Weld Defects Part B

Universiteit Gent
EXTENSION OF EPRG-TIER 2 GUIDELINES

ON ALLOWABLE FLAW SIZES
Part B – Experimental validation and recommendations
1 INCENTIVES
The increased use of X80 pipeline steels has created a great interest to extend the EPRG-Tier
2 guidelines for girth welds in X80 pipeline. Even so, there exist interest to apply the
guidelines outside the pipe wall thickness range of 7 mm to 25,5 mm. In particular, the
extension of the guidelines for wall thickness exceeding 1 inch would be of benefit for the
offshore industry. Extension to thinner pipe welds (< 7 mm) would be valuable for small
diameter and or high strength thin wall pipelines.
At present, the maximum allowable flaw height for EPRG-Tier 2 is 3mm. This restriction is
based on the assumption that weld flaws would typically be only one weld run high. This limit
is an unfortunate oversight, because with the development of new high productivity welding
processes bigger weld passes might be produced. More importantly, when planar flaws are
detected the critical dimension or flaw height sentencing is not easily quantified. Thus,
possible errors in flaw sizing are an important issue for consideration. Sizing errors exceeding
1 mm cannot be excluded. When taken together, one can conclude that an actual flaw of 3
mm high is not allowed. This problem is compounded by the fact that larger sizing errors are
very likely for surface-breaking flaws in combination with hi-lo. Therefore, it is desirable to
have flaw length limits as a function of flaw height, Fig. B1
EPRG Tier 2
GSY
Defect height (mm)
l h = 7wt.3 mm
Defect length (mm)
Fig. B1 – Schematic illustrating the effect of flaw height on allowable flaw length
Draft for review B-1 Part B

Universiteit Gent
In simple terms, Fig. B1 gives a schematic presentation of the method used to relate the
predicted (curve) to the maximum allowable flaw size as a function of flaw height. In
numerical terms, the approach followed in this study consists of using the current ERPG Tier
2 flaw area limit of 7 %1, and on the basis of this limit to determine the corresponding
allowable length limit for flaw heights of 4mm and 5 mm.
2 MEANS
The original EPRG-Tier 2 guidelines were based on, and validated by means of the results of
187 Curved Wide Plate (CWP) tests that were carried out in the late 1980s’ and the early
1990s’. Since that period of time, an additional 195 single notched CWP tests and
corresponding small-scale tests, namely Charpy V impact, CTOD, all-weld metal and pipe
metal tensile, have been conducted on newer types of steels and welding processes.
2.1 Laboratory Soete CWP data base
Today, Laboratory Soete database contains 382 fully documented2 results of single notched
curved wide plate (CWP) tests. The results of another group of 47 CWP test could not used in
the study since the mechanical and toughness properties of the pipe and girth weld were
neither determined nor provided3. Before the integrated database was created all original test
reports were reviewed. The large majority of the CWP specimen was extracted from welded
large diameter (> 30 inch) pipe. The girth welds were made by one of the following welding
processes: SMAW, GMAW or FCAW. It should be noted that 60 out of the 382 CWP tests
were conducted on pipe material.
The CWP specimens contained either a machined or a fatigue-sharpened surface-breaking

notch. For the welded specimens, the notch was introduced from the root side of the girth
weld. The fatigue cracks were normally deeper than 3 mm. Flaw lengths varied from 12 mm
up to 350 mm. All CWP specimens were tensile loaded to failure or interrupted at maximum
load. For each CWP test, information on the failure stress and strain, the stress-strain
behaviour during loading and the deformation behaviour, visualized by the Moire technique,
at specimen failure or at maximum load is available.
1
This limit was derived from the ratio between the cross sectional area of the allowable flaw and the gross cross sectional
area per 300 mm length of weld: 7t x 3 mm/300mm x t (see also Section 2.3)
2
In addition to the CWP tests, the pipe and girth welds were subjected to pipe metal tensile (axial direction), hardness, all-
weld metal tensile, Charpy V impact and CTOD testing. The Charpy and CTOD toughness properties were measured at the
weld metal centerline. In most cases, the Charpy and CTOD full temperature transition curves are available.
3
Furthermore, CWP specimens containing natural flaw (porosity, slag, lack of fusion, lack of penetration, etc.) were excluded
from the assessment (157 test results). Also, the tests on pipes and girth welds containing multiple flaws have not been
reviewed (120 results). These two sets of test results cannot be used in the present study since the development of specific
flaw interaction criteria for ductile material behaviour is needed. Thus, the present assessment will be focussed on the test
results of 382 single notched CWP specimens.

Universiteit Gent
The composition of the single-notched CWP database used for the study of the extension of
the EPRG-Tier 2 guidelines is shown in Table B1. In this Table, the data is arbitrarily grouped
on the basis of flaw height and level of weld metal yield strength mismatch (UM, pipe metal
and OM). Plain pipe (60 results), undermatched (77 results) and overmatched girth welds
(219 results) in API 5LX52, X60, X65, X70 and X80 steels in the wall thickness range of 5.0
mm up to 30.5 mm were tested.
Test Variable (Number of specimens)

Flaw
Total
Height Level of number
Length/wall Remote
of CWP (l/t) ratio Y/T > 0.90 Strain
Range matching CVN < 40J
tests (Pipe) at failure
(mm) ≤ 7 mm > 7 mm < 0.50 %
OM 73 38 35 6 22 7
≥3 UM 43 24 19 9 9 14
Pipe
51 9 42 8 - 3
metal
OM 54 51 3 9 29 13
3-≥4 UM 25 3 22 - 6 16
Pipe
13 2 11 4 - 4
metal
OM 38 16 22 1 9 7
4-≥5 UM 9 9 - - 5 7
Pipe
4 2 2 - - 1
metal
OM 20 15 5 - 5 3
5-≥6 UM 1 - 1 - - 1
Pipe
10 6 4 - - 0
metal
OM 33 27 6 - 15 14
≥6 UM - - - - - -
Pipe
8 6 2 6 - 7
metal
Table B1 - Database of single notched curved wide plate test (CWP)
Table B1 illustrates that a broad range of test variables (flaw height, wall thickness, level of
weld metal mismatch, etc,..) and a wide range of material properties (Y/T ratio,
toughness,etc,..) have been studied. Therefore, the one might conclude that the current CWP
and corresponding small-scale test database is sufficiently documented for use in a re-
assessment of the current EPRG-Tier 2 guidelines, and to verify whether the EPRG-Tier 2
guidelines can be used or extended for the assessment of:
• girth weld flaws in pipe grades exceeding X70.

• girth weld flaws in thin (< 7 mm) and heavy (> 25.4 mm) wall pipe.
• flaw heights exceeding 3 mm.

Universiteit Gent
2.2 Method of presentation

2.2.1 Entire CWP database
The CWP test results available are presented in term of failure strain versus the relative flaw
cross sectional area in Fig. B2. It may be noted that the relationship between the failure
strain and the relative cross section area is far from unique. The observed scatter in failure
strain is due to the variation in toughness, level of weld metal yield strength mismatch and
Y/T ratio.
10
Undermatching
Overmatching
Plain pipe
8
Remote strain at failure (%)
See detail
l = flaw length
h = flaw height
4
t = wall thickness
W = arc length
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Labo Soet e - Gent lh/tW
Undermatching
Overmatching
1.6
Plain pipe
Strain = 0.5 %
1.2
0.8
0.4
0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
Labo Soet e - Gent lh/tW
Fig. B2 – Remote strain as a function of the relative cross-sectional area (entire database)
This preliminary assessment also illustrates that the number of free parameters must be
reduced in order to identify the effect of the individual material properties on failure strain.

Universiteit Gent
2.2.2 Detailed presentation of CWP database
The most simple and expedient approach to analyse the data is to separate the data on the
basis of pipe grade, wall thickness and flaw height. In presenting the data, plots of the failure
strain versus the flaw size in dimensionless form were used to determine the correlations.
The following Sections present a series of plots of the relevant CWP test results in terms of
remote strain at failure (or maximum load instability) as a function of
• flaw length normalized by wall thickness (l/t), and/or,
• flaw area normalized by the wide plate gross cross section area (lh/Wt).
For convenience of interpretation, and to obtain more information from the experimental
database, the Figures to be presented contain a key to identify the individual data points. The
identification of these points is limited to variables such as wall thickness range, flaw size
(length or height), level of weld metal yield strength mismatch (undermatching or
overmatching), toughness (level of Charpy V impact toughness) and pipe Y/T ratio. Moreover,
for the cases where a large amount of data is available, the Figures also contain an enlarged
view of the low strain area
Furthermore, the horizontal dashed line these Figures represents the performance criterion of
0.5 % remote strain while the intersecting horizontal and vertical solid lines (further denoted
as the “EPRG-box”) delineate the current EPRG -Tier 2 flaw limits. That is, a data point
located within the EPRG-box should be result of a CWP test, which failed to comply with the
ERPG Tier 2 material property requirements. The three requirements are related to weld
metal toughness (30J minimum/40J mean) and mechanical properties (weld metal is
matching or overmatching and pipe metal Y/T ratio in the longitudinal direction does not
exceed 0.90). Data points outside this box indicate that the measured failure strains are
greater than assumed, and are therefore conservative
3 EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF ERPG-TIER 2

3.1 Current limit
The current EPRG-Tier 2 flaw acceptance limit is based on the DEN plastic collapse model,
adapted for pipe yielding (GSY), σpc = YS, Eq. (A7). The maximum allowable flaw length for
GSY can be derived the following equation (or Eq. (A9)):
(1 − R ) s t
l= (A9)
1+ R h
By using Eq. A9, it is assumed that the pipe yields over an arc length s (or plate width, W)
while R is the pipe metal yield to tensile ratio as measured in the longitudinal direction of

Universiteit Gent
pipe, l is the total length of the flaw, h is the flaw height and t is the wall thickness. A
schematic presentation of Eq. (A9) is shown in Fig. B1 (see curve labelled by “GSY”)
Curved wide plate test results have shown that conservative prediction are obtained if the arc
length, s, is set at 300 mm, i.e. approximately 10 % of the circumference of a large diameter
pipe. For a yield to tensile ratio, R, of 0.87, the limiting length, l, for a 3mm high flaw is
obtained from Eq. (A9) as 6.95t, or in practical terms, 7t. This length gives a flaw area limit
of 7 % per 300 mm length of weld. In other words, the ERPG Tier 2 maximum allowable flaw
size has been derived from and validated by CWP test results. The same CWP database
indicated that GSY can be guaranteed for flaw smaller than the maximum allowable flaw size,
7t (length) x 3 mm (height) in any 300 mm length of weld, if a Charpy toughness of 30J
minimum, 40J mean is achieved at the design temperature, the Y/T ratio of the pipe in the
longitudinal direction is less than 0.90 and the weld metal is matching or overmatching. The
Y/T ratio and weld metal yield strength requirements are specified to demonstrate that the
weld metal flow stress is greater than that of the pipe metal. Finally, recall that EPRG-Tier 2
does not require CTOD toughness testing.
3.2 Database
Among the 382 CWP test results available, 166 contained a flaw with a height of less than 3
mm and are thus directly relevant to validate the reliability of the EPRG-Tier 2 allowable flaw
size limits. Table B2 gives the details of this subset of CWP data.
Variable Number of results / %

Value
CWP test data 166 -
• Overmatching welds 72 44
• Plain pipe 51 31
• Undermatching welds 43 25
Thickness range (mm) 5 – 30.5 -
Pipe Yield/Tensile > 0.90 23 22
Average Charpy impact < 40 J 31 19
Average CTOD < 0.127 mm 19 11
Failure strain < 0.5 % 24 14
Table B2 – Overview of database for specimens containing a flaw less than 3 mm in height
It can be seen from Table B2 that not all test materials satisfied the toughness and material
property requirements. For example, 43 CWP specimens contained an undermatch girth weld
while the majority (73 results) contained an overmatched girth weld. On the other hand, GSY
(failure strain > 0.5 %) was not achieved in 24 instances. Thus, the database covers a
representative range of material properties.

Universiteit Gent
3.3 Assessment and discussion
The new CWP database is analysed using the original ERPG Tier 2 flaw size limit of l = 7t, Fig.
B3. Fig, B3 shows the remote failure strain against flaw length l, normalised by wall thickness,
t. It will be noted that the upper plot gives the entire (new) database. The lower plot gives an
enlarged view of the lower failure strain area (strain range from 0 to 2 %)
10
All data, h < 3 mm
Remote strain = 0,5 %
8
Remote Strain at failure (%)
EPRG Tier 2
h < 3 mm
6
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Labo Soet e - Gent l/t
2.0
Undermatching
OM - CVN < 40 J
OM - Y/T > 0.90
Remote Strain at failure (%)
1.5 OM - CVN > 40 J

Remote strain = 0.5 %
1.0
0.5
EPRG Tier 2 - h = 3 mm h < 3 mm

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Fig. B3 - Remote strain at failure versus normalised flaw cross sectional area (lh/Wt) of CWP
test specimens containing a single flaw smaller than 3 mm in height.
The data points located in the “EPRG-box” can be excluded since they do not satisfy the Tier

Universiteit Gent
2 toughness (CVN > 30J/40J) and or mechanical properties (matching weld and pipe metal
Y/T < 0.90) requirements. A more rigorous examination of these results has revealed that
undermatching weld metal (open circles) is the major cause for rejection. Thus, contrary to
some opinion, the level of weld metal yield strength mismatch is a key factor in the
assessment of flawed girth welds. The remaining two CWP tests which failed at strain below
0,5 % (open triangles) contained a low toughness (Charpy < 40 J) girth weld. It is also
interesting to note that none of the 36 CWP specimens for which the pipe metal Y/T ratio
exceeded the 0.90 level, failed at strains below 0.5 %. This suggests that the Y/T ratio is not
a critical factor for shallow (flaw height < 3 mm) flaws.
The CWP specimens complying with the ERPG Tier 2 toughness and mechanical property
requirements (solid diamonds) are safely predicted. However, it is of interest to note that,
despite the fact that a significant number of CWP tests on materials which did not meet the
toughness or the mechanical property requirements (open data point located outside the
ERPG-box) failed at strains exceeding the 0.5 % level. The explanation is that ERPG Tier 2 is
based on a deterministic approach. This approach assumes that explicit input parameters
predict explicit values of the results. Moreover, the predicted flaw size limits assume minimum
values as input. On the other hand, it is known that a high degree level of weld metal yield
strength overmatch alleviates the detrimental effect of low toughness on weld performance.
4 EXTENSION OF ERPG-Tier 2 TO FLAWS IN X80 PIPELINES

4.1 Data base
The number of CWP test results in X80 steel and the breakdown by test variable is presented
in Table B3. It can be observed that this set CWP test results gives a representative database
for the wall thickness range between 12 and 17 mm. The SMAW and GMAW processes were
used to make the girth welds. However, it should be noted that all SMAW welds were
overmatching. The undermatching GMAW welds were obtained by welding pipe with an
actual yield strength exceeding the properties of X90 grade pipe (YS > 621 MPa).

Value
CWP test data 68 -
• Plain pipe - -
• Undermatching welds - -
Thickness range (mm) 12 – 17 mm -
Table B3 – Overview of X80 CWP test database

Universiteit Gent
The remote strain at failure (or maximum load) is plotted against the flaw sectional area
normalized by the CWP gross cross sectional area in Fig. B4a (all results of tests on X80 pipe)
and B4b (detailed view of the low failure strain area). The horizontal chained line in Fig. B4a
indicates the current EPRG-Tier 2 failure criterion of 0.5% remote strain. The EPRG-box in
Fig. B4b represents the maximum allowable flaw size limits normalised by gross sectional
area.
Fig. B4a shows that for flaw areas below about 2% failure strains up to 6% can be obtained.
However, the examination of the original test reports has shown that this strain levels were
obtained for overmatching GMAW weld metals. In contrast, the undermatched welds (open
squares) generally show lower failure strains than overmatched welds (solid circles). The level
of weld metal yield strength undermatch was in the range -2 % down to -7 %.
Overmatching
Undermatching
6 Remote strain = 0.5 %

lh/tW = 0,07 (7 %)
S e e d e t a il
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
lh/tW
Fig. B4a – Remote strain at failure versus normalised flaw cross sectional area (lh/Wt) of CWP
test in X80 pipe (all results of tests in X80 pipe)
Fig. B4b indicates the girth welds where the average Charpy energy was less than 40J (mean
value) or the plain pipe had a yield to tensile ratio exceeding 0.90. All the results represented
by data points located in the ERPG-box but one do not comply with the ERPG Tier 2
toughness and material qualification criteria, and can therefore be excluded. As before, it
might be concluded that weld metal yield strength undermatching is the main cause for
rejection.
The single CWP result (solid circle in the ERPG-box) violating the ERPG Tier 2 guidelines was
obtained from a CWP test on a specimen containing a matching girth weld (level of weld
metal yield strength overmatch = 0 %) having a Charpy impact toughness of 33 J (min) / 40
J (mean) while the pipe metal Y/T ratio was 0,899. Moreover, this specimen contained

Universiteit Gent
scattered pockets of Cu-induced cracks, implying that the flaw size should be greater than
indicated. In other words, if the natural variability of the material properties is taken into
account, one might conclude that this result can be neglected. Thus by ignoring this result,
one can conclude that the current ERPG Tier 2 guidelines are applicable for flawed girth
welds in X80 pipeline provided the weld metal matching/overmatching, the pipe metal Y/T
ratio in the longitudinal direction and the weld metal toughness requirements are satisfied.
2.00
Overmatching
ERPG-box
Undermatching
1.50 OM - Mean CVN < 40 J
OM - Pipe metal Y/T > 0.90
Remote strain (%)
Pipe metal results
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Rdenys - labo Soete - Gent lh/Wt
Fig. B4b – Remote strain at failure versus normalised flaw cross sectional area (lh/Wt) of
CWP test in X80 pipe (detailed view)
5 EXTENSION OF EPRG- Tier 2 TO FLAW IN THIN AND HEAVY WALL PIPELINES

5.1 Thin wall pipelines (t < 7 mm)
5.1.1 Database
The number of relevant wide plate test results available and the breakdown by test parameter
is summarized in Table B4. The database contains 25 wide plate test results that can be used
to validate ERPG – Tier 2 for the wall thickness range of 4.9 to 6.9 mm. The database
contains no wide plate results on plain pipe. The welded specimens contained either
undermatching (12 results) or overmatching (13 results) weld metal. In all instances, test
welds were made in X80 pipeline steel.
5.1.2 Assessment and discussion
The measured Charpy values, using sub-sized Charpy V specimens, were converted using the
pro-rata rule. In all instances, the normalised Charpy toughness properties of the weld metals
Draft for review B - 10 Part B

Universiteit Gent
exceeded 40 J (The normalised impact properties reflect those of a standard Charpy impact
test bar)

Value
CWP test data 25 -
• Plain pipe None -
Thickness range (mm) 4.9 – 6.9 -
Average Charpy impact < 40 J None -
Average CTOD < 0.127 mm Not measured -
Table B4 – Overview of the CWP test database for thin wall pipe (t < 7 mm)
A related point relevant to mention here is that in nearly all cases, the height of the flaw was
equal to or greater than 3 mm. This also means that the flaw height is greater than half the
wall thickness (h/t > 0.5), Fig. B5.
5 5
UM - t = 5.0 mm - CVN > 40 J
OM - t < 6.9 mm - CVN > 40 J
h/t = 0.5
4 4
UM - t = 5.0 mm
3 3
OM - 4.9 < t < 6.9 mm
EPRG limit - h = 3 mm
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 1 2 3 4
rdenys - Labo Soete h/t rdenys - Labo Soete h (mm)
Fig. B5 – Effect of flaw height and flaw height-wall thickness ratio on CWP failure strain for
flawed girth welds in thin wall pipelines (t < 7 mm)

Universiteit Gent
Fig. B6 compares the EPRG-Tier 2 flaw size limit (EPRG-box) to the CWP results available.
The comparison shows that the solid squares representing the remote strain at failure of
overmatched (range from 1% to 8 %) girth welds lie on the safe side of the EPRG-box. For
undermatched girth welds, the remote strain at failure can be less than 0.5%.
Although it appears that the guidelines can be extended for thin wall pipelines, one must note
that the number of CWP is too small to draw binding conclusions. Therefore, it will be
appreciated that variations in mechanical properties and weld reinforcement can lead to quite
different conclusions. In particular, the weld reinforcement can have a very significant effect
on the strain failure at failure.
5
UM - t = 5.0 mm - CVN > 40 J
OM - 4.9 < t < 6.9 mm - CVN > 40 J
4 Remote strain = 0.5 %
EPRG-box - hl/Wt = 0.07
0
0.00 0.05 0.10
rdenys - Labo Soet e
lh/Wt
Fig. B6 – Remote strain at failure versus normalised flaw cross sectional (lh/Wt) of flawed
girth welds in thin wall pipes
Therefore, if one considers using an ECA assessment based on the EPRG-Tier 2 guidelines, it
seems reasonable to document the gaps in our current understanding of the failure behaviour
of thin wall pipelines. At short term, the only acceptable solution consists of conducting ad-
hoc CWP tests if one wants to justify the use of an ECA in thin wall pipelines.
5.2 Heavy wall pipelines (t ≥ 25.4 mm)

5.2.1 Database
The range of relevant CWP results is presented in Table B5. All CWP test specimens
contained overmatching SMAW or GMAW weld metal in X65 or X70 pipe. It was found in
surveying the test reports that the lowest level of weld metal yield strength overmatch was
20 %. On the other hand, the pipe metal Y/T ratio was lower than 0.90; the Y/T ratio ranged

Universiteit Gent
from 0.76 to 0.88. It is also worthy of note that the Charpy impact properties did not always
comply with the EPRG-Tier 2 requirements (mean CVN > 40 J). The 21 CWP specimens
containing low toughness weld metal were made by SMAW process.
The specimens of wall thickness equal to or exceeding 1 inch (25,4 mm) contained a single
surface breaking weld metal notch ranging from 66 to 240 mm in length and 3 mm to 12 mm
in height, Fig. B7.

Value
CWP test data 56 -
• Plain pipe 14 25
• Undermatching welds none
Thickness range (mm) 25.4 – 30.5 -
Pipe Yield/Tensile > 0.90 None -
Table B5 – Overview of the CWP test database for heavy wall pipe
8
t > 1 inch - CVN > 40 J
t > 1 inch - CVN < 40 J
t = 1 inch - CVN < 40 J
6 t = 1 inch - CVN > 40 J

t > 1 inch - pipe metal
EPRG - h = 3 mm
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
h (mm)
Fig. B7 – Remote strain versus flaw height of CWP tests on flawed girth welds in
heavy wall pipes (wall thickness ≥ 25.4 mm)
(The solid box shows the current EPRG-Tier 2 flaw size limits)

Universiteit Gent
Fig. B8 shows the effect of normalised flaw size area (lh/Wt) on remote strain at failure. For
convenience of interpretation the data have been divided into two separate plots. Distinction
has been made between the 1-inch (25.4 mm) thick pipe and the 1 inch+ (t > 25.4 mm) wall
pipes.
t = 1 inch - CVN < 40 J
t = 1 inch - CVN > 40 J

6
EPRG limit - lh/w t = 0.07
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
hl/Wt
t > 1 inch - CVN > 40 J

t > 1 inch - CVN < 40 J
6 t > 1 inch - pipe metal

EPRG limit - lh/w t = 0.07
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
hl/Wt
Fig. B8 – Remote strain at failure versus normalised flaw cross sectional (lh/Wt) of flawed
girth welds in heavy wall pipe (t ≥ 25.4 mm)

Universiteit Gent
5.2.2 Assessment and discussion
The first subset of CWP data (t = 25.4 mm) was obtained from SMAW girth welds in X65
pipeline steel and from GMAW girth welds in X70 pipeline steel. The toughness properties of
the SMAW girth welds were lower than 40 J (open circles). The CWP results located in the
ERPG-box can thus be rejected. The acceptable CWP results (solid circles) located above the
0.5% remote strain line were obtained from the GMAW girth welds, Fig. B8 – upper plot.
The second subset of CWP data (t > 25.4 mm) was generated for GMAW girth welds in X65
and X70 pipeline steel. Only one CWP test failed at a remote strain below 0.5 %. In this
particular case, the weld metal toughness was 31 J so that this result can be rejected. It is
important to note here that the low toughness girth welds (open squares) were made
according special welding procedures. This is to say that standard GMAW welding procedures
produce girth welds with ample toughness (Charpy V impact >> 40 J).
Finally, Figs. B7 and B8 demonstrate that girth welds and materials meeting the qualification
requirements (solid data points) failed at strain well beyond 0.5 %. In other words, the
current flaw size area of 7 % can easily be extended for standard GMAW girth welds in heavy
wall pipelines.
6 EXTENSION OF EPRG- Tier 2 TO FLAW HEIGHTS EXCEEDING 3 MM

6.1 Predicted allowable flaw lengths
The DEN plastic collapse model, Eq (A7) outlined in Part A, can be applied to derive the
allowable length for flaw heights exceeding 3 mm. Using the flaw area limit of 7% (lh/Wt =
0.07), the corresponding maximum allowable flaw lengths for any other flaw heights can be
determined. For example, for 4 mm and 5 mm high flaws the calculated maximum allowable
lengths are 5.2t (h = 4 mm) and 4.2t (h = 5mm), Table B6.
Flaw height, h < 3mm ≤ 4 mm ≤ 5mm

*
Flaw area, % 0.07 0.07 0.07
Maximum
Allowable 7.0 t 5.3 t 4.2 t
Flaw length, l
* Flaw area = lh/Wt where W = 300 mm
Fig. B6 – Predicted maximum allowable flaw lengths as a function of flaw height
The predicted flaw size limits assume that the current EPRG-Tier 2 toughness and mechanical
property requirements are satisfied (see Section 3.1).

Universiteit Gent
With this background, the next sections of this report can be focussed on the assessment of
the accuracy of the proposed flaw length limits. This assessment should be possible if one
selects the test results of CWP specimen containing a flaw in the height range of 3 to 5 mm.
6.2 Database
A rigorous screening of the entire CWP database has revealed that a total of 148 CWP tests
have been conducted on specimens containing a flaw in the height range of 3 to 4 mm (97
results) and 4 to 5 mm (51 results). As shown in Table B7, this database contains a
representative set of data because the assessment can be conducted for “good” as well as
“poor” CWP results. The classification “good” is used if the specified material properties and
the remote failure strain meet the ERPG requirements.
Variable Number of results / Value

3 < h ≤ 4 mm 4 < h ≤ 5 mm
CWP test data 97 51
• Plain pipe 13 4
Thickness range (mm) 6.9– 27.0 11.6 – 30.5
Mean Charpy impact < 40 J 35 14
Table B7 –Overview of the CWP test database for flaws exceeding 3 mm in height
The results of the two subsets of CWP test results are plotted in Figs. B9 through B11. The
horizontal dashed (red) line in these Figures indicates the failure criterion of 0.5% remote
strain. Figs. B9 and B10 give a summary plot and a detailed view of the results in the low
strain range to show the effect of flaw length normalised by wall thickness on the remote
strain at failure. The predicted maximum flaw length limit normalised by wall thickness (l/t) is
represented by a vertical chained line. Fig. B11 shows the test results in terms of remote
strain at failure versus the flaw height to wall thickness ratio (h/t) or the relative cross
sectional area of the flaw normalised by gross cross sectional area (lh/tW).
6.3.1 Flaw height less than 4 mm
The upper plot in Fig. B10 compares the predicted allowable l/t ratio to the CWP test results
available. The comparison shows that the predicted limit (l/t = 5.3) is safe. This conclusion is

Universiteit Gent
based on the observation that the CWP database includes a wall thickness range from 6.9 to
27.2 mm, a flaw height to wall thickness (h/t) ratio range from 0.13 to 0.53, a pipe metal
All data, 3 < h < 4 mm

6
Current EPRG Tier 2
3 < h < 4 mm
4
2
See detail
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
All data, 4 < h < 5 mm

Current EPRG Tier 2
6
4 < h < 5 mm
2 See detail
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fig. B9 – Overall view of remote strain at failure versus normalised flaw length (l/t) of CWP
specimens containing a single flaw ranging from 3 to 4 mm and from
4 to 5 mm in height (entire database). Details are shown in Fig. B10

Universiteit Gent

2.0 Plain Pipe results
OM - CVN < 40 J
3 < h < 4 mm Undermatched w elds
OM - Y/T > 0.90
OM - CVN > 40 J
1.5 Predicted limit
1.0
0.5 Proposed limit : l/t = 5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
2.0
Undermatching
OM - Y/T > 0,90
OM - CVN < 40 J
OM - CVN > 40 J
1.5
Predicted limit
4 < h < 5 mm
1.0
0.5 Proposed limit : l/t = 4
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Fig. B10 – Detailed view of remote strain at failure versus normalised flaw length (l/t) of
CWP specimens containing a single flaw ranging from 3 to 4 mm and
from 4 to 5 mm in height.

Universiteit Gent
yield to tensile ratio range from 0.688 to 0.956, a toughness range from 17 J to 103 J, steel
grades from X60 to X80 with most of the data being for grades X70 to X80, and weld metal
yield strength mismatch levels from -25 % to +49 % (SMAW and GMAW welds). Therefore, it
is suggested that the maximum allowable flaw length is limited to 5t. With this choice, the
maximum flaw area is limited is to 6,7 %.
6.3.2 Flaw height less than 5 mm
The lower plot in Fig. B10 also shows that the predicted allowable l/t ratio (l/t = 4.2) provides
a conservative prediction by a reasonable margin of safety. As for the previous case, it can
also be observed the CWP database covers abroad range of parameters. The database
includes results for the wall thickness range from 11.6 to 30.5 mm, a flaw height to wall
thickness (h/t) ratio range from 0.16 to 0.43, a toughness range from 16 J to 110 J, steel
grades from X60 to X80 with most of the data being for grade X60, a pipe metal yield to
tensile ratio range from 0.651 to 0.901, and weld metal yield strength mismatch levels from -
25 % to +56 %. Therefore, it is suggested that a flaw length limit of 4t can be safely applied
(this limit also corresponds to a flaw area limit of 6.7 %).
6.3.3 General assessment
The comparison of the two sets of data, Figs. B9 and B10 (upper plot: 3 mm < h ≤ 4mm and
lower plot: 4 mm < h ≤ 5 mm), shows that flaw height has apparently little effect on failure
strain if the results of undermatched and low toughness (Charpy < 40 J) welds, and the high
Y/T ratio results are excluded. Furthermore, the solid data points (overmatched welds and
Charpy impact > 40 J) located below the 0.5 % performance line could be ignored if the pipe
metal property variation (reflected in the Y/T ratio), the h/t ratio of the said flaws and the
level of overmatch are taken into account.
Fig. B11 also shows that for this database, except for one single results (Y/T = 0.895), the
remote strain at failure is greater than 0.5 % (GSY) if the height of the flaw is less than half
the wall thickness (h/t < 0.50). In particular, provided the toughness and mechanical
properties are met, the CWP results suggest that for flaw height to wall thickness ratios less
than 0.3, failure should occur by GSY (remote strain at failure ≥ 0.5 %). However, it possible
that long flaws would cause the girth welds to behave in a different way than observed in Fig.
B11. Therefore, additional CWP tests could be performed to affirm the validity of this
conclusion for flaws longer than 7t. Note that the value of 7t is based on the flaw area limit of
7 % (see left hand plots in Fig. B11).
The above observations can be explained if one explores the effects of the interaction
between flaw size, pipe metal Y/T ratio and the level of weld metal yield strength mismatch
on straining capacity. The points is that the straining capacity of a flawed girth weld is not
just a function of flaw height per se, but is also related to the actual mechanical properties of
the weld and pipe metal. In other words, there exist various combinations of flaw size, Y/T
ratio and weld overmatch contributing to remote plastic deformation. For example, for a

Universiteit Gent
2.0 2.0
Plain Pipe results Plain Pipe results
3 < h < 4 mm OM - CVN < 40 J OM - CVN < 40 J
Undermatched w elds
Undermatched w elds
OM - Y/T > 0.90
OM - Y/T > 0.90
OM - CVN > 40 J
1.5 OM - CVN > 40 J 1.5
Plain pipe Y/T = 0.96

Plain pipe Y/T = 0.96 t = 6.9 mm - h/t = 0.53
1.0 1.0
3 < h < 4 mm
0.5 0.5
h/t = 0.50 Max. flaw area = 7 %

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Labo Soet e - Gent h/t Labo Soet e - Gent lh/tW
2.0 2.0
Undermatching
Undermatching
OM - Y/T > 0,90
OM - Y/T > 0,90
OM - CVN < 40 J
1.5 1.5 OM - CVN < 40 J

OM - CVN > 40 J
OM - CVN > 40 J
4 < h < 5 mm 4 < h < 5 mm

1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
h/t = 0.30 Max. flaw area = 7 %

0.0 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Labo Soet e - Gent h/t Labo Soet e - Gent lh/tW
Fig. B11 - Detailed view of remote strain at failure versus normalised flaw height (h/t) and relative cross sectional flaw area of
CWP specimens containing a single flaw ranging from 3 to 4 mm and from 4 to 5 mm in height.

Universiteit Gent
(relatively but detectable) small flaw in an overmatching girth weld joining pipe with good
strain hardening characteristics (Y/T < 0.90), there will be little strain concentration in the
weld. In that case, the applied strain will go to the pipe metal. In contrast, for large flaws, or
if the pipe metal Y/T is high and the level of overmatch low, strain concentration will be at
the flaw. That is, this situation will result in low failure strains no matter what the toughness
is.
This consideration can be illustrated by the study of the following set of test results. Table B8
gives the results of CWP and corresponding small-scale tests on girth welds in X65 pipe with
a wall thickness of 25,4 mm. The pipes were taken from the same heat. However, unnoticed
variation in the plate manufacturing parameter gave pipe of different yield strengths (these
pipes are further termed as L and H). The minimum pipe yield strength (0.5%) was 463 MPa
and the maximum was 546 MPa. The yield strength of the girth weld metal was measured
using six all-weld-metal tensile tests. The mean weld metal yield strength used for
comparison purposes was 565 MPa, giving an overmatching level of 3,5 % (pipe H) and 22,0
% (pipe L). The weld metal Charpy V-notch impact and B x 2B – CTOD specimens were
tested at temperatures as indicated in Table B8. The CWP specimens were notched in the
weld metal with a fatigue-sharpened surface-breaking crack introduced from the root side.
The CWP tests were performed at -10°C.
PIPE AND WELD PROPERTIES
Pipe Tensile properties Yield Weld metal toughness

& strength CVN –30°C CTOD -10°C
Weld YS TS mismatch
Y/T (J) (mm)
metal (MPa) (MPa) (%) Min/Ave/Max Min/Ave/Max
L 463 537 0.86 22,0 - -
H 546 614 0.89 3,5 - -
E9010 565 647 0.87 - 8 / 16 / 36 0,024 / 0,070 / 0,156
WIDE PLATE TEST RESULTS

Defect size Pipe Metal Failure
Pipe
Length x depth Failure Strain
combinations Mode Location
(mm) (%)
H-H 139,4 x 3,6 0,30 Brittle Weld
H-L 139,3 x 3,3 7,18 GSY Pipe
L -L 117,8 x 3,4 1,31 GSY Weld
GSY = Gross Section Yielding (pipe metal yielding)
Table B8 - Small and large-scale test results of weld metal notched curved wide plate tests

Universiteit Gent
The CWP test results summarized in Table B8 include the flaw size measured after testing,
the remote strain at failure, the failure mode and the failure location. For this particular
situation, the CWP results demonstrate that the strain at failure depends on the level of
mismatch. The straining capacity of the overmatched welds (L-L and H-H) is significant while
the heterogeneous weld combination (H-L) failed in the pipe metal. The other key
observation is that low toughness weld metal containing a significant root flaw may fail in the
pipe metal. In other words, the results of these tests quite clearly the trade-off between
toughness and the level of weld metal mismatch.
6.3.4 Recommendation
The preceding comparisons and the clarifying discussions provide the experimental evidence
that the current ERPG Tier 2 maximum allowable flaw length can be extended for flaw heights
exceeding 3 mm. Tentatively, it is proposed to apply the limits given in Table B9. Note that
the flawed area is limited to 6.7 %. This limit on flawed area is smaller than 7 % for 3 mm
high flaws (current guideline). With this assumption the maximum allowable flaw length limits
are 5t and 3t.
Flaw height, h < 3mm ≤ 4 mm ≤ 5mm

*
Flaw area, % 0.07 0.067 0.067
Maximum
Allowable 7t 5t 4t
Flaw length, l
* Flaw area = lh/Wt where W = 300 mm
Table B9 – Proposed maximum allowable flaw lengths as a function of flaw height
The analysis of the data also demonstrated that the maximum allowable ratio of flaw height
to wall thickness should be limited to 0.50. This restriction implies that the maximum
allowable flaw height in 10 mm thick pipe must be smaller than 5 mm.
7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report outlines the proposed modifications and extensions of the EPRG-Tier 2 guidelines
on flaws in pipeline girth welds, and provides justification for these changes. In addition,
reference is made to topics which need further consideration.
7.1 Failure behaviour
The assessment of the database containing 382 results of single surface notched curved wide
plate specimens has confirmed that:

Universiteit Gent
1. Toughness-dependent failure behaviour can be excluded if the Charpy impact properties

are greater than 30 J minimum and 40 J mean. That is, this level of toughness ensures
toughness-independent failure behaviour.
2. The failure stresses and strains for toughness-independent materials are related to flaw
size, strain hardening behaviour of the pipe metal in the longitudinal direction and the
level of weld metal yield strength mismatch. The best prediction of the experimental data
is obtained by using the pipe metal flaw stress.
7.2 ERPG Tier 2 guidelines

7.2.1 Current guidelines
The current ERPG Tier 2 guidelines for determining allowable flaws in pipeline girth welds are
based on the limitation of the flawed area to 7 % in any 300 mm length of weld. That is, girth
welds containing flaws smaller than this limit fail by GSY (remote failure strain ≥ 0.5 %)
provided the weld metal is matching or overmatching and the weld metal toughness exceeds
30 J minimum and 40 J mean. Since the maximum flaw height is limited to 3.0 mm, the
limitation on flaw length assumes that flaws would typically be one weld run high. This height
limit is a serious restriction if an allowance for the likely error in flaw sizing has to be taken
into account.
The ERPG Tier 2 guidelines are considered to be simple to use while they are conservative for
elastic designs. In addition, the GSY failure criterion requires no detailed judgement and
eliminates the need for detailed analyses to determine the applied stress.
7.2.2 Proposed extension
The present study has demonstrated that improvements over the existing EPRG-Tier 2
allowable flaw size procedures can be implemented. The proposed extensions are consistently
conservative provided:
• The Charpy impact toughness of the weld exceeds 30 J minimum / 40 J mean, and
• The pipe Y/T ratio in the longitudinal direction is smaller than 0.90, and
• The actual yield strength of the girth weld metal is at least equal to that of the pipe
metal.
In other words, the approach adopted is consistent with the original material qualification
requirements as well as with the results of the current study.
The plastic collapse method of analysis, originally used to derive current flaw acceptance
levels, provides a simple curve giving allowable individual flaw length and height
combinations. Therefore, this curve can also be used to extend the guidelines for flaw heights

Universiteit Gent
greater than 3 mm. This approach was applied by limiting the flawed area to 7 %.
Comparison of this flaw area limit with the experimental CWP database has confirmed that:
1. Except for girth welds in thin wall pipe (t ≤ 7 mm), the current ERPG Tier 2 guidelines can
also be applied for X80 pipeline. However, it should be noted that (a) it is desirable to
establish the variability of both weld metal toughness and tensile properties of the weld
metal and the surrounding (pipe) material, and (b) conservative estimates of these input
parameters should be used4.
2. The current Tier 2 guidelines are not applicable to girth welds in pipelines of wall
thickness less than 7 mm. The first concern is that there is not sufficient experimental
data available so far for quantifying the effect of the interaction between flaw height and
wall thickness. The second problem is that any correction for flaw sizing error would
generate allowable flaw heights greater than half the wall thickness (see also Table B10).
Pipe Flaw height Allowable flaw length

Grade
(SMYS) (with h ≤ 0.5 t)* per 300 mm length of weld
(mm) (mm)
≤ X80 ≤3 ≤7t
h ≤ 4(1) l ≤5t
(mm) (mm)
≤ 5(2) ≤4t
Wall thickness range: 7* mm ≤ t ≤ 30 mm

> X80 Not applicable
* The following restrictions apply: wall thickness, t, should be greater than 8 mm for a flaw height
equal to 4 mm (1) and greater than 10 mm for a flaw height equal to 5 mm (2)
Table B10 – Extended EPRG-Tier 2 maximum allowable flaw size limits
3. The current Tier 2 guidelines can also be safely applied to girth welds in the thickness
range from 25.4 mm up to 30.5 mm. In fact, the allowable dimensions of flaws in heavy
wall pipelines are significantly larger than those of flaws in thin wall ones. This feature
indicates that the required level of accuracy in flaw sizing decreases with increasing wall
thickness.
4. The proposed extensions of the current guidelines to heights exceeding 3.0 mm give
consistent factors of safety for flaw heights in the range from 3 mm to 5 mm. Table B10
4
Unpublished CWP data (research is ongoing) on flawed girth welds in steel grades exceeding X80 show that standard plastic
collapse solutions might give non-conservative failure stress predictions. According to comparisons between experimental
and predicted data, the EPRG-Tier 2 guidelines are not suitable for very high strength pipes, such as X100, and for pipe
materials with a uniform elongation of less than about 7 %.

Universiteit Gent
summarises the maximum allowable flaw size limits as a function of pipe grade and wall
thickness.
It will be noted that the proposed flaw size limits are equally applicable to girth welds in
X80 pipe as well as for heavy wall pipe. Furthermore, the minimum wall thicknesses
specified for flaws heights exceeding 3 mm will prevent that the flaw height exceeds half
the wall thickness.
5. The applied strains in overmatched girth welds concentrate in the pipe metal. The
implication is that overmatched welds can tolerate larger flaws than matching or
undermatching ones do.
Finally, since embedded flaws are less severe than surface breaking ones, the proposed
maximum allowable flaw sizes are equally applicable to embedded flaws.
7.3 Recommendations
7.3.1 Issue
Prior to use, the proposed guidelines require the following basic input:
• Pipe wall thickness
• Pipe metal yield strength and tensile strength in the longitudinal direction
• The Charpy V impact energy at the lowest possible pipe laying and operating
temperature
• Weld metal yield strength and tensile strength
• Measured maximum height and overall length of the flaw
Provided the pre-qualified weld procedures are followed, girth welds in modern pipeline steels
possess adequate toughness and will at least be matching in yield strength. However, it must
be pointed out that it is possible to have undermatched welds in high strength pipelines. If
this possibility cannot be excluded, toughness and tensile data should be obtained in sufficient
quantity to identify possible systematic (non-random) variations.
7.3.2 Material testing requirements
The ERPG guidelines do not include specific requirements for pipe and weld metal
qualification testing. Instead, reference is made to existing industry standards. These
standards, however, do not reflect the current state-of-the-art with regard to the effect of
weld metal yield strength mismatch and Y/T on deformation and failure behaviour.
For this reason, guidance on sampling position and number of tests to be conducted is
needed to establish variations in the material properties and to eliminate possible
unconservative estimates. However, if materials and welding processes can be selected to

Universiteit Gent
avoid this circumstance, detailed testing is not required.
Unless other information is available to determine the degree of variation, detailed testing is
essential if the measured values are near to critical. The following tentative near critical
values are proposed:
• Toughness Charpy V impact values are less than 33 J / 44 J (or 1,1 times the stated
requirements)
• Pipe metal Y/T ratio is greater than 0.88
• Level of weld metal yield strength overmatch is less than 3 %
These tentative recommendations are not meant to increase conservatism. They are only
meant to ensure that the required minimum toughness and tensile properties are satisfied.
Finally, it is recommended to provide for high strength pipe (x80 and above) stress-strain
curves up to the tensile strength of the pipe material in the longitudinal direction, from which
the uniform elongation can be deduced. This information is normally not needed for standard
pipe grades (below X80).
7.3 Flaw sizing
Assuming that the required material specifications are met, the maximum allowable flaw size
can be determined and compared to the size of the detected flaw. Thus, the use of the
current and proposed EPRG-Tier 2 allowable flaw size limits presupposes that an NDE
inspection is used capable of detecting and sizing the critical flaws. The use of an automated
ultrasonic technique of flaw height measurement (AUT) is recommended. However, it has to
be demonstrated that the assumed accuracy is achievable for the girth weld and pipe
materials under consideration. The present study does not include recommendations for
adding inspection allowance values to the reported on-line NDE inspection results.
8 FUTURE WORK
Several other aspects affecting allowable flaw size have not been addressed. The issues that
need to be documented include weld heterogeneity, plastic design and girth welds in extra
high (> X80) steel pipes.
.
8.1 Weld heterogeneity
All ECA approaches, including EPRG-Tier 2, are based on the simple premise that the
properties of a pipeline in the axial direction are homogenous. In reality, adjacent pipes in a
pipeline string have different mechanical properties. These differences affect the crack
driving force for failure. The differences between pipe and weld metal stress-strain behaviour
lead to significantly different strain distributions and strain concentrations in and around the

Universiteit Gent
weld. Also, the stress and strain situation can be affected by misalignment and out-of-
roundness. These issues are not considered in the formulation of the plastic collapse
estimation methods.
8.2 Extra high strength pipe
For extra high strength pipes, ongoing research has already shown that not only the Y/T ratio
but also the uniform elongation of the pipe metal has a dominant effect on the deformation
behaviour and failure of flawed girth welds. The quantification of the failure behaviour of
girth welds in extra high strength pipeline steels in terms of the Y/T ratio alone may,
therefore, be an oversimplification of the actual situation. In other words, for extra high
strength pipeline steels, a completely new method of assessments has to be developed. At
this time, no further guidance can be given.
8.3 Strain based design
Traditional ECA methodologies cannot be used to predict the relationship between the level of
flaw tolerance and plastic straining capacity. For non-elastic longitudinal deformations, current
strain based pipeline design codes offer the designer little assistance for longitudinal strains
exceeding the 0.5 % level. For strains in excess of 0.5 %, the development of a flaw
acceptance criterion needs information on the limit strain for failure. This strain limit cannot
be estimated form standard plastic collapse solutions as these are based on the limit stress
for failure. Thus, a methodology to assess the plastic straining capacity of flawed pipeline is
needed. That is, work has to be undertaken to determine the tolerable flaw size under
longitudinal plastic strains.

Weld Defects Part B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weld Defects Part B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universiteit Gent

EXTENSION OF EPRG-TIER 2 GUIDELINES

Part B – Experimental validation and recommendations

Defect length (mm)

Draft for review B-1 Part B

2.1 Laboratory Soete CWP data base

The CWP specimens contained either a machined or a fatigue-sharpened surface-breaking

Draft for review B-2 Part B

Test Variable (Number of specimens)

Table B1 - Database of single notched curved wide plate test (CWP)

• girth weld flaws in pipe grades exceeding X70.

Draft for review B-3 Part B

2.2 Method of presentation

Draft for review B-4 Part B

2.2.2 Detailed presentation of CWP database

• flaw length normalized by wall thickness (l/t), and/or,

3 EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF ERPG-TIER 2

Draft for review B-5 Part B

Variable Number of results / %

Draft for review B-6 Part B

3.3 Assessment and discussion

1.5 OM - CVN > 40 J

EPRG Tier 2 - h = 3 mm h < 3 mm

Draft for review B-7 Part B

4 EXTENSION OF ERPG-Tier 2 TO FLAWS IN X80 PIPELINES

Variable Number of results / %

Table B3 – Overview of X80 CWP test database

Draft for review B-8 Part B

4.2 Assessment and discussion

6 Remote strain = 0.5 %

Draft for review B-9 Part B

Pipe metal results

5 EXTENSION OF EPRG- Tier 2 TO FLAW IN THIN AND HEAVY WALL PIPELINES

5.1.2 Assessment and discussion

Draft for review B - 10 Part B

Variable Number of results / %

Remote strain at failure (%)

Draft for review B - 11 Part B

EPRG-box - hl/Wt = 0.07

5.2 Heavy wall pipelines (t ≥ 25.4 mm)

Draft for review B - 12 Part B

Variable Number of results / %

6 t = 1 inch - CVN > 40 J

Draft for review B - 13 Part B

t = 1 inch - CVN < 40 J

t = 1 inch - CVN > 40 J

Remote strain = 0.5 %

t > 1 inch - CVN > 40 J

6 t > 1 inch - pipe metal

Draft for review B - 14 Part B

5.2.2 Assessment and discussion

6 EXTENSION OF EPRG- Tier 2 TO FLAW HEIGHTS EXCEEDING 3 MM

Flaw height, h < 3mm ≤ 4 mm ≤ 5mm

* Flaw area = lh/Wt where W = 300 mm

Fig. B6 – Predicted maximum allowable flaw lengths as a function of flaw height

Draft for review B - 15 Part B

Variable Number of results / Value

6.3 Assessment and discussion

6.3.1 Flaw height less than 4 mm

Draft for review B - 16 Part B

All data, 3 < h < 4 mm

All data, 4 < h < 5 mm