Oliver Equation Paper-1928

DEC. 1928.
827
PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY FROM A NEW

LAW CONNECTING THE PERCENTAGE ELONGATION
WITH SIZE OF TEST-PIECE.
BY D. A. OLIVER, B.Sc. (ENc.).
[Selected for Publication with written Discussion.]
Introduction.-The phenomena associated with the plastic and

permanent deformations of metals in tension are very complicated
and, even now, imperfectly understood. The engineer, unlike the
physicist, is usually content with simple tests provided they put
some check on the quality of materials used in constructional work.
Thus it has been customary to take the percentage permanent stretch
of a bar after fracture as a measure of its ductility.
An attempt to render such a standard less arbitrary has resulted
in the present ,Paper, and it is shown that information which can be
correlated with the fundamental properties of a material can readily
be secured. The percentage elongation obtained on a test-piece is a
function of the original gauge length and the cross-sectional area.
Professor Unwin * in 1903 published results from a very complete
investigation on mild-steel ship plates and boiler plates, which
form the basis of the present specifications t of the British Engineering
Standards Association.
Unwin, together with other workers, regarded the total elongation
as made up approximately of two extensions, namely :-
(1) A general extension, which is'assumed to take place uniformly
along the bar before the maximum load is reached,
proportional t o the gauge length.
* Proc. Inst. C.E., 1903, vol. clv, page 170.
7 Report No. 3, 1903, also No. 18, 1910, British Engineering Standards
Association.
[THE I.MEcH.E.1 3 c 2
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

828 PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY. DEC. 1928.
(2) A local extension, occurring after the maximum load has

been reached, which he assumed to be independent of
the gauge length.
The total extension 1 and the original gauge length L are then
connected by the equation
1 = a bL, +
where a = t h e constant for the local extension,
b = the constant for the general extension ;
or percentage elongation = 100 (a/L b) . . . (1) +
It was found that b is practically independent of the cross-sectional
area, but that a is a function of some linear dimension. To conform
with Barbss Law of Similarity, a was put equal to c2/A, where c is
some characteristic constant of the material and A is the original
cross-sectional area.
Pinally, Unwins elongation equation becomes :-
e per cent = 100 (cv@L+~) . . . . (2)
Although this equation was admitted to be approximate only, the
recorded agreement between the calculated and observed values for
the mild-steel plates is very good, and the differences rarely exceed
1 per cent. This equation has therefore been accepted for many
years without question.
The Author, however, in attempting t o evaluate Unwins
constants for some typical ten-inch commercial mild-steel test-
pieces, noticed that the elongation was not a linear function of the
reciprocal of the gauge length These specimens were marked
every half an inch. Fig. 1 is typical of the results obtained. The
straight line shown enables the constants c and b to be obtained
over a limited range of gauge lengths, but is, at the best, only an
approximation. The repeatedIy consistent curvature and smoothness
of the curves obtained indicated that the discrepancy was not due
to experimental error, but good straight lines resulted when the
elongations and gauge lengths were plotted to logarithmic scales.
Fig. 2 shows the data of Fig. 1 replotted in this manner, and
immediately suggests that a lam of the form
e p e r c e n t = k L a , . . . . . (3)
holds for the particular steel over the whole range of recorded gauge
lengths. The equation e per cent = 65.6 L-0345 represents the
values plotted in Fig. 1, t o the accuracy of observation, over the
entire range of the independent variable, where L is in inches.

DEU. 1928. PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY. 829
FIG. 1 .-Perce&age Elongation plotted against Reciprocal of .Gauge Length.
70
00
0
/
60
50
d
.*0
U
g, 40
E!
a
$0
2 30
G
g
i
20
J A L GAUGE LENGTH ir INCHES
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 c
!
3 0.4 0-5 0.6 0.7 0
08 0.9 1.0
FIG.2.-Percentage Elongation plotted directly against Gauge Length on

Logarithmic Co-ordinates.
70
60
.-i
4
g, 50
a 40
*9
$4
8 30
2 25
5n
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10
L

830 PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA O F DUCTILITY. DEC. 1928.
The matterwas then made the subject of an investigation to determine,

if possible, the law of the variation of percentage elongation with
size of test-piece.
THE PRESENT
INVESTIGATION.
Two distinct series of experiments on mild-steel specimens were
carried out.
Series I : Test-Pieces. - Best quality lg-inch mild-steel

shafting was procured for Series I, out of which specimens Nos. 1
to 6 were turned. The maximum gauge length on the parallel
portion was 10 inches, and a t least 1 inch was allowed between the
shoulders of the ends and the extreme gauge marks. The ends
were about 3 inches long and were made about $-inch greater in
diameter than the parallel portions. The shoulders were curved
into the parallel stems, and care was taken to avoid under-grinding
in these regions. Centre-punch marks were made every &-inch
throughout the 10 inches, with intermediate &inch marks inserted
over the central 4 inches. Thus, after the tests, it was possible to
select a number of fairly short gauge lengths, which were symmetrical
with respect to the fracture. In this way the influence of the
eccentricity of fracture on the elongation was eliminated. The
specimens weie ground down to the extent of a few mils a t the
centre, and the slightly reduced cross-section was run into the truly
parallel stems over lengths of about 1 inch on either side of the
centre. This procedure ensured the occurrence of the fracture
within the central inch.
Method qfTest.--The tests were carried out on the 70-ton Bnckton
single-lever testing machine a t the Northampton Polytechnic
Institute. By running back the poise weight after the maximum
load had been attained, the beam was kept floating until rupture
occurred and each test-piece (except No. 5 ) was, therefore, fractured
by its true breaking load.
Data and Experimental Results.-The complete data on the
specimens and testing-machine results are given in Appendix I.
Sufficient information has been given to enable the ordinary
commercial test results to be correlated with the ductility constants,
which are the primary concern of this work.
The two portions of each specimen were firmlybutted and clamped
together after fracture and the lengths to the successive marks
measured by means of a precision travelling microscope from one
extreme gauge mark. The percentage elongations, which were

DEC. 1928. PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY. 831
estimated on gauge lengths chosen to keep the fracture central, are

shown plotted on logarithmic co-ordinates in Fig. 3. The linear
relation for each test-piece confirms a law of the form kLa (equation
(3)), and the actual values of the constants k and a,obtained from
the intercepts and slopes respectively, are tabulated in the first
part of Table 1, page 832.
If the results in the Table for Series I are examined, it will be
FIG.3.-Logam'thmic Relation between Elongation and Gauge Length for

Seriee I , Mild-Steel Shafting, Nos. 1to 5.
100
90
80
70
60.
50
$ 40.
.*
c,
an
g5 30.
%l
c,
G
; 20-
k"
10.
9
8-
C
seen that a is approximately constant and independent of the

cross-sectional area, whiIe k varies with the area. If log k is plotted
against log A a straight line is obtained which indicates that k itself
follows a law of the form
k =DAB . . . . . . . (4)
where (T and are new constants. It is, however, more convenient
to plot directly on log-log paper, when the slope of the straight line
is 8, and the intercept for unit area is (T. This haa been done

832 PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY, DEC.1928.
for Series I in Fig. 5, where all the points, with but one exception,
fall very close to the straight line drawn.
Thus we have u = 57 and ,l3 = 0.29.
The complete elongation equation for the mild-steel shafting of
Series I becomes
TABLE l.-VaZues oj'the Constants k and a.

Series I, Mild-Steel Shafting ; Series 11, Bessemer Mild Steel.
~~~
Nominal 2ross-sec-
Number diam. of onal area,
of k a
jest -piece. test-piece,
inchea.
A,
y, inches.
-
Series I 1 0.35 0.0940 30 -0.56.)
2 0.60 0.278, 50 -0.60 I
3 0.85 0.567, 47 -056 } -0.59
4 1.10 0.951, 56 -0.62 1
5 1.35 1.431, 66 -0.60 J
6 1.35 1431, 65 -0.65
Series 11. 7 0.36 0.1020 46 -0.37

Group 1. 8 0.48 0.1814 47 -0.39
9 0.63 0.312, 57 -0.47 -0.43
10 0.90 0629, 62 -0.41
11 1-30 1.327, 70 -0.50
Series 11, 12 0.564 0.249, 51 -0.50

Group 2. 13 0.564 0.249, 51 -0.50
14 0,424 0.1414, 44 -0.47
Series II.-A completely new series of test-pieces was prepared

to establish the equations for another steel with entirely different
ductility from that of the mild-steel shafting. Two lengths of
reputedly homogeneous 13-inch diameter Bessemer mild steel were
procured from which test-pieces Nos. 7-14 were turned. Large
(10-inch) and small (13-2-inch) specimens were employed, and thus
it is convenient to subdivide them into two groups.
Teest-Pieces.-Group 1, Nos. 7-11, had a maximum gauge length
of 10 inches and were centre-punch marked in the same way as
Series I. The grinding of the stems was especially good, the diameters
varying by only a few ten-thousandths of an inch when taken in
two directions a t right-angles a t different places along the bars.
Group 2, Nos. 12-14, were also turned from the two lengths of

Bessemer steel. No. 12 was turned from the first with Nos. 7-11,
and Nos. 13 and 14 were turned from the second length. Nos. 12
and 13 were made up strictly to the specscation for test-piece C
(2 inches gauge length) of the British Engineering Standards
Association Committee without any constriction, small punch marks
every &inch only being inserted. No. 14 was 0.424 inch in diameter
with 14 inches gauge length and 14 inches parallel.
Method ofZ'est.-For Group 1 the tests were made as for Series I,
but for Group 2 a 10-ton Avery single-lever machine was used, on
which the straining was controlled and maintained constant by an
electric motor with suitable reduction gearing. The poise weigh
FIG. B.-Logarithmic Relation between Elongation and Gauge Length for

Series 11, Group 1, B e s s e m r Mild Steel, Large Test-Pieces Nos. 7 to 11.
0.25 0.4 0-6 0.8 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Original Gauge Length-inches.
was again manually controlled. The times taken to reach the various
stages in the tests are given in Appendix 11.
Data and Experimental Results.-As before, full data were
obtained and are given in Appendix I. For both series the Brine11
numbers were derived from the mean of three impressions made on
a flat surface milled on one end of each test-piece. In Fig. 4, the
results on the large specimens are plotted on logarithmic co-ordinates
and analysed in exactly the same way as before. Fig. 6 shows the
corresponding curves for the second group. The derived constants
for both groups are embodied in Table 1. New values for u and /3
are now obtained from the straight line in Fig. 5, which represents
the mean of all the k-A plottings for the whole of Series 11. From

this second line we find u = 67 and /3 = 0*21,, and hence for the
Bessemer mild steel the complete elongation equation becomes
DISCUSSION OF ALL RESULTS.
A comparison of the values of the stresses, the reduction in area,

and the hardness, in Appendix I, for the two different kinds of mild
steel tested, reveals that these constants are almost identical.
Hence, by a valuabIe coincidence, we find that we are examining two
steels with properties in common, but which differ in ductility.
FIG. 5.-The Constant k plotted against Cross-Sectional Area A of
I
Test-Piece logarithmically, Series I and II.
0.1 0*2 0.3 0.4 0.6 08 1.0 1.5

Cross-SectionalArea A-square inches.
It has been shown that for a given test-bar the equation e per cent
= &Laholds where k and a are constants and L is the original gauge
length, and that k is a function of the original area A, given by the
expression IC = uAB, where u and /3 are constants.
Thus the general elongation equation becomes
e per cent = ~ A P L ~ . . . . . . (7)
It would appear that three constants are necessary t o express
the variation in elongation for a given material with gauge length
and cross-sectional area. However, it will now be shown that a
and /3 are not independent.
Barbs,* in 1880, enunciated and proved the general law that
* MBmoires SOC. Ing._Civils, 1880, page 682.

DEC.1928. PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY. 835
similar test-bars deform similarly when broken in tension. It

follows that the percentage elongation is constant for a given material
provided the ratio of the gauge length to the square root of the
cross-sectional area is maintained constant. Thus equation (7)
should be consistent with Barba's Law. Now the percentage
elongation has zero dimensions in length, and L and A have dimensions
of the first and second powers in length respectively. Therefore, for
dimensional homogeneity, we must have
2/3+a=O or /3=- a12 ' . (8)
FIG.B.-Logurithmic ReEation between Etongation and Gauge Length f or

8eries II, Group 2. Beasemer Mild Steel, Small Test-Pieces, Noa. 12 to 14.
Thus, provided the law of similarity for a given material is satisfied,

the general elongation equation becomes
e per cent = uA-"~L" or (9)
which involves only two fundamental constants. The constant u

is the percentage elongation for unit gauge length and unit cross-
sectional area, and it is proposed to call it the " specific elongation."
The constant a is invariably negative, except when equal to zero, so
that the elongation increases with the area and decreases with the
gauge length to an extent which depends upon its actual numerical
value. The probable significance of this constant is pointed out
later.

The yield and maximum nominal stresses show good consistency,

but the breaking stresses, being more difficult to determine, are not
so uniform. In both series, the percentage reductions in area are
notably consistent, except for test-piece No. 5, which was fractured
by the maximum load. In that instance, the value is about 10 per
cent low, which indicates that incomplete flow takes place unless
the load is decreased to keep the beam floating. This effect of the
method of test is worthy of note as many experienced engineers
consider the reduction in area a more reliable standard of ductility
than the elongation on a specified test-piece.
The variations in the values of a, if not due to inhomogeneity,
might be explained by the different rates of straining due to loading
by hand.
The object in carrying out the second group of experiments in
Series I1 was to determine how well the elongations h r the small
standard specimens linked on with those for the larger ones. In
Table 2 are given the observed values for Group 2, and the
corresponding vaIues calculated from equation ( 6 ) ,derived from the
larger specimens comprising Group 1. The agreement is seen to be
satisfactory, and may be considered perfect for gauge lengths over
&inch. These experiments show that large and small standard
TABLE 2.-Compar.ison of Observed alzd Calculated Elongations

for Xeries I I , Group 2.
Percentage Elongations.
I I
a . . . -
Calcu-
lated.
-
I Ob-
served.
Calcu-
lated.
114
served.
Ob- I lated.
Calcu-
85
4 . - . 72 67 - -
a . . . - - 61 5G
1 . . . 50 50 - -
12 . . . - - 43 45
14 . . . 41 42 - -
1% . . . - - 39 39
2 . . . 36 37 37 37

test-piece results can be brought into complete harmony so far

as it is practicable to do so, provided a few extra gauge marks
be inserted and the additional data, thus obtained analysed on
the lines already shown.
A formula may now be given by which the effect of small errors
or changes in the variables on the elongation can be calculated.
For instance, it will be useful in estimating the change in elongation
produced by, say, a 10 per cent change in slope, the length and area
being known.
From equation (9), we have
ae
de = -du
eu
ae
+aL
-dL +--A
ae
aA
+aa
ae
--da
from which
d,=d,+a{d,-&d,+ 2.30 l o g l oL~ ) d , { . (10)
where d, = pcrcentage error in e, etc.
THE LIMITATIONS
OF THE ELONGATION
EQUATION.
It is of the utmost importance to know over what range the
general elongation equation (9) can be applied in practice for
homogeneous material. As equation (9) which involves only two
constants, is based on a combination equation of (7) and (S), we find
it necessary to examine :-
(a) Barbas Law, or the Law of Similarity.
(6) The limitations on gauge length and cross-sectional area.
(a) Barbas Law.-The law of similarity as first enunciated by
Barba * from his tests on similar specimens has been widely accepted
without exhaustive experimental confirmation. Appleby confirmed
the law for mild steelswithin the scope of his tests. Monypennyz later
obtained moderate agreement with similar test-pieces of some nickel
steels. Dalby,$ too, using the true breaking load to fracture, has
carried out careful tests on similar annealed mild-steel specimens,
turned from the same bar. In spite of care in selection and annealing,
the core was found to be somewhat more ductile than the bar as a
whole, and thus the elongations varied slightly. This effect has been
found present with both Series I and 11.
__
* LOG.cit.
t Proc. Inst. C.E., 1894, vol. cxviii, page 395.
$ The Engineer, 1921, vol. 132, page 220.
Strength and Structure of Steel and Other Illetals, 1923, page 69

In Table 3 the values of /3 observed and those evaluated from the

+
relation 2/3 a = 0 are given, the mean value of a being taken. The
satisfact,ory agreement between them indicates that the law of
similarity is obeyed within close limits.
TABLE 3.--Calculated and Obserlied Values ojp.
Series. j3 (observed). (calculated)= - 4 2 .
0.29,
0.21. 0.21,
(6) Tke Limitations on Gauge Length and Cross-Sectional L4reu.-

The limits beyond which the equation e per cent = u __
to hold would appear to be best expressed by the extreme values of
(-JLJ ceases
L
- between which the log-log function is linear in any given case.
dA
L
For Series I, the limits of - may be taken as approximately 1
~
d A
and 10, those for Series I1 being somewhat less. Some further
experimental results of Dalby * on it very homogeneous annealed
mild steel provide valuable information in connexion with short
gauge lengths. The data plotted on logarithmic paper as shown in
Fig. 7 yields a good straight line, the definiteness of which is
particularly striking in view of the fact that each point is derived
from a separate test-piece. For this particular steel u = 45 and
a = -0.20. Fig. 7 shows that the law holds for a gauge length as
L L
small as #-inch (-A=
signs of departure.
0.7) and a t 5 inches ~-= 9 there are no
hi 1
The case of very long gauge lengths may now be considered.
It so happened that test-piece No. 5 fractured near one end, which
enabled the elongations on equivalent gauge lengths up to 18 inches
to be evaluated from half-length data. The expression e per cent
- 66L-w60 was found to represent the results between 1 and 7 inches
gauge length after which a transition occurred, and a similar relation,
e per cent = 36L-029, then held between the limits of 9 and 18 inches.
* Loc. cit.

DIE@.1928. PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY. 839
This behaviour was also noted in another case which indicates that
the general elongation equation is really the law of the so-called local
extension -a somewhat indefinite region embracing the necked
portion of the specimen and extending for several inches on either
side of it. On no account can the local extension be regarded as
of small extent, independent of the gauge length.
OTHER FACTORS
WHICH INFLUENCE
THE ELONGATION.
(1) The Shape of Cross-Section.-It can be said in general that

when the more usual types of test-piece are employed, the effect
FIG. I.-Logarithmic Relation between Elongation and Gauge Length for

Dalbys Shouldered Test-Pieces. Mild Steel, 0.6 in. dia. Separate
Test-Pieces.
of the shape of cross-section on -the elongation is small and in most

L
cases negligible. Thus when=: - is adopted as the independent
dA
variable, such factors as the ratio of width to thickness in the testing
of strip specimens become of small significance. This conclusion
is confirmed by Templins * recent work on aluminium sheet.
(2) The Enlarged Ends.-The parallel portion of a test-piece is
usually greater than the extreme gauge length so as to avoid the
slight stiffening-up effect of the ends, which is apt t o reduce slightly
the elongation of the reduced section near the shoulders. From the
* Proc. Amer. SOC. Testing Materials, 1926, vol. 26, part ii, page 378.

840 PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA O F DUCTILITY. UEC. 1928.
Authors tests, it appears that this effect is negligibly small for

cylindrical bars of the usual form. The divergence from the simple
law cannot be explained by the presence of the enlarged ends.
(3) Tke Rate of +Straining.-The time effect may be more
important than is commonly supposed, and inconsistency in test
data may be put down t o lack of uniformity in the material rather
than to the mode of test. Batson and Hyde * in reviewing past work
dealing with this question, state that general experience indicates
that the elongation and reduction in area are increased by very rapid
loading, but that the time ordinarily taken for a tensile test does not
appear to be an important variable. However, different observers
are not entirely in accord on this point. Incidentally, various
materials will not behave in the same way unless their strain-
hardening properties are similar.
At the other extreme, Dr. Hanson? has found that, under
creep conditions, pure aluminium has much less elongation and
reduction in area than are obtained with a similar test-piece in an

ordinary laboratory test.
(4) The Position of Practure.-An exact expression has been
derived which gives the ratio of the elongations as obtained on
identical specimens, with and without eccentric fracture. The only
assumption is that the drawing down of the test-bar is the same on
either side of the break.
Let el per cent = percentage elongation on gauge length L with
eccentric fracture.
e2 per cent = percentage elongation on gauge length L with
central fracture.
y = eccentricity = (equivalent distance between fracture
and nearest extreme gauge mark before straining) fL.
Then it can be shown that
el per cent/ez per cent = 2a{y1-l-a + (I - y ) l + Q> . (11)
It was found necessary t o express the eccentricity by the ratio of
unstretched lengths. Probably the easiest way of obtaining the
numerator of y after the test, is to use the centre-punch marks as a
scale, estimating by eye for fractures which fall between them. L
is known and a is experimentally determined, or a typical value
adopted when the factor by which the observed elongation must be
divided to convert it into an equivalent value for a central fracture,
is readily computed.
* Mechanical Testing, 1922, vol. i, page 154.

t The MekzZEurgist (Supplt. to The Engineer), 1927, vol. 3, page 51.

DEC. 1928. PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA O F DUCTILITY. 841
To verify the above formula experimentally, test-piece No. 3 was

selected, as it broke at a gauge mark ; the elongations on eccentric
4-inch lengths were taken on both sides of the fracture and the ratio8
of el per cent/ez per cent worked out.
These values are tabulated in Table 4, side by side with those
computed from the above formula. It is seen that no important
correction has to be applied to the elongation except in cases of severe
eccentricity, and that when required it can be evaluated with
confidence,
TABLE 4.-Effect of Eccentricity of Practure on Test-Piece No. 3.

Gauge Length=4 inches, a = -0.56.
3riginal dis-
tance of frac- el% e%
,
t u r e from one e l % and ez% Mean ez% e2%
extreme 4-in. (observed) el% (ob- (calcu.
gauge mark, served) lated)
inches.
I
2 (central) .
13 .
0.5
.
.
1
21.7 I 21.7
0-375 21.4
1 21-8
-
21.6
I
I
1.00
1-00
1.00
0.99
I
1 . ' 0.25 21.2 21.7 21.5 0-99 0.97
4 . 0.125 17.8 21.6 19.7 0.9, 0.91
0 . 16.2 0.7, 0.68
1
AND ANALYSISOF PREVIOUS
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION WORK.
The work on this subject falls naturally into two sections, namely,
that up to and including Unwin's investigation and modern work.
The enunciation of the law of similarity in 1880 by Barba * was
of first importance, and led to Hackney's t urging the adoption of
standard test-pieces after he had shown how diverse results could be
obtained for the same steel with different sized test-pieces. Appleby $
in 1894 made tests on hard and mild steel from which he concluded
that bars of large diameter afford a better criterion of average
ductility than smaller ones.
The formula which Unwin developed independently was, as he
himself pointed out, of earlier date. Belelubsky as early as 1891
was using the relation e per cent=a/L+b. A careful examination of
* LOC. cit,
j- Proc. Inst. C.E., 1884, vol. lxxvi, page 70.
t LOC.cit.
3 Trans. Amer. Soc. Mech. E., 1891, vol. 13, page 289.
3 D

842 PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA O F DUCTILITY. DEO. 1928.
Figs. 1 and 2 indicates how Unwin's treatment becomes a fairly good

approximation to the truth over a limited range. The closeness of
agreement depends on the material used, or, alternatively, on the
actual values of a and a. In view of the classic character of Unwin's
work, some of his results will be examined in the light of equation (9).
In Fig. 8 some of the data on the Motherwell ship plates have been
replotted on logarithmic co-ordinates and very satisfactory straight
lines are seen to result, from which the elongation constants given
in Table 5 have been calculated. The numbers refer to the original
Paper.
TABLE 5.--Motherwell Steel Ship Plates (Unwin).
Approx.
dimensions. Jltimete Mean
Test trength, Dltimate U a
jons per Strength, u a
No. Mean) (Mean).
39. inch. tons per
5 9 . inch.
2,346 66 -0.42 j -0.43

2,347 -0.44 I
2,348 69 -0.37 1 -0.375
2,349 -0.38 I
2,350 60 -0.37 I -0.37
2,351 -0.37 1
2,352 58 -0.331 -0.35
2,353 -0.371
2,354 43 -0.32) -0.36
2,355 -0.401
Subsequent chemical tests indicated that the quality of the ship

plates was very variable, which is also evident from Table 5. One
interesting point is that the *-inch plates which doubtless had the
most work-hardening, had also the greatest numerical value8 for a.
A similar analysis was carried out for the boiler plates and the mean
of means for all the constants gave u b = 73 and ab = -0.45. For the
ship plates a, = 59 and a, = -0.38. Thus the specific elongation of
the boiler plates is about 25 per cent higher than that of the ship
plates. The values of a indicate that the boiler plates were harder,
and that they offered more internal resistance to plastic deformation
than the ship plates. This covers the important work up to that of
Unwin. More recently, Monypenny * has recorded curves which are
~~~~~~~~ __.-_______ ..
* LOC.cit.

interesting as two of them refer to the same material after different

heat-treatments. The constants u and a are tabulated in Table 6,
which summarizes concisely the Authors analysis of the bulk of the
available data on different materials. The original papers should be
consulted for values of yield and maximum stresses, etc.
Among ferrous materials, it is to be expected that the constants
for the famous ductile manganese-steel due to Sir Robert Hadfield
would be interesting. These have been derived from a test carried
FIG.8.-Some of Unwins Results plotted on Logarithmic Go-ordinates.

Motherwell Steel Ship Plates.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 20
L
__
dA
out by Professor Coker, and are included in Table 6. For that
alloy steel the index a becomes equal t o zero because the whole bar
was found to draw down uniformly until fracture occurred. Thus on
the basis of equation (9), the elongation is independent of the gauge
length and cross-sectional area and is numerically equal to 50 per
cent. One theory of the uniform drawing down of the specimen is
that the slightest constriction, under unstable conditions of stress,
hardens the steel locally t o such an extent that it immediately
* Dictionary of Applied Physics, vol. v, page 356.

t Ibid. page 354.
2 u 2

becomes at that point as strong as the remaining portions of the bar,

where no constrict,ion has taken place. This strain-hardening effect
is supposed to continue to the moment of .rupture.
If the above theory is adopted and the behaviour of an ordinary
steel is contrasted with that of the steel under discussion, it would
appear that the index a is a measure of the power of a steel to gain
or retain its strength when strain-hardening due to necking-down
occurs. When a is large numerically, the flow is more localized, and
this can be verified by experiment.
A n important contribution of recent date (1926) which was only
discovered after the completion of this investigation, is a Paper by
Templin." Templin investigated the effects of size and shape of
test specimens on the tensile properties of hard and soft aluminium,
and duralumin sheet. He worked with a fixed gauge length of 2
inches and varied the cross-sectional area, and found that his results
could be expressed by the equation e per cent = k'A". The symbol
n in this expression corresponds to /3 in the earlier part of this Paper.
The constants for aluminium and duralumin were calculated and
are given in Table 6. Templin's analysis of the data of Gordon,?
Beare and Gordon,$ and Davis 3 was extended and information on
samples of mild steel, annealed copper. and soft annealed brass, was
also secured. Templin, however, in discussing his results makes a
passing reference to a Paper by Eertella,l[ who evidently published
the complete general elongation equation as long ago as 1922, a t
Rome. As efforts to consult the original have proved fruitless, the
following information has been gleaned from the source stated.
I
L
Bertella varied t,he ratio of by varying the gauge Iength L and
d A
maintaining the cross-sectional area A constant, and hence derived
the relation e per cent = I('
c;*r
--:- where fi
E', curiously enough, is stated to vary with the elongation, which

and I(' are constants.
seems to indicate that he did not realize that it is a true constant

for a given material. Moreover, since he did not vary his areas as
well as his gauge lengths, his treatment does not appear to have been
quite so fundamental as that adopted here. Nevertheless, the
essence of the Author's independent investigation is contained in
* LOC.cit.
t Revue de Metallurgie, 1925, vol. 22, page 686.
Engineering, 1921, vol. 112, page 359.
5 Proc. Amer. SOC. Testing Materials, 1917, vol. 17, part ii, page 161.
11 Giornale del Genio Civile, 1922, vol. 60, page 343.

DEC. 1928. PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OP DUCTILITY. 845
his expression and in what follows equation (9) will be referred to as
Bertellas Law.
Subsequent to Templin, Nichols, Taylerson and Whetzel * have

made comprehensive tests on four thicknesses of low-carbon sheet
FIG. S.-Typical Logarithmic Relations between Elongation and Gauge

Length, before and after treatment, or for two varieties of Material.
steel. Having derived Bertellas Law from the same source they
L
plotted e per cent against __ on logarithmic paper and obtained
dA
straight lines, but did not work out the slopes and intercepts. The
most that is stated is that n (=a) is found to be about -0.30 for
commercial low-carbon annealed sheet steel. As their tests mere
about twelve hundred in number, it is considered that their data are
worthy of further attention, and the constants have therefore been -L
evaluated and are included in Table 6. These Authors call ~~ -
z/A
~ ~
* Proc. Amer. SOC. Testing Materials, 1927, vol. 27, part ii, page 259.

846 PROPOSED NEW CRtTERIA OF DUCTILITY. DEO. 1928.
the slenderness ratio, and it may be considered desirable to adopt

this term in future work on this subject.
TABLE 6.-Collected Elongation Constants, Typical of a Large

Variety of Materials.
Authority Percentagc
Material. reduction U a Remarks.
for data.
in area.
~
Ferrous.
Mild Steel, annealed , Dalby 45 -0.20
,, soft . Hackney 46 -0.20 Curve a, Fig. 3.
,, commercial
Beare and
Gordon
Gordon
Johnson*
i 53
63
-0.20
-0.35
Partly analysec
by Templin.
Author 76 -0.35 Figs. 1 and 2.

,, Bessemer . 67 -0.43 Series 11.
,, shafting . 57 -0-59 Series I.
Tool-Steel . Jo&son 57 -0.45
Steel, ship plates . Unwin 59 -0.38 Motherwell,
Steel, boiler plates . ,, 73 -0.45
mean of 1(
test-pieces.
Manganese-Steel . . Coker 50 0
Nickel-Steel,normalized Monypenny 59 -0.43
Nickel-Chrome Steel,
hardened and tem-
pered . 58 -0.55
Carbon Steel (50-55 ton)
normalized . ,, 39 -0.33
Ditto, hardened and
tempered . 55 -0.50
Low-Carbon Steel, sheet, Nic:ols,
box annealed Taylerson 74 -0.28 One grade.
Ditto, open annealed and Whetze 63 -0.30 Mean 5 grades.
Ditto, unannealed 45 -0.35 Mean 3 grades.
Non-Ferrous
Aluminium, sheet, soft Templin 60 -0.20
,, hard 39 -0.14
Duralumin, heat-treated 42 -0.74
Gordon,
Copper, annealed. Beare and 78 -0.20
Gordon Partly analysec
Brass, soft annealed, 66 Davis 92 -0.20 by Templin.
per cent Cu., 33 per
cent Zn.
* Materials of Construction, 1918, page 106.

PRESENT AND CONCLUSIONS.

PROPOSALS
It seemed a t first that the utility of the elongation equation
would be evidenced in reducing the results on different forms of
specimen to equivalent elongations on a standard test-piece. It
will now be shown that even if this were practicable, values of
percentage elongation in general are of questionable value as criteria
of ductility. As this differs from the customary view, it is necessary
to make this point quite clear. If we suppose the two straight lines
1 and 2, Fig. 9, to represent on logarithmic co-ordinates the relations
between elongation and gauge length, for constant area, before and
after some hardening process or under widely different rates of
loading or even for two different materials, there is no difficulty in
seeing how divergent conclusions could be reached. For the sake
of argument, let A, B, and C be gauge lengths of 4, 2, and 8 inches
respectively, on which careful sets of observations are taken. From
set A, we should conclude that the effect being investigated had no
influence on the ductility, or that the ductility of the two materials
is the same. However, different and conflicting conclusions would
be drawn from sets B and C. Thus the futility of adhering to some
standard test-piece and treating the elongation on it as a measure
of the ductility is clearly seen. The present proposal is that the
constants cr and a taken together, should be adopted as criteria of
ductility. They possess the important advantages of being :-
(1) Constant for any given grade of material.
(2) Practically independent of the type and size of test-piece used.
(3) Indicative of the physical properties of the material, e.g. a
has been shown to be a function of the internal friction
and strain-hardening properties.
(4) Derivable from a few extra observations on any of the usuaI
forms of test-piece.
General conclusions drawn from the present research and from
an analysis of previous work do not seriously .vitiate the forms of
any of the established standard test-pieces. Short maximum lengths
do not permit of great accuracy in the determination of a, while
specimens greater in length than five inches are not only unnecessary,
but ar.e wasteful of both time of preparation and material. A test-
piece with a four- or five-inch maximum gauge length and an area
chosen with due regard to the average limits of the slenderness ratios
would appear to meet most requirements.
Large forgings weighing tons, are sometimes rejected on account
of the lowness of the simple elongation figure (taken as evidence of
segregation), and thus it would be advantageous if the trustworthiness

848 PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY. I)EO. 1928.
of this feature of tensile testing could be increased. Thus acceptance

of the new constants as reliable criteria is suggested in lieu of the
ordinary determination of ductility. Moreover, as o and a
distinguish between the two factors which control the deformation
they should be capable of throwing considerable Iight on the effects
of different heat-treatment processes and on the difficult problems
connected with the flow of metals, which confront the metallurgist.
These criteria should also have distinct value as indicators of the
perfection of the process t o which a sample has been subjected.
The Author desires to express his thanks to Mr. C. E. Laraid,
of the Northampton Polytechnic Institute, for his encouragement
and for making the experimental portion of this work possible.
To him and to Dr. W. H. Brooks his thanks are also due for their
experienced help in handling the testing machines.

APPENDIX I.
c
PARTICULARS
OF SPECIMENS
AND TESTRESULTS.
Series I, Mild-Steel Shafting ; Series 11, Bessemer Mild Steel.
~~
Brine11
Mean Mean Mean Actual Percen- Hardness
Number of Nominal diameter breaking tage re- Number,
diameter measured measured
test-piece. diameter, diameter, at con- stress, duction 0 mm.bal1
inch. tons per
parallel. centre. traction. sq. inch. tons pel
sq. inch.
in area. 3,000 kg.,
sq. inch 30 secs.
Series I.
~
0.35
0.60
0,344,
0.595,
~~
0,338,
0.5933
0.221,
0.382,
r 1
57
-
57.,
58.,
131)
146
0.85 0.849, 0.848, 0.549 62 58 147
1.10 1.100, 1.098, 0.736, 58 55 159
1.35 1.350, 1.350, 0.929 - 52., 162
1.35 1.350, 1,348, 0.858, 69 59., 171
ISeriei 11, Group 1.
0.36 0.360, 0.35g4 0.232 19., 33., 67 59 148
0.48 0-480, 0.479, 0.315 18-, 34., 67 56*, 150
0.63 0.630, 0426, 0.415 19-, 34., 65 55, 147
0.90 0.895, 0.894, 0.593 18., 33, 60 56 156
1.30 1.300, 1.297, 0.875 18., 34., 61 54., 161
Series 11, Group 2.
12 0.564 0.563, 0.563, 0.373 63 56*, 147
13 0.564 0.564, 0.564, 0.380 70 54., 159
14 0.424 0.424, 0424, 0.284 70 55-, 146
850 PROPOSED NJGW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY. DEO.1928.
1 ;&
APPENDIX 11.
TIMESTAKEN
APPROXIMATE TO REACHVARIOUSSTAGESOF TEST.
Series I.
Number of Test-Piece.
Time t o yield load, minutes

,, maximum load, ,, - 5 * - - - 12
,, breaking load, ,, 56 12 - 14
Series 11.
- - -
8 11 12
- --
seconds 80 150 30
Time to maximum
170 350 150
Time to breaking
180 700 250
- --
Discussion.
Professor GILBERT COOK, D.Sc., wrote that the study of the
dtictility of metals was complicated by the fact that plastic
deformation was essentially a property associated with shear stress,
and there was no known method of applying to a material a uniformly
distributed pure shear stress. It was approached in the torsion of a
thin tube, but in this case instability prevented the development of
flow. If it were practicable to apply to a material the t w o
fundamental stress systems, namely hydrostatic tension (i.e. negative
hydrostatic pressure) and pure shear, one would probabIy acquire a
clearer knowledge of the fundamental properties of cohesion and
ductility. The simple tensile test, however: being a combination
of hydrostatic tension and pure shear, did not reveal either of these
properties in a true measure. On the one hand, in a ductile material,
the elastic limit in shear was reached before the cohesion limit, and

DEO.1928. PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OB DUCTILITY. 851
the subsequent deformation made almost impossible any attempt

to determine the cohesive strength of the material, certainly in the
original state, and most likely also in the deformed state. On the
other hand, the .cohesion limit was reached before the full capacity
for flow under shear had been developed, and therefore the ductility
as revealed by the tension test was not in itself a fundamental
property. It was well known that under other stress systems,, such,
for instance, as in the compression test, in wire-drawing processes,
and in the notched-bar impact test, an entirely different measure
of ductility might be obtained.
I n the search for suitable materials of construction the engineer
had appIied tests and measurements which, in almost all cases, had
been originally (and many still were) of the simplest possible
description, the results also being stated in the simplest possible
form. The chief requirement of the test and the manner of stating
the result was that it should discriminate good material from bad,
suitable material from unsuitable. Certain standards had in this
way been developed, as it was evident that the tests did not, and
could not, reveal any fundamental property which would govern the
behaviour of the material under any and all conditions. Amongst
the simplest and most widely useful of theae standards were the
measurements of elongation and contraction in the tensile test. Any
departure from the simplicity of measurement and statement of
these quantities would be justified only if it resulted in a fundamental
property inherent in the material, and not dependent upon the
method of test, being revealed. The Author, in his extremely
interesting Paper, suggested that certain fundamental properties
were measured by the values of 0 and a, and he proposed therefore
that these should be substituted for the familiar percentage
elongation and percentage contraction. It was true that a
and a had been shown to depend to a much Iess extent on the shape
of the test-piece than did the elongation and contraction in area in
cases where the specimens assumed extreme shapes. Apart, however,
from the intrinsic defect of the tensile test already referred to,
there was another consideration which made it unlikely that a
and a could be fundamental constants. This would be seen if one
considered in detail the process which was believed to take place in
the tensile straining of a typically ductiIe material. In such a
material plastic flow was accompanied by 8 certain amount of
hardening which rendered necessary an increase of stress in order
that the flow should continue a t the same point. The amount of
the hardening appeared to depend in some manner upon the amount
of deformation. Although the relation was probably not a simple

852 DISCUSSION ON DEC. 1938.
one, it appeared to be the fact that the hardening increased with

the deformation, but a t a diminishing rate, with a tendency to
approach an upper limit. Although, therefore, in the first stages
when the yield point had been passed, the same amount of plastic
strain was not necessarily simultaneously produced a t every point,
it was nevertheless statistically uniform. If, for instance, a t any
given section a small extension occurred due to plastic flow, it was
accompanied by a small reduction of cross-section, and a t the same
time an increase in hardness ; and provided that the rate of increase
of hardness with strain was greater than the rate of increase of stress
due to reduction of area, flow would.be temporarily arrested at that
point and transferred to a neighbouring section. I n this way, the
cross-section, though steadily diminishing, remained approximately
the same over the whole length of the specimen. A point was,
however, in general reached a t which the rate of hardening with
strain no longer exceeded the rate of increase of stress due to change
of cross-section. Any further deformation, once started a t any
point, would continue a t that point--in other words, it would be
localized and the familiar necking-down process commenced. The
load carried by the specimen had then reached a maximum, and,
owing to the rapidly diminishing area of cross-section a t the neck,
the flow a t that point would continue under reduced load, although
the actual stress there would continue to increase until the limit of
cohesion of the strained material was reached. It was important,
therefore, t o recognize the essentially different character of the
" general )' elongation, that is, the elongation which took place
before the necking-down commenced, and which then ceased, and

the " local elongation. The general elongation depended upon
)'
the capacity of the material for strain-hardening, whereas the local

elongation was limited only by the cohesion of the material. It
was therefore doubtful whether any statement of elongation which
did not clearly distinguish between the general and local extension
could be directly related to any fundamental property, and it
appeared to him that little was likely to be gained by departing from
the present practice of expressing the ductility observed in a tensile
test in two forms, namely (a) a percentage elongation and (b) the
percentage contraction in area a t fracture. If the former were
stated as the '' general elongation, and the latter as the percentage
)'
contraction of area based upon the ratio of the area of cross-section

a t fracture to the area of the parallel portion of the strained bar,
thereby being directly related to the local extension, it was probable
that the properties of ductility as revealed by the tensile test, having
in view the limitation of this test, were by these two quantities

expressed both in the simplest and most comprehensive manner,

and were sufficiently independent of the shape of the test-piece
provided that extreme forms were avoided.
There were several points of interest in the Authors Paper, but
he wished to refer only to two. The Author referred on pages
830 and 836 to the determination of the breaking stress. This
was an extremely difficult measurement to make, and large errors
might be introduced where the appliances for measuring the load
possessed inertia, as, for instance, the beam of a testing machine.
Owing to the rapidly changing cross-section a t the moment of
fracture, the fact that the beam might be floating a t that instant
was no guarantee that the registered load gave the true stress, unless
the instantaneous acceleration of the beam was zero.
He was unable to agree with the Authors explanation of the
abnormal fracture in test-piece No. 5 , referred to on page 836. The
Author attributed the apparently incomplete flow which occurred
to the manipulation of the beam of the testing machine. This could
hardly be true. The purpose of the beam of the testing machine was
to balance, and thus measure, the load in the specimen produced by
the imposed strain. That load depended only on the strain, and not
upon the position of the beam or rider. The abnormal fracture was
much more likely to be due to a defect in the material, and so far
from indicating any unreliability in the use of the percentage
reduction in area, pointed rather to that measurement as having a
particularly useful discriminating value.
Dr. R. M. BROWNwrote that in some respects the Authors

conclusions were unsatisfactory inasmuch as they appeared to be
based on insufficient evidence. For example, equation (6) was
based on results of five tests which showed variations in the value
of the index ranging from +
7 to - 6 on a mean value of 43. This
could not be considered as a satisfactory foundation for constants
which were to be regarded as fundamental for this particular material.
If it be assumed that the form of the Authors equation could be
accepted as correct, it became necessary to establish coefficients,
not only for all steels, but for all possible treatments of the same
steel, and much work would have to be done on steels of different
compositions under different treatments before the equations could
be accepted with confidence.
Mr. Oliver considered that by a valuable coincidence the steels
examined had properties in common but had difierent ductilities.
It appeared, rather, that the two steels differed considerably in
properties but that the steel of Series I had been cold-worked, in the

process of manufacture, until certain of its properties were similar to

those of the steel of Series 11. It was to be expected that a cold-
worked mild steel would show different properties from those given
by another mild steel in an annealed condition. The test figures
suggested that the steel of Series I was considerably lower in carbon
content than that of Series 11.
Cold-working, such as cold-drawing, had the effect of reducing
greatly, and in many cases, practically eliminating, general extension.
FIG.10.-Tests on Mild-Steel Cold-DrawnBars.

Values obtained in equation (3): e per cent = kLa :-
A
B
.. ..
k =47.1
k = 22.3
a = - 0425
a = - 0.92
c . . k = 18.0 a = - 0.837
D
E .. .
k = 10.8
.
k = 9-62
a = - 0.97G
a = - 0.746
Gauge Length-inches.
Curves showing percentage elongation, on a base of gauge length,

were therefore different. ?Vith an annealed steel the percentage
elongation decreased with increase of gauge length, and, ultimately,
the curve became asymptotic t o a line which represented the
percentage general elongation, assumed uniformly distributed. I n
the case of a cold-drawn steel, assuming that general elongation
had been practically suppressed, the percentage elongation would
become zero for an infinitely long specimen. It was therefore obvious
that, in general, a cold-worked material would show a larger value

DEO. 1928. PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY. 855
for a in equation (3). This probably explained the differences noted

in equations (5) and (6).
Fig. 10 showed log . percentage elongation-log .gauge length
graphs for some tests on mild-steel bar. The test-pieces were cut
from the same bar and were subjected t o the following treatments :-
A, tested as annealed ; diameter of bar 0,695 inch.
B, cold-draw? (29.7 per cent reduction of area) in 3 passes.
C, cold-drawn (294 per cent reduction of area) in 1 pass.
D, cold-drawn (57.7 per cent reduction of area) in 7 passes.
E, cold-drawn (58.3 per cent reduction of area) in 1 pass.
D and E were finished through the same die ; the difference in the
reduction of area was caused by the exceptionally heavy pull required
by the single paas-a phenomenon known t o the, wire-drawer as
sucking.
The material and time available did not permit of investigation

being made t o determine the value of the coefficient u, but specimens
B and C were of the same diameter and were directly comparable,
as also were D and E.
TABLE 7.-Tuts on Mild-Steel Cold-DrawnBars.
Kaximum Percentage
Proof Nominal Elongation Percentage
Diameter Stress,
Reference. Of test- Stress, on Reduction
piece, in. .Per tons per
sq. in. sq. in. 4 dAG. of Area.
A . . 0.465 17.4 32.4 35.9 56.6

B . . 0.380 36.9 45.7 15.5 44.2
C . . 0.380 40.4 46.8 13.9 40.3
D . . 0.320 44.6 53.6 10.5 32.2
E . . 0.320 48.3 56-0 9.7 29.s
NOTE.-Proof stress taken as stress which gave 0.001 per cent permanent
extension.
The values obtained were not necessarily characteristic of the
material and they meant no more than test results obtained from
single specimens usually meant, but they did indicate variations of
considerable magnitude. It seemed to be probable, although not
true in the present case, that the specimens which had had the
reduction of area carried out in a single pass would show higher
values for a than those subjected to multi-stage reduction, since the
hardening effects were usually greater with the heavier pulls.

Sindar effects would doubtless be noticed with hardened and

tempered specimens since such treatment usually shortened the
length affected by " necking-down," and thus reduced the general
elongations.
Mr. A. T. J. KERSEYwrote that the Author sought to prove

that the permanent extension due to a given load was a continuous
function of the length when the original sectional area remained
constant. This could only hold if the percentage increase of strength
due to a given increase of load was greater than the percentage
reduction of area due to this increase of load. If, as the Author
suggested, some stretch was taking place in all parts of the length
of the specimen a t all loads up to the breaking load, this might be
tested by a progressive series of loads applied to the same bar. Such
an experiment, however, wouldnotbe quite conclusive, as there seemed
to be a quite definite increase of load required to produce further
stretch if any appreciable interval elapsed between the removal of
the load for measurement of extension, and its reapplication. He
had made such a test on a bar of mild steel 0.783 inch diameter a t
the centre of its length and 0.786 inch diameter for the remaining
5 inches of a &inch length. Local contraction began t o appear a t
the centre when the maximum load of 14.8 tons was reached and
the extension on each $-inch was measured. On reapplication of the
load it was necessary to increase this to 15.95 tons before any further
stretch took place, and a similar increase was necessary on each
reapplication up to fracture, but no measurable increase of extension
in the portion beyond the central 14 inches was observed. Plotting
final extension with gauge length gave a good straight line, the
+
equation bf which was e = 0.32 0.21, while plotting as the Author
suggested resulted in a line which was appreciably curved and
convex in a downward direction.
The conditions were, of course, not the same as if the test had
been continuous, and an extensometer applied t o a portion of the
bar we11 away from the centre of length would give more conclnsivc
results. I n any case, the variation o sectional area with distance
from the centre of length was obviously not sufficiently simple to
justify a comparatively simple expression such as the one given by
the Author, and he failed to see that any more useful purpose would
be served by adopting the Author's formula, which had little more
rational basis than the simpler one used hitherto. He suggested
that the correctness of the formula might be tested by observing
the extension on a number of very small lengths well within the
contracted portion.

DEC. 192s. PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA O F DUCTILITY. 857
The argument developed in the first paragraph under the

heading Present Proposals and Conclusions had very little
relatioil to the earlier part of the Paper, as whether Fig. 9 consisted
of straight lines or curves the objection to adhering to a standard
test remained unaffected. Within the limits of accuracy of
measurement in ordinary commercial testing it was doubtful whether
the time and labour required for logarithmic plotting would be
usefully expended.
Dr. WILLIAM GORDONwrote that the Suthor was to be

congratulated not only on having arrived independently a t
Bertellas Law, but also on having developed his thesis to a point
well beyond that reached by the Italian elastician.

Work which he had carried out (partly alone and partly in
conjunction wit,h Professor Sir Thomas Hudson Beare and Dr. G. H.
Gulliver) on the influence of the size of the tensile specimen had
impressed him with the fact that it was as difficult to evaluate as
to define ductility. The desideratum was undoubtedly a single
criterion which would give in any case a truly characteristic and
constant value and which would also be readily amenable t o the
requirements of practice. As regards t h e first of these conditions,
the engineer couId not wait until the mysteries of the mechanism
of cohesion and other cognate matters had been cleared up. His
measure must be of use HOW ; and from that point of view it might
be that the work of the Author, although in no sense final, would yet
prove to be a valuable contribution. On the other hand, it was a
moot point how far the substitution for elongation of a coefficient
and an index, themselves derived from elongation, would fit in with
the rapid routine of the works test-house. It was his experience
that if the test were properly conducted and the subsequent
measurements carefully made, reduction of area was a most
satisfactory measure of ductility, a statement with which the Author
would obviously be inclined to agree.
It was of particular interest to note that the value of the index a
(Table 6 ) was identical or soft steels, soft aluminium, annealed copper
and soft annealed brass.
L n
Referring to Bertellas equation, e per cent=K( s ) ,the Author,
~
.dA
on page 844, wrote : K, curiously enough, is stated to vary with
the elongation, which seems t o indicate that he did not realize that
it is a true constant for a given material. On that point it was
unfortunate that the Author had not had access to the original
Italian memoir, for there (pages 352 and 353) Rertella gave in table
3 E

and graph ample proof that his K was not a constant but a function
of the elongation. His words were : I1 coefficiente K varia col
variare dell allungamento. Using the normal German gauge
length L = ll.3.\/A, he found that for wrought-iron and mild-steel
bars and plates the coefficient K varied from 14.1 for an elongation
of 5.42 per cent to 92.0 for an elongation of 35.00 per cent.
Further, in the crucial case of a single bar, measurements which
he himself had just made of the extensions on various lengths of a
ruptured specimen of high-grade mild-steel plate (u = - 0.20) gave
values of CJ which, as Table 8 showed, could hardly be regarded
a8 constant. It was noteworthy that the mean of the first and
last entries, namely 53, was the value given by the Author in
Table 6.
TABLE 8.-Values of CJ for High-Grude Mild-Steel Plate.
Gauge Length, Extension,

U
in. per cent
2dA . 51.3 58.9

5dA . 38.2 52.7
l0dK . 31.4 49.8
15dK . 28.1 48.3
20dA . 26.0 47.5
The Law of Similarity was first stated solely for circular test-bars
by Lebasteur and Marie : it was afterwards extended to the case of
rectangular specimens by Barba, and later still made more general
by Kick in his Law of Proportional Resistances. Regarded generally,
this law might be taken to be true a priori ; a t least there appeared
to be no cogent reason to expect any other result, and, allowing for
lack of homogeneity in material and ordinary errors in testing,
experiment had repeatedly demonstrated its validity.
As the Author himself had defined the limits of applicability of
his formula, his reference to it as the complete general elongation
equation was hardly admissible. He had, however, succeeded
in building up an equation which, besides expressing very
satisfactorily the relation between the observed quantities, contained
a suggestion of having, in part a t least, a true physical basis.
Dr. W, H. BROOKS (Northampton Polytechnic Institute, London)

wrote that the Authors investigation supplied, he thought, a long-

felt want for a new ductility law which accounted for percentage
elongation in terms of easily determined physical constants for a
given material in place of the older rule of Unwin which was known
to many as only approximately agreeing with the observed facts,
and which, he believed, was generally presented by modern teachers
as such.
The reason why Unwins Law was never strictly true was not
far to seek, and might be simply illustrated as in Fig. 11. The
diagram represented a typical tensile specimen used in testing t o
destruction. The original shape of the cross-section was not
important but was preferably circular. The original outline of the
specimen between the sections A and B when a t distance L apart
was shown by the outer broken lines. Finally when the specimen
was fractured a t E, the sections A and B were L 1 apart, and the +
curved outline was as shown by the full lines unless the material was
manganese-steel, in which case uniform contraction would result.
i . - . -- . - . -.

jhould be hereafter known as Olivers Law after the name of its

discoverer.
AS regards the influence of eccentricity of fracture upon the
percentage elongation cited under paragraph (4) on page 840, the
definition chosen for y , the eccentricity of fracture, was admittedly
somewhat contradictory. This he had already pointed out to the
Author, who suggested expressing equation (11) in terms of a new
variable denoting eccentricity, so making its value zero for central
fracture and equal to unity for a case of fracture on an extreme gauge
mark. This, however, was merely a matter of definition with which
perhaps the Author would himself deal further.
It was pointed out that Nichols, Taylerson, and Whetzel,
mentioned on page 845 of the Paper, referred to the similarity ratio
L
which followed from Barbas Law, as the slenderness ratio.
%a
~
The application of this term to ductility tests was, he thought,

undesirable, as it had already been used for some time in dealing
with strut problems and was understood to mean the ratio of the
overall length of the strut to the minimum radius of gyration of the
L
cross-section, i.e. -? To avoid possible confusion, therefore, he
h
L
ventured to suggest that - should in future work be referred to
d A
as the ductility ratio or alternatively as the elongation ratio.
Finally-a minor point-since in Olivers equation : e per cent
-u
- [;A)a
?- , the index a was invariably of negative sign, it might
be considered desirable by investigators who preferred to work with
positive numerical constants, to transform this equation into the
form : e per cent = u(
2/x
--) p
, where p = -a, and was positive.
L
Mr. D. A. OLIVER, in reply, wrote that Professor Cook had

pointed out the desirability of subjecting a material to pure shear
stress in the study of ductility, a property which Dr. Gordon
had rightly stated to be as difficult to measure as to define. On
account of the admitted difficulty of making a strictly scientific
measurement of ductility, it appeared to the Author all the more
necessary t o explore the limitations of t,he existing empirical tests.
Possibly the phrase fundamental constants on page 535 had been
inadvisedly used, but the remarks made on pages 827 and 847
should have shown that the values of u and a had been regarded as

only indicative of certain properties of the material, and had not

been classed with true physical constants such as values of viscosity
and density. It had not been intended that the new criteria should
replace percentage elongation and percentage contraction,
but only the former. In fact, the Author regarded the percentage
contraction of area as a most valuable additional figure in any
tensile test, but would have considered the two new constants alone
more significant than a simple elongation figure and the
percentage contraction taken together. Prom geometrical
considerations it would appear that the percentage contraction was
related to the two constants, but this point had not been investigated.
Professor Cook had emphasized the necessity of regarding the
deformation as made up of general ) and local ) elongations,
and he had regarded the first as being a function of the strain-
hardening properties and the second as determined by the cohesion.
This arbitrary subdivision of the total elongation had been based
on the tacit assumptions that those portions of the test-piece on
which the so-called general ) elongation took place remained
unaltered during the necking-down process, and that the so-called
local elongation was of clearly defined extent-assumptions
which were not even approximately true for test-pieces of material
with small numerical values of a. This was illustrated in the
case of the manganese-steel. Was the elongation general or
local, and did the uniform extension throughout the test-bar
indicate strain-hardening or cohesion Z Dr. Brooks in his

contribution had dealt with this question of the two extensions,
and had shown that in most practical cases the arbitrary subdivision
represented only a first approximation to the truth. The Author
was in agreement with the remarks made as t o the difficulty of
determining breaking stress. He was grateful to Professor
Cook for pointing out the error in the explanation of the abnormal
fracture recorded on page 836. He wished to add, however, that, in
practice, when an attempt was made to determine the true breaking
load by reducing the rate of straining and running the poise-weight
back, the time rate of straining could influence the percentage
reduction in area.
Dr. Brown had doubted the reliability of the elongation equation,
and had referred to the variations in the index for the first group of
Series 11. It was probable that this particular series had been more
susceptible to the uncontrolled factors of the test such as
inhomogeneity and the rate of straining, but a study of the calculated
values in Table 2 derived from the criticized equation (6) should
have removed any doubt as to the legitimacy of taking the mean

862 DISCUSSION ON DEC.1998.
value of the index. Dr. Browns own curves had confirmed the
relation e per cent = kLa. His remarks on cold-working and the
tests summarized in Table 7 were a useful contribution to the
knowledge of the subject. The Author was in complete agreement
with the statement that a material would show a greater numerical
value for a after being cold-worked or work-hardened, and this
had been pointed out on page 842. From the fifth column in Table 7,
and utilizing equation (9), he had determined the values of u for
each test-piece by dividing the elongations by 4a. These results
were given in Table 9, with some of the rounded-off values from
Table 7.
TABLE 9.-Analysis of Dr. Browns Tests on Mild-Steel

Cold-Drawn Bars.
Percentage Particulars of Cold-

Reference. Reduction 0 a
Drawing Process.
in Area.
57 65 -0.43 As annealed.
44 56 -0.92 30 per cent reduction
in area ; 3 passes.
40 44 -0.84 do. 1 pass.
32 41 -0.98 58 per cent reduction
in area ; 7 passes.
30 27 -0.75 do. 1 pass.
His views on Table 9 were that multi-passes in cold-drawing

were more effective in cold-working the material than single
passes, and it was curious that the values of a seemed t o be
dependent upon the number of passes more than upon the magnitudes
of the reduction in the drawing process. The values of cr, on the
other hand, had come out in a way more to be expected, the specific
elongation being less where the steel had been subjected to a single
pass, and less also where there had been a greater reduction in
area by cold-drawing. As some materials work-hardened more
completely when the rate of deformation was small, it would be of
interest if further experiments could be carried out in which the
total time taken for each complete drawing operation was kept
constant.
He desired to express his thanks to Dr. Gordon and
Dr. Brooks for their appreciative remarks. Both Dr. Gordon and

Mr. Kersey had questioned the practicability of determining the new

criteria in rapid routine testing. It might well be that, for
discriminating between good and bad batches of similar material,
the simple elongation figure would still be adequate, for, if a remained
sensibly constant, the elongation on a given test-piece would be
proportional to u alone. The reference to Bertellas work was of
great interest to him, since all the Authors tests pointed to the
fact that K or u was a strict constant over the working range of
L
the variable -. Templins curves in his work on aluminium and
dA
aluminium alloys demonstrated the constancy of u. Bertellas
variations in K were possibly due to the fact that he had worked
L
with a value of 7~= 11.3, which, for a number of materials, was
found to be outside the range over which equation (9) held strictly
(see page 838). The same reasoning applied to the last two values
of u given in Table 8 of Dr. Gordons results. However, with the
exception of the first value in that TabIe the values could have been
regarded as sensibly constant. He desired to point out that for
an accurate deduction of the value of 0, considerable precision
was required in the measurement of the intervals on the test-piece
both before and after deformation.
Mr. Kersey wrote t h a t the Author sought to prove that the
permanent extension due to a given load was a continuous function
of the length when the original sectional area remained constant.
The Author was unable to find this stated or implied in the Paper,
although it had been proved that the final permanent extension
L
of a test-piece was a continuous function of - between wide
dA
practical limits. The experiment described by Mr. Kersey was
interesting and showed clearly some of the effects produced by
discontinuous loading. The equation given in the Paper, however,
was never intended to apply to such tests, nor could such tests be
considered to vitiate it in any way. Mr. Eersey also criticized the
accuracy of the equation evolved on the ground of its simplicity,
but his objection could not be reconciled with the experimental
evidence contained in the Paper. Tests made on short gauge lengths
had already been shown in Fig. 7 .
Dr. Brooks had referred to the definition of the eccentricity y.
The definition given on page 840 was adopted to express equation (11)
in as simple a form as possible, but, if the eccentricity were redefined
to be zero for a central fracture and unity for it fracture on an extreme

864 DISCUSSION : PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA O F DUCTILITY. DEO. 1328.
gauge mark, the new eccentricity would bc equal to (1 - 37). He

agreed with Dr. Brooks that as the term slenderness ratio
already had an established usage, it would be desirable to substitute
another term. The alternatives put forward were, however,
suggestive more of the properties than of the geometry of the test-
piece, but slimness ratio might meet the case.
View publication stats

Oliver Equation Paper-1928

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oliver Equation Paper-1928

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEC. 1928.

PROPOSED NEW CRITERIA OF DUCTILITY FROM A NEW

BY D. A. OLIVER, B.Sc. (ENc.).

[Selected for Publication with written Discussion.]

Introduction.-The phenomena associated with the plastic and

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

(2) A local extension, occurring after the maximum load has

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

FIG.2.-Percentage Elongation plotted directly against Gauge Length on

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

The matterwas then made the subject of an investigation to determine,

Series I : Test-Pieces. - Best quality lg-inch mild-steel

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

estimated on gauge lengths chosen to keep the fracture central, are

FIG.3.-Logam'thmic Relation between Elongation and Gauge Length for

seen that a is approximately constant and independent of the

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

TABLE l.-VaZues oj'the Constants k and a.

Series 11. 7 0.36 0.1020 46 -0.37

Series 11, 12 0.564 0.249, 51 -0.50

Series II.-A completely new series of test-pieces was prepared

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

FIG. B.-Logarithmic Relation between Elongation and Gauge Length for

0.25 0.4 0-6 0.8 1.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

DISCUSSION OF ALL RESULTS.

A comparison of the values of the stresses, the reduction in area,

Test-Piece logarithmically, Series I and II.

0.1 0*2 0.3 0.4 0.6 08 1.0 1.5

* MBmoires SOC. Ing._Civils, 1880, page 682.

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

similar test-bars deform similarly when broken in tension. It

FIG.B.-Logurithmic ReEation between Etongation and Gauge Length f or

Original Gauge Length-inches.

Thus, provided the law of similarity for a given material is satisfied,

e per cent = uA-"~L" or (9)

which involves only two fundamental constants. The constant u

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

The yield and maximum nominal stresses show good consistency,

TABLE 2.-Compar.ison of Observed alzd Calculated Elongations

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

test-piece results can be brought into complete harmony so far

where d, = pcrcentage error in e, etc.

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

In Table 3 the values of /3 observed and those evaluated from the

TABLE 3.--Calculated and Obserlied Values ojp.

Series. j3 (observed). (calculated)= - 4 2 .

(6) Tke Limitations on Gauge Length and Cross-Sectional L4reu.-

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

(1) The Shape of Cross-Section.-It can be said in general that

FIG. I.-Logarithmic Relation between Elongation and Gauge Length for

Original Gauge Length-inches.

of the shape of cross-section on -the elongation is small and in most

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

Authors tests, it appears that this effect is negligibly small for

reduction in area than are obtained with a similar test-piece in an

* Mechanical Testing, 1922, vol. i, page 154.

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

To verify the above formula experimentally, test-piece No. 3 was

TABLE 4.-Effect of Eccentricity of Practure on Test-Piece No. 3.

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at MASSACHUSETTS INST OF TECH on June 15, 2012

Figs. 1 and 2 indicates how Unwin's treatment becomes a fairly good

TABLE 5.--Motherwell Steel Ship Plates (Unwin).

2,346 66 -0.42 j -0.43