THE EFFECT OF SURFACE INDICATIONS ON THE TENSILE PROPERTIES OF

CAST STEEL

by
JEFF HAMBY

JOHN A. GRIFFIN, COMMITTEE CHAIR

ROBIN D. FOLEY
CHARLES A. MONROE

A THESIS
Submitted to the graduate faculty of The University of Alabama at Birmingham,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Materials Engineering
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
2013

THE EFFECT OF SURFACE INDICATIONS ON THE TENSILE PROPERTIES OF

CAST STEEL
JEFF HAMBY
MATERIALS ENGINEERING
ABSTRACT
The objective of this thesis was to study the effect of surface indications on the
tensile properties of cast steel. Four cast steel grades were selected for evaluation; these
grades include three carbon and low alloy steels (110/80, 165/135, and Eglin) and one
high alloy steel (CF8M). Using these steels, tensile specimens were produced, inspected
via MT/PT, categorized by surface indications (as-cast or machined), and tested. Bars
with natural surface indications were tensile tested and the properties recorded. The
presence of a 1/16 inch, 1/8 inch, or 1/4 inch flat-bottomed hole drilled through half the
thickness mimicked a similar nonlinear worse-case scenario indication. The 1/4 inch
indication resulted in an ultimate tensile strength loss ranging from 21.5% to 36.0%, with
the more ductile materials being impacted least. The percent elongation loss ranged from
38.5% to 69.9%, with the majority of the alloys showing an approximate 60 percent loss
in elongation. The modulus decrease ranged from 2.9% to 17.5%. These results were
modeled using ANSYS to observe capability in predicting a decrease in properties. The
resulting decrease in properties matched the experimental data to an accuracy of 311%.
The results provide a previously undocumented relationship between indication size and
tensile properties.

Keywords: Tensile, Steel, Indications, Surface, Castings, Model

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................... vi
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 1
RESEARCH METHOD .................................................................................................. 6
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 12
Natural and Machined Surface Indication Lengths at Fracture ............................. 12
0.2% offset YS and UTS .................................................................................. 12
Elongation......................................................................................................... 16
Youngs Modulus ............................................................................................. 18
Percent Indication Area on Fracture Surface ......................................................... 21
0.2% offset YS and UTS .................................................................................. 21
Elongation......................................................................................................... 23
Youngs Modulus ............................................................................................. 23
Modeled Surface Indications ................................................................................. 26
0.2% offset YS and UTS .................................................................................. 26
Elongation......................................................................................................... 32
Youngs Modulus ............................................................................................. 33
Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 34
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 35
APPENDIX: .................................................................................................................... 36
A TENSILE DATA ........................................................................................ 36
B STEEL CHEMISTRIES AND STRESS-STRAIN CURVES .................... 41

iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1 Inputs used for ANSYS model .................................................................................... 10

2 Percent decrease of average 0.2% offset YS and UTS vs. indication lengths
compared to sound material......................................................................................... 13
3 Percent decrease of average % elongation vs. indication lengths ............................... 16
4 Percent decrease in Youngs modulus vs. indication lengths ...................................... 18
5 Strength comparison between experimental and model .............................................. 31
6 % elongation comparison between experimental and model ...................................... 32
7 Youngs modulus comparison between experimental and model ............................... 33

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

1 Example of tensile bar and plate.................................................................................. 7

2 810 MTS machine ....................................................................................................... 8
3 IGS models and element meshes ................................................................................. 10
4 0.2% offset YS and UTS vs. indication length at fracture........................................... 15
5 % elongation vs. indication length measured at fracture ............................................. 17
6 Young's modulus vs. indication length measured at fracture ...................................... 20
7 0.2% offset YS and UTS vs. fracture surface area of indication ................................. 22
8 % elongation vs. fracture surface area of indication.................................................... 24
9 Young's modulus vs. fracture surface area of indication ............................................. 25
10 Stress-strain curves of experimental data and model data of 165-135 (A)................ 27
11 165-135 (A) and 110-80 (B) model outputs .............................................................. 28
12 CF8M (C) and 110-80 (D) model outputs ................................................................. 29
13 Eglin (E) model outputs............................................................................................. 30

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

in.

inch or inches

kip

kilopounds

ksi

kilopounds per square inch

MT

magnetic particle testing

MTS

material test system

psi

pounds per square inch

PT

liquid penetrant testing

UTS

ultimate tensile strength

YS

yield strength

vi

BACKGROUND
Every global industry strives to improve its processes and thus improve its
product. This statement is especially true in todays quality-driven market. As a
competitor in the global market, the cast steel industry has continuously improved its
process and products to manufacture higher quality parts while minimizing costs and
production time.
Some of this improvement can be accredited to the many standards that have been
written to help designers define acceptable product limits to produce required
performance. However, some of these standards are workmanship standards and are not
directly related to part performance. An example of a workmanship standard for steel
castings is the radiographic standard ASTM E-186 [1]. This standard consists of
reference radiographs that show examples of discontinuities categorized into severity
levels, which allows considerable flexibility for the producer and buyer on how to
interpret the radiographic grade of a part. This flexibility is necessary since stricter
requirements would demand more information on the service environment of the part.
Steel castings are used in an almost infinite variety of service conditions. In essence, the
radiographic standards are a yardstick, and it is up to the producer and buyer on how to
use the yardstick.
Other standards such as ASTM A-903 provide quantitative values but were
developed from other manufacturing processes and may be overly conservative [2]. This

2
standard specifies levels of acceptance criteria on the surface of castings using measured
lengths and geometries of indications. As the cast steel industry has grown more
sophisticated in the use of numerical modeling to predict process quality and part
performance, design requirements should be reexamined to see if they actually affect part
performance. In an attempt to link designer standards to the performance of materials,
this study focused on characterizing the effect of surface/near surface indications on
tensile properties using the backdrop of current acceptance standards such as ASTM A903 [2].
Most of the steels used in this study, ASTM A-958 Grade 110-80, ASTM A-958
Grade 165-135, ASTM A-351 Grade CF8M, are widely produced and normally used for
valves, flanges, fittings, and other pressure containing parts. The only uncommon steel
used was Eglin steel, which is a low cost replacement for super alloy steels such as HY180 and finds much of its use in military applications. The 110-80, 165-135, and Eglin
steel are all low carbon and low alloy steels, the only exception being CF8M. In general,
CF8M contains a high percentage of Cr and Ni and is essentially the cast equivalent of
304 type wrought alloys. CF8 may be fully austenitic, but it more commonly contains
some residual ferrite (3-30%) in an austenitic matrix. CF8M is a version of CF8 alloy
with an addition of 2-3% molybdenum, which increases resistance to corrosion by
seawater and improves resistance. These molybdenum-bearing alloys are generally the
superior choice for weakly oxidizing environments [3] (p. 20-16).
In order to meet demands of buyers, the steel casting industry has used several
recordable destructive tests to qualify the material properties. The two most prevalent
tests are a cyclical loaded tensile test, also known as fatigue, and a monotonic loaded

3
tensile test. The monotonic tensile test is performed by applying an increasing load until
failure, whereas the cyclical test applies an oscillating tensile load until failure. These
two methods both result in quantifiable material properties. The monotonic tensile test
was chosen for this study because of this industrial prevalence.
To date, there has not been a study to determine the quantitative effect of
surface indications on the monotonic tensile properties of steel castings. There has,
however, been studies of the effect of internal indications on mechanical properties. The
majority of these studies related fatigue performance to internal radiographic indications.
A few studies related internal shrinkage, macro-porosity, and micro-porosity to tensile
mechanical properties. In general, reasonable concentrations of internal shrinkage had
little effect on 0.2% offset yield strength or YS, ultimate tensile strength or UTS, and
elastic modulus, but produced a significantly reduced percent elongation when
monotonically tested [5]. It was also observed that monotonically tested specimens with
micro-porosity repeat the trend of having little effect on strength but did affect on
ductility [6]. However, cyclically loaded fatigue specimens with macro-porosity showed
elastic modulus varying as a function of porosity volume [6]. Hardin and Beckermann
found that the elastic modulus decreases nonlinearly with porosity when cyclically
loaded, and this relationship is dependent on the characteristics of the porosity [7]. These
studies reveal that indications can potentially affect all mechanical properties, having the
greatest effect on elongation.
In order for this study to benefit from these past surface indication studies, a
relationship between fatigue and monotonic tensile test must be formed. A comparison
of the fatigue and monotonic tensile test is seen in Svobodas study of fatigue and

4
fracture toughness of five different steels. The study revealed that the YS was lower in
fatigue tests than in monotonic tests; however, the UTS was higher in fatigue versus
monotonic in four of the five steels [4]. These results reveal that fatigue and monotonic
tests are not directly relatable, but they do reveal which material properties will be
affected most by surface indications. Thus, only general trends can be carried between
surface indication studies using fatigue and studies using monotonic tensile tests.
In order to quantitatively define the effect of surface indications on mechanical
properties, the term surface indication must first be defined. Surface indication has
historically been used to describe any visible inconsistency observed on the casting
surface. An example of the current nomenclature, ASTM A903 conveys general
acceptance guidelines, but does not reveal a quantitative relationship between the size of
the indication and the mechanical properties[2]. With quantitative data, a more defined
relationship between surface indications and properties can be developed. This
relationship will give designers the ability to properly size a part and produce acceptable
performance with a reasonable safety factor.
Due to the random nature of surface indications, development of a
machinable indication that mimics the effect of naturally occurring indications would be
useful for experimental and numerical simulation testing. This technique has been used
before by Rudy and Rupert in their study of the mechanical properties of aluminum and
its relationship to porosity [8]. This study determined that fine porosity can be as
detrimental to a weld as large porosity if the total area of the micro-pores were
comparable to the single large pore. Thus, the machined indication replicated a natural
indication. These results lead to a second goal of this study, which is to improve testing

5
repeatability in steel castings by using machined notches to mimic naturally occurring
indications.
The standard means of detecting a surface indication is by visual inspection. In
order to improve this inspection, techniques such as magnetic particle testing also known
as MT or liquid penetrant testing also known as PT have been developed, which aid
the eye in the detection of hard-to-see indications on as cast surfaces. These tools greatly
enhance detection, but classification and indication effect on properties are left up to
operator interpretation. This study only contains linear and non-linear indication, not
cracks from quenching or hot tears. Previous work has shown that linear and non-linear
indications typically extend less than 13 mm beneath the surface while cracks developed
from quenching or hot tears can run much deeper.
By virtue of studying commonly used steels, the noticed effects of the surface
indications will be able to directly contribute to real world safety applications. The less
common Eglin steel was selected due to its extremely high tensile properties, thus
broadening the data range for the study. A long-term use of this study will be the
improvement of the quantification of surface indication effects on other mechanical
properties, such as bending fatigue.

RESEARCH METHOD
The four cast steels used included three carbon and low alloy steels and one high
alloy steel. These steels provided a range of YS from 40 kilopounds per square inch or
ksi up to 160 ksi. The carbon and low alloy steels include a 110/80 (minimum YS 80
ksi, minimum UTS 110 ksi), a 165/135 (minimum YS 135 ksi, minimum UTS 165 ksi),
and Eglin steel. A high alloy CF8M cast steel was also included to provide different
microstructure and modulus but with tensile properties similar to a 70/40 steel. Plates
were cast from these steels yielding approximately 30 potential test bars for each alloy,
with exception of the Eglin steel. The only available supply of Eglin steel was in
machined billets with no as cast surface and hence no surface indications. In this case,
tensile specimens were removed from the billets and artificial indications were machined
into the gauge section. The other cast plates had approximately 0.050 inches or in.
removed from the cope to remove the as cast surface roughness. Most of the plates were
machined to yield 0.500 in. wide standard flat tensile bars [9]; however, the Eglin steel
was machined with a thickness of 0.250 in. as opposed to 0.500 in. This reduced
thickness was required for the Eglin steel in order to lower maximum load of the test bars
to within 50 kilopounds or kips, the maximum load rating of the frame. These test bars
were machined from the cope of a cast plate to capture any potential surface indications
to the desired shape shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Example of tensile bar and plate

Once machined, the carbon and low alloy steel specimens were MT inspected [10] to
detect any surface/sub-surface indications present. All specimens were tested with PT
[11] to distinguish surface and sub-surface indications, and reveal any indications running
perpendicular to the gauge length. Of course, the CF8M specimens were only tested with
PT. Indications found within the 2.25 in. reduced gauge section were photographed and
measured using Image Pro Plus. According to ASTM A903, an indication is considered
relevant if it is equal to or greater than 1/16 in. ASTM A903 surface inspection criteria
also only considers this 1/16 in. relevant if the length of the indication is greater than 3
times its width i.e. linear [2]. For the purposes of this study, all indications detected via
MT and PT will be considered relevant. Since the loading direction was known,
indication length was measured as the length perpendicular to the loading direction,
which will produce inherently conservative results.

8
Many tensile bars had no indications present. Many of these bars were used to
provide baseline of properties for this study. However, some of these bars were notched
to simulate a naturally occurring nonlinear surface indication. These notches were
machined using different drill bit diameters (1/16 in., 1/8 in., and 1/4 in.) leaving a flatbottom circular (nonlinear) indication in the bar. Therefore, the created indication falls
into the nonlinear class. The depth of drilling was limited to half the thickness of the
tensile bar, which results in the surface class of indication as defined by Fatigue design of
welded joints and components [12] (p.89). This simulated surface indication was meant
to mimic worst case scenario nonlinear indications.
These bars were tested according to ASTM E8 & A370 using an 810 material test
system or MTS 50 kip frame with hydraulic grips machine seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2: 810 MTS machine

The tensile test was displacement controlled, while recording the applied force. Stress
was determined using the resulting force over the determined cross-sectional area. The
strain was recorded using a 2 in. clip-on extensometer utilizing MTS Flex Test software.
The YS was obtained by plotting a stress-strain curve and recording the point at which

9
the curve becomes nonlinear. The modulus was obtained by performing a linear
regression model on the elastic portion of the stress-strain curve and recording the slope.
The 0.2% YS was determined by matching the slope with a parallel line that is transposed
on the 0.002 in/in strain reading and recording the intersection of this line and the stressstrain curve.
After tensile testing, the bars were studied to see if fracture occurred at an
indication. The fracture surfaces were then photographed and the defects surface area, if
present, was measured using Image Pro Plus. The natural and machined indication
properties were then compared to the baseline properties to see if a quantitative effect of
the measured indications is observable. The tensile properties studied were 0.2% YS,
UTS, elongation, and Youngs Modulus.
Upon completion of testing, the tensile bars without any indications as well as the
0.25 in. machined indications were modeled within ANSYS 14.5 to see if the model
predicted a similar property behavior. The model used a 10node187 tetrahedral mesh for
an inelastic rate-independent isotropic-hardening bilinear material. The mesh density
used was determined to be independent, as a finer mesh yielded an average of less than
1% change in outputs. The mesh density used allowed the model to run quickly without
reducing accuracy. These options yielded the mesh seen in Figure 3.

10

Figure 3: IGS models and element meshes

The large displacement static solution control was selected over the small displacement
static solution, because it accounts for more modeling scenarios. The model ran using
200 substeps to produce sufficient data points for graphing accuracy. The model used
load displacement control, similar to tensile testing, and required the inputs found in
Table 1.
Table 1: Inputs used for ANSYS model
Tensile Bar
Group

Youngs
Modulus

Poissons
Ratio

YS (psi)

Tangent
Modulus

Displacement
Used (in)

165-135 (A)
165-135 (A1/4)
110-80 (B)
110-80 (B1/4)
CF8M (C)
CF8M (C1/4)
110-80 (D)
110-80 (D1/4)
ES-1 (E)
ES-1 (E1/4)

29773781
29773781
28184387
28184387
25807251
25807251
31346324
31346324
26864791
26864791

0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27

176257
176257
108656
108656
34449
34449
96472
96472
162260
162260

493115
493115
430977
430977
165815
165815
240232
240232
1127360
1127360

0.18
0.06
0.30
0.09
1.62
0.61
0.48
0.17
0.15
0.09

11
The displacement input was obtained by using the average displacement at failure of the
experimental bars being measured. In other words, the average 0.250 in. machined
indication 165-135 bars measured displacement was used for the 0.250 in. machined
indication 165-135 model. The YS value was obtained by averaging the measured 0.2%
offset YS produced by the bars without any detectable indications. Each alloy was
categorized into a group A, B, C, D, or E. The models containing the 0.25 in. flat-bottom
hole are indicated by the 1/4 following the alloy letter.

12

RESULTS
Natural and Machined Surface Indications Lengths at Fracture
0.2% offset YS and UTS
Naturally occurring indications were present in 3 of the 4 cast steels. Among
these 3 cast steels, some test bars had more than one indication present. The Eglin steel
test bars did not have any natural surface indications, only machine indications. Figure 4
shows the effects of indication length that instigated fracture on 0.2% YS and UTS. In
most cases, fracture occurred at the largest measure indication. It should be noted that all
length measurements were taken perpendicular to the load direction.
These figures show that each alloy is affected differently by the indication lengths
present, confirming an initial assumption that different alloys behave differently. A few
data points in the upper right corner of the 165-135 graph seemingly do not follow the
same trend as the rest of the data in Figure 4, but these graphs only represent the
indication length measured at the location of fracture. Figure 4 does not account for the
width or depth of the indication. Common sense would suggest that the longest
indication on the bar would be the initiation of fracture. During this study the majority of
fractures initiated at the longest measured indication. However, exceptions to this trend
occurred in bars with small indications, less than 1/16 in.; bars with two or more
indications of similar lengths, 0.02 in. difference; or in the more ductile materials CF8M,
C and 110-80, D.

13
A second notable observation in Figure 4 is how the machined indications trend
alongside the naturally occurring surface indications. In all cases, each machined
indication represented a worst-case scenario for each indication length group. These
results imply that the easily modeled flat-bottomed hole was a valid representation of a
natural indication. A percentage decrease of 0.2% offset YS and the UTS as a function of
indication length is listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Percent decrease of average 0.2% offset YS and UTS vs. indication lengths
compared to sound material
0.2 % offset YS
Group

0.0001"0.0624"

0.0625" 0.1249"

0.1250" 0.1874"

0.1875" 0.2499"

> 0.25

Eglin, E
165-135, A
110-80, B
110-80, D
CF8M, C

1%
4%
4%
0%

5%
1%
1%
3%
3%

12%
12%
2%
6%
5%

9%
0%
4%

31%
17%
24%
21%
14%

Group

0.0001"0.0624"

0.0625" 0.1249"

0.1250" 0.1874"

0.1875" 0.2499"

> 0.25

Eglin, E
165-135, A
110-80, B
110-80, D
CF8M, C

2%
4%
3%
5%

5%
3%
4%
3%
6%

22%
17%
11%
7%
10%

15%
1%
0%

36%
21%
34%
21%
25%

UTS

Table 2 and Figure 4 shows that for these steel strength levels states, all 0.2% offset YS
and UTS are unaffected until indications lengths 0.125 in. or greater are present. It
should be noted that due to the variation in the baseline properties seen in Figure 4, any
effect less than 10% should be deemed statistically insignificant. Table 2 also suggests
that the effect of the indication on 0.2% offset YS and UTS is dependent on the ductility

14
of the material. This correlation is shown by the CF8M, Cs and the 110-80, Ds
resistance to the indications effects until the 0.25 in. size is reached.
In summary, any indication less than 1/16 in. did not statistically impact the 0.2%
offset YS or UTS of any alloy. The machined indication test bars matched similar worstcase scenarios found in the natural indication test bars. The more ductile alloys were less
affected by the presence of surface indications, revealing a relationship to strength. Thus,
the effect of the indication increased as the strength of the alloy increased.

Figure 4: 0.2% offset YS and UTS vs. indication length at fracture

15

16

Elongation
Elongation was significantly more affected by surface indication length as shown
in Table 3.
Table 3: Percent decrease of average % elongation vs. indication lengths
Group

0.0001"0.0624"

0.0625" 0.1249"

0.1250" 0.1874"

0.1875" 0.2499"

> 0.25"

Eglin, E
165-135, A
110-80, B
110-80, D
CF8M, C

38%
13%
0%
17%

17%
46%
44%
29%
20%

33%
65%
70%
49%
34%

64%
47%
16%

38%
58%
78%
63%
52%

Almost all elongations were affected by the presence of any indication. The only
exception to this observed trend was seen in the ductile 110-80. As previously seen, the
decrease in elongation is a function of the strength of the material. In other words, the
more ductile materials were more resistant to indications. The Eglin steel was an
exception to this trend, but this difference is due to the scatter seen in the baseline
properties. Similar to the strength, the test bars with machined indications generated data
that conservatively matched similarly sized natural indications. Figure 5 shows the effect
of indication length on the elongation.

Figure 5: % elongation vs. indication length measured at fracture

17

18

Youngs Modulus
The Youngs modulus was less sensitive to indication size, compared to other
material properties. The modulus was obtained by determining the slope of the linear
portion of the stress-strain curve using a linear regression model. Table 4 lists the
decrease in modulus seen by each alloy.
Table 4: Percent decrease in Young's modulus vs. indication lengths
Group

0.0001"0.0624"

0.0625" 0.1249"

0.1250" 0.1874"

0.1875" 0.2499"

> 0.25"

Eglin, E
165-135, A
110-80, B
110-80, D
CF8M, C

8%
0%
0%
0%

5%
1%
0%
2%
8%

0%
1%
0%
6%
12%

1%
0%
0%

11%
7%
7%
16%
17%

Interestingly, Table 4 reveals that all observed moduli were unaffected until the
indication lengths reached 0.25 in. or greater. Figure 6 shows the graphs of the data
collected. The machined indications again trended alongside the natural indications.
Even the observed decreases in the moduli overlapped some of the baseline moduli seen
in Figure 6.
Previous studies of elastic modulus showed indications had a greater influence
than the observed results [7]. This disconnect is most likely due to differences between
the compromised length and the total length of the extensometers. The previous study
used a 12 millimeter extensometer, and this study used a 2 in. or 50.8 millimeter
extensometer. Therefore, 100% of the extensometer length was compromised in the
previous experiments; and this study only had approximately 10% of the extensometer
length compromised at most. Thus, the observed data does not show as localized a strain

19

increase as seen previously. These greater values of strain would lead to greater
reductions in modulus.
A second difference in the studies was the method of testing. The previous study
used fatigue, whereas this study used monotonic tensile testing. The cyclical loading of
fatigue can cause materials to strain-soften, thus lowering the modulus values [6].

Figure 6: Young's modulus vs. indication length measured at fracture

20

21

Percent Indication Area on Fracture Surface

0.2% offset YS and UTS
The tensile bar fracture surfaces were examined to determine the total area of
indications present, both surface and internal indications previously undetected. The
relationship between the percentage of indication area, the 0.2% YS, and the UTS is
illustrated in Figure 7.
The effect of indication(s) area on the fracture surface had a greater degree of
variation than the surface indication length measurements. The location differences of
the indications contributed to this observed variation. For example, an indication that is
present on the bar surface and penetrates through the entire cross section can be more
impactful on mechanical properties than an indication that covers a larger portion of the
fracture surface but is not present on the machined surface. Figure 7 shows the
relationship between material strength and the fracture surface area of indications.
Although the indication fracture surface area had a greater degree of scatter, the
strengths followed the same trend as the indication length at fracture. All alloys remain
unaffected until a 12.5% area is covered, with the decrease in properties following a
function of the materials ductility. The more ductile the material, the less the properties
are affected. The machined indications again offer a conservative prediction of loss in
properties.

Figure 7: 0.2% offset YS and UTS vs. fracture surface area of indication
22

23

Elongation
Following the same trend as the indication length at fracture, the greatest decrease
is seen in the elongation of the materials. Practically all alloy elongations were affected
by the presence of any form of indications. The more ductile materials, however, showed
a greater resistance to the percent fracture area of indications. Although the elongation is
affected by the presence of even minor fracture surface areas of indications, the majority
of the effect occurs rapidly. In other words, the presence of indications greatly reduces
the elongation, but additional indications or increases in the fracture surface area do not
enhance this effect. This result is especially evident in the machined indications. The 1/4
in. indication is not much worse than the 1/16 in. indication. Figure 8 reveals the effect the
percent fracture area covered by indications has on the elongation of the alloys studied.
Youngs Modulus
Similar to strength and elongation, the modulus trended in the same manner as the
indication length measured at fracture. As expected, a great deal of scatter was again
observed in the modulus data. This scatter muddles the effect that fracture surface area
of indications has on the elastic modulus. It seems, however; that some degradation does
possibly occur at greater observed instances of defect fracture surface area. It seems that
the moduli behaved in a similar fashion for all alloys except for 165/135. Again, the
Youngs modulus was influenced the least by the presence of indications. Figure 9
shows the observed Youngs modulus versus the indication surface area at fracture.

Figure 8: % elongation vs. fracture surface area of indication

24

Figure 9: Young's modulus vs. fracture surface area of indication

25

26

Modeled Surface Indications

0.2% offset YS and UTS
In order to utilize models to analyze the phenomenon caused by natural surface
indications, tensile bars were machined halfway through to create flat bottom holes. The
flat-bottom hole was chosen because it had been used previously [8], and it is easily
modeled. Models were constructed for all alloys studied, both with a 0.25 in. diameter
hole in the center of the gauge section and without. These models used experimental data
from the tensile bars without any recognizable indications to see if ANSYS could predict
the detrimental effect that a 0.25 in. flat bottom hole had on the tensile properties.
The model was calibrated by ensuring that the outputs matched the experimental
data of the bars without indications. Similar to the actual experiment, the load on the
model was controlled by displacement and stopped only when this displacement value
was reached. These displacement values were determined by verifying that the model
elongations matched the experimental elongations. When input correctly, the model
creates data suitable for a stress-strain curve and generates images comparable to the
actual tensile test.
The inputs used for this model were listed previously in Table 1. An example of
two strain-strain curves generated by the model can be seen in Figure 10, where A6 is a
sound test bar, A16 is a bar with a 0.25 in. flat-bottom hole, A Full is a model of
sound material, and A 1/4 is a model with the flat-bottom hole.

27

Figure 10: Stress-strain curves of experimental data and model data of 165-135 (A)
The UTS was determined from the model by averaging the y-stresses at the 4
corner nodes on the surface that was displaced. These averages were then multiplied by
1.5 to account for the change in cross-sectional area of the observed face and the gauge
section. The finite element analysis outputs can be seen below in Figures 11-13.

Figure 11: 165-135 (A) and 110-80 (B) model outputs

28

Figure 12: CF8M (C) and 110-80 (D) model outputs

29

30

Figure 13: Eglin (E) model outputs

The resulting data from the models can be seen in Table 5, which shows a
comparison of the actual versus predicted 0.2% YS and UTS for the tensile bars.

31

Table 5: Strength comparison between experimental and model

0.2 % offset YS
Tensile Bar Group

Actual (avg.) psi

Predicted (avg.) psi

165-135 (A)
165-135 (A )
% Decrease A to A

176,257
127,318
27.8%

182,500
157,664
13.6%

% Difference from
Actual
+4%
+24%
---

110-80 (B)
110-80 (B )
% Decrease B to B

108,656
85,543
21.3%

115,000
104,750
8.9%

+6%
+22%
---

CF8M (C)
CF8M (C )
% Decrease C to C

34,449
29,664
13.9%

37,000
34,250
7.4%

+7%
+15%
---

110-80 (D)
110-80 (D )
% Decrease D to D

96,742
76,454
21.0%

99,500
87,250
12.3%

+3%
+14%
---

Eglin (E)
Eglin (E )
% Decrease E to E
UTS
165-135 (A)
165-135 (A )
% Decrease A to A

162,260
112,734
30.5%

161,000
151,750
5.7%

-1%
+35%
---

191,062
131,739
31.0%

193,804
157,664
18.6%

+1%
+20%
---

110-80 (B)
110-80 (B )
% Decrease B to B

135,382
99,389
26.6%

138,913
111,675
19.6%

+3%
+12%
---

CF8M (C)
CF8M (C )
% Decrease C to C

77,876
58,728
24.6%

73,032
52,862
27.6%

-6%
-10%
---

110-80 (D)
110-80 (D )
% Decrease D to D

114,786
90,133
21.5%

116,712
99,140
15.1%

+2%
+10%
---

Eglin (E)
Eglin (E )
% Decrease E to E

208,382
133,293
36.0%

202,819
176,113
13.2%

-3%
+32%
---

The predicted tensile properties of the bars without any defects correlate well with
the experimental data. These expected results verify that the correct inputs were chosen
in order to replicate the sound tensile bars. The model predicts a decrease in strength

32

caused by the 0.25 in. flat-bottom hole; however, it is less accurate for the 0.2% offset
YS. The generated percent decrease in 0.2% offset YS is on average 137%, and percent
decrease in UTS is on average 810%. The less ductile the materials, the less accurate
the model becomes. For 3 of the 5 alloys, however, the predicted percentage decrease is
less than 7% off from the actual observed decrease. These results reveal that this model
is more adequate for ductile materials in terms of predicting losses in strength, and that
the model is more effective in predicting UTS than 0.2% offset YS.

Elongation
The elongation was measured within the model by following the change in
displacement of 2 nodes within the gauge section that were approximately 2 in. apart.
The resulting data can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6: % elongation comparison between experimental and model
Tensile Bar Group
A: 165-135
A : 165-135
% Decrease A to A

Actual
Elongation
6.5%
2.3%
65.4%

Predicted Elongation
6.7%
2.1%
68.2%

% Difference from
Actual
+3%
-5%
---

B: 110-80
B : 110-80
% Decrease B to B

11.5%
3.5%
69.6%

11.7%
3.7%
83.7%

+1%
+5%
---

C: CF8M
C : CF8M
% Decrease C to C

46.4%
22.0%
52.6%

47.4%
22.8%
51.8%

+2%
+4%
---

D: 110-80
D : 110-80
% Decrease D to D

20.9%
7.7%
63.2%

20.0%
7.6%
61.9%

-4%
-1%
---

E: Eglin
E : Eglin
% Decrease E to E

5.2%
3.2%
38.5%

5.1%
3.2%
37.9%

-2%
-1%
---

33

Because the model used runs until the displacement is reached, the elongation directly
related to the model inputs. Due to this relationship, the model follows the actual data
closely.

Youngs Modulus
The modulus was again obtained by taking the linear portion of the model
generated stress-strain curve and determining the slope. This obtained model data was
then compared to the experimental and is seen in Table 7.
Table 7: Youngs modulus comparison between experimental and model
Tensile Bar Group

Actual E (avg.)

Predicted E (avg.)

A: 165-135
A : 165-135
% Decrease A to A

29,773,781
28,911,217
2.9%

29,792,947
26,064,508
12.5%

% Difference
from Actual
+0%
-10%
---

B: 110-80
B : 110-80
% Decrease B to B

28,184,387
25,145,988
10.8%

28,202,236
24,646,431
12.6%

+0%
-2%
---

C: CF8M
C : CF8M
% Decrease C to C

25,807,251
21,279,905
17.5%

20,536,743
22,520,720
-9.7%

-20%
+6%
---

D: 110-80
D : 110-80
% Decrease D to D

31,346,324
26,391,115
15.8%

31,353,852
27,336,453
12.8%

0%
+4%
---

E: Eglin
E : Eglin
% Decrease E to E

26,864,791
23,864,716
11.2%

26,967,907
23,841,044
11.6%

0%
0%
---

Table 7 reveals that the predicted modulus of each alloy was affected by about the same
amount of decrease. For most instances, the generated modulus matched the
experimental data. The predicted moduli also reiterated that modulus is affected least by
the indication in comparison to the other observed tensile properties. In all cases except

34

for the CF8M, the predicted percent decrease in modulus caused by the 0.25 in. flatbottom hole was off by less than 10%. This CF8M discrepancy is most likely due to the
models first generated data point being after the linear portion of the CF8M stress-strain
curve.
These results prove that ANSYS models can be used with relative accuracy in
predicting the decrease in tensile properties seen by a 0.25 in. flat-bottom hole drilled
through half the thickness. Thus the modeled 0.25 in. tensile bars proved useful in
predicting the relationship between the defect and its properties.

Conclusions
In conclusion, alloy strengths were unaffected until the indication length reaches
1

/8 in. All alloy elongations were greatly affected by the presence of practically any

indication, thus revealing that elongation is the governing design factor. Also, the elastic
moduli of the observed alloys were unaffected until indication lengths of the 1/4 in. or
greater. In all observed instances, the more ductile the alloy, the less the impact of an
indication. Also, the machined indications generated the most conservative properties in
the experiment. ANSYS software was able to predict the percent decrease in properties
from sound material to the machined 0.25 in. hole to an average accuracy of 311%.

35

References:
[1] ASTM E186-10. Standard Reference Radiographs for Heavy-Walled Steel
Castings. 2010
[2] ASTM A903/A903M. Standard Specification for Steel Castings, Surface
Acceptance Standards, Magnetic Particle and Liquid Penetrant Inspection. 2009
[3] Steel Castings Handbook. Supplement 2: Summary of Standard Specifications for
Steel Castings. Steel Founders Society of America. 2009
[4] Svoboda, John M. Fatigue and Fracture Toughness of Five Carbon Low Alloy
Steels at Room and Low Climactic Temperatures (Part II) A. Steel Founders
Society of America Research Report No. 94A. Carbon and Low Alloy Technical
Research Committee Steel Founders Society of America. October 1982.
[5] Hamby, Jeff, John Griffin, and Dr. Robin Foley. Verification of the New
Radiographic Testing (RT) Standard through Mechanical Testing. Proceedings
of Steel Founders Society of America Technical and Operating Conference
UAB. Dec. 2011.
[6] Sigl, K.M. et al. Fatigue of 8630 cast steel in the presence of porosity.
International Journal of Cast Metals Research 2004 Vol. 17 No.3. University of
Iowa 2004.
[7] Hardin, R. A., & Beckermann, C. Effect of Porosity on the Stiffness of Cast
Steel. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A. Vol. 38A(12). 29923006.
The Minerals, Metals, & Materials Society and ASM International. 2007.
[8] Rudy, J. F. and Rupert, E. J. Effects of Porosity on Mechanical Properties of
Aluminum Welds. Welding Research Supplement. 322-s335-s. July 1970.
[9] ASTM E8/E8M. Standard Test Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic
Materials. 2009
[10] ASTM E709. Standard Guide for Magnetic Particle Testing. 2008
[11] ASTM E 165/ E165M. Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant Examination for
General Industry. 2009
[12] Hobbacher, A. Fatigue design of welded joints and components. 1996

36

APPENDIX A
TENSILE DATA

37

Modulus, E

0.2% YS
(psi)

UTS(psi)

Strain @
Max Stress

Hole
in gage

Max
Indict.
Length
(in)

Fract.
Surf.
Area
(%)

Alloy

%
Elong.

165/135

A4

9.0

30,252,866

175019

190737

0.046227697

0.000

0.1

165/135

A5

7.0

28,691,188

177978

191754

0.04447763

0.000

3.5
0.7

165/135

A6

7.5

29,364,798

175491

191394

0.045135263

0.000

165/135

A7

8.0

29,073,879

176588

191361

0.045586135

0.000

0.0

165/135

A8

7.5

31626292.09

176415

191040

0.033652097

0.000

1.3

165/135

A9

7.0

28693570.48

175955

191144

0.039313804

0.000

0.0

0.000

0.4

165/135

A10

3.5

30,084,072

175446

189976

0.033185799

165/135

A11

2.0

33294772.25

175829

183794

0.012656678

0.0625

0.000

6.3

165/135

A12

3.0

32546233.79

174682

182829

0.013380029

0.0625

0.000

6.3

165/135

A13

5.5

28,601,903

176723

190766

0.04301526

0.044

0.2

0.000

6.3

0.320

12.0

165/135

A14

3.0

26453681.81

173172

183667

0.015261985

0.0625

165/135

A15

3.0

27,094,186

168411

179878

0.024543982

165/135

A16

2.0

28641145.74

135646

137494

0.007555771

0.25

0.000

25.0

165/135

A17

2.5

26353446.62

161999

164855

0.009521087

0.125

0.000

12.5

165/135

A18

2.0

28,397,397

152161

152161

0.005935499

0.192

7.2
3.3

165/135

A19

2.5

26,015,122

172551

185230

0.021615038

0.020

165/135

A20

2.5

27,943,811

166603

166603

0.006745987

0.238

6.1

165/135

A21

3.0

27,420,411

133506

133506

0.005484967

0.335

50.8

165/135

A22

4.0

27,637,770

173401

186292

0.023547078

0.063

1.4

0.000

12.5

165/135

A23

2.0

30013078.44

165122

167566

0.009668754

0.125

165/135

A24

5.5

27,623,721

176501

187251

0.017462865

0.092

26.9

165/135

A25

2.0

31,004,845

171892

173814

0.009462523

0.153

32.0

165/135

A26

2.5

31,535,319

160713

166190

0.011038303

0.197

15.9

165/135

A27

3.5

29,245,045

149570

163150

0.020442087

0.165

46.5
12.5

165/135

A28

2.5

28674339.46

149606

153096

0.008722876

0.125

0.000

165/135

A29

2.5

29181287.92

118989

125984

0.008957542

0.25

0.000

25.0

110/80

B1

13.0

27,961,656

107831

134688

0.067877926

0.000

0.8

110/80

B2

12.5

33,086,885

106125

132264

0.072826982

0.030

6.7
0.9

110/80

B3

13.5

28,730,595

106269

132766

0.074021488

0.000

110/80

B4

9.0

28111361.89

109000

136099

0.0707651

0.000

1.6

110/80

B5

12.5

28480141.31

109136

135360

0.065687001

0.000

0.8

110/80

B6

4.5

29428285.73

109017

130995

0.042136353

0.000

6.3

110/80

B7

13.0

30,221,569

110253

135836

0.071881428

0.000

5.2

0.109

7.2

0.000

6.3

0.072

2.7

110/80

B8

5.0

33,316,452

110891

130681

0.036337767

110/80

B9

6.0

29986745.81

108664

130540

0.041089348

110/80

B10

7.5

30,320,115

110158

135563

0.068104059

110/80

B11

6.0

29714383.44

108782

129228

0.037954699

110/80

B12

4.5

28257993.3

102319

118292

0.020926585

0.0625

0.0625

0.0625

0.000

6.3

0.125

0.000

12.5

38

110/80

B13

3.5

30810267.77

105175

119799

0.020760607

0.125

0.000

12.5

110/80

B14

3.5

28449006.55

103911

118023

0.019708134

0.125

0.000

12.5

110/80

B15

8.5

31,813,477

109714

135523

0.067677043

0.067

4.4

110/80

B16

5.0

30,456,459

108558

129101

0.033323929

0.085

4.5

110/80

B17

5.5

31,612,967

108301

132700

0.049511354

0.072

5.5

0.000

25.0

110/80

B18

3.5

25145988.3

85543

99389

0.016362939

110/80

B19

1.5

27,452,271

79368

79368

0.003600626

0.25

0.309

27.6

110/80

B20

10.5

28,417,668

108196

135960

0.069382213

0.054

1.3

110/80

B21

1.5

28,942,323

107313

119735

0.01731167

0.161

2.9
11.3

110/80

B22

4.0

31,167,327

108365

122190

0.022865729

0.065

110/80

B23

3.0

28,419,638

107641

118382

0.017986676

0.148

7.7

110/80

B24

10.0

32,000,459

109090

134378

0.067591652

0.000

0.5

110/80

B25

5.0

29,568,335

107331

124334

0.028641639

0.105

11.3

110/80

B26

7.0

28,662,731

103418

127525

0.049730156

0.072

12.3
6.6

110/80

B27

7.0

29,545,743

97132

119915

0.049512252

0.054

110/80

B28

13.0

28,118,132

96352

123447

0.07127481

0.062

21.0

CF8M

C1

28.0

23,503,422

31799

65843

0.20145939

0.067

33.4

CF8M

C2

52.0

26,321,895

34039

80941

0.42761526

0.068

0.5

0.036

11.8

CF8M

C3

26.0

25,467,449

33352

70549

0.22129148

CF8M

C4

30.5

25081553.49

33168

73908

0.24403925

0.125

0.000

12.5

CF8M

C5

28.5

27514820.62

34561

69098

0.24399422

0.0625

0.000

6.3

CF8M

C7

22.5

21066265.22

28991

57423

0.15901543

0.25

0.000

25.0

CF8M

C8

51.0

28,259,712

36824

78716

0.48595396

0.000

0.0
0.0

CF8M

C9

54.0

24,389,059

34163

77775

0.46086529

0.036

CF8M

C10

45.5

26,612,874

34672

78786

0.32751146

0.000

0.0

CF8M

C11

39.5

24,078,442

35112

79285

0.30956766

0.000

1.3

CF8M

C12

26.0

22374146.32

33928

68558

0.20041275

0.125

0.000

12.5

0.25

0.000

25.0

CF8M

C13

23.5

21776464.53

29697

59943

0.16364397

CF8M

C14

28.5

26,764,969

39117

71432

0.22368726

0.047

0.0

CF8M

C15

20.0

26,908,895

35937

69248

0.16647017

0.062

47.4

CF8M

C16

39.0

27,570,291

33048

78077

0.35273856

0.192

15.6

CF8M

C17

45.5

25,625,215

33307

76178

0.39317152

0.091

0.6

0.000

25.0

0.000

0.0

CF8M

C18

20.0

21514381.28

30280

56602

0.1265161

CF8M

C19

54.0

25,233,972

33745

79807

0.38374391

0.25

CF8M

C20

48.5

23585088.31

32851

78104

0.45493639

0.0625

0.000

6.3

CF8M

C22

22.5

20762507.38

29688

60943

0.16027179

0.25

0.000

25.0
0.2

CF8M

C23

45.0

27,384,224

33108

78657

0.38614559

0.000

CF8M

C25

40.0

23,822,520

33403

77752

0.2632235

0.082

0.7

CF8M

C26

47.0

24,286,376

31405

75136

0.36255124

0.046

2.2

CF8M

C27

37.5

21021843.56

30964

72688

0.29088813

0.000

12.5

0.000

0.0

0.000

12.5

CF8M

C28

48.0

27,016,898

33916

75694

0.41851655

CF8M

C29

28.5

22340494.84

33498

66259

0.2333522

0.125

0.125

39

0.000

6.3

0.000

0.0

0.000

6.3

0.37655166

0.000

0.0

0.35581136

0.000

0.0
0.0

CF8M

C30

32.5

22019744.01

32793

70017

0.23669343

CF8M

C31

56.5

23,410,103

33074

72530

0.41160625

CF8M

C32

29.0

18276251.2

35463

72075

0.20579399

CF8M

C34

44.0

22244971.21

35268

77869

CF8M

C35

35.0

25,580,198

34317

76781

0.0625

0.0625

CF8M

C36

47.0

28251116.45

33921

78449

0.39727163

0.000

110-80

D1-5

22.5

27,715,332

92905

111615

0.088948622

0.000

2.4

110-80

D1-6

13.0

33606519.33

92482

110226

0.068567723

0.0625

0.000

6.3

110-80

D1-8

10.0

27527446.02

88013

104630

0.04238376

0.125

0.000

12.5

0.000

0.2

110-80

D1-9

22.0

33,122,194

95722

113496

0.083042622

110-80

D1-10

7.5

25491303.38

71779

86658

0.028918706

0.25

0.000

25.0

110-80

D1-12

9.0

27975822.19

91399

106550

0.037625276

0.125

0.000

12.5

110-80

D1-13

12.5

27567138.02

101041

117151

0.06809327

0.0625

0.000

6.3

110-80

D2-4

19.0

32,762,731

97067

115883

0.070279308

0.018

0.8

0.000

1.4

110-80

D2-5

17.5

32,355,498

96645

115768

0.074118435

110-80

D2-6

7.5

24890169.47

75973

89896

0.025466975

0.25

0.000

25.0

110-80

D2-8

8.5

30,094,223.62

94478

109142

0.035086486

0.125

0.000

12.5

110-80

D2-9

21.5

32,192,271

101695

118264

0.07616587

0.000

0.7

0.000

6.3

0.000

1.3

110-80

D2-10

12.5

30163883.86

98590

115793

0.065269746

0.0625

110-80

D2-11

19.5

31,007,055

98028

116691

0.077785835

110-80

D2-12

7.5

26696703.83

75757

89616

0.026572356

0.25

0.000

25.0

110-80

D2-13

8.5

28486281.69

82306

94363

0.024333309

0.25

0.000

25.0

110-80

D3-1

11.0

36,127,462

99579

113540

0.065485843

0.193

6.0
0.0

110-80

D3-2

23.0

33,033,785

93355

111510

0.088961989

0.000

110-80

D3-3

21.5

30,032,985

90193

109662

0.082714073

0.038

0.0

110-80

D3-4

23.0

30,805,009

89514

109258

0.093816414

0.038

0.0

110-80

D3-5

24.0

30,272,877

91861

110186

0.093908153

0.000

0.3

0.000

0.0

110-80

D3-6

23.0

31,634,592

91739

110758

0.089738443

110-80

D3-7

11.0

29284489.46

82624

100583

0.049733803

0.125

0.000

12.5

110-80

D3-8

13.5

31492980.05

87260

105966

0.066313177

0.0625

0.000

6.3

110-80

D3-9

22.5

30,783,910

88861

108094

0.089188881

0.097

0.2

110-80

D3-10

21.5

29,139,459

87668

107510

0.080416195

0.000

0.0
0.1

110-80

D3-11

22.5

29,997,490

90492

109881

0.082136124

0.000

110-80

D3-12

22.5

31,496,735

94044

111729

0.085510574

0.061

0.0

110-80

D3-13

14.5

32,242,414

98979

115430

0.081883222

0.177

6.2

Eglin

ES1-2

6.9

26,256,567

163052

215402

0.036350816

0.000

0.0
0.0

Eglin

ES1-3

4.9

28,012,310

163239

210843.2

0.026835466

0.000

Eglin

ES1-4

3.7

26,325,497

160489

198900

0.020922411

0.000

0.0

Eglin

ES1-5

4.2

23,077,987

152269

200521

0.023187885

0.0625

0.000

6.3

Eglin

ES1-6

4.4

27,972,467

157057

196704

0.021894567

0.0625

0.000

6.3
12.5
12.5

Eglin

ES1-7

Eglin

ES1-8

3.0

26,098,168

135551

154831

0.015368793

0.125

0.000

31,824,774

148830

170369

0.015213027

0.125

0.000

40

Eglin

ES1-9

Eglin

ES1-10

Eglin

ES1-11

Eglin

ES1-12

27,081,549

142804

160706

0.016091352

0.125

0.000

12.5

22,482,321

114494

140782

0.016743625

0.25

0.000

25.0

3.4

25,189,318

117485

140521

0.015503213

0.25

0.000

25.0

3.0

23,922,510

106224

118577

0.009456518

0.25

0.000

25.0

3.9

41

APPENDIX B
STEEL CHEMISTRIES AND STRESS-STRAIN CURVES

42

Group
165-135, A
110-80, B
CF8M, C
110-80, D
Eglin, E

C
Si Mn
P
0.331 0.5 1.01 0.021
0.329 0.5 1.00 0.020
0.033 1.17 1.14 0.037
0.301 0.43 1.07 0.018
0.112 0.92 0.65 0.011

S
0.0165
0.0171
0.0069
0.0040
0.0024

Cr
0.841
0.841
19.5
0.565
3.03

Mo
0.460
0.460
0.251
0.307
0.404

Ni
Co
Cu
Nb
Ti
V
W
Zr
0.78
0.116
0.0144
0.78
0.120
0.0145
8.59 0.0777 0.348 0.0170 0.0096 0.0631 0.0479
0.65
0.107
0.0201
0.0883
0.0841 0.919
1.05
-

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53