Assessment of stress corrosion cracking susceptibility by a

small punch test

H Y O - S U N Y U, E V I - G Y U N N A * a n d S E - H I C H U N G
Mechanical Engineering School, Chonbuk National University, Chonju 561-756, Republic of Korea
*Mechanical Engineering School, Kunsan National University, Kunsan 573-701, Republic of Korea

Received in final form 28 May 1999

A B S T R A C T The object of this study is to establish a new test method for evaluating stress corrosion
cracking (SCC) susceptibility of high-strength steel using a small punch (SP) test and
acoustic emission (AE). A miniaturized specimen (10×10×0.5 mm) is adopted for
SCC evaluation. The experiments are conducted at various loading rates and at various
orientations of the specimen. The cumulative average amplitude of the AE signal per
unit equivalent fracture strain (eqf ) increases as the SCC susceptibility increases.
Through the load–displacement behaviour, the fracture energy (ESP ), the SEM fractog-
raphs, and the correlation between the SCC susceptibility and the AE characteristics,
it is proved that the small punch test method combined with AE measurements is a
useful method to evaluate the SCC susceptibility of high-strength steel.
Keywords stress corrosion cracking; small punch test; slow strain rate test; acoustic
emission.

widely used in fracture studies, including SCC propa-

INTRODUCTION
Constant strain, constant load and KISCC tests are
methods for evaluating SCC behaviour.1 However, these
methods have disadvantages, e.g. being time-consuming
tests, requiring lots of specimens, and the low reproduc-
ibility of results in the evaluation of SCC susceptibility.
On the other hand, the slow strain rate test (SSRT) is
more aggressive in producing SCC of material than
conventional methods, and has the advantage of con-
siderably reduced test duration with high reproducibility
of results.2,3 However, owing to the restriction of speci-
men size, the SSRT method which uses a uniaxial tensile
specimen has several difficulties in SCC evaluations
especially for rolled steel with different orientations of
microstructure, and welded microstructures showing a
very high SCC susceptibility caused by coarse grains and
weld-heat cycles.4 Thus, there is a need for a new SCC
test method using miniaturized specimens.
The small punch (SP) test technique was originally
developed to study irradiation damage of structural
components in nuclear power plants, and was also used
to evaluate the fracture toughness of metal and non-
homogeneous materials, e.g. composites, etc.5–7 In
addition, the acoustic emission (AE) technique has been
Correspondence: Hyo-Sun Yu. Fax: +82 652 270 2388.
E-mail: yuhs@moak.chonbuk.as.kr
gation behaviour8–10.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the applica-
bility of the small punch test method for the evaluation
of SCC susceptibility of a rolled high-strength steel, at
various loading rates and with three orientations, by
monitoring the AE signals. Additionally, the quantitative
correlation between SCC susceptibility and AE signal
characteristics has also been studied.
THE SPECIMEN AND EXPERIMENTAL
PROCEDURE
The material used in this study is the hot-rolled HT80
steel having a chemical composition (%wt) of 0.11C,
0.2Si, 0.7Mn, 0.003P, 0.003S, 0.2Cu, 0.7Ni, 0.48Cr,
0.39Mo, etc. The mechanical properties are as follows:
yield stress=794 MPa, tensile strength=834 MPa and
the elongation strain to failure=30%. Specimens are
machined in three mutually perpendicular directions,
short transverse direction (S), longitudinal direction (T)
and long transverse direction (rolling direction; L). The
size of the specimen is 10×10×0.5 mm.5 Fig. 1 shows
the positions of the specimens in the rolled steel and the
code system for specimen orientation. The SP test is
conducted using a slow strain rate tester as shown in
Fig. 2. The upper and lower dies of the SP test jigs are
made from stainless steel to prevent corrosion. Especially,

© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 22, 889–896 889
890 H . - S. Y U a n d S. - H . C H U N G

loaded onto the top surface of a specimen using a steel

ball of 2.4 mm diameter and hardness HRC 62–67. The
ranges of loading rate adopted are 3×10−3 to
~1.2×10−4 mm/min. All SP tests are repeated two or
three times under the same conditions. The SP energy
(ESP ) used in evaluating SCC susceptibility is defined as
the area under the load–displacement curve, and the
equivalent fracture strain (eqf ) used in the analysis of AE
test results is calculated from the following equation:5

eqf =b(d/t0 )3/2 (1)

where t0 is the original specimen thickness, b is an

experimental constant (=0.15) and d is the displacement.
After the SP test, macro- and microscopic observations
are conducted by SEM. The SCC test environment is
synthetic sea water (SSW), as recommended by ASTM
D1141,11 and the solution is circulated at a velocity of
50 mL/min. The pH of SSW is adjusted to be 8.2. The
AE sensor used is the wide-band type which can sense
the range of 50 kHz–1 MHz. The total gain of the
system is 80 dB and the signals are filtered at
100 kHz–1.2 MHz. The threshold voltage (Vth ) is set at
3.55 mV for removing various noises, e.g. mechanical
noise, electromagnetic noise and fluid flow noise, etc. As
shown in Fig. 2, the AE sensor is attached to the upper
die instead of the specimen.
Fig. 1 Code system for specimen orientations.

TEST RESULTs AND DISCUSSION

the lower die part, which is in contact with the test
solution, is coated by a high-performance epoxy resin to
SCC and AE behaviours with loading rate
prevent the occurrence of a galvanic couple.
The SP specimen is set between the upper and lower Because the SCC behaviour of a material strongly
dies, and tightened uniformly with four clamping screws depends upon the applied strain rate, the influence of
using a torque wrench. The punch for the SP test is loading rate for a miniaturized specimen is investigated

Fig. 2 Schematic illustration of an SP test.

© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 22, 889–896
 ASSESSMENT OF SSC SUSCEPTIBILITY 891

Fig. 3 Load–displacement curves for various loading rates in Fig. 4 Relationship between various loading rates and SP energy
mm/min for HT80 steel-L direction. All tests are at a pH of 8.2 for HT80 steel-L direction.
except test 1 which is performed in air.

Fig. 5 SEM macro- and microfractographs

for HT80 steel-L direction at a loading rate
of 3×10−4 mm/min: (a) in air; and (b) in
the synthetic sea water (SSW), pH 8.2.

© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 22, 889–896
892 H . - S. Y U a n d S. - H . C H U N G

Table 1 The SCC susceptibilities of each specimen with respect to

loading rates (see Fig. 3)

Loading rate
(mm/min) P–d curve Susceptibility

3×10−3 2 0.15
1.2×10−3 3 0.28
5×10−4 4 0.48
3×10−4 5–7 0.66, 0.71, 0.73
1.2×10−4 8 0.68

using a L-direction specimen. Figure 3 shows a typical

example of load–displacement curves obtained from an
SP test with various loading rates in air and in the SSW
environment. The maximum load (Pmax ) decreases as
the loading rate decreases. Curves 5–7 at
3×10−4 mm/min and curve 8 at 1.2×10−4 mm/min
show lower maximum loads when compared with the
other curves.
Figure 4 shows the ESP behaviour with various loading
rates. Regardless of loading rates in air, the SP energy
shows similar high values, but its value reduces with
decreasing loading rates in the corrosive environment.
Among the various loading rates, the loading rates of
3×10−4 and 1.2×10−4 mm/min show the lowest ESP
values. The SCC susceptibilities of each specimen are
summarized in Table 1. Here, the SCC susceptibility is
obtained from the following equation:
SCC susceptibility=[1−(ESP-Corr. /ESP-Air )] (2)
where ESP-Air and ESP-Corr. are the SP energies in air
and the SSW environment, respectively.
Figure 5 shows the macro- and microfractographs of
specimens at the loading rate of 3×10−4 mm/min which
shows the lowest ESP and the highest SCC susceptibility
in the SSW environment. The fracture appearance of
the specimen tested in air shows a large plastic defor-
mation and a typical dimple fracture mode. However, Fig. 6 Amplitude distribution of AE signals plotted with the load–
that in the SSW environment shows very little plastic displacement curve for HT80 steel-L direction.
deformation and a typical transgranular fracture mode.
Figure 6 represents the AE amplitude distributions
detected in air and the SSW environment at the loading the low AE amplitudes of 3 dB or less are shown at
rate of 3×10−4 mm/min. Here, the AE amplitude is other regions except in the vicinity of Pmax . In the
obtained from the cumulative amplitude divided by the vicinity of Pmax , the AE amplitudes are in the range
total AE hits in unit time (40 min). From Fig. 6(a), the 9–11 dB. It is seen that the AE behaviour patterns in air
AE amplitudes are ~4 dB at the incipient part of the are different from those in the SSW environment.
test, ~5 dB before Pmax , and below 2 dB in other To make clear the difference in AE amplitude behav-
regions. In the presence of the corrosive environment, iour in air and the SSW environment, the surfaces of
the peak values of the AE amplitude gradually increase several specimens obtained after unloading are observed
with progression of deformation of the specimen as in a SEM, as shown in Fig. 7. In the case of tests in air
shown in Fig. 6(b). That is, AE amplitudes of 5–6 dB [Fig. 7(A)], microcracks formed in the vicinity of Pmax .
are recorded near to displacements of d=0.65 mm, and In the corrosive environment [Fig. 7(B)], however, pits

© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 22, 889–896
 ASSESSMENT OF SSC SUSCEPTIBILITY 893

Fig. 7 Unloading points on the load–

displacement curve and micrographs of the
specimen surface in air and in the SSW,
pH 8.2 environment.

© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 22, 889–896
894 H . - S. Y U a n d S. - H . C H U N G

are nucleated in the first half of the test, followed by a
microcrack at point 2, with the propagation of macro-
cracks in the vicinity of Pmax . In the first half of a SSW
test pits, which are noted a source of SCC initiation, are
nucleated. These cracking features are related to the AE
amplitude in the SSW environment with AE amplitudes
of ~5–6 dB for microcrack initiation and above 8–9 dB
for the propagation of SCC. This AE amplitude for
microcrack initiation is also observed in the vicinity of
Pmax in air. The results suggest that the AE amplitude
can be used for indicating the initiation of microcrack
and that the SP test, using miniaturized specimens, has
the possibility to be used in an SCC evaluation of high-
strength steel.
known that the L direction specimen shows a lower
fracture toughness than the S and T directions due to
the elongation of non-metallic inclusions, e.g. manganese
sulphide or silicate and the banded structure developed
in the rolling process.12 In the case of the corrosive
environment, a higher SCC susceptibility is observed in
the L direction than the S and T directions Thus, the
SP-SSRT test can be considered as a useful test method
for a SCC evaluation of a rolled steel.
Figure 9 represents the amplitude distributions of

SCC and AE behaviour for different specimen

orientations
It is difficult to evaluate the SCC behaviour patterns for
the three mutually perpendicular directions of rolled
steel using a conventional SSRT test method because of
specimen size. Therefore, SP-SSRT tests are performed
for specimens machined from the three mutually perpen-
dicular directions in order to investigate SCC evaluations
with respect to specimen orientation.
Figure 8 shows the fracture energy, ESP as a function
of orientations at a loading rate of 3×10−4 mm/min in
air and the SSW environment. The ESP values in the
SSW environment are all decreased compared with those
in air, and are decreased in the order of T, S and L
directions. Also, the SCC susceptibilities for the S, T
and L directions are 0.57, 0.36 and 0.66, respectively.
Generally, from fracture toughness tests, e.g. the COD
and CVN (Charpy-V notch) impact tests, it is well

Fig. 9 Amplitude distribution of AE signals plotted with the load–

displacement in the SSW, pH 8.2 environment: (a) S orientation;
Fig. 8 SP energy for the three orientations of the HT80 steel. (b) T orientation.

© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 22, 889–896

AE signals detected during the SP test for S and T
directions in the SSW environment. The AE amplitude
distributions in the L direction are shown in Fig. 6(b).
The AE amplitudes in the L direction are higher than
those in the other directions. Especially, the AE
amplitude corresponding to microcrack initiation is
observed at d=0.74 mm in the S orientation, at d=
1.3 mm in the T orientation and at d= 0.6 mm in the
L orientation. The initiation of microcracks is shifted
to lower displacements with increasing SCC
susceptibility.
Correlation between SCC susceptibility and AE
characteristics
Figure 10 illustrates the correlation between SCC sus-
ceptibility and AE amplitude characteristics. Here,
the AE amplitude characteristic, [W Avg. AE
amplitude]1/2 /eqf is called the AE amplitude per unit eqf ,
and is obtained from the square root value of the
cumulative average amplitude of AE signals divided by
the equivalent fracture strain (eqf ). The cumulative aver-
age amplitude per unit eqf increases with increasing SCC
susceptibility. Therefore, if the AE amplitude per unit
eqf of an SP specimen in a corrosive environment is
known, the SCC susceptibility of that material can be
obtained from the correlation between SCC susceptibil-
ity and AE amplitude characteristics. From the exper-
imental results, e.g. load–displacement behaviour, ESP
Fig. 10 Relationship between SCC susceptibility and [WAvg. AE
amplitude]1/2 /eqf for HT80 steel in the SSW, pH 8.2 environment.
© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 22, 889–896
ASSESSMENT OF SSC SUSCEPTIBILITY 895
behaviour, SEM fractographs, and the correlation
between SCC susceptibility and AE characteristics, it
can be summarized that the SP-SSRT is a useful test
method to evaluate the SCC susceptibility of high-
strength steel.
CONCLUSIONS
The small punch (SP) test and the acoustic emission
(AE) technique have been applied to evaluate the SCC
susceptibility of a high-strength steel. The main con-
clusions of this research can be summarized as follows.
1 The fracture energy (ESP-Corr. ) and the stress corrosion
cracking (SCC) susceptibility of specimens in the SP
test are dependent on the loading rates in the synthetic
sea water (SSW) environment.
2 The SCC susceptibility of three different specimen
orientations shows increasing values in the order of
L, S and T directions, and the AE amplitude for the
L direction shows the highest peak behaviour.
3 A correlation exists between the SCC susceptibility
and the cumulative average AE amplitude per unit
equivalent fracture strain (eqf ) which increases as the
SCC susceptibility increases.
4 Through the various test results, e.g. the load–dis-
placement behaviour, ESP behaviour, SEM fractog-
raphs, and the correlation between the SCC
susceptibility and the AE characteristics, it can be
summarized that the SP test, using miniaturized speci-
mens, is a useful test method to evaluate the SCC
susceptibility of high-strength steel.
REFERENCES
1 G. Vogt (1978) Comparative survey of type of loading and
specimen shape for stress corrosion test. Werkst. Korros. 29,
721–725.
2 R. N. Parkins (1979) Development of strain-rate testing and its
implications. ASTM STP 665, 5–24.
3 N. J. H. Holroyd and G. M. Scamans (1984) Slow strain-rate
stress corrosion testing of aluminum alloys. ASTM STP 821,
202–241 .
4 I. Matsushima (1992) Stress corrosion cracking and its miti-
gation of welded joints in steels. Journal of the Welding Society
of Japan, 61, 269–277.
5 JAERI-Memorandum (62-193) (1987) SP test method. Japan
Atomic Energy Research Institute, pp. 1–135.
6 Special Publication of National Aerospace Lab. (1992) SP/MSP
test method for FGM development. SP-17, Japan, pp. 1–79.
7 M. Saito, H. Takahasi, H. D. Jeong, A. Kawasaki and R.
Watanabe (1991) Evaluation of fracture toughness for metal/
ceramics composite materials by means of miniaturized speci-
men technique. Japan Soc. Mech. Eng. 57, 522–529.
8 C. E. Hartbower, W. G. Reuter, C. F. Morais and P. P. Crimmins
(1972) Use of acoustic emission for the detection of weld and
896 H . - S. Y U a n d S. - H . C H U N G
stress corrosion cracking. Acoustic Emission, ASTM STP 505,
187–221.
9 M. A. Friesel and R. H. Jones (1988) Acoustic emission during
intergranular stress corrosion of iron. J. Acoustic Emission 7,
119–128.
10 B. Q. Zhang and J. Q. Sun (1989) Acoustic emission from weld
seam of 16MnR steel during stress corrosion. J. Acoustic Emission
8, 114–117.
11 ASTM–D1141-96, Standard Specification for Substitute
Ocean Water.
12 W. P. Sailors (1976) Fracture feature anisotropy in a martensitic
steel plate. ASTM STP 600, 172–189.
© 1999 Blackwell Science Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 22, 889–896