4.6 Article

A hybrid approach for evaluating CPT-based seismic soil liquefaction potential using Bayesian belief networks

期刊

JOURNAL OF CENTRAL SOUTH UNIVERSITY
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 500-516

出版社

JOURNAL OF CENTRAL SOUTH UNIV
DOI: 10.1007/s11771-020-4312-3

关键词

Bayesian belief network; cone penetration test; seismic soil liquefaction; interpretive structural modeling; structural learning

资金

  1. National Key Research & Development Plan of China [2016YFE0200100, 2018YFC1505300-5.3]
  2. Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China [51639002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Discernment of seismic soil liquefaction is a complex and non-linear procedure that is affected by diversified factors of uncertainties and complexity. The Bayesian belief network (BBN) is an effective tool to present a suitable framework to handle insights into such uncertainties and cause-effect relationships. The intention of this study is to use a hybrid approach methodology for the development of BBN model based on cone penetration test (CPT) case history records to evaluate seismic soil liquefaction potential. In this hybrid approach, naive model is developed initially only by an interpretive structural modeling (ISM) technique using domain knowledge (DK). Subsequently, some useful information about the naive model are embedded as DK in the K2 algorithm to develop a BBN-K2 and DK model. The results of the BBN models are compared and validated with the available artificial neural network (ANN) and C4.5 decision tree (DT) models and found that the BBN model developed by hybrid approach showed compatible and promising results for liquefaction potential assessment. The BBN model developed by hybrid approach provides a viable tool for geotechnical engineers to assess sites conditions susceptible to seismic soil liquefaction. This study also presents sensitivity analysis of the BBN model based on hybrid approach and the most probable explanation of liquefied sites, owing to know the most likely scenario of the liquefaction phenomenon.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据