Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-022-01770-8 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Study on determining the plastic flow direction of soils with dilatancy

Yangping Yao1 • Guan He1 • Ting Luo1

Received: 26 September 2022 / Accepted: 26 November 2022 / Published online: 12 December 2022
Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
How to correctly describe the plastic flow direction is always the key and difficult point in constructing elastoplastic
constitutive models, and it is more difficult to determine the plastic flow direction of granular materials because of
dilatancy. For continuous materials without dilatancy, such as metals, after the yield function was established according to
test results, the plastic potential function consistent with the yield function can be uniquely determined by Drucker’s
postulate and its associated flow rule inference. However, it is shown by the theoretical analysis that Drucker’s postulate is
not applicable to soils, which are a kind of granular material with dilatancy. Consequently, the plastic flow direction of
soils cannot be determined by the associated flow rule, and the more universal thermodynamics becomes the necessary
condition for the description of the plastic flow direction of soils. Nevertheless, the plastic flow direction cannot be
determined uniquely through thermodynamics, which is just a necessary condition for describing material properties.
Therefore, the yield function and plastic potential function of soils are chosen to be directly determined according to test
results, and then verified by the basic principles of thermodynamics. This method is named as indirect thermodynamic
method in this paper. At the same time, the non-associated degree is defined to quantify the effect of dilatancy on the
plastic flow direction, and the quantitative correspondence between the non-associated degree and the shear-induced
volume change of soils is established. Finally, the influence of dilatancy on stability of soils is analyzed quantitatively with
non-associated degree.

Keywords Associated  Dilatancy  Non-associated degree  Plastic flow  Stability

1 Introduction Dilatancy is the property of granular materials that the

In the stress–strain relationship of elastoplastic materials,
the elastic strain increment can be directly calculated from
the stress increment according to Hooke’s law. However,
the development of plastic strain is more complex than that
of elastic strain, as it is related to many factors such as
states of stress and strain. The plastic flow direction is
generally used to express the proportional relation between
plastic strain increments in different directions, and the
distribution of plastic flow direction is usually described
through plastic potential surface, of which the external
normal direction is consistent with plastic flow direction.
& Guan He
hg1995@buaa.edu.cn
1
School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Beihang
University, Beijing 100191, China
volume of this type of materials changes during shearing
[1, 27]. The principle behind it is that volume compression
or expansion will be caused by the rearrangement of par-
ticles in granular materials during shearing. Continuous
materials such as metals do not have this property, while
soils composed of particles have obvious dilatancy
[2, 16, 32, 35, 41].
The plastic flow direction of metals without dilatancy is
generally determined by the Drucker’s postulate. Drucker’s
postulate was proposed by Drucker [12] in 1952, and the
outer convexity of the yield surface and associated flow
rule were deduced on the basis of it. Although the
Drucker’s postulate is just a necessary condition for
describing material properties, after the yield function is
established through tests, the unique plastic potential
function consistent with the yield function can be directly
determined according to the associated flow rule. Drucker’s
postulate and the associated flow rule derived from it have

123
2412
been widely applied in constructing constitutive models for
metals and other continuous materials.
Since the method of constructing constitutive models for
continuous materials was directly borrowed by the granular
materials like soils, the Drucker’s postulate and associated
flow rule were also adopted in constructing constitutive
models for soils. Accordingly, a series of constitutive
models with associated flow rule for soils were then
developed, such as Cam-clay model [30, 31], some
bounding surface models [9, 10], sub-loading surface
models [17], unified hardening model [13, 25, 36, 37, 39],
etc. However, the development of plastic volumetric strain
of soils will be obviously affected by dilatancy, and whe-
ther Drucker’s postulate is applicable to soils has been
questioned by many scholars. The test law that the plastic
deformation of pressure-sensitive materials does not con-
form to the associated flow rule was found by Richmon
[29] in 1980. Poorooshasb [28], Frydman [14] and Lade
[23] also confirmed that Drucker’s postulate and associated
flow rule are not applicable to soils through tests, and non-
associated flow is exhibited by soils. However, there is no
rigorous theoretical analysis in the formation of these
conclusions, and this is the first problem to be solved in this
paper.
Therefore, satisfying the basic principles of thermody-
namics with universality becomes a necessary condition for
the correct description for plastic flow direction of soils.
The critical state constitutive framework based on ther-
modynamics for soils established by Collins et al. [5, 7], in
which the yield surface and plastic potencial surface are
determined, is a typical representative of the constitutive
relationships constructed with this condition. Nevertheless,
thermodynamics is also only a necessary condition to be
satisfied in describing the material properties. As a con-
sequence, through the constitutive framework directly
established based on thermodynamics, only a reasonable
range for the plastic flow direction of soils can be provided,
while the plastic flow direction of soils cannot be uniquely
determined. This is also the second problem to solve.
In addition, the dilatancy of different soils are different,
so the non-associated characteristic exhibited by these soils
are also different. In the case of soils with insignificant
non-associated characteristic such as some saturated clays,
the associated flow rule can be used to describe their plastic
flow approximately. On the contrary, non-associated flow
rule must be used for the soils with obvious non-associated
characteristic, such as most saturated sands, to describe the
stress–strain relationship accurately. Therefore, the result is
that the non-associated constitutive models for soils coexist
with the associated ones, while there is still no quantitative
description for the different degrees of non-associated
characteristic in present. That is the third problem to be
solved.
123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425
Finally, as the stability of soils is also closely related to
dilatancy [3, 4, 21, 22, 34], how to establish a quantitative
relationship between stability and dilatancy is also worth
further exploration.
2 Limitations of Drucker’s postulate for soils
with dilatancy
The yield condition and hardening law in plasticity theory
can be directly obtained by sorting out the test results,
while the determination of the flow rule which describes
the plastic flow direction is complicated. Thus, how is flow
rule usually determined? Drucker’s postulate and its
inferences are often used to determine the plastic flow
direction, but they are not applicable to soils with
dilatancy.
2.1 Basic principle and three-dimensional
expression of Drucker’s postulate
The simplest elastoplastic stress–strain relationship can be
observed in common uniaxial tests. The stress–strain
response of general elastoplastic materials in the process of
uniaxial compression is shown in Fig. 1.
The sample is compressed under uniaxial stress, and the
residual plastic deformation of the sample after removing
the stress increment dr1 is in the same direction as the
previously applied load, not opposite. This is a basic and
general test law of the stress–strain relationship of elasto-
plastic materials, which can be expressed as
D = dr1 dep1  0 ð1Þ
The law under uniaxial stress state was generalized to
general stress state by Drucker et al. [11]. The result of
generalization can be expressed with principal stresses and
principal strains as
D = dr1 dep1 + dr2 dep2 + dr3 dep3  0 ð2Þ
Using the stress tensor r and plastic strain tensor ep ,
Eq. (2) can be expressed more generally as
Fig. 1 Uniaxial compression test for elastoplastic materials
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425
D = drdep  0 ð3Þ
Equation (3) for the general stress state was called
Drucker’s postulate, and the materials that meet Drucker’s
postulate such as metals can be called Drucker’s materials.
2.2 Associated flow rule of Drucker’s materials
It is assumed that the yield surface of a Drucker’s material
was obtained according to test results, and a plastic
potential surface that does not coincide with the yield
surface is then introduced, as shown in Fig. 2.
If there is a stress increment pointing out of the yield
surface but into the plastic potential surface, as shown in
Fig. 2, then the angle between the plastic strain increment,
which is in the normal direction outside the plastic poten-
tial surface, and the stress increment is obtuse. Subse-
quently, it can be calculated that D is less than 0 according
to Eq. (3), which does not satisfy Drucker’s postulate.
Therefore, it can be inferred that only when the plastic
potential surface overlaps with the yield surface, the angle
between the stress increment pointing out of the yield
surface and the plastic strain increment is always not
obtuse, and D is not less than 0. The plastic flow direction
represented by the plastic potential surface which coincides
with yield surface corresponds to the associated flow rule.
According to this inference, the plastic potential functions
of metals and other continuous materials should be con-
sistent with the yield functions, thus they can be directly
and uniquely determined once the yield function is
obtained from test results. Then, a complete description of
elastoplastic stress–strain relationship can be established.
2.3 The limitation of Drucker’s postulate
In fact, the assumption that shear stress does not cause
volume change was introduced in the generalization from
uniaxial elastoplastic stress–strain relation to Drucker’s
postulate in Eq. (3), which means the dilatancy is not taken
dε p
dσ
Yield surface
Plastic potential surface
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of yield surface and plastic potential
surface
2413
into account in Drucker’s postulate. As this assumption is
applicable to metals and other continuous materials, good
results can be achieved when Drucker’s postulate is applied
to the construction of constitutive models for these con-
tinuous materials. However, this assumption is not appli-
cable to soils. Soils are granular materials, and the special
composition of this type of materials will lead to volume
strain in shear process due to the rolling and dislocation of
particles inside.
In order to more conveniently analyze the dilatancy of
soils, the equations below will be expressed with mean
effective stress p, deviatoric stress q, plastic volume strain
epv , and plastic shear strain epd instead. According to the
definition of p and q, the relationship between stress
increments under conventional triaxial stress condition
ðr2 ¼ r3 Þ can be obtained as
8
< dp ¼ 1 ðdr þ 2dr Þ
1 3
3 ð4Þ
:
dq ¼ dr1  dr3
And the corresponding relationship between plastic strain
increments is
8 p p
< depv ¼ de1 þ 2de3
  ð5Þ
: dep ¼ 2 dep  dep
d 1 3
3
Combining Eqs. (2), (3), (4) and (5) yields
drdep ¼ dr1 dep1 þ 2dr3 dep3
¼ dpdepv þ dqdepd
Thus, Drucker’s postulate under conventional triaxial stress
state ðr2 ¼ r3 Þ can be expressed as
D ¼ dpdepv þ dqdepd  0 ð6Þ
For materials without dilatancy, such as metals, the
relationship between stress increments dp, dq and plastic
strain increments depv , depd is not coupled. In other words,
dp, dq and depv , depd are respectively related and with the
same sign, so the sum of products D is not less than 0,
satisfying Eq. (6). With regard to soils, if dp and dq are
both positive, negative depv may be produced by dq because
of dilatancy. Then, the sign of dp and depv are not the same,
which means the term dpdepv is negative, and thus it is
possible for D in Eq. (6) to be negative.
In addition to the fact that D may be negative in the
dilatancy process of soils, it also cannot be guaranteed that
D is positive in the contraction process. The undrained
triaxial test for sands is taken as an example to illustrate,
and the stress path in the test is shown in Fig. 3. At the
vertex A in the stress path, it can be seen that dp is less than
0 and dq is equal to 0. As sands are a type of granular
materials whose shear deformation is controlled by stress
123
2414
Fig. 3 Stress path of undrained triaxial test for sands (data from [33])
ratio, the plastic shear strain depd is positive at vertex A
where the stress ratio increases. That is what soils like
sands are different from metals and other continuous
materials. In addition, the total volume strain increment dev
is controlled to be 0 under undrained condition, and the
elastic volume increment deev can be obtained to be nega-
tive due to the negative dp. Then, it can be calculated that
depv is positive according to the relationship among dev , deev
and depv
depv ¼ dev  deev
The sign of depv is different from that of dp. Substituting
the stress and strain increments at vertex A into Eq. (6), the
negative D can be obtained, which is contrary to Drucker’s
postulate.
Therefore, it is concluded through theoretical analysis
that the three-dimensional expression of Drucker’s postu-
late is not applicable to describing mechanical behaviours
of soils with dilatancy, thus solving the first problem in this
paper. Consequently, the inference associated flow rule
cannot be used in constructing constitutive models for
soils, which leads to a new problem of how to determine
and describe the plastic flow direction of soils.
3 Direct thermodynamic method
for determining plastic flow direction
of soils with dilatancy
It is proved in above derivation that Drucker’s postulate is
not applicable to soils with dilatancy, so a new method is
needed to determine the plastic flow direction of soils.
Ziegler et al. [42] proposed a general theory of using
free energy and dissipation to describe the elastoplastic
stress–strain relationship, which was later applied to soil
mechanics [18–20]. Combining this theory with the con-
cept of critical state, a thermodynamic-based constitutive
123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425
framework for soils was developed by Collins et al. [5, 7],
and the constitutive models conforming with this frame-
work satisfy the second law of thermodynamics
automatically.
The isothermal deformation of soils was analyzed by
Collins et al. according to the statements of the first and
second laws of thermodynamics, and the energy equation
in the process of mechanical deformation of soils can be
expressed as
dW ¼ dW1 þ dW2 þ U ð8Þ
where dW  trðrdeÞ, and is the increment of work done
by effective stress in the continuum. The functions W1 , W2
are free energy related to elastic and plastic strain respec-
tively, and W2 represents the plastic work stored but not
dissipated. The function U is the increment of dissipation.
Based on the correlation between dissipation and plastic
strain, the dissipative stress invariants corresponding to
plastic volume strain epv and plastic shear strain epd are
defined as p and s respectively. Thus, the increment of
dissipation can be written as
U ¼ pdepv þ sdepd ð9Þ
where p is dissipative pressure, and s is dissipative shear
stress. According to irreversibility of energy dissipation,
the increment of dissipation U must be non-negative.
ð7Þ
Under this condition, the rational distribution range of
plastic flow direction in dissipative stress space constituted
by p and s can be deduced, as shown in Fig. 4.
It can be seen from Fig. 4 that ellipse is the simplest,
smooth and continuous shape of the plastic potential sur-
face to describe the distribution range, as shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 4 Distribution range of plastic flow direction in dissipative stress
space
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425
Fig. 5 Elliptical plastic potential surface in dissipative stress space
The expression of the elliptical plastic potential surface
in dissipative stress space can be written as
p2 s2
þ ¼1
A2 B 2
where A and B are stress-related coefficient functions. The
plastic flow direction in dissipative stress space can be
obtained by Eq. (10) as
depv p B2
¼ ð11Þ
depd s A2
The coefficient functions A and B are required in ther-
modynamics to be homogeneous functions of degree one in
the true stress. By defining different functional expressions
for A and B, different yield functions and plastic flow
directions can be obtained.
Since dissipation increment U was defined with dissi-
pative stress, the plastic potential function directly derived
from it is in dissipative stress space, not in true stress space.
Therefore, before using this method to describe the stress–
strain relationship, the mapping relation between true stress
and dissipative stress should be established, and the
expressions of A and B in the plastic potential function
should also be determined at the same time.
It means that the unique plastic flow direction cannot be
solved only based on the basic principles of thermody-
namics, which is just a necessary condition for describing
the stress–strain relationship of materials. Therefore,
mathematical functions without physical meaning were
constructed by Collins et al. to describe the mapping
relation between dissipative stress and true stress, as well
as to be the specific expressions of A and B. Thus, the yield
function and plastic flow direction in true stress space can
be obtained. In order to distinguish it from the new method
proposed in the following, this process of combining con-
structors with thermodynamics to determine plastic flow
direction is named as direct thermodynamic method.
2415
However, since there is some arbitrariness of the con-
structed functions A and B, as well as a coupled relation
between these constructed functions and the yield function,
plastic flow direction in true stress space, the real yield law
and plastic flow direction are difficult to be taken into
account in this method.
4 Indirect thermodynamic method
for determining plastic flow direction
of soils with dilatancy
It has been stated above that the plastic potential function
of soils cannot be directly determined to be consistent with
the yield function according to associated flow rule, and the
real yield law and plastic flow direction are also difficult to
be accurately reflected in the direct thermodynamic
method. Therefore, an indirect thermodynamic method is
proposed in this paper to determine the plastic flow
ð10Þ
direction of soils. In this new method, the yield function
and plastic potential function are established separately on
the basis of test results, and then verified by the framework
of thermodynamics.
4.1 Yield function
Through sorting out the test results of soils and taking
plastic volumetric strain as the hardening parameter, the
drop-shaped yield surface can be obtained. Since the
shapes of drop-shaped yield surfaces of different soils are
not the same, a general expression for different drop-
shaped yield surfaces is constructed by adding term vq2 to
elliptical yield function as
 2 2 
p M p þ q2
f ¼ ln þ ln ¼0 ð12Þ
px M 2 p2  vq2
where v is a shape parameter, and its range can be
obtained according to test results as 0  v\1. The yield
surface is elliptical when v is equal to 0. M is the critical
state stress ratio. The yield surfaces with different values v
are drawn in Fig. 6.
4.2 Plastic potential function
The plastic flow direction of soils is also determined
through test results. The variation of the ratio of plastic
volume strain increment to plastic shear strain increment is
usually described by a function C which is related to the
stress ratio g [32]
depv
¼ CðgÞ ð13Þ
depd
123
2416
Fig. 6 Drop-shaped yield surfaces
According to the shear tests for soils, different expres-
sions of C have been proposed by scholars
[2, 8, 15, 16, 24, 26, 31, 35, 41]. Among them, Eq. (14)
proposed by Roscoe et al. [31] is widely used in modelling
of soils [17, 30, 31, 36–38, 40], because the plastic flow
direction at characteristic states can be easily described by
this simple function. Therefore, it is also selected as an
example of C in this paper to describe the plastic flow
direction of soils.
M 2  g2
CðgÞ ¼ ð14Þ
2g
By solving the differential equation derived from
Eq. (14), the expression of the elliptical plastic potential
surface is obtained as
 p 2
p  2y q2
py 2 þ  py 2 ¼ 1 ð15Þ
2 M 2
where py is the intercept of the elliptical plastic potential
surface on axis p. The elliptical plastic potential surface
and drop-shaped yield surface corresponding to a certain
stress state point are drawn in Fig. 7.
It can be seen from Fig. 7 that a unique corresponding
plastic potential surface can always be found at any stress
state point on the yield surface to describe the plastic flow
direction, indicating that the plastic potential function is
compatible with the yield function. Thus, the description of
non-associated plastic flow for soils can be achieved by the
combination of the two surfaces.
The yield function and the plastic potential function are
constructed based on the test results. However, there will
be error in describing the test results with the constructed
functions. This error is generally acceptable when it is not
so large that the basic principles of thermodynamics are
violated by the constitutive relationship consist of these
123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425
Fig. 7 Drop-shaped yield surface and elliptical plastic potential
surface
functions. Conversely, if the error is too large, these con-
structed functions need to be modified. Therefore, the yield
function and plastic potential function constructed through
test results should be further verified.
4.3 Thermodynamic verification
This verification is to introduce the functions constructed in
the constitutive relationship into the thermodynamic
framework to solve the mapping relation between different
stresses and the specific expressions of coefficient func-
tions A and B. If the reasonable solution of coefficient
functions A and B can be uniquely obtained, it is indicated
that the requirement in thermodynamics in which the dis-
sipation increment cannot be negative is satisfied in the
constitutive relationship, and this constitutive relationship
conforms to the basic principles of thermodynamics.
The yield function and plastic potential function con-
structed based on test results above will be verified, and
this is also an example to completely demonstrate the
thermodynamic verification process of indirect thermody-
namic method. Firstly, the mapping relation between the
dissipative stress and the true stress will be determined.
The conversion between the true stress and the dissipative
stress was proposed by Collins et al. [6] according to the
hardening characteristics of soils, it was written as
p ¼ q þ p; q ¼ s ð16Þ
where q is the difference between the true mean stress p
and dissipative pressure p, and is related to the plastic free
energy W2 . According to the characteristic of critical state
that the plastic volume strain increment is equal to 0 and
the plastic shear strain develops freely, it can be seen in
Fig. 5 that the top point of plastic potential surface where
p ¼ 0 corresponds to critical state. Moreover, on the drop-
shaped yield surfaces shown in Fig. 6, the p at critical state
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425 2417

can be solved as p ¼ ð1  vÞpx =2. Thus, substituting the expression. Substituting b and Eq. (18) into Eq. (10), the
two forms of stresses at critical state into Eq. (16) yields plastic potential function can be rewritten as
px  2
q ¼ ð1  vÞ ð17Þ p  ð1  vÞ p2x q2
2 þ ¼1 ð21Þ
A2 bA2
Then the conversion between true stress and dissipative
stress in Eq. (16) can be rewritten as Combining Eq. (20) and (21), functions A and B are
obtained as
px 8
p ¼ p  ð 1  vÞ ; s ¼ q ð18Þ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 >
> h px i 2 q2
> A¼
> p  ð 1  vÞ þ
<
According to the mapping relation between true stress 2 b
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð22Þ
and dissipative stress, the plastic potential surfaces in two >
> h i
>
> p 2
stress spaces and yield surface can be placed in a same : B ¼ b p  ð1  vÞ x þq2
2
plane, as shown in Fig. 8
It can be obtained that the plastic potential surfaces in where b and px are both functions of stresses p and q.
two different stress spaces shown in Fig. 8 are tangent to Therefore, it can be concluded that the expressions of
each other at the point of current stress state, because the coefficient functions A and B are both homogeneous
plastic flow directions described by different plastic functions of degree one in the true stress, which meets the
potential surfaces should be consistent. Therefore, com- requirements of thermodynamics. Meanwhile, it is also
bining the Eq. (11), (13), (14) and (18) yields the same indicated that the corresponding elliptical plastic potential
plastic flow direction calculated in different stress spaces surface in dissipative stress space can always be found for
8 p describing the plastic flow direction at any point on the
>
> de p  ð1  vÞ p2x B2
> vp ¼
< yield surface in Fig. 8. Consequently, it is indicated by the
ded q A2
ð19Þ derivation that the rational coefficient functions A and B
>
> dev M p  q2
p 2 2
can be uniquely solved from the new description with non-
>
: ¼
depd 2pq associated flow rule for soils constructed above, which
means the description conforms to the basic principles of
Rearranging Eq. (19) yields
thermodynamics.
B2 M 2 p2  q2 The indirect thermodynamic method is consistent with
¼ ð20Þ
A2 p½2p  ð1  vÞpx  the direct thermodynamic method in terms of basic theory,
but the specific operation of the former is more reasonable.
Variable b is used to represent B2 =A2 to simplify the
This new method is the solution to the second problem in
this paper. Moreover, the indirect thermodynamic method
can also be used to verify whether other existing consti-
tutive models conform to the basic principles of
thermodynamics.

5 Definition of non-associated degree based

on dilatancy

The associated and non-associated flow rules are used to

describe the plastic flow directions of Drucker’s materials
and soils respectively. However, due to the different
degrees of dilatancy of different soils, the degrees of non-
associated characteristic exhibited by plastic flows of these
soils are different. The plastic flows of soils with low
degree of non-associated characteristic can be approxi-
mately described by associated flow rule, so associated
flow rule can be considered as a special case with the
lowest degree of non-associated characteristic of non-as-
sociated flow rule. The feature controlling degree of non-
associated characteristic is defined as non-associated
Fig. 8 Plastic potential surfaces in two stress spaces and yield surface

123
2418
degree in this paper, and it is used to establish a quanti-
tative description for different degrees of non-associated
characteristic of soils.
5.1 Quantitative description of non-associated
degree
In the description of non-associated plastic flow of soils
constructed above, the shape of yield surface can be altered
by changing the value of parameter v in yield function
Eq. (12). Then the different degrees of shape difference
between the yield surface and the plastic potential surface
are obtained, as shown in Fig. 9.
In this paper, the degree of shape difference between the
yield surface and the plastic potential surface is taken as
the specific performance of the non-associated degree. The
non-associated degree can be adjusted quantitatively
through the parameter v, so this parameter is named as non-
associated parameter. When v is equal to 0, the yield sur-
face coincides with the plastic potential surface, and the
flow rule is associated. The flow rule is non-associated
when v is not equal to 0, and the greater the value of v is,
the lager the non-associated degree is.
Therefore, when the function C shown in Eq. (14) is
used to describe the plastic flow direction, the quantitative
description of different non-associated degrees of soils can
be achieved by taking different values of non-associated
parameter v. This is the solution to the third problem in this
paper.
5.2 Relation between non-associated degree
and dilatancy
If Eq. (15) is used as the plastic potential function in the
descriptions of plastic flows with different non-associated
degrees, the plastic flow direction at a certain stress state
point is always normal to the elliptical plastic potential
Fig. 9 Yield surfaces with different values of v
123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425
surface, and will not vary with different non-associated
degrees, as shown in Fig. 10.
However, the same direction of plastic flow does not
mean the same magnitudes of plastic deformation. To
quantitatively analyze the plastic deformation in shear
process, a hardening law should be introduced into the
yield function shown in Eq. (12). The linear law in e  ln p
plane obtained from isotropic compression test for soils is
introduced as the isotropic hardening law, then the yield
function in Eq. (12) can be rewritten as
 2 2 
p M p þ q2 Dep
f ¼ ln þ ln  ¼0 ð23Þ
p0 M 2 p2  vq2 kj
where p0 is the initial mean effective stress; k and j are
slopes of loading and unloading lines in e  ln p plane
respectively; Dep is the void ratio change corresponding to
plastic volume strain in loading process.
In the process that soils are sheared from isotropic
compression state to critical state along the stress path with
constant p, the Dep is represented as Dep , and can be cal-
culated from Eq. (23) as
 
2
Dep ¼ ðk  jÞ ln ð24Þ
1v
It can be found that the magnitude of plastic volume
strain of soils in the shear process is controlled by the non-
associated parameter, indicating that the non-associated
degree is directly related to dilatancy. Moreover, since
there is no elastic volume strain generated in the shear
process along the stress path with constant p, the total
volume strain is equal to the plastic volume strain. Thus,
the total void ratio change De in the shear process should
be
De ¼ Dep ð25Þ
The De is also the vertical distance between normal
compression line (NCL) and critical state line (CSL) in
Fig. 10 Plastic flow direction with different non-associated degrees
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425 2419

e  ln p plane. Based on this, the CSLs with different non-

associated parameter v can be plotted in Fig. 11.
In addition, the distance De between the NCL and CSL
of soils can be generally obtained from test results. Sub-
sequently, combining Eq. (24) and (25), the value of the
non-associated parameter v, which is the quantitative index
of the non-associated degree of soils, can be calculated as
2
v¼1  De  ð26Þ
exp kj

6 Analysis of the influence of dilatancy

on stability
Fig. 12 Undrained stress paths corresponding to different non-
associated degrees
The stability of soils has been analyzed by many
researchers in detail with test results, and all of them
When there is a part of the stress path where the shear
believed that dilatancy is an important factor affecting the
stress decreases, it indicates that the bearing capacity of the
stability of soils [3, 4, 21, 22, 34]. As dilatancy is related to
material may decrease during loading, which will result in
the non-associated characteristic, it can be quantitatively
instability. Hence, if the material parameters corresponding
described by the non-associated degree defined above.
to the condition that the shear stress just does not decrease
According to this relation chain, stability can also be
in the undrained stress path can be found, the instability of
quantified by using non-associated degree.
the soils can be directly judged according to these param-
eters. That condition is called the critical condition for
6.1 Critical condition for instability
instability in this paper.
According to the constitutive model for soils constructed
Instability is generally defined as the inability of a material
above, the stress–strain relationship of soils can be
to withstand a given load or stress [3, 34]. In particular, the
obtained as
shear stress of soils with strong dilatancy will decrease
 

during undrained test, as shown in the stress paths S4 and dp K  A1 3KG  A2 dev
¼ ð27Þ
S5 in Fig. 12. dq 3KG  A3 3G  A4 ded
9
B1 þ B 2
A1 ¼  2  >>
B1 þ B2 þ Kcp M  g2 B3 > >
>
2
 2 >
>
>
2 >
2cp M gð1 þ vÞ M  g >
A2 ¼  2  >>
>
B1 þ B2 þ Kcp M  g2 B3 =
ð28Þ
2cp gB3 >
A3 ¼  2  >>
>
B1 þ B2 þ Kcp M  g2 B3 > >
>
 2  >
>
B1 þ Kcp M  g B3 >
2 >
A4 ¼  2  >>
;
B1 þ B2 þ Kcp M  g B3 2

  9
B1 ¼ p M4  g4 M2  vg2 > =
B2 ¼ 12Gcp M2 g2 ð1 þ vÞ ð29Þ
>
4 2 2 4;
B3 ¼ M  ð1 þ 3vÞM g  vg

where K and G are volume modulus and shear modulus

respectively. As the total volume strain increment dev is
equal to 0 under undrained condition, Eq. (27) can be
simplified as
dq ¼ 3GA4 ded ð30Þ

Fig. 11 Critical state lines with different v

123
2420 Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425

Then, as it can be derived from the critical condition for represented as gins , and can be derived according to
instability that the normal of the stress path at critical state Eq. (27), (28) and (29) as
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  ffi
should be vertical, the critical non-associated parameter u
u 3
corresponding to the critical condition for instability can be u ð 1 þ vÞ j  k þ k
u 2
obtained according to Eq. (28), (29) and (30) u vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi
u u     !
u u
j u t 3 2 1 2
vc ¼ ð31Þ u þ ð1 þ vÞ j k vþ j k
2k  j u 2 2
t
gins ¼ M
The values of k and j used in stress paths in Fig. 12 are vk
0.135 and 0.04 respectively, then vc  0:174 can be
ð32Þ
obtained by substituting them into Eq. (31). v of stress
paths S1 and S2 are equal to 0 and 0.1 respectively, less Since the soils may be unstable between the instability
than vc , and q in these stress paths always increase, so there line and the critical state line, the stability degree of soils
will be no instability. v of stress path S3 is equal to vc , the Ds can be defined with the stress ratio gins in Eq. (32) as
normal of the stress path at critical state is vertical, so there g
will also be no instability. v of stress paths S4 and S5 are Ds ¼ ins
vMffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
equal to 0.4 and 0.6 respectively, which are greater than vc . u  
u 3
q will decrease before reaching critical state, so instability u ð 1 þ vÞ j  k þ k
u 2
may occur in such a case. Therefore, the stronger the u vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi
u u    2 !
u u 2
dilatancy reflected by the non-associated parameter, the u t 3 1
u þ ð 1 þ vÞ j k vþ j k
more likely the soils are to be unstable. u 2 2
t
¼
vk
6.2 Instability line
ð33Þ
It is proposed by Lade [25] that the line passing through the
It can be seen from Eq. (33) that the stability degree Ds
top point of the undrained stress path and the origin in
is related to the slopes of the loading and unloading lines,
p  q plane was taken as the instability line, and the area
as well as the non-associated parameter of soils. This for-
between this line and the failure line (CSL) is the region of
mula is only applicable to the cases of v [ vc . According to
potential instability. Therefore, the stress range within
the stress paths S1, S2and S3 in Fig. 12, there is no
which the material may become unstable can be obtained
unstable region when v  vc , and the stability degree is 1.
by determining the instability line. The undrained path S4
As for the case of stress path S4 and S5, substituting the
in Fig. 12 is replotted in Fig. 13, and is taken as an
values of k, j and v into Eq. (33), the stability degree Ds
example to illustrate this point.
can be calculated to be 0.786 and 0.685.
T is the top point of the undrained path S4, and the line
In conclusion, the relationship between stability and
passing through it and the origin is the instability line. The
dilatancy of soils is quantitatively analyzed using non-as-
stress ratio corresponding to this instability line can be
sociated parameters, and the critical non-associated
parameter vc related to stability are obtained. Meanwhile,
the calculation formula of stability degree of soils is
derived, which can be used as a comprehensive index to
evaluate the stability of soils.

7 Conclusions

In this paper, based on the conclusion that Drucker’s pos-

tulate cannot be used to determine the plastic flow direction
of soils with dilatancy, a new method for determining
plastic flow direction of soils is proposed, and is verified to
satisfy the principles of thermodynamics. After that, non-
associated degree is then defined to establish a quantitative
description for the different degrees of dilatancy exhibited

Fig. 13 Instability line and region of potential instability

123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425 2421

Fig. 14 Description of plastic flow rule with non-associated degree

by different soils. The overall idea is shown in Fig. 14. The thermodynamics. The uniqueness of results can be
main conclusions of this paper are as follows: ensured by this new method, and the yield law and
plastic flow direction determined by it are more
(1) The plastic potential function of Drucker’s materials
reasonable.
can be directly determined to be consistent with the
(3) Associated flow rule can be considered to be a
yield function according to the associated flow rule
special case of non-associated flow rule with the
inference of Drucker’s postulate, but it is shown in
lowest degree of non-associated characteristic, and
theoretical analysis that this method is not suitable for
the non-associated degree is defined to describe the
soils with dilatancy.
plastic flow with different degrees of non-associated
(2) The unique plastic flow direction cannot be directly
characteristics quantitatively. Meanwhile, the rela-
determined by the direct thermodynamic method
tionship between the non-associated degree and the
based on the basic principles of thermodynamics, so
dilatancy of soils is established. According to that,
the constructors with some arbitrariness are used to
the value of non-associated degree can be directly
work out the stress–strain relationship in true stress
calculated from the shear-induced volume strain in
space, which makes it difficult to take into account
tests.
the real yield law and plastic flow direction. In the
(4) The stability of soils is closely related to dilatancy.
indirect thermodynamic method proposed in this
The larger the dilatancy is, the larger the value of the
paper, the yield surface and plastic potential surface
non-associated parameter is, and the more likely the
of soils are directly determined by summarizing test
soils are to be unstable.
results, and then are verified to be consistent with

123
2422 Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425

Appendix1: Analysis on original Cam-clay

model with indirect thermodynamic method

The yield function of original Cam-clay model is

q
f ¼ M ln p þ  M ln px ¼ 0 ð34Þ
p
The plastic potential surface is consistent with the yield
surface due to the associated flow rule applied in original
Cam-clay model. Then, the yield surface and plastic
potential surface can be plotted in the true stress space, as
shown in Fig. 15.
In Fig. 15, the mean effective stress p at the intersection
of the yield surface and the critical state line can be solved
from Eq. (34) as px =e, and the symbol e is natural constant.
As the critical state point on the yield surface corresponds
to the top point of the plastic potential surface in the dis-
sipative stress space with respect to plastic flow direction, q Fig. 16 Plastic potential surfaces in two stress spaces and yield
in Eq. (16) can be solved to be equal to px =e. Subse- surface of original Cam-clay model
quently, the conversion between true stress and dissipative
stress for modified Cam-clay model can be obtained from stress spaces should be consistent, Eq. (36) can be sim-
Eq. (16) as plified as

p ¼ px =e þ p; q ¼ s ð35Þ B2 Mpq  q2
b¼ ¼   ð37Þ
A2 p p  pex
According to the stress conversion in Eq. (35), the true
stress space and dissipative stress space can be placed in Substituting Eq. (37) into Eq. (10) yields
the same plane, as shown in Fig. 16.  2
Combining Eq. (11), (34) and (35), the plastic flow p  pex q2
þ ¼1 ð38Þ
directions in dissipative stress space and true stress space A2 bA2
can be respectively expressed as Then the coefficient functions A and B can be solved from
8 p
>
> depv p  ex B2 Eq. (37) and (38) as
>
< dep ¼ 8 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
q A2
> px 2 q2
d
p ð36Þ >
>
>
> dev q >
< A¼ p þ
>
: ¼M e b
depd p rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð39Þ
>
> 2
>
> p x
Since the plastic flow directions expressed in different :B ¼ b p  þq2
e
Nevertheless, it should be noted that when q equals 0, B
can be calculated to be equal to 0 according to Eq. (37) and
(39). It means that no corresponding elliptic plastic
potential surface in the dissipative stress space can be
found to describe the plastic flow direction of the original
Cam-clay model when q equals 0, and the solution in
Eq. (39) is not reasonable. As shown in Fig. 16, at the
intersection of yield surface and p axis, the plastic flow
direction in true stress space which should be consistent to
that in dissipative stress space is not horizontal, while the
plastic flow direction expressed by the elliptical potential
surface in dissipative stress space is always horizontal.
Therefore, the elliptic plastic potential surface in dissipa-
tive stress space cannot describe the plastic flow direction
there. In conclusion, the orinal Cam-clay model cannot be
Fig. 15 Yield surface and plastic potential surface of original Cam-
clay model verified by indirect thermodynamic method, which means

123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425 2423

it does not conform to the basic principles of

thermodynamics.

Appendix 2: Analysis on the modified Cam-

clay model with indirect thermodynamic
method

The yield function of modified Cam-clay model is

f ¼ q2 þ M 2 p2  M 2 px p ¼ 0 ð40Þ
As the associated flow rule is also applied in modified
Cam-clay model, the plastic potential surface is consistent
with the yield surface. The yield surface and plastic
potential surface are plotted in the true stress space as
shown in Fig. 17.
In Fig. 17, the value of mean effective stress p at the
intersection of the yield surface and the critical state line
Fig. 18 Plastic potential surfaces in two stress spaces of modified
can be solved from Eq. (40) as px =2. As the critical state Cam-clay model
point on the yield surface corresponds to the top point of
the plastic potential surface in the dissipative stress space
with respect to plastic flow direction, q in Eq. (16) can be 8 p
solved to be equal to px =2. Subsequently, the conversion >
> depv p  2x B2
>
< dep ¼ q A2
between true stress and dissipative stress for modified d
ð42Þ
Cam-clay model can be obtained from Eq. (16) as > depv
> q
>
: ¼M
p ¼ px =2 þ p; q ¼ s ð41Þ depd p

Then the plastic potential surfaces in true stress space Since the plastic flow directions expressed in different
and dissipative stress space can be plotted in the same stress spaces should be consistent, Eq. (42) can be sim-
plane according to the stress conversion in Eq. (41), as plified as
shown in Fig. 18.
B2 M 2 p 2  q 2
Combining Eq. (11), (40) and (41), the plastic flow b¼ ¼ ð43Þ
A2 pð2p  px Þ
directions in dissipative stress space and true stress space
can be respectively expressed as Substituting Eq. (43) into Eq. (10) yields
 2
p  p2x q2
2
þ 2¼1 ð44Þ
A bA
Then the coefficient functions A and B can be solved from
Eq. (43) and (44) as
8 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
> px 2 q2
>
> A¼ p þ
<
2 b
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð45Þ
>
> 
>
> p 2
: B ¼ b p  x þq2
2
The solution shows that a corresponding elliptic plastic
potential surface can always be determined in the dissipa-
tive stress space by the the functions A and B, then the
plastic flow direction of the modified Cambridge model can
Fig. 17 Yield surface and plastic potential surface of modified Cam- be described by the plastic potential surface. Consequently,
clay model the modified Cambridge model is verified by indirect

123
2424
thermodynamic method, and it conforms to the basic
principles of thermodynamics.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by the National Key
Research and Development Program of China (Grant No.
2018YFE0207100), National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 51979001) and National Basic Research Program of China
(Grant No. 2014CB047006).
Funding National Key Research and Development Program of Chi-
na,2018YFE0207100,YangPing Yao,National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China,51979001,YangPing Yao,National Basic Research
Program of China,2014CB047006,YangPing Yao
References
1. Andreotti B, Forterre Y, Pouliquen O (2013) Granular media:
between fluid and solid. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
2. Chang CS, Yin Z-Y (2010) Modeling stress-dilatancy for sand
under compression and extension loading conditions. J Eng Mech
136(6):777–786
3. Chu J, Leroueil S, Leong W (2003) Unstable behaviour of sand
and its implication for slope instability. Can Geotech J
40(5):873–885
4. Chu J, Lo S-C, Lee IK (1993) Instability of granular soils under
strain path testing. J Geotech Eng 119(5):874–892
5. Collins I (2003) A systematic procedure for constructing critical
state models in three dimensions. Int J Solids Struct
40(17):4379–4397
6. Collins IF, Hilder T (2002) A theoretical framework for con-
structing elastic/plastic constitutive models of triaxial tests. Int J
Numer Anal Met 26(13):1313–1347
7. Collins IF, Kelly PA (2002) A thermomechanical analysis of a
family of soil models. Géotechnique 52(7):507–518. https://doi.
org/10.1680/geot.2002.52.7.507
8. Cubrinovski M, Ishihara K (1998) Modelling of sand behaviour
based on state concept. Soils Found 38(3):115–127
9. Dafalias YF (1986) Bounding surface plasticity. I: mathematical
foundation and hypoplasticity. J Eng Mech 112(9):966–987
10. Dafalias YF, Herrmann LR (1986) Bounding surface plasticity.
II: application to isotropic cohesive soils. J Eng Mech
112(12):1263–1291
11. Drucker DC (1951) A more fundamental approach to plastic
stress-strain relations. In: Proceedings of 1st US National Con-
gress of Applied Mechanics, 1951. pp 487–491
12. Drucker DC, Prager W (1952) Soil mechanics and plastic anal-
ysis or limit design. Q Appl Math 10(2):157–165
13. Feng X, Yao YP, Li RN, Wan Z, Dai X (2020) Loading-un-
loading judgement for advanced plastic UH model. Acta Mech
Sin 36(4):827–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10409-020-00936-5
14. Frydman S, Zeitlen J, Alpan I (1973) The yielding behavior of
particulate media. Can Geotech J 10(3):341–362
15. Gajo A, Wood M (1999) Severn-Trent sand: a kinematic-hard-
ening constitutive model: the q–p formulation. Géotechnique
49(5):595–614
16. Gao Z, Zhao J, Yin Z-Y (2017) Dilatancy relation for overcon-
solidated clay. Int J Geomech. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000793
17. Hashiguchi K (1978) Plastic constitutive equations of granular
materials. In: proceedings US-Japan Seminar Continuum
123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425
Mech. Stast. Appr. Mech. Granular Materials, Sendai, 1978.
pp 321–329
18. Houlsby G (1982) A derivation of the small-strain incremental
theory of plasticity from thermodynamics. In: Proceedings
IUTAM Conf. Deformation and Failure of Granular Materials,
Delft, 1982. pp 109–118
19. Houlsby GT (1981) Study of plasticity theories and their appli-
cability to soils. University of Cambridge, Cambridge
20. Houlsby GT (1993) Interpretation of dilation as a kinematic
constraint. In: Kolymbas D (ed) Modern Approaches to Plasticity.
Elsevier, Oxford, pp 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-
89970-5.50006-6
21. Lade PV (1992) Static instability and liquefaction of loose fine
sandy slopes. J Geotech Eng 118(1):51–71
22. Lade PV (1993) Initiation of static instability in the submarine
Nerlerk berm. Can Geotech J 30(6):895–904
23. Lade PV, Pradel D (1990) Instability and plastic flow of
soils. I: experimental observations. J Eng Mech
116(11):2532–2550
24. Li J, Yin Z-Y, Cui Y, Hicher P-Y (2017) Work input analysis for
soils with double porosity and application to the hydromechanical
modeling of unsaturated expansive clays. Can Geotech J
54(2):173–187
25. Luo T, Chen D, Yao Y-P, Zhou A-N (2020) An advanced UH
model for unsaturated soils. Acta Geotech 15(1):145–164
26. Manzari MT, Dafalias YF (1997) A critical state two-surface
plasticity model for sands. Geotechnique 47(2):255–272
27. Nedderman RM (1992) Statics and kinematics of granular
materials, vol 352. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
28. Poorooshasb HB, Holubec I, Sherbourne AN (1966) Yielding and
flow of sand in triaxial compression: part I. Can Geotech J
3(4):179–190
29. Richmond O, Spitzig W (1980) Pressure dependence and dila-
tancy of plastic flow. Theoretical and applied mechanics.
377–386
30. Roscoe KH (1963) Mechanical behaviour of an idealized ’wet’
clay. In: Proc. 3rd Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Wiesbaden, 1963, 1963.
pp 47–54
31. Roscoe KH, Burland JB (1968) On the generalized stress-strain
behaviour of wet clay. Engineering Plasticity:535–609
32. Rowe PW (1962) The stress-dilatancy relation for static equi-
librium of an assembly of particles in contact. Proc R Soc Lond A
269(1339):500–527
33. Verdugo R, Ishihara K (1996) The steady state of sandy soils.
Soils Found 36(2):81–91
34. Wanatowski D, Chu J, Loke WL (2010) Drained instability of
sand in plane strain. Can Geotech J 47(4):400–412
35. Wang L-Z, Yin Z-Y (2015) Stress dilatancy of natural soft clay
under an undrained creep condition. Int J Geomech
15(5):A4014002
36. Yao Y, Gao Z, Zhao J, Wan Z (2012) Modified UH model:
constitutive modeling of overconsolidated clays based on a
parabolic Hvorslev envelope. J Geotech Geoenviron
138(7):860–868. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.
0000649
37. Yao Y-P, Hou W, Zhou A-N (2009) UH model: three-dimen-
sional unified hardening model for overconsolidated clays.
Geotechnique 59(5):451–469
38. Yao Y-P, Kong L-M, Zhou A-N, Yin J-H (2015) Time-Depen-
dent Unified Hardening Model: Three-Dimensional Elastovis-
coplastic Constitutive Model for Clays. J Eng Mech. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)em.1943-7889.0000885
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:2411–2425 2425

39. Yao Y, Qu S, Yin Z, Zhu E (2016) SSUH model: a small-strain Mech 25:183–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-
extension of the unified hardening model. Sci China Technol Sci 2156(08)70278-3
59(2):225–240
40. Yao YP, Zhou AN (2013) Non-isothermal unified hardening Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
model: a thermo-elasto-plastic model for clays. Géotechnique jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
63(15):1328–1345. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.13.P.035
41. Yin ZY, Chang CS (2013) Stress–dilatancy behavior for sand
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
under loading and unloading conditions. Int J Numer Anal Met
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
37(8):855–870
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
42. Ziegler H, Wehrli C (1987) The derivation of constitutive rela-
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
tions from the free energy and the dissipation function. Adv Appl
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

123