Evaluation of a cone penetration test thin-layer correction procedure in the context of global liquefaction model performance
Evaluation of a cone penetration test thin-layer correction procedure in the context of global liquefaction model performance
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106221
复制
发表时间：
2021-06
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
M. Geyin;B. Maurer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Geyin;B. Maurer
工程地质学家通常使用锥贯入试验（CPT）的数据进行液化危险评估。然而，CPT动员的土壤体积充当真实地层的低通滤波器，可能会删除诸如定义土壤薄层或两种不同土壤之间界面的数据等信息。Boulanger和DeJong（2018）CPT反演程序旨在纠正这些影响，本文在基于CPT的液化模型性能的背景下进行了评估。使用超过15,000个案例历史从24个地震解析成2个数据集，18个不同的液化模型进行了研究，导致36个性能试验。在这些试验中，CPT反演程序增加了模型效率的统计显着程度，但在其他23个显着降低效率。这种性能下降趋势随着配置文件变得更加分层而加剧。为了探索补救措施，液化触发曲线是从反演CPT数据中重新导出的，使得其训练和正向实现是一致的。尽管如此，这加剧了预测效率的下降。最终，本研究的结果并不是对开创性Boulanger和DeJong（2018）手术的直接评估。然而，结果提供的证据表明，这一程序-当应用于现有的CPT为基础的液化模型-可能不会提供明显的性能优势。
Engineering geologists routinely perform liquefaction hazard assessments using data from the cone penetration test (CPT). However, the volume of soil mobilized by the CPT acts as a low-pass filter on the true stratigraphy, potentially removing information such as the data defining a thin layer of soil or the interface between two dissimilar soils. The Boulanger and DeJong (2018) CPT inversion procedure, which aims to correct these effects, is herein evaluated in the context of CPT-based liquefaction model performance. Using over 15,000 case-histories from 24 earthquakes parsed into 2 datasets, 18 different liquefaction models are studied, resulting in 36 performance trials. In 1 of these trials, the CPT inversion procedure increases model efficiency to a statistically significant degree, but in 23 others it significantly decreases efficiency. This decline in performance tends to grow as profiles become more stratified. To explore remedies, a liquefaction triggering curve is rederived from inverted CPT data, such that its training and forward implementation are made consistent. Nonetheless, this exacerbates the decline in prediction efficiency. Ultimately, the results of this study are not a direct assessment of the pioneering Boulanger and DeJong (2018) procedure. However, the results do provide evidence that this procedure – when applied to existing CPT-based liquefaction models – may provide no demonstrable performance benefit.