Advertisement

Methods for Dynamic Fracture Resistance Testing

  • E. A. Lange
Part of the Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference Proceedings book series (SAMC)

Abstract

The principal need for a dynamic fracture tests is to define the ductile-brittle transition in the fracture resistance of conventional ferritic steels and irons as a function of temperature and size. Dynamic criteria of fracture resistance have also been used for structural metals with a limited sensitivity to strain rate due to the economy of conducting an impact test. Because of the general availability of impact machines for conducting a Charpy test, much research effort has been expended on attempts to make that test a more quantitative tool. For some materials, Charpy test results are difficult to interpret, and new tests have been developed and standardized that more readily provide information related to structural performance. Modified Charpy tests, the Drop-Weight NDT test, the Drop-Weight Tear test, and the Dynamic Tear test are discussed with respect to their attributes and their limitations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    “Standard Method for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials”, Designation: E23–72 in 1973 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 31. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials (1973), 277–93.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “Standard Method for Conducting Drop-Weight Test to Determine Nil-Ductility Transition Temperature of Ferritic Steels”, Designation: E208–69 in 1973 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 31. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials (1973), 597–616.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Impact Testing of Metals, Special Technical Publication 466. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1970.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pellini, W.S., “Evolution of Engineering Principles for Fracture-Safe Design of Steel Structures”. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., Report No. NRL-6957, September 1969. (AD 697 631)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nash, G.E. and Lange, E.A., “Mechanical Aspects of the Dynamic Tear Test”, Trans. ASME, Ser. D, J. Basic Eng., 91 (1969), 535–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shoemaker, A.K. and Rolfe, S.T., “The Static and Dynamic Low-Temperature Crack-Toughness Performance of Seven Structural Steels”, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2 (1971), 319–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loss, F.J., Hawthorne, J.R., Griffis, C.A. and Gray, R.A., Jr., “Plane Strain Fracture Toughness at High Loading Rates”, Report of NRL Progress (December 1975), 20–21.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Irwin, G.R. and Roberts, R., “Fracture Toughness of Bridge Steels”, Phase I. Report, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pa., 1972.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pellini, W.S., “Analytical Design Procedures for Metals of Elastic-Plastic and Plastic Fracture Properties”, Weld. Res. Counc. Bull., No. 186 (1973), 17–38.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    “Standard Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products”, Designation: A370–74, in 1975 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 10. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials (1975), 1–52.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams, M.L., “Analaysis of Brittle Behavior in Ship Plates”, in Symposium on Effect of Temperature on the Brittle Behavior of Metals with Particular Reference to Low Temperatures, Special Technical Publication 158. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials (1954), 11–41.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Puzak, P.P. and Lange, E.A., “Significance of Charpy-V Test Parameters as Criteria for Quenched and Tempered Steels”, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., Report No. NRL-7483, October 1972. (AD 751 534)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Czyzewski, H., “Brittle Failure: The Story of a Bridge”, Metal Prog. (West), 1, No. 1 (1975), W6–W12.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    “Tentative Method for Drop-Weight Tear Tests of Ferritic Steels”, Deisgnation: E436–71T, in 1973 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 31. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials (1973), 1049–54.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Puzak, P.P., Babecki, A.J. and Pellini, W.S., “Correlations of Brittle-Fracture Service Failures with Laboratory Notch-Ductility Tests”, Weld. J., 37 (1958), 391s–407s.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Judy, R.W., Jr., Goode, R.J. and Freed, C.N., “A Characterization of the Fracture Resistance of Thick-Section Titanium Alloys”, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., Report No. NRL-7427, July 1972. (AD 747 230)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pellini, W.S., “Criteria for Fracture Control Plans”, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., Report No. NRL-7406, May 1972. (AD 743 058)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lange, E.A. and Cooley, L.A., “Factors Determining the Performance of High-Strength Structural Metals (Nil-Ductility-Transition (NDT) Temperature in 5/8-in. (16mm) Dynamic Tear (DT) Energy for Steels)”, Report of NRL Progress (May 1971), 33–34.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Judy, R.W., Jr., and Goode, R.J., “Ductile Fracture Equation for High-Strength Structural Metals”, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., Report No. NRL-7557, April 1973. (AD 759 351)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. A. Lange
    • 1
  1. 1.Naval Research LaboratoryUSA

Personalised recommendations