The Determination of Yield Strength From Hardness Measurements

J. R. CAHOON, W. H. B R O U G H T O N , AND A. R. K U T Z A K It i s s h o w n t h a t t h e 0.2 p c t o f f s e t y i e l d s t r e n g t h of a m a t e r i a l (in kg p e r s q m m ) c a n b e o b t a i n e d f r o m s i m p l e h a r d n e s s m e a s u r e m e n t s u s i n g the e x p r e s s i o n ay = (H/3)(O.1) trn-2}, w h e r e H is the Diamond pyramid hardness and m is Meyer's hardness coefficient. This expression holds for b r a s s , s t e e l in e i t h e r t h e c o l d r o l l e d o r t e m p e r e d c o n d i t i o n , a n d a l u m i n u m a l l o y s in e i t h e r t h e c o l d r o l l e d o r a g e d c o n d i t i o n . It i s a l s o s h o w n t h a t t h e a b o v e e x p r e s s i o n c a n b e d e r i v e d f r o m a simple model assuming a = K~ n as the stress strain relationship.

H R N S tests have always appeared attractive as A D ES

a means for estimating other mechanical properties of metals. Tabor' has shown that the ultimate strength of a material, ~u, is given by*
*Units of yield strength and hardnessare kg per sq mm.

(ru : ~.9

[i-(m-2>] [I '5 (m-2) J I -211 -

[1]

where H is the Diamond pyramid hardness and m is the Meyer's hardness coefficient. It has been shown theoretically and confirmed experimentally' that
= m - 2 [2]

where n is the strain hardening coefficient. Also, the true stress-strain c u r v e in t h e p l a s t i c r e g i o n c a n b e approximated by
a = KEn

[3]

where (r is the stress, c the true strain and K is a constant. Using Eqs. [2] and [3] and the additional information that H/2.9 is approximately equivalent to the stress at a strain of 8 pct during a tensile test, Tabor I derived Eq. [I]. Since H and m - 2 can be obtained from hardness measurements, an indication of ultimate tensile strength may also be obtained. However, there appear to have been no attempts to obtain a general expression relating the 0.2 pct offset yield strengths of metals to hardness. Atkins and Tabor 9 derived compressive stress strain curves for steel and copper from hardness measurements but could not extend the curves below 4 pct strain. Devenpeck and Weinstein ~~indicated the possibility of obtaining a proportional limit from hardness measurements but did not derive a specific relationship. A good correlation between the 0.2 pct offset yield strength and hardness for many different steels in the quenched and tempered condition has been established2 but the reasons for the correlation were not investigated, nor was the treatment extended to other metals. It has also been showns that the yield stress of a severely cold worked material should be given by
% -- H / 3 [4]

and this relation has been verified experimentally to some degree, but for this derivation it is assumed that the strain hardening coefficient, n, equals zero. However, Marcinkowski et al. 4 showed for annealed Fe-Cr alloys which exhibited some strain hardening that ay ~ H / 5 . Speich and Warlimonts found that ay ~ H/4 for some low carbon martensites and Fe-Ni alloys. The present investigation was initiated in an attempt to derive a general expression which correlates the 0.2 pct offset yield strength with hardness for various materials and which would include the strain hardening coefficient since it seems reasonable that this coefficient would affect the yield strength versus hardness correlation. Also, it is possible that the strengthening mechanism could affect the correlation and therefore it was decided to study alloys which could be strengthened by heat treatment as well as cold working. To cover a wide range of hardness values, two alloy systems were selected, 65S, age hardening, aluminum alloy (nominal composition, Cu-0.3 pct; Fe-0.7 pct; Mg1.0 pct; Si-0.6 pct; Ti-0.15 pct; Zn-0.2 pct; and Cr0.25 pct) and 1040 steel. EXPERIMENTAL Tensile samples with a gage length of 2 in., a width of ~ in., and a thickness of ~ in. were machined from 65S aluminum alloy strip and 1040 steel strip initially 1 in. wide and ~- in. thick. The aluminum specimens were machined from as-received material, whereas the 1040 steel strip was annealed at 900~ for 1 hr and furnace cooled to facilitate machining. The aluminum alloy specimens were solution heat treated at 520~ and quenched in water. Seven of these specimens were cold rolled to various degrees with reductions in area ranging from 8 to 67 pct. Another eight specimens were aged at 160~ for various times from 8 to 48 hr. The Diamond pyramid hardness of the aluminum specimens was determined on a Vickers Hardness Tester using a load of 2 ~ kg. At least ten impressions were measured for each specimen to obtain a representative value. The standard deviation of the measurements was about a:3 pct. Seven of the annealed 1040 steel specimens were cold rolled to various degrees with reductions in area ranging from 5 to 60 pct. Another eight of the steel specimens were austenized at 900~ water quenched, and then tempered at 540~ or 650~ for various times ranging from 0.5 to 62 hr to obtain a wide spread of hardness values. During all heat treatments the steel specimens were covered with graphite
VOLUME 2, JULY 1971-1979

J. R. CAHOON is Associate Professor, Metallurgical Science Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnepeg, Manitoba. W. H. BROUGHTON and A. R. KUTZAK, formerly Students at the University of Manitobe, are now with Fisher Controls Company, Woodstock, Ontario, and Mobile Oil Company, Calgary, Alberta, respectively. Manuscript submitted June 22, 1970. METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS

c h i p s to m i n i m i z e d e c a r b u r i z a l i o n . The Diamond pyramid hardness of the steel specimens was determined o n t h e V i c k e r s H a r d n e s s T e s t e r u s i n g a l o a d o f 10 k g . Since a small amount of decarburization was observed, the hardness values were taken from cross sections cut from the ends of the tensile specimens. T h e M e y e r ' s h a r d n e s s c o e f f i c i e n t of a l l s p e c i m e n s was determined on the Vickers Hardness Tester using a ~ in. diana ball. The range of suitable loads depends on the hardness of the material but it was found that l o a d s in t h e r a n g e H/4 t o H/2 kg w e r e g e n e r a l l y a d e quate. The diameters of the impressions for ten loads were measured and the Meyer's coefficient was determined by the conventional method from the slope of the i n P v s In D c u r v e s , w h e r e P i s t h e l o a d a n d D t h e d i ameter of impression. The strain hardening coeffic i e n t , n , w a s t h e n c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g E q . [2]. The specimens were tested to failure on an Instron t e s t i n g m a c h i n e a t a n i n i t i a l s t r a i n r a t e o f 3 . 3 x 10 -4 s e e -1. T h e 0 . 2 p e t o f f s e t y i e l d s t r e n g t h , ( 0 . 2 p c t o f f s e t from the linear portion of the stress strain curve), ultimate tensile strength and elongation were recorded.

The strain hardening coefficient was calculated from the tensile data in the usual manner by plotting in a vs In r where a is the true stress and E the true plastic strain. Plastic strain was obtained from the crosshead motion of the Instron. RESULTS The hardness vs amount of cold work and aging time, the 0.2 pct offset yield strength, and the ultimate s t r e n g t h a r e g i v e n in T a b l e I f o r t h e a l u m i n u m a l l o y specimens and similar data for the steel specimens a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e II. T h e s t r a i n h a r d e n i n g c o e f f i c i e n t , n, obtained from the stress strain curve, is compared with that calculated from Meyer's c o e f f i c i e n t , m - 2, and the stress at 8 pct strain which should be approxim a t e l y e q u i v a l e n t to H/3, R e f . 6, i s a l s o g i v e n . DISCUSSION T a b l e s I a n d II s h o w t h a t t h e s t r a i n h a r d e n i n g c o e f ficients determined from hardness measurements

Table I. Hardness, Strain Hardening Coefficient, Yield Strength and Ultimate Strength for 65S Aluminum

Specimen AI A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A 10 A11 A12 A13 AI4 A15 A16 A17 A18

Pet Reduction in Area 0 7.6 15.0 23.3 35.0 40.0 51.8 57.0 65.8

Aging Time at 160~ hr

Hardness, Dph 51.2 67.0 74.8 79.8 90.0 90.8 94.9 101.0 103.0 58.7 70.1 82.4 78.6 85.6 84.8 91.1 93.8 99.0

Stress at 8 pet Strain, kg/mm2 18.0 21.9 24.7 25.0 29.0 29.4 30.5 33.1 32.5 20.6 24.0 26.5 27.5 28.0 27.8 31.0 30.4 31.8

n 0.35 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.36 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.23 0.19 0.16 0.15

m-2 0.28 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.29 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.12 0.18 0.14 0.13 0.17

0.2 Pet Offset Yield Strength, kg/mm2 9.5 18.0 19.3 21.5 25.0 25.9 26.9 29.2 28.8 10.4 14.8 17.5 17.7 19.7 19.8 24.2 24.5 26.7

Ultimate Tensile Strength, kg/mm2 21.5 21.5 22.4 22.4 26.6 26.3 27.5 30.0 29.5 22.5 24.4 26.2 26.6 27.1 27.1 29.2 28.6 29.7

0 8 12 16 18 20 24 30 48

Table II. Hardness, Strain Hardening Coefficient, Yield Strength and Ultimate Strength for 1040 Steel

Specimen S1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M9 Mll M12

Pet Reduction in Area 0 22.3 9.23 34.5 36.0 5.0 58.5 1.0 29.9

Tempering Temp, ~

Tempering Time, hr

Hardness, Dph 207 274 250 297 323 237 322 213 290 348 339 297 309 330 215 237 363

Stress at 8 pet Strain, kg/mm2 94.5 86.5 99 77 113 72 97 110 108 100 100 106 74 82 -

n 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.10 0.09 0.16 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.06 0A3 0.14 0.12 -

m-2 0.22 0.09 0.15 0.03 0.09 0.14 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.09 0.I0 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.14 0.10

0.2 pet Offset Yield Strength, kg/mm: 35.0 74.0 66.5 78.0 89.0 60.0 90.0 45.0 75.0 86.4 90.0 79.0 84.0 88.0 53.0 60.6 95.2

Ultimate Tensile Strength, kg/mm2 63.0 84.1 76.8 92.0 105.2 70.1 106.2 66.6 85.0 94.4 98.5 88.0 92.5 97.0 66.0 72.6 95.2

540 540 540 540 540 650 650 540

10.0 2.5 62.0 25.0 5.0 15.5 5.0 0.5

1980-VOLUME 2, JULY 1971

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS

3C o
w

25

o Cold worked Specimens 9Aged Specimens

o

o o ~ / e
/

uJ w Io >I.--

and yield strength must include the strain hardening coefficient. It has been shown 6 that HI3 is approximately equivalent to the stress at a strain of 8 pct during a tensile test. Tabor ~'~ used a value of H/2.9 for steel and H/3 for copper. However, in the present investigation, Tables I and If show that the stress at a strain of 8 pct was H/(3.0 0.I) for the steel specimens and an identical result was obtained for the 65S aluminum specimens (the error limits given are standard deviations). Therefore a value of H/3 is used as equivalent to the stress at a strain of 8 pct during a tensile test. With this information it is possible to solve for K in Eq. [3] in terms of hardness,

g d

s 0
I I I I I I I

K 20 25 30 35 EXPERIMENTAL 0.2% OFFSET YIELD STRENGTH (kgm/mm 2)

5 I0 15

H 3(0.08)cm -27

[5]

If the 0.2 pct offset yield s t r e s s o c c u r s at a s t r a i n ey, the yield s t r e s s , Cry, is given by

Fig. 1--Comparison of calculated and experimental yield strengths for 65S aluminum specimens. %

=-3

ey

(m-2)

o
h I.IJ

I00

T h e r e f o r e , an equation r e l a t i n g yield s t r e s s to h a r d n e s s should take the f o r m

o Cold Worked Specimens o/

Cry = H (B)tm-2)

[7]

B ~so
7 ~

w h e r e B is a constant. A v e r y good c o r r e l a t i o n b e tween e x p e r i m e n t a l y i e l d s t r e n g t h and that c a l c u l a t e d f r o m Eq. [ 7] is obtained for both the a l u m i n u m and s t e e l s p e c i m e n s if a value of B = 0.1 is used, i. e.

,~6c
w I-1.1.1

Cry = -5 (~

[8]

u_
0 (M

4C

(5

4'o

'

6'0

'

'

EXPERIMENTAL 0.2% OFFSET YIELD STRENGTH(kg/mm z)

Fig. 2--Compariscn of calculated and experimental yield strengths for 1040 steel specimens. generally agree within 25 pct with those obtained from stress-strain curves. It would seem, therefore, that Eq. [2] is a reasonable approximation, and that the strain hardening coefficient can be obtained from hardness measurements. For 65S aluminum alloy, the yield strength could not be correlated directly with hardness, Table I, but was dependent on the strengthening mechanism. For a similar hardness, the aged alloys exhibit a consistently lower yield strength and consistently higher strain h a r d e n i n g c o e f f i c i e n t than the cold worked alloys. In 1040 s t e e l , the s t r a i n h a r d e n i n g c o e f f i c i e n t depends only on h a r d n e s s and not on the s t r e n g t h e n i n g m e c h a n i s m and t h e r e f o r e the y i e l d s t r e n g t h c o r r e l a t e s d i r e c t l y with h a r d n e s s , Table II. The r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e s I and II show that the yield s t r e n g t h v a r i e s f r o m about H/6 for an alloy with a high s t r a i n h a r d e n i n g c o e f f i c i e n t to H/3.4 for an alloy with a low s t r a i n h a r d e n i n g coefficient. T h e r e f o r e , it is c l e a r that any c o r r e l a t i o n between h a r d n e s s METALLURGICALTRANSACTIONS

The v a l u e s of 0.2 pct o f f s e t y i e l d s t r e n g t h c a l c u l a t e d f r o m Eq. [8] a r e c o m p a r e d with the e x p e r i m e n t a l v a l ues for 65S a l u m i n u m in Fig. 1 and for 1040 s t e e l in Fig. 2. The v a l u e s of M e y e r ' s c o e f f i c i e n t can be obtained with a s t a n d a r d deviation of b e t t e r than =e2 pct. H o w e v e r , this r e s u l t s in a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e e r r o r in the s t r a i n h a r d e n i n g c o e f f i c i e n t c a l c u l a t e d f r o m Eq. [2], the standard deviation in m - 2 being about for all values. Therefore, the values of m - 2 used for the calculation of yield strength were taken from smoothed curves of rn vs hardness. Also, in Figs. 1 and 2 we are comparing an engineering stress with a true stress but at strains less than 1 pct the differences are negligible. The value of B = 0.I used in Eq. [8] implies that the 0.2 pct offset yield stress occurs at a strain of 0.008 when the stress-strain curve is approximated by Eq. [3]. This seems a slightly high value, so to determine the actual strain at which the yield stress occurs, a 65S aluminum specimen, A-19, was tested using an extensometer to measure the strain. The early stages of deformation, Fig. 3, show that the 0.2 pct offset yield stress occurs at a true strain of 0.004. However, if the stress-strain curve is represented by Eq. [3] with values of K and n calculated from the s t r e s s strain curve in the region 1 to 10 pct strain, which is equivalent to the range for hardness measurements, the calculated curve, broken line, Fig. 3, lies below the actual curve in the early stages of deformation and the experimental value of 0.2 pct offset yield stress occurs at a strain of 0.007 on the calculated curve which is in fair agreement with Eq. [8]. Actually, it is reasonable VOLUME 2, JULY 1971-1981

16
Table III. Results for " U n k n o w n " Specimens

~
/ i

~
/ 0.2 % Offset

Sr i R n e.Oi-'.I ton o g

Stress at 8 Hardness, pct Strain, Specimen Dph kg/mm 2 AI-I A1-2 Steel-1 Steel-2 Brass-I Brass-2 A-19 AI-17 pct Cu 55.1 54.0 258 260 124 128 64.6 54.4 19.4 19.1 83 86 43 45 22.3 16.8

n
0.09

m-2

0.2 pct Offset Yield Stress, kg/mm= Ultimate Calculated Tensile Experifrom Strength, mental Eq. [8] kg/mm: 15.4 15.4 68.0 69.0 32.2 33.0 11.6 10.8 14.9 15.0 71.1 70.9 32.1 35.0 12.6 11.7 17.l 17.0 69.3 70.0

//"

/ I

0.09 0.09 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.1t 0.12 0.09 0.27 0.23 0.19 0.19

38.3
38.0 22.2 20.0

0.002

o0'04

'

o.o'oe

'

o.o~8

'

o.&o

T U SR I RE TA N
Fig. 3 - - E a r l y stages of deformation for s p e c i m e n A-19. to e x p e c t t h a t Eq. [3] w o u l d n o t b e a c c u r a t e in t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of d e f o r m a t i o n s i n c e n o p r o v i s i o n i s m a d e f o r the elastic region. T h e r e s u l t s g i v e n in F i g . 3 do, h o w e v e r , t e n d to j u s tify u s i n g 0.008 a s t h e s t r a i n a t t h e y i e l d p o i n t (Ey in Eq. [6]) e v e n t h o u g h t h e a g r e e m e n t o b t a i n e d i s p r o b a b l y l a r g e l y f o r t u i t o u s . In a n y e v e n t , t h e s t r e s s - s t r a i n c u r v e in t h e r e g i o n of s t r a i n 0 . 0 0 4 t o 0.01 i s q u i t e f l a t , F i g . 3, a n d any v a l u e of s t r e s s in t h i s r e g i o n w i l l g i v e a r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e f o r t h e 0.2 p c t o f f s e t y i e l d s t r e s s . It i s w e l l k n o w n t h a t t h e y i e l d s t r e s s of a m a t e r i a l i s d e p e n d e n t on t h e g r a i n s i z e . H o w e v e r , J i n d a l a n d A r m s t r o n g 7 h a v e s h o w n t h a t t h e h a r d n e s s of c a r t r i d g e brass has a similar dependence on grain size and imply that this will be true for other materials. Theref o r e t h e e f f e c t of g r a i n s i z e o n t h e y i e l d s t r e s s a s c a l c u l a t e d f r o m Eq. [8] w i l l b e i n c l u d e d in t h e v a l u e f o r H. T h e g r a i n s i z e of t h e a n n e a l e d 1040 s t e e l p r i o r to r o l l i n g w a s a b o u t 20 At a n d t h e p r i o r a u s t e n i t e g r a i n s i z e of the quenched and tempered alloys was approximately t h e s a m e . T h e g r a i n s i z e of t h e a n n e a l e d 65S a l u m i n u m p r i o r to r o i l i n g o r a g i n g w a s a b o u t 70 ~. T o c h e c k t h e v a l i d i t y of E q . [8], t e s t s w e r e c o n d u c t e d o n s e v e r a l " u n k n o w n " s p e c i m e n s . T h e s e i n c l u d e d two a l u m i n u m s p e c i m e n s , two b r a s s s p e c i m e n s , two m i l d s t e e l s p e c i m e n s a l l of u n k n o w n c o m p o s i t i o n , a n d a n e x p e r i m e n t a l t w o - p h a s e a l l o y , h o t - r o l l e d A l - 1 7 p c t Cu. T h e r e s u l t s a r e s u m m a r i z e d in T a b l e III w h i c h a l s o i n c l u d e s t h e d a t a o b t a i n e d f o r s p e c i m e n A - 1 9 , a 65S aluminum alloy which had aged a few days at room temperature. T a b l e HI i l l u s t r a t e s t h e v a l i d i t y of Eq. [8] o v e r a w i d e r a n g e of h a r d n e s s a n d s t r a i n h a r d e n i n g c o e f f i cients. The differences between the calculated and exp e r i m e n t a l v a l u e s of y i e l d s t r e s s a r e w e l l w i t h i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l e r r o r s of m e a s u r i n g y i e l d s t r e s s , h a r d ness, and Meyer's coefficient. Also, the strain hardening coefficients determined from hardness measurements agrees well with those determined from stresss t r a i n c u r v e s . T h e s t r e s s a t a s t r a i n of 8 p c t a v e r a g e d H / ( 3 . 0 0.1) w h i c h i s in a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e r e s u l t s of t h e 1040 s t e e l a n d 65S a l u m i n u m s p e c i m e n s . Eq. [8] i s a l s o c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e s u l t s of o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . T h e v a l u e of H / 5 o b t a i n e d by M a r c i n k o w s k i et al. 4 f o r t h e y i e l d s t r e n g t h of a n n e a l e d F e - C r a l l o y s c a n b e o b t a i n e d f r o m E q . [8] if a v a l u e of 0.22 is assumed for the strain hardening coefficient. This 1982-VOLUME 2,JULY 1971

35
o 9 9 9 & Cold Worked 65S Specimens Aged 65S Specimens A I - I and A I - 2 AI-17%Cu A - 19
O

LU

eo

3C
9 9

o 0c iJ_
E3 W .J

0o

4 <~
(,9 -r" I-(.9 Z l.t.l n-" I.-r W ._I cO Z ILl l-l..iJ

25

2C

_1

15 15

20

25

50

EXPERIMENTAL ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH ( k g / m m z)

Fig. 4 - - C o m p a r i s o n of calculated and e x p e r i m e n t a l ultimate tensile s t r e n g t h for aluminum alloys. would seem a reasonable value for annealed alloys. T h e v a l u e of a b o u t H / 4 o b t a i n e d by S p e i c h a n d W a r l i m o n t 5 f o r low c a r b o n a n d F e - N i m a r t e n s i t e s c a n b e o b t a i n e d f r o m Eq. [8] if a v a l u e of 0 . 1 2 i s u s e d f o r t h e exponent which again is a reasonable value. The res u i t s p r e s e n t e d by B a i n a n d P a x t o n 2 g i v e a v a l u e of a b o u t H / 3 . 6 f o r t h e y i e l d s t r e n g t h of m a n y q u e n c h e d a n d t e m p e r e d s t e e l s ( t h e B r i n e l l h a r d n e s s g i v e n by B a i n a n d P a x t o n w a s c o n v e r t e d to D i a m o n d p y r a m i d h a r d n e s s u s i n g t a b l e s g i v e n i n R e f . 8), w h i c h c a n b e o b t a i n e d f r o m E q . [8] if a v a l u e of 0 . 0 8 i s a s s u m e d f o r t h e s t r a i n h a r d e n i n g c o e f f i c i e n t . It i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t a s i n g l e v a l u e of t h e e x p o n e n t i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r a l l t h e r e s u l t s s i n c e t h e v a l u e f o r t e m p e r e d 1040 s t e e l i s a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l (0.09) f o r a l l b u t t h e s o f t e s t of t h e s p e c i m e n s a s s h o w n in T a b l e If. T h e r e f o r e , Eq. [8] i s
METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS

A ed

E 120 o 9 [3 o laJ o n" Cold Rolled 1040 Steel Tempered 104-0 Steel Steel I and 2 Brass I and 2

[ I] gives a reasonable estimate of the ultimate strength but the calculated values show a tendency to be too high. However, considering the inherent errors in measuring hardness, tensile strength, and Meyer's coefficient the agreement is quite reasonable. CONCLUSIONS

I00

a LtJ

<[ J D

q
0

80

I Z W rr"

6s
W J

N
Z I...hi

Indentation hardness measurements can be utilized to determine the yield strength, strain hardening coefficient, and ultimate tensile strength for a wide range of materials including aluminum alloys, steel, and brass. The 0.2 pct offset yield strength is given by Cry = (H/3)(O.I) Cm-2) ,where H is the Diamond pyramid hardness and m is Meyer's coefficient. Evidence has been given to support earlier contentions that the strain hardening coefficient, n, can be obtained from Meyer's coefficient from the relation n = rn-2. A reasonable prediction of ultimate tensile strength may be obtained from hardness measurements using the relation due to Tabor, I

4C

/Do
40 0 I00 EXPERIMENTAL ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH ( kg/mm 2 )

~.=-5 [1-(,~-2>] --(-~--Wj

[12.5 ( m _ 2 ) 7 ,m-2)

I"...1

Fig. 5--Comparison of calculated and experimental ultimate tensile strength for b r a s s and s t e e l alloys. a t l e a s t in q u a l i t a t i v e a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e r e s u l t s of previous investigations. A c c o r d i n g to T a b o r 1 it s h o u l d a l s o b e p o s s i b l e to c a l c u l a t e the u l t i m a t e t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h f r o m h a r d n e s s d a t a . T h e u l t i m a t e t e n s i l e s t r e s s i s g i v e n in T a b l e I f o r t h e 65S a l u m i n u m s p e c i m e n s , in T a b l e II f o r t h e 1040 s t e e l s p e c i m e n s , and T a b l e III f o r t h e " u n k n o w n " specimens. T h e u l t i m a t e t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h s of a l l t h e s p e c i m e n s were calculated using Tabor's analysis ~ except that a v a l u e of H / 3 w a s u s e d a s t h e s t r e s s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to 8 p c t s t r a i n in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a i n s t e a d of H / 2 . 9 u s e d by T a b o r . T h e u l t i m a t e s t r e n g t h s c a l c u l a t e d f r o m Eq. [ 1] f o r t h e 65S a l u m i n u m and a l u m i n u m " u n k n o w n " s p e c i m e n s a r e c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s t r e n g t h s in F i g . 4 and f o r t h e 1040 s t e e l , and b r a s s and s t e e l " u n k n o w n " s p e c i m e n s in F i g . 5. T h e s e c o m p a r i s o n s s h o w t h a t Eq.

T a b o r u s e d a f a c t o r of H / 2 . 9 f o r s t e e l and H / 3 f o r c o p p e r in t h e a b o v e e q u a t i o n but in t h e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n it w a s found t h a t H / 3 w a s a s u i t a b l e v a l u e f o r s t e e l , b r a s s and a l u m i n u m . ACKNOWLEDGMENT T h e f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t of t h e N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l of C a n a d a ( G r a n t No. A5403) i s g r a t e f u l l y a c k n o w l edged.

REFERENCES
1. D. Tabor: J. Inst. Afetals, 1951, vol. 79, pp. 1-18. 2. EdgarC. Bain and Harold W. Paxton:Alloying Elements in Steel, 2nd ed., p. 225, ASM, 1966. 3. D. Tabor: The Hardness of Metals, p. 102, ClarendonPress,Oxford, 1951. 4. M. J. Marcinkowski,R. M. Fisher,and A. Szirmae: Trans. TMS-AIME, 1964, vol. 230, pp. 676-89. 5. G. R. Speichand H. Warlimont:J. Iron SteelInst., 1968, vol. 206, pp. 385-92. 6. D. Tabor: Proc. Roy. Soc., 1948, SeriesA, vol. 192, pp. 247-74. 7. P. C. Jindal and R. W. Armstrong:Trans. TMS-AIME. 1967, vol. 239, pp. 1856-57. 8. Metals Handbook, 1948 ed., p. 98, ASM. 9. A. G. Atkinsand D. Tabor: 3: Mech. Phys. Solids, 1965, vol. 13, pp. 149-64. 10. M. L. Devenpeckand A. S. Weinstein:J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 1970, vol. 18, pp. 213-32.

METALLURGICAL TRANSACTIONS

VOLUME 2, JULY 1971-1983