Search results for query: *

hi L0K, liquefaction is likely to happen in saturated fine SAND/SILT material, not necessary close to beach and sometimes the in-situ groundwater level is pretty low, so I still can't be convinced that the groundwater level will be increased to surface during EQ. Thanks for your help.

hi moe333, Thanks for your reply, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was been told that the Cliq program can capture the dynamic rise in groundwater due to the EQ, that's why I got confused. Thanks for your explanation, and I think it sounds more reasonable. Thanks.

hi L0k, thanks for your reply. I was think the same thing as you when I was first using this program, but now I think that's a very conservative approach. Because, if the nature groundwater level is about 2-3m below the existing ground level you might still be right. but how about the nature...

hi moe333, thanks for your reply. I knew what the insitu groundwater level is used for, my question was how to determine the in-situ groundwater level during earthquake. Can't agree with your that EQ does not cause a rise in groundwater, unless you are talking about permanent rise. But...

I've seen quite a few companies using n+1 for the groundwater table after earthquake. Which means the groundwater table rose about a meter after earthquake. Hope that helps. Personally I think this should a conservative approach, because I don't believe in many cases that groundwater table...

I have a quick question about Cliq. When you use Cliq to do liquefaction analysis, you need to input the in-situ groundwater level and the groundwater level during earthquake. So the in-situ groundwater level normally we will use whatever we got from the site investigation, that's easy. But...

Thanks moe333, The material should be same, because the testing locations are very close (less than 1m), and that happened to all five CPTs and Shear Vanes on site. We did hand auger with shear vanes next to each CPTs. So you think the CPT should be the more accurate one, I am a little bit...

Thanks moe333, Yes, you are right. I fully understand that, but normally the difference between those two are not that big. so my question really is focused on, any possible reason to cause such a big difference between those two sets of results? Thanks.

Hi L0k, the shear vane tests were conducted throughout the entire hole, therefore, the CPTs and the shear vanes should test the same material. Su can be interpreted from CPT tests, normal they will send you the Su diagram, with Su maximum and Su minimum on it.

Hi all, I just finished a project, and we did both shear vane tests and CPT tests on site. The test locations are relatively close, but the shear vane results (Su) and the CPT interpreted Su are various a lot. Say the Su from the shear vane tests is around 150kPa and the Su interpreted from...