Use of Liquid Metal Embrittlement (LME)

for Controlled Fracture

by James C. Hirvonen, Daniel J. Snoha, Jonathan S. Montgomery,

Laszlo J. Kecskes, David M. Gray, and William S. de Rosset

ARL-TR-4976 September 2009

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
NOTICES

Disclaimers

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents.

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
Army Research Laboratory

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066

ARL-TR-4976 September 2009

Use of Liquid Metal Embrittlement (LME)

for Controlled Fracture

James C. Hirvonen, Daniel J. Snoha, Jonathan S. Montgomery,

Laszlo J. Kecskes, and David M. Gray 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL

William S. de Rosset

Dynamic Science, Inc.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

September 2009

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

October 2006-December 2006

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Use of Liquid Metal Embrittlement (LME) for Controlled Fracture

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

James C. Hirvonen, Daniel J. Snoha, Jonathan S. Montgomery, Laszlo J. Kecskes, 

David M. Gray, and William S. de Rosset

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

AH84

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

RDRL-WMM-B

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TR-4976

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD 21005-5069

2. Dynamic Science, Inc., 8433 Black Canyon Hwy., Phoenix, AZ 85021

14. ABSTRACT

A concept is described for using liquid metal embrittlement (LME) to cause fracture of steel. Three different approaches are 

taken to break the metal, all based on putting the liquid metal (LM) into a surface notch (or groove) and applying stress. Some 

success was achieved in breaking the metal in quasi-static tests of flat samples. However, for dynamic tests of flat samples, as 

well as tests of a specific cylindrical configuration, brittle fracture was not achieved.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

liquid metal embrittlement, 1038 and 4340 steels, drop tower, modified Charpy bar, fracture of steel cylinders

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

SAR

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

48

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

William S. de Rosset

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(410) 306-0816

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents

List of Figures iv

List of Tables v

Acknowledgments vi

1. Introduction 1

2. Experimental Procedures 5

2.1 Drop Tower Tests of Modified Charpy Bars...................................................................5

2.2 Static Deflection Tests.....................................................................................................8

2.3 Cylinder Tests..................................................................................................................8

3. Test Results 10

3.1 Drop Tower Test Results...............................................................................................10

3.2 Static Deflection Test Results.......................................................................................17

3.3 Cylinder Test Results ....................................................................................................19

4. Discussion 20

5. References 22

Appendix. Additional Data 25

A-1. Samples .........................................................................................................................25

A-2. Hardness Measurements................................................................................................26

A-3. Charpy Impact Data.......................................................................................................29

A-4. Abusive Grinding Tests.................................................................................................31

Distribution 34
iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Effect of tensile strength on the embrittling process. ................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Effect of applied stress on time to failure using LM embrittlement............................................. 3

Figure 3. Embodiment of LME concept before activation of embrittling agent.......................................... 4

Figure 4. Embodiment of LME concept after activation of embrittling agent............................................. 4

Figure 5. Modified Charpy bar. ................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 6. Drop tower test arrangement. ....................................................................................................... 6

Figure 7. Picture of jig used to deflect the Charpy bar. ............................................................................... 7

Figure 8. Design of cylinder for fracture test............................................................................................... 9

Figure 9. Experimental arrangement for pressurized cylinder test. ........................................................... 10

Figure 10. 1038 alloy samples after drop tower tests showing partial (left side) to complete

(right side) fracture.................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 11. Drop tower test results for all modified Charpy bars not treated with LM; dashed line

tends to separate complete and partial fractures...................................................................... 11

Figure 12. Enlarged region of drop tower test data from figure 10 (untreated samples); 

dashed lines enclose region of mixed results. ......................................................................... 12

Figure 13. Drop tower test results of LM-treated modified Charpy bars................................................... 13

Figure 14. Total energy expended on the sample during the drop test for LM-treated samples................ 14

Figure 15. Drop tower test results for pre-stressed samples not treated with LM. .................................... 15

Figure 16a. Non-wetted fracture surfaces (sample number 100-PN)......................................................... 16

Figure 16b. Partially wetted fracture surfaces (sample number 101-PN).................................................. 16

Figure 16c. Completely wetted fracture surfaces (sample number 102-PN). ............................................ 16

Figure 17. Drop tower test results for pre-stressed, LM-treated samples. ................................................. 17

Figure 18. Cylindrical steel cylinder after pressurization test showing longitudinal fracture. .................. 20

Figure A-1. Side view of notch in modified Charpy bar (sample number 133) after treatment

with LM and pre-stressing (magnification 30×, back-scatter energy mode). ....................... 25

Figure A-2. Notch and fracture surface of sample number 147 (magnification 100×).............................. 26

Figure A-3. Hardness measurement locations on the modified Charpy bar. ............................................. 26

Figure A-4. Hardness data for 1038 steel sample numbers 118 through 136. ........................................... 27

Figure A-5. Hardness data for 4340 steel sample numbers 190 through 199. ........................................... 28

Figure A-6. Hardness data for 4340 steel sample numbers 200 through 221. ........................................... 28
v

List of Tables

Table 1. Melting temperature of various LMs known to embrittle high-strength steels.............................. 2

Table 2. Data summary for 4340 steel Charpy bars................................................................................... 19

Table A-1. Hardness measurements for selected 1038 steel samples........................................................ 27

Table A-2a. Drop tower test data, part 1.................................................................................................... 29

Table A-2b. Drop tower test data, part 2.................................................................................................... 30

Table A-2c. Drop tower test data, part 3.................................................................................................... 31

Table A-3. Grinding parameters. ............................................................................................................... 32

Table A-4. Drop tower test results for abusively-ground samples............................................................. 33
vi

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Michael Staker for insightful discussions of the liquid metal embrittling 

process and for taking hardness measurements on many samples. In addition, Gary Hirsch is

thanked for producing the scanning electron micrographs of the modified Charpy bars. 

This research was supported in part by an appointment to the Knowledge Preservation Program 

at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for 

Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) and ARL.
1

1. Introduction

As a part of a program to investigate the possibility of making a fragmenting round with a 

selectable fragment distribution, several concepts have been explored that make use of the idea 

of filling in external grooves of a steel shell with a material that is capable of changing the 

properties of the shell. One of the first concepts was the use of a reactive (thermitic) material to 

heat external grooves in a steel shell and thereby alter the steel’s material properties. The 

authors in reference 1 have developed this concept using a conventional aluminum and iron 

oxide powdered thermite mixture to react a boron carbide paste into a steel surface in order to 

produce a brittle iron boride on a steel surface (1). This approach was tried on a macroscopic Vnotch by researchers at Texas Tech University, who found the resultant surface temperature 

increases at the steel surfaces to be too low for enabling metallurgical phase changes for the 

small volume of thermitic charge available in the V-notch volume (2). This result was confirmed 

by calculations conducted at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) (3). 

Another concept was the use of a reactive material cold-sprayed into external grooves of a steel 

shell (4). Here, the idea was to remove material from the groove by igniting the reactive 

material. However, ignition of the particular reactive material used in the tests did not result in 

its removal, and the changes in the reactive material after the reaction were insufficient to 

provide the desired result. Another idea that has been proposed recently is to use thermite to 

weld or fill in external grooves on a steel shell (5). Here, the thermite reaction would bridge and 

strengthen the grooves, inducing natural fragmentation. This concept is currently being pursued. 

Another concept involves liquid metal embrittlement (LME). It has long been known that 

certain metals in the liquid state can embrittle other metals (6–13). For example, it is well 

documented that gallium and/or mercury can embrittle aluminum via grain boundary penetration. 

This has been used for the selective dissolution of grains in susceptible materials. In steels, LME

effects have been observed for selective species under conditions that are not as well understood 

or documented as in the case of aluminum. Unfortunately, these embrittlement events have often 

occurred as catastrophic component failures associated with unintended elemental contamination 

and environmental conditions. Although the exact mechanisms of embrittling are complicated, 

the penetration by the embrittling agent is normally intergranular, and the requirements for 

embrittlement tend to vary depending on the materials involved. However, minimal conditions 

required for LME in steels include that:

1. The alloy to be embrittled must be in a state of tension, either locally or applied.

2. The surface of this metal must be clean and free of oxides (i.e., free of a barrier to the 

liquid metal [LM]).
2

3. The LM must intimately wet the metal surface. Crack growth rates of up to 1 m/s have 

been measured (12), which is rapid for small-scale components. 

Table 1 (12, 13) shows various metals known to embrittle steel.

Table 1. Melting temperature of various LMs known to embrittle high-strength 

steels. 

LM Melting Temperature (F)

Mercury -38

Gallium 85

Indium 313

Lithium 356

Tin 449

Cadmium 610

Lead 620

Zinc 787

Tellurium 841

Antimony 1167

Copper 1981

The embrittling effect is most pronounced in steels with high hardness values. This is shown in 

figure 1 (6). The drop in tensile strength as a function of material hardness is evident for HRC 

values in excess of 40. The data shown are for AISI 4130 steel, but it is expected that the 

approximate relation would hold for other steels.

Figure 1. Effect of tensile strength on the embrittling process.
3

How fast materials fail due to LME depends on many factors. An indication of the role that 

applied stress plays is shown in figure 2 (6). As shown in the figure, fracture could possibly take 

place in under a second, given a high tensile stress. The material in question is AISI 4130 steel 

with a hardness value of HRC 44. The embrittling agent is molten lithium. 

Figure 2. Effect of applied stress on time to failure using LM embrittlement.

For the application of an exploding cylindrical shell, the hoop tensile stress can be extremely 

high, so the LM embrittling process may cause fracture in a very short time. However, the 

longitudinal tensile stress may be small. Both components are needed to form a fragment with a 

pre-determined mass and geometry. 

The use of LME agents for purposely reducing the fracture strength of steels via topical 

application has been investigated (7). The choice of potential LME agents for this study avoided 

mercury due to its poor environmental (toxic) effects and focused on the relatively benign, low 

melting gallium/indium/tin (Ga/In/Sn) eutectic that has a low melting temperature (~ 11 °C) and 

contains known embrittling elements (table 1).

Figures 3 and 4 show one possible embodiment of the LME concept. The embrittling agent is 

encapsulated and placed at the bottom of a notch machined in the exterior surface of a shell. The 

bottom of the notch is coated with an alloying metal (e.g., lead/tin eutectic) that is capable of 

forming a eutectic with the embrittling agent. The role of the thin lead/tin coating is to protect 

the underlying steel surface from oxidation and to make an oxide-free steel surface available to 

the molten embrittling elements when released. The rest of the notch is filled with a thermite 

material. A small reactive nanofoil will ignite the thermite material when a signal is transmitted 

to it. The thermite reaction melts the encapsulation, and the eutectic is released in a liquid state. 

In theory, wherever the LM is released, the shell is embrittled (figure 4). This embrittling 

process occurs before the shell is detonated. The metal fractures preferentially at the LM release 
4

locations. This gives the desired fragment size and shape. If the LM is not released, the shell 

fractures in its natural mass distribution of fragments. 

Figure 3. Embodiment of LME concept before activation of embrittling agent.

Figure 4. Embodiment of LME concept after activation of embrittling agent.

A series of experiments was undertaken to test the feasibility of this concept. The main question 

to be answered was under what circumstances steel could be made to fracture in a brittle manner 

by using LMs. The procedures used to test the feasibility evolved over a period of months. In 

the end, three different means to fracture the steel samples were used to establish conditions to 

achieve fracture. Each featured a notch machined into steel. Initial tests focused on drop tower 

tests with ensuing tests consisting of cyclic stress tests to assess LME susceptibility. Finally, 

cylinder tests were performed to assess the LME behavior in a non-planar geometry more 

representative of the final projectile application. 

These means are described in section 2. Section 3 contains the results. Following the results is a 

discussion in section 4, including additional data in the appendix. 
5

2. Experimental Procedures

2.1 Drop Tower Tests of Modified Charpy Bars

Fracture of metals can be examined by conducting tests with notched bars, known as Charpy 

bars. The approach taken here was to use a modified Charpy bar to investigate the fracture 

properties of metals that had or had not been treated with an embrittling agent. The modified 

Charpy bar used in these tests is shown in figure 5. The thickness dimension of this bar was 

based on dimensions of externally-grooved steel cylinders that had been used in a series of 

fragmentation tests (14–16). The cylinders used in these tests had grooves that ranged from 

0.010 in deep to 0.050 in deep. The wall thickness of the cylinders was 0.10 in. The material 

used for the modified Charpy bars began as 1038 steel (0.38 wt % C), the same as was used for 

the cylinders used in the fragmentation tests. Later, the modified Charpy bars were made from 

4340 steel in order to promote the enhanced embrittlement seen, for instance, in a high hardness 

steel (figure 1).

Figure 5. Modified Charpy bar.

The plan was to place the LM in the groove and determine what conditions were needed to 

embrittle the sample. The particular LM chosen for these tests was a Ga/In/Sn eutectic (liquid at 

room temperature). The weight percentages of the elements were 62%, 22%, and 16%, 

respectively. As the tests progressed, additional small amounts (less than 10%) of known 

embrittling elements such as lead, antimony, and zinc were added to this eutectic mixture. The 

fraction dissolved in the liquid state of the solvent Ga/In/Sn eutectic was not known. 

The LM was applied to each type of test sample (bar or cylinder) in various ways. Generally, the 

LM would be placed in the notch after insuring that the notch surface was free of grit and dirt. 

At that point, a small, three-sided file (riffler file) would be used to scratch the surface of the 

notch below the LM to promote intimate wetting of the LM with the steel surface without air 

present, as well as induce localized stress raiser sites. At other times, a tungsten scribe was used. 

In other cases, sandpaper was used. In some instances, the modified Charpy bar was heated, 
6

either with a hot-air blower or a hot plate. Temperatures of approximately 100 °C were 

achieved.

The first means by which the steel was fractured made use of a drop tower. Such parameters as 

the impact energy and energy to deform or fracture the sample were measured. Figure 6 shows a 

picture of the drop tower that was used. The modified Charpy bar is placed with the notch side 

down between two support rails. The striker, or tup, is raised a certain height above the bar and 

then released. The tup strikes the modified Charpy bar, which is then either partially or 

completely fractured and passes through the support rails to a collection box below.

Figure 6. Drop tower test arrangement.

The steel bars were heat treated to different values of hardness, and a range of impact energies 

(determined by the drop height and weight of the tup) was used on untreated samples to establish 

input conditions where most of the tests would be conducted for the treated sample. Once this 

range was established, it was used on subsequent tests of treated samples.

The literature clearly states that LME will only occur when the sample is under tensile stress (6). 

The drop tower provides a tensile stress at the crack tip, but it occurs very rapidly. In order to 

induce a tensile stress state in the Charpy bar at a slower rate, a special jig was made by which 

the modified Charpy bar could be put under a tensile load. A picture of this jig is shown in

figure 7. The Charpy bar is held down at its ends by two screws. Another screw (not shown in 

the picture) can be advanced against a hardened pin in contact with the back of the sample so as 

to cause a deflection in the bar. The amount of deflection is measured with a dial indicator. The 
7

jig is positioned so that the LM can be applied to the notch while the sample is under tension. 

The idea was to induce the start of embrittlement before the sample is tested in the drop tower.

Figure 7. Picture of jig used to deflect the Charpy bar.

The pre-stressed samples could be sorted into five different groups according to the procedures 

applied to them, as indicated below. 

1. Procedure A: The sample had a notch coated with LM. The notch was abraded, and the

sample was then deflected by an amount equal to or greater than 0.055 in. The sample was 

then heated to 100 °C or more.

2. Procedure B: The sample had the same coating and abrading procedure as A. The sample

was deflected less than 0.055 in, and it was heated to 100 °C or more.

3. Procedure C: The sample was chemically etched. The sample had LM applied to the notch 

(no abrasion), it was deflected equal to or more than 0.050 in, and it was heated to 100 °C 

or more.

4. Procedure D: The sample had the same coating and abrading procedure as A. The sample

was deflected equal to or more than 0.055 in, and it was not heated.

5. Procedure E: The sample had the same coating and abrading procedure as A. The sample

was deflected less than 0.055 in.

After the bars were processed, according to one of the five procedures, they were placed in the 

drop tower and tested. Hereafter, samples treated with Procedure A will be Group A samples, 

and so forth. 
8

2.2 Static Deflection Tests

Additional deflection tests were made with the modified Charpy bar samples. The purpose of 

these tests was to determine what, if any, cracks were introduced into the samples by the 

deflection alone. Large variations in results were obtained. Part of the problem was traced to the 

difficulty in heat treating the 1038 steel samples to a uniform and consistent hardness. It was 

decided to change the sample material to 4340 steel, which could be easily heat-treated to the 

higher hardness values that were needed to conduct the experiments.

The original procedure for deflecting the modified Charpy bars was to advance the screw once to 

get the desired deflection. In the static tests, the modified Charpy bar deflection was cycled 

through larger and larger amounts. That is, instead of advancing the screw once, it was advanced 

and then returned to the original position. Each time the degree of deflection increased, 

generally by 5 or 10 mils. For example, the screw would be advanced to 10 mils of sample 

deflection and then returned to its original position. Next, the screw would be advanced to 20 

mils and then returned to its original position. This sequence was repeated until the total 

deflection was 60 mils or the sample fractured. This procedure allowed a measurement of a 

permanent set in the Charpy bar before fracture.

2.3 Cylinder Tests

Eventually, the concept of using LME to provide a controlled fragmentation warhead would have 

to be translated into a shell-like configuration. As a first step, the cylindrical steel shell used in 

the fragmentation tests (14–16) was chosen to test the feasibility of the concept. In this case, the 

cylinder was made from 4340 steel.

The procedure that was found to be consistent in reducing the toughness of 4340 steel (see 

section 3.3) was used on an external circumferential notch in the cylinder. The cylinder was then 

pressurized to create a tensile stress on its outside surface in much the same way as the Gun 

Liner Emplacement with Elastomeric Material (GLEEM) process is carried out (17). The design 

of the cylinder is shown in figure 8. This is approximately the same configuration as used in the 

fragmentation tests. However, there is only one groove, and it is located in the center of the 

cylinder. Its depth is 0.025 in, the same as was used for the modified Charpy bars.
9

Figure 8. Design of cylinder for fracture test.

Pressure was applied to the center of the cylinder by filling the cylinder with an elastomeric 

material and applying pressure to that material. Figure 9 shows a picture of the test pieces. The 

green elastomeric material was shaped to fit the inside of the cylinder. After it was inserted into 

the cylinder, two nylon caps were used to seal the elastomeric material inside the cylinder. This 

figure shows the elastomeric material and the end caps outside the cylinder. Sitting on top of this 

arrangement is the steel piston used to push on the elastomeric material. Also shown is the 

cylinder with strain gages attached. After all the parts were assembled, the cylinder was put into 

a load frame and the pressurization took place. For this particular test, two 90° quadrants of the 

circumferential groove (on opposite sides of the cylinder) were coated with the LM mixture. The 

expectation was that these locations were where the fracture would initiate. 
10

Figure 9. Experimental arrangement for pressurized cylinder test.

3. Test Results

3.1 Drop Tower Test Results

Figure 10 shows a picture of samples after the drop tower tests exhibiting partial to complete 

fracture. 

Figure 10. 1038 alloy samples after drop tower tests showing partial (left side) to complete 

(right side) fracture.
11

Data from the preliminary drop tower tests are plotted in figure 11. Figure 11 shows the impact 

energy versus sample hardness and whether the sample broke into two parts (complete fracture) 

or was intact (partial fracture). For high hardness values (~47 HRC) the samples broke at all 

impact energies, whereas at low hardness values (~11 HRC) the samples did not completely 

fracture over the entire range of impact energy applied to the sample. The dashed line in figure 

11 separates, approximately, the partial and complete fractures.

Hardness, HRC

0 10 20 30 40 50

Impact Energy, ft-lb

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Partial Fracture

Complete Fracture

Demarcation Line

Figure 11. Drop tower test results for all modified Charpy bars not treated with LM; dashed line 

tends to separate complete and partial fractures.

It should be pointed out that if the strain rate is an important parameter, then it might be more 

appropriate to plot the hardness versus the impact velocity. However, the mass of the tup 

remains constant, so the impact energy is proportional to the square of the impact velocity. 

Thus, any major trends should be the same either way the data are presented.

By replotting the data in figure 11, ARL can focus on the region of hardness values between 

HRC 40 and 50. This range of hardness values was considered appropriate, based on data for 

another type of steel shown in figure 1. Figure 12 plots these data and shows that between 

hardness values of HRC 41 to 45 and above 14 ft-lb of impact energy, the Charpy bar will most 

likely completely fracture (note the one outlier at a hardness value of HRC 43.6). Below impact 

energy of 13 ft-lb, it is highly likely that the Charpy bar will not completely fracture. Between 

13 and 14 ft-lb, there appears to be a zone of mixed results. (One might sense that there is a 

higher probability that fracture will occur in this region as the hardness value increases. 

However, the data are not convincing.) Expressed in different terms, if the sample has a low 

hardness value and the strain rate is low, then it is highly likely that the fracture will be arrested 
12

within the sample. If the sample has a high hardness value and the strain rate is high, it is likely 

to fracture completely. 

Hardness, HRC

40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Impact Energy, ft-lb

11

12

13

14

15

16

Partial Fracture

Complete Fracture

Figure 12. Enlarged region of drop tower test data from figure 10 (untreated samples); dashed lines 

enclose region of mixed results.

Figure 13 plots the results for the samples that were treated with LM but not pre-stressed. Of the 

13 tests run, only three resulted in complete fracture. It can be argued that the LM treatment 

lowered the bottom end of the zone of mixed results from 13 to 12.5 ft-lbs. However, this does 

not appear to be a very significant change. In addition, the hardness values of the fractured 

samples were near the upper end of the hardness range, so that the likelihood of complete 

fracture might be higher for those samples. 
13

Hardness, HRC

40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Impact Energy, ft-lb

11

12

13

14

15

16

Partial Fracture

Complete Fracture

Figure 13. Drop tower test results of LM-treated modified Charpy bars.

Until now, there was concern with whether the sample completely fractured or not. For those 

samples that completely fractured, ARL would like to know if they would have completely 

fractured at a much lower impact energy (i.e., was the fracture brittle in nature). One indicator 

that is available from the drop tower test machine is the total energy expended on the sample, 

either to fracture or deform it. If the sample fractures with a low value of this energy, then it 

may be that it fractured in a brittle manner and that lower impact energy might have fractured it 

also. Figure 14 shows the total energy expended for the samples shown in figure 13. The figure 

shows that there is no gap between the energies required either to partially or completely fracture 

the sample. The fact that a sample separates in some cases and not in others for samples with 

similar hardness values is taken as experimental variation. For the untreated samples with a 

hardness value of HRC 47 (see figure 12), the absorbed energy ranged from 0.73 to 1.48 ft-lb. 

Thus, the absorbed energy appears to be more a function of sample hardness than prior 

treatment. 
14

Hardness, HRC

41.0 41.5 42.0 42.5 43.0 43.5 44.0 44.5

Total Energy, ft-lb

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Partial Fracture

Complete Fracture

Figure 14. Total energy expended on the sample during the drop test for LM-treated samples.

Several tests were done initially to determine the effect of the deflection on the bar (no LM 

treatment). It was found that a deflection of 0.050 in or greater resulted in a permanent 

deformation or set to the bar. That is, the stress at the notch tip was great enough to cause plastic 

deformation. (As-received modified Charpy bars that had not been heat-treated acquired a 

permanent set at much lower deflections.) Sample deflections went as high as 0.070 in. In none 

of the tests was there any observation of cracking. 

Baseline drop tower tests were conducted on the pre-stressed (but not treated with LM) Charpy 

bars. The drop tower was configured to provide an impact energy of 12.8 ft-lb in all cases. 

Some of the bars completely fractured and some did not. Two of the samples were filled with a 

riffler file. One of them completely fractured and one did not. Various degrees of deflection 

were used, up to and including a deflection of 0.060 in. The total energy to deform or fracture 

the samples as a function of sample hardness is shown in figure 15. These values are not a great 

deal different from those shown in figure 14. The most important point taken from this figure is 

that there is still no appreciable difference in total energy needed to partially or completely 

fracture these samples.
15

Hardness, HRC

36 38 40 42 44 46 48

Total Absorbed Energy, ft-lb

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

No LME Treatment

Figure 15. Drop tower test results for pre-stressed samples not treated with LM.

The drop tower test results are now examined for those samples that were both pre-stressed and 

treated with LM. Photographs of the fracture surfaces of the first three samples tested in this 

manner (100-PN, 101-PN, and 102-PN) are shown in figures 16a, 16b, and 16c, respectively. 

Sample 100-PN fractured completely, but the other two did not. However, the degree of fracture 

for the latter two samples was so great that the two ends of these samples were easily separated 

after the tests. The deflection of these particular samples prior to the impact tests were not 

measured as carefully as in subsequent tests. The deflection is estimated to have been 

approximately 0.050 in for each sample. (Note that without a precise measurement of the 

deflection, these samples were not included in any of the described procedures.) There was a 

varying degree of wetting by the LM on each of the samples’ fracture surfaces. Sample number 

100-PN was not wetted, sample number 101-PN was partially wetted, and sample number 102-

PN was completely wetted. The absorbed energy appears to correlate with the degree of wetting. 

That is, sample number 100-PN had the greatest absorbed energy, sample number 101-PN had 

less absorbed energy, and sample number 101-PN had the least absorbed energy (see section A3, tables A-2a through A-2c in the appendix.
16

Figure 16a. Non-wetted fracture surfaces (sample number 100-PN).

Figure 16b. Partially wetted fracture surfaces (sample number 101-PN).

Figure 16c. Completely wetted fracture surfaces (sample number 102-PN).

Theser results can grouped according to the procedures that were used to treat the samples. 

These test results are shown in figure 17. In this figure, there is no distinction between partial 

and complete fractures.
17

Hardness, HRC

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Total Absorbed Energy, ft-lb

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Procedure A

Procedure B

Procedure C

Procedure D

Procedure E

Figure 17. Drop tower test results for pre-stressed, LM-treated samples.

There is a clear gap in absorbed energy between results for samples treated by Procedure A and 

results for the other samples. The total absorbed energy for the Group A samples is effectively 

zero.

For several of the Group A samples, a distinct crack was heard while the sample was being prestressed. This sound was associated with the visible formation of a crack and occurred some 

time during the 30 min of pre-stressing. (For some samples, this occurred in less than three min.) 

The extent of cracking was difficult to discern, since the LM covered the surface where the crack 

would normally show. It is now thought that the Charpy bars in the lower energy band were 

already pre-cracked to some extent.

3.2 Static Deflection Test Results

Given that one or more cracks might be initiated during the pre-stress operation, attention was 

now focused on reproducing this result in a consistent manner. Special care was taken to insure 

that the LM was in contact with an oxide-free surface. For instance, solder was applied to the 

notch in the Charpy bar using an acid flux. When LM was applied to the soldered surface, it 

appeared to penetrate the solder, or at least dissolve it. When the Charpy bar was given 

Procedure A, it cracked while being deflected after 15 min.

Further tests on samples that had been heat-treated to HRC 44 began to show some variability in 

results. For instance, sample number 133 was given Procedure D and cracked within one minute 

of reaching a 0.060 in deflection. If tested in the drop tower, this sample would have appeared in 

the lower energy band. Sample number 134 was given Procedure D and did not crack; it was 
18

then given Procedure A and still did not crack. The same result occurred for sample number 

135. However, sample number 136 was given Procedure D and cracked in less than 30 sec at a 

deflection of 0.060 in. A conclusion that can be drawn from these tests is that it is possible to 

induce cracks in the samples with LM when the sample is under stress at room temperature.

An attempt was made to identify the source or sources of the test results variability. One 

possibility was the non-uniformity of sample hardness from location to location within a sample 

and from sample to sample within a batch. The 1038 steel used for these tests is especially 

difficult to heat treat to high hardness and obtain uniform hardness throughout the sample. A 

close examination of several samples revealed a variation in hardness from sample to sample 

could be as much as 16 points on the Rockwell C scale. Variations in a single sample could be 

as high as 10 points. For this reason, a switch was made to 4340 steel, which can be heat-treated 

to high hardness uniformly and should display a higher propensity for embrittlement as seen in 

figure 1. This material was used for the remainder of the tests. The appendix gives 

representative hardness measurements and shows the difference between the 1038 and 4340 steel 

samples.

More consistent results were obtained with the 4340 steel samples. The first three samples that 

were tested had a hardness of HRC 46.9. LM was applied to each of them, either with a riffler 

file or a tungsten carbide scribe, at room temperature. They all broke into two pieces at 

deflections of 55 mils or less. The remainder of the samples was heat-treated to HRC 53.9. 

Three of these samples were not treated with LM. They did not break into two pieces when 

deflected to 60 mils. The remaining nine samples were treated with LM, and all samples 

completely fractured at 55 mils deflection or less except one. Various methods were used to 

apply the LM. They all involved scratching the Charpy bar notch covered by the LM. The 

means used to scratch the surface included a riffler file, 400-grit sandpaper, and a tungsten 

carbide scribe. No approach appeared to be the best one.

A summary of these results is shown in table 2. In some cases the surface of the notch and side 

of the bar were sanded with abrasive paper before the LM was applied. The entries under 

“Surface Preparation” indicate if this was done. The means by which the LM was scratched into 

the surface of the notch is shown in the column “LM Application”. A complete fracture is 

indicated by a “Y” in the “Fracture Y/N” column.
19

Table 2. Data summary for 4340 steel Charpy bars.

Sample

Number

Hardness

(HRC)

Surface

Preparation

LM

Application

Fracture

Y/N

Maximum

Deflection

(mils)

185 46.9 none riffler Y 50

186 46.9 none riffler Y 55

187 46.9 400 grit in notch scribe Y 55

189 53.9 400 grit in notch riffler Y <55

190 53.9 400 grit in notch riffler N 60

190 (repeat) 53.9 400 grit in notch

150 grit on edge

400 grit Y 55

191 53.9 400 grit in notch

150 grit on edge

400 grit Y 55

192 53.9 400 grit in notch

150 grit on edge

scribe

riffler

Y 35

193 53.9 400 grit in notch N/A N 60

193 (repeat) 53.9 none 400 grit Y 50

194 53.9 400 grit in notch 400 grit Y 40

195 53.9 400 grit in notch N/A N 60

196 53.9 400 grit in notch N/A N 60

197 53.9 400 grit in notch 400 grit Y 30 - 40

198 53.9 400 grit in notch 400 grit Y 30

199 53.9 400 grit in notch 400 grit N 55

3.3 Cylinder Test Results

Two steel cylinders were tested. The first one was pressurized at a cross-head displacement rate 

of 0.1 in/min, and the second was tested at a higher rate, 1.0 in/min. Both cylinders split in the 

longitudinal direction at loads over 20,000 lb. The first cylinder is shown in figure 18. A large 

amount of permanent deformation has occurred in the middle of the cylinder. The local 

deflection at the center of the cylinder is on the order of that generally achieved in the flat 

modified Charpy bar samples. However, it was not sufficient to fracture the cylinder at the 

circumferential groove location. The fracture along a longitudinal direction is due to the very 

high hoop stresses generated by the internal pressure. There is a similar tendency for fracture 

seen along the longitudinal direction in the explosive experiments (14–16). 
20

Figure 18. Cylindrical steel cylinder after pressurization test showing longitudinal fracture.

4. Discussion

The phenomenon of LME has been known for some time. Many investigations have been 

conducted to elucidate the mechanism by which the base metal loses ductility and becomes 

brittle. Reference 6 explores the complexity of this phenomenon and concludes that there is no 

underlying physical theory to explain the mechanism of LME. Lacking a basic theory, ARL

attempted to induce the embrittlement on a trial-and-error basis that was based on approaches 

that have worked in the past.

Initial work began with 1038 steel samples. Variations in the test results were observed. Part of 

these variations might be ascribed to small differences in the treatments given the samples. For 

instance, figures 16a through 16c show quite different results in terms of the amount of surface 

wetting by the LM. These differences might be ascribed to small differences in the deflections 

given each sample, leading to large differences in the degree of fracture for the samples. These 

differences might also be ascribed to the inherent variable nature of the fracture process. 

Another possible source of variation was the difficulty in achieving uniform sample hardness, 

both within a given sample and from sample to sample. This variation was mitigated, to some 

extent, by switching to 4340 steel.

It was found that brittle fracture in 4340 steel modified Charpy bars could be obtained given

certain conditions. The notch of the bar was coated with a gallium-indium-tin eutectic mixture, 

and then the surface was scribed with a sharp object. This procedure ensured that the LM was in 

contact with an oxide-free surface. The modified Charpy bars were then loaded quasi-statically 

in a test fixture. So long as the deflection was great enough, brittle fracture would occur. The 

fractures seen were not instantaneous. In some instances it occurred quickly (in a few sec), and 
21

in other instances it took more than several min. The Charpy bar treated with the LM did not 

break in a brittle manner when subjected to the load of a drop tower, unless it was pre-strained 

past a critical value. The speed of the embrittlement brings into question the viability of the 

concept for a controlled fragmenting warhead. If it is diffusion controlled, then it may be too 

slow, even if accelerated with increased temperature.

If a quasi-static tensile stress is a needed to fracture 4340 steel, then the controlled fragmentation 

concept for a cylinder would require that the cylinder be pressurized a short time before being 

detonated. A small number of tests of the cylinders showed that with the particular geometry 

examined, there was not enough tensile stress normal to the circumferential groove to cause 

fracture at this location, even when filled with the LM mixture. The hoop stress dominates the 

material, and a fracture forms in the longitudinal direction. However, in an actual warhead that 

is in the configuration of a closed cylinder, pressurization might produce a higher the stress in 

the longitudinal direction than that for an open-ended cylinder. 

The nature of the fracture in the longitudinal direction is quite different for the static and 

dynamic cases. Figure 18 shows a longitudinal fracture caused by a static internal pressure. It 

can be characterized primarily as a tensile failure. The failure mechanism of the cylinder due to 

explosive loading is more complex. At the early stages of the cylinder expansion, tensile cracks 

are formed in the longitudinal direction on the outer surface of the cylinder. As the cylinder 

expands further, these external tensile cracks link up to the inner surface of the cylinder by 

means of compressive shear failures. How LM would promote or enhance this process is 

unknown. 

A final attempt was made to promote LME through the use of abusive grinding. The limited ad 

hoc study produced negative results. The work is described in the appendix.

In summary, a concept utilizing LME for the controlled fracture of a fragmenting warhead has 

been investigated. While brittle fracture of 4340 steel has been achieved with this approach, the 

conditions under which it works make a practical implementation of the process unlikely in the 

time scale available for the intended application. At a minimum, these conditions include need 

to deliver the LM to a clean, oxide-free surface and the need for a critical pre-stressing of the 

steel. In addition, unresolved issues, such as the speed at which the embrittlement takes place 

and the unknown effect of coupling the embrittling process to the manner in which the cylinder 

fragments, remain.
22

5. References

1. Ge, C. L; Ye, R. C. Research on self-propagating eutectic boriding. Journal of Materials 

Processing Technology 2002, 124, 14–18.

2. Crane, C.; Pantoya, M. Mech. Engineering Dept., Texas Tech. University, Lubbock, TX, 

Personal communication, 2007.

3. Minnicino, M. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 21005, 

Personal communication, October 2005.

4. de Rosset, W. S.; Trexler, M. D.; Snoha, D. J. Reactive Material Concept for Selectable 

Fragmentation; ARL TR-4736; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD, 2009.

5. Homan, B. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005, 

Personal communication, September 2008.

6. Rostoker, W.; McCaughey, J. M.; Markus, H. Embrittlement by Liquid Metals, Rheinhold 

Publishing Co.: New York, 1960.

7. Eisner, S.; Powell, J. L., Fracturing Agent. U. S. Patent # 4,045,356, August 30, 1977.

8. Clegg, R. E. A Fluid Flow Model to Predict Liquid Metal Induced Embrittlement Crack 

Propagation Rates. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2001, 68, 1777–1790.

9. Kamdar, M. H. Mechanism of Embrittlement and Brittle Fracture in Liquid Metal 

Environments; WVT-TR-77004; Large Caliber Weapons System Laboratory, Army 

Armament and Development Center: Watervliet, NY, 1971.

10. Kamdar, M. H. Some Observations on Liquid Metal Embrittlement; ARLCB-TR-79031; 

Large Caliber Weapons System Laboratory, Army Armament and Development Center:

Watervliet, NY, 1979.

11. Kamdar, M. H. Fracture in Liquid Metal Environments; ARLCB-TR-85013; Large Caliber 

Weapons System Laboratory, Army Armament and Development Center: Watervliet, NY, 

1985.

12. Fernandes, P.J.L.; Clegg, R. E.; Jones, D.R.H. Failure by Liquid Metal Induced 

Embrittlement. Engineering Failure Analysis 1993, 1 (1), 51–63.

13. Vigilante, G. N.; Troiano, E.; Mossey, C. Liquid Metal Embrittlement of ASTM A723 Gun 

Steel by Indium and Gallium; ARCCB-TR-99011; U.S. Army ARDEC, Benet 

Laboratories: Watervliet, NY, 1999.
23

14. de Rosset, W. S. Follow-Up Fragmentations Studies; ARL-CR-596; U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 2007.

15. de Rosset, W. S. Fragmentation Study of Grooved Cylinders; ARL-CR-599, U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 2008.

16. de Rosset, W. S. Controlled Fragmentation of Grooved Cylinders; ARL-CR-612; U.S. 

Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 2008.

17. Carter, R. H.; de Rosset, W. S.; Gray, D. M. Gun Liner Emplacement with an Elastomeric 

Material; Draft Technical Report; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD.

18. Cubberly, H.; Bakerjian, R., Eds. Desk Edition: Tool and Manufacturing Engineers 

Handbook; Society of Manufacturing Engineers: Dearborn, MI, 1989.
24

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
25

Appendix. Additional Data

A-1. Samples

An attempt was made to understand the underlying phenomenology of liquid metal 

embrittlement (LME) through metallographic analysis. The photomicrographs shown in this 

appendix are a result of that investigation. In many cases, the photomicrographs raise more 

questions than they answer. They are offered here as a reference for any future works in this 

area.

Close examination of the fracture surfaces revealed some interesting features. Figure A-1 is a 

scanning electron microscope picture showing an end view of sample number 133. This sample

was treated with LM and then pre-stressed. This produced a crack through a portion of the

modified Charpy bar thickness. The crack does not appear to run straight along the notch 

bottom. Rather, it proceeds for a short distance along one side of the notch bottom and then 

jumps over to the other side. The intersection of the crack with the end of the bar shows the 

crack propagating from one side of the bottom of the notch. This may have been a result of 

uneven depth of scratches produced by the riffler file.

Figure A-1. Side view of notch in modified Charpy bar (sample number 133) after 

treatment with LM and pre-stressing (magnification 30×, back-scatter energy 

mode).

Figure A-2 is a photomicrograph of sample number 147. It had liquid metal (LM) worked into 

the notch with 150-grit sandpaper and then placed in the deflection device. It snapped at a 

deflection of 0.045 in. The picture shows the relatively smooth notch surface (top portion of 
26

photograph) and the fracture surface (bottom portion of photograph). The smooth globules seen 

in the photograph are LM drops that are adhering to the surface of the crack.

Figure A-2. Notch and fracture surface of sample number 147 (magnification 100×).

A-2. Hardness Measurements

One source of possible test variation was sample hardness. Small variations in this parameter 

might prove to be critical, especially in the range of HRC 40 to 50, based on the data presented 

in figure 11. An initial examination of the variation in hardness value from sample to sample 

was conducted to quantify the variation. Two measurements were made on each sample, taken 

from locations on the sample as shown in figure A-3. Hardness data for 19 samples are shown in 

figure A-4. All samples shown in this figure were made from 1038 steel. Individual 

measurements spanned a hardness value range from HRC 32 to HRC 48. There was almost a 10-

point span of hardness for sample number 10 (127).

Figure A-3. Hardness measurement locations on the modified Charpy bar.
27

30.0

32.0

34.0

36.0

38.0

40.0

42.0

44.0

46.0

48.0

50.0

52.0

54.0

56.0

58.0

60.0

118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

Specimen

Hardness, HRC

Measurement Location 1

Measurement Location 2

Figure A-4. Hardness data for 1038 steel sample numbers 118 through 136.

These measurements led to additional measurements on selected samples with the purpose of 

determining the range of hardness within a given sample. Hardness measurements were taken in 

close proximity of the central notch in the modified Charpy bar. Table A-1 gives the average 

hardness and standard deviation of the measurements. Samples were taken from two batches 

that had been heat-treated on different occasions.

Table A-1. Hardness measurements for selected 1038 steel samples.

Sample

Number

Number of

Readings

Average Hardness

(HRC)

Standard

Deviation

76 10 42.3 0.7

77 10 41.8 0.5

78 10 41.3 0.6

79 10 42.5 0.2

80 10 42.4 0.3

81 10 40.6 0.7

133 19 40.0 5.2

134 19 43.7 1.4

135 17 37.2 6.8

136 17 45.6 0.5

The second batch of samples (numbers 133–136) had a much higher standard deviation in the 

hardness measurements than the first batch (numbers 76–81). The variation in hardness in the 

second batch highlighted the difficulty in obtaining uniform results from heat treating 1038 steel, 

and the data provided the rationale for switching to 4340 steel. 
28

More uniform hardness results were obtained when the switch was made to 4340 steel. This is 

shown in figures A-5 and A-6, where readings similar to those in Figure A-4 were taken. The 

figures represent two different batches of heat treatments.

30.0

32.0

34.0

36.0

38.0

40.0

42.0

44.0

46.0

48.0

50.0

52.0

54.0

56.0

58.0

60.0

190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199

Specimen

Hardness, HRC

Measurement Location 1

Measurement Location 2

Figure A-5. Hardness data for 4340 steel sample numbers 190 through 199.

30.0

32.0

34.0

36.0

38.0

40.0

42.0

44.0

46.0

48.0

50.0

52.0

54.0

56.0

58.0

60.0

200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221

Specimen

Hardness, HRC

Measurement Location 1

Measurement Location 2

Figure A-6. Hardness data for 4340 steel sample numbers 200 through 221.
29

A-3. Charpy Impact Data

Tables A-2a through A-2c provide additional data for those modified Charpy bars that were 

tested in the drop tower. Values of impact energy and total energy have been summarized for 

selected samples in the body of this report. The table also shows the impact velocity of the tup, 

the maximum load sustained by the modified Charpy bar, and the amount of energy expended up 

to the time the maximum load was achieved. Notes are also provided to indicate special 

treatment of the modified Charpy bars.

Table A-2a. Drop tower test data, part 1. 

Test Date Sample

Number

Hardness, 

HRC

Impact 

Energy,

ft-lb

Impact 

Velocity, 

ft/sec

Maximum 

Load,

lb

Energy to 

Max. Load,

ft-lb

Total 

Energy,

ft-lb

Sample

Fractured?

Yes / No

26-Sep-06 1-AN 11.3 2.41 4.65 203.68 1.62 2.47 No

26-Sep-06 2-AN 11.3 4.74 6.52 231.04 2.65 4.92 No

26-Sep-06 3-AN1 11.3 9.46 8.04 397.42 10.16 9.74 No

26-Sep-06 4-AN 11.3 15.59 10.33 228.50 3.18 5.35 No

4-Oct-06 11-AN1 11.3 15.56 10.31 809.17 14.62 16.72 No

4-Oct-06 12-AN1 11.3 15.56 10.31 774.82 14.98 16.76 No

10-Oct-06 13-AN 11.3 15.52 10.30 223.65 2.52 5.37 No

10-Oct-06 14-AN 11.3 15.55 10.31 222.44 2.91 6.17 No

10-Oct-06 5-PN2 11.3 15.49 10.29 401.43 1.59 3.22 No

10-Oct-06 7-HT 43.0 15.36 10.25 223.76 2.86 6.15 No

12-Oct-06 17-AN 11.3 31.00 14.56 234.98 2.96 5.81 No

12-Oct-06 10-HT 30.0 31.11 14.59 346.85 2.40 3.96 Yes

20-Oct-06 6-PN3 11.3 22.81 12.49 242.56 2.53 5.53 No

20-Oct-06 8-HT 43.0 26.90 13.56 428.20 1.73 3.13 Yes

20-Oct-06 9-HT 30.0 23.28 12.62 332.80 2.48 4.38 No

13-Dec-06 27-HT 47.0 23.39 12.65 389.67 1.05 1.48 Yes

13-Dec-06 28-HT 47.0 19.28 11.48 345.78 0.73 1.06 Yes

13-Dec-06 29-HT 47.0 11.44 8.84 377.99 0.94 1.21 Yes

14-Dec-06 30-HT 47.0 3.91 5.17 309.63 0.59 0.73 Yes

14-Dec-06 31-HT 47.0 1.93 3.63 342.51 0.80 0.91 Yes

14-Dec-06 26-HT4 47.0 11.84 9.00 317.57 4.67 5.01 Yes

29-Jan-07 33-HT 42.0 15.51 10.30 411.64 1.63 2.21 Yes

29-Jan-07 34-HT 42.0 11.69 8.94 411.64 1.69 2.35 No

29-Jan-07 35-HT 42.0 11.65 8.93 430.74 1.89 2.30 No

29-Jan-07 36-HT 42.0 12.42 9.22 377.30 1.31 2.34 No

29-Jan-07 37-HT 42.0 12.41 9.21 416.53 1.50 2.47 No

29-Jan-07 38-HT 42.0 13.21 9.50 416.35 1.48 1.88 Yes

29-Jan-07 39-HT 42.0 13.18 9.49 416.99 1.55 2.16 No

29-Jan-07 40-HT 42.0 13.59 9.64 424.08 1.58 2.44 No

29-Jan-07 41-HT 42.0 14.03 9.79 435.50 1.67 2.23 Yes

29-Jan-07 42-HT 42.0 13.98 9.78 425.10 1.57 2.36 No

29-Jan-07 43-HT 42.0 14.01 9.79 416.48 1.69 2.13 Yes

29-Jan-07 44-HT 42.0 13.97 9.77 417.50 1.83 2.30 Yes

29-Jan-07 45-HT 42.0 13.71 9.68 426.68 1.66 2.40 No

AN = Annealed PN = Poisoned HT = Heat-Treated 1 Invalid test - double hit, 4 Invalid test - velocity sensor too close to impact 3 Poisoned, 130 °C / 90 hr

2 Poisoned, Room Temp / 90 hr
30

Table A-2b. Drop tower test data, part 2.

Test Date Sample

Number

Hardness, 

HRC

Impact 

Energy,

ft-lb

Impact 

Velocity, 

ft/sec

Maximum 

Load,

lb

Energy to 

Max. Load,

ft-lb

Total 

Energy,

ft-lb

Sample 

Fractured?

Yes / No

15-Feb-07 48-HT 43.8 13.69 9.68 374.76 1.19 1.54 Yes

15-Feb-07 50-HT 43.8 12.46 9.23 432.58 1.95 2.48 No

15-Feb-07 51-HT 43.8 13.24 9.52 316.81 1.58 4.59 No

15-Feb-07 52-PN1 43.8 12.44 9.22 432.19 1.45 2.19 No

15-Feb-07 53-PN1 43.8 12.52 9.25 416.16 1.54 2.41 No

15-Feb-07 54-PN1 43.8 12.49 9.24 343.37 1.33 2.43 No

15-Feb-07 55-PN2 43.8 12.50 9.25 422.56 1.51 2.39 No

15-Feb-07 56-PN2 43.8 12.52 9.25 416.99 1.40 2.19 Yes

15-Feb-07 57-PN2 43.8 12.49 9.24 423.01 1.52 2.00 Yes

16-Mar-07 61-HT 43.8 13.19 9.50 424.61 1.67 2.24 Yes

16-Mar-07 62-HT 43.8 12.81 9.36 432.23 1.57 2.30 No

16-Mar-07 58-PN3 43.8 12.49 9.24 418.17 1.57 2.16 Yes

16-Mar-07 59-PN3 43.8 12.10 9.10 430.28 1.60 2.04 No

16-Mar-07 60-PN3 43.8 12.28 9.16 439.05 1.82 2.57 No

6-Apr-07 65-HT 41.4 13.20 9.50 400.98 1.54 2.79 Yes

6-Apr-07 66-HT 41.4 12.86 9.38 436.13 1.57 2.93 No

6-Apr-07 73-HT4 41.4 12.89 9.39 378.48 1.39 3.99 No

6-Apr-07 70-PN5 41.4 12.49 9.24 348.04 1.39 3.44 No

6-Apr-07 71-PN5 41.4 12.83 9.37 376.96 1.47 3.91 No

6-Apr-07 72-PN5 41.4 13.26 9.52 386.94 1.41 3.93 No

20-Apr-07 67-HT 41.4 13.13 9.48 407.83 1.72 3.20 No

20-Apr-07 68-HT 41.4 13.16 9.49 433.01 1.90 3.14 No

20-Apr-07 82-HT 41.4 13.15 9.48 428.26 1.96 2.87 No

20-Apr-07 85-HT 41.4 13.47 9.60 358.22 1.38 3.36 No

20-Apr-07 87-HT 41.4 13.63 9.65 414.23 1.62 2.54 No

20-Apr-07 88-HT 41.4 14.03 9.79 403.10 1.53 2.32 Yes

20-Apr-07 83-PN6 41.4 13.24 9.51 399.23 1.98 2.77 No

20-Apr-07 84-PN7 41.4 13.12 9.47 420.86 2.00 2.78 Yes

20-Apr-07 89-PN8 41.4 12.48 9.24 302.72 1.38 5.25 No

14-May-07 97-HT 43.1 13.20 9.50 393.70 1.95 3.99 No

14-May-07 98-HT 43.1 13.59 9.64 460.06 2.11 2.85 Yes

14-May-07 99-HT 43.1 13.21 9.50 430.67 2.01 2.52 No

HT = Heat-Treated PN = Poisoned 1 Poisoned, Room Temp / 93 hr

2 Poisoned, 107 °C / 93 hr

3 Poisoned, 163 °C / 93 hr

4 Hot Plate, 285 °C / 69 hr

5 Poisoned, 285 °C / 93 hr 6 Poisoned, Room Temp, Deflected 0.027" (est.)

7 Poisoned, Room Temp, Deflected 0.035" (est.)

8 Poisoned, Room Temp, Deflected 0.040" (est.)
31

Table A-2c. Drop tower test data, part 3.

Test Date Sample

Number

Hardness, 

HRC

Impact 

Energy,

ft-lb

Impact 

Velocity, 

ft/sec

Maximum 

Load,

lb

Energy to 

Max. Load,

ft-lb

Total 

Energy,

ft-lb

Sample

Fractured?

Yes / No

15-May-07 101-PN1 41.5 12.89 9.39 98.71 0.19 0.68 No

15-May-07 102-PN1 43.4 12.89 9.39 46.55 0.06 0.16 No

15-May-07 103-PN1 39.3 12.76 9.34 407.47 1.46 2.19 Yes

31-May-07 111-HT2 43.1 12.84 9.37 427.19 1.94 2.79 No

31-May-07 104-PN2 43.1 12.74 9.33 405.34 1.95 2.70 Yes

31-May-07 105-PN2 43.1 12.78 9.35 377.81 1.82 3.43 Yes

31-May-07 117-PN2 43.1 12.75 9.34 419.55 1.85 2.64 Yes

4-Jun-07 106-PN3 43.1 12.76 9.34 415.81 1.61 2.52 No

4-Jun-07 107-PN3 43.1 12.81 9.36 438.63 1.71 2.43 Yes

4-Jun-07 108-PN4 43.1 12.88 9.38 35.77 0.02 0.03 Yes

6-Jun-07 110-HT5 43.1 12.77 9.34 351.12 0.92 1.93 Yes

6-Jun-07 116-HT5 43.1 12.81 9.36 440.41 1.51 2.50 No

6-Jun-07 96-PN6 44.6 12.78 9.35 419.52 1.57 2.09 No

12-Jun-07 119-HT 45.4 12.90 9.39 448.93 2.06 2.47 No

12-Jun-07 120-HT 43.8 13.18 9.49 439.32 1.54 2.24 Yes

12-Jun-07 94-PN4 42.7 12.82 9.36 37.93 0.01 0.03 Yes

12-Jun-07 95-PN7 42.8 12.84 9.37 440.06 2.08 3.28 No

13-Jun-07 121- HT8 45.3 12.82 9.36 447.01 1.46 1.90 No

13-Jun-07 122- HT8 41.9 12.79 9.35 426.62 1.34 1.71 Yes

13-Jun-07 123-PN9 46.9 12.86 9.38 60.59 0.07 0.21 Yes

13-Jun-07 124-PN10 40.6 12.84 9.37 50.51 0.07 0.22 Yes

13-Jun-07 125-PN11 44.7 12.85 9.37 38.39 0.01 0.03 Yes

13-Jun-07 126-HT8 46.4 12.82 9.36 469.45 1.61 2.23 No

13-Jun-07 127-HT8 37.5 12.86 9.38 359.82 1.39 2.20 Yes

13-Jun-07 128-HT8 44.5 12.74 9.33 447.72 2.09 3.00 No

14-Jun-07 129-PN4 43.510 12.68 9.31 36.42 0.02 0.03 Yes

14-Jun-07 130-PN9 44.610 12.85 9.29 51.59 0.06 0.14 Yes

HT = Heat-Treated PN = Poisoned

1 Riffler Filed, Poisoned, 100-110 °C / 30 min, Deflected 0.050" (est.)

2 Chemically Etched, Poisoned, 100-110 °C / 30 min, Deflected 0.050"

3 Riffler Filed, Poisoned, 100-110 °C / 30 min, Deflected 0.050"

4 Riffler Filed, Poisoned, 100-110 °C / 30 min, Deflected 0.060"

5 Deflected 0.060"

6 Riffler Filed, Poisoned, Room Temp, Deflected 0.060"

7 Chemically Etched, Poisoned, 100-110 °C / 30 min, Deflected 0.060"

8 Riffler Filed, 100-110 °C / 30 min, Deflected 0.060"

9 Riffler Filed, Poisoned, Hot-to-touch, Deflected 0.060"

10 Riffler Filed, Poisoned, Hot-to-touch, Deflected 0.055"

11 Riffler Filed, Poisoned, Room temp / 30 min, Deflected 0.060"

A-4. Abusive Grinding Tests

It is known that abusive grinding of steel will result in a region near the surface that exhibits a 

tensile stress (18). It was reasoned that this tensile stress would promote LME. In addition, the 

abusive grinding would also eliminate the need for pre-stressing the modified Charpy bar in a 

test jig. Consequently, a special grinding wheel was purchased from Saint Gobain Abrasives, 

Worcester, MA. The wheel’s cutting edge had an included angle of 90° and used cubic boron 
32

nitride (CBN) as the cutting agent. This design allowed the cutting of a groove with the same 

depth and angle as in the modified Charpy bars used for the main part of this study.

A batch of modified Charpy bar blanks was heat-treated to HRC 50.6. The grinding wheel was 

then used to make the notch at the center of each bar. The notch was made with a single pass 

with a wheel speed of approximately 6000 rpm. The LME mixture was applied immediately 

after the grinding so as to prevent oxidation of the newly-ground surface. No cracks or sample

separation were observed on any of the modified Charpy bars.

There was some concern that the procedure for grinding the notch was not abusive enough. 

Consequently, it was decided to try slower wheel speeds. A second batch of modified Charpy 

bar blanks was obtained with an average hardness of HRC 46. The parameters associated with 

this batch are shown in table A-3. After four bars were ground, some damage to the cutting 

wheel was noted. A fifth bar was produced, but in attempting to make the sixth bar the CBN 

came off the grinding wheel and was embedded in the sample. As before, the LME mixture was 

applied immediately after grinding. Again, no cracks were observed on any of the modified 

Charpy bars.

Table A-3. Grinding parameters.

Sample

Number

Wheel Speed

(rpm)

Depth of Cut

(in)

Travel Speed

(in/min)

1 100 0.025 20

2 100 0.025 10

3 100 0.025 5

4 50 0.025 5

5 50 0.025 10

6 50 0.025 20

The modified Charpy bars were tested in a drop tower according to the procedure presented in 

section 2.1. A baseline was established by testing three samples (numbers 222, 223, and 224) 

from the first batch that had been ground but not treated with the LME mixture. Next, five 

samples from the first batch that had been treated with the LME mixture were tested (numbers 

225 through 229). Finally, five samples (numbers 1 through 5) from the second batch were 

tested. The energy absorbed by each sample is shown in table A-4 along with the wheel speeds.
33

Table A-4. Drop tower test results for abusively-ground samples.

Sample

Number

Wheel

Speed

(rpm)

Absorbed

Energy

(ft-lb)

222 6000 2.89

223 6000 3.20

224 6000 3.16

225 6000 11.39

226 6000 3.08

227 6000 2.89

228 6000 2.62

229 6000 3.12

1 100 2.61

2 100 2.47

3 100 2.12

4 50 2.53

5 50 3.32

The absorbed energy for the baseline samples was in the same range as that of Groups B through 

E (~2–3 ft-lb) as seen in figure 17. The same can be said about the remaining samples. None of 

the treated samples achieved the reduction in absorbed energy demonstrated by the Group A 

samples. Consequently, this limited study of abusive grinding produced negative results.
NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION

34

1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL

(PDF INFORMATION CTR

only) DTIC OCA

8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD

STE 0944

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

IMNE ALC HRR

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

RDRL CIM L

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

RDRL CIM P

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

1 DIR USARL

RDRL CIM G (BLDG 4600)
NO. OF NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

35

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RSRCH LAB

RDRL SED E

R ATKINSON

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

6 DIRECTOR

US ARMY RSRCH LAB

RDRL WMM B

A ABRAHAMIAN

M BERMAN

M CHOWDHURY

A FRYDMAN

T LI

E SZYMANSKI

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-1197

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY MATERIEL CMD

AMXMI INT

9301 CHAPEK RD

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5527

1 PM MAS

SFAE AMO MAS MC

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 US ARMY ARDEC

AMSRD AAR AEM D

J LUTZ

BLDG 354

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 DEPT OF THE ARMY

RDECOM ARDEC

AMSRD AAR EMO F

BLDG 1

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 US ARMY ARDEC

AMSRD AAR AEM

M PALATHINGAL

BLDG 65 SOUTH

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 US ARMY ARDEC

AMSRD AAR AEM L

BLDG 354

A VELLA

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 US ARMY ARDEC

AMSRD AAR AEM L

D VO

BLDG 65 SOUTH

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 US ARMY ARDEC

AMSRD AAR EM

M LUCIANO

BLDG 65 SOUTH

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 US ARMY ARDEC

AMSRD AAR AEM

S MUSALLI

BLDG 65 SOUTH

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 US ARMY ARDEC

AMSRD AAR EBM

R CARR

BLDG 1

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 US ARMY ARDEC

SFAE AMO MAS SETI

T C LIVECCHIA

BLDG 354 SOUTH

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 US ARMY ARDEC

SFAE AMO MAS LC

D RIGOGLIOSO

BLDG 354 M829E3 IPT

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000
NO. OF NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

36

1 US ARMY ARDEC

AMSRD AAR AEM L

P DONADIA

BLDG 65 SOUTH

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 PM MAS

SFAE AMO MAS 

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 PM ARMS

AMSRD AAR EMB

J BRESCIA

BLDG 1

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 PM MAS 

SFAE AMO MAS PS

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 PM MAS

SFAE AMO MAS LC

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY TACOM

PM COMBAT SYSTEMS

SFAE GCS CS

6501 ELEVEN MILE RD

WARREN MI 48397-5000

1 COMMANDER 

US ARMY TACOM

CHIEF ABRAMS TESTING

SFAE GCSS W AB QT

J MORAN

6501 ELEVEN MILE RD

WARREN MI 48397-5000

1 US ARMY TARDEC

AMSRD TAR R

D TEMPLETON

6501 E 11 MILE RD MS 263

WARREN MI 48397-5000

13 BENET LABS

AMSTA AR CCB

R FISCELLA

M SOJA

E KATHE

G SPENCER

P WHEELER

S KRUPSKI

J VASILAKIS

G FRIAR

R HASENBEIN

AMSTA CCB R 

S SOPOK

E HYLAND

D CRAYON

R DILLON

WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050
NO. OF NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

37

7 DIRECTOR

US ARMY NGIC

D LEITER MS 404

M HOLTUS MS 301

M WOLFE MS 307

S MINGLEDORF MS 504

J GASTON MS 301

W GSTATTENBAUER MS 304

J CRIDER MS 306

2055 BOULDERS RD

CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 

22911-8318

1 AFRL MLBC

2941 P ST RM 136

WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH

45433-7750

3 US ARMY RSRCH OFC

J PRATER

D STEPP

D KISEROW

PO BOX 12211

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC

27709-2211

1 OSD

JOINT CCD TEST FORCE

OSD JCCD

R WILLIAMS

3909 HALLS FERRY RD

VICKSBURG MS 29180-6199

1 DARPA

S WAX

3701 N FAIRFAX DR

ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714

4 NIST

M VANLANDINGHAM MS 8621

J CHIN MS 8621

J MARTIN MS 8621

D DUTHINH MS 8611

100 BUREAU DR

GAITHERSBURG MD 20899

3 DIRECTOR

SANDIA NATL LABS

APPLIED MECHS DEPT

MS 9042

J HANDROCK

Y R KAN

J LAUFFER

PO BOX 969

LIVERMORE CA 94551-0969

1 USDOT FEDERAL RAILROAD

M FATEH RDV 31

WASHINGTON DC 20590

1 DIRECTOR

NGIC

IANG TMT

2055 BOULDERS RD

CHARLOTTESVILLE VA

22911-8318

1 DIRECTOR

DEFNS INTLLGNC AGCY

TA 5

K CRELLING

WASHINGTON DC 20310

3 PACIFIC NORTHWEST LAB

M SMITH

G VAN ARSDALE

R SHIPPELL

PO BOX 999

RICHLAND WA 99352

1 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC

4700 NATHAN LN N

PLYMOUTH MN 55442-2512

1 PROJECTILE TECHLGY INC

515 GILES ST

HAVRE DE GRACE MD 21078

1 BRIGS COMPANY

J BACKOFEN

2668 PETERBOROUGH ST 

HERNDON VA 22071-2443
NO. OF NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

38

2 GENERAL DYNAMICS OTS

FLINCHBAUGH DIV

K LINDE

T LYNCH

PO BOX 127

RED LION PA 17356

2 UDLP

G THOMAS

M MACLEAN

PO BOX 58123

SANTA CLARA CA 95052

1 GDLS

M PASIK

PO BOX 1800

STERLING HEIGHTS MI 48090-1800

5 INST FOR ADVANCED

TECH

H FAIR

I MCNAB

P SULLIVAN

S BLESS

C PERSAD

3925 W BRAKER LN

AUSTIN TX 78759-5316

1 DEPARTMENT HEAD

US MILITARY ACADEMY

K NYGREN

CIVIL & MECH ENGRG DEPT

WEST POINT NY 10996-1792

1 DIRECTOR

US MILITARY ACADEMY

D BOETTNER

MECH ENGRG DIV

WEST POINT NY 10996-1792

1 US ARMY ARDEC

AMSRD AAR ATD

B MACHAK

BLDG 1

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ

07806-5000

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

1 US ARMY ATC

CSTE DTC AT AD I

W C FRAZER

400 COLLERAN RD

APG MD 21005-5059

70 DIR USARL

RDRL CI

RDRL LOA

M ADAMSON

RDRL WM

J SMITH

RDRL WMB

CHIEF

T KOGLER

RDRL WMB A

D LYON

RDRL WMB C

J NEWILL

P PLOSTINS

RDRL WMB D

P CONROY

B FORCH

M LEADORE

R LIEB

R PESCE-RODRIGUEZ

B RICE

A ZIELINSKI

RDRL WMB F

S WILKERSON

RDRL WMM

J MCCAULEY

RDRL WMM A

CHIEF

L GHIORSE

RDRL WMM B

J BENDER

T BOGETTI

J BROWN

R CARTER

K CHO

W DE ROSSET

W DRYSDALE

R EMERSON

D GRAY

D HOPKINS

R KASTE

L KECSKES

M MINNICINO

B POWERS

D SNOHA

J SOUTH
NO. OF NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

39

J SWAB

J TZENG

RDRL WMM C

CHIEF

R BOSSOLI

S CORNELISON

D GRANVILLE

B HART

F PIERCE

W SPURGEON

RDRL WMM D

B CHEESEMAN

E CHIN

P DEHMER

R DOOLEY

G GAZONAS

S GHIORSE

J LASALVIA

J MONTGOMERY

 D SPAGNUOLO

S WALSH

S WOLF

RDRL WMM

R DOWDING

RDRL WMT

P BAKER

RDRL WMT A

M BURKINS

B GOOCH

T HAVEL

C HOPPEL

E HORWATH

J RUNYEON

RDRL WMT C

T BJERKE

RDRL WMT D

D DANDEKAR

M RAFTENBERG

S SCHOENFELD

T WEERASOORIYA

AMSRD ARL WM TE 

CHIEF

J POWELL
40

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.