Prediction of Soil Liquefaction Using Machine Learning Approaches

Downloads

Authors

  • Md. Mahabub RAHMAN Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Bangladesh ORCID ID 0000-0003-1580-483X
  • Md. Belal HOSSAIN Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Bangladesh ORCID ID 0000-0002-3319-250X
  • Abu SAYED Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Bangladesh

Abstract

In the geotechnical engineering field, the assessment of liquefaction potential is a critical aspect of site evaluation. This work focuses on the application of support vector machines (SVM) to improve the accuracy of liquefaction potential evaluation. Input data were collected from the authors' previous study and include parameters such as groundwater table (GWT), depth, fineness content, peak ground acceleration (PGA), corrected SPT-N value, total stress, and effective overburden stress. Radial basis function (RBF), linear, polynomial, and sigmoid are the four SVM kernel functions that are examined in this study to model liquefaction-related data using three approaches: grid search cross-validation, k-fold cross-validation, and fuzzy c-clustering means (FCM). Several performance metrics, including accuracy, precision, recall, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC), among others, are used to evaluate the developed machine learning (ML) models. The linear and polynomial functions, for the grid search cross-validation approach, show higher performance with an accuracy of 94.64%, recall of 95.55%, F1-score of 96.63, and AUC of 0.99 on the testing data. For the k-fold partitioning approach, the RBF yields higher performance metrics compared to the other three functions, with an accuracy of 92.73%, precision of100%, F1-score of 95.0%, and AUC of 0.98. In the FCM technique, the linear and polynomial kernels again yield greater accuracy, precision, F1-score, and specificity, while, the AUC values of the sigmoid and RBF kernels are higher. The current analysis recommends the RBF over other mathematical functions based on the k-fold partitioning technique after evaluating all performance matrices.

Keywords:

liquefaction, support vector machine, mathematical functions, divisional approaches, performance metricsfunctions, performance metrics

References


  1. Morgenroth J., Almond P., Scharenbroch B.C., Wilson T.M., Sharp-Heward S., Soil profile inversion in earthquake-induced liquefaction-affected soils and the potential effects on urban trees, Geoderma, 213: 155–162, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.07.038

  2. Xue X., Yang X., Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by support vector machines approaches, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 75(1): 153–162, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-015-0741-x

  3. Hazout L., Zitouni Z.E.A., Belkhatir M., Schanz T., Evaluation of static liquefaction characteristics of saturated loose sand through the mean grain size and extreme grain sizes, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 35(5): 2079–2105, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0230-z

  4. Najdanovic N., Obradovic R., Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice [in Serbian], Mining Institute, Belgrade, 1981.

  5. Ambraseys N., Bilham R., Reevaluated intensities for the great Assam earthquake of 12 June 1897, Shillong, India, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 93(2): 655–673, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020093

  6. Mostazid M., Rahman M., Rahman M., Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing RCC buildings in Dinajpur City: a case study on ward no. 06, [in:] Proceedings of International Conference on Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering, February 07–09, 2019.

  7. Bilham R., The seismic future of cities, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 7(4): 839–887, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9147-0

  8. Seed H.B., Idriss I.M., Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 97(9): 1249–1273, 1971, https://doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662

  9. Boulanger R., Idriss I., CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures, Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, 2014.

  10. Kayen R., Moss R., Thompson E., Seed R., Cetin K., Kiureghian A.D., Tanaka Y., Tokimatsu K., Shear-wave velocity-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139(3): 407–419, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000743

  11. Zhang W., Wu C., Zhong H., Li Y., Wang L., Prediction of undrained shear strength using extreme gradient boosting and random forest based on Bayesian optimization, Geoscience Frontiers, 12(1): 469–477, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.03.007

  12. Pham B.T., Nguyen M.D., Bui K.T.T., Prakash I., Chapi K., Bui D.T., A novel artificial intelligence approach based on multi-layer perceptron neural network and biogeography-based optimization for predicting coefficient of consolidation of soil, CATENA, 173: 302–311, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.10.004

  13. Le T.T., Asteris P.G., Lemonis M.E., Prediction of axial load capacity of rectangular concrete-filled steel tube columns using machine learning techniques, Engineering with Computers, 38(Supl 4): 3283–3316, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-021-01461

  14. Lin S., Zheng H., Han B., Li Y., Han C., Li W., Comparative performance of eight ensemble learning approaches for the development of models of slope stability prediction, Acta Geotechnica, 17(4): 1477–1502, 2022, https://doi org/10.1007/s11440-021-01440-1.

  15. Najjar Y.M., Ali H.E., CPT-based liquefaction potential assessment: A neuronet approach, [in:] Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III, pp. 542–553, ASCE, 1998

  16. Kurup P.U., Garg A., Evaluation of liquefaction potential using neural networks based on adaptive resonance theory, Transportation Research Record, 1936(1): 192–200, 2005, https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198105193600122

  17. Pal M., Support vector machines-based modelling of seismic liquefaction potential, International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 30(10): 983–996, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.509

  18. Samui P., Seismic liquefaction potential assessment by using Relevance Vector Machine, Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 6(4): 331–336, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-007-0766-7

  19. Hanna A.M., Ural D., Saygili G., Neural network model for liquefaction potential in soil deposits using Turkey and Taiwan earthquake data, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 27(6): 521–540, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.11.001

  20. Rahman M.M., Lo S.R., Mofiz S.A., Artificial neural network in CPT base liquefaction prediction, [in] Proceedings of 17th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, May 10–13, 2010, pp. 343–346, https://hdl.handle.net/10092/17651

  21. Kohestani V.R., Hassanlourad M., Ardakani A.J.N.H., Evaluation of liquefaction potential based on CPT data using random forest, Natural Hazards, 79(2): 1079–1089, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1893-5

  22. Zhou J., Li E., Wang M., Chen X., Shi X., Jiang L., Feasibility of stochastic gradient boosting approach for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential based on SPT and CPT case histories, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 33(3): 04019024, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001292

  23. Das S.K., Mohanty R., Mohanty M., Mahamaya M., Multi-objective feature selection (MOFS) algorithms for prediction of liquefaction susceptibility of soil based on in situ test methods, Natural Hazards, 103: 2371–2393, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04089-3

  24. Ahmad M., Tang X.W., Qiu J.N., Application of machine learning algorithms for the evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction potential, Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 15(2): 490–505, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0669-5

  25. Hu J., A new approach for constructing two Bayesian network models for predicting the liquefaction of gravelly soil, Computer and Geotechnics, 137: 104304, 2021, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104304.

  26. Hanandeh S.M., Al-Bodour W.A., Hajij M.M., A comparative study of soil liquefaction assessment using machine learning models, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 40(9): 4721–4734, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-022-02180-z

  27. Kumar D.R., Samui P., Burman A., Wipulanusat W., Keawsawasvong S., Liquefaction susceptibility using machine learning based on SPT data, Intelligent Systems with Applications, 20: 200281, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2023.200281

  28. Bhardwaj R.B., Chaursia S.R., Use of ANN, C4.5 and random forest algorithm in the evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction, Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering, 6(2): 94–113, 2022, https://doi.org/10.22115/scce.2022.314762.1380

  29. Jangir H.K., Satavalekar R., Evaluating adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) to assess liquefaction potential and settlements using CPT test data, Journal of Soft Computing in Civil Engineering, 6(3): 119–139, 2022, https://doi.org/10.22115/scce.2022.345237.1456

  30. Rahman M.M., Hossain M.B., Sayed A., Thakur S., Assesment of liquefaction potential based on the logistic regression machine learning algorithm, 7th International Conference on Civil Engineering for Sustainable Development (ICCESD 2024), Bangladesh, 2024, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24047.65440

  31. Hossain M.B., Roknuzzaman M., Rahman M.M., Liquefaction potential evaluation by deterministic and probabilistic approaches, Civil Engineering Journal, 8(7): 1459–1481, 2022, https:// doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-07-010.

  32. Rahman M.M., Hossain M.B., Roknuzzaman M., Effect of peak ground acceleration (PGA) on liquefaction behavior of subsoil: A case study of Dinajpur Sadar Upazila, Bangladesh, AIP Conference Proceedings, 2713(1): 030002, 2023, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0129770

  33. Shi J.J., Clustering technique for evaluating and validating neural network performance, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 16(2): 152–155, 2002, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2002)16:2(152)

  34. Shahin M.A., Maier H.R., Jaksa M.B., Data division for developing neural networks applied to geotechnical engineering, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 18(2): 105–114, 2004, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2004)18:2(105)

  35. Das S.K., Application of genetic algorithm and artificial neural network to some geotechnical engineering problems, Ph.D Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Kanpur (India), 2005.

  36. Jian L., Huang Z., Zhang J., Hu Z., Rapid analysis of cylindrical bypass flow field based on deep learning model, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1037(1): 012013,2022, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1037/1/012013

  37. Sokolova M., Lapalme G., A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks, Information Processing & Management, 45(4): 427–437, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2009.03.002

  38. Kraemer H.C., Kappa coefficient, [in:] Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, Balakrishnan N., Colton T., Everitt B., Piegorsch W., Ruggeri F., Teugels J.L. [Eds.], 2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat00365.pub2

  39. Fawcett T., An introduction to ROC analysis, Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8): 861–874, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010

  40. Scikit-Learn, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC), (n.d.), https://scikit-learn/stable/auto_examples/model_selection/plot_roc.html (accessed on 2024.01.04).