基于孔压静力触探的岩土参数正态性检验方法对比

doi:10.13278/j.cnki.jjuese.20210097

吉林大学学报(地球科学版) ›› 2021, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (5): 1408-1415.doi: 10.13278/j.cnki.jjuese.20210097

基于孔压静力触探的岩土参数正态性检验方法对比

林军^1,2, 蔡国军², 刘松玉², 邹海峰², 侯新宇¹

1. 江苏开放大学建筑工程学院, 南京 210036;
2. 东南大学岩土工程研究所, 南京 210009

收稿日期:2021-03-29 出版日期:2021-09-26 发布日期:2021-09-29
作者简介:林军(1987-),男,讲师,博士,主要从事现代原位测试技术方面的研究,E-mail:aslinjun@163.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目（51908250）；江苏省"双创博士"计划项目（202030537）；江苏省高等学校自然科学研究面上项目（19KJB560011）

Comparison of Normality Test Methods on Geotechnical Parameters Based on Piezocone Penetration Test

Lin Jun^1,2, Cai Guojun², Liu Songyu², Zou Haifeng², Hou Xinyu¹

1. School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Jiangsu Open University, Nanjing 210036, China;
2. Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210009, China

Received:2021-03-29 Online:2021-09-26 Published:2021-09-29
Supported by:
Supported by the Open Fund Project of Key Laboratory of Building Collapse Mechanism and Prevention of China Earthquake Administration (FZ201101), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1939209), the Key Project of Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, China Earthquake Administration (2020EEEVL0201) and the Research Subject of Major Policy Theory and Practice of China Earthquake Administration (CEAZY2020JZ07)

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 岩土参数的正态分布是岩土工程可靠分析的基本假定之一。目前，岩土工程参数的正态性检验以KS （Kolmogorov-Smirnov）检验为主，然而诸多研究表明，对于小样本数据，KS检验的正态性检验结果并不可靠。本文以废黄河泛滥沉积相粉土中的孔压静力触探（CPTU）锥尖阻力q_t数据为研究对象，首先采用ANOVA （方差分析）检验，从CPTU测试资料中进行总体的样本筛选，然后应用SW （Shapiro-Wilk）检验、KS检验、LF （Lilliefors）检验和AD （Anderson-Darling）检验等4种正态性检验方法，在不同样本容量条件下，对测试数据进行正态性检验评价。当测试数据的样本容量充足时，分析结果表明：SW检验结果最为严格，KS检验结果最不保守，而LF检验和AD检验的严格性介于两者之间；对于常规岩土工程设计，采用KS检验结果即可满足稳定性分析要求，对于复杂岩土工程设计，采用SW检验对设计参数进行正态性检验，可降低设计的不确定性。

关键词: 孔压静力触探, 岩土参数, 正态性检验, 方差分析

Abstract: Normality assumption is one of the fundamental prerequisites of geotechnical risk assessment. Currently the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test is mainly applied to assess the normality of geotechnical parameters in geotechnical literatures;However, many studies demonstrated that the power of the KS test might be the lowest among the common formal normality tests for a small sample size. With the piezocone penetration test data collected from the floodplain silts of abandoned Yellow River, the performance of four formal normality tests was assessed, including Shapiro-Wilk (SW) test, KS test, Lilliefors (LF) test, and Anderson-Darling (AD) test. The ANOVA test was utilized to identify the samples of the same population. The normality tests were performed on different sample volume. When the sample size is sufficient,the results show that:Among the four formal normality tests, the KS test provides the least conservative assessment on rejecting normality assumption, the SW test is the strictest, while the strictness of LF test and AD test is between the two; For conventional geotechnical engineering design, the KS test result can meet the stability analysis requirements, while for complex geotechnical engineering design, the SW test is used to test the normality of the design parameters to reduce the design uncertainty.

Key words: piezocone penetration test, geotechnical parameters, normality test, variance analysis

中图分类号:

TU413

林军, 蔡国军, 刘松玉, 邹海峰, 侯新宇. 基于孔压静力触探的岩土参数正态性检验方法对比[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2021, 51(5): 1408-1415.

Lin Jun, Cai Guojun, Liu Songyu, Zou Haifeng, Hou Xinyu. Comparison of Normality Test Methods on Geotechnical Parameters Based on Piezocone Penetration Test[J]. Journal of Jilin University(Earth Science Edition), 2021, 51(5): 1408-1415.

参考文献

[1] Phoon K K. Modeling and Simulation of Stochastic Data[C]//Proceedings of GeoCongress. Reston:ASCE, 2006:1-17.
[2] Phoon K K, Ching J Y. Beyond Coefficient of Variation for Statistical Characterization of Geotechnical Parameters[C]//Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Site Characterization 4.[S.l.]:Staff Publications, 2012:113-130.
[3] Phoon K K, Ching J Y. Multivariate Model for Soil Parameters Based on Johnson Distributions[C]//Foundation Engineering in the Face of Uncertainty.[S.l.]:Geotechnical Special Publication, 2013:337-353.
[4] Cao Z J, Wang Y. Bayesian Approach for Probabilistic Site Characterization Using Cone Penetration Tests[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2013, 139(2):267-276.
[5] Degroot D J, Baecher G B. Estimating Autocovariance of In-Situ Soil Properties[J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1993, 119(1):147-166.
[6] Phoon K K, Kulhway F H, Grigoriu M D. Multiple Resistance Factor Design for Shallow Transmission Line Structure Foundation[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2003, 129(9):807-818.
[7] Razali N M, Wah Y B. Power Comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling Tests[J]. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2011, 2(1):21-33.
[8] Park H M. Univariate Analysis and Normality Test Using SAS, STATA, and SPSS[R]. Bloomington:Indiana University, 2008.
[9] 陈立宏, 陈祖煜, 刘金梅. 土体抗剪强度指标的概率分布类型研究[J]. 岩土力学, 2005, 26(1):37-45. Chen Lihong, Chen Zuyu, Liu Jinmei. Probability Distribution of Soil Strength[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2005, 26(1):37-45.
[10] 严春风, 陈洪凯, 张建辉. 岩石力学参数的概率分布的Bayes推断[J]. 重庆建筑大学学报, 1997, 19(2):65-71. Yan Chunfeng, Chen Hongkai, Zhang Jianhui. The Use of Bayesian Method to Infer Distribution of Mechanical Parameters[J]. Journal of Chongqing Jianzhu University, 1997, 19(2):65-71.
[11] 张继周, 缪林昌. 岩土参数概率分布类型及其选择标准[J]. 岩石力学与工程学报, 2009, 28(增刊2):3526-3532. Zhang Jizhou, Miao Linchang.Types and Selection Criteria of Probability Distribution of Rock and Soil Parameters[J]. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2009, 28(Sup.2):3526-3532.
[12] 章刚勇, 阮陆宁. 基于Monte Carlo随机模拟的几种正态性检验方法的比较[J]. 统计与决策, 2011(7):17-20. Zhang Gangyong, Ruan Luning. A Comparison on Several Tests for Normality by Monte Carlo Simulation[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2011(7):17-20.
[13] Cai G J, Liu S Y, Puppala A J. Comparison of Cpt Charts for Soil Classification Using PCPT Data:Example from Clay Deposits in Jiangsu Province, China[J]. Engineering Geology, 2011, 121:89-96.
[14] Fenton G. Random Field Modeling of CPT Data[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1999, 125(6):486-498.
[15] Phoon K K, Kulhawy F H. Characterization of Geotechnical Variability[J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1999, 36(4):612-624.
[16] Amundaray J I. Modeling Geotechnical Uncertainty by Bootstrap Resampling[D]. West Lafayette:Purdue University, 1994.
[17] Rethati L. Probabilistic Solutions in Geotechnics[M]. Budapest:Elsevier, 1988.
[18] Cornell J R, Benjamin C A. Probability, Statistics, and Decisions for Civil Engineers[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1970.
[19] Montgomery D C, Runger G C, Hubele N F. Engineering Statistics[M]. New York:John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[20] 闫澍旺, 朱红霞, 刘润. 关于随机场理论在土工可靠度计算中应用的研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2006, 28(12):2053-2059. Yan Shuwang, Zhu Hongxia, Liu Run. Study on Application of Random Field Theory to Reliability Analysis[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2006, 28(12):2053-2059.
[21] 刘春原, 闫澍旺. 岩土参数随机场特性及线性预测[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2002, 24(5):588-591. Liu Chunyuan, Yan Shuwang. Characteristic of the Random Field of Geotechnical Parameters and Linear Prediction[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2002, 24(5):588-591.
[22] 冯波, 陈明涛, 岳冬冬, 等.基于两种插值算法的三维地质建模对比[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2019, 49(4):1200-1208. Feng Bo, Chen Mingtao, Yue Dongdong, et al. Comparison of 3D Geological Modeling Based on Two Different Interpolation Medthods[J]. Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), 2019, 49(4):1200-1208.
[23] 郑天成, 侯卫生, 何思彤.基于二维地质剖面的三维地质结构多点统计学模拟方法[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2019, 49(5):1496-1506. Zheng Tiancheng, Hou Weisheng, He Sitong. An MPS-Based Simulation Algorithm for 3D Geological Structure with 2D Cross-Sections.[J]. Journal of Jilin University (Earth Science Edition), 2019, 49(5):1496-1506.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

基于孔压静力触探的岩土参数正态性检验方法对比

Comparison of Normality Test Methods on Geotechnical Parameters Based on Piezocone Penetration Test

PDF (PC)

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 3

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

[1]	张虎, 张建明, 苏凯, 刘世伟. 高温-高含冰量冻土原位旁压蠕变试验[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2013, 43(6): 1950-1957.
[2]	王雯璐, 赵大军, 王磊. 考虑侧填荷载的分离式基础涵洞地基承载力新算法和试验[J]. J4, 2011, 41(3): 771-776.
[3]	张虎, 张建明, 苏凯, 刘世伟. 冻土旁压试验与单轴试验对比[J]. 吉林大学学报(地球科学版), 2015, 45(5): 1479-1484.