NIST Technical Note 1858

Impact Characterization of 

4340 and T200 Steels by 

Means of Standard, 

Sub-Size and Miniaturized 

Charpy Specimens

Enrico Lucon

Chris N. McCowan

Ray L. Santoyo

This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1858
NIST Technical Note 1858

Impact Characterization of 

4340 and T200 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.1858

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 1858

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1858, 61 Pages (February 2015)

CODEN: NTNOEF

This publication is available free of charge from: 

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1858
iii

Abstract

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

properties of three steels, used by NIST for the production of Charpy reference specimens (4340 

quenched and tempered with two energy levels, and T200 18Ni maraging steel). For each of the steels, 

tests were performed on standard E23 Charpy specimens, sub-size specimens of three types (3/4-size, 

1/2-size and 1/4-size), and miniaturized specimens of Reduced Half-Size (RHS) geometry. 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 include:

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

 comparisons between, and normalization of, characteristic instrumented forces obtained from different 

specimen types;

 the relationship between different measures of absorbed energy;

 the relationship between transition temperatures and upper shelf energies calculated from different 

specimen types; and

 the relationship between shear fracture appearance optically measured and estimated from 

characteristic impact forces.

Among the most interesting conclusions emerging from this investigation, we mention the following.

 The use of 1/4-size sub-size specimens (thickness = 2.5 mm) has pointed out several issues from the

experimental and analytical point of view, and therefore, the use of miniaturized specimens might be 

preferable instead for the characterization of thin-walled structures or components.

 The results of this investigation, in terms of the relationships between test data measured from 

specimens of different type (full-size Charpy, sub-size Charpy, miniaturized Charpy) and size, were 

partially complicated by large uncertainties in some of the measured ductile-to-brittle transition 

temperatures and upper shelf energies.

 It looks feasible to obtain conservative predictions of shear fracture appearance (SFA) and SFA-based 

transition temperatures through the use of empirical formulae based on characteristic instrumented 

forces.

 The comparison between our results and the data from Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 (Charpy V-Notch 

Test Acceptance Criteria for Various Sub-Size Specimens) clearly shows that the approach proposed 

by the standard can work only if the different specimens tested correspond to the same material’s 

fracture behavior (brittle/transition/ductile). If this is not the case, a completely different approach 

must be sought for correlating Charpy acceptance criteria between full-size and sub-size specimens.

Keywords

ASTM A370; Charpy acceptance criteria; ductile-to-brittle transition temperature; instrumented Charpy 

tests; miniaturized Charpy specimens; NIST reference steels; size-normalization; sub-size Charpy 

specimens; shear fracture appearance; 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.............................................................................................................................................................6

4.1 Conventional Charpy parameters (KV, LE, SFA).........................................................................................6

4.1.1 Differences between the materials investigated.....................................................................................13

4.2 Instrumented Charpy parameters ...............................................................................................................15

4.2.1 Effect of specimen type .........................................................................................................................20

4.2.2 Normalization of characteristic forces...................................................................................................24

4.3 Relationship between different measures of absorbed energy (KV and Wt)...............................................34

5. Correlations between specimen types..................................................................................................................36

5.1 Ductile-to-brittle transition temperatures...................................................................................................36

5.1.1 Comparison with the literature...............................................................................................................39

5.2 Upper Shelf Energy....................................................................................................................................42

6. Validation of Table 9 of ASTM A370-14, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of 

Steel Products..............................................................................................................................................................44

6.1 Procedure for correlating KV values between CVN and SCVN specimens...............................................45

6.2 Comparisons between Table 9 data and experimental results....................................................................48

7. Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................................55

Bibliography................................................................................................................................................................57
1

1. Introduction

Many modern structural steels 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 steels, the improvement in fracture resistance is due to various 

refinements of the manufacturing process, which lead to smaller gran 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 fracture scenarios in full-scale 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 from partially and fully fractured specimens is 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 attributed 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 three steels that are used at NIST for 

the production of reference Charpy specimens for the indirect verification of impact testing machines in 

accordance with ASTM E23-12c: two quenched and tempered 4340 steels (with different mechanical properties 

induced by different thermal treatments) and a T200 18Ni maraging steel.

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

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

specimen (3/4, 1/2, 1/4), SCVN, and scaled miniaturized specimens (Reduced Half-Size, RHS, geometry), MCVN. 

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 many materials of recent production, it is often very difficult to correctly interpret the fracture surface 

when performing optical measurements of Shear Fracture Appearance (SFA) because of the complex appearance 

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

conventional methods of SFA measurement are associated to a very high degree of uncertainty and the availability 

of an instrumented test record is extremely useful. Characteristic force values, which correspond 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, and reasonable estimates of SFA can be obtained by correlation of

these characteristic force values.

An additional incentive to conduct this investigation came from a request formulated to NIST by a Task 

Group of ASTM Subcommittee A01.13 (Mechanical and Chemical Testing and Processing Methods of Steel 
2

Products and Processes). Task Group A01.13 on A370 Table 9 Use and Accuracy is working on a possible 

revision of ASTM A370-14 [1], and specifically on the revision of Table 9 (reproduced in Figure 1), which 

provides the equivalence between Charpy acceptance criteria for CVN and SCVN specimens. NIST and the 

ASTM Task Group planned the activity described herein, as a way to verify the numbers provided in Table 9 (the 

original reference for the Table 9 is unknown), as well as investigate the possibility of extending its applicability to 

full-size values above 40 ft-lbf (54 J), which is currently excluded by Note A of the Table.

Figure 1 - Table 9 from ASTM A370-14, used with permission.

2. Materials and experimental procedure

Three steels, currently used by NIST for the production of reference Charpy specimens for the indirect 

verification of impact machines, were considered in this study. Two of the steels correspond to quenched and 

tempered AISI 4340 structural steel, which by way of different thermal treatments can be given significantly 

different mechanical properties; these are used for the production of low-energy specimens (approximately 15 J to 

20 J Charpy absorbed energy at -40 °C) and high-energy specimens (approximately 100 J at -40 °C). The third 

steel is an 18 Ni maraging steel designated T200, a low-carbon ultra-high-strength steel which derives its strength 

from the precipitation of intermetallic compounds; it is used for the production of super-high energy specimens 

(approximately 200 J at room temperature). The chemical composition of the steels is shown in Table 1. Table 2

provides the measured hardness (Rockwell C, HRC) and the corresponding tensile strength, TS, which was 

estimated through the use of standardized conversion tables [2].

Table 1 - Chemical composition (weight %) of the investigated steels. (n/a = not applicable.)

Steel C Mn Si S P Al Ni Cr Mo Ti Co

4340 0.4 0.66 0.28 0.001 0.004 n/a 1.77 0.83 0.28 n/a n/a

T200 ≤0.01 ≤0.01 ≤0.01 ≤0.01 ≤0.01 0.1 18.5 n/a 3.0 0.7 ≤0.5

Table 2 – Rockwell hardness and estimated tensile strength for the investigated steels.

Steel HRC TS

(MPa)

4340 – low energy 45.0 1480

4340 – high energy 30.0 952

T200 36.2 1134
3

Additional information on the materials and the heat treatment and machining process can be found in [3] 

and [4] for 4340 and T200, respectively.

Charpy specimens of five different geometries were tested:

 full-size Charpy V-notch specimens (CVN);

 sub-size Charpy V-notch specimens (SCVN) with thicknesses B = 7.5 mm (3/4-size), 5 mm (1/2-size), and 2.5 

mm (1/4-size) (Figure 2);

 miniaturized Charpy V-notch specimens (MCVN) of the RHS (Reduced Half-Size) type, with cross-section 

dimensions 4.83 mm × 4.83 mm and length 24.13 mm; this is the reference specimen type in ASTM E2248-13 

[5] (Figure 3).

Figure 2 - Cross-sectional dimensions of the SCVN specimens used in this study.

Figure 3 – Miniaturized specimens of RHS type.

Specimens were fabricated from the following NIST reference specimen lots: LL-141 (4340 low energy), 

HH-143 (4340 high energy), and SH-38 (T200 super-high energy). SCVN and RHS specimens were machined out 

of CVN specimens of the corresponding materials.

For every material and specimen type, between 9 and 13 instrumented Charpy tests were performed at 

temperatures which allowed a complete definition of transition curves for absorbed energy, 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 down to -90 °C, specimens were refrigerated by means of a 

cooling bath of 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 time required to transfer the specimen from the 

conditioning medium and striker 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 supports of the impact machine by means of double-sided tape. The thickness of the shims was 1.25

1/4-size 1/2-size 3/4-size
4

mm, 2.5 mm, and 3.75 mm for 3/4-size, 1/2-size, and 1/4-size specimens, respectively, so that the centerline of the 

SCVN specimen at impact coincided with the centerline of a CVN specimen.

RHS specimens were tested on a small-scale impact tester with a capacity of 50.8 J, impact speed of 3.5 

m/s and equipped with an instrumented striker with a striking edge 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 (LN2) until their temperature was 

stable between -180 °C and -190 °C. Specially-made tongs were used to remove the specimen from the LN2 bath 

and position it on the machine supports and anvils. When the specimen 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 RHS specimens, LE measurements were executed with the aid of a caliper. 

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 [6] and 

ASTM E2298-13a [7]. 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 [8].

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 with the widely used, hyperbolic tangent model, given by:

C

X DBTT Y A B

  tanh , (1)

where the variable X is temperature (in °C) and Y is KV, LE, or SFA, and A, B, DBTT, and C are fitting coefficients 

that are calculated by the least-square method [9]. 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;

 

*The same procedure was followed for tests above room temperature.
5

 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 and LE values was performed with the following constraint applied:

 the upper shelf value (A + B) was set as the average KV or LE for all specimens having SFA  95 %.

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 levels always equal 0 % and 100 %, 

respectively; as a consequence, the value of DBTT (designated as FATT50

†

) always corresponds to SFA = 

50 %.

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

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

and shear fracture appearance (FATT50);

 upper shelf energy (USE) from the KV transition curve.

3.2 Instrumented Charpy parameters

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

14556:2000 [6] and ASTM E2298-13a [7], 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 and Wt) was 

calculated and reported. KV and Wt should ideally be in agreement within ± 15 % [7], and their ratio should be 

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

characteristics and the calibration of the instrumented striker), see Section 4.3.

 

†FATT stands for Fracture Appearance Transition Temperature.

‡

In terms of absorbed energy, KV is the value provided by the machine encoder, whereas W is calculated from the instrumented 

force-displacement curve.

§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

4. Test results

4.1 Conventional Charpy parameters (KV, LE, SFA)

Conventional test results for CVN, SCVN and RHS specimens are provided in Tables 3 to 7.

Table 3 - Charpy test results for CVN specimens.

4340 – Low energy 4340 – High energy T200 – Super-high energy**

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

1435 -198 6.02 0.129 2 468 -198 12.27 0.152 6 825 -198 35.13 0.230 26

1542 -150 7.09 0.112 2 298 -150 24.61 0.149 9 714 -150 41.96 0.463 32

1875 -121 8.53 0.121 3 296 -120 27.44 0.136 18 147 -120 74.29 0.598 54

1730 -90 9.52 0.110 4 467 -90 64.04 0.639 72 61 -90 117.50 1.068 68

1527 -60 16.67 0.108 8 292 -60 96.89 1.309 100 874 -60 144.84 1.535 88

1590 -30 18.77 0.120 15 300 -30 106.24 1.427 100 624 -30 144.39 1.605 80

1516 21 21.65 0.163 31 294 21 107.82 1.320 100 101 21 169.53 1.799 100

1937 50 23.28 0.198 42 469 50 120.44 1.535 100 1109 21 175.22 1.996 100

1500 100 28.23 0.218 100 299 100 125.83 1.561 100 442 21 186.37 1.911 100

1640 150 30.06 0.236 100 686 21 187.22 2.087 100

2743 200 34.67 0.218 100 963 21 178.11 1.957 100

1563 300 34.89 0.257 100 204 50 166.03 1.876 100

49 100 177.79 1.964 100

Table 4 - Charpy test results for 3/4-size specimens.

4340 – Low energy 4340 – High energy T200 – Super-high energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

1435 -198 6.02 0.129 3 714 -198 13.20 0.106 7 776 -198 23.28 0.137 29

1542 -150 7.09 0.112 4 715 -150 17.51 0.180 10 916 -150 30.84 0.277 41

1875 -121 8.53 0.121 4 754 -120 20.23 0.237 21 162 -120 49.84 0.526 59

1730 -90 9.52 0.110 7 720 -100 33.29 0.589 36†† 1459 -90 98.85 1.495 64

1527 -60 16.67 0.108 14 718 -90 56.57 0.523 84 1093 -60 105.98 1.821 70

1590 -30 18.77 0.120 18 712 -60 71.12 1.124 100 531 -30 125.32 1.804 81

1516 21 21.65 0.163 44 717 -30 78.40 1.794 100 201 21 135.76 1.858 100

1937 50 23.28 0.198 57 781 21 79.84 1.372 100 329 50 144.97 2.217 100

1500 100 28.23 0.218 100 713 50 87.16 1.915 100 387 100 138.44 2.158 100

1640 150 30.06 0.236 100

2743 200 34.67 0.218 100

1563 300 34.89 0.257 100

 

**For this material, 5 tests were available at 21 °C (room temperature) from the latest indirect verification of the machine.

††For this test, it was not possible to estimate the value of SFA through optical measurements. The reported value is therefore the average of 

the estimations obtained from the instrumented test records.
7

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

4340 – Low energy 4340 – High energy T200 – Super-high energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

48 -198 3.00 0.063 3 5-10 -198 10.82 0.113 11 74 -198 17.05 0.120 41

21 -150 2.93 0.086 3 5-6 -150 10.97 0.121 13 446 -150 23.98 0.397 59

20 -123 4.36 0.091 4 5-5 -120 14.73 0.359 33 376 -120 42.20 0.763 77

2 -90 5.12 0.060 9 72 -100 21.55 0.547 36‡‡ 50 -90 55.75 1.177 100

97 -60 7.70 0.087 19 5-4 -90 40.19 1.081 100 929 -60 65.08 1.656 100

50 -30 7.85 0.059 28 5-3 -60 45.06 0.962 100 558 -30 71.79 1.522 100

586 21 10.90 0.067 60 5-2 -30 45.79 1.249 100 687 21 80.01 1.588 100

7 50 13.58 0.170 74 5-72 21 47.90 1.371 100 418 50 81.68 1.823 100

11 100 14.81 0.267 100 5-9 50 51.97 1.214 100 1088 100 85.47 2.013 100

2890 150 16.91 0.240 100

1141 200 18.46 0.247 100

63 300 18.36 0.272 100

Table 6 - Charpy test results for 1/4-size specimens. NOTE: results highlighted in yellow were obtained from 

specimens most likely altered by the machining process (see the text for further details).

4340 – Low energy 4340 – High energy T200 – Super-high energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA§

(%)

5-15 -198 1.20 0.075 6 5-3 -198 5.57 0.144 11 132 -198 12.35 0.271 60

5-1 -150 2.33 0.087 7 5-5 -150 5.87 0.215 27 375 -150 14.50 0.491 65

5-2 -123 3.61 0.056 8 SS3_4 -135 0.75 0.000 0 535 -123 17.67 0.725 57

5-3 -90 3.61 0.088 17 SS3_3 -130 1.35 0.000 0 257 -90 18.37 0.968 71

5-4 -60 3.76 0.030 28 5-6 -120 13.43 0.503 93 28 -60 23.68 0.714 87

25-2 -30 4.44 0.060 81 5-7 -90 15.81 0.949 100 1285 -30 20.40 1.117 79

5-12 21 6.86 0.100 58 5-8 -60 18.30 0.575 100 414 21 21.18 1.175 100

5-5 50 8.00 0.132 100 5-2 -30 17.76 n/a 100 153 50 22.42 1.204 n/a§§

5-6 100 8.30 0.317 100 SS3_1 -25 4.98 0.071 17 745 100 24.94 1.188 100

10 150 7.79 0.354 100 SS3_2 -25 9.90 0.016 11

9 200 8.32 0.382 100 5-1 21 16.67 0.998 97

13 300 8.83 0.485 100 5-4 50 19.07 0.672 100

Table 7 - Charpy test results for RHS specimens.

4340 – Low energy 4340 – High energy T200 – Super-high energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

KV

(J)

LE

(mm)

SFA

(%)

LL-R12 -186 1.08 0.020 3 HH-R1 -181 4.16 0.110 17 SH-R2 -194 6.41 0.140 42

LL-R3 -159 1.08 0.040 5 HH-R4 -147 4.52 0.140 22 SH-R12 -164 8.45 0.210 43

LL-R7 -118 1.94 0.020 9 HH-R10 -130 6.71 0.250 50 SH-R9 -152 14.52 0.450 65

LL-R5 -101 2.57 0.040 9 HH-R8 -121 9.17 0.350 71 SH-R6 -143 15.44 0.490 67

LL-R4 -74 2.58 0.030 12 HH-R2 -98 12.84 0.420 92 SH-R3 -125 17.84 0.600 71

LL-R2 -50 2.97 0.030 19 HH-R6 -76 13.61 0.420 100 SH-R10 -115 16.34 0.480 75

LL-R6 -25 3.08 0.050 28 HH-R7 -50 14.86 0.530 100 SH-R4 -100 22.19 0.680 100

LL-R9 0 3.47 0.070 48 HH-R11 -30 14.75 0.660 100 SH-R11 -76 24.39 0.780 100

LL-R1 22 3.99 0.090 58 HH-R12 -20 14.64 0.630 100 SH-R1 -50 24.61 0.840 100

LL-R11 99 4.87 0.110 100 HH-R9 22 16.50 0.700 100 SH-R8 -20 26.21 0.860 100

LL-R10 197 5.82 0.170 100 HH-R5 101 17.80 0.710 100 SH-R5 22 27.87 0.970 100

LL-R8 292 6.02 0.210 100 HH-R3 235 19.01 0.770 100 SH-R7 101 29.83 0.960 100

 

‡‡ For this test, it was not possible to estimate the value of SFA through optical measurements. The reported value is therefore the average of 

the estimations obtained from the instrumented test records.

§§Instrumented signal not acquired.
8

In reference to Table 6, the cells highlighted in yellow indicate four 1/4-size specimens of 4340 high 

energy, which exhibited clear signs of overheating caused by the machining process as evidenced by “bluing” of 

the specimen. This phenomenon clearly altered the properties of the material, and induced a significant 

embrittlement which can be appreciated in Figure 4 both in terms of the increase in DBTT and the reduction of 

upper shelf levels. The results from these four tests were not used in further analyses.

Figure 4 - Absorbed energy and lateral expansion data for 1/4-size specimens of 4340 high energy. Specimens altered 

by the machining process are indicated by black symbols.

Examination of the transition curves obtained leads to the following observations:

(a) For 4340 low energy, absorbed energy and lateral expansion in fully ductile conditions tend to increase up to 

the highest test temperature (300 °C) and often a plateau is not observed, see for example the KV transition 

curves for CVN and 3/4-size specimens in Figure 5. The calculated values of DBTTKV, USE and DBTTLE are,

therefore, associated to significant uncertainty related to the uncertainty in the corresponding upper shelf 

levels.

Figure 5 - Absorbed energy transition curves for CVN and 3/4-size specimens of 4340 low energy.

(b) For T200, both measurements and estimates of SFA in lower shelf conditions indicate a significant amount of 

ductility (≥ 25 %) down to the lowest test temperature which could be attained (-198 °C) (see, for example, the 

SFA transition curves for CVN and 3/4-size specimens shown in Figure 6) As a consequence, the 

corresponding values of FATT50 are poorly defined, and possibly underestimated.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

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

Temperature (°C)

Material altered

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

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

Temperature (°C)

Material altered

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 KV (J)

Temperature (°C)

SFA = 100 %

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 KV (J)

Temperature (°C)

SFA = 100 %

CVN 3/4-size
9

Figure 6 – Shear Fracture Appearance transition curves for CVN and 3/4-size specimens of T200.

(c) In general, all three materials exhibit high lower shelf levels of KV and LE, as compared with what is typically 

observed. Namely, for CVN specimens of 4340 low energy, 4340 high energy, and T200, the calculated Lower 

Shelf Energy (LSE = A-B) is 3.6 J, 15.6 J, and 25.6 J, respectively. For lateral expansion, the lower shelf values 

are 0.12 mm, 0.13 mm, and 0.22 mm, respectively. For comparison, ORNL found 2.7 J and 0.061 mm as the 

lower shelf mean values from a large database of Charpy data consisting of ferritic, structural and pressure 

vessel steels [10].

The values of DBTTKV, USE, DBTTLE, and FATT50 calculated from the transition curves for all materials 

and specimen types are summarized in Table 8. All the individual transition curves and their regression 

coefficients (A, B, C, DBTT) are collected in Annex 1.

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

Steel Specimen

type

DBTTKV

(°C)

USE

(J)

DBTTLE

(°C)

FATT50

(°C)

4340

low energy

CVN -26.1 32.0 31.0 47.1

3/4-size -8.5 25.8 116.5 27.2

1/2-size -6.5 17.1 49.7 3.6

1/4-size -33.2 8.2 75.3 -40.6

RHS -46.2 5.6 45.4 5.0

4340

high energy

CVN -89.8 111.4 -85.0 -102.1

3/4-size -93.5 79.1 -78.4 -99.4

1/2-size -96.2 46.2 -97.9 -107.0

1/4-size -125.1 18.0 -120.2 -141.6

RHS -115.0 15.9 -111.1 -131.4

T200

CVN -97.6 177.2 -88.5 -127.8

3/4-size -98.1 139.7 -100.8 -131.9

1/2-size -113.4 73.3 -113.9 -176.4

1/4-size -126.6 22.8 -137.1 -208.3

RHS -143.4 25.9 -144.5 -168.8

The uncertainties in the transition temperatures, particularly for the low-energy material, are confirmed by 

Figures 7 to 10, which compare values of DBTTKV, USE, DBTTLE, and FATT50 that were measured from the 

different specimen types. It can be noted that oftentimes DBTT data do not conform to the typical and expected 

pattern of decreasing transition temperature (i.e., more ductile behavior) with decreasing specimen size.

0

25

50

75

100

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 SFA (%)

Temperature (°C)

0

25

50

75

100

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 SFA (%)

Temperature (°C)

CVN 3/4-size
10

Figure 7 - DBTTKV values measured from different specimen types.

Figure 8 - USE values measured from different specimen types.

-150

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0 DBTTKV

(°C)

Full-size

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

4340 low energy 4340 high energy T200

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200 USE (J)

Full-size

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

4340 low energy 4340 high energy T200
11

Figure 9 - DBTTLE values measured from different specimen types.

Figure 10 - FATT50 values measured from different specimen types.

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150 DBTTLE

(°C)

Full-size

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

4340 low energy 4340 high energy T200

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100 FATT50

(°C)

Full-size

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

4340 low energy 4340 high energy T200
12

It is interesting to briefly dwell upon the relationship between the two smallest specimens investigated, the 

1/4-size (ligament cross-section: 20 mm2) and the RHS (ligament cross-section: 18.6 mm2). Based on the data 

shown in Figures 7 to 10, there is no consistency between transition temperature values measured from the two 

specimen types:

 for 4340 low energy and T200, the lowest DBTTs correspond to RHS, except in the case of FATT50;

 for 4340 high energy, there is an inversion between 1/4-size and RHS, with the former providing the 

lowest DBTTs for the investigated parameters, KV, LE, and SFA;

 in most cases, the numerical differences are relatively small and well within the experimental uncertainties 

correlated with both the individual test data and the analyses of the results;

 USE values for 1/4-size are higher than for RHS for both 4340 low energy and 4340 high energy, but 

lower for T200; differences are small in all cases.

Another illustration of the inherent uncertainties that are associated with transition temperatures, as

measured for the lowest energy material (for all parameters) and for T200 (in terms of SFA) is provided by Figure 

11, where values of DBTTKV, DBTTLE and FATT50 for the different materials and specimen types are compared. In 

the Figure, the dotted lines correspond to ±25 °C tolerance bounds. In Figure 11, square and round symbols 

represent values of DBTTLE and FATT50 respectively, whereas the colors indicate the type of Charpy specimen.

Ideally, all the different measures of ductile-to-brittle transition temperature should be in mutual 

agreement within a narrow tolerance band, typically in the order of ±15 °C. In the Figure, more lenient 

acceptability limits were used, which corresponded to ±25 °C, and used DBTTKV as the “reference” measure of 

transition temperature.

Figure 11 - Comparison between different measures of ductile-to-brittle transition temperature.

-210

-170

-130

-90

-50

-10

30

70

110

-210 -170 -130 -90 -50 -10 30 70 110 DBTTLE or FATT50

(°C) 

DBTTKV (°C)

DBTT_LE

FATT_50 (from SFA)

White: CVN

Green: 3/4-size

Blue: 1/2-size

Red: 1/4-size

Yellow: RHS

4340

Low energy

T200
13

For 4340 low energy, in just two instances DBTTKV and FATT50 agree within ±25 °C (1/2-size and 1/4-size 

specimens). The few additional data points falling outside the ±25 °C bounds for DBTTKV in the range -150 °C to 

-90 °C are all FATT50 values from T200. These latter discrepancies stem from the poor definition of the FATT50

caused by high percentages of shear (ductile) fracture measured even at very low temperatures, as previously 

illustrated in Figure 6.

All data points which fall outside the ±25 °C tolerance bounds in Figure 11 will be excluded from further 

analyses.

4.1.1 Differences between the materials investigated

Figures 12, 13, and 14 present a comparison between KV, LE, and SFA transition curves established for the 

investigated steels by means of CVN specimens. These figures clearly illustrate the expected ranking of the three 

materials in terms of impact toughness (DBTTs and USE). Note also that the difference in DBTT between the 

high-energy and super-high energy materials appears slightly larger for KV than for LE and SFA.

Figure 12 - Comparison between CVN transition curves for absorbed energy.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 KV (J)

Temperature (C)

4340 low energy

4340 high energy

T200
14

Figure 13 - Comparison between CVN transition curves for lateral expansion.

Figure 14 - Comparison between CVN transition curves for shear fracture appearance.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Lateral Expansion (mm)

Temperature (C)

4340 low energy

4340 high energy

T200

0

25

50

75

100

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 SFA (%)

Temperature (C)

4340 low energy

4340 high energy

T200
15

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.

4340 Low Energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

1435 -198 18.90 18.90 18.90 0.00 3.12 5.24 6.02 1.149

1542 -150 20.52 20.52 20.52 0.00 5.85 6.25 7.09 1.134

1875 -121 27.52 27.52 27.52 0.02 7.00 7.74 8.53 1.102

1730 -90 26.67 26.67 26.67 0.00 7.93 8.75 9.52 1.088

1527 -60 34.04 34.04 34.04 0.00 14.61 15.77 16.67 1.057

1590 -30 32.19 32.19 32.19 0.00 16.27 17.77 18.77 1.056

1516 21 26.29 31.36 31.12 0.00 18.12 19.79 21.65 1.094

1937 50 26.24 30.89 28.73 0.69 17.22 20.27 23.28 1.148

1500 100 25.57 29.22 - - 14.33 25.85 28.23 1.092

1640 150 24.28 28.44 - - 14.01 28.79 30.06 1.044

2743 200 24.00 28.66 - - 15.60 33.08 34.67 1.048

1563 300 22.82 27.01 - - 13.99 33.67 34.89 1.036

4340 High Energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

468 -198 28.63 28.63 26.59 0.00 8.26 11.31 12.27 1.085

298 -150 27.35 31.78 29.93 0.00 22.23 23.46 24.61 1.049

296 -120 25.58 29.65 29.19 0.00 24.01 26.25 27.44 1.045

467 -90 24.30 27.82 25.35 9.28 26.48 61.61 64.04 1.039

292 -60 23.11 26.97 - - 29.28 93.78 96.89 1.033

300 -30 22.35 26.43 - - 32.64 103.98 106.24 1.022

294 21 20.87 25.27 - - 36.12 107.05 107.82 1.007

469 50 20.24 24.72 - - 36.84 115.31 120.44 1.044

299 100 15.84 23.92 - - 40.65 124.43 125.83 1.011

T200

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

825 -198 25.97 36.48 35.69 0.00 31.60 32.68 35.13 1.075

714 -150 26.62 36.57 34.78 0.00 38.74 40.09 41.96 1.047

147 -120 26.54 35.71 33.21 6.93 45.37 71.8 74.29 1.035

61 -90 27.00 35.24 26.91 13.00 52.31 117.9 117.5 0.997

874 -60 29.12 34.78 12.30 7.31 59.67 148.82 144.84 0.973

624 -30 25.93 34.09 11.63 6.93 60.49 148.12 144.39 0.975

101 21 Signal not acquired 169.53

1109 21 24.52 32.09 - - 63.93 177.76 175.22 0.986

442 21 24.32 32.32 - - 64.43 187.46 186.37 0.994

686 21 24.08 32.26 - - 64.66 187.79 187.22 0.997

963 21 24.32 32.07 - - 65.75 181.09 178.11 0.984

204 50 Signal not acquired 460.94

49 100 12.82 19.92 - - 75.43 414.89 439.74 1.06
16

Table 10 - Instrumented impact results obtained from 3/4-size specimens.

4340 Low Energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

2992 -198 14.69 14.69 14.69 0.00 2.56 3.58 4.13 1.15

2795 -150 13.51 13.51 13.51 0.05 2.45 3.43 4.13 1.20

2575 -121 15.47 15.47 15.47 0.00 4.82 5.22 6.48 1.24

2759 -90 20.94 20.94 20.94 0.00 7.50 8.06 8.68 1.08

1504 -60 23.82 23.82 23.82 0.00 10.20 11.36 12.05 1.06

2912 -30 24.00 24.00 24.00 0.00 9.82 11.54 11.97 1.04

2780 21 22.57 25.78 25.78 0.00 11.64 15.20 15.21 1.00

1596 50 18.92 21.43 20.51 5.41 11.89 17.02 18.83 1.11

2801 100 19.33 22.15 - - 11.39 19.64 21.32 1.09

2757 150 17.96 20.58 - - 10.28 23.62 25.02 1.06

2812 200 16.48 18.61 - - 9.25 21.03 23.76 1.13

2944 300 14.72 20.09 - - 11.29 27.42 30.99 1.13

2788 300 17.00 19.32 - - 9.63 26.39 27.67 1.05

4340 High Energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

714 -198 20.55 23.90 22.02 0.00 11.46 12.16 13.20 1.09

715 -150 19.96 22.48 21.01 0.00 15.43 16.25 17.51 1.08

754 -120 17.85 21.36 20.86 0.00 17.07 17.97 20.23 1.13

720 -100 14.06 20.42 18.85 4.29 17.55 31.18 33.29 1.07

718 -90 17.11 19.7 13.76 8.69 18.67 52.52 56.57 1.08

712 -60 16.61 19.15 - - 20.66 67.94 71.12 1.05

717 -30 16.3 18.67 - - 22.48 74.18 78.40 1.06

781 21 15.29 18.05 - - 25.85 77.48 79.84 1.03

713 50 14.64 17.57 - - 25.28 85.03 87.16 1.03

T200

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

776 -198 19.29 25.64 24.97 0.00 20.46 21.28 23.28 1.09

916 -150 19.36 25.37 24.28 0.00 25.93 27.83 30.84 1.11

162 -120 19.26 25.06 24.83 7.02 31.37 46.25 49.84 1.08

1459 -90 19.30 24.37 - - 36.59 93.35 98.85 1.06

1093 -60 19.05 23.70 - - 37.82 100.81 105.98 1.05

531 -30 18.22 23.43 - - 43.49 122.86 125.32 1.02

201 21 17.82 22.29 - - 43.20 130.40 135.76 1.04

329 50 16.93 21.60 - - 41.30 139.32 144.97 1.04

387 100 16.67 20.79 - - 42.58 134.72 138.44 1.03
17

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

4340 Low Energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

48 -198 10.45 10.45 10.45 0.00 1.91 2.53 3.00 1.19

21 -150 9.08 9.08 9.08 0.00 1.68 2.16 2.93 1.36

20 -123 14.07 14.07 14.07 0.00 3.62 3.89 4.36 1.12

2 -90 14.24 14.24 14.24 0.00 3.55 4.47 5.12 1.15

97 -60 16.38 16.38 16.38 0.00 6.37 7.57 7.70 1.02

50 -30 16.40 16.40 16.40 0.86 6.23 7.52 7.85 1.04

586 21 10.87 13.15 13.15 2.51 5.75 8.19 10.90 1.33

7 50 13.10 14.68 13.95 4.95 7.60 12.02 13.58 1.13

11 100 12.29 13.79 - - 7.00 13.91 14.81 1.06

2890 150 12.34 13.20 - - 5.92 16.27 16.91 1.04

1141 200 12.52 13.31 - - 5.54 18.68 18.46 0.99

63 300 12.06 12.83 - - 6.09 17.42 18.36 1.05

4340 High Energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

5-10 -198 13.53 15.17 14.54 0.00 9.61 10.11 10.82 1.07

5-6 -150 12.66 14.72 13.72 0.73 9.30 10.35 10.97 1.06

5-5 -120 12.45 13.82 13.59 0.00 10.97 12.44 14.73 1.18

72 -100 12.21 13.25 12.98 4.36 12.01 20.32 21.55 1.06

5-4 -90 11.24 12.55 - - 11.16 37.15 40.19 1.08

5-3 -60 10.99 12.26 - - 13.15 41.69 45.06 1.08

5-2 -30 10.45 11.93 - - 13.05 42.73 45.79 1.07

5-72 21 9.90 11.47 - - 14.20 45.06 47.90 1.06

5-9 50 9.35 11.24 - - 14.98 49.45 51.97 1.05

T200

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

74 -198 12.66 16.58 15.90 0.00 15.13 15.85 17.05 1.08

446 -150 12.63 16.24 15.16 1.70 17.52 21.01 23.98 1.14

376 -120 12.85 15.86 - - 19.06 38.75 42.20 1.09

50 -90 12.79 15.58 13.85 12.60 21.10 52.92 55.75 1.05

929 -60 12.59 15.13 - - 23.55 62.02 65.08 1.05

558 -30 12.52 14.62 - - 23.06 68.47 71.79 1.05

687 21 11.61 13.97 - - 24.43 76.16 80.01 1.05

418 50 11.22 13.66 - - 23.79 78.87 81.68 1.04

1088 100 10.77 12.73 - - 23.50 81.65 85.47 1.05
18

Table 12 - Instrumented impact results obtained from 1/4-size specimens.

4340 Low Energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

5-15 -198 4.94 4.94 4.94 0.00 0.87 1.17 1.20 1.03

5-1 -150 5.84 5.84 5.84 0.00 1.07 1.26 2.33 1.85

5-2 -123 7.30 7.30 7.30 0.00 3.33 4.30 3.61 0.84

5-3 -90 6.92 8.11 8.11 0.00 3.20 3.42 3.61 1.06

5-4 -60 5.74 7.59 7.58 0.00 3.10 3.89 3.76 0.97

25-2 -30 Specimen not against anvils – trace can’t be analyzed 7.85

5-12 21 6.23 7.28 6.82 3.07 3.54 6.68 6.86 1.03

5-5 50 Signal not acquired 13.58

5-6 100 14.81

10 150 5.97 6.53 - - 3.40 7.23 7.79 1.08

9 200 Signal not acquired 18.46

13 300 5.74 6.28 - - 3.29 8.39 8.83 1.05

4340 High Energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

5-3 -198 5.36 7.61 7.53 0.00 5.02 5.18 5.57 1.08

5-5 -150 6.15 6.73 6.15 0.00 5.12 5.37 5.87 1.09

SS3_4 -135 2.98 2.98 2.98 0.00 0.43 0.50 0.75 1.50

SS3_3 -130 Signal not acquired 1.35

5-6 -120 5.96 6.63 1.71 0.51 5.14 11.54 13.43 1.16

5-7 -90

Signal not acquired

15.81

5-8 -60 18.30

5-2 -30 17.76

SS3_1 -25 9.06 10.44 10.44 0.00 4.75 4.96 4.98 1.00

SS3_2 -25 8.23 10.59 10.39 1.00 9.62 9.77 9.90 1.01

5-1 21 Signal not acquired 16.67

5-4 50 19.07

T200

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

132 -198 6.03 7.80 7.57 4.01 6.06 11.09 12.35 1.11

375 -150 6.17 7.52 6.97 4.01 6.95 12.72 14.50 1.14

535 -123 6.49 7.43 7.43 3.83 8.16 15.58 17.67 1.13

257 -90 5.88 7.08 6.68 4.39 6.40 15.46 18.37 1.19

28 -60 5.93 6.97 6.26 5.20 6.99 21.62 23.68 1.10

1285 -30 5.51 6.65 6.05 4.48 7.17 18.10 20.40 1.13

414 21 5.56 6.34 - - 7.49 19.45 21.18 1.09

153 50 Signal not acquired 22.42

745 100 4.01 5.87 - - 6.47 24.09 24.94 1.04
19

Table 13 - Instrumented impact results obtained from RHS specimens.

4340 Low Energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

LL-R12 -186 Signal not acquired 4.13

LL-R3 -159 6.14 6.43 6.27 0.00 1.09 1.16 1.08 0.93

LL-R7 -118 8.19 8.34 8.24 0.00 1.91 2.07 1.94 0.94

LL-R5 -101 7.63 8.77 8.61 0.00 2.61 2.73 2.57 0.94

LL-R4 -74 7.46 8.65 8.48 0.00 2.50 2.67 2.58 0.97

LL-R2 -50 7.53 8.88 8.69 0.00 3.04 3.19 2.97 0.93

LL-R6 -25 7.30 8.62 8.18 0.00 3.06 3.25 3.08 0.95

LL-R9 0 7.46 8.33 7.98 0.10 3.07 3.40 3.47 1.02

LL-R1 22 6.72 8.19 8.19 1.31 3.01 3.79 3.99 1.05

LL-R11 99 6.46 7.88 - - 2.62 5.14 4.87 0.95

LL-R10 197 6.28 7.48 - - 2.52 6.07 5.82 0.96

LL-R8 292 6.09 7.42 - - 2.49 6.39 6.02 0.94

4340 High Energy

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

HH-R1 -181 6.74 8.06 7.59 0.00 3.42 4.40 4.16 0.95

HH-R4 -147 6.67 8.05 7.65 0.00 3.36 4.73 4.52 0.96

HH-R10 -130 6.77 7.61 7.32 0.27 4.04 6.12 6.71 1.10

HH-R8 -121 6.58 7.32 6.52 1.48 4.31 9.95 9.17 0.92

HH-R2 -98 5.97 7.18 3.18 2.06 4.71 14.08 12.84 0.91

HH-R6 -76 5.85 7.03 - - 4.27 14.99 13.61 0.91

HH-R7 -50 5.68 6.96 - - 5.05 15.95 14.86 0.93

HH-R11 -30 5.90 6.93 - - 5.26 16.64 14.75 0.89

HH-R12 -20 5.75 6.71 - - 5.15 15.81 14.64 0.93

HH-R9 22 5.23 6.45 - - 5.59 17.62 16.50 0.94

HH-R5 101 4.97 6.23 - - 5.83 18.79 17.80 0.95

HH-R3 235 4.49 5.82 - - 5.51 20.47 19.01 0.93

T200

Specimen

id

T

(°C)

Fgy

(kN)

Fm

(kN)

Fbf

(kN)

Fa

(kN)

Wm

(J)

Wt

(J)

KV

(J)

Wt

KV

SH-R2 -194 6.39 9.05 9.01 0.00 5.68 6.23 6.41 1.03

SH-R12 -164 6.56 9.20 8.87 0.61 6.65 8.40 8.45 1.01

SH-R9 -152 7.16 9.12 7.78 2.99 8.21 15.56 14.52 0.93

SH-R6 -143 6.98 9.13 7.40 3.01 8.17 16.81 15.44 0.92

SH-R3 -125 7.02 9.01 6.33 3.96 8.53 19.26 17.84 0.93

SH-R10 -115 6.96 8.86 6.56 4.93 7.36 17.46 16.34 0.94

SH-R4 -100 7.01 8.93 - - 9.02 24.06 22.19 0.92

SH-R11 -76 6.92 8.65 - - 8.58 26.24 24.39 0.93

SH-R1 -50 6.65 8.40 1.90 1.34 8.81 26.43 24.61 0.93

SH-R8 -20 6.68 8.28 - - 9.25 30.19 26.21 0.87

SH-R5 22 5.95 7.78 - - 8.89 29.49 27.87 0.95

SH-R7 101 5.70 7.43 - - 9.00 31.06 29.83 0.96
20

The tests performed on 1/4-size specimens (Table 12) exhibited by far the highest failure rate in terms of

acquisition of the instrumented signal (30 %)***, as compared with any other geometry (6 % for CVN, 0 % for 3/4-

size and 1/2-size, 3 % for RHS). This was due to the relatively low level of the instrumented signals that were 

recorded during those tests. This forced the operator to lower the acquisition trigger level, to a point where random 

electrical spikes in the background noise would sometimes cause a false trigger of the acquisition. This did not 

occur for RHS specimens, even though the magnitude of the instrumented forces was similar, because a different 

instrumented striker, specifically designed for miniaturized specimens, was used and a low trigger level was not 

required. The lesson learned here is that an instrumented striker designed and built for larger specimens (and 

higher strain-gage signals) is not recommended for use with relatively small sub-sized specimens, and leads to a 

high percentage of failed acquisitions.

4.2.1 Effect of specimen type

The values of force at general yield (Fgy) and maximum force (Fm) are plotted as a function of test 

temperature for the investigated steels in Figures 15-20. In the Figures, data points are fitted by 3

rd or 4th order 

polynomials simply as a guide for the eye.

As expected (and similar to the well-established trend of mechanical strength with test temperature),

characteristic forces tend to decrease with both specimen cross-section/size and test temperature.

1/4-size specimens yield characteristic forces which are generally slightly lower than RHS specimens.

 

*** The instrumented curve of another 1/4-size specimen of 4340 low-energy (id: 25-2) was also impossible to analyze, although the signal 

was acquired. In this case, the sample was not properly positioned against the anvils, and the huge oscillations in the early part of the test 

concealed the true mechanical behavior of the specimen.
21

Figure 15 - Forces at general yield for 4340 low energy.

Figure 16 – Maximum forces for 4340 low energy.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS
22

Figure 17 - Forces at general yield for 4340 high energy. Specimens altered by the machining process are indicated by 

black symbols.

Figure 18 – Maximum forces for 4340 high energy. Specimens altered by the machining process are indicated by black 

symbols.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

Material altered

RHS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size Material altered

RHS
23

Figure 19 - Forces at general yield for T200.

Figure 20 – Maximum forces for T200.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100

Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS
24

4.2.2 Normalization of characteristic forces

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

and RHS specimens, to determine if any of these is successful in causing force values obtained from specimens of 

different size and geometry to become similar. 

The general approach we followed was based on the ratio between geometrical parameters, as already 

proposed by several researchers for correlating upper shelf energies between miniaturized and full-size 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 (or 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 listed quantities are summarized in Table 14 for the different specimen 

geometries; the corresponding normalization factors obtained for each specimen geometry (with respect to CVN 

specimens) are listed in Table 15.

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

Specimen

type

B∙b

(mm2)

B∙b2

(mm3)

(B∙b)

3/2

(mm3)

CVN 80 640 715.54

3/4-size 60 480 464.76

1/2-size 40 320 252.98

1/4-size 20 160 89.44

RHS 18.64 71.97 80.50

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

specimens used in this study.

Geometrical

parameter

Non-standard Charpy specimen type

3/4-size 1/2-size 1/4-size RHS

Area, B∙b 1.33 2.00 4.00

4.29

Volume, B∙b2

8.89

Volume, (B∙b)

3/2 1.54 2.83 8.00

Note that:

 for any sub-size specimen the normalization factors corresponding to B∙b and B∙b2 are identical, since the 

ligament size b is the same as for CVN (only the thickness B varies);

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

turn out to be identical.

The results of the force normalization process on Fgy and Fm values are illustrated in Figures 21-26 (4340 

low energy), Figures 27-32 (4340 high energy), and Figures 33-38 (T200).
25

Figure 21 - Forces at general yield for 4340 low energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

Figure 22 - Forces at general yield for 4340 low energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN 3/4-size 1/2-size 1/4-size RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2
26

Figure 23 - Forces at general yield for 4340 low energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

Figure 24 – Maximum forces for 4340 low energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN 3/4-size 1/2-size

1/4-size RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb3/2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb
27

Figure 25 – Maximum forces for 4340 low energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

Figure 26 – Maximum forces for 4340 low energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN 3/4-size 1/2-size 1/4-size RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN 3/4-size 1/2-size 1/4-size RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb3/2
28

Figure 27 - Forces at general yield for 4340 high energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

Figure 28 - Forces at general yield for 4340 high energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2 RHS
29

Figure 29 - Forces at general yield for 4340 high energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

Figure 30 – Maximum forces for 4340 high energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Normalized Fgy (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb
30

Figure 31 – Maximum forces for 4340 high energy, normalized for by ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

Figure 32 – Maximum forces for 4340 high energy, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 Normalized Fm (kN)

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

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

Figure 33 - Forces at general yield for T200, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

Figure 34 - Forces at general yield for T200, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

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

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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

Temperature (°C)

CVN 3/4-size

1/2-size 1/4-size

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2
32

Figure 35 - Forces at general yield for T200, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

Figure 36 – Maximum forces for T200, normalized by the ratio of fracture areas.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

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

Temperature (°C)

CVN 3/4-size

1/2-size 1/4-size

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

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

Temperature (°C)

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS Normalization factor: ratio of fracture areas, Bb
33

Figure 37 – Maximum forces for T200, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2.

Figure 38 – Maximum forces for T200, normalized by the ratio of fracture volumes, (Bb)

3/2

.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

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

Temperature (°C)

CVN 3/4-size

1/2-size 1/4-size

RHS

Normalization factor: ratio of fracture volumes, Bb2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

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

Temperature (°C)

CVN 3/4-size

1/2-size 1/4-size

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

Examination of Figures 21 to 38 leads to the following observations.

(a) For SCVN specimens, irrespective of their thickness, the normalization based on fracture areas Bb (which 

coincide with Bb2) produces acceptable results for all materials, considering also the significant scatter of the 

characteristic force values measured, particularly for the 4340 low energy steel.

(b) For SCVN specimens, when the ratio of fracture volumes is expressed in the form (Bb)

3/2, a clear tendency of 

the normalized forces to overestimate the values measured on CVN specimens (i.e., overcorrection) is evident. 

The overestimation is more pronounced for the thinner specimens (1/2-size, and particularly 1/4-size).

(c) None of the approaches considered appears to be particularly effective for RHS specimens, especially when 

fracture volumes are used (as previously mentioned, the two expressions of fracture volume coincide for the 

CVN-scaled RHS specimen). Even when the ratio of fracture areas Bb is used, RHS-normalized forces are still 

too high with respect to CVN forces. When tests performed on CVN and RHS specimens at similar 

temperatures (within ±10 °C) are considered, the average overcorrection for Fgy and Fm values ranges between 

6 % and 20 %, with the largest values (14 % for Fgy and 20 % for Fm) associated with the 4340 low energy 

steel and the lowest values (8 % and 6 % respectively) corresponding to the highest toughness T200 steel.

(d) Based on the previous considerations, the ratio of nominal fracture areas Bb needs to be multiplied by an

empirical coefficient  ≈ 0.88, for an effective normalization of characteristic forces measured from RHS 

specimens.

4.3 Relationship between 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 39

(CVN and SCVN specimens) and Figure 40 (RHS specimens). Each plot refers to a specific combination of impact 

machine and instrumented striker. In Figure 40, the different steels investigated are separately indicated.
35

Figure 39 - Values of KV/Wt as a function of SFA for CVN and SCVN tests.

Figure 40 - Values of KV/Wt as a function of SFA for RHS tests.

For CVN and SCVN specimens (Figure 39), 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 range for which no correction to instrumented 

0.75

0.85

0.95

1.05

1.15

1.25

1.35

1.45

0 25 50 75 100 Ratio KV/Wt

SFA (%)

CVN 3/4-size

1/2-size 1/4-size

+15 %

-15 %

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

0 25 50 75 100 Ratio KV/Wt

SFA (%)

RHS - 4340 low energy

RHS - 4340 high energy

RHS - T200

+15 %

-15 %
36

forces is required. Most of the outliers correspond to low SFA values (typically SFA < 10 %), which correspond to

brittle tests, which are typically more difficult to analyze†††. A tendency of Wt > KV can be observed.

In the case of RHS tests, all tests performed exhibit very good consistency between encoder and 

instrumented energy, irrespective of degree of ductility or steel tested. The opposite tendency (Wt < KV) can be 

observed.

5. Correlations between specimen types

5.1 Ductile-to-brittle transition temperatures

The values of DBTTKV calculated from SCVN and RHS specimens are plotted in Figure 41 as a function of 

the corresponding transition temperatures for full-size specimens. DBTTLE or FATT50 values were not considered, 

given that most of them were associated with considerable uncertainty (see the data points outside ±25 °C limits in 

Figure 11) were not included in the analyses. Essentially linear relationships (R2 ≥ 0.96) are observed in Figure 41.

Individual DBTT shifts, with mean values and standard deviations, are presented in Table 16 and Figure 42.

Table 16 - Shifts of ductile-to-brittle-transition temperature calculated for different steels, specimen types and Charpy 

parameters. NOTE: shifts involving values excluded from the analyses are marked in italic and contained in shaded 

cells.

Despite a considerable amount of data scatter, the magnitude of the downward shift predictably increases 

as the specimen size decreases, which confirms the well-known shift of DBTT to lower temperatures because of a 

reduction in specimen size [10,11]. The relationship between 1/4-size and RHS specimens (i.e., relative position of 

diamonds and triangles in Figure 42) is variable, and is attributable to the loss of constraint experienced by the

extremely thin specimen (1/4-size) when compared with the fully scaled-down (proportional) Charpy sample 

(RHS).

 

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

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

Parameter Material 3/4-size 1/2-size 1/4-size RHS

LL-141 17.6 19.6 -7.0 -20.1

HH-143 -3.7 -6.4 -35.3 -25.2

SH-38 -0.5 -15.8 -29.0 -45.8

Mean 4.5 -0.8 -23.8 -30.4

LL-141 85.4 18.6 44.3 14.3

HH-143 6.6 -12.9 -35.1 -26.1

SH-38 -12.3 -25.4 -48.6 -56.0

Mean -2.8 -19.2 -41.9 -41.0

LL-141 -19.9 -43.5 -87.7 -42.1

HH-143 2.7 -5.0 -39.5 -29.3

SH-38 -4.0 -48.6 -80.5 -40.9

Mean 2.7 -24.2 -63.6 -35.1

1.7 -12.8 -40.3 -34.8

10.1 19.4 24.5 13.1

Overall mean

Overall st. dev.

Specimen type

KV

LE

SFA
37

Figure 41 - Values of DBTTKV calculated from different specimen types.

Figure 42 - Values of DBTT shift (from KV, LE, and SFA) obtained from different specimen types.

3/4-size

y = 1.28x + 24.75

R2 = 1.00

1/2-size

y = 1.46x + 32.07

R2 = 1.00

1/4-size

y = 1.36x + 1.88

R2 = 0.99

RHS

y = 1.25x - 12.37

R2 = 0.96

-150

-125

-100

-75

-50

-25

0

-100 -75 -50 -25 0 DBTTKV,SCVN/RHS

(°C) 

DBTTKV,CVN (°C)

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

-120 -110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 DBTT shift (C)

DBTTCVN (C)

3/4-size 1/2-size

1/4-size RHS

3/4-size • ΔDBTT = 2 °C

1/2-size • ΔDBTT = -13 °C

1/4-size • ΔDBTT = -40 °C

RHS • ΔDBTT = -35 °C
38

The feasibility of a simple empirical model such as:

DBTTCVN  DBTTSCVN/ MCVN  M

(2)

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

on the slope of the linear fits which correlated in Figure 43 all reliable values of DBTTSCVN/MCVN and DBTTCVN (i.e., 

excluding the shaded values in Table 16). In two out of four cases (Table 17), the calculated slope cannot be 

statistically distinguished from 1 at a confidence level of 95 % ( = 0.95). However, a visual examination of the 

correlations in Figure 43 shows that most data points are clustered in a relatively narrow temperature range 

(between -102 °C and -85 °C), and therefore the uncertainty in the slope of the linear fits is elevated.

Consequently, we have decided to use eq.(2), which is the model commonly used in the literature (see 5.1.1).

Table 17 - Results of the t-test on the slope of the linear correlations shown in Figure 43. 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

3/4-size 1.264 23.229 2.124

2.132

Slope is not statistically different from 1

1/2-size 1.443 28.517 2.756 Slope is statistically different from 1

1/4-size 1.424 2.136 3.121 Slope is statistically different from 1

RHS 1.167 -17.294 0.788 Slope is not statistically different from 1

Figure 43 - Linear correlations between DBTT values from SCVN, MCVN, and CVN specimens. NOTE: data shaded 

in Table 16 are not included in the correlations presented.

3/4-size

y = 1.26x + 23.23

R2 = 0.96

2/3-size

y = 1.44x + 28.52

R2 = 0.95

1/4-size

y = 1.42x + 2.14

R2 = 0.96

RHS

y = 1.17x - 17.29

R2 = 0.88

-180

-160

-140

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

-110 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 DBTTSCVN/MCVN

(°C) 

DBTTCVN (°C)

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS
39

5.1.1 Comparison with the literature

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

and weld metals from reactor pressure vessel steels, Sokolov and Alexander [10] 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 [10], eq.(3) was obtained by fitting values of M that corresponded to four different definitions of 

transition temperature: (a) temperature corresponding to 41 J absorbed energy; (b) temperature corresponding to 

68 J absorbed energy; (c) temperature corresponding to the midpoint of the transition curve; and (d) temperature 

corresponding to 50 % SFA.

The values of the DBTT shift obtained in this investigation and listed in Table 16 are compared to eq.(3) in 

Figure 44, where excellent agreement with Sokolov/Alexander’s original fit can be observed for only the 1/2-size 

and RHS specimens. We recalculated the coefficients of eq.(3) with 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 101.115.65ln Bb

(4)

Figure 44 illustrates our test results, the data points obtained by Sokolov/Alexander in [10] for MCVN 

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

Figure 44 - Transition temperature correction for SCVN/MCVN specimens as a function of nominal fracture volume.

 

‡‡‡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.

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

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

Nominal fracture volume, Bb2(mm3)

Sokolov-Alexander fit

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

Sokolov-Alexander, Types 1-4

Updated fit
40

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

temperature that were obtained from standard and sub-size Charpy specimens of five structural steels with

different strengths and ductilities. The sub-size geometries that were 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, doublewidth). The criteria used to define and calculate DBTTs were: absorbed energy [KV = 15 ft.lb (20.3 J) and 3.8 ft.lb

/0.1 in. (5.2 J/2.5 mm) width], lateral expansion [LE = 10 mils (0.25 mm), 15 mils (0.38 mm), and 20 mils (0.51 

mm)], and shear fracture appearance (SFA = 10 %, 30 %, and 50 %). In addition, values of Nil-Ductility 

Temperature (NDT) were measured by drop-weight testing in accordance with ASTM E208 and were also 

reported. The average values of M for each steel investigated in [12] and the overall mean shift values are given in

Table 18.

Table 18 - 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

Both sub-size specimen geometries considered by Gross, the 1/2-size (or HW) and the 1/4-size (or QW),

are in common with our investigation. The average shifts reported by Gross (-48 °C for 1/4-size and -14 °C for 

1/2-size) are in good agreement with the mean values reported in Table 16, -40.3 °C for 1/4-size and -12.8 °C for 

1/2-size. Note that in Gross’ investigation, 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 44, the values corresponding to 3/4-size and 

1/4-size specimens do not appear well represented by Sokolov/Alexander’s original fit or by our modified fit 

(Figure 45).

However, examination of Figure 45 leads to formulate a different hypothesis, based on the assumption that 

SCVN specimens follow a different trend than MCVN specimens, and therefore it should be more appropriate to 

separately fit SCVN and MCVN data.

 

§§§Note that in [11], 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.
41

Figure 45 - Transition temperature correction for SCVN/MCVN specimens, with Gross’ results added.

In Figure 46 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 is 

relatively poor, and more experimental data are needed to verify the applicability of this formulation for fitting 

SVCN test results.

Figure 46 – DBTT shifts from [10], [12], and this investigation, fitted separately for SCVN and MCVN specimens.

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

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

Nominal fracture volume, Bb2(mm3)

Sokolov-Alexander fit

CVN

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

Sokolov-Alexander, Types 1-4

Gross, QW & HW

Updated fit

1⁄4-size

1/2-size

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

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
42

5.2 Upper Shelf Energy

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

geometries 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 four types of 

miniaturized Charpy specimens [10] (NF6).

In this investigation, the empirical normalization factors NF7 obtained by fitting USE values with eq.(5), 

see Figure 47, are listed in Table 19, where they are compared with the previously listed geometrical and empirical 

factors.

Table 19 - Normalization factors published in the literature (NF1 to NF6) and calculated in this investigation (NF7). For 

the definition of NF1 to NF7, see above.

Specimen

type NF1 NF2 NF3 NF4 NF5 NF6 NF7

3/4-size 1.33 1.54 1.33 1.33 1.54 - 0.77

1/2-size 2.00 2.83 2.00 2.00 2.83 - 0.42

1/4-size 4.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 8.00 - 0.14

RHS 4.29 8.89 8.89 3.30 6.84 6.3  0.15

All of he calculated normalization factors are much lower than any of the values published in the 

literature. The behavior of 1/4-size and RHS specimens is almost identical, as can be appreciated in Figure 47. The 

degree of linearity of the relationships between USE values is generally high, except for 1/4-size specimens.

One possible explanation for this result is that the “true” Upper Shelf Energy might not have been 

established for some of the steels and some of the specimen geometries employed. Particularly if the experimental 

values of USECVN are underestimated, the normalization factor NF from equation (5) will also be underestimated. 

This appears as a plausible circumstance when looking at Figure 48, which compares KV-based transition curves 

obtained from CVN specimens for the three steels. Particularly in the case of 4340 low and high energy, one might 

wonder if higher KV values could be obtained by testing at higher temperatures, even though at least three tests 

corresponding to fully ductile fracture, i.e., SFA = 100 %, are available. Indeed, three tests corresponding to SFA ≥ 

95 % is the minimum requirement commonly used for calculating a reliable value of USE, see for example ASTM 

E185-10 [19].

 

** **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).
43

Figure 47 - Correlation between USE values measured on CVN, SVCN, and RHS specimens.

Figure 48 – Comparison between KV transition curves obtained from CVN specimens, which show that the highest values 

of absorbed energy might not have been attained for some of the steels.

3/4-size

y = 0.77x

R2 = 0.99

1/2-size

y = 0.42x

R2 = 0.99

1/4-size

y = 0.14x

R2 = 0.79

RHS

y = 0.15x

R2 = 1.00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 USESCVN/RHS (J) 

USECVN (J)

3/4-size

1/2-size

1/4-size

RHS

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 KV (J)

Temperature (C)

4340 low energy

4340 high energy

T200
44

6. Validation of Table 9 from ASTM A370-14, Standard Test 

Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel 

Products

ASTM Standard A370-14 covers procedures and definitions for the mechanical testing of steels, stainless 

steels, and related alloys. The mechanical tests described include tension, bend, hardness, and impact, and are used

to determine properties required in the product specifications.

In the impact (Charpy) section of the standard, both standard size (CVN) and subsize (SCVN) specimens 

are covered. These latter are to be used for tubular materials, when the relationship between diameter and wall 

thickness does not permit obtaining CVN specimens (the largest feasible SCVN specimen should be used). The 

SCVN geometries listed are: 1/4-size (B = 2.5 mm), 1/3-size (B = 3.3 mm), 1/2-size (B = 5 mm), 2/3-size (B = 6.7 

mm), and 3/4-size (B = 7.5 mm). Three of these specimen configurations were used for the investigations 

described in this report.

Oftentimes, the acceptance criterion for impact tests is specified as a minimum average KV value from 

three specimens from one location, and at a given temperature. When SCVN specimens have to be used, the 

specified minimum KV test requirements must be modified in accordance with Table 9 of ASTM A370-14, which 

is given in Figure 1 and also reproduced below. Note A limits the table to 54 J (40 ft-lb), stating that beyond this 

limit the relationship between KVCVN and KVSCVN “has been reported to be non-linear.”

A Task Group was initiated within ASTM Subcommittee A01.13 (Mechanical and Chemical Testing and 

Processing Methods of Steel Products and Processes) with the objective of verifying and updating the information 

provided in Table 9 of A370. The source of the data provided in the current Table 9 is unknown, and needed to be 

verified with actual Charpy results, and also the possibility of extending the applicability of the table to values 

higher than 54 J needed to be assessed.

During one of the ASTM Committee meetings in 2012, the A01.13 Task Group and NIST decided to 

verify the applicability and reliability of Table 9 by performing instrumented Charpy tests on full-size and 

sub-sized specimens of the three steels used at NIST for producing reference specimens (4340 low energy, 4340 

high energy, and T200 maraging steel). The implications of our tests for Table 9 of A370-14 are discussed in this 

section.

Additionally, the same analyses were undertaken on instrumented Charpy tests performed on four line pipe 

steels (X52, X65, X70, and X100), which have been described in detail in a separate report [24].
45

6.1 Procedure for correlating KV values between CVN and SCVN specimens

The verification of Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 implies establishing a correlation between absorbed energy 

values measured from CVN and SCVN specimens, based on the results obtained on the NIST reference steels.

The simple procedure applied for this correlation is illustrated in Figure 49, and can be summarized as 

follows:

(a) for each of the materials tested, the reference value of KV from Table 9 is associated to a test temperature on 

the CVN transition curve (upper part of Figure 49, for example KVCVN = 43 J);

(b) this test temperature corresponds to a specific value of KVSCVN on the corresponding transition curve for each 

of the sub-sized specimens tested (lower part of Figure 49, for example KVSCVN = 26 J).

Figure 49 - Procedure for correlating KV values from CVN and SCVN specimens.

As a result of this correlation procedure, we obtained the values reported in Table 20 (NIST reference 

steels) and Table 21 (line pipe steels) for the sub-sized specimens used (3/4-size, 2/3-size††††, 1/2-size, 1/4-size).

We also extended this analysis to the miniaturized specimens (KLST‡‡‡‡ and RHS) used in the two studies. In 

Table 20, the KVCVN values correspond to the numbers given in Table 9 of A370. Note that, for many combinations 

of KVCVN and specimen type, the corresponding KVSCVN/RHS is not available because the test temperature falls 

outside the limits of the experimentally measured transition curve.

 

††††2/3-size specimens (B = 6.67 mm) of the four line pipe steels were tested in the study described in [24].

‡‡‡‡KLST specimens of the four line pipe steels were tested in the study described in [24]. KLST (from the German “Kleinstprobe”, or 

“small specimens” is a miniaturized Charpy specimen which has the following dimensions: length = 27 mm, thickness = 3 mm, width = 4 

mm, notch depth = 1 mm, notch angle = 60°, and notch root radius = 0.1 mm. It is the reference MCVN geometry for ISO 14556:2000, but 

is also mentioned in ASTM E2248-13. Its characteristic feature is that, unlike the RHS specimen, it is not a scaled-down (proportional) 

specimen with respect to the full-size Charpy.
46

Table 20 – Values of absorbed energy for CVN, SCVN, and RHS specimens obtained for the NIST reference steels by 

means of the procedure outlined in Figure 49.

Table 21 – Values of absorbed energy for CVN, SCVN, and MCVN specimens obtained for the line pipe steels by means 

of the procedure outlined in Figure 49.

As previously mentioned, higher energies were also investigated, so that the claim of Note A from Table 9

(“Table is limited to 40 ft-lbf because the relationship between specimen size and test results has been reported to 

be non-linear for higher values.”) could be substantiated or refuted. The corresponding values for 60 J ≤ KVCVN ≤ 

100 J are given in Table 22 for 4340 high energy and T200 (for 4340 low energy, the highest value which could be 

correlated was KVCVN = 34 J) and in Table 23 for the line pipe steels.

CVN 3/4-size 1/2-size 1/4-size RHS CVN 3/4-size 1/2-size 1/4-size RHS CVN 3/4-size 1/2-size 1/4-size RHS

54 54 40.8 26.8 16.7 12.1 54 38.0 28.4 15.5 14.3

48 48 32.5 17.6 16.1 11.3 48 33.1 25.1 14.8 12.6

41 41 24.7 13.2 15.0 10.3 41 27.6 21.3 13.9 10.3

34 25.1 16.9 8.2 5.4 34 19.5 12.3 13.2 9.0 34 22.3 17.9 12.8 7.4

27 21.0 14.7 7.8 4.7 27 16.7 12.1 10.4 7.3 27 17.5 15.1 11.4 3.9

22 16.8 11.7 6.8 4.0 22 15.8 12.1 7.9 5.9 22

20 15.0 10.3 6.2 3.7 20 15.6 12.1 6.9 5.3 20

18 13.2 8.9 5.5 3.4 18 15.5 12.1 6.1 4.7 18

16 11.5 7.5 4.7 3.0 16 15.4 12.1 5.4 4.0 16

14 9.8 6.3 4.0 2.7 14 15.4 12.1 5.1 3.3 14

10 6.8 4.4 2.8 1.9 10 10

4340 low energy 4340 high energy T200

KV (J) KV (J) KV (J)

CVN 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RHS CVN 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RHS CVN 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RH

54 39.4 29.9 4.2 11.7 54 88.1 62.2 8.0 43.5 54 85.5 67.3 10.0 47

48 36.9 28.3 4.2 11.2 48 77.2 57.2 7.7 43.3 48 77.2 65.7 10.0 47

41 33.8 26.3 4.2 10.6 41 63.9 50.7 7.4 42.7 41 66.9 63.5 10.0 47

34 30.3 24.1 4.1 9.6 34 50.4 43.4 6.9 41.5 34 56.0 60.9 10.0 47

27 26.4 21.6 4.1 8.3 27 36.9 35.2 6.3 38.3 27 44.4 57.8 10.0 47

22 23.2 19.5 4.1 7.1 22 27.6 28.7 5.7 33.0 22 35.8 55.0 10.0 47

20 21.8 18.6 4.0 6.5 20 24.0 26.0 5.4 29.6 20 32.3 53.7 10.0 47

18 20.3 17.6 4.0 5.9 18 20.6 23.1 5.0 25.2 18 28.8 52.3 10.0 47

16 18.7 16.5 3.9 5.2 16 17.2 20.3 4.6 19.9 16 25.2 50.6 10.0 47

14 17.0 15.3 3.9 4.5 14 14.0 17.3 4.1 14.2 14 21.6 48.8 10.0 47

10 13.2 12.4 3.5 2.9 10 8.3 11.3 3.0 4.5 10 14.3 44.0 10.0 47

KV (J) KV (J) KV (J) 

X52 X65 X70 

N 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RHS CVN 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RHS CVN 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RHS

4 88.1 62.2 8.0 43.5 54 85.5 67.3 10.0 47.1 54 53.8 28.7 8.9 28.9

8 77.2 57.2 7.7 43.3 48 77.2 65.7 10.0 47.1 48 50.0 26.5 8.9 28.9

1 63.9 50.7 7.4 42.7 41 66.9 63.5 10.0 47.1 41 45.4 23.8 8.9 28.9

4 50.4 43.4 6.9 41.5 34 56.0 60.9 10.0 47.1 34 40.2 20.9 8.8 28.6

7 36.9 35.2 6.3 38.3 27 44.4 57.8 10.0 47.1 27 34.5 17.8 8.6 20.3

2 27.6 28.7 5.7 33.0 22 35.8 55.0 10.0 47.1 22 30.0 15.4 8.2 3.4

0 24.0 26.0 5.4 29.6 20 32.3 53.7 10.0 47.1 20 28.0 14.4 8.0 1.7

8 20.6 23.1 5.0 25.2 18 28.8 52.3 10.0 47.1 18 25.9 13.4 7.5 1.3

6 17.2 20.3 4.6 19.9 16 25.2 50.6 10.0 47.1 16 23.8 12.3 6.9 1.2

4 14.0 17.3 4.1 14.2 14 21.6 48.8 10.0 47.1 14 21.5 11.1 6.0 1.2

0 8.3 11.3 3.0 4.5 10 14.3 44.0 10.0 47.1 10 16.5 8.7 3.0 1.2

KV (J) KV (J) KV (J)

X65 X70 X100
47

Table 22 – Values of absorbed energy in the range 60 J ≤ KVCVN ≤ 100 J for 4340 high energy and T200.

Table 23 – Values of absorbed energy in the range 60 J ≤ KVCVN ≤ 100 J for the line pipe steels.

CVN 3/4-size 1/2-size 1/4-size RHS CVN 3/4-size 1/2-size 1/4-size RHS

60 49.7 37.1 17.1 12.8 60 43.0 31.8 16.1 16.1

70 62.8 44.7 17.5 13.6 70 51.4 37.3 16.9 16.9

80 71.6 46.0 17.7 14.3 80 60.0 42.7 17.7 17.7

90 76.3 46.2 17.9 14.9 90 68.7 47.7 18.4 18.4

100 78.4 46.2 17.9 15.3 100 77.3 52.3 19.0 19.0

4340 high energy T200

KV (J) KV (J)

CVN 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RHS CVN 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RHS CVN 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST R

60 41.8 31.5 4.2 12.0 60 98.6 66.6 8.1 43.7 60 93.4 68.8 10.0 47

70 46.0 34.6 4.2 12.3 70 114.9 73.1 8.4 43.8 70 105.8 71.0 10.0 47

80 129.6 78.6 8.6 43.9 80 117.1 73.0 10.0 47

90 142.8 83.4 8.7 43.9 90 127.4 74.7 10.0 47

100 154.5 87.4 8.8 43.9 100 136.9 76.3 10.0 47

KV (J) KV (J) KV (J) 

X52 X65 X70 

N 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RHS CVN 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RHS CVN 2/3-size 1/2-size KLST RHS

98.6 66.6 8.1 43.7 60 93.4 68.8 10.0 47.1 60 57.2 30.8 8.9 28.9

114.9 73.1 8.4 43.8 70 105.8 71.0 10.0 47.1 70 62.6 34.1 8.9 28.9

129.6 78.6 8.6 43.9 80 117.1 73.0 10.0 47.1 80 67.6 37.2 8.9 28.9

142.8 83.4 8.7 43.9 90 127.4 74.7 10.0 47.1 90 72.1 40.1 8.9 28.9

0 154.5 87.4 8.8 43.9 100 136.9 76.3 10.0 47.1 100 76.4 43.0 8.9 28.9

KV (J) KV (J) KV (J)

X65 X70 X100
48

6.2 Comparisons between data from Table 9 data and experimental results

The comparisons between the values reported in Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and in Tables 31 to 34 of this 

report are provided in Figures 63 to 65 for the NIST reference steels and Figures 66 to 69 for the line pipe steels.

Figure 50 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results from 4340 low energy.

Figure 51 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results from 4340 high energy.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 KVSCVN/RHS (J)

KVCVN (J)

Circles/Solid lines: TABLE 9 - ASTM A370-13

Squares/Dashed lines: NIST tests

3/4 size

1/4 size

1/2 size

RHS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 KVSCVN/RHS (J)

KVCVN (J)

3/4 size

1/4 size

1/2 size

Circles/Solid lines: TABLE 9 - ASTM A370-12a

Squares/Dashed lines: NIST tests

RHS
49

Figure 52 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results from T200.

Figure 53 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results from X52 line pipe steel.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 KVSCVN/RHS (J)

KVCVN (J)

3/4 size

1/4 size

1/2 size

Circles/Solid lines: TABLE 9 - ASTM A370-12a

Squares/Dashed lines: NIST tests

RHS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 KVSCVN/MCVN (J)

KVCVN (J)

2/3 size

RHS

1/2 size

KLST

Circles/Solid lines: TABLE 9 - ASTM A370-12a

Squares/Dashed lines: NIST tests
50

Figure 54 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results from X65 line pipe steel.

Figure 55 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results from X70 line pipe steel.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 KVSCVN/MCVN (J)

KVCVN (J)

2/3 size

RHS

1/2 size

KLST

2/3 size

1/2 size

Circles/Solid lines: TABLE 9 - ASTM A370-12a

Squares/Dashed lines: NIST tests

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 KVSCVN/MCVN (J)

KVCVN (J)

2/3 size

RHS

1/2 size

KLST

2/3 size

1/2 size

Circles/Solid lines: TABLE 9 - ASTM A370-12a

Squares/Dashed lines: NIST tests
51

Figure 56 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results from X100 line pipe steel.

A different analytical approach is proposed in Figures 70 to 75, where for each non-standard specimen 

configuration, KVCVN and KVSCVN/MCVN from each of the steels investigated are compared with Table 9 values.

Figure 57 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results for 3/4-size specimens.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 KVSCVN/MCVN (J)

KVCVN (J)

2/3 size

RHS

1/2 size

KLST

2/3 size

Circles/Solid lines: TABLE 9 - ASTM A370-12a

Squares/Dashed lines: NIST tests

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 KV3/4-size (J)

KVCVN (J)

4340 low energy

4340 high energy

T200

Table 9

3/4-size specimens
52

Figure 58 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results for 2/3-size specimens.

Figure 59 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results for 1/2-size specimens.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 KV2/3-size (J)

KVCVN (J)

X52

X65

X70

X100

Table 9

2/3-size specimens

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 KV1/2-size (J)

KVCVN (J)

4340 low energy 4340 high energy

T200 X52

X65 X70

X100

Table 9

1/2-size specimens
53

Figure 60 – Comparison between Table 9 of ASTM A370-14 and Charpy test results for 1/4-size specimens.

Figure 61 – Comparison between Charpy test results for KLST specimens.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 KV1/4-size (J)

KVCVN (J)

4340 low energy

4340 high energy

T200

Table 9

1/4-size specimens

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 KVKLST (J)

KVCVN (J)

X52 X65

X70 X100

KLST specimens
54

Figure 62 – Comparison between Charpy test results for RHS specimens.

The analyses presented in Figures 63 to 75 lead to the following observations.

(1) The agreement between our experimental data and Table 9 is satisfactory only for one of the seven steels tested, 

4340 low energy. For the remaining materials, discrepancies are very large, particularly for very high toughness 

and ductility materials such as X65 and X70 line pipe steels. 

(2) The trend shown by Table 9 data is substantially linear, whereas for many of the NIST experimental results the 

trends are clearly non-linear, due to some of the KVSCVN values falling on the lower shelf or on the upper shelf 

of the transition curve. Significant non-linearity can already occur at KVCVN values well below 54 J, thereby

contradicting the statement provided in Note A.

(3) It appears plausible that Table 9 was developed for a material (or several materials) with characteristics similar 

to those of 4340 low energy. However, for higher ductility/toughness steels, the use of Table 9 is inadequate and 

equivalent data should be generated for the steel under investigation, or at least for a specific class of materials 

with similar mechanical properties.

(4) It’s interesting to note that for two of the investigated steels (4340 high energy and T200), Table 9 values for 

1/4-size specimens are in better agreement with test results from RHS than from 1/4-size specimens. Also in 

consideration of the additional issues which emerged concerning the use of 1/4-size specimens in this study, it 

could be contended that RHS should be used instead of 1/4-size specimens when thin-walled components have 

to be characterized.

In summary, the approach used by Table 9 does not seem useful for most steels. The main issue is that a 

fixed conversion/correlation factor between KV values from full-size and sub-size Charpy specimens can be 

envisaged only when both specimen types are in the same fracture regime (i.e., lower shelf, transition, or upper shelf) 

at the test temperature for the material under investigation. The possibility of the two specimens being in different 

0

10

20

30

40

50

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 KVRHS (J)

KVCVN (J)

4340 low energy 4340 high energy

T200 X52

X65 X70

X100

RHS specimens
55

regimes increases with increasing material toughness and decreasing sub-size specimen thickness. In this case, a 

completely different and probably more complex approach than a simple KV correction factor will have to be 

considered.

7. Conclusions

(1) Although tests on 4340 low energy steel were conducted up to 300 °C, a stable upper shelf plateau was not 

reached. This introduces significant uncertainty in the determination of parameters such as ductile-to-brittle 

transition temperatures and upper shelf levels.

(2) At the opposite end of the spectrum, relatively high percentages of ductile fracture (SFA values ≥ 25 %) were 

measured for T200 even at the lowest achievable test temperature (≈ -198 °C). This leads to a poor definition 

of the FATT50 transition temperatures.

(3) The above mentioned uncertainties are confirmed by the fact that, in several cases, transition temperatures 

measured from lateral expansion or SFA are in poor agreement with values measured from absorbed energy 

(KV).

(4) For a number of instrumented Charpy tests performed on 1/4-size specimens, the instrumented striker signal 

could not be recorded. For this specimen geometry, the acquisition trigger level had to be lowered because of 

the lower magnitude of the signals, but this led to false triggers caused by noise or electrical instabilities. 

Additionally, we found evidence of material embrittlement due to overheating (bluing) for four 1/4-size 

specimens of 4340 high energy, which had to be removed from the overall analyses. Finally, transition curves 

from 1/4-size specimens were often less well-defined than those obtained from other specimen types, 

including RHS specimens, particularly for 4340 low energy. All these circumstances lead us to advise against 

the use of 1/4-size specimens. In the case of thin-walled structures, a miniaturized specimen such as KLST or 

RHS should be employed (even if the false triggering issue could be solved).

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

increasing test temperature and obviously with specimen size. For SCVN specimens, instrumented forces can 

be normalized to CVN values with acceptable results, by the use of a normalization factor corresponding to the 

ratio of the nominal facture areas, expressed as Bb. For RHS specimens, the ratio between fracture areas needs 

to be multiplied by an empirical factor  ≈ 0.88.

(6) The ratio between the two measures of absorbed energy (KV and Wt) was found to be quite consistent and 

independent of test temperature or specimen type for both instrumented strikers used. The exception was for 

some tests performed at very low temperatures, where the interpretation of the instrumented test record cab be

difficult.

(7) Because of the uncertainties associated with many of the calculated transition temperatures, the variations in 

DBTT between different specimen types were found to be less consistent than for a similar investigation 

recently conducted on a number of line pipe steels [24]. Nonetheless, results obtained from RHS specimens 

were found to be in good agreement with results previously published by other authors. Our results also show 

that SCVN and MCVN specimens follow different trends in their relationship with full-size Charpy 

specimens.

(8) The ratio between the Upper Shelf Energies as measured on SCVN/RHS and CVN specimens was found to be

much lower than what has been published in the literature. One possible explanation is that for several 
56

combinations of steel and specimen configuration, the “true” value of USE might not have been established, 

see item (1) above.

(9) For all materials and specimen types, we have compared optical measurements of Shear Fracture Appearance 

with estimates provided by four empirical formulae based on instrumented forces at general yield, maximum 

force, unstable fracture initiation, and crack arrest. All the empirical relationships tend to underestimate the 

measured SFA values, which leads to the calculation of conservative FATT50. The second formula (designated 

F2 in this report) provides the best agreement with optically measured SFA values. Its accuracy is best for 

CVN specimens. Discrepancies between measured and estimated values are particularly significant for 4340 

low energy, whose instrumented curves are the most difficult to analyze.

We used the results obtained on the NIST reference materials, as well as from the line pipe steels in [24], 

to verify the relationship between absorbed energy from CVN and SCVN specimens, as provided in Table 9 of 

ASTM A370-14 (Charpy V-Notch Test Acceptance Criteria for Various Sub-Size Specimens). 

We observed that Table 9 works acceptably only for the least tough material investigated (4340 low 

energy). For tougher materials, the values in Table 9 are unacceptably low and the difference increases with the 

material’s toughness. The linearity of the relationship between KVCVN and KVSCVN is also extremely questionable, 

and a completely different approach appears warranted. The main issue is that, in most cases, different specimen 

types tested at the same temperature exhibit significantly different fracture behaviors, because of the shift of the 

transition temperature caused by a reduction of specimen size/thickness. Only when it can be guaranteed that all 

tests correspond to the same fracture regime (brittle/transition/ductile), a simple correlation/conversion factor 

between absorbed energies can be employed. Further research in this direction is therefore required.
57

Bibliography

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

Book of Standards 01.03, 2014.

[2] ASTM E140-12b1, Standard Hardness Conversion Tables for Metals Relationship Among Brinell Hardness, 

Vickers Hardness, Rockwell Hardness, Superficial Hardness, Knoop Hardness, Scleroscope Hardness, and 

Leeb Hardness, ASTM Book of Standards 01.03, 2014.

[3] C. McCowan, R. Santoyo, and J. Splett, “Certification Report for SRMs 2112 and 2123,” NIST Special 

Publication 260-172, July 2009.

[4] C. N. McCowan, T. A. Siewert, and D. P. Vigliotti, “The NIST Charpy V-notch Verification Program: 

Overview and Operating Procedures,” in: NIST Technical Note 1500-9, Charpy Verification Program: 

Reports Covering 1989-2002, September 2003, pp. 3-42.

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

ASTM Book of Standards 01.03, 2014.

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

Standards Organization, 2000.

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

Book of Standards 01.03, 2014.

[8] 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).

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

November 1975, pp. 24-29.

[10] 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.

[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.
58

[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.

[19] ASTM E185-10, Standard Practice for Design of Surveillance Programs for Light-Water Moderated Nuclear 

Power Reactor Vessels, ASTM Book of Standards 12.02, 2014

[20] E. Lucon, C. N. McCowan, and R. L. Santoyo, “Impact Characterization of Line Pipe Steels by Means of 

Standard, Sub-Size and Miniaturized Charpy Specimens,” NIST Technical Note, Publication id 917096, 

September 2014.