Talk:Soil liquefaction

message: The article on Earthquake liquefaction should disappear and be incorporated into the Soil Liquefaction article.
I would like some comments on this from other users. Thanks
- Sanpaz 22:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree earthquake liquefaction should be merged into this article and turned into a redirect here. Earthquakes are just one cause or initiating mechanism (although the most spectacular one) resulting in liquefaction. Vsmith 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. There should be mentions of liquefaction in the earthquake article which point here; and I'd be happy if that awful image in the earthquake liquefaction article gets lost in the merge. Argyriou (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 07:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earthquake Liquefaction 

message: 'Quick clay is only found in the northern countries such as Russia, Canada, Alaska, Norway, Sweden, and Finland,' Since when is Alaska a country? Could someone please clean up this sentence? Grandma Roses 11:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch Sanpaz 22:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of countries 

message: Can somebody who understands this topic please rewrite the opening paragraph? The first sentence is particularly dense:
:Soil liquefaction describes the behavior of loose saturated unconsolidated soils, i.e. loose sands, which go from a solid state to have the consistency of a heavy liquid, or reach a liquefied state as a consequence of increasing porewater pressures, and thus decreasing effective stress, induced by their tendency to decrease in volume when subjected to cyclic undrained loading (e.g. earthquake loading).
(!) A good lead should begin by stating the obvious and set the stage for what will be explained in detail later. There is no need for the parentheticals, i.e.s, e.g.s and technical jargon. I cannot penetrate this. — brighterorange (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a long and dense definition that, as you pointed out, needs improvement. I have made some changes. Let me know if it is better this time. Sanpaz (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a go at re-writing the introduction using simple terminology where possible (avoiding engineering speak as much as possible but failing on some accounts!). It is a bit long-winded but hopefully easy for lay-people to follow. I realise I have focussed on cyclic liquefaction and not including static liquefaction (for simplicity for lay people). I think static liquefaction deserves its own section, however it requires a more technical explanation than what is suitable for the intro to the topic in general.
GeoEng (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplify lead 

message: watch: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8nou5-cWgE&feature=related>
In the first few mins show liquifaction in a way any 2 year old could understand, whereas im a geotech grad student yes i know what the first paragraph is trying to say but its cryptically coded in soil mechanics terms.
To be more reader friendly start with something like: "Liquifaction describes a condition when grains are agitated/disturbed by vibration and/or water, causing the whole system to behave like a liquid and lose support strength."
Of course then we can go deeper into the technical description of decrease in effective stress, loss of contact points between grains, increase in porewater pressure, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.84.123 (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liquifaction is about how grains under agitation act like liquid 

message: Many reports of liquefaction in Christchurch appear to be false.  Media were actually reporting the effects of broken water mains causing flooding. The photo in this article appears to be flooding, not liquefaction. Soil may "liquefy", but it does not turn into water!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Liquefaction results in sand settling and ejecting water, often upwards, so water is frequently present at the surface after a liquefaction event.  Broken water mains would leave more water than in that last the third picture, but a broken water pipe to a house or a broken sprinkler line might produce about as much water as liquefaction would.  It's impossible to say without knowing more about the specific site photographed. Argyriou (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture of flooding is probably not caused directly by liquefaction.  It would be either broken water mains, significant subsidence, or flooding from rain due to damage to storm drains. I'm going to take it out. Argyriou (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liquefaction or flooding? 

message: Curiosity - could fracking result in liquefication? 80.254.147.68 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fracking and liquefication