Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Energy-based probabilistic evaluation of soil liquefaction

Y.R. Chena,*, S.C. Hsieha, J.W. Chenb, C.C. Shihb
a
Department of Land Management and Development, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan 711, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng-Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan, ROC
Accepted 6 July 2004

Abstract
This paper presents a seismic wave energy-based method with back-propagation neural networks to assess the liquefaction probability. An
empirical equation and Fourier spectrum of acceleration are employed, respectively, to calculate the seismic wave energy. Discriminant
analysis is used to determine the equation of the boundary curve separating the data points with and without liquefaction. The proposed
method shows capability in evaluating the probability of soil liquefaction based on the boundary curve and a logarithm normal distribution.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Soil liquefaction; Seismic wave energy; Back-propagation neural networks; Discriminant analysis

1. Introduction
When the cohesionless soil is subjected to sufficiently
long and strong ground shaking, pore water pressure
increases gradually. If the water does not have time to
escape or dissipate fast enough excess pore water pressure is
generated. The effective stress will be decreased and the soil
will decrease in strength. Finally the soil losses all bearing
capacity and acts as liquid, and it is said to be in a state of
liquefaction. Since the soil is heterogeneous, non-linear,
non-conservative and anisotropic material, it behaves with
high uncertainty. Moreover, since the factors affecting soil
liquefaction include in situ environmental conditions and
earthquake characteristics, evaluation of soil liquefaction is
therefore a task of considerable complexity in geotechnical
engineering.
This paper describes a study that builds on the energy
concept for assessing the liquefaction potential of a site. The
analysis is based on field observations of performance of
sites subjected to earthquake in the past. Data on
earthquake characteristics and soil resistance measured
with the standard penetration test are compiled to establish
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C886 6 278 5123x1100; fax: C886 6 278
5968.
E-mail address: yrchen@mail.cju.edu.tw (Y.R. Chen).
0267-7261/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.07.002
evaluation models for new sites. The results show that this
energy method is simple and reliable.
The concept of factor of safety (FS) against damage was
commonly employed in the design in civil engineering. For
example, liquefaction occurs if FS!1, otherwise not.
However, the significance of a given magnitude of factor
of safety is not clear, but acceptable values for specific
problems have been established by experience. Instead of
the concept of factor of safety, liquefaction probability is
employed to evaluate liquefaction potential in this paper.
Finally, a geographical information system is used to
illustrate the microzonation mapping of liquefaction
potential. The results indicate that the proposed evaluation
models can be put to practice for the assessment of soil
liquefaction.
2. Artificial neural network
An artificial neural network (ANN) is a computer model
whose architecture essentially mimics the biological system
of the brain. The key element of the ANN paradigm is the
novel structure of the information processing system. It is
composed of a large number of highly interconnected
processing elements that are analogous to neurons and are
tied together with weighted connections that are analogous
to synapses. These processing elements work as a parallel
56 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of back-propagation neural networks.
distributed computational system and can be used to process
massive data. One of the attractions of artificial neural
network is that its imprecision tolerance introduces a
random variability in the system, which is very similar to
the random variability that exists in the actual system. In
most practical problems, the random variability plays an
important role. This feature of neural networks is used
advantageously in this research for generating earthquake
accelerograms.
Rumelhart et al. [1] proposed back-propagation neural
networks, also known as generalized delta rules, which are
based on a simple but very effective principle: the synaptic
strengths are modified iteratively such that the output signal
differs as little as possible from the desired. In this paper, the
model weights are constructed by back-propagation neural
networks and multilayered feed-forward networks with a
hidden layer are employed. That is, one layer of neurons
sandwiched in between the input layer and the output layer,
as shown in Fig. 1.
In order for evaluation of liquefaction probability for a
large area to be carried out efficiently, Fourier acceleration
spectra are not obtained from actual field records by using
the Fourier transform but are predicted according to the field
data and earthquake characteristics at the site. Therefore,
back-propagation neural networks are used to predict
Fourier acceleration spectrum since no model is required.
That is, we can just throw data at the network and let it
ruminate. It will choose its own model and generally do a
good job.
3. Computation of seismic wave energy
When deal with the topic of soil liquefaction, magnitude
and source of seismic energy are involved. Nemat-Nasser
and Shokooh [2] proposed that the increase of pore pressure
is directly related to the dissipation of seismic wave energy.
The propagation and dissipation of seismic wave energy
stimulate the pore pressure. Liquefaction is initiated when
the pore pressure in water saturated soil reaches the effective
confining pressure. In this paper, two alternative methods
are employed to estimate seismic wave energy: method one
is to calculate seismic wave energy by an empirical formula;
method two uses back propagation neural networks to
simulate Fourier spectrum of seismic wave acceleration,
then seismic wave energy is obtained by integration of the
pseudo-spectrum.
3.1. Energy method using empirical formula
The most simple energy attenuation model for spheri-
cally expanding waves is an inverse relationship to distance
squared Thus, letting r denote the distance to the center of
energy release, the energy content E(r) of the seismic waves
arriving at the site is approximated by
E0
EðrÞ Z c1 (1)
r2
where c1 is a constant. This energy model accounts for the
amplitude attenuation rate of body waves only [3] and thus
cannot describe the attenuation of strong motion energy.
Given the earthquake magnitude M, the total radiated
energy E0 is [4]
E0 Z 101:5MC1:8 (2)
where E0 has dimension of kJ.
3.2. Energy method using Fourier spectra
Trifunac [5] showed that the seismic wave energy at
epicentral distance r is proportional to
ð t0
EðrÞ w v2 ðtÞdt (3)
0
where t0 is the total duration of earthquake and v is ground
velocity at the site. This energy model accounts for the
effects of the local soil and site geology both on amplitudes
and duration of strong shaking by deep sediments, resulting
in larger energy input available to build up the pore pressure
at the site. From the Parseval’s theorem [6], it follows that
ðN  
FðuÞ 2
EðrÞ w du (4)
0 u
where F(u) is the Fourier amplitude spectrum of strong
motion acceleration. The Fourier transform and empirical
scaling equations discussed by Trifunac [7] are used to
obtain the spectrum. Eq. (4) is then evaluated for
frequencies between 0.01 and 100 Hz.
ð t0 ð 200p
FðuÞ 2
E Z v2 ðtÞdt Z j j du (5)
0 p=50 u
For data corresponding to each bore hole at the site, we
assume that Fourier spectrum for training of every sample at
each site is the same and is obtained from the nearest
observation station. The record of ground motion accelera-
tion at the site is transform to the Fourier spectrum by fast
Fourier transform [8] and the spectrum is plotted on
 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68
log(period) vs. log(amplitude) plane. Not coordinates of
axes but the values of period and amplitude are taken
logarithm. The mathematical software called Grapher [9] is
used for curve fitting of original spectrum and the best fit
curve is a polynomial equation of the second order, such as
y1 Z a1 x21 C b1 x1 C c1 : The coefficients of the polynomial
equation are used as output vectors of training units in back-
propagation neural networks. The values of SPT-N,
effective stress, stress ratio, fines content and peak ground
acceleration are used as input vectors in training units.
After training, the polynomial equation obtained is
plotted on period vs. amplitude plane as a pseudo-Fourier
spectrum to simulate real Fourier spectrum. The area
under pseudo-Fourier spectrum which has the form
2
y2 Z 10½a2 ðlog x2 Þ Cb2 ðlog x2 ÞCc2  is equivalent to the energy
computed from the real Fourier spectrum. Since the
equation of pseudo-Fourier spectrum is known, the energy
content E(r) can be easily obtained by integration.
4. Development of energy-based evaluation models
for soil liquefaction
Part of the arriving energy E(r) will be dissipated in the
soil at the site. Let the dissipated energy density be denoted
by DE(r). We assume that
DEðrÞ Z LðN; s 0 ÞEðrÞ
where L is a dissipation function which depends upon the
standard penetration value N and initial effective over-
burden stress s 0 : Extensive laboratory studies by Hardin
[10] suggest that L should be proportional to sK1=2
0 : That is
L Z lðNÞsK1=2
0 (7)
where l is only a function of N. Davis and Berrill [11]
proposed that the increase in pore pressure Du is a linear
function of the dissipated energy density.
Du Z c2 DEðrÞ
where c2 is a constant. The above linear relationship may
not be accurate enough, but its simplicity outweighs its
disadvantage in precision. Combining Eqs. (1), (2) and
(6)–(8) we have
C1 ðNÞ 1:5MC1:8
Du Z pffiffiffiffiffi 10
r 2 s 0
where C1(N)Zc1c2l(N). Combining Eqs. (6)–(8) we have
C ðNÞ
Du Z p2 ffiffiffiffiffi EðrÞ
s 0
where C2(N)Zc2l(N). On level ground, in the absence of
external loads, the value of Du required to produce
liquefaction is just s 0 : Thus, C1(N) in Eq. (9) can be
rewritten as
C1 ðNÞ Z r 2 ! s 3=2
0 !10
Kð1:5MC1:8Þ
57
Therefore, substituting the corresponding r, s 0 and M of
each layer of soil into Eq. (11), we have C1(N) for energy
method using empirical formula. Substituting DuZ s 0 into
Eq. (10), we have C2(N) for energy method using Fourier
spectrum.
s 3=2
0
C2 ðNÞ Z (12)
EðrÞ
Rather than employ raw standard penetration results, we
have corrected all N values for overburden pressures using
the formula of Peck et al. [12]
 
 2000
N Z 0:77 log N (13)
s 0
where s 0 has dimensions of kPa. Another formula such as
published by Liao and Whitman [13] can also be employed.
The points in C(N) vs. N diagram will shift substantially
slightly in horizontal direction if different formula is used.
Assume that N is known for a given site. Let Ccritical be
critical value of C1(N) or C2(N) corresponding to a specific
N value. If C1(N) or C2(N) is greater than Ccritical, then
liquefaction should occur. Conversely, if C1(N) or C2(N) is
smaller than Ccritical, liquefaction should not occur. This
suggests that we plot C1(N) or C2(N) vs. N for real cases
where earthquake-induced liquefaction may or may not
have occurred. In this liquefaction discriminant diagram
(6) with two axes in logarithmic scale, through self-discrimi-
nant (visual inspection) or discriminant analysis, a border
line is defined to discriminate points corresponding to
non-liquefaction or liquefaction and the value of Ccritical can
be determined at the same time. The form of border line is
expressed as
CðNÞ Z aN Kb (14)
where a and b are intercept and slope, respectively. Points
corresponding to non-liquefaction should lie right above
border line while points corresponding to liquefaction
(8) should lie left below.
5. Evaluation of liquefaction probability
In the evaluation of soil liquefaction, there are so many
(9)
uncertainties involved that computed safety factor varies to
a large extent. Therefore, liquefaction probability is applied
to explore the liquefaction potential by using normal
(10) distribution and discriminant analysis. The SPT data from
the site in Yuan-Lin are used to develop liquefaction
discriminant rule. Then, liquefaction discriminant diagram
is plotted and liquefaction probability is computed. Finally,
a border line is drawn by hand (self-discriminant), relying
on judgment rather than on mathematical interpretation, or
by Fisher linear discriminant [14] to distinguish points
(11) corresponding to liquefaction and non-liquefaction.
58 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68

5.1. Normal distribution
For specified effective overburden pressure and seismic
wave energy, Eqs. (11) and (12) give the critical value of N
for liquefaction to occur (if N at the site is smaller than
N critical ). This value will be denoted by N critical . Eqs. (11) or
(12) can also be viewed as the borderline that separates the
cases of liquefaction from those of no liquefaction. By
measuring the distance from this borderline of the data
points that violated the predictions by the models. Trifunac
(1995) determined approximately the distribution of N critical :
He approximated the distribution of the residuals
ðN K N model Þ by the normal probability distribution func-
tion, with mean mres and standard deviation sres :
Treating N critical as a random variable allows specifying
the liquefaction criterion probabilistically. The probability
that liquefaction will occur at a site, characterized by a
corrected SPT value N;  is equal to the probability that the

N critical O N: For Gaussian N critical in logarithm scale
 retrieving the maximum values, we have Fourier spectra
P½N critical O N
 software Grapher for curve fitting, we have smooth curves
ðN  
1 1  x K m 2
Z pffiffiffiffiffiffi exp K dx (15)
2ps logN 2 s
The mean and standard deviations for logðN critical Þ are
mZ logðN model ÞC mres and sZsres, where N model is the
prediction by the model and mres and sres are mean and
standard deviation of the distribution of the residuals,
respectively.
5.2. Discriminant analysis
Discriminant analysis is a technique for analyzing
research data when the criterion or dependent variable is
categorical and the predictor or independent variables are
interval in nature. Discriminant analysis works by creating a
new variable by combining the original variables in such a
way that the differences between the predefined groups are
maximized. In this paper, discriminant analysis is used to
determine if liquefaction may occur and the probabilities
corresponding to liquefaction and non-liquefaction for each
site are calculated.
(Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) SPSS [15]
can build a discriminant model. In SPSS, case classification
is accomplished by calculating the probability of a case
being in one group or the other (i.e. liquefaction or non-
liquefaction). This is accomplished by calculating Bayesian
2 3
K7:1677 !10K3 0:9766093 0:3635880
6 7
6 K2:8451 !10K2 0:6370139 0:8493418
6 7
Wxh1 Z 6
6 K3:333 !10K2 3:932 !10K2 K6:200 !10K2 K2:586 !10K2
4 5
0:6547186 0:7254001 0:8926883
probabilities associated with each group and the greater of
the two probabilities is used to classify the case.
6. Case study
We have 82 records of data for a single earthquake event
with magnitude 7.3 from 43 different sites, as shown in
Table 1. There may be several samples in the same site and
liquefaction or not was determined on site. Compare the
distances between observation stations and each site, then
take the ground acceleration of observation station with
minimum distance for the corresponding site. From the
distribution of the observation stations as shown in Fig. 2,
Fourier spectra transformed from total number of five
stations with ground acceleration record are needed. These
observation stations are TCU065, TCU076, TCU110,
TCU129 and TCU138. Analyzing the records of these
stations in east–west and north–south directions and
with irregular curves shown in Figs. 3–7. Then, using
in those figures. In above figures, 99043 represents the 43th
earthquake in 1999, that is Chi–Chi earthquake in Taiwan,
and TCU65_EW represents ground acceleration record in
east–west direction of observation station TCU65
If the approximated energy E(r) corresponding to real
Fourier spectrum is required, energy of each site can be
directly related to the area bounded by Fourier spectrum of the
nearest observation station. Calculation of energy in this way
is straightforward but less accurate and unreasonable, since
energy of each sample in the same site is the same. In this
paper, back-propagation neural networks are employed to
predict Fourier spectrum of sample in each site. The
coefficients of preceding quadratic polynomial are used as
output vectors. The back-propagation neural network is given
its name due to its learning rules: by back-propagating the
errors calculated at the output nodes. The root mean square
(RMS) is used to measure error of the network and is given by
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
PM PN p p 2
p j ðTj K Yj Þ
RMS Z (16)
M !N
where Tjp and Yjp are objective and predicted output value of
the jth output unit in the pth case, respectively. M is the
number of case and N is the number of processing unit in
output layer.
After training, the weighted matrices Wxh1, Wxh2 and
Wxh3 for the first, second and third hidden layer and Why for
output layer are shown as follows.
0:4580655 K0:3620450
0:8456985 0:4379650 7
7
7:476091 7
0:5748243 0:6548536
 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68 59

Table 1
Field liquefaction performance data from the Chi–Chi earthquake of Taiwan in 1999

No Sample Depth (m) Location amax (g) SPT-N s 0 (t/m2) st (t/m2) FC (%) r (km) Liquefaction
N E
NT-4 S-3 6.03 2646224 218322 0.43 7 11.01 12.04 25 19.81 yes
NT-5 S-2 4.65 2646214 217577 0.43 5 6.51 8.36 97 20.42 yes
NT-5 S-3 6 2646214 217577 0.43 10 7.83 11.03 14 20.42 yes
NT-6 S-3 5 2645807 218294 0.43 23 7.90 11.70 20 19.60 yes
NT-7 S-1 3 2645766 218010 0.43 6 3.29 5.64 22 19.82 yes
NT-7 S-2 4.6 2645766 218010 0.43 14 5.10 9.05 48 19.82 yes
NT-7 S-3 6 2645766 218010 0.43 11 6.55 11.90 18 19.82 yes
NT-7 S-4 7.5 2645766 218010 0.43 23 8.31 15.16 23 19.82 yes
NT-7 S-6 10.5 2645766 218010 0.43 17 11.60 21.45 20 19.82 yes
NT-8 S-1 1.5 2644678 218827 0.43 3 2.88 2.88 40 18.55 yes
NT-9 S-6 14 2644939 217020 0.43 19 25.70 30.10 71 20.25 no
NT-10 S-2 3.2 2642620 219316 1 5 5.67 6.47 24 17.14 yes
NT-10 S-3 4.45 2642620 219316 1 16 6.93 8.98 24 17.14 yes
NT-11 S-4 7.7 2646573 217979 0.43 12 9.96 14.86 55 20.29 yes
NT-12 S-3 6.1 2646046 218541 0.43 4 8.59 11.89 35 19.53 yes
NT-13 S-1 3.2 2644438 217367 0.43 21 5.68 6.98 76 19.70 yes
NT-14 S-2 3.95 2645954 218575 0.43 10 5.29 7.64 30 19.45 yes
NT-14 S-4 7.5 2645954 218575 0.43 17 8.62 14.52 6 19.45 yes
UL-3 S-2 3 2653685 205642 0.19 5 3.63 6.03 18 34.50 yes
UL-5 S-2 4.99 2653579 207040 0.16 5 5.34 9.63 49 33.28 yes
UL-7 S-3 4.5 2652212 206016 0.19 4 6.01 8.91 9 33.41 no
UL-10 S-4 6 2651183 204455 0.19 7 7.34 11.34 8 34.27 no
UL-10 S-5 8.45 2651183 204455 0.19 11 10.06 16.51 10 34.27 no
UL-10 S-6 9.45 2651183 204455 0.19 11 11.17 18.62 17 34.27 no
UL-10 S-8 12 2651183 204455 0.19 11 13.76 23.76 12 34.27 no
UL-15 S-6 9.45 2650879 206449 0.19 12 10.36 18.96 50 32.37 no
UL-17 S-7 12 2650478 205378 0.19 10 15.00 25.20 24 33.12 no
UL-17 S-8 13.5 2650478 205378 0.19 17 16.64 28.34 23 33.12 no
UL-17 S-9 15 2650478 205378 0.19 20 18.26 31.46 16 33.12 no
UL-17 S-10 16.5 2650478 205378 0.19 23 19.91 34.61 41 33.12 no
UL-18 S-2 3 2650032 206056 0.19 3 3.39 5.79 47 32.31 yes
UL-25 S-7 10.5 2649836 205557 0.19 12 12.56 22.26 13 32.67 yes
UL-26 S-2 3 2649474 205993 0.19 4 4.24 6.24 19 32.12 yes
UL-27 S-6 9 2649437 207122 0.19 12 9.10 17.70 20 31.09 no
UL-27 S-7 10.5 2649437 207122 0.19 13 10.93 21.03 9 31.09 no
UL-27 S-8 12 2649437 207122 0.19 14 12.27 23.87 15 31.09 no
UL-27 S-9 13.5 2649437 207122 0.19 14 13.74 26.84 5 31.09 no
UL-27 S-12 18 2649437 207122 0.19 15 18.43 36.03 4 31.09 no
UL-28 S-3 4.5 2649611 207532 0.19 4 6.94 9.14 31 30.81 yes
UL-28 S-4 6.2 2649611 207532 0.19 5 8.45 12.35 46 30.81 yes
UL-28 S-5 7.5 2649611 207532 0.19 4 9.61 14.81 59 30.81 yes
UL-29 S-1 2.5 2649705 207988 0.19 6 4.85 5.35 15 30.46 yes
UL-29 S-2 4.5 2649705 207988 0.19 3 6.65 9.15 99 30.46 yes
UL-29 S-3 6 2649705 207988 0.19 4 8.08 12.08 54 30.46 yes
UL-29 S-4 7.5 2649705 207988 0.19 11 9.71 15.21 9 30.46 yes
UL-30 S-2 4 2649924 208071 0.19 6 4.89 7.79 17 30.49 yes
UL-30 S-3 5.5 2649924 208071 0.19 6 6.45 10.85 61 30.49 yes
UL-30 S-4 7 2649924 208071 0.19 7 8.20 14.10 15 30.49 yes
UL-30 S-5 8.5 2649924 208071 0.19 12 9.99 17.39 15 30.49 yes
UL-31 S-3 4.5 2649179 205500 0.19 5 8.57 8.87 83 32.43 no
UL-32 S-5 7.5 2648958 204548 0.19 12 10.40 15.90 18 33.20 no
UL-32 S-6 9 2648958 204548 0.19 19 12.05 19.05 17 33.20 no
UL-32 S-10 15 2648958 204548 0.19 14 18.34 31.34 30 33.20 no
UL-35 S-2 3 2649458 208172 0.19 6 5.39 6.09 90 30.18 yes
UL-35 S-4 6 2649458 208172 0.19 4 8.39 12.09 53 30.18 yes
UL-35 S-5 7.5 2649458 208172 0.19 6 9.76 14.96 93 30.18 yes
UL-39 S-2 5 2644225 209279 0.21 4 6.75 11.55 35 27.02 yes
UL-41 S-7 10.5 2650689 207453 0.19 18 12.77 22.37 11 31.40 no
UL-41 S-8 12 2650689 207453 0.19 18 14.64 25.74 11 31.40 no
UL-41 S-9 13.5 2650689 207453 0.19 20 16.34 28.94 10 31.40 no
(continued on next page)
60 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68

Table 1 (continued)

No Sample Depth (m) Location amax (g) SPT-N s 0 (t/m2) st (t/m2) FC (%) r (km) Liquefaction
N E
UL-43 S-7 10.5 2649998 207860 0.19 14 11.74 21.74 15 30.71 yes
UL-44 S-2 4.5 2649802 208306 0.19 4 5.00 8.10 94 30.22 yes
UL-44 S-3 6 2649802 208306 0.19 6 6.22 10.82 82 30.22 yes
UL-44 S-4 7.5 2649802 208306 0.19 8 7.78 13.88 18 30.22 yes
UL-45 S-3 4.5 2649654 208328 0.19 4 5.04 8.24 70 30.13 yes
UL-45 S-4 6 2649654 208328 0.19 4 6.31 11.01 86 30.13 yes
UL-46 S-2 3 2649708 207812 0.19 5 3.82 5.82 38 30.61 yes
WF-1 S-2 2.45 2662379 217522 0.79 22 3.90 4.97 10 32.24 yes
WF-3 S-1 2.55 2662551 217761 0.79 2 3.75 5.00 22 32.26 yes
WF-5 S-2 3.2 2662495 218557 0.79 13 4.75 6.75 45 31.80 yes
WF-5 S-3 4.5 2662495 218557 0.79 7 6.20 9.50 90 31.80 yes
WF-7 S-2 3.9 2661861 218608 0.79 12 7.08 7.78 20 31.23 yes
WF-7 S-3 6 2661861 218608 0.79 12 9.22 12.02 50 31.23 yes
WF-9 S-1 1.5 2661155 218063 0.79 5 2.90 2.90 38 30.92 yes
WF-10 S-2 3.2 2661221 218349 0.79 9 4.54 6.34 69 30.82 yes
WF-10 S-3 4.45 2661221 218349 0.79 11 5.77 8.82 22 30.82 yes
WF-11 S-2 3 2662203 218332 0.79 7 3.84 5.94 45 31.67 yes
WF-11 S-3 4.5 2662203 218332 0.79 4 5.49 9.09 77 31.67 yes
WF-11 S-4 6 2662203 218332 0.79 10 7.14 12.24 48 31.67 yes
WF-12 S-3 4.5 2660839 218154 0.79 5 8.99 9.29 65 30.60 yes
WF-13 S-2 3 2662392 218520 0.79 3 3.78 5.88 38 31.73 yes
WF-14 S-1 1.5 2664115 215571 0.79 11 2.88 2.88 21 34.76 yes

Note: st is total stress.

2 3
K0:8165944 0:4515107 5:141431 0:3234452
6 7
6 K0:5359438 K0:2813698 3:142896 K7:979 !10K2 7
6 7
6 7
Wxh2 Z 6 0:3164449 0:4878278 0:2165777 0:5430441 7
6 7
6 7
4 1:049390 0:8693768 K0:5513071 0:5041308 5
K0:5225039 K0:2282908 3:711114 0:1778924

2 3
2:413311 1:603310 0:6167885 1:077669 1:925019
6 7
6 K0:3348204 0:4634753 9:594 !10K2 K4:656 !10K2 0:4296926 7
6 7
Wxh3 Z 6 7
6 4:355219 2:410855 7:234 !10K2 3:090916 7
4 K0:3302381 5
0:7931392 1:802075 5:464 !10K2 K0:9711826 1:449013

2 3
0:7930171 0:5765388 0:6996022 K0:4597819
6 7
Why Z 6
4 K1:251178 0:7700403 K3:300172 3:080132 7
5
K0:2713877 1:289233 K0:3256143 K2:412 !10K4

After training, the bias weighted matrices qh1, qh2 and qk3 for
the first, second and third hidden layer and qy for output
layer are shown as follows.
 
  qh3 Z 0:6630488 0:8134345 2:149354 1:671118
qh1 Z 0:2307135 0:5949129 3:858187 0:5757650
 
qy Z 0:3575987 K1:486168 K0:3319958
 
qh2 Z 2:225931 1:265869 0:7257912 0:6066688 1:606062
 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68 61

Fig. 2. Distribution map of observation stations in Taiwan.

After training, the pseudo-Fourier spectra approximate

the real Fourier spectra as shown in Figs. 8–12. The
bounded area under the two curves of each figure can be
regarded as energy and identical. Table 2 showed that
energies corresponding to pre-training and post-training
are similar. Thus, back-propagation neural networks can
be applied in the development of evaluation model of
liquefaction.
6.1. Energy method using empirical formula
Fig. 4. Curve fitting for data from Chi–Chi earthquake in station TCU076.
cases are non-liquefied cases. Putting all of these data into
Eq. (11) to calculate C(N), we plotted C(N) vs. N on log–log
scale in Fig. 13.
By fitting the Eq. (14) to the data, the border line defined
by self-discriminant can be expressed as

The database used in the present study consists of

82 cases, 59 of them are liquefied cases and the other 23 CðNÞ Z 0:3N K0:22 (17)

Fig. 3. Curve fitting for data from Chi–Chi earthquake in station TCU065. Fig. 5. Curve fitting for data from Chi–Chi earthquake in station TCU110.
62 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68

Fig. 8. Curve transform for data from Chi–Chi Earthquake in station

TCU065.

Fig. 6. Curve fitting for data from Chi–Chi earthquake in station TCU129.

The discriminant functions for liquefaction point and

non-liquefaction point are
Fig. 9. Curve transform for data from Chi–Chi Earthquake in station
d1 Z K18:8192 K 17:6772 logðCðNÞÞ TCU076.

C 16:26143 logðNÞ (18)

d2 Z K14:0651 K 8:86641 logðCðNÞÞ


C 19:42534 logðNÞ (19)

Fig. 10. Curve transform for data from Chi–Chi Earthquake in station
TCU110.

Fig. 11. Curve transform for data from Chi–Chi Earthquake in station
Fig. 7. Curve fitting for data from Chi–Chi earthquake in station TCU138. TCU129.
 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68 63

Let the above two equations be equal, then the equation of

border line can be obtained

s 03=2
Z 0:288N K0:395 (20)
EðrÞ

Fig. 13 shows liquefaction discriminant diagram based on

energy method using empirical formula. Points correspond-
ing to non-liquefaction lie above border line while points
corresponding to liquefaction lie below. In self-discriminant,
there are six misclassified points where two liquefaction
points are misclassified as non-liquefaction points while four
Fig. 12. Curve transform for data from Chi–Chi Earthquake in station non-liquefaction points are misclassified as liquefaction
TCU138. points, giving 93% success rate. In linear discriminant
analysis, there are 10 misclassified points where six
liquefaction points are misclassified as non-liquefaction
points while four non-liquefaction points are misclassified

Table 2
Energies obtained before and after training by back-propagation neural networks

No Sample Before training After training No Sample Before training After training
NT-4 S-3 60495.29688 60242.37109 UL-29 S-1 17823.12305 17951.4082
NT-5 S-2 60495.29688 61222.52344 UL-29 S-2 17823.12305 17731.45117
NT-5 S-3 60495.29688 60110.81641 UL-29 S-3 17823.12305 17863.73047
NT-6 S-3 60495.29688 59979.08203 UL-29 S-4 17823.12305 18007.61914
NT-7 S-1 60495.29688 60223.25391 UL-30 S-2 17823.12305 17964.09375
NT-7 S-2 60495.29688 60341.5625 UL-30 S-3 17823.12305 17834.85156
NT-7 S-3 60495.29688 60110.47266 UL-30 S-4 17823.12305 17993.3125
NT-7 S-4 60495.29688 59983.58203 UL-30 S-5 17823.12305 17990.42383
NT-7 S-6 60495.29688 60034.75391 UL-31 S-3 17823.12305 17764.21875
NT-8 S-1 60495.29688 60484.52734 UL-32 S-5 17823.12305 17972.95703
NT-9 S-6 60495.29688 60455.78125 UL-32 S-10 17823.12305 17977.70898
NT-10 S-2 65997.64844 70510.02344 UL-35 S-2 17823.12305 17729.69141
NT-10 S-3 65997.64844 70431.65625 UL-35 S-4 17823.12305 17866.39063
NT-11 S-4 60495.29688 60444.87109 UL-35 S-5 17823.12305 17758.22656
NT-12 S-3 60495.29688 60370.01172 UL-39 S-2 24066.59375 24454.14453
NT-13 S-1 60495.29688 60598.15234 UL-41 S-7 17823.12305 18006.7207
NT-14 S-2 60495.29688 60242.59375 UL-41 S-8 17823.12305 18018.74414
NT-14 S-4 60495.29688 59961.92578 UL-41 S-9 17823.12305 18028.74609
UL-3 S-2 17823.12305 17958.81445 UL-43 S-7 17823.12305 17999.91016
UL-5 S-2 17823.12305 14183.87109 UL-44 S-2 17823.12305 17741.30078
UL-7 S-3 17823.12305 18001.63672 UL-44 S-3 17823.12305 17776.86133
UL-10 S-4 17823.12305 18007.45898 UL-44 S-4 17823.12305 17979.37695
UL-10 S-5 17823.12305 18008.91602 UL-45 S-3 17823.12305 17806.48828
UL-10 S-6 17823.12305 17989.95898 UL-45 S-4 17823.12305 17773.34375
UL-10 S-8 17823.12305 18027.55078 UL-46 S-2 17823.12305 17887.53906
UL-15 S-6 17823.12305 17875.80078 WF-1 S-2 105020.9609 104203.7188
UL-17 S-7 17823.12305 17990.38672 WF-3 S-1 105020.9609 104365.5
UL-17 S-8 17823.12305 17984.39453 WF-4 S-2 105020.9609 104080.0859
UL-17 S-9 17823.12305 18014.07031 WF-5 S-2 105020.9609 104821.9688
UL-17 S-10 17823.12305 17922.16602 WF-5 S-3 105020.9609 104773.4375
UL-18 S-2 17823.12305 17870.55664 WF-7 S-2 105020.9609 104361.8828
UL-25 S-7 17823.12305 18015.21484 WF-7 S-3 105020.9609 104838.1328
UL-26 S-2 17823.12305 17954.31055 WF-9 S-1 105020.9609 104665.4453
UL-27 S-6 17823.12305 17974.67578 WF-10 S-2 105020.9609 104917.5547
UL-27 S-7 17823.12305 18024.50977 WF-10 S-3 105020.9609 104393.0156
UL-27 S-8 17823.12305 18007.06445 WF-11 S-2 105020.9609 104753.0313
UL-27 S-9 17823.12305 18057.27539 WF-11 S-3 105020.9609 104804.7422
UL-27 S-12 17823.12305 18089.53711 WF-11 S-4 105020.9609 104797.3125
UL-28 S-3 17823.12305 17922.90039 WF-12 S-3 105020.9609 104831.9141
UL-28 S-4 17823.12305 17885.75781 WF-13 S-2 105020.9609 104621.2266
UL-28 S-5 17823.12305 17858.86133 WF-14 S-1 105020.9609 104440.625
64 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68
Fig. 13. Liquefaction discriminant diagram based on energy method using
empirical formula.
as liquefaction points, giving 88% success rate. Since linear
discriminant analysis consider cluster of whole points, and
points corresponding to liquefaction are distributed on the
bottom of left side, the border line obtained by
linear discriminant analysis shift bottom left more than the
one obtained by self-discriminant. Thus, more liquefaction
points are misclassified as non-liquefaction points.
6.2. Energy method using Fourier spectrum
The energy E(r) can be obtained by integration of the
pseudo-Fourier spectrum. Then, C(N) vs. N on log–log
scale is plotted in Fig. 14. By fitting the Eq. (14) to the
data, the border line defined by self-discreminant can be
expressed as
CðNÞ Z 0:3N K0:22
The discriminant functions for liquefaction point and
non-liquefaction point are
d1 Z K17:465 K 10:8709 logðCðNÞÞ
 The data set of 82 observations of occurrence as well as
C 13:74509 logðNÞ
d2 Z K13:9253 K 10:8709 logðCðNÞÞ

C 13:74509 logðNÞ
Fig. 14. Liquefaction discriminant diagram based on energy method using
Fourier spectrum.
By letting the above two equations be equal, the equation
of border line is obtained
s 3=2
0
Z 0:207 N K0:842 (24)
EðrÞ
Fig. 14 shows the liquefaction discriminant diagram based on
the energy method using Fourier spectrum. Points corre-
sponding to non-liquefaction lie above border line while
points corresponding to liquefaction lie below. In self-
discriminant, there are seven misclassified points where four
liquefaction points are misclassified as non-liquefaction
points while three non-liquefaction points are misclassified
as liquefaction points, giving 91% success rate. In linear
discriminant analysis, there are 11 misclassified points where
seven liquefaction points are misclassified as non-liquefac-
tion points while four non-liquefaction points are misclassi-
(21) fied as liquefaction points, giving 87% success rate. As
before, the border line obtained by linear discriminant
analysis shifts to the bottom left more than the one obtained
by self-discriminant analysis. Thus, more liquefaction points
are misclassified as non-liquefaction points
(22)
non-occurrence of liquefaction after Chi–Chi earthquake
was evidenced by surface manifestation (sand boil, ground
fissures, etc.). Liquefaction probabilities corresponding to
normal distribution and discriminant analysis are computed
(23) by energy methods using both the empirical formula
 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68 65

Fig. 15. Liquefaction potential microzonation based on energy method using empirical formula and normal distribution.

and Fourier spectrum. Liquefaction potential microzonation
maps, as shown in Figs. 15–18, are plotted for Yuan-Lin
where liquefaction phenomena were very obvious during
Chi–Chi earthquake in 1999. The darker colors in the map
show areas with higher liquefaction probability. Areas with
the highest liquefaction probability are Lun-Ya, Tung-Ho,
Huang-Tso and Tsun-Shang. Areas with the second highest
liquefaction probability are Wan-Nien and Lin-Tso. The
areas predicted by the proposed model compare favorably to
in situ liquefaction areas induced by 1999 Chi–Chi earth-
quake in central Taiwan. It shows that the evaluation models
work well.
In this paper, the degrees of liquefaction are classified to
four levels that are represented by four colors. If the degrees
of liquefaction are classified to 10 levels, we have better
match but a complex looking map. From Figs. 15–18, we
have some observations as follows.
1. The results obtained by proposed two energy methods
with liquefaction probabilities calculated in two different
ways are similar.
2. Liquefaction probability obtained by normal distribution
is usually larger than that obtained by discriminant
analysis.
3. Liquefaction probabilities obtained by normal distri-
bution for the site in Nan-Hsing are 0.2187 and 0.3227
for energy methods using empirical formula and Fourier
spectrum, respectively. Since the value obtained by
energy methods using Fourier spectrum is greater than

Fig. 16. Liquefaction potential microzonation based on energy method using empirical formula and discriminant analysis.
66 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68

Fig. 17. Liquefaction potential microzonation based on energy method using Fourier spectrum and normal distribution.

0.25, the color in left half of Fig. 16 is darker than the
other diagrams.
7. Discussion and conclusions
Using seismic wave energy with data collected from Chi–
Chi earthquake as verification, two different evaluation
models for liquefaction are developed in this paper. More-
over, normal distribution and discriminant analysis are used
to estimate liquefaction probability. Two energy methods
using empirical formula and Fourier spectrum with two ways
in defining border line, that is self-discriminant and
discriminant analysis are proposed. Finally, geographic
information system is employed to show the microzonation
maps of liquefaction potential. From the point distribution of
sites, and with the verification of in situ situation, the
proposed methods give over 85% success rates. Therefore,
they are effective. These two energy methods can be
programmed as automatic evaluation modules to avoid
time-consuming tasks. The discussion in the paper can be
summarized as follows.
1. Seismic wave energy can be obtained by integrating the
corresponding Fourier spectrum that is approximated by

Fig. 18. Liquefaction potential microzonation based on energy method using Fourier spectrum and discriminant analysis.
 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68
using regression. However, to get useful result, we need a
lot of data from observation stations. In this paper, a curve
that is convergent in the sense of area (energy) is found to
simulate Fourier spectrum. Moreover, the equation of this
curve is easily obtained and is very useful in spectrum
simulation and numerical integration.
2. The liquefaction potential maps developed by using the
results obtained by self-discriminant and discriminant
analysis agree qualitatively with the observed phenom-
enon. In normal situations, discriminant analysis is used to
define border line. When there are one or two points with
wrong data or big errors, larger errors will exist in
covariance matrix and eigenvalues are reduced. It
indicates that proper discrimination cannot be done by
the given independent variables and therefore a poor
result is obtained. In such case, we chose to draw the
border line by hand and rely on our judgment rather than
on a statistical scheme.
3. Liquefaction discriminant diagrams show that a lot of
points are very close to border line. If we discriminate
these points to either liquefaction or non-liquefaction
according to conventional methods, there may be a great
error due to the definition of border line. To benefit
decision-making in engineering, instead of binary
approach, normal distribution and discriminant analysis
are applied in calculation of liquefaction probability.
4. In energy methods using empirical formula, magnitude of
earthquake, epicentral distance, effective overburden
stress and standard penetration test N-value are used to
construct the equation of the boundary curve separating
the data points with and without liquefaction. No ground
acceleration but only magnitude of earthquake is used to
calculate seismic wave energy. It is not accurate enough
but it is convenient. In energy methods using Fourier
spectrum, peak ground acceleration, effective overburden
stress, stress ratio, standard penetration test N-value and
fine content are used as input in back-propagation neural
networks. No special treatment is needed for fine content.
Peak ground acceleration in either east–west or north–
south direction is used to calculate seismic wave energy.
The weights after training can be used to predict Fourier
spectrum during earthquake. The input ground accelera-
tion can be used in seismic design of structures. Although
the success rates in liquefaction discriminant obtained by
proposed two methods are similar, the latter method has a
wider range of application.
5. Back-propagation neural networks’ learning rate is very
good. If it is combined with a simulated annealing and
generic algorithm, better performance in learning can be
expected.
6. Davis and Berrill [11] proposed that increase in pore water
pressure Du is proportional to the dissipated energy
density. Substituting in situ test data, soil parameters, and
corresponding ground acceleration to SUMDES [16], the
maximum value of pore water pressure Du due to
67
earthquake can be determined. Then, substituting the
value of pore water pressure Du into empirical equation,
we have earthquake energy. If the data of dynamic triaxial
test and torsional shear test of circular tube are available,
soil response due to earthquake can be simulated more
accurately and ground settlement can be obtained.
Furthermore, ground deformation contour can be
obtained by using the function of space analysis module
of ArcView.
7. In the application of GIS, the function of ArcView is only
used to show and estimate the result. With the proposed
energy methods which are computerized, an automatic
evaluation system of soil liquefaction can be established if
other software (e.g. FORTRAN, MATLAB) is employed
to construct in situ database for various area.
8. The data collected for analysis are limited in central
Taiwan, therefore the properness to adopted the plotting
and weight of Fourier spectra of this research result to
other area is still need to be evaluated.
Acknowledgements
This study was conducted as part of a research project
sponsored by ROC National Science Council (contract
number NSC92-2211-E309-003). The writers wish to
express their sincere appreciation to MAA Group Consult-
ing Engineers for providing valuable field liquefaction
performance data.
References
[1] Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ. Learning internal
representation by error propagation. In: Rumelhart DE,
McClelland JL, editors. Parallel distributed processing.
Cambridge: MIT Press; 1986.
[2] Nemat-Nasser S, Shokooh A. A unified approach to densification and
liquefaction of cohesionless sand in cyclic shearing. Can Geotech J
1979;16:659–78.
[3] Trifunac MD. Destress estimates for San Fernando California
earthquake of Feb. 9, 1971; main event and thirteen aftershocks.
Bull Seismol So Am 1972;62:721–50.
[4] Gutenberg B, Richter CF. Magnitude and energy of earthquakes.
Annali di Geofisica 1956;9:1–15.
[5] Trifunac MD, Lee VW. Frequency dependent attenuation of strong
earthquake ground motion. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 1990;9:3–15.
[6] Papaulis A. The Fourier integral and its applications. New York:
McGraw-Hill; 1962.
[7] Trifunac MD. Empirical criteria for liquefaction in sands via standard
penetration tests and seismic wave energy. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
1995;14:419–26.
[8] Cooley PM, Tukey JW. An algorithm for the machine computation of
complex Fourier series. Math Comput 1965;19(4):297–301.
[9] Golden Software Grapher 4.0. Colorado: Golden Software. 2000.
[10] Hardin BD. The nature of damping in sands. J Soil Mech Found Eng,
ASCE 1965;91(SM1):63–97.
[11] Davis RO, Berrill JB. Energy dissipation and seismic liquefaction in
sands. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 1982;10:59–68.
68 Y.R. Chen et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25 (2005) 55–68

[12] Peck RB, Hanson WE, Thornburn TH. Foundation engineering. New
York: Wiley; 1974.
[13] Liao S, Whitman RV. Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand.
J Geotech Eng, ASCE 1986;112(3):373–7.
[14] Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE. Applied regression analysis
and other multivariable methods, 2nd ed. Boston: PWS-KENT
Publishing Company; 1988.
[15] Green SB, Salkind NJ, Akey TM. Using SPSS for Windows:
understanding and analyzing data. New York: Prentice Hall;
1999.
[16] Li XS, Wang ZL, Shen CK. SUMDES, a nonlinear procedure for
response analysis of horizontally-layered sites subjected to multi-
directional earthquake loading. In: Report to the Department of Civil
Engineering. Davis: University of California, 1992.