HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 791–799
www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Technical Paper

Effect of inclined and eccentric loading on the bearing capacity of

strip footing placed on the reinforced slope
Koushik Halder, Debarghya Chakraborty ⇑
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India

Received 10 June 2019; received in revised form 28 March 2020; accepted 21 April 2020
Available online 6 August 2020

Abstract

The present study considers the influence of inclined and eccentric loading on the bearing capacity of a strip footing placed on the
reinforced cohesionless soil slope by using lower bound finite element limit analysis technique. The effects of other parameters such
as soil friction angle, embedment depth of reinforcement layer below the footing, interface friction angle between soil and reinforcement,
and vertical spacing between two reinforcement layers are also investigated. Results are presented as the variation between reinforcing
efficiency and various combinations of above-mentioned parameters. The bearing capacity of strip footing reduces under combined
effects of inclined and eccentric loading. However, with the inclusion of reinforcement layers at the optimum depth, the bearing capacity
enhances significantly. The reinforcing efficacy increases with the increasing value of load inclination. The reinforcing efficiency reduces
with the consideration of partial roughness between soil and reinforcement layer. Stress contours are also plotted in the two-dimensional
object space to understand the failure mechanism of slopes.
Ó 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Bearing capacity; Inclined and eccentric load; Reinforced slope; Limit analysis; Failure mechanism

1. Introduction loading. However, a foundation may be subjected to

Over the years, various researchers (Selvadurai and
Gnanendran, 1989; Huang et al., 1994; Huang and
Tatsuoka, 1994; Yoo, 2001; Alamshahi and Hataf, 2009;
Luo and Bathurst, 2018; Halder and Chakraborty, 2018)
have used reinforcement beneath the foundation for differ-
ent structures such as building, bridge abutment, electrical
transmission tower, and hanging cable car situated on the
sloping ground. Inclusion of reinforcement layers below
the footing enhances both bearing capacity of footing
and stability of the slope. In all of these prior studies, the
footing on a sloping ground was subjected to only vertical
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: koushikhalder@iitkgp.ac.in (K. Halder), debar-
ghya@civil.iitkgp.ac.in (D. Chakraborty).
inclined loading and over turning moment generated due
to lateral forces and structural asymmetry. Vulnerability
of the overall system reduces further under the application
of inclined and eccentric loading. Hansen (1970), Vesic
(1975), and Georgiadis (2010) numerically computed the
bearing capacity of a strip footing resting on an unrein-
forced soil slope and subjected to either inclined or eccen-
tric loading. Previous studies were concerned about the
behaviour of footing on unreinforced slope under com-
bined loading; not on the way of performance improve-
ment of the overall system. The effectiveness of
reinforcement in improving the performance of strip foot-
ing resting on sloping ground and subjected to inclined
and eccentric loading is thus still unexplored.
The objective of the present study is to estimate the
bearing capacity of a strip footing placed on the reinforced
cohesionless soil slope and subjected to eccentric and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2020.04.006
0038-0806/Ó 2020 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
792 K. Halder, D. Chakraborty / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 791–799
inclined loading. Although the plasticity theorem of limit
analysis provides a true solution bounded by lower and
upper values, authors have chosen the lower bound finite
element limit analysis technique as it always predicts safe
collapse load. In addition to that, unlike other numerical
methods such as limit equilibrium method, method of
stress characteristics, kinematic based upper bound limit
analysis, prior assumption regarding the geometry of the
failure surface is not required in case of lower bound finite
element limit analysis method. The enhanced bearing
capacity of the reinforced slope is quantified in terms of a
dimensionless efficiency factor gc. The efficiency factor is
obtained as: gc = Nc-rein/Nc-unrein, where, Nc-rein and
Nc-unrein are the bearing capacity factors associated with
reinforced and unreinforced slopes, respectively. Influences
of (i) slope angle (b), (ii) soil friction angle (/), (iii) angle of
load inclination with the vertical axis of the footing (a), (iv)
loading eccentricity (e), (v) interface friction angle between
soil and reinforcement layer (d), (vi) embedment depth of
top reinforcement layer (d1), and (vii) vertical spacing (d2)
between two reinforcement layers on the load-bearing
capacity of strip footing are investigated. Failure mecha-
nism of both unreinforced and reinforced slopes is also
studied.
2. Problem definition
Lower bound solution of the bearing capacity factor
associated with soil unit weight (Nc) is calculated for a sur-
face strip footing of width B placed on the edge of both
unreinforced and reinforced cohesionless soil slope by uti-
lizing Eq. (1).
QuV
qu ¼ ¼ 0:5cBN c ð1Þ
B
A schematic diagram (Fig. 1a) of the problem demon-
strates that the slope is inclined at an angle of b with the
horizontal axis and subjected to an inclined load of Qui.
Vertical component of the inclined loading (QuV) is acting
at an eccentric distance of e from the footing center. The
angle of load inclination with vertical axis is a. Horizontal
component of Qui (QuH) is acting at the footing base. An
overturning moment QuM (=eQuV) will be generated due
to eccentricity. Thus, the ultimate collapse load is the func-
tion of (i) QuV, (ii) QuH, and (iii) QuM. The Mohr-Coulomb
constitutive law and associated flow rule are assumed to be
applicable throughout the homogeneous soil mass of unit
weight c. First reinforcement layer is placed at a distance
of d1/B from the footing base. Second reinforcement layer
is placed at a spacing of d2/B from the first reinforcement
layer.
3. Applied boundary conditions and finite element mesh
Various stress boundary conditions associated with the
two-dimensional problem domain are shown in Fig. 1(a).
As no surcharge loading is considered, both the normal
and shear stresses are zero along the horizontal surface
(GH), and slope face (IJ). Rough footing condition is sim-
ulated by employing jsshear j 6 ðc  rnorm tan/Þ along HI.
The extent of the domain is chosen in such a way, so that
(i) the value of collapse load does not alter with the increase
or decrease in the domain size, and (ii) elements represent-
ing boundaries do not yield at any condition. Several num-
bers of trials are carried out to optimize the domain size
with the consideration of computational time also. Finally,
length of the problem domain (LH) is varied between
10.02B and 27.45B, whereas depth of the domain (LV) is
varied from 10.74B to 29.04B depending upon values of
/. A mesh convergence study, carried out to investigate
the effect of mesh area on the computed value of Nc, is
shown in Table 1. Four types of meshes; (i) coarse, (ii) med-
ium, (iii) fine, and (iv) very fine are considered depending
upon the total number of elements. Table 1 shows that with
the use of very fine mesh, the magnitude of Nc increases
slightly with respect to that obtained for fine mesh but
the computational time is also more in case of very fine
mesh. For that reason, fine type of mesh is used throughout
the study.
A typical two-dimensional finite element mesh of a slope
of b = 30°, and / = 40° is illustrated in Fig. 1(b) along with
its enlarged view. Note that in Fig. 1(b), N, E, Dc, and Ni
denote total number of (i) nodes, (ii) elements, (iii) discon-
tinuities, and (iv) nodes representing footing-soil interface,
respectively.
4. Methodology
The plane strain lower bound finite element limit analy-
sis formulation of Sloan (1988) is used in the present study
and accordingly problem is conceptualized as a linear opti-
mization problem, where the objective is to maximize the
collapse load subjected to a set of equality and inequality
constraints. Normal stresses in the horizontal (rx) and ver-
tical (ry) directions and shear stress (sxy) corresponding to
each node of a triangular element are unknown variables as
shown in Fig. 1(c). The expression for collapse load is
obtained from the numerical integration of normal stress
associated with the nodes representing footing position.
Various equality and inequality constraints generated dur-
ing optimization are discussed briefly in below. Details can
be found in Sloan (1988).
4.1. Element equilibrium conditions
Static equilibrium conditions (Refer: Eq. (2)) are main-
tained over the problem domain.
@rx @sxy @ry @sxy
þ ¼ 0 and þ ¼ c; where;
@x @y @y @y
c ¼ soil unit weight ð2Þ
Because of that, two equality constraints are generated
on nine nodal stresses (Refer: Eq. (3)).
 K. Halder, D. Chakraborty / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 791–799 793

Fig. 1. (a) Problem domain and various stress boundary conditions for double reinforced slope; (b) finite element mesh used in the study for b = 30°, and
/ = 40°; (c) three noded linear stress triangle; (d) stress discontinuity between two adjacent elements; and (e) stress boundary equations applied over
boundary edges.

Table 1
Mesh convergence study for a reinforced slope of b = 20°, / = 30°, a = 5° and e/B = 0 with d1/B = 0.31.
Different Parameters Type of mesh
Coarse Medium Fine Very fine
Number of elements 4805 6072 8915 11,188
Area of an element* (m2) Smallest 0.00012 0.00011 0.00008 0.00007
Largest 4.26187 4.13570 2.38636 1.23298
Bearing capacity factor, Nc 10.96 11.29 11.93 11.97
Required CPU time for the analysis (sec) 449.50 763.88 1765.26 2110.60
*
If footing width (B) is considered as 1 m.

    
AEL 2X 9
rEL 9X 1
¼ bEL 2X 1 ð3Þ normal and shear stresses are allowed to be continuous
 over these edges. As an example, stress discontinuity condi-
T
where frEL g ¼ rEL rEL sEL rEL rEL sEL rEL tions along the discontinuity edges formed by two adjacent
x;1 y;1 xy;1 x;2 y;2


xy;2
 x;3
rEL s EL
g is unknown stress vector and A EL
, triangles ’a’ and ’b’ will be as follows:
y;3EL  xy;3 29
b 21 are known matrices. ranorm;1 ¼ rbnorm;2 ; ranorm;3 ¼ rbnorm;4 ; ranorm;3
¼ rbnorm;4 ; sashear;1 ¼ sbshear;2 ; sashear;3 ¼ sbshear;4 ð4Þ
4.2. Stress discontinuity conditions
Eq. (5) determines the magnitude of normal (rnorm) and
In case of lower bound finite element limit analysis
shear stresses (sshear).
method, nodes are distinct for all elements. Because of that,
the interface between two surrounding triangles forms the rnorm ¼ sin2 krx þ cos2 kry  sin2ksxy ; sshear
edge of stress discontinuity as shown in Fig. 1(d). However,
in order to keep stress state remains unique at a point, both ¼ 0:5 sin 2krx þ 0:5 sin 2kry þ cos 2ksxy ; ð5Þ
794 K. Halder, D. Chakraborty / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 791–799

Due to the imposition of stress discontinuities (refer: Eq. 4.5. Modelling of interface between soil and reinforcement
(4)), four number of equality constraints are generated on
twelve nodal stresses, which are expressed in Eq. (6). Interface between soil and reinforcement
 is assumed to
  follow Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion sxy  6 ry tan d.
½ADS 4X 12 rDS 12X 1 ¼ fbDS g4X 1 ; ð6Þ Imposition of that criterion generates two inequality con-
  straints on each node as expressed by Eq. (9).
Sd S d 0 0
where ½A 4X 12
DS
¼ ; ½S  ¼
INT   INT   
0 0 S d S d 4X 12 d 2X 3 A r 6 bINT 2X 1 ; ð9Þ
  2X 3 3X 1
sin2 k cos2 k sin 2k 
T
; frDS g1X 12 ¼ rax;1 ray;1 8 INT 9
0:5sin 2k 0:5sin 2k cos 2k   < rx;1 =

INT  0 tand 1
saxy;1 rbx;2 rby;2 sbxy;2 rax;3 ray;3 saxy;3 rax;4 rby;4 sbxy;4 g. where A ¼ ; frINT g ¼ rINT ;
0 tand 1 : INT
y;1
;
In the above expressions, the known quantities are sxy;1

[ADS] and {bDS}; whereas, the unknown is {rDS}. The  INT  0

b ¼ .
angle of inclination between stress discontinuity edge 0
and horizontal axis in anti-clockwise direction is The symbol d denotes interface friction angle between
denoted by k. soil and reinforcement. Full roughness condition is
specified by d = /, whereas, partial roughness is indi-
4.3. Stress boundary conditions cated by d – /. In the above expressions, the known
quantities are [AINT] and {bINT}; whereas, the unknown
Fig. 1(e) shows stress boundary conditions applied over is {rINT}.
a boundary edge of an element. Successful implementation
of the boundary conditions generates four equality con- 4.6. Consideration of inclined and eccentric loading
straints on six nodal stresses as expressed in Eq. (7).

SB   SB    The effect of inclined loading is incorporated in the pre-
A 4X 6 r 6X 1 ¼ bSB 4X 1 ð7Þ sent study by applying one additional horizontal shear
  force (QuH = QuVtana) on the base of the footing. The
Ms 0 magnitude of QuH is obtained by integrating shear stress
where ½ASB  ¼ , ½M s 2X 3 ¼
0 Ms along the nodes representing footing-soil interface. One
  4X 6
sin2 v cos2 v sin2v T  equality constraint is generated due to the employment of
, frSB g ¼ rSB rSB
0:5sin2v 0:5sin2v cos2v x;1 y;1 the above-mentioned additional horizontal force on the
T base of the footing. The eccentricity of the load is consid-
xy;2 g1X 6 and fb g ¼ f q1 t 1 q2 t 2 g1X 4 .
SB
sSB
xy;1 rSB
x;2 rSB
y;2 sSB
ered by applying a moment (QuM = QuVe). The magnitude
Here, v denotes angle between boundary edge and hor-
of QuV is obtained by integrating normal stress associated
izontal axis in the anti-clockwise direction, q1 and q2 are
with the nodes representing footing-soil interface. Another
normal stresses acting on the boundary, and t1 and t2 are
equality constraint is thus generated due to the imposition
shear stresses acting along the boundary. Values of [ASB]
of eccentricity criteria.
and {bSB} are known; whereas, {rSB} is unknown.
4.7. Yield criterion
4.4. Modification of stress discontinuity conditions for the
modelling of reinforcement Soil mass is assumed to follow the Mohr-Coulomb fail-
ure criterion as provided in Eq. (10).
In order to incorporate the effect of horizontal rein-
forcement layer, only the stress discontinuity conditions
as mentioned in Section 4.2 need to be modified
(Chakraborty and Kumar, 2014). Reinforcement is
assumed flexible type like geotextile and geogrid, which
has sufficient shearing resistance but very negligible bend-
ing resistance. For that reason, normal stress continuity
over the discontinuous edges representing reinforcement
position is enforced while the shear stress continuity is
relaxed. As an example, modified stress discontinuity con-
ditions along the discontinuity edges will be as provided in
Eq. (8).
ranorm;1 ¼ rbnorm;2 ; ranorm;3
¼ rbnorm;4 ; sashear;1 –sbshear;2 ; sashear;3 –sbshear;4
 2  2
  2
F MC ¼ rx  ry þ 2sxy  2ccos/  rx þ ry sin/ 6 0
ð10Þ
Due to the employment of the linearized Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion (FMC  0) throughout the prob-
lem domain, a set of inequality constraints are generated.
4.8. Final form of optimization
After the generation of all equality and inequality con-
straints as mentioned in previous sections, these are assem-
bled together to obtain global equality [AEQ] and inequality
[AINEQ] constraint matrices. The final form of the linear
ð8Þ optimization scheme is outlined below.
 K. Halder, D. Chakraborty / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 791–799
 T
Maximize g frg Subjected to; ½AEQ frg
¼ fbEQ g and ½AINEQ frg  fbINEQ g
In the above expression, all the coefficients of the objec-
tive function form the vector fgT g; all the unknown stresses
form the global vectorfrg. An in-house build Matlab code
is used for carrying out all the numerical simulations. Lin-
prog command of Matlab toolbox is utilized for perform-
ing linear optimization.
5. Results
The obtained results from the present study are pre-
sented in terms of design charts of Nc for unreinforced
slope and gc for reinforced slope. The results are discussed
in detail in the following sub-sections.
5.1. Unreinforced slope
Fig. 2(a–c) show the variation of Nc values obtained for
different combinations of b, /, and a value. A series of
design charts are presented for various combinations of b
(20°, 30°, and 40°), / (30°, 40°, and 45°), and a (0°–
44.9°). Fig. 2(a–c) indicate the reduction in magnitude of
Nc with an increase in magnitude of a by keeping b and
/ as constant. However, this percentage reduction in the
value of N c increases with increasing value of /. As an
example, for a slope with b = 20° and / = 30°, the value
of N c reduces from 7.68 to 0.92 with the change in a
value from 0° to 25°. Similarly, for the same slope but
with / = 45°, N c value reduces from to 96.06 to 8.09
with the increment in a value from 0° to 25°. As
expected, for a particular combination of / and a value,
the magnitude of N c decreases with an increase in the
795
value of b. It is also found that with the increase in
the value of friction angle of the fill material, N c value
increases profoundly.
The combined effect of inclined and eccentric loading on
the bearing capacity of a strip footing placed on the unre-
inforced slope of b = 20°, / = 30° and 40° is shown in
Fig. 2(d). The magnitude of a is varied between 0° and
40°. For each above-mentioned parameter, two cases of
eccentric loading are considered: e = +0.5B and
e = 0.5B. The positive value of e indicates that the load-
ing is applied on the right side edge of the footing, whereas,
the negative value of e indicates that the load is applied on
the left side edge of the footing. It is found that for
e = +0.5B and any values of / and a, local failure of slope
occurs and footing slips from its original position as the
slope fill is considered fully cohesionless. On the other
hand, when a load acts at an eccentric distance of 0.5B
from the footing center, the magnitude of Nc is found to
be lesser than the value of Nc obtained for a vertical com-
pressive load (e/B = 0). For a slope with b = 20°, / = 40°
and a = 0°, the magnitude of Nc reduces from 39.22 to
36.53 with the change in e/B value from 0 to 0.5. With
the consideration of both inclined and eccentric loading,
the magnitude of Nc reduces further. For the same
above-mentioned slope geometry with a = 20° and
e/B = 0.5, the value of Nc becomes 5.93.
5.2. Reinforced slope
The variation between gc and d/B for different values of
b, /, and a is shown graphically in Fig. 3(a–f). For all pos-
sible combinations of b, /, and a, the magnitude of Nc
obtained for reinforced slope is greater than that of unrein-
forced slope. It emphasizes the usefulness of placing

100 100
β = 20° ϕ = 45° β = 30° ϕ = 45°
80 = 40° 80 = 40°
= 30°
60 60
Nγ

Nγ

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a) α (°) (b) α (°)
100 40
β = 40° ϕ = 45° β = 20°, e/B = -0.5 ϕ = 40°
80 = 30°
30
60
20
Nγ

Nγ

40
10
20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
(c) (d) α (°)
α (°)

Fig. 2. Variation of Nc with a and / for (a) b = 20°; (b) b = 30°; (c) b = 40°; (d) b = 20° and e/B = -0.5.
796 K. Halder, D. Chakraborty / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 791–799

reinforcement below the strip footing subjected to any it can distribute failure surface in a much deeper and wider
types of loading; be it inclined or vertical. The magnitude area. As an example, for a slope having b = 20° and /
of gc rises to a peak value at a particular depth of place- = 45°, the magnitude of d1cr/B reduces from 0.61 to 0.31
ment of reinforcement layer (d1cr/B). After that, gc value with the increase in a value from 0° to 15°. The efficiency
starts reducing with the increasing d1/B value and then factor is found to be increasing with an increase in slope
reaches to the unity. As an example for a slope with angle for a particular combination of / and a. The magni-
b = 20°, / = 30°, and a = 0°, gc value attains a peak value tude of gc increases by an amount of 27% for a reinforced
of 1.62 at d1cr/B = 0.31. After that, gc reduces again to 1.00 slope having / = 45° and a = 15° with the change in b
with the constant increase in d1/B value, which is more or value from 20° to 40°. As expected, the magnitude of gc
less similar to the behaviour of unreinforced case. The effi- also enhances with an increment in the value of / of the
ciency factor increases with an increase in the magnitude of slope fill.
load inclination angle up to a certain value, after that it The effectiveness of using reinforcement layer below the
reduces. As an example, for a slope with b = 40° and footing subjected to both inclined and eccentric loading is
/ = 45°, gc value increases from 8.01 to a peak value of investigated and the results are presented in Fig. 3(g). As
31.33 with the change in a value from 5° to 30° and then expected, the reinforcement is found to be efficient under
it reduces to 1.00 when a value approaches to 45°. It indi- the combined loading also. For a slope with b = 20°, /
cates that after a particular load inclination angle, the effect = 40°, a = 10°, and e = -0.5B, the magnitude of Nc
of reinforcement is found to be negligible. With the increas- increases from 13.48 to 53.23 with the usage of a single
ing inclination of load, magnitude of horizontal force act- layer of reinforcement. For each combination of combined
ing on the footing increases, while vertical force acting on loading, an optimum depth of reinforcement is obtained
the footing reduces. Because of that, a chance of slipping where the efficiency factor reaches a maximum value. The
off the footing also increases. The depth of propagation efficiency factor of the reinforcement obtained under com-
of failure surface also reduces with increasing load inclina- bined loading is found be higher than that obtained under
tion angle. For that reason, reinforcement needs to be vertical compressive loading. The magnitude of gc-max is
placed at a lesser depth from the base of the footing so that obtained as 5.37 for a slope having b = 20°, / = 40°,

10 30 60
β = 20°, ϕ = 30° α = 0° β = 20°, ϕ = 40° α = 0° β = 20°, ϕ = 45° α = 0°
= 5° = 5° = 5°
= 10° = 10° = 10°
= 15° 10 = 15° = 15°
= 20° = 20° 10 = 20°
= 25° = 25° = 25°
ηγ

ηγ

ηγ

= 29.9° = 30° = 30°

= 35° = 35°
= 39.9° = 40°
= 44.9°

1 1 1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
(a) d1/B (b) d1/B (c) d1/B
30 60 60
β = 30°, ϕ = 40° α = 0° β = 30°, ϕ = 45° α = 0° β = 40°, ϕ = 45° α = 0°
= 5° = 5° = 5°
= 10° = 10° = 10°
10 = 15° = 15° = 15°
= 20° 10 = 20° 10 = 20°
= 25° = 25° = 25°
ηγ

ηγ

ηγ

= 30° = 30° = 30°

= 35° = 35° = 35°
= 39.9° = 40° = 40°
= 44.9° = 44.9°
1 1 1
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0
(d) d1/B (e) d1/B (f) d1/B
30 10 8
β = 20°, ϕ = 40°, e/B = -0.5 α = 0° β = 20°, ϕ = 40° α = 10°, δ/ϕ = 1 d2/B = 0.33 β = 20°, ϕ = 40°, α = 10°
= 5° e/B = -0.5 α = 10°, δ/ϕ = 2/3 = 0.23 e/B = -0.5, δ/B = 2/3
= 10° α = 0°, δ/ϕ = 1 = 0.17
10 = 15° α = 0°, δ/ϕ = 2/3 6 = 0.42
= 20°
ηγ

= 25°
ηγ
ηγ

= 30°
= 35° 4
= 39.9°

1 1 2
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(g) d1/B (h) d1/B (i) d1/B

Fig. 3. Variation of gc with d/B and a for (a) b = 20°, / = 30°; (b) b = 20°, / = 40°; (c) b = 20°, / = 45°; (d) b = 30°, / = 40°; (e) b = 30°, / = 45°; (f)
b = 40°, / = 45°; (g) b = 20°, / = 40°, e/B = -0.5; (h) variation of gc with d1/B , a and d for b = 20°, / = 40°, e/B = -0.5; and (i) variation of gc with d1/B
and d2/B for b = 20°, / = 40°, a = 10°, e/B = -0.5 and d/B = 2/3.
 K. Halder, D. Chakraborty / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 791–799
a = 15°, and e = 0.5B. However, for the same slope but
subjected to vertical and non-eccentric compressive loading
(a = 0° and e = 0B), the value of gc-max is found to be 1.83.
The effect of interface friction angle is investigated for a
slope with b = 20°, / = 40°, a = 0° and 10°, and e/B = -0.5.
The obtained result is presented graphically in Fig. 3(h).
Following Wang and Richwien (2002), a representative
value of interface friction angle (d) is considered as two
third the value of soil friction angle (d = 2/3/). Using
the same formulation mentioned in the present study, any
values of interface friction angle can be considered. The
reinforcing efficiency reduces with the reduction in soil-
interface friction angle for a particular value of / and a.
As interface friction angle reduces, the frictional resistance
developed between the soil and reinforcement layer also
reduces, which in turn reduces the bearing capacity of the
footing. As an example for a slope of b = 20°, / = 40°,
and a = 10°, the magnitude of gc-max reduces from 3.95
to 3.69 with the reduction in the value of d// from 1 to 2/3.
The effect of vertical spacing between two reinforcement
layers is also studied in the present study for a slope combi-
nation of b = 20°, / = 40°, a = 10°, e/B = -0.5, and d//
= 2/3. Fig. 3(i) illustrates an increase in the reinforcing effi-
ciency with the placement of another layer of reinforcement
at different spacings. By keeping two reinforcement layers at
the optimum depth, more reinforcing efficiency can be
achieved. The value of gc-max for a slope combination of
b = 20°, / = 40°, a = 10°, e/B = -0.5, and d// = 2/3,
increases from 3.69 to 6.36 with the addition of another rein-
forcement layer. The addition of another layer of reinforce-
ment distributes stresses more in the downward direction,
which in turn increases the load bearing capacity of footing.
The shear stress developed along the length of the rein-
forcement layer is plotted in Fig. 4 for a particular slope
combination of b = 20° and / = 40°. Three types of load-
ing; (i) only vertical compressive load (a = 0° and e/B = 0),
(ii) only inclined load (a = 10° and e/B = 0), and (iii) com-
bination of inclined and eccentric loading (a = 10° and e/B
= 0.5) are considered. In all the above three cases, rein-
forcement layer is placed at the optimum depth. The vari-
ation of shear stress is presented in terms of a
dimensionless parameter (sxy/cB). Fig. 4 shows that in all
three mentioned cases, the magnitude of sxy is zero at the
free end of the reinforcement layer in the slope face side.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The magnitude of shear stress increases with ðx=BÞand
reaches to a positive peak value at or near the center of
the footing. After attaining the highest peak value, the
magnitude of shear stress starts reducing continuously
and after a certain distance from the footing center in the
opposite direction of slope face, shear stress becomes neg-
ative and attains the lowest value. After that, shear stress
again starts increasing with the increment in the value of
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðx=BÞ and becomes equal to zero at a certain value of
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðx=BÞ. Similar variation of shear stress along the length
of the reinforcement is also observed in Halder and
Chakraborty (2019). Since the soil is cohesionless and
797
α = 0°, e/B = 0 β = 20°
α = 10°, e/B = 0 110 ϕ = 40°
α = 10°, e/B = -5
70
τxy/(γB)
30
-10
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
√(x/B)
-50
-90
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Fig. 4. Variation of sxy/B with ðx=BÞ and / for a reinforced slope of
b = 20°, / = 40° with different combinations of a and e/B.
footing is at the edge of the slope, footing tends to rotate
towards the direction of slope face at the onset of collapse.
Due to that reason, the reinforcement layer along with the
soil particles below the footing starts moving to the slope
face boundary. On the other hand, soil particles adjacent
to the footing edge in the opposite side of slope face pro-
vide anchorage to hold back the reinforcement. Fig. 4
shows the peak of shear stress distribution is just below
the center of the footing, when it is subjected only to verti-
cal compressive load. However, when footing is subjected
to inclined load, position of peak value of shear stress dis-
tribution shifts beside the footing center in the opposite
direction of the slope face. When footing is subjected to
combined load, peak loading position shifts further in the
same direction. The highest and lowest values of shear
stress are found when footing is subjected to combined
loading. The position where shear stress changes its sign
also shifts in the opposite direction of the slope face under
the consideration of combined loading. It is also to be
noted that instead of providing reinforcement all along
the slope domain, one can curtail it after a certain
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðx=BÞ value, as the mobilization of shear stress is very
negligible after that distance.
5.3. Comparisons
Due to the unavailability of the prior research studies
related to the behaviour of reinforced cohesionless soil
slope under combined loading, the obtained results from
the present study are verified with the outcomes of (1)
Hansen (1970) and Vesic (1975) for unreinforced cohesion-
less soil slope. Hansen (1970) and Vesic (1975) proposed
empirical expressions for the calculation of ultimate bear-
ing capacity of the footing. Fig. 5 depicts the comparison
between the ultimate bearing capacity value obtained from
present study and Hansen (1970) and Vesic (1975) for a
cohesionless soil slope with b = 20°, / = 40° and 45°
and a wide range of a (5°–25°). As depicted in Fig. 5, the
trend of variation between ultimate bearing capacity and
load inclination angle obtained from the present study is
very much similar to that observed in Hansen (1970) and
798 K. Halder, D. Chakraborty / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 791–799

800 ϕ = 45° Present Study

for an unreinforced slope of b = 20° and / = 30° under
β = 20°
= 40° Vesic (1975) compressive (a = 0°), inclined (a = 10°), and combined
600
Hansen (1970)
(a = 10°, e/B = 0.5) loading. Under the application of
vertical compressive loading, a triangular elastic wedge first
Qu (kN/m)

400 forms, followed by the distribution of plastic zone on both

200
0 when footing is subjected to inclined loading. Plastic zone
5 10 15 20 25
α (°)
Fig. 5. Comparison of Qu with a from the present study with Vesic (1975)
and Hansen (1970) for unreinforced cohesionless slope with b = 20°,
/ = 40° and 45°.
Vesic (1975). However, being based on lower bound limit
analysis, the present study always predicts lower ultimate
bearing capacity than that obtained from both Hansen
(1970) and Vesic (1975).
The accuracy of reinforcement modelling is confirmed
by comparing the present solutions with the existing (i)
experimental solution of Selvadurai and Gnanendran
(1989) and (ii) numerical solution of Alamshahi and
Hataf (2009) for the reinforced cohesionless soil slope
under strip loading (a = 0°). The comparison is detailed
in Table 2. It is found that present lower bound value of
gc-max is a little higher than that predicted by Selvadurai
and Gnanendran (1989). Whereas, the present lower bound
value of gc-max matches very closely with the finite element
solution of Alamshahi and Hataf (2009).
6. Failure patterns
Failure patterns of both unreinforced and reinforced
slopes are obtained by plotting the state of stress of any
point with respect to its x-y coordinate. The state of stres-
ses of any point in a cohesionless soil mass is defined by a
dimensionless ratio a/d. Here, a ¼ ðrx  ry Þ2 þ ð2sxy Þ2 and
2
d ¼ ½ðrx þ ry Þsin/ are shear stress and shear strength,
measured at the nodes of an element, respectively. Mathe-
matical value of a/d = 1 denotes yielding of any point in
shear; whereas, a/d < 1 signifies non-yielding of any point
in shear. Fig. 6(a-c) illustrate the failure patterns observed
sides of the footing, but more in the slope face direction.
On a contrast, elastic wedge just below the footing and
plastic zone on left side of the footing are visibly truncated
on right-hand side of the footing only forms and extends
to slope face. The extension of plastic zone further reduces
under the application of combined loading as indicated by
Fig. 6(c). Fig. 6(d–f) demonstrate the failure mechanisms of
reinforced slope under three types of loading. For all the
cases, reinforcement is placed at the optimum depth.
Fig. 6(d) shows that reinforcement distributes stresses com-
ing from the footing in a much wider and deeper area in
comparison to the unreinforced slope because of which effi-
ciency factor also increases. When footing is subjected to
an inclined load (a = 10°), due to the inclusion of reinforce-
ment layer, elastic wedge generates first just below the foot-
ing and then plastic zone forms and expands on both sides
of the footing which is not visible in case of unreinforced
slope subjected to inclined load. However, extent of the
plastic zone is lesser in comparison to reinforced slope sub-
jected to a vertical compressive load. Fig. 6(f) shows that
under combined loading, area of the plastic zone reduces
further with respect to that observed for only inclined
loading.
7. Conclusions
The influence of inclined loading on the bearing capacity
of a strip footing placed on a reinforced cohesionless soil
slope is investigated by employing lower bound finite ele-
ment limit analysis technique. Effects of other parameters
such as slope inclination, soil friction angle, embedment
depth of reinforcement layer, loading eccentricity, interface
between soil and reinforcement, and vertical spacing
between two reinforcement layers are also considered.
Finally, a series of design charts are presented in terms of
efficiency factor for various combinations of above-
mentioned parameters. The application of inclined loading
is found to be detrimental for unreinforced slopes as the

Table 2
Comparison between the obtained values of gc-max from the present study with the available results for reinforced cohesionless soil slope under vertical
strip loading (a = 0°).
Reference Parameters gc-max
Present Study b = 26.56°, / = 38°, a = 0°, b/B = 0 2.05
(Numerical solution using Lower bound limit analysis)
Selvadurai and Gnanendran (1989) 2.00
(Experimental solution)
Present Study b = 32°, / = 38°, a = 0°, b/B = 0.5, d1/B = 0.75, d2/B = 0.75, N = 2 1.58
(Numerical solution using Lower bound limit analysis)
Alamshahi and Hataf (2009) 1.59
(Numerical solution using PLAXIS software)
 K. Halder, D. Chakraborty / Soils and Foundations 60 (2020) 791–799
Unreinforced Slope
(a) α = 0° (b) α = 10°
Reinforced Slope
(d) d1cr/B = 0.31, ηγ-max = 1.62 (e) d1cr/B = 0.17, ηγ-max = 3.41
Fig. 6. Failure patterns of unreinforced slope having b = 20°, / = 30° with (a) a = 0°; (b) a = 10°; (c) a = 10°, e/B = 0.5; failure patterns of reinforced
slope having b = 20°, / = 30° with (d) a = 0°, d1cr/B = 0.31, gc-max = 1.62; (e) a = 10°, d1cr/B = 0.17, gc-max = 3.41; (f) a = 10°, e/B = 0.5, d1cr/B = 0.23,
gc-max = 3.24.
magnitude of Nc reduces. With the inclusion of reinforce-
ment layer, the ultimate bearing capacity increases by a con-
siderable amount. As an example, the magnitude of Nc for a
slope combination of (b = 20°, / = 40°, and a = 20°)
increases 8.75 times when it is reinforced with a single layer
of reinforcement. The efficiency factor increases with an
increase in the magnitude of inclination angle up to a certain
value, after that it reduces. Required optimum embedment
depth of the reinforcement layer reduces as the load inclina-
tion angle increases. As an example, the magnitude of d1cr/B
changes between 0.61 and 0.31 with the increase in a value
from 0° to 15° for a slope with b = 20° and / = 45°. Effec-
tiveness of a reinforcement layer is found significant under
the application of combined loading. The ultimate bearing
capacity of footing also increases significantly with the use
of another layer of reinforcement below the foundation.
However, with the consideration of partial roughness
between soil and reinforcement layer, the efficiency of rein-
forcement reduces in comparison to that achieved with full
roughness condition. The efficiency factor is found to be
increasing with an increase in the value of b for a particular
combination of / and a. As expected, the value of gc-max also
enhances with an enhancement in the magnitude of / by
keeping b and a as constant.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Department of
Science and Technology, Government of India for their
financial support vide Science and Engineering Research
Board (SERB) research project grant number DST No:
SB/FTP/ETA-0061/2014 dated 17/07/2014.
799
β = 20° and ϕ = 30°
a/d
(c) α = 10°, e/B = -0.5
β = 20° and ϕ = 30°
a/d
(f) d1cr/B = 0.23, ηγ-max = 3.24
References
Alamshahi, S., Hataf, N., 2009. Bearing capacity of strip footings on sand
slopes reinforced with geogrid and grid-anchor. Geotext. Geomembr. 27
(3), 217–226.
Chakraborty, D., Kumar, J., 2014. Bearing capacity of strip foundations
in reinforced soils. Int. J. Geomech. 14 (1), 45–58.
Georgiadis, K., 2010. The influence of load inclination on the undrained
bearing capacity of strip footings on slopes. Comput. Geotech. 37 (3),
311–322.
Halder, K., Chakraborty, D., 2018. Bearing capacity of strip footing
placed on the reinforced soil slope. Int. J. Geomech. 18 (11),
06018025.
Halder, K., Chakraborty, D., 2019. Seismic bearing capacity of strip
footing placed on a reinforced slope. Geosynthet. Int. 26 (5), 474–
484.
Hansen, J.B., 1970. A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity.
Danish Geotechnical Institute Bulletin 28, Copenhagen, Denmark, 5–11.
Huang, C., Tatsuoka, F., 1994. Stability analysis for footings on
reinforced sand slopes. Soils Found. 34 (3), 21–37.
Huang, C., Tatsuoka, F., Sato, Y., 1994. Failure mechanisms of reinforced
sand slopes loaded with a footing. Soils Found. 34 (2), 27–40.
Luo, N., Bathurst, R.J., 2018. Deterministic and random FEM analysis of
full-scale unreinforced and reinforced embankments. Geosynthet. Int. 25
(2), 164–179.
Matlab 8.5 [Computer software]. Natick, MA, MathWorks.
Selvadurai, A., Gnanendran, C., 1989. An experimental study of a footing
located on a sloped fill: influence of a soil reinforcement layer. Can.
Geotech. J. 26 (3), 467–473.
Sloan, S.W., 1988. Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements and
linear programming. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 12 (1), 61–77.
Vesic, A.S., 1975. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In: Win-
terkorn, H.F., Fang, H.Y. (Eds.), Foundation engineering handbook.
Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Wang, Z., Richwien, W., 2002. A study of soil-reinforcement interface
friction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 128 (1), 92–94.
Yoo, C., 2001. Laboratory investigation of bearing capacity behaviour of
strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand slope. Geotext. Geomembr.
19 (5), 279–298.