Investigation of fracture toughness of
SAE 1020 welded using rutile covered
electrodes, and determination of
mismatch factor
C. Meriç and A. Okur
The aim of the present work is to examine the yield
strength mismatch between the weld metal and the
base metal, which affects the deformation and fracture
behaviour of welded joints. Specimens prepared from
SAE 1020 steel plates were welded using three rutile
covered electrodes having different tensile strengths.
Fracture toughness of the welded zones was investi-
gated based on the behaviour of cracks caused by
fatigue. The mechanical properties of the weld metal
and heat affected zone (HAZ) were examined, and
graphs were obtained to compare crack progress
values Da (mm) and welding material toughness J
(N mm ­ 1), which is a fracture mechanics parameter.
Microhardness investigation was carried out on the
weld metal, base metal, and HAZ transitions via
measurements along lines on four different zones of the
specimen. Micrographs of the specimens were also
taken. STWJ/328
Dr Meriç is in the Celal Bayar University, Faculty of
Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
45140 Muradiye, Manisa, Turkey (c.meric@bayar.
edu.tr). Dr Okur is in the Dokuz Eylul University,
Izmir Vocational School, Buca, 35160 Izmir, Turkey.
Manuscript received 30 April 2002; accepted 25 June
2002.
# 2003 IoM Communications Ltd. Published by Maney for
the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the complexity of the deformations caused
by the stresses due to welding of metallic materials having
different properties, and the increase in the use of high
strength structural materials having strategic signiŽ cance,
have resulted an increase in relevant studies. One of the
joining methods that has been the focus of such activities is
melt welding: however, there are problems due to strength
mismatch in such structures. In constructional systems
consisting of melt welded joints, dynamic and/or static load
effects cause internal stresses and permanent constraints in
the region of the weld. Cracks, deformations, and even
fracture may occur in the welded zones under the in uence
of these stresses.1 ,2
Investigation of fracture toughness and mechanical
properties that may compensate for the probable defects
in the welded joint zone, and examination of the behaviour
of the base metal and welded joint zone under loading
are areas that have been previously researched. It is known
that a sudden change of direction or turning towards
DOI 10.1179/136217103225008874
another zone of any crack in the welding zone results from
the microstructure and toughness differences between the
zones. In addition, sudden changes in hardness are a cause
of residual stresses and decrease the fracture toughness.
Furthermore, there is a possibility of segregation because of
delayed cooling in this zone and oxidation in the centre of
the welding zone of manganese and silicon elements that
would strengthen the weld.3 Because of these drawbacks,
a thorough investigation of the fracture toughness and
mechanical properties of different materials in the joining
zone has become essential.
MISMATCH FACTOR
Various studies2 – 1 0 have investigated the fracture beha-
viour in welded joints that results from the yield strength
mismatch between the base metal in the weld zone and the
weld metal. The results showed that the yield strength
mismatch affects the fracture behaviour of the weld under
tension and bending loading.
The yield strength mismatch factor M is deŽ ned as the
ratio of the yield strength of the weld metal to that of the
base metal. Instances in which this ratio is greater than
1 (M41) are described as overmatching, whereas those
in which M51 are described as undermatching.4 ,5 The
parameter M can therefore be represented as follows
M ~(Rp0:2 )WM =(Rp0:2 )BM
Where (Rp 0 . 2 )W M and (Rp 0 . 2 )B M are the yield strengths of
the weld and base metals respectively.
The yield strength mismatch between the base and weld
metals has a signiŽ cant effect on the yield behaviour and
fracture tendency of the weld zones during the elastic –
plastic deformation of the materials. Consumables are
selected to ensure that M is greater than 1. The reason for
this is that weld defects or cracks are more likely to be
present in the weld metal region than in the base plate. It is
generally assumed that weld metal overmatching provides
protection against defects resulting from applied stress. It is
preferable for welded joints in low and medium strength
steels to have adequate fracture toughness and a value of M
between 1.2 and 1.3 (overmatching).4 ,6
The heat affected zone (HAZ) has a coarse grained
microstructure and has a tendency to be brittle. Comparing
undermatching weld metal with overmatching weld metal, it
is observed that in the case of undermatching the critical
crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) for a crack in the
HAZ increases. Mismatch effect in the fracture behaviour
depends on the following parameters:
(i) weld type
(ii) weld preparation geometry (e.g. V or double V)
(iii) loading mode (bending or tension)
(iv) loading direction (transverse or longitudinal to the
weld seam)
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2003 Vol. 8 No. 2 89
90 Meriç and Okur Fracture toughness of SAE 1020 welded with rutile electrodes

Table 2 Mechanical properties of SAE 1020

Tensile strength, MPa 425

Yield strength, MPa 273
Ultimate elongation, % 26
Notch impact strength, J 27
Hardness, HV5 140 – 185
Modulus of elasticity, MPa 2066104
Shear modulus, MPa 8.1026104

Materials used in experiments

1 Welded specimens used in experiments Base metal experimental material
Experimental specimens having the dimensions shown
(v) notch position (weld metal or HAZ) in Fig. 1 were prepared from 12 mm thickness plates of
(vi) mismatch ratio M SAE 1020 cold rolled steel. Equivalent designations for this
(vii) specimen geometry (e.g. 2H/a, 2H/(W ­ a), 2H/B, steel in various countries are given in Table 1. The mechani-
where 2H is the weld width, a is the crack length, cal properties are given in Table 2. Chemical analyses of the
and W and B are the width and the thickness of the base and weld metals are presented in Table 3.
specimen respectively7 ).
As deŽ ned in ASTM E1290, BS 7448, and ESIS P2, stand- Electrodes
ard CTOD and J integral fracture toughness estimation Three distinct electrodes with rutile character having differ-
methods for homogeneous materials yield satisfactory ent tensile strength values were used; chemical analyses and
results. In weld conŽ gurations having a strength mismatch, standard designations of the electrodes are given in Tables 3
the crack tip zone deformation behaviour of the specimen and 4 respectively.
differs from that of a homogeneous specimen. Deformation
behaviour is affected by the differences between the tensile
properties of the weld and base materials. Thus, the effect Experimental results
of strength mismatch on (CTOD or J integral) material Weld application and fatigue crack formation
toughness parameters that depend on the fracture mecha- Taking into consideration the direction of rolling, 60° V
nics parameters of the specimens under bending and tensile weld mouths were machined on the specimens cut from
loading is considerable. The effect on yield strength of a 12 mm thickness SAE 1020 steel plates (Fig. 1). Root, Ž ller,
mismatch in toughness values of the base metal, weld metal, and cap passes were applied one after another before the
and HAZ should be determined via the defect determination/ material had cooled, applying the required grinding and
indication methods for defective materials.8 ,9 cleaning, according to the weld parameters given in Table 5
In all defect determination methods, calculations are using the rutile character electrodes for which standards are
carried out assuming that the materials are homogeneous; given in Table 4.
however, in reality, weld zones have a heterogeneous struc- A special fastening die was prepared to prevent distortion
ture. Since this effect is ignored, it is necessary to derive during welding. Samples of dimensions 8686100 mm were
a relation between the error size, and applied strain and prepared in a universal milling machine. A clip gauge Ž xing
toughness for the weld mismatch.1 0 channel of dimensions 167 mm was milled using a U-max
Because fracture toughness decreases with increasing drill. Crack notches of depth 1 mm were opened on the
yield stress, it is difŽ cult to determine the toughness values selected notch lines (see Fig. 2) using a cutting wheel (tip
and optimum strength of the weld metal for the application angle 30°). Single edge notched bending specimens were
and location (weld metal and HAZ) of a given size of data then periodically loaded (according to the calculated value
error. Full fracture characteristics of the mismatching weld of displacement d ) in the fatigue equipment as shown
zones do not depend only on mismatch ratio.9 ,1 1 In the in Fig. 3, under the condition that the yield stress was
crack tip zone of a specimen containing a fatigue precrack,
since the displacement measured at a distance of 8 – 10 mm
Table 3 Chemical analyses of electrodes and base metal
is not deŽ nitely related to the progress of the crack tip, it is
(SAE 1020) used in experiments, wt-% (bal. Fe)
probable that there are signiŽ cant errors in the CTOD and J
integral results estimated from the load – displacement Material C Si Mn P S
(P ­ Da) curves obtained from weld zones having a strength
mismatch.3 Base metal 0.20 0.16 0.40 0.008 0.008
1st electrode 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.020 0.020
2nd electrode 0.08 0.35 0.60 0.020 0.020
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY AND DISCUSSION 3rd electrode 0.08 0.30 0.50 0.020 0.020
The aim of the present work was to investigate three weld-
ing consumables of differing yield strength and determine
the effects of this strength difference on the common parent Table 4 Electrode standards and yield strength values
material.
Electrode number
Standard/
Table 1 Equivalents of SAE 1020 in other standards parameter 1 2 3

Country Organisation Designation TSE 563 E 51 32 RR8 E 51 32 RR8 E 43 22 R(C)3

DIN 1913 E 51 32 RR8 E 51 32 RR8 E 43 22 R(C)3
USA SAE/AISI 1020 AWS/
Germany DIN Ck 22 ASME 5.1 E 6013 E 6013 E 6013
France AFNOR XC25 EN 499 … E42 0 RR12 E 38 0 RC 11
UK BS 050a20 Yield strength,
Turkey TS C22 MPa 415 440 460

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2003 Vol. 8 No. 2

 Meriç and Okur Fracture toughness of SAE 1020 welded with rutile electrodes 91

2 Positions of notch lines

3 Mechanism for notching specimens

not exceeded. After a certain time, a crack of about 2 mm

depth was formed such that a/W&0.5 at the tip of the
V notch.

Mismatch factor
Experimental specimens prepared according to DIN 50145
were subjected to tensile testing and the yield strengths of
the weld and base metals were determined. Yield strength
mismatch values M1 – 3 calculated for electrodes 1 – 3 respec-
tively are as follows
M1 ~(Rp0:2 ) =(Rp0:2 ) ~(415=273)~1:52
WM BM
M2 ~(Rp0:2 )WM =(Rp0:2 )BM ~(440=273)~1:61
M3 ~(Rp0:2 ) =(Rp0:2 ) ~(460=273)~1:68
WM BM
Welds made using each of the above three electrodes are
overmatching. This condition was selected to give a superior
weld as desired.4 ,5 ,7
Results of three point bending test
Preparation of experimental specimens and mathematical
calculationswere carried out according to ASTM E 813 – 89.
The experiment was performed using Lloyd T5 OK tensile
testing equipment, along with an extensometer and chart
recorder as shown in Fig. 4. The data obtained from the
experiments were in the form of load – displacement curves
as shown in Fig. 5.
To obtain the curves consistently, there is a waiting time
of about 15 – 20 s in each slope interval before the load is
Table 5 Weld parameters used in experiment
4 Equipment used for measuring crack displacement: a
shows overview and b shows detail of Ž xing position of
extensometer
reduced by 50% to allow the materials to recover. Addi-
tionally, as shown in Fig. 4b, the curves were obtained more
accurately by Ž xing the tip of the extensometer wriggling to
the extensions on the specimen.
The J – Da curves, shown in Fig. 6, were obtained from
the compliance values Ci ~DPi /DVi (where DPi is load
increment and DVi is displacement increment) calculated
from 10 different slopes taken in sequence from the load –
displacement curves and the areas under these curves as
shown in Fig. 5. According to the curves plotted in Fig. 6,
it can readily be seen that the toughness value for the weld
produced using the 3rd electrode is higher than for the
others. It is also observed that the toughness values for the
electrodes are high in the upper mouth region of the welds,
whereas they have lower values in the weld centre.
All the experiments were carried out under static load-
ing with a compression speed of 1 mm min ­ 1 . Blunting
occurred at the crack in the tip of the notch under load after
some propagation. The crack was directed towards the

Filler and
Parameter Common Root pass cap pass

Base metal SAE 1020 … …

Electric arc
Weld process welding … …
Electrode standard DIN 1913 … …
Weld mouth V (60°) … …
Weld position Forehead … …
Electrode
diameter, mm … 2.5 3.25
Voltage, V … 20 28
Current, A … 70 130
Number of passes … 1 2
5 Load – displacement curves for typical specimen

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2003 Vol. 8 No. 2

92 Meriç and Okur Fracture toughness of SAE 1020 welded with rutile electrodes

6 Toughness – crack propagation (J – Da) curves for a side centre line (1st welding zone), b weld metal – heat affected
zone (HAZ) – base metal transitions (2nd welding zone), c weld metal – HAZ – base metal transitions (3rd welding
zone), d weld zones of 1st electrode (E 51 32 RR8), e weld zones of 2nd electrode (E 51 32 RR8), and f weld zones of
3rd electrode (E 43 22 R(C)3)

intensive deformation zone, i.e. towards the lower tough-
ness zone. Since the plastic deformation will intensify
in the HAZ because of the coarse grained structure, it is also
important to determine the fracture toughness of this zone.1
Microhardness test results
A Reicherter microhardness instrument using a Vickers tip
and applying a 49 N load was used to perform microhard-
ness measurements. The surfaces of the specimens were
polished and etched in 5% nital. Microhardness values were
measured at 0.5 mm spacing on four different lines (upper
edge, root, side centre, and upper centre lines) on the
specimens as shown in Fig. 7.
7 Positions of lines used for microhardness measurement
Graphs of the hardness measurements are shown in
Fig. 8. It is evident from the Ž gures that the weld produced
using the 1st electrode has very high hardness values. In
contrast, the weld produced using the 3rd electrode has
a stable structure with the lowest hardness as well as the
highest average toughness value, as can be seen from the
J – Da curves (Fig. 6).
Microstructural investigation
Welded specimens were mounted in Bakelite and their
surfaces were abraded using SiC abrasive before polishing
with Al 2 O3 paste on felt. They were then etched in 5% nital
and examined using optical light microscopy, from which
micrographs were obtained. The parent material micro-
structures are shown in Fig. 9. In Fig. 9a, the microstruc-
ture of SAE 1020 is shown, and exhibits a ferritic – pearlitic
character. Investigating the welds produced using each
of the three electrodes, it is observed that the microstructure
of the weld metal is entirely martensitic as can be seen in
Fig. 9b. In the HAZ between the base and weld metals,
martensite was formed as well as ferrite and pearlite
(Fig. 9c). The amount of martensite is greater near the
weld metal and decreases on approaching the base metal.

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2003 Vol. 8 No. 2

 Meriç and Okur Fracture toughness of SAE 1020 welded with rutile electrodes
8 Variation of hardness on a upper edge line, b root line, c side centre line, and d upper centre line (see Fig. 7)
Examining the microhardness values in Fig. 8, it can be seen
that the martensitic weld metal is harder than the ferritic –
pearlitic base metal.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Yield strength Rp 0 . 2 of the base metal is 273 MPa, and
yield strengths and yield strength mismatch factors M for
the electrodes are as follows:
(i) for the 1st electrode (E 51 32 RR8) Rp 0 . 2 ~415 MPa,
M1 ~1.52
(ii) for the 2nd electrode (E 51 32 RR8) Rp 0 . 2 ~440 MPa,
M2 ~1.61
(iii) for the 3rd electrode (E 43 22 R(C)3) Rp 0 . 2 ~460 MPa,
M3 ~1.68.
When the yield strength mismatch factor M41 (over-
matching), the weld toughness is considered to be
acceptable.
2. Taking the weld centre as the reference for micro-
hardness measurements, the weld produced using the 1st
electrode shows the highest hardness, having a value of
262 HV5 in the weld upper centre line, whereas the 2nd and
93
3rd electrodes show the lowest hardness value of 201 HV5
in the root line. The similarity between the values for the
2nd and 3rd electrodes in this region proves that they are
manufactured under conditions conforming to the stan-
dards. Further details are as follows:
(i) the average hardness in the weld zone is 221 HV5 for
the side centre line, 219 HV5 for the upper edge line,
215 HV5 for the upper centre line, and 214 HV5 for
the root line
(ii) it is observed from the hardness curves that the weld
produced using the 1st electrode has higher tensile
residual stresses (which affect toughness negatively)
in comparison with the other electrodes.
3. The following results are derived from the J – Da
curves for the three point bending specimens:
(i) it is observed that the 3rd electrode has the highest
toughness value, that is, for the same crack length,
the fracture energy required for the 1st electrode is
lower than that required for the 3rd electrode; the
difference between their toughness values decreases
the effect of the probable weld defects
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2003 Vol. 8 No. 2
94 Meriç and Okur Fracture toughness of SAE 1020 welded with rutile electrodes
a (properties such as heat and geometric position) of
b match effect’, Proc. Intermediate Meeting of IIW Subcommit-
c 2803 – 2816.
9 Microstructure of a SAE 1020 steel, b weld metal of
SAE 1020 steel joined using 2nd electrode, and c weld
metal of SAE 1020 steel joined using 3rd electrode
(optical)
(ii) the weld upper side is a tougher zone in all three
electrodes, because application of weld passes one on
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2003 Vol. 8
top of another results in a suitable welding environ-
ment, i.e. there is a heat treatment effect
(iii) it is observed that three of the electrodes have lower
toughness values in the centre of the weld seam – this
might be caused by burning and segregation effects
(iv) coincidence of the toughness values on the upper and
lower mouths of the weld represents the ideal case;
in the 2nd and 3rd electrodes the toughness values
in the upper weld zone are similar, showing that the
electrodes and the base metal complement each other
(v) results showed that the electrodes are in uential on
toughness values and crack progress in the weld
zones, which also depend on the physical conditions
the weld.
4. Microstructural investigation has shown that the
structure of the welding zone is entirely martensitic. In
the HAZ region, ferrite and pearlite as well as martensite are
formed, regardless of the electrode used.
REFERENCES
1. a. dhooge: Rev. Soudure – Lastijdschr., 1992, 48, (2), 49 – 56.
2. a. okur: ‘An investigation of the mismatch of different types of
welded zone under bending strength’, PhD thesis, Celal Bayar
University, Manisa, Turkey, 2000 (in Turkish).
3. c. mergc and m. tokdemgr: J. Mater. Eng. Perform., 1999, 8, (5),
601 – 605.
4. m. koçak and k. h. schwalbe: ‘Fracture of weld joints: mis-
tee X – F on ‘Weld mismatch effect’, IIW Doc. X – F – 003 – 94,
International Institute of Welding, Paris, April 1994.
5. m. koçak and r. denys: ‘CTOD and wide plate testing of
welds on mismatched welded joints’, IIW Docs. XI – 641 –
95, and X – F – 028 – 95, Proc. 10th Eur. Conf. on Fracture
(ECF 10), Berlin, September 1994, International Institute of
Welding.
6. c. ergpret, c. franco, p. gglles and s. ignaccolo: Proc. 1994
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conf., Minneapolis, MN, June 1994,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, part 2.
7. h. m. bauschke, a. ros and m. koçak: ‘Weld strength mismatch
effect on CTOD ( d 5) R-curves’, Proc. 2nd Meeting of IIW
Subcommittee X – F on ‘Mismatch effect’, IIW Doc. X – F –
026 – 95, Geesthacht, Germany, April 1995, GKSS Research
Center, International Institute of Welding.
8. s. lee, b. c. kim and d. kwon: Metall. Trans. A, 1992, 23A, (10),
9. y. t. pan and j. l. lee: China Steel Tech. Rep., 1991, 5, (30),
9 – 17.
10. m. skorupa: Weld. J., 1992, 71, (8), 269 – 275.
11. m. shennawy, f. minami, m. toyoda, k. kajimoto, m. fujii and
r. murai: ‘Constrained effect by strength mismatching and
its applications to KIc measurement, mismatch effect’, Proc.
Intermediate Meeting of IIW Subcommittee X – F on ‘Weld
mismatch effect’, IIW Doc. X – F – 016 – 95, Paris, April 1994,
International Institute of Welding.
No. 2
Copyright of Science & Technology of Welding & Joining is the property of Maney Publishing and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.