Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Seismic bearing capacity of strip footings placed near c-φ soil slopes
Rui Zhang a, Yao Xiao b, *, Minghua Zhao b, Jianqing Jiang a
a
College of Civil Engineering, Changsha University, Changsha, 410022, PR China
b
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, 410082, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Seismic bearing capacity of strip footings placed near c-φ soil slopes is investigated in this work using finite
Seismic bearing capacity element limit analysis combined with an adaptive remeshing procedure. In the analysis, the so-called pseudo-
Strip footing static approach is employed to quantitatively describe the seismic effects. Based on the method, the upper and
Slope
lower bounds of the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB are calculated and summarized in design
Finite element
Limit analysis
tables/charts for practitioner’s use. Parametric studies are performed to illustrate the variation of the normalized
seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB with respect to all of the problem variables defined in section 2. In addition,
graphical results from upper bound analyses are also provided to display the potential failure mechanisms of the
footing-slope bearing system under seismic conditions.

1. Introduction
Footings constructed on top of slopes are often encountered in en­
gineering practice, such as those for transmission towers, bridge abut­
ments or buildings in hilly regions. In such cases, the slope can have
significant impacts on the bearing capacity of a footing, which if not
being properly accounted for may lead to dangerous designs. Early
studies on this subject have been focused on the static bearing capacity
of strip footings placed near slopes, e.g., analytical solutions [1–9] and
numerical simulations [10–16]. However, a usually stable structure may
still fail when significant seismic effects arise during an earthquake.
Therefore, in earthquake zones, seismic effects on the footing-slope
bearing system cannot be ignored in view of its devastating
consequences.
The so-called pseudo-static approach has been commonly used in the
design of earth structures under seismic conditions. In this method, the
standard static problem is augmented by the inertia forces representing
the effects of seismicity [17]. The popularity of this approach mainly
owes to its simplicity in design practice [18]. By incorporating the
pseudo-static seismic forces, various analytical methods have been used
to determine the ultimate seismic bearing capacity of strip footings near
slopes, such as: the limit equilibrium approach [19–21], analytical
upper bound (UB) and lower bound (LB) methods [22–26] and the
slip-line field method [27].
As mentioned above, analytical solutions proposed by these former
researchers are useful for providing meaningful physical insights into
the studied problem, however, they usually require skillful construction
of the failure mechanism. For the footing-slope system, either a bearing
capacity failure or an overall slope failure, or even a mixed failure mood
may occur, which makes it hard to determine the actual failure mech­
anism a priori. To avoid this, many researchers have turned to the
employment of numerical methods, such as: Shiau et al. [18], Kumar
and Chakraborty [28], Chakraborty and Kumar [29] and Chakraborty
and Mahesh [30] via finite element limit analysis (FELA); or Cinicioglu
and Erkli [31] via displacement finite element method (D-FEM). How­
ever, these early studies only considered the static bearing capacity of
footings placed near slopes.
More recently, seismic bearing capacity of strip footings placed
adjacent to c-φ soil slopes has been investigated by Zhou et al. [32]
based on discontinuity layout optimization (DLO) and Raj et al. [33–35]
based on FELA. In addition, considering the important role of soil
dilatancy in evaluating the bearing capacity of soil structures, Halder
et al. [36] studied the seismic bearing capacity of strip footings placed
near slopes using LB-FELA with a non-associated flow rule. However, in
the aforementioned studies, the impact of the distance of footing to slope
crest has not yet been considered in the analysis, which constitutes one
of the main objectives of this study.
In this work, a FELA program with automatic mesh adapdation
feature is employed to investigate the seismic bearing capacity of strip
footings placed near c-φ soil slopes. To quantitatively describe the
seismic effects, the so-called pseudo-static approach is used in the
analysis. Based on the method, both the UB and LB solutions of the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: z20190809@ccsu.edu.cn (R. Zhang), yao_xiao@hnu.edu.cn (Y. Xiao), mhzhaohd@21cn.com (M. Zhao), lh201314@163.com (J. Jiang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106221
Received 12 December 2019; Received in revised form 1 April 2020; Accepted 5 May 2020
Available online 22 May 2020
0267-7261/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Zhang et al.
Fig. 1. Strip footing placed adjacent to c-φ soil slope under seismic conditions.
normalized seismic bearing capacity factor are calculated and summa­
rized in design tables/charts for practitioner’s use. The effects of all
problem variables (to be introduced in the next section) on the footing-
slope bearing system are investigated through detailed parametric
studies. Finally, typical failure mechanisms of the footing-slope bearing
system are depicted using graphical results from the UB analyses.
2. Problem description
Fig. 1 illustrates the graphical representation of the studied problem
under plane-strain condition. In this problem, a rigid strip footing of
width B is placed on top of a soil slope of height H and with slope angle β.
The distance from the inner edge (relative to the slope) of the footing to
the slope crest equals L. The soil mass of unit weight γ is modelled as a
homogeneous and isotropic material obeying the Mohr-Coulomb (MC)
yield criterion, that is, the soil strength can be described by cohesion c
and internal friction angle φ. To consider the seismic effects, the same
pseudo-static acceleration coefficient kh is applied to both the footing
and the slope, which implies the horizontal forces acting on the footing
and the slope are of the same ratio kh to their vertical counterparts. The
contact interface between the footing and the soil mass is modelled as
patches of collapsed continuum elements with strength parameters (c, φ)
defined to be identical to the soil mass. Detailed information of the
methodology for simulating the interface behavior between material
domains can be found in the work of Lyamin et al. [37]. It should be
emphasized that the effect of the footing-soil roughness angle δ is an
important factor for the estimation of the bearing capacity of footings, as
indicated in the studies of Kumar and Kouzer [38] and Kumar [39–41].
Therefore, a more reasonable way to consider the footing-soil interface
behavior is to specify distinct strength parameters for the interface and
the soil mass. However, this would make the discussions to be given in
the following sections too complicated, hence, the above-mentioned
simplification of using the same strength parameters (c, φ) for both
the footing-soil interface and the soil mass is necessary.
For the convenience of presenting the calculated results in a compact
form, a normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB is defined as the
function of the problem variables, including: the normalized slope
height H/B, the normalized distance of footing to slope crest L/B,
strength ratio c/γB, internal friction angle of soil φ, slope angle β and the
pseudo-static acceleration coefficient kh, which can be can be written as:
� �
p H L c
¼f ; ; ; φ; β; kh (1)
γB B B γB
where p is the average limit pressure acting on the footing. As a refer­
ence, the ranges of the problem variables have been specified as H/B ¼
1–10, L/B ¼ 0–10, c/γB ¼ 0.5–5, φ ¼ 10 ~40 , β ¼ 15 ~45 and kh ¼
� � � �
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221
Fig. 2. Adaptive mesh and corresponding boundary conditions (H/B ¼ 5, L/B
¼ 2 and β ¼ 45 ).
�
0.1–0.4 for all the computations conducted in this work. Note that, these
adopted ranges have been chosen to be in compliance with some of the
referenced studies [32–35].
3. Adaptive finite element limit analysis
FELA combines the powerful capabilities of finite element method
(FEM) with classical limit theorems in plasticity to evaluate the collapse
loads of structures directly [42,43]. By formulating the UB and LB
problems as standard mathematical programming models, the method
can handle complex geotechnical stability problems involving hetero­
geneity, complicated geometry and complex loading, etc., on an ordi­
nary computer, without a priori assumption on the potential failure
mechanism. Therefore, it has been widely used for stability analyses of
geo-structures, e.g., slopes [34–36], tunnels [44–46] and foundations
[47,48].
In this work, the discontinuous FE formulations proposed by Krab­
benhoft et al. [49] and Lyamin et al [50] have been employed in the
discrete UB and LB problems, respectively. Note that, by invoking the
duality of limit theorems, the discrete UB problem has been formulated
in a static form, i.e., only stress variables appear in the final UB opti­
mization model. Hence, both the UB and LB discrete limit analysis
problems can be cast in the same form as (see Refs. [51,52] for details):
Maximize λ (2)
Subject ​ to AT σ
b ¼ λp þ p0 (3)
�
F σ
b j � 0; j ¼ 1; :::; nσ (4)
where λ is a load multiplier, AT is the discrete equilibrium-type operator,
σ
b ¼ ðσ b nσ ÞT is the vector of discrete stresses σ
b 1 ; :::; σ b j , and nσ is the total
number of discrete stresses; p and p0 are the vectors of unknown and
prescribed nodal forces, respectively, and F is the yield function.
In order to solve the discrete UB/LB optimization models efficiently,
a general nonlinear optimization algorithm is used in the FELA program
employed in this work, which is a modified version of the feasible arc
interior point algorithm (FAIPA) proposed by Herskovits et al. [53]. It
needs to be mentioned that the nonlinear optimization algorithm re­
quires the information of the first and second order derivatives of the MC
yield surface, which cannot be directly computed since an apex singu­
larity exists in the MC yield surface in the meridian plane for plain-strain
problems. To address this issue, a quasi-hyperbolic approximation
technique proposed by Abbo and Sloan [54] has been employed to
smoothen of the MC yield surface. In addition, since the interpolation
errors of finite elements constitute a major source of the calculation
error in a numerical limit analysis, an adaptive remeshing procedure
developed by Zhang et al. [55] has been incorporated into the afore­
mentioned FELA program. More detailed information on the adaptive
R. Zhang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221

Fig. 3. Comparison of results: the variation of p/γB with respect to c/γB for the Fig. 4. Comparison of results: the variation of p/γB with respect to L/B for the
cases with kh ¼ 0, β ¼ 30 , φ ¼ 30 and L/B ¼ 0. cases with kh ¼ 0, β ¼ 30 and φ ¼ 30 .
� � � �

remeshing procedure can be found in Zhang et al. [55].

Fig. 2 shows an illustrative adaptive mesh derived by the afore­
mentioned FELA program after three iterations of mesh adapdation. The
mesh corresponds to the case with H/B ¼ 5, L/B ¼ 2 and β ¼ 45� and
consists of 5265 triangular elements and 7969 stress-velocity disconti­
nuities. The stress and velocity boundary conditions are also depicated
in Fig. 2, where u and v represent the horizontal and vertical velocities,
respectively; and σ n and τ denote the normal and shear stresses,
respectively. It is worthy of mentioning that the calculation domain has
been chosen to be large enough so that no intersection occurs between
the failure (plastic) zones and the domain boundaries.
As in the illustrative mesh, the same adaptive remeshing procedure is
invoked for all the simulations conducted in this work, with the total
number of adaptive steps specified as three and the target number of
continuum elements specified as 1000, 3000 and 5000 for each adaptive
step, respectively. Note that, the same mesh is used for both the UB/LB
analyses, which is required by the bound-gap error estimator used in the
adaptive remeshing procedure (see Zhang et al. [48] for details). By
employing the adaptive remeshing technique, the relative errors (REs)
measured by Eq. (5) for all the simulations are found to be within �10%
Fig. 5. Comparison of results: the variation of p/γB with respect to kh for the
or better. It needs to be mentioned that the magnitudes of the REs can be
cases with c/γB ¼ 1, L/B ¼ 0, β ¼ 30 and φ ¼ 40 .
� �

substantially affected by the internal friction angle φ of soil. For

example, the REs are found to be within �3% for the cases with φ ¼ 10� ,
while increase to be within �10% for the cases with φ ¼ 40 .
�
Relative ​ error ¼ � 100 � ðUB LBÞ = ðUB þ LBÞ ð%Þ
4. Comparison of results
4.1. Static bearing capacity of strip footings on slopes
In this section, the results obtained in this study for static bearing
compared to those obtained by Shiau et al. [18], which clearly dem­
onstrates the effectiveness of the adaptive remeshing procedure
(5) employed in this work, since no adaptive mesh adapdation technique
was employed by Shiau et al. [18].
For further validations, the results of the present study are also
compared to those obtained by Zhou et al. [15] for the case of strip
footing placed at some distance from the slope crest. Fig. 4 illustrates the
variation of the static bearing capacity with respect to L/B for the cases
with β ¼ 30 and φ ¼ 30 . It can easily be seen from Fig. 4 that the results
� �

capacity of strip footings on slopes are compared with those from from the present UB solution agree well with those obtained by Zhou
existing solutions, including: the limit equilibrium solutions by Bishop et al. [15] via DLO.
[56] and Narita and Yamaguchi [5], the analytical UB solution by
Kusakabe et al. [6], and the FELA solution by Shiau et al. [18]. Fig. 3
shows the variation of the normalized static bearing capacity factor p/γB 4.2. Seismic bearing capacity of strip footings on slopes
with respect to c/γB for the cases with L/B ¼ 0, β ¼ 30 and φ ¼ 30 . It
� �

can be seen that the UB results of this study are in excellent agreement
with those from Bishop [49], while the LB results of this study are close
to those from Kusakabe et al. [6]. Besides, the results proposed by Narita
and Yamaguchi [5] via limit equilibrium method are found to be a little
greater than the present UB solutions. It is also observed that tighter
bounds (with smaller REs) have been obtained in the present study
In contrast to the previous section, seismic bearing capacity of strip
footings placed adjacent to c-φ slopes are compared between the results
obtained in this study and those obtained by Kumar and Rao [27] via
slip-line field method and Zhou et al. [32] via DLO. Fig. 5 shows the
variation of the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB with
respect to kh for the cases with L/B ¼ 0, c/γB ¼ 1, β ¼ 30� and φ ¼ 40� . It
can be clearly seen that the values of p/γB obtained by Zhou et al. [32]

3
R. Zhang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221

and those of Raj et al. [33] and Halder et al. [36]. Note that, both the
latter two studies have employed the FELA technique, however, no
distance of footing to slope crest was considered in the analysis. Fig. 6
shows the variation of the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor
p/γB with respect to kh for the cases with L/B ¼ 0, c/γB ¼ 5, β ¼ 20� and
φ ¼ 45� . Again, excellent agreement can be found between the present
results and the referenced results. In particular, the LB results of the
present study are found to be slightly greater than those proposed by
Halder et al. [36], indicating that an obvious improvement of accuracy
has been achieved by using the adaptive remeshing procedure (see
Table 1).

5. Results and discussion

In this section, the normalized seismic bearing capacity factors p/γB

Fig. 6. Comparison of results: the variation of p/γB with respect to kh for the
cases with c/γB ¼ 5, L/B ¼ 0, β ¼ 20 and φ ¼ 45 .
� �
are calculated for all the problem variables introduced in section 2. Note
that, a fixed value of H/B ¼ 5 is assumed for all the studied cases. For
practitioner’s use, the calculated results have been summarized in
Tables 1–3 and graphically depicted in Fig. 7–12. Since the REs
measured by Eq. (5) are found to be within �10% in all these simula­
tions, only the average values of the UB/LB solutions have been used for

illustration. It needs to be mentioned that the symbol “—” shown in

lie between the present UB and LB solutions, while those obtained by Table 1, 2 and 3 corresponds to the case with an infeasible solution of the
Kumar and Rao [27] are found to be slightly smaller than the present LB nonlinear optimization solver, which implies that a slope failure occurs
solutions. due to gravity before any loading from the footing is applied.
Another comparison is made between the results of the present study In the following subsections, the impacts of all the problem variables

Table 1
Results of the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB for the cases with β ¼ 15� and H/B ¼ 5.
φ L/B kh c/γB 1 2 3 5 kh c/γB 1 2 3 5

0.5 0.5

10 0 0.1 3.17 6.23 12.42 18.63 31.02 0.2 – 5.08 10.23 15.38 25.68
1 3.75 7.22 14.13 21.07 34.88 – 5.97 11.84 17.71 29.46
2 3.92 7.55 14.80 22.04 36.51 – 6.04 11.99 17.95 29.84
4 3.92 7.55 14.80 22.04 36.51 – 6.04 11.99 17.95 29.84
0 0.3 – 4.07 8.22 12.37 20.68 0.4 – – 6.59 9.92 16.58
1 – – 9.43 14.14 23.58 – – 7.37 11.08 18.47
2 – – 9.43 14.14 23.58 – – 7.37 11.08 18.47
20 0 0.1 5.82 10.93 21.07 31.16 51.40 0.2 4.42 8.59 16.89 25.18 41.84
1 7.17 12.82 24.11 35.34 57.73 5.51 10.25 19.70 29.08 47.84
2 8.02 14.28 26.53 38.65 62.92 6.02 11.21 21.56 31.82 52.26
4 8.04 14.51 27.30 39.99 65.40 6.02 11.21 21.56 31.91 52.54
6 8.04 14.51 27.30 39.99 65.40 6.02 11.21 21.56 31.91 52.54
0 0.3 3.33 6.65 13.23 19.80 32.99 0.4 – 5.09 10.21 15.33 25.63
1 4.20 8.05 15.72 23.38 38.74 – 6.23 12.34 18.46 30.67
2 4.39 8.46 16.56 24.65 40.86 – 6.28 12.45 18.61 30.94
4 4.39 8.46 16.56 24.65 40.86 – 6.28 12.45 18.61 30.94
30 0 0.1 12.84 22.38 41.22 59.73 96.67 0.2 9.28 16.85 31.70 46.60 76.23
1 15.99 26.52 44.84 67.37 107.90 11.76 20.27 36.87 53.61 86.63
2 18.61 29.97 52.08 73.90 117.64 13.64 22.99 41.29 59.28 95.75
4 20.45 33.63 59.28 84.32 134.09 14.59 24.95 45.75 65.94 106.41
6 20.45 33.63 59.28 84.32 136.23 14.59 24.95 45.75 65.94 106.41
0 0.3 6.63 12.50 24.03 35.64 58.78 0.4 4.68 9.15 17.99 26.79 44.53
1 8.51 15.23 28.53 41.74 68.05 6.12 11.36 21.83 32.16 52.98
2 9.86 17.34 32.13 46.78 76.03 6.94 12.83 24.48 36.12 59.15
4 10.15 18.22 34.04 49.71 81.24 6.94 12.83 24.48 36.60 60.25
6 10.15 18.17 34.04 49.71 81.24 6.94 12.83 24.48 36.60 60.25
40 0 0.1 37.17 59.17 99.07 138.99 219.80 0.2 24.78 41.13 72.82 103.86 160.67
1 46.38 69.90 113.98 158.37 244.91 31.66 49.75 84.63 118.83 186.64
2 54.68 79.73 125.97 173.56 266.82 37.66 57.12 94.74 131.66 205.05
4 67.00 95.56 146.99 200.25 304.41 45.47 68.85 112.19 153.81 237.17
6 69.86 104.03 165.11 223.11 335.12 47.07 73.06 122.05 168.80 260.89
8 69.86 105.43 169.99 234.56 355.85 47.07 73.06 122.05 172.41 268.99
10 69.86 105.43 169.99 234.56 363.08 47.07 73.06 122.05 172.41 268.99
0 0.3 16.53 28.28 51.68 75.26 122.18 0.4 10.83 19.88 36.60 54.33 88.48
1 21.55 35.01 61.54 87.97 140.10 14.55 24.69 44.78 64.61 103.94
2 25.65 40.69 69.82 98.75 156.05 17.41 28.64 51.24 73.40 117.28
4 30.68 48.72 82.68 115.86 181.63 20.07 33.64 59.71 85.43 136.76
6 31.04 49.95 86.99 122.95 195.19 20.07 33.91 60.96 87.93 136.76
8 31.04 49.95 87.28 123.94 196.86 20.07 33.91 60.96 87.93 136.76
10 31.04 50.50 87.78 123.94 196.86 20.07 33.91 60.96 87.93 136.76

4
R. Zhang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221

Table 2
Results of the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB for the cases with β ¼ 30� and H/B ¼ 5.
φ L/B kh c/γB 1 2 3 5 kh c/γB 1 2 3 5

0.5 0.5

10 0 0.1 – 5.02 10.27 15.50 25.98 0.2 – 4.16 8.58 12.97 21.76
1 – 6.46 12.94 19.38 32.20 – 5.08 11.07 16.64 27.76
2 – 7.39 14.78 21.99 36.45 – 5.06 12.00 17.94 29.85
4 – 7.55 14.79 22.04 36.52 – 5.38 12.00 17.94 29.85
6 – 7.55 14.79 22.04 36.52 – 6.05 12.00 17.94 29.85
0 0.3 – – 7.05 10.65 17.88 0.4 – – 5.77 8.73 14.64
1 – – 9.31 14.02 23.40 – – 7.37 11.07 18.48
2 – – 9.43 14.14 23.57 – – 7.38 11.07 18.48
4 – – 9.43 14.14 23.57 – – 7.38 11.07 18.48
20 0 0.1 3.99 8.02 16.03 24.02 40.00 0.2 2.67 6.45 13.03 19.60 32.78
1 5.38 10.65 20.48 30.26 49.66 2.68 8.67 17.06 25.40 42.02
2 6.30 12.90 24.17 35.28 57.48 3.02 10.49 20.20 29.80 49.02
4 8.05 14.50 27.30 39.98 65.49 4.28 11.23 21.60 31.93 52.60
6 8.05 14.50 27.30 39.98 65.49 5.78 11.23 21.60 31.93 52.60
0 0.3 – 5.10 10.41 15.70 26.29 0.4 – 4.04 8.26 12.50 20.89
1 – 6.99 14.02 20.97 34.87 – 5.45 11.44 17.18 28.65
2 – 8.32 16.50 24.54 40.63 – 5.45 12.45 18.60 30.93
4 – 8.46 16.56 24.66 40.82 – 5.77 12.45 18.60 30.93
6 – 8.46 16.56 24.66 40.82 – 6.17 12.45 18.60 30.93
30 0 0.1 7.76 14.53 27.87 41.27 67.92 0.2 5.68 11.10 21.93 32.60 54.03
1 11.25 19.60 35.76 51.78 84.10 8.27 15.22 28.73 42.11 68.74
2 14.73 24.28 42.75 61.13 97.66 10.61 18.94 34.56 50.02 80.92
4 20.10 32.43 55.09 77.23 121.19 14.43 24.77 44.46 63.49 101.06
6 20.38 33.61 59.75 85.25 136.17 14.53 24.98 45.58 66.10 106.61
8 20.38 33.61 59.75 85.25 136.17 14.53 24.98 45.58 66.10 106.61
0 0.3 4.14 8.43 16.88 25.34 42.10 0.4 – 6.38 12.86 19.54 32.52
1 5.59 11.78 22.76 33.71 55.55 – 9.07 18.02 26.79 44.42
2 6.55 14.64 27.64 40.49 65.99 – 11.35 22.01 32.53 53.45
4 9.25 18.15 33.98 49.56 80.66 – 12.96 24.87 36.62 60.27
6 10.14 18.15 33.98 49.56 80.66 – 12.96 24.87 36.62 60.27
8 10.14 18.15 33.98 49.56 80.66 – 12.96 24.87 36.62 60.27
40 0 0.1 18.30 31.39 56.94 82.69 133.11 0.2 12.50 22.62 42.20 62.26 98.69
1 27.69 43.29 73.26 103.50 163.50 19.05 31.65 56.54 80.51 128.76
2 36.63 54.40 89.02 123.30 190.43 25.47 40.07 68.15 96.22 151.23
4 53.92 75.56 117.92 158.61 239.38 38.21 56.31 91.18 125.16 192.34
6 67.58 94.78 144.92 191.86 284.64 46.20 69.87 112.18 151.51 229.68
8 69.12 104.02 165.44 221.69 327.54 47.30 73.01 123.02 170.52 258.45
10 69.12 104.02 165.44 233.45 339.43 47.30 73.01 123.02 170.52 269.31
0 0.3 8.44 16.09 31.02 45.89 75.43 0.4 5.70 11.38 22.44 33.47 56.03
1 12.95 22.97 42.44 61.24 99.08 8.83 16.61 31.89 46.47 75.88
2 17.15 29.07 51.95 74.06 117.75 11.36 21.26 39.29 56.91 91.87
4 25.73 41.01 69.67 97.32 152.05 16.60 29.82 52.91 75.26 119.51
6 30.90 49.49 83.69 117.16 181.24 19.98 33.97 57.40 86.67 138.18
8 30.98 50.25 87.62 123.20 196.10 19.98 33.97 57.40 87.37 140.30
10 30.98 50.25 87.62 123.20 196.10 19.98 33.97 57.40 87.37 140.30

introduced in section 2 on the seismic bearing capacity of strip footings been presented in Tables 1–3 for simplicity.
placed near c-φ soil slopes will be investigated and discussed in a more
detailed way. 5.2. Effect of the dimensionless strength ratio (c/γB)

5.1. Effect of the normalized slope height (H/B) The variation of the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB
with respect to c/γB is plotted in Fig. 8 for different combinations of kh
and L/B and with the specified values of H/B ¼ 5, φ ¼ 30 and β ¼ 30 .
� �

As mentioned above, the results presented in Tables 1–3 Table 1, 2

and 3have been calculated with a fixed value of H/B ¼ 5. However, the
parameter H/B may play an important role in the footing-slope bearing
system, hence, it is worthy of discussing first. Fig. 7 illustrate the effects
of H/B on the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB. It can be
seen from Fig. 7 that the value of p/γB decreases as the value of H/B
increases. This variation tendency continues until a critical value Hcr/B
is reached, beyond which the seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB will
be unaffected by the normalized slope height H/B. This phenomenon
can be attributed to the fact that the slip surface will no longer pass
through or extend below the toe of the slope, when H/B is greater than
Hcr/B. Generally speaking, the normalized slope height H/B has a
negligible effect on the seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB, when the
value of H/B is greater than 5, except for a few cases with large value of
kh and low value of c/γB, as shown in Fig. 7(c). Based on above obser­
vations, only the results calculated with a fixed value of H/B ¼ 5 have
For all the cases shown in Fig. 8, it can be observed that the value of p/γB
increases linearly as the value of c/γB increases, which implies that the
normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB is totally scalable with
respect to the parameter c/γB. Note that, no points are plotted in Fig. 8
(a) and (b) for the cases with kh ¼ 0.4 and c/γB ¼ 0.5, since no feasible
solutions can be obtained in these cases due to overall slope failures.
5.3. Effect of the seismic acceleration coefficient (kh)
The variation of the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB
with respect to kh is plotted in Fig. 9 for different combinations of β and φ
and with the specified values of H/B ¼ 5, L/B ¼ 0 and c/γB ¼ 5. It can be
observed from Fig. 9 that the magnitude of p/γB decreases almost line­
arly as the value of kh increases, when the value of φ is small. However,
for the cases with a high value of φ (e.g. φ ¼ 40 ), nonlinear relationships
�

5
R. Zhang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221

Table 3
Results of the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB for the cases with β ¼ 45� and H/B ¼ 5.
φ L/B kh c/γB 1 2 3 5 kh c/γB 1 2 3 5

0.5 0.5

10 0 0.1 – 3.92 8.32 12.71 21.43 0.2 – 3.07 7.06 10.75 18.31
1 – 4.24 11.36 17.28 28.99 – 2.89 9.86 15.03 25.35
2 – 4.40 13.54 20.50 34.27 – 2.67 11.78 17.89 29.84
4 – 5.46 14.81 22.04 36.56 – 2.92 12.01 17.96 29.88
6 – 6.92 14.81 22.08 36.54 – 3.68 12.01 17.96 29.84
8 – 7.56 14.81 22.08 36.54 – 4.60 12.01 17.96 29.88
0 0.3 – 0.00 5.90 9.00 15.17 0.4 – – 4.95 7.52 12.66
1 – 0.00 8.47 12.95 21.83 – – 7.23 10.99 18.42
2 – 0.00 9.44 14.15 23.60 – – 7.38 11.07 18.50
4 – 0.00 9.44 14.15 23.60 – – 7.38 11.07 18.50
6 – 0.00 9.44 14.15 23.60 – – 7.38 11.07 18.50
20 0 0.1 1.39 5.76 12.01 18.26 30.63 0.2 – 4.70 9.92 15.05 25.38
1 1.38 7.82 16.77 25.19 41.98 – 6.05 14.14 21.42 35.91
2 1.86 9.12 20.57 30.65 50.74 – 6.72 17.39 26.27 43.77
4 3.82 12.37 26.69 39.59 64.67 – 8.80 21.60 31.99 52.60
6 6.43 14.56 27.38 40.06 65.46 – 11.07 21.60 31.99 52.60
8 7.48 14.56 27.53 40.06 65.53 – 11.07 21.60 31.99 52.60
10 8.11 14.56 27.53 40.06 65.53 – 11.07 21.60 31.99 52.60
0 0.3 – 3.83 8.06 12.28 20.72 0.4 – 2.91 6.58 10.00 16.88
1 – 4.39 11.85 18.05 30.48 – 2.76 9.90 15.14 25.53
2 – 4.51 14.61 22.31 37.36 – 2.49 12.19 18.54 30.73
4 – 5.55 16.55 24.66 40.87 – 2.60 12.46 18.54 30.98
6 – 7.18 16.55 24.66 40.87 – 3.35 12.46 18.54 30.98
8 – 8.18 16.55 24.66 40.87 – 4.40 12.46 18.54 30.98
30 0 0.1 4.18 9.24 18.71 28.36 47.10 0.2 2.70 7.19 14.96 22.61 37.95
1 5.63 13.26 26.39 39.26 64.78 3.20 10.34 21.56 32.23 53.64
2 7.75 16.78 33.18 48.55 79.18 4.30 12.68 26.95 40.23 66.28
4 13.47 24.60 45.39 65.23 103.78 7.81 18.27 36.61 53.86 87.63
6 19.60 32.85 57.02 80.55 126.04 12.39 24.16 45.00 65.15 104.94
8 20.41 33.78 59.69 85.57 137.43 14.61 24.92 45.83 66.11 107.05
10 20.41 33.68 59.61 85.57 137.43 14.61 25.21 45.83 66.11 107.05
0 0.3 1.24 5.60 11.77 17.87 30.05 0.4 – 4.38 9.18 14.11 23.71
1 1.11 7.85 17.47 26.43 44.17 – 5.70 14.08 21.51 36.20
2 1.45 9.22 21.93 33.06 55.04 – 6.37 17.53 27.25 45.58
4 3.29 12.83 29.23 44.31 73.30 – 8.55 23.19 35.75 59.55
6 6.23 17.26 34.01 49.72 81.33 – 11.54 23.77 36.74 60.42
8 9.47 18.12 34.01 49.72 81.41 – 12.93 23.77 36.74 60.42
10 9.47 18.12 34.01 49.72 81.41 – 12.93 23.77 36.74 60.42
40 0 0.1 8.61 16.82 33.00 48.99 80.60 0.2 5.87 12.29 24.76 37.22 61.96
1 13.79 25.18 46.51 67.57 109.88 8.88 18.49 34.69 53.12 87.64
2 20.27 33.75 59.91 85.25 135.80 12.86 24.42 45.97 67.16 108.41
4 35.80 53.37 87.94 119.14 183.39 23.56 38.56 66.85 93.93 147.72
6 53.33 74.82 114.94 153.57 229.20 35.75 54.15 87.73 120.40 185.68
8 68.21 95.08 143.42 186.88 275.69 46.38 69.15 109.00 147.10 221.63
10 70.29 105.34 166.45 219.40 321.53 47.51 74.10 122.99 168.41 256.08
0 0.3 3.93 9.01 18.54 28.17 46.95 0.4 2.38 6.65 13.98 21.19 35.56
1 5.31 13.51 27.78 41.58 68.96 2.65 10.00 21.46 32.45 54.08
2 7.57 17.50 35.62 52.77 86.64 3.72 12.40 27.50 41.45 69.30
4 14.27 27.09 50.71 73.91 118.65 7.54 18.55 38.60 57.80 95.08
6 22.62 38.21 66.62 94.18 148.18 12.88 26.05 50.56 73.00 118.84
8 30.31 48.62 82.22 114.14 176.20 18.65 33.56 59.86 86.13 136.91
10 31.07 50.12 86.91 124.12 196.42 20.09 33.78 60.60 87.14 140.42

can be observed between the factor p/γB and the parameters kh, or, in
other words, the gradient of curves decreases as the value of kh increases.
5.4. Effect of the footing distance to the crest (L/B)
continuously as the value of L/B increases, indicating that larger values
of L/B are required before the critical value Lcr/B can be reached.
Combining the observations made in Fig. 10 (a) and (b), it is easy to
conclude that the magnitude of the critical value Lcr/B decreases with an
increasing value of kh, while increases with an increasing value of β.

Fig. 10 illustrates the variation of the normalized seismic bearing 5.5. Effect of the friction angle of soil (φ)
capacity factor p/γB with respect to L/B for different combinations of kh
and β and with the specified values of H/B ¼ 5, c/γB ¼ 5 and φ ¼ 40 . For Fig. 11 shows the variation of the normalized seismic bearing ca­
�

the cases with β ¼ 15 as shown in Fig. 10 (a), the factor p/γB increases as pacity factor p/γB with respect to φ for different combinations of kh and β
�

the value of L/B increases. This variation tendency continues until a
critical value Lcr/B is reached, beyond which the normalized distance of
footing to slope crest L/B no longer affects the value of the factor p/γB.
As shown in Fig. 10 (a), the maximum values of p/γB, i.e., 139, 197, 269
and 363 can be reached at L/B ¼ 4 for kh ¼ 0.4, L/B ¼ 6 for kh ¼ 0.3, L/B
¼ 8 for kh ¼ 0.2, and L/B ¼ 10 for kh ¼ 0.1, respectively. However, for
the cases with β ¼ 45 as shown in Fig. 10(b), the value of p/γB increases
�
and with the specified values of H/B ¼ 5, L/B ¼ 1 and c/γB ¼ 5. From
Fig. 11 (a) and (b), it can be easily seen that the value of p/γB increases
as the magnitude of φ increases, which is an obvious fact. However, the
variation rate of p/γB with respect to φ is found to be higher for lower
values of kh.

6
R. Zhang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221

Fig. 7. The variation of p/γB with respect to H/B: (a) kh ¼ 0.1, L/B ¼ 0, c/γB ¼ 1; (b) kh ¼ 0.1, L/B ¼ 0, c/γB ¼ 5; (c) kh ¼ 0.3 L/B ¼ 2, c/γB ¼ 1; and (d) kh ¼ 0.3, L/B
¼ 2, c/γB ¼ 5.

Fig. 8. The variation of p/γB with respect to c/γB for the cases with H/B ¼ 5, β ¼ 30 and φ ¼ 30 : (a) L/B ¼ 0; and (b) L/B ¼ 2.
� �

5.6. Effect of the slope angle (β) angle of φ ¼ 10 is assumed. However, for a larger internal friction angle
�

of φ ¼ 40 , the variation pattern of p/γB with respect to β becomes

�

Fig. 12 shows the variation of the normalized seismic bearing ca­ nonlinear, as shown in Fig. 12 (b).
pacity factor p/γB with respect to β for different combinations of φ and kh
and with the specified values of H/B ¼ 5, L/B ¼ 0 and c/γB ¼ 5. From 6. Failure mechanisms
Fig. 12 (a), it can be easily observed that the factor p/γB decreases
almost linearly as the value of β increases, when the internal friction In Fig. 13, power dissipations are plotted to illustrate the impacts of

7
R. Zhang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221

Fig. 9. The variation of p/γB with respect to kh for the cases with H/B ¼ 5, c/γB ¼ 5 and L/B ¼ 0: (a) β ¼ 15 ; and (b) β ¼ 45 .
� �

Fig. 10. The variation of p/γB with respect to L/B for the cases with H/B ¼ 5, c/γB ¼ 5 and φ ¼ 40 : (a) β ¼ 15 ; and (b) β ¼ 45 .
� � �

Fig. 11. The variation of p/γB with respect to φ for the cases with H/B ¼ 5, c/γB ¼ 5 and L/B ¼ 1: (a) β ¼ 15 ; and (b) β ¼ 45 .
� �

the parameters H/B and c/γB on the failure mechanism of the footing-
slope system. For comparison purpose, different combinations of H/B
and c/γB have been considered, while the other problem variables (kh, β,
φ and L/B) have been specified as constants, of which the adopted values
are depicted in the caption of the figure. From Fig. 13, it can be easily
seen that the shape of the failure mood remains almost unchanged for
different values of H/B, providing that the other problem variables are
fixed. However, for the cases with a small value of H/B (e.g., H/B ¼ 1),
the slip surface may pass through the toe of the slope, while for the cases
with larger values of H/B (e.g., H/B ¼ 3 and H/B ¼ 5), the slip surface
intersects the slope surface above the toe of the slope. This observation
can be used to explain the fact that, as the value of H/B increases
continuously, the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB will
eventually reach the maximum value at a certain point of H/B, which
has been discussed in section 5.1. From Fig. 13, it can also be seen that
the failure mood will be slightly altered as the value of c/γB increases
from 1 to 5. In particular, the exit point of the slip surface moves slightly
upwards along the inclined slope surface, which may be explained by
the fact that the influence of soil weight (gravity) on the failure mech­
anism weakens as the value of c/γB increases.
As before, plots of power dissipations are shown in Fig. 14 to illus­
trate the impacts of the parameters L/B and β on the failure mechanism
of the footing-slope system. Similarly, different combinations of these
two parameters have been considered, while the other problem

8
R. Zhang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221

Fig. 12. The variation of p/γB with respect to β for the cases with H/B ¼ 5, c/γB ¼ 5 and L/B ¼ 0: (a) φ ¼ 10 ; and (b) φ ¼ 40 .
� �

Fig. 13. Plots of power dissipations for the cases with kh ¼ 0.2, β ¼ 30 , φ ¼ 20 and L/B ¼ 2: (a) H/B ¼ 1, c/γB ¼ 1; (b) H/B ¼ 3, c/γB ¼ 1; (c) H/B ¼ 5, c/γB ¼ 1; (d)
� �

H/B ¼ 1, c/γB ¼ 5; (e) H/B ¼ 3, c/γB ¼ 5; (f) H/B ¼ 5, c/γB ¼ 5.

Fig. 14. Plots of power dissipations for the cases with kh ¼ 0.1, c/γB ¼ 1, φ ¼ 20 and H/B ¼ 5: (a) L/B ¼ 0, β ¼ 15 ; (b) L/B ¼ 2, β ¼ 15 ; (c) L/B ¼ 6, β ¼ 15 ; (d) L/B
� � � �

¼ 0, β ¼ 45 ; (e) L/B ¼ 2, β ¼ 45 ; (f) L/B ¼ 6, β ¼ 45 .

� � �

9
R. Zhang et al.
Fig. 15. Plots of power dissipations for the cases with L/B ¼ 1, c/γB ¼ 3, β ¼ 30 and H/B ¼ 5: (a) kh ¼ 0.1, φ ¼ 10 ; (b) kh ¼ 0.3, φ ¼ 10 ; (c) kh ¼ 0.4, φ ¼ 10 ; (d) kh
� �
¼ 0.1, φ ¼ 30 ; (e) kh ¼ 0.3, φ ¼ 30 ; (f) kh ¼ 0.4, φ ¼ 30 .
� � �
variables (kh, c/γB, φ and H/B) have been kept as constants, of which the
adopted values can be found in the caption of Fig. 14. It is first noted
that, when a small slope angle β (e.g., β ¼ 15 ) is assumed, the exit point
�
of the slip surface moves upwards along the inclined slope surface as the
value of L/B gradually increases. This variation trend continues, until
the exit point of the slip surface reaches the top surface of the slope.
After that, a unified failure mood of ‘lateral extrusion’ can be found, as
shown in Fig. 14(c). In contrast, when a large slope angle β (e.g., β ¼ 45 )
�
is assumed, a very different variation trend is observed, that is, as the
value of L/B gradually increases, the exit point of the slip surface first
moves downward along the inclined slope surface, until it passes
through the toe of the slope. In this case, a very large slip surface,
extending from the outer edge (relative to the slope) of the footing to the
toe of the slope may develop in the footing-slope system, However, when
the value of L/B is large enough, the failure mood will eventually reduce
to the case of lateral extrusion, as shown in Fig. 14 (c) and (f). In other
words, if the value of L/B is larger than a certain critical value Lcr/B, the
seismic bearing capacity of the footing will be unaffected by the slope,
which confirms the discussion given in section 5.4.
Finally, the impacts of the parameters kh and φ on the failure
mechanism of the footing-slope system are investigated using the plots
of power dissipations depicted in Fig. 15. Again, different combinations
of these two parameters have been considered, while the other problem
variables (L/B, c/γB, β and H/B) have been specified as constants, of
which the adopted values are shown in the caption of Fig. 15. From
Fig. 15, it can be easily seen that, as the parameter kh increases from 0.1
to 0.4, the slip surface (plastic zone) becomes more and more localized
below the footing, which explains the decrease of the seismic bearing
capacity of the footing, as shown in Fig. 9. In contrast, the slip surface
(plastic zone) developed in the soil mass enlarges substantially as the
internal friction angle φ increases, which has also been reflected in the
increase of the seismic bearing capacity of the footing, as shown in
Fig. 11.
7. Conclusions
Seismic bearing capacity of strip footings placed near c-φ soli slopes
has been investigated in this work based on FELA with mesh adapdation
technique. By conducting a series of UB- and LB-FELA simulations, the
normalized seismic bearing capacity factors p/γB have been calculated
and summarized in tables/charts for practitioner’ use. Also, detailed
parametric studies have been performed to investigate the effects of all
10
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221
� �
the defined problem variables on the normalized seismic bearing ca­
pacity factor p/γB and the failure mechanism of the footing-slope
bearing system. Based on the aforementioned research work, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) In general, the normalized slope height H/B has a negligible ef­
fect on the normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB, when
H/B is greater than 5, except for a few cases with large value of kh
and small value of c/γB.
(2) The normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/γB can be
affected by many factors. Generally speaking, the factor p/γB
increases with increasing values of c/γB, L/B and φ, while de­
creases with increasing values of kh and β. Besides, nonlinear
relationships can be found between the factor p/γB and the
defined problem variables, except for the parameter c/γB.
(3) The normalized distance of footing to slope crest L/B is an
important parameter for the footing-slope bearing system. As the
parameter L/B increases from 0 to the critical value Lcr/B, very
different failure moods may occur. However, when L/B exceeds
the critical value Lcr/B, all failure moods reduce to the case of
lateral extrusion, indicating that the value of the factor p/γB will
no longer be affected by the parameter L/B.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Rui Zhang: Software, Writing - original draft. Yao Xiao: Method­
ology, Writing - review & editing. Minghua Zhao: Conceptualization.
Jianqing Jiang: Visualization, Investigation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of
Science and Technology Project of Hunan Provincial Department of
Education (Grant No. 158068), which made the work presented in this
paper possible.
R. Zhang et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 136 (2020) 106221

References [30] Chakraborty D, Mahesh Y. Seismic bearing capacity factors for strip footings on an
embankment by using lower-bound limit analysis. Int J GeoMech 2015;16(3):
06015008.
[1] Meyerhof GG. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on slopes. In: Proc., 4th
[31] Cinicioglu O, Erkli A. Seismic bearing capacity of surficial foundations on sloping
Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. 1; 1957. p. 384–6.
cohesive ground. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;111:53–64.
[2] Sokolovskii, V. V. Statics of granular media, Butterworth Scientific Publications,
[32] Zhou H, Zheng G, Yang X, et al. Ultimate seismic bearing capacities and failure
London.
mechanisms for strip footings placed adjacent to slopes. Can Geotech J 2018 [ja)].
[3] Hansen B. A general formula for bearing capacity. Danish Geotech Inst Bull 1961;
[33] Raj D, Singh Y, Shukla SK. Seismic bearing capacity of strip foundation embedded
11:38–46.
in c-φ soil slope. Int J GeoMech 2018;18(7):04018076.
[4] Azzouz AS, Baligh MM. Loaded areas on cohesive slopes. J Geotech Eng 1983;109
[34] Raj D, Singh Y, Kaynia AM. Behavior and critical failure modes of strip foundations
(5):724–9.
on slopes under seismic and structural loading. Int J GeoMech 2019;19(6):
[5] Narita K, Yamaguchi H. Bearing capacity analysis of foundations on slopes by use
04019047.
of log-spiral sliding surfaces. Soils Found 1990;30(3):144–52.
[35] Raj D, Singh Y, Kaynia AMV-H-. M seismic capacity envelopes of strip foundations
[6] Kusakabe O, Kimura T, Yamaguchi H. Bearing capacity of slopes under strip loads
on slopes for capacity design of structure-foundation system. Bull Earthq Eng 2019:
on the top surfaces. Soils Found 1981;21(4):29–40.
1–25.
[7] Graham J, Andrews M, Shields DH. Stress characteristics for shallow footings in
[36] Halder K, Chakraborty D, Dash SK. Seismic bearing capacity of a strip footing
cohesionless slopes. Can Geotech J 1988;25(2):238–49.
situated on soil slope using a non-associated flow rule in lower bound limit
[8] Castelli F, Motta E. Bearing capacity of strip footings near slopes. Geotech Geol Eng
analysis. Geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics V: numerical
2010;28(2):187–98.
modeling and soil structure interaction. Geotechnical Special Publication; 2018.
[9] Georgiadis K. An upper-bound solution for the undrained bearing capacity of strip
p. 454–63.
footings at the top of a slope. Geotechnique 2010;60(10):801.
[37] Lyamin AV, Krabbenhøft KK, Sloan SW. Interface modelling in computational limit
[10] Georgiadis K. Undrained bearing capacity of strip footings on slopes. J Geotech
analysis, recent developments and innovative applications in computational
Geoenviron Eng 2009;136(5):677–85.
nechanics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011pp321–330.
[11] Georgiadis K. The influence of load inclination on the undrained bearing capacity
[38] Kumar J, Kouzer KM. Effect of footing roughness on bearing capacity factor Ng.
of strip footings on slopes. Comput Geotech 2010;37(3):311–22.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;133(5):502–11.
[12] Shiau JS, Merifield RS, Lyamin AV, et al. Undrained stability of footings on slopes
[39] Kumar J. Nγ for rough strip footing using the method of characteristics. Can
[J]. Int J GeoMech 2011;11(5):381–90.
Geotech J 2003;40(40):669–74.
[13] Leshchinsky B. Bearing capacity of footings placed adjacent to c0 -φ0 slopes.
[40] Effect of footing-soil interface friction on bearing capacity factor Ng. Geotechnique
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2015;141(6):04015022.
2004;54(10):677–80.
[14] Leshchinsky B, Xie Y. Bearing capacity for spread footings placed near c0 -φ0 slopes.
[41] Kumar J. The variation of Nγ with footing roughness using the method of
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2016;143(1):06016020.
characteristics. Int J Numer Anal Methods GeoMech 2009;33(2):275–84.
[15] Zhou H, Zheng G, Yin X, et al. The bearing capacity and failure mechanism of a
[42] Sloan SW. Geotechnical stability analysis. Geotechnique 2013;63(7):531.
vertically loaded strip footing placed on the top of slopes. Comput Geotech 2018;
[43] Mohapatra D, Kumar J. Smoothed finite element approach for kinematic limit
94:12–21.
analysis of cohesive frictional materials. Eur J Mech Solid 2019;76:328–45.
[16] Xiao Y, Zhao MH, Zhang R, et al. Undrained bearing capacity of strip footings
[44] Wilson DW, Abbo AJ, Sloan SW, et al. Undrained stability of dual circular tunnels.
placed adjacent to two-layered slopes. Int J GeoMech 2019;19(8):06019014.
Int J GeoMech 2014;14(1):69–79.
[17] Krabbenhoft K. Static and seismic earth pressure coefficients for vertical walls with
[45] Zhang R, Xiao Y, Zhao M, et al. Stability of dual circular tunnels in a rock mass
horizontal backfill. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;104:403–7.
subjected to surcharge loading. Comput Geotech 2019;108:257–68.
[18] Shiau JS, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW. Application of pseudo-static limit analysis in
[46] Xiao Y, Zhao M, Zhang R, et al. Stability of two circular tunnels at different depths
geotechnical earthquake design. Proc., 6th European conf. On numerical methods
in cohesive-frictional soils subjected to surcharge loading. Comput Geotech 2019;
in geotechnical engineering. London: Taylor & Francis; 2006. p. 249–55.
112:23–34.
[19] Budhu M, Al-Karni A. Seismic bearing capacity of soils. Geotechnique 1993;43(1).
[47] Merifield RS, Sloan SW, Yu HS. Rigorous plasticity solutions for the bearing
[20] Kumar J, Ghosh P. Seismic bearing capacity for embedded footings on sloping
capacity of two-layered clays. Geotechnique 1999;49(4):471–90.
ground. Geotechnique 2006;56(2):133–40.
[48] Xiao Y, Zhao M, Zhao H, et al. Finite element limit analysis of the bearing capacity
[21] Choudhury D, Subba Rao KS. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings
of strip footing on a rock mass with voids. Int J GeoMech 2018;18(9):04018108.
embedded in slope. Int J GeoMech 2006;6(3):176–84.
[49] Krabbenhoft K, Lyamin AV, Hjiaj M, et al. A new discontinuous upper bound limit
[22] Dormieux L, Pecker A. Seismic bearing capacity of foundation on cohesionless soil.
analysis formulation. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2005;63(7):1069–88.
J Geotech Eng 1995;121(3):300–3.
[50] Lyamin AV, Krabbenhøft K, Abbo AJ, et al. General approach to modelling
[23] Askari F, Farzaneh O. Upper-bound solution for seismic bearing capacity of shallow
discontinuities in limit analysis. In: Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Int. Assoc. Computer
foundations near slopes. Geotechnique 2003;53(8):697–702.
Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG 2005), Torino. 1; 2005.
[24] Yamamoto K. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations near slopes using
p. 95–102.
the upper-bound method. Int J Geotech Eng 2010;4(2):255–67.
[51] Ciria H, Peraire J, Bonet J. Mesh adaptive computation of upper and lower bounds
[25] Farzaneh O, Mofidi J, Askari F. Seismic bearing capacity of strip footings near
in limit analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2008;75(8):899–944.
cohesive slopes using lower bound limit analysis. Paris: 18th International
[52] Munoz JJ, Bonet J, Huerta A, et al. Upper and lower bounds in limit analysis:
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering; 2013.
adaptive meshing strategies and discontinuous loading. Int J Numer Methods Eng
[26] Georgiadis K, Chrysouli E. Seismic bearing capacity of strip footings on clay slopes.
2009;77(4):471–501.
Proceedings of the 15th European conference on soil mech. and geotechnical eng:
[53] Herskovits J, Mappa P, Goulart E, et al. Mathematical programming models and
athens, Greece. 2011. p. 723–8.
algorithms for engineering design optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng
[27] Kumar J, Mohan Rao VBK. Seismic bearing capacity of foundations on slopes.
2005;194(30–33):3244–68.
Geotechnique 2003;53(3):347–61.
[54] Abbo AJ, Sloan SW. A smooth hyperbolic approximation to the Mohr-Coulomb
[28] Kumar J, Chakraborty D. Seismic bearing capacity of foundations on cohesionless
yield criterion. Comput Struct 1995;54(3):427–41.
slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2013;139(11):1986–93.
[55] Zhang R, Li L, Zhao L, et al. An adaptive remeshing procedure for discontinuous
[29] Chakraborty D, Kumar J. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow embedded
finite element limit analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 2018;116(5):287–307.
foundations on a sloping ground surface. Int J GeoMech 2014;15(1):04014035.
[56] Bishop AW. The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes.
Geotechnique 1955;5(1):7–17.

11