ME 280 Lab 1 10/12/2012

Aim: Fracture Toughness Measurement of Aluminum Alloy

5083 using a Short Bar Chevron Sample

Introduction:
Ships, aircraft and rockets are extremely complex engineering systems with many
thousands of components. In the construction of such systems it is impossible to complete avoid
the presence of flaws such as cracks. Understanding the strength of materials in the presence of
cracks is thus key to developing reliable aerospace and ocean engineering hardware. This
experiment is designed to illustrate how strength in the presence of cracks - termed Fracture
Toughness - is characterized and measured. Here, the fracture toughness of one of the aluminum
alloys is measured, aluminum being the dominant material used to build aircraft and spacecraft.

Principle of the technique:

This test method covers the determination of plane-strain (chevron-notch) fracture
toughnesses, KIv or KIvM, of metallic materials. Fracture toughness by this method is relative to a
slowly advancing steady state crack initiated at a chevron-shaped notch, and propagating in a
chevron-shaped ligament (Fig. 1). [1]

1
 Some metallic materials, when tested by this method, exhibit a sporadic crack growth in
which the crack front remains nearly stationary until a critical load is reached. The crack then
becomes unstable and suddenly advances at high speed to the next arrest point. For these
materials, this test method covers the determination of the plane-strain fracture toughness, KIvj or
KIvM, relative to the crack at the points of instability. Note 1—One difference between this test
method and Test Method E 399 (which measures KIc) is that Test Method E 399 centers attention
on the start of crack extension from a fatigue precrack. This test method makes use of either a
steady state slowly propagating crack, or a crack at the initiation of a crack jump. Although both
methods are based on the principles of linear elastic fracture mechanics, this difference, plus other
differences in test procedure, may cause the values from this test method to be larger than K Ic
values in some materials. Therefore, toughness values determined by this test method cannot be
used interchangeably with KIc. This test method uses chevron-notched bar specimens (in our case)
of square or rectangular cross section (you may attach figures of the sample). The term “short
bar” is used commonly for these types of chevron-notched specimens.

Procedure:

The testing is conducted in accordance with ASTM E-1304- Standard Test Method for Plane-
Strain (Chevron-Notch) Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials. The overview of the method is
as follows:

a) Samples were precut from of a 2 inch thick plate of Aluminum Alloy 5083. The three
principal directions in rolled sheet are the L (longitudinal, or rolling direction), the T
(transverse) and S. The SL sample is to be tested in the L direction.
b) The samples were machined with a chevron-notch per the standard and their dimensions
are W/B = 1.45.
c) The samples were inserted and the test method was run. The test runs at a rate of 0.2
inches/min and stops when the crosshead has reached 1 inch of total displacement or 80
% of the peak load.
d) Following the testing, the fracture surfaces was recorded using a stereo microscope
e) A photograph of the fracture surface and a scale (with the same settings as on the
microscope or camera) was taken to create a micron marker for the image of the fracture
surface.

2
Measurement and Result:

● Specimen Dimension:
From figure 1
B = 5.0 cm
W = 7.25 cm
H = 2.18 cm
Chevron Angle = 54.6o

● Fracture toughness: KQVM

From table 1, the plot of load vs load displacement shows the degree of crack jump behavior in
our sample. At the maximum load, the sample starts to fracture, then the load goes down. But, the
fracture pattern of our sample (Table 4) were generally smooth and did not exhibit crack jump
growth.

From the ASTM standard E-1304,

KQVM = Ym* Pm / B (W)0.5

Where, Minimum Stress Intensity Factor coefficient = Ym*

Maximum test Force , Pm = 4659 lbf
Dimensions of Samplem, B = 2 in, W/B = 1.45

The overall fracture toughness of Aluminium alloy 5032 is 38.6 ksi(in)0.5 ± 0.572%
For our sample, its roughly around 42 ksi√in ± 0.572% (Table 2)

The data were collected from about 30 identicl specimen which showed difference in behaviour
in terms of fracture toughness. This must be taken into account while using in design that relies
on these properties. Nevertheless the variation is barely about 1%

3
 Table 1: Plot of Load and Load-Point displacement:

Sample Load vs Time Plot Mean Peak

number Value
Test Sample 1 Load (lbf) vs Time (s)
=

6000

5000 4659
4000
Load (lbf)

3000

2000

1000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time (s)

Test Sample 2

Load vs Time

6000

5000

4000
Load (lbf)

3000

2000

1000

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)

Test Sample 3 Load vs Time

6000

5000

4000
Load

3000

2000

1000

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (s)

4
● Yield Strength:
Yeild Strength = Tensile Strength * 0.72 * 1 (ksi/1000psi)
Where, Tensile Strength = Brinell Hardness Number * 500 psi

Table 2: Hardness Testing by Rockwell B Hardness:

Numbers found by converting to Brinell hardness and yield Strength in different directions.
(Measuring depth for 10Kg - 100Kg load)

HRB for: Test Sample 1 Test Sample 2 Test Mean Standard Yield
Sample 3 error % Strength
ksi
Longitudinal 75.33 75.35 75.37 75.35 0.2499 27.17 ±
0.07
Short 77.35 77.35 77.34 77.35 0.2364 27.84 ±
0.07
Transverse 76.56 76.55 76.54 76.55 0.4617 27.56 ±
0.13

From table 2, we can see that the difference in yield strength along the different directions are
insignificant. This is favorable because the beam has approximately the same properties across
the entire length. The average yield strength is 27.51 ksi ± 0.09 ksi

● Checking with Lateral Dimension from yield strength and Fracture Toughness

The lateral dimension is calculated to see if the size of the plastic zone is small in comparison to
size of the specimen. The specimen should be fracturing, not yielding. If it happens whatsoever,
the result of the lateral dimension is greater than the B value, making our test invalid.

Lateral Dimension (B) = 1.25 (K/ Yield Strength)

B calculated = 2.46 in
Thus, we see that this dimension came out to be grater than our actual sample dimension of 2 in.
Thus this test is invalid.

5
● Histograms of the data : Variability of the measurements:

The following histograms gives the variation of the 30 samples tested. The first shows
the data in the order taken. It is often instructive to evaluate experiments to see if there are any
trends that occur as a function of time, suggesting that the testing system or the testing
performance is changing with time. In this case, we see no real trend when plotted vs sample
number as shown in plot a.
Next, we sort the data to examine its behavior as a cumulative histogram. This is
relatively easy to do in EXCEL using the sort function. Surprisingly, the plot does not show the
expected signmoidal behavior suggestive of a central tendency with deviations where most of the
data is near the mean, creating a region of steeper slope with more shallow slopes further from the
mean.. The slope of this curve, which can be obtained in EXCEL using the built in function
SLOPE (called by entering =SLOPE(known y values,known x values) in a cell within EXCEL.
This is equivalent to choosing a category width and sorting the data into each “bin”.

This unexpected outcome would require further experimental effort to fully understand.
It suggests that the apparent measured fracture toughness KIQ can take on any value over the
range tested with equal likelihood. This leads us to believe that the variations we see are not
really errors in a true sense but imply that something is causing this unusual behavior. Further
work would be needed to better understand this phenomena.

The next set of histograms represents the data taken for hardness. Each measurement
represents the mean of a few measurements computed within the machine for each orientation.
First we inspect the data as a function of the order it was taken, as shown in the bar graph. There
is no apparent trend for the longitudinal, the transverse or the short transverse. Next, we examine
the cumulative historgrams.

Here, we see immediately differences in the median values and the way in which the
variations are distributed about the mean or median. It is clear that the longitudinal has the lowest
hardness while the transverse has the most significant variation in the hardness about the mean.
These variations are most likely the result of where the hardness values were taken. We would
expect variations in the hardness with position within the relatively thick sheet from which the
samples were cut. Based on this result, it would be recommended to make systematic

6
measurements of the hardness as functions of position within the plate in addition to the
orientation effect. In addition, the machining methods that prepared the surface differ in the
different faces used to make the measurements. It is possible that the degree of surface damage
caused by the machining operations have influenced the hardness measurements. Again, the
implication is that it is necessary to perform additional experiments to resolve this issue.

The purpose of this discussion is to show the reader the importance of using statistical
analysis when examining data.

Plot a) Variation in maximum load of aluminium alloys giving K Values

ME 280 Lab - Fall 2012

6000
4888
4855

4863

4878

4870

4842
4824
4788

4779

4775
4724

4715

4712

4718
4666

4676

4674

4682
4643

4628
4578

4601
4601
4562

4574
4531

4524

4524
4481

4460
4446
4334

4345
5000
Maximum Load - lbs

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
1B
2B
6B
15B
7B
16B
3B
8B
12B
17B
4B
9B

5B
10B
14B
1
1A
2A
6A

7A

3A
8A

4A
9A

5A
15A

16A

12A
17A

13A
13A

10A
14A

Sam ple #

7
Plot b) Variation in hardness test result of HB values:

8
● Analysis of the snapshots of fracture surfaces:

Table 3: Snapshot of the Fracture Surface with scale.

Test Sample 1 Test Sample 2 Test Sample 3

Ideally, the shape of the crack front should be a horizontal line that starts at the tip of the
chevron. This crack front propagates downward, moving more and more and ends in a horizontal
line at the base of the sample with the sample in two pieces. For the chevron sample, the tip of
the chevron represents a region of extreme stress concentration which deforms to failure, causing
a crack-like separation of the surfaces to begin propagating inward. Initially, this crack-like
geometric feature’s development and its motion is controlled by the yield properties of the
sample. As the crack gets longer and the crack-like feature becomes more constrained, the
process driving the motion becomes more fracture controlled and less yield controlled. If the size
of the sample is large enough, the process will be dominated by the fracture properties of the
materials. The driving force for motion of the crack like feature requires a larger load as the
crack like feature gets wider by moving along the chevron and at the same time, the stress
intensity gets larger because the length of the crack-like feature is increasing. This leads to a
maximum load when the crack is about half way between the chevron tip and the base of the
chevron. If the system is being controlled by fracture at this point, then the KIQ we calculate
from the max load is a valid fracture toughness and can be labeled KIv.

9
 If the crack were to stop and leave behind a mark along its crack front, we would see that
mark on the sample. Close inspection of these samples do not allow us to see such marks. In
other types of samples, it may be possible to examine this shape by exposing the crack, near the
max load, to acids or bases that change the way the crack grows, purposefully producing an
outline of the crack shape. This provides a path to further examine the behavior of growing
cracks during the fracture test. In the present sample, however, it s hard to find a place where the
advancing crack front momentarily stopped from these photos.

Discussion:
From our experiment we can infer that chevron –notch test can return invalid results for
the specimen sizes that are too small for a given materials toughness. The smallness will skew
reported fracture toughness towards higher values. That is the real fracture toughness will be
smaller than the KIQ we calculated. The requirement of the valid result is that the B should be
greater than B calculated. We have not obtained the desired case of a valid measurement of KIV.
Hence for critical application, larger samples should be obtained and tested.

List of References:
[1] American Society for Testing and Materials, “Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain
(Chevron-Notch) Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials”, ASTM E 1304-97.

10