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!

*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

Liquefaction Assessment | SPT

Liquefaction Assessment | SPT

Liquefaction Assessment | SPT

Question about assessment for liquefaction based on SPT from Fig 1813 in IBC. What percentage of points would have to fall beyond the threshold to consider that there is potential for liquefaction?

My situation:
- On our site we have two borings, within the range of the water table to the 50ft. extent of the chart we have 18 data points of which only 1 falls over the line. Our geotech generally feels that this data point can be discarded but is looking into it more.
- The neighboring site is a recent build and we have their borings as well. They have about 60 data points in the relevant range, of which 5 fall just over the line. The goetch on that job has classified it as potentially liquefiable and had them do compaction grouting.

Based on both sites it looks like somewhere between 5% to 10% could cross the threshold.

(Note that this is in an area of generally low seismicity)

The geotech will be making the call - I'd just like to be more informed about what is correct/standard.

RE: Liquefaction Assessment | SPT

One caution on the "threshold": If you are getting the threshold N values from the 1997 NCEER report (also published as Youd et al in the 2001 ASCE Journal of Geotech Engrg.) or most other sources, the cyclic resistance on the curve represents about 15% probability of liquefaction, not ~zero. That important fact got lost in almost every publication on the subject prior to about 2003. It was like the leading researchers knew it, and just assumed the readers would also. If you need a reference, I can dig up a web link for you.

That said, the answer to your question is in large part geologic - does the mode of deposition cause you to believe that there could be continuous layers of loose stuff, or is it just an isolated pocket here and there? If I were trying to answer that question for my own project, I would be drawing cross sections and trying to look at the low N values spatially. I'm not aware of any accepted rule on the topic.


RE: Liquefaction Assessment | SPT

Hi I am a not sure of what you mean by threshold ? Is it a SPT-N value of less than X amount is generally liquefiable? Is this a common method for assessing liquefaction without doing an actual analysis?

It could be a case that you have some looser layers with lower N values that may be liquefiable. Depending on depth this may not be a big issue.

Could you supply the bore logs and SPT values? DRGs comment is valuable too, I would draw cross sections an plot the stratigraphy between boreholes. Assess the geology and develop the geotechnical model better.

RE: Liquefaction Assessment | SPT

is there some reason the OP doesn't provide the soil profile and the actual city of the study?


ípapß gordo ainÆt no madre flaca!

RE: Liquefaction Assessment | SPT

Thanks for the input. As I noted I am the structural and I was just trying to get some more input to help in understanding the geotech's interpretation. Eire - I was referring to the IBC graph delineating 'potentially liquefiable' vs 'unlikely'.

The end result was that the goetech gathered additional borings and decided that the number of points in the 'potentially' category was small enough to dismiss.

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


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