Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica,

Journal2018; 40(3):
xyz 2017; 163–169
1 (2): 122–135

The First Decade (1964-1972)

Research Article Open Access
Research Article
Marek Wojciechowski*
Max Musterman, Paul Placeholder
A note on the differences between
What Is So DifferentDrucker-Prager
About
Neuroenhancement?
and Mohr-Coulomb shear strength criteria
Was ist so anders am Neuroenhancement?
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2018-0016 Journal xyz 2017; 1 (2): 122–135
Pharmacological
in theand Mental Self-transformation
implementation of the criterion in
forEthic
numerical
received January 31, 2018; accepted May 18, 2018.
Comparisonanalysis purposes. These shortcomings are often opposed
The First
Abstract: Decadeapproach
A systematic (1964-1972) Pharmakologische
to measure the differences und mentale Selbstveränderung
to the straightforward implementation of im the smooth
ethischen Vergleich
between Mohr-Coulomb (MC) and Drucker-Prager (DP) shear failure functions, with Drucker-Prager (DP) criterion being
Research Article
strength criteria used commonly in soil and rock mechanics one of such examples [2, 7].
https://doi.org/10.1515/xyz-2017-0010
is presented. It is shown that the DP criterion generates a Of continuous interest to researchers is the question
Max Musterman, Paul Placeholder
shear strength between 0.6 and 3 times the MC strength,
received February 9, 2013; accepted March 25, 2013; published online July 12, 2014
regarding how the different shear strength critera used in
What Is So Different About Abstract:
for the same friction angle and cohesion parameters. The engineeringthe In the concept of aesthetic
and formation of
computational knowledge
practice and its as
compare to soon
the

Neuroenhancement?
appropriate conditions for obtaining equal shear strengths reference MC predictions. For this purpose, a concept the
as possible and success-oriented application, insights and profits without of
reference to the arguments developed around 1900. The main investigation also
are given. Moreover, some new DP failure surfaces are equivalent friction angle is usually used [3, 5, 6, 8]. This
Was ist so anders am Neuroenhancement? includes the period between the entry into force and the presentation in its current
proposed which minimize the differences relative to the angle is defined as the friction angle of the MC surface
version. Their function as part of the literary portrayal and narrative technique.
MC predictions. The equivalence of the DP and MC criteria that would pass through the particular stress point given
under plane strain conditions is also examined. Keywords: Function, by thetransmission,
shear strength investigation,
criterionprincipal,
under period
consideration.
Pharmacological and Mental Self-transformation in Ethic
Its variations with the changing stress state and the
Comparison
Keywords: Mohr-Coulomb; Drucker-Prager; elasto-
Dedicated to Paul Placeholder
parameters of the criterion being compared are then
Pharmakologische und mentale
plasticity; shear strength; plane strain conditions. Selbstveränderung analysed.im
ethischen Vergleich In this paper, another approach is used. Instead of
1 Studiesdefining and Investigations
and analysing the equivalent friction angle, the
1https://doi.org/10.1515/xyz-2017-0010
Introduction shear strengths predicted by the MC and DP criteria are
The main investigation also includes the period between the entry into force and
received February 9, 2013; accepted March 25, 2013; published online compared July 12, 2014 directly. In case of these particular criteria,
the presentation in its current version. Their function as part of the literary por-
In soil and rock mechanics, the Mohr-Coulomb trayal (MC) an analytical
and narrative technique.formula can be derived for this purpose.
Abstract: In the concept of the aesthetic formation of knowledge and its as soon
shear strength criterion, along with its parameters, To the knowledge of the author, such a formula has
as possible and success-oriented application, insights and profits without the
namely friction angle and cohesion, is treated as a not been published explicitly yet. From this result, it is
reference to the arguments developed around *Max 1900. The main
Musterman: investigation
Institute of that
Marinethe also National Taiwan Ocean University, 2 Pei-Ning
Biology,
kind of standard and reference concept for other shear deduced DP criterion generates shear strength
includes the period between the entry into force and the presentation in its currentemail@mail.com
Road Keelung 20224, Taiwan (R.O.C), e-mail:
strength criteria. This is due to the fact, that it fits well the between 0.6 and
Paul Placeholder: Institute of Marine Biology,3 times the MC strength, for the same
version. Their function as part of the literary portrayal and narrative technique. National Taiwan Ocean University, 2 Pei-Ning
experimental data, where asymmetric strength response friction
Taiwanangle
(R.O.C),and
In this paper another approach is used. Instead of defining and analysing theemail@mail.com
Road Keelung 20224, cohesion
e-mail: parameters. The appropriate
equivalent
inKeywords:
triaxial compression
friction Function, (TXC) strengths
shear and triaxial
angle, thetransmission, extension
investigation,
predicted Open
(TXE)
byprincipal,
MC and
Access.
conditions
period
DP
© 2017 criteria are
Mustermann
for obtaining
and compared
equal strengths
directly.
Placeholder, published by DeIn
Gruyter.
for both criteria
This work is
tests case
is observed.
of these Moreover, the MC an
particular criteria criterion parameters
analytical formula
licensed can
under the arebealso
derived
Creative analysed.
Commons for thisAdditionally,
purpose. To the some new
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives DP failure
4.0 License.

have clearto Paul

knowledge
Dedicated engineering
of the author
Placeholder interpretation
such formulaand theybeen
has not surfaces
arepublished that minimize
explicitly yet. From differences
this with MC criterion are
result
typically it is deduced
obtained in mostthatgeotechnical
DP criterionlaboratories.
generates shear On strength
proposed. in between 0.6 and 3 of the
MC strength,
the other hand thefor MC the same friction
concept discardsangle
the and cohesion
influence of parameters. The appropriate
conditions for obtaining equal strengths for both criteria are also analysed. Additionally,
the intermediate principal stress on the shear strength
1 Studies
some new DP and
failureInvestigations
surfaces are proposed which minimize differences with MC criterion.
of the material, whereas this influence is visible when
true triaxial testing is performed [1, 9]. Additionally, the
2 Basic notation
The main investigation also includes the period between the entry into force and
Basicsurface,
MC failure notation defined in the principal stress space,
the presentation in its current version. Their function as part Letofustheassume
literarythatpor-the principal stresses in the isotropic
contains sharp edges, which introduces some difficulties
trayal and narrative technique.
Let’s assume that the principal stresses in the isotropic material
material are
are given
given by
by and let us assume the
and let’s assume the positive sign for compressive stresses. The invariants of the stress
positive sign for compressive stresses. The invariants of
state used in the following can be written as: the stress state used in the following text can be written as
*Corresponding
*Max Musterman: author: Marek
Institute of Wojciechowski,
Marine Biology, Faculty
NationalofTaiwan expressed2 Pei-Ning
Civil Ocean University, in Eqs (1)-(3):
Engineering,
Road Keelung Architecture and Environmental
20224, Taiwan (R.O.C), e-mail:Engineering, Technical
email@mail.com
University of Łódź, Al.
Paul Placeholder: Politechniki
Institute 6, 90-924
of Marine Łódź,
Biology, Poland,
National E-mail:
Taiwan Ocean University, 2 Pei-Ning
[ ]
mwojc@p.lodz.pl
Road Keelung 20224, Taiwan (R.O.C), e-mail: email@mail.com

2017; 1 (2): 122–135

Open Access.©©
Open Access. 2018
2017 Marek
[ Wojciechowski,
Mustermann and Placeholder,published byDe
published by Sciendo.
Gruyter. Thiswork
This workis is
] licensed under the Creative Commons
licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. 4.0 License.

where is first invariant of the stress tensor and , are second and third invariants of
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 22.09.19 21:05 UTC
stress deviator. The intermediate principal stress can always be represented as a linear
MC strength,
sult it is DPdeducedfor the same DPfriction angle and cohesion parameters. The
intoappropriate
me new failurethat surfaces criterion
are proposed generates whichshear strength
is minimize
in between
differences into
the
with 0.6the and
of definitions
MC 3 of the
definitions
criterion. of
of invariants invariants the
the following( following )relationsrelations are obtained:
are obtained:
onditions
C strength,for forobtaining
the sameequal friction strengths
angle and forcohesion
both an equivalent
criteria arewhere:
parameters. also measure
analysed.
The appropriate principal
Additionally, stress ratio. Introducing equations ([eq:s1])-([eq:s3])
ome new
onditions DP
for failure surfaces
obtaining are proposed
equal strengths for both into
which the definitions
minimize
criteria differences
are also of invariants
analysed. with MCthe
Additionally, following relations are obtained:
criterion.
Basic notation (( ))
me new DP failure   surfaces areWojciechowski
proposed which minimize differences with MC criterion. is an equivalent measure of principal stress ratio
asic notation
Let’s assume164 Marek
that the principal stresses in the isotropic material are given by into ratio.
the definitions
and let’s assume the positive sign for compressive stresses. The invariants
is an equivalent measure of principal stress
where: of the stress ( ( of) invariants
Introducing equations
) the following re
([eq:s1])-([eq:s
Basic notation
t’s assume
state used thatinthe principalcanstresses
the following be writteninas: Finally
into
the isotropic material are given by the the Lode
definitions angle of invariants the is
following introduced(relations by )equation:
are obtained:
( )
asic
d let’snotation
assume the positive sign for compressive stresses. The invariants of the stress
et’s assume that the principal stresses in the isotropic material are
Finally the Lodegiven by
(1) angle is introduced(by equation: ( ) )
ate used in the following can be written as: ( )ratio. Introducing ( )
nd let’s
et’s assume assumethat the positive
principalsign for compressive
stresses in the isotropic stresses.
materialis anare
The equivalent
invariants
given by ofmeasure
the stress of principal stress equations(15) ([eq:s1])-([eq:s (
[ ] the definitions ( )
tate
nd used
let’s in thethe
assume following
positivecan sign beforwritten as:
compressive stresses. The into invariants
Finally (2)of
Finally thethe the
Lode of invariants
angleanglethe following(is
Lode
stress relations ) are obtained:
is introduced
introduced by equation:
by equation:
ate used in the following can be written as: Finally the Lode It is straightforward to show that Lodetoangle (show ) isthatrelated(Lode ) toangle parameter via:
[ angle ] (3) It is straightforward is introduced by equation: is related to (
[ ] the parameter a via Eq. (16):√(( )( )) ( ) ( )
where is first invariant of the It is straightforward to show that Lode Finally angle isthe related to parameter via:
[ stress tensor and , are second and third] invariants of ( Lode ) angle is introdu
stress deviator. The intermediate principal stress can always be represented and it can as
be a linear
viewed as yet (another) ( )
measure of principal stress ratio. For all three
where
combination of two other[ I is the
[
stresses:first invariant of the stress Finally
tensor ]the
and LodeJ
It is , angle
]
straightforward
It is straightforward to show to show that is introduced
that
Lode√ Lode
angleangle by
isfor equation:
is related
related to case,to (16)
parameter
parameter via:
via:extensi
1
measures: , 2 , , the left limit of their values stands i.e. triaxial
J3 are [ the second and the third invariants of the stress
here is first invariant ofThethe intermediate
stress tensor principal
It is straightforward
and , are
(TXE),
and itand
second
to be
whereas
can show
third
the
viewed ]
thatright
invariants
Lode
as yet angle
limit
of another
is related
signifies measure to of (,parameter
i.e. triaxial
principal
√ √ stress
) via: compressionratio. For(TXC). all three )
(
deviator.
[ stress can always be and it can be viewed ( as ) yet another
( ) measure of the
ress deviator.
where: The intermediate principal stress can always In measures:
be represented , , as], the left limit of their values stands for case, i.e. triaxial extensi
where is first invariant represented of theas astress
lineartensor
combination
and , ofare twosecond
otherthe following
stresses:
and third
and , a viewed
itinvariants
can
linear
and
principal be viewed will
ofstress be
√asused ratio.
yet asintroduced
another the
For representation
all
measure three measures
of of the
principal stress
namely
stress state
ratio. inall
the
For all
mbination of two other stresses:
Finally
(TXE), the
and Lode
it
whereas can angle
be
the right limitas yet another
signifies is
It is measure
straightforward
, i.e. of by
triaxial equation:
principal to stress
show
compression ratio.
that Lode
(TXC).Forangle is rt
three
tress
here deviator. The intermediate
is first invariant of the stress principal
tensorstress
andand can always
, it can
are be material.
secondbe represented
and measures:
measures:
third as ,
invariants a , ,
linear
,, the
,
theof , left
the
left limit
left
limit of
limit
of their
of
their values
their
values values stands
stands stands for
for the
for case, case,
i.e. i.e. triax
triaxial e
Itviewed
is straightforward
as yet another to measure
show thatofLode principalanglestress is related ratio.toForparameter all three via:
ombination
ress deviator. ofThe
twointermediate
other stresses: can always, In
principal stressmeasures: be, the following
(TXE),
represented
, shear
the left (TXE),
(4) whereas
limitcase,
as ,
whereas
a and the will
the
right
i.e.values
linear
of their
be
right
limit
triaxialstands used limit as
signifies
extension the
signifies representation
(TXE), case, , i.e. , i.e.
triaxial
whereas the right limit of the
triaxial stress state
compression
compression in
(TXC).the
√
(TXC
is the soof
ombination called
twoprincipal stress ratio. Let’s introduce now the maximum
other stresses: material. plane (for ) √ ( ) i.e. triaxial extension
here: stresses , i.e.:
1 (TXE), whereas Mohr-Coulomb
the right
In the limit
Infollowing signifies
the following and, Drucker-Prager
signifies and , and ,, i.e.
i.e.
will be triaxial
triaxial
and
willused it
be used compression
shear
compression
can
as be
the viewedstrength
asrepresentation
the (TXC).
as yet criteria
(TXC).
representation another
of the measure
ofstress
the stateof
stress inp
sta
where: and it can be viewed
material. In
as the
yet following
another sections
measuremeasures: of p, q and
principal , , , will
the
stress be
left used
limit
ratio. as
of
For the
their
all values
three sta
where: In the following , material.
It is straightforward
Mohr-Coulomb and will beto usedshow as that Lode angle is related
the representation ofinthe
to parameter
stress state in the via:
Mohr-Coulomb
measures: , , strength theand leftcriterion
,representation Drucker-Prager
limit ofof can
theirthebe written
(TXE),
stress
values statesshear
whereas
stands the
in for theform:
strength
the right case,
material. criteria
limit signifies
i.e. triaxial extensi ,i
here: material.
(TXE), whereas the right limit signifies √ , i.e. triaxial compression (TXC).
(5) strength criterion Inwritten
the following , and will be used as the rep
the soInstead
used. calledofprincipal
defining andstress ratio. Let’s
analysing introduce now the In
the equivalent
Mohr-Coulomb
maximum Mohr-Coulomb
Mohr-Coulomb
shear plane andand canDrucker-Prager
Drucker-Prager
be
material.
in the shearform:shear strength
strength criteriacriteria
and the
it following
can be viewed , and as yet will
another be used as
measure theofrepresentation
principal stress of ratio.
the stressFor all state
three in the
resses , i.e.: Mohr-Coulomb where is
and the friction
Drucker-Prager angle and is
shear material strength cohesion. It
criteria is quite obvious that failure sh
3 depend MC and DP shear strength criteriastress extensio
1
The principal stresses can be now written as: directly.
spredicted
the so calledby MC and DP criteria
principal stressare compared
ratio. Let’s introduceInnow themeasures: material.
maximum Mohr-Coulomb
,
Mohr-Coulomb
shear , , the
plane left
strength strength
limit of their
criterion criterion
values
can can
stands
be be
written written
for in the in the form:
case,
form: i.e. triaxial
analytical formula iscan
thebe derived
sostress
calledratio. for this purpose.
principal stress To the Let us stress
ratio. now introduce
does not on , which means also that the intermediate does
tresses
the so 1, i.e.:
called principal Let’s introduce now the (TXE),
maximum
influence whereasshear
material the plane right
shear limit
strength. signifies , i.e. triaxial compression (TXC).
mula has not been published explicitly yet. From thisMohr-Coulomb wherestrength is criterion
the friction can angle and On
be written the
isinmaterial
the other
form: hand
Mohr-Coulomb and Drucker-Prager
cohesion. the Drucker-Prager
It is quite obvious condition
that is sh
failure sh
resses
on
11Please
generates note,the
, i.e.: shear thatmaximum
the same
strength shear
values
in between plane
are0.6
often
and stresses
denoted
3 of thein1the
, i.e.:
literature as , expressed
usually
stress or does , not viaand relation:
depend on , which means also that the intermediate stress does
Mohr-Coulomb
In the following The
, andMC strength
Drucker-Prager
will be criterion
used as the can be
shear
representationwritten strength in ofthethe following
criteria
stress state in the
angle instead of , . Also,
and cohesion they should
parameters. Thenot be confused with the invariants
appropriate influence
material.
, where
√ ,where
material isform:
the isfriction
shear thestrength.
frictionangleangle Onand the andis is hand
material
other
Mohr-Coulomb material cohesion.
the cohesion. It is quite
Itcriterion
Drucker-Prager
strength is quite obvious obvious
condition
can that
be writtenis th
fa
respectively. √
engths for both criteria are also analysed. Additionally,
where is the usually
Mohr-Coulomb stress (6)
stress
expressed
friction anglestrength does
via
and is materialdoes
not
relation: not
depend depend
criterioncohesion. on on
,
can be writtenwhich , which means
It is quite means
in the also also
that that
the
form: that failure shear
obvious the intermediate
intermediate stress str
proposed which minimize differences with MC criterion. influence
influence material material shear shear
strength. strength. Onthe Onintermediate
the the other
other handhand the the Drucker-Prager
Drucker-Prager con
conditio
e principal stresses can be now written as: stress does not depend on , which means also that stress does
(17) not
Mohr-Coulomb
influence material shear (7) usuallyusually expressed expressed
and via
strength. On the other handwhere via
Drucker-Prager
relation:relation: √ shear
the Drucker-Prager strength condition criteria
is is material co
is the friction angle and
he principal stresses can be now written as: usually expressed wherevia is relation:
the friction angle and is material stress cohesion. does not
It is depend
quite on
obvious , which meanssh
that failure a
Mohr-Coulomb strength where ϕcriterion is the friction can beangle √and√in
written c isthe theform: material cohesion.
he principal stresses The can be now
principal written
stresses can as:be now written as follows:
stress does not depend on , which influence
means also material
that theshear strength.
intermediate On
stressthe other
does h
leaseinnote, that thematerial
same values are by
often denoted in the literature as , or It is, quite obvious that the failure shear viastress qMC does
esses the isotropic are given √
influence material shear strength. On theusually
other expressed
hand the relation:
Drucker-Prager condition is
for compressive
stead ofnote,, . Also, stresses.
they The invariants
should notare beof the stresswith the invariants
confused
Please that the same values often denoted in the literature
usually expressed as, √, ornot , depend
via ,relation:on θ, which means also that the intermediate
written
spectively. as:
where as is the(8) √ failure sh
Please
nstead note,
of , that thethey
. Also, same valuesnot
should arebeoften denoted
confused with inthe
theinvariants
literature ,, √friction
orstress , , angle σ2 does andnotisinfluence material cohesion. material It shearis quite obvious
strength. Onthat
stress (9) not depend
does on , the which
stead of , . Also, they should not be confused with the invariants
espectively. , √ the , other hand √DP means
condition alsoisthat usually the intermediate
expressed via stress does
influence material (10) shear strength. On the other hand the Drucker-Prager condition is
spectively.
] the following relation:
usually expressed via relation:
re:
where:
here: ] √ (18)

nress
equivalent measure (11)
where: tensor and , areof principal
second stress
and third ratio. Introducing
invariants of equations ([eq:s1])-([eq:s3])where α and k are parameters of this criterion. Inserting
the definitions
principal stress can where:
of always
invariants the following
beprincipal
represented relations
as a ratio. are obtained:
linear Introducing
an equivalent measure of stress equations ([eq:s1])-([eq:s3])
Eqs. (12), (13) and (16) into Eq. (18) the expression for
:to the definitions is ofaninvariants
equivalent measure relations
the following of principal stress and
are obtained:
where ratio. are parameters of this criterion. Inserting equations ([eq:I1]), ([eq:J2]) an
the failure shear stress in the DP condition is derived as
Introducing equations (8)-(10) into the ([eq:atheta]) definitions ofinto equation ([eq:DP]) the expression for failure shear stress in Drucker-
an equivalent measure of principal stress ratio. Introducing equations ([eq:s1])-([eq:s3])
following:
is an equivalent
invariants measure
the following of principal
relations stress
are obtained: ratio.condition
Prager Introducing equations ([eq:s1])-([eq:s3])
isparameters
derived:
nto the definitions of invariants the following ( relations are obtained:
where and
)the following relations are obtained:are of this criterion. Inserting equations ([eq:I1]), ([eq:J2]) an
into the definitions of invariants
( ) ([eq:atheta]) into equation ([eq:DP]) the (expression ) for( failure
) shear stress in Drucker-
Prager condition (12) is derived:
( ) √ ( ) (19)
( ) ( )
io. Let’s introduce now the maximum shear plane(( ) )
Comparison
( (13)
) of the free coefficients and coefficients standing by in these two criteria le
lly the Lode angle is introduced by equation: us to the expressions Comparison
for andof the free √
in relationcoefficients
to and ( ) :and the coefficients
nally the Lode angle is introduced
( by )equation: standing by p in these two criteria leads us to the
Comparison
( (14)of
) the free coefficients and coefficients ( ) standing by in these two criteria le
expressions for α and k in relation to ϕ and c:
( ) ( ) us to the expressions for and in relation to and :
inally the Lode angle is introduced √ ( ) ( ) ( )
Finally
Finallythe theLode
Lodeangleangle( ) ( )by equation:
isintroduced
is introducedby byequation: ( )
straightforwardEq. to show
(15): that Lode angle is related to parameter via: ( ) (20)
written as: √ ( ) ( ) ( )
is straightforward to show that Lode angle ( ) is related ( ) to parameter via: √ ( ) ( ) ( )
√ ( ) ( )
( )
1  Please note, that the same values √ are often denoted in the
Clearly thelitera-
derived values of and depend on Lode angle, so they are (21) not constant for
itiscan be viewed as yet another measure of principal stress ratio. For all three
arestraightforward
often denotedture inis
It
to s,show
as
the t or σmthat
literature
straightforward
Lode
, τm as
instead angle
, or
to p, ,q.isAlso,
ofshow related
that they
Lode
to parameter
should
angle notisberelated
constant via:
confusedand
to , parameter
but rely also on the
via: ( ) ( ) principal
√ intermediate ( )stress .
sures:
nd it can, be, viewed
, the leftas limit
yet of their measure
another values stands for
of principal stress case,
ratio.i.e.For
triaxial extension
all three
ot be confused with
with thethe invariants
invariants I1/3,, √ , , respectively.
E), whereas, the
easures: , ,right
the leftlimitlimit of their values,√i.e.
signifies standstriaxial Clearly
for compression case, the derived
(TXC).
i.e. triaxial values of and depend on Lode angle, so they are not constant for
extension
√
constant and , but rely also on the intermediate principal stress .
TXE), whereas
ndfollowing
he it can be viewedthe right
, andas yet limit signifies
willanother
be usedmeasure , i.e. triaxial
of principal stress
as the representation ofDifferences
compression
theratio.
stress For all between
(TXC).
state three
in the MC and DP criteria
and it can be viewed as yet another measure of principal stress ratio. For all three
measures:
erial. , , , the
n the following , measures: left limit of
and will ,be, used their values stands for case, i.e. triaxial extension
, theasleft
thelimit
representation
of their values of the
Let’sstandsstress
considerforstate
nowin the
thatcase,and
i.e. triaxial extension
has been established for some fixed Lode angle, say ,
TXE), whereas the right limit signifies , i.e. triaxial compression (TXC).
aterial. (TXE), whereas the right limit signifies Differences , i.e. triaxial between
compression MC
inserted back to the DP criterion definition and
(TXC). DP criteria
([eq:DP2]).
Unauthentifiziert This will lead
| Heruntergeladen us,21:05
22.09.19 after some
UTC not
n the following , and will be used as the representationtedious of the stress state in the
algebraic transformations, to the relation:
  165
A note on the differences between Drucker-Prager and Mohr-Coulomb shear strength criteria
where and are parameters of this criterion. Inserting equations ([eq:I1]), ([eq:J2]) and
([eq:atheta]) into equation ([eq:DP]) the expression for failure shear stress in Drucker-
Prager condition is derived:
θ > θ0 θ < θ0
90 where and are parameters of this criterion.( ) ( )equations ([eq:I1]), ([eq:J2]) and
Inserting
q DP < q M C ([eq:atheta])
q into
DP
>qequation
MC ([eq:DP]) the expression
√ ( )for failure shear stress in Drucker-
80 Prager condition is derived:
Comparison of the free coefficients and coefficients standing by in these two criteria lead
( ) ( )
70 us to the expressions for and in relation to and :
√ ( )
( )
60 Comparison of the free coefficients√and coefficients
( ) ( ) standing ( )by in these two criteria lead
us to the expressions for and in relation to and :
50 ( )
( )
φ [◦ ]

√ ( ) ( ) ( )
√ ( ) ( ) ( )
40
q

q
DP

DP
Clearly the derived values of and depend on Lode angle, so they are not constant for
( )
constant and , but rely also on the intermediate principal stress .
=q

=q
30 √ ( ) ( ) ( )
M

M
C

C
Clearly the derived values of and depend on Lode angle, so they are not constant for
20 Differences between MC and DP criteria
constant and , but rely also on the intermediate principal stress .
10 Let’s consider now that and has been established for some fixed Lode angle, say , and
q DP
>q MC inserted back to <
q DP theq M
DPC criterion definition ([eq:DP2]). This will lead us, after some not ver
Differences
tedious algebraicbetween MC and
transformations, DPrelation:
to the criteria
0
re and are parameters −60 −40 of this−20criterion.
0 Inserting
20 40equations ([eq:I1]),
−60 −40
60 consider ([eq:J2])
−20 and 0 has 20 been40established
60
Let’s now that and for some fixed Lode angle, say , and
:atheta]) into equation ([eq:DP])
e and are parameters of this criterion.the expression
θ + θ0 [ Insertingfor failure
equationsshear stress
([eq:I1]), in Drucker-
◦
] inserted back to([eq:J2]) and
θ0 [◦ ] definition ([eq:DP2]). This will lead us, after some not ver
the DPθcriterion
+
er condition
atheta]) is derived:([eq:DP]) the expression for failure
into equation where:
shear stress in Drucker-
tedious algebraic transformations, to the relation:
er condition is derived:
Figure 1: Variability of Drucker-Prager
( shear
) strength
( ) ( ) θ0 and θ and the friction
vs. Mohr-Coulomb shear strength with respect to Lode angles
angle ϕ. The qDP=qMC line represents the equivalent friction angles for the case of the DP criterion.
(√ () ) ( ) √ ( ( ) ( )) ( ) ( )
where:
( )standing by in these two criteria lead
√
parison of the free coefficients and coefficients
Clearly, the derived values toof α and k :depend Drucker-Prager
on the Lode shearClearlystrengthif can
A =be1,then represented
then the( DP
) and by Mohr-Coulomb
MC criteria are strength
oparison
the expressions for and in relation
of the free coefficients and coefficients andstanding by in these
multiplied bytwo criteria leaddependent on the friction angle and Lode angles: , for
a parameter
angle, so they are not constant for constants ϕ and c, but equivalent.√This will
( ) occur(and
in))two( cases:
) firstly )if θ=θstress
( current
the expressions for and in relation to (and ) : which DP parameters have been( established, , representing 0 state.
rely also on the intermediate principal stress σ2. - which is quite obvious, and secondly if the following
√ ( ) ( )) ( )Clearly
Drucker-Prager
if shear
then DPstrength
condition MCcan
andholds: be then
criteria arerepresented by Mohr-Coulomb
equivalent. This will occur in two strength
cases: firstly
√ ( ) ( )( ) ( ) multiplied by a parameter dependent on the friction angle
- which is quite obvious, and secondly if the following holds: and Lode angles: , for
which DP parameters have been established, and , representing current stress state.
4 Differences √ between
( ) ( () ) MC ( and
) DP then DP and MC√ criteria
Clearly if
( )
√ This
are equivalent. ( will occur) in(24)
two cases: firstly
criteria ( ) ( )
rly the derived values of and√ depend on Lode angle, so they -are ( ) not constant
which for
is quite obvious, and secondly if the following holds:
tant and , but
ly the derived rely of
values also and
on thedepend
intermediate
on Lodeprincipal
angle, sostress
Onetheycanare. notthat
note equation
constant for ([eq:DP=MC]) can be considered as a measure of equivalent
friction angle (Griffiths 1990) for √ (Drucker-Prager ) condition when and are given.
tant and , Let but us
relyconsider
also on the intermediate principal stress .
now that α and k have been established One can note that Eq. (24) can be considered √ ( as a measure
)
for some fixed
erences between MCLodeandangle, say θ0, and inserted
DP criteria back analysis
Further to the of of equivalent
shows thatfriction, i.e.angle (Griffiths 1990)
when onefor the following
of the DP occurs:
DP criterion definition, namely Eq. (19). This One can
will note
lead us,thatcondition
equation when
([eq:DP=MC]) can given.
θ0 and θ are be considered as a measure of equivalent
erences between MC andbeen DPestablished
criteria for some friction angletoangle,
(Griffiths 1990) for Drucker-Prager
s consider now thatsome
after andnot has
very tedious fixed Lode
algebraic transformations, say , andanalysis
Further of A shows √condition
that
( A>1, i.e.) qDPand
when >qMC, are given.
rted back to the
consider nowthe DP criterion definition ([eq:DP2]). This will lead us, after some not very
following
that and hasrelation:
been established for someFurther
fixed Lode angle,
analysis when
of one
sayshows ofthat
, and the following
, i.e. occurs: when one of the following occurs:
ous
ted algebraic
back to thetransformations, to the relation:
DP criterion definition ([eq:DP2]). This will lead us, after some not very
us algebraic transformations, to the relation: (22) √ ( ), (25)
re:
where: or or
e: ( ) or
√ ( ( ) ( )) ( ) ( ) ( ) √ ( ) (26)
(23) √ ( )
√ ( ( ) ( )) ( ) ( )
cker-Prager shear strength can be then represented by Mohr-CoulombOn the other hand strength
if:the other hand if:
tiplied by a parameter dependent on represented
the friction angle Onand
theLode
otherangles:
handOn if: , for
ker-Prager shear strength can be then by Mohr-Coulomb strength
ch The DP shear strength can be then, representing
represented by the MC
iplied by a parameter dependent on the friction angle and Lode angles: state.
DP parameters have been established, and current stress , for √ ( )
h DP strength
parameters have multiplied
been by a parameter
established, and , A dependent
representing on the
current stress state. √ ( ), (27)
rly if then DP and MC criteria are equivalent. This will occur in two cases: firstly if
friction angle ϕ and the following two Lodeor angles: θ0, for
ly if- which is quite
then DPobvious,
which and
the MC
and secondly
DP criteria
if the followingwill
are equivalent.
parameters have been This
holds: in two cases: firstly if
or occur
established, and θ,
- which is quite obvious, and secondly if the following holds:
√ (current stress)state.
representing the √ ( )
√ ( )
√ ( ) √ ( )
√ ( )
than and are obtained. Additionally, considering the physical constraints
can note that equation ([eq:DP=MC]) can be considered as a measureand
than of equivalent are obtained. Additionally, considering the physical constraints
ion angle (Griffiths 1990) for Drucker-Prager on
condition when the friction angle,
and ofare i.e.
given. , it is observed that the inequality √ ( (
can note that equation ([eq:DP=MC]) can be considered as a measure
on) the) friction
is always equivalent
angle,
true i.e.
if only , itUnauthentifiziert
is observed
. These that the 22.09.19 21:05 √UTC ( (
inequality
| Heruntergeladen
variability considerations are presented
on angle (Griffiths 1990) for Drucker-Prager condition when ) ) is and aretrue
always given. if only . These variability considerations are presented
 minimum
takes theare ispresent,
equal todepending
0.6
is and isonachievedand for values. One can also verify that. Thus,overall in general, for
maximum
minimum isvalue
are
takes
takes equal 3.0
present,
the
the to
value
and
0.6 and achieved
depending
value 3.0
3.0 andis achieved
and
for
onachieved
isis andforforvalues. One can also verify that
, whereas
. Thus, the
,,overall
overall
in general,
maximum for
the following
minimum takesis inequality
the
equal value
to 0.63.0is
andvalid:
andis isachieved
achieved
achieved for
for
for .
, whereas
Thus,
whereas
whereasin
the
the
theoverall
general,
overall
overall
the following
takesinequality
minimum
minimum theisvalue
is
equalis3.0
equal valid:
to and
to0.6
0.6isand
and achieved
isis
achievedfor for
achieved for , whereas
. Thus,
. Thus,the
in overall
in
general,
general,
minimum
the following is equal
inequality is to 0.6 and is achieved for
valid: . Thus, in general,
minimum
the
the is equal to 0.6 and is achieved for . Thus, in general,
thefollowing
following
followinginequality
inequality
inequalityisis isvalid:
valid:
valid:
the following inequality is valid:
what166means   thatMarek Wojciechowski
Drucker-Prager shear strength cannot be lower then 0.6 and greater than
what means that Drucker-Prager shear strength cannot be lower then 0.6 and greater than
3.0
what times
means its Mohr-Coulomb
that Drucker-Prager counterpart.
3.0 times its Mohr-Coulomb
what
what means
means counterpart. strength
shear cannot be lower then 0.6 and greater than
3.0 times what meansthat
its1:Mohr-Coulomb
that
thatDrucker-Prager
Drucker-Prager
Drucker-Prager
counterpart.
shear
shear
shearstrength
strength
strengthcannot
cannot
cannotbebebelower
lower
lowerthen then
then0.6 0.6
0.6andand
andgreater
greater
greaterthanthan
than
Table
Expressions
what
3.0
3.0 times Expressions
for coefficient
means
times itsits that for coefficient
and its
Drucker-Prager
Mohr-Coulomb
Mohr-Coulomb A and
minimum, its
shear
counterpart.
counterpart. minimum,
maximum
strength maximum
and
cannot average and
be lowerforaverage
selected
then 0.6 values
andfor
values greater than values of θ0 parameter.
ofthe selected
Expressions 3.0for coefficient
times and
its Mohr-Coulomb its minimum, maximum
counterpart. and average for selected values of
parameter.
3.0 times
Expressions for its Mohr-Coulomb
coefficient and its counterpart.
minimum, maximum and average for selected values of
parameter.Expressions
Expressions
parameter. or for
Expressions for
forcoefficient
coefficient
coefficient and and
anditsits
itsminimum,
minimum,
minimum,maximummaximum
maximumand and
andaverage
average
averagefor for
forselected
selected
selectedvalues
values
valuesofofof
θ0parameter.
[∘]
Expressions
parameter. A
for coefficient and its minimum, maximum andAaverage Afor A values of
selected
parameter. min max
parameter.
-30-30 0.6 1.15 0.6 0.927 1.15 0.927
√ ( )
-30 √ 0.6 1.15 √ 0.927
-30 √ 0.6 1.15 0.927
) -30
-30
-30 √√ 0.60.6 1.15
1.15
0.6 1.15 0.927 0.927
0.927
√
00 0 On-30 the other hand if: √ 0.67 1.22 0.6 0.969
0.67 1.220.670.969
1.15 1.22 0.927 0.969
0 √ 0.67 1.22 0.969
000 √ 0.67
0.67 1.22
1.22 0.969
0.969
30 0 √ √√√ 1.0 0.67 3.0
0.67
√ 1.49
1.22
1.49
(
1.22
0.969
0.969)
30
3030 √ √ 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.49 3.0 1.49
) √ √ 1.0 3.0
3030
30 √√ 1.01.0
1.0 3.0 3.0
3.0 1.49 1.49
1.49
or √ 30 √ 0.6 1.0 0.897 3.0 1.49
√ √ 0.6 1.0 0.897
√ √
√ (√ √ ) 0.6 1.0
0.6 0.897 1.0 0.897
(√√√√ √√ ) 0.60.6
0.6 1.01.0
1.0 0.897
0.897
0.897)
(√√ √
√ ) √
0.6 (
1.0 0.897
4.22 (√(√ ) )) 0.70.7 1.31.3 1 1
) 4.22 (√
r 4.22 √ (√ ) 0.7 1.3 1
4.22 than 4.22
4.22
4.22 √ and are obtained. Additionally, 0.70.7
0.7 1.3
0.7 considering
1.3
1.3 1.3 1 1 1 1 the physical constraints
-19.35 4.22 √ 0.61 1.06
0.7 0.909
1.3 1 ( (
ing the physical constraints
-19.35 on the friction√√angle, i.e. , it0.61
is observed
1.06 that 0.909the inequality √
-19.35 ( )( ) is√always √ 0.61 1.06 0.909considerations are presented
equality √ -19.35
-19.35 √ true
or if only√ ( . )
These variability
0.61
0.61 1.06
1.06 0.909 0.909
-19.35√√
-19.35 compactly 0.61
0.61 1.06 1.06 0.909 0.909
derations are presented -19.35 on √figure
√ [fig:equiv]. 0.61 1.06 0.909
On the other hand if: √ Drucker-Prager shear strength is always greater (or equal) to the Mohr-Coulomb strength
√ √ ( )
and it is exactly opposite for
Drucker-Prager shear strength is always . For all
√ greater (orotherequal) casesto the both possibilities streng
Mohr-Coulomb
( ) are present, depending on and values. One can also verify that overall maximum for possibiliti
On the other √ hand ( and it)is exactly opposite for √ . For all other cases both
takes theif:value 3.0 anddepending
are present, is achievedonfor and values. One can also verify , whereas the overall
that overall maximum for
or minimum takes is equal thetovalue 0.6 and 3.0achieved
is
and achieved
is achieved forfor for .. Thus,
Thus, in the overall
in general,
, whereas
r √ ( )
the following inequality
minimum is equalgeneral, is valid:
to 0.6 and theisfollowing
achievedinequality for is valid: . Thus, in genera
( )
√ ( the following ), (28)inequality is valid:
or
(29)
what means that Drucker-Prager shear strength cannot be lower then 0.6 and greater than
han and are obtained. Additionally, considering the physical constraints √ ( )
3.0 times its Mohr-Coulomb counterpart.
(n the friction ) angle, theni.e.A<1 and qDP, <q MC
it is observed that thewhat
are obtained. inequalitymeans that Drucker-Prager
Additionally, √ ( ( shear strength cannot be lower then 0.6 and greater th
) ) is always considering
true if only the physical . These
than constraints
variability on3.0for
and considerations
Expressions times
the its Mohr-Coulomb
friction
coefficient
are which
are presented
obtained. and itsmeans counterpart.
minimum,
Additionally, that the DP shear
maximum
considering and strength
average for
the physical cannot
selected
constraints be lower
values of
ompactly on figure [fig:equiv].
angle, i.e. ϕ∈⟨0 , 90 ⟩,on it the
is observedparameter.
that the
friction angle,Expressions inequality then
for coefficient 0.6 and greater
andthat its minimum, than 3.0 times
maximum and its MC counterpart.
onsidering the physical constraints √ average ( ( for selected values o
∘ ∘
i.e. , it is observed the inequality
t the inequality √ ( ( ) ) is is always
always truetrueparameter.
ififonly
onlyθ+θ0>0. . These variability considerations are presented
ty considerations are presented
These variability considerations compactlyare on figure
presented [fig:equiv].
compactly
-30Deviation of coefficient from √ unity for selected 0.6 values 1.15 with 0.927respect to Lode angle an
Deviation of coefficient from unity for selected values with respect
in Figure
In
1.
Variability of Drucker-Prager shear strength vs.
computational practice some specific
friction
Deviation
values
angle
-30Mohr-Coulomb
of of
θ
.
5frictionAverage
coefficient
shear strength
angle
from . difference
√ for
unity
with respectbetween
selected
to
values
0.6 1.15
with
DP 0.927
respect to Lode angle
shear strength with respect Lode to angles and and the friction angle . The 0 line represents the equivalent
ne represents theare usually
friction
equivalent selected
angles for the fitting
caseαof and parameters of the and MC vs. the DP parameters
0
DPkcriterion. friction angle . 0.67 1.22 0.969
Average 0 ∘difference √ between DP and MC vs. Drucker-Prager
Deviation 0.67 1.22 0.969
of coefficient
DP criterion with ϕ and c values. By setting
In∘ computational practice some specific
θ0 as -30 ,0
values of areAverage usually selected difference for fitting between and DP and MC vs. from Drucker-P unity fo
and 30 , the tensile, shear and compressive 30 parameters
criterionAverage meridians, anddifference An average √
value of as
√ setting
between theDP coefficient
and
1.0friction
MC A invs.3.0 angle
terms 1.49 .
of θ0 can be
Drucker-Prager
y selected for fitting parameters and of Drucker-Prager with values.
parameters By , and
respectively, of the MC criterion
, and, the tensile, shear and compressive are met. Furthermore, 30 expressed as follows: √ 1.0 3.0 1.49
y setting as Anmeridians
parameters
average value of Mohr-Coulomb
of the coefficient criterion are met,
in terms of can be expressed as:
lomb criterion are when met, the minimumFurthermore,
respectively. of α coefficient when is minimum
considered, √ of then coefficient An is considered,
√ average value of thenthe coefficient 0.6Average 1.0terms
in 0.897
difference
of can bebetween expressed a
onsidered, then ( √ ) isisobtained
obtainedand andthethe AnDP
Drucker–Prager yieldvalue
average (√ √
yield
of thesurface inscribes
coefficient in∫∫the
terms Mohr– of can be
0.6 expressed 1.0 as:
0.897
be used (see next section for parameters
√ ) (30)
urface inscribes surface the Mohr– Coulomb
inscribes envelope. However,However,
the MC envelope. any otheranycan other reasonably
θ0 ∫∫
4.22 (√ its minimum, maximum ) and 1.3
sed (see next section examples).
for
can reasonably beTable
used (see[tab:A] shows
Section expressions
5 for examples). forTable along with ∫ ∫ 0.7 1
average values for these typical choices. whereAdditionally,
4.22 inisfigure
the chosen [fig:A] integration
the distribution area.Anof It average
would 0.7 bevalue
of1.3 of the coefficient
interest 1to look for sui
s minimum, maximum and
1 shows the expressions for A along with values its minimum, √ where
where , i.e. the difference isisthethe chosen chosen integrationintegration area. area.
It would be of inte
ure [fig:A] the distribution deviation
of of from unity is presented. One can for which
of observe, that for the Drucker- between MC and DP criteria vanishes, in
ariability of maximum
Drucker-Prager and average
shear strength values vs. for these
Mohr-Coulomb -19.35
typical θ
where
shear choices.
strength Itvalues
with √respect
would isof be
the of
chosen
for
to interest
which to
integration look, 0.61
for
area.
i.e. the 1.06
such
It would
difference values0.909
be of
of
between θ for
interest MC to
and lookDPfor cr
or the Drucker- Prager shear strength is always greater average
(or0 equal) sense.toAnother the Mohr-Coulomb possibly interesting strength and point
it is would be located at 0 minimum of .
ode angles Additionally,
and and the in
frictionFigure
angle 2, the
. The distribution of
line -19.35
deviation
represents
values of √ for thewhich equivalent
average
which sense. ,
, i.e.
Another
i.e. thethe difference
possibly
difference between
interesting
between 0.61
MC MC
and 1.06 and
point
DP 0.909
DP
would
criteria be located
vanishes,
-Coulomb strength and it is
riction angles forofthe A case
fromofunity DP criterion.
is presented. One Unfortunately
can observe, that forthe explicit
criteria formula
possiblyfor
√ vs.vanishes, in integral
this average ([eq:barA])
sense.
where seems
Another be to be impossible
possibly to be
Variability of Drucker-Prager average shearsense. Another
strengthUnfortunately Mohr-Coulomb the
interesting
explicit shear point
strength
formula for
would
with
integral respect locatedto is at
([eq:barA])
theminimum
chosen
seems
int
toov
of
be
given, thus the integration have to be done numerically. Indeed, when is integrated
oulomb θpractice
shear strength = 30with thesomeDrucker-Prager
respect to Lode shear ofstrength
angles and is always
and thegreater
frictionfor angle interesting andθformula
. The point would behave
located values atthetheequivalent
of minimum
for which of .Indeed, when , i.e. the d
andforline i.e. represents
∘
n computational 0 specific values are usually
the selected
Unfortunately
whole range fitting
given,
ofthe explicit
variability thus 0the
of integration , integral to be
for ([eq:barA]) done numerically.
seems to be impossible
, then it reach to
line represents (or the
equal) equivalent
to the friction
isMohr-Coulomb angles for
strength the
and caseittheisof DP
exactlycriterion. Unfortunately thedoneexplicit formula for thepossibly
Drucker-Prager
arameters shear
of Drucker-Prager strength always
criterion greater
with and(or values.
equal) to
Bygiven,
unity atMohr-Coulomb
setting thus as integration
the the and , strength
it and
whole range
attains have itsofto variability
be
minimum at ofaverage
numerically. and sense.
,Indeed, forAnother
i.e. (see when
figure is integrated
[fig:integral]) inter
and it Drucker-Prager
, the istensile, opposite
exactlyshearopposite
and for
for
compressive meridians of
√ . For
For all
all
Mohr-Coulomb other
other
the
Thesesome cases
cases
criterion
whole
to values both
range integral
are possibilities
unity
canvaluesof met, at
variability
be treated defined as of by
possibleand
andEq. it , (30)
attains
i.e. forseemsits minimumto be impossible
at , (see
of DPitfor
then fig
re
shear strength isInalways greater (or
computational equal)
practice thespecific
Mohr-Coulomb of strengthare usuallychoices selected for forestablishing
fitting and
Unfortunately the parameters
explicit formula
are present,Furthermore,
espectively. depending
both onwhen
possibilities andminimum
are values.
present, One
of can
dependingalso
coefficient
parameters of Drucker-Prager verify
on is
θ andthat
considered,
unity
criterion, ϕ overall
values.
at then
especially
criterion maximum
toThese beand
when for
given,
it
thevalues
attains
best thuscanits
overall the
be
minimum integration
treated
agreement as
at possible
with has MC to
choices
shear be
(see done
for establishing
figure
strength [fig:integra
is expected par
e usually andselected for fitting
it is exactly oppositeand for √ . For all other caseswith and values. By settinggiven,
both possibilities as thus ,theand integration have to be
takes the value
( setting 3.0
) is and is
obtained achieved
and for the overall maximum , whereas the overall
criterion, especially when the best overall agreement with MCof shear s
alues. By are √ One
present, ascan
dependingalso and the
, verify
on andDrucker–Prager
that , the tensile,
values. One can yield
shear See
also surface
for These
and table
verify inscribes
A compressive
takes the
values
[tab:A]
that overalland the
numerically.
can Mohr–
be treated
figure
meridians
maximum [fig:A] Indeed,
as
forpossible
of Mohr-Coulomb
for more when choices
details A about
criterion
the is establishing
for
whole integrated
these
are met, values.
range over
parameters
of variability of DP and
minimum
oulomb is equal However,
envelope. to 0.6 andany is achieved
other for
can reasonably be used (see
criterion, . Thus,
next See
section
especially intable
general,
for
when [tab:A]
the best and figure
overall [fig:A]
agreement for more
with MC details
shear about
strength these is valu
expec
ohr-Coulomb takes the value
value 3.0
criterion areand
3.0 andmet,is
is achieved
achieved for
respectively.
for Furthermore, when minimum
However, one ,,can the
whereas whole
investigate range
ofthe coefficient
overall
also otherofis integration
variability
considered, unityof
then
ranges θat and for ϕ, i.e.andfor
, matching it specific
attains its matem
the following
xamples). Table inequality
[tab:A] is valid:
ient is minimum
considered, equalshows
is then
whereas the
to expressions
0.6overall minimum
and is achieved for(foralong with
is equal to
itsSee
√ ) isproperties
minimum,
0.6 and
obtained table and
andis
maximum
[tab:A]
the Ω=[-30
loading .and
Thus,
Drucker–Prager
However, ,
and
∘figure
30in
scenarios. ]×[0
[fig:A]
∘ general,
one , 90
∘ yield
can ∘forsurface
],
more details
then
investigate it reachesThese
inscribes
also
about
unity
other the these
values
at θ
Mohr–
integration can
=4.22
values.
∘be treated as poss
and
ranges for , mat
verage values for these typical choices. Additionally, in However,
figure [fig:A] the distribution of For be example in case of natural0sandy and gravelly soils
eviation
the
yield surface following
of
inscribes
from
inequality
unity
the
is
Mohr– is valid:
presented.
Coulomb
One can
envelope.
observe, that theforHowever,
friction anyangleother
onethe can
varies
Drucker-
can
properties
investigatereasonably
usually and loading
inalso other
between used
scenarios. to criterion,
(see
integration nextFor the especially
section
example
. Ifranges forin ,case
for
compressive when
matching the
ofloading
natural best
ofsand
specific ove
suchm
bly be used (see next section for examples). Table [tab:A]properties shows expressions and the
loading for
friction along
angle
scenarios. with
varies
For its minimum,
usually
example See
in
in table
maximum
between
case of [tab:A]
natural andtoand
sandy figure
. If the
and [fig:A]
compress
gravelly fors
rager shear strength is alwaysand greater (or equal) to the soil is assumed, i.e. greater is , then the condition will be obtained at
gwhat
with means
its that Drucker-Prager
minimum, maximum shear strength
average cannot
values forMohr-Coulomb
be lower
these the
then 0.6
typical
friction
strength
and
choices.
angle
and itthan
Additionally,
varies usually ininbetween
figure [fig:A] to the distribution
. If the of
compressive
soil is assumed,
which is quite different from previous result (see again i.e. , then
However, the
figure condition
one can investigate also oths
[fig:integral]). loading
will be of
obta
y,3.0in times
figure its Mohr-Coulomb
what[fig:A]
meansthe that distribution counterpart.
Drucker-Prager of deviation
shear strengthof from unitybeislower
cannot presented.then 0.6 Oneand can observe, that for the result
Drucker-
soil is assumed, i.e. isgreater
which than
quite different , then the from previous
condition properties and be will (see again
obtained
loading figure at [fig:inte
scenarios. For
e,Expressions
that for
3.0 times the Drucker-
its Mohr-Coulomb
for coefficient Prager shear
and itscounterpart.
minimum, maximum strength
andThis is always
averageway the greater
for general
selected (ormethod
equal)offor
values to the Mohr-Coulomb
obtaining the DP strength and
parameters which it is fit best the materia
which is quite different from previous result (see the again
friction figure angle [fig:integral]).
varies usually in betf
eparameter.
Mohr-Coulomb strength and it is behaviour and loading data is obtained.This way the general method
Unauthentifiziert for | obtaining
Heruntergeladen the DP
22.09.19parameters
21:05 UTC which
Expressions for coefficient and its minimum, maximum This and average
way the for selected
behaviour
general method values
andfor ofobtaining
loading data the soilparameters
is obtained.
DP is assumed,which i.e. fit best the, then mate
 A note on the differences between Drucker-Prager and Mohr-Coulomb shear strength criteria  167

θ0 = −30◦ θ0 = 0 ◦
90 0.15 90 0.22
80 0.10 80 0.16
0.04 0.11

-0.34
70 70

16
-0.2

-0.27
-0.2

0.
0.00 0.05

-0.
60 60

9
-0.

3
-0.07 0.00

-0.22
11
18
-0.

12

0.
50 0. 50
φ [◦ ]

φ [◦ ]
07

-0.16
00 -0.12 -0.06
40 40

05

-0.1
-0.18 -0.11

0.

-0.06
30 30

1
-0.23 -0.16
0.04

0.00
20 -0.29 20 -0.22
-0
10 0.10 -0.34 10 .0 -0.27
6

-0
0 -0.40 0 -0.33

.1
1
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30
θ [◦ ] θ [◦ ]
√
θ0 = 30◦ θ0 = − arc tg (sin φ/ 3)
90 2.00 90 0.00
1.6 80

80 1.80 80 -0.04
1.
1.4 0
1.2 0

-0.36 2
70 1.60 70 -0.08
0

-0.3
1.40 -0.12

-0.2
00

-0.2
60 60
1.

80

-0.
1.20 -0.16

-0.

8
0.

4
20
-0. 8
50 50

16
60
φ [◦ ]

φ [◦ ]

1.00 -0.20
0.

-0.
12
40 40

0
-0
0.80 -0.24
40

.04
30 0. 30
0.60 -0.28
20 0.40 20 -0.32
0
-0

10 0.2 0.20 10 -0.36

.0
-0 .12

4
.0
-0

0 0.00 0 -0.40
8

−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30

θ [◦ ] θ [◦ ]

θ0 = 4.22◦ θ0 = −19.35◦
90 0.30 90 0.06
80 0.24 80 0.00
4

0.18 -0.03
0.2

-0.35
70 70
-0.30
-0.24

0.12 -0.08
-0.2
-0.2
18

60 60
-0.1
0.

0.06 -0.12
6
-0.1
-0.18

50 50
12
-0.

7
φ [◦ ]

φ [◦ ]

0. 0.00 -0.17
2
-0.12

08
-0.

40 40
-0.06 -0.21
03

06
-0.06
0.00

0.
30 30 0.0
-0.12 0 -0.26
0.00

20 -0.18 20 -0.30
0.0
-0.03

10 -0. 0 -0.24 10 -0.35

06
-0.08

Deviation of coefficient
-0.39from unity for selec
-0

0 -0.30 0
.1

−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 −30 −20 −10 0 friction

10 angle
20 .
30
2

θ [◦ ] θ [◦ ]

Figure 2: Deviation of coefficient A from unity for selected θ0 values with respect to Lode angle θ and friction angle ϕ. Average difference between DP a
parameters
it attains its minimum at θ0=-19.35∘ (see Figure 3). These θ0 However, one can also investigate
An averageother
valueintegration
of the coefficient in term
values can be treated as possible choices for establishing ranges for A, matching specific material properties and
parameters of the DP criterion, especially when the best loading scenarios. For example in the case of natural ∫∫
overall agreement with the MC shear strength is expected. sandy and gravelly soils the friction angle varies usually
See Table 1 and Figure 2 for more details about these θ0 between 30∘ and 45∘. If the compressive
where loading of
is such
the chosen integrati
values. soil is assumed, i.e. θ∈⟨0∘,30∘values
⟩, thenof
the condition
for which , i.e. the differen
average sense. Another possibly interesting
Unfortunately the explicit formula for integr
given, thus the integration have to be done n
the whole
Unauthentifiziert range of variability
| Heruntergeladen of UTC
22.09.19 21:05 and , i.e
unity at and it attains its minimu
 168  Marek Wojciechowski

Ω = [−30◦ , 30◦ ] × [0, 90◦ ] Ω = [0◦ , 30◦ ] × [30◦ , 45◦ ]

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2
Ā [−]

1.1
θ0 = 4.22◦ θ0 = 15.50◦
Ā = for
Deviation of1.0coefficient from unity 1 selected Ā = 1
values with respect to Lode angle and
friction angle .

0.9 ◦
Average difference
θ0 =between
−19.35 DP and MC vs. Drucker-Prager
parameters Ā = 0.909
0.8 θ0 = −19.25◦
An average value of the coefficient in terms of Ā = 0.834
can be expressed as:
0.7
−30 −20 −10 0 ∫10∫ 20 30 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30
θ0 [ ◦ ] ◦
θ0 [ ]
where is the chosen integration area. It would be of interest to look for such
valuesFigure
of 3: forIntegral
which with, i.e.
respect to the θ0 angle
the difference for different
between MC andintegration areas
DP criteria Ω.
vanishes, in this
average sense. Another possibly interesting point would be located at minimum of .
Unfortunately the explicit formula for integral ([eq:barA]) seems to be impossible to be
given,will
thusbetheobtained at have
integration θ0=-15.5
to be∘, done
which is quite different
numerically. from istointegrated
Indeed, when 0.5 is arguable
over [10, 11]. It should be emphasized that
the whole range of variability of and
the previous result (see Figure 3). , i.e. for , then it reaches
any other choice for ν makes the MC and DP equivalence
unity at and it attains its minimum at (see figure [fig:integral]).
This way the general method for obtaining the
These values can be treated as possible choices for establishing parameters DP disappear
of DP in plane strain conditions and the general 3D
parameters
criterion, especially that
when best fitoverall
the best the material
agreementbehaviour and
with MC shear Drucker-Prager
strength is expected. criterion has to be considered.
loading
See table data
[tab:A] andisfigure
obtained.
[fig:A] for more details about these values.
However, one can investigate also other integration ranges for , matching specific material

7 Summary and conclusions

properties and loading scenarios. For example in case of natural sandy and gravelly soils
the friction angle varies usually in between to . If the compressive loading of such
6 A note on plane strain conditions
soil is assumed, i.e. , then the condition will be obtained at ,
ntegral with
whichrespect todifferent
is quite the anglefrom for different
previous integration
result areas [fig:integral]).
(see again figure . In this paper the formula relating material shear strength
Elasto-plastic
This way material
the general method models are
for obtaining often
the DP accompanied
parameters predictions
which fit best generated by the MC and the DP criteria is
the material
by plane strain conditions, which allow for dimension derived and analysed. This relation is of the form qDP=AqMC,
behaviour and loading
A note on plane strain conditions data is obtained.
reduction from 3D to 2D. In this case, the in-plane principal where A depends on the friction angle ϕ, Lode angle θ0
lasto-plastic material
stresses models
s1, s3are areoften
usedaccompanied
to compute by thethe plane strain
principal out-of-conditions,
for which which
the DP coefficients have been derived and Lode
lows for dimension reduction from 3D to 2D. In
plane s2 stress via the following relation: this case, the in-plane principal stresses
angle θ describing the current stress state. It should be
, are used to compute the principal out-of-plane stress via relation:
also noted that A does not depend on the cohesion of the
(31) material. The variability considerations of this relation are
summarized as follows:
where is the Poisson ratio of the material. When the plastic flow occurs, it is very common
o assume where ν is the Poisson ratio of the material. When the
. Following the notation from section 2 this choice corresponds plastic –– the
to MC and DP criteria generate equivalent shear
ssuming the Lode flow occurs, it is(or
angle very common or to assume ν=0.5.
). In this Following
specific strengths if θ=θ•0 or
case, the Drucker- √ [ ( ) ],,
• √ [ ( ) ],∘
the notation
rager criterion become from Section
fully equivalent 2 this choice criterion,
to Mohr-Coulomb corresponds to –– foron
independently θ0=30
the the DP strength is always greater or equal
• for the DP strength is always greater
iction angle of the material,
assuming theif only
Lode angle θ=0 is taken
∘ for fitting
(or b=0.5 • or for andIn parameters
a=0). to(see
the MC
thisthe DP strength strength
is always and or
greater it equal
is exactlytheopposite
tofor MC strength for and it is
pper right graphspecific
in figurecase,
[fig:A]). exactly opposite ( √ ),
the However, the validity
DP criterion becomeoffullyassuming the apparent
equivalent
exactly opposite for Poisson ( √ ),,
atio equal to 0.5 is arguable (Tian 2009; Sawicki and Sławińska 2012) and it should be
to the MC criterion, independently on the friction angle –– the DP strength• cannot the DPbe strength
lower then cannot
0.6 andbe lower
greaterthen 0.6 and g
mphasized that any other choice for makes∘the MC and• DP the equivalence
DP strengthdisappear
cannot in be lower then 0.6 and greaterfor than 3.0 times its Mohr-Coulomb
of the andmaterial, if only3Dθ0Drucker-Prager
=0 is taken for criterion
fitting α have
and kto be considered. times its Mohr-Coulomb counterpart, for the angle and co
counterpart, the same friction
lane strain conditions the general counterpart, for the than
same3.0 friction angle and cohesion parameters,
parameters (see upper right graph in Figure 2). However, same friction angle • and
new cohesion
DP failureparameters,
surfaces minimizing the averag
the validity of assuming the apparent Poisson • new DPequal
ratio failure surfaces minimizing the can average discrepancy
be proposed usingwith
theMC failure
average surface
value of ; f
ummary and conclusions can be proposed using the average value[ of] ;[for ] example
[ for ] [ ]and
thefor
average
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] the average of takes the value 1,
n this paper the formula relating material shear strength predictions generated by the • in case of plane strain conditions the MC and D
Mohr-Coulomb and the Drucker-Prager criteria is derived• andinanalysed. case of plane strain conditions
This relation is of the MCratio
and in DPplastic
criteria are equivalent
zones is taken asif0.5 theand
Poisson
the DP
he form ratio in
, where depends on the friction angle , Lode angle for which DP plastic zones is taken as 0.5 and the DP
Unauthentifiziertparameters
| are
Heruntergeladen established
22.09.19 21:05 with
, otherwise this equivalence generally dUTC
oefficients have been derived and Lode angle describing the current , otherwise thisItequivalence generally disappears.
stress state.
 A note on the differences between Drucker-Prager and Mohr-Coulomb shear strength criteria
–– the new DP failure surfaces, minimizing the average
discrepancy with the MC failure surface, can be pro-
posed using the average value of A; for example
for θ0=4.22∘ and for [θ]×[ϕ]=[-30∘, 30∘]×[0∘, 90∘] the
average of A takes the value 1,
–– in case of plane strain conditions the MC and DP crite-
ria are equivalent, if the Poisson ratio in plastic zones
is taken as 0.5 and the DP parameters are established
with θ0=0∘, otherwise this equivalence disappears.
The interval of variability of A value, i.e. A∈⟨0.6,3⟩ can
be considered as surprisingly wide. However the extreme
values are obtained for friction angle ϕ=90∘, which is
rather seldom observed, and for the maximum possible
discrepancy between θ0 and θ values (equal to 60∘).
Unfortunately, even for more realistic friction angles, i.e.
for ϕ≤45∘, the interval A∈⟨0.68, 1.89⟩ is obtained, which
is obviously narrower, but still significant. It seems that
the key for achieving best overall agreement between the
MC and DP predictions is the proper choice of θ0 value.
Indeed, quite good agreement is obtained for θ0=0∘, where
the maximum difference between θ0 and θ is equal to
30∘ (see Figure 2). For this θ0 choice and for ϕ∈⟨0∘, 90∘⟩
and θ∈⟨-30∘, 30∘⟩ the interval A∈⟨0.67, 1.22⟩ is obtained.
Furthermore, if we constrain the possible friction angles
to ϕ≤45∘ then this interval reduces to A∈⟨0.72, 1.09⟩. Even
better agreement, in the average sense, is possible to be
achieved by means of the procedure described in Section 5,
if only the variability ranges of the friction and Lode
angles can be reasonably estimated for the problem
under consideration. The value θ0=4.22∘ is recommended
for the most general case of ϕ and θ variability. For the
reduced range of the friction angle, the value θ0=7.92∘ can
be used instead. It is generally discouraged to use in the
computations the limiting values of Lode angle (θ0=-30∘,
θ0=30∘) for fitting DP criterion parameters, unless it is
really known that the considered loading conditions will
be close to the triaxial extension or compression case.
The approach used in the paper may become a useful
strategy for comparing also other shear strength criteria
to the MC predictions. However, the linear relation of the
explicit form given by Eqs. (22) and (23) might be simply
impossible to be obtained in other cases and some more
sophisticated functions should be investigated.
 169
References
[1] Al-Ajmi, A. and Zimmerman, R. W. (2005). Relation between the
Mogi and the Coulomb failure criteria. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 42(3):431–439.
[2] Alejano, L. R. and Bobet, A. (2012). Drucker-Prager criterion.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 45(6):995–999.
[3] Cudny, M. and Binder, K. (2005). Kryteria wytrzymałości na
ścinanie gruntu w zagadnieniach geotechniki. Inżynieria
Morska i Geotechnika, 456–465.
[4] Griffiths, D. (1990). Failure criteria interpretation based on
Mohr-Coulomb friction. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
116(6):986–999.
[5] Griffiths, D. and Huang, J. (2009). Observations on the
extended Matsuoka–Nakai failure criterion. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
33(17):1889–1905.
[6] Jiang, H. and Xie, Y. (2011). A note on the Mohr-Coulomb
and Drucker-Prager strength criteria. Mechanics Research
Communications, 38(4):309–314.
[7] Labuz, J. F. and Zang, A. (2012). Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion.
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 45(6):975–979.
[8] Maiolino, S., and Luong, M. P. (2009). Measuring discrepancies
between Coulomb and other geotechnical criteria: Drucker–
Prager and Matsuoka–Nakai. In proceedings of the 7th
Euromech Solid Mechanics Conference, Lisbon, Portugal.
[9] Mogi, K. (1971). Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial
compression. Journal of Geophysical Research, 76(5):1255–
1269.
[10] Sawicki, A. and Sławińska, J. (2012). A study on modelling the
plane strain behaviour of sand and its stability. Archives of
Hydro-Engineering and Environmental Mechanics 59(3-4):85-
100.
[11] Tian, C. (2009). The ratio of out-of-plane to in-plane stresses
for plane strain problems. Meccanica 44(1):105–107.
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 22.09.19 21:05 UTC