河流沉积相土层结构对砂土液化的影响研究

王伟 齐亚坤 王浩宇 李金宇 张晓庆 沈超 冯伟栋

王伟,齐亚坤,王浩宇,李金宇,张晓庆,沈超,冯伟栋. 2022. 河流沉积相土层结构对砂土液化的影响研究. 地震学报,44(4):665−676 doi: 10.11939/jass.20210175
引用本文: 王伟,齐亚坤,王浩宇,李金宇,张晓庆,沈超,冯伟栋. 2022. 河流沉积相土层结构对砂土液化的影响研究. 地震学报,44(4):665−676 doi: 10.11939/jass.20210175
Wang W,Qi Y K,Wang H Y,Li J Y,Zhang X Q,Shen C,Feng W D. 2022. Effect of soil layer structure with fluvial sedimentary facies on sand liquefaction. Acta Seismologica Sinica,44(4):665−676 doi: 10.11939/jass.20210175
Citation: Wang W,Qi Y K,Wang H Y,Li J Y,Zhang X Q,Shen C,Feng W D. 2022. Effect of soil layer structure with fluvial sedimentary facies on sand liquefaction. Acta Seismologica Sinica44(4):665−676 doi: 10.11939/jass.20210175

河流沉积相土层结构对砂土液化的影响研究

doi: 10.11939/jass.20210175
基金项目: 中央高校基本科研业务费(ZY20180107)和中国地震局地震科技星火计划(XH19068Y)共同资助
详细信息
    通讯作者:

    王伟,博士,副教授,主要从事岩土地震工程、防震减灾等方面研究,e-mail:wwwiem@163.com

  • 中图分类号: P315.9,TU42

Effect of soil layer structure with fluvial sedimentary facies on sand liquefaction

  • 摘要: 目前相关规范主要依据工程场地单点的测试数据进行砂土液化判别,而实际的三维土层结构可能非常复杂。研究土层结构对砂土液化的影响机制,有利于提高砂土液化判别结果准确度。分析2008 年5 月28 日发生的松原MS地震和2010—2011 年新西兰坎特伯雷地震序列中砂土液化点的分布,结果显示:砂土液化点主要位于高弯度河流的沉积相地层,凹岸侧蚀、凸岸沉积形成的边滩具有典型的二元结构,其顶部分布的黏土类不透水层有利于下伏饱和粉细砂等易液化土层的超孔隙水压累积;而辫状河流沉积相中,上覆黏土类不透水层间断分布特征明显。针对河流不同沉积相的土层结构建立简化场地模型,使用FLAC3D 进行砂土液化数值模拟,揭示出不同土层结构中超孔隙水压力的累积、消散和渗流过程机制,结果表明,河流沉积相土层结构对砂土液化场点的分布和地表变形具有显著影响。在合理的工程地质分区基础上,现有的液化判别方法有必要考虑场地的土层结构的影响。

     

  • 图  1  高弯度河流沉积三维空间结构形式(引自Burns等,2017

    Figure  1.  Three-dimensional spatial structure of meandering river deposit (after Burns et al,2017

    图  2  高弯度河流沉积相模式(引自董道涛,2021

    Figure  2.  Eluvial sedimentary facies model of the meandering river (after Dong,2021

    图  3  松原地震砂土液化点分布

    Figure  3.  Distribution of sand liquefaction points in Songyuan earthquake

    图  4  高弯度河流边滩的形成机理(引自Allen,1970

    Figure  4.  Formation mechanism of high bend river bank ( after Allen,1970

    图  5  Canterbury 地震序列引起的砂土液化点分布(引自Bucci et al,2018

    Figure  5.  Distribution of liquefaction points of sand in Canterbury earthquake sequence (after Bucci et al,2018

    图  6  2011年2月基督城地震引起的Palinurus 路边场地液化现象(引自Brady,2017

    Figure  6.  Liquefaction of Palinurus roadside site caused by the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011 (after Brady,2017

    图  7  基于静力触探数据绘制的Palinurus路场地AA′剖面(引自Brady,2017

    Ic为特性指数;qc为锥尖阻力;FS为侧壁阻力

    Figure  7.  AA′ section of Palinurus road site based on static cone penetration data (after Brady,2017

    Ic is index of classification;qc is cone tip resistance;FS is frictional resistance

    图  8  砂土液化数值计算模型选取的地震动时程

    Figure  8.  Time-history of ground motion selected by numerical calculation model of sand liquefaction

    9  不同土层结构模型(左)及其砂土液化超孔隙水压力的扩散过程(右)

    (a) 黏土层连续分布;(b) 黏土层2 m间断;(c) 黏土层6 m间断

    9.  The different site models (left) and the corresponding seepage paths of pore pressure (right)

    (a) Continuous clay layer;(b) Clay layer with 2 m gap;(c) Clay layer with 6 m gap

    图  9  不同土层结构模型(左)及其砂土液化超孔隙水压力的扩散过程(右)

    (d) 黏土层10 m间断;(e) 黏土层部分分布;(f) 互层黏土层6 m间断的模型

    Figure  9.  The different site models (left) and the corresponding seepage path of pore pressure (right)

    (d) Clay layer with 10 m gap;(e) Clay layer with discontinuous cap;(f) Interbedding clay layer with 6 m gap

    图  10  不同土层结构模型的砂土液化引起的地表位移变形

    (a) 黏土层连续分布;(b) 黏土层2 m间断分布;(c) 黏土层6 m间断分布;(d) 黏土层10 m间断分布;(e) 黏土层部分分布;(f) 互层黏土层6 m间断分布

    Figure  10.  surface deformation due to sand liquefaction in different soil layer structure models

    (a) Continuous clay layer;(b) Clay layer with 2 m gap;(c) Clay layer with 6 m gap;(d) Clay layer with 10 m gap;(e) Clay layer with partial distribution;(f) Clay layer with 6 m gap of interlayer clay layer

    图  11  黏土层2 m间断的模型单元监测点编号

    Figure  11.  Series number of observing zones in the model with 2 m gap of clay layer

    图  12  黏土层2 m间断分布模型中不同监测单元的孔隙水压力(a—c)和加速度(d)曲线

    Figure  12.  The observation value of pore pressure (a−c) and acceleration (d) in model with 2 m gap of clay layer

    表  1  模型中土体材料的物理力学参数

    Table  1.   Material parameters for the soil deposit in the model

    土体类型摩擦角φ内聚力C/kPa剪胀角Ψ渗透系数K/(m2·Pa−1·s)体积模量K/Pa剪切模量G/Pa
    粉细砂32006×10−93×1071×107
    黏土2890 05×10−133×1061×106
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] 杜修力,路德春. 2011. 土动力学与岩土地震工程研究进展[J]. 岩土力学,32(增刊2):10–20.
    [2] Du X L,Lu D C. 2011. Research progress in soil dynamics and geotechnical seismic engineering[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics,32(S2):10–20 (in Chinese).
    [3] 陈育民,刘汉龙,周云东. 2006. 液化及液化后砂土的流动特性分析[J]. 岩土工程学报,28(9):1139–1143. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2006.09.017
    [4] Chen Y M,Liu H L,Zhou Y D. 2006. Analysis on flow characteristics of liquefied and post-liquefied sand[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,28(9):1139–1143 (in Chinese).
    [5] 陈育民,刘汉龙,邵国建,赵楠. 2009. 砂土液化及液化后流动特性试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报,31(9):1408–1413. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2009.09.014
    [6] Chen Y M,Liu H L,Shao G J,Zhao N. 2009. Laboratory tests on flow characteristics of liquefied and post-liquefied sand[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,31(9):1408–1413 (in Chinese).
    [7] 李平,田兆阳,薄景山,李孝波,张宇东,辜俊儒,周春澍. 2019. 松原5.7级地震砂土液化研究[J]. 土木工程学报,52(9):91–99.
    [8] Li P,Tian Z Y,Bo J S,Li X B,Zhang Y D,Gu J R,Zhou C S. 2019. Study on sand liquefaction of the magnitude-5.7 Songyuan earthquake[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal,52(9):91–99 (in Chinese).
    [9] 王维铭. 2013. 场地液化特征研究及液化影响因素评价[D]. 哈尔滨: 中国地震局工程力学研究所: 8.
    [10] Wang W M. 2013. Study on Liquefaction Characteristics and Liquefaction-Influencing Factors Assessment[D]. Harbin: Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration: 8 (in Chinese).
    [11] 章守恭,李玉蓉. 1980. 砂坡液化稳定问题的动三轴液化试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报,2(3):74–81. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.1980.03.009
    [12] Zhang S G,Li Y R. 1980. A study of the sand bank stability in liquefying tests with the dynamic Tri-axial apparatus[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,2(3):74–81 (in Chinese).
    [13] 董道涛. 2021. 小河弯弯何处寻[J]. 中国三峡,(7):114–117. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6349.2021.07.010
    [14] Dong D T. 2021. Where to find the bend of the river[J]. Three Gorges of China,(7):114–117 (in Chinese).
    [15] Allen J R L. 1970. Studies in fluviatile sedimentation:A comparison of fining-upwards cyclothems,with special reference to coarse-member composition and interpretation[J]. J Sediment Res,40(1):298–323.
    [16] Brady R C. 2017. Puzzling patterns of liquefaction manifestation (or lack thereof) following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake[R]//U.S.-New Zealand-Japan International Workshop, Liquefaction-Induced Ground Movement Effects. Bekeley: University of California.
    [17] Bray J D,Macedo J. 2017. 6th Ishihara lecture:Simplified procedure for estimating liquefaction-induced building settlement[J]. Soil Dynam Earthq Engg,102:215–231. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.08.026
    [18] Bucci M G,Villamor P,Almond P,Tuttle M,Stringer M,Ries W,Smith C,Hodge M,Watson M. 2018. Associations between sediment architecture and liquefaction susceptibility in fluvial settings:The 2010−2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence,New Zealand[J]. Eng Geol,237:181–197. doi: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2018.01.013
    [19] C. Burns C E,Mountney N P,Hodgson D M,Colombera L 2017. Anatomy and dimensions of fluvial crevasse-splay deposits:Examples from the Cretaceous Castlegate Sandstone and Neslen Formation,Utah,USA.[J]. Sediment Geol,351:21–35. doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2017.02.003
    [20] Sasaki Y,Towhata I,Tokida K I,Yamada K,Matsumoto H,Tamari Y,Saya S. 1992. Mechanism of permanent displacement of ground caused by seismic liquefaction[J]. Soils Foundat,32(3):79–96. doi: 10.3208/sandf1972.32.3_79
    [21] Soroush A, Koohi S. 2004. Numerical analysis of liquefaction-induced lateral spreading[C]//13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver B C: 2123.
    [22] Thevanayagam S. 2001. Role of intergranular contacts on the mechanisms causing liquefaction and slope failures in silty sands[C]//Annual Project Summary Report. Washington D C: US Geological Survey, Department of Interior.
    [23] Wotherspoon L M,Orense R P,Green R A,Bradley B A,Cox B R,Woode C M. 2015. Assessment of liquefaction evaluation procedures and severity index frameworks at Christchurch strong motion stations[J]. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng,79:335–346. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.03.022
    [24] Zhang G,Robertson P K,Brachman R W I. 2002. Estimating liquefaction-induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground[J]. Canad Geotechn J,39(5):1168–1180. doi: 10.1139/t02-047
  • 加载中
图(13) / 表(1)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  139
  • HTML全文浏览量:  88
  • PDF下载量:  27
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2021-11-18
  • 修回日期:  2022-01-18
  • 网络出版日期:  2022-07-04
  • 刊出日期:  2022-07-15

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回