University of California, Berkeley Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering

Homework No. 5
CEE 275 – Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering Fall 2023

Due 11/13/2023

Name: _____Kurt Soncco_____________

(Please print neatly)

1. Consider points at depths of 10, 20, 30 and 60 feet in a 80-foot thick silty sand deposit (SM) with these
characteristics: upper 25 feet: SPT N60 ~ 14 blows/foot, % passing the #200 sieve ~ 10%, PI ~ 0, and
primarily fine sand quartz particles that are subrounded; and lower 55 feet: SPT N60 ~ 28 blows/foot, %
passing the #200 sieve ~ 30%, PI ~ 4, and primarily very fine sand and silt particles with some clay. The
depth of the water table is 5 ft, and it is a level, undeveloped large site in California, which is not near a free-
face slope. The site is to be evaluated at two hazard levels. One is an operations level earthquake event of
magnitude Mw = 6.2 that produces a peak ground acceleration of 0.25 g at the site. The other event is a
safety level earthquake event of magnitude Mw = 8.2 that produces a peak ground acceleration of 0.40 g at
the site.

Calculate the factors of safety against liquefaction triggering using the Cetin et al. (2004) procedure (also
described in Seed et al. 2003) at the depths indicated for the two earthquake scenarios.

According to Cetin et al. (Cetin et al., 2004), the procedure can be achieved as follows:
 The following table shows the correction performed to the SPT values obtained from data:
Depth u 𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 (after FC
N σ (psf) σ' (psf) 𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁 N1,60* 𝐶𝐶𝐹𝐹 N1,60
(ft) (psf) iteration) (%)
10 14 1305.01 624 681.01 1.6 1.2464 30.7113 10 1.056281 32.43975
20 14 2610.02 1248 1362.02 1.2117 1.186614 22.14386 10 1.06258 23.52962
30 28 3915.03 1872 2043.03 0.9894 1.3 39.6161 30 1.157863 45.87003
60 28 7830.06 3744 4086.06 0.6996 1.215483 26.19162 30 1.17727 30.83461

The following assumptions were made:

• The rod length was sufficient to avoid any correction to consider in 𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅
• The energy correction was made considering Donut Hammer, with a value of 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 = 1.1
• The borehole was assumed fitted for the purpose of the test, therefore no correction on 𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵
• The factor 𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 is calculated after two iterations, the final value is shown above.

The demand table is shown below:

For Mw: 6
Depth (ft) 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 𝜎𝜎𝜖𝜖𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 CSR
 10 0.9556 0.0511 0.4578
20 0.8640 0.0920 0.4139
30 0.7320 0.1299 0.3507
60 0.5167 0.1637 0.2475
For Mw: 8

Depth (ft) 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 𝜎𝜎𝜖𝜖𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 CSR

10 0.9640 0.0511 0.7389
20 0.8899 0.0920 0.6821
30 0.7829 0.1299 0.6001
60 0.6086 0.1637 0.4665

For 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 , the following equation was used:

The probability of liquefaction can be calculated with the following formula:

For Mw=6.2 For Mw=8.2

Depth (ft) 𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿 Trigger? Depth (ft) 𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿 Trigger?
10 0.01% No 10 96.32% Yes
20 54.85% Yes 20 100% Yes
30 0.00% No 30 0.34% No
60 0.02% No 60 99.49% Yes

Some remarks:
• The correction for the CSR to a Magnitude Mw of 7.5 and a confinement pressure are inside of
Equation 19.
• The threshold for defining Liquefaction is a probability higher of 50%.
• In all cases, at a depth of 20 feet, the soil is liquefiable.
• The Vs,12 value suggested by the authors is 175 m/s if no information is available.
• The Factor of Safety considering our threshold (𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿 = 50%) is:
 Depth FS FS
CRR
(ft) (Mw=6.2) (Mw=8.2)
10 0.4587 1.9127 0.6439
20 0.3188 1.8545 0.6225
30 0.6696 1.6779 0.5613
60 0.4335 1.5425 0.5139

2. Given the cone penetration test (CPT) data shown below (i.e., median CPT tip resistance, qc, and
sleeve resistance, fs, for 0.5 m intervals are provided), evaluate the liquefaction potential of the sandy fill at
the midpoint of each interval for two design earthquake events. One design earthquake event is a near-
fault Mw = 6.0 event that produces a surface PGA = 0.5 g. The other design earthquake event is a distant
Mw = 8.0 event that produces a surface PGA = 0.15 g. The 5-m thick sandy fill forms a level site, with
the groundwater table at a depth of 1 m. The sandy fill has no appreciable gravel content, but it contains
significant non-plastic fines at some depths. The sandy fill is variable, but its d50 ~ 0.5 mm on average. Its
average dry mass density is about 1.6 Mg/m3.

(a) First perform the liquefaction triggering analysis using the CPT-based procedure of Robertson & Wride
(1998) as presented in Youd et al. (2001) correlation (but updated as recommended by Robertson (2009));
however, ignore making “thin-layer” corrections.

According to Robertson and Wride (Robertson, 2009; Robertson & Wride, 1998), the following procedure
is performed:
Assuming the pore pressure generated with CPT is equal to the hydrostatic pressure 𝑢𝑢𝑜𝑜 , the correction for
𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡 has been performed:
𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡 = 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐 + (1 − 𝑎𝑎)𝑢𝑢𝑜𝑜
Where a is between 0.65 and 0.85 (assuming a median of 0.7).

Median Median
Depth σ 𝑈𝑈𝑜𝑜 𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡1 𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟 Type of
qc fs σ' (kPa) 𝑞𝑞𝑡𝑡 (kPa) 𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐
(m) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (%) Soil
(MPa) (MPa)
0.25 7.2 0.03 3.92 0.00 3.92 7200.00 1833.86 0.42 0.87 Sand

0.75 9.7 0.04 11.77 0.00 11.77 9700.00 822.99 0.41 1.00 Sand

1.25 10.8 0.05 19.62 2.45 17.17 10800.74 628.00 0.46 1.11 Sand
 1.75 2.1 0.07 27.47 7.36 20.11 2102.21 103.17 3.37 2.28 Sand

2.25 1.7 0.09 35.32 12.26 23.05 1703.68 72.37 5.39 2.53 Transition

2.75 1.5 0.08 43.16 17.17 26.00 1505.15 56.24 5.47 2.61 Transition

3.25 2.7 0.06 51.01 22.07 28.94 2706.62 91.76 2.26 2.18 Sand

3.75 9.8 0.04 58.86 26.98 31.88 9808.09 305.79 0.41 1.29 Sand

4.25 2.2 0.02 66.71 31.88 34.83 2209.56 61.53 0.93 2.06 Sand

4.75 26.2 0.06 74.56 36.79 37.77 26211.04 692.02 0.23 0.86 Sand

The following equations were used:

Also, we are applying the following classification:

• 𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐 ≤ 2.50, Sand like behavior: 𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡,𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 𝐾𝐾𝐶𝐶 𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 , where Kc is calculated with this equation:
 • 2.50 < 𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐 ≤ 2.70, Transition behavior: 𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡,𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 6 ∗ 10−7 (𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐 )16.76 𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
• 𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐 > 2.70, Clay-like behavior: 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑀=7.5 = 0.053𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

Then, extracting the points from the following graph, we can compute the CRR values: 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 = 6 ∗ 10−7 (𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐 )16.76
 Depth (m) 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡,𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 CRR
0.25 1.000 128.142 0.300
0.75 1.000 159.592 0.391
1.25 1.000 175.617 0.437
1.75 1.872 124.173 0.288
2.25 3.436 192.034 0.484
2.75 5.632 260.303 0.681
3.25 1.618 101.238 0.222
3.75 1.000 145.408 0.350
4.25 1.386 58.800 0.100
4.75 1.000 312.714 0.832

To calculate the demand, we compute the values of 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 as:

𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 = 1 − 0.007657𝑧𝑧, 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑧𝑧 ≤ 9.15𝑚𝑚

The values for correction of confinement stress are extracted from the following graph:
Both formulas and values are extracted from Robertson and Wride (Robertson, 1997).
In the same paper, the MSF correction factor is proposed using the following table:

As suggested by Robertson and Wride, using the relationship of Seed and Idris gives a more realistic
correction. Therefore, the demand CSR is:

For Mw=6
Depth (m) 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (g) 𝐾𝐾𝜎𝜎 MSF 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑀=7.5 FS 𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿
0.25 0.9981 0.5 0.3244 1.32 0.2583 1.1611 18.12%
0.75 0.9943 0.5 0.3231 1.32 0.2583 1.5119 3.09%
1.25 0.9904 0.5 0.3679 1.32 0.2948 1.4812 3.65%
 1.75 0.9866 0.5 0.4380 1.32 0.3515 0.8207 63.55%
2.25 0.9828 0.5 0.4893 1.32 0.3933 1.2307 13.10%
2.75 0.9790 0.5 0.5283 1.32 0.4252 1.6008 1.90%
3.25 0.9751 0.5 0.5586 1.32 0.4503 0.4939 98.56%
3.75 0.9713 0.5 0.5828 1.32 0.4705 0.7432 75.98%
4.25 0.9675 0.5 0.6023 1.32 0.4869 0.2056 100.00%
4.75 0.9637 0.5 0.6182 1.32 0.5005 1.6617 0.00%

For Mw=8
Depth (m) 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 (𝑔𝑔) 𝐾𝐾𝜎𝜎 MSF 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑀=7.5 FS 𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿
0.25 0.9981 0.15 0.0973 0.94 0.1088 2.7562 0.00%
0.75 0.9943 0.15 0.0969 0.94 0.1088 3.5890 0.00%
1.25 0.9904 0.15 0.1104 0.94 0.1242 3.5159 0.00%
1.75 0.9866 0.15 0.1314 0.94 0.1481 1.9481 0.27%
2.25 0.9828 0.15 0.1468 0.94 0.1657 2.9213 0.00%
2.75 0.9790 0.15 0.1585 0.94 0.1791 3.8000 0.00%
3.25 0.9751 0.15 0.1676 0.94 0.1897 1.1723 17.22%
3.75 0.9713 0.15 0.1748 0.94 0.1982 1.7643 0.76%
4.25 0.9675 0.15 0.1807 0.94 0.2051 0.4881 98.71%
4.75 0.9637 0.15 0.1855 0.94 0.2109 3.9444 0.00%

The Probability is calculated using the relation from Ku et al. (Ku et al., 2012):
(b) Second perform the liquefaction triggering analysis using the Boulanger & Idris (2014) CPT-based
procedure and compare results with those calculated in part (a).

The Boulanger & Idris (Boulanger et al., 2014; For Reference Use For CE275 UCB Only, n.d.) procedure
can be described as follows:

We’ll start with a guess for exponent 𝑛𝑛 = 0.5 (assuming all layers are sand), therefore we’ll have the
following table:
 Depth
Q F 𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐 Type
(m)
0.25 360.93 0.42 1.24 Sand
0.75 280.55 0.41 1.32 Sand
1.25 258.51 0.46 1.38 Sand
1.75 45.92 3.38 2.52 Clay-like
2.25 34.45 5.41 2.75 Clay-like
2.75 28.39 5.49 2.81 Clay-like
3.25 48.92 2.27 2.38 Sand
3.75 171.41 0.41 1.49 Sand
4.25 35.92 0.94 2.26 Sand
4.75 422.37 0.23 1.02 Sand
𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐 ≥ 2.4 − 2.6 (𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙)
As shown, our hypothesis of all layers to be sand is wrong, we correct the exponent on those layers (n=1
for clay-like layers):

Depth (m) Q F 𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐 Type

0.25 360.93 0.42 1.24 Sand

0.75 280.55 0.41 1.32 Sand
1.25 258.51 0.46 1.38 Sand
1.75 103.06 3.38 2.28 Sand
2.25 72.21 5.41 2.53 Clay-like
2.75 56.04 5.49 2.61 Clay-like
3.25 48.92 2.27 2.38 Sand
3.75 171.41 0.41 1.49 Sand
4.25 35.92 0.94 2.26 Sand
4.75 422.37 0.23 1.02 Sand

The fine content (%) can be calculated using the following formula:
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = 80(𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐 + 𝐶𝐶𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 ) − 137
Where 𝐶𝐶𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = −0.29,0,0.29, where the middle represents the median.

Depth Median FC + 𝜎𝜎 FC – 𝜎𝜎
(m) FC (%) (%) (%)
0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.75 45.08 68.28 21.88
2.25 65.55 88.75 42.35
2.75 71.67 94.87 48.47
3.25 53.17 76.37 29.97
3.75 0.00 5.46 0.00
4.25 43.43 66.63 20.23
 4.75 0.00 0.00 0.00

Now the iterative process starts, using the following equations:

𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶1𝑁𝑁 9.7 15.7 2

Δ𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶1𝑁𝑁 = �11.9 + � exp �1.63 − −� � �;
14.6 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 + 2 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 + 2

𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶1𝑁𝑁𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶1𝑁𝑁 + Δ𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶1𝑁𝑁

𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁 𝑞𝑞𝑐𝑐
𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶1𝑁𝑁 = ; 𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎 = 101.3 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎

𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚 0.264
𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁 = � ′ � ≤ 1.7; 𝑚𝑚 = 1.338 − 0.249�𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶1𝑁𝑁𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 �
𝜎𝜎𝑣𝑣

To start, Boulanger and Idriss suggested a range for exponent m between 0.264 and 0.782. After iterations,
the following table is achieved:

Depth
𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁 𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶1𝑁𝑁 Δq𝐶𝐶1𝑁𝑁 𝑞𝑞𝐶𝐶1𝑁𝑁𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
(m)
0.25 2.3590 167.6716 1.62E-27 167.6716
0.75 1.7651 169.0202 1.62E-27 169.0202
1.25 1.5978 170.3462 1.63E-27 170.3462
1.75 2.2001 45.6091 55.83555 101.4447
2.25 2.1137 35.4711 60.022 95.4931
2.75 2.0326 30.0975 59.69393 89.7915
3.25 1.8071 48.1643 60.00585 108.1701
3.75 1.5186 146.9109 1.52E-27 146.9109
4.25 1.7401 37.7901 53.0075 90.7976
4.75 1.2975 335.5911 2.41E-27 335.5911

The demand is calculated using the following relations:

 For Mw=6
𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Depth (m) 𝛼𝛼 𝛽𝛽 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 MSF 𝐶𝐶𝜎𝜎 𝐾𝐾𝜎𝜎 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑀=7.5
(g)
0.25 0.0058 -0.0002 1.0049 0.5 1.9577 1.5773 0.1877 1.10 0.1882
0.75 -0.0156 0.0022 0.9977 0.5 1.9717 1.5858 0.1901 1.10 0.1859
1.25 -0.0389 0.0048 0.9901 0.5 1.9856 1.5942 0.1925 1.10 0.2097
1.75 -0.0639 0.0076 0.9819 0.5 1.4076 1.2457 0.1075 1.10 0.3181
2.25 -0.0906 0.0106 0.9733 0.5 1.3714 1.2239 0.1026 1.10 0.3599
2.75 -0.1191 0.0138 0.9641 0.5 1.3388 1.2043 0.0982 1.10 0.3928
3.25 -0.1491 0.0171 0.9546 0.5 1.4511 1.2720 0.1134 1.10 0.3909
3.75 -0.1807 0.0206 0.9447 0.5 1.7561 1.4558 0.1556 1.10 0.3539
4.25 -0.2138 0.0243 0.9344 0.5 1.3445 1.2077 0.0989 1.10 0.4379
4.75 -0.2484 0.0282 0.9238 0.5 2.2000 1.7234 -0.9100 0.10 3.3637

For Mw=8
𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
Depth (m) 𝛼𝛼 𝛽𝛽 𝑟𝑟𝑑𝑑 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 MSF 𝐶𝐶𝜎𝜎 𝐾𝐾𝜎𝜎 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝑀𝑀=7.5
(g)
0.25 0.0058 -0.0002 1.0045 0.15 1.9577 0.8509 0.1877 1.10 0.1046
0.75 -0.0156 0.0022 1.0022 0.15 1.9717 0.8487 0.1901 1.10 0.1047
1.25 -0.0389 0.0048 0.9997 0.15 1.9856 0.8465 0.1925 1.10 0.1196
1.75 -0.0639 0.0076 0.9970 0.15 1.4076 0.9365 0.1075 1.10 0.1289
2.25 -0.0906 0.0106 0.9941 0.15 1.3714 0.9422 0.1026 1.10 0.1433
2.75 -0.1191 0.0138 0.9910 0.15 1.3388 0.9472 0.0982 1.10 0.1540
3.25 -0.1491 0.0171 0.9879 0.15 1.4511 0.9298 0.1134 1.10 0.1660
3.75 -0.1807 0.0206 0.9845 0.15 1.7561 0.8823 0.1556 1.10 0.1826
4.25 -0.2138 0.0243 0.9810 0.15 1.3445 0.9464 0.0989 1.10 0.1760
4.75 -0.2484 0.0282 0.9773 0.15 2.2000 0.8132 -0.9100 0.10 2.2627

Using the following equation, we can calculate the probability of liquefaction:

Where 𝜎𝜎ln(𝑅𝑅) = 0.20.

For Mw=6 For Mw=8

Boulanger & Boulanger
Robertson Robertson
Idriss & Idriss
Depth (m) 𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿 𝑃𝑃𝐿𝐿
0.25 0.00% 0.00% 18.12% 0.00%
0.75 0.00% 0.00% 3.09% 0.00%
1.25 0.00% 0.00% 3.65% 0.00%
1.75 99.91% 8.29% 63.55% 0.27%
2.25 100.00% 28.10% 13.10% 0.00%
2.75 100.00% 51.13% 1.90% 0.00%
3.25 99.99% 32.26% 98.56% 17.22%
3.75 64.23% 0.16% 75.98% 0.76%
4.25 100.00% 74.34% 100.00% 98.71%
4.75 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Some remarks:
• Boulanger and Idriss procedure tend to estimate more liquefaction than Robertson.
• According to Dhakar (Dhakal et al., 2022), the calculation of CRR in both methods differs almost to
50% from the calculation of Fines Content (FC%). As we observed below, the classification of soil
behavior is similar. However, even if the classification is correct, the calculation of Ic factor differs
to 40% at least.
Type 𝐼𝐼𝑐𝑐
Boulanger & Boulanger &
Depth (m) Robertson Robertson Dif.
Idriss Idriss
0.25 Sand Sand 1.24 0.87 43.4%
0.75 Sand Sand 1.32 1.00 31.6%
1.25 Sand Sand 1.38 1.11 24.1%
1.75 Sand Sand 2.28 2.28 0.0%
2.25 Clay-like Transition 2.53 2.53 0.1%
2.75 Clay-like Transition 2.61 2.61 0.1%
3.25 Sand Sand 2.38 2.18 9.1%
3.75 Sand Sand 1.49 1.29 15.6%
4.25 Sand Sand 2.26 2.06 9.5%
4.75 Sand Sand 1.02 0.86 19.6%
 • Even with the difference in the estimation of liquefaction triggering, both methods calculated at
depth 4.25 estimate liquefaction for both seismic cases. Mitigation techniques should be used.

References
Boulanger, R. W., Idriss, I. M., & Boulanger, R. W. (2014). CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering
Procedures.
Cetin, K. O., Seed, R. B., Der Kiureghian, A., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., Kayen, R. E., & Moss, R. E. S.
(2004). Standard Penetration Test-Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil
Liquefaction Potential. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(12), 1314–
1340. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2004)130:12(1314)
Dhakal, R., Cubrinovski, M., & Bray, J. D. (2022). Evaluating the applicability of conventional CPT-based
liquefaction assessment procedures to reclaimed gravelly soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107176
For Reference Use For CE275 UCB Only. (n.d.). http://www.world-housing.net/
Ku, C. S., Juang, C. H., Chang, C. W., & Ching, J. (2012). Probabilistic version of the robertson and wride
method for liquefaction evaluation: Development and application. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
49(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1139/T11-085
Robertson, P. K. (1997). Cyclic liquefaction and its evaluation based on SPT and CPT. Proc. NCEER Work-
shop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284757005
Robertson, P. K. (2009). Performance based earthquake design using the CPT. PROCEEDINGS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN IN EARTHQUAKE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING.
Robertson, P. K., & Wride, C. E. (1998). Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration
test.