Generator

Three materials pulled until they stop

Rendered here at the parameters it defaults to, with every essay that calls it — which is the same list as the blast radius of changing it.

Three materials pulled until they stop. Three stress-strain curves — mild steel, high-strength steel, aluminium alloy — plotted to a strain of 2.0%. One of them has a plateau, so the stress at which yielding starts is something the specimen does rather than something anyone chooses. The 0.2% offset construction is drawn on the high-strength steel: a line of slope E from a strain of 0.002, cutting the curve at 460 N/mm².

13 essays call stress-strain. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Changing this generator changes every one of these figures.

Materials

The stress at which nothing in particular happens

One material in six has a yield point that a specimen actually does something at. For all the others the yield stress is a construction — a line drawn at an arbitrary offset — and every strength calculation for those materials depends on it.

Materials

The one number a stronger steel does not change

Geometry beats material almost everywhere on this site. Stiffness is the exception in the other direction — it cannot be bought at all, because every steel ever made has the same elastic modulus.

Materials

The property that appears in none of the equations

Ductility is in no design formula on this site. Every method on this site depends on it — and a brittle structure does not merely fail early, it makes the analysis wrong.

Why the curve sags, and why the two axes are not the same column. The same column curve with the sag computed rather than drawn. A hot-rolled section carries a residual compression of 30% of yield at its flange tips before anything is applied, so the tips yield first and what is left resisting a change of shape is the elastic core. About the major axis the stiffness follows the core's width; about the minor axis it follows its cube. The worst loss is 27% at λ = 74 about the minor axis against 23% about the major, and the whole effect lives between λ = 75 and λ = 89 — outside that band nothing has yielded, or everything has. No imperfection appears anywhere in this figure.

Stability

The column that had yielded before it was loaded

A real column sits below both of the two straight answers over the whole middle of the slenderness range, and the usual explanation — that it was not straight — is only half of it. The other half is that the flange tips had already yielded when it left the rolling mill.

The same strain, two moduli, and a width multiplied to say so. A timber section with a steel plate in it, carrying 20.0 kNm. Plane sections stay plane, so the strain at a height is the same in both materials; Hooke's law then puts the stresses in the ratio of the moduli, which here is 19.09. Multiplying the stiffer material's WIDTH by that ratio gives a fictitious section of one material with the same neutral axis and the same forces — 595.2×10⁶ mm⁴ of it, against 351.0 for the same shape with the moduli ignored. The steel plate is 3.8% of the area and carries 43% of the moment, at 96 N/mm² against the timber's 5.0. The transform is not an approximation: it is compatibility and Hooke's law written down.

Sections and stress

A section made of two materials, one of them pretended away

Multiplying a material's width by the ratio of the moduli produces a fictitious section of one material with the right neutral axis and the right forces. It is not a trick — it is compatibility and Hooke's law written down — and it says a stiff material takes what its modulus asks for.

The same concrete, held sideways. Two stress-strain curves for one concrete. The lower is a cylinder test: it peaks at 30 N/mm² near a strain of 0.002 and has nothing left by 0.0035, because it fails by splitting apart sideways. The upper is the same material inside a 12 mm hoop at 100 mm centres, which cannot stop it expanding but can make the expansion stretch steel: the lateral pressure of 2.48 N/mm² — 8% of the strength it is multiplying — takes the peak to 44.4 and the ultimate strain to 0.028. The strength gain is 1.48 times and the strain gain 8.0; the area under the curve, which is the toughness, goes up by 11. It is the third number the confinement is provided for.

Materials

Squeezed sideways into a different material

Concrete in a cylinder test fails by splitting apart sideways under a load pushing it down. Put a hoop round it and the splitting has to stretch steel — and a lateral pressure of a twelfth of the strength raises the strength by half and the ultimate strain by eight.

How fast the strain arrived, which a quoted strength does not record. The dynamic increase factor on strength against strain rate, over eight decades. Steel follows Cowper and Symonds' fit, whose constant D = 40.4 s⁻¹ is not an arbitrary parameter — it is the rate at which the material is exactly twice as strong. Concrete in tension follows the model code's two-branch curve and is steeper. The four marked regimes are the argument: a testing machine works at about 10⁻⁴ per second, an earthquake at 5 × 10⁻³, a vehicle impact at a half, a blast at a hundred, and the enhancement across them runs 1.00, 1.08, 1.32, 2.04. So this is a correction that is either negligible or decisive with very little in between, which is why no seismic code carries it and every blast code does. What does not rise is the modulus, which is a lattice property, and the ultimate strength rises only a third as much — so the ultimate-to-yield ratio closes from 1.56 to 1.23 and the material has less warning left in it than it started with.

Materials

The steel that is stronger in a millisecond

Every strength quoted anywhere in this collection was measured at about a ten-thousandth of a strain per second, because that is what a testing machine does, and nothing on a drawing says so. Load the same steel a million times faster and its yield stress rises by a third.

What the shape of a load in time is worth, for two load shapes. The peak displacement as a multiple of the static deflection, against the load's duration divided by the structure's natural period, for two load shapes: a load that rises linearly, then stays; a rectangular pulse, then nothing. The lines are closed forms and eight dots are the peak of a complete time integration of an oscillator of 0.300 s period under that load, agreeing with the line to within 0.19% everywhere.

Dynamics

The load that is over before it has moved

A blast delivers an enormous pressure for a few milliseconds. Everything else in this field asks what force a structure can carry; a load that has come and gone before the structure has travelled any distance is not asking that question, and the answer turns out to depend on the mass and the ductility with the strength barely in it.

An enhanced strength that is the strength of a tie. Bearing strength as a multiple of the design cylinder strength, against how far the load is allowed to spread, with the bursting tension the spread creates on the same axis. The enhancement is √(A₂/A₁) and it reaches 2.80 for the 250 mm pad on a 700 mm block drawn — 47.6 N/mm² against a design strength of 17.0. There is no material property in that statement beyond the one being enhanced, and the reason is on the second curve: a load that spreads does so along inclined struts, a pair of inclined struts has a horizontal component, and that component is 16.1% of the load. It has to be tied. 1099 mm² of steel is what the enhancement actually is, and the cap of three is not a property of concrete — it is the angle past which nobody believes the strut.

Internal forces

Three times as strong under a smaller pad

Press a small plate onto a large block of concrete and it will carry three times the stress a cylinder of the same concrete fails at. The enhancement is a ratio of areas with no material property in it, which should be a warning: what has actually been measured is not the concrete's strength but the strength of a tie holding it together.

The strength was bought in a furnace and the welder gives it back. Proof stress as delivered and beside a weld, for four aluminium alloys. The heat-treated alloys lose half of it: the strength of a 6xxx extrusion is in precipitates formed by an ageing treatment, and the arc dissolves them for 32 mm either side of the weld, permanently. The work-hardened tempers lose nearly as much, because the heat undoes exactly the work. The annealed ones lose nothing at all, because there is nothing left in them to anneal. The consequence is the crossover: 5083-H22 is 1.04 times 6061-T6 as delivered and 0.92 times it once welded, so the stronger alloy is the weaker member. The 240 mm member drawn, with two longitudinal welds, keeps 87% of its parent capacity — a weld along a member softens a strip and leaves a section, and the same weld across it softens the whole of one.

Materials

The strength the welder gives back

A 6082-T6 extrusion is twice as strong as a 5083-H111 plate and, welded across, the two are within a few per cent of each other. The heat of the arc anneals the metal for thirty millimetres either side, permanently, and the strength that was bought in a furnace is given back at the first joint.

$The ductility number depends on the ruler. Elongation after fracture against the gauge length it was measured over, in units of √S₀. A tensile specimen extends uniformly until the ultimate load and then localises into a neck, so the total is a strain (16 per cent here) plus a length (7.2 mm), and dividing a length by the gauge length is what makes the curve fall. At the two standard gauges the same steel reports 27.5 per cent over 5.65√S₀ and 21.8 over 11.3√S₀ — a ratio of 1.264, and 42 per cent of the first number is a property of the specimen rather than of the material.$ Materials

The ductility that depends on the ruler

Percentage elongation after fracture is the most quoted ductility measure in the subject and one of the least well defined. A specimen stretches uniformly until the ultimate load and then localises, so the number is a strain plus a length — and dividing a length by the gauge length makes the answer a property of the specimen.

$Seventy per cent of the strength and ninety of the stiffness. Strength and modulus against age, each as a fraction of its own twenty-eight-day value. They do not move together: E follows f to the power 0.3, so at seven days the concrete has 78 per cent of its strength and 93 per cent of its stiffness, and at three days 60 and 86. A young structure is much nearer its final deflection than its final capacity. The 20 N/mm² a striking calculation asks for arrives at 2.2 days at 20 °C, 4.6 at five degrees and 1.7 at thirty-five.$ Materials

The strength it had on the day

Every concrete strength on this site is a twenty-eight-day cylinder value, and a structure is loaded long before that — formwork struck at three days, the next storey cast at seven, a prestressing force transferred at two. The number that existed at the moment the load arrived is a different one.

The curve the machine drew and the curve the material was on. The same tensile test twice. Force over the ORIGINAL area against extension over the original length is the engineering curve, which peaks at 431 MPa and 24.6 per cent and then falls. Force over the ACTUAL area against the natural logarithm of the length ratio is the true curve, which passes 538 MPa at the same instant and keeps rising. Nothing softens anywhere on this figure: the descending branch is the original area still being divided by, and the material is hardening the whole way. The two separate at the very first plastic strain and the gap between them is exactly e^ε, which is 1.25 at the ultimate load. Past that instant the deformation stops being uniform, so the engineering curve is drawn dashed: the real one falls faster than this, because the extension is now happening in one short length of the bar and the strain axis is still dividing it by the whole gauge.

Materials

The curve was rising the whole time

Every tensile curve ever printed turns over and falls, and nothing about the material does. The fall is the original area still being divided by after the specimen has stopped having it — and correcting the two denominators turns a strength, a ductility and a failure into one exponent.

The library, page 6 of 7 — where stress-strain sits