Lehigh UniversityLehigh Preserve

Theses and Dissertations

1-1-1980

Interpretive report on small-scale test correlationswith fracture toughness data.Crystal Rae Hoffman

Follow this and additional works at: http://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd

Part of the Applied Mechanics Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by anauthorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact preserve@lehigh.edu.

Recommended CitationHoffman, Crystal Rae, "Interpretive report on small-scale test correlations with fracture toughness data." (1980). Theses andDissertations. Paper 1735.

INTERPRETIVE REPORT ON SMALL-SCALE TEST CORRELATIONS

WITH FRACTURE TOUGHNESS DATA

by

Crystal Rae Hoffman

A Thesis

Presented to the Graduate Committee

of Lehigh University

in Candidacy for the Degree of

Master of Science

in

Applied Mechanics

Lehigh University

1980

ProQuest Number: EP76007

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

uest

ProQuest EP76007

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

This thesis is accepted and approved in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science.

Mi£/?/& Tcrate ^^L/^/t^s^

Professor in Charge

Department

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank Dr. Richard Roberts for his

guidance and many contributions which made this study possible.

Dr. C. T. Royer of Exxon Product Research Company provided

constructive comments on the material which were appreciated.

Acknowledgment is also made of the Federal Highway Administration

which supported the author under project DOT-FH-11-9448 while she

completed this work.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1. Introduction 2

2. K^ -CVN Upper Shelf Correlations 5

3. Fracture Toughness - CVN Transition Region Correlations 10

3.1 Simple VL. -CVN Correlations 10

3.2 Simple K..-CVN Correlations 13

3.3 Multiple Step K -CVN Correlations 17

3.4 Material Dependence of IC-.-CVN Correlations 22

3.5 Evaluation of the Transition Region Correlations 23

4. Kj.-NDT Correlations 28

5. K-DT Correlations 30

6. Discussion 31

7. Conclusions and Recommendations 33

References 36

Table 1 41

Table 2 . 47

Figures 48

Appendix 66

iv

FIGURES PAGE

1. ASTM E399 Compact Tension Specimen 48

2. Dynamic and Static Fracture Toughness Response of Typical Bridge Steels 49

3. Response of a Charpy V-Notch Impact Energy Test 50

4. Transition and Upper Shelf Regions for the Charpy Test 51

5. Rolfe-Novak-Barsom Correlation with the original data 52

6. Comparision of the Rolfe-Novak-Barsom Correlation to other data 53

7. Comparision of Rolfe-Novak-Barsom correlation'and Ault et al. correlation with the lower bound relationship 54

8. Two-Step Correlation between CVN and IL. 55

9. Comparision of temperature correlations from Marandet-Sanz data 56

10. Rolfe, Rhea, and Kuzmanovic curve specified by two parameters, NDT and DT at 75° F. 57

11. Relationship between T - T and K_ /K_ „g 58

12. Comparision of Simple K - CVN.Correlations 59

13. Comparision of K - PSB Correlations 60

14. Comparision of Simple KTJ- CVN Correlations and

data for low and intermediate strength steels 61

15. Comparision of Two-Step Correlations 62

16. Comparision of Multiple-Step and Simple K_ - CVN Correlations 63

17. Estimate of the size of the starting crack at NDT temperature 64

18. Correlation between dimensionless dynamic fracture toughness and dynamic tear energy 65

ABSTRACT

Correlations between fracture toughness and small-scale test

results are useful due to cost, availability of material, and

ease of testing. The material parameter, fracture toughness, can

be used directly in design analyses. The small-scale test results,

which are not designed to provide the information necessary to

predict a failure load or critical flaw size, can provide this

information through correlation with the fracture toughness.

Possible small-scale tests for this type of relationship include

the Charpy test, the nil-ductility transition temperature test,

and the dynamic tear test. Correlations of Charpy test results for

the upper shelf region and three types of transition region

correlations are evaluated. When evaluating the proposed correla-

tions, it is important to consider the effects of notch acuity and

strain rate.' The effects of plate position and scatter of the

experimental results are also noted. Due to the empirical nature

of the correlations, no one correlation can be shown to be more

accurate for all materials. A correlation developed for a material

under consideration is obviously preferred. When such a correlation

is not available, the author has recommended correlations likely to

give conservative results. Recommendations for future study are

made in order to more thoroughly understand the relationships

between fracture toughness and small-scale test results.

1. Introduction

The application of fracture mechanics to the design and

maintenance of steel pressure vessels has become widespread in

recent years. A major reason for this is that fracture mechanics

provides the engineer with a rational basis to study the inter-

action of applied stresses, defects, and material properties as

they relate to pressure vessel integrity. A key parameter in

this process is the material property known as the static plane

strain fracture toughness, Kjc. The definition and methods of

determining Kjc are carefully set out in ASTM standard test

procedure E399 [1]. A common specimen used in determining Kjc

is the compact tension specimen shown in Figure 1.

In addition to KIc, it is often desirable to determine a

so called dynamic plane strain fracture toughness, Ky,. While

an ASTM standard for the determination of K_, does not currently Id

exist, it is the subject of much research and discussion by ASTM

Committee E24 on Fracture Testing of Metals. It appears that

this effort will lead to a standard test method similar to E399

except that the rate of straining of the specimen will not be

limited to very low strain rates.

The K_ and K behavior of typical low and intermediate

strength steels is shown in Figure 2. For the purposes of this

report typical low and intermediate strength steels are those

The numbers in brackets refer to the list of references appended to this paper.

steels which have yield strengths in the range of 250 to 760

MPa (36 to 110 ksi). It is generally agreed that at low temper-

atures the K_ and K_, values approach a lower limit of between

27 and 38 MPat^m (25 and 35 ksi/in.). As the temperature in-

creases there is some point at which the levels of K— and K ,

begin to rise. As shown in Figure 2, K_, is generally lower

than K_ at the same temperature although the difference is

negligible at a sufficiently low test temperature.

Due to cost, availability of material, and ease of

testing, it is often desirable or even necessary to obtain

fracture toughness values, K_ or K_,, by methods other than

ASTM E399. For this purpose, correlations between K_ or K_.

and the results of Charpy V-notch impact (CVN) testing, nil-

ductility transiton (NDT) temperature testing, and dynamic tear

(DT) testing have been proposed. The Charpy test procedure,

ASTM E23 [2], reports fracture energy and appearance with respect

to the testing temperature as shown in Figure 3. ASTM Standard

E208 [3] determines the NDT temperature. This is the minimum

temperature at which a small flaw will not grow when loaded

dynamically to the yield strength. The Dynamic Tear Test [4],

which is similar to the Charpy test, utilizes impact testing to

measure fracture energy as a function of temperature. The CVN,

NDT, and DT tests, which were not designed to provide the infor-

mation necessary to predict a failure load 'or critical flaw size,

can provide this information through correlation with the

3.

fracture toughness. When evaluating the proposed correlations

it is important to consider the effects of notch acuity and

strain rate. KT and IL., are measured on a fatigue-cracked

specimen at static and dynamic loading rates respectively. CVN

and DT testing involve dynamic loading rates on notched speci-

mens while NDT testing uses a specimen with a brittle weld crack

initiator under dynamic loads. In addition to the correlations

noted, crack opening displacement (COD), J-integral, and other

methods have been correlated with K_ for non-linear behavior

or where specimen size is insufficient to meet ASTM standards.

Proposed correlations from the technical literature up

to December 1979 are summarized and compared in this report

with a particular emphasis on the fracture toughness of pressure

vessel steels. The relevant articles surveyed as part of the

work reported here are listed in the Appendix. Data was compiled

from several sources for comparison with the correlations to

help determine their over-all usefulness. Recommendations

for future research are also made.

4.

2. K_ -CVN Upper Shelf Correlations

Correlations between KT and CVN fall into two categories ic

based on the regions of the Charpy curve which they describe -

the upper shelf and the transition region as shown in Figure 4.

Some correlations use variations of the basic CVN test procedure

in order to eliminate the differences in notch acuity and strain

rate between KT and CVN. These variations include using pre- Ic

cracked specimens, static testing rates, and instrumentation.

Such correlations are summarized with yield strength and Charpy

ranges in Table 1.

Two correlations between the valid E399 KIc and CVN

have been developed in the upper shelf region. In developing

these correlations, it was assumed that loading rate has

little effect in this region. However, not all materials have

a constant fracture toughness on the upper shelf. This should

be taken into account when using either of the correlations

[5, 6, 7].

The Rolfe-Novak-Barsom correlation for IC and CVN was

developed for a limited group of steels in the upper shelf region

[8, 9]. This has the form:

£^0.6* (2S . o.oi) (.. -±) ys ys

K , 2 (2.1) (^.f.5{m . 0.O5) (in, IgP)*2 ys ys

2 Asterisks are used throughout the paper to indicate that the original form involved English units.

5.

The steels used in developing this relationship had yield

strengths ranging from 760 to 1700 MPa (110 to 246 ksi*). All

testing was done at room temperature. Of the eleven data points

presented, in Figure 5, only four meet current ASTM E399 thick-

ness requirements and those four comprise only the lowest ten

percent of the correlation [10].

Additional data which agrees with the correlation is

published in two studies for steels with yield strengths ranging

from 410 to 900 MPa (59 to 130 ksi*) [11, 12]. Predicted re-

sults for cast steels were slightly conservative while experimen-

tal K_ values not measured directly but taken from J. tests on

5 Ni-Cr-Mo-V steel were much lower than predicted results

[13,14,15]. These results are shown in Figure 6. By using

"static" CVN values from the 5 Ni-Cr-Mo-V steel in the correla-

tion, more accurate results were obtained [15]. This greater

accuracy shows that there is a significant sensitivity to strain

rate in the upper shelf which should be considered in the

correlation.

A correlation similar to that of Rolfe, Novak, and

Barsom was developed by Ault, Wald, and Bertolo for high strength

steels with yield strengths ranging from 1610 to 1980 MPa

(234 to 287 ksi*) [16]. This took the form:

(^)2 - 0.18 £2) - 0.0011 0», Jj) ys ys

(^)2 - 1.37 (2B, - 0.0.5 (1..^)* ys ys

6.

The Rolfe-Novak-Barsom correlation provides a successful

fit for a greater range of the data than the Ault, Wald, and

Bertolo correlation, as shown in Figure 7. The K_ values from

JT testing, shown on Figure 6, which are much lower than pre-

dicted by Rolfe, Novak, and Barsom, involve two correlations -

one from J_ to KT and one between HL. and CVN. However, the Ic Ic Tic

Ault et. al. correlation provides a conservative estimate of

these points. The development of the Rolfe-Novak-Barsom

correlation from invalid data may not be detrimental since it

fits the valid data successfully.

By finding confidence limits to a correlation one can

estimate a lower bound for the data. This type of result would

seem to be more useful than a best fit correlation with a perhaps

arbitrary factor of safety. An approximately 95% confidence

lower bound can be formed by lowering the best fit by two

standard errors of estimate. The lower bound for the original

eleven data points of Rolfe, Novak, and Barsom is of the form:

£c,J.0.«(Sa-o.o2) 6..J-, yS yS (2.3)

(^)2. ,(£E-0.1) un.^>\ ys ys

The lower bound to the data of Ault, Wald and Bertolo is

7.

(^)2 = 0.17(£H) -0.0015 Ofgij) ys ys

(^)2 . 1.3gH) . 0.06 ,. ft-lbx * (in- ^ir} (2.4)

ys ys

Considering all of the data shown in Figure 7 except the J_

results, a least squares fit of the form:

£c)2 = A(CVN (2.5) ys ys

where A and B are constants, gives the following correlation:

W rCVN (^) -0.58(^-0.01) ys ys

(^)2- 4.5(21-0.05)

(2.6)

ys ys

The resulting lower bound shown in Figure 7 takes the form:

Ic>2 K.

ys

KT 2

ys

0.58(^ - 0.02) CTys

4.5(^-0.1) ys

(2.7)

This lower bound relationship is slightly more conservative

than the lower bound resulting from Rolfe, Novak, and Barsom's

data but the two relationships are quite close. It is believed

that for the majority of the data the above relationship, Eq. 2.7,

provides a conservative estimate of the fracture toughness.

8.

It should be cautioned that KT results from J_ testing may not

be compatible with this correlation.

As previously noted, one point to consider in evaluating

the upper shelf correlations is that K_ and CVN are compared

at room temperature. If there is any variation in the upper shelf CVN

value with temperature, room temperature Charpy results may not provide

a consistent evaluation of the toughness. A correlation of K_

and CVN at the beginning of their respective upper shelves might

be more effective. To date no such correlation is thought to

appear in the literature. Although there is a substantial

difference in notch acuity in K_ and CVN testing, a relationship

between the results of the two tests seems reasonable since

Clausing showed that the states of strain are similar [17].

9.

.J

3. Fracture Toughness - CVN Transition Region Correlations

The correlations between fracture toughness and the

results of Charpy testing in the transition temperature region

are of three types - simple relationships between static fracture

toughness and Charpy impact energy, simple relationships between

dynamic fracture toughness and Charpy impact energy, and multiple

step relationships. The two types of simple relationships

between IL. or K_ , and CVN where both are tested at the same

temperature, are of the form:

Kjc, KJd - A(CVN)n (3.1)

The values of A and n are usually found by taking a least

squares fit to the data in each correlation. Limits may be

placed on the range of Charpy data to be included in the correla-

tion. Results at the lower end of the range are subject to a

significant contribution from the inertia of the specimen and

values at the high end are influenced by upper shelf values [18].

3.1 Simple K_ -CVN Correlations

Several of the simple correlations relate static fracture

toughness to dynamic CVN. The effect of strain rate is not

considered in these correlations.

Barsom and Rolfe developed a correlation for nine steels

[9] including data for rotor steels [19]. The correlation

developed from Charpy data between 4 and 82 J (3 and 60 ft-lbs*)

took the form:

10.

-~ = 0.22(CVN)3/2 (kPa-in, J) (3#2)

K 2

-4s- = 2(CVN)3/2 (psi-in, ft-lb)*

The yield strengths of the steels varied from 270 to 1700 MPa

(39 to 246 ksi*). No limitations were made on the lower and upper

ends of the Charpy range. However, if one applies limits of 7

and 68 J (5 and 50 ft-lbs), the correlation does not appear to

change.

Sailors and Cortens developed a correlation for the range

of Charpy V-notch impact values between 7 and 68 J (5 and 50

ft-lbs*) [18]. This correlation between static IC. and dynamic

CVN took the form:

Kj - lA^CVN)1^2 (MPa/m, J) (3>3)

Kj. - 15.5(CVN)1/2 (ksi/in, ft-lb)*

To reduce the effect of scatter in the Charpy data, attention

was focused on the lower boundary of the Charpy energy band. The

steels involved in the correlation were A533B with a yield

strength of 410 to 480 Mpa (60 to 70 ksi*) and two similar

pressure vessel steels. Supporting data from irradiated A533B

was found for Charpy values between 0 and 30 J (0 and 22 ft-lbs)

[20].

Thorby and Ferguson [6] attributed the following relation-

ship to data of Logan and Crossland [21]:

11.

KIc - 18.2(^p)1/2 (MPa/m, J/cm2) (3.4)

Kjc - 43.6(^p)1/2 (ksi/in, ft-lb/in2)

A denotes the cross-sectional area of the specimen. The data

was from high strength steels with yield strengths ranging from

820 to 1420 MPa(119 to 206 ksi*) and Charpy values between 5.4

and 54 J (4 and 40 ft-lbs*). In their original paper, Logan

and Crossland merely noted a linear relationship and mentioned

2 the possibility of a correlation between static K_ [(l-v)/E]

and dynamic CVN.

HY60 and two experimental steels with small additions

of titanium with yield strengths between 400 and 560 MPa (58

and 81 ksi) were used by Thorby and Ferguson to develop the

following correlation [6] s

V -c/CVNv0.534 fyra J -r I 2\ fl * \ K = 15(——) (MPa/m, J/cm ) (3.5)

K = 38(^)0'534 (ksi/in, ft-lb/in2) C A

K values were calculated from crack opening displacement data

from 10 mm x 10 mm (0.4 in x 0.4 in) COD specimens. Plane stress

conditions were assumed. The correlation did not have a well-

defined range and parts of the upper shelf may be included in the

small data base. Experimental Charpy values ranged from 5 to

125 (4 to 92 ft-lbs). The scatter of the data was attributed

to strain rate effects. Experimental verification of the

correlation for a given material was recommended before this

12.

relationship between static plane stress fracture toughness

and dynamic CVN is used.

3.2 Simple K-.-CVN Correlations

The above correlations are between a static fracture

toughness and a dynamic Charpy impact value and may be affected

by the difference in strain rates. In order to eliminate this

strain rate effect, correlations in the transition temperature

region have been developed between the dynamic fracture tough-

ness and Charpy impact values, and also between static fracture

toughness and Charpy slow bend results.

Barsom developed a correlation for the transition

temperature range with the limitation of similar strain rates

for the tests [7]. The correlations were between K_, and CVN, la

and IC and Charpy V-notch slow bend energy (CSB). They were

developed for ABS-C, A302-B, and A517-F steels and took the form:

2 2 K K _*! . 0.64 CVN -l£ . 0.64 CSB (kPa-m, J) E E (3.6,7)

2 2 K K -^- - 5 CVN -~ - 5 CSB (psi-in, ft-lb*)

Predicted KT , values from CVN test results for two bridge steels id

with yield strengths of 250 and 345 MPa (36 and 50 ksi) were

compared with results of K testing [7]. The predicted results

were higher than the experimental results at low temperature but

agreed at the beginning of the transition region.

13.

By combining data from Barsom and Rolfe [9] with data

on A533B [22, 23], Sailors and Corten developed a data base for

the following correlation between dynamic K_, and standard

CVN results [18] :

K^ = 15.5(CVN)0,375 (MPa/m, J) (3.8)

K^ - 15.873(CVN)0,375 (ksi/in, ft-lbs)*

The yield strengths of the steels were between 270 and 815 MPa

(39 and 118 ksl*) and the range of the experimental Charpy values

was between 3 and 95 J (2 and 70 ft-lbs*). Limiting the range

of Charpy values to between 7 and 68 J (5 and 50 ft-lbs*), as

Sailors and Corten treat their IC. correlation, would

affect the correlation by increasing the.constant, A, and lower-

ing the exponent n.

A correlation for the transition temperature range to

be used with a temperature shift, allowing for strain effects

as described in section 4.3, was developed for CVN less than

50 J (37 ft-lbs) by Marandet and Sanz [24]. Although Marandet

and Sanz did not express it as such, this can be considered as

a relationship between dynamic KT, and dynamic CVN, which takes

the form:

KT, = 19(CVN)1/2 (MPa/m, J) (3.9)

Id

KTJ = 20(CVN)1/2 (ksi/in, ft-lb)

Id

14.

Much of the data was taken from a 2.25 Cr-lMo steel treated

so the yield strength ranged from 303 to 820 MPa (44 to 119 ksi).

Experimental Charpy data varied between 5 and 50 J (4 and 37 ft-lb).

A correlation was developed by Barsom for precracked

Charpy specimens in order to eliminate notch effects as well as

strain rate effects [7]. Using the materials from Barsom's

KT,-CVN correlation, a data base of reasonable size was used in

the development of the following relationships where strain rate

effects were restricted:

2 2 K K_ -^ = 0.52 PCI -p- - 0.52 PSB (kPa-m, J) (3.10,11)

2 2 K_, K_ -±2- » 4 PCI -^ - 4 PSB (p.si-in, ft-lb)

PCI is the precracked Charpy impact energy and PSB is the pre-

cracked Charpy slow bend energy.

A correlation between K and precracked Charpy impact

energy per unit area was developed for four data points by Thorby

and Ferguson [6]. This took the form:

K = 25 (l£±)0-5 (MPa/m, J/cm2) (3-12) c A

K = 60 (IP!)0'5 (ksi/in, ft-lb/in2) C A

K values were obtained from crack opening displacement results

under plane stress conditions. The data base used in develop-

ing this relationship was so small that any correlation would be

subject to question.

15.

Two correlations between static fracture toughness and

precracked Charpy slow bend values have been developed in addi-

tion to Barsom's correlation. The first was developed by Ronald,

Hall, and Pierce for titanium and aluminum alloys and steel

[25] and took the form:

K2 - 5_ iSB (3.13) *lc 2(l-v2) A

2 Precracked slow bend results ranged from 3 to 16 J/cm (16 to

2 77 ft-lbs/in *). There is some theoretical justification for this

2 correlation which fits the data closely from 3 to 11 J/cm

2 (16 to 50 ft-lb/in *). Outside this range the data is lower

than predicted.

The second correlation between static K_ and precracked

Charpy slow bend results is also based on steel, aluminum,

and titanium alloys with yield strengths between 310 and 2080

MPa (45 and 301 ksi*) [26]. This correlation took the form:

K 2

-g2- =0.95 + 0.45 (^jp) (MPa-m, J/cm2) (3.14)

K 2

-Is- - 5.4 + 0.542 (^p) (ksi-in, ft-lb/in2)*

2 Precracked slow bend results ranged from 0.6 to 33 J/cm (3 to

2 158 ft-lb/in *) for the large data base drawn from three sources

[27, 28, 29].

Instrumented precracked Charpy slow bend and impact

tests on T1-6A1-4V prompted the following correlation [30]:

16.

KIc = 0.52 (^p-) + 7.4 (MPa/m, J/cm2) (3.15)

PPT 9 KIc - 0.10 (^j±) + 6.7 (ksi/in, ft-lb/cni )*

^c " °*89 (^A^ + 17,8 (MPa/m» J/cm2) (3.16)

KIc - 0.17 (£|^) + 16.2 (ksi/in, ft-lb/in2)*

Instrumented Charpy V-notch impact tests for low and

medium strength steels in the transition region resulted in the

following correlation between the load at fracture (Pf )

the dynamic fracture toughness [26]:

K^ - 0.02 Pf (MPa/m, kg) (3.17)

KJJ - 8.2 Pf (psi/in, lb)*

The correlation was developed using the effects of notch root

radius and the stress analysis of a three point bend fracture

as an approximation of the Charpy test.

The simple relationships in the transition region are

limited to correlating K or K values and Charpy test results

at the same temperature.

3.3 Multiple Step K_ -CVN Correlations

There are several more involved procedures for correla-

ting K_ and CVN. Two of these involve a temperature shift Ic

and a IC. ,-CVN correlation for the temperature transition region.

17.

In addition, three procedures have been developed to predict

the entire IC. -temperature curve.

In the transition region, it has been proposed that K-

and K_ , curves are similar but separated by an approximately

constant difference in temperature [7, 24], If the magnitude

of this temperature difference is known, a relationship between

KId and CVN can be used. The temperature shift allows for the

difference in strain rates between VL. and K_. or CVN as shown 1c Id

in Figure 8.

A dependence of the temperature shift (AT ) on the room

temperature yield strength (a ) is used by Barsom [7]:

AT - 119 - 0.12 a (C°, MPa) 250 < a < 990 MPa (3.18) s ys ys

AT =» 0 a > 990 MPa s ys

AT - 215 - 1.5 a (F°, ksi)* 36 < a < 140 ksi s ys ys

AT - 0 a > 140 ksi s ys

These equations can be used with Barsom's correlation of the form:

K 2

-1^ - 0.64 CVN (kPa-m, J) (3.19) E

K 2

-§^ - 5 CVN (psi-in, ft-lb)*

to provide a two-step correlation between K_ and CVN.

Marandet and Sanz observed that if one somewhat

arbitrarily picks the temperature corresponding to 28 J (21 ft-lb)

18.

from the Charpy curve T_R (T--), and the temperature correspond-

ing to a Kx level of 100 MPa/m (91 ksi/in), T (T ), then a

correlation exists between the two [24], This correlation is

shown in Figure 9 and takes the form:

T100 - 1,3? T28 + 9 (°C' MPav/m» J> (3.20)

T - 1.37 T21 + 4 (°F, ksi/in, ft-lb)

The value of K_ is calculated from CVN results according to:

KIc - 19(CVN)1/2 (MPa/m, J) (3.9)

KIc = 20(CVN)1/2 (ksi/in, ft-lb)

and then shifted so that K_ of 100 MPa/m (91 ksi/in) is located

at T_n0 (T_.). The temperature correlation seems questionable

since a least squares fit by the current authors to the data

reported by Marandet and Sanz gives a correlation of the form:

T100 " 1'48 T28 + °*55 (°C' MPa,/m' J) (3.21)

Tgi - 1.48 T2 - 14 (°F, ksi/in, ft-lb)

Marandet and Sanz noted that temperatures corresponding to CVN

values anywhere between 20 and 30 J (15 and 22 ft-lb) and K^

levels between 60 and 100 MPa/m (55 and 91 ksi/in) could have

been chosen. The authors developed a similar correlation between

a temperature corresponding to CVN of 20 J (15 ft-lb) and T..-

(Tq-) using the data of Marandet and Sanz. This correlation

is also shown in Figure 9 and takes the form:

19.

T10Q * 1.53 T2Q + 27.2 (°C, MPa/m, J) (3.22)

Tgi = 1.53 T 5 + 32 (°F, ksi/in, ft-lb)

This possibility of two or more such linear relationships

highlights some of the futility and difficulty associated with

empirical correlations.

Begley and Logsdon determined that, for the temperature

corresponding to 100 percent brittle fracture appearance from CVN

testing, K can be predicted as a function of yield strength

[31]. The relationship is of the form:

K_ -iS. - 0.072/ra - 0.45/in (3.23) a ys

Use of this correlation by itself does not provide an adequate

prediction of the K_ curve. As pointed out by Rolfe, Rhea, and

Kuzmanovic [32], the response of two materials with identical

NDT or 15 ft-lb CVN temperatures may have dramatically different

behaviors at higher temperatures as shown in Figure 10. A

second measurement point is advisable to determine the rate of

increase of measured toughness properties in the transition

region.

Iwadate, Karaushi, and Watanabe [11] combined the Rolfe-

Novak-Barsom upper shelf correlation, the concept of excess

temperature proposed by Brothers, Newhouse, and Wundt [33], and

the Begley-Logsdon relationship in order to fit the behavior of

20.

all steels they studied onto one curve. K_ is normalized by

using K_ ,.„, the fracture toughness at the upper shelf CVN Ic—US

level. The master plot shown in Figure 11 related KIc/KIc_us

to

the excess temperature, T-T , where T is the temperature where

K„. /K,. „„ is 0.5. The correlation developed from 2-l/4Cr Ic Ic-US

developed from 2-1/ACr-lMo pressure vessel steel and Ni-Mo-V

rotor steel provided a good fit for these steels.

An evaluation of the plastic zone size was used by

Tetelman, Wullaert, and Ireland in developing the following

relationship for low temperature K or K [34] :

KIc d " 2*9 aJexP<^ - 1) ~ U1/2/P0 <3'24> y

where a is the yield strength evaluated at the relevant tempera-

ture and strain rate, o* is the microscopic cleavage stress, and

p is the maximum notch root radius of which the fracture tough-

ness is independent. The IC. relationship uses slow bend Charpy

V-notch tests while instrumented impact Charpy V-notch tests are

used in evaluating KT ,. After the temperature is determined

where the failure load is 80% of the load required for general

yield, P , a single static or dynamic fracture toughness test sy

at that temperature finds p since from notched bar theory [35] at

this temperature, a = 33.3 P and a * = 2.18o . Subsequently y gy f y

the Charpy test results determine the fracture toughness as

long as;

21.

KT A -i£-i5. < 0.40 (3.25)

a ys

The relationship was demonstrated for four pressure vessel

steels with yield strengths ranging from 270 to 814 MPa (39 to

118 ksi*).

The multiple step correlations are the most complex of

the three types of Charpy transition region correlations. Two

of these correlations use temperature shifts to include strain

rate effects while the other three correlations use methods

other than a direct correlation with Charpy energy results.

3.4 Material Dependence of K-.-CVN Correlations

The degree of dependence of the correlations on indivi-

dual materials can be shown using data for low and medium

strength steels compiled from several sources [7, 9, 36> 37, 38,

39, 40]. Individual correlations between dynamic fracture

toughness and Charpy V-notch impact energy were found by the

authors for each material and reported in Table 2. The range

of Charpy results for the correlations was limited to between

7 J (5 ft-lbs*) and the average of the upper and lower shelf

values. The relationships expressed in the table are of the

form:

K^ - A(CVN)n (3.1)

The constants, A and n, are for an approximately 95% confidence

lower bound formed by taking two standard errors of

22.

estimate from the least squares fit to the data. This type

of correlation should provide a conservative estimate of the

dynamic fracture toughness. The difference in fracture tough-

ness behavior between materials can be noted in the exponent,

n, which varies between -0.05 and 0.41.

3.5 Evaluation of the Transition Region Correlations

In order to choose a correlation between fracture

toughness and Charpy test results in the transition region,

for a particular material and application, an evaluation of the

various relationships is useful. It is obviously desirable to

choose a correlation for the material under consideration. For

instances where this is not possible, the current authors have

evaluated the correlations and recommended those which are most

likely to give conservative results. The relationships are

first evaluated in the three groups of KT and CVN, K_, and CVN,

and multiple step correlations, and then the various methods

are compared.

The simple correlations between static fracture tough-

ness and Charpy V-notch impact values are quite close to each

other if the range of Charpy values is limited to between 7 and

68 J (5 and 50 ft-lbs) as shown in Figure 12. The minimum of 7 J

(5 ft-lbs) attempts to restrict the effects of specimen

inertia and machine noise on the results. The influence of

23.

upper shelf values on the correlations is eliminated by setting

a maximum value. The largest difference between correlations is

at the lower end of the Charpy range between the Barsom-Rolfe

correlation and the correlation developed by Thorby and Ferguson

from the data of Logan and Crossland. Barsom and Rolfe's

correlation is the most conservative at the lower end of the

range while the most conservative relationship above 19 J

(15 ft-lb) is that of Sailors and Corten. The correlations of

Barsom and Rolfe, and Sailors and Corten have larger data

bases and some independent support for the K_ -CVN relationships.

A more conservative estimate of K_ would be provided by the

relationship shown in Figure 11:

KIc =» 8.47(CVN)°'63 (MPa/m, J) (3 2fi)

KIc = 9.35(CVN)0*63 (ksi/in, ft-lb)*

which provides a lower bound to the K- -CVN correlations. This

correlation is recommended where such a degree of conservatism

is possible.

The correlation with Charpy pre-cracked and instrumented

impact Charpy results in the transition region do not have enough

data for pressure vessels steels to evaluate their ability to

predict the fracture toughness. It should be noted, however,

that the precracked slow bend correlations are reasonably close

in the range of 7 to 68 MPa (5 to 50 ft-lbs) as shown in Figure

24.

13. The correlations between static fracture toughness and

precracked Charpy slow bend results are linear relationships

and have the advantage of being evaluated at similar strain

rates.

The dynamic fracture toughness and Charpy V-notch

impact energy correlations in the transition temperature region

are compared to the compiled data on low and medium strength

steels [7, 9, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40] and to each other in Figure

14. The equivalent K_, correlation of Marandet and Sanz is

above all the data for half of the CVN range shown. The

correlations of Barsom and Sailors and Corten are quite close to

each other and to the least squares fit to the data which takes

the form:

Kjd = 35(CVN)0,17 (MPa/m, J) (3.27)

Kjd - 34(CVN)0,17 (ksi/in, ft-lb)*

Sailors and Corten's correlation is the most conservative of

these relationships for much of the range shown. Again,

an approximately 95% confidence lower bound gives a more

conservative estimate of KTJ. This correlation is of the Id

form:

KId - 22.5(CVN)0*17 (MPa/m, J) (3.28)

Kjd-- 21.6(CVN)°*17 (ksi/in, ft-lb)*

25.

This correlation provides the most conservative estimate of

K_, but Barsom's correlation and that of Sailors and Corten la

provide similar results when such conservatism is precluded by

other design limitations.

The correlations and temperature shifts of Barsom and

Marandet-Sanz are compared to data from A533B steel from

Hawthorne and Mager [20] in Figure 15. In addition, the lower

bound dynamic fracture toughness correlation translated by

Barsom's temperature shift is shown. For this particular material,

lines fitted to the predicted results of Barsom, and Marandet

and Sanz would be quite close. The lower bound curve is perhaps

overly conservative and does not provide a good indication of

the transition region. Begley and Logsdon predict K_ of 37 MPa/tn Ic

(34 ksi/in) at -18°C (0°F) which is quite a distance from the

experimental results. The temperature data available was

insufficient to evaluate the correlation of Iwadate, Karauski,

and Watanabe or the plastic zone size correlation of Tetelman,

Wullaert, and Ireland. The latter does have the disadvantage of

needing one fracture toughness test while the method of Iwadate,

Karaushi, and Watanabe is based only on Charpy V-notch impact

energy.

The three correlation methods can now be compared. The

K- predictions cannot be compared directly to the predictions

of K_ but the advantages and disadvantages of each can be

26.

considered. If design considerations include dynamic loading

conditions, IC., may be useful. The K correlations are for

similar strain rates rather than neglecting strain rate effects

as the simple K- -CVN correlations do. The simple K-.

relationships are compared to the multiple step correlations

and the A533B data of Hawthorne and Mager [20] in Figure 16.

The multiple step correlations which include the effect of

strain rate provide a better prediction of the temperatures

at which IC. rises rapidly. The simple correlations may

predict the slope in this region more accurately but at the

wrong temperature. A multiple step correlation would be pre-

ferred by the current authors for static loading conditions since

it would provide for strain rate effects and a K_, correlation

would obviously be preferred for dynamic loading conditions.

27,

4. KTJ-NDT Correlations Id

The dynamic fracture toughness has been correlated with

the dynamic yield strength at the nil-ducility transition (NDT)

temperature. While this method does not predict the entire K_,-

temperature curve, a prediction of a K , value at the NDT point

is possible. At the NDT temperature the stress level necessary

for crack propagation is approximately the dynamic yield strength.

The size of the starting crack was estimated as shown in Figure

17, by Irwin et al. [41] after examining many broken NDT specimens.

From these dimensions and the approximate stress level, a value

for the dynamic fracture toughness could be determined in the form:

KId(NDT) - C • ayd (4.1)

where the constant C was 0.12/m (0.78/in*). This calculation

corresponds to a ratio of depth to surface length of the semi-

elliptical crack equal to 1:4. Pellini observed that the flaw

geometry was closer to a ratio of 1:3 in these dimensions with

a resulting constant of O.ll/m (0.7/in*) [42], Shoemaker and

Rolfe found Pellini's results more closely estimated IC-, for

five structural steels [38]. Rolfe and Barsom [43] attributed

a constant of 0.10/m (0.64/in*) to the Shoemaker and Rolfe

article where that value can be observed to be the average of

four of the five structural steels which are in the range

0.096 to O.ll/m (0.6 to 0.7/in*). A value of the constant of

28.

0.80/m (0.5/in*) is also attributed by Rolfe and Barsom [43]

to Pellini. Rolfe and Barsom suggest 0.096/m (0.6/in) as a

reasonable value for the constant, C. To further simplify this

method, the dynamic yield strength at the NDT temperature can

be estimated from the room temperature static yield strength,

a , as follows [43]: ys

a , » a + 172MPa (4.2) yd ys

a „ - a +25 ksi* yd ys

By comparing the estimated values of o , to K_. in Shoemaker

and Rolfe's data, a constant of 0.107/m (0.67/in*) provides an

estimation of K_, close to that of Rolfe and Barsom with o ,

measured directly. While there is not enough data to adequately

compare these correlations, further work in this area would be

of interest since the K.-, level at the NDT temperature can be

simply.estimated when the NDT temperature is determined.

29.

5. K-DT Correlations

A relationship between the results of dynamic tear (DT)

tests and static or dynamic fracture toughness has been established

for some materials. By using the scales of the Ratio Analysis

Diagram (RAD), DT energy measurements can predict K_ within

±16.5 MPa/m (15 ksi/in*) [26, 45, 46]. This relationship is

demonstrated for high strength steel castings [26].

In work performed by Roberts et al. [36, 37], the

fracture energies were measured as a function of test tempera-

ture while performing K , tests. These energies which are

similar to DT energies were converted to the non-dimensional

form:

. A E • DTE 6DTE * B a , (5,1)

yd

where B is the plate thickness, E is Young's modulus, DTE is the

energy absorbed and a , is the dynamic yield strength at the

test temperature. A dimensionless representation of K_, can be

correlated with B^p as shown in Figure 18. This takes the form : v

X ■£(;rT)-0-1236DTE + 0-517 (5-2) Id yd

These two correlations cannot be compared since the

first predicts K_ and the second predicts K_,. However, the

accuracy of either correlation should be verified before that

relationship is used.

30.

6. Discussion

In examining the adequacy of the fracture toughness

correlations, the effect of data scatter, plate position, and

the degree to which fracture toughness and the various alterna-

tive test parameters can be related should be considered.

A certain amount of scatter can be expected in the

results of both the alternative test methods and plane strain

fracture toughness testing. This does not usually interfere

with the use of the results. However, when the results of two

test methods are correlated, the scatter exhibited in the

relationship is considerable. This scatter is due to the

combined effects of the scatter of the two methods and the

difficulties in developing such a relationship. The effects

of scatter can be decreased by using a rather large data base.

Clearly, more data is necessary for this process than for

establishing a correlation between two parameters which exhibit

little experimental scatter.

The effect of plate position will introduce some of

the scatter in possible alternative test methods as well as

in fracture toughness testing. In Charpy impact testing for

example, 20J (15 ft-lb*) temperatures have been found to vary

by almost 11°C (20°F*) among the four corners of a 3.6 m x

1.8 m x 38 mm plate (12 ft x 6 ft x 1-1/2 in*) of A36 steel [46]

At 4°C (40°F*), the CVN level varied 27 J (20 ft-lbs*) on the

31.

average among the same four corners. Similar effects may

exist for other methods of testing. The question of data

scatter with plate position should receive careful attention

before assessing the accuracy of a correlation.

One difficulty that has been noted for the IC -CVN

correlations in particular, involves the effects of austenitizing

temperature. Variations in toughness with austenitizing temper-

ature in AISI 4340 steel produce contradictory indications in

K_ and CVN values [47, 48]. As the austenitizing temperature

is increased, K_ increases but CVN drops. The effects on NDT

and DT testing are not known. In additional consideration

of the degree of relationship between fracture toughness and

Charpy results, almost all of the exponents, noted in the indi-

vidual material correlations between K_, and CVN in Table 2,

are much less than one half the value proposed by most df the

correlations. This indicates less of an effect of Charpy

impact energy on the dynamic fracture toughness than has been

expected. Such differences in correlations may result for

any of the relationships discussed as they are compared to

additional data.

These difficulties with the correlations show the need

for more testing. Not only would more testing be useful in

checking the accuracy of the correlations, but the effect of

scatter and plate position could be explored.

32.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

The examination of possible correlations between IC or

K_ , and other toughness parameters shows clearly that no one

single proposal will fit all the data available. Since there is

a marked effect of material on correlations, it is reasonable to

prefer a correlation developed for a given material when that

material is being considered. For materials where this is not

possible, the following guidelines may be used.

1. The use of a correlation using Charpy results

is recommended at this time since the Charpy correlations have

been studied more than the other types of correlations.

2. In the Charpy upper shelf region, a conservative

correlation of the form

ci2 n r«rCVN n nn\ , J £S) -0.58(^-0.02) (..,£) (2.7) ys ys

(fie) . 4.5 (CVN _ j f^ib Ka ' ^a J ' ksi ys ys

*

is recommended.

3. In the transition region when dynamic loading

conditions are being used, the following conservative relation-

ship between IC, and CVN is recommended.

KId - 22.5 (CVN)0,17 (MPa/m, J)

K^ - 21.6 (CVN)0,17 (ksi/in, ft-lb)* (3.28)

33.

4. For correlating static fracture toughness with Charpy

test results in the transition region, the dynamic fracture

toughness correlation and temperature shift method of Barsom is

recommended.

Kic(T"ATs) " hd(T) a'1)

where

h 2 ~Y- - 0.64 OVN (kPa-m, J) (3.19)

AT - 119 - 0.12o (C°,MPa) 250 < a < 990MPa (3.18) s ys ' ys

AT » 0 a > 990MPa s ys

K 2

-^- - 5 CVN (psi-in, ft-lb)*

AT - 215 - 1.5o (F°, ksi) 36 < a < UOksi s ys ys

AT - 0 0 > UOksi s ys

Additional study is recommended for all of the correla-

tions. The following recommendations for future research

are offered:

1. It is recommended that a round robin test program

be undertaken to establish the typical scatter to be expected

in K_ or KT, and corresponding alternative test methods for

typical pressure vessel steels.

34.

V

2. It is recommended that variations in fracture

toughness and alternative toughness parameters as a function of

plate position in the planar and thickness directions be

studied.

3. It is recommended that minimum standards for report-

ing K_ and K_, in the literature be proposed.

4. It is recommended that a central agency or organi-

zation be established or designated to collect typical data

in terms of K_ , CVN, etc. from pressure vessel manufacturers

and suppliers.

5. It is recommended that future considerations of an

upper shelf correlation between IC. and CVN involve the data

points at the beginning of the upper shelf rather than data

points at constant temperature.

35.

References

1. ASTM Standard Method of Test for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials, E399-78a.

2. ASTM Standard Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials, E23-72 (reapproved 1978).

3. ASTM Standard Method for Conducting Drop-Weight Test to Determine Nil-Ductility Transition Temperature of Ferritic Steels, E208-69 (reapproved 1975).

4. Proposed Method for 5/8 in. (16 mm) Dynamic Tear Test of Metallic Materials, ASTM Standards, Part 10, 1976.

5. Wilkowski, G. M., Maxey, W. A., and Eiber, R. J. "Ductile Fracture Propagation Resistance of Rising Shelf Controlled- Rolled Steels", What Does the Charpy Test Really Tell Us?, ASM, (1978): 108-132.

6. Thorby, P. N. and Ferguson, W. G., "The Fracture Toughness of HY60", Materials Science and Engineering, 22 (1976): 177-184.

7. Barsom, J. M., "Development of the AASHTO Fracture Toughness Requirements for Bridge Steels," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 7 (1975): 605-618.

8. Rolfe, S. T. and Novek, S. R., "Slow-Bend KIc Testing of Medium-Strength High-Toughness Steels," Review of Develop- ments in Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 463 (1970): 124-159.

9. Barsom, J. M. and Rolfe, S. T., "Correlations Between Kjc and Charpy V-Notch Test Results in the Transition-Temperature Range, Impact Testing of Materials, ASTM STP 466 (1970): 281-302.

10. Brown, Jr., W. F. and Srawley, J. E., "Commentary on Present Practice," Review of Developments in Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 463 (1970): 216-248.

11. Iwadate, T.,Karaushi, T., and Wanatabe, J. "Prediction of Fracture Toughness Kjc of 2-1/4 Cr-1 Mo Pressure Vessel Steels from Charpy V-Notch Test Results," Flaw Growth and Fracture, ASTM STP 631 (1977): 493-506.

36.

12. Begley, J. A. and Toolin, P. R., "Fracture Toughness and Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Properties of Ni-Cr-Mo-V Steel Sensitive to Temper Embrittlement," International Journal of Fracture, 9 (1973): 243-253.

13. Floreen, S., "New Cast Air-Meltable High Strength Steels," Metals Engineering Quarterly, 15 (Nov. 1975): 56-60.

14. Floreen, S., "The Fracture Toughness of Cast High-Strength Steels," Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, 99 (1977): 70-75.

15. Zanis, C. A., Hasson, D. F.,and Ramirez, F., "The Charpy V-Notch Test for Evaluation of High Strength Steel Extru- sions," What Does the Charpy Test Really Tell Us?, ASTM (1978): 133-150.

16. Ault, R. T., Wald, G. M., and Bertolo, R. B., "Development of an Improved Ultra-High Strength Steel for Forged Aircraft Components," AFML-TR-71-27, Air Force Materials Laboratory (1971).

17. Clausing, D. P., "Effect of Plane Strain State on Ductility and Toughnes.s," International Journal of Fracture Mechanics, 6(1970): 71-85.

18. Sailors, R. H. and Corten, H. T., "Relationship Between Mate- rial Fracture Toughness Using Fracture Mechanics and Transi- tion Temperature Tests," Fracture Toughness, Proceedings of the 1971 National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, ASTM STP 514, (1972): 164-191.

19. Greenberg, H. D., Wessel, E. T., and Pryle, W. H., "Fracture Toughness of Turbine-Generator Rotor Forgings," Second National Symposium on Fracture Toughness (1968).

20. Hawthorne, J. R. and Mager, T. R., "Relationship Between Charpy V and Fracture Mechanics Kjc Assessments of A533-B Class 2 Pressure Vessel Steel," Fracture Toughness, Proceed- ings of the 1971 National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, ASTM STP 514, (1972): 151-163.

21. Logan, J. G. and Crossland, B., "The Fracture Toughness of En25 and a 3% Ni-Cr-Mo-V Steel at Various Strength Levels Together with Charpy Impact Data," Practical Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Pressure Vessel Technology, Institution of Mecha- nical Engineers (1971): 148-155.

37.

22. Shabbits, W. 0., Pryle, W. H. and Wessel, E. T., "Heavy Section Fracture Toughness Properties of A533 Grade B Class 1 Steel Plate and Submerged Arc Weldments," Westinghouse Atomic Power Divisions, WCAP 7414, HSST Technical Report 6, (Dec. 1969).

23. Mager, T. R. and Thomas, F. 0., "Evaluation by Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics of Radiation Damage to Pressure Vessel Steels," Westinghouse Atomic Power Divisions, WCAP-7328, HSST Technical Reports (Nov. 1969).

24. Marandet, B. and Sanz, G., "Evaluation of the Toughness of Thick Medium Strength Steels by Using Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics and Correlations Between Kjc and CVN," Tenth National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics (1976).

25. Ronald, T. M. F., Hall, J. A., and Pierce, C. M. "Useful- ness of Precracked Charpy Specimens for Fracture Toughness Screening Tests of Titanium Alloys," Metallurgical Trans- actions , 3(1972): 813-818.

26. National Materials Advisory Board, "Rapid Inexpensive Tests for Determining Fracture Toughness," Report No. NMAB-328, National Academy of Sciences (1976).

27. Rich, D. L., "Evaluation of Slow Bend Test of Precracked Charpy Specimen for Fracture Toughness Determination," Report MDC A2210 ,• McDonnell Aircraft Company (1973).

28. Ronald, T. M. F., Air Force Materials Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH. Unpublished data (1974) Reported in reference 25.

29. Succop, G.,Jones, M. H., and Brown, Jr., W. F., "Effect of Some Testing Variables on the Results from Slow Bend Precrack Charpy Tests," NASA-Lewis Research Laboratories (1975).

30. Hartbower, C. E., Reuter, W. G., and Crimmens, P. 0., "Tensile Properties and Fracture Toughness of 6A1-4V Titanium," AFML-TR-68-163, Air Force Materials Laboratory, Dayton, OH, 1 (Sept. 1968); 2 (March 1969).

31. Begley, J. A. and Logsdon, W. A., "Correlation of Fracture Toughness and Charpy Properties for Rotor Steels," Westinghouse Research Laboratories Scientific Paper 71-1E7- MSLRF-P1, presented at the Fifth National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Pittsburgh, PA (1971).

38.

32. Rolfe, S. T., Rhea, D. M., and Kuzmanovic, B. 0., "Fracture Control Guidelines for Welded Steel Ship Hulls," U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (1974).

/ 33. Brothers, A. M., Newhouse, D. L., and Wundt, B. M., "Results

of Bursting Tests on Alloy Steel Disks and Their Applications to Design Against Brittle Fracture," presented at the ASTM Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA (1965).

34. Tetelman, A. S., Wullaert, R. A., and Ireland, D., "Predic- tion of Variation in Fracture Toughness from Small Specimen Tests," Practical Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Pressure Vessel Technology, Institution of Mechanical Engineers (1971): 85-92.

35. Wullaert, R. A. "Applications of the Instrumented Charpy Impact Test," Impact Testing of Materials, ASTM STP 466 (1970):148-164.

36. Roberts, R., Irwin, G. R., Krishna, G. V., and Yen, B. T., "Fracture Toughness of Bridge Steels-Phase II Report," U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-RD-74-59 (Sept. 1974).

37. Roberts, R., Fisher, J. W., Irwin, G. R., Boyer, K. D., Hausamann, H., Krishna, G. V., Moy, V., and Slockbower, R.E., "Determination of Tolerable Flaw Sizes in Full Size Welded Bridge Details," Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-RD-77-170, (1977).

38. Shoemaker, A. K. and Rolfe, S. T.-, "The Static and Dynamic Low-Temperature Crack-Toughness Performance of Seven Struc- tural Steels," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2 (1971): 87-93.

39. Hartbower, C. E. and Sunbury, R. D., "Variability of Fracture Toughness in A514/517 Plate, Final Report to the U.S. Department of Transportation under Phase I of Stat-e of California Contract DOT-FH-11-8250, Task Order No. 7 (1975) (Unpublished).

40. Corten, H. T. and Sailors, R. H., "Relationship Between Material Fracture Toughness Using Fracture Mechanics and Transition Temperature Tests," T & A.M. Report No. 346 University of Illinois (1971).

39.

41. Irwin, G. R., Kraft, J. M., Paris, P. C, and Wells, A. A., "Basic Aspects of Crack Growth and Fracture," Naval Research Laboratory Report 6598 (Nov. 21, 1967).

42. Pelllnl, W. S., Advances in Fracture Toughness Characteriza- tion Procedures and In Quantitative Interpretations to Fracture Safe Design for Structural Steels. Naval Research Laboratory Report No. 6713 (1968).

43. Rolfe, S. T. and Barsom, J. M., Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures - Applications of Fracture Mechanics, Prentice- Hall, Inc., (1977).

44. Pellini, W. S., Criteria for Fracture Control Plans, Naval Research Laboratory Report No. 7406 (1972).

45. National Materials Advisory Board, Application of Fracture Prevention Procedures to Aircraft, Report No. NTIS AD764513, National Academy of Sciences (1973).

46. Roberts, R. and Krishna, G. V. Fracture Behavior of A36 Bridge Steels, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-RD-77-1561 (1977).

47. Ritchie, R. 0., "On the Relationship Between Fracture Tough- ness and Charpy V-Notch Energy in Ultrahigh Strength Steel", What Does the Charpy Test Really Tell Us? A.S.M. (1978): 54-73.

48. Ritchie, R. 0. and Horn, R. M., "Further Considerations on the Inconsistency in Toughness Evaluation of AISI 4340 Steel Austenitized at Increasing Temperatures," Metallurgical Transactions 9A(1978): 331-341.

40.

Z o

oc oc O

Z o ~ O z < •-* UJ a. H- a. -z.

3 UJ Ul (K a u OS _i z O Ul < O

>• > 13 oc v. tu H z _1 UJ CO :-> — i- U. IS)

_~ >- »-• O UJ a. z a.

tu QL 3 UJ _l < U >- OQ X »-* Z 0. < o CO < 0£ H-

1

co en UJ z

X u

X UJ u> ac 3 Z->

o H 1- < UJ

OC U LL) UJ z oe 0. < 3 X oc >- Ul o t- < a: u.

3C

o o

I

z m r* >• U D

u «i u: c

o o

o o

z Ul z > >s > u c t_>

00 (SI *^ tsi

o O

1 eg u ui '-'I

~H >\ -. U! u: D u 1

o oo o o> o ^H f*-

i 1 *-( o

Ul

X u

c z

I ul

z

J3

-1

o co

oc

II

oo I

X </J

01 Q. CL

13 D. e

o z I >

?.£

W O u u wn x

£J •*■» i* -** r— l>» *^ O V. 'S~ «« .t ^ i** |M ^ ,. ~i X < -T X «7 ~* —

^ c o 0

JS •*H CO Lt

•*4 u ■A 01 c c O o. U a H

X

u re Q. B

5 i

re o. e

i >

c

VJ l»

it 01 1 x u-. I

o > u-i I

O III

r- r* T — Z u z X. -<o in : lit m n a :- ac » u — < < < X — Z VJ z

VI c re

u re a. E

O z I

I o n oc

m Ul

I vD

01 c re

re o. E

u

i >

! r-

>

-Mo-

v as u. r* 1^ <-i ("■> ■« »i u^ in *A •r *^ *r

in z

41.

u. UJ

~<r. o

o o

a: < UJ a.

UJ

22

> <

n c

a: >

o n

2 M u.

03

U

O

II

*1W

r*. </! •o (-;

r: o "•* 3 u. t/:

C O UJ UJ •H a£ _l CQ

UJ -~ U >- -! H O. w < 0 <; o£

t- u =2 <

o

z >

in

II

•o •JT

i J;

> u

»-• s

a in 0»

r^ n in in

c o II II

4 (N •o| <-! _. Ul _i UJ

K: u: 1

CC I

o

o

I

I

I

I

< UJ

fig to*

in

x u

C u- O —

■•< <r, •Si u c v rj C U a

a E

C

I

v. c

r: c E

T3 C O

CQ

3 o

■si c u s-

u (•3 a. E

i

u

a. E

o

I I

r: □. E

•a c

3 U. 'Oil c -*> >c 1 m r^

•c o-. O —I >• !** — 33 *n in

=3 u. I I

c

i u ' o

u I ri r>» r"»

in o —< c-> a run in

r^ in

<•<<•< ' < r-)

O > I

I -»

S° I > c 3 I rj

SJ —

33 U. I I

o —.

42.

is at

o

a s o u

I/] u o u

*-* 2

^^ C/5

<e 01 »-i 3

C O U LLI •tH a: _l m c 2 o. < o

u < at

u

X u

£5

CM

I

O o

o I

c o

111 c

n a B

•a M u 18 u u 01

o >- X

to t/> < a.

I

01 oa

01 .* o fa

u 01 u IX

o u

-» Q H <

CO 5P "< CM

U-l

d + m ON

O I

3L

o ao o CN

I o

I

■a e 01

CO

o

41 M U <a

o 01 u

01 01 4J «-4 *»4 to .< H

t-H n*

00 ii

cc o ■

01

g-g

•a 01 4J B

.. 01 01 B

S CO 3 U l-i k U u J u co IO o to a. e -* ~ ~

•-I 10 C B

u CO u o 01 u

> I

I

CM o o • •o

u.

c o

CO c ftj u H

■a 41

c 01 a 3 « kl o u eg 0) D. C B

CO

CO

1)

CO

-a OJ

I >

B 3

•o " 01 OC 10 re — I 11 « 3 u oi O 4J U _l in ir.

43.

to z o

Ul cc o o >- is cc

z

X >- _ a.

ID < _J X

< y- i

to to LU z X ID

X CO

13 z

< a:

u. Ul a.

z o

Ul DC a: o u

(5 o ^* z i—i U) to g to

Ul o o d Z

2 >-

3 U. t/1 o u ul m u >• J z cu i ZS|C

u

ul

s

ul

ON

00

O

o I

z| in > *< UlO

H

t/1

I O

<7> 03

I

i) JS to

U o o. a. 3

io a E

I >

1 C1 u t u c X o

CO

bu O <*4 1

r* r^ i""l o Z z *-4 «» —i r*» *n ** >»« CM 00 < •a X •» PH -*

3 o

I c' Bl-8"

U Ul

u: I D

i

t*« C •H O

01 •H £ iJ to •H

to u c V 19 a. u. a. H 3

10 D. B

I >

oe e 01 i* u to to

i •-4 .e K oe 4)

z >

z >

■

O

I O vO

c I

O

B

I >

10 a. e

u

I >

^* > o 1

2 > > ^ 1 1 1 u. ^4

ta O

V to

o —1

**4 Z V * 1 m r-l ca i~ OS «4 u «■*

< < < X ^* z u z

CO u. m r^ <s «A l/> IT) < < <

c 10

u 10 CL

s

u

Z I >

> I

I u u I

m ■»< «M Z

N

44.

Ul

II t/)

u o o

/^ to

JO T3 Ol 3

«-l 3 U. t/1 C o w .-»

LLl ■H a: co _) 4J

c O >" 1 z a. H < o <: a: u. c2 < w 1- u

3

8

Bh oo en

■

oo I

oo

CM 0>

I

C ^ O 91

■H J= 4J (/]

Ul ki C 01 IB C u a. H 3

o <0 Q. 6

>

O r-t \D

St-H

z B

OQ

U

3L

C o

u ra a. E

u u

& >

c 01

CO

3 o

>

1/1

•a

i ON

03 U. U I I

I m r>» l/l O —< 03 m if\ < < <

Ml C •9

<o

B

>

SE

B o cs

•

i

Y S3 u. to

1 CM r^ f-»

VI O ^ r*i

3 l-l m m < ■< <

c o

0) c rg 1-. H

• u CO a s

u u o I

as V) a.

2L u I

o m

I NO

*-4 1 > o

1 u 1 •» u £ u

03 1 S-J i >

C1 wt c 3 rt CM z: m • i <N «C IN u <—.

c CO u

<0

B

•o 01

jc; u CO u u 01

03 U. U I I i cs r»

m O-c a] n tn < < <

45.

■o

—• 3 C

m c < o

u. UI a:

z o

3 8

s g *-• UJ

15 2 v>

UJ a u

** z 2 >•

o Ul^ a. co ui _i

Z £ H o2 <j -'

ui

5 UJ z

UJ*

10 UJ

o

I

■

col V) < B-l

I

I in

! "5 c

■o c 4J o u 03 o a. 3 B C

9.

•a u jt u U

il u a.

85

35

o

CO v> <

CN

o +

r-l UI

o n

I

I

CN

•-< + +

col

0u|

col CO <

o

o

o • 1

oo

■

o u u

o o -t < ft 10 H M -» a H <

c <J

■o o u f5 U u o u

•p ■a 0 o 4J u C TJ c 11 C 01 B V e 3 m a u u u o <~> 3 M t9 tn o V) a. C -1 c B

l— VI t—t *-i

•o 01 J* u <3 u u il u a.

« ;

c o

c il n 3 u u u *J (? r. a. e B

I

ID

J3

-O

il

A

! - - < I

VI < H

it of J> Z C — I il i. a u i

_J X. VI

46.

SUMMARY

1

OF RESULTS

rABLE 2

FOR KId - CVN CORRELATION

Mechanical Valid Kld Data Properties

a a B y u

//pts A n //pts (In) (ksi) (ksi) Ref.

SAE 1035 10 34.8 0.16 4 1 39.7 76.2 19 6 2 44.3 89.7 19

A3 6 16 23.5 0.14 3 2 45.0 76.0 19 8 3 35.9 67.1 29 5 36 75 33,34

A242 15 44.9 0.05 4 1/2 53.9 73.5 19 7 1 50.9 74.8 19 4 2 45.0 72.0 19

A440 18 27.4 0.15 1 1/2 62.6 83.2 19 13 1 51.8 78.8 19

4 2 62.5 82.0 19 A441 17 13.4 0.41 13 1 55.9 87.0 19

4 2 55.0 94.0 19 A514 12 26.2 0.09 2 3/8 111.4 116.0 29

6 1,2 120 130 36 4 1,2 111 121 36

A517 7 15.2 0.27 4 1 118 129 35 3 1 118 129 37,35

A572 5 21.0 0.24 5 1.47 50 82 38 A588 33 20.1 0.18 9 1/2 68.5 94.0 19

13 1 69.1 80.5 19 5 2 62.5 87.0 19 5 3 45.9 72.1 29 1 3/4 59.6 81.3 29

All Materials 133 21.6 0.17

The IC.-CVN Correlation is of the form - K^ - A(CVN)

B is the thickness of the test specimen.

n

47

DIAM » 1.000

FIGURE 1 - ASTM E399 COMPACT TENSION SPECIMEN

48

UJ <K 3

<

UJ a. UJ

CO CO UJ z X CD Z> CO O _J H- LU

UJ UJ h- oc CO 3 H- UJ O CD < a ce •-* u_ a:

m u »« -i h- < < o \- •—« co 0.

> Q »- z < U-

o o M^ UJ z: CO < z z o >- a. Q CO

UJ 1 on CVJ

UJ cn 3 CD

49

UJ QC

H

UJ <L 2 UJ

CO LLI

> CO Od UJ z UJ

< Q_ z:

x o

I > > a. < x o

30NVdV3ddV 3HniOV«J

CO z o Q. CO UJ CC

I

CO

LU CC 3 15

50

< IT Ul Q. 2 UJ

m UJ

>- a. < x o UJ X

a: o

C/> z o ►-*

ID UJ

UJ X CO

cc UJ a. a.

a < z o h- co z < a:

I

UJ cc 3 CD

Ainuona %

51

<FT*LB/KSI>

o.oi ao* ao« aoc aw

CVN/ <ryt ( J/MPA )

FIGURE 5 - ROLFE-NOVAK-BARSOM CORRELATION WITH THE

ORIGINAL DATA AND THE VALID REGION SHOWN

52

0.1

CVN/ aT1 (FT-LB /KSI )

0.* 0.3

70

90 -

40

H SO

to -

T 0.4

-r~

• ROLTt-NOVAK-tAHSOM <•,»> V CUT STIIL9(|4) o WAOUOMT STCILS 114) • 9NI- O-M.-V (18)

0.02 0 04 0.06 0.0*

CVN / an < J/MPA )

0.9 -r~

CO £

us--

u

H i.o —

- 0.9

FIGURE 6 - COMPARISON OF ROLFE-NOVAK-BARSOM

CORRELATION TO OTHER DATA

53

CVN/C7Y. (FT-LB/KSI)

0.02 004 0.06 008 0 10

CVN /ors ( J/MPA )

FIGURE 7 - COMPARISON OF ROLFE-NOVAK-BARSOM AND AULT

ET AL. CORRELATIONS WITH THE LOWER BOUND RELATIONSHIP

54

UJ

< cr a. UJ

Q Z <

z >

CO

UJ

cn o o a. UJ »- to

00

UJ a: CO

55

CVN

O

to UJ UJ

5

•0 -

to

0

-to

-40

•to

-wo

HtO

•MO

•100 -MO -ttO

(DEGREES F)

••O -40 O 40

TK>O -Tto

-ItO -<0O -M -«0 -40

'CVN (DEGREES C )

FIGURE 9 - COMPARISON OF TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIPS

FROM MARANDET-SANZ DATA t24l

56

X X X 2 3 3 3 S 3 3

<NI/> *K0/*»

SS3NH9D0I 3M(U0VMd 3AI1V13W

CO UJ

O Ul

_ o

-8

- o

- o

UJ <E =5 »- <

UJ a 2 UJ

CQ

a UJ **m

u. •-* o UJ r—1

a. CSJ CO en

l_ri

UJ > u. cc a => LO o r*»

o h- H < > o H- z Q < z: Q M z 3 < ^£

1- Q Q 2E Z <

> •\ CO < ce UJ Ul X h- a: UJ

z: ^ <

UJ QC u. < _l a. o on 1

o •""

UJ a: => e> N-*

u.

57

LU

< CO

111 UJ CT O

< UJ —• CQ

LU _J I- -I < <

LU O o o X z

I-

• 9 o o

i—• o

*~* >- LU

< z

OX 1—4

o =3 1- CO i D^M ^ O LU Q: o

i£ • O o

8 CO UJ Ul Q CO

LU X • <r Z \- o

UJ Q

< CO h- z

o z »—1

§ H M

o a • 1- Q. LU o X

H° Z < CO i LU h- ►—1

s •

K LU < 3 2 Q CD t- Z LU LU fr>4

« X H- o »- co o Q. 1—4 M

X co z

on o id-

Q

8 •4

o ea *•* LU * 1- I- < < -1 a

sn - > si

a: a

— I- — o LU a: C3

58

<iil/is>n 0,x 001 • t 4 • fl ¥ S

ITT TT t—i—r X T

o

1% oo

en CO wK

> o

10

o z z z o Ul < w »- _l 3 K «0 a O <0 K o o w 1 c o

1 z <

Ik 1

>• a ae

10 ae o

o o < o X to

02

8

OJ

>

' ■ ' i ' ' 001 • • X t 1

(JS1/WIH)

H«

0*

CO z o

on en o u

>

UJ _J a. •Z.

CO

o CO

< a. o o

CSJ

LU a: Cfl

ou

59

^W ISM )

1. I I I

01,

S T

CO CD -I I

*>-

01-

CQ

a.

s 01

I I I 1 L

CO

< LLI a: cc o o OQ CO a.

- 01 CD V) Q.

- fi - o»

o CO

cr < a. s: o a i

UJ ce CO

o fi • N •

o M

(£/ vdw)

60

( N]/ ISM ) ai,

|.

CO CD -I

i K- U.

e -

* -

10 ■»

01 -

> O

S

■a

Q: o u. < H < Q

a z <

CO z o CO i—i _l h- LU < LU _i 1- LU co Cd CC X O \-

^^ u z ^^ z LU ^3 > QL

c_> 1

co z

■a => »■*

z ^ a > o LU

LU

a. a Z z •-^ < CO

2 LL. o o -1

z o co »->4

Q: < a. s o o

(ja/»aw) ai.

CC

CD

U_

61

o CVJ

(M/ ISX) 31 *

UJ

=>

<

UM/ VdW) oi,

LLI UJ

co

« CO CO IT) <

o u.

< Q

CO

CO z o

UJ on on o a

co I o

u. o

o CO

on < a. O o

in

UJ on

62

0) UJ UJ ac o ul a

UJ- or

< a: UJ a. z UJ

>

5«i o CM

UJ i_^

—1 a. _J s UJ *-* UJ to \-

co Q 55 03 < CO

CO a. ir> UJ < h- co cr

o UJ u. _l a. < i—^ H- H < -1 Q 3 z: O

55 u. »•* o CO

=3 55 O CO CO 55 #-* O ce ■-M

< »- a. < z: _l o UJ o on on i o u

vo '—

UJ o:

(ja/vdwj 01 o

63

u < ce o CD z

ce *I- < — to

_l UJ <

o z

tsl ce •-* 1-^

C/J >

UJ CO X H- LU

QC U. 3 o h-

< LU ce H- LU < a. 21 2: ^M LU 1- H co LU >-

a

LU ce CO I—*

LL.

64

a

LU CC =» 1- o < cc LL.

CO CO UJ >- _J o z ce o LU 1—< z CO LU z LU C£ Z <

LU a J-

z O LU »—4

LU z 2 < 1- z LU > CQ Q

z a O z i— < 1-

3 CO CO

LU LU CC z ce X o Ci- o 3

O

00

LU a: 3 ID

u.

65

APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1973 Annual ASTM Standards. Philadelphia, Pa., ASTM (1973): The following standard methods of test: E399-72, "Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing of Metallic Materials; E23-72," Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials;

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1974 Annual ASTM Standards, Philadelphia, Pa., ASTM (1974): The following standard methods of test: E436-74, "Drop-Weight Tear Test of Ferritic Steels;E208-69," Conducting Drop Weight Test to Determine Nil-Ductility Transition Temperature of Ferritic Steels.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 1976 Annual ASTM Standards, Philadelphia, Pa., ASTM (1967): "Proposed Method for 5/8 in. (16-mm) Dynamic Tear Test of Metallic Materials".

Irwin, G. R., Kraft, J. M., Paris, P. C, and Wells, A. A., "Basic Aspects of Crack Growth and Fracture," Naval Research Laboratory Report 6598 (Nov. 1967).

Paris, P. C. and Sih, G. M. "Stress Analysis of Cracks," Fracture Toughness Testing and Its Applications, ASTM STP 381 (1965): 30-83.

National Materials Advisory Board, "Rapid Inexpensive Tests for Determining Fracture Toughness," Report No. NMAB-328, National Academy of Sciences (1976).

Rolfe, S. T. and Barsom, J. M., Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures - Applications of Fracture Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1977).

Charpy Tests

Brothers, A. J., Newhouse, D. L. and Wundt, B. M. "Results of Bursting Tests of Alloy Steel Disks and Their Application to Design against Brittle Fracture" presented at the ASTM Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, Pa., 1965.

Hartbower, C. E., Reuter, W. G. and Crimmins, P. 0. "Tensile Properties and Fracture Toughness of 6A1-4V Titanium," AFML-TR-68-163, Air Force Materials Laboratory, 1 (Sept. 1968); 2 (March 1969).

Barsom, J. M. and Rolfe, S. T. "Correlations Between K_ and Charpy V-Notch Test Results in the Transition Temperature Range," Impact Testing of Materials, ASTM STP 466, (1970): 281-302.

Turner, C. E. "Measurement of Fracture Toughness by Instrumented Impact Test," Impact Testing of Materials, ASTM STP 466, (1970): 93-114.

Ault, R. T., Wald, G. M. and Bertolo, R. B. "Development of an Improved Ultra-High Strength Steel for Forged Aircraft Components," AFML-TR-71-27, Air Force Materials Laboratory (1971).

66

Begley, J. A. and Logsdon, W. A. "Correlation of Fracture Toughness and Charpy Properties for Rotor Steels," Westinghouse Research Laboratories Scientific Paper 71-1E-MSLRF-P1, presented at the Fifth National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1971.

Logan, J. G. and Crossland, B. "The Fracture Toughness of En25 and a 3% Ni-Cr-Mo-V Steel at Various Strength Levels Together with Charpy Impact Data," Practical Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Pressure Vessel Technology, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, (1971): 148-155.

Turner, C. E., Culver, L. E., Radon, J. C, and Kennish, P. D. "An Analysis of the Notched Bar Impact Test with Special Reference to the Determination of Fracture Toughness," Practical Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Pressure Vessel Technology, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, (1971): 38-47.

Corten, H. T. and Sailors, R. H. "Relationship Between Material Fracture Toughness Using Fracture Mechanics and Transition Temperature Tests," Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Report No. 346, University of Illinois, (1971).

Shoemaker, A. K. and Rolfe, S. T. "The Static and Dynamic Low-Temperature Crack-Toughness Performance of Seven Structural Steels." Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 2(1971): 319-339.

Barsom, J. M., Sovak, J. F., and Novak, S. R. "The Fracture Toughness of A36 Steel, "U.S. Steel Technical Report No. 97.021-001(1), (1972).

Barsom, J. M., Sovak, J. F. and Novak, S. R. "The Fracture Toughness of A572 Steels," U.S. Steel Technical Report No. 97.021-001(2), (1972).

Ronald, T. M. F., Hall, J. A. and Pierce, C. M. "Usefulness of Precracked Charpy Specimens for Fracture Toughness Screening Tests of Aluminum Alloys," Metallurgical Transactions, 3 (1972): 813-818.

Sailors, R. H. and Corten, H. T. "Relationship Between Material Fracture Toughness Using Fracture Mechanics and Transition Temperature Tests," Fracture Toughness - Proceedings of the 1971 National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, ASTM 514 (1972): 164-191.

Barsom, J. M., "The Development of AASHTO Fracture-Toughness Requirements for Bridge Steels," presented U.S.-Japan Cooperative Science Seminar, Tohoku University, Sendia, Japan (Aug. 1974).

Rolfe, S. T., Rhea, D. M., and Kuzmanovic, B. 0. "Fracture Control Guidelines for Welded Steel Ship Hulls," U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (1974).

67

Ewing, A. and Raymond, L. "Instrumented Impact Testing of Titanium Alloys," Instrumented Impact Testing ASTM 563 (1974): 180-202.

Koppenaal, T. J. "Dynamic Fracture Toughness Measurements of High Strength Steels Using Precracked Charpy Specimens," Instrumented Impact Testing, ASTM 563 (1974): 92-117.

Roberts, R., Irwin, G. R., Krishna, G. V. and Yen, B. T. "Fracture Toughness of Bridge Steels - Phase II Report," FHWA-RD-74-59. Federal Highway Administration (1974).

Wullaert, R. A., Ireland, D. R. and Tetelman, A. S. "Use of the Precracked Charpy Specimen in Fracture Toughness Testing," Fracture Prevention and Control, ASM (1974): 255-282.

Barsom, J. M., "Development of the AASHTO Fracture Toughness Requirements for Bridge Steels," Engineering Fracture Mechanics 7 (1975): 605-618.

Hartbower, C. E. and Sunbury, R. D. "Variability of Fracture Toughness in A514/517 Plate," Final Report to the U.S. Department of Transportation under Phase I of State of California Contract DOT-FH-11-8250, Task Order No. 7, (1975) (Unpublished).

Thorby, P. N. and Ferguson, W. G. "The Fracture Toughness of HY60," Materials Science and Engineering. 22 (1976): 177-184.

Iwadate, T., Karaushi, T. and Watanabe, J. "Prediction of Fracture Toughness KIc of 2-l/4Cr-lMo Pressure Steels from Charpy V-Notch Test Results, Flaw Growth and Fracture, ASTM STP 631 (1977): 493-506

Logsdon, W. A. and Begley, J. A. "Upper Shelf Temperature Dependence of Fracture Toughness for Four Low to Intermediate Strength Ferritic Steels," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 9 (1977): 461-470.

Roberts, R., Fisher, J. W., Irwin, G. R., Boyer, K. D., Hausammann, H., Krishna, G. V., Morf, V., and Slockbower, R. E., "Determination of Tolerable Flaw Sizes in Full Size Welded Bridge Details, FHWA-RD-77-170, Federal Highway Administration (1977).

Marandet, B. and Sanz, G. "Evaluation of the Toughness of Thick Medium Strength Steels by Using Linear-Elastic Fracture Mechanics and Correlations Between Klc and Charpy V-Notch," Flaw Growth and Fracture, ASTM 631, (1977): 72-95.

Marandet, B. and Sanz, G. "Fracture Mechanics Study of Toughness of Medium Strength Steels in Thick Sections," (1977). (Unpublished).

Roberts, R. and Krishna, G. V. "Fracture Behavior of A36 Bridge Steels," FHWA-RD-77-156, Federal Highway Administration (1977).

Roberts, R. and Krishna, G. V. "An Alternate Measure of Fracture Toughness," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 9 (1977): 87-93.

68

Crack Opening Displacement

Wells, A. A. Proceedings of the Crack Propagation Symposium. The College of Aeronautics, Cranfield, England, 1 (1961): 210-230.

Bilby, B. A., Cottrell, A. H. and Swinden, F. R. S. and K. H., "The Spread of Plastic Yield from a Notch," Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), Series A, 272 (1963): 304-314.

Burdekin, F. M. and Stone, D. E. W. "The Crack Opening Displacement Approach to Fracture in Yielding Materials," Journal of Strain Analysis. 1 (1966): 145-153.

Pellini, W. S. "Advances in Fracture Toughness Characterization Procedures and in Quantitative Interpretations to Fracture-Safe Design for Structural Steels," Welding Research Council, Bui. Series n. 130, May 1968.

Rice, J. R. "A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of Strain Concentration by Notches and Cracks," Trans. ASME, Journal of Applied Mechanics. 35 (1968): 379-386.

Rice, J. R. and Rosengreen, G. F. "Plane Strain Deformation Near a Crack Tip in a Power-Law Hardening Material," Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. 16 (1968): 1-12.

Burdekin, F. M. "Crack Opening Displacement - A Review of Principles and Methods," Practical Fracture Mechanics for Structural Steel, Chapman and Hall, Ltd. (1969).

Harrison, T. C. and Fearnehough, G. D. "The Influence of Specimen Dimensions on Measurements of the Ductile Crack Opening Displacement," International Journal of Fracture Mechanics, 5 (1969): 348-349.

Rice, J. R. and Johnson, M. A. in Inelastic Behavior of Solids, ed. by M. F. Kanninen, McGraw-Hill (1970): 641-672.

Frederick, G. and Salkin, R. V., "Fracture Mechanics Assessment of Steel Plates to Brittle Fracture," Practical Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Pressure Vessel Technology,Institution of Mechanical Engineers (1971): 136-147.

Levy, N.,Marcal, P. V., Ostergreen, W. J. and Rice, J. R. "Small Scale Yielding Near a Crack in Plane Strain: A Finite Element Analysis," International Journal of Fracture, 7,2 (1971): 143-156.

Smith, R. F. and Knott, J. F. "Crack Opening Displacement and Fiberous Fracture in Mild Steel," Practical Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Pressure Vessel Technology, Institution of Mechanical Engineers (1971): 65-75.

69

Shoemaker, A. K. "Notch-Ductility Transition of Structural Steels of Various Yield Strengths," Trans. ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry, Paper No. 71-PVP-19, 94 (Feb. 1972): 299-306.

Egan, G. R. "Compatability of Linear Elastic (KIc) and General Yielding (COD) Fracture Mechanics," Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 5 (1973): 167-185.

Panday, R. K. and Banerjee, S. "Studies on Fracture Toughness and Fracto- graphic Features in Fe-Mn Base Alloys," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 5 (1973): 965-975.

Sumpter, J. G., Hayes, D. J., Jones, G. T., Parsons, C. A. and Turner, C. E. "Post Yield Analysis and Fracture in Notch Tension Pieces," Paper 1-433 presented at the third International Conference on Fracture. Munich, Germany, April 1973.

Hayes, D. J. and Turner, C. E. "An application of finite element technique to post yield analysis of proposed standard three-point bend fracture test piece," International Journal of Fracture, 10 (March 1974): 17-32.

Robinson, J. N. and Tetelman, A. S. "Measurement of Kic on Small Specimens Using Critical Crack Opening Displacement," Fracture Toughness and Slow Stable Cracking, ASTM STP 559 (1974): 139-158.

Robinson, J. N. and Tetelman, A. S. "The relationship between crack tip opening displacement, local strain, and specimen geometry," International Journal of Fracture, 11 (1975): 453-468

Eftis, J. and Liebowitz, H. "On Fracture Toughness Evaluation for Semi-Brittle Fracture," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 7 (1975): 101-135.

Griffis, C. A. "Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness: A Comparison of J- Integral and Crack Opening Displacement Characterizations," Trans. ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Series J, 97 (Nov. 1975): 278-283.

Robinson, J. N. and Tetelman, A. S. "Comparison of Various Methods of Measuring Kjc on Small Precracked Bend Specimen that Fracture After General Yield," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 8 (1976): 301-313.

Thorby, P. N. and Ferguson, W. G. "The Fracture Toughness of HY60," Materials Science and Engineering, 22 (1976): 177-184.

Paranjpe, S. A. and Banerjee, S. "The K-COD Relationship for Pin-Loaded Single Edge Notched Tension Specimens," Advances in Research on the Strength and Fracture of Materials, ed. by D. M. R. Taplin, 3A (1977): 293-302.

70

J-Integral Tests

Witt, F. J. "The Equivalent Energy Method for Calculating Elastic-Plastic Fracture," presented at the fourth National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Pittsburgh, Pa., August, 1970.

Begley, J. A. and Landes, J. D. "The J-Integral as a Fracture Criterion" Fracture Toughness, Proceedings of the 1971 National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, ASTM 514 (1972): 1-20.

Bucci, R. J., Paris, P. C, Landes, J. D., and Rice, J. R. "J-Integral Estimation Procedures," Fracture Toughness, Proceedings of the 1971 National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, ASTM 514 (1972): 40-69.

Landes, J. D. and Begley, J. A. "The Effect of Specimen Geometry on J-[c," Fracture Toughness, Proceedings of the 1971 National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II. ASTM STP 514 (1972): 24-39.

Kobayashi, A/~5., Chiu, S. T. and Beeuwkes, R. "A Numerical and Experimental Investigation on the Use of J-Integral," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 5 (1973): 293-305.

Turner, C. E. "Fracture Toughness and Specific Fracture Energy: A Re- evaluation of Results" Materials Science and Engineering, 11 (1973): 275-282.

Iyer, K. R. and Miclot, R. B. "Instrumented Charpy Testing for Determination of the J-Integral," Instrumented Impact Testing, ASTM STP 563 (1974): 146-165.

Landes, J. D. and Begley, J. A., "Test Results from J-Integral: An Attempt to Establish A Jic Testing Procedure," Fracture Analysis, ASTM 560 (1974): 170-186.

Merkle, J. G. and Corten, H. T. "A J-Integral Analysis for the Compact Specimen, Considering Axial as Well as Bending Effects," Trans. ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 74-PVP-33, 96 (Nov. 1974): 286-292.

Eftis, J. and Liebowitz, H. "On Fracture Toughness Evaluation for Semi- Brittle Fracture," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 7(1975): 101-135.

Eftis, J., Jones, D. L. and Liebowitz, H. "On Fracture Toughness in the Nonlinear Range," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 7 (1975): 491-503.

Griffis, C. A. "Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness: A Comparison of J- Integral and Crack Opening Displacement Characterizations," Trans. ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Series J, 97 (Nov. 1975): 278-283.

Kanazawa, T., Machida, D., Onozuka, M., and Kaned, S. "A Preliminary Study on the J-Integral Fracture Criterion," Report of the University of Tokyo IIW-779-75, University of Tokyo (1975).

71

Clarke, G. A., Andrews, W. R., Paris, P. C., and Schmidt, D. W. "Single Specimen Tests for Jic Determination," Mechanics of Crack Growth, ASTM STP 590 (1976): 27-42.

Johnson, F. A., Glover, A. P. and Radon, J. C. "Fracture Toughness and Fracture Energy Measurements on Aluminum Alloys," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 8 (1976) 381-390.

Keller, H. P. and Munz, D. "Comparison of Different Equations for Calculation of J from one Load-Displacement Curve for Three Point Bend Specimens," International Journal of Fracture, 12 (1976): 780-782.

Logsdon, W. A. "Elastic-Plastic (Jic) Fracture Toughness Values: Their Experimental Determination and Comparison with Conventional Linear Elastic (Kic) Fracture Toughness Values for Five Materials," Mechanics of Crack Growth, ASTM STP 590 (1976): 43-60.

Hickerson, Jr., J. P. "Comparison of Compliance and Estimation Procedures for Calculating J-Integral Values," Flaw Growth and Fracture, ASTM STP 631 (1977): 62-71.

Hickerson, Jr., J. P. "Experimental Confirmation of the J-Integral as a Thin Section Fracture Criterion," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 9 (1977): 75-85.

Keller, H. P. and Munz, D. "Effect of Specimen Size on J-Integral and Stress Intensity Factors at the Onset of Crack Extension," Flaw Growth and Fracture, ASTM STP 631 (1977): 217-231.

Kobayashi, H., Hirano, K., Nakamura, H. and Nakazawa, H. "A Fractographic Study on Evaluation of Fracture Toughness," Advances in Research on the Strength and Fracture of Materials, ed. by D. M. R. Taplin, 3B (1977): 583-592.

Kochendoerfer, A. "Fracture Research in the Max Planck Institute in Duessel- dorf," Advances in Research on the Strength and Fracture of Materials, ed. by D. M. R. Taplin, 1 (1977): 725-750.

Lanteigne, J., Bassim, M. N. and Hay, D. R. "Dependence of JIc on the Mechanical Properties of Ductile Materials," Flaw Growth and Fracture, ASTM STP 631 (1977): 202-216.

Marandet, B. and Sanz, G. "Experimental Verification of the Jic and Equivalent Energy Methods for the Evaluation of the Fracture Toughness of Steels," Flaw Growth and Fracture, ASTM STP 631 (1977): 462-476.

Miyoshi, T. and Shiratori, M. "The J-Integral Evaluation for CT Specimen," Advances in Research on the Strength and Fracture of Materials, ed. by D. M. R. Taplin, 3A (1977):273-277.

72

Sunamoto, D., Sato, M., Funada, T. and Tomimatsu, M. "Study on Fracture Toughness Test Method Using Small Specimens Based on the J-Integral," Mitsubishi Heavy Industry Technical Review, 14 (1977): 449-457.

Sunamoto, D., Satoh, M., Funada, T. and Tomimatsu, M. "Specimen Size Effect on J-Integral Fracture Toughness," Advances in Research on the Strength and Fracture of Materials, ed. by D. M. R. Taplin, 3A (1977): 267-272.

Other Tests

Goode, R. J., Huker, R. W. Howe, D. G., Judy, R. W., Jr., Crooker, T. W., Lange, E. A., Freede, C. N., and Puzak, P. P. "Metallurgical and Mechanical Characteristics of Ultra-High Strength Materials," NRL Report 6607, Naval Research Laboratory (1967).

Pellini, W. S. "Adventures in Fracture Toughness Characterization Procedures and in Qualitative Interpretation to Fracture-Safe Design for Structural Steels," NRL Report 6713, Naval Research Laboratory (April 1968).

Freed, C. N. and Goode, R. J. "Correlation of Two Fracture Toughness Tests for Titanium and Ferrous Alloys," NRL Report 6740, Naval Research Laboratory (1969).

Lange, E. A. and Loss, F. J. "Dynamic Tear Energy-A Practical Performance Criterion for Fracture Resistance," Impact Testing of Metals, ASTM STP 466 (1970): 241-258.

American Society for Testing and Materials. Fracture Toughness Evaluations by R-Curve Methods, ASTM STP 527 (1973).

Broek, D. "Correlation Between Stretch Zone Size and Fracture Toughness," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 6 (1974): 173-181.

Ke, J. S. and Liu, H. W. "The Measurements of Fracture Toughness of Ductile Materials," Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 5 (1973): 187-202.

73

VITA

Crystal Rae Hoffman was born on December 5, 1956 in York,

Pennsylvanis, the daughter of Dr. Martin J. and M. Jane Hoffman.

She received her elementary and secondary education in the

Central York school system, graduating from Central High School

in 1974.

She received her undergraduate training at Carnegie-Mellon

University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, graduating in 1978 with a

Bachelor of Science degree.in mechanical engineering.

Miss Hoffman is engaged to be married to James L. Newton of

Knapp Station, New York in July 1980.

74