National Seminar on

Geotechnique Today: Prediction, Modeling and Construction

64

INTRODUCTION
The bearing capacity of the foundation is a primary concern in
the field of geotechnical engineering. There are two
considerations to decide the allowable bearing pressures for
shallow foundation; the safety factor against ultimate shear
failure must be adequate and the settlements under allowable
bearing pressures should not exceed tolerable value. In the past
decades, extensive studies have been made for two dimensional
problems of a strip footing resting on a horizontal or inclined
slope surface so that different methods of analysis are available.
Various authors have proposed different methods to determine
the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing when it is placed in
the vicinity of the slope. Meyerhof (1957) proposed a
generalized equation to determine the ultimate bearing capacity
of a footing when the footing is placed on the crest of the slope
or on the face of the slope. Both, purely cohesive soil and
cohesionless soils were considered. However, this theoretical
consideration was found to be conservative because of the
uncertainties in the design approach. Mizuno et al. (1960)
obtained the bearing capacity of a footing when it is placed on
the crest of a slope. The region beneath the footing was divided
in three regions; an active pressure wedge, a transition region
and a passive pressure region, the transition region being further
divided into smaller wedges. By applying the equilibrium
condition of these wedges, a chart was proposed to determine the
bearing capacity of a strip footing when it is placed on the crest
of the slope. However, this chart is not useful if the footing is
placed at some distance away from the crest of the slope or if the
footing is not a surface footing. Gemperline (1988) carried out
various centrifuge tests on a prototype soil model and, on the
basis of the results, the researcher proposed an equation to
determine the bearing capacity. However, this method was very
complicated and the tests were carried out for particular sand
having specific parameters. Thus, this equation cannot be
considered as a generalized one. Saran et al. (1989) presented
analytical solution to determine the bearing capacity of footing
adjacent to slopes using two different analytical approaches:
limit equilibrium and limit analysis. In the limit equilibrium
approach, the failure zone was divided into two regions, an
elastic region and a combination of radial and passive shear
zone. Superposition method was used to obtain the bearing
capacity factors. In the Limit analysis approach, the failure
mechanism was taken similar to that adopted in limit equilibrium
analysis. The bearing capacity in limit analysis is obtained by
equating the total rate of energy dissipated to the total rate of
work done. Considering the background study, a numerical
model was developed using SIGMA/W to obtain the bearing
capacity factor (N
q
) of a footing when it is placed in the vicinity
of a dry cohesionless sand slope. The efficacy of the developed
finite element (FE) model has been ascertained using the results
of experimental investigation done by Bauer et al (1981).
2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
The authors did not carry out experimental investigations for the
calibration of the developed FE model, and has referred to the
pertinent literatures for the same.
Shields et al. (1977) carried out various experiments to
determine the bearing capacity of a rigid and rough strip footing
when it is placed adjacent to a slope (2H:1V) of cohesionless
sand. The footing width was taken as 0.3m. Two series of tests
were done at two different densities of sand i.e. 14.85 kN/m
3
and
15.75 kN/m
3
. These were referred to as compact sand and dense
sand respectively. Tests were conducted at 12 locations in the
crest of the slope. On the basis of experimental results, contours
of bearing capacity factor were plotted.
Bauer et al. (1981) extended the experimental work of
Shields et al. (1977) by conducting the test on footing placed
within the slope as well. Moreover, the effect of load inclination
on the bearing capacity value was obtained through the
experiments. The tests were conducted for two different footing
widths (0.3m and 0.6m respectively). Slope of 2H: 1V was taken
and the tests were performed with sand deposited in dense state
and a density of 16.4 KN/m
3
. The test results were presented in
the form of bearing capacity factor. The bearing capacity factors
were plotted as contour map for various location of the footing.
3. SOFTWARE: GEOSTUDIO SIGMA/W
Sigma/W is a finite element module embedded in the software
package Geostudio 2007 (A product of Geo-Slope). It is
equipped with various analysis types such as in-situ analysis,
stress-redistribution, load-deformation, coupled stress/PWP
(pore-water pressure), volume change and dynamic deformation
analysis. The user can choose for the apt one according to the
necessity of the problem being analyzed. A wide range of
material models is also available such as linear elastic,
hyperbolic nonlinear elastic, anisotropic elastic, and elastic-
FOOTINGS ON UNREINFORCED SLOPES: NUMERICAL MODELLING
USING GEOSTUDIO
Anand A.
Under Postgraduate,Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam -781039
Acharyya R.
Research Scholar, Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam -781039
Dey A.
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam -781039
ABSTRACT: This paper reports the numerical finite element analysis to investigate the bearing capacity factor of a strip footing
located on a sand slope. The effect of setback distance and the depth of embedment of the footing on the bearing capacity factor (N
q
)
have been investigated. The model has been compared against the results of the experiments conducted by Bauer et al. (1981).
Qualitative agreement between the experimental and numerical results has been established, while quantitative disagreement has been
exclusively explained. The comparisons elucidate that the developed finite element model is satisfactory in its performance, although
more rigorous analysis has to be carried out in order to better comprehend the coupled load-deformation and stability mechanisms.
National Seminar on
Geotechnique Today: Prediction, Modeling and Construction

65

plastic models to name a few. Add-in special models are also
allowed to be inserted in the database as user-customized
models. Sigma/W is formulated for either 2-dimensional plane
strain or axi-symmetric problems using small displacement. The
working principle of Sigma/W is formulated for incremental
analysis. For each time step, incremental displacements are
calculated for the incremental applied load. These incremental
values are then added to the values from the previous time step.
The accumulated values are reported in the output file. Sigma/W
can model body forces applied in both the vertical and horizontal
directions. These forces are applied to all elements when they
become active initially. The body force in the vertical direction
is due to gravity on an element. Sigma/W offers many tools for
viewing the result. The deformed mesh or the displacement
vector at any magnification can be viewed. The result can also
be exported to MS Excel for further analysis.
The most common application of Sigma/W is to compute
deformations caused by earthworks such as foundations,
embankments, excavations and tunnels. Sigma/W uses an
incremental load formulation i.e. as a condition is step changed,
it computes the step changes in parameters such as strain and
pore-water pressure. The load deformation curve is created by
tallying all the Y-boundary forces at each of the nodes under the
footing with the Y-displacement being averaged for all the
nodes. From this load deformation curve, the ultimate load can
be determined.
However, Sigma/W has some inherent limitations. Sigma/W
is formulated only for small strain cases and not for post failure
deformation. Thus, Sigma/W is a very powerful tool for
investigating the serviceability of engineered soil system. It is
not a tool for predicting stability of the system.
4. NUMERICAL MODELLING
A numerical model was developed using SIGMA/W software
tool. A numerical model is a mathematical simulation to a real
physical problem. In SIGMA/W, the real physical process of
ground volume change in response to self or external loading can
be modelled.
The experiment done by Bauer et al. (1981) is modelled in
SIGMA/W. This model assumes that the angle of slope is
uniform in the longitudinal direction, and hence, a 2D plane-
strain model is developed to simulate the experimental condition
in the model. Bauer et al. (1981) had carried out the experiment
for a slope of 2H:1V corresponding to an angle of 26.6. The
same slope was modelled in the software. The slope was
assumed to rest on a non-yielding foundation extended to a
distance of 2.5 times the slope height from the toe of the slope.
The footing width was taken to be as 0.3m subjected to a vertical
loading.
In order to ensure proper comparison between the
experimental results and numerical findings, footings were
located at the various positions as investigated Bauer et al.
(1981) (Fig. 1).


Fig 1. Location of footings (Bauer et al., 1981)
4.1 Material Properties
The properties of the sand which is used in the present study for
the modelling is tabulated in the Table 1.

Table 1 Properties of sand
Properties Value
Youngs Modulus (E) 50,000 kPa
Poissons Ratio () 0.3
Angle of internal friction () 45
o

Dry density (
d
) 16.4 kN/m
3

Cohesion (c) 0 kPa
4.2 Meshing
The process of dividing a finite element numerical model into
smaller pieces is known as discretization or meshing. Geostudio
uses the concept of regions and points to define the geometry of
a problem and to facilitate the discretization of the problem.
Sigma/W is programmed for automatic and robust mesh
generation. In this default mesh, the global element size is
specified as 1.0m as shown in fig 1. The shape of the mesh
elements are chosen to be Quads and triangles.
Various density of mesh can be created in the model, ranging
from very coarse ones to very fine ones (the density of the mesh
being governed by the size of the mesh element). The default
global element size of the mesh is 1m. Although for some
problems this mesh size may be satisfactory, while for the
problem presented in the present article, this global element size
does not deem fit. Meshing is an intricate governing parameter in
obtaining convergent solutions. A very coarse mesh fails to
capture the intricate details of the system response, especially
when the dimension and the linear response magnitudes are less
than the element size. Similarly, a very fine mesh renders the
computation time to be very long and a memory guzzler. Hence,
a trade-off has to be done between the two in order to frame an
optimal mesh size to obtain a convergent solution.
For the present study, since the load-deformation response
beneath the foundation is of prime importance, a denser mesh
was generated in the soil zone directly beneath the footing.
When the footing is placed near the slope, the adjacent area of
the footing on the side of the slope is also refined further. The
area of such a refinement covers suitably the influence zone of
the loaded footing (Murthy, 2005). The local refinement as
described herein is comprised of elements of sizes less than 1m.
A typical mesh with global element size 1m and refined element
size 0.05m is shown in Fig. 2. Convergence study has been
carried out for local refinements and the results are presented
later. Quads and triangles mesh pattern is used for the present
study.

Fig 2. Finite Element Mesh in 2D model
4.3 Boundary Condition and Dimension
Various boundary conditions are available in Sigma/W. In a
stress-deformation model, it is critical to bound the problem i.e.
some parts of the geometry must be given as zero displacement
National Seminar on
Geotechnique Today: Prediction, Modeling and Construction

66

boundary condition; otherwise, the reaction forces cannot be
developed. In the present study, horizontal fixity was given to
the two vertical edges of the model. In the bottom edge of the
model, both vertical and horizontal fixity were applied as the
bottom is assumed to be non-yielding. The length of the bottom
edge of model was taken as 16.5m. The height of the slope crest
from the bottom was taken as 4m and the height of the toe of the
slope from bottom was 2m. Slope of 2H:1V was provided. The
two vertical edges were kept at a sufficient distance so that the
footing behavior is not affected due to the side edges. It is shown
in Figure 3.


Fig 3. Boundary condition and Dimension of the 2-D model
4.4 Loading Rate
A strain controlled loading was applied in increments. The strain
controlled loading was applied in such a manner so that with
each load step, the soil is pushed by a displacement of 0.001m
per second. This particular displacement rate conform the range
of deformation rate provided Huy et al. (2006) for dense sand.
The researchers had prescribed a limit of strain rates applied for
pile foundations as 0.0125 mm/s (referred as static loading rate)
and 600 mm/s (referred as rapid loading rate). The loading of the
foundation initiating settlement near to static case has been
considered for the present study and has been fixed to 1mm/sec.
4.5 Various positions of Footing
The analysis was carried out at various footing locations in the
present model as shown in the Figure 1. The notation of footing
positions is followed in the rest of the document. For example, a
footing placed at the right-hand side of the crest point of the
slope is denoted by a negative position such as -3B, while one
placed on the left-hand side of the zero-line is denoted by 3B.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Convergence study
The numerical analysis was carried out for various mesh element
size. By default, the global element size considered by Sigma/W
is 1m. The mesh was refined up to a ratio of 0.01 times the
global element size and the effect of the refinement was studied.
The convergence study was carried out at three different footing
locations at a particular depth (D
f
/B=2), the result of which is
depicted in Figure 4. It can be observed that at a mesh size
beyond 0.05 times the global element size, there is no significant
change in the estimated allowable load. Hence, an optimal mesh
size is chosen as 0.05m and is utilized for further analysis. The
details of the convergence study are tabulated in Table 2.
For the above mentioned mesh refinement scheme, load-
deformation curves were obtained at all the footing locations.
One such typical load settlement curve is shown in the Figure 5
for the surface footing placed at a distance of 3B away from the
slope. The nature of the curve as portrayed indicated a local
shear failure of the soil, and hence, a distinct failure point was
not obtained. In order to compare the obtained results with the
experimental investigation reported by earlier researchers, the
load corresponding to 10% of footing width was considered as
the safe load and has been used as the parameter of convergence.
The bearing capacity factor was calculated from the above
mentioned safe load.


Fig 4. Convergence study

Table 2: Convergence Study for a footing at an embedment
depth of 2B.

Footing
position (m)
Global
element size
(m)
Ratio element
edge length in
the influenced
zone of
footing
Load at 10%
footing width
(kN)


-3B


1
1
0.5
0.1
0.05
195.62
168.68
145.31
142.12


-0.5B


1

1
0.5
0.1
0.05
0.01
192.39
174.22
140.66
134.52
135.73


1B


1
1
0.5
0.1
0.05
0.01
192.58
172.17
140.45
134.17
136.55




Figure 5 Typical load deformation curve
National Seminar on
Geotechnique Today: Prediction, Modeling and Construction

67

5.2 Bearing Capacity Factor (N
q
)
For various footing locations, the N
q
value was obtained using
Meyerhofs expression (1957), as shown, and is enlisted in Table
3 as follows:
( ) / 0.5 N q B
q

= (1)
Figure 6 depicts the variation of the bearing capacity factor
(N
q
) with the setback distance (D
e
) and depth of embedment of
footing (D
f
) for both experimental and numerical investigations.
It can be seen that the trend of both the curve envelopes are same
showing the increment in the bearing capacity factor with the
increased setback distance and embedment depths. However, it
is to be noted that the magnitude of N
q
obtained from the
numerical analysis are lesser than that obtained from
experimental investigations, the reason of which is explained
later in Section 5.3.

Table 3: Estimated bearing capacity factor for various location of
the footing
D
e
4B 2.5B 1B -1B -3B -5B
D
f

0B Present 145.7 154.1 158.6
Bauer 120 165 180
1B Present 174.2 175.2 179.6 182.9
Bauer 120 160 215 225
2B Present 177.8 181.8 182.2 192.5 193.6
Bauer 120 180 220 300 320
3B Present 188.5 186.4 189.5 202.1 208.3
Bauer 140 190 290 - -



Figure 6(a) Variation in bearing capacity factor (N
q
) with
setback distance [Bauer et al. (1981)]




Figure 6(b) Variation in bearing capacity factor (N
q
) with
setback distance [Present study]
5.3 Critical discussion
This paper aims to establish a correlation between the bearing
capacity factor obtained from experiment investigations by
Bauer et al. (1981) and the same obtained through numerical
analysis using Sigma/W. There is, however, a major difference
in the computational procedure as compared to the experimental
investigations. When a footing is placed in the vicinity of a
slope, its bearing capacity is affected both by the loading rate as
well as the development of the slip surface during the loading
procedure. However, the present study carries out a load-
deformation analysis without considering the slope stability of
the system. Although this may be true for footings placed far
away from the slope face, but this technique definitely induces
ambiguity in the analysis of the system for the footings placed
near the slope face. Hence, an accurate comparison cannot be
conclusively carried out for such instances. This is evident form
the deformed mesh configurations of the two typical footings as
shown in Figure 7 (footing far away from the slope) and Figure 8
(footings placed in the vicinity of the slope face). Both the
figures portray the mesh deformation solely in the vertical
direction, which is not the real scenario for footings placed near
the slope, and in such case, the slope itself should show some
outward deformation and in turn, would contribute in the
reduction of the bearing capacity.


Fig 7. Deformed mesh for a footing placed away from slope face


Fig 8. Deformed mesh for a footing placed near to the slope

A critical study of the study reported by Bauer et al. (1981)
shows it to be somewhat obscure in completely reporting the
important and relevant parameters of the experimental
investigation. The researchers did not mention about the loading
rate. The angle of internal friction of the sand had been
considered as 45 (probably based on some presumptive
correlations between the relative density of the sand and the
angle of internal friction) which is, in general practice, possibly
not achievable for dense cohesionless soil. Moreover, the elastic
parameters of the sandy soil had not been mentioned in the
literature.
In absence of all these significant parameters necessary for
the numerical modeling, the present study was carried out on
certain assumed but reasonable values, which might be different
than that used in the actual experiment. Hence, this may lead to
the difference in the results when compared to experimentally
obtained magnitudes. However, it is to be understood that since
the trend of the numerical results are in agreement with the
experimental trend (as observed in Figure 6a and 6b), the
developed model is supportive enough to justify the
National Seminar on
Geotechnique Today: Prediction, Modeling and Construction

68

experimental results, and hence, verified. This model would be
used for further investigations in future.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Even with all the above mentioned assumptions and
uncertainties, a good correlation in the trend has been between
the bearing capacity factors obtained by the experimental results
and that by the numerical analysis. From the present study, it can
be concluded that as the footing is placed away from the slope,
the bearing capacity factor increases, which is quite obvious.
However, the variation obtained depicts a more linear tendency,
contrary to the non-linear variation of the bearing capacity factor
obtained by Bauer et al. (1981) through the experiments, which
may be attributed to the reasons stated earlier. The efficacy of
the numerical model developed has been verified and found to
be qualitatively agreeing with the experimental investigations.
7 REFERENCES
Bauer G.E., Shields D.H., Scott J.D. and Gruspier J.E. (1981)
Bearing Capacity of Footing in Granular Slope, Proc. 11
th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2: 33-
36.
Gemperline M.C. (1988) Centrifuge Modelling of Shallow
Foundation, Proc. ASCE Spring Convention, ASCE: 45-70.
GeoStudio. (2007) GeoSlope Int. Ltd.
Huy N.Q., Tal A.F.V. and Holscher P. (2006) Laboratory
Investigation of Loading Rate in Sand, Technical Report,
Geoscience and civil engineering department, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Meyerhof G.G. (1957) The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of
Foundation on Slopes, Proc. 4
th
International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, I: 384-386.
Mizuno T., Tokumitsu Y. and Kawakami H. (1960) On the
Bearing Capacity of a Slope on Cohesionless Soil, Japanese
Society of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 1(2):
30-37.
Murthy V.N.S. (2003) Geotechnical Engineering: Principles and
Practices of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, USA.
Saran S., Sud V.K. and Handa S.C. (1989) Bearing Capacity of
Footings Adjacent to Slopes, J. Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 115(4): 553-573.
Shields D.H., Scott J.D., Bauer G.E., Deschenes J.H. and
Barsvary A.K. (1977) Bearing Capacity of Foundation near
Slopes, Proc. 10
th
International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 2:
715-720.