Skip to main content

CORRECTION article

Front. Earth Sci., 18 April 2024
Sec. Geohazards and Georisks
Volume 12 - 2024 | https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2024.1407592

Corrigendum: The performance comparison of the decision tree models on the prediction of seismic gravelly soil liquefaction potential based on dynamic penetration test

This article is a correction to:

  1. The performance comparison of the decision tree models on the prediction of seismic gravelly soil liquefaction potential based on dynamic penetration test

    1. Read original article
Mahmood Ahmad, Mahmood Ahmad1,2*Badr T. AlsulamiBadr T. Alsulami3Ahmad HakamyAhmad Hakamy3Ali MajdiAli Majdi4Muwaffaq AlqurashiMuwaffaq Alqurashi5Mohanad Muayad Sabri SabriMohanad Muayad Sabri Sabri6Ramez A. Al-MansobRamez A. Al-Mansob1Mohd Rasdan Bin IbrahimMohd Rasdan Bin Ibrahim7
  • 1Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia, Jalan Gombak, Malaysia
  • 2Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar (Bannu Campus), Bannu, Pakistan
  • 3Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering and Islamic Architecture, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia
  • 4Department of Building and Construction Techniques Engineering, Al-Mustaqbal University College, Al-Hilla, Iraq
  • 5Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia
  • 6Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Saint Petersburg, Russia
  • 7Department of Civil Engineering, Center for Transportation Research, Engineering Faculty, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

A Corrigendum on
The performance comparison of the decision tree models on the prediction of seismic gravelly soil liquefaction potential based on dynamic penetration test

by Ahmad M, Alsulami BT, Hakamy A, Majdi A, Alqurashi M, Sabri Sabri MM, Al-Mansob RA and Bin Ibrahim MR (2023). Front. Earth Sci. 11:1105610. doi: 10.3389/feart.2023.1105610

In the published article, the Funding statement was incorrect. The correct statement appears below.

“This research was supported by a grant from the Russian Science Foundation No. 22-79-10021, https://rscf.ru/project/22-79-10021/.”

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Keywords: gravelly soil, liquefaction, reduced error pruning tree, random forest, dynamic penetration test, logistic model tree, random tree

Citation: Ahmad M, Alsulami BT, Hakamy A, Majdi A, Alqurashi M, Sabri Sabri MM, Al-Mansob RA and Bin Ibrahim MR (2024) Corrigendum: The performance comparison of the decision tree models on the prediction of seismic gravelly soil liquefaction potential based on dynamic penetration test. Front. Earth Sci. 12:1407592. doi: 10.3389/feart.2024.1407592

Received: 26 March 2024; Accepted: 27 March 2024;
Published: 18 April 2024.

Approved by:

Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland

Copyright © 2024 Ahmad, Alsulami, Hakamy, Majdi, Alqurashi, Sabri Sabri, Al-Mansob and Bin Ibrahim. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Mahmood Ahmad, ahmadm@uetpeshawar.edu.pk

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.