21-Mat-A5 Phase Transformations and Thermal Treatment · May 2018
Question 5 of 8: Plastic Instability and Stretch-Forming a Magnesium Sheet
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. National Exams, May 2018 — 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 sub-parts explicitly call for an essay-format answer, and the rubric rewards clarity and organisation, so those answers are written as structured prose rather than as note form.
Note on the exam title
Nothing on the paper is a phase-transformation or heat-treatment question in the TTT/CCT, hardenability or tempering sense; the syllabus actually examined is crystallography of slip and twinning, dislocation theory, creep, fatigue, toughness and fracture mechanics, and safe-life fatigue design.
Reference texts. The answers below are keyed to the works normally recommended for this syllabus code:
G. E. Dieter, Mechanical Metallurgy, 3rd ed. — dislocation theory and slip (Ch. 4–5), strengthening mechanisms (Ch. 6), fracture (Ch. 7), fatigue (Ch. 12), creep and stress rupture (Ch. 13).
W. D. Callister and D. G. Rethwisch, Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction, 10th ed. — dislocations and slip systems (Ch. 7), failure: fracture, fatigue and creep (Ch. 8).
M. F. Ashby and D. R. H. Jones, Engineering Materials 1 & 2 — fast fracture and toughness, fatigue crack growth, creep mechanisms and deformation-mechanism maps.
R. E. Reed-Hill and R. Abbaschian, Physical Metallurgy Principles — crystallography of slip and twinning, stereographic projections, Schmid's law.
ASM Handbook, Vol. 11 (Failure Analysis and Prevention) and Vol. 19 (Fatigue and Fracture) — fractography, safe-life fatigue design and environmental cracking.
Test standards cited where relevant: ASTM E8/E8M (tension), E139 (creep and stress rupture), E466/E647 (fatigue and fatigue crack growth rate), E399/E1820 (fracture toughness).
Question 5: Plastic Instability and Stretch-Forming a Magnesium Sheet (20 marks)
5.1 — (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, because 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 per Considère's criterion,
$$Kn\epsilon^{n-1} = K\epsilon^{n} \quad\Longrightarrow\quad n = \epsilon.$$
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).
5.2 — (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 total strain into elastic and plastic parts.
While the sheet is under load at the plateau stress $\sigma_y$, its total engineering strain is $\epsilon_{\text{total}} = \epsilon_{\text{elastic}} + \epsilon_{\text{plastic}}$. On unloading, only the elastic part recovers (spring-back); the plastic part is permanent and is exactly what sets the final, released length. So
$$L_{\text{before}} = L_0(1+\epsilon_{\text{total}}), \qquad L_f = L_0(1+\epsilon_{\text{plastic}}) = L_0(1+\epsilon_{\text{total}}-\epsilon_{\text{elastic}}).$$
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:
$$\epsilon_{\text{elastic}} = \frac{\sigma_y}{E} = \frac{200\ \text{MPa}}{65{,}000\ \text{MPa}} = 3.077\times10^{-3}.$$
Note the sheet's 1.5 mm $\times$ 80 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.
Subtracting the two length expressions above, $L_{\text{before}} - L_f = L_0\,\epsilon_{\text{elastic}}$, so
$$L_{\text{before}} = L_f + \frac{\sigma_y}{E}\,L_0 = 6.2\ \text{m} + (3.077\times10^{-3})(5\ \text{m}) = 6.2\ \text{m} + 0.01538\ \text{m}.$$
$$\boxed{L_{\text{before}} \approx 6.215\ \text{m} = 6215\ \text{mm}}$$
Quantity
Result
Elastic (recoverable) strain, $\sigma_y/E$
$3.077\times10^{-3}$ (0.308%)
Spring-back length, $(\sigma_y/E)L_0$
15.4 mm
Length required before release, $L_{\text{before}}$
$\boxed{6.215\ \text{m}}$
Target length after release, $L_f$ (given)
6.2 m
The sheet must therefore be over-pulled by about 15 mm — roughly a quarter of one percent of its length — beyond the 6.2 m target before the load is taken off, purely to pay back the elastic strain that will spring back on release. Because $\epsilon_{\text{elastic}}$ is small compared with the plastic stretch of $(6.2-5)/5 = 24\%$, the correction is a fine-tuning step rather than a dominant one, but it is exactly the calculation a stretch-forming operator performs to hit a net dimensional target.
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 15.4 mm correction here is consequently a lower-bound estimate.