NlST PB2000-105224

1111111111111111111111111111111 III

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Technology Administration, United States Department of Commerce

NIST Technical Note 1500-8

Materials Reliability Series

NIST Technical Note 1500-8

Materials Reliability Series

Recommended Practice:

Installing, Maintaining, and

Verifying Your Charpy Impact Machine

D.P. Vigliotti

T.A. Siewert

C.N. McCowan

Materials Reliability Division

Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway

Boulder, Colorado 80303-3328

March 2000

PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, William M. Daley, Secretary

TECHNOLOGY ADMINISTRATION, Dr. Cheryl L. Shavers, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, Raymond G. Kammer, Director
National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note

Nat!. Inst. Stand. Techno!., Tech. Note 1500-8, 20 pages (March 2000)

CODEN:NTNOEF

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 2000

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325

Reproduced from

best available copy.
Contents

1. Introduction .

2. Overview ofthe NIST Program .

2.1 Materials .

2.2 Acceptance Criteria .

2.2.1 Dimensional Tolerances .

2.2.2 Impact Energy Requirements .

2.2.3 The Direction in Which the Specimens Leave the

Machine During Impact Tests .

3. Machine Installation .

4. Direct Verification .

5. Indirect Verification .

5.1 Post-Fracture Examination .

5.1.1 Worn Anvils .

5.1.2 Off-Center Specimen .

5.1.3 Off-Center Striker .

5.1.4 Uneven Anvil Marks .

5.1.5 Chipped Anvils .

5.1.6 Anvil Relief .

5.1.7 Damaged Anvils .

5.1.8 Bent Pendulum .

6. Summary .

7. Bibliography .

111

1

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

6

7

8

8

10

10

10

12

12

13

13

15

15
Foreword

The Materials Reliability Series ofNIST Technical Notes are reports covering significant

research accomplishments ofthe Materials Reliability Division. The Division develops

measurement technologies that enable the producers and users ofmaterials to improve the quality

and reliability oftheir products. Measurement technologies are developed for process control to

improve the quality and consistency ofmaterials, for nondestructive evaluation to assure quality

offinished materials and products, and for materials evaluation to assure reliable performance.

This report is the eighth in the series. It documents recommended practices for installing,

maintaining, and verifying a Charpy impact machine. Previous reports in this series are:

Technical Note 1500-1 Tensile Testing of Thin Films: Techniques and Results,

by D.T. Read, 1997

Technical Note 1500-2 Procedures for the Electron-Beam Moire Technique,

by E.S. Drexler, 1998

Technical Note 1500-3 High-Energy, Transmission X-ray Diffraction for Monitoring

Turbine-Blade Solidification, by D.W. Fitting, W.P. Dube,

and T.A. Siewert, 1998

Technical Note 1500-4 Nondestructive Characterization ofReactor Pressure Vessel Steels:

A Feasibility Study, by H.I. McHenry and G.A. Alers, 1998

Technical Note 1500-5 Electron-Beam Moire Technique: Advances, Verification, Application,

by E.L. Drexler, 1998

Technical Note 1500-6 Constitutive Behavior Modeling of Steels Under Hot-Rolling

Conditions, by Y.W. Cheng, 1999

Technical Note 1500-7 Structure-Property Relationships in Steel Produced in Hot-Strip Mills,

by P.T. Purtscher, Y.W. Cheng, and C.N. McCowan, 1999

IV
Recommended Practice:

Installing, Maintaining, and Verifying Your Charpy Impact Machine

D.P. Vigliotti, T.A. Siewert, and C.N. McCowan

Materials Reliability Division

Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Boulder, CO 80303-3328

The quality ofthe data developed by pendulum impact machines depends on how

well the machines are installed, maintained, and verified. This is the reason that

ASTM Standard E 23 Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of

Metallic Materials specifies annual direct and indirect verification tests. Each

year, NIST provides reference specimens for indirect verification of over 1000

machines around the world. From evaluation ofthe absorbed energies and the

fractured specimens, we attempt to deduce the origin of energies that are outside

the ranges permitted by Standard E 23, and report these observations back to the

machine owners. This recommended practice summarizes the bases for these

observations, and hopefully will allow machines to be maintained at higher levels

of accuracy. In addition, we provide details ofthe NIST verification program

procedures and the production ofthe specimens.

Key words: absorbed energy, Charpy V-notch, impact test, machine repair,

misalignment, mounting, pendulum impact test, verification testing, worn anvils

1. Introduction

The low cost and simple configuration ofthe Charpy impact test have made it a common

requirement in codes and standards for critical structures such as pressure vessels and bridges.

For many years, engineers and designers have recognized that materials behave differently when

loaded statically than when loaded dynamically, and that a number ofmaterials have a brittle-toductile transition temperature. The Charpy impact test is a very cost-effective method of

,evaluating the behavior ofmaterials for applications where these attributes are important.

The history ofthe pendulum impact test extends back about 100 years. Over the years, procedure

improvements, such as the addition ofshrouds to prevent specimen jamming and the addition of

indirect verification to the verification requirements, have resulted in a simple yet robust test

method. The attached bibliography shows how NIST has contributed to the understanding ofthe

test method, and for those interested, points to a brief history ofthe test method.

1
Accurate impact results can be obtained only from machines that are installed correctly, then

remain in good working condition, such as within the tolerances specified by Standard E 23. Our

indirect verification program is referenced in Standard E 23, and supplements the direct

verification requirements found there.

Our examination ofover 2300 sets ofthese specimens each year allows us to identify problems

that are often not recognized during routine measurement ofmachine dimensions or routine

check procedures (such as the free-swing test). We have learned to recognize which marks on

the broken verification specimens indicate factors that could be affecting the results. We can then

advise our customers to recheck or replace the anvils or the striker, tighten bolts, check bearings,

check machine alignment or level, check cooling bath or thermometer, or review testing

procedures. This recommended practice describes the most common problems that we detect,

and gives advice on how to avoid or correct most ofthem. We have divided the description of

impact test problems into four major sections: Overview ofthe NIST Program, Machine

Installation, Direct Verification (evaluation ofthe machine alone), and Indirect Verification

(evaluation ofthe machine by the testing ofspecimens).

While the following sections give suggestions to improve the accuracy of your impact machine,

the machine manufacturer and Standard E 23 also are important sources ofinformation.

2. Overview ofthe NIST Program

The NIST program focuses on evaluating the performance of pendulum impact test machines

through indirect verification (the production and evaluation ofstandardized verification

specimens that we distribute to customers of our verification service), as described in ASTM

Standard E 23. In chronological order, the NIST program involves obtaining steel that can be

made into verification specimens, heat treatment and machining of batches of verification

specimens, inspection ofrepresentative specimens from each batch to check quality, assignment

of a reference value to each batch, packaging ofsets ofspecimens for shipment to customers,

evaluation ofthe fractured specimens and customer test data, and preparation of a certificate of

compliance for the customers or suggestions on how to correct any problems. Further details on

these tasks are found in the following sections.

The basic materials and procedures currently used by NIST have remained unchanged for the

past 10 years, and date back to the procedures maintained by the U.S. Army at their arsenal in

Watertown, Massachusetts (AMMRC).

2.1 Materials

/

Two materials are currently used to make the specimens for indirect verification ofCharpy

impact machines to E 23 specifications. A 4340 steel is used to make specimens for the low- and

high-energy levels. A type T-200 maraging steel is used to make specimens for the

super-high-energy level.

2
The steels are purchased as square bar. The bar stock is supplied to subcontractors that machine

and heat-treat the impact specimens to meet the NIST specification.

In these steels, the hardness, impact energy, and strength are interrelated. Since hardness

correlates to impact energy and is a more convenient property to measure during processing, it is

used as the initial process control. The low-energy specimens are typically heat-treated to attain

a room-temperature hardness (HRC) of 45, which corresponds to a Charpy impact energy near 16

J (12 ft-lbt) at -400 C (-400 F). The high-energy specimens are typically heat-treated to attain a

room temperature HRC of32, which corresponds to a Charpy impact energy near 100 J (65

ft-lbt) at -400 C (-400 F). The super-high-energy specimens are typically heat-treated to attain a

room-temperature HRC of30, which corresponds to a Charpy impact energy near 220 J (163

ft-lbt) at room temperature. Note that the two different steels have different responses t<Y heat

treatment, and are tested at different temperatures.

2.2 Acceptance Criteria

Acceptance of a batch of verification specimens is based on the data obtained from a pilot lot of

75 specimens, taken from a heat-treatment batch of 1000 to 1200 specimens. Although impact

energy is the desired output, three criteria are combined to determine the acceptability of

verification specimens: (1) dimensional tolerances ofspecimens, (2) mean and standard deviation

ofimpact energy, and (3) the direction in which the specimens leave the machine during impact

testing. The evaluation procedures detailed in ASTM Standard E 1271 Qualifying Charpy

Verification Specimens ofHeat-Treated Steel describe the basic criteria used by NIST, with the

following exceptions.

2.2.1 Dimensional Tolerances

The dimensional requirements for NIST specimens exceed some ofthe E 23 specifications for

verification specimens. This minimizes variations in impact energy due to physical variations in

the specimens. Also, the notch centering and the length tolerance for NIST specimens is

equivalent to the ISO 164 standard, which permits the specimens to be used in impact machines

with end-centering devices. The NIST requirement for surface finish is equivalent to the ISO

requirement. All ofthese dimensional requirements can be met with standard machining

practices.

2.2.2 Impact Energy Requirements

NIST lots are currently produced to have average energy values that fall within the ranges of 13 J

to 20 J (10 to 15 ft-lbt) for low-energy, 88 J to 136 J (65 to 100 ft-lbf) for high-'energY,and 176 J

to 244 J (130 to 180 ft-lbf) for super-high-energy levels. NIST has never produced a low-energy

lot having a reference energy ofless than 15 J (11 ft-lbf). The upper limit ofthe super-highenergy range has been limited by NIST because such energies significantly reduce the final

swing velocity for machines with capacities ofless than 300 J. (The standard states that machines

should not be evaluated with reference specimens that exceed 80 % ofthe machine capacity).

3
The reference energy for a lot of verification specimens is determined from the pooled average of

75 specimens (25 specimens tested on each of 3 different impact machines). In addition to the

average impact energy, the standard deviation, and a sample size for the verification set are

determined (the number ofspecimens required to estimate the performance of a machine with a

specified measurement uncertainty). All 75 specimens are included in these calculations, except

for specimens that are determined to be outliers. An outlier is defined statistically, but a

specimen identified as an outlier is not removed from the analysis unless it shows physical

evidence ofjamming, material flaws, or other reason for atypical behavior. At present, any lot

with more than 5 % outliers is rejected. TheE 1271 standard sets a minimum number of

specimens for a verification set at five and the maximum number ofspecimens in a set is

determined by a sample size calculation. Occasionally, a batch has such a small standard

deviation that the equation indicates a minimum set size offour.

The average hardness value for a pilot lot is determined for 75 specimens. The variation in

hardness for the lot is also determined, and a lot can be rejected on hardness data alone ifthe

variation in hardness exceeds 1 HRC ofthe lot average. A variation in hardness of 1 HRC

results in a very large variation in absorbed energy. In practice, we find that when the variation

in hardness exceeds 0.5 HRC the quality ofthe lot is questionable. The correlation between

energy and hardness is much more useful for evaluating variations of high-energy (lower

hardness) specimens, because at high hardness, the slope ofthe trend decreases significantly.

2.2.3 The Direction in Which the Specimens Leave the Machine During Impact Testing

The average hardness ofthe low-energy specimens also can be used to estimate whether the

specimens will have the desired behavior (leaving the machine in the forward or backward

direction). When the average hardness value falls below 44 HRC, low-energy specimens begin

to exit in a forward direction, which is undesirable.

Low-energy specimens are designed to exit the machine in the direction opposite to that ofthe

pendulum swing to assure that the shrouds around the anvils ofU-type machines are functioning

properly. Ifthe shrouds are not adjusted properly or of adequate hardness, the specimens will

jam between the pendulum and anvils, causing artificially high energy values.

3. Machine Installation

This is the detailed procedure developed by NIST to mount the three Master Charpy Reference

Machines. The manufacturer of your machine should be able to supply procedures that are

designed specifically for your machine.

A stable foundation for the impact machine is critical to ensure accurate results. Energy losses

through the foundation must be kept to a minimum. We recommend using a foundation of

high-strength concrete (if your concrete supplier uses a commercial-grade description to

characterize the quality ofthe concrete, you should ask for a 7000-pound mix) that measures

1525 mm (60 in) long by 910 mm (36 in) wide by 450 mm (18 in) thick. Usually you will need

4
to cut a hole in the floor to accommodate the new foundation. If other equipment in the area

could affect the machine operation, you may want to isolate it from the floor with expansionjoint material.

Hold-down bolts used to secure the machine to the foundation should be ofthe inverted "T" or

"J" type. (The next section, on direct verification, describes problems with the use oflag bolts,

which may be tightened up against the base without gripping the concrete.) The bolts, nuts, and

washers should have a strength of grade 8 or higher. We recommend using bolts or rod with a

diameter of22 mm (7/8 in). At NIST we used 22 mm (7/8 in) grade 8 threaded rod, cut into

pieces that are 610 mm (24 in) long. We then welded 150 mm (6 in long) pieces ofthe same

threaded rod to the end ofthe 610 mm (24 in) pieces to make inverted "T" bolts.

We then positioned the machine over the center ofthe foundation hole. The machine was held

approximately 100 mm (4 in) above the floor using spacers suitable to hold the weight ofthe

machine. The "T" bolts were positioned in the machine-base mounting holes with a nut below

and above the base ofthe machine. The nuts were tightened to keep the "T" bolts straight while

the concrete was poured. The ends ofthe T bolts were positioned approximately 25 mm (l in)

from the bottom ofthe hole. The machine was then leveled on the spacers. Leveling did not

need to be as accurate as the final leveling. Reinforcement bars were attached to the top ofthe

horizontal rod previously welded to the bottom ofthe "T" bolts. The reinforcement bars were

attached in the form of a box connecting the four bolts. A second box formation ofreinforcement

rods was attached to the "T" bolts 25 cm (lOin) above the first box. The concrete was then

poured under the machine. The concrete was finished as level as possible at this time. Before

the concrete fully hardened, we removed enough concrete, to a depth of approximately 25 mm (l

in), from around each "T" bolt to be able to thread a nut to below the surface ofthe concrete, and

cleaned the exposed threads. The machine was left in this position for 72 h.

After 72 h, the nuts on top ofthe base plate were removed and the machine was lifted offthe "T"

bolts. The bottom nuts were then threaded down into the cavities that were created before the

concrete hardened. The nuts were left high enough on the "T" bolts to enable the use of an

open-end wrench to adjust them after the machine was positioned on them. At this point, the

base ofthe machine was coated with a light oil to keep the grout from adhering to it. The

machine was then lifted back onto the "T" bolts and was positioned on the adjustment nuts. The

machine was now ready to be leveled. A machinist's level was used to ensure meeting the level

tolerance of 3: 1000. The critical leveling procedure was done using the four nuts under the

machine. After the machine was leveled, we wrapped the outside ofthe nuts with duct-seal putty

to facilitate their removal from the "T" bolts later in the process.

At this point the base ofthe machine was ready to grout. Heavy cardboard forms were placed

around the base ofthe machine to keep the grout under the machine. The grout was pushed

under the machine, so that the base ofthe machine was in total contact with the grout. The

machine was left in this position for 72 h.

5
After 72 h, the machine was lifted offthe "T" bolts one last time. The grout was inspected for

cavities and for surface contact with the bottom ofthe machine. The putty was removed from

around the nuts. Some grout leaked around the putty and had to be chipped away from the nuts

to enable them to turn. The supporting nuts were removed from the "T" bolts. After removing

all debris from the grout, the machine was repositioned on the "T" bolts and rested on the grout.

Washers and nuts were installed on the "T" bolts and were tightened to pull the machine tightly

against the grout. The level was checked at this point. The "T" bolts were cut offto

approximately 12.7 mm (1/2 in) above the nuts. The nuts were torqued to 380 ft-Ib. The final

level was checked at this point.

NOTE: Special non-shrinking grout is recommended. This grout is available at most industrial

hardware stores.

If you have any questions concerning this procedure, please contact Daniel Vigliotti by phone at

(303) 497-3351, by fax at(303) 497-5939, by email at daniel.vigliotti@nist.gov, or by mail at

NIST, Division 853, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303-3328.

4. Direct Verification

This section ofthe practice explains the direct verification requirements of Standard E 23,

confirmation that the machine is in good operating condition, without the use of verification

specimens. The direct verification tests are physics-based tests, which assure that the machine is

functioning as closely as possible to a simple pendulum, with only small losses, due to friction

and windage. Direct verification is most important when the machine is first installed or when

major parts are replaced, but is also important during the periodic reinspections. While these

tests are required for the periodic reinspections, we recommend that the free-swing test and

windage-and-friction test be performed each day that the machine is used. The records ofthese

tests then serve as a convenient measure of bearing performance.

Since the Charpy test is a dynamic test with vibration and impact loads, the hold-down bolts may

loosen over time. In extreme cases, this may introduce error sufficient to cause a machine to

exceed the tolerance limits ofthe indirect verification test. In marginal cases, the movement may

still be sufficient to add a bias to the results that reduces the likelihood of passing. Check the

tightness of all bolts, especially the anvil bolts, the striker bolts, and the base-plate bolts. The

manufacturer can supply the torque values for the anvil and striker bolts. The base-plate bolts

should be torqued to the recommended torque values for the grade and size ofthe nuts and bolts.

We recommend the use of"J" or "T" bolts only. We do not recommend lag-type bolts. These are

made to withstand only static loads. We believe that over time, the insert portion oflag bolts can

loosen in the concrete. When lag bolts are retightened, they can pull out ofthe concrete and be

pulled against the base ofthe machine, giving the impression of a properly mounted machine.

This condition is very difficult to detect. A machine with this problem will exhibit erroneously

high energy values at the low-energy level. The mounting procedure used to eliminate this

problem for our Master Reference Machines was described in the previous section.

6
Standard E 23 describes a routine check procedure that should be performed weekly. It consists

of a free-swing check and a friction-and-windage check. The free swing is a quick and simple

test to determine whether the dial or readout is performing accurately. A proper zero reading

after one swing from the latched position is required on a machine that is equipped with a

compensated dial. Some machines are equipped with a non-compensated dial. Such a dial is one

on which the indicator cannot be adjusted to read zero after one free swing. The user should

understand the procedure for dealing with a non-compensated dial. This information should be

available from the manufacturer.

The friction-and-windage test assesses the condition ofthe bearings. The pendulum should be

released and allowed to swing 10 half cycles (5 full swings). (We recommend holding the

release mechanism down this whole time to avoid additional friction when the pendulum swings

back up to where it may push on the latch.) As the pendulum starts its 11th halfswing, the

pointer should be reset to about 5 % ofthe scale capacity. Record this value and divide by the 11

halfswings. Divide this number by the machine range capacity, then multiply by 100. Any loss

ofmore than 0.4 % ofthe machine capacity is excessive, and the bearings should be inspected.

We suggest that the user develop a daily log or shift log to be kept with the machine. The log

can be used to track the zero and friction values. The log can also include information such as

number oftests, materials tested, maintenance, and any other useful comments.

The anvil and striker radii should be carefully inspected for damage and for proper dimensions.

Damage (chips or burrs) can be detected easily by visual inspection and by running a finger over

the radii to check for smoothness. Measurement ofthe dimensions requires more sophisticated

equipment. We find that radius gages are usually inadequate to measure the critical radii. We

recommend making molds ofthe radii (such as with silicone rubber) or making an indentation in

a soft, ductile material (such as annealed aluminum), then measuring the impressions on an

optical comparator. Occasionally, even a new set of anvils and striker may have incorrect radii.

We recommend that new anvils and strikers always be inspected before being installed in the

machine. Since the radii will not have local wear before use (the radii are consistent along their

length), they can be measured directly on an optical comparator or other optical measurement

system.

5. Indirect Verification

Indirect verification uses carefully characterized test specimens to stress the test machine

components to levels similar to those experienced during routine usage. Since many machine

problems, such as loose anvils or striker, cannot be detected during direct verification, indirect

verification serves as an important supplemental test ofthe machine performance.

We recommend using centering tongs, such as those described in ASTM Standard E 23, to insert

the specimens at the center ofthe anvils. The tongs should be inspected for wear or damage. A

proper set oftongs is critical for the accurate placement ofthe specimen. Some machines are

7
equipped with a centering device. The device should be inspected for wear and proper operation.

We do not recommend the use of centering devices for low-temperature testing because the

centering operation can extend the time between a specimen's removal from the bath and

fracture, and so may exceed the five-second interval allowed for transferring and fracturing the

specimen.

Some ofthe reference specimens are designed to be tested at -400 C (-40° F). Since the

absorbed energy changes with temperature, accurate temperature control is necessary to obtain

valid test data. The temperature indicator should be calibrated immediately before testing. Ice

water and dry ice are quick and easy calibration media.

5.1 Post-Fracture Examination

Just matching the reference energies is not sufficient to confirm that the machine is fully

satisfactory. For example, worn anvils can combine with high-friction bearings to compensate

for each other and produce an artificially correct value during the verification test. These are

called compensating errors. Unfortunately, these errors compensate only over part ofthe range,

so the machine produces generally inaccurate values. The post-fracture examination ofthe NIST

standardized verification specimens is a good way to identify such effects. Therefore, the NIST

specimens come with a questionnaire (with critical questions about the machine and the test

procedure) and a mailing label so the specimens can be returned to NIST. All specimens are

examined and compared to the data on the questionnaire before a formal response is sent to the

customers.

Following are the most common ofthese problems. In many cases, suggestions on how to

correct or avoid them in the future are included.

5.1.1 Worn Anvils

Most ofthe wear of an impact test machine occurs on the anvils and striker. We evaluate this

wear by examining the gouge marks that are formed on the sides of high-energy specimens when

they are forced through the anvils. Anvils that are within the required tolerance ofthe standard

will make a thin, even gouge mark all the way across both pieces ofthe broken specimen. As the

anvils wear, they will make a wider, smeared mark across the specimen halves. Figure 1 shows

the change in the gouge marks. When wide, smeared marks are observed on a customer's

specimens, we recommend that the anvils be changed, because the reduction in energy needed to

push the specimens through worn anvils eventually drops the machine below the lower tolerance

in the energy range. You can monitor the wear on your machine by retaining some specimens

that are tested with new anvils and comparing them to specimens ofsimilar composition and

hardness that are tested as the anvils wear. For specimens at a similar absorbed energy, the

gouge marks will grow wider and smoother as the anvils wear.

8
I

•

•

Thin gouge mark from

-

anvil in tolerance

Wide (smeared) gouge

mark from worn anvil

Figure 1. Worn anvils.

II

/••

Front view

-~ Aligned gouge marks from

correctly centered specimen

Misaligned gouge marks from

incorrectly centered specimen

17.5 J Side view 24.3 J

uneven fracture surfaces

/ \ machined. /~. ~notch

even fracture surfaces

machined 1\ machined

notch / notch

Even fracture surfaces Uneven fracture surfaces

Figure 2. Off-center specimen.

9
5.1.2 Off-Center Specimen

An off-center specimen strike occurs when the notch is not centered between the anvils, so the

striker contacts the specimen to the side ofthe notch. The low-energy specimen best indicates

when an off-center strike occurs. We identify this condition on the specimens by finding that the

gouge marks caused by the anvils are not equidistant from the machined notch edges, and the

striker gouge mark is offset the same amount from the notch (Figure 2). Also, as seen in Figure

2, the fracture surface of a correctly tested low-energy specimen is flat and both halves are even.

However, the fracture surfaces of a specimen that has been tested off-center are on an angle. The

more off-center the strike, the steeper the angle will be. This problem increases the energy

needed to fracture a specimen. The most common causes for this slipping are worn or damaged

centering tongs, a worn or misaligned machine centering device, careless test procedures, or the

use of a cooling fluid that is too viscous at the test temperature, which causes the specimen to

float on the specimen supports. Most machine manufacturers should be able to provide new

centering tongs. We have found that ethyl alcohol is one ofthe best cooling media because it

seems to evaporate quickly from the bottom ofthe specimen to prevent specimen floating.

5.1.3 Off-Center Striker

This differs from the off-center specimen in that the notch is centered against the anvils so the

anvil gouge marks are equidistant from the machined notch edges. However, the striker does not

contact the specimen precisely opposite the notch. Figure 3 shows this appearance. An

off-center striker is usually attributed to the pendulum shaft shifting off center. This shift can be

the result of a loose alignment ring on the shaft or a loose bearing block on the machine. This

problem also increases the energy needed to fracture specimens at all energy levels.

5.1.4 Uneven Anvil Marks

Frequent testing ofsubsize specimens can cause the anvils to wear unevenly. Figure 4 shows an

example ofthese uneven wear marks at each energy level of our reference specimens. Since this

wear is restricted to a small area that the full-size reference specimen contacts, there is usually no

effect on the energy required to fracture the specimen. This anvil condition presents two

problems. First, since subsize wear is usually not indicated by a change in the energy required to

break a reference specimen, inspection ofthe broken specimen is required. This wear will cause

the anvils to be out oftolerance according to the requirements in the standard. This means that

the machine does not meet the direct verification requirements ofthe standard and is therefore,

not eligible for the indirect verification process. The second, and more important problem, is that

the subsize specimens are being tested in an area ofthe anvil that is worn. When the wear is

substantial, this condition will produce artificially low subsized energy values. The anvils should

be replaced on a machine with this condition.

10
Side

view

Striker not Back

centered view

between

Striker anvils

Front view

uneven fracture surfaces

Aligned gouge •

marks from anvi/;---.... •

Figure 3. Off-center striker.

, I

I I

1"

I I

I I

Side view

/ uneven fracture

\ surfaces

•

specimen

Standard

•

Low energy

specimen showing

subsize wear

•

High

•

energy

specimen showing

subsize wear

Super high energy

specimen showing

subsize wear

Figure 4. Uneven anvil marks.

11
Figure 5. Chipped anvils.

5.1.5 Chipped Anvils

Sometimes an anvil can be chipped. Figure 5 shows that this condition can be detected easily on

all three energy reference specimens. The low-energy specimen is affected the least because it is

the hardest specimen and therefore has a more brittle fracture. The ductile high-energy specimen

will produce higher than normal energy results and the very ductile super-high-energy specimens

are affected most by a chipped anvil. This condition should be detected easily by a visual

inspection before using the machine. New anvils are required when an anvil is chipped.

5.1.6 Anvil Relief

Some Charpy machine manufacturers have designed a machined relief at the bottom ofthe anvil

(Figure 6). This anvil design does not meet the direct verification requirements of ASTM

Standard E 23. The relief has caused high-energy results in our ductile high- and super-highenergy specimens. It can also cause twisting ofthe specimens, during fracture, that may also

contribute to energy values higher than normal at all energy levels.

AnVil/ Machined

Relief

/ Specimen

'Speclmen

Support .

Figure 6. Anvil with machined relief.

12

I/Relief

Mark

•
Figure 7. Damaged anvils.

5.1.7 Damaged Anvils

Under some test conditions, usually for elevated-temperature testing, the anvils can wear to a

rough finish that creates excessive friction (Figure 7). This damaged condition is detected best on

the high and super-high specimens. Rough anvils usually cause the gouge marks to become

wider and push the specimen material to form a ridge that can easily be detected with the

fingernail. This damage usually causes artificially high energy results at the high- and superhigh-energy levels. Damaged anvils must be replaced.

5.1.8 Bent Pendulum

Fighre 8 shows the gouge marks created by a pendulum bent in the direction ofthe swing. This

gouge mark is usually deeper on the top edge ofthe specimen as it sits in the machine. As

shown in Figure 8, the striker contacts the top edge ofthe specimen first, causing excessive

tumbling and twisting. This excessive activity can cause the specimen to interact with the striker

or the pendulum after fracture and create additional energy loss. A bent pendulum can be

detected by placing an unbroken reference specimen in the machine and placing a piece of

carbon paper on the surface opposite the notch. At this point, lightly tap the striker against the

specimen. This will make a mark on the specimen that can be inspected. Ifthe pendulum is not

bent, the mark should appear the same width across the specimen. Ifthe pendulum is bent, the

mark will be wider at one edge and become thinner or even not visible at the other edge (Figure

9). We recommend that a new pendulum be installed on a machine with this problem.

13
Specimen

Support

Specimen

Support

Bent Pendulum Normal Pendulum

Figure 8. Bent pendulum.

Figure 9. Marks from bent pendulum.

14
6. Summary

The condition and accuracy ofCharpy machines cannot be checked only by comparing results of

NIST reference specimens to the Master Reference Machines located at NIST, Boulder, CO.

Some machine problems cause artificially low results while other machine problems cause

artificially high results. In addition, deviations in procedures can cause similar results. These

machine problems and procedural deviations may go undetected for years without some sort of

physical check. For this reason, examination ofthe broken specimens is a critical part ofthe

verification process. Many machine problems can be avoided or corrected with the information

presented in this paper. Also, suggested changes in procedure can help to ensure a successful

test. To obtain verification specimens or to clarify procedures for verification testing, you may

use the following information:

Verification specimens can be ordered from the NIST Standard Reference Materials Program.

Phone: (303) 497-6776, fax: (303) 948-3730, or email: SRMINFO@nist.gov

Questions on verification procedures can be answered by the Charpy Program Coordinator.

Phone: (303) 497-3351, fax: (303) 497-5939, or email: daniel.vigliotti@nist.gov

7. Bibliography

1. "Absorbed Energy Differences between 8-mm and 2-mm Charpy V-notch Striker Radii when

using Verification Specimens," T.A. Siewert and D.P. Vigliotti, Pendulum Impact Machines:

Procedures and Specimens for Verification, ASTM STP 1248, American Society for Testing

and Materials, 1995, 140-152.

2. "Effect of Surface Finish ofCharpy Anvils and Striking Bits on Absorbed Energy," E.A.

Ruth, D.P. Vigliotti, and T.A. Siewert, Pendulum Impact Machines: Procedures and

Specimens for Verification, ASTM STP 1248, American Society for Testing and Materials,

1995,91-100.

3. "Notched Bar Impact Testing Standards have Yielded Widespread Benefits for Industry,"

M.P. Manahan, C.N. McCowan, T.A. Siewert, J.M. Holt, F.J. Marsh, and E.A. Ruth,

Standardization News, 27 (2): 30-35, February 1999.

4. "Performance Verification ofImpact Machines for Testing Plastics," T.A. Siewert, D.P.

Vigliotti, L.B. Dirling, and C.N. McCowan, NIST Journal ofResearch, 104(6): 1-9,

November-December 1999.

5. "The History and Importance ofImpact Testing," T.A. Siewert, M.P. Manahan, C.N.

McCowan, J.H. Holt, F.J. Marsh, and E.A. Ruth, Pendulum Impact Testing: A Century of

Progress, ASTM STP 1380, T.A. Siewert and M. P. Manahan, Sr., eds., American Society for

Testing and Materials, 2000.

15
6. "Maintaining the Accuracy ofCharpy Impact Machines," D.P. Vigliotti, C.N. McCowan, and

T.A. Siewert, Pendulum Impact Testing: A Century ofProgress, ASTM STP 1380, T.A.

Siewert and M. P. Manahan, Sr., eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, 2000.

7. "Reference Specimens for Plastics Impact Machines," C.N. McCowan, D.P. Vigliotti, and

T.A. Siewert, Pendulum Impact Testing: A Century ofProgress, ASTM STP 1380, T.A.

Siewert and M.P. Manahan, Sr., eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1999.

8. "Experimental Evidence ofthe Difference Between Total Absorbed Energy Measured Using

an Instrumented Striker and that Obtained Using an Optical Encoder," M.P. Manahan, Sr.,

T.A. Siewert, C.N. McCowan, and D.P. Vigliotti, in preparation for Charpy Centenary

Conference -CCC2001, Poitiers, France, 2001.

16
Technical Publications

Periodical

Joumal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology-Reports NIST research

and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Institute is

active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers

cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic

technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Institute's technical and scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs-Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Institute's

scientific and technical activities.

Handbooks-Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes)

developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies.

Special Publications-Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST, NIST annual reports, and

other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series-Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to physicists,

engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific

and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series~Providesquantitative data on the physical and chemical

properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a

worldwide program coordinated by NIST under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public

Law 90-396). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published bimonthly for NIST by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AlP).

Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements are available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington,

DC 20056.

Building Science Series-Disseminates technical information developed at the Institute on building

materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test

methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability

and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes-Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment

of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of

the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NIST under the

sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards~Developedunder procedures published by the Department of Commerce

in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized

requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of

the characteristics of the products. NIST administers this program in support of the efforts of privatesector standardizing organizations.

Consumer Information Series-Practical information, based on NIST research and experience, covering

areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful

background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order the above NIST publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.

Order the following NIST publications-FIPS and NISTIRs-from the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)-Publications in this series

collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the

otlicial source of information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NIST pursuant to

the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended, Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat.

1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of

Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NIST Interagency Reports (NISTIR)-A special series of interim or final reports on work performed by

NIST for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general, initial distribution is

handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,

VA 22161, in paper copy or microfiche form.