SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mugla Journal of Science and Technology / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 1

Liquefaction Hazard Mapping: Statistical Approach for the Determination of the Most Effective Interpolation Method

Orkun Türe(MUĞLA SITKI KOÇMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MÜHENDİSLİK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-7708-3903
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, the Natural Neighbor method showed superior performance (MAE = 7.14, R² = 0.749), while Spline exhibited clear limitations, showing that the choice of interpolation method directly affects reliability of liquefaction hazard maps and has important influence on early-stage urban planning.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Liquefaction is one of the most devastating secondary effects of earthquakes and is responsible for widespread destruction during seismic events.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This has raised the research question of “which interpolation method yields the most accurate results for generating liquefaction susceptibility maps?”.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, the Natural Neighbor method showed superior performance (MAE = 7.14, R² = 0.749), while Spline exhibited clear limitations, showing that the choice of interpolation method directly affects reliability of liquefaction hazard maps and has important influence on early-stage urban planning.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Earthquake · Liquefaction · Natural disaster

Abstract

Liquefaction is one of the most devastating secondary effects of earthquakes and is responsible for widespread destruction during seismic events. Therefore, while detailed site-specific analysis is essential in liquefaction assessment, performing such analyses continuously over an entire region is impractical at the initial evaluation stage. Therefore, liquefaction susceptibility is typically assessed at selected locations and estimated for unsampled areas using spatial interpolation methods. However, despite the use of various interpolation methods in practice, each method produces different spatial patterns and predictions due to their methodological backgrounds, and there is still no standardization in their application. This has raised the research question of “which interpolation method yields the most accurate results for generating liquefaction susceptibility maps?”. To answer this research question, performances of four interpolation techniques (Inverse Distance Weighting, Ordinary Kriging, Natural Neighbor and Spline) were evaluated. Using 236 points (190 mapping, 46 validation), actual and interpolated LPI values were compared using R², MAE, and hierarchical cluster analysis. Overall, the Natural Neighbor method showed superior performance (MAE = 7.14, R² = 0.749), while Spline exhibited clear limitations, showing that the choice of interpolation method directly affects reliability of liquefaction hazard maps and has important influence on early-stage urban planning.

🔖

Cite This Article

Türe, O. (2026). Liquefaction Hazard Mapping: Statistical Approach for the Determination of the Most Effective Interpolation Method. Mugla Journal of Science and Technology, Volume: 12 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.22531/muglajsci.1772250

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (62)

  1. Kramer, S. L., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1996.
  2. Xiu, Z., Wang, S., Ji, Y., Wang, F. and Ren, F., “Experimental investigation on liquefaction and post-liquefaction deformation of stratified saturated sand under cyclic loading“, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 79, 2313-2324, 2020.
  3. Seed, H.B., and Idriss I.M. "Analysis of soil liquefaction: Niigata earthquake." Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 93.3: 83-108, 1967.
  4. Dixon, S.J., and Burke, J.W., “Liquefaction case history”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 99(11), 921-937, 1973.
  5. Ansal, A. et al. “Initial geotechnical observations of the August 17, 1999, Kocaeli earthquake.” A report of the Turkey-US geotechnical earthquake engineering reconnaissance team. GEER association, 68pp, 1999.
  6. Kayabasi, A. and Gokçeoglu, C., “Liquefaction potential assessment of a region using different techniques (Tepebasi, Eskişehir, Turkey)”, Engineering Geology, 246, 139-161, 2018.
  7. Babacan, A.E., Ceylan, S., “Evaluation of soil liquefaction potential with a holistic approach: a case study from Araklı (Trabzon, Turkey)”, Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata 62(1), 173-198, 2021.
  8. Rasanen, R.A., Geyin, M., and Maurer, B.W., “Select liquefaction case histories from the 2001 Nisqually, Washington, earthquake: A digital data set and assessment of model performance”, Earthquake Spectra, 39(3), 1534-1557, 2023.
  9. Çetin, K.O., Soylemez, B., Guzel, H., and Cakir, E., “Soil liquefaction sites following the February 6, 2023, Kahramanmaraş-Türkiye earthquake sequence” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 23, 921-944. 2025.
  10. Kokusho, T., “State of the practice on energy-based liquefaction evaluation and research significance, “AIMS Geosciences, 10(4), 792-863, 2024.
  11. Meerow, S., Newell, J.P., and Stults, M., “Defining urban resilience: A review”. Landscape and urban planning, 147, 38-49, 2016.
  12. Pokhrel, R.M., Kuwano, J., and Tachibana, S. “A kriging method of interpolation used to map liquefaction potential over alluvial ground”, Engineering geology, 152(1), 26-37, 2013.
  13. Kim, J., Han, J., Park, K., and Seok, S. “Improved IDW interpolation application using 3D search neighborhoods: Borehole data-based seismic liquefaction hazard assessment and mapping” Applied Sciences, 12(22), 11652, 17pp. 2022.
  14. Wang, S., Huang, G. H., Lin, Q. G., Li, Z., Zhang, H., and Fan, Y. R., “Comparison of interpolation methods for estimating spatial distribution of precipitation in Ontario, Canada”, International Journal of Climatology, 34(14), 3745-3751, 2014.
  15. Caloiero, T., Pellicone, G., Modica, G., and Guagliardi, I., “Comparative Analysis of Different Spatial Interpolation Methods Applied to Monthly Rainfall as Support for Landscape Management”, Applied Sciences, 11(20), 9566, 18pp, 2021.
  16. Shawky, M.M. “A comparative study of interpolation methods for the development of ore distribution maps” Discover Geoscience, 3(2), 22pp., 2025.
  17. Seed H.B. and Idriss I.M., “Simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential”, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 97, ASCE 97(9), 1249-1273, 1971.
  18. Iwasaki, T., Arakawa, T., and Tokida, K., “Simplified procedures for assessing soil liquefaction during earthquakes”, International Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 3(1), 49-58, 1984.
  19. lwasaki, T., Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K. and Yasuda, S. ”A practical method for assessing soil liquefaction potential based on case studies at various sites in Japan”, Second International Conference on Mierozonation for Safer Construction Research and Application, 1978.
  20. Bozkurt, E., “Neotectonics of Turkey – a synthesis”, Geodinamica Acta, 14, 3–30, 2001.
  21. Emre, Ö. and Duman, T. Y. 1:250.000 Scale Active Fault Map Series of Turkey, Fethiye (NJ35-16) Quadrangle. Serial Number: 13, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara-Turkey, 2011.
  22. Emre, Ö., Duman, T. Y., Özalp, S. and Elmacı, H. 1:250.000 Scale Active Fault Map Series of Turkey, Denizli (NJ35-12) Quadrangle. Serial Number: 12, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara-Turkey, 2011a.
  23. Emre, Ö., Duman, T. Y., Özalp, S. and Elmacı, H. 1:250.000 Scale Active Fault Map Series of Turkey, Denizli (NJ36-9) Quadrangle. Serial Number: 17, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara-Turkey, 2011b.
  24. Duman, T. Y., Emre, Ö. Özalp, S. and Elmacı, H., 1:250.000 Scale Active Fault Map Series of Turkey, Aydın (NJ35-11) Quadrangle. Serial Number: 7, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara-Turkey. 2011.
  25. Pavlides, S., Chatzipetros, A. and Valkaniotis, S. Active faults of Greece and Surroundings. 33rd International Geological Congress, 2008.
  26. Türe, O., and Çelikkollu, S.T. "Liquefaction geo-hazard in the Fethiye Basin at the edge of Hellenic Trench." Proceedings of the Geologists' Association. 101148, 2025.
  27. Tosun, L., Avşar, U., Avşar, Ö., Dondurur, D. and Kaymakçı, N. "Active tectonics and kinematics of Fethiye-Göcek Bay, SW Turkey: Insight about the eastern edge of Pliny-Strabo Trenches." Journal of Structural Geology 145 (2021): 104287.
  28. Erdem Yer Bilimleri, MUĞLA İLİ FETHİYE İLÇESİ MERKEZ MAHALLERİNDEKİ YAKLAŞIK 8300 HEKTARLIK ALANIN MİKROBÖLGELEME ETÜT RAPORU, 2024, (in Turkish, unpublished).
  29. Şenel, M., Ürgün, B.M., Can, N., Aydal, N., Erdoğan, C. 1:100.000 Scale Geological Map Series of Turkey. L8 Quadrangle. No: 2. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara-Turkey. 1997.
  30. Do, J., et al. "Evaluating the liquefaction potential of gravel soils with static experiments and steady state approaches." KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 642-651. 2017.
  31. Van der Vlugt, R., and Rosenthal, G.N. "Chart for Allowable Soil Pressure Based on Schmertmann's Method." Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 115(10). 1492-1496. 1989.
  32. Arslan, R., “1957 Fethiye Earthquake and Effects on Region.” Turkish Studies, 12, 33-47, 2017.
  33. Gutenberg B. and Richter C.F. “Magnitude and energy of earthquakes”. Ann Geofis 9:1–15. 1956.
  34. Türe, O, Çobanoğlu, İ., Gül, M. and Karacan, E. "Seismic record approach for the evaluation of natural hazards: a key study from SW Anatolia/Turkey." Environmental Earth Sciences 80(15): 500. 2021.
  35. Işık, E., Ekinci, Y.L., Sayıl, L.N., Büyüksaraç, A. and Aydin, C.M., “Time-dependent model for earthquake occurrence and effects of design spectra on structural performance: A case study from the North Anatolian Fault Zone, Turkey”, Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences. 30(2), 215-234, 2021.
  36. Özdemir, G., Işık, N.S., Koçkar, M.K. and Gültekin, N. “Türkiye Bina Deprem Yönetmeliği-2018 İle Uyumlu Basitleştirilmiş Zemin Sıvılaşma Potansiyeli Analizi Ve Sıvılaşma Sonrası Oturma, Yanal Deformasyon, Kayma Dayanımı Kaybı ve Kapak Tabakası Etkisi Hesap Cetveli Programı kullanma kılavuzu (V-2)”, 2021.
  37. Turkish Ministry of Interior-Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD). Turkish Earthquake Hazard Map. Interactive web application.
  38. Lu, G.Y. and Wong, D.W., “An Adaptive Inverse-Distance Weighting Spatial Interpolation Technique”, Computers & Geosciences, 34, 1044-1055., 2008.
  39. Shahmardi, A., Rosti, M.E., Tammisola, O., and Brandt, L. “A fully Eulerian hybrid immersed boundary-phase field model for contact line dynamics on complex geometries” Journal of Computational Physic, 443, 23pp., 2021.
  40. Chutsagulprom, N., Chaisee, K., Wongsaijai, B., Inkeaw, P., and Oonariya, C. “Spatial interpolation methods for estimating monthly rainfall distribution in Thailand” Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 148, 317-328. 2022.
  41. Kruizinga, S., and Yperlaan, G.J. "Spatial interpolation of daily totals of rainfall." Journal of Hydrology 36.1-2: 65-73. 1978.
  42. Sibson, R. “A brief description of natural neighbour interpolation”. Interpreting multivariate data. 21-36, 1981.
  43. Oliver, M.A., and Webster, R., “Kriging: a method of interpolation for geographical information systems” International Journal of Geographical Information System, 4(3), 313-332, 1990.
  44. Cressie, N. “Spatial prediction and ordinary kriging.” Math Geol. 20(4):405–421. 1988.
  45. Matheron, G. “Principles of geostatistics” Economic Geology 58(8):1246–1266, 1963.
  46. Dubrule, O, “Comparing splines and kriging” Computers and Geosciences, 10(2–3), 327–338. 1984.
  47. Chatterjee, S., and Simonoff, J.S. Handbook of regression analysis, John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
  48. Willmott, C.J., and Matsuura, K., “Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance”, Climate research, 30, 79-82, 2005.
  49. Everitt, B.S., Landau, S., Leese, M. and Stahl, D. Cluster Analyses. (Eds. David J. Balding, et al.) Wiley series in probability and statistics, 348pp., 2011.
  50. Tripathi, A “What is the coefficient of determination l R Square” Data Science Duniya.). 2019. Latest Access 11.05.2025. (https://ashutoshtripathi.com/2019/01/22/what-is-the-coefficient-of-determination-r-square
  51. Polanitzer, R. “The minimum mean absolute error (MAE) challenge” Medium. (https://medium.com/@polanitzer/the-minimum-mean-absolute-error-mae-challenge-928dc081f031). Latest Access: 11.05.2025.
  52. Kaufman, L., and Rousseeuw, P.J. Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. John Wiley & Sons. 2009.
  53. ESRI (ArcGIS). Tool Reference/ Geoprocessing Tools/ Spatial Analyst toolbox/ Interpolation toolset/ Interpolation toolset concepts/ How Spline works (https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/spline.htm). Last Access 28.12.2025.
  54. Franke, R. “Smooth Interpolation of Scattered Data by Local Thin Plate Splines”. Computer and Mathematics with Applications. Vol. 8. No. 4. pp. 273–281. Great Britain. 1982.
  55. Mitáš, L., and Mitášová, H. “General Variational Approach to the Interpolation Problem”. Computer and Mathematics with Applications. Vol. 16. No. 12. pp. 983–992. Great Britain. 1988.
  56. Igaz, D., Šinka, K., Varga, P., Vrbičanová, G., Aydın, E., and Tárník, A. “The evaluation of the accuracy of interpolation methods in crafting maps of physical and hydro-physical soil properties”. Water, 13(2), 212. 2021.
  57. ESRI (ArcGIS). Tool Reference/ Geoprocessing Tools/ Spatial Analyst toolbox/ Interpolation toolset/ Interpolation toolset concepts/ How Natural Neighbor works. (https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/how-natural-neighbor- works.htm). Last Access 28.12.2025.
  58. Alavi, S.H., Bahrami, A., Mashayekhi, M., and Zolfaghari, M. “Optimizing interpolation methods and point distances for accurate earthquake hazard mapping” Buildings. 14(6). 2024.
  59. Erzin, Y., and Tuskan, Y. “Prediction of standard penetration test (SPT) value in Izmir, Turkey using radial basis neural network”. Celal Bayar University Journal of Science, 13(2), 433-439. 2017.
  60. Erzin, Y., and Tuskan, Y. “The use of neural networks for predicting the factor of safety of soil against liquefaction”. Scientia Iranica, 26(5), 2615-2623. 2019.
  61. Emre, Ö., Duman, T. Y., Özalp, S. and Elmacı, H. 1:250.000 Scale Active Fault Map Series of Turkey, Denizli (NJ35-12) Quadrangle. Serial Number: 12, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara-Turkey, 2011a.
  62. Şenel, M., Ürgün, B.M., Can, N., Aydal, N., Erdoğan, C. 1:100.000 Scale Geological Map Series of Turkey. L8 Quadrangle. No: 2. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara-Turkey. 1997.