Procedia Engineering

Volume 143, 2016, Pages 623–634

Advances in Transportation Geotechnics 3 . The 3rd

International Conference on Transportation Geotechnics
(ICTG 2016)

2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested

Near Slope under Inclined Loading
Messaoud Baazouzi1* Djamel Benmeddour 1† Abdelhak Mabrouki 1‡
Mekki Mellas 1§
1
The University of Mohamed kidder, Biskra, Algeria.
m.baazouzi@univ-biskra.dz, m_mellas@yahoo.fr, mabrouki_abd@yahoo.fr,
benmeddourdj@yahoo.fr

Abstract
The bearing capacity of vertically loaded strip footing near slope in plane strain conditions has always
been one of the subjects of major interest in geotechnical engineering for researchers and practical
engineers. In the literature few studies deal with inclined loaded strip footings adjacent to a
cohesionless slope. This study focuses on the numerical analysis of the bearing capacity for a strip
footing near a cohesionless slope, and subjected to a centered inclined load, using the finite difference
code Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC). In this study, several geometrical and mechanical
parameters have been considered in order to evaluate the effect of the slope on the bearing capacity.
The obtained results are presented in terms of normalised failure envelopes in two-dimensional
loading plane (H/Vo, V/Vo). The results show the influence of the load inclination and the position of
the footing with respect to the slope on the bearing capacity.

Keywords: bearing capacity, inclined load, strip foundation, slope, ultimate surfaces.

1 Introduction
Establishing the bearing capacity of shallow foundations has long been an important component of
geotechnical engineering practice. There are an extensive literature dealing with bearing capacity of
foundation during the last century through different methods; experimental investigations, numerical
and theoretical analyses. Generally, the bearing capacity of shallow foundations is determined using
the equation of (Terzaghi, 1943) [1]. This equation is a superposition of three terms; surface term,
cohesion term, and overloading term which depend uniquely on the friction angle of the soil.

* Corresponding author, Ph.D. Candidate, E-mail: messaoud.baazouzi@gmail.com

† Doctor, E-mail: benmeddourdj@yahoo.fr
‡ Doctor, E-mail: a.mabroukii@yahoo.fr
§ Professor., E-mail: m_mellas@yahoo.fr

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Programme Committee of ICTG 2016 623
c The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.086
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

After that, most researchers have focused mainly on a way of investigation of bearing capacity and
various correction factors in order to confirm or improve this domain.
Footings sometimes are constructed under inclined loading; this is according to the architectural
design or case of factors which affect them. According to the footing failure mechanism of (Meyerhof,
1963), the central shear zone is tilted and the adjacent zones are modified. Also, the bearing capacity
would differ from that obtained from the conventional bearing capacity equation. For such cases,
particular consideration of the inclination loading factor on the bearing capacity is required.
The effect of the inclination loading on the cohesionless bearing capacity of shallow foundation is
represented by the following expression:
1
qult = BγN γ iγ + cN c ic + qN q i q (1)
2
Where qu is the ultimate bearing capacity, B: width of foundation, Ȗ: the soil density, NȖ: bearing
capacity factors and iȖ: inclination factor.
In this study, series of numerical computation, using the finite difference code (FLAC, 2005), are
carried out to study the influence of the slope, normalised distance of the footing and load inclination
angles on the ultimate bearing capacity. The results of the current study are compared with results
available in the literature.

2 Problem Presentation

Various expressions have been proposed for the drained inclination factor iȖ giving a relatively
wide range of results. (Meyerhof, 1963; Hansen, 1970 and Vesic, 1975) have been proposed the
following expression for iȖ respectively:
2
§ δ·
i γ = ¨¨1 − ¸¸ (2)
© ϕ¹
Where: į is load inclination factor and ij: internal friction angle of soil.
6
ª 0. 7 H º
= [1 − 0.7tagδ ]
5
iγ = 1 − (3)
«¬ V »¼
Where: V and H are the vertical and horizontal component of the load.
3
§ H·
iγ = ¨1 − ¸ = (1 − tgδ )
3
(4)
© V ¹
Both equations of (Hansen, 1970) and (Vesic, 1975) were based mainly on results produced by
computations using the method of characteristics (MOC).
The French regulation Fascicule (Fascicule, 1993) has proposed the following expression of
inclination factor iȖ
2
§ δ ·
iγ = ¨1 − ¸ (5)
¨ 45 ¸
© ¹
Actually, there are a lot of studies, (Gourvenec 2007, Loukidis 2008, Georgiadis 2008, Taiebat and
Garter 2010, Terzis 2014, Stergiou 2015, Nguyen 2016, Shen 2016) did not describe the ultimate
bearing capacity loading reduced by the correction factors, but with the definition of the ultimate

624
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

loading combination in the plan, it is mean replaced by the normalised failure envelope in load plan
(V, H)
Expression (1) has been proposed for the footing rested on the horizontal ground surface.
However, a very limited work has been done the cohesionless bearing capacity of shallow foundation
on the slope under inclined loading.
(Hansen, 1970) proposed an additional factor gȖ in the equation of bearing capacity (1) to taking
account the effect of ground sloping.
1
q ult = BγN γ .iγ . g γ (6)
2
Who:
5
g γ = (1 − 0.5tgβ ) , for β < ϕ (7)
It should be noted that the solution of (Hansen, 1970) it can be only applicable for a foundation
rested in a slope or at the crest of slope and the load is inclined towards the slope. However, often the
footings are constructed at distance d/B from the crest of the slope; these cases arise due according to
architectural needs. (Meyerhof, 1957) who used the equilibrium methods and proposed design charts
which are currently adopted by many designs manual. (Bakir, 1993) who developed empirical
equations for the ultimate bearing capacity factors for a footing on a slope based on centrifuge tests.
2
­
- d / B < α : i = 1 − 0.9tgβ ( 2 − tgβ ) ®1 −
d ½
β ¾ (8)
¯ 6B ¿
- d / B > α : iβ = 1 (9)

Where: d/B is normalised footing distance.

The non-symmetry of the ground surface imposed treated distinctly two cases; positive and
negative load. Figure 1 shows the particular configuration of a strip foundation established on crest of
a slope considering an inclined positive load (į> 0) fig.1a, and negative load (į <0) fig.1b.

Figure 1: Problem Geometry

On these sides, (Fascicule, 1993) has proposed the following expressions, when the inclination
load is positive į>0, the inclination factor iȖ is:
2
§ δ + β'·
iδβ = ¨ 1 − ¸ , where : β ' = 45(1 − i β ) (9)
© 45 ¹

625
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

Also, (Maréchale, 1999) has been proposed the factor iȖȕ which has been evaluated by the simple
product the two factor iȕ and iį:
iδβ = iδ .i β (10)
However, the inclination load is negative į<0, (Fascicule, 1999) has recommended that the factor
iįȕ equal the minimum value of the two following expressions:
2
§ δ ·
i β = ¨1 − ¸ (11)
© 45 ¹
2
§ β ' −δ ·
iδβ = ¨ 1 − ¸ (12)
¨ ¸
© 45 ¹
Actually, there are a lot of studies, (Bransby and Randolph, 1998 [10]; Taiebat and Carter, 2002
[11], Gourvenec, 2007 [12], and Georgiadis, 2009 [13]) did not describe the ultimate bearing capacity
loading reduced by the correction factors, but with the definition of the ultimate loading combination
in the plan, it is mean replaced by the normalised failure envelope in load plan (V, H).
(Maloum, 2002) [14] has been studied the problem of the cohesionless bearing capacity of a strip
footing, with a nonassociated flow rule under central inclined load located at the different distance d/B
from the crest of the slope. The results are presented in terms of normalised failure envelopes in
vertical (V/V0) and horizontal (H/V0) loading plan, and has been proposed the following expressions:
c .c
tg δ = 1 2 ln(i β ) (13)
c1 + c 2
Where:
h h
c1 , and c 2 = − (14)
§ iβ · §1·
v. ln¨ ¸ v. ln¨ ¸
¨ v ¸ ©v¹
© ¹
Where: c1 and c2 are described the shape of the normalised failure envelope loading.

3 Numerical Modeling Procedure

3.1 Mesh Discretization and Boundary Condition
The finite-difference code (FLAC, 2005) was used to estimate the undrained bearing capacity of a
strip footing on/or near slopes under conditions of plane strain and subjected to a centered inclined
load. FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) is a two-dimensional explicit finite-difference
program for engineering mechanics computations; it simulates the behaviour of structures built of soil,
rock or other materials that undergo plastic flow when their yield limits are reached. Many researchers
have used the finite difference code FLAC to study the bearing capacity of strip and circular footings
(e.g., Frydman and Burd, 1997).
Evaluated of bearing capacity with FLAC is based on dividing the soil into a number of zones, and
applying vertical velocities (displacement-controlled method) onto the zone representing the footing.
The importance of the mesh size and the vertical velocity in bearing capacity computations was
verified earlier by (Frydman and Burd, 1997). The mesh consists of 147 by 54 zones for width and
depth respectively; it has been refined at the region most close to the boundaries of the foundation,
under the base and near the crest of the slope. The overall mesh dimensions were selected to ensure

626
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

that the zones of plastic shearing and the observed displacement fields were contained within the
model boundaries at all times.
The boundary condition for this problem the displacement of the left and right vertical sides is
constrained in the horizontal direction and full fixities to the base of the mesh.

3.2 Material Model

The constitutive model used is an elastic–perfectly plastic model following the Mohr–Coulomb
failure criterion, it is characterised by a friction angle ij=37.5° (cu=0), dilatancy angle ȥ=10°, the
undrained Young’s modulus Eu=65MPa, Poisson’s ratio v=0.33, and unit weight of soil Ȗ=16 kN/m3
which has affects to the overall stability of the slope.
As in previous studies (Lee et al, 2005 [16]; and Mabrouki et al, 2010 [17]), it was observed that
the values of Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio affect the evolution of the footing settlement
but have no effect in the value of the collapse load. The footing was assumed linear elastic material
with concrete Young’s modulus of Ec=25GPa and Poisson’s ratio v=0.2. The footing is connected to
the soil via interface elements. The properties of the interface elements are related to the properties of
the adjacent soil elements, is assumed to have a friction angle equal to the soil angle of internal
friction and the same dilation angle. It is characterized with the normal stiffness Kn =109 Pa/m and
shear stiffness Ks =109 Pa/m, these parameters do not have a major influence on the failure load.
For the simulation of the ultimate load, the probe analysis is the technique which was used
(Bransby and Randolph, 1998 and Gourvenec, 2003). This method consist to apply vertical load,
smaller than the ultimate vertical loading on the footing, then horizontal velocity is applied, in the
horizontal direction, to the nodes situated at the bottom of the footing. An optimal velocity must be
chosen in order to reach a value of the ultimate bearing with a reasonable computation time. Several
tests were done for chosen the optimal vertical velocity, because the simulation time and speed of
analysis is very important part of numerical modeling, also must be not affect the accuracy of results.
Finally, the vertical velocity chosen for all analyses is 2×10-7 m/step.

Figure 3: Finite difference mesh and boundary condition for the case: ȕ=26.6°, H/B=3.5 and d/B=0

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Horizontal Ground Surface
The results obtained from this case are for associated flow rule ij=ȥ, they will compare to the
results obtained with the empirical expressions by (Hansen, 1970; Meyerhof, 1963 and Vesic, 1975).

627
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

Figure 3 shows the variation of the inclination factor iȖ with the inclination of the load į, on
observed the factor iȖ decreases with increase in the load inclination į. The results of present study are
in good agreement with the results of (Meyerhof, 1963) and (Hansen, 1970). However, the (Vesiü,
1975) solutions slightly higher than to those obtained by the finite difference analysis.
1

Present study
0.8 M eyerhof, 1963
Hansen, 1970
iȖ 0.6 Vesic, 1975

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

tan(į)

Figure 4: Comparison of inclination factor iȖ as a function of the load inclination į

Recently, the approach of multiplicative factors is being replaced by the ultimate surface (V, H) in
load plan (Paolucci et al, 1997; and Sieffert et al, 1998).
Figure 4 shows the ultimate surfaces of normalised failure load in plane (H/Vo, V/Vo) for a
foundation established on a ground level surface. The results are compared with those obtained by
(Hansen, 1970; and Vesic, 1975). The numerical results are in good agreement with the Hansen’s
results (Hansen, 1970). Furthermore, the Vesic’s results (Vesic, 1975) overestimate the normalised
failure loads for height values of normalised horizontal load H/V0.
It should be noted, the horizontal ultimate load Hult of present study is about 0.095Vult obtained for
a vertical load between 0.4Vult and 0.5Vult. According to the experimental value (Georgiadis et al,
1988; and Gottardi, 1993) of the horizontal load Hmax is 0.12Vult
0.12

0.1

0.08
H/H0

0.06

0.04
Present study

0.02 Hansen, 1970

Vesic, 1975
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

V/V0

Figure 5: Comparisons of normalised failure envelopes for footing rested on horizontal ground surface

628
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

4.2 Inclined Loading of a Footing Rested at the Crest of the Slope

The numerical results as shown in the Figure 5 are corresponded to the ultimate normalised load
values of (V/V0, H/V0) obtained for each inclination į of the load, which are either positive or
negative. As seen, the normalised distance d/B it has a very important effect on the normalised loads
for inclinations į> -10 °. Interestingly, the results have shown a significant difference in the
normalised loads, which are proving the importance of the position of the foundation near the slope. In
contrast, the results are very close for the height negative inclination load. This result can be explained
by the failure mechanism occurs towards the horizontal ground surface; and under these conditions the
slope has no effect on the normalised loads.

Figure 6: Influence of normalised distance D/B on normalised load curves

For understand the reason for these variations, we will be observing the typical load-displacement
horizontal curves which are illustrated in the figure 7. The normalised distance d/B=0, 0.5 and 2, and
lower inclination loads į=-5° and -10°, the behaviour is particularly essential, at the beginning of
displacement the curves have followed the negative inclination load į=-15° and -20°, until attain a
certain value of loading, they have changed their direction of displacement to the positive direction,
this phenomenon can be explained by the progression of potential failure mechanism towards the
slope, not the horizontal ground surface, as shown in the figure 8; in these cases, it will be interested to
present the response of load horizontal versus displacement horizontal for the lower inclination
loading į as seen in the figure 9. The behaviors are related to the position of the foundation near the
slope, for D/B=2 the failure mechanism are occurring in the horizontal ground surface.

629
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07

0.1
(c)
20° 0.08
15°
Normalised horizontal loads [h]

0.06
10° 0.04
5° 0.02
-20° 0
-15° -0.02
-10° -0.04

-0.06

-0.08

-0.1
Normalised horizontal displacement [u]

Figure 7: load horizontal versus displacement horizontal for: (a) d/B=0.5, (b) d/B=1, (c) d/B=2

630
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

Figure8: plasticity zones for d/B=0

Figure 9: load horizontal versus displacement horizontal for į=5

4.3 Normalised Failure Load Envelope

Figure 10 shows the normalised failure load envelope, in two-dimensional (V/Vo) versus (H/Vo)
load plan, for a footing at the normalised distance d/B=0, 0.5 and 2, respectively.
The failure envelope it's symmetrical for the foundation located in the horizontal ground surface or
located so far from the crest of the slope, but this symmetrical has been disappearing at the presence of
the slope.

631
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

As seen, the results of present study are in excellent agreement with the results of (Maloum, 2002).
However, the Maréchale's solution (Maréchale, 1999) underestimates the normalised loads for
negative inclination loads, and (Fascicule, 1993) overestimates the normalised loads for positive
inclination loads.

Figure10: Normalised failure load surfaces for (a) d/B=0, (b) d/B= 0.5 and (c) d/B=2.

632
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

5 Conclusion
The finite-difference code FLAC was used to study the influence on the bearing capacity of strip
footings on or near slopes under inclined load. Various geometries were considered, the results of the
analyses were compared to other available solutions. The displacement confirms that the failure
mechanism is made toward the slope for the positive and negative lower inclined load.
It was found that the shape of the vertical versus horizontal load interaction diagram depends the
distance of the footing from the slope and the slope angle. The bearing capacity factor NȖ increases
when the distance of the foundation diverges from the slope, also the slope angle ȕ diminished.

References
Bakir, N., Garnier, J., Canepa, Y. (1993a.). ³Etude sur modèles centrifugés de la capacité portante
de fondations superficielles´. Série Géotechnique GT 59, LCPC.
Bransby, M.F., Randolph, M.F. (1998). ³Combined loading of skirted foundations´. Geotechnique,
48(5), 637–655.
Fascicule 62 - TITRE V (1993). ³Règles techniques de conception et de calcul des fondations
des ouvrages de génie civil´. Cahier des Clauses Techniques Générales applicables aux marchés
publics de travaux, Ministère de l'Équipement, du Logement et des Transports, Textes officiels,
3(93), 1-182.
FLAC – Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, version 5.0. (2005). ³ITASCA Consulting Group´.
Inc., Minneapolis.
Frydman, S. Burd, H.J. (1997). ³Numerical studies of bearing capacity factor NȖ´. J. Geotech
Geoenviron Eng. ASCE, 123(1), 20–29.
Georgiadis, M., Butterfield, R. (1988). ³Displacements of footings on sand under eccentric and
inclined loads´. Canadian Geotechnical Journal; 25(2), 199–212.
Georgiadis, K. (2008). ³The influence of load inclination on the undrained bearing capacity of strip
footings on slopes´. Computers and Geotechnics, 37(3), 311-322.
Gottardi, G., Butterfield, R. (1993). ³On the bearing capacity of surface footings on sand under
general planar loads´. Soils and Foundations;33(3), 68–79.
Gourvenec, S. (2007). ³Shape effects on the capacity of rectangular footings under general
loading´. Geotechnique, 57(8), 637–46.
Hansen, JB. (1970). ³A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity´. Danish Geotech Inst
Bull; 28, 5–11.
Lee, J., Salgado, R. (2005). ³Estimation of bearing capacity of circular footings on sands based on
cone penetration test´. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering; 131(4), 442–452.
Loukidis, D., Chakraborty, T., & Salgado, R. (2008). ³Bearing capacity of strip footings on purely
frictional soil under eccentric and inclined loads´. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 45(6), 768-787.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1963). ³Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations´. Can
Geotech J; 1(1), 16–26.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1975). ³The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on slopes´. Proc. 4th Int.
Conf. on soil Mech and Found. Eng;1, 384-386.
Maréchal, O. (1999). ³Portance de fondations superficielles établies à proximité de talus et soumise
à des charge inclinées et excentrées´. Thèse de doctorat, Ecole Centrale de Nantes-LCPC de Nantes.
Maloum, S., SEIFFERT, J.G. (2002). ³Interaction sol-fondation superficielle au voisinage de la
crête d’un talus: analyse de la capacité portante´. Revue Française géotechnique. 3éme trimestre.
(100),83-89.

633
2D Numerical Analysis of Shallow Foundation Rested Near Slope ... Baazouzi et al.

Mabrouki, A., Benmeddour, D., Frank, R., Mellas, M. (2010). ³Numerical study of the bearing
capacity for two interfering strip footings on sands´. Comput. Geotech; 37(4), 431–439.
Nguyen, D. L., Ohtsuka, S., Kaneda, K. (2016). ³Uultimate bearing capacity of footing on sandy
soil against combined load of vertical, horizontal and moment loads´. Int. J. of Geomate, 10(1), 1649-
1655.
Paolucci. R, Pecker, A. (1997). ³Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip foundation on dry soils´.
Soils and Foundation; 36(3), 95-105.
Shen, Z., Feng, X., Gourvenec, S. (2016). ³Undrained capacity of surface foundations with zero-
tension interface under planar VHM loading´. Computers and Geotechnics, 73, 47-57.
Sieffert, J.G. Bay-Gress, Ch. (1998). ³Bearing capacity of shallow foundation: comparison of
methods used by thirteen European countries´. Int. conference on Soil-structure. Interaction in Urban
Civil. Darmstatt: 477-498.
Stergiou, T., Terzis, D., Georgiadis, K. (2015). ³Undrained bearing capacity of tripod skirted
foundations under eccentric loading´. geotechnik 38 (1):17-27
Taiebat, H.A., Carter, J.P. (2002). ³Bearing capacity of strip and circular foundations on undrained
clay subjected to eccentric loads´. Geotechnique, 52(1) pp.61–4.
Taiebat H, Carter J (2010) A failure surface for circular footings on cohesive soils. Géotechnique
60 (4):265-273
Terzaghi, K. (1943). ³Theoretical soil mechanics´, New York, Wiley.
Terzis, D., Stergiou, T., Georgiadis, K. (2014). ³3D numerical analyses of tripod skirted
foundations for offshore structures´. In: Proc. of 8th European Conf. on Numerical Methods in
Geotechnical Engineering, Delft, Netherlands.
Vesic, A.S. (1975). “Bearing capacity of shallow foundations.” In: Winterkorn HF, Fang HY,
editors. Foundation Engineering Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York.

634