Strong and frequent earthquakes have increasingly highlighted the threats posed by soil liquefaction to the safety of engineering facilities, and the mechanisms of sand liquefaction as well as its prediction and evaluation methods have become central issues of ongoing concern in earthquake engineering. A shaking table test of saturated fine sand foundation under near-field and far-field horizontal earthquake motion was carried out, and the macroscopic phenomena, lateral deformation, acceleration, pore pressure ratio, etc. of the model foundation soil were analyzed. The results show that the liquefiable model foundation sinks under the action of earthquake, cracks are generated locally after the earthquake, and there is obvious sandblasting and water bubbling phenomenon; the foundation undergoes shear deformation laterally, and the peak displacement shows obvious asymmetry. The saturated fine sand layer is more sensitive to the low-and medium-frequency part of the seismic wave; during small earthquakes, the acceleration amplification effect from bottom to top in the foundation is not obvious; during medium and large earthquakes, the acceleration of the saturated fine sand layer does not show obvious amplification, while the clay layer has a more obvious amplification phenomenon; in the early stage of the earthquake, the pore pressure is temporarily negative due to the shear dilatancy effect of the soil, and then rises rapidly, and finally the pore pressure gradually dissipates. The traditional liquefaction identification method is greatly affected by human factors. Based on SVM(support vector machine), XGBoost(extreme gradient boosting) and LR(logistic regression) machine learning models, the thickness of the overlying soil layer, epicenter distance, soil acceleration and earthquake intensity are selected as input parameters for liquefaction prediction. Among them, the XGBoost model has the best effect, with a determination coefficient of 0.98. The XGBoost-based machine learning model can be used as an effective supplement for the initial judgment of sand liquefaction prediction.
AN Jun-hai, MA Xiang-cheng, GUO Fei, TAO Lian-jin, LI Yong.
Shaking Table Test Analysis of Free-field Seismic Response of Liquefaction and Prediction of Liquefaction[J].
Science Technology and Engineering, 2026, 26(19): 8298-8310 DOI:10.12404/j.issn.1671-1815.2505316
GuoAnning, DuanBoru, YuLi. New progress in research on dynamic characteristics of soil in China[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2019, 19(36): 44-53.
HouFuxing, ZhangWen, ZhaoYuan, et al. Research advances of the elimination of sand liquefaction by microbial induced calcite precipitation[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2021, 21(23): 9664-9670.
XueSuduo, LiuYi, LiXiongyan, et al. Review of several issues in soil-structure dynamic interaction research[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2013, 29(2): 1-9.
ZhaoXuan, MaShuzhi, MaShuo, et al. Shaking table test study on liquefaction characteristics of saturated sand[J]. Chinese Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2024, 46(2): 376-387.
HuQing, TangYong, ZhuMeng, et al. Experimental study on seismic liquefaction depth of saturated sand foundation[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2023, 23(35): 15188-15193.
LiuChunxiao. Shaking table test on influence of liquefiable soildistribution on seismic response of soil and subway underground structures[J]. China Railway Science, 2021, 42(5): 30-40.
ZhangXiaoling, ZhaoXianhui, XuChengshun, et al. Analysis of the influence of different tilt modes on the seismic response of inclined liquefied sites[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2024, 46(4): 728-736.
LüXilin, RenHongmei, LiPeizhen, et al. Numerical analysis of free field system of liquefied site and verification by shaking table test[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2008, 28(2), 171-178.
[19]
OzsagirM, ErdenC, BolE, et al. Machine learning approaches for prediction of fine-grained soils liquefaction[J]. Computers and Geotechnics, 2022, 152: 105014.
[20]
ZhangX, HeB, SabriM M S, et al. Soil liquefaction prediction based on Bayesian optimization and support vector machines[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(19): 11944.
LiuNianping, WangHongtu, YuanZhigang, et al. Fisher discriminant model for sand liquefaction prediction and its application[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2012, 33(2): 554-557.
YangChen. Study on sand liquefaction discrimination and liquefaction lateral displacement prediction based on support vector machine model[D]. Ganzhou: Jiangxi University of Science and Technology, 2023.
LongXiao, SunRui, ZhengTong. Liquefaction prediction model and interpretability analysis based on convolutional neural network[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2024, 45(9): 2741-2753.
[27]
JasK, MangalathuS, DodagoudarG R. Evaluation and analysis of liquefaction potential of gravelly soils using explainable probabilistic machine learning model[J]. Computers and Geotechnics, 2024, 167: 106051.
[28]
HuJ L. A new approach for constructing two Bayesian network models for predicting the liquefaction of gravelly soil[J]. Computers and Geotechnics, 2021, 137: 104304.
WangZhaodong, WangZifa, LiZhaoyan, et al. Sand liquefaction prediction based on machine learning-grid search optimization[J]. Journal of Vibration and Shock, 2019, 43(5): 82-93.
AnJunhai, TaoLianjin. Shaking table tests for design and performance of a new type laminar shear model box[J]. Journal of Vibration and Shock, 2020, 39(5): 201-207.
[33]
MartinG R, SeedH B, FinnW D L. Fundamentals of liquefaction under cyclic loading[J]. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, 1975, 101(5): 423-438.
FengTugen, QianQiuying, ZhangFuhai. Review of liquefaction properties of saturated sands containing fines[J]. Advances in Science and Technology of Water Resources, 2014, 34(4): 89-94.
WangXinghua, CuiKeyu, ZhouHailin, et al. Fuzzy meural network forecast for the liquefaction of the saturated sand under the action of the vibration force[J]. China Railway Science, 2010, 31(6): 26-31.
[38]
ZhangX, HeB, SabriM M S, et al. Soil liquefaction prediction based on Bayesian optimization and support vector machines[J]. Sustainability, 2022, 14(19): 11944.
[39]
NakanishiR, TakemuraS. Development of an offshore ground motion prediction equation for peak ground acceleration considering path effects based on S-net data[J]. Earth, Planets and Space, 2024, 76(1): 146.
[40]
Ben-ZeevS, GorenL, ToussaintR, et al. Drainage explains soil liquefaction beyond the earthquake near-field[J]. Nature Communications, 2023, 14: 5791.
[41]
FayeA, ErgunM, AkbasS O, et al. Improved PGA and PGV estimation in soft soils for soil-liquefaction-related hazard assessment[J]. Research on Engineering Structures & Materials, 2025, 11(1): 1-12.
PDF
