FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

Sebastián Rivera Pardo

Civil Engineer
MSc.
Santo Tomas University, Professor
1. INTRODUCTION
 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

https://goo.gl/images/B8Ro6h https://goo.gl/images/VPjtVq

https://goo.gl/images/qePeb3 goo.gl/images/2aXhtV
 FOUNDATION ENGINEERING

https://goo.gl/images/Z89wTu https://goo.gl/images/GZQ6Li
 GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL
• FOUNDATIONS DESIGN REQUIRE:

• (a) the load that will be transmitted by the superstructure to the

foundation system.
• (b) the requirements of the local building code.
• (c) the behavior and stress-related deformability of soils that will
support the foundation system.
SOIL MECHANICS
• (d) the geological conditions of the soil under consideration. To a
foundation engineer.
2. SOIL MECHANICS REVIEW
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

https://goo.gl/images/EPN299
Sieve Analysis
Hydrometer Analysis
Soil Size Limits
WEIGHT-VOLUME RELATIONSHIPS
Relationships
Specific Gravity
 EXERCISE 1
The mass of a moist soil sample collected from the field is 465 grams, and its oven dry mass is
405.76 grams. The specific gravity of the soil solids was determined in the laboratory to be 2.68.
If the void ratio of the soil in the natural state is 0.83, find the following:

a) The moist density of the soil in the field (kg/m3) and Unit Weight

b) The dry density of the soil in the field (kg/m3) and dry Unit Weight

c) The mass of water, in kilograms, to be added per cubic meter of soil in the field for saturation

d) What is the name and type of soil?

ATTERBERG LIMITS
Liquid Index
ACTIVITY
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF SOIL
 Hydraulic Conductivity of Granular Soil

(Das and Carrier, 2003)

(Amer and Awad, 1974)

Laboratory experimental results

(Chapuis, 2004)
Hydraulic Conductivity of Cohesive Soil

(Taylor, 1948)
Range of the Hydraulic Conductivity for
Various Soils
 STEADY-STATE SEEPAGE
Laplace’s theory of continuity

For a two-dimnsional flow

Isotropic soil (kx = ky =kz)

Seepage
EFFECTIVE STRESS
Exercise 2
Calculate at points A, B, C, and D:

1. Total stress
2. Pore water pressure
3. Effective stress
CONSOLIDATION
Compression Index

(Skempton, 1944)

(Rendon Herrero, 1983) (Nagaraj and Murphy, 1985)

(Park and Koumoto, 2004) (Wroth and Wood, 1978)

Swelling Index

(Schmertmann, 1953)

(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

Primary Consolidation Settlement
Time Rate of Consolidation
 EXERCISE
For an overconsolidated clay with an OCR = 2.5, w = 38%, Cs =
0.05, Cc=0,3, Gs=2,7, Initial void ratio for sand = 0,76 and

Determine the primary consolidation settlement of the clay.

 EXERCISE
A laboratory consolidation test on a normally consolidated clay showed the following results:

The specimen tested was 25.4 mm in thickness and drained on both sides. The time required for the specimen
to reach 50% consolidation was 4.5 min.

A similar clay layer in the field 2.8 m thick and drained on both sides, is subjected to a similar increase in
average effective pressure

Determine the following:

a. The expected maximum primary consolidation settlement in the field.

b. The length of time required for the total settlement in the field to reach 40 mm.
(Assume a uniform initial increase in excess pore water pressure with depth.)
SHEAR STRENGTH
Shear Strength Test
(Brinch Hansen, 1970)
SENSITIVITY
REFERENCES
• Amer, A. M. and Awad, A. A. (1974). “Permeability of Cohesionless Soils,” Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 100 (12): 1309–1316.
• Braja, M Das. (2010). “Principles of Geotechnical Engineering”. Compressibility of Soil. Cengage Learning,
Seven Edition (11): 294–362.
• Braja, M Das. (2010). “Principles of Geotechnical Engineering”. Permeability. Cengage Learning, Seven
Edition (7): 160–196.
• Braja, M Das. (2010). “Principles of Geotechnical Engineering”. Shear Strength of Soil. Cengage Learning,
Seven Edition (12): 365–422.
• Braja, M Das. (2014). “Principles of Foundation Engineering”. Geotechnical Properties of Soil. Cengage
Learning, Eighth Edition (2): 7–74.
• Budhu, M. (2012). “Soil Mechanics and Foundations”. PHYSICAL SOIL STATES AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION.
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., Third Edition (4): 48–83.
• Budhu, M. (2012). “Soil Mechanics and Foundations”. STRESSES, STRAINS, AND ELASTIC DEFORMATIONS OF
SOILS. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., Third Edition (4): 131–181.
• Carrier III, W. D. (2003). “Goodbye, Hazen; Hello, Kozeny-Carman,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129 (11): 1054–1056.
• Chapuis, R. P. (2004). “Predicting the Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Sand and Gravel Using Effective
Diameter and Void Ratio,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 41 (5): 787–795.
Muchas gracias
Thank you
Merci Beaucoup
Danke schön
Dziękuję
感謝
3. NATURAL SOIL DEPOSITS
4. SUB SURFACE EXPLORATION
 https://goo.gl/images/2PBbYQ

https://goo.gl/images/SHBHZc
https://goo.gl/images/DCE8YN
 PURPOSE OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
• Selecting the type and depth of foundation suitable for a given
structure.
• Evaluating the load-bearing capacity of the foundation.
• Estimating the probable settlement of a structure.
• Determining potential foundation problems (e.g., expansive soil,
collapsible soil, sanitary landfill, and so on).
• Determining the location of the water table.
• Predicting the lateral earth pressure for structures such as retaining
walls, sheet pile bulkheads, and braced cuts.
• Establishing construction methods for changing subsoil conditions.
 SUB SURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM
A. Colection of Preliminary Information

B. Reconnaissance

C. Site Investigation
B. Reconnaissance
1. The general topography of the site, the possible existence of drainage ditches,
abandoned dumps of debris, and other materials present at the site. Also,
evidence of creep of slopes and deep, wide shrinkage cracks at regularly
spaced intervals may be indicative of expansive soils.
2. Soil stratification from deep cuts, such as those made for the construction of
nearby highways and railroads.
3. The type of vegetation at the site, which may indicate the nature of the soil.
For example, a mesquite cover in central Texas may indicate the existence of
expansive clays that can cause foundation problems.
4. High-water marks on nearby buildings and bridge abutments.
5. Groundwater levels, which can be determined by checking nearby wells.
6. The types of construction nearby and the existence of any cracks in walls or
other problems.
C. Site Investigation
• Planing Exploration
• Making Test Boreholes
• Collecting Soil Samples and Laboratory Tests

• To determine approximate mínimum depth of boring

 American Society of Civil Engineers
• Determine the net increase in the effective stress, under a foundation
with depth.
• Estimate the variation of the vertical effective stress, with depth.
• Determine the depth, D = D1, at which the effective stress increase is
equal to (1/10)q (q = estimated net stress on the foundation).
• Determine the depth, D = D2, at which
• Choose the smaller of the two depths, D1 and D2, just determined as
the approximate minimum depth of boring required, unless bedrock
is encountered.
Hospitals and Office Buildings
Hospitals and Office Buildings
Approximate Spacing of Boreholes
EXPLORATORY BORING IN THE FIELD
• Auger Boring
a) Posthole auger
b) Helical auger

HAND AUGERS CANNOT USED FOR

MORE THAN 3 TO 5m (10 TO 16ft)

THE SOIL SAMPLE OBTAINED IS

HIGHLY DISTURBED
 Methods of Drilling
• Continuous-flight auger
• Wash boring
• Rotary drilling
• Percussion drilling

https://goo.gl/images/FTXm1w
https://goo.gl/images/AZ5PNm
https://goo.gl/images/HyRcW4
 PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING SOIL
• Disturbed Samples:
• Grain size analysis
• Limits of Atterberg
• Specific gravity
• Determination of organic content
• Clasifiication of soil

https://goo.gl/images/SH9w7G
• Undisturbed Samples
• Advance tests about soil behavior

https://goo.gl/images/3eDE5R
 TYPES OF IN-SITU FIELD TESTS
1. Vane shear test (VST)

2. Standard penetration test (SPT)

3. Cone penetrometer test (CPT)

4. Pressuremeter test (PMT)

5. Flat plate dilatometer (DMT)

1. Vane Shear Test (VST) ASTM D-2537
1. Vane Shear Test (VST) ASTM D-2537
• Determine Undrained Shear Strength
(Cu)
K For Rectangular Vanes
K For Tapered Vanes
 Correction of vane Cu(vst)

(Bjerrum, 1972) (Marris and Williams,1994)

Correlations Between Cu(vst), σp and OCR

(Mayne and Mitchell, (Hansbo, 1957) (Larsson, 1980)

1988)
 EXERCISE
Vane shear tests (tapered vane) were conducted in the clay layer.

The vane dimensions were 63.5 mm (d), and iT = iB = 45°. For a test at
a certain depth in the clay, the torque required to cause failure was
20 N-m. For the clay, liquid limit was 50 and plastic limit was 18.
Estimate the undrained cohesion of the clay for use in the design by
using each equation:

a. Bjerrum’s l relationship.

b. Morris and Williams’ l and PI relationship.

c. Morris and Williams’ l and LL relationship.

d. Estimate the preconsolidation pressure of clay.

.
 2. Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
ASTM D 1586
• Split-Spoon Sampling

• The sampler is driven 152 mm (6 in.) into the soil at the bottom of a
borehole.

• The number of blows (N) required to drive it an additional 304 mm is

counted.

• The number of blows (N) is called the standard penetration number.

https://goo.gl/images/Wm7gAk
 Correction to Number of Blows

• CR= Rod length

• CS= Sampler type
• CB= Borehole diameter
• CE= Rod energy correction
Correction Factors
Compactness of Coarse-Grained Soils
Based on N Values
 Correction of N60 in GRANULAR soils

(Liao and Whitman, 1986) (Skempton,1986)

(Peck, 1974)
 EXERCISE
The blow counts for an SPT test at a depth of 6 m in a coarse-grained
soil at every 0.152 m are 8, 12, and 15. A donut automatic trip hammer
and a standard sampler were used in a borehole 152 mm in diameter.

(a) Determine the N value.

(b) Correct the N value for rod length, sampler type, borehole size, and
energy ratio to 60%.

(c) Make a preliminary description of the compactness of the soil.

•THE CORRELATIONS BELOW ARE
APPROXIMATIONS AND ARE NOT
ACCURATE
Correlations for N60 in COHESIVE soils
Consistecy of clay
(Szechy and Vargi, 1978)
 Cu (Shear Strength of Clay)
(Hara, 1971)

Preconsolidation
OCR OCR pressure
(Mayne and Kemper, 1988) (Kullhawy and Mayne, 1990) (Kullhawy and Mayne, 1990)
Correlations for N60 in GRANULAR soils
Relative Density Relative Density
(Kulhawy and Mayne,1990) (Meyerhof,1957)

Provides a reasonable estimate

only for clean, medium fine sand

Relative Density
(Skempton, 1986)

(N1)60 should be multiplied by 0.92 for coarse sands and

1.08 for fine sands.
Correlations Between N60 and Friction Angle
(Peck, Hanson and Thanburn, 1974) (Schmertmann, 1975)

(Hatanaka and Uchida, 1996)

Correlations Between N60 and Modulus of
Elasticity
(Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990)

Very important parameter to estimate

elastic settlements
Approximate Borderlines Values
(Sivakugan and Das, 2010)
 EXERCISE
Following are the results of a standard penetration test in sand.

1. Determine the corrected standard penetration number, (N1)60, at various

depths.
2. Estimate the average soil friction angle. From z=0 to z=7.5 m.

Note that the water table was not observed within a depth of 10.5 m below the ground surface.
Assume that the average unit weight of sand is 17.3 kN/m3.
 3. The Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT)
ASTM D 5778
• Provides useful data to estimate:
• Shear Strength
• Bearing Capacity
• Consolidation

• Meassure:
• Cone resistance qc
• The frictional resistance fc
REFERENCES
• American Society for Testing and Materials (2001). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08,
West Conshohocken, PA.
• American Society for Testing and Materials (2014). Annual book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.08,
West Conshohocken, PA.
• Braja, M Das. (2014). “Principles of Foundation Engineering”. Natural Soil Deposits. Cengage
Learning, Eighth Edition (3): 76–85.
• Braja, M Das. (2014). “Principles of Foundation Engineering”. Sub Surface Exploration. Cengage
Learning, Eighth Edition (3): 86–150.
• Budhu, M. (2012). “Soil Mechanics and Foundations”. Soil Investigation. JOHN WILEY & SONS,
INC., Third Edition (3): 26–47.
• Budhu, M. (2012). “Soil Mechanics and Foundations”. Geological Characteristics and Particle Sizes
of Soils. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., Third Edition (2): 5–25.
• Hatanaka, M. and Uchida, A. (1996). “Empirical Correlation between Penetration Resistance and
Internal Friction Angle of Sandy Soils,” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36,(4): 1–10.
• Kulhawy, F. H. and Mayne, P. W. (1990). Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation
Design, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Muchas gracias
Thank you
Merci Beaucoup
Danke schön
Dziękuję
感謝
5. SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
• To perform satisfactorily, shallow foundations must have two
main characteristics:

• They have to be safe against overall shear failure in the soil that
supports them.

• They cannot undergo excessive displacement, or settlement. (The

term excessive is relative, because the degree of settlement
allowed for a structure depends on several considerations).

ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY

Failure Mechanism
General Shear Failure

Local Shear Failure

Sand and clayey soil
of médium compaction

Punching Shear Failure

Loose fairly soil
Vesic (1973)
 TERZAGHI’S BEARING CAPACITY THEORY
(1943)
Shallow Foundation:

• If its depth, Df is less than or equal to its width.

• Df = B

• Later investigators, however, have suggested that foundations with Df

equal to 3 to 4 times their width may be defined as shallow
foundations.
• Df = 3 to 4 B
The failure zone under the foundation can be separated
into three parts:

1. The triangular zone ACD immediately under the foundation

2. The radial shear zones ADF and CDE, with the curves DE and
DF being arcs of a logarithmic spiral

3. Two triangular Rankine passive zones AFH and CEG

The angles CAD and ACD are assumed to be equal to the soil friction
angle
 Pasive Pressure
ϒ C’ q
Continuous foundations
Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Square and Circular Foundations
 FACTOR OF SAFETY

Allowable Bearing Capacity

FS SHOULD
BE ALMOST 3
 EXERCISE
A square foundation is 2 m X 2 m in plan. The soil supporting the
foundation has a friction angle of 25° and c’=20 kN/m2. The unit
weight of soil is 16.5 kN/m3.

Determine the allowable gross load on the foundation with a

factor of safety (FS) of 3.

Assume that the depth of the foundation Df is 1.5 m and that

general shear failure occurs in the soil.
 EXERCISE

A square foundation measuring B x B will be subjected to an

allowable gross load of 1000 kN with FS=3 and Df=1m. Friction
angle of 35° and c’=30 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil is 17
kN/m3

Determine the size B of the foundation.

 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY – TERZAGHI
LOCAL SHEAR FAILURE
qu = c’ Nc + q Nq + ½ ϒ B Nϒ

qu = 2/3cNc’ + qNq’ + 0,4ϒBNϒ’ = CONTINUOUS FOUNDATION

qu = 0,867cNc’ + qNq’ + 0,4ϒBNϒ’ = SQUARE FOUNDATION
qu = 0,867cNc’ + qNq’ + 0,3ϒBNϒ’ = CIRCULAR FOUNDATION

−1 2𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙
For Nc’, Nq’, BNϒ’ ϕ is replaced with 𝑡𝑎𝑛 ( )
3
MODIFICATION OF BEARING CAPACITY
FOR WATER TABLE
1. If the water table is located so that 0 <= D1 <= Df,

2. For a water table located so that 0 <= d <= B

3. When the water table is located so that d => B,

The water will have no effect on the ultimate

bearing capacity.
THE GENERAL BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION
(Meyerhof, 1963)

qu = c’ Nc Fcs Fcd Fci + q Nq Fqs Fqd Fqi + ½ ϒ B Nϒ Fϒs Fϒd Fϒi

The original equation for ultimate bearing

capacity is derived only for the plane
strain case (i.e., for continuous
foundations).

The shape, depth, and load inclination

factors are empirical factors based on
This can be used for any type of experimental data.

shallow foundation.
 Bearing Capacity Factors
(Vesic, 1973) (Vesic, 1973) (Vesic, 1973)
Shape, Depth and Inclination Factors
SHAPE FACTORS
(DeBeer, 1970)
Shape, Depth and Inclination Factors
DEPTH FACTORS
(Hansen, 1970)
Shape, Depth and Inclination Factors
INCLINATION FACTORS
(Meyerhof, 1963)
(Meyerhof and Hanna, 1981)
 EXERCISE
A rectangular foundation with width of 2m and length of 4m in
plan. The soil supporting the foundation has a friction angle of
28° and c’=15 kN/m2. The unit weight of soil is 16 kN/m3.

Determine the allowable load on the foundation with a factor of

safety (FS) of 4.

Assume that the depth of the foundation Df is 2.5 m and that

general shear failure occurs in the soil.
 EXERCISE
A square foundation (B x B) has
to be constructed.

Assume that:
ϒ=105 lb/ft3, ϒ sat=118 lb/ft3,
φ’=34°, Df=4 ft, and D1=2 ft.

The gross allowable load, Qall is

150,000 lb with FS=3

Determine the size of the

foundation.
 EXERCISE
A square column foundation is
to be constructed on a sand
deposit. The allowable load will
be inclined at an angle β=25°
with the vertical.

Determine the allowable load

use FS=4.
 EFFECT OF SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY
(Vesic, 1973)

qu = c Nc Fcs Fcd Fci Fcc + q Nq Fqs Fqd Fqi Fqc + ½ ϒ B Nϒ Fϒs Fϒd Fϒi Fϒc
q = ϒDf SURCHARGE

Nc, Nq, Nϒ = BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS

Fcs, Fqs, Fϒs = SHAPE FACTORS
Fcd, Fqd, Fϒd = DEPTH FACTORS
Fci, Fqi, Fυi = INCLINATION FACTORS

Fcc, Fqc, Fϒc = COMPRESSIBILITY FACTORSS

 Steps to calculate the compressibility factors
• Step 1. Rigidity index Ir • Step 2. Critical rigidity index Ir(cr)
 Step 3.
If Ir => Ir(cr)
Fcc = Fqc = Fϒc = 1
If Ir < Ir(cr)

And φ’>0
 EXERCISE
For a shallow foundation, B=0.6 m, L=1.2 m, and Df=0.6 m.
The known soil characteristics are Soil:

Φ’=25°
C’=48 kN/m2
ϒ=18 kN/m3
Modulus of elasticity, Es=620 kN/m2
Poisson’s ratio, μs=0.3

Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity.

ECCENTRICALLY LOADED FOUNDATIONS
ECCENTRICALLY LOADED FACTOR OF SAFETY
 ONE-WAY
ECCENTRICITY
Effective Area Method
(Meyerhoff, 1953)
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity

To evaluate Fcs, Fqs, and Fϒs , we use the effective length L’ and effective width B’ instead
of L and B, respectively.
To calculate Fcd Fqd and Fϒd, we do not replace B with B’.
Prakash and Saran Theory
(1971)
CONTINUOUS (STRIP)

RECTANGULAR
Reduction Factor Method (For Granular Soil)
Purkayastha and Char (1977)
Reduction Factor Method (For Granular Soil)
Purkayastha and Char (1977)
Reduction Factor Method (For Granular Soil)
Purkayastha and Char (1977)
 EXERCISE
A continuous foundation is supported on a sand layer. If the load
eccentricity is 0.2 m. Determine the ultimate load, Qu, per unit
length of the foundation. Use Meyerhof’s effective area method,
Prakash and Saran Theory and Reduction Factor Method.

Df = 1,5m
B= 2m
Friction angle of 40°
Effective cohesion of zero
Unit weight of 16,5kN/m3
 TWO-WAY
ECCENTRICITY
To evaluate Fcs, Fqs, and Fϒs , we use the effective length L’ and effective width B’ instead
of L and B, respectively.
To calculate Fcd Fqd and Fϒd, we do not replace B with B’.
EXERCISE
A square foundation, with
eL=0.3m and eB=0.15m.
Assume
two-way eccentricity, and
determine the ultimate load,
Qu.
 EXERCISE
eL=0.18 m
eB=0.12 m
2,5 x2,5
Specific weight of 16.5 kN/m3,
friction angle of 25° and
effective cohesion of 25 kN/m2

Determine the ultimate load,

Qu.
 Bearing Capacity of a Continuous
Foundation Subjected to Eccentrically
Inclined Loading

Partially Reinforced case

compensated case
 Partially Compensated Case
(Perloff and Baron, 1976)

Meyerhof’s effective area method can be used to determine the ultimate load Qu(ei).

Because of qu is the vertical component of the reaction. So……

 Partially Compensated Case
(Perloff and Baron, 1976)
Reduction Factor Method to estimate Qu(ei) for a foundation on granular soil
(Patra et al, 2012)
Reinforced Case (Granular Soil)
(Perloff and Baron, 1976)
(Patra et al, 2012)
EXERCISE
Estimate the inclined ultimate
load, Qu(ei) per unit length of
the foundation.

By Meyerhof and Reduction

factor
 SPECIAL CASES

1. Layered Clays

2. Bearing Capacity of Layered Soils: Stronger Soil Underlain by Weaker Soil

3. Bearing Capacity of Layered Soil: Weaker Soil Underlain by Stronger Soil

 1. Layered Clays
(Reddy and Srinivasan, 1967)
1. Layered Clays
(Vesic,1975)
 m
For Continuous Foundation (B/L=<0.2)
 m
For Square Foundation (B/L=1)
2. Bearing Capacity of Layered Soils: Stronger
Soil Underlain by Weaker Soil
(Meyerhof and Hanna,1978) and (Meyerhof,1974)
If H is relatively small If H is relatively large
compared with B compared with B

PUNCHING SHEAR FAILURE

GENERAL SHEAR FAILURE

GENERAL SHEAR FAILURE

If H is relatively small compared with B
If H is relatively small compared with B
If H is relatively large compared with B
Rectangular foundation Strip foundation
 Special cases
1. Top layer is strong sand and bottom layer is saturated soft clay φ2=0

2. Top layer is stronger sand and bottom layer is weaker sand (c’1=0 and c’2=0)
 Special cases
3. Top layer is stronger saturated clay sf1 5 0d and bottom layer is weaker
saturated clay φ2=0
3. Bearing Capacity of Layered Soil: Weaker Soil
Underlain by Stronger Soil
(Meyerhof, 1974; Meyerhof and Hanna, 1978)
3. Bearing Capacity of Layered Soil: Weaker Soil
Underlain by Stronger Soil
(Meyerhof, 1974; Meyerhof and Hanna, 1978)
 EXERCISE
A foundation 2,5m X 1m is located at a depth (Df) of 1 m in a clay. A softer
clay layer is located at a depth (H) of 1 m measured from the bottom of the
foundation. Given:
• For top clay layer,
Undrained shear strength 130 kN/m2
Unit weight 16.2 kN/m3
• For bottom clay layer,
Undrained shear strength 40 kN/m2
Unit weight 16 kN/m3
Determine the gross allowable load for the foundation with a factor of
safety of 4.
 EXERCISE
A continuous foundation with B=2,3m, Df=1.2m, and H=1.3m. The following
are given for the two soil layers:
• Top sand layer:
Unit weight = 17.5 kN/m3
Effective friction angle = 40°
Effective cohesion = 0
• Bottom clay layer:
Unit weight = 16 kN/m3
Effective friction angle = 0°
Undrained cohesion = 32Kpa

• Determine the gross ultimate load per unit length of the foundation.
 EXERCISE
A foundation 3.5m X 2m is located at a depth, Df, of 1,5m in a stronger clay.
A softer clay layer is located at a depth, H of 2m measured from the bottom
of the foundation.
• Top clay layer:
Undrained shear strength 150 kN/m2
Unit weight 17 kN/m3
• Bottom clay layer:
Undrained shear strength 58 kN/m2
Unit weight 16 kN/m3

• Determine the gross ultimate load per unit length of the foundation.
 EXERCISE
For a layered saturated-clay profile, given: L=6,5ft, B=4,5ft, Df=3ft, H=2ft,
and;
• Top layer:
Unit weight = 110lb/ft3
Effective friction angle = 0°
Undrained cohesion = 1200lb/ft2
• Bottom layer:
Unit weight = 120lb/ft3
Effective friction angle = 0°
Undrained cohesion = 3000lb/ft2

Determine the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation.