Backed by
The February 2011 Christchurch earthquake alone caused an estimated US$15 billion in economic losses (Swiss Re sigma 2/2012), much of it driven by liquefaction. GeoLiquefy makes it computable: site by site, for the engineer of record.
Explore the Platform →Backed by
Modern civilization treats soil as a static, sacrosanct substrate: certified once, trusted indefinitely. Liquefaction risk is evaluated site by site using static snapshots, conservative assumptions, and fragmented heuristics built up over decades. These approaches work locally. They do not scale, and they are not continuous.
Meanwhile infrastructure scales relentlessly. Every road, bridge, port, data center, and city rests on soil, and more of it is being built on liquefiable ground every year. Exposure is growing faster than the tools used to assess it. Soil remains the least instrumented, least modeled component of infrastructure systems built on top of it.
Enter your site's CPT or SPT parameters and get a defensible liquefaction assessment in minutes: matched against real in-situ test records, computed by a published triggering procedure, and reasoned in language you can put in front of a reviewer.
Enter your site's CPT or SPT parameters and pull the in-situ test records that match it most closely: real ground, real earthquakes, not a simulation.
Your site's result is computed by Boulanger & Idriss (2014) and plotted against three published reference curves, so you can see where they would disagree before you sign anything.
Get an AI-drafted memo with the CSR, CRR, and factor-of-safety reasoning attached. The model computes the number. You review the reasoning and seal the work.
Implemented: Boulanger & Idriss (2014). Reference curves: Cetin (2004), Moss (2006), Idriss & Boulanger (2008). Full methodology →
The same case-history-grounded engine, accessed two ways.
We encode it, scale it, and make it computable.
Boulanger & Idriss (2014) computes. AI drafts the assessment memo and the engineering-readable explanation behind it: CSR, CRR, factor of safety, and citations an engineer can defend in review. The engineer of record reviews the reasoning, not just the number, and seals the final work. The memo is a draft. The judgment is theirs.
Senior Advisor, Geotechnical Engineering
PhD, IIT Delhi · Jaypee University of Information Technology
Professor of Civil Engineering, formerly Dean of Academics and Research. Soil dynamics, ground improvement, geotechnical earthquake engineering.
Senior Advisor, Seismic Hazard and Liquefaction
PhD · PE · F.ASCE · Cal Poly
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Developed the CPT-based probabilistic triggering model used as a reference curve in the Engine. Co-Director of EERI's Learning from Earthquakes program.
From one site to an entire portfolio: the same engine, the same published models, the same case-history record.
A tool that computes site-specific soil liquefaction hazard by matching your CPT or SPT parameters against 8,634 in-situ test records from the NGL database, computed by Boulanger & Idriss (2014), with an AI-drafted engineering assessment.
No. GeoLiquefy does not replace geotechnical judgment. It encodes it, scales it, and makes it computable. The engineer of record reviews the reasoning behind every number and seals the final work.
Geotechnical engineers, who get a defensible, citable assessment for their reporting workflow, and insurers and cat modelers, who screen liquefaction susceptibility across portfolio locations via API.
8,634 in-situ test records from the NGL (Next Generation Liquefaction) database, 354 sites across 31 earthquakes.
