Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ejdj1011 t1_j68ab3a wrote

Essentially, differences in the force that binds the atoms / molecules of a material together.

This is due to a combination of subatomic forces and the structure of the material. For example, strain in metals is due to the crystal structure "realigning" itself, one atom at a time. Doing so fills atomic-scale voids and fixes other defects in the structure. Eventually, you run out of such defects, and the stress is instead applied to the crystal bonds themselves. Breaking these bonds breaks the material.

2

Coomb t1_j69lr7i wrote

You are correct at an extremely high level that the differences in fracture stress and strain between materials (and indeed even between samples of materials) are related to the strength of the atomic bonds within the materials and the crystalline structure and microstructure.

However, that is not an accurate description of what happens to a metal under strain. First, it entirely ignores the possibility (and actual behavior) of elastic strain. Second, even confining ourselves to plastic strain, it's a fundamentally incorrect description of what happens.

It is true that the most common mechanism by which plastic strain occurs is through the movement of dislocations, defects in the crystal structure of the material. But it's not generally true that the strain is taken up by the destruction of dislocations. In fact, it's the exact opposite. When just enough shear stress is applied to begin shifting atoms relative to each other within the crystal structure, existing dislocation patterns within the material begin producing additional dislocations under the applied shear stress. These dislocations entail, by definition, the local shifting of one plane of the crystal relative to another. So when dislocations are generated under shear stress, they accommodate that shear stress by allowing the material to shift in a local way. It is the fact that dislocation generation allows local relief of stress which explains why dislocations are preferentially generated. In order for the crystal to deform along an entire slip plane, all of the atoms must move at once. A dislocation entails the movement of a much smaller number of atoms, on the order of hundreds to thousands.

But the dislocations themselves impose a stress field around them which impedes the movement of other dislocations. So in order for these dislocation sources to produce additional dislocations, they must be subjected to higher stresses. This explains the phenomenon of work hardening, which is present in every metal. If you stress a metal adequately to deform it plastically, additional plastic deformation requires you to exceed that stress in the future, absent any intervening processes which allow the dislocations to heal.

If it were the destruction of dislocations that was responsible for plastic information, metals would actually get softer as they were worked. This is because dislocations disappearing reduces the amount of stress required for those Frank Read sources to generate new ones. And there will always be dislocations present in a crystal at a temperature greater than 0K because it is entropically favored.

If we ignore this effect, and just concentrate on what happens once you have a single crystal without dislocations, under your theory, materials would get far stronger than we can make them at a macro scale today. If there really are no dislocations in a crystal, the amount of stress required to plastically deform the crystal is the amount of stress required to move an entire layer of atoms at once. The amount of stress required to do this is only about an order of magnitude less than the actual stiffness of the material. For a generic steel, this would imply that the fracture stress would be about 20 GPa. But we can't make steels that are stronger than about 1/10 of that, no matter how much we work them.

8

Chemomechanics t1_j69s728 wrote

> For example, strain in metals is due to the crystal structure "realigning" itself, one atom at a time. Doing so fills atomic-scale voids and fixes other defects in the structure. Eventually, you run out of such defects, and the stress is instead applied to the crystal bonds themselves.

[Edited to assume good faith.] This is so very wrong. I suppose you're just making things up or using an AI-generated answer writing without peer-reviewed technical references; the answer also resembles AI-generated answers that are designed to be confident but not designed to be correct.

Elastic strain arises from bonds stretching and recoverable defect movement. Plastic strain arises from unrecoverable defect movement, which itself creates more defects, not fewer. Voids ultimately form and coalesce; they don't disappear. The stress is always applied to the crystal bonds.

1

ejdj1011 t1_j69smyq wrote

I was just wrong, you don't have to insult me about it.

It is in fact possible to correct someone without being a jerk.

1

Chemomechanics t1_j69ycqq wrote

My note addresses the comment only, not any aspect of your character. Of course insults have no place in a technical discussion.

0

ejdj1011 t1_j69z4dk wrote

> I suppose you're just making things up or using an AI-generated answer.

That's an insult if I've ever heard one. The "making things up" is a direct attack of character, as it implies knowingly spreading falsehoods. Just because you say you didn't insult me doesn't make it true.

1

Hippie_4U t1_j6bwnnt wrote

Hello, there! I'm glad I found this group. Moreover, I'd like to know if a stress- and strain matter is involved in the manufacturing of springs, such as those small, long, bouncy ones found in ink writing-pens? Thank you! -Renee K. Taylor, Kamloops, BC (Jan. 28/23.)

1

CrambleSquash t1_j6cxuze wrote

The mechanical properties - such as strength, of materials depends on their structure at various length scales - macro (what shape is it?), micro (grains, domains etc.), atomic (atomic defects, crystallinity, bonding: metallic Vs ionic Vs covalent).

This is an incredibly complex topic. We have to take a different perspective on all these aspects depending on the materials we're studying - a metal, plastic or ceramic, bio.

Sadly there's no silver bullet! This is why a large part of Materials Science is dedicated to this very topic.

Perhaps interestingly the answer is basically never as simple as how strong are the atomic bonds.

1