Bearing Capacity of Footings Placed

Adjacent to c 0-ϕ 0 Slopes

Ben Leshchinsky, A.M.ASCE 1

Abstract: Conventional bearing capacity analyses for shallow foundations placed on slopes use a modified set of bearing capacity factors
based on soil properties, footing geometry, and slope configuration, but are restricted to purely cohesionless or purely cohesive soils. This
approach is adequate for establishing bearing capacity on engineered fills with controlled foundation properties, yet does not adequately
address design for bearing capacity on soils that have both cohesion and internal frictional resistance—a common scenario for native soils.
This role becomes increasingly important in design for mechanically stabilized earth walls, which are often placed on slopes of native c 0 -ϕ 0
soils in which the bearing capacity can often be the critical design constraint. Prior approaches to bearing capacity on horizontal ground
for c 0 -ϕ 0 soils utilize principles of limited state plasticity in their formulation, yet the most commonly applied bearing capacity approaches
on slopes use semiempirical formulations that employ mutually exclusive soil strength parameters. In this work, results are attained using
upper-bound limit state plasticity failure discretization scheme, known as discontinuity layout optimization (DLO), which uses nonassump-
tive failure geometry (under translational kinematics) in its formulation. The values presented demonstrate important components in con-
sideration of bearing capacity for strip footings placed adjacent to slopes of c 0 -ϕ 0 soils, in particular, the relationship between soil strength
properties, slope height to footing width ratio, slope angle, and critical collapse mechanism. A set of reduction coefficients that can be directly
applied to the classical bearing capacity formulation is presented for ease of application. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001306.
© 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction Meyerhof acknowledges that actual quantifiable results were not

Establishing the bearing capacity of shallow foundations has long
been an important component of geotechnical engineering practice.
Prandtl (1921) is generally credited with some of the seminal work
for bearing capacity theory, in which he sought to establish the
punching failure mechanism for thick metals based on the theory
of plasticity. This theory has evolved to evaluate the bearing capac-
ity of shallow foundations by Terzaghi (1943), in which the effects
of soil internal angle of friction, soil cohesion, and surcharge were
superposed, resulting in the bearing capacity factors (N c , Nγ, and
N q ) that are still commonly used to this day. Meyerhof (1951, 1957,
1963, 1974) expanded and refined Terzaghi’s theory to better
account for soil strength, footing size and shape, embedment, and
slope, while assuming a slightly different failure mechanism than
that used by Terzaghi and Prandtl. Vesic further expanded on the
effects of shallow foundation shape on ultimate bearing capacity
(Vesic 1973). However, despite observation and insight into the
effects of foundation shape and depth (Terzaghi 1943; Meyerhof
1951, 1957, 1963; Hansen 1970; Vesic 1973), there has been lim-
ited insight into the bearing capacity of footings adjacent to slopes
made of c 0 -ϕ 0 soils. Meyerhof investigated general failure mech-
anisms for bearing capacity for footings placed on purely cohesion-
less or cohesive soils adjacent to slopes (Meyerhof 1957) using an
assumed failure mechanism based on empirical observation from
model footing tests carried out by Peynircioglu (1948). However,
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forest Engineering, Resources and
Management, Oregon State Univ., 280 Peavy Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331.
E-mail: ben.leshchinsky@oregonstate.edu; benalesh@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 6, 2014; approved on
January 9, 2015; published online on February 24, 2015. Discussion period
open until July 24, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/04015022
(13)/$25.00.
available to confirm his analytical approach based on this assumed
failure mechanism (Meyerhof 1957). Graham et al. (1988) estab-
lished an analytical approach to bearing capacity and stress distri-
bution for footings placed on slopes for cohesionless soils that was
validated by experimental results but did not expand to soils with
both cohesion and internal friction. Bowles (1988) provided a set
of revised N c and Nγ values for c 0 -ϕ 0 soils based on an assumed
failure mechanism similar to that from Terzaghi but for a limited
set of strength values. Griffiths (1982) performed finite element
analyses to determine the bearing capacity of c 0 -ϕ 0 soils and at-
tained reasonable results, including some for footings adjacent to
slopes, yet required significant computational effort to determine
the bearing capacity factors and was subject to convergence issues,
especially for Nγ. Shields et al. (1990) presented revised bearing
capacity factors for footing bearing capacity on cohesionless
slopes. A few studies addressing bearing capacity on purely cohe-
sive, cohesionless or c-ϕ soils have added to the current under-
standing of bearing capacity on or adjacent to slopes. Based on
upper bound limit analysis, Kusakabe et al. (1981) presented a
series of design charts with dimensionless factors showing a reduc-
tion in bearing capacity compared with the conventional bearing
capacity approach for footings placed on level ground for soils with
cohesion and without. Kusukabe et al. assumed an infinite slope of
homogenous soil and presented the change in bearing capacity with
increasing distance from the crest compared with the footing width.
Based on the limit equilibrium, Azzouz and Baligh (1983) intro-
duced a series of design charts for strip and square footings placed
on slopes composed of cohesive soils, presenting a normalized in-
crease in bearing capacity for footings subject to varying the dis-
tance from the crest. Georgiadis (2010) performed a series of finite
element (FE) analyses observing the failure mechanism and bearing
capacity associated with spread footings placed atop slopes com-
posed of purely cohesive soils (undrained loading conditions).
His comparison included varying slope height, footing placement,

© ASCE 04015022-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

and footing size on purely cohesive soils. The current state of bear-
ing capacity theory, especially in context to slope-adjacent strip
footings, is generally based on assumed failure mechanisms
(Prandtl 1921; Terzaghi 1943; Meyerhof 1957), computationally
complex analyses subject to convergence challenges, or present
limited design charts looking at infinitely long slopes or only to
observe a limited range of configurations. Fig. 1. Application of the discontinuity layout optimization algorithm
Despite existing research for bearing capacity of strip footings to determine critical failure mechanisms
placed on the crest of slopes, there are several scenarios in which its
evaluation still deserves more research, especially design and con-
struction of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls atop native of computers combined with advances in numerical methods,
fills. The bearing capacity of MSE walls placed on slopes is ana- upper bound solutions using LA were presented in a numerical
lyzed as part of external stability, and the structure is often placed framework and applied to complex slope problems (e.g., Kim et al.
on or near native or engineered slopes. Current practice involves 2002). Furthermore, results using LA were established for rein-
design using bearing capacity factors for purely cohesionless and forced soil walls supporting footings (Leshchinsky 2014), com-
purely cohesive soils (AASHTO 2012), yet native soils are often pared with those stemming from LE (e.g., Leshchinsky 2013,
both cohesive and frictional, highlighting a need to address bearing 2014; Yu et al. 1999), and for a variety of other geotechnical
capacity in consideration of both properties. This problem becomes stability problems (LimitState 2013). The analyses performed by
especially important when earth retaining structures are marginally Leshchinsky (2013, 2014) were attained by using upper bound
embedded and built with a sloping toe—both extremely common numerical LA results utilizing the discontinuity layout optimization
occurrences. This need for an improved bearing capacity analysis (DLO; Smith and Gilbert 2007) algorithm (DLO-LA). The LA
is highlighted by the fact that sloping toes can control the design collapse states are determined using LimitState:GEO (LimitState
outcome of MSE walls. An improved analysis of the complex, 2013), which is commercially available software that employs
compound failure mechanism associated with the ultimate bearing the DLO technique to determine the critical failure mechanism
capacity of strip footings placed adjacent to slopes requires use of and the associated failure load. This is performed based on an as-
tools that can account for the complex failure kinematics related to signment of evenly spaced nodes to the soil geometry, which serve
the soil-structure interaction and nonintuitive behavior of the soil as potential connection points for slip surfaces. Analyzed slip sur-
collapse mechanism—in this case, limit analysis with discontinuity faces pass through these predefined nodes that discretize problem
layout optimization (DLO-LA). geometry, with each possible node-node surface, or combination of
Limit analysis (LA) serves as a rigorous analytical tool that can surfaces examined using linear programming optimization to deter-
capture the collapse load and mechanism of footings placed on mine the critical failure mechanism (i.e., the mechanism yielding
slopes of c 0 -ϕ 0 soil. It is more robust than limit equilibrium (LE) the lowest collapse load) based on assumed translational, piecewise
as it does not require assumptions about formulation of static equi- kinematics (Fig. 1). This iterative process requires adequate nodal
librium or a priori slip surfaces. However, comparisons of LA with density to ensure that the geometry of the slip surface is captured.
LE reported in the literature indicate similar results for homogenous This approach to failure kinematics coupled with principles of limit
slope problems that do not involve bearing capacity. Rigorously ob- state plasticity were used in this work to determine the critical fail-
tained LA solutions also satisfy static equilibrium for a sliding mass, ure mechanism and corresponding bearing capacity for shallow
the same as rigorous LE analyses do (e.g., Leshchinsky et al. 1985). foundations placed on the crest of homogenous slopes composed
However, the converse is not true as LE solution does not neces- of c 0 -ϕ 0 soils.
sarily satisfy all of the rigors of LA analysis as it does not consider
kinematical constraints. LA implementation can be simpler than fi-
Comparison of AASHTO Bearing Capacity Approach
nite element (FE) or finite difference (FD) approaches as it does not
with LA-DLO
require special constitutive laws, deal with nonintuitive convergence
issues, or concern displacements. LA models soil as a material that The schematic of the analyzed problem is depicted in Fig. 2.
is perfectly plastic and obeys an associated flow rule (Yu et al. Simulations were performed to determine the bearing capacity for
1999), employing a duality of theorems to provide a solution: upper
bound or lower bound plasticity. Lower bound plasticity theorem
focuses on whether an applied stress does not violate a soil’s
strength criterion (e.g., Mohr-Coulomb’s c 0 -ϕ 0 ), stating that in such
a case, the soil will not fail or is at the brink of failure (Chen 2008).
Alternatively, upper bound plasticity (the method used in this study)
states that when rate of work along a kinematically admissible fail-
ure surface attributable to external loads is greater than or equal to
the work done by internal stresses, the external loading exceeds the
actual collapse load, i.e., the actual collapse load cannot exceed the
calculated failure load. Defining the upper bound of collapse is
based on plasticity principles (Chen 2008; Yu et al. 1999).
The application of LA has evolved to accommodate complex
geotechnical stability problems using alternative means of discretiz-
ing failure mechanisms with rigorous mechanics. Initial application
of LA in slope stability analysis was done by Chen (1975), limited
to homogenous slopes and resulting in a closed form solution,
Fig. 2. Schematic of foundation and slope model boundary conditions
whereas the initial application to bearing capacity was done by
and geometry
Prandtl (1921) for punching of thick plates. With the proliferation

© ASCE 04015022-2 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

a variety of footing sizes placed on a range of slope angles (β ¼ 0,
10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90°). Nine different B/H ratios
were tested: 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 1.0, 1.5, 3.0, 10.0, and 20.0 (equiv-
alent to B ¼ 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 5.0, 7.5, 15.0, 50.0, and 100.0 m).
Although the large values of B might be unrealistic, they serve
for normalization of results covering a wide range of practical
and hypothetical cases, which is important when checking results
against known benchmark values. No embedment was applied
and the footing was not offset from the slope crest. The interface
between the footing and soil was considered rough. To ascertain
that normalization was applicable for the reduction coefficients
presented within this paper, analyses on set of stability numbers
(0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and B/H ratios (0.1, 0.4, 1) were performed for
a slope heights of 1 meter and 10 meters, all yielding results within
3% of the baseline case. From the results, bearing capacity factors
were established.
The classical bearing capacity equation for strip footings
(Prandtl 1921) was adopted by Meyerhof (1957) for application
to footings placed on a slope
Q ¼ cN c þ γDf N q þ 0.5γBN γ ð1Þ
where c = soil cohesion; γ = unit weight of foundation soil; Df =
footing embedment depth; B = footing width; N c = cohesion bear-
ing capacity factor; N q = embedment bearing capacity factor; and
N γ = footing width bearing capacity factor. In Meyerhof’s analysis,
N c , N q , and N γ are all inherently functions of N s , B/H, and β,
where N s is the stability number described as
γH
Ns ¼ ð2Þ
c0
An analysis was performed for a footing placed on the surface of
the soil, so embedment was negated, leaving
Q ¼ cN c þ 0.5γBN γ ð3Þ
The resulting equation was used to back calculate N c and N γ for
purely cohesive or purely frictional soils based on the ultimate
bearing capacity determined from DLO-LA.
For purely cohesive soils, the definition was derived from
Eq. (3)
Q
Q ¼ cN c þ 0.5γBN γ → N c ¼ ð4Þ
c crepancies in the results for N c from replicated results in DLO-LA.
For cohesionless soils, the bearing capacity factor was also
derived from Eq. (3), and defined as
2Q
Q ¼ cN c þ 0.5γBN γ → N γ ¼ ð5Þ
γB
These relationships were used for comparison of DLO-LA with
the results from Meyerhof’s analysis. Although there are studies
that present revised bearing capacity factors for Nγ (Hilaj et al.
2005; Michalowski 1997; Bowles 1988) and N c (Kusakabe et al.
1981; Georgiadis 2010), this study focuses on AASHTO (2012)
bearing capacity factors (Prandtl 1921 for N c ; Reissner 1924 for
N q ; Vesic 1973 for Nγ) as it is widely used in design of shallow
foundations in the public sector.
Meyerhof presented Nγ results for three internal angles of fric-
tion, specifically, 30°, 40°, and 45°. The DLO-LA back-calculated
Nγ values demonstrate excellent agreement for these limited sce-
narios (B=H ¼ 1, see Fig. 3). These results were generally consis-
tent for B/H ratios of one or less, which is logical as the collapse
mechanism is governed by a failure geometry that is dependent on
© ASCE 04015022-3
Fig. 3. Comparison of Meyerhof and DLO-LA for N γ bearing capacity
factor (B=H ¼ 1)
the friction angle and footing width, especially because the failure
tended to be contained to the slope, generally exiting at or near the
toe, especially for lower friction angles.
A comparison of Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factors for purely
cohesive soils and those back calculated from DLO-LA demon-
strate differences, showing agreement only within certain bracketed
scenarios. Specifically, there is a divergence for values of N c at
lower slope (β) angles, where different ratios of cohesion (c 0 ) to
unit weight (γ) and height of the slope (H) are taken, denoted as
stability numbers, N s . A peculiar observation is that Meyerhof’s
bearing capacity factors for purely cohesive soils did not have
values originating from approximately 5.14, with the exception of
Ns ¼ 0 (i.e., H ¼ 0, or where the magnitude of cohesion is very
large in comparison to the slope). For level ground (β ¼ 0° and
ϕ ¼ 0°), the classical value of N c is (2 þ π) (e.g., Prandtl 1921;
Terzaghi 1943) and the bearing capacity load is independent of
B. Instead, there are lower N c values for progressively lower values
of cohesion (i.e., stability numbers, see Fig. 4). Ideally, the N c fac-
tor is not dependent on cohesion for horizontal ground surfaces,
therefore, it should not change with the magnitude of cohesion.
The failure mechanism that was assumed for Meyerhof’s analysis
was based on empirical observations from a series of experiments
(Peynircioglu 1948), which could address some of the general dis-
The results from DLO-LA agree well with the baseline, horizontal
ground case from Prandtl’s bearing capacity failure as they origi-
nate from near 5.14 for all stability factors. When the footing width
is smaller than the height of the slope (i.e., B < H), then there is
little difference between varying cohesions [Fig. 4(a)] as the bear-
ing capacity failure does not extend to the toe (i.e., height indepen-
dent), resulting in N s plots that all straddle N s ¼ 0 from Meyerhof
(high cohesion). As the footing width approaches the height of
the slope, there is a convergence of N c for Meyerhof and DLO-LA
for the stability numbers, N s . This convergence occurs as slopes
become steep (i.e., β > 50°), demonstrating an agreement on the
failure mechanism used in Meyerhof’s analysis (the current
AASHTO approach), as would be expected for a bearing capacity
on a steep slope [Fig. 4(b)]. When the lines degenerate into an N c
of zero, it implies that there is no added cohesive component to
the bearing capacity as the slope itself becomes unstable. As B/H
becomes greater than one, the values begin to have better agreement
with lower slope angles (i.e., β < 50°), yet eventually degenerate
into the horizontal ground case as B/H becomes exceedingly large
[B=H ¼ 20; Fig. 4(c)]. To further investigate this phenomenon,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Fig. 4. Comparison of Meyerhof (dashed lines) and DLO-LA (solid lines) of N c for (a) B=H ¼ 0.1; (b) B=H ¼ 1; (c) B=H ¼ 20

limit equilibrium (LE) was employed as it is well-accepted as a
means of evaluating the stability of soil structures in the geotech-
nical practice. Consequently, several analyses were also performed
using LE analyses (Spencer’s Method, 30 slices, and 500 slip
surfaces analyzed), demonstrating nearly perfect agreement with
DLO (<2% difference with LE, 2000 nodes was used because of
demonstrated convergence) and similar critical failure surfaces to
those of DLO. These discrepancies between the DLO-LA (or LE)
approach and those of Meyerhof’s solution are discussed in further
detail.
Revisiting Meyerhof’s Comparison for Purely
Cohesive Materials (ϕ  0°)
Meyerhof presented a practical approach to determining the bear-
ing capacity for footings place on slopes of cohesionless soils
(i.e., c 0 ¼ 0), but the approach for purely cohesive soils (i.e., ϕ ¼
0°) is inconsistent with the mechanics presented in other widely-
accepted bearing capacity approaches. This approach is the cur-
rent design methodology for MSE wall bearing capacity placed
on the crest of a c 0 -ϕ 0 slope using interpolation for bearing
capacity coefficients. When accounting for footings placed on
the crest of purely cohesive soils (i.e., ϕ ¼ 0°) with no embed-
ment, the bearing capacity factors are cohesion-dependent or
slope/height-dependent, even when β is 0° (Fig. 5). There are
several contradictions embedded within Meyerhof’s charts
(Fig. 5). Specifically:
1. For N s > 0, (i.e., γH=c > 0) there must be a slope, defined
by H > 0, to establish the appropriate stability number. It
implies a β that is greater than 0°, so a curve for zero slope
for any stability number greater than 0 has no apparent mean-
ing. That is, it is impossible to have a slope with a height
H simultaneously with a slope angle of 0° as is reflected
in Fig. 5, a reproduction of Meyerhof’s solution (used in
AASHTO 2012).
2. When the slope transitions to a horizontal case (i.e., β ¼ 0°
and H ¼ 0), the solution should approach the benchmark
N c value of 2 þ π, as is reached in N s ¼ 0. However, for
the cases shown, N c asymptotically reaches 3.2 and 1.5 for
N s ¼ 2 and 4, respectively—a conclusion that disagrees with
the original, baseline case of 5.14 for a horizontal sur-
face (Fig. 5).
3. As a footing of width B is set back a larger distances, b, from
the crest of the slope, the influence of the slope should be-
come negligible, an intuitive conclusion. However, this would
imply a transition to the baseline, horizontal ground case
(i.e., N c ¼ 2 þ π) as the influence of a slope would play no
role in the bearing capacity when sufficiently distant from the
footing. This is not reflected in the bearing capacity chart
(Fig. 5) as the N c values for stability numbers 2 and 4 level
off at 3.2 and 1.5, respectively.

Fig. 5. Meyerhof’s results for cohesive soils when ϕ ¼ 0°

© ASCE 04015022-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 Despite its general acceptance, these apparent inconsistencies
have likely been overlooked because they do not reflect a practical
scenario. That is, Meyerhof’s results bracket a solution for footings
on slopes with extrema like purely frictional soils (which has good
agreement with theory) or purely cohesive soils, which does not.
Although it is not likely to have shallow foundation placed on
purely cohesive soil, especially near a slope, in practice the extreme
values are sometimes used through interpolation to find the bearing
capacity coefficients for c 0 -ϕ 0 soils. An MSE wall placed on a slop-
ing toe is a prime example for such a use (e.g., AASHTO 2012).
It seems that the inconsistency is referenced, albeit ambiguously,
in AASHTO (2012) as a piecewise approach dependent on slope
height and footing width. Specifically, it is recommended to arbi-
trarily use N s ¼ 0 when B < H although N s ¼ γH=c > 0 when
B < H, which agrees with the result of Fig. 4(a)—a common sce-
nario for bearing capacity analyses of MSE walls placed on slopes
consisting of native soils. Despite this ‘rule’, the inconsistencies in
Meyerhof’s results are not fully resolved, specifically with regards
to degenerating to Prandtl’s solution for purely cohesive soils in
consideration of (1) lower slope angles, (2) large B/H values, and
(3) significant setback of footings from slopes. AASHTO (2012)
suggests that Bowles (1988) “presents a rational numerical ap-
proach for determining a modified bearing capacity factor, N cq ,
for footings on or near a slope : : : ”; however, Bowles analysis uses
Terzaghi’s failure mechanism and only presents a set of limited val-
ues. Meyerhof’s approach for slope stability is still very relevant;
however, inconsistencies in the impractical, yet important numeri-
cal benchmark case of footings on slopes with ϕ ¼ 0° are revised
using rigorous DLO-LA. Again, to ensure that the normalization
was consistent for the reduction coefficients presented within this
paper, analyses on sets of stability numbers, N s , (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
and B/H ratios (0.1, 0.4, 1) were performed for a slope heights of 1
and 10 m, all yielding results within 3% of the baseline (5 m) case
(a difference largely attributable to fixed nodal density, approxi-
mately 1,000 nodes). With this revision of a numerical benchmark,
reduction coefficients are presented for soils with both cohesion
and internal angle of friction compared with the classical bearing
capacity equation presented in Eq. (3).
Verification of DLO-LA in Comparison to Benchmark
Solutions
To verify agreement with recent benchmark solutions, DLO-LA
was compared with results from Kusakabe et al. (1981) and
Georgiadis (2010), demonstrating excellent agreement. Kusakabe
Fig. 6. (a) Comparison of DLO-LA with Kusakabe et al. (1981); (b) Georgiadis (2010)
© ASCE 04015022-5
et al. (1981) presented design charts based on upper-bound LA for
footings placed on slopes composed of cohesive soils with and
without internal angles of friction. The analysis focused on only
failure surfaces exiting through the slope face. DLO-LA was com-
pared with Kusakabe et al. (1981) where c 0 =γB ¼ 1 for select
internal angles of friction, demonstrating excellent agreement
[Fig. 6(a)]. The presented comparative results are normalized to
the classical bearing capacity solution for an equivalent footing
placed on level ground. To further elaborate on footings placed on
purely cohesive soils, a comparison of DLO-LA was made with
Georgiadis (2010), who used finite element (FE) analysis to deter-
mine the bearing capacity in context of undrained soils. The results,
presented in Fig. 6(b), demonstrate excellent agreement for a vari-
ety of normalized cohesion values, in which the chart compares
back-calculated N c values for a variety of slope configurations. The
agreement with these studies served as boundary benchmarks for
using DLO-LA before extending the analysis to soils with internal
friction and cohesion, and to more general failure mechanisms pos-
sibly exiting beneath the toe of a slope.
Results
The validation of DLO-LA to benchmark bearing capacity factors
facilitated parametric analyses to determine the ultimate bearing
capacity for a variety of combinations of c 0 -ϕ 0 soils and geometric
configurations (shown in Table 1). The results are presented in the
form of reduction coefficients that can be applied to the classical
bearing capacity equation presented in Eq. (3). This reduction co-
efficient, RCBC , is based on a comparison of the results attained
from DLO-LA and the baseline, horizontal ground, classical ulti-
mate bearing capacity solution, Qult , which was attained based on
AASHTO (2012) guidelines for bearing capacity design. Such pre-
sentation is deemed practical as it relates standard solution used by
practitioners while being informative about the level of penalty as-
sociated with a given slope. This solution uses Terzaghi’s classical
bearing capacity equation [Eq. (3)] and is based on Prandtl (1921)
modified factors for N c and Vesic (1973) factors for Nγ (shown
in Table 2, N q is omitted as it is not relevant to this application).
Specifically, this reduction coefficient was defined as
Qult−DLO
RCBC ¼ ð6Þ
Qult
where Qult-DLO = ultimate bearing capacity attained from the
DLO-LA analysis for a given configuration (i.e., combination of
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 0 ¼ Q RC
Qult
Table 1. Parameters in Bearing Capacity Analysis ult BC ¼ cN c RCBC þ 0.5γBN γ RCBC ð7Þ
Parameter Values used in analysis
0
β 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 degrees where Qult = reduced bearing capacity for a nonembedded footing
ϕ 0, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, and 45 degrees placed on the crest of a slope of homogenous c 0 -ϕ 0 soil.
Ns 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 The reduction coefficients had several notable trends that influ-
B/H 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 1.0, 1.5, 3.0, 10.0, and 20.0 ence design considerations. One such trend was an initial dip in
RCBC with increasing footing sizes for B/H ratios less than one
(Fig. 7 and Table 3). Typically, this local minimum occurred at
B/H ratios between 0.4 and 2.0. Furthermore, there was little in-
Table 2. AASHTO (2012) Bearing Capacity Factors N c (Prandtl 1921) crease in RCBC for lower slope angles, typically decreasing until
and N γ (Vesic 1975) it reached an asymptote that was progressively lower for higher
ϕ Nc Nγ N s values. Finally, the shape of the curves was influenced by the
0 5.1 0 slope angle, β. As the slope angle increased, the initial dip in the
1 5.4 0.1 curves became more defined and the gain in RCBC becomes more
2 5.6 0.2 pronounced with a large B/H (i.e., returning to a horizontal case).
3 5.9 0.2 The implications and reasoning for the coupled behavior of these
4 6.2 0.3 reduction coefficients is outlined in the discussion. The full, tabu-
5 6.5 0.5 lated results are presented in Table 3.
6 6.8 0.6
7 7.2 0.7
8 7.5 0.9
9 7.9 1 Discussion
10 8.4 1.2
11 8.8 1.4 The reduction coefficients presented within this study suggest that
12 9.3 1.7 footing width to slope height ratio, soil strength and slope angle
13 9.8 2 have a significant influence on the expected bearing capacity of a
14 10.4 2.3 slope-supported footing. One notable trend is an initial dip in RCBC
15 11 2.7 with increasing B/H and a subsequent gain afterwards, eventually
16 11.6 3.1 exhibiting an asymptotic behavior as B/H approaches infinity.
17 12.3 3.5 Furthermore, there are increasing differences in initial, local min-
18 13.1 4.1 ima with increasing slope angle and a reduction of RCBC loss and
19 13.9 4.7 recovery with lower soil friction angles. These counterintuitive
20 14.8 5.4
numerical trends can be justified with a change in critical failure
21 15.8 6.2
22 16.9 7.1 mechanism. That is, the initial decrease, local minima, and sub-
23 18.1 8.2 sequent asymptotic increase in RCBC are caused by a shift in failure
24 19.3 9.4 mechanism. Explicitly, the mechanism changes from a failure ex-
25 20.7 10.9 tending from the back corner of the foundation to the face of the
26 22.3 12.5 slope (case A in Fig. 8) to a slip surface extending beneath the toe
27 23.9 14.5 when soil strength or footing size is sufficiently large in magnitude
28 25.8 16.7 [Figs. 9(a and b), Case B, C, and D in Fig. 8]. This shift in mecha-
29 27.9 19.3 nism is directly related to a variety of geometry and soil criteria
30 30.1 22.4 discussed in the following paragraphs.
31 32.7 26
The angle of the slope has a significant effect on the bearing
32 35.5 30.2
33 38.6 35.2 capacity that can be attained for a variety of footing sizes and soil
34 42.2 41.1 parameters. As β increases, the local minimum that occurs at lower
35 46.1 48 B/H values becomes more exaggerated coupled with a large, sub-
36 50.6 56.3 sequent increase in RCBC . These lowered minima result from the
37 55.6 66.2 transition from a simple slope failure with large, soil self-weight
38 61.4 78 destabilizing forces (case B in Fig. 8) into a compound failure
39 67.9 92.3 mechanism with a shear surface extending beneath the toe, contrib-
40 75.3 109.4 uting passive resistance and added cohesion resistance along the
41 83.9 130.2 lengthened slip surface (case C and D in Fig. 8). Furthermore,
42 93.7 155.6
the slope angle makes a notable difference on the range in which
43 105.1 186.5
44 118.4 224.6 the localized minima for RCBC occur. An increase in β results in
45 133.9 271.8 lower B/H ratios yielding the RCBC minimum. This is likely be-
cause of lower slope stability at higher slope angles and a conse-
quent lengthening of the failure surface with an added surcharge
[Fig. 9(a)]. This also leads to a more rapid increase in RCBC as
c 0 ; ϕ 0 ; β, B/H); and Qult = bearing capacity attained from the footing size increases (i.e., transition to the compound failure
classical bearing capacity solution, as recommended by AASHTO mechanism). The angle of the slope is important because it influ-
(2012) for nonsloping ground and identical strength parameters. ences the geometry of the ensuing failure mechanism at ultimate
When the stability number, N s was zero, it implied exceedingly bearing capacity.
large cohesion values (i.e., 10,000 kPa), yielding a stability number The soil strength has a paramount influence on the bearing
close to 0. RCBC can then be applied as a reduction coefficient to capacity that can be attained on slopes as it governs the collapse
the classical solution for any footing placed adjacent to a slope: mechanism that occurs. One notable effect is tied to an increase

© ASCE 04015022-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 Fig. 7. Reduction factors for slope-supported footing bearing capacity for c 0 -ϕ 0 soils
in the internal angle of friction, ϕ 0 , in which increasing frictional
strength leads to a reduced range of B/H ratios that reflect local
minima [Fig. 9(c), also represented by point B on Fig. 8] for
RCBC , essentially allowing a more rapid transition to a critical
compound failure mechanism. When β is between 0° and 50°, ϕ 0
values of 0°, 20°, 25°, 30°, 35°, 40°, and 45° yield ranges of 1.5–3.0,
0.6–3.0, 0.6–3.0, 0.6–1.5, 0.6–1.0, 0.4–1.0, and 0.4–0.6 for B/H
ratios representative of minimum RCBC , respectively. Furthermore,
increasing frictional strength lowers RCBC values for smaller foot-
ing sizes and higher slope angles. The reasoning for these phenom-
ena is an increased influence of frictional resistance in the ultimate
bearing capacity coupled with a reduced influence of cohesion
(i.e., effects of ϕ 0 become much greater than c’). With a horizontal
ground surface and a high internal angle of friction, bearing capac-
ity becomes very large because of the presence of resisting passive
earth pressures at the exiting portion of the assumed punching
collapse mechanism. Because there is an absence of this passive
wedge when a slope is present, the reduction in bearing capacity
becomes large because of the reduced resistance of passive earth
pressures. These passive earth pressures recover when the footing
size becomes exceedingly large (i.e., the influence of a slope be-
comes small). This is also observed through a reduction in initial
RCBC values for increasing frictional strength (Fig. 7). The strength
© ASCE 04015022-7
of the foundation soil is of greatest concern as it governs the geom-
etry and features of the critical collapse mechanism.
Design of shallow foundations adjacent to slopes must include
considerations for soil strength, footing width to slope height ratio,
and slope angle. When considering these factors, large ratios of
B/H mobilize large areas of shear resistance, especially in soils with
both cohesion and internal angle of friction. The influences of
the RCBC minima become less critical with higher friction angles
and lower slope angles. Finally, the smallest reductions in bearing
capacity for c 0 -ϕ 0 soils are attained when the critical failure mecha-
nism transitions to a compound failure, extending beneath the toe
of the slope surface, consequently reducing the influence of the
adjacent slope. However, this benefit becomes less significant
with lower cohesion as frictional resistance governs and is greatly
affected by the absence of passively resisting soil.
AASHTO (2012) uses Meyerhof (1957) approach to evaluate
bearing capacity of shallow foundations placed adjacent to slopes,
which does not sufficiently address common design scenarios like
MSE walls design on slopes of c 0 -ϕ 0 soils. That is, Meyerhof’s
approach provides bearing capacity coefficients for a footing rest-
ing on either a purely cohesive slope or purely frictional slope.
For c 0 -ϕ 0 soils, one has to interpolate the coefficients. Considering
that the coefficients for the boundary case of cohesive soils are low,
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 3. Tabulated Reduction Factors, RCBC , for Nonembedded Footings Placed at the Crest of a Slope
β ¼ 10° β ¼ 20° β ¼ 30°

© ASCE
Ns Ns Ns
ϕ B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
ϕ ¼ 0° 0.1 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.1 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.1 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83
0.2 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.2 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.2 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.79 0.78 0.77
0.4 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.4 0.89 0.87 0.86 0.84 0.82 0.71 0.4 0.81 0.79 0.77 0.74 0.66 0.52
0.6 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.84 0.79 0.6 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.81 0.71 0.55 0.6 0.81 0.78 0.74 0.66 0.53 0.40
1 0.87 0.86 0.84 0.81 0.75 0.58 1 0.87 0.84 0.79 0.69 0.56 0.39 1 0.80 0.75 0.66 0.55 0.42 0.27
1.5 0.87 0.85 0.82 0.75 0.62 0.46 1.5 0.87 0.82 0.72 0.61 0.47 0.30 1.5 0.80 0.72 0.61 0.50 0.37 0.20
3 0.87 0.82 0.73 0.61 0.47 0.29 3 0.87 0.78 0.67 0.53 0.37 0.19 3 0.83 0.74 0.62 0.47 0.31 0.13
10 0.89 0.78 0.63 0.48 0.31 0.13 10 0.96 0.81 0.65 0.47 0.28 0.09 10 0.96 0.81 0.63 0.45 0.26 0.07
20 0.91 0.77 0.61 0.44 0.27 0.09 20 0.99 0.82 0.64 0.45 0.26 0.07 20 0.98 0.82 0.63 0.44 0.25 0.07
ϕ ¼ 20° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.1 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.1 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.61
0.2 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.2 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.2 0.62 0.61 0.59 0.58 0.56 0.55
0.4 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.84 0.83 0.4 0.73 0.71 0.70 0.68 0.67 0.65 0.4 0.62 0.59 0.56 0.54 0.51 0.49
0.6 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.6 0.73 0.70 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.61 0.6 0.61 0.57 0.54 0.50 0.47 0.44
1 0.85 0.83 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.77 1 0.72 0.68 0.64 0.61 0.58 0.56 1 0.61 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.42 0.39
1.5 0.86 0.83 0.80 0.78 0.75 0.74 1.5 0.73 0.66 0.62 0.57 0.54 0.52 1.5 0.65 0.56 0.50 0.46 0.42 0.38
3 0.90 0.81 0.77 0.75 0.72 0.70 3 0.88 0.73 0.66 0.60 0.56 0.54 3 0.86 0.69 0.61 0.54 0.51 0.47
10 0.96 0.85 0.78 0.75 0.73 0.72 10 0.95 0.83 0.75 0.72 0.70 0.68 10 0.95 0.82 0.74 0.70 0.68 0.67
20 0.98 0.85 0.80 0.78 0.76 0.76 20 0.98 0.85 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.75 20 0.98 0.84 0.78 0.76 0.75 0.74
ϕ ¼ 25° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.1 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.1 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.54

04015022-8
0.2 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.2 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.2 0.56 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.49
0.4 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.4 0.67 0.66 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.4 0.56 0.53 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.43
0.6 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.6 0.67 0.64 0.62 0.60 0.57 0.56 0.6 0.55 0.51 0.47 0.44 0.41 0.39
1 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.74 1 0.67 0.62 0.58 0.56 0.53 0.51 1 0.56 0.50 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.36
1.5 0.82 0.79 0.77 0.75 0.73 0.71 1.5 0.71 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.51 0.49 1.5 0.65 0.55 0.48 0.44 0.40 0.39
3 0.90 0.79 0.74 0.71 0.70 0.68 3 0.88 0.72 0.64 0.60 0.57 0.55 3 0.87 0.69 0.60 0.55 0.52 0.50
10 0.96 0.84 0.80 0.78 0.77 0.77 10 0.95 0.83 0.78 0.75 0.74 0.73 10 0.95 0.82 0.78 0.75 0.74 0.72
20 0.98 0.87 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 20 0.98 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 20 0.98 0.86 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.81
ϕ ¼ 30° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.1 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.1 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.47
0.2 0.81 0.86 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.84 0.2 0.64 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.2 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.42
0.4 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.4 0.63 0.61 0.59 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.4 0.50 0.46 0.43 0.41 0.39 0.38
0.6 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.6 0.62 0.59 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.51 0.6 0.49 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.33
1 0.79 0.77 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.71 1 0.63 0.57 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.48 1 0.55 0.46 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.33
1.5 0.79 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.68 1.5 0.72 0.61 0.56 0.52 0.50 0.48 1.5 0.68 0.54 0.47 0.42 0.39 0.37
3 0.95 0.78 0.74 0.72 0.70 0.69 3 0.92 0.72 0.66 0.63 0.60 0.58 3 0.90 0.70 0.62 0.57 0.57 0.57
10 0.95 0.86 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 10 0.95 0.86 0.82 0.79 0.78 0.77 10 0.94 0.83 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.77
20 0.98 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 20 0.98 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 20 0.98 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 Table 3. (Continued.)
β ¼ 10° β ¼ 20° β ¼ 30°

© ASCE
Ns Ns Ns
ϕ B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
ϕ ¼ 35° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.1 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.1 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.39
0.2 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.80 0.81 0.77 0.2 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.52 0.2 0.43 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.36
0.4 0.74 0.73 0.74 0.72 0.72 0.70 0.4 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.4 0.43 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.31
0.6 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.68 0.6 0.55 0.52 0.50 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.6 0.43 0.38 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.29
1 0.73 0.72 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.66 1 0.61 0.53 0.49 0.46 0.44 0.43 1 0.55 0.45 0.39 0.36 0.33 0.31
1.5 0.76 0.70 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.65 1.5 0.72 0.60 0.53 0.50 0.47 0.46 1.5 0.69 0.54 0.46 0.42 0.39 0.37
3 0.96 0.78 0.73 0.70 0.69 0.67 3 0.93 0.71 0.66 0.63 0.61 0.60 3 0.92 0.69 0.63 0.59 0.57 0.55
10 0.97 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 10 0.95 0.83 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 10 0.95 0.83 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79
20 0.98 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 20 0.98 0.88 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 20 0.98 0.89 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85
ϕ ¼ 40° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.85 0.1 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.1 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33
0.2 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.2 0.51 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.2 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.29
0.4 0.67 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.4 0.50 0.48 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.4 0.36 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.25
0.6 0.67 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.6 0.50 0.46 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.39 0.6 0.40 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.26 0.25
1 0.69 0.67 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.62 1 0.63 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.43 0.42 1 0.58 0.45 0.39 0.35 0.33 0.31
1.5 0.76 0.69 0.65 0.62 0.61 0.60 1.5 0.74 0.59 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.47 1.5 0.71 0.54 0.47 0.43 0.40 0.39
3 0.95 0.77 0.74 0.72 0.71 0.71 3 0.94 0.73 0.68 0.66 0.65 0.63 3 0.91 0.72 0.67 0.64 0.62 0.61
10 0.98 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 10 0.98 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 10 0.94 0.87 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83
20 0.98 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 20 0.98 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.89 20 0.98 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90
ϕ ¼ 45° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5

04015022-9
0.1 0.60 0.66 0.68 0.67 0.72 0.68 0.1 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.1 0.30 0.29 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26
0.2 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.62 0.63 0.63 0.2 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.36 0.2 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.23
0.4 0.59 0.61 0.60 0.61 0.59 0.60 0.4 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.4 0.30 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.20
0.6 0.59 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.6 0.47 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.35 0.6 0.39 0.32 0.29 0.25 0.23 0.22
1 0.66 0.60 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.56 1 0.62 0.49 0.46 0.42 0.41 0.39 1 0.59 0.42 0.37 0.35 0.32 0.31
1.5 0.74 0.68 0.61 0.59 0.58 0.57 1.5 0.71 0.57 0.52 0.49 0.48 0.47 1.5 0.70 0.54 0.47 0.44 0.42 0.41
3 0.95 0.75 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.69 3 0.95 0.71 0.68 0.66 0.65 0.64 3 0.95 0.72 0.69 0.67 0.64 0.63
10 0.99 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 10 0.99 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 10 0.99 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.84
20 1.00 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 20 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 20 1.00 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 Table 3. (Continued.)
β ¼ 40° β ¼ 50°

© ASCE
Ns Ns
ϕ B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
ϕ ¼ 0° 0.1 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.1 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.65
0.2 0.76 0.74 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.66 0.2 0.67 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.60 0.54
0.4 0.74 0.71 0.68 0.64 0.53 0.38 0.4 0.67 0.64 0.60 0.54 0.41 0.27
0.6 0.74 0.70 0.64 0.54 0.41 0.27 0.6 0.66 0.62 0.54 0.43 0.31 0.17
1 0.73 0.66 0.56 0.45 0.33 0.19 1 0.66 0.58 0.47 0.36 0.25 0.12
1.5 0.73 0.64 0.54 0.43 0.30 0.14 1.5 0.66 0.57 0.47 0.36 0.25 0.10
3 0.80 0.71 0.59 0.44 0.28 0.10 3 0.78 0.69 0.56 0.41 0.25 0.08
10 0.96 0.80 0.62 0.44 0.25 0.08 10 0.95 0.79 0.61 0.43 0.25 0.06
20 0.98 0.81 0.63 0.44 0.25 0.06 20 0.97 0.81 0.62 0.44 0.25 0.06
ϕ ¼ 20° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.1 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.39
0.2 0.52 0.51 0.49 0.47 0.45 0.43 0.2 0.43 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.34
0.4 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.4 0.43 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.27
0.6 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.6 0.43 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.20
1 0.52 0.45 0.39 0.34 0.30 0.27 1 0.45 0.38 0.32 0.27 0.23 0.20
1.5 0.60 0.50 0.44 0.38 0.34 0.30 1.5 0.55 0.44 0.37 0.31 0.27 0.24
3 0.85 0.67 0.57 0.50 0.46 0.43 3 0.83 0.66 0.54 0.48 0.44 0.40
10 0.94 0.80 0.72 0.69 0.66 0.65 10 0.95 0.80 0.73 0.69 0.67 0.65
20 0.98 0.83 0.78 0.76 0.75 0.74 20 0.98 0.83 0.78 0.76 0.75 0.74
ϕ ¼ 25° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.1 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32
0.2 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.36 0.2 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.28 0.28

04015022-10
0.4 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.29 0.4 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.21
0.6 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.6 0.37 0.32 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.18
1 0.49 0.38 0.36 0.31 0.28 0.25 1 0.42 0.34 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.19
1.5 0.61 0.50 0.42 0.38 0.34 0.31 1.5 0.58 0.45 0.37 0.31 0.28 0.25
3 0.87 0.67 0.58 0.52 0.49 0.46 3 0.86 0.65 0.56 0.50 0.46 0.43
10 0.94 0.82 0.78 0.74 0.72 0.71 10 0.94 0.82 0.77 0.74 0.73 0.72
20 0.98 0.86 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 20 0.98 0.86 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80
ϕ ¼ 30° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.40 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.1 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.26
0.2 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.2 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.22
0.4 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.4 0.31 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.19 0.17
0.6 0.39 0.34 0.30 0.27 0.24 0.22 0.6 0.31 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.15
1 0.48 0.39 0.33 0.32 0.26 0.24 1 0.40 0.32 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.18
1.5 0.64 0.50 0.41 0.37 0.33 0.31 1.5 0.61 0.46 0.37 0.32 0.28 0.26
3 0.88 0.68 0.59 0.54 0.51 0.48 3 0.87 0.65 0.57 0.52 0.48 0.46
10 0.94 0.82 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.76 10 0.95 0.84 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.75
20 0.98 0.89 0.87 0.85 0.85 0.84 20 0.98 0.90 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

 Table 3. (Continued.)
β ¼ 40° β ¼ 50°

© ASCE
Ns Ns
ϕ B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
ϕ ¼ 35° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.1 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.21
0.2 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.2 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.17
0.4 0.33 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.4 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13
0.6 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.6 0.27 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12
1 0.50 0.39 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.25 1 0.43 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.20 0.18
1.5 0.66 0.50 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.32 1.5 0.62 0.45 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.27
3 0.91 0.67 0.61 0.58 0.56 0.55 3 0.90 0.65 0.59 0.55 0.52 0.51
10 0.95 0.84 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.78 10 0.95 0.84 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79
20 0.98 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.87 20 0.98 0.89 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.86
ϕ ¼ 40° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.1 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16
0.2 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.2 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.12
0.4 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.4 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10
0.6 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.6 0.24 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.10
1 0.54 0.33 0.33 0.29 0.27 0.24 1 0.48 0.33 0.27 0.23 0.20 0.19
1.5 0.68 0.50 0.43 0.39 0.36 0.34 1.5 0.64 0.47 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.30
3 0.92 0.70 0.67 0.61 0.59 0.57 3 0.92 0.69 0.63 0.59 0.57 0.56
10 0.95 0.88 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 10 0.95 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85
20 0.98 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 20 0.98 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91
ϕ ¼ 45° B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5 B=H 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.1 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.1 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10

04015022-11
0.2 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.2 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08
0.4 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.4 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07
0.6 0.31 0.24 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.6 0.23 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09
1 0.50 0.40 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.25 1 0.50 0.35 0.28 0.24 0.22 0.20
1.5 0.68 0.50 0.44 0.40 0.38 0.37 1.5 0.65 0.47 0.43 0.37 0.35 0.33
3 0.95 0.70 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.62 3 0.95 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.62 0.61
10 0.99 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.86 10 0.99 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.86
20 1.00 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 20 1.00 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Fig. 8. Schematic demonstrating effect of slip surface geometry
on RFBC
the end result is overly conservative. MSE walls, in particular, are
subject to this overly conservative constraint as (1) the reinforced
soil is treated as a rigid, coherent mass when designing for bearing
capacity; (2) embedment is rarely considered; (3) native slopes,
a common foundation for earth retention structures, are often com-
posed of c 0 -ϕ 0 soils; and (4) Meyerhof’s Nc factors do not con-
verge on the theoretical maximum as the slope grade transitions
to the horizontal case (when β ¼ 0°, Nc should be 5.14). These
design considerations, despite the importance of Meyerhof’s
seminal work and the widespread use of AASHTO, motivated this
study.
Conclusions
Presented are adjusted reduction coefficients for determining bearing
capacity for structures built adjacent to slopes on c 0 -ϕ 0 soils, a
critical task necessary for the design of footings, surcharges, and
earth retention structures. These design factors were attained using
DLO-LA, a rigorous stability analysis based on upper-bound limit
state plasticity that uses a discretization algorithm to determine criti-
cal collapse mechanisms. These reduction coefficients are presented
for a variety of soil strengths, footing width-slope height ratios,
and slope angles. The results are compiled into a table and selected
design charts. Notable conclusions from the analysis include:
1. The DLO-LA exhibits excellent agreement with Meyerhof’s
bearing capacity equation (Meyerhof 1957) for frictional soils.
© ASCE 04015022-12
Fig. 9. Transition of failure mechanisms for (a) increasing B/H
ratio for N s ¼ 0 (ϕ ¼ 45°); (b) increasing cohesion (for ϕ ¼ 45°,
B=H ¼ 0.4); (c) increasing internal angle of friction for N s ¼ 0
(B=H ¼ 0.4)
However, Meyerhof’s results for purely cohesive soils, which
are used in AASHTO (2012), differentiate from those attained
by Prandtl (1920) and DLO-LA as Meyerhof’s N c factors are
not independent of cohesion. DLO-LA and Prandtl’s failure
for purely cohesive materials find an origin of 5.14 (2 þ π)
for N c values on a horizontal surface, in agreement with most
plasticity-based approaches for bearing capacity. DLO-LA
yields agreeable results with Meyerhof when B/H is ap-
proximately 1, but is different for certain scenarios. This is
likely because Meyerhof’s approach does not degenerate to
Prandtl’s solution (i.e., N c ¼ 2 þ π) for purely cohesive soils
(i.e., ϕ 0 ¼ 0°) in consideration of (1) lower slope angles,
(2) large B/H values, and (3) significant setback of footings
from slopes.
2. DLO-LA was deemed a capable tool for determining reduction
coefficients for c 0 -ϕ 0 soils. Application of upper-bound limit
state plasticity combined with the discontinuity layout opti-
mization algorithm effectively captured the ultimate bearing
capacity and associated failure mechanism, demonstrating
agreement with benchmark solutions. This tool presents an
efficient and rigorous method for determining the ultimate
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 bearing capacity for spread footings placed adjacent to slopes
of c 0 -ϕ 0 soils, a complex and common geotechnical problem.
3. Bearing capacity was greatly influenced by the critical col-
lapse mechanism that was determined for the ultimate bearing
load. Specifically, the highest bearing capacities were attained
for mechanisms that extended beneath the toe of the slope,
garnering added passive soil resistance. Inversely, the weakest
relative bearing capacity was determined for failure mechan-
isms that extended from the footing directly to the toe of the
slope. Failures that extended above the toe (through the face of
the slope) yielded higher RCBC values attributable to reduced
soil self-weight destabilizing forces in comparison to those
emerging through the toe.
4. Increase of soil internal angle of friction leads to shallower
slip surfaces, reduced influence of soil cohesion and reduced
RCBC values attributable to the absence of soil passive resis-
tance. With a horizontal ground surface and a high internal
angle of friction, bearing capacity becomes large because of
resisting passive soil wedges at the exiting portion of the
collapse mechanism—an absence of this passive wedge
attributable to a an adjacent slope results in lowered RCBC .
These passive earth pressures regain when the footing size
becomes exceedingly large and the influence of a slope be-
comes small.
5. Larger B/H ratios reduce the influence of the slope at all
angles, asymptotically approaching the horizontal baseline
case. This is implicative of a deepening of the critical failure
surface and reduced the relative size of the slope in comparison
to the footing and slip surface.
6. The bracketed range of local minima for RCBC values is re-
duced with increasing friction angle, essentially reducing the
relative effect of cohesion.
7. Based on these conclusions and the generated RCBC , the
bearing capacity for foundations placed on the crest of slopes
constituted of c 0 -ϕ 0 soils can be attained for a variety of
scenarios with a simple reduction coefficient applied to the
classical bearing capacity equation, directly relevant to
AASHTO (2012).
References
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials). (2012). “Standard specifications for highway bridges.
Sections 4.4.1.3 and 4.4.9.” LRFD bridge design specifications,
6th Ed., Washington, DC, 45–66.
Azzouz, A. S., and Baligh, M. M. (1983). “Loaded areas on cohe-
sive slopes.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:
5(724), 724–729.
Bowles, J. E. (1988). Foundation analysis and design, 4th Ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity, Elsevier Scientific,
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Chen, W. F. (2008). Limit analysis and soil plasticity, J. Ross Publishing,
Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Georgiadis, K. (2010). “Undrained bearing capacity of strip footings on
slopes.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000269,
677–685.
© ASCE 04015022-13
Graham, J., Andrews, M., and Shields, D. H. (1988). “Stress characteristics
for shallow footings in cohesionless slopes.” Can. Geotech. J., 25(2),
238–249.
Griffiths, D. V. (1982). “Computation of bearing capacity factors using
finite elements.” Geotechnique, 32(3), 195–202.
Hansen, J. B. (1970). A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity,
Bulletin 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hilaj, M., Lyamin, A. V., and Sloan, S. W. (2005). “Numerical limit
analysis solutions for the bearing capacity factor.” Int. J. Solids Struct.,
42(5), 1681–1704.
Kim, J., Salgado, R., and Lee, J. (2002). “Limit analysis of complex soil
slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2002)128:7(546), 546–557.
Kusakabe, O., Kimura, T., and Yamaguchi, H. (1981). “Bearing capacity
of slopes under strip loads on the top surfaces.” Soils Found., 21(4),
29–40.
Leshchinsky, B. (2013). “Comparison of limit equilibrium and limit
analysis for complex slopes.” Proc., GeoCongress 2013, ASCE,
Reston, VA, 1280–1289.
Leshchinsky, B. (2014). “Limit analysis optimization of design factors
for mechanically stabilized earth wall-supported footings.” Transp.
Infrastruct. Geotechnol., 1(2), 111–128.
Leshchinsky, D., Baker, R., and Silver, M. (1985). “Three dimensional
analysis of slope stability.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech.,
9(3), 199–223.
LimitState. (2013). LimitState: Geo manual v 3.0, Sheffield, U.K.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1951). “The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations.”
Geotechnique, 2(4), 301–332.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957). “The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations
on slopes.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, 3, 384–386.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). “Some recent research on the bearing capacity of
foundations.” Can. Geotech. J., 1(1), 16–26.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1974). “Ultimate bearing capacity of footings on sand
layer overlying clay.” Can. Geotech. J., 11(2), 223–229.
Michalowski, R. L. (1997). “An estimate of the influence of soil weight on
bearing capacity using limit analysis.” Soils Found., 37(4), 57–64.
Peynircioglu, H. (1948). “Tests on bearing capacity of shallow` foundations
horizontal top surfaces of sand fills and the behaviour of soils under
such foundations.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dation Engineering, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 144–205.
Prandtl, L. (1920). “Härte plashercher Körper.” Nachrichten Ges,
Wissenschafter Göttingen, Germany (in German).
Prandtl, L. (1921). “Hauptaufsätze: Über die Eindringungsfestigkeit
(Härte) plastischer Baustoffe und die Festigkeit von Schneiden.”
ZAMM-J. Appl. Math. Mech., 1(1), 15–20 (in German).
Reissner, H. (1924). “Zum Erddruckproblem.” Proc., 1st Int. Congress for
Applied Mechanics, C. B. Biezeno, and J. M. Burgers, eds., 295–311.
Shields, D., Neil, C., and Jacques, G. (1990). “Bearing capacity of foun-
dations in slopes.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1990)
116:3(528), 528–537.
Smith, C. C., and Gilbert, M. (2007). “Application of discontinuity layout
optimization to plane plasticity problems.” Proc. R. Soc. A, 463(2086),
2461–2484.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.
Vesic, A. S. (1973). “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.”
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 99(1), 45–73.
Vesic, A. S. (1975). “Bearing capacity of shallow foundations.” Foundation
engineering handbook, 5(4), 121–147.
Yu, H. S., Salgado, R., Sloane, S. W., and Kim, J. M. (1999). “Limit analy-
sis versus limit equilibrium for slope stability.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:10(914), 914–918.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Copyright of Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering is the property of
American Society of Civil Engineers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.