21-Mat-A5 Phase Transformations and Thermal Treatment · May 2017
Question 7 of 8: Plastic Instability (Considère's Criterion); Stretch-Forming Spring-Back of a Magnesium Sheet
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. National Exams, May 2017 — 10-Met-A5, Mechanical Behaviour and Fracture of Materials. Three hours, closed book, any non-communicating calculator permitted. Eight questions of 20 marks each; the rubric states that five questions constitute a complete paper and that only the first five appearing in the answer book are marked. All eight are answered here, because this set is a study resource rather than an exam script. Several questions ask explicitly for essay-format answers, and the marking scheme rewards clarity and organisation, so the discursive answers below are written as structured prose rather than as note form.
Note on the paper's subject
The printed exam header reads 10-Met-A5, Mechanical Behaviour and Fracture of Materials. The paper has no phase-transformation or heat-treatment question in the classical (TTT/CCT diagram, hardenability, tempering-curve) sense; the syllabus actually examined is fracture mechanics and fatigue-crack-growth life, strengthening and toughening of engineering materials, creep and fatigue testing, deformation processing, and elastic–plastic forming behaviour.
Reference texts. The answers below are keyed to the works normally recommended for this syllabus code:
G. E. Dieter, Mechanical Metallurgy, 3rd ed. — strengthening and plastic instability (Ch. 3, 4, 6), fracture (Ch. 7), fatigue (Ch. 12), creep and stress rupture (Ch. 13), forming processes (Ch. 15–19).
W. D. Callister and D. G. Rethwisch, Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction, 10th ed. — strengthening (Ch. 7), failure: fracture, fatigue and creep (Ch. 8), composites (Ch. 16), corrosion and degradation (Ch. 17).
M. F. Ashby and D. R. H. Jones, Engineering Materials 1 & 2 — fast fracture, the transition flaw size, toughening mechanisms, and creep-mechanism maps.
ASM Handbook, Vol. 11 (Failure Analysis and Prevention), Vol. 14A (Metalworking: Bulk Forming) and Vol. 19 (Fatigue and Fracture) — process selection, fractography, single-crystal casting and fatigue design.
Test standards cited where relevant: ASTM E8/E8M (tension), E139 (creep and stress rupture), E466 (constant-amplitude axial fatigue), E647 (fatigue crack growth rate), E399/E1820 (fracture toughness).
Question 7: Plastic Instability (Considère's Criterion); Stretch-Forming Spring-Back of a Magnesium Sheet (20 marks)
7.1 — (a) Deriving the Considère necking condition ε = n
Given. A material work-hardens according to $\sigma = K\epsilon^n$ in true stress and true strain, deformed at constant volume in uniaxial tension.
Find. Show that plastic instability (necking) begins at the true strain $\epsilon = n$.
Approach. Necking begins where the load-carrying capacity of the bar reaches a maximum, since beyond that point any further stretch reduces the cross-section faster than the material can strain-harden to compensate, so deformation localises. That maximum-load condition is Considère's criterion, and combining it with the given hardening law fixes the strain at which it occurs.
Write the load and find its stationary point.
The axial load is $P = \sigma A$, where $A$ is the current cross-sectional area. Instability (maximum load, $dP = 0$) occurs where
$$dP = A\,d\sigma + \sigma\,dA = 0 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad \frac{d\sigma}{\sigma} = -\frac{dA}{A}.$$
Bring in constant-volume flow.
Plastic deformation conserves volume, $A L = A_0 L_0 = \text{const}$, so $dA/A = -dL/L = -d\epsilon$ (true strain $\epsilon = \ln(L/L_0)$, $d\epsilon = dL/L$). Substituting,
$$\frac{d\sigma}{\sigma} = -(-d\epsilon) = d\epsilon \quad\Longrightarrow\quad \boxed{\dfrac{d\sigma}{d\epsilon} = \sigma} \quad \text{(Consid\`ere's criterion).}$$
Necking begins exactly where the slope of the true stress–true strain curve equals the current true stress — geometrically, where a line from the origin at strain $\epsilon=-1$ is tangent to the curve.
Apply it to the given power law.
With $\sigma = K\epsilon^n$, the hardening rate is $d\sigma/d\epsilon = Kn\epsilon^{n-1}$. Setting this equal to $\sigma$ itself,
$$Kn\epsilon^{n-1} = K\epsilon^{n} \quad\Longrightarrow\quad n = \epsilon.$$
Quantity
Result
Instability condition
$d\sigma/d\epsilon = \sigma$ (Considère)
True strain at necking
$\boxed{\epsilon = n}$
Physically, $n$ is therefore not just a curve-fitting exponent: it is the uniform (pre-necking) true strain the material can sustain in a tension test, and a metal with a higher $n$ can be drawn or stretch-formed further before it localises — the property exploited deliberately in part (b), and referenced again when comparing metal and polymer deformation in Question 6(a).
7.2 — (b) Over-stretch required to reach 6.2 m after spring-back
Given. Magnesium sheet, 1.5 mm thick $\times$ 80 mm wide, original length $L_0 = 5$ m, target length after the stress is released $L_f = 6.2$ m, $E = 65$ GPa, $\sigma_y = 200$ MPa. No hardening data is supplied, so the sheet is modelled as elastic–perfectly-plastic: once yielding begins the stress plateaus at $\sigma_y$.
Find. The length $L_{\text{before}}$ the sheet must be pulled to, under load, so that after the load is released it settles at the target 6.2 m.
Separate the deformation into plastic and elastic parts.
While the sheet is held under load at the plateau stress $\sigma_y$, it has been stretched plastically and is also carrying an elastic strain. On unloading only the elastic part recovers (spring-back); the plastic part is permanent and sets the released length. The elastic strain is carried by the sheet at its current, loaded length, so the elastic shortening on release is
$$\Delta L_{\text{el}}=\epsilon_{\text{elastic}}\,L_{\text{before}}, \qquad L_f = L_{\text{before}}-\Delta L_{\text{el}} = L_{\text{before}}\left(1-\epsilon_{\text{elastic}}\right).$$
Quantify the recoverable (elastic) strain.
At the moment of release the stress in the sheet is $\sigma_y$ (perfectly plastic plateau, no further hardening to release from), so Hooke's law gives the strain that snaps back:
$$\epsilon_{\text{elastic}} = \frac{\sigma_y}{E} = \frac{200\ \text{MPa}}{65{,}000\ \text{MPa}} = 3.077\times10^{-3}.$$
The sheet's $1.5\ \text{mm}\times80\ \text{mm}$ cross-section plays no role here — it fixes the force needed ($\sigma_y\times$ area) but not the strain recovered, which depends only on stress and modulus.
Combine to get the pre-release length.
$$L_{\text{before}} = \frac{L_f}{1-\sigma_y/E} = \frac{6.2\ \text{m}}{1-3.077\times10^{-3}} = 6.2191\ \text{m},$$
i.e. a spring-back of $L_{\text{before}}-L_f=(3.077\times10^{-3})(6.219\ \text{m})=0.0191$ m.
$$\boxed{L_{\text{before}} \approx 6.219\ \text{m} = 6219\ \text{mm}}$$
Length required before release, $L_{\text{before}}$
$\boxed{6.219\ \text{m}}$
Target length after release, $L_f$ (given)
6.2 m
Check: modelling assumption
The paper supplies only $E$ and $\sigma_y$, with no work-hardening exponent, so the plateau (elastic–perfectly-plastic) idealisation above is the only one the given data supports. A real magnesium sheet alloy does strain-harden somewhat after yield, which would raise the stress (and hence the recovered elastic strain) slightly above $\sigma_y$ by the time 6.2 m is reached; the 19.1 mm correction here is consequently a lower-bound estimate. Referring the elastic strain to the original 5 m length instead of the loaded length would give $6.2+0.0154=6.215$ m — a 3.7 mm (about 20%) underestimate of the spring-back, because the sheet has already been stretched 24% plastically.