NIST Technical Note 1865

Impact Characterization of 

Line Pipe Steels by Means of 

Standard, Sub-Size and 

Miniaturized Charpy 

Specimens

Enrico Lucon

Chris N. McCowan

Ray L. Santoyo

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1865
NIST Technical Note 1865

Impact Characterization of 

Line Pipe Steels by Means of 

Standard, Sub-Size and 

Miniaturized Charpy 

Specimens

Enrico Lucon

Chris N. McCowan

Ray L. Santoyo

Applied Chemicals and Materials Division

Material Measurement Laboratory

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1865

February 2015

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Acting Director 
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in 

order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not 

intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are 

necessarily the best available for the purpose.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1865

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1865, 60Pages (February 2015)

CODEN: NTNOEF

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1865
iii

Abstract

In this investigation, we performed instrumented Charpy tests in order to characterize the impact 

properties of four line pipe steels with significantly different mechanical properties. For each of the steels, 

tests were performed on standard E23 Charpy specimens, sub-size specimens of two types (2⁄3-size and 1⁄2-

size), and miniaturized specimens of two types (KLST and RHS). For every combination of steel and 

specimen type, full transition curves and corresponding transition temperatures were established for 

absorbed energy, lateral expansion and shear fracture appearance. 

Topics addressed in this study on the basis of the results obtained include:

 comparisons between conventional Charpy data obtained from different specimen types;

 comparisons between different measures of ductile-to-brittle transition temperature;

 comparisons between characteristic instrumented forces obtained from different specimen types;

 normalization of characteristic instrumented forces;

 relationship between different measures of absorbed energy; and

 correlations between transition temperatures and upper shelf energies calculated from different 

specimen types.

The results of our investigation confirm the applicability and usefulness of both sub-size and miniaturized 

Charpy specimens for the characterization of line pipe steels, be they of past or recent production, 

whenever the thickness of the pipe doesn’t allow testing full-size specimens. Although commonly used 

codes and procedures for line pipe steels only envisage the use of sub-size specimens, we demonstrated 

that miniaturized samples can also provide useful results and should also be considered. Reliable 

empirical correlations between transition temperatures and upper shelf energies measured from specimens 

of different type can be established, in substantial agreement with other studies available in the literature.

This applies to steels of very high toughness and ductility also, such as X65 and X70 in this investigation, 

even though a substantial portion of the absorbed energy in a Charpy test is dissipated via plastic bending 

of the sample and interactions with the machine anvil/supports.

Keywords

ductile-to-brittle transition temperature; instrumented Charpy tests; Line pipe steels; miniaturized Charpy 

specimens; shear fracture appearance; size-normalization; sub-size Charpy specimens; upper shelf energy. 
iv

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................1

2. Materials and experimental....................................................................................................................................2

3. Data analyses.........................................................................................................................................................4

3.1 Conventional Charpy parameters (KV, LE, SFA).........................................................................................4

3.2 Instrumented Charpy parameters .................................................................................................................5

4. Test results.............................................................................................................................................................5

4.1 Conventional Charpy parameters (KV, LE, SFA).........................................................................................5

4.2 Instrumented Charpy parameters ...............................................................................................................14

4.2.1 Normalization of characteristic forces...................................................................................................25

4.3 Different measures of absorbed energy (KV and Wt) .................................................................................42

5. Correlations between specimen types..................................................................................................................43

5.1 Ductile-to-brittle transition temperatures...................................................................................................43

5.1.1 Comparison with the literature...............................................................................................................47

5.2 Upper Shelf Energy....................................................................................................................................51

6. Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................................54

Bibliography................................................................................................................................................................56
1

1. Introduction

Line pipe steels, particularly of the most recent generations (X80, X100), are characterized by a 

continuously increasing ratio between ductility and mechanical strength, which makes it difficult to interpret the 

results of conventional mechanical characterization tests, such as Charpy impact tests. In these modern steels, the 

improvement in fracture resistance is due to various refinements of the manufacturing process, which lead to 

smaller grain sizes, reduced inclusion contents, a fine bainitic structure, etc. For steels exhibiting this combination 

of toughness and ductility, the usefulness and significance of conventional mechanical tests are nowadays 

seriously questioned, as well as the possibility of predicting ductile fracture scenarios in actual line pipes in fullscale tests based on the outcome of small-scale laboratory tests.

According to current Charpy test standards (ASTM E23-12c and ISO 148-1:2009), absorbed energy (KV) 

results from partially fractured test specimens can be averaged with the results from fully fractured specimens. 

However, most researchers agree that if a specimen does not fully fracture at the end of a Charpy test, a significant 

fraction of the work spent was employed to bend/plastically deform the sample rather than fracture it. Therefore, in 

principle KV results from partially and fully fractured specimens are not directly comparable and should not be 

averaged. In the case of very high-ductility materials such as modern line pipe steels, the situation is exacerbated 

by the very limited amount of tearing (actual fracture) observed on tested specimens. The extremely high KV

values recorded from these tests can be associated mostly to bending of the sample and friction between specimen 

and anvils. The reliability and usefulness of conventional Charpy tests under these circumstances are therefore 

questionable.

In the work presented here, we characterized the impact properties of four line pipe steels ranging from a 

50-year-old service-exposed steel (X52) to modern high-toughness and high-ductility steels (X65, X70, X100). 

X65 and X70 exhibit a high ductility-to-strength ratio and ductile specimens hardly fracture, whereas X100 has a 

lower ductility-to-strength ratio and fractures completely even under fully ductile conditions.

For each of the steels investigated, we performed tests on standard full-size Charpy specimens (10 × 10 × 

55 mm), sub-size specimens corresponding to different fractions of the thickness of a standard Charpy specimen 

(2⁄3, 1⁄2), and miniaturized specimens, where all dimensions are scaled or reduced (KLST and RHS). All tests were

performed as instrumented impact tests, recording the force applied to the specimen during impact, at temperatures 

ranging from lower shelf conditions (fully brittle behavior) to upper shelf conditions (fully ductile behavior). 

Ductile-to-Brittle Transition Temperatures (DBTTs) calculated from absorbed energy, lateral expansion, and shear 

fracture appearance were compared among the different specimen types, and empirical correlations between

full-size, sub-size, and miniaturized specimens were established.

For high-ductility/high-toughness materials, it is often very difficult to correctly interpret the fracture 

surface when performing optical measurements of Shear Fracture Appearance (SFA) due to the complex 

appearance of the microstructure and the intermixing of brittle (cleavage) and ductile features. Under these 

circumstances, the conventional method of SFA measurement is associated with a very high degree of uncertainty 

and the availability of an instrumented test record is extremely useful. Characteristic force values, corresponding to 

specific events such as general yield, maximum force, initiation of brittle fracture and crack arrest, can be 

correlated to the percentage of ductility on the fracture surface, so that reasonable estimates of SFA can be 

obtained by correlating these characteristic force values. 
2

2. Materials and experimental

Four commercial line pipe steels (X52, X65, X70, X100) were selected for this investigation, representing a 

variety of different material behaviors and manufacturing processes. X52 was produced in the early 60s and put in 

service in 1964 in a natural gas pipeline, which was extracted from the ground after 40 years of operation. X65 and 

X70 represent more modern and very high ductility and toughness materials. X100, although of recent production, 

exhibits a lower ratio between ductility and mechanical strength. The chemical composition of the steels is shown 

in Table 1, while Table 2 provides their tensile properties at room temperature.

Table 1 - Chemical composition (weight %) of the investigated line pipe steels.

Steel C Mn Si S P Al Cu Ni Cr Mo Sn Nb Ti V N

X52 0.24 0.96 0.06 0.021 0.011 0.002 0.085 0.05 0.01 0.004 n/a 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.003

X65 0.05 1.42 0.28 0.003 0.011 0.024 0.137 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.007 0.042 0.009 n/a 0.007

X70 0.05 1.37 0.23 0.001 0.010 0.027 0.260 0.13 0.06 n/a n/a 0.070 0.013 0.008 0.008

X100 0.07 1.83 0.11 0.005 0.005 0.042 0.303 0.52 0.03 0.27 n/a 0.027 0.009 n/a 0.004

Table 2 – Room temperature tensile properties (transverse direction) of the investigated line pipe steels.

Steel

Yield

strength, y

(MPa)

Tensile

strength, TS

(MPa)

Total

elongation, t

(%)

TS

t





X52 325 526 15.0 0.03

X65 514 581 31.9 0.05

X70 503 608 23.8 0.04

X100 817 849 19.1 0.02

From Table 1, it can be noted that all steels except for X52 are microalloyed with Nb and Ti, which results 

in grain refinement during steel processing. The content of S is also higher by an order of magnitude in X52, and 

this is expected to cause a higher inclusion content. The high C content in X52 could also explain the poor ductility 

of the steel, indicated by the low total elongation in Table 2.

Charpy specimens of five different geometries were tested. Along with full-size standard specimens 

(thickness B and width W = 10 mm, length L = 55 mm), both sub-size (SCVN) and miniaturized (MCVN) 

specimens were used.

Sub-size Charpy specimens have the length and one of the cross-sectional dimensions identical to a 

standard specimen, while the other cross-sectional dimension (the specimen thickness) is reduced. In this 

investigation, we used 2⁄3-size (thickness = 6.67 mm) and 1⁄2-size (thickness = 5 mm) specimens. Both geometries 

are among those listed in ASTM A370-13 [1] and the only two sub-size Charpy specimens considered by API 

Specification 5L [2].

Two types of miniaturized Charpy specimens were used: KLST (3 × 4 × 27 mm) and RHS (4.83 × 4.83 × 

24.13 mm). The former is the reference MCVN geometry of ISO 14556:2000 [3], while the latter is the reference 

specimen type of ASTM E2248-13 [4]. See also Figure 1.

All the specimens were machined in T-L direction.
3

Figure 1 - Dimensions of MCVN specimens: (a) RHS and (b) KLST.

For every material and specimen type, 12 instrumented Charpy tests (11 for X100) were performed at 

temperatures allowing a complete definition of transition curves for absorbed energy (KV), lateral expansion (LE) 

and shear fracture appearance (SFA).

CVN and SCVN tests were performed on a large-scale impact machine with capacity of 953.56 J and 

impact speed of 5.47 m/s. The machine was equipped with an instrumented striker conforming to ASTM E23-12c 

(radius of striking edge = 8 mm). For tests above room temperature, specimens were heated by means of an

electric plate; for tests below room temperature and down to -90 °C, specimens were refrigerated by means of a 

cooling bath utilizing ethyl alcohol. Below -90 °C, specimens were positioned on a steel block partially immersed 

in liquid nitrogen inside an insulated container. In all cases, the transfer time of the specimen between removal 

from the conditioning medium to pendulum impact was well below 5 s (typically around 3 s). During conditioning, 

temperature was monitored by means of a dummy specimen instrumented with a K-type thermocouple.

In order to maintain the position of the center of strike when SCVN specimens were tested, shims were 

attached to the impact machine supports by means of double-sided tape. The thickness of the shims was 1.7 mm 

and 2.5 mm for 2⁄3-size and 1⁄2-size specimens, respectively, so that the centerline of the SCVN specimen at impact 

coincided with the centerline of a CVN specimen.

MCVN specimens were tested on a small-scale impact tester. When testing KLST specimens, the machine 

has a capacity of 50.15 J and an impact speed of 3.5 m/s, and is equipped with a 2-mm instrumented striker. When 

RHS specimens are tested, the capacity is 50.8 J, the impact speed is 3.5 m/s and the instrumented striker has a 

radius of 3.86 mm (nominal 4-mm striker, in accordance with E2248-13). For high temperature tests, specimens 

were heated by means of an electric plate. For low-temperature tests, the samples were individually immersed in 

liquid nitrogen until their temperature was stable between -180 °C and -190 °C. Using specially-made tongs, the 

specimen was removed from the LN2 bath and positioned on the machine supports and anvils. When its 

temperature reached the desired test temperature (within approximately ± 3 °C), the hammer was released and the 

specimen impacted. The actual specimen temperature at the moment of impact was recorded*. Each sample was 

individually instrumented with a K-type thermocouple that had been spot-welded on the specimen surface, in the 

vicinity of the notch tip (within 1 mm). To minimize temperature gradients induced by the small size of the 

specimens, the anvils and supports of the machine were kept at low temperature (between -30 °C and -60 °C) by a 

constant flow of LN2 vapors through copper blocks insulated with Styrofoam.

For all tests, absorbed energy (KV) values were provided by the machine encoder. Lateral expansion (LE) 

on CVN and SCVN specimens was measured by the use of a gage similar to the one recommended by ASTM 

E23-12c, Fig. 7. On MCVN specimens, LE measurements were executed with the aid of a caliper. 

 

*The same procedure was followed for tests above room temperature.

(a) (b)
4

Shear fracture appearance (SFA) was measured directly on the specimen fracture surface in accordance with

ASTM E23-12c and ISO 148-1:2009. Optical measurements were also compared with estimates obtained from the 

instrumented test records, by means of empirical formulae that are included in both ISO 14556:2000 and ASTM 

E2298-13a [5]. These formulae utilize characteristic instrumented forces (general yield, maximum force, brittle 

fracture initiation and crack arrest) to quantify the percentage of brittle fracture for the specimen tested. Results 

and analyses are reported elsewhere [6].

3. Data analyses

3.1 Conventional Charpy parameters (KV, LE, SFA)

Absorbed energy, lateral expansion and shear fracture appearance values were fitted as a function of test 

temperature using the widely used hyperbolic tangent (TANH) model, given by:











 

  

C

X DBTT Y A B tanh

(1)

where the variables X and Y are temperature and KV/LE/SFA respectively, and A, B, DBTT, and C are fitting 

coefficients that are calculated by the least square method [7]. The fitting coefficients in eq.(1) have the following 

physical interpretation:

 A + B corresponds to the upper shelf value (asymptotic Y level that the curve approaches for X  +);

 A – B corresponds to the lower shelf value (asymptotic Y level that the curve approaches for X  -);

 C corresponds to the half-width of the transition region (portion of the curve between lower and upper 

shelf), in °C;

 DBTT (Ductile-to-Brittle Transition Temperature) corresponds to the X value of the midpoint between 

lower and upper shelf, in °C;

 B/C corresponds to the slope of the fitted curve in the transition region.

Data fitting for KV values was performed with the following constraints applied:

 the upper shelf energy (USE = A + B) was set as the average KV for all specimens having SFA  95 %;

 the lower shelf energy (A – B) was set at 2.7 J for CVN specimens [8], and as the minimum recorded value 

for SCVN and MCVN specimens.

Data fitting for LE values was performed with the following constraints applied:

 the upper shelf level (A + B) was set as the average LE of all specimens having SFA  95 %;

 the lower shelf energy level (A – B) was set as the minimum recorded value for all specimens.

Finally, data fitting for SFA values was performed with the following constraint applied:

 A and B were both set at 50 %, so that lower and upper shelf level always equal 0 % and 100 %, 

respectively; consequently, the value of DBTT (designated as T50%) always corresponds to SFA = 50 %.

For each data set analyzed (material/specimen type), the following parameters are reported:
5

 DBTTs calculated from the transition curves of absorbed energy (DBTTKV), lateral expansion (DBTTLE), 

and shear fracture appearance (T50%);

 upper shelf energy (USE).

3.2 Instrumented Charpy parameters

From the analysis of each instrumented Charpy test record, conducted in accordance with both ISO 

14556:2000 and E2298-13a, the following values of force (F) and absorbed energy (W) were determined:

 general yield (Fgy, Wgy);

 maximum force (Fm, Wm);

 initiation of brittle fracture (Fbf, Wbf)

†

;

 crack arrest (Fa, Wa);

 test termination (Wt).

In case of fully brittle behavior (curve of Type A according to ASTM E2298-13a, curve of Type A or B 

according to ISO 14556:2000), Fgy is not defined. In case of fully ductile behavior (curve of Type A according to 

ASTM E2298-13a, curve of Type A or B according to ISO 14556:2000), Fbf and Fa are not defined.

Additionally, the ratio between the two independent measures of absorbed energy (KV/Wt) was calculated 

and reported. KV and Wt should ideally be in agreement within ± 15 % [5], and their ratio should be reasonably 

consistent from test to test and from material to material (since it only depends on the machine characteristics and 

the calibration of the instrumented striker).

4. Test results

4.1 Conventional Charpy parameters (KV, LE, SFA)

Conventional Test results for CVN, 2⁄3-size, 1⁄2-size, KLST and RHS specimens are provided in Tables 3 to 

7.

Table 3 - Charpy test results for CVN specimens.

X52 X65

Specimen id T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%) Specimen id T(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

C11 -80 2.40 0.058 0 C10 -150 5.27 0.036 0

C8 -50 4.13 0.046 0 C2 -90 10.13 0.094 4

C5 -35 4.13 0.058 6 C7 -65 198.68 1.895 54

C4 -15 10.21 0.074 16 C5 -50 98.50 1.240 26

C2 0 27.99 0.480 28 C1 -35 176.56 1.783 45

C10 10 34.25 0.676 39 C9 -20 268.81 2.035 68

C1 21 48.86 0.848 53 C11 0 229.11 2.080 81

C6 40 61.88 1.135 79 C8 5 422.98 1.918 86

C7 76 74.29 1.387 100 C3 10 428.76 2.007 100

C3 100 75.22 1.415 100 C4 21 431.78 1.963 100

C12 148 71.50 1.026 100 C6 100 404.14 1.941 100

C9 198 69.40 1.102 100 C12 150 391.04 2.418 100

 

†The identification used here and in the rest of this document (“bf”) is from ASTM E2298-13a; ISO 14556:2000 uses “iu” as a 

subscript.
6

X70 X100

Specimen id T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%) Specimen id T(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

C2 -150 5.95 0.076 4 C4 -149 7.09 0.051 4

C3 -125 7.54 0.043 4 C5 -90 32.11 0.399 21

C6 -112 18.14 0.157 7 C6 -80 33.46 0.399 15

C9 -99 205.42 1.842 67 C1 -75 163.24 1.656 50

C10 -98 30.52 0.320 14 C7 -70 125.99 1.328 52

C5 -90 327.65 1.867 100 C12 -50 148.54 1.364 70

C11 -80 406.42 1.704 100 C2 -50 183.76 1.417 69

C1 -70 339.31 1.697 100 C10 -35 225.93 1.948 100

C7 -70 410.12 1.770 100 C9 -20 226.99 1.867 100

C12 -50 462.33 1.971 100 C8 21 206.73 2.027 100

C8 -20 460.94 2.200 100 C3 100 248.20 2.320 100

C4 21 439.74 2.304 100

Table 4 - Charpy test results for 2⁄3-size specimens.

X52 X65

Specimen id T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%) Specimen id T(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

S1-8 -80 2.70 0.056 0 S1-11 -164 1.57 0.132 0

S1-7 -50 4.74 0.079 2 S1-2 -140 3.30 0.064 2

S1-5 -35 13.58 0.292 14 S1-5 -125 3.38 0.064 3

S1-2 -15 15.73 0.378 20 S1-10 -114 2.48 0.041 6

S1-3 0 19.76 0.589 31 S1-9 -95 5.04 0.074 9

S1-12 10 32.02 0.851 52 S1-7 -90 111.13 1.989 51

S1-1 21 38.17 1.052 71 S1-3 -70 121.95 1.816 61

S1-6 40 46.90 1.189 87 S1-4 -50 158.64 2.212 86

S1-10 75 47.96 1.316 100 S1-6 -35 261.16 1.862 97

S1-4 100 47.96 1.331 100 S1-12 -20 231.72 1.628 100

S1-9 152 46.09 1.293 100 S1-8 21 244.95 1.928 100

S1-11 199 47.31 1.293 100 S1-1 100 246.25 2.070 100

X70 X100

Specimen id T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%) Specimen id T(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

S1-10 -163 2.93 0.028 2 S1-10 -162 3.46 0.114 4

S1-9 -136 1.87 0.197 3 S1-6 -124 9.67 0.030 4

S1-7 -111 10.36 0.066 8 S1-5 -90 34.98 0.559 26

S1-6 -105 8.23 0.127 6 S1-2 -80 86.12 1.415 73

S1-3 -100 199.06 1.829 100 S1-4 -75 78.70 1.514 74

S1-2 -95 179.07 2.042 100 S1-7 -70 89.23 1.529 62

S1-5 -90 181.43 2.098 100 S1-1 -50 93.99 1.455 82

S1-11 -70 221.89 2.027 100 S1-3 -40 101.90 1.760 100

S1-1 -60 239.35 1.806 100 S1-12 -20 117.15 1.852 100

S1-8 -50 278.14 1.745 100 S1-8 21 120.56 1.715 100

S1-12 -20 271.85 1.781 100 S1-9 100 130.66 2.169 100

S1-4 21 249.30 1.720 100
7

Table 5 - Charpy test results for 1⁄2-size specimens.

X52 X65

Specimen id T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%) Specimen id T(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

S2-10 -80 1.57 0.058 0 S2-12 -153 2.48 0.094 3

S2-7 -60 2.33 0.015 4 S2-10 -123 1.35 0.061 3

S2-6 -50 8.76 0.160 8 S2-8 -114 3.30 0.064 5

S2-3 -35 11.20 0.201 16 S2-6 -100 43.82 1.191 38

S2-2 -15 11.66 0.394 25 S2-3 -90 57.32 1.524 51

S2-4 0 18.06 0.660 45 S2-7 -70 80.49 1.951 69

S2-1 21 29.33 1.036 81 S2-11 -50 93.38 1.735 85

S2-8 42 36.57 1.214 100 S2-2 -40 82.36 1.608 81

S2-9 75 37.05 1.151 100 S2-9 -35 119.54 1.745 100

S2-5 100 36.81 1.245 100 S2-4 -20 127.74 1.709 100

S2-11 145 34.33 1.179 100 S2-1 21 113.01 1.979 100

S2-12 200 35.45 1.234 100 S2-5 100 121.96 1.699 100

X70 X100

Specimen id T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%) Specimen id T(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

S2-1 -151 1.95 0.051 5 S2-3 -149 2.55 0.046 5

S2-7 -132 2.63 0.152 7 S2-10 -131 3.08 0.046 7

S2-11 -124 6.55 0.251 16 S2-11 -110 11.13 0.287 8

S2-6 -120 57.56 1.270 69 S2-7 -96 7.47 0.135 15

S2-9 -115 37.94 0.978 41 S2-5 -90 54.60 1.346 59

S2-10 -100 63.21 1.603 75 S2-2 -70 32.11 0.754 59

S2-3 -100 74.20 1.448 60 S2-1 -50 70.41 1.580 84

S2-2 -96 73.27 1.615 84 S2-8 -20 73.53 1.549 76

S2-5 -90 120.00 2.235 100 S2-9 10 89.48 2.047 100

S2-8 -50 122.77 1.994 100 S2-4 21 81.26 1.930 100

S2-12 -20 134.63 1.585 100 S2-6 100 70.33 1.697 100

S2-4 21 138.01 1.651 100

Table 6 - Charpy test results for KLST specimens.

X52 X65

Specimen id T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%) Specimen id T(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

K4 -188 0.08 0.05 2 K11 -190 0.20 0.09 4

K10 -150 0.18 0.04 8 K3 -174 0.30 0.13 6

K12 -122 0.16 0.03 2 K2 -150 4.18 0.45 21

K1 -76 0.21 0.10 10 K10 -147 1.39 0.13 10

K3 -50 0.63 0.09 29 K7 -122 0.96 0.19 6

K7 -40 1.69 0.21 44 K4 -111 6.63 0.77 54

K8 -35 2.32 0.31 54 K8 -100 4.35 0.55 30

K6 -26 2.97 0.40 67 K5 -84 9.53 0.94 100

K5 0 3.91 0.48 88 K12 -75 8.08 0.88 100

K2 20 4.49 0.57 100 K9 -50 9.57 0.96 100

K9 100 4.34 0.64 100 K6 0 9.37 1.00 100

K11 144 3.99 0.60 100 K1 20 9.33 1.02 100
8

X70 X100

Specimen id T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%) Specimen id T(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

K11 -190 0.20 0.10 5 K9 -191 0.27 0.07 4

K12 -169 0.33 0.12 7 K5 -150 0.94 0.07 13

K4 -150 0.95 0.08 6 K6 -126 2.05 0.15 13

K5 -140 0.67 0.21 7 K2 -121 2.71 0.23 16

K6 -134 9.19 0.81 100 K3 -112 7.34 0.63 n/a‡

K3 -130 9.28 0.83 100 K1 -100 7.96 0.67 93

K9 -115 9.82 0.86 100 K10 -75 8.23 0.72 n/a‡

K10 -100 10.34 0.93 100 K4 -50 8.67 0.74 100

K7 -77 10.22 0.99 100 K7 -10 9.20 0.85 100

K8 -50 9.57 1.00 100 K12 0 N/A 0.84 100

K2 0 9.94 1.00 100 K8 20 8.89 0.80 100

K1 20 9.86 1.00 100

Table 7 - Charpy test results for RHS specimens.

X52 X65

Specimen id T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%) Specimen id T(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

R3 -184 0.20 0.04 2 R1 -180 0.55 0.04 3

R2 -150 0.22 0.08 1 R2 -150 0.47 0.00 3

R1 -125 0.31 0.06 4 R7 -135 1.60 0.03 4

R4 -101 0.38 0.09 1 R3 -124 4.21 0.16 8

R8 -70 0.64 0.07 3 R4 -119 20.75 0.92 45

R7 -50 2.00 0.11 4 R10 -112 32.58 0.88 100

R9 -25 2.09 0.12 25 R6 -112 1.66 0.12 7

R5 -16 4.85 0.31 39 R5 -101 42.48 0.73 100

R10 -5 4.81 0.34 46 R9 -90 39.97 0.84 88

R12 21 13.14 0.70 100 R11 -75 47.40 1.03 100

R11 100 11.66 0.74 100 R8 -40 45.88 1.03 100

R6 149 12.13 0.72 100 R12 21 44.03 1.07 100

X70 X100

Specimen id T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%) Specimen id T(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

R1 -180 0.53 0.03 4 R2 -184 1.21 0.05 3

R2 -150 2.26 0.09 5 R1 -153 2.16 0.06 9

R7 -136 2.08 0.05 7 R12 -123 4.49 0.13 8

R5 -129 4.89 0.22 10 R3 -110 3.62 0.33 9

R3 -125 39.98 1.06 100 R8 -105 6.30 0.25 14

R6 -120 42.60 0.91 100 R4 -102 19.16 0.67 88

R12 -115 8.13 0.45 61 R9 -100 29.37 0.93 96

R4 -115 45.37 0.92 100 R6 -76 24.27 0.90 100

R9 -100 47.93 0.70 100 R10 -70 29.60 0.99 100

R8 -31 48.41 1.16 100 R5 -35 29.76 1.04 100

R10 21 46.61 1.13 100 R7 21 31.73 1.06 100

R11 21 N/A 1.13 100

 

‡For these tests, it was not possible to estimate the value of SFA through optical measurements. Furthermore, the instrumented 

signal was not recorded, and therefore no estimate of SFA is available either.
9

The values of DBTTKV, USE, DBTTLE, and T50% calculated from the transition curves for all materials and 

specimen types are summarized in Table 8. 

Table 8 - Values of DBTT and USE calculated from the transition curves.

Steel Specimen

type

DBTTKV

(°C)

USE

(J)

DBTTLE

(°C)

T50%

(°C)

X52

CVN 11.7 72.6 8.4 17.8

2⁄3-size 0.2 47.3 -0.8 9.0

1⁄2-size -4.3 36.0 -5.2 0.3

KLST -35.1 4.2 -29.6 -36.6

RHS -5.6 12.3 -4.8 -8.0

X65

CVN -34.8 415.7 -75.7 -40.0

2⁄3-size -70.1 246.0 -94.6 -78.8

1⁄2-size -80.5 120.6 -102.6 -85.4

KLST -111.0 9.5 -110.9 -102.8

RHS -111.6 44.0 -114.1 -114.2

X70

CVN -94.5 419.8 -100.3 -97.4

2⁄3-size -100.3 252.1 -104.3 -103.9

1⁄2-size -103.8 128.9 -117.2 -113.8

KLST -136.6 10.0 -136.2 -139.1

RHS -126.6 47.1 -123.5 -128.5

X100

CVN -69.6 233.7 -74.0 -67.7

2⁄3-size -82.7 122.8 -85.2 -83.7

1⁄2-size -76.7 78.7 -78.6 -78.5

KLST -117.8 8.9 -115.5 -113.0

RHS -103.0 28.9 -103.0 -103.6

Figure 2 compares values of DBTTKV measured from the different specimen types. The same information 

is presented in terms of USE, DBTTLE, and T50% in Figures 3, 4, and 5 respectively. A general trend of decreasing 

transition temperatures and upper shelf energies with decreasing specimen size/cross section is observed.
10

Figure 2 - DBTTKV values measured from different specimen types.

Figure 3 - USE values measured from different specimen types.

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20 DBTTKV

(°C)

Full-size

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST

X52 X65 X70 X100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450 USE (J)

Full-size

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST

X52 X65 X70 X100
11

Figure 4 - DBTTLE values measured from different specimen types.

Figure 5 - T50% values measured from different specimen types.

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20 DBTTLE

(°C)

Full-size

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST

X52 X65 X70 X100

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

T50% (°C)

Full-size

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST

X52 X65 X70 X100
12

Figure 6 compares values of ductile-to-brittle transition temperature measured from absorbed energy 

(DBTTKV), lateral expansion (DBTTLE) and shear fracture appearance (T50%). In the Figure, dotted and dashed lines 

correspond to ± 10 °C and ± 25 °C tolerance bounds respectively. In 90 % of the cases (possible combinations of 

material and specimen type), transition temperatures calculated from LE and SFA measurements agree with 

KV-based DBTTs within ± 10 °C. Only in one case (DBTTLE from CVN specimens for X65), the difference is 

larger than 25 °C. It’s interesting to note that all the data points corresponding to MVCN test results (red symbols 

for KLST and yellow symbols for RHS) fall inside the ± 10 °C lines. Among the different specimen types, the 1⁄2-

size samples (blue symbols) provide most of the data points falling below the -10 °C line.

Figure 6 - Comparison between different measures of ductile-to-brittle transition temperature.

The comparisons between CVN transition curves, shown in Figure 7 (KV), Figure 8 (LE), and Figure 9

(SFA), lead to the following observations:

 the least tough steel is X52 (highest DBTTs and lowest USE);

 the toughest steel is X70 (lowest DBTTs and highest USE);

 X65 has almost the same USE as X70, but its DBTTs are the second highest after X52;

 X100 has lower USE than X65 or X70, but its DBTTs are better (i.e., lower) than X65;

 the upper shelf lateral expansion is similar for X65, X70, and X100;

 X70 has the steepest transition, while X52 has the most shallow;

 X65 and X70 exhibit more data scatter than X100 or X52 in the transition region.

All the remarks above remain valid when considering data from other specimen types.

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 DBTTLE or T50% (°C) 

DBTTKV (°C)

DBTT from lateral expansion

T_50% from estimated SFA

White: CVN

Green: 2/3-size

Blue: 1/2-size

Red: KLST

Yellow: RHS
13

Figure 7 - Comparison between CVN transition curves for absorbed energy.

Figure 8 - Comparison between CVN transition curves for lateral expansion.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 KV (J)

Temperature (C)

X52

X65

X70

X100

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Lateral Expansion (mm)

Temperature (C)

X52

X65

X70

X100
14

Figure 9 - Comparison between CVN transition curves for shear fracture appearance.

4.2 Instrumented Charpy parameters

Characteristic force and absorbed energy values are reported in Tables 9 to 13 for the different specimen 

types. Tables also include the ratio between the two measures of absorbed energy (KV/Wt).

Table 9 - Instrumented impact results obtained from CVN specimens.

X52

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

C11 -80 9.90 9.90 9.90 0.00 1.65 1.99 2.40 1.21

C8 -50 No instrumented data available

C5 -35 12.12 13.9 13.90 0.00 2.53 3.47 4.13 1.19

C4 -15 13.42 13.62 13.62 0.00 6.63 9.93 10.21 1.03

C2 0 12.38 15.72 15.45 1.08 21.89 28.78 27.99 0.97

C10 10 11.67 15.55 15.36 4.55 22.94 34.08 34.25 1.00

C1 21 11.23 15.07 14.52 8.29 26.23 51.43 48.86 0.95

C6 40 No instrumented data available

C7 76 9.47 14.21 - - 26.52 71.84 74.29 1.03

C3 100 9.03 14.15 - - 27.31 72.36 75.22 1.04

C12 148 8.41 13.38 - - 25.74 70.03 71.50 1.02

C9 198 8.22 12.89 - - 24.76 68.31 69.40 1.02

0

25

50

75

100

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 SFA (%)

Temperature (C)

X52

X65

X70

X100
15

X65

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

C10 -150 29.15 29.15 29.15 0.00 3.91 4.92 5.27 1.07

C2 -90 15.45 18.14 16.68 0.00 5.91 6.50 10.13 1.56

C7 -65 15.18 21.42 11.83 4.65 76.17 194.52 198.68 1.02

C5 -50 14.56 20.93 19.91 7.59 62.60 97.53 98.50 1.01

C1 -35 13.71 20.48 10.04 5.92 67.92 172.29 176.56 1.02

C9 -20 13.62 19.83 13.69 11.53 68.11 259.14 268.81 1.04

C11 0 13.00 19.45 13.91 12.87 70.96 220.06 229.11 1.04

C8 5 12.65 19.50 - - 74.98 396.58 422.98 1.07

C3 10 12.47 19.28 - - 73.42 400.06 428.76 1.07

C4 21 12.17 19.20 - - 74.12 403.42 431.78 1.07

C6 100 10.81 17.60 - - 69.53 372.77 404.14 1.08

C12 150 10.44 16.74 - - 68.87 361.91 391.04 1.08

X70

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

C2 -150 19.18 19.18 19.18 0.00 3.93 5.54 5.95 1.07

C3 -125 19.36 19.36 19.36 0.00 3.88 6.87 7.54 1.10

C6 -112 17.02 21.70 21.37 0.00 15.30 17.09 18.14 1.06

C9 -99 17.67 24.09 18.93 15.06 74.07 203.87 205.42 1.01

C10 -98 16.63 20.58 20.55 2.06 15.88 29.43 30.52 1.04

C5 -90 16.61 23.22 13.66 12.50 76.91 320.68 327.65 1.02

C11 -80 15.71 23.03 - - 76.71 388.49 406.42 1.05

C1 -70 16.40 22.51 - - 76.01 328.92 339.31 1.03

C7 -70 15.58 22.54 - - 77.36 393.35 410.12 1.04

C12 -50 14.81 21.83 - - 78.02 436.33 462.33 1.06

C8 -20 13.85 20.82 - - 78.10 431.72 460.94 1.07

C4 21 12.82 19.92 - - 75.43 414.89 439.74 1.06

X100

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

C4 -149 19.53 19.53 19.53 0.00 5.96 6.75 7.09 1.05

C5 -90 23.11 25.92 23.80 5.20 13.93 32.18 32.11 1.00

C6 -80 22.92 23.05 23.05 9.05 7.68 34.62 33.46 0.97

C1 -75 21.17 29.88 24.93 18.99 77.32 166.84 163.24 0.98

C7 -70 22.59 29.85 29.32 25.41 70.48 130.78 125.99 0.96

C12 -50 22.29 29.19 27.65 24.71 73.40 153.08 148.54 0.97

C2 -50 22.08 29.19 25.55 21.71 77.91 186.54 183.76 0.99

C10 -35 21.38 28.56 23.25 21.96 81.60 224.99 225.93 1.00

C9 -20 20.99 27.76 21.01 19.64 78.37 224.29 226.99 1.01

C8 21 20.68 26.93 20.83 19.10 75.82 207.20 206.73 1.00

C3 100 16.33 24.81 - - 70.68 242.46 248.20 1.02
16

Table 10 - Instrumented impact results obtained from 2⁄3-size specimens.

X52

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

S1-8 -80 7.67 7.67 7.67 0.00 1.29 2.36 2.70 1.14

S1-7 -50 No instrumented data available

S1-5 -35 9.35 10.53 10.35 0.00 11.56 12.25 13.58 1.11

S1-2 -15 8.40 10.29 10.04 0.57 12.74 16.62 15.73 0.95

S1-3 0 7.96 10.00 10.00 1.85 13.96 19.75 19.76 1.00

S1-12 10 No instrumented data available

S1-1 21 7.36 9.42 8.66 5.15 15.03 37.44 38.17 1.02

S1-6 40 7.76 10.94 10.25 7.58 20.19 59.41 46.90 0.79

S1-10 75 6.16 8.9 - - 16.3 46.14 47.96 1.04

S1-4 100 5.57 8.37 - - 15.31 45.52 47.96 1.05

S1-9 152 5.31 8.25 - - 15.63 44.24 46.09 1.04

S1-11 199 5.15 7.95 - - 15.56 43.96 47.31 1.08

X65

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

S1-11 -164 8.00 8.00 8.00 0.00 1.23 1.55 1.57 1.01

S1-2 -140 14.14 14.14 14.14 0.00 2.63 3.24 3.30 1.02

S1-5 -125 13.26 13.26 13.26 0.00 2.16 3.34 3.38 1.01

S1-10 -114 11.79 11.79 11.79 0.00 1.45 1.83 2.48 1.36

S1-9 -95 12.71 12.71 12.71 0.06 1.87 3.29 5.04 1.53

S1-7 -90 10.84 13.56 9.76 5.26 41.81 106.87 111.13 1.04

S1-3 -70 10.26 13.19 9.65 6.86 41.83 117.10 121.95 1.04

S1-4 -50 9.77 12.77 7.96 6.35 43.26 149.80 158.64 1.06

S1-6 -35 9.41 12.52 - - 44.76 236.34 261.16 1.11

S1-12 -20 8.96 12.15 - - 44.86 211.90 231.72 1.09

S1-8 21 8.51 11.83 - - 44.23 223.92 244.95 1.09

S1-1 100 7.03 10.65 - - 41.89 219.83 246.25 1.12

X70

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

S1-10 -163 13.53 13.53 13.53 0.00 2.16 2.75 2.93 1.07

S1-9 -136 5.98 5.98 5.98 0.00 1.45 1.79 1.87 1.04

S1-7 -111 11.12 13.68 12.97 0.00 8.16 10.36 10.36 1.00

S1-6 -105 8.91 10.52 10.52 1.15 3.23 8.60 8.23 0.96

S1-3 -100 11.36 14.65 - - 39.68 187.35 199.06 1.06

S1-2 -95 11.04 14.43 9.00 8.32 43.43 169.93 179.07 1.05

S1-5 -90 10.68 14.15 10.21 9.37 46.02 170.57 181.43 1.06

S1-11 -70 9.99 13.61 - - 42.75 201.80 221.89 1.10

S1-1 -60 10.39 13.47 - - 48.75 221.21 239.35 1.08

S1-8 -50 9.76 13.32 - - 45.19 253.06 278.14 1.10

S1-12 -20 8.94 12.79 - - 46.79 246.41 271.85 1.10

S1-4 21 8.18 12.13 - - 45.22 226.77 249.30 1.10
17

X100

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

S1-10 -162 13.67 13.67 13.67 0.00 2.29 3.44 3.46 1.01

S1-6 -124 21.21 21.21 21.21 0.00 6.53 7.76 9.67 1.25

S1-5 -90 12.65 18.29 18.09 0.03 29.8 32.78 34.98 1.07

S1-2 -80 12.77 18.03 17.67 16.59 40.34 86.71 86.12 0.99

S1-4 -75 12.15 17.41 12.75 8.04 33.06 80.00 78.7 0.98

S1-7 -70 12.49 17.90 16.77 15.86 39.19 86.94 89.23 1.03

S1-1 -50 11.96 17.53 14.55 10.67 39.27 94.24 93.99 1.00

S1-3 -40 12.48 17.76 16.92 15.62 42.75 101.63 101.9 1.00

S1-12 -20 11.73 17.08 - - 42.33 114.22 117.15 1.03

S1-8 21 11.12 16.38 - - 38.63 118.57 120.56 1.02

S1-9 100 10.54 15.38 - - 37.58 126.25 130.66 1.03

Table 11 - Instrumented impact results obtained from 1⁄2-size specimens.

X52

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

S2-10 -80 6.85 6.85 6.85 0.00 0.98 1.31 1.57 1.20

S2-7 -60 7.82 8.25 8.14 0.00 1.32 2.1 2.33 1.11

S2-6 -50 6.96 7.93 7.93 0.33 7.85 8.15 8.76 1.07

S2-3 -35 6.45 7.74 7.73 0.28 9.56 10.9 11.2 1.03

S2-2 -15 6.20 7.23 7.23 0.58 8.83 11.28 11.66 1.03

S2-4 0 5.90 6.99 6.99 2.17 10.56 18.08 18.06 1.00

S2-1 21 5.47 6.77 4.15 3.44 9.17 28.25 29.33 1.04

S2-8 42 5.03 6.52 - - 10.73 34.83 36.57 1.05

S2-9 75 4.4 6.39 - - 12.04 34.79 37.05 1.06

S2-5 100 4.33 6.34 - - 11.88 35.18 36.81 1.05

S2-11 145 4.08 6.01 - - 11.07 33.56 34.33 1.02

S2-12 200 3.74 5.63 - - 11.11 32.8 35.45 1.08

X65

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

S2-12 -153 12.57 12.57 12.57 0.00 1.77 2.29 2.48 1.08

S2-10 -123 6.87 6.87 6.87 0.00 1.19 1.35 1.35 1.00

S2-8 -114 8.32 10.22 10.22 0.37 2.19 3.04 3.30 1.09

S2-6 -100 8.40 9.98 9.04 3.65 23.97 43.81 43.82 1.00

S2-3 -90 7.94 9.69 7.94 4.35 25.31 56.79 57.32 1.01

S2-7 -70 7.26 9.30 5.09 2.08 26.32 75.47 80.49 1.07

S2-11 -50 9.04 9.04 4.71 3.00 26.7 87.02 93.38 1.07

S2-2 -40 6.58 8.82 5.02 3.94 26.8 75.07 82.36 1.10

S2-9 -35 6.81 8.88 - - 28.09 109.89 119.54 1.09

S2-4 -20 6.65 8.71 - - 29.44 116.02 127.74 1.10

S2-1 21 5.95 8.25 - - 26.71 104.6 113.01 1.08

S2-5 100 5.03 7.54 - - 25.49 109.21 121.96 1.12
18

X70

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

S2-1 -151 No instrumented data available

S2-7 -132 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 1.31 2.50 2.63 1.05

S2-11 -124 15.21 15.21 15.21 0.00 4.28 6.08 6.55 1.08

S2-6 -120 8.55 10.65 6.21 2.75 24.10 57.47 57.56 1.00

S2-9 -115 8.71 10.74 10.38 7.30 23.91 39.38 37.94 0.96

S2-10 -100 8.41 10.45 9.06 7.12 25.31 63.54 63.21 0.99

S2-3 -100 8.25 10.22 7.17 5.40 26.02 69.94 74.20 1.06

S2-2 -96 8.08 10.18 5.64 4.29 25.71 70.41 73.27 1.04

S2-5 -90 7.84 9.93 - - 27.26 111.33 120.00 1.08

S2-8 -50 7.07 9.40 - - 27.19 113.56 122.77 1.08

S2-12 -20 6.36 9.10 - - 28.28 123.44 134.63 1.09

S2-4 21 5.95 8.46 - - 29.97 124.88 138.01 1.11

X100

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

S2-3 -149 10.59 10.59 10.59 0.00 1.65 2.53 2.55 1.01

S2-10 -131 11.70 11.70 11.70 0.00 1.98 3.01 3.08 1.02

S2-11 -110 9.07 12.85 12.70 0.00 9.85 10.31 11.13 1.08

S2-7 -96 11.74 12.70 12.70 0.48 3.36 5.66 7.47 1.32

S2-5 -90 9.27 12.73 9.72 7.62 21.92 52.57 54.6 1.04

S2-2 -70 8.23 11.36 10.92 6.32 15.73 27.4 32.11 1.17

S2-1 -50 9.46 12.63 8.65 7.45 22.99 67.16 70.41 1.05

S2-8 -20 8.49 11.9 10.24 9.53 24.57 69.47 73.53 1.06

S2-9 10 8.29 11.71 - - 25.97 85.66 89.48 1.04

S2-4 21 8.19 11.35 - - 22.45 78.05 81.26 1.04

S2-6 100 8.41 11.42 - - 20.27 67.55 70.33 1.04

Table 12 - Instrumented impact results obtained from KLST specimens.

X52

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

K4 -188 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.08 0.67

K10 -150 1.83 1.83 1.83 0.00 0.10 0.15 0.18 1.20

K12 -122 1.14 1.14 1.14 0.00 0.10 0.18 0.16 0.89

K1 -76 1.24 1.24 1.24 0.00 0.12 0.17 0.21 1.24

K3 -50 1.04 1.17 1.17 0.00 1.15 1.7 0.63 0.37

K7 -40 0.93 1.12 0.98 0.28 0.86 2.39 1.69 0.71

K8 -35 0.96 1.13 0.98 0.40 0.92 3.03 2.32 0.77

K6 -26 0.93 1.07 0.68 0.54 0.86 4.02 2.97 0.74

K5 0 0.75 1.05 - - 1.17 4.67 3.91 0.84

K2 20 0.87 1.05 - - 1.17 4.67 4.49 0.96

K9 100 0.74 0.96 - - 1.42 4.47 4.34 0.97

K11 144 0.66 0.87 - - 1.21 4.10 3.99 0.97
19

X65

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

K11 -190 1.63 1.63 1.63 0.00 0.08 0.18 0.20 1.11

K3 -174 2.08 2.08 2.08 0.00 0.19 0.24 0.30 1.25

K2 -150 1.57 1.59 1.42 0.09 2.12 4.37 4.18 0.96

K10 -147 1.31 1.74 1.50 0.00 0.64 1.42 1.39 0.98

K7 -122 1.12 1.54 1.52 0.00 0.55 0.88 0.96 1.09

K4 -111 1.36 1.47 1.03 0.54 2.2 7.05 6.63 0.94

K8 -100 1.39 1.48 1.38 0.33 2.19 4.87 4.35 0.89

K5 -84 1.4 1.43 - - 2.4 10.27 9.53 0.93

K12 -75 1.31 1.4 - - 1.95 8.78 8.08 0.92

K9 -50 1.15 1.33 - - 2.79 9.87 9.57 0.97

K6 0 0.98 1.22 - - 2.67 9.55 9.37 0.98

K1 20 0.85 1.2 - - 2.63 9.52 9.33 0.98

X70

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

K11 -190 1.70 1.70 1.70 0.00 0.13 0.36 0.20 0.56

K12 -169 1.79 1.79 1.79 0.00 0.15 0.31 0.33 1.06

K4 -150 1.47 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.56 1.06 0.95 0.90

K5 -140 1.40 1.56 1.50 0.00 0.32 0.71 0.67 0.94

K6 -134 1.30 1.58 0.92 0.82 0.98 9.55 9.19 0.96

K3 -130 1.48 1.63 0.82 0.78 1.52 9.58 9.28 0.97

K9 -115 1.47 1.56 0.76 0.66 2.27 10.15 9.82 0.97

K10 -100 1.34 1.52 - - 1.66 10.8 10.34 0.96

K7 -77 1.24 1.48 - - 2.61 10.79 10.22 0.95

K8 -50 1.17 1.43 - - 2.06 10.7 9.57 0.89

K2 0 0.99 1.27 - - 2.46 10.11 9.94 0.98

K1 20 1 1.25 - - 3.69 10.11 9.86 0.98

X100

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

K9 -191 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.08 0.16 0.27 1.69

K5 -150 1.61 2.17 2.06 0.00 0.78 0.93 0.94 1.01

K6 -126 1.73 2.09 1.94 0.30 0.98 2.39 2.05 0.86

K2 -121 1.76 2.04 2.04 0.17 2.39 2.87 2.71 0.94

K3 -112 No instrumented data available

K1 -100 1.84 1.97 1.66 1.49 2.54 8.41 7.96 0.95

K10 -75 No instrumented data available

K4 -50 1.59 1.83 1.22 1.10 2.54 8.93 8.67 0.97

K7 -10 1.47 1.75 - - 2.43 9.63 9.20 0.96

K12 0 1.45 1.73 - - 2.46 9.23 N/A N/A

K8 20 1.54 1.79 - - 2.24 9.17 8.89 0.97
20

Table 13 - Instrumented impact results obtained from RHS specimens.

X52

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

R3 -184 3.21 3.21 3.21 0.00 0.15 0.23 0.20 0.87

R2 -150 2.76 2.76 2.76 0.00 0.25 0.31 0.22 0.71

R1 -125 2.89 2.89 2.89 0.00 0.28 0.41 0.31 0.76

R4 -101 2.99 2.99 2.99 0.00 0.56 0.66 0.38 0.58

R8 -70 4.20 4.42 4.39 0.00 0.95 1.07 0.64 0.60

R7 -50 1.09 1.29 1.29 0.00 1.00 3.97 2.00 0.50

R9 -25 3.44 3.66 3.66 0.51 1.73 2.39 2.09 0.87

R5 -16 1.60 1.95 1.94 0.41 3.62 8.20 4.85 0.59

R10 -5 1.48 1.80 1.77 0.89 2.56 10.65 4.81 0.45

R12 21 2.84 3.72 - - 4.05 13.25 13.14 0.99

R11 100 0.92 1.26 - - 2.95 31.72 11.66 0.37

R6 149 1.01 1.62 - - 4.19 23.56 12.13 0.51

X65

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

R1 -180 3.97 3.97 3.70 0.00 0.6 0.83 0.55 0.66

R2 -150 4.11 4.11 4.11 0.00 0.49 0.61 0.47 0.77

R7 -135 3.00 3.00 2.84 0.04 1.42 3.08 1.60 0.52

R3 -124 2.37 2.57 2.48 0.00 4.07 9.01 4.21 0.47

R4 -119 2.34 2.66 2.24 1.25 7.45 38.28 20.75 0.54

R10 -112 2.25 2.64 - - 8.26 48.74 32.58 0.67

R6 -112 2.56 3.18 3.06 0.07 1.37 2.73 1.66 0.61

R5 -101 2.24 2.57 - - 8.37 50.39 42.48 0.84

R9 -90 2.16 2.55 1.42 1.21 9.00 50.39 39.97 0.79

R11 -75 2.08 2.5 - - 9.57 50.39 47.40 0.94

R8 -40 1.73 2.37 - - 9.36 50.39 45.88 0.91

R12 21 1.57 2.23 - - 9.89 44.03 44.03 1.00

X70

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

R1 -180 No instrumented data available

R2 -150 4.83 5.65 5.65 1.43 2.54 3.08 2.26 0.73

R7 -136 4.21 5.94 5.94 0.39 2.35 2.90 2.08 0.72

R5 -129 2.48 2.81 2.81 0.37 3.92 8.37 4.89 0.58

R3 -125 2.41 2.84 - - 9.05 50.39 39.98 0.79

R6 -120 2.44 2.88 - - 8.82 50.39 42.60 0.85

R12 -115 1.75 2.22 2.22 1.17 4.41 20.82 8.13 0.39

R4 -115 2.35 2.84 - - 8.74 50.39 45.37 0.90

R9 -100 2.23 2.75 - - 9.78 50.39 47.93 0.95

R8 -31 1.8 2.53 - - 10.25 50.39 48.89 0.97

R10 21 1.63 2.37 - - 10.24 46.61 46.61 1.00

R11 21 1.75 2.40 - - 10.08 46.35 n/a n/a
21

X100

Specimen id T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

R2 -184 3.37 5.08 4.72 0.20 1.47 1.63 1.21 0.74

R1 -153 No instrumented data available

R12 -123 2.99 3.62 3.62 0.31 3.49 8.63 4.49 0.73

R3 -110 2.47 3.08 2.72 0.04 2.31 8.11 3.62 0.72

R8 -105 2.45 2.91 2.91 0.48 3.96 15.66 6.30 0.58

R4 -102 2.73 3.58 3.20 2.67 8.30 37.00 19.16 0.79

R9 -100 3.37 4.19 3.91 3.69 11.72 43.57 29.37 0.85

R6 -76 No instrumented data available

R10 -70 2.62 3.33 1.85 1.59 9.14 47.96 29.60 0.62

R5 -35 2.71 3.48 1.85 1.71 8.86 48.37 29.76 0.62

R7 21 2.37 3.04 - - 8.76 31.73 31.73 1.00

Force values at general yield (Fgy) and maximum forces (Fm) are plotted as a function of test temperature 

for the investigated steels in Figures 10-17. In the Figures, data points are fitted by 3

rd or 4th order polynomials as a 

guide for the eye.

As expected, characteristic forces tend to decrease with the specimen cross-section and test temperature,

often after reaching a peak at low temperatures.

Figure 10 - Forces at general yield for steel X52.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

SS1

SS2

KLST

RHS
22

Figure 11 – Maximum forces for steel X52.

Figure 12 - Forces at general yield for steel X65.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

SS1

SS2

KLST

RHS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

SS1

SS2

KLST

RHS
23

Figure 13 – Maximum forces for steel X65.

Figure 14 - Forces at general yield for steel X70.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

SS1

SS2

RHS

KLST

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

SS1

SS2

KLST

RHS
24

Figure 15 – Maximum forces for steel X70.

Figure 16 - Forces at general yield for steel X100.

0

5

10

15

20

25

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50

Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

SS1

SS2

KLST

RHS

0

5

10

15

20

25

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

SS1

SS2

RHS

KLST
25

Figure 17 – Maximum forces for steel X100.

4.2.1 Normalization of characteristic forces

We applied several normalization procedures to general yield and maximum forces measured from SCVN 

and MCVN specimens, in order to verify if any of these approaches is successful in bringing together force values 

obtained from specimens of different size and geometry. 

The general approach we followed was the use of the ratio between the following geometrical parameters, 

as several researchers have already proposed for correlating upper shelf energies between miniaturized and fullsize Charpy specimens (see also Section 5.2):

(a) ratio of nominal fracture areas, expressed as B∙b, where B is the specimen thickness and b is the specimen 

width below the notch (unnotched ligament size);

(b) ratio of nominal fracture volumes, expressed as B∙b2;

(c) ratio of nominal fracture volumes, expressed as (B∙b)

3/2

.

The values of the above quantities for the different specimen types are summarized in Table 14; the 

corresponding normalization factors obtained for each specimen type are listed in Table 15.

Table 14 - Values of nominal fracture areas and volumes for the Charpy specimens used in this study.

Specimen

type

B∙b

(mm2)

B∙b2

(mm3)

(B∙b)

3/2

(mm3)

CVN 80 640 715.54

2⁄3-size 53.33 426.67 389.49

1⁄2-size 40 320 252.98

KLST 9 27 27

RHS 18.64 71.97 80.50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

SS1

SS2

KLST

RHS
26

Table 15 – Normalization factors based on the ratio of nominal fracture areas and volumes for the SCVN and MCVN

specimens used in this study.

Geometrical

parameter

Non-standard specimen type

2⁄3-size 1⁄2-size KLST RHS

Area, B∙b 1.50 2.00 8.89 4.29

Volume, B∙b2 23.70 8.89 Volume, (B∙b)

3/2 1.84 2.83 26.50

Note that (Table 15):

 for sub-size specimens, since the ligament size is the same as for CVN, the normalization factors 

corresponding to B∙b and B∙b2 are identical;

 for RHS specimens, which are exactly scaled down with respect to CVN, the two volume-based normalization 

factors are identical.

The results of the force normalization process on Fgy and Fm values are illustrated in Figures 18-23 (X52), 

24-29 (X65), 30-35 (X70), and 36-41 (X100).

Figure 18 - Forces at general yield for X52, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb
27

Figure 19 - Forces at general yield for X52, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

Figure 20 - Forces at general yield for X52, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)3/2
28

Figure 21 – Maximum forces for X52, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

Figure 22 – Maximum forces for X52, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2
29

Figure 23 – Maximum forces for X52, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

Figure 24 - Forces at general yield for X65, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)3/2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb
30

Figure 25 - Forces at general yield for X65, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

Figure 26 - Forces at general yield for X65, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb3/2
31

Figure 27 – Maximum forces for X65, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

Figure 28 – Maximum forces for X65, normalized for by ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2
32

Figure 29 – Maximum forces for X65, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

Figure 30 - Forces at general yield for X70, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb
33

Figure 31 - Forces at general yield for X70, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

Figure 32 - Forces at general yield for X70, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb3/2
34

Figure 33 – Maximum forces for X70, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

Figure 34 – Maximum forces for X70, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2
35

Figure 35 – Maximum forces for X70, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

Figure 36 - Forces at general yield for X100, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb3/2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb
36

Figure 37 - Forces at general yield for X100, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

Figure 38 - Forces at general yield for X100, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb3/2
37

Figure 39 – Maximum forces for X100, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

Figure 40 – Maximum forces for X100, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2
38

Figure 41 – Maximum forces for X100, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

Examination of Figures 18 to 41 leads to the following conclusions:

(a) In the case of SCVN specimens (2⁄3-size and 1⁄2-size), normalization by the ratio of fracture areas (Bb) is quite

effective for forces at general yield, but less effective (but still more than acceptable) for maximum forces.

This might be expected, since at general yield the specimen is predominantly elastic and fracture area 

normalization has been shown to work well only when elastic conditions are prevailing [8]. At maximum 

force, plastic deformation is no more negligible and the effectiveness of fracture area normalization is reduced 

(normalized forces are slightly too low).

(b) Normalization by the ratio of fracture areas (Bb) does not work well for either type of MCVN specimen (RHS 

or KLST), where plastic deformation in the specimen is exacerbated by the loss of constraint. For the reasons 

mentioned under (a) above, the underestimation is more pronounced for Fm. 

(c) Normalization by the ratio of fracture volumes (Bb2) is inadequate for KLST specimens, where it produces 

grossly overestimated normalized force values. In the case of RHS specimens, results are acceptable except at 

the lowest test temperatures, and in general for the least tough material (X52). However, even for the latter 

steel this normalization approach works satisfactorily under the most ductile conditions (i.e., the highest 

temperatures).

(d) Normalization by the ratio of fracture volumes (Bb)

3/2 tends to overcorrect instrumented forces for SCVN 

specimens. This overcorrection tends to increase with decreasing specimen cross section.

(e) For KLST specimens, normalization by the ratio of fracture volumes (Bb)

3/2 also yields gross overcorrection of 

Fgy and Fm values.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

KLST

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb3/2
39

None of the normalization factors seems to work for KLST specimens, also due to the non-proportionality 

of this geometry with respect to the standard Charpy geometry. We therefore attempted to optimize a KLSTspecific normalization factor based on the ratio of fracture volumes, expressed as Bb2, where  < 1 is an 

empirical coefficient which minimizes the differences between (normalized) characteristic forces for CVN and 

KLST specimens. Based on the data shown in Figures 42 to 45, we have found that the optimum values of  for 

the line pipe steels investigated are 0.55 for Fgy and 0.63 for Fm. The need to use two different values of  can be 

explained by the larger amount of plasticity (and therefore larger fracture volume) occurring in the specimen at 

maximum force.

Figure 42 - Normalization of Fgy and Fm for KLST specimens of X52 steel with an optimized ratio of fracture volumes.

Trendlines for CVN specimens are solid, trendlines for KLST specimens are dotted.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Normalized Fgy, Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN, Fgy

KLST, Fgy norm

CVN, Fm

KLST, Fm norm

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2
40

Figure 43 - Normalization of Fgy and Fm for KLST specimens of X65 steel with an optimized ratio of fracture volumes.

Trendlines for CVN specimens are solid, trendlines for KLST specimens are dotted.

Figure 44 - Normalization of Fgy and Fm for KLST specimens of X70 steel with an optimized ratio of fracture volumes.

Trendlines for CVN specimens are solid, trendlines for KLST specimens are dotted.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Normalized Fgy, Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN, Fgy

KLST, Fgy norm

CVN, Fm

KLST, Fm norm

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Normalized Fgy, Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN, Fgy

KLST, Fgy norm

CVN, Fm

KLST, Fm norm

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2
41

Figure 45 - Normalization of Fgy and Fm for KLST specimens of X100 steel with an optimized ratio of fracture volumes.

Trendlines for CVN specimens are solid, trendlines for KLST specimens are dotted.

In summary, the following can be concluded.

 For SCVN specimens, forces at general yield and maximum forces should be normalized by the ratio of either 

nominal fracture areas, expressed as Bb, or nominal fracture volumes, expressed as Bb2 (which are identical as 

shown in Table 15).

 Values of Fgy and Fm for RHS specimens should be normalized by the ratio of nominal fracture volumes, 

expressed either as Bb2 or (Bb)

3/2 (which are identical as shown in Table 15).

 For KLST specimens, a nominal fracture volume normalization is recommended in the form Bb2, where  = 

0.55 for Fgy and  = 0.63 for Fm.

 Normalization does not appear very effective under low toughness conditions (low test temperatures and/or 

low toughness materials).

All these recommendations could be unified by assuming a general form of the nominal fracture volume 

expressed by Bb2, with the empirical coefficient  having different values as a function of specimen type 

according to Table 16.

Table 16 – Recommended values of the empirical coefficient  for normalization of characteristic force values.

Specimen

type

Coefficient 

Fgy Fm

SCVN 1

RHS

KLST 0.55 0.63

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Normalized Fgy, Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN, Fgy

KLST, Fgy norm

CVN, Fm

KLST, Fm norm

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2
42

4.3 Different measures of absorbed energy (KV and Wt)

The ratio KV/Wt (last column in Tables 9 to 13) is plotted as a function of measured SFA in Figure 46

(CVN and SCVN specimens), Figure 47 (KLST specimens), and Figure 48 (RHS specimens). Each plot refers to a 

specific combination of impact machine and instrumented striker. 

Figure 46 - Values of KV/Wt as a function of SFA for CVN and SCVN tests.

Figure 47 - Values of KV/Wt as a function of SFA for KLST tests.

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ratio KV/Wt

SFA (%)

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

+15 %

-15 %

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ratio KV/Wt

SFA (%)

+15 %

-15 %
43

Figure 48 - Values of KV/Wt as a function of SFA for RHS tests.

For CVN, SCVN and KLST specimens, the vast majority of the tests yielded values of KV/Wt within 

±15 % (0.85 to 1.15), which according to ASTM E2298-13a is the acceptable range inside which no correction to 

instrumented forces is required. Most of the outliers correspond to low SFA values, i.e., brittle tests which are 

typically more difficult to analyze§.

In the case of RHS tests, the difference between the two measures of absorbed energy is generally much 

larger, and a large portion of the KV/Wt values actually fall below the line corresponding to -25 % (0.75),

irrespective of material or ductility level. For RHS tests, instrumented force values were corrected by imposing

equality between Wt and KV, as prescribed by ASTM E2298-13a. This approach, commonly used in instrumented 

Charpy testing, is denominated “dynamic force adjustment” [10].

5. Correlations between specimen types

5.1 Ductile-to-brittle transition temperatures

The values of DBTT calculated from SCVN and MCVN specimens for KV (DBTTKV), LE (DBTTLE), and 

SFA (T50%) are plotted in Figures 49 to 51 as a function of the corresponding transition temperatures for full-size 

specimens. Substantially linear relationships are observed in all cases. However, particularly for DBTTKV values

(Figure 49), X65 tends to behave as an outlier with comparatively larger shifts then the other line pipe steels. The 

cause of this behavior is the DBTTKV measured for X65 (-34.8 °C), which is much higher than DBTTLE (-75.7 °C) 

and T50% (-65.1 °C), and therefore yields larger shifts than expected. Note that a similar tendency for X65 to 

 

§According to several researchers, brittle tests that feature less than 3 dynamic force oscillations before specimen fracture 

should be analyzed, since the striker signal does not accurately represent the true specimen behavior [9].

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ratio KV/Wt

SFA (%)

+15 %

-15 %
44

provide larger shifts than the other steels can also be observed for LE (Figure 50) and SFA (Figure 51), although to 

a lesser degree. We therefore decided to exclude X65 results in the calculation of the average DBTT shifts and 

their standard deviations in Table 17 and Figure 52.

Table 17 - Shifts of ductile-to-brittle-transition temperature calculated for different steels (excluding X65), specimen 

types and Charpy parameters.

As expected, the magnitude of the downward shift increases as the specimen size decreases, which 

confirms the well-known shift of DBTT to lower temperatures due to a reduction in specimen size [8,11]. 

Parameter Material 2⁄3-size 1⁄2-size RHS KLST

X52 -11.4 -16.0 -17.2 -46.7

X65 -35.3 -45.7 -76.8 -76.2

X70 -5.8 -9.3 -32.1 -42.2

X100 -13.2 -7.1 -33.4 -48.2

Mean -10.1 -10.8 -27.6 -45.7

X52 -9.2 -13.7 -13.2 -38.1

X65 -18.9 -26.9 -38.4 -35.2

X70 -4.0 -16.9 -23.2 -35.9

X100 -11.2 -4.7 -29.0 -41.5

Mean -10.8 -15.5 -26.0 -37.7

X52 -8.8 -17.4 -25.8 -54.4

X65 -38.8 -45.4 -74.2 -62.8

X70 -6.5 -16.4 -31.1 -41.7

X100 -16.0 -10.8 -35.9 -45.3

Mean -17.5 -22.5 -41.7 -51.0

-9.6 -12.5 -26.8 -43.8

3.8 4.7 7.6 5.6

Specimen type

KV

LE

SFA

Overall mean

Overall st. dev.

y = 0.92x - 20.22

R2 = 0.92

y = 0.86x - 25.97

R2 = 0.85

y = 1.06x - 37.22

R2 = 0.78

y = 0.92x - 57.28

R2 = 0.89

-150

-130

-110

-90

-70

-50

-30

-10

10

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 DBTTKV,SCVN/MCVN

(°C) 

DBTTKV,CVN (°C)

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST

X70

X65

X100

X52
45

Figure 49 - Values of DBTTKV calculated from different specimen types.

Figure 50 - Values of DBTTLE calculated from different specimen types.

Figure 51 - Values of T50% calculated from different specimen types.

y = 0.99x - 11.15

R2 = 0.98

y = 1.03x - 13.64

R2 = 0.97

y = 1.15x - 17.00

R2 = 0.98

y = 0.99x - 38.43

R2 = 1.00

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 DBTTLE,SCVN/MCVN

(°C) 

DBTTLE,CVN (°C)

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST

X70

X65

X100

X52

y = 0.98x - 18.60

R2 = 0.91

y = 0.95x - 24.99

R2 = 0.90

y = 1.02x - 40.76

R2 = 0.84

y = 0.88x - 56.80

R2 = 0.97

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

T50%,SCVN/MCVN

(°C) 

T50%,CVN (°C)

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST

X70

X65 X100

X52
46

Figure 52 - Values of DBTT shift (from KV, LE, and SFA) obtained from different specimen types.

The feasibility of using a simple empirical model such as:

DBTTCVN  DBTTSCVN/ MCVN  M

(2)

(where M is the DBTT shift due to specimen size reduction) was verified by performing a statistical t-test on the 

slope of the linear fits correlating all values of DBTTSCVN/MCVN and DBTTCVN (Figures 49 to 51). In all cases except 

for RHS specimens (see Table 18 and Figure 53), the calculated slope is not statistically different from 1 at a 

confidence level of 95 % ( = 0.95), and therefore the use of eq.(2) is justified. The degree of linear correlation is 

high in all cases (R

2 = 0.99).

Table 18 - Results of the t-test on the slope of the linear correlations shown in Figure 53. The slope is not statistically 

different from 1 if t0 < tcrit,=0.95.

X-variable Y-variable Specimen Slope

(1/°C)

Intercept

(°C) t0 tcrit,=0.05 Result of t-test

DBTTSCVN/MCVN DBTTCVN

2⁄3-size 1.015 10.514 0.536

1.895

Slope is not statistically different from 1

1⁄2-size 1.027 14.174 0.753 Slope is not statistically different from 1

RHS 0.896 18.642 2.981 Slope is statistically different from 1

KLST 1.046 48.181 1.124 Slope is not statistically different from 1

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

-110 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 DBTT shift (C)

DBTTCVN (C)

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST

2/3-size • ΔDBTT = -10 °C

1/2-size • ΔDBTT = -12 °C

RHS • ΔDBTT = -27 °C

KLST • ΔDBTT = -44 °C

X65 data

Excluded from mean

DDBTT calculations
47

Figure 53 - Linear correlations between DBTT values from SCVN, MCVN, and CVN specimens. NOTE: data from 

X65 are not included.

5.1.1 Comparison with the literature

By analyzing test results obtained from CVN and four types of MCVN specimens** for 10 base and weld 

metals from reactor pressure vessel steels, Sokolov and Alexander [8] proposed the following correlation between 

the factor M in eq.(2) and the nominal fracture volume, expressed as Bb2(B = specimen thickness, b = ligament 

size):

 

2 M  9815.1ln Bb

(3)

In [8], eq.(3) was obtained by fitting values of M corresponding to four different definitions of transition 

temperature: (a) 41J-temperature; (b) 68J-temperature; (c) temperature at the midpoint of the transition curve; (4) 

50 %-SFA temperature.

The values of DBTT shift obtained in this investigation and listed in Table 17 are compared to eq.(3) in 

Figure 54, where excellent agreement with Sokolov/Alexander’s original fit can be observed. We recalculated the 

coefficients of eq.(3) using both sets of results, subject to the constraint M = 0 for Bb2 = 640 mm3(i.e., for CVN 

specimens), and the following modified relationship was obtained:

 

2 M  92.7 14.34ln Bb

(4)

 

**Type 1: B = 5 mm, b = 4.2 mm; type 2: B = 3.3 mm, b = 2.83 mm; type 3: B = 5 mm, b = 4 mm; type 4 (KLST): B = 3 mm, b = 3 mm.

y = 1.02x + 10.51

R2 = 0.99

y = 1.03x + 14.17

R2 = 0.99

y = 0.90x + 18.64

R2 = 0.99

y = 1.05x + 48.18

R2 = 0.99

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

-150 -130 -110 -90 -70 -50 -30 -10 10 30 DBTTSCVN/MCVN

(°C) 

DBTTCVN (°C)

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST
48

Figure 54 illustrates our test results, the data points obtained by Sokolov/Alexander in [8] for MCVN 

specimens of 4 different geometries, their original relationship, eq.(3) and the modified fitting line, eq.(4). 

Figure 54 - Transition temperature correction for SCVN/MCVN specimens as a function of nominal fracture volume.

An earlier investigation by Gross [12] studied the relationship between different measures of transition 

temperature obtained from standard and sub-size Charpy specimens of five structural steels of different strength 

and ductility. The sub-size geometries considered were 1⁄2-size (denominated HW, or half-width††) and 1⁄4-size 

(QW, quarter-width). Specimens with B = 20 mm were also used (DW, double-width). The criteria used to define 

and calculate DBTTs referred to absorbed energy [KV = 15 ft.lb (20.3 J) and 3.8 ft.lb/0.1 in. (5.2 J/2.5 mm)

thickness], lateral expansion [LE = 10 mil (0.25 mm), 15 mil (0.38 mm), and 20 mils (0.51 mm)], and shear 

fracture appearance (SFA = 10 %, 30 %, and 50 %). In addition, Nil-Ductility Temperature (NDT) values measured 

by drop-weight testing in accordance with ASTM E208 were also reported. The average values of M for each steel 

investigated in [12] and the overall mean shift values are given in Table 19.

 

††Note that in [10], the specimen dimension parallel to the notch is denominated “width”. However, in this investigation the same dimension 

(B) is called “thickness”, following the conventional fracture toughness designation.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 DBTT shift, M (°C)

Nominal fracture volume, Bb2(mm3)

Sokolov-Alexander fit

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST

Sokolov-Alexander, Types 1-4

Updated fit
49

Table 19 - DBTT shifts measured by Gross [12] on five structural steels using different types of Charpy specimens.

Steel Specimen

type

Mean

M

(°C)

ABS-C

QW

HW

DW

-37

-14

4

A302-B

QW

HW

DW

-36

-15

2

HY-80

QW

HW

DW

-44

-12

-3

A517-F

QW

HW

DW

-67

-23

4

HY-130

QW

HW

DW

-56

-8

-2

All

QW

HW

DW

-48

-14

1

The only sub-size specimen in common with our investigation is the 1⁄2-size, or HW: the average shift 

reported by Gross (-14 °C) is in agreement with our calculated value KV, LE, and SFA transition curves (see Table 

17), M = -12.5 °C. Note that the shift for 1⁄4-size specimens (-48 °C) is much larger than the shift we obtained for 

RHS specimens (-26.8 °C), and quite close to the shift we obtained for KLST specimens (-43.8 °C). Note also that 

the change in DBTT was negligible (1 °C) when the thickness of the specimen was doubled.

If we add Gross’ data to the M vs. Bb2plot shown in Figure 54, the value for 1⁄4-size (QW) specimens is 

clearly an outlier with respect to both Sokolov/Alexander’s original fit and our modified fit (Figure 55).

However, examination of Figure 55 leads to formulate a different hypothesis. We observe that all data 

points corresponding to SCVN specimens (2⁄3-size, 1⁄2-size, 1⁄4-size) lie above the fitting lines. One could therefore 

speculate that SCVN specimens might follow a different trend than MCVN specimens, and therefore it might be 

appropriate to separately fit SCVN and MCVN data.
50

Figure 55 - Transition temperature correction for SCVN/MCVN specimens, with Gross’ results added.

In Figure 56 we present an attempt at separately fitting SCVN and MCVN data, using the same 

formulation as eqs.(3) and (4) and still imposing M = 0 for CVN specimens. The quality of the SCVN fit appears 

to be poor, and a simple exponential fit of the type M = C1 exp(-C2∙Bb2) (green dashed line in Figure 56) appears to

provide a better fit. Additional data from sub-size specimens are needed to confirm or disprove these observations.

Figure 56 – DBTT shifts from [8], [12], and this investigation, fitted separately for SCVN and MCVN specimens.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 DBTT shift, M (°C)

Nominal fracture volume, Bb2(mm3)

Sokolov-Alexander fit

CVN

2/3-size

1/2-size

RHS

KLST

Sokolov-Alexander, Types 1-4

Gross, QW-HW

Updated fit

1⁄4-size

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 DBTT shift, M (°C)

Nominal fracture volume, Bb2(mm3)

CVN specimens

SCVN specimens

Fit SCVN specimens

MCVN specimens

Fit MCVN specimens

Exponential fit SCVN
51

5.2 Upper Shelf Energy

The most commonly used approach for correlating USE values between Charpy specimens of different 

geometry involves the use of a normalization factor, NF, which can be empirically derived from experimental data 

or calculated as the ratio between specific geometric parameters (see also Section 4.2.1):

USECVN  NF USESCVN/ MCVN

(5)

Published values of NF include:

 NF1 = ratio of fracture areas, expressed as Bb [13,14];

 NF2 = ratio of nominal fracture volumes, expressed as (Bb)

3/2 [13,14];

 NF3 = ratio of nominal fracture volumes, expressed as Bb2[15,16];

 NF4 = ratio of Bb2/SKt (with S = span, or distance between the anvils, and Kt = elastic stress concentration 

factor, which depends on ligament size and notch root radius) [17];

 NF5 = ratio of (Bb)

3/2/QKt(with Q = plastic stress concentration factor, given by Q = 1 + ( )/2, where  is 

the notch angle in radians) [18].

Additionally, empirical normalization factors were published by Sokolov and Alexander for 4 types of 

miniaturized Charpy specimens [8] (NF6) and by Lucon for KLST specimens [11] (NF7).

In this investigation, the empirical normalization factors NF8 obtained by fitting USE values with eq.(5), 

see Figure 57, are listed in Table 20, where they are compared with all the previously listed geometrical and 

empirical factors.

Table 20 - Normalization factors published in the literature (NF1 to NF7) and calculated in this investigation (NF8). For 

the definition of NF1 to NF7, see above.

Specimen

type NF1 NF2 NF3 NF4 NF5 NF6 NF7 NF8

2⁄3-size 1.50 1.84 1.50 1.50 1.50 - - 1.70

1⁄2-size 2.00 2.83 2.00 2.00 2.00 - - 3.24

RHS 4.29 8.89 8.89 3.30 6.84 6.3

‡‡

- 8.89

KLST 8.89 26.50 23.70 30.00 51.26 24.9 21.6 36.77

Across the board, the best agreement for the measured data is achieved with NF2 (ratio of nominal fracture 

volumes, expressed as (Bb)

3/2). Only for KLST specimens, the calculated factor NF8 is closest to NF4.

 

‡‡This value corresponds to Type 3 in [6], which is dimensionally almost identical to a RHS specimen (thickness = 5 mm, width = 5 mm, 

length = 27 mm, notch angle = 45°, notch depth = 1 mm, notch root radius = 0.25 mm).
52

Figure 57 - Correlation between USE values measured on CVN, SVCN, and MCVN specimens.

The correlation coefficients r, which quantify the degree of linear relationship between two variables, are 

very high for 2⁄3-size (0.996), 1⁄2-size (0.998), and RHS specimens (0.997), but lower for KLST specimens (0.915). 

See also the coefficients of determination R

2

for the fitting lines in Figure 57.

The latter observation might also indicate that the actual relationship between USE values from CVN and 

KLST specimens is not linear, as suggested in [11] where the following exponential fit was proposed:

USEKLST

CVN USE e



 

0.2378 29.454

(6)

We have compared the results from this investigation to eq.(6) in Figure 58. Good agreement was found 

for X52 and X100, where material fracture actually occurred in upper shelf tests. For X65 and X70, the measured 

absorbed energy for KLST specimens is much higher than predicted by eq.(6). For these two steels, USECVN is 

higher than 400 J. Under these conditions, specimens tested in the fully ductile region dissipate large amounts of 

plastic deformation at the support points, due to the specimen squeezing between the anvils. All interactions 

between specimen and anvils will require additional energy, and specimens with high USE values will have 

significant amounts of energy associated with the anvil interactions in addition to the fracture process at the notch. 

y = 1.70x

R2 = 0.99

y = 3.24x

R2 = 0.96

y = 8.89x

R2 = 0.97

y = 36.77x

R2 = 0.72

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 50 100 150 200 250 USECVN (J) 

USESCVN/MCVN (J)

2/3 - size

1/2 - size

RHS

KLST
53

Figure 58 - Correlation between USE values measured on CVN and KLST specimens.
54

6. Conclusions

(1) Ductile-to-brittle transition temperatures (DBTTKV, DBTTLE, T50%) and upper shelf energies generally tend to 

decrease with decreasing specimen size, i.e., the smaller the specimen, the more ductile it tends to behave.

This confirms what has been published by many authors.

(2) Transition temperatures measured from KV, LE, and SFA are generally in good agreement (within ±10 °C). 

This is particularly the case for miniaturized specimens (KLST and RHS).

(3) Based on the results obtained for the four line pipe steels investigated:

 X52 is the least tough and exhibits the widest ductile-to-brittle transition region;

 X65 and X70 are the toughest, in terms of lowest DBTTs and highest upper shelf energies;

 X70 has the narrowest ductile-to-brittle transition region;

 X100 has lower USE than X65 and X70, but its DBTTs are lower than X65.

(4) Instrumented characteristic forces at general yield (Fgy) and maximum forces (Fm) tend to decrease with 

increasing test temperature and obviously with size. Instrumented forces can be effectively normalized, 

although the optimal normalization factor (ratio of different geometrical parameters) depends on the specimen 

type:

 for SCVN specimens (2⁄3-size and 1⁄2-size), nominal fracture areas (Bb) or volumes (Bb2) should be 

used;

 for RHS specimens, the most effective normalization is by the use of nominal fracture volumes, 

expressed either in the form Bb2 or (Bb)

3/2;

 for KLST, we have developed an alternative expression of the nominal fracture volume, given by 

Bb2, where  = 0.55 for Fgy and  = 0.63 for Fm.

(5) The ratio between the two measures of absorbed energy (KV and Wt) is quite consistent and independent of test 

temperature or specimen type for both the instrumented striker used for testing CVN and SCVN specimens, 

and the instrumented striker used for testing KLST specimens. In the case of RHS tests, however, 

discrepancies between KV and Wt were much larger and the so-called “dynamic force adjustment” had to be 

applied.

(6) Consistent DBTT shifts between CVN, SCVN and MCVN specimens were observed, except for X65 which 

had to be removed from the analyses. The relationship between DBTTs measured from CVN specimens and 

sub-size or miniaturized samples can be effectively expressed by a temperature shift M, which increases with 

decreasing specimen size. Its dependency from the nominal fracture volume Bb2 was found to be consistent 

with previous investigations, although the empirical relationship between M and Bb2 might be different for 

SCVN and MCVN specimens.

(7) For Upper Shelf Energy, the values measured on the different specimen types show the best correlation with 

the ratio of nominal fracture volumes, expressed as (Bb)

3/2, except for KLST specimens, whose USE appears to 

be exponentially correlated to USECVN, at least when the specimen fractures totally or partially in upper shelf 

conditions, i.e., in the case of X52 and X100, but not in the case of X65 or X70.

In general, the applicability of both sub-size and miniaturized Charpy specimens to the characterization of 

line pipe steels has been confirmed, as well as the feasibility of establishing reliable empirical correlations between 

parameters measured from specimens of different types, such as ductile-to-brittle transition temperatures and upper 

shelf energies. Materials which do not exhibit particularly high levels of toughness and ductility (such as X65 and 
55

X70 in this study) are however easier to correlate, since the values of absorbed energy measured in a Charpy test 

substantially correspond to the energy spent for fracturing the specimens. For steels like X65 and X70, the 

significant amount of energy dissipated in the interaction between specimen and machine anvil/supports makes the 

Charpy test more similar to a plastic bend test.
56

Bibliography

[1] ASTM A370-14, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, ASTM 

Book of Standards 01.03, 2014.

[2] API Specification 5L, Specification for Line Pipe, American Petroleum Institute, Forty-Third Edition, March 

2004.

[3] ISO 14556:2000, Steel -- Charpy V-notch pendulum impact test -- Instrumented test method, International 

Standards Organization, 2000.

[4] ASTM E2248-13, Standard Test Method for Impact Testing of Miniaturized Charpy V-Notch Specimens, 

ASTM Book of Standards 01.03, 2014.

[5] ASTM E2298-13a, Standard Test Method for Instrumented Impact Testing of Metallic Materials, ASTM 

Book of Standards 01.03, 2014.

[6] C. N. McCowan, E. Lucon, and R. L. Santoyo, “Comparison of Charpy V-notch Specimens: Full Size, 

Sub-Size, and Mini – Part 2: Shear Fracture,” to be submitted to Materials Performance and 

Characterization, 2014 (in preparation).

[7] W. Oldfield, “Curve Fitting Impact Test Data: A Statistical Procedure,” ASTM Standardization News, 

November 1975, pp. 24-29.

[8] M. A. Sokolov and D. J. Alexander, “An Improved Correlation Procedure for Subsize and Full-Size Charpy 

Impact Specimen Data,” NUREG/CR-6379, ORNL-6888, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, March 1997.

[9] D. R. Ireland, “Procedures and Problems Associated with Reliable Control of the Instrumented Impact Test,” 

in ASTM STP 563, “Instrumented Impact Testing,” 1974, pp. 3-29.

[10] E. Lucon, “On the Effectiveness of the Dynamic Force Adjustment for Reducing the Scatter of Instrumented 

Charpy Results,” Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2009.

[11] E. Lucon, R. Chaouadi, A. Fabry, J.-L. Puzzolante, and E. van Walle, “Characterizing Material Properties by 

the Use of Full-Size and Subsize Charpy Tests: An Overview of Different Correlation Procedures,” in ASTM 

STP 1380, “Pendulum Impact Testing: A Century of Progress,” T. A. Siewert and M. P. Manahan, Eds., 

ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000, pp.146-163.

[12] J. H. Gross, “Effect of Strength and Thickness on Notch Ductility,” in ASTM STP 466, “Impact Testing of 

Metals,” D. E. Driscoll, Ed., ASTM, Philadelphia, 1970, pp. 21-52.

[13] W. R. Corwin and A. M. Hougland, “Effect of Specimen Size and Material Condition on the Charpy Impact 

Properties of 9Cr-1Mo-V-Nb Steel,” in ASTM STP 888, “The Use of Small-scale Specimens for Testing 

Irradiated Material,” W. R. Corwin and G. E. Lucas, Eds., ASTM, Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 325-338.

[14] W. R. Corwin, R. L. Klueh, and J. M. Vitek, “Effect of Specimen Size and Nickel Content on the Impact 

Properties of 12 Cr-1 MoVW Ferritic Steel,” Journal of Nuclear Materials 122-123, 1984, pp. 343-348.

[15] G. E. Lucas, G. R. Odette, J. W. Sheckherd, P. McConnell, and J. Perrin, “Subsized Bend and Charpy 

V-Notch Specimens for Irradiated Testing,” in ASTM STP 888, “The Use of Small-scale Specimens for 

Testing Irradiated Material,” W. R. Corwin and G. E. Lucas, Eds., ASTM, Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 304-324.

[16] G. E. Lucas, G. R. Odette, J. W. Sheckherd, and M. R. Krishnadev, “Recent Progress in Subsized Charpy 

Impact Specimen Testing for Fusion Reactor Materials Development,” Fusion Technology 10, 1986, pp. 728-

733.

[17] B. S. Louden, A. S. Kumar, F. A. Garner, M. L. Hamilton, and W. L. Hu, “The Influence of Specimen Size on 

Charpy Impact Testing of Unirradiated HT-9,” Journal of Nuclear Materials 155-157, 1988, pp. 662-67.

[18] H. Kayano, H. Kurishia, A. Kimura, M. Narui, M. Yamazaki, and Y. Suzuki, “Charpy Impact Testing Using 

Miniature Specimens and Its Application to the Study of Irradiation Behavior of Low-Activation Ferritic 

Steels,” Journal of Nuclear Materials 179-181, 1991, pp. 425-88.