Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Potential Using Genetic Programming Using a Probability-Based Approach

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Soil liquefaction is a substantial seismic hazard that endangers both human life and infrastructure. This research specifically examines the occurrence of soil liquefaction events in past earthquakes, with a special emphasis on the 1964 Niigata, Japan and 1964 Alaska, USA earthquakes. These occurrences were important achievements in the comprehension of harm caused by liquefaction. Geotechnical engineers often use in-situ experiments, such as the standard penetration test (SPT) to evaluate the likelihood of liquefaction. The attraction for this option arises from the difficulties connected in acquiring undisturbed samples of superior quality, as well as the related expenses. Geotechnical engineering specialists choose the deterministic framework for liquefaction assessment because of its clear mathematical approach and low needs for data, time, and effort. This work emphasises the need of integrating probabilistic and reliability methodologies into the design process of crucial life line structures to enable well-informed risk-based decision-making. The objective of this project is to create models that use deterministic, probabilistic, and reliability-based methods to evaluate the likelihood of soil liquefaction. The work presents a new equation that combines Bayes conditional probability with Genetic Programming (GP). and also in study is to identify the most suitable method for liquefaction analysis based on factor of safety and Performance Fitness Error Metrics (PFEMs), Rank analysis, Gini index, etc. The information provided in study data include soil and seismic characteristics, including the corrected blow count \((N1)60cs\), fines content (FC), mean grain size (\(D50\)), peak horizontal ground surface acceleration (\(amax\)), earthquake magnitude (M), and \(CSR7.5\). The parameters are derived from the SPT measurements conducted at many global locations, together with field performance observations (LI) and probability of liquefaction has been assessed through the use of Gini Index (GI). A comparison was made between the novel methodology and the techniques proposed by Juang et al. (J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128:580–589, 2002), Toprak et al. in: Proc., 7th US–Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures against Liquefaction, Buffalo, 1999), and Idriss and Boulanger (J Soil Dyn End Earthq Eng 26:115–130, 2006) status of case history data using Performance Fitness Error Metrices. The comparison included employing a confusion matrix for binary classification and doing a score analysis based on factor ranking. The proposed model exhibited superior performance, as the outputs of the constructed model increased for all positive factors and decreased for negative indicators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Addo KO, Robertson PK (1992) Shear-wave velocity measurement of soils using Rayleigh waves. Can Geotech J 29(4):558–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(11):1015–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrus RD, Stokoe KH, Hsein Juang C (2004) Guide for shear-wave-based liquefaction potential evaluation. Earthq Spectra 20(2):285–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baziar MH, Jafarian Y (2007) Assessment of liquefaction triggering using strain energy concept and ANN model: capacity energy. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(12):1056–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker DE (1997) Eighteenth Canadian geotechnical colloquium: limit states design for foundations. Part I. An overview of the foundation design process. Canadian Geotech J 33(6):956–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cetin KO, Seed RB (2004) Nonlinear shear mass participation factor (rd) for cyclic shear stress ratio evaluation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng, Elsevier 24:103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira C (2002) Gene expression programming in problem solving. Soft computing and industry: recent applications. Springer, London, London, pp 635–653

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goh AT (1994) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. J Geotech Eng 120(9):1467–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goharzay M, Noorzad A, Ardakani 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):683–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haldar A, Tang WH (1979) Probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction potential. J Geotech Eng Div 105(2):145–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanna AM, Ural D, Saygili G (2007) Evaluation of liquefaction potential of soil deposits using artificial neural networks. Eng Comput 24(1):5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harder LF, Seed HB (1986) Determination of penetration resistance for coarse-grained soils using the Becker hammer drill. College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu J (2021a) A new approach for constructing two Bayesian network models for predicting the liquefaction of gravelly soil. Comput Geotech 137:104304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu J (2021b) Data cleaning and feature selection for gravelly soil liquefaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 145:106711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu J, Liu H (2019) Bayesian network models for probabilistic evaluation of earthquake-induced liquefaction based on CPT and Vs databases. Eng Geol 254:76–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu J, Wang J, Zhang Z, Liu H (2022) Continuous-discrete hybrid Bayesian network models for predicting earthquake-induced liquefaction based on the Vs database. Comput Geosci 169:105231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. J Soil Dyn End Earthq Eng 26:115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jas K, Dodagoudar GR (2023) Explainable machine learning model for liquefaction potential assessment of soils using XGBoost-SHAP. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 165:107662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juang CH, Rosowsky DV, Tang WH (1999) Reliability-based method for assessing liquefaction potential of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(8):684–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juang CH, Chen CJ, Jiang T, Andrus RD (2000) Risk-based liquefaction potential evaluation using standard penetration tests. Can Geotech J 37(6):1195–1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juang CH, Chen CJ, Jiang T (2001) Probabilistic framework for liquefaction potential by shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(8):670–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juang CH, Jiang T, Andrus RD (2002) Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128:580–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juang CH, Fang SY, Khor EH (2006) First-order reliability method for probabilistic liquefaction triggering analysis using CPT. J Geotech and Geoenviron Eng 132(3):337–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohestani VR, Hassanlourad M, Ardakani AJNH (2015) Evaluation of liquefaction potential based on CPT data using random forest. Nat Hazards 79(2):1079–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar DR, Samui P, Burman A (2022a) Prediction of probability of liquefaction using soft computing techniques. J Inst Eng India: Series A 103(4):1195–1208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar DR, Samui P, Burman A (2023b) Determination of best criteria for evaluation of liquefaction potential of soil. Trans Infrastruct Geotechnol 10(6):1345–1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao SS, Veneziano D, Whitman RV (1988) Regression models for evaluating liquefaction probability. J Geotech Eng 114(4):389–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Momeni E, Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Amin MFM (2015) Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of rock samples using hybrid particle swarm optimization-based artificial neural networks. Measurement 60:50–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muduli PK, Das SK (2015) First-order reliability method for probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction potential of soil using genetic programming. Int J Geomech 15(3):04014052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naser MZ, Alavi AH (2023) Error metrics and performance fitness indicators for artificial intelligence and machine learning in engineering and sciences. Architect, Struct Construct 3(4):499–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (1985) Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, p 240

    Google Scholar 

  • Pal M (2006) Support vector machines-based modelling of seismic liquefaction potential. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 30(10):983–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirhadi N, Wan X, Lu J, Hu J, AhmadM TF (2023) Seismic liquefaction resistance based on strain energy concept considering fine content value effect and performance parametric sensitivity analysis. C Model Eng Sci 135:733–754

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramakrishnan D, Singh TN, Purwar N, Barde 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 12:491–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson PK, Campanella RG (1985) Liquefaction potential of sands using the CPT. J Geotech Eng 111(3):384–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35(3):442–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samui P, Hariharan R (2015) A unified classification model for modeling of seismic liquefaction potential of soil based on CPT. J Adv Res 6(4):587–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samui P, Karthikeyan J (2013) Determination of liquefaction susceptibility of soil: a least square support vector machine approach. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 37(9):1154–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samui P, Sitharam TG (2011) Machine learning modelling for predicting soil liquefaction susceptibility. Nat Hazard 11(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1967) Analysis of soil liquefaction: Niigata earthquake. J Soil Mech Found Div 93(3):83–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97(9):1249–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng 109(3):458–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seed HB, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1985) Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations. J Geotech Eng 111(12):1425–1445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibata T, Teparaksa W (1988) Evaluation of liquefaction potentials of soils using cone penetration tests. Soils Found 28(2):49–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark TD, Olson SM (1995) Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case histories. J Geotech Eng 121(12):856–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terzaghi K, Peck RB (1948) Soil mechanics in engineering practice. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tokimatsu K, Uchida A (1990) Correlation between liquefaction resistance and shear wave velocity. Soils Found 30(2):33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tokimatsu K, Yoshimi Y (1983) Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils Found 23(4):56–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xue X, Liu E (2017) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. Environ Earth Sci 76:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Goh AT (2016) Evaluating seismic liquefaction potential using multivariate adaptive regression splines and logistic regression. Geomech Eng 10(3):269–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang YG, Qiu J, Zhang Y, Wei Y (2021a) The adoption of ELM to the prediction of soil liquefaction based on CPT. Nat Hazards 107(1):539–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Qiu J, Zhang Y, Xie Y (2021b) The adoption of a support vector machine optimized by GWO to the prediction of soil liquefaction. Environ Earth Sci 80:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou J, Li E, Wang M, Chen X, Shi X, Jiang L (2019) Feasibility of stochastic gradient boosting approach for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential based on SPT and CPT case histories. J Perform Constr Facil 33(3):04019024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger RW, Idriss IM. (2014). CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures. Report No. UCD/CGM.-14, 1.

  • Idriss IM, and Boulanger RW (2004). Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. In: Proceedings, 11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, and 3rd International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, D. Doolin et al., eds., Stallion Press, Vol. 1, pp. 32–56.

  • Idriss IM, and Boulanger, RW (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Monograph MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261 pp.

  • Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) Spt-based liquefaction triggering procedures. Rep. UCD/CGM-10. 2, 4–13.

  • Kayen RE, Mitchell JK, Seed RB, Lodge A, Nishio SY, Coutinho R (1992). Evaluation of SPT-, CPT-, and shear wave-based methods for liquefaction potential assessment using Loma Prieta data. In: Proc., 4th Japan-US Workshop on Earthquake-Resistant Des. of Lifeline Fac. and Countermeasures for Soil Liquefaction (Vol. 1, pp. 177-204).

  • Mitchell JK, Tseng DJ (1990). Assessment of liquefaction potential by cone penetration resistance. In: Proc., H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symp. Duncan (pp. 335-350). Vancouver, Canada: JM BiTech.

  • Oliveira LOV, Otero FE, Pappa GL (2016). A dispersion operator for geometric semantic genetic programming. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference 2016 (pp. 773-780).

  • Olsen RS (1988). Using the CPT for dynamic site response characterization. In Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II—Recent Advances in Ground-Motion Evaluation (pp. 374–388). ASCE.

  • Olsen RS (1997). Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone penetrometer test. In: Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (pp. 225–276). Buffalo: State University of New York.

  • Seed HB (1986) Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluting the liquefaction resistance of sands. Proc. In: Situ, ASCE, 281-302.

  • Stokoe KH, Roesset JM, Bierschwale JG, Aouad M (1988). Liquefaction potential of sands from shear wave velocity. In: Proceedings, 9nd World Conference on Earthquake (Vol. 13, pp. 213-218).

  • Suzuki Y, Tokimatsu K, Koyamada K, Taya Y, Kubota Y (1995). Field correlation of soil liquefaction based on CPT data. In: Proc., Int. Symp. on Cone Penetration Testing (Vol. 2, pp. 583-588).

  • Toprak S, Holzer TL, Bennett MJ, Tinsley III, JC (1999, August). CPT-and SPT-based probabilistic assessment of liquefaction. In: Proc., 7th US–Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures against Liquefaction (pp. 69–86). Buffalo, NY: Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.

  • Tsuchida H and Hayashi S (1971): Estimation of liquefaction potential of sandy soils, Third Joint Meeting of U.S. and Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, UJNR, Tokyo, pp.1–16.

  • Youd TL, Idriss IM (2001). Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng. In ASCE (Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817–33).

  • Zhou J, Huang S, Wang M, Qiu Y. (2021). Performance evaluation of hybrid GA–SVM and GWO–SVM models to predict earthquake-induced liquefaction potential of soil: a multi-dataset investigation. Engineering with Computers, 1–19.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, 110042, India

    Nerusupalli Dinesh Kumar Reddy, Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anil Kumar Sahu

Authors
  1. Nerusupalli Dinesh Kumar Reddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashok Kumar Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anil Kumar Sahu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.D.K.R and A.K.G wrote the main manuscript text and A.K.S prepared figures. All authors reviewed the manuscript."

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nerusupalli Dinesh Kumar Reddy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reddy, N.D.K., Gupta, A.K. & Sahu, A.K. Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Potential Using Genetic Programming Using a Probability-Based Approach. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-024-01421-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-024-01421-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation