Leschinsky, B. Bearing Capacity of Footings Placed Adjacent to c Slopes.

ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 141 No. 6, June 2015.

In this Journal it tackles about the effect of sloping ground to adjacent footing or the slope
stability of the foundation. During the discussion it tells that many individuals like Prandtl,
Tezaghi, and Meyerhof and Etc. contributes to the bearing capacity development of foundation
because of limited insight into bearing capacity of footing adjacent to the slopes Leschinsky has
the most effective approach among all contributors.

Analysis of bearing capacity placed on the adjacent slope plays significant in designing retaining
structure and Mechanically Stabilized Earth wall (MSE). It needed complex Analysis than unusual
like Discontinuity Layout Optimization- Limit Analysis (DLO-LA). Limit Analysis serves as a rigorous
analytical tool that can capture the collapse load and mechanism of footings placed on slopes of
c-soil. Leshchinsky were attained by using upper bound numerical LA results utilizing the
discontinuity layout optimization algorithm (DLO-LA) to achieve appropriate result. The Limit
Analysis Collapse states are determined using Limit State: GEO software.

Comparison of Meyerhof and Discontinuity Layout Optimization - Limit Analysis (DLO-LA) of for
bearing capacity factors of Nc for B=0 and =0 classical value of Nc is (2+ ) which both agree. If
the ratio of the Footing width (B) and Height of the Slope (H) becomes smaller it will a divergence
comparison of Nc between Meyerhof and DLO-LA. Oppositely as the footing width approaches
height of the slope there is a convergence of Nc for stability number (Ns). As the slope become
steep say >50 convergence occurs and when the line degenerate into zero Nc bearing capacity
of slope become unstable. As B/H become greater than one the values begin to have better
agreement with lower angles.
Several contradiction between Meyerhof charts: One it is impossible to have slope width a height
(H) simultaneously with the slope angle of 0 degrees; Second is when the slope transition to a
horizontal case the solution should approach the horizontal value Nc= 2+; The Third one is when
the footing width (B) is set back larger than the distances (b) from the crest of the slope, the
influence of the slope should become negligible. Despite its general acceptance, they do not
reflect a practical scenario.
The result are presented in the form of reduction coefficients (RCBC) that can be applied to the

classical bearing capacity equation. This Reduction coefficient was defined = .

Initial dip in RCBC with increasing footing sizes for B/H ratios less than one. Furthermore there was
a little increase in RCBC for lower slope angles typically decreasing until it reached an asymptote
that was progressively lower for a higher NS values. The reduction coefficients presented within
this study suggest that footing width to slope height ratio, soil strength and slope angle have a
significant influence on the expected bearing capacity of a slope-supported footing.
The angle of the slope has a significant effect on the bearing capacity that can be attained for a
variety of footing sizes and soil parameters. As increases, the local minimum that occurs at
lower B/H values becomes more exaggerated coupled with a large, subsequent increase in RCBC.
Because of lower slope stability at higher slope angles and a consequent lengthening of the
failure surface with an added surcharge. This also leads to a more rapid increase in RCBC as
footing size increases. Increasing frictional strength lowers RCBC values for smaller footing sizes
and higher slope angles. Because there is an absence of this passive wedge when a slope is
present, the reduction in bearing capacity becomes large because of the reduced resistance of
the passive earth pressures. These passive earth pressures recover when the footing size
becomes exceedingly large. Design of shallow foundations adjacent to slopes must include
considerations for soil strength, footing width to slope height ratio, and slope angle. When
considering these factors, large ratios of B/H mobilize large areas of shear resistance, especially
in soils with both cohesion and internal angle of friction. The influences of the RCBC minima
become less critical with higher friction angles and lower slope angles. Finally, the smallest
reductions in bearing capacity for c- soils are attained when the critical failure mechanism
transitions to a compound failure, extending beneath the toe of the slope surface, consequently
reducing the influence of the adjacent slope. However, this benefit becomes less significant with
lower cohesion as frictional resistance governs.