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

Using pore fluidstress element in SandSand
Kassem DibFinite Elements1 Views 1,371
Hello everyone, Is it possible to use pore fluid stress element in abaqus standard when soil is modeled using SANISAND constitutive model ? (UMAT) 
fortran format
sobhan abedinnejadFinite Elements1 Views 1,284
hi, every one i have problem with fortran format my abaqus is 6.14 and this version accept (.for) format for fortran but some subroutines are in (.f ) format is […] 
new hypoplasticity laws in Tochnog Professional
dennis roddemanFinite Elements1 Views 1,250
The 2014 Masin hypoplasticity for clays has been implemented in Tochnog Professional under guidance of Dr. David Masin. This implementation includes structure, intergranular strains and visco effects. Extensions to the […] 
Transient Dynamic analysis (UP formulation)
anis kheffacheFinite Elements4 Views 1,903
Hi everyone, i want to carry out some transient dynamic analysis. as far as I know, dynamic steps in abaqus does not allow for pore pressure buildup and dissipation, and […] 
Modeling of granular soil by using UMAT hypoplastic in Abaqus
Naif AlsanabaniFinite Elements5 Views 1,857
Dear all I am using the UMAT of hypoplastic model for simulation soil (3D modeling) under cyclic loading. The analysis was completed at geostatic step. But for consolidation step (soil, […] 
problem with sanisand umat
yousef zandFinite Elements8 Views 1,404
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 […] 
Boundary value problems for granular materials subjected to earthquake loading
MOHD SAQIBFinite Elements1 Views 1,179
Dear All, Hope you all well, I have been searching for some good publications on the Boundary value problems on Foundation system with granular materials subjected to earthquake loading or […] 
Vibration foundation behavior
Naif AlsanabaniFinite Elements0 Views 2,431
Dear all I have FEM analysis results for vibration foundation response that rested either on saturated saltencrusted flat soil (case1) or on finite cemented sand overlie saturated saltencrusted flat soil […]
Who is Online
No one is online right now
Search SoilModels Website
Recent posts
 A question about the hypoplastic model in clay 22.9.2022
 A HighCycle Accumulation Model for Sand (Niemunis et al., 2005) 6.9.2022
 Malaysian kaolin – Cyclic tests by Charles University 5.9.2022
 Problem in calculating Lateral displacement of the pile using Hypoplastic clay model 2.9.2022
 GTS NX 25.7.2022
 Special issue of Computers and Structures “Numerical simulation of multi‐physics phenomena in geotechnical structures” 25.7.2022
 Postdoctorate position at Nantes University (France) in geotechnical analysis of mutualized anchors 6.7.2022
 SIFEL – THM Model for Bentonite Barriers 27.6.2022
 ABAQUS job doesn’t make any increment 22.6.2022
 NorSand model for cyclic triaxial testing 9.6.2022
 Postdoc position at Charles University in the field of THM analysis of unsaturated and heated soil cyclic loading 30.5.2022
 Shear modulus degragation 12.5.2022
Recent Comments
 David Mašín on A question about the hypoplastic model in clay
 Katarzyna DołżykSzypcio on Download package of a complete dataset “Karlsruhe fine sand – Cyclic tests (T. Wichtmann)”
 Wenbo Gu on A question about the hypoplastic model in clay
 Muhammad Ahmad on A question about the hypoplastic model in clay
 Wenbo Gu on A question about the hypoplastic model in clay
 Muhammad Ahmad on A question about the hypoplastic model in clay
 Muhammad Ahmad on Problem in calculating Lateral displacement of the pile using Hypoplastic clay model
 David Mašín on Problem in calculating Lateral displacement of the pile using Hypoplastic clay model
 Jie Wang on Interpreting results of sand hypoplastic model with Abaqus VUMAT
 Muhammad Ahmad on Problem in calculating Lateral displacement of the pile using Hypoplastic clay model
 David Mašín on Problem in calculating Lateral displacement of the pile using Hypoplastic clay model
 Raj Banerjee on SANISAND Abaqus UMAT and Plaxis implementations
 Amrane Moussa on Special issue of Computers and Structures “Numerical simulation of multi‐physics phenomena in geotechnical structures”
 Riccardo Zabatta on Modelling TX monotonic compressive test with ABAQUS and SANISAND – not working
 Haibo Jiang on Download Package for Hypoplastic interface model and UMAT – FRIC interface
 Giada Orlando on Hardening Soil Model in Abaqus
 Sanchari Mondal on Modelling TX monotonic compressive test with ABAQUS and SANISAND – not working
 Dimitrios Konstantinidis on multi yield surface 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