Nonlinear Mohr Envelopes Based on Triaxial Data

R. Baker1

Abstract: A substantial amount of experimental evidence suggests that Mohr envelopes of many soils are not linear, particularly in the
range of small normal stresses. This departure from linearity is significant for slope stability calculations since for a wide range of
practical stability problems, critical slip surfaces are shallow and normal stresses acting on such surfaces are small. The present work
presents a procedure for estimating parameters of the Mohr form of Hoek and Brown empirical failure criterion, based on triaxial data.
This nonlinear Mohr envelope provides significantly better representation of experimental information than the Mohr–Coulomb criterion
in cases when the data set includes tests at small enough normal stress. Application of the estimation procedure to published data sets
shows that effective cohesive strength of most soils is close to zero, and Mohr envelopes are continuous at the tensile strength limit.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2004兲130:5共498兲
CE Database subject headings: Envelope; Tensile strength; Data analysis; Stress.

Introduction 2. There exists a non-negative constant t for which ␶

A substantial amount of experimental evidence suggests that fail-
ure criteria of many soils are not linear, particularly in the range
of small normal stresses 共e.g., Penman 1953; Bishop et al. 1965;
Ponce and Bell 1971; Charles and Soares 1984; Atkinson and
Farrar 1985; Day and Axten 1989; Maksimovic 1989兲. This de-
parture from linearity is significant for slope stability calculations
since for a wide range of practical stability problems, critical slip
surfaces are shallow and normal stresses acting on such surfaces
are small. A comprehensive approach to slope stability calculation
共Baker 2003; Jiang et al. 2003兲, which integrates experimental
and computational aspects of the problem, shows that non-
linearity of the failure criterion may have a very significant effect
on slope design. The present work introduces a nonlinear Mohr
envelope describing this effect; establishes a practical procedure
for least square curve fitting this envelope to triaxial data; and
study various features and implications of this criterion.
Nonlinear Mohr Envelopes—General Considerations
A general Mohr envelope is a curve ␶⫽S(␴) tangential to a series
of Mohr circles at failure 共Fig. 1兲. In this relation 兵␴,␶其 are normal
and shear stresses acting at failure on the failure plane. Depending
on the context ␴ may represent total or effective normal stress.
S(␴) will be referred to as the strength function. Legitimate
strength functions have to satisfy the following requirements:
1. S(␴) represents an inherently non-negative property
共strength兲, consequently S(␴)⭓0.
1
Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Technion City,
Haifa 32000, Israel. E-mail: baker@techunix.technion.ac.il
Note. Discussion open until October 1, 2004. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
⫽S(␴⫽⫺t)⫽0. This constant represents the tensile
strength implied by a given strength function. Legitimate ␴
values are restricted to the range ␴⭓⫺t 共Fig. 1兲. The point
T⬅ 兵 ␴⫽⫺t,␶⫽0 其 共Fig. 1兲 is designated as the tensile
strength point.
3. The derivative of S(␴) can be interpreted as a variable,
stress dependent, tangential friction angle, ␾ t (␴) 共Fig. 1兲.
This interpretation implies tan关␾t(␴)兴⫽dS/d␴⭓0, and legiti-
mate strength functions are monotonically increasing.
4. Symmetry of Mohr circles and envelops with respect to the
␴ axis imply that ␾ t (␴⬅⫺t)⬅␲/2 共Fig. 1兲. Some com-
monly used strength models, 关e.g., Mohr–Coulomb 共MC兲兴,
imply that the slope of S(␴) is discontinuous at ␴⫽⫺t, i.e.,
␾ t (␴⬅⫺t)⬅␲/2 but ␾ t (␴→⫺t)⫽␾ MC⬍␲/2. It is noted
that even in this case S(␴⬅⫺t)⬅0; at this value of ␴ the
function S(␴) describes tensile, rather than shear, strength;
and the identity ␾ t (␴⬅⫺t)⬅␲/2 is not related to physical
friction.
5. Theoretical plasticity considerations imply that legitimate
yield functions should be convex, i.e., d 2 S/d␴ 2 ⭐0. It is not
obvious that formal plasticity considerations are relevant to a
simple Mohr theory, however experimental observations ap-
pear to support this restriction.
Hoek and Brown Empirical Criterion in Mohr Plane
Various strength functions 共Mohr envelopes兲, have been proposed
to represent nonlinear strength functions for soils 关e.g., bilinear
functions 共Lefebvre 1981兲, trilinear functions 共de Mello 1977兲兴.
Many publications 共e.g., de Melo 1977; Charles and Watts 1980;
Charles and Soares 1984; Collins et al. 1988; Maksimovic 1989;
Perry 1994兲 utilized a simple power law relation of the form
S(␴)⫽A␴ n , where A and n are constants. The present work em-
ploys a slight generalization of this nonlinear relation expressed
in the form

冉 冊
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos- ␴ n

sible publication on September 26, 2002; approved on April 11, 2003. ␶⫽S NL共 ␴ 兩 A,n,T 兲 ⬅ P a A ⫹T (1)
Pa
This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 5, May 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/ where P a stands for atmospheric pressure; 兵 A,n,T 其
2004/5-498 –506/$18.00. ⫽nondimensional strength parameters; and S NL(␴ 兩 A,n,T)

498 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004


Fig. 1. Schematic strength function ␶⫽S(␴)
⫽nonlinear 共NL兲, strength function defined by Eq. 共1兲. The ex-
plicit notation S NL(␴)⫽S NL(␴ 兩 A,n,T) emphasizes the depen-
dence of strength functions on their parameters 共quantities written
on the right of the vertical line are considered as given constants兲.
The nonlinear strength criterion for rock masses 共Hoek and
Brown 1980兲 is associated with a Mohr envelope that has similar
character to the one defined in Eq. 共1兲. Expressing Hoek and
Brown’s 共HB兲 criterion, as a Mohr envelope is convenient for
limiting equilibrium applications 共e.g., slope stability兲. An addi-
tional advantage of this form is that the parameters 兵A,n,T其 have
clear physical significance. In particular, A is a scale parameter
controlling the magnitude of shear strength, T is a shift parameter
controlling the location of the envelope on the ␴ axis 关 t NL
⬅ P a T is the tensile strength associated with S NL(␴)
⫽S NL(␴ 兩 A,n,T), with T representing a nondimensional tensile
strength兴, and n controls the curvature of the envelope.
In order to guarantee that S NL(␴ 兩 A,n,T) is consistent with the
general requirements specified in ‘‘Nonlinear Mohr Envelopes–
General Considerations’’ it is necessary to impose the restrictions
兵 A⬎0,1/2⭐n⭐1,T⭓0 其 . The inequality n⭐1 follows from the
convexity requirement. The restriction n⭓1/2 follows from the
observation that for n⬍1/2 the radius of curvature of S NL(␴) is
less than the radius of the tangential Mohr circle 共Jiang et al.
2003兲. Under such conditions 共i.e., n⬍1/2), S NL(␴) intersects
twice with the same Mohr circle, thus contradicting the basic
definition of Mohr envelopes. The original form of the HB em-
pirical criterion was derived without using the notion of Mohr
envelopes, and the extensive literature dealing with this criterion
does not include the requirement n⭓1/2. It is noted however that
this requirement is satisfied in applications of this criterion to real
experimental data 共e.g., Hoek and Brown 1980; Hoek 1983;
Sheorey 1997兲.
It is instructive to discuss the following limiting cases de-
scribed by the nonlinear strength law introduced in Eq. 共1兲:
1. Consider the limiting case n⬅1. In this case S NL(␴ 兩 A,n,T)
is reduced to the linear MC criterion; resulting with the re-
lation S MC(␴ 兩 c,␾)⬅c⫹␴ tan(␾)⫽SNL关 ␴ 兩 A⫽tan(␾),n⫽1,T
⫽c/ P a tan(␾)兴. The limiting case of a restricted (c⫽0), MC
material is frequency used in practical slope stability calcu-
lations, and the designation purely frictional 共PF兲 will be
used when referring to this model. The PF model is the fol-
lowing limiting case of the NL strength criterion:
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 499
SPF共 ␴ 兩 ␾ 兲 ⬅␴ tan共␾兲
⫽SMC共 ␴ 兩 c⫽0,␾ 兲
⫽S NL共 ␴ 兩 A⫽tan共␾兲,n⫽1,T⫽0 兲
2. For n⫽1/2 Eq. 共1兲 implies ␶ 2 ⫽(S NL(␴)) 2 ⫽( P a A) 2 (␴/ P a
⫹T). This relation is a generalization of Griffith’s yield cri-
terion ␶ 2 ⫽4t(␴⫹t) 共Griffith 1924兲 and the original form of
Griffith’s law is the following limiting case of the NL crite-
rion:
S GRF共 ␴ 兩 t 兲 ⬅2 冑t 共 ␴⫹t 兲 ⫽S NL共 ␴ 兩 A⫽2 冑t/ P a ,n⫽1/2,T⫽t/ P a 兲
The above observations show that the NL strength law defined by
Eq. 共1兲 is a generalization of the classical MC and Griffith mod-
els; including them both as particular limiting cases. This property
of S NL(␴) makes it a very useful and versatile constitutive as-
sumption.
The tangential friction angle, ␾ t associated with S NL(␴), is
defined by the relation
dS NL共 ␴ 兩 A,n,T 兲 An
tan关 ␾ t 共 ␴ 兩 A,n,T 兲兴 ⬅ ⫽ (2)
d␴ 共 ␴/ P a ⫹T 兲 共 1⫺n 兲
The geometrical significance of ␾ t is introduced in Fig. 1. Eq. 共2兲
shows that ␾ t (␴→⫺ P a T)→␲/2. Consequently, the NL strength
model considered in the present work is continuous at the tensile
strength limit, and it does not have the characteristic discontinuity
of both the MC and PF models.
Transformation between Mohr and Triaxial Planes
The basic experimental variables obtained from triaxial tests are
the minor and major principal stresses at failure 兵 ␴ 3 ,␴ 1 其 . These
experimental variables define the combinations 兵 p⫽(␴ 1
⫹␴ 3 )/2,q⫽(␴ 1 ⫺␴ 3 )/2其 . The collection of all possible 兵p,q其 val-
ues is designated as the experimental triaxial plane.
Consider the problem of establishing the MC strength param-
eters 兵 c,␾ 其 based on a collection of m given data points 兵 p i ,q i 其
i⫽1¯m. The MC criterion ␶⫽S MC(␴ 兩 c,␾)⫽c⫹␴ tan(␾) can be
written in the form
q⫽Q MC共 p 兩 a,b 兲 ⫽a⫹bp (3a)
where
a⫽c cos共 ␾ 兲 and b⫽sin共 ␾ 兲 (3b)
Given the data set 兵 p i ,q i 其 i⫽1¯m, and the representation q
⫽a⫹bp, it is possible to establish the parameters 兵a,b其 by least
squares curve fitting, and evaluate the MC strength parameters as
␾⫽arcsin(b) and c⫽a/cos(␾). The feasibility of this process de-
pends on availability of the explicit representation 关Eq. 共3a兲兴 of
the MC criterion in the experimental 兵p,q其 plane. This technique
of establishing MC strength parameters is well known, and it is
described here mainly in order to contrast it with the problem of
establishing the strength parameters 兵A,n,T其 of the NL strength
law.
Using Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 and considering the geometry of Mohr
circles 共Fig. 1兲 it is possible to verify that
␴ 1 ⫹␴ 3
p⬅ ⫽␴⫹␶ tan共 ␾ 兲
2
⫽␴⫹S NL共 ␴ 兲 tan„␾ t 共 ␴ 兲 …
⫽␴⫹ P a nA 2 冉 ␴
Pa
⫹T 冊 共 2n⫺1 兲
⬅p 共 ␴ 兩 A,n,T 兲 (4a)
 ␴ 1 ⫺␴ 3
q⬅ ⫽␶ sec共 ␾ 兲 ⫽␶ 冑1⫹tan2 共 ␾ 兲
2

⫽S NL共 ␴ 兲 冑1⫹tan2 共 ␾ t 共 ␴ 兲兲

⫽ P aA 冉 ␴
Pa
⫹T 冊冑
n
1⫹ 共 An 兲 2 冉 ␴
Pa
⫹T 冊 2 共 n⫺1 兲

⬅q 共 ␴ 兩 A,n,T 兲 (4b)
The following observations are relevant with respect to Eq. 共4兲:
1. Inspection of Eq. 共4兲 shows that p(␴⫽⫺ P a T 兩 A,n,T)
⫽⫺ P a T and q(␴⫽⫺ P a T 兩 A,n,T)⫽0, i.e., the tensile
strength point T has the same location in the 兵␴,␶其 and 兵p,q其
planes.
2. Inverting Eq. 共4兲 results with ␴ 3 (␴ 兩 A,n,T)⫽p(␴ 兩 A,n,T)
⫺q(␴ 兩 A,n,T) and ␴ 1 (␴ 兩 A,n,T)⫽p(␴ 兩 A,n,T)
⫹q(␴ 兩 A,n,T). Consequently, using Eq. 共4兲 it is possible to
evaluate principle stresses implied by the NL law at each ␴
value.
3. The general relations 兵 p⫽p(␴),q⫽q(␴) 其 关Eq. 共4兲兴 show
that the nonlinear strength function S NL(␴ 兩 A,n,T) has a
parametric 共rather than explicit兲 representation in the experi-
mental 兵p,q其 plane, and it cannot be represented as a function
q⫽Q NL(p 兩 A,n,T). As a result, the simple process used for
determination of the MC strength parameters cannot be ap-
plied in the present case. This difficulty was discussed by a
number of writers 共Ucar 1986; Sheorey 1997兲. An iterative
estimation process resolving this technical difficulty is pre-
sented in the next section. However, at this stage it is instruc-
tive to compare the representations of the NL law in 兵p,q其
and 兵␴,␶其 planes.
The function q⫽Q NL(p) exists 共despite the fact that it does not
have an explicit representation兲. It is meaningful, therefore, to Fig. 2. Representations of NL strength functions in Mohr and triaxial
define the derivatives dq/dp⫽Q NL ⬘ (p) and d 2 q/dp 2 ⫽Q NL ⬙ (p) of planes 兵 A⫽1,T⫽0.1其
this function, and study their properties. Straightforward algebraic
manipulations result with the following relations:
⬘ 共 p 兩 A,n,T 兲 ⭐1
0⭐Q NL 2. All pairs 兵p,q其 located on the limiting line q⫽Q Lmt(p 兩 T) are
mapped into the tensile strength point T⬅ 兵 ␴⫽⫺t,␶⫽0 其 in
⬘ 共 p⫽⫺ P a T 兩 A,n,T 兲 ⫽1
Q NL (5a) the Mohr plane, i.e., this limiting line is a singularity of the
transformation between the Mohr and triaxial planes. In prin-
⬘ 共 p→⬀ 兩 A,n,T 兲 ⫽0
Q NL
ciple Q NL(p 兩 A,n,T)⬍Q Lmt(p 兩 T) for all p⬎⫺ P a T, however
⬙ 共 p 兩 A,n,T 兲 ⭐0
Q NL there are p ranges in which these two functions are
(5b) practically identical 关e.g., Fig. 2共b兲 shows that
⬙ 共 p⫽⫺ P a T 兩 A,n,T 兲 ⫽0
Q NL Q NL(p 兩 A,n⫽0.5,T) is almost identical to Q Lmt(p 兩 T) in the
range between points T and a兴. In such ranges the transfor-
Eqs. 共5a兲 and 共5b兲 are identities, valid for all legitimate param- mation between 兵p,q其 and 兵␴,␶其 planes become numerically
eters 兵A,n,T其 and all legitimate values of p. The first of Eq. 共5b兲 ill conditioned, requiring careful evaluations.
shows that Q NL(p 兩 A,n,T) is a convex function. Eq. 共5兲 implies
that there exists a limiting line q⫽Q Lmt(p 兩 T)⫽p⫹ P a T in the
兵p,q其 plane, and all legitimate 兵p,q其 pairs satisfy q⭐Q Lmt(p 兩 T). Curve Fitting the N – L Strength Function to Triaxial
The validity of this conclusion is illustrated in Fig. 2, which Data
shows NL strength functions for 兵 A⫽1,T⫽0.1其 plotted in Mohr
兵␴,␶其 and triaxial 兵p,q其 planes, respectively. This figure illustrates Experimental results of a triaxial testing program can be repre-
the following points: sented by the array 兵 p i ,q i 其 i⫽1¯m, while the nonlinear
1. The function ␶⫽S NL(␴ 兩 A,n,T) has two characteristic points strength function S NL(␴ 兩 A,n,T) is defined in the Mohr plane 兵␶,
T and B at which strength does not depend on n. The char- ␴其. In order to perform curve fitting it is necessary to have both
acteristics of the tensile strength point T were discussed pre- data and function in the same plane. In the present work we chose
viously. Point B is located at 兵 ␴⫽ P a (1⫺T),␶⫽ P a A 其 , and to transform the experimental information into the Mohr plane.
tan关␾t(␴⫽Pa(1⫺T))兴⫽An. ␴⫽ P a (1⫺T) is a convenient ref- Considering the geometry of Mohr circles 共Fig. 1兲, it is possible
erence value defining a boundary between small and large to write
normal stresses. In the range ␴⬍ P a (1⫺T) strength de-
creases with n while for ␴⬎ P a (1⫺T) it decreases with n. ␴ i ⫽p i ⫺q i sin共 ␾ i 兲 (6a)

500 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004

 ␶ i ⫽q i cos共 ␾ i 兲 (6b)
where ␾ i ⫽tangential friction angle relevant for the ith data point
兵 p i ,q i 其 . Initially the angles ␾ i are not known, and they will be
established iteratively. Eqs. 共6a兲 and 共6b兲 show that each pair
兵 ␴ i ,␶ i 其 depends not only on the corresponding data point
兵 p i ,q i 其 , but also on ␾ i . Consequently, the pairs 兵 ␴ i ,␶ i 其 do not
represent pure experimental information. In order to introduce the
iterative estimation process define ␾ i, j⫺1 as the friction angle
corresponding to the ith data point resulting from the ( j⫺1)th
iteration. The input for the jth iteration cycle are the numbers
兵 p i ,q i ,␾ i, j⫺1 其 i⫽1¯m, and such a cycle consists of the follow-
ing steps:
1. Set ␾ i ⫽␾ i, j⫺1 and establish the pairs 兵 ␴ i ,␶ i 其 i⫽1¯m
using Eq. 共6兲.
2. Curve fit the function ␶⫽S NL(␴ 兩 A,n,T) 关Eq. 共1兲兴, using the
m calculated pairs 兵 ␴ i ,␶ i 其 as ‘‘data points,’’ and establish the
jth approximation 兵 A j ,n j ,T j 其 of the parameters 兵A,n,T其. The
optimal stage j parameters 兵 A j ,n j ,T j 其 are the solution of the
minimization problem
Min 关 SOS共 A,n,T 兩 兵 ␴ i ,␶ i 其 i⫽1¯m 兲兴 (7a)
兵 A,n,T 其
subject to the constraints
A⬎0, 1/2⬍n⭐1, T⭓0 (7b)
where the sum of squares 共SOS兲 function
SOS(A,n,T 兩 兵 ␴ i ,␶ i 其 i⫽1¯m) is defined as
m
SOS共 A,n,T 兲 ⫽ 兺 „S NL共 ␴ i兩 A,n,T 兲 ⫺␶ i …2
i⫽1
(7c)
Eqs. 共7a兲 and 共7c兲 define a constrained minimization prob-
lem. It is noted that standard regression procedures usually
do not include constraints on the parameter space 关Eq. 共7b兲兴,
and they cannot be used for the present purpose.
3. Using the parameters 兵 A j ,n j ,T j 其 derived as the solution of
Eq. 共7兲, establish a new set of tangential friction angles ␾ i, j
using Eq. 共2兲.
4. Calculate (⌬␾ max) j⫽Maxi⫽1¯m 兵 兩 ␾ i, j ⫺␾ i, j⫺1 兩 其
Perform iterations 共steps 1– 4兲 until the iteration criterion
(⌬␾ max) j is less than some specified value. In the first iteration,
we usually set ␾ i ⫽␾ i,0⫽␾ MC⫽const. i⫽1¯m, where ␾ MC is
the experimental MC friction angle corresponding to the same
data set. ␾ MC is established by curve fitting the data in the experi-
mental 兵p,q其 plane using Eq. 共3兲. It is noted however that the
iteration process is very stable, converging quickly, even with the
initial setting ␾ i ⫽␾ i,0⫽0 i⫽1¯m.
The following additional comments are relevant with respect
to this process:
1. Let ␴ min⬅Mini⫽1¯m 兵 ␴ i 其 where values of ␴ i are evaluated
by Eq. 共6a兲. Mohr circle geometry implies the restriction
␴ min⭓⫺tNL⫽⫺ P a T or, equivalently, T⭓⫺␴ min /Pa . Usu-
ally, ␴ min⬎0, and the a priori bound, T⭓0, guarantees satis-
faction of T⭓⫺␴ min /Pa . However some data sets result
with a negative ␴ min ; in such situations it is necessary to
minimize the sum of squares function in the range T⭓T 0 ,
where T 0 ⫽Max兵 ⫺␴ min /Pa,0其 . Failure to impose this restric-
tion results with the sum of squares function yielding com-
plex values, and such functions cannot be minimized. It is
noted that ‘‘correct’’ values of ␾ i are known only at the end
of the iteration process, and using a ‘‘wrong’’ value of ␾ i in
Eq. 共6a兲 sometimes results with a negative ␴ i 共and therefore
also a negative ␴ min) at intermediate steps of the iteration
process.
2. Ratios of minimal sum of squares are the basic and most
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 501
significant measure of quality of fit for models depending on
different numbers of parameters 共Sen and Srivastava 1990兲.
These ratios will be used to compare performance of PF,
MC, and NL models fitted to the same data set. Parameter
estimation for the PF and MC models is done in the experi-
mental 兵p,q其 space 关Eq. 共3兲兴, while the iterative procedure
used for establishing the parameters of the NL model is done
in the Mohr space 兵␴,␶其. The magnitude of SOS depends on
the space in which this quantity is evaluated. In order to
obtain a consistent comparison between performance of dif-
ferent strength models, the resulting 共optimal兲, NL strength
function is transformed back to the 兵p,q其 plane using Eq. 共4兲,
and sum of squares of the NL is recalculated in that plane.
Sum of squares values have dimensions of squared stress;
however in most cases only ratios of SOS are of interest and
the dimensions of SOS will not be explicitly specified.
3. The PF model is a limiting case of MC, which in turn, is a
limiting case of the more general NL criterion. Therefore,
minimization of the sum of squares function SOS(A,n,T)
关Eq. 共7a兲兴, results with SOSPF⭓SOSMC⭓SOSNL . A result
that two of these values nearly equal means that the corre-
sponding models represent the available data equally well.
Such inconclusive situations indicate a limitation of the
available experimental information and they do not have di-
rect physical implications.
4. The HB empirical criterion 关which is equivalent to Eq. 共1兲兴,
has an explicit representation in the 兵 ␴ 3 ,␴ 1 其 plane; and the
three parameters of this model can be established without
iterations. However, applications of this criterion in a limit-
ing equilibrium context require the Mohr form given by Eq.
共1兲. The transformation between HB parameters and the
Mohr parameters 兵A,n,T其 involves solution of a highly non-
linear system of three equations in three unknowns. Numeri-
cal solution of this system takes almost as much computer
time as the iterative estimation process described above. In
the present work it was decided to establish the application
form 共Mohr envelope兲 directly, rather than deriving it from
the original form of the HB criterion.
Verification Problems
The basic requirement from any curve fitting procedure is that it
identifies, successfully, the ‘‘true’’ relation between the variables
if this relation is known. Fig. 3 demonstrates the validity of the
proposed estimation procedure by applying it to synthetic data
sets generated by known strength functions.
The points in Fig. 3共a兲 are synthetic data generated by the NL
strength function S NL(␴ 兩 A⫽0.7,n⫽0.75,T⫽0.075). This model
is associated with cohesive strength c 0 ⬅S NL(␴⫽0)⫽ P a AT n
⫽10 kPa and ␾ 0 ⫽␾ t (␴⫽0)⫽arctan关An/T1⫺n兴⫽45°. The tensile
strength implied by this model is t NL⫽ P a T⫽7.5 kPa; this tensile
strength is smaller than the corresponding MC value t MC
⫽c 0 /tan(␾0)⫽10 kPa.
The estimation procedure converged after eight iterations 共tak-
ing 3.5 s on a conventional home computer兲 and resulting in 兵 A
⫽0.7,n⫽0.75,T⫽0.075其 , SOSNL⫽7⫻10⫺14, and (⌬␾ max)8
⫽0.00003°. Fitting a MC criterion to the same data set resulted
with c⫽13.5 kPa, ␾⫽32°, and SOSMC⫽57. The result
SOSNL /SOSMC→0 indicates that the NL model fits the data sig-
nificantly better than MC 共as must be the case since the data were
generated by the NL criterion兲.
The data points in Fig. 3共b兲 were generated by the MC
strength function S MC(␴ 兩 c⫽10 kPa,␾⫽35°). Applying the esti-

Fig. 3. Verification problems
mation routine to this data set gave A⫽0.7002, n⫽0.999998
→1, T⫽0.1428, and SOSNL⫽7⫻10⫺9 →0, ⌬␾ max⫽0.00007°.
The result n→1 shows that in this case the derived NL criterion is
practically identical to MC. Fitting a MC criterion to the same
data set using the conventional process 关Eq. 共3兲兴 gave c
⫽10 kPa, ␾⫽35°, and SOSMC⫽8⫻10⫺26. The following com-
ments are relevant with respect to these results:
1. The MC criterion is a limiting case of the NL strength law
defined by Eq. 共1兲. Consequently, the estimation procedure
should yield an MC strength function if such a result is jus-
tified by the data. This is important in view of the central
role played by the MC criterion in many geotechnical appli-
cations. It is noted that previous formulations of the power
law strength function 共e.g., de Melo 1977; Charles and Watts
1980; Charles and Soares 1984; Collins et al. 1988; Maksi-
movic 1989; Perry 1994兲 considered the particular case of
Eq. 共1兲 corresponding to T⬅0. Such a limitation excludes
the possibility that the estimation process may converge to a
MC criterion 共it can converge only to the restricted PF ver-
sion of this criterion兲.
2. The SOS ratio for the present problem is SOSMC /SOSNL
⫽1.3⫻10⫺17→0. Formally, this suggests that direct curve
fitting of the MC criterion in the 兵p,q其 plane produces better
results then the iterative procedure. However, inspection of
Fig. 2共b兲 shows that both estimated versions of the MC cri-
terion are in fact identical, and the results 兵 SOSMC
⫽8⫻10⫺26,SOSNL⫽7⫻10⫺9 其 mean simply that both of
these values are approaching zero.
The results of the above two verification problems are ‘‘embar-
rassingly perfect’’ 共in both cases the parameters of the estimated
and source strength functions are identical兲. The proposed estima-
tion process was formulated as a Mathematica 共Wolfram 1996兲
routine, which is available on request from the writer.
502 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004
Fig. 4. Overconsolidated London clay 共data from Perry 1994兲
Example Problems
In the present section the estimation routine is applied to a num-
ber of published experimental data sets, and the physical signifi-
cance of the obtained results is discussed.
Example Problem 1-London Clay
The five 共effective兲, Mohr circles in Fig. 4 are results of
Consolidated-Drained triaxial tests reported by Perry 共Perry
1994兲. Applying the estimation procedure to this data set resulted
with 兵 A⫽0.535,n⫽0.604,T⫽0.0015,SOSNL⫽29其 . The MC crite-
rion based on this data set is 兵 c⫽6 kPa,␾⫽32°,SOSMC⫽81其 . In
Fig. 4 these two Mohr envelopes are shown as the heavy solid and
dashed lines, respectively. The following comments are relevant
with respect to these results:
1. Analysis of this data set resulted in a SOS ratio
SOSNL /SOSMC⫽0.35. We are not aware of an accepted sta-
tistical criterion specifying a sum of squares ratio which al-
lows one to conclude, at a specified level of confidence, that
some model 共a兲 represents the data better than another model
共b兲 when the two models depend on different numbers of
parameters. However the rather small SOS ratio 共0.35兲 ap-
pears to indicate that, in the present case, the NL strength
law represents ‘‘experimental reality’’ 共data points兲, signifi-
cantly better than MC.
2. The London clay data set includes an unconfined compres-
sion test, which yielded an unconfined compression strength
of 15 kPa, 共dashed Mohr circle in Fig. 4兲. A material with
nonzero unconfined compression strength must have a non-
zero tensile strength, and the estimation routine converged to
t⫽ P a T⫽0.15 kPa, which is small, but not zero. It is noted,
however, that the cohesive strength 关 c 0 ⫽S NL(␴⫽0)
⫽ P a AT n ⫽1.1 kPa兴 associated with this very small tensile
strength is not negligible. Perry analyzed the same data set
based on the a priori assumption T⬅0, and obtained the NL
strength function shown as the dotted line in Fig. 4. The
difference between the two NL strength functions in Fig. 4 is
not practically significant, but the result T⫽0.0015→0
共rather than T⫽0), illustrates the internal consistency of the
proposed estimation process.
3. The full circles in Fig. 4 are pairs 兵 ␴ i ␶ i 其 i⫽1¯5 calculated
by Eq. 共6兲 using tangential friction angles ␾ i corresponding
to the converged NL criterion 关Eq. 共2兲兴. These circles are
data points in the Mohr plane associated with the NL crite-
rion. The open circles are similar pairs evaluated with ␾ i
⫽␾ MC⫽32° i⫽1¯5, and they represent data points associ-
ated with the MC criterion.
4. The concept of data points in the Mohr plane makes it pos-
sible to introduce the useful notion ‘‘range of experimental
normal stresses.’’ Strictly speaking this range depends on the

Fig. 5. Dune sand 共data from Frydman 1968兲
model under considerations. The results in Fig. 4 show that
the normal stress range for the NL model extends from 1 to
50 kPa while the MC model is associated with the range
3.5– 45 kPa. This relatively small model effect on experi-
mental normal stress ranges is not significant for the follow-
ing qualitative discussion, and from now on we will refer
simply to an ‘‘experimental normal stress range’’ without
specification of a model.
5. The MC criterion is linear and the proposed NL law is con-
vex. This has a number of practically significant implications
with respect to performance of these two laws; in particular:
• Fitting both laws to the same data set, the NL model pre-
dicts slightly larger strength values than MC in the central
part of experimental normal stress range. This second
order effect usually decreases with the number of observa-
tions.
• A second, and much more important consequence of con-
vexity, is that the NL model predicts significantly smaller
strengths than MC at ␴ values outside of the experimental
normal stress range. The practical purpose of the NL
strength function is not to provide an improved curve fit-
ting of experimental strength information 共although the fit-
ting is usually improved兲. Rather, the practical significance
of this law is that it implies an alternative 共more conserva-
tive than MC兲, extrapolation process for transferring ex-
perimental strength information to zones outside of the ex-
perimental normal stress range, where direct experimental
information is not available. The engineering significance
of this observation was discussed by Baker 共2003兲.
Example Problem 2—Dune Sand
The Mohr circles in Fig. 5共a兲 are results of drained triaxial tests
on dune sand from southern Israel 共Frydman 1968兲. Sand is usu-
ally considered as the classical purely frictional material, and in
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 503
this example problem, performances of the NL and PF models are
compared. In Fig. 5共a兲 the estimated NL and PF strength func-
tions are shown as the solid and dashed lines, respectively, and
the following observations may be made:
1. The estimation process resulted with T⫽0 共a natural result
for sand兲, and n⫽0.945. The relatively large n value implies
that the NL law has small curvature, and in the range of
experimental normal stresses, the PF and NL models predict
practically the same strength 关see Fig. 5共a兲兴.
2. In principle, the NL strength function is continuous at the
tensile strength point T, satisfying ␾ t (␴→⫺t)→␲/2. The
plot of S NL(␴) in Fig. 5共a兲 appears to suggest that this func-
tion has a discontinuity at ␴⫽⫺t⫽0. This discontinuity is
merely an optical illusion resulting from the fact that, for
high n values, significant changes in ␾ t (␴) occur only at
very small normal stresses 关see the heavy dashed line in Fig.
5共b兲兴.
3. Inspection of Fig. 5共a兲 shows that both models fit the experi-
mental information very well, and this is reflected in the
small SOS values (SOSNL⫽2.2⫻10⫺4 and SOSPF
⫽1.4⫻10⫺3 ). It is noted however that SOSNL /SOSPF
⫽0.16Ⰶ1, suggesting that the NL strength function de-
scribes the data better than the purely frictional law. This
proposition is considered in the following discussion.
In order to investigate the above proposition it is convenient to
introduce a ‘‘secant friction angle,’’ ␾ s , and compare perfor-
mance of these laws in terms of this variable. Secant frictions
angles can be defined in a number of alternative ways, and for the
present purpose, we choose to define ␾ s as the slope of the
straight tangent line passing through the tensile strength point T
⫽ 兵 ␴⫽⫺t,␶⫽0 其 共line TB in Fig. 1兲. Considering the geometry
of Mohr circles 共Fig. 1兲, and using a well-known trigonometric
identity, the definition of ␾ s results in
冉冑 冊
␴ 1 ⫹t ␲
␾ s ⬅2 arctan ⫺ (8)
␴ 3 ⫹t 2
The following observations are relevant with respect to this rela-
tion:
1. Envelopes associated with ␾ s and ␾ t are tangential to a
given Mohr circle at different points 共points B and A in Fig.
1兲. The tangential friction angle ␾ t is the physically signifi-
cant variable controlling slip surface inclination, and ␾ s is
used only to compare predictions of the NL model with ex-
perimental information, without associating a physical sig-
nificance to it.
2. Eq. 共8兲 is formally similar to a well-known relation usually
derived in the MC framework, but it has a different physical
significance. In the MC framework t⫽t MC⫽c/tan(␾) is a
derived quantity, while in Eq. 共8兲 t is a given tensile strength.
An important feature of Eq. 共8兲 is that ␾ s ⫽␾ s (␴ 3 ,␴ 1 兩 t),
i.e., for a given value of tensile strength, tangential friction
angles defined by Eq. 共8兲 depend on the experimental vari-
ables 兵 ␴ 3 ,␴ 1 其 and they are not associated with any particu-
lar strength function S(␴).
3. Soils are particulate media, and tensile strengths of such ma-
terials are either zero or very small 共approaching zero兲. Con-
sidering zero tensile strength materials, Eq. 共8兲 is reduced to
␾ s ⬅2 arctan(␴1 /␴3)⫺␲/2. In this particular case secant fric-
tion angles are a measure of the principle stress ratio at fail-
ure; and those angles are fixed by the experimental variables
兵 ␴ 3 ,␴ 1 其 . The points in Fig. 5共b兲 are experimental values of
 ␾ s implied by the present data set, plotted as a function of
␴ 3 共the only assumption associated with these points is that
tensile strength of sands is equal to zero兲.
4. The PF model implies ␾ s ⫽␾ t ⫽const. The horizontal dashed
line, ␾ s ⫽36.7° in Fig. 5共b兲 is the function ␾ s (␴ 3 ) implied
by the optimal PF model.
Eqs. 共4a兲 and 共4b兲 imply explicit expressions for ␴ 3 (␴ 兩 A,n,T)
and ␴ 1 (␴ 兩 A,n,T). Inserting these expressions into Eq. 共8兲, results
with ␾ s ⫽␾ s (␴ 兩 A,n,T). The pair 兵 ␴ 3 (␴ 兩 A,n,T),␾ s (␴ 兩 A,n,T) 其
is a parametric form of the function ␾ s (␴ 3 兩 A,n,T), which repre-
sents the relation ␾ s (␴ 3 ) implied by the NL model, and this re-
lation is shown as the solid line in Fig. 5共b兲. Comparison of Figs.
5共a and b兲 leads to a number of practically significant observa-
tions:
1. Fig. 5共b兲 shows that the NL strength law captures quite well
the experimental ␾ s trend, while the PF model delivers only
a crude 共constant兲, approximation of this trend. The good
correspondence between experimental and NL model values
of ␾ s is significant, considering the fact that the parameters
of the NL model were established by curve fitting strength,
not secant friction angles. Fig. 5共b兲 shows that the calculated
result SOSNL /SOSMC⫽0.16Ⰶ1 is significant, i.e., the NL
strength function represents the experimental information
significantly better than the linear PF law even in sand.
2. The experimental normal stress range for the present data set
extends from 0.12 to 0.85 MPa 共in the present case the ex-
perimental ranges associated with the PF and NL models are
practically identical兲. Fig. 5共a兲 shows that the PF and NL
models predict essentially the same strength in the range of
experimental normal stresses. In this range both of these
models provide a very good description of the experimental
strength information, and this is reflected in the small SOS
values associated with both of these models. However, even
in this range the NL model provides a significantly better fit
for the experimental ␾ s than the PF model. Figs. 5共a and b兲
show that secant friction angles provide a more ‘‘sensitive’’
measure than strength for the quality of fit of different mod-
els to the same experimental information.
3. The PF and NL models predict essentially the same strength
values in the experimental normal stress range, but the NL
low predicts smaller strength than PF at normal stresses
above this range. The difference between the predictions of
these two models may have significant engineering implica-
tion if the engineering problem under consideration is asso-
ciated with large normal stresses. The discussion of secant
friction angles showed that the NL law represents the data
better than PF. It is reasonable therefore to use the NL low
for design purposes.
It is instructive to discuss the implications of Fig. 5 in a slope
stability context. In order to introduce these implications consider
the following two situations:
1. For a given slip surface the safety factor of the slope depends
on the shear strength available along this surface. Fig. 5共a兲
shows that the NL and PF models predict very similar
strength values. Consequently, using the two strength models
shown in Fig. 5共a兲 will result in similar safety factors for a
given slip surface.
2. Consider, however, analyzing the slope stability problem
based on the upper bound plasticity theorem 共Sokolovskij
1956兲. Baker and Frydman 共1983兲 investigated the implica-
tions of the NL model on upper bound plasticity solutions,
and showed that the geometry of slip lines 共slip surfaces兲
depend on tangential friction angles. The very different func-
504 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004
Fig. 6. Soft marine Singapore clay 共data from Ahmed and Peaker
1977兲
tions ␾ t (␴ 3 ) implied by the NL and PF models 关Fig. 5共b兲兴
result in different slip line fields, and therefore different
minimal safety factors. Similar results occur in the varia-
tional limiting equilibrium framework of Baker and Garber
共1978兲. Baker 共2003兲 constructed a practical approximation
of the variational approach, and showed that for certain con-
ditions, nonlinearity of strength functions may have a very
significant effect on slope stability calculations.
The above discussion shows that strength function nonlinearity
has both direct and indirect effects on stability of slopes. The
direct influence is related to strength values predicted by different
models, while the indirect influence is manifested through the
effect of the strength function on critical failure mechanisms. This
indirect effect is present even when two different models predict
similar 共but not identical兲, strength values.
Example Problem 3—Soft Marine Clay
The points in Fig. 6 are results of consolidated-undrained triaxial
tests with pore water pressure measurements performed on soft
共normally consolidated兲, marine clay from Singapore 共Ahmed and
Peaker 1977兲. The results are plotted in terms of effective stresses
in the experimental 兵p,q其 plane 共it is noted that in order to im-
prove visibility the p and q scales in Fig. 6 are different兲. Strength
functions of normally consolidated clays are usually assumed to
be represented by a PF model, and in the present example, per-
formances of the three models 兵PF, MC, NL其 are compared. The
results of the curve fitting processes are reported in Fig. 6 leading
to the following observations:
1. The iterative estimation process resulted with T⫽0 which is
the expected result for normally consolidated clay.
2. The result SOSNL /SOSPF⫽0.68 appears to indicate that the
NL model fits the data better than PF. However, the large
experimental scatter of this data set limits the general valid-
ity of this conclusion.
3. Sum of squares associated with the MC and NL models are
nearly equal (SOSNL /SOSMC⫽0.95), implying that these
two models provide almost equally valid representations of
the data. Consequently, the present data set does not allow
for a clear choice between the MC and NL models. Similar
results were obtained for a number of other data sets that did
not include tests in the small normal stress range. In order to
distinguish between the MC and NL models, it is necessary
to have experimental information at low normal stresses,
where their predictions differ significantly from each other.

Fig. 7. St. Bees sandstone 共data from Misra 1972兲
4. Below the lower boundary of the experimental range, the NL
strength function predicts significantly smaller strength val-
ues than MC 共Fig. 6兲. Consequently, while the available ex-
perimental information is inconclusive with respect to the
theoretical question as to which of these two models repre-
sents the data better, use of the NL model is indicated as a
conservative measure ensuring safe design.
Example Problem 4—St. Bees Sandstone
Fig. 7共a兲 shows results of triaxial test on St. Bees sandstone
共Misra 1972兲, together with the estimated MC and NL models.
The points in this figure are data points associated with the NL
model. The St. Bees data set includes unconfined tension 兵 ␴ 3
⫽⫺2.67 MPa,␴ 1 ⫽0 其 , and unconfined compression 兵 ␴ 3 ⫽0,␴ 1
⫽57.2 MPa其 tests. The Mohr circle corresponding to the uncon-
fined tension test cannot be seen on the scale of Fig. 7共a兲, and it is
shown in the insert of this figure.
The iterative estimation presses converged to T⫽26.7001
→26.7, implying a tensile strength of t⫽ P a T⫽2.67001 MPa,
which is only differentially larger than the measured unconfined
tension strength 2.67 MPa 共t can be equal to the unconfined ten-
sion strength only in the limiting case of n⫽0.5). This result
illustrates again the internal consistency of the iterative estimation
procedure. Inspection of Fig. 7共a兲 shows that the NL model fits
the data much better than MC, and this is supported by the very
small ratio SOSNL /SOSMC⫽0.06.
Fig. 7共b兲 illustrates the performance of the NL model in terms
of secant friction angles. The following comments are relevant
with respect to this figure:
1. ␾ s values evaluated by Eq. 共8兲 are not entirely experimental,
depending on the tensile strength t. However, identifying the
tensile strength with the experimental unconfined tension
strength, ␾ s values evaluated by Eq. 共8兲 regain their ‘‘experi-
mental status’’ and they are shown by the points in Fig. 7共b兲.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 505
2. An unconfined tension test is characterized by ␴ 3 ⬇⫺t, and
for this condition, Eq. 共8兲 results with ␾ s ⫽␲/2. This result
does not depend on any strength model, being a direct con-
sequence of Mohr circles geometry.
3. In general ␾ t (␴)⭐␾ s (␴) 共Fig. 1兲. It can be verified however
that in the limit ␴→⫺t these two friction angles become
equal. Therefore, Fig. 7共b兲 supports the proposition that
Mohr envelopes of real materials are continuous at the ten-
sion strength limit 关i.e., ␾ t (␴→⫺t)→␾ s (␴→⫺t)→␲/2].
It appears that the characteristic slope discontinuity of the
MC model is an artifact introduced by the assumed linearity
of this model, rather than a real physical feature, while the
NL model defined by Eq. 共1兲, which is continuous at the
tensile strength limit, is physically consistent.
Summary and Conclusions
The present work investigates the Mohr envelope form of the HB
empirical strength criterion, establishes an efficient iterative esti-
mation process for evaluating the parameters of this form based
on triaxial data, and studies the performance of this law for a
range of soils and rocks. The main conclusions emerging from
applications of the estimation process are:
1. The NL strength function provides a better description of
experimental information than MC. This conclusion is valid
even for sands and normally consolidated clays, which are
usually considered as linear frictional materials 共restricted
c⫽0, MC兲. The only exception to this conclusion occurs in
situations when the experimental information does not in-
clude tests at sufficiently small normal stresses. In such situ-
ations, the NL and MC strength models are almost equally
justified. Such inconclusive situations indicate a limitation of
the available experimental information, and they do not have
direct physical implications with respect to soil behavior.
2. The main practical purpose of the NL strength criterion is
not to obtain an improved curve fitting of experimental
strength information, but rather to obtain a more conserva-
tive strength estimation than that provided by MC at normal
stresses lying outside of the experimental normal stress
range. This property of the NL law makes it particularly
suitable for design purposes.
3. The ‘‘price’’ for the improved fitting capability of the NL
model 共compared with MC兲, is that the number of param-
eters defining this law is increased from two to three. It is
noted, however, that in all cases involving soils, the tensile
strength parameter T was found to be either equal to zero or
close to zero. Very small tensile strength can be neglected in
the application stage, so effectively, the number of param-
eters employed in the application stage remains two 共same as
in MC兲. In the parameter estimation stage it is, however,
preferable to keep T as a variable, in order to allow the
estimation process to converge to a MC criterion if such a
result is implied by the data. The result T→0 implies that
the cohesive strength c o ⫽S NL (␴⫽0) of soils is close to or
equal to zero.
4. Analysis of experimental information in terms of secant fric-
tion angles supports the proposition that Mohr envelopes of
real materials are continuous at the tension strength limit,
satisfying ␾ t (␴→⫺t)→␾ s (␴→⫺t)→␲/2. Stated differ-
ently, it appears that the characteristic slope discontinuity of
the MC model at the tensile strength point is an artifact
introduced by the assumed linearity of this model, rather
than a real physical feature.
The above conclusions are illustrated by results of the four ex-
ample problems presented in ‘‘Example Problems.’’ It is noted,
however, that these conclusions are based on analysis of a large
number of data sets and extensive spectrum of soil types, ranging
from clays 共both normally consolidated and preconsolidated兲,
through silts, sands, gravels, conglomerates, and various rocks.
References
Ahmad, S. A., and Peaker, K. R. 共1977兲. ‘‘Geotechnical properties of soft
marine Singapore clay.’’ Proc., Int. Symp. on Soft Clays, Bangkok,
Thailand, 3–14.
Atkinson, J. H., and Farrar, D. M. 共1985兲. ‘‘Stress path tests to measure
soil strength parameters for shallow landslips.’’ Proc., 11th Int. Conf.
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 983–
986.
Baker, R. 共2003兲. ‘‘Inter-relations between experimental and computa-
tional aspects of slope stability analysis.’’ Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth.
Geomech., 27共5兲, 34 – 42.
Baker, R., and Frydman, S. 共1983兲. ‘‘Upper bound limit analysis of soil
with non-linear failure criterion.’’ Soils Found., 23共4兲, 34 – 42.
Baker, R., and Garber, M. 共1978兲. ‘‘Theoretical analysis of the stability of
slopes.’’ Geotechnique, 28共4兲, 395– 411.
Bishop, A. W., Webb, D. L., and Lewin, P. I. 共1965兲. ‘‘Undisturbed
samples of London Clay from the Ashford Common shaft: Strength-
effective normal stress relationship.’’ Geotechnique, 15共1兲, 1–31.
Charles, J. A., and Soares, M. M. 共1984兲. ‘‘Stability of compacted rockfill
slopes.’’ Geotechnique, 34共1兲, 61–70.
Charles, J. A., and Watts, K. S. 共1980兲. ‘‘The influence of confining
pressure on the shear strength of compacted rockfill.’’ Geotechnique,
30共4兲, 353–367.
Collins, I. F., Gunn, C. I. M., Pender, M. J., and Wang, Y. 共1988兲. ‘‘Slope
stability analyses for materials with a nonlinear failure envelope.’’ Int.
J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 12共5兲, 533–550.
Day, R. W., and Axten, G. W. 共1989兲. ‘‘Surficial stability of compacted
clay slopes.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 115共4兲, 577–580.
506 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004
de Mello, V. B. F. 共1977兲. ‘‘Reflections on design decisions of practical
significance to embankment dams—17th Rankine lecture.’’ Geotech-
nique, 27共3兲, 281–354.
Frydman, S. 共1968兲. ‘‘The effect of stress history on the stress-
deformation behavior of sand.’’ MSc thesis, Technion, I.I.T, Haifa,
Israel.
Griffith, A. A. 共1924兲. ‘‘Theory of repute.’’ Proc., 1st Congress on Ap-
plied Mechanics, Delft, The Netherlands, 55– 63.
Hoek, E. 共1983兲. ‘‘Strength of jointed rock masses.’’ Geotechnique, 33共8兲,
187–223.
Hoek, E., and Broun, E. T. 共1980兲. ‘‘Empirical strength criterion for rock
masses.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 106共9兲, 1013–1035.
Jiang, J. C., Baker, R., and Yamagami, T. 共2003兲. ‘‘The effect of strength
envelope nonlinearity on slope stability computations.’’ Can. Geotech.
J., 40共2兲, 308 –325.
Lefebvre, G. 共1981兲. ‘‘Strength and slope stability in Canadian soft clay
deposits.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 18共3兲, 420– 442.
Maksimovic, M. 共1989兲. ‘‘Nonlinear failure envelope for soils.’’ J. Geo-
tech. Eng., 115共4兲, 581–586.
Misra, B. 共1972兲. ‘‘Correlation of rock properties with machine perfor-
mance.’’ PhD thesis, Leeds Univ., Leeds, England.
Penman, A. 共1953兲. ‘‘Shear characteristics of saturated silt measured in
triaxial compression.’’ Geotechnique, 15共1兲, 79–93.
Perry, J. 共1994兲. ‘‘A technique for defining non-linear shear strength en-
velopes and their incorporation in a slope stability method of analy-
sis.’’ Q. J. Eng. Geol., 27共3兲, 231–241.
Ponce, V. M., and Bell, J. M. 共1971兲. ‘‘Shear strength of sand at ex-
tremely low pressures.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 9共4兲, 625– 638.
Sen, A., and Srivastava, M. 共1990兲. Regression analysis, theory, methods,
and applications, Springer Texts in Statistics, Springer, New York.
Sheorey, P. R. 共1997兲. Empirical rock failure criteria, Balkama, Rotter-
dam, The Netherlands.
Sokolovskii, V. V. 共1965兲. Static of granular media, Pergamon, New
York.
Ucar, R. 共1986兲. ‘‘Determination of shear failure envelope in rock
masses.’’ J. Geotech. Eng., 112共3兲, 303–315.
Wolfram, S. 共1996兲. The Mathematica book, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, U.K.