J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2011, 27(10), 931-936.

Comparison of Impact Properties for Carbon and Low Alloy Steels

O.H. Ibrahim
Metallurgy Dept., Nuclear Research Centre, Atomic Energy Authority, Egypt
[Manuscript received March 29, 2010, in revised form June 21, 2010]

The impact properties of hot rolled carbon steel (used for the manufacture of reinforcement steel bars) and
the quenched & tempered (Q&T) low alloy steel (used in the pressure vessel industry) were determined. The
microstructure of the hot rolled carbon steel contained ferrite/pearlite phases, while that of the quenched and
tempered low alloy steel contained bainite structure. Impact properties were determined for both steels by
instrumented impact testing at temperatures between –150 and 200◦ C. The impact properties comprised total
impact energy, ductile to brittle transition temperature, crack initiation and propagation energy, brittleness
transition temperature and cleavage fracture stress. The Q&T low alloy steel displayed much higher resistance
to ductile fracture at high test temperatures, while its resistance to brittle fracture at low test temperatures
was a little higher than that of the hot rolled carbon steel. The results were discussed in relation to the
difference in the chemical composition and microstructure for the two steels.

KEY WORDS: Ferritic/pearlitic steel; Bainitic steel; Impact properties

1. Introduction 1.4% Mn which is considered optimum when high

Impact properties of steels are primarily depen-
dent on its microstructure which is determined by
the chemical composition and heat treatment. Mi-
crostructural parameters of steels incorporate dislo-
cation density, grain size as well as the volume frac-
tion and size of second phase particles (carbides and
inclusions). Low alloy steels are candidate materials
for pressure vessel industry which require adequate
amount of strength and toughness. The main mi-
cro alloying elements, in low alloy steels, used to en-
sure the amount of hardenability required to obtain
bainitic steels are Cr, Mo and Ni[1] . The microstruc-
ture of such steels is of a complex nature and is charac-
terized by highly dislocated lath structure arranged in
packets subdividing the prior austenite grains in ad-
dition to the carbides that precipitate during the tem-
pering process[2] . Carbon steels in the hot rolled con-
dition have been the main structural materials used
for the manufacture of reinforcement steel bars. These
steels have a nominal carbon level of 0.2%–0.4% with
Ph.D.; E-mail address: omyma essam@yahho.com.
strength with good ductility is required. Mn addi-
tion has a beneficial effect on the impact toughness
because it raises the cleavage fracture stress through
the refinement of grain size[3] . The microstructure of
hot rolled carbon steels normally comprises a mixture
of ferrite and pearlite which is a lamellar structure
consisting of ferrite and cementite. Both the strength
and toughness are increased as the pearlite propor-
tion is increased[4] . In the present study, a compari-
son has been made between the impact properties of
the above-mentioned two types of steels. The deter-
mined properties were further correlated to the steels0
microstructures.
2. Materials and Test Procedures
The reinforcement steel bars used in this investi-
gation were hot rolled at 900◦ C and then air cooled.
The heat treatment for the low alloy pressure vessel
steel included austenitizing at 880◦ C for 8 h, quench-
ing in water and then tempering at 660◦ C for 6 h
followed by air cooling. The chemical composition of
the two steels is presented in Table 1.
932 O.H. Ibrahim: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2011, 27(10), 931–936

Fig. 1 Microstructure of carbon steel (a) and low alloy steel (b)

Table 1 Chemical composition of investigated steels, wt%

Element C Si Mn Cr Mo Ni P S Cu Fe
Carbon steel. 0.40 0.31 1.08 0.14 0.005 0.104 0.012 0.043 0.169 Bal.
Low alloy steel 0.18 0.22 1.40 0.20 0.580 0.660 0.007 0.004 0.015 Bal.

Table 2 Impact test values of investigated steels

Material TT/◦ C USE/J E i /J E p /J E i /E t /% E p /E t /%
Hot rolled carbon steel 25 80 35 45 45 55
Q&T low alloy steel –25 200 50 150 25 75

Standard Charpy V-notch specimens were im-

pact tested using an instrumented impact machine
(AMSLER-RKP 300) with a total energy of 300 Joule 200 Low alloy steel

and a hammer velocity of 5.2 m/s. Tests were con- Carbon steel
Absorbed energy / J

ducted in a temperature range between –150 and 150

200◦ C to generate full transition curves. The load-
time traces produced from the tests were utilized to
100
obtain dynamic fracture loads and crack initiation and
propagation energies. Optical micrographs were ob-
tained by etching polished specimens with a solution 50

of 4% picric acid in methanol. Fracture surface was

examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM, 0
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250
Joel, JSM-400).
o
Temp. / C

3. Results
3.1 Microstructure
The microstructure of the investigated steels is
shown in Fig. 1. The hot rolled steel shows ferritic-
pearlitic structure with a grain size of about 10 µm
while the low alloy steel displays bainitic structure
with a grain size of about 30 µm.
3.2 Impact results
The impact test results for both steels showed typ-
ical ductile-to-brittle transition behavior characteris-
tic of ferritic steels. The variation of impact energy
with testing temperature for the two steels is shown
in Fig. 2. The upper shelf energy (USE) and the
ductile to brittle transition temperature (DBTT), as
evaluated at the intersection point of half the value of
Fig. 2 Impact transition curves of investigated steels
upper shelf energy with the transition curve, were de-
termined for both steels. The low alloy Q&T steel has
much higher USE than that of the hot rolled carbon
steel (200 vs 80 J), Table 2. The DBTT of the low al-
loy Q&T steel shows lower value than that of the hot
rolled carbon steel (–25◦ C vs 25◦ C), Table 2. This
indicates that the low alloy Q&T steel has superior
resistance to ductile fracture and relatively better re-
sistance to brittle fracture than the hot rolled carbon
steel.
Examination of the load-time traces of the impact
tests of low alloy Q&T steel in upper shelf tempera-
ture range showed that the ductile fracture initiation
energy, Ei , was 25% of that of the total energy (50 vs
200 J), Table 2. This means that the ductile crack
 O.H. Ibrahim: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2011, 27(10), 931–936
Fig. 3 Impact test load-time curves at room temperature: (a) carbon steel, (b) low alloy steel
Fig. 4 SEM fractographs of investigated steels (ductile fracture): (a) carbon steel (100◦ C, 80 J); (b) low alloy
steel (RT, 200 J)
initiation process has consumed less energy than that
for the ductile crack propagation process, i.e. most of
the total fracture energy was expended in the crack
propagation process. In contrast, the ductile frac-
ture initiation energy value of the hot rolled carbon
steel (at upper shelf temperature range) was about
45% that of the total energy (35 vs 80 J). This
means that the total fracture energy was shared al-
most equally between the initiation and propagation
fracture processes.
Figure 3 shows typical load-deflection curves as
derived from the instrumented impact tests for both
steels at room temperature. As shown, the low al-
loy Q&T steel displays fully ductile mode of fracture
(upper shelf behavior) with a total energy of 200 J,
while the hot rolled carbon steel exhibits semi-ductile
mode of fracture (ductile to brittle transition behav-
ior) with a total energy of only 37 J. In Fig. 3, the Pm
and Py denote maximum dynamic and yield loads,
respectively. The area under the curve up to the
point of Pm represents the fracture initiation energy
Ei , while the remaining area represents the fracture
propagation energy Ep . The load-deflection curves
demonstrate that, at room temperature, the low al-
loy Q&T steel experienced much greater amount of
deflection (strain) than the hot rolled carbon steel
(40 vs 10 mm).
933
3.3 Fractography
Figure 4 shows fracture surface of specimens tested
in upper shelf temperature range (ductile fracture
mode). As shown, fracture proceeded by microvoid
coalescence manner. Both large voids, in the case
of hot rolled carbon steel (Fig. 4(a)) and rather finer
dimples, in the case of low alloy Q&T steel (Fig. 4(b)),
are clearly observed. In the case of brittle fracture
condition (lower shelf temperature range), the hot
rolled carbon steel displays cleavage mode of fracture
characterized by small cleavage facets (Fig. 5(a)). Al-
ternatively, the low alloy Q&T steel fracture surface
contains larger facet-like arrangements with river pat-
terns formed by cleavage lines and steps (Fig. 5(b)).
The cleavage facet size in both cases can be compared
to their grain size.
3.4 Cleavage fracture stress (σ f )
An important parameter that can be determined
from the variation of the dynamic load against test
temperature is the local fracture stress σf which is di-
rectly related to the micromechanism of cleavage[5] ;
therefore, it is often called the microscopic cleavage
fracture stress. Cleavage fracture will take place when
a combination of load and plastic constraint at the
934
Fig. 5 SEM fractographs of investigated steels (brittle fracture): (a) carbon steel (−50◦ C, 11 J); (b) low alloy
steel (−100◦ C, 9 J)
3000
/ MPa
2500
yy
Local fracture stress,
2000
1500
1000
500
-200 -150 -100 -50
Temp. /
Fig. 6 Variation of local fracture stress with test temper-
ature
notch tip raises the maximum value of the local stress
ahead of the notch, σyy , to σf . It has been found
that σyy =2.52σyd [6] , where σyd is the dynamic yield
strength and related to yield load by the relationship:
Py · L
σyd =
CB(W − A)2
where: B is the specimen width; W is the specimen
depth; a is the notch depth; L is the bend span and
C is the constraint factor (≈1.25).
Py in the above equation is the yield load at test
temperature at which fracture surface of the speci-
men is completely brittle, i.e. plastic deformation
is no longer operative. This specific temperature is
called the ‘brittleness temperature’. This tempera-
ture was determined as –50 and –100◦ C for the hot
rolled carbon steel and low alloy Q&T steel, respec-
tively from the examination of the fracture surface
of tested specimens. The corresponding Py values at
these test temperatures were about 19 and 22 kN, for
the hot rolled carbon steel and low alloy Q&T steel,
O.H. Ibrahim: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2011, 27(10), 931–936
respectively. Using the above Py values for the two
tested steels yields a cleavage fracture stress (σf ) val-
ues of 1950 and 2200 MPa for the hot rolled carbon
Carbon steel
steel and low alloy Q&T steel, respectively. This in-
Low alloy steel
dicates that the low alloy Q&T steel has a relatively
=2200 MPa
higher resistance to cleavage fracture than that of the
hot rolled carbon steel. The relationship between the
=1950 MPa
local fracture stress and test temperature is shown in
Fig. 6.
f
4. Discussion
4.1 Microstructure
0 50 100 150 200 250 The difference in the microstructure between the
o
C
two tested steels can be correlated to the difference in
chemical composition and heat treatment. The low
alloy Q&T steel contained higher percentage of the
alloying elements of Cr, Mo and Ni than the hot rolled
carbon steel, Table 1. On the other hand, the low al-
loy Q&T steel heat treatment involved quenching and
tempering while that of the hot rolled carbon steel in-
volved hot rolling and normalizing. This was reflected
upon the produced microstructure of both steels. The
low alloy Q&T steel had higher hardenability than
the hot rolled carbon steel due to its higher percent-
age of alloying elements. This has led to the forma-
tion of bainite structure and the precipitation of al-
loy carbides during tempering. Figure 1(a) shows a
mixture of ferrite and pearlite (a lamellar structure
consisting of ferrite and cementite). The fine grain
size of hot rolled carbon steel could be attributed
to the simultaneous deformation and recrystallization
processes (dynamic recrystallization) during the hot
rolling operation[3] . The bainitic microstructure of
low alloy Q&T steel contained lath structure with
considerable amount of carbides precipitated during
the tempering process (Fig. 1(b)).
4.2 Impact properties
The results have shown that the low alloy Q&T
 O.H. Ibrahim: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2011, 27(10), 931–936
steel with its bainitic microstructure exhibits higher
resistance to both ductile and brittle fracture than
the hot rolled carbon steel with its ferritic pearlitic
microstructure. This difference in fracture behavior
between these two investigated steels can be related
to the difference in their chemical composition and
microstructure. The main microstructural parame-
ters that would control the fracture properties of both
steels are second phase particles (carbides and inclu-
sions) and grain size. The role played by each of
these parameters during ductile and brittle fracture
processes is discussed.
4.3 Ductile fracture
The micromechanism operated during ductile frac-
ture involves crack initiation through nucleation and
growth of voids around carbides and/or inclusions and
crack propagation through plastic deformation of the
matrix[7] . The higher upper shelf energy value of the
low alloy Q&T steel compared to that of the hot rolled
carbon steel (200 vs 80 J) indicates higher energy ex-
penditure during ductile crack initiation and propaga-
tion processes. As shown in Table 1, the carbon con-
tent of the hot rolled carbon steel is twice as much as
that of the Q&T low alloy steel (0.4% vs 0.18%), while
the S content of the hot rolled carbon steel is ten times
that of the Q&T low alloy steel (0.043% vs 0.004%). C
and S have been known to have detrimental effect on
toughness of steels through formation of carbides and
inclusions. Since the hot rolled carbon steel contains
higher carbon content than the Q&T low alloy steel
it is then expected that it will form higher amount of
carbide particles. The type of carbides formed in the
hot rolled carbon steel is expected to be cementite
(Fe3 C) which is incorporated in the pearlite struc-
ture. The cementite carbide particles would provide
sites for easy nucleation of voids through cracking of
these particles[8] . In addition, the much higher S con-
tent of the hot rolled carbon steel would lead to the
formation of high density manganese sulphide (MnS)
inclusions. This provides greater nucleation sites for
voids by debonding the inclusion matrix interface un-
der the stress and strain fields ahead of the notch
tip of the impact specimens. In addition, the higher
density of MnS inclusions provides less inter-particle
spacing which would facilitate the process of void co-
alescence subsequent to the stage of void growth[9] .
This is manifested as the observed less initiation and
propagation energy values of the hot rolled carbon
steel as compared to that of the Q&T low alloy steel;
(35 vs 50 J) and (45 vs 150 J), respectively.
The noticeable difference in the values of initiation
and propagation energy especially of the Q&T low al-
loy steel can be explained in view of the difference
between the two processes. Initiation is fundamen-
tally a two-dimensional process where crack blunting
takes place effectively in the straight ahead direction.
In such case, only those parameters associated with
935
this direction will be important. Propagation, how-
ever, occurs by linkage of voids which are spatially
distributed, so that second phase particle parameters
of all three dimensions must be taken into account[10] .
The result is that the state (size, density, distribution)
of these parameters will affect propagation process to
a much higher degree than crack initiation process.
4.4 Brittle fracture
Compared to hot rolled carbon steel, the Q&T low
alloy steel showed lower ductile to brittle transition
temperature (–25◦ C vs 25◦ C), less brittleness transi-
tion temperature (–100◦ C vs –50◦ C) and higher cleav-
age fracture stress (2200 MPa vs 1950 MPa). The
fracture surface of hot rolled carbon steel was charac-
terized by smaller cleavage facets than the Q&T low
alloy steel. The smaller grain size of the hot rolled car-
bon steel proposes higher resistance to cleavage brit-
tle fracture since grain boundaries are effective barri-
ers to the propagation of brittle cracks[11] . However,
the probably larger size and higher volume fraction of
carbide particles (cementite) of the hot rolled carbon
steel microstructure might have masked the toughen-
ing effect of its fine grain size.
The presence of carbides such as cementite (Fe3 C)
in the microstructure of carbon steel provides sites for
easy nucleation of cleavage microcracks particularly at
the ferrite/cementite interfaces. Investigations on the
mechanisms of microcrack nucleation proposed that
there is a critical carbide size above which it becomes
susceptible to cracking with the consequence that the
impact transition temperature is raised. This criti-
cal size was found to be in the range of 2–5 µm in
the case of cementite[12] . On the other hand, when
alloy carbides replace cementite in alloy steels dur-
ing tempering, the probable size of carbide particles
is reduced[12] . Consequently, alloy carbides formed
upon tempering are finer and much more resistant
to coarsening than cementite. This fact can account
for the observed higher resistance to cleavage brittle
fracture of Q&T low alloy steel which was manifested
by less ductile to brittle transition temperature and
higher cleavage fracture stress value despite the larger
grain size of the microstructure.
5. Conclusions
(1) At high test temperatures, the Q&T low alloy
steel exhibits much higher resistance to ductile fac-
ture than the hot rolled carbon steel as indicated by
its higher upper shelf energy value (200 J vs 80 J).
(2) At low test temperatures, the resistance to
brittle fracture of Q&T low alloy steel is a little higher
than that of the hot rolled carbon steel, as indicated
by its lower ductile to brittle transition temperature
(–25◦ C vs 25◦ C), lower brittleness transition temper-
ature (–100◦ C vs –50◦ C) and its higher cleavage frac-
ture stress (2200 MPa vs 1950 MPa).
936 O.H. Ibrahim: J. Mater. Sci. Technol., 2011, 27(10), 931–936
(3) The difference in the impact properties be-
tween the two investigated steels, at high and low test
temperatures could be related to the role played by
the proposed higher content of carbides and inclusions
of the hot rolled carbon steel as compared to that of
the Q&T low alloy steel.
REFERENCES
[1 ] H.K.D.H. Bhadeshia: Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1999, 273,
58.
[2 ] B.C. De Cooman: Science, 2004, 8, 285.
[3 ] B.K. Panigrahi: Bull. Mater. Sci., 2001, 24, 361.
[4 ] ASM International Steels, Processing, Structure, and
Performance High-Carbon Steels: Fully Pearlitic Mi-
crostructures and Applications, 2005.
[5 ] S.J. Wu and J.F. Knott: J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 2004,
52, 907.
[6 ] M.M. Goniem and M. Rieth: Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip-
ing, 1997, 74, 39.
[7 ] M.N. Shabrov, E. Sylven, S. Kim, D.H. Sherman,
L. Chuzhoy, C.L. Briant and A. Needleman: Metall.
Mater. Trans. A, 2004, 35, 1745.
[8 ] M. Rakin, Z. Cvijovi V. Grabulov, N. Gubeliak and
A. Sedmak: Mater. Sci. Forum, 2004, 453-454, 175.
[9 ] W. Garrison and A. Wojcieszynski: Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, 2007, 464, 321.
[10] R.K. Everett and A.B. Geltmacher: Scripta Mater.,
1999, 40, 567.
[11] M.C. Zhao, F.X. Yin, T. Hanamura, K. Nagai and A.
Atrens: Scripta Mater., 2007, 57, 857.
[12] M. Jahazi and B. Eghbali: J. Mater. Process. Tech-
nol. 2001, 113, 594.