See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357711061

Numerical Modeling of Shallow Foundation Behavior Using Soft Soil Model

Article in IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · January 2022
DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

CITATIONS READS

3 405

3 authors, including:

Mohanned Qahtan Waheed Falah Rahil

University of Technology, Iraq university of technology ,iraq,baghdad
31 PUBLICATIONS 99 CITATIONS 51 PUBLICATIONS 237 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohanned Qahtan Waheed on 11 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Numerical analysis of bearing capacity of
Numerical Modeling of Shallow Foundation rectangular footing
Sujata Gupta and Anupam Mital
Behavior Using Soft Soil Model - Numerical Simulation of Shallow
Foundation Behavior Rested on Sandy
Soil
To cite this article: BA Al-Dawoodi et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 961 012057 A.B. Al-Dawoodi, F. H. Rahil and M. Q.
Waheed

- A short history of my life in science

Joseph R Manson
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 185.203.55.126 on 11/01/2022 at 18:52

ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

Numerical Modeling of Shallow Foundation Behavior Using

Soft Soil Model

BA Al-Dawoodi1,4, MQ Waheed2 ,FH Rahil 3

1,2
Graduate student, Civil Engineering Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq.
3
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq.
4
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq,

1
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract: This study discusses the results of simulation a finite element analysis of the load-
settlement curve using soft soil model of shallow foundation subjected to axial load rested on
three different types of clayey soils, it was considered different shear strength parameters (C=16,
C=25, and C=70). It was concluded for clayey soil of C=16, there was a match to the
experimental load – settlement curve using the soft soil model. It was also observed increase in
the foundation width led to an increase in bearing capacity, however, bearing capacity increased
by around (79 %) for an increase in footing width of (6.25), so it was about (144%) for (12.5).

1. Introduction
The part of a structure that conveys the structure's load to the soil is called the foundation. It's essential
to understand the type of soil, it behaves, and how much loads it can support when designing a footing.
The footing should be constructed in such a way that the applied stress on the soil is less than its capacity.
A shear failure may occur if the soil is overstressed, causing the soil to slide from beneath the structure
and causing failure. As a result, determining the load-bearing capacity of the footing is the first and most
important stage in the footing design process [1].
The PLAXIS-3D (V.20) program is a useful tool for describing and assessing soil behavior and
settlement when subjected to vertical loading. The stress-strain relationship of a specific material is
represented by a constitutive model in finite element methods, which models the behavior of soil in a
single element.
The Soft Soil model is ideal for simulating the behavior of soft and compressible soils like clay and peat,
and the Soft Soil model is perfect for simulating the behavior of soft and compressible soils like clay
and peat. [2].

2. Finite Element Mesh and Boundary Condition

One of the most acceptable numerical approaches is the finite element technique (FEM). It was utilized
for acquiring a rough answer for complex issues in different fields of engineering [3]. PLAXIS-3D
(V.20) Software used to implement a finite element analysis. The constitutive model of the soil is the
Soft Soil Model (SSM). The footing is considered as linear elastic. The properties for soil and footing
are shown in Table1.

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
ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

To acquire a precise numerical result, the mesh should be fine enough. On the other hand, very fine
mesh should be avoided because it will result in excessive extreme calculation [4]. A medium to fine
mesh was chosen for soil and footing in this study. To model and describe the soil, 10-Node tetrahedral
elements were used, and a 6-Node plate was used to imitate the behavior of the footing , Figure 1. The
geometry of the two footings resting on the cohesive soil is shown in Figures 2 and 3. The geometric
model's dimensions were determined based on the criteria, with the ratio as recommended by the
PLAXIS-3D (V.20) software tutorial manual [5].
Table1 clarifies the material properties used for analysis. Three different types of clay soils were used
for different shear strength parameters values classified to soft soil (c=16), medium (c=25) approved by
the study of Rahil ( 2007) where the footing was represented as rectangle shape with a dimension of
(200mm˟400mm) [6]. And a stiff clay (c=70) approved by the study of Waheed & Moutaz (2019),
where in this work the shape of footing is square with (0.8m) width [7, 11-13].

Figure1. Soil element in three dimensions (10-node tetrahedrons). [8]

B=0.8m
6m

2
ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

Figure2. The geometry model of footing -1 (C=70).

B*L=200*400mm

10m
Figure3. The geometry model of footing -2 (C=25).

Table1. The input properties of the studied soil. [6], [7]

Soils types Soil 1 Footing Soil 2 Soil 3 Footing
Model name SSM Linear Elastic SSM SSM Linear Elastic
Type of drainage Drained Non- porous Un Drained A Un Drained A Non- porous
(γ) (KN/𝑚3 ) 17 78.5 20 16.5 27
(γ dry) (KN/𝑚3 ) 15 - 17 18.5 -
cˋ (kPa) 70 - 25 16 -
øº 25 - 25º 5º -
𝜈ˋ 0.4 0.26 0.2 0.2 0.4950
λ* 0.05930 - 0.087 0.044 -
қ* 0.00579 - 0.013 0.016 -
*Estimated based on correlations [9].
3. The Soft Soil Model (SSM)
The SS model is a Cam-clay type model that is used to investigate the primary compression pressure of
normally-consolidated clayey soils. This model can be used with materials that have a high
compressibility, such as normally consolidated clays, clayey silts, and peat. Despite the fact that the
Hardening Soil model often replaces the capability modeling of this model, the Soft Soil model is
preferable to demonstrate the pressure conduct of very soft soils. For the SS model, the supposition that
is a logarithmical relation subsist in the midst of the volumetric strain, εv, and the mean affecting stress,
P', the equation for that could be given
𝜀v − 𝜀v0 = −𝜆∗ ln⁡(P′ /P0 )( compression )……………………………...… (1)
where:
εv: Volumetric strain,

3
ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

εv0: Initial volumetric strain,

P′: Mean effective stress,
P0: Initial effective stress, and
λ*: Modified compression coefficient,
𝒄𝒄
𝝀∗ = 𝟐.𝟑(𝟏+𝒆 )
… … … … … … (2)
𝟎
where:
Cc: Compressible coefficient, and
𝑒0: Initial void ratio
During isotropic unloading and reloading a different path (line) is followed, which can be formulated
as:
ɛ𝑣 𝑒 − ɛ𝑣 𝑒 0 = −κ ∗ ln (p′/ p0 ′) (unloading/reloading) …………………... (3)
where:
ɛ𝑣: Elastic volumetric strain,
ɛ𝑣 𝑒 0: Initial elastic volumetric strain, and
κ*: Modified swelling coefficient,
𝟐𝑪𝑺
𝐊 ∗ ≈ 𝟐.𝟑(𝟏+𝒆) … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (4)
where:
CS: Swelling coefficient, and
𝑒0: Initial void ratio. [3]
The SS model can simulate soil behavior under a general of stress conditions. Nonetheless, for clarity,
only triaxial loading circumstances with (σ2 = σ3) are considered.
A yield function f is depicted in Figure 4 as a circle in the p' – q plane. Figure 5 depicts the entire yield
contour in major stress space.

Figure 4. The yield surfaces of the Soft Soil model: the red line is the Mohr-Coulomb yield surface,
and the blue line is the elliptical cap yield surface. [9]

4
ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

Figure 5. describe of total yield contour of the Soft Soil model in principal stress space [9]

The soft soil model, unlike the Mohr-Coulomb material model, is capable of representing both elastic
and plastic material states. It is a more advanced constitutive material model, and the soft soil model's
key features are as follows (PLAXIS, 2012):
The primary shortcomings of the soft soil model include [10]:
• Not suitable for soils other than soft states that are ordinarily or close to normally consolidated.
• The creep (secondary consolidation) is not considered.
•Less suitable for stress pathways that aren't compression.
• The anisotropy of the soil is ignored.
• The behavior of failure as per the Mohr-Coulomb requirement.
• The yield surface adapts to a modified Cam clay model with a plastic strain flow rule.
• Oedometer testing is used to determine stiffness parameters.

The soft-soil model has several important advantages:

• Stiffness that is related to stress (logarithmic compression behavior).
• There's a difference between main loading and unloading-reloading.
• Pre-consolidation stress memory.

4. Results and discussions

PLAXIS 3D software was used to conduct the finite element analysis for different clay soil of two types
of shallow foundation, their properties are clarified in Table 1. Figures 6, 7, and 8 demonstrate the
deformed mesh of PLAXIS footing models, as well as the distribution of vertical displacement in the
case study. The results obtained are detailed as shown below:

4.1 Effect of shear strength parameters

Two shapes of footing are considered in this study, square footing and rectangular footing .
4.1.1 Square footing
The results from soil 1, their properties mentioned Table 1 for the square footing which is illustrated by
Figure 9 that shows the difference in conformity of the soft soil model with the results of the
experimental according to the value of the shear strength parameters, there was a match between the
finite element analysis curve and the practical load – settlement curve at the initial stage , while it was
underestimation at the latest state of loading.

5
ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

10m

10m

Figure 6. The mesh and geometry model for soil 1 (C=70).

6m

6m

Figure 7. The mesh and geometry model for soil 2 (C=25)

6
ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

Figure 8. The model's vertical settlement under foundation loading distributed at the middle.

Load (KN)
0 50 100 150 200 250
0.0

5.0
Settlement (mm)

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0
Experimental Soft Soil Model / C=70

Figure 9. The result of verification between numerical and experimental for clay soil C/70

4.1.2 Rectangular Footing

Figures 10 and 11 explain the results were obtained from soil 2 and 3 for the rectangular footing using
soft soil clay, their properties are mentioned in Table 1. Whereas clay soil for shear strength parameters
(c=16) gave the closest match to the experimental load – settlement behavior.

7
ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

Pressure (Kpa)

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

10

15
Settlement (mm)

20

25

30

35

40

45
Experimental Soft Soil Model / C25
Figure 10. The result of verification between numerical and experimental for clay soil C/25

Pressure (KPa)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0

10

15
Settlement (mm)

20

25

30

35

40

45

EXPIREMENTAL Soft Soil Model / C16

Figure 11. The result of verification between numerical and experimental for clay soil C/16

4.2 Effect of internal friction angle

The influence of the internal angle of friction on bearing capacity is seen in Figure 12 for simulation of
the case study of soil 1, its shear strength parameters (c =70), then it was observed that when the internal
friction angle increased the bearing capacity increased, as the angle of internal friction increases, so the
clay's shear strength increased, and thus increase the bearing capacity and matching between the
numerical and experimental that indicate a good agreement.

8
ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

Load (KN)

0 50 100 150 200 250

0.0

5.0
Settlement (mm)

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0
Experimental Soft Soil Model / C=70 / Phi =25
Soft Soil Model / C=70 / Phi = 15 Soft Soil Model / C=70 / Phi=10

Figure 12. The effect of internal friction angle on bearing capacity for Soft Soil model for soil 1.

4.3 Effect of footing size

Three cases are selected in a square shape with widths of 0.8 m, 5 m, and 10 m. For the three models,
Figure 13 depicts the results of the representation of normalized pressure versus settlement over
foundation width (S/B). As the foundation width increased by (10%) , the bearing capacity rises as well,
as indicated in Table I at various rates. There was a 79 percent increase in bearing capacity at a
proportion of increasing raft width of (6.25), so that in the state that foundation width increased by
(12.5), the average equals (144 percent). The reason for this is that the angle of friction is present in the
inputs used to represent this situation, resulting in a modest increase in bearing capacity by raising the
foundation width.

Table 2. Increase in bearing capacity as raft width increases for soil 1.

Results of raft width (5m) Results of raft width (10 m)
Increased of Ratio of footing Increased of
bearing capacity bearing capacity Ratio of footing
Models Types width width
with respect to 𝐵(5𝑚)⁡ with respect to 𝐵(10𝑚)⁡
raft width (8 cm) raft width (8 cm) 𝐵(0.8)
(%) 𝐵(0.8) (%)
Soft Soil Model 79 6.25 144 12.5

9
ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

Stress (KPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0

0.02

0.04
S/B

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Soft Soil / C=70 / B=0.8m Soft Soil / C=70 / B=5m Soft Soil / C=70 / B=10m

Figure 13. The impact of the size of foundation on the relation between pressure and settlement over
width ratio (S/B) for soil 1.

5. Conclusion
In this study, numerical evaluation using PLAXIS-3D (V.20) was performed to simulate the behavior
of clay soil by soft soil model. It was concluded that: The soft soil model presents good agreement with
experimental results when the value of shear strength is low for rectangular footing. The soft soil model
represented and simulate the behavior of soft soil. The soft soil model gives underestimation results at
the latest state of loading when the shear strength is a high value (stiff clay) for the square footing. An
increase in the foundation width led to an increase in bearing capacity, however, bearing capacity
increased by around (79 %) for an increase in footing width of (6.25), so it was about (144%) for (12.5).
The increasing of internal friction angle led to an increase in bearing capacity and show a higher match
between experimental and theoretical load - settlement curve.

Reference
[1] Gupta, S., & Mital, A. Numerical analysis of bearing capacity of rectangular footing. In Journal of
Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1240, No. 1, p. 012039). IOP Publishing. (2019)
[2] Wani, K. M. N. S., & Showkat, R. Soil Constitutive Models and Their Application in Geotechnical
Engineering: A Review.
[3] Hameedi, M. K., Fattah, M. Y., & Al-Omari, R. R. Creep characteristics and pore water pressure
changes during loading of water storage tank on soft organic soil. International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 14(5). 101 https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1682350 (2020).

10
 ICAUC_ES 2021 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 961 (2022) 012057 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/961/1/012057

[4] Kurnia, M., & Rahardjo, P. P. Performance Analysis Of “Toga” Foundation with Cap on Thick Soft
(2020).
[5] PLAXIS 3D Tutorial Manual Connect Edition V20.
[6] Rahil, F. H. Improvement of soft clay underneath a railway track model using stone columns
technique (Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Technology, Iraq (2007).
[7] Waheed.M. Q.& Moutaz.N.A Volume: 8, Issue: Study simulation of shallow foundation behavior
using different finite element models. Journal of Advanced Civil Engineering Practice and
Research · June- (2019).
[8] Plaxis 3d Reference Manual Connect Edition V20.
[9] Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Engin, E., and Swolfs, W. M. PLAXIS 3D 2020 user manual. Plaxis bv, Delft.
(2020).
[10] Ibrahim, R. F. A LABORATORY AND NUMERICAL STUDY ON NATURAL IRAQI SOFT
CLAYEY SOIL (Master dissertation, University of Technology). (2014).
[11] Sajad Ahmad Dar, Jatinder Kumar, Shubham Sharma, Gursharan Singh, Jujhar Singh, Vivek
Aggarwal, Jasgurpreet Chohan, Raman Kumar, Abhinav Sharma, Madhulika Mishra, Ahmed J.
Obaid,Investigations on the effect of electrical discharge machining process parameters on the
machining behavior of aluminium matrix composites, Materials Today: Proceedings,2021,ISSN
2214-7853,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.07.126.
[12] S. Jeyalaksshmi et al 2021 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1963 012145.
[13] M. Küçük and T. T. Karadayi, “An ecological settlement design for refugees in Kocaeli”, Heritage
and Sustainable Development, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 69-88, Jul. 2020..

11

View publication stats