1 ASSESSMENT OF BEARING CAPACITY AND FAILURE MECHANISM OF

2 SINGLE AND INTERFERING STRIP FOOTINGS ON SLOPING GROUND

3 R. Acharyya

4 Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,

5 Assam, India. Email: r.acharyya@iitg.ac.in

6 A. Dey

7 Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology

8 Guwahati, Assam, India. Email: arindamdeyiitg16@gmail.com

9 ABSTRACT

10 Estimation of the bearing capacity of a shallow footing located at the crest of a slope is an

11 intricate problem. The problem becomes much more complicated when multiple numbers of

12 closely spaced footings interacts with each other while resting on the slope. In this regard, a

13 sequence of finite element analysis has been carried out using Plaxis 3D vAE.01 to investigate

14 the ultimate bearing capacity of isolated and interfering surface strip footings placed at the crest

15 of the c-φ soil slope. In the numerical analysis, the influence of different geo-parameters on

16 ultimate bearing capacity has been studied. From the failure mechanism, it has been seen that

17 the impact of slope and the influence interference disappeared above a critical setback ratio

18 (b/B) of 6 and beyond a critical spacing ratio (S/B) of 3 for single and interfering strip footings

19 located at crest of slope respectively.

20

21 Key words: Interference of strip footings, c-φ slope, Finite element modelling, Failure

22 mechanism, Setback ratio, Spacing ratio

1
23 1. INTRODUCTION

24 Bearing capacity (qu) of footing defines the maximum load that the foundation can carry

25 without failure within allowable limits of settlement. The load carrying capacity of foundation

26 depends on geotechnical and geometrical characteristics. Geotechnical characteristics

27 comprise the shear strength and deformation parameters of soil. Geometrical characteristics

28 include the size, depth and shape of the footing. In order to design an adequate foundation for

29 superstructures, bearing capacity is the key for geotechnical engineers. In this matter, based on

30 several assumptions, Terzaghi (1943) had given the first expressions to assess the bearing

31 capacity of a strip footing resting over a semi-infinite horizontal ground surface. Meyerhof

32 (1951) further extended the proposition by considering the by assuming that the developed

33 failure surface in the passive zone extends up to the ground surface, thus providing a different

34 set of bearing capacity factors (Nc, Nq and Nγ). Later, based on theory, field and laboratory

35 investigations, Skempton (1951) provided modified expressions for Nc considering footings of

36 different shapes, sizes and embedment depths within a saturated clay medium. Thereafter,

37 based on the work of several researchers (Hansen 1970; Vesic 1973), a general bearing capacity

38 expression had been formulated including all possible contributions of shape, size, embedment

39 depth, load inclination, and compressibility of the founding medium.

40 The classical researches cited above primarily dealt with an individual footing. The

41 development of the failure mechanism, and the corresponding bearing capacity, of an

42 individual footing is altered in the presence of adjacent interfering footings. Stuart (1962) was

43 the first to provide the concept of interference of shallow footings, based on which ‘efficiency

44 factors’ were incorporated in the estimation of bearing capacity of interfering surface footings.

45 Further, both experimental and numerical investigations have been conducted for evaluating

46 the interference effect of shallow footings resting on horizontal ground. It has been observed

47 that both settlement and bearing resistance of footings increases for closely spaced footings,

2
48 while the same decreases with increasing inter-footing spacing (Das and Larbi-Cherif 1983;

49 Kumar and Ghosh 2007; Kumar and Kouzer 2007; Kumar and Bhoi 2008). It has been

50 substantiated that the efficiency factors (ξc, ξq and ξγ) decreases with the increasing spacing

51 between the footings (Lee and Eun 2009; Mabrouki et al. 2010; Kumar and Bhattacharya 2010;

52 Ghosh and Sharma 2010; Naderi and Hataf 2014; Javid, Fahimifar, and Imani 2015).

53 The effects of shear dilatancy on bearing capacity, bearing capacity factors and failure

54 mechanism have been numerically investigated by several researchers (Vermeer and de-Borst

55 1984; Nova and Montrasio 1991; Drescher and Detournay 1993; Bolton and Lau 1993;

56 Manoharan and Dasgupta 1995; Manzari and Nour 2000; Yin, Wang and Selvadurai2001;

57 Erickson and Drescher 2002; Shiau, Lyamin and Sloan 2003; Xiao-Li et al. 2007; Loukidis

58 and Salgado 2009; Benmebareket al. 2012; Acharyya and Dey 2018a).

59 In the hilly regions, as the construction permits, footings are mostly located on the crest of a

60 slope (with some setback distance) or on the slope face itself, for e.g. footings of mobile and

61 electric transmission towers, overhead water tanks, and bridge abutments. The bearing

62 resistance of such footings is necessarily lower than the same placed on horizontal surface,

63 attributed to the curtailed passive resistance zone developed towards the sloping face. For

64 footings located on or near steeper slopes, the bearing resistance is substantially reduced. In

65 order to address this problem, experimental investigations have been sought to assess the

66 bearing capacity and bearing capacity factors of strip footing positioned on a sandy slope

67 (Shields 1977; Bauer 1981). The formation of plastic zones underneath strip, square or circular

68 footings placed on a sandy slope (Kumar and Ilamparuthi 2009; Castelli and Lentini 2012;

69 Keskin and Laman 2013; Azzam and El-Wakil 2015; Shukla and Jakka 2016; Acharyya and

70 Dey 2017) as well as on c-φ soil slope (Leshchinsky 2005; Acharyya, Dey and Kumar 2018b)

71 has also been researched. In a similar line, researches have been conducted to investigate the

72 overall performance of footing located at crest of slope, aided with single-sided micro pile or

3
73 skirt strip footing (Azzam and Farouk 2010; Elsaied 2014). Apart from laboratory and

74 numerical investigation, the performance of anchored inclined footings with aid of field

75 experiment, is also reported (Clark, McKeown and Crawford 1988). However, as earlier

76 classical researches, the above-cited cases deal with a single footing resting on a sloping terrain.

77 From the point of view of urbanized localities on hill-slopes, the mechanism of a single footing

78 does not necessarily address the presence of footings of various shapes, sizes and embedment

79 depths, in vicinity to each other. However, such situation is quite common in hilly regions due

80 to several constructions, whether residential or commercial structures, crammed into congested

81 locations on the crest or face of the hilly slopes. Survey conducted in the inhabited hilly terrains

82 of the North-Eastern (NE) areas of India reveal the dominant presence of shallow strip

83 foundations on unreinforced hill slopes or terraces of the same. With the passage of time,

84 growing inhabitation and changing trends of the building structures (from light-weight Assam-

85 type housing to multi-storied concrete structures) is gradually appending to the changing

86 deformation and instability of the slopes due to inadequate knowledge about the behaviour of

87 foundation placed near the sloping surface. It has been witnessed from the background check

88 that no work has been done regarding the interference effect of strip footings on hill slope.

89 From the above understanding, this investigation attempts to estimate the load carrying

90 capacity of isolated and interfering strip footings located at the crest of a sloping surface. In

91 this regard, FE simulations have been attempted with the aid of Plaxis 3D to comprehend the

92 load bearing behaviour of such single and interfering strip footings and their corresponding

93 failure patterns. The influence of dilatancy over bearing capacity and on the total displacement

94 has been assessed for isolated strip footing placed near sloping ground. Moreover, the impact

95 of various geo-parameters on the dimensionless ultimate bearing capacity [qun= qu/γDfs where,

96 qu = Ultimate bearing capacity, γ = Unit weight of soil and Dfs = Depth of foundation soil] has

97 also been investigated.

4
 98 2. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF STRIP FOOTINGS ON SLOPE

99 The numerical modelling for the present study is achieved with Plaxis 3D vAE.01, a

100 commercially available finite element tool, which incorporates 3-D ground water flow, stability

101 and deformation analyses in geotechnical engineering. It is capable to deal with numerous

102 intricate aspects of geotechnical structures. Plaxis 3D comprises constitutive models for

103 advanced non-linear, anisotropic or time-dependent analyses of geo-materials, and

104 incorporates non-hydrostatic and hydrostatic pore pressures in soil. Literatures reveal that

105 Plaxis 3D has been successfully used in the numerical studies for the assessment of bearing

106 capacity of footing located at crest of sandy slope (Kumar and Ilamparuthi 2009; Castelli and

107 Lentini 2012; Acharyya and Dey 2017). In the present research, the same has been used in the

108 numerical modelling of interfering strip footings resting on c-φ soil slope.

109 In the current research, the numerical model has been prepared for footings located near the

110 sloping ground as revealed in Fig. 1. For the determination of optimum model dimensions, the

111 “0.1q” stress contour (q is the failure load) signifies the farthest important isobar has been

112 considered, beyond which the impact of the applied stress is insignificant (as per Boussinesq’s

113 elastic stress theory). The model size has been considered in such a way that the significant

114 isobar does not touch the model boundaries.

115

5
116

117 Fig. 1 Schematic geometry (Not to scale)

118

119 “Standard fixity” has been applied on the numerical model. Figure 2 depicts that the bottom

120 edge of the domain is rigid, therefore vertical and horizontal fixities have been employed, while

121 only the horizontal fixity has been specified to vertical edges. In order to permit free

122 deformation to slope face, no fixities have been provided on the same. In the current numerical

123 study, the load carrying capacity of interfering strip footing has been assessed for their different

124 locations within the domain.

125 In the finite element investigation, the domain of the geometry has been discretized into finite

126 number of elements. In order to determine accurate displacements and stresses, 10 node

127 tetrahedral elements was considered as it offers more nodes and Gauss points (Fig. 2). Plaxis

128 3D program generates automatic finite element meshes with aid of ‘robust triangulation

129 technique’. Plaxis 3D provides a few basic meshing arrangements, which can be progressively

130 refined with user defined coarseness factors. The adopted mesh should be adequately and

131 optimally fine to attain precise and realistic numerical outcomes. The present investigation has

132 been carried out with ‘fine meshing scheme’, aided with local refinements wherever large stress

133 concentrations are expected to occur.

6
134

135 Fig. 2 Standard meshing and fixities

136 In the present study, elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb (M-C) model has been considered

137 for soil behaviour. M-C model requires five material parameter inputs, specifically three

138 strength parameters (cohesion c, angle of internal friction φ,and dilatancy angle ψ) and two

139 deformation parameters (Elastic modulus E and Poisson’s ratio ν). As per the plasticity theory,

140 the influence of soil dilation is expressed in terms of dilative coefficient,    /  which varies

141 in the range of 0    1 . The case η = 1 corresponds to the material following an associated flow

142 rule (Drescherand Detournay1993; Xiao-Li et al. 2007; Acharyya and Dey 2018c). The soil

143 properties considered in the present research is given in Table 1. It has been perceived from

144 past research that the unit weight of soil (γ) has limited influence on qu (Acharyya and Dey

145 2017), and thus in the present numerical investigation, a constant magnitude of γ = 16 kN/m3

146 has been used.

147 In the current study, the footing has been considered as rigid rough strip footing modelled for

148 M20 concrete and represented by linearly elastic (LE) model, the parameters of which are given

149 in Table 2. An interface element has been given at the boundary of the concrete and soil

150 elements, whose stiffness is obtained using Newton-Cotes algorithm (Nasr 2014). A strength

151 reduction factor (Rinter) has to be chosen for the interface element in order to provide its

152 deformation characteristics. In the present study, Rinter = 1 has been adopted to represent a rough

153 strip with no-slip mechanism with respect to the adjacent soil elements.

7
154 Table 1 Geotechnical and geometrical parameters used in the analysis

Input parameters Range

c (kPa) 5-80
φ (°) 10-40
ψ (°) φ/4-φ
B (m) 0.5-2
b/B 0-10
β (°) 10-40
S/B 0-10
155

156 Table 2 Properties of concrete used for modelling the strip footing

Unit weight Modulus of Poisson's

(γ) (kN/m3) elasticity E ratio (ν)
(GPa)

25 22 0.15
157

158 3. VALIDATION OF NUMERICAL WORK

159 Das and Larbi-Cherif (1983) had investigated the interference effect of strip footing through

160 laboratory experimentations. Dry sand having relative density of (Dr) of 54%, dry density of

161 15.88 kN/m3, and angle of internal friction (φ) of 38°, had been used to fill a test box of

162 dimension 1.524 m x 0.305 m x 0.914 m. Steel footings, connected by frames, and each having

163 dimension 50.8 mm x 304.8 mm, were placed over the crest of the sand slope. The centre-to-

164 centre distance between the footings has been considered as the footing spacing (S). For the

165 purpose of validation, a 3-D numerical model has been developed in the present study which

166 conforms to the exact dimensions used in the experimentation program. For a representative

167 spacing of the interfering footings (S/B = 1.5), a mesh convergence analysis has been done for

168 selecting the optimum mesh size. Figure 3 describes the results of the convergence analysis in

169 terms of non-dimensional average element size (NAES, ratio of average element length and

170 the height of the domain), which shows that the outcomes are nearly similar beyond NAES ≈

8
171 0.03, and the same has been used for the estimation of the numerical results from the validation

172 model. Fig. 4 shows that there is a significant match between the numerical results with those

173 obtained from experimental investigations (Das and Larbi-Cherif 1983), thus rendering the

174 developed numerical model to be validated.

76
75
74
73
qu (kPa)

72
71
S/B = 1.5
70
69
68
67
66
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

Non-dimensional element length

175

176 Fig. 3 Typical convergence study for interfering strip footings resting on horizontal ground

80
Das & Larbi-Cherif (1983), Df/B = 0
70
Plaxis 3D, Df/B = 0
60
qu (kN/m2)

50

40

30

20
0 3 6 9 12
S/B
177

178 Fig. 4 Validation of the finite element model

179

9
 S/B = 1 S/B = 1.5

S/B = 2 S/B = 3

S/B = 4 S/B = 5

S/B = 6 S/B = 10
180

181 Fig. 5 Typical interaction mechanism for various spacing over horizontal ground

182 Numerical simulations have been conducted to model the experimental investigation done by

183 Das and LarbiCherif (1983) for different spacing of the footings, ranging from 1B to10B,

184 where B is the width of an individual footing. The interference mechanism has been checked

10
185 through slip mechanisms generated beneath the footing in terms of incremental displacement

186 as shown in Fig. 5. Figure 5portrays that the footings spaced within a distance of 6B can be

187 considered to have mutual influences on their stress and settlement characteristics and can be

188 termed as closely-spaced interfering footings. Beyond this spacing, the interaction effects of

189 the footings cease to exist, and hence, the footings can be considered as isolated footings.

190

191 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

192 4.1 Numerical Results

193 4.1.1 Effect of dilatancy on bearing capacity for single footing on slope
194 An attempt has been made to understand the effect of flow rules on the ultimate bearing

195 capacity, displacement and failure mechanism of strip footings resting on crest of the slope. In

196 the present study, various dilation angles (ψ) have been considered namely ψ = φ/4, φ/2, 3/4φ

197 and φ. In the current investigation, different slope angles (β) and various setback distances (b)

198 were taken into account for the numerical investigation.

b/B = 0.5, φ = 40°, c = 5 kPa

18
16
14
12
qu/γDfs

10 β = 20°
β = 30°
8
β = 40°
6
4
2
0
0.25 0.45 0.65 0.85 1.05
ψ/φ
199

200 (a)

11
 27
b/B = 2, φ = 40°, c = 5 kPa

24
21
18

qu/γDfs
15 β = 20°
12 β = 30°
9 β = 40°
6
3
0
0.25 0.45 0.65 0.85 1.05
ψ/φ
201

202 (b)

203 Fig. 6 Effect of flow rule on ultimate bearing capacity (a) b/B = 0.5 (b) b/B = 2

204

205 It has been perceived from the Fig. 6 that the qu increased with increasing the dilation angle

206 (ψ). It has also been noticed from Fig. 6 that the qu increased with increasing setback

207 distance (b) and decreasing slope angle (β).

208

209 Figure 7 depicts the total displacement (Umax) on the slope face for various dilation angles,

210 slope angles and setback distances at failure. It has been observed from the Fig. 7 that the

211 total displacement increased with increasing the dilation angle.

12
212
213 (a)

214
215 (b)

216
217 (c)

218 Fig. 7 Effect of flow rules on total displacement at slope face for various setback ratios

219 and slope angles (a) b/B = 0.5, β = 30° (b) b/B = 0.5, β = 40° (c) b/B = 2, β = 30°

13
220

221 (a)

222

223 (b)

224

225 (c)

226 Fig. 8 Incremental displacement pattern of strip footing resting on slope at its failure (a)

227 b/B = 0.5, β = 20°, ψ = φ/4 (b) b/B = 0.5, β = 20°, ψ = φ (c) b/B = 2, β = 30°, ψ = φ/4

228

229 Figure 8 portrays the failure displacement pattern through displacement vectors for various

230 slope angles, dilation angles and setback distances. It has been observed from the Fig. 8 that at

14
231 failure, the soil movement is always taken place to the slope direction for footing resting on

232 slope crest regardless of slope angles, dilation angles and setback distances. This is primarily

233 attributed to the incomplete development of the passive zone near the slope face where there is

234 not enough lateral restraint on the soil to resist its outward lateral movement, thus resulting in

235 substantial reduction in the bearing capacity and enhanced outward deformation of the

236 foundation. Moreover, the further numerical analysis has been carried out by considering

237 associated flow-rule (ψ = φ).

238

239 4.1.2 Influence of setback distance for single footing on slope

240 The effect of setback ratio (b/B) on developed failure mechanism and ultimate bearing capacity

241 has been studied for isolated strip footing placed near the c-φ soil-slope. Figure 9 depicts that

242 qun increases with increasing setback ratio (b/B), and attains a constant magnitude above b/B =

243 6.

40

35

30
qu/γDfs

25

20

15
c = 10 kPa, φ = 40°, β = 10°, b/B = 1
10
c = 30 kPa, φ = 30°, β = 30°, B =2m
5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

244 b/B

245 Fig. 9 Typical setback ratio versus dimensionless ultimate bearing capacity behaviour

15
246

247 Fig. 10 Representative development of plastic zones underneath the footing for different

248 setback ratios (b/B)

249 For strip footings located at various setback distances from the slope face, Fig. 10 highlights

250 the influence of sloping face in reducing the bearing capacity by intersecting the resisting

251 passive zone formed toward the slope face. It can be witnessed that the developed passive zone

16
252 is largely one-directional and curtailed by the slope face when the footing is located at the crest

253 of the slope (b/B= 0), which is attributed to the dominant free deformation of the soil due to

254 the loading of the footing until failure. This phenomenon results in a considerable decrease of

255 the confinement pressure, and hence, attenuation of the bearing capacity. As the setback ratio

256 increases, the dominant influence of the slope face on the development of the passive

257 mechanism gradually reduces, as shown in Fig. 10. It is observed that beyond a critical setback

258 ratio of 6, the footing behaviour corresponds to that of the same resting on horizontal ground.

259 For such cases, the developed displacement contours, representing the passive zone, remains

260 unaffected.

261

262 4.1.3 Influence of spacing, slope angle and setback distance of interfering footings on

263 slope

264 Figure 11 portrays the effect of spacing (S) on bearing capacity of strip footings located near

265 the slope for various setback distances (b) and slope angles (β). It has been perceived that qun

266 increases up to spacing 1.5B followed by a progressive reduction till 3B, beyond which the

267 magnitude remains asymptotic for further spacing ratios. For S = 1B and 1.5B, the footings

268 acting as a single footing of increased width (2B). As the spacing increased to 1.5B, the

269 interference of pressure bulbs beneath the two footings resulted in a larger zone of foundation

270 soil participating in the bearing resistance of the footing, resulting in an enhanced magnitude

271 of qun. With increase in spacing beyond 1.5B, the interference effect gradually diminishes

272 resulting in reduction of the bearing capacity, and with further increase in spacing beyond 3B,

273 the footings behaved as isolated strip footings of actual width (B). It is also noticed that qun

274 increased for higher setback distance ratio (b/B), while the same decreased with increasing

275 slope inclination (β).

17
276

277

278 (a)

35 c = 10 kPa, φ = 40°, β = 30°, B =2m b/B=1, β =10°

b/B=1, β =20°
30 b/B=1, β =30°
b/B=1, β =40°
25
qu /γDfs

20

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

279 s/B

280 (b)

18
281

282 (c)

283

284 (d)

19
285

286 (e)

287

288 (f)

289 Fig. 11 Impact of interference on ultimate bearing capacity for variation of setback distances

290 and slope angles (a) b/B = 0 (b) b/B = 1 (c) b/B = 2 (d) b/B = 3 (e) b/B = 4 (f) b/B = 5

291 4.1.4 Influence of footing width on interfering footings on slope

292 Figure 12 depicts the influence of footings widths on the bearing capacity of interfering strip

293 footings. It is observed that qun reduced with decreasing footing width, which is attributed to

294 the fact that a wider footing involves a larger zone of foundation soil to participate in the

20
295 resisting mechanism, thereby increasing the bearing capacity. The effect of spacing of the

296 interfering strip footings remains the same as highlighted in the previous section.

35
c = 10 kPa, φ = 40°, b/B = 1, β = 10°, B = 2m
30 c = 10 kPa, φ = 40°, b/B = 1, β = 10°, B = 1m

25
qu /γDfs

20

15

10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
s/B
297

298 Fig. 12 Influence of interference for variation of footing widths

299 4.1.5 Influence of soil types on interfering footings on slope

300 Figure 13 illustrates the effect of different types of foundation soil (as given in Table 1) on

301 the bearing capacity of interfering strip footings.

16
c = 10 kPa, φ = 40°, B = 2m, b/B=1, β = 30°
14 c = 30 kPa, φ = 30°, B = 2m, b/B=1, β = 30°
c = 80 kPa, φ = 10°, B = 2m, b/B=1, β = 30°
12
qu /γDfs

10

2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S/B
302

303 Fig. 13 Impact of interference for variation of soil types

21
304 It is seen that the maximum value of qun has been obtained for soil having higher friction angle,

305 while soil having lower angle of internal friction depicts the lowest qun.This observation

306 highlights that the trend of variation of qun with the soil types is primarily governed by the

307 variation in φ. Based on the results obtained with various types of soils as the slope material, it

308 is observed that a spacing of S = 3B can be considered as limiting spacing beyond which the

309 interference effect completely disappears.

310

311 4.1.6 Interaction mechanism for footings resting on the crest of a slope

312 Figure 14 portrays the interaction mechanism of strip footings resting on the crest of a slope

313 and separated by various spacing ratios (S/B). It can be seen that for a footing located at a

314 spacing ratio of S/B = 1, the footings act as single footing having width 2B. As S/B increases,

315 the influential effect of each footing on the generation of failure zones progressively reduces.

316 In the present research, the formation of failure mechanism has been investigated up to spacing

317 ratio (S/B) of 8. It can be observed from Fig. 14 that the overlap of the displacement contours

318 totally disappears beyond S/B = 3 and that the footing located afar from the slope face exhibited

319 a bearing phenomenon similar to an isolated strip footing placed on a horizontal semi-infinite

320 medium.

321

322

323

22
324

325 Fig. 14 Typical displacement interaction mechanism for strip footings with various spacing

326 ratios (S/B)

327

328

23
329 5. EFFICACY OF THE DEVELOPED NUMERICAL MODEL

330 From the past researches, it has been clear that there have been experiment works conducted

331 for isolated strip footings located on horizontal or sloping grounds. There are few examples of

332 experimental investigations involving isolated strip footing located on slope crest. However,

333 there has been not a single experimental or theoretical investigation reported for multiple and

334 interfering strip footings located on the crest of a slope. In this regard, to further calibrate and

335 validate the developed numerical model to check its efficacy in predicting the bearing capacity

336 of interfering strip footings on slope, typical experimental studies considering an isolated strip

337 footing on slope crest have been considered. In this context, the experimental studies reported

338 by Keskin and Laman (2013) and Mittal, Shah and Verma (2009) have been taken into account.

339 It is worth mentioning that it has already been highlighted in Section 4.1.6 that the interfering

340 effect of the footings completely disappear beyond a spacing ratio, S/B = 3. Hence, proper

341 numerical models were developed in which the footing located away from the crest is kept at

342 a spacing ratio S/B > 8, and the bearing capacity of the foundation is obtained. It is worth

343 mentioning that the validation study of interference effect of strip footings resting on horizontal

344 ground (Das and Larbi-Cherif 1983) has already been presented in Section 3.

345 Keskin and Laman (2013) had experimentally investigated the ultimate bearing capacity (qu)

346 of strip footing resting on crest of slope. In the experiment, different geotechnical and

347 geometrical parameters had been varied to investigate the influence on qu. For the validation,

348 a strip footing of width (B) 70 mm, located on crest of sand-slope having angle of inclination

349 (β) of 30°, have been considered. The angle of internal friction (φ) and dry unit weight (γd) of

350 the soil were 41.8° and 17 kN/m3 respectively. Mittal, Shah and Verma (2009) had

351 experimentally investigated the qu of a strip footing (B = 75 mm) located on crest of

352 unreinforced and reinforced sandy slopes having angle of inclination 34º. The dry unit weight

353 and angle of internal friction of the soil were 16.3 kN/m 3 and 36° respectively.

24
354 (a)

355 (b)

356 Fig. 15 Comparison of pressure-displacement patterns obtained from the numerical model

357 and experimental studies (a) Keskin and Laman 2013 (b) Mittal, Shah and Verma 2009

358 For both the cases of validation, numerical models comprising a spacing ratio S/B = 10 has

359 been considered so that the footing nearer the slope should behave like isolated strip footing

360 on the crest of slope without having any interference of the far footing on its pressure-

361 settlement pattern. Figure 15 depicts the load-settlement behaviour of the strip footings located

25
362 on slope crest. It can be perceived that there is excellent agreement in pressure-settlement

363 patterns, as well as the bearing capacity, obtained from present numerical investigation and

364 those estimated from the experimental investigations. As the average difference between the

365 measured and numerical values ranged less than 7%, the developed numerical models can be

366 considered well calibrated and efficient in predicting the bearing capacity of strip footings on

367 slopes.

368

369 6. CONCLUSIONS

370 On the basis of the finite element numerical simulations, the following conclusions are drawn:

371 o The bearing capacity and displacement enhanced with increasing the dilatancy angle of

372 soil. The change in magnitude of qunis marginal above the dilatancy angle of ψ = 3/4 φ.

373 o Bearing capacity improves with increase in the setback distance. Beyond a setback ratio

374 (b/B) critical = 6, the footing exhibits similar behaviour to the one resting on horizontal

375 semi-infinite ground.

376 o For footings resting on any type of soil, the maximum magnitude of qunwas obtained at

377 a spacing ratio S/B = 1.5. qun attained a constant asymptotic value beyond a spacing

378 ratio S/B = 3, thus indicating the complete disappearance of the interference effect and

379 exhibition of the behaviour of an isolated strip footing.

380 o qun increases with enhance in footing width, while it decreases with higher steepness of

381 the slope.

382

383

384

26
385 REFERENCES

386 Acharyya, R., A. Dey, and B. Kumar. 2018. “Finite element and ANN-based prediction of

387 bearing capacity of square footing resting on the crest of c-φ soil slope.” International

388 Journal of Geotechnical Engineering DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2018.1435022.

389 Acharyya, R., and A. Dey. 2017. “Finite element investigation of the bearing capacity of square

390 footings resting on sloping ground.” INAE Letters 2 (3): 97-105.

391 Acharyya, R., and A. Dey. 2018. “Assessment of failure mechanism of a strip footing on

392 horizontal ground considering flow rules.” Innovative Infrastructure Solution DOI:

393 10.1007/s41062-018-0150-7.

394 Acharyya, R., and A. Dey. 2018. “Importance of dilatancy on the evolution of failure

395 mechanism of a strip footing resting on horizontal ground.” INAE Letters DOI:

396 10.1007/s41403-018-0042-3.

397 Azzam, W. R., and A. Farouk. 2010. “Experimental and numerical studies of sand slopes

398 loaded with skirted strip footing.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 15: 795-

399 812.

400 Azzam, W. R., and A. Z. El-Wakil. 2015. “Experimental and numerical studies of circular

401 footing resting on confined granular subgrade adjacent to slope.” International Journal of

402 Geomechanics 16(1): 1-15.

403 Bauer, G. E., D. H. Shields, J. D. Scott, and J. E. Gruspier. 1981. “Bearing capacity of footing

404 in granular slope.” Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and

405 Foundation Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2: 33-36.

406 Benmebarek, S., M. S. Remadna, N. Benmebarek, and L. Belounar. 2012. “Numerical

407 evaluation of the bearing capacity factor N'γ of ring footings.” Computers and

408 Geotechnics 44: 132-138.

27
409 Bolton, M. D., and C. K. Lau. 1993. “Vertical bearing capacity factors for circular and strip

410 footings on Mohr-Coulomb soil.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 30: 1024-1033.

411 Castelli, F., and V. Lentini. 2012. “Evaluation of the bearing capacity of footings on slopes.”

412 International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 12 (3): 112-118.

413 Clark, J. I., S. McKeown, and C. B. Crawford. 1988. “Field measurements of the behavior of

414 inclined footings on a natural slope.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 25: 662-674.

415 Das, B. M., and S. Larbi-Cherif. 1983. “Bearing capacity of two closely-spaced shallow

416 foundations on sand.” Soils and Foundations 23 (1): 1–7.

417 Drescher, A., and E. Detournay. 1993. “Limit load in translational failure mechanisms for

418 associative and non-associative materials.” Geotechnique 43(3): 443-456.

419 Elsaied, A. E. 2014. “Performance of footing with single side micro-piles adjacent to

420 slopes.”Alexandria Engineering Journal 53(4):903-910.

421 Erickson, H. L., and A. Drescher. 2002. “Bearing capacity of circular footings.” Journal of

422 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 128(1): 38-43.

423 Ghosh, P., and A. Sharma. 2010. “Interference effect of two nearby strip footings on layered

424 soil: theory of elasticity approach.” ActaGeotechnica 5: 189–198.

425 Hansen, J. B. 1970. “A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity.” Danish

426 Geotechnical Institute, Bulletin 28: 5-11.

427 Javid, A. H., A. Fahimifar, and M. Imani. 2015. “Numerical investigation on the bearing

428 capacity of two interfering strip footings resting on a rock mass.” Computers and

429 Geotechnics 69: 514-528.

430 Keskin, M. S., and M. Laman. 2013. “Model studies of bearing capacity of strip footing on

431 sand slope.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 17 (4): 699-711.

432 Kumar, J., and K. M. Kouzer. 2007. “Bearing capacity of two interfering footings.”

433 International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 32: 251-264.

28
434 Kumar, J., and M. K. Bhoi. 2008. “Interference of multiple strip footings on sand using small

435 scale model tests.” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 26: 469-477.

436 Kumar, J., and P. Bhattacharya. 2010. “Bearing capacity of interfering multiple strip footings

437 by using lower bound finite elements limit analysis.” Computers and Geotechnics 37: 731-

438 736.

439 Kumar, J., and P. Ghosh. 2007. “Ultimate bearing capacity of two interfering rough strip

440 footings.” International Journal of GeomechanicsASCE 7 (1): 53–62.

441 Kumar, S. V. A., and K. Ilamparuthi. 2009. “Response of footing on sand slopes.” In: Indian

442 Geotechnical Conference, Guntur, India, 622–626.

443 Lee, J., and J. Eun. 2009. “Estimation of bearing capacity for multiple footings in sand.”

444 Computers and Geotechnics 36: 1000-1008.

445 Leshchinsky, B. 2005. “Bearing capacity of footings placed adjacent to c'-φ' slopes.” Journal

446 of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 141(6): 1-13.

447 Loukidis, D., and R. Salgado. 2006. “Bearing capacity of strip and circular footings in sand

448 using finite elements.” Computers and Geotechnics 36: 871-879.

449 Mabrouki, A., D. Benmeddour, R. Frank, and M. Mellas. 2010. “Numerical study of the

450 bearing capacity for two interfering strip footings on sands.” Computers and Geotechnics

451 37: 431-439.

452 Manoharan, N., and S. P. Dasgupta. 1995. “Bearing capacity of surface footings by finite

453 elements.” Computers and Structures 54(4): 563-586.

454 Manzari, M. T., and M. A. Nour. 2000. “Significance of soil dilatancy in slope stability

455 analysis.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 126(1):75-80.

456 Meyerhof, G. G. 1951. “The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations.”Geotechnique 2: 301-

457 332.

29
458 Mittal, S., M. Y. Shah, and N. K. Verma. 2009. “Experimental study of footings on reinforced

459 earth slopes.” International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 3: 251-260.

460 Naderi, E., and N. Hataf. 2014. “Model testing and numerical investigation of interference

461 effect of closely spaced ring and circular footings on reinforced sand.” Geotextiles and

462 Geomembranes 42: 191-200.

463 Nasr, A.M. 2014.“Behaviour of strip footing on fiber-reinforced cemented sand adjacent to

464 sheet pile wall.”Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42: 599-610.

465 Nova, R., and L. Montrasio. 1991. “Settlements of shallow foundations on sand.” Geotechnique

466 41(2): 243-256.

467 Shiau, J. S., A. V. Lyamin, and S. W. Sloan. 2003. “Bearing capacity of a sand layer on clay

468 by finite element limit analysis.” Canadian geotechnical Journal 40: 900-915.

469 Shields, D. H., J. D. Scott, G. E. Bauer, J. H. Deschenes, and A. K. Barsvary. 1977. “Bearing

470 capacity of foundation near slopes.” Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on

471 Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and

472 Foundation Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, 1: 715-720.

473 Shukla, R. P., and R. S. Jakka. 2016. “Discussion on Experimental and numerical studies of

474 circular footing resting on confined granular subgrade adjacent to slope by WR Azzam and

475 AZ El-Wakil.” International Journal of Geomechanics 17(2): 1-3.

476 Skempton, A. W. 1951. “The bearing capacity of clay.”Building Research Congress, England.

477 Stuart, J. G. 1962. “Interference between foundations, with special reference to surface footings

478 in sand.”Geotechnique 15-21.

479 Terzaghi, K. 1943. “Theoretical Soil Mechanics” John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, USA.

480 Vermeer, P. A., and R. DE-Borst. 1984. “Non-associated plasticity for soils, concrete and

481 rock.” HERON 29(3): 1-64.

30
482 Vesic, A. S. 1973. “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundation.”Journal of Soil

483 Mechanics Found DivisionASCE 99 (SM1): 45-73.

484 Xiao-Li, Y., G. Nai-Zheng, Z. Lian-Heng, and Z. Jin-Feng. 2007. “Influences of non-associated

485 flow rules on seismic bearing capacity factors of strip footing on soil slope by energy

486 dissipation method.” Journal of Central South University of Technology 6: 842-846.

487 Yin, J. H., Y. J. Wang, and A. P. S. Selvadurai. 2001. “Influence of non-associativity on the

488 bearing capacity of a strip footing.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

489 Engineering 127(11): 985-989.

490

31