See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237196381

A note on the Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker–Prager strength criteria

Article  in  Mechanics Research Communications · June 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.mechrescom.2011.04.001

CITATIONS READS

89 4,687

1 author:

Hua Jiang
Texas A&M University
20 PUBLICATIONS   506 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research on strength criterion and constitutive model for rocks under polyaxial compression View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hua Jiang on 12 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mechanics Research Communications 38 (2011) 309–314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanics Research Communications

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

A note on the Mohr–Coulomb and Drucker–Prager strength criteria

Hua Jiang ∗ , Yongli Xie
Key Laboratory for Bridge and Tunnel of Shaanxi Province, Chang’an University, Xi’an, PR China

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

Article history: This paper presents different expressions of the Mohr–Coulomb (M–C) criterion as well as the interrela-
Received 18 December 2010 tionships between them, which lays a foundation for the definition of the equivalent M–C friction angle
Received in revised form 16 March 2011 ϕmc . The characteristics of four types of Drucker–Prager cones matched with the M–C surface are com-
Accepted 2 April 2011
pared as the friction angle ϕ varies from 0◦ to 90◦ . The minimum and maximum value of ϕ for them is given
Available online 8 April 2011
and the influence of the intermediate principal stress  2 to the major principal stress  1 is demonstrated
using their ϕmc .
Keywords:
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Mohr–Coulomb
Drucker–Prager
Friction angle
Failure surface

1. Introduction
The Mohr–Coulomb (M–C) criterion is one of the most
commonly used strength theories in geotechnical engineering.
However, two disadvantages of the M–C criterion limit its wider
application. The first one is that the major principal stress  1 is
tion angle of M–C surface that would pass through the particular
point under consideration (Griffiths, 1990). Griffiths presented
the deduction of ϕmc for several strength criteria for cohesion-
less materials, including three types of Drucker–Pragers (D–P)
cones, the Matsuoka–Nakai surface, and the Lade-Duncan surface.
Recently, Griffiths and Huang (2009) proposed ϕmc  for the extended

independent of the intermediate principal stress  2 for the M–C
criterion, which leads to underestimate the yield strength of mate-
rial and disagrees with the test results reflecting the influence of
 2 to the strength of material in many cases (Mogi, 1971; Al-Ajmi
and Zimmerman, 2005; Colmenares and Zoback, 2002). The sec-
ond one is the trace of the yield surface on deviatoric plane is
an irregular hexagon which impairs the convergence in flow the-
ory due to the six sharp corners. According to these shortcomings,
some more realistic criteria have been formulated: the Mogi cri-
terion (Mogi, 1971), the Twin-Shear Unified criterion (Mao-Hong,
2002; Mao-Hong et al., 2002, 2006), the SMP criterion (Matsuoka,
1974, 1976; Matsuoka et al., 1990), and the Zienkiewicz–Pande cri-
terion (Zienkiewicz and Pande, 1977) have been proposed to take
equal account of all three principal stresses; the Drucker–Prager
(Drucker, 1951), Williams–Warnke (William and Warnke, 1975),
Gudehus–Argyris (Lin and Bazant, 1986; Bardet, 1990) and Rubin
smooth function (Rubin, 1991) have been used as smooth alterna-
tives to the M–C.
Besides, the M–C criterion provides a unify way to compare
different criteria by expressing their failure surfaces in terms of
the equivalent M–C friction angle ϕmc . ϕmc is defined as the fric-
Matsuoka–Nakai criterion for cohesive material, and the author
introduced a new method to calculate ϕmc  for cohesive and fric-
tional material. In this paper, firstly different expressions of the
M–C criterion are shown to give a complete definition of ϕmc . Then
the characteristics of four D–P criteria fitted to the M–C criterion
are shown in detail. Finally, the general expressions for singularity
problems are obtained and the influence of  2 to  1 is demonstrated
using their ϕmc .
2. The Mohr–Coulomb strength criterion
Coulomb (1776) proposed one of the most important failure
criteria, the shear strength  on a specific plane is expressed as
|| = c + n tan ϕ (1)
where two material constants c and ϕ are named cohesion strength
and friction angle, respectively.
Mohr (1900) stated that the normal and shear stresses in the
failure plane was governed by
|| = f (n ) (2)

The failure envelope f( n ) is an experimentally determined

∗ Tel.: +86 1389288269. function and the failure occurs when the Mohr’s circle is just tan-
E-mail address: huajiang2006@hotmail.com (H. Jiang). gent to the failure envelope.

0093-6413/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mechrescom.2011.04.001
310 H. Jiang, Y. Xie / Mechanics Research Communications 38 (2011) 309–314

where  m is the hydrostatic stress defined as  m =  ii /3; J2 is the

second invariant of deviator stress tensor defined as J2 = Sij Sij /2 and
the deviator stress tensor Sij can be linked to the stress tensor  ij
by Sij =  ij −  ii ıij /3;  is the lode angel given by
√
3 3 J3 1
sin 3 = − with J3 = Sij Sjk Ski (−30◦ ≤  ≤ 30◦ ) (10)
2(J )3/2 3
2

Eq. (9) presents a linear relationship exists between  m and J2
 of ϕ.
for a given value
By setting J2 = 0, the bonding strength  0 of the M–C criterion
Fig. 1. The M–C criterion on  n – plane. is found as
c cos ϕ
0 = (11)
The linear form of Mohr’s equation is equivalent to Coulomb’s sin ϕ
equation, so Eq. (1) is called the M–C criterion (Fig. 1), where both
If taking  0 as the origin of the new principal stress space, the
friction and cohesion are included.
yield function of the M–C criterion can be written in the following
If tensile positive of stress is taken, Eq. (1) can be written as
two forms
 = c − n tan ϕ (3) 1 − 3 1 − 3
sin ϕ = − =− (12a)
Expressing the shear and normal stresses in terms of principal 1 + 3 1 + 3 − 2c ctgϕ
stresses as
(1 − 3 )2
(1 − 3 ) cos ϕ or =4 (12b)
= (4) (1 − c ctgϕ)(3 − c ctgϕ)
2
(1 + 3 ) (1 − 3 ) sin ϕ where the transformed principal stresses in the new space are
n = + (5) defined by
2 2
The yield function of the M–C criterion is obtained as  i = i − 0 (i = 1, 2 and 3) (13)
1 − sin ϕ 2c As shown in the deductions above, we could find that the yield
1 − 3 = cos ϕ (6)
1 + sin ϕ 1 + sin ϕ function can be written in form of Eqs. (3), (6), (7), (9) or (12).
Eq. (6) can be expressed in an equal form as Accordingly there are various of expressions for ϕmc , where ϕmc

1
 ϕ
 2c
 ϕ
 for cohesive and frictional materials has been calculated by Eq. (9)
= tan2 45◦ − + tan 45◦ − (7a) together with Eq. (12a) Jiang and Wang (2011).
3 2 3 2
Fig. 2a shows that both the ratio of  0 / c and  0 / t decrease as ϕ
Or in an alternative form as varies from 0◦ to 90◦ , and  0 equals to  t only in the case of ϕ = 90◦ .
1 t t For geomaterials, since  0 is smaller than  c , the ratio  0 / c < 1 is
=− + (7b)
3 c 3 expected, which requires ϕ > arsin (1/3) = 19.4◦ .
where  t ,  c are the uniaxial tensile strength and uniaxial com- Setting  = − 30◦ , 0 and 30◦ in Eq. (9) respectively, the radius of
pressive strength predicted by the M–C criterion with the following tensile, shear and compressive meridians can be obtained as
√
expressions  2 6c cos ϕ − m sin ϕ
2c cos ϕ ϕ
  t = 2J2 = (14a)
3 + sin ϕ
t = = 2c tan 45◦ − (8a)
1 + sin ϕ 2  √
  s = 2J2 = 2(c cos ϕ − m sin ϕ) (14b)
2c cos ϕ ϕ
c = − = −2c tan 45◦ + √
1 − sin ϕ 2
(8b)  2 6(c cos ϕ − m sin ϕ)
 c = 2J2 = (14c)
3 − sin ϕ
Using  m , J2 and , the yield function of the M–C criterion
could be expressed in terms of stress invariants as Then the tensile and compressive meridian radius ratio k is
  1

t 3 − sin ϕ
m sin ϕ + J2 cos  − √ sin  sin ϕ − c cos ϕ = 0 (9) k= = (15)
3 c 3 + sin ϕ

Fig. 2. (a) The bonding and uniaxial compression strength ratio, the bonding and uniaxial tensile strength ratio vs internal friction angle of the M–C criterion. (b) The tensile
and compression meridian radius ratio, the uniaxial tensile and compression strength ratio vs internal friction angle of the M–C criterion.
 H. Jiang, Y. Xie / Mechanics Research Communications 38 (2011) 309–314 311

When the D–P surface is matched with the M–C surface, the
value of ˛ and k is given by
− sin ϕ
˛= √ (22a)
cos  − (1/ 3) sin  sin ϕ

c cos 
k= √ (22b)
cos  − (1/ 3) sin  sin ϕ

Hence, the ratio  0 / t and  0 / c could be written as

√
0 ˛+ 3 1 cos  sin  1
= = √ − + (23a)
t 3˛ 3 sin ϕ 3 3
√
0 3−˛ 1 cos  sin  1
= = √ − − (23b)
c 3˛ 3 sin ϕ 3 3

Fig. 4 shows four typical ways for D–P cone to approximate the
Fig. 3. The yield surface of the M–C criterion in principal stress space. M–C hexagonal surface. If two surfaces agree along compressive
meridian as  = 30◦ , this D–P cone represents an outer bound cone
of the M–C hexagonal pyramid (Chen, 1982) and is named as D–P1
which is a constant for a given value of ϕ and independent in the article. If two surfaces agree along shear meridian as  = 0, the
of  m . cone is named as D–P2. The inner cone of the M–C failure surface
As shown in Fig. 2b, the ratio of t /c is bigger than  t / c at the (Chen, 1982) named D–P3 coincides with the M–C failure surface
same value of ϕ and t /c has a minimum value of 0.5 when ϕ = 90◦ √
at  = − 30◦ while D–P4 is the inscribed one at tan  = − sin ϕ/ 3.
while  t / c = 0 in this condition. The unknown values of ˛, k,  0 / t and  0 / c for four D–P cones are
When the value of  c ,  t and  0 are known, the failure surface in summarized in Table 1, from which the ratio of meridian radius of
principal stress space is an irregular pyramid with  0 on the vertex D–P2, D–P3 and D–P4 with respect to the one of D–P1 denoted by
as shown in Fig. 3. 2 /1 , 3 /1 and 4 /1 are gained as
Besides, when ϕ = 0◦ in Eq. (9), the Tresca criterion (no friction
included) is recovered as 2 k2 ˛2 3 − sin ϕ
= = = √ (24a)
 1 k1 ˛1 2 3
J2 cos  = c (16)
mc = 48.57◦ (24b)
When ϕ = 90◦ in Eq. (9), the Maximum tensile stress crite-
rion/Rankine (no cohesion included) is gained by 4 k4 ˛4 3 − sin ϕ
= = =  (24c)
1 k1 ˛1
2  2 3 + sin2 ϕ
m + √ J2 sin( + 120◦ ) = 0 (17)
3 Fig. 5a shows that the ratio of meridian radius decreases with
the increasing value of ϕ, the minimum value for 3 /1 and 4 /1
3. The Drucker–Prager strength criterion is 0.5 while 0.577 for 2 /1 , and the meridian radius of D–P1 equals
√
to that of D–P2 when ϕ = arsin (3 − 2 3) = 27.6◦ .
The D–P (1952) strength criterion, called the Extended Von Fig. 5b shows the value of ␣ increases with the increasing value
Mises criterion as well, has been widely used in geotechnical engi- of ϕ and the maxim value for D–P3 and D–P4 is 0.866 while 1.0 for
neering to predict failure strength and be employed for plastic D–P1 and 1.732 for D–P2, respectively when ϕ = 90◦ .
potential in continuum damage mechanic model (Lubliner et al., Fig. 5c demonstrates that the ratio of  t / 0 of D–P3 and D–P4 is
1989; Lee and Fenves, 1998; Wu et al., 2006; Shao et al., 2009; very close, which reaches the maxim value 1 while those of D–P1
Voyiadjis et al., 2008). The yield function for the D–P criterion is and D–P2 reach 1.5 and 1.1, respectively when ϕ = 90◦ .
expressed by Fig. 5d presents the influence of ϕ to the ratio of  0 / c , which
 has the minimum value of 0, 0.24, 0.33 and 0.33 for D–P1, D–P2,
˛m + J2 + k = 0 (18)
D–P3 and D–P4, respectively when ϕ = 90◦ .
where ˛ and k are two material constants. When ˛ and k are If  0 / c < 1 is required for four types of D–P criteria as for the
replaced by  t and  c , the yield function can be written in another M–C criterion,
√ we can obtained ϕ > arsin (1/3) = 19.4◦ for D–P1,
ϕ > arsin ( 3/4) ◦ ◦
√ = 25.6 for D–P2, ϕ > arsin (3/7) = 25.4 for D–P3 and
form as
√ c − t  2c t ϕ > arsin (1/ 5) = 26.5◦ for D–P4, which are summarized in Table 1.
3 m + J2 − √ =0 (19)
c + t 3(c + t )
4. The influence of the intermediate principal stress to the
where
major principal stress of D–P criterion
−3k
t = √ (20a)
˛+ 3 In the M–C criterion, the predicted failure strength is indepen-
3k dent of the intermediate principal stress  2 , which disagrees with
c = √ (20b) the fact that the biaxial compressive strength is always higher than
˛− 3
the uniaxial compressive strength for geomaterials. However, the
Besides, the ratio  t / c as well as  0 can be obtained as D–P criterion take into account the influence of  2 , the singularity
k problem and  1 vs  2 relationships for four types of D–P cones are
0 = − (21a) shown in this part using their ϕmc , defined as
˛
√ √
t 3−˛ 3˛ cos 
= √ (21b) ϕmc = arcsin √ (25)
c 3+˛ ˛ sin  − 3
312 H. Jiang, Y. Xie / Mechanics Research Communications 38 (2011) 309–314

Fig. 4. The deviatoric plane of four D–P strength criteria.

Table 1
The parameters of four D–P criteria related to the M–C criterion.

Type ˛ k  0 / t  0 / c ϕmin ϕmax

√ √
2 3 sin ϕ 2 3 c cos ϕ ◦
D–P1 − 3−sin ϕ 3−sin ϕ
1
2 sin ϕ
+ 1
6
1
2 sin ϕ
− 1
2
19.4 36.87◦
◦
D–P2 −sin ϕ c cos ϕ √ 1 + 1 √1 1
− 1
25.6 60◦
3 sin ϕ 3 3 sin ϕ 3
√ √
−2 3 sin ϕ 2 3c cos ϕ
D–P3 3+sin ϕ 3+sin ϕ
1
2 sin ϕ
+ 1
2
1
2 sin ϕ
− 1
6
25.4◦ 90◦
√ √
−     
3 sin ϕ 3 c cos ϕ sin ϕ sin ϕ ◦
D–P4 1
+ + 1
3
1
+ − 1
3
26.5 90◦
3+sin2 ϕ 3+sin2 ϕ sin ϕ 3+sin2 ϕ 3 3+sin2 ϕ sin ϕ 3+sin2 ϕ 3 3+sin2 ϕ

 √
J2 3 sin ϕ Fig. 6b shows ϕmc vs  when ϕ = 30◦ for four types of D–P criteria,
where ˛ = = √ and c = 0 is assumed.(26) among which D–P1 denoting for an outer bound cone gives the
m sin  sin ϕ − 3 cos 
largest value of ϕmc for a given value of  and gives ϕmc = 48.57◦
√ √ and ϕmc = 30◦ in TE and TC, respectively. For D–P3 representing an
Besides, ( 3˛ cos )/(˛ sin  − 3) ≤ 1 is required in order to
obtain ϕmc corresponding to the field − 30◦ ≤ ≤ 30◦ , which results inner cone, ϕmc changes from 30◦ to 22◦ as  varies from −30◦ to
in 30◦ .
√  In order to show the influence of  2 to  1 , a compression-
31 positive sign is taken in the following part. Based on the yield
 ≥ arcsin + 60◦ (27)
2 ˛ function of the M–C criterion given by Eq. (6) with c = 0 assumed,
the value of  1 / 3 is obtained as
Substituting the expression of ˛ of D–P1 listed in Table 1 into
1 1 + sin ϕmc
Eq. (27) gives the final expression for the minimum  as = (29)
3 1 − sin ϕmc
 sin ϕ − 3 
 = arcsin + 60◦ (28) The relationship between  2 / 3 and  1 / 3 is written as
4 sin ϕ
2
 
1
−1=b −1 (30)
When  = − 30◦ for a triaxial extension (TE) in Eq. (28), 3 3
ϕ = arcsin(0.6) = 36.87◦ is obtained, which is corresponding to the
where b is a measurement of the intermediate effective principal
well-known singularity of this surface (Bishop, 1966; Griffiths,
stress with the following definition
1990). However, when ϕ > 36.87◦ , min > − 30◦ is obtained from Eq. √
(28), which means ϕmc does not exist in the range −30◦ ≤  < min 2 − 3 3 tan  + 1
b= = (31a)
(seeing Fig. 6a when ϕ = 40◦ for D–P1 cone). Therefore, in order 1 − 3 2
to have definitions of ϕmc in the whole range − 30◦ ≤ < 30◦ , the
1 22 − 1 − 3
maximum friction angle ϕ should be 36.87◦ for D–P1 cone.  = a tan √ (31b)
3 1 − 3
In the same way, when  = − 30◦ , ϕ = 60◦ is obtained for D–P2
and ϕ = 90◦ for D–P3 and D–P4, which means ϕmc always exists For cohesive material where c = / 0,  i is replaced by  i according
in the whole range. Furthermore, in a triaxial compression (TC), to Eq. (13).
ϕmc = arcsin(0.6) = 36.87◦ is derived from Eq. (25) for the latter three In Fig. 7, as  2 increases from the minimum value of  2 =  3
D–P cones, which could also be deduced numerically in Fig. 6a while to the maximum value of  2 =  1 under constant  3 ,  1 firstly
in TE, an infinite shear strength is obtained according to Eq. (3) for increases to a peak value corresponding to the maximum ϕmc in
ϕmc = 90◦ . Fig. 6b, and then decreases to ending strength, which is a little

Fig. 5. (a) The ratio of meridian radius vs internal friction angle. (b) Parameter ˛ of D–P criterion vs parameter internal friction angle. (c) The ratio of the uniaxial tensile
strength to the bonding strength v s internal friction angle. (d) The ratio of the bonding strength to uniaxial compression strength vs internal friction angle.
 H. Jiang, Y. Xie / Mechanics Research Communications 38 (2011) 309–314
Fig. 6. (a) ϕmc vs  when ϕ = 36.87◦ , 40◦ , 60◦ and 90◦ . (b) ϕmc vs  for four D–P criteria when ϕ = 30◦ .
Fig. 7.  2 / 3 vs  1 / 3 for four D–P criteria when ϕ = 30◦ .
smaller than the maximum value. Besides, the influence of  2 to
 1 for D–P1 cone is larger than that for the other three D–P cones.
In addition, four D–P cones have the same characteristic that
they may show to be good models in some cases and unrealis-
tic ones in others due to the circular shape on their deviatoric
stress plane. So the circular deviatoric shape can be replaced by
other forms, such as the Mogi–Coulomb criterion, which has a
curved shape on the deviatoric stress plane and coincides with the
D–P1 cone in TC state, provides a much better fit to failure data
on rocks than does the D–P1 (Al-Ajmi and Zimmerman, 2006). A
linear combination of triangular and circular shape on the
 devia-
toric plane, whose yield function is ˛m + (ˇ cos  + ) J2 + k =
0 where ˇ +  = 1, can be also seen as a modification of the D–P
criterion.
5. Conclusion
Different expressions of the M–C criterion as well as their
interrelationships are summarized in the article, and ϕmin for this
criterion is presented to ensure that  0 is smaller than  c . Then four
D–P cones matched with the M–C surface are compared and their
ϕmin is proposed as well.
General expressions for singularity problems of four D–P cones
are given according to the definitions of their ϕmc , and ϕmax for
313
those D–P cones is shown further. In addition, the influence of  2
to  1 of those criteria is demonstrated using their ϕmc .
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by Western Transportation Technol-
ogy Funds of China, Grant No. 200731800038.
References
Al-Ajmi, A.M., Zimmerman, R.W., 2005. Relation between the Mogi and the Coulomb
failure criteria. Int. J. Rock Mech. Miner. Sci. 42 (3), 431–439.
Al-Ajmi, A.M., Zimmerman, R.W., 2006. Stability analysis of vertical boreholes
using the Mogi–Coulomb failure criterion. Int. J. Rock Mech. Miner. Sci. 43,
1200–1211.
Bardet, J.P., 1990. Lode dependences for isotropic pressure-sensitive elasto-plastic
materials. Trans. ASME 57 (9), 498–506.
Bishop, A.W., 1966. The strength of soils as engineering materials. Géotechnique 16
(2), 91–130.
Colmenares, L.B., Zoback, M.D., 2002. A statistical evaluation of intact rock failure
criteria constrained by polyaxial test data for five different rocks. Int. J. Rock
Mech. Miner. Sci. 39 (6), 695–729.
Drucker, D.C., 1951. A more fundamental approach to plastic-stress strain relations.
In: Proceedings 1st U.S. National Congress on Applied Mechanics, ASME ,. New
York, pp. 487–491.
Griffiths, D.V., 1990. Failure criteria interpretation based on Mohr–Coulomb friction.
J. Geotech. Eng. 116 (6), 986–999.
Griffiths, D.V., Huang, J.S., 2009. Observations on the extended Matsuoka–Nakai
failure criterion. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 33 (17),
1189–1905.
Jiang, H., Wang, X., 2011. A new method to calculate the equivalent Mohr–Coulomb
friction angle for cohesive and frictional materials. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth.
Geomech. 35 (5), 630–638.
Lee, J., Fenves, G.L., 1998. A plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete
structures. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 124 (8), 892–900.
Lin, F.B., Bazant, Z.P., 1986. Convexity of smooth yield surface of frictional material.
J. Eng. Mech. ASCE 112 (11), 1259–1262.
Lubliner, J., Oliver, J., Oller, S., Onate, E., 1989. A plastic-damage model for concrete.
Int. J. Solids Struct. 25 (3), 299–326.
Mogi, K., 1971. Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial compression. J. Geo-
phys. Res. 76 (5), 1255–1269.
Mao-Hong, Y., 2002. Unified Strength Theory and its Applications. Springer, Heidel-
berg/Berlin.
Mao-Hong, Y., Yue-Wen, Z., Jian, Z., Mitsutoshi, Y., 2002. A unified strength criterion
for rock material. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 39 (8), 975–989.
Mao-Hong, Y., Guo-Wei, M., Hong-Fu, Q., Yong-Qiang, Z., 2006. Generalized Plastic-
ity. Springer, Heidelberg/Berlin.
Matsuoka, H., 1974. Stress–strain relationships of sands based on the mobilized
plane. Soils Found. 14 (2), 47–61.
Matsuoka, H., 1976. On the significance of the spatial mobilized plane. Soils Found.
16 (1), 91–100.
Matsuoka, H., Hoshikawa, T., Ueno, K.A., 1990. general failure criterion and
stress–strain relation for granular materials to metals. Soils Found. 26 (2),
119–127.
Mohr, O., 1900. Welche Umstande bedingen die Elastizitatsgrenze und den
Bruch eines Materials? Zeitschrift des Vereins Deutscher Ingenieure Band 44,
1524–1530.
314 H. Jiang, Y. Xie / Mechanics Research Communications 38 (2011) 309–314
Simple, Rubin.M.B., 1991. Convenient isotropic failure surface. J. Eng. Mech. ASCE
117 (2), 348–369.
Chen, W.F., 1982. Plasticity in Reinforced Concrete. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Shao, C., Li, J., Wu, Y., 2009. Pseudo-potential of elastoplastic damage constitutive
model and its application. Int. J. Solids Struct. 46 (21), 3894–3901.
William, K.J., Warnke, E.P., 1975. Constitutive Model for the Triaxial Behavior of
Concrete International Association for Bridge and Structure Engineering Pro-
ceedings , Bergamo, pp. 1–30.
View publication stats
Wu, J.Y., Li, J., Faria, R., 2006. An energy release rate-based plastic-damage model for
concrete. Int. J. Solids Struct. 43 (3–4), 583–612.
Voyiadjis, G.Z., Taqieddin, Z.N., Kattan, P.I., 2008. Anisotropic damage-plasticity
model for concrete. Int. J. Plast. 24, 1946–1965.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Pande, G.N., 1977. Some useful forms of isotropic yield surfaces for
soil and rock mechanics. In: Gudehus, G. (Ed.), Finite Elements in Gemechanics.
Wiley, New York.