Potential Drop Method. The most common and sensitive in situ crack monitoring technique is reversing dc
potential drop, which typically applies a constant current to a specimen and measures the changes in potential
across the specimen as the crack grows. High-quality implementations of dc potential drop are consistently able
to achieve a crack length resolution on 1T compact-type specimens of about 1 mm (0.04 in.), and an overall
accuracy of <5% on the overall increment in crack advance. Current and potential leads can be insulated using
Teflon tubing for test temperatures up to 300 °C (570 °F); above 300 °C, zirconia is generally used.
During environmental testing, there are several special considerations. Solution conductivity can be a major
issue; an extreme example is the inability to use potential drop in liquid metal environments. Some deviations
in crack length versus measured potential response can also occur in highly conducting environments (e.g.,
aqueous solutions), and it must be recognized that the crack chemistry can be substantially more conductive and
at different pH than the bulk solution. However, despite the small distance between the upper and lower crack
flanks, the role of ionic (e.g., aqueous) conductivity is not large compared to that of metal conductivity, because
aqueous conductivities are typically measured in 10
-1
to 10
-6
S/cm (S, or Siemen, is W
-1
), whereas metal
conductivities are typically between 10
5
and 10
6
S/cm. Thus, errors associated with aqueous environments are
relatively small, although not always ignorable.
Another concern relates to inaccuracies in indicated crack length because of a nonuniform crack front or
because of metal contact along the crack flank during the fatigue cycle. In both cases, an abnormal fraction of
the dc current “shorts” through the uncracked metal ligament in the wake of the nominal crack front, and the
measured potential and indicated crack length is strongly affected. For example, if the crack front moves
forward in a 25 mm (1 in.) compact-type specimen by 3 mm (0.12 in.) in all locations except along one narrow,
rectangular ligament that is only 1 mm (0.04 in.) wide, the indicated crack advance by potential drop can be
very small (i.e., dramatically less than the area average of crack advance). Nonuniform crack fronts are much
more common when the environmental contribution to crack advance is high, and static loading (stress-
corrosion cracking) is generally much worse than dynamic loading (e.g., corrosion fatigue). Certain
microstructures, such as weld metal, can be quite susceptible to accelerated or retarded crack advance in
localized regions (i.e., along certain weld dendrites). The “unzipping” of the final metal ligament can lead to
anomalously high “apparent” crack growth rates over certain testing periods.
Other concerns for dc potential drop include electrochemical effects, particularly polarization. If a well-
designed, ground isolated power supply is used, then all of the dc current that leaves the “+” terminal must
return on the “-” terminal, and direct polarization of the specimen is not possible. In most cases, there is little
basis for concern for the electrochemical effects of using dc potential drop, although, for example, the small
potential difference between the crack flanks could have some influence in tight cracks in conductive solutions.
This potential difference is very small near the crack tip, so it is more likely to influence, for example,
dissolution of MnS inclusions at some distance toward the crack mouth, where the potential difference across
the crack flanks is higher. While the potential difference between the upper and lower surfaces of the crack is
small (typically 100 mV in many potential drop implementations), the gradient can be relatively large because
of the small separation of the crack faces. The importance of this issue can be quantified by establishing a
steady-state crack growth rate and disconnecting the potential drop system for a period of time, then
reconnecting it to evaluate its effect (or by comparing a duplicate experiment using an extensometer to monitor
the crack growth rate).
Electrochemical effects can also result from improperly insulated dc current leads. Because significant current
is passed through leads that are often relatively small, the potential drop in the current leads can be large (e.g.,
>1 V). If the current leads are not continuously insulated through the entire solution right up to the location
where they are spot welded onto the specimen, there is an opportunity for crosstalk with closely adjacent
potential leads (where the signal is typically 100 mV). Additionally, biasing of the specimen can occur if the
current leads are not continuously insulated through the system seals. Any ionic communication in the tight-
fitting seal area permits leakage to the metal (e.g., autoclave), and a circuit is established. The current leads act
like a 1 V battery that is shared across two resistors, one representing the water resistivity in the seal and one
representing the water resistivity between the specimen and the autoclave. This can cause some polarization of
the specimen in conductive solutions, or voltage (iR) drop in low-conductivity solutions. In the latter case, even
though no substantial polarization occurs, reference electrodes that are located between the specimen and the
autoclave “see” the voltage drop, and the apparent (measured) corrosion potential can be observed to fluctuate
as the direction of the dc current is reversed. This represents a good check of the integrity of the dc potential
drop system and wire insulation.