Boundary

Types of Soil
Basic Constituti Condition
elements Conditi Remarks/Critical
Year Author/s Topic Methods ve Models (Geotechnica Findings
in case of ons/Soil comments
Used used l+Hydrology
FEM Types
Criteria)
1. A revised design chart present new coefficients, which
demonstrate an approach to the theoretical maximum with
increasing footing distance.
2. Compared to Meyerhofs charts, the new design charts
demonstrate increased influence of the slope face on bearing
Discountin
Bearing capacity due to a shift in collapse mechanism stemming from
Ben uity Layout
Capacity for increased frictional strength and deepened shear surfaces
Leshchinsk Optimizati
Spread c- from bearing capacity failure deepened and extended further,
2016 y and on (Upper X X X
Footings soils possibly to the slope face.
Yonggui Bound
Placed Near 3. The BC reduction coefficient demonstrated dependency on
Xie limit State
c- Slopes footing size in comparison to slope height, footing location,
plasticity)
and distance to the non-surcharged critical failure
mechanism. Particularly of note was a lower or stagnated
gain in BC as a footing is set back from the slope face and its
heel was coincident with the shear zone for un-surcharged
slope stability.
Bearing
R.
Capacity of Empirical non-dimensional reduction factor was proposed for
Ganesh1;
Shallow Strip Regression efficient calculating the ultimate bearing capacity of eccentrically
Sunil Sand/Co
Foundations in analysis of and/or inclined loaded shallow loaded shallow strip foundations
2016 Khuntia2; X X X hesionle
Sand Laboratory placed in sand. 2. The proposed empirical model provides
and Jagdish ss soil
underEccentric model test consistent reduction factors for the different combinations of D/B,
Prasad
and Oblique e/B, and / taken into consideration.
Sahoo3
Loads
1. Bearing capacity was greatly influenced by the critical
collapse mechanism that was determined for the ultimate
bearing load. Specifically, the highest bearing capacities
are attained for mechanisms that extended beneath the
Upper -
toe of the slope, garnering added passive soil resistance.
bound limit
Inversely, the weakest relative bearing capacity was
state
determined for failure mechanisms that extended from
Bearing plasticity
Ben the footing directly to the toe of the slope. Failures that
Capacity of failure
Leshchinsk extended above the toe (through the face of the slope)
Footings discretizati C-
2015 y, X X X yielded higher RCBC values attributable to reduced soil
Placed on scheme Soil
A.M.ASCE self-weight destabilizing forces in comparison to those
Adjacent to c -
1 emerging through the toe.
Slopes Discontinui
2. Increase of soil internal angle of friction leads to
ty layout
shallower
optimizatio
slip surfaces, reduced influence of soil cohesion and
n (DLO)
reduced RCBC values attributable to the absence of soil
passive resistance. With a horizontal ground surface and
a high internal angle of friction, bearing capacity
becomes large because of resisting passive soil wedges at
 the exiting portion of the collapse mechanisman
absence of this passive wedge attributable to a an
adjacent slope results in lowered RCBC. These passive
earth pressures regain when the footing size becomes
exceedingly large and the influence of a slope becomes
small.
3. Larger B/H ratios reduce the influence of the slope at all
angles, asymptotically approaching the horizontal
baseline case. This is implicative of a deepening of the
critical failure surface and reduced the relative size of the
slope in comparison to the footing and slip surface.
4. The bracketed range of local minima for RCBC values is
reduced with increasing friction angle, essentially
reducing the relative effect of cohesion.
5. Based on these conclusions and the generated RCBC, the
bearing capacity for foundations placed on the crest of
slopes constituted of c0-0 soils can be attained for a
variety of scenarios with a simple reduction coefficient
applied to the classical bearing capacity equation,
directly relevant to AASHTO (2012).
1. The combination of two dominant failure modes
(overall slope failure mode and bearing capacity
failure mode) makes the footing-on-slope problem
Finite complex.
Bearing Mohr- element Purely 2. It is observed that for low values of c/B the global
Capacity of Coulomb formulatio cohesive
Lower slope failure occurs.
Mofidi, J., Strip yield n and and
Bound 3. Moreover, for a definite value of c/B, there is a
2014 Farzaneh, Footings near function X linear cohesive
Limit and programm - critical ratio of H/B by which the global slope
O. and Slopes Using
Analysis associated ing frictiona failure occurs and the slope becomes unstable
Askari, F. Lower
flow rule technique l soil merely under gravitational loading.
Bound Limit
4. When the slope is stable itself, then the linear part
Analysis
of the design charts can be used for lower bound
estimation of the bearing capacity of strip footings
on slopes.
 1. Used limit equilibrium method to obtain the seismic
Seismic bearing capacity factors for shallow strip foundation
bearing embedded in sloping ground with c- soil.
capacity 2. Pseudo static forces were considered acting on
factors for Cohesiv
Limit e, Non- footing and on the soil below the footing as seismic
Choudhur shallow strip forces.
2006 Equilibriu cohesive
y and Rao foundation and C-
m 3. From the geometry, depending upon the values of
embedded in soil
sloping the embedment ratio Df/B and slope angle , three
ground with different types of composite failure surfaces (planar
c- soil. and log-spiral) were considered for analysis.

1. The BC of foundation near slope decreases due to the

increase of the slope angle and/or the decrease in the
distance between the top of slope and footing edge.
2. The BC of foundation near slope increases due to 1. The Presented
increase of depth embedment and/or the width of the analytical model
footing. However the rate of increase is much lower as should be
compared to the case of foundation on surface ground. extended for the
3. For relatively higher angle of shearing resistance , the case of three
footing requires a longer distance from the edge of the dimensional cases
slope in order not to be affected by the slope. for the design of
4. The theory of Meyerhof (1957) overestimates the square or
magnitude of the ultimate BC and underestimates the rectangular
Bearing Mohr- effect of the distance to the top of the slope. The distance foundations. 2.
Horizontal
Kai Wing Capacity for FEM Coulomb FEM + at which the BC is independent of the slope was found to The analytical
2005 and vertical
Ip Foundation Model failure PLAXIS be higher than that stated in theory. model should be
fixity
near Slope criteria 5. The proposed analytical model presents dimensionless extended for the
coefficients which depend on the soil parameter and the case of saturated
footing/slope geometry. These coefficients incorporate or submerged
the slope contribution, and accordingly they can be soils, slopes
employed in the general bearing capacity equation. subjected to
6. The design charts for slope factor will assist designers to sudden drawdown
determine relative reduction for each BC factor and of the water level
accordingly the BC for the given conditions of the in the river, or
foundation. The charts can also be used to determine the soils subjected to
distance of a foundation from a slope to produce a steady flow.
required bearing capacity, or the location of the
foundation where the adjacent slope does not affect the
BC.
 1. Limits equilibrium technique provides a convenient and
useful tool in determining the bearing capacity factors for
shallow strip foundations. The analysis does
2. The factors are quadratic functions of the slope angle and not take into
the constants of the quadratic functions are dependent on account the excess
Bearing
the friction angle and the seismic coefficient. pore water
Capacity of
Limit Mohr- 3. The results for the footing on edge can be easily pressure generate
S.K. Sarma Strip Footings
Equilibriu Coulomb transformed for the case of footing away from the edge. by the cyclic
1996 and Y.C. Near Sloping X X X
m failure 4. The presence of ground water can be accommodated in loading nor does
Chen Ground
Technique criteria determining the bearing capacity factors. it take into
During
5. Also the factors for the variable seismic accelerations on account any static
Earthquakes
the soil and the structure can be obtained from the results pore water
of the similar accelerations. pressure.
6. The factor of safety on bearing capacity has no
relationship with the factor of safety on the strength of
the material.
Swami Bearing Limit Cohesiv
Saran; V. Capacity of Equilibriu e, Non- 1. Results were presented in the form of non-dimensional
1989 K. Sud; Footings m + Limit cohesive charts.
and S. C. Adjacent to Approache and C- 2. Both the approaches gave almost same values.
Handa Slopes s soil
1. It is
recommended
that the bearing
capacity factors
1. A comparison was msde between extended Gemperline
presented here
Curve and Test results which recommended that
be used for
Gemperlines original equation be extended.
design. They
2. Based on 215 Centrifuge tests, Gemperline proposed an
are founded on
empirical equation for the determination of BC factors
experimental
Donald BEARING for footings at the top of a cohesionless slope.
evidence that
Shields, CAPACITY 3. The equation applies to an area which extends back from
takes into
Neil OF Centrifuge Cohesio the crest to (=b/B) i.e. ratio of horizontal distance
1988 X X account the
Chandler,an FOUNDATIO Test nless leading edge of footing is away from crest of slope(b) to
effects of scale.
d Jacques NS IN the footing width (B) values of upto three or more.
Hence, they are
Gamier SLOPES 4. It is also shown that a simple modification can be made
preferable to
to extend the Gemperline predictions out under the slope
bearing
with reasonable accuracy.
capacity factors
5. No footing be designed for a bearing capacity that is
predicted from
greater than 200% of the capacity it would have on the
theory or from
surface of flat ground.
from small
scale
laboratory tests
at 1g.