2017
DOI: 10.1007/s11440-017-0532-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A generalized nonlinear failure criterion for frictional materials

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The variation of peak stress ratio with confining stress for cemented sands is nonlinear i.e., peak stress ratio increases with decreasing rate Overton, 1989, Chang andKabir, 1994) and many researchers proposed non-linear strength envelope models for both cemented and uncemented soils and also jointed and intact rocks (Mogi, 1966, Barton 1976, Hoek and Brown, 1980, 1988, Barton, 2016, Wu et al, 2017, Tian et al, 2018, Shen et al, 2018. It has been shown in the literature that the classical Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion does not fit well with the failure envelopes of cemented sands which are in general non-linear in shape.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The variation of peak stress ratio with confining stress for cemented sands is nonlinear i.e., peak stress ratio increases with decreasing rate Overton, 1989, Chang andKabir, 1994) and many researchers proposed non-linear strength envelope models for both cemented and uncemented soils and also jointed and intact rocks (Mogi, 1966, Barton 1976, Hoek and Brown, 1980, 1988, Barton, 2016, Wu et al, 2017, Tian et al, 2018, Shen et al, 2018. It has been shown in the literature that the classical Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion does not fit well with the failure envelopes of cemented sands which are in general non-linear in shape.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Except for the H–H–T and W‐W‐5 SCs, other concrete failure criteria, including the Podgorski SC, 70 Kotsovos SC, 71 Guo–Wang SC, 72 Song–Zhao SC, 73 and even the NUSC 74 and GNSC, 75 are further investigated and surveyed. A comparison analysis between these failure criteria and the Lubliner–Ottosen SC in terms of modeling results of the ultimate concrete strength in the various multiaxial stress states is shown in Figure 9b,c and Figure 10b,c.…”
Section: Validation Of the Lubliner–ottosen Scmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the comparisons of the CM in Figure 9a and the TM in Figure 10a, it can be found that the predicted values of the concrete failure strength with the Lubliner-Ottosen SC are almost equivalent to those with the Ottosen SC under a low confining pressure and slightly higher than those under a higher confining pressure, but the predicted concrete failure strength values are far lower than those with the Lubliner-Oller SC and higher than those with the Lubliner-Lee SC under a high hydrostatic pressure. Under the condition of tension-dominated stress states, all these failure criteria achieve the same precision, but the Lubliner-Lee SC deviates from the other SCs with Except for the H-H-T and W-W-5 SCs, other concrete failure criteria, including the Podgorski SC, 70 Kotsovos SC, 71 Guo-Wang SC, 72 Song-Zhao SC, 73 and even the NUSC 74 and GNSC, 75 are further investigated and surveyed. A comparison analysis between these failure criteria and the Lubliner-Ottosen SC in terms of modeling results of the ultimate concrete strength in the various multiaxial stress states is shown in Figure 9b,c and Figure 10b,c.…”
Section: Comparison To Other Typical Scsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Strength prediction of friction materials has always been the focus of engineering [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Many failure criteria have been proposed to describe the strength failure of various materials [ 4 , 5 , 6 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%