Explainable machine learning model for liquefaction potential assessment of soils using XGBoost-SHAP

被引:90
作者
Jas, Kaushik [1 ]
Dodagoudar, G. R. [2 ]
机构
[1] Indian Inst Technol Madras, Dept Civil Engn, Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India
[2] Indian Inst Technol Madras, Dept Civil Engn, Computat Geomech Lab, Chennai 600036, Tamil Nadu, India
关键词
Liquefaction potential; Liquefaction database; Coefficient of permeability; Oversampling technique; Machine learning; XGBoost ML algorithm; Searching algorithms; Explainable machine learning; SHAP method; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES; FUZZY INFERENCE SYSTEM; CONE PENETRATION TEST; SEISMIC LIQUEFACTION; DETERMINISTIC ASSESSMENT; ENERGY-DISSIPATION; GRAVELLY SOILS; IN-SITU; RESISTANCE; PREDICTION;
D O I
10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107662
中图分类号
P5 [地质学];
学科分类号
0709 ; 081803 ;
摘要
Most of the existing machine learning (ML)-based models for liquefaction assessment of soils are black-box in nature. Database considered in the existing studies for model development is imbalanced. In this study, an attempt is made to include the coefficient of permeability and thickness of the critical layer from the available information to the existing database. The eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) ML algorithm is used for the model development in a probabilistic framework. The k-means synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) is introduced to improve the overall accuracy of the model by suitably modelling the imbalanced dataset. An improvement of the model is also performed by tuning the hyperparameters using searching algo-rithms to increase further the accuracy. An explainable machine learning (EML) technique, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) is employed to provide additional insights into the developed XGBoost model. From the SHAP results, it is found that the equivalent clean sand cone penetration resistance and coefficient of perme-ability are the first and the fourth important input parameters affecting the liquefaction potential. It is concluded that the EML technique is capable of bridging the gap between the conventional domain knowledge of lique-faction and soft computing approaches.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 117 条
[1]   Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity [J].
Andrus, RD ;
Stokoe, KH .
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, 2000, 126 (11) :1015-1025
[2]   Guide for shear-wave-based liquefaction potential evaluation [J].
Andrus, RD ;
Stokoe, KH ;
Juang, CH .
EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA, 2004, 20 (02) :285-308
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2015, P MACHINE LEARNING R
[4]  
Berrill JB, 1985, Soils Found, V25, P106, DOI [DOI 10.3208/SANDF1972.25.2_106, 10.3208/sandf1972.25.2_106]
[5]  
Bhattacharya S, 2019, SEISMIC DESIGN FDN C, DOI [10.1680/sdof.61668, DOI 10.1680/SDOF.61668]
[6]   Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for silts and clays [J].
Boulanger, Ross W. ;
Idriss, I. M. .
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, 2006, 132 (11) :1413-1426
[7]   CPT-Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedure [J].
Boulanger, Ross W. ;
Idriss, I. M. .
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, 2016, 142 (02)
[8]   Magnitude scaling factors in liquefaction triggering procedures [J].
Boulanger, Ross W. ;
Idriss, I. M. .
SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, 2015, 79 :296-303
[9]  
Boulanger RW, 2014, UCDCGM1401 CTR GEOT
[10]  
Boulanger RW, 2004, UCDCGM0401 CTR GEOT