See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251485700

Estimation of fracture toughness of 20MnMoNi55 steel in the ductile to brittle

transition region using master curve method

Article in Nuclear Engineering and Design · August 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.05.033

CITATIONS READS

14 76

7 authors, including:

Tanmoy Bose S. Acharyya

National Institute of Technology, Meghalaya 16 PUBLICATIONS 219 CITATIONS
26 PUBLICATIONS 81 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Prasanta Sahoo Jayanta Chattopadhyay

Jadavpur University Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
296 PUBLICATIONS 2,438 CITATIONS 126 PUBLICATIONS 1,514 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

fracture mechanics View project

Low cost, faster and accurate low velocity impact damage imaging along with depth profiling for Carbon Fibre Reinforced Composite Materials using Vibro-
thermography and Concept of Local Defect Resonance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tanmoy Bose on 12 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2831–2838

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Estimation of fracture toughness of 20MnMoNi55 steel in the ductile to brittle

transition region using master curve method
S. Bhowmik a , A. Chattopadhyay a , T. Bose a , S.K. Acharyya a , P. Sahoo a,∗ , J. Chattopadhyay b , S. Dhar a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India
b
Reactor Safety Division, Bhaba Atomic Research Center, Trombay, Mumbai 400085, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fracture toughness is an important material property to assess the critical load for structural integrity
Received 20 December 2010 of reactor pressure vessel steel. In this paper, master curve method proposed by Kim Wallin is used to
Received in revised form 19 May 2011 estimate the fracture toughness of 20MnMoNi55 steel in the ductile to brittle transition regime. Reference
Accepted 20 May 2011
temperature (T0 ) is evaluated using both single temperature and multi-temperature method for one inch
thick compact tension (1T-CT) specimens. Reference temperature (T0 ) is also determined from Charpy V-
notch test data and compared. Effect of selection of temperature range and number of test temperatures
on the value of T0 is also studied. It is observed that Charpy test results yield lower values of unirradiated
T0 compared to 1T-CT specimen tests. It is also observed that most of the fracture toughness values fall
between 5% and 95% boundary of fracture toughness curves for all the evaluations.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction parameters such as the J-integral. Elastic–plastic fracture mechan-

20MnMoNi55 low carbon steel is a ductile material, which is
widely used for pressure vessels, compressors and steam gener-
ators in power plants. Reactor pressure vessel (RPV) materials in
nuclear power plants are degraded by various causes during plant
operation like thermal aging embrittlement, neutron irradiation
embrittlement, etc. Among these causes, neutron irradiation is the
most significant. A precise fracture safe analysis must be done
during the plant operation to ensure the structural integrity of
RPV material against neutron irradiation embrittlement by assess-
ing critical load in the given environment. Fracture toughness is
key input variable for computing critical load. Life time of reac-
tor pressure vessels is practically determined by their resistance
against brittle/non-ductile failure (EricsonKirk and EricsonKirk,
2006; Sreenivasan, 2008). The effect of neutron irradiation is
reflected through loss of ductility, fracture toughness, strength
and increase of ductile to brittle transition (DBT) temperature.
But high fracture toughness and low DBT temperature values are
needed to avoid fracture not only during service but also prior
to start up in case of some ferritic RPV components (Kim et al.,
2002; Serrano et al., 2000). The value of fracture toughness is very
scattered and large size specimens are required to obtain valid
linear elastic fracture toughness value. Fracture behavior of duc-
tile materials is usually characterized by elastic plastic fracture
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 33 2414 6890; fax: +91 33 2414 6890.
E-mail addresses: psjume@gmail.com, psahoo@mech.jdvu.ac.in (P. Sahoo).
ics based J-integral evaluation techniques enable determination of
fracture toughness values with much smaller specimens (Wallin,
1985). But the variations in this parameter with constraint are often
difficult to rationalize, particularly when it is employed to rep-
resent material behavior and it is needed to be universal, largely
independent of test and specimen parameters (Narasaiah et al.,
2010). Fracture toughness is a temperature dependent material
property. The temperature dependence of fracture toughness at
cleavage and ductile fracture is widely used for analysis of the
structural integrity of RPV. It is usually not possible to assess the
fracture toughness beforehand if the temperature of interest is in
the transition or on the upper/lower shelf. It is useful to know the
temperature dependence of both the transition fracture toughness
and the upper/lower shelf fracture toughness (Kim et al., 2002). The
effect of increase of DBT temperature and higher fracture toughness
is reflected in the shift of Charpy absorbed energy–temperature
and fracture toughness–temperature curves. JIC (critical J value for
mode I loading) is the well established fracture parameter to pre-
dict crack growth. In most of the cases the onset of crack growth
is assumed to be the critical points for components. The Charpy
impact test is the most commonly used method to determine the
susceptibility of steel to brittle fracture under notched condition
in the transition region because it can provide a relatively simple,
quick and inexpensive measure of material toughness. The main
drawback is that Charpy test cannot provide fracture toughness
by itself. It is helpful to develop a method for evaluating the frac-
ture toughness parameter, reference temperature (T0 ) of the master
curve method using abundant Charpy test data (Kim et al., 2002).

0029-5493/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.05.033
2832 S. Bhowmik et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2831–2838

Charpy impact test method and master curve method. Both the
Nomenclature single temperature and multi-temperature analysis are used to
determine the reference temperature for master curve of the mate-
a half crack length rial on 1T-CT specimen. The master curve reference temperature
B gross thickness of the specimen (T0 ) is found on the single temperature evaluation at two differ-
B0 thickness of the tested specimen ent test temperatures. For multi-temperature evaluation different
B1T thickness of 1T-CT specimen range of test temperatures are used. T0 is determined using test
b0 initial ligament length data at different temperature bandwidths and the effect of test
Cv Charpy impact energy temperature range on the value of T0 is also studied. For direct
CVN Charpy V-notch absorbed energy unstable brittle fracture, JC (J value at the onset of cleavage frac-
J J-integral ture) is measured from experiment and for brittle fracture with
JIC critical J value for mode I loading ductile stretch, JC is estimated from J − a curve using ASTM and
K0 63.2% cumulative failure probability stretch zone width (SZW) method. The reference temperature is
KIC critical stress intensity factor for mode I fracture also determined from Charpy impact test results and a compar-
KIC(X) critical stress intensity factor estimated from J- ative study is made for fracture toughness curves determined by
integral different methods.
KJC plain strain cleavage fracture toughness
KJC(0.XX) lower and upper tolerance bound for estimated frac-
2. Master curve analysis
ture toughness
√
Kmin lower bound fracture toughness fixed at 20 MPa m
2.1. Master curve analysis for Charpy test data
according to ASTM E1921-02
KJC(median) median fracture toughness value for 50% cumula-
Wallin (1984) showed that the brittle fracture probability Pf for
tive probability failure
a given temperature in the transition region is described by a three
M ASTM material constant
parameter Weibull model in the following form
Pf failure probability   4 
T test temperature KJC − Kmin
T0 reference temperature Pf = 1 − exp − (1)
K0 − Kmin
W specimen width
ıi censoring parameter where Pf is the probability of fracture at KJC for an arbitrarily cho-
 Poisson’s ratio sen specimen from a specimen set, KJC value is converted value
y flow stress √
of JC equal to critical K obtained from JC in MPa m, K0 is a scale
 ys yield strength parameter dependent on the test temperature and specimen thick-
 us ultimate strength ness, and Kmin is the minimum possible fracture toughness. For the
 increment quantity transition region, there are several empirical correlations between
Charpy absorbed energy and linear elastic fracture toughness. In
this study, Barsom and Rolfe’s (1970) correlation has been used to
The master curve methodology is based on cleavage fracture estimate the fracture toughness transition curve based on experi-
model that assumes randomly distributed fracture initiators in a mental results. Barsom and Rolfe correlated linear elastic fracture
macroscopically homogenous matrix. The generic form assumed toughness (KJC ) with the transition impact energy by the following
for the fracture toughness vs. temperature function makes the mas- equation.
ter curve model universal for all ferritic steels, provided the basic 2
KIC
assumptions of the model are satisfied. The master curve method- = 2.2 × 10−4 (CVN)3/2 (2)
ology is a statistical, theoretical, micro-mechanism based analysis E
method for fracture toughness in DBT region (EricsonKirk and where KIC is the critical stress intensity factor in mode I fracture
√
EricsonKirk, 2006). The master curve method allows the prediction MPa m, E is the Young’s modulus of the material in MPa, and CVN
of the fracture toughness curve in terms of the fracture toughness is the Charpy absorbed energy in J. The fracture toughness obtained
reference temperature (T0 ), for any given fracture probability and by Eq. (2) is the linear elastic strain fracture toughness, which could
any specimen thickness on the basis of small sized specimen test- be obtained on a relatively large specimen. According to Weakest
ing. The master curve defines both the variation of the median value link theory, effect of specimen thickness is not negligible; hence
of fracture toughness with temperature and the scatter of fracture larger thickness is needed for the higher temperature to get a valid
toughness about this median value. The master curve together with KIC as material constant. Therefore, the fracture toughness values
an ASTM E1921 reference temperature (T0 ) value defines the com- obtained from Eq. (2) have been normalized to those of the IT size
plete transition fracture toughness curve in a manner appropriate using the following equation.
for use in both probabilistic and deterministic analysis. In the mas-  B 1/4
1T
ter curve method, a fracture toughness curve is determined by a KJC(1T) = Kmin + [KIC(X) − Kmin ] (3)
B0
single parameter that establishes the position of the master curve
on temperature scale. This parameter is termed as T0 and is defined where Kmin is the lower bound fracture toughness fixed at
√
as the temperature at which the median fracture toughness for 1T- 20 MPa m for ferritic steel, B0 is thickness of the tested specimen
√
CT fracture toughness specimen equals 100 MPa m (Rosinski and (side grooves not considered) in mm, B1T is the thickness of 1T-CT
Server, 2000). The master curve method is also used to construct specimen (Wallin, 1984, 1985; Kim et al., 2002, 2003). However the
a bounding curve on the fracture toughness. Typically a bounding thickness values corresponding to particular KIC data are not avail-
curve with a 95% degree of confidence is used as lower bound on able. Hence to get a valid KIC , the thickness of the specimen should
2
the fracture toughness values. This implies that 95% of all fracture not be less than 2.5(KIC /ys ) . Therefore the above relationship has
measurements should fall above the confidence/tolerance bound. been used to determine the thickness values corresponding to KIC
The objective of the present paper is to determine the fracture data obtained from the CVN data using Eq. (2) when the calculated
toughness of 20MnMoNi55 steel at the temperature of interest by thickness (B0 ) is greater than 1T. If the calculated thickness is less
 S. Bhowmik et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2831–2838 2833

Table 1
Chemical composition of 20MnMoNi55 steel.

Name of element C Si Mn P S Al Ni Mo Cr Nb

Percentage composition (in weight) 0.20 0.24 1.38 0.011 0.005 0.068 0.52 0.30 0.06 0.032

than 1T-CT, then the estimated thickness is cut off as 1T (Kim et al., 2.3. Evaluation of T0 from single temperature test data
2002).
For single temperature evaluation, the estimation of the scale
parameter K0 , is performed according to following equation.
2.2. Master curve analysis for fracture test data 1/4
N (KJC(i) − Kmin )4
K0 = + Kmin (8)
The transition curve definition for ferritic steels, as specified in i=1 N
ASTM E1921 was originally derived in 1991 from data measured
The fracture toughness for a median (50%) cumulative probabil-
on various quenched and tempered structural steel. The tempera-
ity of fracture is determined using the following equation.
ture dependence of the median fracture toughness in the transition
region can be estimated from (Serrano et al., 2000) KJC(median) = Kmin + (K0 − Kmin )(ln 2)1/4 (9)

Here KJC(i) is the individual KJC(1T) value and N is the number of KJC
KJC(median) = 30 + 70 exp[0.019(T − T0 )] (4) values. The term N is replaced by the number of valid KJC values
(if censored KJC values are included) in the calculation. Now the
Once T0 is known for a given material, the fracture toughness KJC(median) value determined for the data set at test temperature
√
distribution can be obtained as a function of temperature through is used to calculate T0 at KJC(median) of 100 MPa m by using the
Eqs. (1) and (4). Now both upper and lower tolerance bounds can following equation:
be calculated using following equation (Brumovský, 2002).  1   
KJC(median) − 30
T0 = T − ln (10)
  1
 1/4
0.019 70
KJC(0.XX) = 20 + ln {11 + 77 exp[0.019(T − T0 )]}(5)
1 − 0.XX 2.4. Evaluation of T0 from multi-temperature test data

where 0.XX represents the cumulative probability level. For multi-temperature evaluation the determination of T0 is
To determine T0 , replicate fracture toughness tests at a constant performed with KJC values distributed over a restricted tempera-
temperature are performed. The ASTM standard recommends at ture range, namely, T0 = ±50 ◦ C. The value of T0 is evaluated by an
least 6 tests and these data are then fit to Eq. (1) to determine K0 at iterative solution of the following equation (Viehrig et al., 2002):
the test temperature. The median fracture toughness at this tem-
N
perature can be obtained by setting Pf = 0.5 and solving for KJC in ıi exp[0.019(Ti − T0 )]
Eq. (1) and finally T0 is compared by rearranging Eq. (4). 11 + 77 exp[0.019(Ti − T0 )]
The KJC limit is calculated according to the ASTM E1921 stan- i=1

dard (Rosinski and Server, 2000; Wallin, 2002) and is given in the N
(KJC(i) − Kmin )4 exp[0.019(Ti − T0 )]
following form. −  5 = 0 (11)
i=1 11 + 77 exp[0.019(Ti − T0 )]
Eb0 ys Here Ti is the test temperature corresponding to KJC(i) and ıi is the
KJC(limit) = (6)
M(1 − 2 ) censoring parameter.
ıi = 1 if the KJC(i) datum is valid
where E is the modulus of elasticity of the material, b0 is the ini- ıi = 0 if the KJC(i) datum is not valid and censored
tial specimen ligament length (W − a0 ) mm, M is the constraint in Margins are usually added to cover the uncertainty in T0 that is
ASTM E1921-02 equal to 30,  is the Poisson’s ratio equal to 0.33 associated with the use of only a few specimens to establish this
and ys is the material yield strength at the test temperature. In reference temperature.
addition to size requirement there is the maximum ductile crack
growth criterion of 0.05 (W − a0 ) or 1 mm, whichever is smaller. 3. Material details
The KJC values above the validity criteria shall be censored to the
validity limit. The following weighting system from ASTM E1921- The material used in the present study is 20MnMoNi55 RPV
02 specifies the required minimum number of valid KJC data points, applications steel. 20MnMoNi55 is a German designated material.
A test block of this material is received from Bhaba Atomic Research
Centre, India. The different chemical compositions of the material
3
are given in Table 1.
ri ni ≥ 1 (7)
i=1 4. Experimental details

Here ri is the number of valid KJC tests within T − T0 range and
ni is the specimen weight factor as a function of T − T0 . The value
of T0 is calculated after inclusion of all valid and censored values
according to the single or multi-temperature methods. For the sin-
gle temperature method, additional specimen has to be tested at
the chosen test temperature. However multi-temperature method
is more effective way than the single temperature method.
4.1. Tensile test
Tensile tests are performed on round bar specimen according
to ASTM E8 standard. The tensile test is carried out at different
temperatures in the range between 22 ◦ C and −140 ◦ C to evaluate
the yield strength, ultimate strength and modulus of elasticity of
the material at different temperatures which are essential inputs
2834 S. Bhowmik et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2831–2838
Fig. 1. (a) Experimental arrangement for JC test. (b) Pull rod setup inside the cryo-chamber.
for the estimation of J-integral. All tensile tests are done in the
cryo-chamber attached to a computer controlled Universal Testing
Machine with 100 kN grip capacity. The required zero and sub-
zero test temperature are attained by flowing liquid nitrogen from
fully automated self pressurized Dewar flask of 120 L capacity. The
chamber temperature is controlled from type K thermocouple via
temperature controller which drives the heater through solid state
relay (SSR) and also the coolant solenoid valve. All tensile tests are
done under displacement control mode to avoid the strain effect.
4.2. Charpy impact test
The Charpy impact tests are performed according to ASTM
E23 method with eleven numbers of specimens at temperature
25 ◦ C, 8 ◦ C, −10 ◦ C, −27 ◦ C, −45 ◦ C, −62 ◦ C, −80 ◦ C, −97 ◦ C, −115 ◦ C,
−132 ◦ C and −150 ◦ C to generate the Charpy absorbed energy vs.
temperature curve.
4.3. Fatigue pre-cracking test
The fracture toughness tests in this investigation are performed
on CT specimens in L–T orientation. Standard 1T-CT specimens are
machined according to ASTM E399-90 standard. To introduce sharp
crack, fatigue pre-cracking was done on 1T-CT specimens at room
temperature according to ASTM E647 standard on servo-hydraulic
universal testing machine using commercial da/dN (Fatigue crack
growth rate per cycle) fatigue crack propagation software. The crack
lengths are measured by compliance technique using a COD gauge
of 10 mm gauge length mounted on the load line of the speci-
men. All pre-cracking experiments are carried out at stress ratio
(R) of 0.02 using initial frequency of 10 Hz and with a constant
√
K (increment stress intensity factor) of 30 MPa m and later on
the frequency is increased to 15 Hz. All specimens are pre-cracked
in the range of a/W = 0.45 − 0.50 to achieve a total crack length
of approximately 25 mm. Now to determine J-integral values, the
pre-cracked specimens are tested in Universal testing machine at
different temperatures range between 22 ◦ C and −140 ◦ C. The JIC
fracture toughness program is used for J-integral testing to obtain
J − a data. This program performs the fracture toughness test in
accordance to ASTM E1820 and the method is applied specially to
specimens having notch or flaws that are sharpened with fatigue
cracks. The loading rate is kept slow and cracking caused by envi-
ronmental factors is considered to be negligible. The required zero
and sub-zero test temperature are attained by flowing liquid nitro-
gen.
4.4. Fracture toughness test
The photograph of the experimental setup for JC test is shown in
Fig. 1 and the test procedure for JC test is discussed here. Operation
of the JC test consists of the following steps: preparing the testing
system, entering parameters into the test programme, running test
and retrieving, and storing and displaying test results. After cali-
brating all the transducer channels, the CT specimen is griped into
the pull rod and the COD gauge is mounted on the specimen inside
the cryo-chamber. The zero and sub-zero temperature test temper-
atures are attained by flowing liquid nitrogen. Desired information
is entered in the appropriate fields on the main setup screen in
computer and then the experiment is carried out.
 S. Bhowmik et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2831–2838 2835

Fig. 2. Values of yield and ultimate strength at different temperatures. Fig. 3. Charpy energy vs. temperature.

5. Results and discussion
5.1. Tensile test results
The variation of yield strength and ultimate tensile strength
of 20MnMoNi55 steel with temperature is shown in Fig. 2. With
the decrease of test temperature both yield and ultimate tensile
strength increase as expected. The relations between yield and ulti-
mate strength with test temperature are derived using the best fit
curve and the equations are given below.
Yield strength : ys = 0.0112T 2 − 0.0431T + 494.01
Ultimate strength : us = 0.0058T 2 − 0.6817T + 644.81
Here T is in ◦ C and strengths are in MPa.
5.2. Charpy test results and master curve from Charpy test data
The results of Charpy absorbed energy vs. temperature obtained
by conducting Charpy impact test are listed in Table 2 and the plot
is shown in Fig. 3. From the test results, it is found that the Charpy
absorbed energy values start decreasing with decrease in tempera-
ture at about 0 ◦ C and the sharp slope continues up to −100 ◦ C and
then gets saturated on further decrease in temperature. The test
results fit well with the tangent hyperbolic curve,
 T + 47.3 
CV = 142 + 134.5 tanh (14)
43.3
where CV stands for Charpy impact energy in J and T is the test
temperature in ◦ C The actual temperature during the striking on
the specimen is little bit lower than the recorded temperature. The
Charpy transition curve is obtained by fitting the Charpy V-notch
absorbed energy (CVN) data to a tangent hyperbolic function.
Initial estimation of master curve reference temperature for 1T
(12) specimen is T41 J − 24 ◦ C, where T41 J is the transition temperature
measured at Charpy energy of 41 J in ◦ C (Sreenivasan, 2008). From
(13) the Charpy test data the value of T41 J = −90 ◦ C. Hence reference
temperature T0 is estimated as −114 ◦ C. From the Charpy transi-
tion curve of the material, the linear elastic fracture toughness is
estimated and finally the 1T-CT equivalent elastic plastic fracture
toughness transition curve of the material is obtained and shown in
Fig. 4. The KJC values at different temperatures from Charpy impact
test are listed in Table 3.
Six fractures toughness dataset have been taken from the Charpy
impact test data. The dataset are selected in the range from
√ √
100 MPa m to 300 MPa m (Kim et al., 2002) and these data are
used to determine the reference temperature T0 to generate master
curve. The reference temperature value T0 = −122 ◦ C.

Table 2 5.3. J-integral test result at different temperatures

Charpy test results at different temperatures.

Temperature (◦ C) Charpy energy (kgf m) Charpy energy (J) J-integral test has been conducted at different temperatures in
the range between 22 ◦ C and −140 ◦ C. Some specimens show an
25 25.6 251.1
8 26.2 257 initial ductile stretch followed by brittle failure and some undergo
−10 19.6 192.3 direct brittle failure. Brittle fracture in the specimen has been
−27 27.2 266.8 observed at and below test temperature −60 ◦ C. Six tests have been
−45 15.2 149.1 done at −80 ◦ C and nine tests at −110 ◦ C to determine the refer-
−62 6.6 64.7
−80 2.0 19.6
ence temperature using single temperature method. The results of
−97 5.0 49.1 J-integral at different temperatures are listed in Table 4.
−115 2.0 19.6 Now to determine the critical value of JC for brittle failure with
−132 0.6 5.9 ductile stretch ASTM and SZW method can be used. For this material
−150 1.0 9.8
these two methods may be used to determine the critical fracture
2836 S. Bhowmik et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2831–2838

Table 3
Results of fracture toughness from Charpy impact test data.
√ √
Temperature (◦ C) CVN (kJ) KJC from CVN (MPa m) Yield strength (MPa) Thickness (m) KJC (1T) (MPa m)

−45 149.14 283.09 518.63 0.7448 634.65

−50 133.62 260.70 524.17 0.6184 556.80
−55 118.33 237.99 530.26 0.5036 481.80
−60 103.64 215.47 536.91 0.4026 411.58
−65 90.00 193.65 544.13 0.3166 347.58
−70 77.31 172.94 551.91 0.2455 290.74
−75 66.05 153.68 560.24 0.1881 241.40
−80 56.16 136.08 569.14 0.1429 199.48
−85 47.62 120.24 578.59 0.1080 164.51
−90 40.36 106.21 588.61 0.0814 135.80
−95 34.26 93.92 599.19 0.0614 112.55
−100 29.18 83.29 610.32 0.0466 93.93
−105 25.00 74.17 622.02 0.0355 79.15
−110 21.58 66.42 634.27 0.0274 67.50
−115 18.80 59.89 647.09 0.0213 59.89
−120 16.55 54.42 660.46 0.0170 54.42
−125 14.73 49.88 674.40 0.0137 49.88

toughness values at temperature 22 ◦ C to −60 ◦ C The critical value less than 50 ◦ C, the result is valid. The master curve at T = −110 ◦ C
of SZW is 250 ␮m at 22 ◦ C. is shown in Fig. 5.

5.4. Master curve from fracture toughness test results of 1T-CT
specimen at different temperatures
5.4.1. Master curve from single temperature evaluation
From fracture toughness test it is found that the material exhib-
ited a very high scatter of fracture toughness in the transition
region. For single temperature evaluation, tests have been done at
two different temperatures, i.e., at −80 ◦ C and −110 ◦ C.
At −80 ◦ C, measured fracture toughness values vary from 109 to
√ √
273 MPa m and at −110 ◦ C the variation is from 63 to 191 MPa m.
The characteristic feature of these data is that both the upper and
lower bound of fracture toughness increase with temperature as
expected. At −80 ◦ C, six tests have been performed on only one
specimen size and a fixed Kmin value is used. From Eq. (8), K0 is
√
obtained as 243 MPa m. The values of KJC(median) and T0 obtained
√
from Eqs. (9) and (10) are 224 MPa m and −134 ◦ C respectively.
The difference between test temperature and reference tempera-
ture is more than 50 ◦ C. Hence the result is invalid.
Now at −110 ◦ C, nine fracture tests have been performed. The
√
value of K0 and T0 is 142 MPa m and −130 ◦ C respectively. Since the
difference between test temperature and reference temperature is
5.4.2. Master curve for multi-temperature analysis
In case of multi-temperature evaluation, different temperature
sequences have been considered. The value of T0 considering dif-
ferent test temperatures is −129 ◦ C. The master curve considering
reference temperature T0 = −129 ◦ C is shown in Fig. 6. The values
of T0 calculated by different test temperatures combinations are
listed in Table 5.
When the data of two test temperatures are used, the value of T0
varies from −128 ◦ C to −133 ◦ C. When the data of three test temper-
atures are used, the value of T0 varies between −127 ◦ C and −131 ◦ C
and the range is −126–−130 ◦ C when the data of four test tempera-
tures are used. This indicates that as the number of test temperature
increases, the value of T0 is more consistent. Therefore at least three
different temperature tests should be performed to estimate the
reference temperature when multi-temperature method is used.
Here the reference temperature considered is −129 ◦ C. The value
of T0 at different test temperatures range is listed in Table 6.
When the range of test temperatures is −80 ◦ C to −140 ◦ C, the
value of T0 varies from −129 ◦ C to −133 ◦ C at different sequences
and when the range varies from −100 ◦ C to −140 ◦ C, the values of
T0 varies from −126 ◦ C to −129 ◦ C. Similarly when the test temper-

Table 4
J-integral experimental results.
√
Temperature (◦ C) Initial ligament length (mm) Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate stress (MPa) Experimental JC (kJ/m2 ) KJC (MPa m)

−140 25 723.47 856.84 37.22 91.40

−130 25 685.49 817.47 30.25 82.40
−120 25 667.06 813.66 6.7 38.78
−110 25 631.83 780 82.25 135.87
−110 25 631.83 780 42.28 97.42
−110 25 631.83 780 136.34 174.93
−110 25 631.83 780 79.02 133.17
−110 25 631.83 780 31.20 83.68
−110 22.5 631.83 780 17.80 63.21
−110 25 631.83 780 78.48 132.72
−110 25 631.83 780 21.54 69.53
−110 25 631.83 780 161.69 190.50
−100 25 593.43 760.5 119 163.41
−90 25 586.97 746.31 424.49 308.66
−80 25 562.22 736 265.59 244.15
−80 25 562.22 736 317.41 266.91
−80 25 562.22 736 305.06 261.66
−80 25 562.22 736 171.84 196.39
−80 25 562.22 736 331.66 272.84
−80 25 562.22 736 52.5 108.51
−70 25 551.92 716.73 463.92 322.68
−60 25 538.02 708.92 626.13 374.87
 S. Bhowmik et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2831–2838 2837

Fig. 6. Master curve for multi-temperature evaluation.

Fig. 4. Fracture toughness transition curve from CVN data.

Table 5
Values of T0 at different combination of test temperatures.

Number of test Combination of test temperature T0 (◦ C) Remarks

temperature

2 −80 and −100 −133 Invalid

2 −80 and −110 −131 Invalid
2 −80 and −120 −131 Invalid
2 −80 and −130 −131 Invalid
2 −80 and −140 −131 Invalid
2 −110 and −100 −129 Valid
2 −110 and −120 −128 Valid
2 −110 and −130 −128 Valid
2 −110 and −140 −128 Valid
3 −80, −100 and −110 −131 Invalid
3 −100, −110 and −120 −128 Valid
3 −80, −100 and −120 −131 Invalid
3 −80, −100 and −130 −131 Valid
3 −80, −100 and −140 −131 Invalid
3 −80, −130 and −140 −130 Invalid
3 −110, −120 and −130 −127 Valid
4 −80, −100, −110 and −130 −130 Invalid
4 −80, −100, −110 and −120 −130 Invalid
4 −100, −110, −120 and −130 −127 Valid
4 −110, −120, −130 and −140 −126 Valid
4 −80, −120, −130 and −140 −130 Invalid
5 −100, −110, −120, −130 and −140 −126 Valid
5 −80, −100, −110, −120 and −130 −129 Valid
Fig. 5. Master curve at T = −110 ◦ C for single temperature evaluation. 5 −80, −110, −120, −130 and −140 −129 Valid
6 −80, −100, −110, −120, −130 and −140 −129 Valid

ature range varies from −110 ◦ C to −140 ◦ C, the value of T0 varies Table 6
from −126 ◦ C to −128 ◦ C. Values of T0 at different test temperatures range.

Sl. no. Range of temperatures T0 (◦ C)

6. Comparison in master curves obtained by different 1. −80, −100, −110, −120, −130 and −140 −129
methods 2. −80, −100, −110, −120 and −130 −129
3. −80, −100, −110 and −120 −130
4. −80, −100, and −110 −131
A comparison has been made between the fracture toughness
5. −80 and −100 −133
master curves for three different methods, i.e., master curve from 6. −100, −110, −120, −130 and −140 −126
Charpy impact test results, master curve from single temperature 7. −100, −110, −120 and −130 −127
evaluation and master curve from multi-temperature evaluation. 8. −100, −110 and −120 −128
9. −100 and −110 −129
The comparison is shown in Fig. 7. It is observed that most of the
10. −110, −120, −130 and −140 −126
fracture toughness values obtained by different methods satisfy 5% 11. −110, −120 and −130 −127
and 95% bound tolerance curves obtained by multi-temperature 12. −110 and −120 −128
evaluation.
2838 S. Bhowmik et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2831–2838
Fig. 7. Comparison of master curves derived from different methods.
7. Conclusion
Fracture toughness of 20MnMoNi55 steel is evaluated by Charpy
impact test method and master curve method. Both the single tem-
perature and multi-temperature analysis are used to determine the
reference temperature for master curve of the material on 1T-CT
specimen. From the present study, the following conclusions can
be made.
(i) Like other ferritic RPV steels, this material also shows the scat-
terness of the fracture toughness values in DBT region.
(ii) Brittle fracture is observed at and below −80 ◦ C.
(iii) As expected, the reference temperature T0 obtained from 1T-
CT fracture tests is less than the Charpy impact test data. The
variation in T0 between these two methods is ±5 ◦ C.
(iv) Although multi-temperature method is more effective in esti-
mating reference temperature, in the present study both single
and multi-temperature estimation yield close result.
(v) In case of multi-temperature evaluation T0 is found to be
more consistent when number and range of test temperatures
increase.
View publication stats
(vi) Considering fracture toughness curve derived from multi-
temperature method as reference curve, it is found that most
of the fracture toughness values fall within 95% and 5% bound
confidence levels of the reference curve.
Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge the support of Bhaba Atomic Research
Centre, India for providing experimental infrastructure and the
first author acknowledges the fellowship support of Department
of Science and Technology, Government of India through PURSE
program.
References
ASTM E8/E8M-09. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials,
http://www.astm.org/Standards/E8.htm.
ASTM E399-09e1. Standard Test Method for Plane-strain Fracture Toughness of
Metallic Materials, http://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/E399-
90R97.htm.
ASTM E647-08e1. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth
Rates, http://www.astm.org/Standards/E647.htm.
ASTM E1820-09e1. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness,
http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1820.htm.
ASTM E1921-10. Standard Test Method for Determination of Refer-
ence Temperature, T0 , for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range,
http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1921.htm.
Barsom, J.M., Rolfe, S.T., 1970. Correlations between KIC and Charpy V-notch test
results in the transition-temperature range. ASTM STP 466, pp. 281–302.
Brumovský, M., 2002. Check of master curve application to embrittled RPVs of
WWER type reactors. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79,
715–721.
EricsonKirk, M., EricsonKirk, M., 2006. An upper-shelf fracture toughness master
curve for ferritic steels. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 83,
571–583.
Kim, S., Lee, S., Lee, B.S., 2003. Effects of grain size on fracture toughness in transition
temperature region of Mn–Mo–Ni low-alloy steels. Materials and Engineering
A 359, 198–209.
Kim, S.H., Park, Y.W., Kang, S.S., Chung, H.D., 2002. Estimation of fracture toughness
transition curves of RPV steels from Charpy impact test data. Nuclear Engineer-
ing and Design 212, 49–57.
Narasaiah, N., Tarafder, S., Sivaprasad, S., 2010. Effect of crack depth on fracture
toughness of 20MnMoNi55 pressure vessel steel. Material Science and Engi-
neering A 527, 2408–2411.
Rosinski, S.T., Server, W.L., 2000. Application of the master curve in the ASME code.
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77, 591–598.
Serrano, M., Perosanz, F.J., Lepeña, J., 2000. Direct measurement of reactor pressure
vessel steels fracture toughness: master curve concept and instrumented Charpy
V-test. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 77, 605–612.
Sreenivasan, P.R., 2008. Estimation of ASTM E-1921 reference temperature from
Charpy tests: Charpy energy – fracture toughness correlation method. Engineer-
ing Fracture Mechanics 75, 5229–5245.
Viehrig, H.-W., Boehmert, J., Dzugan, J., 2002. Some issues by using the master curve
concept. Nuclear Engineering and Design 212, 115–124.
Wallin, K., 1984. The scatter in KIC result. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 19,
1085–1093.
Wallin, K., 1985. The size effect in KIC result. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 22,
149–163.
Wallin, K., 2002. Master curve analysis of the “Euro” fracture toughness dataset.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 69, 451–481.