Sachpazis Costas: Geotechnical Engineering: A student's Perspective Introduction
ย
Chapter 3 - Q A (v2.2).pdf
1. 3.1
Chapter 3 โ Material Properties (II)
Questions & Answers
Slide 3.7
Question: Would you give an example on the application of the additive property of true
strains?
Answer: Consider the problem (Example 1) in this slide. Let us create a table showing
the true- and engineering strains at each stage:
Notice that the total true strain can be directly computed as
๐๐ก๐๐ก๐๐ = ln (
200
100
) = 0.6931
As expected, the sum of true strains given in the table is in accordance with this result.
Let us do the same calculation for engineering strain:
๐๐๐๐,๐ก๐๐ก๐๐ =
200 โ 100
100
= 1
This result does not match with the one given in the table. Consequently, the additive
property is only valid for true strains.
Slide 3.10
Question: Is it possible to find the yield strength of an annealed material (i.e. initial flow
stress, ๏ณf0) using Ludwik-Hollomon curve? That is, since the plastic (engineering) strain,
when the stress on the specimen reaches to ๏ณf0, is 0.2% by definition, the corresponding
true strain becomes
๐ = ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐) = ln(1 + 0.002) โ 0.002
Stage True Strain Engineering Strain
1 ๐1 = ln (
120
100
) = 0.1823 ๐๐๐๐,1 =
120 โ 100
100
= 0.2
2 ๐2 = ln (
150
120
) = 0.2231 ๐๐๐๐,2 =
150 โ 120
120
= 0.25
3 ๐3 = ln (
200
150
) = 0.2877 ๐๐๐๐,3 =
200 โ 150
150
= 0.3333
๏ โ ๐๐
3
๐=1
= 0.6931 โ ๐๐๐๐,๐
3
๐=1
= 0.7833
2. 3.2
Therefore, is it true that
๐๐0 โ ๐๐ = ๐พ๐๐
= ๐พ(0.002)๐
?
Answer: Unfortunately, NO. According to one of the axioms for this course, the Ludwik-
Hollomon curve does not accurately capture the materialโs behavior when the plastic
strains (๐๐๐) are small. Therefore, the initial flow stress (๏ณf0) must accompany the
strength coefficient (K) and the strain-hardening exponent (n) to characterize the
plastic behavior of the material entirely.
Note that some textbooks such as Ref. [1] take ๐๐0 โ ๐พ(0.002)๐
owing to the fact that K
and n coefficients are adjusted such that the curve passes through the points ๏ณf0 and ๏ณUTS
(i.e. the actual stress when the load hits its maximum)1. Such treatments do naturally
violate one of our axioms on the slope of the load curve. Please refer to the Slide 3.11 that
elaborates the issue.
Question: How do we obtain K and n coefficients using the uniaxial tensile test data?
Answer: We start out by arranging the test data in homogeneous deformation region (i.e.
up to the onset of necking). The engineering quantities are transformed into the true ones
by employing the expressions in the Slides 3.8 and 3.9. That is, a table containing the
transformed data is formed:
Point 1 2 โฆ N
๏ณi ๏ณ1 ๏ณ2 โฆ ๏ณN
๏ฅi ๏ฅ1 ๏ฅ2 โฆ ๏ฅN
To fit a curve to the given data, we write the equation of power law:
๐ = ๐พ๐๐
(3.1)
This is not a linear equation: The unknowns (i.e. K and n) are not expressed as the linear
combinations of ๏ณ and ๏ฅ. The natural logarithm of Eqn. (3.1) could be more useful:
ln(๐)
โ
๐ฆ
= ln[๐พ(๐)๐] = ln(๐พ)
โ
๐
+ ๐ l n(๐)
โ
๐ฅ (3.2)
Hence, it is more convenient for us to fit a curve to the logarithm of the data. Note that in
Eqn. (3.2), a new parameter is defined for sake of convenience:
๐ โ ln(๐พ) (3.3)
Accordingly, the new table becomes
Point 1 2 โฆ N
yi = ln(๏ณi) ln(๏ณ1) ln(๏ณ2) โฆ ln(๏ณN)
xi = ln(๏ฅi) ln(๏ฅ1) ln(๏ฅ2) โฆ ln(๏ฅN)
Ideally, we want all the data in the table above to satisfy Eqn. (3.2):
Point 1 2 โฆ N
Equation ๐ฆ1 = ๐๐ฅ1 + ๐ ๐ฆ2 = ๐๐ฅ2 + ๐ โฆ ๐ฆ๐ = ๐๐ฅ๐ + ๐
1 For instance, see Example 3.3 of Ref. [1].
3. 3.3
Here, one can arrange all these equations into a matrix form:
[
๐ฅ1 1
๐ฅ2 1
โฎ โฎ
๐ฅ๐ 1
]
โ
๐(๐ร2)
[
๐
๐
]
โ
๐(2ร1)
= [
๐ฆ1
๐ฆ2
โฎ
๐ฆ๐
]
โ
๐(๐ร1)
(3.4)
Unfortunately, Eqn. (3.4) cannot be solved directly since A is not a square matrix. In
other words, there are more equations than the number of unknowns (N > 2). Hence, a
neat manipulation called the Pseudo Inverse Method (PIM) can be utilized to this end.
First, both sides of Eqn. (3.4) are multiplied by AT:
๐T
๐๐ = ๐T
๐ (3.5)
Note that since ATA is now a square matrix (2๏ด2), X in Eqn. (3.5) could be solved:
๐ = (๐T
๐)โ1
๐T
๐ (3.6)
where [(๐T
๐)โ1
๐T
] is called the pseudo inverse of the matrix A. In fact, the solution
provided by Eqn. (3.6) does not satisfy the equations in the table above [or Eqn. (3.4) for
that matter!]. It yields a least squares solution where an exponential curve is fit to the
given data to minimize the following error (i.e. sum of squares) function:
๐ธ(๐, ๐) = โ[๐ฆ๐ โ (๐๐ฅ๐ + ๐)]2
๐
๐=1
(3.7)
Consequently, the unknown coefficients are obtained as
๐ = ๐[1] (3.8a)
๐พ = exp(๐[2]) (3.8b)
Slide 3.11
Question: In this slide, it looks as if the derivative of the load with respect to the true
strain is computed in order to find true strain at the necking point. Doesnโt it make more
sense to compute the derivative of the load with respect to the engineering strain? After
all, we get to chart the engineering strain (or elongation) versus the load in uniaxial
tensile test.
Answer: Each semester, we get this question a lot. For some reason, the differential
calculus in this slide does not satisfy most of our students! We shall take a more direct
approach now. Let us write the load as a function of engineering strain:
๐ = ๐๐๐ด (3.9)
The true stress ๐๐ in Eqn. (3.9) can be expressed as
๐๐ = ๐พ๐๐
(3.10)
Employing volume constancy, the area A at a particular instant in time can be written as
๐ด โ ๐ = ๐ด0 โ ๐0 (3.11a)
โด ๐ด = ๐ด0 โ
๐0
๐
=
๐ด0
๐ ๐0
โ
โ
๐๐
= ๐ด0๐โ๐
(3.11b)
4. 3.4
Substituting Eqn. (3.11b) and (3.10) into (3.9) yields the load as a function of true strain:
๐ = ๐พ๐ด0๐๐
๐โ๐
(3.12)
Since
๐ = ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐), (3.13)
Eqn. (3.12) becomes
๐ = ๐พ๐ด0
[ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐)]
๐
1 + ๐๐๐๐
(3.14)
Now that we have expressed the load as function of engineering strain, we are ready to
compute its derivative:
๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐
= ๐พ๐ด0
[๐ โ l n(1 + ๐๐๐๐)][ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐)]
๐โ1
(1 + ๐๐๐๐)
2 (3.15)
By setting Eqn. (3.15) to zero, one can find the engineering strain that maximizes the
load:
[๐ โ ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐)]
โ
=0
[ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐)]
๐โ1
(1 + ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐)
2
โ
โ 0
= 0
(3.16)
Assuming that in Eqn. (3.16)
[ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐)]
๐โ1
(1 + ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐)
2 โ 0, (3.17)
the leftmost term (evaluated at the UTS point) must be equal to zero in order to have a
solution for Eqn. (3.16):
๐ โ ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐ ) = 0 (3.18)
Consequently,
๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐ = ๐๐
โ 1 (3.19)
Note that using Eqn. (3.13), the corresponding true strain takes the following form:
๐๐๐๐ = ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐) = ๐ (3.20)
Not surprisingly, this is the same result offered by the slide.
Question: If we experimentally determine K and n coefficients (as explained in the Slide
3.10), do we have a control over the condition that ๐๐๐๐ = ๐ (i.e. the slope of the load curve
at the UTS point is zero)?
Answer: No, not really. You can select more data points near the UTS region. That could
help to some extent. However, the slope of the estimated load curve is likely not to be flat
at the UTS point.
5. 3.5
Actually, the condition (๐๐๐๐ = ๐) helps us to determine K and n coefficients through
analytical means very easily. From the test data, we have Pmax and the corresponding
elongation at that point (๏lUTS = lUTS โ l0). Therefore,
๐๐๐๐ = ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐) = ln (1 +
ฮ๐๐๐๐
๐0
) = ๐ (3.21)
Since the true stress at the UTS point is
๐๐๐๐ = ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐(1 + ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐) =
๐๐๐๐ฅ
๐ด0
(1 +
ฮ๐๐๐๐
๐0
)
โ
๐๐
,
(3.22)
the strength coefficient becomes
๐๐๐๐ = ๐พ (๐๐๐๐
โ)
๐
๐
โ ๐พ =
๐๐๐๐
๐๐
=
๐๐๐๐ฅ
๐ด0
(
๐
๐
)
๐
(3.23)
One could argue that K can be determined by considering the initial flow stress:
๐๐0 = ๐พ(0.002)๐
โ ๐พ =
๐๐0
0.002๐
=
๐0.2%
๐ด0
โ
1.002
0.002๐ (3.24)
where P0.2% refers to the load leading to a permanent deformation of 0.2%. Note that with
this K selection, Eqn. (3.23) will not be satisfied:
๐๐๐๐ โ ๐พ(๐)๐
(3.25)
In this course, we definitely employ Eqn. (3.21) and (3.23) to compute K and n owing to
the fact that the underlying procedure is compatible with our axioms. It is all a matter of
consistency.
Slide 3.13
Question: What is the difference between the definitions associated with the ductility
and the area reduction?
Answer: They both define the shrinkage in the area2. The area reduction is described by
๐ =
๐ด๐๐๐ โ ๐ด
๐ด๐๐๐
(3.26)
where Aref refers to the area at the reference state (usually initial). On the other hand, the
ductility, which indicates the ability of a particular material to sustain deformation
without fracturing, utilizes the same definition except that the area of interest (A) is now
replaced by the area at fracture (Afrac):
๐โ
=
๐ด๐๐๐ โ ๐ด๐๐๐๐
๐ด๐๐๐
(3.27)
Note that as a notational convenience, the superscript (*) is added to the ductility.
2 These two definitions are valid for uniaxial tensile test.
6. 3.6
Question: How do we define the amount of cold-work? How is it related to the
engineering (or true) strain?
Answer: The amount of cold-work, which is usually expressed as percentage, uses the
definition in Eqn. (3.26). Let us first show its association with the true strain:
๐ =
๐ด0 โ ๐ด
๐ด0
= 1 โ
๐ด
๐ด0
(3.28a)
โด
๐ด
๐ด0
= 1 โ ๐ (3.28b)
Recall that the true strain is
๐ = ln (
๐
๐0
) = ln (
๐ด0
๐ด
) (3.29)
Substituting Eqn. (3.28b) into (3.29) gives
๐ = ln (
1
1 โ ๐
) = โ ln (1 โ ๐) (3.30a)
or
๐ = 1 โ ๐โ๐
(3.30b)
Next is the engineering strain. From Eqn. (3.13), we have
๐๐๐๐ = ๐๐
โ 1 (3.31)
Plugging Eqn. (3.30a) into (3.31) yields
๐๐๐๐ =
๐
1 โ ๐ (3.32a)
Alternatively,
๐ =
๐๐๐๐
1 + ๐๐๐๐
(3.32b)
Slide 3.14
Question: Yield strength is an engineering definition. This slide claims that the yield
strength of a cold-worked material equals to the true stress associated with a particular
strain inflicted at cold-work. How is that possible?
Answer: To explain this concept, let us take a look at the load-strain diagram in Fig. 3.1.
Here, the specimen, which is initially annealed, is strained via the Path (o-a-b). We shall
presume that the test is interrupted at Point (b) and that the load is released. It is
obvious that the strength of the cold-worked test specimen at Point (c) will be much
higher than its annealed state due to strain-hardening. If the test is resumed, the
specimen is expected to follow the remainder of the curve. Notice that the cold-worked
specimen at Point (c) is to yield again when the load reaches to Pb (not Pa).
7. 3.7
l0 A0
lcw Acw
Annealed Strain (ฮตeng)
o
a
b
Pb
Pa
c
Load (P)
Cold-worked
fail
Figure 3.1: The effect of cold-work on yield strength.
Now, let us find the yield strength of the cold-worked material. By definition,
๐๐๐๐ค =
๐๐
๐ด๐๐ค
(3.33)
The load Pb can be expressed as the product of true stress and the instantaneous area at
Point (b):
๐๐๐๐ค =
๐๐๐ด๐
๐ด๐๐ค
(3.34)
By assuming that the elastic effects are negligible (i.e. ๐ด๐ โ ๐ด๐๐ค; ๐๐ โ ๐๐๐ค) and that the
true stress is depicted by the power law, one can write
๐๐๐๐ค(๐๐๐ค) โ ๐๐ โ ๐พ(๐๐๐ค)๐
(3.35)
where ๐๐๐ค = ๐๐ (
๐๐๐ค
๐0
) = ๐๐ (
๐ด0
๐ด๐๐ค
). This is the result presented by the Slide 3.14. In fact, the
flow stress (represented by the power law) can be interpreted as the geometric loci of the
yield strength for cold-worked material.
By employing (3.13), Eqn. (3.35) can rearranged as a function of engineering strain:
๐๐๐๐ค(๐๐๐๐,๐๐ค) โ ๐พ[ln(1 + ๐๐๐๐,๐๐ค)]
๐
(3.36)
where ๐๐๐๐,๐๐ค =
๐๐๐คโ๐0
๐0
=
๐ด0โ๐ด๐๐ค
๐ด๐๐ค
. Similarly, with the utilization of Eqn. (3.30a) and (3.35),
the yield strength of a cold-worked material could be expressed in terms of qcw:
๐๐๐๐ค(๐๐๐ค) โ ๐พ [ln (
1
1 โ ๐๐๐ค
)]
๐
(3.37)
where ๐๐๐ค =
๐ด0โ๐ด๐๐ค
๐ด0
.
8. 3.8
Slide 3.15
Question: Is it possible to find the UTS of the annealed material when the parameters of
the power law (e.g. K and n) are specified.
Answer: Yes, it is. We shall employ the basic definition of UTS:
๐๐๐๐๐๐ =
๐๐๐๐ฅ
๐ด0
=
๐๐๐๐๐ด๐๐๐
๐ด0
(3.38)
The true stress at the UTS (necking) point is
๐๐๐๐ = ๐พ (๐๐๐๐
โ
๐
)
๐
= ๐พ๐๐
(3.39)
Recall that
๐๐๐๐ = ln (
๐๐๐๐
๐0
) = ln (
๐ด0
๐ด๐๐๐
) = ๐ (3.40)
From Eqn. (3.40), we get
๐ด0
๐ด๐๐๐
= ๐๐
(3.41)
Substituting Eqns. (3.39) and (3.41) into (3.38) yields
๐๐๐๐๐๐ =
๐พ๐๐
๐๐
= ๐พ (
๐
๐
)
๐
(3.42)
Likewise, the UTS of a cold-worked material is described by
๐๐๐๐๐ค = ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐ด0
๐ด๐๐ค
(3.43)
(see the slide). Since
๐๐๐ค = ln (
๐๐๐ค
๐0
) = ln (
๐ด0
๐ด๐๐ค
) โ
๐ด0
๐ด๐๐ค
= ๐๐๐๐ค, (3.44)
Eqn. (3.43) becomes
๐๐๐๐๐ค = ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ค = ๐พ (
๐
๐
)
๐
๐๐๐๐ค
(3.45)
Question: What is the underlying mechanism behind the neck formation? Why doesnโt
the test specimen exhibit uniform plastic deformation until fracture?
Answer: The underlying reason for the neck formation (i.e. the source for plastic
instability) is due to the deviation in the ideal geometry of the test specimen as well as
the inhomogeneity associated with the material. Roughly speaking, the weakest cross-
section of the specimen is expected to deform more than the rest (and fail eventually) in
tensile straining.
To understand (and to quantify) this concept, let us consider the (multi-segmented) test
specimen shown in Fig. 3.2. In this model, each segment (say, the ith segment) of the
9. 3.9
specimen can be perceived as a perfect disc whose initial diameter (D0i) is essentially
constant (i.e. no diametric deviation) throughout its axis. Furthermore, each disc is
presumed to be made out of an isotropic material which is free from any significant
defects3. Notice that if each disc were subjected to uniaxial tensile test individually, it
would have deformed uniformly until its fracture.
The flow curve for each disc can be expressed as
๐๐๐ = ๐พ๐(๐๐)๐
(3.46)
where n is the strain-hardening exponent (which is presumably common to all elements);
๐พ๐ (๐ โ {1, 2, โฆ , ๐}) refers to the strength coefficient associated with a particular cross-
section while ๐๐ denotes the true plastic strain inflicted on that segment at a specific
instant during the tensile testing. The weakest section of the specimen can be determined
as follows:
๐พ๐ค๐ท๐ค
2
= min {๐พ1๐ท01
2
, ๐พ2๐ท02
2
, โฆ , ๐พ๐๐ท0๐
2 } (3.47)
where w denotes the index of the weakest section. It is self-evident that the weakest link
in the chain will dictate the force transmitted through the whole test specimen. Thus,
using Eqn. (3.12), the load acting on each disc can be estimated by considering the plastic
deformation taking place at the weakest portion:
๐ = ๐พ๐ค (
๐๐ท0๐ค
2
4
)
โ
โ ๐ด0๐ค
(๐๐ค)๐
๐โ๐๐ค
(3.48)
Here, ๐๐ค is the true plastic deformation experienced by the weakest section throughout
the straining regime and ranges between 0 and ๐๐๐๐๐. Fig. 3.3 shows the resulting load as
a function of ๐๐ค. As can be seen, the force attains its maximum value when ๐๐ค = ๐.
L0
P
P
D
01
D
02
D
03
D
0N
D
0N-1
D
0N-2
L0/N L0/N L0/N L0/N L0/N L0/N ฮตw
P
Pmax
n ฮตfrac
0
Figure 3.2: The geometric model for a non-ideal
test specimen.
Figure 3.3: Load profile dictated by
the weakest section.
Note that there are two products in Eqn. (3.48): The first product ๐พ๐ค(๐๐ค)๐
depicts the
strength increase due to strain-hardening while the second one (๐ด0๐ค๐โ๐๐ค) describes the
shrinkage in the area as the plastic deformation proceeds. Since the corresponding
3 Fracture occurs as a consequence of crack initiation/propagation. If the tested material is said to be ideal,
it will be theoretically free from all defects such as voids and surface scratches that are known to instigate
the crack formation. In that case, the perfect specimen is expected to elongate indefinitely (without
breaking) in the form of a filament!
10. 3.10
decrease in cross-sectional area of the segment is faster than the apparent increase in the
strength such that the decreasing trend in the load does not change when ๐๐ค โฅ ๐. Since
every section is subjected to the same load, one can find the true plastic strains inflicted
upon each segment utilizing Eqn. (3.48):
๐ = ๐พ๐ (
๐๐ท0๐
2
4
) (๐๐)๐
๐โ๐๐ = ๐พ๐ค (
๐๐ท0๐ค
2
4
) (๐๐ค)๐
๐โ๐๐ค
(3.49a)
(๐๐)๐
๐โ๐๐ = (
๐พ๐ค๐ท0๐ค
2
๐พ๐๐ท0๐
2 )
โ
โ ๐๐
(๐๐ค)๐
๐โ๐๐ค
(3.49b)
Solving Eqn. (3.49b) for ๐๐ leads to
๐๐ = โ๐ โ ๐ (โ
๐๐ค โ๐๐๐โ๐๐ค
๐
๐
) (๐ โ ๐ค) (3.50)
where W refers to the Lambert W function4. The similarity factor in Eqn. (3.50) is
defined as
๐๐ โ
๐พ๐ค๐ท0๐ค
2
๐พ๐๐ท0๐
2 < 1(๐ โ ๐ค) (3.51)
Fig. 3.4 plots ๐๐ given in Eqn. (3.50) as
๐๐ค varies from 0 to 1 for n = 0.2. For
๐๐ = 1, the curve should boil down to a
line: ๐๐ = ๐๐ค. Notice that when ๐๐ค > ๐,
the true plastic strains for each
segment (๐๐) tend to drop below the
maximum ones (๐๐
โ
) that were
attained when ๐๐ค = ๐. This means
that when ๐๐ค โฅ ๐, the plastic
deformation of that particular
segment will terminate (if and only if
๐๐ < 1) since the stresses induced at
each segment are not capable of
generating further plastic
deformation. From this point on, the
plastic deformation will cease for all
the segments except the weakest one.
Figure 3.4: The true plastic strains for a
particular segment as a function of ๐๐ค (n = 0.2).
In an actual tensile test, the necking region exhibits the plastic deformation pattern for
the weakest portion of the specimen. Hence, Eqn. (3.50) can be rearranged to
accommodate this plastic deformation limit for each segment (๐ โ ๐ค):
๐๐ = {
โ๐ โ ๐ (โ
๐๐ค โ๐๐๐โ๐๐ค
๐
๐
) , ๐๐ค < ๐
โ๐ โ ๐(โ โ๐๐๐โ๐
๐
), ๐๐ค โฅ ๐
(3.52)
Employing Eqn. (3.52), the engineering strain at a particular instant in the tensile test
can be written. That is, the new length of each section is
4 Consider the real-valued function ๐(๐ฅ) = ๐ฅ๐๐ฅ
. The Lambert W function is simply ๐(๐ฅ) = ๐โ1
(๐ฅ).
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
๏ฅw
๏ฅ
i
ci
= 0.9
ci
= 0.99
11. 3.11
๐๐ = ln (
๐ฟ๐
๐ฟ0๐
) = ln (
๐ฟ๐
๐ฟ0/๐
) (3.53a)
โด ๐ฟ๐ =
๐ฟ0
๐
๐๐๐
(3.53b)
Total length of the deformed specimen then becomes
๐ฟ๐ก๐๐ก๐๐ = โ ๐ฟ๐
๐
๐=1
=
๐ฟ0
๐
โ ๐๐๐
๐
๐=1
(3.54)
Since ๐๐๐๐ =
๐ฟ๐ก๐๐ก๐๐
๐ฟ0
โ 1, we have
๐๐๐๐(๐๐ค) =
1
๐
โ ๐๐๐(๐๐ค)
๐
๐=1
โ 1 (3.55)
Notice that (3.48) (i.e. P) and (3.55) (i.e. ๐๐๐๐) are the parametric equations of ๐๐ค.
Evidently, plotting (3.48) against (3.55) yields the load as a function of engineering strain.
Similarly, the new diameter for each segment can be calculated as
๐๐ = ln (
๐ด0๐
๐ด๐
) = ln (
๐ท0๐
2
๐ท๐
2
) = ln (
๐ท0๐
๐ท๐
)
2
= 2 ln (
๐ท0๐
๐ท๐
) (3.56a)
โด ๐ท๐(๐๐ค) = ๐ท0๐๐โ
๐๐(๐๐ค)
2 (3.56b)
Based on the presented mathematical model, a simulation of the uniaxial tensile test is
conducted using MATLAB. Table 3.1 tabulates the MATLAB script developed for the
simulation while its outputs are presented in Figs. 3.5 and 3.6. The load curve given in
Fig. 3.5 resembles the expected one except that the load quickly drops in the overstraining
section. Furthermore, the maximum load does not occur when ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐ = ๐๐
โ 1 = 0.2214
due to the underlying simplifications incorporated to the model. Note that the specimen
progressively thins out at its weakest site as can be seen from Fig. 3.6 since the smallest
diameter is artificially set at the 17th segment.
Figure 3.5: Normalized ๏ณeng versus ๏ฅeng in
the simulated test.
Figure 3.6: Diametric changes in the
simulated test.
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
๏ฅeng
๏ณ
eng
/K
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
Segment No.
D/D
0
12. 3.12
Table 3.1 MATLAB script to simulate the uniaxial tensile test.
N = 50; n = .2; q = 0.65; eps_f = -log(1-q);
eps_w = linspace(0,eps_f,N)';
c = .99 + .01*cosd(360*eps_w/eps_f+60);
[cmin,w] = min(c); f = cmin*exp(-eps_w).*(eps_w.^n);
eps_eng = zeros(N,1); eps = zeros(N,1);
h = waitbar(0,'Please wait...'); close all
for time = 1:N
epsw = eps_w(time);
for seg = 1:N
if (seg==w)
eps(seg) = epsw;
else
if (epsw<n)
eps(seg) = -n*lambertw(-(c(seg)*exp(-epsw)*epsw^n)^(1/n)/n);
else
eps(seg) = -n*lambertw(-(c(seg)*exp(-n))^(1/n));
end
end
end
eps_eng(time) = mean(exp(eps))-1;
D = sqrt(c.*exp(-eps));
figure(1); plot(D); hold on
waitbar(time/N,h)
end
xlabel('Segment No.'); ylabel('D/D_0'); grid on; close(h)
figure(2)
plot(eps_eng,f); grid on; axis('tight')
xlabel('epsilon_{eng}'); ylabel('sigma_{eng}/K')
Question: Why does the test specimen appear to fracture right in the middle in an actual
tensile test?
Answer: This critical question is raised once in a blue moon. As explained before, the
weakest portion of the test specimen plastically deforms continuously until its demise!
The location of the weakest site is highly affected by the following factors: i) raw material;
ii) material processing techniques; iii) manufacturing methods involved in the production
of the test specimen. Long-, round-, and slender specimens are frequently manufactured
via turning5 where the specimen is held securely between the tailstock and the chuck. In
such a scheme, the workpiece typically attains a barrel-like shape (see Ref. [4]) due to the
elastic deformations caused by machining forces. Hence, the thickest portion usually lies
at the center and the chances of breaking the specimen in the middle become quite slim
in that case. In fact, the smallest diameter (i.e. weakest segment) is frequently
encountered right after the shoulders. Fig. 3.7 shows fractured test specimens made out
of various engineering materials. As can be seen from these examples, they did not
necessarily fail near the center.
5 The geometry- and tolerances of the specimens are commonly specified by international standards like ISO
6892-1: "Metallic materials. Tensile testing. Method of test at ambient temperature."
13. 3.13
Figure 3.7: Various fractured test specimens (Copyrighted images are compiled from the
Internet).
Question: The test specimen may contain a large number of weak spots. What is the
reason for not observing multiple-necks in tensile tests?
Answer: From the standpoint of statistics, there will be only one weakest spot among
the ones already present inside the specimen [see Eqn. (3.47)]. The chances of finding two
weakest spot with absolutely the same attributes (i.e. the same geometry, surface
texture, grain structure/distribution, dislocation densities, point defects, material
impurities, and more) are next to impossible. That is why, (to the best of our knowledge)
two or more necks have never been registered in tensile tests.
Question: In tensile test, the neck forms when ๐๐๐๐,๐๐๐ = ๐๐
โ 1. From this point on, the
specimen deforms locally around the weakest site until its fracture. Does this fact mean
that the plastic strains to be inflicted in a particular bulk-deformation process should not
exceed ๐๐๐๐ = ๐?
Answer: This is a common misconception. The plastic instability in tensile test is a
unique/special case manifested by both uniaxial tension and the geometric / strength
deviation of the specimen along its major axis. Actually, the uniaxial test accurately
captures the strain-hardening ability of the tested material up to the instant where the
local neck commences to develop. Beyond this point, we get to observe the deformation
pattern in a small localized region where the material continues to strain-harden further.
To characterize the materialโs behavior at high strains (i.e. ๐ โซ ๐), some researchers
measure (and model) the geometry changes (e.g. radius of curvature around the neck, min.
radius of the neck, etc.) in the necking region during tests (refer to Ref. [5]). However,
such approaches are not too practical. Thus, the ๐ โ ๐ curve in uniform deformation region
is commonly extrapolated for ๐ > ๐.
It is critical to note that in many bulk-deformation processes (such as forward extrusion,
closed-die forging, rolling), the strains can well exceed this critical strain (๐๐๐๐ = ๐)
registered in uniaxial tensile test. Despite a significant reduction in ductility, the
workpiece does not exhibit any defect in such circumstances. Note that when the plastic
strains go beyond ๐๐๐๐, the material is said to be over-strained (see also Slide 3.23).
14. 3.14
Slide 3.17
Question: Would you give an example on the application of the topics covered so far?
Answer: Let us do the example (Example 2) in this slide. The given data are as follows:
๏ท d0 = 12 [mm]
๏ท l0 = 50 [mm]
๏ท l1 = 60 [mm]
๏ท P1 = 32.2 [kN]
a) All stresses and strains:
๐1 = ln (
๐1
๐0
) = ln (
60
50
) = 0.1823
๐๐๐๐,1 =
๐1 โ ๐0
๐0
=
60 โ 50
50
= 0.2
๐๐๐๐,1 =
๐1
๐ด0
=
32200
๐(0.012)2
4
= 284.711 [MPa]
๐1 = ๐๐๐๐,1(1 + ๐๐๐๐,1) = 284.711(1 + 0.2)
๐1 = 341.653 [MPa]
b) Final diameter (d1):
๐ด0๐0 โ ๐ด1๐1 โ ๐1 = โ
๐0
2
๐0
๐1
= โ
12250
60
๐1 = 10.95 [mm]
Let us cross-check our result in (a):
๐1 =
๐1
๐ด1
=
32200
๐(0.01095)2
4
= 341.653 [MPa]
They match!
c) UTS of cold-worked material (UTS1):
New data on the material is presented in this part: K = 800 [MPa]; n = 0.5. Let us find
the UTS of the annealed material first using Eqn. (3.42):
๐๐๐๐๐๐ = ๐พ (
๐
๐
)
๐
= 800 (
0.5
2.7183
)
0.5
= 343.1056 [MPa]
Employing Eqn. (3.45) yields the UTS of cold-worked material:
๐๐๐๐๐ค = ๐๐๐1 = ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐1 = 343.1056 โ ๐0.1823
๐๐๐๐๐ค = 411.7178 [MPa]
15. 3.15
d) Yield strength and ultimate tensile strength as a function of qcw: The solution of this
part is given in the Slides 3.18-3.19. Also refer to the Q&A comments for the Slides
3.14-3.15.
Slide 3.23
Question: Would you give an example on the application of the topics covered so far?
Answer: Let us do the example
(Example 3) in this slide. The given
data are as follows:
๏ท K = 700 [MPa]
๏ท n = 0.3
๏ท ๐๐๐ค1 =
๐ด0โ๐ด1
๐ด0
= 0.15
๏ท ๐๐๐ค2 =
๐ด1โ๐ด2
๐ด1
= 0.1
In this problem, the workpiece is
strained in two stages as illustrated
in the figure.
l0 A0
l2 A2
Strain (ฮตeng)
Load (P)
A1
l1
Af
a) Yield strength at each stage: The amount of cold-work is specified (rather than the
true strains inflicted). Therefore, we start with converting these quantities into the
true strains with the utilization of Eqn. (3.30a):
๐0โ1 = ln (
1
1 โ ๐๐๐ค1
) = ln (
1
1 โ 0.15
) = 0.1625
๐1โ2 = ln (
1
1 โ ๐๐๐ค2
) = ln (
1
1 โ 0.1
) = 0.1054
Employing the additive property of true strains, we can calculate the total strain at
each stage:
๐๐๐ค1 โ ๐0โ1 = 0.1625
๐๐๐ค2 โ ๐0โ2 = ๐0โ1 + ๐1โ2 = 0.1625 + 0.1054 = 0.2679
Note that these strains gives us the strains inflicted on the material with respect to the
annealed state. Consequently, using Eqn. (3.35) yields
๐๐๐๐ค1 โ ๐พ (๐๐๐ค1)๐
= 700(0.1625)0.3
= 405.8393 [MPa]
๐๐๐๐ค2 โ ๐พ (๐๐๐ค2)๐
= 700(0.2679)0.3
= 471.5089 [MPa]
A word of caution: The direct application of Eqn. (3.37) [or Eqn. (3.36) for that
matter!] will get you in trouble owing to the fact that the amount of cold-work in this
equation is defined with respect to the annealed state. Consequently, applying the
formula for the second/last stage will give you the wrong answer because the additional
cold-work (e.g. %qcw2 = 10%) is defined with respect to the intermediate state (not the
annealed state!). That is the reason why we get to employ true strains in the first place
because their additive property enables us to compute the total strains with respect to
16. 3.16
the annealed state. Thanks to strain hardening hypothesis (see the Slides 3.20-
3.22), the yield strength at any cold-worked state can be calculated by employing the
uniaxial tensile test data (i.e. K and n) available for a specific annealed material.
b) UTS of each state: Let us find the UTS of the annealed material first using Eqn. (3.42):
๐๐๐๐๐๐ = ๐พ (
๐
๐
)
๐
= 700 (
0.3
2.7183
)
0.3
= 361.3650 [MPa]
Employing Eqn. (3.45) yields the UTS of cold-worked material at stage 1:
๐๐๐๐๐ค1 = ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ค1 = 361.3650 โ ๐0.1625
๐๐๐๐๐ค1 = 425.1272 [MPa]
Likewise, the UTS of cold-worked material at stage 2 becomes
๐๐๐๐๐ค2 = ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ค2 = 361.3650 โ ๐0.2679
๐๐๐๐๐ค2 = 472.3823 [MPa]
c) Ductility of each state: In this part, the ductility of the annealed part is specified:
๐๐๐๐
โ
=
๐ด0 โ ๐ด๐
๐ด0
= 0.5 โ
๐ด๐
๐ด0
= 0.5
Similarly, the ductility of cold-worked material at stage 1 is defined as
๐๐๐ค1
โ
=
๐ด1 โ ๐ด๐
๐ด1
= 1 โ
๐ด๐
๐ด0
โ
0.5
โ
๐ด0
๐ด1
Recall that
๐๐๐ค1 = ln (
๐ด0
๐ด1
) โ
๐ด0
๐ด1
= ๐๐๐๐ค1
Therefore,
๐๐๐ค1
โ
= 1 โ 0.5
๐ด0
๐ด1
โ
๐๐๐๐ค1
= 1 โ 0.5 โ ๐0.1625
= 0.4118
Ductility of cold-worked material at stage 2 can be defined as
๐๐๐ค2
โ
=
๐ด2 โ ๐ด๐
๐ด2
= 1 โ
๐ด๐
๐ด0
โ
0.5
โ
๐ด0
๐ด2
๐๐๐ค2 = ln (
๐ด0
๐ด2
) โ
๐ด0
๐ด2
= ๐๐๐๐ค2
Finally,
๐๐๐ค2
โ
= 1 โ 0.5
๐ด0
๐ด2
โ
๐๐๐๐ค2
= 1 โ 0.5 โ ๐0.2679
= 0.3464
17. 3.17
The figure below plots the quantities computed in this exercise. As can be seen, the
yield strength is approaching to UTS as the plastic strain approaches to n. Note that
when (๐ > ๐), ๐๐ โ ๐๐๐. This case is commonly referred to as overstraining.
Slide 3.25
Question: Would you explain the graph in this slide?
Answer: This graphs shows the effect of temperature on mechanical properties of
materials. On the abscissa, the homologous temperature is displayed. In this (unitless)
temperature scale:
๏ท 0 corresponds to absolute zero: 0 [K];
๏ท 0.5 refers to the recrystallization temperature;
๏ท 1 denotes the melting temperature of a particular material;
๏ท The range between 0 and 0.3 is the cold-working region;
๏ท The range between 0.3 and 0.5 is the warm-working region;
๏ท The range between 0.5 and 0.7 is the hot-working region.
As can be seen, when the temperature of the workpiece (i.e. working temperature) is
elevated, the yield strength of the material tends to decrease while the ductility
commences to improve. In hot working regime (TH > 0.5), the strength of the material
actually depends on the strain-rate (i.e. ๐ฬ = ๐๐/๐๐ก) rather the strain itself. Higher the
straining rate (i.e. faster the inflicted deformation), higher the flow stress. The underlying
reasons behind this behavior are further explained in the Slides 3.27 and 3.30. Note that
in hot working regime, the flow stress can be characterized by
๐๐ = ๐ถ(๐ฬ)๐
(3.57)
where C is a material coefficient that is a function of temperature; m is the strain-rate
sensitivity exponent. The effect of strain in Eqn. (3.57) is negligible for all practical
purposes.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Ductility
[%]
Stress
[MPa]
True Strain
YS UTS q*
18. 3.18
Slides 3.30
Question: Would you explain the annealing process?
Answer: Letโs start with the cold-work. Here, the plastic deformation essentially takes
place at low temperatures (i.e. TH < 0.3). As the amount of plastic deformation increases,
the grains tend to be more distorted while the dislocation density multiplies. Due to
entanglement of dislocations, their motions become progressively more inhibited.
Evidently, the strength of the cold-worked material increases while the ductility drops as
shown in graph on the left.
If the temperature of this cold-worked part is elevated to, say, warm-working range (i.e.
0.3 < TH < 0.5), recovery annealing can be performed. As can be seen from the figure in
the middle, the strength drops slightly while the ductility improves marginally as time
progresses. This is due to the fact that the dislocations commence to disentangle and
migrate slowly towards the grain boundaries. Note that there are no changes in the grain
structure in recovery annealing. As a consequence, internal residual stresses produced by
prior cold-work could be reduced dramatically. That is why, this process is referred to as
stress-relief annealing (or stress-relieving heat treatment).
Similarly, if this cold-worked part is heated up above the recrystallization temperature
(i.e. TH > 0.5) and is held at that temperature for about an hour or so, the distorted grains
will begin to reform. That is, new grains will develop at nucleation sites. These sites are
located at highly distorted points on the original lattice as a consequence of prior cold-
work. Eventually, the new grains will completely take over and replace the old ones. Their
average size depends on the amount of prior cold-work, annealing temperature, and time.
As shown in the figure on the right, this is the primary phase of the recrystallization.
Note that since the new grains have very low dislocation density, the corresponding
strength is reduced while its ductility is improved. However, if ample time is given, some
of the grains will start to grow by coalescence with their neighbors. This grain-coarsening
process, which is accelerated by high annealing temperatures, forms the secondary
phase. Due to coarse grains, the yield strength is expected to drop. Additionally,
hydrogen embrittlement, where the absorbed hydrogen creates brittle compounds (like
hydrides) at grain boundaries, is observed. This further reduces the ductility in the
secondary phase. For more information on this issue, please refer to Refs. [2] and [3].
Slides 3.31-3.32
Question: Would you explain the annealing temperature?
Answer: Annealing temperature is not a single value. It simply refers to a range of
temperatures. For instance, at a high temperature, the material can be annealed within
a short period. Likewise, the annealing process takes a bit longer at a moderate
temperature as can be seen from the Slide 3.31. Finally, at a relatively low temperature6,
more time is required to anneal the material. For short, a certain amount of energy must
be expended to complete the metallurgical state transformation in annealing at a
particular temperature.
6 Note that in all these three cases, the annealing temperature is greater than 0.5 in homologous temperature
scale.
19. 3.19
It is critical to notice that the annealing temperature also depends on the amount of prior
cold-work and the average size of the resulting grains. As mentioned in the Slide 3.30,
heavier cold-work leads to the formation of smaller- and distorted grains. Evidently, more
nucleation sites are produced and the recrystallization process commences at lower
temperatures. Roughly speaking, higher the number of nucleation sites, lower the
annealing temperature as depicted in the Slide 3.32. If there is no prior cold-work, no
recrystallization occurs.
Slide 3.36
Question: What is the relationship between Tresca- and von Mises yield criteria?
Answer: von Mises yield criterion, which is based on maximum (distortion) strain energy
principle, is presumed to be the most general form of all yield criteria. In fact, Tresca yield
criterion appears to be a piecewise approximation of its counterpart. To understand this
issue, let us apply both yield criteria to a planar stress state case as illustrated in Fig. 3.8.
In this particular example, the third principal stress component (๏ณ3) is set to zero while
the remaining ones (๏ณ1, ๏ณ2) are presumed to vary within the four quadrants of the stress-
plane. It is obvious that the name of each principle stress components needs to change in
this exercise owing to the fact that ๏ณ1, ๏ณ2, ๏ณ3 (by definition) refer to the maximum-, the
medium-, and the minimum principle stress components respectively. However, assigning
new names to the variables creates a mess in the representation. Therefore, while
applying Trescaโs yield criterion, we select the maximum (๏ณmax) and the minimum (๏ณmin)
components from the set {๏ณ1, ๏ณ2, ๏ณ3} depending on the yield condition under study (a total
of 6 conditions). Then, we get to sketch the boundary created by |๐๐๐๐ฅ โ ๐๐๐๐| = ๐๐ . The
result is the line segments forming a distorted hexagon as illustrated in Fig. 3.8.
ฯ
1
โ0
=
YS
ฯ2โ0 = YS
0-ฯ2 = YS
0-ฯ
1
=
YS
ฯ1
ฯ2
YS
YS
-YS
-YS
Von Mises
Ellipse
ฯ3 = 0
ฯ2>ฯ1>ฯ3
ฯ1>ฯ2>ฯ3
ฯ1>ฯ3>ฯ2
ฯ3>ฯ1>ฯ2
ฯ3>ฯ2>ฯ1
ฯ2>ฯ3>ฯ1
Figure 3.8: Yield boundaries of different yield criteria.
20. 3.20
With respect to von Mises yield criterion, we donโt need to reassign the roles of varying
principle stress components due to the fact that every possible combination of differences
between the principle stress components is evaluated in the expression. That is,
๐๐๐ โ ๐
ฬ = โ
(๐1 โ ๐2)2 + (๐2 โ ๐3)2 + (๐3 โ ๐1)2
2
= ๐๐ (3.58)
Since ๐3 = 0, simplifying Eqn. (3.58) leads to
๐1
2
โ ๐1๐2 + ๐2
2
๐๐2
=
(๐1 + ๐2)2
2(โ2 ๐๐)
2 +
(๐1 โ ๐2)2
2 (โ2/3 ๐๐)2
= 1 (3.59)
Notice that Eqn. (3.59) in fact represents a rotated ellipse. In general, such an ellipse can
be expressed as
[๐1 cos(๐) +๐2 sin(๐)]2
(โ2 ๐๐)
2 +
[โ๐1 sin(๐) +๐2 cos(๐)]2
(โ2/3 ๐๐)2
= 1 (3.60)
where ๏ฑ refers to the rotation angle in between the major axis of the ellipse and the ๏ณ1
axis. By setting ๏ฑ = ๏ฐ/4, Eqn. (3.60) could be turned into Eqn. (3.59). As can be seen from
Fig. 3.8, the transformed ellipse in Eqn. (3.59) encircles the boundaries of the Trescaโs
criterion. In other words, the von Mises yield criterion, which conforms to the
experimental studies better than its counterpart, estimates higher stresses for the onset
of plastic deformation. One can claim that the Tresca yield criterion is much more
conservative than its counterpart.
Slide 3.40-3.41
Question: Would you explain this slide?
Answer: Levy-Mises flow rule defines how materials plastically deform under the action
of stresses. Hence, it gives us the ability to relate plastic strains to the stresses or vice
versa. In fact, the rule performs a job similar to that of the Hookeโs law except that it
depicts the plastic deformations of materials. Let us elaborate this issue.
For this purpose, consider the Levy-Mises flow rule7 for the x-axis:
๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ
๐๐ฅโฒ
=
๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ
๐๐ฅ๐ฅ โ ๐โ
= ๐๐ (3.61)
Here, the hydrostatic stress is defined as
๐โ โ
๐๐ฅ๐ฅ + ๐๐ฆ๐ฆ + ๐๐ง๐ง
3 (3.62)
Plugging Eqn. (3.62) into (3.61) gives
๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ = ๐๐ (๐๐ฅ๐ฅ โ
๐๐ฅ๐ฅ + ๐๐ฆ๐ฆ + ๐๐ง๐ง
3
) (3.63a)
7 In Ref. [6] (see Section 2.6), the derivation of the flow rule is elaborated. It is interesting to note that the
flow rule in Slide 3.40 is in fact related to the yield boundary dictated by von Mises yield criterion [i.e. Eqn.
(3.58)]:
๐๐๐๐
๐๐
= ๐๐
ฬ
๐๐๐๐
.
21. 3.21
โด ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ =
2
3
๐๐ [๐๐ฅ๐ฅ โ
1
2
(๐๐ฆ๐ฆ
+ ๐๐ง๐ง)] (3.63b)
Eqn. (3.63b) resembles the Hookeโs law that describes elastic deformations (see Slide
3.39). For instance,
๐๐ฅ๐ฅ =
1
๐ธ
[๐๐ฅ๐ฅ โ ๐ (๐๐ฆ๐ฆ
+ ๐๐ง๐ง)] (3.64)
Let us make a brief comparison between Eqn. (3.63b) and (3.64):
๏ท In Levy-Mises rule, the Poissonโs ratio (๏ฎ) is replaced by ยฝ. Recall that volume is
conserved in plastic deformation whereas in elastic region, it is not conserved
unless ๏ฎ =ยฝ.
๏ท In Hookeโs law, the total strain (๐๐ฅ๐ฅ) is associated with the stresses. On the other
hand, the incremental strain (๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ) is employed by the Levy-Mises rule.
๏ท The reciprocal of the Youngโs modulus (1/E) in Eqn. (3.64) is substituted by the
term (
2
3
๐๐) in the Levy-Mises rule. Roughly speaking, ๐๐ in Eqn. (3.63a) is treated
as a material parameter that changes throughout the straining regime.
In fact, Hookeโs law depicts a linear relationship whereas the Levy-Mises rule describes a
nonlinear one. To understand this concept, consider a linear spring element. Its behavior
can be depicted by
๐น = ๐๐ฅ (3.65)
where F is the force applied to the spring; k is the spring constant; x denotes the
displacement of the spring. Naturally, Eqn. (3.65) is analogous to the one-dimensional
application of the Hookeโs law:
๐๐ฅ = ๐ธ๐๐ฅ (3.66)
Here, ๏ณx, E, and ๏ฅx correspond to F, k, and x in Eqn. (3.65) respectively. For the sake of
argument, now let us consider a nonlinear spring element whose force-displacement curve
is as illustrated in Fig. 3.9. It is self-evident that Eqn. (3.65) cannot be employed to depict
this nonlinear element.
In engineering applications, nonlinear functions are often times linearized around a
point of interest using Taylorโs series expansion. Letโs do this for the function F(x):
๐น(๐ฅ) = ๐น(๐ฅ0) +
1
1!
โ
๐๐น
๐๐ฅ
|
๐ฅ=๐ฅ0
(๐ฅ โ ๐ฅ0) +
1
2!
โ
๐2
๐น
๐๐ฅ2
|
๐ฅ=๐ฅ0
(๐ฅ โ ๐ฅ0)2
+ โฏ
โ
Higher Order Terms
(3.67)
Presuming that (๐ฅ โ ๐ฅ0) is small (i.e. the region of interest around point x0 is small), we
can neglect the higher order terms in Eqn. (3.67):
๐น(๐ฅ) โ ๐น(๐ฅ0)
โ
โ๐น0
โ
โโ๐น
=
๐๐
๐๐ฅ
|
๐ฅ=๐ฅ0
โ
โ๐0
(๐ฅ โ ๐ฅ0)
โ
โโ๐ฅ
(3.68)
Evidently, Eqn. (3.68) boils down to
โ๐น = ๐0โ๐ฅ (3.69)
22. 3.22
Eqn. (3.69) now resembles Eqn. (3.65). However, there are some major differences:
๏ท In Eqn. (3.69), k0 is not a constant. Depending on the point of interest (x0), it varies.
๏ท The spring force in Eqn. (3.69) is associated with the incremental displacement
(๏x) (not the displacement x itself).
Consequently, by using this spring element analogy, one can draw simple (and rather
didactic) conclusions about the Levy-Mises flow rule and the Hookeโs law. They are
summarized in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Comparison of models.
Entity Analogous to
Levy-Mises Rule โ๐น = ๐0โ๐ฅ
โ๐น ๐๐ฅ
โฒ
๐น(๐ฅ0) = ๐น0 ๐โ
๐0 ๐๐
โ๐ฅ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ
Hookeโs Law ๐น = ๐๐ฅ
๐น ๐๐ฅ
๐ ๐ธ
๐ฅ ๐๐ฅ
x
F
x0
F0
F = F(x)
k0
ฮx
ฮF
Figure 3.9: Nonlinear function.
Question: How is d๏ฌ of the flow rule related to the material coefficients in power law (e.g.
K and n)?
Answer: Recall that in uniaxial tension test, the principal stresses take the following
form:
๐1 = ๐๐ฅ; ๐2 = ๐3 = 0 (3.70)
The Levy-Mises flow rule for this special case [see Eqn. (3.63b)] becomes
2
3
๐๐ =
๐๐1
๐1 โ 1
2
(๐2 + ๐3)
=
๐๐๐ฅ
๐๐ฅ
(3.71)
With the utilization of the power law (๐๐ฅ = ๐พ๐๐ฅ
๐
), we get
๐๐ =
๐๐๐ฅ
2
3
๐พ๐๐ฅ
๐
= ๐(๐๐ฅ) (3.72)
It is evident from Eqn. (3.72) that the non-negative d๏ฌ parameter varies with ๐๐ฅ (or the
elongation) throughout the plastic deformation regime. Roughly speaking, d๏ฌ in Levy-
Mises flow rule is employed to characterize the strain-hardening behavior of materials.
The discussion above specifically focusses on the uniaxial tension case. For multiaxial-
stress cases, the effective-stress (๐
ฬ ) [see Eqn. (3.58)] and (total) effective-strain (๐ฬ ) must
be utilized to compute d๏ฌ parameter. Consequently, Eqn. (3.72) can be generalized as
๐๐ =
๐๐ฬ
2
3
๐พ๐ฬ ๐
= ๐(๐ฬ ) (3.73)
23. 3.23
where
๐ฬ =
โ2[(๐1 โ ๐2)2 + (๐2 โ ๐3)2 + (๐3 โ ๐1)2]
3
(3.74)
It is critical to notice that since ๐
ฬ = ๐๐ฅ; ๐ฬ = ๐๐ฅ in uniaxial tensile test, ๐
ฬ โ ๐ฬ curve
essentially boils down to the true stress-true strain (๐๐ฅ โ ๐๐ฅ) curve.
References
[1] Groover, M. P., Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing, 5th Edition, John Wiley, NY,
2013.
[2] Schey, J. A., Introduction to Manufacturing Processes, 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill, NY, 1987.
[3] Tlusty, G., Manufacturing Processes and Equipment, Prentice Hall, NJ, 2000.
[4] Altฤฑntaล, Y., Manufacturing Automation, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 2012.
[5] Lange, K., Lehrbuch der Umformtechnik: Grundlagen, Band 1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972.
[6] Hosford, W. H., Caddell, R. M., Metal Forming: Mechanics and Metallurgy, 4th Edition,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2011.