## 4 Conclusions  
This research demonstrated that a single set of parameters can effectively capture the experimental response of oedometer tests under both saturated and unsaturated conditions using the Soft Soil and Hardening Soil constitutive models in Plaxis 2D. This approach offers a practical first step for obtaining reliable results before transitioning to more complex 3D models [49; 50].  
Figure 14: Pore dissipation at different height ratios with applied loads in the unsaturated HS_60% and HS_80% models.  
The Soft Soil model proved effective in representing dominant plastic compression but exhibited lower elastic recovery during unloading phases. In unsaturated soils, the results highlighted that the degree of saturation significantly influences load-bearing capacity and mechanical response. Specifically, a higher initial degree of saturation increased soil compressibility, leading to greater deformation and reduced pore pressure dissipation [51].  
The soil-water characteristic curve (SWCC) accurately modeled the hydraulic and mechanical behavior of unsaturated soils, demonstrating that higher initial suction reduces water retention as the applied load increases. Both constitutive models effectively simulated soils with varying degrees of saturation, providing flexibility for numerical analyses based on specific geotechnical conditions and design requirements. Additionally, both models aligned with [PERSON]'s theory in modeling saturated conditions.  
Finally, the Soft Soil model exhibited higher initial pore pressures and slower dissipation, making it well suited for simulating soft, highly compressible soils. In contrast, the Hardening Soil model produced lower initial pressures with faster dissipation, representing stiffer soils more effectively. Pore pressure dissipation was observed to be faster near drainage boundaries and slower in deeper zones. These findings confirm the applicability of the selected constitutive models and provide practical insights for optimizing foundation design and geotechnical analyses in low-strength soils.  
Conceptualization, W.C., R.G.-S., R.M. and O.N.; Methodology, R.G.-S.; Software, W.C.; Validation, R.G.-S., R.M. and O.N.; Formal analysis, W.C.; Investigation, R.G.-S.; Resources, E.A.; Data curation, W.C.; Writing--original draft, W.C.; Writing--review & editing, R.G.-S., E.A. and O.N.; Visualization, E.A.; Supervision, R.G.-S., R.M. and O.N.; Project administration, E.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was supported by the Vice-Rectorate for Research, Creation and Innovation (VINCI-DI) at Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Project 039.489/2024.  
Not applicable.  
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.  
The authors acknowledge One Geotecnia SPA for its methodological support of this research and PUCV for providing financial support for the publication fees.  
Author [PERSON] was employed by One Geotecnia SPA. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.