metals

Article
Analysis of Ductile Fracture Obtained by Charpy
Impact Test of a Steel Structure Created by
Robot-Assisted GMAW-Based
Additive Manufacturing
Ali Waqas , Xiansheng Qin, Jiangtao Xiong , Chen Zheng * and Hongbo Wang
School of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China;
aliwaqas@mail.nwpu.edu.cn (A.W.); xsqin@nwpu.edu.cn (X.Q.); xiongjiangtao@nwpu.edu.cn (J.X.);
wanghongbo@nwpu.edu.cn (H.W.)
* Correspondence: chen.zheng@nwpu.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-151-0290-4023




Received: 23 October 2019; Accepted: 7 November 2019; Published: 10 November 2019


Abstract: In this study, gas metal arc welding (GMAW) was used to construct a thin wall structure in
a layer-by-layer fashion using an AWS ER70S-6 electrode wire with the help of a robot. The Charpy
impact test was performed after extracting samples in directions both parallel and perpendicular
to the deposition direction. In this study, multiple factors related to the resulting absorbed energy
have been discussed. Despite being a layered structure, homogeneous behavior with acceptable
deviation was observed in the microstructure, hardness, and fracture toughness of the structure in
both directions. The fracture is extremely ductile with a dimpled fibrous surface and secondary
cracks. An estimate for fracture toughness based on Charpy impact absorbed energy is also given.

Keywords: Charpy impact test; GMAW; additive manufacturing; secondary cracks

1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing can be used to create a near-net shape for complex parts using the
layer-by-layer deposition method. Powder or wire is melted using different energy sources, including
electron beam, laser beam, or electric arc [1–3]. Integrated machinery, such as computer numerical
control gantries or robots, can be used to create parts using wire and arc additive manufacturing.
The mechanical properties of the manufactured materials generally depend on the welding parameters
selected—they have been shown to have better properties than casted materials [4,5]. Researchers have
studied different techniques for the process, including conventional gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW),
gas metal arc welding (GMAW), and cold metal transfer (CMT) [6,7]. This includes studies on topology,
build-up geometry, and material properties of structures made by these methods [8,9]. Comprehensive
studies have been conducted on defects in microstructure and methods to improve them by controlling
deposition strategies and incorporating ancillary processes for quality enhancement [10–12]. A lot
of research is being carried out to control problems related to GMAW-based additive manufacturing,
including dimension control at the start and end of the weld bead [13,14]. The height difference at
the extreme ends is significant for multi-layer single-pass manufacturing, where the height difference
is exaggerated with each layer being deposited, terminating the welding process [15]. Different
techniques have been used to control the welding parameters and attain a maximum effective area in
the resulting structure [13,16]. The resulting structure has different mechanical and material properties
owing to the heat cycles of multiple layer depositions [17].
While studies have been conducted on mechanical properties, including tensile strength and
hardness of materials created by additive manufacturing, little work can be found on the impact

Metals 2019, 9, 1208; doi:10.3390/met9111208 www.mdpi.com/journal/metals

Metals 2019, 9, 1208 2 of 12

toughness of these materials. Toughness is an important characteristic that can help study the ability
to absorb energy as well as the ductile or brittle behavior of the structure [18]. Toughness may or
may not be anisotropic, based on the welding process, microstructure, and grain size [19,20]. Charpy
impact testing is one of the most common methods to measure impact toughness. According to a study,
the scatter might be lesser at room temperature, as compared to lower temperatures [21].
The results from the Charpy impact test should be studied in more depth, along with the
microstructure and fracture analysis of the test specimens, to validate the absorbed impact energy [22].
As the fractography recognizes the mechanism of material failure, the behavior of crack propagation
can identify the reasons for higher or lower energy absorbed by the ductile or brittle material. Ductile
fractures have a dimpled surface due to tearing of the material and plastic deformation, while brittle
fractures are evident from cleavage facets and almost no plastic deformation [23]. Moreover, in the
case of ductile fracture, secondary cracks depict the indication of crack deflection with the absorption
of more energy, resulting in better toughness [24].
This research focuses on the impact toughness of components made by GMAW and the possible
factors responsible for the absorbed energy. The microstructure of the specimens is discussed, along
with the fractography of the specimens, after impact testing. The deformation of the broken samples
and intrinsic toughening mechanism are discussed in relation to the absorbed energy. An estimate of
fracture toughness is also presented.

2. Method and Experiment

A thin wall was constructed by robot-assisted GMAW after controlling the welding parameters
at the onset and end of the weld bead. The onset of the weld bead will be referred to as arc-striking,
the end will be termed as arc-extinguishing, and the central part will be referred to as the steady stage;
a schematic diagram is given in Figure 1. Low carbon steel electrode wire ER70S-6 with a diameter of
1.2 mm has been used to carry out the experiments with the following composition (Table 1).

Table 1. Typical chemical composition for electrode wire ER70S-6 (weight percentage).

Elements C Mn Si S P Ni Cr Mo V Cu Fe
wt. % 0.1 1.56 0.88 0.012 0.011 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.24 Bal.

The welding parameters have been controlled on the basis of welding energy profile optimization
for uniform height throughout the weld bead. The travel speed is reduced as the weld bead approaches
a steady stage to control the bulging shape at the arc-striking region. The decreasing slope at the
arc-extinguishing area is controlled by reducing all of the parameters, including current, voltage, and
travel speed. In the current study, the samples were extracted from the steady stage with constant
welding energy of 660 J/mm and a two-minute delay before deposition of subsequent layers to prevent
the process from terminating due to pool flow. This part of the deposition offers equilibrium in
terms of height of the deposition and heat dissipation. The details of the same can be found in
published literature mentioned in [16]. Deposition parameters for the steady stage part of the layer
after equilibrium are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Deposition parameters for the steady stage part of the layer.

Parameters Current Voltage Welding Energy Travel Speed

Value (units) 120 (A) 19 (V) 660 (J/mm) 3.5 (mm/s)

Absorbed energy was obtained at room temperature using an automatic impact testing machine
JBS-300 (Jinan Kehui Testing Instrument Co., Ltd., Jinan, China) with a maximum capacity of 300 J,
as shown in Figure 2. The pre-lift angle was 150◦ , while the impact velocity was 5.2 m/s. The Brinell
hardness test was performed using Huayin 320HBS-3000 (Laizhou Huayin Testing Company Limited,
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12
Absorbed energy was obtained at room temperature using an automatic impact testing
Absorbed
machine JBS-300energy was obtained
(Jinan Kehui at room temperature
Testing Instrument using
Co., Ltd., Jinan, an automatic
China) impactcapacity
with a maximum testing
machine
of JBS-300
300 J, as shown(Jinan Kehui
in Figure Testing
2. The Instrument
pre-lift Co.,
angle was Ltd.,
150°, Jinan,
while theChina)
impactwith a maximum
velocity capacity
was 5.2 m/s. The
Metals 2019, 9, 1208 3 of 12
of 300 J,hardness
Brinell as showntest in Figure 2. The pre-lift
was performed usingangle was320HBS-3000
Huayin 150°, while the impactHuayin
(Laizhou velocityTesting
was 5.2Company
m/s. The
Brinell hardness
Limited, Laizhou, test was performed
China) to check theusing Huayin
macro 320HBS-3000
hardness (Laizhou Huayin
of the specimens. OpticalTesting Company
microscopy was
Limited,out
Laizhou,
carried Laizhou,
China) China)
usingtoOLYMPUS to check
check the GX-71the
macro macroofhardness
hardness
(Olympus of the
the specimens.
Corporation, specimens.
Optical
Tokyo, Optical
microscopy
Japan), microscopy
was carried
while scanning was
out
electron
carried
using out
OLYMPUS using OLYMPUS
GX-71 GX-71
(Olympus (Olympus
Corporation, Corporation,
Tokyo, Japan), Tokyo,
while
microscopy and fractography was conducted using TESCAN VEGA (Oxford Instruments Japan),
scanning while scanning
electron electron
microscopy and
microscopy Beijing,
fractography
Technology, and fractography
was conducted usingwas
China). X-ray conducted
TESCAN
diffraction (XRD)using
VEGA (Oxford TESCAN
Instruments
was performed VEGA (Oxford
Technology,
using X’Pert Instruments
PROBeijing, China).
(PANalytical,
Technology,
X-ray
Eindhoven, Beijing,
diffraction (XRD)China).
Netherlands) was X-ray
performed
with diffraction
a copper using (XRD)
X’Pert
anode was(PANalytical,
PRO performed
and generator settingsusing
40X’Pert
Eindhoven,
of mA and PRO
40 (PANalytical,
Netherlands)
KV. with
aEindhoven,
copper anode Netherlands) withsettings
and generator a copperofanode
40 mAand
andgenerator
40 KV. settings of 40 mA and 40 KV.

(a)
(a)

(b)
(b)

Figure 1. (a)
Figure 1. (a) Schematic
Schematic representation
representation ofof the
the robot-assisted
robot-assisted welded
welded thin
thin wall,
wall, highlighting
highlighting important
important
Figure
areas 1.
areas and (a)
and the Schematic
the direction representation
direction of
of specimen of the
specimen extraction. robot-assisted
extraction. (b)
(b) An welded
An as-built
as-built wall thin
wall with wall, highlighting
with depiction
depiction of
of the important
the steady
steady stage
stage
areas where
from and the direction
samples of specimen
were extracted extraction.
extracted for this
for (b) An as-built wall with depiction of the steady stage
this study.
study.
from where samples were extracted for this study.

Figure 2. Charpy
Figure 2. Charpy impact
impact testing
testing machine
machine with
with aa hammer
hammer having pre-lift angle
having pre-lift angle of
of 150
150°.
◦.
Figure 2. Charpy impact testing machine with a hammer having pre-lift angle of 150°.
The samples were obtained in directions both parallel to the deposition (hereafter referred to as
horizontal) and perpendicular to the deposition (hereafter referred to as vertical). Due to the limitation
Metals 2019,
Metals 2019, 9,
9, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 44 of
of 12
12

The samples werewere obtained

obtained in in directions
directions both
both parallel
parallel to
to the
the deposition
deposition (hereafter
(hereafter referred
referred toto as
MetalsThe
2019,samples
9, 1208 4 ofas
12
horizontal) and perpendicular to the deposition (hereafter referred to as
horizontal) and perpendicular to the deposition (hereafter referred to as vertical). Due to thevertical). Due to the
limitation of
limitation of the
the available
available thickness
thickness of of the
the thin
thin wall
wall structure,
structure, sub-size
sub-size samples
samples were
were extracted
extracted with
with
dimensions
of the of
available 55 × 10
thickness × 5
of mm
the 3 inwall
thin accordance
structure,with the
sub-size specifications
samples were mentioned
extracted
dimensions of 55 × 10 × 5 mm in accordance with the specifications mentioned in standard test
3 in
with standard
dimensions test
of
methods
55 × 10 × for
5 mm 3 in accordance
notched bar impactwithtesting
the of metallic
specifications materials
mentioned [25].
in Eight
standardsamples
test were
methods extracted
for notchedin
methods for notched bar impact testing of metallic materials [25]. Eight samples were extracted in
bothimpact
bar
both horizontal
horizontal andofvertical
testing
and vertical
metallic directions.
materialsThe
directions. The extracted
[25]. sample,were
Eight samples
extracted sample, alongextracted
along with the
with theinimpact direction used,
both direction
impact horizontal used,
and
is shown
vertical in Figure
directions.
is shown in Figure 3. 3.
The extracted sample, along with the impact direction used, is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.
Figure
Figure 3. Placement
3. Placement of
Placement of sample
of sample and
sample and impact
and impact direction.
impact direction.
direction.

3. Results
3. Results and
and Discussion
Discussion
Absorbed
Absorbed energy
Absorbed energyresults
energy resultsfor
results forboth
for both
both horizontal
horizontal
horizontal andand
andvertical samples
vertical
vertical samples
samples are are
given
are in Figure
given
given 4, along
in Figure
in Figure with
4, along
4, along
a comparison
with a of
comparison absorbed
of energy
absorbed of steel
energy with
of similar
steel with carbon
similar content
carbon (i.e.,
content 0.11%
with a comparison of absorbed energy of steel with similar carbon content (i.e. 0.11% C) [26]. The(i.e. C) [26].
0.11% The
C) values
[26]. The
for thefor
values
values absorbed
for the energyenergy
the absorbed
absorbed have been
energy havenormalized
have for the
been normalized
been normalized full-size
for
for sample.
the full-size
the full-size The The
sample.
sample. explanation
The for the
explanation
explanation for
for
normalizing
the is
normalizing provided
is later
provided in
latertheinarticle.
the The
article. average
The value
average for
valuehorizontal
for specimens
horizontal
the normalizing is provided later in the article. The average value for horizontal specimens (X1 to (X1
specimens to X8)
(X1 is
to
approximately
X8) is 189
approximately J, while
189 J, it is
while approximately
it is 202
approximately J for
202the
J vertical
for the specimens
vertical (Y1
specimens
X8) is approximately 189 J, while it is approximately 202 J for the vertical specimens (Y1 to Y8). to Y8).
(Y1 to Y8).

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Absorbed
Absorbed impact
impact energy
energy in
in joules
joules for
for horizontal
horizontal and
and vertical
vertical specimens.
specimens.

Various methods
Various methods
methods can can be
be adopted
be adopted
adopted to to increase
increase the
increase the strength
the strength
strength of of materials,
of materials, including cold
materials, including cold work
work
hardening,
hardening, precipitate
hardening, precipitateoror
precipitate dispersion
or dispersion
dispersionhardening,
hardening,
hardening,and grain
and refinement
and [27]. Strengthening
grain refinement
grain refinement is identified
[27]. Strengthening
[27]. Strengthening is
is
by obstruction
identified by in lattice dislocations
obstruction in in
lattice all the cases.
dislocations However,
in all cold
the working
cases. and
However,
identified by obstruction in lattice dislocations in all the cases. However, cold working and precipitation
cold hardening
working and
increase the brittleness
precipitation
precipitation hardeningofincrease
hardening the material,
increase while grain
the brittleness
the brittleness ofrefinement
of the material,
the has while
material, awhile
different
graineffect
grain that enhances
refinement
refinement has aa
has
ductility
different in terms
effect that of percentage
enhances elongation
ductility in [28].
terms of The pre-
percentage and post-heat
elongation effect
[28]. Theof
different effect that enhances ductility in terms of percentage elongation [28]. The pre- and post-heat each
pre- layer
and being
post-heat
welded
effect of results
each in
layer the refinement
being welded of the
results grains,
in the causing
refinementa higher
of the percentage
grains, elongation.
causing
effect of each layer being welded results in the refinement of the grains, causing a higher percentagea higherThe amount
percentage
of energy absorbed
elongation.
elongation. The amount
The is comparable
amount of energyto
of energy the upper
absorbed
absorbed shelf absorbed
is comparable
is comparable energy
to the
to the upperof ferritic
upper structureenergy
shelf absorbed
shelf absorbed from the
energy of
of
reference [26], portraying the material’s ability to undergo a large amount of plastic deformation, hence
 Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12
Metals 2019, 9, 1208 5 of 12

ferritic structure from the reference [26], portraying the material’s ability to undergo a large amount
of plastic
good deformation,
ductility. henceisgood
Grain structure ductility.
depicted Grain5 for
in Figure structure is depicted
different directionsinand
Figure 5 for different
magnification levels.
directions and magnification levels. Although the structure of the grains is similar within the layer
Although the structure of the grains is similar within the layer and between the two successive layers,
and between the two successive layers, a difference in size can be observed, as shown in Figure 5a.
a difference in size can be observed, as shown in Figure 5a. Higher magnification images are presented
Higher magnification images are presented in Figure 5b and Figure 5c for the intralayer and
in Figure 5b,c for the intralayer and interlayer microstructures, respectively. The same difference is also
interlayer microstructures, respectively. The same difference is also visible in SEM images in Figures
visible in SEM images in Figure 6a,b. Histogram for a part of each SEM image is given in Figure 6c,d
6a and 6b. Histogram for a part of each SEM image is given in Figure 6c and Figure 6d for intralayer
for intralayer and interlayer grain diameter, respectively. As the samples have been taken from the
and interlayer grain diameter, respectively. As the samples have been taken from the steady stage
steady stage area where equilibrium has been achieved, the grain structure is mostly ferritic equiaxed,
area where equilibrium has been achieved, the grain structure is mostly ferritic equiaxed, as shown
asin
shown
Figurein Figure
5. The 5. The average
average grain grain size number
size number was was
foundfound
to beto 10.5,
be 10.5, calculated
calculated following
following ASTM
ASTM
standard E112 [29].
standard E112 [29].

(a)

(b) (c)

Figure5. 5.Microstructure
Figure Microstructure attained
attained by
by an
an optical
optical microscope. (a)Intralayer
microscope. (a) Intralayermicrostructure
microstructurewithwith
slightly
slightlymore
morerefined
refined grains. Microstructurewith
grains. Microstructure with a higher
a higher magnification
magnification for intralayer
for (b) (b) intralayer and
and (c)
(c)interlayer
interlayergrains.
grains.
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12
Metals 2019,
Metals 9, 1208
2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of
6 of 1212

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c)(c) (d)
(d)
Figure 6. 6.Microstructure
Figure6.
Figure Microstructureattained
Microstructure attained by
attained by an
an SEM
an SEM with
SEM with aaa slight
with slight difference
slight difference in
differencein grain
ingrain size
grainsize for
sizefor the
the(a)(a)
forthe (a)
intralayer
intralayer and
intralayerand (b)
and(b) interlayer
(b)interlayermicrostructure.
interlayer microstructure. Histogram
microstructure.Histogram
Histogram of grain
of grain diameter
diameter
of grain for the
for the
diameter (c)
for(c)
the intralayer
intralayer and
and
(c) intralayer
(d)
and interlayer
(d)
(d) microstructure.
interlayer
interlayermicrostructure.
microstructure.

Although
Although
Although hardness
hardnessvaries
hardness variesin
varies inindirect
directproportion
proportion to
proportion to the carbon
carbon content,
carbon content, finegrain
content,fine grain sizeresults
grainsize resultsinin
higher
higher
higher values
values
values ofofhardness
hardness[30].
[30].The
Theaverage
The averagehardness
average hardness value
hardness value of
of horizontal
horizontal samples
samplesisisapproximately
approximately
149149 BHN
BHN witha astandard
with standarddeviation
deviationofof1.35,
1.35, while
while itit is
is approximately
approximately 148.7
148.7 BHN
BHNwith
witha astandard
standard
deviation
deviation of of
of0.710.71
0.71for for vertical
forvertical
vertical samples,
samples,
samples, as shown
as shown
as shown in Figure
in Figure
in Figure 7. Values
Values
7. Values are comparable
are comparable
are comparable to steel
to steeltowith
steel with
with
similar
similar
similar
carbon carbon
carbon
content. content.
content.

Figure 7. Brinell hardness for horizontal and vertical specimens.

Figure 7. Brinell
Brinell hardness
hardness for
for horizontal
horizontal and vertical specimens.
Metals 2019, 9, 1208 7 of 12
Metals 2019,
Metals 2019, 9,
9, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 77 of
of 12
12

Low carbon steel with a uniform microstructure is considered to have better toughness because of
Low carbon steel with a uniform microstructure is considered to have better toughness because
its ferritic structure.
of its ferritic HighHigh
structure. carbon steel with
carbon steela with
martensitic structurestructure
a martensitic has morehasbrittle sites,
more providing
brittle sites,
lesser resistance to crack propagation [31,32]. However, in this case, a uniform microstructure with a
providing lesser resistance to crack propagation [31,32]. However, in this case, a uniform
mostly ferritic structure
microstructure with a proves
mostlytoferritic
be a hindrance
structuretoproves
dislocations
to beinaallhindrance
directions,toresulting in a slanted
dislocations in all
fracture
directions, resulting in a slanted fracture in each plane, as shown in Figure 8. This slanted plane and
in each plane, as shown in Figure 8. This slanted plane was identical in both the horizontal was
vertical specimens, proving that the structure is uniform in both directions with decent penetration of
identical in both the horizontal and vertical specimens, proving that the structure is uniform in both
each layer into
directions withthe subsequent
decent one. of each layer into the subsequent one.
penetration

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Fractured
Fractured sample
sample after
after separation
separation by
by joining
joining the
the hinges
hinges (three
(three views
views of
of the
the same
same sample).
sample).
sample).

The
The energy
energyabsorbed
absorbed by by
the the
material in theinplastic
material region region
the plastic is of importance, especiallyespecially
is of importance, for structuralfor
steel; thus, maximum strength can be estimated by observing deformation ability
structural steel; thus, maximum strength can be estimated by observing deformation ability before before the final
fracture
the final in the inelastic
fracture region. region.
in the inelastic Figure Figure
9 shows the amount
9 shows of deformation
the amount of deformationthat each sample
that each samplehas
undergone
has undergonebeforebefore
the final
thefracture. Regardless
final fracture. of deposition
Regardless direction,direction,
of deposition each sample eachhas been deformed
sample has been
in a similarinfashion
deformed with
a similar quite awith
fashion largequite
deformation before failure.
a large deformation This tfailure.
before includes lateral
This expansion
t includes of
lateral
the specimen,
expansion which
of the has been
specimen, normalized
which has beenfornormalized
the sub-size forsample (Figuresample
the sub-size 10). Average
(Figurevalues for the
10). Average
horizontal andhorizontal
values for the vertical specimens
and verticalare approximately 46% and 51%, respectively.
specimens are approximately 46% and 51%, respectively.

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 9. (a)
(a) Multiple
9. (a) samples
samples with
Multiple samples with identical
identical fracture
fracture behavior. (b) SEM
behavior. (b)
(b) SEM to show
to show the
the twist
show the twist in
in the
the
Figure 9. Multiple with identical fracture behavior. SEM to twist in the
deformed sample.
deformed sample.
sample.
deformed
Metals 2019, 9, 1208
x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12

Figure 10. Normalized lateral expansion in percentage for the horizontal and vertical specimens.
Figure 10.
Figure Normalized lateral
10. Normalized lateral expansion
expansion in
in percentage
percentage for
for the
the horizontal
horizontal and vertical specimens.
The deformation behavior with an almost 45° fracture plane depicts shear stress that exceeds
The deformation
deformation behavior withresulting
an almost
almost 45 ◦ fracture plane depicts shear stress that exceeds
The
the shear strength of the behavior with
structure, an in 45° fracture
plastic planeThe
yielding. depicts
fibrous shear stress thatand
appearance exceeds
large
the shear
the shear strength
deformation strength
beforeofoffracture,
the
the structure,
along resulting
structure, with the in
resulting in plastic
shearplastic
plane yielding.
yielding.
fracture, The
The fibrous
fibrous
point appearance
appearance
towards the pure and
and large
large
ductile
deformation
deformation
fracture. Thebefore
before fracture,
specimensfracture,
had along
along
to bewith
withthethe
separatedshear plane
shear
after fracture,
plane
being pointonce
fracture,
closed towards
point thehinges,
at towards
the pure ductile
the pure fracture.
ductile
according to
The specimens
fracture.
instructionsTheset had
specimensto
by standardbe separated
hadtest after
to methods
be separatedbeing closed
after being
for notched once at the hinges,
closedtesting
bar impact once at according
of the hinges,
metallic to instructions
according
materials ASTM to
set by standard
instructions
E23-07a teststandard
[25].setThere
by methods
was no test for methods
notched
cleavage in bar impact
brokentesting
for notched
the of metallic
bar impact
specimen; itmaterials
testing
thus, of
is metallicASTM
considered aE23-07a
materials
pureASTM [25].
shear
There
E23-07a was
fracture, no cleavage
[25]. Theretowas
according in the
the no broken
cleavage
mentioned specimen; thus,
in the broken
standard. The itcoalescence
is considered
specimen; of avoids
thus,pure shear
it isresults fracture,
considered according
in the adevelopment
pure shear to
the mentioned
fracture,
of a shear according standard.
lip, which to the The coalescence
mentioned for
is responsible of
standard. voids
a higher results
Theupper
coalescencein the development
of voids
shelf energy of a shear
results Fractography
fracture. lip, which
in the developmentof the
is
of responsible
a shear lip, for
whicha higher
is upper
responsible shelf
for energy
a higher fracture.
upper Fractography
shelf energy
specimens displays a dimpled surface with a fibrous fracture, as shown in Figure 11. Generally, of the
fracture. specimens
Fractography displays
of thea
dimpled
specimens surface
displays
brittle fracture with a fibrous
a dimpled
in carbon fracture,
steel is surface as
initiatedwith shown in Figure
a fibrous fracture,
by martensitic 11. Generally,
as shown
sites; however, brittle fracture in carbon
in Figure 11. Generally,
the microstructure shown in
steel isfracture
brittle
Figure initiated
5 shows inby martensitic
carbon
that steel
the issites; however,
initiated
structure the
in microstructure
by martensitic
obtained this casesites; is shown
however,
equiaxed thein Figure 5 shows
microstructure
and mostly thatThe
shown
ferritic. the
in
structure
Figure 5 obtained
shows in
that this
the case is
structureequiaxed and
obtained mostly
in this ferritic.
case isThe fractography
equiaxed
fractography depicts pure ductile behavior, the reason why the results have been normalized by a and depicts
mostly pure ductile
ferritic. The
behavior,
fractography
factor the reason
of two, depicts why
purethe
as presented inresults
ductile
Figure have
4. been
behavior, thenormalized
reason why by the
a factor of two,
results haveasbeenpresented in Figure
normalized by a4.
factor of two, as presented in Figure 4.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Dimpled fracture surface with a fibrous tearing, showing it to to be
be ductile.
ductile. (a) Horizontal
Figure 11. (b)
specimen, Dimpled
verticalfracture surface with a fibrous tearing, showing it to be ductile. (a) Horizontal
specimen.
specimen, (b) vertical specimen.
The X-ray diffraction analysis supports the presence of a ferritic structure with mostly pure iron
The
in the X-raypart
central diffraction analysis supports
of the constructed
constructed theshown
wall, as presence of a ferritic
in Figure
Figure 12. structure
12. The with mostly
trace elements pure
were iron
mostly
in the central
evaporated
evaporated orpart
or of the
dragged
dragged constructed
to to
the extreme
the wall,
ends
extreme ofasthe
ends shown
ofwall. in
the In Figure
this
wall. kind
In 12.
ofThe
this kindtrace
fully elements
ferritic
of fully were
structure,
ferritic mostly
microvoid
structure,
evaporated
microvoid or dragged
nucleationsnucleations
generate to grain
the extreme
atgenerate
the atboundaryends
the grain and of the equiaxed
deep
boundary wall. In dimples
and deep this kind
equiaxed areof fully ferritic
formed
dimples structure,
[33].formed
are [33].
microvoid nucleations generate at the grain boundary and deep equiaxed dimples are formed [33].
Metals 2019, 9, 1208 9 of 12
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12
Metals 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12

Figure
Figure 12. XRDpattern.
12. XRD pattern.
Figure 12. XRD pattern.
Another
Another important
important factor responsible
factor responsiblefor the
for high absorbed
the high energyenergy
absorbed is the formation of secondary
is the formation of
Another important factor responsible for the high absorbed energy is the formation of
cracks.
secondary cracks. The creation and motion of dislocations in the crystal lattice are responsiblethe
The creation and motion of dislocations in the crystal lattice are responsible for forplastic
the
secondary cracks. The creation and motion of dislocations in the crystal lattice are responsible for the
deformation.
plastic The material
deformation. The dissipates energy during
material dissipates energythe dislocation
during movements
the dislocation and crackand
movements tip crack
dislocation
tip
plastic deformation. The material dissipates energy during the dislocation movements and crack tip
nucleation
dislocationleads to intrinsic ductility [34]. The secondary cracks might also have been generated
dislocation nucleation
nucleation leads
leads to
to intrinsic
intrinsic ductility
ductility [34].
[34]. The
The secondary
secondary cracks might also
cracks might also have
have been
been
due to the stacked
generated due to layers,
the which
stacked act aswhich
layers, a crack divider,
act as a as depicted
crack divider, in Figure
as depicted13.inThis delamination
Figure 13. This
generated due to the stacked layers, which act as a crack divider, as depicted in Figure 13. This
phenomenon
delamination can occur
phenomenon even without
can occur a substantial
even without difference
a between
substantial the
difference interlayer
between
delamination phenomenon can occur even without a substantial difference between the interlayer and
the intralayer
interlayer
and
andintralayer
intralayermicrostructures
microstructures microstructures [35].
[35]. [35].

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)

(c)
(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 13.13.
Figure (a)(a)
13. (a)Macro-level secondary
Macro-levelsecondary
Macro-level cracks,
cracks, (b,c)
secondarycracks, (b,c) micro-level
(b,c) micro-levelsecondary
micro-level secondarycracks, (d)(d)
cracks, enlarged view
view
enlarged of of
of
view
secondary
secondary cracks.
cracks.
secondary cracks.
Metals 2019, 9, 1208 10 of 12

As the fracture was purely in the upper shelf region and was ductile in nature, fracture toughness
can be estimated using the relation [36,37]:

KIC = 0.804 σys (CVN/σys − 0.0098)0.5 (1)

where KIC is the fracture toughness in MPa·m1/2 , σys is the yield strength in MPa, and CVN is the
Charpy impact absorbed energy in J. Using the average yield strength (330 MPa) of the structure
from [16], the fracture toughness was found to be approximately 199 MPa·m1/2 and 206 MPa·m1/2 for
the horizontal and vertical specimens, respectively.

4. Conclusion
This study presents an analysis to explain the different factors related to the Charpy impact energy
absorbed by a structure made by GMAW additive manufacturing. The average absorbed energy in
the horizontal and vertical direction was found to be 189 J and 202 J, respectively. The difference in
the amount of energy in both directions is not substantial, which is also in conformance with the
observed microstructure. The microstructure was found to be mostly equiaxed with a grain size
number of about 10.5. The broken samples exhibit a large amount of deformation in all directions,
thus absorbing a high amount of energy. Fractography of the broken samples reveals a highly fibrous
fracture with dimples, suggesting a pure ductile fracture. The generation of secondary cracks is also
indicative of high absorbed energy. As the fracture is in the upper shelf region, the estimated value for
fracture toughness was calculated to be 199 MPa·m1/2 and 206 MPa·m1/2 for the horizontal and vertical
specimens, respectively.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.X.; funding acquisition, C.Z.; project administration, X.Q.; resources,
H.W.; writing—original draft, A.W.
Funding: This research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant
number 51805437.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Frazier, E.W. Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2014, 23, 1917–1928.
[CrossRef]
2. Antonysamy, A. Microstructure, texture and mechanical property evolution during additive manufacturing
of Ti6Al4V alloy for aerospace applications. PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 2012.
3. Buckner, M.; Lonnie, J. Automating and accelerating the additive manufacturing design process with
multi-objective constrained evolutionary optimization and HPC/Cloud computing. In Proceedings of the
2012 Future of Instrumentation International Workshop (FIIW), Gatlinburg, TN, USA, 8–9 October 2012.
4. Brandl, E.; Baufeld, B.; Leyens, C. Additive manufactured Ti-6Al-4V using welding wire: comparison of laser
and arc beam deposition and evaluation with respect to aerospace material specifications. Physics Procedia
2010, 5(Part B), 595–606. [CrossRef]
5. Pandremenos, J.; Doukas, C.; Stavropoulos, P.; Chryssolouris, G. Machining with robots: a critical review.
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Digital Enterprise Technology, Athens, Greece,
28–30 September 2011.
6. Wang, Y.; Chen, X.; Konovalov, S. Additive manufacturing based on welding arc: a low-cost method. J. Surf.
Invest. 2017, 11, 1317–1328. [CrossRef]
7. Chen, X.; Su, C.; Wang, Y.; Siddiquee, A.N.; Sergey, K.; Jayalakshmi, S.; Singh, R.A. Cold Metal Transfer
(CMT) Based Wire and Arc Additive Manufacture (WAAM) System. J. Surf. Invest. 2018, 12, 1278–1284.
[CrossRef]
8. Müller, J.; Grabowski, M.; Müller, C.; Hensel, J.; Unglaub, J.; Thiele, K.; Kloft, H.; Dilger, K. Design
and Parameter Identification of Wire and Arc Additively Manufactured (WAAM) Steel Bars for Use in
Construction. Metals 2019, 9, 725. [CrossRef]
Metals 2019, 9, 1208 11 of 12

9. Rodrigues, T.A.; Duarte, V.; Avila, J.A.; Santos, T.G.; Miranda, R.; Oliveira, J. Wire and arc additive
manufacturing of HSLA steel: Effect of thermal cycles on microstructure and mechanical properties.
Addit. Manuf. 2019, 27, 440–450. [CrossRef]
10. Oliveira, J.; Santos, T.; Miranda, R. Revisiting fundamental welding concepts to improve additive
manufacturing: From theory to practice. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2019, 107, 100590. [CrossRef]
11. Rodrigues, T.A.; Duarte, V.; Miranda, R.; Santos, T.G.; Oliveira, J. Current Status and Perspectives on Wire
and Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM). Materials 2019, 12, 1121. [CrossRef]
12. Cunningham, C.; Flynn, J.; Shokrani, A.; Dhokia, V.; Newman, S. Invited review article: Strategies and
processes for high quality wire arc additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 22, 672–686. [CrossRef]
13. Xiong, J.; Yin, Z.Q.; Zhang, W.H. Forming appearance control of arc striking and extinguishing area in
multi-layer single-pass GMAW-based additive manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2016, 87, 579–586.
[CrossRef]
14. Hu, Z.; Qin, X.; Shao, T.; Liu, H. Understanding and overcoming of abnormity at start and end of the weld
bead in additive manufacturing with GMAW. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 2018, 95, 2357–2368. [CrossRef]
15. Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Li, P.; Male, A.T. Weld deposition-based rapid prototyping: a preliminary study. J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 2003, 135, 347–357. [CrossRef]
16. Waqas, A.; Qin, X.; Xiong, J.; Wang, H.; Zheng, C. Optimization of Process Parameters to Improve the
Effective Area of Deposition in GMAW-Based Additive Manufacturing and its Mechanical and Microstructural
Analysis. Metals 2019, 9, 775. [CrossRef]
17. Zhao, H.H.; Zhang, G.J.; Yin, Z.Q.; Wu, L. A 3D dynamic analysis of thermal behavior during single-pass
multi-layer weld-based rapid prototyping. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2011, 211, 488–495. [CrossRef]
18. Cao, W.; Zhang, M.; Huang, C.; Xiao, S.; Dong, H.; Weng, Y. Ultrahigh Charpy impact toughness (~450 J)
achieved in high strength ferrite/martensite laminated steels. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41459. [CrossRef]
19. Rojas, P.; Martinez, C.; Vera, R.; Puentes, M. Toughness of SAE 1020 Steel with and without Galvanization
Exposed to Different Corrosive Environments in Chile. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2014, 9, 2848–2858.
20. Salimi, A.; Zadeh, H.M.; Toroghinejad, M.R.; Asefi, D.; Ansaripour, A. Influence of Sample Direction on the
Impact Toughness of the Api-X42 Microalloyed Steel with a Banded Structure. Mater. Technol.. 2013, 47,
385–389.
21. Lucon, E.; McCowan, C.N.; Santoyo, R.L. Certification of NIST Room Temperature Low-Energy and
High-Energy Charpy Verification Specimens. J. Res. Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. 2015, 120, 316–328. [CrossRef]
22. Dean, S.W.; Manahan, M.P.; Mccowan, C.N. Percent Shear Area Determination in Charpy Impact Testing.
J. ASTM Int. 2008, 5, 101662–101676. [CrossRef]
23. Parrington, R.J. Fractographic features in metals and plastics. Adv. Mater. Processes 2003, 161, 37–40.
24. Wei, R.P. Fracture mechanics: Integration of mechanics, materials science and chemistry; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 24–54.
25. ASTM E23: Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2007.
26. Davis, J. Metals Handbook, Desk, Edition, 2nd ed.; ASM International, The Materials Information Society:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1998; pp. 560–564.
27. Arzt, E. Size effects in materials due to microstructural and dimensional constraints: a comparative review.
Acta Mater. 1998, 46, 5611–5626. [CrossRef]
28. Calcagnotto, M.; Adachi, Y.; Ponge, D.; Raabe, D. Deformation and fracture mechanisms in fine-and
ultrafine-grained ferrite/martensite dual-phase steels and the effect of aging. Acta. Mater. 2011, 59, 658–670.
[CrossRef]
29. ASTM E112: Standard Test Methods for Determining Average Grain Size; ASTM International:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1996; pp. 4–20.
30. Gharibshahiyan, E.; Raouf, A.H.; Parvin, N.; Rahimian, M. The effect of microstructure on hardness and
toughness of low carbon welded steel using inert gas welding. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 2042–2048. [CrossRef]
31. Zhao, Y.; Tong, X.; Wei, X.; Xu, S.; Lan, S.; Wang, X.-L.; Zhang, Z. Effects of microstructure on crack resistance
and low-temperature toughness of ultra-low carbon high strength steel. Int. J. Plast. 2019, 116, 203–215.
[CrossRef]
Metals 2019, 9, 1208 12 of 12

32. Thompson, S. Interrelationships between yield strength, low-temperature impact toughness, and
microstructure in low-carbon, copper-precipitation-strengthened, high-strength low-alloy plate steels.
Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2018, 711, 424–433. [CrossRef]
33. Kocatepe, K.; Cerah, M.; Erdogan, M. The tensile fracture behaviour of intercritically annealed and quenched+
tempered ferritic ductile iron with dual matrix structure. Mater. Des. 2007, 28, 172–181. [CrossRef]
34. Kysar, J.W. Energy dissipation mechanisms in ductile fracture. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 2003, 51, 795–824.
[CrossRef]
35. Das, A.; Viehrig, H.-W.; Altstadt, E.; Bergner, F.; Hoffmann, J. Why Do Secondary Cracks Preferentially Form
in Hot-Rolled ODS Steels in Comparison with Hot-Extruded ODS Steels? Crystals 2018, 8, 306. [CrossRef]
36. Chao, Y.J.; Ward Jr, J.; Sands, R.G. Charpy impact energy, fracture toughness and ductile-brittle transition
temperature of dual-phase 590 Steel. Mater. Des. 2007, 28, 551–557. [CrossRef]
37. Barsom, J.M.; Rolfe, S.T. Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Applications of Fracture Mechanics; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1977; pp. 121–132.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).