A Critical Review On Bearing Capacity of A Footing On Sloping Ground

5th Young Indian Geotechnical Engineers Conference 2014
March 14-15, 2014, Vadodara, India
A CRITICAL REVIEW ON BEARING CAPACITY OF A FOOTING ON

SLOPING GROUND
Rajesh Prasad Shukla
Ravi Sankar Jakka
Department of Earthquake Engg., IIT Roorkee, Roorkee 390 001.
E-mail address: shuklarajesh4687@gmail.com, rsjakka@iitr.ac.in
ABSTRACT: Bearing capacity is a most important factor to be considered in the design of foundation. Bearing capacity
of foundation is depends on the shear strength of soil, water content, type of loading, location of foundation and allowable
settlement of footing. Because of scarcity of plane land or some other purpose, structures are built either on slope or near
the slope. Hilly regions cover more than 15% of total land area of India and slopes are very common in hilly regions.
Bearing capacity of the foundations constructed near or on the slopes is greatly affected by the presence of the slopes.
Sloping ground near the footings have an adverse effect on their performance. Settlement increases and bearing capacity
reduces with increase in slope angle. In sloping ground slope stability is a big issue in addition to foundation settlement.
Accurate estimation of bearing capacity of foundation constructed on slope is highly complex and complicated. During
the last two decades a large number of studies have been conducted in the finding of bearing capacity of foundations on
or near the sloping ground under different loading condition by various researchers. An attempt has been made in this
paper to review the available literature on analytical and experimental studies on the analysis of shallow foundation on
sloping ground.
1. INTRODUCTION
(Chen 2008). Every method has its own advantages as well

disadvantages. Selection of method of analysis depends on
the problem of interest and its complexity.
A foundation is as a part of the substructure used to transmit

the loading of the structure to the strata underlying below
it. A footings can be failed either by shear failure or by
excessive settlement (Terzaghi et al, 1996). Shallow
foundations or footings are more economical compared to
deep foundations but they may pose design problem in
irregular ground and cannot perform satisfactory under the
different type of loading such as pull-out, torsion and
moment.
During the last two decades a number of studies have been

performed to determine the bearing capacity of foundations
on or near the sloping ground under different loading
condition by various researchers. Still, design of shallow
foundation on slopping ground under earthquake is very
challenging task for an engineer and there is no agreement
between earlier researches about the various issues
affecting the bearing capacity of foundation on slopes. The
design of foundations on the slope and near the slope crest
should include the analysis of local stability, global
stability, and failure mechanisms of the supporting slope
and change in the geometry and stability of slope in the
future. It is very important for a project engineer to
understand limitations of these methods and their
suitability so he can able to appropriate method for
particular soil and structure design. An attempt has been
made in this paper to review the available literature on
analytical and experimental studies on the analysis of
shallow foundation on sloping ground. Based on literature
study some suggestion have been made as well to determine
bearing capacity of footing on or near the slope more
efficiently.
Because of scarcity of plane land or some other purpose,

structures are built either on slope or near the slope. Slopes
are very common in hilly region. Hilly regions cover more
than 15% of total land area of India (Joshi et al, 2011). The
ultimate bearing capacity of the foundations for these
buildings is significantly affected by the presence of the
slope. The stability of structure is dependent upon the soilfoundation system. So, all forces that may act on the
structure during its lifetime should be considered in design.
Bearing capacity analysis of foundations can be made
either experimentally or theoretically. Analytical and
theoretical methods can be further divided into four
approaches; slip-line methods, limit equilibrium methods,
limits analysis methods and finite-element methods
58

for different depth of reinforcement location. Results of

laboratory study are compared with the finite element
analyses results of computer programme Plaxis 2D. Bearing
capacity and settlement increased and decreased
respectively by considerable amount with increase in length
and number of geogrid layers. Optimum value of different
reinforcement parameters were presented as well for
maximum benefits of reinforcement.
2. ANALYSIS METHODS
Evaluation of bearing capacity of foundation is required for
the following two purposes; the foundation should not
collapse by shear failure of soil plunging into the soil and
second, differential and total settlement should be remain
under the tolerable limit for the particular structure and soil
type. Bearing capacity can be determined by experimental
study and theoretical study. Experimental studies can be
conducted as model study or full scale testing. Theoretical
studies can be further classified into four categories; limit
equilibrium method, limits analysis method, slip-line
method, and numerical methods
2.1
Sawwaf, M.A.E. & Nazir A.K. (2012) considered cyclic

as well as monotonic loads on reinforced sandy slope.
Inclusion of reinforcements lead to economical design and
it cause the decrease in monotonic cyclic settlement and
cumulative cyclic settlements. Study revel that the
efficiency of reinforcement depends on the offset distance
between footing and slope crest and properties of the cyclic
load also.
Laboratory model test and full scale tests
Model testing are more popular as compared to full scale

testing because model testing are economical and versatile.
Various model studies are listed in literature to evaluate
bearing capacity of footing near the slope or on the slope
under the various loading condition and slope geometry.
Alamshahi, S. & Hataf, N. (2009) compared laboratory

model test results with finite element results. Grid-anchor
layer provided in the ground increased the bearing capacity
of rigid strip footings on sloping ground and effect of
reinforcement depends on distribution of reinforcement.
Shields et al, (1977) determined the bearing capacity

factor Nq for a footing resting on a constant slope of 2H:
1V in a granular soil and concluded that Meyerhof (1957)
has overestimates the Nq values. Design chart were
presented for Nq value in correlation with depth of footing
and offset distance between slope crest and footing.
Sommers, A.N. & Viswanadham, B.V.S. (2009)

evaluated the stability of footing on geo-textile-reinforced
slopes by centrifuge test under the acceleration of 40g and
concluded that reinforcements cause the increase in the
stability of slope.
Castelli, F. & Lentini, V. (2012) performed model
laboratory testing of footing on a well-graded compacted
sandy slope and found that bearing capacity increases with
increase in distance between footing and slope crest.
Gemperline (1988) proposed bearing capacity equation

based on more than 200 centrifuge test on cohesionless soil
slope of values 2H: 1V and 1.5H: 1V with different values
of embedded depth to footing width ratio, shear resistance,
and width of footing to length of the footing ratios. He
proposed an empirical equation to determine the bearing
capacity factor Nq
Sawwaf, M.A.E. & Ashraf K. Nazir (2012) investigated

the effects of the partial replacement of a compacted sand
layer and the inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement on
slopes. The cumulative cyclic settlement of the model
footing supported on a loose sandy slope, un-reinforced and
reinforced replaced sand deposits overlying the loose slope
were obtained and compared.
qu 1 B N q
2
Where;
N q f x f B x f D/ B x f B/ L x f D/ B, B/ L x f ,b/ B x f ,b/ D, D/ B x f ,b/ B, B/ L 2.2 Theoretical and Analytical Method
f , f B , f D / B , f B / L , f D / B, B / L , f ,b / B , f ,b / D, D / B and f ,b / B, B / L Theoretical analysis consists of limit equilibrium
analysis limit analysis, slip line method and numerical

methods. Most of earlier studies are conducted by
theoretical analysis. Most of cases these methods are
economical compared to model testing and full scale testing.
are factors depends on slope angle depth of footing, width

of footing, and offset distance between slope crest and
footing.
Garnier et al, (1994) proposed coefficients of reduction
due to slope based on experimental test. Three slope of
3V:2H, 2V:1H and 3V:1H were assumed on sand with an
angle of internal friction of 40.5. The peak load at the time
of failure was measured and the coefficient of reduction of
bearing capacity was calculated as the percentage of the
reference peak load.
2.2.1 Limit Equilibrium Method

Meyerhof (1957) Reported that the plastic zone
developed on the slope side is relatively smaller size
compared to the similar foundation on levelled ground. It
means that length of failure surface have been reduced and
that will reduce the resistance of soil. Slope has reduced the
bearing capacity of the strip footing in cohesive and granular
soil as well. Bearing capacity is increased with increase in
offset distance between slope edge and footing.
Mostafa A. El Sawwaf (2007) determined the effect of

depth of replaced sand layer and offset distance between
footing and slope crest under sinusoidal loading. Length,
spacing and number of layer of reinforcements were varied
59

Figure 2. The failure mechanism and applied forces of

the foundation-soil system [11]
Choudhury, D & Rao, K. S. S. (2005) considered
composite failure surface to determine seismic bearing
capacity factors. Principle of superposition was validated as
well. It was concluded that horizontal acceleration as well
as vertical acceleration have reduced the capacity of footing
Failure plane, Meyerhofs Theory for shallow foundation

near slope (1957).
Saran et al. (1989) considered only one sided failure
surface and footing load was replaced by equivalent
surcharge. It was assumed that at a time of failure, strength
of sloping side has mobilized fully one side but on other side
only some percentage of strength is mobilized. Used a
mobilization factor m on opposite to slope side as shown
in figure. Bearing capacity become independent of offset
distance between slope crest and footing as value reached
some limit for a particular value of slope angle.
Choudhury, D and Rao Subba, K. S. (2006) considered

the various slopes geometry to evaluate the seismic bearing
capacity factors of a footing on slope for c- soils. Seismic
bearing capacity decreases with increase in in slope angle
and decrease in depth ratio.
Variation of seismic bearing capacity Ncd with slope
angle () for some particular values of seismic coefficient is
shown in figure 4.0 and part b of figure shows variation of
Ncd with Df /B for some particular values of seismic
coefficient. For other bearing capacity factor for considering
surcharge load, Nqd and due to weight of soil Nd similar
trend were presented.
Figure failure surface in sloping ground. Saran, Sud, and

Handa (1989)
Sarma, S.K. & Chen, Y. C (1995) concluded that
earthquake can reduces the bearing capacity of foundation
on dry soil slope.
Sarma, S.K. & Chen, Y.C (1996) derived bearing
capacity factors with consideration of ground water table,
setback distance of footing from slope edge and different
magnitude of acceleration. Study revealed that the seismic
bearing factors are quadratic functions of the seismic
coefficient and slope angle.
60

(a)
of foundation. Effect of slope angles becomes negligible

when B/B approaches approximately equal to or more than
5. At the low slope angle value, the effect of offset is very
less as compared to higher slope angle. The effect of depth
ratio is very prominent at a lower slope angle compared to
high value of inclination.
Nc
35.00
30.00
B'/B=0
25.00
B'/B=1
20.00
B'/B=2
15.00
B'/B=3
10.00
B'/B=4
5.00
0.00
10.00
B'/B=5
20.00
30.00
Slope angle (degree)
40.00
14.00
B/B=0
12.00
(b)
Nq
Figure 4. (a) Variation of Ncd with slope angle () for

particular values of seismic coefficient (b) variation of Ncd
with Df /B
Chen et al. (2007) concluded that the seismic bearing
factors increased when intermediate principal stress was
considered in analysis. Seismic bearing capacity was
increases by 16% to 40%. Bearing capacity factor N
increase more in compared to Nq and Nc.
10.00
B'/B=1
8.00
B'/B=2
6.00
B'/B=3
4.00
B'/B=4
2.00
0.00
10.00
B'/B=5
20.00
30.00
40.00
Huang, C. & Kang, W. (2008), used Janbus slice

method and given values of setback distance between crest
of footing for different magnitude of angle of internal
friction of soil. Bearing capacity factor N was presented
for different setback and slope angle. Presented some
correction factors as well.
Castelli, F & Motta, E. (2010) used limit equilibrium
method to develop a model for footing with circular failure
surface. Analyzed kinematic and inertial effects of the
seismic loading on footing. Presented seismic and static
bearing capacity as a function of seismic coefficient, soil
friction angle. Embedment depth have considerable
influence in case of soil having low friction angle. Effect of
distance of the footing from the edge of the slope on bearing
capacity was also considered in analysis.
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
10.00
B'/B=0
B'/B=1
B'/B=2
B'/B=3
B'/B=4
B'/B=5
20.00
30.00
40.00
Fig. Effect of offset on bearing capacity factors for =300

2.2.2 Limit Analysis Method
Shukla, R.P. and Jakka R.S. (2014) performed a simple

parametric analysis using limit equilibrium method. Various
factors such as depth ratio of footing, offset distance
between footing (B) and slope edge and slope angle were
considered for analysis. It was concluded that bearing
capacity factors have been increased with increase in depth
Limit analysis directly gives the ultimate capacity,

without carrying out the stage analysis which required in
limit equilibrium analysis. Evaluation of upper bound and
lower bound collapse load is referred to as limit analysis. An
61

idealized stress-strain relationship of a soil is considered in

analysis and this is referred as a flow rule or normality in
limit analysis. Result of a limit analysis study is depends on
flow rules. Upper bound collapse load are evaluated by
equating rate of internal work done and the rate of external
work done. Lower bound analysis gives a collapse load less
than that true collapse load and it consider only force
equilibrium of soil. Limit analysis is more versatile and
complicated method compared to limit equilibrium with an
assumed stress-stain. In general, these analysis give more
accurate value of ultimate bearing capacity compared to
limit equilibrium analysis. A true collapse load can be
evaluated by using upper bound and lower bound analysis
simultaneously. Limit analysis gives the higher value of
bearing capacity as compared to limit equilibrium.
spread foundations with consideration of variable shear

transfer at the base of foundations.
Georgiadis, K. (2010) Undrained bearing capacity
Factor Nc was determined using upper bound theorem and
results are compared with FE analysis
Kumar J. & Chakraborty D. (2013) Bearing capacity
factors of smooth and rigid were determined using lower
bound solution in conjunction with finite element and
nonlinear optimization. Variation of the bearing capacity
factor were presented with changes in slope angle () for
various internal friction angle (). This method is a very
rigorous compared to other available method as it does not
require an assumed failure mechanism.
Chakraborty D. & Kumar J. (2013) the lower bound
finite element limit analysis were used to provide variation
of bearing capacity factor with changes in slope angle ()
and soil friction angle ( ). Both rough as well as smooth
footing was analyzed. Study revealed that the extent of the
plastic zone around the footing is more in case of rough
footing.
Michalowski (1989) determined three dimensional

stability analysis of locally loaded drained c - soil with
consideration of all possible failure modes in conjunction
with upper bound theorem.
Soubra and Reynolds (1992) calculated seismic bearing
capacity of a footing using pseudo-static approach in
conjunction with upper bound theorem of limit analysis.
2.2.3 Slip Line Method
Sawada, Nomachi and Chen (1994) evaluated seismic

bearing capacity using upper bound theorem in association
with pseudo-static approach and results were found very
close to Bishop and Kotter. Failure surface was changed
with incorporation of reinforcement and consideration of
horizontal earthquake coefficient.
Combination of a set of equilibrium equation and a

failure criterion give the set of differential equation of
plastic equilibrium for the failure region. Combination of
differential equation of plastic equilibrium and boundary
condition together give the stress value, below the
foundation at the time of impending flow [37].
Yang et al. (2007) analyzed footing using energy

dissipation method (upper bound solution) and result are
compared with laboratory model testing results. It was
assumed that soil is obeying Mohr-Coulomb failure
criterion in association with associated flow rule. Bearing
capacity values were presented for various values of angle
of internal friction and slope angle.
It is very difficult to determine whether solution

obtained through slip line method is a true solution, upper
bound solution or lower bound solution. This method does
not provide any allowance for creep or strain-rate effects so
it is applicable for only non-strain-hardening materials.
This method can model the boundary and field condition for
the failure mechanism of cohesion less soil mass very
accurately [38].
Yang et al. (2007) seismic bearing capacity was

evaluated using kinematic theorem of limit analysis with
considering non associated and associated flow rule as well.
Seismic bearing capacity was increased with increase in
dilatancy angle.
Kumar, J and Rao Mohan, V.B.K (2002 used method of

characteristic to determine the effect of slope angle, angle of
internal friction and coefficient of earthquake, on bearing
capacity factors.
Kumar, J. & Ghosh, P. (2006) applied the upper-bound

limit analysis to determine the seismic the bearing capacity
factors Ncq and Nq. Bearing capacity factors were presented
for different value depth by width ratio of the footing and of
slope angle.
Kumar J. & Rao V. B. K. M. (2003) used slip line

method to correlate seismic bearing capacity of strip footing
with angle of internal friction, slope angle and earthquake
acceleration coefficient. Presented the variation of pressure
distribution and failure patterns along a base of a footing.
Ghosh, P. (2008) used pseudo-dynamic approach in

conjunction with upper bound theorem to determine the
seismic bearing capacity of footing on sloping ground.
Jahanandish et al. (2008) Used slip line method and

considered the both side of failure surface. Horizontal and
vertical earthquake coefficients were considered for
analysis.
Yang, X. L. (2009) used HoekBrown nonlinear failure

criterion and presented an upper bound seismic bearing
capacity solution for a footing on rock.
Keshavarz et al. (2011) used a computer to analyze the

slip line net and the ultimate load distribution beneath the
foundation. Presented the variation of pressure distribution
and failure patterns for different percentage of
reinforcement and horizontal earthquake coefficient.
Yamamoto, K. (2010) introduced the shear transfer

coefficient to evaluate the seismic bearing capacity of
62

2.2.4 Numerical Methods
3. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Traditional methods such as limit equilibrium, slip line

and limit analysis gives only either upper bound or lower
bound but numerical methods give both lower-bound and
upper bound collapse load of footing. Numerical methods
are more accurate as compared to other available method but
same time these methods are very complex in application
and analysis.
Theories of Meyerhof (1957), Graham et al (1987), and

Saran et al. (1989) and the experimental work from Shields
et al. (1977), Gemperline (1988) and Gamier et al. (1994)
provided the design chart needed to predict the magnitude
of bearing capacity factor, but analysis is applicable for a
limited range of various parameters. Saran et al. (1989)
results are valid for footings on surface only.
Paul D.K. and Kumar S. (1997) determines the factor of

safety and developed a procedure to performed seismic
stability analysis of slope with a building loads using a
computer program.
There is no agreement between earlier researches about

the effect of offset distance on static and seismic bearing
capacity. Some concluded that offset distance does not
affects the bearing capacity after B/B ratio becomes more
that 2 (Meyerhof, 1957, Garnier et al. 1994, Georgiadis,
2010) Some also revealed that offset distance affect the
bearing capacity up to b/B ratio 5 or 6 (Shields et al. 1977,
Saran et al.1989, Kai Wing Ip, 2005, Jao et al. 2008, Shukla
& Jakka, 2014)
Kai Wing Ip (2005) developed a numerical model using

the FEM program PLAXIS. Variation of bearing capacity
factors with slope angle, depth ratio, distance between the
top of slope and footing edge presented as well.
Kumar, J. and Ghosh, P. (2005) evaluated seismic
bearing capacity factor N for rough and smooth ring
footings.
Few laboratory model test were performed in last four

decades, and only few have considered the earthquake
loading. Most of studies have used upper bound analysis or
limit equilibrium method. Limit analysis method can be
considered as a reliable method, if both, upper bound and
lower bound method use together for calculation of bearing
capacity. In last one decade slip line method have also
become popular method but researchers have not
determined that whether they have got lower bound solution
or upper bound solution. Finite element and numerical
methods can help the researcher to simulate seismic analysis
more accurately. Still today, there is no any worldwide
accepted method are available to determine bearing capacity
of footing on or near the slope.
Jao, et al. (2008) evaluated the stability of eccentrically

loaded strip footings on sloping ground using finite element
analysis based on the theory of elastic-plasticity. Observed
that pressure and settlement parameters are not much
affected by load eccentricity and only ultimate bearing
capacity of footing was greatly influenced by load
eccentricity. For a value of slope 2H: 1V, effect of slope
angles value becomes negligible when the magnitude of
offset distance between slope crest and footing become
more than 5 times of width of footing.
Georgiadis, K. (2010) used various techniques such as
finite element method, upper bound method and stress
characteristic methods to verify the effect a wide range of
geometries and soil properties on bearing capacity. An
empirical equation was proposed to obtain the load
interaction diagram for a footing on or near slope subjected
to inclined loading under untrained condition. It was
concluded that in case of shear failure of a footing, the shape
of the vertical versus horizontal load interaction diagram
depends on slope angle and the distance between crest of
slope and the footing and the slope angle. If the failure in
not shear failure then the overall slope failure takes place
and characteristic of load interaction curve affected by
cohesion, depth ratio and slope angle as well. Effect of
various parameter such as slope height and cu/( B), offset
distance between slope crest and footing and slope angle
on the failure load for vertical loaded footing was examined.
All studies have considered only shear failure criteria.

Most of studies have not considered the settlement criteria
and global stability of slope which can be major deciding
factors in slopes and these factors should have to consider
in determination of bearing capacity of footings in future.
Most of results of studies have are validated with other
available method or laboratory test data. Most of studies
have used pseudo-static method to evaluate the effect of
earthquake force, which does not consider the real nature of
earthquake, to consider real characteristic of earthquake it is
mandatory to consider the real time history. Quasi static
loading can be also used as an alternative of dynamic
loading.
REFERENCES
Alamshahi, S. and Hataf, N. (2009) performed a series

of finite element analyses with model tests in laboratory
with reinforcement in soil and finally the both results were
compared. Both testing have confirmed that the bearing
capacity was increased intensively after the inclusion of
grid-anchor layers in the ground.
Alamshahi,S. And Hataf, N. (2009) Bearing capacity of

strip footings on sand slopes reinforced with geogrid and
grid-anchor. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 27,
pp217226.
Castelli F. and Lentini V. (2012) Evaluation of the bearing
capacity of footings on slopes. International Journal of
Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp
112 118.
63

Castelli, F and Motta, E. (2010) Bearing Capacity of Strip

Footings near Slopes. Geotech Geol Eng., Vol. 28, pp
187198.
IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol. 35 No.

(C2), pp185-197.
Kumar, J. and Ghosh, P., (2006) Seismic bearing capacity
for embedded footings on sloping ground.
Gotechnique, Vol. 56, No. 2, , pp 133 -140.
Chakraborty, D. And Kumar, J (2013) Bearing capacity of

foundations
on
slopes.
Geomechanics
and
Geoengineering an International Journal, Vol. 8, No. 4,
pp 274285.
Kumar .J and Rao, V.B.K.M. (2002) Seismic bearing

capacity factors for spread foundations Geotechnique,
Vol. 52, No. 2, pp79-88.
CHEN Chang-fu, DONG Wu-zhong, TANG Yan-zhe

(2007) Seismic ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings
on slope. J. Cent. South Univ. Technology, Vol.05,
pp730737.
Kumar J and Rao V. B. K. M. (2003), Seismic bearing

capacity of foundations on slopes. Geotechnique, Vol. 53,
No. 3, pp.347361
Choudhury, D. and RAO K. S. S.(2005). Seismic bearing

capacity of shallow strip footings. Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, Vol.23, 403418.
Jahanandish, M. and Arvin, M.R. (2008).Seismic stability

analysis of footing adjacent to slopes by slip line method.
Proc. of the 14 th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering October 12-17, Beijing, China.
Choudhury, D and Rao Subba K. S. (2006). Seismic

Bearing Capacity of Shallow Strip Footings.
International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 6, No.3,
pp176184.
Joshi, et al. (2011). "National Forest Policy in India:

Critique of Targets and Implementation." Small-Scale
Forestry 10(1): 83-96.
Gamier, J., Canepa, Y., Corte, J.F., and Bakir, N.E. (1994),
Etude dela Portance de Foundations en Bord deTalus.
Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 2, pp. 705708.
Kumar, J. and Ghosh, P. (2005), Bearing capacity factor N

for ring footings using the method of characteristics.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp 14741484.
Gemperline, M. C. (1988). Centrifuge modeling of

shallow foundation. Proc., ASCE Spring Convention,
ASCE.
Kumar, J. and Chakraborty, D. (2013) Bearing capacity of

foundations with inclined groundwater seepage.
International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 13, No. 5,
611624.
Georgiadis K. (2010) The influence of load inclination on

the undrained bearing capacity of strip footings on slopes.
Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 37, pp 311322.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957) The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of

Foundation on Slopes, Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol.3, pp. 384-386
Georgiadis K. (2010) Undrained Bearing Capacity of Strip

Footings on Slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 5, pp 677685.
Michalowski, R.L. (1989) Three dimensional analysis of

locally loaded slope. Geotechnique, Vol. 39, No. 1, 27
38.
Ghosh, P.(2008), Upper bound solutions of bearing

capacity of strip footing by pseudo-dynamic approach.
Acta Geotechnica, Vol. 3, pp. 115123
Mostafa A. El Sawwaf and Ashraf K. Nazir (2012), Cyclic

settlement behavior of strip footings resting on reinforced
layered sand slope, Journal of advance Research, Vol. 3,
pp 315-324
Huang, C. and Kang, W. (2008), Seismic Bearing Capacity

of a Rigid Footing Adjacent To a Cohesionless Slope,
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp641-651.
Paul, D.K. & Kumar, S. (1997) Stability analysis of slope

with building loads. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Vol.16, 395-405.
Jao, M., Ahmed, F. Muninarayana, G. and Wang M. C.

(2008) Stability of eccentrically loaded footings on slopes
Geomechanics and Geoengineering An International
Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 107-111.
Sarma & chen(1995) Seismic bearing capacity of shallow

strip footings near sloping ground. Proc. of European
Seismic Design Practice, Research and Application. Ed
Elnashai, The 5th SECED Conf., October 1995, Chester,
UK , AA Balkema, Rotterdam, 505-512.
Kai Wing Ip (2005), Bearing capacity for foundation near

slope, Post Graduate Thesis, The Department of
Building, Civil and Environment Engineering, Concordia
University Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Sarma S.K. And. Chen Y.C (1996). Bearing capacity of

strip footings near sloping ground during earthquakes,
Proc. of 11World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
Keshavarz et al. (2011) Seismic bearing capacity analysis

of reinforced soils by the method of stress characteristics.
64

Saran, S., Sud, V.K. and Handa, S.C., (1989), Bearing

Capacity of Footings Adjacent to Slopes. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 4, pp
553-573.
South University of Technology, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp

842847
Yang, Xiao-Li (2009) Seismic bearing capacity of a strip
footing on rock Slopes. Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 46, pp
943954.
Sawada et al. (1994). Seismic bearing capacity of a

mounded foundation near a down-hill slope by pseudostatic Analysis. Soil and Foundation, Vol.34, No. 1, pp
11-17.
Sawwaf. M.A.E. (2007) Behavior of strip footing on
geogrid-reinforced sand over a soft clay slope.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 25, pp 5060
Sawwaf M. A. El and Nazir A.K. (2012) Cyclic settlement
behavior of strip footings resting on reinforced layered
sand slope. Journal of Advanced Research, Vol. 3,
pp315-324.
Shields, D.H., Scott, J.D., Bauer, G.E., Deschemes, J.H.
and Barsvary, A.K., (1977) Bearing Capacity of
Foundations near Slopes. Proc. of the 9th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 715-720.
Shukla, R.P. & Jakk, R.S. (2014) Bearing capacity of
footings on slopes. Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical
Conference, Kakinada, India
Sommers, A.N. and Viswanadham, B.V.S. (2009)
Centrifuge modeling of geotextile-reinforced slopes
subjected to differential settlements. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes. Vol. 27, No.2, pp 7788.
Soubra and Reynolds (1992) Design Charts for The
Seismic Bearing Capacity Of Strip Footings On Slopes.
Proc. of French-Italian Conf. on Slope Stability in
Seismic Area, pp 273-283.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. and Mesri, G. (1996) Soil
Mechanics in Engineering Practice, A WileyInterscience Publication United States of America.
Wai-Fah Chen (2008), Limit analysis and Soil Plasticity,
1st Ed., J. Ross Publishing, USA
Yamamoto (2010) Seismic bearing capacity of shallow
foundations near slopes using the upper-bound method
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
4, pp 255-267.
YANG Xiao-li, WANG Zhi-bin, ZOU Jin-feng, LI Liang
(2007) Bearing capacity of foundation on slope
determined by energy dissipation method and model
experiments. Journal of Central South University of
Technology, vol.14, No.1, pp 125128.
YANG Xiao-li, GUO Nai-zheng, ZHAO Lian-heng, ZOU
Jin-feng (2007) Influences of non-associated flow rules
on seismic bearing capacity factors of strip footing on soil
slope by energy dissipation method. Journal of Central
65

A Critical Review On Bearing Capacity of A Footing On Sloping Ground

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A Critical Review On Bearing Capacity of A Footing On Sloping Ground

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

5th Young Indian Geotechnical Engineers Conference 2014

March 14-15, 2014, Vadodara, India