J Mech Behav Mater 2014; 23(3-4): 101–106
R. Rajendran*, M. Venkateshwarlu, Vijay Petley and Shweta Verma
Strain hardening exponents and strength
coefficients for aeroengine isotropic metallic
materials – a reverse engineering approach
Abstract: The strain hardening exponent and strength
coefficient of the Ramberg-Osgood flow rule are required
for the accurate design analysis of the materials of aero-
engine components. A direct method of deriving these
parameters involves the processing of the complete raw
data of tensile testing as per ASTM E-646. More often, a
first design effort of aeroengine components is made
using catalogue data, as the evaluation of material tensile
properties is a time-consuming process that takes place
concurrently. Catalogue-supplied data on the monotonic
loading typically contains elastic modulus, 0.2% proof
stress, and ultimate tensile stress along with other data
for various temperatures. A methodology was evolved in
this work to construct the Ramberg-Osgood flow rule with
these three parameters and was validated with labora-
tory test results and published data through a comparison
with ASTM E-646. The strain hardening exponents and
strength coefficients were established for a family of aero-
engine metallic materials for various temperatures, which
can serve as a first design effort input.
Keywords: strain hardening exponent; strength coeffi-
cient; true-strain; true-stress.
DOI 10.1515/jmbm-2014-0012
1 Introduction
Aeroengine material suppliers provide the materials with
typical tensile properties, which can be used for the design
in the absence of minimum guaranteed (S-Basis), T99
(A-Basis), and T90 (B-Basis) values [1]. The Metallic Materi-
als Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS)
[1] provides the work hardening parameters for typical
*Corresponding author: R. Rajendran, Gas Turbine Research
Establishment, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560093, India,
e-mail: raju.rajndran@gmail.com
M. Venkateshwarlu, Vijay Petley and Shweta Verma: Gas Turbine
Research Establishment, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560093, India
engine materials in tension and compression for different
temperatures. However, this information is inadequate for
the structural design, as the strength coefficient is required
to be used along with it. As the data collection for mate-
rial properties with statistically significant numbers takes
years, constitutive equations for typical properties help the
designer to a great extent in the preliminary design effort.
Carrying out the tensile test on the representative com-
ponent materials for the applicable range of temperature
provides the necessary information for processing as per
ASTM E-646 [2] to establish the values of the strain harden-
ing exponent and strength coefficient. A concurrent initial
design activity sets off as the catalogue data become avail-
able. Catalogue information does not provide the material
flow constants but presents the elastic modulus, yield, and
ultimate strength. The objective of the current work is to
establish a Ramberg-Osgood flow rule for isotropic metal-
lic materials of aeroengines for monotonic loading from
these three parameters and validate it through ASTM E-646
[2] with the experimental data from the literature.
2 Experiments
A 50-ton MTS universal testing machine was used. The
specimens were prepared as per ASTM E-8 [3]. Ti-6Al-
4V, stainless steel 526, Inconel 718, and Haynes 188 were
tested. The loading rate was 0.5 mm/min. The specimen
had a gauge length of 25 mm, gauge width of 12.5 mm, and
thickness of 2 mm. The extensometer with a displacement
range of 8  mm was fixed on the specimen. The stress-
strain data were extracted for ambient temperature. Each
test was carried out three times to establish repeatability.
3 Methodology
Aeroengine metallic materials have a smooth transition
from elastic to plastic deformation without a sharp yield
point [1]. Figure 1 shows the engineering stress-strain
diagram of aeroengine metallic isotropic materials from
 102      R. Rajendran et al.: Strain hardening exponent and strength coefficient for aeroengine isotropic

1800
At necking, the plastic strain εp equals the strain hard-
ening exponent n [6], that is,
1600

εp = n (5)
1400

Furthermore, engineering ultimate tensile strength Su
Engineering stress (MPa)

1200 is related to true ultimate tensile strength σu as [6]

1000 Su = σ ue -n (6)

2618-T61 aluminum alloy
800 Substituting Equations (5) and (6) into Equation (4),
Inconel 706
 S   S 
600 Inconel718
Su = 500 nnne -n σ 0.2y ⇒ u  = 500 nnne -n ⇒ u 
9Ni-4Co-0.30C Steel  σ 0.2y   S0.2y 
400
Ti-6Al-4V
 S0.2y 
= 500 nnne -n  1 + + 0.002 (7)
 E 
200


with
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3  S0.2y 
Engineering strain (mm/mm) σ 0.2y = S0.2y ( 1 + e ) = S0.2y  1 + + 0.002 , (8)
 E 
Figure 1 Engineering stress – strain curves for aeroengine isotropic 
materials from MMPDS data [1].
where e is the engineering strain.
The value of the strain hardening exponent n is calcu-
MMPDS [1] illustrating this point. The Ramberg-Osgood lated from Equation (7).
flow rule states that, for quasi-static loading at a given The variation of the strain hardening exponent as
temperature and strain rate, the true-stress σ is given as a a function of the ratio of engineering ultimate tensile
function of the strength coefficient K, work/strain harden- strength to true yield stress is shown in Figure 2. For n = 0,
ing exponent n, and true plastic strain εp as [4]
0.35
σ = K εnp (1)

0.30
It was reported that there could be different strain
hardening exponents at different values of strain [5].
However, it is assumed that the true-stress true-strain 0.25
diagram fairly follows one value of the strain hardening
exponent. For the condition of yielding at 0.2% plastic
0.20
strain, this equation turns out to be
n

σ 0.2y = K εnσ 0.2y , (2)

 0.15

From Equations (1) and (2),

0.10
1/ n 1/ n
 σ   σ 
ε p = εσ 0.2y   , ε p = 0.002   (3)
 σ 0.2y   σ 0.2y 
 0.05

where the value of 1/n is denoted as the Ramberg-Osgood

0.00
parameter in MMPDS [1], and εσ0.2y = 0.002 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Recasting Equation (3), Su/s0.2y

σ = 500 n σ 0.2y εnp (4) Figure 2 Variation of strain hardening exponent as a function of the
 ratio of engineering ultimate tensile strength to true yield stress.
 R. Rajendran et al.: Strain hardening exponent and strength coefficient for aeroengine isotropic      103

the ultimate tensile stress is equal to the yield stress of the
material. Therefore, after yielding, the stress remains con-
stant for increasing the plastic strain. In other words, the
material behaves in an elastic-perfectly plastic manner.
For the ratios of engineering ultimate stress to true yield
stress 2.0 and 3.0, the strain hardening exponents are
0.194 and 0.279, respectively. Typically, the value of n for
aeroengine metallic isotropic materials varies from 0.03
to 0.25.
The strength coefficient K is given from Equations (2)
and (8) as
 S0.2y 
K = 500 n σ 0.2y = 500 n S0.2y  1 + + 0.002 ,
 E  A comparison of the present methodology with ASTM

where the value of elastic modulus is taken from the
published data [1, 7]. The variation of the ratio of the
strength coefficient K to 0.2% true proof stress (K/σ0.2y) as
a function of the strain hardening exponent n is shown in
Figure 3. For the strain hardening exponents of 0, 0.1116,
and 0.1768, the ratios of the strength coefficient to true
yield stress are 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Inconel 718, Inconel 706, 9Ni-4Co-0.3C steel, and 2618-T61-
Al, the ambient temperature data were taken from Refer-
ence [1]. A comparison of the present methodology with
ASTM E-646 [2] for the strain hardening exponent and
strength coefficient is shown in Figure 4. The deviation
of the value of the strain hardening exponent that was
estimated through the present methodology from ASTM
E-646 is 6.2% for Inconel 718, 0.15% for Inconel 706, 3.8%
for 9Ni-4Co-0.3C steel, 2.9% for 2618-T61-Al, and 0% for
Ti-6Al-4V. The deviation of the value of the strength coeffi-
cient was 2.5% for Inconel 718, 4.3% for Inconel 706, 3.8%
for 9Ni-4Co-0.3C steel, 0.9% for 2618-T61-Al, and 1.0% for
(9) Ti-6Al-4V.
E-646 [2] for the strain hardening exponent and strength
coefficient for the test results of Haynes 188 (Haynes
A 0.12
0.1
0.08
n (Estimated)

4 Validation 0.06 2618-T61 Al

The validation of the methodology that was derived at the

0.04 9Ni-4Co-0.3C
preceding (MMPDS) section is done in this section. For Steel
Inconel 718
0.02
4.00
Ti-6Al-4V
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
3.50 n (ASTM E -646)

B 2500

3.00
2000
K (Estimated, MPa)
K/s0.2y

2.50 1500
2618-T61 Al

1000 9Ni-4Co-0.3C Steel

2.00
Inconel 718

500 Ti-6Al-4V
1.50
Inconel 706
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
1.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 K (ASTM E-646, MPa)
n
Figure 4 Comparison of present methodology with ASTM E-646
Figure 3 Variation of the ratio of strength co-efficient K to 0.2% for: (A) strain hardening exponent and (B) strength co-efficient for
true proof stress (K/s0.2n ) as a function strain hardening exponent. aeroengine materials data from MMPDS [1].
 104      R. Rajendran et al.: Strain hardening exponent and strength coefficient for aeroengine isotropic

International, USA), S-526 steel (Midhani, India), Inconel
718 (Special metals, USA), and Ti-6Al-4V (Timet, UK) is
shown in Figure 5. The deviation of the value of the strain
hardening exponent that was estimated through the
present methodology from ASTM E-646 is 0.4% for Haynes
188, 3.3% for S-526 steel, 3.0% for Inconel 718, and 4.2%
for Ti-6Al-4V. The deviation of the value of the strength
coefficient that was estimated through the present meth-
odology from ASTM E-646 [2] is 5.1% for Haynes 188, 8.9%
for S-526 steel, 0.9% for Inconel 718, and 2.2% for Ti-6Al-
4V. Both MMPDS [1] and test data for ambient temperature
show that the strain hardening exponent and strength
coefficient through the present methodology have a devia-
tion from the ASTM E-646 [2] within 10%. The strain hard-
ening exponent and strength coefficient for the Inconel
718 and Ti-6Al-4V alloys derived from MMPDS [1] and test
data show a respectable agreement with each other.
A comparison of the present methodology with
ASTM E-646 [2] for the strain hardening exponent and
strength coefficient for high temperature for Ti-6Al-4V
from MMPDS [1] data is shown in Figure 6. The deviation
of the value of the strain hardening exponent that was
estimated through the present methodology from ASTM
E-646 is 3.6% for 204°C and 1.17% for 371°C. The deviation
of the value of the strength coefficient that was estimated
through the present methodology from ASTM E-646 [2] is
3.6% for 204°C and 1.17% for 371°C. The deviations for the
present methodology from ASTM E-646 [2] for the high-
temperature tensile behavior of Ti-6Al-4V are within 5%.
A comparison of the MMPDS [1] and reverse-engi-
neered stress-strain curves for Ti-64 for various tempera-
tures is shown in Figure 7. The maximum deviation of
the engineering stress for the present methodology from
MMPDS [1] is 1.2% for room temperature, 1.1% for 204°C,

A 0.25
A 0.1

0.2
0.08
n (Estimated)

0.15
n (Estimated)

Inconel718 0.06
RT
0.1 Ti-6Al-4V
204C
Haynes-188 0.04
0.05 371C
S-526 Steel

0.02
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
n (ASTM E-646) -5.55E-17
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
B 2000 n (ASTM E-646)

B 1600

1400
1500
K (Estimated, MPa)

1200
K (Estimated, MPa)

1000
1000 RT
Inconel 718 800
204C
Ti-6Al-4V 600
500 371C
Haynes-188 400

S-526 Steel 200

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
K (ASTM E-646, MPa) K (ASTM E-646, MPa)

Figure 5 Comparison of present methodology with ASTM E-646 Figure 6 Comparison of present methodology with ASTM E-646
for (A) strain hardening exponent and (B) strength co-efficient for for (A) strain hardening exponent and (B) strength co-efficient for
aeroengine materials from test data. Ti-6Al-4V for high temperature data from MMPDS [1].
 R. Rajendran et al.: Strain hardening exponent and strength coefficient for aeroengine isotropic      105

1400 coefficients are usable for the design analysis with an

acceptable engineering accuracy.
1200

5 F low parameters for current

1000
Engineering stress (MPa)

800 engine materials

600 MMPDS data at RT

The strain hardening exponents and strength coefficients
for Ti-64 [8], Ti-6242 [9], IM685 [10], IMI-834 [11], Waspaloy
Reverse engineering at RT
[1], Inconel 718 [12], Udimet 720 [13], Haynes 188 [14], C-263
400 MMPDS data at 204C
[15], L-605 [16], and CM 247 (equiaxed) [17] are derived.
Reverse engineering at 204C
A variation of the strain hardening exponent as a func-
MMPDS data at 371C
200 tion of temperature for titanium-based alloys is shown in
Reverse engineering at 371C Figure 8A. The strain hardening exponent for the investi-
0 gated titanium-based alloys increased with temperature,
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Engineering strain (mm/mm) with the exception that, for Ti-6242, there was a slight dip
at 426°C.
Figure 7 A comparison of MMPDs [1] and reverse engineered engi- A variation of the strength coefficient as a function
neering stress – strain curves for Ti-64 for various temperatures.
of temperature for titanium-based alloys is shown in
Figure 8B. Among the investigated titanium alloys, Ti-834
and 2.1% for 371°C. The present methodology thus dem- has the highest temperature capability, followed by Ti-685
onstrates that, for both ambient and high temperatures, and Ti-6242. Although the ambient temperature capa-
the derived strain hardening exponent and strength bilities of Ti-64 are comparable with that of Ti-6242, at

A 0.12 B 1400

1200 T
Ti-64
0.08
K (MPa)

T
Ti-6242
Ti-64 1000
T
Ti-834
n

Ti-6242
T
Ti-685
0.04 800
Ti-834

Ti-685 600
0.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)

C 0.35 D 2500
H 188
H 188
0.30 L6
605
L605
2000
In
n718
0.25 In718
U
Udimet-720
Udimet-720
0.20 1500
K(MPa)

W
Waspaloy
Waspaloy
n

C
C263
0.15 C263
1000
C
CM247(Equiaxed)
CM247(Equiaxed)
0.10
500
0.05

0.00 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 500 1000 1500
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

Figure 8 Variation of flow parameters for current aeroengine materials with temperature; (A) strain hardening exponents for tita-
nium based alloys; (B) strength co-efficients for titanium based alloys; (C) strain hardening exponents nickel and cobalt based alloys;
(D) strength co-efficients nickel and cobalt based alloys.
106      R. Rajendran et al.: Strain hardening exponent and strength coefficient for aeroengine isotropic
temperatures beyond 400°C, Ti-64 has lower temperature
capability than Ti-6242.
A variation of the strain hardening exponent as a
function of temperature for nickel- and cobalt-based
alloys is shown in Figure 8C. There is a dip in the value of
the strain hardening exponent for Waspaloy, Inconel 718,
Udimet 720, C-263, Haynes 188, and L-605 for tempera-
tures above 600°C. For L-605, the strain hardening expo-
nent starts increasing from 0.2174 at 200°C to its peak of
0.2857 at 500°C and falls to a minimum of 0.1428 at 770°C.
The ductility of Waspaloy, Inconel 718, Udimet 720, C-263,
Haynes 188, and L-605 comes down from a temperature
of 600°C to 700°C. CM 247 LC (equiaxed) exhibited a fairly
constant strain hardening exponent up to 760°C.
A variation of the strength coefficient as a function of
temperature for nickel- and cobalt-based alloys is shown
in Figure 8D. Among the disk materials, Udimet 720 has
a superior temperature capability in comparison with
Inconel 718 and Waspaloy. Next to the disk materials,
the highest strength coefficient is possessed by L-605 up
to 600°C. This property in combination with its highest
elastic modulus among typical turbine materials [7] makes
L-605 suitable for damper material for turbine blades.
Among oxidation-resistant static component materials,
Haynes 188 has a superior temperature capability in com-
parison with C-263 alloy.
6 Conclusions
A reverse engineering methodology was established to
arrive at the strain hardening exponent and strength
coefficient for monotonic tensile loading of aeroengine
metallic isotropic ductile materials from elastic modulus,
0.2% proof stress, and ultimate tensile strength. This
methodology was validated with the experimental and
literature data. The variation of the strain hardening
exponent and strength coefficient as a function of tem-
perature were calculated for the current aeroengine
materials through the proposed methodology from the
catalogue data, which can serve as an input for the initial
design effort.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the Direc-
tor of the Gas Turbine Research Establishment for his kind
permission to publish this article. Mr. S.P. Suresh Kumar
(Associate Director), Dr. S. Kishore Kumar (Associate
Director), B.V.A. Patnaik (Technology Director), and Mr. M.
Rudra Goud are acknowledged for their encouragement
and support.
References
[1] MMPDS. Metallic Materials Properties Development and Stand-
ardization MMPDS-4. Federal Aviation Administration, USA, 2008.
[2] ASTM E-646-07. Standard test method for tensile strain harden-
ing exponents (n-values) of metallic sheet materials. ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Con-
shohocken, PA 19428-2959, USA, 2007.
[3] ASTM E-8M 13a. Standard test methods for tensile testing of
metallic materials. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, USA.
[4] Ramberg W, Osgood RW. Description of stress-strain curves by
three parameters. National Advisory Committee of Aeronautics,
Technical Note 902, National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
DC, USA, 1943.
[5] Luo J, Li M, Yu W, Li H. Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 741–748.
[6] Dieter GE. Mechanical Metallurgy. McGraw-Hill Publishers:
New York, 1988.
[7] Rajendran R, Petley V, Rehmer B. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part L
J. Mater. Des. Appl. 2013, 227, 443–449.
[8] Timet, Timetal 6-4, 6-4-ELI & 6-4-.1Ru, Medium to high strength
general purpose alloys, Broadway, Denver, CO 80202|303|296-
5600, 1999.
[9] Ti-6242, Aerospace Structural Materials Handbook. 1978.
[10] IMI 685, Technical reports, IMI Titanium Ltd.: UK, 2006.
[11] IMI 834, Technical reports, IMI Titanium Ltd.: UK, 2006.
[12] Inconel alloy 718, Special Metals Corporation. http://www.
specialmetals.com/documents/Inconel%20alloy%20718.pdf.
[13] Udimet alloy 720, Special Metals Corporation. http://www.
specialmetals.com/documents/Udimet%20alloy%20720.pdf.
[14] Haynes 188 Haynes International, High temperature alloys,
Haynes 188 alloy. http://www.haynesintl.com/pdf/h3001.pdf.
[15] Nimonic C alloy 263, Special Metals Corporation. http://www.
specialmetals.com/documents/Nimonic%20alloy%20263.pdf.
[16] Udimet alloy L-605, Special Metals Corporation. http://www.
specialmetals.com/documents/Udimet%20alloy%20L-605.
pdf.
[17] CM-247 LC Equiaxed, Technical Bulletin, Cannon Muskegon,
USA, 1998.