Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering-Iraq IOP Publishing

IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 856 (2021) 012042 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012042

Numerical Simulation of Shallow Foundation Behavior Rested

on Sandy Soil

B. A. Al-Dawoodi1,a*, F. H. Rahil1, and M. Q. Waheed1

1
Civil Engineering Department, University of Technology-Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq.
a
[email protected]
*Corresponding author

Abstract. The scope out of this paper, is a numerical evaluation of the behavior of shallow
foundation rested on sandy soil exposed to axial load using “PLAXIS 3D 2020 software”.
Different types of models are used for the simulation of foundation behavior that are Mohr-
Coulomb model (MC), Hardening soil model (HS), and Hardening soil model with small-strain
stiffness (HSS). The effect of three parameters (footing shape, soil saturation and footing size)
are studied on three types of sandy soil having different internal friction angles. It can be
observed from the result that Mohr-Coulomb model are identical with the curve at the elastic
zone and overestimated at the plastic zone. The results are more realistic when using the
constitutive hyperbolic hardening soil model compared with Mohr-Coulomb model. Better and
closer to the practical result were observed when using HSS model. After the application of
(HSS), it was concluded that is more realistic and gives greater value to estimate the behavior of
small-scale shallow foundation in sandy soil compared to Mohr-Coulomb models and hardening
soil model. Foundation bearing capacity for dry sandy soil is greater than for saturation one,
with a percentage of increase equal 12.5, 30, and 27% for MC, HS, and HSS models respectively.

Keywords: Finite element; sandy soil; shallow foundation; PLAXIS.

1. Introduction
A foundation is the portion of a structure that transmits the load pressure of the structure to the ground.
While planning to design a footing, it is necessary to know the type of soil, it behaves and the bearing
capacity. When designing the foundation, the applied load should be less than the allowable capacity of
the foundation. In order to model the stress and strain behavior of the soil, various constitutive models
have been developed and apply into numerical models to use in geotechnical engineering application,
in addition to investigating and analyzing structural problems of soil for different loading conditions
[1].The objective of the study to compare the results of PLAXIS 3D program that was used in this paper
and the experimental load–settlement curve and find the best and closest match to the practical results.
This topic has been studied by several researchers, and in this section a number of them are reviewed:
Moayed et al. [2] used FLAC3D analysis of plate load test results in the case of loose and dense sandy
soil was used to investigate the effects of chamber dimension on plate load test results are investigated.
The experiments conducted on 30×30 cm plate load tests with 1×1×1 m chamber show that the boundary
conditions have no significant effect on the results and thus they are applicable to in situ conditions.
Muntau and Bathaeian [3] used a well-documented experiment of shallow penetration into sand for
the validation of the soft particle code (SPARC). For these simulations a hypoplastic material model for
sand with calibration for the model sand is implemented in SPARC. Results show that SPARC performs
better at predicting the trajectories of particles under the foundation, which consequently leads to better

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering-Iraq IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 856 (2021) 012042 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012042

estimation of the load-settlement behavior [3]. Thakur and Dutta [4] conducted experimental and
numerical analysis assessing the bearing capacity on three sands (S1, S2, S3) on square
footings. at a relative density of 30%. Results revealed that numerically recorded bearing
capacity was slightly higher compared to the one recorded experimentally for all footings on
sands (S1, S2, S3). Further, the experimental results validated the results acquired numerically
with an average deviation of 3.25% [4].

2. Finite element analysis and mesh generation

PLAXIS 3D 2020 software was used for explaining and analyzing the soil behavior and its settlement
subjected to vertical loading conditions, to achieve that three constitutive models used in this study that
are Mohr Coulomb model (MC), Hardening soil model (HS) and Hardening soil model with small –
strain stiffness model (HSS). In the finite element approach, the stress-strain correlation of a practical
material is represented by constitutive models that represent the behavior of the soil in a single element.
The soil behavior simulates by the constitutive models, which is the main purpose with sufficient validity
under all loading condition [1].
On the basis of the mechanical law (Hooks law of linear elasticity and Coulomb, s law
of perfect plasticity) easy and compound models were defined [5,6]. Finite element analysis was
conducted using “PLAXIS 3D 2020” software”. In the finite element approach, the material is separated
into a number of elements. All the element contains a number of nodes. All nodes have a number of
degrees of freedom agreement to individual value of the undetermined in the problem of boundary value
to solve for this purpose subdivide geometry into element compassion the finite element mesh [5,6].
Generate mesh should be adequately fine to get an exact numerical conclusion. On another side,
very fine mesh should be ignored since this will lead to intemperate extreme calculation. This study
used medium mesh for soil and footing after that refine mesh utilizes for plate footing. The basic soil
element of “PLAXIS 3D 2020” finite element mesh described by the 10-Node tetrahedral elements were
used to model and represent the soil and 6-Node plate use to simulate the behavior of footing as shown
in Figure 1 [7].

Figure 1. 3D soil element (10-node tetrahedrons) [7].

3. Material properties of the studied soil

In this study, properties of the soil are based on Thakur and Dutta work [4]. Three types of sandy soil
are used, designated as (S1-S2-S3), and its properties are shown in Table 1 moreover, the consolidated
drained triaxial test (76 mm height and 38 mm in diameter) was conducted, to determine the shear
strength parameters and test setup includes a test tank (700×450×600 mm). The footing is constructed
of iron plate 10 mm thick and the dimensions are (80×80 mm). The properties of footing material are
shown in Table 1.

2
Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering-Iraq IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 856 (2021) 012042 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012042

Table 1. Properties of the studied soil [4].

Material S1 S1 S1 S2 S2 S2 S3 S3 S3 Footing
Model name MC HS HSS MC HS HSS MC HS HSS LE
Type of drainage D D D D D D D D D NP
γdry (kN/𝑚3 ) 14.38 14.38 14.38 14.89 14.89 14.89 15.15 15.15 15.15 78.5
γsat (kN/m3) 18.83 18.83 18.83 19.12 19.12 19.12 19.29 19.29 19.29 -
Cohesion, cˋ (kPa) 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 -
φº 33.37 33.37 33.37 36.52 36.52 36.52 39.47 39.47 39.47 -
ˋ 5500 210×106
𝐸 (kPa) 4800 4800 4800 5200 5200 5200 5500 5500
𝜈ˋ 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
𝜓 (øº-30) 3.37 3.37 3.37 6.517 6.517 6.517 9.47 9.47 9.47 -
𝑟𝑒𝑓∗
𝐸50 ×103 - 22.6 22.6 - 24.5 24.5 - 25.91 25.91 -
𝑟𝑒𝑓
𝐸𝑜𝑒𝑑 ×103 - 11 11 - 11.4 11.4 - 11.61 11.61 -
𝑟𝑒𝑓
𝐸𝑢𝑟 ×103 - 67.85 67.85 - 74.5 73.5 - 77.74 77.74 -
Exponential Power m* - 0.5 0.5 - - 0.5 - - 0.5 -
Initial shear modulus
- - 100 - - 55.66 - - 70.97 -
G0*×103
Shear strain ϒ0.7*×10-3 - - 0.1993 - - 0.2181 - - 0.2357 -
Pref - - 100 - - 100 - - - 100
R int - - 1 - - 1 - - - 1
R ref - - 0.9 - - 0.9 - - - 0.9
LE: Linear Elastic; D: Drained; NP: Non- porous; *: Estimated based on correlations [9].

4. Results and discussion

In this section, it will review the result obtained from the analysis conducted after studying some of the
parameters that affect the foundation behavior.

4.1 Effect of the constitutive model used.

For the purpose of studying the simulation using different models, the analysis of the pressure–
settlement curve is done using the inputs previously mentioned in Tables 1. Figures 2 and 3 show the
geometry of footing models by “PLAXIS 3D 2020” and the distribution of vertical displacement of the
case study. The comparison between numerical and experimental load-settlement curves appears in
Figures 4, 5, and 6. The result of the Mohr-Coulomb model appears to be matching in the elastic
zone, then, it is overestimated and deluding at the last level of loading because it behaves linear elastic
perfectly-plastic. It was observed that the simulation by the Hardening soil model gives good results
compared to Mohr-Coulomb because the Hardening model elastoplastic and it behave closet to soil
behavior.

3
Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering-Iraq IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 856 (2021) 012042 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012042

Figure 2. Geometry of foundation model.

Figure 3. Distribution of vertical settlement under loading of foundation at the center of the models.

Pressure (kPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0

4
Settlement (mm)

10

12 EXPERIMENTAL S1
MOHR S1
14
HARDINING S1
16 HSs S1
18

Figure 4. Load–settlement response of various soil model for S1.

4
Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering-Iraq IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 856 (2021) 012042 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012042

Pressure (kPa)
0 50 100 150 200 250
0

4
Setllement (mm)

10
EXPIREMENTAL S2
12
MOHR S2
14
HARDINING S22
16
HSS S2
18

Figure 5. Load–settlement response of various soil model.

Pressure (kPa)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0

4
Settlement (mm)

8 EXPIREMENTAL S3

10 Mohr S3

12 HARDINING S3

14 HSS S3

16

18

Figure 6. Load–settlement of various soil model for S3.

4.2 Effect of footing shape

The impact of the shape of footing on the foundation bearing capacity was examined by performing
numerical analysis of three models, 10 mm thick iron plate that is a square shape of width 80 mm,
rectangular with 65×98 mm and circular with a diameter 90 mm footing plate] test and assume the same
properties of soil, see Table 1. The test evaluation appears that the bearing capacity of sandy soil for 80
mm square plate model is more prominent than that for the 65×98 mm rectangular model. The
comparison of bearing capacity gotten for these three diverse shape footings has appeared in Figure 7.
From this figure, it is obvious that the bearing capacity for 80 mm square plate is generally greater than
those gotten for 65×98 mm rectangular by about 7.4% just in the Mohr-Coulomb model and 90 mm
diameter for the circular plate. The same result was found as per Patel and Bhoi [20]. Effect of different
shape of footing on its load settlement behavior (circular, square, and rectangular according to square
and circle footing shape result but disagreement with rectangle result [10]. Figures 8 and 9 show that
the results are nearly identical in three different shapes of footing for Hardening and Hardening with a
small strain stiffness model.

5
Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering-Iraq IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 856 (2021) 012042 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012042

Pressure (kPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0

4
Settlement (mm)

10

12 MOHER S1 SQUARE

14 MOHR S1 RECTUNGLE
16 MOHR S1 CIRCUL
18

Figure 7. Bearing capacity for different footing shape using MC model.

Pressure (kN)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0

2
Settlement (mm)

10

12 HARDINING S1 SQUARE
14 HARDINING S1 RECTUNGULE
16 HARDINING SI CIRCULE

18

Figure 8. Bearing capacity for different footing shape using HS model.

Pressure (kPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0

6
Settlement (mm)

10

12
HSS S1 SQUARE
14
HSS S1 RECTUNGLE
16 HS S1 CIRCULAR
18

Figure 9. Bearing capacity for different footing shape using HSS model.

6
Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering-Iraq IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 856 (2021) 012042 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012042

4.3 Effect of soil saturation

The effect of soil saturation on the bearing capacity of foundation conducted on the sandy soil type (S1)
using the three models appears in Figures 10, 11, and 12. The results of the analysis for saturation soil
using the same properties appeared in Table 1 except the soil assume to be saturation. A comparison
between dry and saturated soil show that the bearing capacity for dry soil greater than saturation soil
because the effective stress in dry soil greeter than in saturated soil [11,12]. The bearing capacity of
foundation in dry soil increased by 12.5%, 30%, and 27% by using Mohr- Coulomb model, hardening
soil model, hardening soil with small strain model respectively.

Pressure (kPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0

4
Settlement (mm)

10

12 MOHR S1

14 MOHR S1 SAT

16

18

Figure 10. The effect of saturation on bearing capacity using MC model.

Pressure (kPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0

4
Settlement ( mm)

10

12

14
HARDINING S1
16
HARDINING S1 SAT
18

Figure 11. The effect of saturation on bearing capacity using MC model.

7
Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering-Iraq IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 856 (2021) 012042 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012042

Pressure (kPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
0
2
4
6
Settlement (mm)

8
10
12
14
HSS S1
16
HSS S1 SAT
18

Figure 12. The effect of saturation on bearing capacity using HSS model.

4.4 Effect of footing size

Three cases were represented in a square shape of 8 cm, 1 m, as well as a width of 10 m. The results of
the representation of idealization settlement over the footing width (S/B) verse pressure the three models
are shown in the Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16. It can be observed that there was an increase in bearing
capacity at 10% footing width, when increasing the width of the foundation, with different percentages
shown in Table 2. It can be seen that at ratio of increasing in raft width of 12.5 there was an increase of
bearing capacity about 278% so that in case increasing raft width of 125 the average equals 1078%
because when the width of the foundation increases in sandy soil, the depth of the stress-affected soil
increases under the foundation and the bearing capacity increases

Table 2. Percentage of increasing in bearing capacity with raft width.

Results of raft width (1 m) Results of raft width (10 m)
Models
% Increase of Ratio of footing % Increase of Ratio of
types
bearing capacity width bearing capacity footing width
MC 233.3 12.5 1380 125
HS 200 12.5 854.6 125
HSS 250 12.5 1000 125
Average 277.7 12.5 1078.2 125
Pressure (kPa)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
MOHR 80 mm
0.02
MOHR 1m

0.04 MOHR10m
S/B

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Figure 13. The effect of the shape of foundation on bearing capacity using MC model.

8
Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering-Iraq IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 856 (2021) 012042 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012042

Pressure (kPa)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
HARDINING S1 (80 MM)
0.02 HARDINING S1[1M]
HARDINING S1 [10M]
0.04
S/B

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Figure 14. The effect of the shape of foundation on bearing capacity using HS model.
Pressure (kPa)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0
HSs1 80mm
0.02
HS S1 1M
Settlement (mm)

0.04 HS S1 10 m

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Figure 15. The effect of the shape of foundation on bearing capacity using HSS model.

Pressure (kPa)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
Footing Width-Bearing capacity MCM
200 Footing Width-Bearing Capacity HSM
Footing Width-Bearing Capacity HSSM
Settlement (mm)

400

600

800

1000

1200

Figure 16. Footing width–bearing capacity relationship for various model.

9
Second International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering-Iraq IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 856 (2021) 012042 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012042

5. Conclusions
In this work, a numerical exploratory was performed to analyze the load–settlement relation of square
footing expose to vertical load using “PLAXIS 3D 2020”. It can be concluded the following based on
the result of the current study:
 Comparison of the numerical analysis using MC, HS, and HSS models of footing rested on
sand, with the practical results show that Mohr’s gives a higher result.
 The result obtained from MC model matches the curve at the elastic zone after that in the plastic
zone be over predict, hence, this model is not recommended for use especially in the final stages
of loading.
 The simulation using the constitutive hyperbolic HS model is more realistic and gives greater
value to estimate the behavior of small-scale shallow foundation in sandy soil compared to MC
model, but the best and close to the practical result were observed in the HSS model.
 Foundation bearing capacity for dry sandy soil is greater than for saturation one, with a
percentage of increase equal 12.5, 30, and 27% for MC, HS, and HSS models respectively.
 The bearing capacity increased when the footing width increased. It can be seen that at ratio of
increasing in raft width of 12.5, there was an increase of bearing capacity about 278% so that in
case increasing raft width of 125, the average equals 1078.

References
[1] Gupta, S. and Mital, A., 2019. July. Numerical analysis of bearing capacity of rectangular footing.
In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1240, No. 1, p. 012039). IOP Publishing.
[2] Moayed, R.Z., Khalili, A. and Nazeri, A., 2017. 3D Numerical analysis of plate load test results
on calibration chamber. Istanbul Turkey, 19(7).
[3] Schneider-Muntau, B. and Bathaeian, I., 2018. Simulation of settlement and bearing capacity of
shallow foundations with soft particle code (SPARC) and FE. GEM-International Journal on
Geomathematics, 9(2), pp.359-375.
[4] Thakur, A. and Dutta, R.K., 2020. A study on bearing capacity of skirted square footings on
different sands. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 50, pp.1057-1073.
[5] Wani, K. M. N. S. and Showkat, R., 2018. Soil Constitutive models and their application in
geotechnical engineering: A review. International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology (IJERT), 7(4), 137-145.
[6] Fattah, M.Y., Salman, F.A. and Nareeman, B.J., 2011. Numerical simulation of triaxial test in
clayey soil using different constitutive relations. In Advanced Materials Research (Vol. 243, pp.
2973-2977). Trans Tech Publications Ltd.
[7] Plaxis 3d Reference Manual Connect Edition V20.
[8] Waheed, M. Q. and Asmsil, N. M., 2019. Study simulation of shallow foundation behavior using
different finite element models. Journal of Advanced Civil Engineering Practice and Research, 8,
4-9.
[9] Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Engin, E. and Swolfs, W.M., 2013. PLAXIS 3D 2013 user manual. Plaxis bv,
Delft.
[10] Patel, M. and Bhoi, M., 2019. Effect of different shape of footing on its load settlement behavior
(circular, square and rectangular. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Civil, Structural, and
Environmental Engineering (CSEE’19).
[11] Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. and Mesri, G., 1996. Soil mechanics in engineering practice. John Wiley
and Sons.
[12] Ahmad, A.A., JassimAl-Obaidi, Q.A. and Al-Shamcy, A.A.J., 2009. Evaluation of Bearing
Capacity from Field and Laboratory Tests. Engineering and Technology Journal, 27(3), pp.445-
453.

10
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.