Poore Ms

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS THE EFFECT OF TENSILE PRESTRAINING ON 2024-T851 ALUMINUM MECHANICAL PROPERTIES Adam Lawrence Poore
Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
The eects of a tensile prestrain on the mechanical properties of 2024-T851 aluminum were investigated. Specically, the eect of a 2.8% tensile prestrain on the oset yield strength, ultimate strength, compressive yield strength, resilience, and toughness was studied. Smooth tensile bars and notched round bars were used to study the interaction between internally generated hydrostatic stress and the tensile prestrain. Prestrain eects on material damage were also studied, using both tensile bars and notched round bars to evaluate the combined eect of internal hydrostatic stress and prestrain on damage. As expected, a tensile prestrain had favorable eects on 2024-T851, such as increased yield strength and resilience. However, compressive yield strength and the modulus of toughness decreased signicantly (41% and 45% respectively). The damage variable decreased as much as 38% for smooth tensile bars. However, the damage values of prestrained notched round bars were greater than baseline notched round bars until fracture. These results suggest that prestraining 2024-T851, either intentionally or unintentionally, should be carefully examined due to the potentially harmful eects.
THE EFFECT OF TENSILE PRESTRAINING ON 2024-T851 ALUMINUM MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School Tennessee Technological University by Adam Lawrence Poore
In Partial Fulllment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Mechanical Engineering
September 2010
Copyright c Adam Lawrence Poore, 2010 All rights reserved
ii
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL OF THESIS
THE EFFECT OF TENSILE PRESTRAINING ON 2024-T851 ALUMINUM MECHANICAL PROPERTIES by Adam Lawrence Poore
Graduate Advisory Committee:
Christopher D. Wilson, Chairperson
Date
Sally J. Pardue
Date
Dale A. Wilson
Date
Approved for the Faculty:
Francis Otuonye Associate Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies
Date
iii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my family. Without their support and encouragement, this would have never been possible.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Chris Wilson, for helping me become a better student, a better engineer, and a better person. I would also like to thank Dr. Dale Wilson and Dr. Sally Pardue for serving on my graduate comittee. I am especially grateful to David Walker, Je Randolph, Mike Renfro, Wayne Hawkins, Brian Bates, and fellow student Je Foote for all the help they gave me and the knowledge they shared. Finally, I would like to thank all my other fellow graduate school friends for the comedic relief necessary to keep things balanced.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
viii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Purpose Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Hydrostatic Stress Eects on Yield Behavior 2.2 Continuum Damage Mechanics . . . . . . . . 2.3 Prestrain Eects on Aluminum Alloys . . . . 3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Material Selection and Preparation . . . . . 3.2 Test Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Mechanical Testing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Baseline Material Tests . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1.1 Elastic Constants Tests . . . . . . 3.3.1.2 Tensile Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1.3 Compression Tests . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1.4 Notched Round Bar Tensile Tests 3.3.1.5 Tensile Bar Damage Tests . . . . . 3.3.1.6 Notched Round Bar Damage Tests 3.3.2 Prestrained Material . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.1 Elastic Constants Tests . . . . . . 3.3.2.2 Tensile Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.3 Compression Tests . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2.4 Notched Round Bar Tests . . . . . 3.3.2.5 Tensile Bar Damage Tests . . . . . vi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
1 4 4 6 6 9 13 17 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 31 32 33 34 34 35
vii Chapter 3.3.2.6 Notched Round Bar Damage Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Metallurgical Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Baseline Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Elastic Constants Results . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Tensile Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Compression Results . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.4 Notched Round Bar Results . . . . . . . 4.1.5 Tensile Bar Damage Results . . . . . . . 4.1.6 NRB Damage Results . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Prestrained Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Prestrained Elastic Constants Results . . 4.2.2 Prestrained Tensile Results . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Prestrained Compression Results . . . . . 4.2.4 Prestrained Notch Round Bar Results . . 4.2.5 Prestrained Tensile Bar Damage Results . 4.2.6 Prestrained NRB Damage Results . . . . 4.3 Metallurgical Examination Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 35 36 38 38 38 39 41 42 46 47 50 50 51 53 56 60 62 68 72 72 74 75
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES APPENDICES A. Specimen Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.1 Specimen Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2 Tensile Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.3 Compression Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . A.4 Notched Round Bar and Damage Specimens A.5 Prestrain Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.6 Microscopy and Fractography Samples . . . B. Specimen Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80 80 81 81 82 82 82 84 90
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VITA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7
Page 1 18 22 23 33 39 40 41 42 46 51 53 54 55 60 62 67 70 85 85 85 86 87 88 89
NASA Test Factors for Metallic Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2024 Chemical Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extensometer Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Specimen Test Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestrained Specimen Test Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elastic Constants Test Results and Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Tensile Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Toughness and Resilience Values for Tensile Specimens . . . . . Baseline Compression Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Toughness and Resilience Values for NRB Specimens . . . . . . Elastic Constants Test Results and Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestrained Tensile Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toughness and Resilience Comparison for Tensile Tests . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Compression Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestrained Toughness and Resilience Values for NRB Specimens . . . . Average Damage Values for Prestrained and Baseline Tensile Bar Specimens Average Fracture Damage for Prestrained and Baseline Tensile Bar Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grain Size Comparison Between Baseline and Prestrained Material . . . Elastic Constants Specimen Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tensile Specimen Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compression Specimen Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notch Round Bar Specimen Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Damage Specimen Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestrain Bar Dimensions Before Prestrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestrain Bar Dimensions After Prestrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Stress-Strain Curves of 1100 Aluminum at Various Levels of Hydrostatic Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Load-Gage Displacement Results for 2024-T851 NRB (Allen) . . . . . . RVE with Nominal Area Ao and Eective Resistance Area Aef f . . . . . Cylindrical Bar Subjected to Uniaxial Tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NRB Tensile Test Results for 2024-T851 (Racha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . NRB Damage Test Results for 2024-T851 (Racha) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Example Loading Paths for Heckers Biaxial Tube Specimens . . . . . . Stress-Strain Curves of Axially Prestrained 1100 Aluminum . . . . . . . Measured Yield Loci of 2024-T7 for Various Prestrain Levels . . . . . . . Typical Stress-Strain Curve for 2024-T851 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specimen Machining Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MTS 810 Test Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instron 2518-610 Test Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Elastic Constants Specimen Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diametral Extensometer Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smooth Round Tensile Bar Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tensile Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compression Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Compression Specimen Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notched Round Bar Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tensile Bar Damage Specimen Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestrain Bar (in) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestrained Elastic Constants Specimen Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestrained Tensile Specimen Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . True Stress-True Strain Curves for Baseline Tensile Specimens . . . . . . True Stress-True Strain Curves of Baseline Compression Specimens . . . Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of NRBs with 0.005 in . . . . Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of NRBs with 0.01 in . . . . . Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of NRBs with 0.02 in . . . . . Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of NRBs with 0.04 in . . . . . Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of NRBs with 0.08 in . . . . . Representative Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of Dierent NRB Notch Root Radii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Page
8 9 10 12 13 14 15 15 16 19 20 20 21 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 32 34 35 40 41 43 43 44 44 45 45
x Figure 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 Baseline Stress-Strain Plot for Tensile Bar Damage Specimens . . . . . . Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for Prestrained Tensile Bars . . Baseline Stress-Strain Plot for 0.020 in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Stress-Strain Plot for 0.040 in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baseline Stress-Strain Plot for 0.080 in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for Baseline NRB Damage Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . True Stress-True Strain Plots for Prestrained Tensile Specimens . . . . . True Stress- Strain Curves for Prestrained Tensiles with Residual Strain Oset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . True Stress-True Strain Curves of Prestrained Compression Specimens . True Stress-True Strain Curves of Prestrained Compression and Tensile Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestrained vs. Baseline Comparison of NRB with 0.005 in . . . . . Prestrained vs. Baseline Comparison of NRB with 0.010 in . . . . . Prestrained vs. Baseline Comparison of NRB with 0.020 in . . . . . Prestrained vs. Baseline Comparison of NRB with 0.040 in . . . . . Prestrained vs. Baseline Comparison of NRB with 0.080 in . . . . . Resilience Values vs Notch Root Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toughness Values vs Notch Root Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prestrained Engineering Stress-Engineering Strain Plot for Tensile Bars . Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for Prestrained Tensile Bars . . Prestrained Engineering Stress-Engineering Strain Plot for 0.020 in . Prestrained Engineering Stress-Engineering Strain Plot for 0.040 in . Prestrained Engineering Stress-Engineering Strain Plot for 0.080 in . Composite Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for 0.020 in . . Composite Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for 0.040 in . . Composite Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for 0.080 in . . Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for Prestrained Specimens . . . Photomicrographs of Longitudinal Grain Structure (50 Mag.) . . . . . Photomicrographs of Transverse Grain Structure (50 Mag.) . . . . . . Fracture Surface Proles of NRB with 0.005 in (10 Mag.) . . . . . Fracture Surface Proles of NRB with 0.080 in (10 Mag.) . . . . . Page 47 48 48 49 49 50 52 52 54 55 56 57 57 58 58 59 59 61 61 63 63 64 65 65 66 66 69 69 71 71
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Proof testing is a common method used by the aerospace industry to ensure the structural integrity of their products. In practice, proof testing involves loading products to a calculated proof test load to screen for material aws or other deleterious defects. The proof test load is the product of the proof test factor and the maximum expected load of the product. The proof test factor is largely based on fracture mechanics concepts so that the proof test load will adaquately screen for cracks and material aws, but will not damage or yield the product. NASA [1, 2] often uses the proof test methodology as part of their prototype and protoight testing. Protoight testing is the testing of actual ight hardware, whereas protoype testing is performed on separate ight-like hardware. Design factors for the two testing types vary, as well as proof test factors. The NASA design and proof-test factors for testing of metallic structures are listed in Table 1.1. As seen in Table 1.1, proof test values for prototype testing are potentially Table 1.1: NASA Test Factors for Metallic Structures [2] Testing Approach Prototype Protoight Ultimate Design Safety Factor 1.4 1.4 Yield Design Safety Factor 1.0 1.25 Proof Test Factor NA or 1.05 1.2
greater than the yield factor. Also from Table 1.1, the yield factor for protoight testing is slighly greater than the proof test factor. In fact, higher proof test factors may be required if more rened fracture control screening is needed. Consequently, the tested product may be damaged during testing. Damage, in the case of ductile materials, can be described as the microvoid coalescence and ductile tearing of the product material, which results in a smaller load-bearing area. Damage is also prevalent in multiple-cycle proof tests (MCPT), which involves cyclically loading (up to ve times in the case of NASAs requirements) ight hardware at the proof load. The repeated cycling is done to screen for critical aws that are otherwise undetected by a single proof test. However, the disadvantage of MCPT is that material damage can accumulate over the course of the test. As a result, special consideration should be given to the eect of damage on the product and its material properties. Aerospace and military products often experience plastic strains as part of their normal use, which damages the material. On the other hand, plastic strains are often introduced purposely to engineering materials to improve yield strength, which is commonly called prestraining. Hecker [3] and Stout [7] investigated the eects of prestrain on 1100 and 2024-T7 aluminum and its eect on yield locus shape and translation. However, they did not explore the eect of prestrain on the specic material properties. Because prestraining leaves a residual stress in the material, it is
important to consider its eect on oset yield strength, ultimate strength, compressive yield strength, etc. In the 1940s, Bridgman [9, 10], studied the eect of external hydrostatic stress on the yield behavior of various metals. He concluded that hydrostatic stress has no signicant eect on the yield or post-yield behavior of metals, which has become one of the basic assumptions of classical metal plasticity theory. However, Richmond [11, 12, 13] later showed that external hydrostatic stress increases the yield strength of several metals, including 4310, 4330, and HY80 steel and 1100 aluminum. In addition, Racha [8] showed that hydrostatic stress signicantly reduces the amount of damage 2024-T851 can withstand across the plastic range. 2024-T851 aluminum is commonly used in aerospace applications due to its high strength to weight ratio and has been well-studied. However, the eect of prestrain on 2024-T851 coupled with signicant internal hydrostatic stress has not been studied. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how a tensile prestrain will eect the damage behavior of 2024-T851. Thus, a study on the combined eect of a tensile prestrain and hydrostatic stress on 2024-T851 mechanical properties is needed to better understand the elastic-plastic behavior of 2024-T851.
1.1
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this research is to determine the eect of tensile prestrain on the mechanical behavior of 2024-T851. In particular, the inuence of hydrostatic stress and tensile prestrain on the damage behavior of 2024-T851 will be studied. Both smooth and notched round bars (NRB) will be used. Other material properties that will be investigated are tensile and compressive yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, Youngs modulus, and Poissons ratio. Virgin material from the same plate will also be tested to quantify the eect of the prestrain.
1.2
Thesis Outline
This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 discusses the technical background. It begins by dening external and internal hydrostatic stress. It then outlines the work of Bridgman [9, 10] and Richmond [11, 12, 13], who both studied external hydrostatic eects on metal yield behavior. That is followed by the work of Allen [14], who studied internal hydrostatic stress eect on aluminum. Continuum damage mechanics (CDM) is then discussed, and Rachas [8] work on 2024-T851 is highlighted. Finally, previous work by Hecker [3, 4, 5] and Stout [5, 6, 7] on the aect of prestrain on aluminum is discussed.
Chapter 3 describes the experimental program. First, the chemical composition and preparation methods are presented. Next, the test apparati and their specications are presented. The mechanical testing procedures are then discussed in detail and the specimen designs are presented. Finally, the methods used for microscopy and factography are discussed. Chapter 4 presents the results of baseline and prestrained mechanical testing. The elastic constants (E , ), yield strength, ultimate strength, and compressive yield strength properties are presented along with plots of test data. Modulus of toughness, modulus of resilience, and elastic limit values of tensile bar and NRB specimens are also presented. Stress-strain curves from damage tests and damage-plastic gage displacement plots are given as well. Next, photomicrographs of 2024-T851 grain structure are presented, along with the measured size of the grains before and after prestrain. Finally, photomicrographs of fractured NRB surfaces are presented, and a qualitative fracture assessment is made. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions reached and lists recommendations for further study. Following the main body, Appendix A describes the methods used for specimen preparation and Appendix B lists detailed specimen dimensions for each specimen.
CHAPTER 2 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter introduces concepts that are pertinent to the research in this thesis. First, hydrostatic stress is dened, followed by a discussion of the role of hydrostatic stress with regard to classic metal plasticity. Next, continuum damage mechanics is discussed. Finally, other studies of the eect of prestrain on aluminum are discussed.
2.1
Hydrostatic Stress Eects on Yield Behavior
Hydrostatic stress can be divided into two categories: external and internal. External hydrostatic stress is the compressive pressure exerted by a uid on a static object. Internal hydrostatic stress occurs in notched and cracked geometries where large internal tensile forces are formed. It is adjacent to the slip-line eld the is in front of the notch tip or root radius. The hydrostatic or mean stress, m , is expressed as
1 m = I1 , 3
(2.1)
where I1 is the rst stress invariant and is expressed as I1 = 1 + 2 + 3 , where 1 , 2 , and 3 are the principal stresses. In the 1940s, Bridgman [9, 10] tested the eect of external hydrostatic stress on aluminum, copper, brass, bronze and steel. It was found that the yield strength of steel increased only 5-10% at 150 kpsi [10]. In addition, Bridgman approximated that the strain-hardening curves for specimens tested under hydrostatic pressure were linear, much like specimens tested at atmospheric pressure [9]. Thus, Bridgman concluded that external hydrostatic stress had no signicant eect on yield behavior, particularly in steel. The testing also revealed that hydrostatic pressure dramatically increased the ductility of the tested materials. Bridgman also measured volume change within the gage section and found that the volume did not change, even after large plastic strains were reached. Bridgmans two discoveries: external hydrostatic stress has negligible eect on yielding and metals have incompressible plastic strains are considered to be basic tenants of metal plasticity. Although Bridgmans observations remain the basis for metal plasticity theory, many researchers have discovered contrary results. For example, Richmond, Spitzig, and Sober [11, 12, 13] tested the eect of external hydrostatic stress on the compressive and tensile yield strength of four steels (4310, 4330, maraging steel, and HY80) (2.2)
and 1100 aluminum. It was discovered that in all cases, yield strength increased as external hydrostatic pressure increased. Stress-strain curves for pressurized 1100 aluminum are shown in Figure 2.1. More recently, researchers have found that internal hydrostatic stress also affects the yield behavior of metals. Allen [14] performed tensile tests on 2024-T851 using smooth round bar (SRB) and notched round bar (NRB) geometries. Allen found that the elastic limit was greater for NRB specimens with smaller notch root radii, indicating that the elastic limit increases as internal hydrostatic stress increases. A plot of Allens NRB specimens, with varying notch root radii, is presented in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.1: Stress-Strain Curves of 1100 Aluminum at Various Levels of Hydrostatic Pressure [13]
Figure 2.2: Load-Gage Displacement Results for 2024-T851 NRB (Allen) [14]
2.2
Continuum Damage Mechanics
In terms of continuum damage mechanics, damage can be dened as the eective surface density of microcracks and microvoids in a representative volume element (RVE). It can be characterized on three dierent length scales: microscale, mesoscale, and macroscale [18]. At the microscale level, damage is due to microstresses caused by the debonding of atoms. At the mesoscale level, microvoid coalscence and microcrack growth combine to cause structural crack growth. Damage at the macroscale is identied by structural crack growth. The RVE, shown in Figure 2.3, represents the defects present in the material at the mesoscale. For a given normal direction, n, Ao is the nominal cross-sectional
(n)
10
Figure 2.3: RVE with Nominal Area Ao and Eective Resistance Area Aef f [15]
(n)
area and Aef f is the eective resisting area reduced by microvoids, microcracks, and their mutual interaction. The damage variable Dn represents all mesoscale damage in the n-direction within the RVE, Dn = 1 Aef f Ao
(n) (n)
(2.3)
If damage is anisotropic, then D depends on the direction of n. However, damage is isotropic in most metals. Thus, for isotropic damage, Equation 2.3 reduces to a scalar quantity: D =1 Aef f . Ao (2.4)
11
In Equation 2.4, the value of the damage variable D is bounded by 0D1, where D = 0 represents undamaged material and D = 1 represents material failure. If a uniaxial force T is applied to the undamaged cylindrical bar in Figure 2.4, stress would be calculated as = T . Ao (2.5)
However, this equation ignores damage. In the presence of microvoids and microcracks, only Aef f would be resisting deformation, creating an eective stress, , for damaged material: = T . Aef f (2.6)
By combining Equations 2.5 and 2.6 with Equation 2.4, the eective stress can be written as a funciton of D: = . 1D (2.7)
Kachanov [17] rst proposed the eective stress concept as a way of describing the stress state of isotropically damaged material. Lemaitre [18], also assuming isotropy, later postualted that damage and elasticity laws could be combined. He stated: Any strain consitutive equation for a damaged material may be derived in the same way as for a virgin material except that the usual stress is replaced by the eective stress. [18] Thus, combining a 1-D Hookes law with Equation 2.7 gives = = . E (1 D) E (2.8)
12
Figure 2.4: Cylindrical Bar Subjected to Uniaxial Tension for a (a) Damaged Conguration and (b) a Fictitious Undamaged Conguration [16] is the modulus of damaged material. where E is the initial elastic modulus and E Consequently, the deformation behavior of a damaged material can be expressed as a loss of stiness, D =1 E . E (2.9)
Racha [8] used Equation 2.9 to determine the eect of hydrostatic stress on the damage behavior of four aluminum alloys (7075-T6, 6061-T651, 2024-T851, and 2024-O). Racha conducted damage tests using notched round bars and then calculated
13
plastic gage displacement to create damage curves for each material. The test results showed that 2024-T851 was the most sensitive to hydrostatic stress. Specically, for smaller notch root radii, damage increased sharply, whereas larger notch root radii specimens exhibited a linear relation between damage and plastic gage displacement. Rachas results for 2024-T851 NRB tensile and damage test are shown in Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6.
2.3
Prestrain Eects on Aluminum Alloys
Hecker [3] performed several studies on the eect of prestrain on the yield behavior of 1100 aluminum in the 1970s and 1980s. Cylindrical tubes were prestrained in the axial direction and then tested using dierent ratios of circumferential ( ) and
6000
5000
4000 Load, P (lbs)
3000
2000
1000
2T201, =0.020 in. 2T401, =0.040 in. 2T801, =0.080 in. 1 2 3 4 5 Gage Displacement, v (in.) 6 7 x 10 8
3
0 0
Figure 2.5: NRB Tensile Test Results for 2024-T851 (Racha) [8]
14
0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 Damage, D 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 0.5 2DN202, =0.020 in. 2DN402, =0.040 in. 2DN802, =0.080 in. 1 1.5 2 Plastic Gage Displacement, vpl (in.) 2.5 x 10 3
3
Figure 2.6: NRB Damage Test Results for 2024-T851 (Racha) [8]
axial stress (z ). Hecker found that the resulting stress-strain curves had a strong dependence on the initial prestrain, with yield strengths being higher when the loading path favored the axial prestrain direction. Conversely, yield strengths were lower for specimens that were loaded in the direction normal to the prestrain direction. A diagram describing the dierent biaxial loading paths is shown in Figure 2.7 and the stress-strain curves are shown in Figure 2.8. In 1986, Stout et al. [7] studied the eect of a tension-torsion prestrain on the yield locus of 2024-T7 aluminum. Similar to Hecker, cylindrical bars were used for test specimens. However, a combination of tension and torsion was used for both the prestraining and biaxial stress testing. Proportional and nonproportional
15
Figure 2.7: Example Loading Paths for Heckers Biaxial Tube Specimens [3]
Figure 2.8: Stress-Strain Curves of Axially Prestrained 1100 Aluminum [3]
16
loading were used for the testing sequence, beginning with the prestrain procedure and followed by the biaxial test. Both followed the same predetermined load path. For proportional loading, Stout found that the yield locus translated upward and decreased in area with increasing prestrain, which is shown in Figure 2.9. As for nonproportional loading, the yield locus followed the direction of the prestrain path, and attened in the direction opposite the nal prestrain direction. To summarize, this chapter discusses previous studies and concepts that preface the work of this thesis. The next chapter discusses the research plan. Specically, it outlines the experimental program, details the procedures used for mechanical testing, and discusses metallurgical examination.
Figure 2.9: Measured Yield Loci of 2024-T7 for Various Prestrain Levels [7]
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
In this chapter, the experimental program is presented. The chapter rst discusses the characteristics of 2024-T851 and its preparation for testing. Next, the mechanical testing program is presented, along with the test apparatus. The mechanical tests are then discussed in detail and the specimen designs are presented. Finally, metallurgical examination discussed.
3.1
Material Selection and Preparation
For this research, 2024-T851 aluminum was chosen as the testing material in order to augment previous research performed at Tennessee Technological University by C. D. Wilson, Racha [8], and Allen [14]. The research focused on damage and hydrostatic stress, respectively. The primary alloying element found in 2000 series aluminum alloys is copper. In addition, small amounts of manganese and magnesium are often present. The alloying elements found in 2024, and their respective minimum and maximum values, are listed in Table 3.1. The T851 tempering process of 2024 involves three steps. First, the alloy is heated to 920 F [20] and held at temperature until a homogeneous solid solution 17
18
Table 3.1: Chemical Composition of 2024 [20] Percent Weight Min Max Cu 3.80 4.90 Mn 0.30 0.90 Mg 1.20 1.80 Element Cr Zn 0.10 0.25 Ti 0.15 Si 0.05 Fe 0.50
is formed with the hardening alloying elements. This process is known as solution heat treating. Second, the alloy is rapidly quenched to preserve the solid solution formed at the solution heat treating temperature. Finally, the alloy is cold worked to further increase strength. Typically, no signicant prestrain is introduced before use. A typical stress-strain curve given by ASM [21] is shown in Figure 3.1. The terms longitudinal and long transverse in Figure 3.1 refer to the grain directions. The 2024-T851 used in this research came from a 1 in. thick plate. All test specimens were machined in the longitudinal (L) direction ,i.e., the rolling direction, and cut from the center of the plate (Figure 3.2). Detailed specimen fabrication information is given in Appendix A.
3.2
Test Apparatus
An MTS 810, Model 318.10 (S/N 0091636), servo-hydraulic test frame with a 20,000 pound force capacity was used for all tensile testing and all prestraining. Compression testing for both virgin and prestrained material was performed on an Instron Model 2518-610 (S/N UK09) test frame with a 55,000 pound load capacity.
19
Figure 3.1: Typical Stress-Strain Curve for 2024-T851 [21]
Both test frames use an MTS TestStar II controller. The MTS and Instron test frames are shown in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4. Three dierent extensometers were used to measure strain and displacement during testing. The extensometers and the tests they were used for are listed in Table 3.2.
20
Figure 3.2: Specimen Machining Directions [8]
Figure 3.3: MTS 810 Test Frame [19]
21
Figure 3.4: Instron 2518-610 Test Frame [19]
22
Table 3.2: Extensometer Information Make Model Serial Number 102422 E82400 0411832 Gage Length 1.0 in. 0-1.0 in. 0.5 in. Travel Range(in.) +0.5/-0.1 0.05 +0.2/-0.1 ASTM Class B-1 B-1 B-1 Tests Tensile, NRB, Prestrain Poissons Comp, Damage
MTS Epsilon MTS
634.12E-24 Axial 3575-050-ST Diametral 634.31E-24 Axial
3.3
Mechanical Testing Plan
Mechanical testing consisted of two phases: baseline testing and prestrained testing. Baseline testing was performed rst to conrm the virgin material properties. The following mechanical tests were performed for baseline specimens: 1. Elastic constants tests to estimate Poissons ratio and Youngs modulus, 2. Uniaxial tensile tests to determine stress-strain behavior, 3. Uniaxial compression tests to determine compressive yield strength, 4. Notched round bar (NRB) uniaxial tensile tests to determine net section stressstrain behavior in the presence of internally generated tensile hydrostatic stress, 5. Tensile bar damage tests to determine damage and plastic strain behavior, and 6. Notched round bar (NRB) damage tests to determine damage-plastic displacement behavior in the presence of internally generated tensile hydrostatic stress.
23
Following the baseline tests, a set of straight, round bars were prestrained. Then, prestrained specimens were machined from the prestrained bars and tested to characterize the mechanical behavior of the prestrained material. The previously mentioned tests (1-6 in the previous list) were also conducted on the prestrained samples.
3.3.1
Baseline Material Tests A total of twenty-four specimens were used for baseline testing, allowing two
specimens for each specimen geometry. The experimental matrix for the baseline specimens is shown in Table 3.3. Complete dimensions for all baseline specimens can be found in Appendix B. Table 3.3: Baseline Specimen Test Matrix Specimen ID T-B E-B C-B NRB-B-005 NRB-B-010 NRB-B-020 NRB-B-040 NRB-B-080 D-B-S D-B-020 D-B-040 D-B-080 Geometry Tensile Elastic Const. Comp. NRB NRB NRB NRB NRB Tensile NRB NRB NRB d (in) 0.25 D (in) 0.5 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Notch Root Radii (in)
0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225
0.005 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.080 0.020 0.040 0.080
24
3.3.1.1
Elastic Constants Tests. Youngs Modulus tests were performed
per ASTM E111 [22]. Straight round bars of uniform diameter, shown in Figure 3.5, were used as test specimens. The specimens were loaded at 100 lbf/sec up to 2600 lbf and unloaded to 500 lbf at 200 lbf/sec. Three load/unload cycles were run. The same specimens were used for Poissons ratio tests. Poissons ratio tests were based on the procedures outlined in ASTM E132 [23]. However, not all requirements were met. Specically, the longitudinal and transverse strains were measured separately, due to the controller having one available strain channel. The standard requires that they be measured simultaneously. Both the diametral extensometer and the 1 in. gage length axial extensometer were used to measure longitudinal and transverse strain, respectively. The Poissons ratio test setup using the diametral extensometer is shown in Figure 3.6. Load control was implemented for both tests, and each specimen was loaded to 2300 lbs at a rate of 50 lbf/sec, and then unloaded to 50 lbf at a rate of 50 lbf/sec.
Figure 3.5: Baseline Elastic Constants Specimen Drawing (in)
25
Figure 3.6: Diametral Extensometer Setup [19]
3.3.1.2
Tensile Tests.
Tensile tests were conducted in accordance with
ASTM E8 [24] to determine yield and ultimate tensile strengths. The tensile test specimen drawing is shown in Figure 3.7, and the setup used to perform the tensile tests is shown in Figure 3.8. A 1 in. axial extensometer was used for each test. An initial 20 lbf tensile preload was applied to ensure the specimen was not in compression. The test was then conducted in displacement control at a loading rate of 0.05 in/min until the specimen failed.
26
Figure 3.7: Smooth Round Tensile Bar Drawing (in)
Figure 3.8: Tensile Test Setup
3.3.1.3
Compression Tests.
The compression test procedure was de-
veloped per ASTM E9 [25]. The Instron test frame was tted with 2 in. diameter compression platens that were used as compression surfaces. Teon strips (0.004 in. thick, 1 in. square) were placed on the bottom platen surface and the top specimen
27
surface to reduce friction, as shown in Figure 3.9. Friction between the ends of the specimen and the compression surfaces causes barreling as the specimen is loaded. Barreling compromises the results of the test according to ASTM E9 [25]. In addition, buckling due to specimen misalignment also compromises the test [25]. Therefore, a circular paper sheet with a centered 0.45 in. diameter hole in the center was used for alignment, and can be seen in Figure 3.9. Compression specimens were machined from elastic constants specimens. The compression specimen design is shown in Figure 3.10. Compression specimens were measured for parallelism at the ends using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) to further ensure proper alignment. All compression specimens met the design requirements in ASTM E9 [25].
Figure 3.9: Compression Test Setup [19]
28
Figure 3.10: Compression Specimen Drawing (in) [19]
A simple pretest procedure was performed before every compression test to reduce variation between specimens. First, the lower platen was raised until there was just enough room to t the specimen between the upper and lower platen, typically 1.525 in. Secondly, an axial 0.5 in. gage length extensometer was attached to the specimen, and the specimen was placed on the lower platen. A wire, that was attached to the upper crosshead and tied to the extensometer, was used to help support the specimen. Finally, the lower crosshead was raised until a compressive preload of approximately 200 lbf registered on the load cell. The strain and displacement were then zeroed and the compression test program was started. The tests were performed using displacement control at a rate of 0.008 in/min.
29
3.3.1.4
Notched Round Bar Tensile Tests.
Five dierent notch root
radii, , (0.005, 0.010, 0.020, 0.040, 0.080 in) were chosen to produce varying levels of hydrostatic stress. Two specimens were made for each notch radius. The NRB specimen drawing is shown in Figure 3.11. The notch tip radii and minor diameters of NRBs were measured with a digital optical comparator (Deltronic Model DH-214/MPC-4E) using a 50 lens. To measure the radii, ve points were taken along the radius and the comparator then calculated the radius. The minor diameter d was obtained by using the comparator to measure the change in the y-coordinates between the notch radii. Each test was performed in displacement control with a load rate of 0.05 in/min. A 0.5 in. axial extensometer was
Figure 3.11: Notched Round Bar Drawing (in)
30
used. ASTM E602 [26] was used as a guide for NRB testing, but many requirements were not met. ASTM E602 describes the procedures used to nd the sharp-notch strength of the material using a notch where = .0007 in. 3.3.1.5 Tensile Bar Damage Tests. A geometry similar to the tensile
test specimen was used for tensile bar damage testing. However, the cross-sectional diameter was chosen to be 0.225 in. to match the NRB damage test specimens, which are discussed in the next section. The specimen geometry is shown in Figure 3.12. Before the test, a 20 lbf tensile preload was applied before testing. The specimen was then subjected to a series of load-unload cycles that were derived from the tensile tests. The loading ramps were conducted using strain control at a rate of 0.02 in/in/min and the unload cycles were conducted using load control at 200 lbf/sec. A 0.5 in. axial extensometer was used for all tensile bar damage tests.
Figure 3.12: Tensile Bar Damage Specimen Drawing (in)
31
3.3.1.6
Notched Round Bar Damage Tests. NRB damage specimens
were machined to the same NRB geometry shown in Figure 3.11. Three large notch radii (0.020, 0.040, and 0.080 in) were used because initial tests with specimens having < 0.020 in. produced limited plastic deformation. The same measurement procedure used for NRBs was used for damage specimens, including the use of the optical comparator. A 0.5 in. axial extensometer was attached to each specimen before the test, and then a 20 lbf tensile preload was imposed, similar to the tensile test. Like the tensile bar damage test, the specimen was then subjected to a series of predetermined load-unload ramps, which were derived from the load-gage displacement of the NRB tensile tests. The load-unload ramps began at until the specimen failed. = 0.003 in/in and were continued
3.3.2
Prestrained Material Twenty-six straight, round bars with a uniform diameter of 0.5 in. were used
for the prestrain tests. Lines were scored on the bars to mark 0.5, 1, and 2 in. gage lengths that were measured before and after testing to ensure proper strain took place. The prestrain bar drawing is shown in Figure 3.13. Prestrain bar measurements are in Appendix B.
32
Figure 3.13: Prestrain Bar (in)
The prestrain test was comprised of three dierent phases. First, the prestrain bar was loaded in strain control at a rate of 0.002 in/in/sec until a strain of approximately 3.6% strain was reached. Next, a 1-sec dwell occurred before unloading. Lastly, the prestrain bar was unloaded to 10 lbf in 10 sec. After unloading, specimens maintained a residual tensile strain of 2.8% after testing. The prestrain bars were then machined into test specimens to compare with the baseline specimens. The prestrained specimen matrix is shown in Table 3.4. Complete dimensions for all prestrain specimens can be found in Appendix B. 3.3.2.1 Elastic Constants Tests. Youngs modulus testing for prestrained
specimens was conducted per ASTM E111 [22]. Like baseline testing, three loadunload cycles were performed. The same rates were also used. However, the prestrained elastic constants specimen design, shown in Figure 3.14, was slightly different, as a diameter of 0.45 in. was used instead of 0.5 in. (See Figure 3.13). The resulting deformation of the prestrain test, such as grip marks and an inconsistent
33
Table 3.4: Prestrained Specimen Test Matrix Prestrain ID PM3 Strain Level 2.82 Specimen T-PM3 M-PM3 R-PM3 C-PM3 NRB-PM3-005 NRB-PM3-010 NRB-PM3-020 NRB-PM3-040 NRB-PM3-080 D-PM3-S D-PM3-020 D-PM3-040 D-PM3-080 Geometry Tensile Modulus Poissons Comp NRB NRB NRB NRB NRB Tensile NRB NRB NRB Notch Radius (in)
d D
0.5
0.005 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.080 0.020 0.040 0.080
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
cross-section, required the prestrain specimens to be machined to a 0.45 in. diameter. The 1 in. axial extensometer was again used to measure strain. Separate specimens were used for prestrained Poissons ratio testing, with the same specimen design as the prestrained Youngs modulus specimens. The same test procedure used for baseline testing was implemented, with transverse and axial strains being measured separately. The same extensometers were also used. Again, ASTM E132 [23] was used as a guide only. 3.3.2.2 Tensile Tests. Like baseline tensile specimens, tests for pre-
strained tensile specimens were conducted per ASTM E8 [24]. All requirements of ASTM E8 [24] were met. The prestrained tensile specimens design, shown in Fig-
34
Figure 3.14: Prestrained Elastic Constants Specimen Drawing (in)
ure 3.15, was based on the baseline design in Figure 3.7. However, a smaller major diameter of 0.45 in. was used. The 1 in. axial extensometer was used, and prestrained specimens were loaded at the same rate as baseline specimens. 3.3.2.3 Compression Tests. Prestrained compression specimens were
machined from prestrained Poissons ratio specimens. The specimen designs were the same as baseline specimens (see Figure 3.10), and the ends were measured for parallelism with the CMM. The same pretest and test procedure was implemented, and the same extensometer was used. Again, all requirements of ASTM E9 [25] were met. 3.3.2.4 Notched Round Bar Tests. The baseline NRB specimen design
d D
was maintained for prestrained NRBs. The same value of
was maintained, and
the same ve values were used. The d and values were again measured with the optical comparator. Prestrained NRB tests were conducted in displacement control at a rate of 0.05 in/min.
35
Figure 3.15: Prestrained Tensile Specimen Drawing (in)
3.3.2.5
Tensile Bar Damage Tests. The design for baseline tensile bar
damage specimens was duplicated for prestrained tensile bar damage specimens. The same test procedure was also duplicated, with the same load-unload cycles being used. The load cycles were performed in strain control at 0.02 in/in/min and the unload cycles were performed in load control at 200 lbf/sec. A 0.5 in. axial extensometer was used. 3.3.2.6 Notched Round Bar Damage Tests. Prestrained NRB damage
tests were similar to baseline damage tests. Each specimen was subjected to loadunload ramps beginning at = 0.003 in/in. However, for specimen with of 0.040 and 0.080 in., additional load-unload ramps were added at lower strain levels to ensure that several unloadings took place before the specimen failed. No load-unload ramps
36
were added to specimens with 0.020 in. due to limited plastic displacement. Baseline and prestrained specimen shared the same design (see Figure 3.11). The optical comparator was used to measure d and values.
3.4
Metallurgical Examination
Microscopy samples were made to compare the grain size of prestrained and baseline material. To do this, a prestrain bar (after prestrain) was sectioned across the center at the minimum cross-section along the longitudinal direction. The two resulting halves were used to examine the longitudinal and transverse grain structure. Similarly, a center-cut section of baseline material was also sectioned into two pieces. The sectioned samples were then mounted in a two-part epoxy and cured for six hours. After curing, the samples were ground and polished, and then etched to expose grain boundaries. The samples were photgraphed using a Nikon digital microscopy system. Photographs were taken at 50 magnication to ensure that the elongated grains could be captured. Using the Nikon Elements optical software, grain size was measured at 100 magnication to better see grain boundaries. The procedures used to grind, polish, and etch the samples are discussed in Appendix A. Fractography was performed to evaluate the eect of hydrostatic stress in previously tested NRB specimens for both prestrained and baseline material. The fracture surfaces were sectioned at the center, similar to the microscopy samples,
37
to examine the fracture surface prole. The fractography samples were mounted in phenolic mounting powder using a Buehler hot-mounting press. Etching was not performed for fractography samples since grain structure was not needed to evaluate damage. Photographs of the samples were taken at 100 magnication using the Nikon digital microscopy system. In conclusion, this chapter outlined the experimental program. It discussed the details and procedures used for baseline and prestrain testing. It also detailed the procedures involved with metallurgical examination. The next chapter presents the results of baseline and prestrained tests, as well as photographs of grain structure and damage at NRB fracture surfaces.
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
In this chapter, the results of mechanical testing are presented. The baseline testing results are presented rst, beginning with elastic constants results and ending with damage testing results. Next, the prestrained results are presented in the same order. Finally, results of metallurgical examination are presented.
4.1
Baseline Material
The following presents the results of the baseline mechanical tests.
4.1.1
Elastic Constants Results Youngs modulus results are listed in Table 4.1. Baseline Youngs modulus
values were obtained by averaging three loading slopes of each specimen. The results are compared to the average of Youngs modulus values of tensile stress-strain curves, Allens [?] values, and ASM typical values [20]. The averaged values for Youngs modulus are approximately 2% higher than the typical value listed in the ASM Handbook, Vol. 2 [20]. Average Poissons ratio values for the two baseline tests are also shown in Table 4.1. The experimental value for Poissons ratio is 3.6% higher than the listed 38
39
Table 4.1: Elastic Constants Test Results and Comparison Source Elastic Constants Tests Tensile StressStrain Curves Allen [?] ASM [20] Poissons Ratio 0.34 0.323 0.33 Youngs Modulus (Mpsi) 10.7 10.6 10.6 10.5 % Di from ASM 3.6 2.1 % Di from ASM E 2.1 1.0 1.0 -
typical ASM value. As stated previously, not all requirements in ASTM E132 [23] were met. Thus, the experimental Poissons ratio value is only an approximation. Allen performed the same procedure presented in Section 3.2.1. His Poissons ratio value is 5.8% less than the experimental value.
4.1.2
Tensile Results True stress-true strain curves for baseline tensile specimens are shown in Fig-
ure 4.1. These curves are not corrected for the necking that occurs after the maximum load. The stress-strain curves display virtually no scatter. The 0.2% oset yield strength, ultimate strength, and fracture strain for each specimen are provided in Table 4.2. Measured values are slightly above the typical values given in the ASM Handbook, Vol. 2 [20]. The modulus of resilience and the modulus of toughness were also obtained using the stress-strain curve data. The modulus of resilience was calculated by in-
40
x 10
True Stress, (psi)
1 TB1 TB2 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 True Strain, 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Figure 4.1: True Stress-True Strain Curves for Baseline Tensile Specimens Table 4.2: Baseline Tensile Test Results Specimen T-B-1 T-B-2 Average 0.2% Oset Yield Strength (kpsi) 67.8 67.7 67.8 Ultimate Strength (kpsi) 72.0 72.7 72.4 Fracture Strain(%) 8.1 8.2 8.2
tegrating along the stress-strain curve up to the estimated elastic limit. To nd the elastic limit, a secant line was created using a slope equal to 95% of the elastic modulus value. The intersection of the secant line with the test data was considered the elastic limit. The modulus of toughness was calculated by integrating across the entire stress-strain curve. Integration was performed using the trapz function in MATLAB, which uses the trapezoidal rule for numerical intergration. The resulting energy values are shown in Table 4.3, along with the elastic limits.
41
Table 4.3: Baseline Toughness and Resilience Values for Tensile Specimens Specimen T-B-1 T-B-2 Average 4.1.3 Modulus of lbf Toughness ( inin 3 ) 5509 5560 5535 Modulus of lbf Resilience ( inin 3 ) 218 208 213 Elastic Limit (kpsi) 63.4 62.7 63.1
Compression Results The true stress-true strain plot for the baseline compression results is shown
in Figure 4.2. Absolute values of strain and stress are used. A summary of the compression results, including the Youngs modulus and compressive 0.2% oset yield strength, is listed in Table 4.4. It should be noted that there is less that 1% derence between compressive yield strength and the tensile yield strength.
8 x 10
4
True Stress, (psi)
1 CB1 CB2 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 True Strain, 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
Figure 4.2: True Stress-True Strain Curves of Baseline Compression Specimens
42
Table 4.4: Baseline Compression Results Specimen C-B-1 C-B-2 Average 4.1.4 Youngs Modulus (Mpsi) 10.7 10.6 10.7 0.2% Oset Yield Strength (kpsi) 66.9 68.2 67.6
Notched Round Bar Results Net section stress-gage displacement plots for specimens with matching notch
radii ( 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.08 in) are shown in Figure 4.3 through Figure 4.7. The net section stress was calculated by dividing the load by the net cross-sectional area (based on the pretest minor diameter, d). This normalization allows for the comparison of dierent size specimens. However, the net section stress is not a true indication of stress, as it does not take into account stress concentrations at the notch tip or internal hydrostatic pressure. A plot of representative curves from each radius is shown in Figure 4.8. It is apparent that when increases, plastic strain increases. Conversely, the linear-elastic range decreased with increasing values. Similar to the tensile specimens, modulus of toughness and modulus of resilience were calculated using the NRB tensile test data. The secant line method was used to nd the elastic limit, and MATLAB was used to integrate the net section stress-gage displacement curves. The toughness, resilience, and elastic limit values are listed in Table 4.5.
43
12
x 10
10
Net Section Stress, net (psi)
2 NRBB0051 NRBB0052 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Gage Displacement, (in.) 2 2.5 x 10 3

3
Figure 4.3: Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of NRBs with 0.005 in
12
x 10
10
2 NRBB0101 NRBB0102 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Gage Displacement, (in.) 2.5 3 x 10 3.5

3
44
12
x 10
10
2 NRBB0201 NRBB0202 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Gage Displacement, (in.) 3 3.5 4 x 10 4.5
3
12
x 10
10
2 NRBB0401 NRBB0402 0 0 1 2 3 4 Gage Displacement, (in.) 5 6 x 10 7

3
45
10
x 10
7 Net Section Stress, net (psi)
1 NRBB0801 NRBB0802 0 0 1 2 3 4 Gage Displacement, (in.) 5 6 x 10 7

3
12
x 10
10
NRBB0051 NRBB0101 NRBB0201 NRBB0401 NRBB0801 0 1 2 3 4 Gage Displacement, (in.) 5 6 x 10 7

3
Figure 4.8: Representative Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of Dierent NRB Notch Root Radii
46
Table 4.5: Baseline Toughness and Resilience Values for NRB Specimens Specimen NRB-B-005-1 NRB-B-005-2 NRB-B-010-1 NRB-B-010-2 NRB-B-020-1 NRB-B-020-2 NRB-B-040-1 NRB-B-040-2 NRB-B-080-1 NRB-B-080-2 4.1.5 Modulus of lbf Toughness ( inin 3 ) 107 103 108 100 159 172 257 307 315 289 Modulus of lbf Resilience ( inin 3 ) 44 44 45 46 48 49 53 54 57 57 Elastic Limit (kpsi) 86.7 86.6 85.8 85.9 77.4 77.9 76.9 76.7 75.7 75.9
Tensile Bar Damage Results Engineering stress-engineering strain plots from baseline tensile bar damage
tests are shown in Figure 4.9. The load-unload cycles show a small hysteresis loop, which causes a 3% dierence (or more) between the loading and unloading slope values. Racha [8] used a smoothing scheme to minimize the dierence between the loading and unloading slopes. The same smoothing scheme was implemented in this research. To construct a straight unloading (or loading) line, only the rst three data points at the start of the unloading ramp and the last three data points at the end of the unloading ramp were used for each load-unload cycle. Slope values were then measured for each cycle. The damage variable was calculated using Equation 2.9. Figure 4.10 is a plot of damage at given plastic displacements pl . The plastic displacements were obtained by extending the unloading slopes to the x-axis and
47
x 10
6 Engineering Stress, (psi)
1 DBS1 DBS2 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 Engineering Strain, e 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Figure 4.9: Baseline Stress-Strain Plot for Tensile Bar Damage Specimens
nding the strain level at the intersection. Both specimens withstood over 20% damage before fracturing at strain levels comparable to the fracture strains for tensile testing.
4.1.6
NRB Damage Results Engineering stress-engineering strain plots from baseline NRB damage tests
are shown in Figures 4.11 through 4.13. Each plot has test data for specimens with matching notch radii. The same smoothing scheme used for tensile bar damage tests was used for NRB damage tests. A damage-plastic gage displacement plot for all baseline specimens is shown in Figure 4.14. The plot clearly shows the eect of hydrostatic stress. Specimens
48
0.25
0.2
0.15 Damage, D 0.1 0.05
DBS1 DBS2 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Plastic Gage Displacement, (in.)
pl
0.08
0.09
0.1
Figure 4.10: Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for Prestrained Tensile Bars
12
x 10
10
Engineering Stress, e (psi)
2 DB0201 DB0202 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Engineering Strain, e 6 7 8 x 10 9

3
Figure 4.11: Baseline Engineering Stress-Engineering Strain Plot for 0.020 in
49
12
x 10
10
2 DB0401 DB0402 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 Engineering Strain, e 0.01 0.012 0.014
10
x 10
7 Engineering Stress, e (psi)
1 DB0801 DB0802 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 Engineering Strain, e 0.01 0.012 0.014
50
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05 Damage, D
0.04
0.03
0.02 DB0201 DB0202 DB0401 DB0402 DB0801 DB0802 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Plastic Gage Displacement, (in.)
pl
0.01
3 x 10
3.5
3
Figure 4.14: Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for Baseline NRB Damage Specimens
with 0.080 in. withstood the most damage at fracture, while specimens with 0.020 in. withstood the least. Also, damage accumulated faster for specimens with 0.020 in.
4.2
Prestrained Material
The following presents the results of the prestrained mechanical tests.
4.2.1
Prestrained Elastic Constants Results Elastic constants results for prestrained material are listed in Table 4.6. The
values in Table 4.6 are averages in the same manner as the baseline material in
51
Table 4.6: Elastic Constants Test Results and Comparison Source Elastic Constants Tests Baseline Values Poissons Ratio 0.32 0.34 Youngs Modulus (Mpsi) 10.2 10.7 % Di from Baseline -6.3 % Di from Baseline E -4.9 -
Table 4.1. Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio values were lower than baseline values. This trend demonstrates that damage occurred during the prestrain process.
4.2.2
Prestrained Tensile Results True stress-true strain curves for the prestrained tensile specimens are shown
in Figure 4.15. Again, no correction for necking beyond the maximum load is made. The prestrain specimens display a signicant increase in yield strength in comparison to the representative baseline curve. However, the stress-strain curves in Figure 4.16 show that there is a signicant decrease in ductility. When plotted with an oset of their residual strain, the stress-strain curves of the prestrain specimens slightly rise above the baseline curve, and then fracture at a lower strain level. A summary of the prestrained material properties obtained from the tensile tests is presented in Table 4.7. In addition, the average prestrain results are compared to the average baseline results. Both yield strength and ultimate strength increased after prestraining, but the fracture strain decreased dramatically.
52
x 10
True Stress, (psi)
TB1 (Baseline) TPM31 TPM32 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 True Strain, 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Figure 4.15: True Stress-True Strain Plots for Prestrained Tensile Specimens
x 10
True Stress, (psi)
TB1 (Baseline) TPM31 (offset) TPM32 (offest) 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 True Strain, 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Figure 4.16: True Stress- Strain Curves for Prestrained Tensiles with Residual Strain Oset
53
Table 4.7: Prestrained Tensile Results Specimen T-PM3-1 T-PM3-2 Prestrain Average Baseline Average Dierence (%) Youngs Modulus (Mpsi) 10.1 10.0 10.1 10.6 -4.7 0.2% Oset Yield Strength (kpsi) 75.3 75.4 75.4 67.8 +10.1 Ultimate Strength (kpsi) 75.9 75.8 75.9 72.4 +4.6 Fracture Strain (%) 4.6 4.6 4.6 8.1 -43.2
Modulus of toughness and modulus of resilience values were calculated for prestrain specimens as they were for baseline specimens. The results are listed in Table 4.8 along with average baseline values for comparison. These values show that the prestrain dramatically decreased toughness, but increased resilience. The also show that the prestrain increased the elastic limit.
4.2.3
Prestrained Compression Results Prestrained compression stress-strain curves are plotted with a representative
baseline curve in Figure 4.17. The plot shows that a tensile prestrain dramatically decreases the compressive yield strength. Also, the dierence between compressive yield strength and tensile yield strength is much greater after prestrain, as shown in Figure 4.18. The compressive yield strengths for baseline and prestrained specimens are listed in Table 4.9.
54
Table 4.8: Toughness and Resilience Comparison for Tensile Tests Specimen T-PM3-1 T-PM3-2 Prestrain Average Baseline Average Dierence (%) Modulus of lbf Toughness ( inin 3 ) 3089 3057 3073 5535 -44.5 Modulus of lbf Resilience ( inin 3 ) 237 235 236 213 +10.8 Elastic Limit (kpsi) 65.2 65.2 65.2 63.1 +3.2
x 10
True Stress, (psi)
CB1 (Baseline) CPM31 CPM32 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 True Strain, 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
Figure 4.17: True Stress-True Strain Curves of Prestrained Compression Specimens
55
x 10
True Stress, (psi)
TB1 CB1 TPM31 CPM31 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 True Strain, 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Figure 4.18: True Stress-True Strain Curves of Prestrained Compression and Tensile Specimens
Table 4.9: Baseline Compression Results Specimen C-PM3-1 C-PM3-2 Prestrain Average Baseline Average Dierence (%) Youngs Modulus (Mpsi) 10.6 10.4 10.5 10.7 -1.9 0.2% Oset Yield Strength (kpsi) 40.6 38.9 39.8 67.6 -41.2
56
4.2.4
Prestrained Notch Round Bar Results Prestrained NRB results are compared to representative baseline results in
Figures 4.19 through 4.23 for each notch root radii. For the smaller notch root radii, the prestrained results closely match the baseline results. As the notch root radius increases, the prestrained data deviates further from the baseline results. Toughness and resilience data versus notch root radius size for both prestrain and baseline NRB specimens are plotted in Figures 4.24 through 4.25. Both resilience and toughness values increased after prestraining for all notch radii. It should be noted that resilience and toughness increased as increased. The resilience, toughness, and elastic limit values are listed in Table 4.10.
12 x 10
4
10
2 NRBB0051 (Baseline) NRBPM30051 NRBPM30052 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Gage Displacement, (in.) 2 2.5 x 10 3
3
Figure 4.19: Prestrained vs. Baseline Comparison of NRB with 0.005 in
57
12
x 10
10
2 NRBB0101 (Baseline) NRBPM30101 NRBPM30102 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Gage Displacement, (in.) 2.5 3 x 10 3.5
3
12
x 10
10
2 NRBB0201 (Baseline) NRBPM30201 NRBPM30202 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Gage Displacement, (in.) 3 3.5 x 10 4
3
58
12
x 10
10
2 NRBB0401 (Baseline) NRBPM30401 NRBPM30402 0 0 1 2 3 Gage Displacement, (in.) 4 5 x 10 6

3
12
x 10
10
2 NRBB0801 (Baseline) NRBPM30801 NRBPM30802 0 0 1 2 3 4 Gage Displacement, (in.) 5 6 x 10 7

3
59
70
65
60 Resilience (inlbf/in3)
55
50
45 Baseline Prestrained 40 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 Notch Root Radius, (in) 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Figure 4.24: Resilience Values vs Notch Root Radius
350
300
250 Toughness (inlbf/in3)
200
150
100
50 Baseline Prestrained 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 Notch Root Radius, (in) 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Figure 4.25: Toughness Values vs Notch Root Radius
60
Table 4.10: Prestrained Toughness and Resilience Values for NRB Specimens Specimen NRB-PM3-005-1 NRB-PM3-005-2 NRB-PM3-010-1 NRB-PM3-010-2 NRB-PM3-020-1 NRB-PM3-020-2 NRB-PM3-040-1 NRB-PM3-040-2 NRB-PM3-080-1 NRB-PM3-080-2 4.2.5 Modulus of lbf Toughness ( inin 3 ) 86 84 92 87 114 131 162 198 256 269 Modulus of lbf Resilience ( inin 3 ) 49 48 50 50 57 58 57 60 66 62 Elastic Limit (kpsi) 87.7 87.6 86.0 86.6 83.6 85.8 83.0 82.3 81.1 80.2
Prestrained Tensile Bar Damage Results The engineering stress-engineering strain plots for tensile bar damage tests are
presented in Figure 4.26. Again, three points were taken at the beginning and end of the unload cycle to determine the slopes of the unload ramps. The damage variable was then calculated with Equation 2.9. The damage-plastic gage displacement plots for the prestrained specimens are shown in Figure 4.27 with a representative baseline curve. The prestrained damage values are consistently lower than the baseline values. A list of average baseline and prestrained damage values for each unload cycle are listed in Table 4.11.
61
x 10
6 Engineering Stress, e (psi)
1 DPM3S1 DPM3S2 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Engineering Strain, e 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Figure 4.26: Prestrained Engineering Stress-Engineering Strain Plot for Tensile Bars
0.25
0.2
0.15 Damage, D 0.1 0.05 DBS1 (Baseline) DPM3S1 DPM3S2 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 Plastic Gage Displacement, pl (in.) 0.08 0.09 0.1
Figure 4.27: Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for Prestrained Tensile Bars
62
Table 4.11: Average Damage Values for Prestrained and Baseline Tensile Bar Specimens Unload cycle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.2.6 Avg. Baseline Damage 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.23 Avg. Prestrained Damage 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.14* 0.17* 0** Percent Dierence (%) -36.3 -35.7 -31.3 -38.9 -31.6 -30.0 -22.7 NA
Prestrained NRB Damage Results Engineering stress-engineering strain plots for prestrained NRB damage tests
are shown in Figures 4.28 through 4.30. The same smoothing scheme was used to determine the unloading slopes, and Equation 2.9 was used to calculate the damage variable. Additional load-unload slopes were added to the tests to ensure that enough data was collected before fracture. For example, a specimen with 0.020 in. failed after only two load-unload cycles. Damage-plastic gage displacement plots for specimens with matching notch radii are shown in Figures 4.31 through 4.33. Both baseline specimens and prestrained specimens are plotted for comparison. The plots show that prestrained specimens withstood less damage at fracture then baseline specimens. However, prestrained specimens with 0.020 and 0.040 in. experience more damage than baseline
63
12
x 10
10
2 DPM30201 DPM30202 0 0 1 2 3 4 Engineering Strain, e 5 6 x 10 7

3
Figure 4.28: Prestrained Engineering Stress-Engineering Strain Plot for 0.020 in
12
x 10
10
2 DPM30401 DPM30402 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 Engineering Strain, e 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.01
64
12
x 10
10
2 DPM30801 DPM30802 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 Engineering Strain, e 0.008 0.01 0.012
specimens up to fracture. But, there is no initial dierence between baseline and prestrained specimens with 0.080 in., which experience the least hydrostatic stress. This suggests that prestraining has less eect on initial NRB damage as increases. A damage-plastic gage displacement plot with representative prestrained specimens for each notch root radius size is shown in Figure 4.34. Average damage values at fracture for both baseline and prestrained specimens are shown in Table 4.12.
65
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05 Damage, D
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
DB0201 (Baseline) DB0202 (Baseline) DPM30201 DPM30202 0 0.5 1 Plastic Gage Displacement, (in.)
pl
1.5 x 10
3
Figure 4.31: Composite Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for 0.020 in
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05 Damage, D
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
DB0401 (Baseline) DB0402 (Baseline) DPM30401 DPM30402 0 0.5 1 1.5 Plastic Gage Displacement, pl (in.) 2 x 10 2.5
3
66
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05 Damage, D
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
DB0801 (Baseline) DB0802 (Baseline) DPM30801 DPM30802 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Plastic Gage Displacement, (in.)
pl
3 x 10
3.5
3
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05 Damage, D
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
DPM30201 DPM30401 DPM30801 0 0.5 1 1.5 Plastic Gage Displacement, pl (in.) 2 x 10 2.5
3
Figure 4.34: Damage-Plastic Gage Displacement Plot for Prestrained Specimens
67
Table 4.12: Average Fracture Damage for Prestrained and Baseline Tensile Bar Specimens Notch Radius 0.020 0.040 0.080 Avg. Baseline Fracture Damage 0.060 0.076 0.075 Avg. Prestrained Fracture Damage 0.051 0.070 0.063 Percent Dierence (%) -15.0 -7.9 -16.0
68
4.3
Metallurgical Examination Results
Photographs of the longitudinal grain structure before and after prestrain are shown in Figure 4.35. Likewise, the transverse grain structure is shown in Figure 4.36. It is apparent that the prestrain signicantly altered the grain structure. Prestrained grains in Figure 4.35 appear to be longer than baseline grains, with many extending beyond the eld of view. In addition, the prestrained grain shapes for both longitudinal and transverse directions are more irregular when compared to the baseline grain shapes. The light and dark regions that appear in Figures 4.35 and 4.36 were analyized using energy-dispersive x-ray analysis (EDAX) via a scanning electron microscope and Vickers microhardness testing. EDAX revealed that both the light and dark regions contain the same composition of Al,Cu, and Mg. Microhardness testing indicated that both regions have a hardness value of 82 HRB. To measure the grain length, ten grains in each longitudinal photomicrograph were chosen at random and measured for length. The results are shown in Table 4.13. Fracture surface proles of specimens with 0.005 and 0.080 in. are shown in Figure 4.37 and Figure 4.38. NRB with the smallest and largest radii were chosen for evaluation due to the large contrast in hydrostatic stress. To make a proper comparison, individual photomicrographs were pieced together to form a complete fracture surface prole.
69
(a) Baseline Grain Structure
(b) Prestrained Grain Structure
Figure 4.35: Photomicrographs of Longitudinal Grain Structure (50 Mag.)
(a) Baseline Grain Structure
(b) Prestrained Grain Structure
Figure 4.36: Photomicrographs of Transverse Grain Structure (50 Mag.)
70
Table 4.13: Grain Size Comparison Between Baseline and Prestrained Material Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg Baseline (m) 1110 322 698 148 1322 794 839 1060 234 656 718 Prestrain (m) 1424 1004 386 571 1490 771 199 1100 1443 288 868
It is apparent that specimens with 0.005 in. experience a more brittle fracture. For both baseline and prestrain conditions, the fracture prole for 0.005 in. is relatively at with torn surfaces, whereas the fracture prole of specimens with 0.080 in. resembles a more ductile, cup-and-cone like fracture, with large pieces of material being removed at one notch root radius and a shear lip at the other for 0.080 in. This is expected due to the constraint caused by the sharper notch. No signicant dierence was found between baseline and prestrained fracture surfaces. This chapter presented the results of baseline and prestrained mechanical testing. It also includes photomicrographs of 2024-T851 grain structure and NRB fracture srufaces. The next chapter lists the conclusions and recommendations.
71
(a) Baseline
(b) Prestrained
Figure 4.37: Fracture Surface Proles of NRB with 0.005 in (10 Mag.)
(a) Baseline
(b) Prestrained
Figure 4.38: Fracture Surface Proles of NRB with 0.080 in (10 Mag.)
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the conclusions reached in this thesis and lists recommendations for future work.
5.1
Conclusions
The main conclusion of this study is that although tensile prestrain has benecial eects on 2024-T851, there are several, potentially negative, eects that must be considered. The following secondary conclusions discuss the specic advantages and disadvantages of tensile prestrain.
1. Although tensile prestrain has favorable eects on the tensile yield behavior of 2024-T851, the compressive yield behavior suers greatly. Normally, 2024-T851 is treated as an even material, meaning that the same behavior is expected in tension and compression. However, after prestrain, an uneven behavior is seen in favor of tension. In this study, a prestrain of only 2.8% reduces the compressive yield strength by 41%, but only increases tensile yield strength 10%. 2. Energy absorption of 2024-T851 is also greatly aected by the tensile prestrain. 72
73
The modulus of resilience values of prestrained tensile specimens are approximately 11% greater than baseline specimens. However, the modulus of toughness values of prestrained tensile specimens were 45% lower than baseline values. This decrease results from the fracture strain decreasing by 43%. Tensile prestrain also increases the modulus of resilience of NRB specimens but, like the tensile specimens, it decreases the modulus of toughness. Furthermore, both resilience and toughness increased as the notch root radius increased for all damage NRB specimens. This trend is directly related to the contrasting fracture surfaces of NRB specimens with 0.005 and 0.080 in. In other words, a more ductile-like fracture is observed for greater values, which increases energy absorption. 3. In general, tensile prestrain reduces the damage tolerance of 2024-T851. However, there is a larger dierence between baseline and prestrained damage values for the tensile bar geometry. NRB geometries see only a modest decrease in fracture damage between baseline and prestrained conditions. Conversely, prestrained specimens with 0.040 in. have more damage than baseline specimens until fracture. Baseline and prestrained damage data are closely aligned for specimens with 0.080, but the prestrain specimens fracture at lower damage levels.
74
5.2
Recommendations
The following are recommendations for future work regarding the prestraining of 2024-T851 and similar aluminum alloys. 1. The eect of cyclic tensile prestrain should be investigated. Because 2024T851 is a cyclically softening material, cyclically prestrained material properties would likely be very dierent from monotonic prestrained material. 2. The eects of compressive prestrain should also be studied. Impact loading on service hardware is common in the aerospace eld. Residual stresses caused by a compressive prestrain would oer advantages and disadvantages that could inuence design and material selection. 3. The eects of prestrain on the fracture toughness of 2024-T851 should be studied.
REFERENCES
75
76
[1]
McClung, R.C., Chell, G.G., Kuhlman, C.J., Russell, D.A., Garr, K., and Donnelly, B., Guidelines for Proof Test Analysis; Final Report, NASA-CR1999-209427, 1999. NASA, Structural Design and Test Factor of Safety for Spaceight Hardware, NASA, 21 June, 1996. Hecker, S.S., Yield Surfaces in Prestrained Aluminum and Copper, Metallurgical Transactions, Vol. 2, pp. 2077-2086, 1971. Hecker, S.S., Inuence of Deformation History of the Yield Locus and StressStrain Behavior of Aluminum and Copper, Metallurgical Transactions, Vol. 4, pp. 985-989, 1973. Hecker, S.S., Stout, M.G., Materials Response to Large Plastic Deformation, 29th Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference - Proceedings New York, 1982. Stout, M.G., Martin, P.L., Helling, D.E., Canova, G.R., Multiaxial Yield Behavior of 1100 Aluminum Following Various Magnitudes of Prestrain, International Journal of Plasticity, Vol. 1, pp. 163-174, 1985 Stout, M.G., Miller, A.K., Helling, D.E., An Experimental Investigation of the Yield Loci of 1100-0 Aluminum, 70:30 Brass, and and Overaged 2024 Aluminum Alloy After Various Prestrains, Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 108, pp. 313-320, 1986 Racha, S.K., Damage Characterization of Four Wrought Aluminum Alloys A Thesis Presented for the Masters of Science Degree, Tennessee Technological University, 2008. Bridgman, P.W., Eects of High Hydrostatic Pressure on the Plastic Properties of Metals, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 17, no. 1, 1945, pp. 3-17. Bridgman, P.W., Eect of Hydrostatic Pressure on Plasticity and Strength, Research (London) 2, 1949, pp. 550-555. Richmond, O., Spitzig, W. A., Sober, R. J., Pressure Dependence of Yielding and Associated Volume Expansion in Tempered Matrensite, Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 23, no. 7, 1975, pp. 885-893
[2] [3] [4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] [10] [11]
77
[12]
Richmond, O., Spitzig, W. A., Sober, R. J., Eect of Hydrostatic Pressure on the Deformation behavior of Maraging and HY-80 Steels and its Implication on Plasticity Theory, Metallurgical Transactions A (Physical Metallurgy and Materials Science), Vol. 7A, no. 11, 1976, pp. 1703-1710 Richmond, O., Spitzig, W. A., The Eect of Pressure on the Flow Stress of Metals, Acta Metallurgica, Vol. 32, no. 3, 1984, pp. 457-463 Allen, P.A., Hydrostatic Stress Eects in Low Cycle Fatigue A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree, Tennessee Technological University, 2002. Pirondi, A. and Bonora, N., Modeling Ductile Damage Under Fully Reversed Cycling, Computational Materials Science, Vol. 26, pp. 129-141, 2003. Rashid, K., Al-Rub, A., and Voyiadjis, G., On the Coupling of Anisotropic Damage and Plasticity Models for Ductile Materials, International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 40, p. 2611, 2003. Kachanov, L.M., Time of the Rupture Process Under Creep Conditions, Izvestiia Akademia Nauk USSR Otd. Tekh., Vol. 8, pp. 26-31, 1958. Lemaitre, J. A Course on Damage Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990. Watts, E.K., The Eect on Monotonic Tensile Prestraining on D6AC Steel Mechanical Properties A Thesis Presented for the Masters of Science Degree, Tennessee Technological University, 2008. American Society for Metals, Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Pure Metals, Vol. 2, Ninth Edition, Ohio, 1979. American Society for Metals, Atlas of Stress-Strain Curves,Second Edition, Ohio, 2002. ASTM, E111-04 Standard Test Method for Youngs Modulus, Tangent Modulus, and Chord Modulus. Vol. 03.01, Philadelphia, 2004. ASTM, E132-04 Standard Test Method for Poissons Ratio at Room Temperature. Vol. 03.01, Philadelphia, 2004. ASTM, E8-04 Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials. Vol. 03.01, Philadelphia, 2004.
[13] [14]
[15] [16]
[17] [18] [19]
[20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
78
[25] [26]
ASTM, E9-00 Standard Test Methods of Compression Testing of Metallic Materials at Room Temperature. Vol. 03.01, Philadelphia, 2004. ASTM, E602-03 Standard Test Method for Sharp-Notch Tension Testing with Cylindrical Specimens. Vol. 03.01, Philadelphia, 2004.
APPENDICES
79
APPENDIX A SPECIMEN PREPARATION
This appendix describes the machining methods used in this research. First, the extraction of specimens from the plate material the machining of reactangular blanks is discussed. The following sections then discuss specic techniques used for specimen designs that required additional machining.
A.1
Specimen Extraction
Rectangular blanks were rough cut from the 1 in. thick plate material using a band saw. The original blanks were approximately 5.5 in. long and had .75 in. by 1 in. rectangular cross section. Those were then cut again on the band saw until a .75 in. square cross section was achieved. Using a drill press, center holes were drilled into the end of blanks to allow for the use of live centers. The rectangular blanks were then machined to 0.5 in. round bars using a lathe and a lathe dog. High speed steel was used for the cutting tool, and the blanks were turned at 800 RPM. After the 0.5 in. bars were made, test specimens were machined to their repsective geometries.
80
81
A.2
Tensile Specimens
Using a lathe, the gage sections of tensile specimens were machined from round bar using a high speed steel cutting tool. The shoulder were then made using a
3 -in. 16
radius tool. The gage section of each specimen was sanded down so that it tapered to a minimal diameter at the center to ensure that each specimen broke at the middle of the gage section. Before each specimen was tested, ve measurements were taken across the gage section to verify the taper dimensions. Tensile specimen dimensions are given in Appendix B.
A.3
Compression Specimens
Compression specimens, were cut from the Poissons ratio specimens and then turned down to a diameter of 0.45 in. using a lathe. The ends were then milled with the aid of a V-block to produce at, parallel ends with smooth surfaces. A coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the parallelism of the ends. The CMM measurements for parallelism are given in Appendix B along with the the length and diameter measurements.
82
A.4
Notched Round Bar and Damage Specimens
NRBs and damage specimens were machined in the same manner. Using a lathe, the notch was made by plunge cutting the center of the specimen. To do this, a set of custom tools were used, each having a known radius of .005, .010, .020, .040, or .080 respectively. An optical comparator (Deltronic Model DH-214/MPC-4E) was used to verify the tool radii and the specimen radii. NRB and damage specimen dimensions are listed in Appendix B.
A.5
Prestrain Bars
The prestrain bars were sanded in the center to concentrate the strain in that location. First, 80 grit sand paper was used, followed by progressively ner grit sand paper, until a ne grit emery cloth was used for the the nal stage. This formed a taper across the gage section of the extensometer. After prestraining the prestrain bars were then machined into test specimens using the previously discussed methods.
A.6
Microscopy and Fractography Samples
After curing, a Buehler automated grinder-polisher was used to grind and polish the mounted samples. For the microscopy samples, the grinding process used 240, 320, 400, 600, and 800 grit grinding discs, with each grinding stage lasting 40
83
sec. Grinding for fractography samples began with a 180 grit disk, and ended with a 800 grit disc. After grinding, bot sample types were polished in two stages. The rst stage used a 3 m diamond suspension and a Buehler Trident polishing pad and lasted for 1 min. The second stage used a 0.005 m alumina oxide slurry on a Buehler Microcloth pad and lasted for 2 min. The samples were then inspected for scratches using a light microscope. After inspection, microscopy samples were etched using Kellers reagent to reveal the grain structure. Kellers reagent consists of 2 mL HF, 3 mL HCL, 5 mL HNO3 , and 190 mL of H2 O. The etchant was applied via cotton swab for 12 seconds, rinsed with hot water, and air dried.
APPENDIX B SPECIMEN DIMENSIONS
The following tables list the specimen dimensions for all the specimens related to this research. Both the baseline and prestrained specimens appear in one table for a particular specimen geometry. Prestrain bar dimensions are listed last in Tables B.6 and B.7. Table B.6 lists dimensions before prestraining. Table B.7 lists post-prestrain dimensions, the residual strain, and the specimen extracted. The taper dimension given in Table B.2 is the dierence between the largest diameter of the gage length and the smallest minor diameter. The smallest minor diameter dimension is the average of 3 measurements at the center of the gage section. The parallelism dimension in Table B.3 is the measure of how parallel the specimens ends are to one another. Using the CMM, four points were taken at each end, and then the CMM calculated the parallelism. ASTM E9 [25] required that parallelism be .0005 in. The notch radius dimension in Tables B.4 and B.5 is the average of two measurements made on the optical comparator. The minor diameter dimension is the result of only one measurement with the optical comparator. In Tables B.6 and B.7,the center diameter dimension is a measure of the smallest diameter on teh prestrain bar. The taper dimension is the measure of the dierence 84
85
Table B.1: Elastic Constants Specimen Dimensions (in.) Specimen ID E-B-1 E-B-2 M-PM3-1 M-PM3-2 R-PM3-1 R-PM3-2 Length (in.) 5.488 5.491 5.610 5.622 5.631 5.628 Avg. Diameter (in.) .497 .502 .450 .451 .450 .451
Table B.2: Tensile Specimen Dimensions (in.) Specimen ID T-B-1 T-B-2 T-PM3-1 T-PM3-2 Taper .003 .002 .004 .002 Avg. Smallest Minor Diameter .245 .246 .244 .250 Outer Diameter .498 .501 .446 .452 Length 5.477 5.494 5.560 5.562
Table B.3: Compression Specimen Dimensions (in.) Specimen ID C-B-1 C-B-2 C-PM3-1 C-PM3-2 Parallellsim .0002 .0003 .0004 .0003 Length 1.450 1.470 1.451 1.451 Avg. Diameter .450 .451 .452 .450
86
Table B.4: Notch Round Bar Specimen Dimensions (in.) Specimen ID NRB-B-005-1 NRB-B-005-2 NRB-B-010-1 NRB-B-010-2 NRB-B-020-1 NRB-B-020-2 NRB-B-040-1 NRB-B-040-2 NRB-B-080-1 NRB-B-080-2 NRB-PM3-005-1 NRB-PM3-005-2 NRB-PM3-010-1 NRB-PM3-010-2 NRB-PM3-020-1 NRB-PM3-020-2 NRB-PM3-040-1 NRB-PM3-040-2 NRB-PM3-080-1 NRB-PM3-080-2 Major Diameter .452 .450 .446 .451 .448 .452 .446 .449 .448 .448 .449 .450 .452 .448 .448 .446 .451 .453 .448 .446 Notch Radius .0048 .0054 .0104 .0107 .0212 .0216 .0391 .0384 .0802 .0819 .0051 .0047 .0098 .0097 .0227 .0220 .0396 .0410 .0816 .0812 Minor Diameter .2240 .2263 .2235 .2254 .2247 .2244 .2220 .2250 .2237 .2224 .2251 .2253 .2247 .2235 .2269 .2268 .2247 .2272 .2247 .2220 Length 5.494 5.491 5.498 5.491 5.485 5.483 5.478 5.480 5.479 5.484 5.605 5.595 5.607 5.596 5.601 5.576 5.585 5.615 5.583 5.565
of the smallest diameter and the largest diameter.
87
Table B.5: Damage Specimen Dimensions (in.) Specimen ID D-B-020-1 D-B-020-2 D-B-040-1 D-B-040-2 D-B-080-1 D-B-080-2 D-PM3-020-1 D-PM3-020-2 D-PM3-040-1 D-PM3-040-2 D-PM3-080-1 D-PM3-080-2 Major Diameter .453 .448 .446 .452 .450 .451 .449 .450 .446 .451 .454 .452 Notch Root Radius .0222 .0206 .0380 .0387 .0812 .0799 .0208 .0231 .0373 .0387 .0800 .0825 Minor Diameter .2261 .2255 .2231 .2246 .2247 .2260 .2231 .2241 .2240 .2269 .2247 .2220 Length 5.485 5.481 5.488 5.477 5.489 5.491 5.584 5.655 5.556 5.555 5.563 5.552
88
Table B.6: Prestrain Bar Dimensions Before Prestrain(in.) Specimen ID PM3-1 PM3-2 PM3-3 PM3-4 PM3-5 PM3-6 PM3-7 PM3-8 PM3-9 PM3-10 PM3-11 PM3-12 PM3-13 PM3-14 PM3-15 PM3-16 PM3-17 PM3-18 PM3-19 PM3-20 PM3-21 PM3-22 PM3-23 PM3-24 Center Diameter .497 .495 .497 .497 .497 .497 .497 .496 .497 .493 .497 .494 .496 .497 .496 .497 .495 .495 .494 .495 .495 .496 .497 .494 Length 5.492 5.477 5.494 5.491 5.483 5.498 5.491 5.485 5.484 5.483 5.493 5.478 5.480 5.479 5.479 5.488 5.495 5.482 5.500 5.585 5.498 5.478 5.482 5.478 Taper .004 .004 .004 .004 .004 .004 .005 .005 .005 .007 .004 .006 .005 .004 .005 .005 .005 .005 .003 .004 .006 .005 .003 .007
89
Table B.7: Prestrain Bar Dimensions After Prestrain (in.) Specimen ID PM3-1 PM3-2 PM3-3 PM3-4 PM3-5 PM3-6 PM3-7 PM3-8 PM3-9 PM3-10 PM3-11 PM3-12 PM3-13 PM3-14 PM3-15 PM3-16 PM3-17 PM3-18 PM3-19 PM3-20 PM3-21 PM3-22 PM3-23 PM3-24 Center Diameter .489 .487 .488 .491 .489 .489 .489 .489 .490 .485 .490 .489 .488 .490 .489 .490 .488 .482 .488 .487 .487 .484 .489 .481 Length 5.560 5.562 5.622 5.610 5.602 5.618 5.633 5.612 5.605 5.595 5.607 5.596 5.601 5.576 5.585 5.615 5.583 5.565 5.584 5.655 5.556 5.555 5.563 5.552 Residual Strain .0282 .0282 .0282 .0284 .0284 .0285 .0282 .0284 .0284 .0283 .0282 .0282 .0282 .0284 .0284 .0280 .0280 .0280 .0282 .0282 .0282 .0281 .0280 .0281 Specimen Extracted T-PM3-1 T-PM3-2 R-PM3-1 R-PM3-2 M-PM3-1 M-PM3-2 Not Used Not Used NRB-PM3-005-1 NRB-PM3-005-2 NRB-PM3-010-1 NRB-PM3-010-2 NRB-PM3-020-1 NRB-PM3-020-2 NRB-PM3-040-1 NRB-PM3-040-2 NRB-PM3-080-1 NRB-PM3-080-2 D-PM3-020-1 D-PM3-020-2 D-PM3-040-1 D-PM3-040-2 D-PM3-080-1 D-PM3-080-2
VITA
Adam Lawrence Poore was born in Knoxville, Tennessee, on December 15, 1984. He attended high school at Powell Valley High School in Speedwell, Tennessee, and graduated valedictorian in May 2003. The following August he attended Tennessee Technological University, where he studied Mechanical Engineering until graduating with his Bachelor of Science in December 2008. He entered the graduate school at Tennessee Technological University in January 2008, and is a candidate for the Master of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering.
90

Poore Ms

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Poore Ms

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS THE EFFECT OF TENSILE PRESTRAINING ON 2024-T851 ALUMINUM MECHANICAL PROPERTIES Adam Lawrence Poore

Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering

THE EFFECT OF TENSILE PRESTRAINING ON 2024-T851 ALUMINUM MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Copyright c Adam Lawrence Poore, 2010 All rights reserved

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL OF THESIS

Graduate Advisory Committee:

Christopher D. Wilson, Chairperson

Approved for the Faculty:

CHAPTER 2 TECHNICAL BACKGROUND

Hydrostatic Stress Eects on Yield Behavior

Continuum Damage Mechanics

Prestrain Eects on Aluminum Alloys

4000 Load, P (lbs)

Figure 2.8: Stress-Strain Curves of Axially Prestrained 1100 Aluminum [3]

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Material Selection and Preparation

Figure 3.1: Typical Stress-Strain Curve for 2024-T851 [21]

Figure 3.2: Specimen Machining Directions [8]

Figure 3.3: MTS 810 Test Frame [19]

Figure 3.4: Instron 2518-610 Test Frame [19]

MTS Epsilon MTS

634.12E-24 Axial 3575-050-ST Diametral 634.31E-24 Axial

Mechanical Testing Plan

0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225 0.225

0.005 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.080 0.020 0.040 0.080

Elastic Constants Tests. Youngs Modulus tests were performed

Figure 3.5: Baseline Elastic Constants Specimen Drawing (in)

Figure 3.6: Diametral Extensometer Setup [19]

Tensile tests were conducted in accordance with

Figure 3.7: Smooth Round Tensile Bar Drawing (in)

Figure 3.8: Tensile Test Setup

The compression test procedure was de-

Figure 3.9: Compression Test Setup [19]

Figure 3.10: Compression Specimen Drawing (in) [19]

Notched Round Bar Tensile Tests.

Five dierent notch root

Figure 3.11: Notched Round Bar Drawing (in)

Figure 3.12: Tensile Bar Damage Specimen Drawing (in)

Notched Round Bar Damage Tests. NRB damage specimens

Figure 3.13: Prestrain Bar (in)

0.005 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.080 0.020 0.040 0.080

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Figure 3.14: Prestrained Elastic Constants Specimen Drawing (in)

was maintained for prestrained NRBs. The same value of

was maintained, and

Figure 3.15: Prestrained Tensile Specimen Drawing (in)

The following presents the results of the baseline mechanical tests.

True Stress, (psi)

True Stress, (psi)

Figure 4.2: True Stress-True Strain Curves of Baseline Compression Specimens

Net Section Stress, net (psi)

2 NRBB0051 NRBB0052 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Gage Displacement, (in.) 2 2.5 x 10 3

Figure 4.3: Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of NRBs with 0.005 in

Net Section Stress, net (psi)

2 NRBB0101 NRBB0102 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Gage Displacement, (in.) 2.5 3 x 10 3.5

Figure 4.4: Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of NRBs with 0.01 in

Net Section Stress, net (psi)

Figure 4.5: Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of NRBs with 0.02 in

Net Section Stress, net (psi)

2 NRBB0401 NRBB0402 0 0 1 2 3 4 Gage Displacement, (in.) 5 6 x 10 7

Figure 4.6: Net Section Stress-Displacement Plots of NRBs with 0.04 in

7 Net Section Stress, net (psi)

1 NRBB0801 NRBB0802 0 0 1 2 3 4 Gage Displacement, (in.) 5 6 x 10 7