Example (3.

2)

The plastic behavior of a certain metal is expression as 𝜎̅ = 100000 ε̅ 0.5 . If a bar of

this metal is uniformly cold worked to an area reduction of r = 0.3, estimate the yield
strength of the cold-worked piece.

Given data; 𝜎̅ = 100000 ε̅ 0.5

𝜎̅ = kε̅ n
k = 100000
n = 0.5
r = 0.3
To find; The yield strength, Y = ?
Solution; In uniaxial Tension,
𝜀 = 𝜀̅
1
𝜀̅ = 𝜀 = Ln( )
1−𝑟
1
𝜀̅ = Ln( ) = 0.3566
1−0.3

𝜎̅ = 100000 𝜀̅ 0.5
Power Law, 𝜎̅ = k𝜀̅ 𝑛 = Y
Y = 𝜎̅ = 100000 (0.3566)0.5
= 59715.99 psi
The yield strength, Y = 59715.99 psi
It is of course essential to determine numerical values of k and n before Eq,
(3.13) finds application. If Eq,(3.10) is descriptive of the plastic behavior of the
metal, the simplest approach is to plot the 𝜎 = 𝜀 data on logarithmic coordinates,
since a power-law expression plots as a straight line on those scales. Figure 3-4
shows experimental values obtained for a commercially pure aluminum specimen
which was fully annealed before being subjected to a tensile test. With logarithmic
coordinates, there is no zero-zero starting point, so the elastic region, depicted as
Zone I, must start at some finite value. As an aside, if the metal follows Hooke’s law,
the stress-strain relation in this zone obeys 𝜎 = 𝐸𝜀 and the plotted points must form
a 45˚-line to either axis. Thus, although E is defined by the slope of the line on
logarithmic coordinates bears no relation to the elastic modulus. Differences in
modulus are shown by the relative position of such lines with respect to each other,
and their extrapolation to the intersection with unit strain defines the value of E this
is shown on fig 3-4.

Zone II represents a transition from elastic to fully plastic behavior and is

typical of most ductile metals. Materials such as low-carbon steel, having a
pronounced yield point, would exhibit the behavior shown in fig 3-5.
Once Zone III is reached, the metal may be viewed as being in a ‘fully plastic’
condition and from this point up to necking the measured test points fall on a straight
line. The slope of this line defines the strain-hardening exponent n, and the
intersection of this line with unit strain gives the stress value that defines the
magnitude of k. This is often called the strength coefficient. Thus, we have
𝜎 = 𝐸𝜀 1.0 (elastic – Zone I) (3-14a)
 𝜎 = 𝑘𝜀 𝑛 (plastic – Zone III) (3-14b)
Since no one simple equation describes the stress-strain behavior of real
metals from the onset of loading to fracture objections are sometimes raised to the
use of Eq. (3-10) as a means of describing strain-hardening behavior. Of course,
other forms of strain-hardening solution would be subjected to these same
objections.

It is therefore essential to realize the physical restrictions that must be considered

when a power-law form of strain hardening is utilized. These are:
1. Such an equation is quite reliable when the induced strain is greater than 0.04
but less than the strain at which necking begins.
2. Use of this equation to predict the initial yield strength of the metal should be
avoided. Instead, a method such as offset should be used.
3. Most metal-working operations impart strains far in excess of 0.04 (this is
equivalent to about 4% cold work), and the exclusion of the elastic and
“transition” strain regions leads to little error in this regard.
Since by definition
F dL dA
𝜎= = kεn and d𝜀 = =- (3-15)
A L A
at the instability point (maximum load) where dF = 0, it can be shown that 𝜀𝑢 = n.
Although this is mathematically correct, it is very difficult to measure the true strain
at the exact maximum load because of the machine sensitivity that would be required
consequently, a plot such as fig 3-4 is the most reliable method for defining n. Often,
however, a question can arise concerning the placement of the line that best describes
Zone III behavior; the following should assist in this regard.

Example (3.3)
Show that at the onset of tensile instability, assuming that plastic behavior is
described by 𝜎 = kεn the true strain at the ultimate load 𝜀𝑢 equals the strain-
hardening exponent, n.
Show that 𝜀𝑢 = n
By definition,
F = 𝜎𝐴
So dF = 𝜎𝑑𝐴 + 𝐴𝑑𝜎 = 0 (At the maximum Load)
0 = 𝜎𝑑𝐴 + 𝐴𝑑𝜎
- 𝜎𝑑𝐴 = 𝐴𝑑𝜎
dA 𝑑𝜎
- =
A 𝜎
𝑑𝜎 dA dA
⸫ =- = d𝜀 (⸪ d𝜀 = - by definition)
𝜎 A A
𝑑𝜎
⸫ =𝜎 Equ; (1)
𝑑𝜀
By Power Law, 𝜎 = k𝜀 𝑛
𝑑𝜎
= n k𝜀 𝑛−1 Equ; (2)
𝑑𝜀
From Equ; (1) = Equ; (2)
𝜎 = n k𝜀 𝑛−1
𝜎 = n kεn × 𝜀 −1
 𝜎 = n 𝜎 × 𝜀 −1
𝑛
1=
𝜀
n=𝜀
Since this relate to the condition at ultimate load 𝜀𝑢 = n
The true stress at ultimate load,
𝜎𝑢 = k 𝜀𝑢 𝑛 = k nn (⸪ 𝜀𝑢 = n) (3-16)
Fu = Su Ao = 𝜎𝑢 𝐴𝑢 = (k nn ) Au (3-17)
Au
Su = (k nn )
Ao
Ao
𝜀 = ln
A
Ao A A
= 𝑒 𝜀 = A = e-ε = Au = e-εu
A o o

Au
Where, = e-εu (3-18)
Ao

⸫ Su = (k nn )e-εu
k nn k nn
= =
e εu en
𝑛 𝑛
Su = k ( ) (3-19)
𝑒
Where, e is the base of natural logarithms

Example (3.4)
True stress-true strain data are plotted on logarithmic coordinates as fig 3-4. A
straight line, that seems to fit beat the plastic zone, produces the strain-hardening
equation, 𝜎̅ = 50000 𝜀̅ 0.25 . During this load the tensile strength was accurately
measured to be 28,000 psi. Do k and n the proper values?
Given data; 𝜎̅ = 50000 𝜀̅ 0.25
𝜎̅ = k𝜀̅ 𝑛
k = 50000
n = 0.25
Su = 28,000 psi
n n
Su =k( )
e
0.25 0.25
= 50000 ( )
e
= 27535 psi
28000-27535
The percent of variation = = 0.01666 = 1.66%. If this varies from the
28000
measured value of tensile strength (say by ± 3%). This the % of variation is 1.66%.
So that k and n are certainly reasonable.
It has been implied that the parameters k and n are material constants and it is
essential that this concept be understood thoroughly. One cannot, for example,
assume that the magnitude of these parameters is fixed for a metal whose structure
can be significantly altered by heat treatment. If a piece of SAE 1020 steel were fully
annealed while a second piece had been austenitized and oil quenched, different
value of k and n would be found for these two specimens. Again, specimens of 2024
aluminum that were solution treated and age hardened would produce different
values of k and n when compared with this same metal in an overaged condition. In
effect, each chemical composition and condition of micro-structure must be viewed
as a different metal as far as k and n are concerned. What must be realized, however,
is that the value of the parameters should be determined with a metallic specimen
that contains no effect of work hardening prior to the tensile deformation itself. After
all, k and n are the very parameters used to describe the work-hardening
characteristics. To account for the effects of cold working that may have been
induced initially, Swift proposed an expression equivalent to
𝜎̅ = k (𝜀̅𝑜 + 𝜀̅𝑎 )𝑛 (3-20)
Where 𝜀̅𝑜 is the strain due to Prior cold working and ε̅a is the strain due to
subsequence plastic deformation.