Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808

www.elsevier.com/locate/actamat

On the nature of the yield point phenomenon

Rainer Schwab ⇑, Volker Ruff
Institute of Materials and Processes, Hochschule Karlsruhe – Technik und Wirtschaft (Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences),
Moltkestraße 30, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany

Received 25 September 2012; received in revised form 2 December 2012; accepted 3 December 2012
Available online 25 December 2012

Abstract

Materials in which the yield point phenomenon occurs exhibit a characteristic drop in the stress–strain curve at the end of the elastic
(or mainly elastic) region. In most cases the subsequent plastic deformation takes place locally in deformation bands, often termed
Lüders bands. Although first described more than 150 years ago, the yield point phenomenon is not yet fully understood. In this paper,
a new and simple macromechanical model is presented to explain the yield point phenomenon. It is based on three major points: (i) a
realistic or true upper yield point, (ii) typical strain-hardening behaviour common to many materials and (iii) the triaxiality of the stress
state that necessarily has to develop at the Lüders front and that determines the stress level at the lower yield strength. The model is
evaluated by experimental, analytical and numerical evidence. Combining all evidence, the model basically describes the yield point phe-
nomenon correctly. It may also be applied to related strain-softening phenomena and it explains the comparatively low ductility of some
nanocrystalline materials.
Ó 2012 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Yield strength; Yield phenomenon; Yield behaviour; Steel; Lüders effect

1. Introduction length has been covered by the plastic deformation band

The typical “normal” mechanical behaviour of polycrys-
talline metallic materials in tensile tests is the smooth tran-
sition from the elastic to the elastic–plastic region with a
steadily rising stress–strain curve, before necking occurs.
In contrast to this, materials displaying the yield point phe-
nomenon show an abrupt transition from the elastic (or
mainly elastic) state to elastic–plastic behaviour, with a
characteristic drop in the stress–strain curve, as shown in
Fig. 1. In most cases, this drop of stress is followed by a
region of almost constant nominal stress with some fluctu-
ations. Within this region of nearly constant stress, plastic
deformation takes place locally in deformation bands (also
called Lüders bands), starting at nucleation points and then
spreading out towards the still unyielded part of the speci-
men, as indicated for a simplified case by points 1–3 in
Fig. 1. When the whole prismatic or cylindrical specimen
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 721 925 1902; fax: +49 721 925 1915.
E-mail address: rainer.schwab@hs-karlsruhe.de (R. Schwab).
(or bands), the material shows typical strain-hardening
behaviour that is common to most other metallic materials.
According to ISO standards, the peak stress at the end
of the (mainly) elastic region here is termed the upper yield
strength ReH and the lowest stress level in the yield region is
termed the lower yield strength ReL.
Although sometimes regarded as an exception, the yield
point phenomenon occurs in a surprisingly large range of
materials [1]. It is mainly found in certain types of steel
[1] and in several body-centred cubic (bcc) materials such
as tungsten [2], but is also found as a variant in some alu-
minium [3] and copper alloys [4], intermetallic alloys [5],
neutron-irradiated materials [6], ultrafine-grained materials
[7–9], metallic glasses [10,11], ionic crystals [12], polymers
[13,14] and even rocks [15–17]. Lüders-like deformation
behaviour is observed in TRIP steels [18,19], shape mem-
ory alloys [20], and also cellular [21] and granular materials
under compression [22]. Described by Piobert et al. [23] and
Lüders [24] for steels more than 150 years ago, the phe-
nomenon is often referred to as the Lüders effect or

1359-6454/$36.00 Ó 2012 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2012.12.003
 R. Schwab, V. Ruff / Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808
Fig. 1. Stress–strain behaviour and plastic deformation band of a typical
structural steel in the tensile test; schematic.
Piobert–Lüders effect, the plastic deformation bands as
Lüders bands, and the plastic strain within the bands as
Lüders strain.
A large number of investigations have been carried out
to analyse this material behaviour, especially during the
1950s and 1960s, an extensive summary being presented
by Hall in 1970 [1]. In the last four decades the research
intensity to explain the yield phenomenon has decreased,
but has been supplemented by numerical methods, espe-
cially the finite element method. Most efforts to explain
the yield phenomenon and Lüders strain in metals are
based on micromechanical approaches, such as the Cott-
rell–Bilby theory [25] or dislocation multiplication mecha-
nisms [12,26]. Problems arise with the explanation of the
temperature dependence of the yield phenomenon and
the level of the lower yield strength [1]. In many cases,
the stress level at the lower yield strength is described as
the stress to drive plastic deformation towards the still uny-
ielded region of the material, without further considering
the stress state at the Lüders front. In contrast, the inho-
mogeneous plastic deformation was already attributed by
van Rooyen to a stress concentration at the Lüders front
[27,28]. Some works are based on various approaches using
the finite element method, and show interesting results [29–
32], on the interpretation as a form of Maxwell stress
[31,33,34], or on strain gradient plasticity models [35].
Although good correlation of the theory with experimental
results has been reported in some cases, we believe that the
yield phenomenon, especially the stress level at the lower
yield strength, is not yet fully understood. The similarity
of the yield phenomenon in so many different materials is
striking and calls for a common explanation.
Encouraged by an extensive literature research, our own
experimental background of several hundred tensile tests on
structural steels carried out in the course of university educa-
tion, some bending and torsion tests, several hundred finite
element simulations and an analytical approach, we would
like to suggest a simple and fundamental model to explain
the yield point phenomenon, especially the stress level of
the lower yield strength. Even though our main ideas primar-
ily refer to the yield behaviour of typical structural steels, we
1799
think that similar considerations can be made to explain yield
phenomena in other materials and related strain-softening
effects, such as the Portevin–Le Chatelier effect.
2. The model
Three points are essential in our model (see Fig. 2):
 The true upper yield strength ReH(tr) is much higher than
the upper yield strength commonly observed.
 The true material behaviour after first yielding is not the
observed one, but instead the normal one with normal
strain hardening starting at the true lower yield strength
ReL(tr).
 The stress level at the observed lower yield strength
ReL(obs) is predominantly a result of the triaxial stress
state that develops at the Lüders front.
In the following sections experimental, analytical and
numerical evidence are presented to support or criticize
the model.
3. Experimental evidence
Experimental evidence on yield point phenomena are
numerous and complex. An adequate approach to do jus-
tice to all this work would require a whole book, such as
Ref. [1]. To pick out essential results means evaluation
and critical review with the danger of being mislead by
one’s own ideas. Nevertheless, we believe that the following
selected experimental results, mainly taken from the litera-
ture, are of special importance to evaluating a model for
the yield phenomenon in polycrystalline steels.
The true upper yield strength of a material is much higher
than the value observed in most tensile tests. The reason for
this is that even slight misalignment of specimens in the
tensile test, notches and residual stresses lead to stress con-
centrations with earlier yielding [1]. Interestingly, this fact
often seems to be neglected or even forgotten, especially
in recent years. One reason for this might be that modern
tensile test equipment is often optimized for fast and auto-
mated testing – with careful test piece preparation and
bend-free gripping being of minor concern. It is not
uncommon, and has been proved by many of our own
experiments, that the true upper yield strength may exceed
the tensile strength, especially in fine-grained structural
steels. Fig. 3 shows an example of our own experiments;
a comparatively long tensile specimen with minimized
influence of grips was strained in a typical tensile test.
Although the test piece in Fig. 3 was tested cautiously, the
true upper yield strength was not yet measured correctly. Mea-
surements of the true (or almost true) upper yield strength are
difficult and rare [36,37]. Fig. 4 shows some data for Armco
iron obtained by Hutchinson [36] for different grain sizes and
three different temperatures, using centre-annealed wire speci-
mens. The back-calculated data will be referred to later in
Section 4.2.
1800 R. Schwab, V. Ruff / Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808

Fig. 2. True and observed stress–strain behaviour of a typical structural steel in the tensile test.

Fig. 3. Force–elongation curve of a common plain carbon steel in a tensile

test.

The Lüders strain is closely related with the true upper

yield strength, the observed lower yield strength and the flow
curve. Many experiments at different grain sizes, tempera-
tures and strain rates have shown this relationship
[1,28,38,39]. Special evidence is given by strain ageing
experiments in tensile tests [1].
Decarburization, denitridation, pressurization, cyclic
loading and other experiments show the plastic behaviour
without yield phenomenon. The upper yield strength in steel
is commonly thought to be caused by “locking” of disloca-
tions by carbon, nitrogen and other interstitial atoms [1].
So removing the locking by decarburization [1], denitrida-
tion [1], pressurization of inhomogeneous iron [40] or cyclic
loading [27,41] shows the plastic behaviour without the
yield phenomenon and without Lüders bands. Further evi-
dence is given by composite specimens suppressing Lüders
bands [42]. Although certain alterations are made in the Fig. 4. Measurements of the (probably) correct upper yield strength
material by all of the above-mentioned methods, strong ReH(obs) and the lower yield strength ReL(obs) of Armco iron as a function
evidence for normal material behaviour within the Lüders of grain size d, all data after Hutchinson [36]. In addition the back-
calculated true lower yield strength ReL(tr, calculated) is included, using Eq.
region is given. Nevertheless, taking typical uncertainties (14), see Section 4.2.
into account, the dislocation multiplication model [12,26]
may still be an alternative and might also fit into our
model. in steel form at angles u with the tensile axis (for definition
The morphology of the Lüders bands and the strain distri- see Fig. 1) of 45° to 70° [1,43–45]. Within a Lüders band,
bution within a Lüders band are characteristic. Lüders bands a certain transition region between the still elastic part of
 R. Schwab, V. Ruff / Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808
the specimen and the full Lüders strain is observed [46].
Sometimes single Lüders bands appear, sometimes multiple
bands, and in many cases also complex bands [1]. Lüders
fronts in tensile tests are mostly flat, in the case of complex
bands the fronts may be curved. An essential point is that
the plastic deformation observed near well-developed
Lüders fronts in steel is not a pure shear deformation,
but a combination of shear deformation and a deformation
perpendicular to the Lüders front [43,45,47].
To conclude, experimental results strongly support the
first two points of our model; some give a hint for the third
point. Now, if this is accepted for the moment, why is the
true material behaviour not observed in the tensile test?
The most important part of our model certainly is the
occurrence of a triaxial stress state that necessarily has to
develop at a Lüders front and that hides the true material
behaviour. To show this, some analytical calculations are
presented in the next section.
4. Analytical evidence
To begin with, a Lüders front at an angle u of 90° to
the tensile axis is considered, as shown in Fig. 5. This is
not the typical inclination that in most cases will develop
in reality, but it is shown here to explain the principles of
the phenomenon. Typical strain-hardening behaviour
in the plastic region and fine-grained material with
homogenous and quasi-isotropic material behaviour are
assumed.
4.1. Lüders front perpendicular to tensile axis
On the left side of Fig. 5 a tensile specimen with a
Lüders front about halfway through the cylindrical part
of the specimen can be seen. The middle part of Fig. 5
shows an enlargement of the Lüders front region, the spec-
imen deformation being exaggerated. Clearly there is a
large difference between the lateral contraction in the elas-
tic and in the plastic region of the specimen. Directly at the
Lüders front this invariably leads to compressive lateral
Fig. 5. Stress state at a Lüders front with an inclination of 90° to the tensile axis in a tensile test.
1801
stresses in the elastic region (r2e and r3e), and to tensile lat-
eral stresses in the plastic region (r2p and r3p).
Some distance away from the Lüders front, the stress
state is uniaxial, as normally to be expected in the standard
tensile test. So the upper small grey volume element (marked
with an asterisk in Fig. 5) within the elastic region will expe-
rience a uniaxial stress state at the stress level of the observed
lower yield strength ReL(obs). Almost the same stress acts in
the grey volume element in the plastic region, also marked
with an asterisk, if surface effects and the smaller cross-sec-
tional area are neglected. The plastic region some distance
away from the Lüders front has strain-hardened to the stress
level of the observed lower yield strength ReL(obs).
To further explain our model, the stress states will be
represented with the help of Mohr’s stress circles in s–r
diagrams, showing shear and normal stresses in differently
inclined planes. The state of stress in the two grey volume
elements is shown by the grey circle in the s–r diagram on
the right side of Fig. 5. Directly at the Lüders front, two
material states – an elastic and a plastic one – must coexist.
Coexistence means that the equilibrium of forces and geo-
metrical compatibility have to be fulfilled. The stress states
on the “still-elastic” and “just-yielded” sides of the Lüders
front are shown with the red and blue volume elements
respectively; the corresponding stress circles are shown
with the same colours, additionally marked with E and P.
Due to specimen symmetry no shear stresses act on the
red and blue volume elements. All normal stresses, r1e,
r2e, r3e, r1p, r2p and r3p, are principal stresses.
Four main ideas are used to explain the observed lower
yield strength ReL(obs).
4.1.1. Position of the stress circles relative to each other
The red and blue volume elements are positioned next to
each other. Therefore the normal stresses r1e and r1p have
to be equal:
r1e ¼ r1p ð1Þ
This fact relates the position of the elastic and plastic
stress circles to each other.
1802
4.1.2. Middle principal stresses
Due to specimen symmetry, and due to symmetrical lat-
eral contraction, in a cylindrical specimen r2e and r3e have
to have the same magnitude:
r2e ¼ r3e
Similar considerations can be made on the plastic side of
the Lüders front, where freshly yielded material with
hardly any strain-hardening exists:
r2p ¼ r3p
Thus Eqs. (2) and (3) determine the level of the middle
principal stresses relative to the minimum principal
stresses.
4.1.3. Yield criteria
The equivalent stresses for plastic yielding on the elastic
and on the plastic side of the Lüders front have to satisfy
the true material model. So, on the elastic side of the
Lüders front, the equivalent stress in the red volume ele-
ment has to be equal to the true yield strength ReH(tr).
Using the von Mises criterion for plastic yielding and Eq.
(2) leads to
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 2
ReHðtrÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ðr1e  r2e Þ þ ðr2e  r3e Þ þ ðr3e  r1e Þ
2
¼ r1e  r3e
This also means that the diameter of Mohr’s stress circle
on the elastic side of the Lüders front equals the true upper
yield strength, illustrated in Fig. 5. Similarly the von Mises
criterion on the freshly yielded plastic side of the Lüders
front and Eq. (3) lead to
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
ReLðtrÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ðr1p  r2p Þ2 þ ðr2p  r3p Þ2 þ ðr3p  r1p Þ2
2 ficulty of the material to deform plastically in the lateral
¼ r1p  r3p
4.1.4. Absolute values of the principal stresses
Eqs. (1)–(5) only relate the principal stresses to each
other; no absolute values are obtained. Therefore, one
more equation has to be set up:
r3e ¼ r3p
At first glance, Eq. (6) seems to be logical; it is based on
the equilibrium of forces. Nevertheless, it is only approxi-
mately valid and should rather be regarded as a reasonable
guess. This fact, however, does not affect our model funda-
mentally, only qualitatively. Moreover, the stress state
along the Lüders front is not homogeneous. The lateral
stresses r3e and r3p must be equal to zero at the specimen
surface; shear stresses in the Lüders front are only equal
to zero at the specimen surface and in the central region.
On the other hand, the lateral stresses near the Lüders
front only exist in a comparatively narrow region com-
pared with the specimen diameter. As a consequence, the
stress state along the Lüders front will be almost homoge-
neous for a wide central area, and only in a comparatively
R. Schwab, V. Ruff / Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808
small region near the surface the described deviations
exist. This is well supported by finite element calculations.
To conclude, Eqs. (1)–(6) should be a first-order
approximation.
ð2Þ
4.1.5. Results
Solving the six equations for the six variables leads to
the obvious solution
ðReHðtrÞ þ ReLðtrÞ Þ
ð3Þ ReLðobsÞ ¼ ð7Þ
2
So Eq. (7) gives the solution for the observed lower yield
strength ReL(obs) with the Lüders front perpendicular to the
tensile axis. During the tensile test a small volume element,
which is still in the elastic region of the specimen, would
experience lateral compressive stresses with a Lüders front
approaching. When the Lüders front arrives at the volume
element, the von Mises yield criterion for the true upper
yield strength ReH(tr) will be reached at nominal stress level
ReL(obs). Plastic yielding then takes place with a large drop
of equivalent stress down to the true lower yield strength
ReL(tr). This is accompanied with lateral tensile stresses,
causing the nominal stress r to rise to the observed lower
yield strength ReL(obs). Shortly afterwards the material
2 2
strain hardens to the nominal stress level of the observed
lower yield strength ReL(obs).
ð4Þ
Hence there is always a mechanical equilibrium between
the stress level at the Lüders front and the strain-hardened
plastic region. If a small amount of further strain-harden-
ing occurs in the plastic region, the Lüders front will carry
on moving towards the still elastic region, until the whole
uniform specimen length has yielded.
Lüders fronts perpendicular to the tensile axis are not
observed in most cases. The main reason for this is the dif-
ð5Þ direction along an initially narrow band, especially at the
initiation stage. Therefore a Lüders front with a typical
inclination is considered in the next step.
4.2. Lüders front with typical inclination to tensile axis
Again, a Lüders front partly through the parallel length
ð6Þ
of the specimen is regarded (see Fig. 6). An essential part of
our model is the experimental fact that plastic deformation
close to the Lüders front is not of a pure shear type, but is a
combination of shear deformation and a deformation per-
pendicular to the Lüders front [43,45,47]. The typical spec-
imen shape is shown exaggeratedly in the middle part of
Fig. 6. It is worth mentioning that this state only applies
for a well-developed broad single Lüders band, and not
for a narrow band in the initiation stage.
In an analogous way to Section 4.1, small volume ele-
ments show the states of stress in different places. Far away
from the Lüders front, the stress state is mainly uniaxial. So
the upper grey volume element in the elastic region, marked
with an asterisk, experiences a uniaxial stress state at stress
level ReL(obs). The same applies for the lower grey element
 R. Schwab, V. Ruff / Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808 1803

Fig. 6. Stress state at a Lüders front with typical inclination in a tensile test.

in the plastic region, also marked with an asterisk, if again sides of the Lüders front. Again, the lateral contractions
surface effects and the smaller cross-sectional area are are assumed to be symmetric, but now certain problems
neglected. The state of stress in these two elements is repre- arise to determine the middle principal stresses logically.
sented by the grey stress circle on the right side of Fig. 6. The A reasonable guess, based on the equilibrium of forces, is
stress states on the “still-elastic” and “just-yielded” sides of to set r2e equal to r3e and r2p equal to –r2e (see Fig. 6):
the Lüders front are shown with the red and blue volume r2e ¼ r3e ð9Þ
elements, respectively; the corresponding stress circles are
drawn with the same colours and marked with E and P. r2p ¼ r2e ð10Þ
Now, in a similar way to Section 4.1, six equations can Instead of Eqs. (9) and (10), related ideas may be
be set up. r1e, r2e and r3e are the principal stresses in the applied; in most cases, the results do not deviate much,
red volume element on the elastic side of the Lüders front. since the influence of the middle principal stresses on yield-
r1p, r2p and r3p are the principal stresses on the plastic side. ing is limited.
It is essential that both the inclination u as well as the
observed lower yield strength ReL(obs) are not predeter- 4.2.3. Yield criteria
mined. They will be the result of the calculation. Similar to Eqs. (4) and (5), the equivalent stresses on
The main ideas are fourfold again. both sides of the Lüders front have to reach the true upper
respectively q lower yield strength. Using Eq. (9) leads to
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
4.2.1. Position of the stress circles relative to each other ReHðtrÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ðr1e  r2e Þ2 þ ðr2e  r3e Þ2 þ ðr3e  r1e Þ2
At this stage a significant hypothesis has to be made: 2
¼ r1e  r3e ð11Þ
The Lüders front plane is the plane, where the maximum qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 2 2 2
shear stress acts on the plastic side. Or in other words: ReLðtrÞ ¼ pffiffiffi ðr1p  r2p Þ þ ðr2p  r3p Þ þ ðr3p  r1p Þ
the maximum respectively minimum points of the 2
blue circle (P) are the intersection points with the red ð12Þ
circle (E).
4.2.4. Absolute values of the principal stresses
This hypothesis appears to be reasonable; it expresses To obtain the absolute values of the principal stresses, a
the fact that plastic deformation under these geometrical similar assumption to Section 4.1.4 has to be made. Here it
restrictions is easiest in a plane of maximum shear stress. means that the grey stress circle intersects the dashed black
In analogy to Eq. (1), the position of the stress circles rel- horizontal line in the centre of the dashed line (grey point
ative to each other is determined by their intersection 1). Using the theorem of Pythagoras, this is expressed by
points. Using the theorem of Pythagoras leads to r þ r r1e þ r3e 2
1p 3p 2
r  r 2 r þ r þ ¼ ðr1p  r3p Þ
1e 3e 1p 3p r1e þ r3e 2 r1p  r3p 2 2 2
¼  þ r þ r
2 2 2 2 1p 3p r1e þ r3e 2
þ 
or simplified: 2 2
2 2 2 or simplified:
ðr1e  r3e Þ ¼ ðr1p þ r3p  r1e  r3e Þ þ ðr1p  r3p Þ ð8Þ
2
ðr1p þ r3p Þðr1e þ r3e Þ ¼ ðr1p  r3p Þ ð13Þ
4.2.2. Middle principal stresses Again, this assumption is a reasonable guess; again it
The normal stresses rne and rnp are responsible for the only affects the results qualitatively and does not contradict
lateral contractions, respectively compressions on both the fundamental idea of our model.
1804 R. Schwab, V. Ruff / Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808

4.2.5. Results So the observed lower yield strength ReL(obs) and the
Solving Eqs. (8)–(13) gives the following results, using inclination u of the Lüders front are only a function of
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
R ¼ R2eHðtrÞ þ 8R2eLðtrÞ as an abbreviation: the true upper and true lower yield strength. Fig. 7 shows
the analytical results graphically in a normalized form.
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
2 2 The ReL(obs)/ReL(tr) ratio as well as u are plotted vs. ReH(tr)/
1 14R eHðtrÞ  2R eHðtrÞ R  8R eLðtrÞ
r1e ¼ @5ReHðtrÞ  þ RA ReL(tr). For comparison, the results for a Lüders front at
8 3 90° to the tensile axis (Section 4.1) are included.
According to the analytical results, a Lüders front incli-
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
nation u of 45° has to be expected at an ReH(tr)/ReL(tr) ratio
1@ 14R2eHðtrÞ  2ReHðtrÞ R  8R2eLðtrÞ
r2e ¼ 3ReHðtrÞ  þ RA of 1. The larger the ReH(tr)/ReL(tr) ratio, the more u
8 3 approaches 90°. The result ReL(obs)/ReL(tr) for free inclina-
tion of the Lüders front is always lower than for predeter-
r3e ¼ r2e mined inclination of 90° to the tensile axis.
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi It would be most interesting to compare these results
1@ 14R2eHðtrÞ  2ReHðtrÞ R  8R2eLðtrÞ with experimental data. Unfortunately both ReH(tr) and
r1p ¼ ReHðtrÞ þ
8 3 ReL(tr) are very difficult to measure by experiments. But
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1 taking Eq. (14), solving it for ReL(tr) and making use of
8R2eHðtrÞ þ 8ReHðtrÞ R þ 32R2eLðtrÞ Hutchinson’s data, the true lower yield strength of Armco
þ þ RA iron can be back-calculated (see Fig. 4). Most of the back-
3
calculated values of ReL(tr), in Fig. 4 termed ReL(tr, calculated),
r2p ¼ r2e appear reasonable. The data obtained for room tempera-
0 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ture (293 K) are not easily explained at the moment.
1@ 14R2eHðtrÞ  2ReHðtrÞ R  8R2eLðtrÞ
r3p ¼ ReHðtrÞ þ 5. Numerical evidence
8 3
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1
Several hundred finite element calculations have been
8R2eHðtrÞ þ 8ReHðtrÞ R þ 32R2eLðtrÞ
 þ RA carried out to evaluate our material model using the Aba-
3 qus and CalculiX code. The general problems and restric-
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi tions of numerical calculations are well known and need
ReHðtrÞ þ R ReHðtrÞ þ R2eHðtrÞ þ 8R2eLðtrÞ not be discussed here. One problem, however, deserves spe-
ReLðobsÞ ¼ ¼ ð14Þ cial attention, since it is of vital importance. It is the extre-
4 4
0 v ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi1
u 2 mely sharp and large drop of stress at the yield point and
p 1 u 4ReLðtrÞ  R2eHðtrÞ þ ReHðtrÞ R the resulting sharp spatial stress and strain gradients near
u ¼  arctan @2t 2 A ð15Þ the Lüders front. That makes it particularly difficult for
2 2 7ReHðtrÞ  4R2eLðtrÞ  ReHðtrÞ R
finite element programmes to come to stable and good
solutions. Further attendance has to be given to the fact
that the numerically calculated Lüders fronts tend to form
along the element edges.
In consideration of this, typical parameter studies were
carried out, varying

 the number and type of finite elements,

 static and dynamic calculations,
 stabilizing methods,
 boundary conditions,
 material models,
 symmetry of specimens,
 material homogeneity,
 specimen shapes and
 the type of loading (tension, compression, bending, tor-
sion, deep drawing).

It is interesting to note that, in almost all cases, the finite

Fig. 7. Analytical results in normalized form, dashed lines show the
results for a Lüders front predetermined at 90° to the tensile axis for
comparison.
element calculations achieve surprisingly good simulations
of the yield point phenomenon and Lüders bands, with
few, if any, parameter adjustments. However, in the case
of symmetrical modelling and loading of purely prismatic
 R. Schwab, V. Ruff / Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808
shapes, sometimes no Lüders bands are calculated, since all
elements behave completely symmetrically. In these cases a
slight asymmetry or a weak trigger point has to be included
in the modelling.
As an example, the results of a finite element simulation
of a typical tensile test of a structural steel will be pre-
sented. The simulation was carried out using the Abaqus
Standard code, large deformation mode, static three-
dimensional calculation with default stabilizing option
and 15,000 hexahedral elements, type C3D20. Fig. 8
shows the specimen shape, the elements, the main bound-
ary conditions and the material model. For the material
model a realistic set of data was chosen with ReH(tr) = 500
N mm2, ReL(tr) = 150 N mm2 and a typical flow curve.
The simulated specimen was loaded in a similar way to a
real tensile test. The upper ring area at the upper specimen
shoulder was held in constant vertical position; the lower
ring area at the lower specimen shoulder was moved down-
wards to simulate a strain controlled tensile test. A trigger
element with a slightly lower strength (ReH(tr) = 490
N mm2) than all the other elements served as starting
point for the Lüders band.
Several tests using static analysis showed that the steep
fall of the stress–strain curve at the yield point leads to
instability in the calculation, a problem that has to be
expected. As a consequence, the vertical drop at the yield
point was smoothed more and more in the calculations,
until stability was achieved. A true plastic strain of
0.0075 at the lower yield point (see Fig. 8) proved to be suf-
ficient under the given conditions. Other simulations using
the implicit dynamic mode and sharp drops in stress at the
yield point proved to come to good and very similar results
Fig. 8. Specimen shape, elements and material model used for finite element calculations.
1805
as well, but the problem of the numerical calculation to
cope with the resulting large spatial stress and strain gradi-
ents remains. Furthermore, dynamic analysis needs a cer-
tain amount of damping, a point that still has to be
investigated.
The smoothing out of the yield point drop has several
consequences. On the one hand, it enables stability and
probably leads to better numerical results, because the
stress gradients are not so extreme. On the other hand,
the flow curve is altered considerably. Nevertheless, we
would like to present this static analysis, since there were
no further parameter adjustments necessary.
The results of the finite element calculations are shown
in Fig. 9. In the upper left hand corner the resulting
stress–strain diagram is displayed. For easy and realistic
comparison with real tensile tests, the nominal stress is
plotted vs. nominal strain of the actual cylindrical test
region. The nominal strain is extensometer based; it is
determined by e = (L1 + L2)/2L0 (see Fig. 8), with
L0 = 50 mm. Since symmetrical loading and homogeneous
as well as isotropic material behaviour were used, the true
upper yield strength ReH(tr) of 500 N mm2 is obtained.
The very steep yield drop originates partly from the fact
that the Lüders band starts outside the gauge length.
The finite element result of the lower yield strength
ReL(FEM) of 290 N mm2 compares well with the analyt-
ical prediction. Inserting ReH(tr) = 500 N mm2 and
ReL(tr) = 150 N mm2 into Eq. (14) leads to
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ReHðtrÞ þ R2eHðtrÞ þ 8R2eLðtrÞ
ReLðobsÞ ¼ ¼ 289 N mm2
4
1806 R. Schwab, V. Ruff / Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808
Fig. 9. Results of a finite element simulation; the equivalent plastic strain distribution shown is the strain at the specimen surface.
Although other finite element calculations also show
good correlation with the analytical results, the very good
concurrence in this case may rather be regarded as coinci-
dence. But on the whole, the stress–strain diagram com-
pares very well with a real tensile test.
In the upper right hand side of Fig. 9 the distribution of
the equivalent plastic strain at the specimen surface is pre-
sented. Since the Lüders front is almost planar, the plastic
strain distribution shown in this side view resembles the
distribution along a longitudinal section through the spec-
imen axis. The angle of inclination u of the Lüders band is
55° at the initiation point and increases to 62° during the
simulated tensile test. In this case the analytically predicted
angle of 72° (by Eq. (15)) differs substantially. The exagger-
ated deformation shown in the lower right-hand corner of
Fig. 9 seems to be in accord with the main ideas of
Section 4.2.
The stress–strain diagram in the lower left hand corner
of Fig. 9 shows the stress history of an integration point
almost in the centre of the simulated specimen. In order
to compare these results with the stress–strain diagram
above, the stresses are plotted vs. nominal strain as well.
The main ideas of the analytical calculations in Sections
4.1 and 4.2 are confirmed: with approaching Lüders front,
the von Mises stress rises to almost ReH(tr), falls down to
almost ReL(tr) then approximately recovers the level of
ReL(FEM). The curves of the principal stresses r1, r2 and
r3 compare reasonably well with the prediction of our the-
ory (open circles). It must be emphasized that these plots
vary a lot between different integration points, but the gen-
eral tendency is consistent. In some of the other integration
points, the von Mises equivalent stresses reach ReH(tr) and
ReL(tr) at the Lüders front, as to be expected.
Further preliminary finite element calculation results
may briefly be summarized as follows.
 The calculated lower yield strength ReL(FEM) generally
follows the trend given by Eq. (14).
 The angle of inclination u is generally lower in the finite
element simulations than predicted by Eq. (15), but an
increase of u with increasing ReH(tr)/ReL(tr) ratio accord-
ing to Fig. 7 is calculated, though to a much smaller
amount.
 Slightly asymmetrical loading in the tensile test leads to
a remarkable suppression of the observed upper yield
strength.
 Simulations of bending and torsion tests match up well
with experimental data.
 Simulations of deep drawing processes show typical
stretcher strains that are observed in reality.
 Specimens with homogeneous materials predominantly
show single Lüders bands. The more inhomogeneous
the material, the more complex the simulated Lüders
bands.
 Tensile and compressive loading of more complicated
prismatic shapes show Lüders bands as well.
6. Discussion
All of the presented evidence have specific advantages
and drawbacks. Experimental results mainly suffer from
 R. Schwab, V. Ruff / Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808
asymmetrical loading of specimens, the difficulty of mea-
suring the true flow curve within a Lüders band, internal
stresses in specimens, inhomogeneous as well as anisotropic
materials and the problem of measuring the strain and
stress distribution inside the specimens. The analytical cal-
culation has to make several assumptions to come to rea-
sonable solutions. The numerical simulation has to deal
with the sharp stress and strain gradients near the Lüders
front.
Nevertheless, taking all evidence and problems into con-
sideration, our model generally is able to explain material
behaviour with a yield phenomenon. A critical point cer-
tainly is the assumption of a true and well-defined lower
yield strength ReL(tr). This could also be the lowest point
in the flow curve of the dislocation multiplication model
for steels, but the idea of most of the locked dislocations
in steels being unlocked and free at yielding seems to be
possible. Moreover our model only applies for well-defined
broad Lüders bands. Thin-walled specimens might show a
smaller lower yield strength than predicted analytically,
since the influence of the surface is more pronounced.
The finite element simulation presented here predicts an
angle of inclination u of the Lüders band of 55° at the ini-
tiation stage and 62°, when the Lüders band is compara-
tively broad. So in the simulation the inclination of the
Lüders front changes in the course of the tensile test. In
experiments on steels close to the simulated one, the
observed inclination is 51–55° and does not seem to
change a lot during the test. Rather than a change in incli-
nation, sometimes new Lüders bands appear in different
directions. This was also observed in finite element simula-
tions of slightly inhomogeneous materials. An interpreta-
tion of this fact could be that, once a Lüders band has
originated in reality, it tends to keep its inclination, since
plastic deformation is focussed on a region close to the
Lüders front. In contrast, the finite element Lüders front
is able to change its inclination to some extent towards
the analytically predicted one.
Another important point is the dependence of the upper
and lower yield strength of plain carbon steels on the strain
rate in real tensile tests. In most cases the upper yield
strength shows a comparatively large sensitivity to strain
rate (sometimes described as delayed yielding). The lower
yield strength shows a moderate one and the flow curve a
comparatively small sensitivity [1,38,39]. This experimental
fact qualitatively agrees with our model, because according
to Eq. (14) ReL(obs) is a function of ReH(tr) (highest sensitiv-
ity) and ReL(tr) (part of the flow curve, lowest sensitivity).
Or in other words: with increasing strain rate, ReH(tr)
increases substantially, ReL(tr) only a little, and ReL(obs)
moderately, according to Eq. (14).
The next point is the different sensitivity of the upper
yield strength, the lower yield strength and the flow stress
on grain size and temperature [1,48]. Here again the idea
of ReL(obs) being a function of ReH(tr) and ReL(tr) seems to
agree with experimental data.
1807
Since our material model is valid for any steep drop in
the flow stress, other strain softening mechanisms may be
explained as well, such as the Portevin–Le Chatelier effect,
the yielding behaviour of some polymers or materials with
certain phase transformations. Of special interest are extre-
mely fine-grained materials and also some metallic glasses,
where the true upper yield strength (or a substitute for it) is
very high. In this case even the observed lower yield
strength exceeds the tensile strength. The strain-hardening
ability of these materials is not sufficient to meet the stress
level of the lower yield strength. And this in turn does not
lead to stable spreading out of Lüders bands, but instead to
a strain concentration in a freshly created Lüders band
(then called shear band) with shear type fracture and poor
ductility in the tensile test.
7. Conclusions
In this paper a simple macromechanical model to
explain the nature of the yield phenomenon in steels is pre-
sented. The model is based on three major points:
 The true upper yield strength is much higher than the
upper yield strength commonly observed. The main
cause for this is that even slight misalignment of speci-
mens in the tensile test, notches and residual stresses
lead to stress concentrations with earlier yielding. There
is enough reliable experimental and numerical evidence
to confirm this point without doubt.
 The true material behaviour after first yielding is not the
observed one, but instead the normal one with normal
strain-hardening. Experimental and numerical evidence
strongly support this point; certain variations to this
point are not excluded.
 The stress level at the observed lower yield strength is
predominantly a result of the triaxial stress state that
develops at the Lüders front. This is strongly supported
by experimental, analytical and numerical evidence.
Preliminary numerical simulations show that the model
also seems to predict the yield behaviour of steels in more
complex structures, in compression, bending and torsion.
Although primarily intended to describe the yield phenom-
enon in plain carbon steels, the model may also be applied
for similar materials and related strain softening effects. It
even explains the low ductility of some nanocrystalline
materials.
References
[1] Hall EO. Yield point phenomena in metals and alloys. London: Mac-
millan; 1970.
[2] Gaal I, Tóth AL, Uray L, Harmat P. Int J Refract Met H
2006;24:325.
[3] Shibkov AA, Zolotov AE, Zheltov MA, Denisov AA. Phys Solid
State 2011;53:887.
[4] Vöhringer O, Macherauch E. Phys Status Solidi B 1967;19:793.
1808 R. Schwab, V. Ruff / Acta Materialia 61 (2013) 1798–1808

[5] González-Doncel G, Adeva P, Cristina MC, Ibáñez J. Acta Metall [27] Van Rooyen GT. Mater Sci Eng 1968;3:105.
Mater 1995;43:4281. [28] Van Rooyen GT. Mater Sci Eng 1971;7:37.
[6] Malygin GA. Phys Solid State 2005;47:656. [29] Shaw JA, Kyriakides S. Int J Plasticity 1997;13:837.
[7] Tsuji N, Ito Y, Saito Y, Minamino Y. Scripta Mater 2002;47:893. [30] Tsukahara H, Iung T. Mater Sci Eng A – Struct 1998;248:304.
[8] Han BQ, Lavernia EJ. Adv Eng Mater 2005;7:457. [31] Kyriakides S, Miller JE. J Appl Mech 2000;67:645.
[9] Tsuchida N, Masuda H, Harada Y, Fukaura K, Tomota Y, Nagai K. [32] Childs THC. Int J Mech Sci 2009;51:402.
Mater Sci Eng A – Struct 2008;488:446. [33] Zhang YT, Qiao JL, Ao T. Model Simul Mater Sci 2007;15:147.
[10] Zhang ZF, He G, Eckert J, Schultz L. Phys Rev Lett 2003;91:045505. [34] Zhang YT, Ao T, Jiao W, Cui YH. Comp Mater Sci 2008;41:547.
[11] Schuh CA, Hufnagel TC, Ramamurty U. Acta Mater 2007;55:4067. [35] Marais A, Mazière M, Forest S, Parrot A, Le Delliou P. Philos Mag
[12] Johnston WG, Gilman JJ. J Appl Phys 1959;30:129. 2012:1.
[13] Brown N, Ward IM. J Polym Sci A2 1968;6:607. [36] Hutchinson MM. Philos Mag 1963;8:121.
[14] Lu J, Ravi-Chandar K. Int J Solids Struct 1999;36:391. [37] Petch JN. Acta Metall Mater 1964;12:59.
[15] Friedman M, Logan JM. Geol Soc Am Bull 1973;84:1465. [38] Krafft JM, Sullivan AM. Ship structure committee 1960 SSC-127.
[16] Burg JP, Harris LB. Tectonophysics 1982;83:347. <http://66.180.169.221/pdf/127.pdf>.
[17] Watterson J. J Struct Geol 1999;21:939. [39] Krafft JM. Acta Metall Mater 1962;10:85. <http://www.shipstruc-
[18] Emadoddin E, Akbarzadeh A, Daneshi GH. Mater Sci Eng A – ture.org/pdf/123.pdf>.
Struct 2007;447:174. [40] Bullen FP, Henderson F, Hutchinson MM, Wain HL. Philos Mag
[19] Lee S, Lee SJ, Santhosh Kumar S, Lee K, De Cooman BC. Metall 1964;9:285.
Mater Trans A 2011;42A:3638. [41] Oates G, Wilson DV. Acta Metall Mater 1964;12:21.
[20] Young ML, Wagner MFX, Frenzel J, Schmahl WW, Eggeler G. Acta [42] Shioya T, Shioiri J. J Mech Phys Solids 1976;24:187.
Mater 2010;58:2344. [43] Butler FJ. J Mech Phys Solids 1962;10:313.
[21] Shaw MC, Sata T. Int J Mech Sci 1966;8:469. [44] Delwiche DE, Moon DW. Mater Sci Eng 1971;7:203.
[22] Gajo A, Bigoni D, Muir Wood D. J Mech Phys Solids 2004;52:2683. [45] Ananthan VS, Hall EO. Acta Metall Mater 1991;39:3153.
[23] Piobert G, Morin AJ, Didion I. Mem l’artillerie 1842;5:501. [46] Moon DW. Mater Sci Eng 1971;8:235.
[24] Lüders W. Dinglers Polytech J 1860;155:18. [47] Lomer WM. J Mech Phys Solids 1952;1:64.
[25] Cottrell AH, Bilby BA. Proc Phys Soc A 1949;62:49. [48] Armstrong R, Codd I, Douthwaite RM, Petch NJ. Philos Mag
[26] Hahn GT. Acta Metall Mater 1962;10:727. 1962;7:45.