Vance Press
Register Login

Rock Mechanics Letters

cover
Article Menu
Recommend Papers
Effects of temperature, water content, hydraulic pressure, stress level and damage on rock creep and the prolonged stability of deep underground structures Effects of temperature, water content, hydraulic pressure, stress level and damage on rock creep and the prolonged stability of deep underground structures
Advanced Optimisation Of Ground Support Systems for Enhancing Underground Tunnel Stability in Geologically Adverse Conditions Advanced Optimisation Of Ground Support Systems for Enhancing Underground Tunnel Stability in Geologically Adverse Conditions
A comparative study of three types of strength criteria for rocks A comparative study of three types of strength criteria for rocks
Particle flow simulation of crack propagation and penetration in Brazilian disc under uniaxial compression Particle flow simulation of crack propagation and penetration in Brazilian disc under uniaxial compression
Open Access Research Article

A comparative study of three types of strength criteria for rocks

by Mingming He 1,* ,  Qing Yang 1 ,  Panagiotis G. Asteris 2  and  Qin Zhao 1
1
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Xi’an University of Technology, Xi’an 710048, China
2
Computational Mechanics Laboratory, School of Pedagogical and Technological Education, Heraklion, GR 14121, Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
RML  2025 2(1):8; https://doi.org/10.70425/rml.202501.8
Received: 1 September 2024 / Accepted: 10 October 2024 / Published Online: 28 October 2024
Download PDF

Abstract

Currently, the unified strength criterion (USC), the three-dimensional Hoek-Brown (3D H-B) criterion and the generalized unified strength theory (GUST) are the three types of typical rock strength criteria. In this paper, a comparative study of the three types of strength criteria is performed for rocks. Based on the nonlinear characteristics of rock strength on meridian and deviatoric planes, the USC can predict rock strength under triaxial stress state. The USC is composed of two failure functions on meridian and deviatoric planes. The failure surface of the USC in principal stress space satisfies smoothness and convexity. The predicted strength for five types of rock under the true triaxial tests were compared among the USC, the GUST, and the 3D H-B criterion. The results indicate that the USC can effectively reflect the influence of the intermediate principal stress on rock strength and accurately predict rock strength under both triaxial tension (σ1=σ2>σ3) and triaxial compression (σ1>σ2=σ3). Additionally, the conventional triaxial tests were conducted on other eight types of rock to measure the strength on meridian plane. The predicted strengths for the eight types of rock on meridian plane were compared between the USC and the original H-B, which suggests that the USC is suitable for various types of rock and provides higher accuracy.

Keywords: Unified strength criterion; 3D H-B criterion; Generalized unified strength theory;
Copyright: © 2024 by He, Yang, Asteris and Zhao. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Show Figures

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (42177158 and U2368203)

Share and Cite

ACS Style
He, M.; Yang, Q.; Asteris, P. G.; Zhao, Q. A comparative study of three types of strength criteria for rocks. Rock Mechanics Letters, 2025, 2, 8. https://doi.org/10.70425/rml.202501.8
AMA Style
He M, Yang Q, Asteris P G, Zhao Q. A comparative study of three types of strength criteria for rocks. Rock Mechanics Letters; 2025, 2(1):8. https://doi.org/10.70425/rml.202501.8
Chicago/Turabian Style
He, Mingming; Yang, Qing; Asteris, Panagiotis G.; Zhao, Qin 2025. "A comparative study of three types of strength criteria for rocks" Rock Mechanics Letters 2, no.1:8. https://doi.org/10.70425/rml.202501.8
APA Style
He, M., Yang, Q., Asteris, P. G., & Zhao, Q. (2025). A comparative study of three types of strength criteria for rocks. Rock Mechanics Letters, 2(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.70425/rml.202501.8

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

References

  1. Liu JC, Li X, Xiao JJ, Xie YC, Xia KW. Three-dimensional strength criterion for rocks: A review. Energy Reviews. 2024; 3(4): 100102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enrev.2024.100102
  2. Brown ET, Hoek E. Underground excavations in rock. CRC Press. 1980.
  3. Hoek E, Brown ET. Empirical strength criterion for rock masses. Journal of the geotechnical engineering division. 1980; 106(9): 1013-1035.
  4. Lade PV. Elasto-plastic stress-strain theory for cohesionless soil with curved yield surfaces. International journal of solids and structures. 1977; 13(11): 1019-1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(77)90073-7
  5. Lade PV. Modeling failure in cross-anisotropic frictional materials. International Journal of Solids and Structures. 2007; 44(16): 5146-5162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2006.12.027
  6. Matsuoka H, Nakai T. Relationship among Tresca, Mises, Mohr-Coulomb and Matsuoka-Nakai failure criteria. Soils and Foundations. 1985; 25(4): 123-128. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.25.4_123
  7. Matsuoka H, Hoshikawa T, Ueno K. A general failure criterion and stress-strain relation for granular materials to metals. Soils and Foundations. 1990; 30(2): 119-127. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.30.2_119
  8. Matsuoka H, Yao YP, Sun DA. The Cam-clay models revised by the SMP criterion. Soils and foundations 1999; 39(1): 81-95.
  9. Paul B. Generalized pyramidal fracture and yield criteria. International Journal of Solids and Structures. 1968; 4(2): 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(68)90010-3
  10. Pan XD, Hudson JA. A simplified three-dimensional Hoek-Brown yield criterion. ISRM International Symposium. 1988.
  11. Priest SD. Determination of shear strength and three-dimensional yield strength for the Hoek-Brown criterion. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2005; 38: 299-327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-005-0056-5
  12. Zhang LY, Zhu HH. Three-dimensional Hoek-Brown strength criterion for rocks. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. 2007; 133(9): 1128-1135. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090241(2007)133:9(1128)
  13. Zhang L. A generalized three-dimensional Hoek–Brown strength criterion. Rock mechanics and rock engineering. 2008; 41: 893-915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-008-0169-8
  14. Jiang H, Wang XW, Xie YL. New strength criteria for rocks under poly-axial compression. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 2011; 48(8): 1233-1245. https:// doi.org/10.1139/t11-034
  15. Lee YK, Pietruszczak S, Choi BH. Failure criteria for rocks based on smooth approximations to Mohr–Coulomb and Hoek–Brown failure functions. Inter-national Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2012; 56: 146-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.07.032
  16. Jiang H, Xie YL. A new three-dimensional Hoek-Brown strength criterion. Acta Mechanica Sinica. 2012; 28(2): 393-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10409-012-0054-2
  17. Zhang Q, Zhu HH, Zhang LY. Modification of a generalized three-dimensional Hoek–Brown strength criterion. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2013; 59: 80-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.12.009
  18. Jiang H, Zhao JD. A simple three-dimensional failure criterion for rocks based on the Hoek–Brown criterion. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2015; 48: 1807-1819.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-014-0691-9
  19. Wu SC, Zhang SH, Zhang G. Three-dimensional strength estimation of intact rocks using a modified Hoek-Brown criterion based on a new deviatoric function. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2018; 107: 181-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.04.050
  20. Huang JQ, Du XL, Ma C. Study on three-dimensional strength criterion for rocks. Engineering Mechanics (in Chinese). 2018; 35(03): 30-40.
  21. Cai W, Zhu HH, Liang WH, Zhang LY. A new version of the generalized Zhang–Zhu strength criterion and a discussion on its smoothness and convexity. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2021; 54: 4265-4281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-021-02505-z
  22. Li HZ, Guo T, YL Nan, Han B. A simplified three-dimensional extension of Hoek-Brown strength criterion. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2021; 13(3): 568-578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.10.004
  23. Zienkiewicz OC, Pande GN. Some useful forms of isotropic yield surface for soil and rock mechanics. Finite Elements. John Wiley & Sons Press. 1977.
  24. Yu MH, He LN, Song LY. Twin shear stress theory and its generalization. Science in China, Ser. A. 1985; 11: 1174-1183.
  25. Yu MH. Unified strength theory for geomaterials and its applications. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 1994; 16(2): 1-10.
  26. Yu MH, He LN. A new model and theory on yield and failure of materials under the complex stress state. Mechanical Behavior of Materials VI. Pergamon. 1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-037890-9.50389-6
  27. Yu MH. Advances in strength theories for materials under complex stress state in the 20th century. Applied Mechanics Review. 2002; 55(3): 169-218. https:// doi.org/10.1115/1.1472455
  28. Yu MH, Yu SQ. Introduction to unified strength theory. CRC Press. 2019.
  29. Li HZ, Xu JT, Zhang ZL, Song L. A generalized unified strength theory for rocks. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2023; 56(11): 7759-7776. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-023-03471-4
  30. Yao YP, Lu DC, Zhou AN, Zou B. Generalized non-linear strength theory and transformed stress space. Science in China (Series E: Technological Sciences). 2004; 47(6): 691-709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1360/04ye0199
  31. Yao YP, Hu J, Zhou AN, Luo T, Wang ND. Unified strength criterion for soils, gravels, rocks, and concretes. Acta Geotechnica. 2015; 10: 749-759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11440-015-0404-x
  32. Yao YP, Zhou AN, Lu DC. Extended transformed stress space for geomaterials and its application. Journal of engineering mechanics. 2007; 133(10): 1115-1123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/ASCE0733-93992007133:101115
  33. Yao YP, Tang KS. Isotropically transformed stress method for the anisotropy of soils. Chinese Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics. 2022; 54(6): 1651-1659. http://dx.doi.org/10.6052/0459-1879-21-651
  34. Mogi K. Effect of the intermediate principal stress on rock failure. Journal of Geophysical Research. 1967; 72(20): 5117-5131.
  35. Mogi K. Fracture and flow of rocks under high triaxial compression. Journal of Geophysical Research. 1971; 76(5): 1255-1269.
  36. Mogi K. Effect of the triaxial stress system on the failure of dolomite and limestone. Tectonophysics. 1971; 11(2): 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1951(71)90059-X
  37. Mogi K. Experimental rock mechanics. CRC Press. 2006.
  38. Takahashi M, Koide H. Effect of the intermediate principal stress on strength and deformation behavior of sedimentary rocks at the depth shallower than 2000 m. ISRM international symposium. 1989.
  39. Chang CD, Haimson B. True triaxial strength and deformability of the German Continental Deep Drilling Program (KTB) deep hole amphibolite. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. 2000; 105(B8): 18999-19013. https:// doi.org/10.1029/2000JB900184
  40. Haimson B, Rudnicki JW. The effect of the intermediate principal stress on fault formation and fault angle in siltstone. Journal of Structural Geology. 2010; 32(11): 1701-1711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsg.2009.08.017
  41. Feng XT, Zhang XW, Kong R. Wang G. A novel Mogi type true triaxial testing apparatus and its use to obtain complete stress–strain curves of hard rocks. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2016; 49: 1649-1662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-015-0875-y
  42. Feng XT, Kong R, Zhang XW, Yang CX. Experimental study of failure differences in hard rock under true triaxial compression. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2019; 52: 2109-2122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1700-1
  43. Feng XT, Tian M, Yang CX, He BG. A testing system to understand rock fracturing processes induced by different dynamic disturbances under true triaxial compression. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2023; 15(1): 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2022.02.002
  44. Du K, Yang C, Su R, Tao M. Failure properties of cubic granite, marble, and sandstone specimens under true triaxial stress. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2020; 130: 104309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104309
  45. Zhu C, Karakus M, He MC, Meng Q. Volumetric deformation and damage evolution of Tibet interbedded skarn under multistage constant-amplitude-cyclic loading. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2022; 152: 105066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2022.105066
  46. Yao YP, Sun DA. Application of Lade's criterion to Cam-clay model. Journal of engineering mechanics. 2000; 126(1): 112-119.
  47. Kim M, Lade PV. Modelling rock strength in three dimensions. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts. 1984; 21(1): 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(84)90006-8
  48. Liu JC, Li X, Xu Y, Xia K. A three-dimensional nonlinear strength criterion for rocks considering both brittle and ductile domains. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2024; 57: 5863–5881. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-024-03823-8
  49. Kármán T. Festigkeitsversuche unter allseitigem Druck. Zeitschrift Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. 1911; 55: 1749-57.
  50. Zheng GQ, Tang YH, Zhang Y, Gao YH. Study on failure difference of hard rock based on a comparison between the conventional triaxial test and true triaxial test. Frontiers in Earth Science. 2022; 10: 923611. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.923611
  51. Xing XL, Li LT, Fu YK. Determination of the related strength parameters of unsaturated loess with conventional triaxial test. Environmental Earth Sciences. 2016; 75: 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4797-5
  52. Xie SJ, Lin H, Chen YF, Wang YX. A new nonlinear empirical strength criterion for rocks under conventional triaxial compression. Journal of Central South University. 2021; 28(5): 1448-1458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11771-021-4708-8
  53. Li XF, Ma ZG. A novel method for imitating true-triaxial stress path with conventional triaxial apparatus. Geomechanics and Geophysics for Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources. 2024; 10: 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40948-024-00781-x
  54. Mogi K. Effect of the triaxial stress system on rock failure. Rock Mechanics in Japan. 1970; 1: 53-55.
  55. Lu J, Yin GZ, Zhang DM, Gao H. True triaxial strength and failure character-istics of cubic coal and sandstone under different loading paths. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2020; 135: 104439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104439
  56. Vachaparampil A, Ghassemi A. Failure characteristics of three shales under true-triaxial compression. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. 2017; 100: 151-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2017.10.018
  57. Feng XT, Kong R, Zhang XW, Yang CX. Experimental Study of Failure Differences in Hard Rock Under True Triaxial Compression. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2019; 52(7): 2109-2122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2017.10.018
  58. Li XB, Du K, Li DY. True triaxial strength and failure modes of cubic rock specimens with unloading the minor principal stress. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2015; 48: 2185-2196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-014-0701-y
  59. Du XL, Ma C, Lu DC. Nonlinear unified strength model of geomaterials. Chinese Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics. 2014; 46(03): 389-397. https://doi.org/10.6052/0459-1879-13-312
  60. Matsuoka H, Sun DA. Extension of spatially mobilized plane (SMP) to frictional and cohesive materials and its application to cemented sands. Soils and foundations. 1995; 35(4): 63-72. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.35.4_63
  61. Yao YP, Wang ND. Transformed stress method for generalizing soil constitutive models. Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 2014; 140(3): 614-629.
  62. Luo T, Tian XG, Yao YP, Cui WJ. Three-dimensional asymptotic state criterion for soils. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. 2011; 33(5): 792-796.
  63. Yao YP, Yamamoto H, Wang ND. Constitutive model considering sand crushing. Soils and foundations. 2008; 48(4): 603-608. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.48.603