Institute of Metals Division - Effect of Prestraining Temperatures on the Recovery of Cold Worked Aluminum

Recent investigations1,2,3,4 have conclusively shown that the strain hardened state of metals depends upon the temperature and strain rate of pre-straining as well as on the total plastic strain. A typical example of the effect of temperature of prestraining on the work hardening of metals is reproduced in Fig 1. When pure aluminum is strained at liquid nitrogen temperature the upper solid stress-strain curve (OFGH) is obtained. But when pure aluminum is prestrained to e2 = 0.153 at atmospheric temperature and the test is then completed at liquid nitrogen temperature, the curve OBCD results. Thus a prestrain E2 = 0.153 at atmospheric temperature gives a flow stress C when continued at liquid nitrogen temperature, whereas a higher flow stress G results when the specimen is strained exclusively at liquid nitrogen temperature to the same strain E2. Consequently the metal strain hardens more rapidly at the lower temperature. Obviously the strain alone is not a measure of the strain hardened state in metals. Inspection of Fig 1 reveals that the flow stress at C is identical with that at F. This fact suggests that a strain E2 = 0.153 at atmospheric temperature induces the same work hardened state as a strain E1 = 0.058 at liquid nitrogen temperature. But this concept of equivalent strains is also in error. If curve CD is shifted to the left so that point C falls on F, point D becomes D'. Inspection of the curves reveals that the rate of increase of stress with strain at C is greater than the rate of increase of stress with strain at F even though the flow stresses are identical. Consequently C and F do not represent identical work hardened states. It therefore becomes important to ascer- tain how the strain hardened states at C and F might differ from each other. In a more recent report1 it was shown that straining at higher rates of strain increases the amount of strain hardening in a manner quite analogous to straining at lower temperatures. These observations suggested that the flow stress is not only a function of the strain but also a function of the strain rate-temperature history of straining, perhaps in accord with the Zener- ?H Hollomon parameter p = Ee /RT (where