3rd Quarter, 2013 183

The Charpy impact test and its

applications
by Dr Brian N Leis

B N Leis, Consultant, Inc, Worthington OH, USA

T HIS PAPER REVIEWS the Charpy V-notch (CVN) impact test and assesses its utility to characterize
fracture resistance in applications to modern tough materials in contrast to those encountered prior
to the availability ofsuch materials.The origin of the CVN test and its development into a standard for use
with metallic materials is discussed, with brief reference also made to application-based standards for use
with other engineering materials. Thereafter, the evolution of mechanical and other properties motivated
by industry demands is illustrated in regard to strength and toughness.The interpretation of the CVN test
in regard to (I) the force-displacement and compliance response that develops during the test, and (2)
factors affecting the energy measured and controlling failure of the CVN specimen, are discussed, including
the tup design and the use of sub-size specimens. The utility of CVN testing is illustrated and discussed in
the context of pipeline and other applications involving tough steels. Finally, the implications of evolution
in material properties is assessed for impact-test practices including ASTM E23 and ISO 148-1, which are
specific to the CVN practice, and the drop-weight tear test. It is concluded that where tough materials are
involved, alternative testing practices are needed that are better adapted to the specific loading and failure
response of the structure of interest.

A WEBCRAWL ON the topic of impact testing
Ji.and related standards develops more than 850,000
hits which, after allowing for duplicated hits and/or
otherwise similar publications, makes clear that this
topic has a broad following. Consideration of the
dates of the citations found in such a search range
from current times, with the history uncovered in this
process indicated ( l] to trace back to the min-1800s.
Accordingly, impact testing also reflects an enduring
concern that addresses the integrity of structures.
Because the origins of impact testing have recently
marked a century of development, reviews have been
written that document this history (Ref. I, for example),
which note the early work was motivated by a need
to qualify materials resistant to impulse loadings. It is
apparent that the early work centred on military and
railroad applications.
The need to screen materials for their resistance to
impulse loadings led to the development of the first drop-
weight machine, which emerged circa 1860 [2], although
it was used then in testing smooth rectangular bars (i.e.
without a notch or starter crack). While that practice
was found adequate for the less-resistant materials, the
Author's contact details:
email: blcis@columbus.rr.com
more-resistant ones would only bend, such that a notch
was introduced to facilitate initiation circa the 1890s
[3 ]. The use of a pendulum-based impact test - whose
use permitted determination of the energy absorbed in
failure - is first evident in Russell's work circa the mid
1890s [4]. Like the earlier drop-weight machines, his
practice made use of un-notched samples. Soon after
the turn of the century, Charpy [5] improved Russell's
method by introducing a redesigned pendulum, a notched
sample, and more-precise specifications, thereby moving
the impact test toward a more-standardized practice.
Charpy' s name appears to be associated with impact
testing more because of his efforts to standardize the
practice over the ensuing years than because of his
role in the development of the hardware.
Recognizing that impact testing was first developed to
screen ferrous structural materials in the context of what
has since been termed brittle-fracture resistance, a host
of variations on the initial impact-test practice evolved
to quantify resistance, as did other practices designed
to understand the failure mechanism. The documents
evaluated indicate that variations developed in the test
practices related to the nature of the imposed loading
and test-specimen geometry, as well as in the notch
shapes and the use of localized treatments to affect
desired changes in the nature of the failure process. As
the significance of strain rate became evident, practices
were introduced to vary the speed of the impact, with
184 Thl: Journa l of Pipeli ne Engi neering

180
Toughness trends circa the late 1960s
(trends J<i>pled from Rel.,.nct IS) Sylu) Evolution of FSE CVP energy with producUon date 120
120 160 (...,.VII datJ, adapted from Rtltnnqt 11)
4l 300

/ 140 100
100 - · · - Stffl 250
- - - - Aluminum
~
I 120 0
.. - ··- !l :r
,,,,,. .
~
a
0
80
.r
./ : 100 ~'"
.. ~
c ,..
/..J .. - ··- ·· - .,...w~ 150
I S
;. 60
Cl
m 80 iii ' I
i: ~ · ·· :< I l'
5 60
'-
I
I
43
100 I

..- ··- ·· - 40
20 ,.., , /
::;_· -....-
- ..,../- -- -
. .... - - - - - - -
• • - • • - • • -
l&

1)0
20
50

-::..:. ·...-.r.:.·: : ·~ =-- ------- 75

Relative Temperature

(a) (b)

Fig. I. Trends in CVN energy over time, adapted from Refs 18 and 19: (a) energy trends with grade, circa 1969; (b) historical
view of plateau energy and grade.

slow-bend practices introduced in com plement ro rhe
im pact mach ines. In a related vein, it became l!vid enr rhar
sufficie nt energy was required to conti n ue ro driw the
fa ilure, such tha t 'excess e nergy' became a consideration .
In th is context, it has been noted 16 1 thar "morl! than
50 types or variario ns of tests ca n he clearly identified
for evaluating rhe suscepribiliry of materials ro b ri trle
fracture" that include we ll-known through now-ohscure
practices. Exa mples of some well-known resrs aside fro m
the C harpy V-norch (CVN) practice include the lzod rest,
rhe explosion bulge rest, the Pellini crack-sram:r test, thl:
NRL-NDT drop-weight resr, and the Barrell<.! d rop-we ight
rea r rest (DWTT), wh ile some lesser-known practices
include the Kahn rea r rest, rhe Bngsar clem·age·tl!ar rest,
and rhe C harpy keyhole and U-norch rests. These anJ
othe r prncrices can be fou nd with more derai ls in thl!
citatio ns listed in Reference 6, heginn ing a t page 316.
While many such impact re-rs exist, the focus hen;afrer
is on rhe C \ 1 rest.
CVN test development and
applications-based standards
The CVN rest is a simple, low-cost, and reliable rest
method that today is commo n ly requ ired by regu latory
and odwr code- for ti-acrure-crirical srrucrures such ai.
pipelines, bridges, a nd pressure vessels. Today, three
standards are promine nt in rhe general use of rhe CVN
rest 17-9] char are rele\'ant for applicacions ro 'metallic
mate rials', and pro\·ide a \'iable ba is fo r the consi ·re nt
use o f rhis practice. In contrast, the history of rhe CVN
practice from about 1900 th rough co 1960 is ma rked in
regard to daca scarre r a nd variability, more genera lly in
regard ro che factors rhar ad\·ersely affect irs o utcome
(fo r example, Refs 10 a nd l l). So me factors known ro
affect variahi licy include th<.! dynamic stiffness o f rhe
system, d ifferences in rhe rup geometry (rad ius and
m·era ll width and angle to rhe striking edge), and the
use of suh-size (n:d uced-rhickness) specimens , with rhe
narure o f rhe m;irerin l being chn racrerized a lso being a
major conside ration in regard ro rhe e nergy required ro
fail rhe specimen, and steel clean liness. Suffice ir here
ro nott: rhar th\! sign ifica nce or
some of these factors
is considered lacer in more derail.
Real izing rhar it roo k until rhe 1960s before rhe CVN
rest rra ns irio ned fro m a qua litative ro a practically
useful quanritarive method. issues due ro facto rs such
as rhose jusr c ited pers isted lo ng afrer the CVN
practice hecame a tentative standard of thl! Ame rica n
Society fo r Testing and M::irerials (ASTM) in 1933.
Then d ..:signared E 2 3-33T 1, chis re nrarh·e practice
somewhat loosely covered two notch ed-bar imp::icr
practices thac differed s igni fica n tly in rega rd ro the
method~ ro suppmr rhe re~r specime n (i.e. rhe CVN
resr innlking rhree-poinr heam-hending and rhe l:od
im·oh·ing ca ntile\'e red beam-bending). The renrati\·e
sranda rd also did nor ad equately co ntrol rhe striking
l!dge or 'rup' fo r l!irher resr practice, and it a llowed
flexibility in regard ro rhe notch geometry. Adequately
managin!! such differences was a key to mo\·e rhe
CVN practice fro m o ne viewed as qualira rive, in parr
due w irs ·careered resu lt ·, ro o n e ch ar i · qua n tirati\'e
anti so can he practica lly useful aside from screen ing
materials fo r fra ctu re mod e.
For dhhl" It,...... t.11ntl1.u wuh the A ..TM pnx:.._-...), rhe h:nt.HI\""-' dc,ign:uam j,
no lonccr p.uc of H ....t.1nU.mJ,'"\lc\'dOpmcnt pmc~~-
3rd Quarter, 2013
Over the years, aspects unique to the specimen
geometries and loadings have been identified and
understood such that today the standard embeds clear
requirements for the test specimens, as well as for the
testing procedures and the reporting. Significantly the
reporting requirements prescribe clear identification
of the type of test and specimen, as well as other
derails that could promote what otherwise lead to
what could be misconstrued as data scatter. Annexes
to the standard have been developed that address the
test machines, including verification of the Charpy
impact machine. These annexes also outline optional
specimen configurations, and discuss CVN pre-cracking,
specimen orientation, determination of the percent of
shear fracture area (%SA), and methods to measure the
centre of strike. Finally, the significance of notched,bar
impact testing is considered in regard to the correlation
between the test practice and its outcomes with the
service situation. There it notes that the Charpy or
lzod tests may not directly predict the ductile or brittle
behaviour of steel - an aspect that is elaborated later
in the section that illustrates the application of the
CVN test to specifying linepipe steels.
Thus, although today the ASTM E23 standard still covers
these quite different bend-bar impact tests, and also still
allows different notching practices, it now makes clear
the differences between these tests and the notching
practices, and addressed those differences through the
requirements of the standard. Unfortunately, differences
remain today between the geometry of the 'tup' in what
might be considered a North American [7] and European
standards [8], which can open to differing outcomes
particularly when evaluating more resistant materials.
In addition to the above-noted standards that focus on
metallic materials, such as steel, other standards have
evolved based on the basic tenets of ASTM E23 that
focus on miniaturized testing and address materials other
than the types of materials that were targeted by the
original standard (for example, 12-16). Such standards
have evolved to address the unique concerns of polymers
and cast iron, for example, and are developed to meet
the needs specific to the application involved. Needs
for an application-specific alternative to E23 can become
apparent as new materials emerge that will find use under
impulse-loading conditions, or under circumstances that
otherwise could promote a change in fracture resistance
due, for example, to cold,temperature service, or irradiation.
Materials substitution also can create applications wherein
an existing material is replaced by an emerging material,
which needs to be screened for changes in its fracture
resistance over the range of operational circumstances
that are unique to its adapted use. Note that, in this
context, the use of an instrumented testing system,
consistent with standards ( 17], can facilitate the use of
impact testing in cases involving material substitution or
new applications concerned with impulse loads. This is
185
because the force versus load-point displacement record
from such set-ups helps understand the extent to which
the substituted material behaves differently from the
material it is replacing.
Evolution in properties: implications
for ASTM Ell or ISO 148-1
Evolution of materials and properties
While much has been done to 'standardize' and 'specify'
the essential details of the CVN test practice over the
years, the metallic materials being developed for use
today differ significantly from those in the era that
the CVN test transitioned from qualitative into what
is considered today a quantitative test. Figure 1, which
adapts trends from Refs 18 and 19, serves to illustrate
and emphasize this point.
Figure 1a summarizes trends in CVN energy for data
developed up through the late 1960s. The y-axis in the
figure is CVN energy, which is shown as a function of
test temperature on the x-axis. To facilitate comparing
trends for which differences exist in the transition
temperature, this figure centres them at close to the
50%SA temperature, such that this axis is labelled
'relative temperature'. As is evident from the figure,
these trends are presented only in the units reported,
because the format of the plot precludes presenting
dual units. Results are shown for several steels whose
yield stresses, denoted s,, range from 40 to 200 ksi
(276 to 1378 MPa). These trends are shown as the
dash-double-Oot lines. Results also are presented for two
aluminium alloys with yield stresses of 38 and 75 ksi
(261 to 517 MPa), which are shown as dashed trends
toward the lower edge of this figure.
It is evident from Fig.la in regard to the data shown
for the steels that these CVN trends up through the
plateau (upper-shelf) energy, denoted CVP, indicate that
the resistance to fracture (or toughness as characterized
by CVP) decreases as the yield stress increases, and
that this decrease is significant. This same trend is also
evident for the aluminium alloys. While the trends are
similar for the steels with s, = 200 ksi (1378 MPa), it
is apparent that the energy dissipated in a CVN test is
not uniquely quantified relative to the grade of steel.
Rather, experience indicates char the energy dissipated
reflects the chemistry and processing history of the steel
on a case-by-case basis. Finally, these data indicate that
for steels produced up through the late 1960s a five,fold
increase in yield stress (grade) could affect more than a
ten-fold reduction in toughness. This tendency reflects
the well known tradeoff between strength and ductility
that was characteristic of the carbon-manganese (GMn)
steels produced prior to the advent of the high-strength
low-alloy (HSLA) grades that emerged commercially in
the 1960s.
186
(a) X-70 specime n @ 250 ft-lb (339 J)
(c) fractu re features @ 250 ft-lb (339 J)
Fig.2. Differences in CVN response with toughness, adapted from Refs 22 and 23.
HS LA steels have evo lved over rime, coup ling che mistry
and processing changes to achieve srrengrh \\'hile limiting
the frequency a nd size of particles rhar nucleate \'OiJs
a nd rrigger the o nser o f p lastic collapse, through rhe
use of cleaner srcels and sulphide shape contro l [20[.
Ro lling practices also evolved rh ro ugh use of conrrol-
rollcd and rhermal-mechanically controlled proces ·
(TM C P) rechniques rhar coupled controlled rolling with
accelcra red cooling, which subsequently gan• way m
high-temperature-processed (HTP) steels. Thus, since the
mid-1960s, it has heco me possible m couple stre ngth
gai ns wirh imprm·ed roughness and ductility to enha n ce
frnc rurc resista nce. Such changes han: dewloped in
the context of auromoti,·e sreels and line pipe sreels,
for which weldahiliry also was a major consid eration.
T hus, in contrast ro Fig. I a, rhc trends in parr (b) o f
th is figure show n re\'ersa 1 of rhe decrease in d uctil iry
wirh increasing grnd e, with this shift apparenr in Fig. I h
Th e Jo urnal of Pipeline Engineering
(b) X-100 s pecimen @ I 18 ft-lb ( I 60J)
(d) fra cture features @ 18 ft-lb (-24 J)
ci rrn more or less rhe mid 1960s. Nore that in Fig. l h
that the data poinr· flagged as Q&T (q ue nched and
te mpered) rhat lie toward rhe bortom of rhe inrerrn l
fo r rhe mid-1960s lie a r quire low roughness values,
which is as expected for higher-strength steels based o n
rhe resu lts evident in Fig. Ia.
Figure I b, which presenrs darn for linepipe steels produced
u p th rough ci rca 2000. indicates thar CVP energies
on rhe o rd er of 250 ft-lb (339 J) were being achieved
toward rhc turn of rhe mil lennium. Bur, in comparison
with such gai ns m·cr about a 30-year period, it is nor
unusual currently ro sec energy ,·aluel' approaching
J ouble that b ·el in grades u p to X-80 (551 MPa) - all
within the bst IO or so years. It is also apparent thar
fo r grades ahow X-80, as fo r example X-120, which are
produced hy approaches rhar d iffe r fro m those used ro
make modern X-80, it is much more d ifficult ro ach ie\'c
3rd Quarter, 2013
the high toughness levels necessary to fully capitalize on
the strength gained for the applications for which such
grades were designed.
Implications for standardized impact testing
It follows from the significant increase in toughness evident
in Fig.lb, for steels produced recently in contrast to
those of late 1960s, that for materials where high CVN
energies have been achieved the failure response of a
CVN specimen could differ radically from that typically
seen in the late 1960s. The results in Fig.2, which are
adapted in part from Ref.21 and from unpublished work
[22], clearly support this expectation. The images in Figs
2a and 2b are post-test perspective views of full-size CVN
specimens that both showed 100% SA, following testing
in a 512 ft-lb capacity pendulum machine equipped with
unmodified anvils and a Oynatup striker. The machine used
had been certified by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) practice 123], and maintained in
calibration. While clearly apparent from the back-face
deformation for the specimen shown as Fig.2a, but less
evident for that shown in Fig.2b, during the test both
specimens had been wedged onto and around the tup
as they were pushed through the machine. Thus, these
specimens were intact after testing - although to a much
different extent for what was the higher toughness case
as compared to that requiring much less energy to push
it through the anvils - as becomes clear, as follows.
The image in Fig.2a reflects a measured enert,,'Y of about
250 ft-lb (339 J) for a CVN specimen made of X-70
steel produced circa the mid-1990s. This image focuses
on the area of a specimen in the vicinity of the notch
and fracture, to illustrate the complex nature of tearing
and the significant lateral and local back-face deformation.
As noted in the above discussion, this image clearly
shows that the back-face of the specimen has deformed
around and about the face and flanks of a tup whose
size and shape conformed to ASTM E23, whereby the
striker radius is 8 mm. Had the narrower, smaller-radius
(2-mm) tup of ISO 148-1 been used, less wedge force
would have developed, such that less energy would have
been required to push the specimen through the anvils.
In this context, the total measured energy involves the
energy to deform the specimen, to initiate cracking or
tearing/stretching, and to propagate that cracking or
tearing/stretching through the depth of the specimen,
along with the energy required to push the specimen
through the anvils. Further on this aspect follows later in
the section that deals with factors affecting the measured
energy and controlling failure of a CVN specimen.
Figure 2b reflects a measured CVN energy of about
118 ft-lb (160 J) for a specimen made of X 100 steel,
which was produced just into the new millennium.
This image is in strong contrast to that in Fig.2a, as
only limited local distortion has occurred around the
187
face and flanks of the rup, with the remainder of the
specimen otherwise largely un-deformed, although the
ligament remains intact. Nevertheless, close examination
of the image reveals the imprint of the tup shape on
the back face. As such, this specimen rode the tup
through the anvils, in like manner to that for the
higher-toughness steel. And while a crack did develop,
which was quite deep, manually closing the angle
between the back faces after the test did not break
the specimen into two pieces. A later section further
considers that and other aspects that appear to limit
the utility of the CVN test in applications to higher·
toughness materials.
Figures 2c and 2d contrast the fracture features for results
such as those shown in Figs 2a and 2b, respectively.
While the view in Fig.2d shows evidence of crack
initiation and propagation, as has typically been observed
and expected in the context of the interpretation of
the CVN test as evident for example in ASTM E23,
the image in Fig.2c for the much-tougher steel does not
show the same traits. Rather, it shows significant local
stretching at the notch, very large lateral contraction
below the notch, with thickening occurring toward
the back face, and evidence of some stable tearing
and stretching occurring in lieu of what might be
called cracking.
Suffice it here to conclude that such observations
indicate that the test in applications to higher-toughness
materials no longer develops features typical of those
observed throughout its historic applications, with a
subsequent section further considering factors affecting
the measured energy and controlling failure of CVN
specimen, which closes considering the implications in
regard to the utility of the CVN test as standardized
by ASTM E23 171 or ISO 148 [8].
The CVN test: its interpretation and
utility
The CVN test can be implemented using either a
drop-weight system, which requires an instrumented
tup, or a pendulum set-up than can make use of an
instrumented tup, but does not require it to determine
the dissipated energy. While an instrumented set-up is not
required using the a pendulum, the results of measured
force as a function of the load-point displacement do
provide much insight into the dissipative processes that
contribute to the energy required to fail the specimen.
Output from an instrumented test is shown in Fig.3
as the basis for further discussion on the test and its
interpretation, based on results reported in Ref.24. The
results in this figure reflect transverse CVN samples
cut transverse to the longitudinal axis of a joint of
linepipe, with the notch oriented through the thickness
of the pipe. This orientation corresponds to testing in
the y-x direction as identified in ASTM E23.
188 The Jo urnal o f Pipelinc Engineering

'° lnstrumemed CVN Test R esponse Instrument ed CVN Tes t R esponse

030

JS
......... ...... ,.,,.."'.,. . . ..................
normeUz.ed .-...trtlv. lO tM UT&
'-"
c:.._...,.u.. .. ~· ·
normMh:ed relatJv-e to the UTS
(llUU.aft • h......., f'OfJIUUtovr of nWMo •t.Mlt w.t. .
to9ftf\aftee~c.l.Hlfy)
---+ -n Ill 0 25 !i'
;)O
111 ..
l
s"'
j. 25
+-
020 !
'?
!- l

I"
c.
10

- -. '
-+
0 t&

010
~
~

i
i

--
&
10 ~ !'i
c c
. . . . . ...... .!!?
...t i"'
0 0
~ oos ii"
~
... -.. "'
~
d.to<motlon p<~tlon
0
000 0.26 060 076 , 00 , 26 110 000 026 060 0 76 , 00
Lo.d-c>OW\t dbp&acema-nt (from rot.lidonl. Inch Load.po"'• d ..P'-<•ment (Prom rotation). Inch

(a) (b)

Fig.3. Typical response trends developed in instrumented CVN testing: (a) moderate to higher toughness; (b) a range from low
to high toughness.

Force-displacement and compliance response
Force as presented on the y-axis o f Fig. 3 is as me:isured
by a Oyn arup strike r (as made circa thc early 1990s) as
a fun cti on o f the loa<l-po inr dispbcemc nr (de termined
fro m pe ndulum arm rotatio n) t hat is shown on thc x-:ixis.
The secondary y-axi s is a measu re o f the specimen's
compli:i nce, as it p rescnrs the x-axis displacement value
d i\'id ed hy the corres ponding lo ad. Force - as shown
o n the y-axis of Fig.) - has be..:n divided hy the
initial net-sectio n area of the CVN sp..:cimen, with that
three-po int be nding net-section stres~ then divided hy
th e an :rage value o f the ultimate tensile stress (UT )
fo r the steel inrnlved. The ,·alue o f the UT used
is based o n co mpanion round-bar wns ion rests mad e
from flam: ne<l blanks, wh ich also were cut in rh<.'
trans\'erse (hoop) lirecrio n , anJ tested in accordnnce
with ASTM ES [25J. O n th is basis, rhe ,·alu e o f rhe
y-axis should no rmali:e the results for this steel and
others up th rough eithcr the limit lo ad o r fra cture,
with th<.' outcome ·hown on the y-axis heing a mu ltiple
of the ratio of the in~ranraneous load relarh·e ro the
limit-load rhar depends o n the bending stiffness o f
the C VN sample.
Figures 3a a nd 3b present results tha t show the spec imc n' ·
inirial el:mic respo nse where, afte r yielding occurs, plnsric
be nding ensues as the load increases th rough the Ii mi t
load, beyond wh ich thc load fa lls off as it wou ld in
a tens ile rest as necking develops. The analogu<.' w
necking fo r rough sted s leads m localized thinning
across the notch face o f the C\ speci men, wirh the
respo nse linder quasi-srati c loading similar to that unde r
impact load ing evidl!nt - as presented in a later secriDn.
Lateral thinning alo ng the notch b accompani<.'d hy
hack-surface expa nsio n, during which - after sufficient
bending and rearing coupled with ~rrerching in to ugha
steels , o r cracking in less-tough steels - the ·am ple
moves o n through un-m odified and ls. While less-rough
steels fail as rwo pieces tha t ca n be fo rcefully ejected
fro m the machi ne. as indicated in Fig.la, toughe r
steels ca n be fo und still wc.x lg<.'d around rhe tup. In
extre me cases, specim<.' ns can be nd aro und the rup ro
an cxr<.'nt that u nloads the face of the striker - wh ich
is also di ·cussed in a later sectio n. Beca use the fo rmat
o f thi~ figure precludes the use of d ual u n its, th<.'
results a rc presented using in rhe units used to quanti fy
this respo nse.
The plot shown in Fig.3a pre-cn ts resu lts fo r a conrro l-
rollcd X-80 steel (labe lled =3) cur fro m mill-expanchl
line pipe with 0.6 1-in ( 15.5-mm) thick wall that \V<ts
produced in 1992. Figu re 3b su ppleme nts this resu lt
wirh d nra fo r a n accelerated-cooled X-70 steel fro m
mill-expanded lincpi pe with 0 .75in (19.1-mm) th ick
wall thnr also was produced in 1992 (labelled # 2), n
conrnil-rolled X-60 st<.'el from mill-expanded linep ipc
with 0.546-in (I 3.9-mm) th ick wa ll that was prod uced
in 1970 (labelled ;:7), a nd a com·enrio nally-rolled X-52
steel fro m mill-expa nd ed linepipe with 0 .375-in (9.5-mm)
thick wall that was produced in 1960 (label led #8).
All inrnl,·ed resting of fu ll-si:e samples exce pt fo r the
X-5 2, which made use of a 2/ ) thickness specimens.
All results reflect rests that Lb ·eloped 100 %SA, such
that these trends rdlect fully duc tile respo nse.
In refe re nce ro Fig. )a, a -e rics of <lotted Yerrical lin e~
hm·e heen added ro the rest record , which h a,·e been
located to tie key changes in complian ce ro eve nts
evid e n t in the fo rce-d isp lacement respo nse. Note in thi s
context that if the stress-srra in response i~ mapped on m
this coordina te system, the locus rraced (assu ming the
3rd Quarter, 2013
specimen geometry remained as it began) would begin
to drop at the same displacement that marks the peak
load, which is marked by the first of the vertical lines.
The locus tracked by the stress-strain response depends
on the actual strain-hardening behaviour of the steel,
and for this test tracks at a higher loads beyond the
peak load. It follows that, for this test, the peak load
evident in Fig.3a corresponds to the bending limit
load, and that the response up through the limit load
reflects energy dissipated in deforming the specimen. As
such, this initial regime has been labelled 'deformation'.
Because of the difference in load drop for this test
as compared to the locus tracked by the stress-strain
response, it also follows that this loss in stiffness (or
increase in compliance) evident beyond the limit load
is associated with local stretching and thinning and the
initiation of tearing, such that this regime has been
labelled 'initiation'. This has been done in spite of the
observation that a major component of that energy is
due to continued plastic flow.
The end of the regime associated with 'initiation'
is marked by the second vertical line from the left
side of the plot, which lies at the onset of what is
identified in Fig.3a by the label 'propagation' - that
for this steel occurred ductile tearing. Beyond the area
labelled propagation, the response for this specimen
becomes complex in regard to the force-displacement
response and the change in compliance. Fractography
and observations made using a quasi-static set-up infer
that the tearing quickly transitions into rotation and
stretching. While this transition is ill-defined by the
dynamic force-displacement behaviour and related change
in compliance, the quasi-static results indicate the
transition first involves the back-face of the specimen
wrapping around the tup, after which the associated
wedging load causes failure while the specimen passes
through the anvils, and eventually breaks in two.
Accordingly, the response shown in Fig.3a beyond that
labelled propagation is divided into regions labelled
deformation (as the specimen wraps around the tup)
and propagation (as it fails between the anvils).
As the trends for the other steels shown in Fig.3b indicate,
none shows the complexity evident for the steel just
discussed. The energies measured relative to these trends
for steels #2, #3, #7, and #8 are respectively in ft-lb
250, 192, 17.5, and 36 (in J, 339, 259, 23.7, and 49) -
the last of which is a linearly scaled full-size equivalent
(FSE) energy. The lowest energy pair of results (steels #7
and #8) developed force-displacement response that is
characteristic of steels and other metallic materials that
fail at relatively low energies, which was commonly the
case through the 1960s. Analysis indicates that these peak
loads correspond closely with what is inferred as the limit
load for simple bending relative to their respective values
of the UTS. It is apparent that their force-displacement
response is normalized as expected by the use of the
189
ordinate discussed earlier, with the differences in trends
up to the limit load reflecting the inherent differences
in their flow response and hardening rates.
In contrast, the force-displacement response developed
by steel #2 is comparable to that shown by steel #3 in
regard to Fig.3a, except that this steel does not show
evidence of a significant reduction in the force required
to move the specimen through the anvils over the course
of the testing. As for the other steels, analysis indicates
that the peak load for this case correspond closely with
what is inferred as the limit load for simple bending
relative to this steel's UTS. And as for the other steels,
it is evident that the force-displacement response for this
steel is normalized as expected by the use of the ordinate
noted above, with the difference in response up to the
limit load reflecting its unique flow response and strain-
hardening rate. However, in contrast to the results for
steel #3, which shows the force-displacement response in
the CVN test drops below the locus of the stress-strain
response of the steel when mapped on to this figure,
that trend for steel #2 remains at or very close to the
locus of the stress-strain curve. As such, what in 1997 was
partitioned as largely deformation energy with a smaller
initiation component (for example, see Ref.28) would
more correctly be represented as all deformation energy.
Not surprisingly, steels #7 and #8 both broke cleanly in
two pieces. In contrast, steel #2 simply deformed and
showed local stretching and lateral local thinning at the
notch, and expansion toward the back face sufficiently so
to pass between the anvils - and showed no evidence of
the potential to break as a result of the testing. In all
three cases, the compliance trends are as anticipated. For
the pair of steels with the lowest toughness the compliance
increasing sharply once the peak load is reached for
each of these steels. In contrast, the compliance for steel
#2 increases only slightly from its initial trend, which
signifies that little change in bending stiffness occurred
over the course of the test.
It follows from the pair of results that developed for the
very tough steels that the CVN test is tending toward
the limits of its utility, whereas as history has shown it
is a viable basis to quantify the response at much lower
toughness levels.
Utility of CVN testing in pipeline applications
A webcrawl also was done on the topic of Charpy impact
testing, but for the purposes of this section it was filtered
with the terms of pipeline and applications. This search
led to well in excess of 600,000 hits, many of which
are duplicated or repeated in some manner. However,
the number of results, the dates of the citations, and
content and scope of the documents make clear that this
testing practice is broadly still used and that the CVN
test remains relevant in the pipeline industry.
190 The Journal of Pipeline Engineering

FSE CVN Plateau value, J

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
1.0
Contributions to Total (Apparent) Fracture Resistance
0.9 ~ o Deformation Lio Initiation o Propagation
...... TrendD - · · Trendl - - -TrendP
5 0.8
:;::::;
u
ca
J:: 0.7
....c ... [J
c ...........
Cl>
5 0.6
Q,
E o·'
g 0.5 ~ '' 0 p•'
.·t:.
/
e;; '
'0 ..:·..,,.,,.,...
••• ·'1i

~ 0.4 A, _,_,.··~
w _ .. >~· ... ···
,..
0.3 ~ ll - .. - .··' '
,•'O
-·-t:r-··-··-··-t:i· .· .. ''
0.2 ~ /l.
.. · ••• •• /l. '
'
... ... ...
•••• ••• 0 '
''
0.1 ~
0 ... ... Fig.4. Energy
'
0.0 -········ ·······"6' 0
• n ' 'f"'I
components from
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 instrumented CVN
FSE CVN Plateau value, ft-lb testing partitioned
as in Fig.3.

It is apparent in this context that the CVN test remains is clear from the figure that the trend for propagation
the basis for fracture-control plans for the industry. The energy decreases to zero a value of CVP at about
American Petroleum Institute (API) and others adopt 250 ft-lb (339 J) and above, as indicated by the data
the CVN test as the basis to quantify fracture resistance points circled in the figure. This outcome is anticipated
(for example, Ref.26), whereas the Battelle drop-weight in light of Fig.3b, and the related discussion, because
tear ·test [27] (B-DWTI) - that subsequently simply is the force-displacement response for steel #2 (which had
identified by the acronym DWTI - is used to characterize a CVP of 350 ft.lb (339 j)) involved only bending and
fracture mode. At the same time, literature based on stretching, with lateral contraction across the notch
full-scale testing has been developing that is consistent and expansion on the back face - but no propagation.
with the above noted results (such as Ref.28), indicating In contrast, the models developed in the 1970s to
that the CVN test has reached the limits of its utility characterize the fracture-arrest process, which remain in
in applications to the tough and weldable high-strength use today to quantify the toughness required to arrest
steels being adopted by the pipeline industry. the phenomenon termed running fracture, were calibrated
in a framework that involved only lower-toughness steels
Figure 4 (adapted from Ref.28) was derived from the that Fig.4 shows involved a significant component of
components of dissipated energy as partitioned in the crack-propagation energy.
context of Fig.3 to shed light on the future utility of
the CVN test in applications to high-toughness steels. Clearly one can question the use of the above-noted
The y-axis in this figure is the relative fraction of the fracture-arrest models that assume fracture controls
total energy dissipated in each of several tests involving failure in applications where the CVN test does not
a total of nine steels whose toughness as quantified by produce cracking. One could also question the initial
CVP ranged up to 260 ft-lb (352 J), values for which use of the CVN test - which involves a notched beam
are shown on the x-axis. For each test, these fractions in simple bending - for use in applications for which
must sum to unity. little or no bending occurs. Justification for that choice
was as easy then as it is today - as the models were
As often occurs for CVN tests, the results in Fig.4 show empirically calibrated such that the value of CVP could
scatter, which is made worse for the present analysis have been a surrogate for some other related metric.
by the gradual changes in compliance that make it In addition, the basic concepts and tools of fracture
difficult to identify the breakpoints between the energy mechanics were in the early stages of development - but
components. Although there is scatter, the key point more critically the phenomenon that was then termed
in regard to Fig.4 is not clouded by such concerns: it 'propagating fracture' is complex and since has defied a
3rd Quarter, 20 13
(a)
(b)
Fig.5. Cross sections through propagating shear contrasted to tearing shear (from Ref.2 7):
(a) symmetric shear (as polished, observed during steady-state propagation): t =0.560 in ( 14 mm);
(b) asymmetric tearing shear (rough grind, observed during ring-off arrest): t =0.560 in ( 14 mm).
first-pr inciples' fo rmulari on . Today it is umlcrsrood rhar
th is p heno me non firsr involves axial straining ahead o f
rhe crack in a plastic znne thar propagares along rhe
p ipeline, with symmetric rhinn ing leading ro 'propagating
hear' as shown in Fig.5, wirh in-plane srrerching occurring
until shear fai lure (plastic colla p -e) occurs rhrough-wall.
The significant in-plane srretching evide nt in Fig.Sa
results in symmetric through-wall th inning nml eventual
collapse via shear - much as could occu r in a tensile
tesr. This symmerric process develops during srcady- rate
p ropagation, which corn.! po nds to rhe scenario rhe
CVN tesr has used to cha racterize the arrest rouiihness.
Figure Sb shows rhe rransirion rhar occurs in rh i:. fa ilure
behaviou r as steady-srarc transitio ns ro arrest, which
ofren resulrs in the ring-off of the fa ilure path. While,
as Fig.Sb indicates, rhis rra n~itio n lead s m asymmetric
(scxallccl rearing) shear, rhe fa ilure process during arrest
re mains shear do minated - wirh much less th inning
occurring, as now the driving force for rhe process is
gready diminished .
Ir fo llows rhat ar least for pipelines made of higher-
coughness sreels the usual C VN tesr pracrice appea rs to
have limited utility. Whe reas the sready-sratc pipeline-
fa ilu re process primarily irwo lves stretching :ind thi n ning
thar is largely free of hcnding, the CVN resr relies
on hending with thicke ning develo ping as rhe fa ilure
process in the specimen continues to rhc hack face.
In this context, any be nding-impact rest fo lb short of
emulating rhe srrucrural response. In spire of rhis facr,
ir ha~ bee n asserted rhar rhe issues wirh rhc C VN resr
in pipeline applicatio ns cvicl..: nr in rhe srrerching, rearing,
and late ra l flow parallel ro rhe notch could he offset by
191
the use of full-rhickness samples, such as the DWTT. Ir
is, howev..: r, clear that as rime has passed the urili ry of
rhe DWTT even ro quanri fy rhe frac ture mode, wh ich
is irs purpose, is o pen ro question. Issues wirh so-called
im·erse fractu re have become widely evide nt since abour
2000, and a · the steels han~ become increasingly rougher
the DWTT practice is also d eveloping gross srrerching
and evidence of overall d isrorrion - as sim ilarly has
occurred fo r the CVN prnctice.
Figure 6 (courtesy o f Bernard Hoh) provides graphic
e\·idence of rhe gross disrorrion rhar can de\·elop through
the use of rhe DWTT in applications inrnlving rough
steels. While these images reflect heavy-wall linepipe made
with a thi ckness of l.S in (38 mm) in X-70 srecl, rhe
results refl ect resting do ne in a mach ine with ad equate
excess energy. Thus, wh ile considered by some a potential
alrernari\·e ro the CVN practice in anriciparion rhat irs
increased depth and larger (werall si:e would offset such
concerns, rhe DWTT practice does nor prm·ide a parh
forward fo r such applicatio ns, even as a sropgap solution.
O n th is basis, work is needed to better u nderstand
the facto rs controlling the fai lu re process such rhat a n
appropriate mill test ca n be identi fied in liett of rhc
bending impact rests in use roday.
Utility of CVN testing in other applications involving
tough steels
Cen tra l m rhe d iscussio n of rhc CVN rest in irs applicatio n
ro pipel ines was rhc rhesis rhat the i'sues discussed ca n
be rraccd to the roughness of the sreel. This sccrio n
furrhe r w nsiders this hyporhesis in regard to the classes
of sred in use in rhe ground-vehicle indusn y.
192
(a)
(b)
Like rhe pipe line indusrry, the automorivc / ground-
vchi cle industry has pushed the cl evelopmenr or rough,
srrong, weldable sreeb. As such , it is no r surprising rh ar
ahour rhe sa me time rhat iss ue- with rhe CV resr
were e me rging in ap plicarions ro rhe pipeline indusrry,
similar concern w irh the CV1 resr becam e eviden t in
rhar industry. For example, a 1987 pape r 1291 authored
fro m wirh in the rructures a nd Dynamics O i,·isio n o f
C arerpilla r lnc. no res thar " rece ntly, two new fami lies of
steels ...... have beco me ava ilable" rhar were of inreresr
ro rhat indu srry. Afte r conside ri ng those sreels in lighr
of seve ral basic materials' rests, the paper conclud es by
noring rhar so me resrs an: " reliable indicarors of material
performance in componenrs while C harpy V-norch e nergy
is of lirrle value fo r quanrirarive engineering analysis".
The paper goes o n to srnre thar a n "alte rnarive impacr
resr wh ich mo re closely represents mareria l be havio ur
in components" is needed.
The Jo urna l of Pipeline Engineering
Fig.6. Unusual fracture and
gross distortion in a DWTT of
high-toughness steel:
(a) 'fracture' features (notch is up);
(b) perspective view of the tested
specimen.
Ano rh e r pape r associated with rhe evaluatio n of high-
power heam we ld s (such as ckcrro n-beam o r lase r
welds) nored rhar rh e failure of such welds might
result in a p lasric consrrainr loss around horh rhe
nmch a nd crack rip, mak ing ir d ifficu lt ro eva luate
fracture perfo rmance of girth-welded pipe joints. Thi s
paper dererm ined thar intrinsic fracrure tough ness was
lowe r rh:rn rh e resu lt of srn ndard Charpy specime ns
and fatig ue pre-cracked rh ree-po inr bend spec imens .
Ir was concluded rhar d iffore nces in plastic co nsrrn in r
berween rhe srrucrure and a rlm~e-po inr bend spec imen
underlie this ·iruarion.
T h us, in addition to applicatio ns whe re pla ric ity acrs
ro limit the urility of rhe CVN rest, as occurred fo r
rhe pipe li ne and rhe gro u nd-veh ic le cases, i sues c::i n
d evelop rh ar lim it rh e di recr tran sferabili ty of rh e
CVN rest results due ro constra int - in rhe ::ib~c nce
3rd Qua rte r, 20 13 193

anvil

s pecimen

(a)

Displacement, mm
0 5 10 15 20
4500 20
Quasi-static comparison of tup and load cell
4000 18

3600 16

14
3000
..c 12 r
0
;- 2500 (II

10 _a.
"'0 2000
...J specimen
tup ';II:'
z
tup 8
1500
specimen 6
1000 4
anvil
500 2

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 Fig. 7. Energy measured in a
Displacement, inch quasi-static evaluation of force-
displacement response [21 ]:
(b) (a) photographs of the set-up;
(b) results of the comparison.

o f th e s igni fica nr effecrs of plasricicy. Ir fo llows that Tup design issues

care sho u ld be exercised in adapting wha t othe rwi se
begi ns as screen ing tl!Sts to more genernl applications
Fact o rs affecting the energy
measured in a CVN specimen
Earli er d isc uss io n alluded to rhc ust: ot subsize ·pecimens
a nd d iff1:rences in rup des ign as d ri,·e rs fo r rn riability
in che measu red eneri..'Y a nd di ffe rences in the fail ure
response in a CVN specimen . As both ot the e
aspects have been the subjl!cr of relared research, rh is
section briefly elabo rnres o n such effects in rega rd to
measurl!menrs dirccrl!d ar a~sessing rhcir significance.
Consider first rhe ro le of ru p geoml!try, wh ich fo r the
prese nt is evaluated specifica lly in rq (:ird to rh1: energy
measu red via ASTM E23 (8-mm rad ius strike r) rnthe r
than conrrasting uch results relatiw ro the ou tco me for
ISO 148- 1 - with the resu lts s hown in Fig.7 developed
in th e late 1990s being instructivl! in this context.
Figure 7:i show · a ,·iew of the speci ml!n :ifrer loadi ng
well beyond the limit load, whereas part (h) of this figu re
shows the fo rce-d isplacemcnr response :is me:isurcd hy a
Dynarup striker mounred in series wirh n lond cell nnd
a linenr ,·ariahle differenti al rrnnsformcr. Ir is evidenr
194 The Jo u rnal of Pipelin.: Engineering

Full size Charpy,J

0 100 200 300 400
350
2/3-sizethatdid 450
also a full size that
did not separate
300
/
... .. '\ 400

~250
~
• ,. . "\y 350 "
en
~
Cl
Q;200
c
w
>-
~~
6 circled cases: 264 ft-lb machine " •
•
+
; + " ".
, 213-sizethat
did not separate
300 m
()

~
250 "O
:::r

'<
~50
IO
all others: 516 ft-lb machine, ~ ~ 200 gt
.. .
(!)
.c ~

u co
" 150 ~
~100
u.. ... ... " <-
" 100
50 ... " "
"
,. ... " Comparing subsize & full size CVN results
50

0 0
0 60 100 150 200 250 300 350
Full size Charpy, ft-lbs Fig. 8. Comparison of
subsize and full-size
CVN energy for one
X-70 steel.

fro m image~ synced to specific loads rhat over rhe course
o f the loading the speci men begins to wrap around
the tup, which occurs as the rotation increases just rh.:
limit load. As th is happens the load, as measured hy
the tllp, fo ils off in compari·on with the load measured
by the load cell. In view of the inset in Fig.7a, this
decrease could reflect the o bscrn1rion that the face o f
the tllp is un load ed as the specimen rotation abo ur rhe
rup increases. It is further e\·ident from the inset that,
as the rotation increases, the load i> increasingly being
transferred to the back face of rhe C VN specimen alo ng
rhe oute r extre miti es of the r;idiused rup face. Such
behaviour indicates that ns the roration incre:ises the
C VN speci men is subjected to a wedge-open ing load
that is not 4uantifie cl in simple terms by the measured
lone!. Accordingly, while the response t:vidcnt in Fig. 7b
indicates that the measured lo:id underesti mates the
verrical compo nent o f the lo:id ing hy about 7%, the
wedge-opening load is not quantified.
Ir fo llows rhar aspects ·uch as rup wear cou ld lead
ro ,·ari abiliry, particularly if this wea r occurs loca l to
the sh oulders of the ASTM E2 3 tup design. Likewi se,
it fo llows char th e use of a smaller-radius tup that
m akes con tact o,·er a narrowe r : o ne, as occu rs fo r rhe
lSO 148- 1 rup design in compar iso n to that fo r E23,
would lead to a red ucti o n in rhe wedge-opening load.
Finally, it fo llows th at the observatio n o f a thresho ld
ro ughne below which rup geometry has no apparent
effect (fo r example, Ref.31) reflects rhe observ:i rion
char le---tough -ree l:; do nor survive in the rest to
rhe po int beyond which rotatio n and contact wirh
the flanks of th e rup occur to a signific:int extent.
Thus, care must be taken when inte rpreting the energy
measured in a CV rest for higher-roughness steels,
as it ca n underestimate the actual fo rce invo lved,
whi le at th e same rime fa il ro reflect rhe effects of
\\'edge-ope ning loading.
Subsize specimen issues
Re ulrs have been reported sine.: the 1950s (such as
Ref.32) co ncerni ng th e e ffecrs of subsize specimens,
with references c ited in rh ar work cha r d are to rhe
late 1940s. As such , the effocr is nor n ew. W hi le
the topic has been investigated fo r many decades,
the Appendices of A TM E2 3 have no t provid ed a
concl usive view o n the role of thickness in the form of
a co rrela ti on, s uggesting that some unce rtai nty remains
as to rhe circumstances that con trol the effect, and
whether there is a consistent pattern. Iss ues in the
conrexr of reproducibility have b..:en repo rted fo r rhe
CVN rest lo nger rh:in the effects of sub i: c ·pecimen .
For example, \\'Ork also reported in rhe 1950s (such
as Ref.33) that cite "poor steel , poor heat treatm ent,
o r both" and note "va ri ati ons .... c:i used by poo r resting
techniques, and th e poor conditio n of rhe Charpy
machine, o r bo th" :is underlyi ng cau es for those issue,
3rd Qu arter, 20 13 19 5

Displacement. mm Displacement, mm
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
6500 3500
Fo rce-dlsplacementresponse Force-displacement response
6000 y ropaqation Encrq)t'T otmloncrgy • 0.47 Pro pagation Energyfioul Energy = 0.40 14
IPB8- I @ 7JC 3000 ree 1r ~2JC
4600 20 \
12
4000 2600
"'3600 10r
.0 16 r
0
"' 2000
~ 0
:; 3000 Cl -0 8 _a.
OJ

?-
.3"' 2600 "'0 ""
z
10 ""
z ...J 1500
6
2000
1500 1000 4
1000 5
500 2
500
0 0 0
0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.6 1.5
Displacement, in c h Displac ement, inch

(a) (b)

Fig. 9. Force-displacement response for CVN specimens made of X-70 steel:

(a) full-size specimen; (b) 213-thick specimen.

all o f \\'hich cou ld conrribure co rhe lack of clariry in
rega rd ro rh ickness effecrs. Also possibly co nrrihuring
ro rhis circumsrance i · rh e hosr of faccors rhar have
mo re reccnrly b..:e n con sidered in rhe co n rexr of
ASTM STP 1248 [341. wh ich co nsidered rhe spec imen,
rhe anvil and srri ker, rh e resr procedures, and sti ll
ocher ropics. Accordingly, thi s section adds on ly to
th e kn owled ge base - particularly giwn ir rdi es o n
rhe AST M E23 tllp and co nsid ers su h~ ize effec rs in
reference to rough sree l.
Figure 8 presents resu lt · fo r 1990s' vin tage X-70 steel
cur from large-d iameter pi pe thar had a wall rhickne~s
of 0.560 in ( 14.2 mm), comparing the energy m fail
for ·uh-th ickness and full-size thickness C VN spec imens.
In this fif!ure, the x-axis represe nrs the enerl!)' from
tesring full-s ize specime ns whereas the y-axis presents
the FS E energy for the 2/3-rh ick specimens, where
FS E energy is linearly sca led e neri..'Y d ensity per unit
ar..:a. Wh ile so m..: of rhe specimens were rested in a
264-fr-lb (3 58-J) C harpy impact mach ine, rhe majoriry
were eva luated in a 516-fr..lb (700-J) C harpy m::ichi ne.
For the higher-tough ness cases, some of rhe specimens
did not separ::ire inro rwo p ieces. In parricular, fo r
cases where the FS E energy was about 200 fr- lb
(270 J), the 2/3-rh ick specimens d id no r separate in to
cwo pi eces, wh ereas those th ar were mad e full rhickness
did. However, at FSE energy levels above 250 fr-lb (339
J), neither rh e fu ll-rhickness no r the 2/ 3-rhick speci me ns
se parated inro two piece · - which, for rhe sa mples
reseed in rhe 516-ft-lb (700-J) C harpy machine (most of
the m), was well below 80% of rhar machine's capacity.
This s::i me comparison afte r excising resu lrs where
the measured en ergy exceeded 80% of rh e machine's
capacity (resrs in the 264-fr-lb (358-j) machine) sugge ·r
thar fo r en ergies less rhan 180 fr-lb (244 j) lin early
sc::i li ng the 2/ 3-size C harpy data to an FSE ,·alue slightly
underesrimates the resu lr measured o n full-rh ickne s
speci men . In conrrast, fo r e nergies grearer t han
180 fr-lh (244 J), linearly scaling rhe 2/ 3-thick specimen
data ove resrim::ires the re uk measured o n full-rh icknes
spec imens, which could he d ue to consrrainr developing
in rhe specimens ar h ighe r-roughness leve ls.
As th e degree o f co nsrraint decreases, rhe extent of rhe
th rough-thickness ch inn ing along the notch increases,
wh ich adds to the fraction of rhe deformarion compo nent
of energy. Fig.9 ill ustrates this point, and makes clear
the earlier asse rrio n chat instrumented testing is essenria l
fo r understa ndi ng the o urcomes of such resting.
Figu re 9n presents th e fo rce-disp lacement response o f
a fu ll-size C VN specimen with rough ne ·s greater th an
170 fr- lb (230 J), while Fig.9b presents the comparable
result fo r a 2/3-th ick speci men made of the sa me
steel. W hen rhese resu lts are pl o rred with the y-axi s
used in Fig.3 (here the UT S is rhe same fo r both),
196
the trends for both tests are comparable up through
the peak load and beyond the compliance change that
indicates 'propagation' has begun. However, during the
course of the propagation phase, the trends deviate.
It is apparent that for the full-size specimen the
propagation trend in Fig.9a continues in the same
manner evident for the data shown in Fig.3. As in
those trends, the energy dissipated in propagation
tracks along the slope shown until the change in
compliance indicates a transition to deformation has
occurred, which (as in Fig.3) is associated with final
rotation and eventual separation of the halves. In
contrast, the trend for the subsize specimen shown in
Fig.9b indicates that after some propagation occurs as
for the full-size specimen, the energy in what was the
propagation phase begins to increase. As suggested above,
this reflects the decreased constraint, which admits
greater through-thickness thinning along the notch,
and so increases the relative fraction of deformation
energy during what was otherwise steady propagation
in the thicker specimen. This deformation component
continues to increase through the transition to overall
deformation energy, flagged by the vertical trend, after
which rotation and separation occur as for the full-
thickness specimen.
Inlaid into the force-displacement for these figures
is a cross-hatched estimate of the energy dissipated
in propagation - which for the subsize specimen
excludes the component of energy due to deformation
induced by the decreased constraint. Each part of
Fig.9 also indicates the ratio of propagation to total
energy decreases based on that estimate. This ratio
indicates that as the specimen thickness is reduced, the
deformation component for the 2/3-thick specimen has
increased as compared to the full-size specimen. While
the scope of the effort for the client that supported
this work precluded more comprehensive analysis, it
was expected that if the energies are separated into
initiation, deformation, and propagation components as
just noted, a direct correlation would emerge between
the propagation energies for 2/3-thick and full-size
specimens. In that context, comparing the outcomes
for the results shown in Fig.9, the propagation energy
density for the standard thickness specimen is 717
ft-lb/in 2 (150 J/cm 2), while that for the 2/3-thick
specimen is 704 ft-lb/in 2 ( 148 J/cm 2). While not an
exact match, these results are well within material
scatter limits, and suggested further consideration of
this plausible correlation - which unfortunately was
beyond the scope of that effort.
Summary and discussion
This paper has reviewed the Charpy V-notch impact test
and assessed its utility to characterize fracture resistance
in applications to modern tough materials in contrast
to those encountered prior to the availability of such
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
materials. The origin of the CVN test and its development
into a standard was discussed, and the evolution of
mechanical and other properties motivated by industry
demands was evaluated. Interpretation of the CVN test
was discussed in regard to the force-displacement and
compliance response that develops during the test, and
factors affecting the energy measured and controlling
failure of the CVN specimen were assessed, including
the tup design and the use of subsize specimens.
This paper also considered the utility of standardized
impact testing such as ASTM E23 and ISO 148-1
in the context of applications involving tough steels,
with the potential utility of the DWTT practice also
considered. It was apparent in that discussion that the
response of bending-impact specimens is, as expected,
a consequence of the loading and the structural
geometry involved, and thus a poor analogue for the
circumstances that significantly differ. This aspect was
discussed in regard to pipelines and the ground-vehicle
industry, with the conclusion that bending geometries
are a poor analogue for the fracture-propagation
process that develops in pipelines, and also for some
other applications. Given that structural geometry
and the loadings, in conjunction with the material's
properties, dictate the failure response, where critical
differences exist in that context, alternative testing
practices should be developed.
Conclusions
While a number of conclusions have been drawn as
the paper developed, two primary conclusions bear
repeating here:
• because the behaviour in an impact test can
be complex, data interpretation and assessment
of their practical implications is best based
on data developed using a well-instrumented
machine; and
• because structural geometry and the loadings
act in conjunction with the material's properties
to control the failure response, where critical
differences exist in that context, alternative
testing practices are needed that are adapted
to the specific loading and failure response of
the structure of interest - which is now the
case for fracture propagation in pipelines where
rough materials are involved.
Acknowledgments
The data reported herein in Figs 7, 8, and 9 were
generated under contract to Alliance Pipeline, as part
of developing its fracture-control programme in the
late 1990s. Permission to release that data is gratefully
acknowledged, as is the author's related collaboration
with David Rudland, then with Battelle.
3rd Quarter, 2013
References
1. T.A.Siewert, M.P.Manahan, C.N.McCowan, J.M.Holt,
F.J.Marsh, and E.A.Ruth, 1999. The history and
importance of impact testing. In: Pendulum impact
testing: a century of progress. ASTM STP 1380,
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp 3-16.
2. A.E.White and C.L.Clark, 1925. Bibliography of
impact testing. Dept of Engineering Research,
University of Michigan.
3. A.LeChatalier, 1892. On the fragility after immersion
in a cold fluid. French Testing Commission, 3.
4. S.B. Russell, 1898. Experiments with a new machine
for testing materials by impact. Trans ASCE, 39, p
237, June.
5. M.G.Charpy, 1901. Note sur lessai des metaux a
la flexion par choc de barreaux entailles. Soc. Ing.
Frarn;ais, pp 848-877. Reprinted in ASTM STP
1380, American Society for Testing and Materials,
2000.
6. W.J.Hall, H.Kihara, W.Soete, and A.A.Wells, 1967.
Brittle fracture of welded plate. Prentice Hall.
7. ASTM E23 • l2c. Standard test methods for notched
bar impact testing of metallic materials. American
Society for Testing and Materials, 03.01.
8. BS EN ISO 148-1: 2009. Metallic materials· Charpy
pendulum impact test · Part 1: Test method; Part
2: Verification of testing machines; and Part 3:
Preparation and characterization of Charpy Y-notch
test pieces for indirect verification of pendulum impact
machines, International Standards Organization.
9. EN 10045-1: 1990. Charpy impact test on metallic
materials. Test method (V- and U-notches) - now
withdrawn and superseded by BS EN ISO 148-1.
10. ASTM, 1938. Symposium on impact testing. Proc.
41st Annual Meeting of the American Society for
Testing and Materials, Atlantic City, 28 June.
11. ASTM, 1955. Symposium on impact testing. Proc.
58th Annual Meeting, Atlantic City, 27 June.
ASTM STP 176, American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1956.
12. ASTM E2248 - 13. Standard test method for impact
testing of miniaturized Charpy V-notch specimens.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 03.01.
13. ASTM 06110 - 10. Standard test method for
determining the Charpy impact resistance of notched
specimens of plastics. American Society for Testing
and Materials, 08.03.
14. ASTM E1253 - 13. Standard guide for reconstitution
of irradiated Charpy-sized specimens. American
Society for Testing and Materials, 12.02.
15. ASTM F2231 • 02(2008). Standard test method for
Charpy impact test on thin specimens of polyethylene
used in pressurized pipes. American Society for
Testing and Materials, 08.04.
16. ASTM A327 / A327M - 11. Standard test methods
for impact testing of cast irons. American Society
for Testing and Materials, 01.02.
197
17. ASTM E2298 - 13. Standard test method for
instrumented impact testing of metallic materials.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 03.01.
18. W.T.Matthews, 1969. The role of impact testing in
characterizing the toughness of materials. ASTM ST
466, American Society for Testing and Materials,
pp 3-20.
19. B.N.Leis and T.F.Forte, 2005. Managing the integrity
of early pipelines - crack growth analysis and
revalidation intervals. Battelle Final Report to the
Research and Special Projects Agency, Contract
DTRS56-03-T-0003, February.
20. W.J.McGregor Tegart, 1966. Elements of mechanical
metallurgy. Macmillan.
21. D.L.Rudland and B.N.Leis, 2007. Pipeline dynamic
fracture test program. Battelle's Final Report to
R.J.Eiber, Consultant, and Alliance Pipeline, 7
February: filed in the Archives of the Canadian
National Energy Board (NEB) Hearing GH 3-97.
22. R.D.Galliher and B.N.Leis, 2003. Evaluation of
fracture resistance via CVN and DWTT practices
for recently produced X80 and XlOO line pipe
steels. Battelle's Final (Proprietary) Report to a
commercial client, 23 October.
23. NIST impact verification program: http://www.
nist.gov/ mml/ acmd/ structu ral_materials/ charpy·
verification-program.cfm
24. B.N.Leis, 1993. Instrumented CVN and tensile
testing of nine line-pipe steels in grades from X42
to X80. Battelle IR&D Report, April.
25. ASTM ES I E8M - 11. Standard test methods
for tension testing of metallic materials. American
Society for Testing and Materials, 03.01.
26. B.N.Leis, 1977. Relationship between apparent (total)
Charpy Yee-notch toughness and the corresponding
dynamic crack-propagation resistance. Battelle's Final
Report to R.J.Eiber, Consultant, and Alliance
Pipeline, 7 February: filed in the Archives of the
Canadian NEB Hearing GH 3-97.
27. B.N.Leis, R.J.Eiber, LE.Carlson, and A. Gilroy-Scott,
1998. Relationship between apparent Charpy Vee·
notch toughness and the corresponding dynamic
crack-propagation resistance. International Pipeline
Conference, ASME, Calgary, pp 723-732.
28. B.N.Leis, 1999. Characterize fracture features for
samples from the first and second burst tests.
Battelle's Final Report on Task 6, to R.J.Eiber,
Consultant, and Alliance Pipeline, 7 May: filed
in the Archives of the Canadian NEB Hearing
GH 3-97.
29. D.J.Lingenfelser, 1987. Application of basic material
tests for evaluating new engineering materials. SAE
Technical Paper 870801.
30. M.Ohata, M.Toyoda, N.Ishikawa, and T.Shinmiya,
2007. Significance of fracture toughness test results
of beam welds in evaluation of brittle fracture
performance of girth welded pipe joints. ]. Pressure
V. Tech., 129, 4, pp 609-618.
198
31. E.A.Ruth, 1995. Striker geometry and its effect
on absorbed energy. ASTM STP 1248, American
Society for Testing and Materials, pp 101- 110.
32. R.S.Zeno, 1956. Effects of specimen width on
the notched bar impact properties of quenched
and tempered and normalized steels. ASTM STP
176, American Society for Testing and Materials,
pp 59-69.
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
33. D.E.Driscoll, 1956. Reproducibility of Charpy
impact test. ASTM Special Technical Publication
176, American Society for Testing and Materials,
pp 70-74.
34. T.A.Siewert and A.K.Schmieder, 1995. Eds:
Pendulum impact machines: procedures and
specimens for verification. ASTM STP 1248,
American Society for Testing and Materials.