Marine Georesources & Geotechnology

ISSN: 1064-119X (Print) 1521-0618 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umgt20

The critical state and steady state of sand: A

literature review

Xin Kang, Zhao Xia, Renpeng Chen, Louis Ge & Xiaoming Liu

To cite this article: Xin Kang, Zhao Xia, Renpeng Chen, Louis Ge & Xiaoming Liu (2019): The
critical state and steady state of sand: A literature review, Marine Georesources & Geotechnology,
DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2018.1534294

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2018.1534294

Published online: 12 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umgt20
MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2018.1534294

The critical state and steady state of sand: A literature review

Xin Kanga, Zhao Xiaa, Renpeng Chena, Louis Geb and Xiaoming Liua
a
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, China; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University,
Taipei, Taiwan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The critical state and steady state theories are widely accepted for simulating the soil behavior Received 4 July 2018
and providing a basis for liquefaction evaluation and constitutive modeling. However, there was Accepted 7 October 2018
conflicting evidence regarding the critical state and steady state of sands in the last decades. In
KEYWORDS
some cases, the critical state and steady state are taken to be identical and in others they differ
Steady state; critical state;
significantly. Whether they are the same or not remain a hot academic debate to date. This paper sands; state parameter;
provides a critical review on the origin and history of the critical state and steady state of sands, stress path; flow structure
which identifies conflicting evidences and discusses the influencing factors on the existence and
uniqueness of critical state and steady state. Based on a critical review of literature, it is concluded
that the steady state concept is a refinement of the critical state concept and the uniqueness of
the critical state and steady state was affirmed. Special care should be paid in the laboratory tech-
niques in order to accurately measure the critical state and steady state due to the numerous
influencing factors of them.

Introduction implemented into the framework of critical state. The critical

During earthquakes, the shaking of the ground may cause
saturated cohesionless soils to lose their strength and behave
like a liquid. This phenomenon is called soil liquefaction
and it will cause settlement or tipping of buildings, failures
of earth dams, earth structures and slopes. Triggered by
numerous liquefaction-induced failures during the 1964
Niigata, Japan earthquake (Naeini 2004), the modern study
of soil liquefaction has made ground breaking progress,
where the critical state and steady state theories were widely
accepted for simulating the clay and sand behaviors and
provided a corner stone for liquefaction evaluation and con-
stitutive modeling (Roscoe 1963; Roscoe and Burland 1968;
Schofield 1968; Wood 1990; Reza et al. 2005; Sun et al.
2006; Suebsuk et al. 2011; Sang et al. 2017; Gao and Zhao
2017; Wei and Yang 2018; Yao et al. 2018). Thus, a well-
defined critical or steady state line is important to several
aspects of the engineering and constitutive models, more-
over, all factors affecting them should be identified.
Nevertheless, there has been unresolved argument on the
existence and uniqueness of the critical state/steady state, as
well as whether they are the same or not (e.g., Casagrande
1976; Poulos 1981; Sladen et al. 1985; Alarcon et al. 1988;
Poulos et al. 1988; Kang et al. 2012; Kang and Kang 2015).
The critical void ratio (CVR) of sands has been a subject of
much discussion since the pioneering work of Casagrande
(1936). A major step forward was the development of critical
state soil mechanics, starting with the classic paper “On the
yielding of soils” by Roscoe, Schofield, and Worth (1958),
where an elastic-plastic constitutive model was developed and
state is well defined by Schofield (1968) within the framework
of critical state soil mechanics by the following two equations.
q ¼ Mp0 (1)
C ¼ t þ k ln p0 (2)
Equation (1) determines the magnitude of the “deviator
stress” q needed to keep the soil flowing continuously as the
product of a frictional constant M with the effective pressure
p0 , as illustrated in Figure 1(a). Equation (2) states that the
specific volume t occupied by unit volume of flowing par-
ticles will decrease as the logarithm of the effective pressure
increases (see Figure 1(b)). Specimens yield at what we call
“critical state” that remain as constant volume, and the plas-
tic yielding can continuously occur without changing in q or
t. The material behaves as a “frictional fluid” rather than a
yielding solid, as it is considered that the specimens had
melted under stress. It is normally assumed that the critical
state is one in which the initial fabric and structure of the
soil are destroyed or rearranged to produce a random fabric.
Castro and Poulos (1977) first defined the concept of steady
state of deformation: “a soil can flow at constant void ratio,
constant effective minor principal stress and constant shear
stress.” This definition seems quite similar to the concept of
“CVR state” proposed by Roscoe et al. (1958). To eliminate the
confusion between these two technical terms, Poulos (1981)
published a paper and maintained the difference between
“critical state” and “steady state.” The core differences are that
in the steady state of deformation, soil specimens have a

CONTACT Zhao Xia xiazhao_xz@hnu.edu.cn College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha, China.
ß 2018 Taylor & Francis
2 X. KANG ET AL.
Figure 1. The critical state diagram from Schofield (1968).
unique “flow structure” and “constant velocity.” Poulos (1981)
suggested that such a state of shearing under constant stress
and volume can be temporarily achieved in a quasi-steady
state, in which the shear stress reaches a minimum value and
remains at the minimum value until phase transformation,
this phenomenon is also called “limited liquefaction” or “flow
with limited deformation” by other researchers (Riemer et al.
1990; Ishihara 1993; Zhang 1997). However this is not the true
ultimate state, continued shearing will develop an oriented
flow structure when a true state of shearing (steady state)
under constant stresses, volume, and velocity is achieved.
Poulos (1981) further underlined that the steady state of
deformation is achieved only after all particle orientation has
reached a statistically steady state condition and after all par-
ticle breakage is complete.
Due to the subtle differences and similarities of these two
concepts, different researchers hold different opinions from
their own perspectives, conceptual confusion is of frequent
occurrence in the last decades. In this paper, the origin and
history of critical state and steady state of sands are
reviewed. Similarities, differences, existences, and uniqueness
of these two technical terms were discussed. Factors that
influence the measurement of the critical state and steady
state have also been discussed. A comprehensive literature
review of critical state and steady state is performed and
aimed to offer a profound understanding of the character-
ization of cohesionless materials and provide a more solid
foundation for constitutive modeling (Reza et al. 2005; Sun
et al. 2006; Suebsuk et al. 2011; Sang et al. 2017; Gao and
Zhao 2017; Wei and Yang 2018; Yao et al. 2018) and lique-
faction evaluation in natural slopes, dam failures, and flow
failures of hydraulic placement of artificial fills (Roscoe
1963; Roscoe and Burland 1968; Schofield 1968; Sladen et al.
1985; Wood 1990; Ishihara et al. 1991; Anderson and
Eldridge 2011). The influencing factors identified in this
paper can be incorporated in mathematical definition of
critical/steady state and numerical simulation of cohesionless
materials in future studies.
Literature review
The origin and history on the development of critical state
and steady state are shown in Figure 2. Casagrande (1936)
did pioneering work on studying the “critical density” of a
soil. He found that at large strains, continuous deformation
was possible without any further change in density and no
volume change would take place. If the sands are sheared at
the critical density, no volume change will take place during
shearing. When it is below critical density, shear deform-
ation will result in expansion, and vice versa. In geotechnical
society, this discovery was subsequently recognized as the
corner stone of the “critical state.”
A decade later, Geuze (1948) put forward a concept of
“turning point density,” which was used to characterize the
state of density. The density at the turning point of Dutch
sands would remain constant withstanding continuous
deformation at a constant shearing stress. The turning point
density is considered the same as Casagrande’s original def-
inition of critical density, which marks the transition from
the branch of volume decrease to the branch of volume
increase. In the same year, Koppejan et al. (1948) conducted
research on characterizing the coastal flow slide of Holocene
sand in Zeeland, the post failure investigation found the
sand densities were all below the critical density (void ratio
is plotted above the critical state line(CSL)). A “turning
point” was first used to characterize the critical point of the
density of a sand sample, beyond which it is reached by vol-
ume reduction (contraction), and under which it is reached
by volume increase (dilation). This catastrophic coastal fail-
ure has brought practitioners to come up with an idea that
critical density might be a good criterion for flow fail-
ure evaluation.
Based upon Casagrande’s idea, Roscoe and et al. (1958)
systematically established the concept of “CVR state” for
cohesionless granular soils. In drained test, the CVR state
was defined as an ultimate state of specimens at which any
arbitrarily further increment of shear distortion will not
result in any change of void ratio. In any series of drained
tests, the set of CVRs can be expected to lie in or near a
line on the drained yield surface. In undrained tests, void
ratios of the specimens remain constant, but the effective
stress p0 will alter due to excess pore water pressure. In any
series of undrained tests, the set of CVRs can be expected to
lie in or near a line (not necessarily the same as above) on
the undrained yield surface. If the results of drained and
undrained tests show that all loading paths converge to one

Figure 2. A brief development history of critical state and steady state.
unique line in the (p0 ; e; q) space, this will be called the CVR
line (CVR line for short). The drained and undrained yield
surface will then coincide with the CVR line. These two sur-
faces may be identical and, if so, the common surface would
then form the yield surface. Drained and undrained loading
paths together with a yield surface in (p0 ; e; q) space are
illustrated in Figure 3. Subsequently, undrained, drained,
and simple shear tests were carried out on various granular
media including sands, glass beads, and steel balls. All these
results tend to confirm the concept of the yield surface and
CVR line and they are applicable to both silt and sands.
Castro (1969) made a step forward to extend the previous
work on critical state. Stress-controlled static and cyclic tri-
axial tests on isotropically consolidated specimens, static
tests on anisotropically consolidated specimens, and strain
controlled triaxial tests of both consolidated drained and
undrained were carried out, where a unique relationship
between CVR and effective confining pressure at large
strains was established. Regardless the initial condition for
each test, the void ratio of the specimens would eventually
reach the CVR line. However, graphically, the CVR line
obtained from strain controlled consolidated undrained tri-
axial tests were found roughly parallel to the CVR line
obtained from stress-controlled consolidated undrained tests.
The CVR line obtained from strain controlled drained tests
was placed even further away from undrained tests.
MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 3
Castro’s work was dedicated to the development of a
“flow structure” under stress-controlled test that was postu-
lated by Casagrande (1976) when the Fort Peck Dam in
Montana suffered a static flow failure. The post-failure
investigation showed that the initial state of the soils was
obviously plotted below the CVR line. When sands are
liquefied to flow, each sand particle keeps rotating and rear-
ranging itself so that the whole structure evolves into a state
of minimum frictional resistance, where such structure was
termed “flow structure” by Casagrande (1976). In determin-
ing the CVR state, the load control test should be used
because load control ensures that when a flow structure is
beginning to develop, the driving force does not relax as in
strain control. By keeping the driving force constant, the
mass accelerates faster and faster and more of the sand
grains will rearrange themselves into a flow structure.
The technical term steady state first appeared in Castro
(1975), who studied the liquefaction and cyclic mobility of
saturated sands. Later, Castro and Poulos (1977) defined the
steady state: “a soil in steady state can flow at constant void
ratio, constant effective minor principal stress, and constant
shear stress.” The void ratio at steady state is the same as
the CVR defined by Casagrande. The definition of steady
state is quite similar to the definition of critical state. Poulos
(1981), however, made a supplementary explanation: “the
steady state of deformation for any mass of particles is that
4 X. KANG ET AL.
Figure 3. Isometric view of yield surface by Roscoe (1958).
state in which the mass is continuously deforming at con-
stant volume, constant normal effective stress, constant
shear stress, and constant velocity. The steady state of
deformation is achieved only after all particle orientation
has reached a statistically steady state condition and after all
particle breakage, if any, is complete, so that the shear stress
needed to continue deformation and the velocity of deform-
ation remains constant. At this point, the critical and steady
states differ in that the steady state, by definition, has an
associated flow structure and a requirement for a constant
velocity, neither of which are incorporated in critical state
concepts.” However, in these different definitions, the par-
ticular flow structure and applicable strain rate have not
been explicitly defined, which makes a clear distinction of
the steady state from the critical state impossible.
Since Poulos proposed the definition of steady state in
1977, whether the critical state is identical to steady state or
not has become a hot academic debate. Many researchers
tend to confirm that either critical state or steady state, is
the final shearing state, but the truth is that different CVR
lines are achieved in the (p0 ; e; q) space under different con-
ditions, and the locations of CVR lines are affected by sev-
eral influencing factors.
Are critical and steady state lines the same?
Poulos (1981) held the idea that the “flow structure” and
“constant velocity” govern the critical/steady state.
Therefore, they are the key differences that differentiate
these two concepts.
Researchers stand by steady state considered that the
steady state possesses an oriented flow structure, where the
grains align themselves in the direction of shear. While
researchers support critical state didn’t point out which kind
of structure a specimen holds at its critical state, however, it
is widely accepted that at critical state, the initial fabric and
structure of the soil is destroyed or rearranged to produce a
random fabric, no specific structure can be guaranteed. As
for the “velocity,” it represents the strain rate during shear-
ing. Critical state researchers didn’t specify which velocity a
specimen has when it reaches its critical state, it is generally
defined to occur at the quasi-static strain rate. The constant
velocity (i.e., constant strain rate) emphasized by Poulos
(1981) in the steady state condition, however, reveals the
steady state is rate-dependent. In other words, the critical
state is actually a particular case scenario of the steady state
at the quasi-static strain rate.
To summarize, the above two additional requirements indi-
cate the strict definition of the steady state over and above the
critical state, viz. a constant deformation velocity (not neces-
sarily the quasi-static rate) and oriented flow structure (the
steady state structure rather than undetermined critical state
structure). This is why the general agreement in soil mechanics
is that the steady state is a refinement of the critical state, and
this may be the main reason that there were few studies on
whether the critical state nor steady state of sands are the same
or not after 1990s.

Figure 4. e F line and e S line defined by Casagrande (1975).
In the last decades, there are conflicting evidences regard-
ing the critical state and steady state of sands. It seems that
in some cases, the critical state and steady state are taken to
be equal and in others they differ significantly. Major con-
flicting evidences are shown below.
Evidences support the two lines are different
According to Castro’s work (1969), the CVR lines came from
undrained stress-controlled test and drained strain controlled
test located in different positions in the ep space. In addition,
as mentioned previously, Casagrande (1976) defined the e S
line based on drained tests, which can be considered the crit-
ical state line. The e F line based on the Castro-type undrained
stress-controlled tests, is the steady state line, as shown in
Figure 4. Apparently, they are different.
Two types of triaxial tests were carried out by Lindengerg
and Koning (1981) to study the critical density (CVR). In
the first type of tests, dry sands were prepared as dilatant
samples. Second type of tests was drained and stress-con-
trolled tests on saturated sands. Under the same normal
stress level, undrained wet critical density (saturated sand
specimens) located a little bit higher than the dry critical
density (dry sand samples) on the state diagram; i.e., critical
state line is located a little bit higher than steady state line.
This observation is consistent with the findings of
Casagrande (1976) and Castro (1969).
Evidences support the two lines are the same
Both strain controlled and load controlled triaxial compres-
sion tests were adopted by Been et al. (1991). The test
results showed that drained or undrained shearing did not
have any effects on the location of the ultimate state. As
MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 5
stated previously, steady state describes the flow structure of
specimens whereas specimens usually do not show flow
behavior in drained tests. Thus, researchers often obtain
critical state and steady state according to drained and
undrained tests, respectively. Since the critical state is associ-
ated with drained tests and steady state is associated with
undrained tests, this is equivalent to the statement that the
two states are the same. Meanwhile, neither a “flow
structure” nor the “constant velocity” have been observed in
the steady/critical state. Essentially, these two terms are only
in definition, which cannot make a clear distinction between
the steady and critical states.
The term steady state is almost exclusively used to
describe a flow state under the undrained conditions for
contractive soils while dilative soils normally do not mani-
fest flow behavior under undrained condition; therefore, a
relationship between critical state and steady state is only
valid for contractive soils (Chu et al. 1995). Under this def-
inition, the critical state is the ultimate state in a drained
test and the steady state is the ultimate state in an undrained
test. Thus, it can be concluded that the steady state line is
the same as the critical state line for contractive soils. The
steady state lines obtained from several undrained triaxial
tests of very loose of sands are plotted in Figure 5. The dia-
gram also shows that the three critical state points obtained
from drained tests fall on the steady state line. Therefore, it
can be concluded that the steady state line is the same as
the critical state line for loose contractive soils. This finding
agreed with the observations reported by Sladen et al. (1985)
and Been et al. (1991).
Drained and undrained triaxial isotropically compression
(TIC) tests were carried on sandy soils by Verdugo and
Ishihara (1996). The results of drained tests at large defor-
mations indicated the existence of an ultimate state with
6 X. KANG ET AL.
Figure 5. Effective stress paths from undrained triaxial tests results of very loose sand by Chu (1995).
constant volumetric strain and continuous deformation
under constant shear stress. The ultimate states evaluated
from drained tests (critical states) were in good agreement
with the steady states obtained from undrained tests. At
large deformations, both undrained and drained loading
conditions converged to the same curve in the eqp0
space, indicating that the critical state line is the same as the
steady state line.
Are the critical state and steady state unique?
Questions regarding the uniqueness of the critical state and
steady state are also important to explore. Different material
properties (chemical composition, fines content, gradation,
and angularity) and strain rate may cause the nonuniqueness
of steady state (Alarcon and Leonards 1988). Konrad (1990)
found that there exists an upper limit of steady state
strength (UF line) and lower limit of steady state strength
(LF line) which indicates that the steady state is not unique.
Chu (1995) elaborated the idea that the critical state is
unique if a sample is sheared by a certain stress path.
Mooney et al. (1998) indicated that the relationship between
shear stress q and mean effective stress p0 at critical state is
unique; however, there is no unique critical state void ratio
e at a given mean effective stress p0 . Been and Jefferies
(1985) inferring that the CSL could be fabric-dependent,
thus, possibly nonunique.
However, the unique CSLs were obtained by a growing
number of researchers in recent years (Wheeler et al. 2003;
Hosseini 2005; Mahdi and Yannis 2013; Gao et al. 2014; Li
et al. 2014). Based on the discrete element method (DEM)
observations and thermodynamics considerations, a critical
state theory taking fabric anisotropy into account was pro-
posed by Li and Dafalias (2012), in which the uniqueness of
the CSL was affirmed. Li and Dafalias (2012) further stated
that the uniqueness of CSL is not only of a phenomeno-
logical nature but comes with the Gibbs stability (Collins
and Houlsby 1997; Collins et al. 2007, 2010) requirement in
conjunction with the notion of a critical state material fab-
ric, which is a fundamental attribute that has not been expli-
citly stated in the classical critical state theory, thus, leaving
the uniqueness of the CSL a debatable issue in the past.
Factors influencing the measurement of critical
state and steady state
Because many of the researchers approached the critical/
steady states from different perspectives and described their
results in a variety of forms, the current literature contains
many apparent contradictions with regard to the important
factors governing the critical/steady state behaviors, such as
initial fabric, drainage condition, loading type, stress path,
stress level, density, etc. In particular, it is difficult to reach
agreement about which factors may dominate the shear
strength of soils at large strains. A brief review of the previ-
ous research on the factors that influence the measurement
of critical/steady state are presented in Figure 6.
Effect of particle size and sample size
Several factors have been pointed out by Castro et al. (1982)
that are significantly affect the position of the critical/steady

Figure 6. Influencing factors of critical/steady state.
state line. Among those factors, the grain size distribution
and grain angularity are the primary factors. It has been
shown that relatively small changes in grain size distribution
(grain angularity being constant) will result in significant
changes in the position but not the slope of the critical/
steady state lines. Sample size was also considered have great
contribution to the critical/steady state lines. However, the
effect of sample size is still unclear because some of the
smaller samples tended to yield conservative results, while
others indicated the opposite.
Effect of extension and compression
The stress path dependent soil behavior has been widely
reported by Bishop (1971), Miura and Toki (1982),
Hanzawa (1980), Chang et al. (1982), Vaid and Chung
(1989), Kuerbis et al. (1988), and Kuerbis and Vaid (1988),
using triaxial compression and extension tests. Vaid et al.
(1990) showed that the steady state lines in compression are
different from steady state lines in extension. Kuerbis et al.
(1988) and Vaid et al. (1990) suggested that very large dif-
ferences exist in extension and compression due to inherent
anisotropy, therefore, triaxial extension and compression
yield different critical/steady state lines. The steady state val-
ues obtained from Riemer et al. (1997) and Chern (1985)
are plotted in Figure 7. It showed that the samples tested in
extension are considerably weaker at large strains than those
MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 7
tested in compression. This finding is consistent with
Hanzawa (1980), Miura and Toki (1982), Vaid et al. (1990),
and Negussey and Islam (1994). Been et al. (1991) also
found that there is apparently greater softening in the exten-
sion tests than those observed in compression tests. Similar
behavior has been reported by Symes et al. (1984) for
undrained shear in a hollow-cylinder apparatus.
Effect of void ratio
Poulos et al. (1977) thought that soil can develop liquefac-
tion only if the stress acting on the soil is substantially
higher than those corresponding to the steady state for the
given void ratio. A plot of void ratio versus effective minor
principle stress, the steady state is represented by a line as
shown in Figure 8. If the actual stress and void ratio of the
sands plots above and to the right of its steady state line,
liquefaction can develop, thus the void ratio in dilative soils
(dense samples) was a key point in determining the steady
state. However, the void ratio in shear zone of dilative soils
can’t be measured precisely, if a bulk void ratio is used, it
can result in great errors, especially when the steady state
line is quite flat. Therefore, highly contractive specimens
(loose samples) are recommended to determine the steady
state line. Due to this reason, most researchers often refer
dense sample to critical state while loose sample to steady
state (Been and Jefferies 1991).
8 X. KANG ET AL.
Figure 7. Steady state line from compression and extension tests by Riemer and Seed (1997) and Chern (1985).
Figure 8. Undrained tests on fully saturated sands from Castro and
Polous (1977).
Effect of fines content
Been and Jefferies (1985) studied the influence of fines con-
tent on the steady state lines. Steady state lines in void
ratio-normal stress space for Kogyuk 350 sand with different
fines contents are shown in Figure 9. The slope of the steady
state line increases with increasing fines content, which is
consistent with a trend toward greater compressibility with
increasing fines content. Therefore, the silt contents can also
influence the steady state line. It is further apparent that the
position of the steady state line at low stresses (arbitrarily
taken as 10 kPa) is related to the maximum void ratio of the
material. Other studies (Polito and Martin 2001; Xenaki and
Athanasopoulos 2003; Belkhatir et al. 2013; Hsiao et al.
2014; Phan et al. 2016) have uncovered similar results.
Effect of stress level
In order to investigate the effects of stress level on the
apparent steady state behavior, Michael and Raymond
(1997) carefully prepared and consolidated a series of identi-
cal samples in different stress levels at essentially the same
void ratio. The test results are plotted in Figure 10. It can be
seen that the specimens consolidated to lower confining
stresses, which are far more realistic stress levels for such
low densities, exhibit their lower shear strengths over a wide
range of strains, and in fact, never reach their “ultimate”
steady-state strength within the strains achievable in the tri-
axial apparatus. These data strongly support the use in
engineering practice of the minimum undrained strength
observed at a representative level of confining stress, since
the strengths mobilized in tests at very large stresses may
not be mobilized at acceptable strain levels in the field. This
confirmed the finding “different normal stress level corre-
sponds to different critical/steady state” proposed by Vesic
and Clough (1968). Therefore, different stress level can
result in different “ultimate” state.
Effect of stress rotation
  
Different loading directions (a of 0 , 24:5 , and 45 ) were
employed for an anisotropic consolidated medium loose
sample as shown in Figure 11 by Symes et al. (1984). It is

Figure 9. Steady state line with different silt contents by Been and
Jefferies (1985).
found that the failure envelop during dilation varied with

loading directions. The value of qp for a ¼ 45 was only 52% of
qp for a ¼ 0 . Samples loaded with the major principle stress
0
vertical were stiffer and failed at a higher value of q=p; .
Therefore, the stress rotation (represented by loading
directions a) is a factor in determining the behavior of sands
(Schofield and Wroth 1968; Atkinson and Bransby 1978; Been
and Jefferies 1991; Wood 1991; Zhang et al. 2013).
Effect of loading type
As stated previously, Casagrande (1976) verified the exist-
ence of two different CVR lines (e S Line and e F Line, first
presented in Figure 4) which were obtained from strain con-
trolled and stress-controlled tests, respectively. However,
Poulos et al. (1977) argued that stress and strain controlled
tests yielded similar results, they confirmed the type of load-
ing is not a big issue in obtaining steady state line, at least
limited for their research sands. This finding is contradicted
with Casagrande’s (1976) findings.
Type of loading might have less effects, but still is a pri-
mary factor affecting the position of critical/steady state line.
Castro et al. (1982) carried out two R tests (consolidated
undrained tests) on banding sand NO. 6 and one R test on
mine tailings using strain controlled axial compression load-
ing and the results were in good agreement with the data
from the load controlled tests. However, this can’t guarantee
stress-controlled and strain controlled tests can always yield
the same results. Different strain rate should also be adopted
and validated in the future research.
Effect of strain rate
According to Castro (1969), strain rate controls the “flow
structure” of specimen at steady state, thus, different strain
rate will induce different steady state of the same specimen
MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 9
Figure 10. Plots of (a) stress path and (b) stress-strain of individual specimens
sheared at same void ratio, but from different consolidation stress levels.
(Casagrande 1976). In addition, test results given by Konrad
(1990) show that constant strain rate yields slightly different
results from those in the stepped loading tests. The “Kink”
phenomenon in liquefaction proposed by Alarcon-Guzman
et al. (1988) also indirectly show that the steady state is
related to the strain rate but may vary in different loading
conditions. However, Hunger and Morgenstern (1984)
showed even during the most rapid flows, the materials con-
tinued to behave as Coulomb frictional fluids, indicating
that strain rate has a minor effect to the shear strength of
granular materials. Although previous researchers believed
strain rate has impacts on the position of critical/steady state
lines, Been et al. (1991) conducted load controlled and strain
controlled testing on contractive, undrained samples. The
range in strain rates at steady state is from 4%/h for strain
controlled tests to 300,000%/h for loading controlled tests.
No significant difference was observed, suggesting that the
strain rate effect is small for Erksak sand. In summary, it
seems that both the stress-controlled test and strain con-
trolled test are dependent on the strain rate. In theory, if the
loading is slow enough or strain rate is fast enough, then
the two conditions should yield the same results.
10 X. KANG ET AL.
Figure 11. (a) Effective stress paths in different loading directions by Symes et al. (1984); (b) Stress-strain (qcoct ) behavior in different loading directions by Symes
et al. (1984).
Effect of initial fabric
Sand samples were prepared by wet pluviation and by moist
compaction techniques to give different (but unknown) initial
fabrics in Been et al. (1991). The purpose of these tests was to
investigate the effect of initial fabric on the critical state line.
The effect of initial fabric is difficult to investigate because dir-
ect quantification of fabric is not practical. However, Oda
(1972) has clearly shown how the tamping and pluviation
techniques do in fact result in different fabrics. Figure 12
shows the critical state line data as a function of sample prep-
aration method. No effect of sample preparation method is
observed. Soil initial fabric was also studied by moist tamping
and slurry deposited methods (Murthy et al. 2007). It was
found that the moist tamping method produced considerably
larger undrained shear strength and slightly smaller flow
potential than the slurry deposited counterpart and the slope
of steady state line is independent of initial fabric. This
conclusion agrees with the findings reported by Poulos et al.
(1985), Li and Dafalias (2012) and Gao et al. (2014).
Effect of initial state
The possibility that the initial state affects the critical state was
also investigated by Been et al. (1991). Figure 13 shows that in
both the initial and final states for all compression tests, all
apparently reached the critical state. Clearly, there are no differ-
ent lines for tests starting above and below the critical state line.
In particular, the tests beginning below the critical state do not
consistently end above the mean line, or vice versa.
Effect of drainage condition
To investigate the effect of the drainage condition on the
steady-state relationship, five specimens prepared and
 MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 11

Figure 12. Effect of sample initial fabric on critical state by Been et al. (1991) (note: pluviated specimens at high void ratios cannot be prepared).

Figure 13. Effect of initial state on the critical state (all tests compression) by Been et al. (1991).

consolidated in the same manner as the undrained specimens
were sheared in drained triaxial compression by Michael et al.
(1997). The relationship between effective stress and void ratio
for these five samples at large strains is plotted in Figure 14,
along with the data from the drained tests for comparison. The
test results show that there is no discernible effect of the drain-
age condition on the steady state relationship. This is agreeable
with the standpoint that whether the test is drained or
undrained does not have any influence on the location of the
ultimate state proposed by Been et al. (1991).
The influence of grain breakage (Coop et al. 2004;
Kikumoto et al. 2010; Bandini and Coop 2011; Hu et al.
2013), grain size distribution (Biarez and Hicher 1994;
Daouadji et al. 2001; Wood and Maeda 2007; Li et al. 2014)
and consolidation history (Finno and Rechenmacher 2003)
on critical/steady state lines were also studied in recent
years. From all these influence factors proposed by previous
research, a summary can be drawn as follows. It has been
shown that particle size, grain breakage and grain size distri-
bution will result in changes in the position but not the
12 X. KANG ET AL.
Figure 14. Steady state data from both drained and undrained triaxial compression tests by Michael et al. (1997).
slope of the critical/steady state lines. The difference of crit-
ical/steady state between the compression and extension
response seems to be large. Void ratio is a key point in
determining the steady state. The slope of the steady state
line increases with increasing fines content. Different normal
stress levels correspond to different critical/steady state.
Stress rotation is also a factor in determining the behavior
of sands. Type of loading might be less, but still a primary
factor that affects the position of critical/steady state line,
where the strain rate and consolidation history also has a
minor effect to critical/steady state. The initial fabric does
not affect the critical state. Drained or undrained condition
does not have any influence on the location of the ultimate
state and the initial state has no effect on critical/steady
state. Effect of sample size is still unclear because some of
the smaller samples tended to yield conservative results,
while others indicated the opposite.
Conclusions
Based on the literature review presented in this paper, it can
be concluded that the difference between critical state and
steady state, if exists, is trivial, because the steady state
researchers embodied critical state researchers’ concept and
extended the definition of critical state by postulating a
“flow structure” and defining the “constant velocity.”
Therefore, one can conclude that the steady state concept is
a refinement of the critical state concept, which is not
exactly the same with the critical state itself, while the
uniqueness of the critical state and steady state was affirmed
in recent studies.
Factors that influence the measurement of the critical
state and steady state have also been discussed. It can be
summarized that particle sizes, grain breakage, grain size
distribution compression and extension, void ratio, stress
level and stress rotation can significantly influence the pos-
ition of critical/steady state lines. The fines constantly influ-
ence the slope of critical/steady state lines. Loading type,
consolidation history and strain rate have a minor effect on
the critical/steady state; however, the drainage condition, ini-
tial fabrics and initial state have almost no effects. Lastly,
the effect of sample size is still unclear.
Acknowledgments
This work was carried out with the support from the National Key
Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC0800207),
National Natural Science Foundation of China (41472244), National
Natural Science Foundation of China (51808207), the Provincial Key
Research and Development Program of Human (0105679005), the
Industrial Technology and Development Program of Zhongjian Tunnel
Construction Co., Ltd. (17430102000417), and the Research Program
of Construction Engineering of Shenzhen (20151118003B).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Louis Ge http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1150-3733
References
Alarcon, A., and G. A. Leonards. 1988. Discussion of “Liquefaction
Evaluation Procedure,” by S. J. Poulos, G. Castro and J. W. France.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 114 (2): 232–259.
Alarcon-Guzman, A., G. A. Leonards, and J. L. Chameau. 1988.
Undrained Monotonic and Cyclic Strength of Sands. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 114 (10): 1089–1109.

Anderson, C. D., and T. L. Eldridge. 2011. Critical State Liquefaction
Assessment of an Upstream Constructed Tailings Sand Dam. 14th
International Conference, tailings and mine waste. pp. 101–112.
Atkinson, J. H., and P. L. Bransby. 1978. The Mechanics of Soils, an
Introduction to Critical State Soil Mechanics. London: McGraw Hill
Book Company (UK), 103–116.
Bandini, V., and W. R. Coop. 2011. The Influence of Particle Breakage
on the Location of the Critical State Line of Sands. Soils and
Foundations 51 (4): 591–600.
Been, K., and M. G. Jefferies. 1985. A State Parameter for Sands.
Geotechnique 35 (2): 99–112.
Been, K., M. G. Jefferies, and J. Hachey. 1991. The Critical State of
Sands. Geotechnique 41 (3): 365–381. VolNo.
Belkhatir, M., T. Schanz, and A. Arab. 2013. Effect of Fines Content
and Void Ratio on the Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity and
Undrained Shear Strength of Sand–Silt Mixtures. Environmental
Earth Sciences 70 (6): 2469–2479.
Biarez, J., and P.-Y. Hicher. 1994. Elementary Mechanics of Soil
Behavior. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam 76 (11): 2491–2511.
Bishop, A. W. 1971. Shear Strength Parameters for Undisturbed and
Remolded Soil Specimens. Roscoe memorial symposium. Cambridge
University, pp. 3–58.
Bishop, A. W., and L. D. Wesley. 1975. A Hydraulic Triaxial Apparatus
for Controlled Stress Path Testing. Geotechnique 25 (4): 657–670.
Casagrande, A. 1936. Characteristics of Cohessionless Soils Affecting
the Stability of Slopes and Earth Fills. Journal of the Boston Society
of Civil Engineers, Reprinted in Contributions to Soil Mechanics,
Boston Society of Civil Engineers 1940: 257–276.
Casagrande, A. 1976. Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility of Sands: A
Critical Review. In Harvard Soil Mechanics Series 88. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University.
Castro, G. 1969. Liquefaction of Sands. In Harvard Soil Mechanics
Series 81. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Castro, G. 1975. Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility of Saturated Sands.
ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division 103(GT6):
551–569.
Castro, G. E. 1982. Liquefaction Induced by Cyclic Loading. Report to
National Science and Foundation, No. NSF/CEE-82018. Washington,
DC: National Science Foundation.
Castro, G., and S. J. Poulos. 1977. Factors Affecting Liquefaction and
Cyclic Mobility. ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division
103(GT6): 501–516.
Chang, N. Y., N. P. Hsieh, D. L. Samuelson, and M. Horita. 1982.
Static and Cyclic Behaviour of Monterey No. ‘0’ sand. Proceedings,
3rd microzonation conference. Seattle, pp. 929–944.
Chu, J. 1995. An Experimental Examination of the Critical State and
Other Similar Concepts for Granular Soils. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 32 (6): 1065–1075.
Chu, J., and L. S.-C.R. 1993. On the Measurement of Critical State
Parameters of Dense Granular Soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal 16
(1): 27–35.
Collins, I. F., and G. T. Houlsby. 1997. Application of
Thermomechanical Principles to the Modeling of Geotechnical
Materials. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A 453 (1964):
1975–2001.
Collins, I. F., B. Muhunthan, and B. Qu. 2010. Thermomechanical
State Parameter Models for Sands. Geotechnique 60 (8): 611–622.
Collins, I. F., B. Muhunthan, A. T. T. Tai, and M. J. Pender. 2007. The
Concept of a ‘Reynolds-Taylor State’ and the Mechanics of Sand.
Geotechnique 57 (5): 437–447.
Coop, M. R., K. K. Sorensen, T. Bodas Freitas, and G. Georgoutsos.
2004. Particle Breakage During Shearing of a Carbonate Sand.
Geotechnique 54 (3): 157–163.
Daouadji, A., and P.-Y. Hicher. 1997. Modelling of Grain Breakage
Influence on Mechanical Behavior of Sand. In: Pietruszczak, Pande
(eds.) Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Balkema, Rotterdam.
ISBN: 905410886X.
Daouadji, A., P.-Y. Hicher, and A. Rahma. 2001. Modelling Grain
Breakage Influence on Mechanical Behavior of Granular Media.
European Journal of Mechanics, A/Solids 20 (1): 113–137.
MARINE GEORESOURCES & GEOTECHNOLOGY 13
Desrues, J., R. Chambon, M. Mokni, and F. Mazerolle. 1996. Void
Ratio Evolution Inside Shear Bands in Triaxial Sand Specimens
Studied by Computed Tomography. Geotechnique, London 46 (3):
1–18.
Desrues, J., J. Lanier, and P. Stutz. 1985. Locialization of the
Deformation in Tests on Sand Sample. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 21 (4): 909–921.
Finno, R. J., and A. L. Rechenmacher. 2003. Effects of Consolidation
History on Critical State of Sand. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129: 4.
Gao, Z., and J. Zhao. 2017. A Non-Coaxial Critical-State Model for
Sand Accounting for Fabric Anisotropy and Fabric Evolution.
International Journal of Solids & Structures 106–107: 200–212.
Gao, Z., J. Zhao, X. S. Li, and Y. F. Dafalias. 2014. A Critical State
sand Plasticity Model Accounting for Fabric Evolution. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 38
(4): 370–390.
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.GT12, pp. 1523–1525.
Geuze, E. C. W. A. 1948. Critical Density of Some Dutch Sands.
Proceedings, second international conference on soil mechanics and
foundation engineering, Rotterdam, Holland, pp. 125–130.
Han, C., and A. Drescher. 1993. Shear Bands in Biaxial Tests on Dry
Coarse Sand. Soils and Foundation, Tokyo 33 (1): 118–132.
Hanzawa, H. 1980. Undrained Strength and Stability Analysis for a
Quick Sand. Soils Foundation, JSSMFE 20 (2): 17–29.
Hosseini, S. M., S. M. Haeri, and D. G. Toll. 2005. Behavior of Gravely
Sand Using Critical State Concepts. Scientia Iranica 12 (2): 167–177.
Hsiao, D. H., and T. A. V. Phan. 2014. Effects of Silt Contents on the
Static and Dynamic Properties of Sand-Silt Mixtures. Geomechanics
and Engineering 7 (3): 297–316.
Hu, W., Z. Y. Yin, C. Dano, and P. Y. Hicher. 2013. Influence of Grain
Breakage on Critical State. Constitutive Modeling of Geomaterials,
SSGG 173–177.
Hunger, O., and N. R. Morgenstern. 1984. Experiments on the Flow
Behavior of Granular Materials at High Velocity in an Open
Channel. Geotechnique 34 (3): 405–413.
Imam, S. R., N. R. Morgenstern, P. K. Robertson, and D. H. Chan.
2005. A Critical-State Constitutive Model for Liquefiable Sand.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 42 (3): 830–855.
Ishihara, K. 1993. Liquefaction and Flow Failure during Earthquake.
Geotechnique 43 (3): 351–415.
Ishihara, K., and R. Verdugo. 1996. The Steady State of Sandy Soils.
Soils Foundation 36 (2): 81–91.
Ishihara, K., R. Verdugo, and A. A. Acacio. 1991. Characterization of
Cyclic Behavior of Sand and Post-Seismic Stability Analyses.
Proceedings of the 9th Asian regional conference on soil mechanics
and foundation engineering, Bangkok.
Kang, X., D. Cambio, and L. Ge. 2012. Effect of Parallel Gradations on
Crushed-Rock Concrete Interface Behaviors. Journal of Testing and
Evaluation, ASTM 40 (1): 1–8.
Kang, X., and G.-C. Kang. 2015. Modified Monotonic Simple Shear
Tests on Silica Sand. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, Taylor
& Francis 33 (2): 122–126.
Kikumoto, M., D. Muir Wood, and A. R. Russell. 2010. Particle
Crushing and Deformation Behavior. Soils and Foundations 50 (4):
547–563.
Konard, J.-M. 1990. Minimum Undrained Shear Strength of Two
Sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 116 (6): 932–947.
Konard, J.-M. 1990. Minimum Undrained Strength versus Steady-State
of Sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 116 (6):
948–963.
Koppejan, A. W., B. M. Van Wamelen, and L. J. H. Weinberg. 1948.
Coastal Flow Slides in the Dutch Province of Zeeland. Proceedings,
second international conference on soil mechanics and foundation
engineering. Rotterdam, Holland, pp. 89–96.
Kuerbis, R. H., D. Negussey, and Y. P. Vaid. 1988. Effect of Gradation
and Fines Content on the Undrained Response of Sand. ASCE con-
ference on hydraulic fill structures. Geotechnical Special Publication
21, pp. 330–345.
14 X. KANG ET AL.
Kuerbis, R. H., and Y. P. Vaid. 1988. Sand Sample Preparation—The
Slurry Deposition Method. Soils and Foundations 28 (4): 107–118.
Li, X. S., and Y. F. Dafalias. 2012. Anisotropic Critical State Theory:
The Role of Fabric. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 138 (3):
263–275.
Lindenberg, J., and H. L Koning. 1981. Critical Density of Sand.
Geotechnique 31 (2): 231–245.
Li, G., C. Ovalle, C. Dano, and P. Y. Hicher. 2014. Influence of Grain
Size Distribution on Critical State of Granular Materials.
Constitutive Modeling of Geomaterials, SSGG 207–210.
Miura, S., and S. Toki. 1982. A Sample Preparation Method and Its
Effect on Static and Cyclic Deformation-Strength Properties of Sand.
Soils and Foundations 22 (1): 61–77.
Miura, S., and S. Toki. 1984. Anisotropy in Mechanical Properties and
Its Simulation of Sands Sampled from Natural Deposits. Soils
Foundation 24 (3): 69–84.
Mooney, M. A., R. J. Finno, and M. G. Viggiani. 1998. A Unique
Critical State for Sand? Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 124 (11): 1100–1108.
Muir Wood, D., and K. Maeda. 2008. Changing GSD of Soil: Effect on
Critical States. Acta Geotechnica 3 (1): 3–14.
Murthy, T. G., D. Loukidis, J. A. H. Carraro, M. Prezzi, and R.
Salgado. 2007. Undrained Monotonic Response of Clean and Silty
Sands. Geotechnique 57 (3): 273–88.
Naeini, S. A., and M. H. Baziar. 2004. Effect of Fines Content on
Steady-State Strength of Mixed and Layered Samples of a Sand. Soil
Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering 24 (3): 181–187.
Negussey, D., and M. S. Islam. 1994. Uniqueness of Steady State and
Liquefaction Potential. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 31 (1):
132–139.
Oda, M. 1972. Initial Fabrics and Their Relations to Mechanical
Properties of Granular Material. Soils Fdns 12 (1): 17–36.
Phan, T. A., D. H. Hsiao, and T. L. Nguyen. 2016. Critical State Line
and State Parameter of Sand-Fines Mixtures. Procedia Engineering
142: 298–305.
Polito, C., and J. Martin Ii. 2001. Effects of Nonplastic Fines on the
Liquefaction Resistance of Sands. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 127 (5): 408–415.
Poulos, S. J. 1981. Colsure to the Steady State of Deformation. ASCE.
Journal of the Geotechnical 108: 1087–1091.
Poulos, S. J. 1981. The Steady State of Deformation. ASCE, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division 107(GT5): 553–62.
Poulos, S. J., G. Castro, and J. W. France. 1985. Liquefaction
Evaluation Procedure. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 111 (6): 772–792.
Riemer, M. F., and R. B. Seed. 1997. Factors Affecting Apparent
Position of Steady-State Line. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 123 (3): 281–288.
Riemer, M. F., and R. B. Seed. 1997. Factors Affecting Apparent
Position of Steady State Line. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 123 (3): 281–288.
Riemer, M. F., R. B. Seed, P. G. Nicholson, and H.-L. Jong. 1990.
Steady State Testing of Loose Sands: Limiting Minimum Density.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 116 (2).
Roscoe, K. H., M. A. Schofield, and C. P. Wroth. 1958. On the Yield of
Soils. Geotechnique 8 (1): 22–53.
Sang, I. W., H. Seo, and J. Kim. 2017. Critical-State-Based Mohr-
Coulomb Plasticity Model for Sands. Computers & Geotechnics 92:
179–185.
Schofield, A., and C. P. Wroth. 1968. Critical State Soil Mechanics.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book, pp. 1–310.
Selig, E. T., Y. P. Vaid, and D. Negussey. 1984. A Critical Assessment
of Membrane Penetration in the Triaxial Test. Geotechnical Testing
Journal 7 (2): 70–76.
Sladen, J. A., R. D. D’Hollander, and J. Krahn. 1985. The Liquefaction
of Sands, a Collapse Surface Approach. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 22 (4): 564–578.
Suebsuk, J., S. Horpibulsuk, and M. D. Liu. 2011. A Critical State
Model for Overconsolidated Structured Clays. Computers &
Geotechnics 38 (5): 648–658.
Sun, D., Y. P. Yao, and H. Matsuoka. 2006. Modification of Critical
State Models by Mohr–Coulomb Criterion. Mechanics Research
Communications 33 (2): 217–232.
Symes, M. J. P. R., A. Gens, and D. W. Hight. 1984. Undrained
Anisotropy and Principal Stress Rotation in Saturated Sand.
Geotechnique 34 (1): 11–27.
Taiebat, M., and Y. F. Dafalias. 2013. Rotational Hardening and
Uniqueness of Critical State Line in Clay Plasticity. Constitutive
Modeling of Geomaterials, SSGG 223–230.
Vaid, Y. P., and J. C. Chern. 1983. Effect of Static Shear on Resistance
to Liquefaction. Soils Foundation, JSSMFE 23 (1): 47–60.
Vaid, Y. P., and J. C. Chern. 1985. Closure to “Effect of Static Shear on
Resistance to Liquefaction,” by Y. P. Vaid and J. C. Chern. Soils
Found, JSSMFE 25 (3): 154–156.
Vaid, Y. P., E. K. F. Chung, and R. H. Kuerbis. 1990. Stress Path and
Steady State. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27 (1): 1–7.
Vaid, Y. P., and E. K. F. Chung. 1989. Preshearing and Undrained
Response of Sand. Soil Mechanics Series No.128. Vancouver, BC:
University of British Columbia.
Vesic, A. S., and G. W. Clough. 1968. Behaviour of Granular Materials
under High Stresses. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division, ASCE 94 (SM3): 661–688.
Wei, X., and J. Yang. 2018. A Critical State Constitutive Model for
Clean and Silty Sand. Acta Geotechnica 2018 (2): 1–17.
Wheeler, S. J., A. Naatanen, M. Karstunen, and M. Lojander. 2003. An
Anisotropic Elastoplastic Model for Soft Clays. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 40 (2): 403–418.
Wood, D. M. 1991. Soil Behaviour and Critical State Soil Mechanics.
New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–162.
Xenaki, V. C., and G. A. Athanasopoulos. 2003. Liquefaction
Resistance of Sand–Silt Mixtures: An Experimental Investigation of
the Effect of Fines. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 23
(3): 1–12.
Yao, Y., M. Zhang, Z. Wan, N. Wang, and C. Zhu. 2018. Constitutive
Model for Sand Based on the Critical State. Chinese Journal of
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 50 (3): 589–598.
Yoshida, T., F. Tatsuoka, Y. Kamegai, M. S. A. Siddiquee, and C. S.
Park. 1994. Shear Banding in Sands Observed in Plane Strain
Compression. Proceedings of 3rd international workshop on local-
isation and bifurcation theory for soils and rocks, a. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 165–179.
Zhang, H. 1997. Steady State Behavior of Sands and Limitations of the
Triaxial Tests. Ph.D thesis, Ottawa, Ontario. University of Ottawa.
Zhang, M., Y. Yang, Q. Li, M. Jiang, and W. Fei. 2013. Influence of
Stress Paths Including Principal Stress Rotation on Critical State of
Dense Sand. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering 32
(12): 2560–2565.