See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257774494

Model studies of bearing capacity of strip footing on sand slope

Article  in  KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering · May 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s12205-013-0406-x

CITATIONS READS

48 1,721

2 authors:

M. Salih Keskin Mustafa Laman

Dicle University University of Liverpool
7 PUBLICATIONS   122 CITATIONS    72 PUBLICATIONS   739 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The project that constitutes the main subject of this work has been supported with a grant number of 106M496, by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research
Council of Turkey). View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mustafa Laman on 24 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2013) 17(4):699-711 Geotechnical Engineering
DOI 10.1007/s12205-013-0406-x
www.springer.com/12205

Model Studies of Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Sand Slope

M. Salih Keskin* and Mustafa Laman**
Received December 16, 2011/Accepted August 27, 2012

···································································································································································································································

Abstract

An experimental investigation into the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footing on sand slope is reported. The parameters
investigated are the effect of setback distance of the footing to the slope crest, slope angle, relative density of sand and footing width
on the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings. A series of finite element analyses was additionally performed on a prototype slope
to ascertain the validity of the findings from the laboratory model tests and to supplement the results of the model tests. The
agreement between observed and computed results is found to be reasonably well in terms of load-settlement and general trend of
behavior. The results show that the ultimate bearing capacity increases with increase in setback distance, relative density of sand,
footing width and decrease in slope angle. At a setback distance of five times of the width of the footing, bearing capacity remains
constant like that of a footing on level ground.
Keywords: slope, bearing capacity, shallow foundation, laboratory test, finite element method
···································································································································································································································

1. Introduction of slope and thereby the bearing capacity of the foundation.

The bearing capacity of the foundations is a primary concern
in the field of geotechnical engineering. Design of foundations
on a horizontal ground surface depends on the mechanical
characteristics of the soil such as unit weight, shear strength etc.,
and the physical properties of the foundation such as depth,
width, and shape. There are two considerations to decide the
allowable bearing pressures for shallow foundations; the safety
factor against ultimate shear failure must be adequate and the
settlements under allowable bearing pressures should not exceed
tolerable values. Several methods may correctly predict the
bearing capacity of foundations resting on or in level grounds
(Terzaghi, 1943; Meyerhof, 1963; Hansen, 1970; Vesic, 1975).
They are either based on laboratory or in-situ test results.
However, there are many circumstances where foundations must
be built on or near a slope. Due to the land limitation, architectural
and economical purposes, structures are generally placed on the
slope crest or at a setback distance from the slope crest. Examples
include bridge piers supported on approach embankments,
foundations on electrical transmission towers and some
buildings. The stability of the slope and the bearing capacity of a
foundation constructed near to the edge of a slope are important
factors in the performance of the structure built near a slope.
When a foundation is constructed on sloping ground, one side of
the foundation is exposed to the sloping surface. Thus, as the
foundation soil approaches limit state the plastic region of failure
is very limited and it significantly affect the mechanical stability
Consequently, the bearing capacity of a foundation near a sloped
fill is less than that on a flat ground. Therefore, in many
situations, the conventional types of shallow foundations are
inadequate even though they are very economical and easier to
construct. Hence, researchers have paid attention to investigate
the bearing capacity and settlement behavior of footings on
slopes.
The methods to predict the bearing capacity of footings on or
in level grounds are well developed. However the bearing
capacity of footings near or on slopes, much still remains to be
investigated. The theoretical methods on the bearing capacity of
footing on a slope (Meyerhof, 1957; Hansen, 1970; Vesic, 1975;
Saran et al., 1989) are generally developed based on the bearing
capacity equation proposed by Terzaghi (1943) and valid for a
limited range of footing location and embedded depth. Meyerhof
(1957) proposed a theoretical solution to determine the ultimate
bearing capacity of a shallow foundation located on the face of a
slope. According to Meyerhof, the ultimate bearing capacity can
be expressed as:
1
qu = cNcq + --- γ BNγq (1)
2
where,
B = Width of footing
c = Cohesion of soil
Ncq, Nγq = Bearing capacity factors
γ = Unit weight of soil

*Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Dicle, Diyarbakir 21280, Turkey (Corresponding Author, E-mail: mskeskin@dicle.edu.tr,
mskeskin21@gmail.com)
**Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Cukurova, Adana 01330, Turkey (E-mail: mlaman@cu.edu.tr)

− 699 −
 M. Salih Keskin and Mustafa Laman

For the special case of a footing resting on the surface of a Brinkgreeve and Vermeer, 2002) to verify the model test results.
saturated, clean, granular material (apparent cohesion, c = 0), the
first term of Eq. (1) become zero and Meyerhof’s equation 2. Experimental Study
reduces to
2.1 Test Set-up
1
qu = --- γ BN γq (2) A series of laboratory model tests were performed in a test box
2
made of a steel frame with inside dimensions of 1.140 m
Graham et al. (1987) provided an analytical solution for the (length), 0.475 m (width) and 0.500 m (depth) as shown in Fig.
bearing capacity of a shallow footing on the top of a cohesionless 1. The bottom and vertical edges of the box were stiffened using
slope based on the method of stress characteristics. Gemperline angle sections to avoid lateral yielding during soil placement and
(1988) and Shields et al. (1990) developed empirical equations loading of the model footing. The two sidewalls of the test box
for the ultimate bearing capacity factors for a footing on a slope were made of 20 mm thick glass to see the sand sample during
based on centrifuge tests. Narita and Yamaguchi (1990) used a preparation and observe the sand particle deformations during
method of slices to determine the bearing capacity of a three the tests. The box was enough rigid to provide plane strain
dimensional footing located on top of a slope. Buhan and conditions for all model tests. Static vertical loads were applied
Garnier (1998) used yield design theory to evaluate the ultimate to the model footings by a motor-controlled hydraulic jack
bearing capacity of a shallow rectangular footing located on top system. The system attached to the loading frame located above
of a slope. Furthermore, experimental studies on the bearing the test box has a loading rate of 0.5 mm/min. An electronic 15
capacity and settlement behavior of footings on slopes are kN capacity load cell was used to measure applied loads.
relatively limited (Shields et al., 1977; Garnier et al., 1984; Settlements of the footing were measured using two Linear
Gemperline, 1988). Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDTs) located at the two
Shields et al. (1977) have carried out series of experiments to corners of the model footing. The load cell and the displacement
obtain the bearing capacity factor Nγq for a footing on transducers were connected to data acquisition system (ADU)
cohesionless slope. They showed that the theory of Meyerhof for recording and data handling.
(1957) overestimates the magnitude of the bearing capacity.
However, at shallow depths close to the edge of the slope the
theory is closer to the experimental values. Garnier et al. (1984)
presented an experimental study on strip footing near a slope to
evaluate the coefficient of reduction of bearing capacity due to
slope effect. The tests were performed using three slope models
and loads were applied on the model footing at different
distances from the edge of slope. For different slope models, it
was found that the bearing capacity of the footing was not
practically different from the value of distance/width ratio (b/B)
greater than 6 due to the effect of slope.
Research in the area of bearing capacity of footings on sloping
ground is very much in demand because of the significant effect
of the slope on the bearing capacity. Physical modeling is one of
the best approaches to overcome the limitations of analytical
methods (Wood, 2004). It is common practice in geotechnical
engineering that the results gained from a physical model are
used to validate analytical and numerical models. Although the
laboratory model tests have several drawbacks such as the scale
effect, model tests do provide reasonable understanding of the
bearing capacity of shallow foundations.
The object of this study is to investigate the ultimate bearing
capacity of strip footings located on top of a slope with
laboratory model tests. In the study, the relationship between the
footing response and the variable parameters including, edge
distance between the footing and the crest of slope, angle of the
slope inclination, relative density of sand and width of the
footing were investigated. And also, numerical analyses on a
prototype footing-slope system were conducted using a commercial Fig. 1. Schematic View of the Experimental Set-up: (a) Side view,
finite element program PLAXIS (professional version 8, (b) Plan view

− 700 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Model Studies of Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Sand Slope

Loading tests were carried out on two model strip footings in
order to investigate the effect of footing width. The model
footings were 70 mm and 50 mm in width, 465 mm in length and
20 mm in thickness and fabricated from mild steel with a hole at
its center to accommodate a ball bearing. The footings were
located on the sand. The lengths of the footings were made
almost equal to the width of the test box of the tank to maintain
plane strain conditions.
The load was applied to the model footing through a ball
bearing which was placed between the model footing and the
proving ring and allowed the footing to rotate freely as it
approached failure and eliminated any potential moment transfer
from the loading fixture.
summarizes the general physical characteristics of the sand.
To obtain a reasonably homogeneous sand bed throughout the
experimental study, the same compaction procedure was used to
deposit sand in 50 mm thick layers into the model box. In this
method the quantity of sand for each layer, which was required
to produce a specific relative density, was first weighed and
placed in the box and compacted by a hand-held vibratory
compactor until achieving the required layer height. The
experimental tests were conducted on samples prepared with
average unit weights of 16.5, 17.0 and 17.5 kN/m3. Corresponding
relative densities of the samples were 45, 65 and 85%, respectively.
The estimated internal friction angles of the sand were 40.6, 41.8
and 43.5o, respectively.

2.2 Model Ground 2.3 Preparation of Sand Slope

The soil used for the model tests was uniform, clean and fine Model sand slopes with slope angles (β) of 20°, 25° and 30°
sand obtained from Cakit River bed. The sand was washed, dried were prepared by using the same compaction procedure in layers
and sorted by particle size. The particle size distribution was of 50 mm thick sand. The inner surfaces of the test box were
determined using the dry sieving method and the results are
shown in Fig. 2. Using the Unified Soil Classification System,
the material was determined to be poorly graded sand (SP). The
specific gravity of the soil particles was determined by
picnometer test. The maximum and minimum dry densities of
the sand were measured and corresponding values of the
minimum and maximum void ratios were calculated. Table 1

Fig. 2. Grain Size Distribution of the Model Sand

Table 1. Properties of Sand Bed

Property Value
Coarse sand fraction (%) 00.0
Medium sand fraction (%) 46.4
Fine sand fraction (%) 53.6
D10 (mm) 00.18
D30 (mm) 00.30
D60 (mm) 00.50
Uniformity coefficient, Cu 02.78
Coefficient of curvature, Cc 01.00
Specific gravity (kN/m3) 02.68 Fig. 3. Procedure for Construction of Sand Slope: (a) Soil Com-
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 17.9 pacted Until Level Ground, (b) Apparatus Placed on Level
Minimum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 15.5 Ground, (c) Compacting the First Sloped Layer, (d) Com-
Maximum void ratio 00.729 pacting the Second Sloped Layer, (e) Compacting the Third
Minimum void ratio 00.497 Sloped Layer, (f) Compacting the Last Sloped Layer, (g)
Classification (USCS) SP Removing the Apparatus, (h) Footing Placed at the Surface

Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 701 −

 M. Salih Keskin and Mustafa Laman

Table 2. Model Test Program a decreasing stiffness and simultaneously irreversible plastic
Series Constant parameters Variable parameters strains develop. The observed relationship between the pressure
1 Tests on level ground, β=0°, B=70 mm Dr = 45-65-85% and axial strain can be well approximated by a hyperbola as used
Test on level ground, β=0°, B=50 mm, in the variable elastic, hyperbolic model (Duncan and Chang,
2 -
Dr = 65% 1970). However the HSM is far superior to the hyperbolic
3 β=30°, B=70 mm, Dr = 65% b/B=0-1-2-3-4-5
model, being capable of simulating non-linear, inelastic, stress
4 β=25°, B=70 mm, Dr = 65% b/B=0-1-2-3-4-5
dependent material behaviour. Limiting states of stress described
5 β=20°, B=70 mm, Dr = 65% b/B=0-1-2-3-4-5
by means of the friction angle (φ), the cohesion (c), and the
6 β=30°, B=70 mm, Dr = 45% b/B=0-1-2-3-4-5
dilatancy angle (ψ). In addition, the increase in soil stiffness with
7 β=30°, B=70 mm, Dr = 85% b/B=0-1-2-3-4-5
pressure is accounted for in all three stiffness used, i.e., the
8 β=30°, B=50 mm, Dr = 65% b/B=0-1-2-3-4-5
triaxial loading stiffness E50, the triaxial unloading/reloading
stiffness Eur and the oedometer loading stiffness Eoed (Dickin and
marked at 50 mm intervals to make easy the preparation of the Laman, 2007). The model strip footing was modeled as elastic
sand bed in layers and the geometry of the slope was marked on beam elements based on Mindlin’s theory with flexural rigidity
the glass walls for reference. The sand was compacted in layers of EI=163 kNm²/m and normal stiffness of EA=3.4 × 105 kN/m.
up to slope toe and then a special adjustable apparatus to get the The analyses were carried out using a plane strain model in
predetermined slope angles developed in this study was placed to sand with three different densities as in the tests. During the
obtain the sloping surface. The process continued layer by layer generation of the mesh, 15-node triangular elements were
until the height of the slope was reached. Great care was given to selected in preference to the alternative 6-noded versions in order
level the slope face using special apparatus so that the relative to provide greater accuracy in the determination of stresses.
density of the top surface was not affected (Fig. 3). In this PLAXIS incorporates a fully automatic mesh generation procedure,
method there is no need for excavation and seems to be useful to in which the geometry is divided into elements of the basic
form a sloping surface with a desired angle and allows compact element type, and compatible structural elements. In the finite
the sand uniformly. The model strip footing was then placed on element modeling, as the slope surface is not horizontal, the
the surface of the compacted sand and finally the load was initial stress condition of the slope was established first by
applied until reaching failure. applying the gravity force due to soil. A prescribed footing load
was then applied in increments accompanied by iterative
2.4 Test Program analysis up to failure. PLAXIS generates full fixity at the base of
An experimental program was carried out to investigate the the geometry and smooth conditions at the vertical sides. Values
effects of the variable parameters including, edge distance of the of soil parameters used in the numerical investigation are shown
footing to the slope crest (b), angle of the slope inclination (β),
relative density of sand (Dr), and width of the footing (B) on the
Table 3. Values of Soil Parameters used in PLAXIS Analyses
bearing capacity of strip footing on a sand slope. Model loading
Parameter Value
tests were performed in seven test programs. Table 2 summarizes
Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 16.5 17.0 17.5
all the tests programs with constant and variable parameters ref
used. Some tests were repeated at least twice to verify the Primary loading stiffness, E 50 (kN/m2) 20000 28000 40000
consistency of the test data. Initial stiffness, Eoed (kN/m2) 20000 28000 40000
Unloading/reloading stiffness,
60000 84000 120000
Eur (kN/m2)
3. Numerical Modeling Cohesion, c (kN/m2) 0.10 0.10 0.10
Friction angle, φ (°) 40.6 41.8 43.5
A series of two-dimensional Finite Element Analyses (FEA)
Dilatancy angle, ψ (°) 10.6 11.8 13.5
on a prototype footing-slope system was carried out in order to
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.25 0.25 0.25
validating the results of the laboratory model tests and providing Earth pressure coefficient at rest, K0 0.35 0.33 0.31
insights into the deformation behavior within the soil mass. The
finite element analysis was performed using the commercial
program PLAXIS (Brinkgreeve and Vermeer, 2002). The geometry
of the prototype footing-slope system was assumed to be the
same as the laboratory model. The same angle of slope
inclination (β=20o, 25o, 30o) and the material of steel plate for
footing and sand were used in the numerical study.
An elasto-plastic hyperbolic model described as the Hardening
Soil Model (HSM) was used from those available in PLAXIS to
describe the non-linear sand behavior in this study. When Fig. 4. Prototype Slope Geometry, Finite Element Mesh, and Bound-
subjected to primary deviatoric loading, cohesionless soil shows ary Conditions

− 702 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Model Studies of Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Sand Slope

in Table 3. Shear strength and stiffness parameters representing

sand conditions derived from series of drained triaxial compression
tests. The prototype slope geometry, finite element mesh, and the
boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 4.

4. Results and Discussions

A total of 40 model tests were conducted on model strip

footing on sand slope. The effect of the edge distance of the
footing to the slope crest, the slope angle, the relative density of
sand, and footing width on the ultimate bearing capacity was
obtained and discussed. Numerical study was also carried out
using the finite element model using PLAXIS to verify the
Fig. 5. Variations of q with s/B for Model Tests with Different Ratios
model tests. of b/B
The bearing capacity behavior of the footing on sand slope, is
represented using a non-dimensional factor, called bearing
capacity reduction factor, iβ. This factor is defined as the ratio of
the ultimate bearing capacity of footing on slope (quslope) to the
ultimate bearing capacity of footing on level ground (qu).
quslope
iβ = ------------
- (3)
qu
The footing settlement (s) is also expressed in non-dimensional
form in terms of the footing width, B as the ratio s/B (%).
The ultimate bearing capacities for the model are determined
from the load-displacement curves as the pronounced peaks,
after which the footing collapses and the load decreases. In load-
displacement curves which did not exhibit a definite failure
point, choosing a single value of may be extremely subjective. In
Fig. 6. Variations of q with s/B for FE Analyses with Different
this study, 0.1B method, which takes the ultimate bearing Ratios of b/B
capacity at a settlement of 10% of the footing width, was used.
Although this method is completely arbitrary, it may actually be
Table 4. Results of Footing Located at Different Locations from
close to the average soil strain at failure, forces a fixed value at
the Slope Crest (β=30o, Dr=65%, B=70 mm)
qu, and treats the displacement of all footing sizes the same
qu (kN/m2) iβ
(Cerato, 2005).
b/B Test Analyses Test Analyses
0 31.50 36.27 0.24 0.27
4.1 Effect of Footing Distance to the Slope Crest
1 56.70 58.64 0.43 0.44
A series of tests was performed on strip footing resting on a
2 72.86 74.27 0.56 0.55
sand slope, in order to investigate the effect of distance of the
3 90.27 89.88 0.69 0.67
footing to the slope crest (b/B). Tests were conducted for b/B
4 109.11 107.12 0.84 0.80
ratios of 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0. Test was also conducted 5 124.40 123.83 0.95 0.92
with the footing on a level surface (β=0o) for the purpose of Level ground 130.40 134.74 1.00 1.00
comparison. In these test series, the slope angle was β=30o, the
relative density of sand was Dr=65% and the footing width was
B=70 mm. 70%). However, the rate of increase in bearing capacity decreases
Load settlement curves for five different b/B ratios obtained with increasing distance of setback until b/B=5.0 where the
from model tests and FE analyses are presented in Figs. 5 and 6. ultimate bearing capacity of the footing on slope approaches that
The results are also summarized in Table 4. of a footing on level ground. The effect of slope is minimized
The results indicate that, the ultimate bearing capacity increases when the footing is placed at an edge distance beyond five times
with increasing setback distance of the footing from the slope width of the footing. This change in bearing capacity of the
crest and the finite element results provide a reasonable fit with footing with its location relative to slope crest can be attributed to
the experimental results. When the footing is moved away from soil passive resistance from the slope side. When, the footing is
the slope crest (b/B=0) to the setback distance of b/B=1.0, there placed far away of the slope, the passive resistance from the
is a serious increase in bearing capacity (an average value of slope side to the failure wedge under the footing increases. Also,

Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 703 −

 M. Salih Keskin and Mustafa Laman

Fig. 7. Variations of iβ with b/B

Fig. 8. Variations of qu with Slope Angle β for Different Setback

as b/B increases a much greater force is required for the failure Distances
surface to reach the slope. Hence, the bearing capacity of the
footing increases.
The variations of bearing capacity reduction factor, iβ, at
different edge distance of the footing width (b/B) for slope angle
of β = 30o obtained from model tests and FE analyses are shown
in Fig. 7. The figure clearly shows that the general trend of FE
analyses is agree fairly well with this of the model tests. The
results show that the values of iβ increases almost linearly with
an increase in setback distance. iβ values obtained from model
tests and FE analysis for the strip footing located on the setback
distance of 5.0B are 0.95 and 0.92, respectively. Hence, it is
inferred that the ultimate bearing capacity for a footing at a
setback distance larger than 5.0B may be close enough to that in
the level ground case and there would be no benefit from moving
the footing any further from the slope.
Fig. 9. Variations of iβ with Slope Angle β for Different Setback Dis-
tances
4.2 Effect of Slope Angle
In addition to the series of model tests for footing located on
slope with slope angle of β = 30o, another series of model tests Table 5. Results of Footing on Slope with Different Slope Angles
(Dr=65%, B=70 mm)
were carried out for footing on slope with slope angles of β = 25o
and 20o to examine the influence of the slope angle on the qu (kN/m2) iβ
bearing capacity of the strip footing. For each slope angle, the β b/B Test Analyses Test Analyses
footing was placed at five different setback distances such that 0 44.45 48.81 0.34 0.36
the setback distance to footing width ratio b/B = 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 1 67.81 74.08 0.52 0.55
2 84.43 90.76 0.65 0.67
4.0 and 5.0. Dr = 65% and B = 70 mm were constant for all 25°
3 100.41 106.42 0.77 0.79
model tests. Table 5 summarizes the results of model tests and
4 114.80 118.10 0.88 0.88
FE analysis. The variations of qu and iβ with slope angle β for
5 125.27 127.30 0.96 0.94
different setback distances obtained from load-displacement
0 60.80 63.53 0.47 0.47
curves both experimentally and numerically are shown in Figs. 8
1 81.19 81.94 0.62 0.61
and 9, respectively.
2 97.82 100.84 0.75 0.75
As seen from Figs. 8 and 9, the agreement between experimental 20°
3 107.25 112.84 0.82 0.84
and numerical results is reasonably well. Fig. 8 clearly shows
4 120.02 122.49 0.92 0.91
that, the ultimate bearing capacity decreases with an increase in
5 127.78 133.59 0.98 0.99
slope angle. The bearing capacity also increases with increasing
setback distance and at setback distance of 5.0B; is not
influenced by the slope gradient. A similar trend was observed distances as seen in Fig. 9. The value of iβ increases with
for variations of iβ with slope angle β for different setback decrease of slope angle and increase of setback distance.

− 704 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Model Studies of Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Sand Slope

It is known that when a slope angle is increased, e.g. by

excavation, it becomes less stable. This is evident in that the
bearing capacity is significantly reduced as the slope angle
increases. As the slope angle is increased the area of the slope is
decreased therefore the failure zone is decreased resulting in a
much smaller bearing capacity. To overcome this reduction Fig.
8 shows that while increasing the slope angle but moving the
footing further from the slope a greater bearing capacity of
footing is achieved. For example a 20 degree slope with b/B=0.0
has approximately the same bearing capacity as a 30 degree
slope with b/B=1.0. Also, it can be concluded that the effect of
setback distance on the bearing capacity of footing is regardless
the value of slope angles ranged between 20o and 30o and at
setback distance of b/B=5 the slope has no influence on the
bearing capacity and the problem is considered as a level ground
problem. Fig. 10. Variations of qu with Relative Density for Different Setback
Distances
4.3 Effect of Relative Density of Sand
In order to study the effect of relative density, in addition to the relative density increases, the angle of friction of the sand
series of model tests for footing on sand slope with relative increases and hence the adhesion and friction between soil and
density of Dr = 65%, two series of tests were carried out on model footing increases. This causes a larger failure surface and leading
footing located on different setback distances of sand slope with to greater bearing capacity.
the densities of Dr = 45% and 85%. b = 30o and B = 70 mm were Figures 11 and 12 show the variations of iβ with relative
constant for all model tests of this series. The results are density of sand at different setback distances of footing obtained
summarized in Table 6. The variations of qu and iβ with relative from model tests and FE analysis, respectively. The results of
density of Dr for different setback distances are shown in Figs. model tests and FE analyses show that the values of bearing
10, 11 and 12. capacity reduction factor, iβ increases almost linearly with
Table 6 and Fig. 10 clearly show that the bearing capacity of increase of setback distance ratio of b/B. However, the relative
the footing on a slope is significantly increases with an increase density of sand has not considerable effect on the behavior of iβ.
of relative density of sand and at setback distance of 5.0B the As mentioned before the bearing capacity factor, iβ is the ratio of
effect of slope is minimized. A good agreement was observed the ultimate bearing capacity of footing on slope to the ultimate
between the results of model tests and FE analysis. The data bearing capacity of footing on level ground. When the relative
trends in Fig. 10 show that as relative density of sand increases density of sand increases the ultimate bearing capacity of footing
the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing increases linearly. on slope and level ground increase almost equally. Hence, there
This increase in bearing capacity of footing with relative density are slight differences between iβ values and it can be concluded
of sand can be attributed with soil-footing interaction. As the that the relative density of sand has negligible effect on the

Table 6. Results of Footing on Slope with Different Relative Den-

sities of Sand (β=30o, B=70 mm)
qu (kN/m2) iβ
Dr b/B Test Analyses Test Analyses
0 27.61 26.01 0.32 0.27
1 41.22 43.70 0.48 0.46
2 50.31 54.32 0.59 0.57
45%
3 62.77 67.14 0.74 0.70
4 73.05 76.68 0.86 0.80
5 82.41 88.32 0.96 0.92
0 44.40 45.83 0.26 0.28
1 76.62 74.85 0.45 0.46
2 94.51 95.89 0.56 0.59
85%
3 118.14 115.87 0.70 0.71
4 143.67 138.19 0.85 0.85
Fig. 11. Variations of iβ with Relative Density for Different Setback
5 163.34 153.53 0.97 0.94
Distances (Model Test)

Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 705 −

 M. Salih Keskin and Mustafa Laman

Fig. 13. Variations of qu with Footing width for Different Setback

Fig. 12. Variations of iβ with Relative Density for Different Setback
Distances
Distances (FEA)

Table 7. Results of Footing on Slope with Different Footing width

(β=30o, Dr=65%)
qu (kN/m2) iβ
B b/B Test Analyses Test Analyses
0 15.54 29.20 0.17 0.26
1 40.02 47.33 0.43 0.42
2 51.27 58.71 0.55 0.52
50 mm
3 69.00 72.02 0.73 0.64
4 80.50 84.12 0.86 0.75
5 89.88 102.42 0.96 0.91
0 31.50 36.27 0.24 0.27
1 56.70 58.64 0.43 0.44
2 72.86 74.27 0.56 0.55
70 mm Fig. 14.Variations of iβ with Footing Width for Different Setback
3 90.27 89.88 0.69 0.67
4 109.11 107.12 0.84 0.80 Distances (Model Test)
5 124.40 123.83 0.95 0.92

bearing capacity reduction factor, iβ.

4.4 Effect of Footing Width

A series of test were carried out on a model footing (B = 50
mm) located on different setback distances of sand slope in order
to investigate the effect of footing width on the bearing capacity.
The other parameters were β = 30o and Dr = 65% in model tests.
Table 7 summarizes the results of model tests and FE analyses.
The variations of qu and iβ with footing width of B at different
setback distances are shown in Figs. 13, 14 and 15.
As seen from Table 7 and Fig. 13, although the ultimate bearing
capacity values obtained from numerical analyses do not fit
completely with the experimental results and give greater Fig. 15. Variations of iβ with Footing Width for Different Setback
Distances (FEA)
bearing capacity, especially for footing of B = 50 mm, but the
agreement is reasonably well. This discrepancy may be related to
the model and foundation parameters chosen in numerical and slope is minimized at setback distance of b/B = 5.0. This increase
experimental model. Based on the numerical and experimental in bearing capacity can be attributed to the larger contact area
results, it is clear that, as the footing width increases the ultimate between soil and footing. Larger displacements and vertical
bearing capacity of footing on a slope increases and effect of stresses occur below the larger footing. Therefore, the failure

− 706 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Model Studies of Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Sand Slope

wedge becomes larger and the frictional resistance on failure

planes becomes greater and bearing capacity of the footing
increases.
Figures 14 and 15 show the variations of iβ with footing width
at different setback distances obtained from model tests and FE
analysis, respectively. The results of model tests and FE analyses
show that the values of bearing capacity reduction factor, iβ
increases with increase of setback distance ratio of b/B. The
behavior of iβ is similar to that behavior observed in test series on
the effect of relative density of sand and seems to be footing
width has not considerable effect on the bearing capacity reduction
factor, iβ.

4.5 Parametric Study

4.5.1 Effect of Footing Width

In order to evaluate the effect of footing width on the bearing
capacity factor Nγq, finite element analyses were performed on
strip footings with widths of 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09, 0.10,
0.11, 0.12 and 0.13 m. The strip footings were located on two
different distances from the edge of the slope (b/B=0 and 1)
having slope angle of β=30° and relative density of Dr=65%. The
ultimate bearing capacity, qu and bearing capacity factor, Nγq
values obtained from the analyses are summarized in Figs. 16
and 17, respectively. A significant effect of footing width may be
seen in the results. The qu values increase and Nγq values decrease
with an increase in B. Also, it is clear that qu and Nγq values
increase with an increase in setback distance ratio of b/B. Fig. 16
shows that the value of qu can be expressed as a linear function of
B, as follow:
qu = x1 + x2 B
in which, x1=14.507, x2=310.55 for b/B=0 and x1=22.09, x2=
Fig. 17. Variation of Nγq with B
506.33 for b/B=1. Fig. 17 shows that curve-fitting using Eq. (5)
generates good values of correlation coefficient.
2
Nγq = x1 + x2 B + x3 B (5)
in which, x1=96.631, x2=-664.34, x3=2334.6 for b/B=0 and x1=
179.16, x2=-1662.1, x3=7048 for b/B=1.
For the evaluation of bearing capacity factor (Nγq) limited
footing widths were used in the analysis. This part of study aims
to only show the effect of the footing width on the bearing
capacity factor Nγq. Therefore, the derived equations (Eqs. 4 and
(4)
5) are valid within the content of current study. These equations
should be considered as designating the relation between footing
width and Nγq. Hence, when these equations compared with the
other studies larger values up to 2 times are obtained.

4.5.2 Effect of Footing Rigidity

In this study, the strip footing was used and the footing was
considered as a flexible body. A series of finite element analysis
were performed considering the footing as a rigid body. One way
of rigid body modeling is to assign prescribed uniform
displacements to the footing which is the case for the rigid body
behavior. In the analysis, the same geometry was considered and
the settlement of the footing is simulated by means of a uniform

Fig. 16. Variation of qu with B Fig. 18. Rigid Model

Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 707 −

 M. Salih Keskin and Mustafa Laman

Fig. 21. Mesh and Boundary Conditions for 3D Model

Fig. 19. Variations of qu with b/B

Fig. 22. Variations of qu with b/B

Fig. 20. Variations of iβ with b/B

indentation at the top of the sand layer instead of modeling the

footing itself as seen in Fig. 18. The prescribed displacement was
taken as s = 0.1B = 0.0070 m. In the analysis the slope angle was
β = 30°, the relative density was Dr = 45%, the footing width
was B = 0.070 m, and the distance of the footing to the slope
crest were varied from b = 0 to 5B.
Figures 19 and 20 show the variations between qu-b/B and iβ-b/
B values, respectively. When comparing the qu results obtained
by flexible and rigid assumptions, it can be noticed that for the
Fig. 23. Variations of iβ with b/B
same displacement the rigid footing, exhibited more bearing
capacity (about 8-10%) than that from flexible footing.
are somewhat greater (about 2%) than the values obtained from
4.5.3 Effect of 3D Modeling 2D plane strain analysis. However, the iβ values obtained from
A series of 3D finite element analysis were performed using 3D and 2D analysis which shown in Fig. 23 are very close.
PLAXIS 3D to take care of 3D effects on the test results. In the
analysis the same geometry of the experimental set-up was used. 5. Failure Mechanism
b/B ratios were 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, footing width was B=70 mm,
slope angle was β=30° and the relative density of sand was For soil slopes, the results of previous studies showed that the
Dr = 65%. The used mesh and boundary conditions for 3D failure model could be categorized as perfect plastic failure with
model is seen in Fig. 21. Figs. 22 and 23 show the variations a circular slip surface. In common, the failure region was divided
between the qu and iβ values obtained from experimental, 2D and into active zone, passive zone, and radial shear zone; however,
3D analysis with b/B ratios, respectively. the radial shear zone was in global shear failure and bounded by
As seen from Fig. 22, the qu values obtained from 3D analysis a logarithmic spiral line. This section is devoted to discuss the

− 708 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Model Studies of Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Sand Slope
Fig. 24. Output for β = 20°, b/B = 0: (a) Deformed Mesh, (b) Total
Displacements, (c) Total Displacement Contours, (d) Shear
Strains
Fig. 25. Output for β = 25°, b/B = 0: (a) Deformed Mesh, (b) Total
Displacements, (c) Total Displacement Contours, (d) Shear
Strains
Fig. 26. Output for β = 30°, b/B = 0: (a) Deformed Mesh, (b) Total
Displacements, (c) Total Displacement Contours, (d) Shear
Strains
Fig. 27. Pictures of the Model Sand at the Peak Footing Load: (a)
β = 30o, b/B = 1, (b) β = 30o, b/B=0
Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013
failure mechanism observed in experimental and numerical
studies of bearing capacity of strip footings adjacent to the crest
of a sand slope.
The form of failure plane below the footing can illustrate the
influence of the slope angle and the setback distance from the
slope crest on the bearing capacity. In order to clearly
demonstrate the differences in the failure plane due to effect of
slope angle β, and b/B ratio, the case of soil with β = 20°, 25°
and 30° with different b/B ratios of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are chosen
for comparison. The failure mechanisms obtained from
numerical analyses for different slope angles are shown in Figs.
24 through 26. Fig. 27(a) and 27(b) show the picture of the
model slope at the peak footing load for β = 30° with setback
distance ratio of b/B = 0 and 1, respectively.
At the ultimate stage, the bearing pressure reaches the peak
load, and begins to decrease suddenly with increasing settlement.
For all slope angles, the failure initialing from the left edge of the
footing propagated into the slope surface and resulted in the total
loss of passive resistance. As a result, the footing collapses and
the soil deform laterally toward the sloping side. Once a fully
connected failure surface was created, the soil begins to push
toward the sloping side. As mentioned before, from the comparison
of the results of model tests and numerical analyses, the ultimate
bearing capacity consistently decreases as the slope angle increases.
Unlike the level ground case, the failure mode was not
symmetrical and only developed in the sloping side. According
to figures, it appears that the failure process for the 20°, 25° and
30° slopes are very similar. A starting at the left edge of the
footing propagated with increasing load.
It can be noted that if the footing is located close to the edge of
the slope, the soil below the footing tends to move toward the
slope, since it has less shear resistance. The form of failure
surfaces are affected by the setback distance from the slope crest.
With increasing setback distance, the failure zone is larger and
will provide a higher bearing capacity. In Fig. 28(a), the
Fig. 28. Contours of Shear Strain (β = 30°): (a) b/B = 0, (b) b/B = 1,
(c) b/B = 2, (d) b/B = 3, (e) b/B = 4, (f) b/B = 5
− 709 −
 M. Salih Keskin and Mustafa Laman

out to investigate the bearing capacity of a strip footing resting

on sand slopes. The study primarily aimed at determining the
effect of setback distance of the footing to the slope crest and its
behavior with various s slope angles, relative density of sand and
width of the footing. Based on the experimental and numerical
studies, the following main conclusions are made:
Fig. 29. Geometry of Model used in LE Analysis
Fig. 30. Slip Surface Obtained from LE Analysis
influence area concentrates mainly on the side of the slope.
When the footing is located away from the slope crest, the
bearing capacity of the footing increases as expected. It can be
said that, the degree of confinement on the side of the slope
increases and part of the stress due to the footing begins being
governed by soil on the side of the ground surface. According to
the Figs. 28(a-f), the displacement of the soil occurs on the side
of ground surface and the influence of the slope is vanishing by
locating the footing further away from the slope crest. At the
ratio of b/B = 5.0, the failure plane becomes symmetric, which
illustrates that the stress spread on both side of the footing.
In order to analyze the failure mechanism based on Limit
Equilibrium (LE) method a series of analyses was performed.
The limit equilibrium analysis was carried out using the commercial
program GeoStudio (GeoStudio, 2012. Geo-Slope Int. Ltd.). The
geometry of the model was taken to be the same as the laboratory
model (Fig. 29). Using limit equilibrium, GeoStudio can model
heterogeneous soil types, complex slip surface geometry, and
variable pore-water pressure conditions.
The slip surface obtained from limit equilibrium analysis is
shown in Fig. 30. It can be seen from Fig. 30 that a circular
surface propagates towards the slope until the sloping ground is
reached. It should also be noted that when the factor of safety
was equal to 1 the ultimate load was about 60 kN/m2 which is
reasonable close to the ultimate bearing capacity value of 56.70
kN/m2 obtained from experimental study.
6. Conclusions
A series of model tests and numerical analyses has been carried
1. The results show that the bearing capacity and bearing
capacity reduction factor iβ, increase almost linearly with an
increase in setback distance up to setback distance to foot-
ing width ratio of b/B = 5.0. Beyond this value, the ultimate
bearing capacity remains constant like that of a footing
located on a level ground.
2. The bearing capacity of strip footing on sand slope is signifi-
cantly dependent on the slope angle, relative density of sand,
and width of the footing.
3. The results clearly show that as the slope angle increases
or slope becomes steeper the ultimate bearing capacity of
footing decreases. Moving the footing further from the
slope overcomes this reduction due to the increase in
slope angle.
4. The bearing capacity of the footing on a slope is signifi-
cantly increases with an increase of relative density of sand.
However, the relative density of sand has not considerable
effect on the behavior of iβ.
5. Based on the numerical and experimental results, as the
footing width increases the ultimate bearing capacity
increases and bearing capacity factor decreases. Further-
more, it seems to be footing width has a negligible effect on
the bearing capacity reduction factor, iβ.
6. The results show that the value of iβ characterizing the linear
relationship between the effect of setback distance of the
footing to footing width ratio (b/B) and the slope angle (β).
It can be expressed as functions of b/B and β, independent
from relative density of sand (Dr) and footing width (B).
7. From series of numerical studies (using finite element anal-
yses) with the variation in the footing size, empirical equa-
tions have been derived between the bearing capacity
characteristics (qu and Nγq) and footing width for the strip
footings located on two different distances from the edge of
the slope (b/B=0 and 1). A significant effect has been seen
in the results. The qu values increase linearly and Nγq values
decrease parabolically with an increase in B. Also, the val-
ues of qu and Nγq increase with an increase in setback dis-
tance ratio of b/B.
8. The results of the parametric study show that for the same
displacement the rigid footing, exhibited more bearing
capacity than that from flexible footing. Also, 3D analysis
gives somewhat greater bearing capacity values than the val-
ues obtained from 2D plane strain analysis.
9. A close agreement between the experimental and numerical
results on general trend of behavior is observed. However,
the ultimate bearing capacity values obtained from FEA
appears to be greater than that obtained from the model
tests.

− 710 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Model Studies of Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing on Sand Slope
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Scientific Research Project Directorate
of Cukurova University for supporting this study (Project no:
MMF2006D1).
References
Cerato, A. B. (2005). Scale effect of shallow foundation bearing capacity
on granular materials, PhD Dissertation, Univ. of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
De Buhan, P. and Gaernier, D. (1988). “Three dimensional bearing
capacity analysis of a foundation near a slope.” Soils Found., Vol.
38, No. 3, pp. 153-163.
Dickin, E. A. and Laman, M. (2007). “Uplift response of strip anchor in
cohesionless soil.” Adv. Eng. Softw., Vol. 38, Nos. 8-9, pp. 618-625.
Duncan, M. and Chang, C. Y. (1970). “Nonlinear analysis of stress and
strain in soils.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, Vol. 96, No. 5, pp.
1629-1653.
Garnier, J., Canepa, Y., Corte, J. F., and Bakir, N. E. (1994). “Etude dela
portance de foundations en bord de talus.” Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, New Delhi, India, pp. 705-708.
Gemperline, M. C. (1988). “Centrifuge modeling of shallow foundations.”
In Proc., ASCE Spring Convention, pp. 45-70.
GeoStudio, (2012). Geo-Slope Int. Ltd.
Graham, J., Andrews, M., and Shields, D. H. (1988). “Stress characteristics
for shallow footings in cohesionless slopes.” Can. Geotech. J., Vol.
Vol. 17, No. 4 / May 2013 − 711 −
View publication stats
25, No. 2, pp. 238-249.
Hansen, J. B. (1970). “A revised and extended formula for bearing
capacity.” Danish Geotech. Inst., Bulletin 28, pp. 5-11.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1957). “The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations
on slopes.” In Proc., IV Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Found. Eng., London,
England, Vol. 1, 384-387.
Meyerhof, G. G. (1963). “Some recent research on the bearing capacity
of foundations.” Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 16-26.
Narita, K. and Yamaguchi, H. (1990). “Bearing capacity analysis of
foundations on slopes by use of log-spiral sliding surfaces.” Soils
Found., Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 144-152.
Plaxis (2002). User manual, 2D version8 (Edited by Brinkgreeve, R.J.B.),
Delft University of Technology & PLAXIS b.v., The Netherlands.
Saran, S., Sud, V. K., and Handa, S. C. (1989). “Bearing capacity of
footings adjacent to slopes.” J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 115, No.
4, pp. 553-573.
Shields, D., Chandler, N., and Garnier, J. (1990). “Bearing capacity of
foundations in slopes.” J. Geotech. Eng., ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp.
528-537.
Shields, D. H., Scott, J. D., Bauer, G. E., Deschemes, J. H., and
Barsvary, A. K. (1977). “Bearing capacity of foundations near
slopes.” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 715-720.
Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Vesic, A. S. (1975). “Bearing capacity of shallow foundations.” In
Foundation Engineering Hand-Book, Winterkorn, H.F., and Fang,
H.Y., Eds., Van Nostrant Reinhold Co., pp. 121-147.
Wood, D. M. (2004). Geotechnical modelling, Spon Press.