Abstract
A self-developed finite element limit analysis (FELA) code was employed in this study to investigate the stability of eccentrically loaded strip footings on rock slopes. The research emphasis of this study was on quantifying the inequality phenomenon induced by the slope and eccentric loads of different directions. The generalized Hoek–Brown yield criterion was embedded into the program to simulate the rock nonlinearity. Upper bound theorem, lower bound theorem and adaptive meshing technique were adopted for more reliable calculations. And stability charts were presented to illustrate the influences of various influential factors including the rock property, the slope angle and the footing position on the footing bearing capacity. Furthermore, transformation trends of failure patterns were analyzed for deeper insight into how the failure mechanisms evolving with different influential factors. Detailed design tables were summarized to facilitate the engineering practice and ensure the building safety.
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
With the rapid process of urbanization, more superstructures would be built on slopes owing to the shortage of land and the complexity of terrain [19]. Generally, slopes always negatively affect the strip footings. In view of this, for deeper insight into how slopes affecting the footing stability, a number of methods including the semi-empirical method [22], limit equilibrium method [2, 13, 15], limit analysis method [5, 9, 29,30,31] and slip line method [7, 20] were used to predict the stability about the slope–footing system. In recent years, more researchers adopted numerical method to investigate this issue by dint of the rapid development of computational power [5, 6]. Many researchers investigated different types of slope–footing issues numerically, including cases with layered slope [11, 23, 24, 28, 34], seismic action [1, 3, 16, 17, 33] and spatially variable of soils [8, 35].
Abovementioned efforts offered deeper insight into this kind of topic; however, none of them took rock slopes into consideration. It is because the core theory of the most traditional numerical method is obtaining the P–S curve through the completed simulation process, by which the ultimate bearing capacity can be got. However, the rock is with nonlinear characteristics due to the uncertainty of rock in situ and natural discontinuities including the complicate joints and fractures. When considering rock nonlinearity in traditional numerical method, the intact P–S curve is hard to acquire, and the computing speed also would be very slow. Finite element limit analysis, as an advanced numerical method which collaborates the advantages of finite element method and limit analysis theory, can compute the ultimate bearing capacity efficiently without obtaining P–S curves. In view of this, the authors embedded GHB yield criterion into self-developed FELA code to achieve the nonlinearity of rock masses. Furthermore, footings are always subjected to wind force, earthquake action and the uneven load-bearing of granary, surface parking lots [4], which may cause eccentric load applying on the footing. The eccentric load not only impairs the footing stability, but also converts the failure mechanisms, which is necessary to be considered in stability studies. To the authors’ knowledge, there is no work discussing this topic.
In order to address this special problem, this study employed self-developed FELA code to investigate the stability of eccentrically loaded strip footing on rock slopes with nonlinearity. Numerous influential factors, especially the load eccentricity, were considered in the parametric study to investigate the combined influence of the slope and the eccentric load on the footing stability. Strict UB and LB results were acquired by the FELA code. Visualized results were presented to reveal how the potential failure patterns evolve with different parameters, and detailed design tables were presented to facilitate engineering practice. In general, the research method (FELA code with nonlinear yield criterion) is innovative, and the results can further ensure the safety of buildings near slopes, which has important research value.
2 Problem definition
Figure 1 graphically depicts the issues to be investigated under plane-strain condition. A strip footing of width B subjected to an eccentric load q locates on the rock slope. The load eccentricity is e, considering that the eccentric direction of the load is of great importance in this study. To accurately distinguish load with different eccentric direction, eccentricity toward the slope face is defined as negative, whereas the eccentricity to the opposite direction is defined as positive. The footing setback distance is L. The height of the slope is H which is set as 6B and the slope angle is β. Following previous investigations [3, 10, 23, 25, 26, 32], the side boundaries are fixed in horizontal, and the bottom boundary is fixed both vertically and horizontally, whereas the ground of the slope is totally free. The influence of strength σc and unit weight γ of the rock is incorporated in a widely used dimensionless factor σc/γB [12, 14, 27], which is set as 100, 500 for normal rock and + ∞ for weightless rock. The value of GSI (geological strength index is set as 10–80; the material constant of rock masses mi is set as 7, 10, 15, 17, 25 for carbonate rocks, lithified argillaceous rock, fine-grained polyminerallic igneous crystalline rocks and coarse-grained polyminerallic igneous rocks, respectively [29]. By previous researches [23, 27], the cases e/B = 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 and cases of β = 15°, 30°, 45°, 60° are considered in this study for a comprehensive investigation of the slope–footing system. In addition, following previous studies [14, 21], a dimensionless bearing capacity factor N is used to assess the stability of footings more conveniently:
where the q is ultimate bearing capacity of the footing; e/B is dimensionless load eccentricity.
3 Verifications of proposed models
The proposed numerical model with detailed mesh arrangement and model size is shown in Fig. 2. In this study, four iteration step number is adopted for optimal calculation precision and efficiency. Triangular element is adopted to establish numerical models. Initial and final number of elements is set as 1000 and 5000, respectively, which can guarantee the relative errors between UB and LB results less than 6%. The footing is set as rigid, and the interface between the footing and the ground cannot bear the tension force.
Figure 3 shows the ultimate bearing capacity of footings on slopes obtained from UB solutions, LB solutions and previous study [18]. It can be seen that the errors between the previous study and the present study are small. The maximum relative error is 5.3% at the case of GSI = 15 and mi = 15, which is calculated by Eq. (2). Furthermore, the UB and LB results bracket the results of Saada et al. [18] tightly. In view of this, the average value of UB and LB results would be utilized in the results and discussions section to achieve higher precision.
Figure 4 presents comparisons between the self-developed FELA code and existing commercial software (Plaxis for FE method and OptumG2 for FELA method) for cases of footings on rock slopes under eccentric load. Obviously, for cases with any GSI, mi and slope angles, the results of different method are pretty close to each other. The small relative errors between them are mainly caused by different mesh arrangement strategies. And considering the aforementioned strictly close results, the FELA model can be considered as reliable.
4 Results and discussions
The effects of main parameters (including the σc/γB, β, mi, GSI, and e/B) on the bearing capacity factor are shown in this section. The variation trends of bearing capacity factor are presented in Fig. 5 to investigate the differences between opposite load eccentricity on the bearing capacity factor. It should be noted that previous studies [11, 23] pointed out that for some cases of cohesive-friction soil slopes, the bearing capacity with slight load eccentricity can be greater than those with centric load due to the influence of soil slopes. However, it can be seen from Fig. 5 that for all cases, the maximum bearing capacity is at the e/B = 0, indicating that the strip footing obtains its optimal bearing capacity under the centric load. And the bearing capacity of footing under eccentric load toward the slope (negative load eccentricity) is smaller than the bearing capacity of footing under load with same eccentric distance and opposite direction (positive load eccentricity). The reason for this inequality phenomenon is that the slope is relatively more instable than the flat ground, and the load closer to the slope crest is more likely to induce the collapse of slopes. Furthermore, it also can be observed by comparing Fig. 5a and b; (c) and (d) that the above phenomenon would be more obvious with a greater slope angle, and the differences between the symmetrical cases become greater with the increasing absolute value of e/B. It indicates that the steeper slopes and greater absolute values of load eccentricity would intensify the inequality phenomenon. Figure 5e shows the effect of unit weight of rock masses, and the weightless rock is represented by σc/γB = + ∞. It is obvious that the greater the rock unit weight is, the greater the bearing capacity factor of the footing becomes. And the smaller σc/γB would make the inequality phenomenon more obvious.
Figure 6 presents the effects of mi and load eccentricity on the bearing capacity. It can be seen that the hollow icons (representing the positive load eccentricity) are always higher than the solid icons (representing the negative load eccentricity), which verifies the aforementioned conclusion. And it can be seen that the bearing capacity factor increases with the increasing mi almost linearly. Hence, detailed design tables are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3. By using the design tables, researchers can reckon the accurate bearing capacity of any mi from two known bearing capacity factors with different mi. And by comparing Fig. 6a and b, it can be seen that the greater GSI leads the bearing capacity factor increasing faster with an increasing mi, whereas Fig. 6b and c illustrate that the steeper slope would decrease the rising amplitude of the N with the increase in mi. Furthermore, the gaps between cases with the load eccentricity of same absolute values (depicted as the same shape icons) would be larger with the increase in load eccentricity, indicating that the inequality phenomenon is more obvious with a load of greater eccentricity.
Figure 7 shows the variation trends of bearing capacity factors with different GSI. As expected, the greater GSI leads an increase in bearing capacity. And all the curves would be steeper with the increase in GSI, and the steeper angle means a faster increment speed of the bearing capacity. In addition, the differences between the same shape icons would be more distinct with a greater GSI, indicating that the greater GSI would intensify the inequality phenomenon. To investigate the effect of different mi on the inequality phenomenon, the cases with e/B = ± 0.15 and GSI = 80 in Fig. 7a and b are compared. The relative error of cases in Fig. 7a is 2.36%, whereas the relative difference of the case in Fig. 7b is 2.06%. It means that the increase in mi would slightly weaken the inequality phenomenon. By comparing the same cases of Fig. 7b and c, the relative difference is 2.06% for β = 30° and 2.81% for β = 60°, which illustrates that the steeper the rock slope is, the more obvious the inequality phenomenon becomes.
5 Failure mechanisms
In this section, the variation trends of failure patterns with different parameters are presented by the distribution of shear dissipation. Figure 8 presents the failure pattern of GSI = 50, mi = 17, σc/γB = 100, β = 30° with different load eccentricity. The failure pattern of centric load is shown in Fig. 8a. It can be seen that there is a failure curve extends to the slope face, which would lead an overall landslide of the slope. And another failure curve means the strip footing would contrarotate due to the slope. Figure 8b and c show the failure pattern of e/B = 0.05 and 0.15, respectively. It can be seen that the left failure curve in Fig. 8b becomes lighter, which means the anticlockwise rotation becomes unapparent. And with the further shift of the load, there only exists a single failure curve. This is because the rotation directions induced by the eccentric load and the slope are same. This failure pattern is the typical face failure, indicating that the footing would not be contrarotated. The failure patterns of e/B = − 0.05 and − 0.15 are presented in Fig. 8d and e. It can be seen that the failure pattern of Fig. 8d is similar to the failure pattern of centric load. However, the color at the slope crest in Fig. 8d is thicker than the color in Fig. 8a. It reasons that the collapse of the slope crest would be more dominant due to the load near the crest. Then, the slope crest would be further destructed with e/B = − 0.15. And the right failure curve of Fig. 8e becomes lighter, which means the greater load eccentricity would weaken the landslide of the rock slope. It should be noted that the numerous stress concentration at the slope crest would reduce the ultimate bearing capacity, which may be the main reason for the inequality phenomenon mentioned above. Furthermore, by comparison between Fig. 8a, c and e, it can be observed that the failure zone would move up with the increase in load eccentricity. It is because the greater load eccentricity would cause a more drastic rotation of the footing, which would induce shallow collapse of the rock masses.
Figure 9 shows the effect of the slope angle on the failure patterns; thereinto, the failure patterns of different β with e/B = 0.15 are presented in Fig. 9a–d. The failure pattern for all cases with e/B = 0.15 are similar; namely, there is only single failure curve extending to the slope face from the footing. And it can be seen from Fig. 9a–d that the failure curve would move downward along the slope face with the increase in the slope angle until the failure pattern transforms from face failure (Fig. 9a–c) to toe failure (Fig. 9d). Furthermore, Fig. 9e and f illustrate that the form of failure curves of e/B = − 0.15 with β = 30° and β = 60° are alike, and the failure zone of steeper slope angle also extends more deeply. Based on abovementioned observation, it can be concluded that the variation of slope angle nearly has no effect on the form of failure curves, and the steeper slope angle would cause a deeper collapse.
The failure mechanisms of different GSI and mi are presented in Figs. 10 and 11 for different GSI and Figs. 12 and 13 for different mi. Figures 10 and 12 show that the failure patterns of e/B = 0.15 with different GSI and mi are all typical face failure, whereas all the failure patterns of e/B = − 0.15 are face failure with anticlockwise rotation (depicted in Figs. 11 and 13). This phenomenon illustrates that the variation of GSI and mi nearly has no effect on the failure pattern. Besides, it can be seen that the greater the GSI and mi is, the deeper the failure curve extends, indicating that the increase in GSI and mi would induce a deeper collapse of rock masses.
Figure 14 shows the failure mechanisms of different σc/γB with β = 45°, e/B = 0.15, GSI = 50 and mi = 15. It can be seen from Fig. 14a that the landslide only occurs above the middle slope. Then, with the increase in σc/γB, the slip line would extend more deeply, which is similar to aforementioned variation trends of GSI and mi. Based on it, a conclusion can be drawn is that the increase of the rock property parameters (GSI = 50, mi and σc/γB) can lead a deeper collapse of the rock slope, and the general form of failure curve wouldn’t change a lot with different parameters. Furthermore, the difference between failure pattern of σc/γB = 500 and σc/γB = + ∞ (weightless rock) is smsall, and Fig. 5e also indicates that the bearing capacity factors with σc/γB = 500 and σc/γB = + ∞ are approximate. Taking advantage of this feature, in engineering design, cases with relatively great σc/γB can be regarded as weightless rock to simplify the calculation.
In general, the farther footing setback distance would weaken the effect of the slope. And the failure pattern would become Prandtl-type failure once the slope no longer affects the footing. Figures 15 and 16 show the effect of footing setback distance of β = 15°and β = 45°with mi = 15, GSI = 50 and σc/γB = 100. It can be seen that the failure pattern of L/B = 5, e/B = 0 is face failure with anticlockwise rotation, which means the slope still has influence on the strip footing. Then, with the further increase in L/B, the failure pattern transforms to typical Prandtl-type failure (depicted in Fig. 15b). Hence, it can be predicted that the L/B = 5 is a critical state, beyond which the slope no longer affects the footing. Figure 15c shows the failure mechanism of L/B = 5 and e/B = − 0.15. It can be seen that the footing would contrarotate due to the negative eccentric load, and the failure curve would not extend to the slope face. By comparison between Fig. 15a and c, it can be predicted that the negative eccentric load would weaken the influence of the slope, corresponding to previous studies about the soil slope. Furthermore, previous study indicated that the positive load eccentricity would strengthen the connection between the footing and the slope. However, it can be seen in Fig. 15d that the strip footing would rotation clockwise, and the collapse would not spread to the slope face. And Fig. 16 also shows the similar variation trend of failure patterns, which illustrates that any eccentric load would weaken the influence of rock slopes on the footing. It reasons that the strength of rock masses is much better than the soil; therefore, the collapse induced by the clockwise rotation of the footing cannot extend to the slope surface.
Figure 17a shows the failure mechanism of σc/γB = 100, GSI = 50, mi = 15, β = 45°, e/B = 0 and L/B = 8. As mentioned above, this Prandtl-type failure would transform to toe failure once the footing moves a little away from the slope. Hence, this critical condition can be taken as a benchmark to further investigate the effect of the rock property. Figure 17b–d show that the increases in σc/γB, GSI and mi make the failure pattern becomes toe failure from Prandtl-type failure, which illustrates that the increase in rock property parameter (σc/γB, GSI and mi) can lead a broader influence sphere of the slope.
The critical distances of footings lying on rock slopes are summarized in Table 3 to facilitate the engineering practice. It can be seen that the greater the σc/γB, GSI and mi is, the greater the critical distance becomes, corresponding to the conclusion drawn above. If the footing setback distance is greater than the critical distance in Table 3, the failure pattern would be Prandtl-type failure, indicating that the slope no longer affects the footing. And if the footing setback distance is less than or equal to the critical distance, the failure pattern would be footing-slope combination failure, indicating that the slope has an effect on the footing bearing capacity.
6 Conclusions
This study embedded GHB nonlinear yield criterion into a self-developed FELA code to investigate a special topic, the stability of eccentrically loaded strip footing on rock slopes. The emphasis of this study is to comprehensively investigate the inequality phenomenon induced by the slope and eccentric load. Effects of different influential factors on the ultimate bearing capacity of footings were analyzed. Variation trends of potential failure patterns were summarized for revealing the internal failure mechanisms. Furthermore, detailed design tables were presented for engineering use. Several conclusions can be drawn after analysis:
-
1.
In slope–footing system, any offset of load would weaken the footing stability. And the bearing capacity of footing under eccentric load toward the slope is smaller than the bearing capacity of footing under load with same eccentric distance and opposite direction. This inequality phenomenon would be more obvious with the decrease in σc/γB, mi, and increase in GSI load eccentricity and slope angle.
-
2.
For cases with any load eccentricity, the bearing capacity of footings would increase with the increasing mi linearly.
-
3.
The greater the σci/γB is, the smaller the bearing capacity factor becomes. And the effect of σci/γB would be negligible if the σci/γB greater than 500.
-
4.
There are three typical failure patterns (face failure, toe failure, Prandtl-type failure) in the rock slope–footing system. The failure pattern would transform to toe failure from face failure with the increase in the slope angle. And the failure zone would be deeper with the increase in GSI, mi and σci/γB.
-
5.
The increase in footing setback distance and load eccentricity would weaken the effect of slopes on the strip footing; inversely, the increase in GSI, mi and σci/γB would intensify the interaction between the slope and the footing.
Data availability statement
Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Beygi M et al (2020) Finite element limit analysis of the seismic bearing capacity of strip footing adjacent to excavation in c–φ soil. Geomech Geoeng 17:1–14
Castelli F, Motta E (2009) Bearing capacity of strip footings near slopes. Geotech Geol Eng 28(2):187–198
Cinicioglu O, Erkli A (2018) Seismic bearing capacity of surficial foundations on sloping cohesive ground. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 111(August):53–64
Ganesh R, Khuntia S, Sahoo JP (2017) Bearing capacity of shallow strip foundations in sand under eccentric and oblique loads. Int J Geomech. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000799
Georgiadis K (2010a) An upper-bound solution for the undrained bearing capacity of strip footings at the top of a slope. Géotechnique 60(10):801–806
Georgiadis K (2010b) The influence of load inclination on the undrained bearing capacity of strip footings on slopes. Comput Geotech 37(3):311–322
Graham J (1987) Stress characteristics for shallow footings in cohesionless slopes. Can Geotech J 25:238–249
Griffiths DV, Fenton GA (2004) Probabilistic slope stability analysis by finite elements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(5):507–518
Kusakabe O (1987) Bearing capacity of slopes under strip loads on the top surfaces. Soils Found 21:29–40
Keshavarz A, Beygi M, Vali R (2019) Undrained seismic bearing capacity of strip footing placed on homogeneous and heterogeneous soil slopes by finite element limit analysis. Comput Geotech 113:103094
Li C, Zhou A, Jiang P (2020) Eccentric bearing capacity of embedded strip footings placed on slopes. Comput Geotech 119:103352
Li AJ, Merifield RS, Lyamin AV (2008) Stability charts for rock slopes based on the Hoek–Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45(5):689–700
Meyerhof GG (1957) The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations on slopes. In: 4th International conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 1. London, pp 384–386
Merifield RS, Lyamin AV, Sloan SW (2006) Limit analysis solutions for the bearing capacity of rock masses using the generalised Hoek–Brown criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 43(6):920–937
Narita K, Yamaguchi H (1990) Bearing capacity analysis of foundations on slopes by use of log-spiral sliding surfaces. Soils Found 30(3):144–152
Raj D, Singh Y, Shukla SK (2018) Seismic bearing capacity of strip foundation embedded in c-ϕ soil slope. Int J Geomech. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001194
Raj D, Singh Y, Kaynia AM (2019) Behavior and critical failure modes of strip foundations on slopes under seismic and structural loading. Int J Geomech 19(6):04019047
Saada Z, Maghous S, Garnier D (2011) Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations near rock slopes using the generalized Hoek–Brown criterion. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 35(6):724–748
Shields DH (1990) Bearing capacity of foundations near slopes. J Geotech Eng 64(1):417–428
Sokolovskii VV (1960) Statics of granular media. Butterworths, London
Ukritchon B, Whittle AJ, Sloan SW (1998) Undrained limit analyses for combined loading of strip footings on clay. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124:265–276
Vesic AS (1975) Bearing capacity of shallow foundations. In: Winterkorn HF, Fang HY (eds) Foundation engineering handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 144–165
Wu G et al (2020a) Undrained stability analysis of eccentrically loaded strip footing lying on layered slope by finite element limit analysis. Comput Geotech 123:103539
Wu G et al (2020b) Undrained seismic bearing capacity of strip footings horizontally embedded in two-layered slopes. Earthq Spectra 21:37–651
Wu G et al (2020c) Undrained seismic bearing capacity of strip footings lying on two-layered slopes. Comput Geotech 122:103600
Wu G et al (2021) Undrained seismic bearing capacity of strip footings lying on two-layered slopes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 54:1621–1628
Xiao Y et al (2018) Finite element limit analysis of the bearing capacity of strip footing on a rock mass with voids. Int J Geomech 18(9):04018108
Xiao Y et al (2019) Undrained bearing capacity of strip footings placed adjacent to two-layered slopes. Int J Geomech 19(8):06019014
Yang XL, Li L, Yin JH (2004) Seismic and static stability analysis for rock slopes by a kinematical approach. Geotechnique 54(8):543–549
Yang XL (2007) Seismic displacement of rock slopes with nonlinear Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 44(6):948–953
Yang XL (2009) Seismic bearing capacity of a strip footing on rock slopes. Can Geotech J 46(8):943–954
Yang S et al (2019) Unified approach toward evaluating bearing capacity of shallow foundations near slopes. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 145(12):04019110
Yang S et al (2020) Influence of failure mechanism on seismic bearing capacity factors for shallow foundations near slopes. Géotechnique. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.20.P.044
Zhu D, Griffiths DV, Fenton GA (2019a) Probabilistic stability analyses of layered excavated slopes. Géotech Lett 9(3):1–22
Zhu D, Griffiths DV, Fenton GA (2019b) Worst-case spatial correlation length in probabilistic slope stability analysis. Géotechnique 69(1):85–88
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Shuimu Tsinghua Scholar Project of Tsinghua University (No. 2021SM007) and Postgraduate Scientific Research Innovation Project of Hunan Province, China (No. CX20200394).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, G., Zhao, H., Zhao, M. et al. Ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings lying on Hoek–Brown slopes subjected to eccentric load. Acta Geotech. 18, 1111–1124 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01587-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01587-5