5 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR

At a certain value of strain (e ≅ 10−3) called the yield point, a material ceases to behave elastically
—does not return to its original condition when the load is removed but undergoes permanent
deformation. This is called plastic behavior. It is found experimentally that there is negligible
change in specific volume during plastic flow, and this suggests that more than the stretching of
atoms is involved. A suitable model to explain plastic flow and its negligible change in density
is slip in which one layer of atoms slides over another in shear. However, when the shear stress
required to cause one layer of atoms in a perfect lattice to slide over an adjacent layer is estimated,
the required value far exceeds the flow stress of ordinary materials.

THEORETICAL SHEAR STRENGTH

Figure 5.1a shows two layers of atoms in a perfect crystal under no-load equilibrium conditions.
The atoms represented by spheres are all vertically aligned. Figure 5.1b shows the atoms displaced

Fig. 5.1 Slip of one layer of

atoms over another layer of
atoms in a perfect crystal. (a)
Before deformation. (b) After
shear displacement x.

45
46 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

relative to each other due to the application of shear stress (τ ). The resisting stress (τ ) may be assumed
to vary linearly with displacement (x). When x = a1 (the horizontal atom spacing), the atoms will be
realigned and τ = 0. Also, when x = a1/2, a displaced atom will be equally attracted to its nearest
neighbors B in Fig. 5.1b and τ should again be zero. As a first approximation, the maximum resisting
shear stress (τ 0 = shear strength) might be expected to occur when x = a1 /4. For an assumed linear
relation between stress and displacement, it follows that
τ x
= (5.1)
τ 0 a1/4
From the definition of simple shear strain (γ ),
x
γ= (5.2)
a2
from Eqs. (5.1) and (5.2),
τ a1
τ0 = (5.3)
4 a2γ
but from Eq. (4.3),
G a1 G
τ0 = ≅ (5.4)
4 a2 4
since a1 ≅ a2.
When this value of theoretical shear strength (τ 0) is compared with values for ordinary materials,
a very large discrepancy is found. For example, mild steel has a value of G of about 11.6 × 106 p.s.i.
(80,093 MN m−2). Thus from Eq. (5.4)
G 11.6 × 106
τ0 = = = 2.9 × 106 p.s.i. (19,651 MPa)
4 4
However, the actual shear strength of such a material is only about 30,000 p.s.i. (207 MPa). This
represents a discrepancy of 2.9 × 106/0.03 × 106 ≅ 97 or two orders of magnitude.
While the assumed linear variation of stress with displacement to such a large strain (γ = –14 )
might be questioned, this is not the problem. This may be shown by substituting a sinusoidal
variation of stress with displacement for a linear one. That is, when τ = τ 0 sin x/(a1/4) (2π) instead
of τ = τ 0 x/(a1 /4) [Eq. (5.1)], the value of τ 0 is found to be G/2π instead of G/4. This changes
the discrepancy to 1.85 × 106/0.03 × 106 = 62 which is still a very large value. Thus, the assumed
relation between stress and displacement does not appear to represent the basic difficulty.

DISLOCATION THEORY
In 1934 a linear crystal imperfection called a dislocation was independently and simultaneously
proposed by three materials scientists (Orowan, Polanyi, and Taylor). Figure 5.2 shows one type
of dislocation known as an edge dislocation in which there is one more atom above the plane of
slip than below. This results in some atoms above the slip plane being attracted to their nearest
neighbors below the plane while others are resisting separation from their nearest neighbors. The
net effect of such a configuration is to require far less energy to cause displacement of the upper row
relative to the lower row than if all atoms acted in the same way as in Fig. 5.1.
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 47

A couple of useful analogies explain the differ-

ence in flow stress with and without the presence
of dislocations. Figure 5.3 shows the mode of
transport of an inchworm over the ground. The pro-
gressive movement of a small section of its body
relative to the ground, instead of sliding all at the
same time, requires much less energy. Similarly, if
a large rug is to be slid across the floor, the easiest
way of doing this is to form a ruck in the rug and
then kick this over the length of the rug instead of
sliding the entire rug over the floor at the same time
(Fig. 5.3b).
When a dislocation runs across a crystal, this
results in a displacement of one atom spacing (a1).
If dislocations were found in every plane of atoms Fig. 5.2 Positive edge dislocation.
in the a2 direction of Fig. 5.1, the passage of one
dislocation across a crystal would correspond to a local shear strain of unity = a1/a2. However, it
is found that dislocations are located on planes that are very widely separated relative to atomic
spacing. This means that the passage of a large number of dislocations is required on the active slip
planes to account for observed plastic strains.
While several complex mechanisms of dislocation formation have been proposed, only one will
be considered here. It is well established that real materials contain imperfections at a spacing of
about one micrometer which corresponds roughly to the maximum spacing of active shear planes.
The main effect of such imperfections is to cause an intensification of stress (and strain) above
that obtained with a homogeneous material (same properties at all points). While all imperfections
are not microcracks, a microcrack offers a useful model to explain the significance of such a stress
intensifier. Figure 5.4a shows the manner in which the stress (σ t ) at the tip of a microcrack rises
above the homogeneous value (σ 0) as a crack tip is approached. Figure 5.4b shows atoms along
a line 45° to the direction of homogeneous stress (σ 0). The closed circles represent the unloaded
positions of the atoms while the open dots represent the deformed positions. The open dots con-
stitute a dislocation that once formed will run across the crystal at a fraction of the energy required
to move all atoms simultaneously. Each time a dislocation is formed and moves off under the
action of a tensile stress, the crack will grow and when the crack becomes sufficiently large, it will
grow spontaneously as discussed later.

Fig. 5.3 Dislocation anal-

ogies. (a) Inch worm (after
Orowan). (b) Displacement
of ruck in rug.
48 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

An important characteristic of plastic flow

is strain hardening which is the increase in plastic
flow stress with strain. Dislocations will move
across a crystal until a crystal boundary or second
phase or impurity atom is encountered. Stuck
dislocations project a back stress to the point
of dislocation formation or interfere with the
motion of dislocations and these actions con-
stitute the major sources of strain hardening.
The increase in flow stress with plastic
strain can be removed by heating a material
to a sufficiently high temperature so that the
increased amplitude of vibration of atoms is
sufficient to shake dislocations from the struc-
ture. Such a softening operation is accompanied
by a rearrangement of crystal boundaries and a
decrease in grain size. When a metal is plastic-
ally deformed at a temperature above the strain
recrystallization temperature (≅ absolute melting
point/2), this is called hot working and strain
hardening is avoided because dislocations are
Fig. 5.4 Displacement of ions in metal to form a dislocation removed by grain boundary rearrangement as
at the tip of a microcrack. (a) Stress intensification at crack tip. fast as they are formed.
(b) Displacement of ions at crack tip. Solid points represent While dislocations are too small to be photo-
unloaded ions, open points represent ion centers after stressing. graphed directly, their presence may be revealed
by indirect evidence such as the formation of
etch pits or precipitation (decoration) at dislocation pile-ups. X-ray diffraction and transmission
electron microscopy (TEM) of very thin sections of plastically deformed material have also proved
useful in verifying the existence of dislocations.
Probably the most convincing evidence for dislocations is provided by the soap bubble analogy
devised by Bragg and Nye (1947). Small air bubbles of uniform size are attracted to form a close-
packed array (Fig. 5.5) due to surface tension but resist approaching beyond an equilibrium spacing
due to internal pressure. There are two opposing forces as in the case of atoms in a metal that
similarly give rise to an equilibrium bubble spacing. In addition to crystal boundaries, dislocations
also appear in a bubble raft as accidents of growth. When such a two-dimensional analogy of a metal
structure is sheared, dislocations are observed to run across single “grains” and to be generated at
points of stress concentration represented by a microcrack tip. In addition to dislocations forma-
tion and movement, the Bragg–Nye analogy also clearly demonstrates strain recrystallization. An
excellent motion picture that illustrates many of the details of dislocation mechanics in terms of the
bubble model has been produced by Bragg, Lomer, and Nye (1954).
In metal cutting the strains (γ ) in steady state chip formation are unusually high (frequently
as high as 3 and occasionally as high as 5, as may be seen in Table 3.1). There is considerable
experimental evidence that microcracks are formed on the shear plane at points of stress con-
centration and that these are the principal cause for the size effect (increase in specific energy with
decrease in the volume deformed in chip formation). It is also found experimentally that normal
stress on the shear plane has a substantial influence on the magnitude of shear stress on the shear
plane. This further suggests that microcracks together with normal stress on the shear plane give
rise to the migration of microcracks across the shear plane as they form, weld, reform, and reweld.
It is suggested that this migration of microcracks joins the migration of dislocations in accounting
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 49

for the unusually high strains associated with

steady state chip formation. All of this is discussed
in detail in Chapter 20.

METAL WHISKERS
It was found quite by accident (Herring and Galt,
1952) that very small samples of metals free of
dislocations may be produced by electrodeposition
at very low values of potential. These “whiskers”
are produced so slowly there is plenty of time for
each atom to find its proper place and there are
no accidents of growth (dislocations). When such
whiskers are tested in bending, they
1. are elastic to the point of fracture (no plastic
flow)
2. are nonlinearly elastic, the elastic stress–
strain curve resembling the first quarter
cycle of a sine wave
3. have a very large strain at fracture approach-
ing γ = –41 suggested by the derivation for
theoretical strenth (τ 0)
From the foregoing discussion, it is evident
that metals are ductile and flow plastically due to
the presence of structural defects called dislocations.
Plastic behavior is ordinarily possible only due to
dislocations. In the absence of dislocations, metals
are perfectly brittle (yield strain p fracture strain).
The ductility characteristic of metals is due to the Fig. 5.5 Bubble model showing grain boundary running
tendency for metals to generate large numbers of diagonally across center of field and dislocation just above
dislocations. center of field.

CONSTANCY OF VOLUME AND POISSON’S RATIO

It was previously stated that there is essentially no change in specific volume with plastic flow. From
Eq. (4.4), it follows that in order that ΔVol/Vol = 0, the value of Poisson’s ratio (v) must be –12 . Thus,
Poisson’s ratio is always –12 for all metals in the plastic region.

UNIAXIAL TENSILE TEST

Figure 5.6 shows a stress–strain curve for a ductile metal as frequently determined in acceptance
testing. Here stress (S) is the applied load (P) divided by the original area (A0), and strain (e) is the
change in length (Δl) divided by the original gage length (l 0). Also, SY is the yield stress (limit of
linear elasticity) and SU is called the ultimate stress (P = a maximum) while SF is the fracture stress.
What appears to be negative strain hardening beyond point U is really due to a degree of confusion
50 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

Fig. 5.7 True-stress–true-strain

uniaxial tensile curve. [σY = Yield
Fig. 5.6 Engineering stress–strain uniaxial tensile curve. stress. σU = Ultimate stress. σF =
[SY = Yield stress. SU = Ultimate stress. SF = Fracture stress.] Fracture stress.]

introduced by defining the stress in terms of the original area instead of the actual instantaneous
area. Figure 5.7 shows the curve of Fig. 5.6 replotted in terms of true stress (σ ) and true strain (ε )
where stress and strain are now defined in terms of the instantaneous area and gage length instead
of initial values (A0 and l0). A metal that is highly strain hardened before testing will yield a much
flatter curve that approaches the “ideal plastic” which has a perfectly flat σ –ε curve in the plastic
region. Since there is no change of volume in the plastic regime,
Al = A0 l0 (5.5)
and by definition
P Pl S(l + Δl )
σ= = = 0 = S(1 + e) (5.6)
A A0 l0 l0
Also,
dl
dε =
l
Integrating and evaluating the constant of integration:

l G l (1 + e) J
ε = ln = ln H o K = ln (1 + e) (5.7)
lo I lo L

Equations 5.6 and 5.7 are useful in converting S and e into σ and ε. From
Eq. (5.7) it is evident that the difference in ε and e is negligible for values of
e less than 0.1. The strain at the yield point SY is ε Y ≅ 10−3.
If Fig. 5.7 is replotted on log–log coordinates (Fig. 5.8), a straight line is
obtained having a slope n and hence beyond the yield point
σ = σ1ε n (5.8)
Fig. 5.8 Log–log true-stress–
true-strain uniaxial tensile curve. where σ1 is the stress corresponding to ε = 1 and n is called the strain
[Y = Yield point. U = Ultimate hardening index. Equation (5.8) is widely used in analytical studies involving
point. F = Fracture point.] plastic flow in the cold working regime.
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 51

NECKING
In the initial plastic region (between Y and U in Figs. 5.6 and 5.7) the area decreases uniformly
along the gage length and the increase in load (P) required due to strain hardening exceeds the
decrease in P required due to reduction in area. However, at point U, a localized neck begins to
form. Then the change in P required due to area reduction exceeds the change in P due to strain
hardening, and what appears to be negative strain hardening occurs if stress is measured in terms
of original area Ao instead of actual area A. The necking strain may be obtained as follows:
P = σA (by definition) (5.9)
Differentiating both sides
dP = σ dA + A dσ (5.10)
At point U, dP = 0 and hence
dσ dA
=− (5.11)
σ A
Since
Al = constant (5.12)
A dl + l dA = 0 (5.13)
or
dA dl
− = = dε (5.14)
A l
Hence from Eqs. (5.11) and (5.14)
dσ
=σ (5.15)
dε
and from Eq. (5.8)
dσ
= σ1n ε n−1 = σ (5.16a)
dε
and
σ1 = σ/ε n (5.16b)
then
nσ
=σ (5.17)
ε
or at point U
εU = n (5.18)
Since the value of n is about 0.2 for a ductile metal (annealed), the natural strain at necking (ε U)
is about 0.2.
52 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

When a concentrated neck forms in a tensile specimen, added complications are involved. First
of all, the strain cannot be measured in terms of length since the strain is nonuniform along the gage
length. However, due to the constance of volume,
ld 2 = lod o2 (5.19)
l Ad D 2 Ad D
ε = ln = ln o = 2 ln o (5.20)
lo CdF CdF

Thus, after necking, the strain must be measured in terms of the minimum diameter at the neck (d ).

STRESS DISTRIBUTION IN NECK

The stress is no longer uniformly distributed across the minimum area once a neck forms. The reason
for this becomes evident when we consider two fibers A and B in the necked tensile specimen shown
in Fig. 5.9. While the stress is axially directed in the region of uniform area, a considerable radial
component of stress will be present in the neck which will increase as the center of the specimen is
approached. An increase in radial stress must be accompanied by an equal increase in axial stress as
a result of a flow criterion (Tresca criterion) to be discussed presently. Thus, the state of stress across
the minimum section of a necked specimen will vary from a uniaxial stress (σc ) at the periphery of the
neck to (σc + σ H) at the axis where σH is a hydrostatic component of stress due to the shape of the neck.
Bridgman has found the variation of axial stress (σa ) with radial distance (r) from the specimen
centerline to be

G A a2 + 2aR − r 2 D J
σa = σc H1 + ln K (5.21)
I C 2aR FL

where a is the section radius and R is the profile radius at the neck (Fig. 5.9). Thus, the maximum
tensile stress occurs at the center of the specimen and equals

G A a DJ
σa,max = σc H1 + ln 1 + K (5.22)
I C 2R F L

The corrected uniaxial tensile stress (σc ) is equal to the stress that would
obtain in the absence of a neck and in turn is equal to the stress at the outer
periphery of the neck:
H
σc = (5.23)
A RD A a D
1+2 ln 1 +
C a F C 2R F

where H is the mean stress

P
H=
π a2
The quantity in the denominator of Eq. (5.23) is known as the Bridgman cor-
Fig. 5.9 Neck in tensile rection factor and is shown plotted against a / R in Fig. 5.10. Figure 5.11 illustrates
specimen. the manner in which the stress varies across the neck and the relation between
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 53

Fig. 5.11 Stresses in the neck of a tensile specimen.

Fig. 5.10 Variation of Bridgman correction factor (σc /H) with

a /R ratio.

H, σc , and σc,max. Figure 5.12 is an empirical curve due to Bridgman

(1944) for estimating σc /H for different values of strain (ε ) as defined in
Eq. (5.20). Also shown on this curve are representative experimental
values for mild steel and copper. The Bridgman approximation is found
to be much better for steel than for nonferrous metals such as copper.
The validity of the Bridgman correction has been verified by Marshall
and Shaw (1952) by use of tensile specimens into which necks of known
curvature had been machined.
Figure 5.13 shows the relationship between the so-called engineer-
ing stress–strain curve based on the original area, the true stress–strain
curve and the corrected true stress–strain curve where the stress plotted
(σc ) is the uniaxial tensile stress in the absence of the hydrostatic com-
ponent introduced by curvature of the neck. Fig. 5.12 Bridgman’s empirical cor-
From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that interpretation of rection factor versus true strain (ε).
tensile test results is really quite involved despite the apparent simplicity
of the test.

Fig. 5.13 Relationship between en-

gineering, true, and corrected tensile
stress– strain curves for AISI 1112
steel.
54 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

HYDROSTATIC STRESS
When tensile specimens are tested under different
values of hydrostatic pressure, a negligible effect
is found upon the yield stress and the post yield
shape of the true stress–strain curve. For example,
Bridgman (1952) found an increase of less than
2% in the ultimate stress (ε = 0.2) of AISI 1045
steel when subjected to a hydrostatic pressure of
100,000 p.s.i. (690 MPa). He similarly found an
Fig. 5.14 Influence of hydrostatic pressure on flow stress–
strain curve and fracture stress (x) P1 < P2 < P3. increase in Brinell hardness of less than 4% with
a hydrostatic pressure of 100,000 p.s.i. However,
hydrostatic stress has an appreciable influence on
fracture stress, a compressive hydrostatic stress increasing fracture stress and a tensile hydro-
static stress decreasing fracture stress. Figure 5.14 illustrates these effects. Bridgman expresses
the increased fracture strength (σf) with pressure in terms of a pressure coefficient of ductility
(K):

σf = σf0 + Kσ H (5.24)

where σ H is the hydrostatic pressure (+ for compression).

TEMPERATURE AND STRAIN RATE EFFECTS

When specimens are tested in tension at different temperatures, they are found to be more brittle
(low strain at fracture) at low temperature than at elevated temperatures. However, in the vicinity
of 550 °F (288 °C), steels tend to have a higher yield stress and lower strain at fracture than at
room temperature. This anomal-
ous behavior, termed blue brittle-
ness, is due to the migration of
intersticial carbon and nitrogen
to dislocations resulting in their
immobilization. Figure 5.15 shows
some typical tensile results for
AISI 1112 steel tested at different
temperatures but ordinary strain
rate (10−3 s−1). As a first approxi-
mation, the blue brittle anomaly is
ignored and the yield stress is con-
sidered to decrease with increase
in temperature.
When metals are tested in
Fig. 5.15 True-stress–true-strain Fig. 5.16 True stress–strain curves tension at different strain rates, the
tensile curves for AISI 1112 steel at for AISI 1112 steel at different strain flow stress corresponding to a given
different temperatures. Strain rate = rates. Temperature = 70 °F (21 °C). strain is found to increase with
10−3 s−1. (after MacGregor, 1944) (after MacGregor, 1944) strain rate. Figure 5.16 illustrates
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 55

this behavior. The following equation resembling Eq. (5.8) for strain hardening is frequently used
to relate flow stress and strain rate at a given strain and temperature
σ = σ1M m (5.25)
where M = dε /dt and σ1 and m are material constants. The exponent m (strain rate sensitivity)
is found to increase with temperature, especially above the strain recrystallization temperature.
In the hot working region, metals tend to approach the behavior of a Newtonian liquid for which
m = 1, particularly metals of very small crystal size (~ 1 μ m) which are superplastic (capable of
deformation to very large strains at high temperature and low strain rate).
In general, increased temperature and strain rate have opposite effects on the flow stress of a
material.

VON MISES FLOW CRITERION

A basic problem in design is to predict the yield stress (or flow stress corresponding to a given plastic
strain) under a complex state of stress given the yield stress (or flow stress curve) in uniaxial tension
or other standardized materials test. There is considerable experimental evidence that plastic flow is
not influenced by a purely hydrostatic component of stress. Since the mean principal stress given by
σ1 + σ2 + σ3
σΗ = (5.26)
3
approximates hydrostatic stress, it is convenient to use this in formulating a flow criterion. The
first step in formulating a flow criterion is to subtract (σ H) from the principal stresses pertaining and
then to formulate a criterion based on these altered principal stresses which are termed deviator
stresses. The principal deviator stresses are
σ 1′ = σ 1 − σ H
σ 2′ = σ 2 − σ H (5.27)
σ 3′ = σ 3 − σ H
Since, for an annealed material, the yield stress in uniaxial tension is the same as for uniaxial
compression, the function of the deviator stresses constituting the yield criterion should be an
even function—i.e., give the same result for plus or minus values of σ ′. Von Mises (1913) took
the simplest even function of the stress deviators thus
σ 1′ 2 + σ 2′ 2 + σ 3′ 2 = constant (5.28)
for his yield criterion. When this is rewritten in terms of the actual principal stresses, we obtain
[(σ 1 − σ 2)2 + (σ 2 − σ 3)2 + (σ 3 − σ 1)2] = constant (5.29)
If a uniaxial tensile test is to be the basis of comparison, the following values are substituted to
evaluate the constant:
σ 1 = σy
σ2 = 0
σ3 = 0
56 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

When these values are substituted into Eq. (5.29), we obtain

1
σy = [(σ 1 − σ 2)2 + (σ 2 − σ 3)2 + (σ 3 − σ 1)2]1/ 2 = constant (5.30)
√2
This is known as the von Mises yield criterion. The stress σ y is the equivalent of any complex state
of stress for which the principal stresses are σ 1, σ 2 , σ 3 as far as yield or flow at the same strain is
concerned.
This equation which is in good agreement with experiment has also been obtained by Nadai
(1950) by a more physical approach. He reasoned that flow would begin when the shear stress on
a plane oriented so that its normal stress was equal to σ H reached a particular value. The so-called
octahedral plane is one that makes equal angles with the three principal stress coordinates, and
Nadai reasoned that flow would occur when the shear stress on this plane reached a critical value.
The result is the same as Eq. (5.30). Maxwell (1856) and later Hencky (1924) arrived at Eq. (5.30)
from still another point of view. They assumed that flow will occur when a material absorbs a
certain shear strain energy per unit volume. The strain energy per unit volume associated with an
elastic body subjected to principal stresses σ 1, σ 2, σ 3 is
1+v
uS = [(σ 1 − σ 2)2 + (σ 2 + σ 3)2 + (σ 3 − σ 1)2] (5.31)
3E
For a tensile specimen
1+v
uS = (2ε 2y ) (5.32)
3E
Equating Eqs. (5.31) and (5.32) again leads to Eq. (5.30). The Maxwell–Hencky criterion may also
be derived in terms of principal strains and when this is done, the flow criterion becomes
1
εy = [(ε1 − ε 2)2 + (ε 2 − ε 3)2 + (ε 3 − ε1)2]1/ 2 (5.33)
√2(1 + v)
where ε y is the principal yield strain in a tensile test.

TRESCA FLOW CRITERION

Tresca (1864) and Mohr (1914) took a different approach to the flow criterion problem. They
assumed that flow in a polycrystalline material will occur when the greatest of the principal shear
stresses reaches a critical value. For plane stress
σ 1 − σ 2 σy
= (5.34)
2 2
where σy /2 is the maximum shear stress in a tensile test at the onset of plastic flow.
Equation (5.34) may be written
(σ 1 − σ 2)2 − σ y2 = 0 (5.35)
or when generalized for the three-dimensional case
[(σ 1 − σ 2)2 − σ y2] [(σ 2 − σ 3)2 − σ y2] [(σ 3 − σ 1)2 − σ y2] = 0 (5.36)
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 57

or when written in terms of deviator stresses

[(σ 1′ − σ 2′ )2 − σ 2y ] [(σ 2′ − σ 3′ )2 − σ 2y ] [(σ 3′ − σ 1′ )2 − σ 2y ] = 0 (5.37)
It is thus seen that the Tresca criterion leads to an even function of
the stress deviator components just as the von Mises relationship did. While
Eq. (5.37) is more complex than that arbitrarily assumed by von Mises, there
is no theoretical reason why it is any more or less correct.
The results predicted by Eqs. (5.30) and (5.37) are usually in close
agreement (Fig. 5.17). While the Tresca criterion is more appealing on
physical grounds, those analytically inclined seem to favor the von Mises
approach. However, the two criteria appear to be equally useful and the one
Fig. 5.17 Yield loci for plane
to use is that which is more convenient for the problem involved.
stress. [Solid line = von Mises
criterion. Dotted line = Tresca
criterion. Maximum difference =
EFFECTIVE STRESS AND STRAIN 15.5%.]
The yield criterion is sometimes extended to cover the entire flow curve.
When this is done, equivalent stress (σe ) and equivalent strain (ε e ) are
defined as follows based on the von Mises approach:
1
σe = [(σ1 − σ2)2 + (σ2 − σ3)2 + (σ3 − σ1)2]1/ 2 (5.38)
√2
√2
εe = [(ε1 − ε 2)2 + (ε 2 − ε 3)2 + (ε 3 − ε 1)2]1/ 2 (5.39)
3
The numerical multipliers in each case have been chosen to yield the uniaxial tensile values for σe
and εe when values for principal stress and strain corresponding to uniaxial tension are substituted:
(σ1 = σy, σ2 = σ3 = 0; ε1 = ε y , ε 2 = ε 3 = −ε y /2)
Similar equations based on the Tresca approach are
σe = σ1 − σ3 (5.40)
2
εe = (ε − ε 3) (5.41)
3 1
where σ1, ε1 and σ 3, ε 3 are the algebraically largest and smallest principal stresses and strains
respectively.

UNIAXIAL COMPRESSION TEST

The simple uniaxial compression test (Fig. 5.18) offers another way of obtaining the plastic flow
curve of a material. In performing such a test, the height of the specimen (Ho) should be about
1.5 times the diameter (Do), and friction on the loading surface should approach zero. The role of
friction in this test is to cause barrelling (Fig. 5.19) by making it more difficult for the material near
the loading surfaces to flow outward than that in the central region. Barrelling plays a similar role
in the compression test to necking in the tensile test—that is, it causes the radial stress distribution
to be nonuniform (Fig. 5.20) and the Bridgman correction may be applied by use of a negative value
58 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

for R (where R = the curvature of the

barrel). However, the effect of barrelling
is usually avoided and the corrected flow
curve is directly obtained. This is done
by either arranging for negligible fric-
tion on the die faces or by periodically
returning the specimen to cylindrical
shape by machining the outer surface of
the specimen in a lathe.
Friction on the die surface may be
Fig. 5.18 Uniaxial compres- Fig. 5.19 Compression test
reduced to a very low value by providing
sion test with zero friction with appreciable friction on
a helical scratch in the die face filled with
on loading surfaces. loading surfaces leading to
a grease containing a solid lubricant (MoS2
barrelling.
or graphite) or by use of a thin (~ .004 in
or 0.1 mm) film of Teflon. Where the
specimen must be deformed to a very
large strain before fracture, it is advisable
to eliminate friction as much as possible
and then remove the residual bulge by
machining the specimen periodically.
The corrected flow curves for
uniaxial tension and compression will be
the same for an annealed material, except
that the strain at fracture will be greater
in compression than in tension. This is
in accordance with Bridgman’s equation
Fig. 5.20 Stress distribution across a compression specimen after
[Eq. (5.24)] since for tension σ H = + σ f /3
barrelling.
while in compression σ H = −σ f /3 where
σ f is the uniaxial stress at fracture. While
the strain at fracture in compression is somewhat greater than that in tension, both strains at fracture
are considerably smaller than in cutting, and both must be extrapolated considerably in order to be
able to predict the flow stress in cutting at appropriate values of strain.
However, need for extrapolation is not the main problem with using tensile or compression data
to predict the flow stress in cutting. In cutting there is a steep stress gradient in front of the tool and
a strong stress concentration in the form of the relatively sharp cutting edge. Both of these require
the material to flow in a very small volume (the shear band) at any one time instead of flowing over
a larger volume of specimen as in a compression or tension test. In cutting, the probability of
finding a point of weakness in the loaded zone is substantially less than in compression. This “size
effect” is but one of several reasons why extrapolation of tensile or compression data to the strain
pertaining in cutting will yield a flow stress that in general represents a poor approximation to that
involved in cutting. Other reasons will be discussed later.

HARDNESS
Hardness is a term having different meaning to different people. It is resistance to penetration to
a metallurgist, resistance to wear to a lubrication engineer, a measure of flow stress to a design
engineer, resistance to scratching to a mineralogist, and resistance to cutting to a machinist. While
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 59

these several actions appear to differ greatly in character, they are all related to the plastic flow stress
of the material (Y ).
The wide variety of hardness test procedures that have been used may be classified as follows:
1. Static indentation tests in which a ball, cone, or pyramid is forced into a surface and the load
per unit area of impression is taken as the measure of hardness. The Brinell, Vickers,
Rockwell, Monotron, and Knoop tests are of this type.
2. Scratch tests in which we merely observe whether one material is capable of scratching
another. The Mohs and file hardness tests are of this type.
3. Plowing tests in which a blunt element (usually diamond) is moved across a surface under
controlled conditions of load and geometry and the width of the groove is the measure of
hardness. The Bierbaum test is of this type.
4. Rebound tests in which an object of standard mass and dimensions is bounced from the test
surface and the height of rebound is taken as the measure of hardness. The Shore
Scleroscope is an instrument of this type.
5. Damping tests in which the change in amplitude of a pendulum having a hard pivot resting
on the test surface is the measure of hardness. The Herbert pendulum test is of this type.
6. Cutting tests in which a sharp tool of given geometry is caused to remove a chip of standard
dimensions.
7. Abrasion tests in which a specimen is loaded against a rotating disc and the rate of wear is
taken as a measure of hardness.
8. Erosion tests in which sand or abrasive grain is caused to impinge upon the test surface
under standard conditions and the loss of material in a given time is taken as the measure of
hardness. The hardness of grinding wheels is measured in this way.
The equipment and detailed test conditions for most of the hardness tests in use today may be
found in texts by O’Neill (1934), Williams (1942), Tabor (1951), and von Weingraber (1952).

SCRATCH HARDNESS
One of the oldest scales of hardness, and one that is still in use by geologists, is that due to Mohs
(1822) in which the scratch resistance of a material is compared with the scratch resistances of a
standard series of ten minerals. Each of these minerals is assigned a number from 1 to 10. A Mohs
hardness of 1 corresponds to a very soft material while 10 refers to the most scratch resistant of all
known materials—the diamond. Mohs’ scale of hardness is given in Table 5.1.
In applying the Mohs scale practically, the standard minerals are not employed, but the simple
tests given in Table 5.1 under the heading working scale are used instead. The Mohs hardness of
engineering metals falls within the narrow range from 4 to 7.
Tabor (1956) has shown that whereas a stylus must be 20% harder than a flat surface in order
to scratch the flat surface, the minerals constituting the Mohs’ scale increase in hardness in geometric
ratio by a factor of approximately 1.4. Diamond is an exception since it is approximately three times
as hard as corundum.
As can be seen, Mohs’ method of describing hardness is little more than qualitative. While
attempts have been made to put the scratch technique on a firmer quantitative basis by measuring
the width of a scratch made with a diamond under standard conditions (Bierbaum, 1930), such tests
are difficult to carry out with the necessary precision. The indentation method is by far the most
practical and useful method of measuring hardness.
60 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

TABLE 5.1 Mohs’ Scale of Hardness

Mineral Mohs Hardness Number Working Scale

Talc 1 Very easily scratched by fingernail

Gypsum 2 Easily scratched by fingernail
Calcite 3 Scratched by copper coin
Fluorite 4 Easily scratched by knife
Apatite 5 Scratched with difficulty by knife
Orthoclase 6 Easily cut by file
Quartz 7 Hardly cut by file—scratches glass
Topaz 8 Scratches glass
Corundum 9 Scratches glass
Diamond 10 Scratches glass

INDENTATION HARDNESS TESTS

Two important types of indentation tests are in use. In one type (Brinell, Vickers, Knoop), the
size of the impression left after a hard indentor is pressed into the surface is measured. In the
other type (Rockwell), the depth to which the indentor penetrates the specimen is the measure of
hardness.
The indentation hardness test measures the resistance material offers to plastic indentation. The
quantity measured is the flow stress at relatively small strain (ε < 0.1), low strain rate (~ 10−3 s−1),
and negligible friction. The main distinguishing feature is the presence of a large constraint relative
to plastic deformation which causes the flow stress to be several times that involved in uniaxial
compression.
Indentation hardness is usually expressed in units of pressure (p.s.i. or kg mm−2), obtained
by dividing the maximum applied load (P) by the area of the indentation measured either over the
surface of the indentor (Brinell hardness) or in the plane of the surface indented (Meyer hardness).
In both the Brinell and Meyer tests, the indentor is a sphere (Fig. 5.21a) and
2P
HB = Brinell hardness = (5.42)
π D2{1 − √[1 − (2a/D)2]}
P
HM = Meyer hardness = (5.43)
π a2
Brinell (1901) and Meyer (1908) hardness values do not differ greatly, but the Meyer value is
often preferred because of its simplicity and correspondence to the true mean stress over the area
of contact.

Fig. 5.21 Hardness indentors.

(a) Brinell. (b) Vickers.
(c) Knoop.
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 61

Vickers (Fig. 5.21b) and Knoop (Fig. 5.21c) indentors are blunt pyramids.
Faces of the Vickers indentors are inclined at an angle of 136°, while the ridges
of the Knoop indentor have angles of 130° and 172 –12 °, respectively. Because the
Knoop indentor penetrates only about half as deeply as the Vickers for the same
load, it is frequently preferred for studies of superficial hardness. The Vickers
hardness is the load divided by the contacting surface area, while the Knoop
hardness is the load divided by the projected area, and hence corresponds to the
Meyer value.
The hardness test is very easily conducted, but not so easily interpreted.
Action beneath the indentor is complex and must be understood if full use is to Fig. 5.22 Plane strain uni-
be made of hardness values. axial compression test.
The simple compression test, Fig. 5.22, provides another measure of resist-
ance to plastic flow that is more widely used in design analysis. If friction is kept to a low value
on the die faces, a compression specimen will deform as shown by the dotted lines in Fig. 5.22
without barreling, and the uniaxial flow stress will be
P
σ1 = (5.44)
A
where A is the cross-sectional area of the specimen.
It is important to relate Meyer hardness to uniaxial flow stress, a term with which most
engineers are accustomed. The plastic zone beneath a hardness indentation is surrounded by elastic
material which acts to hinder plastic flow in a manner similar to the die surfaces in a closed die
forging. In the simple compression test the entire specimen goes plastic, and there is no resistance
to side flow because the specimen is surrounded by air. Therefore, a greater mean stress is required
to cause plastic flow in the hardness test than in the simple compression test.
The relation between the Meyer hardness and the uniaxial flow stress may be expressed as
follows:
HM = Cσ1 (5.45)
where C is called the constraint factor for the hardness test. Experimentally, C approximates three
for the Brinell, Vickers, and Knoop hardness tests. A central problem in the theory of hardness is to
explain the origin of constraint factor, C.

SLIP LINE FIELD THEORY

The generally adopted explanation of indentation hardness is given in terms of the slip line field
(SLF) theory. According to this theory, the material beneath a punch flows plastically in plane strain
over a region consistent with the material displaced by the punch. At all other points, the specimen
is considered rigid. The SLF is a network of curves along which the shear stress or shear strain rate
is maximum. A suitable flow pattern need only be consistent from the point of view of velocities;
when this is so, it is said to be a kinematically admissible solution.
The first kinematically admissible solution for a flat two-dimensional punch is that shown in
Fig. 5.23a, due to Prandtl (1920). The solid lines are directions of constant maximum shear stress.
They constitute a set of orthogonal shear stress coordinates designated α and β. The normal stress
on shear planes α and β will be constant as long as the slip lines are straight but will change when
traversing a curved slip line. The normal stress on surface AB (σ1) will be zero since this com-
municates with air at zero gage pressure.
62 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

Fig. 5.23 Slip line field solutions for flat two-dimensional punch. (a) Prandtl (1920) SLF for punch face with
high friction. (b) Mohr’s circle for field ABC. (c) Mohr’s circle for field AEG. (d) Hill (1950) for frictionless
punch face.

The Mohr’s stress circle (Chapter 3) for all points in region ABC is shown in Fig. 5.23b. The
convention adopted in labeling the α and β directions is such that the directions of the algebraically
greatest stress (σ1) lies in the first quadrant of the α – β coordinate system. Thus the positive α and
β directions at point D are directed as shown in Fig. 5.23a according to the usual convention. The
Mohr’s circle of Fig. 5.23b will hold for all points within region ABC. The normal stress on the
shear plane for any point within region ABC will be pD = k.
In going from C to E along the curved α line there will be no change in shear stress but a change
in normal stress according to the following Hencky (1924) equation:
p + 2φ k = constant (5.46)
where φ is the angle between the α and x axes. At point C (Fig. 5.23a) φ = π /4 and at point E,
φ = −π /4. From Eq. (5.46)
π
pE = pc + 2k = k(1 + π ) (5.47)
2
The Mohr’s circle diagram for point E and all points in region AEG is shown in Fig. 5.23c. The
normal stress on the face of the punch (σ 2′ ) in Fig. 5.23c will be
A πD
σ 2′ = k + pE = 2k 1 + = 2k(2.57) (5.48)
C 2F
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 63

It should be noted that the foregoing slip line field analysis

1. is for plane strain
2. ignores strain hardening (k constant) and strain history (Bauschinger effect) (see the end of
this chapter for a definition)
3. involves a kinematically admissible flow pattern but ignores equilibrium except as approxi-
mately involved in the Hencky relationship
4. assumes the material beyond the zone of plastic flow to be rigid instead of elastic
5. assumes sticking friction on punch face and formation of stationary nose
The corresponding mean stress on the punch for plane strain uniaxial compression (Fig. 5.22)
is 2k. Thus the constraint factor C [Eq. (5.45)] for the plane strain hardness test is
(1 + π /2)2k
C= = 2.57 (5.49)
2k
According to the von Mises flow criterion, the relation between the plane strain flow stress (2k)
and the axisymmetric (3D) flow stress (Y ) is
2k = 2Y/√3 (5.50)
This may be shown by substituting σ1 = Y and σ2 = σ3 = 0 into the von Mises equation [Eq. (5.30)]
for the axisymmetric test and σ1 = 2k, σ2 = k, and σ3 = 0 for the plane strain test. Therefore the
axisymmetric constraint factor assuming two-dimensional (plane strain) and three-dimensional
(axisymmetric) constraints to be comparable will be
σ 2′ (1 + π /2)2k
C= = = 2.97 (5.51)
Y (√3/2)2k
Experimentally, the three-dimensional constraint factor is found to be about three, which is in
excellent agreement with the above analytical value.
A solution that satisfies flow kinematics but not equilibrium will lead to results on the high
side of truth and is termed an upper bound solution. One which ignores flow considerations but
satisfies equilibrium leads to a lower bound solution. Thus, a SLF solution should yield an upper
bound since it does not take equilibrium fully into account. According to the SLF approach, upward
flow accounts for the material displaced by the punch and therefore constraint factor C may be
termed a flow constraint from this point of view.
The SLF of Fig. 5.23a assumes a dead zone of material on the punch face and hence corresponds
to maximum (sticking) friction. Hill (1950) has suggested a second SLF solution (Fig. 5.23d) that
corresponds to zero punch face friction. When a slip line field analysis is performed on Fig. 5.23d,
the same result as that for Fig. 5.23a is obtained. It is found experimentally that friction has a
negligible influence on the constraint factor C associated with indentation by a punch. When apply-
ing the SLF technique, it is important to check that the flow pattern assumed is reasonably close to
that actually obtained in practice. More details concerning the SLF approach to plasticity problems
may be found in Johnson and Mellor (1962) and in Rowe (1977).

UPPER BOUND APPROACH

The SLF technique is a quasi upper bound approach since equilibrium is taken into account in
part by the Hencky equation but not completely on a point-to-point basis. Solutions that ignore
64 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

Fig. 5.24 Upper bound solution for

plane strain punch. (a) Slip lines
for θ = 60°. (b) Corresponding
hodograph for flow to right for
unit punch velocity (v = 1).

equilibrium completely are simpler but more approximate than SLF solutions, and these are
generally referred to as upper bound solutions. An example of an upper bound solution for the
indentation hardness problem is given in Fig. 5.24. In this solution, deformation is assumed to
occur by slip only along the solid lines shown in Fig. 5.24a. At all other points, the material is
considered to be rigid. The shear flow stress at all points is assumed to be k (uniaxial plane strain
flow stress in shear) as in the SLF approach. The external work per unit time is then equated to
the internal work per unit time. The external work per unit time is the product of the punch force
P and the punch velocity V, while the internal work per unit time is the sum of the products of
shear force on each flow surface and the appropriate velocity. The appropriate velocity is obtained
from a hodograph (velocity diagram) that satisfies velocity continuity. Figure 5.24b shows the
synthesis of the partial hodograph for the right half of Fig. 5.24a. Here, distance 0–1 corresponds
to the absolute velocity of the punch (taken to be unity), 1–2 to the relative velocity of region 2
of Fig. 5.24a relative to region 1, and 2–3 to the velocity of region 3 relative to region 2. Velocity
vectors 0–2 and 0–3 correspond to the absolute velocities of blocks 2 and 3. Fig. 5.24b satisfies
continuity of flow to the right since the rate of flow into the deformation zone equals the rate of flow
from the deformation zone (a × 1 = 2a × –12 ).
Equating the external and internal work per unit time per unit distance perpendicular to the
paper for flow to the right,

P 2 1 5k(2a)
(1) = k(2a × 1) + 3k(2a × 1) =
2 √3 √3 √3

or

P p 5
= = = 2.89
(2a)(2k) 2k √3

This value is larger than that for the SLF solution [Eq. (5.49)] as it should be since it represents a
more approximate upper bound approach where force equilibrium is completely ignored. Other
upper bound solutions may be obtained by making θ in Fig. 5.24a other than 60°. The lowest
(and best) value of p/ 2k = 2.83 is obtained when θ = 54.7°.
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 65

ELASTIC THEORY
When a large block of material having a grid applied to a central plane is loaded by a spherical
indentor, flow patterns such as those shown in Fig. 5.25 are obtained. Study of these patterns
reveals a plastic zone that passes through the edges of the punch (Fig. 5.25c). There is no evidence
of upward flow, and little resemblance to the plastic zones of Figs. 5.23 and 5.24.
The deformed grids of Fig. 5.25 clearly indicate an elastic–plastic boundary, which has a shape
resembling that of a line of constant maximum shear stress beneath a sphere pressed against a flat
surface. This elastic problem was first studied by Hertz (1895). He found that the contact stress was
distributed in a hemispherical pattern over the surface, and that lines of constant maximum shear
stress were as shown in Fig. 5.26, where
τ max
M′ = (5.52)
J
and
τ max = maximum shear stress
J = mean pressure on punch face (Meyer hardness)
In Fig. 5.26 the punch face is shown flat for simplicity, whereas in reality it is the surface of a
large-radius sphere. The elastic–plastic boundary of Fig. 5.25c closely resembles a line between
M ′ = 0.15 and 0.20.
An alternative approach to hardness has been presented by Shaw and DeSalvo (1970) in which
the material is assumed to be plastic–elastic instead of plastic–rigid.

Fig. 5.25 Deformation of grid

on meridional plane in a Brinell
test. (a) Plasticene. (b) Mild steel.
(c) Interpretation of (a) and (b).
66 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

When applied to the indentation hardness

problem, the alternative theory suggests that, if
there is sufficient material beneath an indentor, the
displaced material may be completely accounted
for by the decrease in volume of the material
elastically loaded in compression. There is then
no upward flow, as called for in all slip line field
solutions. The constraint factor that arises in this
way is termed an elastic constraint since the dis-
placed volume is accommodated by an elastic
decrease in volume (instead of by upward flow,
as in the slip-line field approach).
Since there is no evidence of upward flow
in Fig. 5.25, the constraint involved is of the
elastic variety in both instances.
By maximum shear theory of plasticity, one
of the lines of Fig. 5.26 should correspond to
the elastic–plastic boundary. The shear stress on
this particular line should be Y/2 (where Y is the
uniaxial flow stress of the material). Analysis
reveals that the curve for M′ = 0.177 corresponds
Fig. 5.26 Hertz lines of constant maximum shear stress for to the elastic–plastic boundary and
a frictionless spherical indentor. The dotted line of constant
τmax Y
maximum shear stress is the elastic–plastic boundary (M′ = 0.17). M′ = = = 0.177
J 2J
Or the corresponding value of constraint factor C is
J 1
C= = = 2.82
Y 2(0.177)
However, this constraint factor is referred to the area of the punch in actual contact during
indentation (radius a in Fig. 5.26) instead of the area of the plastic impression that remains after
the test. These two areas will differ because the edge of the indentor is elastically loaded. When
an adjustment is made for the elastically loaded area, the constraint factor based on the plastic
impression is found to be 2.82/0.94 = 3.0, which is in excellent agreement with experiment.
The amount of material required to enable an elastic constraint to be fully developed in a Brinell
test of mild steel corresponds to a hemisphere of radius 10(2a) = 20a. The coefficient 10 is directly
proportional to the ratio Young’s modulus/Meyer hardness = E/J. For the standard Brinell test of
mild steel (3000 kg load on a 10 mm ball with 2a/D = 0.4), the impression should be surrounded by
a sphere of material of radius 40 mm (1.58 in). If less material surrounds the impression, there must
be some upward flow. In fact, complete upward flow may be demonstrated by use of a thin layer
of modelling clay (low E ) on steel (very high E ). The material beyond the plastic zone (steel) then
has such a high Young’s modulus relative to that of the clay that the plastic-rigid assumption holds,
producing flow patterns almost identical in appearance to those in Figs. 5.23a and 5.23d as shown
in the plane strain flow patterns of Fig. 5.27.
In order that there be no upward flow, an indentor must be blunt (large cone angle). Increased
friction will postpone upward flow as will an increased tendency for strain hardening. The effective
cone angle for most indentors, however, is such that some upward flow results even when there is
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 67

Fig. 5.27 Photographs of grid patterns on transverse planes of plasticene indented in plane strain by flat
punch. (a) Test arrangement. Pattern (b) when h = 1.414a as in Fig. 5.23a and (c) when h = 0.707a as in
Fig. 5.23d. In both cases the specimens were supported on a steel plate (rigid relative to plasticene).

sufficient material surrounding the indentor to provide a

full elastic constraint. Thus, most hardness tests correspond
to a constraint that is predominantly elastic, but with a
small flow component.

CONE ANGLE EFFECT

The effective cone angle is a very important variable in
hardness testing. Dugdale (1954, 1955) has extensively
studied the constraint factor of indentors of different cone
angle; his experimental results are summarized in Fig. 5.28.
The constraint value was found to decrease markedly
with decrease in cone semiangle (θ ) when a fully worked
specimen was indented with very low friction (line AB).
However, the constraint increased with decrease in θ
when an annealed material was indented with high friction Fig. 5.28 Variation in constraint factor C = J/Y
(line BC) in Fig. 5.28, which clearly reveals the influence for cone semiangles (θ ) for metals work-hardened
of friction and strain-hardening tendency, the horizontal to different degress and with different amounts
dotted line shows the fully elastic constraint value from the of friction on the surface of the indentor. (after
elastic constraint point of view. Dugdale, 1954, 1955)
68 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

Fig. 5.29 Effective cone angles.

(a) Brinell test, side elevation.
(b) Vickers indentation, plan view.
(c) Knoop indentation, plan view.

While most of the practical indentors are not conical, they may be assigned an effective cone
half angle (θe). The effective cone half angle for the sphere is the angle that the tangent to the sphere
makes with the vertical at the edge of the indentation (Fig. 5.29a). For the sphere,
2a
θ = cos−1 (5.53)
D
When 2a/D = 0.4, θe = 66.4°.
For the Vickers indentor, the cone half angle θ is 136/ 2 = 68° for flow in direction 1 in
Fig. 5.29b. For flow in a direction inclined at an angle α to direction 1,
A tan 68° D
θ = tan−1 (5.54)
C cos α F

For direction 2, this gives θ = 72.18°. The mean value of θ may be obtained as follows:
π /4

冮
4 A tan 68° D
θe = tan−1 dα = 70.3° (5.55)
π 0
C cos α F

For the Knoop indentor (Fig. 5.27c) the cone angle (θ ) is 130/2 = 65° in direction 1, and
172.5/ 2 = 86.25° in direction 2. The mean value F, found as above, is 72.12°.
These values are summarized as follows:

Indentor 22 2θmin 2θmax

Sphere (2a /D = 0.4) 132.8 — —
Vickers 140.6 136 144.4
Knoop 144.2 130 172.5

A sphere loaded so that 2a/D = 0.4 is seen to be less blunt than either the Vickers or Knoop
indentors.

STRAIN IN HARDNESS TEST

Tabor (1951) has empirically estimated the strain at the outer edge of a Brinell impression to be
2a
ε ≅ 0.2 (5.56)
D
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 69

From Eq. (5.53) this will be

ε ≅ 0.2 cos θ (5.57)
For a value of θ of 70°, ε corresponds to 0.068 (a relatively low value for plasticity).

PILING UP AND SINKING IN

When a Vickers indentor is used on fully work-hardened material, the impression
will be barrel shaped, as at A in Fig. 5.30, but may have a pin-cushion shape,
as at B in Fig. 5.30, when an annealed material is indented. The explanation
for this phenomenon is found in Fig. 5.28. At the ridge of the Vickers indentor,
the effective cone angle is 144.4°, but is only 136° midway between the ridges.
In Fig. 5.28, these values are indicated as V2 and V1, respectively. With annealed
material, it is evident that it will take less force to displace material along the
ridge (V2) than between the ridges (V1). As a consequence, this effect will lead Fig. 5.30 Plan view of
to a flow pattern that is more extensive at the corners than between the corners Vickers indentation showing
(the pin-cushion pattern). Similarly, if the material is fully cold-worked, line AB barrel-shaped pattern (A)
in Fig. 5.28 will pertain instead of BC. Then it will take more force to displace and pin-cushion pattern (B).
material along the ridge (V2) than between ridges (V1). This effect, of course,
leads to the barrel-shaped pattern.
Due to the cone angle being about 140° for most practical indentors, there will be a small
upward flow. This upward flow is accentuated if the elastic constraint is kept from developing due
to insufficient material being present beneath the indentor. The upward flow will lie close to the
surface of the indentor and will “pile up” if the material is fully work-hardened and friction is low.
For an annealed material, the upward flow will extend farther from the indentor and will give the
appearance of “sinking in” at the indentor if friction is high.
If there were no elastic action, residual stresses would not arise. The large residual compressive
stresses produced by shot peening to extend fatigue life are unexplained by the SLF theory of
indentation hardness, which assumes the material to act in a plastic-rigid manner. The elastic con-
straint enables the magnitude and extent of residual stresses to be estimated.
A spherical indentor develops the full constraint of three gradually with load and should not
be used until 2a/D has reached a value of about 0.4 for a spherical indentor made of steel. Since
Vickers and Knoop indentors show no such gradual approach to full plasticity, they can be used over
a wider range of loads.

RELATIVE “BLUNTNESS” OF INDENTOR

The more blunt the indentor, the smaller will be the amount of upward flow. In the absence of
upward flow, the hardness will be the same for an annealed and fully strain-hardened specimen, and
friction will play no role. Under such conditions, the hardness measured corresponds to the initial
yield point of the material.
An indentor that is blunt enough to prevent upward flow produces an impression that is
difficult to see and measure accurately. The effective cone angle must be decreased to a value that
approximates that for the Vickers and Knoop indentors for accurate measurement. Presence of the
ridges in Vickers and Knoop indentations improves visibility and hence accuracy of measurement.
With indentors having effective cone angles as small as those in the Vickers and Knoop
indentors, there will be a small amount of upward flow. The resulting constraint will still be
70 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

essentially of elastic origin with a small flow component included. This flow component causes
the hardness value to correspond to the flow stress at a small plastic strain (approximately 0.05).
It also alters the constraint factor upward or downward, depending upon whether the metal is fully
strain-hardened, or annealed, and whether the indentor friction is high or low.

FLOW ON UNLOADING INDENTOR

Initial plastic flow occurs when load is applied to a hardness indentor
and a second flow occurs on unloading. Removal of the load may
be approximated by superimposing the Hertz solution to an upward
force on the ball equal to the downward force in the hardness test.
This will correspond to a mean tensile stress on the contact area = 3Y
(point A in Fig. 5.31) where Y equals the uniaxial flow stress of the
material. The approximate vertical tensile stresses at points B and C
will be 2Y and Y, respectively. Thus after the load has been removed,
the state of stress beneath the indentor will be approximately as
shown in Fig. 5.32.
However, this is not consistent with the Tresca flow criterion,
and hence plastic flow will occur until the difference between prin-
cipal stresses at A, B, and C are each equal to Y. The material at A
will flow upward until the lateral stresses drop from 2Y to Y. Flow
will then cease and the residual biaxial stresses at A will be equal to
Y. At B, plastic flow will take place until the difference between the
vertical stress that develops and the lateral biaxial stress equals Y. The
Fig. 5.31 States of stress at different residual stress at B will be triaxial compression, and the transverse
points beneath a hardness indentor residual stresses at B will be greater than those at A. There will be no
when load is still applied. secondary plastic flow on unloading at point C. Hence, the second
plastic flow volume associated with unloading will be smaller than
the initial flow volume associated with loading.
The concept of a second plastic flow associated with unloading
has several important practical implications.
1. In fundamental studies of indentation hardness, the zone
of plastic flow after unloading is often observed and related to the
applied load. In interpreting such results, it is important to realize that
a second plastic flow will have taken place on unloading; hence care
must be taken in inferring the shape of the free surface when the load
is still applied from that observed after the load has been relaxed.
2. Ball bearings and gears usually involve a small amount of
plastic flow near the surface. In interpreting surface fatigue charac-
teristics of such items, it is important to realize that the plastic flow
that occurs on unloading is far more likely to cause local brittle frac-
ture and fatigue crack growth than the plastic flow that occurs on
loading. This is a point of view that apparently has not been pursued
Fig. 5.32 States of stress at different previously in ball-bearing life analysis.
points beneath a hardness indentor just 3. The work material at the tip of a cutting tool is plastically
after the load is removed but before the deformed, and the adverse flow that takes place on unloading is apt
second plastic flow takes place. to result in surface cracks in the finished surface. Thus, plastic flow
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 71

associated with unloading may play an important role relative to the integrity of machined surfaces,
particularly when the metal machined has a relatively low fracture strain.
4. In forming operations, such as extrusion, drawing, rolling, forging, thread-rolling, peening,
swaging, etc., the second plastic flow associated with unloading may give rise to surface cracks.
5. In shot peening, to increase fatigue life, the surface is bombarded by hard spheres which
make a large number of small Brinell impressions in the surface and leave behind residual biaxial and
triaxial compressive stresses. The second plastic flow that accompanies unloading will obviously be
involved in any rational approach to shot peening that may be developed in the future. The simple
qualitative approach presented above suggests the origin and character of these useful residual
compressive stresses. At the same time, it becomes evident why shot peening may not always be
useful and why, with somewhat brittle materials, shot peening may have a negative effect on fatigue
life. This will be the case when the plastic flow that accompanies unloading gives rise to surface
imperfections (cracks) that are more detrimental to fatigue life than the residual compressive
stresses are beneficial.
6. In burnishing and ball sizing operations, care must be taken that the plastic flow associated
with unloading does not result in surface cracks. However, a recent Russian development takes
advantage of cracks thus developed. In this case, a carbide roller is loaded against the workpiece just
ahead of the cutting tool. This roller provides sufficient pressure to produce cracks in the material
just in front of the cutting tool, substantially reduces cutting forces, and increase tool life by as much
as 50% when chilled cast-iron rolls are machined.
The best way of experimentally proving the
existence of a second plastic flow on unloading
is to trace the shape of the free surface with a
sensitive stylus instrument first with the load
applied and then after the load has been removed.
However, this cannot be done with existing tracing
instruments since it is not possible to get the
tracing point close enough to the ball when the
load is still applied.
It was therefore decided to make a replica of
the surface under load and to compare the shape of
the free surface of the replica with that of the metal
surface after the load had been removed.
A –14 inch (6.35 mm) diameter steel sphere
was loaded into a flat steel surface as shown in
Fig. 5.33 at loads varying from 1000 to 4000 kg.
In each case, a casting was made with the load on
the ball held constant throughout the period of
solidification. The load was then removed and
the surfaces of the steel and plastic were traced in
four directions oriented 90° from each other. In all
cases, there was a substantial difference between
the loaded and unloaded surfaces.
Figure 5.34 is a representative pair of tracings
showing the difference between the loaded and
unloaded surface shapes. Fig. 5.33 Test arrangement used to obtain a replica of the
It appears that a substantial reverse plastic shape of a loaded surface. (after Shaw, Hoshi and Henry,
flow occurs when a Brinell ball is unloaded. 1979)
72 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

Fig. 5.34 Representative Tallysurf

tracings of loaded (upper—plastic
replica) and unloaded (lower—
steel surfaces in region indicated
in insert). (after Shaw, Hoshi, and
Henry, 1979)

ROCKWELL HARDNESS
Rockwell hardness values (Rockwell, 1922) are also in common use. In this case the hardness value
is an arbitrary number that varies inversely with the depth of penetration under standard loading
conditions. Indentors of different geometries are used for materials of different ranges of hardness.
The B-scale (B for ball) is used for relatively soft materials while the C-scale (C for cone) and A-
scales are used for materials of increasing ranges of hardness. Rockwell hardness determinations leave
a small dent and hence represent relatively nondestructive tests (along with Vickers and Knoop)
compared with the standard Brinell test.

HARD BRITTLE MATERIALS

By use of small loads it is possible to obtain hardness readings of extremely hard and brittle materials.
Indentation hardness values may be obtained for materials such as glass, which is normally con-
sidered to be completely brittle, if the size of the impression (load) is sufficiently small.
Brittle materials such as glass contain many surface cracks, and if the indentor engages one or
more of these, the specimen will be broken out before a fully developed impression can be made.
By using an impression that is smaller than the mean crack spacing, it is possible to produce a per-
fect indentation in a brittle material. Brittleness is a function of specimen size. Marble, which is so
brittle that it will break into many pieces if
a Brinell test is attempted, may be indented
successfully if the load is sufficiently small.
The three impressions shown in Fig. 5.35
were made at loads 15, 10, and 5 grams
respectively. While impressions (a) and (b)
show cracks, that at (c) is free of cracks.
There is some evidence that the cracks in
Fig. 5.35 Impressions made in marble with a diamond indentor under specimens such as (b) are not present while
loads of (a) 15 gm, (b) 10 gm, (c) 5 gm. Magnification = 1200×. (after hydrostatically loaded, but appear when
Shaw, 1954) the indentor is unloaded.
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 73

Fig. 5.36 Variation of Knoop microhardness (kg mm−2) with (a) load in grams and (b) depth of impression
(d) in microns produced by loads on indentor of varying magnitude. (after Thibault and Nyquist, 1947)

More ductile hard materials also contain many closely spaced imperfections and likewise
exhibit a size effect. As long as the size of the impression is large compared with the mean imper-
fection spacing, the normal hardness vale will be obtained. However, as the load is decreased to the
point where the impression size approaches imperfection spacing, hardness values begin to increase.
Values of Knoop hardness versus load and depth are shown in Fig. 5.36 for several hard materials.
The hardest material (B4C) is seen to give values which begin to increase with decreased load at
a larger value of load than the softer material (tool steel). This is because it takes a higher load to
produce the same size impression in B4C than it does in tool steel. When hardness is plotted against
depth of impression in microns (Fig. 5.36b), all curves are found to be of similar shape and to turn
upward for depths of impression less than about 2 microns.
Representative microhardness values for a variety of hard materials and metallographic con-
stituents are given in Table 5.2.

CONVERSION CURVES
The curves of Fig. 5.37 enable relative magnitudes of hardness, expressed in several systems, to be
compared. Brinell hardness has been used as the standard of comparison. The Knoop hardness is
seen to be very nearly equivalent to Brinell hardness over the entire range while the other hardness
scales are significantly nonlinear relative to the Brinell scale. The Mohs scale of hardness is seen
to be very nonlinear, particularly at the upper end of the scale. The equivalent Brinell hardness
values for Mohs hardness values of 8, 9, and 10 are as follows: 1150, 1900, and 7000. From this it
is evident that the range from 9 to 10 on the Mohs scale covers more than four times the range of
hardness corresponding to the range from 1 to 9.
74 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

TABLE 5.2 Vickers Hardness Values for a Variety of Materials

Material kg mm−2 Material kg mm−2
Structural constituents of steel: Chromium-tungsten carbide 2000
Austenite 400 Molybdenum-tungsten carbide 2100
Cementite 1100 SiC 2400
Pure iron 70 MO2C 2000
Ferrite 80 TaC 1800
Graphite 10 TiC 2400
Martensite 800 WC 1600
Tempered martensite 250–800 WC + 6% Co 1400
Pearlite (eutectoid) 250 WC + 13% Co 1300
Spheroidite 175 VC 2800
Sorbite 275 Al2O3 2100
Bainite 485 Fe2O3 1100
Troostite 550 Fe3O4 650
Fully hardened tool steel 350–700 Diamond 8000
Carbides and oxides: Quartz 1100
B 4C 2800 Glass 400–600
Cr3C 1200 Hard Chromium plate 1000
Chrom-vanadium carbide 2700 Nickel plate 340

Fig. 5.37 Conversion curves for several

hardness scales.
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 75

TORSION
The torsion test is an additional method of characterizing the plastic performance of materials. This
test is particularly useful for studies involving large plastic strains since neither necking (with all its
complications in the tensile test) nor barrelling (compression test) occurs. However, there is a large
strain gradient from the center to the outside diameter of the specimen which makes it somewhat
awkward to convert measured quantities (torque, θ, and angle of twist, MT) into shear stress (τ ) and
shear strain (γ ).
Three of the important applications of the torsion test are
1. to directly measure the shear modulus G in the elastic region
2. to evaluate the strain rate sensitivity of materials in the hot working region (homologous
temperature > 0.5) at high rates of strain (Gleeble test)
3. to evaluate the fracture stress of quasi-brittle materials such as quenched and tempered tool
steels. Since the mean principal stress (σ H) in the torsion test is zero (Fig. 4.9e) instead of
being tensile (σ H = σ 1/3) as in the uniaxial tensile test, there is a greater spread of fracture
values in torsion for specimens of different quality than in tension
The stress–strain curve in torsion has the same appearance as a true-stress–true-strain tensile
curve (with yield point, strain hardening, and finally fracture).
In both the elastic and plastic regimes, the shear strain increases linearly with radius, being zero
at the center of the specimen and a maximum (γm) at the outside diameter (o.d.) where
rθ
γm = (5.58)
L
where
r = radius at o.d.
θ = angle of twist of one reference plane relative to the other
L = axial distance between reference planes
In the elastic regime the shear stress at the o.d. is
MT r
τ= (5.59)
J
where
MT = twisting moment
r = radius at o.d.
J = polar moment of inertia
(J = 16π r 4/32 for cylindrical specimen)
In the plastic regime it may be readily shown as Nadai (1950)
has done that the shear stress at the o.d. (τ m ) may be obtained from
the moment of twist (MT) versus angle of twist (θ ) curve as follows
(Fig. 5.38): Fig. 5.38 Construction for converting
torsional moment vs angle of twist curve
1
τm = (AB + 3AD) (5.60) to shear-stress–shear-strain curve. (after
2 πr 3 Nadai, 1950)
76 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

The effective stress σe and effective strain ε e for a torsion test may be readily shown to be
σe = √3 τm (5.61)
γm
εe = (5.62)
√3

When such values are compared with σe and εe values for a uniaxial tensile test on the same
material (σ e = σ 1 and ε e = ε 1 in uniaxial tension), the same curve is obtained to a good approximation.
While this is frequently cited as evidence for the general applicability of the concept of equivalent
stress and strain, it should be kept in mind that there is no support for the equivalent strain concept
in dislocation theory.

MOHR’S CIRCLE IN PLASTIC REGION

Strictly speaking, only Mohr’s circle for stress may be applied in the plastic region. Mohr’s strain
circle only holds exactly for infinitesimal strain increments. However, as Backofen (1972) has shown,
Mohr’s strain circle also holds providing proportional straining obtains which is often the case. Mohr’s
circles for stress and strain are frequently employed in the plastic region (first approximation for
strain). Equations (5.63) which are the plastic equivalent of elastic equations [Eqs. (4.8)] may also
be employed as a first approximation where plastic normal stress is designated σ instead of S and
plastic normal strain is designated ε instead of e:
ε 1 ~ σ 1 − v(σ 2 + σ 3)
ε 2 ~ σ 2 − v(σ 3 + σ 1) (5.63)

ε 3 ~ σ 3 − v(σ 1 + σ 2)
As previously mentioned, it is found experimentally that the change in volume in the plastic
region is essentially zero and therefore
ε1 + ε 2 + ε 3 = 0 (5.64)

When Eqs. (5.63) are substituted into Eq. (5.64), it is found that
v = –12 (5.65)

Plane stress and plane strain are important states of stress in plasticity and Fig. 5.39 gives
the Mohr’s circle diagrams for these two cases. In the example of Fig. 5.39, σ2 has been taken to
be σ 1/3 and Eqs. (5.63) and (5.65) have been used to determine the unknown strain and stress,
respectively.
As mentioned in the previous section, another relatively crude approximation in plasticity is
to use an effective flow strain [Eq. (5.39)] as well as an effective flow stress [Eq. (5.38)]. When
this is done, it is equivalent to assuming that strain hardening is a scalar type effect. In reality, strain
hardening is strongly dependent on the direction of the strain. The Bauschinger (1881) effect in
which the flow stress in compression following plastic flow in tension is found to be substantially
reduced (and vice versa) is direct evidence that strain hardening not only depends upon the
magnitude of the strain but also the direction of the strain. Considering all strain to be equivalent
relative to strain hardening is equivalent to assuming the Bauschinger effect does not exist.
 PLASTIC BEHAVIOR 77

Fig. 5.39 Mohr’s circle diagrams for (a) plane stress and (b) plane strain (σ2 = σ1/3).

REFERENCES
Backofen, W. A. (1972). Deformation Processing. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Bauschinger, J. (1881). Zivilingur 27, 289.
Bierbaum, C. H. (1930). Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Treat. 18, 1009.
Bragg, Sir Lawrence, Lomer, Wm., and Nye, J. F. (1954). Experiments with the Bubble Model of a Metal
Structure (16-mm silent film). Brent Laboratories Ltd., London.
Bragg, Sir Lawrence, and Nye, J. F. (1947). Proc. R. Soc. A190, 474.
Bridgman, P. (1944). Trans. Am. Soc. Metals 32, 553.
Bridgman, P. (1952). Studies in Large Plastic Flow and Fracture. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Brinell, J. (1901). J. Iron Steel Inst. 51, 243.
Cottrell, A. H. (1953). Dislocations and Plastic Flow in Crystals. Oxford University Press, New York.
Dugdale, D. S. (1954). J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2, 267.
Dugdale, D. S. (1955). J. Mech. Phys. Solids 3, 197 and 206.
Hencky, H. (1924). Z. für Angew. Math. u Mech. 4, 323.
Herring, C., and Galt, J. (1952). Phys. Rev. 85, 1060.
Hertz, H. (1895). Gesammelte Werke (Leipzig) 1, 156.
Hill, R. (1950). The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Johnson, W., and Mellor, P. B. (1962). Plasticity for Mechanical Engineers. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc.,
Princeton, N.J.
Knoop, F., Peters, G., and Emerson, W. B. (1939). J. Res. Natn. Bur. Stands. 23, 39.
MacGregor, C. W. (1944). J. Franklin Inst. 238, 111.
Marshall, E. R., and Shaw, M. C. (1952). Trans. Am. Soc. Metals 44, 7.
Maxwell, C. (1856). Letter to W. Thomson, 18 Dec. 1856.
Meyer, E. (1908). Z. Ver. Dtsch. Ing. 52, 645.
Mohr, O. (1914). Abhandlung aus dem Gebiet der Technischen Mechnik, 2nd ed. W. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
Mohs, F. (1822). Grundriss der Mineralogie. Dresden.
Nabarro, F. R. N. (1967). Theory of Crystal Dislocations. Oxford University Press, New York.
78 METAL CUTTING PRINCIPLES

Nadai, A. (1950). Theory of Flow and Fracture of Solids, Vol. I. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nadai, A. (1963). Theory of Flow and Fracture of Solids, Vol. II. McGraw-Hill, New York.
O’Neill, H. (1934). The Hardness of Metals and Its Measurement. Chapman and Hall, London.
Orowan, E. (1934). Z. Phys. 89, 605.
Polanyi, M. (1934). Z. Phys. 89, 660.
Prandtl, L. (1920). Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Gottingen, Math. Phys. K1., 74.
Rockwell, S. R. (1922). Trans. Am. Soc. Steel Treat. 2, 1013.
Rowe, G. W. (1977). Principles of Industrial Metal Working, 2nd ed. E. Arnold, London.
Shaw, M. C. (1954). Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 46, 394.
Shaw, M. C., and DeSalvo, G. J. (1970). J. Engng. Ind. 92, 469 (Part I) and 480 (Part II).
Shaw, M. C., Hoshi, T., and Henry, D. (1979). J. Engng. Ind. 101, 104.
Smith, R., and Sandland, G. (1922). Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs. (London) 623.
Smith, R., and Sandland, G. (1925). J. Iron Steel Inst. 111, 285.
Tabor, D. (1951). The Hardness of Metals. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Tabor, D. (1956). Br. J. Appl. Phys. 7, 159.
Taylor, G. I. (1934). Proc. R. Soc. A145, 362.
Thibault, N. W., and Nyquist, H. S. (1947). Trans. Am. Soc. Metals 38, 271.
Tresca, H. (1864). C. r. hebd. Séanc. A cad. Sci. Paris 59, 754.
Tresca, H. (1867). C. r. hebd. Séanc. A cad. Sci. Paris 64, 809.
von Mises, R. (1913). Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, Math. Phys. K1., 582.
von Weingraber, N. (1952). Technische Hartemessung. Carl Hauser Verlag, Munich.
Williams, S. R. (1942). Hardness and Hardness Measurement. Am. Soc. Met., Cleveland.