The impact properties of hot rolled carbon steel (used for the manufacture of reinforcement steel bars) and
the quenched & tempered (Q&T) low alloy steel (used in the pressure vessel industry) were determined. The
microstructure of the hot rolled carbon steel contained ferrite/pearlite phases, while that of the quenched and
tempered low alloy steel contained bainite structure. Impact properties were determined for both steels by
instrumented impact testing at temperatures between 150 and 200 C. The impact properties comprised total
impact energy, ductile to brittle transition temperature, crack initiation and propagation energy, brittleness
transition temperature and cleavage fracture stress. The Q&T low alloy steel displayed much higher resistance
to ductile fracture at high test temperatures, while its resistance to brittle fracture at low test temperatures
was a little higher than that of the hot rolled carbon steel. The results were discussed in relation to the
difference in the chemical composition and microstructure for the two steels.
KEY WORDS: Ferritic/pearlitic steel; Bainitic steel; Impact properties
1. Introduction
Impact properties of steels are primarily dependent on its microstructure which is determined by
the chemical composition and heat treatment. Microstructural parameters of steels incorporate dislocation density, grain size as well as the volume fraction and size of second phase particles (carbides and
inclusions). Low alloy steels are candidate materials
for pressure vessel industry which require adequate
amount of strength and toughness. The main micro alloying elements, in low alloy steels, used to ensure the amount of hardenability required to obtain
bainitic steels are Cr, Mo and Ni[1] . The microstructure of such steels is of a complex nature and is characterized by highly dislocated lath structure arranged in
packets subdividing the prior austenite grains in addition to the carbides that precipitate during the tempering process[2] . Carbon steels in the hot rolled condition have been the main structural materials used
for the manufacture of reinforcement steel bars. These
steels have a nominal carbon level of 0.2%0.4% with
Ph.D.; E-mail address: omyma essam@yahho.com.
932
Fig. 1 Microstructure of carbon steel (a) and low alloy steel (b)
Table 1 Chemical composition of investigated steels, wt%
Element
Carbon steel.
Low alloy steel
C
0.40
0.18
Si
0.31
0.22
Mn
1.08
1.40
Cr
0.14
0.20
Mo
0.005
0.580
Ni
0.104
0.660
P
0.012
0.007
S
0.043
0.004
Cu
0.169
0.015
Fe
Bal.
Bal.
USE/J
80
200
Standard Charpy V-notch specimens were impact tested using an instrumented impact machine
(AMSLER-RKP 300) with a total energy of 300 Joule
and a hammer velocity of 5.2 m/s. Tests were conducted in a temperature range between 150 and
200 C to generate full transition curves. The loadtime traces produced from the tests were utilized to
obtain dynamic fracture loads and crack initiation and
propagation energies. Optical micrographs were obtained by etching polished specimens with a solution
of 4% picric acid in methanol. Fracture surface was
examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM,
Joel, JSM-400).
E i /J
35
50
E p /J
45
150
200
E i /E t /%
45
25
E p /E t /%
55
75
Absorbed energy / J
Material
Hot rolled carbon steel
Q&T low alloy steel
150
100
50
0
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
Temp. /
3. Results
100
150
200
250
3.1 Microstructure
The microstructure of the investigated steels is
shown in Fig. 1. The hot rolled steel shows ferriticpearlitic structure with a grain size of about 10 m
while the low alloy steel displays bainitic structure
with a grain size of about 30 m.
3.2 Impact results
The impact test results for both steels showed typical ductile-to-brittle transition behavior characteristic of ferritic steels. The variation of impact energy
with testing temperature for the two steels is shown
in Fig. 2. The upper shelf energy (USE) and the
ductile to brittle transition temperature (DBTT), as
evaluated at the intersection point of half the value of
upper shelf energy with the transition curve, were determined for both steels. The low alloy Q&T steel has
much higher USE than that of the hot rolled carbon
steel (200 vs 80 J), Table 2. The DBTT of the low alloy Q&T steel shows lower value than that of the hot
rolled carbon steel (25 C vs 25 C), Table 2. This
indicates that the low alloy Q&T steel has superior
resistance to ductile fracture and relatively better resistance to brittle fracture than the hot rolled carbon
steel.
Examination of the load-time traces of the impact
tests of low alloy Q&T steel in upper shelf temperature range showed that the ductile fracture initiation
energy, Ei , was 25% of that of the total energy (50 vs
200 J), Table 2. This means that the ductile crack
933
Fig. 3 Impact test load-time curves at room temperature: (a) carbon steel, (b) low alloy steel
Fig. 4 SEM fractographs of investigated steels (ductile fracture): (a) carbon steel (100 C, 80 J); (b) low alloy
steel (RT, 200 J)
3.3 Fractography
Figure 4 shows fracture surface of specimens tested
in upper shelf temperature range (ductile fracture
mode). As shown, fracture proceeded by microvoid
coalescence manner. Both large voids, in the case
of hot rolled carbon steel (Fig. 4(a)) and rather finer
dimples, in the case of low alloy Q&T steel (Fig. 4(b)),
are clearly observed. In the case of brittle fracture
condition (lower shelf temperature range), the hot
rolled carbon steel displays cleavage mode of fracture
characterized by small cleavage facets (Fig. 5(a)). Alternatively, the low alloy Q&T steel fracture surface
contains larger facet-like arrangements with river patterns formed by cleavage lines and steps (Fig. 5(b)).
The cleavage facet size in both cases can be compared
to their grain size.
3.4 Cleavage fracture stress ( f )
An important parameter that can be determined
from the variation of the dynamic load against test
temperature is the local fracture stress f which is directly related to the micromechanism of cleavage[5] ;
therefore, it is often called the microscopic cleavage
fracture stress. Cleavage fracture will take place when
a combination of load and plastic constraint at the
934
Fig. 5 SEM fractographs of investigated steels (brittle fracture): (a) carbon steel (50 C, 11 J); (b) low alloy
steel (100 C, 9 J)
Carbon steel
Low alloy steel
2500
=2200 MPa
yy
/ MPa
3000
2000
=1950 MPa
1500
4. Discussion
1000
4.1 Microstructure
500
-200
-150
-100
-50
50
Temp. /
100
150
200
250
Py L
CB(W A)2
935
this direction will be important. Propagation, however, occurs by linkage of voids which are spatially
distributed, so that second phase particle parameters
of all three dimensions must be taken into account[10] .
The result is that the state (size, density, distribution)
of these parameters will affect propagation process to
a much higher degree than crack initiation process.
4.4 Brittle fracture
Compared to hot rolled carbon steel, the Q&T low
alloy steel showed lower ductile to brittle transition
temperature (25 C vs 25 C), less brittleness transition temperature (100 C vs 50 C) and higher cleavage fracture stress (2200 MPa vs 1950 MPa). The
fracture surface of hot rolled carbon steel was characterized by smaller cleavage facets than the Q&T low
alloy steel. The smaller grain size of the hot rolled carbon steel proposes higher resistance to cleavage brittle fracture since grain boundaries are effective barriers to the propagation of brittle cracks[11] . However,
the probably larger size and higher volume fraction of
carbide particles (cementite) of the hot rolled carbon
steel microstructure might have masked the toughening effect of its fine grain size.
The presence of carbides such as cementite (Fe3 C)
in the microstructure of carbon steel provides sites for
easy nucleation of cleavage microcracks particularly at
the ferrite/cementite interfaces. Investigations on the
mechanisms of microcrack nucleation proposed that
there is a critical carbide size above which it becomes
susceptible to cracking with the consequence that the
impact transition temperature is raised. This critical size was found to be in the range of 25 m in
the case of cementite[12] . On the other hand, when
alloy carbides replace cementite in alloy steels during tempering, the probable size of carbide particles
is reduced[12] . Consequently, alloy carbides formed
upon tempering are finer and much more resistant
to coarsening than cementite. This fact can account
for the observed higher resistance to cleavage brittle
fracture of Q&T low alloy steel which was manifested
by less ductile to brittle transition temperature and
higher cleavage fracture stress value despite the larger
grain size of the microstructure.
5. Conclusions
(1) At high test temperatures, the Q&T low alloy
steel exhibits much higher resistance to ductile facture than the hot rolled carbon steel as indicated by
its higher upper shelf energy value (200 J vs 80 J).
(2) At low test temperatures, the resistance to
brittle fracture of Q&T low alloy steel is a little higher
than that of the hot rolled carbon steel, as indicated
by its lower ductile to brittle transition temperature
(25 C vs 25 C), lower brittleness transition temperature (100 C vs 50 C) and its higher cleavage fracture stress (2200 MPa vs 1950 MPa).
936
(3) The difference in the impact properties between the two investigated steels, at high and low test
temperatures could be related to the role played by
the proposed higher content of carbides and inclusions
of the hot rolled carbon steel as compared to that of
the Q&T low alloy steel.
REFERENCES
[1 ] H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1999, 273,
58.
[2 ] B.C. De Cooman: Science, 2004, 8, 285.
[3 ] B.K. Panigrahi: Bull. Mater. Sci., 2001, 24, 361.
[4 ] ASM International Steels, Processing, Structure, and
Performance High-Carbon Steels: Fully Pearlitic Microstructures and Applications, 2005.