Interpretive Structural Modeling and MICMAC Analysis for Identifying and Benchmarking Significant Factors of Seismic Soil Liquefaction

Abstract

Seismic soil liquefaction is considered as one of the most complex geotechnical earthquake engineering problems owing to the uncertainty and complexity involved in soil parameters, seismic parameters, and site condition factors. Each one of these parameters contains a variety of factors that trigger liquefaction and have varying degrees of importance. However, estimating accurate and reliable liquefaction-induced hazards requires identification and benchmarking of the most influential factors that control soil liquefaction. Seismic soil liquefaction factors were identified by Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach and analyzed through Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and the Cross-Impact Matrix Multiplication Applied to Classification (MICMAC) methodologies. The ISM model presented the relationships between fifteen seismic soil liquefaction factors and their benchmarking position from higher to lower-level significant factors in hierarchy. MICMAC is used to examine the strength of the relationship between seismic soil liquefaction significant factors based on their driving and dependence power. This research characterizes the identification and benchmarking of the seismic soil liquefaction factors and their relationships. The results show that the factors—duration of earthquake, peak ground acceleration, drainage condition, and standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts—influence seismic soil liquefaction directly and soil type is the governing factor that forms the base of the ISM hierarchy and consequently triggers seismic soil liquefaction. The results provide a more accurate way of selecting significant factors for establishment of seismic soil liquefaction potential and liquefaction-induced hazards risk assessment models.

Modelling the inhibitors of cold supply chain using fuzzy interpretive structural modeling and fuzzy MICMAC analysis

“…Post this visit, eight experts, two from each organization, holding the position of an assistant manager and above, along with two experts from academia who come from the operations and supply chain background, were approached for their valuable inputs. The number of expert opinions was determined judiciously in the light of previous studies, which were similar and engaged three to fifteen experts for such purposes [ 27 , 35 , 83 , 84 ]. These experts were briefed about the subject of inquiry before being interviewed, using a semi-structured questionnaire.…”

Interpretive Structural Analysis of Interrelationships of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Iran

“…The steps of the interpretive structural modeling method [33,34] that have been performed in the present study are as follows:…”

Probabilistic Evaluation of CPT-based Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential: Towards the Integration of Interpretive Structural Modeling and Bayesian Belief Network

“…For instance, 105 data samples were measured in the range of 2-4 with regard to the Ds parameter. (Ahmad et al 2019a;Ahmad et al 2019b;Hu et al 2015;Zhang 1998) showed detail understanding about the variables' selection and discretization. BBN has a good capability to deal with discrete variables, but is weak in continuous variables processing, so the nine significant factors and output (liquefaction potential, F10) require to be transformed into discrete values before the propose model is constructed accordance to the possible factor range and expert knowledge, as shown in Table 2.…”