Impact Laboratory

Laboratory Performed on September 30, 2008 by the Late Tuesday Lab Group:
Ryan Carmichael, Zach Eichenwald, Anne Krikorian, Jeff Santner, Anson Stewart, Scott Taylor,
and Meghan Whalen
Report by Ryan Carmichael and Anne Krikorian

E59 Laboratory Report Submitted October 21, 2008

Department of Engineering, Swarthmore College
1

Abstract___________________________________________________________
In this lab, we performed a Charpy impact test on three different types of steels (hotrolled C1018, cold-finished C4140 alloy steel, and cold-finished C1095 carbon steel) testing
each variety at three different temperatures (22.6C, 0.1C, and -80.0C). From our results
(shown below), we determined that the C1095 steel exhibited only brittle fracture, while both the
C1018 and the C4140 steels exhibited a transition from ductile failures to brittle failures.

C1018 Blue HR
C4140 Green CF
C1095 CFW1

Impact
Percent
Impact
Percent
Impact
Percent
Toughness Ductility Toughness Ductility Toughness Ductility
(22.6C) (22.6C)
(0.1C)
(0.1C)
(-80.0C) (-80.0C)
132 ft-lb*
70%
134 ft-lb*
50%
10 ft-lb
0%
73 ft-lb
60%
44 ft-lb
50%
9 ft-lb
0%
4 ft-lb
0%
2 ft-lb
0%
1 ft-lb
0%
Table 1: Impact Toughness and Percent Ductility Results
*Specimens were not completely fractured by the testing apparatus

Theory____________________________________________________________
Impact tests determine impact toughness, a material property, most commonly by
measuring the work required to fracture a test
specimen under impact. Impact tests are
useful in the analysis and prediction of the
behaviors of different materials under impact
stresses or dynamic loading. However, such
tests cannot directly predict the reaction of a
material to real life loading. Instead, the

Figure 1: Charpy Test Specimen Top View

results are used for comparison purposes.

In the United States, the most common impact test is the Charpy impact test. The Charpy
impact test is a high strain rate test that measures the work required to rupture a specimen in
flexure. Charpy specimens are uniform, rectangular prismatic specimens with one notch per
specimen to encourage rupture (see Figure 1 above). The Charpy testing machine (Figure 2
below) is comprised essentially of a hammer with a striking head (a wedge shaped head was used
in this laboratory) attached to a nearly frictionless pendulum with a known potential energy.
When released from a known height, the hammer strikes the Charpy specimen placed in the
anvil, usually fracturing it. The testing machine then records the amount of energy used to
fracture the specimen by
determining the difference in
potential energy of the hammer
before release and at the peak of
its upswing after rupture. This is
given by the equation fracture
energy = mg(h - h), where h is
the original height of the
hammer, h is the peak of the
first upswing, m is the mass of
Figure 2: Diagram of Charpy Impact Machine
(formerly Troxell Figure 13.1)

the hammer, and g is the

acceleration due to gravity.

In general, impact causes a region of plastic deformation to occur around the notch in the
test specimen, followed by strain hardening. The stress and strain then increase until the
specimen ruptures. The energy required to fracture the specimen (the impact toughness) provides
valuable information about how the material will behave under sudden impacts, although there

are limitations on the applicability of the findings. Like hardness tests, impact tests do not result
in a number that definitively describes the materials toughness. Instead, impact tests yield
comparative data, which is interpreted in combination with an analysis of the broken surfaces of
the test specimens themselves. The test is popular in manufacturing because it is a fast,
inexpensive, and easy way to compare the properties of manufactured materials to each other;
the test is most useful for comparing batches of steels and for preliminary selection of materials
in design, but does not predict the behavior under impact of a large structural element made from
the material.
Impact tests are also useful for determining transition temperatures. These temperaturesor ranges of temperatures are dependant on the material they describe, and record the region
where the material transitions from breaking mostly due to ductile shear to breaking mostly from
brittle fracture as shown in
Figure 3. This is significant
because when the material
reaches a temperature below its
transitional temperature, it takes
significantly less work to
fracture it than it would at a
temperature just above the
transitional temperature. As a

Figure 3: Illustration of Transition Temperature (formerly

Troxell 13.11)

result, it is common for failures

to occur at or below the transition temperature. The work required to rupture a material at very
high temperatures is also small, but as these temperatures are rarely reached in normal scenarios,

and so do not play as large a role in impact failures of materials as the lower temperatures that
are more common.
When a specimen is tested, the energy that is transferred in the impact test may be
absorbed in a few different ways: through elastic deformations, plastic deformations, hysteresis,
friction, or inertia. In Charpy tests specifically, the most significant of these are elastic and
plastic deformations, with plastic deformation usually accounting for the majority of the
absorbed energy. The amount of energy required to achieve fracture is reliant on the ductility of
the material (which changes greatly with temperature), and the unknown proportion of work
done in elastic deformation to work done in plastic deformation which necessitates the physical
examination of each broken specimen. Post-fracture visual analysis can provide information on
what percent of the area was ductile during impact and what percent of area was brittle; this is
shown by the break patterns displayed in the broken surfaces as seen in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Guide for Determining Fracture Appearance

The performance of a specimen in a Charpy impact test is, however, influenced by many
factors beyond material composition and temperature: yield strength and ductility, placement,
size, and shape of notches, strain rate, and fracture mechanism all affect the performance of a
sample. In an attempt to eliminate some of these variables, the ASTM E23 standardizes the size
and shape of Charpy specimens, fracture mechanism (which varies according to materials
tested), placement (which is still variable due to human error), and strain rate (which, as an effect
of gravity is constant at any particular testing location). When as many of the factors are held
constant as possible, the results of an impact test reflect the toughness of the material, although
even then the values found are useful only to compare to other results, and not as a simply
defined property that can be stated universally as a single value.

Procedure_________________________________________________________

Initially, we prepared the specimens. After noting their composition, we placed the
specimens in the two different low-temperature baths for more than five minutes, so that
one sample of each material was at room temperature (22.6C), in ice (0.1C), and in dry
ice (-80.0C).

We next recorded the frictional losses of the machine by releasing the pendulum without
a specimen on the anvil, and also examined the striking hammer (we used a wedgeshaped hammer).

Following this, we placed a sample on the anvils (using tongs to avoid altering the
temperatures), making sure it was centered with the notch facing away from the surface
the pendulum would strike.

Having set this up, and making sure that everyone was a safe distance from the path of
the pendulum, we released the striker to rupture the specimen. For the six tests at cold
6

temperatures, care was taken to allow no more than 5 seconds to pass between the
specimen being removed from the ice and fracture occurring.

After the impact, we retrieved the specimen and examined the fractured surface, raised
and locked the pendulum for the next test, and reset the energy indicator after recording
the energy value displayed.

We repeated this sequence with each of the nine test specimens.

Results____________________________________________________________
From our raw lab data seen in Appendix A, we subtracted the frictional loss of the
Charpy testing machine from the dial readings to determine the impact toughness seen below.
From these values we see that the C1095 steel exhibited only brittle fracture, while both the
C1018 and the C4140 steels showed a transition from ductile failures to brittle failures. To
determine the percent ductility of the fracture, we examined the specimens after testing under a
microscope, and compared their broken surfaces to those in Figure 4 to get a numerical value.

C1018 Blue HR
C4140 Green CF
C1095 CFW1

Impact
Percent
Impact
Percent
Impact
Percent
Toughness Ductility Toughness Ductility Toughness Ductility
(22.6C) (22.6C)
(0.1C)
(0.1C)
(-80.0C) (-80.0C)
132 ft-lb*
70%*
134 ft-lb*
50%*
10 ft-lb
0%
73 ft-lb
60%
44 ft-lb
50%
9 ft-lb
0%
4 ft-lb
0%
2 ft-lb
0%
1 ft-lb
0%
Table 1: Impact Toughness and Percent Ductility Results
*Specimens were not completely fractured by the testing apparatus

Disscussion________________________________________________________
As seen in our results, the C1095 CFW1 steel was 0% ductile at all three test
temperatures, while C1018 HR and C4140 CF steels both showed a transition from greater than
50% ductility to 0% ductility. At 0 C, both the C1018 and the C4140 specimens exhibited 50%
ductility, indicating that 0 C is or is close to the transition temperature of each of the metals.
This means that, in practical applications, if the metal reaches a temperature of 0 C or lower, a
failure will be much more likely to occur as the decrease in ductility lessens the amount of
energy that can be absorbed before fracture. While static tests would show some changes in
strength and ductility, only impact tests will show the abrupt change in susceptibility to sudden
loading and the development of more velocity-sensitive behaviors. The more comprehensive
view of the changes in behavior that occur at different temperatures is the advantage of impact
tests over static testing.
Unfortunately, we were unable to find standard Charpy values for our metal specimens.
We did find standard Izod values for our metals; however, these values were not for a range of
temperatures, and, thus, could not be accurately converted to either verify or contradict our test
results. While we could not compare our results, we do know that error may have occurred in
many different places. In the procedure used, we deviated from the ASTM E23 guidelines by
neglecting to place the tongs used to transport the chilled samples in the cold bath for five
minutes before their use. Mechanically, the specimens may not have been precisely centered due
to human error. Thermally, we may have exceeded our goal time of five seconds from removal
of the specimen to testing, which could have caused significant changes in the temperatures of
the samples. There are also general sources, such as friction within the pivot bearing, air
resistance, frictional resistance of the pointer, and the kinetic energy transmitted to the specimen;

while we did try to account for the first three of these by adjusting our values by the result of a
test run without a specimen, there may have been variation. Also, any variations or impurities in
the samples themselves could affect the results and prevent them from matching published
values.

Conclusion_________________________________________________________
In conclusion, our results were consistent with reasonably expected behaviors for steels.
Two of the steels tested (C1018 and C4140) exhibited the typical transition from ductility to
brittle fracture, while the third (C1095) was brittle at all temperatures we tested. However, as a
large range of results would lie within the expected ranges of different types of steels,
considering that composition, heat-treating, and many other factors result in a wide variety of
possible results, this may not be a significant verification of our work. Whether or not we
accurately determined the Charpy values for our specimens, it stands that we could not determine
an absolute impact resistance of a specimen via our tests, which provide only comparative results
and not clear, universal values.

References_________________________________________________________
ASTM Standard E 23-07, Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2007.
Davis, Harmer Elmer, G. Hauck, and G. Troxell. The Testing of Engineering Materials. Boston:
Mcgraw-Hill College, 1982.
Siddiqui, Faruq. Mechanics of Solids: Impact Test. Swarthmore College, 2008.
Elgun, Serdar. "Impact Test." <http://info.lu.farmingdale.edu/depts/met/met206/impact.html> 20
October 2008.

10

Appendix A: Raw Lab Data and Specimen Pictures____________________________

Dial Reading
(22.6C)

Dial Reading
(0.1C)

Dial Reading
(-80.0C)

C1018 Blue HR

136 ft-lb (unbroken)

138 ft-lb (unbroken)

14 ft-lb (broken)

C4140 Green CF

77 ft-lb (broken)

48 ft-lb (broken)

13 ft-lb (broken)

C1095 CFW1

8 ft-lb (broken)

6 ft-lb (broken)

5 ft-lb (broken)

Table 2: Raw Lab Data

C1095 cold finished carbon steel:

22.6C

0.1C

-80.0C

C4140 cold finished alloy steel:

22.6C

0.1C

-80.0C

C1018 hot-rolled alloy steel:

22.6C

0.1C

-80.0C

11

Appendix B: Lab Handout______________________________________________

ENGR 059

MECHANICS OF SOLIDS

FMAS

IMPACT TEST
Experiment 5
Purpose
To introduce the student to impact-testing equipment and procedures. In this experiment we will
determine relative impact resistance of steel, in the form of notched-bar Charpy specimens.
Preparatory Reading
Class handout
ASTM Standard E23 (Please read this prior to lab. Copy the shear fracture chart)
Testing of Engineering Materials, Troxell et al. (Chapter on Impact tests).
Optional Reading:

Metals Handbook 9th Ed (red vols.) Vol. 1 pp.689-701, Vol. 8 pp. 261-268.

Equipment
Universal pendulum impact tester; standard Charpy and Izod impact specimens; micrometers,
ruler, weighing scale; low-temperature bath.
Instructions
1.
2.

3.
4.

5.

Meaasure the lateral dimensions of the specimens at a full section and at the notch.
Weigh the specimens and place some of them into the bath.
Note the operation of the test on a sample specimen.
CAUTION: USE EXTREME CARE WITH THIS MACHINE. DO NOT STAY IN THE
PATH OF THE PENDULUM AT ANY TIME UNLESS IT IS LOCKED OR SECURED.
Note the type, model and capacity of machine used.
Note the frictional losses (if any) by using the machine without a specimen and letting the
pendulum swing freely.
Note the different striking hammers and use the appropriate hammer for the appropriate test.
Place a specimen accurately in position on the anvils. Note the temperature of the specimen.
Raise the pendulum to its upper position and let it fall to rupture the specimen.
Study and note the shape of the fractured surface, its inclination with respect to the axis of the piece,
its texture, and its relation with respect to the notch. Use the chart in E23 to determine
percentage of shear fracture area.
Repeat with other specimens.

Report:
1.
2.
4.

Draw a neat sketch of the experimental setup.

Explain briefly the principles of the test and the term "transition temperature" in the theory section
Compare published values of tests with your lab data. Find the percentage of the broken surface idue
to fracture and shear.
5. Discuss the significance and advantages of impact tests compared with static tests.
6. Can the absolute impact resistance of a specimen be determined by the test procedure used?
Explain.

12