Calibration of empirical models considering model fidelity and model robustness — Focusing on predictions of liquefaction-induced settlements

Abstract Most data-driven empirical models adopted in the geotechnical design have various degrees of uncertainty. Consequently, it is important to properly calibrate this uncertainty prior to its application in the geotechnical analysis to ensure the integrity of the final design. The conventional probabilistic model calibration approaches, such as maximum likelihood estimate and Bayesian method, focus only on model fidelity (measured through, for example, likelihood). These approaches often yield models with a large model uncertainty, especially when the observed data are scattered. A large model uncertainty leads to a large variation in the model prediction, which poses a significant challenge in a geotechnical design. In this paper, we propose a new model calibration approach that can consider both model fidelity and model robustness. The new model calibration approach offers a way to balance the objectives of model fidelity and model robustness. Because model fidelity and model robustness are two conflicting objectives, the new approach involves a multi-objective optimization that leads to a Pareto front, which defines a tradeoff relationship between model fidelity and model robustness. By enforcing a certain level of robustness, the variation in the model prediction can be reduced, which overcomes the major weakness of the traditional probabilistic approaches that focus solely on model fidelity. The new approach is demonstrated through applications to the problems of liquefaction-induced settlement prediction.

[1]  Der-Her Lee,et al.  Evaluation of soil liquefaction in the Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake using CPT , 2004 .

[2]  Y. Ben-Haim Info-Gap Decision Theory: Decisions Under Severe Uncertainty , 2006 .

[3]  Sara Khoshnevisan,et al.  Gradient-based design robustness measure for robust geotechnical design , 2014 .

[4]  Zhe Luo,et al.  Probabilistic back analysis of slope failure – A case study in Taiwan , 2013 .

[5]  Kenji Ishihara,et al.  EVALUATION OF SETTLEMENTS IN SAND DEPOSITS FOLLOWING LIQUEFACTION DURING EARTHQUAKES , 1992 .

[6]  Riley M. Chung,et al.  Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations , 1985 .

[7]  Li Min Zhang,et al.  Efficient Probabilistic Back-Analysis of Slope Stability Model Parameters , 2010 .

[8]  Jonathan D. Bray,et al.  Mechanisms of Seismically Induced Settlement of Buildings with Shallow Foundations on Liquefiable Soil , 2010 .

[9]  P. Robertson,et al.  Estimating liquefaction induced ground settlements from CPT for level ground , 2002 .

[10]  P. Robertson,et al.  Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test , 1998 .

[11]  Sez Atamturktur,et al.  Efficient robust geotechnical design of drilled shafts in clay using a spreadsheet , 2015 .

[12]  Ronald D. Andrus,et al.  Assessing probability-based methods for liquefaction potential evaluation , 2002 .

[13]  Jie Zhang,et al.  Bayesian Framework for Characterizing Geotechnical Model Uncertainty , 2009 .

[14]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  CPT-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of In Situ Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential - eScholarship , 2006 .

[15]  Hongwei Huang,et al.  Bayesian Updating of Soil Parameters for Braced Excavations Using Field Observations , 2013 .

[16]  Raymond B. Seed,et al.  Estimation of Liquefaction-Induced Ground Settlement (Case Studies) , 2004 .

[17]  K. Stokoe,et al.  Liquefaction resistance of soils from shear-wave velocity , 2000 .

[18]  Jianye Ching,et al.  Simplified procedure for estimation of liquefaction-induced settlement and site-specific probabilistic settlement exceedance curve using cone penetration test (CPT) , 2013 .

[19]  I. M. Idriss,et al.  SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING SOIL LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL , 1971 .

[20]  Lei Wang,et al.  Robust Geotechnical Design of Earth Slopes Using Fuzzy Sets , 2015 .

[21]  Wenping Gong,et al.  Probabilistic assessment of liquefaction-induced lateral spreads using CPT — Focusing on the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence , 2015 .

[22]  Jie Zhang,et al.  Optimization of site exploration program for improved prediction of tunneling-induced ground settlement in clays , 2014 .

[23]  W. F. Marcuson,et al.  Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils , 2001 .

[24]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[25]  B. Kowalski,et al.  Partial least-squares regression: a tutorial , 1986 .

[26]  Lei Wang,et al.  Reliability-Based Design of Rock Slopes – A New Perspective on Design Robustness , 2013 .

[27]  Tae Hee Lee,et al.  Robust Design: An Overview , 2006 .

[28]  Jonathan P. Stewart,et al.  Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading at Izmit Bay during the Kocaeli (Izmit)-Turkey Earthquake , 2004 .

[29]  Wilson H. Tang,et al.  REALISTIC ASSESSMENT OF SLOPE RELIABILITY FOR EFFECTIVE LANDSLIDE HAZARD MANAGEMENT , 2005 .

[30]  K. Deb,et al.  Understanding knee points in bicriteria problems and their implications as preferred solution principles , 2011 .

[31]  P. Robertson Interpretation of cone penetration tests — a unified approach , 2009 .

[32]  Wei Chen,et al.  Quality utility : a Compromise Programming approach to robust design , 1999 .

[33]  Anthony T. C. Goh,et al.  An improvement to MLR model for predicting liquefaction-induced lateral spread using multivariate adaptive regression splines , 2014 .

[34]  Zhe Luo,et al.  Assessing SPT-based probabilistic models for liquefaction potential evaluation: a 10-year update , 2013 .

[35]  Peter K. Robertson,et al.  Performance based earthquake design using the CPT , 2009 .

[36]  Ross W. Boulanger,et al.  Probabilistic Standard Penetration Test-Based Liquefaction-Triggering Procedure , 2012 .