Why Does Steel Fracture at 1% Elongation Contrary to Molecular Bond Theory?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the phenomenon of steel fracturing at approximately 1% elongation, which appears to contradict molecular bond theory. Participants explore the implications of Hooke's Law, the microscopic behavior of materials, and potential alternative explanations for the observed fracture behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Hooke's Law holds only over a limited range for many materials, including steel, which fractures at about 1% elongation.
  • One participant suggests that fracture in crystalline materials like hard steel occurs progressively through notches, and questions whether Hooke's Law might apply over a wider range in single crystal metals.
  • Another participant proposes that electrostatic forces due to plasma polarization fields could explain the behavior of steel, rather than molecular forces.
  • A participant raises a question about the relationship between stress and fracture, asking if the force necessary to fracture a material can be derived from the force required to elongate it by a certain distance.
  • With a molecular force interpretation, it is suggested that the force required to fracture a material is linked to the work needed to break molecular bonds, which typically occurs at atomic separations greater than those observed in steel.
  • One participant mentions a theory that cracks in the material might explain the discrepancy between observed and expected fracture behavior, but expresses skepticism about this explanation, favoring a plasma physics approach instead.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of Hooke's Law and the mechanisms behind steel fracture, indicating that multiple competing explanations exist without a consensus on the matter.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of molecular forces and the role of cracks in materials, as well as the dependence of the discussion on specific definitions and interpretations of stress and fracture mechanics.

Thomas
Experience shows that for many materials Hooke's Law holds only over a very small range. A steel bar for instance can only be extended by about 1% by an applied force before it fractures. Translate into the microscopic picture this means that the distance between the molecules changes only by about 1% before dissociation is achieved and the molecular bond breaks. Now the potential curve of molecular bonds typically varies over a range of 1 Angstrom ( i.e. the average distance between the molecular nuclei; see http://www.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/quantum/harmonic-oscillator.html ). This however would mean that one would roughly need to double the distance between the nuclei before dissociation is achieved, in contradiction to experience. What is the explanation for this discrepancy ? Is the potential curve in metals only 10^-2 Angstrom wide (and the dissociation energy reduced by a corresponding amount) and if yes why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Fracture in a crystaline allow,

of which hard steel is, occurs in the form of a notch which rips open progressivly. You might want to check on rupture of single crystal of Iron or other metals, where Hooke's Law may work over a wider range.
 
I have examined this topic now in more detail on my webpage regards Hooke's Law and it appears that electrostatic forces due to plasma polarization fields could be responsible here (rather than molecular forces).
 
Thomas said:
Experience shows that for many materials Hooke's Law holds only over a very small range. A steel bar for instance can only be extended by about 1% by an applied force before it fractures.
More generally, are there elements in the equations for the stress on a material that imply that anything that undergoes stress may also fracture? Can the force necessary to fracture be calculated from the force required to elongate by some distance?

Thanks
 
With the molecular force interpretation, the force required to fracture a material is given by the work required to break the molecular bonds i.e. the dissociation energy. This is usually of the order of a few electron Volts and as you can see from the first diagram in http://www.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/quantum/harmonic-oscillator.html , this should happen at an atomic separation of a couple of Angstroms, i.e. you would have to extend the steel bar to more than twice its length (the normal separation of the atoms is given by the minimum of the curve which is somewhat less than 1 A). This would correspond to a force about 100 times as high as actually observed (as mentioned, a steel bar fractures already at about 1% elongation).
There is a theory that cracks in the material are responsible for this discrepancy, but as indicated on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/hooke.htm this is rather implausible and a better explanation could be made in terms of plasma physics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
30K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K