Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

ENME 2711

SEC 001

Charpy Impact Test


Laboratory Report
EXPERIMENT I
LAB REPORT SUBMITTED BY:
GABRIEL RANIERI LUXO

LAB MEMBERS:
GABRIEL RANIERI LUXO

DATE EXPERIMENT PERFORMED:


Wednesday, September 09, 2015

DATE REPORT SUBMITTED:


Wednesday, September 30, 2015
CONTENTS
Objective ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Materials ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Procedure ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Results ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Sample Calculations........................................................................................................................ 6
Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 7
References ....................................................................................................................................... 7

OBJECTIVE
Subject a material to sudden loadings to determine the transition temperature between brittle and ductile
behavior. Subject different materials to the same impact strength to compare which one absorbs more
energy and behave as a brittle or ductile material. Be able to compare qualitatively and choose which
material is better for your application.

INTRODUCTION
The materials used in engineering applications are always a critical factor. Choosing the best one is an
essential procedure that has to be extremely reliable. To do so, the materials are tested in many different
ways and one of these is the Charpy Impact Test.

This test is based on the fact that materials can have two different behaviors. One is brittle, undesirable in
most of the engineering applications. Brittle fracture means that, prior the crack, there was only elastic
deformation and then it broke. In the other hand there is the ductile fracture, which means that the material
absorbed energy and suffered elastic and plastic deformation.

This experiment consists in submitting standardized samples of the same material at different temperatures
to an impact caused by a hammer, measure the amount of energy absorbed during the impact and locate the
ductile-to-brittle transition temperature of that material.

By doing this it was possible to observe the behavior transition of the Steel AISI 1045 and conclude that its
temperature range that this transition is located is between -30 oC and 80 oC.

MATERIALS
AISI 1045 specimens: 55 mm x 10 mm x 10 mm (Quantity: 21)
High Temperature Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
Low Temperature Acetone
70% Alcohol Low Temperature
25% Alcohol Low Temperature
Low Temperature Water
High Temperature Water
High Temperature Oil
Digital Thermometer
PROCEDURE
Each specimen was left in its bath long enough so it could reach the designated temperature range.

With the thermometer, the temperature in the Acetone Bath was measured and annotated.

Right after that a specimen was taken out with regular tongs.

Then with the triangular peg of the specimen tongs precisely grasping into the v-notch, the specimen was
carried to the Charpy Impact Test equipment and placed with the notch centered in the baseplate.

The hammer was released (within a maximum of 5 seconds between taking out of the bath and releasing
the hammer as standardized).

After the hammer was safely locked back in its starting position the broken specimens were retrieved for
further observation of fracture.

These procedures were repeated for all the other specimens.

RESULTS
The data collected was distributed in Tables and divided by the temperature range and specimen carbon
percentage.

The following impact energy absorbed data table, Table 1., shows the temperature of the specimens AISI
1045 in low temperature acetone bath at the moment of the impact test, the energy absorbed in foot-pound,
ft.lbf, the energy converted to the International System of Units and its average.

Table 1. Impact Energy Absorbed for AISI 1045 Low Temperature Acetone Bath

Specimen Temperature, T, oC Measured Impact Energy, EIM, ft.lbf Converted Impact Energy SI, ESI, J
1 -31.5 10.5 14.2
2 -31.5 17.5 23.7
3 -32.2 13.0 17.6
Average -31.7 13.7 18.5

The table above shows different values of measured absorbed energy at the same temperature and an impact
energy between these two values at a lower temperature.
The following table, Table 2., shows the temperature of specimens AISI 1045 in 70% alcohol low
temperature bath at the moment of the test, the energy absorbed in the English System of Units and the
converted impact energy to the International System of Units.

Table 2. Impact Energy Absorbed for AISI 1045 70% Alcohol Low Temperature Bath

Specimen Temperature, T, oC Measured Impact Energy, EIM, ft.lbf Converted Impact Energy SI, ESI, J
1 -35.5 17.0 23.0
2 -38.4 12.5 16.9
3 -35.5 15.5 21.0
Average -36.5 15.0 20.3

The table above shows that the energy absorbed by two specimens at the same temperature had a small
difference and that another specimen at a lower temperature absorbed less energy.

The following impact energy absorbed table, Table 3., show the energy absorbed by three specimens at a
determined temperature due to a 25% alcohol low temperature bath, its converted impact energy to the
International System of Units and its average.

Table 3. Impact Energy Absorbed for AISI 1045 25% Alcohol Low Temperature Bath

Specimen Temperature, T, oC Measured Impact Energy, EIM, ft.lbf Converted Impact Energy SI, ESI, J
1 -18.8 14.0 19.0
2 -18.0 18.0 24.4
3 -20.5 16.5 23.4
Average -19.1 16.2 21.9

The table above shows that for the energy absorbed didn’t increase as the temperature increased.

The following impact energy absorbed data table, Table 4., shows the temperature of the specimens AISI
1045 in low temperature water bath, high temperature oil bath and ambient temperature at the moment of
the impact test, the energy absorbed in foot-pound, ft.lbf and the energy converted to the International
System of Units.

Table 4. Impact Energy Absorbed for AISI 1045 Low Temperature Water Bath

Specimen Temperature, T, oC Measured Impact Energy, EIM, ft.lbf Converted Impact Energy SI, ESI, J
1 3.2 21.0 28.5
2 1.6 24.0 32.5
3 2.8 22.5 30.5
Average 2.5 22.5 30.5

The table above shows that the energy absorbed decreased as the temperature increased.
The following impact energy absorbed data table, Table 5., shows the temperature of the specimens AISI
1045 in low temperature water bath, high temperature oil bath and ambient temperature at the moment of
the impact test, the energy absorbed in foot-pound, ft.lbf and the energy converted to the International
System of Units.

Table 5. Impact Energy Absorbed for AISI 1045 High Temperature Water Bath

Specimen Temperature, T, oC Measured Impact Energy, EIM, ft.lbf Converted Impact Energy SI, ESI, J
1 100.1 29.5 40.0
2 97.8 32.0 43.4
3 98.2 30.5 41.3
Average 98.7 30.7 41.6

The table above shows that the impact energy absorbed decreased as the temperature increased.

The following table, Table 6., shows the energy absorbed at a certain temperature during the impact test for
the set of sample in the high temperature oil bath.

Table 6. Impact Energy Absorbed for AISI 1045 High Temperature Oil Bath

Specimen Temperature, T, oC Measured Impact Energy, EIM, ft.lbf Converted Impact Energy SI, ESI, J
1 151.0 30.0 40.7
2 147.1 28.5 38.6
3 149.7 31.0 42.0
Average 149.3 29.8 40.4

The table above shows that the maximum energy was absorbed by the specimen at the middle temperature
and the lowest energy was absorbed by the one at the lowest temperature.

The following table, Table 7., shows the temperature at the moment of the test, the measured energy
absorbed and the energy converted to the International System of Units.

Table 7. Impact Energy Absorbed for AISI 1045 at Ambient Temperature

Specimen Temperature, T, oC Measured Impact Energy, EIM, ft.lbf Converted Impact Energy SI, ESI, J
1 12.5 23.5 31.9
2 14.5 4.0 5.4
3 17.7 23.0 31.2
Average 14.9 23.2 31.5

The table above shows that the specimen at a higher temperature absorbed less energy and the second
specimen was disconsidered due to an extremely high error at the measured impact energy.
The following graphic shows the average impact energy absorbed by each set of specimen versus its
temperature.

Figure 1. Measured Impact Energy Absorbed versus Temperature

The image above shows that the energy absorbed by the specimens decreased as the content had a higher
amount of carbon.

During the experiment the only specimen that absorbed an energy amount very different from what was
expected was the second one on table 7. AISI 1045 at ambient temperature. This may have occurred because
of some facts like, the specimen was previously heated.

Also, it is possible to observe that some specimens absorbed very different energy besides being at the same
or a very close temperature. An example of that are the ones o Table 1, this may have happened because
the operator of the experiment at that point took more than five seconds to transport the specimen to the
equipment and also he may have lot fixed it with the notch perfectly centered.

By observing the graph the temperature that the AISI 1045 will have a complete brittle behavior is below
-50 oC and the temperature where it will have ductile behavior should be higher than 80 oC.
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Conversion of energy from the English system of units, EES, to the International System of Units, ESI. Foot-
pound, ft.lbf to Joules, J.

𝐸𝐸𝑆 (𝑓𝑡. 𝑙𝑏𝑓 ) → 𝐸𝑆𝐼 (𝐽)

𝐸𝐸𝑆 = 𝑓𝑡. 𝑙𝑏𝑓 = 𝑔 ∙ 𝑙𝑏 ∙ 𝑓𝑡

𝑓𝑡 𝑚
1𝑔 = 32.1740 2
= 9.8066 2
𝑠 𝑠

1 𝑙𝑏 = 0.4536 𝑘𝑔

1 𝑓𝑡 = 0.3048 𝑚

𝑘𝑔 ∙ 𝑚2
𝐽=
𝑠2

Where g is the gravity acceleration.

𝑚 𝑘𝑔 𝑚 𝑘𝑔∙ 𝑚2
𝐸𝑆𝐼 (𝐽) = 𝑓𝑡. 𝑙𝑏𝑓 ∙ 9.8066 ∙ 0.4536 ∙ 0.3048 = 1.3558
𝑠2 𝑙𝑏 𝑓𝑡 𝑠2

Therefore to convert from the English system to the International System the values were multiplied by
1.3558. As an example the values of the first set of specimens are shown below:

1 𝑘𝑔 ∙ 𝑚2
10.5 (𝑓𝑡. 𝑙𝑏𝑓 ) ∙ 1.3558 ( )( ) = 14.2 𝐽
𝑓𝑡. 𝑙𝑏𝑓 𝑠2

1 𝑘𝑔 ∙ 𝑚2
17.5 (𝑓𝑡. 𝑙𝑏𝑓 ) ∙ 1.3558 ( )( ) = 23.6 𝐽
𝑓𝑡. 𝑙𝑏𝑓 𝑠2

1 𝑘𝑔 ∙ 𝑚2
13.0 (𝑓𝑡. 𝑙𝑏𝑓 ) ∙ 1.3558 ( )( ) = 17.6 𝐽
𝑓𝑡. 𝑙𝑏𝑓 𝑠2

The average calculations:

∑𝑁 𝐸
=𝐴
𝑁

Where ∑𝑁 𝐸 is the summation of the energy absorbed (𝐸) by each specimen of a determined set, N is the
number of specimens and A is the average result.

14.2 (𝐽) + 23.6 (𝐽) + 17.6(𝐽)


= 18.5 𝐽
3
DISCUSSION
By observing the graph it is possible to see that after 80 oC the energy absorbed was almost constant and
probably before -50 oC would be the same way. Therefore the ductile-to-brittle temperature transition is
between -50 oC and 80 oC. In this range of temperature the material will have a behavior that is neither fully
ductile nor brittle, as it was possible to see that the fractures weren’t fully fibrous or crystalline, they were
a mix of these two.

To move this curve to the left, the material could be submitted to a heat treatment that increases ductility
like annealing or tempering.

Some specimens absorbed more or less energy than expected, like the second set absorbed more energy
than the first one. This is probably wrong because the lower the temperature less energy should be absorbed.
This may have happened because the operator may have taken more than five seconds to release the hammer
and the temperature of the specimen increased, higher than the measured with the thermometer.

Also it is possible to see that during the test of small sets of specimens the results didn’t always follow the
rule that with higher temperature more energy should be absorbed, but when using the average values theses
errors were minimized and it was possible to make a reasonable curve of ductile to brittle transition. Due
to this fact it is possible to conclude that with more specimens tested the average values will be more precise
and the small errors occurred during the experiment will be minimized.

REFERENCES
JOYCE, Anne-Marie. [Material Science Laboratory.] Second Edition. United States of America. 140 p.

EMYGDIO, Guilherme Z. P. [Microstructure x Impact Toughness Relationship for C-Mn Steel Forged
Flanges to Operate in Low Temperatures and Heat Treatment Effects.] Brazil, August 2012.