Some Fundamentals Of The Flow And Rupture Of Metals

I deeply appreciate the honor of being selected to deliver the twentieth Annual Lecture of the Institute of Metals Division. The subject of my paper is extremely involved and voluminous, therefore I shall discuss only some more recent experimental material and speculate somewhat on the physical and mechanical fundamentals of these changes. The flow and the rupture of a solid material are rather different phenomena. It is therefore surprising that up to a rather advanced stage in metallurgical science these two fundamental phenomena have been simultaneously treated and forced into the general conception of the "failure" of solid material. Only in this century, and particularly during the last 20 years, have the very different physical meanings of flow and rupture been clearly recognized. Several hundred of the more recent publications deal with these subjects.1 LAW OF SIMILARITY The basic values commonly considered responsible for the mechanical behavior of any material are the stresses. From this standpoint both a large and a small article made from the same homogeneous metal and of geometrically similar shapes should behave identically, i.e., they should deform geometrically in a similar manner, if subjected to the same stress values at corresponding points. This "law of similarity" was introduced about 60 years ago simultaneously by Barba2 and Kick3 and was derived from the classical theory of elasticity. As far as the plastic behavior of a metal is concerned, this rule appears to be valid. The conventional properties of large and small tension or compression test bars, machined from larger sections, are identical; while the force required to deform a section is proportional to its cross-sectional area and the work consumed in deforming geometrically similar articles in a geometrically similar manner is proportional to its volume. The general trend of the stress-strain diagram of a metal is independent of the section size (Fig. I). No exceptions from this rule are known. However, if the deformation of a metal is continued until rupture occurs, and the breaking stress or the work consumed is measured, a test bar of large cross section appears to fail before or at lower stresses than does one having a small cross section. Thus, the specific impact energy has been often found to decrease with increasing size of the test specimen, particularly for materials with a limited ductility.4 Another exception from the rule of similarity is offered by fatigue-strength values, which usually decrease with increasing section size. 5,6 The conclusion must be drawn from these experimental facts that the ductility of a homogeneous metal decreases with increas¬ing section size (Fig. x). This effect has been actually confirmed by Docherty,7 who observed that in static notch bending tests large specimens failed earlier and in a more brittle fashion than small specimens ma-