journal article·2024-03-23Open access

Prediction and Factor Analysis of Liquefaction Ground Subsidence Based on Machine-Learning Techniques

Kazuki Karimai, Wen Liu, Yoshihisa Maruyama

Applied Sciences· Volume 14· Issue 7

Abstract

Liquefaction is a significant challenge in the fields of earthquake risk assessment and soil dynamics, as it has the potential to cause extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure through ground failure. During the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, Urayasu City in the Chiba Prefecture experienced severe soil liquefaction, leading to evacuation losses due to the effect of the liquefaction on roads. Therefore, developing quantitative predictions of ground subsidence caused by liquefaction and understanding its contributing factors are imperative in preparing for potential future mega-earthquakes. This research is novel because previous research primarily focused on developing predictive models for determining the presence or absence of liquefaction, and there are few examples available of quantitative liquefaction magnitude after liquefaction has occurred. This research study extracts features from existing datasets and builds a predictive model, supplemented by factor analysis. Using the Cabinet Office of Japan’s Nankai Trough Megathrust Earthquake model, liquefaction-induced ground subsidence was designated as the dependent variable. A gradient-boosted decision-tree (GDBT) prediction model was then developed. Additionally, the Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) method was employed to analyze the contribution of each feature to the prediction results. The study found that the XGBoost model outperformed the LightGBM model in terms of predictive accuracy, with the predicted values closely aligned with the actual measurements, thereby proving its effectiveness in predicting ground subsidence due to liquefaction. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that liquefaction assessments, which were previously challenging, can now be interpreted using SHAP factors. This enables accountable wide-area prediction of liquefaction-induced ground subsidence.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Educational Technology and Assessment · Dam Engineering and Safety

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Graduate School of Engineering, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8522, Japan

Funding

JSPS KAKENHI

References (72)

Show source-provided references
1. Seed, R.B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, A.M., Wu, J., Pestana, J.M., and Reimer, M.F. (2001, January 31). Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering and Seismic Site Response Evaluation. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, CA, USA.
2. Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential10.1061/JSFEAQ.0001662 ↗
3. Liquefaction during the 2004 Niigata-Ken Chuetsu Earthquake—General Aspect and Geotechnical and Geomorphic Conditions10.2208/jscejc.62.263 ↗
4. Liquefaction and Their Site Conditions in Kanto Region during the 2011 Off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake10.5610/jaee.15.2_25 ↗
5. Liquefaction and its Characteristics during the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake10.5610/jaee.17.4_81 ↗
6. Ground Movements and Damage in Satozuka District, Sapporo Due to 2018 Hokkaido Eastern Iburi Earthquake10.1016/j.sandf.2020.04.007 ↗
7. Overview of the Damages of the 2011 Off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake and Its Geotechnical Problems
8. Characteristics of Liquefaction in Tokyo Bay Area by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.004 ↗
9. Liquefaction in Tohoku District during the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku Earthquake10.1016/j.sandf.2012.11.005 ↗
10. Ground Failures on Reclaimed Land during the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake: A Case Study in Urayasu City, Japan10.1016/j.quaint.2015.07.063 ↗
11. Yasuda, S., and Ishikawa, K. (2012, January 1–4). Several Features of Liquefaction-Induced Damage to Houses and Buried Lifelines During the 2011 Great East Japan. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, Tokyo, Japan.
12. Towhata, I., Kiku, H., and Taguchi, Y. (2012, January 1–4). Technical and Societal Problems to Be Solved in Geotechnical Issues. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, Tokyo, Japan.
13. Cubrinovski, M. (2013, January 4). Liquefaction-Induced Damage in the 2010–2011 Christchurch (New Zealand) Earthquakes. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1007/978-94-007-5182-8_1 ↗
14. Cubrinovski, M., Henderson, D., and Bradley, B. (2012, January 1–4). Liquefaction Impacts in Residential Areas in the 2010–2011 Christchurch Earthquakes. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, Tokyo, Japan.
15. Die Berechnung der Durchassigkeitsziffer des Tones Aus Dem Verlauf der Hydrodynamischen Spannungs. Erscheinungen
16. The Shearing Resistance of Saturated Soils and the Angle between the Planes of Shear
17. Gabel, L.L.S., O’Brien, F.E., Allan, J.C., and Bauer, J.M. (2019). Tsunami Evacuation Analysis of Communities Surrounding the Coos Bay Estuary: Building Community Resilience on the Oregon Coast (Technical Report O-19-07).
18. (2023, December 16). Guidelines for Considering Liquefaction Countermeasures for Evacuation Routes in Kochi Prefecture. Available online: https://www.pref.kochi.lg.jp/soshiki/010201/files/2021041300261/tebiki.pdf.
19. (2023, December 18). Waga Machi Hazard Map. Available online: https://disaportal.gsi.go.jp/hazardmapportal/hazardmap/index.html.
20. Boulanger, R.W., Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W. (2014). CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California.
21. Liquefaction Potential Estimation Based on the 7.5-Arc-Second Japan Engineering Geomorphologic Classification Map
22. An Updated Geospatial Liquefaction Model for Global Application10.1785/0120160198 ↗
23. Numerical Investigation of the Effects of Ground Motion Characteristics on the Seismic Behavior of Liquefiable Soil
24. Modelling and Validation of Liquefaction Potential Index of Fine-Grained Soils Using Ensemble Learning Paradigms10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108399 ↗
25. Machine Learning Approaches for Prediction of Fine-Grained Soils Liquefaction10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105014 ↗
26. Seismic Control of Adaptive Variable Stiffness Intelligent Structures Using Fuzzy Control Strategy Combined with LSTM10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107549 ↗
27. Galupino, J., and Dungca, J. (2023). Estimating Liquefaction Susceptibility Using Machine Learning Algorithms with a Case of Metro Manila, Philippines. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13116549 ↗
28. Estimation of Liquefaction Susceptibility in Japan Using Machine Learning Approach
29. Explainable Machine Learning Model for Liquefaction Potential Assessment of Soils Using XGBoost-SHAP10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107662 ↗
30. Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine10.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
31. Carnevale, L., Floramo, G., Di Fabrizio, D., Arena, S., Montalto, A.S., Impellizzeri, P., Romeo, C., and Villari, M. (2024). Towards a Precision Medicine Solution for Optimal Pediatric Laparoscopy: An Exploratory Data Analysis for Features Selections. Biomed. Signal Process. Control., 88.10.1016/j.bspc.2023.105321 ↗
32. Exploratory Data Analysis and Deception Detection in News Articles on Social Media Using Machine Learning Classifiers10.1016/j.asej.2023.102166 ↗
33. Analysis of Criminal Spatial Events in India Using Exploratory Data Analysis and Regression10.1016/j.compeleceng.2023.108761 ↗
34. Heart Disease Prediction Using Exploratory Data Analysis10.1016/j.procs.2020.06.017 ↗
35. An Exploratory Data Analysis Approach for Analyzing Financial Accounting Data Using Machine Learning10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100212 ↗
36. Doran, D., Schulz, S., and Besold, T.R. (2017). What Does Explainable AI Really Mean? A New Conceptualization of Perspectives. arXiv.
37. Futia, G., and Vetrò, A. (2020). On the Integration of Knowledge Graphs into Deep Learning Models for a More Comprehensible AI—Three Challenges for Future Research. Information, 11.10.3390/info11020122 ↗
38. Lundberg, S., and Lee, S.-I. (2017). A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. arXiv.
39. Explaining Prediction Models and Individual Predictions with Feature Contributions10.1007/s10115-013-0679-x ↗
40. Predicting Algal Biochar Yield Using EXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGB) Algorithm of Machine Learning Methods10.1016/j.algal.2020.102006 ↗
41. Prasertpong, P., Onsree, T., Khuenkaeo, N., Tippayawong, N., and Lauterbach, J. (2023). Exposing and Understanding Synergistic Effects in Co-Pyrolysis of Biomass and Plastic Waste via Machine Learning. Bioresour. Technol., 369.10.1016/j.biortech.2022.128419 ↗
42. Prediction of Lateral Spreading Displacement Using Conditional Generative Adversarial Network (CGAN)10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107214 ↗
43. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis of RC Members Based on Machine-Learning-Based SHapley Additive ExPlanations (SHAP) Approach10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110927 ↗
44. Explainable Machine Learning on New Zealand Strong Motion for PGV and PGA10.1016/j.istruc.2021.10.085 ↗
45. (2023, December 18). Nankai Trough Megathrust Earthquake Model Study Group. Available online: https://www.bousai.go.jp/jishin/nankai/model/.
46. (2023, December 20). Tables Explaining the JMA Seismic Intensity Scale. Available online: https://www.data.jma.go.jp/eqev/data/kyoshin/kaisetsu/calc_sindo.html.
47. (2023, December 18). Digital National land Information Download Sites. Available online: http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj/.
48. Nationwide 7.5-Arc-Second Japan Engineering Geomorphological Classification Map and Vs30 Zoning10.20965/jdr.2013.p0904 ↗
49. HAND, a New Terrain Descriptor Using SRTM-DEM: Mapping Terra-Firme Rainforest Environments in Amazonia10.1016/j.rse.2008.03.018 ↗
50. High-Resolution Flow Direction Map of Japan10.2208/journalofjsce.8.1_234 ↗
51. Predicting and Analyzing the Fill Factor of Non-Fullerene Organic Solar Cells Based on Material Properties and Interpretable Machine-Learning Strategies10.1016/j.solener.2023.112191 ↗
52. Recursive random forests enable better predictive performance and model interpretation than variable selection using LASSO10.1021/ci500715e ↗
53. Prediction of Oxygen Evolution Activity of NiCoFe-oxide Catalysts via Machine Learning10.1021/acsomega.2c00776 ↗
54. (2023, December 18). National Ground Information Search Sites. Available online: http://www.kunijiban.pwri.go.jp.
55. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2016, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
56. LightGBM: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree
57. Optimized XGBoost-Based Machine Learning Method for Predicting Wave Run-up on a Sloping Beach10.1016/j.mex.2023.102119 ↗
58. Probst, P., Bischl, B., and Boulesteix, A.-L. (2018). Tunability: Importance of Hyperparameters of Machine Learning Algorithms. arXiv.
59. Prediction of Undrained Shear Strength Using Extreme Gradient Boosting and Random Forest Based on Bayesian Optimization10.1016/j.gsf.2020.03.007 ↗
60. Akiba, T., Sano, S., Yanase, T., Ohta, T., and Koyama, M. (2019). Optuna: A Next-Generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework. arXiv.10.1145/3292500.3330701 ↗
61. Bischl, B., Richter, J., Bossek, J., Horn, D., Thomas, J., and Lang, M. (2017). mlrMBO: Modular framework for model-based optimization of expensive black-box functions. arXiv.
62. Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms
63. Sequential Model-Based Optimization for General Algorithm Configuration10.1007/978-3-642-25566-3_40 ↗
64. Nguyen, T., Tran, N., Nguyen, B.M., and Nguyen, G. (2018, January 20–22). A Resource Usage Prediction System Using Functional-Link and Genetic Algorithm Neural Network for Multivariate Cloud Metrics. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 11th Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA), Paris, France.10.1109/SOCA.2018.00014 ↗
65. Another Look at Forecast Accuracy Metrics for Intermittent Demand
66. Jierula, A., Wang, S., OH, T.M., and Wang, P. (2021). Study on accuracy metrics for evaluating the predictions of damage locations in deep piles using Artificial Neural Networks with Acoustic Emission data. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11052314 ↗
67. Pragmatic View of Accuracy Measurement in Forecasting10.1016/0305-0483(86)90013-7 ↗
68. Measuring Forecast Accuracy: Some Practical Suggestions
69. Focus Forecasting in Supply Chain: The Case Study of Fast Moving Consumer Goods Company in Serbia10.5937/sjm10-7075 ↗
70. Root-mean-square error (RMSE) or Mean Absolute Error (MAE): When to Use Them or Not10.5194/gmd-15-5481-2022 ↗
71. Lundberg, S.M., Erion, G.G., and Lee, S.-I. (2018). Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensembles. arXiv.
72. Axiomatic characterization of probabilistic and cardinal–probabilistic interaction indices10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.002 ↗