A step forward towards a comprehensive framework for assessing liquefaction land damage vulnerability: Exploration from historical data


The unprecedented liquefaction-related land damage during earthquakes has highlighted the need to develop a model that better interprets the liquefaction land damage vulnerability (LLDV) when determining whether liquefaction is likely to cause damage at the ground’s surface. This paper presents the development of a novel comprehensive framework based on select case history records of cone penetration tests using a Bayesian belief network (BBN) methodology to assess seismic soil liquefaction and liquefaction land damage potentials in one model. The BBN-based LLDV model is developed by integrating multi-related factors of seismic soil liquefaction and its induced hazards using a machine learning (ML) algorithm-K2 and domain knowledge (DK) data fusion methodology. Compared with the C4.5 decision tree-J48 model, naive Bayesian (NB) classifier, and BBN-K2 ML prediction methods in terms of overall accuracy and the Cohen’s kappa coefficient, the proposed BBN K2 and DK model has a better performance and provides a substitutive novel LLDV framework for characterizing the vulnerability of land to liquefaction-induced damage. The proposed model not only predicts quantitatively the seismic soil liquefaction potential and its ground damage potential probability but can also identify the main reasons and fault-finding state combinations, and the results are likely to assist in decisions on seismic risk mitigation measures for sustainable development. The proposed model is simple to perform in practice and provides a step toward a more sophisticated liquefaction risk assessment modeling. This study also interprets the BBN model sensitivity analysis and most probable explanation of seismic soil liquefied sites based on an engineering point of view.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Robertson P K, Wride C E. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1998, 35(3): 442–159

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Moss R E, Seed R B, Kayen R E, Stewart J P, Der K A, Cetin K O. CPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of in situ seismic soil liquefaction potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2006, 132(8): 1032–1051

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Idriss I M, Boulanger R W. Soil liquefaction during earthquakes Earthquake. Oakland, CA: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F, Watanabe S, Yasuda S, Sato H. Microzonation for soil liquefaction potential using simplified methods. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on microzonation. Seattle: Wash, 1982, 1319–1330

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Luna R, Frost J D. Spatial liquefaction analysis system. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 1998, 12(1): 48–56

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Toprak S, Holzer T L. Liquefaction potential index: Field assessment. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2003, 129(4): 315–322

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Maurer B W, Green R A, Cubrinovski M, Bradley B A. Evaluation of the liquefaction potential index for assessing liquefaction hazard in Christchurch, New Zealand. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2014, 140(7): 04014032

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Tonkin and Taylor Ltd. Liquefaction Vulnerability Study. Report to Earthquake Commission. 2013

  9. 9.

    Hsein Juang C, Yuan H, Li D K, Yang S H, Christopher R A. Estimating severity of liquefaction-induced damage near foundation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2005, 25(5): 403–411

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hamdia K M, Hamid G, Xiaoying Z, Naif A, Rabczuk T. Computational machine learning representation for the flexoelectricity effect in truncated pyramid structures. Computers, Materials & Continua, 2019, 59(1): 79–87

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Anitescu C, Atroshchenko E, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Artificial neural network methods for the solution of second order boundary value problems. Computers, Materials & Continua, 2019, 59(1): 345–359

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Guo H, Zhuang X, Rabczuk T. A deep collocation method for the bending analysis of Kirchhoff plate. Computers, Materials & Continua, 2019, 59(2): 433–456

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Singh T, Pal M, Arora V K. Modeling oblique load carrying capacity of batter pile groups using neural network, random forest regression and M5 model tree. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2019, 13(3): 674–685

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ghanizadeh A R, Rahrovan M. Modeling of unconfined compressive strength of soil-RAP blend stabilized with Portland cement using multivariate adaptive regression spline. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2019, 13(4): 787–799

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Tesfamariam S, Liu Z. Handbook of seismic risk analysis and management of civil infrastructure systems. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2013, 175–208

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Pearl J. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Cooper F G, Herskovits E. A Bayesian method for the induction of probabilistic networks from data. Machine Learning, 1992, 9(4): 309–347

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Spiegelhalter D J, Lauritzen S L. Sequential updating ofconditional probabilities on directed graphical structures. Networks International Journal, 1990, 20(5): 579–605

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lauritzen S L. The EM algorithm for graphical association models with missing data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 1995, 19(2): 191–201

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sushil S. Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 2012, 13(2): 87–106

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 2003, 14(3): 207–222

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Warfield J W. Developing inter connected matrices in structural modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1974, 4(1): 51–81

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Okoli C, Schabram K. A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Zhang L Y. Predicting seismic liquefaction potential of sands by optimum seeking method. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1998, 17(4): 219–226

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hu J L, Tang X W, Qiu J N. Assessment of seismic liquefaction potential based on Bayesian network constructed from domain knowledge and history data. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 89: 49–60

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Yi F. Case study of CPT application to evaluate seismic settlement in dry sand. In: The 2nd International symposium on Cone Penetration Testing. Huntington Beach, CA, 2010

  27. 27.

    Ahmad M, Tang X W, Qiu J N, Ahmad F. Evaluating seismic soil liquefaction potential using Bayesian belief network and C4.5 decision tree approaches. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2019, 9(20): 4226

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Ahmad M, Tang X W, Qiu J N, Ahmad F. Interpretive structural modeling and MICMAC analysis for identifying and benchmarking significant factors of seismic soil liquefaction. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2019, 9(2): 233

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ahmad M, Tang X, Qiu J, Gu W, Ahmad F. A hybrid approach for evaluating CPT-based seismic soil liquefaction potential using Bayesian belief networks. Journal of Central South University, 2020, 27(2): 500–516

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bennett M J, Tinsley J C III. Geotechnical Data from Surface and Subsurface Samples outside of and within Liquefaction-Related Ground Failures Caused by the October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta earthquake, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, California. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 95-663. 1995

  31. 31.

    PEER. Documentation of soil conditions at liquefaction sites from 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake. Extracted from the website of PEER. 2000

  32. 32.

    Moss R E S, Seed R B, Kayen R E, Stewart J P, Youd T L, Tokimatsu K. Field Case Histories for CPT-based in situ Liquefaction Potential Evaluation. Geoengineering Research Report. UCB/GE-2003/04. 2003

  33. 33.

    PEER. Documenting Incidents of Ground Failure Resulting from the August 17, 1999, Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake. Extracted from the website of PEER. 2000

  34. 34.

    Sancio B. Ground failure and building performance Adapazari Turkey. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bray J D, Sancio R B, Durgunoglu T, Onalp A, Youd T L, Stewart J P, Seed R B, Cetin O K, Bol E, Baturay M B, Christensen C, Karadayilar T. Subsurface characterization ofground failure sites in Adapazari, Turkey. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2004, 130(7): 673–685

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bennett M J, Ponti D J, Tinsley J C, Holzer T L, Conaway C H. Subsurface Geotechnical Investigations Near Sites of Ground Deformations Caused by the January 17, 1994, Northridge, California, Earthquake. U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 98-373. 1998

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Holzer T L, Bennett M J, Ponti D J, Tinsley J C, III. Liquefaction and soil failure during 1994 Northridge earthquake. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 1999, 125(6): 438–452

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Cetin K. Reliability-based assessment of soil liquefaction initiation hazard. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Quinlan J R. Improved use ofcontinuous attributes in C4. 5. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1996, 4: 77–90

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    John H G, Langley P. Estimating continuous distributions in Bayesian classifiers. In: The Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann, 1995, 338–345

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Witten I H, Frank E. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 1977, 33(1): 159–174

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Sakiyama Y, Yuki H, Moriya T, Hattori K, Suzuki M, Shimada K, Honma T. Predicting human liver microsomal stability with machine learning techniques. Journal of Molecular Graphics & Modelling, 2008, 26(6): 907–915

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Hamdia K M, Marino M, Zhuang X, Wriggers P, Rabczuk T. Sensitivity analysis for the mechanics of tendons and ligaments: Investigation on the effects of collagen structural properties via a multiscale modelling approach. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 2019, 35(8): e3209

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hamdia K M, Ghasemi H, Zhuang X, Alajlan N, Rabczuk T. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for flexoelectric nanostructures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2018, 337: 95–109

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Software, 2016, 100: 19–31

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Cheng J, Greiner R, Kelly J, Bell D, Liu W. Learning Bayesian networks from data: An information-theory based approach. Artificial Intelligence, 2002, 137(1–2): 43–90

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references


The research presented in this paper was part of the research sponsored by the National Key Research & Development Plan of China (Nos. 2018YFC1505305 and 2016YFE0200100) and Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51639002). Much gratitude is extended to the experts for their opinions on the BBN model building.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiang-Nan Qiu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmad, M., Tang, XW., Qiu, JN. et al. A step forward towards a comprehensive framework for assessing liquefaction land damage vulnerability: Exploration from historical data. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 14, 1476–1491 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0670-z

Download citation


  • Bayesian belief network
  • liquefaction-induced damage potential
  • cone penetration test
  • soil liquefaction
  • structural learning and domain knowledge