0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Cost-Effective Alternatives to Conventional Charpy Tests for Measuring the Impact Toughness of Very-High-Toughness Steels

[+] Author and Article Information
Enrico Lucon

National Institute of Standards and Technology,
325 Broadway,
Boulder, CO 80303
e-mail: enrico.lucon@nist.gov

1Contribution of NIST, an agency of the U.S. government; not subject to copyright in the U.S.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received August 8, 2017; final manuscript received November 22, 2017; published online January 24, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Steve J. Hensel. The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States government purposes.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 140(2), 021401 (Jan 24, 2018) (7 pages) Paper No: PVT-17-1145; doi: 10.1115/1.4038902 History: Received August 08, 2017; Revised November 22, 2017

For modern plate steels exhibiting high toughness and ductility, the conventional Charpy test is ostensibly stretched beyond its limits of applicability. Impact tests yield absorbed energy values in excess of 300–400 J, which are associated with limited material fracture and mostly derive from plastic deformation of the specimen (bending), friction, and vibrations of the swinging hammer. It would be therefore very desirable to measure the actual fracture toughness of very-high-toughness steels by means of an alternative specimen and/or methodology, entailing just a moderate increase of cost and test complexity with respect to Charpy testing. The investigation presented here was aimed at establishing a reasonable, yet cost-effective test procedure utilizing Charpy-type specimens for measuring the dynamic toughness of high-toughness steels, such as line pipe steels. Promising results have been obtained from notches cut by electrical-discharge machining (EDM) using a thin wire of 0.1 mm diameter, as compared to specimens where an actual crack was generated and propagated by fatigue at the root of the machined notch.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

McCowan, C. N. , Lucon, E. , and Santoyo, R. L. , 2011, “ Evaluation of the Energy Absorbed in Charpy Tests at 100 J Versus 300 J,” International Symposium on the Recent Developments in Plate Steels, Winter Park, CO, June 19–22.
ASTM, 2016, “ Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM E23-16b.
ASTM, 2017, “ Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM E1820-17.
McCowan, C. N. , Siewert, T. A. , and Vigliotti, D. P. , 2003, “ Charpy Verification Program: Reports Covering 1989-2002,” Materials Reliability Series, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, CO, NIST Technical Note No. 1500-9.
Service Steel Aerospace, 2016, “ Maraging—Data Sheet,” Service Steel Aerospace Corp., Seattle, WA, accessed Jan. 30, 2017, http://www.ssa-corp.com/documents/Data%20Sheet%20Maraging.pdf
API, 2012, “ API Specification 5 L, Specification for Line Pipe,” 45th ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
ISO, 2015, “ Steel—Charpy V-Notch Pendulum Impact Test—Instrumented Test Method,” International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, Standard No. ISO 14556. https://www.iso.org/standard/23982.html
ASTM, 2015, “ Standard Test Method for Impact Testing of Miniaturized Charpy V-Notch Specimens,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Standard No. ASTM E2248-15.
Smith, E. , and Patchett, B. M. , 1975, “ Effects of Notch Acuity and Side Grooving on Fracture Toughness—Part II: Slow Bend,” Weld. Res. Suppl., pp. 226s–233s. http://files.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_1975_07_s226.pdf
Zuo, J. , Deng, X. , Sutton, M. A. , and Cheng, C.-S. , 2004, “ Crack Tunneling: Effect of Stress Constraint,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2004-60700.
ISO, 2015, “ Metallic Materials—Measurement of Fracture Toughness at Impact Loading Rates Using Precracked Charpy-Type Test Pieces,” International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, Standard No. ISO 26843. https://www.iso.org/standard/65516.html
Wallin, K. , and Laukkanen, A. , 2004, “ Improved Crack Growth Corrections for J-R Curve Testing,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 71(11), pp. 1601–1614. [CrossRef]
Server, W. L. , and Ireland, D. R. , 1974, “ Nonstandard Test Techniques Utilizing the Instrumented Charpy and Izod Tests,” American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia PA, Standard No. ASTM STP 563. https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/PAGES/STP32186S.htm
Jolley, G. , Kilpatrick, I. M. , and Main, R. , 1973, “ Effect of Notch Acuity on the Fracture Toughness of Three Low Alloy High Yield Strength Steels,” Weld. Res. Suppl., pp. 543s–548s. http://files.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_1973_12_s543.pdf
Clarke, G. A. , Landes, J. D. , and Begley, J. A. , 1980, “ Results of an ASTM Cooperative Test Program on the JIc Determination of HY130 Steel,” J. Test. Eval., 8(5), pp. 221–232. [CrossRef]
Paris, P. C. , Tada, H. , Zahoor, A. , and Ernst, H. , 1977, “ A Treatment of the Subject of Tearing Instability,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NUREG-0311.
Li, C.-J. , 1999, “ Effects of Temperature and Loading Rate on Fracture Toughness of Structural Steels,” Mater. Des., 21(1), pp. 27–30. [CrossRef]
Wiesner, C. S. , and MacGillivray, H. , 1999, “ Loading Rate Effects on Tensile Properties and Fracture Toughness of Steel,” TAGSI Seminar on Fracture, Plastic Flow and Structural Integrity, Cambridge, UK, Apr. 29. https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/published-papers/loading-rate-effects-on-tensile-properties-and-fracture-toughness-of-steel-april-1999/
Irwin, G. R. , 1948, “ Fracture Dynamics,” Fracturing of Metals, American Society for Metals, Cleveland, OH.
Miedlar, P. C. , Berens, A. P. , Gunderson, A. , and Gallagher, J. P. , 2002, “ USAF Damage Tolerant Design Handbook: Guidelines for the Analysis and Design of Damage Tolerant Aircraft Structures,” University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, OH.
Nguyen-Duy, P. , 1981, “ Relationship Between Critical Stretch Zone Width, Crack-Tip Opening Displacement, and Fracture-Energy Criterion: Application to SA-516-70 Steel Plates,” American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Standard No. ASTM STP 743. https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/PAGES/STP28817S.htm
Doig, P. , Smith, R. F. , and Flewitt, P. E. J. , 1984, “ The Use of Stretch Zone Width Measurements in the Determination of Fracture Toughness of Low Strength Steels,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 19(4), pp. 653–664. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

JR curve and JQ for impact-tested PCVN specimens of T200 (for definitions of Jlimit and Δalimit, see ASTM E1820-15a, Annex A9)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Dynamic JR curves obtained from full-size specimens of T200

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Dynamic JR curves obtained from miniaturized specimens of T200

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Dynamic JR curves obtained from full-size specimens of X65

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Dynamic JR curves obtained from miniaturized specimens of X65

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effect of loading rate on T200 JR curves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of loading rate on X65 JR curves

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Results obtained from quasi-static tests on PCVN specimens of X65, which do not allow calculating JQ per ASTM E1820-15a. J0.5 mm is calculated instead.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Critical fracture toughness values obtained at impact loading rates on T200 and X65. Note: sg = side-grooved; ps = plane-sided.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Values of tearing modulus obtained at impact loading rates on T200 and X65. Note: sg = side-grooved; ps = plane-sided.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Small-scale yield model for restricted crack-tip plastic deformation [19]

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In