【摘要】 土壤液化在美国和中国的地震区域频繁发生,然而,两国在评估液化的风险方面方法有所不同。文章比较了两国采用的普遍工程做法和先进的分析方法,并在方法的兼容性、方法的分歧和从这些方法中学到什么这三方面进行总结,尤其是如何处理细屑/粘土粒带来的影响。两国常用的"干净"沙的液化触发曲线基本一致,但是用粘土粒含量作为控制变量的方法可能会导致不保守的结果,因此不推荐使用。标准灌入试验(SPT)是两国都经常使用的研究方法,可直接比较。圆锥贯入试验(CPT)在美国使用普遍,近来在中国也有广泛使用,文章以1976年唐山地震得到的液化案例讨论和说明了应用CPT的优点。更多还原

【Abstract】 Liquefaction is a common occurrence in seismic areas in the United States and China,however these countries use different methods to evaluate the potential for liquefaction.This paper compares the standard-of-practice and state-of-the-art analysis methods in both countries to determine the similarities and differences.Results are presented on method compatibility,method disagreement,and what can be learned.Of particular importance is how the influence of fines content and/or clay fraction is treated.It is shown that "clean" sand triggering curves are in general agreement between the two countries but when sandy soils contain fines the use of clay fraction as a controlling variable is not recommended because it may result in unconservative results.The Standard Penetration Test(SPT) is routinely used in both countries and a direct comparison of methods can be made.The Cone Penetration Test(CPT) commonly used in the United States,has recently found more widespread use in China.The benefits of the CPT are discussed and illustrated in a liquefaction case history recently reacquired from the 1976 Tangshan Earthquake.更多还原