Deformation due to Cyclic Loading

Laboratory 6 Report October 22, 2013

Mechanical Behavior of Engineering Materials (ME108) Fall 2013 University of California at Berkeley

Group 7 Lab Section 104, 1st Rotation

Joey Johnescu Kevin Kung Nick Renda Jon Saltz

!"#$%&'(&)'*+%*+,& -./&& 5./&& 4./&& >./&& C./& D./& E./& F./& H./& # 012!30)!&.......................................................................................................................................&4& 67!389:)!687&.............................................................................................................................&4& !;<83=&............................................................................................................................................&4& <?@<36A<7!0B&A<!;892&........................................................................................................&>& 3<2:B!2&...........................................................................................................................................&C& 962):22687&.....................................................................................................................................&D& )87)B:26872& .................................................................................................................................&E& 3<G<3<7)<2&...................................................................................................................................&E& 0@@<796?&........................................................................................................................................&F&

"

1.0

ABSTRACT In this lab, we studied the mechanical behavior of material deformation due to cyclic

loading. Samples of 1045 steel underwent tensile loading applied repetitively under either constant strain or constant stress conditions. These results were then analyzed in the context of cyclic hardening, plastic shakedown, ratcheting, and energy dissipation. After testing the specimens, we found that an increase in the strain amplitude will lead to an increased amount of energy that was dissipated by plastic deformation and result in a reduction of the number of cycles needed to fracture the material. We found this earlier point of fracture to be true if mean strain or strain amplitude were to also be increased. Furthermore, a large increase in the energy density can cause the material to change from elastic to plastic shakedown. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Safety has become a fundamental concern and limiting factor as engineers continue to push the boundaries of mechanical design. One possible cause of material failure occurs when materials are subject to repeated loads and the resulting cyclic stress may trigger microscale damage processes, and ultimately macroscopic failure, such as fracture. Additionally, the stress-strain response of most materials under cyclic loading differs from that under monotonic tensile tests, and cyclic loading tests must be performed in order to ascertain the stress-strain response under the aforementioned conditions. The objective of this lab is to understand the mechanical behavior of six 1045 steel samples subjected to repetitive load/unload reversals. Specifically, the effect of tensile loading applied repetitively (cyclic loading) will be correlated to the resulting hardening/softening material response applied on each specimen. The obtained results will be analyzed in the context of cyclic hardening (softening), plastic shakedown (constant plastic strain accumulation per cycle), ratcheting (continuous accumulation of plasticity), and energy dissipated in each load/unload reversal (loading cycle). 3.0 THEORY When materials undergo repeated cycles of loading and unloading, microscopic damage can accumulate via crack propagation until the overall component fails. Failure due to cyclic loading is known as fatigue, and can occur even when the stresses seen are less than the yield strength of the material [1]. There are four different ways an elastic-plastic material may respond when subjected to cyclic loading. The first is if the loads are not high enough to cause yielding at any point in the $

material; the response is purely elastic. The second is if the loads are high enough to cause the material to yield, yet the material responds elastically when unloaded; this response is called elastic shakedown. When the elastic shakedown limit is exceeded the material undergoes a cycle of plastic deformation; this third response is called plastic shakedown. The fourth and final response is when the plastic shakedown limit is exceeded; the material exhibits accumulating strain in one direction. This response is known as ratcheting [2]. The figure in Appendix A shows the stress-strain behavior of materials undergoing these four different responses. Cyclic loading tests are usually performed using complete strain reversal. Tensile loading is applied until a specific strain !a is reached. Loading in the other direction is then applied until a strain of -!a is reached. The stresses required to maintain this cycle are recorded with respect to elapsed time. Stress and strain are then plotted together to see the response of the test material to cyclic loads [3]. A material is said to exhibit cyclic hardening if the stress increases with more cycles; a material exhibits cyclic softening if the opposite is true [3]. For most metals the response is usually rapid at first, but the change gradually decreases with more cycles. Often the response becomes stable [1]. During stable behavior the material undergoes plastic shakedown and will exhibit a closedloop hysteresis effect. When the stress-strain relationship is plotted it can be seen that the material undergoes elastic and plastic deformations in both directions. The area of the loop equals the dissipation energy of that cycle. Experimentally it has been shown that for a cycle with high strain amplitude levels, the loop is much smaller than that of a low strain amplitude cycle, which means less dissipation energy for the high amplitude cycle [3]. 4.0 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS For the cyclic loading experiment, we used an Instron series 5500 with a maximum tensile load equal to 80 kN. The Instron machine was controlled by a work panel and computer For the workstation. The test specimen dimensions for a standard tensile test were defined by ASTM code A 370-07utilizing AISI 1045 steel with rectangular cross-sections, 0.5-in wide. experiment, the following steps were taken for each test specimen: 1. The initial dimensions of the tensile test specimens were measured and recorded. 2. After the Instron machine was turned on and software began running, the specified tensile test program was opened which included testing parameters. 3. The test specimen was loaded and clamped to the Instron machines V-jaw. %

4. The extensometer was attached to the specimen to measure strain 5. Once zeroed, the test was initialized. 6. After the test was completed, the data was saved, load removed and the test specimen was removed for examination. A table of our experiments can be found below: Test 1 2 3 4 Test 5 6 5.0 RESULTS All of the plots for our results can be found in Appendices B, C, D, and E. The stress strain curves for all of our plots exhibited fairly normal behavior, and the load control plots (Appendix B) for tests 5 and 6 demonstrate the ratcheting effect that occurs when cyclic loading above the plastic shakedown limit leads to steady accumulation of unidirectional plastic strain. Test 6 also shows the hysteresis loops characteristic of plastic shakedown behavior. Strain increase per cycle in tests 5 and 6 is shown in Appendix D. In Test 5 "!p = 0.0065, and in Test 6, "!p = 0.0047 because the plots approach these values asymptotically. Figure Material Response Energy Dissipated Per Load Cycle, Ed (Nmm) Test 1 Plastic Shakedown 150.45 Test 2 Plastic Shakedown 78.12 Test 3 Plastic Shakedown 148.72 Test 4 Plastic Shakedown 306.86 As shown in Appendix E, all four tests displayed hysteresis, but test 2 did so much less than others. In addition, all tests converge toward a steady-state hysteresis loop. The average area of the loop, which calculates the energy dissipated during each loading cycle, was calculated using a combination of several different MATLAB functions. Max Strain 0.0325 0.0685 0.07 0.0715 Max Force (N) 45 45 Min Strain 0.03 0.0675 0.00675 0.0675 Min Force (N) 40 20 Strain Range 0.0025 0.001 0.0025 0.004 Force Range (N) 15 25 Avg. Strain 0.03125 0.068 0.06875 0.0695 Avg. Force (N) 42.5 32.5 Cycles 25 25 25 25 Cycles 25 25

&

6.0

DISCUSSION Tests 1 and 3 both had the same strain amplitude (!a) of 0.25%, but had different strain

ranges and hence, different mean strains (!m). Our results showed that both specimens exhibited plastic shakedown (PS) behavior, and when the stress-strain relation of this stable behavior is plotted for a full cycle, a characteristic hysteresis curve is obtained. The area enclosed within this curve gives the energy dissipated (Ed) per cycle by the plastic deformation. A greater Ed indicates that there will be a smaller number of cycles (Nf) before fracture occurs [1]. We found that the dissipation energy for tests 1 was only 1.16% more than that of test 3, which is not a substantial difference, leading us to conclude that mean strain has little effect on the materials response due to cyclic loading. Tests 2, 3, and 4 all began at the same minimum strain of 6.75%, but had different strain amplitude (!a) values, which increased by 0.15% between each test. All three tests exhibited PS behavior, but of these three, test 2 had the most overlap between loading and unloading, which means its response was closest to that of Elastic Shakedown (ES). From the first figure in Appendix B, it is clear that a larger value of !a results in a larger hysteresis curve, with a larger area, or Ed. The dissipation energy for test 3 was 90.4% greater than that of test 2 and the dissipation energy for test 4 was 209.8% greater than test 2. Therefore, it can be concluded that an increase in !a results in an increase in Ed and a smaller value of Nf. Tests 5 and 6 were subjected to a load control with a maximum load of 45 kN for both, and a minimum of 40 kN and 20 kN, respectively. The specimens for both tests displayed ratcheting behavior, in which there was an accumulation of plastic strain. The difference was that for test 5, there were no hysteresis loops in the stress-strain response, whereas Test 6 had noticeable loops, as seen in Appendix D. Hence, the greater the amplitude, or difference between the upper and lower loads, the greater the dissipated energy and the faster that fracture occurs. In relation to the elasticplastic deformation theory, the strain increment ("!p) decreases for both specimens as the strain increases, suggesting that strain hardening has occurred. Also, plastic deformations alter the microscopic structure of materials by breaking inter-atomic bonds and causing them to rearrange themselves, making the material more brittle and more likely to fracture. This decrease in "!p is much more pronounced in the case where the lower load is 20 kN, which means that the specimen for Test 6 will fracture more easily than the one for Test 5. This conclusion agrees with the theory that a cyclic loading with a greater strain energy density would cause the specimen to fracture after a fewer number of cycles. '

In practical engineering, ES is correlated with high-cycle fatigue, PS with low-cycle fatigue, and ratcheting with very low-cycle fatigue. Fatigue is the phenomenon where a material fails despite the fact that the loads on it are actually less than the ultimate tensile strength, and in some cases even the yield strength. This occurs because cyclic loading results in infinitesimal cracks in the microstructure that accumulate and eventually form a critical point at which sudden fracture occurs. This is an important phenomenon that engineers need to be aware of when designing anything that undergoes cyclic loading. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The results of this lab demonstrate that strain amplitude correlates to the amount of strain energy dissipated by plastic deformation. This increased energy dissipation will also reduce the number of cycles necessary to fracture the material. The change between elastic and plastic shakedown was proven to be caused by an increase in dissipation energy or mean strain. Load amplitude was also a factor in energy dissipation, which was observed in the ratcheting behavior and hysteresis loops. Increasing the dissipation energy causes an overall decrease in each incremental strain value, which suggests a higher level of strain hardening. These harder materials become less resistant to cyclic loading and therefore more prone to failure. Our results agreed with the theory of cyclic loading and both elastic and plastic loading cases: any increase in mean strain, strain amplitude, or loading will create a weaker, less cycle-resistant material. 8.0 REFERENCES 1. N. E. Dowling, Mechanical Behavior of Materials, 3rd edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2007). 2. ASTM A 370-07: Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products. 3. K. Komvopoulos, Mechanical Testing of Engineering Materials, 2nd edn (San Diego, CA: University Readers, 2011).

9.0 9.1

APPENDIX Appendix A: Schematic of material response to cyclic loading

9.2

Appendix B: Engineering stress strain curves for cyclic loading tests

9.3

Appendix C: Stress-strain curves for load-controlled cyclic loading

!+

9.4

Appendix D: Strain increase per cycle in Tests 5 and 6

!!

9.5

Appendix E: Hysteresis loop development in Tests 1-4

!"