E08.07 - Fracture Mechanics

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Surface cracks are among the most common defects found in structural components. An accurate characterization and understanding of crack-front behavior is necessary to ensure successful operation of a structure containing surface cracks. The testing of laboratory specimens with surface cracks provides a means to understand and quantify surface crack behavior, but the test results must be interpreted correctly to ensure transferability between the laboratory specimen and the structure.  
5.2 Transferability refers to the capacity of a fracture mechanics methodology to correlate the crack-tip stress and strain fields of different cracked bodies. Traditionally, the correlation has been based on the presence at fracture of a dominant, asymptotically singular, crack-tip field with amplitude set by the value of a single parameter, such as the stress intensity factor, KI, or the J-integral. For components and specimens with high crack-tip constraint, the singular crack-tip field dominates over microstructurally significant size scales for loads ranging from globally linear-elastic conditions to moderately large-scale plasticity. For specimens with low crack-tip constraint, a dominant single-parameter crack-tip field exists only at low levels of plasticity. At higher levels of plasticity, the opening mode stress of the low constraint specimen is lower than predicted by the single-parameter, asymptotically singular fields. Therefore, low constraint specimens often exhibit larger fracture toughness than do high constraint specimens. If feasible, users are strongly encouraged to generate high constraint fracture toughness data using methods such as Test Methods E399 or E1820 prior to testing the surface crack geometry.  
5.2.1 To address this phenomenon, two-parameter fracture criteria are used to include the influence of crack-tip constraint. Crack-tip constraint has been quantified using various scalar parameters including the T-stress (10, 11, 12), Q   (13, 14), stres...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes the method for testing fatigue-sharpened, semi-elliptically shaped surface cracks in rectangular flat panels subjected to monotonically increasing tension or bending. Tests quantify the crack-tip conditions at initiation of stable crack extension or immediate unstable crack extension.  
1.2 This test method applies to the testing of metallic materials not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness. Materials are assumed to be essentially homogeneous and free of residual stress. Tests may be conducted at any appropriate temperature. The effects of environmental factors and sustained or cyclic loads are not addressed in this test method.  
1.3 This test method describes all necessary details for the user to test for the initiation of crack extension in surface crack test specimens. Specific requirements and recommendations are provided for test equipment, instrumentation, test specimen design, and test procedures.  
1.4 Tests of surface cracked, laboratory-scale specimens as described in this test method may provide a more accurate understanding of full-scale structural performance in the presence of surface cracks. The provided recommendations help to assure test methods and data are applicable to the intended purpose.  
1.5 This test method prescribes a consistent methodology for test and analysis of surface cracks for research purposes and to assist in structural assessments. The methods described here utilize a constraint-based framework (1, 2)2 to evaluate the fracture behavior of surface cracks.
Note 1: Constraint-based framework. In the context of this test method, constraint is used as a descriptor of the three-dimensional stress and strain fields in the near vicinity of the crack tip, where material contractions due to the Poisson effect may be suppressed and therefore produce an elevated, tensile stress state (3, 4). (See further discussions in Terminology and Significance a...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress-intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, T0, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.2) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 MPa to 825 MPa (40 ksi to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated T0 values as a function of specimen type for the same material. T0 values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than T0 values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived T0 values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) T0 differences up to 15 °C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate T0 results which fall between the T0 values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongl...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The surface-crack tension (SCT) test is used to estimate the load-carrying capacity of simple sheet- or plate-like structural components having a type of flaw likely to occur in service. The test is also used for research purposes to investigate failure mechanisms of cracks under service conditions.  
4.2 The residual strength of an SCT specimen is a function of the crack depth and length and the specimen thickness as well as the characteristics of the material. This relationship is extremely complex and cannot be completely described or characterized at present.  
4.2.1 The results of the SCT test are suitable for direct application to design only when the service conditions exactly parallel the test conditions. Some methods for further analysis are suggested in Appendix X1.  
4.3 In order that SCT test data can be comparable and reproducible and can be correlated among laboratories, it is essential that uniform SCT testing practices be established.  
4.4 The specimen configuration, preparation, and instrumentation described in this practice are generally suitable for cyclic- or sustained-force testing as well. However, certain constraints are peculiar to each of these tests. These are beyond the scope of this practice but are discussed in Ref. (1).
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the design, preparation, and testing of surface-crack tension (SCT) specimens. It relates specifically to testing under continuously increasing force and excludes cyclic and sustained loadings. The quantity determined is the residual strength of a specimen having a semielliptical or circular-segment fatigue crack in one surface. This value depends on the crack dimensions and the specimen thickness as well as the characteristics of the material.  
1.2 Metallic materials that can be tested are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness. However, tests of thick specimens of tough materials may require a tension test machine of extremely high capacity. The applicability of this practice to nonmetallic materials has not been determined.  
1.3 This practice is limited to specimens having a uniform rectangular cross section in the test section. The test section width and length must be large with respect to the crack length. Crack depth and length should be chosen to suit the ultimate purpose of the test.  
1.4 Residual strength may depend strongly upon temperature within a certain range depending upon the characteristics of the material. This practice is suitable for tests at any appropriate temperature.  
1.5 Residual strength is believed to be relatively insensitive to loading rate within the range normally used in conventional tension tests. When very low or very high rates of loading are expected in service, the effect of loading rate should be investigated using special procedures that are beyond the scope of this practice.  
Note 1: Further information on background and need for this type of test is given in the report of ASTM Task Group E24.01.05 on Part-Through-Crack Testing (1).2  
1.6 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to T...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 In structures containing gradients in either toughness or stress, a crack may initiate in a region of either low toughness or high stress, or both, and arrest in another region of either higher toughness or lower stress, or both. The value of the stress intensity factor during the short time interval in which a fast-running crack arrests is a measure of the ability of the material to arrest such a crack. Values of the stress intensity factor of this kind, which are determined using dynamic methods of analysis, provide a value for the crack-arrest fracture toughness which will be termed KA  in this discussion. Static methods of analysis, which are much less complex, can often be used to determine K at a short time (1 to 2 ms) after crack arrest. The estimate of the crack-arrest fracture toughness obtained in this fashion is termed K a. When macroscopic dynamic effects are relatively small, the difference between KA  and Ka  is also small (1-4). For cracks propagating under conditions of crack-front plane-strain, in situations where the dynamic effects are also known to be small, KIa  determinations using laboratory-sized specimens have been used successfully to estimate whether, and at what point, a crack will arrest in a structure (5, 6). Depending upon component design, loading compliance, and the crack jump length, a dynamic analysis of a fast-running crack propagation event may be necessary in order to predict whether crack arrest will occur and the arrest position. In such cases, values of K Ia  determined by this test method can be used to identify those values of K below which the crack speed is zero. More details on the use of dynamic analyses can be found in Ref (4).  
5.2 This test method can serve at least the following additional purposes:  
5.2.1 In materials research and development, to establish in quantitative terms significant to service performance, the effects of metallurgical variables (such as composition or heat treatment) or fabrication o...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method employs a side-grooved, crack-line-wedge-loaded specimen to obtain a rapid run-arrest segment of flat-tensile separation with a nearly straight crack front. This test method provides a static analysis determination of the stress intensity factor at a short time after crack arrest. The estimate is denoted Ka. When certain size requirements are met, the test result provides an estimate, termed KIa, of the plane-strain crack-arrest toughness of the material.  
1.2 The specimen size requirements, discussed later, provide for in-plane dimensions large enough to allow the specimen to be modeled by linear elastic analysis. For conditions of plane-strain, a minimum specimen thickness is also required. Both requirements depend upon the crack arrest toughness and the yield strength of the material. A range of specimen sizes may therefore be needed, as specified in this test method.  
1.3 If the specimen does not exhibit rapid crack propagation and arrest, Ka  cannot be determined.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standards. The values given in parentheses are provided for information only.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju  may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations iss...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The property KIc determined by this test method characterizes the resistance of a material to fracture in a neutral environment in the presence of a sharp crack under essentially linear-elastic stress and severe tensile constraint, such that (1) the state of stress near the crack front approaches tritensile plane strain, and (2) the crack-tip plastic zone is small compared to the crack size, specimen thickness, and ligament ahead of the crack.  
5.1.1 Variation in the value of KIc can be expected within the allowable range of specimen proportions, a/W and  W/B. KIc may also be expected to rise with increasing ligament size. Notwithstanding these variations, however, KIc is believed to represent a lower limiting value of fracture toughness (for 2 % apparent crack extension) in the environment and at the speed and temperature of the test.  
5.1.2 Lower and more highly variable values of fracture toughness can be obtained from specimens that fail by cleavage fracture; for example, specimens of ferritic steels tested at temperatures in the ductile-to-brittle transition region or below. Specimens failing by cleavage are also more likely to exhibit warm prestressing effects, where precracking at a temperature higher than the test temperature can artificially increase the fracture toughness measured (2). The present test method is not intended for cleavage fracture. Instead, the user is referred to Test Method E1921 and E1820 which are applicable to cleavage fracture and contain safeguards against warm prestressing. Likewise this test method should not be used when specimen failure is accompanied by appreciable plastic deformation even after the specimen size has been maximized within product dimensional constraints. Guidance on testing elastic-plastic materials is given in Test Method E1820.  
5.1.3 The value of KIc obtained by this test method may be used to estimate the relation between failure stress and crack size for a material in service wherein the condition...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of fracture toughness (KIc and optionally KIsi) of metallic materials under predominantly linear-elastic, plane-strain conditions using fatigue precracked specimens having a thickness of 1.6 mm (0.063 in.) or greater2 subjected to slowly, or in special (elective) cases rapidly, increasing crack-displacement force. Details of test apparatus, specimen configuration, and experimental procedure are given in the annexes. Two procedures are outlined for using the experimental data to calculate fracture toughness values:  
1.1.1 The KIc test procedure is described in the main body of this test standard and is a mandatory part of the testing and results reporting procedure for this test method. The KIc test procedure is based on crack growth of up to 2 % percent of the specimen width. This can lead to a specimen size dependent rising fracture toughness resistance curve, with larger specimens producing higher fracture toughness results.  
1.1.2 The KIsi test procedure is described in Appendix X1 and is an optional part of this test method. The KIsi test procedure is based on a fixed amount of crack extension of 0.5 mm, and as a result, KIsi is less sensitive to specimen size than KIc. This less size-sensitive fracture toughness, KIsi, is called size-insensitive throughout this test method. Appendix X1 contains an optional procedure for reinterpreting the force-displacement test record recorded as part of this test method to calculate the additional fracture toughness value, KIsi.
Note 1: Plane-strain fracture toughness tests of materials thinner than 1.6 mm (0.063 in.) that are sufficiently brittle (see 7.1) can be made using other types of specimens (1).3 There is no standard test method for such thin materials.  
1.2 This test method is divided into two parts. The first part gives general recommendations and requirements for testing and includes specific requirements for the KI...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The KR curve characterizes the resistance to fracture of materials during slow, stable crack extension and results from the growth of the plastic zone ahead of the crack as it extends from a fatigue precrack or sharp notch. It provides a record of the toughness development as a crack is driven stably under increasing applied stress intensity factor K. For a given material, KR curves are dependent upon specimen thickness, temperature, and strain rate. The amount of valid KR data generated in the test depends on the specimen type, size, method of loading, and, to a lesser extent, testing machine characteristics.  
5.2 For an untested geometry, the KR curve can be matched with the applied-K curves (crack driving curves) to estimate the degree of stable crack extension and the conditions necessary to cause unstable crack propagation (2). In making this estimate, KR curves are regarded as being independent of initial crack size ao and the specimen configuration in which they are developed. For a given material, material thickness, and test temperature, KR curves appear to be a function of only the effective crack extension Δae (3).  
5.2.1 To predict crack behavior and instability in a component, a family of applied-K curves is generated by calculating  K as a function of crack size for the component using a series of force, displacement, or combined loading conditions. The KR curve may be superimposed on the family of applied-K curves as shown in Fig. 1, with the origin of the KR curve coinciding with the assumed initial crack size ao. The intersection of the applied-K curves with the KR curve shows the expected effective stable crack extension for each loading condition. The applied-K curve that develops tangency with the KR curve defines the critical loading condition that will cause the onset of unstable fracture under the loading conditions used to develop the applied-K curves.
FIG. 1 Schematic Representation of KR curve and Applied K Curves to Predict Insta...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the resistance to fracture of metallic materials under Mode I loading at static rates using either of the following notched and precracked specimens: the middle-cracked tension M(T) specimen or the compact tension C(T) specimen. A KR curve is a continuous record of toughness development (resistance to crack extension) in terms of KR plotted against crack extension in the specimen as a crack is driven under an increasing stress intensity factor, K. (1)2  
1.2 Materials that can be tested for KR curve development are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, so long as specimens are of sufficient size to remain predominantly elastic to the effective crack extension value of interest.  
1.3 Specimens of standard proportions are required, but size is variable, to be adjusted for yield strength and toughness of the materials.  
1.4 Only two of the many possible specimen types that could be used to develop KR curves are covered in this method.  
1.5 The test is applicable to conditions where a material exhibits slow, stable crack extension under increasing crack driving force, which may exist in relatively tough materials under plane stress crack tip conditions.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Reco...

SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of fracture propagation toughness in terms of the steady-state crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA) using the drop-weight tear test (DWTT)-type specimen. The method is applicable to ferritic steels that exhibit predominantly ductile fracture with at least 85 % shear area measured according to Test Method E436 - Standard Test Method for Drop-Weight Tear Tests of Ferritic Steels. This test method applies to ferritic steels with thicknesses between 6 mm and 20 mm. Annex A1 describes the method to test ferritic steels with thicknesses between 20 mm to 32 mm.  
1.2 In terms of apparatus, specimen design, and test methodology, this test method draws from Test Method E436 and API 5L3 - Recommended Practice for Conducting Drop-Weight Tear Tests on Line Pipe.  
1.3 The development of this test method has been driven by the need to design for fast ductile fracture arrest of axial running cracks in steel high-pressure gas pipelines (1). 2The purpose has been to develop a test to characterize fracture propagation resistance in a form suitable for use as a pipe mill test (2). The traditional Charpy test has been shown to be inadequate for modern high toughness pipe steels (1). This test method measures fracture propagation resistance in terms of crack-tip opening angle, and is used to characterize ferritic steels.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The fracture toughness determined by this test method characterizes the resistance of a material to fracture by a slowly advancing steady-state crack (see 3.2.5) in a neutral environment under severe tensile constraint. The state of stress near the crack front approaches plane strain, and the crack-tip plastic region is small compared with the crack size and specimen dimensions in the constraint direction. A KIv  or KIvj  value may be used to estimate the relation between failure stress and defect size when the conditions described above would be expected, although the relationship may differ from that obtained from a KIc  value (see Note 1). Background information concerning the basis for development of this test method in terms of linear elastic fracture mechanics may be found in Refs (6-15).  
5.1.1 The KIv, KIvj, or KIvM  value of a given material can be a function of testing speed (strain rate) and temperature. Furthermore, cyclic forces can cause crack extension at KI  values less than KIv, and crack extension can be increased by the presence of an aggressive environment. Therefore, application of KIv  in the design of service components should be made with an awareness of differences that may exist between the laboratory tests and field conditions.  
5.1.2 Plane-strain fracture toughness testing is unusual in that there can be no advance assurance that a valid KIv, KIvj, or KIvM  will be determined in a particular test. Therefore, it is essential that all the criteria concerning the validity of results be carefully considered as described herein.  
5.2 This test method can serve the following purposes:  
5.2.1 To establish the effects of metallurgical variables such as composition or heat treatment, or of fabricating operations such as welding or forming, on the fracture toughness of new or existing materials.  
5.2.2 For specifications of acceptance and manufacturing quality control, but only when there is a sound basis for specification of minimum ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of plane-strain (chevron-notch) fracture toughnesses, KIv  or KIvM, of metallic materials. Fracture toughness by this method is relative to a slowly advancing steady state crack initiated at a chevron-shaped notch, and propagating in a chevron-shaped ligament (Fig. 1). Some metallic materials, when tested by this method, exhibit a sporadic crack growth in which the crack front remains nearly stationary until a critical load is reached. The crack then becomes unstable and suddenly advances at high speed to the next arrest point. For these materials, this test method covers the determination of the plane-strain fracture toughness, KIvj  or KIvM, relative to the crack at the points of instability.        
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test practice provides a recommended procedure for preparing fracture toughness specimens from welds to improve the likelihood of obtaining useful fracture toughness values.  
5.1.1 The subsequent fracture toughness values, that have significance and use as stated in the applicable ASTM test method, may allow for flaw tolerance assessments of welded structures. Flaw tolerance assessments require an understanding and compensation for the differences that may exist between laboratory test results and field conditions.  
5.1.2 The shallow-notched specimen testing procedures described in Annex E of ISO 15653 may be used by agreement between the parties involved as long as it is understood that Annex E is “Informative” and the result is a geometry dependent measurement of toughness that is not validated by the applicable test standard.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides methods for preparing specimens from welds in metallic materials and interpreting subsequent test results when used in conjunction with standards Test Methods E1290 and E1820 for the determination of fracture toughness. The fatigue pre-cracking procedures included in this practice may also be used to aid in preparing straight pre-cracks for weld specimens in accordance with Test Method E1681.  
1.2 This practice draws heavily from ISO 15653: Metallic materials – Method of test for the determination of quasistatic fracture toughness of welds. All references to ISO 12135 in that test method should be replaced with the applicable ASTM Test Methods (E1820, E1290 or E1681).  
1.3 The recommended specimen is a single-edge bend [SE(B)] with width, W, equal to twice the specimen thickness, B. An alternate SE(B) specimen with W/B equal to one and a span, S, to W ratio of 4 may be used but may produce different toughness values. A compact tension [C(T)] specimen may be used if it can be demonstrated that the analysis of results properly accounts for weld-to-base metal strength mismatch effects on fracture toughness.  
1.4 The recommended limitation on weld-to-base metal yield strength ratio is
Undermatching within this limitation leads to conservative estimates of fracture toughness, while overmatching may lead to an overestimation of the fracture toughness by up to 10%.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method characterizes a metallic material’s resistance to stable crack extension in terms of crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA), ψ and/or crack-opening displacement (COD), δ5 under the laboratory or application environment of interest. This method applies specifically to fatigue pre-cracked specimens that exhibit low constraint and that are tested under slowly increasing displacement.  
5.2 When conducting fracture tests, the user must consider the influence that the loading rate and laboratory environment may have on the fracture parameters. The user should perform a literature review to determine if loading rate effects have been observed previously in the material at the specific temperature and environment being tested. The user should document specific information pertaining to their material, loading rates, temperature, and environment (relative humidity) for each test.  
5.3 The results of this characterization include the determination of a critical, lower-limiting value, of CTOA (ψc) or a resistance curve of δ5, a measure of crack-opening displacement against crack extension, or both.  
5.4 The test specimens are the compact, C(T), and middle-crack-tension, M(T), specimens.  
5.5 Materials that can be evaluated by this standard are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, if the crack-size-to-thickness (a/B) ratio or ligament-to-thickness (b/B) ratio are equal to or greater than 4, which ensures relatively low and similar global crack-front constraint for both the C(T) and M(T) specimens (2, 3).  
5.6 The values of CTOA and COD (δ5) determined by this test method may serve the following purposes:  
5.6.1 In research and development, CTOA (ψc) or COD (δ5), or both, testing can show the effects of certain parameters on the resistance to stable crack extension of metallic materials significant to service performance. These parameters include, but are not limited to, material thickness, material composition, thermo-mechanical processing,...
SCOPE
1.1 This standard covers the determination of the resistance to stable crack extension in metallic materials in terms of the critical crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA), ψc and/or the crack-opening displacement (COD), δ5 resistance curve (1).2 This method applies specifically to fatigue pre-cracked specimens that exhibit low constraint (crack-size-to-thickness and un-cracked ligament-to-thickness ratios greater than or equal to 4) and that are tested under slowly increasing remote applied displacement. The test specimens are the compact, C(T), and middle-crack-tension, M(T), specimens. The fracture resistance determined in accordance with this standard is measured as ψc (critical CTOA value) and/or δ5 (critical COD resistance curve) as a function of crack extension. Both fracture resistance parameters are characterized using either a single-specimen or multiple-specimen procedures. These fracture quantities are determined under the opening mode (Mode I) of loading. Influences of environment and rapid loading rates are not covered in this standard, but the user must be aware of the effects that the loading rate and laboratory environment may have on the fracture behavior of the material.  
1.2 Materials that are evaluated by this standard are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, if the crack-size-to-thickness (a/B) ratio and the ligament-to-thickness (b/B) ratio are greater than or equal to 4, which ensures relatively low and similar global crack-front constraint for both the C(T) and M(T) specimens (2, 3).  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory lim...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress-intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, T0, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.2) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 MPa to 825 MPa (40 ksi to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated T0 values as a function of specimen type for the same material. T0 values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than T0 values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived T0 values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) T0 differences up to 15 °C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate T0 results which fall between the T0 values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongl...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, T0, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.2) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 MPa to 825 MPa (40 ksi to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated T0 values as a function of specimen type for the same material. T0 values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than T0 values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived T0 values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) T0 differences up to 15 °C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate T0 results which fall between the T0 values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongl...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju  may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations iss...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju   may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations is...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, T0, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.2) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 to 825 MPa (40 to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated T0 values as a function of specimen type for the same material. T0 values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than T0 values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived T0 values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) T0 differences up to 15 °C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate T0 results which fall between the T0 values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongly recomm...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, T0, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.2) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 to 825 MPa (40 to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated T0 values as a function of specimen type for the same material. T0 values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than T0 values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived T0 values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) T0 differences up to 15 °C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate T0 results which fall between the T0 values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongly recomm...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju   may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations is...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju   may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations is...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The property KIc determined by this test method characterizes the resistance of a material to fracture in a neutral environment in the presence of a sharp crack under essentially linear-elastic stress and severe tensile constraint, such that (1) the state of stress near the crack front approaches tritensile plane strain, and (2) the crack-tip plastic zone is small compared to the crack size, specimen thickness, and ligament ahead of the crack.  
5.1.1 Variation in the value of KIc can be expected within the allowable range of specimen proportions, a/W and  W/B. KIc may also be expected to rise with increasing ligament size. Notwithstanding these variations, however, KIc is believed to represent a lower limiting value of fracture toughness (for 2 % apparent crack extension) in the environment and at the speed and temperature of the test.  
5.1.2 Lower values of KIc can be obtained for materials that fail by cleavage fracture; for example, ferritic steels in the ductile-to-brittle transition region or below, where the crack front length affects the measurement in a stochastic manner independent of crack front constraint. The present test method does not apply to such materials and the user is referred to Test Method E1921 and E1820. Likewise this test method does not apply to high toughness or high tearing-resistance materials whose failure is accompanied by appreciable amounts of plasticity. Guidance on testing elastic-plastic materials is given in Test Method E1820.  
5.1.3 The value of KIc obtained by this test method may be used to estimate the relation between failure stress and crack size for a material in service wherein the conditions of high constraint described above would be expected. Background information concerning the basis for development of this test method in terms of linear elastic fracture mechanics may be found in Refs (1) and (2).  
5.1.4 Cyclic forces can cause crack extension at KI values less than KIc. Crack extension under cyclic or s...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of fracture toughness (KIc and optionally KIsi) of metallic materials under predominantly linear-elastic, plane-strain conditions using fatigue precracked specimens having a thickness of 1.6 mm (0.063 in.) or greater2 subjected to slowly, or in special (elective) cases rapidly, increasing crack-displacement force. Details of test apparatus, specimen configuration, and experimental procedure are given in the annexes. Two procedures are outlined for using the experimental data to calculate fracture toughness values:  
1.1.1 The KIc test procedure is described in the main body of this test standard and is a mandatory part of the testing and results reporting procedure for this test method. The KIc test procedure is based on crack growth of up to 2 % percent of the specimen width. This can lead to a specimen size dependent rising fracture toughness resistance curve, with larger specimens producing higher fracture toughness results.  
1.1.2 The KIsi test procedure is described in Appendix X1 and is an optional part of this test method. The KIsi test procedure is based on a fixed amount of crack extension of 0.5 mm, and as a result, KIsi is less sensitive to specimen size than KIc. This less size-sensitive fracture toughness, KIsi, is called size-insensitive throughout this test method. Appendix X1 contains an optional procedure for reinterpreting the force-displacement test record recorded as part of this test method to calculate the additional fracture toughness value, KIsi.
Note 1: Plane-strain fracture toughness tests of materials thinner than 1.6 mm (0.063 in.) that are sufficiently brittle (see 7.1) can be made using other types of specimens (1).3 There is no standard test method for such thin materials.  
1.2 This test method is divided into two parts. The first part gives general recommendations and requirements for testing and includes specific requirements for the KI...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The KR curve characterizes the resistance to fracture of materials during slow, stable crack extension and results from the growth of the plastic zone ahead of the crack as it extends from a fatigue precrack or sharp notch. It provides a record of the toughness development as a crack is driven stably under increasing applied stress intensity factor K. For a given material, KR curves are dependent upon specimen thickness, temperature, and strain rate. The amount of valid KR data generated in the test depends on the specimen type, size, method of loading, and, to a lesser extent, testing machine characteristics.  
5.2 For an untested geometry, the KR curve can be matched with the crack driving (applied K) curves to estimate the degree of stable crack extension and the conditions necessary to cause unstable crack propagation (2). In making this estimate, KR curves are regarded as being independent of initial crack size ao and the specimen configuration in which they are developed. For a given material, material thickness, and test temperature, KR curves appear to be a function of only the effective crack extension Δae (3).  
5.2.1 To predict crack behavior and instability in a component, a family of crack driving curves is generated by calculating  K as a function of crack size for the component using a series of force, displacement, or combined loading conditions. The KR curve may be superimposed on the family of crack driving curves as shown in Fig. 1, with the origin of the KR curve coinciding with the assumed initial crack size ao. The intersection of the crack driving curves with the KR curve shows the expected effective stable crack extension for each loading condition. The crack driving curve that develops tangency with the KR curve defines the critical loading condition that will cause the onset of unstable fracture under the loading conditions used to develop the crack driving curves.
FIG. 1 Schematic Representation of KR curve and Applied K Curves to ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the resistance to fracture of metallic materials under Mode I loading at static rates using either of the following notched and precracked specimens: the middle-cracked tension M(T) specimen or the compact tension C(T) specimen. A KR curve is a continuous record of toughness development (resistance to crack extension) in terms of KR plotted against crack extension in the specimen as a crack is driven under an increasing stress intensity factor, K. (1)2  
1.2 Materials that can be tested for KR curve development are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, so long as specimens are of sufficient size to remain predominantly elastic to the effective crack extension value of interest.  
1.3 Specimens of standard proportions are required, but size is variable, to be adjusted for yield strength and toughness of the materials.  
1.4 Only two of the many possible specimen types that could be used to develop KR curves are covered in this method.  
1.5 The test is applicable to conditions where a material exhibits slow, stable crack extension under increasing crack driving force, which may exist in relatively tough materials under plane stress crack tip conditions.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Reco...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju   may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations is...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The KR curve characterizes the resistance to fracture of materials during slow, stable crack extension and results from the growth of the plastic zone ahead of the crack as it extends from a fatigue precrack or sharp notch. It provides a record of the toughness development as a crack is driven stably under increasing applied stress intensity factor K. For a given material, KR curves are dependent upon specimen thickness, temperature, and strain rate. The amount of valid KR data generated in the test depends on the specimen type, size, method of loading, and, to a lesser extent, testing machine characteristics.  
5.2 For an untested geometry, the KR curve can be matched with the crack driving (applied K) curves to estimate the degree of stable crack extension and the conditions necessary to cause unstable crack propagation (2). In making this estimate, KR curves are regarded as being independent of initial crack size ao and the specimen configuration in which they are developed. For a given material, material thickness, and test temperature, KR curves appear to be a function of only the effective crack extension Δae (3).  
5.2.1 To predict crack behavior and instability in a component, a family of crack driving curves is generated by calculating  K as a function of crack size for the component using a series of force, displacement, or combined loading conditions. The KR curve may be superimposed on the family of crack driving curves as shown in Fig. 1, with the origin of the KR curve coinciding with the assumed initial crack size ao. The intersection of the crack driving curves with the KR curve shows the expected effective stable crack extension for each loading condition. The crack driving curve that develops tangency with the KR curve defines the critical loading condition that will cause the onset of unstable fracture under the loading conditions used to develop the crack driving curves.
FIG. 1 Schematic Representation of KR curve and Applied K Curves to ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the resistance to fracture of metallic materials under Mode I loading at static rates using either of the following notched and precracked specimens: the middle-cracked tension M(T) specimen or the compact tension C(T) specimen. A KR curve is a continuous record of toughness development (resistance to crack extension) in terms of KR plotted against crack extension in the specimen as a crack is driven under an increasing stress intensity factor, K. (1)2  
1.2 Materials that can be tested for KR curve development are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, so long as specimens are of sufficient size to remain predominantly elastic to the effective crack extension value of interest.  
1.3 Specimens of standard proportions are required, but size is variable, to be adjusted for yield strength and toughness of the materials.  
1.4 Only two of the many possible specimen types that could be used to develop KR curves are covered in this method.  
1.5 The test is applicable to conditions where a material exhibits slow, stable crack extension under increasing crack driving force, which may exist in relatively tough materials under plane stress crack tip conditions.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Reco...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, T0, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.2) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 to 825 MPa (40 to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated T0 values as a function of specimen type for the same material. T0 values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than T0 values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived T0 values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) T0 differences up to 15 °C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate T0 results which fall between the T0 values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongly recomm...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, To, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.2) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 to 825 MPa (40 to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated To values as a function of specimen type for the same material. To values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than To values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived To values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) To differences up to 15 °C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate To results which fall between the To values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongly recomm...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The property KIc determined by this test method characterizes the resistance of a material to fracture in a neutral environment in the presence of a sharp crack under essentially linear-elastic stress and severe tensile constraint, such that (1) the state of stress near the crack front approaches tritensile plane strain, and (2) the crack-tip plastic zone is small compared to the crack size, specimen thickness, and ligament ahead of the crack.  
5.1.1 Variation in the value of KIc can be expected within the allowable range of specimen proportions, a/W and  W/B. KIc may also be expected to rise with increasing ligament size. Notwithstanding these variations, however, KIc is believed to represent a lower limiting value of fracture toughness (for 2 % apparent crack extension) in the environment and at the speed and temperature of the test.  
5.1.2 Lower values of KIc can be obtained for materials that fail by cleavage fracture; for example, ferritic steels in the ductile-to-brittle transition region or below, where the crack front length affects the measurement in a stochastic manner independent of crack front constraint. The present test method does not apply to such materials and the user is referred to Test Method E1921 and E1820. Likewise this test method does not apply to high toughness or high tearing-resistance materials whose failure is accompanied by appreciable amounts of plasticity. Guidance on testing elastic-plastic materials is given in Test Method E1820.  
5.1.3 The value of KIc obtained by this test method may be used to estimate the relation between failure stress and crack size for a material in service wherein the conditions of high constraint described above would be expected. Background information concerning the basis for development of this test method in terms of linear elastic fracture mechanics may be found in Refs (1) and (2).  
5.1.4 Cyclic forces can cause crack extension at KI values less than KIc. Crack extension under cyclic or s...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of fracture toughness (KIc and optionally KIsi) of metallic materials under predominantly linear-elastic, plane-strain conditions using fatigue precracked specimens having a thickness of 1.6 mm (0.063 in.) or greater2 subjected to slowly, or in special (elective) cases rapidly, increasing crack-displacement force. Details of test apparatus, specimen configuration, and experimental procedure are given in the annexes. Two procedures are outlined for using the experimental data to calculate fracture toughness values:  
1.1.1 The KIc test procedure is described in the main body of this test standard and is a mandatory part of the testing and results reporting procedure for this test method. The KIc test procedure is based on crack growth of up to 2 % percent of the specimen width. This can lead to a specimen size dependent rising fracture toughness resistance curve, with larger specimens producing higher fracture toughness results.  
1.1.2 The KIsi test procedure is described in Appendix X1 and is an optional part of this test method. The KIsi test procedure is based on a fixed amount of crack extension of 0.5 mm, and as a result, KIsi is less sensitive to specimen size than KIc. This less size-sensitive fracture toughness, KIsi, is called size-insensitive throughout this test method. Appendix X1 contains an optional procedure for reinterpreting the force-displacement test record recorded as part of this test method to calculate the additional fracture toughness value, KIsi.
Note 1: Plane-strain fracture toughness tests of materials thinner than 1.6 mm (0.063 in.) that are sufficiently brittle (see 7.1) can be made using other types of specimens (1).3 There is no standard test method for such thin materials.  
1.2 This test method is divided into two parts. The first part gives general recommendations and requirements for testing and includes specific requirements for the KI...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju   may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations is...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The KR curve characterizes the resistance to fracture of materials during slow, stable crack extension and results from the growth of the plastic zone ahead of the crack as it extends from a fatigue precrack or sharp notch. It provides a record of the toughness development as a crack is driven stably under increasing applied stress intensity factor K. For a given material, KR curves are dependent upon specimen thickness, temperature, and strain rate. The amount of valid KR data generated in the test depends on the specimen type, size, method of loading, and, to a lesser extent, testing machine characteristics.  
5.2 For an untested geometry, the KR curve can be matched with the crack driving (applied K) curves to estimate the degree of stable crack extension and the conditions necessary to cause unstable crack propagation (2). In making this estimate, KR curves are regarded as being independent of initial crack size ao and the specimen configuration in which they are developed. For a given material, material thickness, and test temperature, KR curves appear to be a function of only the effective crack extension Δae (3).  
5.2.1 To predict crack behavior and instability in a component, a family of crack driving curves is generated by calculating  K as a function of crack size for the component using a series of force, displacement, or combined loading conditions. The KR curve may be superimposed on the family of crack driving curves as shown in Fig. 1, with the origin of the KR curve coinciding with the assumed initial crack size ao. The intersection of the crack driving curves with the KR curve shows the expected effective stable crack extension for each loading condition. The crack driving curve that develops tangency with the KR curve defines the critical loading condition that will cause the onset of unstable fracture under the loading conditions used to develop the crack driving curves.
FIG. 1 Schematic Representation of KR curve and Applied K Curves to ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the resistance to fracture of metallic materials under Mode I loading at static rates using either of the following notched and precracked specimens: the middle-cracked tension M(T) specimen or the compact tension C(T) specimen. A KR curve is a continuous record of toughness development (resistance to crack extension) in terms of KR plotted against crack extension in the specimen as a crack is driven under an increasing stress intensity factor, K. (1)2  
1.2 Materials that can be tested for KR curve development are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, so long as specimens are of sufficient size to remain predominantly elastic to the effective crack extension value of interest.  
1.3 Specimens of standard proportions are required, but size is variable, to be adjusted for yield strength and toughness of the materials.  
1.4 Only two of the many possible specimen types that could be used to develop KR curves are covered in this method.  
1.5 The test is applicable to conditions where a material exhibits slow, stable crack extension under increasing crack driving force, which may exist in relatively tough materials under plane stress crack tip conditions.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Reco...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, To, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.2) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 to 825 MPa (40 to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated To values as a function of specimen type for the same material. To values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than To values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived To values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) To differences up to 15 °C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate To results which fall between the To values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongly recomm...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju   may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations is...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju   may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations is...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju   may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barri...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Assuming the presence of a preexisting, sharp, fatigue crack, the material fracture toughness values identified by this test method characterize its resistance to: (1)  fracture of a stationary crack, (2) fracture after some stable tearing, (3) stable tearing onset, and (4) sustained stable tearing. This test method is particularly useful when the material response cannot be anticipated before the test. Application of procedures in Test Method E1921 is recommended for testing ferritic steels that undergo cleavage fracture in the ductile-to-brittle transition.  
5.1.1 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for material comparison, selection, and quality assurance. Fracture toughness can be used to rank materials within a similar yield strength range.  
5.1.2 These fracture toughness values may serve as a basis for structural flaw tolerance assessment. Awareness of differences that may exist between laboratory test and field conditions is required to make proper flaw tolerance assessment.  
5.2 The following cautionary statements are based on some observations.  
5.2.1 Particular care must be exercised in applying to structural flaw tolerance assessment the fracture toughness value associated with fracture after some stable tearing has occurred. This response is characteristic of ferritic steel in the transition regime. This response is especially sensitive to material inhomogeneity and to constraint variations that may be induced by planar geometry, thickness differences, mode of loading, and structural details.  
5.2.2 The J-R curve from bend-type specimens recommended by this test method (SE(B), C(T), and DC(T)) has been observed to be conservative with respect to results from tensile loading configurations.  
5.2.3 The values of δc, δu, Jc, and Ju   may be affected by specimen dimensions.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers procedures and guidelines for the determination of fracture toughness of metallic materials using the following parameters: K, J, and CTOD (δ). Toughness can be measured in the R-curve format or as a point value. The fracture toughness determined in accordance with this test method is for the opening mode (Mode I) of loading.
Note 1: Until this version, KIc could be evaluated using this test method as well as by using Test Method E399. To avoid duplication, the evaluation of KIc has been removed from this test method and the user is referred to Test Method E399.  
1.2 The recommended specimens are single-edge bend, [SE(B)], compact, [C(T)], and disk-shaped compact, [DC(T)]. All specimens contain notches that are sharpened with fatigue cracks.  
1.2.1 Specimen dimensional (size) requirements vary according to the fracture toughness analysis applied. The guidelines are established through consideration of material toughness, material flow strength, and the individual qualification requirements of the toughness value per values sought.  
Note 2: Other standard methods for the determination of fracture toughness using the parameters K, J, and CTOD are contained in Test Methods E399, E1290, and E1921. This test method was developed to provide a common method for determining all applicable toughness parameters from a single test.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barri...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The property KIc determined by this test method characterizes the resistance of a material to fracture in a neutral environment in the presence of a sharp crack under essentially linear-elastic stress and severe tensile constraint, such that (1) the state of stress near the crack front approaches tritensile plane strain, and (2) the crack-tip plastic zone is small compared to the crack size, specimen thickness, and ligament ahead of the crack.  
5.1.1 Variation in the value of KIc can be expected within the allowable range of specimen proportions, a/W and  W/B. KIc may also be expected to rise with increasing ligament size. Notwithstanding these variations, however, KIc is believed to represent a lower limiting value of fracture toughness (for 2 % apparent crack extension) in the environment and at the speed and temperature of the test.  
5.1.2 Lower values of KIc can be obtained for materials that fail by cleavage fracture; for example, ferritic steels in the ductile-to-brittle transition region or below, where the crack front length affects the measurement in a stochastic manner independent of crack front constraint. The present test method does not apply to such materials and the user is referred to Test Method E1921 and E1820. Likewise this test method does not apply to high toughness or high tearing-resistance materials whose failure is accompanied by appreciable amounts of plasticity. Guidance on testing elastic-plastic materials is given in Test Method E1820.  
5.1.3 The value of KIc obtained by this test method may be used to estimate the relation between failure stress and crack size for a material in service wherein the conditions of high constraint described above would be expected. Background information concerning the basis for development of this test method in terms of linear elastic fracture mechanics may be found in Refs (1) and (2).  
5.1.4 Cyclic forces can cause crack extension at KI values less than KIc. Crack extension under cyclic or s...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of fracture toughness (KIc and optionally KIsi) of metallic materials under predominantly linear-elastic, plane-strain conditions using fatigue precracked specimens having a thickness of 1.6 mm (0.063 in.) or greater2 subjected to slowly, or in special (elective) cases rapidly, increasing crack-displacement force. Details of test apparatus, specimen configuration, and experimental procedure are given in the annexes. Two procedures are outlined for using the experimental data to calculate fracture toughness values:  
1.1.1 The KIc test procedure is described in the main body of this test standard and is a mandatory part of the testing and results reporting procedure for this test method. The KIc test procedure is based on crack growth of up to 2 % percent of the specimen width. This can lead to a specimen size dependent rising fracture toughness resistance curve, with larger specimens producing higher fracture toughness results.  
1.1.2 The KIsi test procedure is described in Appendix X1 and is an optional part of this test method. The KIsi test procedure is based on a fixed amount of crack extension of 0.5 mm, and as a result, KIsi is less sensitive to specimen size than KIc. This less size-sensitive fracture toughness, KIsi, is called size-insensitive throughout this test method. Appendix X1 contains an optional procedure for reinterpreting the force-displacement test record recorded as part of this test method to calculate the additional fracture toughness value, KIsi.
Note 1: Plane-strain fracture toughness tests of materials thinner than 1.6 mm (0.063 in.) that are sufficiently brittle (see 7.1) can be made using other types of specimens (1).3 There is no standard test method for such thin materials.  
1.2 This test method is divided into two parts. The first part gives general recommendations and requirements for testing and includes specific requirements for the KI...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Surface cracks are among the most common defects found in structural components. An accurate characterization and understanding of crack-front behavior is necessary to ensure successful operation of a structure containing surface cracks. The testing of laboratory specimens with surface cracks provides a means to understand and quantify surface crack behavior, but the test results must be interpreted correctly to ensure transferability between the laboratory specimen and the structure.  
5.2 Transferability refers to the capacity of a fracture mechanics methodology to correlate the crack-tip stress and strain fields of different cracked bodies. Traditionally, the correlation has been based on the presence at fracture of a dominant, asymptotically singular, crack-tip field with amplitude set by the value of a single parameter, such as the stress intensity factor, KI, or the J-integral. For components and specimens with high crack-tip constraint, the singular crack-tip field dominates over microstructurally significant size scales for loads ranging from globally linear-elastic conditions to moderately large-scale plasticity. For specimens with low crack-tip constraint, a dominant single-parameter crack-tip field exists only at low levels of plasticity. At higher levels of plasticity, the opening mode stress of the low constraint specimen is lower than predicted by the single-parameter, asymptotically singular fields. Therefore, low constraint specimens often exhibit larger fracture toughness than do high constraint specimens. If feasible, users are strongly encouraged to generate high constraint fracture toughness data using methods such as Test Methods E399 or E1820 prior to testing the surface crack geometry.  
5.2.1 To address this phenomenon, two-parameter fracture criteria are used to include the influence of crack-tip constraint. Crack-tip constraint has been quantified using various scalar parameters including the T-stress (10, 11, 12), Q   (13, 14), stres...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes the method for testing fatigue-sharpened, semi-elliptically shaped surface cracks in rectangular flat panels subjected to monotonically increasing tension or bending. Tests quantify the crack-tip conditions at initiation of stable crack extension or immediate unstable crack extension.  
1.2 This test method applies to the testing of metallic materials not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness. Materials are assumed to be essentially homogeneous and free of residual stress. Tests may be conducted at any appropriate temperature. The effects of environmental factors and sustained or cyclic loads are not addressed in this test method.  
1.3 This test method describes all necessary details for the user to test for the initiation of crack extension in surface crack test specimens. Specific requirements and recommendations are provided for test equipment, instrumentation, test specimen design, and test procedures.  
1.4 Tests of surface cracked, laboratory-scale specimens as described in this test method may provide a more accurate understanding of full-scale structural performance in the presence of surface cracks. The provided recommendations help to assure test methods and data are applicable to the intended purpose.  
1.5 This test method prescribes a consistent methodology for test and analysis of surface cracks for research purposes and to assist in structural assessments. The methods described here utilize a constraint-based framework (1, 2)2 to evaluate the fracture behavior of surface cracks.
Note 1: Constraint-based framework. In the context of this test method, constraint is used as a descriptor of the three-dimensional stress and strain fields in the near vicinity of the crack tip, where material contractions due to the Poisson effect may be suppressed and therefore produce an elevated, tensile stress state (3, 4). (See further discussions in Terminology and Significance a...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Surface cracks are among the most common defects found in structural components. An accurate characterization and understanding of crack-front behavior is necessary to ensure successful operation of a structure containing surface cracks. The testing of laboratory specimens with surface cracks provides a means to understand and quantify surface crack behavior, but the test results must be interpreted correctly to ensure transferability between the laboratory specimen and the structure.  
5.2 Transferability refers to the capacity of a fracture mechanics methodology to correlate the crack-tip stress and strain fields of different cracked bodies. Traditionally, the correlation has been based on the presence at fracture of a dominant, asymptotically singular, crack-tip field with amplitude set by the value of a single parameter, such as the stress intensity factor, KI, or the J-integral. For components and specimens with high crack-tip constraint, the singular crack-tip field dominates over microstructurally significant size scales for loads ranging from globally linear-elastic conditions to moderately large-scale plasticity. For specimens with low crack-tip constraint, a dominant single-parameter crack-tip field exists only at low levels of plasticity. At higher levels of plasticity, the opening mode stress of the low constraint specimen is lower than predicted by the single-parameter, asymptotically singular fields. Therefore, low constraint specimens often exhibit larger fracture toughness than do high constraint specimens. If feasible, users are strongly encouraged to generate high constraint fracture toughness data using methods such as Test Methods E399 or E1820 prior to testing the surface crack geometry.  
5.2.1 To address this phenomenon, two-parameter fracture criteria are used to include the influence of crack-tip constraint. Crack-tip constraint has been quantified using various scalar parameters including the T-stress (10, 11, 12), Q   (13, 14), stres...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes the method for testing fatigue-sharpened, semi-elliptically shaped surface cracks in rectangular flat panels subjected to monotonically increasing tension or bending. Tests quantify the crack-tip conditions at initiation of stable crack extension or immediate unstable crack extension.  
1.2 This test method applies to the testing of metallic materials not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness. Materials are assumed to be essentially homogeneous and free of residual stress. Tests may be conducted at any appropriate temperature. The effects of environmental factors and sustained or cyclic loads are not addressed in this test method.  
1.3 This test method describes all necessary details for the user to test for the initiation of crack extension in surface crack test specimens. Specific requirements and recommendations are provided for test equipment, instrumentation, test specimen design, and test procedures.  
1.4 Tests of surface cracked, laboratory-scale specimens as described in this test method may provide a more accurate understanding of full-scale structural performance in the presence of surface cracks. The provided recommendations help to assure test methods and data are applicable to the intended purpose.  
1.5 This test method prescribes a consistent methodology for test and analysis of surface cracks for research purposes and to assist in structural assessments. The methods described here utilize a constraint-based framework (1, 2)2 to evaluate the fracture behavior of surface cracks.
Note 1: Constraint-based framework. In the context of this test method, constraint is used as a descriptor of the three-dimensional stress and strain fields in the near vicinity of the crack tip, where material contractions due to the Poisson effect may be suppressed and therefore produce an elevated, tensile stress state (3, 4). (See further discussions in Terminology and Significance a...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The KR curve characterizes the resistance to fracture of materials during slow, stable crack extension and results from the growth of the plastic zone ahead of the crack as it extends from a fatigue precrack or sharp notch. It provides a record of the toughness development as a crack is driven stably under increasing applied stress intensity factor K. For a given material, KR curves are dependent upon specimen thickness, temperature, and strain rate. The amount of valid KR data generated in the test depends on the specimen type, size, method of loading, and, to a lesser extent, testing machine characteristics.  
5.2 For an untested geometry, the KR curve can be matched with the crack driving (applied K) curves to estimate the degree of stable crack extension and the conditions necessary to cause unstable crack propagation (2). In making this estimate, KR curves are regarded as being independent of initial crack size ao and the specimen configuration in which they are developed. For a given material, material thickness, and test temperature, KR curves appear to be a function of only the effective crack extension Δae (3).  
5.2.1 To predict crack behavior and instability in a component, a family of crack driving curves is generated by calculating  K as a function of crack size for the component using a series of force, displacement, or combined loading conditions. The KR curve may be superimposed on the family of crack driving curves as shown in Fig. 1, with the origin of the KR curve coinciding with the assumed initial crack size ao. The intersection of the crack driving curves with the KR curve shows the expected effective stable crack extension for each loading condition. The crack driving curve that develops tangency with the KR curve defines the critical loading condition that will cause the onset of unstable fracture under the loading conditions used to develop the crack driving curves.
FIG. 1 Schematic Representation of KR curve and Applied K Curves to ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the resistance to fracture of metallic materials under Mode I loading at static rates using either of the following notched and precracked specimens: the middle-cracked tension M(T) specimen or the compact tension C(T) specimen. A KR curve is a continuous record of toughness development (resistance to crack extension) in terms of KR plotted against crack extension in the specimen as a crack is driven under an increasing stress intensity factor, K. (1)2  
1.2 Materials that can be tested for KR curve development are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, so long as specimens are of sufficient size to remain predominantly elastic to the effective crack extension value of interest.  
1.3 Specimens of standard proportions are required, but size is variable, to be adjusted for yield strength and toughness of the materials.  
1.4 Only two of the many possible specimen types that could be used to develop KR curves are covered in this method.  
1.5 The test is applicable to conditions where a material exhibits slow, stable crack extension under increasing crack driving force, which may exist in relatively tough materials under plane stress crack tip conditions.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Reco...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The KR curve characterizes the resistance to fracture of materials during slow, stable crack extension and results from the growth of the plastic zone ahead of the crack as it extends from a fatigue precrack or sharp notch. It provides a record of the toughness development as a crack is driven stably under increasing applied stress intensity factor K. For a given material, KR curves are dependent upon specimen thickness, temperature, and strain rate. The amount of valid KR data generated in the test depends on the specimen type, size, method of loading, and, to a lesser extent, testing machine characteristics.  
5.2 For an untested geometry, the KR curve can be matched with the crack driving (applied K) curves to estimate the degree of stable crack extension and the conditions necessary to cause unstable crack propagation (2). In making this estimate, KR curves are regarded as being independent of initial crack size ao and the specimen configuration in which they are developed. For a given material, material thickness, and test temperature, KR curves appear to be a function of only the effective crack extension Δae (3).  
5.2.1 To predict crack behavior and instability in a component, a family of crack driving curves is generated by calculating  K as a function of crack size for the component using a series of force, displacement, or combined loading conditions. The KR curve may be superimposed on the family of crack driving curves as shown in Fig. 1, with the origin of the KR curve coinciding with the assumed initial crack size ao. The intersection of the crack driving curves with the KR curve shows the expected effective stable crack extension for each loading condition. The crack driving curve that develops tangency with the KR curve defines the critical loading condition that will cause the onset of unstable fracture under the loading conditions used to develop the crack driving curves.
FIG. 1 Schematic Representation of KR curve and Applied K Curves to ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the resistance to fracture of metallic materials under Mode I loading at static rates using either of the following notched and precracked specimens: the middle-cracked tension M(T) specimen or the compact tension C(T) specimen. A KR curve is a continuous record of toughness development (resistance to crack extension) in terms of KR plotted against crack extension in the specimen as a crack is driven under an increasing stress intensity factor, K. (1)2  
1.2 Materials that can be tested for KR curve development are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, so long as specimens are of sufficient size to remain predominantly elastic to the effective crack extension value of interest.  
1.3 Specimens of standard proportions are required, but size is variable, to be adjusted for yield strength and toughness of the materials.  
1.4 Only two of the many possible specimen types that could be used to develop KR curves are covered in this method.  
1.5 The test is applicable to conditions where a material exhibits slow, stable crack extension under increasing crack driving force, which may exist in relatively tough materials under plane stress crack tip conditions.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Reco...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, To, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.1) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 to 825 MPa (40 to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated To values as a function of specimen type for the same material. To values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than To values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived To values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) To differences up to 15°C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate To results which fall between the To values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongly recomme...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, To, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.2) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 to 825 MPa (40 to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated To values as a function of specimen type for the same material. To values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than To values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived To values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) To differences up to 15°C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate To results which fall between the To values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongly recomme...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The property KIc determined by this test method characterizes the resistance of a material to fracture in a neutral environment in the presence of a sharp crack under essentially linear-elastic stress and severe tensile constraint, such that (1) the state of stress near the crack front approaches tritensile plane strain, and (2) the crack-tip plastic zone is small compared to the crack size, specimen thickness, and ligament ahead of the crack.  
5.1.1 Variation in the value of KIc can be expected within the allowable range of specimen proportions, a/W and  W/B. KIc may also be expected to rise with increasing ligament size. Notwithstanding these variations, however, KIc is believed to represent a lower limiting value of fracture toughness (for 2 % apparent crack extension) in the environment and at the speed and temperature of the test.  
5.1.2 Lower values of KIc can be obtained for materials that fail by cleavage fracture; for example, ferritic steels in the ductile-to-brittle transition region or below, where the crack front length affects the measurement in a stochastic manner independent of crack front constraint. The present test method does not apply to such materials and the user is referred to Test Method E1921 and E1820. Likewise this test method does not apply to high toughness or high tearing-resistance materials whose failure is accompanied by appreciable amounts of plasticity. Guidance on testing elastic-plastic materials is given in Test Method E1820.  
5.1.3 The value of KIc obtained by this test method may be used to estimate the relation between failure stress and crack size for a material in service wherein the conditions of high constraint described above would be expected. Background information concerning the basis for development of this test method in terms of linear elastic fracture mechanics may be found in Refs (1) and (2).  
5.1.4 Cyclic forces can cause crack extension at KI values less than KIc. Crack extension under cyclic or s...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of fracture toughness (KIc) of metallic materials under predominantly linear-elastic, plane-strain conditions using fatigue precracked specimens having a thickness of 1.6 mm (0.063 in.) or greater2 subjected to slowly, or in special (elective) cases rapidly, increasing crack-displacement force. Details of test apparatus, specimen configuration, and experimental procedure are given in the Annexes.
Note 1: Plane-strain fracture toughness tests of thinner materials that are sufficiently brittle (see 7.1) can be made using other types of specimens (1).3 There is no standard test method for such thin materials.  
1.2 This test method is divided into two parts. The first part gives general recommendations and requirements for KIc testing. The second part consists of Annexes that give specific information on displacement gage and loading fixture design, special requirements for individual specimen configurations, and detailed procedures for fatigue precracking. Additional annexes are provided that give specific procedures for beryllium and rapid-force testing.  
1.3 General information and requirements common to all specimen configurations:    
Section  
Referenced Documents  
2  
Terminology  
3  
Stress-Intensity Factor  
3.1.1  
Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness  
3.1.2  
Crack Plane Orientation  
3.1.4  
Summary of Test Method  
4  
Significance and Use  
5  
Significance  
5.1  
Precautions  
5.1.1 – 5.1.5  
Practical Applications  
5.2  
Apparatus (see also 1.4)  
6  
Tension Machine  
6.1  
Fatigue Machine  
6.2  
Loading Fixtures  
6.3  
Displacement Gage, Measurement  
6.4  
Specimen Size, Configurations, and Preparation (see also 1.5)  
7  
Specimen Size Estimates  
7.1  
Standard and Alternative Specimen Configurations  
7.2  
Fatigue Crack Starter Notches  
7.3.1  
Fatigue Precracking (see ...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, To, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.1) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 to 825 MPa (40 to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated To values as a function of specimen type for the same material. To values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than To values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived To values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) To differences up to 15°C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate To results which fall between the To values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongly recomme...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fracture toughness is expressed in terms of an elastic-plastic stress intensity factor, KJc, that is derived from the J-integral calculated at fracture.  
5.2 Ferritic steels are microscopically inhomogeneous with respect to the orientation of individual grains. Also, grain boundaries have properties distinct from those of the grains. Both contain carbides or nonmetallic inclusions that can act as nucleation sites for cleavage microcracks. The random location of such nucleation sites with respect to the position of the crack front manifests itself as variability of the associated fracture toughness (13). This results in a distribution of fracture toughness values that is amenable to characterization using the statistical methods in this test method.  
5.3 The statistical methods in this test method assume that the data set represents a macroscopically homogeneous material, such that the test material has both the uniform tensile and toughness properties. The fracture toughness evaluation of nonuniform materials is not amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. For example, multi-pass weldments can create heat-affected and brittle zones with localized properties that are quite different from either the bulk or weld materials. Thick-section steels also often exhibit some variation in properties near the surfaces. Metallographic analysis can be used to identify possible nonuniform regions in a material. These regions can then be evaluated through mechanical testing such as hardness, microhardness, and tensile testing for comparison with the bulk material. It is also advisable to measure the toughness properties of these nonuniform regions distinctly from the bulk material. Section 10.6 provides a screening criterion to assess whether the data set may not be representative of a macroscopically homogeneous material, and therefore, may not be amenable to the statistical analysis procedures employed in this test method. If the data ...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of a reference temperature, To, which characterizes the fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or elastic-plastic KJc instabilities, or both. The specific types of ferritic steels (3.2.1) covered are those with yield strengths ranging from 275 to 825 MPa (40 to 120 ksi) and weld metals, after stress-relief annealing, that have 10 % or less strength mismatch relative to that of the base metal.  
1.2 The specimens covered are fatigue precracked single-edge notched bend bars, SE(B), and standard or disk-shaped compact tension specimens, C(T) or DC(T). A range of specimen sizes with proportional dimensions is recommended. The dimension on which the proportionality is based is specimen thickness.  
1.3 Median KJc values tend to vary with the specimen type at a given test temperature, presumably due to constraint differences among the allowable test specimens in 1.2. The degree of KJc variability among specimen types is analytically predicted to be a function of the material flow properties (1)2 and decreases with increasing strain hardening capacity for a given yield strength material. This KJc dependency ultimately leads to discrepancies in calculated To values as a function of specimen type for the same material. To values obtained from C(T) specimens are expected to be higher than To values obtained from SE(B) specimens. Best estimate comparisons of several materials indicate that the average difference between C(T) and SE(B)-derived To values is approximately 10°C (2). C(T) and SE(B) To differences up to 15°C have also been recorded (3). However, comparisons of individual, small datasets may not necessarily reveal this average trend. Datasets which contain both C(T) and SE(B) specimens may generate To results which fall between the To values calculated using solely C(T) or SE(B) specimens. It is therefore strongly recomme...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method characterizes a metallic material’s resistance to stable crack extension in terms of crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA), ψ and/or crack-opening displacement (COD), δ5 under the laboratory or application environment of interest. This method applies specifically to fatigue pre-cracked specimens that exhibit low constraint and that are tested under slowly increasing displacement.  
5.2 When conducting fracture tests, the user must consider the influence that the loading rate and laboratory environment may have on the fracture parameters. The user should perform a literature review to determine if loading rate effects have been observed previously in the material at the specific temperature and environment being tested. The user should document specific information pertaining to their material, loading rates, temperature, and environment (relative humidity) for each test.  
5.3 The results of this characterization include the determination of a critical, lower-limiting value, of CTOA (ψc) or a resistance curve of δ5, a measure of crack-opening displacement against crack extension, or both.  
5.4 The test specimens are the compact, C(T), and middle-crack-tension, M(T), specimens.  
5.5 Materials that can be evaluated by this standard are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, if the crack-size-to-thickness (a/B) ratio or ligament-to-thickness (b/B) ratio are equal to or greater than 4, which ensures relatively low and similar global crack-front constraint for both the C(T) and M(T) specimens (2, 3).  
5.6 The values of CTOA and COD (δ5) determined by this test method may serve the following purposes:  
5.6.1 In research and development, CTOA (ψc) or COD (δ5), or both, testing can show the effects of certain parameters on the resistance to stable crack extension of metallic materials significant to service performance. These parameters include, but are not limited to, material thickness, material composition, thermo-mechanical processing,...
SCOPE
1.1 This standard covers the determination of the resistance to stable crack extension in metallic materials in terms of the critical crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA), ψc and/or the crack-opening displacement (COD), δ5 resistance curve (1).2 This method applies specifically to fatigue pre-cracked specimens that exhibit low constraint (crack-size-to-thickness and un-cracked ligament-to-thickness ratios greater than or equal to 4) and that are tested under slowly increasing remote applied displacement. The test specimens are the compact, C(T), and middle-crack-tension, M(T), specimens. The fracture resistance determined in accordance with this standard is measured as ψc (critical CTOA value) and/or δ5 (critical COD resistance curve) as a function of crack extension. Both fracture resistance parameters are characterized using either a single-specimen or multiple-specimen procedures. These fracture quantities are determined under the opening mode (Mode I) of loading. Influences of environment and rapid loading rates are not covered in this standard, but the user must be aware of the effects that the loading rate and laboratory environment may have on the fracture behavior of the material.  
1.2 Materials that are evaluated by this standard are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, if the crack-size-to-thickness (a/B) ratio and the ligament-to-thickness (b/B) ratio are greater than or equal to 4, which ensures relatively low and similar global crack-front constraint for both the C(T) and M(T) specimens (2, 3).  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory lim...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 In structures containing gradients in either toughness or stress, a crack may initiate in a region of either low toughness or high stress, or both, and arrest in another region of either higher toughness or lower stress, or both. The value of the stress intensity factor during the short time interval in which a fast-running crack arrests is a measure of the ability of the material to arrest such a crack. Values of the stress intensity factor of this kind, which are determined using dynamic methods of analysis, provide a value for the crack-arrest fracture toughness which will be termed KA  in this discussion. Static methods of analysis, which are much less complex, can often be used to determine K at a short time (1 to 2 ms) after crack arrest. The estimate of the crack-arrest fracture toughness obtained in this fashion is termed K a. When macroscopic dynamic effects are relatively small, the difference between KA  and Ka  is also small (1-4). For cracks propagating under conditions of crack-front plane-strain, in situations where the dynamic effects are also known to be small, KIa  determinations using laboratory-sized specimens have been used successfully to estimate whether, and at what point, a crack will arrest in a structure (5, 6). Depending upon component design, loading compliance, and the crack jump length, a dynamic analysis of a fast-running crack propagation event may be necessary in order to predict whether crack arrest will occur and the arrest position. In such cases, values of K Ia  determined by this test method can be used to identify those values of K below which the crack speed is zero. More details on the use of dynamic analyses can be found in Ref (4).  
5.2 This test method can serve at least the following additional purposes:  
5.2.1 In materials research and development, to establish in quantitative terms significant to service performance, the effects of metallurgical variables (such as composition or heat treatment) or fabrication o...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method employs a side-grooved, crack-line-wedge-loaded specimen to obtain a rapid run-arrest segment of flat-tensile separation with a nearly straight crack front. This test method provides a static analysis determination of the stress intensity factor at a short time after crack arrest. The estimate is denoted Ka. When certain size requirements are met, the test result provides an estimate, termed KIa, of the plane-strain crack-arrest toughness of the material.  
1.2 The specimen size requirements, discussed later, provide for in-plane dimensions large enough to allow the specimen to be modeled by linear elastic analysis. For conditions of plane-strain, a minimum specimen thickness is also required. Both requirements depend upon the crack arrest toughness and the yield strength of the material. A range of specimen sizes may therefore be needed, as specified in this test method.  
1.3 If the specimen does not exhibit rapid crack propagation and arrest, Ka  cannot be determined.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standards. The values given in parentheses are provided for information only.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 In structures containing gradients in either toughness or stress, a crack may initiate in a region of either low toughness or high stress, or both, and arrest in another region of either higher toughness or lower stress, or both. The value of the stress intensity factor during the short time interval in which a fast-running crack arrests is a measure of the ability of the material to arrest such a crack. Values of the stress intensity factor of this kind, which are determined using dynamic methods of analysis, provide a value for the crack-arrest fracture toughness which will be termed KA  in this discussion. Static methods of analysis, which are much less complex, can often be used to determine K at a short time (1 to 2 ms) after crack arrest. The estimate of the crack-arrest fracture toughness obtained in this fashion is termed K a. When macroscopic dynamic effects are relatively small, the difference between KA  and Ka  is also small (1-4). For cracks propagating under conditions of crack-front plane-strain, in situations where the dynamic effects are also known to be small, KIa  determinations using laboratory-sized specimens have been used successfully to estimate whether, and at what point, a crack will arrest in a structure (5, 6). Depending upon component design, loading compliance, and the crack jump length, a dynamic analysis of a fast-running crack propagation event may be necessary in order to predict whether crack arrest will occur and the arrest position. In such cases, values of K Ia  determined by this test method can be used to identify those values of K below which the crack speed is zero. More details on the use of dynamic analyses can be found in Ref (4).  
5.2 This test method can serve at least the following additional purposes:  
5.2.1 In materials research and development, to establish in quantitative terms significant to service performance, the effects of metallurgical variables (such as composition or heat treatment) or fabrication o...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method employs a side-grooved, crack-line-wedge-loaded specimen to obtain a rapid run-arrest segment of flat-tensile separation with a nearly straight crack front. This test method provides a static analysis determination of the stress intensity factor at a short time after crack arrest. The estimate is denoted Ka. When certain size requirements are met, the test result provides an estimate, termed KIa, of the plane-strain crack-arrest toughness of the material.  
1.2 The specimen size requirements, discussed later, provide for in-plane dimensions large enough to allow the specimen to be modeled by linear elastic analysis. For conditions of plane-strain, a minimum specimen thickness is also required. Both requirements depend upon the crack arrest toughness and the yield strength of the material. A range of specimen sizes may therefore be needed, as specified in this test method.  
1.3 If the specimen does not exhibit rapid crack propagation and arrest, Ka  cannot be determined.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standards. The values given in parentheses are provided for information only.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method characterizes a metallic material’s resistance to stable crack extension in terms of crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA), ψ and/or crack-opening displacement (COD), δ5 under the laboratory or application environment of interest. This method applies specifically to fatigue pre-cracked specimens that exhibit low constraint and that are tested under slowly increasing displacement.  
5.2 When conducting fracture tests, the user must consider the influence that the loading rate and laboratory environment may have on the fracture parameters. The user should perform a literature review to determine if loading rate effects have been observed previously in the material at the specific temperature and environment being tested. The user should document specific information pertaining to their material, loading rates, temperature, and environment (relative humidity) for each test.  
5.3 The results of this characterization include the determination of a critical, lower-limiting value, of CTOA (ψc) or a resistance curve of δ5, a measure of crack-opening displacement against crack extension, or both.  
5.4 The test specimens are the compact, C(T), and middle-crack-tension, M(T), specimens.  
5.5 Materials that can be evaluated by this standard are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, if the crack-size-to-thickness (a/B) ratio or ligament-to-thickness (b/B) ratio are equal to or greater than 4, which ensures relatively low and similar global crack-front constraint for both the C(T) and M(T) specimens (2, 3).  
5.6 The values of CTOA and COD (δ5) determined by this test method may serve the following purposes:  
5.6.1 In research and development, CTOA (ψc) or COD (δ5), or both, testing can show the effects of certain parameters on the resistance to stable crack extension of metallic materials significant to service performance. These parameters include, but are not limited to, material thickness, material composition, thermo-mechanical processing,...
SCOPE
1.1 This standard covers the determination of the resistance to stable crack extension in metallic materials in terms of the critical crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA), ψc and/or the crack-opening displacement (COD), δ5 resistance curve (1).2 This method applies specifically to fatigue pre-cracked specimens that exhibit low constraint (crack-size-to-thickness and un-cracked ligament-to-thickness ratios greater than or equal to 4) and that are tested under slowly increasing remote applied displacement. The test specimens are the compact, C(T), and middle-crack-tension, M(T), specimens. The fracture resistance determined in accordance with this standard is measured as ψc (critical CTOA value) and/or δ5 (critical COD resistance curve) as a function of crack extension. Both fracture resistance parameters are characterized using either a single-specimen or multiple-specimen procedures. These fracture quantities are determined under the opening mode (Mode I) of loading. Influences of environment and rapid loading rates are not covered in this standard, but the user must be aware of the effects that the loading rate and laboratory environment may have on the fracture behavior of the material.  
1.2 Materials that are evaluated by this standard are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, if the crack-size-to-thickness (a/B) ratio and the ligament-to-thickness (b/B) ratio are greater than or equal to 4, which ensures relatively low and similar global crack-front constraint for both the C(T) and M(T) specimens (2, 3).  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory lim...

SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of fracture propagation toughness in terms of the steady-state crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA) using the drop-weight tear test (DWTT)-type specimen. The method is applicable to pipe steels that exhibit predominantly ductile fracture with at least 85% shear area measured according to Test Method E436 - Standard Test Method for Drop-Weight Tear Tests of Ferritic Steels. This test method applies to steel pipes with wall thicknesses between 6 mm and 20 mm. Annex A1 describes the method to test pipe steels with wall thickness between 20 mm to 32 mm.  
1.2 In terms of apparatus, specimen design, and test methodology, this test method draws from Test Method E436 and API 5L3 - Recommended Practice for Conducting Drop-Weight Tear Tests on Line Pipe.  
1.3 The development of this test method has been driven by the need to design for fast ductile fracture arrest of axial running cracks in steel high-pressure gas pipelines (1). 2The purpose has been to develop a test to characterize fracture propagation resistance in a form suitable for use as a pipe mill test (2). The traditional Charpy test has been shown to be inadequate for modern high toughness pipe steels (1). This test method measures fracture propagation resistance in terms of crack-tip opening angle, and is used to characterize pipe steels.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of fracture propagation toughness in terms of the steady-state crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA) using the drop-weight tear test (DWTT)-type specimen. The method is applicable to pipe steels that exhibit predominantly ductile fracture with at least 85% shear area measured according to Test Method E436 - Standard Test Method for Drop-Weight Tear Tests of Ferritic Steels. This test method applies to steel pipes with wall thicknesses between 6 mm and 20 mm. Annex A1 describes the method to test pipe steels with wall thickness between 20 mm to 32 mm.  
1.2 In terms of apparatus, specimen design, and test methodology, this test method draws from Test Method E436 and API 5L3 - Recommended Practice for Conducting Drop-Weight Tear Tests on Line Pipe.  
1.3 The development of this test method has been driven by the need to design for fast ductile fracture arrest of axial running cracks in steel high-pressure gas pipelines (1). 2The purpose has been to develop a test to characterize fracture propagation resistance in a form suitable for use as a pipe mill test (2). The traditional Charpy test has been shown to be inadequate for modern high toughness pipe steels (1). This test method measures fracture propagation resistance in terms of crack-tip opening angle, and is used to characterize pipe steels.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method characterizes a metallic material’s resistance to stable crack extension in terms of crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA), ψ and/or crack-opening displacement (COD), δ5 under the laboratory or application environment of interest. This method applies specifically to fatigue pre-cracked specimens that exhibit low constraint and that are tested under slowly increasing displacement.  
5.2 When conducting fracture tests, the user must consider the influence that the loading rate and laboratory environment may have on the fracture parameters. The user should perform a literature review to determine if loading rate effects have been observed previously in the material at the specific temperature and environment being tested. The user should document specific information pertaining to their material, loading rates, temperature, and environment (relative humidity) for each test.  
5.3 The results of this characterization include the determination of a critical, lower-limiting value, of CTOA (ψc) or a resistance curve of δ5, a measure of crack-opening displacement against crack extension, or both.  
5.4 The test specimens are the compact, C(T), and middle-crack-tension, M(T), specimens.  
5.5 Materials that can be evaluated by this standard are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, if the crack-size-to-thickness (a/B) ratio or ligament-to-thickness (b/B) ratio are equal to or greater than 4, which ensures relatively low and similar global crack-front constraint for both the C(T) and M(T) specimens (2, 3).  
5.6 The values of CTOA and COD (δ5) determined by this test method may serve the following purposes:  
5.6.1 In research and development, CTOA (ψc) or COD (δ5), or both, testing can show the effects of certain parameters on the resistance to stable crack extension of metallic materials significant to service performance. These parameters include, but are not limited to, material thickness, material composition, thermo-mechanical processing,...
SCOPE
1.1 This standard covers the determination of the resistance to stable crack extension in metallic materials in terms of the critical crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA), ψc and/or the crack-opening displacement (COD), δ5 resistance curve (1).2 This method applies specifically to fatigue pre-cracked specimens that exhibit low constraint (crack-size-to-thickness and un-cracked ligament-to-thickness ratios greater than or equal to 4) and that are tested under slowly increasing remote applied displacement. The test specimens are the compact, C(T), and middle-crack-tension, M(T), specimens. The fracture resistance determined in accordance with this standard is measured as ψc (critical CTOA value) and/or δ5 (critical COD resistance curve) as a function of crack extension. Both fracture resistance parameters are characterized using either a single-specimen or multiple-specimen procedures. These fracture quantities are determined under the opening mode (Mode I) of loading. Influences of environment and rapid loading rates are not covered in this standard, but the user must be aware of the effects that the loading rate and laboratory environment may have on the fracture behavior of the material.  
1.2 Materials that are evaluated by this standard are not limited by strength, thickness, or toughness, if the crack-size-to-thickness (a/B) ratio and the ligament-to-thickness (b/B) ratio are greater than or equal to 4, which ensures relatively low and similar global crack-front constraint for both the C(T) and M(T) specimens (2, 3).  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory lim...