NivaarExam PrepOfficial exam papers ↗

21-Mat-A4 Deformation Behaviour and Properties of Materials · May 2016

Question 8 of 8: Question VIII — Mechanical Deformation (20 marks)

Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)

Notes on this paper

Paper format. National Exams, May 2016 — 10-Met-A4, Structure of Materials. Three hours, closed book, one approved calculator (Casio or Sharp). Eight questions of 20 marks each (Roman numerals I–VIII); the rubric asks for any five, with only the first five in the answer book marked. All eight are solved here, because this set is a study resource rather than an exam script. All necessary equations, constants and an error-function table are provided in the exam's own appendix (reproduced where used below).

Note on the exam title. The printed exam header reads 10-Met-A4, Structure of Materials. Only Question VIII (mechanical deformation) is genuinely deformation/mechanical-properties content; the paper as a whole is a broad introductory materials-science survey — bonding, crystal structure, crystallographic directions/planes, imperfections, phase diagrams, XRD and diffusion — and is answered as such below.

Reference texts. The answers below are keyed to the works normally recommended for this syllabus code:


Question VIII — Mechanical Deformation (20 marks)

Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.

VIII.1 — Representative stress–strain curves

σε(a) Elastic–brittlefracture (no yield)σε(b) Elastic–perfectly plasticσy (yield)plastic strain, constant σfractureσε(c) Elastic–linear work hardeningσyUTS / fractureσε(d) Hyperelastic (rubber)large elastic strain, no yield pt
Representative engineering stress–strain response for the four material idealisations. (a) Elastic–brittle: linear to fracture, no yield point (e.g. ceramics, cast iron in tension). (b) Elastic–perfectly plastic: linear to $\sigma_y$, then flows at constant stress to fracture (e.g. idealised mild steel, soft annealed metals). (c) Elastic–linear work hardening: linear to $\sigma_y$, then a second, shallower linear segment rising to UTS/fracture (e.g. most cold-workable metals). (d) Hyperelastic (rubber): a single smooth, strongly nonlinear (increasingly stiff) curve with no distinct yield point, capable of very large recoverable strain.

The distinguishing features requested — yield point, plastic-strain region, fracture point, UTS — are marked directly on each curve above: (a) has only a fracture point (no yield, no plastic region); (b) has a yield point followed by a flat plastic plateau ending at fracture (no distinct UTS above $\sigma_y$); (c) has both a yield point and a rising UTS/fracture point, with a genuinely sloped (hardening) plastic region between them; (d) has neither a yield point nor a plastic region in the usual sense — it remains elastic (fully recoverable) over very large strains, with strongly increasing tangent stiffness at high strain (entropic straightening of polymer chains).

VIII.2 — 3003-H14 aluminum rod, 10 mm diameter

Given. $d_0=10$ mm, $E=70$ GPa, $\sigma_y=145$ MPa, $\nu=0.33$.

Given data
QuantityValue
Original diameter, $d_0$10 mm
Cross-sectional area, $A_0=\pi d_0^2/4$78.54 mm²
Elastic modulus, $E$70 GPa
Yield strength, $\sigma_y$145 MPa
Poisson's ratio, $\nu$0.33

(a) Diameter under 6 kN tension

Approach. Check the stress is below yield (elastic); if so, get the axial strain from Hooke's law and the lateral (diameter) strain from Poisson's ratio.

  1. Axial stress. $$\sigma=\frac{F}{A_0}=\frac{6000\ \text{N}}{78.54\times10^{-6}\ \text{m}^2}=76.4\ \text{MPa}\ (<\sigma_y=145\ \text{MPa}\Rightarrow\text{elastic})$$
  2. Axial and lateral (diametral) strain. $$\varepsilon_z=\frac{\sigma}{E}=\frac{76.4\times10^6}{70\times10^9}=1.091\times10^{-3},\qquad \varepsilon_d=-\nu\varepsilon_z=-0.33(1.091\times10^{-3})=-3.60\times10^{-4}$$
  3. New diameter. Tension necks the rod inward: $$d=d_0(1+\varepsilon_d)=10(1-3.60\times10^{-4})=\boxed{9.9964\ \text{mm}}$$

(b) Diameter under 6 kN compression

Approach. Same magnitude of stress, opposite sign; Poisson's effect now bulges the rod outward.

  1. Diameter. By symmetry with (a) (same $|\varepsilon_d|$, opposite sign): $$d=d_0(1+3.60\times10^{-4})=\boxed{10.0036\ \text{mm}}$$

(c) Plastic strain under 15 kN tension

Approach. First check whether 15 kN keeps the rod elastic. Only $E$, $\sigma_y$, and $\nu$ are given — no strain-hardening modulus or full stress–strain curve for 3003-H14 is provided anywhere on this paper (confirmed against the exam's own appendix, which carries only generic constants, not alloy-specific data). That absence is the deliberate content of this sub-question: it is testing the elastic–perfectly-plastic idealisation from part VIII.1(b) directly, where the maximum FORCE the rod can carry in stable equilibrium is capped at $F_{yield}=\sigma_yA_0$ — beyond that, a perfectly-plastic material (zero strain-hardening) cannot generate additional stress to balance additional load, so there is no stable finite-strain equilibrium.

  1. Stress at 15 kN (original area). $$\sigma=\frac{15{,}000}{78.54\times10^{-6}}=191.0\ \text{MPa}\ (>\sigma_y=145\ \text{MPa})$$
  2. Maximum load-carrying capacity (elastic–perfectly-plastic model). $$F_{yield}=\sigma_yA_0=(145\times10^6)(78.54\times10^{-6})=\boxed{11.39\ \text{kN}}$$
  3. Compare to applied load. $F_{applied}=15\ \text{kN} > F_{yield}=11.39\ \text{kN}$.

Because an elastic–perfectly-plastic material's stress cannot rise above $\sigma_y$ once yielding begins, the rod cannot statically equilibrate any axial load above $F_{yield}=11.39$ kN: any attempt to apply 15 kN drives the rod into unstable, unbounded plastic flow (necking runs away with no stabilising strain-hardening to arrest it) until fracture — there is no finite, well-defined "plastic strain" value for this load under the stated material model. $\boxed{\text{15 kN exceeds the rod's 11.39 kN plastic collapse load; the rod necks and fractures rather than reaching a stable strained state.}}$ A finite plastic strain at 15 kN could only be computed if a strain-hardening modulus or a full engineering stress–strain curve for 3003-H14 were supplied, which this paper does not provide.

Question VIII — final results
QuantityValue
(a) Diameter, 6 kN tension9.9964 mm
(b) Diameter, 6 kN compression10.0036 mm
Plastic collapse load, $F_{yield}=\sigma_yA_0$11.39 kN
(c) 15 kN vs. collapse load15 > 11.39 kN — unstable plastic flow to fracture, no finite plastic strain exists
Check: part (c) is answered from the elastic–perfectly-plastic idealisation explicitly introduced in VIII.1(b), since the exam supplies only $E$, $\sigma_y$, $\nu$ for 3003-H14 (no hardening modulus, no UTS, no tabulated stress–strain curve anywhere on the source pages, appendix included). Under any material model WITH strain hardening the rod would instead reach some finite plastic strain above yield; that number cannot be recovered from the data actually given on this paper.
Back to the paper →