The University of Jordan

School of Engineering
Civil Engineering Department
Continuum mechanics
Professor Bashar Tarawneh

The Theory of plasticity

Conducted by:
Marwan Nezar Ibrahim Al-Falouji (8211048)
Rami Rabee Odetallah Albtoush (8210823)
Yazan Ahmad Mahmoud Jaradat (8210883)

1
 Table of content:
1. General background…………………………………………….……. 3
2. Idealization of stress-strain relations………………………….…….3
3. Bauschinger effect …………………………………………………….4
4. Yielding in materials ………………………………….……….………5
5. Yielding in metals ……………………………………………….…….5
6. yielding in cohesive soil (Clay)………………………………….…….6
7. yielding in granular soil (sand)……………………………...…………8
8. Elastic-Plastic models………………………………………………….9
9. linear elastic………………………………………………….…….….10
10.non-linear elastic…………………………………………..………….11
11.Prefect plastic…………………………………………………………12
12.hardening cap plasticity……………………………………………….14
13.-Failure theories………………………………………….……………16
14.Maximum stress theory…………………………………..……………16
15.Maximum strain theory…………………………………..……………17
16.maximum shear theory (tresca theory)………………………….……..18
17.Maximum distortion- energy theory (von mises theory)………………20
18. Stress-space representation …………………………………….….….23
19.Failure Criteria on Plasticity…………………………………….…….24
20.Flow Rule………………………………………………………………24
21.Yield Function…………………………………………………………25
22.Hardning rule ………………………………………..….…………….26
23.Tresca Failure Criterion………………………………………………..28
24.Von Mises Failure Criterion………………………..…………………..30
25.Mohr Coulomb Failure Criterion…………………………………….32

26.Drucker Prager Failure Criterion…………………..………………..35

27.Cam Clay Model (CCM) Criterion…………………………………..39

28.References………………………………………………………………42

2
-General background.
For the past 200 years, scientists and engineers have been researching the plasticity
theory. The first pieces were written by coulomb (1773), rankine (1857), tresca
(1864), levy (1870), saint-venant (1870), huber (1904), von mises (1913), prandtl
(1924), hencky (1924), reuss(1930), and others. Prager (1945) and Drucker (1950),
among others, made more recent contributions to the literature.
The mechanisms underlying plastic behavior are incredibly sophisticated. It
requires a lot of assumptions to be made simple in order to be used in engineering.
There are two methods for studying plasticity: one involves examining the material
at the microscopic level, while the other involves doing so at the macroscopic
level. Consider a substance as being made up of numerous distinct particles that
can be orientated as you like. Each particle moves in translation and/or rotation
when it is stimulated by external loads. The particle may or may not return to its
initial position after the loads are released. The macroscopic perspective of such
phenomena leads to the plasticity theory, but the microscopic investigation of these
actions is characterized as the theory of dislocation. Physics researchers have
mostly focused on the dislocation theory in relation to crystallography. Engineers
whose main focus is the analysis and design of load-bearing structural members
perceive the microscopic view of material behavior as either unneeded or
irrelevant.

-Idealization of stress-strain relations

The stress-strain relation must be idealized in order to provide a solution to a
deformation problem.
The stress-strain relationship can be idealized using a number of criteria. The
stress-strain relationship is demonstrated by these four FIGURES for rigid
perfectly plastic material, elastic perfectly plastic material, rigid linear strain
hardening material and elastic linear strain hardening material.

3
Before adoption, an analysis based on these idealizations must be supported for
each type of material.
Some materials have identical yield points in tension and compression. Isotropic
hardening refers to the strain hardening that takes place in this condition. The yield
in compression could be lower than that in tension if metal is first deformed in
tension and then reloaded in compression. this is caused by the dislocation field
being anisotropic or by residual stress that was left in tension.
The yield point in compression is caused by this phenomenon, known as the
Bauschinger effect, to occur between 1 and 2 in the figure below. The strain
hardening caused by the Bauschinger effect is known as kinematic hardening.

4
Yielding in materials:
In order to study the material plasticity, it is important first to determine where the
plastic range starts and study the properties of this point which discriminate
between elastic and plastic range for the material. Thus, the idea of yielding starts
in metals and is then used in soil.
Yielding in metals:
The idea of yielding in metals started with two researchers (Taylor and Quinney
1931), they used a hollow copper tube in their experiment. Firstly, they subjected
the tube to pure tension and pure torsion separately, they notice that the tube will
behave similarly in the two cases as the tube will shows pure shear strain or normal
strain (develop plastic deformation and increase elastic range).
The copper tube they used (outer diameter = 6.3mm, inner diameter = 4.5mm, and
length = 292mm), they initially loaded the tube by P 0 (axial load), this load was
then reduced to a value of P = m*P 0 and torque Q was applied until plastic
deformations were observed. The path of a typical test is plotted in a load plain
(P:Q) as shown in fig(2.1).

Fig (2.1)
Quinney and Taylor performed the test with eight different values of m from
(0.025-0.95). through the eight yielding points thus established, a yielding curve
could be drawn defining the combination of tension P and torsion Q for which
plastic deformation would begin to occur.
They notice that if there were no interaction between the effect of tension and
torsion, then the onset of plastic deformation would be associated with

5
combination of loads lying on the rectangle (ACB) as shown in fig (2.2), the fig
implying that the torque required to produce yield would be Q1, irrespective of the
values of the tension. Also, the experimental data shows a type of curving as they
follow a specific pattern as shown in fig (2.2).

Fig (2.2)

A- yielding in cohesive soil (Clay):

in order to apply the concept of yielding in cohesive soil, it is essential to find tests
analogous to uniaxial and torsional tests in soil samples. The combination of
tension and torsion tests on copper tubes studied the response of tubes that has the
same preloading history, to a different combination of P and Q values the
equivalent of this in geotechnical engineering is a series of tests in which soil
samples with the same preloading history are subjected to different modes of loads
such as one-dimensional tests, isotropic compression test, and undrained shear test.
The first step is to take three soil samples from the same depth and layer, then
subjected them to cell pressure in triaxial test to ensure that the three samples have
the same preloading history.
Sample 1: subjected to isotropic compression test by increasing the cell pressure
and the yielding point Y1 is observed when the stiffness of the sample is changed
markedly, in other words, when the slope of the curve changes sharply as shown in
fig (2.3)

6
 fig (2.3)

Sample 2: subjected to a one-dimensional compression test by controlling the cell

pressure as the axial stress is increased in such a way that lateral strain does not
occur, thus we can plot the path of the effect stress for one-dimensional loading,
Y2 can also notice when the stiffness of soil changed sharply, or the curve slope
changes sharply as shown in fig (2.4).

Fig (2.4)
Sample 3: is subjected to an undrained compression test with pore water pressure
measurement yielding point Y3 is when the plot of deviator stress against triaxial
shear strain change Sharpley as shown I fig (2.5).

Fig (2.5)
After determining three yielding points (which is the minimum number of points to
draw a surface) it is important to define these points in the stress path (p vs q) as
shown in fig (2.6) and finally, draw the yielding surface which is the transition
surface between elastic range and plastic range.
7
 Fig (2.6)
B- yielding in granular soil (sand):
Opposite to clay, sand cannot be taken as samples from the field due to the high
disturbance in sand samples. A yield surface deducted from poring tests in the
triaxial apparatus on a series of field samples should represent correctly the current
yield surface for the clay in its site condition at a particular depth in the ground.
As mentioned, sampling sand, unless it is strongly cemented, inevitably leads to a
serious disturbance of the particle structure.
To find the sand yield surface, Tatsuoka subjected individual samples of Fuji River
sand to a set of loadings to elaborate the triaxial stress path, in order to locate the
position of small segments of the developing yield surface for this sand as shown
in fig (2.7).

Fig (2.7)
According to fig (2.7), the applied stress paths consist of sections at constant cell
pressure and other sections at constant deviatoric stress.
The ideal path consists of isotropic compression from (O to A) followed by
constant cell pressure compression from (A to B).

8
The yielding of the sand is now governed by the yielding surface pass through (B)
and its location in the path (ACDB).
To determine the complete surface, the deviatoric stress is reduced at constant cell
pressure (B to C) then the cell pressure is reduced at constant deviatoric stress (C
to D) and finally, the deviatoric stress is increased again at constant cell pressure
(D to E), after that the segment (D-E) is converted to stress-strain curve and the
yielding point is determined in a stress-strain curve then the stress path curve. This
procedure must be repeated many times to get the complete yield surface in the
sand as shown on fig (2.8

Fig (2.8)
Elastic-Plastic models:
As mentioned before soil tends to form a yield surface depending on the type and
the magnitude of the load applied, in other words, as soon as stress changes engage
a current yield surface and a combination of elastic and plastic deformation occurs.
The elastic models failed to explain the plastic deformation (non-recoverable) thus,
a new method must be established to explain this behavior in addition to the elastic
behavior. within the framework of the theory of continuum mass media, which is
the basis for all stress and deformation analyses, there are two theories of plasticity
that can be utilized to formulate a constitutive equation for soil. The first one is the
deformation theory and the second one is the incremental theory. The difference
between them arises from the way they relate plastic strain to stresses. In the
deformation theory, a relation between the instantaneous states of stress and plastic
strain is postulated such that given one the other is uniquely determined, while in
the incremental theory, the relationships are between plastic strain rate and existing
stresses and stress rate. Both theories assume the soil is elastic or rigid until the
stresses satisfy a yield criterion, after which the material is plastic. Because of the
mathematical inconsistencies in the deformation theory, the incremental theory of
plasticity is favored by so many engineers.

9
Within the incremental theory, materials can be divided into perfectly plastic ones
and strain-hardening ones the main difference is that the perfectly plastic materials
the yield surface equation is a function of stress only, on the other hand in
hardening behavior the yielding surface equation is a function of stress and flow
rule.
Drucker (1950, 1951, 1954) has described the general concept of a stable material
in which the elastic-plastic models where applied, as one on which a set of stress
increments produce positive or zero work during a full cycle of loading and
unloading. This concept has the following implications:
(1) Yield surface (loading function) should be convex in stress space.
(2) Yield surface and plastic potential should coincide (which results in an
"associated" flow rule), i.e., the plastic strain increment is a vector normal to the
yield surface.
(3) Work "softening" should not occur, i.e., the material must not collapse during
yielding or its strength must not decrease during failure under increasing loads.
Any elastic-plastic model must contain four equations:
1. elastic properties
2. yield surface equation (yield point properties)
3. Plastic potential
4. Flow rule
We can divide the elastic-plastic models into four main types:
1- linear elastic perfect plastic models.
2- linear elastic cap hardening models.
3- non-linear elastic perfect plastic models.
4- non-linear elastic cap hardening models.

A- linear elastic:
Within the elastic range (in linear elastic), the behavior of the material can be
described by an incremental elastic constitutive relation:
elastic strain incremental tensor ( dε eij ) =C ijkl∗dσ kl
Where C ijklis the stiffness matrix.

10
B- non-linear elastic:
For isotropic non-linear elastic materials, the strain incremental tensor can be
written as:
dS
( dε eij )= dI9 k1 δ ij + 2 Gij

K: is the bulk modulus and dI 1: or (dσ kk ¿ is the first invariant of the

stress tensor
G: is the shear modulus d S ij: deviatoric stress tensor

We can notice that in non-linear elasticity the strain at any point is a combination
of normal strain and shear strain this is due to the instantaneous change in the bulk
modulus and shear modulus at every point in the curve so this equation is clearly
represent the real stress tensor by divining the stress matric tensor into hydrostatic
stress tensor (dσ kk ¿ which reflect the normal strain and deviatoric stress (d S ij) which
represent the shear strain. Thus, the elastic strain incremental tensor can be divided
as:

e dI 1
hydrostatic strain tensor (dε ¿ ¿ kk )= ¿
3K

d Sij
diviaroric strain incremental tensor ( de ij ) ¿
e

2G

e
dε kk . δ ij
slastic strain incremental tensor (dε ¿ ¿ ij )=( deij ) +
e e
¿
3

[ ]
σ 11 τ 12 τ 13
where the stress tensor ( dσ ij ) = τ 21 σ 22 τ 23
τ 31 τ 32 σ 33

11
C- Prefect plastic:
For prefect plastic material, the plastic strain increment tensor can be obtained
from the plastic flow rule in conjunction with a yield function which is fixed in the
principal stress space and there is no developing in yield surface, in other words,
there is no flow rule. Thus, it does not move or expand during plastic deformation.
The yield function, which also serves as a potential function according to Darker
assumption so, it is only a function of stress tensor, or a function of invariants of
stress tensor for an isotropic material. Thus:
f ( σ ij )=0 where (σ ij): is the stress tensor.

(
by deriving the yield function df =
∂f
dσ
∂ σ ij ij )
so we can notice that d σ ij d ε ij = 0

According to this equation (dσ ij d ε ij = 0) the strain tensor cannot be zero because as
stress is applied there is a strain in the material so, the incremental stress ( dσ ij ¿ is
zero and this means that the stress applied is remain constant after a specific point
which is the yielding point and this is the perfect plasticity concept.
The incremental stress must be constant value according to incremental theory in
order to study the plastic strain behavior so the (df ) is the plastic incremental strain
tensor:
∂f
plastic incremental strain tensor ( dε ijp ) =d λ
∂ σ ij

Like the elastic behavior, the plastic stress-strain relation can be expressed in terms
of the hydrostatic and deviatoric components of strain and stress by applying the
chain rule of differentiation to the right-hand side of the plastic incremental strain
tensor.
p ∂ f ∂ σ mm ∂ f ∂ S nm ∂f ∂f
dε ij =d λ ( + ¿ ≫≫ ≫ d λ  ( δ ij  + )
∂ σ kk ∂ σ ij ∂ S nm ∂ σ ij ∂ σ kk ∂ S ij

By multiplying the two sides with (δ ij) we can get the hydrostatic plastic
incremental tensor (dε pkk)
∂f
dε pkk=3 d λ
∂ σ kk

12
Similarly to elastic equations we can get the deviatoric plastic incremental tensor (
de ij )
p

dε kkp . δ ij p ∂f
≫ ≫≫ de ij =d λ ∂ S
p p
de =dε −
ij ij
3 ij

In order to use any of the above equations, the proportionality factor ( d λ) must be
determined. This can be accomplished in the following manner. Applying the chain
rule of differentiation to the right-hand side of yield surface equation:
∂f ∂f
df = d σ kk + dS
∂ σ kk ∂ Sij ij

Form non-linear elastic equation we know that:

dI 1 d S ij
 ,             ( deij )  = ¿,
e e e p
(dε ¿ ¿ kk )= d ε ij =d ε ij +d ε ij
3K 2G

By substituting the values of (dI 1), (d ε eij ) and (d S ij) in (df ):

∂f p ∂f
∂ Sij ij ( ij
3k (d ε mm −dε mm )+ 2G d S d e −de ijp ) =0
∂ σ kk

From plastic equation

p ∂f p ∂f
dε kk =3 d λ , de ij =d λ ∂ S
∂ σ kk ij

By substituting the values of (d ε kkp ), (d e eij):

( ) ( )
2 2
∂f ∂f ∂f ∂f
3K dε mm+ 2G de ij = d λ [9 K +2G ¿
∂ σ kk ∂ Sij ∂ σ kk ∂ Sij

∂f ∂f
3K dε + 2G de
∂ σ kk mm ∂ Sij ij
the positve constant d λ=
( ) ( )
2 2
∂f ∂f
9K + 2G
∂ σ kk ∂ Sij

13
The total strain increment tensor can be obtained by combining the elastic part and
the plastic part:
dI 1 dS ∂f
the total strain equation ( dε ij )= δ ij + ij + d λ ¿ Sij +¿ ¿
9k 2G ∂ S ij

D- hardening cap plasticity:

From a general point of view, a cap model falls within the framework of the
classical incremental theory of work-hardening plasticity for materials which have
(time- and temperature-independent) properties and which are capable of
undergoing small plastic (permanent) as well as elastic (recoverable) strain at each
loading increment.
Oppositely, to perfect plastic here the cap hardening d σ ij d ε ij > 0 this means that the
stress in the plastic range is not constant and varies, so the relation is tending to
describe the current plastic strain under current stress condition because of the
stress variation.
So, this allows considerable flexibility in the choice of the general form of the
loading function/for the model, which serves as both a yield surface and the plastic
potential. In general, the loading function may be expressed as:
f ( σ ij , K ) =0 where the K is the flow rule (hardening parameter) and it is a function
of hydrostatic plastic incremental tensor ( g( dε kkp )).
By deriving the yield function with respect to σ ij we will get three possible cases
unlike perfect plastic:

{
¿ 0(unloading)
∂f
dσ = ¿ 0(nutral)
∂ σ ij ij
¿ 0(loading)

the Plastic strain will occur only when df > 0 and f = 0. During unloading or
neutral loading for f < 0, the material will behave elastically.). For work-hardening
plastic material Drucker has shown that the expression for the plastic strain
increment tensor is similar to elastic perfect plastic modles thus:

14
 ∂f
plastic incremental strain tensor ( dε ijp ) =d λ
∂ σ ij

p ∂ f ∂ σ mm ∂ f ∂ S nm ∂f ∂f
dε ij =d λ ( + ¿ ≫≫ ≫ d λ  ( δ ij  + )
∂ σ kk ∂ σ ij ∂ S nm ∂ σ ij ∂ σ kk ∂ S ij

By multiplying the two sides with (δ ij) we can get the hydrostatic plastic
incremental tensor (dε pkk)
p ∂f
dε kk=3 d λ
∂ σ kk

Similarly to elastic equations we can get the deviatoric plastic incremental tensor (
de ij )
p

dε kkp . δ ij p ∂f
de ijp=dε ijp− ≫ ≫≫ de ij =d λ ∂ S
3 ij

the positive constant (d λ) is similer to perfect plastic but here the flow rule will be
part of the eqution so:

∂f ∂f ∂ f ∂k p
df = d σ kk +¿ d Sij + d ε kk
∂ σ kk ∂ S ij ∂ k ∂ ε kk
p

Form non-linear elastic equation we know that:

dI 1 dS p ∂f
(dε ¿ ¿ kk e )=  ,     ( deije )  = ij ¿ , d ε ij =d ε eij +d ε ijp , dε kk=3 d λ
3K 2G ∂ σ kk

By substituting the values of (dI 1), (d ε eij ), (dε pkk) and (d S ij) in (df ):
∂f ∂f ∂ f ∂f ∂k
d Sij ( d e ij −de ij ) +3 d λ
p p
3k (d ε mm −dε mm )+ 2G =0
∂ σ kk ∂ Sij ∂ σ kk ∂ k ∂ ε kkp

From plastic equations

p ∂f p ∂f
dε kk =3 d λ , de ij =d λ ∂ S
∂ σ kk ij

15
By substituting the values of (d ε kkp ), (d e eij):

3K
∂f
∂ σ kk
dε mm+ 2G
∂f
∂ Sij
de ij = d λ [9 K
( ) ( )
∂f 2
∂ σ kk
+2G
∂f 2
∂ Sij
−3 d λ
∂ f ∂f ∂k
∂ σ kk ∂ k ∂ ε kkp
¿

∂f ∂f
3K dε + 2G de
∂ σ kk mm ∂ Sij ij
the positve constant d λ=
( ) ( )
2 2
∂f ∂f ∂ f ∂f ∂k
9K +2G −3
∂ σ kk ∂ Sij ∂ σ kk ∂ k ∂ ε kkp

The total strain increment tensor can be obtained by combining the elastic part and
the plastic part:
dI 1 dS ∂f
the total strain equation ( dε ij )= δ ij + ij + d λ ¿ Sij +¿ ¿
9k 2G ∂ S ij

-Failure theories
We are concerned with the load carrying capacity—or, more precisely, the point of
yield or failure—when designing a building. In the past, numerous definitions of a
material's yielding were used, mostly based on experimental findings.
Various failure theories that have developed over the past 200 years are covered in
the section that follows.
1- Maximum stress theory
When one of the major stresses becomes equal to the yield stress in either
simple tension or compression, according to rankine's theory from 1857,
yielding occurs. This theory is illustrated schematically in the figure below.
It can be seen that any state of stress on or outside the yield surface indicates
material yielding because the rectangular block known as the yield surface
becomes a square if the yield stress in simple tension equals the one in
compression.
The maximum stress theory, often known as the rankine theory, is not
thought to be reliable for many of the engineering materials used today.

16
 2- Maximum strain theory.
Saint-Venant originally put forward this theory in 1870. According to the
maximum strain theory, yielding happens when the principal strain's
maximum value meets the yield stain's value in simple tension or
compression.
Let ɣ˳ be the yield stain and σ ˳ as the equivalent yield stress, E as the
σ˳
young’s modulus. Then, according to hooks law, we have: ɣ˳ = E (1)

The primary strains for a biaxial condition of stress are

σ ₁₁ σ ₂₂ σ ₂₂ σ ₁₁
ɣ₁₁ = E - v E , ɣ₂₂ = E - v E then

σ₁₁ = E ɣ₁₁ + v σ₂₂ (2a)

σ₂₂ = E ɣ₁₁ + v σ₁₁ (2b)
σ˳
If the yield strains are equivalent to the primary strains, i.e., if ɣ₁₁ = ɣ˳ = E
σ˳
And ɣ₂₂ = ɣ˳ = E then
σ₁₁ = σ ˳ + v σ₂₂ (3a)
σ₂₂ = σ ˳ + v σ₁₁ (3b)
When plotting the equations in the principal stress space, we obtain the
diamond-shaped yield surface depicted in the image below.

17
3-maximum shear theory (tresca theory)

Couloumb initially proposed the maximum shear theory, often known as the
tresca theory (1864), in 1773 and used it to develop soil foundation designs.
According to the hypothesis, yielding takes place once the shear stress
approaches the maximum yield shear stress in the tension test. This criterion
can be written as follows when in a triaxial state of stress.

σ ₁₁−σ ₂₂ σ ˳
= =K (4a)
2 2

σ ₂₂−σ ₃₃ σ ˳
= =K (4b)
2 2

σ ₃₃−σ ₁₁ σ ˳
= =K (4c)
2 2
where k is the pure shear yield stress. Let's keep things simple and think
about a biaxial condition of stress. Assume, then, that σ ₁₁and σ ₂₂ are both in
tension as depicted in the picture. Figure depicts the mohr circle depiction.
The maximum shear is found to be

σ ₁₁
ґ max = 2 (5)
σ ₁₁ σ˳
here on yielding we have | 2 | = 2 (6)

18
In a similar manner, if both σ ₁₁ and σ ₂₂ are compressed, the mohr circle is
displayed in the figure below to the left of the ґ axis, and we continue
σ ₂₂ σ˳
yielding, | 2 | = 2 (7)

Let's now investigate the situation when x is in tension and y is in

compression, as indicated in the mohr circle picture below. In this scenario,
we observe that
|σ 22|+|σ 11|
Ґmax = (8)
2

σ˳
¿ σ ₁₁−σ ₂₂∨ ¿ = ¿ (9)
2 2
It is observed that the equation can be written in the form

σ ₁₁ σ ₂₂
− =± 1 (10)
σ˳ σ˳

19
The hexagonal shape produced by the plots of equations 6, 7, and 10 is depicted in
the figure below.
The tresca theory has gained popularity as it is more accurate in predicting the
failure of ductile materials than the maximum stress or maximum strain theories.

- Maximum distortion- energy theory (von mises theory).

Huber (1904), von mises (1913), levy (1921), and hencky all made
contributions to the maximum distortion-energy theory, often known as
the von mises theory, which is possibly the most popular approach to
defining failure in ductile materials (1924). According to this idea,
yielding takes place when the distortion energy reaches the maximum
yield distortion energy under simple tension.
Consider a case with triaxial stresses. the total strain energy is given by
1
UTotal = 2 σij ɣij (11)
where the stress tensor and strain tensor, respectively, are represented by
σij and ɣij.
Here, the repeated indices (i,j = 1, 2, 3) suggest assumption. Given that x
and y are symmetric tensors, we can expand equation (11) to obtain
1
Uᵀ= 2 (σ₁₁ ɣ₁₁ + σ₂₂ ɣ₂₂ + σ₃₃ ɣ₃₃ + 2 σ₁₂ ɣ₁₂ + 2 σ₂₃ ɣ₂₃ + 2 σ₃₁
ɣ₃₁)
1 V 1
= 2 E (σ ₁₁2 +σ ₂₂2 +σ ₃₃2 ¿ - E (σ₁₁ σ₂₂ + σ₂₂ σ₃₃ + σ₃₃ σ₁₁ ) + 2G (
σ ₁₂2 +σ ₂₃2 +σ ₃₁2 ¿ (12)

20
 E
Where G = 2(1+V ) is the shear modulus. If the shear stresses are equal to
zero, i.e., if σ₁₂ = σ₂₃ = σ₃₁ = 0

And if we let σ₁₁ = σ₂₂ = σ₃₃ = p , then the dilation section of the total
strain energy is obtained in the format
2
3 (1−2V ) p 1−2 V
Udilation = = 6 E ¿σ₁₁ + σ₂₂ + σ₃₃ )2 (13)
2E

When we substract equation (13) from (12) we obtain the distortional

total strain energy in the format
1
Udistortion = 12G ¿ σ₁₁ - σ₂₂ )2 +(σ₂₂ - σ₃₃ )2 + (σ₃₃ - σ₁₁ )2 ] (14)

Equation 14 changes to the following if one of the primary stresses achieves

the yield stress while the other principal stresses are zero, as in a
straightforward tension test.

2
σ˳
Udistortion = (15)
6G
When we merge equations (14) and (15) we get
1
¿σ₁₁ - σ₂₂ )2 +(σ₂₂ - σ₃₃ )2 + (σ₃₃ - σ₁₁ )2 ] = σ ˳2 (16) which is the
2
von mises yield criterion in 3-D state of stress.

Where σ₃₃ =0, equation (16) takes on the form written below for plane
stress.
σ ₁₁2 σ ₁₁ σ ₂₂ σ ₂₂2
− + =1 (17)
σ˳ σ ˳2 σ˳

The image below shows the yield surface of equation 17 as an ellipse.

Be aware that the von Mises theory depends on the squares of stress, a type
of energy, and that it can be related to important variables in continuum
mechanics like the square of the octahedral shear stress or the second

21
deviatoric stress invariant. Consider the deviatoric stress, which is described
as follows, to investigate these correlations.

1
σij' = σij - 3 σkk δij

the 1st ,2nd , and 3rd deviatoric stress invariants are

J1 = σii' =0 (18a)
1
J2 = 2 σij' σij' (18b)
1
J3 = 3 σij' σjk ' σki (18c)

The octahedral shear stress is expresses by

1
Ґoct= 3 √ ¿ ¿ (19)
Expanding equation (18b) we get
1
J2 = 6 [¿+ σ ₁₂2 + σ ₂₃2 +σ ₃₁2 (20)

The second deviatoric stress invariant is connected to the octahedral shear

stress by equations (19) and (20), as shown
3
J2 = 2 ґ 2OCT (21)

if the shear stress is zero, the comparison of equations (14) and (21) leads to

1 3
Udistortion = 2G J2 = 4 G ґ 2OCT (22)

When combining equations (15) and (22) we achieve for a pure shear
σ 112 σ 02
condition (σ11 = - σ22 = k = σ0 ) , J2 = = k2
3 3

22
 1
Consequently, the yield stress in simple tension is times the yield stress in
√3
pure shear. Additionally, we see that the von Mises theory produces a yield
stress in pure shear that is 15% larger than the tresca theory does from the
tresca yield criterion equation (4).

The first and third deviatoric stress invariants are not necessary for yielding
in von Mises theory. It follows from this that hydrostatic pressure doesn't
affect yielding. Furthermore, the third deviatoric stress invariant is an odd
function, therefore its inclusion in the yield criterion would result in
unneeded algebraic challenges.

The ability to functionally describe yield phenomena both at and beyond the
yield point is one of the von Mises theory's key benefits. Since strain
hardening phenomena can be conveniently mathematically modelled, the so-
called elastoplastic structural analysis is made possible by this theory.

-stress-space representation
For the various failure theories, the two-dimensional stress space is depicted in
figures 3, 4, 7, and 8 for each failure theory. We plot them together in figure 9 for
comparison.

23
Failure Criteria on Plasticity.

For the last two centuries many of scientist has been developed a failure criterion

the in material to describe what will happen after the material goes above the initial

yielding point. Fig.1 explain the elasto-plastic behavior for brittle and ductile

material. The three main concept for to describe the plasticity are:

Fig.1: the material behavior.

▪ Flow Rule

p ∂g
ε =
∂σ '

24
Where g is the flow potential, λ ̇ ≥ 0 is a scalar (the so-called plastic multiplier),

and a superposed

dot indicates incremental quantities, on one hand we can say that potential line is

associated if the yield function equal the potential function ( f =g) the system will

not experience a hardening rule, on the other hand if the yield function unequal the

potential function ( f ≠ g ¿ the new system will experience a hardening rule, Fig.2

shows that.

Fig.2: flow rule for the elastic plastic material.

▪ Yield Function

25
The stresses are limited by the yield function. This is always a function of the

stresses but may also involve various additional variables to account for hardening.

The yield function can be written as:

F (σ′,α)

Where σ′ are the effective stresses and α is a set of stress-like hardening variables.

The yield function is specified such that F < 0 corresponds to purely elastic states

( point # 1) while F = 0 indicates yielding (point # 2). States leading to F > 0 are

not permissible under any circumstances (point # 3). Although many models make

use of only one yield function, it is in principle possible to incorporate an arbitrary

number into a single model, fig.3 explain it.

26
Fig.3: yielding criterion

▪ Hardening Rule

The evolution of the hardening variable a is specified via a hardening rule which in

general can be written as:

F =λ ̇h(σ′,α)

Where h is the hardening function.

27
The hardening rule divided in two categories firstly, the isotropic hardening where

the yield surface expands due to increase of the stress on the material the new yield

surface has some permanent deformation (plastic state) fig.4 shows that:

Fig.4: isotropic hardening for the material.

Finally, the kinematic hardening showing that yield surface moving due to stress

and gaining a strength fig.5 shows that.

28
Fig.5: a kinematic hardening.

o Tresca Failure Criterion.

The Tresca or maximum shear stress criterion states that a metal will yield when

the maximum shear stress at any point reaches a maximum (critical) positive value

termed. As shown in fig.6 the maximum shear stress section, given a state of stress,

the value of the maximum shear stress is half the maximum difference between the

eigenvalues (principal stresses) of the stress matrix. For a brittle material the only

using for Tresca criterion is when we are using the unconsolidated undrained (UU)

test but we can’t define the confined stress, so we use the unconfined compressive

strength (UCS) test to get the major stress and find the undrained shear strength

(s¿¿ u) .¿ fig7 shown laboratory result for UCS test.

σ1
( su= )
2

|
τ max=
σ 1−σ 3
2 |

29
Figure: example on stress tensor.

30
 Fig.6: Tresca yield surface.

Fig.6 & figure showing a result for a stress tensor and the Tresca yield surface, the

stress that applied to the material is safe and the material still inside the elastic

zone.

o Von Mises Failure Criterion.

The von Mises yield criterion (distortional energy) states that a material will yield

when the von Mises stress at any point reaches a maximum (critical) positive value

termed second invariants J 2 for the material. Given a critical stress value, then

according to the von Mises yield criterion, the material will yield when:

1
J 2= ¿
6

The Tresca and von Mises yield criteria do not differentiate between tension and

compression. These criteria are very successful in describing failure of ductile

metals, however for other materials, where failure depends on whether the material

is “on average” under tension or compression require more sophisticated failure

criteria. It was shown that the Tresca and the von Mises yield criteria give yield

surfaces that have a cylindrical shape in the three dimensional vector space of the

eigenvalues (principle stress) The longitudinal axis of this cylinder is the family of

vectors hardening factor multiplier (α) In other words, the von Mises and the

31
Tresca yield criteria are independent of the hydrostatic stress. Fig.8 shows the yield

criteria for Rankine, von Mises and Tresca which shown that Rankine surface in

some places was overpredicting, also Tresca was conservative than von Mises.

However, both von Mises and Tresca are the most popular when want to talk in

failure in metal.

Fig.7: Unconfined compressive strength result

32
 Fig.8: yield surface for Rankine, Tresca & von Mises.

Figure shows that the effective stress still in the yield surface for both Rankine and

von Mises.

o Mohr Coulomb Failure Criterion

The Mohr-Coulomb material is a solid material that may be applied both to

surfaces and to lines. In the latter case the line will act as a shear joint. The Mohr-

Coulomb material assumes linear elasticity and a yield function defined by two

parameters, cohesion, and friction angle. The flow rule is generally non associated

and defined by a dilation angle and, optionally, a dilation cut-off. In addition, it is

possible to specify a tension cut-off and a compression cap. The various

parameters can be accessed via the property window. They have been grouped into

33
a number of categories that in the following will be documented in turn. This

criterion predicts that a material will fail when the maximum shear stress reaches a

critical value that is dependent on the average stress:

σ z +σ y
f =c . cos cos φ− sin sin φ
2

The Mohr-Coulomb flow potential is given by:

g = |σ1 −σ3|+(σ1 +σ3) sin ψ

To start with, the Flow Rule category distinguishes between two settings:

Associated and non-associated. In the former case, F=g is assumed while in the

latter case, input of a dilation angle ψ is required. In addition, for a non-associated

flow rule, it is possible to specify a dilation cap such that the dilation angle is set to

zero once the value of a particular strain quantities reaches a critical value. Two

different dilation caps, Volumetric and Shear are available. These differ by the

strain quantity used to cap the dilation.

In Geotechnical engineering we are more interested in the shear behavior failure

that involving stability of slopes, bearing capacity of foundation slabs and

pressures on retaining walls. The soil is replaced by an idealized material which

behaves elastically up to some state of stress at which slip or yielding occurs. The

34
shear stress required for simple slip is often considered to depend upon the

cohesions and linearly upon the normal pressure on the slip surface. In more

complete plane which can be represented in Coulomb’s and Drucker Prager

surfaces (rule is used) as in Fig.9

Fig.8: Drucker- Prager and Mohr Coulomb failure criteria.

35
 o Drucker Prager Failure Criterion

This method is very useful for granular(frictional) material such as soil and rock or

any other brittle material that the cracking and crushing options are present. Unlike

metal plasticity, the yield surface is a pressure dependent Von-Mises surface for

Drucker Prager:

0.5
1
σ e =3 β σ m+[ s T ( M ) s]
2
f =σ e −σ Y

2 sinϕ 6 c . cosϕ
β= ,σ Y=
√ 3(3−sinϕ) √ 3(3−sinϕ)
By increasing the hydrostatic pressure, it will increase the yield strength. The

volumetric strain is going to expand because it’s associated with hydrostatic

pressure, also no hardening is assumed, so the material behavior is elastic-perfectly

plastic, the yield stress in compression is greater than in the tension. Fig .9 shows

the Drucker Prager surface.

Form fig.10.a to fig.10.e showing example by using Drucker Prager and Mohr

Coulomb criteria to explain the behavior of Norway clay using a consolidated

drained test to present the behavior of it.

36
Fig.10.a: input data for triaxial test in Norway.

Fig.10.b: output product.

in the fig.10.b & fig.10.c the material has been stress more than the overburden

stress that why the material went from hardening to softening and as shown in the

fig 10.d the volume of the material decreased the clay has been contraction the

shear strength increased then dilated by increasing the volume and decreased the

shear strength.

37
 Fig.10.c: Mohr Coulomb and Drucker Prager failure.

Fig10.d: the stress strain for the Norway clay.

Fig.10.d showing that the material fails in softening due to high stress that applied

on it after reaching the ultimate 245 kN/m2 then the material fails dramatically.

o The Critical state soil mechanics (CSSM)

The critical state concept is an idealization of saturated strain clay behavior

observed in triaxial compression tests and is assumed to apply to undisturbed

38
 soils. It states that when soil and other particulate matter are continuously

distorted (sheared) until they flow as a frictional fluid, they enter a well-defined

critical state. It used for soil “saturated remolded clays or sand ” it’s assumed to

apply to undisturbed soils , the CSSM concern with shear distortion occur

without any further changes in mean effective stress P' , deviatoric stress q which

is the same as in yield stress.

CSSM provides soil models which contain:

a) elastic strains and plastic yielding before failure

b) dilatancy (volumetric contraction or expansion on shearing)

c) existence of critical states

d) provides soil models which can be used as the basis of numerical predictions

(using finite elements)

e) provides the basis for reviewing data from soil tests and selecting strength

and stiffness parameters

f) for design

v=1+e

1 '
P' = ( σ +2 σ '3 )
3 1

In the triaxial test, σ '2=σ '3 the confined

39
 ' '
q=(σ 1−σ 3)

q=M P '

v=Γ −λ ln ln ( P )
'

where M , Γ ∧λ are soil constant

o Cam Clay Model (CCM) Criterion

This is a simple explanation of the critical state which asserts that the plastic

volume changes typical of clay soil, it’s based on soil isotropic and elastoplastic,

the Cam-Clay and Modified Cam-Clay models are elastoplastic strain hardening

models based on critical state theory and the underlying assumption of a

logarithmic relationship between mean stress and void fraction. The first critical

state models describing the behavior of soft soils such as clay, Cam-Clay (CC) and

Modified Cam-Clay (MCC) were developed by researchers at the University of

Cambridge. Both models describe three important aspects of soil behavior:

strength, compression or dilatancy (shear-induced volume change), and the critical

state in which soil elements can experience unlimited deformation without tress or

volume change. Much of the volume occupied by the soil mass consists of voids

that are filled with liquids (primarily air and water). Consequently, soil

deformation is accompanied by significant and often irreversible volumetric

changes. The main advantage of cap plasticity models, the class to which the CC

40
and MCC formulations belong, is that they allow more realistic modeling of

volume changes.

Next, we discuss the main assumptions of the CC and MCC models. In critical

state mechanics, the condition of a soil sample is characterized by three

parameters: mean stress, deviatoric stress, and specific volume. Specific volume is

defined as 𝜐 = 1 +𝑒. where 𝑒 is the porosity.

f ( p , q , pc )=q+ Mp ln ⁡¿) ≤ 0

41
42
 Figure: the behavior of the void ratio.

Fig 11 and fig. R shows the modified cam clay model of clay material and

subjected to a stress the yield surface of the model expands after he gained strength

(hardening) the stress path of the consolidated drained test took the surface to the

critical state line (failure line) and expand the surface the plastic strain was expand

by the deviatoric not by the mean stress (hydrostatic) which proved the cam clay

model and CSSM for it. Shear strength for the final material was higher than the

form the initial the clay was contracted very well.

Fig.11: Modified cam clay model.

43
References

1- Spencer, A. J. M. (2004). Continuum mechanics. Courier Corporation.

2- Irgens, F. (2008). Continuum mechanics. Springer Science & Business

Media.

3- Britto, A. M., & Gunn, M. J. (1987). Critical state soil mechanics via finite

elements.

4- Deskin, at. El. (2012). Rock and soil mechanics. Elsevier.

5- Borja R.I. (1991), Cam-Clay plasticity, Part II: Implicit integration of

constitutive equation based on a nonlinear elastic stress predictor, Computer

Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 88, 225- 240.

6- Peric ́ D. (2006), Analytical solutions for a three-invariant Cam clay model

subjected to drained loading histories, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech.,

30, 363–387.

7- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Isotropic-and-kinematic-

hardening_fig4_268326778

8- https://me-engg-education.blogspot.com/2018/03/theories-of-failure.html

9- https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-27710-2_10

10- https://www.engapplets.vt.edu/Mohr/java/nsfapplets/MohrCircles2-

3D/Theory/theory.htm

44
11- https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/maximum-shear-

stress

12- https://www.google.com/search?

q=maximum+shear+theory+mohr+circle+in+compression+&tbm=isch&ved

=2ahUKEwj3i7nbqP77AhULhxoKHZ6mB7IQ2-

cCegQIABAA&oq=maximum+shear+theory+mohr+circle+in+compression

+&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECCMQJ1CMBliGK2DgMGgAcAB4AoAB8A

OIAeAbkgEIMTEuMy0zLjOYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ

&sclient=img&ei=i3ycY7eaOYuOap7NnpAL&bih=656&biw=1536#imgrc

=C38arC96M9IMeM

13- https://whatispiping.com/maximum-shear-stress-theory-tresca-theory/

14- https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-von-Mises-

Stress-and-Max-Principal-Stress

15- https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/failure-theory

45