I tried to model sample of triaxial test in Abaqus program. I used hypoplastic subroutine. The parameters used in hypoplastic model was Hochstetten sand the given in website “https://web.natur.cuni.cz/uhigug/masin/plaxumat/node5.html”.
The used steps of analysis were as;
– First step is for applying confining pressure in the sample.
– Second step is for consolidation process (dissipation of excess pore pressure).
– Third step is applying deviator stress (axial stress).
The analysis was completed in first and second steps, but it was aborted in third step (note: the deviator stress was small).
Could anyone to solve this problem?
The boundary conditions are shown in attachments figures.
Modeling of triaxial test sample by using hypoplastic subroutine
Related Articles

ABAQUSUMAT Help
Mehmet GocmezFinite Elements2 Views 364
Hi everyone, I would like to ask if anyone has an example umat file for me to study to work on my master thesis researches. I would like to create […] 
Tochnog Professional becomes free
Dennis RoddemanFinite Elements0 Views 537
After several decades of development we are happy to announce that the Tochnog Professional finite element program has become free. Both for academic and commercial use. We are extremely grateful […] 
Factor of safety in Plaxis 3D using hypoplastic model for sand
Arno CrousFinite Elements1 Views 477
I am currently modelling a test conducted in the geotechnical centrifuge facility at HKUST. The test consisted of a sand slope with a rising water table. The slope height in […] 
Hypoplasticity sand convergence issues
anis kheffacheFinite Elements0 Views 284
Hi everyone, i am modeling laterally loaded monopile using abaqus, My 3d model looks like this, only half of the model is simulated, symmetry boundary conditions is applied to the […] 
DIANA 10.4 released with full Geotechnical possibilities 3D as always, but now also 2D!
Ab van den bosFinite Elements0 Views 390
We are pleased to announce that DIANA 10.4 is released with full 2D geotechnical possibilities. DIANA is already easy to use for full 3D geotechnical models, and now the more […] 
Consolidation analysis using HP clay model in Plaxis
muhammad shakeelFinite Elements1 Views 727
Dear Prof David / SOil model community, I am performing coupled consolidation analysis for deep excavation in clay using HP clay model in Plaxis 3D. Performing the undrained analysis, the […] 

problem with sanisand umat
yousef zandFinite Elements8 Views 393
Dear all, I’m trying to model multilayer soil in abaqus. To use the SaniSand umat in model I use the following parameters but no plastic strain at all. The unit […]
Who is Online
No one is online right now
Search SoilModels Website
Recent posts
 Vibration foundation behavior 16.10.2021
 Getting started with UMAT for Hypoplastic clay model in ABAQUS 15.10.2021
 consistent tangent stiffness calculation in hypoplasticity sand UMAT 7.10.2021
 stress order in hypo umat seems to be incorrect 6.10.2021
 ALERT doctoral school on constitutive modelling – hands on session triax input files 2.10.2021
 Initial Stiffness of CU test in Masin’s 2014 Model 29.9.2021
 CONSTUTUTIVE MODELLING 22.9.2021
 Compatibility of subroutines in ABQ2021 17.9.2021
 Hypoplasticity sand convergence issues 17.9.2021
 MATLAB Code for Bounding Surface Plasticity Model 17.9.2021
 Non convergence problem in abaqus using hpoeca Clay Hypoplasticity in slope model 16.9.2021
 UMAT file for POROELASTICITY 31.8.2021
Recent Comments
 Kyeong Sun Kim on SANISAND for FLAC3D Download
 Ran Tu on consistent tangent stiffness calculation in hypoplasticity sand UMAT
 Francisco Mendez on Calibration of the von Wolffersdorff model using Genetic Algorithms
 David Mašín on stress order in hypo umat seems to be incorrect
 Ran Tu on stress order in hypo umat seems to be incorrect
 David Mašín on stress order in hypo umat seems to be incorrect
 Gertraud Medicus on Animating Soil Models
 A S M RIYAD on Animating Soil Models
 Gertraud Medicus on Animating Soil Models
 A S M RIYAD on Animating Soil Models
 Shen Wang on Initial Stiffness of CU test in Masin’s 2014 Model
 Francisco Mendez on Download Package of Incremental Driver
 Gertraud Medicus on Animating Soil Models
 Alan Jaret Aparicio Ortube on Triax element test driver
 Riccardo Zabatta on How can I solve the error in Abaqus mentioned below?
 Erick Kencana on Compatibility of subroutines in ABQ2021
 Yang Xue on Non convergence problem in abaqus using hpoeca Clay Hypoplasticity in slope model
 Shen Wang on Non convergence problem in abaqus using hpoeca Clay Hypoplasticity in slope model
Dear Neif,
– Please first check the results of the first two steps to see whether they are sensible, even better you may compare them with results of some element test drivers from SoilModels: this will consfirm that you have properly set the parameters.
– Then make sure you subdivide the shear stage into many small steps. It is not clear from your post whether you use intergranular strain or not. In particular the istrain version may require small step size as there is significant stiffness change during loading.
– If the simulation crashes, it should produce error file (something like fort.1) where some crash information should be given. You may also see some messages in log files of Abaqus project, which could help to find the source of the problem.
Regards David
Dear Dr. David
– The intergranular strain concept was used with value δ=0.00001.
– The magnitude of axial stress that used at third step is 1.0 kPa.
– The type of steps is soils (transient)
– The time period and increment size of third step were 0.1, and 0.001 respectively.
In term of the results of analysis of first and second step, there was no change in void ratio.
the analysis is incomplete in third step.
I need for helping for this problem please?
Dear Neif,
It seems that the second step was failed if there was no void change.
Have you ever try a triaxial test with only one element?
I prefer to start with elementary tests without intergranular strain
Regards
Dear Wang
Thank you very much for your helping.
I considered your noting for modeling sample without intergranular strain, but the analysis was incomplete in step 3 (applying axial stress).
In term of void ratio, i mean that the void ratio in first step (applying confining pressure) is equal to the void ratio in second step (consolidation step). on other word, the value of void ratio is constant in first and second steps which is equal as the void ratio that set in initial condition.
Hi,
just a couple of observations:
Why are the bc in the lower side fixed in vertical and horizontal direction? You only need to fix them in the vertical direction (they must be free to move in the horizontal direction specially in the consolidation phase).
I would advise you to model this first with a 2D model in axial symmetrical conditions and without intergranular strain. Start with 1 element and then you can slowly increase the number of elements or even dimensions if you need it and afterwards add with the intergranular strain parameters.
If the void ratio did not change it means there is no volumetric deformation. This might be the case if the confinig phase is not modelled correctly (check if the stress state changes correctly) or if the sample is able to deform (drained conditions)
Good luck.
Dear Oscar
Thank for help. I considered your noting, but i have the same problem.
When Hypoplastic model were replaced by MohrCoulomb and elasticity, the analysis was completed and there were volume changes throughout steps.
When Hypoplastic model were used, and there were no drainage conditions at top and bottom of sample, the analysis was completed and here were no volume changes throughout steps.
Is there parameter in hypoplastic umat subroutine or in hypoplastic model (12 parameters) that control or prevent the volume change of the sample of triaxial?
I modeled initial void ratio as uniform value. If are there other method to model initial void ratio (predefined field), provide me this method please.
Hi Naif,
not to my knowledge. I have worked with the von Wolffersdorf hypoplastic model without a problem. I am thinking the problem lies in assigning the initial void ratio. You can check this value in Abaqus output by looking at the system defined variables (sdv).
Good luck solving your problem