1470
Proceedings of the 18
th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013
Figure 9. Variation of seismic bearing capacity with
elaborately
and
c
u
/
B
, for small values
re extended
y
this section, design charts for lower bound estimation of
seismic bearing capacity of strip footings near cohesive slopes
are presented. These charts covers the range of parameters as
=
30
, 60
, 90
,
k
h
=0, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3,
a/B
=0, 1 and2
≤
c
u
/
B
≤
10which are presented in Figures 10 and 11.
or seismic
Finite element lower bound method
foo
wa
cha
8
, 697–702.
Jah
nd Arvin, M. R. 2008. Seismic stability analysis of
Kum
bearing capacity of rough
3),
Kum
Rao, V. B. K. M. 2003. Seismic bearing capacity of
foundations on slopes.
Geotechnique
, 53(3), 347–361.
Sarma, S. K. 1999. Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings
adjacent to a slope.
Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. Earthquake
GeotechnicalEngineering
, Lisbon, Portugal, Balkema, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands,309–313.
Sarma, S. K. and Chen, Y. C. 1996. Bearing capacity of strip footings
near sloping ground during earthquakes.
Proc. 11thWorld Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering.
Sawada, T., Nomachi, S. G. and Chen, W. F. 1994. Seismic bearing
capacity of a mounded foundation near a downhill slope by pseudo-
staticanalysis.
Soils Found.
, 34(1), 11–17.
Shiau, J. S., Lyamin, A. V. and Sloan, S. W. 2003. Bearing capacity of a
sand layer on clay by finite element limit analysis.
Can. Geotech. J
.
40, 900–915.
Shiau, J. S., Merifield, R. S., Lyamin, A. V. and Sloan, S. W. 2011.
Undrained stability of footings on slopes.
International Journal of
Geomechanics
,
ASCE
, 11(5), 381-390.
Sloan, S. W. 1988. Lower bound limit analysis using finite elements
and linear programming.
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech
.,
12,61–67.
As (Shiau et al. 2011) discussed
of
c
u
/
B,
diagrams of bearing capacity versus dimensionless
cohesion parameter (
c
u
/
B
) becomes nonlinear and the slope
stability reduces rapidly and the overall slope failure (mode b in
Figure 5) takes place. In current study, the situation is more
critical due to the lateral effect of earthquake. So, the range of
nonlinear part in bearing capacity diagrams is mo
than that of static condition.
portion of the diagrams depends
and
k
h
. For higher values of
greater ratio of
c
u
/
B
. In cu
diagrams are not displayed
c
u
/
B
≥
2 where all diagrams
mode (mode a of Figure 5) will o
6 DESIGN CHARTS
The beginning point of linear
on various parameters such as
and
k
h
, linear portion begins at
rrent paper, the nonlinear parts of
design charts are presented for
are linear and bearing capacit
ccur.
In
Figure 10. Design charts for seismic bearing capacity of strip footings
near cohesive slopes(
=30
, 60
and
a
/
B
=0,1)
bearing capacity of strip footings
Figure 11. Design charts f
near cohesive slopes (
=90
and
a
/
B
=0, 1
7 CONCLUSION
and pseudo-static approach
facilitated the investigation of seismic bearing capacity of strip
tings adjacent to slopes. Earthquake force has a decreasing
effect on bearing capacity of footing-on-slope system which
s examined through various analyses and relevant charts. It
was observed that the slopes with smaller angles have a slightly
steeper reduction in seismic bearing capacity. Presented design
rts can be used for estimation of seismic bearing capacity of
strip footings near slopes for a wide range of horizontal seismic
coefficients.
REFERENCES
Askari, F. andFarzaneh, O. 2003. Upper-bound solution for seismic
bearing
capacity
of
shallow
foundations
near
slopes.
Geotechnique
,53(8)
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.
Drucker, D. C., Greenberg, W. and Prager, W. 1952. Extended limit
design theorems for continuous media..
Q. Appl. Math
., 9, 381–389.
anandish, M. a
footing adjacent to slopes by slip line method.
14thWorld
Conference on Earthquake Engineering
, Beijing, China.
ar, J. and Kumar, N. 2003. Seismic
footings on slopes using limit equilibrium.
Geotechnique
, 53(
363–369.
ar, J. and
