67$7,67,&$/0(&+$1,&$/3523(57,(62)

$,6,$1'$,6,67((/6,175$&7,21

G. Díaz 1, A. Artigas 2, V. Martínez 3 and P. Kittl 2

1
Departamento de Ciencia de los Materiales
Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile
Casilla 1420, Santiago, Chile. E-mail: gediaz@cec.uchile.cl
2
Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica
Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile
Casilla 2777, Correo 21, Santiago, Chile
3
INGENDESA, Empresa Consultora
Casilla 170, Santiago, Chile

$%675$&7

Different mechanical properties of the AISI-1020 and AISI-1045 steels were studied from the
statistical point of view, subjecting cylindrical bar to uniaxial traction. The tested mechanical
properties were σr (fracture strength), σf (yield point), σp (proportional limit stress), σm
(maximum stress), E (elasticity modulus), U (fracture energy) and KIC (critical toughness in
mode I). Enough values of all these mechanical properties were obtained as to make a
statistical study. A simplified method was also used to lower the cost of determining the KIC
values. The statistical parameters of Weibull function were obtained in addition to their mean
values and dispersions; their size dependency were studied, achieving the relationship
foreseen between KIC and the length of the crack. In some cases the mechanical properties σr,
σf, σp, σm, E, U, and KIC increase with the decrease of the size and in others cases they
decrease, being Weibullian or anti – Weibullian, respectively. A recovery occurring in the
highly deformed areas and a non-homogeneous deformation may explain this behavior.

,1752'8&7,21

The statistical study of the mechanical properties has been known for some time [1] and is
well developed [2], but generally applied to brittle materials. Although some works in metals
have been made, they have been practically focused to study the fracture [3,4,5]. In general
only one value of KIC is tested, hence, the mean value and the dispersion are not known, and
the probability of occurrence of the fracture cannot be estimated. This work is intended to
obtain the statistical characteristics of the mechanical properties defining the mechanical
behavior, as σr, σf, σp, σm, E, U, and KIC, and the way in which they vary with size. This study
was started in previous works [6,7] and is pursued further in the present one.

(;3(5,0(17$/352&('85(6

Two commercial bars, one AISI 1020 steel and one AISI 1045 steel, of diameter 0.009 m were
used to obtain all the test cylinder bars. The chemical analysis for both steels are showed in
Table I. Each commercial bar were drawn to diameters of 0.006 m and 0.003 m, respectively.
Test bars of 0.100 m, 0.150 m and 0.250 m long were cut in order to obtain a usable length of
0.05 m, 0.100 m and 0.150 m. The usable length was obtained by a slight polishing of the
sample to make sure that the breakage took place there. The total length was 0.100 m longer
in order to allow for the use of the clamps of the traction machine. The test bars were
manufactured according to Table II. In order to study the effect of the drawing, cylindrical test
bars were turned starting with a diameter of 0.010 m according to Table III.

As a way of verification a rectangular test bar made of AISI 1045 steel was manufactured with
dimensions obtained from criteria of well known norms:
2
K 
2.5 ⋅  IC  ≤ Dimensions (1)
 σf 
where KIC and σf were previously determined, so the resultant dimensions were the
following: L (length) = 0.200 m, h (height, h = L/4) = 0.050 m and t (width) = 0.025 m.

An Instrom machine with variable speed was used for traction of the test cylinder bars. The
determination of the values of σr, σf, σp, σm, E, U, and KIC, was carried out in the usual way
according to Figure 1.

The specific energy of fracture u was determined as the area A under the curve, showed in
Figure 1, divided by the volume v of the test cylinder bar subjected to deformation and
multiplied by appropriate factors to obtain energy for unit of volume. Then, if: A is the area
under the curve; O is the length of the test bar; λP is the scale factor; P is the load applied at
fracture; and ∆OP is the displacements of the sample, we obtain:

u 1  FL2 1 
U= = ∫ Pd∆OP = A  3
C (2)
v v  L L

where C is a factor. The variablev is the corrected volume or the volume that was subjected to
the plastic deformation. It is determined by subtracting from the initial volume, the volume
that was exclusively subjected to an elastic deformation. The elastic volume is determined by
measuring the diameters of each test cylinder bar, starting from the ends, until a permanent
deformation is found. In the square brakets are expressed the dimensional units, where F is
force dimension and L is length dimension.

In order to estimate the elasticity module it was necessary to determine the machine rigidity
[8]. The deformation of the system, ∆OS is the sum of the deformations of the machine ∆OM
and of the sample ∆Op:
∆O = ∆OM + ∆OP (3)
If km is the machine rigidity, P the applied load, O the length of the test bar, 6 the transverse
area of this bar and E its module of elasticity, we have:
P PO
∆O M = ∆O P = (4)
km SE
Therefore it follows that:
∆OS 1 O
= + (5)
P k m SE
To estimate km a graph is drawn with P∆O
as a function of OS; a straight line is obtained that
approaches 1/km when O 6 → 0 . In this case P∆O is the average of about 30 essays for
different OS, as it can be observed in Figure 2. Then km = 18.2 MPam −1 .

The determination of KIC in the cylindrical test bar was made in the following way: With the
sharpest possible edge of a specially manufactured tool, an incision of 0.0008 m was made in
the middle of the length of the test bar in order to induce an edge crack, see Figure 3. It was
contrived in such a way as to get a tip curve with a radius smaller than the tip of a crack
spreading in the same material. An essay was made placing the test bar in the machine;
whenever a plastic deformation appeared, the depth of the incision was increased until a
diagram of brittle fracture, as exhibited in Figure 3, was obtained. Figure 3 shows an outline
of the procedures. It was also verified that the maximum load Pmax supported by the test bar
divided by the critical load Pc was smaller than 1.10 i.e. (Pmax/Pc ≤1.10); a common approach
in the standards. The surfaces of cracking were studied with Scanning Electronic Microscopy
(SEM). A side of the rectangular test bar where carving spread was polished to study the
shape of the tip of the crack.

5(68/76$1'',6&866,21

The number of test samples was sufficient to make a statistical treatment of differents
mechanical properties, for both steels AISI 1020 and AISI 1045, using a Weibull´s
distribution function to represent them [2]. In order to make Weibull´s diagrams the following
Q − 0.5
estimator of the cumulative probability of Weibull was employed ) ( [) = , where
1
Q < [ ≤ Q + 1 is the order in ascending rank and N the total number of samples tested.

Due to the large number of experimental data, only the diagrams of KIC will be shown. Tables
IV and V shows the volume effect and Tables VI and VII shows the drawing effect. The KIC
was determined by using the following formula of Kotter and Benthem [9]:
D 1 3 d d2 d3  1 D
K IC = σ πa  + + − 0.36 2 + 0.73 3 
d 2 8D D D 2 a
(6)
a
∈ (0, 12 ) , L = πd = π (D − 2a )
D
where σ is the remote stress, a is the carving penetration, D the test bar diameter, and d=D-2a
is the effective diameter. In Figure 4 we show the Weibull's diagram for KIC,
 1 
ln ln   = ln ξ (K IC , V ) as function of ln KIC, where ξ is the Evans´s function [2].
1 − F (K IC , V ) 

In Figure 5 K IC K IC has been taken as a function of L L , where L= G , in order to see the
influence of the crack size on the critical tenacity. The results obtained for KIC in the
rectangular test bar are agree with those coming from the cylindrical one.

The whole exposed phenomena will be analyzed with the Weibull statistics approaches, from
which the main results will be exposed.
If σ is a random variable attributed to the dimension V (volume, surface or length) of a
material, dimension about which it can be verified that the cumulative probability that the
property σ is not verified in V=V1+V2, is equal to the product of the cumulative probabilities
of σ not been verified in V1 and V2, then it can be demonstrated [2] that:
 V 
F(σ ) = 1 − exp  − Φ (σ )  (7)
 V0 
where Φ(σ) is the so called Weibull’s specific risk function, that can adopt the Weibull’s
form:

0 σ <σ
 

Φ (σ ) =  σ − σ   (8)
 σ  σ ≤σ
 0 
or the Kies - Kittl form:
 0 σ < σ
  

 σ − σ  
Φ (σ ) =  .   σ ≤ σ ≤ σ (9)
  σ  − σ 
σ σ < σ
The following expression may be obtained from formula (7):
 1  V
ξ (σ ) = ln  = Φ (σ ) (10)
1 − F(σ )  V0
The Weibull’s diagram will be obtained by plotting ln ξ(σ) vs ln(σ).
According to formulas (8) and (9) the following expressions are valid:
 σ −σL  V
ln ξ (σ ) = m ln   + ln
 σ0  V0
(11)
 σ −σL  V
ln ξ (σ ) = m ln   + ln
 σ M −σ0  V0
This means that when σ=σ , ln ξ(σ)   ∞  for the Weibull’s and for the Kies Kittl Φ(σ)
function. When σ=σ then ξ(σ)= + ∞ in the Kies-Kittl function. The asymptotes are thus
defined, and also when
 V 
σ → ∞ , ξ (σ ) → m ln σ + ln  m 
(12)
 V0σ 0 
the formula Φ(σ) of Weibull is verified.
The effect produced by the volume may be seen as a slide of the graph of the function ln(ξ(σ))
to which YY has been added. Also for the mean value and the dispersion, the effect is:
 −1
 V m  1
σ = σ L + σ 0 ⋅   Γ 1 + 
 V0   m
(13)
1
  2 2 2  2
∆σ =  Γ  1 +  − Γ 1 + 
  m  m  
Sinclair [10] gives a false effect to the way in which the size of the crack influence the critical
tenacity. It is easy to observe through the use of dimensional analysis that the critical tenacity
general formula for the case of a parallelepiped is:
/ D
.
 = σ D Υ ,  (14)
E E
where / is the usable length of the beam, D is the depth in the middle, E the height, W the width,
/ D
and Υ  ,   a determined function. For two pieces with a similarity factor λ, we should
E E
have:
/ D
.  = σ D Υ , 
E E
(15)
 λ/ λD 
. = σ λ Dλ Υ  , 
 λE λE 


Therefore
σ =σλ λ (16)
In the mentioned deduction . is considered a constant that doesn’t depend of λ; the variable
is Dλ, so what varies is the breaking tension σ. But if a Weibull distribution is accepted, we
should then have:
W 
) ( .   ) = 1 − exp .    (17)
 W0 
Since the σ ‘s that Sinclair takes into account are averages of many σ ‘s we have the
following:
−1
 W   1
.  = . 0   Γ1 +  + .   (18)
 W0   P 
 

Therefore
−1
 W   1
. 0   Γ1 + 
 W0   P 
 

.  σ D ⋅ Υ (/, E, D ) σ
= = =
.  λ σ λ Dλ ⋅ Υ (/, E, D ) σ λ λ
−1
 λW    1 
.   0   Γ1 + 
 W0   P 

+2
σ 
That is to say. =λ2 (19)
σλ
Experimentally Sinclair says that σ ≈ σ λ , thus P  which is impossible. This value is a
result of averaging values of σ for different materials, thus resulting in different P values
and only when P → ∞ , σ → σ λ λ1/2 . Consequently this average cannot be performed and
σ λ does not have the form given by Sinclair. Using formula (17) for the case of a cylindrical
test bar we have:
−1
 /   1
.  = . 0   Γ1 +  + .   (20)
 /0   P 
 

Therefore
−1
 / #  1
. = . ! 0   Γ1 +  + .
 /0   P 
! !"

−1
(21)
 /  #

  Γ1 +  + . !"
1
. ! =.  /   P
!
0
 0
when the . $ % distribution has a little dispersion. From (20) and (21) we have:
−1

. ' ( −. ' ()  / &

=  (22)
/ 
. ' ( − . ' ()  0
In the previous formulas, . $ % is the average of the .*+ for different measures of the same /
and . , - is the average of all those averages. We suppose that the measured value of .*+ is
very near to the value of . $ % , as . $ % is to . , - , resulting in a third term of the formula (22),
and it agrees with the Figure 5, since .* +/. spreads to 0. Besides, the best fitted curve for the
points .*+  . $ % versus // corresponds to . $ % / . , - versus// 0 , in agreement with the
previous paragraph.

To explain the volume effect we must turn to the theory of models [7] in which:
ξ (σ ) = ln(Φ (σ )) + ln(f (V)) (23)
where I9 is the volume effect that takes the form 99 0 when the body is Weibellian. In the
case of the different volumes 9 and 9 we shall have:
2
V V
ln f (V*) − ln f (V) = a + b + c   = g(V) (24)
V0  V0 
that may be a way for describing the observations.

In order to verify formula (22) the graph of . 1 2 − . 1 23 ( )(

. 1 23 − . 1 23 vs L L was used,)
obtaining Pa. The Weibull’s diagrams for .*+ give the values displayed in the Table VIII.

As it can be seen, they agree quite well since the determination of P by means of the curve
(22) is of a high degree of uncertainty. In regard to the volume effect, assuming 9 4 95 96 we
have the following behavior:
(a) For J9 7 J98 J99 : Steel 1045: σr, σf, σm, U. 
Steel 1020: σr, σf, σL, U.
(b) For J9 7 J9 8 !J99 : Steel 1020: σ: σ; σ< σ= 8
Steel 1020 drawn: σ: σ; σ< 8
(c) For J9 7 J99 J98 : Steel 1020 and 1045: (.
(d) For J9 7 !J99 !J9 8 : Steel 1045: σ< .
Steel 1020 drawn: σ= .

Behavior (a) would correspond to a hardening due to the process of drawing followed by a
recovery and the case of the test of drawnbars, would be composed of a soft exterior layer,
then a hard and finally another soft layer. Behavior (b) would be a process of softening
followed by one of hardening and then one of final softening. Behavior (e) means that the
steel 1020 is more easily deformed when it is less deformed or it is softer; this is quite logical.
Behavior (c) is corresponding with a gradual increase of the capacity of deformation. The (d)
behavior in the present case seems to be produced by effects of a second order.

To confirm the form of proceeding for the determination of the .*+ in electronic microscopy
we have planes of fracture by the small cohesion related to a fragile fracture.

These hardening processes and later recovery have already appeared in the study of the plastic
deformation of the Aluminum [11]. In that case, with a high percentage of deformation a
recovery coming from the interaction of the vacancies took place with the structure of
deformation. This process should be very complex in the case of the steels and it means that in
each case the mechanical properties should be studied for each piece of a given size that is
manufactured in a different way.

&21&/86,21

The characteristics parameters, fracture stress, yielding stress, limit stress of proportionality,
stress at maximum loading, elasticity module and fracture energy studied in AISI 1020 and
AISI 1045 steels must be treated as aleatory variables that obeys to Weibull’s distribution
functions. The size effect in samples of different size show diverse behaviours due to
hardening process and posterior recuperation observed in samples studied.
5()(5(1&(6

1. Weibull, W., A statistical theory of the strength of materials. Ing. Vetenskaps Akad.
Handl., 151(1939) 1-45.
2. Kittl, P., y Díaz, G., "Weibull' s fracture mechanics or Probabilistic Strength of Materials:
State of the Art", Res. Mechanica 24 (1988) 99-207.
3. Besuner, P.M. y Tetelman, A.S., "Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics. Nuclear Engineering
and Design", 43 (1977) 99-104.
4. Ran, C.A. y Besuner, P.M., " Risk Analysis by probabilistic Fracture Mechanics, Product
Engineering", 50 (1979) 41-47.
5. Harris, D.O. y Lim, E.Y., "Applications of a Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Model to
the Influence of In-Service Inspection on Structural Realibility" , "Probabilistic Fracture
Mechanics and Fatigue Methods: Applications for Structural Design on Maintenance",
J.M. Bloom, and J.C. Ekvall(Ed) ASTM STP798, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia (1983) 19-41.
6. Kittl, P., Martinez, V., Díaz, G., Bölcich, J.C. and Fernández, L., "Non Linear deformation
probability of an ASTM 516 steel", Journal of Materials Science Letters, 12 (1993) 823-
824.
7. Kittl, P., Díaz, G. Y Martínez, V. "Applicability of Weibullian Model of Fracture by
application of a slowly gradual Load", Probabilities and Materials Tests, Models and
Applications, D. Brreysse (ed), Kluwer Academic Publishers (1994) 439-449.
8. Meyers, M.A. y Chowla, K.K., "Mechanical Metallurgy", Pactice - Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, USA (1984) 574-581.
9. Kofter, W.T. and Benthem, J.P., "Mechanics of Fracture", G.C. Sih(ed), Noordhoff,
Seyden, 1(1973) 131-178.
10. Sinclair, G., "Structural Reliability Trough Fracture Mechanics", Mechanical Engineering,
(June 1993) 79-84.
11. Kittl, P. et al., "Substructures produced in pure Al (99,99%) by heavy cold rolling", J. Inst.
of Metals, 96 (1968) 63-64.
 7$%/(6

7DEOH,&KHPLFDODQDO\VLVRIWKHVWHHOV

Steel %C % Mn % Si %P %S
AISI 1020 0.21 0.45 0.07 0.04 0.05
AISI 1045 0.47 0.75 0.15 0.04 0.05

7DEOH,,'LPHQVLRQRIWKHVDPSOHV

Quantity Diameter Usable length

1020/1045 m m
30/29 0.009 0.150
25/24 0.006 0.100
30/30 0.003 0.050

7DEOH,,,'LPHQVLRQVRIGUDZQVDPSOHV

Quantity Diameter Usable length

m m
27 0.009 0.159
30 0.006 0.106
25 0.003 0.053

7DEOH,9(IIHFWRIYROXPHRQWKHPHFKDQLFDOSURSHUWLHV0HDQYDOXHVV > V ? V @ DQGVA 

ZLWKLWVUHVSHFWLYHVGLVSHUVLRQV'V > 'V ? 'V @ DQG'VA 

Steel Diameter σr MPa σf MPa σp MPa σm MPa

m Fracture ∆σr Yield ∆σf Prop. ∆σp Max. ∆σm
Strength Point Limit Stress
Stress
AISI 0.003 1118 86 651 34 568 49 734 38
1020 0.006 968 50 475 27 431 28 544 22
0.009 927 190 589 37 560 42 625 44
AISI 0.003 1005 88 617 16 581 20 686 12
1045 0.006 1405 32 641 22 561 32 919 11
0.009 1159 84 550 107 497 99 765 41
7DEOH9(IIHFWRIYROXPHRQWKHPHFKDQLFDOSURSHUWLHV0HDQYDOXHV8(DQG.BDC ZLWK
LWVUHVSHFWLYHVGLVSHUVLRQV'8'(DQG'.BDC 

Steel Diameter U MPa E MPa KIC MPam1/2

m Fracture ∆ U Elasticity ∆ E Critical ∆ KIC
Energy Modulus Stress
Intensity
Factor
AISI 0.003 99 14 195000 14000
1020 0.006 86 19 208000 18000
0.009 90 11 250000 15000 51 2
AISI 0.003 108 13 181000 10000
1045 0.006 135 20 223000 17000
0.009 115 12 255000 16000 55 3


7DEOH9,(IIHFWRIGUDZLQJLQWKHPHFKDQLFDOSURSHUWLHV0HDQYDOXHVV > V ? V@ DQGVA 
ZLWKLWVUHVSHFWLYHVGLVSHUVLRQV'V > 'V ? 'V @ DQG'VA 

Steel Diameter σr MPa σf MPa σp MPa σm MPa

m Fracture ∆σr Yield ∆σf Prop. ∆σp Max. ∆σm
Strength Point Limit Stress
Stress
AISI 0.003 910 70 483 38 441 38 558 30
1020 0.006 961 33 535 25 491 27 560 23
0.009 876 50 506 20 476 21 544 34

7DEOH9,,(IIHFWRIGUDZLQJLQWKHPHFKDQLFDOSURSHUWLHV0HDQYDOXHV8(DQG.BEC 
ZLWKLWVUHVSHFWLYHVGLVSHUVLRQV'8'(DQG '.BEC 

Steel Diameter U MPa E MPa KIC MPam1/2

m Fracture ∆U Elasticity ∆E Critical ∆ KIC
Energy Modulus Stress
Intensity
Factor
AISI 0.003 64 9 221000 10800 -.- -.-
1020 0.006 81 14 228000 18000 -.- -.-
0.009 72 6 230000 14000 50 1
 7DEOH9,,,3DUDPHWHUVRIWKH:HLEXOOIXQFWLRQVIRUFULWLFDOVWUHVVLQWHQVLW\IDFWRULQ
PRGH,

Steel m KIC0 MPa

AISI 1020 29.3 0.8
AISI 1045 23.6 0.8




 ),*85(6

σm
σr
σf
σp

0.2%

)LJXUH  Determination of the usual parameters in traction. Stress σ versus deformation

ε. σ = P/A0 (A0: initial area of the test cylinder bar), deformation ε = δ/l0 (l0: initial length of
the test cylinder bar) , displacement δ.

20

18.2 MPam

15
3'/V

10

0
(L/S)3=23.5 (L/S)2=35.3 (L/S)1=70.7
/6

)LJXUH Determination of the rigidity km. IKOLP

J L N H NG 3 '/ 03DP M 
F
)LJXUH Brittle fractures obtained by increasing the depth of the carving.

)LJXUH  Critical tenacity in mode I. Weibull’s Diagrams. F(KIC: Cumulative probability,

KIC: critical tenacity.
)LJXUH Critical Tenacity vs carving length. s/d indicates with very little deformation near
0%. c/d indicates some deformation near 0.2 %.