Advertisement

Indian Geotechnical Journal

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 58–69 | Cite as

Prediction of Liquefaction Susceptibility of Clean Sandy Soils Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques

  • Ayad Salih Sabbar
  • Amin ChegenizadehEmail author
  • Hamid Nikraz
Original Paper

Abstract

The liquefaction susceptibility of sandy soil is generally characterised by some parameters in the static liquefaction potential evaluation. These parameters are usually measured by static laboratory tests on distributed and undistributed samples under different test conditions. This study performs the ANN and genetic programming to estimate the static liquefaction susceptibility of clean sand soils based on experimental results to predict and develop an equation for the ratio of qmin/qpeak which is considered as the static liquefaction criterion. The qmin/qpeak model is a function of the minimum and maximum void ratios, relative density, initial effective confining pressure, and some other parameters. The findings of this study demonstrated that a good agreement between ANN and symbolic regression in predicting the ratio of qmin/qpeak based on laboratory tests. The possible application of the proposed qmin/qpeak equation is restricted by some limitations. The outcomes of the present work can be used in the preliminary liquefaction assessment of clean sandy soils prior to the complementary experimental studies.

Keywords

Static liquefaction ANN Symbolic regression Genetic programming qmin/qpeak 

Abbreviations

AI

Artificial intelligent

ANN

Artificial neural network

B

Skempton’s coefficient

Cu

Uniformity coefficient

CPT

Cone Penetration Test

Dr

Relative density

D50

Mean grains size

emax

Maximum void ratio

emin

Minimum void ratio

e

Void ratio

GP

Genetic programming

MGGP

Multi-Gene Genetic Programming

I

Number of input variables

qmin

Minimum deviatoric stress

qpeak

Initial peak deviatoric stress

RMSE

Root mean square error

R2

Coefficient of determination

SPT

Standard Penetration Test

α

The ratio of initial shear stresses to the initial effective confining pressure

σ′3c

Initial effective confining pressure

σ1

Axial stress

σ3 c

Confining pressure

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author sincerely acknowledges the funding received from the Higher Committee for Education Development in the Republic of Iraq in the form of a scholarship for his PhD study.

References

  1. 1.
    Castro G (1969) Liquefaction of sands. Division of Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Harvard Univ, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    El Mohtar C, Bobet A, Drnevich V, Johnston C, Santagata M (2013) Pore pressure generation in sand with bentonite: from small strains to liquefaction. Géotechnique 64(2):108–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jafarian Y, Ghorbani A, Salamatpoor S, Salamatpoor S (2013) Monotonic triaxial experiments to evaluate steady-state and liquefaction susceptibility of Babolsar sand. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A 14(10):739–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yamamuro JA, Lade PV (1997) Static liquefaction of very loose sands. Can Geotech J 34(6):905–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Madabhushi GS, Haigh SK (2012) How well do we understand earthquake induced liquefaction? Indian Geotech J 42(3):150–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salamatpoor S, Salamatpoor S (2014) Evaluation of babolsar sand behaviour by using static triaxial tests and comparison with case history. Open J Civ Eng 4:181–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yamamuro JA, Covert KM (2001) Monotonic and cyclic liquefaction of very loose sands with high silt content. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(4):314–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ishihara K, Tsuchiya H, Huang Y, Kamada K (2001) Recent studies on liquefaction resistance of sand effect of saturation. In: Proceedings of 4th conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering, keynote lectureGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wei L, Yang J (2014) On the role of grain shape in static liquefaction of sand–fines mixtures. Géotechnique 64(9):740–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sadrekarimi A (2014) Static liquefaction-triggering analysis considering soil dilatancy. Soils Found 54(5):955–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kramer SL, Seed HB (1988) Initiation of soil liquefaction under static loading conditions. J Geotech Eng 114(4):412–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stark TD, Mesri G (1992) Undrained shear strength of liquefied sands for stability analysis. J Geotech Eng 118(11):1727–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Konrad J-M (1988) Interpretation of flat plate dilatometer tests in sands in terms of the state parameter. Geotechnique 38(2):263–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bishop AW (1971) Shear strength parameters for undisturbed and remoulded soil specimens. In: Proceedings of the roscoe memorial symposium, Cambridge University, Cambridge, Mass, pp 3–58Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ishihara K (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquakes. Geotechnique 43(3):351–451CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lade PV, Yamamuro JA (2011) Evaluation of static liquefaction potential of silty sand slopes. Can Geotech J 48(2):247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rahman MM, Lo S (2014) Undrained behavior of sand-fines mixtures and their state parameter. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 140(7):04014036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jafarian Y, Vakili R, Abdollahi AS (2013) Prediction of cyclic resistance ratio for silty sands and its applications in the simplified liquefaction analysis. Comput Geotech 52:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Das SK (2013) 10 Artificial neural networks in geotechnical engineering: modeling and application issues. Metaheuristics in Water Geotech Transp Eng 45:231–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim Y-S, Kim B-T (2008) Prediction of relative crest settlement of concrete-faced rockfill dams analyzed using an artificial neural network model. Comput Geotech 35(3):313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Young-Su K, Byung-Tak K (2006) Use of artificial neural networks in the prediction of liquefaction resistance of sands. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(11):1502–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Banimahd M, Yasrobi S, Woodward P (2005) Artificial neural network for stress–strain behavior of sandy soils: knowledge based verification. Comput Geotech 32(5):377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goh AT (1994) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. J Geotech Eng 120(9):1467–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goh AT (1996) Neural-network modeling of CPT seismic liquefaction data. J Geotech Eng 122(1):70–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ural DN, Saka H (1998) Liquefaction assessment by neural networks. Electron J Geotech Eng (3)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tung AT, Wang YY, Wong FS (1993) Assessment of liquefaction potential using neural networks. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 12(6):325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baziar M, Nilipour N (2003) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using neural-networks and CPT results. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23(7):631–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mughieda O, Bani-Hani K, Safieh B (2009) Liquefaction assessment by artificial neural networks based on CPT. Int J Geotech Eng 3(2):289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Farrokhzad F, Choobbasti A, Barari A (2010) Artificial neural network model for prediction of liquefaction potential in soil deposits. In: Fifth international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics, San Diego, California, May 24–29 2010Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaya A (2010) Artificial neural network study of observed pattern of scour depth around bridge piers. Comput Geotech 37(3):413–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee S, Lee S, Kim Y (2003) An approach to estimate unsaturated shear strength using artificial neural network and hyperbolic formulation. Comput Geotech 30(6):489–503MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Erzin Y, Cetin T (2012) The use of neural networks for the prediction of the critical factor of safety of an artificial slope subjected to earthquake forces. Sci Iran 19(2):188–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang J, Rahman MS (1999) A neural network model for liquefaction-induced horizontal ground displacement. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 18(8):555–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sinha SK, Wang MC (2008) Artificial neural network prediction models for soil compaction and permeability. Geotech Geol Eng 26(1):47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Das SK, Basudhar PK (2008) Prediction of residual friction angle of clays using artificial neural network. Eng Geol 100(3):142–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Muduli P, Das S (2014) Evaluation of liquefaction potential of soil based on standard penetration test using multi-gene genetic programming model. Acta Geophys 62(3):529–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muduli PK, Das SK (2014) CPT-based seismic liquefaction potential evaluation using multi-gene genetic programming approach. Indian Geotech J 44(1):86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gandomi AH, Alavi AH (2012) A new multi-gene genetic programming approach to non-linear system modeling. Part II: geotechnical and earthquake engineering problems. Neural Comput Appl 21(1):189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Das SK, Muduli PK (2011) Evaluation of liquefaction potential of soil using genetic programming. In: Proceedings of golden jubilee Indian geotechnical conference, pp 827–830, 15–17 Dec 2011, Kochi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Javadi AA, Rezania M, Nezhad MM (2006) Evaluation of liquefaction induced lateral displacements using genetic programming. Comput Geotech 33(4):222–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jafarian Y, Kermani E, Baziar MH (2010) Empirical predictive model for the v max/a max ratio of strong ground motions using genetic programming. Comput Geosci 36(12):1523–1531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Johari A, Habibagahi G, Ghahramani A (2006) Prediction of soil–water characteristic curve using genetic programming. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(5):661–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rezania M, Javadi AA (2007) A new genetic programming model for predicting settlement of shallow foundations. Can Geotech J 44(12):1462–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Murthy T, Loukidis D, Carraro J, Prezzi M, Salgado R (2007) Undrained monotonic response of clean and silty sands. Géotechnique 57(3):273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Della N, Arab A, Belkhatir M (2011) Influence of specimen-reconstituting method on the undrained response of loose granular soil under static loading. Acta Mech Sin 27(5):796–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Della N, Arab A, Belkhatir M, Missoum H (2009) Identification of the behavior of the Chlef sand to static liquefaction. Comptes Rendus Mécanique 337(5):282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Verdugo R, Ishihara K (1996) The steady state of sandy soils. Soils Found 36(2):81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Belhouari F, Bendani K, Missoum H, Derkaoui M (2015) Undrained static response of loose and medium dense silty sand of Mostaganem (Northern Algeria). Arab J Sci Eng 40(5):1327–1342MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yang J, Wei L (2012) Collapse of loose sand with the addition of fines: the role of particle shape. Geotechnique 62(12):1111–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Farrokhzad F, JanAliZadeh A, Barari A (2008) A prediction of slope stability using artificial neural network (Case study: Noabad, Mazandaran, Iran). In: Sixth international conference on case histories in geotechnical engineering, Arlington, Verginia, 11–16 August 2008Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Elhag TM, Wang Y-M (2007) Risk assessment for bridge maintenance projects: neural networks versus regression techniques. J Comput Civ Eng 21(6):402–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Flood I, Kartam N (1994) Neural networks in civil engineering. I: principles and understanding. J Comput Civ Eng 8(2):131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hammerstrom D (1993) Working with neural networks. IEEE spectrum 30(7):46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Koza JR (1990) Genetic programming: a paradigm for genetically breeding populations of computer programs to solve problems. Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wagner S, Kronberger G, Beham A, Kommenda M, Scheibenpflug A, Pitzer E, Vonolfen S, Kofler M, Winkler S, Dorfer V (2014) Architecture and design of the heuristiclab optimization environment. In: Advanced methods and applications in computational intelligence. Springer, pp 197–261Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sabbar AS, Chegenizadeh A, Nikraz H (2017) Static liquefaction of very loose sand–slag–bentonite mixtures. Soils Found 57(3):341–356.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2017.05.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Geotechnical Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayad Salih Sabbar
    • 1
  • Amin Chegenizadeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hamid Nikraz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations