A novel ensemble model based on GMDH-type neural network for the prediction of CPT-based soil liquefaction

  • T. Fikret KurnazEmail author
  • Yilmaz Kaya
Original Article


This study presents a novel ensemble group method of data handling (EGMDH) model based on classification for the prediction of liquefaction potential of soils. Liquefaction is one of the most complex problems in geotechnical earthquake engineering. The database used in this study consists of 212 CPT-based field records from eight major earthquakes. The input parameters are selected as cone tip resistance, total and effective stress, penetration depth, max peak horizontal acceleration and earthquake magnitude for the prediction models. The proposed EGMDH model results were also compared to the other classifier models, particularly the results of the group method of data handling (GMDH) model. The results of this study indicated that the proposed EGMDH model has achieved more successful results on the prediction of the liquefaction potential of soils compared to the other classifier models by improving the prediction performance of the GMDH model.


Liquefaction Soft computing Group method of data handling Ensemble model 



This academic work was linguistically supported by the Mersin Technology Transfer Office Academic Writing Center of Mersin University.


  1. Abdalla JA, Attom MF, Hawileh R (2015) Prediction of minimum factor of safety against slope failure in clayey soils using artificial neural network. Environ Earth Sci 73(9):5463–5477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrus RD, Stokoe KH II (2000) Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear wave velocity. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126(11):1015–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrus RD, Youd TL (1989) Penetration test in liquefiable gravels. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, pp 679–682Google Scholar
  4. Ardakani A, Kordnaeij A (2019) Soil compaction parameters prediction using GMDH-type neural network and genetic algorithm. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 23(4):449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Augusty SM, Izudheen S (2013) Ensemble classifiers a survey: evaluation of ensemble classifiers and data level methods to deal with imbalanced data problem in protein–protein interactions. Rev Bioinform Biom 2(1):1–9Google Scholar
  6. Baziar MH, Nilipour N (2003) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using neural-networks and CPT results. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23(7):631–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chenari RJ, Tizpa P, Rad MRG, Machado SL, Fard MK (2015) The use of index parameters to predict soil geotechnical properties. Arab J Geosci 8(7):4907–4919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chern SG, Lee CY, Wang CC (2008) CPT-based liquefaction assessment by using fuzzy-neural network. J Mar Sci Technol 16(2):139–148Google Scholar
  9. Chik Z, Aljanabi QA, Kasa A, Taha MR (2014) Tenfold cross validation artificial neural network modeling of the settlement behavior of a stone column under a highway embankment. Arab J Geosci 7(11):4877–4887. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coduto DP (2003) Geotechnical engineering, principles and practice. Prentice-Hall, New Delhi, pp 137–155Google Scholar
  11. Elgamal AW, Dobry R, Adalıer K (1989) Small-scale shaking table tests of saturated layered sand-silt deposits, 2nd U.S–Japan workshop on soil liquefaction, Buffalo, N.Y., NCEER rep. no. 890032, pp 233–245Google Scholar
  12. Erzin Y, Ecemis N (2015) The use of neural networks for CPT-based liquefaction screening. Bull Eng Geol Environ 74(1):103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghanadzadeh H, Ganji M, Fallahi S (2012) Mathematical model of liquid–liquid equilibrium for a ternary system using the GMDH-type neural network and genetic algorithm. Appl Math Model 36:4096–4105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goh ATC (1994) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. J Geotech Eng 120(9):1467–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goh ATC (1996) Neural network modeling of CPT seismic liquefaction data. J Geotech Eng 122(1):70–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goh ATC (2002) Probabilistic neural network for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential. Can Geotech J 39:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanna AM, Ural D, Saygili G (2007) Neural network model for liquefaction potential in soil deposits using Turkey and Taiwan earthquake data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(6):521–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hassanlourad M, Ardakani A, Kordnaeij A, Mola-Abasi H (2017) Dry unit weight of compacted soils prediction using GMDH-type neural network. Eur Phys J Plus 132:357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoang ND, Bui DT (2018) Predicting earthquake-induced soil liquefaction based on a hybridization of kernel Fisher discriminant analysis and a least squares support vector machine: a multi-dataset study. Bull Eng Geol Environ 77(1):191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Husmand B, Scott F, Crouse CB (1988) Centrifuge liquefaction tests in a laminar box. Geotechnique 38(2):253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2004) Semi-empirical procedures for evaluating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on soil dynamics and earthquake engineering and 3rd international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Berkeley, California, pp 32–56Google Scholar
  22. Ishihara K (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford University Press, The Oxford Engineering Science Series, Oxford. ISBN 10:0198562241, ISBN 13: 978-0198562245Google Scholar
  23. Ivakhnenko AG (1971) Polynomial theory of complex systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A (Syst Hum) 1:364–378. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ivakhnenko AG (1976) The group method of data handling in prediction problems. Sov Autom Control Avtomotika 9:21–30Google Scholar
  25. Iwasaki T, Tokida K, Tatsuoka F (1981) Soil liquefaction potential evaluation with use of the simplified procedure. In: International conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, St. Louis, pp 209–214Google Scholar
  26. Jirdehi RA, Mamoudan HT, Sarkaleh HH (2014) Applying GMDH-type neural network and particle warm optimization for prediction of liquefaction induced lateral displacements. Appl Appl Math Int J 9(2):528–540Google Scholar
  27. Juang CH, Chen CJ (1999) CPT-based liquefaction evaluation using artificial neural networks. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 14(3):221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Juang CH, Yuan H, Lee DH, Lin PS (2003) Simplified cone penetration test-based method for evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129(1):66–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalinli A, Acar MC, Gunduz Z (2011) New approaches to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations based on artificial neural networks and ant colony optimization. Eng Geol 117(1–2):29–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kiefa MAA (1998) General regression neural networks for driven piles in cohesionless soils. Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(12):1177–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim YS, Kim BT (2006) Use of artificial neural networks in the prediction of liquefaction resistance of sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 132(11):1502–1504. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kokusho T, Hara T, Murahata K (2005) Liquefaction strength of fines containing sands compared with cone resistance in triaxial specimens. In: Pre-workshop proceedings of the 2nd Japan–US workshop on testing, modelling, and simulation in geomechanics, Campus Plaza, Kyoto, Japan, pp 280–296Google Scholar
  33. Kondo T, Ueno J (2012) Feedback GMDH-type neural network and its application to medical image analysis of liver cancer. In 42th ISCIE international symposium on stochastic systems theory and its applications, pp 81–82Google Scholar
  34. Kordnaeij A, Kalantary F, Kordtabar B, Mola-Abasi H (2015) Prediction of recompression index using GMDH-type neural network based on geotechnical soil properties. Soils Found 55(6):1335–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall civil engineering and engineering mechanicsGoogle Scholar
  36. Kramer SL, Mayfield RT (2007) The return period of soil liquefaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(7):802–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuo YL, Jaksa MB, Lyamin AV, Kaggwa WS (2009) ANN-based model for predicting the bearing capacity of strip footing on multi-layered cohesive soil. Comput Geotech 36(3):503–516. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lambe PC (1981) Dynamic centrifuge modelling of a horizontal sand stratum, ScD Thesis, Department Of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee I, Lee J (1996) Prediction of pile bearing capacity using artificial neural networks. Comput Geotech 18(3):189–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liao SSC, Whitman RV (1986) Overburden correction factors for SPT in sand. J Geotech Eng ASCE 112(3):373–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu H, Qiao T (1984) Liquefaction potential of saturated sand deposits underlying foundation of structure, In: Proceeding of 8th world conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, 3, pp 199–206Google Scholar
  42. Marcuson WF III (1978) Definition of terms related to liquefaction. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 104(9):1197–1200Google Scholar
  43. Mughieda O, Bani HK, Safieh B (2009) Liquefaction assessment by artificial neural networks based on CPT. Int J Geotech Eng 2:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nejad FP, Jaksa MB, Kakhi M, McCabe BA (2009) Prediction of pile settlement using artificial neural networks based on standard penetration test data. Comput Geotech 36(7):1125–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pal M, Mather PM (2003) An assessment of the effectiveness of decision tree methods for land cover classification. Remote Sens Environ 86:554–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rahman MS, Wang J (2002) Fuzzy neural network models for liquefaction prediction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:685–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ramakrishnan D, Singh TN, Purwar N, Badre 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 12:491–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robertson PK (1990) Soil classification using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 27(1):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robertson PK (2009) Interpretation of cone penetration tests—a unified approach. Can Geotech J 46(11):1337–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robertson PK (2016) Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system—an update. Can Geotech J 53(12):1910–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robertson PK, Campanella RG (1985) Liquefaction potential of sands using the CPT. J Geotech Eng 111(3):384–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35(3):442–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sakellariou MG, Ferentinou M (2005) A study of slope stability prediction using neural networks. Geotech Geol Eng 24(3):419–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Samui P, Sitharam TG (2011) Machine learning modelling for predicting soil liquefaction susceptibility. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seed HB, De Alba P (1986) Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands. In: Proceedings of the insitu, ASCE, New York, pp 281–302Google Scholar
  56. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(9):1249–1273Google Scholar
  57. Shibata T, Teparaska W (1988) Evaluation of liquefaction potentials of soils using cone penetration tests. Soils Found 28(2):49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stark TD, Olson SM (1995) Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case histories. J Geotech Eng 121(12):856–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stokoe KH, Roesset JM, Bierschwale JG, Aouad M (1988) Liquefaction potential of sands from shear wave velocity. In: Proceedings of ninth world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo, Japan, vol 3, pp 213–218Google Scholar
  60. Sulewska MJ (2011) Applying artificial neural networks for analysis of geotechnical problems. Comput Assist Mech Eng Sci 18:231–241Google Scholar
  61. Suzuki Y, Koyamada K, Tokimatsu K (1997) Prediction of liquefaction resistance based on CPT tip resistance and sleeve friction. In: Proceedings XIV international conference of soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Hamburg, Germany, pp 603–606Google Scholar
  62. Tokimatsu K, Yoshimi Y (1983) Empirical correlation of soil liquefaction based on SPT N-value and fines content. Soils Found 23(4):56–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vissikirsky VA, Stepashko VS, Kalavrouziotis IK, Drakatos PA (2005) Growth dynamics of trees irrigated with wastewater: GMDH modeling, assessment, and control issues. Instrum Sci Technol 33(2):229–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang HB, Xu WY, Xu RC (2005) Slope stability evaluation using back propagation neural networks. Eng Geol 80:302–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Xue X, Liu E (2017) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. Environ Earth Sci 76:192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Xue X, Xiao M (2016) Application of genetic algorithm-based support vector machines for prediction of soil liquefaction. Environ Earth Sci. 75:874. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Youd TL, Perkins DM (1978) Mapping liquefaction-induced ground failure potential. J Geotech Eng Div 104(4):443–446Google Scholar
  68. Zhu W, Wang J, Zhang W, Sun D (2012) Short-term effects of air pollution on lower respiratory diseases and forecasting by the group method of data handling. Atmos Environ 51:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Transportation Services, Vocational School of Technical SciencesMersin UniversityMersinTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureSiirt UniversitySiirtTurkey

Personalised recommendations