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
-
Hypoplastic model for thermal cycles in clay (Abaqus)
Sherif Gomaa||Finite Elements|2 |Views 6,267
Dear all, I’m using the UMAT file in which the hypoplastic model for thermal cycles is implemented. I have done some runs for an axisymmetrical model for a single energy […] -
Problem in calculating Lateral displacement of the pile using Hypoplastic clay model
arsalan Ahmad||Finite Elements|4 |Views 4,304
Hy Professor David, I am trying to verify the result of one of your paper by the title ‘Cyclic lateral response and failure mechanisms of semi-rigid pile in soft clay: […] -
Interface to study soil-structure interaction in Plaxis 3D (Clay Hypoplasticity)
Leon Cortes||Finite Elements|6 |Views 8,761
Hello, I am trying to simulate the behavior of helical anchors (also called screw anchors) using PLAXIS 3D and a clay hypoplasticity constitutive model. The helical anchor shaft is simulated […] -
ABAQUS UMAT of hypoplastic clay model
Akhtyar Gul Shirzoi||Finite Elements|2 |Views 1,789
Hi Everyone. I am new to this Platform. I want to use the hypoplastic model in my research. how I can download it UMAT file for ABAQUS software? -
Calibrate hypoplastic model
sahar saab||Finite Elements|2 |Views 4,178
I am trying to calibrate my sand using Excalibre. I tried some triaxial element tests using Abaqus. However the results are different between Excalibre and Abaqus. -
Problem in GRPS embankment simulation In ABAQUS
Bidur Pathak||Finite Elements|0 |Views 4,036
Hi, I am doing Plane strain 2D simulation of GRPS embankment in ABAQUS, i encountered a problem that results of with geogrid and without geogrid both are showing same deflection. […] -
Example of FLAC3D data file
Kassem Dib||Finite Elements|1 |Views 4,415
Hello.. I am new in FLAC3D, could some send to me an example of data file code for pile soil interaction with seismic loads ? I will be thankful -
Consolidation analysis using HP clay model in Plaxis
muhammad shakeel||Finite Elements|1 |Views 5,012
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 […]
Who is Online
No one is online right now
Search SoilModels Website
Recent posts
-
mohr coulomb 2D yield surface vs 3D mohr coulomb yield surface 28.2.2026
-
Problem with GeoStudio (Seepage) software 16.2.2026
-
Prague Geotechnical Days 2026 3.2.2026
-
Postdoctoral position at COFS, UWA 28.7.2025
-
Hypoplasticity clay in ABAQUS 23.7.2025
-
Drucker-Prager Cap 29.5.2025
-
Abaqus RITSS with hypoplastic 9.4.2025
-
Fellin UMAT subroutine 2.4.2025
-
Hypoplasticity clay for triaxial compression in abaqus 26.3.2025
-
Abaqus RITSS methon for LDFE analysis with hypoplastic 17.3.2025
-
Request for VUMAT Implementation of Mohr-Coulomb, Drucker-Prager, or Drucker-Prager Cap 28.2.2025
-
Suggestions for an Advanced Constitutive Model in FEM-Based Dynamic Slope Stability Analysis 12.2.2025
Recent Comments
- Arie Koot on mohr coulomb 2D yield surface vs 3D mohr coulomb yield surface
- Arie Koot on Multilaminate Model (Schädlich & Schweiger)
- Amir F on Problem with GeoStudio (Seepage) software
- Nabanita Saha on set cavitation limit in ABAQUS/STANDARD when using SANISAND umat
- Nabanita Saha on SANISAND Abaqus UMAT and Plaxis implementations
- Tian Fapai on SANISAND Abaqus UMAT and Plaxis implementations
- Heng Wang on Multilaminate Model (Schädlich & Schweiger)
- Zhang Hongwei on Download Package of Charles University Implementation of High Cycle Accumulation Model
- Ruimin Chen on Problem with VUMAT interface
- Nitesh Bhume on UMAT and oneAPI compiler issues. (SOLVED…i hope :p)
- Aleksandar Kostadinovic on Karlsruhe fine sand – Cyclic tests (T. Wichtmann)
- Amrane Moussa on Kadlíček, T., Ochmański, M., Mašín, D. and Duque, J. (2022) Report on Charles University implementation of high cycle accumulation model
- Ramon Varghese on SANISAND for FLAC3D Download
- Shuhan Cao on Hardening Soil or Hardening Soil-Small umat in Abaqus
- Kuikui Guigui on Hypoplastic Interface Model (Stutz et al., 2016)
- Kuikui Guigui on Download Package for Hypoplastic interface model and UMAT – FRIC interface
- Francisco José Mendez on Programme of the ALERT Olek Zienkiewicz school on Constitutive Modelling of Geomaterials, February 3 to 7, 2025, Prague, Czech Republic
- Francisco José Mendez on REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST (REOI) FOR PROJECT IN CONSTITUTIVE MODELLING






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 Mohr-Coulomb 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