Liquefaction prediction using support vector machine model based on cone penetration data

Research Article

Abstract

A support vector machine (SVM) model has been developed for the prediction of liquefaction susceptibility as a classification problem, which is an imperative task in earthquake engineering. This paper examines the potential of SVM model in prediction of liquefaction using actual field cone penetration test (CPT) data from the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake. The SVM, a novel learning machine based on statistical theory, uses structural risk minimization (SRM) induction principle to minimize the error. Using cone resistance (q c ) and cyclic stress ratio (CSR), model has been developed for prediction of liquefaction using SVM. Further an attempt has been made to simplify the model, requiring only two parameters (q c and maximum horizontal acceleration a max ), for prediction of liquefaction. Further, developed SVM model has been applied to different case histories available globally and the results obtained confirm the capability of SVM model. For Chi-Chi earthquake, the model predicts with accuracy of 100%, and in the case of global data, SVM model predicts with accuracy of 89%. The effect of capacity factor (C) on number of support vector and model accuracy has also been investigated. The study shows that SVM can be used as a practical tool for prediction of liquefaction potential, based on field CPT data.

Keywords

earthquake cone penetration test liquefaction support vector machine (SVM) prediction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Seed H B, Idriss I M. Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Divisions, 1971, 97(9): 1249–1273Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seed H B, Tokimatsu K, Harder L F, Chung R. Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Dividions, 1985, 111(12): 1425–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robertson P K, Campanella R G. Liquefaction potential of sands using the cone penetration test. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Dividions, 1985, 111(3): 384–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Skempton AW. Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation. Geotechnique, 1986, 36(3): 425–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seed H B, De Alba P M. Use of SPT and CPT for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands. In: Proceedings of In Situ’86, a Specialty Conference on Use of In Situ Tests in Geotechnical Engineering. ASCE, New York, 1986, 281–302Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shibata T, Teparaksa W. Evaluation of liquefaction potentials of soils using cone penetration tests. Soil and Foundation, 1988, 28(2): 49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christian J T, Swiger WF. Statistics of liquefaction and SPT results. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1975, 101(11): 1135–1150Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haldar A, Tang W H. Probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1979, 104(2): 145–162Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liao S S C, Veneziano D, Whitman R V. Regression models for evaluating liquefaction probability. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1988, 114(4): 389–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hsein Juang C, Yuan H, Lee D H, Ku C S. Assessing CPT-based methods for liquefaction evaluation with emphasis on the cases from the Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2002, 22(3): 241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goh A T C. Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1994, 120(9): 1467–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goh A T C. Neural-netwok modeling of CPT seismic liquefaction data. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1996, 122(1): 70–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saka H, Ural D N. Liquefaction assessment by Artificial Neural Networks. Electronics journal of geotechnical engineering, 2002Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goh A T C. Probablistic neural network for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2002, 39(1): 219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park D, Rilett, L R. Forecasting freeway link ravel times with a multi-layer feed forward neural network. Computer Aided Civil And Znfa Structure Engineering, 1999, 14: 358–367Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kecman V. Learning and Soft Computing-Support Vector Machines, Neural Networks, and Fuzzy Logic Models. Massachusetts, Cambridge, London, England: the MIT press, 2001MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vapnik V. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Springer, 1995MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boser B E, Guyon I M, Vapnik V N. A training algorithm for optimal margin classifiers. In: Hussler D, ed. 5th Annual ACM Workshop on COLT. Pittsburgh: ACM Press, 1992, 144–152Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cortes C, Vapnik V. Support-vector networks. Machine Learning, 1995, 20(3): 273–297MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gualtieri J A, Chettri S R, Cromp R F, Johnson L F. Support vector machine classifiers as applied to AVIRIS data. In: Proceedings of the Summaries of the 8th JPL Airbrone Earth Science Workshop. Nevada, February 8–11, 1999Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vapnik V N. Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Wiley, 1998MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Osuna E, Freund R, Girosi F. An improved training algorithm for support vector machines. In: Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Neural Networks for Signal Processing 7. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1997, 276–285Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fletcher R. Practical Methods of Optimization. 2nd ed. Chichester, Newyork: Wiley, 1987MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J. An introduction to Support vector machine. London: Cambridge University press, 2000Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sincero A P. Predicting Mixing Power Using Artificial Neural Network. EWRI World Water and Environmental, 2003Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gunn R. Support vector machines for classification and regression. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~srg/publications/pdf/SVM.pdf, 2003
  27. 27.
    MathWork, Inc. Matlab user’s manual, Version 5.3. Natick, 1999Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Disaster Mitigation and ManagementVIT UniversityVelloreIndia

Personalised recommendations