A111D2 TfiTESfi

MBS

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 88-3690

Report No. 14

Dynamic Mechanical Properties of

Two AAR Ml 28 and One ASTM A212-B

Steel Tank Car Head Plates

J.G. Early, C.G. Interrante, S R. Low, III, and B.A. Fields

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

February 1988

issued June 1988

75 Years Stimulating America's Progress

Prepared for: Federal Railroad Administration

Department of Transportation

QC

100

. U56

#88-3690

1988

c.2

BCE

Kesearch Information Center

National -Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, Pdaryiand. 20899

NBSIR 88-3690

Report No. 14

DYNAMIC MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF TWO

AAR M128 AND ONE ASTM A212-B

STEEL TANK CAR HEAD PLATES

J.G. Early, C.G. Interrante, S.R. Low, III, and B.A. Fields

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Institute for Materials Science and Engineering

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

February 1988

Issued June 1988

Prepared for: Federal Railroad Administration

Department of Transportation

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, C. William Verity, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
'
ABSTRACT

Instrumented precracked Charpy impact testing and dynamic tear testing were

carried out on steel plate samples taken from three railroad tank cars. Two of

the samples were given as AAR M128, a high strength carbon manganese steel,

while the third was reported to be ASTM A212-65, a high strength carbon silicon

steel. Values were found for the ranges of transition temperatures and for the

energies absorbed, including crack initiation energy, crack propagation energy

and total energy.

It should be noted that some of the transition temperatures obtained were

within normal tank car service temperature ranges.

11
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract

1 . INTRODUCTION 1

2 . PURPOSE . 1

3. SIGNIFICANCE ....1

3.1 Instrumented Charpy Impact Test 1 3.2 Precracked Charpy Specimen Tests .1

4

.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

4.1 Instrumented Precracked Charpy Tests.. .2

4.1.1 Specimens . 2

4.1.2 Test Method 2

4.1.3 Absorbed Energy Calculation. ................... 2

4.1.4 True Energy Calculation. ....................... 3

4.1.5 Total Energy Absorbed. ......................... 4

4.1.6 Calculation of- Dynamic Fracture Toughness 4

4. 1.6.1 Linear Elastic Fracture Toughness 4

4. 1.6.

2

Post General Yield Fracture Toughness.

5

4.1.7 Calculation of Dynamic Yield Stress ..5

4 . 2 Dynamic Tear Tests 5

5 . PREVIOUS RESULTS 5

5.1 Compositions and Properties 5

5.2 Charpy V-notch Tests 5

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . 6

6 . 1 Instrumented Precracked Charpy Tests 6

6.1.1 Energy Absorption-Raw Data Values 6

6.1.2 Transition Temperatures 7

6.1.3 Normalized Energy 7 6 . 1 . 3 .

1

Total Energy 7

6 . 1 . 3 .

2

Initiation Energy 7 6. 1.3.

3

Propagation Energy 7

6 . 1 . 3 .

4

Transition Temperatures 7 6.1.4 Dynamic Fracture Toughness 8

6.1.5 Dynamic Yield Stress. 8

6 .

2

Dynamic Tear Tests 8

7 . CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 9

8

.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 10

REFERENCES .................................................... 1

1

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

TABLES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

FIGURES . .

.

. 12

. 17

. 18

. 19

.20

.43

IV
TABLES

1 . Chemical Compositions of Plates G and U

2. Chemical Compositions of Plate S

3. Tensile Properties of Plates G and U

4. Tensile Properties of Plate S

5. Charpy V-notch Impact and Drop Weight Transition Temperatures for Plates

G , U , and S

v
APPENDICES

A. Limitations Required for a Valid Instrumented Precracked Charpy Test

B. Compliance Calculations

C. Values of the Function h(a/W) Used to Calculate KID .

D. Instrumented Precracked Charpy Impact Test Results.

Table D1

.

Raw Data for LT Orientation, Plate G.

Table D2

.

Results of Evaluation for LT Orientation, Plate G.

Table D3

.

Compliance Values for LT Orientation, Plate G.

Table D4

.

Raw Data for TL Orientation, Plate G.

Table D5

.

Results of Evaluation for TL Orientation, Plate G.

Table D6

.

Compliance Values for TL Orientation, Plate G.

Table D7

.

Raw Data for LT Orientation, Plate U.

Table D8

.

Results of Evaluation for LT Orientation, Plate U.

Table D9

.

Compliance Values for LT Orientation, Plate U.

Table DIO. Raw Data for TL Orientation, Plate U.

Table Dll. Results of Evaluation for TL Orientation, Plate U.

Table D12. Compliance Values for TL Orientation, Plate U.

Table D13. Raw Data for LT Orientation, Plate S.

Table D14. Results of Evaluation for LT Orientation, Plate S.

fable D 1 5

.

Compliance Values for LT Orientation, Plate S.

fable D16

.

Raw Data for TL Orientation, Plate S.

Table D17. Results of Evaluation for TL Orientation, Plate S.

Table D18. Compliance Values for TL Orientation, Plate S.

vi
FIGURES

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7

.

Figure 8

Figure 9

.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Figure 18.

Figure 19.

Figure 20.

Figure 21

.

Figure 22.

Figure 23.

Idealized Load-Time Record for a Three Point Bend Specimen.

Charpy V-notch-Energy Absorption Results for Plate G.

Charpy V-notch-Energy Absorption Results for Plate U.

Charpy V-notch-Energy Absorption Results for Plate S.

Charpy V-notch-Lateral Expansion Results for Plate G.

Charpy V-notch-Lateral Expansion Results for Plate U.

Charpy V-notch-Lateral Expansion Results for Plate S.

Charpy V-notch- Shear Fracture Appearance Results for Plate G.

Charpy V-notch- Shear Fracture Appearance Results for Plate U.

Charpy V-notch- Shear Fracture Appearance Results for Plate S.

Precracked Charpy-Total Energy Absorption Results for Plate G.

Precracked Charpy-Total Energy Absorption Results for Plate U.

Precracked Charpy-Total Energy Absorption Results for Plate S.

Comparison of Total Energy Absorbed for Plates G, U, and S.

Precracked Charpy- Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for Plate G.

Precracked Charpy- Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for Plate U.

Precracked Charpy- Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for Plate S.

Comparison of Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for Plates G, U,

and S .

Comparison of Total Energy and Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for

Piute G

.

Comparison of Total Energy and Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for

Plate U.

Comparison of Total Energy and Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for

Plate S.

Comparison of Total Energy and Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for

Plates G, U, and S.

Precracked Charpy-Normalized Total Energies for Plate G.

Vll
Figure 24

Figure 25

Figure 26

Figure 27

Figure 28

Figure 29

Figure 30

Figure 31

Figure 32

Figure 33

Figure 34

Figure 35

Figure 36

Figure 37

Figure 38

Figure 39

Figure 40

Figure 41

Figure 42

Figure 43

Figure 44

Figure 45

Precracked Charpy-Normalized Total Energies for Plate U.

Precracked Charpy-Normalized Total Energies for Plate S.

Precracked Charpy-Normalized Initiation Energies for Plate G.

Precracked Charpy-Normalized Initiation Energies for Plate U.

Precracked Charpy-Normalized Initiation Energies for Plate S.

Precracked Charpy-Normalized Propagation Energies for Plate G

Precracked Charpy-Normalized Propagation Energies for Plate U

Precracked Charpy-Normalized Propagation Energies for Plate S

Fracture Toughness Values for Plate G.

Fracture Toughness Values for Plate U.

Fracture Toughness- Values for Plate S.

Comparison of Kid Values for Plates G, U, and S .

Comparison Kj d Values for Plates G , u, and S .

Dynamic Yield Stresses for Plate G.

Dynamic Yield Stresses for Plate U.

Dynamic Yield Stresses for Plate S.

Dynamic Tear-Energy Absorption Values for Plate G.

Dynamic Tear Energy Absorption Values for Plate S.

Comparison o C Dynamic Tear Results for Plates G and S.

Comparison of Results for CVN, PCI, and DT Tests for Plate G.

Comparison of Results for CVN and PCI Tests for Plate U.

Comparison of Results for .CVN, PCI, and DT Tests for Plate S.

viii
TABLE OF SYMBOLS

B - thickness of the Charpy specimen

W - depth of the Charpy specimen

a - length of the notch plus the sharp crack

S - support span of the specimen

U - energy absorbed during impact

U0

- total energy available at impact

Ua- energy absorbed at time t

UM

- energy absorved at maximum load

Em- true energy absorbed by the specimen at maximum load

v - initial impact velocity

m - effective mass of the falling weight

P - load at time t

PM

- maximum load

PGY - load at general yield

d - displacement

C s

- specimen compliance

CM

- machine compliance

C T

- total compliance

dynamic fracture toughness

dynamic fracture toughness calculated using the J integral

CK

E

(7 YD *

stress intensity rate

Young's modulus

dynamic yield stress
1

.

INTRODUCTION

The National Bureau of Standards was requested by the Federal Railroad

Administration, Department of Transportation to conduct metallurgical

evaluations of three steel plate samples taken from three railroad tank cars.

These tank cars were identified as SOEX 3033, GATX 93412 and UTLX 38498. The

details and history of the three tank cars were discussed in previous

reports (

1

’ 2

}

. For simplicity, the three plate samples will be referred to as

S, G and U respectively. Plate S was reported to be ASTM A212-65, a high

tensile strength, carbon- silicon steel. Plates G and U were reported to be AAR

M128, a high strength carbon manganese steel.

Previous NBS Reports (1,2) have determined that plates G and U met the chemical,

tensile strength, and tensile ductility requirements of AAR M128 steel. Plate

S, however, while satisfying the chemical and tensile elongation requirements

of ASTM A212-65 steel, failed to meet those for minimum yield and tensile

strengths

.

For plates G, U, and S the nil - ductility transition (NDT) temperatures were

determined to be -20°F, -40°F, and 30°F respectively. The 15 ft-lbs energy

absorption temperatures were found to be approximately -50°F, -45°F, and 67°F,

respectively. The values dete-rmined for plate S are of considerable concern as they are well within the normal tank car service temperature range.

2.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present evaluation is to study further the impact test

behaviors of these plate samples. Both instrumented precracked Charpy tests

and dynamic tear tests were carried out over the temperature range of interest.

3.

SIGNIFICANCE

3.1. Instrumented Charpv Impact Test

This test augments the information provided by a standard Charpy impact test.

Strain gauges placed on the striking tup are used to sense the load variation

with time. A typical load- time plot is shown in Figure 1. Such a plot may be

integrated to obtain energies at specified points on the curve, e.g., at yield

or maximum load.

3.2. Precracked Charpv Specimen Tests

In a precracked Charpy specimen the standard V notch is extended by fatigue

cracking to produce a sharp crack representing the most severe condition found

in practice. In a standard Charpy test the energy -obtained includes both the

energy for initiation of the crack and that for its propagation. The energy

required to initiate a crack may be considerably greater than that for its

propagation. Thus using only the total energy can mask the fact that in a given material the energy required to propagate a crack already present in the

material may be quite low. If a precracked Charpy specimen is used the

initiation energy will be a much smaller part of the total energy, thus giving

1
a more realistic value for propagation energy. This means that a precracked

Charpy test more closely simulates the conditions under which an existing crack

begins to extend.

Another reason for using precracked specimens is that results for tests where

fracture occurs before general yield can be used to calculate a value for

dynamic fracture toughness KID (tM

). This can be correlated with the standard

fracture toughness KIC . The time value (tM ) (illustrated in Figure 1) is the

time taken to reach maximum load and references the relative testing rate in

units of seconds

.

4. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

4.1. Instrumented Precracked Charov Tests

4.1.1. Specimens

The nominal dimensions of the specimens were those given in ASTM E23-72

(Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Mater ials )( Figure 4, Charpy type A).

These are 0.394 in (10 mm) thick by 0.394 in (10 mm) deep by 2.165 in (55 mm)

long. The machined notch was extended about 0.10 in (2.5 mm) by fatigue

cycling such that the total depth of the notch plus the crack was between 0.177

(4.5 mm) and 0.217 in (5.5 mm). The fatigue precracking was carried out

following the procedure given in ASTM E399-74.

Two orientations of specimens were used. In one the longitudinal specimen axis

was aligned parallel to the rolling direction and the plane of notching was in

the transverse direction. In the other the longitudinal axis was in the

transverse direction while the notch plane in the rolling direction. These two

orientations were given the standard notations of LT and TL.

4.1.2. Test method

The specimens were dynamically loaded in three point bending using a standard

Charpy machine modified for acquisition of the load- time data. The tests were

carried out in accordance with ASTM E23-72.

Additional requirements for acceptable frequency response, inertial oscillation

dampening, velocity reduction and electronic curve fitting, as discussed by

Server ( 3

)

are summarized in Appendix A.

4.1.3. Absorbed Energy Calculation

The energy absorbed (U) at any time (t) during the impact event can be computed

from the instrumented tup load- time record as follows (3)

U = U,(l - zft-) (1)

u o where UQ is the total available energy at impact, l/2mV0 2

, and Ua is determined

at time t as follows:

2
( 2 )

t

ua = vj pdt

o

where VQ is the initial impact velocity, P is the load, and m is the effective

mass of the falling weight. The energy absorbed at maximum load, UM , can be

determined from the above expression when t = tM (see Figure 1).

When comparing energies absorbed in standard Charpy V-notch specimens and

precracked specimens it should be noted that the ligament area, B(W-a) (where B

is the specimen thickness, W is the depth, and a is the length of the notch

plus the crack) , will be smaller in the latter case because of the extension of

the notch by fatigue cracking. Thus, it is not accurate to directly compare

energies for the two types of specimens. A solution is to normalize the energy

values by dividing by the fracture ligament area.

4.1.4. True Energy Calculations

The value of the energy calculated from the area under the load- time curve

(equation 1) includes contributions due to the deflections of both the specimen

and that of the testing machine. A calculation of true energy absorbed,

therefore, needs to include a correction for the machine compliance.

For tests when fracture is linear elastic, the normalized value of EM can be

calculated directly from the area under the load-displacement curve:

PM d

EM = (3)

2B(W-a)

where d is displacement. Since the specimen compliance Cs , is defined as

Cs = d/P (4)

it follows that

Em

2 C s Em = (5)

2B(W-a)

For a calculation of Cs see Appendix B.

When general yield occurs before fracture a correction must be made to equation

1. If the total energy under the load- time curve is UM , then the true energy

absorbed at maximum load, EM , is given by

Em ~ - (6)

2B (W- a)

where CM is the machine compliance and can be calculated from

CM = CT

- Cs (7)

3
where CT is the total system compliance. Therefore

2

( ‘ ) Em = UM (8)

2B (W- a)

For a calculation of CT see Appendix B.

The value of EM obtained is a measure of the initiation energy, i.e. the energy

required to initiate cracking.

4.1.5. Total Energy Absorbed

The values of total energy absorbed were obtained from the dial energy

recorded. As was described in section 4.1.3. a direct comparison of energies

absorbed in different specimens is achieved by normalizing the energy values by

the fracture ligament area, i.e. by B(W-a)

.

4.1.6. Calculations of Dynamic Fracture Touehness

4 . 1 . 6 . 1

.

Linear Elastic Fracture Toughness

The dynamic fracture toughness, KID can be calculated from the measured value

of maximum load, PM , and the initial specimen dimensions, in the manner

specified by ASTM Method E399-74. The general specimen size requirements of

this method appear to be too conservative for dynamic testing ( 4 } ( 5

)

. It is

therefore suggested by Server' 3

}

that as long as general yielding has not

occurred, a linear elastic value of fracture toughness can be calculated.

The relationship for Kx D in units of psiVin (MPaVm) , where B=W and S=4W is

Kid = PM h(a/W) (9)

where B is specimen thickness, S is the support span, W is the specimen depth,

a is the crack length and the function h(a/W) is given in Appendix C.

The fracture toughness values can be reported as KID (tM ) where the time value,

tM , references the relative testing rate in units of seconds. The stress

intensity rate, K, can be calculated as

^ _ ^id/^ (10)

For impact loading a minimum value of K obtained is of the order of

0.9 x 10 5 ksi . in 1

1

2 /s (1 x 10 5 MPam

1 /

2

/s)

.

4
4.

1.6.2.

Post General Yield Fracture Toughness

When general yielding occurs a valid KID cannot be determined from a linear

elastic analysis. An energy-based value of the J integral can be used to

obtain a measure of fracture toughness

.

( 3

}

When the initiation load can be

determined and a/W > 0.5 (6)(7)

J ID = 2EM /B(W-a) (11)

A dynamic value of the toughness KJD can be given as

Kjd = (EJ id ) 1/2 (12)

where E is Young's Modulus. Therefore

Kjd = (2EE„/B(W-a)) 1/2 (13)

4.1.7. Dynamic Yield Stress

The dynamic yield stress, aYD ,* can be calcuated from an equation of the form ( 4

5

aYD APG Y W

B (W- a)

z (14)

where A is a constant. The upper and lower bounds for the value of A are given

by Knott ( 8

)

to be about 2.5 and 4. For the present work, following Server (

9

’ 10

)

, a value of 3.3 was used.

4.2.

Dynamic Tear Tests

Testing procedure followed that given in ASTM Method E604-77. The specimen

dimensions were: length 7.125 in (181 mm), width 1.6 in (40.6 mm) and

thickness 0.625 in (15.9 mm).

5 . PREVIOUS RESULTS

5.1. Compositions and Properties

The chemical compositions, as determined by check chemical analyses of the

plate samples, are given in Tables 1 and 2. Results of these analyses along

with those for macroscopic observations, metallographic analyses, hardness

measurements, bend behavior and inclusion contents were given and discussed in

the two previous reports (1 > 2)

. Also given previously, and reproduced here,

were the tensile properties (Tables 3 and 4) for all three plates.

5.2. Charpy V-notch Tests

Figures 2-10 are given for comparison with the present work. They show the

results of the previously conducted Charpy V-notch (CVN) impact tests for both

longitudinal (LT) and transverse (TL) specimens. These include results for

5
energy absorption, lateral expansion, shear fracture appearance and nilductility temperature. Table 5 shows the transition temperatures for four

commonly reported fracture criteria: 15 ft-lbf energy absorption, 15 mil

lateral expansion, 50% shear fracture appearance and nil ductility. These

results have been discussed in the previous reports. Of note are the

transition temperatures for plate S which all fall within the normal tank car

service temperature range, e„g., a transition temperature of 67°F (19°C) for

the 15 ft- lbs energy absorption. This is cause for concern since it indicates

that for temperatures lower than 67°F (19°C) a crack that initiates may

propagate in a brittle fashion, possibly leading to fracture.

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.1. Instrumented Precrackc- d Charpv Tests

The raw and calculated data for all the precracked tests are given in Appendix

D, Tables D1 through D18. The tests from which these results were taken all

satisfied the acceptance criteria as discussed in section 4.1.2. and Appendix

A.

6.1.1. Energy Absorption - Raw Data Values

Figure 11-13 show the total energy absorbed, ET , as measured by the dial gauge,

for each of the plates, G, U, and S. Results are shown for both LT and TL

specimens. Figure 14 compares these results. Figures 15-17 show the energy

absorbed up to the point of maximum load, EM

. These values were calculated as described in section 4.1.3. Figure 18 compares the results presented in

Figures 15-17. Figures 19-21 compare EM and ET for TL specimens taken from

each plate. Figure 22 provides a comparison of all data in Figures 19-21.

It should be noted that Figures 11-22 show unnormalized energy absorption data.

In order to compare these values with those obtained for standard CVN specimens

they may be multiplied by (W-a 1 )/(W-a2 ) where a 1 is the standard notch length

and a2 is the length of the notch plus the fatigue crack. This corrects for

the different ligament areas as discussed in section 4.1.3. Using W - 0.394 in

(10 mm), a L =0.10 in (2.5 mm) and assuming that the fatigue crack is of length

0.10 in (2.5 mm), this factor becomes 1.5. Subsequent energy values quoted

have been corrected in this fashion.

The value of EM can be considered as a measure of the energy required to

initiate an extension to an existing sharp crack. It can be seen in Figure 22

that these energies, when corrected as described, are very small, of the order

of 5-6 ft-lbf (3.7 - 4.4 J) at the upper shelf and of less than 1 ft-lbf (.7 J)

at the lower shelf. Thus, as stated earlier, very little energy is needed to

initiate an extention of a sharp crack.

The values of ET are within a range of 22 to 29 ft-lbf (16 - 21 J) for the

upper shelf. These should be compared with the energies absorbed in the

standard CVN TL specimens which fall in a range of about 37 - 47 ft-lbf (27 - 35 J) on the upper shelf (Figures 2-4). It can be seen, therefore, that the

energies required to initiate and propagate an existing sharp crack are

6
considerably less that that needed to fracture a standard notched specimen.

6.1.2. Transition Temperatures

The transition region is the range of temperatures over which a transition from

brittle to ductile fracture is observed. At lower temperatures in the range

the fracture is predominately of a brittle or cleavage mode, while at higher

temperatures fracture is dominated by a ductile or fibrous mode. For plates G

and U the transition in precracked specimens occurs over a temperature range of

approximately -70 to -10 F (-56 to -23C)

.

For plate S the range is about 30 to

130 F (-1 to 54C)

.

As noted previously for the CVN specimens the latter

temperatures are within the range for normal tank car service. This indicates

that brittle crack propagation may occur at the lower temperatures of this

range

.

6.1.3. Normalized Energy

6 . 1 .

3

. 1

.

Total Energy Absorbed

Figures 23-25 show the values of the ET , the total energy absorbed for plates

G, U, and S respectively. These values were obtained from the dial energy

normalized by the ligament area as discussed in section 4.1.3.

6. 1.3. 2. Initiation Energy

Figures 26-28 show the initiation energies, EM , for each of the plates. These

values were obtained from the energy absorbed up to maximum load, UM , corrected

for the deflection of the testing machine as described in section 4.1.4. In

this case 'initiation' means the point of extension of the already existing

fatigue crack. It can be seen that on the lower shelf these values are very

low - of the order of 57 in-lbf/in2 (10 KJ/m2

) or less - for each of the

plates

.

6 . 1 . 3 . 3

.

Propagation Energy

The energy required for propagation of the crack was calculated as the

difference between total energy absorbed and initiation energy. The results

are plotted in Figures 29-31. For plates G and S the points are somewhat

scattered making it hard to evaluate lower or upper shelf values. However it

can be seen that these energies are considerably larger than those for

initiation

.

6. 1.3. 4. Transition Temperatures

The transition temperature ranges for total energies absorbed can be seen in

Figures 23 - 25. For plate TL specimens of plate G this range is about -40 to

20 F (-40 to -29C), of plate U about -50 to OF (-46 to -18C) and of plate S up

to about 125F (52C). These compare with values found for the 15 ft-lbf energy

absorption for TL specimens of -46F (-43C), -41F (-42C) and 67F (19C) for

plates G, U, and S respectively.

7
6.1.4. Dynamic Fracture Toughness

Figures 32-34 show the dynamic fracture toughness versus temperature for each

of the plates, G, U, and S. Figure 35 shows a comparison for valid Kj c results

from the three plates. Figure 36 includes all the KJD values for TL

orientation specimens of each plate.

For plate G (Figure 32) valid KID values are of the order of 50 ksl/in (55

MPa^/m) . The highest temperature at which a valid result was obtained was OF

(-18C). The transition temperature range was about -13 to 14F (-25 to -10C).

For the upper shelf there was a considerable difference in the toughness, KJD , between the LT and TL orientations. The former had a toughness of the order of

200 ksiVin (220 MPa./m) , while the latter was about 150 ksL/in (165 MPa^m) . This difference between the two orientations was also found in the energy

absorption results, see Figures 11 and 15. This is a consequence of a large

difference in the times taken to reach maximum load, tM , for specimens of the

two orientations. For the TL specimens tM is 3 to 5 times greater than for the

LT specimens, as can be seen in Table D1

.

For plate U (Figure 33) the results are not dependent on orientation. The

lower shelf fracture toughness is about 50 ksi^/m (55 MPa7m) , while that of the

upper shelf is of the order of- 180 ksi7in (200 MPaym) . The transition

temperature is around -15F (-26C). The highest temperature at which a valid

KIC was recorded was -30F (-34C).

For Plate S (Figure 34) the lower and upper shelves also have values of the

order of 40 and 180 ksi7in (44 and 200 MPaVm) respectively. The most

significant difference between Plate S and Plates G and U is that the

transition temperature of the former is about 122F (50C) , compared to a value

of about -13F (-25C) for the latter two plates. A valid KID of 39 ksi,/in (43

MPa/m) was obtained at a temperature of 125F (52C) . This indicates that at

temperatures up to around 125F (52C) an existing sharp crack subjected to

impact loading could propagate in a brittle fashion, possibly causing failure.

6.1.5. Dynamic Yield Stress

Figures 37-39 show the results for dynamic yield stresses for plates G, U, and

S, respectively. For plate G, there is a decrease in a^ D with increasing

temperature as would be expected. For plates U and S the results are so scattered that no trend is visible. At least part of this scatter is

attributable to the variation in the rate of testing as shown by the values of

tM given in the raw data tables in Appendix D.

6.2. Dynamic Tear Tests

Figures 40 and 41 show the energy absorbed in the dynamic tear tests for plates

G and S. No tests were carried out for plate U. Figure 42 compares the data

from Figures 40 and 41 . The results for plate G are somewhat scattered giving

a wide range for the transition temperature of about 0 to 80F (-18 to 27C)

which overlaps the range of about 60-80F (16 to 27C) for plate S. It should be

noted that for both plates these ranges include normal service temperatures for

tank cars

.
Figures 43 and 45 show a comparison of energy absorption results for Charpy Vnotch (CVN) , precracked Charpy (PCI) and dynamic tear (DT) transverse specimens

for plates G and S. The energy values are normalized so that the upper shelf

energies are all equal to 100 ft-lbf. Figure 44 shows the same results for

plate U with the exception of dynamic tear results which were not obtained for

this plate. The purpose of these figures is to show the variation in

transition temperature ranges for the three different tests.

For plate G the DT tests show a large upward shift of the transition

temperature compared to those for CVN and PCI tests. Since the specimens for

the DT test are larger than the Charpy specimens it is possible that the

greater constraint in the former leads to a higher transition temperature

range. As noted previously, this higher range includes normal operating

temperatures. For plate U the CVN and PCI results show ranges similar to each

other within experimental error. For plate S transition temperature ranges for

all three tests are within normal service temperatures.

7 . CONCLUSIONS

1. The results of the precracked Charpy tests show that:

a. The lower shelf for the normalized total energy absorbed is of the

order of 600 in-lbf/in2 (105 KJ/m2

) for plates G and U and about 1000 inlb f/in2 (175 KJ/m2

) for plate S.

b. The upper shelf for the normalized total absorbed energy is about 2300

in-lbf/in2 (403 KJ/m2

) for TL specimens of G, and 2500 in-lbf/in2 (438

KJ/m2

) for plate U and for TL specimens of plate S.

c. The transition temperature range for plate G is approximately -40 to

-20F (-40 to -29C), for plate U about -50 to OF (-46 to -18C), and for

plate S of up to 125 F (52C). For a plate containing a sharp crack,

brittle propagation may occur at and below the lower end of this range.

For plate S this is of concern since these temperatures include those

found under normal service conditions.

d. When a sharp crack is present in a plate the energy to initiate

further cracking is of the order of 57 in-lbf/in2 (10 KJ/m2

) or less for

all three plates.

e. Valid fracture toughness tests give KID values of about 46 ksi/in (50

MPa/m) for all three plates.

f. Upper shelf values of post general yield fracture toughness, KJD , are

approximately 137 ksi/in (150 MPa/m) for all three plates.

g. The transition temperatures for fracture toughness values are of the

order of -13F (-25C) for plates G and U, and 122F (50C) for plate S.

h. The dynamic yield stresses calculated show a wide scatter believed to

be largely caused by differences in the rate of testing.

9
2. The results of the dynamic tear tests show that:

a. For plate G the transition temperature range is considerably higher

than that for the precracked Charpy tests, i.e. about 0 to 120F (-18 to

49C) compared to about -40 to -20F (-40 to -29C). Since the specimens for

the dynamic tear tests are larger than the Charpy specimens it is possible

that the greater constraint in the former leads to a higher transition

temperature range. It should be noted that this higher range includes

normal service temperatures

.

b. For plate S the transition temperature range for the dynamic tear test

is about 60 to 130F (16 to 54C) compared to a precracked Charpy range of

up to 125F (52C). Both ranges include normal service temperatures.

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express thanks to Mr . D.E. Harne for his contribution to

the mechanical testing involved in this project, and to Mrs. J. Vaughan for

typing the manuscript and to the Federal Railroad Administration for support

and valuable comments and advice.

10
REFERENCES

1. Early, J.G., "A Metallurgical Analysis of an ASTM A212-B Steel Tank Car

Head Plate," Report No. NBSIR-78- 1582 , National Bureau of Standards, Sept

1978.

2. Early, J.G., and Interrante , C.G., "A Metallurgical Evaluation of Two AAR

M128 Steel tank Car Head Plates Used in Switchyard Imact Tests," Report

No. NBSIR- 80- 2039 , National Bureau of Standards, May 1980.

3. Server, W.L., "Impact Three-Point Bend Testing for Notched and Precracked

Specimens," Journal of Testing and Evaluation, JTEVA, Vol. 6, No. 1, Jan.

1978, pp 29-34.

4. Server, W.L., Wullaert, R.A., and Sheckherd, J.W„, "Verification of the

EPRI Dynamic Fracture Toughness Testing Procedures, "Report TR75-42,

Effects Technology, Inc., Santa Barbara, California, October 1975.

5. Wullaert, R.A.

,

Oldfield, W. , and Server, W.L., "Fracture Toughness Data

for Ferritic Nuclear Pressure Vessel Materials: Task A, "Final Report to

the Electric Power Research Institute on Research Project PR232-1, EPRI

Report NP-121, Palo Alto,- California, April 1976.

6. Rice, J.R., "Mathematical Analyses in the Mechanics of Fracture," in

Fracture, An Advance Treatise, Vol. 2, H. Liebowitz, Ed., Academic Press,

New York 1968

.

7. Sumpter, J.D.G. and Turner, C.E., "Method for Laboratory Determination of

J c

,

in Cracks and Fracture, STP 601, American Society for Testing and

Materials, Philadelphia, 1976, pp . 3-18.

8. Knott, J.F., "Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics," Butterworths , 1973, pp

37-38.

9. Server, W.L. and Wullaert, R.A.

,

"Dynamic Three-Point Bend Analysis for

Notched and Precracked Samples," Fracture Control Corporation, FCC 76-8,

Aug . 1976.

10. Server, W.L., "Dynamic Fracture Toughness Determined from Instrumented

Precracked Charpy Tests," UCLA- ENG- 7267 , Aug. 1972.

11
Table 1. Chemical Compositions of Plates G and U.

Percent by Weight

Element

Specification

AAR M128-69

Ladle Analysis

Tank Car Tank Car

GATX 93412 UTLX 38498

(

(a)

Check Analysis

Grade A Grade B

Carbon 0.25 max 0.23 0.24

Manganese 1.35 max 1 . 15 1.24

Phosphorus 0 . 04 max 0.01 0.01

Sulfur 0.05 max 0.017 0.014

Silicon 0.30 max 0.19 0.28

Copper (b) 0.35 max 0.02 0.06

Nickel (b) 0.25 max 0.20 0.15

Chromium (b) 0.25 max 0.09 0.06

Molybdenum (b) 0.07 max 0.05 0.01

Vanadium 0.02 min (c) 0.026 0.01

Aluminum (c) 0.02 0.025

(a) Carbon was determined by combustion- conductometric analysis; all other

elements were determined by emission spectroscopy.

(b) Element not specified.

(c) Element not specified, fine grain practice is required.

(d) Producers Report: UTLX 38498 plate sample is reported to be Kawasaki heat

number 91-7850, AAR M128-B, with the ladle analysis of 0.25 carbon, 1.30

manganese, 0.0015 phosphorus, 0.0019 sulfur, 0.29 silicon, 0.08 copper, 0.15

nickel, 0.05 chromium, and 0.0015 molybdenum; all weight percent.

12
Table 2. Chemical Compositions of Plate S

Percent by Weight

Element

Specification

ASTM A212-65-B

Ladle Analysis Check Analv

Carbon 0.31 max 0.24

Manganese 0.90 max 0.73

Phosphorus 0 . 04 max <0.005

Sulfur 0.05 max 0.026

Silicon 0.13/0.33 (b) 0.26

Copper (c) <0.05

Nickel (c) <0.05

Chromium (c) 0.07

Molybdenum (c) <0.05

Vanadium (d) <0.01

Aluminum (d) <0.01

(a) Carbon was determined by combusion- conductometric analysis; all other

elements were determined by emission spectroscopy.

(b) Check analysis

(c) Element not specified

(d) Element not specified, either fine-or coarse-grain practice allowed.

13
Pc 03 03 «—

H

r-H 03 0) 03 «—1 »tH 13 40 40 r-H r—1 40 40 40 t=H o 03 P P cd cd P P P cd

CL, > cd cd E E cd cd cd E P P P 40 40 P P P 40

13 03 r-H cn - - •» -

0) 43 CO CO CO co CO CO CO CO

•rH

O 03 03 03 03 03 o 03 03 03 o x X X X X X 23 X X X 2 Co cd P

•rH 03 c p p 03

O

m Csl cn LO <r o O

O CO o 00 CTL o < a • • • • o • • • • • • • p m cn cn i". r-- «-H *-H o r-H CTl O

13 44 03 l£> LO LO

nnn LO LO LO LO LO

n LO

a; o IP

DiC c xi o •rH 'w

•rH1 P p p o r-* I"- CO

O CTl <t OL LO r-H r-H o

cd c c 0 • • o 0 • • • • • • • 40 03 •fH CTL cn s-H LO r- LO rH cn o v-H o o CN C a CN cn cn CN CN CN cn cn CO on cn cn cn o p 03 r-H 03 C

CjJ CP

O

"G

p *-Hm cn cn cn o <f CN <f un

r-H c •rH • • • <3 <3 • a) •rH CO ao CO 00 o \ H O n \ CTL

•rH o PC

m

nn

n

n

n LO 2 LO LO

n 2 LO

X

pp

03 P CO p 4-1 15 bO 4-1 r-H CN

n CNn CO C3L r- OL CN

c—

H

CO •rH • • o • • • • • • a) a; CO LO n n LO LO LO 00 CN r'' LO r-H cn

•rH

p <#> PC LO

nn

nnnnnnnnnm >-• p CN

40 o D p

0)

p

13 l—1

40 LO t—Hn

O CN LO CN 00

n OL r-H <f

G •rH c C «H

cd cn 0) CO <r

OO o CO 00 oo CO 00 OO

C

u PC CO CO 00 CTL OL CTL CO 00 00 oo oo oo OO

O a;

p

H CO

cn0) P

cd r—1

CN P P

Cm

OO t-H CN P H H 2

4-1 cd 1 1 e> C3

H

O V-/ 03 03 1 p 03 C C 03 r—1 r-H 40 i 1 40 43

cn 03 o 13 cd cd cd cd 1 cd

a> E •rH

O

C

C

p 03 03 P cd

p

•rH •r-1 p

O •rH •rH 03 CO CO 03

C CD 03

p o cd 13 13 > p P > •»H CO > p 03 p 13 33 3 < 03 03 < 13 p rH CN cn <

CD P C

C P P > > 33 03 P P pp P 40 03 cd •rH •rH CO CO P > o °fH 40 40 C C •rH CO 1 1 i 1 p p C c cd cd 40 c

CL) o O o p P c cd

O

O o O P p H H o P n n n n

0)

pH r-H

•rH

C

cn o C •H

03p

p

H cd cd CN CN CN CN 00 oo 00 oo 00 oo

CJ 43 t-H r-H • 1 r-H OL O' OL OL OL CTL

•rH <f <f -CT <f <t <f OO

m

p

p CO cn cn cn CO oo oo CO CO CTl

C •H CTl CTl OL O' cn cn cn cn cn cn

a) cd

p

t——1 H c X

X

X

XX

X

X XI

X

X P 03 H H H H p p p p P p

cd 13 < < < < H

H

HHXH

H hH CJ3OOO P P P P p P

03

X 13 P

44 c 03 P

•H cd 13 I o cd 44 p 03

03 cn E O o P P p c P

cn •rH CD

O •rH E X -P t —

cn P P o P

CD 0)

G cd o P o P cd P in 40

G

-o o • c o

03 03

O 03 •rH

m

N •=H JZ r-H

p

•rH cd

p cd cd 1 cn •rH 0) a O P 03 P 00 •rH r-- 0) 03 O p cd 44 m p P C •rH 40 •rH <3 03 cd «h 1 a P E co p 03 S 5 c 4) a H 03 <D G cn 40 P E • s •rH < cd cd p •rH 1 03 P cn C a r-H P p cd 03 P C 0) P P cd O p p cn cn o a •H 33 P C P p p P o 03 p

cd 44 o P •rH 13 p C o p CD C o 13 P

03 •rH cn -4pp cd •rH p G 03 o 03 p p 43 03 P 44 P E o 03 s E o P •H cn 03 cd 43 c •rH O »P E •rH 03 13 03 cd 13 X CTL E a, cn cn 1 r—H

r-H •rH c-H cn

C P P o cd o CD 43 43

03

C 44 -P P G 03 c P •rH O cn p •rH P

•rH cn 13

C I •r-l E 33 cn a3 cn o 13 p P o> E •rH in O cn •rH N -P CN 03 • 03 40 •p 13 P • P o p c cn p o

in o r-H 40 c

r-H

p cd c cd cd 44 c c 0) a

•rH 03 03

O r-H P

43 P ?H ®iH

p

G

03 P 0) P 03 •rH 03 P 44 43 40 E

cn e • 44 0) cd •rH •rH 03 •P cn 40 C 4) p c 13 1 CD 03 0 P o cn CD E P C 03 13 E cn P •H cn P O o P 43 o cn cn cn P P <D P 'w' CD 03 •H 44 43 o a p • O p p cn 40 P

>3

C T> 40 13

O c P

cd •rH

X

G CD P cd 0) 03 40 E E CTL p=H •i4 G 03 P r-H G

LO r“H P •p P pp 03

O o 1 cd cn cd

p cd 03 r-H 00 33 03 P 40 p 40

r-H r-H CN cn

p P G r-H o cd 03 o OO r-H 33 O 03 cd 44 40 b0

r-H S 03 r-H

C I cd 0) cn cd o 13 P 00

pH P P P 03 •rH

C 43 1 cd 03 Cd 40 p cd G P > 13 Cd o •rH 4)

cn cn 40 CD 0) 1 c c p C c cn txO r-H *iH o 43 cd O 03 1 cd ! •rH 33 P •P P cn 40 03 CN p T3 p P P cn 1 P

cd

O cd o p P cd o P 40 4-) p o

•rH P p c o 43 c E C

44 •rH o •rH

O o

•H r-H

rP o 03 1 P o 03 cn 0) “p P CN 44 13

03 03 03

p P 03 c P P •rH 44 Cd cd cd cn o cn cn 44 O P 44 p cd CTL •rH O P cd P 13 p LO 03 p p C 03 p P 03

cd 1 P p cn

O P P •rH

p •rH 43 CO P 40 33 cn p O C G 44

•rH CN •l—) •rH

O o 03 •H

4-4 r-H P o P 13 P p •rH s O

•H S 40

p CD Cd 03 CD

p 03 03 43 33 4) a. 13 03 P cd P P

a; fYj

O •rH s P 0) 40 •rH cn

p P p > o > cd E c G

40 P cd

p 43O

G cd o cr

p

*—

H

p 03 P cr •rH *—

H

03 o < p cn < a cn T3 03 p 2

14
Table 4. Tensile Properties of Plate S

Specimen Tensile Yield Strength Yield Elongation Reduction

Orientation(a) Strength 0 .2% Offset Point Percent in of Area

and Code ksi ksi ksi one inch(b) Percent

Longitudinal - SL1 68.1 33.0 35.0 37.7 61.3

Longitudinal - SL2 67.7 33.0 33.4 37.1 61.5

Average 67.9 33.0 34.2 37.4 61.4

Transverse - STl 67.7 32.2 34.3 35.5 56.4

Transverse - ST2 67.6 32.2 N/A 36.0 58.0

Average 67.6 32.2 34.3 35.8 57.2

Specification 85.0 max (c) 38.0 min 21 (c)

ASTM A212-B-65 70.0 min

(a) Although the specification ASTM A212-65 does not specify test specimen

orientation

,

ASTM A370-73 does specify that wrought steel products are

usually tested in the longitudinal direction but that where size

permits and service justifies it, transverse testing is done.

(b) A comparison of elongation data obtained from different sizes of

specimens of the same mateial can be made prodived the ratio of the

gage length to cross-sectional dimensions is held constant. Since the

ratio of the square root of the cross-sectional area to the gage length

is the same for the specimen with a 0 . 500

inch- diameter with a 2- inchgage and for the specimen with a 0.250-inch-diameter with a 1-inch-gage

length, the elongation data from the 1-inch-gage length specimen can be

directly compared to the specification requirement based on a 2- inchgage length.

(c) Not specified.

15
Table 5. Charpy V-notch Impact and Drop Weight Transition Temperatures for

Plates G, U, and S.

Transition Temperature, F/C

15 ft-lbf 15 mil 50% Nil

Specimen Energy Laterial Shear Ductility

Plate Orientation Absorption Expansion Fracture Temp

G LT -58F -64 -30 -20

-50C -53 -34 -29

G TL -46 -50 -17

-43 -46 -27

U LT -47 -46 -7 -40

-44 -43 -22 -40

u TL -42 -46 4

-41 -43 16

s LT 66 50 111 30

19 10 44 -1

s TL 67 44 100

19 7 38

16
APPENDIX A

Limitations Required for a Valid Test

As discussed in detail by Server ( 3

)

the following limitations need to be

satisfied to ensure acceptable load and available energy values:

1.

t > 3r (Al)

where t is the time of any event being considered, and r is related to the

period of inertial oscillations in the contact load between tup and specimen,

r is predicted empirically for S/W = 4 to be

r = 3. 36(W/S 0 ) (EBCS ) 1/2 (A2)

where W is specimen width, S is support span, B is specimen thickness, S 0 is

speed of sound in the specimen, E is Young's Modulus and C s is specimen

compliance. (See Appendix B.)

2.

tM > 1.1 Tr (A3)

where TR is the frequency response time of the instrumentation and is given by

Tr - 0.35/f0 _ gi5db (A4)

where f0 915dB is the frequency at a 0.915db attenuation (10% voltage

attenuation) of a sine wave superimposed on the output of the strain gauge

bridge circuit.

3. TR > 1.4r (A5)

where TR and r are defined as in equation A1-A4. Specifying a minimum TR for

the curve fitting of the oscillations reduces the amplitude of the

oscillations so that the disparity between tup contact load and the effective

minimum load is minimal.

4. UQ > 3Em (A6)

where UQ is the total available energy at impact (section 4.1.3.) and EM is

the energy absorbed by the specimen at maximum load. This requirement is

based on minimizing the reduction to hammer velocity during the period needed

to reach maximum load.

17
APPENDIX B

Compliance Calculations

For each test specimen the compliance of the total system (CT ) and that of the

specimen (Cs ) were calculated. Subtracting Cs from CT gave the machine

compliance (CM ).

Server ( 3

]

gives an equation for the total system complicance calculated at

general yield and corrected for the decrease in velocity through general

yield

CT = (V0 tGY /PGY )

- (VQ

2 tGY /8EQ ) (Bl)

where V0 is the impact velocity, tGY is time to general yield and PGY is load

at general yield. For typical values of V0 , tGY , and E0 used in the present

tests the second term of equation Bl is of the order of 0.1% of the first term

and is thus not considered significant.

The specimen compliance C s was calculated from

C s = 72 [ f ( a/W) + 0.215(1 - i/)]/(EB) (B2)

where E is Young's Modulus, B is specimen thickness and f(a/W) is given by

1 . 86 ( a/W) 2 - 3.95 (a/W) 3 + 16.4(a/W) 4 - 37.2(a/W) 5 + 77.6(a/W) 6

- 127 (a/W) 7 + 173 (a/W) 8 - 144(a/W) 9 + 66.6(a/W) 2 (B3)

The machine compliance CM was obtained from

= 0 T

- Cg (B4)

Values of CM , CT , Cs are tabulated in Appendix D, Tables D3 , 6, 9, 12, 15, and

18.

18
APPENDIX C

Values of the Function h(a/W) Used to Calculate Klr

a/W h(a AH a/W h( a/W)

0.450 36.86 0.520 45.92

0.455 37.41 0.525 46.70

0.460 39.98 0.530 47.49

0.465 38.55 0.535 48.31

0.470 39.15 0.540 49.14

0,475 39.75 0.545 50.00

0.480 40.37 0.550 50.88

0.485 41.01 0.555 51.78

0.490 41.66

0.495 42.33

0.500 43.01

0.505 43.71

0.510 44.43

0.515 45.17

19
APPENDIX D

Table D1 . Raw Data for Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate G, Orientation LT

Specimen

Code

Test

Temperature

F

C

Dial

Energy

ft-lbf

J

Loads

^GY

Ibf lbf

N N

Times

tGY

ms

tM

ms

Initiation

Energy

ft-lbf

J a/W

GL6 -20 14.5 1412 1472 0.19 0.22 0.8 0.48

-29 19.7 6282 6549 1.0

GL1

1

-10 20.4 1338 1422 0.18 0.79 4.8 0.50

-23 27.7 5951 6324 6.5

GL4 -10 23.6 1301 1437 0.25 1.12 6,6 0.50

-23 32.0 5786 6391 8.9

GL2 0 18.5 1351 1486 0.17 0.74 4.7 0.48

-18 25.1 6010 6624 6.3

GL8 15 23.5 1312 1450 0.17 0.80 4.9 0.49

-9 31.9 5834 6448 6.7

20
Table D2 Results of Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate G, Orientation LT

Dynamic

Specimen

Code

Test

Temp . F

C

Yield

Stress

ksi

MPa

GL6 -20 113.1

-29 779.7

GL11 -10 112.6

-23 776.4

GL4 -10 109.5

-23 754.9

GL2 0 108.2

-18 746.0

GL8 15 107.1

-9 738.7

Normalized

Energies

in- lbf/in2

Total

KJ/M2 Init

.

Prop

2175 56 2119

381 10 371

3138 689 2449

550 121 429

3630 908 2722

636 159 477

2776 650 2126

486 114 372

3561- 694 2867

624 121 502

Fracture

Toughness

ksi7in

MPa./m

KTn K-rn

Stress

Intensity

Rate

ksi7in/s

MPa./m/s

58.5 0.26E6

- 64.3 0.29E6

- 204.2 0. 26E6

- 224.4 0.28E6

234.4 0.21E6

- 257.6 0.23E6

- 198.1 0.27E6

- 217.7 0.29E6

- 204.4 0.25E6

- 224.7 0. 28E6

21
Table D3 . Young's Modulus and Compliance Values for Plate G, Orientation LT

Specimen

Temp

F

C

YM

ksi x 10 3 MPa x 10 3

cT in-lbf" 1 x 10" 6 mN" 1 x 10“ 8

cs in-lbf" 1 x 10" 6 mN" 1 x 10" 8

i in-lbf" 1

: mN” 1 x

GL6 -20 30 8,8 4.5 4.3

-29 207 5.0 2.6 2,5

GLl 1 -10 30 CO oo 4.7 4.1

-23 207 5.0 2.7 2.3

GL4 -10 30 13.0 4.7 7.9

-23 207 7.4 2.7 4.5

GL2 0 30 8.2 4.5 3.7

-17 207 4.7 2.6 2.1

GL8 15 30 8.5 4 .

6

3.9

-9 207 4.8 2.6 2.2

10" 6

- 8

22
Table D4 . Raw Data for Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate G, Orientation TL

Specimen

Code

Test

Temperature

F

C

Dial

Energy

ft-lbf

J

Loads

^GY

lbf lbf

N N

Times

tG Y ms ms

Initiation

Energy

ft-lbf

J a/W

GT29 -60 4.2 - 912 -

. 140 .2 .50

-51 5.7 - 4057 .3

GT12 -60 5.3 - 1228 • .180 .4 .48

-51 7.2 - 5463 .6

GT3 -40 14.9 1314 1490 . 200 .260 . 9 .48

-40 20.2 5846 6629 1.2

GT8 -40 6.5 1250 . 180 . 5 .48

-40 8.8 - 5560 .7

GT30 -30 7.0 _ 1174 . 180 .4 .51

-34 9.5 - 5224 .6

GT9 -20 14.7 1301 1423 .210 .260 .8 .48

-29 19.9 5789 6332 1.1

GT1

7

-20 11.5 1274 1344 .220 .290 .8 .50

-29 15.6 5667 5978 1.1

GT20 -10 14.4 1325 1325 .210 .210 1.0 .50

-23 19.5 5895 5895 . 14

GT2 -10 14.7 1242 1342 . 170 .210 . 8 .50

-23 19.9 5525 5969 1 .

1

GT36 0 13.7 1070 1170 . 170 .440 2.1 .53

-18 18.6 4760 5204 2.8

GT4 0 15.7 _ 1417 _

. 190 . 8 .48

-18 21.3 - 6304 1.0

GT14 15 14.8 1277 1289 . 190 . 520 2.6 .49

-9 20.1 5682 5736 3.5

GT13 15 14.3 1255 1311 . 180 ,500 2.7 .49

-9 19.4 5582 5831 3.7

GT23 60 14.1 1085 1187 . 160 510 2.5 .51

16 19.1 4827 5281 3.4

23
Table D4 . Continued.

Specimen

Code

Test

Temperature

F

C

Dial

Energy

f t- lbf

J

Loads

PGY

lbf

N

lbf

N

Times

CG Y ms ms

Initiation

Energy

ft- lbf

J a/W

GTl 6 90 14.6 1115 1191 . 180 .670 3.3 .50

32 19.8 4959 5297 4.5

GT5 90 15.5 1182 1280 . 156 .464 3.6 .48

32 21.0 5257 5693 4.9

24
Table D5 Results of Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate G, Orientation TL

Specimen

Code

Test

Temp . F

C

Dynamic

Yield

Stress

ksi

MPa

Normalized

Energies

in- lbf/in2 KJ/M2 Total Init. Prop.

Fracture

Toughness

ksiVin

MPa,/m

KTn K Tn

Stress

Intensity

Rate

ksiVin/s

MPa,/m/s

GT29 -60 > 76.8 646 23 624 38~. 8 - 0.28E6

-51 >529.3 113 4 109 42.7 - 0.30E6

GT12 -60 > 97.4 791 38 754 49.8 0.28E6

-51 >671.5 139 7 132 54.8 - 0.30E6

GT3 -40 104.2 2225 85 2140 - 71.7 0. 27E6

-40 718.5 390 15 375 - 78.8 0.30E6

GT8 -40 > 99.1 970 39 931 50.7 _ 0.28E6

-40 >683.9 170 7 163 55.7 - 0. 31E6

GT30 -30 >101 .

9

1093 40 1054 51.2 0.28E6

-34 >702.7 191- 7 185 56.3 - 0. 31E6

GT9 -20 103.2 2195 74 2120 _ 67.1 0.26E6

-29 711.5 384 13 371 - 73.7 0.28E6

GT1

7

-20 108.3 1778 79 1699 - 69.2 0. 24E6

-29 746.9 311 14 298 - 76.1 0. 26E6

GT20 -10 112.7 2226 100 2126 _ 77.8 0.37E6

-23 776.9 390 18 372 - 85.5 0.41E6

GT2 -10 104.5 2261 81 2180 69.9 0. 33E6

-23 720.8 396 14 382 - 76.8 0.36E6

GT36 0 102.1 2243 295 1948 _ 133.5 0.30E6

-18 703.7 393 52 341 - 146.7 0.33E6

GT4 0 >111.3 2333 50 2283 57.0 0. 30E6

-18 >767 .

3

408 9 400 62.7 - 0.33E6

GT14 15 105.4 2254 349 1905 145.0 0.28E6

-9 726.6 395 61 334 - 159.3 0. 31E6

GTl 3 15 104.6 2189 361 1828 147.5 0. 29E6

-9 720.9 383 63 320 - 162.1 0.32E6

GT23 60 97.1 2237 361 1876 146.9 0.29E6

16 669.8 392 63 329 - 161.4 0. 32E6

25
Table D5 . Continued.

Specimen

Test

Temp

F

Dynamic

Yield

Stress

ksi

Normalized

Energies

in - Ibf/'in2 KJ/M2

Fracture

Toughness

ksl/in

MPa^m

Stress

Intensity

Rate

ksl/in/s

Code C MPa Total Init

.

Prop

.

kip K Tp MPa./m/

GT16 90 94.8 2257 458 1800 165.1 0.25E6

32 653.6 395 80 315 - 181.4 0.27E6

GTS 90 92.8 2303 451 1851 164.0 0. 35E6

32 639.8 403 79 324 - 180.2 0.39E6

26
Table D6 . Young's Modulus and Compliance Values for Plate G, Orientation TL

Specimen

Temp

F

C

YM

ksi x 10 3 MPa x 10 3

CT in- lbf” 1 x 10” 6 mN” 1 x 10” 8

cs in- lbf” 1 x 10” 6 mN” 1 x 10” 8

CM in- lbf” 1

: mN” 1 x

GT29 -60 33 7.7 4.3 3.4

-51 228 4.4 2.5 1 .

9

GT12 -60 33 7.4 4.0 3.4

-51 228 4.2 2.3 1.9

GT3 -40 30 7.7 4.4 3.3

-40 207 4.4 2.5 1 . 9

GT8 -40 33 9.4 4.0 5.4

-40 228 5.4 2.3 3.1

GT30 -30 33 7.7 4.4 3.3

-34 228 4.4 2.5 1 .

9

GT9 -20 30 8.1 4.4 3.7

-29 207 4.6 2.5 2.1

GT17 -20 30 8.7 4.8 4.0

-29 207 5.0 2.7 2.3

GT20 -10 30 9.6 4.8 4.8

-23 207 5.5 2.7 2.7

GT2 -10 30 8.9 4.7 4.2

-20 207 5.1 2.7 2.4

GT36 0 30 10.0 5 .

4

5.0

-18 207 5.7 3.1 2.9

GT4 0 33 oo OO 4.0 4.7

-18 223 5.0 2.3 2.7

GT14 15 30 9.0 4.6 4.4

-9 207 5.1 2.6 2.5

GT13 15 30 9.4 4.7 4.7

-9 207 5.4 2.7 2.7

GT23 60 30 9.6 5.1 4.5

16 207 5.5 2.9 2.6

GT16 90 30 11.0 4.8 5.7

32 207 6.3 2.7 3.2

GT5 90 30 12.0 4.5 8.0

32 207 6.8 2.6 4.-6

27
Table D7 . Raw Data for Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate U, Orientation LT

Specimen

Code

Test

Temperature

F

C

Dial

Energy

ft-lbf

J

Loads

^GY

lbf

N

lbf

N

Times

tG Y mstM ms

Initiation

Energy

ft-lbf

J a/W

UL8 -40 7.8 1165 1267 . 180 .270 1.0 .51

-40 10.6 5180 5634 1.3

UL418 -30 8.7 1084 1428 . 140 .250 .9 .48

-34 11.8 4622 6352 1.2

UL23 -20 11.8 1336 1400 . 190 .360 1.9 .48

-29 16.0 5943 6227 2.6

UL417 -15 7.8 1185 1581 . 150 .260 1.3 .46

-26 10.6 5273 7034 1.8

UL115 0 18 . 0

- 1119 1469 . 150 .490 2.9 .48

-18 24.4 4977 6534 3 . 9

UL7 40 17.7 1140 1362 . 180 . 660 3.7 .49

4 24.0 5071 6058 5.0

UL822 90 15.9 1287 1531 .250 .610 3.5 .47

32 21.6 5723 6808 4.8

UL1

1

90 18 .

1

1026 1270 . 150 .810 4.3 .50

32 24.5 4564 5649 5.9

28
Table D8

.

Results of Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate U, Orientation LT

Specimen

Code

Test

Temp

.

F

C

Dynamic

Yield

Stress

ksi

MPa

Normalized

Energies

in- lbf/in2 KJ/M2 Total Init. Proo

.

Fracture

Toughness

ksi7in

MPaVm

KTn K Tn

Stress

Intensity

Rate

ksi7in/s

MPa,/m/s

UL8 -40 104.3 1237 118 1120 84.6 0. 31E6

-40 718.8 217 21 196 - 92.9 0. 34E6

UL418 -30 86.0 1299 95 1204 - 76.0 0.30E6

-34 592.7 227 17 211 - 83.5 0.33E6

UL23 -20 103.9 1745 221 1523 115.8 0. 32E6

-29 716.3 306 39 267 - 127.3 0. 35E6

UL412 -15 85.4 1110 124 986 86.6 0. 33E6

-26 588.9 194 22 173 - 95.2 0.36E6

UL115 0 87.0 2661' 368 2293 _ 149.1 0. 30E6

-18 599 .

9

466 65 402 - 163.9 0. 33E6

UL7 40 95.0 2709 494 2215 _ 172.3 0. 26E6

4 655.0 474 87 388 - 189.3 0.29E6

UL822 90 97.2 2317 395 1922 153.5 0.25E6

32 670.2 406 69 337 - 168.6 0.27E6

UL1

1

90 87.2 2798 621 2178 192.3 0.24E6

32 601.5 490 109 381 - 211.3 0.26E6

29
Table D9 . Young's Modulus and Compliance Values for Plate U, Orientation LT

Specimen

Temp

F

C

YM

ksi x 10 3 MPa x 10 3

C T in- lbf~ 1 x 10' 6 mN' 1 x 10“ 8cs in-lbf' 1 x 10" 6 mN" 1 x 10" 8cM

in-lbf-1: mN“ 1 x

UL8 -40 30 8 . 6 5.0 3.6

-40 207 4.9 2.9 2.1

UL418 -30 30 7.2 4.4 2.7

-34 207 4.1 2.5 1.5

UL23 -20 30 9.3 4.4 4.9

-29 207 5.3 2.5 2.8

UL417 -15 30 8.3 4.0 4.2

-9 207 4.7 2.3 2.4

UL115 0 30 8.8 4.4 4.4

-18 207 5.0 2.5 2.5

UL7 40 30 — o o

4.7 5.6

4 207 5.7 2.7 3.2

UL822 90 30 13.0 4.3 8.4

32 207 7.4 2.5 4.8

UL1

1

90 30 9.6 4.8 4.7

32 207 5.5 2.7 2.7

10“ 6

- 8

30
Table DIO. Raw Data for Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate U, Orientation TL

Specimen

Code

Test

Temperature

F

C

Dial

Energy

ft-lbf

J

Loads

PGY PM lbf lbf

N N

Times

tG Y ms

tM ms

Initiation

Energy

ft- lbf

J a/W

UT30 -80 3.5 728 868 . 180 .210 .3 .49

-62 4.7 3237 3949 .4

UT22 -60 4.5 - 1280 - .220 .6 .49

-51 6.1 - 5692 .8

UT20 -40 7.9 - 1176 - .200 .5 .49

-40 10.7 - 5229 .7

UT45 -40 6.4 _ 1095 _ .210 .4 .49

-40 8.7 - 4871 .5

UT34 -40 8.3' 1025 1027 . 150 . 170 .4 .50

-40 11.3 4561 4570 .5

UT12 -30 8.0 1218 - .190 .4 .49

-34 10.8 - 5419 .6

UT10 -20 12.3 1326 1326 .260 .280 .6 .48

-29 16.7 5899 5899 .8

UT46 -20 10.1 1109 1191 .240 .510 1.6 .48

-29 13.7 4932 5297 2.2

UT31 -20 9.5 1041 1155 . 190 .510 1.7 .52

-29 12.9 4629 5136 2.4

UT36 -15 13.0 1214 1388 . 170 .500 2.8 .49

-26 17.6 5399 6173 3.8

UT3 -15 13.1 1240 1382 . 180 .440 2.4 .48

-26 17.8 5517 6148 3.3

UT47 -15 11.7 1390 1436 .220 . 300 1.2 .48

-26 15.9 6182 6387 1.6

UT5 0 15.5 1128 1358 .200 .730 3.4 .51

-18 21.0 5018 6042 4.6

UT6 0 15.1 1249 1433 . 180 .490 2.8 .48

-18 20.5 5558 6376 3.8

UT338 0 14.6 1257 1331 .300 .490 2.2 .50

-18 19.8 5593 5922 3.0

31
Table DIO. Continued.

Specimen

Code

Test

Temperature

F

C

Dial

Energy

ft-lbf

J

Loads

^GY

lbf

N

Pm

lbf

N

Times

CGY

ms

CM ms

Initiation

Energy

ft-lbf

J a/W

UT9 15 15.8 1103 1271 . 170 .650 3.5 .52

-9 21.4 4908 5655 4.7

UT17 40 17.3 1178 1408 . 188 .504 2.7 .49

4 23.5 5239 6262 3.7

UT7 40 17.0 1160 1360 . 180 .660 3.7 .49

4 23.0 5158 6048 5.0

UT1 90 18.0 1493 1493 . 504 .504 4.6 .47

32 24.4 6643 6643 6.2

UT32 90 17.0' 1313 1313 .504 .504 4.0 .56

32 23.0 5840 5840 5.4

UT1

6

135 17.0 1339 1339 .498 .498 4.1 .49

57 23.0 5957 5957 5.6

UT8 135 15.5 1172 1172 .500 .500 3.5 .52

57 21.0 5212 5212 4.7

32
Table Dll. Results of Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate U, Orientation TL

Dynamic Normalized Fracture Stress

Specimen

Code

Test

Temp . F

C

Yield

Stress

ksi

MPa Total

Energies

in- lb f/ in2 KJ/M2 Init

.

Proo

.

Toughness

ksiVin

MPa./m

KTn K Tn

Intensity

Rate

ksl/in/s

MPa./m/s

UT30 -80 60.6 536 8 528 22.3 0.11E6

-62 418.2 94 1 92 - 24.5 0. 12E6

UT22 -60 >103.5 678 42 636 52.7 _ 0. 24E6

-51 >713.5 119 7 111 58.0 - 0. 26E6

UT20 -40 > 97.0 1203 37 1166 49.2 - 0.25E6

-40 >668.7 211 6 204 54.1 - 0.27E6

UT45 -40 > 89.4 970 31 938 45.5 _ 0.22E6

-40 >616.7 170 6 164 50.0 - 0.24E6

UT34 -40 87.2 1283- 23 1260 _ 37.6 0.22E6

-40 601.2 225 4 221 - 41.4 0.24E6

UT12 -30 >100.5 1218 40 1179 51.0 _ 0.27E6

-34 >692.9 213 7 206 56.1 - 0.30E6

UT10 -20 105.2 1836 29 1808 _ 41.6 0. 15E6

-29 725.1 322 5 317 - 45.7 0. 16E6

UT46 -20 86.2 1493 181 1312 _ 104.8 0.20E6

-29 594.5 262 32 230 - 115.2 0.22E6

UT31 -20 94.1 1515 242 1273 121.1 0.24E6

-29 649.0 265 42 223 - 133.0 0.26E6

UT36 -15 101.1 1990 375 1615 _ 150.6 0.30E6

-26 697.4 348 66 283 - 165.5 0. 33E6

UT3 -15 98.3 1956 299 1656 _ 134.6 0. 30E6

-26 678.1 343 52 290 - 148.0 0. 33E6

UT47 -15 108 .

1

1730 101 1629 78.2 0.26E6

-26 745.2 303 18 285 - 85.9 0.28E6

UT5 0 98.9 2433 468 1966 168.0 0. 23E6

-18 682.1 426 82 344 - 184.7 0.25E6

UT6 0 98 . 1 2243 352 1892 145.7 0.30E6

-18 688.4 393 62 331 - 160.1 0.33E6

UT338 0 108.0 2269 224 2045 _ 116.2 0.24E6

-18 744.7 397 39 358 - 127.7 0.26E6

33
TABLE Dll. CONTINUED

Specimen

Code

Test

Temp . F

C

Dynamic

Yield

Stress

ksi

MPa

Normalized

Energies

in- lbf/in2 KJ/M2 Total Init. Prop.

Fracture

Toughness

ksiVin

MPa./m

kid K td

Stress

Intensity

Rate

ksi7in/s

MPa,/m/s

UT9 15 99.8 2519 500 2020 173.5 0.27E6

-9 688.2 441 88 354 190.7 0.29E6

UT17 40 98.2 2621 345 2277 143.9 0. 28E6

4 663.3 459 60 399 158.1 0. 31E6

UT7 40 95.7 2589 498 2091 173.0 0.26E6

4 659.6 453 87 366 190.1 0.29E6

UT1 90 111 . 8 2611 588 2022 187.2 0.37E6

32 770.5 457 103 354 205.7 0.41E6

UT32 90 112.8 2642 562 2080 182.9 0. 36E6

32 777.7 463 98 364 201.0 0.40E6

UTl 6 135 108.3 2563 561 2002 182.1 0.36E6

57 746.8 449 98 351 200.1 0.40E6

UT8 135 107.1 2485 509 1976 173.5 0. 35E6

57 738.4 435 89 346 190.6 0.38E6

34
Table D12. Young's Modulus and Compliance Values for Plate U, Orientation TL

Temp

F

Specimen C

YM

ksi x 10 3 MPa x 10 3

CT in- lbf” 1 x 10" 6 mN" 1 x 10* 8 in- lbf' 1 x 10' 6 mN' 1 x 10" 8

CM

in- lbf' 1: mN' 1 x

UT30 -80 31 12.0 4.6 7.9

-62 214 6.8 2.6 4.5

UT22 -60 33 8.7 4.1 4.6

-51 228 5.0 2.3 2.6

UT20 -40 33 8.6 4.2 4.4

-40 228 4.9 2.4 2.5

UT45 -40 33 11.0 4.2 6.5

-40 228 6.3 2.4 3.7

UT34 -40 30 9.5 4.7 4.8

-40 207 5.4 2.7 2.7

UT12 -30 33 7.9 4.2 3.7

-34 228 4.5 2.4 2.1

UT10 -20 30 9.9 4.4 5.5

-29 207 5.6 2.5 3.1

UT46 -20 30 11.0 4.4 6.6

-29 207 6.3 2.5 3.8

UT31 -20 30 9.2. 5.1 4.2

-29 207 5.2 2.9 2.4

UT36 -15 30 9.1 4.7 4.5

-26 207 5.2 2.7 2.6

UT3 -15 30 9.5 4.4 5.0

-26 207 5.7 2.5 2.9

UT47 -15 30 10.0 4.4 6.0

-26 207 5.7 2.5 3.4

UT5 0 30 9.8 4.9 4.9

-17 207 5.6 2.8 2.8

UT6 0 30 9.4 4.4 5.0

-17 207 5.4 2.5 2.9

UT338 0 30 16.0 4.8 11.0

-17 207 9.1 2.7 6.3

10' 6

- 8

35
Table D12. Continued.

Specimen

Temp

F

C

YM

ksi x MPa x

CT 10 3 in-lbf 1 10 3 mN" 1 x

x 10" 6 10" 8

cs in-lbf" 1 x 10' 6 mN” 1 x 10' 8cM in-lbf" 1 x

10“'

mN" 1 x 10" 8

UT9 15 30 10.0 5.1 5.0

-9 207 5.7 2.9 2.9

UT1

7

40 30 10.0 4.6 5.7

4 207 5.7 2.6 3.2

UT7 40 30 10.0 4.7 5.5

4 207 5.7 2.7 3.1

UT1 90 30 9.7 4.3 5.4

32 207 5.5 2.5 3.1

UT32 90 30 o o

s-H 4.9 5.4

32 207 5.7 2.8 3.1

UT1

6

135 30 10.0 4.6 5.6

57 207 5.7 2.6 3.2

UT8 135 30 11.0 5.2 5.6

57 207 6.3 3.0 3.2

36
Table D13. Raw Data for Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate S, Orientation LT

Test Dial Loads Initiation

Specimen

Code

Temperature

F

C

Energy

ft-lbf

J

^GY

lbf

N

Pm

lbf

N

Times

CG Y ms ms

Energy

ft-lbf

J a/W

SL8 110 12.9 884 884 . 130 .4 .49

43 17.5 3932 3932 . 5

SL9 135 21.3 1012 1104 . 130 .990 4.5 .46

57 28.6 4502 4912 6.0

SL3 135 15.7 761 861 . 160 .190 .4 .50

57 21.3 3383 3828 .5

SL12 160 21.2- 842 1046 . 150 .980 3.9 .49

71 28.7 3744 4652 5.3

SLl 160 18.7 952 952 - .490 2.0 .52

71 25.4 4235 4235 2.7

SL5 200 25.1 1191 1191 - 1.250 6.1 .48

93 34.0 5300 5300 8.2

SL2 200 22.1 488 488 _ 1.030 4.3 .51

93 30.0 4393 4393 5.9

37
Table D14. Results of Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate S, Orientation LT

Specimen

Code

Test

Temp

.

F

C

Dynamic

Yield

Stress

ksi

MPa

Normalized

Energies

in- lbf/in2 KJ/M2 Total Init. Pron

.

Fracture

Toughness

ksiVin

MPa,/m

KIP K, d

Stress

Intensity

Rate

ksiVin/s

MPa./m/s

SL8 110 71.5 1945 28 1917 40.6 0.31E6

42 492.9 341 5 336 44.7 0.34E6

SL9 135 74.3 3060 613 2447 190.5 0. 19E6

57 512.4 536 107 428 209.3 0.21E6

SL3 135 65.3 2440 17 2422 32.1 0. 17E6

57 450.5 427 3 424 35.3 0. 19E6

SL12 160 68.8 3212 555 2657 180.9 0. 18E6

71 474.1 563 97 465 198.7 0. 20E6

SLl 160 88.9 3029 292 2738 131.1 0.27E6

71 612.9 531 51 479 144.0 0.29E6

SL5 200 93.6 3729 846 2883 222.6 0. 18E6

93 645.0 653 148 505 244.6 0. 19E6

SL2 200 88.4 3506 647 2859 194.6 0. 19E6

93 609.6 614 113 501 213.9 0. 21E6

38
Table D15. Young's Modulus and Compliance Values for Plate S, Orientation LT

Specimen

Temp

F

C

YM

ksi x 10 3 MPa x 10 3

C'p in-lbf" 1 x 10“ 6 mN-1 x 10“ 8

cs in-lbf-1 x 10" 6 mN" 1 x 10" 3

CM

in-lbf" 1

: mN" 1 x

SL8 110 30 10.0 4.6 5.4

43 207 5.7 2.6 3.1

SL9 135 30 7.8 4.2 3.6

57 207 4.4 2.4 2.1

SL3 135 30 14.0 4.9 8.8

57 207 8.0 2.8 5.0

SL12 160 29 11.0 4.7 6.1

71 200 6.3 2.7 3.5

SLl 160 29 11.0 5.4 5.8

71 200 6.3 3.1 3.3

SL5 200 29 11.0 4.6 6.0

93 200 6.3 2.6 3.4

SL2 200 29 11.0 5.2 6.0

93 200 6.3 3.0 3.4

39
Table D16. Raw Data for Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate S, Orientation TL

Specimen

Code

Test

Temperature

F

C

Dial

Energy

ft-lbf

J

Loads

Y lbf Ibf

N N

Times

tG Y ms ms

Initiation

Energy

ft-lbf

J a/W

ST9 40 6.6 - 826 - . 140 . 3 .49

4 8.9 - 3674 .4

ST21 70 9.5 - 840 - 150 . 3 .48

21 12.9 - 3738 .4

ST2 100 11.2 954 954 .180 . 180 .4 .48

38 15.9 4245 4245 .5

ST17 100 11.7 952 952 .130 . 130 .3 .48

38 15.9 4234 4234 . 5

ST16 110 13.3 1009 1079 .150 . 180 . 5 .46

43 18.0 4490 4801 .6

ST10 110 14.0 . 1041 . 140 .4 .48

43 19.0 - 4630 . 5

ST13 120 14.8 968 _

. 140 .4 .48

49 20.1 - 4304 .5

ST14 120 14.4 _ 966 150 .4 .48

49 19.5 - 4298 .6

ST30 125 14.9 „ 958 . 170 .4 .48

52 20.2 - 4262 .5

STS 125 14.7 939 1057 .130 720 2.8 .47

52 19.9 4179 4704 3 .

8

ST3 135 15.9 1055 1055 .785 785 3.5 .48

57 21.6 4695 4695 4.8

ST4 135 15.0 791 1043 . 130 730 3.2 .48

57 20.3 3517 4638 4.4

ST8 160 15.6 981 981 .580 580 2.5 .49

71 21.2 4363 4363 3.4

ST20 160 16.4 1049 1049 .810 810 3.7 .48

71 22.2 4666 4666 5.0

ST29 200 16.7 748 1000 .130 720 3.0 .49

43 22.6 3329 4450 4.0

ST24 200 17.0 913 1059 . 176 640 4.0 .48

93 23.0 4061 4711 5 .

5

40
Table D17. Results of Instrumented Impact Evaluation of Precracked Charpy

Specimens, Plate S, Orientation TL

Specimen

Test

Temp

F

Dynamic

Yield

Stress

ksi

Normalized

Energies

in- lbf/in2 KJ/M2

Fracture

Toughness

ksl/in

MPa,/m

Code C MPa Total Init

.

Proo

.

kip kjd

ST9 40 > 66.8 995 18 977 34.0

4 >460.6 174 3 171 37.4 -

ST21 70 > 66.0 1411 18 1394 33.8 _ 21 >455.0 247 3 244 37.2 -

ST2 100 75.7 1672 36 1636 _ 46.4

38 521.8 293 6 287 - 51.0

ST17 100 74.7 1738 21 1717 _ 35.7

38 515.3 304 4 301 - 39.3

ST16 110 74.1 1911 37 1874 47.0

43 511.0 33-5 7 328 - 51.6

ST10 110 > 80.9 2070 27 2043 41.6 _ 43 >558.0 362 5 358 45.7 -

ST13 120 > 75.3 2188 23 2165 38.6

49 >518.9 383 4 379 42.5 -

ST14 120 > 76.6 2150 24 2126 39.2 _ 49 >528 .

3

377 4 372 43.1 -

ST30 125 > 76.0 2225 24 2201 38.9 _ 52 >523.9 390 4 385 42.7 -

STS 125 72.3 2163 387 1776 _ 151.4

52 498.8 379 68 311 - 166.3

ST3 135 81 . 3 2339 482 1857 _ 168.9

57 560.4 410 84 325 - 185.6

ST4 135 62.1 2229 439 1789 _ 161.2

57 428.0 390 77 313 - 177.2

ST8 160 79.3 2352 338 2014 _ 141 .

1

71 546.9 412 59 353 - 155.0

ST20 160 83.2 2448 514 1935 _ 174.0

71 57 3.5 429 90 339 - 191.2

ST29 200 61.1 2530 410 2120 . 155.0

93 421.5 443 72 371 - 170.3

ST24 200 71.7 2526 503 2022 _ 171.7

93 494.3 442 88 354 - 188.6

Stress

Intensity

Rate

ksiVin/s

MPa./m/s

0.24E6

0.27E6

0.23E6

0.25E6

0 . 26E6

0.28E6

0.27E6

0. 30E6

0.26E6

0.28E6

0. 30E6

0. 33E6

0.28E6

0. 30E6

0.26E6

0.29E6

0.23E6

0.25E6

0.21E6

0.23E6

0.21E6

0 24E6

0.22E6

0. 24E6

0.24E6

0.27E6

0.21E6

0. 24E6

0.21E6

0. 24E6

0.27E6

0.29E6

41
Table D18. Young's Modulus and Compliance Values for Plate S, Orientation TL

Temp

F

Specimen C

YM

ksi x 10 3 MPa x 10 3

CT in- lbf" 1 x 10" 6 mN~ 1 x 10” 8cs in- lbf” 1 x 10” 6 mN“ 1 x 10" 8CM in - lbf 1 x

mN” 1 x 10

ST9 40 33 11.0 4.2 6.9

4 228 6.3 2.4 3.9

ST21 70 33 9.0 4.1 5.0

21 228 5.1 2.3 2.9

ST2 100 30 9.9 4.5 5.4

38 207 5.6 2.6 3 .

1

ST17 100 30 9.9 4.5 5.4

38 207 5 .

6

2.6 3.1

ST1

6

110 30 8.3 4.2 4.1

43 207 4.7 2.4 2.3

ST10 110 33 8.8 4.0 4.7

43 228 5.0 2.3 2.7

ST13 120 33 9.4 4.1 5.4

49 228 5.4 2.3 3.1

ST14 120 33 10.0 4.1 6.0

49 228 5.7 2.3 3.4

ST30 125 23 9.9 4.1 5.7

52 228 5.6 2.3 3.2

STS 125 30 7.7 4.4 3.3

52 207 4.4 2.5 1.9

ST3 135 30 10.0 4.4 5.6

57 207 5.7 2.5 3.2

ST4 135 30 11.0 4.5 6.2

57 207 6.3 2.5 3.2

ST8 160 29 10.0 4.7 5.8

71 200 5.7 2.7 3.3

ST20 160 29 10.0 4.6 5.8

71 200 5.7 2.6 3.3

ST29 200 29 11.0 4.7 6.6

93 200 6.3 2.7 3.8

ST24 200 29 18.0 4.6 14.0

93 200 10.0 2.6 8.0

42
Load

Time, t

Figure 1 „ Idealized Load-Time Record for a Three Point Bend Specimen.

43
ENERGY

ABSORPTION

(FT-LB)

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.

SPECIMEN IDENTIFICATION

Cj b SPECIMENS. LT OK i ENTflT I ON . + ! 7 SPECIMENS. TL ORIENTATION.

o

o

320.0 220.0 -120.0 -20.0 80.0

TEST TEMPERRTURE (F)

180.0

Figure 2. Charpy V- notch- Energy Absorption Results for Plate C.

280.0

44
ENERGY

RBS0RPTI0N

(FT-LB)

10-0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60

.

SPECIMEN IDENTIFICATION

II SPECIMENS. IT ORIENTATION

+ I J SPECIMENS. TL ORIENTATION

- 320.0 220.0 - 120.0 - 20.0 80.0

TEST TEMPERATURE (F)

180.0

tigure 3. C'narpy V-notch- Energy Absorption Results for Plate U.

?80 .0

45
ENERGY

GBS0RPTI0N

(FT-LB)

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80

. c

SPECIMEN I OEN T I F I CA T I ON

-l a SPECIMENS. LT ORIENTATION.

+ 17 SPECIMENS. TL ORIENTATION.

TEST TEMPERATURE (F)

Figure 4. Charpy V-notch- Energy Absorption Results for Plate S

46
LATERAL

EXPANSION

(MILS)

10.0

20-0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70

.

SPECIMEN IDENTIFICATION

E 0 SPECIMENS. I_T ORIENTATION.

+ 17 SPECIMENS. TL ORIENTATION.

o- 320.0 220.0 - 120.0 - 20.0 80.0

TEST TEMPERATURE (F)

180.0

Figure 5. Charpy V-notch- Lateral Expansion Results for Plate G„

280.0

47
LATERAL

EXPANSION

(MILS)

20

. O

30.0

40-0

50.0

60.

SPECIMEN IDENTIFICATION

TEST TEMPERATURE (E)

Figure 6. Charpy V-notch-Lateral Expansion Results for Plate U.

48
LATERAL

EXPANSION

(MILS)

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60

.

SPECIMEN I OENT I F I CA T [ ON

O 6 SPECIMENS,

+ 17 SPECIMENS.

LT ORIENTATION.

TL ORIENTATION.

TEST TEMPERATURE (F)

Figure 7. Charpy V-notch-Lateral Expansion Results for Plate S.

49
SHEAR

FRACTURE

APPEARANCE

25. 0

37. S

50-0

62.5

75-0

87.

o SPECIMEN IDENTIFICATION

O

TEST TEMPERATURE ( F )

Figure 8. Charpy V-notch-Shear Fracture Appearance Results for Plate G.

50
7.

SHEAR

FRACTURE

APPEARANCE

25-0

37-5

50.0

62-5

75-0

87

.

O SPfCIHFN IdENTlf ICflTtQN

o

TEST TEMPERATURE (F)

Figure 9. Charpy V- no tch- Shear Fracture Appearance Results for Plate U.

51
7.

SHEAR

FRACTURE

APPEARANCE

25.0

37-5

50.0

62.5

75.0

87

.

o SPEC I (If N IDENTIFICATION

O

TEST TEMPERATURE (F!

Figure 10. Charpy V-notch- Shear Fracture Appearance Results for Plate S.

52
ENERGY

RBSGRPTIGN

(FT

-LB)

O

SPECIMEN I OF NT 1 F ] CRT ION

r\j ro o 16 SPEC IMEN5. 1 L OR I ENT FI ION

5 SPECIMENS. L T OR] ENTR1 ] ON

O

co_

r\i

o

*roj O o

a

°- 320 . 0

- 220 . 0

TEST

-'l 20. ~0 -20. 0

TEMPERR1URE

8o7o

(F )

1 80 . 0 ^80.

Figure 1 1

.

Precracked Charpy-Total Energy Absorption Results for Plate G.
ENERGY

ABSORPTION

(FT-LB)

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

24.0

28.0

32. O

5FEC 1 MEN ! DENT 1 F 1 Cfil ION

X 22 SPECIMENS. Tl OR 1 E N T 0 1 I 0N.

O 8 SPECIMENS. LT ORIENTATION.

O T *

<T>

O

°-320.

0

-220. Q -1 20.0 -20. 0

TEST TEMPERATURE

80. 0

(F )

180. 0 280. 0

Figure 12. Precracked Charpy-Total Energy Absorption Results for Plate U.

54
ENERGY

RBSQRPTIGN

(ET

o

5

P EC I MEN ! DENT 1 F i CRT ION

O

CD°-320.

0

- 220 . 0

TEST

- 120 . 0 - 20 . 0

TEMPERATURE

80. o (F )180. 0 280. 0

Figure 13. Precracked Charpy-Total Energy Absorption Results for Plate S .

55
ENERGY

ABSORPTION

(FT-LB)

O

SPECIMEN ] DENT I F ] CRT 1 ON

o 1 S SPECIMENS. RRR TCI 23 STEEL FLRT E G

-F 17 SPEC IMENS. R5TM R 2 1 2 STEEL PLR1E S A 22 SPECIMENS. RRR TCI 23 STEEL. FLRTE U

o

CM

O

°-

320.

0

- 220*0 - 120 * 0 - 20 * 0

TEST TEMPERATURE

80 * 0

(F 3

1 80 . 0

Figure 14, Comparison of Total Energy Absorbed for Plates G, U t and

^80 . 0

56
ENERGY

ABSORPTION

(FT-LB)

SPEC I MEN I DENT ] F I CP.l ION

-1 16 SPECIMENS. TL OR! ENTP1 I ON

<s S SPECIMENS. LT OR 1 ENT PI I ON

I

TEST TEMPERATURE (F)

Figure 15. Precracked Charpy- Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for Plate G.

57
ENERGY

RBSQRPT

I

ON

(FT

-LB

)

o

C3 ~j

I

O

SPECIMEN IDENT IFICfil ION

X 22 SPECIMENS. TL ORIENTATION.

<!> 8 SPECIMENS. lT OR I ENT HI I ON.

O

CO

o

LO

X

°-32CL 0 -220= 0 -120=0 -20=0 80=0 180.0 280.0

TEST TEMPERATURE (F)

Figure 16. Precracked Charpy- Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for Plate U.

58
ENERGY

RBSGRPT

IGN

(ET

-LB)

SPEC I KEN I DENT ! F ] CRT I ON

CD ^ 17 SPECIMENS. TL OR I E N T R 1 1 ON.

C> 7 SPECIMENS. L7 CR I EN T fi T I ON.

O

p~

o

CJD

O

CD

O

O

od'

o

r\i

o

o

o

-320. 0

<!>

220.0 -120.0 -20.0 80.0

TEST TEMPERRTURE (F)

180. 0 280. 0

Figure 17. Precracked Charpy- Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load for Plate S

59
ENERGY

ABSORPTION

(FT

-LB!

SPEC I MEN ! DFNT I F I Cfil ION

IS SPEC 1 M E N S

.

RRR TC128 STEFt PLG1 E G. A 17 SPECIMENS. RSTM R2 1 2 STEEL PLfil E 5

.

X ci C- SPEC I MENS. RfiR TC128 STEEL P L R 'I t u

.

o

r~

o

UD

o

LO

X

o

o

CO

o

OJ

o

o

°~

320=

0

- 220 = 0 - 120.0 - 20=0

TEST TEMPERATURE

80 = 0

(F ) 180 . 0 280 . 0

Figure 18. Comparison of Energy Absorbed Co Maximum Load for Places G, U,

and S ,

60
ERGY

RBSGRPTIGN

(FT-LB)

9.0

12.0

1

5.0

18.0

2

1.0

24. o

SPEC 1 MEN I DENT 1 F 1 CRT ION

16 TL SPECIMENS. ENERGY TO F-MRX.

0 16 TL SPECIMENS. 10TRL ENERGY.

TEST TEMPERRTURE (F)

Figure 19. Comparison of Total Energy and Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load

for Plate G.

61
ENERGY

ABSORPTION

(FT-LB)

o

SPEC I MEN I DENT ] F 1 CRT I ON

r\j X 22 1 L SPECIMENS. ENERGY TO P -MG

X

X 22 1 L SPECIMENS. TOTRl ENERGY.

TEST TEMPERATURE (F)

Figure 20. Comparison of Total Energy and Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load

for Plate U.

62
ENERGY

ABSORPTION

(FT

-LB)

O

SPECIMEN IDENTIFICATION

t

r\j A 17 TL SPECIMENS. ENERGY TO P-MAX * 17 TL SPECIMENS. TOTAL ENERGY.

TEST TEMPERATURE (E)

Figure 21. Comparison of Total Energy and Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load

for Plate S.

63
ENERGY

ABSORPTION

(FT

-LB)

o

SPECIMEN 1 DENT 1 F I CRT ION

OJ

1 6 G PLAT E SPECIMENS. ENERGY TO P-MAX

A 17 S PLAT E SPECIMENS. ENERGY TO P-MAX

X 22 u PLAT E SPEC 1 MENS. ENERGY TO r-MAX

o o 1 6 G PLATE SPECIMENS. TOTAL. ENERGY.

17 S PLATE SPECIMENS. TOTAL ENERGY.

CM X 22 u PLATE SPECIMENS. TOTAL. ENERGY.

o

00 .

o

LO.

o

cm_

o

cn

o

CD

O

m

o

o

x cHgta —55 -320. 0 220.0 -1 20.0 -20.0 80.0

TEST TEMPERATURE (F)

180. 0 280. 0

Figure 22. Comparison of Total Energy and Energy Absorbed to Maximum Load

for Plates G, U, and S.

64
NORMALIZED

TOTAL

ENERGY

FOR

PLATE

<d

L

D

CD

*

*

o

0) i~

i

<—

I

Ox

I I *

m

CD

LD

* +*

LD

(\J

©

* *

*

*

* *

cd © CD CD CD CD CD <D CD

CD CD (D CD CD CD CD CD

CD LD CD LD CD LD CD LD

CD CD CM C\J •*—

LD

CM

CD

LD

LD

r^

<d

cd

0

C3

01U

<U

Oxm

CNI

a;L

D

QC »H

Ox

c NI/dan-NI A9U3N3 17101

65

TEMPERATURE

DEG
NORMALIZED

TOTAL

ENERGY

FOR

PLATE

cd

LD

ID

tro

c

o

03 03 *

c

0)z

o

c

QJ

•r—

s_O

s- -fc

m

* -K-fc

*4 *

** *

Vs>

LO

(\i

CD

CD

LD

CD

LD

LD

(\1

CD

LD

CM

CD

LD

LD

CD

CD

© CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D © CD CD CD <D CD CD


 LD CD LD © LD <D LD

CD CD OJ CM — --

Ll_

0) 4-)

C3

<—“*i CO

vi

<u

•r-j tO

<3

S-i O

<y

i-4 D-i

CM

0) !-i 3

to

U-.

NI/jgi-NI A9U3N3 IViOi

66

TEMPERATURE

DEG
NORMALIZED

TOTAL

ENERGY

FOR

PLATE

©

L0

CM

CO

- * *

* *

*

4-> 03e

oj

s_o

o

+-> 03

+-> C

aj

s_o

LO

CM

CM

©©

CM

LO

r-

©

LO

Li03G

U

cC

* O'PP

*

LD

CM

©©

*

LO

r-

©

LO

•oO

G

COG

G

LO

CM

LO

CNIau

3

aO

*»H

CD © © © © © © ©

© © © © © © © ©

© LO © LO © LO © LO

00 00 CM CM

©

©

NI/jai-NI A9d3N3 1V101

67

TEMPERATURE

DEG
NORMALIZED

INITIATION

ENERGY

FOR

PLATE

©

Ll_

o

o

4J

cj •—

H

Cmu

o

4-1

J)

a>40oH

r;O

C3

l-i O

a

V-l Cm

v£> CSI

0)D

CO

•rH

T NI/J9T-NI A9N3N3 N0I1VIIINI

68

TEMPERATURE

DEG
NORMALIZED

INITIATION

ENERGY

FOR

PLATE

©

Li_

3

<y

V)a

r-A CO

vj

u

caViO

(

V

Vi

cvi

Csl

<0Vi3

CO

•i—{

T NI/jgi-NI A9d3N3 N0I1VI1INI

69

TEMPERATURE

DEG
NORMALIZED

INITIATION

ENERGY

FOR

PLATE

©

LD

CM

CO

* * *

-fc *

LQ

CNJ

CM

©

CD

CM

LQ

h-— Ll.

CD

L

Q

00

0) u

CO rH

Oj

5-i O

4-1W

0) tou

V

r- L3

c

o

4-> 03 +JC

CU

°r—s_o

c

o

03

4-> c

OJ

•r-s_o

*

*

tt

*

LQ

CM

CD

*W<D

LQ

r^

*

cd

LO

LQ

CM

CD

CD CD CD G) CD CD

G) CD CD <D CD

CD 00 (Q CM

cO4( V

a;

S-l D-i

CX) CNI

0)

J-l 3

00

*r-l fc,

NI/393-NI A9U3N3 NOIlVIl'INI

70

TEMPERATURE

DEG
NORMALIZED

PROPAGATION

ENERGY

FOR

PLATE

CD

CD o © CD £D CD CD CD © CD CD CD CD CD CD CD

CD LD © LO CD LO CD LO

00 00 CM CM — *-*

CD

Li.

o

g

u

co •—cuu

o

4-1

U)

0)

•r-i cD

t-i C

u

4J

o

G

U

<0

4iO

G

S-i

CslG

3

bO

*r-i Cn

T NI/jai-NI A9d3N3 N0ITV9Vd0dd

71

TEMPERATURE

DEG
NORMALIZED

PROPAGATION

ENERGY

FOR

PLATE




o G> © CD © <S> O

<£> G) © © G) CS) O O LO CS) LO G) LO G> LO

CO CO CM CM — «—

Ll_

O) u

c3

f—A

o

4-1w

<D

•r-4 tsO

cyc

o

o

cc

i-l o

0) u

cx, o

ro

(U

i-l 3

ClO

*rH lu

r NI/J81-NI A9d3N3 NOIlVOVdOdd

72

TEMPERATURE

DEG
NORMALIZED

PROPAGATION

ENERGY

EOR

PLATE

00

*

+-> ro

CD

S_o

4-> ro

+-> c

CDZ

o

*

-»C

•**

\

*

i

m

*

CD

LO

CM

uo

CM

CM

CD

I CM

LO

rQ

uo

uo

CM

<d

CD

LO

cd

uo

uo

CM

©

© CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD © CD CD CD CD CD CD <D

LO CD UO CD UO CD UO

CO CO CM CM -r~

LL.

CD

UJ

o

UJ

cm3H

<

cl

uj

CL

UJ

b00

NI/jgi-NI A9d3N3 N0IlV9Vd0dd

73

Figure

31

.

Precracked

Charpy-Normalized

Propagation

Energies

for

Plate
FRACTURE

TOUGHNESS

VALUES

FOR

PLATE




Nlf-IS* SS3NH9D01 3d(110Vaj

o

a) u

a3 «—

H

a-i

a)

!-) D

&£>

•rH

Ct,

74

TEMPERATURE

DEG
FRACTURE

TOUGHNESS

VALUES

FOR

PLATE




Ll

CD

LlJ

c±

LlJ

QC

ID

b-

<

LiJ

Cl

z:

LJH

Nlf -IS» SS3 NH0 DO 1 3 dOiOVaj

75

Figure

33.

Fracture

Toughness

Values

for

Plate
FRACTURE

TOUGHNESS

VALUES

FOR

PLATE

G>

LO

CM

CO

LO

CM

CM

*4c

jfejr J* Je,

-nrfe


 G)

CM

LO— Ll.

G>

LO

CD

UJ

a

CO

* ** *

c

o

ra

-t-> c

CL) o

sro

4-> rac

a)

s_o

c

o

•r—

+-> ra

+-> c

CD *r

s_o

O Q C

o rs •-

i i i * * <

<d

<

->cHK

<

LO

CM

G>

g>

LO

UD

LO

CM

G)

© G> G> G) © G) <S

G) LO G> LO G) LO

00 CM CM —

UJ

CL

ZD

h-

<

cl

UJ

CL

z:

UJ

H

Nlf ~IS>1 SS3NH9D01 3^913^3

76

Figure

34.

Fracture

Toughness

Values

for

Plate
COMPARISON

OF

K

rn

VALUES

FOR

PLATES

G,

U.

AND

G)

Li_

00

C

CT3

wa

4-1 cj

m

c~i

<DU

3

GO

•r-j Uh

ni -is» ssiNHonoi luniovaj

77

TEMPERATURE

DEG
COMPARISON

OF

K

TJ>

VALUES

FOR

PLATES

G,

U,

AND

G) CD CD CD CD CD

CD LO (D LO CD LO

CO CM CM

NI -IS» SS3NH9D01 3aniOVyj

co

-oc

CT3 3

O

c/i <U

E

O

CJo

COo

C-i 3

QO

•H

78

TEMPERATURE

DEG
DYNAMIC

YIELD

STRESSES

FOR

PLATE

(S>

Ll_

o

0)

4-)

p-H Oh

a)3

t>0

»rH

U-i

IS» SS3UIS G13IA OIWVNAG

79

TEMPERATURE

DEG
DYNAMIC

YIELD

STRESSES

FOR

PLATE

(S>

p

a> (j_ a

CL,

0)U

3

00

u*

isx ssiuis ai3iA oiwvNAa

80

TEMPERATURE

DEG
DYNAMIC

YIELD

STRESSES

FOR

PLATE

CO

©

LO

(\J

LO

(\J

CM

o

Q

C\J

LO

o

LO

LO

CM

Q

LO


 ID

ID

CM

CS)

LO CD LO CD

CM CD) LO

Ll.

00

0) u

CO

Cm

}-i 3

00

is» ss3yis aniiA oiwynao

81

TEMPERATURE

DEG
o

°-

32 CL 0

- 220 = 0 - 120=0 - 20=0 80=0

TEST TEMPERATURE (E)

180 . 0

Figure 40, Dynamic Tear-Energy Absorption Values for Plate G.

82

280 . 0
ENERGY

ABSORPTION

(FT

-LB)

50. 0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.

SPECIMEN ] DENT ] F 1 CRT 1 ON

n x 10 TRRNSVERSE SPECIMENS - S PLRTE

X

o

°-320.

0

- 220.0 -1 20.0 - 20.0

TEST TEMPERATURE

80. 0

(F )

180. 0

Figure 41

.

Dynamic Tear- Energy Absorption Values for Plate S.

280. Q

83
ENERGY

RBSGRPT

I

ON

(FI

-LB)

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400

. o SPECIMEN I0ENT IFICfil ION

+ 1 0 T RRNSVERSE SPECIMENS - G P L CM E X 10 1 RRN5 VERSE SPECIMENS - S PLRIE

o

o_

lo

o

°-

320„

0

“ 220 . 0 - 120 . 0 - 20.0 80.0

TEST TEMPERATURE (F)

180 . 0

Figure 42. Comparison of Dynamic Tear Results for Plates G and S.

280 . 0

84
ENERGY

RBSGRPTIQN

(ET-LB)

30.0

45.0

SO

. 0

75.0

90.0

105.0

120

. o SPECIMEN I0ENT 1 F I Cfil ION

0 17 CVN SPECIMENS

A 15 PC I SPECIMENS

+ 10 01 SPECIMENS

O

LO_

o

°-

320.

0

+

- 220.0 -1 20.0 - 20.0 80.0

TEST TEMPERATURE (E)

180 . 0 280 . 0

Figure 43. Comparison of Results for CVN, PCI, and DT Tests for Plate G.

85
o SPECIMEN 1 DENT I F 1 CPI ION

1

2C

_i O 1 3 CVN SPEC IMENS

a 22 PC I SPECIMENS

o

Lf> o_

O

o_

CD

CD

°

_J ini rLL_

O o_

__ CD H—

Q_

GCO

cn °

ce ^

>—CD

cc

UJ O

LU m

o

LO_

A O

O

°"3'2CL 0

- 220 . 0 -1 20 . 0 - 20 . 0

TEST TEMPERATURE

~80A}

(F ) Tso. 0

Figure 44. Comparison of Results for CVN and PCI Tests for Plate U

86

280. 0
ENERGY

RBSGRPTIQN

(ET

-LB)

30.0

45.0

60.0

75.0

90.0

105.0

120. o SPECIMEN IDFNTIFICfll ION

O 21 CVN SPECIMENS

A 17 PCI SPECIMENS

+ 10 D. j' cl 1 MEN'S

O

LD _

o

°-

320 . 0

A

A Q

TEST TEMPERRTURE (F)

Figure 45. Comparison of Results for CVN, PCI, and DT Tests for Plate

280. 0

S

.

87

ENERGY

RBSQRPTIQN

(FT-LB)

30.0

45.0

60.0

75.0

90.0

105.0

120. o SPECIMEN IDENTIFICATION

(M_ 0 21 CVN SPECIMENS

A 17 PC I SPECIMENS

+ 10 0 . j: cl I m e n

s

O

LD_

o

°-320.

0

- 220.0 - 120.0 - 20.0

TEST TEMPERATURE

80. 0

(F)

1 80. 0 280. 0

Figure 45. Comparison of Results for CVN, PCI, and DT Tests for Plate S.

87
SBS-174A ^ t • - C i U.S OC°T cr C OMM. 1. Pu BL ICATION OR 2. Pe'forming Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO.

SHEET (See instructions ) NBSIR 88-3690 JUNE 1988

4 . TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Ivnamic Mechanical Properties of Two AAR M128 and One ASTM A212-B Steel Tank Car Head

Plates

5. AUTHOR(S)

J.G. Earlv, C.G. Interrante, S.R. Low III, and B.A. Fields

}

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than N BS, see in situation s) NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

7. Contract/Grant No.

8 . Type of Report & Period Covered

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City , Store, ZIP)

Federal Px.ailroad Administration

Department of Transportation

Washington, D.C.

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

|

I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most si gnificant information . If document includes a significant

bi bl iography or literature survey , mention it here)

Instrumented precracked Charpy impact testing and dynamic teat testing were carried

iout on steel plate samples taken from three railroad tank cars. Two of the samples

were given as AARM128, a high strength carbon manganese steel, while the third was

reported to be ASTM A212-65, a high strength carbon silicon steel. Values were found

for the ranges of transition temperatures and for the energies absorbed, including

crack initiation energy, crack propagation energy and total energy.

I

I

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) crack initiation; crack propagation; dynamic mechanical properties; high strength

steel; impact fracture; railorad tank car; transition temperature

13. AVAILABILITY

„ «TM__ —

|X 1 Uni imited

|

I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

| | Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

98

15. Price

[X] O f der From National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Springfield, VA. 22161

$13.95