Team
physics

True Strain Calculator

Material testing reveals how components behave under load. Engineers distinguish between engineering (nominal) stress-strain, which uses the original cross-section, and true stress-strain, which accounts for the actual deformation. This calculator converts between the two, essential for understanding strain hardening and predicting failure in ductile metals under large deformations.

Last updated:

Creators Steven Wooding, BSc Physics
5,488 people find this calculator helpful

Engineering Stress vs. True Stress

When a specimen undergoes tension, its cross-sectional area shrinks. Engineering stress divides the applied force by the original undeformed area, providing a convenient reference for design calculations. True stress, by contrast, uses the instantaneous cross-sectional area at each moment of deformation.

This distinction matters because material behavior changes dramatically after yield. Engineering stress-strain curves flatten or even decline in the post-yield region due to area reduction masking the material's actual strengthening (strain hardening). True stress-strain curves rise continuously, reflecting the real mechanical response of the material as it work-hardens.

For small strains (under 5%), the difference is negligible. At large strains—such as in deep drawing, forging, or impact scenarios—true values become critical for accurate finite element analysis and failure prediction.

Conversion Formulas

Two relationships govern the transformation. The first converts engineering strain to true strain using the natural logarithm. The second converts engineering stress to true stress by scaling with the strain term.

True Strain (Ɛₜ) = ln(1 + Ɛₑ)

True Stress (σₜ) = σₑ × (1 + Ɛₑ)

  • Ɛₑ — Engineering strain (nominal strain), dimensionless
  • σₑ — Engineering stress (nominal stress), in MPa or Pa
  • Ɛₜ — True strain, dimensionless
  • σₜ — True stress, in the same units as engineering stress

When to Use True Values

Design calculations for components under small, elastic deformations typically use engineering values—they're simpler and the error is negligible. Finite element codes, material databases, and advanced plasticity models, however, demand true stress-strain curves.

Industries relying on large deformations include:

  • Metalworking: sheet metal forming, extrusion, rolling, and forging
  • Structural analysis: impact resistance and post-buckling behavior
  • Material science: characterizing strain hardening exponents and ductility limits
  • Fatigue and fracture: predicting necking and final rupture

Modern CAE software internally converts all stress-strain input to true values before running simulations. Understanding the transformation ensures correct material property assignment and result interpretation.

Common Pitfalls and Considerations

Avoid these mistakes when working with true strain and stress conversions.

  1. Don't assume equivalence at large strains — At 50% engineering strain, true strain is only 40.5%. The logarithmic relationship compresses the true strain scale, which can mislead if you apply engineering assumptions to large deformation problems. Always verify which convention your CAE software expects.
  2. Engineering strain must be positive for the formula — The formula ln(1 + Ɛₑ) requires Ɛₑ > −1. In compression, engineering strain ranges from 0 to −1; beyond that, the material is hypothetically compressed to zero thickness. Check your sign convention (tension positive or negative) before conversion.
  3. Area reduction isn't captured in stress alone — True stress accounts for area reduction, but the formulas here assume uniaxial loading and no volume change. In constrained geometries, plastic Poisson effects modify the actual area—especially important in forming simulations with friction and tool contact.
  4. Material data sheets may mix conventions — Legacy material property tables sometimes list engineering values; modern ones show true curves. Verify the source and convert if necessary. Mixing conventions in a simulation leads to stiffness and strength predictions that are silently wrong.

Worked Example

Suppose a tensile specimen yields at an engineering stress of 300 MPa with an engineering strain of 0.12.

Calculate true stress and true strain:

True strain = ln(1 + 0.12) = ln(1.12) ≈ 0.1133

True stress = 300 × (1 + 0.12) = 300 × 1.12 = 336 MPa

The true stress (336 MPa) exceeds the engineering value (300 MPa) by 12%, reflecting the area reduction. In a finite element model expecting true properties, entering 300 MPa would underestimate the material's load-bearing capacity in the plastic region by about 10%—a significant error for fatigue or fracture assessments.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is true strain calculated using a logarithm?

True strain accumulates incrementally as the specimen deforms. Each infinitesimal deformation contributes dɛₜ = dL/L, where L is the current length. Integrating from L₀ to L gives the natural logarithm: Ɛₜ = ln(L/L₀) = ln(1 + Ɛₑ). This logarithmic measure ensures that equal fractional changes correspond to equal true strains, unlike engineering strain, which grows non-linearly relative to actual material behavior.

Can true stress be less than engineering stress?

No. Since the formula is σₜ = σₑ × (1 + Ɛₑ) and engineering strain is typically positive under tension, the factor (1 + Ɛₑ) exceeds 1.0, making true stress always larger. In compression, where engineering strain is negative but greater than −1, the same relationship holds. The difference widens as strain increases, reflecting cumulative area reduction.

At what strain does the difference between true and engineering values become significant?

For engineering strains below 5%, the error is under 1% and usually acceptable for design. Between 5% and 20%, the gap grows noticeably—15% strain yields a 3.5% difference in stress. Beyond 20%, especially in forming and impact scenarios, true values are mandatory for accurate predictions. For any simulation beyond yield, use true curves to avoid underestimating material strength.

How do I obtain a true stress-strain curve from tensile test data?

Standard tensile tests output engineering stress and strain. Convert each data point using the formulas above. You'll notice the true curve rises continuously past the ultimate tensile strength, whereas the engineering curve peaks and declines. Modern test machines can measure specimen diameter throughout loading and directly compute true stress; older data requires manual conversion at discrete points.

Do these formulas apply to compression?

Yes, with attention to sign convention. In compression, engineering strain ranges from 0 to −1 (a 50% compression is Ɛₑ = −0.5). The formulas remain valid: true strain = ln(1 − 0.5) = ln(0.5) ≈ −0.693, and true stress = σₑ × (1 − 0.5). However, material behavior under compression (friction, barreling, constraint) often differs from tension, so separate compression test data is recommended for accuracy.

Why do finite element codes use true stress-strain instead of engineering values?

FEA solvers model actual geometry and deformation incrementally. As the mesh deforms, element volumes and areas change in real time. True stress-strain relationships directly correspond to the instantaneous state; engineering values do not. Using engineering data would force the solver to continuously convert back and forth, introducing errors and complicating plasticity algorithms. True values simplify the numerical framework and ensure physical consistency.

More physics calculators (see all)

Prandtl Number Calculator Curie Constant Calculator Thermal Stress Calculator Friction Force Calculator Thermodynamic Processes Calculator Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP) Calculator Weight on Other Planets Calculator kVA Calculator