PROGRESS RiPORT

on

CCWWLATION OF LABORATORY TJSTS “,11THFULL SCALd SHIP PLAK2 FRACTURJITZSTS

by

bi.GXISIUEB.,E. P. KLIiR.,T. A, PMTER,F. C. IAGNER, J. O. MACK 1.NDJ. L. FISHER

PENIWYLVAIJIASTiTi COLLEGEUnder Navy Contract NObs-31217

COMIITEE ON SHIP CONSTRUC’IIONDIVISION OF iNGINdERI1tG& INDUSTRIAL W’SEARCH

~A,rlOIJi~LRjj~EM/CHCOUNCIL

Advisory to

BUIUXU OF SHIPS, NAVY I)EPJWrL:8NTUnder Contract l!Obs-34Z31

Serial TJo.MC-9

copy No. I J

Xarch 19; 19147

March 19, L9L7

Dear tiir:

Attact!eclis ,teportLerial No, SSC.-~,entitledllCOrre~ationof LabO~:at~rJ?Tests with Full Scale Ship

Plate Fracture TesL:;n,, T!is report has been sub.ittedby the contractor as a pro{.jrcssre;30rtof the work doneon i~esearcl,Project SF~-96under Contract l!OJS-312L7‘be-tween the d!xew.1of Ships, Navy Department antithe 2ennsyl..-vania -babe COEeSe,

Very truly yours,

The Navy De~)artfientthrough the 13ureau of Ships is distributingreport to those agencies and individuals that were actively a::sociatedt!~isresearch program. Ti,isreport repr~sel~tsa part of the researchcontracted for under the section of the !iavy1s directive ‘ltoinvestigate

the design and construction of welded steel merchant vessels.”

The

copy No. i -co~y No. 2 -

distribution of this report is as folLows:

Chief, Bureau of Ships, IiavyDepartmentDr. 0. $1.Bronk, Chairman, ;lationalkesearch Council

Comfittee on Ship ~onstruction

Liaison

Liaison

Ship Structure ,@~ttee

Copy N@. 25 ~- Rear Admiral illis~Reed-Hill, USCG, ChtirmanCOPY Nd, 26 “- Rear ‘AdmiralCharles D~”Wheelock ~USN, Bureau of “ShipsCopy ‘%. 2? :-CaptairiT. L. Sciiticlier,“USN; MaritimeCormrtissionCdPY No.“28 -’David Arnott, Americem“Bureauof Shipping “~copy NO. 3 - V. H; “Schnee,Committee on Ship Coistitiction;Liaison

Ship Structure Sub-Coinmitte&“:

Copy NO. Z9 - Captain L. V. Honsingerj USN,’~ureau of Ships, Chairmancopy no. 30 ACaptain”~. A. Hinneirsj USN, Davfd Taylbr Model EasinCopy No. 20 - Comdr. i?.I).S’chmidtman,USCGCopy No. 31 - D, P. Brown, American Br.rriau of Shippingcopy No. 18 - E. M. i;acCu~cheon, Jr., lJSCGCopy No. 32 - R. Ii,Robertson, Office of !JavalRessarch, USNcopy No, 22 - John Vasta, U. S. karitime CommissionCopy No. 33 - 1. J. WarrlessjU, S, karitime ConurrissionCopy No. 24 -.J. L. Wilsonj hnerican Bureau of tihippirrgCOPY No. 16 - Finn Jonassen, Liaison Representative NRC”Copy No. 34 - ‘iim,Spraragen, Liaison FLepresentative,.’IRC

.,

Navy Department,., . .

Copy No. 35 - Comdr. R, H. Lambert, USN, Bureau of Ships .Copy No. 36 - Comdr. R. S. Mandelkorn, USN, Bureau of ShipsCopy No. 37 - A. G, Bissell, Bureau of ShipsCopy No. 38 - J. ‘J,Jenkins, Bureau of ShipsCopy No. 39 - Noah i;ahn,New Y&rk Naval Sh%p@-d .

Copy No. 40 - 1. R. Kramer, Office of Naval Research,Copy No. 41 - W. 1?.Osgoodj David Taylor“’Mdel Ba;irlcopy NOe /+2- N. E. Promiselj Bureau of +WronauticscOpY No, 23 - 1?.E, Wiley,,Bureau of ShipsCopy NO. 43 - K. D. Nilliams, Bureau of Shipscopy No. 44 - Naval Academy, Post Graduate School ,-.

Copy No, 45 - Naval Research LaboratoryCopy No. 46 - Philadelphia i~avalShipyard ... :,,,,.~

Copy No. 47 - U.,S. Naval Engineering Experiment Station” - “’Copies 48 and 49 .Publications Board, Navy Department via”“Bureau”of’

Ships, Code 330cCopies 50 end 51 - Technical Library, Bureau of Ships, Code 337-L

U. S. Coast Guard “

Copy No. 52 - :Capiiihi?,B. I.ah..,Jr.,.USCG ‘“ :“ -Copy No. 53 - Captain G. A, Tyler, USCGCopy No. 54 - Testing and t!evel.oprnentDivision

U, S. Njiritirne:Cotis sion ‘

copy No. 55 - Z. Z. b,artinsky

Representatives of American Iron and SteelInstitute Committee on Manufacturing Problems

COPY No. 56 - C. M. Parker, Secretary, General Technical COfitteeAmerican Iron and Steel Institute

Copy No. 57 - L, C, Bibber, Carnegie-Illinois Steel CorporationCopy No. 8 - C. H, Herty, Jr., Bethlehem Steel companycopy lto,,15 - d. C. Smith, Republic Steel Corporation

Welding Research Council

copy Xo. 58 - C. A. Adems COPY No. 60 - LatiotteGroverCopy Jo. 59 – Everett Chapman Copy ITo.34 - vb. Spraragen

-—. ———.—

copy No. 61 - Dean F. M. Feiker, Chairman, DivisiOn Of Wineering andIndustrial Research, NRC

Copy No, 62 - Dr. Clyde ‘iilliamc,Chairman, COMMi.tteeQn EngineeriW ~.aterialscopy Ko. 3 - V. H. Schnee, Chairman, Committee on Ship COnStrUctiOflCopjjNo, 16 - Finn Jonassen, Research Coordinator, Committee on Snip ConstructionCopy No. 63 - L..Gensamer, Investigator,Research Project SR-96Copy No. 64 - d. P. Klier, Investigator,Research Project SR-96Copy h!o.65 - T. A. Prater, investigator, Research Project 5R-96Copy IJo.66 - F, C. %agnerj Investigator, Research Project SR-96~OpJJ!~O.67- J. 0. liack,Investigator, Researci!Project SR-96Copy No. 68 - J. L. Fisher, Investigator, Research Project sR-96Copy No. 69 - A. Bocdb=rg,,Investigator, Research Project SR-92Copy No. 70 - W, F!.Bruckner, Investigator, Researci,Project SR-93copy No. ’71- i. Paul DeGarmo, Investigator, Research Project SR-92Copy NO. 72 - R. A. Eeehtman, Investigator, Research Project .%-93Copy No, 73 - S. C. Hollister, Investigator,Research Project SR-89COpy NO. 74 - C, i-l.Lorig, Investigator,Research Project Sfi-97Copy ?Jo.75 - Ahert Mu.llerjInvestigator, Research Project SR-92COPY Mo. 76 - M. P. 01Brien, Technical Representative, Research Project SR-92Copy NO, 77 - E. R. Parker, Investigator, Research project SR-92Copy No. 78 - C, i. Sims, Investigator, Research Project SR-87copy No. 1’/- i:.i.,Wilson} Investigator, Research Project SR-93Copy No. ’79- L. T. Barren, Carnegie-Iili.noisSteel CorporationCopy No. 80 - N. M. Ncnwmark,College of Engineering, University of lllinoiscopy ~io.81 - ;..P. ROCp, Division of engineering, Swarthmore CollegeCopy No. 82 - T. T. ‘Jatson,Lukens Steel CompanyCopy ~Jo.83 - File Copy, Committee on Shil~ConstructionCopies 84 thru 88 - Library of Congress via Bureau of Ships, Code 33OcCopy No, @ - NACA, Committee on Materials Research Coordination, USNcopy 1;0.90 - copy ~0. 96 -copy No. 91 - copy No. 97 -COpY NO. 92 - copy No. 98 -copy No. 93 - copy NO. 99 -copy No. 94 - copy NO. 100 -copy NO. 95 -

(Copies 90 ti,ru100- Bureau of Ships)Total Number of Copies - iOO

PROGRESS REPORT

i:avyBureau of Ships Contract NObs-31217project SR-96

CORRELATION OF LABOPATOFX TdSTS LITHFULL SCALE SHIP PLATi FRACTURE TdSTS

Date: September 15, 19/+6

By: M. GensamerE. P. IUierT. A. PraterF. C, WagnerJ. O. IiaekJ. L. Fisher

-ineral Industries experiment StationSci]oolof Mineral IndustriesThe Pennsylvania State Cone geState College, Pennsylvania

TABLE OF CONTENTS—

Abstract

List of Tables

List of Figures

Introduction

Steels

Part I - Impact Testing

Resume of ‘TestingProgramTesting ProcedureThe Graphical Representation of DataThe Tabulation of Impact Test DataResults of Impact Testing

V-Notch SpecimensKeyhole-Notch SpecimensFull Plate Thickness hpecimensDiscussion of linpactTest Data ~ A,B,C.hpact Specimens from Large Plate TestsStrain on Lmpact Test DataGrain Size on Impact Test DataImpact ‘TestData - Steel CPlate Gage on Impact Test Data - Steel C

Discussion and Conclusions

Part 11- Metallographic StudyExpertiental ResultsDiscussion and Conclusions

Bibliography

Tables

Appendti A - Mill Data

II

III

Iv

5

10101012141416

:;202021

33

34-45

(!+6-51

Figures 52

AB5THAQ$

The present report summarizes the results which have been

obtained to date on notched beam impact testing, and metaLl*graphic

examination of the ship plate steels which have been used on Navy

iiesearchProjects NObs-31217, 31222 and 31224.

In Part I of this report it is shown that the standard

Charpy impact test using either the V- or keyhole-notch or a special

3/4!!wide specimen is not capable of evaluating the ship plate accord-

ing to the data which have been obtained for large plate specimens.

However, by using Charpy ~eyhole-notch specimens which have been

strained 10~ in tension amd which have been allwed to stand at room

temperature for one month, test data have been obtained which alla

the prediction with fair accuracy of the transition temperature in

the large plates,

In Part

been considered,

II the microstructure of the project steels have

It has been shown that no simple alteration in

microstructure can be found to account for the profound variation in

energy absorption characteristics in the series of steels which have

been studied. It has been shown that variations in grain size in a

given steel cause large changes in the energy absorption characteristics

@f that steel. However, this factor alone is not responsible for the

wide range of energy absorption characteristicswhich have been found

in these steels.

Table 1-

Table 2-

Table 3-

Table B-

Table C-

Table D-

Table E-

Table F-

Table K-

Table L-

Tabie M-

IXST OF TABLES

Steels Investigated on.,Projec s,.’. 7

Chemical ASalyses of the Steels

SR-92,,-93 and -96. 34

35

Gas Anelyses by Battelle Memorial Institute’ 36

Th& Temperature of ‘Transition/in Degrees Fahenheit 37at 25% and at 50% of Maximum Energy Absorption forthe Standard LH Ch,arpyV-Notch s~cimen..,, ,

The Temperature of Transition in Degrees Fahrenheit 38at 25% and at 50% of Maximum Energy Absorption forthe Standard LH Charpy Keyhole Notch Specimen.

The Temperature of Transition in.Degrees Fahrenheit 39at’25% and at 50Z of W&.mum Energy Absorption for”the LH Rectangular Notch, Full Plate Thickness Specimens.

The”Temperature of Transition in Degrees Fahrenheitat 25~ and at 50% of Maximum Energy Absorption forthe Standard LH Charpy Keyhole Notch Specimen.S@ecimenstiken from 72-inch’Wide Test Plates.

The Temperature of Transition in Degrees Fahrenheitat 25% and at 50% l?aximumEnergy Absorption for theStandard LH Charpy Keyhole-Notch Specimen.

The Temperature of Transition in’‘DegreesFahrenheitat 25% and at 50% of %.ximuw Energy Absorption forPlates of Steel C of,,Vari?us Gage,s,,

The Lowest Temperature for Maximum Energy Absorptionfor the Impact Test Specimens fo,rthe.Project Ste:els.

Results of Measurements on

40

Q-w

43

44

45

IV “;-

.,. ,,, ,- -.. ?,,. . . ,,,

LIST OF IKKXJRES———,.

Page., ’’”

Fig. A Schematic““EnergyAbsorption Cur;e”Sfor Steels‘for”the 52Standard Charpy Keyhqle Notch ~pecl~n ~, , ~~~~ :‘

Fig, A-1 Temperature-Energy,AbsorptionCurve.,f,or60 .Keyho,le ,53.Notch Specimens, Steel d.

.,. ,,,Fig. A-2 Temperature-Energykbsorptiion”ti~ve,for 60 Keyhole 53’

Notch Specimens, Steel Dr,~~~ ,, ~~

Fig. B-1 T.anper,ature-$nergy Absorption @r~,e for ,~-liotchbpecimeps ,,54,of 12.,Steels ,,,

Fig. B-2 Temperature-i3nergyAbsorption Ourve for”V-Notch Specimens, 55Steel,.A ,.,!,

Fig. B-3, ,Temperature-EhiergyAlisoiption,Ctiv: for .V-Notch,Sp6cfiens, 55Steel Bi.

Fig. B-4 ‘;empe,j.a>~re-dne@Abs~rption”Cu;vef6$’V-!;o”kchS.~:cimens,’55Steel Bn. “

,.

,.Fig. B-5 Temperattire-”iier~yAbsorption Cw”ve for V-Notch Specimens, 55

.SteelC ,,, ,:. . .... . ,,.,

Fig, B-6 Tem@~a~~~L,-~~,r~y~{S,QI-p:iOri~~ye,f,o; V_lJotehSpecimens, 56Steel Dr.”

Fig. B-.7 Tempe~ature,-~er’~y.”ilb,aO~p<iOnCw”ve”for V-.iWX.”Specim&ns~’56Steel Dn. , ,,. . ..”

Fig. B-8 Te.mperatur.~-in,ergy,Ab.sorption,Cu.rVefprWNotc,h Specimens, 56Steel ,@...,, ., ,,,

Fig. E-9 Temperatur~Energy,Absorption ,Curyefor X-Notch ,Specimens,56Steel F.’

Fig. B-10 Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curve for V-Notch Specimens, 57SLeel H,,

Fig. B-n Temperature--EnergyAbsorption Curve for V-Notch Specimens, 57Steel H.

Fig, B-I.2 Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curve for ‘i-l~otchspecimens, 57Steel C:.

Fig, B-13 Temperature-Nnergy Absorption Curve for V-Notch Specimens, 5’7Steel G.

v

Fig. C-1 Temperature-dnergyAbsorption Curves for Keyhole Notch 58~pecimens f0fi,Z2.:Staels... :.

,.

Fig. C-2 Temperature-lne~gy.’.AbsorptioC~ve”f$mKeyholele. Nti’ch 59Specimens, Steel A.

Fig, C-3 ,Temperature.-lhe~yAbsorption C,~ve for.Ke~hole.”Notch 59Specimens, Stee$ E&. ,,.

Fig. C-4 Temper.atqi’e.-EnergyAbsorption .@&vef.or Keyhole Notch 59Specime~F.,Steel En. ~~

Fig. C-5 Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curve for Keyhole Notch 59Specimens, Steel C. :,..

Fig. G6 Temperature-inergyAbsorption “~urvef~ Keyhole Ntich 60Specimens, Steel Dr.

Fig. C-7 ..Tenperatiure-8nergyAbsorption.Curve”forKeyhole Notch 60Specimens, Steel Dn.

Fig. c-8 Te,,;perature-dner~Absorption Curvefor Keyhole N~tch 60Specimens, Steel .&.

Fig. C-9 Terflperature-EnergyAbsorption C;ve’ for”.(eyhole“iVot”ch 60Specimensj Steel F:.:

Fig. C-10 Temperature-Energy.Absorption Curve for .KeyholeNotch 61Specimens, Steel H,

Fig. C-n .T.emperatiure-ikergyAbsorption ~urve.for ieyhole Notch~.

61Specimens, Steei N, ‘

Fig. C-12 Temperature-dnergy Absorption ,Curve,for Keyhole Notch . 61Specimens, Steel C!.

Fig. C-13 Temperature-inergyAbsorption ih~e for Keyhole i~otch 61Specimens.jSteel.G. , ,:. ~~

Fig. D-1 Temperature-inergyAbsorption Curves~6r Rectangular 62Notch, Full Plate Thickness Specimens for 12 Steels.

Fig. D-2 Comparison of Tampera~ure-tier.~AbsorptiOP Cur%esof 63Rectangular Notch, Full Plate Thickness Specimens and,S,tandardCharpy Sp,ecimeneof’Steel A.

Fig. D-3 C~arison of Tanperature-@ergy Absorption Curves of 63Rectangular Notch, Full Plate,Thickness Specimens andStandard Charpy Specimens of bteel Br.

,..Fig. D-4 Comparison Of Temperature-~er~y Absorption C&ves. of 63 .

Rectangular Notch, Full Plate Thickness Specimens andStamiard Charpy Speckns of bteel Bn.

VI ‘:

Fig. D-5

Fig: D-6

Fig, D-7

Fig. D-8

Fig, E-9

Fig. D-10

Fig. D-.11

Fig. D-12

Fig. D-13

Fig. D-a

Fig, D-b

Fig. E-A

Fig,,E-1

Fig, 3-2

,., , t..’!, ,,,

Comparison of Temperature-,in&r~AbstirptionCUW65 of 63Rectan@.ar Notchj,,Full,P~ate Thickness Specimens adStandard Charpy Spectiens“&f Steel C; ,.

Comparison of Temperature-,tnergyAbsorption Curves of 64Rectangular Notch, Full Plate Thickness Speciin&nse.ncl.Standard Charpy Specimens.of Steel Zk-.

Comparison of T’emperature-&nergy Ah drptioti”&ties of 6b.Rectangular Notch, Full Plate Thlbkness Specimens andStandard Charpj,bpecimens of Steel Dn.

Comparison of Temperature-dnergy %bs”orption‘Curves”of 64’Rectangular Notch, Full Plate Thickness Specimens andStandard Charpy Specimens cf St&el”E. ‘‘ ‘ .,;

Coopari?on of Temperature-&~ergy Absorption Curves of 6.4Rectangular Notch, Full Plate “Thickness”Specim6ns and ‘” “:Standard Charpy bpecimens of Steel F.

Comparison of ‘Temperature-inergyAbsorption“Curvesof 65

Rectangular Notch, Full Plate ThicknesS apecLiens”andStar,dardCharpy Specimens of bteel F!.

Comparison of Temperature-F,ner~’Absorption”Ctives of 65Rectangular Notch, FuIJ I%te Thickness Spectiens andStandard Charpy Specimens of Steel N. ,.,.

,,

Comparison of ‘Temperature-.wergy .Ab,sOrPtionCurves of 65Rectangular Notc.h,Full Plate Thibknes< bpecimerisand ‘~~~.”..Standard Charpy Specimens of bteel Q.

Comparison of Temperatiu%-inergyAbsorptionO.u+vesof ~.%Rectangular Notch, Full Plate TKickn6ss Specimefis”andStandard Charpy ipecim~rla,of Steel ,G.

,,

Comparison of tinergyLosorgtion “VS.“!Senpe.raturelor the 66St.andaydCharpy .Keyholeand V-Notch Specime,n:,andthe ,Large plate hpe~.irnen.s,a(k+?~tic). ~,’ ~,~ ;: ~ .

CompariSOn pf +ergy .Ab,sqrptionData for Steels, 66ObtQne,d in I+r,g,ePlate,aid ?taticKa,pd,Charpy‘Te&tS.’ “: ~‘

., ”., .,,,,.

Location of T@it Specimens “in‘1.+irge‘Plat&”SPeiifiens 67

S+qmqry,”’ox ‘Tempe,kat”~re_@rgy A.bko’rption”’CIX%W9 for ““”. 68Keyhole Nobch,.5pe@+enS f6r Sections of St6el ~.”“’

SW,ary ,0:T,enlp,eratur~Ti::rgyAbsorption Curves fOr 68Keyhole?Jotcfi~p~cirnensfor $+ti~~s of Steel & .,, ,“, ;. .,:.. ,,

.... : ,,...

VII

Fig. E-3

Fig. E-4,..

Fig. E-5

Fig. E-6

Fig. E-7

Summary of Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curves forKeyhole No$ch Specimens:f~~,Sec,tions..ofSteel Bn.

... .,, ,, . ,.

Summary of Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curves for..Keyhole,NptchSpeeimehs,for Sections of Steel;C.

;.,:?,.,.? ,.

Summary of Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curves forKeyhole Notch Specimens,for Sections of Steel “Dri

Summary of Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curves forKeyhole Notch Specimens for Sections of.Steel Dn;

Summary of Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curves forKeyholeNotch.Specimens for Sections of Steel E.

Fig. E-8 Temperature.-EnergyAbsorption Curie for KeyhOle NOtchSpecimens, Steel A; Plate AU. ~

Fig. E-9

Fig. E-10

Fig. E-n

Fig. E-12

Fig. E-13

Fig. E-14

Fig, E-15

Fig. E-16

Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curve for Keyhole NotchSpecimens, Steel A, Plate A2A.

,,

Temperature-Energy Absorption Curve for Keyhole Notch~pecimens, Steel ??+ Plate EJIA,

Temperature-Energy Absorption Curve for Keyhole NctchS,pwim,e:s,Steel Br, Plate E3A.

Temperature-Energy Absorption Curve for Keyhole NotchSpecimens, Steel Bn$,Plate T32A..

Temperature-Energy Absorption Curve for Keyhole NotchSpecimens, Steel Bn,,Plate W+A. :. ~”‘

,, ,..

Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curve for Keyhole NotchSpec+meRs,,Steel,C, Plate .CIA. .“ ~:

Temperature-Energy Absorption Ccrve for Keyhole NotchSpecimens, Steel C,,Plate.C2A...

.,.,.,, ,.Temperature-Energy Absorption Curve for Keyhole NotchSpecimens,.SteelC, Plate C.LA. .“. ~~‘ :~~

,:”.. ‘.Fig. E-17 Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curve for Keyho3.eNotch

.Specimens,Steel Drb Plate 17-7. ~~ ‘“

Fig. E-18 T&mp&raturb-EnergyAbsorption Curve for Keyhole NotchSp,eojmens;,Steel Drj Plate 1’?-A7. :.

Fig. E-19 Temperature..EnergyAbsorption Curve for Keyhole NotchSpecimens, Steel M, Plate 5-1.

Fig. E-20 Temperature-Energy Absorption Curve for Keyhole NotchSpecimens, Steel Dn, Plate 14-7.

68

69

69

69

69

70

70

70

70

71

71,:

71

71,,,

72,.

72

72

VIII

Fig. E-21

Fig. E-22

Fig. E-23

Fig. E-24

Fig. E-25

Fig. E-26

Fig. E-27?

Fig. E-28

Fig. E-29

Fig. E-30

Fig. E-31

Fig. E-32

Fig. E-33

Fig. E-34

Fig. F-1

Fig. F-2

Fig. T-3

,,

Temperatui6-Eoer~yAbsorption’’””’Curve for Keyhole ~otch 73spe~imeris~St6el Dn, Plate 5-7. ., ,: ;

~i?mper&tur@Eaek~ Absorption CWe’ ibf Keyhole Nohch ““73Specimens, Steel Dn, Plate 11-1. ,.

,,,Tenperattn%-Energ~,“Absorptioncur~~ fOp tieyhole,~?tcfi 73Specimens, Steel Un, Plate 15-7.,

Temperature-Ener~y Absorption““Ckv&~or Keyhole,Notch 73

Specimens, Steel E, Flate 23-7. ~.~~~~~~~~“,,,

Temperature-EnergyAbsorptioti‘Curve””for Keyhole Notch, 71t “

Specimens Steel 1?,Plate CG-1. . ‘“”’”.,

Temperature-Energy AbsOrptiOn Curve “forK~YhOle !~:tc~ 7L’

Specimens, Steel E, Plate 13-A7, ~~

Temperature-Energy Absorption“Ctie ‘~or’Keyhole Notch ,,.75.

Specimens, Steel N, Plate NIA.

Temperature-Fm&rgy Absorption’Curve for KeyhOle ~~Otch. .75’,

Specimens, Steel C, Plate C3A. ,.,,,

Temperef,ure-EnergyAbsorpti.enCurve for Keyhole NOtch 75Specimens, Steel W, Plate B5A.

Tempera’twxe-Etie”rb~Absorption~~Curve fOr KeyhOle ~~Otch ,76 ~~~~

Specimens, Steel A, Plate A3A.. ,,, ,, ‘

Tempera.ttir’e-EnergyAbsorptfOn G~r~e”*Or”~iyhO~e ?~Ot,ch. 76

Specimens, Steel Dn, Plate 2-lK. .. ~~‘”,..

Temperature-Energy Absorption Curve fG* Keyhole NOtCh .... 77“Specimens,Steel Dn, Plate 12A1KN. ,!,P.

Temperature~Energy Absorption Curve for’”Keyhole N:,tch 77,’

Specimens, Steel Dr, plate lRAIK. ~~~ ‘”“ ,

Temperature-Energy Absorption Cur+e:”for Keyhole Notch ,,.77 “

Specimens, Steel E, Plate li?AIR.

%mmary, Temperature-Energy Absorption Curves for Keyb.:1.e78Notch Specimens Prestrained 2%? 5% Snd @~ St?ek ~“.,,.,..

Summary, Tempbrattire-EnergyAbsorpt”ibnCurves for Keyhole 78Notch Specimens Prest,rained2?;,5? and 10%,,Qteel l?r;

,.Sumpary, Tempe’iattie-EnergYAbsorption Curves for Keyhole. 78Notch Specimens Prestrained 2%, 5% ~nd lo%, S*=1” %

Ix

Fig. F-L

Fig. F-5

Fig. F-6

Fig. F-7

Fig. F-8

Fig, F-8a

Fig. F.-9

Fig. F-10

Fig. F-n

Fig. F-12

Fig, F-13

Fig, F-14

Fig. F.-15

Fig. F-.16

Fig. F–17

Fig, F-18

Fig. F-19

Fig. F-20

Summary, Temperature-Lnergy Absorption Curves for KeyholeNotch Specimens Presbrairied2%, 5% ahd 10%, St6el C.

“Summary,Temperature-Xnergy Absorption Curves ‘forKeyholeNotch Specimens Prestwiried 2%, 5% and 10%,’Steel IX.

.%nmiary,Temperattire-i%ergy Absorption Curves for KeyholeNotch Specimens Prestr’ained2j~,5% knd 10%, Steel Dn.

Summary, Temperatiure-&ne@yAbsorption ~urves for KeyholeNotch Specimens Prestrained 2%, j% “and10%, Steel E .

Summary, .Temperattire-iiiergy Absorpt~on Ci.Mv&sfor””KeyholeNotch Specimens Pre’strained2zj .7!and 10%; Steel H.

Summ.4.ry,,Temperattire-EnergyAbsbrpt”ibn“C”iirvekfor KeyholeNotch Specimens Prestrained l@,

Temperature-inergyAbsorption CWV6S for Keyhole I$otchSpecimens Prestrain 2%, Steel A. ;

Temperature-tinergyAbsorption Curves”fof !{eyhoieNotchSpecimsns Prestrain 5%, Steel A.

Temp6ratu.re-EtiergyAbsorption Curves for .KeyhbleNutch ‘‘Specimens Prestrain 10%, titeelA.’

Tsmperatur-e-flnergy’Aosorphibn CurteS for”Keyhole Notch ““Specimens ?restrain ,2%,St’eelBr.

Temperature-EnergyAbsorption’”Curves fOF Keyhole Notch:Spectiens ?restrain .5$,Steel .Br.

‘Temperature-Energy’Absofpt,ionCurves for’Keyhole NotchSpecimens ?restrain.10~, Steel ‘Br. ,.

Temperature-hergy Absorption Cur+es for Keyhole NotchSpecimens Prestrain 2%, steel Bn:

Temperature-dmergyAbsorption Cqrves for Keyhole dotchSpecimens Prestrain 5~,”Ste;l Bri. “

Temperature-Energy Absorption Curves for Keyhole NotchSpecimens Prestrain 10%, Steel”&n.

Temperature-dnergy Absorption Curve; for I@i@e Notch ~,,:

SpeCimens Prestraim 2;L,Steel C, “’

Temperature-Ew rgy Absorption Curves ,fo:.,Keyhole ~~otchSpecimens Prestrain”5%, “Ste41 C.

79

79

79

80

80

80

““81

“81

W

82

82

82

“’@

83

:$3

8/+

W+

Temperature-EneigyAbSorptib’nCtiVes for ~eyhole“’Notch “ 84Specimens,Prestrain10~, Steel C.

vA

Fig. F-21!s

Fig. F-22

Fig. F-23

Fig. F.-24

Fig. F-25

Fig. F-26

Fig. F-27

Fig. F-28

Fig, F-29

Fig. F-30

Fig, F-31

Fig, F-32

Fig. G1

Fig, G2

Fig. G-3

Fig. G-4

Fig. @5

Fig. H-1

Temperature-hergy Absorption,~yqes fd7 l<eyholeWchspecimens Prestrain .%; Ste@ “Dr.

,.,

Ternperature-.tnergyAbsorption Curves for,lCe~hole,,iiotchSpecimehs Prestrain 5%, Steel Dr.. ,,

Te’mperatttre-i3nergyAbsorption Curves for Keyhole Notch.Specimens :Prestraih10Z, Steel Dr. ~,.

,,Ternperature-ihergyAbsorption CWV:S for,Keyhole.NotchSpecimens Prestrain 2fi,Steel W.

Temperature-inergy Absorption C~ves for fieyhol~Notch>pee@ens prestrain 5%, Steel D,ri.

Temperature-.inergyAbsorption CWves for Keyhole ~otchSpecimens Prestrain 10~, bteel “Dn.

‘temperature-inergyAbsorption Ctrvqs for.ieyhole Notchbpecimens Prestrain 2%, Steel K. ,, ,,

Temperature-dnergy Absorption Cq-ves for,Keyhole Notch~~SpecisiensPxestrain 5%, Steel E.

Temperature-dnergyAbsorption Cwves for ,:eyhok WtchSpecimens.Prestrain10X, Steel k.

Temperature-.inergyAbsorption C~,ves for i’+yholeNot,chhpecimens Prestrain 2%; ‘LkeelH. .

Temperature-dnergyAbsorption,Curves for ..eyhoJeNotch ~~SpeGimens Pnestrciin5g,,steel ~,

Temperature-Energy.4bsorption Curves for.KeyhfileNotchSpecimens Pr&strairi10:~,Ste;l H.

Summary, Temperature-Energy Absorption Curyes..fq ..eyholeNotch Specimens Steel “N‘Ikeatedfor Different.FerriteGrain Size. ,.

Temperature-EnergyAbsorption CWv~ ~ j{ayhble,Notc,hSpecfiensSteel N Formalized from 1650°F,’ ““

TeJrperatwre-&ergy Absorption Curve, Xeyhole Notch.SpecimensSteel N .:ormalizedfrom 1750GF. ‘“

Temperature,-Energy Absorption CWve,” ieyhok Notch SpeciqensSteei N Furnace Cooled from 1850~.

?hotanicr.ographsof Steel N after fiifferent ~leatTreatments,.

SUnuuary,Temperature-Lnergy Absorption ,Curves,~~yhr>leNotch specimens for Four “Platesof Steel C..

85

85

85

$6

86

86

87

w

87

$$

88

88

w

89

89

89

90

91

XI,

Fig. H-2

Fig. H-3

Fig, H-4

Fig.,.H-j

Fig. H-6

Fig. H-7

Fig. H-8

Fig. H-9

Fig. H..1O

Fig. H-.11

Fig. H-12

Fig. K-1

Fig. K-2

Fig. X-3

Fig. K-4

Fig. K-5

Fig. K-6

Fig. K-7

Fig. K-8

Summary, Temperat.ure-Ener.gyAbsorption.Curves, V-Notch 91Specimens for Four Plates fof‘Steel-C

Summary, Temperature-Energy&bsorption.CurveejFull Plate” ~91Thickness Specime@e,for ,Four“Platesof Steel C,

Temperature-dn,ergy AbsorptionSteel C, Plate C3. .” :.

Temperature-En:rgy AbsorptionSteel C, Plate C5.

Temperature--g@rgy AbsorptionSteel C, Plate C6. ,.,

Temperature-&nergy AbsorptionSteel C, Plate C3. :

Temperature-@ergy AbsorptionSteel C, ,?*t& C5. ,

Temperature-EnergyAbsorptionSteel C, Plage c6.

Temperature-EnergyAbsorptionSpecimens Steel C, Plate C3.

Terrlperature-EnergyAbsorptionSpecimens,Steel C, ?lage:,C5.

Temperature-inergyAbsorptionSpecimens Steel C, Plate C6.

Curve Keyhole Notch Speciinehs 92

Curve.Keyhole:.Wtch Specimens 92

Curve KeykioleNotch Specimens .92’,.

CurveV-Notch Specimens ~~ 93

Curve V-Notch Specimens -. 93

,.Curve V-Notch Specimens 93.

,.

Curve, Fuli Plate Thickness 94

Curve, Full Plate Thickness 94,,

., ...!. ,,, ,Curve, Full Plate Thickness 94

Summary, Terlperature--Energy Absorption Curve, KeyholeNotch Spe.cirrrens~ Ste,elC. Flates of Varying ‘Thickness.

.,.

bununary,Temperature-tinergyAbsorption Curve, V-NotchSpecimens,,Steel C, Plates of Varyfig Tl,ickness.

,,.., ~!Temperature-tinergy Absorption Curve Keyhole NotchSpecimens, Steel .C,1./2~t,?LateCOre~ , ,’““

Temperature-dnergyAbsorptio~ Curve Keyhole IQotchSpecircens,,S~eelC, 5/81!Plate Core. , ~~~

,..

Temperature-Snergy Absorption Curve keyhole JotchSpecimens, Steel.C,,111Plate,,Rim,

,..Temperature–inergy Absorption “&urveXeyhole NotchSpecimens, Steel C,,1!!Plate Core. : ~~~~

,,’Temperature-EnergyAbsorption Curve Keyhole NotchSpecimens, Steel Ci 1-1/81!Plate.Rim.~. :

Temperature-tierg{,A;sor’otionC ‘“urve Keyhbie’“NotchSpecimens, Steel -1/8!!Plate Core.

95.

95,

95,:

96

96,

96,

97

97

XII

Fig. K-.9 Tetiperature-ikiergyAbsoipti@’’~urie#,“V-~otch 97Specimens, Steel C, 1/211Plate “Core.“

Fig. K-10 Temperatiire-&nergyAbsorption CWVes, :V-Notch 98Specimens, Steel C, 5/8!1Plate Core. ‘“

Fig. K-n ~.Temperatur”e-EnergyAbsorption‘Curves;V-Notch 9%”Specimens, Steel C, l!!Plate Rim.

●

Fig, “K-12.:Temperattire-EnekgyAbsorption ‘Curves,””V-~@chSpecimens, bteel C, ll!Plate Core

Fig. .{-13

98 ‘“

Fig. 1(-14

Fig, L-A

Fig. M-1

Fig. M-1a

Fig, M-2

,.Fig. M-3

Fig, M-.4

Fig. M-5

Fig. &-.6

Fig. M..7

Fig. M-8

Fig. L-9

Fig. M-10

Te@ei’attire-EnergyAbsorption Ctivei,”V-No6ch 99Specimens, Steel C, 1-.1/81!Plate Rim

Temperat~@-Jnetigy”kbsoi.ptionCurVeS, V-Nbt+h 99Specimens, Steel C, 1-1/811Plate Core,

Breaking J~ergy-Tmperature i+elati0L5hipbetw~ell 100Static Bend Test and Impact Bend Test oriFineGrained 0.2@ C Steel.

Photomicrographs, Longitudinal and TransverseSections, Etcked Steel E. (Rim)

101,...,..

?hotomicrographs, Longitudinal and Tran4verse 102Sections, Etched Steel E! (Core,)

F’hotomicrographs, Longitudinal and “Transverse 103Sections, Etched S,teelC.

,.

?hotomicrographs, Longitudinal and Transverse ‘‘ 104Sections, itched Steel A.

,..

Photdiicrographs~ Longitudinal’And T’ransvefiie 105Sections,,Etched bteel pr,

,. .,, ,,

Photcmicrographs;Longitudinal and Transverse 106Sections, Etched Steel Bn.

Photomicrographs, Lcngitudinsl aridTr&n$veise 107Sections, Wched St,eeiDI..

,, ,.

Photomicrographs, JOngitudinal an;dTr‘anStietiSe 108Secilons, Etched Steel h.

?hotomicrographs, Longitudinal and”Transverse 109Sections, Jtched steel fQO

,,. ,.. .

Photomicrographs, Longitudinal ti”d’Transverse 110Sectionsj itched Steel F. .,

Photcmicrographs, Longitadina?”and lli~sverse 111sections, ~tched $teel.G. ~~ .“,

1111

Fig. M-n Photomicrographs, Longitudinal and TransverseSections, itched Steel H,

Fig. L-12 Photomicrographs, Longitudinal and TransversSections, itched Steel N.

Fig. L.-13 The Plot of Transition Twnperature in DegreesFahrenheit against Grain Size.

112

113

llL

CORRELATION OF LABORA’FOF?YTESTS WITH

the

The

‘FWL “SCALII‘Ski?W@ FRACTW TESTS

,; ,,,,,INTRODUCTIQ

Research Projects si%-92# -93,2and -963 were established to study

fracture characteristics of steel plate used in merchant vessel construction.

sections’tested under Research Erojects SR-92 and -93 ~e~e large scale and

so designed as to simulate, insofar as possible in a testing laboratory, service

conditions which might be encountered in merchant vessels. It is evident that

such large scale tests cannot become widely used, so the need for some small

scale test to correlate with the results of the large

The objective of Research Project SR-96 is to supply

scale tests is obvious.

this small scale laboratory

test.

The general features of sliipplate failure by cracking are such as to

suggest the use of the standard impact test as a possible means of evaluating,.

merchant vessel plate, The most serious type of ship plate failure has the

app~ranc es of a brittle faihre, a type of failure readily obtainable ~, the

notched-beam impact test. An impact test which appears to be uniquely suited,,,

to the requirements of this problem is the standard Charpy Is@ ct Test, as by

this testing’procedure, testing can be ,~ond:ctedrapidly

atures.

The impact test, while being moderately simple,:., ,.

and at various temper-

to carry out, is an

exceedingly difficult test to analyze on a fundamental basis. Thus, despite

the possible successful use of this test to evaluate the steels to be used in,,

a given structure, it probably could not offer a means of undtirs~anding

the factors which give rise to the cliffering physical properties

1, 2, 3 - See Bibliography —

* These projects were started under”OSRD contracts and iere then designatedas N3,C-92,93 and 96 respectively. Mese projqcts are now sponsored by theBureau of Ships under contract NObs-31222 at’the University of California,NObs-31224 at the University of IllinoisState College.,

, and NObs-31217 at the Pennsylvania

2

in a given group of.steels. ,!COfurt~er the,upderat,a,adingof these fundamentd,.,, . . ...

factors, a second approach to the problem of ship plate fracture has been.

undertaken,

At normal temperatures tensile test coupons of ship plate possess,...

high ductility. If the temperature of teit is lowe~ed slfi”f“i”ciently, t:,is

ductility will ultimately disappear. In the process of losing ductility,,.,.. . ,, , ,,with decreasing temperature, the steel undergoes a change such that the

character of the fracture is affected. The fractures go from ductiie to

brittle, and are frequently referred to as shear and cleavage fractures, re-

spectively. (It is well to point out, however, that there is reason to be-

lieve that a cleavage type fracture need not always be a brittle fracture.)

The fracturing process is not well understood. One of the reasons,,

why this is so, is the great disparity in tensile strengths as calculated,,

theoretically and as measured exper~entally. In addition to this there is;,

no fully developed theory of plasticity for metals. These conditions exist,..

largely‘becauseOf the paucity of data on the plastic deformation and fracture

,,.of metals. The fracturing of metals has been explained as follows:

,,,,.. ,,:, .,,,a. ‘k quantities, kno,!nas the fracture strength (:~ ) anti

,..the fIcrwstrength“(“~S ) exist and have the following

properties. The fracture strength designates that unit,, ...,,,. . ,,

of stress in tension on a unit section which will cause,.. . ... ., ,.

rupture without plastic aeformation but seemingly not,,. .,,

by change in te~nperature. The flow strength is that unit,>..,,,.

of stress in tension on a unit section which will cause,,‘:,,

plastic deformation. ., . ,.

. In ge~le,ral,,for metals,,the meld str,engthlies below theb.,.,, .,. .,,

f“r,+t}restrength;,S,Othat with,iri$rea$ingfiit st.r~ss“the.,.,,.

,.

3

metal is first plastically deformed,

,, ,., .

c. Plastic deformation results“in kork hardening whereby the... ... . . ...

flow strength is raised to “~]igherstr~ss levels. TFis

elevation in the flo~wstrength continues until it becomes,, ,.;

equal to the fracture strength at which point the metal..... ... .,

breaks,

ASsting that a complete knowledge of the effects of temperature,“ .:

and’stress conditions on the”flow- and fracture-stren~hs were availabls,

and that the concepts attendant thereto are valid, it should be possible

to predict the behavior ofa given sijeel~und~r,aiy~spec.~fied service con-

ditions.,,,

The evaluation o~ ~h~ frac~~e- and flow-s’~reugthsof.the project.,

steels have in part been obt~~ed, but ~due.tj Certain,expe~imental tiffi-,: ..,,

. . . .,culties have not been compl:e}ed.+syet, , ,.,...,

Additional quanti,t~e~v~h~chma~ pr~ve t’obe ~o~,~.uch~portanc e in..~ ~

the anslysis of fracture iri~hip plate “arevelocity effects,.commonly speci-

.~!. .,’..~~fied as the rate of straining, and stra’ingradients. Several data are in

the literatme showing that for a given test condition an increase in the

.,. . .rate of straining frequently enhances the development of a brittle failure.

,,, ..,:,.,.,, .:.,,! ,..In the secoh place, it has been shown conclusively that ductile failures

.. .:, ,.:.L.i;:..are always accompanied by extensive regions plastically deformed, while

,:.brittle faihr es are unaccompanied by such regions of plastically deformed

material.

All stesls were subjected to a metallographic examination. Certain

differences in micro-structures have been detected, but as might be expected,

these differences are subtle and are difficult to interpret.

The report contained herein presents the results of the extensive

4

investigation of the impact properties.of,tbe $teels,which have been .avail-.’” - ,

able on the related projects, ~IiT92.,,-93:aru,-~6. The.tiesultsof,,, .

liminary metall.ographicexqniqstion of the steels are iticluded.

flat+on th: fracture--and flow-strength:s.,of~~the steels;,:,

sul.tsof the measurements,.onstrain gradients; and the effects of:“. .

a pre-

the re-

velocity

of testing on these factors will be contained in a ,pfigressreport to be

released in the fu~:re.:,.,

The following persons,have constituted the st.aff and have contrib--

ute~ to the various phases of the investigation::,,.’

M. Gensamer . . .,,,E. P. Klier . . .“

T. A. Prater . .F’,C; ;ia~’ne+. “.J. L. Fisher . .J.O. Mack . . ,Marguerite GrymkoKatherine FisherLary Am Bishop .Selms Krause . .Philip Vonada . .

r., ,. ,Herman”Colyer , .Torsten Bjalme .

,,.,,’

. . . . . . . . . . Technical Representibive

. . . . . . . . . . Supervisor

.,. .. . . ... ... Investi.gatcm!1. . . . . . ... .

. . . . . . . ,!1, :,... ..

. . . . . . . . . . 11

. . . . . . . ...” Resea~ch Assistant11. . . . . . . . . . 11

,., ,.. . .,, .,.,1! ..!?. . . . . . . . . . I)rafting. . .. . . . . . .. .. Tech. Labor. . . . . . . ...1! t!

!! !!... . . . . . . . .

.

ST13ELS,,

The steeis investigated on this project are listed in Table 1..,.,.,.:,:The chemical and spectrographic,analyses of th:,eesteels,were carried out

,.!.”” ““in the laboratories of the Betl~l:hem~teel Compaw at the suggestion of> ~~., ;, ..,, .,

Dr.”“C.H. ‘Herty,Jr, The results of these analyses are presentedin Table 2.

Oxygen and nitrogen determinations made at the iiat,te~eLeinorialInst,itute,.. “’

are pres~nted “in‘rable3.

., ,.,

,,, ,’

5

;. !., ,. PART.1”’: “

., .,.. ,:.,., IMPACT TES=’ ~~“ ““ .

ilesl~~of Testing Program:“’~~Ih@c~ ‘s~e’c~rnenswere oriented with——

respectito the ‘plate,so that the ‘lofi~di:mens~oniwas ‘~”ralielto the,rolling

direction,”‘whilethe notch was parallel to “th”eth<ckiess direction. These

$pecimeriS”‘havebeen “designatedLH”‘specimens,

1. The ni~*hodsof representing ~pl’ct da’ta~’esp~cially that for

the st~”ndard”Charpy ‘keyhole:notich”’‘specimen,““haV@”been much

controverted; ‘Toeliminate”this”cohtroveriy,’”insofar as

po’ssi’ble,‘as it ‘p”ertti”initb ‘~hi”si”eelsinvistig”a~edhere, two

. seti of Charpy keyhole-notch Spe&”imensj 60 in”each set, were

tested in the ttiansit~oiirange “for tivosteels of considerably

differ&t energy abio?ptiori:tiharactieristicsi

,.,.20 The program of irqxict“testing‘was:”initiated‘wit~the determination

Of the e~ergy absorpiicifihhai%c’teris’t’ics’“@fthe””‘wrious steels,

~” using $kst,bars of stahi+ar~dim~~s?’ens;k“meli,“’.394x .394 x

2.165 irichesnotckied’v~ith”the stindard”k6yhble-and V-not~hes.

TKe results obtained wit~ tfieStaridarkiCharpy ‘specimensdid3’.” “

,.,not co”rr:elstewell, quantitatively;’with the’resilts obttined

witlithe large plate spe~fmens.“ A”third specimb’kwas employed

,,:in an effort to obtain better igideme:nt’in’the two cases. This

S.beCimen’is in LH Chdrpy”bar,’ “““of width bqual to full plate

thickness, by .394x 2.165 ‘inches. ‘l%:e’“nd,c~was a l/32-inch

rectangular notch .197 inch deep. “‘“

~” - l+.“SecKionsof;the 72-inch”wfke p~at”es”,’’app%imately1“x 3 feet,

‘and”bounded on’one’edge by’orie-half:the iotc~ atidfracture,

:, .::.. ,. ...’.

were received for te’sting. Standard LH Charpy keyhole-notch

specimens were taken frbiithese plates as indicated in Fig. E-3.

5...Test results (section ~).indicated that straining had a

~con~iqerable effect’“onthe “transitionfrom ductile to trittle,,

failq~e, as revealed.by”the impact,test”used. It’was deemed,,.

possible that some Pelatioix%ip between “degreeof”strain”and

energy absorption .co:Qdbe.used to correlate with the ener~

ab,soyptioncharacter.i$ticS’of”the lar~e’plate specimens. To

exs@ne this point, setiiesof standard Charpy keyhole-notch,.,,,.,

bars ,wereprepared “fromsto’ck“whichhad been strained in

tensionalong ths “rollingdiredtfon to 2, 5 and 1Q3 in elongation.,:,, ,,, ,.,.

6, The metallogfaphic“examinationof iteel N revealed that this

steel had a grain size.“appr’&ciablyf~ier”than that in the

other project steels. Sihce ‘grain”size is known to effect

the energyabsorption ‘charactei-i&tidS”of a given steel, it,.

was deemed advisable to check sets”of specimens that had

been.heat treated to develop different grain sizes, and which

,.we~e ,thqn,t.sstedusing standard Charpy keyhole-notch specimerm.

?. ,,Steel ~ has ,provento be an esp~cially interesting steel for

$ile.purposes,of the l+e~ated ,S%~i~ -$lj’“and-96, To be

assu~ed that the restitm hitherto obtained for impact testing

of :thisst,eelmere.typical;’test Sections”from three other

p,labesyere obiained and tested using”the three types of

test specimens.

E! QW~tiOns have arisen as to the df.ffereh”cesinherent in plate

of @ff,erent thicknesses”“dueto the rolling process. To

clarifY these Testions, tests on steel C in plate thicknesses

‘:7,.,,.

of 1/2, 5/8, 1 and 1-1/8 inches have been conducted. The

test specimen has been the standard LH Charpy keyhole- and

V-notch specimen,

Testing Procedure: Impact testing was carried out to establish

the relationship between energy absorption and temperature. With but one

notable exception the testing consisted in placing a minhum of three specimens

in”an appropriate medium at the desired temperature, and holding for about

10 minutes to allow thermal equilibrium. The specimen was then rapidly trans-

ferred to the testing machine and broken. This transfer took place in a

very short time so that no te.mperature change occurred.in the specimen.

The exception to the procedure outlined above, consisted in

cooling only one specimen to the desired temperature and testing. The

same number of specimens were tested by shortening the interval between

testing temperatures. This procedure was”abandoned because of the clifficulty,,:

in conetructing average curves through the points obtained. No real average

could be used, the average being drawn by means of the eye alone.

~he Graphical Re~resentation of I~ct Test Data: There is need..—. ——.

for clarification of the met!lodof representing the impact test data, es-

peciaIJ.ythat obtained for the standard Charpy keyhole-notch specimen. The

argument is offered that the data obtained for this test spe’cihiknare in

general best represented by two curves, one “athigh energy absorption”level

and one at low energy absorption level. The two curves are understood to

overlap for some temperature interval giving rise to a transition region

as represented in Fig. A, – A .( ) The representation of the data in this

manner is predicated on the contention that the large majority of tests

yield either high or lcw numerical values for the energy absorbed. Lf this

$

predication were in truth correct, it would void the normal practice of

representing such energy ‘absdrptidndata ““bymeins of one “continuouscurve

as in ~ig. A;:-(B).’ ‘-

Now it is very convenient to be able to represent the impact

properties of a givefisteel by hems of a continuous curti6Yand while it is

certairfLy,correct that”certain data can best”be represented by curves similar,., ,

to,Fig, A-(A), it is desiriblb to ‘knowif the data, in general, require such,.

representationfcm Wie steels inveStigated here. To answer this question,,’

one set.:each.ofSteels -W arid“-L (bar.+were taken from center of plate)

consisting of (f,specimens”:eacfi,were “prepared. These specimens were standard,,.

keyhole-potch specimens”,‘arid‘weremachined with no more nor less care than

the obher .j.mpaotspecimens tineceived.

The 60specimens OY each steel were tested in what is considered

to be the.transitimti:range for;the respective steels. Testing conditions

coqformedto tho5e in general obtaining ‘when‘firrpact”specimens are tested,

The test.results are presented in Fi~s, A -‘1 and.A - 2. Tne solid

lines have been drawn through the average points while the dotted lines are

curves previously obta,ine.dfor these two steels.’

The data presented in Figs. i.”-1 and A - 2, it is believed, are

best representedby the Continuous curve ti~ichis drawn through the mean

values, It is believed that for these data a completely erroneous impression

would be.created; il representation were attempted using a discontinuous

curve of two branches, one &k nigh energy absorption, the other at low

energy abso,rption. ,,,

m examination ofFigs. “k - ‘1“andA - 2 gi;es s~me notion as to

the reproducibility of results,‘ In both instances the curves have been dis-

placed at eztreme ends of the f,~ansi~ion’region while the temperature at

9

,..

.

which”50jJOf tixikum energy is abembed is but slightly displaced. This

leads io ‘kh&’3.nij5iesSi6nthat’this temperature in gene.r~l,is,qr$, easily

d’etermi-neciaccurately”;than are other values “oftempera.?ur?.?t.arb+t%ry

ene’r”yabsorption”levelsi ~~

Ihx3mths above, it wflilbe gathered W@ nearly W en%’a +-

sorption”cu’rveehive been drawn as .cantinuouscurwes. !,~ithbp~ few ,wce.ptions

this is true. In these excepted cases; the detail Plot,ej?n>y, have.been

drawn as discontinuous while in summary curves, continuous curves, only,

llave.,beendrawn. It is not possible to discuss the problem at length here,,. ,,,

bqt it will be noted that those data represented by”discontinuous curves,;,

have been obtained for specimens prestrained in some way. it is believed.,. . .... . ... . ,,, ,

that this prestrain especially at low strain values lends materially““to:. ’.,,.‘.. ,,

scatter of the test data..,

The Tabulation of Im~ct Test Data: The desirability of using——.—. ..—.,,,

numerical values for indicating the results of a given impact test study is

obvious, The numerical values which can be taken from tipact curves and...

retain their significance, on the other hand, are not at all obvious.

Several factors must be considered in deciding this point.... ,

First,‘“LPa

certain point is known to have physicaL significance it should be considered,,, ,,.

if it can be represented numerically. Secondly, if the condition’‘setdown. ..

in the first instance does not recognizably exist; while a point, known from,.

experience to be important does, this second point should be stated. Finally

for an arbitrary representation, as it is believed holds here; that point

which is subject to the least error in determi~tion should”““bestated. From

the foregoing section.this would appear to be that temperature at which one-j.,

half maximum energy absorption is obtained. The trarisitioritemperature in

this report is defined in this way,...,.,,, . . . ,,,..

10

,! .,,.

,,

-..In “an““earlierrepo~ti (sw94)44, v~.u~,of,,1,?t:,~ \bs. ,energyab-,.

sorption“wiiicorii~tietied;to”‘be“’animportant;n%eyi~al. value in clas~+~~ng

charpy ~Pact te’stdata’:for~~~stxndard specin~,sg~ernp}~y~g,{he v-notch. Further~

energy absorption values in this range are cocrpnly.used,in sp~cificati0n5.,,.

liow’t~i”sr“dng~’di energyabsorption values.:.ro.ughlycorre~ppnds to One-fOurth

of ‘tiirnuk‘energjabsoiptiorii’~Therefore,, the,.ternp~ature, at which these latter,,,values““are’fotiid”’also are reported for,.thesteels. .,,

., ,,, ,

Reeults of Im~t” Te* ,,.——.— .—

,,j

A. V-notch soecimens: The results of iinpact“testin~for the,, .- —

standard.LH Charpy V-notch specimens are presented graphically in Fig. B-1.,. .,; ,,,

Detail plots of the data are found in Fig. S-2 tO %13. Numerical data taken,.;., ..

from these curves are tabul.ated in Table B, along with the krarisit’iuntempera-.,,

~ures ,fo~,the 72-inch wide plate tests. At first sight“itapp~rs that this,. .,, ,,..

.,,.test.,with,one exception, allows “qualitatii&”“eiaiiiation-ofthe steels.

,,~uantitatiy:l.y~,h,o,~yver,n? s~.h agreement exists; the”1’OW“temp6i’ature

coordinate being highly centracted~ the high temperature “coordinatebeing

,,mpande d.

.,’

Closer examination of the data reveals relationsliips”which make,.,:.;.,,,.,,,,

doqbtfq,,the acceptance even, of the qualitative evaluatioriof t~,esesteels;.

by this test, The transition temperatures for”steels“A, B”and D for the

,72-inchwide plate: are all grouped in a 10”F t’~~ iature interva~;(Table B).

Coneide~ing the.accuracy of the test res~ts these steels’should”be con-

sidered,asbeing identical in this respect. For triesfialledale t~sts, how-,,. .,,,,

eve,rlthe transition temperaturesrange from 10° to 90°F”with steel A being,, ,,, ~,,

.repressqted.ss inferior to both steels B and D.

Steels A and C were melted to have the same noriinilchemistry; it,,

f+ See Bibliography

. .u.

b&ifig”antidipated ‘thatthey wogl.tlthen have the same,.physic.a prOp@ies.,

The Mpact r%tilt$:reported here indicate that.this..dUp~i%tieP @s. in %~

resp.5ctk“b~+n‘:~ticcessful.The steels seemingly.have:the,sme tqnp,e@u,re -

‘”energy ‘&b$arpiYonproperties. ~hese results predict.complete~y,erroneous

results to be obtained in tihelarge plate tests. Steel A has a transition

temperature in the large plate tests roughly 55°F less than that .fdr,steel C.

The arialysesof these two steels reveal that steel C contains~.

appreciably higher percentages of nitrogen than doeq steel A, and the im-

pression ‘has‘be% fd~ed that this clifference in nitrogen,contsnt,can account

“’‘for the clifferences~ii the physical properties of the two s@els. ti~?ever

‘bethe ‘r&ason”ultimately accepted.to account for these clifferenc?s in per-

formance in the”large‘platetests; it is emphasized that these differences

have not~‘b&en”su~gbs.te’dby the data

bar.

L A final comparison of the

obtained with the Charpy,V.-notchtipact

data,,-for steels,,.Ca~,dE, is made, By

the large plate tests:these two steels are revealed as having the same,

physical prop’erties,i.nso far.as”their susceptibility to brittle faihkre

is concerned. But for the impact test these two steels are revealed as being

clifferent from one another.

It’is evident that the initial impression”that this.impact testing

procdtie evaluated the eteels in the proper “orderqualitatively, is ah un-

fotitunite”one, and cannot properly tieretained. The question arises as to

whether ‘thisis really a seriouS’disagreement. It might btisuggested that

:while c~rtaiti“minor disagreements are notedj differences in the order of

magnitude are not. It is believed that any Such suggestion.should be dis-

Cows.ged, ‘Actu&llytiiephys’icalpioperties of the SteelA and C appear to

be’Very nearly extreme value’snormally obtained for merchant vessel plate

12

bx.:he,Ia;w date. WW: .,. .,: ,..: ,,~v.s to fi~terially@proye the phys>c@ properties, ,,

of steel A WOgld requirethe psage,of (~t,least),g,fullykj.~.+,,:}eel~ A.,,

slight ~ecrease..incarbon ,crjnt@.~ith ~ :;ncr~as~in.~ng?nese ~@e@,,, ,,. ,..

dOeg not:aQp;eciably,,improye.t~~.,,phys}calproperties as,r~veq+?d by the large

plate test: for the se@-kQed grade:.of steel., At,,theSame;t@:,the SUS-,,

,ceptibility.t:,brittlefailu~e:.inthe largeplate,,testqa: steel C isf ully.

as pronounced as ,thatfor steel E which,is a rimming,Steel,,.

It would,.appear then that the impact tes< as,conducted,here .,is,,,

not cqpabl.e of giving a clsar impression as to th,ephysic,alproperti.es of a,,,

steel which,my ,b:anticipated when that steel ,isused ,in<a large,structure.

This doe: not seep.ingl.yres,ul.tfrom lacl<of sensitivityy on.the part of:the

i?pact,test., There appears,to be a basic ,differencein th,etwo types of,..

testing,,in,which instance a complete agreement f~ all,tests could not be

expected.

B. Keyhole-notch specimens: .T.he,res,tp.t:,of@pa,ct testing for

the standard LH Charpy keyhole-no,tchspecimen: ,ay pr~s’enfis~h F%. .C.-l.,:

Detail plots,of,the ,dataare found in Figs, ,C..2to C-13. !Jumerical,data taken

from these curves are found in Taple C, with the data for t,helarge.plate,, ... ,,, .

tests. ,,, ,..

By this test ,abetter qu~itat,ive,eyqluation of,the steels is

obtained.than for ~he V-notch,specimen, Aga,<nthere is ,ave,ryserious,.diS-

tortion of the scale of transition temperatures, ln addition there,are

c:ualitative disagreements between certain of the data.,o’b$ainedhere and those

obtained for the large,plate tests.,,Again there has,been no,.:epara~i?nof

the transition,temperaturefor ,steelsA ,andC.,,,

The transition tempers,tu,re,for steel A is about.20-3O°F,,,higher

than that for ,,steelB,,,while f,:rt.~ large p~te t,ests,,,the:esteels.,are

13

nea,rlyide,htic~. (,T~e,,transi~+on,.ternp.eraturefor.,steel iiis tii~ated, as

being about 15°F higher than that for steel C, which,ie not in agreement with

the large plate,~,q?ts.). ,. ,,,,...., ,.

Me comparisons which have been Wde above are incomplete due.to.

lack ~f data for th? large plate $9s}s. ~For,the steels which have,been

tes,t.ed,.hoyeyer,,i~.may be,concluded that the,kej’hole-notchCharpy imp~!t

test like the ~ynotichGharpy tipact,test iS not ca~able of an unambiguous

e.~altu$ti:on.O: the p~ate which migh} fir@ usage in merchant v?ssel .c.Qnstrgction.

Again two.serious objections,kothe ,qse,ofthe impact test $an be offered,

namely, (,1).%cessive:@istort+on of the scale.oftransition temperatures,

.necess:~atir+g~he use ot a complicatpd:.c~rrqc~ignfact,prto pr.eciidaccurately

the ,t.ransi,tion.ternp,erpkurein ,th:elaqge,plate,tests:,.(2) for sOme of,~he

s,te@i+an ,tipqoperqqalita}ive,ev.akation of,the,,s~e,elsis obtained from the.,

impact da~q:. . ,,, ,.,

Co .,~~ tiew Of t& obj.ectionsto the c,o,nc,lusions.ar.rivedat .,.}n

the discussion of the impact data for the st?,~ard.,Ch~py,bars, a third

Chqrpy bar W*S empiq,yed.;This,bar,was of,standard length and,%hickne5’s,

but of width equa~,to f~~.,pla$e thi.ckneasa%, notched with a 1~32-ipch

wide..:i9~,!ldqep .rectangulqr,.notch. ,. ,,

.The results.of imp,a:t:testing using this Le$t.bar.are,presented

graphically in F~g. p-l., De}p.ilP1O;S of.the d?ta are.f0.~d in,,~ig~.,.@2

to D-v, N~erical,,data.taken from .t.hesecurves are t~bulat~d w T?,bleD

with the data for the large plate tests.

Ce,rtajn,di,ffere~es in the relative,evaluation,of the steels as

oampa~ed,to,the evaluation by the standard Char:pybar?.,ar,e,.,,mot$d.,..Kese

data.,.hq;~ever,.are subject to <i,esa@e ,critic~smwh,ichhas,been,leveled

at the test results for the standard Charpy bar. There is littls other

IA

.,,.,

,,,,

than,the d~crea,:ed,cost of .:pecimenpr:par&$j_on,$,hento recommend continued. .,,,,.”,’‘., ,.,,

use of this test bar.,, :..,,

Discussion of Im@ct Data - Sections A, B,ad, ~:, It is.implicit——

in the,foregoing.cliscussi.o~that,:th$ ,,qo.:t~poqta~~ ,factor which prevents‘.,,.,:,.~

an intuitive approach at cpr~elating the,~harpy ~pact data,with the large,., .. ...

plate test data is the lack of,a sharply,dgfined,,transit.ion,tempenature for.,, ., ,4,

the Charpy impact test. Because of th,is,:it ,is.no~ possible,to cOmpape

energy absorption curves o: the same form .(inthe tw,otest$) which leads to,,

a sense of,uncertainty in the validity of this,comp.arisen6 For the pr”esent,,,

this transition temperature sha~, be arbitrarily fixed.to,all~.wdiscussion,

but it should be kept ,@ min,~that there j.sno justifica,ti~n on physical

grounds for this selection. Alltra,nnit+ontemperatwes ia this section are

taken a? that,temperature,at.which one-half the;rn,qxim~n:,ene.rgyabsorption,, .,,,,

is observed. At higher temperatures the failure will be considered as

essentially ductile while at lower temperatures the failure,will be con-,,

sidered as essentially brittle.,,, ~

The transition,fr,~ ductile tO brittle,fail.uyein a test.section

iS visusJized as dep:ndi.ng~n the,,ste$land,on ,thegeome,tmyof “thet@st,...

section and on testing conditions. The idealized re,sultsfor “%steel t.ested

in the large plate sections ani in.the Charpy.,keyhole!and V-notch impact,..

tests are presented in,Fig. D-a. The transition,range for bhis’steel is seen,.

to lie at three different temperature: which are c~aract,eristic of the test

sections employed.

In the discussion below e, T1 w:KJ.designate the ,difference in

transition temperatures.for,the large.pl,atetests and,for the Gharpy keyhole-,..

notch specimens. A second,subscript designates khe a$eel, ,a:sIor example,,,,

,,,,.

-—. ..—_________

15

& Tl,Br is the difference in “transitiontemperatures for steel pi-bettieen,,, ,, .,..

the large plate tests and t~e “Charpykeyhole-notch tests. .LJT; in strict.,

analogy will pertain to the Charpy V-notch test data.,,. ,.

For the purpose of a control test it must be assumed thkt ‘thedis-

placements ~ T1 and d T2 are functions of ‘thegeometry “ofthe specirn+m,,

only, if this test is to be pro~rly employed, If this condition were

correctly assumed, a change in ‘thetransition tempera~ure for the large plate

test would appear as a change of the same sign and of comparable“order’of

magnitude for the transition temperatures of the keyhole and V.-notch“Charpy

bars.,,..:

The evaluation of the”steel would’thericonsist in the deter!nii%tion

,..of the transition temperature for a sta~ard test bar, in this”case a standard

,,,,,,,~~“’Charpy bar~ the’addition thereto of”~ T1 if the”keyhole-nbtc’hSpecirnbnwere

used; or the subtraction therefrom of A T2,if ttie”V-riOtch specimenwere used.

This would give the transition temperature‘tobe expected in the large plate,..

test.:.,.:

... ...‘fhequestion arises”as to’whsther 6r“notthis tre.a~ment;S adequate

Or not for practical use, as in the comparison tests carried out herb. To

better understand the significance of the dataj idealized plots of”“thedata

for steels Dr, dr, A, C and E’for the ‘large’plate test’~d ‘forthe Charpy.,

keyhole and V-notch tests are presented ‘in‘Fig.D-bo These ideal<zid curves,., .....

have been drawn parallel to one another with the’value of t~pera~ure” at,..

50Z maximum energy absorption being“t~en from the data. If this stipli-,,,

fication is not made, the relationships which exist are even“’more”complicated.,,

than those indicated in Fig, D-b, ‘“ ““‘ ““r’”“ “ “,, ,.’ ,$

It is evident from Fig. D-b that the col:~ection~actor 0 T1 is not,,,,’ ,,, :constant for’the various’“steels,nor is ~~”T2. More serious tharithis,

—

u;,

however~ ,<sthe fact that neither & T1 nor fiT2 varies uniformly from one,,, ,,, ,:

end .o~the $e~les of ,,s,teel,to t~, oth,erend; H this wire true, “~ T1 or’‘“,,.

~ T2 could be progressively changed from one steel to the hext and the;,

,properanswer for the large plate test could be obtained. Since~ T“I=d”!. ..: ,.

~,,T2 .:hangediscon}+nuously,,correction factors cannot be used PrOF rlY and..

the means of correlating the control test are seriously we~ken,ed.

~qe ,:~~ericalcomparisons of A .T2 reveal t~lat this value i.$‘~

miniyo ,for Ste~ls B and C, but for Steel B, ~ T2 must he added while for,.

the,,remainingsteels it must be subtracted. To a first approximation,,, , ,..

~, ‘2,,!= ~ Q’fk,c:whi+e~T2,A = 3.~T2, C. The sign of~ T1 is plus in”,, .,

all instantes,but its magnitude varies erratically, Thus A T1,A is the,. ,.

qinimuq value,observed,,but to a first approximationA ‘I’l,B = Tl, c = 2 d,TI,~., ,...

while @ T1,,D =,3~ TL,A.,,

It is,necessary to conclude that while the impact tests conducted,,

as in sections A, B and C may afford some notion as to the behavior of the

,steel when it is used in a structure, this prediction very well may be in-

,,, ., .,,’ ,.correct. The test must At best be considered only partially reliable there-

,,.

fore.,,. , .,,

D. ,,h~c~ Spechens from large plate tests: Sections of the—.-. —.,

72-in:h wide ,t:stplates were received and were tested using standard LH,:,..: ,..

Charpy keyhole-notch specimens taken from the plate as indicated in Fig. E-a,,,

These tests were to be run to check the impact properties of the individual,. ,.,, ,,

plates, but it soon became evident that the strain to which the section tested,.

had been subjected, seriously affected the results.,,

Despite this effect the location of the impact specimens was not,, .,, ,.

changed to the area under the notch, as it was deemed as more important to,,

preserve the strain-free inaterial. lhis strain-tree plate

be tested as a final check on ‘thetest method which ,isnow

ment. This point will be considered more fully iR a later

17

will ultimately

under develop-

section.

The test results are’w.iimarizedin .Figs.E-1 to E-10. Detail

plots of all curves are presented’in Figs. !J-Llto.,d-31+. Numericaldata

are preseoted in Table E with data for the large plate tes,ts. These results

are extremely interesting.

Specimens taken from thos6 plates tested at temperatures low as

compared to the transition temperatui~ by,the large plate test, have a trans-

ition temperature to be”‘expectedfxom:the results presented in Section C.

This temperature is materially.altered, however, for specimens taken from:,,

plates tested in the transition’range and above. This change in transition

temperature is positive in all ‘instances,but the absolute value for each

steel is different. ‘Thefinal consequences of,these varied changes in trans-

ition temperatures are that specimenstaken,’from.plates tested at the

highest temperatures give a transition temperature nearly,equal to that ob-,.

served in the large“plate tiesta. Thus the straining and possible room

temperature aging to which these steels:have been subjetted, has served to

alter the energy absorption characteristics of the steels> but in a unique

way. ,., ,,,,.

These resiil.tsindicated that the egergy ,absorptioncharacteristics,,

of the steels determined as a fum?tion.of .thS.strain to which they had been,,

subjected weie important data to obtain~ me results,of such a study are

the subject matter of the next section.

E. To determine quantitatively th,eeffect .ofstrain on the impact

properties ‘of“theproject steels, serie,s,,o~,specimens ,strainedin tension

18

in the’rolling dir?ction to 2%~:5% and lpi in ,e,long$.bionwere prepared, .,The

specime~ selected was.a standard LH Char~y,keyhole-fiotchspecimen,, Steels

A, B, Cm l);i and H were investigated.;

The.results are stmunurizedgraphically in Figs.

plots.of.these curves are presented in Figs. F-9 to F-32.

are ,preserd,ed in.Table.,F ~

,..

F-1 to F*8. Detail

Numerical data

As was anticipated from the results of the prec.e.dj.ngsection, the

prestrati :ng”has altered the transition ternperatur~sof .t.ie.varjous steels.

Prestrai.n,‘z,:!,uesbet,weenj%,:and 10~ appear to give the most intere.stin,g

change$, In.Fig, F-8a.ane summarized the impact data for the.steels studied

fan ,prestrainsof ~~10,j.

,., ! lhe tipact data now corr,elate very well with the energyabsorption

characteristics of the,large plate tests if the transition,teISpSratUre.is

taken,at,j,O~maXiJMSMenergy absorption, (See,Table F-c). :There are certain

qusntit?tive disparities.but qualitatively the steels are properly evaluated.

It is interesting to compafie,the effects of prestrain on the in-

dividual steels.,,Thes,e,comparisons at 50)$maximum energy absorption are

ccmtained in,Table F, Rather w.exp~ctedly it is seen that p,restraining,is

much more ,:potent in changing’the transition temperature~for the ste+ls D;

which are fully killed steels, than it is for any of the other steels, but

steelO. :.Itis .a,lsoindicated that the normalized steels are not so dras-

:tic”allya.ffeciied&e are the as-rolled steels. This may possibly be due to

coid work resulting either from low $idishing temperature or straigtitening

operations.

,. In.ti~ecourse of pr epsra~ion specimens were’“heldat room temperature

for one month after straitiing.‘..Thisgives Pis6 to the’p.oss;bility of room

19:

temperature,agingas causing the,increase.in the transition temperature.

Now it,has ,bS,enshown that Foom ,temperatiui-eholding will cause appreciable

aging,,inthese,steels. This,is an important.item and.a program has been’

outlin,edto allow,$he inyestlgation of.the effect of straining followed by

r~om tempe,rature aging o,fvarious times on’the impact prOperties of theSe

steels. ,,

F. ,Inthe course of the metailographiw examination,”it tias’”observed

t,hat,theferrite grain size of steel N was very :appneoiably”smaller thati’that

for,the other project steels. ,Since,grain size is known..“toaffect the”impact

properties of a s~eel to a very Wrked extent.;it.was deemed desirable to

ev@uat~. this.factor for.steel N. ~~

To prosecute this investigation,three setitionsfroh the large’‘

plate test section,N-1-A?,~~eregiven the following heati.treatments, respectively.,.

N-l-A (1) was no~alized frqm 1650%; N-l-A (2).was ““normalizedfroti1750°F;

N-1-A .(~)was f.ynq;,ecooLed from @50°F e This.fiti treatrnerit@.~e rise

\ to a ,feryi$egrain size comparable to”t,hatexisting in “the‘other‘project‘steels.

Test rga,ultsare sm~arize~ ia Fig. G-1 to G4C. .Photbmtcrographsdf the”

sections are presentedin Fig. G5. .,,,

The two normalizing treatments hare.evoked”no change in thb~inlpact

properties of the ?t,eel,neit,her.has there been a chahge”in gi-airiilZS. The

furnace-pooled steel, on the .]therhand;whil~ suffering a b,bnsidbrab~e ““~

gro}~h in grain,size ha: also $uffered a very marked deterioration“infipact

properties. The ,,clmnge,in grain size frorn:<ASTM #10 (extrapolated to ,#10

to #12) to ASTM #6 has displa~ed the transition temperature measured at 50~

of m~im~ e.ner,gyabsorption by,+L!+O%..:This iS”a rather startling increase

in the tranait>qn tanperature. ,. . ..

.—.

7 See Bibliography

20

G. Due to the great dissimilarity of,,steels A and C in the 72-inch,,.;,

wide plate tests and due to the failure O< the ~p~c,t,test to establish this,. ...,,,

clifference, it was felt desirable that further.,platesof,s,teelC .shpdd b:,,, ,..,

examined to make certain that the resuits init,iall.yobtained w,ererep,qesentative,,, ,. :;. ,,:,.

of all the plates in this heat. For this pur.p:se small sectigns,frprnthree

additional 6f x 10? x 3/4!?plates were obtained and tested using each of the

three test bars. The results are presented in F5.g~.H-1,i:,,~~-~2, The test,,,.’

results initiaily obtained are denoted by the,dotted j.it?e,e. lt ,+se“tident,,,

that while .-cme variations are observed, ttlese vayiation.c.~.re,po.tf-mport.ant,: ,,

ones- The steel C is still evaluated as at first,indicated.

H. Plate of various thicknesses is required in the construc~iw

of varioua strut-kuresmaking up a merchant vessel. For the construction~.

0~ hatch cOrner sections, plates of steel C were.furnished iq the ~OIIOW+ng

thicknesses: 1/2”, 5/0’, 3/4”, 1’!and l-l~8°. it was.felt,that sec+ion~.of

these clifferent thickness plates should,be.tested to,determine the,posqi~le

variation in impact properties due to differences @ fabri,cat.ionproc?sses

by which these different thicknesses are achie~ed. In the thicker plates

there also exists a possible variation in properties from thq rim to the core

of the plate. The testing program consisted in the determi~tion, O: the

energy absorption - temperature relationships existing in the,cent,ersection

of plates 1/2’!,5/@l, 1“ and 1-1/8!’thick using standard ~, Charpy specimens,,, .,. ,

with the standard keyhole- and V-notches. In addition the energy,absorption -

temperate relationships for the rins of the l!~and 1.-1/811plates were:,, ,.

determined using the two Charpy test bars.

The data obtained are summarized gr?,phicallyin Fig?..K-1 and $~-2.,,

Detail graphs are presentea in Fig. X-3 to L-4. Humerical data are presented

in Table 1{,. ,.

21

The ,transitiQotemperatureis very,,g~eatly a~tgred.,b~?fia~iw

plate thickness from KL/8’1 to 1/2.”i The rate of change ~f the transition

temperature with change in plate thickilessfrom l-l~6!i,to smaller thick-,,

nesses is S1O,Wat,firstithei-ebeing but.a moderate d?qye?sein.th~ tr?ns~tion

temperature as the thickness is decreased to 3/l+t!,when the impact specimen

is the ,stadard b%arpy V-notch specimen. when the thickness is decreased LO

l/21!,however, ther,eis a large decrease in the transition .temperature.

For the standard Charpy keyhole-notch specimsn the reduction of

piate thickness from 1-1/811to 3/4!1:,Iowersthe transition temperature by

aboUt 1+0%. The,reduction in the trans~tion temperature resulting from the

change of thickness from 1-1/81! to 1,/2!1is nearly 80°~~

In the 1“ and l-1/8r’plates the rim .isfound,to have slightly

better pro.petiiesthan the.cqm-e. This condition is n@ especially,pronounced,

however; ,.

.,

,,, D~,scu~~IoIJA,~ coN~Lu$Io~s—&—-—--. —

in the :o,r,eg@.~pages.data,have been pres~nte,d,@ sh~y that,the

standard impact.test as ncr.mallyconducted,does not yield,a reliab+e:.predic-

tio,nof the,fracture,characteristics,(brittle or,d@ile fracture) of the

....pte.el:when,it is:to.be used in a f@l scale structure,. A.test has,b:en,d,e-

velopqi which, with no,serious,exceptioq,prpperly predicts the.transiti,on

temperature of ,}he,steels ,fpr ~Yhichdata,.a,reav~lable. This t@ c,o,n,sists

in straining,tilestpel,,~n t,efision.to J,OA,inelongation foll.owed.by.M.ding

a} room t,empera}ure<or,a@u.t onemonth,a$t~ry~j.ch.,t@e,it is tested by the

standard Charpy ~eyho.la:.nobch~}pact ,test~ ,,

~,e,.effec~ .~f,gyain ,size ,onthe en~rg,yabsmpti cm,- temperature

characteristics of steel N have been studied to a limited degree. it has

22

,,,,.

been shown that orie“of”the reasons f0’ the eicellentilow tieriperature impact,.properties of this steel lies in its highly ref’ipedferri~e “grain’Stiiiiture.

The treatment of this steel.to develop a giaiiisize eompiribl’dwith that

found in the remaining project steels raises the transition“temperatureby

apprOfimately 140%,,,..

,’,,.

The testing of ad~tional “3//+riplates o; steel’C“‘“has”shown that.,.

the initial relationships established betwee~lenergy absorption and”temperat-

ure sre correct.,,,, ,,

1: has beerishown that”a“”chdge in plate thickkess may seriously

modify the transition temperature ~” a given “steel,as deter~ned by “the,..,

notched impact tests.

This briefly reiterates those’points of fiportahce which have,.

been emphasized in the presentation of the experirientaldata. It “iiould

aPPear that the foregoing experimental work to a satisfactorydegree explores

the possibility of the use of a standard impact testing procedure to pre-

dict the behavior of a“’”@vensteel““whenit “isto be used in a large structure.,,This investigation has revealed the possibilities of ushg a specimen pre-

strained to a given degree to give the numerical data required. However, it,.;

has not led to a rationalization of the reasons why thii “pres”trainedspecimen...., !.

will give the correct answer when used as specified. Until iutifi2ati0nali-

,,’zation is achieved or until further tests for comparison of the two types

of test data”(strained Charpy bars is. iarge plate res~ts) are available,,,

this test should be used only with some reservation In the meantime further

steps to rationalize the impsct test are being pursued. “’These

steps are the out-growth of the fol.lowing”lirieof reasoning.

The breakirg of an imp~t specimen can be considered

additional

as taking

23

place ,bya ,simd.ar,process.to that ~thatleads to the fracttireof a large”

plate. spectine,n.me differences M results (transition temperature for the

large p~tp s,ectionand the small test sectioIis/then must l%dt from

quantitatiye clifferences,in the factors active in:the fracturihg process, -

thus take on the guj,seof the so-called ~1size-effect1!.~ h this tinner of

thipking the,IVsize-effectItwould appear to be’cornpositedo~ Siveral factors

interrelated in some mathematically complicated way. ‘Oneof these factors,

which,comes to mind immediately, is.the geometry of the test section. The

change in geometry if it does not lei%dto extremaly smell specimens ad too

severe,notch~g should not introduce variables seriously:dependenb on the

gr@_n size of .~hesteel> but shouldlead to changes i.hstress conditions “only.

These,.chaqgeq.in stress conditions could, however, be anticipated usually

,yithinreasonab~e limits, and test conditions could be adju~ted to reduce

differences, insofar.as desired. Thus tiieredoes not“appearto be any reason

WhY the !Isize-effect”cannot be eliminated as a variable ‘thusmaking

pos,sible,theus,eof a sm~l scale test to predict the properties of the “full

size,plate.

After these considerateions a more close cosiparison of the tsit

conditions obtaining in the impact t~st ,aniin the large plate“tension test

$s evidently needed. A first difference arises in the Consideration of tie

type ,oftest,..,The @pact t,esti$ a not~h-bend test while the plate test

is ,a,notch-tensile test. ‘fhestress:~Onditionsin the t~ test ~~ction~ are

very ,much,different ~ the oyer,all stress systsms ire compared. But if the

stress conditions at the “Oasesof :Ghe.stress raisers ‘areconsidered it is

found tinatthese are rcughly comparable at the start of ci-aekin~.~””(cf “5Ha

Neuber: uThqpry of Notch .StresSes‘f’-I’rinslated by Fi A. Raven, iavy

Department, David ‘,Lsylg,rIicdel‘&sin, Washington;i).C., 19L!+5.)” J’ueto the

5 See Bibliography

‘$?&

drastic changes

,., ,,.,.,. .;,.:) “’”, ,

in testing .c:,qd~~~~n.$:.axiisirigifi’”“thei~act test bar,,as it,. .:,!!.,: ‘. 4“’”- ,,.,,,,,

,,.:, !~S “bentand as the,era@ ~rogresses,;.the.“sC#es~‘cokitions in ‘thetest bar

:,.,,... ,,;::,,.,:!depart““veryseriously,from,those,Obtained in ‘%hti:riotchedtension test...4?,,,.,... . l,;~~.:..,!,..

‘“ ~~hus in”~he”’”no~ched,$:ns~on ,t?sG,t~eentire ‘s~c~~on”’is’’loaded”iri“tension..,,,,! f,. ~ ,“.,.-....

F%ii “rneangthat in the j.n$~anqe,of.q crackbe~’~’proja’gatedat sufficiently.,.,!, .i> >.”.:-,.,’ ,., .

4“‘“’’’”’”~gh velocity the ,sectio,n..,,~a,ci,no,.@mce.,td”iih~d~d;”even”U; the “physical,“

,....,.,..’~, ‘.”,.. ,,. ::..~“?“’sfiro~dings were modified :~ough.by:the.initial‘“cracl<j.ng““’to“al.lmYthis to

.,:J,,,,,. ‘:,., .,.,:,.,,,.:;.,.>,...,;;.... !.””‘‘”<take piac’e, The ,:ntires:etiofithen,fai~a .’:In the”bend te~t this situation

.’: ‘~”.;‘does”riot‘obtain. In the notched,~ti impact specifiiksa.tthe start of cracking,

,,:,l.,..,:,,.:’ More than on.+hti of the ,cro:ssection:is i zone of compression into which

‘t~e”crack is being prqpag+ted~ :II is etident tha~ “is”the “crackis pr?p?~ated

“~6ss the stress concentration,should incrkas’~”‘(&ich’do””isn& happen cf..,

“““:tiH’~Neuber, supra) the maximum stress“,aithe ‘base<’of the e~fective riotch”,de-

creas~s~‘“’”(T~s resultsfromthe fact t,hab‘the‘crackmoves’”at“arate “much,.,,, ,::.,,.

‘“”“higherthan the rate at which the hammer in the impact machine moves,) In,., ,,

order to maintain the ,:t,res$at the,has@ 6f tihe‘riotch to a level producing

failure it is necessary th?t ,the.,,specimen’‘t%bent more. In”the upper,temper-,.,..,,.,

,.,.,...:....,. ,,...,.attirerange it is actually p~y?igallyimpd’sd.ble to kintain this stress,,S,O

:4! .: .... .... !,tke two halves of th: test bar,,~o:.r.loti..pafit”‘co~lete~” but are bent,back

,.,, -.,. ....’’”’””

alorigthe tup and car:i~d ,~hro,ughYMk. the ‘hber~ ihese changes are such;,,!..’: ‘.:

f?jlit”they expand the range,of temperature Ih’’whiih“thefracture changes from.... ... . ,..

an ‘entirelyductile to an ent.ir.elybrittlk failtie. It would appear from,.,,.:, ,..,.

this’””that the interme~ate values,of,.,energy absorption do not exhibit a,,,,.., .,..

,,. .fundamental aspect of the rn:ta,l,but,~~rel~ .Pefl~cta chan~e in geometry

in the ttistspecimeno ,.,........-.. ,”:

.-,. ” ................ ........,’,

ti”this “changein geometry could in effect be e~nated” it would

aPPear that the transition range would be shortened and would become

that

25

extremely abrhpt in most cases. This argument, while iii’’eresti~jcannot,,, .:’,,

be developed until c~nsiderable data hate been accum~ated. But despite

this limitation it allows the”fixi~ of certaih‘“@oiitson”the vdrious,energy,..

absorption curves as being “roughly“comparableand thus pdihte the way tb the

development of a laboratory test procedure which “can’effeotiiely predict

the cracking chsracteristic~““ofa ‘“jiven“Stiedif the service cotiitions are

known. It is evident that the test specimen sliotildbe notched so that,the

stress conditions simulate those anticipated in service.

Assuming that the stress conditiofisi.rl“the test bar at the start

of test simulate those found in the large’plate, it is necessary to consider

those points on the energy absoi~tion curve whi”chare equivalent for the

two different modes of testing”. Nom t0 a first approximation, the transition

temperature range’for the large’plate t~sts can be considered as being

,,.!. ,,,negligibly narrow, i,6., intkrme”diatevalies of energy”absorption can be

obtained o~y with app”f’eciabl~cii.?fi:fil’ty, and only within a tiemperekure

interval “of!‘10-15°F. On the other hand, the t’ransifiontemperature range.,,,,

for the impact test is very large. In the disctissionabove it has been indi-

cat~d tbt this spread in”tdansitibn’temperaturerange.‘isdue essentially to

cnaryjesin g~ornet?yof ~he tiestbar. ‘If M,is were’corre’et,the point en the

,,energy absorption curve which could possibly best reVe.slthe”changestaking

place in the metal to give a brittle failure is that lowest temperature at

which maximum energy absorptionis o’btained. This point should correlate

directly with the corresponding point obtained in the large plate tests.

Data for the project steels tsken in this way are presented in Table L. Tnese

data do not agree with the large plate results. ‘rherefore} either the reason-

ing employed above is wrong or an additional variable, which has not been

26

anticipated, is operative.

A factor wtiictiktisriotbea, considered above as determining, in,. ..., ,,; ,

any wayj thk ‘transition-temperature or f~e,yarioue steels is the rat’:,“at ~~ “:’‘..:

which the”te’s’tis”conrluctedfcr the,rates of straining. The large”plate “ .’,,

,.tests are static tests‘whichare q,oqducteda: rates of straining”even”le~s”” ‘:~~~.

,.,

th- those’that tight ‘beencountered:.und:;,,:se;vi~e cOnditiOns in”vessels~ ‘:,

On the ottierhaiid,’the impact test is,.,condu@d at rates Of straining an

order of mignitude “greater.. P.ossi:blythe clifferences in the ra+~esof‘“’strii”n-.’

ing can acccwnt for the:non-agreeqent of .th~two tests, .,

Tnb’d>.t.a’pi’esented‘in.Fi~. L-a.serve to e~an~e this n.@tiOfi.These

data are tk<ei ~~oioD&videiimv ,a@ V{ittrnvn;6,.,

,,

The cliange”frbm”& dynamic bend.te,stto a static bend test”u<ing”;,, .,

in both instanceS”’kh4’‘saik~test.:bar,has altered the temperature”‘atpoin~ A~’:

Fig. &a,” by’m6re‘ttian””blJ%for a steel which is roughly comparable’”to’

the ship pkte %ei”ng”inve$ti.gatedundsi_.th,ea:,r:lated projects. This tie-:,. ... ..:.

duction in the lowest’“temperature,at,wh;c,~.@@mum, energy absOrPt~Ori’”i~““’‘::..,..:..:

obtati’edis“’of”ihe riAt br”der.of.qag~],i},u@e..to,bring this P?int ~:~0 di~~Ct “‘,. ,.,..,.,.,,,.

correspon.ieneein the ‘stillscale test and in.the large plate test. ~~ie,,,

.,.change in the enerjgy‘absoiptiomcwvs ,,asa f~ction of the rate of sttiainng

,.,,

is now being fiiestigated for.the prg~ect..steels.:,

,..,. ,. .:.,,

. ,,

.,. .

.— ,,, ,

6 See Bibliography

.:

27

One of’the specified objectives of ‘ReS@cli F@jeit SR-96,,, ,

was the metallograph~c examination of th~ proje’ct’bteels. while’it

was doubtful that such an examination cou?.d’‘fiin{sh”tke’key”to a ~,.

laboratory test whereby the steels could’be ‘eia_iu&teil,t$ was fdlt

that it should be conducted nonetheless.” ~~.,.

Specimens mere selected from the impact test “barsand were

eubjected to a routine examination. All specimens Were sectioned ~

parallel’and perpendicular to the rolling direction. Af’terpolishing,

the surface was examined in order to reveal any peculiarities”i.b-”:”,,

:. ‘“;sociated with the structure of iricluslons.‘”Following this ex+imtnatfon

the specimen was etched with picial ‘~d ‘riital’for”‘p~oto~iaph$zigat!,

600 diameters. Subsequent~y ~t”was”re-etched “!~ithnital “andphoto-,,

graphed at 50- and 100- diameters”. ‘“”’,,

Due to the highly subjective:character of ‘theanalysis of

metallographic data, little would be gained by an”attem”wtedilescrip-:,

tion of the structures obtiiiied. In preference to”:su?h a descrip”-”!. :., ,,,,,

tion,’the photomicrographis“arepresen~ed khile”ial~eht featureso’f,,, . .the various structures are pointed “~tit~“

,. ,,..,. ,.,

An effort has been rna&eto Correlate a sb-oalled ferrite

grain size with transi~ion ternpei,s{tir~for these‘“”Stesld. There is,, !.,.,,,:.., ,,,

scarcely any satisfactory procedure ~tiere~ tihis””iciiphfiscnican be

‘e.’~;.;made for, first OL L. there ie”pearli~e,“which plays s mOst ire--

port~nt rol~ in dete~~ining’teiis~ldprd~eft~e’s,present in the struc-,,, ,,. : .1,

,’,

ture; and eecondly, the ‘tiountOY pearlite in”the structures of the

28

,;,

various steels is not constant’. To a first approximation the

of pearlite in altering %lietensile properties of the various

action

steels

has been eliminated as a variable by stating the n~ber .offerrite,

grains”‘p~$’“square”inch of’“ferrite”. This is ef,fect$ve..ingiving a,..

correct statement o“fthe ferrite grain size. The number of.ferrite,,:. ,,,’.

grains’pbr”sq~ik inch has been plotted against the transition tem-,,

p$ia’tuie‘taken”at 50Z m~mum energy absorption. This,.manner of?plot-.;:.

ting is not equivalent to tie plotting of an A,S,,T,.M.,g~ain,.

b-aragaitist”the’fran<j.tion temperature and has been used,as,

ly moi% kefisititie‘~ograin”siZ8 changethanwouldbe ~..pl,ot

:gratn:size. “

sizs num-

it j.~ slight-

@A.SiT.N.

,

~xperimixitalR6s~s~ The photomicrographs of the :tee~q:arepre$ented[,. ,.

.,. ,,.,in ,Fige’i It-’l‘to’ti-12. “‘-’The steels are presented in the order of de-

,..cseasiiig”transition tem~erature. The plot of transition,temper@.ure,

,.’, .,.:.. .,,

from ‘brititleto ~uctile failure versus grain size is contained:.in Fig. M-13.,,.... .,,.

The photomicrographsof ~teel E presenteq in Fig. M-1 and M-1a!., ., ‘

reveal “tlie“stricturesfound“in the core and rim of .this,Timming~steel.,.

The der%rbti”tzei“’rim“is pla”inl.yevident in the longit:dipal,section at::.,,:.

50-ahd ‘IOO- diameters. Litti&”of this rim was,le,fto?,the speci~ens,,,,.- ,,

after”’the”mac~iriiri~operation as is”evident from an ex~inat$on of the,-,.,.:

transverse sections. The typical structure of this steel,+? best revealed,:.,:.

in the photomicr”6graphsof Fig. M-1a. ,.,

This s~ructure is characterized by a lack of:b@nd@g, a ,Iarger

proportion of pearlite than might be expected, end an extremely coarse

structure over all. A faintly developed ~iidmans’i~ttenstructure is dia-,.

cernible and ieads to “theimpression that the fj.ni,shi:gtemperature for

this steel may have been too high.’”The ratio of pearlite to ferrite for

29

tha~project.Steels is greatest:~or this steel.;whilS%h& fcmrite grain size

i$ greatesb for this $teel. “.~ ,,

,. In Fig: M-2 are ~Presented the ~hotomic??ogmplis’O! steel C. The be-

havior of’this”steel in ~the large plate tests places ‘it’with steel E “is’having

the maximum transition temperature of the projeot steels. This’bihavior finds

,=parsllel in the respective niicroetructures. Steel ‘Cis very siIf:ilar,micrO-

structura~lyj to steel E. h “forsteel E, there i“slittle tendeaey towe.rd

~”banding, the ratio of pearlite’to “ferriteis relativelyhigh, end the “ferrite

“grainsise is relatively large. Again there is a faint tendency for the steel

.toform a !lidmanst~ttenstructwe ihi”ch“againmay be interpreted,as resulting

‘fromtoo high a finish~ng temperature i.nrolling.

For steel A, Fig. 1!-3,there is a tendency “towardbanding, although

tbls is not nronaunced, “itfirst Sight the ratia of pearl.iteto ferri”~eap-

pears to be 16ss than ‘%as‘true‘farsteels E and C: iio%ver$ meaiuFemen’tXdo

not,bear this .cbservationcut.: TMe ‘relativeamoimts of pearl.iteTo? the three

.stxielsar”e:“aboutthe se.me(see Table ~}:!).The ferrite’grain size is not ap-

prec$ably Analkr than tlm~ for stsels E “e,nc2“C. ~~ ‘‘~ ‘“’ ~~!“ :~

It would appear that tb.eessential”differeticebetxeen the rnisro-

“‘structure far steel A tindthat ‘forsteels E and C lfee in the “kbeermeof the

;?~idmanit?itfen.s“tr~actureiriete’elf..~”“ ~.~ ... ., ,,. ,

:ZmFigs; K-4 and -5 are firesetitedthe microstrticttiresPor steels

~Br and En. These structures difY&v little “fromone anotherso may be dis-

mu$sed “togetiher.

The strtitures are banded and’definitely finer thaa any discussed

above. The’pefoentage pearlite in”the stmctu.reis dicreised as would be ex-

petted from the redudtion in carbon :dontent. However, despite this reduction

in percentage.“ofl“pediiti the rol”lidgpfoceis”htis“beensuch that the pearlite

30

.,

,.

.:.,. .zones are nearly continuous. “Thus“’&e” stricture,approximaiesa corylitionof

elternate ferrite and pearlite regions. This condition obtains throughout the

plane of the “plateas is evident from a ~consideration of the

tions. The feriiitegra~risize ‘isSomewhat smaller then that

,’viously discus~ed steels.

,,The rnicrostrticturesof steels Dr and Dn, Figs. M-6

be considered together, Again the steel is banded, however,

transverse sec-

found in the pre-

and M-7 may also

in this case in

the longitudinal direction only- Banding ii the transverse directicn does

exist but is not so pronounced as in the longitudinal direction. Thus the

pearlite zones are more nearly lath shaped than~planbr as mms true for steels

Br end l?n, Iiu%her the pearlite zones are dist,ribwtedmore ,uniformlythrough-

out the structure than imistru6 for steels Ilrand,,En. The:ratio cf pearlite1,’.to ferrite has increased dub”to the increase in.the percentage of carbon in

,....the steel. “The”~errite grain”size for the as-rolled steel is ?bout.the same

as that for steel Bn;”that for et’eelDn iiisomewhat reduce.di ~.,.

In ~g. ~1-~’‘are“presentedphot6micrographs of steel Q. Tbis steel

is structurally entirely differeritfrom the”remaining ptoject steels. For

this reason it would be unwise to:attempt a discussion of this structure in

terms analogous to those used for the other steels, It is prObably sufficient

to state that this structure is tempered bainite. This bainite iS high tem-

perature bainite, a structure which was not desired, and a structure which

normally does not have especially desirable properties. A structure of this

type has been referred to i.nsoresinstaucss as a “Slack-quenchedtrstructure.

Steels F, -G and -H are all.high manganese low carbon steeis mb.ich

have been fully killed. The respective mfcrostructures of these steels are

presented in Figs. -’3,M-10 and 11-11. The structures of steels F and H are

identical and “differfrom that of-steel G. This sit~tiOn might hsve been

31

anticipated from a consi.derati.on of the impact properties for these steels.

Steel G has the least desirable”‘.ititic~ufeo’?the three steels as it is char-

acterized by regions of high pearlite concentration.

There is ““li~tle{e~ldencytoward banding “in’“SteelsF ‘and H. This

effect ‘i.s most noticeable in “steelG. The totbl tiount of pearlite”is the

sconein each of the “threestructures~

,.The ferrite ‘gkainsize”is larger than that fouid in””all‘steels”‘but

steels C and E.

In Fig.12 ak~ presented the photomicrographs of’steel N. As”pre-

viously”indicated the outstanding character stic of this structure is the

highly refined ferrite grain size. There is a tendency toward banding while

,.

32’

,,., ,f .. . . . ,,.

The examination of.the inclusions revealed,them to.,bethe

expected Aulphides and oxides. Since the d~stribution.of,these non-

metallic cannot be ascertained from.?,pho,~micr?graphj no,,ph@Omicro-

griphs’of inclusions are presented..~~Foyever an a$te~pt has be-enmade

to contain in the field at 600 diameters a large inclusi~% !!,is :

pointed out that thismay not be a typica~.,inclusionin a.3Llinstances.

The study d m.icrostructureshas:.@owe$l PO s?ti.ofac$o,ry... .., :

botrelation of this factor with the.energy,a@g.r,@iQn.c%~~~beristi,cs .,.,..

of the ~teel~~ T~~us~~e a~~eration Of ,f!+?rritegrtiirlsi@ @ 8.giyen ..

steel produces a co:]siderahlechange in trs.wvitiontemperature for

that steel, as measured b~ the standard impact test. But.the effec~

of a change in ferrite grain size fron steel ta steel mcy be com-

pletely concealed in so far as the energyabsorption character stice

are concerned+ The uab., here as elsewhere, indicate indirectly that

one of the most important fa~tors in the determinination of the energy

absorption charack’istics of the steel 5.sthe deoxidation practice

employed in the melting prccess.

33

1. Research Project NRC-92, IICleavage Fracture of Ship Plate as Influencedby Design and Metallurgical Factors NS-336, Part II - Flat Plate Tests!!,OSRD No. 6452, Serial No. M-608, dated January 1946.

2. Research Project NRC-93, I!Cleavage Fracture of Ship Plates as Influencedby Size Effect,IINS-336, OSRD No, 6457, Serial No. L-614, datedJanuary 1’946.

3. ResearchprojectNRC-96,I!Correlation of Laboratory Tests with FdlScale Ship Plate Fracture Tests,!!OSFTJNo. 6204, Serial No. L.-613,

dated October 1945.

4. ResearchprojectNRC-94, NCorrelation of Laboratory Tests with FtiScale Ship Plate Fracture’Tests,’1NS-336j OSRD No. 5380, SerialNo. L-526, dated July 1945.

5. H. l!euber. IIKerb~Pann~gslehre u Berlin, Julius Springer 1947. me

David Taylor Model Basin Translation 7.4, November 1945.

6. N. Davidenkov and F. }Iittmann: Techn. ?hys. USSR, Vol. 4 (1937)p.308.

7. Research Project SR-92, ffcausesof Cleavage Fracture in Ship Plate:

Flat Plate Tests,‘fSerial No. SSC-2, Contract NObs-31222, datedAugust 1946,

8. Research Project SR-93, I!Cleavage Fracture of Ship Plate as Influencedby Size Effeet,!!Serial No. SSc_3, Contract NObs-31224>datedAugust 1946.

34TABLE 1

STEELS INVESTIGATED ON PROJECTS tid-92:,.-93AND -96 ;

Designatio~

A

BI!Bn

c

Dr Dn

E

F

G

.H

N.,

Q

,,,’

Description Use—

Carnegie-Illinois ‘!!Chattanooga!!Normal ‘ NRC-75 &., SE-92

Carbon and Manganese, Semi-killed

Bethlehem, Low Carbon and ,“High,Manganese sR-92

Semi-killed; Br = as rolled; Bn = normalized

Carnegie-Illinois, Noymal Carbon and SR-92,:

Manganese Semi-kiiled

Lukens Fully-killed Steel; Dr . as rolled; SR-~3

Dfi= normaliz+d

Lukens Rimmed Steel SR-~3 and,, David Taylor

;, Model Basin!:

Bethlehem Low Carbon and High SR-93

;~,Manganbse, Fully-killed .

Bethlehem Low Carbon and High SR-93

lknganese, Fully-killed

Bethlehem Fully-killed steel .16 C and .85 l,fn~SR-92

Lukens 3~ Nickel, 01594C Steel 60,000 Psi, ~ SR-92

Yield Point, as rolled

kt~publ,ic.23X C and le05~ linSteel Water SR-72

Quenched and Drawn to 70,000 Psi Tensile

strength

Code

A

Br

Bn

c

Dr

Dn

E

F

G

H

N

Q

c%—

.26

.18

018

.24

.22

.19

020

.18

.20

018

“17

.22

TABLE 2.—.—

CHIMICAL ANALYSES OF THE STEFJH—.—.

ml% :P% s% Si%’ .41$. Ui % Cu $ Cr % Mo % ~n:j— — -. ,--—. -— —— . .

.50 .012 .C39 “03 ,012 .02 .03 .03 .006 .C03

.73

.73,

.54

.33

.82.

,86

.76

.53.,

L.13

.CQ8 ,030 ~~ .07 .015 .05 .07 .03 .@36

,011 .’030., .04 .013 .06 .08 .03 .006

.012 .026 .05 ,,016 .02 .03 .03 .(X35‘

.013 .024 ““ ,21 “020 : .16 .22 .12 .,Q22~

:011 .024 ’19 .019 .15 “22! .12 c.021

~o13 .020 .01 0009 .15 .18 .09 .Li18

,Olz .031 .Js .054 ~ .04. .05 .03 .008 ~~

.020‘ ,020 ,19 .045 -.08 .15’ .Llk .018

.o12;’.019 ,15 ~ .053 ,05 .Q9 .04 .OM ““

.011 *o~ .23 .&? ‘“ 3.39 ,.19 .06 .D25

.O11 ..030 .05 .008 .05 .13 .03 .~06

.012

..015

.003

c023

;025:

.0Q4

.o17

.018

V % < .02; As % < .01 in eachsteel. .

*Supplied by the Bethlehem Steel Corporation

W!42

36

GAS ANALYSES BY BATTfi~ ‘M~”C.TSJ.\~_——

,...,. .,. :

:.. ‘ Co~OSITION IN ‘JEIMT PFliCENTAGE

~gen Nitrogen...Vacuum Vacuum Nitrogen

ST8jlL Fusion Fusion,.—. —— Kjeldahl

,,

E ., 0.012 .Q.002 0.005

I)n. .,,0.002 0.003 0.005

Dr 0.002 0,Ool+ 0.005

A ,,,,, 0.012 O.ool+ o.00!+

c 0.011 0.007 0.010

A 0.010 .0.003 0.004

En ,o.o@ 0.004 0,005

,,

37 ...,,.,,..;

TRE TEMPERATURE OF TRANSITION IN DEGREES FAiIRENHEITAT 25% ANDAT 50% OF MAXIMUN ENERGY ~BSORPTION FOR THE STANDARD LH CHARPY_. .;....... ....... V-NOTGH SPECIMEN,— -—..——

,,,.,,.,...,, 72!1}~id~p~~te

w a .5.QZ Results (Ref.)‘+

A 55’ “’“’90 35 (7)...

Br -20 *1O 30 (7)

% +10 30 45 (7)

o ~~~65 ““100 95 (7)

Dr u 1+5 30 (8)

D~ (~) “,7 30 y3 (8)

E (2) ~oo i’50 92 (8) “

F ‘o‘-L -40

G 20 40

H -m o

N -130 -50 -40 (7)

Q -30 -5

(1) Max. E.A. c 100’# (Assumed)(Energy Absorption)

(2) ,! E.A. 3 80r# (Assumed)(Enei.gyAbsorption)

,*See Bibliography

38

THE Tg’P~ATgRE OF TRAIisITIONIN DEGRRES FAHRENHEIT AT 25%:~AND“AT:50~,OF MAXIMIJUE!\fERGYABSORPTION FOR THE STAYDAW ,

“ “IXC.HARPYKEYRoIE NOTCH.SPECIMEN. :; ~ ...——.,. ,,,.,.

72” Wide PlateResuits (Refa~++

35 (7)“:

30 (7) ““

45 (7) “

95 (7) “

Zil

-20

-/+0 -30

-Lo -20

15c 0

Dr -80 -60 30 (8)

30 (8) ‘“

92 (E)

Dn -70

5

-6o

E

1’

30

-65

-40

-50

-220

-85

-55G

H -8o

-40 (7)N ., ,.

Q

-230

-1oo -’55

+.See Bibliography

39

TABLED

,.,,,

THE TEMP~T~ “OF “~~l~TION IN.DEG8i3ES.FAHR’NREIT AT 25% ANDAT “50%OT ‘MAXIMUh?’ENiRGYABSORPTION FCJRTRE ti RECTANGULAR NOTCH,

FULL PLATE THICKNESS SPECIMENS

,.,.7P Wide Plate

m .... _Results (Ref.P-

A ““ 40 60, 35 (7)

Br “ . ... ,.5 10., 30 (7)

Bn ‘...,:. 15 ,. 35 45 (7)

c . 35 ,, 50 95 (7)

Dr -45 -:20 JO (8),....

Dn, -40 -30 30 (8J ‘“

E 45 75 92 (8)

F -.50 ‘-30.,,,

G. -15 10

H ,, -30.,., 0 ..

N . -140,,,, -Do -40 (7)

Q -30 15

40

TABLE E

Tw TEMPERATURE OF TRANsITION IN DEGREES FAHREMIT AT 25ZAND AT.50% OF MAXW ENERGY.ABSORPTION FOR THE STA~DARDLH “C~~PY KKYHOLE NOTCH”;SP~IM@N. SPECIW3NS TAKEN FROMj2-2-CH WEDE “i!3STPLATES.,. ,... ,..

721Ji’idePlateSteel Tested at ‘F.

A..’,.,,, “3~35

A 75

Br 30-35

Br ‘ 72

Bn 29-32

fin 72

c’ 3C-33

c 75-7$

Or o

Dr ;15,.

Dx,””~ .“ ‘.3x

,.Jn -38

h o

Dn ‘“ 15

Dn ‘ ‘“ 32

E “’ 38

E “$, 7,4

~“.’l Jo

?&

,.“ 10

40

-20

15

-45

5

-15

50

-85

-55

-85

-85

-65

-20

0

65

80

72” i~idePlate ,& ~e,~~, (itef”) * :

35 “ 35 (7) ““”’““‘:

45 35 (7)

-15 30 (7)

35 30 (7)

25 45 (7)

20 45 (7)

o 95 (7)

70 95 (7)

-6o 30 (8)

“-50 ““30 (8)

-15 ‘ 30 (8)

-70 30 (8)

-70 ‘ 30 (8)

-6o ~~ 30 (8)

-15 30 (8)

35 92 (8)

95 ‘“”92 (8)

95 ‘“ 92 (8)

-%See Bibliography

u

TABLE .F.

,. ...

THE TE1.~FEhITuREOF TRANSITION.m DEGKiES FA@mmyT AT 25% AmAT 50% WiXIiKJMENERGYABSORPTION‘FORT8E ‘STANDARDLH ““CWY ,

.,,.. KEYHOLE-NOTCH SPECIMEN .....’.:..~-—

~ l?RE5TdMN”””2% IN ELONGATION ,,,’,: .“7?213.Ride Plakc

w 2?? ‘“ ~, ““” ~esults (Ref.~.$ .

A ,,, 20 40 35 (7)

Br -20 ,.5 30 (7)

Bn -20 0 45 (7)

c 40 ,,,55 95 (7)

Ih- =63 -30,.

Dn -75 -55!

E 50 70

H +o -55

Q PRESTRAIi?.=5% IN ELONGATION

~t~ ~~ y&%

A 35. 45,.

Br ,, t5:..,,. 10

Bn -10 0

c 55 ,,,65,.,:

Dr ,, -35 0

30 ($)

30 (8)

92 (8)

72’1wide PlateResults (Re~

,.

35 (7)

30 (7)

.45(7)

95 (7)

30 (8) ,,,

Dn -45 ~~ -25 30 (8),,.’ ,.

E 45, ~~,, @ 92 (8)

H -55 -35

+-See Bibliography

Q PFXSTRAIN.=..10~.IN ELONGATION72” wide Plate

m ,U, ,, & Results (Ref.) L*

A 40: 60 35 (7) 60....

Br 10 20 30(7) ,,, 50

Bn 15 30 45 (7) 50

c 70 95 95 (7) 80

Dr -5, 20 30 (8)., 80

Dn -30 0 30 (8) 60

E 60. 85 92 (8) 55

H -40 “20 30

* The increase in the”transition temperatur& “re.sultin~’from 10%

Strain in Tension at 50% Max. E. A. (energyabsorpti.bn),,

~l@~, K. ~

THliTEL’E23RATJREOF TIMISI’TIONIN DEGREESFAW~JHEIT AT 25%iND AT 50% OF MXIMUM EN’itRGYABSO~TION FOR PLATES OF ;T!iE~:C OF VARIOUS THICKNESSES

,,,,, f,

“’it;’- STiiDMiD LijCHARPYmfi&E.+oTcH sp~cm ,

Plate-—— a

1/,7II -45.

5/8’! -lo

3/4” 0,.

11! (~i~) 10,

11,(core) 5,,,,,.

1..1/81!(rim) 10

I-l/L+tf(core) 25

50%—

-25

-,5

15

30

25

30

b5

El..,- STANDARD LH CH.AHPYV-NOTCH SPECIb@,N.

PlateGa~ ~~ .’:,,. ~~~...— “a

l/2i1 30

5/@l 55

3/4! 70

1,,(r~) 80

1!,(core) 70

l-i/81!(rim) 70

1-1./8!!(core) 72

70

95

100

105

100

110

105

THi LOi{ESTTEliPEFLLTDRIIFOR iIL”iXIMLJMEijERGYABSORPTION FORT,H?J~ACT, ‘TESTSPECIMENS FOR THJ.,~ROJE~T ,,S.TE~... “

V-Notch Keyhole-Notch “” Full WidthTest Data Test.I)ata, , Specimen Data

,... .,.....

45

... . :,,,.,.“A T 86 “ ““,””14 .163

L -3 85.9 “ lL.1 ,165

Br T 32 90.3 - 9.7 .107L Lo 90.8 9.2 .101.— -..

Bn T 60 87.3 12.7 .145L “ 82.— 85Jl__ M..1 ~164

c T 34 85.5 14.5 ,170L .4 16.2&.8 .19J

h T 85 15 .177L— –-iG— 83*1 16.9 .202

, “’____ “7M T 86.1 1.3>9 .162L 11’7 Pg.g ——J.U —u

. E T 30 79.1 20.9 .264L 31 83.6 16.4.—— .197

F T 30.5 8’7.7 12.3 .Ml.!- L 2L----- 8$.1 11.9. .—. A6

,.,: G T 24 82.0 18.0 ‘“ .219-—-.L ‘ 30.——._&M.. J.47 172- -

N T 2?2 90.4 9.6 .106L 185 .~E 7.1 .0765

Q ~L ,..—-— .— -- .—.. -

,.

A Steel.—

L6

,,.. ,/.:,, &PE~DI~ A ,,,., MILL DATA... .

,,,,,

Heat Number72U22

. XieldPoint37,900Psi.. . .

Ultimate :tr?n,eth59,900Psi

iilongationin 2 inches 33.5%

Finishing,?emp~ature 1900 F.

i)eoxidation

1--1/3lb..of s,fiiconper tOn in the ~a~e and,,,

1/3 lb. of aluminumin the mold

CJhe@icalAnalysis ‘“””

g Ml ~.L .A .,.

Ladle ~~ .15 ~~ .77 .010, .029,,.

Check 9Q062.~6 “ 074 .oL1. .030

.02 Si, .O11 P.

:~

.05

.03

Total Chzirge 380,840,.,

,,,.Perct?htHot.,tiletal 49”0

~ Percent Strap 45.0

percent Ore ,. L.7,.,

Percent.L.irneston?,.., 6>.4

Furnace Addition: Fe m -3,000 lbs, 8 Minutes

Ladle Addition: Fe kn - 1,500 lbs,

Fe Si - 200 lbs.

Al Si - 450 lbse

B. Steel

C Steel

:,,

(Contld) Mold”Additi6n: Small amount of Al to cap.

The normalizing temperature of -theplates which were

furnished in the normalized condition were 16500 F. ‘“

The physicaltests ‘on the plates on which the

check analysis was made are as follows:

Serial Gauge Yield Point Ultfmate EIong. 8“ Treatment

98062 3/4” 35800’ 596oo 26.0 As Rolled

98o62 3/.4” 3@J(J ... “58900 “ 32*O Normalized

,’

,,,Heat ?~o.572367

,..

Deoxidation Practice

Bath Addition:

Ladle Addition:

Weld Addition:

Ladle Analysis

6-@? ~briper ton of 80% Ferromanganese

6 lb. per IXXIof “8o% Fer$o-m~ganese

2.6 lh. per ton of 50Z Ferro-silicon”

1}3 ‘Ib.per tori“of Aluminum

~ >. ,s~ ,!

.24 .49 .015 .033 .043.,

Mold Size 31 in. x 66 in.,.

Slab Siz~ L-3/L in. to 6-1/Lin. x 62 in. x 5951lb. to 11851,.

~ate Ga~q 1/2 in. to l-1/8,,in.

NO finishing temperature recorde.d.~

The following are the mill test re~qlts on the as-rolled plate:

‘,

,,.. .. .. ..,-

,., ”

lb.

C Steel (Contld)—.

1+$

‘T”s. “4X.

LPQ.1l/2 in. 41,200 68,400 26.5

,,,.

5/8in. ““ 4O,41O” 68,900 25.00

,..——,- —.-

,,

3/4 in. 39,78Q 67,760 25.5

38,930 67Z31+0 25.5

.38,200 ~~~~~~ 67;2L0 ““ 25.0

..— -—

1 in. L0,780 69,900 24”75

1-1/8in. 38,720 6,8,720 24.0;,

‘y_”—”.—

D Steel

...

Heat No. 2031+o

Silicon Killed Steel

Chemical Com~osition (Ladle Analysis)————, —.

W-l Cu

is ..2. : ~~~,2” A ““

.18 .55 “015 .028 a23 ;20

Dimensions & I/eightof the ‘i-

bize ‘ lit.with Hot T= Wt. under Hot Top—.

42 X 16# “’9;300$ ““” 7,700$,. ,’:..

,,,J~O*idatiOn.Fractice (Furnace) 0etails of Melting Practice—. ..-

“Spiegel .......................1.575+,,’.

~.Ferro Mangariese”80%.’.’.......... 1.365#

Ferro Silicori“15%‘.’...”......... 2>625#

49

D Steel(Cent’d)—.—

DeoxidationPractice(ddle ).-

F&O:’Silic:On50iZ.......................... 1,365#

Aluminum- Shot ........................... ,loo,#

Aluminum- Bar ...’...,...................... lcQ,f

Tensile FNP rbies”““(As’Flofi”ed)

Yield Point Tensile StrengthLb. per,Sq. Lb. per Sq.

inch inch—. -

40500 67200,.

Tensile.Properties \.Jormalized)

Yield Point Teneile StrengthLb. per ‘Sq. Lb. per tiq.

inch ..inch

45300 69300

E Steel

Heat No. 20279

RimiingSteel

Elongation Reductionin 8 inch in Area.percent Percent.—

27.0 50.1

&longation Reductionin 8 inch in krea.

Percentpercent .-

32.0 57.3

chemical Composition (Ladle Analysis),., ~.

c MI-l P s Si -~u

$ 2 g $ 3 ,, ,,+’

023 .39 .019 “ .032 _O08 ‘“ ,19,.

M.mensi.on.s& Wef@c of the hg~~s:.’—-... — —

Size lit. with Hot=—... Wt,,under Hot Tg..—.. —. ——.— . ,......- ..

L42x16# ., . 10,2O’W ------,,,.,.,

Furnace Additions:—.. Detaiis of Melting practice.— ,,,

Ferro Manganese ~% ‘..’.”.’.’.”.’.......8@#

50

E Steel (Contld)— ,—

Ladle Additions:.

——......

Aluminum - Bar ...................20.+

FerroSilicon50~.................3o.#

Tensile,Properti~~

Yieid,Point ~~Tensile Strength FJ.ongation ,ReductiOnLb, per Sq. Lb. per Sq. in 8 inch in Area.inch inch .E@21@2— pert.ent—.— —

38000

H Steel...———.

625oO 28.0 52.3

Xeat No. 75H017

.17 .82

Chemical Compositi~—.

P Si Al,,,f‘e .; 2 2

.022 a024 .15 .056,-

Fully A.1Killed!:. ,

Tensile Properties (As Rolled)—..

Yield Point Tensile Strength tilorigitionin Reduction ofpsi” ~ ~i ,, : 8!1~

..— —— ..-.

&2,800 ‘ 63,8ix:’ ‘“ . ,24 1+6.8

Impact Resistance (As Rolled)

Charpy Keyhole Notch specimens perpendicular to the

rolled surface.

Energy Absorbed, Ft. Lbs. at

76”F. 0%. -~. -g”y. -X8——

55 38s$ 25.5 10.4 5.5

51,,

N Steel!.. . ,,

Heat No. 20572 “‘- ““” ‘“

‘Chtical” Composition”’” “‘

Ni .~i.,,,.....c. . ..& P

3 s Z g ,.,.;2 ,......”... .

ultimatestrength79,400-77j2~psi

Elongation25.5%

Q Steel

~‘““tie&ttib.1-%5’749

Chemical Composition

. “SC EZJ ~ 2$

.21,$:05.~~!.‘ ‘ .011 .030

,, ,,

Heat Treatment., ,’,...,.,

. ...—

qu~nch in,water from 1625 Fahti.(drastic quench),

“’‘“-””’”Draw two (2) hours at 1300 FahrP

.,,

.,

FIG. A - IDEALIZED ENERGY ABSORPTION -

TEMPERATURE CURVES.

TEMPERATURE

60

50

40

: 300@mu

& 20auzu

10

60

E

50

40

30

20

10

FIG. A-I

STEEL E

‘KEYHOLE NOTCH

. .

-120 -60 -40 0 40 80 120

TEMPERATURE OF

—.

L I [ I 1-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160

TEMPERATURE ●F

III

“SET--M NOlldtiOS9V AW3N3

55

.

120

m’ 100(cJ

~“ FIG.6_6

80v - NOTCH

60

40

20

-

120

~. !00

m ●

J.

; 80/

.z~

.

1-: 60

FIGB-7

STEEL D“

g

mV-NOTCH

440

$.

ff 4

z~z 0

/ *

●4

-?20 -80 -40 0 +40 +80 +120 + 160 +2,

TEMPERATURE–”F

120

100

q~

k 80 .STEEL E

&v-NOTCH I

~ /6!.a-cc4E ●-RIM1- 80

I

1

< /4 0

$ “o

wz / d QU2 0

/

+& m -$

-ha -80 -4’3 0 +40 +80 +Izo +l@ +=Q

TEMPERATURE- ‘F

140 I .FIG. B-9

120STEEL F

V-NOTCHuim$100~

●

zc1 80

I

Fnm0~ 60<

$w 40$

{

●

20

./ (

-160 -120 -m -40 0 40 60 120 160TEMPERATURE ‘F tn

-

.●

I

II

!20

E

FIG.

STEEL H

STAND4RD LH V- NOTCH100

*?~k 80

,,&-120 -00 -~

●

✏

)040 80 120 ISO

TEMPERATURE OF

120FIG.B-12

STEEL Q .STANDARD LH V- NOICkl

100

:7~ 80L

5c~ 60

~

:

ij 40

w

5

209

0 I-lea -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 1

TEM.=fRATURE ~F

120

STEEL NSTANDARD LH V- NOTCH

. .

100

:i’~ 80

zg~

,

n’ eo/

8

:

& 40 /z

: .“

20.

-0240 -2CK! ‘!60 ’120 ‘w ‘m 0 40 00

TEM PERATURe W

100F!G.Bw3

STEEL G

V - NOTCH .(j 60

‘3

L.~ 60

r%

/.

8~ 40

G%Z 20

/

-80 ’40 0 40 80 120 160 2W

TEMPERATURE ‘F

70FIG. C-1

STANDARD LH SPECIMEN

KEYHOLE NOTCH SUM MARY60 - —7 ~H

/ ‘././

/

m’ 5Q /m

en

-1

:Lz 40 -

g 7(+

%oV) 30m<

Gixwz 20w /

10

_~; &

/ J

A-- ~-~--- —-- E-

-200 -160 -120 -00 -40 0 40 80 120 160

TEMPERATURE “F

!!II

I

I

80

FIG. C-2

50

KEYHflE NOTCH

40

●

30.

20

to ..

-0120 -20 -40 0 +4o +~ +1~0 ‘f~ ● 2WTEMPERATURE - “F

60

d 50mA

~

I40 . .

-a . ●

.

$/ A

.

kL 30a

.

:F 1G.C-3

~STE2L em

KEYHOLE NOTCH20

t~ /

51 0I

.1-

~120 -80 -40 0 +40 “M “=+Im +

TEMPERATURE -“F

60[ I

50

I I I A.

40I

●

1111.1-

.“/

34 /. F!G.C-l

STE2L 8“

KEYHOLE NOTCH

20

~ /w .z 10 /

/ .

l--w

... I

~120 -80 -40 0 “0 ‘w ’120 ‘lW ‘ao

TEMPERATURE – “F

Iw

80

m“50mJ

FIG,C-5STEEL C

: KEYHOLE NoTCH, 40

zQ~ ●~ 30

VIm<~ 23

Zu

31 0

oh -

-Go -20 -40 0 +4o +80+!20 +120 +200

T’EMP!ZRATUW -“F

I I /i- ● T I I 130

r 1G.C-6

10 I

/

a 10

-IJO -40 0 +40 +@ +f~ +160 +mo

>0dwzu

TEMPERATURE – “F

80

50 . . ~

sTEEL EKEYHOLE WTCH

40 o= cCRE .-RIM

“

30.x---

20

.

!0

/:

0 . -s!& ~ --@”-,. -40 0 +40 +aO +120 +160 +200. .

TEMPERATURE – “F

0

I I I

--F m=.STEEL D“

KEYHOLE NOTCH

I

FIG. C-9

60 STEEL F4m

KEYHOLE NoTCH

+

~wu.

z

2 40A

aa0m: 30

~.

u; 20w /

/

.

I o .

L

-200 -160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 60 120

TEMPERATURE “F 3

I

eo

STEEL H

STANDARD I-H KEYHOLE NOTCMso

40k ● (

Ec& 30

g

:

: 20

: . /“

10

#

0-160 -,20 -Bo -~~ ~ ~. ~. ,20 ,m

TEMPERATURE .F

60~

FCC-I 10

STEEL N

9TANMRD LH KEYHOLENOTCH .

so

:-1 .

F 40L.

z●

:~ 30

~ :

G 20,..z.“

10

.

.

’240 -200 -160 -IZO -eo -40 ~ 40 00

=MpERATURE *F

soFIG G-13

STEEL G

d KEYHOLE NOTCH ● —❑ 4(.

10 1 K I I I

TEMPERATURE W TEMPERATuRE ●F

FIG. D-1

3/4” WIDE SPECIMEN RECTANGULAR - :+ “

NOTCH 1~21’ X .197 “/

SUMMARY

* - ——

/~=

//

/

0 /

/’

I HI /

--- **a -,-120 -00 -40 0 40 60 Idu Iau &do

II

I20 1

F[G.IEZ

3/4 - WIDE SPEClMEN RECTANGULAR-

I00 — NOTCH !/32.X.197

STEEL A

;

; 80.g %

~ ~. @

$4

2● 40

#

:“

20

/“

&-~~

—0-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 420 100 200

TEMPERATURE Y

120 , 1 1

FIGRA

3/4. WIDE SPECIMEN RECTANGULAR-

100 — NOTCH 1/32- .197”- .-—

* STEEL 0“/

:/

/ / —.

w 80u. /

z0G SAN OAR1I v-NOlc f& 00 .

8 “#V3 /~. -.------; 40m

STAWARC ImYno LP NOTCH

2u

20.’

, /w

.’+ ~

0-120 -00 -40 0 40 SO 120 120 200

100,.!,? .- , 1 1 I I 1------

314” WIDE SPECIMEN RECTANWLAR-NOTCH 1/3.?, X .197,-

802TEEL B,

4~

A4 -T ‘“ ‘

I I I I I I-00 ’40 0 40 80 120 1*0

iZw

120 1 t

FIG.M

3/4,, WIDE SPECIMEN RECTANGULAR -100 — NOTCH !/s2- X.197”

~STEEL C

G *O1.

z~1-: 60

s

; 40m! -- —-. .-

:

20 I STAuDARD V- NOTCH

-120 -eO -40 0 40 80 120 Ieo 200

TEMPERATuRE ‘F

‘“m I3/4” WIDE SPEUMEN RECTANGULAR-

NOTCH l@2° X197

STEEL D.

//

tJ-

----7 ;*-” ‘E’HOL’‘“=”,---

. / ~,., / ~STAN XRD V-N OTCH

*

) -00 -40 0 40 00 120 100 2

120, 1 1 1 1 1 I I I

100 — NOTCH 1132.X.197”

STEEL E

:A~ 00.

z~

.

~ eo ~ - L

fi/ /

/?~ 40

fi/ /---- - ‘-/

6 STANOARD KEY40LC NOTc:, . ~

20 /1

/ STANo~ 0 V-NOTC H

—— ~-=

%0 -aO ’40 0 40 80 120 160 200

120-

100 rlc.u /

3/4”WIDE SPECIMEN RECTANG”LAR-/

NOTCH 1/32- X .1S7s [so — STEEL D.

+

60/

/“

“/,

aa

x -STANOARO KEYHOLE NOTCH

20 STANDARD V NOTCH -

a0.-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 1

TEMPERATURE ‘F

140-1 I I .

FIG. D-9

120 —e--r, c /

.%. Wln-ICLL r ,

I-,. .x SPECIMEN RECTANWLAR !

FK)TCH l/32” X .1971, 1/(6 I

I*

y 100 -

&I

Z 80

;

plK.5YliOl-E ----

NDT~ ,.-

;4 ,/’

w~

\

20 //

/ ,/’/

_ --L I , I , 1

-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 I

TEMPERATURE T TEMPERATURE ‘F

120, /

FIG.. D-1o

3/4. WIDE SpECIMEN RECTANGULAR- /I00 — NOTCH ~32” X ,107-

Oi STEEL H

:

~ 80

g

k8. eo0m

/2 /

& 40

z/

z/20

/

a ..-

-lea * -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160

TEMPERATURE V

!20. I

FIG.D-12

314. WIDE 9p.5.2MEN RECTANGULAR-

100 — NOTCH 1/328,X .107“

STEEL Q /

45 ~; 80L .

: V- NOTCH

; eoI

~

$● 40 -z

: 0“’.

20/

0-I*O +0 -all -40 0 40 ao 120 100

rlc. o-l I / - —

3/4. WIDE SPECIMEN R7ECTANGULA

100 — NOTCH l@2” X .197~

STEEL N /4 . ,

~ .-

, 80E

/ ~

;

~ eo /

:/ >---

/

----- -~--’ ‘---- -2 s ~-& 40

KE&HYHHE5t

20 ‘

.

0 . I 1 1 1 1 t-Ieo -lao -80 -40 00 40 80 120 160

I I I 1 1

TEMPERATURE Y

.

lwFIG. D-13STEEL G

3/4°<WIDE SPECIMEN RECTANCULAR-NOTCH 1/32,, X .197,,

80 -& /“ ‘

● 7

f

STANOARO V- NOTCH

●

60 II

I

.40 - -f. - -----

STAND$F$CKWIOLE ..”---

/,/ ‘

20,

/’

-.,

-80 -40 0 40 So 420 lob 2 m

TEMPERATURE T TEMPERATuRE ‘F

FIG. D-A

v-NOTCH

KEYHOLE NOTCH

LARGE PLATE

TEMPERATURE

-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160

TEMPERATURE ‘F

FIG. D-b-COMPARISON OF ENERGY ABSORPTION DATA FOR STEELS

OBTAINEO IN LARGE PLATE AND STANDARD CHARPY TESTS.

I

II

FIG. E-a LOCATION OF IMPACT SPECIMENS

IN LARGE PLATE SECTIONS.

+ c. D.+

FIG, E-ISTEEL A

60PLATE TESTED AT ‘F

AIA 75

~ A2A 30-35

~ 50A3 A 4p-so

g

g 40

i=/

& AIA

2

& A 2A~ 20~ \

10/

-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 I60 200 240TEMPERATURE ‘F

FIG. E-3STEEL Bn

60 PLATE TESTED ATOF

B-2A 29-32

$ &4A

~ 50B-5A 4:552

g

; 40& &

L

k/

; so

m<

>220.~

10 / L

-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 20D 240TEMPERATuRE ‘F

FIG E-2

STEEL Br

60 PLATE TESTEO AT ‘F uBIA 30-3sB3A 72

2 50 /

&❑ a

~ 40- / A ~

~3D

/

3

Gfi21 -~

10 / ,1

/

-120 –SQ -40 0 40 60 I20 160 200 2.TEMPERATuRE ‘F

)

$40

~

; 30

?

g Z.

:/

10

-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240TEMPERATURE ‘F

FIG. E-9

60PLATE A2A STEEL A

TESTED AT 30-35+.mJ50

g

z040

0. A

f

$,0

sf

~

fim J$

10

-

-120 -80 -40 0 40 60 I20

TEMPERATURE “F

I FIG. E-1 I IMl

PLATE B 3A STEEL Br

TESTED AT 72 W t

z+.0

L

z.~40 P

:

8.#O -<

ij)420~

10

-120 -80 -40 0 40 1TEMPERATUF

=+=

n200 240

FIG. E-10

PLATE ❑ IA60

STEEL B,.

TESTEO AT 30-35 *F~ -o-

0, -; 50

0

&/

z )Q 40

~

0 0; 30<$ g

f 20zw

g10

e fl

-120 -80 40 I 40 00 120 160 200 2

TEMPERATURE “F

FIG. E-12

60PLATE 62A STEEL Bn

TESTED AT 29-32 ‘F w o

L-120 -!

7(>

9

(>

0

-AO o 40 80 I

TEMPERATURE ‘F

e

160 200 :

II

*

FIG. E-13FIG. E-14

FiATE B4A STEEL Bn60

PLATE CIA STEEL C60

TESTED AT 72FTESTED AT 30–33 “F

G

. I? 50

(3 ;5D&

~ o0

z!2 40k pE$ m

(p

m 30m3 o

<<

~g

$ 20y2 o

um

10Q I o

*-40 0 40 2.0 120 160 200 240

-120 -80 -40 0 40 60 I20 160 200 240 -120 -60

TEMPERATURE “FTEMPERATURE “F

FIG. E-15FIG. E-16

RATE C2A STEEL CPLATE C4A STEEL C

60TESTED AT T5-78 OF

TESTED AT 60+2

‘q

:50~%

5

g z

g 40~ 40

,

:La

00 0/ ,~

{3 o:30 0 +3-

<

?

4>g ] 20u 20~

f 8u

10c) Io

~oo w

0

,-@

c .5

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 -80 40 0 40 120

-120 -80 -40

160 200 240 260TEM?ERATU RE “F

TEMPERATURE “F

I

60

q

50&

me8

zQ q~

D

g=?=~ FIG.E-17

~ ,0 ;/

PLATE 17-7 STEEL CmTESTED AT O*F

zSTANDARD LH CHARPY SPECIMENS

uKEYHOLE NOTCH

10 .“

.120 -60 -40 0 4080 120 160 200 240

TEMPERATURE “F

60

nm o~J 50

Q

~0.

e

540 - 0

‘i8 30$? &- FIG. E-19

PLATEs+5

STEEL Dr

$20 / TESTEOAT 15-F

~ / STANDARDLHCHARPY SPECIMENSKEYHOLE NOTCH

/10

w

-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 ~o 160 200 24C

TEMPERATURE “F

JIIImImI I FIG. E-18

~ PLATE 17 A 7 STEEL Dr I 1 ~ I I

60Q

o-J o

; 50 -~o 0-

k0

z / f0

Q 40 0k (K 0, 0

g 30 FIG E-20

o PLATE !4-7 STEEL On

5H 20

TESTEO AT ‘38QFSTAN04R0 LH CHARPY SPECIME N:~

~ KEYHOLE NOTCH

10

J

I -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200

TEMPERATURE “F

io

N

FIG. E-21

PLATE 5-7 STEEL Dn80 TESTED AT O OF

z-lSo

&(

o$40~ #-~

<~

~ 20$

10 /

-120 -80 -40 0 40 80TEMPERATURE *F

/

c1

160 200 240

60

~

J

Lg4-

0

%o%’30< FIG.E-23

PLATE 15-7 .STEEL Dn5:20

\

TE3TED AT 32*FSTANCARO LH CHARPY SPECIM ENS5

KEYHOLE NOTCH

10

0 @

-120 -80 -40 0 40 m 120 160 200 ;TEMPERATURE “F

60a

z-J5Q /

a~ a

g 4c -

F 0

223i- / Tm

?FIGE-22<

PLATE II -1 STEEL Dr

gzoTESTED AT 19F

STANOARD LH CHARPY 3WCIMENS6

10KEYHOLE NOTCH

~

-120 -80 -4o 0 40 80 120 160 200 zTEMPERATuRE ‘F

60FIG.E-24

PiATE 23-7 STEEL E

a TESTED AT 38” F-J 50 — STANDARD LH CJiARPY SPECIMENS

~KEYHOLE NOTCH

zQ40~

5$30 0/ .’

<

G~ 20z

n

w

10 so /0

~,,0”w

-PO -80 .-40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240

TCMFERATURE “F

7+

60FIG. E-25

%j PLATE CG-I STEEL-E

F 50& STAN IXRD LH C1-tARPY SPECI MEN: j

z KEYHOLE NOTCHo

0

p 40aK

:m 30-1

G& 20

i?i

10 A

o

-120 -60 -40 0 120TEM?ERATU;; ‘F

160 200 240

60FIG.E-2G

~ PLATE 13-A7 STEEL E

! 50TESTED AT IIO*F

STAN134RD LH CHARPY SPECIMEN! ;~ KEYHOLE NOTCH

~ 40.0

klx

($J 30

<

GH 20

zld

10

-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200 240TEMPERATURE ‘F

60FIG. E-27 .

STEEL N-PLATE NIATESTED AT 55-51

so

.40

.

.

30●

●

20 . /

.

.

10

●

-240 -200 ’100 ’120 ’80 ’40 0 40

TEMPERATURE ‘F

50FIG. E-28

STEELC PLATE C3

TESTED AT 00-10440

30●

●20

109

●

2

-80 -40 0 40 2.0 120 100 200 :

)

oTEMPERATURE ‘F

50FIG, E-2s

STEEL 0. KATE 05

TESTED AT49-5240

●

30.

●

20

10

-80 -40 0 40 2,0 120 180 200 240

TEMPERATURE OF

50FIG E-3o

3TEEL A PLATE A3A

TESTED AT 46-5040

30

20

10

-80 -40 0 40 80 120

TEMPERATURE ‘F

50FIG. E-31

TEEL DPPLATE 2-1 K

TESTED AT ?40

30

●

20

(P

10

●

200 240

.

-80 -40 0 40 80 I20 160 200

TEMPERATURE “F

77

50FIG. E-32STEEL DO

PLATE 12 A-I-KN ●

TESTED AT ?

‘j40Lu.

z 30g

●:

<

:

.ZI 0.

●

-s9 ’40 0 40TEMPERATURE

E120 160 200

‘F

50FIG. E-33STEEL Dr

KATE 18 A- I-K

TESTED AT 18(?)40

●

30

:0

4)20

10●

-80 ’40 0 40 80 120 160 200

TEMPERATURE ●F

FIG. E-34

376ELE pLATEIi3AIR

TESTED AT 141z 40$

~

53 0— — —

~●

;*2O

G

%~1 0 /

m

-80 -40 0 40 80 1.= 160 200

TEMPERATURE ‘F

80I

FIG,F-1STEEL A

50 - KEYHOLE FWKH–

TEMPERATURE *F

eo

30 PIG. F-2

TEMPERATURE Y

3) 160 200

I u

50

2TEEL Bfl

40

e.

ao )

,4’

20 t A

It

I!

101

,/’

0120 80 40 0 40 80 120 IeO 2

TEMPERATuRE ●.=

79

0

.

TEMPERATuRE ●F

tEMPERATURE OF

I-40 0 40 so ,= ,60

TEMPERATuRE

60I

FIG. F-9STEEL A

50 PKSTRAIN 2T.

I I KEYHOLE NOTCH I I I

TEMPERA7u rtE +

>

60I

FIG.F-[0STEELA

50 PRESTRAIN 5%

=yHOLE NOrcH

60 -

30.

.

20

./

10 /

-120 -80 -.0 ~ 40 ~. ,20

TEMPERATURE *F

BoI

FIG.F -11

STEEL A50

PRESTRAIN 10%

6 KEYHOLE NOTCH

3; 40u.

;: 30 .

g

;

& *O

E

2w

10●

TEMPERATuRE ●F

60

50 .Fl G. F-12_–STEEL Br

UEYHOLE NOTCHPRESTRA!N =2 %

40 A 2 ●●

. 6

30

:

20 - [

.

10.

9120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 2

TCM?ERATURE +

eo

60 FIG F-13STEEL 8,

KCYHOLE NOTCHpRESTRAI N -57.

. .“40 .

.

: ●

30

20

10

~

.

:120 -ao ’40 0 40 80 120 teo 200

TEMPERATURE ‘F

do

so Flc.1=-uSTEEL 0,

KEYHOLE NOTCHPRESTRA 1N. 13%

40

?. P

30.

.

ao -

10 /

.+ .

0 -’120 ’80 -40 0 40 80 120 !eo aoo

TEMPERATURE V

83

00 ● . ●

-

50FIG. F-15

/

.

STECL B“ .KEYHOLE NOTCH ●

PRESTRAIN=ZVO

40

●

830

/

20 /

10

!,=O -~~ -40 0 40 80 120 100 z 00

TEMPERATURE W

00

so F[G.F-10 0

STEEL 0“ 7KEYHOLE NOTCH

:●

. PRESTRAIN - 5%

; 40h

.●●

z .0~ ~.E0:

/

<~ 20

I

5

t

10 /

/

:120 -80 -40 0 40 BO 120 160 ‘w

TEMPERATURE *

eo

m FIG,F-17STEEL B“

KEY HOLE NOTCHPRESTRAIN - IO* h

40 f

:

30

z 0

10

+

0-120 - no -40 0 40 80 I20 180 200

TEMPERATURE W

50

50 FIG.F-ISSTEEL c

KEYHOLE NOTCHPREsTRAl N=2% .

40

30

20

10

0-120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120 leO 2

TEMPERATURE OF

00

50FIG.F-10

STEEL cKEYHOLE NOTCHPRESTRAIN .5%

40

30

c-

1 $20

.10 .

!120 -80 -40 0 40 no IZO Ieo zoo

TEMPERATURE W

80

50 FIG.F-20

STEEL CKEYHOLE NOTCHPRESTRAI N- 10%

40

30

..

20 )

.

.

10 /

0-120 -60 -40 0 40 80 120 100 2 10

. TEMPERATURE W

—

8S

FIG. F-21‘STEEL D,KEYHOLE NOTCH .pREs7RAIN .27.

. 1

●

1 ●

., ,

0 -40 0 40

}

) 120 160 2

TEMPERATURE .F

50 FIG. F-z2STEEL D.

2 6CWIOLE NOTCH .J PRE9TRAIN. 37.~ ,~

● .

zg -.

ka .30-

q.

<. “$ 20

2. .

10

A :

~120 -ao -40 0 40 80 IZO IeO :

TEMREFATURE ~

60

50 FIG. F-23STEEL Dr

KEYHOLE NOTCH: PRESTRA{N . Io*i’ 40

E ●

z0.=m

s

;

● 20 .#

#“

●

10 - A

.

0’120 -aO -40 0 40 80 120 100 2

0

0

10

TEMPERATURE ●F

00

●

50 FIG.F-.24STEEL On

m KEYHOLE NOTCHPRESTRAIN-2%

?~. 40

9

u. 7

;

~ 30

5 .:

~ 20

:

.

06

TEMPERATURE ‘f

00

50 FIG. F-25 1

STEEL 0.KEYHOLE NOTCHPRESTRAIN -5%

40

30

20

.

10

TEMPERATURE ‘F

m

50 FIGF-2eSTEEL u.

KEYt’KILE NOTCHr

PRESTRA!N - 10*40

30i

20 / 7

I0

0-120 -80 -40 0 40 00 120 MO 2W

00

50 F IG.F-27

4 STEEL E

yKEYHOLE NOTCHPRESTRAIN- ?.%

w.40zg

kgs 0 .

:

;2 0uz“

10-/

.

-!20 -80 -4o 0 40 So !20 100 200

TEMPERATURE ‘f

80

50 FIG. F-2aSTEEL E

MEYHOLE NOTCH2 PRESTRAIN.5%i’ ●O

:

g

ES o

s~

(b

.●

G-FI

. .6

I0

/

~120 -BO -40 0 40 nO 120 ‘eo 200TEMPERATUREE 7

50 FIG.F-29STEEL E

KEYHOLE NOTCH2 PRESTRNN - 10%7’~ 40Lzg1-:s 0

8

2 ●

g. 0

2.

10

Vd

-0i20 -ao -40 0 40 eO 120 160 2

TEMPERATURE V

8860

.. ., H

.50

:A

E 40.

:●.g 30

. /.

:

: 20Ez . FIG.F-20u

STEEL H10

PRESTRAI N 2 %

KEYHOLE NOTCH

-120 -00 -40 0 40 80 120

TEMPERATURE -

60

.. s

50. /

z. .;@IL

z~ 0

kc&30 .

:

.; 20 I

%.

FIG. F-31

STEEL H10 PRESTRAIN 57.

KEYHOLE NOTCH

-120 ’80 ’40 0 40 80 120

TEMPERATURE OF

‘w

so

2:.

/k 40 .z .: .Lu 30 /

s ●

2

~z 0

: / F IG.F-3.?id

/STEEL H

10 . PRESTRA1N 10%

KEYHOLE NOTCH

-120 ’80 ’40 0 40 00 120

TEMPERATURE ●F

II

IF[G. G-1

60j

-1

; 50L

z (1)0~ 40na0

/z 30-i P ‘

5~ 20$

I o /

-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80-200

TEMPERATURE “F

IFIG. G-3

60 STEEL N

AIR ~7\l~F* % .

ti .m

:~so

LL

g40 -

FL .

j3 o

<.

5f 20z.

10

-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 120-200

TEMPERATURE “F

00u

IFIG. G-2

so STEEL N .

AIR ~6LJDFFW

by 50 /

LL / yZ40g1-%g 30

/

m r< .

$2 ~

Yu

I0

-120 -80 40 0 40 80 !20-200 -160

TEMPERATURE “F

IFIG. G-4

60 STEEL N

~ FuRNACE COOLEDFROM 1850 “F

m+50

~:

zQ4 ob~

0:3 0

2

-1.

Gf 20~ ●

.10

c

-40 0 40 80 120 160-100 -120 -80

TEMPERATURE “F

a. Air Cooled from1650 F+ X 100

c. Furnace Cooledfrom 1850 F.x 100

b. Air Cooled from1750 F. X 100

‘\ ;+ , ~.-, /#&mRib

d. Furnace Cooledfrom 1850X 600

F.

Fig. G-5 Photomicrographs of Steel NAfter Different Heat ‘Treatments

91

.

50.FIG. H-l

KEYHOLE NOTCHSUM MARY

STEEL C: 40-11 --- -----

Ec

g 30,<

~ ‘ /. t5

E0 ~ ~

g 204 L’

j C6

: to /

-80 -40 0 80 120 Isa 200TEM PfRATu REW

100-FIG. H-2

v- N07cH su MMA+W

STEEL C C6~ 80

y

~

z 60 /.Q / ,.

;

8~ &~ “

~ 40

~

u~ 20

,..

d

-s0 -40 0 40 80 120 160 21

TEMPER ATURE.F

10

IwFIG. H-3

34“ WIDE SPECIMEN RECTANGULARR -

NOTCH I 22,!XJ97” SUM MARYSTEEL C~. 00

-1:Lz 80Q~

; do

%’

G

%: 20 -

‘.90 -40 0 40 so 120 ,s0 ammMpERATu RE ●F

92

50,FIG. H-4

STEEL C PIATE C3

; 40 -KEYHOLE NOTCH

LIL

z&030

~

ug

Y “’”

●

●: 20

●

$.~ [0

● ●

-80 ’40 0 40 So 120 160 200 aTEMPERATU RI? ●F

)

50FIG. H-5

STEEL c pLATE C5

~ 40KEYHOLE NOTCH

-1

LL

~ 300

g/

z ●

ga 20. A< :

$

# [0

a ●

-80 -40 0 40 80 120 Iw 200 2A0

TEMPERATURE .I=

50FIG. H-6

STEEL C PLATE C 6

% 40KEYHOLE NOTCH

J

LIL /i

: 30●

~

u ●

:

: ao -

Ga ●

: ,0

●

-80 ’40 0 40 So 12

TEMPERATURE ~

160 200 2 10

.

—

93

100FIG. H-7

STEEL C PLATE CS

h; 80

V- NOTCH

F.

zQ 60ka0:

a< 40

~.z ●

w 20

AL 1 1 1

-00 -40 0 40

-1 I FIG. H-8

I ISTEEL C PLATE C5

BEV-NOTCH

so

60

40

w

6 20●

●

-80 -40 0 .

100

80

60E40 —

20

-ao -4

120 160 200 240

TEMPERATURE “F

=LP

1) I

60 I20 160 200 240

TEMPERATURE ‘F

F[G. H-9

TEE, C PLATE C6

v-NOTCH

●

/

9

i

a

o 40 00 120 160 23

240

TEMPERATURE V

100STEEL C PLATE C3

4,, WIDE SPECIMEN RECTANGULAR-

8.0NOTCH l@2” X .197 “

*

60 2 ●

40 s

20● {

-s0 -40 0 40 80 Iao 180 200

TEMPERATURE ‘F

(00FIG. H-l I

STEEL C PLATE C 5

3/4,, WIDE SPECIMEN RECTANGULARNOTCH 8/32SsX.197,,

80

80

40

20 -

- So -40 0 4

I Iz●

●

●*80 1.?0 I

TEMPERATURE ‘F

100FIG. H-12

STEEL C PLATE C8

1/34,, WIDE SPECIMEN RECTANGULARNOTCH 1/32,, X ,197 1111

I 1 1 1 ! 1 I 1-80 -40 0 40 80 1.20 120 200 :

0

0

0TEMPERATURE OF

.

50.FIG, K-1

KEYHOLE NOTCHSUMMARV

40

, ,J4.

,, ye,,

30-------/

20 /

10

~- .-.”i& ~

/’ /,/

/

-80 -40 0 40 80 120 Imo 2’

TEMPERATURE +

100

‘BFIG. K-2

V- NOTCHSUMMARY

g 80J

f

z 60Q~

j d.

<

95

10

-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200

TEM PERATu RE V

50FIG. K-3

STEEL C @ PLATE

g 4.CORE KSYWXE NOTCH

~ .

zg 30~

u:

:

wF 10

-ao ’40 0 40 eo 120 120 2 0

TEMPERATURE ‘F

.

50FIG. K-4

STEEL C 5.[8* PLATE

CORE KEYHOLE NOTCH40

30.

●.

20

I o

-.20 -40 0 40 80 120 100 zoo

5

TEMPERATURE ‘F

FIG. K-5

STEEL C 1°0PLATE

RIM KEYHOLE NOTCH

●

●

●

-80 -40 0 40 80 I20

TCMPERATURE ●F

soFIG. K-6

STEEL C II, PLATE

TEMPERATURE ●F

—

‘o

50FIG. S-7

STEEL C I 1/8,, PLATE

97

RIM KEYHOLE NOTCHti 40?

k 8

~ 30

~

:,0.

<

~. .z 10

4

-80 -40 0 40 ao I20 160 200

TEMPERATURE ●F

50FIG. K-L?

STEEL C I 1/8,, PLATE

cORE KEYHOLE NOTCH40

-

30

3.0

●/

to ●

a

-80 -40 0 40 1

100

EFIG.K-9

STEEL C lti? PLi

cORE V- N.S3.0

ao

40

20

-eo ’40

120 160 2

TEMPERATURE ‘F

● 4●

/

●●

●

●

●

x●

●

40 SO 120 160 2

D

D

TEMPERATURE ●F

100FIG. K-10

STEEL C Y61, pLATE

CORE V-NOTCH00

60●●

● ●

Ao

/ :

20●

-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 2

TEMPERATURE ‘F

I00FIG, K-II

BTEEL C lssPLATE

RIM V-NOTCH60

60

40

20

-1

-60 -40 0

10(

6(

6(

4(

2(

-,

FIG. n-12

TEEL C la,PLATE

ORE v-NOTCH

+-40

$/-

t

●

60 120 160 ZERATURE .F

t

40 60 I20

TEMPERATURE ●F

—

—

.—

<

—

—

—

0

0

)

100,

-f

FIG. K-13 I

ITEEL C I I]8° PLATE

+-

*

●

● ✎

40 8

TEMPERATURE

FIG. K-14

STEELC I l/S’’ PLATE

CORE V- NOTCH80

60

40

>

k?w~ 20 .

’80 -40

I

*F

I I

/

●✏

☛

40 80 120 It

TEMPERATURE *F

7---●

●

I

99

D

10

5

aId1-UzI

6au

5

8

7

6

5

A

3

2

I

“1

FIG. L+: BREAK I NG ENERGY- TEMPERA~F

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATIC BENC

TEsT (CURVE 2) AND iMpACT BEND TE:

(CURVE 1) ON FINE GRAI NED 0.24% C

/ STEEL.

SIZE SPECIMEN -I OMM. X9 MM. X70MN

RECTANGULAR NOTCHIMM. DEEP X3 MM. WIDE

(DAVIDENKOV AND WITTMANN)

I 1 I I I I

-160 -120 -80 -40 0 40 80 I20 160

TEMPERATURE “F

a

c

e

LONGITUDINAL

;+p-:.~mc?:>*~‘“”.’~’.’’:.”,”&-..,.:....... .’. .

TRANSVERSE

101

b

d

f

Fig. M-1 Photomicrographs, Etched Steel E. (Rim)

a,b X 50c,d X 100e,f X 600

102

TRJOK$VERSELONGITUDINMJ

Fig. M-1a Photomicrographs, Etched Steel E. (Core)

a,b X 50c,d X 100e,f X 600

b

d

f

103

LONGITUDINAL TRANSVERSE

Fig. M-2 Photomicrographs, Etched Steel C.

a,b X 50c,d X 100e,f x 600

104

LONGITUDINAL TRANSVERSE

a

c

e

Fig. M-3 Photomicrographs,

a,b X 50c,d X 100e,f x 600

Etched Steel A.

b

d

f

105

b

d

f

Fig. M-4 Photomlcrographs, Etched Steel Br.

a,b X 50c,d x 100e,f X 600

106

a

c

e

b

d

f

Fig. M-5 Photomicrographs, Etched Steel En.

a,b X 50c,d x 100e,f x 600

107

a

c

Fig. M-6 Photornicrographs,Etched Steel Dr.

a,b X 50c,d x 100e,f x 600

108

LONGITUDINAL TRANSVERSE

a

c

e

b

d

f

Fig. M-7 Photomlcrographs, Etched Steel Dn.

a,b X 50c,d X 100e,f X 600

a

c

e

Fig. M-8 Photomicrographs, Etched Steel Q.

a,b X 50c,d X 100e,f X 600

L09

b

d

f

110

Fig. M-9 Photomicrographa, Etched Steel F.

a,b X 50c,d x 100e,f X 600

b

d

f

.

m

Fig. M-10 Photomicrographs, Etched Steel 0.

a,b x 50c,d x 100e,f x 600

I.1.z

LONGITUDINAL TRANSVERSE

b

d

.

r

Fig. M-n Photomicrographs, Etched Steel H.

a,b X 50c,d x 100e,f x 600

1.13

b

d

f

Fig. M-12 Photomlcrographs, Etched Steel N.

a,b x 50c,d x 100e,f X 600

[Oc

c

I I I

—H—tttt ‘RAINslzEF:s~:RI I I I I I TEMPERATURE (CHARPY V-NOTCH

SPECIMEN)

I-r T. T~A~vERsE SECTION

L. L..G[.’u DlflAL SECTIONL

Ill T 11 Ill

-200 -100 0 100 200

TEMPERATURE “E