Abstract
Seismic soil liquefaction is one of the considerable challenges and disastrous sides of earthquakes that can generally happen in loose to medium saturated sandy soils. The in-situ cone penetration test (CPT) is a widely used index for evaluating the liquefaction characteristics of soils from different sites all over the world. To deal with the uncertainties of the models and the parameters on evaluating the liquefaction, a mathematical probabilistic model is applied via logistic regression, and the comprehensive CPT results are used to develop a model to predict the probability of liquefaction (PL). The new equation to assess the liquefaction occurrence is based on two important features from the expanded CPT dataset. The maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) method is applied to compute the model parameters by maximizing a likelihood function. In addition to that, the sampling bias is applied in the likelihood function via using the weighting factors. Five curve classifiers are plotted for different PL values and ranked using two evaluation metrics. Then, based on these metrics the optimal curve is selected and compared to a well-known deterministic model to validate it. This study also highlights the importance of the recall evaluation metric in the liquefaction occurrence evaluation. The experiment results indicate that the proposed method is outperform existing methods and presents the state-of-the-art in terms of probabilistic models.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
H.B. Seed, I.M. Idriss, Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 97 (1971), 1249–1273.
P.K. Robertson, C.E. Wride, Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 35 (1998), 442–459.
R.D. Andrus, K.H. Stokoe II, Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 126 (2000), 1015–1025.
T.L. Youd, I.M. Idriss, Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (2001), 297–313.
R.W. Boulanger, I.M. Idriss, CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering procedures, Report No. UCD/CGM.-14/01. University of California, Davis, CA, 2014, p. 138.
K.O. Cetin, R.B. Seed, A. Der Kiureghian, K. Tokimatsu, L.F. Harder, R.E. Kayen, et al., Standard penetration test-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction potential, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130 (2004), 1314–1340.
R.W. Boulanger, I.M. Idriss, Probabilistic standard penetration test-based liquefaction-triggering procedure, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138 (2012), 1185–1195.
C.S. Ku, C.H. Juang, C.W. Chang, J. Ching, Probabilistic version of the Robertson and Wride method for liquefaction evaluation: development and application, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 49 (2012), 27–44.
Z. Cao, T.L. Youd, X. Yuan, Chinese dynamic penetration test for liquefaction evaluation in gravelly soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 139 (2013), 1320–1333.
M. Shen, Q. Chen, J. Zhang, W. Gong, C.H. Juang, Predicting liquefaction probability based on shear wave velocity: an update, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 75 (2016), 1199–1214.
J. Berkson, Application of the logistic function to bio-assay, Journal of the American Statistical Association 39 (1944), 357–365.
J.S. Cramer, The origins of logistic regression (Technical report), 119/4. Tinbergen Institute, 2002.
Z. Tang, J. Lu, P. Wang, A unified biologically-inspired prediction framework for classification of movement-related potentials based on a logistic regression model, Cognitive Computation 7 (2015), 731–739.
M.E.H. Chowdhury, T. Rahman, A. Khandakar, S. Al-Madeed, S.M. Zughaier, S.A.R. Doi, et al., An early warning tool for predicting mortality risk of COVID-19 patients using machine learning, Cognitive Computation (2021), 1–6 [Online ahead of print].
G. Chen, X. Meng, L. Tan, F. Zhang, L. Qiao, Comparison and combination of different models for optimal landslide susceptibility zonation, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 47 (2014), 283–306.
M.M. Crawford, J.M. Dortch, H.J. Koch, A.A. Killen, J. Zhu, Y. Zhu, et al., Using landslide-inventory mapping for a combined bagged-trees and logistic-regression approach to determining landslide susceptibility in eastern Kentucky, USA, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 54 (2021), qjegh2020–177.
S.M. Stigler, The epic story of maximum likelihood, Statistical Science 22 (2007), 598–620.
S.S.C. Liao, D. Veneziano, R.V. Whitman, Regression models for evaluating liquefaction probability, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 114 (1988), 389–411.
S. Toprak, T.L. Holzer, M.J. Bennett, J.J. Tinsley, CPT-and SPT-based probabilistic assessment of liquefaction potential, 7th US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities and Countermeasures against Liquefaction, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY, 1999, pp. 69–86.
C.H. Juang, J. Zhang, S. Khoshnevisan, W. Gong, Probabilistic methods for assessing soil liquefaction potential and effect, Geo-Risk (2017), 122–145.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Peer review under responsibility of KEO (Henan) Education Technology Co. Ltd
Rights and permissions
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (https://doi.org/creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
About this article
Cite this article
Jairi, I., Fang, Y. & Pirhadi, N. Application of Logistic Regression Based on Maximum Likelihood Estimation to Predict Seismic Soil Liquefaction Occurrence. Hum-Cent Intell Syst 1, 98–104 (2021). https://doi.org/10.2991/hcis.k.211207.001
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/hcis.k.211207.001