Author:
Hameed Mohammed Majeed,Masood Adil,Srivastava Aman,Abd Rahman Norinah,Mohd Razali Siti Fatin,Salem Ali,Elbeltagi Ahmed
Abstract
AbstractLiquefaction is a devastating consequence of earthquakes that occurs in loose, saturated soil deposits, resulting in catastrophic ground failure. Accurate prediction of such geotechnical parameter is crucial for mitigating hazards, assessing risks, and advancing geotechnical engineering. This study introduces a novel predictive model that combines Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) with Dingo Optimization Algorithm (DOA) to estimate strain energy-based liquefaction resistance. The hybrid model (ELM-DOA) is compared with the classical ELM, Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System with Fuzzy C-Means (ANFIS-FCM model), and Sub-clustering (ANFIS-Sub model). Also, two data pre-processing scenarios are employed, namely traditional linear and non-linear normalization. The results demonstrate that non-linear normalization significantly enhances the prediction performance of all models by approximately 25% compared to linear normalization. Furthermore, the ELM-DOA model achieves the most accurate predictions, exhibiting the lowest root mean square error (484.286 J/m3), mean absolute percentage error (24.900%), mean absolute error (404.416 J/m3), and the highest correlation of determination (0.935). Additionally, a Graphical User Interface (GUI) has been developed, specifically tailored for the ELM-DOA model, to assist engineers and researchers in maximizing the utilization of this predictive model. The GUI provides a user-friendly platform for easy input of data and accessing the model's predictions, enhancing its practical applicability. Overall, the results strongly support the proposed hybrid model with GUI serving as an effective tool for assessing soil liquefaction resistance in geotechnical engineering, aiding in predicting and mitigating liquefaction hazards.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference101 articles.
1. Ishihara, K. & Koga, Y. Case studies of liquefaction in the 1964 Niigata Earthquake. Soils Found. 21, 35–52 (1981).
2. Youd, T. L. Ground failure investigations following the 1964 Alaska Earthquake. in Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK (2014).
3. Toda, S., Hataya, R., Abe, S. & Miyakoshi, K. The 1995 Kobe earthquake and problems of evaluation of active faults in Japan. Eng. Geol. 43, 151–167 (1996).
4. Giona Bucci, M. et al. Associations between sediment architecture and liquefaction susceptibility in fluvial settings: The 2010–2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, New Zealand. Eng. Geol. 237, 181–197 (2018).
5. Sassa, S. & Takagawa, T. Liquefied gravity flow-induced tsunami: First evidence and comparison from the 2018 Indonesia Sulawesi earthquake and tsunami disasters. Landslides 16, 195–200 (2019).