BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ON SLOPES

A report submitted for the comprehensive Seminar for the registration

for the degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
NABAM BUDH
(PhD/FT/16/CE/01)

Under the guidance of

Dr. Sukumar Baishya
Prof. Deptt. of Civil Engg.





DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)
NIRJULI, ARUNACHAL PRADESH-791109 INDIA
DECEMBER 2017
 Introduction
 Literature Review
◦ Analytical Techniques
◦ BC of shallow foundation on horizontal ground
◦ BC of shallow foundation on slopes
◦ Comparison of available methodologies
◦ Failure mechanism of shallow foundation on slopes
◦ Factors affecting BC of shallow foundation on slopes
◦ BC using Finite element analysis (FEA)
 Why FEA Method?
 Acharyya & Dey (2015, 2017)
 Critical comments
 Proposed work and research objectives
 Methodology
 Work Plan
 References
 GENERAL BACKGROUND
 BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW
 BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL
 Definition of BC & Ultimate BC
 In foundation, soil is the weakest construction material.
 BC depends on mechanical characteristic of soil and physical
characteristic of foundation.
 First developed by Prandtl (1920), and later extended by Terzaghi
(1943), Meyerhof (1951), Hansen (1970), Vesic (1973)
 Terzaghi (1943) qu =cNc +qNq +γBNγ
 BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL ON SLOPES
 Land limitations
 NO BIS guidelines
 Overall stability & BC failure makes it more critical
 First undertaken by Meyerhof (1957) and later on by Hasen (1970),
Vesic (1975), Kusakabe et. al. (1981), etc.
 qu,slope =cNcq +γBNγq
 Theories of Ultimate BC was developed using analytical techniques.
 SUMMARY
 The theories of the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations
were developed by employing one of the following analytical techniques:
Limit equilibrium analysis
Considers equilibrium of forces ,an approximate method,
trial and error, simple, most widely used till date.
 Terzaghi (1943), Meyerhof (1957), Azzouz and Baligh (1983), Narita and
Yamaguchi (1990) and Castelli and Motta (2008)
Slip line analysis
Slip line represent the direction of the maximum shear
stresses.
 Sokolovski (1960), Buhan and Garnier (1994, 1998)
Limit analysis
Considers the stress-strain relationship in an idealized
manner. Ben Leshchinsky (2015,2017), Mofidi et.al. (2014),
Chakraborty (2012)
Finite element analysis
A numerical technique
 Kai Wing Ip (2005), Loukidis et.al.(2008), Georgiadis (2010), Shaiau et. al.(2011),
Nyugen et.al. (2011), Abbas & Sabbar (2011), Acharyya & Dey (2015, 2017),
  Terzaghi (1943) proposed a
theory for determination of
BEARING the ultimate bearing capacity
CAPACITY THEORY of shallow ,rough, rigid &
continuous foundation
FOR STRIP supported by a homogenous,
FOUNDATION ON isotropic soil.
HORIZONTAL  qu =cNc +qNq +γBNγ
Used limit equilibrium
SURFACE

analysis
 Moment in equilibrium was not
considered
 Elastic zone is responsible
for resistance against
sliding
 due to self weight of the soil.
 passive force is due to
 surcharge (q),
 cohesion (c),
 unit weight of the soil (γ),
 the angle of shear resistance (Φº),
 the solution is not exact
 Meyerhof (1957)
 qu,slope =cNcq +γBNγq
◦ Plastic zone on the side of the slope is relatively smaller
◦ The ultimate BC of the foundation is reduced.
BC depends on
 the distance of the foundation from the top of the slope (b),
 If b˃ 2 to 6B, BC is independent of (α°).
 the angle of the slope (α°),
 the angle of shearing resistance of the soil
 the depth/width ratio (Df/B), of the foundation
Author Year Foundation Loadin Geometr Clay Sand C-Φ Constitutive Methods
Position g y of models used used
Top of On Slope footing
Slope

Meyerhof 1957 √ √ Strip √ √ X Limit

footing equilibrium

Hansen 1970 √ X √ √ √

Vesic 1975 √ X √ X X

Graham 1988 √ X X √ X Analytical

et.al. method

Shields 1988 √ X Strip X √ X Centrifugal

et.al. footing Test

Saran et.al. 1989 √ X Strip √ √ √ Limit

footing equilibrium
and limit
analysis

Sharma & 1995 √ X Strip √ √ √ Mohr-coulomb Limit

Chen footing failure criteria equilibrium

Choudhury 2006 X √ Strip √ √ √ Rigid perfectly Limit

& Rao footing plastic equilibrium

Georgiadis 2009 √ X Inclined Strip √ X X Mohr-coulomb FEA

footing elastic perfectly
plastic
Yamamoto 2010 √ X √ √ √ Pseudo static
approach
Author Year Foundation Loading Geometry Clay Sand C-Φ Constitutive Methods
Position of footing models used used
Top of On
the Slope
Slope
Shiau et.al 2011 √ X √ X X Limit analysis

Nguyen et.al. 2011 √ X Strip footing √ X X Mohr-coulomb FEA

failure criteria

Abbas & 2011 √ X Rectangular √ X X FEA

Sabbar footing
Castelli et.al. 2012 √ X Square & X √ X Experimental
Strip

Chakrabort 2013 √ Strip footing √ Mohr-coulomb Limit analysis

y & Kumar failure criteria

Mofidi, et.al. 2014 √ √ Strip footing √ X √ Mohr-coulomb Limit Analysis

yield function

Ben 2015 √ X Strip footing X X √ Perfectly plastic Upper bound

Leshchinsky limit state

Ganesh et. 2016 √ X Eccentric Strip footing X √ √ Regression

al. and analysis of
oblique laboratory
model

Acharyya & 2015, √ X Square footing X √ X Mohr-coulomb FEA

Dey 2017 elastic perfectly
◦ Bearing capacity
failure
◦ Overall stability of
the slope failure
◦ Combined failure

Figure: Failure modes: (a) and (b)

bearing capacity failure and (c) overall
slope failure
 The effect of slope
angle(β)
 BC decreases
 Height of slope (H)
 Geometry of footing
 Distance of slope
from edge of footing
(b)
 Cohesion (c)
 Angle of shearing
resistance (φ)
 Drainage conditions
in the slope.
 KaiWing Ip (2005)
 Loukidis et al. (2008)
 Georgiadis (2010)
 Shaiau et. al.(2011)
 Nyugen & Merifield (2011)
 Abbas & Sabbar (2011)
 Acharyya & Dey (2015, 2017)
 A very powerful program that
◦ covers most of the problem in geotechnical engineering.
 FEA is capable to simulate
◦ the geometry of the foundation,
◦ the soil and
◦ the loading conditions
 Takes into account,
◦ the 3-D confinement effect at the site.
 Unlike others methods, no assumptions are made.
 Numerical simulation obtained from 3D models
gives
◦ accurate solutions
◦ consistently higher than that obtained from analytical
estimates
 Solutions obtained by finite element method of
analyses are
◦ widely acceptable in current industry.
Figure :Typical PLAXIS 3D representation of a footing resting on Figure: Schematic representation of a model geometry for a
the crest of a slope footing resting on sloping ground (not to scale)
 Fig. Typical meshing scheme
Figure: 2.19. Standard fixities
adopted in the numerical model
applied in the numerical model
(Acharyya & Dey 2017)
(Acharyya & Dey 2017)
Figure: Formation of passive zones beneath the footing for various setback
ratios (b/B)
(Acharyya & Dey 2017)
 Coupled stress-deformation analysis
 BC increases with the increase in
◦ The angle of internal friction,
◦ Embedment depth,
◦ Footing width,
◦ Setback distance.
 The increase in BC due to increase of embedment depth
of the footing is
◦ due to increase in the degree of confinement restricting the
movement of the soil towards the sloping face.
 Beyond a critical setback ratio b/B = 3,
◦ the footing behaves similar to that on horizontal ground.
 Bearing capacity reduces
◦ with the increase of slope angle,
 which is associated with the increased soil movement towards the
slope.
 The variation of unit weight and modulus of elasticity of
soil
◦ has marginal effect on the bearing capacity.
 Theories of Meyerhof (1957) and Graham et al. (1987), and
the experimental work from Shields et.al (1977), Gemperline
(1988) and Garnier et al. (1994) ,etc.
◦ Provided a design chart needed
 to predict the magnitude of Nγq .
◦ Design chart valid for only
 a limited range of footing location and
 embedded depth.
 The experimental work of Meyerhof (1957) and Shield et al.
showed that
◦ soil with different value of ϕ° leads to
 BC with respect to the distance of the footing.
 While most of the theories developed for foundations near
slope are
◦ for cohesionless material,
◦ Meyerhof presented a solution for the case of
 pure cohesive soil (ϕ°=0°).
 Thus for cohesive-frictional material,
◦ equation qu,slope =cNcq +γBNγq may not be capable
 to predict the ultimate BC of footing on cohesive-frictional materials.
 Method of Gemperline (1988) has provided a
mathematical solution, which is valid for
◦ different size of footing and
◦ different horizontal and vertical location of the
footing.
 The solutions of BC of shallow foundation on
slopes given by Saran et al. (1989) are
◦ valid only for Df/B=0 to 1 and b/B=0 to 1.
◦ For other footing locations and embedded depths,
the values of BC factors are
 not accurately predicted.
 All the approaches used by different
researchers for the evaluation of BC of
shallow foundation on slope or near the
slope
◦ have their own sets of assumptions and
◦ corresponding weaknesses also.
 Some investigations show that,
◦ in case of non cohesive soils,
 the BC is always governed by foundation failure,
◦ while in cohesive soil
 the BC of the foundation is dictated by the stability
of slope.
 Hybrid methods (viz. combination of FE method with Limit
analysis or FE method with Limit equilibrium)
◦ has been used successfully by many researchers
 use of finite element analysis has been very nominal
till date.
 Most of the research work has been carried
out on
◦ Strip footing
◦ but very few works has been reported on Square (Castelli et.al. 2012;
Acharyya & Dey 2015, 2017)
◦ and rectangular footing (Abbas & Sabbar 2011)
 Use of circular footing has not been reported so far.
 Most of the work was carried out for
foundation loaded with
◦ axial loads
 but the case of inclined load is very limited (Georgiadis 2009; Ganesh et.
al. 2016)
 To develop a numerical model
 simulate the case of shallow foundation with
strip/square/rectangular/circular footing on/near a
slope.
 Using Salome-Meca, FEA based software.
 To evaluate the ultimate bearing capacity
 the effect of slope angle,
 height of slope,
 geometry of footing,
 distance of slope from edge of footing,
 cohesion,
 angle of shearing resistance and
 drainage conditions in the slope.
 To evaluate the effect of the drainage on BC
 Undrained
 Drained
 To analyse BC
 considering 3D geometry of slopes
 To study the effect of different soil
constitutive models
on BC of shallow foundation on slopes.
 To compare the result obtained in this
investigation
◦ with the generally used existing theoretical values
available in literatures of Meyerhof (1957), Vasic
(1975), etc.
 Development of FE model
◦ of soil and foundation system on slopes covering wide range
of parameters identified in the objective of the studies.
 Development of load deformation curve
◦ of the footing under progressive loading.
 Determination of ultimate bearing capacity
◦ of the footing from step 2 above.
 Identification of pertinent failure mechanism
◦ in terms of deformation/strain/stress.
 Study of variation of failure mechanism if any,
vis-a-vis variation of different salient parameters
identified above.
 Development of non-dimensional (ND) charts
reflecting the effects of salient geotechnical/geometric
factors affecting bearing capacity of soil on slopes.
 Abbas & Sabbar (2011), Finite analysis for bearing capacity of
rectangular footing resting near sloped cohesive soil, Tikrit Journal
of Eng. Sciences/Vol.18/No.3/September 2011, (33-41).
 Acharyya R. & Dey R. (2015), Site characterization and bearing
capacity estimation for a school building located on hill slope, 50th
indian geotechnical conference, College of Engineering (Estd. 1854),
Pune, India.
 Acharyya R. & Dey R. (2017), Finite Element Investigation of the
Bearing Capacity of Square Footings Resting on Sloping Ground,
Springer; Indian National Academy of Engineering; INAE Lett (2017)
2:97–105; DOI 10.1007/s41403-017-0028-6.
 Ben Leschchinsky (2015), “Bearing capacity of footings placed
Adjacent to c-ϕ slopes” A.M.ASCE.
 Ben Leschchinsky and Xie Yonggui (2017), “Bearing capacity of
spread footings placed near c-ϕ slopes”, J. Geothech, Geoenviron,
Eng., 2017, 143(1):06016020; ASCE: DI10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0001578
 Castelli, F. and Lentini, V. (2012), Evaluation of the bearing
capacity of footings on slopes, International Journal of Physical
Modelling in Geotechnics, 129(3), 112-118.
 Choudhury & Rao (2006), Seismic bearing capacity of shallow
strip footings embedded in slope, DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-
3641(2006)6:3(176).
 Chakraborty & Kumar (2013), “Bearing capacity of foundations on
slopes”, Geomechanics and Geoengineering: An international Journal,
Vol.8, No.4, 274-285.
 Ganesh et al. (2016), “Bearing capacity of shallow strip foundations in
sand under eccentric and oblique loads”, ASCE.
 Georgiadis, K., 2009. The influence of load inclination on the
undrained bearing capacity of strip footings on slopes. Computers
and Geotechnics, 37 (3), 311–322.
 Georgiadis, K., (2010), Undrained Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings
on Slope, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000269.
 Hansen, J. B. (1970). “A revised and extended formula for bearing
capacity.” DGI Bull., No. 28, Danish Geotechnical Institute,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 5–11.
 Kai Wing Ip (2005), “Bearing capacity for foundation near slopes”.
 Meyerhof, G.G. (1957), “The ultimate bearing capacity of foundation
on slopes, Proceedings of 4th international conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, I, 384-386.
 Meyerhof, G.G., 1963. Some recent research on the bearing capacity
of foundations. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1 (1), 16–26.
 Mona A. et.al., Three dimensional bearing capacity of shallow foundations
adjacent to slopes using discrete element method, Iternational Journal of
Engineering, (IJE) volume (4): issue (2).
 Mofidi J et al. (2014), “Bearing capacity of strip footings near slopes using lower
bound limit analysis”, Civil engineering Infrastructure journal, 47(1): 89-109, ISSN:
2322-2093.
 Narita, K. and Yamaguchi, H., 1990, Bearing capacity analysis of foundations on
slopes by use of log-spiral sliding surfaces. Soils and Foundations, 30 (3), 144–
152.
 Nguyen V. Q. and Merifield R. S. (2011), undrained bearing capacity of surface
footings near slopes, Australian Geomechanics Vol 46 No 1 March 2011
 Raj Dhiraj and Bharathi M. (2014), Analysis of shallow foundation on slope: a
comparative study, International Symposium Geohazards: Science, Engineerin and
Management No.LF-16.
 Raj Dhiraj and Bharathi M. (2013), Bearing capacity of shallow foundation on
slope: A review, Proc. GGWUIP, Ludhiana, India.
 Saran, S., Sud, V.K. and Handa, S.C., 1989. Bearing capacity of footings adjacent to
slopes. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115 (4), 553–573.
 Sarma S.K. & Chen Y.C. (1996), Bearing capacity of strip footings near sloping
ground during earthquakes, Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, ISBN: 0080428223, Elsevier Science Ltd, No.2078.
 Shields et.al. (1981), Bearing capacity of footing in granular slope, Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2, 33-36.
 Shields, D., Chandler, N. and Garnier, J. (1990), Bearing capacity of foundation in
slopes, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 116(3), 528-537.
 Terzaghi, K., 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
 Vesic, A.S., 1973, Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations, Journal of the
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 99 (1), 45–73.