Hello guys. I just tried to calibrate on soilmodels. I´ve done three CIUP-REC-test plus one oedometric test. As you can see in the images, that there is still something quite wrong. Can someone help me with a clue please? ps. The Image Shows only two CIUP-REC, thats because i tried to detect my mistake
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
Multi-objective 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
©2023 SoilModels
Hi Axel, in fact, your experimental results are quite untypical, as dilatancy starts from the very beginning of the shear experiments (normally, certain compression takes place first, as predicted by the model). I am not sure whether there could be some experimental issue in this but in any case I would consider predictions quite good, it would be probably quite hard to get better predictions using manual calibration. You can try to compare both sand and clay models to see the difference.
Thanks for your quick reply. Ich changed the signes because the template says that dilatancy should be negative. So after changing it the other way around I got still the same results. I was wondering, why it doesnt show anything in the strain chart?
It is undrained test, right? So volume strains are zero
That´s right. Thanks a lot
Kind regards