PROGRMSREPORT USEDFORRULLCONSTRUCTION · PDF filerapid rate, it also increasesthe weldcrack...
89
PROGRMS REPORT on F(( METALLURGICALQUALITYOFSTEEIJS USEDFOR RULLCONSTRUCTION by, C. E. SIMS,H. M. BANTAAND A. L. WALTERS BATTELLEMlldORIAL INSTITUTE UnderNavy Contract NObs-31.219 COMMITTEEQi SHIPCONSTRUCTION DIVISIONOF,ENG@JEEMNGANDINDUSTRIAL~EARCH NATIONALRI?aSEARCH COUNCIL Advisoryto BUREAUOF SHIPS,NAVYDEPARTMf!NT UnderContract” NObs-31t231 SerialNo. SSC-13 CopyNo. ~; L Date: Noveniber 17, 1%7 -.
Transcript of PROGRMSREPORT USEDFORRULLCONSTRUCTION · PDF filerapid rate, it also increasesthe weldcrack...
PROGRMS REPORT
on
F((
METALLURGICALQUALITYOF STEEIJSUSEDFOR RULL CONSTRUCTION
by,
C. E. SIMS,H. M. BANTAAND A. L. WALTERSBATTELLEMlldORIALINSTITUTE
UnderNavy ContractNObs-31.219
COMMITTEEQi SHIPCONSTRUCTIONDIVISIONOF,ENG@JEEMNG AND INDUSTRIAL~EARCH
NATIONALRI?aSEARCHCOUNCIL
Advisoryto
BUREAUOF SHIPS,NAVYDEPARTMf!NTUnderContract”NObs-31t231
SerialNo. SSC-13
Copy No. ~; L
Date: Noveniber17, 1%7
-.
NATIONALRJ&MRCH COUNCIL2101 ConstitutionAvenue
Washington,D. C.
November17, 191+7
Chief,Bureauof ShipsNavyDepartment:Jashington,D. C.
Dear Sir:
Attachedis ReportSerialNo. SSC-13entitledWetall.urdcslQualit:rof Steelsusedfor Hull Construction”.Thisrepo;thas been&bmitted by the contractoras a progressreportof the work done on Research?rojectSR-87underContractNObs-31219betweenthe Bureauof Ships,NavyDepartmentand Battel.leMemorialInstitute.
The reporthas beenreviewedand acceptancerecom-mendedby representativesof the Committeeon Ship Con-struction}Divisionof Engineeringand IndustrialResearch,NRC, in accordancewith the termsof the contractbetweenthe Bureauof Ships,NavyDepartmentand the NationalAcademyof Sciencesg
Very trulyyours,....,,: .....-, ,.,--,
,., ..- \ l(bk.3,.,,.,L\ ,(,Q $:(l-p..=-.,Enclosure
FrederickM. FeM~er,L%airmanDivisionof EngineeringandIndustrialResearch
Preface—.,.
The Navy”Department~throughthe.Bureau..of 5~psto thoseagenciesand individualsthatwere activelysearchm’oaram.Thisre~ortrepresentsa ~ertof the
,- .,is distributingthisreportassociatedwith this re-researchwork contracted
for und& ;he sectiono> the I&vy1sdirec~ive‘Jtoinvestigatethe designandconstructionof weldedsteelmerchantvessels.’1
.,
,..,,,The distributionof this report.is .asfollows:
. . ,.. “copyNo. 1 - Chief,Bureauof Ships,’NavyDepar&entCopyNo.:2.- Dr. D. W. Bronk,‘hairrnan$National Research‘ouncil
Committeeon Ship Construction
CopyNo. 3,- V. H. bchnee,Chairrrian ,COPYNo. 4.:-J..L. Batescopy No. 5 - H. C. BoardmanCOPY No,, 6 - PaulFfield.Copy No. 7 - M~ A. GrossmancopyNo. 8 - C. H. Herty,Jr.CopyNo. 9- A. B. finzel. . .,copyNo.’10- J. M. Leesells . , .~~CopyNo. 11 - G, S. kikhalapouCopy No. 12,- J. OrmondroydCopy No. 13 - H. ~~.PierceCOpyNo. 14 - E. C. Smith ,:copyNoti15 - ‘r.T. WatsonCopyNo. 16 - Finn @nassen, Researchcoordinator
. .
F&mbe~sOf ProjectAdvisory.CorrrmitteeeSR-8?,SR-89,SR-92and.SR-1OO ,, :
CopyNo. 16 - Finn Jonassen, ChairmanCopyNo,,17 - R. H. !ibornCopy No. 18 - L. C. bibberCopyNo. 5 - H. J, Boar@nancopy No“ 6 - PaulFfieldCopyNo. 7 - M. A. GrossmanCOPYNO,, 8 - C. H. Herty,Jr.CopyiiO.19 - C. H. Jennings ~.:Copy No. 10- J. M. LesseZls ,.,CopyNo. 11 - G. S. MikhalajywCopy No. 12 - J, Ormondroyd :CopyNo. 13 - H. /. Pierce .. ~.:.CopyNo. 14 - E. C. bmithcopyNo. 15 - T. T,,Watson ...Copyi~o.20 - W. MO Wileon ,,
,,?,...
,:
..
,.
.s-,
CopyNo. 21 - A. G. Bissell,dureauof Ships,Liaisori:.’copyNo, 22 - E. M, h,acCutcheos,Jr., U. b. Coast,Guard,LiaisonCOpyNO, 23 - E. Rassman,.:Bureauof Ships,Liiieori:Copy No, 24 . Comdr.i, DO Schmidtmm, U. S. CoastGuard,LiaisonCC:pYNO. 25 - T, L. Soo-Hoo~Bureauof &hips,iiaisonCopyNo, 26 - JohnVasta,U. S. kritime Commission,Liaison
...,,,..
copy~No, 27 -CopjNo, 28 -
COpY NO; 29 -CopyNo. 30 -copy No. 31 -CopyNo, 4 -COPYNo. 32 -Copy No. % -
CopyNo.33 -CopyNo. 3)+-Copy No.35 -eOpYNO. 24-COPY NO,36 -Copy No.37 -CopyNo. 3$ -Copy No, 22 -Copy No. 39 -COPY No, 26 -Copy No,,40 -COPYNo. 27 -CopyNo,.28 -COpy 1{0.16 -Copy No,,Al -CopyNo. 42 -Copy No, 43 -Copy No. 44-
Copj,No. 45 -copy No, 21 -CopyNo. /+6-CopyNo. 47 -Copy No. 4E -copy No. 49 -Copy No. 50 -Copy No. 51 -COpY NO. 52 -Copy No. 53 -Copies54 andCopy No. 56 -CopyNo. 57 -Copies58 andCopies60 and
R.i. Wiley,Bureauof Ships,“LiaisonJ, L, Wilson,Asi&ricanLi@au bf tihipping,Liai,son
Ship,$tructureC“timnittee,., :, ,., .
HearAdmiralEllisReed-Hill,USCG,LhairmanRearAdmiral!ha.rlesD. Vheelock,USN, Bureauof bhipsBrigadierGeneralPaulF. Yodnt,Jar DepartmentJ. L. Bates,,U,,.p. N,aritueCommissionD. P, Brown,,+ierican%reau of bhippingV. H, uchnee,Committeeon @@”Construction, Liaison”
Ship btructureSub-Committee”
CaptainL. V, Honsinfler,USN@ureau of.$Qips~G,hairmanCaptainR. A. Hi.nners,USN$ DavidTaylorModel,~as+,nComdr.R. H. Lambert,USN,Bureauof SiiipsComdr.R. D. Schnidtman,USCG,U. S. Coast,GuRTd‘FleadquirtersCol. ‘/ernerJ. ltoore,USA, OfficeChiefof ‘1’ran5pOrtati0n,‘!~ar’Dept.HubertKempel,,OfficeChiefof Transportation,jar..DepartmentMathewLetich,Americandureauof Shipping,, ,,,,,E. hi.hacCutcheon,Jr., U. b. CoastGtirdHeadquartersR. M. ‘~obertson,Officeof Navalltesearofi,USN ;JohnVasta,U. ~. haritirneComni.ssion ,,1. J. ‘danless,U. b. haritimeCommission~~~R. d. Hiley,$ureauof Ships,USN ,,.,,:, ,,:J. L, /ilson,&nericanBureauof &hippingFinn Jonassen,LiaisonRepresentativej NRCd..H. .DavidsonJ IiaisonRepreseut,ative,AISIPaul Gerhart,LiaisonRepresentative,AISI!tin,Spraragen,LiaisonRepresentative,l“i?CWm. ~. ‘!ilson,TechnicalSecretary
NavyDepartment.
Comdr.it.S, MndeLkorn, USN,NavaLAdministrativeUnitA. G, Bissel.1,Bureauof Ships ~~~J. u. Jenkins,Bureauof Ships .-,.NoahKahnjNew York NavalShipyard .,~~.~1‘ ~ ;I. E. Kramer,Officeof NavalHeee$xch . .,;OB.,OsgoodjDavidTaylorliodeldaki.n ~ . ~,,N. d. Promisel,Bureauof AeronauticsK. D. !illiams,Bureauof bhips ~~NavalAcademy,PostGraduatebchool :,NavalResearchLaboratory55- U. S. NavalEngineeringExperiment.StationNew YorkNaval$h}pyard,MaterialDivisidnPhiladelphiaNavalShipyard” .’59 - Wol.ications,Board,NavyDept,via Bureag..of Ships,Code33Oc61 .-.TechnicalLibrary,Bureauof ~hips,Code337-L
. ...——
U, S,,CoastGuard
Copy No. 62 - Capta,ind. ~3,LankjJr., USCGCopy No. 63 - CaptainG.,A.Tyler,USCGcopy NO. 64 - Testitig&nrlDevelopmentDivis,ion. . .
U. 5. MaritimeCotission
Copy No. 65 - E. 6. Martirisky
Representativesof AmericanIronand SteelInstituteCommitteeon ManufacturingProblems
Copy No. 66 - C. Ivi.Parker,Secretary,GeneralTechnicalUorumittee,AmericanIronand bteelInstitute
CopyNo. 18 - L, C. aibber~ Carnegie-IllinoisSteelcorporationCopyNo. 8 - C, H, Herty,Jr.,BebhlehemSteelCompanyCopyNo. 14 - E. C. Smith$RepublicSteelCorporation
WeldingResearchCountil
CopyNo, 67 - C. A. Adams CopyNo. 69 -LaMotteGroverCopyNo. 68 - EverettCiiapman copyNoo 43 - ‘dn.hpraragen
— .
Ccp~,NO.,70 - F. h. Feiker,ChairmenjDivisionof Engineering& IndustrialResearch,NRC
COPYNo. 71 - Clyde~Jilliams,Chairman,Commi.ttee on EngineeringMaterialsCopyNo. 3 - V. R. rxhnee,dhairman,(kromi.tteeon Ship ConstructionCopyNo. 16 - Finn Jonassen,ResearchCoordinator,Committeeon Ship Constructm~CopyNO. 44 - “,~m.G, ,(ilson,TechnicalAide,Committeeon Ship constructionCopyNo.,72 - C, E. Sims,Investigator,i{esearchProjectW-87CopyNo, 73 - H, M, Banta,Investigator,ResearchProjectSR-8’7CopyNo, 74 - A. L. “alters,Ii’westigator,ResearchprojectSR-~CopyNo. 10 - J, b!,Lessens, Investigator,ResearchProjectSR-101COpyNo. 75 - ScottB. Lilly,Investigator,ResearchProjectSR-98CopyNo,,76 - C. H..Lorig,Investigator,ResearchProjectSR-97CopyNo, 77 - J. R.,Low, Jr,, Investigator,ResearchProject SR-96Copj-1[0.78 - AlbertWller, Investigateor, ResearchProject SR-25CopyNo. 79 - E,,R. Parker,Investigator,ResearchProjectSR-.92CopyNo, 80- GeorgeSachs,Investigator,ResearthProjectSR-99Copy No. 81 - C. J. Voldrich,Investigator,ResearchProjectSW1OOCopyNo,.82 - ClarenceAltenburger,GreatLakesSteelCompanyCopyNo, 83 - A. d. Bagsar,Sun Oil CompanyCopyNo, 84 - E. L, Cochrane,MassachusettssInstituteof TechnologyCopj,NO, 85 - GeorgeEllinger,Nationaldureauof StandardscopyNO, %6 - kaxwell(kmsamer,Carnegie-IllinOisSteelCOrpOrationCcpyNo. 87 - S. L. Hop.,BattelleivranorialInstituteCopyNo, 88 - BruceJohnston~ LehighUniversitycopyNO,,89 . N,.M. Newmark [k:..:ersity of Illii)oiSCopyNo. 90 - L. J. Ftohl,Carncg:!e-IllinoisSteelCorp.
copy NO. 91 - “:’1,P. noopjDivisionof Engineering,SwarthmOreCOllegeCopies92 thru116 - 1. G. Slater,britishAdmiraltyDelegation ,copy No. 117 - ‘frarmportationCorpsBoard,Brooklyn,N. y.Copies118 thru 122 - Libraryof Congressvia Bureauof bhips,Code330cCopy NO. 123 - File Copy,Committeeon bhip constructionCopyNo. 12/+- NACA,Committeeon MaterialsResearchCoordination,USN
COPY NO, 125 -COPYNO. 126 -COPYNo, 127 -Copy No. 128 -CopyiiO,129 -CopyNo. 130 - ‘Copy No. 131 - “COpyNo. 132 -copyNo, 133 -copy No. 134 -copy No. 135 -CopyNo. 136 -CopyNo. 137 - -COpyNo. 138 -CopyNo. 139 -copyNo. ll+o-copyNo. 141 -COpyNo. lk2 -copyNo. 143 -copyNo. 1!+/+-CopyNo. 1!45-copy No. 146 -copy No. 14’7-copy No. 148 -copyNo. 149 -CopyNo. 150 -
,,
Copies125 thru 150 - rhu-eai“of
(TotalNo, of copies- 150)
.,
,..
Ships
011
NAVY RESEARCHPROJECTNObs 31219
)ME’I’AJ.LuRGICALQUALITY OF STEELSUSED FOR
HULL CONSTRUCTION
by
C. E. Sims,H. M. Banta,and A. L. [Walters
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
May 31, 1947
TABLECF CONTENTS
NW! AR Y..,....
INTRODIJCTIOii. . . .
EKPERIMENTAL WORK . .
. .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ...>
,. ..,. . . . . . . .
A Studyof the Influence of Chemical Composition . . . . . .
Preparationof LaboratoryHeats .
TensileProperties . . . . . . .
Effectof
Effectof
‘SffeOtof
Effectof
Effectof
Effectof
UnderbeadWeld
Effectof
Effectof
Effectof
Effect.of
Effectof
Effectof
Carbon Content . .
Manganese Content
Silicon Content .
Molybdenum Content
Vanadium Content .
Aluminum Content .
Crack Sensitivity
Carbon Content .
Manganese Content
Silioon Content .
Molybdenum Content
VanadiumContent
AluminumContent
[email protected] Properties .
Effect of Carbon Content .
Effsctof ManganeseContent
Effectof SiliconContent .
Effect of 1.5olybdenumContent
., ..>... .>.
.. ”.., . . . . .
. . . . . . . ..’.
. . . ...” . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. ...=.. . . . .
,, . . . . . . . . .
Page
1
4
5
5
5
6
8
8
12
12
12
16
16
. . . . . . . . . . . . 16
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
,!, . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
16
20
20
20
20
24
24
29
29
29
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)—.
. .
Effectof VanadiumContent. , . . . . , . .. . .
Effect.of AluminumContent. . . , . , . . ,. . .,. .,
Wandard-(;onpositionIieats. , . . . . . , .
A Discussion cf the Siguifiw.nce of the Test Data
The Influence of .41ummum Content Upon the. . ~je~har,i.ca.iproperties Norma].to the ?late surface
Tensile Properties Normal to Plate Surface .
. .
. . .
.,.
. . .
.,<
,,.
Notched-Bar Impact Strength Normal to the PlateSurface ..:...... . . . . . . . . . . .
FUTURE WORK ..,.,... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ,,,. .
APPENDIX A . , . . .
. .
.,,.
. .
,,.
,..
.,,
. .
,.
,,.
.
. .
,.
.,,
. . .
,,
. .
. ..
Page
36
3$ ,‘“I
36
50
51
55
55
60
TABJ.I!CF COITLWNTS(Continued).——. —..
,
Figures——
Figure 1.
Figure2.
Figure3.
Figure4.
FiCure5,
F’igure6.
Figure7’.
Figure8.
Figure9.
Figure10.
Figure11.
Figure12.
Figure13.
Figure14.,.
Figure15.
Figure16.
Figurei7.
Relationship betweenyield strength . . .
Relationship betweenand yield strength .
Relationship betweenyield strength . , .
Relationship betweenand yield strength .
Relationship betweenand yield strength .
The effect of carboncrack sensitivity .
The effectweld crack
The effectweld crack
The effectweld crack
The effect
carbon content and tensile and. . . . . . . . . . . . .*. ,
manganese content and tensile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
silicon content and tensile and. . . . . . . . . . . ..s. .,
molybdenum content and tensile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vanadium content snd tensile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
content upon the underbee,dweld. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“
of manganese content upon the underbeadsensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
of silicon content upon.the underbeadsensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
of molybdenum content upon the underbeadsensitivity <..... . . . . . . . . . .
of vanadium content upon the underbead weld
Page
e 10
. 11
. 13
. 14
. 15
. 18
. 19
. 21
. 22
crack sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The effect of aluminum content upon the underbead weldcrack sensitivity .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Notch-bsr impact properties . . . , . .. . . ,,. . . .
Notch-bar impact properties . . , . . . . , . . . . .
!Jotah-barimps.ct properties . . . ,,, . . . . . . . ,,
Notch-bar impact properties. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
\totch-barimpact ‘proper’ties’. . . . . . . . , . . . .
\Totch-bar’impact properties . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
23
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
.—
TABLE OF CONTEY’TS(Continued)--- — ..—.— —.
Page—.—
Figure.18. Notch-barimpactproperties.. . . .,. ... ... . .,. . 33. .
Fi#ure19. Notch-bar impact properties . t . . .“. , . . . . . . 34
Figure 20. ltotch~’oe.r,impo.ct properties . . < , . . , ‘. , , . , . 35—..
‘Figure’21, .Nobch-.barimpact properties . . . . . . . . . . . ,.. 3?,., ,., .
Figure 22, Notch-bar impact properties . . . . . . . . , . i . . 38;.. ,
Figure 23. Notch-bar. imrpe.ct propert~es ~ . , . . . . . ; . . , . 39
Figure fi4.’”Hotck-.barimpactprope?.ties ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . 40. . .
Figure 25.
Figure26..
Figure2?..,.
Figure28.,..
Figure 29.,,, .
‘Figure 30.
Figure 31.
Figure32.
Figure 33.. .
,,.
Figure 34..
‘ “ ‘Figu~-e35.
Figure36.
Notch-bar imps.c-kproperties . . . . . . * . . . . . . 41
Notch-bar impact properties . . . . , ., . . . , . ,
The effect of carbon content LWCm the n.etched-htirimpact strength at 75”F, . . . . . . .’. . . . ~ .
The effect of!manganese content upon the nctch~d-barianpaotstrength at 75”F. . .. 0 . . .’. . . . . .
The effect of silicod content ,uponthe notched-barimpact strength at 75°F. . ~ . . . . . . . . . . .
The effect of ?nol?~bdemunconteut upon fhe notched-barimpact,streagth ?.t75°”F. . . . . . .“, . . ~~. . ,
The effect of,vz+.nadiumconteni upon the notched-barimpact strength at 75”F. . . , . . , . . . . . . .
The effect of:atuminum content upon the notched-barimpo.ctstrength at -40”F. . . . . . . .“. . . . . .
,. .,, .,
An illustration of the procedure used for nmking thespecimens t~ determine the tensile properties normaltothe plate surface... . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52
Notched-barsurface , .
Notched-barsurface . .
Notched-barsurface . .
imp~.ct strength normal to the plate. . . . . . ., .,., . . . ... ... . . 56
impact strength normal to the plate.s, ... . . . . . . .. ’..> .?. 57
impact strength normal to the piate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued).— ,— —.—.
Tables
Page
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
APPENDIX A
Table Al.
Table A 2.
Table A.3.
Table A4.
Outlineof laboratorybeetsmade to study the influenceof chemical composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Chemical analysis of laboratory heats . . . . . . . . . 7
Tensile properties of hot-rolled plate from laboratoryheats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
lJnderbeadweld cracking indexes for Heats X.-1to X-28,X-45 and x-46 in the hot-rolled condition . , . . . . . 17
Chemical analysis of laboratory heats made to study theinfluence of aluminum content . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Tensile propertied normal to the pl?te surface . . . . . 54
Tensile propertiesHeats .X-1to x-28,
Underbead Orur,king
of hot-rolled plate from laboratoryinclusive, X-45 and x-46 . . . . . . 6(3
values of individual specimens fromlaboratory Heats X.-1to X-28, inclusive, X-45 and X-46inthehot-rol led state . . . . . . . . . . . ,,, ...61
Longitudinal notched-bar impact properties of laboratoryIieatsx-1 to x-28, inclusive,X-45 snd x-46 in the hot-rolled state. All specimens notched parallel to theplate surface.,.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..62
Notched-bar impact properties ndrmal to the plate surfaceof Heats X-23 to x-26 in the hot-rolled state , . . . . 63
PRCGRESS RiiP;RT
on
F,rom:
Report
NAVY RESHARCH PROJECT NObs 31219
METALLURGICAL QUALITY OF STEELSIJSEDFOR
HULL CONSTRUCTION
May 31, 1947
BattelleMemorialInstitute
PreparedBy:H. N. BantaA. L. Walters
C. E. Sims,Supervisor
s~\~r~y.! —.—
In orderto obtaindefiniteinformationconcerningthe relation-
shipsamongchemicalcomposition,underbeadweld cracking,and the
mechanicalproperties,,especiallythe tensileand.notched-barimpact
characteristics,a seriesof 30 laboratoryheats ~~a~made and studied
in,the hot-rolledstateto determinethe individualinfluenceof each
of the following constituents when varied.over a range sufficientlY
broad to definitely establish the trend of the,effect; carbon, manganese,
silicon, molybdenum, vanadium, and alminw.
-2-
For a standardchemical composition, a typical HTS analysis was
selected,and the elements studied were then varied one at a time in this
standard composition.
This investigation revealed that the oarbon content should mast
probably be limited to 0.15-0,20 per cent as above this value the crack
sensitivity increases with marked rapidity which is entirely out of line
with the increase in tensile and yield strength. Increased carbon
content was also accompanied by a reduction in the notched-bar impact
strength.
While manganese increases the tensile and yield strengths at a. ...,,,
rapid rate, it also increases the weld crack sensit.iyityit A rapid rate.
One advantage of manganese is that it is @ appreciable,,detrimentalto
the notched-bar impact strength in the temperature range of -70°F. to
21O’F.
I:fiilesilicon contents above that normally used in H’fSsteel did
aPPear tO Offer sOme advantages Over plain carbon-manganese steels for
obtaining slightly higher yield strengths tindlow underbead cracking,
silicon is not comparable with either molybdenum or vanadium for this
purpose.
‘The’use of either m~lybderiumor vanadium appeared to be the most,,. ,’promising jeans ‘ofincreasirigthe tensile aridyield strengths without
., ..,.. ,,marked detrimental effects upon the
,,, ,~i
However, both of these alloys ioweri,; . .
an ‘appreciabledegree,especially at., ’., :,,~
degree OF underbead cracking..,;
the notched-bar impact strength
room temperature and lower.
Data from s.single 6cries of heats in which the’aluminum
qddition was varied from c to & pounds per ton indicated that the
to
aluminum content is an important factor in establishing the underbead
-3-
weld crack sensitivity. The steels made with low and medium amounts of
aluminum were quite craclcsensitive as compared with the steels contain-
ing no aluminum or a very large aluminum content, such as that obtained
by an addition of 5 pounds per ton. Since this wide sluminum range has
not been previously investigated, it will be necessary to confirm these
resuits with additional data.
An aluminum addition of about 2 pounds per ton, .064 per cent
acid-soluble aluminum content in the steel, was found to have the most
beneficial influence upon the notched-bar impact strength. This effect,.
was especially noticeable at low temperatures.
NO relationship was found between the tensile
plate normal to the surface and the aluminum content.
made on commercial plate revealed a good
content and the properties normal to the
in behavior of the laboratory steels and
propertiesof the
A previousstudy
correlationbetweenaluminum
plate surface. This difference
the commercial heats may be
caused by the large difference in the amount of reduction between ingot
and plate, the directional properties being amplified.by the increased
reduction of the commercial product.
The notched-bar impact properties normal to the surface were all
found to be quite low as comparedwith the longitudinal properties. As
in the case of the longitudinal tests, the steel made with an aluminum
addition of 2 pounds per ton displayed the highest notched-bar impact
strength when tested normal to the surface.
IWIRODtiC?ION.,; , —
The previous work ofithis project has been confined to an
investigation of the mechanical properties, metallurgical characteristics,
and the underbead cracking tendencies of HTS steels that have been used
in welded naval construction. Briefly, the range “ofchemistry covered
was,from 0.14 to 0.23 per cent carbon and 0.S1 to 1.53 per cent manganese,
together with small additions of titanium or mnadiu?? or both. This
range represents about the extreme limits found in commercial steels Of,:
this grade.
In the past,the summation of the carbon, menganese, and other
alloys has been defin.itelylimited because of underbead cracking..
Recent work on this project has revealed that the total alloy content..
of the steel may be relatively high without being detrimental to the
‘tve,ldingcharacteristics, especially underbead cracking, provided the
steel has been homogenized to reduce or eliminate alloy segregation.
This provides a means for using a higher alloy steel with resultant
higher strength which is not susceptibleto underbeadcrackingunder
normal welding conditions.
The purpose of this phase of the investigation is to determine
the influence of chemical compositi~i covering a muoh widerrangethan
foundin the commercialHTS steels. The ultimate object is to find the
composition which will
euffioiently low level
ship construction.
give the highest yield strength and still have a
of crack sensitivity to be satisfactory for welded
-5-
,,
EXPERIML’NTJLWORK—— .— -—
A Studyof the Influarnceof ChemioalComposition.—
Preparation of Laboratory Heats—.—
Previous work on laboratory heats has shown that in the case of
small induction furnace heats, it was.necessary, to increase slightly the
carbon and manganese oontents in order to obtain the average level of
underbead cro.ekingnormslly found in commercial HTS steels. It wS.S
found that laboratory heats containing 0.21 per cent carbon and 1.32 per
cent manganese were quite suitable for investigationalpurposes as these
steels cracked well within the limits of the weld crack-sensitivitytest
conditions used for conraercialsteels. Using this approximate analysis
as a standard for comparison, a series Of”30 induction furnace heats
were made to study the influence of carbon, mangs.nese,silicon,
molybdenum, vanadium, and aluminum ooritentsupon the welding oharacter-
istios and mechanical properties. These heats consisted of 450-pound
melts deoxidized with an addition of 0“”.4pound of aluminum per ton of
st’eel,with the exception of .!”ixheats made to study the effect of
aluminum additions ranging from O to 5 pounds.
The steel was cast into two ‘6-5/8-inch-squareingots and sub-
sequently’processed by forging from a temperature of 2200”F. to 2300°F.
to 2 by 5-inch slabs. ~oilowing ~eheatin.gto 2200°F., the slabs were
hot rolled to l-inch plate in six passes. The finishing temperature
after rolling was approximately 1750”F. The plates were stood on edge
and allowed to air cool as in normalizing. By processing each ingot in
-6-
this manner, a uniform hot-rolled conditionwas produced throughout the
seven lots of steel.
‘8-inch
plate,
The heats made with various aluminum contentswere cast in 8 by
ingots and reduced by hot rolling on a oomneroial mill to l-inch,..
the reasons for which will be discussed later.
A brief outline of the heats under consideration is shown in
Table 1 which lists the group and heat numbers, the elements bein~ —
investigated,and the range through which
The complete chemical analysis of
Table 2.
TABLE 1. OUTLINi OF LABORATORYINFLUENCE OF CWWCAL
the elements were varied.
all thirty heats is shown in
HEATS MADE TO S’flJDYTIDICOMPOSITION
,———.- — —
Group , Element Being Range CoversdNo. Heat No. in Group Investigated
.—— ___in Per Cent
..—.— ———
1 X-1 to X-5, incl.’ ““,. Carbon 0.17 to 0.32
2 X-6 to X-9, incl. Manganese 0.93 to 1.51
3 X-10 to X-13, incl. Silicon 0.41 to 0.92
4 X-14 to X-18; incl. Molybdenum 0.10 to 0.43
5 X-19 to X-22,“incl. Vanadium 0.04 to 0.29
6 X-23 to x-28, incl. A.luminurn O to 0.18
7 X-45 to X-46, incl.(S%aniiardcompositionfor comparison —purposes)
— —.—- .— — -
‘.
Tensile Properties
Standard O.505-inch threrided-endtensile specimens were machined
from the center of the plate, duplicate specimeng being prepared in both
the longitudinal and transverse directions with respect to rolling. The
-’7-
TABLE 2. CHEIIICM +INA+,ysIsOF L.4BG~AToRYHWTS
——._.— ..-— —.—. —
Heat,No. C ],m P.. s Si. Ti MO v Al*,— —.-.. —.
(Group 1)
x-1 0.17x-2 0.20x-3 0.25x-4 0.28x-5 0.32
(Group2)X-6 0.21X-7 0.19X-8 0,.22x-9 “0.21
(.Group3)x-lo 0.21X-n 0.21X-12 0.19X-13 0.20
(Group4)X-14 .0.22X-15 0.21X-16 0.23X-17 0.23x-18 0.24
(Group5)X-19 0.21x-20 0.20X-21 0.20x-22 0.21
‘(Group6)X-23, 0.20X-24 0.23X-25, 0.22X-26 0.22x-27 0.20X-28 0.22
,,.“(Group7) ‘:’ ‘,.:X-45 .0.21
X-46 0.22
1.361..3.01.361.421.26
0.931.221.371.51
1,301.371.391.31
1.451.491.291,321.37
1.271.301.291.28
1.251.361.241.311.291.26
.,
1.351.35
.023
.021
.022
.022
.022
.021
.023
.023
.023
.025
.024
.023
.024
.023
.020
.023
.020,023
,020.021.020,020
.021
.019
.020
.021
.018
.019
.021
.023
.024
.023
.023
.020
.020
.022
.016
.018
.018
.018
.019
.018
.019
.019
.@20
.022
.020,020
.019
.020
.019
.020
.02;
.02’1
.020
:021,020.020
.030
.032
0.310.250.290.220.22
0.270.280.290.29
0.410.550.790.92
0.300.350.280.300.29
0.3200300.+300.29
0.270.290.270.270.310.27
0.270.28
.014
.001
.014
.014
.013
.010
.011
.012
.011
.012
.012
.011
.010
.025
.012
.012
.012>014
.013”
.016
.014,018
.007,006.013.016.015.015
.015
.015
.
-.
0.100.120,240.320,43
,-
.
.
.
.,
0.04 -0.08 -0.19 ..0.29 -
Nil<.005<.005.029.064
-. ;C 0.180
-- .003.- .003
* Acid-soluble aluminum contentHeats X-1 to X-22, inclusive,madewith an additionof 0.4 lbs. aluminum per ton.
—
,
.,
yield strengthwas determined
loadat 0.2 “per””cent offset.
-8-
frOm the
The data
in Table 3 “iwhi”ohlists the average of the duplicate tests. The complete
str,osk-straindiagram using the
from these tests are .smmnarized
data are listed in Table 1 of App~ndix A.
,,
Uffect of Carbon Content.‘ The influence of carbon content in the
range of 0.17 to 0.32 per cent upon the‘tensileand yield strength is
shown graphically in Figure 1. This figure reveals that as the carbon
is raised ,from0.1.7to 0.32 per.cent, the longitudinal yield and tensile.
strength increased progre~sively from approximately 45;000 p.s.i. to
55,000p.s.i. and the tensilestrengthfrom 71,000p.s.i. to 90,000p.s.i.
This increase in strength was accolT,panied,by the usual decrease in
ductility as indicated ‘bythe elongation and reduction in area.
A comparison of the transverse and longitudinal properties
revealed the expected lower ductility in the transverse direction. There
yas alsd a tendenc~-for slightly lower yield and tensile strength in the
transverse direction, but in most cases, the”difference can not be con-
sidered significant. J,similar,difference in directional.properties was
noted throughout all thirty heats.
The Effect of Manganese Content. Figure 2 illustrates the—“—. —
influezioeof manganese in the range of 0.93 to 1.51 per cent upon the
tensile and yield strength. .Asthe manganese is increased from 0.93 to
1.51 per cent ,’the longitudinal yield strength increased progressively
from approximately 39,000 p.s.i. tG 48,000 p.s.i., and the longitudinal
tensile strength from 70,(?00p.s.i. to
strengths were found in the transverse
77,000 p.s.i. A similar trend and
direction. ,,.
-%
TA.BLE 3. TENSILE PROPERTIES CF HCT-ROL,LiDPLiWIEFROMLABORATORY HEATS
-—. -————————.—————— . ——_.._._
Elong.in Red. in Yield TensileRest Test 2 Inches, fires, Strength,No. Direction “$
Strength,?; p.s.i. p.s.i.
—-.—..——. .—. c
(Group 1)x-1
f!
x-2!!
:x-3!!
,x-4!1
x.5II
(Group,2)&6
f!
X.-7It
X-8t%
2$-9t,
(GrouP.,3)x-loIt
x-n!1
i-12t,
X-131!
I,on~.Trans.
Long,Trans.
Long.Trans.
Long.Trans.
Long.Trans.
Long+Trans.
J,ong.Trans.
Long.‘Trams.
Long.Trans.
Long .Trans.
. Long.Trans.
Long.
Trans.
Long.Trans.
37.331.5
36.032.8
31.829.5
30.927.8
28.526.5
35.532.0
34.829.9
35.630.0
34.831.6
34.932,3
33.229.7
33.028.8
33.030.5
74,562.1
68.963.0
67.061,1
67.556.4
64.852,4
66.556.2
8s.658,3
70.559.2
‘.72.159.6
69.760,2
68.660.7
68.556.9
66.059.6
45,63044,750
44,25041,630
47,36046,250
51,00048,750
55,00049,360
39,13039,630
44,63043,130
46,75044,500
48,38046,380
47,63044,130
50:88046,630
52,50051,000
49”/75049,250
71,38072,400
74,60073,680
81,55060,200
66,85086,450
69,80087,280
70,15069,500
73,45071,900
77,35075,950
77,18077,650
78,45076,300
80,00079,600
65,45083,630
83,95083,200
—.—
-9a-
TABLE..3. (Corrtinued)
Elong. in Red,,.,in Yiel,d TensileHeat Test 2 Inches, Area? Strength,No,
Strength,Direction $~.-.— — -— ._____ $ —p.s.i. p.s.i,
(Gro’up’4)x-14If
,,
31.8 66.928.8 58.6
Long,Trans.
50,63046,000
51,38048,880
56,00056,750
68,63066,250
78,250‘75,880
80,00079,050
81,40080,950
82,25082,650
98,63093,610
99,49097,280
79,60078,100
84,20082,450
93,53092,550
1o5,130100,400
74,90073,800
82,23081,850
77,38076,380
79,65079,980
~-15,,
31.8 64,128.8 58.3
Long.Trsns.
‘X-16U
Long.Transo
29.0 63.224.1 55.2
X-17H
Long.Trans.
24.0 63.020.9 49.7
X-18II
Long.Trans.
22.0 62.620.8 53.5
(Group 5)X-19,1
Long.Trans.
32.4 65.829.5 59.0
,49,13047,750
56,68054,000
66,68064,630
78,50073,880
X-20ff
I,ong.Trans.
32.6 67.827.3 59.5
27.0 61.123.0 52.4
X-21II
Long.Trans.
“ x-22If
,,
Long.Trans.
25.3 59.420.3 48.8
(Group G)X-23,1
Long.Trans.
34.5 66.429.3 52.2
47,50045,750
ko,88049,360
47,75046,380
49,63049,380
.A.-_L_”__
X-24II
31.3 64.527.8 50.7
Long.Trans.
‘X-25M
Long.Trans.
33.0 ““68.227.6 54.1
X-26,1
Long.Trans,
33.0 68.126.8 53.3
...,..,
-91J-
TAFII,E3. (Continued)
—.— “——. —___ .
Elong. in Red. in Yield Tensile]~e~t Test 2 Inches, Area, Strength, Strength,,No. Direction % % p.s.i. p.s.?>
—.——. — ., .—..—
x.-27 Long. 33.5 69.6 48,250 76>6001! Trs.ns, 26.3 56.9 45,750 75,980
x-28 Long. 33..5 68.7 48,380 77,750It Trans. 28.5 55.9 46,880 75,800
(Group 7)X-45 Long. 33.8 67.2 52,100 79:100II ‘lrans. 23,8 35.7 48,880 75,950
X-46 Long. 35.0 70.1 50$750 80,30011 Trans. 28,0 51.2 52,000 79,~3(J
— ——.—==_—--—. ,—===—-—--- :===— -.— —.—
-10-
-1
● ~ollp I HEATS
100 — D STANDARD COMPOSITION HEATS
90 —
80 —
70 —
60 —
50- ●Y”●
40.15 .20 .25 ,30 .35
GARBON CONTENT -IER CENT
FIGURE i . RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CARBON CONTENT
AND TENSILE AND YIELD STRENGTH
0-6412
-11-
90
80
,
: 60zwat-tn
50
40
30
—
—
—
—
● GROUP 2 HEATS
o STANDARO COMPOSITION HEATS
o0
.s0 1.10 I .30 1.50
MANGANESE CONTENT-PER CENT
FIGURE 2. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MANGANESE
CONTENT AND TENSILE AND YIELD STRENGTH
0-5413
-1,2-
The increased manganese content did not decrease the ductility
as indicated by the reduction of area snd elongation in both the longi-
tudinal amd transverse directions. ihile there was a slight increase in
the reduction of area in the longitudinal direction with increased
manganese conteut, this change was not enmgh to ‘beconsidered signifi-
Carlt.
The Effect of Silicon Content. The long itudinal tensile data..—. ————
from the four heats made to study the influence of silicon content are
shown in Figure 3. From this figure it will be noted that the silicon
content in the
upon the yield.
slight.
In the
influence upon
range of about 0.30 to 0.90 per cent he.s little influence
strength and the effect upon the tensile strength is only
range investigated, the silicon content had no perceptible
the elongation or reduction in area.
Effect of Molybdenum Contex,t. The marked influence of molybdenum—, ——.. —.— .— —,.-.
content upon the longitudinal yield and tensile strengths is show in
Figure 4. By increasing the molybdenum content from 0.10 to 0.43 per
cent, the yield strength was raised from approximately 51,000 p,s,i. tO
78,000psi. and the tensile strength from 57,000 psi to 99,000 psi.
This incrw.sein strengthwas ficcompcniedwith the usual
decreasein elongationand reductionin &.rea.
The Mfect of Vanadiumcontent. Figure5 revealsthatthe
increasein longitudinalyieldand tensilestrengthproducedby the
additionof vanadiumwas evenmoremarkedthan thatof molybdenum. By
increasing the vanadium content from O.04 to O.29 per cent, the yield
strength was raised from 49,000 p,s.i. to 78,000 p.’s.i:j,and the-tensile
strength from 60,000 p.s.i. to 104,000 p.s.i. With this
.—
-13-
100
0
9C
o00
6(
5(
● GROUP 3 HEATS
o STANOARD COWQSITION HUTS
-,!TENSILE STRENGTH
—
●
�✚✍●
●
YIELD STRENGTH
,?0
SILICON CONTENT- FER CENT
FIGURE 3 . RELATIONS 1P BETWEEN SILICON CONTENT
AND TENSILE AND YIELD STRENGTH
0-s414
-14-
100
90
:
~ 80
0
~
: 70
z
z1-(n
60
5C
4(
● GROUP 4 HEATS
e STANDARD COMIWSITKXI HEATS●
—
●
●
●
✎
●
o 0.10 0.20 0.30 040
MOLYBDENUM coNTENT - PER CENT
FIGURE 4 . RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOLYBDENUM CONTENT
AND TENSILE AND YIELD STRENGTH
0-s415
-15-
Ilc
I0(
x
Jvi
c 8C
:
,
Ela: 7Ca1-ul
60
5C
40
●
—
~o
/
,,t.
—
●● GROUP 5
.
HEATS
o STANDARD COMPOSITION HEATS
.05 .10 ,15 . Zo .25 .30
FIGuRE 5.
VANADIUM CONTENT-PER CENT
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VANADIUM CONTENT
AND TENSILE AND YIELD STRENGTH
0-s416
-16-
increase in strength, the elon~ation dropped from 32.4 to 25.3 per cent
and the reduction of .are&from 65.8 to 59.4 pe”rcent.
The Effect of Aluminum”Content. AS would be expected, the— ——-,,.
aluminum content had no per~ep%ible effect upon the tensile properties
of either the longitudinal or transverse tests. The influehce of-.
aluminum upon the properties normal to the surface will be di6cussed
later in this report.
Vnderbead ‘TeldCrack Sensitivity—.
The underbes.dweld crack sensitivity of all thirty heats in the
hot-rolled condition was determiriedby the single-bead weld test as
previously described in the reports on this project. Five weld specimens
were made on each heat and a summary of the results is listed in
Table 4. The complete data are listed in Table 2 of the Appendix.
The Effect of Carbon Content. The pronounced influence— — .—
content upon the extent of underbead cracking is illustrated in
of carbon
Figure 6.
This figure shows that the crack sensitivity increases quite rapidly as
the carbon content is raised. The heats with 0.20 per cent or less
carbon had a cracking index of 27 or less as compared with 85 and higher.
for heats with 0.25 per cent or more carbon.
The Effect of Wanganese Content. The effeet of ms.nganese content————
in the range of O.93 per cent to 1.51 per cent upon the degree of under-
bead cracking is shwn in Figure 7. While the data in this figure do not
form a smooth curve because of other factors such as the variation in
carbon content, the results do indicate that the underbead cracking
-17-,.
TABLE 4, UNDERBtiADW3LD CRACKING INDEcwS WIR MATS XL1 iO X-28,x-45 AND x-46 IN THE HOT-ROLLED CONDITION
- -—~ — —.—.
Heat ConSt!.tuerit—.—
No.~feId Crack..
Varied—. SenSi+iviity Index
‘v ,. -1x-2X-3X-4X-5
X-6x-7x-8x-9
x-loX-IIX-12X-13
X-14X-15X-16X-17x-18
X-19X-20X-21x-22
X-23X-24,X-25X-26X-27X-28
x-45X-46
0.17 ) 210“20 ) ;: 27;0.25 ) Carbon 850.28 ) content 970.32 ) 104
0.93 ) % 281.22 ) Nanganese 191.37 ) content ,. 751.51 ) 59
0.41 ) % 500.55 ) Silicon 840.79 ) content 840.92 ) 64
0,10 ) 690.12 ) * 860.24 ) l(oly~denum 660.32 ) content 710,43 ) 66
0?04 ) -’/= 510.06 ) Vanadium 640.19 ) content 780.29 ) 74
nil ) 6.< .005) “ 95C .005) Y Aluminum ~ 74
.029) content 81
.064) (acid soluble) 67
.180) 17
Standard composition heat 57II “ t, It 60
,’
-18-
●
�
●
●
�
�
✎
✎ ● GROUP I HEATSo STANDARO COMPOSITION HEATS
.15 .20 .25 .30 .35
CARBON CONTENT-PER CENT
FIGURE 6 . THE EFFECT OF CARBON CONTENT UPON THEUNDERBEACJ WELD CRACK SENSITIVITY
0-5417
-19-
100
80
60
40
20
● GROUP 2 HEATS—
o STANOARO COMPOSITION HEATS
—
— o
—,
●
—
.90 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.60
MANGANESE CONTENT—PER CENT
FIGURE 7. THE EFFECT OF MANGANESE CONTENT UPON THE
UNDERBEAD WELD CRACK SENSITIVITY
o 5418
j.ncreaseclrapidly
obtained on these
-20-
ctsthe manganese content increased, Yor& dcta will be
steels in order to obtain more points for plotting the
manganese content-crack sensitivity-cu.rvo.
The Effectof Silicon Content. The addition of silicon above.——— —..— —..—.
that normally used in HTS steel wns found to increase the extent of
underbead crncking. The data show, however, that an increase from 0.79
per cent to 0.92 per cent silicon resulted in a decrease in the crack
sensitivity. (See Figure 8.) 11’bileit is well established that large
additions of silicon, about 1.00 per cent, decrease the tensile and yield
strengths as illustrated in Figure 3, additional data m-e needed to
confirm the effect of silicon content in this range upon the weld crack
sensitivity. The high-silicon end of the crack-sensitivity
Figure 8, therefore, should be considered as incomplete.
Elffcct of MOlybdenum Content. MO1ybdenum——.—. —.—...
thut additions ranging from 0.10 to 0.43 per cent
bead cracking to any appreciable extent, although
strength~ wore incroe.sed to a marked extent. The
proved to
curve in
be unique in
did not increase under-
the yield and tensile
curve comparing under-
bead cracking with the molybdenum content is shown in Figure 9.
The Effect of Vanadium Centent. The relationship of underbead—..————,—.
cracking to the vanadiwm content is illustrated in Figure 10. This
figure indicates that additions of vanadium increases the undorbead
crackingto a very small extent.
The Effect of Aluminum Content. The study of the effect of_—. —— .——
aluminum content in the range of O to 0.18 per cent (acid soluble)
yielded reeults which wore quite unexpected and will require additional
data for confirmation.
-21-
./o
●
●
● GROUP 3 HEATS
0 S TANOARD COMWWION HEATS
‘“t
0.20 0.40 0s0 0.s0 I .00
SILICON CONTENT - PER CENT
FIGURE 8 . THE EFFECT OF SILICON CONTENT
UNDERBEAD WELD CRACK SENSITIVITY
UKIN THE
0-5419
100
●
�
●●
�
—
● GROUP 4 HEATSo STANDARD COMPOSITION HEATS—
o .10 .20 .30 .40
MOLYBDENUM CONTENT-PER CENT
FIGURE 9 . THE EFFECT OF MOLYBDENUM CONTENT UPON
THE UNDERBEAD WELD CRACK SENSITIVITY
0-S420
-23-
—
●
—
● GROUP 5 HEATS
O STANDARO COMPOSITION HEATS
—
o .05 .10 .15 .20 .25
V#NADIUM CONTENT-PER CENT
FIGURE 10. THE EFFECT OF
uNDERBEAD WELD
VANADIUM CONTENT UPON THE
CRACK SENSITIVITY
0-5421
The
sensitivity
Figure 11.
-z4-
data shawingthe influe!uceof
of the six heatsmade in this
nluminum content upon the crack
investigationare shown in
These data indio~te that the extent of underbead cracking is
extremely low in the steel made with no aluminum addition and inoressed
very rapidly as the aluminum was added, the.maximum cracking occurring in
tho neighborhood of .01 per cent aluminum and progressively decreasing
with additional aluminum.
Since the reasons for the apparent marked influence of alu!rinum
content are not obvious at this time, and as the above results were un-
expected and based on rolativcly few data, it will be necessary to ‘obtain
additional dsta to confirm or refute these results.
~Totched-BarImpact Properties.. —.—.-—
In order to determine the effect of chemical composition upon the
notchad-bar
each of the
from -754F.
impact properties, four duplicate specimens were broken from
30 experimental h~ats at five different tem.paraturesrvnging
to 210°F. The stondard !7ho.rpytsst specimcm was used with
the V-type Izoclnotch out pm’r.llel with the plate surface. l:nlylongi-
tudinal tests were msd.c,the length of the test specimen being the
direction of rolling.
The refiultsof
32, inclusive, and the
these tests are shown graphically in Figures 12 to
datt~from which those figures were constructed are
listed in Table 3 of Appendix A.
The Effeot of Carbon Content..
inclusi~e, reveals that &s the carbon
A,comparison of Figures 12 to 14,
cent.ontis raised, the notched-bar
imp::ctstrength drops rapidly> ‘Thisis well illustrated in Figure 27
which shows the impact strength at +75”F. for a carbon range of 0.17per
cent to 0.32 per cent.
-25-
●
●
● GROUP 6 HEATSo STANDARD COMPOSITION HEAT’S
o .02 .04 .0s OS .10 12 .14 .16 .18 .20
ALUMINUM CWTENT - PER CENT
FIGURE I I . THE EFFECT (J= AIJJMINuM WNTENT uPoN THE
UNDERBEAD WELD CRACK SENSITIVITY
O-5422
180
140
100
60
-26-
HEAT NO. X. I
HOT ROLLED
C-.17
—
0
-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200
TEMPERATIJRE — DEG. F.
ko0Il.40
100
60
20
0
L
HEAT NO. X-2
HOT ROLLED
C-.2O
—
—
lu--80 -40 0 40 eo I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
FIGURE 12, NOTCH -BAR IMPACT PROPERTIES
O-S4Z3
-2?-
180 —
140 .
I 00 .
HEAT NO. X-3
HOT ROLLED
C-.25
60 —<
20 —
o-80 -40 0 40 80 I20 160 200
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
00z~180a.
;o0
’14C
I Oc
60
HEAT NO. X-4
HOT ROLLED
C-.28
20 –
o
-80
FIGURE
-40 0 40
TEMPERATURE
3. NOTCH - 8AR IMPACT
80 I 20 180 200
— DEG. F.
PROPERTIES
@5424
I80
140
100
60
HEAT NO. X-5
HOT ROLLED
C- .32
—
Imaz=1800a
I 00
60
-80 -40 0 40 80 I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE — OEG. E
HEAT NO. X-6
HoT ROLLED
MO-.93
20
0- 80 -40 0 40 so 120 160 200
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
FIGURE 14 . NOTCH- BAR MPACT PROPERTIES
0-542!5
to 1.51
.2:;-
Effect of Uang?nese Content. In the range investigated, 0.93
per cent, it wes found that the manganese content had little if
any influeuce upon the notched-bar impact strength. (See Figures 14 to
IL, inclusive.)
Figure 2! shows the impact strength at room temperature plotted
agaifistthe .?nangnncsecontent. “Whilethese data ,mightbe interpreted as
indicating that an intermediatemanganese content was advantageous, it
appears &flatthis indication is only incidental as similar conditions
are not noted at lower or higher temperatures.
Effect oi’Silicon Content. At room temperature end lower, the—. —..—....— —.— _
notched-bar impact strength falls off rapidly as the
increqsed. (See Figure. 16 to 16, inclusive. ) Thj.s
content at room temperature is illustrated ir.Figure
silicon content is
effect of silicon
2.9.
At a tempernturo of 10”F’., the silicon content hos no
appreci.ablee:efectupon the impact strength.
Effect of ?!’olyhdenumContent. “,hilethe addition of O.iO per
cent molybdenum lowered to some extent the notched-bar im~!aotstrength
when tested at 75’F.,
further effects. ‘The
content was raised.to
to a marked extent.
!l!heinfluence
increased contents up to 0.32 per cent had no
irrdj.cationswere, however, tnritas the molybdenum
about 0.40 per cent, the impact strength dropped
of molybdenum content upon the impact strength at
75”F. is shown in FiKure 30. The data for the entire ranEe of temper-
atures and compositic,ns stu.dic;d are shown in Fi~ures 18 to 20, inclusive.
10
14
la
HEAT NO. X-7
HOT ROLLEOMn -1.22
0
—
-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
IHEAT NO. X-8
HOT ROLLEO
Mn -1.37
I 00
60
—
0
20 –
o-eo -40 0 40 60 I 20 I 60 200
TEMPERATURE - DEG. F.
FIGURE 4S. NOTCH-BAR IMPACT PROPERTIES0-s426
-sl-
180—
HEAT NO. x-9
HOT ROLLEOMn - 1.51
140 —
I 00 —
60 —
>
: 20—
x
~o I
I -80 -40 0 40 80 I 20In
160 200TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.Q
z
HEAT NO. X-IO
HOT ROLLEDsi-.4l
140 —
I 00 —
60 —
20—
0
- so -40 0 40 so 120 160 200TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
FIGURE 16. NOTCH- BAR IMPACT PROPERTIES
0-5427.
-s2-
13
14
Ic
6
IVIaz30n:180
140
Ioc
6C
2C
0
HEAT NO. X-11HOT ROLLED
SI- .55
-80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200
TEMPERATURE- DEG. F.
HEAT NO. X-12
HOT ROLLED
61-.7S
----80 -40 0 40 60 120 160 200
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
FIGURE 17, NOTCH-BAR IMPACT PROPERTIESO-5426
180
I 40
I 00
60
I
-33-
—
HEAT NO. X-13HOT ROLLED
Si -.92
0
80
140
I 00
60
20
0
-so -40 0 46 so 120 160 2Q0
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
HEAT NO. X-14
HOT ROLLED
Me-. IO
-80 -40 0 40 60 120 160 200
FIGURE
TEMPERATURE - DEG. I!
8 NOTCH - BAR IMPACT PROPERTIES
O-5429
-34-
18
14
10
6
2
c
8
14
10
6
2
c
HEAT NO. X- 15
HOT ROLLED
Mo-.12
-eo -40 0 40 80 I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE — oEG. F.
HEAT NO. X-16
HOT RU.LED
Mo- .24
0
.. .- .- _--Ou -%u u 40 80 I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
FIGURE 19 , NO TCH-SAR IMPACT PROPERTIES0-543(
-s15-
1,80—HEAT NO. X-17
HOT ROLLED
MO-.32
140 —
I 00 —
60 —
>a.
: 20 .x
00I -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200
Wa
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.za:
g 1s0 -0L
HEAT NO. X-18
HOT ROLLED
Mo-.43
I40 —
100 —
60 —
2 o—
0-80 -40 0 40 60 120 160 200
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
FIGURE 20 . NOTCH. BAR IMPACT PROPERTIES0-5431
-36-
ii’ffectof Vanadium Content. Th9 effect of vanadium—.—. ———
the notched-bar impact strength at 75”F. is shown in Figure
this figureit will be seenthatthe
vcmadi,.uncontentis increased. This
marked increase in yield strength.
impact strength decreases
would be expected in view
content upon
31. From
as the
of the
The effect of tempero.tureupon the impact strength of the four
vanadium-bearing steels is shown in Figures 21 and 22.
Effect of Aluminum Content. The aluminum con-tentwas found to_._,_ —.—
influence the notched-bar impact strength in the expected manner, that
is, the impact strength especially at low temperatures increased as the
aluminum content (acid soluble) was increased until a maximum was reached,
after which the impsct strength declined with further addition of aluminum.
The aluminm content is known to affect other properties such as grain-
coarsenin~ temperature and hardenability ixln similar manner,
The influence of aluminum contentupon the notched-bhrimpaot
strength at -40’F. is illustrated in Ipigure32. The complete data
covering the entire temperature range studied are chown in Figures 23 to
25, inclusive.
Standard-compositionHeats. The notched-bar.— .—
of the two standard chemical composition heats, X-45
in Figure 26. The curves for these two heats tirein
impact properties
and x-46, are shovm
good agreement b~t do
rot duplics.t~th(src,sulto for hects of similcr composition, X-8 for
exmple, as well as might be expected.
A Discussion of the Signif’ioance.of the Test Data-—.. -
A study of thfitensile properties, weld crack flensi.tivity,and
the notc?led-barimpact properties of the thirty experimental hetits
-37-
180
I 40
I00
60
HEAT NO. X-19
HOT ROLLED
v- .04
-80 -40 0 40 80 I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
HEAT NO. X-20
HOT ROLLED
v- .08
I 40 —
100 —8
60 —
,20 —
o-80 -40 0 40 80 I20 160 200
TEMPERATURE —DEG. F.
FIGURE 21 NOTCH . BAR IMPACT PROPERTIES0-5432
—
180
100
60
IIn
230n
~ 180
0L
140
100
60
20
-38-
HEAT NO. X-21
HOT ROLLED
v- .19
-80 .40 0 40 80 I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
HEAT NO. X-22
HOT ROLLED
V-.29
0
1 I Io 1 L
-80 -40 0 40 w I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE— DEG. F.
.>FIGURE 22 . NOTCH . 8AR IMPACT PROPERTIES
o-5433
-40-
1160r HEAT NO. X-25
● HOT ROLLED
Al- <.005
0
100 —
60 —
*aK
: 20 —
v
,01-
UI -80 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200
0 TEMPERATURE— OEG. F.z30n I
HEAT NO. X-26
HOT ROLLED
Al - .029
140
r
too
60
1
20
0-80 -40 0 40 so I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE— DEG. F.
●
FIGURE 24 . NOTCH-BAR IMPACT PROPERTIES
o-54ti
-39-
180 —HEAT No. )(-23
HOT ROLLED
Al-O
140 .
I00 — B
60 —
:=20 .u
~o I I I II -60 -40 0 40 80 I20 160 20C
(na
30a
: 180
;
140
I00
60
20
TEMPERATURE — OEG. F.
HEAT NO. X-24
HOT ROLLEO
Al -<005
/
-80 -40 0 40 60 I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE- DEG. F.
FIGURE 23. NOTCH-BAR IMPACT PROPERTIES0-5434
-41
18(
1°UIn
5:glaou.
14
10
6
2
c
.
HEAT NO. X-27
HOT ROLLED
Al -.064
1
1 I I I I . I-60 -40 0 40 80 120 160 200
TEMPERATURE - DEG. F.
HEAT NO.X-28
HOT ROLLED
Al -.100
-60
FIGURE
#
I I-40 0 40 60 I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE - DEG. F.
25 . NOTCH- eAR IMPACT PROPERTIES
0-5436
-42--
.
/
HEAT NO. X-45
0 AS ROLLEO
STANDARD COMPOSITION
i
I I-60 -40 0 40 80 I20 160 200
TEMPERATURE –OEG. F.
e
e0
.
HEAT NO. X-46
AS ROLLEO
sTANOARO COMPOSITION
-60 -40 0 40 80 I20 160 200
TEMPERATuRE —DEG. F.
FIGURE 26. NOTCH-BAR IMPACT PROPERTIES
0-5437
-43-
● ()— m
o }I TESTED AT 756 F,( o AS ROLLEO
t ●
—
—
—
—
●
● GROUP I HEATs
o STANOARD COMPOSITION HEATS
II
.15 .20 .25 .30 .3sCARBON CONTENT— -R CENT
FIGURE 27. THE EFFECT OF
NOTCHED - BAR IMPACTCARSON CONTENT uPON THE
STRENGTH AT 750 F.
0-5438
-44-
120
20
0
0
— C8●
0000
●●
●● ●
— ●
●
● ●
● ●
—●
●
—
●
—
●
TESTED AT 75” F.— AS ROLLED
● GROUP 2 HEATSo STANOARD COMPOSITION HEATS
.90 1.10 1.30 1.50
MANGANEsE CONTENT — PER CENT
FIGURE 2S . THE EFFECT OF MANGANESE CONTENT UFUN THE
NOTCHED- BAR IMPACT STRENGTH AT 75° F.
o-5439
-45-
12(
Ioc
20
0
_mO TESTED AT 750 E
~AS ROLLEO
●
—
●
●—
—
—
● GROUP 3 HEATS
o STANOARO COMPOSITION HEATS
.40 .60 .80 I.00SILICON CONTENT–PER CENT
FIGuRE 29. THE EFFECT OF SILICON CONTENT UPON THE
NOTCHED - BAR IMPACT STRENGTH AT 750 F.
0-5440
-46-
)—1
TESTEO AT 750EAS ROLLEO
●
●
b
o
● ●
GROUP 4 HEATsSTANDARO COMPOSITION HEATS\
I I.10 .20 .30 .40
MOLY80ENUM CONTENT-PER CENT
FIGURE 30. THE EFFECT OF MOLYBDENUM CONTENT UPONTHE NOTCHED - BAR IMPACT STRENGTH AT 75° F.
o-544 I
———_
-47-
120
100
20
0
\
GROUP 5 HEATS - ●
STANOARO COMPOSITION HEATS - 0—
\
TESTEO AT T5” F.AS ROLLED
— :
—●
● \
—
●
—
—
I.05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30
VAN AOIUM CONTENT— PER cENT
FIGURE 3 I. THE EFFECT OF vANADluM ~TENT upoN ‘HENOTCHED - BAR IMPACT STRENGTH AT 75° F.
0-5442
-48-
—TESTEO AT -40” F.
AS ROLLED
GROUP 6 HEATS
—
.04 .08 .12 .16 .20
ALUMINUM CONTENT— P2R CENT
FIGURE 32. THE EFFECT OF ALUMINUM GONTENT UPON THE
NOTCHED-BAR IMPACT STRENGTH AT -40*F.
0-5443
-49-
tested in the hot-rolled state reveals the limitations and possible
advantages Wmt might be obtained by varying the carbon, manganese,
silicon, molybdenum, vanadium, and aluminum contents.
Frcm this investigation, it is quite o’oviousthat the carbon ‘
content is very definitely limited. J,bovethis limitinE value of
about 0.15 to 0.20 per cent carbon, the crack sensitivity increases with
marked rapidity which is entirely out of line with the increase in yield
strength. The increase in carbon is also accompaniedwith a reduction in
the notched-bar impact strength.
While manganese increases the yield strength to a marked extent,
it also raises the crack sensitivity quite rapidly and is, therefore,
limited in the case of hot-rolled steel to some place between about
1.1(Ito 1.30 per cent, depending upon other factors. One apparent
advantage of manganese is that it is not detrimental to the notched..bar
impact strength in the range investigated,
while the use of silicon as arlalloy in this grade of steel
appears to offer an advtmtage over plain carbon-manganese steels for
obtaining yield strengths up to about 52,000 p.s.i., silicon is not
comparablewith either molybdenum or vanadium for producing higher yield
strength steels that exhibit a low degree of underbead cracking,
It appears quite possible that the use of molybdenum and ‘ranadiwm
as alloying agents may prove to be advantageous. Additions of either of
these alloys produces a substantial increase in the yield and tensile
strength. which in the case of molybdenum is accompanied by little or
no increase in weld crack sensiti.vit.y,and only a moderate increase in
the case of vanadium. The addition of these alleys does, however, lower
the notched-bar imps.otstrength especially at room temperature and b$low.
.-50-
The data fromthe sixheatsmade to studythe influenceof
aluminpmcontentindicate that aluminumis an extremelytiportant
faotorin establishingthe weld cracksensitivity,the 10~.and.medi~m
alumiri!nnsteels being quite craok sensitive as compared with steels
containing no aluminum or very large additions of aluminum.,.
Since this pronounced effect of aluminum had not been noted in
the previotiiwork, which may be because the proper range was not,.
investigated, it will be necessary to obtain more data to confirm or
refute these results.
The study of aluminum content again confirmed the beneficial
effects of relatively large aluminum additions, two uounds per ton,
upon the notched-bar impact strength. This effect is especially
noticeable at low temperatures.
The Influence of Aluminum,Content TJponthe ~—. —.,— +_.n!eohani~alpr~pertles }]Orwl t~e~a~surface——.—— —.-. .—v .,_..
In order to obtain more iqforme.tionabout the influence of
altqninwnand especially its effent upon the physical properties normal
to the plate surface, JIeatsX-23 to x-28, inclusive, were made with
al~inum additions ranging from O to 5 pounds per ton. (See Tables 1
and 2.)
These ~eats were made from 350-pound induction furnace melts
which were poured into a single 8 by 8-inch ingot, the maximum size ths,t
can be eonyiently handled in the laboratory. This large size was
selected in order to obtain the maximum reduction during hot-rolling to
a l-inch plate. TO prevent the structtue from being broken up by
forging, these ingots were rolled directly to l-inch plate on a small
oominercie.1mill.
-51.-
The analysis
aluminum content and
.,
of’these six heats, including the acid-soluble
the amount of aluminum added, are shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5. CHIY,fICJiLANALYSIS OF LABORATORY HEATS MA.DETOSTUDY THE INFLUENCE GF ALUMINUM CONTENT
-— — —_— _,, —
HeatNo” c
Aluminum Added:?n P s Si Ti Al in $&s. Per Ton
-— ..—— —— .—.
X-23 0.20 1.25 .021 .022 0.27 .007 Nil o
X.-24 0.23 1.36 .019 .021 0.29 .006 <.005 1/4
X-25 0.22 1.24 ,020 ..020 0.27 .013 <.005 1/2
.X-26 0.22 1,31, .021 .021 027 .016 .029 1
X-27 ,0.20 1.29 >018 .020 0.31 .015 .064 2
X-28 0.22 1.26 .019 ,020 0.27 .015 ,160 5
. .——— .._._.——. ——.., ——
Tensile properties I$ormal“to“PlateSurfa:cei In order to.—-—--=—_. _——
determine ‘thetensile strength of these steels in the direction normal
to the plate surface, tensile specimens ‘wereprepared from the hot-rolled,,
plate by welding and machining as indicated in Figure 33. Three by six-
inch specimens were cut from each of the six heats,”Heats x-23 to x-28,
inclusives 3eveled plateswere then welded to these specimens a< show
in the above figure. The ‘weldswere made with four passes using
J.incolnSh.ield-fire100(4‘7S-EICIOIO)electrodes. The first pass was made
‘witha 3/32-inch electrode and reverse polarity direct “currentusing
1.30to 140 amperes and an arc voltage of 27 to ‘3h’.,,
Following rough turning of the tensi~~ specimens, they “were
etched li~htly in order to es+abl.ish definitely ihe location of the test
plate. After determining the position of the test plate, a 3/4-inch
-52-
_rI
.505 “ TENSILE SPECIMENS
---f- )
III
~
I-Nal
/!- 4 PASS WELDS
FIGURE 33. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE PROCEDURE USEO FOR MAKING THE
SPECIMENS TO OETERMINE THE TENSILE PROPERTIES
NORMAL TO THE PLATE SURFACE’
0-902
-53-
section midway between the extremes of the test plate we.s ground to
0.505-inch diameter, leaving the renminder of the bar 0.550 inch. This
precaution was taken to insure that the fracture would occur in the
deiir~d Section. ““ ‘. ,.,.
,Theresults of the tensile tests are shown in Table 6. A study!, .,,,
of these data do not show a marked relationship”between the uluminum
content and ‘thetensile properties, It will be noted, however, that both
the yield and tensile strength of the heat made with no aluminum
additi”on,Heat X-23, are 10-wcompared with the other heats in the series.
The lcm strength, however, is not caused entirely by the absence of
aluminum since both the carbon and ms.nganese contents are 1ow. While the
data my be interpretedin such a manner as to indicate a slight incrense
in ductility with increased aluminum, this increase is’so small that it,,
cannot be considered significant.
A previous study mode on commercial HTS steels’and reported on
pages 87 to 69 of the August 24, 1945, report showed a distinct
relationship between the aluminumcontent and the reduction in area, the,,
steels with little or no acid-soluble aluminum content displaying a much
higher reduction in aretithat those containing an appreciable amount of
aluminum. A siriilw’but less marked relationship wcs noted between the
aluminum comtent and the per cent elon~r.tion. The tensile strength in
the higher aluminum commercial steels W(.Sfound to be erratic end
sometimes quite low.
This difference between the behavior of the laboratory steels and
the commercio.1heats can probably be attributed to the difference in the
amount of reductior!between ingot md plate, the directional properties
obviously being amplified by inoreased reduction.
.-F:4-
TABLE 6. TEiWILE PROPERTIES NCRMAL TO THE PLATE SURFACE
——. — ,-— ..—- ~—.—.==~ — —.i,luminum Zlong. in Red. in Yield TensileContent, 3/4 Inch, Area, Strength, Strength,
<’Heat YO. ,. z T p.s.i. p.s.i.-
74,60073:25073>750
x-23,,!!
~Jil 14.79.314.7
18.414.518.1
54,00053,00058,750
82,88080,63084,500
x-24!1!t
‘“:.005 10.76.79.3
12.6,11.514.1
63,75062,50062,500
61,50060,’75062,000
60,75079,00079,380
x-25,,,,
<:.005 17.316.013.3
22.720.618.1
61,00060,00061,500
78,38077,8807’7,750
T-261!t,
,.029 13.3‘13.313.3
18.818.821.3
23.727,827.8
63,00061,50061,500
78,00078,25078,630
x-271!It
.064 14.717’317.3
79,00074,50077,880
. lP.O 1:.: 24.1-*
18.4
62,00063,00063,000
x-28,,If 16.0
—. .——
*Speoimen”broke in gauge mark.
See Fi<ure 19 for details concerning the preparationof the tens,ile specimens.
-55-
l,]&c,hed-Bnr Impact Strength Normal to the Pie.te Surface. ~Totched-—— ,— .....—.. --. -—.. --.. ——
bar impact specimens, Chsrpy specimens with V-Izod notches, were prepared
from sections similar to those used for the tensile specimens. (See
Figure 33.)
Four duplicate specimens ‘werebroken at five different temperatures
between the limits of -40”F. and +21O”T. The data from these tests are
shown in Figures 34 to 36, inclusive. The test values are recorded in
Table 4 of Appendix A. The above figures reveal that the notched-bar
impact strength normal to
the aluminum content, the
pounds.
the plate
values at
surface is qdite low regardless of
+75°F. falling between 7 and 20-foot-
A.comparison of the six different steels reveals that Heat x-27
made with an addition of two pounds of aluminum per ton had definitely
better impact strength as compared with the other heats. Similar
results were noted when
direction, that is, the
inclusive.)
the steels were tested
direction of rolling,
in the longitudinal
(See Figures23 to 25,
In order to check the effect of aluminum content upon underbead
cracking, a second series of heats will be made with aluminum additions
ranging from O to 5 pounds per ton.
Since increased additions of molybdenum apparently did not
i.ncresse
strength
of he<.ts
previous
the cre.cksensitivity but did raise the tensile and yield
to a mnrked extent, it appears desirable to make
but at a slightly lower car”~onlevel in order to
results.
s,second series
confirm the
HEAT NO. X-23
30 — HOT ROLLEO
NO Al ADDED
20 —m
10 — 0 ●
o-80 -40 0 40 so I 20 160 200
TEMPER ATURE— OEG. F.
1- HEAT NO. X-2430 HOT ROLLED
10 —
o-Go -40 0 40 So I 20 160 200
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
FIGURE 34. NOTCH EO-BAR IMPACT STRENGTH NORMAL TO THE PLATE
SURFACE
o-5444
-5?-
“40 .
HEAT NO. X-25
30 — HOT ROLLED
+ L& Al ADDED P2R TON
20 —
10 —● ●
.:0
ur~o
I-80 -40 0 40 so 120 160 m
TEMPERATURE — DEG. F.
HEAT NQ X-26
HOT ROLLED
1 LB. Al ADDED PER TON
—
-00 -40 0 40 so 120 160 200
TEMPERATURE — 0E6. F.
FIGURE 36. NOTCHED- BAR IMPAGT STREN6TH NORMAL ~ ~tZ
PLATE SURFACC0-8445
—.
1HEAT NO. X-27
HOT ROLLED
30 2 LES. Al ADOED PER TON
0
020 —
010 —
*na 0a
o
;0I -80 -40 0 40 80 1200
1s0 200TEMPERATURE -DEG.F,
2a
2 40!
bo HEAT NO. x.28o ,L HOT ROLLEO
30 — 5L6S. AI AOOED PER TON
20 —
10 .
0-so -40 0 40 60 I20 1s0 200
TEMPERATuRE -DEG. F.
FIGURE 36. NOTCHEO-BAR IMPACT STRENGTH NORMAL TO
THE PLATE SURFAGE ,
0-6446
-Lj~-
The influence of homogenization upon the crack sensitivity and
physical properties of the 30 heats discussed in this report will be
studied. This phase of the work should aid in establishing the maximum
chemical composition ~hst may be used without excessive underbead cracking.
Since it appears that the most practical place to carry out a
homogenization treatment in cormnercialproduction is while the slab is
being heated for rolling to plc.te,it will be necessary to determine the
time and temperature required for this treatment. Sections of commercial
sls.bsof HTS steel have been obtained and a.study is being made to
determine the time-temperature cyole necessary to homogenize the slab
and also the effect of this temperature upon the crack sensitivity of
the plate rolled from the treated slab.
Data used in this report can be found in Laboratory Notebook
No. 2581, pages 6 to 51, inclusive.
CES:K D QLW/abJune 18, 1947RevisedOctober9, 1947
APPENDIX A
TABJ.ESOF COWLETE TEST DATA
by
H. M. Banta and A. L. Walters
-63-
TABLE AI.. TENSILE PROPBR’llIES OF HOT-ROLL3D PI,M’EI’RI.MLA.8CR~,TCRYRdATS.X-1TC K-28, INCLUSIVE>X-45 AND X-46
—. .—.—_— —-——-Elong.”in Red. ifi Yield Tensile
Heat, Test 2 Inches, Area, Strength, Strength,NO; DirectiOn. %. % p.s.i. p.s.i.
———.—.
x-1f,,! .,, “
X-2IIIt1,
x-3!1!1tt
x-4II1,!1
x-5 ,It1! .!1
X-61!1,u
x.?,%It ~II
x-8!1!1!,
Long. ‘11 .
Trans~II
Long.tt
Trans.!1
Long.!1
Trans.?!
Long,It
Trans.!1 ‘
Long.,?
Trans$’1!
Long.1!
Trans.II
Long.’II
Trani.,1
Long.It
Trap;.r!
—.—.
37.037.5 “’31.5’31,5’
37.0’35.033.532,0’
31.032.5”29.5’29,5 ““
31.730.028.027.5)
29.527.526.0’27.0
36.035.0 “’33.031.0 ‘
34.535<0 ,’,,30.0 ‘29.7
35.535.730.030.0
73s974.962.162.1
67.969.963;362,8 “
65.466.661.161.1
66.266)856’.056.6
65.963.353.351.4
67:065.958.6 ,,57.8
691969.358.161.8
71.’4,,69.760.6 ‘(57.5
44,250,,47>00045,50044,000
45,50043,00041,000,42,250
46,750,”48,000,48,250,44,250
52,75049,250,49,00048,500
55,50054,50049,00049,750
39,75036>50~36,50d40,750
45,25044,00043,50042,750
46,50047,00044>50044,500
70,750722000
72,30072,500
75,10074,10073$90073,850
61,00062,10080,00060,400
67,60085,90066,70086,200
69,90089,70067,40067,150
70,20070,10069,50069,500
74,1007Z>8007~,9i3(3
71,900
77,60077;10075,60076,100
-60a-
T,ABLEAl. (Continued)
—“”=gni7——— Red. in—-.
,, ... ,., Yield Tensile -Heat Test 2 Inches, Area, Strength, Strength,
No. Direction . ~~—.. ——— ~,, p.s.i. p.s.i.—.———
x-9!!,,,!
x-lot!,!!!
X-12!!!!!1
X-13’11 ,,,!1,,
.
X-14’u!l:..’f,
X-151,11,,
X-16It!7,,
X-17!!M,,
Long.t!
Trans..II
Long.II
Trans.II
Long.11
Traqs.11
Long’.,,
Tre.ns.!,
Long’.!1
Trans.,1
.,Long.,,
Trans.,,
Long.,1
Trans..,1
Long.,1
Trans.t,
Long.!1
Tis.ns,tl
35.034.531.531.6
35?534.233.531.0
32.034.330.229..2
..33.033..029.028..5
33.033*O30.5”30.5
31.032.528.029.5
31.532.029.028.5
29.029.0.24.5.23.7.
23.025.02i.320.5
73.570,659.160.3
70.469.061.658.6
67.969,3.57.559.6
68?868.259.458.3
66.165.959,659.6
65.967.958.658..6“’
62.865.457.5 ‘59.1
62.663.655.554.9 ~
61.364.749.849.5
49,25047,50046,76046,000
47,75047,50044,00044,250
52,50049,25047,00046,250
53,00052,00052,00050,000
49,75049,75049,50049,000
60,00051,25046,50045,500
51,00051,750”49,00046,750
55,00057,00057,00056,500
66,75070,50065,25067,250
77,60076,75077,70077,600
78,30076,60076,50076,100
79,40080,60079,60079,400
65,40085,50083,75083,900
63,80084,10083,30083,100
80,00080;80079,00079,100
81,00081,70080,80081,000
81,000.83,50082,70082,600
97,750.99,50093,50094,125
-60b-,..,.-
‘TABLEAl. (Continued)
———.——.—. .—. —..—. —— —--___,__Elong. in Red. in
HeatYield Tensile
Test 2 Inches, Area, Strength, Strength,No. Di’’’ti”” A: $ ~.soi. p,sOi._.— +...— ,-----
x-18:,,It,1
X-19II11It
X-20!,,!n
x.-z111Ii,,
x-22,,,,,!
X-23,,It,1
X-24It,,II
X-25Itt!!8
x-26II1?11
Long.It
Trans.!?
Long.,,
Trans,.1! ‘
Long.”!!
Trans.’,!1
Long.11
‘1’rans.II
Long.,.11
Trans.!!
Long.!t
Trans.II
Long.!1
Trans.,1
Long.n
‘Mans,1!
Long.It
Trans.!1
21.522,520.5.21.0.
32.032.?29.0,30.0,
32,7”32.5,27.027.5
27.027.0 .,24.022.0
25.525.020.020.6
35.034.029.029,5
32>030.528,027.5
33.033.028.027.5
33.033.027.026.5
62.8”62.353.3 “53.6 “
65,665.960.6 “5’7.3 “
67.767.95B.360.6
60.661.652.552.2
59.459.449.248.4
6’7.385.452.551.9
68.660.353.647.6
68.268.255.2530
68.467.753-852.8
77,00079,50076,50075,250
48,75049,50047,500’48,000
57,25056,50053,750.54,250
67,75066,00063,25066,000
77,50079,50074,00073,750
47:00048,00046,00Q45,509
50,50051,25049,00049,750
47,50048,00046,75046,000
49,00050,25049,25049,500
98,100100,87597275096,800
79,20080,00078,00078,200
84,40084,00082,50062,400
92,70094,35092,60092,500
104,500105,750100,400100,400
74,40C75,40073,80073,800
81,70082,75081,80081,900
76,75076,00076,35076,400
78,90080,40060,15079,800
—
,. -60c-
TABLE Al.“ (Continued)
— —. -,-
Elong. in Red. in Yield l!ensileHeat ‘Test 2 Inches, Area, Strength, S$rength,.‘‘?:0. Dire.etion “o . p.s.?. ~~~ p.s.i.——
x-z? Long, 33.0, 69.0,. 49,000 77,200!! ,1 34’.0 ‘70.1 47,500!?
76,000Trans. 29.0 57.”8’ 46,760 75,850
,! ,1 27.5 56.0 44,750 76,100
X-28 Long. 33.5 6%,8. 48,500 78,000t! !1 33.5, 68.6 48,250 77,500,,. ‘lrans. 29,5 57.3 47,250 75,800t! II 27.5 54.5 . 46,500 75,800
X-4’5 Long. 34:5, 69.0 51,750,!
78,900It 3s.0 65.4
If52,500
TraiM.79;250
24’.5 37.9 48,250 77,500,1 ,! 23.0 33.4 49,500 77,400
x-46 Long. 35’.0’ 70.1 49,75011
79,9001! 35.0 70.1 51,750 80,750
!,:” Trahs. 28”.0 52.8 52,500 79,900,, II, 28.0 49.5 51,500 79,750
.,
,.
.,,,
-61-..’
TABLE .42. UNDERBEAD CRACKING VALUES OF INDIVIDUAL SPECIMENS.FRONiLABORATORY HBATS X-1 TO X-28, INCLIJSIVE,X-45 AND X-46 IN ‘THEHOT-ROLLEI)STAT!!;
. –—..-PTInderbead
Heat Speci~en L .Cracking,~NO. ?!0. Per Cent
x-1 1234567e910
x-2 12345678910
x-3 12345678910
123Q5678910
X-4
1134162919333251324 Avg, 212
3521183016262133
4821 Avg. 277;
94807091898895788480 Avg. 85%
10410589819310810668113105. Avg. 9T;<
,.. .-61a-
TABLE A.?. (Continued)
.— —. —Underbead
Heat ~pec.imen,.: Cracking,No. “’ hTO. Per Cent
x-5 1.2345678910
X.-6 1234567E910
x-7 12345678910
X-8 12
. 3.,.:456?8910
120115104889610310110410999 Avg. 104~
48362318242519302531 Avg. 285
818839113544059 Avg. 197%
74768671887069795089 Avg. 75?:.
— —
.,, . -61b-
~ .,TfiBLMAd. (Continued)
.— ,.———.-Underbead
Tieat Specimen Cracking,No. ,. ~~~. Per Cent
.-———.. -—
x-9 1 712 743 764 685 606 347 588 70
x-lo
910
123456789
10
671 Avg. 597;
53806573462344704520 Avg. 60~;
X-n 1 842 793 764 935 816 897 788 899 9510 80 A,vg, 84?
X-12 12345678910
91758675787891689085 Avg. 84$
—,, .——. —..-—
. .-61c-
‘J?AB~E‘A2.“:(continued)
.—— ------- - ‘“‘“’
Underbead~~eat Specimen ,,,
FO ,Cracking, .
NO.-4. Per Cent
X-13 12345676910
X-14
X-15
X-16
12345678910
12345678910
123456769
,10
64605680836368596643 Avg, 64$
59808658756676508953 Avg. 697
95788486819386698093 Avg, B6%
73686958807056694874 Avg. 66%
-61d.-
TA~,LEA2, (Continued)
.—..—— .,—_______ . —.. __._,._Underbea.d
lleat Specimen Cracking,110,. NO. Per Cent.—. _._e —. —.. ,____
,,
X-17 12345676910
X-18 12345678910
12345678910
x-20 12345679910
X-19
’71745474717163818464 Avg. 7l%
64706368607073696660 Avg. 667;
58345650554860615043 A.vg, 51%
73497955616168630348 A~g. 64$
.—
..,.
-61e-
TABLEiA2. (Continued)
—!
.——
Heat ~.Underbead
Specimen . Cracking, .NO, “ iio. Per Cent
——_
x-22
X-21 1234567%9
10
1
234567a910
X-23 12345678910
X-24 12345678910
80906074756481817975 Avg. 78%
74807870716595797054 Avg. 74$
055
1301851440
9598899099869495104101
Avg. 6’7%
Avg. 95;4
-61f-
..?
TABLI A2. (Co&inued)
:; 1.
..— — — ________ ,,_,.._._____ .—.— .———,—,.. [Jnderbead
Heat .,~, “ipec.imen Cracking,yiJ. ‘. . NO. per cent
.— ___. __, _.. ____. _,,,,._,_”_,___
1-25 12345678910
X-26 1234567’8910
X-27 12345676910
x-28 12345670910
83 “’708368806670856569 Avg, 74J
868683858ti8568797878 Avg. 8~Z
467446 , ,,40713550646568 Avg. 5‘?;(
30-15 “’194162318112315 Avg. l?~
.’, .-Glg~
TAk3LEA2, (Continued)
.— ________ ——Underbead
iieat Specimen Cracking,p~~. BTo. Per Cent’
——
X-45 1 142 403 994 705 646 257 918 469 3610 83 Avg. 57%
X-46 1 642 753 904 665 296 537 686 759 910 53 Avgs 60%
Steel 37 1 10(Control) 2 !3
3 244 85 66 197 58 309 5
10 5 Avg. 1l?
-—.———.. .—
Heat.—
v~,Testing Temperature, Degrees F._—— —.-——. ——. —.———”.._—.. ______ .—___
-75” -40° -5° +75” +210”————.— ————
K-1
X-2
X-3
X-4
X-5
X-6
~...7
x-8
X-9
X:lo
X-n
X-12
X-13
X-14
X-15
3s5
824
432
234
424
342
434
555
463
545
332
,3.3- 5
.4 4 2
222
632
2
3
2
4
2
3
4
3
2
3
3
4
2
2
3
68
4
7
5
7
6
8
8
22
5
7
9
13.
3
~
25
7
3
3
8
6
8
10
5
7
5
‘6
14
4
9
21
4
8
4
7
7
8
24
16
6
6
8
3
5
3
32
3
7
4
6.
4
9
14
6
32
7
4
4
6
11
L06
24
13
8.
13
9
48
42
48
20
2?2
20
12
13
20
119
22
21
18
18
19
20
46
46
19
21
~2
18
12
.11
31
16
17
10
12
18
33
48
41
37
14
12
9
9
11
30
14
8
8
19
30
21
14
24
16
34
14
12”
13
19.
107
107
34
26
36
35
101
105
98
63
03
37
25
78
53
124 111 112
95 66 67
40 41 44
47 51 37
31 25 35
73 103 92
95 92 108
95 119 110
47 104 78
108 93 112
54 55 91
.58 33 44.
18 19 31
50 34 43
43 38 44
120 124 1.19 129
123 llL 125 112
56 85 84 ii
74 9@ 83 81
67 68 76 71
96 119 98 108&
Ice loQ 134 118 ~
95 112 108 115
106 97 109 105
100 110 106 105
86 85 98 96
89 .90 97 110
85 ’85 93 91
% 96 90 92
95 50 93 97
TABLE A3. (Continued)
Heat Testing Temperature, Degrees F.No. -75° -40° -5. +75” =210”
x-i6
“X-17
X-18
.X-19
I X-20
I X-21
x-22
X-23
X-24
X-25
‘X-26
X-27
X-28
X-45
X-46
6223
3342
3333
5232
3233
2222
2233
4542
3325
4422
4353
i0544.
‘654&
46622
6899
54
79
43
67
37
3 13
32
46
7?
9 14
15 10
34 26
11 21
8
8
3
5
8
3
2
3
10
17
18
18
f!
14 19 46
20 30 41
7 35
3 9
13 5
5 ,12
“5 8
3 “8
2 ‘“3
21 13
8 18
7 “17
10 26
22 45
12 29
105 27
75 30
21
21
4
40
11
6
3
33
17
22
35
’45
e5
102
1.00
12 26
15 12
44
25 28
13 23
94
.4,2
14 11
18 13
19 44
26 58
66 “34
57 55
111 125
115 121
69 64
33 59
13 10
48 32
113 101
27 10
45
94 89
55 99
96 98
99 111
104 108
80 89
113 116
115 116
96 .81
41 36
10 10
33 65
79 100
13 20
65
90 96
45 63
98 98
93 95
109 105
105 90
121 12:
123 129
77
78
84
89
94
87
37
108
106
.105
99
73 92 ,86
65 81 81
82 87 95
51 94 85
89 35 103
86 85 84
44 27 21A
107 104 105 ;
1(25 98 103
103 113 118
L09 ,109 ,106
106 .1G5- 104 :.’38
105 104 108 106
104 111 116 116
100 110 110 133
.——.—Note: The above impact values are given in foot-pounds. The s?ecimens used were the standard Y-not.ch Charpy
bars which were broken on a Riehle impact machine having an initial energy of 220 foot-pounds.
TABLE A4. NO TWi3D-BAR 1?!?ACT ?ROFMTIES NCRN4ATC THE PLATEWRF’AC12G3 lIEATSX-23TO X-28 IN lWE HCT-ROLLEDSTATE
Heat Testing Temperature, Degrees F.—— ———Xo. -40° 5° +400 +?i” +210”.,
—-—. —.-
x-23 2222 2222 9454 6 9118 21 21 25 17
X-24 2322 3232 5643 6778 17 18 18 i+
X-25 2322 4434 7645 10899 18 19 18 19
X-26 2222 5543 7887 10 11 13 12 18 18 20 19
X-27 6273 13 12 11 7 12 14 12’ 17 16 19 17 13 27 28 24 22
x-28 2222 4555 810108 15 14 12 13 23 22 22 21
.—— —. — ——— ———..
Fete: The aboveimpactvaluesare givenin foot-pounds.The specimensused were the standard V-notchCharp:r‘oarswhich were broken on a Riehle impact machine having an initial energy of 220foot-pounds.
I
