On the validation of Charpy Impact testing

Amanz Azaden

TATA Steel UK
Batch standards of high-grade steels were milled and machined to produce impact samples. These were tested using a
Charpy impact test to measure energy absorbed for toughness. Brittle behaviour was observed at colder temperatures,
ductile behaviour at elevated temperatures. Very little energy was absorbed for low temperature values, such that the
toughness ranged between 4.4MJ-3 to 45MJ m-3 with respect to increasing temperature. Modes of failure, key
definitions and larger sources of error were discussed. Due to the ductile to brittle transition of steels, the impact tests
contain their largest source of error during the time to position the sample by Newtons law of cooling. Alternative
procedures complying with industrial standards were suggested. Microscopy was undertaken, observing fracture
surfaces. The test was concluded as valid for finding a minimum toughness; varied temperatures create discrepancies.

__________________________________________________________________________

Introduction
I.

Toughness

Toughness is an important concept in materials

science. It is the energy absorbed whilst plastically
deforming before failure, of a specified sample. Its
units are energy per unit volume, J m-3. The derivative
of the toughness with respect to strain is the stress,
and so, the toughness can be expressed in the form of
Equation 1.
Equation 1: Relation between stress and strain [1]

=
0

safety, sports equipment and architectural purposes. It

is therefore important to gain a solid understanding of
how toughness arises mechanically and how it can be
measured.

II.

Critical Failure

Critical failure whereby the material can no longer take

any more strain occurs at a critical stress intensity
factor, KIC. At this point, depending on the nature of
the stress, geometrically speaking, there can be
different modes of crack opening at the critical length.
This is shown in Figure II.

A visible representation like Figure I demonstrates that

the requirement for a high toughness is clearly a
material able to tolerate high stresses and high strains,
thus making the magnitude of the integral as great as
possible.

Figure II: Three modes of crack opening [3]

KIC is valid for the mode I crack opening mechanism.

Equation 2 is used to describe the relationship between
the critical stress intensity, KIC and the critical crack
length, ac. Y is the shape factor controlled by the
geometry of the crack, C. is the critical design stress.
Equation 2: Critical stress intensity factor equation [3]
Figure I: Illustration of the importance of a high stress and
strain tolerance. [2]

It is clear that toughness has significant implications in

both the world of materials science and the wider
world itself. It holds importance for features like car

=
As the material size decreases, there is an increased
material constraint. As a result, the apparent toughness
of the material will increase. This therefore requires a

2____________________________________TATA Steel: On the validation of Charpy Impact Testing: Amanz Azaden (2016)

validation test to ensure that the apparent toughness

quoted is reliable. This is done using an empirical
method in Equation 3, where B is the specimen
thickness, KQ is the provisional toughness and Y is
the yield stress.
Equation 3: Empirical validation of toughness [3]

2.5 (
III.

2
)

Impact Testing

Crack propagation is often difficult and/or expensive

to track, and so an alternative is used to measure
toughness. These methods are known as impact tests.
Impact testing relies on the principle of the
conservation of energy. The most commonly used
impact test in industry is the Charpy Impact test. Figure
III (a) shows the pendulum used in the experimental
setup, whilst figure III (b) shows a typical sample used.

Figure III a) Shows the impact pendulum and its direction

of motion. (b) Shows a typical sample with the V notch.[3]

The pendulum is raised to a known height. It is then

released, resulting in a conversion of potential energy
to kinetic energy. The notch ensures that the mode I
failure occurs, and so the remaining energy postcritical failure is recorded, hence, a difference in the
energy and absorbed energy can be calculated.

IV.

Ductile to Brittle Transition

Plastic deformation in materials requires dislocation

motion. Ductile failure occurs in the form of plastic
deformation, where dislocations allow the propagation
of strain. When a metal is cooled to a low temperature,
the dislocations have less energy and thus the
propagation of strain is more difficult. For this reason,
to accommodate the strain energy the alternate
energetic dissipation is by crack propagation. This is
the brittle fracture, and will result in a shiny cleavage,
as opposed to a dull one prior to ductile failure. This
is a significant thought process when carrying out
impact tests, as Figure IV shows the nature of a ductile
to brittle transition in a steel sample.

Figure IV: Ductile to brittle transition in a 1016 ABNT Steel

sample[5]

The transition is prominent in steel samples with a

BCC structure. In FCC metals it is true that dislocation
slip is relatively temperature independent, since the
structure has many slip systems. In BCC metals, the
slip is not thermally independent for screw
dislocations. The cores of a screw dislocation will
unzip into a non-moving sessile configuration. When
a load is a applied and there is sufficient thermal
activation, it is possible that a reconfiguration occurs
to create a moving glissile core. This creates the ability
to propagate strain and thus plastic deformation.
Without the presence of active screw dislocations,
strain cannot be accommodated. [5]
Impact testing is of particular importance in the steel
industry, where many mechanical properties must be
tested straight off the production line in order to meet
a quota set by the customer. As a result, the calibration
of the impact testing to give numerically sound
answers is crucial, and is the cynosure of this research
project. Batch standards are to be made up to ensure
monthly calibration is possible, and hence begin to
produce unequivocal results for production line steel.

Experimental procedure
An initial roll of steel sample was recovered and a
schematic was composed, as shown in figures V a) and
V b). They were of the same chemical composition,
which is shown in Table 1.

Figure V a) A schematic of roll 1, where A represents the

front end, E represents the back.

3____________________________________TATA Steel: On the validation of Charpy Impact Testing: Amanz Azaden (2016)

Results
Table 2: Results of test 1, using sample 1 specimens at varied temperatures

Table 1 shows the carbon content as well as the trace

elements involved in the sample. It should be noted
that a 0.67% carbon will put it in the range of high
carbon content steels, the boundaries being between
0.6-1.0% carbon content.
Table 1: Chemical compositions of the steel sample used
Element
%

C
0.67

Si
0.12

S
0.06

P
0.12

Mn
1.23

Ni
0.26

Cu
0.16

Cr
0.18

Sn
0.02

Mo
0.02

Nb
0.31

Ti
0.01

N
0.05

Al(S)
0.33

The steel specimens were cut to equal size using

mechanical shears. Using a Doosan MC-Vertical
milling machine, the samples were all milled to equal
size. It was imperative that the blades on each cutting
tool were regularly maintained in order to ensure high
quality samples for impact testing could be obtained.
The samples were selected at random from the front,
middle and back of the coil sample to ensure a fair test.
The samples were then cut up into the required
dimensions of the impact tester, a 10x10x50mm
cuboid. The samples were then placed in a propan-2ol bath at -60 to 40C with 20C increments, taking
two readings for each sample. Once the temperature
was satisfied, there was a five second tolerance
between placing the sample into the impact testing
machine and getting the result, to ensure the
temperature dependence did not have a significant
impact on the result. This detrimental impact was
outlined in the introduction with reference to the
ductile to brittle transition in BCC metals. The
pendulum is set into motion, moving through the back
of the v notched sample to ensure that mode I
deformation occurs. The energy difference is
measured, and the toughness is computed. This was
repeated for each individual sample.

Mean Energy Toughness (MJ

Absorbed (J)
m-3)
24
4.4
52
10.4
143
28.6
185
37
194
38.8
225
45

There was a clear decrease in the energy absorbed as

the temperature decreased. This was due to the nature
of the ductile to brittle transition in steels.
50

Energy absorbed (J m-3)

Figure V b) A schematic of roll 2, where A represents the

front end, E represents the back.

Temperature
(C)
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40

40
30
20
10
0
-80

-60

-40

-20

20

Temperature (C)
Figure VI: Temperature vs toughness for data in Table 1

Figure VI further enhances the transition. The nature

of this will be explained and discussed further in the
report. A qualitative analysis was also undertaken. A
bright crystalline surface was observed for a brittle
fracture, for a ductile fracture, a dull fibrous structure
was observed. Crystallinity was observed for the 60C, as well as a slightly brighter surface. For the
40C, there was a reduced more fibrous nature, but it
was not as dull as expected. Furthermore, a more
obvious observation of the sample was whether it had
fully broken. This was only observed for the -60C
sample where the brittle transition was maximised
such that the fracture was sufficient to break the
sample. Figure VII shows this.

Figure VII: -60C to 40C (left to right) broken impact samples

40

60

4____________________________________TATA Steel: On the validation of Charpy Impact Testing: Amanz Azaden (2016)

Discussion
The graph produced in figure VI is analogous to that
of figure IV. Though the purpose of this experiment
was calibration, there is a large focus on the ductile to
brittle transition due to the variation in the transition
time. The sample has a maximum transition time of
five seconds. However, it is often the case that there is
a variation of transfer time from the propan-2-ol bath
to the impact position and contact. When the sample
is cooled or heated it can be treated as a store of
thermal energy, where the total energy of the system is
proportional to the temperature as equation 4 states, in
accordance with classical thermodynamics.
Equation 4

=
Taking partials of both sides, and assuming that over
small transitions in the absence of a phase transition,
heat capacity is constant, we obtain:
Equation 4.1

Taking the derivative with respect to time on both

sides, yields Equation 4.2 which is valid under the
permutations that the temperature of the body is
homogenous at any given time. is the heat transfer
coefficient, is the area of the body.
Equation 4.2

= (() ) = ( )

By substitution of Equation 4.2, and accounting for the

size of the body, we obtain a new constant of
proportionality . It can be shown that the rate of
change of temperature holds the following
proportionality, where is the ambient room
temperature.
Equation 5

= ( )

=
( )

=
( )

Ln( ) = +
=

Setting boundary conditions = 0 = 0, we

obtain:
Equation 5.1

() = + (0 )
Equation 5.1 is important because it shows that the
temperature at which the sample undergoes the impact
test, () will depend massively on the time. Table 3
was created to illustrate the difference in temperatures
that will be observed for the set values of 0 . Assume
= 20 and k is a positive constant which is
difficult to experimentally measure, however, with
some assumptions, a value can be estimated. The first
assumption is that the body dissipates or accepts heat
uniformly, and the fact that it is placed on a surface
whilst some of the body is dissipating heat to the air
has no effect on the rate of energy change. The mass
can be determined in the laboratory, and the heat
capacity can be determined from known literature
samples. [7] The value of was determined to be 1
103 1 .
Table 3: Temperatures of the removed steel samples as a
function of time
Temperature (t) (C)
T0

t=0

t=1

t=2

t=3

t=4

t=5

-60

-60

-59.2

-58.4

-57.6

-56.9

-56.1

-40

-40

-39.4

-38.8

-38.2

-37.6

-37.1

-20

-20

-19.6

-19.2

-18.8

-18.4

-18.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

20

20

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

40

40

39.8

39.6

39.4

39.2

39.0

Table 3 inherently shows the error caused by time

delay, or in fact, by the hastening of the transfer time.
What is meant by the latter is that if the same person
was varying the time taken to transfer by a small
amount, it can in fact have a large temperature
difference by the time it reaches the impact test.
An improvement for this source of error would be to
create an automated system which is programmed to
take the exact designated time for all samples, such
that the error of thermal energy loss is minimised.
However, a scientist always considers an ideal
situation, yet from an engineering perspective, it is
unlikely that automation is financially viable since not
many Charpy Impact tests are conducted, the capital
investment for automation would not be worthwhile.

5____________________________________TATA Steel: On the validation of Charpy Impact Testing: Amanz Azaden (2016)

An alternative solution would be to constrict the time

taken for transfer, for example, to three seconds, thus
not allowing the time for a heavier propagation of
error.. It is understood that constricting the time to
three seconds will not repudiate that of the industrial
standard procedures. [8]
Figures VIII a)-d) depict the ductile to brittle transition
at a microscopic level.

Figure VIII: 20C fracture

b) 0C fracture sample

It should be noted for the intermediate samples, there

is a greater proportion of voids, such that the
transition must occur somewhere below the 0C mark.
This can be shown mathematically by attempting to fit
a curve which matches the ductile to brittle transition.
The mathematical nature of the curve is known as a
sigmoid, an S-shape, also known as a Logistic
function. Equation 6 shows a generalised layout of the
logistic function. 0 is the midpoint of the function,
is the steepness of the curve, and A is the height of the
asymptote.
Equation 6: A logistic function

() =

1+

(0 )

Figure IX displays the variation between the fit of the

function in Equation 7 and the original data.

Toughness (J M-3)

Alternative sources of error arose from the sample

size, since the Doosan milling machine also mills other
industrial demands between Charpy samples, such that
the conditions of the machine and more importantly,
the accuracy of tensile samples, an example of a
product of the milling machine, are not mediated
towards the precise restrictions that a Charpy impact
test requires.

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Toughness (MJ
m-3)
Sigmoid Fit

-200

-100

100

200

Temperature (C)
Figure VIII c) -20C fracture

d) -40C fracture

There is a clear difference in the fracture mechanism

as the temperature drops from 20C to -40C. the
fracture surface goes from a very porous nature, to a
very clean crack-propagated surface.
In the warmer 20C, ductile failure has occurred. The
pores begin to open up as plastic strain occurs locally
at the site of inclusions such as carbon atoms and
other foreign species, thus creating a macroscopic
failure when a critical level of pore percolation occurs.
This can be observed by an apparent chewy break
where the coalescence is taking place. The process is
known as microvoid coalescence
Conversely, for a brittle fracture, there is a rapid crack
propagation through the material. The break occurs
along close packed planes where atoms can be ripped
apart one by one. As a result, a flat cleavage is seen.
This can be observed in figure VIII d). There are very
little, if any voids present in the sample, as opposed to
figure VIII a) where the sample shows almost all voids.

Figure IX: Mathematical fit of the toughness vs

Temperature
Equation 7: Mathematical fitting of the Sigmoid function

() () =

35
1 + 0.1(+30)

() [100,40]

Conclusion
Charpy impact samples were created by shearing,
milling cutting and notching samples. They were then
placed in a temperature bath, and impact tested with
the energy absorption values noted. It was determined
that the largest source of error of the experiment was
the time to place the samples in the impact machine.
Other errors were considered, and some suggestions
were made. Batch standards were made up for future
use.

6____________________________________TATA Steel: On the validation of Charpy Impact Testing: Amanz Azaden (2016)

References
[1] Callister, William D. Materials Science And
Engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
Print.
[2] Chapra, Steven C. Applied Numerical Methods
With MATLAB For Engineers And Scientists. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.
[3] Mark Wenman, Imperial College London, First
Year Undergraduate Lecture Notes
[4] Melo Moura, C., Vilela, J., Rabello, E., Martins, G.,
& Carniero, J. (2009). EVALUATION OF THE
DUCTILE-TO-BRITTLE
TRANSITION
TEMPERATURE IN STEEL LOW CARBON.
International Nuclear Atlantic Conference.
[5] Ben Britton, Imperial College London, First Year
Undergraduate Lecture Notes
[6] Frank Incropera; Theodore L. Bergman; David
DeWitt; Adrienne S. Lavine (2007). Fundamentals of
Heat and Mass Transfer (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
pp. 260261. ISBN 978-0-471-45728-2.
[7] Lienhard, J. & Lienhard, J. (2008). A heat transfer
textbook (3rd ed.). Mineola, N.Y.: Dover Publications.