks at Christchurch strong motion stations

机译:基督城强运动站的液化评估程序和严重性指标框架评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The objective of the study presented herein is to assess three commonly used CPT-based liquefaction evaluation procedures and three liquefaction severity index frameworks using data from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Specifically, post-event field observations, ground motion recordings, and results from a recently completed extensive geotechnical site investigation programme at selected strong motion stations (SMSs) in the city of Christchurch and surrounding towns are used herein. Unlike similar studies that used data from free-field sites, accelerogram characteristics at the SMS locations can be used to assess the performance of liquefaction evaluation procedures prior to their use in the computation of surficial manifestation severity indices. Results from this study indicate that for cases with evidence of liquefaction triggering in the accelerograms, the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, regardless of whether surficial manifestation of liquefaction was evident or not. For cases with no evidence of liquefaction in the accelerograms (and no observed surficial evidence of liquefaction triggering), the majority of liquefaction evaluation procedures predicted liquefaction was triggered. When all cases are used to assess the performance of liquefaction severity index frameworks, a poor correlation is shown between the observed severity of liquefaction surface manifestation and the calculated severity indices. However, only using those cases where the liquefaction evaluation procedures yielded correct predictions, there is an improvement in the correlation, with the Liquefaction Severity Number (LSN) being the best performing of the frameworks investigated herein. However scatter in the relationship between the observed and calculated surficial manifestation still remains for all liquefaction severity index frameworks. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:本文提出的研究目的是使用2010-2011年坎特伯雷地震序列的数据评估三种常用的基于CPT的液化评估程序和三种液化严重性指数框架。具体而言,此处使用的是事后现场观察,地面运动记录以及在基督城及周边城镇中选定的强运动站点(SMS)最近完成的广泛的岩土现场调查计划的结果。与使用自由场站点数据进行的类似研究不同,SMS位置处的加速度图特性可用于评估液化评估程序的性能,然后再用于计算表面表现强度指标。这项研究的结果表明,对于在加速图中有液化触发证据的情况,无论液化的表面表现是否明显,大多数液化评估程序都能得出正确的预测。对于在加速图中没有液化迹象(也没有观察到液化触发的表面证据)的情况,大多数液化评估程序都预测液化被触发。当所有情况都用于评估液化严重性指标框架的性能时,在观察到的液化表面表现的严重性与计算出的严重性指标之间的相关性很差。但是,仅在液化评估程序产生正确预测的情况下,相关性才会改善,其中液化严重度数(LSN)是本文研究的框架中性能最好的。但是,对于所有液化严重性指标框架,观察到的和所计算的表面表现之间的关系仍然存在分散性。 (C)2015 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号