Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 16 (1997) 395-405

© 1997 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
PI1:S0267-7261(97)00008-0 0267-7261197/$17.00
ELSEVIER

Stability analysis of slope with building loads

D.K. Paul a & Satish Kumar b
aDepartment of Earthquake Engineering, Universi~, of Roorkee, Roorkee, India
bDepartment of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Bathinda 1510001, India

(Received 3 February 1997; accepted 31 March 1997)

In hill areas, landslides are frequent and hazardous. In developing hill areas, many
multistoreyed r.c.c, farmed buildings are constructed on hill slope. The building loads
are transferred to the hill slope terrain at the foundation level, which may cause hill
slope failure. Therefore the stability of hill slope with building loads needs to be
checked. In this paper, a procedure has been developed to find the factor of safety
against sliding failure of slope considering building loads transferred to the slope.
Earthquake forces can also be considered in the analysis. Different types of soils in the
slope can be considered. A computer program has been developed based on the
formulation presented in the paper and is validated by solving few examples. Stability
of slope with differently configured buildings have been studied. Provisions to be
made for stepped foundations on hill slopes has been highlighted here. © 1997
Elsevier Science Limited.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF FREE SLOPES

Many multistoreyed r.c.c, framed buildings constructed on Free slope means that there are no superimposed loads on
hill slope transfer loads on the sloping ground at different the slope, such as due to the buildings or any other extra
levels in the form of vertical loads, horizontal loads and loads. All stability analyses are based on the concept of
bending moments, which further adds to the self weight of plastic limit equilibrium. Most of the problems in slope
soil and may lead to sliding of slope. Stability analysis of free stability analysis are statically indeterminate; some simpli-
slopes has been carried out by various researchers.l-6 Huang7 fying assumptions are to be made in order to determine a
has developed a computer program using Simplified Bishop's unique factor of safety. The most practical methods which
Method to determine the factor of safety against sliding can be readily used by the practising engineers in the field
failure of slope. Chen 8 has presented three basic subjects: are Wedge, Fellienius and Simplified Bishop's method. The
shape of the failure surface may be quite irregular depend-
1. idealized stress-strain model for soil;
ing on the homogeneity of the material in the slope. If the
2. limit analysis for collapse loads;
material is homogeneous and a large circle can be formed,
3. finite element analysis for progressive failure behaviour
the most critical failure surface will be cylindrical, because
of soil mass.
a circle has the least surface area per unit mass. If some
Daddazio et al. 9 has described procedures for performing planes of weakness exist, the most critical failure surface
nonlinear dynamic slope stability and analysis. From the will be a series of planes passing through the weak strata. In
available literature, it has been found that the stability analysis such cases a combination of plane, cylindrical and other
of free slopes has been treated extensively and at the same irregular failure surfaces may also exist. In the present
time the building loads transferred at the plain ground adja- investigation cylindrical failure surface has been taken.
cent to slopes has been considered in the form of surcharge
load while analysing the slope stability. The building loads 2.1 Simplified Bishop's method of stability analysis
transferred to the slope at different levels from the buildings
has not been considered so far while analysing the stability of In the Simplified Bishop's method it has been assumed that
slope. Therefore, an effort is made here to develop a for- the forces on the sides of each slice are in horizontal direc-
mulation using Simplified Bishop's method to take care of tion indicating that there is no friction between the slices.
the building loads transferred at the foundation level.l° The forces acting on the ith slice in the simplified Bishop's
395
396 D.K. Paul, Satish Kumar

method are shown in Fig. 1. The factor of safety F can be In terms of pore pressure ratio the eqn (4) can be written as
written as: 7
~ (cb i + (1 -- ru)Thibitan 4)

~ . (cbisec 0 i 4- Nitan ~b) (5)

F: i=1 (1) (wisin Oi + CsWiai/R)
i=1
(wisin Oi + cswiai/R)
i=l The factor of safety F appears on both sides of equation.
where c is the cohesion of soil, 4) is the angle of internal Therefore Newton's method of tangents has been used to
friction, bi is the width of slice i, R is the radius of the slip find out the factor of safety by an iterative process.
circle, ai is the moment arm N~ is normal force, 0i is the
angle of inclination of slice. f(F) = F ~ (w/sin 0 i + CsWiai/R )
i=1
Equilibrium of forces in vertical direction gives
_ ~ cb i + (1 - r.)~/hibitan 4)
N/cos 0 i 4- "ywhiwbi 4- (cbisec 0 i -}- Nitan 4)) (6)
,=, -sT. =°°
× sin Oi]F-Tihibi=O.O (2) The intersection Fm+ 1 of the tangent to the curve f(F) at
or
F =Fm is given by
F,,, + L = Fm - f(Fm/f'(Fm) (7)
bi('Yh i -- qlwhiw)(cbitan Oi)[F
N~= (3) In wbichf'(Fm) is the first derivative o f f with respect to F.
cos Oi + (sin Oitan 4))/F
Then eqns (6) and (7) in combined form become

~. . . . . . . ~-~ cb i + (1 - "yu)q/hibitan 4) )
Lw i s m Ui-~-cswi61ilK) -- .'7. ~ ~ - -
i= 1 ' i= I PmCOS vi + s m 0/tan
Fm + l =Fro I 1 - (8)
. . . . . . •r-" (cbi + (1 - r,)Thibitan 4))sin 0/tan 4)
(WiSlnOi4-c~wiai/R)-- 2.. ~ ~ ~ 2 - ~
i=1 ' i+ I ( P m C O S 0 i ~- s i n 0/tan ~ )

Substituting value of Ni in eqn (1) then The first trial value of F m is to be taken from eqn (1). Then
eqn (8) converges rapidly within 2 or 3 iterations.
~ (cbi + bi(Thi - 3'whw)tan 4)
F = i= l cos Oi + (sin 0itan 4))/F
(4)
3 STABILITY ANALYSIS OF SLOPES WITH
~- (wisin 0 i + CsWiai/R) BUILDING LOADS
i=1

In hill areas r.c.c, framed buildings have many times to be

constructed on the slope itself, thereby the slope is subjected
I
~¢ i th Slice
to additional loads due to buildings which are transferred to

~
the sloping ground at the foundation level, ll-13 Further,
during earthquakes additional lateral and vertical loads
ght = ~/~h i b~ have to be transferred to the foundation. The eqn (8) gives
the factor of safety of free slopes (i.e. without building
loads). The building loads transferred at the foundation
level are the vertical loads, horizontal loads and the bending
moments. The buildings are three dimensional structures
F y Njcos 0~
Neutral force
transmitting the loads at the foundation level in the 3D
space. 14"15 The analysis of the slope in the 3D space is
required to be carried out. The stability analysis in the 3D
Yw h~w bl space is a cumbersome process. Generally r.c.c, framed
sect/ IYwhiwbi buildings consist of frames one after the other. To specify
the problem two dimensional stability analysis has been
carried out taking the loads from various columns of one
Fig. 1. Stability analysis by simplified Bishop's method. frame in 2D space at a time. These additional loads are to be
 Stability analysis of slope 397

taken into account while finding out the factor of safety of

slope with buildings constructed on them. A hill slope with
building frame is shown in Fig. 2, the loads from the
building frame are transferred at A, B and C. M1
The building loads transferred at the foundation level are
shown in Fig. 3. Let the dimension of the foundation be L × B
and co-ordinates of the column point are Xc and Yc in the x I - I
and y directions, respectively. Then area of foundation is
A = L X B. Section modulus of foundation is Z = B × L2/6.
Let the stress at extreme left end and extreme right end of
the foundation due to vertical load PI and bending moment
M l be a I and a 2 and are expressed as
S,i¢el f / ~ FootingPlan
,<,_<,>B? - ¢"
PI MI
at = ~ - + -~- (9)
~L~ ~,11 1 I ~ l J~ 02 Stress Distribution
PI M1 Bs
02 - (10)
A Z
The stress distribution will vary from at to 02 from one
Fig. 3. Building loads transmitted at hill slope.
edge of footing to the other edge of the footing. Let the
total length of footing be divided into 'nc' number of slices.
coming from the buildings. The building loads and the
Then width of each slice will be B s = Llnc. Co-ordinate of
slices are shown in Fig. 4. Although the load from the foot-
two extreme ends of the footing are ( X c - L / 2 , Y~) and
ing gets distributed over a larger area due to the dispersion
(Xc + L/2, Yc). Now take slice 1 of the column load slices.
of load, but in the present study the load has been distributed
Stress at one end of the slice equals el and stress at other
on an area equal to area of the footing itself. It does not
end of the slice equals
involve much error in the calculation of factor of safety. Let
(0" 2 - - 01 )B, wj be the vertical load of slice j corresponding to column
ol +
L loads and Nj the normal component of force due to slicej. Oj
and let wj he the vertical load corresponding to slice 1 of is the angle of inclination of the normal to the vertical, then
the column load and is given as equilibrium of vertical forces for the jth slice corresponding
to column loads
(ai + (cri + {02 - ol }BslL)Bs
wj= 2 (11) Njcos Oj + Njtan 4~sin Oj/F - wj = 0.0 (13)
and distance of c.g. of slice load from left end of the slice is therefore
given as t°
Bs(301 + 2{02 - Ol }BilL) Nj = cos Oj + t a n ~bsin Oj/F (14)
(12)
3(201 + {o2 - al }BilL)
In this manner the loads of all slices of footing loads and
co-ordinates of c.g. of slices load are to be evaluated for the
failure surface and are to be accounted for in calculating
factor of safety as follows:
Equation (3) gives Ni for the soil slices weights and no
building loads are considered. To consider the building
loads, the N,. value should take account of the loads

o " ~ - Stress

A
B

Fig. 2. Hill slope with a typical building frame. Fig. 4. Building loads and slices of the load.
398 D.K. Paul, Satish Kumar

The driving force corresponding to the building loads is

£ ( cbi+(!-- r,,)xhib,tan 4~)']
B=
~-" (wjsin Oj+Hjaj/R) (15) i= I \ (F,nc°s Oi+ (sin 0/tan 0))J
,/= I
+ (22)
where Hj is horizontal load corresponding to jth slice of j = Fmcos Oj+ tan 0sin
horizontal column load and aj is the lever arm. Then the
factor of safety F for the slope with building load is given
by
c=
F=
t7
~. cbi + (1 C r,)Thibitan 0 ~" w)tan 4~ / wjtan0(tan0sin0/ ~]
+ (23)
i--~ cos Oi + (sin 0~tan O)/F ~-~z"~lcos Oj+ (sin 0itan O)/F) j= I \ F,,cos 0j + tan 0sin 0/JJ
~-"

(w/sin 0i + G wiai/R) + Z (wjsin Oi+ Hiaj/R ) In the above expression wj, Hi, aj, sin 0i, cos 0/ are corre-
i=I j=l (16) sponding to the building column load which has been
divided into n,, slices and these are corresponding to jth
The factor of safety F comes on both sides of the expres- slice. Simplified normal method formula for obtaining the
sion, therefore iterative solution procedure, such as Newton factor of safety is
Raphson's, is adopted.
F:

f(F) = F [ ~. (wisin Oi + G wiai/R) (cbisec Oi+ (1 - r.)wicos Oitan O) + ~ . w/cos Ojtan 0

El= 1 i=1 j=l
[l,

~ (w)sin Oj+ Hjaj/R)]

+ i=, (w/sin Oi + c,.wia/R) + ~. (w)sin Oj+ Hjaj/R)
i: I j= 1 (24)
-- F [ £ ( cbi ÷~-(1-~-l-'u)"Yhibitan-~!xl Initially the factor of safety is evaluated from the simplified
Ei= I \ Fcos Oi+ (sin0itan 0) J method, which is used as trial factor of safety, and then the
final solution is obtained from Bishop's Method using
+ ( 1 7) Newton Raphson's method.
Fcos 0/+ tan 0sin 0j To calculate factor of safety against slope failure for an
area, properties of the soil of the slope plays an important

[
f(F) = ~. (w/sin Oiq- c,.wiai/R)
i=1
role. Therefore it is necessary to get the soil parameters
investigated in detail before going in for slope stability
analysis.

+ i:,'~"(w)sin Oj + .jai/R)]
4 COMPUTER CODIFICATION
_ [~((cbi+(l-ru)'YhibitanO)sinOitanO)
The computer program REAME (Rotational equilibrium
Li=, \ (F~co~s0~+ (s,~ Oita~0~))~
analysis of Multilayered Embankments 7) for the stability
( wjtan 0(tan 0sin _0j~ ] analysis of free slopes has been modified to take care of
the building loads for calculating factor of safety against
~ \ Fcos Oj+ tan 0sin OiJ J
+ j=l (18)
sliding failure of slope. The mathematical expressions
derived above incorporating effects due to building loads
F,n +1 : Fm -f(Fm)/f'(Fm) (19) has been implemented in the program. The flow chart of the
program SASBL is shown in Fig. 5. The main features of the
The final expression is program are as follows:

(20) (a) slopes of any configuration with large number of

Fm + 1 = Fm 1 A
different soil layers can be handled;
(b) the static or pseudo static factor of safety can be
evaluated;
A= £ (w/sin 0i -4-c,wiai/R) + i=
£ , (wjsin Oj+ Hjaj/R] (c) the building loads transferred at the foundation
i:1
level can be properly considered while finding out
(21) factor of safety;
 Stability analysis of slope 399

Input column loads, Soil boundaries 5.1 Test example 1

No. of points on soil boundaries
Coordinates of points The column load transferred at the foundation level to the
slope is shown in Fig. 6. The soil properties used in the
Calculates the slopes of different analysis are given in the figure. The factor of safety against
soil boundary lines sliding failure of slope has been evaluated for single column
load. The four conditions have been considered:
Input piezometric surface data,
No. of radius control zones, (a) no external load;
Soil properties, seismic coefficients (b) only vertical load;
Grid coordinates for search (c) vertical and horizontal load;
(d) vertical load, horizontal load and bending moments.
Calculate approximate factor of safety
fromsimpenorma method Horizontal loads acting in outward direction with respect
to slope and moments acting in anticlockwise direction as
( Do loop for number of circles )
shown in Fig. 6 will give the destabilising effects and
therefore these have been considered for finding the factor
of safety of the slope. The loads and the associated
( DO loop for iterations )
factor of safety for the single column are shown in Table
i. The slope failure surface for the above cases are shown in
Calculate factor of safety from Bishop's method
using approximate factor of safety
Fig. 7.
It is observed that the factor of safety decreases as the
column load on the slope increases. The factor safety
Check for Convergence

+ safety[
decreases from 1.499 to 1.435 when only vertical load is
applied to the slope, it further decreases to 1.279 when in
addition horizontal load is applied and further decreases to
1.262 when bending moment is also applied in addition to
Record the factor of the above loads. The factor of safety 1.499 when column
and centre of circle loads are zero matches exactly with the reported factor of
safety. 7 It is seen that factor of safety decreases significantly
J Find out minimum factor of safety on the application of horizontal loads as compared to the
application of vertical loads and bending moments, the
Plot failure surface and print minimum l application of building load also changes the failure surface
Factor of safety significantly.

Fig. 5. Flow chart of program.

(1.22,9.75) Soil Properties
c=0.0
\ Iv --35°
(d) pore pressure can be considered by specifying the \ ~ I ~ = 2000 kg/m 3
piezometric surface or pore pressure ratio; (3.04,6.081 ~ [ Size of footing
(e) radius control zone can be specified and one or
more number of circles can be searched in the specified
~ x 0.3)

radius control zone to find out he minimum factor of Soil 1 (11.27,3.04)

safety;
(f) the shallow circles can be eliminated by specifying (3.04,0) (21.33,0)
All Dimensions are in m
the minimum depth of tallest slice;
(g) it takes a very little computer time as it has been Fig. 6. Cross-section of the slope with single column load.
designed by proper numbering of soil boundaries.
Table 1. Single column load and factor of safety
Condition Vertical Horizontal Bcnding Factor of
5 VALIDATION OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM load load moment safety
1 0 0 0 1.499
There is hardly any solved problem available in the 2 2500 lbs 0 0 1.435
literature with building loads transmitted at the slope. (1133 Kg)
Therefore to validate the computer program one problem 3 2500 lbs 1000 lbs 0 1.279
with single column load and two column loads has been 4 2500 lbs 1000 lbs 5000 lb-ft 1.262
(1133 Kg) (453 Kg) (691 Kg m)
analysed.
400 D.K. Paul, Satish Kumar

Factor of Safety = 1.499 Factor of Safety = 1.435

(I) (li)

Factor of Safety = 1.279 Factor of Safety = 1.262

(ill) (IV)
Fig. 7. Slope failure surface with single column load.

decreases from 1.499 to 1.481 when only vertical loads

( 1 . 2 2 , 9 . 7 5 ) ~ / Soil Properties are applied to the slope, it further decreases to 1.254 when
c=0.0 in addition horizontal loads are applied and further
Vl (~= 30 ° decreases to 1.199 when bending moments are applied in
= 2000 kg/m 3 addition to the above loads.
(3.04,6.08 (7.92,6.08) ~ " ~ IV2 Size of footing
~'
M_~H2 (0.3m x 0.3m)

Soil 1 (14.63,3.04) ~ 6 P A R A M E T R I C STUDY OF STABILITY OF SLOPE

W I T H T W O COLUMN LOADS
13.0,4.0) 121.33,0)
All Dimensions are in m A parametric study has been carried out to study the effect
of varying positions of loads with respect to distance from
Fig. 8. Cross-section of slope with two column loads.
the free edge of the slope, distance between the column
loads, difference in levels of footings of the column loads
5.2 Test e x a m p l e 2 on the factor of safety against sliding failure of slope. In this
study two column loads has been taken, as given in Table 3,
A cross section of the slope and two column loads trans- in the form of vertical loads, horizontal loads and bending
ferred to the slope are shown in Fig. 8. Here also four cases moments. The cross section of the slope, location of column
have been considered, as in Example 1. The factor of safety loads, soil properties taken for the study are shown in
against slope failure are shown in Table 2. The slope failure Fig. 10. The distance from edge of the slope has been
surface is shown in Fig. 9. varied from zero to 3 m, distance between the two column
It is observed that the factor of safety decreases as the loads has been varied from 3 to 5 m and the level difference
column loads on the slope increases. The factor safety in the location of footing for the two columns has been

Table 2. Two column loads and factor of safety

Condition Column 1 Column 2 Factor of
safety
Vertical load Horizontal load Bending Ve~ical load Horizontal load Bending
lbs (Kg) lbs (Kg) moment lb-ft lbs (Kg) lbs (Kg) moment lb-ft
(Kg-m) (Kg-m)
0 0 0 0 0 0 1.499
2500 (1133) 0 0 2500(1133) 0 0 1.481
2500(1133) 1000 (453) 0 2500(1133) 1000(453) 0 1.254
2500(1133) 1000 (453) 5000 (69) 2500 (1133) 1000(453) 5000 (691) 1.199
 Stability analysis of slope 401

Factor of Safety = 1.499 Factor of Safety = 1.481

(I) (IJ)

2 ~ 1 y2

Factor of Safety = 1.254 Factor of Safety = 1.199

0il) (iV)

Fig. 9. Slope failure surface with two column loads.

varied from 0 to 3 m. The minimum depth of tallest slice has 7 S T A B I L I T Y OF S L O P E W I T H D I F F E R E N T

been varied from 1 to 5 m. The factor of safety against C O N F I G U R A T I O N S OF B U I L D I N G
sliding failure of slope has been evaluated with various
positions of loads. The configuration of building has a great impact on the
It has been observed from the study of the present cases stability of slope. The super structure of the building (i.e.
that: framed structure) on a flat ground and on a sloping ground
can be designed for all the configurations catering to the
(i) The factor of safety increases with increase in dis-
needs of stresses induced in the members using proper
tance of footing of the column from free edge of slope.
designs, rich quality materials etc. The stability of slope is
Increased distance between the column loads requires
more of a natural phenomena, depending upon the proper-
that the distance of location of footing from free edge
ties of the soil, building loads transferred to the slope, loca-
of the slope should be increased to achieve the desir-
tion of loads, type of loads, drainage conditions of the area
able factor of safety. It has been observed that when
and climatic conditions of the area. The overall safety of the
the distance between two columns is 3 m, a distance of
building on hill slope depends upon the stability of slope. If
1 m from free edge of the slope gives the maximum
the slope is not stable, a sound building properly designed
factor of safety. When the distance between two
and constructed, may still collapse. Therefore the stability
columns is 3 to 4 m the free edge distance of 2 m
analysis of the slope with building loads under static and
gives the maximum factor of safety and when the
earthquake loads has been carried out to see the suitability
distance between the two columns is up to 5 m, the
of the different configurations of building. The different
free edge distance of 3 m gives the maximum factor of
configurations of buildings on a flat ground and a sloping
safety and is shown in Fig. 1 l(a).
ground are taken for calculating the factor of safety against
(ii) Increase in distance from 3.0 m to 5.0 m between
the columns does not show much difference in the
factor of safety as shown in Fig. 1 l(b). (0,15)
(iii) The variation in the factor of safety against sliding
failure of slope is very small when the angle between
the extreme adjacent edges of the footings of two
. Lx?,Qio 0,0)
adjacent column loads lies between 0 to 45 °.
J~" ~ 0 tO 3.0)
Table 3. Column loads
(Z = 0.0 to'3.0)
Column Vertical load Horizontal load Moment
no. (Kg) (Kg) (Kg-m) (0,0) (25,0)
All dimensions are in m
1 10 000 2500 2500
2 10 000 2500 2500 Fig. 10. Cross-section of slope and varying position of column
loads.
402 D.K. Paul, Satish Kumar

sliding failure of slope, i.e.:

(i) buildings on a fiat ground e.g. regular framed build-
ings, setback framed buildings as shown in Fig. 12; J
(ii) buildings on sloping ground e.g stepback framed
buildings, stepback and setback framed buildings as
shown in Fig. 13.
slope
. slope

7.1 Buildings on flat ground m a d e out of sloping ground

(a) (b)
The two buildings on flat ground adjacent to hill slope are:
(i) regular framed building; Fig. 12. Buildings on fiat ground.
(ii) setback framed buildings are taken for studying the
stability of slope.
soil are the same as has been taken in the test problems
The column loads at foundation level obtained from static presented in this paper. The depth of foundation for all the
and seismic analyses corresponding to severe zone of the footings in the frame are kept the same. The minimum factor
country are applied to the slope. The material properties of of safety against sliding failure of slope for the two buildings
under the static and seismic conditions are evaluated. The
1.2 loads transferred at foundation level are shown in Table 4
for both the configurations. The factor of safety obtained in
static load condition for free slope, slope with regular
i :..... ~ . ~ . ~ . . . . . . . . framed buildings, slope with setback framed building are
1.0 1.469, 1.411 and 1.446, and the sliding surface are shown
in Fig. 14. The sliding failure shows that chances of local
r ~ D i s t a n c e between columns 3 0m failure are more when buildings are constructed adjacent to
kl-
- - -- Distance between columns 4.0m hill slope.
~ - - Distance. between clolumns 5.0m
[ The loads transferred at the foundation level for both the
0.8b. 0 2.0 4.0 buildings in seismic condition are shown in Table 5. The
Distance from edge of slope (m)
factor of safety obtained for seismic condition for free slope,
slope with regular building, slope with setback building are
1.2 1.130, 1.132 and 1.147. The deformations associated with
computed factor of safety has not been considered in this
paper.
The sliding failure surfaces are shown in Fig. 15 for
seismic condition. The results show that the sliding of
"6 1.0
slope with building load can take place under the column
S
adjacent to hill slope. The factor of safety against sliding of
I,,1_
slope decreases under earthquake conditions. The factor of
safety is higher in case of setback building as compared to
0.8 I I I
!.0 4.0 6.0 regular building. It indicates that the heavier part of the
Distance between Columns (m) building is to be located on the uphill side to provide

1.2

>-

1.0 ~'-J'-

0'80.0
m _
~ -'--- --"~ -'~

Distance between columns 3.0m

Distance between columns 4.0m
~-~"~Distance between columns 5.0m
[
2.0
I
--x-

4.0
H ~ \
slope ~"-\

Natural SlOpe ~
f
slope ~ "--%

Natural S l o p e
\
Difference in levels (m) \
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Variation of factor of safety with column loads location.
(a) Distance from edge of slopes(m). (b) Distance between
columns(m). (c) Difference in levels(m). Fig. 13. Buildings on sloping ground.
 Stability analysis of slope 403

Table 4. Column loads transferred at foundation level

Regular framed building Setback framed building
Column Axial load Shear force Moment Column Axial load Shear force Moment
(N) (N) (N-mm) (N) (N) (N-mm)
I 0.214 4- 06 0.131 4- 05 0.650 4- 07 1 0.270 + 06 0.132 + 05 0.664 + 07
2 0.427 + 06 0.125 4- 04 0.636 4- 06 2 0.483 + 06 0.137 + 04 0.641 + 06
3 0.427 4- 06 0.125 4- 04 0.636 4- 06 3 0.376 + 06 0.133 + 04 0.726 + 06
4 0.214 4- 06 0.131 4- 04 0.650 4- 07 4 0.160 + 06 0.132 + 05 0.652 + 07

better stability. The buildings constructed on flat ground The above study indicates that the setback buildings on
adjacent to hill slope having setback type configuration is flat ground adjacent to hill slope gives better stability to
better from stability consideration than the regular framed slope than the regular building, whereas the stepback build-
building. However the stability of slope can be improved by ings on sloping ground gives better stability than the step-
taking the footing of the edge column more deeper into the back and setback buildings.
slope. In such cases the stability of retaining wall needs to
be checked separately.
8 SOME PRECAUTIONS FOR STABILITY OF
SLOPE WITH BUILDINGS
7.2 Buildings on sloping ground
The following measures will be beneficial for reducing/
The two buildings are taken for study of stability of
avoiding slope failures and damage to the buildings when
slope. The loads transferred to the slope from building
such buildings are constructed on hill slope:
in static and seismic conditions are taken. The factor of
safety for stepback building, stepback and setback building 1. Foundation system of the structure should be taken
under static loads are 1.518 and 1.486, respectively. Under deeper into the slope, thereby the local failure of slope
earthquake condition the factor of safety is reduced to 1.242 is avoided as the deeper foundation system gives a
and 1.125 for the two buildings, respectively. The sliding lateral support to the soil and avoids any landslides or
surface for the slope with building loads is shown in Figs 16 slope failures.
and 17 for static and seismic conditions, respectively. It 2. If a building with footing at the same level is to be
is observed that the factor of safety in both static and constructed adjacent to hill slope (see Fig. 18), then
seismic conditions is more in case of stepback building as the building should be so planned that the heavier part
compared to stepback and setback building. This is due to of the building should be located on the up hill side to
the fact that the heavier load transferred by stepback provide better stability.J6
building at the downhill edge of the slope gives stabilising 3. When the footings are adjacent to sloping ground or
effect. where the bottom of the footing of a structure are at

/~-Retaining Wall _

Factor of Safety = 1.469 Factor of Safety = 1.411 Factor o f Safety = 1.446

Fig. 14. Slope sliding surface static condition.

Table 5. Column loads transferred at foundation level

Regular framed building Setback framed building
Column Axial load Shear force Moment Column Axial load Shear force Moment
(N) (N) (N-mm) (N) (N) (N-mm)
0.227 + 06 0.701 + 04 0.851 + 06 0.287 + 06 0.742 + 04 0.468 + 08
0.428 +06 0. I l l +05 0.990 + 07 0.484 + 06 0.109 + 05 0.960 + 07
0.428 + 06 0.862 + 04 0.863 + 07 0.377 + 06 0.819 + 04 0.823 + 07
0.227 + 06 0.192 + 05 0.138 + 08 0.170 + 06 0.191 + 05 0.136 + 08
404 D.K. Paul, Satish Kumar

zRetaining W a l l - _

Factor of Safety = 1.130 Factor of Safety = 1.132 Factor of Safety = 1.147

Fig. 15. Slope sliding surface seismic condition.

different levels or at levels different from those of the information has been incorporated in a computer program.
footings of the adjoining buildings, the provision as Numerical examples show that the factor of safety against
per I.S. 190417 should be followed. sliding failure of slope reduces due to the application of
4. The stepback type buildings should be constructed on column loads and moments.
sloping ground to achieve better stability of slope. Investigation has indicated that it is important to check
5. The foundation across the slope for columns in one the stability of the slope including building loads under
row should be continuous strip type instead of iso- seismic conditions. Two types of failure may occur:
lated footing. The combined/continuous type of foot-
ing will distribute the load uniformly and the pressure 1. local failure under the column footing near the slope;
intensity on the slope will be less and avoid slope 2. overall failure of slope including the buildings.
failures.
The various parameters which influence the stability of
6. The drainage system should be very good, in addition
slope have been studied and these parameters are footing
a pucca apron must be constructed around the whole
loads, and their relative locations.
building area to avoid any water seepage into the soil
As expected the factor of safety is found to decrease
system under the building area.
under seismic conditions. Setback type building con-
7. The plinth beam system should be heavy. The r.c.c.
figurations having footing at the same level, showing better
slabs are to be provided at the plinth level so that the
seismic stability. Stepback type building configurations
load at the plinth level from the users should be trans-
having footing at different levels show better stability.
ferred to the slopes through the column or wall sup-
Judicial increase in depth of foundation can further increase
porting system, rather than transferring the loads
the stability. Some precautions have been summarised, con-
directly under the plinth area. This will reduce the
siderations of which can further improve stability.
lateral pressure on the retaining wall, thereby avoid-
ing the failure of the retaining wall as well as the
overall lateral forces on the structure is reduced.
The heavy plinth beam system will help in reducing
the cracks and failure of the structure in case some
local failure of slope takes place at some point under
the building foundation.

Factor of safety = 1.242 Factor of safety = 1.125

9 CONCLUSIONS
Fig. 17. Slope sliding earthquake loads.
The importance of the stability analysis for slope with
building loads has been presented. A method has been
developed to analyse the slope stability using simplified
Bishop's method considering building loads in the form of
vertical loads, horizontal loads and bending moments. This

/-

slope

Factor of Safety = 1.518 Factor of Safety = 1.486

Fig. 16. Slope sliding surface static loads. Fig. 18. Building adjacent to hill slope.
 Stability analysis o f slope 405

REFERENCES dynamic slope stability analysis. Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering ASCE, 1987, 113(4), 285-298.
1. Fredland, D.G. & Kralin, J. Comparison of slope stability 10. Kumar, S., Seismic analysis of stepback and setback buildings.
methods of analysis. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1977, PhD thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 1996.
14(3), 429-439. 11. Kumar, S. and Paul, D. K., Seismic behaviours of hill
2. Morgenstern, N. & Price, V.E. The analysis of the stability of buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, submitted.
general slip surfaces. Geotechnique, 1965, 15(1), 79-93. 12. Kumar, S. and Paul, D. K., Hill building configuration from
3. Peck, R.B. Stability of natural slopes. Journal of the Soil seismic consideration. International Journal of Structural
Mechanics and Foundation Division ASCE, 1967, 93(SM4), Engineering and Mechanics, submitted.
403-417. 13. Kumar, S. and Paul, D. K., A state of art: seismic analysis of
4. Whitman, R.V. & Bailey, W.A. Use of computer for slope stepback and setback buildings. Indian Society of Earthquake
stability analysis. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Founda- Technology, submitted.
tion Engineering ASCE, 1967, 93(SM4), 475-498. 14. Kumar, S. & Paul, D.K. 3-D analysis of irregular buildings
5. Spencer, E. Thrust line criteria in embankments stability with rigid floor diaphragms. Bulletin of Indian Society of
analysis. Geotechnique, 1973, 23( 1), 85-100. Earthquake Technology, 1994, 1(3), 141 - 154.
6. Haung, Y.H. Stability coefficients for side hill benches. 15. Kumar, S. and Paul, D. K., Dynamic analysis of stepback and
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Studies ASCE, 1977, setback buildings. Tenth Symposium on Earthquake Engineer-
103(GT5), 467-481. ing, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, 1994, 1, pp. 341-350.
7. Haung, Y.H., Stability Analysis of Earth Slopes. Van 16. I.S. 13063, Structural Safety of Buildings on Shallow Foun-
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1983. dations on Rocks -- Code of Practice. Bureau of Indian
8. Chen, W.F. Plasticity in soil mechanics and landslides. Standard, New Delhi, 1991.
Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division ASCE, 1980, 17. I.S. 1904, Code of Practice for Design and Construction of
106(3), 443-464. Foundations in Soils. General requirements. Bureau of
9. Daddazio, R.P., Ettouney, M.M. & Sandler, I.S. Non linear Indian Standard, New Delhi, 1986.