Evaluation of liquefaction potential based on CPT data using random forest

Natural Hazards

Volumn 79, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 1079-1089

  Kohestani, V R ^a   Hassanlourad, M ^a   Ardakani, A ^a  

^a IMAM KHOMEINI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

Artificial intelligence; Cone penetration test; Liquefaction; Random forest (RF)

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CIVIL ENGINEERING; CONE PENETRATION TEST; LIQUEFACTION; PREDICTION; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SOIL MECHANICS; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE;

EID: 84943796288     PISSN: 0921030X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-015-1893-5     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 24:123–140. doi:10.1007/BF00058655
2. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32. doi:10.1023/A:1010933404324
3. Calderoni L, Ferrara M, Franco A, Maio D (2015) Indoor localization in a hospital environment using random forest classifiers. Expert Syst Appl 42:125–134
4. Dietterich TG (2000) An experimental comparison of three methods for constructing ensembles of decision trees: bagging, boosting, and randomization. Mach Learn 40:139–157. doi:10.1023/A:1007607513941
5. Gandomi AH, Fridline MM, Roke DA (2013) Decision tree approach for soil liquefaction assessment. Sci World J. doi:10.1155/2013/346285
6. Goh AT (1996) Neural-network modeling of CPT seismic liquefaction data. J Geotech Eng 122:70–73. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:1(70)
7. Goh AT, Goh S (2007) Support vector machines: their use in geotechnical engineering as illustrated using seismic liquefaction data. Comput Geotech 34:410–421. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2007.06.001
8. Ham J, Chen Y, Crawford MM, Ghosh J (2005) Investigation of the random forest framework for classification of hyperspectral data. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 43:492–501. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2004.842481
9. Ho TK (1998) The random subspace method for constructing decision forests. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 20:832–844. doi:10.1109/34.709601
10. Javadi AA, Ahangar-Asr A, Johari A, Faramarzi A, Toll D (2012) Modelling stress–strain and volume change behaviour of unsaturated soils using an evolutionary based data mining technique, an incremental approach. Eng Appl Artif Intell 25:926–933
11. Joelsson SR, Benediktsson JA, Sveinsson JR (2006) Feature selection for morphological feature extraction using random forests. In: IEEE, proceedings of the 7th Nordic, signal processing symposium, 2006. NORSIG 2006, pp 10–13
12. Juang CH, Yuan H, Lee D-H, Lin P-S (2003) Simplified cone penetration test-based method for evaluating liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129:66–80. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:1(66)
13. Kohestani VR, Hassanlourad M (2015) Modeling the mechanical behavior of carbonate sands using artificial neural networks and support vector machines. Int J Geomech. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000509
14. Liao SS, Veneziano D, Whitman RV (1988) Regression models for evaluating liquefaction probability. J Geotech Eng 114:389–411. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:4(389)
15. Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by random forest. R News 2:18–22
16. Livingston G, Piantedosi M, Kurup P, Sitharam T (2008) Using decision-tree learning to assess liquefaction potential from CPT and Vs. In: Proceedings of the 4th geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics congress, pp 1–10
17. Mendez G, Lohr S (2011) Estimating residual variance in random forest regression. Comput Stat Data Anal 55:2937–2950
18. Oommen T, Baise LG, Vogel R (2010) Validation and application of empirical liquefaction models. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136:1618–1633
19. Pal M (2006) Support vector machines-based modelling of seismic liquefaction potential. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 30:983–996. doi:10.1002/nag.509
20. Samui P (2007) Seismic liquefaction potential assessment by using relevance vector machine. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 6:331–336. doi:10.1007/s11803-007-0766-7
21. Samui P, Karthikeyan J (2014) The use of a relevance vector machine in predicting liquefaction potential. Indian Geotech J 44:458–467. doi:10.1007/s40098-013-0094-y
22. Samui P, Sitharam T (2011) Machine learning modelling for predicting soil liquefaction susceptibility. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:1–9. doi:10.5194/nhess-11-1-2011
23. Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential. J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249–1273
24. Verikas A, Gelzinis A, Bacauskiene M (2011) Mining data with random forests: a survey and results of new tests. Pattern Recogn 44:330–349. doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2010.08.011
25. Vincenzi S, Zucchetta M, Franzoi P, Pellizzato M, Pranovi F, De Leo GA, Torricelli P (2011) Application of a random forest algorithm to predict spatial distribution of the potential yield of Ruditapes philippinarum in the Venice lagoon, Italy. Ecol Model 222:1471–1478. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.02.007
26. Vitorino D, Coelho S, Santos P, Sheets S, Jurkovac B, Amado C (2014) A random forest algorithm applied to condition-based wastewater deterioration modeling and forecasting. Procedia Eng 89:401–410
27. Watts JD, Lawrence RL, Miller PR, Montagne C (2009) Monitoring of cropland practices for carbon sequestration purposes in north central Montana by Landsat remote sensing. Remote Sens Environ 113:1843–1852. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2009.04.015
28. Witten IH, Frank E (2005) Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos
29. Xue X, Yang X (2013) Application of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for prediction of soil liquefaction. Nat Hazards 67:901–917
30. Youd T et al (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:817–833. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:10(817)