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

net/publication/259402667

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION ON SLOPE: A REVIEW

Conference Paper · February 2013

CITATION READS
1 6,276

2 authors:

Dhiraj Raj Bharathi M.

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
19 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Dynamic Behaviour of Batter Piles View project

Machine Foundations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bharathi M. on 26 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Slope: A Review 1

BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATION

ON SLOPE: A REVIEW

Dhiraj Raj*, M. Bharathi **

*Research Scholar, Dept. of Earthquake Engg., IIT Roorkee, dhirajraj.iitr@gmail.com

**Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engg., LPU, bharathi.iitr@gmail.com

Abstract : In developing country like India, with the tremendous increase in population and scarcity of plain
land, development in hilly regions turns out to be a major issue. With the vast development of infrastructure in
hilly region the safety of the buildings on slopes has to be given more importance because there are no BIS
guidelines for designing shallow foundations resting on slopes. It is necessary to distinguish between the
behaviours of shallow foundation on slope and on plain ground. Estimation of bearing capacity of shallow
foundation is an important parameter in the design of any structures. Construction of footing on slope is
different from the plain ground. A few research works had been carried out for the estimation of bearing
capacity on slope and near slope. The method for bearing capacity estimation on sloping ground was first
proposed by Meyerhof and later on many researchers had contributed in this area. In this paper, the methods
available for the estimation of bearing capacity of shallow foundation on slope and near slope are discussed.
The formation of different failure surfaces and the bearing capacity of shallow foundation are obtained
considering the geometry of the foundation, slope and soil properties. From the study, it is found that the
method which gives the minimum bearing capacity for shallow foundation on slope is considered for
conservative design.

INTRODUCTION
Civil engineering structures are often forced to be constructed on slopes, adjacent to slopes or near the
proposed excavation. This trend is more marked in hilly regions of India. The investigation of bearing
capacity of loaded slopes is very important in this case because they are more susceptible to fail than other
type of earth structures. Generally for the small to medium rise buildings, shallows foundations are frequently
used. In such situation, the problem is to obtain the minimum value of the bearing capacity: (1) from
foundation failure; and (2) from overall stability of the slope. In case of noncohesive soils, the bearing
capacity is always governed by foundation failure, while in cohesive soil the bearing capacity of the
foundation may be dictated by the stability (Saran et al., 1989). These days various methods proposed by the
researchers are available to find the bearing capacity of shallows foundation on slope or near slope, which are
based on: (1) Limit equilibrium analysis; (2) Slip line analysis; (3) Limit analysis; and (4) Finite element
analysis. The method for bearing capacity estimation on sloping ground was first proposed by Meyerhof
(1957) and later on many researchers had contributed in this area. In this paper, the methods available for the
estimation of bearing capacity of shallow foundation on slope and near slope are discussed chronologically.

Meyerhof (1957) proposed a theoretical solution to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow
foundation located on face of the slope or near the top edge of the slope given by Eqn. 1 and nature of plastic
zones developed in soil under continuous foundation in both cases are shown in Table 1.
1
qu  cNcq   BN q (1)
2
Where, N cq , N q = bearing capacity factors, can obtained from the chart shown in Table 1.
2 Embedded Structural and Foundation Systems
Table 1: Failure Surfaces and Bearing Capacity Factors (Meyerhof, 1957)
On Face of the Slope
β = slope angle with horizontal, abc = elastic zone,
acd = radial shear zone, ade = mixed shear zone,
c and φ = shear strength parameters of soil, γ = unit
weight of soil, po and so = normal and shear stresses
on plane ae, respectively
Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factor N cq for a purely
cohesive soil
Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factor N q for a purely
granular soil
Near Top of the Slope
Df = depth of the foundation, H = height of the
slope., B = width of foundation, b = distance of
foundation from edge of slope.
b/B
Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factor N cq for a purely
cohesive soil
Meyerhof’s bearing capacity factor N q for a purely
granular soil
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Slope: A Review 3

Hasen (1970) proposed the following relationship for the ultimate bearing capacity of a continuous foundation
located at the edge of the slope given by Eqn. 2;
1
qu  cNc c  qNq q   BN  (2)
2
Where, q   D f
Nc, Nq and Nγ are bearing capacity factors given by Eqn. 3-5 as
 1  sin  
N q  e tan    (3)
 1  sin  
Nc  ( Nq  1) cot  (4)

N  1.5Nc tan 2  (5)

c , q and  are slope factors given by Eqn. 6-8 as
q    (1  tan  )2 (6)

N q q  1
c  (For φ > 0) (7)
Nq  1
2
c  1  (For φ = 0) (8)
 2

Vasic (1975) concluded from his study that for frictionless soil (φ = 0) with the absence of weight due to the slope,
the bearing capacity factors Nγ has a negative value, as given in Eqn. 9.
N  2sin  (9)
Hence, for φ = 0, Nc = 5.14, Nq = 1, the ultimate bearing capacity is given as Eqn. 10
qu  (5.14  2 )c   D f (1  tan  )2   B sin  (1  tan  )2 (10)

Kusakabe et al. (1981) compared their results with bearing capacities obtained by conventional circular arc
method and by Kotter’s stress characteristics equations and concluded that the upper bound solution was useful
from engineering point of view because of simplicity of the method. A failure mechanism which was responsible
for this problem is shown in Fig. 1, where β = slope angle, αB = distance from edge of slope, HB = slope height,
hB = depth of failure point ‘A’on face of slope.

Fig. 1: Failure Mechanism Adopted for Upper Bound Solution

They used upper bound theorem of limit analysis method to find the bearing capacity of slope loaded on top
surface given by Eqn. 11. By
1
q  cNc   BN (11)
2
4 Embedded Structural and Foundation Systems

Where, Nc, Nγ = bearing capacity factors vary with the parameter  c /  B  and are more effective for slope than the
level ground.
All the computed results were produced in the form of charts by Kusakabe et al. as shown in Table 2 for the use of
design engineers.

Table 2: Charts for Reduction Factor (µ) for Bearing Capacity Factors (Kusakabe et al., 1981)

c c c
φ  5.0  1.0  0.5
B B B

10

20

30

40

Graham et al. (1988) provided a solution for the bearing capacity factor for a shallow continuous foundation on
the top of a slope in granular soil based on the method of stress characteristics. The failure zones in the granular
soil for embedment (Df/B) and setback (b/B) assumed for this analysis are shown in Fig 2.
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Slope: A Review 5

Fig. 2: Schematic diagram of failure zones for embedment and setback: (a) Df/B > 0; and (b) b/B > 0

The ultimate bearing capacity was given by the Eqn. 12 as

1
qu   BN q (12)
2
Where, N q = Bearing capacity factor, can obtained from Table 3.

Table 3: Design Charts for Bearing Capacity Factor N q (Graham et al., 1988)
BC Factor Df/B b/B = 0 and b/B = 0.5 b/B = 1.0 and b/B = 2.0

N q 0

N q 0.5

N q 1.0
6 Embedded Structural and Foundation Systems

Saran et al. (1989) provided an analytical solution to obtain the bearing capacity of foundation adjacent to slopes
using both limit equilibrium and limit analysis approaches considering one sided failure along surface DEI as
shown in Fig. 3, which is divided into two zones, viz. Zone I (elastic zone) and Zone II (combination of radial and
passive shear bounded by a logarithmic spiral) and had presented the resulted in the form of non-dimensional
charts.

Fig. 3: Failure Surfaces and Forces on Wedges

Both approaches gave almost same values and verified by performing tests. The ultimate bearing capacity was
given by Eqn. 13 as
1
qu  cNc  qN q   BN (13)
2
Where, q   D f , Df = depth of foundation, B = foundation width, De = distance from edge of slope, φ = angle of
internal friction, θ = log spiral angle, φ and φm = wedge angles, and Nc, Nq, Nγ are bearing capacity factors given
in Table 4.

Table 4: Bearing Capacity Factors (Saran et al., 1989)

Soil Friction Angle φ (deg)
Factor β (deg) Df/B b/B
40 35 30 25 20 15 10
Nγ 30 0 0 25.37 12.41 6.14 3.20 1.26 0.70 0.10
20 53.48 24.54 11.62 5.61 4.27 1.79 0.45
10 101.74 43.35 19.65 9.19 4.35 1.96 0.77
0 165.39 66.59 28.98 13.12 6.05 2.74 1.14
30 0 1 60.06 34.03 18.95 10.33 5.45 0.00 —
20 85.98 42.49 21.93 11.42 5.89 1.35 —
10 125.32 55.15 25.86 12.26 6.05 2.74 —
0 165.39 66.59 28.89 13.12 6.05 2.74 —
30 1 0 91.87 49.43 26.39 — — — —
25 115.65 59.12 28.80 — — — —
20 143.77 66.00 28.89 — — — —
≤15 165.39 66.59 28.89 — — — —
30 1 1 131.34 64.37 28.89 — — — —
25 151.37 66.59 28.89 — — — —
≤20 166.39 66.59 28.89 — — — —
Nc 30 1 0 12.13 16.42 8.98 7.04 5.00 3.60 —
20 12.67 19.48 16.80 12.70 7.40 4.40 —
≤10 81.30 41.40 22.50 12.70 7.40 4.40 —
30 1 1 28.31 24.14 22.5 — — — —
20 42.25 41.4 22.5 — — — —
≤10 81.30 41.4 22.5 — — — —
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Slope: A Review 7

Table 4 continued…
Soil Friction Angle φ (deg)
Factor β (deg) Df/B b/B
40 35 30 25 20 15 10
Nq 50 0 0 21.68 16.52 12.60 10.00 8.60 7.10 5.50
40 31.80 22.44 16.64 12.80 10.04 8.00 6.25
30 44.80 28.72 22.00 16.20 12.20 8.60 6.70
20 63.20 41.20 28.32 20.60 15.00 11.30 8.76
≤10 88.96 55.36 36.50 24.72 17.36 12.61 9.44
50 0 1 38.80 30.40 24.20 19.70 16.42 — —
40 48.00 35.40 27.42 21.52 17.28 — —
30 59.64 41.07 30.92 23.60 17.36 — —
20 75.12 50.00 35.16 27.72 17.36 — —
≤10 95.20 57.25 36.69 24.72 17.36 — —
50 1 0 35.97 28.11 22.38 18.38 15.66 10.00 —
40 51.16 37.95 29.42 22.75 17.32 12.16 —
30 70.59 50.37 36.20 24.72 17.36 12.16 —
20 93.79 57.20 36.20 24.72 17.36 12.16 —
≤10 95.20 57.20 36.20 24.72 17.36 12.16
50 1 1 53.65 42.47 35.00 24.72 — — —
40 67.98 51.61 36.69 24.72 — — —
30 85.38 57.25 36.69 24.72 — — —
≤20 95.20 57.25 36.69 24.72 — — —

Narita and Yamaguchi (1990) extended the log-spiral analysis of the bearing capacity for strip foundations placed
on level ground, to those on the top the slopes. For analysis two types of failure (1. Toe and Slope failures 2. Base
Failures) were considered as shown in Table 5. Comparison was also made with other analytical and experimental
results to examine the applicability of the method to practical problem.

Table 5: Failure Types Considered for the Analysis (Narita and Yamaguchi, 1990)
Failure Type Schematic Diagram Explanation
O = Pole of log-spiral curve AE,
B = 2b = Width of footing,
L = λB = Distance from edge of slope,
Toe and φ = Angle of internal friction of soil,
Slope failures β = Slope inclination,
( Log-spiral µ= tanφ,
sliding OA = ro,
surface) Equation of log-spiral
r  ro exp( ) ,
Q = Ultimate load,
  OAD ,
ω = Central angle depending on α,
h = Depth of failure point from level
ground on slope for first case,
H = ηB = Height of small fill for second
Base Failures case,
∆W = Weight of triangular wedge of soil
DGE,
8 Embedded Structural and Foundation Systems

Sarma and Chen (1995) used limit equilibrium method to derive the seismic bearing capacity factors for strip
footing near sloping ground. The failure mechanism, as shown in Fig. 4, was composed of an active wedge and a
passive wedge and a shared transition zone was sandwiched between the two wedges. The most critical failure
mechanism was found by trial and error.

Fig. 4: Failure Mechanism and Applied Forces of Foundation-Soil System

The ultimate bearing capacity was given by Eqn. 14 as

qu  cNc  qNq  0.5 BN (14)
Where, Nc, Nq, Nγ = Seismic bearing capacity factors, which are quadratic functions of the slope angle represented
by Eqn. 15-17 as
log( Nc )  a 2  b  c (15)
log( Nq )  a tan 2   b tan   c (16)

log( N )  a tan 2   b tan   c (17)

Here a, b, c = constants of the quadratic functions and their values are different for Nc, Nq and Nγ , which were
dependent on the friction angle and seismic coefficient.

Buhan and Garnier (1998) evaluated the bearing capacity of rectangular shallow foundation located near a slope
or an excavation, by using yield design theory. The problem under consideration was a slope of height H and slope
angle β, subjected to a vertical load Q applied on upper surface by means of rigid rectangular foundation of length
L and width B, placed at a distance D from the slope edge shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5: Bearing Capacity Problem of a Rectangular Footing Acting on Top of Slope

By considering the true three dimensional nature of the problem, two types of failure mechanism (viz. Instability
failure mechanism and Punching failure mechanism) were selected, resulting in optimal upper bound estimate for
the ultimate load bearing capacity of the foundation obtained through the implementation of the kinematic
approach from outside. Based on this approach, a computational tool was also developed to provide a quantitative
assessment of the bearing capacity reduction due to the slope proximity and then theoretical estimates were
compared with experimental values obtained on full scale and centrifuge-reduced scale models.
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Slope: A Review 9

Choudhury and Rao (2006) used limit equilibrium method to obtain the seismic bearing capacity factors for
shallow strip foundation embedded in sloping ground with c-φ soil. Pseudostatic forces were considered acting on
footing and on the soil below the footing as seismic forces. From the geometry, depending upon the values of the
embedment ratio Df/B and slope angle β, three different types of composite failure surfaces (planar and log-spiral)
shown in Table 6, were considered for analysis. The ultimate seismic bearing capacity qud is given by Eqn. 18 as
qud  cNcd  qNqd  0.5 BN d (18)
Where, Ncd, Nqd and Nγd = Seismic bearing capacity factors, which were obtained separately for various values of
soil friction angles (φ) and seismic acceleration coefficients both in the horizontal (kh)and vertical directions (kv),
ground inclinations (β), and embedment depths (Df).

Table 6: Failure Types Considered for the Analysis (Choudhury and Rao, 2006)
Failure Type Schematic Diagram Explanation
ADE = Triangle wedge Zone I,
DEF = Logarithmic spiral Zone II,
DFG = Partial planar passive Zone
III,
α 1 , α 2 = Base angles of elastic
wedge ADE,
Type 1
β = slope angle,
Kh.qud.B = Horizontal force on
footing,
(1-Kv).qud.B = Vertical force on
footing,
β’ = angle GDM

ADE = Triangle wedge Zone I,

DEF = Logarithmic spiral Zone II
depending on Df/B and β,
α 1 , α 2 = Base angles of elastic
wedge ADE,
Type 2 β = slope angle,
Kh.qud.B = Horizontal force on
footing,
(1-Kv).qud.B = Vertical force on
footing,
β’ = angle GDM

ADE = Triangle wedge Zone I,

DEF = Logarithmic spiral Zone II,
DFG = Partial planar passive Zone
III,
α 1 , α 2 = Base angles of elastic
wedge ADE,
Type 3
β = slope angle,
Kh.qud.B = Horizontal force on
footing,
(1-Kv).qud.B = Vertical force on
footing,
β’ = 0
10 Embedded Structural and Foundation Systems

Georgiadis (2010) used finite element analysis based on limit equilibrium or upper bound plasticity calculations to
investigate the influence of the various parameters that affect undrained bearing capacity of strip footings on or
near undrained soil slopes as shown in Fig. 6, such as the distance of the footing from the slope, the slope height
and the soil properties. The results of the analysis were compared to available methods. The obtained results were
based on plane strain analyses using the program Plaxis Version 8.6. The three failure modes from the analysis are
shown in Fig. 7. He also presented the results of analysis in the form of design charts as shown in Table 7.A design
procedure was also proposed for the calculation of the undrained bearing capacity factor using the undrained shear
strength and the bulk unit weight of the soil, the footing width, the distance of the footing from the slope, the slope
angle and the slope height.

Fig. 6: Problem definition Fig. 7: Failure modes: (a) and (b) bearing capacity
failure and (c) overall slope failure

Table 7: Design Chart for Undrained Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing (Georgiadis, 2010)

Variation of Nc with λ for cu/γB = 0.5 Variation of Nc with λ for cu/γB = 1.0

Variation of Nc with λ for cu/γB = 1.5 Variation of Nc with λ for cu/γB = 2.0, 2.5 and 5.0
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Slope: A Review 11

Yamamoto (2010) used the pseudo-static approach and the seismic forces consisted of a horizontal load applied to
the foundation and the inertia of the soil mass. The seismic bearing capacity factors of spread and embedded
foundations near slopes had been analytically investigated. The upper-bound method of limit analysis was
employed and a non-symmetrical failure mechanism was proposed as shown in Fig. 8. This mechanism comprises
a triangular active wedge, a logarithmic spiral shear zone and a passive wedge.

Fig. 8: Failure Mechanism Used in Analysis

The shear transfer coefficient was introduced to calculate the seismic bearing capacity of spread foundations with
variable shear transfer at the base of foundations. The validity of the results from the present analysis was
confirmed by comparing with the results proposed by other investigators. The upper bound of the seismic bearing
capacity was expressed by Eqn. 19 as
P 1
qb   cNcE   BN E (19)
B 2
Where, NcE and N E are the lowest upper-bound solutions of the seismic bearing capacity factors of shallow
foundations near slopes, as given in the form of design charts in Table 8 for practical use.

Table 8: Design Charts for Bearing Capacity factors (Yamamoto, 2010)

BC D/B α φ= 30o φ = 40o
Factor
N E 0 0

1 0
12 Embedded Structural and Foundation Systems

Table 8 continued…
BC D/B α φ= 30o φ = 40o
Factor
NcE 1 0

0 ½

It had been also concluded the seismic bearing capacity factors reduce considerably with the increase of horizontal
seismic coefficient. In addition, the magnitude of bearing capacity factors decreases further with increase in slope
inclination and increase with the embedment and the distance of slope crest from the beginning of loading.

Castelli and Motta (2010) developed a model based on the limit equilibrium method considering a circular
surface propagating towards the slope until the sloping ground was reached as shown in Fig. 9.

B = width of footing,
d = distance from edge of footing,
β = slope inclination,
αi = angle of the base of the ith slice,
∆xi = width of the ith slice,
Wi = weight of the ith slice,
R = radius of the circular failure surface,
Kv = vertical seismic coefficient,
kh1 = horizontal seismic coefficient for limit load,
kh2 = horizontal seismic coefficient for the soil mass,
kh3 = horizontal seismic coefficient for the surcharge,
n1 = number of slices under the footing,
ntot = total number of slices,
qlim = vertical limit load acting on the footing,
qv = vertical surcharge,
Ni = normal reaction at bottom of ith slice,
Si = cohesive force at bottom of ith slice.

Fig. 9: Failure Mechanism and Applied Forces Adopted in Analysis

The static and seismic bearing capacity were investigated considering either the distance of the footing from the
edge of the slope and/or the effect of the footing embedment and as a function of the soil friction angle, of the
seismic coefficient, of the sloping ground. The loading conditions consist in vertical and horizontal stress on the
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Slope: A Review 13

footing and on the soil below the footing. Both the inertial and kinematic effects of the seismic loading were
considered for analyses, and a simple equation was derived for the evaluation of the seismic bearing capacity.
The parametric analysis had also been carried on either in static and seismic conditions varying the friction angle
of the soil (φ), the distance of the footing from the edge of the slope (d), the slope angle (β), the depth embedment
of the footing (D) and the seismic coefficients.

Shiau et al. (2011) used the finite-element limit analysis method to obtain both lower and upper bound bearing
capacity for strip footings placed on purely cohesive slopes. For a footing-on-slope system, the ultimate bearing
capacity of the footing may be governed by either the foundation bearing capacity or the overall stability of the
slope. The combination of these two factors makes the problem difficult to solve. The bearing capacity problem of
a rigid foundation resting near a slope is illustrated in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10: Problem Notion and Potential Failure Mechanism

The study assumes the soil obeys an associated flow rule and the ultimate bearing capacity for the problem
considered can be represented by Eqn. 20, including the slope angle (β), the footing distance to the crest (L/B), and
the dimensionless parameter (cu/γB) along with the effect of footing roughness and slope surcharge (q/γB),
p  L c q H
 f , , u , ,  (20)
B  B B B B 

Where, p = average unit pressure acting on the footing, q = surcharge load, cu = undrained shear strength, H/B = 3
for all analyses, L = distance of footing from the edge of footing, B = width of footing.
Finally, results were presented in the form of design charts as shown in Table 9 considering a wide range of
parameters and a procedure was also suggested for estimation of bearing capacity.

Table 9: Design Charts Considering Effect of Different Parameters (Shiau et al., 2011)
Effect of Dimensionless Strength Ratio (cu/γB) and Effect of Slope Angle (β)
14 Embedded Structural and Foundation Systems

Table 9 continued…
Effect of the Footing Distance to the Crest (L/B)

Effect of the Surcharge (q/γB)

Effect of H/B

Conclusion:
The following conclusions were extracted from the present study:
1) All the approaches used by different researchers for the evaluation of bearing capacity of shallow foundation
on slope or near the slope have their own sets of assumptions and hence corresponding weaknesses also.
2) Some investigations show that, in case of noncohesive soils, the bearing capacity is always governed by
foundation failure, while in cohesive soil the bearing capacity of the foundation is dictated by the stabilityof
slope.
3) Hybrid methods (viz. combination of FE method with Limit analysis or FE method with Limit equilibrium)
are giving the most satisfactory results for bearing capacity calculation.
4) The method which gives the minimum bearing capacity for shallow foundation on slope is considered for
conservative design.

References
1. Castelli, F. and Motta, E. (2010), Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings near Slopes, Geotech. Geolog. Engg.,
28(2), 187-198.
2. Choudhury, D. and Subba Rao, K.S. (2006), Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow Strip Footings Embedded
in Slope, Int. J. Geomech., ASCE, 6(3), 176–184.
3. de Buhan, P. and Garnier, D. (1998), Three Dimensional Bearing Capacity Analysis of a Foundation near a
Slope, Soils Found., JGS, 38(3), 153-163.
 Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Slope: A Review 15

4. Georgiadis, K. (2010), Undrained Bearing Capacity of Strip Footings on Slopes, J. Geotech. Geoenv. Engg.,
136(5), 677–685.
5. Graham, J., Andrews, M. and Shields, D.H. (1988), Stress Characteristics for Shallow Footings in
Cohesionless Slope, Can. Geotech. J., 25(2), 238-249.
6. Hansen, J.B. (1970), A Revised and Extended Formula for Bearing Capacity, Dan. Geotech. Ins., Bulletin No.
28.
7. Kusakabe, O., Kimura, T. and Yamaguchi, H. (1981), Bearing Capacity of Slopes under Strip Loads on the
Top Surfaces, Soils Found., JGS, 21(4), 29-40.
8. Meyerhof, G.G. (1957), The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Slopes, in Proc. 4th ICSMFE,
London, England, 1, 384-386.
9. Narita, K. and Yamaguchi, H. (1990), Bearing Capacity Analysis of Foundations on Slopes by use of Log-
Spiral Sliding Surfaces, Soils Found., JGS, 30(3), 144-152.
10. Saran, S., Sud, V. and Handa, S. (1989), Bearing Capacity of Footings Adjacent to Slopes, J. Geotech. Engg.,
ASCE, 115(4), 553–573.
11. Sarma, S.K. & Chen, Y.C. (1996), Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing near Sloping Ground During
Earthquake, in Proc. XIth WCEE, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 2078.
12. Shiau, J., Merifield, R., Lyamin, A. and Sloan, S. (2011), Undrained Stability of Footings on Slopes, Int. J.
Geomech., ASCE, 11(5), 381–390.
13. Vesic, A. S. (1975), Foundation Engineering Handbook, ed. H. F. Winterkorn and H. Y. Fang, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York.
14. Yamamoto, K. (2010), Seismic Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations near Slopes using the Upper-Bound
Method, Int. J. Geotech. Engg., 4(2), 255-267.

View publication stats