(ENG) Impact - Final Report Format DT 2022

FINAL REPORT
MATERIAL TESTING
CHAPTER III
IMPACT TESTING
MUHAMMAD EMIR RAFIANSYAH AKBAR
2006489193
GROUP 3
PHYSICAL METALLURGY LABORATORY
METALURGY AND MATERIALS DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA
2022
LABORATORIUM METALURGI FISIK
DEPARTEMEN TEKNIK METALURGI DAN MATERIAL
FAKULTAS TEKNIK UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA
KAMPUS BARU UI DEPOK 16424
Kepala Laboratorium : Dr. Ir. Sotya Astutiningsih, M.Eng.
Kontak Asisten Lab. : +62-878-7748-9206 (Dhafa), +62-812-8524-5818 (Afwan)
Email : aslabdt2022@gmail.com
CHAPTER III: IMPACT TESTING
3.1 Analysis and Data Processing

3.1.1 Observation Data
Table 1. Impact Testing Observation Data
No Specimen T(oC) a (mm) b (mm) A (mm2) E (Joule) Impact Value

(Joule/mm2)
1 Fe -1.5 8 10 80 19 0.24
2 Fe 25.9 8 10 80 59 0.74
3 Fe 56.3 8 10 80 183 2.29
4 Cu - Zn Room 8 10 80 17 0.21
5 Cu - Zn High 8 10 80 15 0.19
6 Cu - Zn Low 8 10 80 16 0.20
7 SS Room 9.5 8 76 202 2.66
3.1.2 Calculation
a. Fe Specimens
Low Temperature Room Temperature High Temperature

E 183 E 59 E 19
HI = = =2.29 HI = = =0.74 HI = = =0.24
A 80 A 80 A 80
b. Cu-Zn Specimens
Low Temperature Room Temperature High Temperature

E 16 E 17 E 15
HI = = =0.2 HI = = =0.21 HI = = =0.19
A 80 A 80 A 80
c. Srainless Steel Specimen
Room Temperature
E 202
HI = = =2.66
A 76
3.1.3 Testing Principal Analysis
When comparing the basic principle with the procedure, the procedure explains how to
test the sample, but it doesn't explain what the specimen is, because different specimens
have different methods with izod or charpy [1][2]. Also, in the procedure it is not
explained how to determine the value of E clearly, because in the basic principle, the
value of E is determined by the initial height on the pendulum and the final height after
the specimen fracture, but in the charpy test to determine the value of E we can use
potential energy [3]. It is very important to determine the impact value.
3.1.4 Fe Specimens Analysis
a. Impact Values vs Temperature Graph
Impact Values vs Temperatures on Fe Specimen

2.50
Impact Value (Joule/mm2)
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Temperature (C)
Figure 1. Impact value vs temperature on Fe specimen
b. Graph Analysis
From figure 1, it can be concluded that if the temperature increases, the impact energy
value also increases. Theoretically also states that the value of impact energy will
increase with increasing temperature [4]. When connected to the transition
temperature, it can be seen in the fracture analysis section where later the brittle and
ductile areas can be obtained [5]. In theory, that at low temperatures the material is
more brittle and impact toughness is low. At high temperatures the material is more
ductile and impact toughness is higher. From table 1 and figure 1, impact specimen
fracture by a ductile (usually microvoid coalescence) mechanism, absorbing relatively
large amounts of energy. At lower temperature, they fracture in a brittle (usually
cleavage) manner absorbing less energy. Within the transition range, the fracture will
generally be a mixture of areas of ductile fracture and brittle fracture [6].
c. Fracture Analysis
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. Fracture Fe specimen on temperature (a) low (b) room (c) high
From figure 2 with relation from figure 1 it can be concluded that transition
temperature might be in a range near 25 C°. Because from figure 2 especially in
section a and b it can be seen that there are change on material fracture. In section a
the fracture still brittle, but when in section b there are change in section b that the
fracture is ductile
then in section c with increase a temperature, the fracture is ductile. Because in

theoretically, the fracture on material change with increase temperature because there
are change in percentage crystallinity and percentage share area [5][7].
3.1.5 Cu-Zn Specimens Analysis

a. Impact Values vs Temperature Graph
Impact Values vs Temperatures on Cu - Zn Spec-

imen
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Temperature (C)
Figure 3. Impact value vs temperature on Cu-Zn specimen
b. Graph Analysis
In figure 3 it can be concluded that at the highest temperature the impact value
decreases compared to the previous temperature. This is contrary to the previous
theory which states that as the temperature increases, the impact value on the material
also increases. But because Cu - Zn is an alloy, the thing that applies is the increase in
temperature, the value of the impact decreases. The difference in the value of Charpy
impact energy is caused by differences in research objectives such as alloy chemical
composition, treatment, temperatures during testing, and pouring temperature [8].

When connected to the transition temperature, it can be seen in the fracture analysis
section where later the brittle and ductile areas can be obtained [5].
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4. Fracture Cu - Zn specimen on temperature (a) low (b) room (c) high
From figure 4 it can be seen that in section a fracture surface visible in a wavy and
slightly smooth structure (with light and dark gray colors). This indicates that the
impact test was slightly brittle (near to ductile fracture). In section b the sample with
room temperature shows more bright than section a is the classic ductile fracture
failure mechanism. In section c the sample with high temperature show less bright
than section b is the britle fracture, because there shifts from dimpled transgranular
to IG (intergranular) failure mode whereas the castsample structure is predominantly
intergranular along the grain boundaries of α-α and α-β presenting microcavities,
similar to brittle brittle cracking [8].
3.1.6 Stainless Steel Specimen Analysis

a. Impact Value Comparison Graph
Comparison Impact Value between Fe and SS on

Room Temperature
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Fe SS
Sample
Impact Value
Figure 5. Bar chart Comparison Impact Value between Fe and SS on Room Temperature
b. Chemical Composition Analysis
Table 2. Chemical composition for Fe and SS
Sample Composition
Fe Iron – 56 (91.66 wt%), iron – 54 (5.82 wt%), iron – 57 (2.19 wt%), and
iron – 58 (0.33 wt%)
Stainless Steel (SS) Carbon (0.08 wt%), Manganese (2 wt%), Phosporous (0.045 wt%),
Sulphar (0.03 wt%), Silicon (0.75 wt%), Chromium (16 wt%), Nickel (10
wt%), Nitrogen (0.26 wt%), Molybdenum (2 wt%) and Iron (69 wt%)
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Fracture on room temperature for specimen (a) Fe (b) Stainless Steel
From figure 6 it can be seen that in section a that the fracture from Fe on room
temperature is ductile. For section b the sample is stainless steel the fracture is ductile
too according to picture. The stainless steel fracture is ductile because Their austenitic
microstructure allows them to be tough and ductile, even at cryogenic temperatures
[10].
3.1.7 Combined Analysis

a. Impact Value (Fe and Cu-Zn) vs Temperatures Graph
Impact Values vs Temperatures for Fe and Cu - Zn

2.50
2.00
1.50
Fe
Cu - Zn
1.00
0.50
0.00
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Temperature (C)
Figure 7. Impact value vs temperature on Fe and Cu - Zn specimen
b. Graph Analysis
From figure 7 it can be concluded that there a difference between interval from
impact value on Fe and Cu – Zn. In Fe if the temperature increases, the impact energy
value also increases. Theoretically also states that the value of impact energy will
increase with increasing temperature in pure material [4]. But for Cu – Zn the
increase in temperature, the value of the impact decreases. Because the difference in
the value of Charpy impact energy is caused by differences in research objectives
such as alloy chemical composition, treatment, temperatures during testing, and
pouring temperature [8]. Also the comparison on impact value for Fe and Cu – Zn is
different with other research [8][10].
3.2 Conclusion
 The largest impact value is in the Fe specimen at a temperature of 56.3 degrees Celsius and
the smallest impact value is in the Cu-Zn specimen at high temperature.
 In the impact graph, the value of Fe can be seen that as the temperature increases, the value
of the impact value increases because Fe is a pure element.
 When the temperature is 25 degrees Celsius, there is a temperature transition as evidenced
by the change in fracture from low temperature to room temperature.
 on the impact graph of the Cu-Zn value, it can be concluded that the larger it is, the lower it
is due to the alloying element.
 Cu-Zn at room temperature fracture transition occurs where there is a fracture change at
low temperature from room temperature to high temperature.
 fracture forms in ductile room temperature stainless steel because Their austenitic
microstructure allows them to be tough and ductile, even at cryogenic temperatures.
3.3 Additional Assignments

3.4 References
[1]. Ono Kiyoshi, Kengo Anami MO. Charpy Impact Tests With Test Specimens Made.
2010;
[2]. Alexander D, Klueh R. Specimen size effects in Charpy impact testing. ASTM Spec
Tech Publ. 1990 Jan 1;
[3]. Strabala K. The Effects of Combined Compression and Aging on the Properties of
Glassy Polycarbonate. 2009 Aug 1;
[4]. Ahmad N, Pasha RA, Hammouda MMI. Temperature effects on impact energy of
tungsten alloy. Adv Mater Process. 2011;169(11):35–7.
[5]. Cubides-Herrera CS, Villalba-Rondón DA, Rodriguez-Baracaldo R. Charpy impact
toughness and transition temperature in ferrite–perlite steel. Sci Tech. 2019;24(2):205–11.
[6]. Ghosh A. Effect of Microstructure and Crystallographic Texture on Impact
Toughness in Low Carbon Ferritic Steel. 2016.
[7]. Moore P, Booth G. 8 - Failure modes and analysis in metals. In: Moore P, Booth
GBT-TWEG to F and F, editors. Oxford: Woodhead Publishing; 2015. p. 95–110. Available
from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781782423706500083
[8]. Ali N, Husin H, Farhan A. EFFECT OF POURING TEMPERATURE ON IMPACT
TOUGHNESS ON BRASS ( Cu-Zn ) THROUGH METAL CASTING. 2021;60:223–6.
[9]. Paredes M, Grolleau V, Wierzbicki T. On ductile fracture of 316L stainless steels at
room and cryogenic temperature level: An engineering approach to determine material
parameters. Materialia [Internet]. 2020;10:100624. Available from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589152920300417
[10]. Sadangi J, Das S, Tripathy A, Biswal S. Investigation into recovery of iron values
from red mud dumps. Sep Sci Technol. 2018 Apr 4;53.

(ENG) Impact - Final Report Format DT 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(ENG) Impact - Final Report Format DT 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL REPORT

MUHAMMAD EMIR RAFIANSYAH AKBAR

PHYSICAL METALLURGY LABORATORY

METALURGY AND MATERIALS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA

CHAPTER III: IMPACT TESTING

3.1 Analysis and Data Processing

Table 1. Impact Testing Observation Data

No Specimen T(oC) a (mm) b (mm) A (mm2) E (Joule) Impact Value

Low Temperature Room Temperature High Temperature

Low Temperature Room Temperature High Temperature

c. Srainless Steel Specimen

a. Impact Values vs Temperature Graph

Impact Values vs Temperatures on Fe Specimen

Figure 1. Impact value vs temperature on Fe specimen

(a) (b) (c)

then in section c with increase a temperature, the fracture is ductile. Because in

3.1.5 Cu-Zn Specimens Analysis

Impact Values vs Temperatures on Cu - Zn Spec-

Figure 3. Impact value vs temperature on Cu-Zn specimen

composition, treatment, temperatures during testing, and pouring temperature [8].

(a) (b) (c)

3.1.6 Stainless Steel Specimen Analysis

Comparison Impact Value between Fe and SS on

b. Chemical Composition Analysis

Table 2. Chemical composition for Fe and SS

3.1.7 Combined Analysis

Impact Values vs Temperatures for Fe and Cu - Zn

Figure 7. Impact value vs temperature on Fe and Cu - Zn specimen

3.3 Additional Assignments

You might also like