Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41939-023-00148-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Suitability assessment of the best liquefaction analysis procedure

based on SPT data
Divesh Ranjan Kumar1 · Pijush Samui1 · Avijit Burman1

Received: 4 January 2023 / Accepted: 14 February 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

Abstract
At present, there exist many methods for liquefaction analysis of a soil deposit. Some of them are suitable for only coarse-
grained soils, while a few others can also evaluate the liquefaction potential of both fine- and coarse-grained soils. It is important
to identify the most suitable method for liquefaction analysis. The current study looks at measuring soil’s liquefaction potential
using various methods such as Seed (ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249–1273, 1971), Toprak et al. (CPT-and SPT-based
probabilistic assessment of liquefaction potential. In: 7th US–Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline
Facilities and Countermeasures against Liquefaction, Seattle. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
Buffalo, NY, p 18,1999), and Idriss and Boulanger (Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:115–130, 2006). The main objective of this
study is to identify the most suitable method for liquefaction analysis based on factor of safety and Performance Fitness
Error Metrics (PFEMs), Rank analysis, Gini index, etc. The contribution of various independent variables, such as corrected
SPT N values, fine content, maximum horizontal ground acceleration, total vertical stress, total effective stress, magnitude
moment, and depth below ground level towards the evaluated liquefaction potential and probability of liquefaction has been
assessed through the use of Gini Index (GI). The computed probability of liquefaction (PL ) values are compared with the
given liquefaction status of case history data using Performance Fitness Error Metrices. Performance Fitness Error Metrics
for the Idriss and Boulanger (2006) method are found to be higher than those for Toprak et al. (1999) and Seed and Idriss
(ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249–1273) methods. Based on these PFEMs, it is found that the Idriss and Boulanger
(2006) methods of liquefaction analysis at any site are more accurate than the other two methods. It is observed that Idriss
and Boulanger (2006) method gives the highest rate of successful prediction percentage of correctly predicted liquefied and
non-liquefied cases.

Keywords Liquefaction analysis · SPT · Cyclic resistance ratio · Cyclic stress ratio

1 Introduction lose all of it, rendering it incapable of supporting structures

above it. The word "liquefaction" is employed because soil
Liquefaction is one of the most hazardous outcomes that take silt will appear to flow like fluid as a result of this process.
place in saturated fine sand deposits due to earthquakes or As soil pore water pressure gradually rises, the cumulative
any external vibration. Soil collapses as a result of liquefac- effective stress decreases. When the total overburden pres-
tion during an earthquake. As a result of liquefaction, soil sure equals the pore pressure at a certain point, soil particles
loses a significant amount of its shear strength and can even are suspended in water, and the effective stress is decreased to
a minimum. Researchers became interested in the devastat-
B Divesh Ranjan Kumar ing occurrence of liquefaction during the Niigata earthquake
ranjandivesh453@gmail.com (1964), which caused numerous structures to tilt. Turkey suf-
Pijush Samui fered miserably in 1999, when significant portions of the city
pijush@nitp.ac.in were destroyed due to widespread liquefaction, resulting in
Avijit Burman the deaths of a large number of people. Following the seismic
avijit@nitp.ac.in incidents in Alaska (1964) and Nîgata in Japan (1964), Seed
and Idriss (1971) created a simplified approach for evaluating
1 Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
liquefaction probability based on in-situ tests. They defined a
Technology, Patna, India

123

term called factor of safety (F S ) computed as the ratio of the
cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR),
and this metric is used all over the world to determine whether
or not any soil mass will liquefy at a certain depth below the
ground. CSR represents the induced stress in the soil mass
caused by the process of shaking or vibration, and CRR is a
measure of the resistance offered by the soil mass against col-
lapse. In the years that followed, this process was altered and
enhanced, in particular by Seed (1979) (1979), Seed (1982),
Seed et al. (1985), and Youd and Idriss (1997a, 2001). This
approach’s foundation is the simplification of the hypothesis,
which is done by treating the soil column as a rigid body under
the assumption that the actual peak shear stress produced at a
depth is always smaller than what is predicted by the method
of Seed and Idriss (1971). Few researchers studied differ-
ent experimental techniques to reduce the potential of any
soil’s chances of liquefaction by deep soil mixing method
(Rahmani et al. 2022). In the past few decades, many geotech-
nical researchers have successfully predicted the probability
of liquefaction using reliability analysis, considering model
and parameter uncertainties (Haldar and Tang 1979; Juang
et al. 2006). Liao et al. (1988) did a logistic regression analy-
sis on the available case histories to interpret the probability
of liquefaction (PL ). In this analysis, to predict the nominal
probability, a simple regression equation has been proposed,
which reflects the uncertainties in the proposed model.
Juang et al. (1999) established a reliability method based
on a Bayesian mapping function to predict the probability of
liquefaction (PL ). Their proposed method was extended later
by Juang et al. (2002) to develop a mapping function between
PL and FS . This mapping function was developed using the
procedure followed by Youd and Idriss (2001). The Bayesian
network (BN) method has been identified as an effective tool
to assist engineers in assessing the probability of earthquake-
induced liquefaction. Hu (2021) proposed a new approach
for predicting the liquefaction of gravelly soil using two
Bayesian network models. In another work, Hu et al. (2022)
proposed a hybrid BN model to predict earthquake-induced
liquefaction based on shear wave velocity (Vs ) (Hu and Liu
2019; Hu 2021; Hu et al. 2022; Pirhadi et al. 2023). Cetin et al.
(2004) developed a new set of probabilistic and determinis-
tic relationships for assessment of likelihood of initiation of
liquefaction using the maximum likelihood function within
a Bayesian framework based on an updated database of
case histories. Later, Idriss and Boulanger (2010), Boulanger
and Idriss (2014) developed a deterministic and probabilis-
tic method based on SPT data, which is an advancement of
stress based method proposed by Seed and Idriss (1971). All
of the conventional methods and empirical relationships that
have been offered to predict the liquefaction potential have
numerous assumptions and approximations. The liquefaction
assessment problems are fundamentally highly nonlinear. To
get around nonlinearity and other difficulties in predicting
123
Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design
the likelihood of liquefaction, some geotechnical researchers
created machine learning techniques. Goh (1994) proposed a
neural network based model to forecast and evaluate the like-
lihood of liquefaction of saturated, cohesionless soil. Later,
other researchers in geotechnical fields created a number
of machine learning methods, including neural networks,
support vector machine (SVM), genetic programming (GP),
least square support vector machine (LSSVM) and stochastic
gradient boosting (SGB) to perform the liquefaction analysis
(Pal 2006; Samui and Karthikeyan 2013; Hanna et al. 2007a;
Samui et al. 2011; Samui and Hariharan 2015; Xue and Liu
2017). Zhang et al. (2015) proposed a non-parametric, mul-
tivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) algorithm to
access the liquefaction potential of sands and sandy soils
using the energy concept. Zhang et al. (2021) proposed the
extreme learning machine (ELM) to assess the liquefaction
potential of soil deposits using CPT data. The most popu-
lar ML method in this field, the ANN model, has been used
successfully to forecast liquefaction in the past (Samui and
Sitharam 2011; Ramakrishnan et al. 2008). Some of the major
drawbacks of ANN models include poor generalization capa-
bility, a slow rate of convergence, and model overfitting,
which can affect prediction of results. The ML-based liq-
uefaction evaluation models that are currently available are
inherently opaque since they prioritize accuracy over explain-
ability. These models perform differently when compared
to databases from other parts of the world because the cur-
rently existing liquefaction databases are modest in size and
contain proportionally more liquefaction events than non-
liquefaction events. Later on, other researchers developed
some new emerging machine learning techniques such as
random forest (RF), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost),
and gradient boosting machine (GBM) (Kumar et al. 2022a;
Kohestani et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2021; Zou et al. 2022). The
existing ML-based models are preferable substitutes when
dealing with large amounts of data and improving the accu-
racy of the prediction. Each machine learning technique has
its own set of limitations due to parameters and model uncer-
tainty (Momeni et al. 2015).
After extensive literature studies on various available
methods of liquefaction potential evaluation, authors were
unable to find any which discusses the suitability of a partic-
ular method for liquefaction potential evaluation of any soil
deposit. It may be sometimes confusing to identify the best
method for achieving the desired response of the soil deposit
concerning the liquefaction phenomenon. The present work
is dedicated towards finding out the suitability of a partic-
ular method for studying the events of liquefaction. The
primary goals of this work are to calculate the probability
of liquefaction (PL ) based on the SPT dataset and the soil
liquefaction safety factor utilizing a variety of techniques,
including the Idriss and Boulanger (2006), Seed and Idriss
(1971), and Toprak et al. (1999) methods. We will undertake
Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design

Table 1 Statistical descriptive of 

the independent variables Statistics Depth (m) N1, 60 FC (%) σv (kPa) σv (kPa) amax (g) Mw

Minimum 0.800 1.000 0.000 12.100 7.500 0.050 5.900

Q25% 3.500 7.000 15.000 62.925 40.000 0.200 7.400
Median 5.600 11.000 58.500 101.000 61.250 0.400 7.400
Q75% 8.800 18.000 94.000 164.075 96.675 0.400 7.600
Maximum 19.800 50.400 100.000 408.900 233.700 0.700 8.300
Mean 6.765 13.320 54.173 126.547 74.437 0.363 7.398
Std. Dev 4.417 9.051 37.584 87.869 47.296 0.150 0.310
Skewness 1.037 1.192 – 0.121 1.121 1.068 0.392 – 1.912
Kurtosis 0.403 1.103 – 1.054 0.608 0.511 −0.208 5.129

this evaluation using streamlined deterministic and proba-

bilistic methods. To calculate the PL value, the factor of
safety against liquefaction for a different layer of soil is com-
puted using the available SPT pos-liquefaction data. Finally,
a comparative analysis has been performed to evaluate which
method has highest prediction accuracy of probability of liq-
uefaction (PL ). Each section of the paper follows the structure
described below. Section 2 presents the details of the methods
used to calculate the probability of liquefaction. Liquefac-
tion analysis is performed using 834 historic data locations
presented in Sect. 2. Then three methods including, Idriss
and Boulanger (2006), Seed and Idriss (1971), and Toprak
et al. (1999) methods result are compared, and we introduced
fifteen PFEMs, score analysis, Gini index, and criteria for liq-
uefaction and non-liquefaction to evaluate the performance
of utilized methods for soil liquefaction in Sect. 3. The con-
clusions are presented in the final section.
Fig. 1 Distribution of normalized values of all independent variables
implemented to perform the study

2 Data collection and statistical analysis

The data used in this study were collected from the database
of SPT-based liquefaction case histories of past earthquakes
from various literature, such as Tiwan (1999), Niigata (1964),
Kocaeli (1999) earthquake, etc. Researchers have compiled a
thorough list of these case histories (Cetin et al. 2004) (Hanna
et al. 2007b). A total of 834 cases were included in this inves-
tigation, of which 397 cases were found to have liquefied and
437 cases to have non-liquefied. Gravels to silt mixtures and
pure sand are all present in the dataset. Independent variables
considered during this study are adjusted SPT blow count
N1, 60 , total stress σvo , depth (z), Fine content (FC), effective

stress σvo , maximum horizontal ground acceleration amax ,
magnitude moment (Mw ). Table 1 shows the various statisti-
cal parameters of all independent variables. The terms Q25%
and Q75% represent the corresponding quartile values of the
related variable. The statistical characteristics of each inde-
pendent variables demonstrate the diversity of datasets at a
suitable level.
Figure 1 represents the normalized values of probability
distribution of all datasets. As per Fig. 1 and results presented
in Table 1, the N1, 60 and Mw have the highest value of Skew-
ness (1.192 and − 1.912, respectively) and Kurtosis (1.103
and 5.129 respectively) among all datasets and consequently
both of them deviate more from the normal distribution than
the other variables.
3 Methodology
3.1 Deterministic approaches
When evaluating liquefaction using various available tech-
niques, the Seed and Idriss (1971) technique has typically
been demonstrated to be a good fit and a workable choice.
However, the method was originally developed for purely
cohesionless soils. Idriss and Boulanger (Hanna et al. 2007b;
Youd and Idriss 1997b) modified the original Seed and Idriss

123
 Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design

strategy by incorporating the effects of fine content (FC%)
to represent the liquefaction response of more fine-grained
soils, and this improvement has been successfully imple-
mented to solve the liquefaction problems all over the world
for both sands and fine-grained soils alike. Toprak et al.
(1999) used Magnitude Scaling Factor (MSF) previously
suggested by Youd and Idriss (2001) to suggest an equa-
tion for calculating the probability of liquefaction (PL ). MSF
is a parameter relating CSR with the earthquake magnitude
(M w ). Furthermore, the expression of stress reduction factor
(r d ) was also modified by Idriss and Boulanger (2006). In
this paper, the probability of liquefaction has been evaluated
using these three different methodologies to identify the best
available method for studying liquefaction problems.
In Eq. (3), cyclic stress ratio and (N1 )60CS , the corrected
equivalent clean-sand blow count must be calculated using
the method proposed by Youd and Idriss (2001).
When an earthquake of any magnitude occurs, to adjust
the induced CSR the factor is calculated which is known as,
magnitude scaling factor (MSF). The mathematical equation
used to calculate the MSF is proposed by Youd and Idriss
(2001)
102.24
MSF  2.56
, (4)
MW
where MW represent the moment magnitude of earthquake
recorded on Richter scale.

3.2 Seed and Idriss (1971) method

3.4 Idriss and Boulanger (2006) method
Seed and Idriss (1971) proposed a stress-based equation to
Idriss and Boulanger (2006) proposed a stress-based sim-
estimate the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR), which can be evalu-
plified technique to estimate the value of cyclic stress ratio
ated using the following equation.
(CSR). Mathematical equation used for the calculation of
  
σv amax CSR presented in Eq. (5).
CSR  0.65  rd . (1)
σv g   
σv amax
CSR  0.65  rd . (5)
In Eq. 1, CSR represents the Cyclic Stress Ratio, σv is the σv g

vertical total stress, σv is the vertical effective stress,
amax is the maximum horizontal ground acceleration. To 
In Eq. (5), σv represents the vertical total stress, σv
convert the ultimate cyclic shear stress ratio to CSR, apply represents the vertical effective stress, amax represents the
the factor 0.65 and rd is the shear stress reduction factor. maximum horizontal ground acceleration and g represents
Probability of liquefaction is calculated using the logistic the acceleration due to gravity. To convert the ultimate cyclic
regression equation proposed by Juang et al. (2002). shear stress ratio to CSR, apply the factor 0.65 and rd is the
  shear stress reduction factor calculated by method proposed
PL by Idriss and Boulanger (2006). The capacity of soil to with-
Logit (PL )  ln  10.1129
1 − PL stand liquefaction, as calculated with the help of corrected
− 0.25729 (N1 )60CS + 3.4825 ln (CSR7.5 ) . (2) SPT blow N value of each soil layer in terms of cyclic resis-
tance ratio (CRR) using the following Eq. (6).
In Eq. 2, (N1 )60CS is the correction to the clean sand        
(N1 )60cs (N1 )60cs 2 (N1 )60cs 3 (N1 )60cs 4
equivalent SPT penetration resistance value, which is com- CRR  exp + − + − 2.8
14.1 126 23.6 25.4
puted using the equation proposed by Youd and Idriss
(1997b) and CSR is calculated using Eq. (1). (6)

3.3 Toprak et al. (1999) method CRR

To create SPT-based probabilistic liquefaction boundary
curves, Toprak et al. (1999) (Toprak et al. 1999) used logistic
regression analyses. Based on the updated worldwide lique-
faction database (total no of dataset  440), the probability
of liquefaction evaluated by means of the logistic regression
Eq. (5).
FS  . (7)
CSR
The probability of liquefaction (PL ) is calculated as a func-
tion of factor of safety (FS ) which is the ratio of CRR to CSR
using Eq. (7). This PL –FS mapping function is unique and
factor of safety must be calculated by the method of Idriss
and Boulanger (2006).

  1
Logit (PL )  ln
PL
 10.4459 − 0.2295 (N1 )60CS PL  . (8)
1 − PL 1 + exp[7.55(FS − 0.95)]
+ 4.0573ln (CSR/MSF) . (3)

123
Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design

Table 2 Liquefaction
classification criteria (Kumar Criteria Probability of liquefaction Liquefaction classification Non-liquefaction
et al. 2022b) classification

A PL > 0.85 High –

B PL > 0.65 Intermediate –
C PL > 0.5 Low –
D PL < 0.15 – High
E PL < 0.35 – Intermediate
F PL < 0.5 – Low

Table 3 Result of liquefied and

non-liquefied cases Criteria for PL Toprak method Idriss and Boulanger Seed and Idriss
method method

Count of Rate Count of Rate (%) Count of Rate

successful (%) successful successful (%)
prediction prediction prediction

Total 397 observed liquefied cases

A(PL > 0.85) 276 70 320 81 285 71
B(PL > 0.65) 340 86 352 89 339 85
C(PL > 0.5) 356 89 354 89 356 89
Total 437 observed non-liquefied cases
D(PL < 0.15) 95 22 133 30 93 21
E(PL < 0.35) 154 35 164 38 153 35
F(PL < 0.5) 188 43 196 45 185 42
Total 834 cases
A+D 371 45 453 54 378 44
B+E 494 59 516 62 492 58
C+F 544 65 550 66 541 64

4 Results and discussion
In this study, an effort has been made to examine the most
effective technique for predicting soil liquefaction using data
from 834 locations. A mathematical calculation is performed
on the given case history SPT-based field data for this pur-
pose. The various soil parameters considered in this study
were used to calculate the factor of safety (Fs ) and prob-
ability of liquefaction (PL ) to state whether the soil will
liquify or not. A total of 834 case histories were investigated
in which actual field observations related to the occurrence
of the liquefaction phenomenon were stated. Utilizing the
three available probabilistic methods mentioned in Sect. 3,
the probability of liquefaction (PL ) is calculated and value
of PL greater than 0.5 is defined as liquefied soil and value
of PL less than 0.5 is defined as non-liquefied soil.
4.1 Criteria for liquefied and non-liquefied cases
This section compares the success rates of the vari-
ous approaches for predicting liquefied and non-liquefied
occurrences. The SPT-based dataset of 834 cases, of which
397 cases had surface signs of liquefaction and 437 cases
did not, provided a suitable basis for assessing the efficacy
of the suggested approaches in this section. The accuracy of
the proposed methods using field data is evaluated using the
likelihood of liquefaction computed using the three recom-
mended methods. The accuracy of the proposed approaches
is evaluated in the current study using three criteria (A–C):
High PL (0.85–1.0), Intermediate PL (0.65–1.0), and Low
PL (0.65–1.0). (0.5–1.0). Similar to how Criteria (D) defined
as High PL (0.15–0), Criteria (E) defined as Intermediate PL
(0.35–0), and Criteria (F) defined as Low PL apply to non-
liquefied instances (0.5–0). In Table 2, these classification
criteria are shown.
Results are shown in Table 2, which also classifies the
liquefiable soil (i.e., Criteria A–C) and non-liquefiable (i.e.,
Criteria D–F) based on the rate of successful prediction by
each proposed approach. Table 3 findings indicate that the
Idriss and Boulanger (2006) based criteria have a better suc-
cess rate for successful prediction (A  81% and B  89%)
for the total of 397 observed liquefied cases than Toprak

123

Fig. 2 Illustration of actual and predicted cases for Toprak method
Fig. 3 Illustration of actual and predicted cases for Idriss and Boulanger
method
(1999) (A  70%andB  86%) and Seed and Idriss (1971)
(A  71%andB  85%) methods. Furthermore, compared
to Toprak (D  22%andE  35%) and Seed and Idriss (D 
21%andE  35%) approaches, Idriss and Boulanger (A 
30%andB  38%) based criterion has a greater success
rate of non-liquefiable case prediction. In overall, for all
834 cases, it can be concluded that the Idriss and Boulanger
(A+D  54%, B+E  62%andC+F  66%) based method
attained higher successful prediction rate than Toprak (A +
D  45%, B+E  59%andC+F  65%) and Seed and Idriss
(A + D  44%, B + E  58%andC + F  64%) methods.
Scatter plots are also shown for liquefied cases and non-
liquefied cases for all the proposed methods between the
parameters N1, 60 and CSR. Figures 2, 3, and 4 display the
scatter plot of total liquefied and non-liquefied cases drawn
for Toprak et al. (1999), Idriss and Boulanger (2006). and
Seed and Idriss (1971) method for actual and predicted
dataset.
123
Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design
Fig. 4 Illustration of actual and predicted cases for Seed and Idriss
method
Predicted
Actual
Liquefied (+) Liquefied (-)
Liquefied (+) TP FN
Liquefied (-) FP TN
Fig. 5 Illustration of confusion matrix (2 × 2) for classification problem
Binary classification using various Performance Fitness
and Error Metrics (PFEMs). To completely assess the effec-
tiveness of the suggested methodologies when categorizing
liquefaction concerns, different PFEMS are employed in this
part. In the binary class scenario, which includes both liq-
uefied and non-liquefied examples, there are four alternative
outcomes for a single prediction. True negative (TN) and true
positive (TP) are the proper classifications (TP). A false posi-
tive (FP) happens when the output is inaccurately expected to
be negative, and a false negative (FN) occurs when the result
is incorrectly labeled as negative. The confusion matrix (2
× 2) shown in Fig. 5 can be used to evaluate these matrixes.
PFEMs are employed to clarify how probabilistic predictions
of proposed methods relate to actual output. These mea-
surements frequently relate to the error variance between
expected and observed data. We used certain PFEMS in
this paper that can be used to assess categorization prob-
lems (Naser and Alavi 2021). The mathematical expression
of these PFEMS is listed below:
TP
TPR  , (9)
TP + FN
FN
FNR  , (10)
FN + TP
TP
PPV  , (11)
TP + FP
Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design

TN negative cases that are mistakenly classified as positive cases,

N PV  , (12)
TN + FN should be zero for perfect prediction accuracy. However, the
FPR score for the Idriss and Boulanger based criteria (0.650)
FP
FPR  , (13) is lower than the Toprak (0.666) and Seed and Idriss val-
FP + TN ues (0.670). The percentage of people who have a positive
FP test result when the actual condition is negative is known as
FDR  , (14)
FP + TP the False Discovery Rate (FDR). The FDR achieved in this
study for Idriss and Boulanger (0.445) is lower than that for
FN
FOR   1 − NPV, (15) the Toprak (0.450) and Seed and Idriss (0.451) methods, indi-
FN + TPN cating that the Idriss and Boulanger method performed better
2TP than the Toprak and Seed and Idriss methods. False Omission
F1  , (16)
2TP + FP + FN Rate (FOR) measures the percentage of people whose test
results were negative but whose true condition was positive.
TP × TN − FP × FN
MCC  √ , In comparison to Toprak (0.223) and Seed and Idriss (0.222)
(TP + FP)(TP + FN)(TN + FP)(TN + PN) approaches, the value obtained for Idriss and Boulanger
(17)
(0.219) based criteria is lower. The accuracy of the proposed
TP + TN methods is measured by the F1 score. The F1 score value pro-
Accuracy  , (18)
FN + TP + FN + TN duced for the Idriss and Boulanger (0.608) criteria is higher
than that for the Toprak (0.601) and Seed and Idriss (0.600)
TP
Sensitivity  , (19) techniques, showing that the Idriss and Boulanger criteria is
FN + TP
more accurate at predicting the likelihood of liquefaction.
TN Additionally, the performance of a binary classifier is
Specificity  , (20)
FP + TN also tested using Balanced Accuracy (BA), miss or false
negative rate (FNR), G (mean)error and the Matthews correla-
G (mean)error  1 − G mean , (21) tion coefficient (MCC). Balanced accuracy and G (mean)error
are defined in Eqs. (23) and (21) respectively. The number

G mean  (Sensitivity × Specificity), (22) of earthquakes that may have been mistakenly labeled as
not being tsunamigenic is shown by the miss rate. When
 
TP TN each class’s performance is noteworthy and expected to be
BA  0.5 × + . (23) high at the same time, Gmean is frequently utilized (Kubat
TP + FN TN + FP
and Matwin 1997; Yuan and Liu 2011). It is the geometric
Here, TP stands for correctly classified positive instances, mean of each instance of each class’s individual accuracy.
TN for correctly classified negative instances, FN for incor- To evaluate the effectiveness of the classifier model, differ-
rectly classified positive instances, and FP for incorrectly ent research have also used Gmean in terms of error rate in
classified negative instances, respectively. The binary classi- addition to F1 score. when the proportion of positive and
fication forecasts and observations have been compared using negative data differs noticeably, Matthews (1975) introduced
PFEMS data shown in Table 4. The percentage of true posi- the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), which is more
tives that are accurately classified as positives is measured by useful in these situations. The MCC value should be in the
the true positive rate (TPR). Indeterminate outcomes are not range of − 1.0 and + 1.0. On the other hand, a bias in favor
taken into account in this exercise. We found that the TPR val- of the higher side value denotes a more precise prediction. In
ues for Idriss and Boulanger based criteria (0.892) is higher comparison to Toprak and Seed and Idriss based criteria, the
than that for Toprak (0.882) and Seed and Idriss (0.887) tech- MCC value from Idriss and Boulanger (0.285) based criteria
niques. Positive predictive value measures the percentages of demonstrates that the Idriss and Boulanger based criterion
positive observations that result in real positive values (PPV), for liquefaction probability prediction performs better.
and the PPV value produced for Idriss and Boulanger (0.555)
based criteria are again shown to be higher than Toprak 4.2 Score analysis
(0.550) and Seed and Idriss (0.549). The best and worst values
for the Negative Predictive Value (NPV) are one and zero, Score analysis also performed to compare the effectiveness
respectively. It calculates the proportion of false positives of the proposed methods. The score is calculated for each
among observations that appear to be negative. The Idriss and method corresponding to their performance fitness and error
Boulanger based criteria’s NPV value (0.781) is higher than matrices. The range of score value is defined on the basis
the Toprak and Seed and Idriss values (0.777 and 0.778). The of total number of methods we have used in this study i.e.,
False Positive Rate (FPR), which counts the percentage of 1–3 (3  total number of methods used). In this study score

123
 Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design

Table 4 Observed and ideal

values of PFEMs Matrices Methods

Toprak Idriss and Boulanger Seed and Idriss Ideal value

TPR 0.882 0.892 0.887 1.0

FNR 0.105793 0.108312 0.103275 0.0
PPV 0.550 0.555 0.549 1.0
NPV 0.777 0.781 0.778 1.0
FPR 0.666 0.650 0.670 0.0
FDR 0.450 0.445 0.451 0.0
FOR 0.223 0.219 0.222 0.0
F 1 score 0.601 0.608 0.600 1.0
MCC 0.273 0.285 0.272 − 1.0 to + 1.0
Accuracy 0.601 0.608 0.600 1.0
Sensitivity 0.894 0.892 0.897 1.0
Specificity 0.334 0.350 0.330 –
G(mean) error 0.453 0.441 0.456 0.0
BA 0.614151 0.620901 0.613122 1.0

Table 5 Score analysis result rank 1, followed by the Toprak et al. (1999) and Seed and
Idriss (1971) methods.
Methods Toprak et al. Idriss and Seed and
(1999) Boulanger Idriss (1971)
(2006) 4.3 Assessment of relative contribution of different
parameters in calculation of PL using Gini Index
TPR 1 3 2 (GI)
FNR 2 1 3
PPV 2 3 1 The relative significance of independent variables for pre-
NPV 1 3 2 dicting probability of liquefaction of soil deposit is analyzed
FPR 2 3 1 using the Gini index (GI). The Gini index of each indepen-
FDR 2 3 1 dent variables is computed, and the relative importance has
FOR 1 3 2
been judged. A higher value of the Gini index means more
significance of that individual independent variables for the
F 1 score 2 3 1
prediction of probability of liquefaction of soil deposit. The
MCC 2 3 1
mathematical equation used for the calculation of Gini index
Accuracy 2 3 1
is given as follows:
Sensitivity 2 1 3
 n 
Specificity 2 3 1  n 
 
GI   Cum X i−1 Cum PLi − Cum X i Cum PLi−1 ,
G(mean) error 2 3 1  
i2 i2
BA 2 3 1
(24)
Total Score 25 38 21
Rank 2 1 3 where CumX represents the cumulative value of independent
variables, CumPL represent the cumulative value of proba-
bility of liquefaction for n numbers of observed data.
value is defined on the basis of obtained value of PFEMs. The In Fig. 6, the relative importance of each independent vari-
methods having maximum value for any particular PFEMs ables has been shown for all three proposed methods. The
having ideal value 1.0 is awarded as maximum score (i.e., Gini index value for all three methods for different input

3) and methods having maximum value for any particular variables such as z,σvo ,σvo ,N1, 60 ,FC,amax , and Mw are also
PFEMs having ideal value 0.0 is awarded as minimum score presented in Table 6. The result presented in Table 6 con-
(i.e., 0). In this analysis Idriss and Boulanger (2006) method cludes that the effect of fine content is very less for Seed and
has assigned as the higher score value (i.e.,38) presented in Idriss (1971) methods followed by Toprak et al. (1999) and
Table 5, so that Idriss and Boulanger (2006) has assigned as Idriss and Boulanger (2006) method. The Gini index value

123
Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design

TPR value of 0.892 for the Idriss and Boulanger-based liq-

uefaction strategy indicates that 89.2% of the rate is indeed
positive. TPR values for the other two techniques, Toprak and
Seed and idriss, however, are 0.882 and 0.887, respectively.
The research also reveals that other performance fitness and
error matrices data fall within acceptable bounds. Score anal-
ysis also establishes that Idriss and Boulanger (2006) method
is superior.
The identification of Idriss and Boulanger (2006) method
as the best method for liquefaction analysis has been done on
the 834 SPT based datasets of liquefaction events. It is nec-
essary to check the procedure of assessing the suitability of a
Fig. 6 Relative importance of independent variables
particular method for liquefaction study with a larger dataset.
It should be noticed that the present paper discusses a com-
prehensive technique for finding out the relative suitability
Table 6 Gini index value for all proposed methods
of a particular method with other methods while studying
Toprak et al. Idriss and Seed and any physical phenomenon. Therefore, this technique can be
(1999) Boulanger Idriss (1971) further applied for comparing any other methods for grading
(2006)
purpose.
Z (m) 241.5266 320.4422 298.1037
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
(N1 )60 882.7739 974.8947 885.8942 tary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s41939-023-00148-x.
FC 80.37069 500.9136 3.495187
Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to colleague at National
σvo (kPa) 4158.41 5644.592 5222.319

Institute of Technology Patna who effectively contributed to this study.
σvo (kPa) 3722.714 4734.248 4415.888
amax (g) 10.60928 14.13179 10.97233 Author contributions This research is being done with the effort of three
authors. First author had carried out the study and wrote the manuscript
Mw 196.2717 261.4381 202.9882 under the guidance of third author. Second author review and editing
the paper. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding The author confirms that he is not currently in receipt of any

obtained for all independent variables in the case of Seed
and Idriss (1971) method is found to be less as compared to
Toprak et al. (1999) and Idriss and Boulanger (2006) method.
research funding relating to the research presented in this manuscript.
Availability of data and materials The datasets used and analyzed dur-
ing the current study will be made available from the corresponding
author on reasonable request.

5 Conclusions Declarations

In this study, three different approaches namely, Idriss
and Boulanger (2006), Toprak et al. (1999) and Seed and
Idriss (1971) are used to perform the liquefaction analysis.
SPT based case histories data having various soil parame-
ters was taken from the records of several past earthquakes
as mentioned above to calculation of probability of lique-
faction. In this paper, the six factors namely, depth, SPT
blow count, fine content, total stress, effective stress, maxi-
mum horizontal ground acceleration, and moment magnitude
are considered for evaluation of seismic liquefaction. The
most effective technique for calculating the probability of
soil liquefaction has been determined by the use of the
various of performance fitness and error matrices. In com-
parison to Toprak and Seed and idriss methods, the Idriss and
Boulanger-based criteria have a higher rate of effective pre-
diction, according to the results shown in Table 5. The higher
Conflict of interest The author declares that he has no competing inter-
ests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable.
References
Boulanger RW, Idriss IM (2014) CPT and SPT based liquefaction trig-
gering procedures. Cent Geotech Model 1:134
Cetin KO, Seed RB, Der Kiureghian A, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF,
Kayen RE, Moss RES (2004) Standard penetration test-based
probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefac-
tion potential. J Geotech Geoenvironmental Eng 130:1314–1340.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2004)130:12(1314)

123

Goh ATC (1994) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neural net-
works. J Geotech Eng 120:1467–1480. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:9(1467)
Haldar A, Tang WH (1979) Probabilistic evaluation of liquefaction
potential. J Geotech Eng Div 105:145–163
Hanna AM, Ural D, Saygili G (2007a) Evaluation of liquefaction poten-
tial of soil deposits using artificial neural networks. Eng Comput
24:5–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/02644400710718547
Hanna AM, Ural D, Saygili G (2007b) Neural network model for
liquefaction potential in soil deposits using Turkey and Taiwan
earthquake data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27:521–540. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.soildyn.2006.11.001
Hu J (2021) A new approach for constructing two Bayesian network
models for predicting the liquefaction of gravelly soil. Comput
Geotech 137:104304
Hu J, Liu H (2019) Bayesian network models for probabilistic eval-
uation of earthquake-induced liquefaction based on CPT and Vs
databases. Eng Geol 254:76–88
Hu J, Wang J, Zhang Z, Liu H (2022) Continuous-discrete hybrid
Bayesian network models for predicting earthquake-induced liq-
uefaction based on the Vs database. Comput Geosci 169:105231
Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2006) Semi-empirical procedures for eval-
uating liquefaction potential during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq
Eng 26:115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.023
Idriss IM, Boulanger RW (2010) Spt-based liquefaction triggering pro-
cedures. Rep. UCD/CGM-10. 2, 4–13
Juang CH, Rosowsky DV, Tang WH (1999) Reliability-based method
for assessing liquefaction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(8)
Juang CH, Jiang T, Andrus RD (2002) Assessing probability-based
methods for liquefaction potential evaluation. J Geotech Geoenv-
iron Eng 128:580–589
Juang CH, Fang SY, Khor EH (2006) First-order reliability method
for probabilistic liquefaction triggering analysis using CPT. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132:337–350. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)1090-0241(2006)132:3(337)
Kohestani VR, Hassanlourad M, Ardakani A (2015) Evaluation of
liquefaction potential based on CPT data using random forest.
Nat Hazards 79:1079–1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-
1893-5
Kubat M, Matwin S (1997) Addressing the curse of imbalanced training
sets: one-sided selection. In: Icml, Nashville, USA, p 179
Kumar DR, Samui P, Burman A (2022a) Prediction of probabil-
ity of liquefaction using soft computing techniques. J Inst Eng
(India): Ser A 103(4):1195–1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-
022-00683-9
Kumar DR, Samui P, Burman A (2022b) Determination of best cri-
teria for evaluation of liquefaction potential of soil. Transp Infra
Geotechnol 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-022-00268-w
Liao SSC, Veneziano D, Whitman RV (1988) Regression models for
evaluating liquefaction probability. J Geotech Eng 114:389–411.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:4(389)
Matthews BW (1975) Comparison of the predicted and observed sec-
ondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. BBA - Protein Struct
405(2):442–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9.
Momeni E, Jahed Armaghani D, Hajihassani M, Mohd Amin MF (2015)
Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of rock samples using
hybrid particle swarm optimization-based artificial neural net-
works. Meas J Int Meas Confed 60:50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.measurement.2014.09.075
Naser MZ, Alavi AH (2021) Error metrics and performance fitness
indicators for artificial intelligence and machine learning in engi-
neering and sciences. Archit Struct Constr. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s44150-021-00015-8
Pal M (2006) Support vector machines-based modelling of seis-
mic liquefaction potential. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
30:983–996. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.509
123
Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design
Pirhadi N, Wan X, Lu J, Hu J, Ahmad M, Tahmoorian F (2023) Seismic
liquefaction resistance based on strain energy concept considering
fine content value effect and performance parametric sensitivity
analysis. C Model Eng Sci 135:733–754
Rahmani F, Hosseini SM, Khezri A, Maleki M (2022) Effect of grid-
form deep soil mixing on the liquefaction-induced foundation
settlement, using numerical approach. Arab J Geosci 15:1112
Ramakrishnan D, Singh TN, Purwar N, Barde KS, Gulati A, Gupta
S (2008) Artificial neural network and liquefaction susceptibility
assessment: a case study using the 2001 Bhuj earthquake data,
Gujarat, India. Comput Geosci 12:491–501. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10596-008-9088-8
Samui P, Hariharan R (2015) A unified classification model for model-
ing of seismic liquefaction potential of soil based on CPT. J Adv
Res 6:587–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2014.02.002
Samui P, Karthikeyan J (2013) Determination of liquefaction suscepti-
bility of soil: a Least square support vector machine approach. Int
J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 37:1154–1161. https://doi.org/
10.1002/nag.2081
Samui P, Sitharam TG (2011) Machine learning modelling for predict-
ing soil liquefaction susceptibility. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci
11:1–9. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-1-2011
Samui P, Kim D, Sitharam TG (2011) Support vector machine for eval-
uating seismic-liquefaction potential using shear wave velocity.
J Appl Geophys 73:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2010.
10.005
Seed HB (1979) Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for
level ground during earthquakes. ASCE J Geotech Eng Div
105:201–255. https://doi.org/10.1061/ajgeb6.0000768
Seed HB (1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earth-
quakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Insititue, p 13
Seed HB, Idriss IM (1971) Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liq-
uefaction potential. ASCE J Soil Mech Found Div 97:1249–1273.
https://doi.org/10.1061/jsfeaq.0001662
Seed H, Tokimatsu K, Harder LF, Chung RM (1985) Influ-
ence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evalu-
ations. J Geotech Eng 111:1425–1445. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:12(1425)
Toprak S, Holzer TL, Bennett MJ, Tinsley JJ (1999) CPT-and SPT-
based probabilistic assessment of liquefaction potential. In: 7th
US–Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Life-
line Facilities and Countermeasures against Liquefaction, Seattle.
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
Buffalo, NY, p 18
Xue X, Liu E (2017) Seismic liquefaction potential assessed by neu-
ral networks. Environ Earth Sci 76:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12665-017-6523-y
Youd TL, Idriss IM (1997a) Liquefaction criteria based on statistical
and probabilistic analyses. In: Technical Report NCEER-97-0022,
p 281
Youd TL, Idriss IM (1997b) Proceeding of the NCEER workshop on
evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. In: Proceeding of the
NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils,
p 276
Youd TL, Idriss IM (2001) Liquefaction resistance of soils: sum-
mary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127:297–313. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)1090-0241(2001)127:4(297)
Yuan B, Liu W (2011) A measure oriented training scheme for imbal-
anced classification problems. In: Pacific–Asia Conference on
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer, pp 293–303
Zhang W, Goh ATC, Zhang Y, Chen Y, Xiao Y (2015) Assessment of
soil liquefaction based on capacity energy concept and multivariate
adaptive regression splines. Eng Geol 188:29–37. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.01.009
Multiscale and Multidisciplinary Modeling, Experiments and Design
Zhang W, Wu C, Zhong H, Li Y, Wang L (2021) Prediction of undrained
shear strength using extreme gradient boosting and random forest
based on Bayesian optimization. Geosci Front 12:469–477. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2020.03.007
Zhang Yg, Qiu J, Zhang Y, Wei Y (2021) The adoption of ELM to
the prediction of soil liquefaction based on CPT. Nat Hazards
107:539–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04594-z
Zou M, Jiang W-G, Qin Q-H, Liu Y-C, Li M-L (2022) Optimized
XGBoost model with small dataset for predicting relative den-
sity of Ti-6Al-4V parts manufactured by selective laser melting.
Materials (basel). 15:5298. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15155298
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such
publishing agreement and applicable law.
123