CH 2 5 Selection of Steel Quality

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY
547
__________________________________________________________________________
STEEL CONSTRUCTION:
APPLIED METALLURGY
Lecture 2.5: Selection of Steel Quality

OBJECTIVE/SCOPE
To describe the selection of steel quality in relation to requirements of toughness.
PRE-REQUISITES
Lecture 2.1: Characteristics of Iron-Carbon Alloys
Lecture 2.3.1: Introduction to the Engineering Properties of Steels
Lecture 2.3.2: Advanced Engineering Properties of steels
RELATED LECTURES
Lecture 2.4: Steel Grades and Qualities
Lecture 2.6: Weldability of Structural Steels
SUMMARY
Selection of the right steel quality for a structure is a matter of major significance as
regards both the safety and the economy of constructional steelwork. This lecture surveys
procedures which have been proposed for this purpose and presents the new rules which
are included in Annex C of Eurocode 3 [1]. All these express, as a function of extreme
service conditions applicable to a structure, a toughness level specified in terms of
performance in the Charpy V test that the selected steel should fulfil, with a transition
temperature at the level of 28J for instance. Numerous comparisons between the output of
different procedures are reported which, on the one hand highlight their consistency, while
on the other hand the possible sources of discrepancies among the various material
requirements determined using these procedures. Such procedures are based on fracture
mechanics concepts such as those of the Stress Intensity Factor, the Crack Tip Opening
Displacement or the Full Yield Criterion. As an introduction the lecture reviews the main
aspects of resistance to brittle failure, with reference to basic documents which the reader
may find it useful to consult for more detail.
1. INTRODUCTION
There are circumstances when the integrity of a structure is governed not by the strength
of the metal but by another property, namely toughness.
548
__________________________________________________________________________
Such situations generally imply the presence of defects in the structure such as cracks or
sharp notches and are favoured by the occurrence of low temperature. The incidence of
dynamic loads is another parameter enhancing the risk of so-called brittle fracture.
Thus the engineer has to consider that the concept of ultimate boundary states and the
fulfilment of the related criteria may apply and lead to a safe design only if the prerequisite conditions that prevent brittle failure are met.
In normal circumstances, it is impracticable to undertake a detailed 'fitness-for-purpose'
analysis involving sophisticated fracture mechanics tests either at the design stage or
during fabrication and erection of conventional structures. For such constructions, simple
rules have to be developed and specified in building codes to define which qualities of
steel should be selected to ensure a safe design.
This lecture is divided into sections devoted respectively to:
A brief survey of brittle failure.

A review of different fracture mechanics concepts.
A presentation of the different approaches on which a methodology for steel
selection may be based.
An illustration of the present solution adopted for Eurocode 3 [1] and of the work
planned on this subject in the near future under the auspices of the International
Institute of Welding.
2. THE PHENOMENON OF BRITTLE FAILURE

A material is generally said to be brittle if it cannot be deformed to any appreciable degree
prior to fracture. This behaviour does not imply that the ultimate tensile strength measured
on a smooth specimen during a tensile test is low. On the contrary, the opposite
phenomenon is usually observed. Hardening treatments which aim to increase strength are
usually accompanied by a dramatic degradation of ductility and tend to enhance
brittleness.
Brittleness is neither an absolute nor a simple concept. As a rule, the susceptibility to
brittle behaviour in a given material is increased by:
the lower the temperature to which it is exposed.

the more rapid the loading to which it is submitted.
the more disturbed the stress distribution it experiences.
Brittleness is influenced by ductility, i.e. the capacity of a material to strain plastically, and
by strain-hardenability, i.e. the property of developing a higher strength while undergoing
plastic deformation.
Ductility can easily be appraised in a bend test under strain-controlled conditions where
the material is bent round a mandrel with large plastic strains being induced in the outer
fibres of the specimen (Figure 1). The more ductile material can be bent round a smaller
mondrel without fracture.

549
__________________________________________________________________________
Strain-hardenability is appraised in a tensile test and is quantified by the slope of the

stress-strain curve in the plastic regime. Strain hardening governs the amount of uniform
elongation a material may undergo before necking or fracturing (Figure 2).
550
__________________________________________________________________________
A material showing no ductility is intrinsically brittle and produces, even in a defect-free

situation, negligible plastic elongation during a tensile test and no strain hardening. Such a
material is glass.
Steel usually exhibits ductile behaviour in the tensile test and the presence of some defect
is necessary to induce brittleness. The defect may be a geometrical discontinuity with
sharp edges constituting a stress raiser, or an area in which the mechanical properties are
locally impaired such as the heat affected zone of a weld, or a region of local plastic

551
__________________________________________________________________________
deformation which may undergo subsequent strain ageing. Often, both geometrical and
metallurgical defects are present together; weldments may undergo lack of penetration or
contain cold cracks, while punches or shears may create burrs or notches. A large
embrittling effect may thus be induced.
Should the ductility of the metal at the tip of the notch be very poor, then no possibility
would exist to blunt the notch by plastic deformation. The result would be a brittle failure
occurring at a load which can be calculated from linear elastic theory as a function of the
component dimensions, the notch size and the toughness characteristics of the metal.
In the case where a degree of ductility is available, crack blunting occurs and is reflected
in a degree of crack opening. The fracture behaviour is then significantly influenced by the
strain hardenability of the metal. If little strain hardening is available, then the crack may
propagate through the component at a rather constant stress level, either by ductile tearing
or brittle cracking.
Different fracture behaviour can be observed with a ductile metal which is capable of
sustained strain hardening since propagation of the defect after crack blunting requires an
increasing load to be applied to the component. Such conditions give rise to stable crack
propagation.
3. FRACTURE MECHANICS CONCEPTS AND

TESTING PROCEDURES
Several specific tests have been developed to assess the fracture behaviour of materials in
various loading conditions and defect configurations. It is not the scope of this lecture to
detail the testing procedures or review the methods for derivation of toughness values.
However, it is worth listing the main concepts and types of test as well as the assumptions
on which they rely.
Fracture Mechanics has been approached in a rigorous way on the basis of linear elastic
theory which led to the well-known concept of stress intensity factor, KI [2]. This
parameter defines completely the stress field in the vicinity of a crack. Fracture occurs
when it attains a critical value which is a characteristic of the material. The main
assumption of this theory is the presence of minimal plastic strain at the crack tip. With
steel, such conditions may be met with very high strength products or when the thickness
is large. Table 1 defines the basic equations of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)
together with the conditions of applicability.
In many circumstances significant plasticity takes place at the crack front prior to failure
and crack opening may be observed before fracture initiation (Figure 3). The concept of
Crack Opening Displacement (COD) or more precisely (CTOD) defines the amplitude of
the crack tip plasticity under a given stress situation. Fracture initiates when this parameter
reaches a critical value (crit) which is a characteristic of the material and a measurement
of its toughness [3].
552
__________________________________________________________________________
The theory of the J integral is based on the same assumptions as above but computes a
specific fracture energy whose value is independent of the contour of integration and
which is an alternative measurement of the material toughness [4].
It is important to mention that both the CTOD and the J concepts are designed to assess
situations in which fracture occurs in the elasto-plastic region, but imply nevertheless a
relatively small extent of plastic strain at the crack tip. To assess the risk of failure by
brittle fracture, means have been provided to estimate the CTOD or J values in a large
structure containing a defect, as a function of the overall applied loads. These estimated
values are then compared with the critical failure values for the relevant material. A well
known design curve for such fitness-for-purpose analysis is based on the CTOD approach
(Figure 4).
All the above procedures normally require that the product be tested with its full thickness
so as to derive a suitable toughness index. Although this condition may involve test
specimens having rather large dimensions, it can never be considered as appraising the
overall fracture behaviour of a structural component. Therefore, the relevance of the
transferability of the test data for the appraisal of large structures has to be verified by
comparing the computed fracture behaviour to that experimentally observed during tests
on a very large piece whose size is similar to the parts of a real structure.
The Wide Plate test has been designed with this aim. It involves tensile testing, possibly at
lowered temperature, of a wide specimen (1m wide for instance) containing deliberate
through-thickness or surface cracks. A convenient evaluation of performance in the Wide
Plate test is provided by the Yield criterion [5]. When full yield occurs, then all sections of

553
__________________________________________________________________________
the specimen, even those not affected by the defect, develop plastic strains so that the
overall elongation is sufficient to prevent a sudden failure. Full yield also ensures that the
structure can reach its maximum elastic design load, i.e. the product of the material yield
stress and the gross section, as if it were not affected by the defect, which is an obvious
554
__________________________________________________________________________
asset for safety. A critical defect length can be defined above which the criterion can no
longer be fulfilled; then only net section yielding or contained yielding are achieved. Table
2 summarises the main concepts relating to the Wide Plate test.
There are situations in which resistance to failure is not governed by toughness but by the
load bearing capability of the net section in the part affected by a defect. This situation
may occur with quite ductile materials affected by cracks. Plastic collapse corresponds to
the achievement of unlimited displacements in the net section when the applied load
induces a net section stress equal to the material flow stress. A ratio Sr may be defined to
express the safety against plastic collapse for a given loading condition. It is sometimes
more convenient to use the material yield stress as a reference and think in terms of plastic
yield load. A ratio Lr is then considered. Table 3 defines the parameters.
Although the assumptions associated with Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics and Plastic
Collapse lead to quite opposite fracture mechanisms, both concepts may actually apply to
the same material and even the same structure depending on the defect size. Figure 5
illustrates this situation for the simple example of a wide plate containing a throughthickness defect. For small defect sizes the lowest fracture resistance is dictated by plastic
collapse concepts, whereas for larger defects the lowest fracture resistance is obtained
from linear elastic theory.
This interactive behaviour supports the so-called two-criteria approach developed by

CEGB in 1976, and known as the R6 procedure, whose latest 3rd revision is now well
developed [6]. A Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) expresses the risk of failure in a
two-dimensional space using the Sr or Lr parameter as the abscissa and a Kr variable as the
ordinate. Kr is the ratio between the applied and critical KI stress intensity factors. Safe

555
__________________________________________________________________________
and unsafe conditions are discriminated by a curve quantifying the interaction. The main
aspects of this method are summarised in Table 4.
4. METHODOLOGIES FOR STEEL SELECTION

Toughness properties of structural steels are generally classified in material standards such
as the new EN 10025 [7] and EN 10113 [8] in terms of performance in the Charpy V test.
While levels of absorbed energy may be defined for different test temperatures, a simple
and classical characteristic often encountered is the Transition Temperature at the level of
28J: TK28
Any methodology for steel selection applicable to standardised steel grades must involve
the following steps:
i. A definition of extreme service conditions against which to address the resistance to
fracture of a structure, i.e. a size of defect, a mode of loading (static or dynamic) and a
level of internal or external stress.
ii. A method of fracture analysis leading to the derivation of toughness requirements as a
function of the above conditions.
iii. A relationship between the toughness requirements and a transition temperature or
energy in the Charpy V test.
The different methods that are available are reviewed below.
4.1 The French Approach

This procedure was designed by Sanz and co-workers at IRSID in the late seventies,
elaborated by a Working Group of ATS and published in 1980 [9].
It is based on a set of experimental relationships between the transition temperatures in
KIC and Charpy V tests, which are illustrated in Figure 6, which is reproduced from the
original publication.
The analysis of the risk of brittle failure is based on Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics,
and toughness requirements are derived in agreement with this theory. Some modifications
which were introduced for simplification purposes are highlighted in the document and
result in more conservative assumptions.
A particular feature of the method lies in the fact that defect sizes are defined in relation to
plate thickness so as to match with the conditions of plane strain and thus ensure the
applicability of a LEFM approach.
The main steps involved in the definition and application of the SANZ method are
summarised in Table 5. The final formula leading to the definition of steel quality in terms
of a TK28 index takes account of the service temperature and the strain rate to which the
structure may be exposed, as well as the scatter in the experimental relations.
556
__________________________________________________________________________

557
__________________________________________________________________________
Some predictions of the necessary transition temperature at the Charpy V level of 28J are
illustrated in Table 6 for the condition of a structure operating at a minimum service
temperature of 0C and possibly loaded up to the material yield stress at a slow strain rate
( = 0,1s-1).
4.2 The British Approach

This method conceived by George in the United Kingdom was first proposed to the
International Institute of Welding in 1979 [10].
It relies on an elasto-plastic analysis of the fracture resistance using the CTOD design
curve for a structure containing a surface flaw of 0,2 times the plate thickness, in a field
having a high level of residual stress and loaded to 0,67 times the yield stress. The steel
quality is defined in terms of the required Charpy V energy at the service temperature
assuming a relationship between this energy and the critical CTOD value. The formula
derived in this way was calibrated against results from wide plate tests and practical
experience.
Table 7 reviews the main assumptions supporting the method and the mathematical
relationships which are derived.
Toughness requirements for a range of steel grades and thicknesses are listed in Table 8.
4.3 The Belgian Approach

Developed in the late 1980's, this method directly links the fracture behaviour of wide
plates containing through-thickness defects which are tensile tested at temperatures
between -10 and -50C, to the following metal characteristics: tensile strength or tensileto-yield ratio and Charpy V energy at the same temperature [11].
Net fracture stress of the wide plate is first expressed as a function of defect size in terms
of a linear decreasing function whose ordinate at the origin precisely equals the tensile
strength of the metal and whose slope is inversely proportional to the toughness expressed
by the Charpy V energy. Figure 7 illustrates these relationships. Net fracture stress is then
converted into gross section stress using the specimen width as a correction parameter. At
that stage the critical defect size according to the full yield criterion is computed as the
smaller positive root of a second order equation.
Table 9 lists the principal rules of the model which was originally developed to document
the fracture behaviour of parent metal and later extended to appraise butt welded wide
plates. In the latter case, local values of tensile strength and toughness of the metal at the
crack tip are considered by using Charpy specimens with the notch root positioned in
either the weld metal or the heat affected zone. Hardness measurements are carried out
and converted into a proper Rm when this parameter cannot be directly derived from a
tensile test. For plain or welded plates, the yield stress used in the formulae is always that
of the base metal away from the crack.
558
__________________________________________________________________________
5. METHODOLOGY ADOPTED IN EUROCODE 3

The method for steel selection adopted in Eurocode 3 [1] results from a combination and a
synthesis between the concepts proposed in the French method and the recommendations
of CEGB [6]. The Eurocode procedure is described in recent publications [12, 13] and can
be summarised as follows:

559
__________________________________________________________________________
This approach considers three alternative stressing conditions (S1, S2, S3), two possible
levels of strain rate (R1, R2) and two consequences of failure (C1, C2) which respectively
allow distinction between:
(a) Lower or higher stresses, monolithic elements or welded joints, stress-relieved or aswelded structures, weaker or stronger effects induced by stress raisers.
(b) Quasi-static or rapid stressing conditions corresponding, on the one hand to permanent
loads, actions of wind, waves or traffic, and on the other hand to impacts, explosions,
collisions.
(c) Either ruptures leading only to localised damage not affecting human life and the
stability of the whole structure, or failure whose local occurrence implies disastrous
consequences for the global resistance of the structure or impairs the safety of people.
The Failure Assessment Diagram according to the R6 Rev. 3 [6] method which is taken
into consideration is that corresponding to the so-called Option 2 which takes account of
the actual tensile stress-strain curve of the steel. Figure 8 illustrates this diagram which in
Eurocode 3 terminates at an abscissa having a value of unity [1].
It is then supposed that the structure may contain semi-elliptical surface flaws whose size
is proportional to the natural logarithm of the thickness (depth=ln t, length = 5ln t).
560
__________________________________________________________________________
Critical Kr values are derived from the failure assessment diagram after computation of the
relevant Lr for the different stress conditions. The necessary toughness, KIC that the
material should display at the relevant service temperature can thus be readily defined.
The conversion of this requirement into a Charpy V TK28 transition temperature is finally
carried out according to the French procedure.
Table 10 summarises the major aspects of the successive derivations. It highlights the fact
that the strict application of this procedure for a given situation would first require a
detailed fracture analysis according to the two-criteria approach so as to derive the
necessary level of toughness required from the material in terms of a critical stress
intensity factor here denoted Kmat. Such an analysis, which must include the respective
contributions of the mechanical and residual stresses, as well as the correction factor for
crack tip plasticity generated by the residual stress, should be carried out carefully
according to a well-documented procedure such as that prescribed in British Standard
PD6493 [14]. The critical stress intensity factor at the minimum design service
temperature then has to be converted to a 28J transition temperature of a Charpy
specimen. Here the rules defined by the French method are followed [9] so as to account
for thickness and strain rate effects and the scatter in the relationship linking T KIC and
TK28.
The procedure presented above should only be applied by specialists in fracture
mechanics. On the other hand, the rules included in Eurocode 3 need to be applied by
design engineers who require a more convenient formulation. With this aim in mind, the
authors of the present Eurocode 3 rules have analysed a limited number of cases
simulating the various loading conditions for different plate thicknesses, so as to derive,
after a statistical analysis, a simplified formulation of the rules. The parameters of thee
rules for practical application are listed in Table 11.
As an illustration of the rules, Tables 12 and 13 list a set of requirements for different
values of yield stress and thickness corresponding to the S1, S2 and S3 load conditions as
well as the C1 and C2 failure consequences.
6. PRESENT STATUS OF THE EUROCODE 3 RULES

Establishing a common basis for steel selection applicable internationally as a substitute
for the existing national rules is a difficult task. Unifying a set of divergent specifications
leads to new rules that are inevitably either less or more constraining than those defined in
one or other of the national codes. On the one hand, concern may be raised against the
reliability of the new rules with regard to a safe design, while on the other hand, criticism
will be expressed towards an excessive degree of conservatism liable to spoil the
economic competitiveness of constructional steelwork.
The present rules in Eurocode 3 [1] have informative status. To encourage as much as
possible the concept of unified rules for steel selection, cooperation has been set up
between the CEN/TC 250/SC3 Committee of Eurocode 3 and the International Institute of
Welding who will study the problem on a multidisciplinary basis coordinated by
Commission X with the support of Commission IX. An introductory article prepared by

561
__________________________________________________________________________
Professor Burdekin, Chairman of Commission X, was presented at the IIW 1992 annual
assembly in this regard [15].
To contribute to the debate covering this important question, comparisons between the
toughness requirements derived from the different approaches mentioned in this paper
have been carried out and are presented below.
7. COMPARISON OF SPECIFICATIONS DERIVED

FROM VARIOUS APPROACHES
Available methods for steel selection differ in several respects: one of the most apparent is
the form of the Charpy requirement which can be expressed either as a transition
temperature or as a level of energy. Suitable conversion formulae are needed so as to
perform comparisons between such methods.
Another factor of divergence is the definition of the flaw size as a function of plate
thickness. Account must be taken of these differences when attempting to compare the
various requirements.
Nevertheless, the main difference between the different approaches may arise from the
assumptions which are made concerning the definition of the fracture model. The French
approach is based on a purely linear elastic analysis, while the British and Belgian ones
assume respectively elasto-plastic and full plastic behaviour of the structure. Another
source of discrepancy could arise from the fact that the available methods were set up at
different times and thus were calibrated on populations of steels which could differ widely
in terms of chemical composition and processing route.
A major result that should emerge from the comparative exercises is therefore verification
of whether the different concepts governing the existing approaches are able to generate
consistent conclusions or, on the contrary, lead to contradictory outputs. It is clear that, if
the latter situation should apply, little confidence could be shown in those models. Their
significance would be restricted to the limited set of conditions and the generation of steels
which were used during their formulation.
If consistent specifications can be derived from several models, another dimension would
be conferred to the problem since, not only the overall reliability of the specifications
would be enhanced, but sources of minor deviations could be better documented.
A significant step in highlighting the possible coherence of Charpy V based specifications
was achieved by de Meester who presented valuable comparisons between the French and
British approaches in 1986 [16]. An illustration of that work is reproduced in Figure 9.
A similar approach can be used to expand this evaluation to other methodologies. It will
be recalled that some procedures express the necessary toughness in terms of a transition
temperature while others require a level of energy at the service temperature. Means of
conversion are, therefore, necessary in such cases. Table 14 reproduces the equations
which were adopted in [16] on the basis of extensive comparisons reported in the 1970's
[17].
562
__________________________________________________________________________
Further information is necessary in order to make comparisons with the Belgian method
since this procedure requires, as an entry parameter, the tensile-to-yield stress ratio of the
relevant steel. This parameter depends, among other things, upon the processing route
undergone by the material. A characteristic value cannot therefore be defined for a given
steel grade. Typical values may, however, be considered on a statistical basis as a function
of the guaranteed yield stress, such as those illustrated in Figure 10 which were proposed
by Dahl and his co-workers [18]. Such a relationship is used in the present analysis to
establish the necessary comparisons. Taking into account that thicker plates generally
display a higher Rm/Re ratio than thinner products, data corresponding to the lower
boundary or those closer to the upper side of the relationship of Figure 10 are selected
depending on the thickness.
Table 15 lists the toughness requirements obtained from the Belgian method applied with
same defect sizes as those considered in the French procedure (cf Table 6). TK28
transition temperatures required by both models are compared in Figure 11, which
highlights the coherence of the respective specifications, especially in the significant field
of negative transition temperatures, which represent the most severe conditions to be
fulfilled by the material.

563
__________________________________________________________________________
564
__________________________________________________________________________
A comparison between the French and British methods is provided in Figure 12 using data
which were generated in Tables 6 and 8. Here again specifications from both models are
consistent. It will, however, be noticed that the French procedure considers smaller defect
sizes (as a function of thickness) than the British method, for instance 8mm against 12mm
for a 30mm thick member. This means that, for the same flaw size, the elasto-plastic
fracture analysis developed by George on the basis of the design curve and Charpy COD
relationships would lead to steel toughness requirements that were somewhat less stringent
than those defined by the linear elastic approach of Sanz and the TKIC-TK28 relationships.
A similar conclusion is reached when roughly comparing, on a same defect size basis, the
British rules to the Belgian procedure. Considering, however, that the George model
assumes a design stress of only 2/3 of the yield stress and implementing this stress level in
the CRM model, quite consistent requirements between both methods would be obtained.
This is highlighted in Figure 13 which is drawn with data extracted from Tables 8 and 16.

565
__________________________________________________________________________
Requirements derived from the present Eurocode rules are compared to those from the
French rules using the data listed in Tables 6 with Table 17 (S1 loading and failure
condition C1) and Table 18 (S3 loading and failure condition C2). It is important to note
that for the sake of consistency regarding the effect of strain rate, the same value of 0,1s -1
has been adopted for all procedures. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate that, depending on the
loading conditions and failure consequences, Eurocode 3 rules are either less stringent or,
on the contrary, significantly more constraining than the specifications of the French
standard from which they are partly derived.
566
__________________________________________________________________________

567
__________________________________________________________________________
8. DISCUSSION
The comparison exercises reported above have demonstrated that, although the models
were derived from quite different basic assumptions and fracture concepts, and were
validated at different periods on different steel qualities and steel generations, the French,
British and Belgian models lead to consistent Charpy requirements. This agreement is
reached when the procedures are compared to each other on a carefully balanced basis, i.e.
adopting the same defect size as a function of plate thickness and the same stress level.
The strain rate is an important factor, which is an explicit parameter in the French method
but not in either of the others. The Belgian model does, however, take some account of
this effect through the tensile-to-yield ratio which is influenced by the strain rate
sensitivity of the material. All comparisons with the French model were carried out for the
slow strain rate of 0,1s-1 with a view to improving consistency. It is nevertheless clear that
the strain rate sensitivity may vary, not only as a function of the steel grade, but also
according to the applied processing route or chemical composition. This parameter would
certainly be worth being better documented so as to optimise the rules for steel selection in
certain applications involving dynamic effects.
The major sources for possible divergence between the existing rules have been identified.
Many specifications are based on their conventions regarding the evolution of the
admissible defect as a function of member thickness and the prevailing state and level of
stress. This results in the definition of less or more stringent requirements. Such a situation
becomes disturbing and confusing when the procedure that the fabricator has to follow is
not properly documented in those terms, or when the computational steps are complicated
and do not easily provide the possibility of carrying out even a limited parametric analysis.
Simple rules involving clearly defined models and based on rigorous mathematical
treatments, ideally developed into analytical formulae, should constitute a preferred choice
in the establishment of steel selection criteria. On the other hand, complex methodologies
involving advanced concepts of fracture analysis may be misleading since their practical
application would either be too difficult or simplification of the procedure would result in
the infringement of basic fracture mechanics rules.
9. COMMENT ON THE PRESENT EUROCODE 3

RULES
Eurocode 3 rules have been reviewed as well as the philosophy that prevailed in their
development. Comparisons with the French model on which they are partly based, reveal
overall agreement in a large range of transition temperatures, together with the possibility
of shifting widely the requirements depending on the stress conditions (3 levels), the strain
rate (2 conditions), and the consequences of failure (2 conditions): Tables 12 and 13 show
that between S1R1C1 and S3R2C2 conditions, the difference in required TK28
temperatures is equal to or greater than 90C.
These rules still require improvement and need to be discussed within a large forum of
specialists. The cooperation of the International Institute of Welding in this task will bring
a worldwide dimension to the challenge of unifying the rules for steel selection. Initial
568
__________________________________________________________________________
proposals for a coordinated approach to the problem were formulated at the IIW annual
assembly of 1992 [15].
It may be of interest in this regard to quantify roughly how each of the available models
accounts for variations of the plate thickness or of the steel yield stress on the TK28
requirements, all other factors being unchanged. In practice a significant question is to
evaluate the advantages of implementing in a given type of structure, higher strength steels
with thinner gauge as an alternative to conventional grades in thick sections. With this
aim, the TK28 requirements listed in the various Tables 6, 8, 12, 13 and 15 have been
correlated by linear regression analysis to thickness and yield stress so as to derive the
following expression for each model:
TK28 = a - b.e - c.Re
The following b and c coefficients were derived:
French model
British model
Belgian model
Eurocode model
b = -0,64
b = -0,99
b = -0,85
b = -0,54
c = -0,12
c = -0,12
c = -0,12
c = -0,15
These values indicate that the French, British and Belgian rules seem more favourable for
the adoption of higher strength steels and thinner gauges than the Eurocode specifications.
10. CONCLUDING SUMMARY
Consistent requirements in terms of a transition temperature in the Charpy V test

may be derived from any one of three national methodologies for steel selection,
each incorporating different concepts of fracture behaviour or analysis, established
at different periods and validated with different grades or generations of steels.
Discrepancies which may appear are more the result of different conventions that
have been adopted for the definition of stress level, safety factors or defect size.
By unifying on a European or wider international basis, criteria for steel selection
would be promoted by a larger analysis of the available models and an exploitation
of their consistency.
11. REFERENCES
[1] Eurocode 3: "Design of Steel Structures": ENV 1993-1-1: Part 1.1, General rules and
rules for buildings, CEN, 1992.
[2] Brock, D., Elementary engineering fracture mechanics, Martinus Nijhorff Publishers,
1987.
[3] Garwood, S. J., A crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) method for the analysis of
ductile materials, ASTM STP 945, June 1985.

569
__________________________________________________________________________
[4] Rice, J. R., A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain
concentrations by notches and cracks, Trans. ASME, J. Appl. Mech. 1968, 35 379386.
[5] Soete, W. and Denys, R., Evaluation of butt welds based on a strain criterion, Revue
de la Sodure, Lastijd schrift, No. 4, 1975.
[6] Milne, I., Ainsworth, R. A., Dowling, A. R., Stewart, A. T., Assessment of the
integrity of structures containing defects, CEGB document R/H/R6 - Revision 3, May
1986.
[7] EN 10025: Hot Rolled Products of Non-alloy Structural Steels and their Technical
Delivery Conditions, British Standards Institution, 1990.
[8] EN 10113-1: Hot Rolled Products of Weldable Fine Grain Structural Steels Part 1:
General Delivery Conditions, British Standards Institution, 1993.
ENV 10113-2: Hot Rolled Products of Weldable Fine Grain Structural Steels Part 2:
Delivery Conditions for Normalized/Normalized Rolled Steels, British Standards
Institution, 1993.
ENV 10113-3: Hot Rolled Products of Weldable Fine Grain Structural Steels Part 2:
Delivery Conditions for Normalized/Normalized Rolled Steels, British Standards
Institution, 1993.
[9] Sanz, G., Essai de mise au point d'une mthode quantitative de choix des aciers vis-vis du risque de rupture fragile, Revue de Mtallurgie - CIT, Juillet 1980.
[10] George, M., A method for steel selection, Document IIW-IXF.
[11] Defourny, J., D'Haeyer, R., Leroy, V., A metallurgical approach of the parameters
affecting the fracture behaviour of base metal and welded components, IIW
document IX-1607-90/X-1206-90.
[12] Sedlacek, G., Bild, J., Hensen, W., Background document for Chapter 3 of Eurocode
3 "Design Against Brittle Fracture", Aachen 1990.
[13] Brozzetti, J., Sedlacek, G., Hensen, W., Fondements des regles de l'Eurocode 3 en
vue de se garantir du risque de rupture fragile, Construction Mtallique, no. 1, 1991.
[14] Guidance on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded
structures, PD6493: 1991, BSI.
[15] Burdekin, F. M., Materials selection for welded structural steelwork in Engineering
Design in welded constructions, Pergamon Press, 1992.
[16] de Meester, B., The brittle fracture safe design of welded constructions, Welding in
the world.
[17] Sanz, G., La rupture des aciers, fascicule 2, Collection IRSID OTUA.
[18] Dahl, W., Hesse, W., Krabiell, A., Zur WVerfestigung von Stahl und dessen Einflu
auf die Kennwerte des Zugversuchs; Stahl und Eisen 103 (1983), Heft 2, Seite 87-90.
570
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 1 Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
The three modes of loading at a crack tip:

The stress field around the crack is defined by a parameter K:
u = [KI )].fu)
Infinite plate:
KI = a)
Finite plate of width W:
KI = a).[sec a/W]
Through thickness crack in Mode I
in mode I

571
__________________________________________________________________________
Semi-elliptical crack:
KI = 1,12a/[2 - 0,212(/Re)2]}
= 1 - [(c2-a2)/c2].sin2d - 3/8 + a2/8c2
572
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 2 Concepts Associated with the Wide Plate Test
Gross section stress: b = F/(W t)

Net section stress: n = F/[(W - 2a) t]
b = n[1 - 2a/W]

573
__________________________________________________________________________
Full yield : b = Re
General yield : n = Re
Determination of the critical defect length at full yield. Different wide plate tests are
carried out at the same temperature but with different crack sizes.
574
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 3 Plastic Collapse Concept
According to the plastic collapse concept, the load bearing resistance of the structure
affected by a defect equals the product of the material flow stress by the net section.
The diagram below plots the gross stress at plastic collapse in a plate containing a
through-thickness defect as a function of the 2a/W ratio (defect length to plate width).
Re : material yield stress

Rf : material flow stress
Rm : material tensile strength
Re < Rf Rm
Rf ~ (Rm + Re) / 2
b : gross stress applied to the wide plate
Sr = applied load/plastic collapse load = (b / Rf) (1-2a/W)
Lr = applied load/plastic yield load = (b / Re) (1-2a/W)
At plastic collapse
Sr = Srmax = 1
Lr = Lrmax = Rf/Re

575
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 4 Main Rules of the R6 Procedure
Box 1:
The R6 Rev. 3 Failure Assessment Diagram
The simplifying concepts behind the R6 procedure
are the two criteria for failure, characterised by:
1. Crack tip failure, where failure occurs when the
applied load equals the LEFM failure load,
(1)
2. Failure by plastic collapse, defined when the load
equals the plastic collapse load and the
displacements in the structure become unlimited. The
plastic collapse load may be formally defined as the
load when the reference stress reaches the material's
flow stress, . The criterion for plastic collapse failure
is given by the ratio Sr.
where Sr =
(2)
This ignores any interaction between the two

failure mechanisms. This interaction may be
allowed for by writing the first inequality as Kr <
f(Lr) and choosing an appropriate function for f.
One such function is
f(Lf) =
(5)
where Je is the elastic component of J given by

K2/E. Thus when ref is low, J = Je and f(Lr) = 1,
consistent with LEFM failure. When ref is high,
on the other hand, failure is governed by J.
Equation 5 may be used to generate an FAD
directly from the load displacement curves of
specimen tests.
The most general method for calculating equation 5
is to use the reference stress procedures so that
f(Lr) may be calculated directly from the material's
stress strain curve. The general equation for this is
and this criterion was used for the initial R6 FAD.

It is often more convenient to think in terms of
plastic yield loads rather than collapse loads as it is
easier to define and calculate these theoretically. In
R6 Rev. 3 the ratio Lr is used as
Lr =
(6)
where ref is taken from the material's true stress true strain curve at respective values of ref. The
figure 6 is a plot of equation 6 as a function of Lr,
using an experimental stress strain curve for a
stainless steel.
(3)
From this, the load for plastic collapse is given as

Lrmax.
With
f(Lf) =
(4)
The simplest FAD requires that Kr < 1 and Lr < Lrmaz.
Although equation 6 is the preferred option for R6

Rev. 3, it requires a detailed knowledge of the
stress strain curve of the material, especially
around the material's yield point. In some cases,
especially when dealing with hold plant, such
knowledge is not available. Other options of the
FAD have been developed for use in such
circumstances.
576
__________________________________________________________________________

577
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 5-1 Main Rules of the French Model
1. BASIC RELATIONSHIP
Between KIC and Charpy V based on Transition Temperature at respectively
100MPa m and 28 J:
(S1)
2. APPLICABILITY
Plane strain condition,
(S2)
where e - is in metres
3. APPLIED STRESS
Material yield stress Re, then
(S3)
where a - is in metres
and from Equation (S2)
(S4)
4. REFERENCE DEFECT SIZE
For thick plates, a semi-elliptic surface defect 50mm long, 25mm deep, which is
equivalent to a 28mm long through thickness defect (a = 14mm).
5. REFERENCE YIELD STRESS
477 MPa is the yield stress level derived from S3 with a = 14mm and KIC = 100
MPa m.
6. REFERENCE THICKNESS
110mm is the thickness satisfying Equation (S4) with a = 14mm.
578
__________________________________________________________________________
7. REQUIRED KIC VALUES vs YIELD STRESS
For thick products (e 110mm), a 28mm long defect corresponds to 100 MPa m at a
yield stress of 477 MPa. For other values of Re, the following KIC values apply, as
derived from Equation (S3):
Re (MPa)
280
350
410
470
510
640
740
KIC (MPa m)
59
73
86
99
107
134
155
8. DEFECT LENGTH AS A FUNCTION OF THICKNESS

To satisfy Equation (S4) the defect length is related to plate thickness as indicated by the
following table. This table also lists the corresponding KIC values at a reference yield
stress of 477 MPa.
e (mm)
10
20
30
60
80
110
>110
2a (mm)
2,5
7,5
15
20
28
28
43
52
74
85
100
100
KIC (MPa m) Re = 30
477 MPa
9. MAJOR RELATIONSHIPS
Taking account of the above tables, it is necessary to consider transition temperatures for
KIC values other than 100, but ranging between 30 and 160MPam. This can be quantified
through the following equation:
(S5)

579
__________________________________________________________________________
10. RELATION BETWEEN SERVICE TEMPERATURE AND 28J TRANSITION
TEMPERATURE
Equation (S1) is used to relate a minimum service temperature above which the structure
is safe to a required toughness level expressed as a transition temperature of 28J in the
Charpy test.
The minimum service temperature is equal to TKIC = 100 for a structure made of a steel with
reference yield stress 477 MPa, reference thickness 110mm and affected by the reference
defect length a = 14mm.
For other values of yield stress or thickness, other values of KIC apply and corrections are
introduced through Equation (S5).
Corrections are also made to take account of strain rate effects and the scatter in Equation
(S1).
The final relationship is expressed as follows:
(S6)
in which
TS :
minimum service temperature for fracture safe design
TK28 : transition temperature of Charpy V at 28J
(Re) : 60 ln
Te : in theory,
rounded to 60 ln
60 1n
(e in mm); in the model a more
conservative formula is used :

TV : (83 - 0,08 Re) 0,17
25 :
57 ln
where is the strain rate in s-1
scatter of Equation (S1)
580
__________________________________________________________________________
11. DEFINITION OF TOUGHNESS REQUIREMENTS

The necessary steel quality expressed in terms of the 28J transition temperature is derived
as a function of service temperature, strain rate, stress applied to the structure, material
yield stress and thickness from the following formula:

581
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 6: Some Results of the French Method
Re
2a
Te
Tv
TK28
@Ts=0C
(MPa)
(mm)
(mm)
(C)
(C)
(C)@0,1/s
(C)
280
10
-49
-92
41
53
280
20
-49
-73
41
39
280
30
-49
-58
41
29
280
60
15
-49
-29
41
280
80
20
-49
-16
41
-1
280
110
28
-49
41
-12
350
10
-27
-92
37
40
350
20
-27
-73
37
27
350
30
-27
-58
37
16
350
60
15
-27
-29
37
-4
350
80
20
-27
-16
37
-14
350
110
28
-27
37
-25
410
10
-13
-92
34
33
410
20
-13
-73
34
19
410
30
-13
-58
34
410
60
15
-13
-29
34
-12
410
80
20
-13
-16
34
-22
410
110
28
-13
34
-33
480
10
-92
30
26
480
20
-73
30
12
582
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 6 (continued): Some Results of the French Method
480
30
-58
30
480
60
15
-29
30
-19
480
80
20
-16
30
-28
480
110
28
30
-39
510
10
-92
29
24
510
20
-73
29
10
510
30
-58
29
510
60
15
-29
29
-21
510
80
20
-16
29
-30
510
110
28
29
-42
Conditions: loading up to yield stress at a slow strain rate (0,1/s)

583
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 7 Main Rules of the British Model
Between the critical crack opening displacement ( in mm) of a material at a given
temperature and the Charpy V energy (CV in Joules) at the same temperature:
(G1)
2. APPLICABILITY
Fracture behaviour analysis according to the assumptions that prevail for the definition of
the "Design Curve" in British Standard PD 6493, which for stainless and ferritic steel is
expressed as follows:
(G2)
3. APPLIED STRESS
In the original model, a value of equal to 1,9 Re was adopted as the result of the
superimposition of a design stress equal to 0,67 Re affected by a stress concentration
factor of 1,2 and a residual stress of amplitude equal to Re.
(G3)
4. REFERENCE DEFECT LENGTH
A surface crack size 0,2 times the plate thickness deep and 1 times the thickness long,
which corresponds to an equivalent crack size of 0,2e
(G4)
Combining Equations (G1) to (G4) leads to:
(G5)
equivalent to:
(G6)
584
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 8 Some Results of the British Method
Re
2a
CV
TK28@ Ts=0C
(MPa)
(mm)
(mm)
(J)
(C) #
280
10
106
280
20
58
280
30
12
12
37
280
60
24
24
280
80
32
32
-5
280
110
44
43
-17
350
10
88
350
20
10
46
350
30
12
15
27
350
60
24
30
-3
350
80
32
39
-14
350
110
44
54
-26
410
10
77
410
20
12
38
410
30
12
17
20
410
60
24
35
-9
410
80
32
46
-20
410
110
44
64
-31
480
10
67
480
20
14
31

585
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 8 (continued): Some Results of the British Method
480
30
12
20
13
480
60
24
41
-15
480
80
32
54
-26
480
110
44
74
-37
510
10
64
510
20
14
28
510
30
12
22
10
510
60
24
43
-17
510
80
32
57
-28
510
110
44
79
-39
#TK28 was derived from CV using formula (ET5) of Table 14
586
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 9 Main Rules of the Belgian Model
Between net fracture stress in wide plate test containing a through-thickness defect
and Charpy V energy at the same temperature:
(C1)
where CV - is expressed in J and not in J/cm as in the original model.
2. APPLICABILITY
Fracture appearance transition temperature in the Charpy test is lower than the
temperature of the wide plate test.
3. APPLIED STRESS
Material yield stress on gross-section (the model may nevertheless be applied to
other stresses).
(C2)
4. REFERENCE DEFECT
Length of the through-thickness defect (critical size) satisfying the full yield
behaviour, expressed by the following equation:
(C3)
(C4)

587
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 10-1 Main Aspects of the Eurocode Rules
Step 1.1 Definition of Stress Levels S1, S2, S3:

S1
- Structural elements containing no weld, or

- stress-relieved welded elements with tensile stresses under 2/3 of yield stress, or
- as-welded element with tensile stresses under 2/10 of yield stress.
S2
- As-welded elements with tensile stresses between 2/10 and 2/3 yield stress, or
- stress-relieved welded elements with stresses below 2 times yield stress.
S3
- As-welded elements with stresses between 2/3 and 2 times yield stress, or
- stress-relieved welded elements with stresses between 2 and 3 times yield
stress.
Note: Stresses here include local stresses concentrated by stress raisers.

(E1)
Step 1.2 Definition of Strain Rates R1, R2

R1 : 0,001 s-1 (permanent loads, traffic loads, winds, waves, material handling)
R2 : 1 s-1 (impacts, explosions, collisions)
(E2)
588
__________________________________________________________________________
Step 1.3 Definition of Consequences of Failure C1, C2:
C1 : Localised failure without appreciable consequence on safety of persons and
stability of structure.
C2 : Failure whose local occurrence may cause the global collapse of the structure with
disastrous consequences for persons and economy.
(E3)
Step 2 Definition of Defect Size:

- Semi elliptical surface defect
- Depth (a) equal to natural logarithm of thickness (t)
a = ln (t) (mm)
- Length (2c) equal to 5 times depth:
2c = 5 ln (t) (mm)
(E4)

589
__________________________________________________________________________
Step 3 Computation of Lr and Kr:
Lr is computed as a function of defect size and stress level.
Kr is computed as a function of Lr from the Fracture Assessment Diagram.
(E5)
Step 4 Computation of Kmat

Kmat is the necessary toughness that must be shown by the material.
Kmat is derived from the KI corresponding to the loading conditions imposed on the
structure and the Kr value derived according to (E5).
A safety factor () is introduced to account for the failure condition:
= 1 for C1
= 1,5 for C2
(E6)
Step 5 Derivation of TK28
The rules of the French method are followed but are translated for KIC values in
N/mm3/2 instead of MPa m
(E7)
590
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 11-1 Application Parameters of the Eurocode Rules
1. EXPRESSION OF KIC
KIC is the toughness required from the material taking account of its thickness and the
service conditions prevailing for the structure.
(E'1)
Re is the material yield stress guaranteed by the standard for the required thickness (t).
Units: KIC in N/mm3/2
Re in MPa
t in mm
(E'2)
=1
for condition C1
= 1,5
for condition C2
(E'3)
ln - is natural logarithm
Stress level
S1
S2
S3
ka
0,18
0,18
0,10
kb
0,40
0,15
0,07
kc
0,03
0,03
0,04

591
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 11-2 Application Parameters of the Eurocode Rules
1. EXPRESSION FOR TK28
(E'4)
TS : Service temperature of the structure
592
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 12 Some Requirements Derived from the Eurocode Rules
3
Tv
(MPa) (mm) (N/mm3/2) (N/mm3/2) (N/mm3/2) (C) (C)
(C)
(C)@0,001/s (C)@S1
(C)@S2
(C)@S3
280
10
655
939
1216
158
-121
-96
19
81
56
37
280
20
813
1185
1514
136
-98
-74
19
66
39
21
280
30
933
1364
1726
122
-84
-61
19
56
29
12
280
60
1192
1744
2159
-98
-60
-38
19
39
11
-4
280
80
1324
1933
2368
-87
-49
-29
19
31
-11
280
110
1489
2167
2622
-75
-38
-19
19
23
-4
-18
350
10
818
1174
1520
135
-99
-73
17
67
41
22
350
20
1017
1481
1893
114
-76
-51
17
51
24
350
30
1166
1705
2157
100
-62
-38
17
41
14
-3
350
60
1490
2180
2698
-75
-37
-16
17
24
-3
-19
350
80
1654
2416
2960
-65
-27
-7
17
16
-11
-25
350
110
1861
2709
3277
-53
-16
17
-19
-32
410
10
958
1375
1781
119
-83
-58
16
56
31
12
410
20
1191
1735
2218
-98
-60
-36
16
41
14
-4
410
30
1366
1997
2527
-84
-46
-23
16
31
-13
410
60
1745
2553
3161
-60
-21
16
14
-14
-29
410
80
1938
2830
3467
-49
-11
16
-21
-35
410
110
2180
3173
3839
-37
19
16
-2
-29
-43
480
10
1122
1610
2085
104
-68
-42
14
46
21
480
20
1395
2031
2596
-82
-44
-20
14
31
-14
480
30
1599
2338
2958
-68
-30
-7
14
21
-6
-23
480
60
2043
2989
3700
-44
-6
16
14
-24
-39
480
80
2269
314
4059
-33
25
14
-4
-31
-45
480
110
2552
3715
4494
-22
16
35
14
-12
-39
-53
510
10
1192
1711
2215
-98
-62
-36
13
43
17
-2
510
20
1482
2158
2759
-76
-38
-14
13
27
-17
510
30
1699
2484
3143
-62
-24
-1
13
17
-10
-27
510
60
2171
3176
3932
-38
22
13
-27
-43
510
80
2411
3521
4313
-27
11
31
13
-8
-35
-49
510
110
2711
3947
4775
-15
22
41
13
-16
-43
-57
Re
K1S1
K1S2
K1S3
TK28@Ts=0C TK28@Ts=0C TK28@Ts=0C
Conditions: S1, S2, S3 loading modes at a R1 strain rate (0,001/s) and C1 failure consequences.

593
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 13 Some Requirements Derived from The Eurocode Rules
2
Tv
(MPa (mm) (N/mm3/2 (N/mm3/2 (N/mm3/2 (C)

)
)
)
)
(C)
(C)
(C)@0,001/
s
(C)@S1
(C)@S2
280
10
818
1174
1520
-135
-99
-73
61
36
10
-9
280
20
1017
1481
1893
-114
-76
-51
61
20
-7
-24
280
30
1166
1705
2157
-100
-62
-38
61
10
-17
-34
280
60
1490
2179
2698
-75
-37
-16
61
-7
-34
-50
280
80
1654
2416
2959
-65
-27
-7
61
-15
-42
-56
280
110
1860
2708
3277
-53
-16
61
-23
-50
-64
350
10
1023
1467
1900
-113
-77
-51
55
24
-2
-21
350
20
1271
1851
2366
-91
-54
-29
55
-19
-36
350
30
1457
2131
2696
-78
-40
-16
55
-2
-29
-46
350
60
1862
2724
3372
-53
-15
55
-19
-46
-62
350
80
2068
3020
3699
-43
-5
16
55
-27
-54
-68
350
110
2326
3386
4096
-31
26
55
-35
-62
-76
410
10
1198
1719
2226
-97
-61
-35
50
16
-10
-29
410
20
1489
2168
2772
-75
-38
-13
50
-27
-44
410
30
1707
2496
3158
-62
-24
50
-10
-37
-54
410
60
2181
3191
3950
-37
22
50
-27
-54
-70
410
80
2422
3538
4333
-27
11
31
50
-35
-62
-76
410
110
2724
3966
4798
-15
23
42
50
-43
-70
-83
480
10
1402
2012
2606
-81
-45
-19
45
-17
-36
480
20
1743
2538
3245
-60
-22
45
-7
-34
-51
480
30
1999
2922
3697
-46
-8
16
45
-17
-44
-61
480
60
2554
3736
4625
-21
17
38
45
-34
-62
-77
480
80
2836
4142
5073
-11
27
47
45
-42
-69
-83
480
110
3189
4643
5617
38
57
45
-50
-77
-91
510
10
1490
2138
2769
-75
-39
-13
42
-20
-38
510
20
1852
2697
3448
-54
-16
42
-10
-37
-54
510
30
2124
3105
3928
-40
-2
22
42
-19
-47
-63
510
60
2713
3970
4914
-15
23
44
42
-37
-64
-79
510
80
3013
4400
5390
-5
33
53
42
-44
-72
-86
510
110
3389
4933
5968
44
63
42
-53
-80
-93
Re
K1S1
K1S2
K1S2
TK28@Ts=0
C
Conditions: S1, S2, S3 loading modes at a R1 strain rate (0,001/s) and C2 failure consequences.
TK28@Ts=0
C
TK28@Ts=0C
(C)@S3
594
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 14-1 Conversion Between Energy and Transition Temperature in
the Charpy V Test
In the French method, the dependency between KIC and the transition temperature is
defined through a set of experimental results which are the basis of the various
correlations between TK28 and TKIC. This relationship can be expressed by an analytical
formula as follows:
(ET1)
where KIC - is expressed in MPa m .
T - is the difference between the temperatures at which KIC corresponds
respectively to a given value and 100 MPa m
In the same method, it is also considered that the Charpy V energy and the K IC value are
linked by the following relationship:
CV =
(ET2)

595
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 14.2 : Conversion Between Energy and Transition Temperature in
the Charpy V Test
Combining Equations (ET1) and (ET2) leads to:
(ET3)
where T - is the difference between the temperature at which CV must be calculated,
e.g. the service temperature, and TK28.
Thus, it becomes:
(ET4)
where
TS - is the service temperature
TK28 - is the transition temperature at 28 J
For a service temperature of 0C:
(ET5)
596
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 15: Some Results of the Belgian Method for Comparison with
the French Procedure
Re
2a
(MPa)
(mm)
(mm)
280
10
280
20
280
Rm/Re
CV
TK28
(J)
(C)
1,5
77
1,5
10
47
30
1,5
16
24
280
60
15
1,55
28
280
80
20
1,55
37
-12
280
110
28
1,55
53
-25
350
10
1,4
67
350
20
1,4
11
39
350
30
1,4
18
17
350
60
15
1,45
32
-6
350
80
20
1,45
43
-17
350
110
28
1,45
62
-30
410
10
1,3
55
410
20
1,3
14
29
410
30
1,3
23
410
60
15
1,35
39
-13
410
80
20
1,35
52
-24
410
110
28
1,35
75
-37
480
10
1,23
10
44
480
20
1,23
17
19

597
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 15: (continued) Some Results of the Belgian Method for Comparison with
the French Procedure
480
30
1,23
28
-1
480
60
15
1,28
46
-20
480
80
20
1,28
63
-31
480
110
28
1,28
91
-44
510
10
1,2
12
38
510
20
1,2
20
14
510
30
1,2
32
-6
510
60
15
1,25
51
-23
510
80
2-
1,25
70
-35
510
110
28
1,25
101
-48
598
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 16: Some Results of the Belgian Method for Comparison with
the British Procedure
Re
2a
(MPa)
(mm)
(mm)
Rm/Re
CV
(J)#
280
10
1,5
280
20
1,5
280
30
12
1,5
14
280
60
24
1,55
27
280
80
32
1,55
37
280
110
44
1,55
51
350
10
1,4
350
20
1,4
10
350
30
12
1,4
15
350
60
24
1,45
29
350
80
32
1,45
39
350
110
44
1,45
54
410
10
1,3
410
20
1,3
11
410
30
12
1,3
16
410
60
24
1,35
31
410
80
32
1,35
42
410
110
44
1,35
58
480
10
1,23
480
20
1,23
11

599
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 16 (continued): Some Results of the Belgian Method for Comparison with
the British Procedure
480
30
12
1,23
17
480
60
24
1,28
33
480
80
32
1,28
44
480
110
44
1,28
62
510
10
1,2
510
20
1,2
12
510
30
12
1,2
18
510
60
24
1,25
34
510
80
32
1,25
46
510
110
44
1,25
64
# Required Charpy Energy is here computed assuming that the design stress is equal
to 2/3 Re so as to fit with the British model.
600
__________________________________________________________________________

601
__________________________________________________________________________
602
__________________________________________________________________________

603
__________________________________________________________________________
604
__________________________________________________________________________

605
__________________________________________________________________________
Table 17: Requirements from Eurocode 3 at 0,1/s Strain Rate and C1 Failure Consequences
Re
K1S1
K1S2
K1S3
Tv
TK28@Ts=0C
TK28@Ts=0C
TK28@Ts=0C
(MPa)
(mm)
(N/mm3/2)
(N/mm3/2)
(N/mm3/2)
(C)
(C)
(C)
(C)@0,1/s
(C)@S1
(C)@S2
(C)@S3
280
10
655
1174
1520
135
-99
-73
41
50
24
280
20
1017
1481
1893
114
-76
-51
41
34
-10
280
30
1166
1705
2157
100
-62
-38
41
24
-3
-20
280
60
1490
2179
2698
-75
-37
-16
41
-20
280
80
1654
2416
2959
-65
-27
-7
41
-1
-28
-10
280
110
1860
2708
3277
-53
-16
41
-9
-36
-20
350
10
818
1174
1520
135
-99
-73
37
52
26
350
20
1017
1481
1893
114
-76
-51
37
37
10
-8
350
30
1166
1705
2157
100
-62
-38
37
27
-17
350
60
1490
2180
2698
-75
-37
-16
37
-18
-33
Table 17 (continued): Requirements from Eurocode 3 at 0,1/s Strain Rate and C1 Failure Consequences
350
80
1654
2416
2960
-65
-27
-7
37
-25
-40
350
110
1861
2709
3277
-53
-16
37
-6
-33
-47
410
10
958
1375
1781
119
-83
-58
34
43
17
-1
410
20
1191
1735
2218
-98
-60
-36
34
28
-17
410
30
1366
1997
2527
-84
-46
-23
34
18
-9
-26
410
60
1745
2553
3161
-60
-21
34
-27
-42
410
80
1938
2830
3467
-49
-11
34
-7
-34
-49
410
110
2180
3173
3839
-37
19
34
-15
-42
-56
480
10
1122
1610
2085
104
-68
-42
30
35
-10
480
20
1395
2031
2596
-82
-44
-20
30
19
-8
-25
480
30
1599
2338
2958
-68
-30
-7
30
-18
-35
480
60
2043
2989
3700
-44
-6
16
30
-8
-35
-51
480
80
2269
3314
4059
-33
25
30
-16
-43
-57
480
110
2552
3715
4494
-22
16
35
30
-24
-51
-64
510
10
1192
1711
2215
-98
-62
-36
29
32
-13
510
20
1482
2158
2759
-76
-38
-14
29
16
-11
-28
510
30
1699
2484
3143
-62
-24
-1
29
-21
-38
510
60
2171
3176
3932
-38
22
29
-11
-38
-54
510
80
2411
3521
4313
-27
11
31
29
-19
-46
-60
510
110
2711
3947
4775
-15
22
41
29
-27
-54
-68
Conditions: S1, S2, S3 loading modes at a slow strain rate (0,1/s) and C1 failure consequences.
Table 18 Requirements from Eurocode 3 at 0,1/s Strain Rate and C2 Failure Consequences
Re
K1S1
K1S2
K1S3
Tv
TK28@Ts=0C
TK28@Ts=0C
TK28@Ts=0C
(MPa)
(mm)
(N/mm3/2)
(N/mm3/2)
(N/mm3/2)
(C)
(C)
(C)
(C)@0,1/s
(C)@S1
(C)@S2
(C)@S3
280
10
818
1174
1520
135
-99
-73
41
50
24
280
20
1017
1481
1893
114
-76
-51
41
34
-10
280
30
1166
1705
2157
100
-62
-38
41
24
-3
-20
280
60
1490
2179
2698
-75
-37
-16
41
-20
280
80
1654
2416
2959
-65
-27
-7
41
-1
-28
-10
280
110
1860
2708
3277
-53
-16
41
-9
-36
-20
350
10
1023
1467
1900
113
-77
-51
37
36
10
-8
350
20
1271
1851
2366
-91
-54
-29
37
21
-6
-24
350
30
1457
2131
2696
-78
-40
-16
37
11
-16
-33
350
60
1862
2724
3372
-53
-15
37
-7
-34
-49
350
80
2068
3020
3699
-43
-5
16
37
-14
-41
-56
350
110
2326
3386
4096
-31
26
37
-22
-49
-63
410
10
1198
1719
2226
-97
-61
-35
34
27
-17
410
20
1489
2168
2772
-75
-38
-13
34
12
-15
-33
410
30
1707
2496
3158
-62
-24
34
-25
-42
410
60
2181
3191
3950
-37
22
34
-16
-43
-58
410
80
2422
3538
4333
-27
11
31
34
-23
-50
-65
410
110
2724
3966
4798
-15
23
42
34
-31
-58
-72
480
10
1402
2012
2606
-81
-45
-19
30
19
-7
-26
480
20
1743
2538
3245
-60
-22
30
-24
-41
480
30
1999
2922
3697
-46
-8
16
30
-7
-34
-50
480
60
2554
3736
4625
-21
17
38
30
-24
-51
-66
480
80
2836
4142
5073
-11
27
47
30
-32
-59
-73
480
110
3189
4643
5617
38
57
30
-40
-67
-80
510
10
1490
2138
2769
-75
-39
-13
29
16
-10
-29
510
20
1852
2697
3448
-54
-16
29
-27
-44
510
30
2124
3105
3928
-40
-2
22
29
-10
-37
-54
510
60
2713
3970
4914
-15
23
44
29
-27
-54
-70
510
80
3013
4400
5390
-5
33
53
29
-35
-62
-76
510
110
3389
4933
5968
44
63
29
-43
-70
-84
Conditions: S1, S2, S3 loading modes at a slow strain rate (0,1/s) and C2 failure consequences.

CH 2 5 Selection of Steel Quality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CH 2 5 Selection of Steel Quality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

Lecture 2.5: Selection of Steel Quality

A brief survey of brittle failure.

2. THE PHENOMENON OF BRITTLE FAILURE

the lower the temperature to which it is exposed.

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

Strain-hardenability is appraised in a tensile test and is quantified by the slope of the

A material showing no ductility is intrinsically brittle and produces, even in a defect-free

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

3. FRACTURE MECHANICS CONCEPTS AND

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

This interactive behaviour supports the so-called two-criteria approach developed by

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

4. METHODOLOGIES FOR STEEL SELECTION

4.1 The French Approach

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

4.2 The British Approach

4.3 The Belgian Approach

5. METHODOLOGY ADOPTED IN EUROCODE 3

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

6. PRESENT STATUS OF THE EUROCODE 3 RULES

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

7. COMPARISON OF SPECIFICATIONS DERIVED

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

9. COMMENT ON THE PRESENT EUROCODE 3

10. CONCLUDING SUMMARY

Consistent requirements in terms of a transition temperature in the Charpy V test

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

The three modes of loading at a crack tip:

Through thickness crack in Mode I

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

Gross section stress: b = F/(W t)

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

Re : material yield stress

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

This ignores any interaction between the two

where Je is the elastic component of J given by

and this criterion was used for the initial R6 FAD.

From this, the load for plastic collapse is given as

The simplest FAD requires that Kr < 1 and Lr < Lrmaz.

Although equation 6 is the preferred option for R6

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

8. DEFECT LENGTH AS A FUNCTION OF THICKNESS

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

minimum service temperature for fracture safe design

TK28 : transition temperature of Charpy V at 28J

(e in mm); in the model a more

conservative formula is used :

where is the strain rate in s-1

scatter of Equation (S1)

11. DEFINITION OF TOUGHNESS REQUIREMENTS

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

Conditions: loading up to yield stress at a slow strain rate (0,1/s)

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

#TK28 was derived from CV using formula (ET5) of Table 14

5. DEFINITION OF TOUGHNESS REQUIREMENTS

STEEL CONSTRUCTION: APPLIED METALLURGY

Step 1.1 Definition of Stress Levels S1, S2, S3:

- Structural elements containing no weld, or

Note: Stresses here include local stresses concentrated by stress raisers.