【摘要】 液化实时监测作为减轻地震灾害的新手段,其核心技术是建立依据强震记录识别场地液化的方法,但目前所提出的方法十分有限,可靠性也缺少实际地震检验。2011年新西兰地震中液化及其震害现象显著,为检验现有液化识别方法提供了条件。目前已有并可供工程使用的四种液化识别方法为:Miyajima法、Suzuki法、KY法(Kostadinov和Yamazaki方法)以及SY法(孙锐和袁晓铭方法)。利用该次地震震中距小于50 km的全部27条原始加速度记录,对加速度记录场地液化情况进行盲测,为检验和改进方法提供基础。盲测结果表明:对于3个已报道液化的场地,KY法和SY法给出了正确结果,对1个已报道为非液化的场地,Suzuki法和SY法给出了正确结果;全部四种方法和三种方法识别结果相同的场地个数分别为4个和10个,占总数的52%,这14个结果中均包含SY法;几个方法总体识别结果差异较明显,差异最大的场地有5个,包括了不液化、疑似液化、液化可能性非常高等多种识别结果;对实际液化情况未知的23个场地,盲测结果是否正确还有待事实检验。更多还原

【Abstract】 The real-time liquefaction monitoring and warming techniques are developing ways to mitigate liquefaction hazard.The key point for the techniques is to establish a reverse liquefaction detection method based on seismic records.However,the liquefaction detection methods now available are quite limited and the reliability of the methods is lack of verification by earthquake records.There is serious liquefaction damage during New Zealand earthquake in 2011,which creates a wonderful chance to examine the existing liquefaction detection methods.The 27 acceleration records within 50km from epicenter in the earthquake are employed to perform a blind detection for the four available methods,including Miyajima method,Suzuki method,KY(Kostadinov and Yamazaki) method as well as SY(Sun and Yuan) method.The blind detection results indicate that KY method and SY method obtain correct results for three liquefied sites,and Suzuki method and SY method are correct for the non-liquefied sites.The number of same identification results are four and ten by all four methods and three methods,respectively,which is totally 52% of all sites.The detecting results of the 14 sites by SY method are included.The difference of the detection results by the four methods is very obvious.The number of different detected sites is 5,including non-liquefied,suspicious liquefaction and liquefaction by different methods.These identified results will be verified by actual observation for the 23 sites,excluding the 4 confirmed sites.更多还原