吉林大学学报(地球科学版) ›› 2024, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (2): 546-557.doi: 10.13278/j.cnki.jjuese.20220271

• 地质工程与环境工程 • 上一篇    下一篇

常规土类剪切波速与埋深经验公式的可靠性评价

卢大伟1, 孙逸涵2, 刘红帅3   

  1. 1.中再巨灾风险管理股份有限公司,北京100033

    2.唐山热力集团有限公司,河北唐山063000

    3.河北大学河北省土木工程监测与评估技术创新中心,河北保定071002

  • 出版日期:2024-03-26 发布日期:2024-04-09
  • 基金资助:

    中国地震局工程力学研究所基本科研业务费专项资助项目(2019EEEVL0202);河北省高等学校科学技术研究项目(ZD2020157);河北省自然科学基金项目(E2020201017)


Reliability Evaluation of Empirical Formula Between Shear Wave Velocity and Depth of Conventional Soils

Lu Dawei1 ,Sun Yihan2,Liu Hongshuai3   

  1. 1. China Re Catastrophe Risk Management Company Ltd., Beijing 100033, China

    2. Tangshan Thermal Power Group Co., Ltd., Tangshan 063000, Hebei,China

    3. Hebei Technology Innovation Center of Civil Engineering Monitoring and Evaluation, Hebei University, Baoding 071002,

    Hebei,China

  • Online:2024-03-26 Published:2024-04-09
  • Supported by:
    Supported by the Scientific Research Fund of Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration (2019EEEVL0202),the Science and Technology Research Project of Higher Education Institutions in Hebei Province (ZD2020157) and the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province (E2020201017)

摘要:

国内常规土类剪切波速与埋深的统计关系公式(刘红帅等《常规土类剪切波速与埋深的关系分析》一文中,表2—5中的幂函数和一元二次函数模型公式)作为全国性经验公式,已成为地区经验公式检验对比的重要参考,但缺乏较系统的可靠性评价。为此,选取国内典型地区(北京、鲁西、成都、天津、常州、武汉6个区域)的剪切波速与埋深的统计经验公式,检验全国性常规土类剪切波速与埋深经验公式的可靠性。结果表明:幂函数模型预测的剪切波速随深度增大而增大,符合定性认识,而一元二次模型有可能出现不合理的回弯反常现象,不应继续采用。全国性剪切波速经验公式在不同地区的预测精度差异显著,在大多数地区对于绝大数土类预测的相对误差总体在±20%以内,在少数地区对于大数土类预测的相对误差超过±20%,仅在近地面20 m内的相对误差较大,最大可达40%左右。建议优先选择适合当地的剪切波速经验公式;当缺乏本地公式,需选用全国性剪切波速幂函数型经验公式时,应先经过本地实测资料检验确认后方可使用;20 m范围的剪切波速最好以实测为准,这有助于降低全国性剪切波速经验公式带来的显著误差。

关键词: 常规土类, 剪切波速, 埋深, 可靠性, 经验公式

Abstract:

The statistical relationship between shear wave velocity and depth for conventional soil types (“Relationship Between Shear Wave Velocity and Depth of Conventional Soils”,by Liu Hongshuai, et al,power function and one-quadratic model equations in Tables 2 to 5) is a national empirical equation. It has become an important reference for testing and comparing empirical equations in many regions, but lacks a more systematic evaluation of reliability. Therefore, the statistical empirical equation of shear wave velocity and depth in typical domestic regions (Beijing, western Shandong, Chengdu,Tianjin, Changzhou and Wuhan) are selected to test the reliability of the empirical equation of the national shear wave velocity and depth of conventional soils. The results show that: The power function model predicts that the shear wave velocity increases with depth, which is consistent with qualitative understanding, while the quadratic model may exhibit unreasonable bending anomalies and should not be used. The prediction accuracy of the national shear wave velocity empirical equation varies significantly in different regions. In most regions, the absolute relative errors of the prediction for the vast majority of soil types are generally less than ±20%. The absolute relative errors are larger only within 20 m of the near-surface, with a maximum of about 40%. In a few areas, the absolute relative errors of the prediction are greater than 20%. It is recommended to prioritize the selection of shear wave velocity empirical formulas suitable for local conditions; When there is a lack of local equations and it is necessary to choose the national power function type empirical equations for shear wave velocity, it should be tested and confirmed by the local measured data before use; The shear wave velocity within the 20 m range is best determined by actual measurement, which helps to reduce the significant errors brought by the national shear wave velocity empirical formula. 

Key words: conventional soils, shear wave velocity, depth, reliability, empirical equation

中图分类号: 

  • P642.3
[1] 闫佰忠, 孙丰博, 李晓萌, 王玉清, 范成博, 陈佳琦. 气候变化与人类活动对石家庄市藁城区地下水位埋深的影响分析[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2021, 51(3): 854-863.
[2] 舒晴, 朱晓颖, 高维, 李瑞, 尹航. 三塘湖盆地航磁异常特征及油气远景预测[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2018, 48(2): 451-460.
[3] 韩朋, 翟云峰, 栗粲圪, 张运, 杨会会, 靳春胜. 末次间冰期以来洛川黄土天然剩磁记录的可靠性[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2017, 47(3): 793-806.
[4] 王宇, 卢文喜, 卞建民, 侯泽宇. 三种地下水位动态预测模型在吉林西部的应用与对比[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2015, 45(3): 886-891.
[5] 兰景岩, 刘红帅, 吕悦军, 彭艳菊. 表层土剪切波速的不确定性对地表设计谱平台值的影响[J]. J4, 2012, 42(3): 770-776.
[6] 何朋朋,姚磊华,刘立鹏,陈庆. 地下水位随机性影响下的边坡可靠性分析[J]. J4, 2009, 39(2): 288-0293.
[7] 温忠辉,曹英杰. 开采量不确定条件下数值模拟结果的可靠性分析[J]. J4, 2007, 37(2): 239-242.
[8] 章光新,邓伟,何岩,RAMSIS Salama. 水文响应单元法在盐渍化风险评价中的应用[J]. J4, 2005, 35(03): 356-0360.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!