Yang, S. et al. (2021). Géotechnique 71, No. 7, 594–607 [https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.19.P.

329]

Influence of failure mechanism on seismic bearing capacity factors

for shallow foundations near slopes
SHANGCHUAN YANG
, BEN LESHCHINSKY†, KAI CUI‡, FEI ZHANG§ and YUFENG GAO∥

The bearing capacity of shallow foundations may decrease when located near slopes, particularly
under seismic conditions. However, there is limited work that isolates the destabilising influences of
seismicity and finite slope geometry on ultimate bearing capacity in terms of conventional bearing
capacity factors. Herein, analytical solutions based on upper-bound kinematic limit analysis are used
to isolate both the mechanism of failure and bearing capacity factors (Nc, Nγ and Nq) for shallow
foundations near slopes subject to seismic action without using principles of superposition. The
analytical solutions of ultimate seismic bearing capacity show good agreement and accuracy compared
with numerical results. Seismic bearing capacity factors are assessed considering transitions in
failure mechanism, soil properties and finite configurations of slope and footing geometry. The
results presented demonstrate significant non-linearity in bearing capacity factors that have not been
previously demonstrated, primarily owing to the transition in governing mechanism with geometry,
shear strength or seismic loading. This study shows that the isolation of bearing capacity factors
without superposition is possible considering slope and footing geometry, and is greatly influenced by
the failure mechanism.

KEYWORDS: failure; footings/foundations; limit state design/analysis; slopes

INTRODUCTION where c is soil cohesion; γ is soil unit weight; B is foundation

Earthquakes have significant destabilising effects on a wide
variety of geotechnical structures, including shallow foun-
dations and slopes. Evaluating seismic bearing capacity for
shallow foundations placed near slopes is a critical design
consideration in regions that experience earthquakes, but is
challenging owing to the variety of failure conditions that
may dictate collapse. While bearing capacity is convention-
ally evaluated using dimensionless factors for cohesion, unit
weight and embedment, it has long been difficult to consider
the influence of nearby slopes on these parameters and
overall assessment of stability.
Bearing capacity is conventionally assessed through the
solution proposed by Terzaghi (1943), originally intended for
strip footings on level ground, defined as
Q ¼ cNc þ 05γBNγ þ γDNq
Manuscript received 6 November 2019; revised manuscript accepted
15 April 2020. Published online ahead of print 1 June 2020.
Discussion on this paper closes on 1 November 2021, for further
details see p. ii.

Key Laboratory of High-speed Railway Engineering of the
Ministry of Education, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu,
P. R. China (Orcid:0000-0002-1428-7247).
† Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA
(Orcid:0000-0003-3890-1368).
‡ Key Laboratory of High-speed Railway Engineering of the
Ministry of Education, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu,
P. R. China.
§ Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and
Embankment Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing, P. R. China;
also Jiangsu Province’s Geotechnical Research Center, Nanjing,
P. R. China (Orcid:0000-0001-5517-7725).
∥ Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and
Embankment Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing, P. R. China;
also Jiangsu Province’s Geotechnical Research Center, Nanjing,
P. R. China.
width; and D is the embedment depth of the foundation. In
consideration of the influence of sloping ground, the bearing
capacity factors for cohesion (Nc), soil unit weight (Nγ) and
embedment (Nq) may be revised in the context of the
respective contributions of soil and geometric design par-
ameters near sloping ground (e.g. Meyerhof, 1957; Kusakabe
et al., 1981; Graham et al., 1988; Bowles, 1996; Georgiadis,
2010a, 2010b; Yang et al., 2019). However, when considering
seismic action, further modifications for inertial loading
must be considered.
There has been limited research assessing the role of
seismicity in the bearing capacity of shallow foundations
near slopes considering all three bearing capacity factors
simultaneously. Several studies (e.g. Georgiadis & Chrysouli,
2011; Cinicioglu & Erkli, 2018) have focused on the seismic
ð1Þ bearing capacity factors of cohesive or undrained soil slopes,
cohesionless slopes (i.e. c = 0, e.g. Huang & Kang, 2008;
Kumar & Chakraborty, 2013) and slopes characterised by
c–ϕ shear strength parameters. Kumar & Mohan Rao (2003)
used the method of characteristics to assess the effects of
pseudo-static seismic loading on the bearing capacity factors
of shallow foundations on sloping ground. Two failure mech-
anisms (i.e. double-sided and single-sided failure mechan-
isms) were proposed. It was found that only the single-sided
failure mechanism was kinematically admissible under large
seismicity. Kumar & Kumar (2003) evaluated the seismic
bearing capacity of rough foundations on sloping ground
using the limit equilibrium method, without assuming the
ratio of shear to normal stresses along the foundation–soil
interface, finding good agreement for Nc, Nq (for surcharge)
and Nγ (e.g. Zhu, 2000; Kumar & Mohan Rao, 2003).
Although shallow foundations are usually subject to embed-
ment, few studies have assessed its influence in consideration
of sloping ground and seismicity. Using upper-bound limit
analysis, Kumar & Ghosh (2006) determined the seismic
bearing capacity factors Nc and Nγq for embedded footings
on sloping ground, considering the shear resistance of the soil
mass above the footing base (which may be significant for

594

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 INFLUENCE OF FAILURE MECHANISM ON SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF SLOPES 595
large embedment). More recently, the seismic bearing λB B
capacity factors Nc and Nγq were calculated through Zone C2 O QB
numerical simulations (Chakraborty & Kumar, 2015; Raj D
G A khQB B
et al., 2018). Note that, in these studies, Nγq reflects the
θ δ α
combined contribution of the soil weight beneath the footing Zone A
ξ va,0
base (Nγ) and the soil weight above the footing base (Nq). Zone C1
φ
r0
In the existing literature, analytical solutions for seismic H rh
bearing capacity factors are only proposed for slopes of kh g
E
infinite height, not considering the effects of finite slope g C
vc,0 Zone B
geometry. However, numerical simulations show when finite
slope geometry is included, the governing mechanism for β D
bearing capacity may transition between a deep-seated base
failure, face failure or one-sided bearing failure (Leshchinsky, (a)
O
2015). Therefore, the development of seismic bearing capa-
θ1
city factors based on slopes of infinite height, while useful,
θ2
does not explicitly consider the distinct geometric effects of QB
finite slope geometry (Zhou et al., 2019). Furthermore, in Zone C2 QB
khQB
khQB
earlier studies related to seismic bearing capacity, the influ- kh g
Zone A
ence of foundation setback was not considered. Often, Zone C1 g

shallow foundations may be located on a slope crest, but khg

design will often dictate necessary clearance from the slope Zone B g

face. Finally, the aforementioned studies on the seismic

bearing capacity factors of foundations near slopes charac- (b) (c)
terised by c–ϕ parameters are based on the principle of super-
position. Specifically, Nc is calculated by setting γ = q = 0 and Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the failure mechanisms under
Nγq is assessed by setting c to 0. While this approach enables seismic conditions: (a) face failure BCM; (b) base failure BCM;
assessment of seismic bearing capacity factors (especially for (c) face and base failure SM (revised from Yang et al., 2019)
the method of characteristics and numerical methods), the
solutions of Nγ are limited to horizontal pseudo-static failure mechanism are considered in this study (Figs 1(a) and
coefficients (kh) that are less than tan(ϕ–β). Consequently, 1(b)). Seismicity is considered by applying a pseudo-static
the calculable ultimate seismic bearing capacity is restricted body force to both the soil and footing load. By equating
to the same range using equation (1). the power dissipated internally to the power expended by the
In this study, the soil is assumed to obey the Mohr– external loads (i.e. the footing load and seismic load), the
Coulomb failure criterion, whereupon upper-bound limit ultimate bearing capacity Q can be obtained as equation (2)
analysis is used to directly establish seismic bearing capacity
factors (i.e. Nc, Nγ and Nq) considering the interdependencies c cos ϕ
Q¼
of geometric parameters (e.g. slope angle and height, set- ½sinðα  ϕÞ þ kh cosðα  ϕÞva;0
back, width and embedment of footings) and soil properties

(including shear strength above the footing base). Since  ðBCÞva;0 þ ðACÞv1;a þ ðADÞvc;n þ ðEDÞvc;0
the solutions are analytical and are not attained by setting the 
slope to be weightless without surcharge (γ = q = 0) or δθ X n Xn
þ r0 eθi tan ϕ vi;0 þ ri vi;i1
cohesionless (c = 0), respectively, the seismic bearing capacity cos ϕ i¼1 i¼2
factors Nc, Nγ and Nq can be isolated directly from the 1
ultimate bearing capacity, Q, which is calculated including 
½sinðα  ϕÞ þ kh cosðα  ϕÞva;0
the effects of cohesion c, soil weight γ and footing embed- 
ment simultaneously. Hence, the closed-form solutions for Nγ
 WA ½sinðα  ϕÞ: þ kh cosðα  ϕÞva;0
and Nq may be determined explicitly for a range of geometric
configurations, soil properties and seismic action (kh) þ ðWC1 þ WC2 Þvc;0 ½sinðα  θ  ϕÞ þ kh cosðα  θ  ϕÞ
exceeding tan(ϕ–β).
 
Xn
δθ
þ δWi vi;0 sin α  θi   ϕ
i¼1
2
METHODOLOGY  
δθ
Upper-bound limit analysis is a robust tool for analysing þ kh cos α  θi   ϕ
the bearing capacity of footings (e.g. Askari & Farzaneh, 2
Xn
 
2003; Georgiadis, 2010b). As illustrated in Fig. 1, a shallow δθ
foundation (width B) is placed at depth D and setback λB þ δWi vi;0 sin α  θi   ϕ
i¼1
2
from a slope of height H. For a general shear bearing mech-  
anism, the collapse area of the slope consists of three parts, δθ
þ kh cos α  θi   ϕ
an asymmetric basal wedge (zone A) beneath the foundation, 2
a slip fan block (zone B) and a passive block (zone C), ð2Þ
including the soil mass below the foundation base (zone C1)
and overburden material (zone C2). The slip surface CD is a where α, δ, θ and r0 are as shown in Fig. 1(a); va,0, vc,0 and vi,0
log-spiral with a pole O, and a slip fan that is composed of are velocities of zone A, zone C and the ith infinitesimal block
velocity discontinuity surfaces AC and AD. The slip fan is in zone B, respectively; v1,a, vc,n and vi,i1 are the relative
divided into n rigid blocks, each having an infinitesimal velocities between the first infinitesimal block in zone B and
change in rotation angle δθ = θ/n. The velocities of the failure zone A, zone C and the nth infinitesimal block in zone B, and
soil mass are inclined at angle ϕ to ensure the kinematical the ith and (i + 1)th infinitesimal block in zone B, respectively;
admissibility required by upper-bound limit analysis. Both WA, WC1, WC2 and δWi are the soil weights of zone A, zone
the face failures and the base failures of a bearing capacity C1, zone C2 and the ith block of zone B, respectively; and ϕ is

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 596 YANG, LESHCHINSKY, CUI, ZHANG AND GAO
the internal angle of friction. More details associated with
equation (2) are presented in Yang et al. (2019). Additionally,
the slope stability failure mechanism (Fig. 1(c)), in which the
velocity discontinuity surface is a log-spiral, is also considered
as it is observed under static and seismic conditions (Zhou
et al., 2018, 2019) and used in previous theoretical analyses
(Qin & Chian, 2018). More details about this mechanism
and equations related to the slope stability failure mechanism
can be found in Yang et al. (2016). An optimisation procedure
is carried out to determine the minimum ultimate bearing
capacity Q and its associated failure mechanism, with respect
to the unknown parameters (α, δ, θ and r0). A random search
method (Gao et al., 2013a) is used to find the global minimum
in this procedure until the band widths of variables become
less than predefined values (e.g. 0·01° for α, δ and θ). Further
details of this procedure are provided in Gao et al. (2013a).
The minimum Q obtained for the aforementioned mechan-
isms will govern ultimate bearing capacity.
The ultimate seismic bearing capacity is established
through contributions from cohesion (Qc), soil undergoing
shear beneath the foundation (Qγ) and soil embedment (Qq),
defined as
Q ¼ Qc þ Qγ þ Qq ð3Þ
Unlike the superposition method, after the ultimate seismic
bearing capacity Q is obtained, the bearing capacity values
Qc, Qγ and Qq can be calculated directly, and accordingly
the bearing capacity factors Nc, Nγ and Nq may be deter-
mined directly using the closed-form equations (4a)–(4c),
without setting the soil cohesion, soil weight or footing
embedment to 0. These factors are defined as
Qc cos ϕ
Nc ¼ ¼ lower bound (LB) of Nc = 5·16 and 5·11, respectively, under
c ½sinðα  ϕÞ þ kh cosðα  ϕÞva;0


 ðBCÞva;0 þ ðACÞv1;a þ ðADÞvc;n þ ðEDÞvc;0
 of footing height is not considered herein. Fig. 3(a) shows that
δθ X n Xn
þ r0 eθi tan ϕ vi;0 þ ri vi;i1
cos ϕ i¼1 i¼2
ð4aÞ
2Qγ 2 As shown in Fig. 3(a), when H/B = 4, the proposed method
Nγ ¼ ¼
γB ½sinðα  ϕÞ þ kh cosðα  ϕÞva;0 γB

½WA ½sinðα  ϕÞ þ kh cosðα  ϕÞva;0 :
þ WC1 vc;0 ½sinðα  θ  ϕÞ þ kh cosðα  θ  ϕÞ

  scenarios, the slope height does not affect the ultimate seismic
Xn
δθ
þ δWi vi;0 sin α  θi   ϕ
i¼1
2
 
δθ
þ kh cos α  θi   ϕ
2 slopes of finite height (e.g. when H/B = 1), solutions from prior
ð4bÞ
Qq 1
Nq ¼ ¼
γD ½sinðα  ϕÞ þ kh cosðα  ϕÞva;0 γD
 WC2 vc;0 ½sinðα  θ  ϕÞ þ kh cosðα  θ  ϕÞ
ð4cÞ
Through these components, individual bearing capacity
factors compatible with conventional assessment of bearing
capacity may be established under seismic conditions in con-
sideration of a wide range of soil properties and geometries.
This approach is distinctly different from using the principles
of superposition, as each bearing capacity factor can be
determined explicitly without setting γ = q = 0 and c = 0 and
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
without neglecting the interdependencies between soil
friction, unit weight, cohesion and geometric parameters
(e.g. slope height, footing embedment, etc.).
VERIFICATION AND COMPARISON TO
PREVIOUS LITERATURE
In order to establish the verity of the proposed solutions,
a comparison of the proposed solution to previous studies and
finite-element limit analysis (FELA) is performed. Numerical
simulations using upper-bound limit analysis conducted by
Zhou et al. (2019) show that seismic bearing capacity factors
obtained through the superposition method used in previous
studies can render accurate results of ultimate bearing capa-
cities when the face failure governs the failure mechanism, but
may underestimate or overestimate the ultimate bearing
capacity when considering the contribution of soil weight,
particularly for slopes of finite height. For verification, the ulti-
mate bearing capacities obtained in this study are compared
with numerical simulations based on computational limit
analysis (Zhou et al., 2019) and FELA that capture finite slope
geometry. Both upper- and lower-bound solutions are pre-
sented using OptumG2 (Krabbenhoft et al., 2016) to assess the
accuracy of the analytical solutions in this study. The
schematic representation (not to scale) of the numerical limit
analysis model is depicted in Fig. 2. The model extends to 12B
in front of the footing, 8B behind the footing and 7·5B beneath
the footing, to diminish the effects of boundaries. The left and
right sides of the model are fixed in the horizontal direction
and the bottom is fixed in both horizontal and vertical
directions. Based on a mesh sensitivity analysis, the number of
elements is selected to be 8000 with six adaptive iterations
(8000 start elements), presenting the upper bound (UB) and
undrained conditions when β = 0°, with only 0·4% higher and
0·6% lower than the exact value of 5·14. The footing was set to
be rigid and weightless with a height Hf = 0·01B, as the effect
the analytical solutions in this study are in good agreement
with Zhou et al. (2019) and the upper and lower bounds
obtained by FELA, except for a small divergence when
H/B = 1 and kh , 0·1 for the latter numerical method.
agrees with the ultimate seismic loads obtained by using the
seismic bearing capacity factors for infinite slopes from
previous studies (Kumar & Kumar, 2003; Kumar & Mohan
Rao, 2003), owing to the fact that the critical failure surfaces
pass through the slope face, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a). In these
bearing capacity. Note the available range for the prior
theoretical solutions of ultimate seismic loads is limited to
kh from 0 to 0·176 because the seismic bearing capacity factors
were evaluated using the superposition method. However, for
studies underestimate ultimate seismic loads, since a deep-
B
12B 8B
QB
khQB
Hf
β
kh g 7·5B
g
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the numerical model (not to scale)
 INFLUENCE OF FAILURE MECHANISM ON SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF SLOPES 597
1·5
DLO (Zhou et al., 2019)
80 Kumar & Mohan Rao (2003)
Kumar & Kumar (2003) 1·0
β = 30°, H/B = 4
Present study
Analytical-UB

z/H
60 FELA-UB 0·5
FELA-LB kh = 0·0
Q/γ B

kh = 0·1
0
40 kh = 0·2
H/B = 1 kh = 0·3
–0·5
–0·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0
20
x/H
H/B = 4
(a)

0 1·5
0 0·2 0·4 0·6
kh
1·0
(a)
β = 30°, H/B = 1

z/H
70 0·5
H/B = 1 (present study)
H/B = 4 (present study)
60 0
Kumar & Mohan Rao (2003)

50
–0·5
–0·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0
40
x/H
Nc

(b)
30
Fig. 4. Comparison of failure surfaces of non-embedded foundations
20 on slopes (β = 30°, ϕ = 40°, c/γB = 1, λ = 0 and D/B = 0): (a) H/B = 4;
(b) H/B = 1
10

discontinuity ED to have an upward or horizontal trajectory,

0
unlike its downward trajectory when H/B = 4. When the vel-
0 0·2 0·4 0·6
ocity discontinuity ED has a horizontal or upward trajectory,
kh
the passive block (zone C1) contributes more to the ultimate
(b) bearing capacity (Fig. 3(a)). That is, even though a base failure
does not occur, the slope height still has significant effects
30
H/B = 1 (present study) on the ultimate bearing capacity. When seismicity is large
H/B = 4 (present study) (i.e. kh  0·5 for H/B = 1 and kh  0·55 for H/B = 4), the
25
Kumar & Mohan Rao (2003) governing failure mechanism transitions from a bearing capa-
Kumar & Kumar (2003) city mechanism (BCM) to a stability mechanism (SM).
20 To further highlight the influence of finite slope geometry,
seismic bearing capacity factors corresponding to Fig. 3(a)
15 are compared with previous solutions. As shown in Figs 3(b)
Nγ

and 3(c), when H/B = 4, Nc obtained in this study is almost

10
5 infinite height based on the superposition method (Kumar &
0 superposition method has a larger effect on Nγ than Nc. For
–5
0 0·2 0·4 0·6
kh
(c)
Fig. 3. Comparison of seismic bearing capacity and seismic bearing
capacity factors of non-embedded foundations on slopes (β = 30°,
λ = 0, D/B = 0, c/γB = 1 and ϕ = 40°): (a) normalised seismic bearing
capacity Q/γB; (b) seismic bearing capacity factor Nc; (c) seismic
bearing capacity factor Nγ
seated, base failure mechanism governs, as shown in Fig. 4(b).
With the increase in seismic loading, the governing failure
mechanism transitions from a base failure to a toe failure.
Although a toe failure could be treated as a special case of a
face failure, the finite slope height causes the velocity
identical to Nc in previous studies, while the proposed Nγ
exhibits small differences with the solutions for slopes of
Kumar, 2003; Kumar & Mohan Rao, 2003). This implies the
the proposed solution, when kh is greater than 0·4, Nγ actu-
ally becomes negative, implying that gravity becomes a
destabilising factor with increasing seismic loading. This is a
notable difference from the superposition method, where Nγ
is always positive, and cannot explicitly isolate the destabilis-
ing influence of slope geometry under seismic action. That is,
the superposition method calculates Nγ by setting the
cohesion to 0, and evaluating a range where the slope must
remain stable without cohesion under seismic conditions.
Therefore, the fact that Nγ could be a destabilising factor may
be lost through the use of the superposition method to
determine bearing capacity factors. When H/B = 1, both Nc
and Nγ become larger, especially when kh , 0·3, consistent
with the larger ultimate bearing capacity associated with the
influence of realistic, finite slope geometry.
Consideration of embedment for slopes of finite height
may result in changes in the ultimate bearing capacity

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 598 YANG, LESHCHINSKY, CUI, ZHANG AND GAO
associated with seismic action. As shown in Fig. 5(a), lower
values of Nc are obtained than in previous studies (Kumar &
Ghosh, 2006). This phenomenon supports the statement in
Zhou et al. (2019) that Nc may be overestimated, as a slope is
considered to be completely stable when Nc is determined
through the superposition method (γ = q = 0). The combined
seismic bearing capacity (Nγq) obtained from the proposed
solution agrees well with Kumar & Ghosh (2006), especially
for the cases of level ground or very gentle slopes (Fig. 5(b)).
However, it diverges when considering steeper slope geome-
try, as the stabilising influence of cohesion is not considered
when using the superposition method. Again, the available
range for Nγq is limited in earlier studies due to use of the
superposition method.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A series of parametric analyses is presented to show the
influence of mechanism on seismic bearing capacity and the
associated bearing capacity factors along with several
counterintuitive phenomena. The parameters of slope geo-
metries, foundation configurations, soil strength and seismic
loadings for these cases are outlined in Table 1.
Case 1 (variation of seismic loading and slope inclination)
The ultimate seismic bearing capacity and all three
seismic bearing capacity factors for the same case shown
in Fig. 5 are presented in Fig. 6. To quantify accuracy, the
solutions of ultimate seismic bearing capacity shown in
Fig. 6(a) are compared with both upper and lower solutions
of FELA. Table 2 reveals that almost all of the analytical
solutions are between the upper and lower bounds obtained
by using FELA, where the results from the FELA
typically bracket the ultimate seismic bearing capacity to
within 4%.
Figure 5(a) shows that, as expected, seismic bearing capa-
city is sensitive to slope inclination. However, the bearing
capacity factors associated with this change in geometry
range in non-linearity. A full range of solutions for Nγq
(shown in Fig. 5(b)) are completely isolated as Nγ and Nq
using the proposed approach (shown in Figs 6(c) and 6(d)).
While overall bearing capacity decreases in comparison to
the level ground case (Fig. 6(a)), Nγ for level ground is
slightly lower than a gentle slope (β = 10°) for this case, as
shown in Fig. 6(c). This counterintuitive phenomenon is
attributable to a larger passive zone beneath the footing base
(zone C1) being mobilised for gentle slopes, overwhelming
the destabilising effects of the slope and presenting more
resistance, as shown in Fig. 7(a). However, since zone C2
becomes smaller when in proximity to the slope face, Nq
decreases greatly (Fig. 6(d)). Therefore, the combined bear-
ing capacity Nγq decreases when transitioning from β = 0° to
10°, as shown in Fig. 5(b). When the slope becomes steeper,
the failure surface tends to have a downward trajectory,
resulting in zone C contributing less to the bearing capacity.
Figs 4 and 7 show that increasing seismic loading results in a
smaller failure mass. This owes to the direct influence of the
footing. This behaviour is opposite to conventional seismic
slope stability, where a larger kh causes a larger failure mass.

50 80

40
60

30
Nγ q
Nc

40

20

20
10

0
0
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5
kh kh

β = 0° 10° 20° 30°

Kumar & Ghosh (2006)
Present study
(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Comparison of Nc and Nγq for embedded foundations on level ground and slopes (λ = 0, H/B = 4, D/B = 1, c/γB = 1 and ϕ = 30°): (a) seismic
bearing capacity factor Nc; (b) combined seismic bearing capacity factor Nγq

Table 1. Parameters of demonstrative examples

No. β λ H/B D/B c/γB ϕ kh

Case 1 0°, 10°, 20° and 30° 0 4 1 1 30° 0–0·5

Case 2 25° 2 1 and 4 0, 0·5 and 1 0·75 20° 0–0·5
Case 3 40° 0 4 0 0·75 0°–45° 0·0, 0·1, 0·2, 0·3, 0·4 and 0·5
Case 4 25° 2 0–10 0·5 0·75 20° 0·0, 0·1, 0·2, 0·3, 0·4 and 0·5
Case 5 25° 2 4 0·0–1·0 0·75 20° 0·0, 0·1, 0·2, 0·3 and 0·4
Case 6 25° 0–10 4 0·5 0·75 20° 0·0, 0·1, 0·2, 0·3 and 0·4
Case 7 25° 2 4 0·5 0·25–2·5 20° 0·0, 0·1, 0·2, 0·3, 0·4 and 0·5

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 INFLUENCE OF FAILURE MECHANISM ON SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF SLOPES 599
80 50
β = 0°
β = 10°
40
60 β = 20°
β = 30°
30
Q/γ B

Nc
40
20

20
10

0 0
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5
kh kh
(a) (b)

40 40

30 30

20 20
Nq
Nγ

10 10

0 0

0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5
kh kh
(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Seismic bearing capacity and corresponding seismic bearing capacity factors of embedded foundations on slopes, case 1 (λ = 0, H/B = 4,
D/B = 1, c/γB = 1 and ϕ = 30°): (a) normalised seismic bearing capacity Q/γB; (b) seismic bearing capacity factor Nc; (c) seismic bearing capacity
factor Nγ; (d) seismic bearing capacity factor Nq

Table 2. Comparison of analytical solutions to numerical simulations for case 1

β kh Ultimate seismic bearing capacity qu/γB Accuracy range = 2(a  b)/(a + b): %

Analytical (UB) FELA (UB) a FELA (LB) b

0° 0 75·29 76·66 73·11 4·7

0·1 60·35 61·31 59·53 2·9
0·2 47·61 48·34 47·13 2·5
0·3 37·20 37·80 36·91 2·4
0·4 28·97 29·42 28·74 2·3
0·5 22·69 22·92 22·43 2·2
10° 0 57·29 58·16 56·09 3·6
0·1 45·76 46·62 45·00 3·5
0·2 36·04 36·62 35·49 3·1
0·3 28·17 28·81 27·84 3·4
0·4 22·00 22·18 21·69 2·2
0·5 17·25 17·56 16·87 4·0
20° 0 42·13 42·66 41·71 2·3
0·1 33·50 33·89 33·20 2·1
0·2 26·30 26·59 26·09 1·9
0·3 20·54 20·73 20·39 1·7
0·4 16·04 16·17 15·89 1·7
0·5 12·59 12·65 12·45 1·6
30° 0 29·88 30·19 29·59 2·0
0·1 23·64 23·83 23·40 1·8
0·2 18·49 18·60 18·32 1·5
0·3 14·39 14·46 14·21 1·7
0·4 11·21 11·18 11·02 1·4
0·5 8·76 8·58 8·42 1·9

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 600 YANG, LESHCHINSKY, CUI, ZHANG AND GAO
Case 2 (variation of seismic loading, footing embedment and
slope height)
Figure 8(a) indicates that when setback λ ( = 2) and embed-
ment D/B ( = 0, 0·5 and 1) are considered, the solutions of
ultimate seismic bearing capacity for taller slopes (i.e.
H/B = 4, β = 25°, ϕ = 20° and c/γB = 0·75) are practically
identical to shorter slopes (i.e. H/B = 1) with the same incli-
nation and soil strength when kh  0·3 and D/B  0·5.
However, increasing seismic loading causes the ultimate
bearing capacities of H/B = 4 and H/B = 1 to diverge as the
influence of slope geometry becomes more apparent. This is
contrary to scenarios when λ = 0 and D/B = 0, where increas-
ing seismic loading results in similar ultimate bearing
capacities owing to a convergence of the failure mechanism
(Fig. 3(a)). When slope height transitions from H/B = 1 to
H/B = 4, the slope is unstable at an approximate kh of 0·47,
reflected in the seismic bearing capacity factors shown in
Figs 8(b)–8(d). This limiting kh for slope failure is consistent
with upper-bound limit analysis solutions from Gao et al.
(2013b).
While overall ultimate bearing capacity decreases with
increasing seismic action (Fig. 8(a)), highly non-linear trends
occur in seismic bearing capacity factors considering
the range of conditions presented. Figs 8(b)–8(d) show
that, when H/B = 4, increasing seismic loading may result
in an increase in some bearing capacity factors, although
1·5
β = 10°, H/B = 4, D/B = 1
1·0
z/H
ultimate bearing capacity still decreases. This counter-
intuitive phenomenon contrasts with previous studies where
increased seismic loading resulted in decreased bearing
capacity factors. This occurrence can be attributed to a
shift in the governing failure mechanism with increasing
seismicity, shown in Figs 9(a)–9(c). While seismic loading
increases, the governing failure mechanism transitions from
a BCM to a slope SM. For example, when D/B = 0 and kh
is small (Fig. 8(b)), the governing failure mechanism is a
BCM through the slope face (Fig. 9(a)). With an increase
in kh, the failure mechanism is constrained to the crest of
the slope. Finally, when kh is relatively large, the governing
failure mechanism transitions once more as it is governed by
slope stability, and exits at the toe of the slope. This transition
makes the bearing capacity factor Nc increase dramatically
(Fig. 8(b)).
The bearing capacity factors Nγ and Nq shown in Figs 8(c)
and 8(d) are negative when a SM governs, demonstrating
the destabilising nature of gravity in slopes under seismic
conditions. When a BCM governs, Nγ or Nq could also be
negative, especially when kh is relatively large, as shown in
Figs 3(c), 8(c) and 8(d). When seismic loading is large
enough to cause slope instability without any bearing capa-
city, the negative Nγ and Nq will transition back to zero. The
discontinuous nature of the proposed bearing capacity
factors quantitatively highlights the transition in governing
failure mechanism with increasing seismic loading and its
influence on seismic bearing capacity.
Slope geometry influences failure mechanism and the
β = 0°, D/B = 1
associated bearing capacity factors. Unlike when H/B = 4, as
shown in Figs 9(d)–9(f), the governing failure condition is
always a BCM when H/B = 1, even when kh is large. Further,

0·5
when embedment values of D/B = 0·5 and 1 are considered
Zone C1 Zone C1 for H/B = 1, only toe failures governed by a BCM occur.
0 kh = 0 kh = 0·1 kh = 0·2 kh = 0·3

Case 3 (variation of internal angle of friction under

4 5 6 7 8 seismic conditions)
x/H Figures 10(a)–10(c) show the ultimate seismic bearing
(a) capacity and the corresponding seismic bearing capacity
1·5 factors for slopes with a range of internal angles of friction,
Zone C2
ϕ. The results indicate that for most cases under seismic
β = 20°, H/B = 4, D/B = 1 loading, the slope SM governs when ϕ is relatively low. Since
1·0
the governing failure mechanism transitions from a slope SM
to a BCM, Nc may decrease with increasing ϕ under various
z/H

0·5 Zone A seismic conditions. Furthermore, Nγ may actually decrease

without a transition in failure mechanism when ϕ is large and
Zone C1 kh = 0·5. This counterintuitive phenomenon can be explained
0 Zone B
by the geometry of the governing failure mechanism. As
–0·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5
illustrated in Fig. 10(d), increasing ϕ is often associated
with a larger failure mass. Coupled with a negative Nγ when
x/H
kh = 0·5, a larger failure mass includes increased body
(b)
forces from seismicity, overpowering the stabilising effects
1·5 of friction. Therefore, Nγ could decrease with increasing ϕ.
Nonetheless, the overall ultimate bearing capacity still
β = 30°, H/B = 4, D/B = 1 increases with ϕ (Fig. 10(a)).
1·0
Zone C2
z/H

Zone A
0·5 Case 4 (variation of slope height under seismic conditions)
As mentioned before, slope height has a significant
0 Zone B influence on the seismic bearing capacity of footings near
Zone C1
slopes. To consider only a face failure adhering to a BCM
–0·5 0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 3·5 may render inaccurate results. Fig. 11 shows the valid range
x/H of solutions based on BCM face failure under a range of
(c)
seismic conditions (case 4). That is, this represents the range
where the slope height does not affect the ultimate seismic
Fig. 7. Comparison of failure surfaces of embedded foundations on bearing capacity and the associated bearing capacity factors.
slopes, case 1 (λ = 0, H/B = 4, D/B = 1, c/γB = 1 and ϕ = 30°): As illustrated in Fig. 11(a), this range diminishes with increas-
(a) β = 0° and β = 10°; (b) β = 20°; (c) β = 30° ing seismic loading. When kh  0·1, the slope height has no

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 INFLUENCE OF FAILURE MECHANISM ON SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF SLOPES 601
25 25
D/B = 0 D/B = 0·5 D/B = 1
H/B = 4
Toe failure
H/B = 1 SM
20 20

15 15

QIγ B

Nc
10 10 Face failure
BCM

5 5 Crest failure
BCM

0 0
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5
kh kh
(a) (b)

15
5
10
4
5
3
0
Nq 2
Nγ

–5
1
–10 0
–15 –1

–20 –2

–25 –3
0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5 0 0·1 0·2 0·3 0·4 0·5
kh kh
(c) (d)

Fig. 8. Seismic bearing capacity and seismic bearing capacity factors for case 2 (β = 25°, λ = 2, c/γB = 0·75 and ϕ = 20°): (a) normalised seismic
bearing capacity Q/γB; (b) seismic bearing capacity factor Nc; (c) seismic bearing capacity factor Nγ; (d) seismic bearing capacity factor Nq

effect on the seismic bearing capacity when H/B  1·55 due
to a BCM face failure governing stability. However, when kh
increases to be 0·3, the lower and upper thresholds for this
range are around H/B = 2·71 and 3·86, respectively. When
H/B is smaller than the lower threshold, only considering a
BCM face failure will underestimate the seismic bearing
capacity because the governing failure mechanism is a BCM
toe failure. When H/B is larger than the upper threshold,
solutions based on face failure of BCM are unconservative
because the failure mechanism transitions to a SM where
failure occurs at the toe of the slope. When kh  0·4, the
governing failure mechanisms are only toe failures of BCM
and SM for the given cases. When the governing mechanism
transitions from a BCM to SM, Nc initially increases with
H/B, whereas Nγ and Nq decrease; however, when H/B is
large enough to cause an unstable slope without any bearing
capacities, all bearing capacity factors transition back to
zero.
Case 5 (variation of footing embedment under seismic
conditions)
Figure 12 demonstrates the transition in failure mechan-
ism due to increasing embedment under seismic loading.
When kh  0·2, the governing failure mechanism tends to be
a BCM face failure. However, when kh = 0·3 and D/B = 0, the
governing failure mechanism is a crest failure and transitions
to a face failure (BCM) and toe failure (SM) with increasing
D/B. When kh = 0·4 only toe failures (SM) govern in all cases.
The slope is unstable itself when kh = 0·5. Although the
ultimate seismic bearing capacity increases almost linearly
with larger D/B, the seismic bearing capacity factors may
actually be discontinuous, especially when kh = 0·3.
Case 6 (variation of footing location under seismic conditions)
In Fig. 13, the effects of foundation setback on the
transition of failure mechanism are demonstrated. When
kh  0·2, the governing failure mechanisms is always a BCM,
transitioning from a face failure to a crest failure with
increasing foundation setback. When kh = 0·3, a BCM face
failure occurs when λ = 0. With increasing λ, the governing
failure mechanism transitions towards a toe failure of SM
and then towards a BCM toe failure. Finally, the failure is
limited to the crest of slope. When kh = 0·4, only a SM toe
failure occurs before the threshold of crest failure is achieved.
Logically, the threshold of λ for failure limited to the crest
becomes larger with larger seismic loading. Once again, the
seismic bearing capacity factors transition when the govern-
ing failure mechanism changes.
Case 7 (variation of cohesion under seismic conditions)
It has been shown in previous studies that under static
conditions bearing capacity factors are not independent of
c/γB (e.g. Kusakabe et al., 1981). Fig. 14 extends this
observation to seismic conditions. The main reason why
seismic bearing capacity factors vary with c/γB is that the
failure mechanism transitions with cohesion. As shown in
Fig. 14(a), only a BCM face failure occurs for all cases under

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 602 YANG, LESHCHINSKY, CUI, ZHANG AND GAO
1·5 1·5
kh = 0·1 kh = 0·2
kh = 0·3 kh = 0·4 1·0
1·0
β = 25°, H/B = 4, D/B = 0 0·5
z/H

z/H
0
0·5
–0·5

0 –1·0
β = 25°, H/B = 1, D/B = 0

0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 0 1 2 3 4 5

x/H x/H
(a) (d)
1·5 1·5

1·0
1·0
β = 25°, H/B = 4, D/B = 0·5 0·5
z/H

z/H
0
0·5
–0·5

0 –1·0
β = 25°, H/B = 1, D/B = 0·5

0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 0 1 2 3 4 5

x/H x/H
(b) (e)

1·5 1·5

1·0
1·0
β = 25°, H/B = 4, D/B = 1 0·5
z/H

z/H

0
0·5
–0·5

0 –1·0
β = 25°, H/B = 1, D/B = 1

0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 0 1 2 3 4 5

x/H x/H
(c) (f)

Fig. 9. Corresponding failure surfaces under various seismic loading for case 2 (β = 25°, λ = 2, c/γB = 0·75 and ϕ = 20°): (a) H/B = 4, D/B = 0;
(b) H/B = 4, D/B = 0·5; (c) H/B = 4, D/B = 1; (d) H/B = 1, D/B = 0; (e) H/B = 1, D/B = 0·5; (f) H/B = 1, D/B = 1

static conditions. With increased seismic loading, the failure
mechanism transitions towards a toe failure. This results
in a transition for the seismic bearing capacity factors.
Furthermore, the seismic bearing capacity factors become
less sensitive to c/γB as cohesion increases. With increased
seismicity, the sensitivity to cohesion increases. For example,
when kh = 0·1, the seismic bearing capacity factors become
insensitive to increasing c/γB, typically observed after
c/γB  0·75. When kh = 0·3, the seismic bearing capacity
factors vary noticeably until c/γB  1·5.
Limitations in this study
The effective friction angle of soil varies with the mean
effective stress level (Okamura et al., 1998; Loukidis &
Salgado, 2009, 2011; Lee et al., 2013). As the soil is assumed
to be isotropic and due to the complexity of quantifying
stress distribution and principal stress orientation, the
variation of the effective friction angle in the failure mech-
anism is not considered in this study. The stress distribution
associated with failure may have a significant influence,
particularly for slope failures when anisotropy (e.g. Stockton
et al., 2019), non-linear failure envelopes (e.g. Park &
Michalowski, 2017) and tension cracks (e.g. Utili, 2013;
Michalowski, 2017) are considered. Consideration of these
influences would benefit from better capturing the direction
of the major principal effective stresses within the failure
mechanism.
CONCLUSIONS
An analytical approach using upper-bound limit analysis
is proposed herein to obtain the ultimate seismic bearing
capacity and isolate corresponding seismic bearing capacity
factors Nc, Nγ and Nq under a wide range of geometries and
seismic loading conditions. Overall bearing capacity is
dictated by a governing bearing capacity or slope SM. In
the analyses, the interdependencies of geometric parameters
and soil properties are included. The ultimate seismic bearing
capacities obtained in this study show good agreement and
accuracy when compared with results of numerical simu-
lations. However, the direct isolation of bearing capacity
factors without use of the superposition method enables
quantitative assessment of the influence of various potential

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 INFLUENCE OF FAILURE MECHANISM ON SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF SLOPES 603
40 40
SM BCM
kh = 0·0
kh = 0·1
30 kh = 0·2 30
kh = 0·3
kh = 0·4
QIγ B kh = 0·5

Nc
20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
φ φ

(a) (b)

20 1·5

15
1·0
10
Nγ and Nq

5
Nq
z/H
0·5
0

–5 0
φ = 30°
–10 φ = 35°
–0·5 φ = 40°
–15
0 10 20 30 40 0 0·5 1·0 1·5
φ x/H
(c) (d)

Fig. 10. Seismic bearing capacity, seismic bearing capacity factors and associated failure surfaces for case 3 (β = 40°, λ = 0, H/B = 4, D/B = 0 and
c/γB = 0·75): (a) normalised seismic bearing capacity Q/γB; (b) seismic bearing capacity factor Nc; (c) seismic bearing capacity factors Nγ and Nq;
(d) failure surfaces for kh = 0·5, ϕ = 30°, 35° and 40°

failure mechanisms on bearing capacity. Observations made
in this study include the following.
(a) From direct isolation of bearing capacity factors, it was
observed that increasing kh may cause Nγ to decrease
from positive to negative, showing the destabilising
nature of gravity in slopes under seismic conditions.
(b) Any increase in slope inclination results in lowered
seismic bearing capacity in comparison to level ground.
However, a gentle slope inclination may result in a larger
Nγ due to a larger passive zone beneath the footing base
when a slope failure mechanism does not govern.
(c) Seismic bearing capacity is sensitive to footing
embedment and setback. For a large kh, significantly
different bearing capacities may be realised with
varying finite slope geometry when setback and
embedment are considered. This is converse to previous
research on seismic bearing capacity considering
infinite slope conditions where no footing setback or
embedment is present.
(d ) As expected, ultimate bearing capacity decreases with
increasing seismic loading. However, increasing seismic
loading may result in increase of certain bearing
capacity factors due to the transition in governing
failure mechanism (Nc) or destabilising conditions in
the slope (Nγ and Nq) under seismic conditions.
(e) Although the ultimate bearing capacity increases with
increasing internal angle of friction, Nc may decrease
with increasing ϕ under all seismic conditions due to a
transition in failure mechanism. Moreover, when kh is
large, increasing ϕ may result in a slight decrease in Nγ
without a transition in failure mechanism, owing to a
larger failure mass beneath the footing base.
( f ) Altering slope geometry, footing configuration and
cohesion may result in a transition of governing failure
mechanism and subsequently cause discontinuities in
observed seismic bearing capacity factors. A large kh is
a primary reason for causing a transition in governing
failure mechanism from a BCM to a SM. Increasing
seismic loading may diminish the valid range of
solutions that are governed by a BCM face failure. The
effects of soil cohesion on seismic bearing capacity
factors may decrease when the cohesion is large.
The proposed method demonstrates that seismic bearing
capacity factors may be isolated for slopes of finite geometry.
The discontinuities of the proposed factors reflect a transition
in governing failure mechanism. Owing to the wide range
of potential combinations of geometry, soil properties and
seismic conditions, only limited observations could be pres-
ented. However, future work could expand on these results
with a more comprehensive range of transitional thresholds
relating to mechanism.
In this study, the solutions presented are applicable to
homogeneous soils. For inhomogeneous soil cases (e.g.
stratified soil or variable strength with depth), the governing

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 604 YANG, LESHCHINSKY, CUI, ZHANG AND GAO
25 50
Base failure (BCM)
Face failure kh = 0·0 kh = 0·2
20 (BCM) 40 0·1
Toe failure 0·2
kh = 0·0 0·3
0·4 kh = 0·3
15 kh = 0·1 30 0·5

QIγ B

Nc
kh = 0·2
10 20 kh = 0·4
kh = 0·3
BCM
5 10
kh = 0·4 SM
kh = 0·5
kh = 0·5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
H/B H/B
(a) (b)

10
10
8 kh = 0·0
0·1
0 0·2
6 0·3
–10 0·4
4 0·5

Nq
Nγ

–20 kh = 0·0
0·1 2
–30 0·2
0·3 0
0·4
–40 0·5
–2
kh = 0·2
–50 kh = 0·5 kh = 0·4 kh = 0·3
–4
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
H/B H/B
(c) (d)

Fig. 11. Seismic bearing capacity and seismic bearing capacity factors for case 4 (β = 25°, λ = 2, D/B = 0·5, c/γB = 0·75 and ϕ = 20°): (a) normalised
seismic bearing capacity Q/γB; (b) seismic bearing capacity factor Nc; (c) seismic bearing capacity factor Nγ; (d) seismic bearing capacity factor Nq

25 25

Face failure (BCM)

20 Crest failure (BCM) kh = 0·0 20 kh = 0·4
Toe failure (SM)
kh = 0·1
15 15
QIγ B

kh = 0·2
Nc

10 kh = 0·3 10

kh = 0·0
kh = 0·4 0·1
5 5
0·2
0·3
0 0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
D/B D/B
(a) (b)
25

20 4

15 kh = 0·0
kh = 0·0 2 kh = 0·1
10
kh = 0·1 kh = 0·2
5
Nq

kh = 0·2
Nγ

0
0 kh = 0·3

–5 kh = 0·3
–2 kh = 0·4
–10

–15 kh = 0·4 –4
–20
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0
D/B D/B
(c) (d)

Fig. 12. Seismic bearing capacity and seismic bearing capacity factors for case 5 (β = 25°, λ = 2, H/B = 4, c/γB = 0·75 and ϕ = 20°): (a) normalised
seismic bearing capacity Q/γB; (b) seismic bearing capacity factor Nc; (c) seismic bearing capacity factor Nγ; (d) seismic bearing capacity factor Nq

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 INFLUENCE OF FAILURE MECHANISM ON SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF SLOPES 605
25 35
Crest failure (BCM)
Face failure kh = 0·0 30
20 (BCM)
kh = 0·1 25

15
kh = 0·2 20

QIγ B

Nc
kh = 0·3
15
10
kh = 0·4
Toe failure 10
5 kh = 0·0
BCM 5 0·1
SM 0·2 kh = 0·4
0·3
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
λ λ
(a) (b)
10

10

5
0
kh = 0·0
kh = 0·0

Nq
Nγ

0 0·1
0·1 0·2
–10 0·2 0·3
0·3
–5 kh = 0·4
–20

kh = 0·4
–30 –10
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
λ λ
(c) (d)

Fig. 13. Seismic bearing capacityand seismic bearing capacity factors forcase 6 (β = 25°, H/B = 4, D/B = 0·5, c/γB = 0·75 and ϕ = 20°): (a) normalised
seismic bearing capacity Q/γB; (b) seismic bearing capacity factor Nc; (c) seismic bearing capacity factor Nγ; (d) seismic bearing capacity factor Nq

30
kh = 0·0
40 0·1
25 kh = 0·2 0·2
0
0· 0·3
Face failure (BCM) =
k h 0·1 kh = 0·3 0·4
30 = 20
kh ·2 kh = 0·4 0·5
=0
k h 0·3 kh = 0·5
QIγ B

=
Nc

k h 0·4 15
20
Toe failure k h = 0·5
kh =
10

10
5
BCM
SM
0 0
0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5
c/γ B c/γ B
(a) (b)
10
4
5

0 2

–5 kh = 0·0
Nq
Nγ

0·1 0
–10 0·2
0·3 kh = 0·0
–15 0·4 –2 0·1
0·5 0·2
0·3
–20 0·4
–4 0·5
–25
0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5
c/γ B c/γ B
(c) (d)

Fig. 14. Seismic bearing capacity and seismic bearing capacity factors for case 7 (β = 25°, λ = 2, H/B = 4, D/B = 0·5 and ϕ = 20°): (a) normalised
seismic bearing capacity Q/γB; (b) seismic bearing capacity factor Nc; (c) seismic bearing capacity factor Nγ; (d) seismic bearing capacity factor Nq

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 606 YANG, LESHCHINSKY, CUI, ZHANG AND GAO
failure mechanisms is likely to be different from those
presented herein, especially as a function of changing shear
strength and layer thickness (with respect to footing width).
For example, the BCMs associated with shallow foundations
placed on level ground consisting of sand over clay are
traditionally considered as punching shear models (e.g.
Meyerhof, 1974; Hanna & Meyerhof, 1980) or load spread
models (e.g. Terzaghi & Peck, 1948). Similarly, when footings
are placed on strong clay overlying soft clay, partial or full
punching shear mechanisms through the upper layer are
often observed under undrained conditions (Merifield et al.,
1999). Conversely, when the foundation consists of soft clay
overlying strong clay, the failure mechanism may be
contained within the top layer. A non-uniform gradient in
undrained shear strength with depth has been considered in
assessment of bearing capacity of shallow foundations on
horizontal ground, demonstrating that the critical shape of
the mechanism of failure does alter with magnitude of
change in strength, but still tends to adhere to the general
shear mechanism (Davis & Booker, 1973; Ullah et al., 2017).
However, more research is needed to assess the influence of
these conditions on sloping ground. While numerous studies
have been conducted on the influence of heterogeneous soil
conditions on bearing capacity of level ground (e.g. Burd &
Frydman, 1997; Shiau et al., 2003; Eshkevari et al., 2018;
Zheng et al., 2019), the influence of sloping ground is still
poorly constrained (Hossain & Fourie, 2013; Xiao et al.,
2019). Considering the influence of sloping ground in such
assessments is likely to result in a combination of the
aforementioned mechanisms and change the range of
influence of a proximal slope. Moreover, it is expected that,
within the influence of a slope, consideration of heterogeneity
in shear strength (drained or undrained) is likely to have a
strong influence on the location in which a failure mechanism
exits a slope, being more likely to end at the face or beneath
the toe as a function of geometry and relative strength of soil
layers. This future work is of practical importance, and
solutions regarding bearing capacity should be developed
appropriately in consideration of these possible complex
mechanisms, potentially informed by advances in numerical
limit analysis techniques (e.g. FELA).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Support by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (grant nos 51808456, 41630638 and 51878248) and
the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (grant no. 2682018CX07) are acknowledged.
NOTATION
B foundation width
c soil cohesion
D embedment depth of the foundation
H slope height
Hf footing height
kh horizontal acceleration coefficient
Nc, Nγ, Nq seismic bearing capacity factors
n number of infinitesimal block in zone B
Q ultimate seismic bearing capacity
Qc ultimate seismic bearing capacity due to cohesion
Qq ultimate seismic bearing capacity due to soil
embedment
Qγ ultimate seismic bearing capacity due to soil beneath
the foundation
v1,a relative velocities between the first infinitesimal block
in zone B and zone A
va,0 velocity of zone A
vc,0 velocity of zone C
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
vc,n relative velocities between zone C and the nth
infinitesimal block in zone B
vi,0 velocity of the ith infinitesimal block in zone B
vi,i1 relative velocities between the ith and (i + 1)th
infinitesimal block in zone B
WA soil weights of zone A
WC1 soil weights of zone C1
WC2 soil weights of zone C2
α, δ, θ, r0 parameters of bearing capacity failure mechanism
β slope angle
γ soil unit weight
δWi soil weights of ith block of zone B
δθ angle of infinitesimal block in zone B
λ normalised footing setback
ϕ internal angle of friction
REFERENCES
Askari, F. & Farzaneh, O. (2003). Upper-bound solution for
seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations near slopes.
Géotechnique 53, No. 8, 697–702, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.
2003.53.8.697.
Bowles, J. E. (1996). Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn.
New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.
Burd, H. J. & Frydman, S. (1997). Bearing capacity of plane-strain
footings on layered soils. Can. Geotech. J. 34, No. 2, 241–253.
Chakraborty, D. & Kumar, J. (2015). Seismic bearing capacity of
shallow embedded foundations on a sloping ground surface.
Int. J. Geomech. 15, No. 1, 04014035.
Cinicioglu, O. & Erkli, A. (2018). Seismic bearing capacity
of surficial foundations on sloping cohesive ground. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Engng 111, 53–64.
Davis, E. H. & Booker, J. R. (1973). The effect of increasing strength
with depth on the bearing capacity of clays. Géotechnique 23,
No. 4, 551–563, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1973.23.4.551.
Eshkevari, S. S., Abbo, A. J. & Kouretzis, G. (2018). Bearing
capacity of strip footings on sand over clay. Can. Geotech. J. 56,
No. 5, 699–709.
Gao, Y. F., Zhang, F., Lei, G. H. & Li, D. Y. (2013a). An extended
limit analysis of three-dimensional slope stability. Géotechnique
63, No. 6, 518–524, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.12.T.004.
Gao, Y. F., Zhang, F., Lei, G. H., Li, D. Y., Wu, Y. X. & Zhang, N.
(2013b). Stability charts for 3D failures of homogeneous slopes.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 139, No. 9, 1528–1538.
Georgiadis, K. (2010a). Undrained bearing capacity of strip footings
on slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 136, No. 5, 677–685.
Georgiadis, K. (2010b). An upper-bound solution for the undrained
bearing capacity of strip footings at the top of a slope.
Géotechnique 60, No. 10, 801–806, https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.09.T.016.
Georgiadis, K. & Chrysouli, E. (2011). Seismic bearing capacity of
strip footings on clay slopes. In Proceedings of the 15th European
conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering (eds
A. Anagnostopoulos, M. Pachakis and C. Tsatsanifos),
pp. 723–728. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
Graham, J., Andrews, M. & Shields, D. (1988). Stress characteristics
for shallow footings in cohesionless slopes. Can. Geotech. J. 25,
No. 2, 238–249.
Hanna, A. M. & Meyerhof, G. G. (1980). Design charts for ultimate
bearing capacity of foundations on sand overlying soft clay. Can.
Geotech. J. 17, No. 2, 300–303.
Hossain, M. S. & Fourie, A. (2013). Stability of a strip foundation on
a sand embankment over mine tailings. Géotechnique 63, No. 8,
641–650, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.11.P.111.
Huang, C. C. & Kang, W. W. (2008). Seismic bearing capacity of a
rigid footing adjacent to a cohesionless slope. Soils Found. 48,
No. 5, 641–651.
Krabbenhoft, K., Lyamin, A. & Krabbenhoft, J. (2016). Optum
computational engineering (OptumG2). See https://www.
optumce.com (accessed 10/02/2020).
Kumar, J. & Chakraborty, D. (2013). Seismic bearing capacity
of foundations on cohesionless slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Engng 139, No. 11, 1986–1993.
Kumar, J. & Ghosh, P. (2006). Seismic bearing capacity for
embedded footings on sloping ground. Géotechnique 56,
No. 2, 133–140, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2006.56.2.133.
 INFLUENCE OF FAILURE MECHANISM ON SEISMIC BEARING CAPACITY OF SLOPES
Kumar, J. & Kumar, N. (2003). Seismic bearing capacity of
rough footings on slopes using limit equilibrium. Géotechnique
53, No. 3, 363–369, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.3.363.
Kumar, J. & Mohan Rao, V. B. K. (2003). Seismic bearing capacity
of foundations on slopes. Géotechnique 53, No. 3, 347–361,
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.3.347.
Kusakabe, O., Kimura, T. & Yamaguchi, H. (1981). Bearing
capacity of slopes under strip loads on the top surfaces. Soils
Found. 21, No. 4, 29–40.
Lee, K. K., Randolph, M. F. & Cassidy, M. J. (2013). Bearing
capacity on sand overlying clay soils: a simplified conceptual
model. Géotechnique 63, No. 15, 1285–1297, https://doi.org/10.
1680/geot.12.P.176.
Leshchinsky, B. (2015). Bearing capacity of footings placed adjacent
to c′–φ′ slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 141, No. 6,
04015022.
Loukidis, D. & Salgado, R. (2009). Bearing capacity of strip and
circular footings in sand using finite elements. Comput. Geotech.
36, No. 5, 871–879.
Loukidis, D. & Salgado, R. (2011). Effect of relative density and
stress level on the bearing capacity of footings on sand.
Géotechnique 61, No. 2, 107–119, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.
8.P.150.3771.
Merifield, R. S., Sloan, S. W. & Yu, H. S. (1999). Rigorous plasticity
solutions for the bearing capacity of two-layered clays.
Géotechnique 49, No. 4, 471–490, https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.
1999.49.4.471.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957). The ultimate bearing capacity of
foundations on slopes. In Proceedings of the 4th international
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol. 3,
pp. 384–386. London, UK: Butterworths.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1974). Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on
sand layer overlying clay. Can. Geotech. J. 11, No. 2, 223–229.
Michalowski, R. L. (2017). Stability of intact slopes with tensile
strength cut-off. Géotechnique 67, No. 8, 720–727, https://doi.
org/10.1680/jgeot.16.P.037.
Okamura, M., Takemura, J. & Kimura, T. (1998). Bearing capacity
predictions of sand overlying clay based on limit equilibrium
methods. Soils Found. 38, No. 1, 181–194.
Park, D. & Michalowski, R. L. (2017). Three-dimensional stability
analysis of slopes in hard soil/soft rock with tensile strength
cut-off. Engng Geol. 229, 73–84.
Qin, C. B. & Chian, S. C. (2018). Kinematic analysis of seismic slope
stability with a discretization technique and pseudo-dynamic
approach: a new perspective. Géotechnique 68, No. 6, 492–503,
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.16.P.200.
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute Of Technology - Bombay] on [15/06/21]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
607
Raj, D., Singh, Y. & Shukla, S. K. (2018). Seismic bearing capacity
of strip foundation embedded in c–Φ soil slope. Int. J. Geomech.
18, No. 7, 04018076.
Shiau, J. S., Lyamin, A. V. & Sloan, S. W. (2003). Bearing capacity of
a sand layer on clay by finite element limit analysis. Can.
Geotech. J. 40, No. 5, 900–915.
Stockton, E., Leshchinsky, B. A., Olsen, M. J. & Evans, T. M.
(2019). Influence of both anisotropic friction and cohesion on
the formation of tension cracks and stability of slopes. Engng
Geol. 249, 31–44.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. New York, NY,
USA: Wiley.
Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil mechanics in
engineering practice, 1st edn. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Ullah, S. N., Stanier, S., Hu, Y. & White, D. (2017). Foundation
punch-through in clay with sand: analytical modelling.
Géotechnique 67, No. 8, 672–690, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.
16.P.101.
Utili, S. (2013). Investigation by limit analysis on the stability of
slopes with cracks. Géotechnique 63, No. 2, 140–154, https://doi.
org/10.1680/geot.11.P.068.
Xiao, Y., Zhao, M., Zhang, R., Zhao, H. & Wu, G. (2019).
Undrained bearing capacity of strip footings placed adjacent to
two-layered slopes. Int. J. Geomech. 19, No. 8, 06019014.
Yang, S., Leshchinsky, B., Zhang, F. & Gao, Y. (2016). Required
strength of geosynthetic in reinforced soil structures supporting
spread footings in three dimensions. Comput. Geotech. 78,
72–87.
Yang, S., Leshchinsky, B., Cui, K., Zhang, F. & Gao, Y. (2019).
Unified approach toward evaluating bearing capacity of shallow
foundations near slope. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Engng 145,
No. 12, 04019110.
Zheng, G., Wang, E., Zhao, J., Zhou, H. & Nie, D. (2019). Ultimate
bearing capacity of vertically loaded strip footings on sand
overlying clay. Comput. Geotech. 115, 103151.
Zhou, H., Zheng, G., Yin, X., Jia, R. & Yang, X. (2018). The
bearing capacity and failure mechanism of a vertically loaded
strip footing placed on the top of slopes. Comput. Geotech. 94,
12–21.
Zhou, H., Zheng, G., Yang, X., Li, T. & Yang, P. (2019). Ultimate
seismic bearing capacities and failure mechanisms for strip
footings placed adjacent to slopes. Can. Geotech. J. 56, No. 11,
1729–1735.
Zhu, D. (2000). The least upper-bound solutions for bearing
capacity factor Nγ. Soils Found. 40, No. 1, 123–129.