[1]张泽旺,梁发云,梁轩.基于实测记录的土层地震反应分析程序对比研究[J].地震工程与工程振动,2020,40(03):148-157.[doi:10.13197/j.eeev.2020.03.148.zhangzw.015]
 ZHANG Zewang,LIANG Fayun,LIANG Xuan.Comparison of one-dimensional seismic response analysis programs for soil layer based on ground-motion records[J].EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING DYNAMICS,2020,40(03):148-157.[doi:10.13197/j.eeev.2020.03.148.zhangzw.015]
点击复制

基于实测记录的土层地震反应分析程序对比研究
分享到:

《地震工程与工程振动》[ISSN:/CN:]

卷:
40
期数:
2020年03
页码:
148-157
栏目:
论文
出版日期:
2020-06-30

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of one-dimensional seismic response analysis programs for soil layer based on ground-motion records
作者:
张泽旺 梁发云 梁轩
同济大学 地下建筑与工程系, 上海 200092
Author(s):
ZHANG Zewang LIANG Fayun LIANG Xuan
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
关键词:
土层反应分析实测记录SOILQUAKEDEEPSOIL卓越周期
Keywords:
seismic response analysismeasured seismic recordsSOILQUAKEDEEPSOILpredominant period
分类号:
TU43
DOI:
10.13197/j.eeev.2020.03.148.zhangzw.015
摘要:
DEEPSOIL和SOILQUAKE是两种典型的土层地震反应分析程序,已有研究表明,我国学者新近开发的SOILQUAKE程序更适用于模拟深厚软土场地的非线性反应,但对于该程序的验证分析,大多是通过与其他一维土层分析程序或基于单一场地的实测记录进行对比验证,尚有待通过不同类型场地的实测记录进行验证并进一步分析程序的可靠性。本文选取日本KiK-net台网中包含Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ类场地的多个台站地层参数及实测地震波记录,通过SOILQUAKE和DEEPSOIL建模计算,从土层放大效应及地表反应谱特征等方面进行对比分析。结果表明:(1) SOILQUAKE在Ⅱ、Ⅲ类场地情况下能够较好地预测土层响应,但在Ⅳ类场地上地震烈度达到7度之后,地表PGA计算结果比实测记录有所偏小,但误差仍在可接受范围内;而DEEPSOIL的计算值则在各类场地中均明显偏小,与实测记录的偏差随着场地特征周期及地震强度增加而增大。(2)场地土的层数较多且各层土性差异较大时,两种程序计算与实测记录的偏差比土层简单时明显增大。(3)需要注意的是,SOILQUAKE对放大效应预测足够时,有时伴随着地震反应谱“左移”的问题,该现象在各类场地中均有所存在,且在存在“左移”的案例中,现象随着场地特征周期和地震动强度的增加表现得更显著。
Abstract:
DEEPSOIL and SOILQUAKE are two typical programs for analyzing seismic response of soil layers. Studies have shown that the program SOILQUAKE is more suitable for modeling the nonlinear response of deep soft soil sites However, the verification of the program is mostly carried out by simplified soil layer model or based on one single site type, lacking of actual data verification and systematic recognition. In this paper, two programs for one-dimensional seismic response analysis, DEEPSOIL and SOILQUAKE, are used to calculate, and compared with the actual records from KiK-net strong earthquake observation network, so as to verify the rationality of the new program in various sites. The main results of the paper are as follows: (1)SOILQUAKE can predict the response of soil layer well under the condition of site Ⅱ and Ⅲ. The results get smaller after the intensity of earthquake reaches 7 degrees on site IV, but still better than that of DEEPSOIL. (2)when the number of strata is large and the differences in soil properties become significant, the error of both programs’ calculation becomes larger. (3)It should be noted that when the prediction of the amplification effect by SOILQUAKE is sufficient, sometimes the excellent period of the seismic response spectrum is smaller (than the records). This phenomenon exists in the calculation cases of various sites.

参考文献/References:

[1] 薄景山, 李秀领, 李山有. 场地条件对地震动影响研究的若干进展[J]. 世界地震工程, 2003, 19(2):11-15. BO Jingshan, LI Xiuling, LI Shanyou.Some progress of study on the effect of site conditions on ground motion[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2003, 19(2):11-15. (in Chinese)
[2] Idriss, I M, Seed, H B. Seismic response of horizontal soil layers[J]. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 1968, 94(SM4):1003-1031.
[3] Puri N, Jain A, Mohanty P, et al. Earthquake response analysis of sites in State of Haryana using DEEPSOIL software[J]. Procedia Computer Science, 2018, 125:357-366.
[4] Kim B, Hashash Y M A. Site Response analysis using downhole array recordings during the March 2011 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake and the effect of long-duration ground motions[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2013, 29(S1):S37-54.
[5] Andrés P, Francisco J S, Snieder R, et al. Estimate of shear wave velocity, and its time-lapse change, from seismic data recorded at the SMNH01 station of KiK-net using seismic interferometry[J]. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, 2012, 39:128-137.
[6] 齐文浩. 土层地震反应分析方法的比较研究[D]. 哈尔滨:中国地震局工程力学研究所, 2004. QI Wenhao.Study on the comparison of soil layers seismic response analysis methods[D]. Harbin:Institutie of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, 2004. (in Chinese)
[7] 李兆焱, 袁晓铭, 王鸾. 巨厚场地三种土层地震反应分析程序对比检验[J]. 地震工程与工程振动, 2017, 37(4):44-52. LI Zhaoyan, YUAN Xiaoming, WANG Luan.Verification of three methods for calculating earthquake response of soil layers in deep sites[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 2017, 37(4):44-52. (in Chinese)
[8] 马俊玲, 丁海平. 基于等效线性化方法的一维土层地震反应通用计算程序对比[J]. 震灾防御技术, 2017, 12(4):725-742. MA Junling, DING Haiping.Comparison of programs for one-dimensional soil seismic response based on equivalent linearization method[J]. Technology for Earthquake Disaster Prevention 2017, 12(4):725-742. (in Chinese)
[9] 李晓飞, 孙锐, 袁晓铭, 等. 现有等效线性化分析程序在实际软场地计算结果方面的比较[J]. 自然灾害学报, 2015, 24(4):56-62. LI Xiaofei, SUN Rui, YUAN Xiaoming, LI Bo.Comparison of existing equivalent linear analysis program in calculation results of actual soft site[J]. Journal of Natural Disasters, 2015, 24(4):56-62. (in Chinese)
[10] 李瑞山, 袁晓铭, 李程程. 基于黏弹性解的土层地震反应分析程序LSSRLI-1和SHAKE2000的对比[J]. 地震工程与工程振动,2015, 35(3):17-27. LI Ruishan, YUAN Xiaoming, LI Chengcheng.Visco-elastic solution based comparison between the ground response analysis programs LSSRLI-1 and SHAKE2000[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 2015, 35(3):17-27. (in Chinese)
[11] 李瑞山. 新一代土层地震反应分析方法研究[D]. 哈尔滨:中国地震局工程力学研究所, 2016. LI Ruishan.Research on a new generation technique for ground seismic response analysis[D]. Harbin:Institutie of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, 2016. (in Chinese)
[12] 王鸾, 袁近远, 汪云龙, 等. 硬场地实测记录下几种土层地震反应分析程序可靠性对比[J]. 世界地震工程, 2018, 34(3):161-168. WANG Luan, YUAN Jinyuan, WANG Yunlong,et al. Verification of several programs for calculating earthquake response of soil layers in hard sites based on ground-motion records[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 34(3):161-168. (in Chinese)
[13] Hashash Y M A, Duhee P. Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment[J]. Engineering Geology, 2001, 62(1/2/3):185-206.
[14] Hashash, Y M A, Duhee P. Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion propagation in nonlinear site response analysis[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2002, 22(7):611-624.
[15] Groholski D R, Hashash Y M A, Kim B, et al. Simplified model for small-strain nonlinearity and strength in 1D seismic site response analysis[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2016(04016042):1-14.
[16] Matasovic N, Vucetic M. Cyclic characterization of liquefiable sands[J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1993, 119(11):1805-1822.
[17] 李瑞山, 陈龙伟, 袁晓铭, 等. 荷载频率对动模量阻尼比影响的试验研究[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2017, 39(1):71-80. LI Ruishan, CHEN Longwei, YUAN Xiaoming, et al. Experimental study on influences of different loading frequencies on dynamic modulus and damping ratio[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2017, 39(1):71-80.(in Chinese)
[18] GB50011-2010建筑抗震设计规范[S]. 北京:中国建筑工业出版社,2010. GB50011-2010 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings[S]. Beijing:Building Industry Press of China, 2010. (in Chinese)
[19] Gardner G H F, Gardner L W, Gregory A R. Formation velocity and density - the diagnostic basics for stratigraphic traps[J]. Geophysics, 1974, 39(6):770-780.
[20] 陈红娟. 土动力非线性的变异性及其对地震动影响的概率分析[D]. 哈尔滨:中国地震局工程力学研究所, 2009. CHEN Hongjuan. Variability of soil nonlinear dynamic feature and probability analysis of its effect on ground motion[D]. Harbin:Institutie of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, 2009. (in Chinese)
[21] 陈卓识, 袁晓铭, 孟上九. 浅硬场地剪切波速变异性对结构地震输入的影响[J]. 地震工程与工程振动, 2015, 35(1):20-27. CHEN Zhuoshi, YUAN Xiaoming, MENG Shangjiu.The impact of shear-wave velocity variability on structural seismic input of stiff-shallow site[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 2015, 39(1):20-27. (in Chinese)

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2019-10-30;改回日期:2020-01-17。
基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目(41672266,51878487)
作者简介:张泽旺(1997-),男,硕士研究生,主要从事岩土地震工程分析方面的研究.E-mail:zhangzw@tongji.edu.cn
通讯作者:梁发云(1976-),男,教授,博士,主要从事岩土与地下工程抗震等研究.E-mail:fyliang@tongji.edu.cn
更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01