E08 - Fatigue and Fracture

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

SCOPE
1.1 This terminology contains definitions, definitions of terms specific to certain standards, symbols, and abbreviations approved for use in standards on fatigue and fracture testing. The definitions are preceded by two lists. The first is an alphabetical listing of symbols used. (Greek symbols are listed in accordance with their spelling in English.) The second is an alphabetical listing of relevant abbreviations.  
1.2 This terminology includes Annex A1 on Units and Annex A2 on Designation Codes for Specimen Configuration, Applied Loading, and Crack or Notch Orientation.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

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

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
6.1 Creep crack growth rate expressed as a function of the steady state C* or K characterizes the resistance of a material to crack growth under conditions of extensive creep deformation or under brittle creep conditions. Background information on the rationale for employing the fracture mechanics approach in the analyses of creep crack growth data is given in (11, 13, 30-35).  
6.2 Aggressive environments at high temperatures can significantly affect the creep crack growth behavior. Attention must be given to the proper selection and control of temperature and environment in research studies and in generation of design data.  
6.2.1 Expressing CCI time, t0.2 and CCG rate, da/dt as a function of an appropriate fracture mechanics related parameter generally provides results that are independent of specimen size and planar geometry for the same stress state at the crack tip for the range of geometries and sizes presented in this document (see Annex A1). Thus, the appropriate correlation will enable exchange and comparison of data obtained from a variety of specimen configurations and loading conditions. Moreover, this feature enables creep crack growth data to be utilized in the design and evaluation of engineering structures operated at elevated temperatures where creep deformation is a concern. The concept of similitude is assumed, implying that cracks of differing sizes subjected to the same nominal C*(t), Ct, or K will advance by equal increments of crack extension per unit time, provided the conditions for the validity for the specific crack growth rate relating parameter are met. See 11.7 for details.  
6.2.2 The effects of crack tip constraint arising from variations in specimen size, geometry and material ductility can influence t0.2 and da/dt. For example, crack growth rates at the same value of C*(t), Ct in creep-ductile materials generally increases with increasing thickness. It is therefore necessary to keep the component dimensions in mind when selecti...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of creep crack initiation (CCI) and creep crack growth (CCG) in metals at elevated temperatures using pre-cracked specimens subjected to static or quasi-static loading conditions. The solutions presented in this test method are validated for base material (that is, homogenous properties) and mixed base/weld material with inhomogeneous microstructures and creep properties. The CCI time, t0.2, which is the time required to reach an initial crack extension of δai = 0.2 mm to occur from the onset of first applied force, and CCG rate, a˙  or da/dt are expressed in terms of the magnitude of creep crack growth correlated by fracture mechanics parameters, C* or K, with C* defined as the steady state determination of the crack tip stresses derived in principal from C*(t) and Ct   (1-17).2 The crack growth derived in this manner is identified as a material property which can be used in modeling and life assessment methods (17-28).  
1.1.1 The choice of the crack growth correlating parameter C*, C*(t), Ct, or K depends on the material creep properties, geometry and size of the specimen. Two types of material behavior are generally observed during creep crack growth tests; creep-ductile (1-17) and creep-brittle (29-44). In creep ductile materials, where creep strains dominate and creep crack growth is accompanied by substantial time-dependent creep strains at the crack tip, the crack growth rate is correlated by the steady state definitions of Ct or C*(t) , defined as C* (see 1.1.4). In creep-brittle materials, creep crack growth occurs at low creep ductility. Consequently, the time-dependent creep strains are comparable to or dominated by accompanying elastic strains local to the crack tip. Under such steady state creep-brittle conditions, Ct or K could be chosen as the correlating parameter (8-14).  
1.1.2 In any one test, two regions of crack growth behavior may be present (12, 13)....

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

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fatigue crack growth rate expressed as a function of crack-tip stress-intensity factor range, da/dN versus ΔK, characterizes a material's resistance to stable crack extension under cyclic loading. Background information on the ration-ale for employing linear elastic fracture mechanics to analyze fatigue crack growth rate data is given in Refs (3) and (4).  
5.1.1 In innocuous (inert) environments fatigue crack growth rates are primarily a function of ΔK and force ratio, R, or Kmax and R (Note 1). Temperature and aggressive environments can significantly affect da/dN versus ΔK, and in many cases accentuate R-effects and introduce effects of other loading variables such as cycle frequency and waveform. Attention needs to be given to the proper selection and control of these variables in research studies and in the generation of design data.
Note 1: ΔK, Kmax, and R are not independent of each other. Specification of any two of these variables is sufficient to define the loading condition. It is customary to specify one of the stress-intensity parameters (ΔK or Kmax) along with the force ratio, R.  
5.1.2 Expressing da/dN as a function of ΔK provides results that are independent of planar geometry, thus enabling exchange and comparison of data obtained from a variety of specimen configurations and loading conditions. Moreover, this feature enables da/dN versus ΔK data to be utilized in the design and evaluation of engineering structures. The concept of similitude is assumed, which implies that cracks of differing lengths subjected to the same nominal ΔK will advance by equal increments of crack extension per cycle.  
5.1.3 Fatigue crack growth rate data are not always geometry-independent in the strict sense since thickness effects sometimes occur. However, data on the influence of thickness on fatigue crack growth rate are mixed. Fatigue crack growth rates over a wide range of ΔK have been reported to either increase, decrease, or remain unaffected as specimen...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method2 covers the determination of fatigue crack growth rates from near-threshold (see region I in Fig. 1) to Kmax  controlled instability (see region III in Fig. 1.) Results are expressed in terms of the crack-tip stress-intensity factor range (ΔK), defined by the theory of linear elasticity.  
1.9 Special requirements for the various specimen configurations appear in the following order:
The Compact Specimen  
Annex A1  
The Middle Tension Specimen  
Annex A2  
The Eccentrically-Loaded Single Edge Crack Tension Specimen  
Annex A3  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.11 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Cycle counting is used to summarize (often lengthy) irregular load-versus-time histories by providing the number of times cycles of various sizes occur. The definition of a cycle varies with the method of cycle counting. These practices cover the procedures used to obtain cycle counts by various methods, including level-crossing counting, peak counting, simple-range counting, range-pair counting, and rainflow counting. Cycle counts can be made for time histories of force, stress, strain, torque, acceleration, deflection, or other loading parameters of interest.
SCOPE
1.1 These practices are a compilation of acceptable procedures for cycle-counting methods employed in fatigue analysis. This standard does not intend to recommend a particular method.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Constant torque thermal cycling tests determine the effect of shear stress on the transformation properties such as transformation temperatures, actuation shear strain and residual shear strain of a shape memory alloy. This test is done to provide data for the characterization selection of shape memory alloy materials, quality control, design allowables and actuator design (1-3).5 The tests should be used for one thermal cycle but may be used for repeated thermal cycles as agreed upon between supplier and customer.  
4.2 Measurement of the specimen's motion closely parallels many shape memory actuator applications and provides a result that is applicable to the function of the material.  
4.3 This test method may be used for cylindrical specimens such as wire, round tube or bar forms. Thus, it is able to provide an assessment of the product in its semi-finished form.  
4.4 This test method provides a simple method for determining transformation temperatures by heating and cooling specimens through their full thermal transformation under torque.  
4.5 This test method may also be used to evaluate partial transformation cycles as set by the LCT and UCT and agreed upon between the user and customer. Examples of partial and full transformation thermal cycles are provided in Fig. 2.
FIG. 2 Effects of Shear Stress and Upper Cycle Temperature on Test Results
Note 1: A) UCT sufficient for complete Austenitic transformation. B) UCT not sufficient for complete Austenitic transformation. “τ” is the applied shear stress.  
4.6 This test method can be used on trained and processed material in a semi-finished form to measure Two Way Shape Memory Effect (TWSME) by comparing the shear strain at the LCT and UCT with a torque set such that the corresponding shear stress shall not exceed 7 MPa. For determining TWSME in this manner it is suggested that a full transformation cycle be performed in accordance with 5.7.  
4.7 This test method is useful for quality control, sp...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method will define procedures for thermomechanical cycling of shape memory alloys (SMA) material and components with circular cross-sections under constant torque. This test method will measure the transformation properties such as transformation temperatures, actuation shear strain and residual shear strain, when a shape memory alloy is thermally cycled through the phase transformation under a constant applied torque. This test is done to provide data for the characterization selection of shape memory alloy materials, quality control, design allowables and actuator design.  
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

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

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Fatigue test results may be significantly influenced by the properties and history of the parent material, the operations performed during the preparation of the fatigue specimens, and the testing machine and test procedures used during the generation of the data. The presentation of fatigue test results should include citation of basic information on the material, specimens, and testing to increase the utility of the results and to reduce to a minimum the possibility of misinterpretation or improper application of those results.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the desirable and minimum information to be communicated between the originator and the user of data derived from constant-force amplitude axial, bending, or torsion fatigue tests of metallic materials tested in air and at room temperature.  
Note 1: Practice E466, although not directly referenced in the text, is considered important enough to be listed in this standard.  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Constant force thermal cycling tests determine the effect of stress on the transformation temperatures, recovered strain and residual strain of a shape memory alloy. The tests may be for one thermal cycle. A standard test method for force controlled repeated thermal cycling of shape memory alloys is currently under development.  
5.2 Measurement of the specimen's thermomechanical behavior closely parallels many shape memory applications and provides a result that is applicable to the function of the material.  
5.3 This test method may be used for, but is not limited to, wire, round tube, or strip samples. Thus it is able to provide an assessment of the product in its semi-finished form.  
5.4 This test method provides a simple method for determining transformation temperatures by heating and cooling specimens through their full thermal transformation under force.  
5.5 This test method can be used on trained and processed material in a semi-finished form to measure Two Way Shape Memory Effect by comparing the strain in the austenite state and martensite states with no minimal applied stress. The force is set to a minimum value not to exceed a corresponding stress of 7 MPa (in accordance Test Method F2516).  
5.6 This test method is useful for quality control, specification acceptance, and research.  
5.7 Transformation temperatures derived from this test method may not agree with those obtained by other test methods due to the effects of strain and stress on the transformation.  
5.8 Components such as springs or other semi-finished parts can be tested using this method as agreed upon by the customer and supplier. Units of stress and strain can be replaced with force and displacement.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method defines procedures for thermomechanical cycling of shape memory alloy (SMA) material and components under constant force. This method characterizes the transformation properties such as transformation temperatures, actuation strain and residual strain, when a SMA is thermally cycled through the phase transformation under a constant applied force. This test is done to provide data for the selection of SMA materials, quality control, design allowables and actuator design.  
1.2 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

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

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

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

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The parameters KEAC  or KIEAC  determined by this test method characterize the resistance to crack growth of a material with a sharp crack in specific environments under loading conditions in which the crack-tip plastic region is small compared with the crack depth and the uncracked ligament. The less restrictive thickness requirements of KEAC  are intended for those conditions in which the results are a strong function of the thickness of the specimen and the application requires the testing of specimens with thickness representative of the application. Since the chemical and mechanical influences cannot be separated, in some material/environment combinations, the thickness must be treated as a variable. A KEAC  or KIEAC  value is believed to represent a characteristic measurement of environment-assisted cracking resistance in a precracked specimen exposed to an environment under sustained tensile loading. A KEAC  or KIEAC  value may be used to estimate the relationship between failure stress and defect size for a material under any service condition, where the combination of crack-like defects, sustained tensile loading and the same specific environment would be expected to occur. (Background information concerning the development of this test method can be found in Refs (3-18).  
5.1.1 The apparent KEAC  or KIEAC  of a material under a given set of chemical and electrochemical environmental conditions is a function of the test duration. It is difficult to furnish a rigorous and scientific proof for the existence of a threshold (4, 5). Therefore, application of KEAC  or KIEAC  data in the design of service components should be made with awareness of the uncertainty inherent in the concept of a true threshold for environment-assisted cracking in metallic materials (6, 18). A measured KEAC  or KIEAC  value for a particular combination of material and environment may, in fact, represent an acceptably low rate of crack growth rather than an absolute upper limit f...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the environment-assisted cracking threshold stress intensity factor parameters, KIEAC  and KEAC, for metallic materials from constant-force testing of fatigue precracked beam or compact fracture specimens and from constant-displacement testing of fatigue precracked bolt-load compact fracture specimens.  
1.2 This test method is applicable to environment-assisted cracking in aqueous or other aggressive environments.  
1.3 Materials that can be tested by this test method are not limited by thickness or by strength as long as specimens are of sufficient thickness and planar size to meet the size requirements of this test method.  
1.4 A range of specimen sizes with proportional planar dimensions is provided, but size may be variable and adjusted for yield strength and applied force. Specimen thickness is a variable independent of planar size.  
1.5 Specimen configurations other than those contained in this test method may be used, provided that well-established stress intensity calibrations are available and that specimen dimensions are of sufficient size to meet the size requirements of this test method during testing.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 A method for obtaining fatigue strain (stress) at a specific life is of interest to the wire manufacturer, designer and consumer. The method is useful in production control, material acceptance and determination of the fatigue strain (stress) of the wire at a specific fatigue life, that is, fatigue strength. Rotating bending fatigue testing of small diameter solid round wire is possible by looping a specimen of predetermined length through an arc of 90° to 180°. The bending strain (stress) is determined from the geometry of the loop thusly formed. The methodology is capable of high frequency testing provided the temperature of the test article is constant and there is no adiabatic heating of the wire. A constant temperature can be maintained by immersing the specimen in a constant temperature fluid bath or test media. This makes it practical to quickly test a sufficient number of specimens to provide a statistical frequency distribution or survival probability distribution of fatigue life at a given strain (stress). Fatigue life information is useful to ascertain wire in-service durability and to assess, for example, the effects of melt practice and cold work processing.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended as a procedure for the performance of rotating bending fatigue tests of solid round fine wire to obtain the fatigue strength of metallic materials at a specified life in the fatigue regime where the strains (stresses) are predominately and nominally linear elastic. This test method is limited to the fatigue testing of small diameter solid round wire subjected to a constant amplitude periodic strain (stress). The methodology can be useful in assessing the effects of internal material structure, such as inclusions, in melt technique and cold work processing studies. However, there is a caveat. The strain, due to the radial strain gradient imposed by the test methodology, is a maximum at the surface and zero at the centerline. Thus the test method may not seek out the “weakest link,” largest inclusions, that govern uniaxial high cycle fatigue life where the strain is uniform across the cross section and where fatigue damage initiates at a subsurface location (1-5).2 Also, pre-strain, which can influence fatigue life, is not included in this test method.
Note 1: The following documents, although not specifically mentioned, are considered sufficiently important to be listed in this test method:
ASTM STP 566 Handbook of Fatigue Testing
ASTM STP 588 Manual on Statistical Planning and Analysis for Fatigue Experiments
ASTM STP 731 Tables for Estimating Median Fatigue Limits (6-8)  
1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Fretting fatigue tests are used to determine the effects of several fretting parameters on the fatigue lives of metallic materials. Some of these parameters include differing materials, relative displacement amplitudes, normal force at the fretting contact, alternating tangential force, the contact geometry, surface integrity parameters such as finish, and the environment. Comparative tests are used to determine the effectiveness of palliatives on the fatigue life of specimens with well-controlled boundary conditions so that the mechanics of the fretting fatigue test can be modeled. Generally, it is useful to compare the fretting fatigue response to plain fatigue to obtain knockdown or reduction factors from fretting fatigue. The results may be used as a guide in selecting material combinations, design stress levels, lubricants, and coatings to alleviate or eliminate fretting fatigue concerns in new or existing designs. However, due to the synergisms of fatigue, wear, and corrosion on the fretting fatigue parameters, extreme care should be exercised in the judgment to determine if the test conditions meet the design or system conditions.  
4.2 For data to be comparable, reproducible, and correlated amongst laboratories and relevant to mimic fretting in an application, all parameters critical to the fretting fatigue life of the material in question will need to be replicated. Because alterations in environment, metallurgical properties, fretting loading (controlled forces and displacements), compliance of the test system, etc. can affect the response, no general guidelines exist to quantitatively ascertain what the effect will be on the specimen fretting fatigue life if a single parameter is varied. To assure test results can be correlated and reproduced, all material variables, testing information, physical procedures, and analytical procedures should be reported in a manner that is consistent with good current test practices.  
4.3 Because of the wear phenome...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide defines terminology and covers general requirements for conducting fretting fatigue tests and reporting the results. It describes the general types of fretting fatigue tests and provides some suggestions on developing and conducting fretting fatigue test programs.  
1.2 Fretting fatigue tests are designed to determine the effects of mechanical and environmental parameters on the fretting fatigue behavior of metallic materials. This guide is not intended to establish preference of one apparatus or specimen design over others, but will establish guidelines for adherence in the design, calibration, and use of fretting fatigue apparatus and recommend the means to collect, record, and reporting of the data.  
1.3 The number of cycles to form a fretting fatigue crack is dependent on both the material of the fatigue specimen and fretting pad, the geometry of contact between the two, and the method by which the loading and displacement are imposed. Similar to wear behavior of materials, it is important to consider fretting fatigue as a system response, instead of a material response. Because of this dependency on the configuration of the system, quantifiable comparisons of various material combinations should be based on tests using similar fretting fatigue configurations and material couples.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Multiaxial forces often tend to introduce deformation and damage mechanisms that are unique and quite different from those induced under a simple uniaxial loading condition. Since most engineering components are subjected to cyclic multiaxial forces it is necessary to characterize the deformation and fatigue behaviors of materials in this mode. Such a characterization enables reliable prediction of the fatigue lives of many engineering components. Axial-torsional loading is one of several possible types of multiaxial force systems and is essentially a biaxial type of loading. Thin-walled tubular specimens subjected to axial-torsional loading can be used to explore behavior of materials in two of the four quadrants in principal stress or strain spaces. Axial-torsional loading is more convenient than in-plane biaxial loading because the stress state in the thin-walled tubular specimens is constant over the entire test section and is well-known. This practice is useful for generating fatigue life and cyclic deformation data on homogeneous materials under axial, torsional, and combined in- and out-of-phase axial-torsional loading conditions.
SCOPE
1.1 The standard deals with strain-controlled, axial, torsional, and combined in- and out-of-phase axial torsional fatigue testing with thin-walled, circular cross-section, tubular specimens at isothermal, ambient and elevated temperatures. This standard is limited to symmetric, completely-reversed strains (zero mean strains) and axial and torsional waveforms with the same frequency in combined axial-torsional fatigue testing. This standard is also limited to characterization of homogeneous materials with thin-walled tubular specimens and does not cover testing of either large-scale components or structural elements.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The axial force fatigue test is used to determine the effect of variations in material, geometry, surface condition, stress, and so forth, on the fatigue resistance of metallic materials subjected to direct stress for relatively large numbers of cycles. The results may also be used as a guide for the selection of metallic materials for service under conditions of repeated direct stress.  
4.2 In order to verify that such basic fatigue data generated using this practice is comparable, reproducible, and correlated among laboratories, it may be advantageous to conduct a round-robin-type test program from a statistician's point of view. To do so would require the control or balance of what are often deemed nuisance variables; for example, hardness, cleanliness, grain size, composition, directionality, surface residual stress, surface finish, and so forth. Thus, when embarking on a program of this nature it is essential to define and maintain consistency a priori, as many variables as reasonably possible, with as much economy as prudent. All material variables, testing information, and procedures used should be reported so that correlation and reproducibility of results may be attempted in a fashion that is considered reasonably good current test practice.  
4.3 The results of the axial force fatigue test are suitable for application to design only when the specimen test conditions realistically simulate service conditions or some methodology of accounting for service conditions is available and clearly defined.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the procedure for the performance of axial force controlled fatigue tests to obtain the fatigue strength of metallic materials in the fatigue regime where the strains are predominately elastic, both upon initial loading and throughout the test. This practice is limited to the fatigue testing of axial unnotched and notched specimens subjected to a constant amplitude, periodic forcing function in air at room temperature.  
1.2 The use of this test method is limited to specimens and does not cover testing of full-scale components, structures, or consumer products.  
1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.4 The text of this standard references notes and footnotes that provide explanatory material. These notes and footnotes (excluding those in tables and figures) shall not be considered as requirements of the standard.
Note 1: The following documents, although not directly referenced in the text, are considered important enough to be listed in this practice:
E739 Practice for Statistical Analysis of Linear or Linearized Stress-Life (S-N) and Strain-Life (ε-N) Fatigue Data
STP 566 Handbook of Fatigue Testing2
STP 588 Manual on Statistical Planning and Analysis for Fatigue Experiments3
STP 731 Tables for Estimating Median Fatigue Limits4  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Strain-controlled fatigue is a phenomenon that is influenced by the same variables that influence force-controlled fatigue. The nature of strain-controlled fatigue imposes distinctive requirements on fatigue testing methods. In particular, cyclic total strain should be measured and cyclic plastic strain should be determined. Furthermore, either of these strains typically is used to establish cyclic limits; total strain usually is controlled throughout the cycle. The uniqueness of this test method and the results it yields are the determination of cyclic stresses and strains at any time during the tests. Differences in strain histories other than constant-amplitude alter fatigue life as compared with the constant amplitude results (for example, periodic overstrains and block or spectrum histories). Likewise, the presence of nonzero mean strains and varying environmental conditions may alter fatigue life as compared with the constant-amplitude, fully reversed fatigue tests. Care must be exercised in analyzing and interpreting data for such cases. In the case of variable amplitude or spectrum strain histories, cycle counting can be performed with Practice E1049.  
4.2 Strain-controlled fatigue can be an important consideration in the design of industrial products. It is important for situations in which components or portions of components undergo either mechanically or thermally induced cyclic plastic strains that cause failure within relatively few (that is, approximately 5) cycles. Information obtained from strain-controlled fatigue testing may be an important element in the establishment of design criteria to protect against component failure by fatigue.  
4.3 Strain-controlled fatigue test results are useful in the areas of mechanical design as well as materials research and development, process and quality control, product performance, and failure analysis. Results of a strain-controlled fatigue test program may be used in the formulation of empirical relat...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of fatigue properties of nominally homogeneous materials by the use of test specimens subjected to uniaxial forces. It is intended as a guide for fatigue testing performed in support of such activities as materials research and development, mechanical design, process and quality control, product performance, and failure analysis. While this test method is intended primarily for strain-controlled fatigue testing, some sections may provide useful information for force-controlled or stress-controlled testing.  
1.2 The use of this test method is limited to specimens and does not cover testing of full-scale components, structures, or consumer products.  
1.3 This test method is applicable to temperatures and strain rates for which the magnitudes of time-dependent inelastic strains are on the same order or less than the magnitudes of time-independent inelastic strains. No restrictions are placed on environmental factors such as temperature, pressure, humidity, medium, and others, provided they are controlled throughout the test, do not cause loss of or change in dimension with time, and are detailed in the data report.  
Note 1: The term inelastic is used herein to refer to all nonelastic strains. The term plastic is used herein to refer only to the time-independent (that is, noncreep) component of inelastic strain. To truly determine a time-independent strain the force would have to be applied instantaneously, which is not possible. A useful engineering estimate of time-independent strain can be obtained when the strain rate exceeds some value. For example, a strain rate of 1 × 10−3 sec−1  is often used for this purpose. This value should increase with increasing test temperature.  
1.4 This test method is restricted to the testing of uniform gage section test specimens subjected to axial forces as shown in Fig. 1(a). Testing is limited to strain-controlled cycling. The test ...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 It is well understood how to measure the forces applied to a specimen under static conditions. Practices E4 details the required process for verifying the static force measurement capabilities of testing machines. During dynamic operation however, additional errors may manifest themselves in a testing machine. Further verification is necessary to confirm the dynamic force measurement capabilities of testing machines.
Note 1: The static machine verification accomplished by Practices E4 simply establishes the reference. Indicated forces measured from the force cell are compared with the dynamometer conditioned forces statically for confirmation and then dynamically for dynamic verification of the fatigue testing system's force output.
Note 2: The dynamic accuracy of the force cell's output will not always meet the accuracy requirement of this standard without correction. Dynamic correction to the force cell output can be applied provided that verification is performed after the correction has been applied.
Note 3: Overall test accuracy is a combination of measurement accuracy and control accuracy. This practice provides methods to evaluate either or both. As control accuracy is dependent on many more variables than measurement accuracy it is imperative that the test operator utilize appropriate measurement tools to confirm that the testing machine’s control behavior is consistent between verification activities and actual testing activities.  
4.2 Dynamic errors are primarily span dependent, not level dependent. That is, the error for a particular force endlevel during dynamic operation is dependent on the immediately preceding force endlevel. Larger spans imply larger absolute errors for the same force endlevel.  
4.3 Due to the many test machine factors that influence dynamic force accuracy, verification is recommended for every new combination of potential error producing factors. Primary factors are specimen design, machine configuration, test frequenc...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers procedures for the dynamic verification of cyclic force amplitude control or measurement accuracy during constant amplitude testing in an axial fatigue testing system. It is based on the premise that force verification can be done with the use of a strain gaged elastic element. Use of this practice gives assurance that the accuracies of forces applied by the machine or dynamic force readings from the test machine, at the time of the test, after any user applied correction factors, fall within the limits recommended in Section 9. It does not address static accuracy which must first be addressed using Practices E4 or equivalent.  
1.2 Verification is specific to a particular test machine configuration and specimen. This standard is recommended to be used for each configuration of testing machine and specimen. Where dynamic correction factors are to be applied to test machine force readings in order to meet the accuracy recommended in Section 9, the verification is also specific to the correction process used. Finally, if the correction process is triggered or performed by a person, or both, then the verification is specific to that individual as well.  
1.3 It is recognized that performance of a full verification for each configuration of testing machine and specimen configuration could be prohibitively time consuming and/or expensive. Annex A1 provides methods for estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of test machine and specimen configuration changes that may occur between full verifications. Where test machine dynamic accuracy is influenced by a person, estimating the dynamic accuracy impact of all individuals involved in the correction process is recommended. This practice does not specify how that assessment will be done due to the strong dependence on owner/operators of the test machine.  
1.4 This practice is intended to be used periodically. Consistent results between verifications is e...

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

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

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Creep-fatigue testing is typically performed at elevated temperatures and involves the sequential or simultaneous application of the loading conditions necessary to generate cyclic deformation/damage enhanced by creep deformation/damage or vice versa. Unless such tests are performed in vacuum or an inert environment, oxidation can also be responsible for important interaction effects relating to damage accumulation. The purpose of creep-fatigue tests can be to determine material property data for (a) assessment input data for the deformation and damage condition analysis of engineering structures operating at elevated temperatures (b) the verification of constitutive deformation and damage model effectiveness (c) material characterization, or (d) development and verification of rules for new construction and life assessment of high-temperature components subject to cyclic service with low frequencies or with periods of steady operation, or both.  
4.2 In every case, it is advisable to have complementary continuous cycling fatigue data (gathered at the same strain/loading rate) and creep data determined from test conducted as per Practice E139 for the same material and test temperature(s). The procedure is primarily concerned with the testing of round bar test specimens subjected (at least remotely) to uniaxial loading in either force or strain control. The focus of the procedure is on tests in which creep and fatigue deformation and damage is generated simultaneously within a given cycle. Data which may be determined from creep-fatigue tests performed under such conditions may characterize  (a) cyclic stress-strain deformation response (b) cyclic creep (or relaxation) deformation response (c) cyclic hardening, cyclic softening response or (d) cycles to crack formation, or both.  
4.3 While there are a number of testing Standards and Codes of Practice that cover the determination of low cycle fatigue deformation and cycles to crack initiation properties (See Pr...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of mechanical properties pertaining to creep-fatigue deformation or crack formation in nominally homogeneous materials, or both by the use of test specimens subjected to uniaxial forces under isothermal conditions. It concerns fatigue testing at strain rates or with cycles involving sufficiently long hold times to be responsible for the cyclic deformation response and cycles to crack formation to be affected by creep (and oxidation). It is intended as a test method for fatigue testing performed in support of such activities as materials research and development, mechanical design, process and quality control, product performance, and failure analysis. The cyclic conditions responsible for creep-fatigue deformation and cracking vary with material and with temperature for a given material.  
1.2 The use of this test method is limited to specimens and does not cover testing of full-scale components, structures, or consumer products.  
1.3 This test method is primarily aimed at providing the material properties required for assessment of defect-free engineering structures containing features that are subject to cyclic loading at temperatures that are sufficiently high to cause creep deformation.  
1.4 This test method is applicable to the determination of deformation and crack formation or nucleation properties as a consequence of either constant-amplitude strain-controlled tests or constant-amplitude force-controlled tests. It is primarily concerned with the testing of round bar test specimens subjected to uniaxial loading in either force or strain control. The focus of the procedure is on tests in which creep and fatigue deformation and damage is generated simultaneously within a given cycle. It does not cover block cycle testing in which creep and fatigue damage is generated sequentially. Data that may be determined from creep-fatigue tests performed under conditions in whi...

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

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Creep-fatigue crack growth testing is typically performed at elevated temperatures over a range of frequencies and hold-times and involves the sequential or simultaneous application of the loading conditions necessary to generate crack tip cyclic deformation/damage enhanced by creep deformation/damage or vice versa. Unless such tests are performed in vacuum or an inert environment, oxidation can also be responsible for important interaction effects relating to damage accumulation. The purpose of creep-fatigue crack growth tests can be to determine material property data for (a) assessment input data for the damage condition analysis of engineering structures operating at elevated temperatures, (b) material characterization, or (c)  development and verification of rules for design and life assessment of high-temperature components subject to cyclic service with low frequencies or with periods of steady operation, or a combination thereof.  
4.2 In every case, it is advisable to have complementary continuous cycling fatigue data (gathered at the same loading/unloading rate), creep crack growth data for the same material and test temperature(s) as per Test Method E1457, and creep-fatigue crack formation data as per Test Method E2714. Aggressive environments at high temperatures can significantly affect the creep-fatigue crack growth behavior. Attention must be given to the proper selection and control of temperature and environment in research studies and in generation of design data.  
4.3 Results from this test method can be used as follows:  
4.3.1 Establish material selection criteria and inspection requirements for damage tolerant applications where cyclic loading at elevated temperature is present.  
4.3.2 Establish, in quantitative terms, the individual and combined effects of metallurgical, fabrication, operating temperature, and loading variables on creep-fatigue crack growth life.  
4.4 The results obtained from this test method are designed for crac...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of creep-fatigue crack growth properties of nominally homogeneous materials by use of pre-cracked compact type, C(T), test specimens subjected to uniaxial cyclic forces. It concerns fatigue cycling with sufficiently long loading/unloading rates or hold-times, or both, to cause creep deformation at the crack tip and the creep deformation be responsible for enhanced crack growth per loading cycle. It is intended as a guide for creep-fatigue testing performed in support of such activities as materials research and development, mechanical design, process and quality control, product performance, and failure analysis. Therefore, this method requires testing of at least two specimens that yield overlapping crack growth rate data. The cyclic conditions responsible for creep-fatigue deformation and enhanced crack growth vary with material and with temperature for a given material. The effects of environment such as time-dependent oxidation in enhancing the crack growth rates are assumed to be included in the test results; it is thus essential to conduct testing in an environment that is representative of the intended application.  
1.2 Two types of crack growth mechanisms are observed during creep/fatigue tests: (1) time-dependent intergranular creep and (2) cycle dependent transgranular fatigue. The interaction between the two cracking mechanisms is complex and depends on the material, frequency of applied force cycles and the shape of the force cycle. When tests are planned, the loading frequency and waveform that simulate or replicate service loading must be selected.  
1.3 Two types of creep behavior are generally observed in materials during creep-fatigue crack growth tests: creep-ductile and creep-brittle (1)2. For highly creep-ductile materials that have rupture ductility of 10 % or higher, creep strains dominate and creep-fatigue crack growth is accompanied by substantial t...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 It is often necessary to determine the slope of a linear region within a test record, and for standardization purposes, it is desirable to have a method for determining the slope that is not subjective. There are numerous ASTM standard test methods where the test procedure or analysis requires that slope be determined, but the procedures for doing so are not well defined. Ideally, if multiple laboratories analyze the same data for determination of slope, they should produce the same result. The objective of this standard practice is to eliminate the linear-fit as a source of variability in test results.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice presents an automated, objective linear-fitting method for determining the slope of the linear portion of a test record. The method assumes that there is a linear region early in the test record where the value of the y variable increases roughly in proportion to the x variable and the slope of the record decreases after the linear region. The practice determines the best linear fit to the data based on the least normalized residual and provides metrics for evaluating the quality of the test record and the quality of the resultant fit.  
1.2 Data quality metrics are applied that evaluate the level of noise and the digital resolution of the data to determine if the test record is adequate for a linear regression analysis. Fit quality metrics use analysis of residuals in the vicinity of the fit range to determine if the test record is adequately linear and the fit range is sufficiently large.  
1.3 For test records that meet the data and fit quality metrics, the practice determines a repeatable slope without the need for operator input that is independent of operator judgment. For test records that fail one or more of the quality metrics, it is recommended that the analyst evaluate the fit to determine if it is acceptable.  
1.4 This practice represents a general purpose approach that is applicable for any test standard or method in which a linear fit is desired. It is intended that this practice can be called upon by standard test methods when slope must be determined.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

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

SCOPE
1.1 This guide establishes a process for the verification of application software used to calculate the mechanical properties of materials.  
1.2 This guide has two purposes: (1) it provides guidelines for creating standard data sets for verifying computer-generated test results, and (2) it describes how users can verify whether the calculations in their application software produce accurate, acceptable results. This does not ensure that the software will produce correct results in all cases. The verification is only for those conditions covered by the standard data sets. This guide uses the concept of standard “data sets,” which are made available by the ASTM groups responsible for each of the individual standards.  
1.3 This guide defines the terminology, the format, and the process for the use of these data sets and how the data sets are to be used for verification. It does not define the specific data sets required to verify each of the application standards. Rather, such data sets would become a necessary part of the standard and would be classified as an adjunct in accord with the definition in section B29 of the “Form and Style for ASTM Standards.” This classifies an adjunct as any material that is required for use of the standard but is not practicable to publish as an integral part of the standard.  
1.4 In Annex A1 there is an example of how such data sets would be made available for one example standard.  
1.5 Because the verification data sets are contained in files supplied to the application software in the computer, this procedure only provides verification of post-test calculations performed by the computer system. It does not evaluate the data acquisition system, real-time calculations, or any other part of the software beyond the post-test calculations.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

ABSTRACT
This guide covers how to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types– Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived Data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. In its most basic form, a mechanical testing system consists of a test frame with grips which attach to a test specimen, a method of applying forces to the specimen, and a number of transducers which measure the forces and displacements applied to the specimen. The output from these transducers may be in digital or analog form, but if they are analog, they are first amplified and filtered and then converted to digital form using analog-to-digital converters (ADCs). The resulting stream of digital data may be digitally filtered and manipulated to result in a stream of output Basic Data which is presented to the user in the form of a displayed or printed output, or as a data file in a computer. Various algorithms may be applied to the Basic Data to derive parameters representing, for example, the peaks and valleys of the forces and displacements applied to the specimen, or the stresses and strains applied to the specimen and so forth. Such parameters are the Derived Data. The whole measurement system may be divided into three sections for the purpose of verification: the mechanical test frame and its components, the electrical measurement system, and the computer processing of data.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers how to understand and minimize the errors associated with data acquisition in fatigue and fracture mechanics testing equipment. This guide is not intended to be used instead of certified traceable calibration or verification of data acquisition systems when such certification is required. It does not cover static load verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practices E4, or static extensometer verification, for which the user is referred to the current revision of Practice E83. The user is also referred to Practice E467.  
1.2 The output of the fatigue and fracture mechanics data acquisition systems described in this guide is essentially a stream of digital data. Such digital data may be considered to be divided into two types– Basic Data, which are a sequence of digital samples of an equivalent analog waveform representing the output of transducers connected to the specimen under test, and Derived Data, which are digital values obtained from the Basic Data by application of appropriate computational algorithms. The purpose of this guide is to provide methods that give confidence that such Basic and Derived Data describe the properties of the material adequately. It does this by setting minimum or maximum targets for key system parameters, suggesting how to measure these parameters if their actual values are not known.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

ABSTRACT
This guide assists potential users in understanding the issues related to the accuracy of non-contacting strain measurement systems and to provide a common framework for quantitative comparison of optical systems. The output from a non-contacting optical strain and deformation measurement system is generally divided into optical data and image analysis data. Each non-contacting optical strain measurement system must be evaluated to determine reliable estimates for the accuracy of the resulting Derived Data.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this document is to assist potential users in understanding the issues related to the accuracy of non-contacting strain measurement systems and to provide a common framework for quantitative comparison of optical systems. The output from a non-contacting optical strain and deformation measurement system is generally divided into optical data and image analysis data. Optical data contains information related to specimen strains and the image analysis process converts the encoded optical information into strain data. The enclosed document describes potential sources of error in the strain data and describes general methods for quantifying the error and estimating the accuracy of the measurements when applying non-contacting methods to the study of events for which the optical integration time is much smaller than the inverse of the maximum temporal frequency in the encoded data (that is, events that can be regarded as static during the integration time). A brief application of the approach, along with specific examples defining the various terms, is given in the Appendix.  
1.2 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 This standard consists of terms and definitions pertaining to measurements taken on thin, reflecting films, such as found in microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) materials. In particular, the terms are related to the standards in Section 2, which were generated by Committee E08 on Fatigue and Fracture. Terminology E1823 Relating to Fatigue and Fracture Testing is applicable to this standard.  
1.2 The terms are listed in alphabetical order.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is used to measure a specimen's material and shape memory effect properties in response to a uniaxial deformation and then cycling through a full thermal transformation to recover all or a portion of the deformation. A material's martensite stiffness, martensite residual strain, austenite recovered strain, and unrecovered strain (or plastic deformation) after thermal cycling is determined.  
5.2 Measurement of the specimen's motion closely parallels many shape memory applications and provides a result that is applicable to the function of the material.  
5.3 This test method may be used for, but is not limited to, wire, round tube, or strip samples. It is able to provide an assessment of the product in its semi-finished form.  
5.4 This test method provides a simple method for determining transformation temperatures by heating and cooling specimens through their full thermal transformation after uniaxial pre-straining in the martensite state.  
5.5 This test method can be used on trained and processed material in a semi-finished form to measure Two Way Shape Memory Effect by comparing the strain in the austenite state and martensite states with no applied stress.  
5.6 This test method is useful for quality control, specification acceptance, and research.  
5.7 Transformation temperatures derived from this test method may not agree with those obtained by other test methods due to the effects of strain and stress on the transformation.  
5.8 Components such as springs or other semi-finished parts can be tested using this method as agreed upon by the customer and supplier. Units of stress and strain can be replaced with force and displacement.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method describes the heating and cooling a Shape Memory Alloy (SMA) specimen through transformation after uniaxial deformation to determine residual strain after loading and unloading, recovered strain on heating, total unrecovered strain upon cooling, and transformation temperatures.  
1.2 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 In the utilization of structural materials in elevated temperature environments, components that are susceptible to fatigue damage may experience some form of simultaneously varying thermal and mechanical forces throughout a given cycle. These conditions are often of critical concern because they combine temperature dependent and cycle dependent (fatigue) damage mechanisms with varying severity relating to the phase relationship between cyclic temperature and cyclic mechanical strain. Such effects can be found to influence the evolution of microstructure, micromechanisms of degradation, and a variety of other phenomenological processes that ultimately affect cyclic life. The strain-controlled thermomechanical fatigue test is often used to investigate the effects of simultaneously varying thermal and mechanical loadings under idealized conditions, where cyclic theoretically uniform temperature and strain fields are externally imposed and controlled throughout the gage section of the specimen.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the determination of thermomechanical fatigue (TMF) properties of materials under uniaxially loaded strain-controlled conditions. A “thermomechanical” fatigue cycle is here defined as a condition where uniform temperature and strain fields over the specimen gage section are simultaneously varied and independently controlled. This practice is intended to address TMF testing performed in support of such activities as materials research and development, mechanical design, process and quality control, product performance, and failure analysis. While this practice is specific to strain-controlled testing, many sections will provide useful information for force-controlled or stress-controlled TMF testing.  
1.2 This practice allows for any maximum and minimum values of temperature and mechanical strain, and temperature-mechanical strain phasing, with the restriction being that such parameters remain cyclically constant throughout the duration of the test. No restrictions are placed on environmental factors such as pressure, humidity, environmental medium, and others, provided that they are controlled throughout the test, do not cause loss of or change in specimen dimensions in time, and are detailed in the data report.  
1.3 The use of this practice is limited to specimens and does not cover testing of full-scale components, structures, or consumer products.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 This terminology contains definitions, definitions of terms specific to certain standards, symbols, and abbreviations approved for use in standards on fatigue and fracture testing. The definitions are preceded by two lists. The first is an alphabetical listing of symbols used. (Greek symbols are listed in accordance with their spelling in English.) The second is an alphabetical listing of relevant abbreviations.  
1.2 This terminology includes Annex A1 on Units and Annex A2 on Designation Codes for Specimen Configuration, Applied Loading, and Crack or Notch Orientation.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
6.1 Creep crack growth rate expressed as a function of the steady state C* or K characterizes the resistance of a material to crack growth under conditions of extensive creep deformation or under brittle creep conditions. Background information on the rationale for employing the fracture mechanics approach in the analyses of creep crack growth data is given in (11, 13, 30-35).  
6.2 Aggressive environments at high temperatures can significantly affect the creep crack growth behavior. Attention must be given to the proper selection and control of temperature and environment in research studies and in generation of design data.  
6.2.1 Expressing CCI time, t0.2 and CCG rate, da/dt as a function of an appropriate fracture mechanics related parameter generally provides results that are independent of specimen size and planar geometry for the same stress state at the crack tip for the range of geometries and sizes presented in this document (see Annex A1). Thus, the appropriate correlation will enable exchange and comparison of data obtained from a variety of specimen configurations and loading conditions. Moreover, this feature enables creep crack growth data to be utilized in the design and evaluation of engineering structures operated at elevated temperatures where creep deformation is a concern. The concept of similitude is assumed, implying that cracks of differing sizes subjected to the same nominal C*(t), Ct, or K will advance by equal increments of crack extension per unit time, provided the conditions for the validity for the specific crack growth rate relating parameter are met. See 11.7 for details.  
6.2.2 The effects of crack tip constraint arising from variations in specimen size, geometry and material ductility can influence t0.2 and da/dt. For example, crack growth rates at the same value of C*(t), Ct in creep-ductile materials generally increases with increasing thickness. It is therefore necessary to keep the component dimensions in mind when selecti...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of creep crack initiation (CCI) and creep crack growth (CCG) in metals at elevated temperatures using pre-cracked specimens subjected to static or quasi-static loading conditions. The solutions presented in this test method are validated for base material (that is, homogenous properties) and mixed base/weld material with inhomogeneous microstructures and creep properties. The CCI time, t0.2, which is the time required to reach an initial crack extension of δai = 0.2 mm to occur from the onset of first applied force, and CCG rate, a˙  or da/dt are expressed in terms of the magnitude of creep crack growth correlated by fracture mechanics parameters, C* or K, with C* defined as the steady state determination of the crack tip stresses derived in principal from C*(t) and Ct   (1-17).2 The crack growth derived in this manner is identified as a material property which can be used in modeling and life assessment methods (17-28).  
1.1.1 The choice of the crack growth correlating parameter C*, C*(t), Ct, or K depends on the material creep properties, geometry and size of the specimen. Two types of material behavior are generally observed during creep crack growth tests; creep-ductile (1-17) and creep-brittle (29-44). In creep ductile materials, where creep strains dominate and creep crack growth is accompanied by substantial time-dependent creep strains at the crack tip, the crack growth rate is correlated by the steady state definitions of Ct or C*(t) , defined as C* (see 1.1.4). In creep-brittle materials, creep crack growth occurs at low creep ductility. Consequently, the time-dependent creep strains are comparable to or dominated by accompanying elastic strains local to the crack tip. Under such steady state creep-brittle conditions, Ct or K could be chosen as the correlating parameter (8-14).  
1.1.2 In any one test, two regions of crack growth behavior may be present (12, 13)....

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

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

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fatigue crack growth rate expressed as a function of crack-tip stress-intensity factor range, da/dN versus ΔK, characterizes a material's resistance to stable crack extension under cyclic loading. Background information on the ration-ale for employing linear elastic fracture mechanics to analyze fatigue crack growth rate data is given in Refs (3) and (4).  
5.1.1 In innocuous (inert) environments fatigue crack growth rates are primarily a function of ΔK and force ratio, R, or Kmax and R (Note 1). Temperature and aggressive environments can significantly affect da/dN versus ΔK, and in many cases accentuate R-effects and introduce effects of other loading variables such as cycle frequency and waveform. Attention needs to be given to the proper selection and control of these variables in research studies and in the generation of design data.
Note 1: ΔK, Kmax, and R are not independent of each other. Specification of any two of these variables is sufficient to define the loading condition. It is customary to specify one of the stress-intensity parameters (ΔK or Kmax) along with the force ratio, R.  
5.1.2 Expressing da/dN as a function of ΔK provides results that are independent of planar geometry, thus enabling exchange and comparison of data obtained from a variety of specimen configurations and loading conditions. Moreover, this feature enables da/dN versus ΔK data to be utilized in the design and evaluation of engineering structures. The concept of similitude is assumed, which implies that cracks of differing lengths subjected to the same nominal ΔK will advance by equal increments of crack extension per cycle.  
5.1.3 Fatigue crack growth rate data are not always geometry-independent in the strict sense since thickness effects sometimes occur. However, data on the influence of thickness on fatigue crack growth rate are mixed. Fatigue crack growth rates over a wide range of ΔK have been reported to either increase, decrease, or remain unaffected as specimen...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method2 covers the determination of fatigue crack growth rates from near-threshold (see region I in Fig. 1) to Kmax  controlled instability (see region III in Fig. 1.) Results are expressed in terms of the crack-tip stress-intensity factor range (ΔK), defined by the theory of linear elasticity.  
1.9 Special requirements for the various specimen configurations appear in the following order:
The Compact Specimen  
Annex A1  
The Middle Tension Specimen  
Annex A2  
The Eccentrically-Loaded Single Edge Crack Tension Specimen  
Annex A3  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.11 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Fatigue test results may be significantly influenced by the properties and history of the parent material, the operations performed during the preparation of the fatigue specimens, and the testing machine and test procedures used during the generation of the data. The presentation of fatigue test results should include citation of basic information on the material, specimens, and testing to increase the utility of the results and to reduce to a minimum the possibility of misinterpretation or improper application of those results.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the desirable and minimum information to be communicated between the originator and the user of data derived from constant-force amplitude axial, bending, or torsion fatigue tests of metallic materials tested in air and at room temperature.  
Note 1: Practice E466, although not directly referenced in the text, is considered important enough to be listed in this standard.  
1.2 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 The parameters KEAC  or KIEAC  determined by this test method characterize the resistance to crack growth of a material with a sharp crack in specific environments under loading conditions in which the crack-tip plastic region is small compared with the crack depth and the uncracked ligament. The less restrictive thickness requirements of KEAC  are intended for those conditions in which the results are a strong function of the thickness of the specimen and the application requires the testing of specimens with thickness representative of the application. Since the chemical and mechanical influences cannot be separated, in some material/environment combinations, the thickness must be treated as a variable. A KEAC  or KIEAC  value is believed to represent a characteristic measurement of environment-assisted cracking resistance in a precracked specimen exposed to an environment under sustained tensile loading. A KEAC  or KIEAC  value may be used to estimate the relationship between failure stress and defect size for a material under any service condition, where the combination of crack-like defects, sustained tensile loading and the same specific environment would be expected to occur. (Background information concerning the development of this test method can be found in Refs (3-18).  
5.1.1 The apparent KEAC  or KIEAC  of a material under a given set of chemical and electrochemical environmental conditions is a function of the test duration. It is difficult to furnish a rigorous and scientific proof for the existence of a threshold (4, 5). Therefore, application of KEAC  or KIEAC  data in the design of service components should be made with awareness of the uncertainty inherent in the concept of a true threshold for environment-assisted cracking in metallic materials (6, 18). A measured KEAC  or KIEAC  value for a particular combination of material and environment may, in fact, represent an acceptably low rate of crack growth rather than an absolute upper limit f...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of the environment-assisted cracking threshold stress intensity factor parameters, KIEAC  and KEAC, for metallic materials from constant-force testing of fatigue precracked beam or compact fracture specimens and from constant-displacement testing of fatigue precracked bolt-load compact fracture specimens.  
1.2 This test method is applicable to environment-assisted cracking in aqueous or other aggressive environments.  
1.3 Materials that can be tested by this test method are not limited by thickness or by strength as long as specimens are of sufficient thickness and planar size to meet the size requirements of this test method.  
1.4 A range of specimen sizes with proportional planar dimensions is provided, but size may be variable and adjusted for yield strength and applied force. Specimen thickness is a variable independent of planar size.  
1.5 Specimen configurations other than those contained in this test method may be used, provided that well-established stress intensity calibrations are available and that specimen dimensions are of sufficient size to meet the size requirements of this test method during testing.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

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

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

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fatigue crack growth rate expressed as a function of crack-tip stress-intensity factor range, da/dN versus ΔK, characterizes a material's resistance to stable crack extension under cyclic loading. Background information on the ration-ale for employing linear elastic fracture mechanics to analyze fatigue crack growth rate data is given in Refs (1)4 and (2).  
5.1.1 In innocuous (inert) environments fatigue crack growth rates are primarily a function of ΔK and force ratio, R, or Kmax and R (Note 1). Temperature and aggressive environments can significantly affect da/dN versus ΔK, and in many cases accentuate R-effects and introduce effects of other loading variables such as cycle frequency and waveform. Attention needs to be given to the proper selection and control of these variables in research studies and in the generation of design data.
Note 1: ΔK, Kmax, and R are not independent of each other. Specification of any two of these variables is sufficient to define the loading condition. It is customary to specify one of the stress-intensity parameters (ΔK or Kmax) along with the force ratio, R.  
5.1.2 Expressing da/dN as a function of ΔK provides results that are independent of planar geometry, thus enabling exchange and comparison of data obtained from a variety of specimen configurations and loading conditions. Moreover, this feature enables da/dN versus ΔK data to be utilized in the design and evaluation of engineering structures. The concept of similitude is assumed, which implies that cracks of differing lengths subjected to the same nominal ΔK will advance by equal increments of crack extension per cycle.  
5.1.3 Fatigue crack growth rate data are not always geometry-independent in the strict sense since thickness effects sometimes occur. However, data on the influence of thickness on fatigue crack growth rate are mixed. Fatigue crack growth rates over a wide range of ΔK have been reported to either increase, decrease, or remain unaffected as specime...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method2 covers the determination of fatigue crack growth rates from near-threshold (see region I in Fig. 1) to Kmax  controlled instability (see region III in Fig. 1.) Results are expressed in terms of the crack-tip stress-intensity factor range (ΔK), defined by the theory of linear elasticity.  
1.9 Special requirements for the various specimen configurations appear in the following order:
The Compact Specimen  
Annex A1  
The Middle Tension Specimen  
Annex A2  
The Eccentrically-Loaded Single Edge Crack Tension Specimen  
Annex A3  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.11 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 This terminology contains definitions, definitions of terms specific to certain standards, symbols, and abbreviations approved for use in standards on fatigue and fracture testing. The definitions are preceded by two lists. The first is an alphabetical listing of symbols used. (Greek symbols are listed in accordance with their spelling in English.) The second is an alphabetical listing of relevant abbreviations.  
1.2 This terminology includes Annex A1 on Units and Annex A2 on Designation Codes for Specimen Configuration, Applied Loading, and Crack or Notch Orientation.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

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

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fatigue crack growth rate expressed as a function of crack-tip stress-intensity factor range, d a/dN versus ΔK, characterizes a material's resistance to stable crack extension under cyclic loading. Background information on the ration-ale for employing linear elastic fracture mechanics to analyze fatigue crack growth rate data is given in Refs (1)5 and (2).  
5.1.1 In innocuous (inert) environments fatigue crack growth rates are primarily a function of ΔK and force ratio, R, or Kmax and R (Note 1). Temperature and aggressive environments can significantly affect da/ dN versus ΔK, and in many cases accentuate R-effects and introduce effects of other loading variables such as cycle frequency and waveform. Attention needs to be given to the proper selection and control of these variables in research studies and in the generation of design data.
Note 1: ΔK, Kmax, and R are not independent of each other. Specification of any two of these variables is sufficient to define the loading condition. It is customary to specify one of the stress-intensity parameters (ΔK or Kmax) along with the force ratio, R.  
5.1.2 Expressing da/dN as a function of ΔK provides results that are independent of planar geometry, thus enabling exchange and comparison of data obtained from a variety of specimen configurations and loading conditions. Moreover, this feature enables d a/dN versus ΔK data to be utilized in the design and evaluation of engineering structures. The concept of similitude is assumed, which implies that cracks of differing lengths subjected to the same nominal ΔK will advance by equal increments of crack extension per cycle.  
5.1.3 Fatigue crack growth rate data are not always geometry-independent in the strict sense since thickness effects sometimes occur. However, data on the influence of thickness on fatigue crack growth rate are mixed. Fatigue crack growth rates over a wide range of ΔK have been reported to either increase, decrease, or remain unaffected as spec...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method2 covers the determination of fatigue crack growth rates from near-threshold (see region I in Fig. 1) to Kmax  controlled instability (see region III in Fig. 1.) Results are expressed in terms of the crack-tip stress-intensity factor range (ΔK), defined by the theory of linear elasticity.  
1.9 Special requirements for the various specimen configurations appear in the following order:
The Compact Specimen  
Annex A1  
The Middle Tension Specimen  
Annex A2  
The Eccentrically-Loaded Single Edge Crack Tension Specimen  
Annex A3  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.11 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Fatigue crack growth rate expressed as a function of crack-tip stress-intensity factor range, d a/dN versus ΔK, characterizes a material's resistance to stable crack extension under cyclic loading. Background information on the ration-ale for employing linear elastic fracture mechanics to analyze fatigue crack growth rate data is given in Refs (1)5 and (2).  
5.1.1 In innocuous (inert) environments fatigue crack growth rates are primarily a function of ΔK and force ratio, R, or Kmax and R (Note 1). Temperature and aggressive environments can significantly affect da/ dN versus ΔK, and in many cases accentuate R-effects and introduce effects of other loading variables such as cycle frequency and waveform. Attention needs to be given to the proper selection and control of these variables in research studies and in the generation of design data.
Note 1: ΔK, Kmax, and R are not independent of each other. Specification of any two of these variables is sufficient to define the loading condition. It is customary to specify one of the stress-intensity parameters (ΔK or Kmax) along with the force ratio, R.  
5.1.2 Expressing da/dN as a function of ΔK provides results that are independent of planar geometry, thus enabling exchange and comparison of data obtained from a variety of specimen configurations and loading conditions. Moreover, this feature enables d a/dN versus ΔK data to be utilized in the design and evaluation of engineering structures. The concept of similitude is assumed, which implies that cracks of differing lengths subjected to the same nominal ΔK will advance by equal increments of crack extension per cycle.  
5.1.3 Fatigue crack growth rate data are not always geometry-independent in the strict sense since thickness effects sometimes occur. However, data on the influence of thickness on fatigue crack growth rate are mixed. Fatigue crack growth rates over a wide range of ΔK have been reported to either increase, decrease, or remain unaffected as spec...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method2 covers the determination of fatigue crack growth rates from near-threshold to Kmax  controlled instability. Results are expressed in terms of the crack-tip stress-intensity factor range (ΔK), defined by the theory of linear elasticity.  
1.2 Several different test procedures are provided, the optimum test procedure being primarily dependent on the magnitude of the fatigue crack growth rate to be measured.  
1.3 Materials that can be tested by this test method are not limited by thickness or by strength so long as specimens are of sufficient thickness to preclude buckling and of sufficient planar size to remain predominantly elastic during testing.  
1.4 A range of specimen sizes with proportional planar dimensions is provided, but size is variable to be adjusted for yield strength and applied force. Specimen thickness may be varied independent of planar size.  
1.5 The details of the various specimens and test configurations are shown in Annex A1 – Annex A3. Specimen configurations other than those contained in this method may be used provided that well-established stress-intensity factor calibrations are available and that specimens are of sufficient planar size to remain predominantly elastic during testing.  
1.6 Residual stress/crack closure may significantly influence the fatigue crack growth rate data, particularly at low stress-intensity factors and low stress ratios, although such variables are not incorporated into the computation of ΔK.  
1.7 Values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. Values given in parentheses are for information only.  
1.8 This test method is divided into two main parts. The first part gives general information concerning the recommendations and requirements for fatigue crack growth rate testing. The second part is composed of annexes that describe the special requirements for various specimen configurations, special requirements for testing i...

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

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