Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering.

2009, 1 (1): 71–88

Basic characteristics and development of yield criteria for geomaterials

Maohong Yu1*, Guiyun Xia1, 2, Vladimir A Kolupaev3
1
Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710049, China
2
Changsha University of Science and Technology, Changsha, 410076, China
3
DKI German Institute for Polymers, Darmstadt, D-64289, Germany
Received 16 December 2008; received in revised form 19 June 2009; accepted 21 June 2009

Abstract: The yield criteria of geomaterials play a crucial role in studying and designing the strength of materials and structures.
The basic characteristics of yield criteria for geomaterials need to be studied under the framework of continuum mechanics.
These characteristics include the effects of strength difference (SD) of materials in tension and compression, normal stress,
intermediate principal stress, intermediate principal shear stress, hydrostatic stress, twin-shear stresses, and the convexity of yield
surface. Most of the proposed yield criteria possess only one or some of these basic characteristics. For example, the Tresca yield
criterion considers only single-shear stress effect, and ignores the effect of SD, normal stress, intermediate principal stress,
intermediate principal shear stress, hydrostatic stress, and twin-shear stresses. The Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion accounts for the
effect of SD, normal stress, single-shear stress and hydrostatic stress, but disregards the effect of intermediate principal stress,
intermediate principal shear stress, and twin-shear stresses. The basic characteristics remain to be fully addressed in the
development of yield criterion. In this paper, we propose a new yield criterion with three features, that is, newly developed,
better than existing criteria and ready for application. It is shown that the proposed criterion performs better than the existing
ones and is ready for application. The development of mechanical models for various yield criteria and the applications of the
unified strength theory to engineering are also summarized. According to a new tetragonal mechanical model, a tension-cut
condition is added to the unified strength theory. The unified strength theory is extended to the tension-tension region.
Key words: yield criteria; failure criteria; unified strength theory; tension cut-off; orthogonal octahedral element; geomaterial;
beauty of a strength theory

1 Introduction shown that although the crushed rock particles are

randomly distributed, the simple linear response of the
 sample can still be observed.
Geomaterials are the engineering materials used in
civil engineering. Although commonly used, geomaterials
1
are very complex. It is very difficult to describe their
behaviours, and even more complicated to develop
constitutive models for such materials. Engineers 2=3
frequently assume that geomaterials are homogeneous
140 cm×
and isotropic media. However, most geomaterials are 140 cm×
neither homogeneous nor isotropic. Despite these factors, 140 cm
3
some simple mechanical behaviours of geomaterials can
(a) Triaxial test apparatus (b) 3D stress state
still be observed in both uniaxial and polyaxial stress states. Fig.1 Triaxial test apparatus and a 3D stress state of crushed stone.
A triaxial test was carried out on crushed stone by
Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute [1]. The 1
triaxial testing setup and a three-dimensional (3D)
stress state of a sample of crushed rock are shown in
Figs.1(a) and (b), respectively. The relations between 1
 1 and  3 ,  1   3 and  1   3 , and  1   3 and 1
 3 are shown in Figs.2, 3, and 4, respectively. It is 
3 3
Doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1235.2009.00071
1
*Corresponding author. Tel: +86-29-82669424;
E-mail: mhyu@mail.xjtu.edu.cn 3
Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (59924033) Fig.2 Relation between  1 and  3 .
72 Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88

1   3 The relations between shear stress and normal stress

for glass balls, Toyoura sand-soil and crushed sand are
shown in Fig.7 [5, 6]. Although the strengths of different
materials are different, the linear relation is observed.
Similar results were obtained by other researchers.
3

1   3

f (kPa)
Fig.3 Relation between  1   3 and  1   3 .
e0 = 0.62
1   3  = 25°

 (kPa)
(a) Glass ball
2

e0 = 0.71

f (kPa)
 = 40°

o 3
Fig.4 Relation between  1   3 and  3 .
 (kPa)
A three-dimensional, atom-based model with the (b) Toyoura sand-soil
plastic yield criterion of metallic glass is developed by
Schuh et al. [2, 3]. The simulation results are given in
e0 = 0.82
Fig.5, showing that the material strength clearly varies  = 46°
f (kPa)

with different stresses (Fig.5(b)). It is also noted that

the strength locus lies between the two bounds of
convex region.

 (kPa)
(c) Crushed sand
fyy (GPa)

Fig.7 Test results by using new shear apparatus and other

improved triaxial experiments [5, 6].

Strength theories deal with the yield or failure of

materials in the frame of continuum mechanics. Hundreds
fxx (GPa) of yield criteria have been proposed or studied in the
(a) 3D atomic-level simulation (b) Yield surface of metallic glass
past [7–9]. However, the study of the basic
Fig.5 Simulation of metallic glass [2, 3].
characteristics of yield criteria for geomaterials under
The relations between shear strength  and normal stress complex stress is still necessary.
 of various fractured rocks are shown in Fig.6 [4], in
which dr is connectivity rate of discontinuity.
2 Basic characteristics of failure criteria
for geomaterials under complex stress

According to experimental data [1–6, 10–28], the

basic characteristics of failure criteria for geomaterials
 (MPa)

Fitting lines are summarized as follows.

dr = 0.00
dr = 0.20 2.1 Effect of SD
dr = 0.40
dr = 0.60 The strength of geomaterials is greater under compression
dr = 0.80
dr = 1.00 than that under tension. The compressive strength c is
greater than tensile strength t. The difference between
 (MPa)
Fig.6 Relations between  and  of cracked rocks. the compressive and the tensile strengths is called the
Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88 73

effect of SD. Therefore, the single-parameter failure

criteria such as the Tresca criterion and Huber-von Mises
criterion with    t /  c  1 are not suitable for

 (MPa)
geomaterials. The two-parameter failure criteria have
to be used for geomaterials to include the effect of SD.
2.2 Effect of normal stress
It is worthy to note that the strength of a geomaterial
usually depends on shear stresses. Hence many efforts
 (MPa)
are devoted to the research on the shear strengths of (a) Low pressure
geomaterials and the relation between shear and
normal stresses. The values of shear stress  plotted
against normal stress  obtained by Jaeger and Cook
[13] for marble (A) and Trachyte (B) are shown in

 (MPa)
Fig.8, where  is the coefficients of friction [13].
Relation between shear stress and normal stress of
geomaterial is shown in Fig.9 [5].

A ( = 0.53)
A ( = 0.48)
 (MPa)
 (MPa)

B ( = 0.32) (b) Middle pressure

B ( = 0.25)
 (MPa)

 (MPa)
Fig.8 Relation between shear strength and normal stress
obtained by Jaeger and Cook [13].
 (MPa)
(c) High pressure
 = 0.007 1 + 0.258 Fig.10 Relations between shear stress and normal stress [14].

The general behaviour between shear strength 

 (MPa)

and normal stress  was considered as linear and was

expressed as [5, 6, 13]
  c   tan  (1)
The effects of normal stress on shear strength can be
extended to effects on other shear stresses. According
 (MPa)
Fig.9 Relation between shear stress and normal stress for a to the experimental data of Tang [26], the relation
rock-soil [5]. between twin-shear stresses and normal stresses at the
shear sections  13   12  f ( 12   13 ) can be obtained,
Byerlee (1978) collected a large number of as shown in Fig.11, where  tw   13   12 ,  tw 
experimental results of this type and divided them into  13   12 .
three situations: low pressure, corresponding to the
stress encountered in most civil engineering applications;  = 40°
regular pressure, with in-situ stress magnitude about c=0
tw (MPa)

100 MPa at 300 m in depth in underground engineering;

and high pressure, for high stress situations at greater
depth in earthcrust in geophysical applications. He
plotted the normal stress-shear stress behaviours for tw (MPa)
these three situations, as shown in Fig.10 [14]. (a) Medium sand
74 Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88

 = 41°
c=0

tw (MPa)

 (102 kPa)
(b)
tw (MPa) Fig.13 Relations between twin-shear strength and hydrostatic
(b) Compacted sand pressure [29, 30].

Fig.11 Relation between twin-shear strength and relevant normal
stresses [26].
2.3 Effect of hydrostatic stresses
Hydrostatic stresses, or mean stress m = (1+2+3)/3,
has a great influence on the strength of geomaterials.
Many studies have been devoted to the effect of
hydrostatic stress [5–14]. The relation between the
limit stress circle and the confining pressure is shown
in Fig.12 [5, 6]. The effect of the hydrostatic stress is
similar to that of normal stress.
2.4 Effect of the intermediate principal stress
The effect of the intermediate principal stress in rock
is a very important issue in both theory and practice.
The results of experiments obtained by Mogi [23] at
Tokyo University are shown in Fig.14. It can be seen
that the strength of rock increases quickly as the
intermediate principal stress increases. However, if the
intermediate principal stress reaches a certain value, the
strength of rock decreases gradually.

3 = 0.55 3 = 0.6
Dmax= 75 mm

Dmax= 50.8 mm

3 = 0.25 2 = 1 2 = 3
f (kPa)

1 (10 MPa)

1 (10 MPa)
3 = 0.2

2 = 1
 (kPa)
(a)


2 (10 MPa) 2 (10 MPa)
(a) Shankou marble (b) Daotian marble
c Fig.14 Relation between strength and 2 [23].

T0 o 3 1  The effects of 2 for sand [15] and for marble [16]
(b) are shown in Figs.15 and 16, respectively.
Fig.12 Test results by using a large triaxial apparatus [5, 6].
The effect of intermediate principal stress can be
The effect of the hydrostatic stress can be extended extended to the effect of the intermediate principal
to twin-shear stresses behaviour by the experimental shear stress. The effect of the intermediate principal shear
results shown in Fig.13 [29, 30], where Ttw
   3
=13+12 ( 2  1 , see Fig.13(a)) and Ttw=13+12
1 
   3
(2  1 , see Fig.13(b)).
1
n = 0.37
n = 0.38
sin

n = 0.39
n = 0.40
n = 0.41
n = 0.40
n = 0.42
n is porosity

 (102 kPa) 23/13

(a) Fig.15 Effect of 2 for sand [15].
Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88 75

3= 27.6 MPa

3= 20.65 MPa

3= 13.79 MPa

(13) (MPa)
1 (MPa)

Ultimate strength (F)

3= 6.89 MPa

3= 3.45 MPa

3= 0 MPa
(2 2   1   2 ) (MPa)
Fig.19 Effect of τ12 of sandstone [20].
2 (MPa)
Fig.16 Effect of 2 for marble [16]. 2.5 Bounds of convex yield criteria
Various yield criteria and failure criteria for geomaterials
stress has not been discussed before. Some experiments, have been proposed in the past. They are situated
however, have shown this effect. The effect of the between some bounds if the convexity requirements for
intermediate principal shear stress for clay and yield criteria are considered. The lower bound is
sand-rock of Silesian were obtained by Ergun [18], provided by the single-shear strength theory (the Mohr-
Ramamurthy et al. [19] and Kwasniewski et al. [20], as Coulomb strength theory) and the single-shear yield
shown in Figs.17, 18 and 19 (23 = (23)/2, 12 = criterion (the Tresca yield criterion), as shown in Fig.20.
(12)/2, 13 = (13)/2). The upper bound is given by the generalized twin-
shear strength theory and the twin-shear yield criterion
or the maximum deviatoric stress criterion, or the shape
change criterion. Other failure criteria are situated between
the two bounds.
Proctor-Barden
, Sutherland-Mesdary
 (°
)

, Lade
Lomize et al.
Ramamurty-Rawat
Al-Ani
, Ergum o
o

23/13
(a) SD materials (b) non-SD materials
Fig.17 Effect of τ23 [18].
Fig.20 Two bounds and region of convex yield loci.

Large amounts of yield criteria were presented,

which are summarized in Refs. [7, 8, 28–56].
The yield loci on deviatoric plane (1, 2, 3
threefold symmetry axes) of these criteria can vary
from the curvilinear loci to circle, or from circle to
curvilinear, as shown in Figs.21 to 31.
 (°
)

1 
1 

o
o

2  3  2  3 

23/13
Fig.18 Effect of 23 [19]. Fig.21 Gudehus-Argyis model. Fig.22 Xin-Liu-Zheng model [27].
 76 Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88

1  1  criterion by Bardet, after the first letter of Lade,

Matsuoka, and Nakai [51]. Krenk criterion [47] is
shown in Fig.32.
s3
o
o
2  3 
2  3 
o

Fig.23 Shi-Yang model [49]. Fig.24 Twin-shear smooth model [52]. s1 s2

Figures 25 and 26 are the Matsuoka-Nakai criterion

Fig.31 LMN model [51]. Fig.32 Krenk family [47].
and Lade-Duncan criterion [38], respectively. A 3D
generalized criterion was proposed by Yoshimine in
Most curvilinear criteria, however, cannot vary from
2004, as shown in Fig.27 [56]. A linear combination of
curvilinear loci to the upper bound. As shown in Fig.33, a
the Huber-von Mises criterion and Matsuoka-Nakai
curvilinear unified criterion is discussed by Hu and Yu,
criterion was proposed in 2004 [55]. The yield loci is
which covers only the one third of all convex regions
similar to the Yoshimine generalized criterion, as
[54]. Most regions of this kind of criteria are non-
shown in Figs.27 and 28.
convex, as shown in Fig.33(b).
3 2

1 (a) Convex (b) Non-convex (c) Convex and non-convex

Fig.25 Matsuoka-Nakai model [37]. Fig.26 Lade-Duncan model [38]. Fig.33 Curvilinear unified criterion [54].

The variations of the Yoshimine generalized failure

Fig.27 Yoshimine model [56].
criterion [56] are shown in Figs.34 and 35, in which
  ( s1 / s3 ) 2 ,   ( s2 / s3 ) 2 , s1, s2 and s3 are directional
cosine components, R is friction coefficient, k and C are
material parameters. They can match many experimental
results, which will be shown in next section.
Fig.28 Yao-Lu model [55].

Based on the Ehlers criterion [46], an adjusting C=0

k = 0.5
model was proposed by Wunderlich et al. [35], as
shown in Fig.29. The shape of yield loci in deviatoric
plane can be adjusted by some parameters. Maiolino
yield locus [48] is shown in Fig.30. Bardet proposed a
Lode angle-dependent criterion for isotropic SD materials,
which is the combination of the Matsuoka-Nakai
Fig.34 Generalized 3D failure criterion [56].
criterion [37] and the Lade-Duncan criterion [38] (LMN
model, Fig.31). This criterion is referred to as the LMN z
 = 1.0 z
 = 0.75  = 1.25
 = 1.5  = 1.5
 = 0.5  = 1.0
 = 0.25  = 0.8
=0  = 0.6
o C=0
 = 0.4
o =0
LS  0.5  = 0.1
R=0
=1
y x
LS  1 y x
Fig.29 Adjusting model [35]. Fig.30 Maiolino model [48]. Fig.35 Special cases of generalized 3D criterion [56].
Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88 77

3 Experimental results of geomaterials

under complex stress
The development of the strength theory is one of the
basic issues in geomechanics and geotechnical engineering.
At present, the conventional triaxial test is one of the
elementary tests in geomechanics. Based on the
(c) Limit loci of a medium fine sand (n = 0.41).
conventional triaxial test, however, the difference
between different yield criteria can not be identified.
Increasingly, true triaxial, bi-axial and plane-strain
tests or torsion-axial load tests have been performed.
Most of these experimental results are not consistent with
the Mohr-Coulomb strength theory, and the intermediate
principal stress can not be taken into account in the
single-shear theory.
The early researches on the failure criteria for soils (d) Limit loci of a medium fine sand (n = 0.43).
under true triaxial stress states or plane strain states were Fig.37 Experimental results of sand with different porosities [15].
pursued by Shibata and Karube (1965) at Kyoto
University, Wood and Roth (1972) at Cambridge 1 
University, Ko and Scott (1967) at Colorado State
University, Brown and Casbarian (1965), Sutherland and
Mesdary (1969) at the University of Glasgow, Bishop b b
(1971) and Green (1972) at Imperial College. Several
summaries were given in Refs. [7, 8, 50].
It is noted that the experimental data available lie
2  3 
almost between the two bounds. Some results are
illustrated in Figs.36 to 46.
1  1 

b b
Fig.38 Limit loci of clay (Shibata-Karube, 1965).

2  3  2  3 

(a) Loose sand (b) Dense sand

Fig.36 Limit loci for Ottawa fine sand [21, 56].

Fig.39 Limit loci of clay.

(a) Limit loci of a medium fine sand (n = 0.37).

(b) Limit loci of a medium fine sand (n = 0.39). Fig.40 Limit loci of volcanic rock [23].
78 Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88

z/p z

y/p x/p y x

Fig.45 Comparison of Yoshimine criterion with test data [56].

Fig.41 Limit loci of marble [16].

b=1
Undisturbed loess b = 1/2 b=0

Remolding loess
1 (MPa)


3 (M
P a)
Fig.46 Test of sand [22, 56].

Fig.42 Experimental results for loess [27]. The experimental results of loess obtained by
1
Yoshimine at Tokyo Metropolitan University in Japan
are shown in Fig.43, which are close to the unified
strength theory with b=1. It is interesting that these
results can be also matched by the piecewise linear
unified strength theory with different values of parameter
b, as shown in Fig.46. Comparison of Yoshimine
2 3 criterion with test data is shown in Figs.44 and 45.
The applications of yield criteria with emphasis on
Fig.43 Limit loci of limit surface of undisturbed lossess soil the unified strength theory are presented in Refs.
(Yoshimine, 2004). [57–98]. Recently, a series of researches on yield
z criteria are given by Kolupaev et al. [99–105]. A
general model [99, 100] was proposed as follows:
 eq (3b2 I 2  a1  eq I1  a2 I12 )  a3 I13  d3 I1 I 2  c3 I3

b2  a1  a2  a3  1/ 3 d3  2 c3 / 33

o
 eq3 (2)
where I1, I2, I3 are stress tensor invariants; a1, a2, a3, b1,
y
b2, b3, c1, c2, c3, d1, d2, and d3 are parameters;  eq is
x
the equivalent stress.
(a) Equation (2) contains the model:
z/p
A3 I13  D3 I1 I 2  I 3  0 (3)
which includes the Matsuoka-Nakai criterion when
A3  0 , and the Lade-Ducan criterion when D3  0 .
The subject of strength of geomaterials under
complex stress states is complicated for both theoretical
and experimental researches. The experimental verification
of strength theories is of paramount importance. If a
failure criterion, a material model or a strength theory
is proposed, it needs to be verified by independent
y/p x/p
experiments and theoretical analysis. The experimental
(b)
Fig.44 Comparison of Yoshimine criterion with test data [56]. verification of yield criteria for geomaterials shows
Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88 79

that the yield loci are situated between the two convex
bounds.
4 Developments of failure criteria for
geomaterials
New ideas, new models, new methods, new equations,
new criteria and new theories are the results of research
and development. The originality, advantages over the
existing criteria and their availability are the three elements
of research objectives for a new yield criterion.
4.1 Models of yield criteria for geomaterials
Mechanical and mathematical models play important
roles in establishing a new theory and understanding a
presented theory. A mechanical model is an abstraction,
a formation of an idea or ideas that may involve the
subject with special configurations. Mathematical model
may involve relations between continuous functions of
space, time and other variations. Establishing a
mechanical model is a basic step for developing a
yield criterion for geomaterials. Some mechanical
models for establishing yield criteria of geomaterials
are summarized in Table 1. When the stress state is
determined, various models taken from the element
under the action of the same stress are equivalent.

Table 1 The development of element model.

No. Models Provider Introduced criterion
1
Cubic element, or principal stress element, a
1
3 commonly used model
2

Regular isoclinal octahedron model proposed by

2 Huber-von Mises criterion
Ros-Eichinger and Nadai for introducing the
Drucker-Prager criterion
Huber-von Mises criterion in 1926 and 1931

3 Spherical model proposed by Novozhilov for

Huber-von Mises criterion
introducing the Huber-von Mises criterion in 1952

Single-shear model proposed by Yu to explain and Tresca and Mohr-Coulomb criteria. It is clear
4 introduce the Tresca and Mohr-Coulomb criteria that the intermediate principal stress 2 is not
and it is referred as the single-shear criteria in 1988 taken into account in single-shear theory

Twin-shear criterion, the three-shear criterion

5 Multi-shear model, first used by Yu in 1961 for
(Mises criterion) can be also introduced by
proposing the twin-shear criterion [44]
using this model

Dodecahedron model: developed by Yu for Generalized twin-shear criterion, the

6 proposing the generalized twin-shear criterion in three-shear criterion (Huber-von Mises

1985 [40]. The unified strength theory can be also criterion) can be also introduced by using this
introduced by using this model model

Orthogonal octahedral twin-shear model proposed

Twin-shear criterion
7 by Yu to introduce the two equations for the
Unified strength theory
twin-shear strength criterion and the unified
strength theory in 1985 and 1991, respectively

Pentahedron twin-shear model for unified strength The three equations of the unified strength
8 theory proposed by Yu in 2006. A cut-off equation theory can be introduced by using this new
is added to the unified strength theory model

26 polyhedron model proposed by Yu for

introducing the general criterion in 2007. The Single-shear, twin-shear, three-shear and their
9
single-shear, twin-shear and the three-shear criteria combined equations for various criteria
are unified [42]
80 Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88
Model 1 is a cubic element, and is widely used in
mechanics and engineering. Models 2 to 4 are
proposed for well-known yield criterion. Models 5 to
9 are new models for introducing the new criteria and
new strength theory. The three principal stresses state
(model 1) is converted to the three shear stresses and
their three normal stresses imposed on the shear
sections (models 5 to 8).
4.2 Mathematical models for yield criteria of
geomaterials
The model 5, a dodecahedron model, was first used to
introduce a new twin-shear criterion in 1961 [43, 44].
The model 6, a dodecahedron model, was first used to
introduce a new generalized twin-shear criterion in
1985 [40]. Since there are only two independent principal
shear stresses, and the maximum shear stress equals
the sum of other two, i.e. 13 = 13+12, the three shear
stresses state can be converted into the twin-shear
stress state (13, 12, 13, 12) or (13, 23, 13, 23). This
stress state corresponds to the twin-shear model [40,
43, 44].
4.3 Development of new yield criteria for geomaterials
The mathematical modeling of a linear yield criterion
and a nonlinear criterion based on mechanical model 9 in
Table 1 can be given as
a1 13  a2 12  a3 23  a4 13  a5 12  a6 23  a7 oct 
a8 oct  a9 1  a10 2  a11 3  c
a1 13  a2 12  a3 23  a4 13  a5 12  a6 23  a7 oct 
a8 oct  a9 oct 2  a10 oct
2
 a11 1  a12 2  a13 3  c
It is noted that the nonlinear criteria can match the
experimental results, but the linear criterion cannot, as
shown in Fig.47(a). The nonlinear criterion, however, is
difficult to be used for analytical solutions of problems
of geomaterials. The piecewise linear criterion may be
a better choice for the analytical solution for structures.
It also matches the experimental results well, as shown
in Fig.47(b).
o o
(a) (b)
Fig.47 Comparisons of nonlinear and linear criteria for sand.
5 Applications of new yield criteria
for geomaterials
The application of a new constitutive relation is of
great importance for the development of geomechanics
and geological engineering. A series of results can be
obtained by using the Yu unified strength theory (Yu
UST or UST). It is convenient to use the UST by
analytical and numerical methods. The UST has been
implemented into several elastoplastic programs and
applied to engineering problems [28–30, 57–62, 66–98].
The singularities at the corners of single-shear theory,
twin-shear theory and the unified strength theory have
been processed conveniently by using a unified numerical
procedure. A unified elastoplastic program (UEPP) has
been established, which has been applied to some
engineering problems [10, 89–92, 106–108].
The twin-shear strength theory has been implemented
into some finite element programs for solving the
hydropower structure [66], mechanical structure [73],
soil mechanics problems [29, 30, 50], composite materials
[71, 72], and structural analysis of dam [70].
The elasto-visco-plastic finite element analysis of
self-enhanced thick cylinder by using the twin-shear
strength theory was given by Liu et al. [73]. The twin-
shear yield criterion and the twin-shear strength theory
(5) have been implemented into three commercial finite
element codes by Quint Co. [75–77]. The twin-shear
strength theory was implemented into a finite element
(6) code and applied to analyze the stability of the high
slopes of Three Gorges shiplock by Yangtze River
Scientific Research Institute [1].
An application of the generalized model of Yu to
plastics is given by Altenbach and Kolupaev [102].
The applications of the unified strength theory to
unreinforced polymers are described.
A 3D finite element numerical modeling for a large
underground caves and the stability, analysis of
excavation rock mass of the Tai’an Pumped Storage
Hydraulic Plant in Zhejiang Province in China were
performed by Sun et al. [79, 80].
Recently, analyses of textural stress and rock failure
of diversion tunnels by using the twin-shear strength
theory are given by Yang and Zhang [85]. The twin-
shear theory is also used to study the sudden-crack
phenomenon and to simulate the response of
surrounding rock in diversion tunnel [86]. The
adaptive arithmetic of arch dam cracking analysis by
using the twin-shear strength theory is given by Yang
et al. [87]. The difficulty of singularity has been overcome,
and it is easy to be used.
The unified yield criterion and the unified strength
Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88
theory have been implemented and applied to some
plasticity and engineering problems [89–98].
UST is also implemented into the general commercial
codes, such as ABAQUS and AutDYN by Fan and
Qiang in Singapore [60], Zhang et al. at Griffith University,
Australian researchers in the punch of concrete and
dynamic problems [59]. Normal high-velocity impact
concrete slabs were simulated by using the unified
strength theory [60]. The unified strength theory was
implemented into nonlinear FEM by Zhou [96] for
numerical analysis of reinforced concrete under dynamic
load.
UST is used to study the topology optimization of
evolutionary structure by Li et al. [68]. The abstract of
the paper shows that: “Based on the traditional evolu-
tionary structural optimization method and considering
wide applications of the unified strength theory for all
kinds of engineering structures, this paper presents a
bi-directional evolutionary structural topology optimi-
zation method based on the unified strength criterion.
It can be used not only for isotropic materials, but also
for many kinds of anisotropic materials. Finally, some
numerical examples are given, and the results show
that this method has been widely used in topology
optimization design for structures of fragile materials, the
anisotropic material processing and die design fields.”
The three-parameter unified strength theory was
implemented into finite element program and used to
study the structural reliability by Wang et al. [81, 82] at
Sichuan University. It is also used for nonlinear finite
element analysis of reinforced concrete plate and shell at
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore [84]. The
three-parameter and five-parameter unified strength
theories are used for bearing capability of concrete- filled
steel tube component considering effect of interme-
diate principal stress and plastic seismic damage of
concrete structure [78].
UST is also implemented in the finite difference
computation. A new effective three-dimensional finite
difference method (FDM) computer program, FLAC3D
(fast Lagrange analysis of continua in 3-dimension)
was presented. The stability analysis of the high slopes
of the Three Gorges shiplock using FLAC3D was given.
It is a pity, however, that only two failure criteria, the
Mohr-Coulomb criterion and the Drucker-Prager criterion,
were implemented into the original FLAC3D code.
UST and its unified elastoplastic constitutive model are
implemented into FLAC3D by Zhang et al. [93, 94].
The abstract of the paper shows that: “The unified
strength theory is a new theory system which can
almost describe the strength characters of most
geomaterials and has been applied widely. And FLAC3D
is an excellent geotechnical program. If the former can be
81
integrated in the later, many complex problems in
engineering will be settled well. So according to this
problem, the numerical scheme of elastoplastic unified
constitutive model in FLAC3D was studied. And the
numerical format of the elastoplastic constitutive model
based on the unified strength theory was derived.” The
merits of the unified strength theory combined with
the FLAC3D program can be clearly shown in
geotechnical engineering [94].
UST is also implemented into the FLAC3D at Univer-
sity of Science and Technology Beijing for stability
analysis of large scale underground caverns [69], and
the stability and protections of underground caves
group of Huanren power plant are calculated. The
excavation, the spread of plastic region around the
cave group and the distribution, and the displacement
change situation are obtained by Li. The effects of
irregular surface, in-situ stress field’s distribution and
different constitutive relations on stability have been
studied [69].
The seismic stability analysis of rockfill dams based
on unified strength theory is conducted by Lin and Liu
in 2008 [67]. The results show that the strength theory
has significant influences on seismic stability analysis.
UST has also been used with the limit equilibrium
method by Yangtze River Scientific Research Institute
for the seismic stability and permanent displacement
of joint rock slope [97]. The analytical formulae and
practical example in expressway of critical filling
height of roadbed based on the unified strength theory
are given by Tong and Guo in 2007 [88]. The
comparison shows that the result obtained the unified
strength theory with the parameter b=1 closes to the
site test result [88].
The bearing capacity of a footing can be given
according to Fig.48. The convenient solution is a
special case of the unified solution. The unified
solution of bearing capacity of a trapezoid structure
with unified strength theory parameter b is obtained as
illustrated in Fig.49.
t
45 
2
(a) Slip lines of strip footing.
(MPa)
(b) Relation between bearing capacity and b.
Fig.48 Bearing capacity of footing foundations.
82 Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88

2ξ

6 New model for the unified strength

theory
It is clear that there are three principal shear stresses,
13, 12 and 23, in the three-dimensional principal stress
space defined by three axes of 1, 2 and 3. However,
only two principal shear stresses are independent
(a) Slip field of a trapezoid structure.
variables among 13, 12, 23 because the maximum
2 = 120° principal shear stress equals the sum of the other two,
2 = 80° i.e.  13   12   23 .
Since there are only two independent principal shear
Bearing capacity (kN)

2 60°
stresses, the shear stress state can also be converted
into the twin-shear stress state (13, 12, 13, 12) or (13,
23, 13, 23). This stress state corresponds to the
twin-shear model proposed by Yu in 1961 and 1985.
The eight sections of element which two groups of
shear stresses act on consist of the orthogonal
b octahedral elements, the twin-shear mechanical model
(b) Relations between bearing capacity of trapezoid structure and parameter b. can be obtained as shown in Fig.51.
Fig.49 Unified solution of bearing capacity of a trapezoid
structure with unified strength theory parameter b.

The critical plastic loads for a footing foundation

were studied using the unified strength theory [61]. A
serial of results were obtained for various values of the
unified strength theory parameters (Fig.50). Based on
the twin-shear unified strength theory, a method for
computing the bearing capacity of strip foundation (a) (13+12) element (b) (13+23) element

was proposed. Fig.51 Twin-shear model (orthogonal octahedral element).

By removing the half of the orthogonal octahedral

model, a new pentahedron element can be obtained, as
shown in Fig.52. The relation between the twin-shear
stress and the principal stress 1 or 3 can be deduced
from this element. Based on the orthogonal octahedral
element and pentahedron element, the unified strength
theory can be developed.

(a) Plastic analysis of strip footing.

Bearing capacity (kPa)

(a) (13+12) element (b) (13+23) element

Fig.52 Twin-shear model (pentahedron element).

D (m) The twin-shear orthogonal octahedral model is different

(b) Relations between bearing capacity and parameter b.
from the regular octahedral model. The orthogonal
Fig.50 Bearing capacity of footing foundations of various
values of the unified strength theory parameter b. octahedral model consists of two groups of four
sections perpendicular to each other and subjected to
The other unified solutions for other structures can the maximum shear stress 13 and the intermediate
be introduced by using the unified strength theory. principal shear stress 12 or 23.
Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88 83

The mathematical modeling of the unified strength
theory is given as
F =  13  b 12   ( 13  b 12 )  c
(  12   12   23   23 )
F    13  b 23   ( 13  b 23 )  c
(  12   12   23   23 )
F''   1   t (  1   2   3  0 ) (7c)
where  and c are material parameters, b is failure
criterion parameter.
The unified strength theory takes into account (1)
the effect of SD, (2) the hydrostatic stress effect, (3)
the normal stress effect, (4) the effect of the
intermediate principal stress, and (5) the effect of the
intermediate principal shear stress.
The magnitudes of  and c can be determined by
experimental results of uniaxial tension strength  t ,
uniaxial compression strength  c , or    t /  c :
 t 1 2 c t 2 3
 c  , c  t (8)
c  t 1  c  t 1 
yield surface of the unified strength theory with
different values of parameter b drawn by Zhang [95].
Figures 54(a), (b) and (d) are the inner yield surface
(7a) (yield surface of the unified strength theory with b = 0
or the yield surface of the Mohr-Coulomb strength
theory), the median yield surface of the unified
(7b) strength theory with b = 1/2, and the outer yield
surface (yield surface of the unified strength theory
with b = 1 or the yield surface of the twin-shear
strength theory) [95]. Figure 54(c) is the yield surface
of the Matsuoka-Nakai criterion which is closed to the
UST with b = 3/4.
1
2

The mathematical expression can be derived from Fig.53 Serial yield surfaces of UST.
1
the mathematical modeling and the uniaxial tensile 1

and uniaxial compressive conditions as follows:

     3 
F  1  (b 2   3 )   t   2  1 (9a)
1 b  1   
1     3 
F  ( 1  b 2 )   3   t   2  1  (9b) 3 3
1 b  1  2
2
F    1   t ( 1   2   3  0 ) (9c) (a) b = 0 (inner) (b) b = 1/2 (median)
1
Equation (9c) is used only for the stress state of three 1
tensile stresses. It is similar to the Mohr-Coulomb
theory with tension cut-off suggested by Paul in 1961.
UST with the tension cut-off can be used for
geomaterials. The widely used Mohr-Coulomb criterion
for geomaterials is a specific form of the unified 3
2 3
strength theory (Eqs.(9a) and (9c), and b= 0). 2
(c) SMP criterion or b = 3/4 (d) b = 1 (outer)
For non-SD material, when the uniaxial tensile and
Fig.54 Special cases of UST.
compressive strengths are identical, i.e.  = 1, Eqs.(9a)
and (9b) are simplified as follows: The yield surface of the unified strength theory with
1    3  a tension cut-off in stress space was given by Zhang
F  1  (b 2   3 )   t   2  1 (10a)
1 b  2  et al. [94], as shown in Fig.55.
1     3 
F  ( 1  b 2 )   3   t   2  1  (10b) 3 1=2=3
1 b  1 
Thus, the unified strength theory is applicable to
both SD and non-SD materials.
2
1

7 Yield surfaces and yield loci of the

unified strength theory
1=2=3
A series of yield surfaces of the unified strength
theory are illustrated in the following. Figure 53 is the Fig.55 Yield surfaces of UST with a tension cut-off [94].
84
The projections of the UST on the deviatoric plane
are illustrated in Fig.56(a) (for SD materials,   1). A
series of yield loci of unified yield criterion at the
deviatoric plane for non-SD materials ( = 1) is shown
in Fig.56(b). Unified strength theory gives a series of
yield and strength criteria and establishes the relation
among them. The cut-off line is shown in Fig.57.
1 
2  3 
(a) SD materials ( ≠ 1).
1
o adopted for non-SD and SD materials. The criteria
2 3
(b) Non-SD materials ( = 1).
Fig.56 Yield loci at deviatoric plane of unified strength theory
for SD and non-SD materials [8].
Fig.57 Yield surface of UST and its tension cut-off.
The variation of yield surfaces of the UST in deviatoric
plane with  and k is given by Kolupaev and Altenbach
[101], as shown in Fig.58:
1 b
k 3 (11)
1 b 
The lower bound is provided by the single-shear
strength theory (the Mohr-Coulomb strength theory, or
UST with b= 0). The upper bound is given by the
generalized twin-shear strength theory (Yu et al. 1985),
or UST (Yu 1991) with b= 1. The median bound is a new
series of yield criteria deduced from UST with b= 1/2.
Other series of new yield criteria can also be deduced
from UST with b= 1/4 or b= 3/4, as shown in Fig.56.
Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88
UST-unified strength theory
(0b1)

Fig.58 Variations of yield surfaces of the UST model [101].
8 Characteristics of the unified strength
theory
The characteristics of the UST can be summarized
as follows:
(1) UST is an assembly of a series of yield criteria
cover all the region between the lower bound (single-
shear theory) and upper bound (twin-shear theory).
(2) UST combines various yield criteria through the
parameter b. The single-shear theory, the twin-shear
theory and some other strength criteria are special
cases or approximations of the unified strength theory
as shown in Fig.54. A series of new criteria can also be
obtained.
(3) All the yield criteria of UST are piecewise linear.
The application of the unified strength theory gives
not only a single solution, but also a series of solutions.
It is referred to as the unified solution for many
materials and structures.
(4) UST with different values of parameter b can
match experimental results for various materials. The
physical and geometrical meanings of parameter b,
however, have to be studied.
(5) UST can be used to establish the unified elasto-
plastic constitutive equations. It can be implemented
into a finite element code in a unified manner. It is
also convenient for elastic limit design, elastoplastic
and plastic limit analyses of structures because of its
piece-wise linear form [106, 107].
9 Conclusions
The failure criterion of geomaterials is an important
Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88 85

element for research and design of the strength of
materials and structures. The basic characteristics of a
yield criterion for geomaterials were studied. The effects
of SD, normal stress and its extension, intermediate
principal stress and its extension, hydrostatic stress
and its extension, twin-shear stresses and the convexity of
yield surface were considered as the basic characteristics
of yield criteria for geomaterials.
The main advances in strength theories for SD and
non-SD materials from single-shear theory (lower
bound) to the three-shear theory (median criteria) and
to the twin-shear theory (upper bound), as well as
from single criterion to unified criterion are briefly
summarized in Table 2.
The basic characteristics are available for the
innovation of new yield criterion. New (introduced for
the first time), better than existing criteria and the
availability are the three elements of innovation for yield
criterion. The development of mechanical models for
various yield criteria was also summarized. According to
a new tetragonal mechanical model, a tension cut-off
condition was added to the unified strength theory. The
unified strength theory was extended to the tension-
tension region, it is very important for geomaterials.
The unified strength theory is summarized in Ref.
[106]. The applications of the unified strength theory
to slip line field problems for both non-SD and SD
materials were summarized by Yu [107]. The applica-
tions of the unified strength theory to limit, shake-
down and dynamic plastic analyses of structures by
analytical method were summarized by Yu [108]. The
applications of the unified strength theory to several
engineering problems by numerical method are
summarized in a monograph entitled “Computational

Table 2 Main advances in strength theories.

Single-parameter criteria for non-SD Two-parameter criteria for Limit surfaces
Advances in strength theory materials SD materials in stress space

1 1  1
Single-shear
theory
(Single criterion)
(Inner bound)
o
2  3  3
2 3
2

1
Three-shear
theory
(Single criterion)
(Middle locus)

Huber-Mises (1904–1913) 3
Curve criteria (1972–1990) 2
1 1  1

Twin-shear
theory
o
(Single criterion) o
(Outer bound) 3 
3 2 
2 3
2
1 1  1

o
Unified theory o
(Serial criteria) 2  3 
2 3 3
2
86 Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88
Plasticity”, which will be published soon.
Acknowledgment
It is a pleasure to acknowledge C. A. Schuh at MIT,
USA, and S. Maiolion at Ecole Polytechnique, France,
for providing the data on the yield surfaces for
metallic glass and for geomaterials, respectively.
References
[1] Xia Xilun. Engineering rock mechanics. Wuhan: Wuhan University of
Technology Press, 1998 (in Chinese).
[2] Schuh C A, Alan C L. Atomic basis for the plastic yield criterion of
metallic glass. Nature Materials, 2003, 2: 499–452.
[3] Lund A C, Schuh C A. Strength asymmetry in nanocrystalline metals
under multiaxial loading. Acta Material, 2005, 53: 3 173–3 205.
[4] Zhu Weishen, He Munzhao. Stability of rock and dynamic
construction mechanics under complex condition. Beijing: Science
Press, 1995 (in Chinese).
[5] Chen Zuyu. Soil slope stability analysis: theory, method and
programs. Beijing: China Water Power Press, 2003 (in Chinese).
[6] Chen Zuyu. Rock slope stability analysis: theory, method and
programs. Beijing: China Water Power Press, 2005 (in Chinese).
[7] Zyczkowski M. Combined loadings in the theory of plasticity.
Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1981.
[8] Yu Maohong. Advance in strength theory of materials under complex
stress state in the 20th Century. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 2002,
53 (3): 169–218.
[9] Kolupaev V A, Bolchoun A, Altenbach H. Unified representation and
evaluation of the strength hypotheses. In: 12th International
Conference on Fracture ICF12. Ottawa: [s.n.], 2009: 1–10.
[10] Yu Maohong. New system of strength theory. Xi’an: Xi’an Jiaotong
University Press, 1992 (in Chinese).
[11] Yu Maohong. Unified strength theory for geomaterials and its
applications. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1994, 16
(2): 1–10 (in Chinese).
[12] Yu Maohong. Twin shear theory and its applications. Beijing: Science
Press, 1998 (in Chinese).
[13] Jaeger J C, Cook N G W. Fondamentals of rocks mechanics. 3rd ed.
London: Chapman and Hall, 1979.
[14] Byerlee J D. Friction of rocks. Pageoph, 1978, 116: 615–620.
[15] Sutherland H B, Mesdary M S. The influence of the intermediate
principal stress on the strength of sand. In: Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Mexico: [s.n.], 1969:
391–399.
[16] Michelis P. Polyaxial yielding of granular rock. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 1985, 111: 1 049–1 066.
[17] Gao Yanfa, Tao Zhenyu. Examination and alysis of true triaxial
compression testing of strength criteria of rock. Chinese Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 1993, 15 (4): 26–32 (in Chinese).
[18] Ergun M U. Evaluation of three-dimensional shear testing. In: Proc.
of the 10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Eng..
Stockholm: [s.n.], 1981: 593–596.
[19] Ramamurty T, Rawat P C. Shear strength of sand under general stress
system. In: Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Eng.. Moscow: [s.n.], 1973: 339–342.
[20] Kwasniewski M, Takahashi M, Li Xiaochun. Volume changes in
sandstone under true triaxial compression conditions. In: ISRM
2003–Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics. Johannesburg:
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2003: 683–688.
[21] Yoshimine M, Ishihara K, Vargas W. Effects of principal stress
direction and intermediate principal stress on undrained shear
behavior of sand. Soils and Foundations, 1998, 38 (3): 179–188.
[22] Yamada Y, Ishihara K. Yielding of loose sand in three-dimensional
stress conditions. Soils and Foundations, 1982, 22 (3): 15–31.
[23] Mogi K. Effect of the triaxial stress system on the failure of dolomite
and limestone. Tectonophysics, 1971, 11: 111–127.
[24] Matsuoka H, Sun Dean. Extension of spatially mobilized plane (SMP)
to frictional and cohesive materials and its application to cemented
sands. Soils and Foundations, 1995, 35 (4): 63–72.
[25] Nakai T, Matsuoka H, Okuno N, et al. True tri-axail tests on normally
consolidated clay and analysis of the observed shear behavior using
elastoplastic constitutive models. Soils and Foundations, 1986, 26 (2):
67–78.
[26] Tang Lun. Failure condition of sand. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 1981, 3 (2): 1–7 (in Chinese).
[27] Xing Yichuan, Liu Zudian, Zheng Yingri. A failure criterion of loess.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 1992, (1): 12–19 (in Chinese).
[28] Zhang Jianming, Shao Shengjun. Dynamic strength criterion on sands
under the three-dimentional condition. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
1988, (3): 54–59 (in Chinese).
[29] Yu Maohong, Meng Xiaoming. Twin shear elastoplastic model and its
application in geotechnical engineering. Chinese Journal of Geotech-
nical Engineering, 1992, 14 (3): 71–75 (in Chinese).
[30] Yu Maohong, Zhang Xuebing, Fang Dongping. Researches in the city
wall in Xi’an. Xi’an: Xi’an Jiaotong University Press, 1993: 94–126,
168–174 (in Chinese).
[31] Shen Zhujiang. Learn the advantages of multiple masters to make
own products — how to produce creative work in geo-research.
Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2005, 27 (2): 365–367
(in Chinese).
[32] Shen Zhujiang. Science advocates simplicity-some remarks about
adopting and adapting methods in geotechnical engineering. Chinese
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2004, 26 (2): 299–300 (in
Chinese).
[33] Ros M, Eichinger A. Versuche sur klarung der frage der bruchgefahr.
In: Proc. 2nd Int. Congr. of Applied Mechanics. [S.l.]: [s.n.], 1926:
315–327 (in Russian).
[34] Novozhilov V V. On the physical meaning of stress invariants. Appl.
Math. Mech., 1952, 16 (5): 617–619 (in Russian).
[35] Wunderlich W, Findeib R, Cramer H. Finite element analysis of
bearing capacities in geomechanics considering dilatant and
contractant constitutive laws. In: Valliappan S, Khalili N ed..
Computational Mechanics: New Frontiers for the New Millennium.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001: 509–519.
[36] Desai C. Single surface yield and potential function plasticity models:
a review. Computers and Geotechnics, 1989, 7: 319–335.
[37] Matsuoka H, Nakai T. Stress deformation and strength characteristics
of soil under three difference principal stresses (closure). Proceedings
of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, 1976, 246: 139–140.
[38] Lade P V, Duncasn J M. Elastoplastic stress-strain theory for
cohesionless soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1975, 101 (10):
1 037–1 053.
[39] Zheng Yingren, Shen Zhujiang, Gong Xiaonan. The principles of
geotechnical plastic mechanics. Beijing: China Architecture and
Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88
Building Press, 2002 (in Chinese).
[40] Yu Maohong, He Linan, Song Lingyu. Twin shear theory and its
generalization. Science in China (Series A), 1985, 28 (11): 1 174–1 183.
[41] Yu Maohong, Zen Yuewen, Zhao Jian, et al. A unified strength
criterion for rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 2002, 39 (8): 975–989.
[42] Yu Maohong. Linear and non-linear unified strength theory. Chinese
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2007, 26 (4): 662–669 (in
Chinese).
[43] Yu Maohong. General behaviour of isotropic yield function. Xi’an:
Xi’an Jiaotong University, 1961 (in Chinese).
[44] Yu Maohong. Twin shear stress yield criterion. International Journal
of Mechanical Science, 1983, 25 (1): 71–74.
[45] Wood D M. Soil behaviour and critical state soil mechanics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[46] Ehlers W. A single-surface yield function for geomaterials. Applied
Mechanics, 1995, 65: 246–259.
[47] Krenk S. A family of invariant stress surface. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics. 1996, 122 (3): 201–208.
[48] Maiolino Siegfried. Proposition of a general yield function in
geomechanics. Mecanique, 2005, 333: 279–284.
[49] Shi Shuze, Yang Guanghua. An improvement of the commomly used
yield function for rock materials. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 1987, 9 (4): 60–69.
[50] Shen Zhujiang. Theoretical soil mechanics. Beijing: China Water Power
Press, 1993 (in Chinese).
[51] Bardet J P. Lode dependence fro isotropic pressure-sensitive elasto-
plastic materials. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 1990, 57 (3): 498–506.
[52] Yu Maohong, Liu Fengyu. Smooth ridge model of generalized twin
shear stress criterion. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 1990, 22 (2): 213–216
(in Chinese).
[53] Yu Maohong, Liu Fengyu. A new general strength theory. China Civil
Engineering Journal, 1990, 23 (1): 34–40 (in Chinese).
[54] Hu Xiaorong, Yu Maohong. New research on failure criterion for
geomaterial. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2004, 23
(18): 3 037–3 043 (in Chinese).
[55] Yao Yangping, Lu Dechun, Zhou Annan, et al. Generalized nonlinear
strength theory and transformed stress space. Science in China (Series
E), 2004, 47 (6): 691–702 (in Chinese).
[56] Yoshimine Mitsutoshi. Mechanical properties of loess soil and failure
criteria of materials. Xi’an: Xi’an Jiaotong University, 2004.
[57] Jiang Mingjing, Shen Zhujiang. Unified solution to expansion of
cylindrical cavity for geomaterials with strain-softening behavior.
Rock and Soil Mechanics, 1996, 17 (1): 1–8 (in Chinese).
[58] Jiang Mingjing, Shen Zhujiang. Expansion of cylindrical cavity with
linear softening and shear dilatation behaviour. Chinese Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 1997, 16 (6): 550–557 (in
Chinese).
[59] Zhang X S, Guan Hong, Loo Yewchaye. UST failure criterion for
punching shear analysis of reinforcement concrete slab-column
connections. In: Computational Mechanics—New Frontiers for New
Millennium. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001: 299–304.
[60] Fan S C, Qiang Hongfu. Normal high-velocity impact concrete slabs
—a simulation using the meshless SPH procedures. In: Compu-
tational Mechanics—New Frontiers for New Millennium. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 2001: 1 457–1 462.
[61] Wang Xianqiu, Yang Linde, Gao Wenhua. Calculation of bearing
capacity about the strip foundation based on the twin shear unified
strength theory. China Civil Engineerinc Journal, 2006, 39 (1): 79–82
87
(in Chinese).
[62] Yu Maohong, Yang Songyan, Liu Chunyang et al. Unified
plane-strain slip line theory. China Civil Engineerinc Journal, 1997,
30 (2): 14–26 (in Chinese).
[63] Shen Zhujiang. Review of “unified strength theory and its applications”.
Advances in Mechanics, 2004, 34 (4): 562–563 (in Chinese).
[64] Yu Maohong, Yoshimine M, Oda Y, et al. The beauty of strength
theories. In: The International Symposium on the Developments in
Plasticity and Fracture, Cracow: [s.n.], 2004:17–18.
[65] Teodorescu P P. Review of “unified strength theory and its
applications. springer” (Chinese translation). Chinese Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Engineering, 2007, 26 (4):761.
[66] An Ming, Yu Maohong, Wu Xi. Applications of generalized twin
shear yield criterion in rock mechanics. Rock and Soil Mechanics,
1991, 12 (1): 17–26 (in Chinese).
[67] Lin Y L, Liu H L. Influence of intermediate principal stress on
seismic stability of rock-fill dams. In: Proceedings of the
International Young Scholars’ Symposium on Rock Mechanics—
Boundaries of Rock Mechanics Recent Advances and Challenges for
the 21st Century. Leiden: Taylor and Francis, 2008: 655–659.
[68] Li Jin, Lu X Y, Zhao X W. Topology optimization based on
bi-direction evolutionary structural of unified strength. Journal of
Shandong Jianzhu University, 2008, 23 (1): 65–69 (in Chinese).
[69] Li Yuan. In-situ stress measurement and stability analysis based on
the unified strength theory in large scale underground caverns zone.
PhD Thesis. Beijing: University of Science and Technology Beijing,
2008.
[70] Li Yaoming, Ishii K, Nakazato C, et al. Prediction of safety rate and
multi-slip direction of slip failure under complex stress state. In:
Advances in Engng. Plasticity and Its Applications. Beijing:
International Academic Publishers, 1994: 349–354.
[71] Li Yaoming, Ishii K. The evaluation of the elasto-plastic behavior of
composite materials under biaxial stress by homogenization method.
In: Proc. of the Conference on Computational Engineering and Science.
[S.l.]: [s.n.], 1998: 1 023–1 026.
[72] Li Yaoming, Ishii K. The evaluation of strength for the composite
materials. In: Strength Theory: Application, Development and
Prospect for the 21st Century. [S.l.]: [s.n.], 1998: 337−342.
[73] Liu Feng, Li Lijian, Mei Zanxian. Elasto-visco-plastic finite element
analysis of self—enhanced thick cylinder. Chinese Journal of Applied.
Mechanics, 1994, 11 (3): 133–137 (in Chinese).
[74] Liu Guohua, Wang Zhenyu. Dynamic response and blast-resistance
analysis of a tunnel subjected to blast loading. Journal of Zhejiang
University (Engineering Science), 2004, 38 (2):204–209 (in Chinese).
[75] Quint Co. COMPMAT—analysis system for composite materials
(FEM codes of Quint Co.). Tokyo: Quint Co., 1993.
[76] Quint Co. PREMAT/POSTMAT — pre and post processor for
composite materials (FEM codes of Quint Co.). Tokyo: Quint Co.,
1993.
[77] Quint Co. STAMPS — structural analysis program for civil
engineering (FEM codes of Quint Corporation). Tokyo: Quint Co.,
1993.
[78] Shao C J, Wu Y H, Qian Y J. Plastic seismic damage of concrete
structure based on five-parameter unified strength theory. Chinese
Journal of Applied Mechanics, 2007, 24 (1): 97–101.
[79] Sun Hongyue, Shang Yuequan, Zhang Chunsheng, et al. 3D
numerical modeling of possible failure zone with underground
excavation. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering,
2004, 23 (13): 2 192–2 196 (in Chinese).
88 Maohong Yu et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2009, 1 (1): 71–88
[80] Sun Hongyue, Shang Yuequan, Zhang Chunsheng, Numerical
modeling analysis for surrounding rockmass stability of large
underground cavies. Journal of Zhejiang University (Engineering
Science), 2004, 38 (1): 70–74 (in Chinese).
[81] Wang Dong, Chen J K, Wang Q Z, et al. The new method of
structural reliability analysis by Monte Carlo stochastic finite
Element. Journal of Sichuan University (Engineering Science), 2008,
40 (3): 20–26 (in Chinese).
[82] Wang Dong, Chen J K, Wang Q Z, et al. Structural reliability analysis
by Monte-Carlo based on conditional expectation variance reduction
and antithetic variable sampling. China Rural Water and Hydropower,
2008, (5):66–70 (in Chinese).
[83] Wang F, Fan S C. Limit pressures of thick-walled tubes using
different yield criteria. In: Strength Theory: Applications, Develop-
ments and Prospects for the 21st Century. Beijing: Science Press, 1998:
1 047–1 052.
[84] Wang F. Nonlinear finite element analysis of RC plate and shell using
the unified strength theory. PhD Thesis. Singapore: Nanyang
Technological University, 1998.
[85] Yang Linqiang, Zhang S R. Analysis of textural stress and rock
failure of diversion tunnels. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2008, 30 (6): 813–817 (in Chinese).
[86] Yang Lingqiang, Li Y Q, Chen Zhuping. Sudden-crack phenomenon
and simulation of surrounding rock-mass in diversion tunnel. China
Rural Water and Hydropower, 2008 (5): 53–56 (in Chinese).
[87] Yang Lingqiang, Zhang S R, Chen Zhuping. Adaptive arithmetic of
arch dam cracking analysis. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2009,
40 (2): 214–219 (in Chinese).
[88] Tong Huaifeng, Guo Yuancheng. Calculation and analysis of critical
filling height of roadbed based on unified strength theory. Highway,
2007, (11): 90–94 (in Chinese).
[89] Yu Maohong, He Linan, Zeng Wenbing. A new unified yield function:
its model, computational implementation and engineering application.
In: Computationnal Methods in Engineering: Advances and Applications.
[S.l.]: [s.n.], 1992: 157–162 (in Chinese).
[90] Yu Maohong, Zeng Wenbing. New theory of engineering structural
analysis and its application. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1994,
11 (1): 9–20 (in Chinese).
[91] Yu Maohong, Yang Songyan. Twin shear unified elastoplastic
constitutive model and its applications. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 1997, 21 (6): 9–18 (in Chinese).
[92] Yu Maohong, Yang Songyan, Fan S C, et al. Unified elasto-plastic
associated and non-associated constitutive model and its engineering
applications. International Journal of Computers and Structures, 1999,
71 (3): 627–636.
[93] Zhang Chuanqing. Study on method of safety evaluation for rock
engineering based on failure approach index. PhD Thesis. Institute of
Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2006.
[94] Zhang Chuanqing, Zhou Hui, Feng Xiating. Numerical format of
elastoplastic constitutive model based on the unified strength theory
in FLAC3D. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2008, 29 (3): 596–602 (in
Chinese).
[95] Zhang Luyu. The 3D images of geotechnical constitutive models in
the stress space. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2005,
7 (1): 64–68.
[96] Zhou Xiaoqing. Numerical analysis of reinforced concrete using
multi surface strength model. PhD Thesis. Singapore: Nanyang
Technological University, 2002.
[97] Lin Yongliang, Li Xinxing. Seismic stability and permanent
displacement of joint rock slope. Journal of Yangtze River Scientific
Research Institute, 2008, 25 (5): 103–106 (in Chinese).
[98] Qi Chunming, Mo Bin, Zou Jinfeng. Unified analytical solutions for
cylindrical cavity expansion in saturated soil under large deformation
and undrained conditions. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Engtneering, 2009, 28 (4): 827–833 (in Chinese).
[99] Kolupaev V A, Moneke M, Becker F, et al. Thermoolast-Formteilen
(Fortxchritt-Berichte VD1, Reihe 5, Nr. 703). Darmstadt: VDI Verlag,
2005 (in German).
[100] Kolupaev V A, Bolchoun A, Altenbach H. New trends in application
of strength hypotheses. Konstruktion, 2009, (5): 59–66 (in German).
[101] Kolupaev V A, Altenbach H. Application of the unified strength
theory of Mao-hong Yu to plastics. In: 12 Tagung Deformations-und
Bruchverhalten von Kunststoffen. Merseburg: [s.n.], 2009: 320–339
(in German).
[102] Altenbach H, Kolupaev V A. Remarks on model of Mao-Hong Yu. In:
The Eighth International Conference on Fundamentals of Fracture
(ICFF VIII). [S.l.]: [s.n.], 2008: 270–271.
[103] Kolupaev V A, Bolchoun A. Combined yield and fracture criteria.
Forschung im Ingenieurwesen, 2008, 72 (4): 209–232 (in German).
[104] Kolupaev V A. 3D-creep behaviour of parts made of non-reinforced
thermo-plastics. PhD Thesis. Darmstadt: Martin Luther University,
2006 (in German).
[105] Kolupaev M A, Moneke M. Models for compressible creep of thermoplastics.
KGK Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe, 2005, 58 (10): 518–524 (in
German).
[106] Yu Maohong. Unified strength theory and its applications. Berlin:
Springer, 2004.
[107] Yu Maohong, Ma Guowei, Qiang Hongfu, et al. Generalized plasticity.
Berlin: Springer, 2006.
[108] Yu Maohong, Ma Guowei, Li Jianchun. Structural plasticity: limit,
shakedown and dynamic plastic analyses of structures. Hangzhou and
Berlin: Zhejiang University and Springer Press, 2009.