884

ARTICLE
Bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded strip footings close to
geotextile-reinforced sand slope
Emel Turker, Erol Sadoglu, Evrim Cure, and Bayram Ali Uzuner
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14

Abstract: A series of bearing capacity tests were conducted with an eccentrically (e/B = 0, 1/12, 1/6, 1/3) loaded model surface (Df/B =
0) and shallow (Df/B = 0.25) strip footings (B = 80 mm) resting close to reinforced finite sand slopes to investigate ultimate loads,
failure surfaces, load–displacement curves, rotation of footing, etc. The experimental set-up used to run the tests consists of a
tank, model footing, sand, and a loading mechanism. A single woven geotextile strip sheet was placed horizontally below the
footing’s base at a depth of half of the footing’s width. Ultimate loads decreased with increasing eccentricity. This decrease is due
to a combination of eccentricity and slope. The use of geotextile reinforcement increased ultimate loads in comparison with
unreinforced cases. Failure surfaces were not symmetrical, primary failure surfaces developed on the eccentricity (slope) side,
and secondary failure surfaces developed on the other side. Lengths of failure surfaces decreased with increasing eccentricity.
Prior to failure, footings always rotated towards the eccentricity (slope) side a few degrees.

Key words: eccentrically loaded footing, strip footing, reinforced sand slope, ultimate load.

Résumé : Une série d’essais en capacité portante a été réalisée, avec un modèle de surface (Df/B = 0) soumis à une charge
excentrique (e/B = 0, 1/12, 1/6, 1/3) et des semelles rectangulaires (B = 80 mm) peu profondes (Df/B = 0,25) placées tout près de pentes
de sable renforcées finies, dans le but d’étudier les charges ultimes, les surfaces de rupture, les courbes de charge–déplacement,
la rotation de la semelle, etc. Le dispositif expérimental utilisé pour réaliser les essais consistait en un réservoir, une semelle
For personal use only.

modèle, du sable et un mécanisme de chargement. Une feuille unique de géotextile tissé était placée horizontalement sous la
base de la semelle à une profondeur de la moitié de la largeur de la semelle. Les charges ultimes diminuaient avec l’augmentation
de l’excentricité. Cette diminution est due à la combinaison de l’excentricité et de la pente. L’utilisation d’un renforcement en
géotextile a augmenté les charges ultimes comparativement aux cas non renforcés. Les surfaces de rupture n’étaient pas
symétriques, les surfaces de rupture primaires se sont développées sur le côté excentrique (pente) et les surfaces de rupture
secondaires se sont développées de l’autre côté. La longueur des surfaces de rupture diminuait avec l’augmentation de
l’excentricité. Avant la rupture, les semelles démontraient toujours une rotation vers l’excentricité (pente) de quelques degrés.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : semelle chargée excentriquement, semelle rectangulaire, pente de sable renforcée, charge ultime.

Introduction This decrease can be explained as follows: roughly, the ultimate

Eccentrically loaded footings of structures may sit close to a
reinforced finite sand slope (Fig. 1). Currently, there is no design
method for such footings.
Eccentricity (e) is defined as M/Q, where M is moment and Q is
vertical load for a footing (Fig. 2). Moment generally comes from
lateral forces (earthquakes, lateral earth pressures, water, wind,
brake forces, etc.) acting on structures. Today, almost all footings
are subjected to moments due to lateral forces acting on struc-
tures. In Turkey, the Turkish Earthquake Code (2007) gives some
eccentricity to the centrally loaded footings and all footings are
designed as eccentrically loaded.
It is known that an eccentrically loaded footing resting on
continuous flat soil carries less load than the noneccentric case
(Q ue < Q uc where Q ue is the ultimate load capacity of an eccen-
trically loaded footing resting on continuous flat soil and Q uc
is the ultimate load capacity of a centrally loaded footing rest-
ing on continuous flat soil) (Fig. 3) and that the ultimate load of
the eccentrically (Q ue) loaded footing decreases with increasing
eccentricity (Meyerhof 1953; Hansen 1970; Prakash and Saran
1971).
load of a footing can be considered as an effort to shear a soil mass
along failure surfaces. Failure surfaces of a centrally loaded foot-
ing on horizontal flat soil are symmetrical (Fig. 3a). In contrast,
failure surfaces of an eccentrically loaded footing resting on con-
tinuous flat soil are not symmetrical (Fig. 3b), because the footing
rotates towards the eccentricity side, the primary failure surface
develops on the eccentricity side, and a secondary failure surface
occurs on the other side (Moroglu et al. 2005; Sadoglu et al. 2009).
Thus, the total area (or length) of an eccentrically loaded footing’s
failure surfaces is less than the same centrally loaded footing’s, so
ultimate loads are different, accordingly. There are mainly two
methods to calculate this decrease: Meyerhof’s effective width
concept (Meyerhof 1953) and the customary analysis (Tomlinson
1963).
Meyerhof (1953) proposed that the ultimate load (Q ue) of an
eccentrically loaded strip foundation having a width B is equal to

the ultimate load (Q uc ) of the centrally loaded strip foundation
having a reduced width B= obtained by subtracting 2e from B.
Some assumptions are made in the customary analysis to deter-
mine the normal base pressure distributions under an eccentri-
cally loaded footing. These are (i) stress distribution is linear,

Received 11 February 2014. Accepted 3 April 2014.

E. Turker, E. Sadoglu, E. Cure, and B.A. Uzuner. Department of Civil Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.
Corresponding author: Emel Turker (e-mail: emelturker@ktu.edu.tr).

Can. Geotech. J. 51: 884–895 (2014) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0055 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 4 April 2014.
 Turker et al.
Fig. 1. Eccentrically loaded strip footing close to a finite reinforced
sand slope.
B
Q e
De Footing
Df
Geotextile strip
β
Fig. 2. Definition of eccentricity in strip footing.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14
B Footing
Q Q
e 1989; Huang et al. 1994; Huang and Tatsuoka 1994; Lee and
M
O
B/2 O B/2 e=M/Q B/2 B/2
(ii) there are equilibriums for vertical forces (兺V = 0) and moments
(兺M = 0), and (iii) the contact is lost between the footing base and
the soil where tensile stresses occur. Uzuner (1975) investigated
the base stress distribution of eccentrically loaded model strip
footings on continuous flat sand experimentally and concluded
that the assumptions of customary analysis are satisfactory. The
base stress distributions of a strip footing are shown in Fig. 4. The
ultimate load of an eccentrically loaded strip footing can be deter-
For personal use only.
mined from the following condition according to the customary
analysis: The value of the maximum base pressure (qmax) should
not exceed the ultimate bearing capacity (qu) of the same centrally
loaded strip footing (qmax ≤ qu) (Duncan et al. 1990). Acc-
ording to the customary analysis, an eccentrically loaded strip
footing carries less load, as much as the inclined hatched areas in
Fig. 4, than the same centrally loaded case.
The ratio Q ue/Q uc becomes as following in the customary
analysis:
Q ue 1
(1) ⫽ Tank
Q uc 6e
1⫹
B
(inside and on the boundary of the core, e ≤ B/6)
共 兲
Q ue 3 2e
(2) ⫽ 1⫺ (outside the core, e ⬎ B/6)
Q uc 4 B
If 1/12, 1/6, and 1/3 are put in place of e/B in eqs. (1) and (2), the
Q ue/Q uc ratio becomes 0.67, 0.5, and 0.25, respectively. These ra-
tios are constant and independent of other factors, i.e., shape of
footing, depth of footing, slope angle, etc. (Moroglu et al. 2005;
Sadoglu et al. 2009). This method is used mostly to determine base
stress distributions of rigid footings and reduction in ultimate
load capacity of footings due to eccentricity.
A centrally loaded footing resting close to the slope carries less
load than the same footing on horizontal flat soil, because the
length of one of the failure surfaces is short due to the slope’s
presence (Fig. 5). There are experimental and theoretical works
for such footings (Sud 1984; Saran et al. 1989; Shields et al. 1990).
Centrally and eccentrically loaded footings sitting on rein-
forced continuous soils were investigated by many researchers
(Bera et al. 2005; Ghosh et al. 2005; Patra et al. 2005, 2006;
Basudhar et al. 2007; Ghazavi and Lavasan 2008; Sharma et al.
2009; Moghaddas Tafreshi and Dawson 2010a, 2010b; etc.).
Centrally loaded strip footings close to unreinforced slopes
were studied experimentally by several researchers (Lebegue
1973; Shields et al. 1977; Bauer et al. 1981; Kusakabe et al. 1981;
885
Clark et al. 1988; Gemperline 1988; Keskin and Laman 2013; etc.).
There are some theoretical studies for calculating ultimate loads
of centrally loaded strip footings close to unreinforced slopes
(Meyerhof 1957; Mizuno et al. 1960; Chen 1969; Hansen 1970; Vesic
1973, 1975; Graham et al. 1988; Saran et al. 1989; Shields et al. 1990;
Bowles 1996; etc.).
Eccentrically loaded strip footings close to unreinforced slopes
have drawn little theoretical (Saran and Reddy 1990) and little
experimental attention from researchers (Cure 2013).
For the past 40 years geosynthetics have been used to increase
the bearing capacity of soil. The application is done by placing
geosynthetics horizontally as sheets at vertical intervals under the
foundation or by mixing short pieces of geosynthetics with soil.
This has the effect of increasing the bearing capacity of soils.
Centrally loaded footings close to reinforced slopes attracted
the interest of some researchers (Selvadurai and Gnanendran
Manjunath 2000; Yoo 2001; Bathurst et al. 2003; Blatz and Bathurst
2003; El Sawwaf 2007; Keskin et al. 2007; Laman et al. 2007;
Alamshahi and Hataf 2009; Kumar and Ilamparuthi 2009; Mittal
et al. 2009; Choudhary et al. 2010; Mehdipour et al. 2013; etc.). In
contrast, eccentrically loaded footings close to reinforced slopes
received no attention.
In this work, the ultimate load capacity of an eccentrically
loaded surface and shallow strip footing close to a reinforced
sand slope and other matters, such as failure surfaces, load–
displacement curves, rotations, etc. of footings were examined
experimentally. Thus, the effect of eccentricity on ultimate loads
of strip footings close to the reinforced sand slope was deter-
mined. This work is a continuation of Moroglu et al.’s (2005),
Sadoglu et al.’s (2009), and Cure’s (2013) studies.
Experimental work
Details of the experimental work can be found elsewhere
(Moroglu 2002; Moroglu et al. 2005; Sadoglu et al. 2009; Sadoglu
2009; Cure 2013; Turker 2013). The primary components of the
experimental set-up are a tank, model strip footing, loading sys-
tem, geotextile, sand, etc. These are explained in the following
sections.
The internal dimensions of the tank containing the sand are
0.9 m (length, L) × 0.10 m (width, W) × 0.65 m (height, H) (Fig. 6 and
Fig. 7). Kumar and Bhoi (2008) stated that the ratio of the tank
length to the footing width has negligible influence on load–
settlement behavior when the ratio is larger than 12 for a similar
experimental set-up. In this study, because the model footing is on
the slope, lateral rigid boundary is less effective. Thus, the tank
length is designed as nearly 12 times the footing width. The bot-
tom and the sides of the tank were produced using hard wood. The
front and back walls were constructed of 20 mm thick glass plates
to observe failure surfaces.
The strip footing case corresponds to a plane strain condition.
There are mainly two conditions for the plane strain case. Firstly,
deformation in the y direction should be “zero” (␧y = 0, where ␧y =
⌬W/W, ␧y is strain in y direction, ⌬W is total lateral displacement
of tank’s sides, W is tank width) (Fig. 7). This implies that plane
strain models should have “rigid” front and back tank walls. Sec-
ondly, friction between soil and the front and back internal sur-
faces of the tank should be “zero”. This implies full frictionless
internal surfaces. As these conditions cannot be met absolutely
in models, some criteria should be fulfilled. Otherwise experi-
mental results may contain serious errors and may not repre-
sent a plane strain case (Ko and Davidson 1973; Kirkpatrick and
Yanikian 1975).
Kirkpatrick and Yanikian (1975) proposed that ␧y should be less
than 0.1% for plane strain models. Two steel frames made of hol-
low sections were produced and connected to each other with
Published by NRC Research Press
 886
Fig. 3. Behaviors of the (a) centrally and (b) eccentrically loaded strip footings resting on continuous flat soil.
a) Quc
Footing
Heave
B B
Failure surfaces
Que<Quc
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14
Fig. 4. Base normal stress distributions in customary analysis.
B B B (D = 38 mm) tests at a relative density, Dr, of 0.74. In the literature,
e e Que
Que Que e it is reported that there is a relation between ␾sb, ␾tr, and ␾ps
qmin
qmax q max
qmax
e<B/6 e=B/6 e>B/6
steel bolts along the sides of the frames. Steel elements made of
solid profiles were welded in the middle part of the frames to
prevent deformation of the glass plates. The surface of the steel
frame that the glass plates touched was produced to be almost
perfectly plane so that no glass was broken during the tests. Two
For personal use only.
dial gauges were placed on the external faces of the glass plates
to measure lateral deformations. Measured horizontal displace-
ments revealed that the horizontal strains of the sides were found
to be considerably less than 0.1% in the tests.
Ideally, thin latex sheets should be placed on the internal faces
of lightly lubricated glass plates to achieve almost frictionless side
faces. For the application reported, there are difficulties due to
movements of the sand mass in different directions. Also, latex
sheets cannot be used due to the need to observe failure surfaces.
Thus the sand is in contact with the glass faces in this experimen-
tal work. Kirkpatrick and Uzuner (1975) showed that the effect of
side friction between glass sides and sand on bearing capacity is
less than 10% in case of B/W = 1 (B is the footing width, W is the
tank width) for the surface footing sitting on the medium dense
sand. The conditions of this experimental work are close to the
conditions established by Kirkpatrick and Uzuner (1975). Further-
more, the effect of side friction is approximately eliminated in
this experimental work due to usage of the ratios of the ultimate
loads instead of the ultimate loads.
Model footing
The model strip footing was produced by welding 8 mm thick
steel plates in the manner shown in Fig. 8 to form a rigid footing
condition. The dimensions of the footing in the test set-up are
80 mm (width, B) × 100 mm (length) × 80 mm (height). V-shaped
grooves were opened along the length of the base plate so that
different eccentricities (inside, on the boundary, and outside of
the core, e = 0, 6.7, 13.3, 26.7 mm or e/B = 0, 1/12, 1/6, 1/3) can be
applied. Only, a 2 mm thickness was left under the grooves so that
the eccentricity could not change meaningfully during testing
with a rotating footing. The footing base was covered by coarse
sandpaper to obtain a full frictional condition along the base of
the footing.
Sand
The sand used in tests was local Black Sea coastal sand. It has
a grain-size distribution that ranges from about 0.2 to 4 mm
(medium-coarse) and is classified as SP (poorly graded, in accor-
dance with ASTM 2011). The properties of the sand are summa-
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 51, 2014
b) Rotation Que
Footing
e
Secondary failure surface
Primary failure surface
rized in Table 1. The internal friction angles of the sand were
measured from the shear box (60 mm × 60 mm) and triaxial
(subscript sb denotes shear box; tr is triaxial; ps is plane strain)
(Cornforth 1964).
(3) ␾sb ⬍ ␾tr ⬍ ␾ps
The difference between these internal friction angles could be
up to 8° (Lee 1970).
Shear box (␾sb) and triaxial (␾tr) values of internal friction angles
of the sand at Dr = 0.74 were determined as 41° (␾sb) and 43° (␾tr),
respectively (Table 1). Ideally, a plane strain internal friction
angle (␾ps) should be used for the strip footing. Because we do not
have experimental facilities to determine ␾ps of the sand, the
plane strain internal friction angle of sand (␾ps) was taken as 48°
using the formula proposed by Lade and Lee (1976):
(4) ␾ps ⫽ 1.5␾tr ⫺ 17° (␾tr ⬎ 34°)
The sand was placed in the tank at a convenient density so that
general shear failure could be obtained in the tests and its relative
density (Dr) was kept constant throughout all the tests at 0.74
(␳dry = 1.581 Mg/m3). For strip footing tests, sand was placed full
width of the tank in 50 mm thick layers for 400 mm followed by
115 mm with a sloping end (Fig. 9). For the surface strip footing
tests, the quantity of sand (7112 g) for a 50 mm thick layer was
deposited in the tank loosely as a uniform thick (about 57 mm)
layer. This loose sand layer was lightly compacted with a wooden
hammer in the tank until about 50 mm thick. To confirm the
50 mm thickness, horizontal lines at 50 mm intervals were drawn
on the internal face of the glass plate. This process continued until
the sand mass height reached 0.40 m (5B). Then, for the 115 mm
slope height, three wooden wedges were produced (Fig. 7). The
reason for forming the slope in three layers was to obtain a
smooth slope surface. The first wooden wedge was placed on the
400 mm high soil mass and the quantity (6382 g) for a 50 mm thick
layer was deposited in the tank. The second wooden wedge was
placed on the first wooden wedge and the quantity (2852 g) for a
25 mm thick layer was deposited in the tank. Then a geotextile
strip was placed and another quantity (2852 g) for a 25 mm thick
layer was deposited. Lastly, the same process was repeated for a
15 mm thick layer. After the sand deposition was finished, an
80 mm width model footing was placed on the flattened surface of
the sand. For the shallow strip footings, the installation was the
same, except that after placing the footing, a 20 mm thick sur-
charge of sand (Df/B = 0.25, Df is depth of footing) was formed at
the sides of the footing. A 0.515 m depth of sand under the footing
was thought to be sufficient, as the significant depth (the depth
most influenced by the footing) was taken as 3B–4B for strip foun-
dations in practice. The dry density of the deposited sand (or its
Published by NRC Research Press
 Turker et al. 887

Fig. 5. Behaviors of the same centrally loaded footing on (a) continuous flat soil and (b) close to a slope.

a) Quc b)
Qus
Footing Shortened Footing
Heave part
Heave Heave
B B

β Failure surfaces
Failure surfaces

Qus Quc
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14

Fig. 6. Three views of the tank: (a) side view; (b) cross section; (c) plan.

a) b)

Glass plates
Steel bolts Steel frames
For personal use only.

c)

W=0.1 m
L=0.90 m

Fig. 7. Three dimensional schematic view of the experimental Fig. 8. Model strip footing.
system.
Loading
knife
Thick side Load
glass plates 8 mm
Footing
e Tank Steel plates
Geotextile x (L)
40 mm
160 80 410 mm 80 mm B/3=26.7 mm
30o
B/6=13.3 mm
50 200 mm B/12=6.7 mm
Sharp end
Sand

Grooves
B=80 mm

0.9 m system is seen in Fig. 9. The capacity of the loading frame is 10 kN

relative density) in the tank was calculated by weighing the sand
mass removed from tank. Before the actual tests were performed,
several sand depositions in the tank were made. Good agreement
was found in these trials. The error in relative density was calcu-
lated to be less than 1% in these trials.
Loading system
The loading frame from a triaxial apparatus was used for the
application of the vertical load. A general scheme of the loading
and its speed was chosen as 0.15 mm/min. The tank sat on the head
of the triaxial piston with a round socket under the tank. The
loading was applied with a sharp edge of a loading knife resting
on selected grooves, according to the desired eccentricity, by tak-
ing reaction through a proving ring from the upper beam of the
press as seen in Fig. 9. The proving ring has a 6 kN capacity. The
rise of the tank was measured by mounting two dial gauges to
the side rods of the press. The vertical displacement of the footing
was taken by subtracting the deformation of the proving ring
from the average rise of the tank. Two dial gauges were mounted
on glass plates to measure lateral deformation of the glass walls.

Published by NRC Research Press

 888 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 51, 2014

Table 1. Properties of the sand used in the tests. Table 2. Properties of the geotextile.
Property Quantity Property Value
Specific gravity, Gs 2.66 Type Woven
Maximum dry density, ␳dry(max) (Mg/m3) 1.658 Polymer Polypropylene
Minimum dry density, ␳dry(min) (Mg/m3) 1.395 Roll width (m) 5.2
Effective size, D10 (mm) 0.58 Mass per unit area (g/m2) 430
D30 (mm) 0.80 Grab tensile strength (kN/m) 86
D60 (mm) 0.95 Elongation at break (long-trans.) (%) 14
Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 1.64 Initial tangent modulus (kN/m) 218.9
Coefficient of curvature, Cr 1.16 Note: long-trans., longitudinal transition.
Angle of internal friction (direct shear), ␾sb (°) 41
Angle of internal friction (triaxial), ␾tr (°) 43
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14

dial gauges were mounted to the press rods and the other two dial
gauges were mounted on the glass walls. The loading was started
Fig. 9. Loading system for strip footing tests.
and readings from all dial gauges were taken at regular time
intervals. Failure (maximum load) was reached and after some
time (formation of failure surfaces), the test was stopped and the
Beam system was disassembled. The sand was emptied through two
holes under the tank, weighted, and its density in place was com-
Proving
ring Rods puted. In addition, during loading a digital camera was used to
take photographs through the glass plate at regular time inter-
Dial vals. A stereophotogrammetric technique (Butterfield et al. 1970)
gauges was used by taking pictures from a constant position to determine
Loading
knife failure surfaces better than can be achieved by the naked eye.
Thus, failure surfaces were established for each test.
Tank
Footing
Results and discussions
40 mm
Geotextile Failure mechanisms of reinforced soils have been investigated
For personal use only.

30o
Sand
0.9 m
Piston
Gear
Geotextile used in the tests
The polypropylene woven geotextile (slit film) was supplied by
Salteks Ltd., Istanbul, Turkey. Some relevant properties of the
geotextile are seen in Table 2.
Running of a typical test
The tank was placed on the piston of the press. The sand was
deposited in the tank using the procedure described in the
section titled “Sand”. A single woven geotextile strip equal to
the plan area of the tank was placed horizontally below the
sand surface at a depth of half the footing width (B/2 = 40 mm).
This depth was considered as the most effective place (Selvadurai
and Gnanendran 1989; Laman et al. 2007). Before the model foot-
ing was placed at a distance of 160 mm (De = 2B) from the slope
edge (Fig. 9), the surface of the sand was flattened by a special
device travelling backwards and forwards and cutting the sand
mass from the top and accumulating sand at the side of the tank,
without disturbing the sand. The accumulated sand was removed
with a special shovel. The upper beam was mounted and the load-
ing mechanism with the footing was lowered on the sand. Two
by several researchers (Binquet and Lee 1975; Schlosser et al. 1983;
Huang and Tatsuoka 1994; etc.). In these studies, different failure
mechanisms have been asserted and defined. It is known that
usage of reinforcement usually increases the bearing capacity of
soil by changing the failure mechanism. However, in some cases
of weak reinforcement, firstly reinforcement ruptures and then
the foundation soil fails. In such cases, the contribution of neither
the foundation soil nor the reinforcement occurs simultaneously
because the rupture of the reinforcement and the failure of the
soil happen at different load levels. Reinforcement having enough
strength should be used to eliminate this limitation. When rein-
forcement is used in this way, it contributes to bearing capacity by
changing the failure mechanism of the foundation soil with rein-
forcement that does not rupture.
Stress distribution in foundation soil and reinforcement of the
eccentrically and inclined loaded footing is different from the
centrally loaded footing’s stress distribution (Fig. 10). The stresses
occur higher on the eccentricity side or inclination direction,
while the stresses occur lower on the other side. This situation
causes to form full mobilization on the one side and partial mo-
bilization on the other side in reinforced soil. So, the bearing
capacity of the eccentrically and inclined loaded footing is less
than the centrally loaded footing. It is not possible to quantify the
amount of partial mobilization. As a simple procedure, this effect
can be included in the results by using reduction factors (Saran
et al. 2007).
Bearing capacity tests were performed by using the geotextile
reinforcement whose tensile strength in the longitudinal direc-
tion was reduced to 10% of its tensile strength by pulling off lon-
gitudinal filaments (Fig. 11). Thus, the effect of tensile strength on
bearing capacity was investigated. It was observed that this reduc-
tion in tensile strength did not cause any significant difference in
bearing capacity. This situation shows that reduction in tensile
strength of the geotextile reinforcement did not change the fail-
ure mechanism. The relative difference between the bearing ca-
pacities obtained using normal and reduced reinforcement is less
than 1%. Neither normal nor reduced strength reinforcements
ruptured.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Turker et al.
Fig. 10. Distribution of shear stresses beneath a rectangular footing subjected to eccentric inclined load.
B
B′
e
P i
y
b a x z
τxz z z
Level-I
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14
τxz
Level-II
τxz
Level-III
b′ a′
Along X - Axis
Fig. 11. Geotextile reinforcement of reduced longitudinal strength.
For personal use only.
For a model surface (footing width, B = 80 mm, depth of the
footing, Df = 0 mm, so Df/B = 0) and shallow footing (footing width,
B = 80 mm, depth of the footing, Df = 20 mm, so Df/B = 0.25), a series
of tests was performed with different eccentricities (e/B = 0 (cen-
tric), 1/12 (inside the core), 1/6 (on boundary of the core), 1/3 (out-
side the core)) on reinforced dense (Dr = 0.74) sand and each test
was repeated twice (a and b), the results of all 16 tests are given in
Table 3. The difference in ultimate loads (Q us) was less than 3% in
repeated tests, so average ultimate loads (Q us (av.)) were plotted on
the graphs (see figures in the section titled “Load–displacement
relations”). The woven geotextile strip was neither broken, nor
had excessive elongation during the tests. It was exposed to pull
out in advanced stages of the loading.
Failure surfaces
As an example, for test 2a-sur. (Table 3), primary and secondary
failure surfaces for the eccentrically (e/B = 1/12) loaded model sur-
face strip footing close to the reinforced sand slope are given in
Fig. 12. This failure mechanism is typical for other tests. An isos-
celes trapezoidal zone in the soil above the geotextile and a trian-
gular zone beneath occurred under the model strip footing with
the downward movement of the footing. This zone was triangular
889
Ly
x
P
b a y
τyz
τyz
τyz
b′ a′
Along Y - Axis
for the model strip footings on unreinforced sand. Preventing the
triangular wedge from going down by geotextile reinforcement
and the friction between the sand and the geotextile caused the
triangular wedge to turn into the trapezoidal zone (Schlosser et al.
1983; Huang and Tatsuoka 1990; Huang and Menq 1997). Existence
of this zone was confirmed by movements of the geotextile-
reinforcement. A triangular wedge formed under the reinforce-
ment and the behavior similar to the model strip footing on
unreinforced soil emerged under the reinforcement. The primary
failure surface was observed on the eccentricity (slope) side and a
secondary failure surface occurred on the other side, so the zone
shaped like a trapezoid has its edge on the side of the eccentricity
longer than the edge on the opposite side. In addition, the width
of heave and failure surface is larger on the side of eccentricity,
because the failure surfaces of the eccentrically loaded reinforced
slope footing were not symmetrical.
Footings always rotated towards the eccentricity side when ec-
centrically loaded. Footing rotations were not measured, but eval-
uated as a few degrees. Rotation angle increased with increasing
eccentricity.
Published by NRC Research Press
 890 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 51, 2014

Table 3. Results of the tests.

Test No. e/B De (mm) De/B Df (mm) Df/B Q us (kN) ⌬Hf (mm) Q us (av.) (kN) Q us-sur./Q us-sha.
Surface strip footing tests
1a-sur. 0 160 2 0 0 2.92 6.22
2.95 —
1b-sur. 0 160 2 0 0 2.97 6.57
2a-sur. 1/12 160 2 0 0 2.08 4.51
2.10 —
2b-sur. 1/12 160 2 0 0 2.13 4.53
3a-sur. 1/6 160 2 0 0 1.65 3.59
1.68 —
3b-sur. 1/6 160 2 0 0 1.70 3.67
4a-sur. 1/3 160 2 0 0 0.46 1.72
0.47 —
4b-sur. 1/3 160 2 0 0 0.47 1.78
Shallow strip footing tests
1a-sha. 0 160 2 20 0.25 3.95 7.99
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14

3.97 1.35
1b-sha. 0 160 2 20 0.25 3.98 8.16
2a-sha. 1/12 160 2 20 0.25 2.70 5.90
2.72 1.29
2b-sha. 1/12 160 2 20 0.25 2.74 5.84
3a-sha. 1/6 160 2 20 0.25 2.30 4.93
2.33 1.39
3b-sha. 1/6 160 2 20 0.25 2.36 5.40
4a-sha. 1/3 160 2 20 0.25 0.75 2.22
0.76 1.63
4b-sha. 1/3 160 2 20 0.25 0.77 2.21
Note: av., average; s, slope; sha., shallow; sur., surface; u, ultimate.

Fig. 12. Failure surfaces for eccentrically loaded model surface strip tests (Figs. 15a and 15b). This property (improvement of the load–
footing close to reinforced sand slope (test 2a-sur.). displacement relation by using reinforcement) is valid for cases of
the other eccentricities (e/B = 0, 1/6, and 1/3).
4.6 B B 2.7 B
Rotation Ques Ultimate loads
Heave e Heave The experimentally determined relationships between ulti-
mate loads and eccentricities for the footings close to the rein-
For personal use only.

Geotextile
β footing cases. As expected, the decrease in ultimate loads with
Primary failure surface Secondary failure surface
Df= 0, e= B/12
The primary failure surfaces for all eccentricity states of surface
footing are given in Fig. 13. It is seen that the horizontal distances
(Lf) between the intersections of the failure surfaces with the sand
slope and the footing side decreased with increasing eccentricity.
The same result is valid for the shallow footing.
These observations support the findings that the ultimate load
capacity of eccentrically loaded reinforced slope footings de-
creases with increasing eccentricity, because ultimate load is re-
lated to the total area or length of failure surfaces.
Load– displacement relations
In Figs. 14a and 14b, experimental load–displacement relation-
ships are seen. Because a constant vertical displacement was ap-
plied during loading, these tests are strain-controlled tests. In all
tests, general shear failures happened as expected, due to the
dense sand condition, with the load dropping after failure. Verti-
cal displacement values at failure (⌬Hf) decreased with increasing
eccentricity. ⌬Hf values are a little bigger for the shallow footings
than for the surface footings (Table 3).
As an example, load–displacement relationships for the unre-
inforced test (e/B = 1/12) and for the reinforced test (e/B = 1/12) for
both surface and shallow cases are seen in Figs. 14a and 14b. It is
obvious that reinforcement not only increased the ultimate load
capacity of the footing, but it also increased the vertical displace-
ment needed to reach failure (⌬Hf). In other words, reinforcement
improved the load–displacement relation, e.g., for a certain set-
tlement (settlement condition), reinforcement delivered tests
gives bigger ultimate loads than did the comparable unreinforced
forced sand slope are seen in Fig. 16. The ultimate loads decreased
with increasing eccentricities in both the surface and shallow
increasing eccentricities in tests done with the shallow footing are
bigger than with the surface footing.
The ultimate load ratio is plotted against eccentricity–footing
width (Q ues/Q ucs = e/B) in Fig. 17. The Q ues/Q ucs ratio is, thus, a
reduction factor (␣) less than 1 measuring the consequence of
eccentricity. If this factor is known, the ultimate load capacity of
an eccentrically loaded footing close to a sand slope can be esti-
mated by multiplying the ultimate load capacity of centrally
loaded footing with this factor (Q ues = ␣Q ucs). In Fig. 17, the Q ues/
Q ucs ratios for Df/B = 0.25 are slightly bigger than for the Df/B = 0
case.
Although the customary analysis concerns eccentrically loaded
footings resting on a continuously horizontal soil surface, it was
thought that it would be interesting to compare the experimental
results with the predictions of the customary analysis (Fig. 17). It
will be seen that the experimental ratios are close to those from
the customary analysis.
This experimental work is at small scale. However, since ratios
of ultimate loads for surface footings are mostly used, the scale
effect is largely eliminated.
In Fig. 18, the decreasing Q ue/Q uc ratios with increasing eccen-
tricities for model shallow strip footings close to the reinforced
sand slope were compared with the same properties for model
shallow strip footings on level reinforced sand soil (Sadoglu 2009).
As seen from Fig. 18, while the ratios show some difference until
the core boundary (B < 1/6), the ratios between the two cases are in
good agreement after the core boundary (B > 1/6).
In Figs. 19 and 20, ultimate loads for both unreinforced and
reinforced cases are shown. For the unreinforced sloping case,
experimental data were taken from Cure 2013. Ultimate loads
decreased with increasing eccentricity. Use of the reinforcement
increased the ultimate loads in comparison with the unreinforced

Published by NRC Research Press

 Turker et al. 891

Fig. 13. Horizontal distances between intersections of failure surfaces with reinforced sand slope surface and footing side.

Ques
Lf
e

β
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14

Fig. 14. Load–displacement relationships for model surface (a) and shallow (b) strip footing close to reinforced sand slope.

Load, Q (kN) Load, Q (kN)

(a) 0 1 2 (b)
Qus3 4 0 1 2 3
Qus
4
0 0

Displacement (Settlement), ΔH (mm)

Displacement (Settlement), ΔH (mm)

1 1
2 2
3 3
ΔHf Δ Hf
4
4
5
5
4a-sur. 6 4a-sha.
6
7
7 3a-sha.
3a-sur. 8
8 9 2a-sha.
9 2a-sur. 10
Df/B= 0, e/B= 0
For personal use only.

10 11
Df/B= 0, e/B= 1/12 Df/B= 0.25, e/B= 0
11 1a-sur. 12
Df/B= 0, e/B= 1/6 Df/B= 0.25, e/B= 1/12
12 Df/B= 0, e/B= 1/3 1a-sha. Df/B= 0.25, e/B= 1/6
Df/B= 0.25, e/B= 1/3

Fig. 15. Load–displacement relationships for unreinforced and reinforced tests (e/B = 1/12) in surface (a) and shallow (b) footings close to
sand slope.

Load, Q (kN) Load, Q (kN)

(a) 0 1 2 (b) 0 1 2 3
0 0
1
Displacement (Settlement), Δ H (mm)

Displacement (Settlement), Δ H (mm)

1
2
2 3

3 4
Unreinforced
Unreinforced 5 (e/B=1/12)
4 (e/B= 1/12) (Cure, 2013)
(Cure, 2013) Reinforced 6
(e/B=1/12) Reinforced
5 (e/B=1/12)
7

6 8
9
7
10
8
11

9 12

cases by 43% for the centrally loaded footing, by 50% for the foot- tween the reinforcement and the soil develops and counteracts
ing inside the core, and by 65% for the footing at the core bound- the tension of the reinforcement and this increases the ultimate
ary. The increase for the shallow footing (Fig. 20) was 56% for the load. Here it is noted that the largest contribution of the reinforce-
centrally loaded footing, 55% for the footing inside the core, and ment was observed at the core boundary, for both surface and
78% for the footing at the core boundary. The increase in ultimate shallow footings.
load capacity by reinforcement can be explained by considering In Figs. 21 and 22, the experimental Q ues/Q ucs relationship is
that, as the footing goes down, it forms a triangular core under shown for both the unreinforced and reinforced cases. From the
it, this core pushes soil laterally and laterally displaced soil pushes figures, it can be noted that the two curves are approximately
the marginal soils upwards. The reinforcement in the soil coun- the same. For the surface footing case, the unreinforced values are
teracts this mechanism and it is subject to tension. Friction be- lower than the reinforced values except at e/B = 1/3 and for the

Published by NRC Research Press

 892 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 51, 2014

Fig. 16. Experimental relationships between Q us and e/B for the Fig. 18. Experimental relationships between Q ue/Q uc ratio and e/B
model surface and shallow strip footing close to reinforced sand for the model shallow strip footing close to reinforced sand slope
slope. and on the flat reinforced sand soil.

Ultimate load(eccentric) / Ultimate load(centric), Que/Quc

4 3.97
1
1
Decrease in ultimate load

0.84
2.95
3 0.8
Ultimate load, Qus (kN)

2.72 Without slope (Df/B= 0.25)

Decrease in ultimate load (Sadoglu, 2009)
2.33 0.68 0.59
2.10 0.6
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14

Shallow (Df/B= 0.25) With slope (Df/B= 0.25)

2 0.58
(Experimental results)

The Que/Quc ratio

1.68 Surface (Df/B= 0)

0.4
1
0.76
0.21
0.47
0.2 0.19

1/12 1/6 1/3

0
1/12 1/6 1/3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Eccentricity / Footing width, e/B
Eccentricity / Footing width, e/B
Fig. 17. Experimental relationships between Q ues/Q ucs ratio and e/B
for the model surface and shallow strip footing close to reinforced Fig. 19. Experimental relationships between Q us and e/B for
sand slope. unreinforced and reinforced tests in surface footing close to sand
For personal use only.

slope.
Ultimate load(eccentric) / Ultimate load(centric), Ques/Qucs

1 3 2.95
1

Decrease in ultimate load

0.8
Ultimate load, Qus (kN)

0.71 2.06 2.10

0.68 2
Decrease in ultimate load
0.6 0.67 0.59
Cust. Analysis 1.68
0.57 Reinforced
Shallow (Df/B= 0.25)
The Ques/Qucs ratio

1.40 (Df/B= 0)
0.50 Surface (Df/B= 0) Unreinforced
0.4 (Df/B= 0)
1.02
1 (Cure, 2013)
0.25
0.2 0.19
0.47
0.16
0.38
1/12 1/6 1/3 1/12 1/6 1/3
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Eccentricity / Footing width, e/B Eccentricity / Footing width, e/B

shallow footing case, the reinforced values are lower than the the combination of eccentricity and slope. Use of geotextile
unreinforced values except for the e/B = 1/6 case. reinforcement increased ultimate loads by between 43% and
65% with increasing eccentricity within the core boundary
Conclusions relative to the unreinforced surface loading case. In the case
Bearing capacity tests on eccentrically (e/B = 0, 1/12, 1/6, 1/3) of shallow footings, these ratios are a little bit higher. The
loaded model surface (Df/B = 0) and shallow (Df/B = 0.25) strip decrease in ultimate load capacity follows, roughly, the custo-
footings (B = 80 mm) close to a reinforced sand slope were mary analysis prediction. Until refined approaches are intro-
performed with an experimental set-up in plane strain condi- duced, these experimentally determined ratios can be used as a
tions (especially regarding the deformation condition). From rough guide for dense conditions or the customary analysis can
the experimental test results, the following conclusions can be be applied roughly to design such footings. Obviously, more
deduced: research is needed in this area.
• Primary failure surfaces occurred on the eccentricity (slope)
• Ultimate load capacities of eccentrically loaded strip footings side, secondary on the other side, and the length of the failure
decreased with increasing eccentricity. This decrease is due to surfaces decreased with increasing eccentricity. The footings

Published by NRC Research Press

 Turker et al. 893

Fig. 20. Experimental relationships between Q us and e/B for Fig. 22. Experimental Q ues/Q ucs ratios versus e/B for unreinforced
unreinforced and reinforced tests in shallow footing close to sand and reinforced tests in shallow footing close to sand slope.
slope.

Ultimate load(eccentric) / Ultimate load(centric), Ques/Qucs

3.97 1
4 1

Decrease in ultimate load

0.8
3
Ultimate load, Qus (kN)

2.72 0.69
2.55
0.68
2.33 0.59
Decrease in ultimate load 0.6
Reinforced Reinforced
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14

2 (Df/B= 0.25) (Df/B= 0.25)

The Ques/Qucs ratio

1.76 0.51
Unreinforced Unreinforced
1.31 (Df/B= 0.25) 0.4 (Df/B= 0.25)
(Cure, 2013) (Cure, 2013)
1
0.76 0.21
0.2
0.54 0.19

1/12 1/6 1/3

0 1/12 1/6 1/3
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Eccentricity / Footing width, e/B
Eccentricity / Footing width, e/B

Fig. 21. Experimental Q ues/Q ucs ratios versus e/B for unreinforced
and reinforced tests in surface footing close to sand slope.
In the other words, for the same displacement, reinforced foot-
ings can carry larger loads than can the unreinforced ones.
For personal use only.

Ultimate load(eccentric) / Ultimate load(centric), Ques/Qucs

References
Alamshahi, S., and Hataf, N. 2009. Bearing capacity of strip footings on sand
1 1 slopes reinforced with geogrid and grid-anchor. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 27: 217–226. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.011.
ASTM. 2011. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering pur-
poses (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM standard D2487. Ameri-
0.8 can Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pa.
0.71 Basudhar, P.K., Saha, S., and Deb, K. 2007. Circular footings resting on geotextile-
reinforced sand bed. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25(6): 377–384. doi:10.
0.68 1016/j.geotexmem.2006.09.003.
0.6 0.57 Bathurst, R.J., Blatz, J.A., and Burger, M.H. 2003. Performance of instrumented
Unreinforced large-scale unreinforced and reinforced embankments loaded by a strip foot-
(Df/B= 0) ing to failure. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(6): 1067–1083. doi:10.1139/
The Ques/Qucs ratio

0.49 (Cure, 2013) t03-052.

0.4
0.2
1/12
0 Blatz, J.A., and Bathurst, R.J. 2003. Limit equilibrium analysis of large-scale
0 0.1
Eccentricity / Footing width, e/B
always rotated towards the eccentricity (slope) side by a few
degrees. Vertical displacement movement values required to
reach failure decreased with increasing eccentricity. The hori-
zontal distance between the intersections of the failure sur-
faces with the sand slope surface and the footing side decreased
with increasing eccentricity.
• For centrally loaded footings, the zone below the footing base is
a combination of a trapezoidal and triangular zone. For eccen-
trically loaded footings, the peak point of this zone shifted
towards the eccentric (slope) side and symmetry of the failing
zone disappeared.
• General shear failures occurred in dense sand conditions. The
use of geotextile reinforcement improves the load–displacement
behavior of footings from a settlement condition point of view.
Bauer, G.E., Shields, D.H., Scott, J.D., and Gruspier, J.E. 1981. Bearing capacity of
Reinforced
(Df/B= 0) footings in granular slopes. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Vol. 2, pp. 33–36.
Bera, A.K., Ghosh, A., and Ghosh, A. 2005. Regression model for bearing capacity
0.18 of a square footing on reinforced pond ash. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
23(3): 261–285. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2004.09.002.
0.16 Binquet, J., and Lee, K.L. 1975. Bearing capacity analysis of reinforced earth slabs.
1/6 1/3 Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 101(12): 1257–1276.
0.2 0.3 reinforced and unreinforced embankments loaded by a strip footing. Cana-
dian Geotechnical Journal, 40(6): 1084–1092. doi:10.1139/t03-053.
Bowles, J.E. 1996. Foundation analysis and design. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill Interna-
tional Editions, New York.
Butterfield, R., Harkness, R.H., and Andrawes, K.Z. 1970. A stereo-photogrammetric
method for measuring displacement fields. Géotechnique, 20: 308–314. doi:
10.1680/geot.1970.20.3.308.
Chen, W.F. 1969. Limit analysis and soil plasticity. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company.
Choudhary, A.K., Jha, J.N., and Gill, K.S. 2010. Laboratory investigation of bearing
capacity behaviour of strip footing on reinforced flyash slope. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 28(4): 393–402. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.09.007.
Clark, J.I., McKeown, S., and Crawford, C.B. 1988. Field measurements of the
behavior of inclined footings on a natural slope. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 25(4): 662–674. doi:10.1139/t88-077.
Cornforth, D.H. 1964. Some experiments on the influence of strain conditions on
the strength of sand. Géotechnique, 14: 143–167. doi:10.1680/geot.1964.14.2.
143.
Cure, E. 2013. Ultimate loads of eccentrically loaded model strip footing adja-
cent to slope on sand. Ph.D. thesis, Karadeniz Technical University. Trabzon,
Turkey. [In Turkish.]
Duncan, J.M., Clough, C.W., and Ebeling, R.M. 1990. Design and performance
of earth retaining structures. In Geotechnical Special Publication 2. ASCE.
pp. 251–277.

Published by NRC Research Press

 894
El Sawwaf, M.A. 2007. Behavior of strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand over
a soft clay slope. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25: 50–60. doi:10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2006.06.001.
Gemperline, M.C. 1988. Centrifuge modeling of shallow foundations. In Proceed-
ings, ASCE Spring Convention. ASCE. pp. 45–70.
Ghazavi, M., and Lavasan, A.A. 2008. Interference effect of shallow foundations
constructed on sand reinforced with geosynthetics. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 26(5): 404–415. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.02.003.
Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A., and Bera, A.K. 2005. Bearing capacity of square footing on
pond ash reinforced with jute-geotextile. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
23(2): 144–173. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2004.07.002.
Graham, J., Andrews, M., and Shields, D.H. 1988. Stress characteristics for shal-
low footings in cohesionless slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 25(2):
238–249. doi:10.1139/t88-028.
Hansen, J.B. 1970. A revised and extend formula for bearing capacity. Danish
Geotechnical Institute. Copenhagen, Bulletin No. 28, 21 (successor to Bulletin
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14
No. 11).
Huang, C.C., and Menq, F.Y. 1997. Deep-footing and wide-slab effects in rein-
forced sandy ground. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering, 123(1): 30–36. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:1(30).
Huang, C.C., and Tatsuoka, F. 1990. Bearing capacity of reinforced horizontal
sandy ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 9(1): 51–82. doi:10.1016/0266-
1144(90)90005-W.
Huang, C.C., and Tatsuoka, F. 1994. Stability analysis for footings on reinforced
sand slopes. Soils and Foundations, 34(3): 21–37. doi:10.3208/sandf1972.34.
3_21.
Huang, C.C., Tatsuoka, F., and Sato, Y. 1994. Failure mechanisms of reinforced
sand slopes loaded with a footing. Soils and Foundations, 34(2): 27–40. doi:
10.3208/sandf1972.34.2_27.
Keskin, M.S., and Laman, M. 2013. Model studies of bearing capacity of strip
footing on sand slope. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(4): 699–711.
doi:10.1007/s12205-013-0406-x.
Keskin, M.S., Laman, M., and Aslan, F. 2007. Analysis of strip footings on sandy
slopes. Yapı Zemin, pp. 159–164. [In Turkish.]
Kirkpatrick, W.M., and Uzuner, B.A. 1975. Measurement errors in model foun-
For personal use only.
dations tests. In Istanbul Conference on Soil Mechanics, Istanbul, pp. 98–106.
Kirkpatrick, W.M., and Yanikian, H.A. 1975. Side friction in plane strain tests. In
Proceedings of the Fourth South East Conference on Soil Engineering, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 76–84.
Ko, H., and Davidson, W. 1973. Bearing capacity of footings in plane strain.
Journal of SM & FE Division, ASCE, 99(1): 1–23.
Kumar, J., and Bhoi, M.K. 2008. Interference of multiple strip footings on sand
using small scale model tests. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 26:
469–477. doi:10.1007/s10706-008-9175-6.
Kumar, S.V.A., and Ilamparuthi, K. 2009. Response of footing on sand slopes.
Indian Geotechnical Society Chennai Chapter, Students Paper Competition,
pp. 9–12.
Kusakabe, O., Kimura, T., and Yamaguchi, H. 1981. Bearing capacity of slopes
under strip loads on the top surfaces. Soils and Foundations, 21(4): 29–40.
doi:10.3208/sandf1972.21.4_29.
Lade, P.V., and Lee, K.L. 1976. Engineering properties of soils. Engineering Re-
port, UCLA-ENG-7652, Los Angeles, Calif., 145.
Laman, M., Yıldız, L., Keskin, M.S., and Uncuoglu, E. 2007. Experimental
investigation of strip footing on reinforced sand slope. IMO Teknik Dergi,
pp. 4197–4217. [In Turkish.]
Lebegue, Y. 1973. Essais de foundations superficielles sur talus. In Proceedings,
8th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
ing, Moscow, Vol. 4(3), 313.
Lee, K.L. 1970. Comparison of plane strain and triaxial tests on sand. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(3): 901–921.
Lee, K.M., and Manjunath, V.R. 2000. Experimental and numerical studies
of geosynthetic-reinforced sand slopes loaded with a footing. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 37(4): 828–842. doi:10.1139/t00-016.
Mehdipour, I., Ghazavi, M., and Moayed, R.Z. 2013. Numerical study on stability
analysis of geocell reinforced slopes by considering the bending effect. Geo-
textiles and Geomembranes, 37: 23–34. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.01.001.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1953. The bearing capacity of foundations under eccentric and
inclined loads. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 440–445.
Meyerhof, G.G. 1957. The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on slopes. In
The Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering. London, Vol. 1, pp. 384–386.
Mittal, S., Shah, M.Y., and Verma, N.K. 2009. Experimental study of footings on
reinforced earth slopes. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
3: 251–260. doi:10.3328/IJGE.2009.03.02.251-260.
Mizuno, T., Takumitsu, Y., and Kawakami, H. 1960. On the bearing capacity of a
slope of cohesionless soil. Soils and Foundations, 1(2): 30–37. doi:10.3208/
sandf1960.1.2_30.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N., and Dawson, A.R. 2010a. Comparison of bearing ca-
pacity of a strip footing on sand with geocell and with planar forms of
geotextile reinforcement. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28(1): 72–84. doi:
10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.09.003.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N., and Dawson, A.R. 2010b. Behaviour of footings on
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 51, 2014
reinforced sand subjected to repeated loading - comparing use of 3D and
planar geotextile. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28(5): 434–447. doi:10.
1016/j.geotexmem.2009.12.007.
Moroglu, B. 2002. The bearing capacity of the eccentrically loaded model strip
footing on reinforced sand. Ph.D. thesis, Karadeniz Technical University,
Trabzon, Turkey. [In Turkish.]
Moroglu, B., Uzuner, B.A., and Sadoglu, E. 2005. Behaviour of the model surface
strip footing on reinforced sand. Indian Journal of Engineering and Material
Sciences, 12(5): 419–426.
Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., and Atalar, C. 2005. Bearing capacity of embedded strip
foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
23(5): 454–462. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.02.001.
Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., Bhoi, M., and Shin, E.C. 2006. Eccentrically loaded strip
foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
24(4): 254–259. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.12.001.
Prakash, S., and Saran, S. 1971. Bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded footings.
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, 97:
901–921.
Sadoglu, E. 2009. The bearing capacity of the eccentrically loaded model shallow
strip footing on reinforced sand. Ph.D. thesis, Karadeniz Technical Univer-
sity, Trabzon, Turkey. [In Turkish.]
Sadoglu, E., Cure, E., Moroglu, B., and Uzuner, B.A. 2009. Ultimate loads for
eccentrically loaded model shallow strip footings on geotextile-reinforced
sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27: 176–182. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.
2008.11.002.
Saran, S., and Reddy, B.S. 1990. Bearing capacity of eccentrically loaded footings
adjacent to cohesionless slopes. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 20(2): 119–142.
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. doi:10.
1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)115:4(553).
Saran, S., Kumar, S., Garg, K.G., and Kumar, A. 2007. Analysis of square and
rectangular footings subjected to eccentric-inclined load resting on rein-
forced sand. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 25: 123–137. doi:10.
1007/s10706-006-0010-7.
Schlosser, F., Jacobsen, H.M., and Juran, I. 1983. Soil reinforcement. In 8th Euro-
pean Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, General
Report, Balkema, Helsinki, pp. 83–103.
Selvadurai, P.S., and Gnanendran, C.T. 1989. An experimental study of a footing
located on a sloped fill: influence of a soil reinforcement layer. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 26(3): 467–473. doi:10.1139/t89-059.
Sharma, R., Chen, Q., Abu-Farsakh, M., and Yoon, S. 2009. Analytical modeling of
geogrid reinforced soil foundation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27(1):
63–72. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.07.002.
Shields, D.H., Scott, J.D., Bauer, G.E., Deschemes, J.H., and Barsvary, A.K. 1977.
Bearing capacity of foundations near slopes. In Proceedings of the Ninth
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering.
Vol. 1, pp. 715–720.
Shields, D.H., Chandler, N., and Garnier, J. 1990. Bearing capacity of foundations
in slopes. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 116(3): 528–537. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1990)116:3(528).
Sud, V.K. 1984. Behaviour of shallow foundations adjacent to slopes. Thesis
presented to the University of Roorkee, India, at Roorkee, in partial fulfill-
ment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Tomlinson, M.J. 1963. Foundation design and construction. 1st ed. Sir Isaac Pit-
man and Sons Ltd., London, 749.
Turker, E. 2013. Behaviours of eccentrically loaded model strip footing adjacent
to reinforced sand slope. Ph.D. thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trab-
zon, Turkey. [In Turkish.]
Turkish Earthquake Code. 2007. Specification structures to be built in disaster
areas. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. Government of Republic of
Turkey, Turkey.
Uzuner, B.A. 1975. Centrally and eccentrically loaded strip foundations on sand.
Ph.D. thesis, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, Scotland.
Vesic, A.S. 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
99(1): 45–73. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(74)90598-1.
Vesic, A.S. 1975. Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In Foundation engi-
neering handbook. Edited by H.F. Winterkorn and H.Y. Fang. 1st ed. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Yoo, C. 2001. Laboratory investigation of bearing capacity behavior of strip foot-
ing on geogrid-reinforced sand slope. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19(5):
279–298. doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(01)00009-7.
List of symbols
a, a= vertical stresses distribution under footing and at any
depth, respectively
B footing width
B= reduced width of footing
b, b= vertical stresses distribution under footing and at any
depth, respectively
Cr coefficient of curvature
Published by NRC Research Press
 Turker et al. 895

Cu coefficient of uniformity Q ucs ultimate load of centrally loaded footing resting close
D diameter to a slope
D10 effective soil particle size Q ue ultimate load of eccentrically loaded footing resting
D30, D60 soil particle diameter at which 30% and 60% of the on continuous flat soil
mass of a soil specimen is finer, respectively Q ues ultimate load of eccentrically loaded footing resting
De distance of the edge of the footing from the crest of the close to slope
slope Q us (av.) average ultimate load of slope
Df depth of footing Q us ultimate load of footing resting close to a slope
Dr relative density qmax maximum value of base pressure distribution
e eccentricity qmin minimum value of base pressure distribution
Gs specific gravity qu ultimate bearing capacity
H tank height V vertical force
⌬H vertical displacement 兺V algebraic sum of vertical forces
⌬Hf vertical displacement value at failure W tank width
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by San Francisco (UCSF) on 09/11/14

i load inclination ⌬W total lateral displacement of tank’s sides

L tank length ␣ reduction factor
Lf horizontal distance between the intersections of the ␤ slope angle
failure surfaces with sand slope surface and footing ␧y strain in longitudinal direction
side ␳dry dry density
Ly footing length along y-axis ␳dry(max) maximum dry density
M moment ␳dry(min) minimum dry density
兺M algebraic sum of moments ␶xz maximum shear stress along x-axis
P eccentric-inclined load ␶yz maximum shear stress along y-axis
Q vertical load ␾ps plane strain internal friction angle
Q uc ultimate load of centrally loaded footing resting on ␾sb shear box internal friction angle
continuous flat soil ␾tr triaxial internal friction angle

Q uc reduced ultimate load of the centrally loaded strip
foundation
For personal use only.

Published by NRC Research Press