Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


PGA for liquefaction analysis

PGA for liquefaction analysis

PGA for liquefaction analysis

What is the correct PGA for seismic analysis?

1. (Ss/2.5) x Fa as indicated in ASCE 7-02 and 7-05

2. Sa/2.5 as indicated in the 2009 NEHRP Seismic Provisions and IBC.

RE: PGA for liquefaction analysis

I haven't reviewed 2009 NEHRP in depth yet - I know there are changes with regard to risk targeted values/maximum demand but I imagine it depends on which code governs your project.

ASCE 7-05 will be applicible to 2006 IBC and 2009 NEHRP will be applicible to 2012 IBC.  

RE: PGA for liquefaction analysis

Code requirements aside; which is more justifiable and/or reasonable for liquefaction analysis?

RE: PGA for liquefaction analysis

As I said, I haven't reviewed 2009 NEHRP in depth yet.  The 2009 NEHRP is a more recent code so it may be more justifiable - but either is probably OK.  If I have a choice I wouldn't use either. I would run with both probibilistic and deterministic and make an informed decision between the two.

RE: PGA for liquefaction analysis

I generally use Sds/2.5. I think Sa is intended to mean SdsxFa but I don't recall if it specifically states the period...I'd have to look back through but I'm confident it's typically assumed PGA~Sds/2.5. Keep in mind the seismic spectrum you get from IBC is not what it really looks like. It's a statistical model to emcompass much of what can be expected so the nice and neat plot has limitations. To fine tune the numbers, I'd follow moe333's suggestion and perform site specific seismic assessment. There's other higher end approaches too. And let's not even mention which data you're using to evaluate liquefaction...soil test borings? geophysical surveys? CPT? other? and lab testing? You can get very expensive which is reasonable in some instances/projects but i guess my point is to recognize that there's always ways to refine the data and model. good luck!

RE: PGA for liquefaction analysis

I would argue that PGA is better represented by (Ss/2.5) based on what I've researched than the value indicated in the NEHRP 2009 provisions; which is (SDS/2.5).

It seems to me that the NEHRP incorrectly identifies the PGA (amplified for soil effects) for liquefaction as (SDS/2.5) because the SDS value includes the 2/3 seismic margin appropriate for structural design only.

Still unclear on appropriate value, but I've heard that Section 11.8.3 of ASCE/SEI 7-05 correctly identifies the PGA for liquefaction evaluation as (Ss/2.5), which would then be multiplied by the published site coeficient (Fa) to account for soil amplification effects.

RE: PGA for liquefaction analysis


I should have indicated the following in the initial posting for bullet item 2:


2. The IBC and 2009 NEHRP indicate peak ground acceleration to be used in liquefaction analysis as (SDS/2.5); which I assume would be Amax.

RE: PGA for liquefaction analysis

I would use Sds/2.5 for a project governed by IBC.  11.8.3 states you can use Ss/2.5 in the absence of a site specific study.  A site specific study can be very simple if you want it to be and will result in a lower PGA. Ss/2.5 will be very conservative.

RE: PGA for liquefaction analysis

Looks like this is addressed in the new ASCE 7-10.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


eBook - 10 Reasons to Choose CATIA on the Cloud
To compete in today’s fast-paced and competitive market, smaller and newer firms need a powerful platform that will enable them to compete with bigger players, without the heavy investments needed in computer hardware, software and personnel. Download Now
White Paper - Smart Manufacturing for Electronics
This white paper describes a transformative approach to electronics manufacturing made possible by the addition of Mentor Graphics to the Siemens family. It describes a completely digitalized strategy that supports both printed circuit board (PCB) and mechanical design and manufacturing, uniting the entire product lifecycle – from idea and production to customers and back. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close