## 5 Conclusions  
In this paper, fifteen significant factors for seismic soil liquefaction potential (LP) were identified with the systematic literature review approach, including earthquake magnitude F1 (M), epicentral distance F2 (S), duration of earthquake F3 (t), peak ground acceleration F4 (a\({}_{\text{max}}\)), fines content F5 (F\({}_{\text{c}}\)), soil type F6 (C\({}_{\text{u}}\) and C\({}_{\text{c}}\)), mean particle size F7 (D\({}_{\text{50}}\)), relative density F8 (D\({}_{\text{r}}\)), drainage condition F9 (K), degree of consolidation F10 (OCR), standard penetration test blow counts F11 (SPT N-value), effective vertical stress F12 (\(\sigma^{{}^{\prime}}_{\text{v}}\)), groundwater table F13 (D\({}_{\text{w}}\)), depth of soil deposit F14 (D\({}_{\text{s}}\)), and thickness of soil layer F15 (h). These factors are compared pairwise to create the data for structural analysis by using interpretative structural modeling (ISM) and MICMAC analysis. Seismic soil liquefaction is a complex problem and contains many factors, whereas structural analysis allows a precise way of selecting significant factors for establishment of soil liquefaction potential and liquefaction-induced hazards risk assessment models. Since seismic soil liquefaction is influenced by various factors, considering all these factors in soil liquefaction evaluation will be extremely complex as even few seismic soil liquefaction factors are not simple to deal with. Two important characteristics of seismic soil liquefaction factors were illustrated in this paper. First, the levels of the seismic soil liquefaction significant factors were determined by the ISM model. In the ISM model, the seismic soil liquefaction factors of duration of earthquake F3 (t), peak ground acceleration F4 (a\({}_{\text{max}}\)), drainage condition F9 (K), and standard penetration test blow counts F11 (SPT N-value) influenced soil liquefaction directly and were located at level 5 (top level) in the interpretive structural model, meaning they require additional seismic soil liquefaction factors to collaboratively impact on soil liquefaction potential. The multilevel hierarchy revealed that soil type F6 (C\({}_{\text{u}}\) and C\({}_{\text{c}}\)) is the most governing factor that triggers soil liquefaction. Driving power was the second characteristic of soil liquefaction factors. Factors with higher driving power should receive extra attention. Autonomous soil liquefaction factors have weak dependence on other soil liquefaction factors and have less interaction. The model developed in this study clearly illustrates the complex relationships between factors and demonstrates the direct and indirect relationships in order to identify the key significant factors that influence soil liquefaction susceptibility. Our results can provide guidelines for the selection of factors and establishment of models for risk evaluation of soil liquefaction. In the future, based on ISM, a quantitative method such as Bayesian Belief Network (BBN) will be utilized to establish the seismic soil liquefaction potential and liquefaction-induced hazards risk assessment. CPT tip resistance can also be used as an alternative to SPT N-value in the future to establish Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN) models for seismic soil liquefaction potential and liquefaction-induced hazards risk assessment according to the soil liquefaction CPT historic data. This paper received the individual contribution of each author as specified: [PERSON]-W.T., M.A. and J.-N.Q. conceived of and designed the research; [PERSON] developed the research, led data collection and analysis, and wrote the paper. F.A. prepared the figures and made corrections to improve the paper. All authors read the full paper and agreed with its publication. The work presented in this paper was part of the research sponsored by the National Key Research and Development Plan of China under Grant No. 2018 YFC1505305 and 2016 YFE0200100 and Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 51639002.