See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257338458

Interpretation and significance of reverse chevron-shaped markings on

fracture surfaces of API X100 pipeline steels

Article  in  Materials Science and Engineering A · October 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.msea.2012.04.108

CITATIONS READS

15 10,677

3 authors, including:

Jeffrey W. Sowards Elizabeth S Drexler

NASA National Institute of Standards and Technology
48 PUBLICATIONS   785 CITATIONS    64 PUBLICATIONS   937 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hydrogen-assisted fatigue View project

Mechanics of pulmonary hypertension View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elizabeth S Drexler on 11 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Materials Science and Engineering A 551 (2012) 140–148

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Interpretation and significance of reverse chevron-shaped markings on fracture

surfaces of API X100 pipeline steels夽
Jeffrey W. Sowards ∗ , Chris N. McCowan, Elizabeth S. Drexler
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Materials Reliability Division, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fracture surfaces of X100 pipeline steels were examined with optical and electron microscopy after crack
Received 29 August 2011 tip opening angle fracture testing. Some fracture surfaces exhibited chevron-shaped fracture patterns that
Received in revised form 19 April 2012 are markedly different from classic chevron fracture. The chevron-shaped markings on the X100 fracture
Accepted 30 April 2012
surfaces point in the direction of crack growth, rather than towards the location of fracture initiation, as
Available online 10 May 2012
observed in classic cases of chevron fracture. Existing models, predicting formation of chevron fracture
patterns, do not explain the fracture behavior observed for X100 steel. A mechanism is proposed where
Keywords:
reverse chevron-shaped patterns are developed due to the shape of the crack front itself. The chevron
Banding
Chevron
shape forms as a result of crack tunneling, and the overall pattern is developed on the fracture surface
CTOA due to intermittent crack growth, resulting in alternating regions (bands) of fast fracture and slower,
Dynamic loading more ductile fracture. The contrast between these bands of alternating fracture defines the chevron. Care
Fracture should be taken during interpretation of intermittent chevron markings on fractures of ductile materials,
Pipeline steel as they may point away from rather than towards the origin of fracture.
Pop-in Published by Elsevier B.V.
Quasistatic loading
X100

1. Introduction • Chevron fracture surfaces are generally flat and perpendicular

Chevron markings (sometimes called herringbone patterns)
have been observed on surfaces of brittle fracture and were
described as early as 1914 [1]. Such markings have since been
observed on fractures of both crystalline and noncrystalline mate-
rials. Although the chevron markings are typically associated with
brittle fracture of steel plates [2–5], they have been observed on
polymer [6,7] and Al-alloy [8] fractures as well. Based on the back-
ground provided in these works, there is a common recognition
and established interpretation of chevron markings. A schematic
of the classic chevron fracture markings typically observed for
steel is shown in Fig. 1. A list of typical characteristics is provided
below:
to the principle stress and contain brittle and ductile fracture
features [9].
• The chevrons are orthogonal to the crack front, which is parabolic
in shape [2,3,5].
• Crack propagation is discontinuous [2,6], occurring in alternating
crystalline and fibrous appearance, where the ratio of these two
areas on the fracture surface was controlled by the brittleness of
the material [3].
• Along both edges of the flat fracture plane, there are shear lips
oriented at an angle of approximately 45◦ relative to the flat por-
tion. These shear regions vary in width and diminish in size as
the material becomes more brittle [2,3].
• Chevron patterns typically occur on fracture surfaces of thick
plates [5] where the plane strain condition is satisfied [8].

• Classic chevron markings point toward the location of fracture

initiation (opposite of the crack growth direction).
• The crack front leads at the plate center and lags at the surface.
• Chevrons are typically symmetric about the plate centerline [3].
夽 Contribution of NIST, an agency of the US government. Not subject to copyright.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 303 497 7960; fax: +1 303 4975030.
E-mail address: jeffrey.sowards@nist.gov (J.W. Sowards).
Several models have been proposed and successfully applied
to describe the formation of the classic chevron fracture patterns.
Boyd first modeled this fracture type based on a work-of-fracture
approach, where the rate at which work was done to promote frac-
ture was directly proportional to the rate of increase of exposed
fracture area [5]. The model predicted that crack tunneling occurred
in the running crack through the center of a plate and that the
shape of the crack front was parabolic (see Fig. 1). Chevron markings
formed orthogonal to the crack front and pointed toward the origin

0921-5093/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier B.V.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2012.04.108
 J.W. Sowards et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 551 (2012) 140–148
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of “classic” chevron fracture appearance adapted from Boyd’s model;  denotes stress [5].
of fracture. As a special case, Kies et al. [6] suggested that reverse
chevron patterns could form where the apex pointed towards crack
growth direction if cracking initiated from the sides of the plate
rather than near the center. Lee et al. [7] proposed a fracture model
similar to Boyd’s model [5], but for the case of reverse chevron frac-
ture formation in polymer materials. In Lee’s model, the chevron
apex also pointed in the same direction as the growing crack front.
The fundamental difference of this model from Boyd’s was that
crack initiation occurred at the plate surface, followed by radial
growth into the plate thickness, where cracks coalesced near the
plate center.
As more widespread implementation of high-strength, high-
toughness pipeline steels (such as X100) occurs, interpretation of
fracture surfaces and consideration of the fracture mechanism is
of interest. The present study describes chevron-shaped markings
on the fracture surfaces of high-strength X100 pipeline steel that
have not yet been described in detail in the literature. The chevron
markings in X100 are found to be quite different from the classic
chevron markings, and the earlier models for chevron formation
fail to predict the observed patterns. However, because chevron
markings are a simple geometric pattern, it might be expected that
fracture markings of similar morphology could arise from a differ-
ent mechanism. Differences from and similarities to classic chevron
markings in steel are discussed. A mechanism is proposed to explain
the development of chevron patterns in X100 steels.
2. Material and experimental procedures
Three X100 alloys were evaluated; the occurrence of chevron
markings was not specific to one alloy composition or producer.
Compositions of the three X100 steels evaluated during this inves-
tigation are shown in Table 1.
Specimens were sectioned from pipes and machined into mod-
ified double cantilevered beam test specimens. Note that modified
double cantilevered beam specimens are often referred to as “plate”
in this work, although they were machined from pipeline mate-
rial. The modified double cantilevered beam specimen design and
dimensions are shown in Fig. 2. Crack growth was in the longi-
tudinal direction of the plates to simulate a running crack in a
141
pipeline. The specimen design had a long ligament length to allow
crack growth lengths of approximately 50–100 mm beyond the ini-
tial notch. The specimen thickness in the gage section was 8 mm.
Chevron notches were machined into the specimens to a depth
of approximately 60 mm from the specimen edge. The depths of
the machined notches were then extended by either pre-cracking
or electro-discharge machining another 5 mm or 10 mm in length,
respectively, prior to testing. In regard to chevron-shaped mark-
ings, general fracture mode, and even maximum force at fracture
initiation, the method of pre-cracking made no difference.
The modified double cantilevered beam specimens were
secured in loading fixtures, and then tested with tensile load-
ing under actuator displacement control. Quasistatic and dynamic
crack tip opening angle (CTOA) testing was conducted under
ambient laboratory conditions with uniaxial servohydraulic test
equipment. The quasistatic tests were performed with a 250 kN
force capacity load frame, and the dynamic tests with a 500 kN force
capacity load frame. Actuator tensile displacement rates between
approximately 0.002 mm s−1 and 30,000 mm s−1 were possible
with these equipment configurations, resulting in both quasistatic
and dynamic crack extension. Detailed equipment setup, testing
procedures, and actual measurements of CTOA are discussed and
described in detail elsewhere [10–13]. Displacement lengths were
sufficient that crack growth continued to near the end of specimens.
The test was interrupted on some specimens to heat-tint the crack
tip region in a furnace with oxidizing atmosphere.
Microhardness values were determined after placing Vickers
indents on polished specimen surfaces with a 200 g load on the
indenter tip. Hardness values are reported on the Vickers hard-
ness number (VHN) scale. Mechanical properties were determined
according to ASTM E08 standard methods for tension testing of
metallic materials.
Metallography was performed on specimens prepared with
standard polishing techniques for steel, including wet grinding
with SiC paper followed by final polishing with 1 ␮m diamond
suspension. Microstructure was revealed by etching in a 5% nital
(5% nitric acid/95% methanol) solution. The post-test fracture sur-
faces from the modified double cantilevered beam specimens
were ultrasonically cleaned in methanol for several minutes, and
142 J.W. Sowards et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 551 (2012) 140–148

Table 1
Chemical compositions (wt %) of X100 pipeline steels employed in this study.

X100 Pipe Al C Cr Cu Fe Mn Mo N Nb Ni P S Si Ti V

Alloy A 0.030 0.076 0.200 0.15 Balance 1.73 0.22 0.007 0.045 0.28 0.010 0.007 0.300 0.016 0.006
Alloy B 0.012 0.064 0.023 0.28 Balance 1.87 0.23 0.003 0.017 0.47 0.009 0.001 0.099 0.017 0.002
Alloy C 0.025 0.084 0.021 0.29 Balance 2.09 0.13 0.005 0.041 0.50 0.010 0.002 0.108 0.007 0.006

Fig. 2. Schematic drawing of a modified double cantilevered beam specimen and relevant dimensions.

then examined with conventional optical stereoscopic imaging and
scanning electron microscopy (SEM). SEM imaging was performed
at 10 kV with secondary electrons.
3. Results
3.1. Microstructure and mechanical properties
A representative optical micrograph of X100 pipeline steel
microstructure is shown in Fig. 3. The microstructure was a fine
bainitic-ferrite with lath and polygonal morphology and exhibited
some banding along the rolling direction. Blocky TiN inclusions
were observed in unetched specimens and varied between approx-
imately 1 ␮m and 5 ␮m in size. All three of the alloys investigated
in this study exhibited similar microstructural features to those
shown in Fig. 3.
Yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of the three X100
steels are presented in Table 2. Average properties of four tension
tests are reported for each steel. Standard deviation of yield
strength and ultimate tensile strength were ±9 MPa from the
average or better, in both longitudinal and transverse orientations.
The ratio of yield strength to ultimate tensile strength (Y/T) is
included in Table 2. The Y/T ratio was quite high in this class of
materials, where values were typically 0.85 or greater. Materials
with high values of Y/T in general have less capacity for inelastic
deformation than those with low values [14], and tend to concen-
trate deformation to the vicinity of a crack tip, rather than the plate
surrounding the crack tip [15]. The high ratio of Y/T presented
here may influence the formation of reverse chevron-shaped
patterns, as discussed below. Examination of CTOA fractures of
materials with lower Y/T (such as X65 steel), which is not reported
in this work, did not exhibit the reverse chevron-shaped patterns
reported here for X100 steels.
Hardness was determined in the bainitic-ferrite microstructure
shown in Fig. 3. The average hardness (of ten measurements) in this
region was 288 ± 6 VHN. Such hardness values are typical of this
microstructure in each of the three materials. Significantly higher
peak hardness values (up to approximately 490 VHN) were mea-
sured in regions of banded microstructure that were biased towards
the center of plate thickness.

3.2. Effect of displacement rate

Test displacement rate had a discernible effect on the fracture

mode, as shown in Fig. 4a. Quasistatic testing rates (≤300 mm s−1 )
generally resulted in flat fracture, slant fracture, or double-slant
fracture. Flat-fracture surfaces were approximately perpendicular

Table 2
Average tensile mechanical properties of X100 pipeline steels in transverse and
longitudinal orientations including 0.2% offset yield strength (Y) and ultimate tensile
strength (T).

X100 Steel Longitudinal Transverse

Y (MPa) T (MPa) Y/T Y (MPa) T (MPa) Y/T

Alloy A 722 855 0.844 912 916 0.996

Alloy B 729 838 0.870 833 868 0.960
Fig. 3. Representative microstructure of X100 pipeline steels investigated in this
Alloy C 732 806 0.908 798 827 0.965
study.
 J.W. Sowards et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 551 (2012) 140–148 143

Fig. 4. (a) Cross sections of X100 modified double cantilevered beam specimens tested at different crosshead velocities, (b) macrograph of the fracture surface from a
quasi-statically tested specimen, and (c) macrograph of the fracture surface from a dynamically tested specimen. The black arrow indicates crack growth direction.

to the loading direction. Slant and double-slant fracture surfaces
were oriented approximately 45◦ to the loading direction. Dynamic
testing displacement rates (>300 mm s−1 ) always resulted in full-
slant fractures. The most distinctive chevron-shaped markings we
present in this report occurred on the slant fractures that were
tested at a displacement rate of 0.02 mm s−1 . Faint chevron marks
were visible on fracture surfaces tested at other displacement rates,
but these less-distinctive markings may simply reflect the shape of
the crack front, as shown in Fig. 4b and c.
Chevron-shaped markings are highlighted for clarification on
the macrographs in Fig. 4. It appears in both the slant fractures
from specimens tested at quasistatic and dynamic rates that the
crack tunneled from the initiation point (flat-fracture region). In
both of the examples in Fig. 4, the fracture orientation changed
to slant after initiation. The slant-fracture morphology was pri-
marily ductile tearing, although brittle fracture was observed near
the specimen centers that contained high-hardness microstruc-
tural banding. In both cases, the crack front was led preferentially
by the banded region, and the tunneling occurred with relatively
straight crack flanks that formed a wedge or chevron-shaped crack
front. Note that the chevron apexes point in the direction of crack
extension, unlike the classical case shown in Fig. 1. As previously
noted, the chevron-shaped markings are much more distinct on the
quasistatic fracture. This is because the chevron shapes on the slant
fractures produced at quasistatic displacement rates were a result
of intermittent crack growth. At dynamic displacement rates, the
crack growth was not discernibly intermittent.
3.3. Fractography
A chevron-shaped pattern observed on a slant-fracture surface
of a quasistatic test is shown in Fig. 5a. The direction of crack growth
144 J.W. Sowards et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 551 (2012) 140–148

Fig. 5. Fracture surface from a quasistatic test showing (a) light microscopy macrograph (b–e) low- and high-magnification SEM images of chevron-shaped pattern regions
containing stair-shape ridges, (f) SEM image of region of quasi-cleavage fracture, and (g) SEM image of ductile fracture along ridges.

was from left to right, as indicated on the image. The chevron pat-
tern is distinct, due to the contrast between alternating bands of
unstable (pop-in) and stable fracture. The regions of unstable crack
extension are the lighter bands in Fig. 5a (labeled “U”), and contain
linear step or ridge-like features. The regions of stable crack exten-
sion (labeled “S” in Fig. 5a) are darker in shading. These regions
have darker contrast because of their microscopic fracture features
(discussed below), and because these crack extensions occurred on
a fracture plane that was slightly tilted with respect to the plane of
unstable crack extension.
Details of the linear features and the interface between the
regions of unstable and stable crack growth are shown in Fig. 5b
and c, respectively. The linear features served as steps up the slant-
fracture surface and occurred in only the regions of unstable crack
 J.W. Sowards et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 551 (2012) 140–148
Fig. 6. Fracture surface from a dynamic test showing SEM images of (a) low-magnification brittle region near the centerline of plate and chevron-shaped crack front markings,
(b) high magnification of chevron marking running on diagonal from upper left to lower right, (c) region of centerline fracture, and (d) terraced cracking at centerline.
extension. In Fig. 5c the interface is evident where the unstable
crack extension was arrested and a region of fully ductile stable
crack extension began. Here we see the sides of the steps (in the
plane of plate) appear less ductile than the region of stable crack
extension on the right side, which is composed solely of ductile-
dimple morphologies.
At higher magnifications, details of chevron regions reveal a
complex morphology of alternating ductile and brittle features. The
intersection of stable and unstable fracture results in the chevron-
shaped marking, as shown in Fig. 5d, where it runs diagonally
through the upper right corner of the image. The ridges (see label
in Fig. 5d) that form the chevron-shaped markings have a fully
ductile-dimpled appearance and were elevated from other areas of
fracture. Secondary ridge patterns, or steps, extend back towards
the fracture origin and have both ductile and quasi-cleavage fea-
tures associated with them. These secondary ridges are parallel to
the crack growth direction, as shown at higher magnification in
Fig. 5e. Fracture in the region labeled “1” in Fig. 5f occurs on planes
parallel to or within 45◦ of the applied loading and has a charac-
teristic quasi-cleavage fracture appearance. The ridges, indicated
as region “2,” are roughly perpendicular to the applied loading
and exhibit a ductile-dimple fracture appearance (Fig. 5g). This
particular fracture occurred on a roughly 45◦ slant with respect
to the specimen surface, and the alternating patterns of ridges
seem to indicate the movement of the fracture as it ascended and
descended the slant fracture surface (outwards from the centerline)
towards the plate surfaces. Ductile-dimple directionality supports
the observation that fractures moved from the plate centerline out-
wards.
Apexes of the chevrons occurred near the middle of the
plate thickness, coinciding with the high-hardness microstructural
banding that was observed in polished specimen cross-sections.
Fracture likely initiated at these interior banded regions, with final
145
fracture occurring at the outside surface of the specimens. Evidence
of 45◦ shear lips at the outside surface of the specimens mark
where the final fracture occurred, and support this sequence of
events.
Dynamic fracture surfaces were highly ductile, as evident by the
extensive microvoid coalescence shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6a and b show
no evidence of intermittent crack growth like that observed at the
quasistatic test displacement rates. Even in regions where chevron-
shaped crack-front markings are evident, such as in Fig. 6b, regions
on both sides of the chevron ridge are fully ductile. A change in
ductile-dimple directionality was sometimes observed from one
side of the chevron ridge to the other. This may be the cause of
the macro scale contrast that makes the chevrons visible on the
dynamic fractures.
In both dynamic and quasistatic tests, the crack fronts were
typically led by a region of brittle microstructure near the center
of pipe-wall thickness, as shown in Fig. 6c. These regions showed
low ductility compared with surrounding regions, and secondary
cracking was often observed (Fig. 6d). These more brittle regions
are shown to lead or strongly influence the symmetry of the crack
front, because when the apex of the crack front is slightly (Fig. 6a) or
significantly (Fig. 7) off center, it was observed that the centerline
of the pipe wall thickness was also off the sample centerline. This
is because the modified double cantilevered beam specimens were
machined from curved pipe sections [16], not from flattened pipe
or plate material, and the mid-thickness of the pipe-wall was not
necessarily at the centerline of the modified double cantilevered
beam specimen. The banded microstructure in the region along
the pipe centerline has high hardness, as shown in Fig. 7. These
regions fractured at angles of approximately 45◦ to the orientation
of the modified double cantilevered beam specimen (and the prin-
cipal stress axis), and secondary cracks extended from the fracture
surface into the hard band.
146 J.W. Sowards et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 551 (2012) 140–148
Fig. 7. Macrograph of a pipeline cross section after dynamic test and inset showing
the brittle microstructural region that guided fracture near the plate centerline.
Arrows indicate a high-hardness region, and values of hardness are in the VHN200
scale.
4. Discussion
The X100 modified double cantilevered beam specimens tested
at both quasistatic and dynamic displacement rates exhibited
chevron-shaped crack fronts. However, the fracture surface pat-
terns on dynamically tested specimens were not as well defined. In
comparison, quasistatic fractures (0.02 mm s−1 displacement rate)
of the X100 modified double cantilevered beam specimens had
well-defined chevron-like shapes, due to the high contrast between
alternating bands of crack extensions formed by different fracture
modes.
The fracture behavior examined here has neither been identified
nor discussed in detail elsewhere, but it appears to be characteris-
tic of the three different X100 alloys evaluated in this study. These
X100 alloys were produced at different times by different manu-
facturers, and all show examples of the chevron-shaped fracture
behavior discussed here for the range of quasistatic testing con-
ditions evaluated. In addition, this fracture morphology has been
observed during quasistatic drop weight tear test studies of X100
[17], which leads to the deduction that this pattern is not an arti-
fact specific to a particular test machine’s compliance or specimen
configuration. However, it does not appear that the well-developed
chevron fracture features observed on X100 alloys tested at qua-
sistatic test rates have any relationship with the classic chevron
fracture mode that has been understood for many years. Below,
the fracture mechanism leading to the formation of well-developed
chevron-shaped patterns in X100 is presented and compared with
the classic chevron fracture pattern.
4.1. Formation of the X100 chevron-shaped fracture pattern
Development of the chevron-shaped pattern in the X100 alloys
is shown schematically in Fig. 8. The initial region of crack extension
in the modified double cantilevered beam specimens is typically on
a plane perpendicular to the principal stress (flat), but soon turns to
an angle near 45◦ (slant). Crack extensions on the slant surface are
shown in bands of alternating unstable and stable crack extensions.
The crack front is led by and is symmetric about a plane of
brittle phases aligned in the rolling direction along the midplane
of the plate. Typically, the central portion of the crack front tunnels
ahead of the near-surface regions by about 3 mm. The apex of the
crack front is symmetric about the hard, brittle microstructural
constituents associated with the centerline of the plate, which are
likely high-hardness martensite and upper bainite that formed
due to alloy segregation at the centerline [18]. One possible result
of brittle fracture near the centerline of the specimens is that the
faster rate associated with this brittle fracture might tend to outrun
the more ductile fracture on the flanks, resulting in less of the
curvature normally associated with fully ductile fracture fronts.
The flanks of the crack front trail behind the apex and form
the chevron-shaped crack front. The linear features that serve as
steps up the slant fracture surface (see Fig. 5) occur in only the
unstable crack extension regions. The unstable crack extension is
arrested at the start of the narrower banded regions, due to the
drop in force associated with the sudden crack extension (in a
displacement-controlled test). Then, as the force increases again as
test displacement continues to increase, the region of stable crack
extension occurs, due to ductile tearing associated with re-blunting
of the arrested crack front. As the force again becomes sufficiently
high, another unstable crack extension event occurs, which arrests,
and the cycle begins again.
It is expected that the crack front spreads out and climbs up
and down the 45◦ slant fracture plane, leaving the linear features
that are the most ductile regions of the step-like morphology (per-
pendicular to applied loading). Whether the fracture initiates near
the center of the plate for each cycle of unstable crack extension
and moves out to the plate surface (as indicated in the Fig. 8) is
not known. However, to some extent, a fracture sequence initiated
from the interior of the plate is expected, because of the continu-
ous presence of a small shear lip at the surface of the plate that is
indicative of final fracture.
The high Y/T ratio inherent to X100 materials might also influ-
ence the development of the chevron-shaped patterns reported
here since they have a limited strain-hardening capacity. Through-
thickness plastic zones develop in thin-plate high-Y/T steels due
to low work hardening and low resistance to ductile tearing [15].
Tensile prestrain (normalized by fracture strain) has been shown
by modeling to decrease critical J-integral for cleavage- and ductile-
fracture initiation toughness, and crack tip opening displacement
[19]. Test results of high-Y/T pipeline steels give support to those
predicted trends, as well [20]. Considering these previous studies,
a low inelastic stain capacity of the current materials, and an open-
ing of the crack mouth during crack tunneling along the brittle
microstructure, an effective prestrain in the plastic zone ahead of
the crack front is likely. In support of this, Sivaprasad et al. have pos-
tulated that fracture toughness in ductile materials is governed by
the spread of plastic strains at a crack tip [21]. In development of the
reverse chevron-shaped pattern, after the initial crack tunneling
period for a “pop-in” event, the crack dispreads towards the plate
edges through the material with reduced toughness. When the
crack front propagates completely through this prestrained mate-
rial, a stable period of ductile tearing commences until available
ductility is consumed and the process recurs.
4.2. Comparison with classic chevron fracture
The most striking differences between classic chevron mark-
ings and the chevron-shaped markings observed on the X100 alloys
include the directionality of the chevrons and the orientation of the
fracture plane (Table 3). In the classic case, chevrons form on flat
fractures and point toward the origin of the fracture. For the X100
alloys the chevron shape is formed on a slant fracture (∼45◦ from
the applied stress) and is coincident with the crack front, point-
ing in the direction of crack extension. A similarity between the
two cases is that the patterns are made distinct due to the con-
trast developed between alternating bands of fully ductile, and less
ductile or brittle, crack extension.
 J.W. Sowards et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 551 (2012) 140–148 147

Fig. 8. Schematic of the development of a chevron-shaped fracture pattern during quasistatic testing of X100; arrows indicate the directions of crack front growth.

It has been demonstrated that classic chevron fracture can occur
with the chevron pattern pointing in the direction of crack exten-
sion if the fracture initiates at the outside surface of the specimen
[6,7]. However, in the case of X100, the presence of shear lips on
the outside of the modified double cantilevered beam specimens
indicates that fracture does not initiate at the outside surface of the
specimens. This is a region of final fracture, not fracture initiation,
which is a commonality with Boyd’s model [5] where fracture is led
on or near the centerline.
Another difference between classic chevron fracture and the
X100 fracture is the extent of plastic deformation associated with
the two cases. Significant necking was observed in X100 modified
double cantilevered beam specimens near the vicinity of fracture,
indicating a large plastic zone size. X100 fractures are macroscopi-
cally ductile (see Fig. 4a), and large plastic zones in mild steel plates
are expected to result in slant fracture rather than flat fracture [5].
The chevron-shaped pattern on fracture surfaces of X100 emu-
lates the shape of the crack front. This is unlike the crack front
shape of classic chevron fracture, where chevrons form in an ori-
entation orthogonal to parabolic crack fronts [5]. This observation
was confirmed by heat tinting crack fronts prior to fully fracturing
the specimens. The crack fronts are chevron-shaped.
The distinctive chevron-shaped markings observed on the X100
alloys are due to the intermittent nature of the fracture process,
with alternating unstable and stable crack-extension events. This
intermittent fracture process is also a key factor in the development
of the classic chevron pattern. However, those fractures would
be expected to have much higher fracture velocities [9] than the
chevron-shaped markings induced during quasistatic testing of the
X100 alloys reported on here.
Table 3
Summary and comparison of key characteristic features observed on classic chevron
fractures with X100 fractures.
Characteristic feature Classic chevron fracture Fracture of X100 steel
Key comparisons between classic chevron fractures and those
observed in the current study are summarized in Table 3. Note that
there are similarities in some of the geometric patterns, although
the underlying fracture mechanisms are distinct in nature. There-
fore, if geometric patterns with the chevron shape are observed
on fractures of highly ductile materials, careful interpretation of
microscopic and macroscopic features is necessary to identify frac-
ture mode, as it has been demonstrated here that relying solely on
observation of chevron patterns is not adequate and may lead to
misidentification of a ductile fracture as a brittle fracture.
5. Conclusions
• Fracture surfaces exhibiting chevron-shaped patterns are char-
acteristic of X100 materials under the quasistatic test loading
conditions evaluated here.
• Chevron-shaped crack fronts are typical for fractures of X100
during quasistatic and dynamic crack growth conditions, but
distinctive chevron patterns on fracture surfaces are due to
intermittent fracture observed only at quasistatic testing rates.
A mechanism has been proposed to explain the formation of
chevron-shaped fractures on X100, where brittle microstructural
banding leads the growing crack by extensive tunneling, and
intermittent pop-in causes the distinctive chevron due to alter-
nating bands of brittle and ductile fracture. Final fracture occurs
at the outer surface where shear lips were evident.
• The evolution of chevron-shaped markings on X100 is differ-
ent from the classical case of chevron fracture. Therefore, a new
terminology should be considered that is more appropriate for
describing the patterns observed in high-strength pipeline steels.
• Care should be taken in interpreting chevron-shaped markings
on fracture surfaces of materials with significant ductility as they
may point away from, not towards the origin of fracture.
Acknowledgments

Chevron direction Apex points toward crack Apex points in the The authors wish to thank J.R. Fekete and M.D. Richards for crit-
origin direction of crack
ical reviews of this manuscript. Work performed by J.W. Sowards
propagation
Fracture mode Flat and perpendicular to Typically slant or was supported by a National Research Council Postdoctoral Fellow-
plate double-slant fracture ship.
Deformation Very little macroscopic Significant macroscopic
plastic plastic
References
Crack front Parabolic in shape in No parabolic crack fronts
both forward and reverse were observed and the
[6] chevron patterns front appears to be knife [1] C. de Freminville, Rev. Metall.-Paris 11 (1914) 971–1056.
[2] H. de Leiris, L’analyse morphologique des Cassures, Paris, France, 1945.
wedge
[3] C.F. Tipper, Admiralty Ship Welding Committee, London, 1948.
Propagation Intermittent Intermittent pop-in
[4] C.F. Tipper, J. Iron Steel Inst. 185 (1957) 4–9.
148 J.W. Sowards et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 551 (2012) 140–148
[5] G.M. Boyd, Engineering 175 (1953) 65–69, 100–102.
[6] J.A. Kies, A.M. Sullivan, G.R. Irwin, J. Appl. Phys. 21 (1950) 716–720.
[7] M.-P. Lee, A. Hiltner, E. Baer, C.-I. Kao, J. Mater. Sci. 28 (1993)
1491–1502.
[8] J.A. Francis, G.M.D. Cantin, Mat. Sci. Eng. A-Struct. 407 (2005)
322–329.
[9] ASM Handbook Committee, Metals Handbook, Vol. 12: Fractography, Ninth Ed.,
ASM, International, Metals Park, OH, 1987, pp. 107–112.
[10] A. Shtechman, C. McCowan, R. Reuven, P. Darcis, R. Smith, J. Merritt, T. Siew-
ert, E. Drexler, J.M. Treinen, J.D. McColskey, ASME Conf. Proc., vol. 273, 2008,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/IPC2008-64362.
[11] R. Reuven, C. McCowan, E. Drexler, A. Shtechman, Ph. Darcis, M. Treinen, R.
Smith, J. Merritt, T. Siewert, J.D. McColskey, ASME Conf. Proc., vol. 279, 2008,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/IPC2008-64363.
[12] E. Drexler, P. Darcis, C. McCowan, J.M. Treinen, A. Shtechman, R. Reuven, T.
Siewert, R. Smith, J. Merritt, J.D. McColskey, ASME Conf. Proc., vol. 287, 2008,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/IPC2008-64369.
View publication stats
[13] Ph.P. Darcis, C.N. McCowan, H. Windhoff, J.D. McColskey, T.A. Siewert, Eng.
Fract. Mech. 75 (2008) 2453–2468.
[14] Y. Fukumoto, Eng. Struct. 18 (1996) 786–791.
[15] A.C. Bannister, J.R. Ocejo, F. Gutierrez-Solana, Eng. Fract. Mech. 67 (2000)
547–562.
[16] Ph.P. Darcis, C.N. McCowan, J.D. McColskey, R. Fields, Fatigue Fract. Eng. M. 31
(2008) 1065–1078.
[17] S. Xu, W.R. Tyson, R. Eagleson, C.N. McCowan, E.S. Drexler, J.D. McColskey, Ph.P.
Darcis, ASME Conf. Proc., vol. 269, 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/IPC2010-
31076.
[18] H. Tamehiro, T. Takeda, S. Matsuda, K. Yamamoto, N.T. Okumura, Trans. Iron
Steel Inst. Jpn. 25 (1985) 982–988.
[19] A. Cosham, J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 123 (2001) 182–190.
[20] N. Fukuda, N. Hagiwara, T. Masuda, J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 127 (2005)
263–268.
[21] S. Sivaprasad, S. Tarafder, V.R. Ranganath, K.K. Ray, Mater. Sci. Eng. A-Struct.
284 (2000) 195–201.