Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90091

METHODOLOGY FOR VINTAGE PIPELINES ASSESSMENT

Mlissandre PHELIPPON1, Stphane HERTZ-CLEMENS GDF SUEZ, CRIGEN Innovation and Research Division Mechanics, Materials and Structure Integrity dpt. 361 av. Pst Wilson, 93211 Saint-Denis, France 1 Contact Author

Philippe NOTARIANNI GRTgaz / CTE / DRE Transmission Company 6 rue Raoul Nordling, 92277 Bois-Colombes Cedex - France

KEYWORDS Buried transportation steel pipelines, non-destructive mechanical characterization, mechanical properties, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, toughness, charpy impact energy. ABSTRACT During inspection and maintenance operations, pipeline operators may encounter pipes showing incomplete records. However, data such as pipe tensile properties and toughness are essential to perform a realistic pipeline fitness for service analysis. These situations most often occur with older pipelines, in a period where line pipe quality control and quality assessment were not as stringent as today. In order to avoid a cut and a replacement of the pipe, introducing transit interruption and high expenses for the operator, a methodology for determining mechanical properties has been developed. The methodology described in this paper relies on data obtained from many tests performed on this specific type of line. The study and analysis of these database information led to working out correlations between parameters measured on field, and missing recorded mechanical properties.

The first data that can be obtained quite easily is the chemical composition of steel, which can be analyzed in a laboratory from samples directly removed from parent material of the line pipe. Using the result of the previous analyses, the following correlations have been determined from the database information, and have been compared to correlations given in international standards (API 579, BS7910,) : - Charpy V energy measured at 0C versus Charpy U energy pleasured at 20C, - Charpy V energy versus sulfur content, - Fracture toughness versus Charpy V energy, - Fracture toughness versus sulfur content. A practical experiment of these results have been performed, as chemical composition analysis from samples were made on 5 removed test pieces issued from line pipes. These tests aimed at comparing the results given by correlations with the mechanical properties of the line pipes, and validating the feasibility of this methodology on the field. At the same time, database information was also used to check the theoretical behavior of parent metal regarding to the design temperature, by using a relation between steel toughness value, and its transition temperature at 28 J, issued from toughness transition curves.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

INTRODUCTION A realistic assessment of line pipe properties has got a significant influence on defect analysis results. It is then fundamental for pipelines operators to get as much information as possible about their pipelines when the original records are missing, especially if from a period before toughness was specified. This paper gives information about in-situ diagnostic for old pipelines, by providing correlations for Charpy energy and fracture toughness determination, using chemistry data and most readily obtained information. A practical experiment of these correlations have been performed, as chemical composition analysis from samples were made on 5 removed test pieces issued from line pipes. These tests were performed in order to check the feasibility of this methodology on the field. Correlations presented in this paper have been built on an existing database on material properties for 188 different pipe sections, representing a statistically significant sample of a given gas pipeline system. This material property database, developed by CRIGEN (Center for Research and Innovation on Gas and New Energies) of GDF SUEZ, is also used to answer specific operating problems, such as checking the theoretical behavior of parent metal regarding to the design temperature. The use of toughness transition curves leads to determine a relation between toughness value of the steel, and its transition temperature at 28 J. It is then possible to guarantee an operating temperature of the line pipe based on toughness values. NOMENCLATURE Symbol Definition D External diameter of the pipe. E Young Modulus. Fracture toughness. K1C KU-TLCharpy energy measured at 20C 20C on a U-shape notch specimen removed in the transverse direction of the pipe. KV-TLCharpy energy measured at 0C on 0C a V-shape notch specimen removed in the transerve direction of the pipe. KV Charpy energy measured on a Vshape notch specimen. KVmin Minimal Charpy energy. Fracture toughness. J1C J1C exp Experimental fracture toughness value, in opposition to calculated value. J1Cmax Maximal experimental fracture toughness value. J1Cmin Low bound of fracture toughness. J1C %S Fracture toughness calculated from sulfur content value.

MAOP t T28J Ttest S% YS

Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure. Thickness of the pipe. Transition temperature at 28 J. Charpy impact test temperature. Sulfur content. Yield Stength. Poissons ratio.

bar mm C C % MPa -

Unit mm GPa MPa.m0.5 J

J J kJ/m kJ/m

A MATURE TRANSMISSION PIPELINE NETWORK As the pipeline network gets older, and despite all attention given to pressurized transmission pipelines, defects due to corrosion or third party activities can still occur. In order to ensure the pipeline integrity, these defects should be identified, assessed and repaired if necessary. The analysis of these defects is based on complex criteria [1], which require accurate geometric data about the defect, but also about the pipeline: this statement is particularly relevant for Enginering Critical Assement analyses or Finite Element modeling. However, pipeline operators may encounter pipes with incomplete mechanical properties, especially in the presence of old pipelines, as quality expectations for records documenting the line pipe properties were different at that time. There are different ways of dealing with this issue: first, the operator can consult the pipeline installation year specifications. If they are incomplete or little known (for example, the minimal value of Charpy impact energies in the transverse direction were not indicated before 1985 in France), the operator may use a nondestructive mechanical characterization tool, like the ABI (Automated Indentation ball) micro-indenter tool [2]. Nevertheless, the high cost of this tool and the reservations about its ability to estimate the toughness [3] may lead the operators to find another solution. Thereby, in order to avoid a cut and a replacement of the pipe, leading to transit interruption and high costs for the operator, the experience feedback can be used for comparing data and adding up available information. In this purpose, the CRIGEN has compiled every characterization test performed over the 25 past years on 188 different pipes, including tensile test, Charpy impact tests made at various temperatures, toughness tests, and chemical composition determination. All of this information has been gathered in the database CANACIER (Figure 1).

kJ/m kJ/m kJ/m

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 2 Experimental KV-TL-0C values versus 0C experimental KU-TL-20C values

Figure 1 Number of tests compiled in CANACIER and repartition by test type USE OF EXPERIENCE FEEDBACK TO DETERMINE FEEDBACK CHARPY ENERGY AND FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TOUGHNESS Most of the time, data such as Charpy energy and fracture toughness K1C are essential to perform pipeline fitness for service analysis. Unfortunately, fracture toughness values are rarely determined on old pipes, or at this period Charpy Ushape notch test specimen had been specified. Besides, Charpy specified. energy can be measured at different temperatures, and on different type of specimens, removed in the transverse or in the longitudinal direction of the pipe, whereas current GDF SUEZ specifications require only V-shape notch Charpy toughness V-shape measured in transverse direction and at 0C (KV-TL-0C). transverse The study and analysis of CANACIER information led to working out correlations between frequently known data, as sulfur content and Charpy energy measured in the transverse direction at 20C (KU-TL-20C), and the missing ones. Correlation between KU-TL-20C and KV-TL-0C KV The most common Charpy energy value found on old line pipe certificates is the KU-TL-20C. As the required Charpy energy to perform pipeline fitness for service analysis is the fitness KV-TL-0C, it is necessary to have a correlation available between these two parameters. In CANACIER database, both Charpy energy tests have been performed for 341 pipes: 315 longitudinal welded pipes, 10 extruded pipes, 12 helical welded pipes and 4 pipes with unknown weld type. The observation of Figure 2 shows that KU-TL-20C values are generally higher than KV-TL-0C values ones. Indeed, the root of notch radius is larger for U-shape Unotch, so stress triaxiality is reduced, which does not favour the specimen rupture : Charpy energies are higher for this type of speciment than for V-shape notch. It is then strongly advised then not to use KU-TL-20C values instead of KV-TL-0C ones for KU-TL-20C values higher than 150 J/cm.

For high Charpy energies, KV-TL-0C value can be obtained from KU-TL-20C value depending on an adjustment factor (Figure 3).
For KU Eq. 1

150 J/cm :

KV

KU

45

Figure 3 Correlation for KU-TL-20C values higher than 150 J/cm

Another correlation can be used for every KU-TL-20C correlation value, but this correlation can be very conservative for high Charpy energy values (Figure 4).
Eq. 2

KV

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Eq. 3

If S% 0.006% then KV-TL-0C 40 J

Correlation between Charpy energy and fracture toughness Fracture toughness of steel can be obtained from Charpy energy values: a selection of correlations is presented in Table 1. Correlation
Rolfe, Novak & Barsom (RNB) [4] Scope : transition zone

Conditions

Figure 4 Dispersion of calculated KV-TL-0C values KVfunction of experimental KV-TL-0C Correlation between sulfur content and KV-TL-0C The previous correlations (Eq. 1 and Eq. 2), require a Charpy energy value. However, if no Charpy energy value is available, it is then possible to estimate a conservative KV-TL0C value from steel sulfur content. Indeed, for ferrite pearlitic steels used for pipelines, rupture is often driven by sulfur and manganese inclusions, and their spatial and geometrical spatial distributions, as these parameters influence steel toughness properties. That is why it a link between ruptur and sulfur content is considered. Figure 5 presents Charpy energy values measured on a Vshape notch versus sulfur content, removed in the transverse content, direction of the pipe samples, at temperatures of 0C or 20C, extracted from CANACIER database. CANACIER The amount of points around a sulfur content of 0.005% is due to the fact that these values can be either real sulfur content values of steel, or the detection low limit of the measuring low device used for the test in the past.

. .

270 YS 1700 MPa 4 KV 82 J

Sailors & Corten (SC) [4] Scope : lower part of the transition curve Average strength steel

Marandet & Sanz (IRSID) [5] Scope : higher part of the transition curve

274 YS 820 MPa 5 KV 110 J

Barsom [4] Scope : lower part of the transition curve

250 YS 950 MPa

API 579 [6] 579-1 Scope : lower bound estimation

Cf. [4]

BS 7910 [7] Scope : lower bound estimation

Cf. [6]

Rice, Paris & Merckle (CERSTA) [8] Scope : average estimation A37 Steel Grade X70

(KV in J/cm, K1c in MPa.mm1/2)

Table 1 Correlations between fracture toughness K1C and Charpy energy On the hypothesis of plane strain, gas transmission pipes reference fracture toughness J1C can be calculated from K1C (Eq. 4). Figure 5 Charpy energy values in transverse direction versus steel sulfur content Eq. 4

The content analysis of available data shows that if sulfur content is lower than or equal to 0.006%, then KV-TL-0C value is higher than or equal to 40 J.

Indeed, fracture toughness K1C tests have to be performed on standard samples with thickness higher than 13 mm. As in most cases, gas transmission pipe thicknesses are most of the time lower than 13 mm, tests are performed on specimens with

Copyright 2012 by ASME

small thicknesses, lower than pipe wall thickness. Then fracture toughness values are known as J1C. Correlations presented in Table 1 are most of the time very time conservative. CANACIER data can be used to choose a fitted correlation for gas transmission line pipes (Figure 6). All fracture toughness values have been obtained with multiplespecimen technique, with CT (Compact Tension) or SENB Tension) (Single Edge Notche Bend) specimens. Bend)

The analysis of available data shows that if sulfur content is lower than or equal to 0.006%, then J1C value is higher than or equal to 150 kJ/m. Eq. 5 If S% 0.006% then J1C 150 kJ/m

Moreover, a low bound for fracture toughness is given by Eq. 6. Eq. 6

2.14

S %

Application to in-situ sulfur content measurements Correlation presented in Eq. 3 can be used only if steel sulfur content has been assessed. First tests were performed on field with an arc spark optical spectrometer. These tests were not conclusive, as minimal sulfur content detectable was around 0.018% : the detection low limit of the measuring tool was low much too high to obtain sulfur content values around 0.006%. In order to get accurate sulfur content values, a second series of tests were performed : a few grams of steel were were directly removed from pipes, with a little cutter tool (Figure 8), (Figure so a classic chemical analysis can be carried out in a laboratory. Figure 6 Correlations between fracture toughness J1C and Charpy energy measured in transverse direction, for plane in strain hypothesis For example, the best correlation for GRTgaz transmission pipe steels, according to Figure 6, is the one given by API 579, as J1C values calculated are consistent with experimental results, results, and are always conservative. Values obtained with BS 7910 correlation are also conservative, but they are too conservative for high fracture toughness values. Correlation between sulfur content and fracture toughness Fracture toughness can also be estimated from sulfur from content. A low bound for fracture toughness is presented in fracture Figure 7.

Figure 8 Cutter tool used to take a sample of steel and an example of sampling made
These tests were performed on 5 pipe sections removed from the French gas transmission network. The chemical network. analysis can be carried out with only 4 or 5 grams of steel : it is possible to extend the sampling zone on the pipe body to reduce metal loss in the thickness, in order to preserve pipe integrity. the Pipe sections main characteristics and sulfur content values obtained are presented in Table 2.

D t KV > KV-TLSteel S% (mm) (mm) grade 40J? 0C (J) 609.6 7.9 Yes C1 X52 0.004 187.2 609.6 6.9 No C2 X63 0.016 39.2 508.0 6.5 No C3 X63 0.027 16.0 609.6 10.0 Yes C4 X65 0.006 172.0 219.1 14.0 Yes C5 X65 0.006 208.8 Table 2 Deductions made about Charpy energy from sulfur content and comparison with Charpy energy measurements
Id. Figure 7 Fracture toughness values versus steel sulfur content

The limit giving information about Charpy energy values from sulfur content is checked for these 5 pipe sections samples. The criterion is very conservative though, as for

Copyright 2012 by ASME

samples C4 and C5, sulfur content equal the 0.006% limit, whereas Charpy energies are higher than 170 J. Application to pipe sections described in literature A PRCI (Pipeline Research Council International) report provides Charpy energy, fracture toughness and sulfur content values for 8 different pipe sections [9]. Ratio between Charpy energies and the 40J threshold suggested in Eq. 3, versus ratio between sulfur content values and the 0.006% threshold are showed in Figure 9.

The law suggested in Eq. 5 is confirmed for these 8 pipe sections : when sulfur content is lower than or equal to 0.006%, then fracture toughness value is higher than or equal to value 150 kJ/m. This example also shows that it is more likely to get low fracture toughnesses for high sulfur contents. The correlation suggested in Eq. 6 between a low bound for fracture toughness and sulfur content is also put to the test. Fracture toughness calculated from sulfur content values, J1c%S, is compared to experimental fracture toughness, J1cexp. Both of these values are divided by the maximal experimental fracture toughness value J1cmax in Figure 11.

Figure 9 Charpy energy versus sulfur content, compared content, with threshold of Eq. 3 The law suggested in Eq. 3 is confirmed for these 8 pipe sections : when sulfur content is lower than or equal to 0.006%, then KV-TL-0C value is higher than or equal to 40 J. This value example also shows that it is very likely to get low Charpy energy values for high sulfur contents. In the same way, fracture toughness values available are presented in Figure 10 versus sulfur content. Values are given by means of ratio between experimental values and threshold suggested in Eq. 5.

Figure 11 Fracture toughness calculated from sulfur content versus experimental fracture toughness
The correlation of Eq. 6. is supposed to provide a low bound for fracture toughness, which is also confirmed for these 8 pipe sections : calculated fracture toughness values are all conservative. ENSURING THE FITNESS FOR SERVICE OF PIPES AT LOW TEMPERATURES Gas transmission networks can be more strained in some operational conditions (significant gas expansion), or accidental conditions (gas venting) : in these cases, pipes can be operated (gas locally at very low temperatures. In such operating conditions, which can be brief or persistent, pipeline operators need to know if the relevant line pipes bought according to common supply specifications can be operated. The methodology described in this paragraph use CANACIER data to determine a relation between Charpy energy values of the steel measured at different temperatures, with its transition ductility temperature measured at 28 J. This 28 J threshold is equivalent to a 35 J/cm Charpy energy for a equivalent standard specimen, which is often used in CRIGEN fitness for specimen, service criteria. Preliminary results using the BS 7910 law The former version British Standard BS 7910: 1999 presents in Annex J.5 a graph giving the transition temperature transition at 27 J from a Charpy energy measurement made at a different temperature Ttest, with -30 Ttest 20C (Eq. 7 and Eq. 8).

Figure 10 Fracture toughness versus sulfur content, compared with threshold of Eq. 5

Copyright 2012 by ASME

If 5 J KV 61 J :

Eq. 7 T

T T

0.01243KV T

1.68242KV

36.78974

If 28 J KV 40 J : a margin of error is considered due to uncertainty linked to each experimental measurement. So if Charpy energy value is lower than or equal to 40 J, T28J equals Ttest (Eq. 9). Eq. 9

If KV > 61 J :

Eq. 8

20C

0C

This law is checked against experimental data extracted from CANACIER (Figure 12) : transition curves representing Charpy energies versus temperatures have been made for nine different pipes. Table 3 presents pipes characteristics and temperatures at 28 J measured for each pipe.

If KV 40 J : the interval between T28J and Ttest is linked to Charpy energy through a slope (Eq. 10). Eq. 10

0.5KV

20

T28J Steel D t (C) Grade (mm) (mm) A A37 -12 406.4 12.7 D X60 7.1 -78 406.4 L X65 -98 914.4 11.9 H X60 4.6 -138 406.4 -119 ABR unknown 914.4 13.0 X63 6.9 -15 ACU 609.6 X63 6.1 -108 ACW 508.0 X63 6.1 -44 ADL 508.0 X63 6.5 -22 BSS 508.0 Table 3 Pipes characteristics and T28J measurements
Sample Id.

The CRIGEN law is checked against experimental data presented in Table 3 (Figure 13) : all values of this sampling are conservatives.

For Charpy energy values lower than 50 J, BS 7910 law can be non conservative. Indeed, the interval between Ttest and Indeed, T28J expected according to BS 7910 law is higher than the experimental one. Moreover, the estimation of T28J from one. Charpy energy values lower than 28 J seems hazardous [10].

Figure 13 CRIGEN law and experimental data comparison

Use of the CRIGEN law to ensure fitness for service of pipes According with this new law providing the evolution of Ttest from T28J, it is now possible to determine the required Charpy energy value to ensure the proper performance of a pipe, ordered at a specified temperature higher than the operating one. An example is presented in Figure 14 : the evolution of the minimal Charpy energy value is given for a temperature of test equal to 0C. If the pipe is used at -20C, then its Charpy then energy should be at least equal to 80 J.

Figure 12 BS 7910 law and experimental data comparison A new T28J determination methodology: the CRIGEN law From experimental observations, CRIGEN built a new law to calculate T28J from a Charpy energy value measured at Ttest. If KV < 28 J : T28J cannot be determined.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 14 Determination of minimal Charpy energy to ensure fitness for service at -20C for a 0C specified pipe -20C Thereby, minimal Charpy energy value ensuring a Charpy energy of 28 J for operating temperatures from -45C to +15C can be calculated for all specified temperatures included in the validation perimeter, from -30C to +20C (Table 4).
KVmin (J)
-45 -40

Section Id. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15

D (mm)

t (mm)

Steel grade

7.8 A37 318.0 7.5 X52 508.0 6.0 A37 211.0 6.9 X63 609.6 6.4 X63 508.0 10.7 609.6 X52HRR X52 16.2 914.4 X63 10.5 914.4 914.4 X52HRR 16.0 7.9 X63 762.0 6.4 X65 609.6 X65 7.7 609.6 15.5 X52 508.0 X65 11.5 609.6 12.1 812.8 TSE450 Table 5 Pipe characteristics

Install. Year 1954 1959 1965 1968 1969 1970 1975 1975 1975 1982 1983 1983 1983 1985 1985

Specified temperature (C)

-30 70 60 50 -25 80 70 60 50 -20 90 80 70 60 50 -15 100 90 80 70 60 50 -10 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 -5 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 0 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 5
140 130 120 110 100

Minimal Charpy-V energy measured on removed test pieces have been noted down for pipe body. These Charpy-V energies, energies, measured in transverse direction at 0C, have been used to assess transition temperature at 28 J, T28J (Table 6). temperature KVmin in T28J pipe body (C) (J) S1 112.0 -36 S2 34.4 0 S3 64.0 -12 S4 85.6 -23 S5 31.2 0 S6 57.6 -9 S7 40.0 0 S8 55.2 -8 S9 45.6 -3 S10 80.0 -20 S11 88.0 -24 S12 89.6 -25 S13 76.8 -18 S14 61.6 -11 S15 59.2 -10 Table 6 Minimal Charpy-V energies and T28J results

10 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50

15 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50

20 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50

Section Id.

Operating temperature (C)

-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5

0 5 10 15

90 80 70 60 50

Table 4 Minimal Charpy energy values at specified temperature (column) ensuring proper performance at a performance lower temperature (line)

Application to 15 gas pipeline sections In order to show the benefits of the CRIGEN law for operating issues, minimal operating temperatures are calculated for 15 representative gas transmission line pipes. Table 5 presents pipes main geometrical characteristics and installation year.

The use of minimal Charpy-V energies recorded in linepipe certificates allows to determine minimal operating temperatures. For the 15 pipe sections presented in this presented example, only 3 cannot be operated at temperatures lower than cannot 0C, equal to the specified temperature. The 12 others pipe temperature. sections can be operated from -3C to -36C, depending on the quality of steel grade. These results are promising and fulfill a real operating need. This work is still in progress, in particular for extending this law to joints : results of characterization tests performed on test-tube removed in longitudinal and helical joints will be added to the database.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

CONCLUSION The work presented in this paper is still in progress, in particular for extending the CRIGEN law to welded joints and girth welds : results of characterization tests performed on testtube removed in longitudinal and helical joints will be added to the database. Moreover, the database CANACIER used to work out correlations only refers to European pipe mills : correlations will have to be checked against characterization tests results from North American or Asian mills samples. Correlations presented in this paper enable to determine : Charpy energy KV-TL-0C from Charpy energy value found on line pipe certificates, KU-TL-20. - Charpy energy KV-TL-0C from sulfur content value : a sulfur content lower than or equal to 0.006% guarantee a Charpy energy higher or equal to 40 J. - Fracture toughness from Charpy-V energy : the best correlation for gas transmission line pipe steels is the one given by API 579, as J1C values calculated are consistent with experimental results, and are always conservative. - Fracture toughness from sulfur content value : a sulfur content lower than or equal to 0.006% guarantee a fracture toughness value higher than or equal to 150 kJ/m. - A low bound for fracture toughness, which can be estimated from sulfur content. These correlations have been checked against experimental data, and in-situ sulfur content measurements have been performed on 5 removed test pieces issued from line pipes, in order to confirm the feasibility of in-situ sulfur content measurements : a few grams of steel were sampled in order to realize chemical analysis in a laboratory. Moreover, database information were used to ensure the fitness for service of vintage pipes at operating temperatures lower than the design one. The use of brittle-ductile transition curves leads to determine a relation between Charpy-V energy and steel transition temperature at 28 J. It is then possible to guarantee an operating temperature of the line pipe based on Charpy-V energy values. This law has been applied to 15 gas transmission pipe sections : the use of minimal Charpy-V energies measured on removed test pieces allows to check the theoretical behavior of parent metal regarding to the design temperature. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors want to thank their colleagues Francis Curie, from the metallographic and material laboratory of the CRIGEN, and Rmi Batisse, for their contribution. This work was undertaken as part of a research project asked by GRTgaz (GDF SUEZ subsidiary involved in gas transmission by pipelines). The support and input of Philippe Notarianni from GRTgaz is also gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES [1] Poignant M., Lesueur V. and Pognonec G., 2008, A pipeline integrity assessment software for transmission pipelines : GADline, Proceedings of IPC 2008, Calgary, Canada, IPC2008-64321. [2] Haggag F.M., 1993, In-situ Measurements of Mechanical Properties Using Novel Automated Ball, American Society for Testing and material, pp 27-44, Philadelphia. [3] Le Bastard A., Batisse R, and Gaschignard V., 2008, Investigation of a non-destructive method to characterize material mechanical properties of pipelines in service, Proceedings of IPC 2008, Calgary, Canada, IPC2008-64267. [4] Sreenivasan P.R., 2008, Estimation of ASTM E-1921 reference temperature from Charpy tests: Charpy energy-fracture toughness correlation method. [5] Franois D., 1999, Fracture Mechanics and the Charpy Test, 15th International Conference on Structural mechanics in Reactor Technology, Seoul. [6] Fitness for Service API-597-1/ASME FFS-1, June 5, 2007. [7] British Standard BS 7910 : 1999, Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded structures. [8] Batisse R., Curie F., 1997, Charpy fracture toughness correlation for transmission pipes A simple tool to assess harmfulness of cracks in pipes, GDF SUEZ report, CERSTA-Ba/Cu/VN n97349. [9] Leis B.N., Kilinski T.J., 2004, Database of Mechanical and Toughness Properties of Pipe, Catalog No. L51845e, PRCI PR-3-9737. [10] Pisarshi H.G., Hayes B., Olbricht J., Lichter P. and Wiesner C.S, Validation of idealized Charpy impact energy transition curve shape, From Charpy to Present Impact Testing, p 333-340, Franois D. and Pineau A. (Eds), 20002 Elsevier Science Ltd. And ESIS.

Copyright 2012 by ASME