The Technical Cohesive Strength And Yield Strength Of Metals

IN a recent survey of the literature, the author has found evidence incompatible with prevalent views regarding the technical cohesive strength and yield strength of metals. Some of the evidence regarding the technical cohesive strength was presented in a previous paper,21 and views were presented that are believed to be in better accord with the evidence. In that paper, it was shown that the technical cohesion limit (contrary to prevalent views) varies with the combination of principal stresses,† and that the influence of plastic deformation on the technical cohesive strength is not in accordance with prevalent views. In this paper, consideration will be given to both the technical cohesion limit and the yield stress as affected by the combination of principal stresses. Evidence will be presented that the variations of the yield stress and the technical cohesion limit with the combination of principal stresses are not in accordance with prevalent views. Consideration will also be given to ductility and work-hardening capacity, which depend on the initial difference between the technical cohesion limit and the yield stress. By the "technical cohesion limit" is meant the mean stress at actual or potential* fracture. An example of a technical cohesion limit is the "true" breaking stress of a tension-test specimen, the breaking load divided by the sectional area at fracture. The cohesion limit thus obtained for a ductile metal, however, has been greatly altered by the plastic deformation. It is important to consider the cohesion limit of the metal prior to this deformation, and the variation of the cohesive strength with plastic deformation. The relation between the cohesion limit and the corresponding flow stress† determines the ductility of a metal and the energy that it will absorb before fracture. In this paper, as in the previous paper,21 tensile stresses will be viewed as positive and compressive stresses as negative. The algebraically greatest principal stress will be designated S1, the least principal stress will be designated S3, and the intermediate principal stress will be designated S2. In the previous paper, attention was confined to stress combinations with two of the principal stresses equal (with the intermediate principal stress S2 equal either to S3 or S1). In this paper, consideration will also be given to the effect of stress combinations with all three principal stresses unequal. In the earlier sections of the paper (pp. 1 to 14), attention will be confined to stress combinations with