Abstract

Impact energy studies were carried out for different grades of carbon steel, aluminum and
stainless steel. There was a decrease in energy absorbed as the carbon content was increased or
the temperature was decreased. Heat treatment had a positive effect on the amount of energy
absorbed. A smaller grain size caused by normalizing increased the amount of energy absorbed
in a material. A transition temperature, DBTT, was observed in materials with a BCC crystal
which was lacking in the FCC materials studied.

Introduction
In todays emerging technologies, advances in material preparation and processing has taken the
forefront. This has led to an increased need in understanding the material characteristics such as
mechanical, optical, electrical, morphological properties. One of the critical properties studied
for various materials is the ability to absorb energy in impact. This data is crucial for various
industries such as the transport, military and aviation industries [1]. As a result, impact tests have
been designed to measure the resistance to failure of a material to a suddenly applied force. The
common methods of testing this property are Charpy, Izod, low velocity and high velocity impact
tests.
For metals, in order to study the impact properties and in particular low velocity impact
properties, Charpy impact test is preferred. Charpy impact test determines the energy absorbed
by a material or its impact toughness and is a standardized high strain rate test. The basis of the
test lies in the conversion of the potential energy in the hammer to kinetic energy as it strikes the
material. It is important to note that Charpy test are a relative mode of analysis i.e. they are
relative and best understood through comparative studies.
The study tries to focus on the effect of temperature, heat treatment methods, carbon content as
well as crystal structure on the ability of materials such as carbon steels, stainless steel and
aluminum to absorb energy on impact.

Procedure
The tests were all done as per ASTM E23 standards and were carried out on the Impact test
machine as shown in Figure 1[2]. The various materials used for the tests were two sets of plain
carbon steel (1018, 1045, 1095), Aluminum (6061- T651) and stainless steel (304). One set of
plain carbon steels were also normalized in order to understand the effect of heat treatment. 1018
was normalized at 915oC and 1045, 1095 were normalized at 860oC.
The other set of plain carbon steel, which were cold finished, were kept at different temperatures
to study its effect. The temperatures selected were 22oC which was room temperature, 0oC which
was in an ice bath, 100oC which was in boiling water, -196oC which was in liquid nitrogen and
250oC which was in a furnace. Only one sample per criteria was tested. There could have been a
potential error while transferring the specimen to the tester as it was more than 5 seconds for
some of the samples [2].

Figure 1: Charpy impact testing machine

Results
Table 1: Impact energies for different materials at different temperatures and heat treatments

Temperature ( C)
-196
0
22
100
250
DBTT

Impact Energy (J)

Plain Carbon Steel
Cold Finished
1018
1045
1095
2.6
2.2
1.8
11.8
4.8
2.4
14.8
8.4
2.6
59.2
16.4
9.0
79.4
17.7
20.1
45
50
60

Normalized
1018
1045
2.1
2.5
150
43.2
150
72.0
150
88.3
150
90.9

1095
1.2
8.7
6.2
11.3
20.6

Aluminum

Stainless Steel

6061
33.9
34.6
39.7
35.2
34.9

304
91.9
100
102.4
120.8
104.4

Table 2: Fracture surface analysis for the various materials at different temperatures
Fracture Surface
Plain Carbon Steel
Cold Finished
Temperature ( C)

-196

22

1018

Mixed
fracture
with hints
of ductile
and
brittle
failure
modes

Ductile
fracture
with
rough
surface
on the
fracture

Ductile
fracture
with hint
of
formation
of shear
lips

1045

Brittle
fracture

Brittle
fracture
with a
hint of
rough
surface

Mixed
fracture
with a
rough
surface at
fracture

Aluminum

Stainless
Steel

Normalized
1095

1018

Pure
brittle
fracture

Mixed
fractu
re
with
hints
of
ductil
e and
brittle
failure
modes

Pure
brittle
fracture

Pure
brittle
fracture

1045

Pure
brittle
fracture

NA

Mixed
fracture
with a
rough
fractured
surface

NA

Mixed
fracture
with a
more
pronounc
ed ductile
failure
with
formation
of shaer
lips

1095

6061

Pure
brittle
fracture

Ductile
Failure with
pronounced
shear lips on
the edges
and a highly
rough
fracture
surface

Pure
brittle
fracture

Mixed
fracture
with a
hint of
shear
lip
formati
on

304
Ductile
Failure
with
pronounc
ed shear
lips on
the edges
and a
highly
rough
fracture
surface

Ductile
Failure with
pronounced
shear lips on
the edges
and a highly
rough
fracture
surface

Ductile
Failure
with
pronounc
ed shear
lips on
the edges
and a
highly
rough
fracture
surface

Ductile
Failure with
pronounced
shear lips on
the edges
and a highly
rough
fracture
surface

Ductile
Failure
with
pronounc
ed shear
lips on
the edges
and a
highly
rough
fracture
surface

100

250

Ductile
fracture
with
rough
surface
with
slightly
pronounc
ed shear
lips

Ductile
fracture
with
rough
surface
and high
degree
shear lip
formation

Mixed
fracture
with a
more
pronounc
ed ductile
failure
with
formation
of shaer
lips

Ductile
failure
with
shear lip
formation
on the
edges

Pure
brittle
fracture

Mixed
fracture
with a
hint of
shear
lip
formati
on

NA

NA

Ductile
fracture
with
rough
surface
and high
degree
shear lip
formation

Ductile
fracture
with
rough
surface
and high
degree
shear lip
formation

Mixed
fracture
with a
hint of
shear
lip
formati
on

Mixed
fracture
with a
hint of
shear
lip
formati
on

Ductile
Failure with
pronounced
shear lips on
the edges
and a highly
rough
fracture
surface

Ductile
Failure
with
pronounc
ed shear
lips on
the edges
and a
highly
rough
fracture
surface

Ductile
Failure with
pronounced
shear lips on
the edges
and a highly
rough
fracture
surface

Ductile
Failure
with
pronounc
ed shear
lips on
the edges
and a
highly
rough
fracture
surface

Figure 2: Effect of carbon content on the impact energy for plain carbon steel

DBTT

45

Figure 3: Effect of temperature on 1018 cold finished plain carbon steel

Figure 4: Effect of normalizing on 1045 plain carbon steel

Figure
Comparison of impact energies for FCC aluminum 6061 and stainless steel 304

(a)

5:

(b)

Figure 6: Surface appearance for (a) 1018 plain carbon steel cold finished at different
temperatures; (b) 1095 plain carbon steel cold finished at different temperatures

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 7: Stereo micrographs for (a) 1018 plain carbon steel; (b) 1045 plain carbon steel; (c)
1095 plain carbon steel

(a)

(b)

Figure 8: Stereo micrographs of the cracked surface for (a) Aluminum 6061; (b) stainless steel
304

The above set of data and figures captures the essence of the impact tests carried out. Table 1
summarizes the impact energies for the various materials used at different temperatures. It helps
summarize the trends in order to see the effects of temperature, heat treatment, carbon content
and crystal structure on impact energy. Table 2 describes the fracture surface of the various
grades of materials under different temperatures and heat treated conditions. As the carbon
content is increased or the temperature is decreased, the fracture surface increasingly becomes

more brittle in nature. Also normalizing the material showed a higher degree of ductile fracture
as compared to cold finished specimens.
Figure 2 shows a definite trend of reduction in impact energy as the carbon content is increased
in plain carbon steels. Figure 3 shows the effect of temperature and also a pronounced rise called
the Ductile to Brittle Transition Temperature (DBTT) for plain carbon steel. Figure 4 depicts the
effect of normalizing plain carbon steels on impact energies. An increase in impact energy is
observed as the specimen is normalized. Figure 5 shows the effect of bond strength on FCC
crystal structures. A stronger bond seems to show a higher amount of energy absorbed during
impact.
Figure 6 shows the fracture surface topography for plain carbon steels. A smoother surface is
noticed as the carbon content is increased. Figure 7 is a stereo microscopic image of the plain
carbon steels to have a closer look of the fracture surface. Figure 8 looks at the fracture surface
for aluminum and stainless steel. The image confirms that the fracture surface is actually that of a
ductile material.

Discussion
Effect of carbon content:
Carbon atoms, which have a much smaller diameter as compared to iron, tend to move to
interstitial positions within the crystal structure. As a result, when a dislocation is moving, these
carbon atoms act as a barrier where additional energy is required to move the dislocation past the
carbon atoms. As a result, the material is stronger. As the carbon content is increased, the amount
of these interstitial sites filled increases thus making it even harder for dislocations to move [3].
It is also known that for materials, as the strength increases the ability to absorb energy
decreases. This effect can be seen on Figure 2. As the carbon content is increased from 0.18% to
0.95%, the amount of energy it can absorb significantly reduces.
Another key factor is the change in crystal structure as carbon fills the interstitial sites. The
structure of the crystal changes from BCC to tetragonal [4]. This effectively means that the
dislocation has to jump a greater distance in the tetragonal structure as compared to BCC. At
higher carbon content, the number of crystals which are distorted are higher. As a result, the
number of slip systems reduce making the material behave more and more like a brittle material.
This trend is confirmed by stereo microscopic images which are shown in Figure 6 and 7. As the
carbon content is increased, the fractured surface seems smoother. This is because the material
gets less ductile as carbon content is increased and thus the fracture is clean. In the case of 1018
steel, there are shear lips formed and the surface topography is very rough which is a strong
indicator of ductile failure. When the surface of 1095 steel is studied, the surfaces are smoother
and there is no sign of a shear lip.

Effect of temperature:
Temperature plays a significant role in the behavior of materials. The number of vacancies, and
the ease of slip system movement is strongly correlated to the temperature. As temperature
increases, the number of vacancies increases. As a result, at higher temperatures, the material
behaves more ductile as compared to lower temperatures. This effect can be seen in Figure 3
with the increase in impact energy as the temperature rises.
It is also interesting to note that for plain carbon steels, there is a particular temperature where
the amount of energy it can absorb drastically increases. This temperature is known as Ductile to
Brittle transition temperature (DBTT) and is marked in Figure 3 [3]. For 1018, the DBTT is
around 45oC. This effect is seen only is materials that have a BCC crystal structure. A unique
feature of BCC materials is that there is no closed packed planes which means that there isnt a
preferential direction for slip to occur. As the temperature crosses the DBTT, the activation
energy required to move dislocations greatly reduces thus making it behave more like a ductile
material. This behavior can be observed in Figure 3.

Effect of normalizing:
Grain size plays an important role is the amount of energy required to move dislocations. When a
material is normalized, the structure is pearlitic in nature which has smaller grain sizes as
compared to cold finished materials [4]. As the grain size is reduced, the amount of energy it can
absorb increases. This fact can be seen in Figure 4 as normalized 1045 plain steel has higher
impact values at a given temperature as compared to the cold finished sample.
Effect of bond strength:
Materials have different primary and secondary bonds which hold together the atoms in its
crystal structure. The bond strength varies depending on the type of bond. Ionic bonds are
stronger than metallic etc. It is also important to note that for materials with similar bond type,
their respective bond strength are not the same. The bond strength between iron atoms is stronger
than the bond strength between aluminum atoms [3]. The activation energy required to break
bonds in an aluminum structure is lower than that of stainless steel. As a result, stainless steel can
absorb more energy as compared to aluminum which is observed in Figure 5.
Figure 8 shows the fracture surface of stainless steel and aluminum. Both have shear lips and
rough surfaces which indicates that both underwent ductile failure. This figure shows that even
for ductile materials, the amount of energy absorbed under impact is never the same due to the
reason stated above.

Conclusions

The tests were conducted as per ASTM standards and the values were tabulated. There was a
strong correlation between the carbon content and the impact energy absorbed. As the carbon
content increased, the strength of the material increased which meant that the ability to absorb
energy decreases. The temperature at which it is tested at has a significant effect on the energy
absorbed by the materials. As the temperature was increased, the vacancy sites increases thus
promoting ductile failure which in turn leads to higher amount of energy absorbed. The crystal
structure, bond strength and heat treatment also had a positive effect on the energy absorbed by
the material. BCC crystals showed a point where there was distinct transition in the amount of
energy is absorbed and is known as Ductile to Brittle Transition Temperature.

References
[1] Lee S, An Overview of Advanced Composite Materials and Their Industrial Applications,
Lecture at The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, March 2012
[2] Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials, E 23-07, 2007
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society for Testing and Materials.
[3] Fulay P.P , Wright W.J , The Science and Engineering of Materials, sixth edition, Cengage
Learning, 2011
[4] Meyers M, Chawla K.K , Mechanical Behavior of Materials, Second edition, Cambridge
University press, 2009