Chapter 1

Simple Elastoplastic Models for

Geomaterials

1.1 Introductory Remarks

The earliest scientific investigations of yielding of soils were carried out in the late 1930’s by
Rendulic [12] and Hvorslev [9]. However, it was not until the 1950’s that a mathematical
description of this behavior was realized through the application of rate-independent elasto-
plasticity to geomaterials. This evolution was strongly influenced by the well-established
theory of metal plasticity. Since the 1950’s, theoretical soil mechanicians have been preoc-
cupied with the application of elastoplasticity theory to geomaterials in an effort to better
simulate the complex behavior of such materials. This chapter discusses some simple rate-
independent elastoplastic models that have been developed to characterize the behavior of
soils.
The majority of such models have assumed an elastic, perfectly-plastic material response.
The yield criterion is thus identical to the failure criterion. Since most soils are more accu-
rately characterized as ductile, hardening (and possibly softening) materials, the assumption
of elastic, perfectly-plasticity represents a rather idealized form of the constitutive models.
Consequently such models have only been used in the investigation of ultimate or failure
conditions such as those associated with limit equilibrium analyses.

1.2 Mechanical Behavior of Geomaterials

In general, geomaterials are non-homogeneous, anisotropic, path-dependent materials that
exhibit nonlinear stress-strain relationships, changes in volume under shear, dilatancy, as
well as time- and rate-dependent response. In light of these complexities, it is evident that
simple elastic characterizations are, in general, inadequate for characterizing the behavior of
geomaterials. Instead, some inelasticity must be accounted for in the constitutive relations.
Geomaterials are inherently particulate systems. The discrete particles that make up
geomaterials are not strongly bonded together in the way that the crystals of a metal are;
hence, the particles are relatively free to move around with respect to each other. This is
the basic characteristic that distinguishes soil mechanics from solid and fluid mechanics. It

1
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

is no surprise that the mechanical behavior of soil depends to a great extent on the relative
arrangement of voids or particles, or “microfabric” of the soil.
Geomaterials are also known to exhibit a frictional behavior; that is, failure occurs when
the obliquity (stress ratio) of the resultant stress on a failure or sliding surface reaches a
maximum. One consequence of this observation is that the radial distance in the octahe-
dral plane to failure in axial extension is less than the radial distance to failure in axial
compression. In addition, the radial distance to failure increases with hydrostatic effective
stress.

1.3 Tresca Failure Criterion

The most basic failure criterion for soils is the Maximum Shearing Stress Theory or Tresca
criterion. As mentioned in Chapter ??, this one-parameter failure criterion was originally
developed as a yield criterion for metals.
According to the Tresca criterion, failure occurs when the maximum shearing stress
reaches a certain critical value k. Mathematically this criterion is expressed as
1
f = | σI − σIII | − k = 0 (1.1)
2
where σI and σIII represent the major and minor principal stresses, respectively, (σI ≥ σII ≥
σIII ) and k is a model parameter. The value of k is determined experimentally from a pure
shear test.1
Geometrically, the Tresca criterion defines a cylindrical surface of hexahedral cross-section
whose generator is parallel to the hydrostatic axis and whose longitudinal axis coincides with
the hydrostatic axis. Since the Tresca criterion is obviously independent of any frictional
component of shear strength, it has no dependence on the first stress invariant I1σ .
.

Remark: The Tresca yield criterion clearly has several shortcomings in connection with its
application to geomaterials, namely:

• According to this criterion the shear strength is independent of the hydrostatic stress, which
is known not to be valid for soils in general.

• The criterion predicts the same failure stress in compression and extension. This is, however,
counter to experimental evidence, which shows that soils are generally characterized by a
tensile strength that is lower than the compressive strength.

• The effect of the intermediate principal stress is not accounted for in the criterion.

Remark: Adequate results can, however, be obtained using the Tresca criterion for saturated
soils under undrained conditions when the analysis is performed in terms of total
1
The constant k can also be determined from uniaxial tensile tests. However, due to the particulate
nature of soils, such tests cannot realistically be performed.

2 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

stresses [1]. In agreement with experimental observations for such “φ = 0” analyses,

the shearing strength of a saturated soil is independent of the hydrostatic total stress.
In such cases the model parameter k represents the undrained shear strength of the
soil cu . Its value can be determined from the results of an unconsolidated-undrained
(UU) axisymmetric triaxial experiment. J
.

1.4 von Mises Failure Criterion

The second basic failure criterion for soils is the von Mises criterion. As mentioned in
Chapter ??, similar to the Tresca model, this one-parameter failure criterion was originally
developed as a yield criterion for metals. However, unlike the Tresca criterion, the von Mises
criterion assumes that the intermediate principal stress also influences the material’s re-
sponse. Mathematically, the von Mises criterion is given by

f (σij , k) = J2 − k 2 = 0 (1.2)

where J2 is the second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor and k is a model parameter.
Since the von Mises failure criterion defines a circular cylinder whose longitudinal axis coin-
cides with the hydrostatic axis, it follows that it cannot account for the frictional nature of
soils.
.

Remark: The von Mises yield criterion shares several shortcomings with the Tresca model
in connection with their application to geomaterials, namely:

• According to the von Mises criterion the shear strength is independent of the hydrostatic
stress, which is known not to be valid for soils in general.

• From equation (1.2) it is evident that the von Mises yield criterion ignores the dependence
of f on J3 . Consequently, the difference in response associated with different angles in the
octahedral plane cannot be accounted for by this criterion.

• The criterion predicts the same failure stress in compression and extension. This is, however,
counter to experimental evidence, which shows that soils are generally characterized by a
tensile strength that is lower than the compressive strength.

Remark: While there is no clear consensus with respect to which of the two nonfrictional
failure criteria more closely represents the behavior of actual soils (relatively speaking,
both are rather poor choices), the von Mises has the advantage that it lacks the corners
(“singularities”) associated with the Tresca criterion. This makes it easier to work
with mathematically. J

3 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

1.5 Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

The principal stresses associated with failure in a geomaterial, as well as the angle of the plane
in which the failure will occur, are commonly determined using Mohr’s circle [10]. Mohr2
used his now well-known graphical representation of stress at a point to devise a strength
theory that could be adapted to various stress conditions and thus be brought into better
agreement with experimental observations. Mohr assumed that of all the planes having the
same magnitude of normal stress the weakest one, on which failure is most likely to occur,
is that with the maximum shear stress. Consequently it is thus necessary to consider only
the circle that corresponds to the maximum difference in principal stress (i.e., the difference
between the major and minor principal stress). If there are a sufficient number of such
circles, an envelope of failure points can be drawn (Figure 1.1). For any stress states for
which there is no experimental data, it may be assumed with sufficient accuracy that the
limiting circle will also touch this failure envelope. Although these envelopes are generally
curved, for simplicity they are commonly replaced by a straight line.
t

failure envelope

Figure 1.1: Schematic Illustration of a Failure Envelope Constructed using Mohr’s Circles

Coulomb’s friction hypothesis [3], which states that a linear relationship exists between
the shear stress at failure and the associated with normal stress, represents the simplest
approximation of a failure envelope. Consequently, the Coulomb hypothesis is commonly
2
Christian Otto Mohr (1835-1918) was a German civil engineer that made contributions to both the-
oretical and practical areas of mechanics. Because of his impact on the field, he is considered to be one
of the most celebrated of the nineteenth century. Besides his famous graphical method for analyzing stress
(Moh’r circle), Mohr also developed the Williot-Mohr diagram for truss displacements and the Maxwell-Mohr
method for analyzing statically indeterminate structures.

4 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

used in conjunction with Mohr’s graphical representation to determine the combination of

shear and normal stress that will cause a failure of the material.
Mathematically, the so-called Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is thus given by

f = τ − σn tan φ − c = 0 (1.3)

where τ is the shear stress on the failure plane, σn is the normal stress acting on this plane,
c is the cohesion intercept (units of F L−2 ), and φ represents the angle of internal friction.
To gain further insight into the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, we note from Figure 1.2
that
1
2
(σ1 − σ3 )
sin φ = (1.4)
c cot φ + 12 (σ1 + σ3 )
 

This leads to the following relation:

1 1
(σ1 − σ3 ) = c cos φ + (σ1 + σ3 ) sin φ (1.5)
2 2
which is commonly re-written in either of the following forms:

σ1 (1 − sin φ) = σ3 (1 + sin φ) + 2c cos φ (1.6)

or
(1 − sin φ) (1 + sin φ)
σ1 − σ3 =1 (1.7)
2c cos φ 2c cos φ

t f
t = c +s tan f
n

1
( s - s )
2 1 3
c
f s
3
sn
s
1
1
c cot f ( s + s )
2 1 3

Figure 1.2: Mohr-Coulomb Failure Criterion

5 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

In three dimensions the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is often expressed as

" #
σ1 − σ2 σ1 + σ2
± = sin(φ) + c cos(φ) (1.8)
2 2
" #
σ2 − σ3 σ2 + σ3
± = sin(φ) + c cos(φ) (1.9)
2 2
" #
σ3 − σ1 σ3 + σ1
± = sin(φ) + c cos(φ) (1.10)
2 2

This represents an irregular hexagonal pyramid in three-dimensional stress space, whose

axis coincides with the hydrostatic axis. The apex of the pyramid is located at (for the case
of c = 0) or near the origin in stress space. The failure surface has an irregular hexahedral
cross-section in the octahedral plane. This irregularity is due to the fact that according to
the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, the strength in compression is higher than in extension (this
shows the dependence of the criterion on the third stress invariant, which can be either
positive of negative).
.

Remark: In the above equation compressive stresses are assumed to be positive. If com-
pression is assumed to be negative then σn should be replaced with −σn , etc. J

Remark: If the material is frictionless; i.e., φ = 0, the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion

reduces to the Maximum Shearing Stress or Tresca failure criterion. However, unlike
the Tresca criterion, the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is dependent on the mean normal
stress. J

Remark: In order to use the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion in the context of conventional
incremental plasticity, the failure criterion is used as a yield criterion. J

Remark: The Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is expressed in terms of the major and minor
principal stresses, but is independent of the intermediate principal stress. J

Remark: From the figure showing the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion in three-dimensional
stress space it is noted that no yielding would be predicted under conditions of pure
hydrostatic loading. This implies that the Mohr-Coulomb criterion cannot properly
simulate isotropic compression. J

Remark: From the figure showing the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion in three-dimensional
stress space it is noted that no yielding would be predicted under conditions of pure

6 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

hydrostatic loading. This implies that the Mohr-Coulomb criterion cannot properly
simulate isotropic compression. J

Remark: Another drawback of the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is the presence of “cor-
ners” in the octahedral plane. Such angularity has, however, been eliminated through
smooth hyperbolic and parabolic modifications to the criterion [13]. J

Remark: In soil mechanics, the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is commonly used in con-
junction with the limit equilibrium method. To better illustrate this application, we
note that equation (1.6) leads to
   
1 + sin φ cos φ
σ1 = σ3 + 2c (1.11)
1 − sin φ 1 − sin φ

Substituting the trigonometric identities

1 + sin α 2 π
 α cos α π α
= tan + , = tan +
1 − sin α 4 2 1 − sin α 4 2
into equation (1.11) gives following expression for the major principal stress at failure:
   
2 π φ π φ
σ1 = σ3 tan + + 2c tan +
4 2 4 2

If c = 0, the limiting stress ratio at failure is

 
σ1 1 + sin φ π φ
= = tan2 +
σ3 1 − sin φ 4 2

which is seen to be the Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient (Kp ). J

Remark: For the case of c = 0 equation (1.6) leads to the following expression:

σ1 − σ3 (σ1 /σ3 ) − 1
sin φ = =
σ1 + σ3 (σ1 /σ3 ) + 1

If this equation is evaluated at the point of effective stress failure (i.e., when the ratio
σ10 /σ30 is maximum), the result is the effective friction angle (φ0 ) associated with the
material. The value of φ0 in axisymmetric triaxial compression is typically different
(and less than) the value in axisymmetric triaxial extension. J

7 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

1.5.1 Invariant Representation

Since the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is independent of the intermediate principal stress,
it is inconvenient to represent this criterion in terms of a general three-dimensional state of
stress defined by six components of the stress tensor. Instead, it is convenient to express the
criterion in terms of I1 , J2 and either the angle of similarity ω [1], or the Lode angle θ [11].
Using the angle of similarity, we recall that the principal stresses are computed in the
following manner:  
 cos ω 
σ1  I 1 2√J 
      
 2π  
cos ω −
 
1 2
σ2 = 1 + √ 3 (1.12)
3   3   2π
σ3 1
  

cos ω +

 

3


where I1 and J2 are the first effective stress invariant and the second deviatoric stress invari-
ant, respectively; viz.,
0 0 0 0
I1 = σkk = σ11 + σ22 + σ33 = tr (σ 0 ) (1.13)

1 1
J2 = sij sij = tr (s)2 (1.14)
2 2
The angle of similarity, which defines the direction of the octahedral shear stress, and is
related to J2 and J3 in the following manner [1]:
√
3 3 J3
cos 3ω = (1.15)
2 (J2 ) 23

where 0 ≤ ω ≤ π3 . For the special case of axisymmetric triaxial compression (σ10 > σ20 = σ30 ),
σ 0 +σ 0
ω = 0. For simple shear (σ10 > σ20 = 1 2 3 > σ30 ), ω = π6 . Finally, for the special case of
axisymmetric triaxial extension (σ10 = σ20 > σ30 ), ω = π3 .
Substituting for σ1 and σ3 from equation (1.12) into equation (1.6) gives
√   
I1 J2 2π
− sin φ + √ cos ω − cos ω +
3 3 3
√   
J2 2π
− √ cos ω + cos ω + sin φ − c cos φ = 0 (1.16)
3 3
Using the trigonometric identities
1 1
cos α − cos β = −2 sin (α + β) sin (α − β)
2 2
1 1
cos α + cos β = 2 cos (α + β) cos (α − β)
2 2
in conjunction with equation (1.16) leads to the following representation of the Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion:
I1 p   π 1  π

f (I1 , J2 , ω) = − sin φ + J2 sin ω + − √ cos ω + sin φ
3 3 3 3
− c cos φ = 0 (1.17)

8 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Alternately, if the trigonometric identities

sin(α + β) = sin α cos β + cos α sin β

cos(α + β) = cos α cos β − sin α sin β

are used in conjunction with equation (1.16), the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is re-written
as
1p h √ i
f (I1 , J2 , ω) = −I1 sin φ + J2 3(1 + sin φ) sin ω + 3(3 − sin φ) cos ω
2
− 3c cos φ = 0 (1.18)

The principal stresses can be likewise be derived in terms of stress invariants in the
following manner [11]:
  
2π
sin +θ 
 
√
    
σ1  I 1 2 J  3

 


1 2
σ2 = 1 + √ sin (θ) (1.19)
3   3 
4π

σ3 1
  
 
sin +θ 

 
3


where the Lode angle θ is defined by

√
3 3 J3
sin 3θ = − (1.20)
2 (J2 ) 23

with − π6 ≤ θ ≤ π6 . For the special case of axisymmetric triaxial compression, θ = − π6 ; for

axisymmetric triaxial extension, θ = π6 .
Substituting for σ1 and σ3 from equation (1.19) into equation (1.6) gives
√     
I1 J2 2π 4π
− sin φ + √ sin + θ − sin +θ
3 3 3 3
√     
J2 2π 4π
− √ sin + θ + sin + θ sin φ − c cos φ = 0 (1.21)
3 3 3

Using the trigonometric identities

1 1
sin α − sin β = 2 cos (α + β) sin (α − β)
2 2
1 1
sin α + sin β = 2 sin (α + β) cos (α − β)
2 2
in conjunction with equation (1.21), the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is re-written as

I1 p  1

f (I1 , J2 , θ) = − sin φ + J2 cos θ + √ sin θ sin φ
3 3
− c cos φ = 0 (1.22)

9 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Remark: It was previously stated that the irregular shape of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion in
the octahedral plane is attributed to the fact that the strength in compression is higher
than in extension. In support of this assertion, we note that for an axisymmetric
triaxial compression stress state, θ = −π/6. Equation (1.22) thus gives

I1
sin φ + c cos φ
J2 = 3 √
p
(1.23)
1
3 (3 − sin φ)
6
For I1 = 0 (which corresponds to the Π-plane) this reduces to
p 6c cos φ
J2 = √ (1.24)
3 (3 − sin φ)

For an axisymmetric triaxial extension stress state, θ = π/6. As such, equation (1.22)
gives
I1
sin φ + c cos φ
J2 = 3 √
p
(1.25)
1
3 (3 + sin φ)
6
For I1 = 0 this reduces to
p 6c cos φ
J2 = √ (1.26)
3 (3 + sin φ)

From equations (1.24) and (1.26) it is evident that for a given value of φ, the Mohr-
Colulomb failure criterion predicts a lower strength in triaxial extension than in
triaxial compression.

Finally, it is also of interest to investigate the special case of simple shear, for which
θ = 0. In this case
p I1
J2 = sin φ + c cos φ
3
J
.

1.5.2 Determination of Model Parameter Values

Associated with the Mohr-Colulomb failure criterion are two model parameters: the angle
of internal friction φ and the cohesion intercept c (units of F L−2 ). The values of these
two parameters are determined from standard laboratory experiments such axisymmetric
triaxial tests. The loading should of sufficient magnitude so as to induce ultimate or failure

10 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

conditions.

1.6 Drucker-Prager Criterion

In 1952 Drucker and Prager [7] presented the first major extension of metal plasticity to
geomaterials. The so-called Drucker-Prager failure criterion represents an attempt to create
a smooth, three-dimensional approximation to the Mohr-Coulomb failure surface in the same
manner as the von Mises criterion approximates the Tresca criterion for metals.
Mathematically the Drucker-Prager failure criterion is expressed in the following manner:
p
f (I1 , J2 ) = J2 − αI1 − k = 0 (1.27)

where α and k are positive model parameters. The parameter α is related to the opening
angle of the pyramid. The parameter k is related to the tensile strength of the material.
For α > 0, the surface is a circular cone with its axis equally inclined to the coordinate
axes (and thus coincident with the hydrostatic axis), and its apex in the tension octant. In
three-dimensional stress space, the section of this cone through the octahedral plane is a
circle. When plotted in the hydrostatic pressure-deviatoric stress plane, the cone consists of
two lines with identical slope. This implies that the friction angles in triaxial compression
and extension are different.

1.6.1 Determination of Model Parameter Values

Associated with the two-parameter Drucker-Prager failure criterion
√ are two positive model
parameters α and k. If the failure surface is√plotted in I1 − J2 stress invariant space, it
appears as a straight line (Figure 1.3). The J2 axis intercept of this line is k; the slope of
this line is the arctangent of α.

J -1
2 tan a

k
I
1

√
Figure 1.3: Drucker-Prager Failure Criterion Plotted in I1 − J2 Space

Given the parameter α and a value of the Lode angle θ, if the intersections of the Drucker-
Prager and Mohr-Coulomb surfaces are to coincide for a certain value of α, then the following

11 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

relationship must hold [14]:

1
3
sin φ
α= 1 (1.28)
cos θ + √3 sin θ sin φ
A similar relationship between the cohesion intercept c and the parameter k can likewise
be obtained [14]; viz.,
c cos φ
k= (1.29)
cos θ + √13 sin θ sin φ
Of particular interest are axisymmetric triaxial states of stress. For axisymmetric triaxial
compression θ = −π/6. Substituting this in equations (1.28) and (1.29) gives

2 sin φ 6c cos φ
α= √ , k=√ (1.30)
3 (3 − sin φ) 3 (3 − sin φ)

The Drucker-Prager failure surface thus intersects with the Mohr-Coulomb surface at the
points associated with axisymmetric triaxial compression. The remainder of the Drucker-
Prager cone circumscribes the Mohr-Coulomb surface in the octahedral plane and represents
an outer bound to this surface (Figure 1.4).

Figure 1.4: Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager Yield Surfaces Viewed down the Hydrostatic
Axis

12 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

For axisymmetric triaxial extension θ = π/6. Substituting this in equations (1.28) and
(1.29) gives
2 sin φ 6c cos φ
α= √ , k=√ (1.31)
3 (3 + sin φ) 3 (3 + sin φ)
The Drucker-Prager failure surface thus intersects with the Mohr-Coulomb surface at the
points associated with axisymmetric triaxial extension. The remainder of the Drucker-Prager
cone inscribes the Mohr-Coulomb surface in the octahedral plane.
Finally, for the special case of plane strain, α and k are given by [2]

tan φ 3c
α=  1/2 , k= 1/2 (1.32)
9 + 12 (tan φ)2 9 + 12 (tan φ)2

Remark: If α = 0, the Drucker-Prager failure surface reduces to the von Mises criterion
(a circular cylinder in three-dimensional stress space). Indeed, the Drucker-Prager
criterion is often referred to as the extended von Mises criterion [1, 6]. J

Remark: For use in the context of conventional incremental plasticity theory, the Drucker-
Prager failure criterion is used as a yield surface. The incremental stress-strain rela-
tions can then be derived based on the yield criterion and the concepts of normality
and flow rule. J

Remark: Similar to the Mohr-Coulomb criterion the Drucker-Prager failure criterion ac-
counts for the effect of hydrostatic pressure. Unlike the Mohr-Coulomb criterion the
Drucker-Prager failure criterion includes the influence of the intermediate principal
stress. J

Remark: The Drucker-Prager failure surface is smooth and thus convenient to use math-
ematically. The traces of the surface on meridian planes are straight lines. Con-
sequently, reasonable results would only be expected for a rather limited range of
pressures over which the curvature of the actual failure envelope can be neglected. J

Remark: Similar to the von-Mises criterion, the Drucker-Prager failure criterion is indepen-
dent of the third stress invariant (e.g., ω or θ). This fact manifests itself in that the
trace of the failure surface in the octahedral plane is a circle. The shear strength in
compression and extension will thus be the same, which disagrees with experimental
observations. J
.

13 V. N. Kaliakin
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

1.7 Extended Tresca Criterion

In an attempt to generalize the Tresca failure criterion for application to soils, Drucker [6]
proposed an extended Tresca criterion. This two-parameter formulation can be written in
the following form:
 
1   1  1 
max σ1 − σ2  , σ2 − σ3  , σ3 − σ1  − αI1 − k = 0 (1.33)
2 2 2

where α and k have the same meaning as for the Drucker-Prager failure criterion.
The extended Tresca criterion is a right hexagonal pyramid whose cross-section in the
octahedral plane is a regular hexagon. By contrast, the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is an ir-
regular hexagon. Both criteria share the common shortcoming of corners, thus somewhat
compromising their treatment mathematically.
.

Remark: Unlike the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, the extended Tresca criterion predicts the
same strength in compression and extension, which is known to at odds with experi-
mental observations. J
.

1.8 Concluding Remarks

Two major drawbacks were associated with constitutive relations based on the Mohr-Coulomb
or Drucker-Prager yield criteria. These were:

• The absence of work-hardening

• The prediction of excessive dilation, due to the use of an associative flow rule

The first drawback was eliminated by Drucker, Gibson and Henkel [8], who introduced
the concept of work-hardening plasticity into soil mechanics. Two other important concepts
were also introduced in this paper. The first was the notion of a work-hardening cap to
the perfectly plastic yield surface such as the Mohr-Coulomb or Drucker-Prager type. The
second was the use of the current soil density (or void ratio) as the state (internal) variable
or strain-hardening parameter used to determine the successive (loading) cap surfaces.
The problem of excessive dilation was remedied by extending the ideas of classical plastic-
ity to a “non-associative” form in which the plastic potential and yield surfaces are separately
defined [4]. However, this modification eliminated the validity of the use of limit theorems for
bounding collapse loads and created doubts about the uniqueness of the solutions obtained.

14 V. N. Kaliakin
Bibliography

[1] Chen, W.-F. and A. F. Saleeb, Constitutive Equations for Engineering Materials. Vol-
ume 1: Elasticity and Modeling. Amsterdam: Elsevier (1994).

[2] Christian, J. T. and C. S. Desai, “Constitutive Laws for Geologic Media,” Chapter 2
in Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, edited by C. S. Desai and J. T.
Christian, New York: McGraw-Hill (1977).

[3] Coulomb, C. A., “Essai sur une application des regles des maximis et minimis a quelquels
problemes de statique relatifs a larchitecture,” Mem. Acad. Roy. Div. Sav., 5(7): 343387
(1776).

[4] Davis, E. H., “Theories of Plasticity and the Failure of Soil Masses,” in Soil Mechanics:
Selected Topics, edited by I. K. Lee, London: Butterworths, 341-380 (1968).

[5] Desai, C. S. and H. J. Siriwardane, Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials with
Emphasis on Geologic Materials. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall (1984).

[6] Drucker, D. C., “Limit Analysis of Two- and Three-Dimensional Soil Mechanics Prob-
lems,” Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 1: 217-226 (1953).

[7] Drucker, D. C. and W. Prager, “Soil Mechanics and Plastic Analysis or Limit Design,”
Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 10: 157-165 (1952).

[8] Drucker, D. C., R. E. Gibson, and D. J. Henkel, “Soil Mechanics and Work-Hardening
Theories of Plasticity,” Transactions of ASCE, 122: 338-346 (1957).

[9] Hvorslev, M. J., “Über die Festigkeitseigenschaften gestorter bindiger Boden” (“On the
Physical Properties of Remoulded Cohesive Soils”), Ingeniorvidenskabelige Skrifter, A.
45: 159 pages (1937).

[10] Mohr, O., “Über die Darstellung des Spannungszustandes und des Deformationszus-
tandes eines Körperelementes,” Zivilingenieur, 113 (1882).

[11] Nayak, G. C. and O. C. Zienkiewicz, “Convenient Form of Stress Invariants for Plastic-
ity,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 98(ST4): 949-953 (1972).

[12] Rendulic, L., “Ein Grundgestz der Tonmechanik und sein experimenteller Beweis,” (“A
Fundamental Law of Clay Mechanics and its Experimental Verification”), Bauingenieur,
18: 459-467 (1937).

15
 University of Delaware
Course Notes Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

[13] Zienkiewicz, O. C. and G. N. Pande, “Some Useful Forms of Isotropic Yield Surfaces
for Soil and Rock Mechanics,” Chapter 5 in Finite Elements in Geomechanics, edited by
G. Gudehus. London: Wiley-Interscience: 179-190 (1977).

[14] Zienkiewicz, O. C., A. H. C. Chan, M. Pastor, B. A. Schrefler, and T. Shiomi, Com-

putational Geomechanics, with Special Emphasis to Earthquake Engineering, Chichester:
John Wiley and Sons (1999).

16 V. N. Kaliakin