The use of a relevance vector machine in predicting liquefaction potential

Indian Geotechnical Journal

Volumn 44, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 458-467

  Samui, Pijush ^a   Karthikeyan, J ^a  

^a VIT UNIVERSITY   (India)

Author keywords

Mathematical modeling; Risk and probability analysis; Seismic engineering

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; EARTHQUAKES; FORECASTING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOILS;

BAYESIAN FORMULATION; CONE PENETRATION TESTS; HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION; LIQUEFACTION POTENTIALS; LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY; RELEVANCE VECTOR MACHINE; RISK AND PROBABILITY ANALYSIS; SPARSE REPRESENTATION;

SOIL LIQUEFACTION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CHI-CHI EARTHQUAKE 1999; CIVIL ENGINEERING; CONE PENETRATION TEST; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; LIQUEFACTION; MODELING; PROBABILITY; SOIL MECHANICS;

CHICHI; TAIWAN;

EID: 84921423491     PISSN: 09719555     EISSN: 22773347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40098-013-0094-y     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph, Oakland.
2. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1967) Analysis of soil liquefaction Niigata earthquake. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 93(3): 83-108.
3. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 97(9): 1249-1273.
4. Seed HB, Idriss IM, Arango I (1983) Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 109(3): 458-482.
5. Skempton AW (1986) Standard penetration test procedures and the effects in sands of overburden pressure, relative density, particle size, aging and overconsolidation. Géotechnique 36(3): 425-447.
6. Juang CH, Haiming Y, Lee DH, Ku CS (2002) Assessing CPTbased methods for liquefaction with emphasis on the cases from the Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22: 241-258.
7. Robertson PK, Campanella RG (1985) Liquefaction potential of sands using the cone penetration test. J Geotech Div ASCE 111(3): 384-407.
8. Robertson PK, Wride CE (1998) Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test. Can Geotech J 35(3): 442-459.
9. Olsen RS (1997) Cyclic liquefaction based on the cone penetrometer test. In: Youd TL, Idriss IM (eds) Proceedings of NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Tech. Rep. NCEER-97-0022, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, pp 225-276.
10. Seed HB, De Alba P (1986) Use of SPT and CPT tests for evaluating the liquefaction resistance of sands, use of in situ tests in geotechnical engineering. Geotechnical Special Publication ASCE 6, Blacksburg.
11. Stark TD, Olson SM (1995) Liquefaction resistance using CPT and field case histories. J Geotech Eng ASCE 121(12): 856-869.
12. Christian JT, Swiger WF (1975) Statistics of liquefaction and SPT results. J Geotech Eng 101(11): 1135-1150.
13. Haldar WH, Tang (1979) Probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction potential. J Geotech Eng 104(2): 145-162.
14. Liao SSC, Veneziano D, Whitman RV (1988) Regression models for evaluating liquefaction probability. J Geotech Eng 114(4): 389-411.
15. Goh ATC (1994) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural networks. J Geotech Eng 120(9): 1467-1480.
16. Goh ATC (1996) Neural-network modeling of CPT seismic liquefaction data. J Geotech Eng 122(1): 70-73.
17. Goh ATC (2002) Probabilistic neural network for evaluating seismic liquefaction potential. Can Geotech J 39: 219-232.
18. Juang CH, Chen CJ, Tien (1999) Appraising cone penetration test based liquefaction resistance evaluation methods: artificial neural network approach. Can Geotech J 36: 443-454.
19. Saka H, Ural DN (2002) Liquefaction assessment by artificial neural networks. Electron J Geotech Eng 7: 2000-2022.
20. Kecman V (2001) Learning and soft computing: support vector machines, neural networks, and fuzzy logic models. The MIT press, Cambridge.
21. Park D, Rilett LR (1999) Forecasting freeway link ravel times with a multi-layer feed forward neural network. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 14: 358-367.
22. Pal M (2006) Support vector machines-based modelling of seismic liquefaction potential. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 30(10): 983-996.
23. Goh ATC, Goh SH (2007) Support vector machines: their use in geotechnical engineering as illustrated using seismic liquefaction data. Comput Geotech 34(5): 410-421.
24. Xue X, Yang X (2013) Application of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for prediction of soil liquefaction. Nat Hazards 67: 901-917.
25. Tipping ME (2001) Sparse Bayesian learning and the relevance vector machine. J Mach Learn 1: 211-244.
26. Samui P (2008) Support vector machine applied to settlement of shallow foundations on cohesionless soils. Comput Geotech 35(3): 419-427.
27. Samui P (2007) Seismic liquefaction potential assessment by using relevance vector machine. J Earthq Eng Eng Vib 6(4): 331-336.
28. Samui P, Lansivaara T, Kim D (2011) Utilization relevance vector machine for slope reliability analysis. Appl Soft Comput 11(5): 4036-4040.
29. Zhao H, Yin S, Ru Z (2012) Relevance vector machine applied to slope stability analysis. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 36(5): 643-652.
30. Ku CS, Lee DH, Wu JH (2004) Evaluation of soil liquefaction in the Chi-Chi Taiwan earthquake using CPT. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24: 659-673.
31. Tipping ME (2000) The relevance vector machine. Adv Neural Inform Process Syst 12: 625-658.
32. Juang C, Yuan H, Lee D, Lin P (2003) Simplified cone penetration test-based method for evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129(1): 66-80.