Hello all,
According to my last post some weeks ago I now have translated the laboratory data from engineering strain to true strain with the following formula: epsilon(true)=ln(1+epsilon(engineering)). I compared then the the new values of the measurement data with the points on the graph of the ExCalibre output. And they a still different. For the Oedometer the measurement point (sigma 1/epsilon 1 true) is (1200/0,101) and on the graph of ExCalibre it is (1200/0,112). The same is for the triaxial tests. The maximum true strain epsilon 1 of the measurement is 0,197 and on the graph it goes until 0,244. Attached are the pictures of the ExCalibre output with the points and a picture of the excel table with the measurement values.
Is the transformation of strain different in ExCalibre or what can be the reason for that?
Regards Marco
ExCalibre Automatic Calibration
Related Articles

Cyclic simple shear test simulation with hypoplasticity
Piotr KowalczykConstitutive Modelling2 Views 3,957
Dear All, I am using sand hypoplastic model in my research and I have encountered some problem when looking into cyclic simple shear test in the range of small strains. […] 
Calibration of Hypoplastic material model parameters
Amine AboufirassConstitutive Modelling6 Views 3,751
I would like to derive material parameters based for a simulation which will implement the hypoplastic material model based on the following information: • Heavily overconsolidated • Very dense, fine […] 
What is an appropriate damping model for dynamic liquefaction analysis of tailings storage facility in FLAC?
Paul le RouxConstitutive Modelling0 Views 6,678
Has anyone had success simulating earthquake loading / dynamic liquefaction in a fullscale, planestrain model of a TSF in FLAC2D/FLAC3D? The topic of damping is complex and the choice of […] 
Shear Stiffness Calculation for Hypoplastic Model
Hashmi SohawonConstitutive Modelling4 Views 3,501
Hi David, I have reproduced some single elements test on ABAQUS using the UMAT to compare with Triax Hypoplasticity. So far, my stiffness curve (q vs ea) and my stress […] 

UMAT for strainrate effects
Luis ZambranoCruzattyConstitutive Modelling0 Views 3,373
Dear community, I’m interested in constitutive models that can handle strainrate effects for HSR on sands for simulating free fall penetration. I would appreciate any help. Do you know any […] 
PM4Sand and PM4Silt models available
Katerina ZiotopoulouConstitutive Modelling4 Views 3,995
The constitutive models PM4Sand (Boulanger and Ziotopoulou 2017) and PM4Silt (Boulanger and Ziotopoulou 2018) for planestrain earthquake engineering applications for sands, and clays and lowplasticity silts respectively are now available […] 
testing an User Defined Soil Model in plaxis
MIGUEL VALENCIA GALINDOConstitutive Modelling2 Views 3,982
Hi everyone I am writing a code for a model in the UDSM format for Plaxis. I already have the “*.dll” files, but when I run the soil test I […]
Who is Online
No one is online right now
Search SoilModels Website
Recent posts
 Presentations from Prague Geotechnical Days 2023 including 29th Prague Geotechical Lecture by Yannis Dafalias 25.5.2023
 Problem in using Hypoplastic model for sand in Abaqus. 17.5.2023
 An error in the SANISAND umat runtime 8.5.2023
 Htypoplastic Model in Miidas GTS NX 25.4.2023
 set cavitation limit in ABAQUS/STANDARD when using SANISAND umat 2.4.2023
 FE formulation and software 25.3.2023
 Multiobjective analysis of the Sand Hypoplasticity model calibration 24.3.2023
 Problem with SANISAND UMAT 7.3.2023
 Prague Geotechnical Days 2023 (22nd – 23rd of May) with Prague Geotechnical Lecture by prof. Yannis Dafalias 28.2.2023
 What is an appropriate damping model for dynamic liquefaction analysis of tailings storage facility in FLAC? 10.2.2023
 Abaqus vs Plaxis – Local Convergence Tolerances 2.2.2023
 Zbraslav sand – Cyclic tests by Charles University 17.1.2023
Recent Comments
 Francisco Mendez on Presentations from Prague Geotechnical Days 2023 including 29th Prague Geotechical Lecture by Yannis Dafalias
 Héctor Montenegro on Extended Mohr–Coulomb (EMC)
 Kassem Dib on Problem in using Hypoplastic model for sand in Abaqus.
 Isma Khabis on Problem in using Hypoplastic model for sand in Abaqus.
 Isma Khabis on Problem in using Hypoplastic model for sand in Abaqus.
 Kassem Dib on Problem in using Hypoplastic model for sand in Abaqus.
 Zhentao Liu on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Arie Koot on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Zhentao Liu on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Arie Koot on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Zhentao Liu on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Arie Koot on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Zhentao Liu on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Arie Koot on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Zhentao Liu on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Zhentao Liu on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Zhentao Liu on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
 Zhentao Liu on An error in the SANISAND umat runtime
Hi Marco, my colleague Tomáš Kadlíček checked ExCalibre code, he will send you more details in a separate comment. Regards David
Hi David, thanks for the quick response.
Regards Marco
Hi Marco, I have checked the source code of ExCalibre and it is correct. In the case of compression, you should calculate strains as follows:
epsilon(engineering) = dL/L0
epsilon(true)= – ln( 1 – epsilon(engineering))
In this way, TRUE strains will be larger then ENGINEERING strains. True strains are related to the current hight of the specimen whereas ENG strains are related to the initial hight “L0”.
Therefore, when subjected to the same amount of settlement “dL” you should always obtain larger strain increment in the case of TRUE strains in comparison to the ENG strains.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Kind Regards,
Tomas Kadlicek
Hi Thomas,
now everything fit together. Thanks a lot.
Regards
Marco