Stress characteristics for shallow footings in cohesionless slopes

J. GRAHAM
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man., Catlada R3T 2N2
M. ANDREWS
Geotech Associates, 29 Auzonville Road, Turzaputza, Trinidad, West Indies
AND

D. H. SHIELDS
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man., Canada R3T 2N2
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14

Received May 4 , 1987

Accepted November 2, 1987

Footings placed at shallow depth in bridge approach embankments can be used to reduce the cost and to improve the
performance of bridge supports. The embankments frequently terminate in slopes dropping to underpass level, and the footings
therefore have lower capacity than that for footings on level ground. The needed design procedures have not been well
validated.
The paper describes a new solution using the method of stress characteristics for footing capacity in cohesionless slopes. The
soil is assumed to have c = 0, (b = constant, y > 0. Particular attention is paid to modelling the asymmetric nonfailing zone
immediately beneath the footing. Solutions for various slope angles and friction angles have been obtained for footings placed
at the crest of the slope with D/B = H/B = 0, and for H/B = 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0; D/B = 0.5 and 1.0. The theoretical bearing
capacities are compared with experimental values from two series of laboratory tests.
Key words: bearing capacity, footings, failure, bridge abutments, slopes, sand, cohesionless, stress characteristics.

Des semelles mises en place ? faible

i profondeur dans les remblais d'approche de ponts peuvent &treutilisCes pour rCduire le
coQtet amCliorer la performance des appuis de ponts. Les remblais se terminent frkquemment en pente vers le niveau inferieur,
For personal use only.

et les semelles ont ainsi une capacitC portante inferieure 2 celle dCveloppte sur une surface au niveau. Les procCdures de calcul
requises n'ont pas Ctt bien CprouvCes.
Cet article dCcrit une nouvelle solution utilisant la mCthode des caractCristiques de contraintes pour le calcul de la capacitC
portante de semelles dans des pentes de sols pulvCrulents. L'on suppose que le sol a c = 0, (b = constante, y > 0. L'on porte
une attention particuliCre au modelage de la zone situCe immkdiatement sous la semelle et non assujettie 2 la rupture. Des
solutions pour diffkrents angles de pente et de frottement ont CtC obtenues pour des semelles placCes en crEte avec D/B =
H/B = 0, et pour H/B = 0,5, 1,O et 2,O; D/B = 0,5 et 1,O. Les capacitCs portantes thCoriques sont comparkes aux valeurs
expCrimentales donnCes par deux series d'essais en laboratoire.
Mots clis : capacitC portante, semelles, rupture, culCes de pont, pentes, sable, pulvCrulent, caractCristiques des contraintes.
[Traduit par la revue]

Can. Geotech. J . 25, 238-249 (1988)

Introduction on large-scale model footings. "Remarkable agreement" with

Engineered structures sometimes require shallow footings on
sloping ground. These include structures placed on benches cut
into the slope, retaining walls, transmission towers, and bridge
piers. Highway overpass bridges frequently connect with
approach embankments about 10 m high that terminate in a
sloping face dropping down to the underpass level. In these
cases, supporting the end span of the bridge in the approach fill
can produce savings in construction costs and reductions in
pavement maintenance costs compared with the use of deep
foundations (Shields et al. 1980).
Bauer et al. (1981) noted that the available theoretical solu-
tions for bearing capacities in slopes gave widely differing
answers and were thought to be unduly conservative. Two of
them (Meyerhof 1957; Giroud and Tran 1971) permitted the
footing to be placed elsewhere than at the crest of the slope.
Both these solutions use limit equilibrium analysis of assumed
failure surfaces. However, this method can only accommodate
rather unconvincing modelling of the boundary conditions and
failure domain properties (Graham 1974). In response to these
perceived weaknesses in the analyses, Lebegue (1973),
Shields et al. (1977), and Bauer et al. (1981) reported test data
Printed in Canada 1 Imprim6 au Canada
the Shields et al. (1977) results has recently been reported by
Kimura et al. (1985), who carried out centrifuge tests at 30 g
on a model footing 40 mm wide (effective width, 1200 mm).
Graham (1974) showed that an alternative form of analysis
using stress characteristics allows more careful modelling of
boundary and field conditions for failures in sand. The method
has recently been used to model closely spaced interfering
footings (Graham et al. 1984) and the effects of footing size on
capacity using a critical state strength model (Graham and
Hovan 1986). Stress characteristics have been used only rarely
in slopes (for example, Sokolovskii 1965; Reddy and Jagan-
nath 1985), and in each case, to overcome important computa-
tional difficulties, the soil was assumed to retain some
cohesion. The method does not seem to have been used previ-
ously in cohesionless sand when the footings are placed right at
the sand surface, and this forms the objective of the work
described here.
The paper describes a new analysis for bearing capacity in
cohesionless slopes that takes particular account of the stress
conditions immediately beneath the footing. The results are
compared with experimental data published previously by
Lebegue (1973) and by Shields et al. (1977).

The method of stress characteristics
Details of computational procedures have been given else-
where (Graham 1968) and will only be briefly reviewed here.
The solution combines the differential equations for stress
transmission in plane strain at a point:
with the Coulomb - Mohr relationship
[2] ax,,= a(l F sin 4 cos 2$); T ~ ,= T,, =a sin 4 sin 2$
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14
for the T, a relationships when the soil is failing.' The param-
eter a is the mean stress (al + a3)/2, and $ is the inclination of
a l with the vertical. The sand is assumed to operate always
under drained conditions. All stresses are therefore effective
stresses. The common (')-convention for effective stress will
be discarded for convenience, even though effective stresses
are implied throughout the paper.
Substitution of [2] into [I] leads to hyperbolic differential
equations with product terms of a, $ that suggest logarithmic
transforms
to separate the variables. This leads to four simultaneous equa-
tions, which are solved numerically in related pairs along spe-
cific stress characteristic directions for (x,z,o,$) at previously
For personal use only.
unknown points in the failure domain:
[4] dtldz = b, along- the direction dxldz = tan ($ + ,LL)
92+@2"
[5] dqldz = a , along the direction@= tan ($ - p)
where a , b = -t sin ($ $ p)/(2a os ($ 7 p) ) . Note that
p = (45" - 4/2), so $ $ p are the directions of "slip lines"
along which shear failure takes place. The shape and stress dis-
tribution of the failure zones are developed as the analysis pro-
ceeds. There is no need for the successive searching for
most-critical surfaces that is typical of limit equilibrium
methods. To provide definite integrals, known boundary con-
ditions or previous calculated values of (x,z,a,$) must be
available on each of the slip lines. Nonlinearity of the stress
functions can be taken into account by iterative procedures for
$ (Sokolovskii 1965) and for a (Graham 1968).
The log-transform in [3] leads to difficulties with the numer-
ical procedures when there is a zero-surcharge boundary.
Graham and Stuart (1971) gave a convenient solution for
calculating the N,-coefficient for footings on the surface of
cohesionless sand with self-weight (c = 0, 6 = constant > 0,
y > 0). It involves (1) starting from a finite surcharge; (2)
extending the solution out into the domain; (3) shrinking the
calculated field (and hence the surcharge) back towards the
origin; and (4) again extending the solution into the domain,
under the influence of gravity forces. In this way, the effect of
the assumed surcharge is successively reduced until finally the
computed stresses in the failure zone are proportional to the
distance from the comer of the footing. At this stage the solu-
tion is independent of surcharge and the calculated ultimate
bearing capacity q, of a footing of width B on the surface of a
cohesionless sand can be expressed by
'Notation is given in the List of symbols at the end of the paper.
A ET AL. 239
812
where qu = 2 J o a,dx/B, and the bearing capacity coefficient
N,($) depends on the angle of shearing resistance 4 . When the
footing is not at the ground surface but at depth D , the bearing
capacity can be written:
where Nyq = N,,(+,D/B). In this case the numerical proce-
dures are simpler. However, the boundary conditions still need
to be carefully considered if good results are to be obtained
from the analysis. It is this question of careful attention to the
boundary conditions of the solution that marks the particular
feature of the present work on bearing capacity in slopes. The
symbol N,, will be used throughout the paper for the bearing
capacity coefficient. When D/B = 0, N,, = N,.
Asymmetry of the nonfailing "trapped wedge"
Andrews (1986) showed that most existing analyses for foot-
ings in slopes assume a nonfailing zone of soil immediately
beneath the footing, with the zone being symmetric on either
side of the centre line. As is common, the zone will be called
an "elastic wedge." In contrast with the symmetry that is seen
beneath footings on level ground, photographs from physical
models on slopes (Peynircioglu 1948; Mizuno et al. 1960;
Giroud and Tran 1971; and Kimura et al. 1985) show that the
failure zones are asymmetric (Fig. 1). The downslope zone
NPQR in Fig. 1 is larger than the zone LRST rising to the hori-
zontal ground surface behind the crest. This means that the
elastic wedge LMNR must also be asymmetric. Vesic (1973)
,I and Kimura et al. (1985) show that only a single wedge is
formed beneath the footing, not two smaller wedges as in some
analyses. The detailed geometry of the wedge is not immedi-
ately obvious, and a number of alternatives will be studied in
following paragraphs.
Determinate rectilinear failure zones NPQ and LST in Fig. 1
extend below the slope surface and the horizontal ground sur-
face respectively. From Mohr circle considerations the inclina-
tions of the major principal stress can be obtained as
$ = 0.5{a - a - arc sin (sin alsin 4 ) )
and
along NQ and LS respectively. The values of a along these sur-
faces can also be obtained from Mohr circles. These form the
starting boundary conditions for detailed stress characteristic
calculations in the transition zones NQR and LSR, which end
with the stresses along NR and LR respectively. Under the
influence of self-weight in the failure zones the "radial" slip
lines extending from N and from L are curved, and the
"spiral" lines QR and SR are not logarithmic spirals. They
have to be determined using numerical forward integration of
[4] and [5].
As mentioned earlier, the geometry of the wedge LMNR is
indeterminate, and has to be chosen using one of the assump-
tions outlined in the following sections. This involves, for
example, defining wl, or in Fig. 1 and it can be expected that
they will vary with a and with 4 . Once this choice for wl and or
+
has been made, then XI tan wl = Xr tan o r ; XI Xr = B; and
+
e = (X, - Xl)/2 (X, XI). The distribution of vertical stress
FGH across the base LMN of the footing is obtained from the
vertical stresses calculated along LR and NR. Note that the
vertical stress G at M should be the same whether it is calcu-
 240 CAN. GEOTECH. I. VOL. 25, 1988
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14

FIG. 1 . Schematic of failure zones for footing at crest of slope.

For personal use only.

FIG.2. Geometry of the asymmetric nonfailing trapped wedge LNR.

lated as avlby way of TSR coming from beneath the horizontal
ground surface TL, or as a,, by way of PQR from the slope
surface PN. This will form an important condition for the solu-
tions shown later.
Modelling of the wedge LMNR
Graham and Stuart (1971) showed that the capacity of a sur-
face footing on horizontal ground depends on the assumptions
made for the geometry of the trapped wedge beneath the foot-
ing. This is because the stress distribution on the footing base
depends strongly on the angle at the pole of the transition zone
at the edge of the footing. In many ways this is the reason
for differences between solutions for "smooth" footings
using o, = o, = 45" + $12 and "rough" footings using o, =
W, = 6.
The following section will examine four possible altema-
tives for determining the geometry of the trapped wedge for
footings on slopes. In each case the angle wl corresponding to
the part of the failure zone extending out to the level ground
behind the crest is assumed equal to $ (Graham and Stuart
1971; Graham and Hovan 1986). The reasonableness of this
assumption will be discussed later.
Model 1 assumes that even though the boundaries SR and
 GRAHAM ET AL.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14
FIG. 3. Continuity conditions in the trapped wedge LNR.
For personal use only.
QR of the radial transition zones in Fig. 2 are not logarithmic
spirals, the ratio X1/X,can be estimated as if they are. That is,
it assumes that the deviations from logarithmic spiral behav-
iour caused by gravity forces in the sand have similar effects in
both transition zones. If, for computational purposes, the
length SL is fixed in Fig. 2, then so is LR and avl from the
Terzaghi (1943) solution for rough surface footings on level
ground. Using a logarithmic spiral asumption for RQ, it is then
possible to calculate or(and X,) using the conditions MR = ro,
sin w, = rol sin wl;avl = a,,. This permits an estimate of X,/X,,
and w,, remembering that wl = +. Once this is done, the formal
stress characteristic solution is carried out in the usual way
from LS towards LR and from NQ towards NR. Integrating the
vertical components of the stresses along LR and NR provides
the required prediction of the failure load on LMN, and there-
fore of N,,.
Model 2 uses direct calculations for the logarithmic spiral
surfaces ql = rolexp (01tan 4); rir= ro,exp (8, tan +) in Fig. 2;
and aj = 5 exp (2Aq tan +) for the rate at which the mean
stress builds up in the radial transition zones. Once again,
+
w1 = 4; XI tan = X, tan w,; and avl = a,,.
Model 3 is closely similar to models 1 and 2 except that the
magnitude of avi at R is assumed to be established by the
N,-values proposed by Graham and Stuart (1971) using stress
characteristics.
Model 4 is considered to be more rigorous than models 1-3
because it avoids the previous assumption that the ratio Xl/X,
for soil with self-weight will be the same as that when the soil
is weightless. In this case the size of the failure zone on the left
below the horizontal ground surface in Fig. 3 is again estab-
lished using the stress characteristic solution for N, presented
by Graham and Stuart (1971). The difference from model 3 is
in the treatment of the failure zone extending to the slope sur-
face. The procedure is shown in Fig. 4a. It uses stress charac-
teristics to calculate a series of a,, values (1, 2 , 3 , etc.) for
various assumed values of w,. As w, decreases in Fig. 4a, the
angle at the pole N of the radial transition zone increases
and the corresponding values of a,, increase. These can
be expressed as the variation of N,, = a,,lyX, versus the
+,
assumed values of w, (Fig. 4b). N,, varies with with a , and
with a,.
+;
Once again, the conditions are invoked that wl = Zl (= XI
tan +) = Z, (= X, tan w,); and avl = a,, (Fig. 3). This allows
+
calculation of a unique value of w, for each a and (Fig. 5a).
The variation of w, with each of the independent parameters is
quite significant in Fig. 5a. However, if w, is converted into
the eccentricity e, or especially the ratio Xl/X,, as in Fig. 5b,
+
then the variation with friction angle is greatly diminished.
In this way the asymmetry of the trapped wedge can be
uniquely related to the slope angle a for all +-angles. Figure 5b
also shows a similar result obtained from model 3 calculations.
Figure 6 presents typical trapped zones obtained from the
+
four different models. In Fig. 6a, = 45" and a = 30°, while
in Fig. 6b, += 30°, a = 20". The eccentricity suggested by
all four models is significant. It must therefore be included in
an analysis of bearing capacity on slopes if the results are to be
usable.
Validity of the models for the trapped wedge
All four models assume that the footing fails by moving ver-
tically downwards without rotation and develops failure zones
extending outwards to the slope surface NP and the horizontal
ground surface LT in Fig. 1 . (It is understood that if in reality
the sand is compressible, the failure zones will not extend to
the soil surface, and "punching" failure will occur (Vesic
1973).) The models assume that the displacements preceding
failure are small enough to be considered negligible. That is,
the sand behaviour is rigid-plastic. This will also be discussed
in a later section.
 CAN. GEOTECH. J . VOL. 25, 1988
TABLE1. Comparison of models 1-4 and photographic evidence for trapped wedge asymmetry
Observed Model 1
A u t h o r * ~ c u o , w , e w , w ,
*(I) Peynircioglu (1948); (2) Giroud and Tran (1971); (3) Kimura et al. (1985).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14
s c a n e d out for 10" d a d 45". When a < loo, w ,
' ~ n a l ~ s ewere
3 i.. STRESS
: ....,,, DISTRIBUTIONS
c~,,
----
...... ....
M N
For personal use only.
FIG.4. Ny,, wr relationships for the model 4 analysis.
Table 1 compares calculated values of the trapped wedge
parameters o,, w,, and e with the limited number of values
available from published photographic evidence. The evidence
is limited, but the trend towards increasing asymmetry of the
trapped wedge (denoted by e) with increasing slope angle is
clear. This conclusion supports the theoretical findings
reported in Table 2. It should be remembered that measured
displacement fields do not, in general, correspond well with
the shape of calculated stress fields (Serrano 1972). Photo-
graphed failure zones appear to be significantly affected by
friction between the sand and the glass container, and by dif-
ferences between the angle of dilation v and angle of friction
Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
e w , o , e w , w , e w , w , e
w, and e = 0.0.
4 . Nevertheless, it can be concluded from Table 1 that o, is
much closer to 4 than it is to 45" +
412 (except for Kimura
et al.). Hence the choice of ol = 4 for the present work is rea-
sonable. Also, o, is less than wl (except, once again for Kimura
et al.). Therefore, the photographic evidence supports the
models proposed earlier in which the trapped wedges are
asymmetric with shapes generally like those shown in Fig. 6.
It will be remembered from the previous section that models
1- 3 were based on the geometry of the failure zones assuming
the sand to be weightless. Model 4 took full account of self-
weight in the failure zones and will therefore be considered the
preferred model. This choice is made even though the agree-
ment between the observed asymmetry in Table 1 and the
model 4 values is less good than with some of the other
models.
Calculations have been performed using model 4 for 4 =
30, 35, 40, and 45", and for 10" Ia! 5 ( 4 - 5)" in incre-
ments of 5". Figure 7a shows values obtained for footings with
their front edge right at the crest of the slope (D/B = 0;
H/B = 0). As expected, the bearing capacity decreases
towards zero as a approaches 4 . Figure 7a also shows values
obtained by Graham and Stuart (1971) for level ground with
a! = 0. The latter results clearly form a limit for the behaviour
when a! > 0 and are compatible with the present calculations.
Figure 7b compares the present results with solutions by pre-
vious authors. The values shown in the figure are for 4 = 40".
The authors' results lie towards the upper limit of previously
published theoretical solutions. It was pointed out earlier that
the stimulus for this study of footings in slopes came from an
understanding that existing theories were mostly conservative
(Bauer et al. 1981). Thus it is in fact helpful that the new
analysis presented in Fig. 7a gives values higher than most
existing solutions.
Modelling for embedment (D/B > 0) and setback (H/B > 0)
While footings at the crest of slopes provide a relatively
amenable problem for analysis, in practice most footings are
placed at some depth D into the slope (Fig. 8a) and at some
horizontal distance H back from the crest (Fig. 8b). For D/B <
1.0 the embedment can be modelled as a simple normal
surcharge along TL, and a surcharge with normal and shear
components along NP. Values for shallow embedment are
actually generated during the numerical scaling procedures
described earlier that lead to the results for zero embedment in
Fig. 7a, so they are easily obtained. During this step the asym-
metry of the wedge LNR is assumed to have the model 4
values shown in Fig. 5. That is, it is not affected by shallow
embedment. Calculated values of N,, for H/B = 0; with
D/B = 0.0, 0.5, and 1.O, are shown in Fig. 9.

I I I I
(a)
+=450
40'
- 35'
-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14
MODEL 4 RESULT
I I I I
SLOPE ANGLE a! (DEG)
FIG.5. Asymmetry of the trapped wedge using model 4, for various +-values: (a) w, versus a;(b) X,/X, versus a.
TABLE2. Averaged variation of X,/X,
and e/B with slope angle cr for various
+-angles (model 4 results)
Slope angle a Eccentricity
For personal use only.
(deg) X,/Xr e (xB)
The modelling for the horizontal setback distance H requires
more careful consideration. Two limiting conditions can be
readily identified as shown in Fig. 86. If the footing is at the
crest with H = 0, then the geometry of the trapped wedge is
given by Fig. 5 and the failure zone emerges from the slope
along the length NP. Second, when the footing is placed at
L"N" the failure is just contained beneath the level ground
surface N"P" and the presence of the slope has no influence
on the computed bearing capacity. That is, for H 2 N"P" =
Hc the footing behaves like the footings on level ground
described by Graham and Stuart (1971). Values of Hc are
given in Table 3. The distance N"P" is the distance at which
shallow (surface) parallel footings begin to "interfere" and
gain additional capacity (Graham et al. 1984). In this case, the
wedge L"NUR" is symmetric, with the angles at L" and N"
equal to 4.
To the authors' knowledge there is at present no rational way
of predicting how the asymmetry of L'N'R' or the position of
P' varies with a , +, and H/B. In the present work it has been
assumed that as N' moves from N to N" (0 I H I Hc), then
(1) P' varies linearly between P and P"; and (2) X,/X, varies
linearly between the values for model 4 in Fig. 5b for crest
loading and the value 1.0 for the symmetric, level ground case.
The resulting positions of P' and R' in Fig. 8b define the extent
of the failure zone P'Q'R'. Conditions along N'P' are treated
as a triangular surcharge N'NP' having normal and shear com-
ponents. Results of these computations are given in Figs. 9 and
GRAHAM ET AL
a
A
0 -
SLOPE ANGLE a! (DEG)
3. Critical setback distance H, below which failure zones exit
TABLE
from slope face (after Graham et al. 1984)
+
Angle of shearing resistance (deg) 30 35 40 45
Critical setback distance Hc/B 1.2 2.0 2.7 3.5
10 for H/B = 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 and D/B = 0.0, 0.5,
and 1.0.
As would be expected from the earlier discussion, the value
+
of N,, for a given reduces with a , increases with D/B, and
increases with H/B. Figures 9 and 10 also show the "level
ground" ( a = 0) values for N,, given by Graham and Stuart
(1971) for D/B = 0.0, 0.5. The trend of the new results is
clearly correct. As H/B increases or a decreases the results
form the new calculations on slopes converge towards the level
ground values in the earlier study.
Comparison with large-scale test results
Only a limited number of carefully controlled test experi-
ments of footings on slopes have been reported in the litera-
ture. Lebegue (1973) tested a 200 mm wide by 1000 mm long
footing. The tests were camed out in a 3000 mm X 3000 mm
(in plan) box. The footing was located at the crest of the
3000 mm long slope, hence H/B = 0. Readings were taken
from only the centre segment of the three-section footing, to
simulate plane strain conditions. He used two different sand
densities and three slope angles. After some smoothing of the
data to take account of variability in preparing the sand, the
experimental results can be presented as shown in Fig. 11. The
theoretical results in the figure are for D/B = 0 and H/B = 0,
and are identical with those in Fig. 7a. The trend of the theoret-
ical results is in broad agreement with the experimental values,
but they underestimate the decrease in N,, with increasing a.
On detailed examination, the experimental values are higher
than analytical values for the same +-value. It should be
remembered that the model studies fail the sand under plane
strain conditions while the +-values quoted by Lebegue (1973)
are from triaxial tests. (The pressure range in the triaxial tests
is not reported. Values of 6 can be expected to decrease with
increasing pressure.)
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 25, 1988
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14
For personal use only.
FIG.6. Typical predictions for the asymmetry of the trapped wedge from models 1-4: (a) 4
It is widely understood (see, for example, Wroth and
Houlsby 1985) that $ in plane strain is larger than that in tri-
axial tests (+,,). Quite good agreement is obtained if the exper-
imental results in Fig. 11 are compared with the analytical
results using $ = $,, x 1.1. Similar suggestions were made by
Graham and Stuart (1971) for checking surface footings on
level ground with a = 0.
Lebegue also tested some smaller footings with B = 60 mm
and length of 200 mm in plane strain. Despite N,, being
a dimensionless parameter, it does depend on the size of the
footing, decreasing with increasing breadth B for the same
density of sand. The shear strength of the sand is only approxi-
mated by the common assumption of a straight strength enve-
+
lope, that is, that is independent of stress level. At failure,
larger footings transfer larger stresses to the soil, mobilize
lower average $-values in the failure zones, and have smaller
N,,-values. This question of "scale effect" in sands has been
addressed recently by Graham and Hovan (1986), who incor-
porated a critical state strength model into their analysis of sur-
face footing capacity. However, in this paper it has been
thought preferable to focus attention on a new understanding of
the asymmetric wedge LMNR (for example, in Figs. 2, 3, and
6) and to leave for a future occasion the additional uncertain-
MODEL
I ... ..... ... ; ' -\ .
.'..>:::.
~ ~ 3 0 0
= 45", a = 30"; (b) 4 = 30°, a = 20".
ties that would be associated with a more sophisticated soil
model in which $ varied with mean pressure levels.
More extensive tests have been reported by Shields et al.
(1977, 1980). The tests were performed in a large laboratory
sandbox 15 m long, 2 m wide, and 2.2 m high using 500 kN of
crushed silica sand. The slope was formed by depositing air-
dry sand from a rotating drum spreader. Two sand densities
were achieved, 14.85 and 15.75 kN/m3, respectively 70 and
90% density index. Careful attention to the pressure range
during testing suggested $,,-values of 37 and 41 " respectively
for the two different sand densities.
A 300 mm broad footing stretched across the full 2 m width
of the sandbox to create two-dimensional loading. To elimi-
nate end effects at the sides of the box, the footing was made in
three equal segments that were pressed into the sand at the
same rate, with load and displacement readings being taken
only from the central segment. Only 2:l slopes (a! = 27")
were examined, but the positions of the footings were altered
in the range 0 r D/B r 3; 0 r H/B r 5.
Comparison between the theoretical and experimental results
is shown in Fig. 12 using the form of presentation originally
proposed by Shields et al. (1977). Tests and analyses were per-
formed for discrete ranges of D/B and H/B, and then lines of
 GRAHAM ET AL.

SLOPE 6 : l 4:l 2:l 1.5: 1 SLOPE 6 : 1 4 : l

-
1000 I I I I I I 1000 I I I I I I
- (a)
-
- (b) -
D/B=O.O
- - A CHEN AND DAVIDSOld (1973) -
H/B ~ 0 . 0 - 0 MIZUNO E T A L . (1960)
400 - * MEYERHOF (1957) -
GIROUD AND T R A N (1971)
B O W L E S (1975)
- A KOVALEV (1964)
-
r HANSEN (1970)

: %!
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14

A L L VALUES FOR $=40°, D / B = H / B = O

I I I

SLOPE ANGLE Cr. (DEG) SLOPE ANGLE a! (DEG)

FIG.7. Bearing capacity coefficient N,, versus slope angle a: (a) predictions for D/B = H/B = 0 for various +-values; (b) comparison with
+
previously published values, = 40".
For personal use only.

FIG. 8. Schematic of failure zones for embedment and setback: (a) D/B > 0; (b) H/B > 0.

constant Nyq interpolated between the known values. The
values in the figure are for the front edge of the footing in
the position shown. Once again, the trend of the results is
encouraging, with the theoretical results perhaps not taking
quite enough account of the influence of the reduction in
capacity caused by the slope. It is also interesting to compare
the values of Hc predicted by Graham and Stuart (1971) with
the experimental findings. The contours of N,, (experimental)
become parallel with the ground surface (signifying Hc has
been reached) at roughly the predicted distances.
Table 4 examines whether the experimental and analytical
results should be compared on the basis of +,,
or 1.1 X +,,.
 246 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 25, 1988

H/B=O.O ----- H/B=0.5 * a = O (GRAHAM AND STUART 1971)

1000 I I
I (b)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14

10 I I I
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
a (DEG) a (DEG) a (DEG)
FIG.9. Predicted N,,-values: (a) D/B= 0; ( b ) D/B = 0.5; (c)DIB = 1.0. (HIB = 0.0, 0.5.)

H/B=l.O ----- H / B = 2 . 0 * a = O (GRAHAM AND STUART 1971)

1000
For personal use only.

FIG. 10. Predicted N,,-values: (a) D/B = 0; (b) D/B = 0.5; (c) D/B = 1.0. (H/B = 1.0, 2.0.)

The theoretical values have been interpolated from the results
given earlier in Figs. 9 and 10. In the compact sand the
average ratio between theoretical and experimental values for
N,, is 1.33 using +,,
and 2.82 using 1.1 x +,,.
A similar con-
clusion can be drawn for the dense sand, where the ratios are
1.04 and 1.88 respectively. In contrast with Lebegue's results
discussed previously, the agreement between experimental and
theoretical results is much better in this case when +,,
is used.
Shields et al. (1977) took particular care to relate the +-values
to the stress levels in their tests (see also Graham and Stuart
1971).
It should be remembered that neither Lebegue nor Shields
et al. considered the increase in embedment 6D that the test
footings underwent to reach failure. In the case of the tests of
Shields et ul., the footing generally settled 20 or 30 mm, which
represents 0.07B-0.10B. It can be argued (Graham and Stuart
197I), particularly in the case'of surface footings (D = 0), that
the theoretical values of N,, should be increased to account
for this added depth of embedment.
Discussion and conclusions
Prediction of the bearing capacity of footings requires (1)
identification of an appropriate failure mechanism, particularly
as it relates to the indeterminate zone immediately beneath the
footing; (2) availability of a suitable analytical model; (3) an
appropriate strength model for the soil; and (4) validation of
the results by comparison with large-scale laboratory tests,
full-scale field tests, or centrifuge tests.
The paper has examined how the modelling of boundary
conditions affects the calculation of bearing capacity on
slopes. In particular it has identified that the trapped elastic
zone is asymmetric to the footing base. A solution has been
developed on the assumptions (Fig. 1) that (1) the edge LR of
 GRAHAM ET AL.

TABLE4. Comparison of experimental and theoretical values of N,,

Values of N,,
Geometry Experimental* TheoreticalT Theorylexperiment
H/B DIB Col. (1) Col. (2) Col. (3) (2) + (1) (3) + (1)

(a) Compact sand

29 64
58 140
84 176
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14

48 100
74 148
100 196
(b) Dense sand
64 140
140 200
176 320
100 200
148 300
196 380
148 260
208 350
260 450
*~rom Shields et a[. (1973).
;~uthors,from Andrews (1986). Compact sand: col. (2) I#J = +,,
= 37", col. (3) +=
1.14[, = 41"; dense sand: col. (2) 4 = &,, = 41°, col. (3) 4 = 1.1& = 45".
For personal use only.

"punching" shear failure in the sand (Vesic 1973). At present

LEBEGUE (1973) there is inadequate experimental evidence to justify these
=40°
c # I ~ ~ e assumptions fully. They do, however, form a rational and
coherent framework for allowing the calculations to proceed.
The analysis used the method of stress characteristics for
+
sand with c = 0, = constant, y > 0. The numerical proce-
dures are known to give essentially the same results as the
more usual logarithmic spiral methods provided the boundary
and domain conditions are specified identically (Graham
1974). However, the method does offer the particular advan-
tage in the present work that the boundary conditions can be
modelled more convincingly (see also Graham and Stuart
1971) and this has formed the principal thrust of the work pre-
sented here using only simple constant-+ strength relationships.
Validation of the theoretical results is incomplete. It has
been known for some time that existing theories tend to under-
estimate the capacity of footings on slopes. Thus it is encour-
aging in Fig. 7b that the present results lie above the majority
of previous theoretical solutions. The new analytical results
have been compared with the experimental results presented by
Lebegue (1973) (Fig. 11) and by Shields et al. (1977)
(Fig. 12). It was shown that the trend and magnitude of the
SLOPE ANGLE CY (DEG) theoretical results is largely correct in both cases. In Fig. 11
+
the results were compared on the basis of = 1.1 x +,,,an
FIG. 11. Comparison of predicted values of N,, with experimental empirical correction that takes some account of the plane strain
values from Lebegue (1973) for B = 200 mm. conditions under which the footings were tested. However, in
Fig. 12 and Table 4 the agreement is much better if +,, is used,
although it has been noted that no account is taken of how
+
the trapped zone slopes at w, = to the horizontal, as in a settlements preceding failure affect the capacity of the
normal footing on level ground; (2) the failure zones going out footings. When experimental or field results are reported in the
to the level ground and the slope surface (LT and NP respec- literature for use in calibrating analytical procedures, it is
tively) start from a common point R; and (3) the vertical stress essential to give the grain size distribution of the sand, its
at M is the same whether it is calculated from LRST or from mineralogy, its density at emplacement, the type and stress
NRQP, that is, a,, = q,,. It also assumes that the footing range of the shear testing, and some estimate of the curvature
moves downwards with "general" shear failure and not of the strength envelope.
 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 25, 1988
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14

( a 1 COMPACT SAND C$ =37O

( b ) DENSE SAND C$ =41°

For personal use only.

VALUES OF N y q : THEORETICAL AUTHORS

EXPERIMENTAL----- SHIELDS E T A L . (19771

I
FIG. 12. Comparison of predicted values of N,, with experimental values from Shields et al. (1977) for B = 300 mm.

Further testing is needed, This could be valuably done in a
centrifuge, which couples the advantages of convenient model
sizes with elevated stress levels that correspond with field-
scale applications. This work is currently in progress with the
centrifuge at the Laboratoire central des ponts et chaussCes in
Nantes, France.
However well tests are performed, they are only usefi~lif the
sand behaviour is adequately characterized. Thus, future
model test programs also need to pay close attention to the
properties of the sand. It is suggested that this needs to take
account of the influence of stress level as well as initial
density on the shearing resistance. Newer approaches to sand
characterization, such as those proposed by Atkinson and
Bransby (1978), Bolton (1986), and Been and Jefferies (1985),
need to be adopted by geotechnical modellers whether their
work is with physical models or with computer models. The
additional strength testing program is not large but needs to be
carefullv done.
In summary, new theoretical results for footings near the
crests of slopes can be compared favourably with two sets of
published large-scale model tests. However, the basis for this
comparison is inconsistent-in one case $, can be used while
in the other it has to be empirically increased to correspond
with plane strain conditions.
Acknowledgements
The work has been supported by research grants and fellow-
ships from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada, the University of Manitoba Transport
Institute, and the Ministry of Transportation and Communica-
tions of Ontario. Ingrid Trestrial and Prabir Mitra provided
technical support.
ANDREWS, M. 1986. Computation of bearing capacity coefficients for
shallow footings on cohesionless slopes using stress characteristics.
M.Sc. thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man.
ATKINSON, J. H., and BRANSBY, P. L. 1978. The mechanics of soils:
an introduction to critical state soil mechanics. McGraw Hill (UK)
Ltd., Maidenhead, England.
BAUER,G. E., SHIELDS, D. H., SCOTT,J. D., and GRUSPIER, J. E.
1981. Bearing capacity of footings in granular slopes. Proceedings,
10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 2, pp. 33-36.
BEEN,K., and JEFFERIES, M. G. 1985. A state parameter for sands.
GCotechnique, 35: 99- 112.
BOLTON, M. D. 1986. The strength and dilatancy of sands. GCotech-
nique, 36: 65-78.
BOWLES, J. E. 1975. Spread footings. In Foundation engineering
handbook. Edited by H. F. Winterkorn and H.-Y. Fong. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
CHEN,W. F., and DAVIDSON, H. L. 1973. Bearing capacity determi-
nation by limit analysis. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, 99(SM6): 433-449.
GIROUD, J. P., and TRAN,V.-N. 1971. Force portante d'une fonda-
tion sur une pente. Annales de 1'Institut Technique du Bdtiment et
des Travaux Publics, Supplement 283 -284.
GRAHAM,J. 1968. Plane plastic failure in cohesionless soils.
GCotechnique, 18: 301 -3 i6.
1974. Plasticity solutions to stability problems in sand. Cana-
dian Geotechnical 11: 238-247,
GRAHAM, J., and HOVAN, J. -M. 1986. Stress characteristics for bear-
ing capacity in sand using a critical state model. Canadian Geotech-
nical Journal, 23: 195 -202.
 ET AL. 249

GRAHAM, J., and STUART, J. G. 1971. Scale and boundary effects in SOKOLOVSKII, V. V. 1965. Statics of granular media. Pergamon
foundation analysis. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Press, New York, NY.
Foundations Division, 97(SMll): 1533- 1548. TERZAGHI, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. Wiley, New York,
GRAHAM, J., RAYMOND, G. P., and SUPPIAH,A. 1984. Bearing NY.
capacity of three closely-spaced footings on sand. GCotechnique, VESIC,A. S. 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.
34: 173- 182. ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
HANSEN, J. 1970. A revised and extended formula for bearing capac- 99(SM1): 43 -75.
ity. Danish Geotechnical Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark, Bul- WROTH,C. P., and HOULSBY, G. T. 1985. Soil mechanics-property
letin 28. characterization and analysis procedures. State of the art report.
KIMURA,T., KASAKABE, O., and SAITOH,K. 1985. Geotechnical Proceedings, 1lth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
model tests of bearing capacity problems in a centrifuge. GCotech- Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 3, pp. 1-54.
nique, 35: 33 -45.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Université de Sherbrooke on 06/30/14

KOVALEV, I. V. 1964. De la rksistance ultime des fondations IimitCes

par un talus. Traduction du russe, extrait du recueil des travaux de
LIIZLT, fascicule 225, "Nekotovye vo prosy tonnele-i-mosto-
List of symbols
stroeniy," Leningrad, URSS, 1964. French translation by Labora- sin ($ + u 4 cos ($ F ~r.))
~ ) l { 2 tan
toire central des ponts et chaussges, Paris, France, 1973. footing breadth, depth
LEBEGUE, Y. 1973. Essais de fondations superficielles sur talus. Pro- cohesion
ceedings, 8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and eccentricity of base of trapped nonfailing zone from
Foundation Engineering, Moscow, Vol. 4.3, p. 3 13. footing centre line ( X B )
MEYERHOF, G. G. 1957. The ultimate bearing capacity of founda-
setback distance from crest, critical setback inside
tions on slopes. Proceedings, 4th Intemational Conference on Soil
which the slope affects the footing capacity
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London, Vol. 1, pp.
384-386. bearing capacity coefficient for D/B = 0,
MIZUNO,T., TOKUMITSU, Y., A N D KAWAKAMI, H. 1960. On the D/B $ 1.0
bearing capacity of a slope of cohesionless soils. Soils and Founda- average footing contact pressure at failure
tions, 1: 30-37. radius, initial radius, pole angle for logarithmic
PEYNIRCIOGLU, H. 1948. Tests on bearing capacity of shallow foun- spiral
dations horizontal top surfaces of sand fills and the behaviour of horizontal, vertical coordinates
For personal use only.

soils under such foundations. Proceedings, 2nd International Con- base dimensions o n left, right side of trapped zone
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rotter- (Fig. 3)
dam, Vol. 3, pp. 144-205.
depth of trapped zone coming from left, right side
REDDY, A. S., and JAGANNATH, S. V. 1985. Bearing capacity of strip
footings in depressions. Proceedings, Indian Geotechnical Confer- (Fig. 3)
ence, Roorkee, Vol. 1, pp. 77-82. slope angle, deg
SERRANO, A. A. 1972. The method of associated fields of stress and unit weight
velocity, and its application to earth pressure problems. Proceed- angle of shearing resistance (friction), dilation
ings, 5th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations normal, shear stress
Engineering, Madrid, Vol. 1, p. 77. inclination of major principal stress to vertical
SHIELDS,D. H., SCOTT,J. D., BAUER,G. E., DESCHENES, J. H., 45" - 412
and BARSVARY, A. K. 1977. Bearing capacity of foundations near
slopes. Proceedings, 9th Intemational Conference on Soil
(In a)/2 tan 4 + $
base angles at left, right of trapped wedge (Fig. 3)
Mechanics and Foundations Engineering, Tokyo, Vol. 2, pp.
715-720. Subscripts:
SHIELDS, D. H., DESCHENES, J. H., SCOTT,J. D., and BAUER,G. E. 1, 3, v major, minor, vertical
1980. Advantages of founding bridge abutments on approach fills. 1 r i j left, right, initial, general j t h
Roads and Transport Association of Canada Conference, Sep-
tember 1978. Published RTAC Forum 3, No. 1, Spring 1980. Effective stresses are implied throughout the paper