Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Limitations of the Hollomon strain-hardening equation

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

1974 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 7 969

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/7/7/305)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 129.173.72.87
This content was downloaded on 15/07/2014 at 20:32

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 7, 1974. Printed in Great Britain. 01974

Limitations of the Hollomon strain-hardening equationt

A W Bowen and P G Partridge

Materials Department, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, Hants

Received 12 March 1973, in final form 22 November 1973

Abstract. Conventional strength and strain-hardening parameters have been derived

for idealized true-stress/true-strain curves obeying the Hollomon equation U = KE$,
where K and n have values typical of real metals. All stress parameters are proportional
to the constant K. The true tensile strength is almost independent of n, but the stress
at 0.2% plastic strain is strongly dependent on n. The strain-hardening rate du/dsp is
significantly affected by n only when ep < 0.01 ; then du/dcD increases with increasing n
when n < 0.2 and decreases with increasing n when n > 0.2. The strain-hardening rate
is not easily related to the parameters numax, nK or the 0.2 % proof-stress/true-tensile-
strength ratio. The magnitude of the strain hardening, given by A o = (ueS-- uEJ, also has
a maximum between n=0.1 and 0.3. With these results, assumptions and conclusions
in the published literature are discussed and some are shown to be incorrect. It is
concluded that for maximum strength and strain hardening in materials obeying the
Hollomon equation, large values of K and n values between 0.1 and 0.3 are required.

1. Introduction

Any attempt to rationalize the factors which affect the strength of polycrystalline metals
invariably involves the determination and analysis of tensile true-stressltrue-strain
curves. A single curve provides information on the strength, ductility and strain-
hardening behaviour of the material, and a variety of parameters are used to describe
each of these properties (Kostron 1951, Marin and Sharma 1958, Panknin and Shawki
1961). For example, strain hardening may be given in terms of a rate of hardening,
du/dcp, determined from the slope of the true-stress/true-strain curve at a given strain.
Alternatively, the magnitude of the strain hardening over a given strain increment
(€2 - €1) may be denoted by the difference in the flow stress values over this increment, ie

or the more familiar 0.2% proof-stress/true-tensile-strengthratio (hereafter referred to

as PS/TS ratio).
Since it is difficult to compare different true-stress/true-strain curves using the above
data, many attempts have been made to describe the shape of tensile true-stress/true-
strain curves by means of a single equation. The simplest and most frequently used
expression is that proposed by Hollomon (1945) :
U= KcPm
Presented at the Meeting on The Relevance of the Tension Test Parameters in Evaluating the Mechan-
ical Properties of Polycrystalline Metals, University of Aston, Birmingham (7 November 1972).

969
970 A W Bowen and P G Partridge

where a is the true flow stress, is the true plastic strain, K is the strength coefficient,
and n is the strain-hardening exponent. The exponent n is given by (Dieter 1961, Marin

and the rate of strain hardening can be expressed as

or
d a -nu
- .
dEP ED
It can also be shown that n=EU, the uniform strain at maximum load (Low 1949; see
also Wilson 1974).

Table 1. Typical n and K values for ferrous and non-ferrous metals and alloys from the
equation a =

K K
Material (MNm-2) (ksi) n Reference
Aluminium 145 21 0.22 Ludwigson (1971)
AI-2.5Cu-1.5 Mg 550 80 0.10 Partridge (1972 unpublished)
A1-4'5C~-1.5 Mg 690 100 0.16 Hopkins (1962)
Nickel 1040 151 0.36 Ludwigson (1971)
Copper 320 46 0.54 Low (1949)
70-30 brass 900 130 0.49 Hopkins (1962)
0.05 C steel 530 77 0.26 Low and Garafalo (1947)
15 Mn-0.41C steel 670 97 0.37 Drobnjak and Parr (1970)
(at 500 "C)
430 stainless steel
SAE 4130 stainless steel
0.59 C steel
990
1170
1540
143
169
233
:::: )Low and Garafalo (1947)
0.08 Hopkins (1962)
Iodide titanium 475 69 0.34 Holden etal(1953)
Commercial-purity 760 110 0.18 Wasilewski (1963)
titanium
Ti-O.9AI-1 .O Mn 505 73 0.16 Haynes and Maddocks (1969)
Ti-4Al
Ti-2Xr-2.5Mo
Ti-7.5Cr-75Mo
N

N
600
1030
1240
725
N

N
87
150
180
105
::::
0.11

0.21
Ogdenetal(l953)
)Holden et al(1957)
Maloof (1959)
Beryllium

Where more than one slope is observed in log-log plots, K and n values for the high-
strain range are quoted. Further compilations of data for metals and alloys are given by
Datsko (1966), and for titanium alloys by Holden et a1 (1956).

. , describes the true-stress/true-strain curves of many ferrous and non-

Equation (2)
ferrous metals and alloys (table l), and the constants n and K are used widely to assess
behaviour in both uniaxial tension and compression tests at room temperature (Biihler
and Wagener 1965, 1967, Datsko 1966, Fitzpatrick 1968) and at elevated temperatures
(Biihler and Wagener 1965, 1967, Drobjnak and Parr 1970, Lee 1970, Sellars and Tegart
1972). The constants have also been used to relate the tensile properties to behaviour
in fatigue (Challenger and Moteff 1972, Hickerson and Hertzberg 1972, Krafft 1965,
 Limitations of the Hollomon strain-hardening equation 97 1

Rowe 1966, Schwalbe and Macherauch 1971, Schwalbe 1973), fracture toughness (Hahn
and Rosenfield 1968, Krafft 1964, Peel and Forsyth 1973), creep (Schmidt and Dietrich
1972, Schmidt and von den Steinen 1972), hardness (Cahoon 1972), ductile fracture
(McLintock 1968) and metal forming (eg Dillamore 1974, Green et al 1971, Hughes and
Page 1971, Kashar 1967, Levy 1970, Painter and Pearce 1974, Rowe and Wolstencroft
1970).
Some of the limitations of the power-law strain-hardening equation when applied
to real materials are discussed by Wilson in a companion paper (Wilson 1974). The
present paper is concerned with the theoretical relationships to be expected between
n and K and conventional strain-hardening parameters. This aspect has not been made
clear in previous analyses of true-stress/true-strain curves (Fusfeld 1949, Kostron 1951,
Nelson and Winlock 1949, Panknin and Shawki 1961).

2. The relationships between it and K and conventional strain-hardeningparameters

Some true-stress/true-strain curves constructed using equation (2) are shown in figure 1.
In order to compare with real material behaviour, the values of n and K selected fall
within the range obtained in pure metals, steels, aluminium and titanium alloys (table 1).
All the curves terminate when the true strain equals the value of n, and the stress at this
point is the true tensile strength (denoted by gmax or TS) (Dieter 1961, Marin 1962).

K =827 MN m ~I120
* ksi 1
n =0.2
6ool

1
0. I 0.2 0 :3 0.4 0.5
True plastic strain cp
Figure 1. Effect of n and K on the shape of theoretical true-stress/true-strain curves
described by o=K~,n. The curves terminate at umax when E p = n .

In figure 1 the stress levels and slopes of the curves are directly proportional to K, as
are all stress terms. However, increasing n from 0.1 to 0.5, at constant K, has little
effect on either the true tensile strength or the strain-hardening rate at strains cP 2 0.1.
These idealized curves will now be examined in more detail.
The effect of n and K on the stress at 0.2% plastic strain (yield stress or 0.2% proof
stress) and on the true tensile strength is summarized in figure 2; with increasing n there
972 A W Bowen and P G Partridge

is a rapid decrease in the 0.2% proof stress, but very little change in the true tensile
strength. Note that the nominal tensile strength ut shows a greater dependence on n than
the true tensile strength, since ut=umax exp (- ep) (Dieter 1961); thus for n=0.5, ut is
-40 % lower than umilx in figure 2. Nominal tensile stress/strain data can be very mis-
leading and are not considered further in this paper.
__ 0 Z0/o proof stress

""[
zoo0
- Tensile strength
A K-1723 MN in-2 (250 k i i )
o K - I 0 3 4 M N m ' * ( l 5 0 ksi)
.K -551 M N m-2 (80 ksi)
A.
--+--A-- 4- - d----A

G---4--+-4

t- -.- -4

100 -

1
0 01 02 03 04 05
Straiii-h?rderlng e x p n e r t n
Figure 2. Effect of IZ and K on the true tensile strength omaxand proof stress.

I I
z
I

Proof stress (MN m2)

Figure 3. Effect of changing n or K on the strain-hardening rate do/de, at the 0.2%
and 1.0% proof stress levels.
 Limitations of the Hollomon strain-hardening equation 973

Clearly, a given proof strength can be attained by various combinations of n and K.

For many toughness and crack growth criteria the strain-hardening rate is also an
important factor (Tetelman and McEvily 1967), although it does not enter directly into
empirical equations (eg Hahn and Rosenfield 1968, Krafft 1964, 1965). Some measure
of the effect of n and K on the strain-hardening rate at different proof stresses can be
seen in figure 3. The strain-hardening rate is more sensitive to changes in n at the 0.2 %
proof stress level than at the 1 % proof stress level. In practice K may change by 345-
690 M N m-2 (50-100 ksi) and n by 0.1. For changes of this magnitude and at proof
stresses greater than 276 M N m-2 (40 ksi), the K value will have a much greater effect
on the strain-hardening rate than the n value.

//// du/dc a t given cp

and K value

Strain-hardening exponent n

Figure 4. Effect on the strain-hardening parameters du/dep, ncrmax, nK and PS/TS ratio
of changes in n up to 0.5 and for two K values, 1034 and 551 MN m-2. Intermediate
K values can be estimated within the shaded region.

For constant K and changing n, a maximum occurs in the curve of da/dep and n a m a x is
nonlinear (figure 4). This figure also shows that the PS/TS ratio is independent of K,
whereas it is very sensitive to changes in n.
It can be concluded that when n is changing, the PS/TS ratio best reflects the strain-
hardening rate at 0.2% strain, provided n is in the range 0.2-0.5. The strain-hardening
974 A W Bowen and P G Partridge

rate can only be related to the products nK and numax at low n values ( < Oal), and then
only very approximately. At these low n values, or at high plastic strains, the PS/TS
ratio does not reflect the changes in the strain-hardening rate.
The relationship between nK and du/dq, is illustrated in figure 5 for selected values
of n and K. A peak in the du/dep curve is again apparent at n values similar to those
found previously in figure 4; the peak is most marked at low strains (ep < 0.01). Note
that identical nK values can be associated with quite different strain-hardening rates and
PS/TS ratios.

Strength coefficient K (MN ni2)

500 1000 1500
1 I I

0.8

0.6

.
m
b-

0.4 '
0.2

C 0
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0,I
Strain- hardening exponent n

Figure 5. Relationship between nK values and the strain-hardening parameters du/dep

and PS/TS ratio. The values of K and n in the product are plotted on the top and bottom
horizontal axes.

The magnitude of the strain hardening, given by A a in equation (I), is plotted in

figure 6 as a function of n and K. The two flow stress increments selected cover the low-
strain range (ie u0.01-u0.002) and the high-strain region (ie U O . ~ O - U O . O O ~ ) of the stress/
strain curve. The dependence of the A u values on n (figure 6) shows a maximum
between n =0*1 and 0.3. Thus changes in Au are not easily related to changes in n when
n < 0.3.

3. Discussion

The present theoretical analysis of true-stress/true-strain curves that fit equation (2)
has shown that whereas the conventional strength and strain-hardening parameters are
all directly proportional to the constant K, the relationships between n and these para-
meters are more difficult to visualize. This has led to confusion when dealing with real
materials. For example, Gensamer (1946) reported that smaller n values indicated a lower
rate of strain-hardening in steels. Since then many workers have equated n to strain-
hardening rate (Cairns et al 1970, Coleman and Hardie 1966, Davies et aZ 1970, Klee-
mola 1970, 1971, Liu et aZl971, Stephenson and Oren 1970) in spite of cautionary words
 Limitations of the Hollomon strain-hardening equation 975

Strength coefCicieiit i( t M N F2)

400 -

-
N
(E
z
5
-E 300 -
0

"b
I
0
"
b
g/n' Changing n

- N
200-
0
0
"
b
-
I
0

-
bo
b
100-
a

v
0 01 02 03 04 09
Stra in-hardeni no exponent n

Figure 6. Effect of n and K on the magnitude of strain hardening, Am.

re-emphasized in recent texts (Reed-Hill 1972, Tegart 1967). It is clear from the theore-
tical curves in figure 4 that, for strains eP < 0.01, n changes in the same sense as da/dep
when n < 0.2 but in the opposite sense when n > 0.2.
Two different slopes are frequently found when tensile stress/strain data are plotted
on log-log coordinates. Two n values are quoted for such materials (Stephenson and
Oren 1970), although it is not easy to relate the transition in the log-log plot to any
change in strain-hardening behaviour (Bergstrom and Aronsson 1972). Strain-hardening
rates have also been determined from equation (4) by extrapolating the experimental
stress/strain curve backwards into the Liider's strain region (Place and Lund 1972).
This extrapolation or the use of n values obtained from curves exhibiting 'double-n'
behaviour render any analyses based on strain hardening of doubtful value.
In steels deformed at high temperatures, the product nK has been taken as an index
of the strain-hardening rate (Drobnjak and Parr 1970). The n values increased from
0.38 to 0.48 when K increased from 745 MN m-2 (108 ksi) to 1200 MN m-2 (174 ksi).
From the theoretical curves of figures 4 and 6 it is clear that, in practice, increasing n
in this range implies decreasing strain hardening (ep < 0.1) or negligible strain hardening
(cp > Oel), and not increasing strain hardening as concluded by the authors. The change
in K, however, implies a large increase in both the rate and magnitude of strain hardening.
The authors also interpret constant nK as meaning constant strain hardening; this is not
necessarily true, as shown by the theoretical curves in figure 5. Hence the significance
of the nK values obtained by these authors (Drobnjak and Parr 1970), derived from a
part of the stress/strain curve, is not clear.
Two differentrelationships between n and yield stress (ay) have been reported(Dil1amore
et al 1972, Gensamer 1945, Rosenfield and Hahn 1966, Hollomon 1945, Low 1949),
976 A W Bowen and P G Partridge

both of which differ from the log ay against n form required by theory (figure 2). The
present theoretical results also show that, if all the factors affecting the yield stress are
to be taken into account, it is necessary to identify the contributions due to K and n
as in figure 2.
Since the theoretical PS/TS ratio is independent of K (figure 4), this ratio is determined
uniquely by the n value (Datsko 1966). Experimental data reported by Pearce (1963),
although subject to scatter, embrace the values shown in figure 4. However, much
higher experimental values of the ratio were found by Kleemola (1970, 1971) for similar
n values in some Cu-Ni low-alloy steels. Again, this may be associated with the ‘double-
n’ behaviour of this material. Theoretically the ratio does not indicate the change in
strain-hardening rate due to changes in K (figure 4), but may be used as a rough guide
when n alone is varying, provided n > 0.2 and only strains less than 0.01 are considered.
Strain hardening given by A u has been used to compare the effects of test temperature
(Causey and Teghtsoonian 1970, Endo et al 1968, Garde et al 1972, Riseborough and
Teghtsoonian 1967, Russell and Jaffrey 1965, Santhanam and Reed-Hill 1970, 1971).
In some cases (Garde et a l 1972, Santhanam and Reed-Hill 1970, 1971) Ao has been
equated to do/dep. The present theoretical analysis has shown, however, that although
there may be conditions when changes in A U are in fairly close agreement with changes
in du/dep (for example, changes in AU= ~ 0 . 1 - 00.002 in figure 6 and da/dEp at ep =0+01
in figure 4), such an assumption can be very misleading.

4. Conclusions

(i) For theoretical true-stress/true-strain curves described by the strain-hardening

equation a=KeDn, the following relationships exist between the constants n and K and
other strain-hardening parameters
(a) True tensile strength values are only slightly dependent on n in the range
0.05-0.5, whereas the 0.2% proof stresses are very dependent on n. There is a linear
relationship between log stress yield and n.
(b) The strain-hardening rate at 0.2% proof stress is a maximum between n=0.1
and 0.3.
(e) All stress terms, eg the true tensile strength, proof stresses, the product nK and
du/dep, are directly proportional to K.
( d ) At constant K, maxima in the da/dep curves occur for n values between 0.1 and
0.3 at strains less than 0.01. At higher strains, da/dep is almost independent of n.
(e) Quite different da/dep values can be associated with identical nK values.
cf) The PS/TS ratio is independent of K but decreases rapidly with increasing n.
The ratio only relates approximately to du/dep when n > 0.2 and eP < 0.01.
(g) The magnitude of the strain hardening, given by Au, reaches a maximum for n
values between 0.1 and 0.3.
(ii) A combination of high true tensile strength and a maximum in the strain-hardening
rate and magnitude of strain hardening will be obtained with large K values and n values
between 0.1 and 0-3.
(iii) When using n to describe experimental strain-hardening behaviour, reference
should be made to figures 4 and 6.
(iv) There is some doubt associated with the use of experimental n and K values
determined from curves showing ‘double-n’ behaviour; in these cases, h a may be a more
useful strain-hardening parameter,
 Limitations of the Hollomon strain-hardening equation 977

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to Mr B Billing for programming the data required in this
paper. The paper is Crown Copyright, and is published by permission of the Comptroller,
HMSO.

References

Bergstrom Y and Aronsson B 1972 Metall. Trans. 3 1951-7

Buhler H and Wagener H W 1965 Bander BIeche Rohre 6 626-30 667-8, 677-84
__ 1967 Z . Metallk. 58 136-44
Cahoon J R 1972 Metall. Trans. 3 3040
Cairns J H , Clough J, Dewey M A P and Nutting J 1970 J . Inst. Metals 98 1-5
Causey A R and Teghtsoonian E 1970 Metall. Trans. 1 1177-83
Challenger K D and Moteff J 1972 Scripta Metall. 6 155-60
Coleman C E and Hardie D 1966J. Inst. Metals 94 387-91
Datsko J 1966 Material Properties and Manufacturing Processes (New York: Wiley)
Davies G J, Edington J W, Cutler C P and Padmanabhan K A 1970 J . Mater. Sci. 5 1091-102
Dieter G E (Jr) 1961 Mechanical Metallurgy (New York: McGraw-Hill)
Dillamore I L 1974 J. Phys. D : Appl. Phys. 7 979-91
Dillamore I L, Mella P and Hazel R J 1972 J. Inst. Metals 100 50-7
Drobnjak D J and Parr J G 1970 Metall. Trans. 1 759-65
Endo T, Enjyo T and Adachi M 1968 Trans. Japan Inst. Metals (Suppl.) 9 725-30
Fitzpatrick J M 1968 J . Mater. 3 977-82
Fusfeld H I 1949 J. appl. Phys. 20 1052-5
Garde AM, Santhanam A T and Reed-Hill R E 1972 Acta MetaN. 20 215-20
Gensamer M 1946 Trans. Am. Soc. Metals 36 30-60
Green S J, Langan J J, Leasia J D and Yang W H 1971 Metall. Trans. 2 1813-20
Hahn G T and Rosenfield A R 1968 ASTM Rep. No. STP 432, pp 5-32
Haynes R and Maddocks P J 1969 Metal Sci. J . 3 190-5
Hickerson J R (Jr) and Hertzberg R W 1972 Metall. Trans. 3 179-89
Holden F C , Ogden H R and Jaffee R I 1953 Trans. Metall. Soc. AZME 5 238-42
-1957 ASTM Rep. No. STP 204, pp 14-31
Holden F C, Williams D N, Riley W E and Jaffee R I 1956 TML Rep. No. 30, Batelle Memorial Institute,
Columbus, Ohio, USA
Hollomon J H 1945 Trans. Metall. Soc. AZME 162 268-90
Hopkins A D 1962 Metal Treatment 29 413-20
Hughes I F and Page E W 1971 Metall. Trans. 2 2067-75
Kashar L J 1967 Trans. MefaN. Soc. AZME 239 1461-8
Kleemola H J 1970 J. Iron Steel Inst. 208 1025-8
-1971 Jernkont. Annlr 155 581-93
Kostron H 1951 Arch. EisenhiittWes. 22 317-25
Krafft J M 1964 Appl. Mater. Res. 3 88-101
-1965 Trans. Am. Soc. Metals 58 691-5
Lee D 1970 Metall. Trans. 1 1607-16
Levy B S 1970 Sheet Metal Znd. 47 527-30
Liu CT, Armstrong R W and Gurland J 1971 J . Iron Steel Inst. 209 142-6
Low J R 1949 Properties of Engineering Materials (Cleveland: ASM) pp 17-59
Low J R and Garafalo F 1947 Proc. Soc. Expl Stress Anal. 4 16-24
Ludwigson D C 1971 Metall. Trans. 2 2825-8
McLintock F A 1968 J . appl. Mech. (Trans. ASME) 35 363-71
Maloof S R 1959 Trans. Metall. Soc. AZME 215 872-3
Marin J 1962 Mechanical Behaviour of Engineering Materials (New York: Prentice-Hall)
Marin J and Sharma M G 1958 Welding J . Res. (Suppl.) 37 375s-8s
Nelson P G and Winlock J 1949 ASTM Bull. (January) 53-5
Ogden H R, Maykuth D J, Finlay W L and Jaffee R I 1953 Trans. Metall. Soc. AIME 5 267-72

77
978 A W Bowen and P G Partridge

Painter M J and Pearce R 1974 J. Phys. D : Appl. Phys. 7 992-1002

Panknin W and Shawki G S A 19612. Metallk. 52 455-61
Pearce R 1963 Sheet Metal Ind. 40 317-22
Peel C J and Forsyth P J E 1973 Metal Sci. J . 7 121-7
Place T A and Lund J A 1972 iMetall. Trans. 3 1613-9
Reed-Hill R E 1972 High Temp. Mater. 1 99-154 (Israel: Freund Publishing Co.)
Riseborough N and Teghtsoonian E 1967 Can. J. Phys. 45 591-605
Rosenfield A R and Hahn G T 1966 Trans, Am. Soc. Metals 59 962-80
Rowe G H 1966 J . Muter.1 689-715
Rowe G W and Wolstencroft F 1970J. Inst. Metals 98 33-41
Russell B and Jaffrey D 1965 Acta Metall. 13 1-10
Santhanam A T and Reed-Hill R E 1970 Scripta Metall. 4 529-31
-1971 Metall. Trans. 2 2619-22
Schmidt W and Dietrich H 1972 Z . Metallk. 63 654-60
Schmidt Wand von den Steinen A 1972 Muterialprufung 14 183-91
Schwalbe K 1973 Z . Metallk. 64 453-7
Schwalbe K and Macherauch E 1971 Mater. Sci. Engng 7 58-60
Sellars C H and Tegart W T McG 1972 Znt. Metall. Rev. 17 1-24
Stephenson E T and Oren E C 1970 Metall. Trans. 1 1468-70
Tegart W J McG 1967 Elements of Mechanical Metallurgy (London: Macmillan)
Tetelman A S and McEvily A J 1967 Fracture of Structural Materials (New York: Wiley)
Wasilewski R J 1963 Trans. Am. Soc. Metals 56 221-35
Wilson D V 1974 J . Phys. D : Appl. Phys. 7 954-68