A hybrid approach for evaluating CPT-based seismic soil liquefaction potential using Bayesian belief networks

Abstract

Discernment of seismic soil liquefaction is a complex and non-linear procedure that is affected by diversified factors of uncertainties and complexity. The Bayesian belief network (BBN) is an effective tool to present a suitable framework to handle insights into such uncertainties and cause–effect relationships. The intention of this study is to use a hybrid approach methodology for the development of BBN model based on cone penetration test (CPT) case history records to evaluate seismic soil liquefaction potential. In this hybrid approach, naive model is developed initially only by an interpretive structural modeling (ISM) technique using domain knowledge (DK). Subsequently, some useful information about the naive model are embedded as DK in the K2 algorithm to develop a BBN-K2 and DK model. The results of the BBN models are compared and validated with the available artificial neural network (ANN) and C4.5 decision tree (DT) models and found that the BBN model developed by hybrid approach showed compatible and promising results for liquefaction potential assessment. The BBN model developed by hybrid approach provides a viable tool for geotechnical engineers to assess sites conditions susceptible to seismic soil liquefaction. This study also presents sensitivity analysis of the BBN model based on hybrid approach and the most probable explanation of liquefied sites, owing to know the most likely scenario of the liquefaction phenomenon.

Keywords

Bayesian belief network / cone penetration test / seismic soil liquefaction / interpretive structural modeling / structural learning

References

[1] Goh, AnthonyT C. Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks [J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1994, 120(9): 1467-1480

[2] Goh, AnthonyT C. Neural-network modeling of CPT seismic liquefaction data [J]. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1996, 122(1): 70-73

[3] JuangC H, ChenJ-x, TienY-ming. Appraising cone penetration test based liquefaction resistance evaluation methods: artificial neural network approach [J]. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1999, 36(3): 443-454

[4] Goh, AnthonyT C, GohS H. Support vector machines: their use in Geotechnical engineering as illustrated using seismic liquefaction data [J]. Computer and Geotechnics, 2007, 34(5): 410-421

[5] PalM. Support vector machines-based modeling of seismic liquefaction potential [J]. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2006983996

[6] SamuiP. Least square support vector machine and relevance vector machine for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential using SPT [J]. Natural Hazards, 2011, 59(2): 811-822

[7] SAMUI P. Seismic liquefaction potential assessment by using relevance vector machine [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration}, 6(4): 331-336. DOI: 10.1007/s11803-007-0766-7.

[8] ZhouJ, LiE-m, WangM-z, ChenXin. Feasibility of stochastic gradient boosting approach for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential based on SPT and CPT case histories [J]. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2019, 33(3): 1-10

[9] MuduliP M, DasS K. CPT-based seismic liquefaction potential evaluation using multi-gene genetic programming approach [J]. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 2014, 44(1): 86-93

[10] GandomiA H, AlaviA H. Hybridizing genetic programming with orthogonal least squares for modeling of soil liquefaction [J]. International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Hazard Mitigation, 2013, 1(1): 2-8

[11] LiangW-j, ZhuangD-f, JiangD, PanJ-j, RenH-yan. Assessment of debris flow hazards using a Bayesian network [J]. Geomorphology, 2012, 171: 94-100

[12] PearlJProbabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems [M], 1988, San Mateo, California, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers

[13] CockburnG, TesfamariamS. Earthquake disaster risk index for Canadian cities using Bayesian belief networks [J]. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards, 2012, 6(2): 128-140

[14] BensiM T, DerK A, StraubD. A Bayesian network framework for post-earthquake infrastructure system performance assessment [C]//. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering Conference (TCLEE) 2009, 2009, Oakland, CA, Lifeline Earthquake Engineering in a Multihazard Environment., 10971107

[15] BayraktarliY Y, BakerJ W, FaberM H. Uncertainty treatment in earthquake modelling using Bayesian probabilistic networks [J]. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards, 2011, 5(1): 44-58

[16] FaizianM, SchalcherH R, FaberM H. Consequence assessment in earthquake risk management using damage indicators [C]//. First International Forum on Engineering Decision Making (IFED), 2004, Switzerland, Stoos

[17] TesfamariamS, LiuZ. Earthquake induced damage classification for reinforced concrete buildings [J]. Structural Safety, 2010, 32(2): 154-164

[18] BayraktarliY Y, FaberM H. Bayesian probabilistic network approach for managing earthquake risks of cities [J]. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards, 2011, 5(1): 2-24

[19] LiL-f, WangJ-f, LeungH, JiangC-sheng. Assessment of catastrophic risk using Bayesian network constructed from domain knowledge and spatial data [J]. Risk Analysis, 2010, 30(7): 1157-1175

[20] SchubertM, FaberM H. Common cause effects in portfolio loss estimation [J]. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2011, 8(5): 497-506

[21] NishijimaK, MaesM A, GoyetJ, FaberM H. Constrained optimization of component reliabilities in complex systems [J]. Structural Safety, 2009, 31(2): 168-178

[22] StraubD, Kiureghian, ArmenD. Bayesian network enhanced with structural reliability methods: Methodology [J]. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 201012481258

[23] StraubD, Kiureghian, ArmenD. Combining Bayesian networks with structural reliability methods: application [J]. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 201012591270

[24] WeberP M-, OlivaG, SimonC, IungB. Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas [J]. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2010, 25(4): 671-682

[25] JuangC H, JiangT, AndrusR D. Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation [J]. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2002, 128: 580-589

[26] BayraktarliY YApplication of Bayesian probabilistic networks for liquefaction of soil [C]//, 2006, Zurich, 6th International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering.

[27] HuangH W, ZhangJ, ZhangL M. Bayesian network for characterizing model uncertainty of liquefaction potential evaluation models [J]. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2012, 16(5): 714-722

[28] HuJ-l, TangX-w, QiuJ-nan. A Bayesian network approach for predicting seismic liquefaction based on interpretive structural modeling [J]. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards, 2015, 9(3): 200-217

[29] WarfieldJ W. Developing inter connected matrices in structural modeling [J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1974, 4(1): 81-87

[30] AhmadM, TangX-w, QiuJ-n, AhmadF. Interpretive structural modeling and MICMAC analysis for identifying and benchmarking significant factors of seismic soil liquefaction [J]. Applied Sciences, 2019, 9(2): 233

[31] PfohlH C, GallusP, ThomasD. Interpretive structural modeling of supply chain risks [J]. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 2011, 419839-859

[32] SaxenaJ P, SushilV P. Impact of indirect relationships in classification of variables–A Micmac analysis for energy conservation [J]. Systems Research, 1990, 7(4): 245-253

[33] SushilS. Interpreting the interpretive structural model [J]. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 2012, 13: 87-106

[34] AHMAD M, TANG X W, QIU J N, AHMAD F, GU W. Application of machine learning algorithms for evaluation of seismic soil liquefaction potential [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering. (in press)

[35] CooperG, HerskovitsE. A Bayesian method for the induction of probabilistic networks from data [J]. Machine Learning, 1992, 9: 309-347

[36] ArdakaniA, KohestaniV R. Evaluation of liquefaction potential based on CPT results using C4.5 decision tree [J]. Journal of AI and Data Mining, 2015, 3(1): 85-92

[37] ZhangL-yang. Predicting seismic liquefaction potential of sands by optimum seeking method [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1998, 17: 219-226

[38] HuJ-l, TangX-w, QiuJ-nan. Assessment of seismic liquefaction potential based on Bayesian network constructed from domain knowledge and history data [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 89: 49-60

[39] LiL-f, WangJ-f, LeungH, JiangC-sheng. Assessment of catastrophic risk using Bayesian network constructed from domain knowledge and spatial data [J]. Risk Analysis, 2010, 30(7): 1157-1175

[40] WittenI H, FrankE, HallM AData mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques [M], 2011, Burlington, MA, Elsevier

[41] WeiJ-t, HuangD-r, WangGang. Micro-scale descriptors for particle-void distribution and jamming transition in pre- and post-liquefaction of granular soils [J]. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 2018, 144(8): 04018067

[42] WangG, WeiJ-tao. Microstructure evolution of granular soils in cyclic mobility and post liquefaction process [J]. Granular Matter, 2016, 18: 51

[43] WangG, XieY-ning. Modified bounding surface hypoplasticity model for sands under cyclic loading [J]. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, 2014, 140191-101

[44] YeJ-h, HuangD-r, WangGang. Nonlinear simulation of offshore breakwater on sloping liquefied seabed [J]. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2016, 751215-1225

[45] KavehA, Hamze-ZiabariS M, BakhshpooriT. Patient rule-induction method for liquefaction potential assessment based on CPT data [J]. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 2018, 77(2): 849-865