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

Some confusion about the parameters in Abaqus umat of Hypoplastic Modeling
Joe ChuFinite Elements1 Views 108
Dear all, When I check the umat file of sand hypoplastic modeling, I find there are two parametesr(p_t(2), bulk_w(15)) without any definitions. Could someone kindly explain the exact meaning for […] 
Modeling of granular soil by using UMAT hypoplastic in Abaqus
Naif AlsanabaniFinite Elements5 Views 460
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, […] 
Calculation of coordinates of climbing formwork using hypoplasticity and pressuremter tests
Christian SchwabFinite Elements0 Views 177
Our article published in the latest issue of Ground Engineering 10/2017. Great combination of conepressueremetertesting (CPM) by FUGRO and advanced 3D Fem modelling by GEOLINK using hypoplastic constitutive equations to […] 
fortran format
sobhan abedinnejadFinite Elements1 Views 135
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 […] 
change the friction angle with the plastic strain in Abaqus following mohr coulomb model.
Majid FetratiFinite Elements1 Views 552
Hi, I want to change the friction angle with the plastic strain in Abaqus following mohr coulomb model. Vermeer and de Borst (1984) proposed an equation for frictional hardening and […] 
Consideration of Ko using HP clay model
muhammad shakeelFinite Elements1 Views 256
Dear SoilModels community Dear Prof. Masin / all I want to know how HP model considers Ko variation for the following cases: Ko with variation with OCR? Ko determination related […] 
DIANA with monopile follows Blum theory saving 10 m of length
Ab van den bosFinite Elements0 Views 110
Where the client was forced to make all his horizontal loaded Dolphins (piles) 10 m longer we could trustworthy proof that this actually was not necessary saving millions of cost […] 
Presentations on hypoplasticity applications, D. Mašín, NGI 2017
David MašínFinite Elements0 Views 1,580
Based on some requests, I share here two presentations on hypoplasticity applications. One is related to simulation of various boundary value problems, the other focuses on simulation of cyclic and […]
Who is Online
No one is online right now
Search SoilModels Website
Recent posts
 Hypoplasticity & Recent Stress History 20.1.2020
 hypoplasticity models in free Tochnog Professional 14.1.2020
 Problems with the UMAT subroutine check_parms_DM of the SANISAND constitutive model 11.1.2020
 Tochnog Professional overview movie in youtube 29.12.2019
 Tochnog Professional becomes free 18.12.2019
Recent Comments
 David Mašín on Hypoplasticity & Recent Stress History
 David Mašín on Problems with the UMAT subroutine check_parms_DM of the SANISAND constitutive model
 Meng Xiaowei on Problems with the UMAT subroutine check_parms_DM of the SANISAND constitutive model
 David Mašín on Problems with the UMAT subroutine check_parms_DM of the SANISAND constitutive model
 Tekial Tesfay on Modified Cam clay model now supported in automatic calibration software ExCalibre
 MOHD SAQIB on Download Package of Matlab Driver
 David Mašín on Modified Cam clay model now supported in automatic calibration software ExCalibre
 Mehtab Alam on Modified Cam clay model now supported in automatic calibration software ExCalibre
 Mehtab Alam on Modified Cam clay model now supported in automatic calibration software ExCalibre
 David Mašín on Modified Cam clay model now supported in automatic calibration software ExCalibre
 Mehtab Alam on Modified Cam clay model now supported in automatic calibration software ExCalibre
 Oscar Juarez on 3D analysis with Basic HypoPlastic 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