International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 93 (2017) 15–20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics

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

Coefficient of equivalent plastic strain based on the associated flow of the MARK
Drucker-Prager criterion
⁎
Xiang Dinga, Guangqing Zhangb,
a
Department of Engineering Mechanics, China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Beijing 102249, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and Engineering, 102249, Beijing, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper proposes a generalized expression for the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain based on the
Drucker-Prager criterion associated flow of the Drucker-Prager criterion for geomeaterials. By conducting triaxial compression tests of
Coefficient of equivalent plastic strain sandstone samples in the laboratory, the coefficient of pressure sensitivity α and the shearing cohesion k of
Plastic volumetric strain sandstone samples are calibrated as functions of the plastic volumetric strain. The coefficient of equivalent
Associated flow
plastic strain is dependent on the chosen yield criterion. When the Mises yield criterion is used, the coefficient of
equivalent plastic strain equals 2/3 . Moreover, the equivalent plastic strain based on the associated flow of the
Drucker-Prager criterion is no longer a constant but decreases gradually with the plastic deformation, and its
value is always less than 2/3 . If the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain based on the associated flow of the
Drucker-Prager criterion is taken as 2/3 , which is a conventional practice and a basis of many finite element
software, the computed value of the equivalent plastic strain will significantly deviate from the actual value.

1. Introduction However the physical basis for these definitions of equivalent plastic
strain is not always clear. Among these expressions of equivalent plastic
In plasticity theory, the total distortion of the elements of a material strain, expressions ⑤ and ⑥ as shown in Table 1 are most commonly
is described by an important parameter which is usually called as used. Hereunder follows the explanation of how the constant 2/3 was
equivalent strain or effective strain, and sometimes shear strain obtained in the expressions ⑤ and ⑥ in Table 1.
intensity [1]. In this paper, all three terms are referred to as the For metals, the plastic volumetric strain equals zero during plastic
equivalent strain. Particularly after a material enters its plastic stage, deformation; thus,
plastic deformation becomes important and the equivalent plastic strain dεvp = dε1p + dε2p + dε3p = 0 (2)
is used to describe this distortion. Similarly, in situations involving
plastic hardening and softening, the equivalent plastic strain is com- According to Eq. (2) the three principal plastic strain increments
monly used to describe the plastic loading history. While the term will have the following relationships,
“equivalent plastic strain” has been extensively used, several definitions dε1p : dε2p : dε3p = 1: m: −(1 + m ) (3)
of this term are available in the literature.
Considering that the equivalent plastic strain is a positive quantity In the particular case of uniaxial stress condition,
and possesses the dimension of strain, the equivalent plastic strain can dε2p = dε3p (4)
be defined as follows [2]:
Solving for the constant m in Eq. (3) by using Eq. (4),
dεp = C⋅ dεijp dεijp (1)
1
m=−
where dεp is the equivalent plastic strain increment, C is the coefficient 2 (5)
of equivalent plastic strain, dεijp are the components of plastic strain Then, the equivalent plastic strain under uniaxial stress condition is
increment, and the letter “p” indicates plastic deformation.
expressed as,
Moreover, several different forms of equivalent plastic strain (or
equivalent plastic strain increment) have been suggested as shown in
Table 1.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fengyunxiang123@outlook.com (X. Ding), zhangguangqing@cup.edu.cn (G. Zhang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2017.04.018
Received 13 October 2016; Received in revised form 18 April 2017; Accepted 18 April 2017
Available online 19 April 2017
0020-7462/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Ding, G. Zhang International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 93 (2017) 15–20

Nomenclature I1 The first invariant of stress tensor

α Coefficient of pressure sensitivity in Drucker-Prager cri-
dεp Equivalent plastic strain increment terion
C Coefficient of the equivalent plastic strain k Shearing cohesion in Drucker-Prager criterion
dεijp Components of plastic strain increment σ1, σ2, σ3 Principal stress
εp Equivalent plastic strain dWp Plastic work increment
deijp Deviatoric plastic strain increment dλ A non-negative scalar function that will vary through the
ε ṗ (τ ) Plastic shearing rate plastic loading history
dεvp Plastic volumetric strain increment δkl Kronecker symbol
dε1p , dε2p , dε3p Principal plastic strain increment skl Deviatoric stress components
m Constant indicating the ratio of principal plastic strain f Yield criterion
increment φ Angle of internal friction
g (σij ) Plastic potential function expressed in stress components c Cohesion
A&n Constants that depend on yield criterion chosen κ Plastic internal variable
σij Stress components ε1p , ε2p , ε3p Principal plastic strain
σe Effective stress ε1e , ε2e , ε3e Principal elastic strain
J2 The second invariant of stress deviator tensor

dεp = C⋅ (dε1p )2 + (dε2p )2 + (dε3p )2 the most commonly used yield criteria are the Mohr-Coulomb criteria
and the Drucker-Prager criteria. These criteria involve normal stress
⎛ 1 ⎞2 ⎛ 1 ⎞2 terms, so the plastic volumetric strain is no longer zero. Therefore,
= C⋅ (dε1p )2 + ⎜ − dε1p⎟ + ⎜ − dε1p⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ unlike in metals, it is inappropriate for the geomaterials to use
3 C = 2/3 as the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain.
= C⋅ dε1p Some studies have focused on the coefficient of the equivalent
2 (6)
plastic strain C . Sidebottom [7] experimentally investigated the coeffi-
Suppose C = 2/3 , then from Eq. (6), the equivalent plastic strain cient of the equivalent plastic strain C for Tresca materials. Based on
increment dεp equals the axial plastic strain increment dε1p under an the fact that the plastic work is equal to the equivalent plastic strain
uniaxial stress condition. multiplied by the equivalent yield stress, Berg [9] deduced the
It is obvious that the precondition of C = 2/3 is based on Eq. (2), coefficient of plastic strain to be C = 2/3 when Mises yield criterion
where the plastic volumetric strain is zero during plastic deformation. was used. Li et.al [10] computed the deviation by replacing the
Han & Reddy [4] and Vermeer & Borst [5] deliberately explained why equivalent plastic strain with the maximum principle strain in metal
the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain C equals to 2/3 . They plasticity where C = 2/3 . Zhu et.al [11] computed the relative error of
considered the same precondition that the plastic volumetric strain is the equivalent plastic strain. Chen & Zhang [12] realized that the
zero during plastic deformation stage. Note that the value of m set as coefficients of equivalent plastic strain are different for different yield
“−1/2″ in the finite element software “Abaqus” for the same reason criteria, namely, the coefficient C is 2/3 for the Mises yield condition
that plastic volume is conserved during plastic deformation (Plastic and 1/2 for the Rankine condition. Colby [13] presented equivalent
Poisson's Ratio=0.5). Fang et al. [8] disccussed the compressibility of plastic strain for the Hill's yield criterion for a general state of three-
materials, the plastic volumetric strain and the concept of the plastic dimensional loading and suggested that the coefficient of equivalent
Poisson's ratio in detail. plastic strain depends on the yield criterion. Colby [13] further
2
In metal plasticity, the Mises criterion is mostly used and the suggested that the expression 3 dεijp dεijp might be named as “Von Mises'
hydrostatic stress will not cause any plastic volumetric strain, so the equivalent plastic strain”.
plastic volumetric strain will always be zero. Since these assumptions Despite the realization that dilation (and hence volume change) is
hold practically true for metals, the coefficient of plastic strain can be prevalent in rocks, many papers on the dilation of rocks [14–16] took
reasonable taken as 2/3 . However, when it comes to geomaterials, the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain as a constant value of 2/3 ,
dilatancy will occur during plastic deformation, and the plastic volu- which is based on the assumption of constant volume. It is contra-
metric strain is no more zero. In the study of plasticity of geomaterials, dictory in the study of the dilation of rocks to assume that the plastic
volumetric strain is zero in the plastic deformation stage.
Table 1 Therefore, for geomaterials, a more generalized definition of the
Different forms of equivalent plastic strain (or equivalent plastic strain increment).
coefficient of equivalent plastic strain should be proposed. Drucker-
No. Expression Note References Prager criterion has been widely used in constitutive modeling and
numerical simulation [17–19]. In this paper, a generalized expression
① dεp = C⋅ dεijp dεijp dεp is the equivalent plastic strain [2] of the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain based on the associated
increment flow of Drucker-Prager criterion is derived and the coefficient is also
② εp = ∫ dεijp dεijp εp is the equivalent plastic strain [2]
calibrated by triaxial compression tests of rock samples in the labora-
③ εp = ∫ 2dεijp dεijp εp is the equivalent plastic strain [1] tory. The plastic volumetric strain is chosen as the plastic internal
④ 1 deijp is deviatoric plastic strain [3] variable, and the change in the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain
dεp = de p de p
2 ij ij with the plastic internal variable is investigated in the plastic deforma-
increment
⑤ 2 t ε ṗ (τ ) is the plastic shearing rate [4,5] tion stage.
εp =
3
∫0 ε ṗ (τ ) dτ
⑥ 2 1 dεp is the equivalent plastic strain [6]
dεp = + {dεijp dεijp} 2
3 increment 2. Deduction of the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain based
⑦ dεp =
1
(dε1p − dε3p ) dεp is the equivalent plastic strain [7]
2 on the associated Drucker-Prager criterion
increment
⑧ dεp =
2
(dε1p − dε3p ) dεp is the equivalent plastic strain [7]
3
increment In describing the plastic deformation process of a perfectly plastic
material, plastic internal variable is the only parameter needed to

16
X. Ding, G. Zhang International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 93 (2017) 15–20

record the plastic loading history. However, for materials with hard- ∂f ∂( J2 − αI1) s
= = kl − αδkl
ening or softening behavior, an additional parameter is required to ∂σkl ∂σkl 2 J2 (21)
describe the change of material behavior with the loading history.
The uniaxial loading test is usually the most convenient way to then,
investigate the mechanical properties of materials. In order to general- ∂f ∂f 2αskk s s
= α 2δkk − + kl lk
ize the material parameters obtained by a uniaxial loading experiment ∂σkl ∂σkl 2 J2 4J2 (22)
to a more complex loading condition, two parameters are defined: the
equivalent stress and the equivalent plastic strain. The equivalent stress for
is defined as follows: δkk = 3 (23)
g (σij ) = Aσen (7) skk = 0 (24)
where g is the plastic potential function expressed in terms of stress skl slk = 2J2 (25)
components σij ; A and n are constants that depend on the yield criterion
chosen; and σe is the equivalent stress. Then, Eq. (22) is simplified as follows,
For the associated Drucker-Prager criterion, ∂f ∂f 1
= 3α 2 +
g (σij ) = J2 − αI1 ∂σkl ∂σkl 2 (26)
(8)
Moreover,
where I1 is the first invariant of the stress tensor; J2 is the second
invariant of the stress deviator tensor; and α is the coefficient of ∂f
σij = J2 − αI1
pressure sensitivity. The constant in the plastic potential function is ∂σij (27)
neglected since this term will vanish in acquiring the plastic strain
With Eqs. (16) and (19),
increments by differentiating function g (σij ) with respect to stress
components σij . ∂f
σe dεp = dλσij
Under a uniaxial loading condition, ∂σij (28)
σe = σ1 (9) ∂f
Substituting dλ , σij ∂σ , σe from Eqs. (20)–(27) into Eq. (28), the
ij
σ2 = σ3 = 0 (10) following expression is obtained:

Substituting Eqs. (8), (9) and (10) into Eq. (7) gives J2 − αI1 dεijp dεijp
dεp = ( J2 − αI1)
1/3 − α 1
( 1/3 − α ) σ1 = Aσ1n (11) 3α 2 + (29)
2

By rearranging Eq. (11), we get Therefore,

A= 1/3 − α (12) 1/3 − α
dεp = dεijp dεijp
(13) 1
n=1 3α 2 + 2 (30)
Substituting Eqs. (12) and (13) ( A and n ) and Eq. (8) into Eq. (7)
Comparing Eq. (30) and Eq. (1), the coefficient of equivalent plastic
yields
strain based on the associated Drucker-Prager criterion can be ex-
J2 − αI1 = ( 1/3 − α ) σe (14) pressed as follows:

From Eq. (14) the equivalent stress is obtained as, 1/3 − α

C=
1
3α 2 + (31)
J2 − αI1 2
σe =
1/3 − α (15) For the particular case when α = 0 , Eq. (31) yields that the
The equivalent plastic strain increment can also be defined in terms coefficient C equals 2/3 , which is the familiar condition of Mises
of the plastic work per unit volume in the form [2], yield criterion.

dWp = σe dεp (16) 3. Relationship between the coefficient of equivalent plastic

Meanwhile, the plastic work is strain and the coefficient of pressure sensitivity

dWp = σij dεijp (17) In the principal stress space, when the yield surface of the Drucker-
Prager criterion circumscribes the yield surface of the Mohr-Coulomb
For the associated flow rule, the plastic strain increments can be
criterion [2,20–22], we have
expressed as
2 sin φ
∂f α=
dεijp = dλ 3 (3 − sin φ) (32)
∂σij (18)
6c⋅ cos φ
Therefore, Eq. (17) can be expressed. k=
3 (3 − sin φ) (33)
∂f
dWp = dλσij where φ is the internal friction angle and c is the cohesion in the Mohr-
∂σij (19)
Coulomb criterion. (For the parameters α and k that have not been
Then dλ can be solved from Eq. (19) as named in the list of symbols suggested by ISRM, this paper used k as the
shearing cohesion in order to distinguish it from the cohesion c in the
dεijp dεijp
dλ = Mohr-Coulomb criterion, and α as the coefficient of pressure sensitivity
∂f ∂f
in order to consider the influence of hydrostatic pressure). Yin [21]
∂σkl ∂σkl (20)
stated that α is the strength parameter that describes the dependence on
For the Drucker-Prager yield criterion, hydrostatic pressure and k is the strength parameter that indicates the

17
X. Ding, G. Zhang
internal cohesion to withstand shearing. Both φ and α describe the
characteristic of internal friction while both c and k describe the
characteristic of internal cohesion.
Conventionally, the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is used as a failure
criterion in which the angle of internal friction φ and the cohesion c are
constants. However, in the plastic stage, the angle of internal friction φ
and the cohesion c are no longer constants but do vary with the plastic
internal variable κ . This has been extensively discussed in many studies
[5,23–36] among which the CWFS (cohesion weakening & friction
strengthening) model [37–40] receives the most recognition.
Hence, the coefficient of pressure sensitivity α and the shearing
cohesion k in the Drucker-Prager criterion also vary with the plastic
internal variable during plastic deformation. Then, the Drucker-Prager
criterion considering the hardening and weakening of materials can be
expressed as,
f (I1, J2 , α (κ ), k (κ )) = J2 − α (κ ) I1 − k (κ )
Eq. (34) can further be modified as follows:
1/3 − α (κ )
C (κ ) =
3(α (κ ))2 + 1/2
As we see from Eq. (35), the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain C
is not a constant but a function of plastic internal variable. In order to
obtain the evolution of the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain C , we
must acquire the evolution of the coefficient of pressure sensitivity α
with the plastic internal variable.
Either of the equivalent plastic strain, plastic work, or plastic
volumetric strain can be selected as the plastic internal variable [25].
In this study, the plastic volume strain is selected as the plastic internal
variable such that,
κ = Vp = εiip
4. Evolution of the coefficient of the equivalent plastic strain with
the plastic internal variable
In order to derive the relationship between the coefficient of
pressure sensitivity α and the plastic internal variable κ = Vp , triaxial
experiments were performed in the laboratory of rock mechanics in
China University of Petroleum-Beijing(CUPB), as shown in Fig. 1, based
on the suggested method by ISRM [41].
Triaxial compression tests of four specimens of dimension
Φ25×50 mm were performed with confining pressures of 5 MPa,
10 MPa, 15 MPa and 20 MPa. The displacement control mode was
adopted to acquire the complete stress-strain curve including the
hardening stage and the softening stage. A fluid-servo rock testing
Fig. 1. A fluid-servo rock testing system at the CUPB.
International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 93 (2017) 15–20
system, TFD-1000, in the CUPB laboratory was utilized. The fluid-servo
rock testing machine has the stiffness in excess of 10 GN/m.
The four specimens (Φ25×50 mm) were drilled from a Φ100 mm
core that was previously taken from a tight oil reservoir in Changqing
Oil field located in the northwest China. There were no visible cracks in
these four samples after drilling. The maximum diameter of particles in
these sandstone samples was far less than 1/20th of the diameter of the
samples (25 mm). The ends of the samples were grinded, and the
flatness and perpendicularity were checked.
The samples were wrapped with heat-shrink tubes to isolate the
samples from the confining fluid. There was no change in the pore
pressure and thus these tests were drained tests. The axial and
circumferential displacements were measured by LVDTs with a resolu-
tion of 0.0001 mm.
The tests followed the ISRM standard [41]. At the beginning of a
test, the axial strain control mode was used and the specimen was
(34)
loaded at an axial strain rate of 0.001 mm/mm/s until the applied load
reached to approximately 70% of the expected peak load. At 70% of the
peak load, the control mode was switched to the circumferential strain
control mode, and the test was continued at a circumferential strain
(35) rate of 0.0001 mm/mm/s. The stress-strain curves under different
confining pressures were obtained as shown in Fig. 2.
The whole data mining process is summarized into several stages.
Firstly, an initial yield point was identified in each stress-strain curve
(ith curve) to transfer the stress-strain curve σ − ε into a stress-plastic
internal variable curve σ − κ . Each κi corresponded to four J2 values
under four different I1 values. With these four pairs of J2 − I1, the
coefficient of pressure sensitivity α and the shearing cohesion k were
fitted. Detailed computation process is introduced as the following
steps.
Firstly, the initial yield stress σ10s was determined in each
(36) (σ1 − σ3) − ε1 curve as suggested by [25].
Secondly the stress-strain curves were transferred into yield stress-
plastic internal variable curves. After the initial yield was occurred, the
total strain at each point possessed plastic strain and elastic strain
components which were calculated by the Hooke's Law as,
⎧ ε1e ⎫ ⎡ ⎤ σ
⎪ e⎪ 1 1 − ν − ν ⎧ 1s ⎫
⎨ ε2 ⎬ = ⎢− ν 1 − ν ⎥ ⎨ σ2 ⎬
⎪ ⎪
⎪ e ⎪ E ⎢⎣− ν − ν 1 ⎥⎦ ⎩ σ3 ⎭⎪ ⎪
⎩ ε3 ⎭ (37)
where E is the elastic modulus, ν is Poisson's ratio and σ1s is the
subsequent yield stress. For the conventional triaxial compression tests,
σ2 = σ3. Therefore, the plastic strain was obtained by subtracting the
elastic strain from the total strain as recorded by the testing system.
Hence,
Fig. 2. Stress–strain curves under different confining pressures.
18
X. Ding, G. Zhang International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 93 (2017) 15–20

Table 2
Evolution of α and k with the plastic internal variable.

κ α k /MPa

0 0.166 38.8
0.004 0.227 37.9
0.008 0.264 35.2
0.012 0.287 32.7
0.016 0.303 30.4
0.02 0.311 28.9
0.024 0.317 27.6
0.028 0.320 26.5
0.032 0.325 24.9
0.036 0.329 23.0

α (κ ) = 0.0463 ln(κ ) + 0.488 (41)

Fig. 3. Yield stress-plastic internal variable curves σ1s − κ for different confining
pressures.
⎧ ε p = ε1 − ε1e
⎪ 1p
⎨ ε2 = ε2 − ε2e
⎪ p e cohesion c had been intensively studied for decades with different rock
⎩ ε3 = ε3 − ε3 (38)
As mentioned before, the plastic volumetric strain was chosen to be
the plastic internal variable. By the definition, it was calculated as the
sum of the three principal plastic strains,
κ = ε1p + ε2p + ε3p (39)
Thereafter, the stress-strain curves σ − ε were turned into yield
stress-plastic internal variable curves σ1s − κ as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Thirdly, as shown in Eq. (34), J2 and I1 are linearly related as,
J2 = α (κi ) I1 + k (κi ) (40)
Taking the four initial yield points at κ = 0 as an example, the
J2 − I1 line was fitted as shown in Fig. 3.
From Eq. (43) and Fig. 4, the values of α and k were obtained as,
α|κ=0 = 0.166 and k|κ=0 = 38.8 MPa.
Repeating similar linear fitting process for different values of plastic
internal variable κi , the coefficient of pressure sensitivity α and shearing
cohesion k were obtained as listed in Table 2.
Finally, the evolutions of coefficient of pressure sensitivity α and
shearing cohesion k were plotted as shown in Fig. 5.
From the literature on the mobilization of strength parameters for
Mohr-Coulomb materials [5,23–36] and by comparison with our
results, a log function was used to simulate the increasing of coefficient
of pressure sensitivity α in a decreasing rate with plastic internal
variable κ, and a linear function was used to simulate the decreasing of
shearing cohesion k with plastic internal variable κ, respectively.
k (κ ) = −444.697κ + 38.595 (42)
Fig. 5 schematically illustrates the mobilization of the cohesive
strength parameter and the frictional strength parameter in triaxial
compression tests. The mobilization of internal friction angle φ and
types, such as granite [27,31,35,37–40], marble [33,34]，sand-
stone [23,25,26,32]，diatomaceous soft rock [26] and salt [20]. Yet,
the direct measurement of the mobilization of coefficient of pressure
sensitivity α and shearing cohesion k through triaxial compression tests
was reported only in 2014 by Yao [42]. Confusingly, however, Yao [42]
concluded that the shearing strength k decreases firstly and then begins
to increase with the axial plastic strain ε1p in the late post-peak stage.
Obviously, such a conclusion is not intuitive, particularly as the
conclusion indicated that the cohesive parameter k could increase even
if a shearing band had already been formed. Actually, the mobilization
of strength parameters of the present results was similar to the CWFS
model with the difference that both α and k did not reach a residual
stage.
The relationship between the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain
and the plastic internal variable was obtained through interpolation.
With this interpolation for α = α (κi ) and by using Eq. (35), a relation-
ship was obtained between the coefficient of the equivalent plastic
strain and the plastic internal variable and was plotted as shown in
Fig. 6.
As shown in Fig. 6, the coefficient of the equivalent plastic strain
decreased monotonously with the plastic internal variable at a decreas-
ing rate. Fig. 5 shows that the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain C
under the associated Drucker-Prager criterion is markedly smaller than
that under Mises criterion which equals 2/3 . Furthermore, the
difference between those two values increased with an increase in the
plastic deformation and exceeded a value of 0.5 corresponding to

Fig. 4. Linear fit of J2 − I1 at κ = 0 . Fig. 5. Evolution of parameters α and k with κ .

19
X. Ding, G. Zhang
Fig. 6. Coefficient C for the associated Drucker-Prager criterion and Mises criterion.
relatively larger plastic strains. Thus if the coefficient of equivalent
strain under the associated Drucker-Prager criterion is taken as a
constant value of 2/3 , computed results are likely to deviate largely
from the actual scenario. Moreover, this may also be responsible for a
relative larger computed plastic volumetric strain (as computed based
on the associated flow) when compared to the actual (measured) plastic
volumetric strain [20].
5. Conclusions
This paper focuses on illustrating the major limitation of the
conventional approach in setting the coefficient of equivalent plastic
strain to a constant value of 2/3 . From the definitions of equivalent
stress and equivalent plastic strain, a general expression was derived for
the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain C under the associated
Drucker-Prager criterion. Then, according to the triaxial compression
tests of sandstone specimens, the mobilization of the coefficient of
pressure sensitivity α and shearing cohesion k were analyzed. Finally,
the evolution of the coefficient of equivalent plastic strain C with the
plastic deformation was proposed. Here are the main conclusions:
(1) The value of the coefficient of the equivalent plastic strain depends
on the specified yield criterion and C = 2/3 holds true only when
Mises criterion is used.
(2) After the plastic limit is attained, the coefficient of the equivalent
plastic strain is no longer a constant but varies with the plastic
internal variable.
(3) For geomaterials, the coefficient of the equivalent plastic strain C is
usually less than 2/3 and this value would decrease with the
plastic deformation. If the coefficient of the equivalent plastic strain
C is set to be 2/3 without considering the specified yield criterion
for geomaterials, a great deviation may occur between the calcu-
lated results and the actual values of the equivalent plastic strain.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China [No. 51274216 and 51322404].
References
[1] L.M. Kachanov, Fundamentals of the Theory of Plasticity, Dover, New York, 2004.
[2] W.F. Chen, A.F. Salipu, Elasticity and Plasticity, China Architecture & Building
Press, Beijing, 2005.
[3] Z.P. Bažant, Work inequalities for plastic fracturing materials, Int. J. Solids Struct.
16 (1980) 873–901.
[4] W.M. Han, B.D. Reddy, Plasticity: Mathematical Theory and Numerical Analysis,
first ed, Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 2012.
[5] P.A. Vermeer, D.R. Borst, Non-associated plasticity for soils, concrete and rock,
Heron (1984) 1–64.
[6] R. Hill, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, fourth ed, Oxford University Press,
New York, 1998.
20
International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 93 (2017) 15–20
[7] O. Sidebottom, Note on the effective plastic strain for a Tresca material, J. Appl.
Mech. 38 (1971) 1049–1050.
[8] H. Fang, J. Bi, C. Zhang, M. Gutowski, E. Palta, Q. Wang, A constitutive model of
aluminum foam for crash simulations, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 90 (2017) 124–136.
[9] C. Berg, Construction of the equivalent plastic strain increment, Stud. Appl. Math.
51 (1972) 311–316.
[10] W.M. Li, Z.B. Liu, W. Jia, On the strain equivalent coefficient in plastic deformation,
J. Plast. Eng. 4 (1997) 47–50.
[11] C.J. Zhu, X.L. Xie, L. Lai, G.Y. Bai, Study of two important plastic indexes of Tresca
yield criterion and Mises yield, Criterion, J. Hunan Univ. Arts Sci. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 17
(2005) 6–8.
[12] W.F. Chen, H. Zhang, Structural Plasticity: Theory, Problems, and CAE Software,
Springer, 1990.
[13] R.B. Colby, Equivalent plastic strain for the Hill's yield criterion under general
three-dimensional loading, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2013.
[14] L.R. Alejano, E. Alonso, Considerations of the dilatancy angle in rocks and rock
masses, Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. 42 (2005) 481–507.
[15] X.G. Zhao, M. Cai, A mobilized dilation angle model for rocks, Int. J. Rock. Mech.
Min. Sci. 47 (2010) 368–384.
[16] O. Pourhosseini, M. Shabanimashcool, Development of an elasto-plastic constitutive
model for intact rocks, Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. 66 (2014) 1–12.
[17] M. Soltani, K. Maekawa, Numerical simulation of progressive shear localization and
scale effect in cohesionless soil media, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 69 (2015) 1–13.
[18] C.S. Liu, L.W. Liu, H.K. Hong, A scheme of automatic stress-updating on yield
surfaces for a class of elastoplastic models, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 85 (2016) 6–22.
[19] M. Hamlaoui, A. Oueslati, G.D. Saxcé, A bipotential approach for plastic limit loads
of strip footings with non-associated materials, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech. 90 (2017)
1–10.
[20] Y.Q. Yin, Rock Mechanics and Stability of Rock Engineering, Peking University
Press, Beijing, 2011.
[21] Y.Q. Yin, Plasticity of Geomaterials, Peking University Press, Beijing, 2014.
[22] W.F. Chen, X.L. Liu, Limit analysis in soil mechanics, Elsevier, 2012.
[23] K. Zhang, H. Zhou, J.F. Shao, An experimental investigation and an elastoplastic
constitutive model for a porous rock, Rock. Mech. Rock. Eng. 46 (2013) 1499–1511.
[24] L.J. Ma, H.F. Xu, Q. Tong, L. Dong, N. Zhang, J. Li, Post-yield plastic frictional
parameters of a rock salt using the concept of mobilized strength, Eng. Geol. 177
(2014) 25–31.
[25] H.C. Wang, W.H. Zhao, D.S. Sun, B.B. Guo, Mohr-Coulomb Yield Criterion in Rock
Plastic Mechanics, Chin. J. Geophys. 55 (2012) 733–741.
[26] M. Jafarpour, H. Rahmati, S. Azadbakht, A. Nouri, D. Chan, H. Vaziri,
Determination of mobilized strength properties of degrading sandstone, Soils
Found. 52 (2012) 658–667.
[27] K.H. Lee, I.M. Lee, Y.J. Shin, Brittle rock property and damage index assessment for
predicting brittle failure in excavations, Rock. Mech. Rock. Eng. 45 (2012)
251–257.
[28] H.Q. Zhang, S. Nunoo, D.D. Tannant, S.Y. Wang, Numerical study of the evolution
of cohesion and internal friction in rock during the pre-peak deformation process,
Arab. J. Geosci. 8 (2015) 3501–3513.
[29] H.Q. Zhang, D.D. Tannant, H.W. Jing, S. Nunoo, S.J. Niu, S.Y. Wang, Evolution of
cohesion and friction angle during microfracture accumulation in rock, Nat.
Hazards 77 (2015) 497–510.
[30] H.Z. Li, G.D. Xiong, G.P. Zhao, An elasto-plastic constitutive model for soft rock
considering mobilization of strength, Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 26 (2016)
822–834.
[31] F. ZHANG, Q. SHENG, Z.Q. Zhu, Y.H. Zhang, Study on post-peak mechanical
behaviour and strain-softening model of three gorges granite, Chin. J. Rock. Mech.
Eng. 27 (2008) 651–652.
[32] P. Zhang, X.B. Li, N. Li, Strength evolution law of cracked rock based on localized
progressive damage model, J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. 15 (2008) 493–497.
[33] W.T. Li, S.C. Li, X.D. Feng, S.C. Li, C. Yuan, Study of post-peak strain softening
mechanical properties of rock based on Mohr-Coulomb criterion, Chin. J. Rock.
Mech. Eng. 7 (2011) 1460–1466.
[34] J.X. Han, S.C. Li, W.M. Yang, Study of post-peak stress-strain relationship of rock
material based on evolution of strength parameters, Rock. Soil Mech. 34 (2013)
342–346.
[35] H.Z. Shen, S.L. Wang, Q.S. Liu, Simulation of constitutive curves for strain-softening
rock in triaxial compression, Rock. Soil Mech. 35 (2014) 1647–1654.
[36] S.L. Wang, W. Wang, Z. Wu, Study of relationship between evolution of post-peak
strength parameters and stress-strain curves of geo-materials, Chin. J. Rock. Mech.
Eng. 29 (2010) 1524–1529.
[37] C.D. Martin, Seventeenth Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: the effect of cohesion
loss and stress path on brittle rock strength, Can. Geotech. J. 34 (1997) 698–725.
[38] V. Hajiabdolmajid, P. Kaiser, C. Martin, Modelling brittle failure of rock, Int. J.
Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. 39 (2002) 731–741.
[39] V. Hajiabdolmajid, P. Kaiser, Brittleness of rock and stability assessment in hard
rock tunneling, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 18 (2003) 35–48.
[40] V. Hajiabdolmajid, P. Kaiser, C.D. Martin, Mobilised strength components in brittle
failure of rock, Ge´otechnique 53 (2003) 327–336.
[41] C. Fairhurst, J. Hudson, Draft ISRM suggested method for the complete stress-strain
curve for intact rock in uniaxial compression, Int. J. Rock. Mech. Min. Sci. 36
(1999) 279–289.
[42] Z.X. Yao, A method for measuring strength parameters of softening Drucker-Prager
material, Chin. J. Rock. Mech. Eng. 33 (2014) 1187–1193.