Abstract

The liquefaction of sands remains an important topic in geotechnical earthquake engineering. The most widely used evaluation method is based on in situ testing means such as cone penetration test, standard penetration test, and dynamic penetration test. Recently, machine learning has emerged as a promising approach for evaluating liquefaction potential problems. Due to the complexity of the site and the different standards of the available measurement methods, however, the problem of small sample liquefaction data severely restricts the development of machine learning in the prediction and mitigation of soil liquefaction. Here, we propose the Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Networks (WGAN) to expand the sample size of the liquefaction data set. The result shows that the proposed method (WGAN) learns the feature distribution of the original data set effectively and improves the accuracy of the model. By comparing with Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique, the superiority of Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Networks in data generation is demonstrated, especially for discrete data. The effectiveness of the method (WGAN) on soil liquefaction prediction is further analyzed using the K-means algorithm. The method (WGAN) provides a good solution for earthquake engineering where it is difficult to obtain comprehensive data and improves further the application of deep learning.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Acknowledgments

The present work is carried out with the support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51808207).

References

Alobaidi, M. H., M. A. Meguid, and F. Chebana. 2019. “Predicting seismic-induced liquefaction through ensemble learning frameworks.” Sci. Rep. 9 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48044-0.
Andrus, R. D., and K. H. Stokoe II. 2000. “Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 126 (11): 1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:11(1015).
Arjovsky, M., S. Chintala, and L. Bottou. 2017. “Wasserstein GAN.” Preprint, submitted January 26, 2017. http://arxiv.org/10.48550/arXiv.1701.07875.
Arulanandan, K., C. Yogachandan, N. J. Meegoda, Y. Liu, and Z. Sgi. 1986. “Comparison of the SPT, CPT, SV and electrical methods of evaluating earthquake induced liquefaction susceptibility in Ying Kou City during the Haicheng Earthquake.” In Proc., Use of in Situ Tests in Geo-Technical Engineering, Geotechnical Special Publication 6, edited by S. P. Clemence, 389–415. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Been, K., J. H. A. Crooks, D. E. Becker, and M. G. Jefferies. 1986. “The cone penetration test in sands: Part I, state parameter interpretation.” Géotechnique 36 (2): 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1986.36.2.239.
Bennett, M. J., P. V. McLaughlin, J. S. Sarmiento, and T. L. Youd. 1984. Geotechnical investigation of liquefaction sites, Imperial Valley, California. Open-File Rep. No. 84-252. Menlo Park, CA: USGS.
Bennett, M. J., T. L. Youd, E. L. Harp, and G. F. Wieczorek. 1981. Subsurface investigation of liquefaction, Imperial Valley Earth-quake, California, October 15, 1979. Open-File Rep. No. 81-502. Menlo Park, CA: USGS.
Bhattacharya, S., K. Tokimatsu, K. Goda, R. Sarkar, M. Shadlou, and M. Rouholamin. 2014. “Collapse of Showa bridge during 1964 Niigata earthquake: A quantitative reappraisal on the failure mechanisms.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 65: 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.05.004.
Boulanger, R. W., and I. M. Idriss. 2014. CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Davis, CA: Univ. of California.
Breiman, L. 1996. “Bagging predictors.” Mach. Learn. 24: 123–140.
Bwambale, B., and R. D. Andrus. 2019. “State of the art in the assessment of aging effects on soil liquefaction.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 125: 105658.1–105658.13.
Cetin, K. O., R. B. Seed, A. Der Kiureghian, K. Tokimatsu, L. F. Harder Jr, R. E. Kayen, and R. E. S. Moss. 2004. “Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (12): 1314–1340. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:12(1314).
Charlie, W. A., D. O. Doehring, J. P. Brislawn, and H. Hassen. 1998. Direct measurement of liquefaction potential in soils of Monterey County, California. Earthquake of October 17, 1989—Liquefaction, (1551-B): B181-B221. California: The Loma Prieta.
Chawla, N. V., K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer. 2002. “Smote: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique.” J. Artif. Intell. Res. 16 (1): 321–357. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.953.
Cortes, C., and V. Vapnik. 1995. “Support-vector networks.” Mach. Learn. 20: 273–297.
Goodfellow, I., Y. Bengio, and A. Courville. 2016. Deep learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goodfellow, I. J., J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, X. Bing, and Y. Bengio. 2014. Generative adversarial nets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gou, C., Y. Wu, K. Wang, F. Y. Wang, and Q. Ji. 2017. “Learning-by-synthesis for accurate eye detection.” In Proc., 23rd Int. Conf. on Pattern Recognition. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Howie, J. A., and Y. P. Vaid. 2000. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test: Discussion.” Can. Geotech. J. 37 (1): 270–271. https://doi.org/10.1139/t99-102.
Hu, J. 2021. “Data cleaning and feature selection for gravelly soil liquefaction.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 145 (5): 106711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106711.
Ja, H., and V. Yp. 2000. “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test: Discussion.” Can. Geotech. J. 37 (1): 270–271.
Jin, R., W. Chen, and T. W. Simpson. 2001. “Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 23 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-001-0160-4.
Juang, C. H., T. Jiang, and R. D. Andrus. 2002. “Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 128 (7): 580–589. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:7(580).
Juang, C. H., S. H. Yang, H. Yuan, and E. H. Khor. 2004. “Characterization of the uncertainty of Robertson and Wride model for liquefaction potential evaluation.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 24 (9): 771–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.06.002.
Kaveh, A., S. M. Hamze-Ziabari, and T. Bakhshpoori. 2018. “Patient rule-induction method for liquefaction potential assessment based on CPT data.” Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 77: 849–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-016-0990-3.
Ku, C.-S., D.-H. Lee, and J.-H. Wu. 2004. “Evaluation of soil liquefaction in the chi-chi, Taiwan earthquake using CPT.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 24 (9-10): 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.06.009.
Kubat, M., R. Holte, and S. Matwin. 1997. Learning when negative examples abound, 146–153. Berlin: Springer.
Lunne, T., P. K. Robertson, and J. Powell. 2009. “Cone-penetration testing in geotechnical practice.” Soil Mech. Found. Eng. 46 (6): 237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11204-010-9072-x.
Moss, R. E. S. 2003. CPT-based probabilistic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction initiation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Rasouli, H., B. Fatahi, and S. Nimbalkar. 2020. “Liquefaction and post-liquefaction assessment of lightly cemented sands.” Can. Geotech. J. 57 (2): 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0833.
Sang, L., Y. Xu, R. Cao, Y. Chen, Y. Guo, and R. Xu. 2011. “Modeling of Gan Hemt by using an improved K-nearest neighbors algorithm.” J. Electromagn. Waves Appl. 25 (7): 949–959. https://doi.org/10.1163/156939311795254019.
Seed, H. B., and I. M. Idriss. 1971. “Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 97 (9): 1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662.
Seed, H. B., I. M. Idriss, and I. Arango. 1983. “Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data.” J. Geotech. Eng. 109 (3): 458–482. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:3(458).
Sladen, J. A. 1989. “Problems with interpretation of sand state from cone penetration test.” Géotechnique 39 (39): 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1989.39.2.323.
Smith, M. 1993. Neural networks for statistical modeling. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Stark, T. D., and S. M. Olson. 1995. “Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case histories.” J. Geotech. Eng. 121 (12): 856–869. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1995)121:12(856).
Umar, S. K., P. Samui, and S. Kumari. 2018. “Deterministic and probabilistic analysis of liquefaction for different regions in Bihar.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 36: 3311–3321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0498-7.
Wallace, B. C., K. Small, C. E. Brodley, and T. A. Trikalinos. 2011. “Class imbalance, redux.” In Proc., 11th IEEE Int. Conf. on Data Mining, 754–763. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Yang, Q., P. Yan, Y. Zhang, H. Yu, Y. Shi, X. Mou, M. K. Kalra, Y. Zhang, L. Sun, and G. Wang. 2018. “Low-dose CT image denoising using a generative adversarial network with Wasserstein distance and perceptual loss.” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 37: 1348–1357. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2018.2827462.
Yang, S. L., Y. S. Li, X. X. Hu, and R. Y. Pan. 2006. “Optimization study on k value of kmeans algorithm.” Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 26 (2): 97–101.
Yen, S.-J., and Y.-S. Lee. 2009. “Cluster-based under-sampling approaches for imbalanced data distributions.” Expert Syst. Appl. 36 (3): 5718–5727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.108.
Zar, J. H. 1972. “Significance testing of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient.” J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 67 (339): 578–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1972.10481251.
Zhang, J., L. M. Zhang, and W. H. Tang. 2009. “Bayesian framework for characterizing geotechnical model uncertainty.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (7): 932–940. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000018.
Zhang, W., C. Wu, H. Zhong, Y. Li, and L. Wang. 2021. “Prediction of undrained shear strength using extreme gradient boosting and random forest based on Bayesian optimization.” Geosci. Front. 12 (1): 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.03.007.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to International Journal of Geomechanics
International Journal of Geomechanics
Volume 23Issue 9September 2023

History

Received: Sep 6, 2022
Accepted: Mar 25, 2023
Published online: Jun 23, 2023
Published in print: Sep 1, 2023
Discussion open until: Nov 23, 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Key Laboratory of Building Safety and Energy Efficiency of the Ministry of Education, Hunan Univ., Changsha 410082, China; National Center for International Research Collaboration in Building Safety and Environment, Hunan Univ., Changsha 410082, China; College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Changsha 410082, China. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1178-0922. Email: [email protected]
Key Laboratory of Building Safety and Energy Efficiency of the Ministry of Education, Hunan Univ., Changsha 410082, China; National Center for International Research Collaboration in Building Safety and Environment, Hunan Univ., Changsha 410082, China; College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Changsha 410082, China (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9758-9100. Email: [email protected]
Key Laboratory of Building Safety and Energy Efficiency of the Ministry of Education, Hunan Univ., Changsha 410082, China; National Center for International Research Collaboration in Building Safety and Environment, Hunan Univ., Changsha 410082, China; College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Changsha 410082, China. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1296-0418. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share