INTRODUCTION

In the realm of geotechnical engineering, the assessment of strip footing behavior under
elastoplastic conditions has traditionally relied on established manual methods, employing
formulas such as those developed by Vesic, Hansen, and Meyerhof. These analytical approaches
have long served as valuable tools for estimating bearing capacity and understanding soil-structure
interaction. However, with the advent of advanced computational tools like PLAXIS 2D, the field
has witnessed a paradigm shift, offering engineers a more comprehensive and sophisticated
platform for elastoplastic strip footing analysis.

Manual methods, rooted in empirical formulations, have historically provided engineers with quick
estimations of foundation performance. Vesic, Hansen, and Meyerhof's formulas, among others,
have been widely employed to predict bearing capacity and settlement based on simplified
assumptions and empirical coefficients. While these methods have proven valuable, they often
involve assumptions that may not fully capture the complexities of real-world soil behavior.
Moreover, the limitations of manual approaches become pronounced when dealing with non-linear
soil-structure interaction, dynamic loading, or unique geological conditions.

In contrast, PLAXIS 2D introduces a new dimension to elastoplastic strip footing analysis,

leveraging the power of finite element methods (FEM) to simulate the intricacies of soil behavior
with unprecedented accuracy. This software facilitates a detailed and dynamic representation of
the geotechnical system, accounting for non-linear soil properties, plastic deformation, and other
factors that manual methods might oversimplify.
METHODOLOGY

PLAXIS 2D
installation

Defining Geometry

Adding Material
Properties

Meshing

Calculation by
differing Mesh size

Calculation by
differing ElementType

Manual Calculation

Comparing the results

Error calculation

Figure 1: Methodology Flow chart

After the successful installation of PLAXIS 2D software, a new project namely the elastoplastic
analysis of a strip footing was started. The soil geometry and footing dimensions were then
defined. Using the given material properties, soil specification was inserted, followed by the
concrete properties. In the soil properties option, the element type (6 nodded and 15 nodded) was
varied. Next, the mesh was generated starting from the ‘very coarse mesh option’ to the ‘very fine
mesh option’. Each of the mesh options was tried with the 6-nodded and 15-nodded element types.
The calculations were done for each case. At a fixed point under the footing, stress curves were
generated for all the cases. From the curves, the maximum load and the failure stress were then
calculated. To compare with the manual results, Vesic, Hansen, and Meyehoff formulae were used
for determining failure stress. Lastly, for results analysis, percentage of error for the PLAXIS 2D
results was calculated by comparing the Vesic formula.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The properties of the soil and the footing are given in the following table:

Table 1: Material properties

Parameter Clay Concrete Unit

Material Model Mohr-coulomb Linear elastic -
Type of behavior Drained Non-porous -
Weight above the phreatic level 16.0 24.0 KN/m3
Weight below the phreatic level 18.0 - KN/m3
Young’s Modulus 5039 2x107 KN/m2
Poisson’s ratio 0.35 0.15
Cohesion (effective) 5.039 - KN/m2
Friction angle (effective) 20 - Degree
Dilatancy angle 0 - Degree
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For the manual calculation of the failure stresses and maximum loads, the Vesic, Hansen and
Meyerhof formula were used. The formulae are given below:

Figure 2: Basic Formulae

The calculated coefficients along with the failure stresses are given in the table below:

Table 2: Failure stress calculation using conventional formula

Effective γ' = Failure

cohesion, Nc Nq Nγ (18.0-9.8) stress
C’ (KN/m3) (KN/m2)
Vesic 5.4 119.1
Hansen 5.039 14.84 6.4 2.95 8.2 99.0
Meyerhof 2.87 98.3

From Table 2, failure stress values from Meyehof and Hansen formula are close enough whereas,
the Vesic formula has given the highest value for the failure stress (=119.1 KN/m2).

The results obtained from the PLAXIS 2D software are given in the table below:
Table 3: Failure stress calculation using PLAXIS 2D results

Mesh size Element type Max. Load Failure stress

(KN/m) (KN/m2)
Very Coarse Mesh 6 nodded 276 144
15 nodded 231 121.5

Coarse 6 nodded 246 129

15 nodded 223 117.5

Medium Mesh 6 nodded 244 128

15 nodded 222 117

Fine 6 nodded 235 123.5

15 nodded 220 116

Very fine mesh 6 nodded 229 120.5

15 nodded 218 115

Varying the mesh size for 6 nodded elements gives the higher maximum load values and failure
stresses. While the maximum load and failure stress values are comparatively lower for the 15
nodded elements.

Figure 3: % Error comparing with Vesic results

Analyzing the failure stress values from Table 2 and Table 3, the closest possible failure stress is
given by the Vesic formula when compared to software-generated results. Thus, for the error
calculation, the results given by the Vesic formula were considered.

From the figure 3, comparing the very coarse, coarse, medium, fine mesh sizes, the % error was
always lower for the 15 nodded cases. On the contrary for the very fine mesh size the % error is
lower for the 6 noded case.

Comparing all the results, the lowest % error = 1.21 was for the Very fine mesh, 6 nodded case.

CONCLUSION
From the elastoplastic analysis using PLAXIS 2D and conventional formula of the given footing,
the following conclusion can be drawn:

1. The mesh size has a crucial impact on the results. Given that, the finer mesh size gives the
highest percentage of accuracy.
2. The element type, of course, affects the results significantly. When the mesh size is very
fine, 6 nodded element is more convenient for better accuracy, otherwise, 15 nodded
element type is valued.