Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90667
CURRENT KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE INFLUENCE OF SPECIMEN GEOMETRY ON THE MEASURED FRACTURE TOUGHNESS IN THE TRANSITION REGIME
Fabian Orth EWI Columbus, OH. USA Stephen M. Graham United States Naval Academy Annapolis, MD. USA

ABSTRACT The main issues that affect fracture toughness of carbon steel materials and welds are well understood. However, staff responsible for qualifying the material or weld procedures does not fully understand the more subtle factors. Materials and weld procedures were once qualified in a thinner material thickness are failing to pass qualification testing using the material thickness increases. Specimen parameters such as size, a/W ratio, and specimen aspect ratio can increase or reduce the measured fracture toughness of the material in the transition regime. This paper is an overview of the how these factors influence the measured fracture toughness. INTRODUCTION Fracture toughness is a material property that describes the ability of a material containing a crack to resist fracture. The fracture toughness of a material is obtained from standard test methods per ASTM E1290, BSI 7748 Parts I and II, and ISO 12135 and ISO 15653 [1-5]. The main issues that affect fracture toughness of a carbon steel are chemistry, grain size, material processing, heat treatment processing, heat input during welding, test temperature, and strain rate. These factors can create local brittle zones in the material that can reduce the measured fracture toughness of the material. However, there are also more subtle factors that are associated with the geometry and loading that can influence fracture toughness measurements of a carbon steel material. These factors influence the stress state at the crack tip (constraint), and therefore should be considered when developing a test plan to measure fracture toughness. Specimen parameters such as size, a/W ratio, and specimen aspect ratio control the constraint in the sample, which can increase or reduce the fracture toughness of the material being tested. The influences of these factors

have been evaluated by many studies over the years [6-9]. These factors have a more pronounced influence of the toughness properties in the transition regime. The following is an overview of constraint effects on fracture toughness and how they can either increase or reduce the measured fracture toughness of a material. NOMENCLATURE a Crack length B Specimen thickness W Specimen width a/W Ratio of crack length to the specimen width (B2B) CTOD specimen with rectangular cross section (BB) CTOD specimen with square cross section t Thickness of the material specimen K Stress Intensity Factor, fracture toughness of the material y Yield strength of the material DEFINITION OF CONSTRAINT The term constraint refers to the state of stress at the tip of a crack. As the specimen thickness increases, transverse contraction is inhibited, thereby increasing the stress in the thickness direction (z-direction in Figure 1). The resulting triaxial tensile stress state inside the structure or specimen inhibits yielding so that stresses are elevated and the probability of fracture increases in the lower shelf and transition regions. The tri-axial character of the stress state is also increased by placing the remaining ligament in bending and by introducing a biaxial stress (parallel to x-axis). The term plane strain refers to a stress state with a high tri-axial tensile component.

1 Copyright 2012 by ASME This work is in part a work of the U.S. Government. ASME disclaims all interest in the U.S. Governments contributions.

The term plane stress refers to a stress state where there is no stress in the thickness direction (z-direction in Figure 1). Plane stress conditions occur in thin material where the material has the ability to contract in the thickness direction resulting in negligible stress in the z-direction.

in the specimen. Further increase in the specimen thickness increases the volume of highly stressed material and thereby increases the probability of cleavage fracture. As mentioned previously, the plane strain conditions create a higher degree of constraint in the center of the specimen. The increased constraint effectively increases the local strength of the material reducing the ability for the material to yield ahead of the crack tip. By restricting the ability of the material to yield at the crack tip, the potential for the material to reach the fracture limit is increased resulting in a reduction in the fracture toughness of the material. The decrease in the fracture toughness is controlled by the thickness of the specimen even though the inherent metallurgical properties of the material maybe the same. This effect is illustrated in by the vertical line in Figure 3. The specimen with low constraint (Plane Stress behavior) fails by ductile tearing while a specimen with higher constrain (Plane Strain behavior) fails by cleavage.

Figure 1. Stress State at the Tip of a Crack SPECIMEN SIZE EFFECT The specimen geometry can have a substantial effect on fracture toughness [6-10] as illustrated in Figure 2. As the specimen thickness increases for a combination of specimen geometry and material where the remaining ligament remains predominantly elastic, the fracture toughness reaches a minimum value defined as KIc. When a specimen thickness is sufficiently large, plane strain behavior is created resulting in a potential lower bound result that may or may not be representative of the structure. The specimen thickness at which plane strain behavior is achieved in the specimen is defined as [7, 10, and 11]

K t = 2.5 y

KIc

Specimen Thickness
Figure 2. Effect of Specimen Thickness on Fracture Toughness Behavior [7 and 11] Fracture toughness test methods are generally designed to measure lower bound fracture toughness. However, the specimen size effect can represent a potentially dangerous situation when using fracture toughness data from small specimens to design a structure requiring larger material thickness then the specimen size tested. In the transition regime, a crack in a small specimen may exhibit stable ductile tearing while a large specimen could fail by brittle fracture and have much lower toughness properties than predicted by the small-scale test as shown in Figure 3. In addition, tests with unstable crack growth, such as pop-in event, tend to be most sensitive to specimen thickness.

K t = 2.5 y

(1)

where t = is the thickness of the specimen K = Stress Intensity Factor, fracture toughness of the material y = yield strength of the material. The specimen size (thickness) effect is most pronounced in the ductile-to-brittle transition regime as illustrated in Figure 3. In the transition region, the toughness values decrease with increasing thickness until plane strain conditions are achieved

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Plane Stress Behavior

Fracture Toughness

Ductile Fracture Ductile Brittle Plane Strain Behavior Ductile to Brittle Transition Region

Using a deeply cracked specimen with high constraint to measure fracture toughness for a structure that has a low probability of a deep crack being present imposes a penalty on the material by lowering the fracture toughness. If there is a high probability of local brittle zones occurring near the surface of the specimen, then shallow crack geometry would be appropriate. If the same local brittle zone were to occur deeper in the sample, then the measured fracture toughness from the shallow notch specimen would be higher than would likely occur in the structure, and the result would be nonconservative.

Increasing a/W

Brittle Fracture

Test Temperature

Figure 3. Effect of Constraint on the Fracture Toughness Behavior [6, 7, 11] Most steels that are used in the oil and gas industry have section thickness that are insufficient to maintain plane strain conditions at the test temperatures corresponding to the service conditions. Test specifications recommend the test specimen to be full thickness of the material to be used in service less the minimum amount of machining to produce the test specimen. By testing specimen geometry near full thickness, the toughness measured would be representative with the inservice conditions. CRACK LENGTH A/W RATIO EFFECT The relative crack length and remaining ligament length in bend specimens can also influence the fracture toughness in the transition region. . The fracture toughness of steels using test specimens with shallow crack geometries (i.e., crack depth-towidth (a/W) ratios of less than 0.3) is greater than that obtained using deep-notched specimens (a/W = 0.5) [9, 10, 13, and 14]. This is because plasticity develops to the cracked face of the specimen, thereby lowering constraint. The ductile-to-brittle transition temperature tends to increase with increasing cracklength-to-width ratio, a/W, which results in a decrease in fracture toughness. Figure 4 schematically shows how the transition temperature is shifted as the a/W ratio is increased. The recommended a/W ratio to be used to measure the toughness of a material should be based on the type and orientation of the cracks that are expected to occur in-service.

Fracture Toughness

a/W = 0.2

0.5

0.7

Test Temperature
Figure 4. Effect of Notch Depth on the Fracture Toughness Behavior [6 and 9] SPECIMEN ASPECT RATIO EFFECT (B2B) VS. (BB) The difference between (B2B) and (BB) single-edge bend specimen geometries has less affect on the measured fracture toughness than the specimen thickness or a/W effects. Constraint in the specimen is maximized by employing a (B2B) specimen geometry. A (BB) specimen geometry does not have as high constraint in the sample compared to the (B2B) geometry. Dawes [9] has reported that it is hard to distinguish between the test results from (B2B) and (BB) geometries in the transition regime when using an a/W ratio of 0.5. Sorem [12] reported increased scatter in the CTOD results using the (BB) specimen geometry compared to the (B2B) specimen geometry. Sorem [12] also indicated the lower bound CTOD results from both the (B2B) and (BB) geometries were similar if sufficient number of samples were tested.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

However, the average CTOD result was higher for the (BB) geometry compared to the (B2B) geometry. The affect of the specimen aspect ratio on the toughness properties of weld regions in the transition regime was reported by Machida [15]. The results indicated the (B2B) geometry did produce lower toughness results compared to the (BB) specimen geometry in the transition regime. Machida determined that the lower test results from the (B2B) geometry were associated with local brittle zones associated with the increase grain size in the heat-affected zone of the weld located at the tip of the precrack. However, they did not investigate the affect of additional constraint created by both the (B2B) specimen geometry and the affect of weld metal mis-match on the lower bound results. Based on the higher constraint in the (B2B) specimen geometry, the lower CTOD results could be associated with a combination of the higher stress from the increased constraint and the presence of local brittle zones at the crack tip. Based on these investigations [9, 12, and 15], the constraint in the (B2B) geometry is slightly higher than in the (BB) geometry. The affect of the aspect ratio on the toughness would be minimal except in the area of the transition regime. The increased constraint may increase the probability of a local brittle zone fracturing, thereby resulting in a lower toughness result in a (B2B) geometry compared to a (BB) geometry. Figure 5 illustrates the effect of the (B2B) geometry compared to the (BB) geometry in the transition regime. As stated previously, the specimen aspect ratio to be used to measure the toughness properties of the material should be based on the type and orientation of the cracks that are expected to occur in-service. In addition, the use of (BB) specimens on heavy sections will have less affect on the measured toughness compared to specimens extracted from thinner material. CONCLUSIONS Fracture toughness can be influenced by multiple factors. It is well known that the material type, material processing, heat input from welding, test temperature, and strain rate can influence the toughness results. The less known factors that influence the toughness properties are: Specimen Size a/W Ratio Aspect Ratio (B2B) vs. (BB).

more pronounced in the transition region when the likelihood of fracture is present. The specimen thickness should represent the material thickness to be used in service. The specimen a/W and aspect ratios should be based on the type and orientation of cracks that are expected to occur in-service. Specimens thickness less than equal to the thickness of the material to be used in service may result in a non-conservative measured fracture toughness.

Figure 5. Effect of Specimen Aspect Ratio on the Facture Toughness Behavior [9, 10, and 13] RECOMMENDATIONS / FUTURE CONSIDERATION ASTM, BSI, and the ISO CTOD test procedures [1-4] do not call out a specific specimen dimension with respect to the thickness of the material to be used in service. ISO 15653 [5] test procedures state that the specimen thickness shall be equal to the material thickness or stated on the test report that a subsized (B or W < full thickness) specimen was used. ISO 15653 does not specify the bounds on how small a sub-sized sample can be and still be representative of the full thickness. API Standard 1104 [16] states that the specimen thickness should be equal to the pipe thickness less the minimum amount of milling and grinding necessary to produce a specimen with the prescribed rectangular cross section and surface finish from the curved pipe segment. However, API 1104 does not put bounds on the amount of material removed. These standards do not specify a limit on the amount the thickness of the specimen can be reduced and still be representative of the actual material in service. Test specifications/standards should provide guidance to the user regarding the minimal amount of material that can be removed

These factors can increase the constraint in the sample which may facilitate fracture initiation at local brittle zones sooner than the conditions of lower constraint. This phenomenon is

Fracture Toughness

Copyright 2012 by ASME

from the actual material thickness so that the measured fracture toughness properties are still representative of the in-service conditions. REFERENCES [1] ASTM E1290-08, Standard Test method for Crack-Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) Fracture Toughness Measurements, ASTM, 2008. [2] BS 7448 Part I: 1991, Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests, Part I, Method for Determination of KIc, critical CTOD and Critical J Values of Metallic Materials, The British Standards Institution, 1991. [3] BS 7448 Part 2: 1997, Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests, Part I, Method for Determination of KIc, critical CTOD and Critical J Values of Metallic Materials, The British Standards Institution, 1997. [4] ISO 12135, Metallic materials Unified Method of Test for the Determination of Quasi-static Fracture Toughness, International Organization of Standardization, 2002. [5] ISO 15653, Metallic materials Unified Method of Test for the Determination of Quasi-static Fracture Toughness of Welds, International Organization of Standardization, 2010. [6] Anderson, T. L., Effect of Crack-Tip Region Constraint on Fracture in the Ductile-to-Brittle Transition, Washington, D.C. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 1984. [7] Barsom, J. M. and Rolfe S. T., Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures Applications of Fracture Mechanics, West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM, Woburn, ButterworthHeinemann, 1999.

[8] Pisarski, H. G., Influence of Thickness of Critical Crack Opening Displacement (COD) and J Values, International Journal of Fracture, Volume 17 No. 4, 1981, pp 427-440. [9] Dawes, M. G., Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness Based on the COD and J-Contour Integral Concepts, Elastic-Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP 668, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1979, pp 307333. [10] ASTM E399-09, Standard Test method for Linear-Elastic Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness KIc of Metallic Materials, ASTM, 2009. [11] Dawes, M. G., Presentation at the ASTM E-24-08 Committee meeting Bal Harbour, FL, November 1980. [12] Sorem, W. A., Dodds, R. H., and Rolfe, S. T., An Analytical and Experimental Comparison of Rectangular and Square Crack-Tip Opening Displacement Fracture Specimens of an A36 Steel, WRC Bulletin No. 328, November 1987. [13] Smith, J. A. and Rolfe, S. T., The Effect of Crack Depth to Specimen Width Ratio on the Elastic-Plastic Fracture Toughness of a High-Strength Low-Strain hardening Steel, WRC Bulletin No. 358, November 1990. [14] Whorley, R. A. and Rolfe, S. T., The Significance of the a/W ratio on Fracture Toughness of A-36 Steel, WRC Bulletin No. 375, September 1992. [15] Machida, S., Miyata, T., Toyosada, M., and Hagiwara, Y., Study of Method for CTOD Testing of Weldments, Fatigue and Fracture Testing of Weldments, ASTM STP 1058, 1990. [16] API Standard 1104, Welding of Pipeline and Related Facilities, 20th edition, November 2005.

Copyright 2012 by ASME