Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 517–524

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Technical Communication

A two-parameter expression for failure surfaces

Dong Su a,*, Zhi-Liang Wang b, Feng Xing a
a
Shenzhen Key Laboratory for Durability of Civil Engineering, College of Civil Engineering, Shenzhen University, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518060, China
b
AMEC Geomatrix, 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Mohr–Coulomb, Tresca and Von Mises criteria are classical failure criteria, widely accepted and used
Received 17 January 2008 for various materials. To take into account the influence of intermediate principal stress on the strength
Received in revised form 8 September 2008 of soil, Bishop, Lade–Duncan and Matsuoka proposed criteria in terms of three principal stresses or three
Accepted 10 September 2008
stress invariants. This note describes an expression with two parameters for modeling the shape of the
Available online 23 October 2008
failure surface in the octahedral plane. By studying the roles of these two parameters and comparing
the new criterion with the aforementioned criteria, the advantage and flexibility of the proposed function
Keywords:
is explored. Application of the function is demonstrated by fitting the new surface to experimental data
Failure surface
Convexity
for various soils.
Friction angle Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Stress ratio
Lode angle

1. Introduction [3] proposed an expression extended from the Mohr–Coulomb

criterion:
Yield and/or failure surfaces are basic ingredients used in the
r1  r3 k
development of constitutive relationships for materials in the clas- ¼ p1ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
sical plasticity theory. On the octahedral plane (i.e. p = const. r1 þ r3 1  k2 bð1  bÞ
plane) in the stress space, these surfaces are expressed as circular
where b is a measurement of intermediate principal stress and
or hexagonal curves, depending upon the material properties. For
defined by
geomaterials, because of the difference in behavior between triax-
ial compression and triaxial extension, the failure surfaces on the r2  r3
b¼ ð2Þ
octahedral plane are often expressed by curves lying between a cir- r1  r3
cle and an equilateral hexagon.
and k1 and k2 are parameters determined from compression and
Several criteria have been proposed in the last several centuries
plain strain tests.
(Fig. 1), among which the most popular is the Mohr–Coulomb cri-
Based on the results of true triaxial tests, Lade and Duncan [9]
terion for frictional materials. The criterion implies that the friction
proposed a failure criterion in terms of the stress invariants with
angle, defined by sin u ¼ rr11  r3
, is independent of the intermediate
þr3
the form of J 31 =J 3 ¼ const. Matsuoka and Nakai [12,13] suggested
principal stress, r2. However, a large number of experiments on
another failure criterion expressed as J 1  J 2 =J 3 ¼ const, which was
soils by true triaxial apparatus have demonstrated that the friction
derived from the concept of spatial mobilized plane and often re-
angle in states other than triaxial compression and extension is
ferred to as the SMP criterion. Both the SMP and Lade–Duncan cri-
usually larger than those measured under triaxial compression
teria predict higher strengths than the Mohr–Coulomb criterion in
and extension, and it varies as the intermediate principal stress
stress states other than triaxial compression and extension, but
changes, if the above definition of friction angle is used [3].
they have some limitations (discussed in a later section) and can
To take into account the effect of intermediate principal stress,
only fit a range of soil behavior. To model the failure surfaces for
some failure criteria have been proposed in terms of principal
different geomaterials, a variety of expressions with one or more
stresses or stress invariants. Based on the internal friction angle
parameters have been proposed in the literature (e.g.
u obtained from triaxial and plain strain tests on sand, Bishop
[10,23,4,15]). This note proposes a two-parameter expression for
failure surfaces in the octahedral plane. The two parameters used
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 755 2653 5204; fax: +86 755 2673 2850.
have apparent geometrical meanings, and the function offers great
E-mail addresses: sudong@szu.edu.cn, sudong_szu@163.com (D. Su), zlwang flexibility in describing the strength of various materials under
@geomatrix.com (Z.-L. Wang), xingf@szu.edu.cn (F. Xing). complex stress conditions.

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.09.001
518 D. Su et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 517–524

Nomenclature

u effective internal friction angle Rc, Re failure stress ratio in triaxial compression and in triaxial
r1, r2, r3 effective principal stresses extension
b a measurement of intermediate principal stress r normalized stress ratio
J1, J2, J3 stress invariants h the Lode angle
p effective mean normal stress a, m parameters in the shape function
sij deviatoric stress tensor
J2D, J3D second and third invariants of the deviatoric stress
tensor

2. A two-parameter expression 2 tanðh þ 30 Þ

b¼ pffiffiffi ð6Þ
tanðh þ 30 Þ þ 3
For pressure-sensitive frictional materials, the failure state is
Therefore, b = 0 for triaxial compression and b = 1 for triaxial exten-
determined by the stress ratio rather than the stresses themselves.
sion. It can also be demonstrated that the friction angle under dif-
In the general stress space, the stress ratio is defined as
pffiffiffiffiffiffi ferent stress states can be obtained from b and the failure stress
J 2D ratio R by the following relationship:
R¼ ð3Þ
P 3R
sin u ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð7Þ
where p = rii/3 is the mean normal stress, and J 2D ¼ 12 sij sij is the sec- 2
6 1  b þ b þ ð1  2bÞR
ond invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor with components sij =
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðJ Þ In particular, sin ucom ¼ 3Rc =ð6 þ Rc Þ for triaxial compression, and
rijpdij. Accordingly Rc ¼ P2D c is the failure stress ratio determined sin uext ¼ 3Re =ð6  Re Þ for triaxial extension.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðJ Þ
in triaxial compression, and Re ¼ P2D e is the failure stress ratio Often, the failure stress ratio in triaxial extension over that in
determined in triaxial extension. For convenience, the failure stress triaxial compression is one parameter used in determining the
ratio is normalized by the failure stress ratio at triaxial compression shape of the failure surface (e.g. [2,21,18,11]), which is defined as
as Re
a¼ ð8Þ
r ¼ R=Rc ð4Þ Rc
where r denotes a normalized stress ratio, and failure surfaces are Practically, this ratio can range from more than 0.6–1.0. For materi-
expressed as functions relating r and the Lode angle h, which is de- als with an identical friction angle in triaxial compression and
fined as extension, it can be related to the friction angle by
pffiffiffi !
1 3 3 J 3D 3  sin u
h¼ arcsin  ð5Þ a¼ ð9Þ
3 2 J 3=2 3 þ sin u
2D
For values of u = 20°, 30°, and 40°, the corresponding values of a are
where J 3D ¼ 13 sij sjk ski is the third invariant of the deviatoric stress estimated by Eq. (9) as 0.795, 0.712 and 0.647.
tensor. Like b, in Eq. (2), the Lode angle is also a measurement of Based on the parameter a and by introducing a new parameter
the intermediate principal stress, the value of which is 30° for tri- m, a function for describing failure surfaces is proposed here,
axial compression and 30° for triaxial extension. The Lode angle is which takes the form:
related to b by the following equation: "  2 #
cos 3h
rðhÞ ¼ r 0 ðhÞ 1 
6m3=2
1.2  1=m "  2 #
2am cos 3h
1 Von Mises ¼ 1  ð10Þ
1 þ am þ ð1  am Þ sin 3h 6m3=2
0.8
where m is a positive real number (not limited to an integer). In Eq.
0.6 h i1=m
Mohr-Coulomb 2am
(10), r 0 ðhÞ ¼ 1þam þð1 am Þ sin 3h is the basic function, while
h  cos 3h2 i
0.4 Tresca 1  6m is a modifier to improve the convexity of the function.
3=2

0.2 It is worth mentioning that for the case m = 1, the basic function re-
0 duces to
2a
-0.2 r0 ðhÞ ¼ ð11Þ
1 þ a þ ð1  aÞ sin 3h
-0.4
which is equivalent with the equation proposed by Argyris et al. [2].
-0.6 For the case m = 4, the basic function is
-0.8  1=4
2a4
r0 ðhÞ ¼ ð12Þ
-1 1 þ a4 þ ð1  a4 Þ sin 3h
-1.2 which is equivalent with the expression proposed by Sheng et al.
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
[18] and it is used in a generalized version of the modified Cam-clay
Fig. 1. Classical failure criteria. model. It can be demonstrated that the form in Eq. (11) is not valid
 D. Su et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 517–524 519

1.2 Obviously, the proposed function satisfies (1) and (2), as

α = 0.6, 0.716, 0.8, 0.9  1=m "  2 #
1 2am cos 3h
r¼ 1 ¼ 1 at h ¼ 30
0.8 1 þ am þ ð1  am Þ sin 3h 6m3=2

0.6 and
 1=m "  2 #
2am cos 3h
0.4 r¼ 1  ¼ a at h ¼ 30
1 þ am þ ð1  am Þ sin 3h 6m3=2
0.2

0 According to the chain rule, the first derivative of r with respect

to h is
-0.2
 1=m
sin 6h 2am
-0.4 r0 ðhÞ ¼
12m3 1 þ a þ ð1  a Þ sin 3h
m m

-0.6
"  2 #
3ð1  am Þ cos 3h cos 3h
 1 
-0.8 2mam 6m3=2
 1þ1=m
-1 2am
 ð13Þ
-1.2 1 þ am þ ð1  am Þ sin 3h
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Fig. 2. Failure surfaces with m = 1.

1.2

for values of a less than 7/9, due to the concave part around h = 30°, 1
while the form in Eq. (10) with m = 1 can ensure the convexity 0.8
when a is not less than 0.716 (Fig. 2). In the following section, the
restriction imposed upon the values of m, a in Eq. (10) due to con- 0.6

vexity and other conditions will be discussed. 0.4

0.2
3. Discussion
0
According to the aforementioned definitions, an expression for -0.2
failure surfaces should have the following features:
-0.4

(1) r(h) = 1 at h = 30° -0.6

(2) r(h) = a at h = 30° -0.8
0
(3) r (h) = 0 at h = 30° and h = 30°
(4) r(h) describes a convex shape -1 α = 0.5, 0.611, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9

-1.2
Conditions (1) and (2) are basically required in defining failure -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
surfaces in terms of the normalized stress ratio in Eq. (4). Condition
(3) reflects the symmetric characteristics of failure surfaces along Fig. 4. Failure surfaces with m = 4.2.
the principal stress axes on the octahedral plane (yield surfaces
for anisotropic material show different characteristics, as pre-
sented by Abelev and Lade [1], and are not discussed here), as well 1.2
as a unique normal direction on the points where yield surfaces
intercept the principal axes (the Mohr–Coulomb criterion shows 1
a distinct feature that there exist non-unique normal directions
0.8
at the intersection points of failure surfaces and the axes). Condi-
tion (4) is to make sure that the law of thermodynamic is not vio- 0.6 m =1, 3, 5, 7, 9
lated when the surface is used as a yield surface.
0.4

0.2
1
0
0.9
-0.2
0.8
Convex -0.4
α

0.7 -0.6

0.6 -0.8
Concave
-1
0.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -1.2
m -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Fig. 3. Values of m and a that ensure convexity of failure surfaces. Fig. 5. Failure surfaces with a = 0.7.
520 D. Su et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 517–524

It can be readily seen from Eq. (13) that r0 (h) = 0 at both h = 30° The value of a that satisfies Eq. (14) can be found numerically when
and h = 30°. m is specified. The results for the value of m between 1 and 10 are
To ensure the convexity of the shape function, the following shown in Fig. 3. It is seen that the minimum allowable value of a is
equation: 0.716 when m = 1, but the value varies with m increasing. The lower
limit of the value is 0.611 occurring at m = 4.2. As shown in Fig. 4,
ðrðhÞÞ2 þ 2ðr 0 ðhÞÞ2  rðhÞ  r 00 ðhÞ  0 ð14Þ failure surfaces with a > 0.611 are convex while those with
a < 0.611 are concave when m = 4.2. For a specified a, the degree
should be satisfied [6], where the second derivative is
of convexity of curves depends on the value of m. For example,
 1=m for a being 0.7, the curves with m = 3, 5, 7 are convex, but those
cos 6h 2am
r 00 ðhÞ ¼ with m = 1, 9 are concave, as shown in Fig. 5. The critical m values
2m3 1 þ am þ ð1  am Þ sin 3h
can be obtained from Fig. 3. Compared with the criteria proposed
ð1  am Þ sin 3h½36m3  5ðcos 3hÞ2  by Argyris et al. [2], Wang et al. [21], and Sheng et al. [18], in which
þ
8m4 am the shape of failure surface on the octahedral plane is uniquely
 1þ1=m
2am determined by the value of a, the proposed criterion can cover

1 þ am þ ð1  am Þ sin 3h much wider range of soil behaviors with the use of the parameter m.
ðm þ 1Þð1  am Þ2 ðcos 3hÞ2 ½36m3  ðcos 3hÞ2 
þ 4. Comparison with the SMP and Lade–Duncan criteria
16m5 a2m
 m
2þ1=m
2a
 ð15Þ A distinctive feature of the SMP criterion is that, like Mohr–
1 þ am þ ð1  am Þ sin 3h
Coulomb model, it predicts the same friction angles in triaxial

65
Lade-Duncan
60

55
SMP
50
Friction angle (º)

Lade-Duncan

45
SMP
40
Lade-Duncan
35

30 SMP

25

20
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Lode angle (º)

Fig. 6. Relationships between the Lode angle and friction angle in the Lade–Duncan and SMP criteria.

70 30
Lode angle at maximum friction angle (º)

60 20
Maximum friction angle (º)

Lade-Duncan
50 10

SMP

40 0

Lade-Duncan
SMP
30 -10

20 -20
Maximum friction angle
Lode angle at maximum friction angle
10 -30
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction angle at triaxial compression (º)

Fig. 7. Variations of maximum friction angle (and associated Lode angle) with friction angle at triaxial compression in the Lade–Duncan and SMP criteria.
 D. Su et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 517–524 521

compression (h = 30°) and in triaxial extension (h = 30°), while dicted friction angle versus the Lode angle obtained from the
the Lade–Duncan criterion always predicts larger values in triaxial SMP and Lade–Duncan criteria, with the triaxial compression fric-
extension than in triaxial compression. Fig. 6 presents the pre- tion angle being 30°, 40°, and 50°, respectively.

60

55
Friction angle (º)

50

45

40
α =0.8, 0.709, 0.7, 0.647, 0.625

35

30
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Lode angle (°)

Fig. 8. Influence of a on the relationship between the Lode angle and the friction angle when m = 5.

60

55
Friction angle (º)

50

45
m =3, 5, 7
40

35

30
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Lode angle (º)

Fig. 9. Influence of m on the relationship between the Lode angle and the friction angle when a = 0.7.

90

80
Maximum friction angle (º)

70

60

50

40
α =0.8, 0.7, 0.625
30

20
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction angle at triaxial compression (º)

Fig. 10. Influence of a on the relationship between the maximum friction angle and the friction angle at triaxial compression when m = 5.
522 D. Su et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 517–524

The experimental results by Kirkpatrick [7], Sutherland and h = 30°. On the other hand, the results by Green and Bishop [5],
Mesdary [20], Ramamurthy and Rawat [17] showed that the inter- Proctor and Barden [16], Lade and Duncan [8] showed that the
nal friction angles at h = 30° were approximately equal to that at internal friction angle at h = 30°, i.e. triaxial extension, is larger

90

80
Maximum friction angle (º)

70

60

50

40
m =3, 5, 7
30

20
25 30 35 40 45 50
Friction angle at triaxial compression (º)

Fig. 11. Influence of m on the relationship between the maximum friction angle and the friction angle at triaxial compression when a = 0.7.

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

σ1 σ1 σ1 σ1
1 a 1
b 1 c 1 d
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0 0

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4

-0.6
σ2 σ3 -0.6
σ2 σ3 -0.6
σ2 σ3 -0.6
σ2 σ3
-0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-1 -1 -1 -1

-1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2

-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

σ1 σ1 σ1 σ1
1 e 1 f 1 g 1 h
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0 0

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4

-0.6 σ2 σ3 -0.6
σ2 σ3 -0.6
σ2 σ3 -0.6
σ2 σ3
-0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-1 -1 -1 -1

-1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2

-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

σ1 σ1 σ1 σ1
1 i 1 j 1 k 1 l
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0 0

-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

-0.4 -0.4 -0.4 -0.4

-0.6 σ2 σ3 -0.6 σ2 σ3 -0.6 σ2 σ3 -0.6 σ2 σ3

-0.8 -0.8 -0.8 -0.8

-1 -1 -1 -1

-1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2

-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Fig. 12. Failure surfaces for various test data from triaxial, true triaxial and thick cylinder tests.
 D. Su et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 517–524 523

than that at triaxial compression (h = 30°). Hence, the SMP and
Lade–Duncan criteria might be right, but neither of them can de-
scribe the whole picture. Furthermore, it can be seen from Fig. 6
that the shape of failure curves from these two criteria is uniquely
determined by the friction angle in triaxial compression (ucom),
implying that the influence of the Lode angle (i.e. the intermediate
principle stress) on the internal friction angle is only determined
by ucom. A unique relationship between the maximum friction an-
gle (umax) and ucom was also assumed in these two criteria, as
shown in Fig. 7. The umax, given by the Lade–Duncan criterion, is
always larger than that given by the SMP criterion. However, the
Lode angle at which umax occurs is a constant, being 0° according
to the Lade–Duncan criterion, but that change linearly with ucom
according to the SMP criterion, which is always smaller than 0°.
Compared with the SMP and Lade–Duncan criteria, the pro-
posed criterion offers more flexibility in serving as the failure cri-
terion as the two parameters m and a in the function provide the
ability to better control the shape of the failure surface. Figs. 8, 9
give examples of how the friction angles varies for ucom = 40°. To
illustrate the effect of a on the relationship between the Lode angle
and the friction angle, m is fixed at 5.0 in Fig. 8. It can be seen that
the criterion can take into account all cases with uext > ucom,
uext = ucom and uext < ucom by adjusting the value of a. The curve
given by the SMP criterion with ucom = 40° in Fig. 6 is close to
the curve with a = 0.647, while that given by the Lade–Duncan
criterion is close to the curve with a = 0.709. In Fig. 9, a is a con-
stant, being 0.7, which means the ratio of stress ratio at h = 30°
to that at h = 30° is unchanged. But, with varying m, different
curves with different umax can be obtained. From Figs. 10 and 11,
it can be seen that umax increases with the value of a increasing,
but decreases with the value of m increasing, being more sensitive
to the former. Although situations with umax = 90°, such as a = 0.8
in Fig. 10, are not likely to occur, the proposed criterion can take
into consideration of such extreme cases.
Table 1
Parameters of failure surfaces for various test data
5. Applicability of the shape function
With conventional triaxial apparatus, only triaxial compression
(r1 > r2 = r3) and triaxial extension tests (r1 = r2 > r3) can be per-
formed, and limited information regarding the shearing strength
may be provided. To investigate the influence of the intermediate
principal stress on the shearing strength, true triaxial and hollow
cylinder devices have been utilized by a number of researchers,
such as Proctor and Barden [16], Ramamurthy and Rawat [17],
and Matsuoka and Nakai [14]. In true triaxial apparatus, the three
principal stresses (r1, r2, r3) can be controlled independently,
while the vertical load, the torsional load, the internal pressure
and the external pressure can be applied independently in hollow
cylinder devices. Using a combination of these two devices, a vari-
ety of stress paths can be executed. Therefore, the proposed failure
criterion is fitted to the data obtained from various experiments
performed on true triaxial and hollow cylinder devices, as shown
in Fig. 12(a–l). The corresponding parameters m and a of the curves
are listed in Table 1. It can be seen that although ucom ranges from
31.9° to 48.5° and uext ranges from 31.9° to 57.2° in the data, all
cases (ucom > uext, ucom = uext and ucom < uext) can be reasonably
represented by selecting proper values of m and a.
6. Conclusions
An expression for the shape of failure surfaces in the octahedral
plane is proposed, which is a function of stress invariants and two
parameters: the failure stress ratio in triaxial extension over that in
triaxial compression a, and a new parameter m controlling the con-
vexity of the surface. This function can take into account the influ-
ence of the intermediate principal stress on strength of materials
and offers greater flexibility than the classical criteria in describing
the strength characteristics of a material. It is believed that the cri-
terion has potential applications in developing constitutive rela-
tionships for geomaterials and other materials.
Acknowledgements

Fig. Researchers Test Soil Friction Parameters

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support
apparatus angle
provided by National Natural Science Foundation of China under
12(a) Ramamurthy True Dense ucom = 40° m = 3.5
Grant No. 50608051 and Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong
and Rawat triaxial Ottawa sand uext = 39° a = 0.65
[17] Province, China under Grant No. 06301363.
12(b) Matsuoka and Triaxial Toyoura sand ucom = 41° m=5
Nakai [14] True uext = 41° a = 0.66 References
triaxial
12(c) Kirkpatrick [7] Triaxial Loch Aline ucom = 39° m = 4.8
[1] Abelev AV, Lade PV. Characterization of failure in cross-anisotropic soils. J Eng
Thick sand uext = 38.45° a = 0.64 Mech 2004;130(5):599–606.
cylinder [2] Argyris JH, Faust G, Szimmat J, Warnke EP, Willam KJ. Recent developments in
12(d) Shibata and True Osaka ucom = 33.7° m = 5.5 the finite element analysis of prestressed concrete reactor vessels. Nucl Eng
Karube [19] triaxial alluvial clay uext = 33.7° a = 0.69 Des 1974;28:42–75.
12(e) Proctor and True River ucom = 45° m=6 [3] Bishop AW. The strength of soils as engineering materials. Géotechnique
Barden [16] triaxial Welland sand uext = 50° a = 0.67 1966;16(2):91–130.
12(f) Green and Triaxial Ham river ucom = 39° m = 7.8 [4] Costamagna R, Bruhns OT. A four-parameter criterion for failure of
Bishop [5] True sand uext = 44° a = 0.7 geomaterials. Eng Struct 2007;29:461–8.
triaxial [5] Green GE, Bishop AW. A note on the drained strength of sand under
12(g) Yamada and True Fuji river ucom = 33° m=3 generalized strain conditions. Géotechnique 1969;19(1):144–9.
Ishihara [22] triaxial sand uext = 34.5° a = 0.74 [6] Jiang J, Pietruszczak S. Convexity of yield loci for pressure sensitive materials.
Comput Geotech 1988;5:51–63.
12(h) Lade and True Monterey No. ucom = 48.5° m = 3.8
[7] Kirkpatrick WM. The condition of failure for sand. In: Proceeding of 4th
Duncan [8] triaxial 0 sand uext = 57.2° a = 0.65 international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol. 1;
12(i) ucom = 38.6° m = 8.7 1957: p. 172–78.
uext = 45.5° a = 0.72 [8] Lade PV, Duncan JM. Cubical triaxial tests on cohesionless soil. J Soil Mech
12(j) Loch Aline ucom = 31.9 m=5 Found Div ASCE 1973;99(10):793–812.
sand uext = 31.9° a = 0.7 [9] Lade PV, Duncan JM. Elasto-plastic stress–strain theory for cohesionless soil. J
(e = 0.754) Geotech Eng Div 1975;101(GT 10):1037–53.
12(k) Sutherland True Loch Aline ucom = 34.5° m=5 [10] Lagioia R, Puzrin AM, Potts DM. A new versatile expression for yield and plastic
and Mesdary triaxial sand uext = 34.0° a = 0.68 potential surfaces. Comput Geotech 1996;19(3):171–91.
[20] (e = 0.695) [11] Li XS. A sand model with state-dependent dilatancy. Géotechnique
12(l) Loch Aline ucom = 37.3° m=5 2002;52(3):173–86.
sand uext = 36.9° a = 0.65 [12] Matsuoka H, Nakai T. Stress-deformation and strength characteristics of soil
(e = 0.639) under three different principal stresses. Proc Jpn Soc Civil Eng
1974;232:59–70.
524 D. Su et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 517–524
[13] Matsuoka H, Nakai T. Stress–strain relationship of soil based on the ‘SMP’. In:
Proceedings of specialty session 9, 9th international conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering; 1977: p. 153–62.
[14] Matsuoka H, Nakai T. A new failure criterion for soils in three-dimensional
stresses. In: IUTAM conference on deformation and failure of granular
materials, Delft, vol. 1; 1982: p. 253–63.
[15] Motara G. A new yield and failure criterion for geomaterials. Géotechnique
2008;58(2):125–32.
[16] Proctor DC, Barden L. A note on the drained strength of sand under generalized
strain conditions. Géotechnique 1969;19(1):144–9.
[17] Ramamurthy T, Rawat PC. Shear strength of sand under general stress system.
Proc 8th Int Conf Soil Mech Found Eng Moscow 1973;1(2):339–42.
[18] Sheng D, Sloan SW, Yu HS. Aspects of finite element implementation of critical
state models. Comput Mech 2000;26(2):185–96.
[19] Shibata T, Karube D. Influence of the variation of the intermediate principal
stress on mechanical properties of normally consolidated clay. In: Proceedings
of 6th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
vol. 1; 1965: p. 359–63.
[20] Sutherland HB, Mesdary MS. The influence of the intermediate principal stress
on the strength of sand. In: Proceedings of 7th international conference on soil
mechanics and foundation engineering, Mexico City, vol. 1; 1969: p. 391–99.
[21] Wang ZL, Dafalias YF, Shen CK. Bounding surface hypoplasticity model for
sand. J Eng Mech, ASCE 1990;116(5):983–1001.
[22] Yamada Y, Ishihara K. Anisotropic deformation characteristics of sand under
three-dimensional stress conditions. Soils and Foundations 1979;19(2):78–94.
[23] Yu M. Advances in strength theories for materials under complex stress state
in the 20th Century. Applied Mechanics Reviews, ASME 2002;55(3):169–218.