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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

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

References

[1] Robertson P K, Wride C E. Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using cone penetration test. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1998, 35(3): 442–459

[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

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

[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

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

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

[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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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

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

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

[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

[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] 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

[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

[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

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

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

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

[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 of ground failure sites in Adapazari, Turkey. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2004, 130(7): 673–685

[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

[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

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

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

[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

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

Acknowledgements

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.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2020 Higher Education Press