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 Engineering. 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, structures are built either on slope or near the slope.
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
Shallow foundations are most commonly used when soil
at shallow depth is having sufficient bearing capacity.
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. Footings can be failed
either by shear failure or by excessive settlement. Slopes
are very common in hilly region. Hilly regions cover more
than 22% of total land area of India. The ultimate bearing
capacity of the foundations for these buildings is
significantly affected by the presence of the slope. During
the last two decades a number of studies have been
performed in finding the 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.
2. ANALYSIS METHODS
Bearing capacity analysis of foundations can be made
either experimentally or analytically and theoretically by
using four approaches; slip-line methods, limit equilibrium
methods, limits analysis methods and finite-element
methods. Every method has its own advantages as well
disadvantages. Selection of method of analysis depends on
the problem of interest and its complexity.

2.1

Experimental Analysis

Full scale tests are not popular as it requires large-scale

instrumentation and monitoring programs with lot of
money, labors and time. An alternative way is to conduct
experiments study to replicate the original problem. During
the last four decades only few experimental and full scale
model test have been performed to evaluate the bearing
capacity of the foundations on or near the sloping ground
under the static and earthquake loading. Not a single
study is available in literature on full scale test.
2.2

Theoretical Analysis

Theoretical analysis consists of limit equilibrium

analysis, slip line method and limit analysis. Theoretical
analysis are most popular as they do not require large-scale
instrumentation, monitoring programs and manual labour.
These methods are more economical compared to
experimental analysis.
2.2.1 Limit Equilibrium
This method is based on equilibrium of forces.
Meyerhof (1957) reported that length of failure surface is
reduced in slopes and bearing capacity increases with
increase in offset distance between slope edge and footing.
Saran et al. (1989) considered only one sided failure
surface and assumed that at a time of failure, strength of
sloping side has mobilized fully but on other side only
some percentage of strength is mobilized. Sarma and chen
(1995), Sarma and chen (1996), Choudhury and Rao
(2005) and Choudhury and Rao (2006) have determined
the seismic bearing capacity of footing on sloping ground.
Chen et al. (2007) observed that intermediate principal
stress have positive impact on bearing capacity factors.

5th Young Indian Geotechnical Engineers Conference 2014

March 14-15, 2014, Vadodara, India

Nq, Nc, and N factors increase when intermediate

principal stress have considered and N increases more
compared to Nc and Nq values. Huang & Kang (2008) and
Shukla and Jakka (2014) have considered the effect of
offset distance on bearing capacity factors.
2.2.2 Limit Analysis
Unlike to limit equilibrium, limit analysis gives the
ultimate capacity directly, without carrying out the stage
analysis. In this method, the stress-strain relationship of a
soil considered as an idealized manner and this idealization
is referred as normality and more popularly as a flow rule.
Upper bound solution can be obtained by equating the rate
of external work done and rate of internal work done and it
gives the maximum value of collapse load. Lower bound
consider only static equilibrium of soil and gives a collapse
load value less that true collapse load, which again needs
optimization to obtain higher value. This technique is very
rigorous and competitive compared to limit equilibrium
with consideration of an assumed stress-stain relation but
method is not user friendly as limit equilibrium. The main
advantage is that it can give a true collapse load by using
both upper and lower bound together.
Soubra and Reynolds (1992), Sawada et al. (1994)
Paolucci & Pecker (1997), Askari & Farzaneh (2003)
Yang et al (2006), Yang et al (2007), Kumar & Ghosh
(2006), Ghosh (2008), Xiao-Li Yang (2009) Castelli and
Motta (2010), Georgiadis (2010) considered the upper
bound to determine bearing capacity. Xiao-Li Yang (2009)
revealed that seismic bearing capacity increases with
increase in dilatancy angle. Yamamoto (2010) introduced
the shear transfer coefficient to calculate the seismic
bearing capacity. Kumar & Chakraborty (2013) used lower
bound in conjunction with finite element and nonlinear
optimization. Main advantage of proposed method is that it
does not require an assumed failure mechanism.
2.2.3 Slip Line Method
Slip lines are represented by differential equations of
plastic equilibrium for the failure region and derived after
combining the set of equilibrium equation and a failure
criterion. Stress, below the foundation at the instant of
impending flow can be derived by using set of these
differential equations and boundary conditions together. It
is not very simple to determine whether obtained solution
in this method is true solution or not. It deals only with
non-strain-hardening materials and there is no allowance
for creep or strain-rate effects. The slip-line solution is
also an upperbound. Kumar and Rao (2002), Kumar and
Rao (2002), and Jahanandish et al. (2008) determined the
seismic bearing capacity of footing on sloping ground.
These studies have not determined whether they got upper
bound or lower bound solution.
2.3

Numerical Analysis

The main advantage is that the numerical approach

gives both lower-bound and upper bound solutions as well,

whereas the traditional approach gives only either upper

bound or lower bound. A steady development of the
numerical method, and its applications, has been noted in
the last two decades.
Kumar and Ghosh (2005) derived the bearing capacity
factor N for both smooth and rough ring footings. Saeed
Alamshahi, Nader Hataf (2009) used FEM and model
testing to evaluate bearing capacity of reinforced soil.
Georgiadis (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. It was
found 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. Keshavarz et al.
(2011) used a computer program to analyze the slip line net
and the ultimate load distribution beneath the foundation
on reinforced soil.
3. CONCLUDING REMARK
Most of study have provided the design chart to predict
the magnitude of bearing capacity factor for a limited
range of various parameters such as footing location,
embedded depth and slope geometry. 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 when ratio of offset distance and footing
width becomes equal to two, but some also revealed that
offset distance affect the bearing capacity up to value of 5
or 6.
Few laboratory model test were performed in last four
decades. There is not a single study is available on full
scale testing. Only few studies have used lower bound
approach to determine bearing capacity in compared to
upper bound approach but none of them have used both
approach together to get the true collapse load.
Slip line method allow more careful modeling of the
boundary and field condition for the failure mechanism in
sand mass. Finite element and numerical methods can help
the researcher to simulate seismic analysis more
accurately. Most of studies have considered only shear
failure criteria and they have not considered the settlement
criteria and global stability of slope which can be major
deciding factors in slopes. 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. Still today, there is no
any worldwide accepted method are available to determine
bearing capacity of footing on or near the slope.