Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. 98-Phys-B7 Structure of Materials, National Examination
May 2013 — a closed-book examination (Casio or Sharp approved calculators only; all
necessary equations, constants and diagrams supplied in the paper's own appendix). Candidates
attempt any five of the eight questions, each worth 20 marks; every question is nonetheless
answered in full below so the paper remains a complete study resource.
Reference texts. W. D. Callister Jr. & D. G. Rethwisch, Materials
Science and Engineering: An Introduction, 10th ed. (atomic bonding, crystal structure and
packing, point defects, diffusion, dislocations and slip, mechanical properties, phase diagrams
and the lever rule, precipitation hardening, X-ray diffraction); D. J. Griffiths, Introduction
to Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (de Broglie wavelength, Heisenberg uncertainty).
Part 1(a). The yield strength is the stress at which a
material first exhibits significant plastic (permanent) deformation — conventionally
identified by the 0.2% offset method for metals with no sharp yield point. The ultimate
(tensile) strength is the maximum engineering stress the specimen sustains anywhere on
the stress-strain curve, reached after strain hardening has raised the load-carrying capacity
beyond yield and before necking causes the engineering stress to fall. Yield marks the onset of
permanent deformation; ultimate strength marks the peak load capacity, always at or beyond
yield.
Part 1(b).Engineering stress divides the instantaneous load
by the original, undeformed cross-sectional area, $\sigma_{\text{eng}}=F/A_0$;
true stress divides it by the actual, current (instantaneous)
cross-sectional area, $\sigma_{\text{true}}=F/A_i$. Because the cross-section shrinks as a
ductile specimen elongates, $\sigma_{\text{true}}>\sigma_{\text{eng}}$ once the load is applied;
the two coincide only in the limit of zero strain. The same distinction applies to strain:
engineering strain $\varepsilon_{\text{eng}}=(L-L_0)/L_0$ uses the original gauge length,
true strain $\varepsilon_{\text{true}}=\ln(L/L_0)$ integrates the incremental strain over the
changing length.
Part 2 — Given.
Given data — rod under load
Quantity
Value
Original length $L_0$
25 cm
Original diameter $D_0$
0.25 cm
Diameter under load $D_f$
0.23 cm
Axial load $F$
2 kN
Young's modulus $E$
210 GPa
Find. (a) final length (volume conserved), (b) true stress/strain, (c)
engineering stress/strain, (d) yield strength and elastic energy stored to yield.
Approach. The diameter change under a modest 2 kN load is far too large to be
purely elastic, so the specimen has been loaded onto the perfectly-plastic plateau (past yield);
plastic deformation conserves volume, which fixes the current length and area directly from the
measured diameter.
(a) Final length from volume conservation.
$$A_0=\frac{\pi D_0^2}{4}=\frac{\pi(0.25)^2}{4}=0.04909\ \text{cm}^2,\qquad
A_f=\frac{\pi D_f^2}{4}=\frac{\pi(0.23)^2}{4}=0.04155\ \text{cm}^2,$$
$$V_0=A_0L_0=0.04909\times25=1.2272\ \text{cm}^3,\qquad
L_f=\frac{V_0}{A_f}=\frac{1.2272}{0.04155}=\boxed{29.54\ \text{cm}}.$$
(b) True stress and true strain. True stress uses the current area
directly:
$$\sigma_{\text{true}}=\frac{F}{A_f}=\frac{2000}{0.04155\times10^{-4}}=\boxed{481\ \text{MPa}},
\qquad
\varepsilon_{\text{true}}=\ln\!\frac{L_f}{L_0}=\ln\!\frac{29.54}{25}=\boxed{0.1668}.$$ (Cross-check:
volume conservation gives the equivalent $\varepsilon_{\text{true}}=\ln(A_0/A_f)=\ln(0.04909/
0.04155)=0.1668$, matching — confirming internal consistency.)
(c) Engineering stress and strain.
$$\sigma_{\text{eng}}=\frac{F}{A_0}=\frac{2000}{0.04909\times10^{-4}}=\boxed{407\ \text{MPa}},
\qquad
\varepsilon_{\text{eng}}=\frac{L_f-L_0}{L_0}=\frac{29.54-25}{25}=\boxed{0.1815\ (18.15\%)}.$$
As expected, $\sigma_{\text{true}}>\sigma_{\text{eng}}$ and $\varepsilon_{\text{true}}
<\varepsilon_{\text{eng}}$, consistent with Part 1(b).
(d) Yield strength and stored elastic energy.
Check: the source's "2.2% elongation at the yield point" is read as the
standard 0.2% offset yield-strain convention (a very plausible 0/2 digit misprint) — taken literally, 2.2% strain at $E=210$ GPa implies an
unphysical 4.62 GPa yield strength (roughly 3× the strongest heat-treated steels).
Reading it as 0.2% gives $\sigma_y=420$ MPa, an ordinary structural-steel-scale yield
strength, which is the sanity check used to justify the correction.
Yield strength from the elastic strain at yield. With
$\varepsilon_y=0.002$ purely elastic up to yield (linear elastic-perfectly-plastic model),
$$\sigma_y=E\varepsilon_y=210\times10^3\times0.002=\boxed{420\ \text{MPa}}.$$
Elastic energy stored to yield. The modulus of resilience is the area under
the linear-elastic portion of the curve,
$$U_r=\tfrac12\sigma_y\varepsilon_y=\tfrac12(420\times10^6)(0.002)=4.20\times10^{5}\
\text{J/m}^3.$$
Multiplying by the (original, still-elastic) volume $V_0=1.2272\times10^{-6}\ \text{m}^3$,
$$E_{\text{stored}}=U_rV_0=4.20\times10^{5}\times1.2272\times10^{-6}=\boxed{0.515\ \text{J}}.$$