Advertisement

SPT-based liquefaction assessment with a novel ensemble model based on GMDH-type neural network

  • Talas Fikret KurnazEmail author
  • Yilmaz Kaya
Original Paper
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Liquefaction is one of the most complex problems in geotechnical earthquake engineering. This paper proposes a novel ensemble group method of data handling (EGMDH) model based on classification for the prediction of liquefaction potential of soils. The database used in this study consists of 451 standard penetration test (SPT)–based case records from two major earthquakes. The input parameters are selected as SPT blow numbers, percent finest content less than 75 μm, depth of groundwater table, total and effective overburden stresses, maximum peak ground acceleration, and magnitude of earthquake for the prediction models. The proposed EGMDH model results were also compared with other classifier models, particularly the results of the GMDH model. The results of this study indicated that the proposed EGMDH model has achieved more successful results on predicting the liquefaction potential of soils compared with the other classifier models by improving the prediction performance of GMDH model.

Keywords

Liquefaction Prediction Group method of data handling Ensemble model 

References

  1. Abdalla JA, Attom MF, Hawileh R (2015) Prediction of minimum factor of safety against slope failure in clayey soils using artificial neural network. Environ Earth Sci 73(9):5463–5477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aggarwal M (2013) Performance analysis of different feature selection methods in intrusion detection. Int J Sci Technol Res 2(6):225–231Google Scholar
  3. Ali J, Khan R, Ahmad N, Maqsood I (2012) Random forests and decision trees. Int J Comput Sci Issues 9(5):272Google Scholar
  4. Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(11):1015–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ardakani A, Kordnaeij A (2017) Soil compaction parameters prediction using GMDH-type neural network and genetic algorithm. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 23(4):449–462.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2017.1304269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Augusty SM, Izudheen S (2013) Ensemble classifiers A survey: evaluation of ensemble classifiers and data level methods to deal with imbalanced data problem in protein- protein interactions. Rev Bionformatics Biometrics 2(1):1–9Google Scholar
  7. Baziar MH, Nilipour N (2003) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using neural-networks and CPT results. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23(7):631–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2012) Probabilistic standard penetration test–based liquefaction–triggering procedure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 138(10):1185–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder JLF, Kayen RE, Moss RES (2004) SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential. ASCE J Geotech Geoenvir Eng 130(12):1314–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chenari RJ, Tizpa P, Rad MRG, Machado SL, Fard MK (2015) The use of index parameters to predict soil geotechnical properties. Arab J Geosci 8(7):4907–4919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chern SG, Lee CY, Wang CC (2008) CPT-based liquefaction assessment by using fuzzy-neural network. J Mar Sci Technol 16(2):139–148Google Scholar
  12. Chik Z, Aljanabi QA, Kasa A, Taha MR (2014) Tenfold cross validation artificial neural network modeling of the settlement behavior of a stone column under a highway embankment. Arab J Geosci 7(11):4877–4887.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-013-1128-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coduto DP (2003) Geotechnical engineering, principles and practice. Prentice-Hall, New Delhi, pp 137–155Google Scholar
  14. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297Google Scholar
  15. Das SK, Basudhar PK (2008) Prediction of residual friction angle of clays using artificial neural network. Eng Geol 100(3–4):142–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elgamal AW, Dobry R, Adalıer K (1989) Small-scale shaking table tests of saturated layered sand-silt deposits, 2nd U.S-Japan Workshop on soil liquefaction, Buffalo, N.Y., NCEER Rep. No. 890032, 233–245Google Scholar
  17. Erzin Y, Ecemis N (2015) The use of neural networks for CPT-based liquefaction screening. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74(1):103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghanadzadeh H, Ganji M, Fallahi S (2012) Mathematical model of liquid–liquid equilibrium for a ternary system using the GMDH-type neural network and genetic algorithm. Appl Math Model 36:4096–4105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goh ATC (1994) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. J Geotech Eng 120(9):1467–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goh ATC (1996) Neural network modeling of CPT seismic liquefaction data. J Geotech Eng 122(1):70–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goh ATC (2002) Probabilistic neural network for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential. Can Geotech J 39:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goharzaya M, Noorzada A, Ardakania AM, Jalal M (2017) A worldwide SPT-based soil liquefaction triggering analysis utilizing gene expression programming and Bayesian probabilistic method. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9(4):683–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanna AM, Ural D, Saygili G (2007) Neural network model for liquefaction potential in soil deposits using Turkey and Taiwan earthquake data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(6):521–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hassanlourad M, Ardakani A, Kordnaeij A, Mola-Abasi H (2017) Dry unit weight of compacted soils prediction using GMDH-type neural network. Eur Phys J Plus 132:357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haykin S (1994) Neural network: a comprehensive foundation. MacMillan College Publishing Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoang ND, Bui DT (2018) Predicting earthquake-induced soil liquefaction based on a hybridization of kernel Fisher discriminant analysis and a least squares support vector machine: a multi-dataset study. Bull Eng Geol Environ 77(1):191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Husmand B, Scott F, Crouse CB (1988) Centrifuge liquefaction tests in a laminar box. Geotechnique 38(2):253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Int J Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 26:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) SPT-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Rep. UCD/CGM-10/02, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  30. Ishihara K (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. The Oxford Engineering Science Series, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Ivakhnenko AG (1971) Polynomial theory of complex systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 1:364–378.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1971.4308320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ivakhnenko AG (1976) The group method of data handling in prediction problems. Sov Autom Control Avtomotika 9:21–30Google Scholar
  33. Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F (1981) Soil liquefaction potential evaluation with use of the simplified procedure. International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, pp 209–214Google Scholar
  34. Jirdehi RA, Mamoudan HT, Sarkaleh HH (2014) Applying GMDH-type neural network and particle warm optimization for prediction of liquefaction induced lateral displacements. Appl Appl Math Int J 9(2):528–540Google Scholar
  35. Juang CH, Chen CJ (1999) CPT-based liquefaction evaluation using artificial neural networks. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 14(3):221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalinli A, Acar MC, Gunduz Z (2011) New approaches to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations based on artificial neural networks and ant colony optimization. Eng Geol 117(1–2):29–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2010.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karthikeyan J, Kim D, Aiyer BG, Samui P (2013) SPT-based liquefaction potential assessment by relevance vector machine approach. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 17(4):248–262.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2013.781546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaya Y (2013) A new intelligent classifier for breast cancer diagnosis based on a rough set and extreme learning machine: RS+ ELM. Turk J Electr Eng Comput Sci 21(Sup. 1):2079–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kiefa MAA (1998) General regression neural networks for driven piles in cohesionless soils. Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(12):1177–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim YS, Kim BT (2006) Use of artificial neural networks in the prediction of liquefaction resistance of sands. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 132(11):1502–1504.  https://doi.org/10.1061/ASCE1090-02412006132:111502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kondo T, Ueno J (2012) Feedback GMDH-type neural network and its application to medical image analysis of liver cancer. In 42th ISCIE international symposium on stochastic systems theory and its applications, pages 81–82Google Scholar
  42. Kordnaeij A, Kalantary F, Kordtabar B, Mola-Abasi H (2015) Prediction of recompression index using GMDH-type neural network based on geotechnical soil properties. Soils Found 55(6):1335–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, p 653Google Scholar
  44. Kramer SL, Mayfield RT (2007) The return period of soil liquefaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(7):802–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kuo YL, Jaksa MB, Lyamin AV, Kaggwa WS (2009) ANN-based model for predicting the bearing capacity of strip footing on multi-layered cohesive soil. Comput Geotech 36(3):503–516.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lambe PC (1981) Dynamic centrifuge modelling of a horizontal sand stratum, ScD Thesis, Dept. Of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. Le Cessie S, Van Houwelingen JC (1992) Ridge estimators in logistic regression. J R Stat Soc: Ser C: Appl Stat 41(1):191–201Google Scholar
  48. Lee I, Lee J (1996) Prediction of pile bearing capacity using artificial neural networks. Comput Geotech 18(3):189–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-352X(95)00027-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lee C, Lee GG (2006) Information gain and divergence-based feature selection for machine learning-based text categorization. Inf Process Manag 42(1):155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Liu H, Qiao T (1984) Liquefaction potential of saturated sand deposits underlying foundation of structure, Proceeding of 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, 3, 199–206Google Scholar
  51. Muduli PK, Das SK (2015a) Model uncertainty of SPT-based method for evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction potential using multi-gene genetic programming. Soils Found 55(2):258–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Muduli PK, Das SK (2015b) First order reliability method for probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction potential of soil using genetic programming. Int J Geomech ASCE 15(3):04014052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mughieda O, Bani HK, Safieh B (2009) Liquefaction assessment by artificial neural networks based on CPT. Int J Geotech Eng 2:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nejad FP, Jaksa MB, Kakhi M, McCabe BA (2009) Prediction of pile settlement using artificial neural networks based on standard penetration test data. Comput Geotech 36(7):1125–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pal M, Mather PM (2003) An assessment of the effectiveness of decision tree methods for land cover classification. Remote Sens Environ 86:554–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rahman MS, Wang J (2002) Fuzzy neural network models for liquefaction prediction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:685–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ramakrishnan D, Singh TN, Purwar N, Badre KS, Gulati A, Gupta S (2008) Artificial neural network and liquefaction susceptibility assessment: a case study using the 2001 Bhuj earthquake data, Gujarat, India. Comput Geosci 12:491–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35(3):442–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sakellariou MG, Ferentinou M (2005) A study of slope stability prediction using neural networks. Geotech Geol Eng 24(3):419–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Samui P, Sitharam TG (2011) Machine learning modelling for predicting soil liquefaction susceptibility. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Soil Mech Foundation Div ASCE 97(9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  62. Stokoe KH, Roesset JM, Bierschwale JG, Aouad M (1988) Liquefaction potential of sands from shear wave velocity. Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 3, 213–218.Google Scholar
  63. Sulewska MJ (2011) Applying artificial neural networks for analysis of geotechnical problems. Comput Assist Mech Eng Sci 18:231–241Google Scholar
  64. Suzuki Y, Koyamada K, Tokimatsu K (1997) Prediction of liquefaction resistance based on CPT tip resistance and sleeve friction. Proceedings XIV International Conference of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hamburg, Germany, 603–606Google Scholar
  65. Tokimatsu K, Yoshimi Y (1983) Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils Found 23(4):56–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vissikirsky VA, Stepashko VS, Kalavrouziotis IK, Drakatos PA (2005) Growth dynamics of trees irrigated with wastewater: GMDH modeling, assessment, and control issues. Instrum Sci Technol 33(2):229–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang HB, Xu WY, Xu RC (2005) Slope stability evaluation using back propagation neural networks. Eng Geol 80:302–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Xue X, Liu E (2017) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. Environ Earth Sci 76:192.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6523-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xue X, Xiao M (2016) Application of genetic algorithm-based support vector machines for prediction of soil liquefaction. Environ Earth Sci 75:874.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5673-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Youd TL, Perkins DM (1978) Mapping liquefaction- induced ground failure potential. J Geotech Eng Div 104(4):443–446Google Scholar
  71. Youd TL, Idriss IM, Andrus RD, Arango I, Castro G, Christian JT, Dobry R, Liam Finn WD, Harder LF Jr, Hynes ME, Ishihara K, Koester JP, Laio SSC, Marcuson WF III, Martin GR, Mitchell JK, Moriwaki Y, Power MS, Robertson PK, Seed RB, Stokoe KH (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(10):817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhu W, Wang J, Zhang W, Sun D (2012) Short-term effects of air pollution on lower respiratory diseases and forecasting by the group method of data handling. Atmos Environ 51:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Department of Transportation ServicesMersin UniversityMersinTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureSiirt UniversitySiirtTurkey

Personalised recommendations