MarineStructuresS (1995) 345-357

ElsevierSeienc~Limited
Printed in Great Britain,
0951-8339/95/$9.50
ELSEVIER 0951-8339(94)00025-5

Recommended Fracture Toughness for Ship Hull

Steel and Weld

J. D. G. Sumpter & A. J. Caudrey

Defence Research Agency, St Leonard's Hill, Dunfermline, Fife, KYI 1 5PW U K
(Received 7 December 1994)

ABSTRACT

Currently used toughness criteria for ship hull steel and weld were empiri-
cally derived in the 1950s. This paper suggests more quantitative guidelines
based on dynamic fracture mechanics testing. A minimum toughness of
1,95 MPa m m at a temperature of O°C and a loading rate of lO4 MPa mm/s
is proposed. With some loss of precision this can be translated to a Charpy
requirement of FATT below O°C. Grade A plate often fails to meet this
toughness level and is consequently considered by the authors to be unsui-
table for use in ships" hulls.

Key words." ships, fracture mechanics, toughness.

INTRODUCTION

Fracture mechanics is often said to have originated from studies of welded

ship failures in the late 1940s. It is thus strange that current ship building
codes contain little reference to fracture mechanics techniques; and that, in
recent years, very few papers have been published containing fracture
toughness data for ship steels and welds. Modem fracture mechanics
methods allow extrapolation of laboratory data to the structure in terms
of local stress distributions and critical defect sizes for crack extension.
Most industries have adopted these methods to evaluate new materials
and to establish safety cases.
Ship classification society rules 1 have been developed from analysis of
© Crown copyright (1995)

345
346 J. D. G. Sumpter, A. J. Caudrey

ship failures in the 1950s. 2 Ship steel is classified into four grades A, B, D
and E, differentiated by deoxidation practice, heat treatment, chemical
composition, and Charpy V notch energy. Guidance is given on steel
usage dependent on such factors as plating thickness, the length of the
ship, and the location in the ship (e.g. a better grade of steel must be used
at midships where the applied stresses are highest). Separate guidelines are
given on weld metal Charpy requirements. Perhaps the most controversial
aspect of the current rules is that they allow extensive use to be made of
grade A steel, which has no Charpy requirement. It is, for instance,
possible to construct a ship entirely from grade A steel provided the plat-
ing is less than 15 mm thick and the length of the ship is less than 250 m. ~
The most comprehensive recent reviews of ship fracture control tech-
nology are those published by the United States Ship Structures Commit-
tee. 3-7 Taken together these reviews constitute an impressive volume of
documentation which identifies all the important issues affecting ship
fracture safety. Unfortunately, in spite of the detail contained in the
reports, they still fail to point a clear way forward for replacement of the
current rules.
This paper reviews some of the author's experience in applying fracture
mechanics methods to ship safety analysis. Previous papers on this topic
by the authors are listed in the references. 8-1°

F R A C T U R E MECHANICS APPROACH

All structural steels and welds used for ship construction can undergo a
transition in their fracture mode between cleavage and tearing. Once
cleavage fractures initiate they can propagate very rapidly at relatively low
elastic stress levels. A tearing fracture on the other hand requires signifi-
cant sustained energy input, which is only likely to be present with very
large cracks (metres in length) or under conditions of high localised plastic
strain. A first essential step in establishing fracture safe operation is to
select steels and welds which will not initiate cleavage fracture under
structural loading conditions. Cleavage fracture in a given steel or weld
becomes more likely as temperature decreases, and as loading rate and
plating thickness increase. Cleavage is also much more likely to occur
from a fatigue crack than from a relatively blunt notch of the type used in
the Charpy specimen.
In order to predict whether cleavage will occur in a structure it is
necessary to match the worst expected service conditions as closely as
possible in the laboratory test piece. The fracture mechanics approach
uses a specimen with full structural thickness and a fatigue precrack. The
 Recommended fracture toughness 347

test is conducted at the minimum expected service temperature and the

highest expected service loading rate. Load and displacement at the point
of cleavage instability are used to calculate a toughness which is transla-
table to structural conditions in terms of stress level and crack size. Test
procedures are documented in standards such as BS7448.11
T]he parameter used to index toughness in this report is the J integral
expressed in stress intensity units of stress times the square root of crack
length (MPa ml/a). The symbol Kjc is used to denote the toughness at
cleavage instability. A number of analysis procedures exist to translate K j c
to a structural critical defect size or allowable stress level. 12,13 At a simpler
level, the authors have suggested in previous papers that a toughness, Kj c,
of 125 MPa m 1/2 will generally be sufficient to avoid fracture given the
applied and residual stress levels likely to be present in a normal ship. This
should, however, be regarded as a minimum requirement. Ideally, for total
assurance of fracture safety, a fracture mechanics specimen tested at
maximum service loading rate and minimum service temperature should
fail by ductile tearing at plastic limit load with no sign of cleavage
instability.
The question of what temperature and loading rates are appropriate
for a given ship is a complex one. Clearly most ships will occasionally
experience sea temperatures of 0°C and air temperatures around -10°C.
Ships designed for Arctic or Antarctic operation might encounter air
temperatures as low as -45°C, but steel temperatures will depend on the
degree of insulation and internal temperature in the ship. Loading rates
are ,fimilarly difficult to generalise, but it is certain that ships experience
some degree of dynamic loading due to wave slamming. It is conse-
quently not satisfactory to perform static (slowly loaded) fracture
mechanics tests at the rates prescribed in BS7448 Part 1. The authors
have: previously recommendeds that tests be conducted at rates of
around: 104 MPa ml/Z/s to represent dishing of a hull plate under local
slamming in a ship's bottom; and 102MPaml/2/s to represent the effect
of slamming at the midships deck.

DETAILS OF PRESENT STUDY

This paper reports fracture mechanics toughness data for a range of plates
extracted from ships built between 1955 and 1980. It was not possible to
identify a clear trend in toughness with the age of the ship. The plates
varied from between 5 and 15 mm thick, but once again there was no
obvious decrease in toughness as plate thickness increased. (Such a trend
would be expected for specimens extracted from one plate and machined
348 J. D. G. Sumpter, A. J. Caudrey

~ 15ram
50 mm

i_ ~l B
250 m m
Fig. 1. Typical dimensions of fracture mechanics toughness specimenused in studies. The
thickness B ranged between 5 and 15 mm.

to different thicknesses, but can be disguised by scatter between metallur-

gically different plates).
The majority of plates tested were grade A (with no certified Charpy
value). One result from a grade D plate is included for comparison. A
limited number of results from welds and weld heat affected zones (HAZ)
are also available.
The design of fracture mechanics specimen used in most of the present
studies is illustrated in Fig. 1. The depth W of the specimen is main-
tained at 50 m m irrespective of plating thickness. This philosophy differs
from that in BS7448 where the depth W of the specimen is specified to be
twice the thickness, B. This was felt to be inappropriate as very small
specimens result if B is as small as 5 mm. In all samples B was main-
tained at the full product thickness, with minimal preparation of the
plate or weld surface.
Fracture mechanics tests were carried out in three point bending in a
single shot servohydraulic machine with a maximum ram displacement
rate of 1 m/s. Most specimens failed at less than 50 kN. Specimens were
soaked at 2°C below the intended test temperature and quickly transferred
to the bend rig for testing. In order to reduce oscillations on the force-time
trace a small preload (~2 kN) was applied to the specimen, which was
then accelerated to failure. At the fastest ram displacement rate achievable
specimen failure took around 4 ms.
The force applied to the specimen was measured by a piezo-electric
force washer, which was calibrated against the certificated testing machine
load cell. Mouth opening displacement was determined by a clip gauge
attached to integral knife edges on the top surface of the specimen. The
output from the clip gauge was passed through a high response amplifier.
Force, clip gauge displacement, and machine actuator displacement were
recorded on a transient recorder.
Cleavage instability is obvious as a clear discontinuity on the load
and clip gauge traces. The load and displacement at instability is used
to calculate Jc, and hence K j c using a method developed by the
authors. 8
 Recommendedfracture toughness 349

RESULTS

Figure 2 shows results for six different grade A plates tested at a

stress intensity rate of 104 MPa mZ/2/s. The target toughness level of
125 MPa m 1/2 is shown as a horizontal dotted line. Four of the plates show
satisfactory toughness (i.e. they exceed 125 MPa m 1/z at 0°C) but the other
two plates show much higher transition temperatures. All plates met the
chemical composition requirements for grade A steel.
Figure 3 compares the toughness of one grade D plate sampled with a
typical grade A plate. Both the plates are 10 mm thick. The grade D plate
is fully ductile even at -80°C.
Figure 4 shows the effect of loading rate on the toughness of the grade
A plate illustrated in Fig. 3. Reducing the stress intensity rate to
10ZMPaml/2/s shifts the brittle to ductile transition temperature down-
wards by nearly 40°C.
Figure 5 shows data on many different welds taken from grade A plate.
The toughness shows wide scatter and is roughly equivalent to that of
grade A plate. In the authors' experience HAZ toughness is no worse than
that of the parent plate or the weld.
Figure 6 shows the transition in toughness with loading rate at a given
temperature for two welds and two plate samples. In all cases a sharp

>.
a.
300
tt
O /X
¢j

0
~. 2oo
0 t
m D
0
O -~ -- ---A-- fl 0
u
°~
t ~ 0 • •
t
l:1 A • II g •
Target t o u g h n e s s for fracture
avoidance = 125MPav'm
I I I I
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40
Temperature ('C)

Fig. 2. Dynamic fracture mechanics toughness at 10 4 MPa ml/2/s for six different grade A
plates. Each plate has a different symbol. All plates satisfied the chemical composition
requirements for grade A steel.
350 J. D. G. Sumpter, A. J. Caudrey

351]

300 • Grade A
tx Grade D

"~ 250
eL un u

~ 200

= 150
2

i00
[,k Target toughness for fracture •
avoidance = 125MPa~/m
50

I I I I I I I
- 100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Temperature (*C)

Fig. 3. Fracture toughness c o m p a r i s o n between grade A and grade D plate.

3513

• 104MPaV'm/sec
300 [] 102MPaV'm/sec

E o o 8
"~ 250
0 •
N 2o0

0" 150" O

O"
O
~ i00
~h
Target toughness for fracture •
50 - avoidance = 125MPa~/m

0 I I I I I I I
- 100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20
Temperature (*C)

Fig. 4. Effect o f loading rate o n grade A plate.

increase in toughness is shown from unacceptably low levels under local

impact conditions to very adequate toughness at normal wave loading
rates.
Figure 7 gives the relationship between Charpy fracture appearance
transition temperature (FATT) and the temperature at which the fracture
 Recommended fracture toughness 3 51

800
Target toughness for fracture
avoidance - i 25MPa~/m

6 0 0 - 104MPa'k/m/see

400-
: 0
e~
tm

"d
20O

o • •
"i"'
o 1
--t-----t
" "
I I I I I I I
-10O -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40

Temperature (*C)

Fig. 5,, Dynamic fracture mechanics toughness for many different weld samples taken from
grade A plate.

500 ~ 4 -= -~

->

g A
A
o
e~
300
A 13

0
A A
Target toughness for fracture zx A
avoidance = 125MPa~/m t3
o
10O
O

I I I I
l0 10O 1000 10O00 10O000

Stress intensity rate (MPa~/m/scc)

Fig. 6. Effect of loading rate on toughness at a fixed temperature for 4 different plate and
weld samples. Typical ship loading rates are marked at the top of the plot.
352 J. D. G. Sumpter, A. J. Caudrey

f/
• Plate /
E ,x Weld /*
-> o HAZ /~'zx
0( / •
/,,'A A ZX
/
II /
-20 ~- / AOI

-40 •
Z~

-60
(o
I-.,
-80 / o o o o
/
/
i i I ] I I I
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
CharpyFATT(*c)
Fig. 7. Correlation b e t w e e n temperature to attain a t o u g h n e s s o f 125 M P a m 1/2 at
104 M P a m l / 2 / s a n d C h a r p y F A T T .

mechanics toughness reaches 125 MPa m x/2 (FATT is the temperature at

which the Charpy fracture surface is 50% cleavage and 50% tearing).
Although the correlation is imprecise it seems to be a general rule that the
Charpy FATT is equal to or higher than the temperature at which the
target toughness of 125 MPa m ~/2 is reached.
This observation can be used to infer the likely spread of fracture
mechanics toughness from the larger spread of grade A plates for which
Charpy FATT is available. Figure 8 shows a histogram of FATT values
for plates of 10 to 15 mm thickness.
It would be a great advantage if toughness could be inferred from
microstructure or chemical composition. A number of options were
investigated with the best correlation coming from % pearlite volume
fraction. Results are shown in Fig. 9. A pearlite volume fraction of less
than 15% is associated with those plates having FATT below 0°C.

DISCUSSION

It has been suggested previously 8'9 that a minimum toughness level of

125 MPa m x/2 is needed to provide facture safety for ship materials (the
equivalent value of critical CTOD, tic would be 0.15 mm). In structural
terms this equals a critical crack length of about 50 mm when the crack is
located in a tensile residual stress field near a weld. The next question is at
 Recommendedfracture toughness 353

,-s

I I I
-40 -30 -20 -I0 0 I0 20 30 40 50
Fracture appearance transition temperature (*C)

Fig. $, H i s t o g r a m o f F A T T values for grade A C h a r p y specimens from 10 to 15 m m thick

plates.

20

-20 -

I I I I I I
0 5 l0 15 20 25 30
Pearlite content (%)
Fig. 9. Correlation between FATT and percentage pearlite for grade A plate.

what temperature and loading rate this should be specified. The highest
loading rates are encountered in the bottom of the ship where local wave
slamnfing occurs. Hull temperatures near the waterline should not fall
below 0°C. It is thus suggested that a Kso of 125 MPa m 1/2 at 0°C and a
loading rate of 104 MPa ml/2/s is an appropriate minimum toughness
354 J. D. G. Sumpter, A. J. Caudrey

requirement. Temperatures lower than 0°C might occur in the deck but
loading rates will also be lower. As shown in Fig. 4 a drop in loading rate
from 104 to 102 MPa ml/2/s is equivalent to a 40°C shift in transition
temperature. It follows that if Kjc was 125 MPa m 1/2 at 104 MPa m~/2/s
and 0°C this same toughness would be achieved at -40°C at the lower
loading rate of 102 MPa m~/2/s.
It is clear from Fig. 2 and Fig. 8 that there is considerable scatter in the
toughness of grade A steel, and that many grade A plates fail to meet the
required target toughness level. This has led the authors to conclude that
grade A plate should not be used for the outer shell of ships. Grade D steel
on the other hand has very adequate toughness. All grade D plates
sampled by the authors have had Charpy toughness well in excess of the
specified 27J at -20°C. However, 27J at -20°C should ensure a FATT
less than 0°C and hence satisfy the criterion suggested above.
From the data in Fig. 5 weld metal toughness may often be no better
than grade A plate. The authors have certainly encountered several cases
where, in a given grade A plate sample, the weld has less toughness than
the surrounding plate. It is suggested that the Charpy acceptance criteria
for welds also needs to be set at FATT less than 0°C.
When evaluating welds it is important to test the actual procedure used in
the ship. Charpy specimens extracted from multi-run consumable test panels
may yield over-optimistic values if the ship weld is completed in only one or
two passes. For the same reason the weld profile should be left intact when
performing fracture mechanics tests. Machining the weld profile flush before
performing the test may remove important evidence on weld toughness. In
an effort to obtain structural realism the authors have also experimented
with performing fracture mechanics tests where the fatigue crack is allowed
to develop naturally at the edge of the weld profile. A typical example is
shown in Fig. 10. With significant weld overfill it is likely that any fatigue
cracks which develop in service will occur in this position. This test also
seems better than trying to machine a notch into the HAZ. In the particular
example shown the toughness was higher with the crack at the edge of the
weld than with a specimen notched conventionally at the weld centreline.
The use of Charpy fracture appearance as a correlation criterion is often
disliked because of its imprecise nature. Certainly values should always be
obtained by two independent operators and any major discrepancies
investigated. In practice, the authors have always been encouraged by the
repeatability of independently obtained Charpy crystallinity readings. An
absolute value of Charpy energy can be misleading because of the very
significant difference in upper shelf energy between different materials. An
alternative is to use the mid energy transition temperature (METT), but
this involves at least one test (at say +50°C) to fix the upper shelf energy.
 |

~ig. 10. Fracture mechanics specimen which has had a fatigue crack induced at the edge of the weld profile before dynamic testing.
tl
356 J. D. G. Sumpter, A. J. Caudrey

It would then be necessary to show that more than half this energy is
obtained at 0°C.
It is sometimes argued that the addition of crack arrest strakes legit-
imises the use of grade A steel. However, once a crack is initiated in grade
A steel, it will certainly propagate in a cleavage mode, and arresters need
to be closely spaced to guarantee stopping the crack. If the crack is too
long when it reaches the arrester it may well penetrate the tough material
by ductile tearing. The analysis procedures for predicting whether or not
this will occur are very uncertain, but it has been suggested 14 that strakes
of tough material would need to be spaced at no more than 2.5 m to
ensure arrest. In most ships arresters are more widely spaced than this,
with tough material located only at the sheer and bilge strakes, giving
potential crack runs of 10 m or more.

CONCLUSIONS

A direct indication of fracture safety for ship hull material can be obtained
by dynamic fracture mechanics testing. Specimens should be fatigue pre-
cracked and have full plating or weld thickness. Maximum information is
obtained by testing at a range of temperatures between -40°C and +20°C;
and at a range of loading rates between 10 and 5 x 104 MPa ml/2/s. If a
more limited range of tests is to be undertaken the suggested fracture
mechanics test condition is 104 MPa ml/2/s at 0°C.
It is advocated that all ship material, both plate and weld, should have a
minimum /(Jr of 125 MPa m 1/2 when tested at a loading rate of
104MPaml/2/s and a temperature of 0°C..An equivalent 6c value is
0.15 mm. If only Charpy data are available the target values are a FATT
or METT below 0°C.
Although grade A plate may sometimes meet the above target values it
does not do so consistently. The authors consequently consider grade A
plate to be unsuitable for use in the outer hulls of ships. Grade D plate will
meet the above criteria consistently.
Ships' welds sampled by the authors often fail to meet the above
criteria. It is important that the recommended toughness criteria be met in
specimens which incorporate the actual weld condition used in the ship.

REFERENCES

1. Lloyd's Register Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships.

2. Hodgson, J. & Boyd, G. M., Brittle fracture in welded ships: an empirical
 Recommendedfracture toughness 357

approach from recent experience. Institution of Naval Architects, 100 (1958)

141-180.
3. Rolfe, S. T., Rhea, D. M. & Kuzmanovic, B. O., Fracture control guidelines
for welded ships hulls. Report SSC 244, 1974.
4. Pense, A. W., Evaluation of fracture criteria for ships steels and weldments.
Report SSC 307, 1981.
5. Stambaugh, K. A. & Wood, W. A., Ship fracture mechanisms investigation.
Report SSC 337, Parts 1 and 2, 1990.
6. Anderson, T. L., Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics. Report SSC 345, Parts 1
and 2, 1990.
7. Kaufman, J. G. & Prager, M., Marine structural steel toughness data bank.
Report SSC 352, Parts 1 to 4, 1991.
8. Sumpter, J. D. G., Bird, J., Clarke, J. D. & Caudrey, A. J., Fracture tough-
ness of ship steels. Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 131 (1989) 169-186.
9. Sumpter, J. D. G., Fracture avoidance in submarines and ships. Advances in
Marine Structures -2, Ed Smith and Dow, Elsevier, 1991.
10. Sumpter, J. D. G., Caudrey, A. J. & Jubb, J. E. M., Fracture toughness of
steel plate from MV Kowloon Bridge. Marine Structures, 6 (1993), 443--460.
11. British Standard 7448: 1991, Fracture mechanics toughness tests.
12. British Standard PD6493; 1991, Guidance on some methods for assessing the
aoceptability of flaws in welded structures.
13. International Institute of Welding, Guidance on assessment of fitness for
purpose of welded structures. IIW/S-SST-1157-90.
14. Broek, D., The practical use of fracture mechanics. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Utrecht, 1988.