BEARING CAPACITY O F FOOTINGS

ADJACENT TO SLOPES
By Swami Saran, 1 V. K. Sud, 2 and S. C. Handa 3

ABSTRACT: In this paper, analytical solutions have been developed for obtaining
ultimate bearing capacity of footings adjacent to slopes using limit equilibrium and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

limit analysis approaches. One-sided rupture failure on the side of slope was as-
sumed and partial mobilization was considered on the side of flat ground. Results
have been presented in the form of nondimensional parameters Nc, Nq and Nr for
different values of <|), slope angle and distance of footing from slope edge. Ana-
lytical results were compared to carefully conducted model test data and the work
of previous investigators.

INTRODUCTION

Foundations are sometimes placed on slopes, adjacent to slopes, or near

a proposed excavation. Presently in the case of bridges, footings are usually
not placed within the fill; instead, pile or other foundations are considered.
These alterations may not be most economical.
Foundations are also sometimes situated near the open section of the un-
derground railways. In such a situation, the problem becomes that of ob-
taining the minimum value of the bearing capacity: (1) From foundation
failure; and (2) from overall stability of the slope. In case of noncohesive
soils, the bearing capacity is always governed by foundation failure, while
in cohesive material the bearing capacity of the foundation may be dictated
by the stability.
Earlier, this problem has been solved by using three different approaches,
namely: (1) Slip line analysis (Sokolovski 1960; Siva Reddy and Mogaliah
1975); (2) limit equilibrium analysis (Meyerhof 1957; Mizuno et al. 1960;
Siva Reddy and Mogliah 1976; Bowles 1977; Myslivec and Kysela 1978);
and (3) limit analysis (Chen 1975). Critical evaluation of these methods is
presented elsewhere (Sud 1984).
In this paper, an analytical solution is presented to obtain the bearing ca-
pacity of footings adjacent to slopes using limit equilibrium and limit anal-
ysis approaches. Results are presented in the form of nondimensional charts.

LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made in the analysis:
Footing is a shallow strip footing having rough base and the weight of
the soil above the base of the foundation is replaced by an equivalent uni-
form surcharge. This implies that the soil above the foundatigon base offers
no resistance.
'Prof. Civ. Engrg., Univ. of Roorkee, Roorkee-247 667 (U.P.), India.
2
3
Assoc. Prof., Civ. Engrg., Thapar Engrg. College, Patiala, Punjab, India.
Prof. & Coordinator, Q.I.P., Univ. of Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 1989. To extend the closing date one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The
manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Feb-
ruary 18, 1988. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
115, No. 4, April, 1989. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/89/0004-0553/$1.00 + $.15
per page. Paper No. 23414.

553

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 Qu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. Rupture Surface Assumed in Limit Equilibrium and Limit Analysis Ap-
proaches

One-sided failure is assumed to occur along surface, DEI (Fig. 1). The
failure region is divided into two zones. Zone I represents an elastic region
and Zone II a combination of radial and passive shear bounded by a loga-
rithmic spiral EK. The center of the logarithmic spiral is assumed to lie on
AE or its extension, instead of taking it along KA, as in Terzaghi's analysis
(Terzaghi 1943). Since the logarithmic spiral makes an angle of (90° + <j>)
with the radius vector AE and the wedge angle DAE is equal to (j> if the
logarithmic spiral is tangential to the vertical at E, the center of logarithmic
spiral must lie on AE or its extension (Saran 1969, 1970).
The soil on the side of flat ground, right of point E in Fig. 1, is partially
mobilized. This is characterized by a mobilization factor m. Shear resistance
of soil is then expressed as
T = m(c + cr tan (j>) (1)
To compute the partial resistance offered by this side, a rupture surface
shown in dotted lines is considered. The wedge angle ADE is 4>,„ and the
curved portion EF is a logarithmic spiral with its center on ED or its ex-
tension.
Method of superposition holds good.
Analytical Solution
The following steps have been performed to obtain an ultimate bearing
capacity:
Geometry of the failure wedge in Fig. 1 has been expressed in terms of
footing width B, angle of internal friction <j>, log spiral angle 0, wedge angles
<>
j and 4>m, slope angle fJ and distance of the footing from slope edge De.
Bearing capacity expression is then developed by considering the equilib-
rium of elastic wedge ADE. The forces acting on the wedge include earth
pressure on the sides AE and DE, vertical load and cohesion Ca on side AE
and C'a on side DE (Fig. 2).
Total earth pressure is obtained as the summation of the earth pressures
computed separately for three cases, namely: (1) The friction of the material
possessing weight and carrying no surcharge (c = q = 0); (2) the friction
of a weightless material upon addition of a surcharge q on the ground surface
(c = r = 0); and (3) the cohesion and friction of a weightless material car-
rying no surcharge (q = r = 0).
Expressions for passive earth pressures on the side AE are developed by
554

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 T" *<
£i
-r-- D
i!_N _ js/'-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 2. Forces on Elastic Wedge ADE

considering the equilibrium of the soil mass AEKJ in Fig. 3.

Expressions for mobilized earth pressures on the side DE are developed
by considering the equilibrium of the soil mass DEFN in Fig. 4.
The mobilization factor m is obtained by plotting Pp/Ppm versus different
values of m. Two curves of Pp/Ppm versus m are obtained, one from the

PC
h^H
Wg
<ST^ A pp q

FIG. 3. Forces on Soil Mass AEU

FIG. 4. Forces on Soil Mass DNFE

555

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 equilibrium equations of the soil wedge ADE and second from the equilib-
rium equations of the soil masses AEIJ and DEFN. The point of intersection
of the two curves gives the value of m.
The ultimate bearing capacity is then obtained satisfying all the three con-
ditions of equilibrium.
It may be noted that the last three steps were carried out for three cases
(as mentioned in the second paragraph) separately.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Expressions for Bearing Capacity

At failure the forces acting on the wedge ADE are shown in Fig. 2.
Neglecting the weight of the soil wedge ADE and considering the equi-
librium of the footing, we get
Qu = Pp + Ppm + Ca sin <>
| + Ca sin <)>,„ (2)
where
c • B sin d>m
Ca = c-AE = — (3)
sin (§ + <>|J
m • c-B sin A
C'a = c'DE = m-c-DE = (4)
sin (<>
| + <)>m)
therefore
(1 + m)cB sin 6m sin <f>
G. = PP + Ppm + - . ,.4_^" " (5)
sin (<j> + 4>m)
The passive earth pressure Pp can be divided into three parts, Ppr, Ppq, and
Ppc. The force Ppr represents the resistance due to the weight of the soil mass
AEKJ. The point of application of Ppr is located at the lower third of AE.
The forces Ppq and Ppc represent the resistance due to, surcharge and cohe-
sion, respectively. Since both pressure Ppq and Ppc are uniformly distributed,
their point of application is located at the mid point of the contact face AE.
Similarly, earth pressure Ppm at partial mobilization m can be divided into
three parts Ppmr, Ppmq and Ppmc representing the forces due to weight, sur-
charge and cohesion, respectively of the soil mass considered, DEPG.
The value of the bearing capacity now may be calculated by replacing Pp
and Ppm in Eq. 5 by (Ppr + Ppq + Ppc) and (Ppmr + Ppmq + Ppmc), respectively.
Therefore
(1 + m)cB sin <bm sin <t>
Q„ = (Ppr + Ppq + Ppc) + (Ppmr + Ppmq + Ppmc) + . ,. , T , (6)
sin (<(> + 4>m)
The surcharge intensity, q, on the side of the slope has been expressed as

De rDt tan p + - rDJ

q= (7)
De tan (3 + D{
The surcharge intensity q' on the side of level ground can be expressed
as
q' = rDf (8)

556

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 By introducing the following symbols:
2 r
Nr = -^-^- (9 )

rB
P +P
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N = £J^I_L= (10)
q
rDfB
PDC + Pome (1 + m) sin cf> sin d>m
^ = _pc pmc + V )_ V Ym ( n )

cB sin (cf> + 4>m)

Substituting in Eq. 9
£„ = s f - rBJVr + rDfNq + cNc) (12)

The quantities Nr, Nq, Nc are called the 'bearing capacity factors'; they are
dimensionless quantities that depend on 4>, (3 and De/B only.
Computation of Passive Earth Pressures Ppr, Ppq, and Ppc
For the determination of the passive pressures Ppr, Ppq, and Ppc forces
involved in the equilibrium of soil mass AEKJ are listed below:
1. Weight, W, of soil mass AEKJ.
2. Surcharge weight, Wq, acting on AJ.
3. Cohesive forces C and Ca.
4. Passive earth pressures Ppr, Ppq, and Ppc.
5. Resultant, F, of the normal and frictional forces.
The passive earth pressure Ppr, Ppq and Ppc are determined by taking the
moments of all the forces about the center, O, of the logarithmic spiral.
Computation of Passive Earth Pressures Ppmr, Ppmq, Ppmc
For the determination of the passive pressures Ppmr, Ppmq, and Ppmc, the
equilibrium of soil mass DEFN (Fig. 4) is considered. The weight of the
soil mass NFG, surcharge on NG and cohesion along FG are equivalent to
the lateral earth pressure against NF. The forces acting on the wedge DEFN
are shown in Fig. 4.
The passive earth pressures Ppmr, Ppmq, and Ppmc are determined by taking
the moment of all the forces about the center of the logarithmic spiral 'CV'
The solutions of Ppr, Ppq, Ppc, Ppmr, Ppmq, and Pmc thus obtained are used
in formulating bearing capacity factors defined in Eqs. 8, 9 and 10.
The ultimate bearing capacity obtained from the superposition of these
three solutions is smaller than the bearing capacity computed by considering
all the forces simultaneously. Lundgren and Mortenson (1953) showed that,
in a cohesionless soil with <>j = 30°, the difference between the exact value
and that by considering superposition is of the order of 17%. Saran (1969)
showed that the maximum difference in the ultimate bearing capacity for a
vertical load by the two methods is not more than 12.5%.

LIMIT ANALYSIS

Assumptions
The following assumptions have been made in limit analysis:
557

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 5. Coulomb Criterion and Mobilization Factor Definition

1. Soil mass is ideally plastic.

2. The failure mechanism is taken exactly the same as that adopted in the
limit equilibrium analysis.
3. Plane strain conditions with the intermediate principal component of plastic
strain e2 equal to zero.
4. Coulomb's yield criterion is valid.
5. The associated flow rule is observed.
6. Failure mechanism is kinematically admissible with no geometric changes
during plastic flow.
7. A constant degree of shear stress mobilization occurs throughout the failure
mechanism.
8. There is an unrestricted plastic flow on the side of the slope upon yielding.
On the other side of the slope, deformations are obtained using the associated
flow rule (Karal 1977). The vector, em in Fig. 5, is considered as the vector of
normal nominal plastic flow. Under equilibrium condition in c — <> j soils the
vectors €„, and e have different directions with respect to the tr - axis where
e is the normal plastic strain rate. This implies that the ratio im/rm depends on
m, rm being nominal plastic shear strain rate. The normal strain rate em becomes
less and so does the nominal volume expansion. The direct consequence of nom-
inal yield is that the development of nominal displacements and failure mech-
anism depends on m where
cm + <x tan (j>,„
m— (13)
c + <J tan 4>

Analysis of the Slope Side

The failure mechanism shown on the left side of Fig. 1, consists of a
triangular wedge, ADE, with base angle <f> and <j)m moving downwards as a
rigid body with the velocity of the footing Vp, a logarithmic spiral zone AEK
of central angle 8 and a rigid wedge AKJ. In this case the lines AE and DE
in addition to the lines EK and AK are the lines of velocity discontinuity.
The soil below the failure line EI remains at rest so that everywhere the
velocity along this line is inclined at an angle <f> to this line. The velocity
558

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 • r~~cu

Vp V
P Am Vr'
Vop

E/
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

v
o

(Q) Slope side (b)Side without slope

FIG. 6. Velocity Diagram

of the soil V0, just to the left of the discontinuity AE is perpendicular to AE

and its magnitude must be such that the change in velocity Vop across AE is
inclined at an angle d> to AE. Referring to the compatibility velocity diagram
shown in Fig. 6, at the velocity V0 will have the magnitudes:
Va = yp sec 4> (14)
V
Y
= (15)
op
The logarithmic spiral shear zone AEI is considered to be composed of a
sequence of rigid triangles as shown on the left side of Fig. 1. All the small
triangles and zone AIJ move as rigid bodies in the direction with an angle
<(> with the discontinuity lines EK and AK. The velocity of each small triangle
is determined by the condition that the relative velocity between the triangles
in contact must have the direction with an angle (j> to the contact surface.
In the logarithmic spiral zone AEK, the velocity increases exponentially to
the value.
V3 = V0ee,m* = Vp sec fye**"* (16)
Since AIJ zone translates as a rigid body, the zone has the velocity equal to
V3 perpendicular to the radial line AJ.
Bearing Capacity Equation
The bearing capacity equation in limit analysis is obtained by equating the
total rate of energy dissipated to the total rate of work done. The total rate
of energy dissipated (Fig. 1) equals the rate of energy dissipated along the
(line AE + radial shear zone AEK + spiral AE + line DE + radial shear
zone DEF + spiral EF + line FG), which equals

c-r0Vp- sin <f> + cVp • sec <>

| • rc
tan 4>
B • sin 4> sin 4>
+ c-Vp- sin <)>„, + c- Vp- sec <$>m-B
sin (<|> + <$>J sin (4> + 4>m)

e 2(135-+„/2)-an+„ _ j sin 4>

+ c • Vp • sec ()>,„ • B [Continued]
tan 4>,„ sin (c|> + ()>„,)
559

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 cjwz
sin 45 • cos (4>m) • ,2(135-<))„/2)-tan
e i>m

(17)
cos 180 +

Total rate of work done (Fig. 1) equals the rate of work done by the soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mass (ADE + AEK + AKJ + DEF + DFG) plus the rate of work done by
surcharge on (AJ + DJ) plus work done by the footing load, which equals
sin <)>m cos cj> • sin <b
quBV0 cos 4> rB'
sin (<(> + <)>„,)
1
- - V0R20 - 2
{e 3etan +[3 tan $ cos (6 + <$>) + sin (9 + <(>)]
2 (9 tan c|) + 1)
1 , sin (180 - 6 - 4>) sin 0
- 4 sin 4>} - r cos (180 — 6 — <f>) — A.J ' vy
.2 sin ((3 + 0 + 4> - 1 8 0 ) .
r
V'0Ri
rDf\De + — )V 0 e 6 , a n *cos (180 - 6 - <\>)
\ 2 tan p / (9 tan 2 cf>ra + 1)

3(135-<|> /2)tani|>
3 tan 4>m cos ( 135 + — I + sin I 135 + —

4 sin <]>m \ - rVM2e3(,35-W">^ sin ( 45 - — ) cos'Us - y

- 2rDfVl0R^U5~*m/2)t,'n*"' cos2 45
<k (18)

where
sin<j>m
R'0 = AE = B- (19)
sin (4> + <()m)
sin <j>
R'0 = DE=B (20)
sin (4> + (j>m)
V0 = Vp sec 4>m (21)
and

AJ = De + (22)
tan p
Equating the total rate of work done by the force on the foundation and the
soil weight in motion to the total rate of energy dissipation along the lines
of velocity discontinuity, the upper bound bearing capacity can be expressed
in the form of Eq. 12 with the following bearing capacity factors:

=
sin2<b„ sec 4> ,., ,
*' • /2 ^ ^ k " 2± , „ {e 3etan *[3 tan $ cos (9 + cf>) + sin (9 + <|>)]
sin ((() + ct>m)(9 tan^cj) + 1)

560

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 AJ\ sin (180 - 6 - <(>) sin (3
- 4 sin 4>} + cos (180 - 0 + cf>) sec 4>ee
B I sin (P + 8 + (f> - 180)
sin2cf> _ I J(135-i|>„/2)lani|.„
- j - s g c cb • ~~
" sin2(4> + <j>ra)(9 tan'ch,, + 1) L
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

[3 tan 4>ra cos ( 135 + — ) + sin ( 135 + — 4 sin <|)„

sin2c() sin I 145 - ^)

+ 2 sec cf>m e3<»5-*„/2).a„*m c o s 2 / 4 5 *«
2
sin (<)> + 4>m)
sin §m sin <)>
(23)
sin (<|> + 4>m)

/Z) e 1 £>, \
6tan,,>
TV, = ( —
B + -2 B
n /tan np ) sec (j)e cos (180 - 9 - 4>)

sin 4>
eHU5-*JZ)On*m CQS2 45 _ ^
+ 2 sec <J>m (24)
sin (c|) + <)>„,) V 2
and
2 sin <))m sin <)> sin ()>,
Af; = —— ; h sec § —
sin (()) + 4>m) sin (cf> + 4>m) tan cf>
2(135 - <(>„/2)tan«(>„ _ j
sin (()
+ sec <)),
sin (4> + (|>J tan <|)m

sin | 4 5 - — ) cos 4, me 2(135 -*» /2),an *»

sec <))m sin <))
(25)
sin (<|) + <()J ^m
cos 180 +

The value of average bearing capacity qu can be obtained if the logarithmic

spiral angle 8 and the mobilization factor m are known. From Fig. 1,

AK = AEe"tan * = B S1
"^ e
e,an
* (26)
sin (<(> + 4>m)
A / sin p
AI = • (27)
sin (P + 9 + <j> - 180)
From Eqs. 26 and 27, the value of 0 can be obtained by trial and error
method as the equation becomes transcendental.
The value of mobilization factor m has been taken from the limit equilib-
rium method.
The computations for N„ Ng, and Nc were done individually for the three
different cases, i.e., (1) c = 0, q = 0; (2) r = 0, c — 0; and (3) r = 0, q
= 0 for different values of p , De/B, Df/B, and c|>.

561

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 TABLE 1. Typical Values of m for 4> = 40°
For Nr Factor For Nq Factor For Nc Factor
DJB P m P DJB Df/B m P DJB m
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
0.0 30° 0.635 30° 1.0 0.0 0.565 30° 0.0 0.836
1.0 30° 0.805 30° 1.0 0.5 0.631 30° 1.0 0.903
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2.0 30° 0.908 30° 1.0 1.0 0.738 30° 2.0 0.950
3.0 30° 0.967 20° 0.0 0.5 0.599 70° 1.0 0.833
0.5 30° 0.733 20° 1.0 0.5 0.775 70° 2.0 0.968
0.5 20° 0.822 90° 1.0 0.753
0.5 10° 0.929 90° 2.0 0.932
0.5 5° 0.972

TESTS PERFORMED

Tests were performed in a sand box of 3 m long, 0.6 m wide and 0.9 m
high. Dry Ranipur sand (Dw = 0.15 mm, Cu = 1.73) at two relative den-
sities of 84% and 72% was used. The angles of shearing resistance of sand
at the two relative densities were obtained by performing drained triaxial
tests, and the corresponding values were 39° and 37.5° respectively. A box
type footing of 12 cm wide and 60 cm long was used and the tests were
conducted on three slope angles of 30°, 26.56°, and 20° and at seven dif-
ferent edge distances. Pressure-settlement characteristics of footing in each
test were obtained and failure pressure was then computed using intersection
tangent method. The details of tests are given elsewhere (Sud 1984).

INTERPRETATION

Mobilization Factor 'm'

As discussed earlier, the strength of soil on the side of level ground is
characterized by a mobilization factor m, and its value is obtained in the
section called analytical solution of limit equilibrium approach. Typical val-
ues of m are listed in Table 1 for three cases: (1) c = q = 0 (giving Nr
factor); (2) c = r = 0, i.e., giving Nq factor; and (3) q = r = 0, i.e., giving
Nc factor separately.
It is evident from the Table 1, that a similar trend of m is there in all the

TABLE 2. Comparison of Results Obtained from Limit Equilibrium and Limit

Analysis Approaches
<(> = 40°, p = 30°, DJB = 1
Limit Equilibrium Analysis Limit Analysis
DJB Nc Nr N, Nc
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
0.0 25.37 12.12 44.80 25,56 14.95 48.32
0.5 43.12 19.34 52.40 44,80 23.29 54.09
1.0 62,06 28.30 59.64 65.28 32.44 60.13

562

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 45
' ' •
' '
0
4 ____£.
40

y /
J- _jpl _X o°

35 ^ = 0.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

30 Jjt.„.o
25 -
20 •

15 •

10 -
5 -
0 , i , ,
\o°_ B_ 0__
?>^- ^ j £ - - ^ -
40 •*<?-

35 ^L-,.0 -

Of
30

25 •
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 •

0 i , ' i , i , ,
20 40 60 80 100 140 160 180
Nr

FIG. 7. Nr versus <>

| (Df/B = 0.0 and DJB = 0.0, 1.0)

TABLE 3. Results of Fig. 7 (DJB = 0.0)

-e-

0 40° 35° 30° 25° 20° 15° 10°

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) . (6) (7) (8)
30° 25.37 12.41 6.14 3.20 1.26 0.70 0.10
20° 53.48 24.54 11.62 5.61 4.27 1.79 0.45
10° 101.74 43.35 19.65 9.19 4.35 1.96 0.77
0° 165.39 66.59 28.89 13.12 6.05 2.74 1.14

563

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 TABLE 4. Results of Fig. 7 (DJB = 1.0)

-e-
p 40° 35° 30° 25° 20° 15°
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

30° 60.06 34.03 18.95 10.33 5.45 0.0

20° 85.98 42.49 21.93 11.42 5.89 1.35
10° 125.32 55.15 25.86 12.26 6.05 2.74
0° 165.39 66.59 28.89 13.12 6.05 2.74

451 I 1 1 1 1 1 r

01 1 1 i i i i 1 1 I
0 20 40 SO 80 100 120 140 160 180
Nr

FIG. 8. N, versus $ (Df/B = 1.0 and DJB = 0.0, 1.0)

564

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 three cases. Value of m increases with the increase in DjB, Df/B and de-
crease in p.

Comparison of Results Obtained by Limit Equilibrium and Limit

Analysis Approaches
Some typical values of N„ Nq, and Nc are given in Table 2, obtained by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the two proposed approaches.

TABLE 5. Results of Fig. 8 (DJB = 0.0)

4>
p 40° 35° 30°
(1) (2) (3) (4)
30° 91.87 49.43 26.39
25° 115.65 59.12 28.8
20° 143.77 66.00 28.89
<15° 165.39 66.59 28.89

TABLE 6. Results of Fig. 8 (DJB = 1.0)

-©-

p 40° 35° 30°

(1) (2) (3) (4)
30° 131.34 64.37 28.89
25° 151.37 66.59 28.89
£20° 166.39 66.59 28.89

FIG. 9. N, for Various Values of DJB (DJB = 0.0)

565

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 TABLE 7. Results of Fig. 9
cj)
DJB 40° 35° 30° 25° 20° 15° 10° 5° 0°
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
1.0 9.3 8.03 6.97 5.97 5.06 4.18 2.7 1.6 1.0
2.0 23.57 20.41 17.46 12.7 7.4 4.4 2.7 1.6 1.0
3.0 43.05 37.3 22.5 12.7 7.4 4.4 2.7 1.6 1.0
4.0 66.00 41.4 22.5 12.7 7.4 4.4 2.7 1.6 1.0

40 O 1
610° '
^
35

30
a.,.o '
25
egrees

20 - // -
15

10

5 -
0
, 0 0
40 o
&
"I
35
V
30

25

20
!
©•
15

10

0 I i '
20 40 50 60 80
N„

FIG. 10. iV, versus <>

j (Df/B = 1.0 and DJB = 0.0, 1.0)

566

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 TABLE 8. Results of Fig. 10 (DJB = 0.0)

-e-
p 40° 35° 30° 25° 20° 15°
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ,(7)
30° 12.13 16.42 8.98 7.04 5.0 3.6
20° 12.67 19.48 16.8 12.7 7.4 4.4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

£10° 81.3 41.4 22.5 12.7 7.4 4.4

It is evident from this table that the values of N„ Nq, and Nc factors ob-
tained by limit equilibrium and limit analysis are almost the same. Exactly
the same trend was observed for other set of parameters of §, p, Df/B, and
D./B.

Bearing Capacity Charts

Few typical charts of N„ Nq, and Nc are given in Figs. 7-12. Charts for
the complete range of parameters are given elsewhere (Sud 1984). All the
three bearing capacity factors follow similar trend and increase with the in-
crease in DjB and decrease with the increase in p and Df/B.
Table 14 shows the minimum edge distances at which N„ Nq, and Nc
factors become independent of slope.
It may be noted that the minimum value of De/B at which the presence
of slope does not affect, increases with the increase in <j>, (3 and Df/B.

Comparison of Nr Factor with Model Test Data

Fig. 13 shows the comparison between Nr values obtained from the pro-
posed method and model test results and the two values compare well. The
difference in angle of internal friction values in triaxial test and plain strain
conditions is accounted in making the comparison. Further, the value of cf>
was obtained at low confining pressures simulating model test conditions.

Comparison of Nr Factor with Previous Investigations

Table 15 shows the comparison between the Nr values obtained from the
proposed method and those obtained from other existing solutions. The table
shows that the values of Nr obtained by the present study are higher than
previous analytical investigations. The difference may be attributed to the
difference in the rupture surface, in the methodology used in estimating Nr

TABLE 9. Results of Fig. 10 (DJB = 1.0)

+
p 40° 35° 30°
(1) (2) (3) (4)
30° 28.31 24.18 22.5
20° 42.25 41.4 22.5
<10° 81.3 41.4 22.5

567

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 32
Ml 1 1 1 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 11. Nc versus <>

| (Df/B = 0.0 and DJB = 0.0,1.0)

TABLE 10. Results of Fig. 11 (DJB = 0.0)

-e-

p 40° 35° 30° 25° 20° 15° 10° 5° 0°

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
50° 21.68 16.52 12.6 10.0 8.60 7.1 5.5 4.76 3.8
40° 31.80 22.44 16.64 12.80 10.04 8.0 6.25 5.12 4.5
30° 44.8 28.72 22.0 16.20 12.20 8.6 6.7 6.06 5.0
20° 63.2 41.20 28.32 20.60 15.0 11.30 8.76 6.5 5.2
10° 88.96 55.36 36.50 24.72 17.36 12.61 9.44 7.25 5.4

568

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 TABLE 11. Results of Fig. 11 (DJB = 1.0)

-e-
p 40° 35° 30° 25° 20°
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

50° 38.8 30.4 24.20 19.7 16.42

40° 48.0 35.4 27.42 21.52 17.28
30° 59.64 41.96 30.92 23.6 17.36
20° 75.12 50.0 35.16 27.72 17.36
<10° 95.2 57.25 36.69 24.72 17.36

451 1 1 1 1 1 r

FIG. 12. Nc versus cb (Df/B = 1.0 and DJB = 0.0, 1.0)

569

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 TABLEJ2. Results of Fig.J2 (D,(B^ (M^
4>
p 40° 35° 30° 25° 20° 10°
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
50° 35.97 28.11 22.38 18.38 15.66 10.00
40° 51.16 22.75 17.32 12.16
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

37.95 29.42
30° 70.59 50.37 36.2 24.72 17.36 12.16
20° 93.79 57.2 36.2 24.72 17.36 12.16
£15° 95.2 57.2 36.2 24.72 17.36 12.16

TABLE 13. Results of Fig. 12 (DJB^ 1^0|

-e-
p 40° 35° 30° 25°
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
50° 53.65 42.47 35.00 24.72
40° 67.98 51.61 36.69 24.72
30° 85.38 27.25 36.69 24.72
<20° 95.2 27.25 36.69 24.72

TABLE 14. Minimum Edge Distance

For Nr Factor For Nq Factor For Nc Factor
Minimum Minimum Minimum
<t> P DJB P Dj/B DJB * P DJB
d) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
45° 30° 4.80 40° 30° 0.5 3.90 40° 30° 3.45
40° 30° 4.00 40° 30° 1.0 3.90 30° 30° 2.42
35° 30° 2.55 40° 20° 0.5 3.42 40° 70° 4.35
40° 20° 3.37 30° 20° 0.5 1.88 40° 60° 4.10
40° 15° 3.20 40° 50° 3.63

in its optimization. In case of Meherhof (1957), Chen (1975), and most of

the other methods, the passive earth pressures developed on both the sides
of triangular wedge have been considered equal, while in the present study
the pressures developed on the two sides are different, the higher value being
on the side without slope, as shown in Table 15. This is the main reason of
having higher values by proposed theory.
Further, Table 16 gives a comparison of bearing capacity values with those
of Siva Reddy et al. (1975) and Meyerhof (1957). The values obtained by
the present study are higher.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The ultimate bearing capacity has been obtained using limit equilibrium
and limit analysis approaches, considering one sided failure. The two approaches
570

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 1

Proposed
^ 5 t— o r ~ - o o < N O - * - * i o o

theory
V 1 o r i ! 1 I 1

(9)
3
«o^ "o N ^O "O « Ol \ 0 --H^Hcn
CO (£i
^P o CD
3 oi
o CO c
•—

Chen
\ ° > IX <n o O O

(8)
•D oi 1 in 1 1 1 1 O N 1
O m
-
£
CO
1

Reddy and
o so CO

Mogaliah
\ • •• J3
6

Shiva

13.76
33.60
5.01
X * O

(7)
I

and

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

o \ ®
\o •
O X. •o
\ o z" H
e x.
o
«>
3
I

Mizuno
Q.
° o\ CD
O O O O

(6)
o «®\ E
o
1 o
- o® > _>. J3
•o "5 s

Meyerhof
©
• X® 2 u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 - H < 0 0 0
o 3
% 1

(5)
CO Q. O O T j - i n o u - i i n r - O O
- e
o
co > N ^ tn in h M H n
U c a?
o a o
«\ "<S •s
o ©
I l£ 00

son
© N.
o o o q o o o o o v o
o o o o o - ^ o ' o o o
-
(B
Q.
£
o
1 S*
o
o o o o o o o o o o
o
i 1 1 1 o o o o o o o o o o
e> O O O O O O O O m i O
<*•§
J
N ^o anjDA paAJasqo
(5 -I o o o o o o o o o o
iE
8. "®"S O O O O O O O O O O
1-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
 TABLE 16. Comparison of Bearing Capacity Values with Those of Siva Reddy
et al. (1975) and Meyerhof (1957)

P Siva Reddy Meyerhof Present

(degrees) (degrees) DJB Df/B et al. (kPa) (kPa) study (kPa)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
30 30 1 1 _ 64.80 86.8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

30 15 0 0.681 53.80 48.00 62.0

30 15 0 0.308 32.16 27.71 38.7
30 30 0 0 8.16 5.05 9.5
40 20 0 1 - 203.80 268.9

give almost the same values. The results have been presented in the form of
nondimentional bearing capacity factors N„ Nq, andiVc, which depend on <)>, DJ
B, Df/B, and (3.
2. The minimum distance at which the bearing capacity factors become in-
dependent of slope increases with the increase in value of 4> for same slope angle.
3. Reasonably good agreement was observed with model test data.
4. Values predicted from present investigation are in most cases higher than
that of the values of previous investigations (Meyerhof 1957; Mizuno et al. 1960;
Chen 1975 and Siva Reddy & Mogaliah 1975).

APPENDIX I. REFERENCES

Bowles, E. J. (1977). Foundation analysis and design. McGraw Hill Kogakusha

Ltd., 131-133.
Chen, W. F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company.
Karal, K. (1977). "Application of energy method." Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 103(5),
381-397.
Karal, K. (1977). "Energy method for soil stability analysis." Geotech. Engrg., ASCE,
103(5), 431-445.
Lundgren, H., and Mortensen, K. (1953). "Determination by the theory of plasticity
of the bearing capacity of continuous footings on sand." Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engrg., 1, 409-412.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957). "The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on slopes."
Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engrg., I, 384-386.
Mizuno, Takaaki, Yoshiharu Tokumitsu, and Hiroshi Kawakami (1960). "On the
bearing capacity of a slope on cohesionless soils." Japanese Society of Soil Me-
chanics and Foundation Engrg., 1(2), Nov., 30-37.
Myslivec, A., and Kysela, Z. (1978). The bearing capacity of building foundations.
Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.
Saran, S. (1969). 'Bearing capacity of footings subjected to moments,' thesis pre-
sented to the University of Roorkee, India, at Roorkee, in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Saran, S. (1970). "Fundamental fallacy in analysis of bearing capacity of soil." J.
Inst, of Engrg., India, 50, 224-226.
Siva, Reddy, and Mogaliah, G. (1975). "Bearing capacity of shallow foundations
on slopes." Indian Geotech. J., 5(4), 237-253.
Siva, Reddy, and Mogaliah, G. (1976). "Stability of slopes under foundation load."
Indian Geotech. J., 6(2), 91-111.
Sokolovski, V. V. (I960). Statics of granular media. 2nd Ed., Butterworths Sci-
entific Publications, London.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretixal soil mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, N.Y.
Sud, V. K. (1984). "Behaviour of shallow foundations adjacent to slopes," thesis

572

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.

 presented to the University of Roorkee, India, at Roorkee, in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

APPENDIX !!, NOTATION

The following symbols are used in this paper:

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 02/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B = width of footings (cm, m);

C = cohesive force (kN);
C" = mobilized cohesive force (kN);
c = unit cohesion (kN/m 2 );
cm = mobilized cohesion (kN/m 2 );
De = distance of the edge of the foundation from the slope shoulder
(m);
Of = depth of foundation (m);
m = mobilization factor;
Nc = bearing capacity factor for cohesive part;
Nq = bearing capacity factor for surcharge part;
Nr = bearing capacity factor for weight part;
= passive pressure (N);
= passive pressure for cohesive part (N);
= passive pressure for surcharge part (N);
= passive pressure for weight part (N);
= mobilized passive pressure (N);
= mobilized passive pressure for cohesive part (N);
= mobilized passive pressure for surcharge part (N);
pmr = mobilized passive pressure for weight part (N);
Qu = ultimate total load;
q = load intensity (kPa);
= ultimate bearing pressure (kPa);
R = radius of log spiral (m);
Ro = initial radius of log spiral (m);
r = unit weight of soil (kN/m 3 );
rm = shear plastic strain rate (1/s);
V„ = velocity of soil in the transition zone at the point E (m/s);
= velocity of footing (m/s);
v = velocity across the line AE (m/s);
v
op = velocity of soil at the end of transition zone (m/s);
V3 = velocity of soil in the transition zone at point E on the side with-
V' out slope (m/s);
V'R = velocity across the line ED (m/s);
V'-i = velocity of soil at the end of log spiral on the side without slope
(m/s);
p = angle which the slope makes with the horizontal;
e = normal plastic strain rate (1/s);
e,„ = normal nominal plastic strain rate (1/s);
<)> = angle of internal friction;
4>m = mobilized angle of internal friction;
a = stress (kPa); and
0 = log spiral angle on the slope side.

573

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1989.115:553-573.