You are on page 1of 8

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

IPC2012-90016

DEVELOPMENT OF WELDING PROCEDURES FOR X90-GRADE SEAMLESS PIPES FOR RISER APPLICATIONS
Hiroyuki Nagayama Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. Amagasaki, Japan Masahiko Hamada Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. Amagasaki, Japan

Mark F. Mruczek RTI Energy Systems, Inc. Houston, TX, USA

Mark Vickers RTI Energy Systems, Inc. Houston, TX, USA

Nobuyuki Hisamune Sumitomo Metal Industries, Ltd. Wakayama, Japan

Tetsuya Fukuba Sumitomo Metal USA, Inc. Houston, TX, USA

Archie Arredondo Marubeni-Itochu Tubulars America, Inc. Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT Ultra-high strength seamless pipes of X90 and X100 grades have been developed for deepwater or ultra-deepwater applications. Girth welding procedure specifications (WPSs) should be developed for the ultra-high strength pipes. However, there is little information for double jointing welding procedure by using submerged arc welding process for high strength line pipes. This paper describes mechanical test results of submerged arc welding (SAW) and gas shielded flux cored arc welding (GSFCAW) trials with various welding consumables procured from commercial markets. Welds were then made with typical welding parameters for riser productions using high strength X90 seamless pipes. The submerged arc weld metal strength could increase by increasing alloy elements in weld metal. The weld metal with CE (IIW) value of 0.74 mass% achieved fully overmatching for the X90 pipe. The weld metal yield strength (0.2 % offset) was 694 MPa, and the ultimate tensile strength was 833 MPa. It was also confirmed that the reduction of boron in weld metal can improve low temperature toughness of high strength weld metal. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the HAZ has excellent mechanical properties and toughness for riser applications. In this study GSFCAW procedures were also developed. GSFCAW can be used for joining pipe and connector material

for riser production welding. The weld metal with a CE (IIW) value of 0.54 mass% could meet the required strength level for X90-grade pipe as specified in ISO 3183. Cross weld tensile testing showed that fractures were achieved in the base metal. Good Charpy impact properties in weld metal and HAZ were also confirmed. INTRODUCTION The increasing global demand for energy is creating the need for economical transportation of oil and gas from remote reserves in the world. Riser system costs are particularly sensitive to increases in water depth and there is a need to develop technically viable and cost effective riser solutions for deep and ultra-deep water developments. Development of high strength applications can be a viable option towards fulfilling this need, because of the potential for construction cost savings from reduced steel consumption, reduced transportation costs, increased construction efficiency and higher operating pressures. High strength seamless pipes of X90 and X100 grades have been developed for deepwater or ultra-deepwater applications [1, 2]. With this, girth welding procedure specifications (WPSs) need to be developed for the ultra-high strength pipes for use in offshore applications. Recently, weld trials have been conducted using ultra-high strength pipes more than X90-grade with low heat input gas metal arc welding

Copyright 2012 by ASME

(GMAW) [3, 4, 5]. But, in the case of top tension riser (TTR) fabrication, submerged arc welding (SAW) is one of the main welding processes for double joints (pipe to pipe jointing) due to its high deposition rate potential. For the jointing pipes and connectors, gas shielded flux cored arc welding (GSFCAW) can be used. To date, there is very little information about girth SAW joints and GSFCAW joints for more than X90-grade pipes. For the SAW process, high weld heat input conditions are usually applied to improve welding productivity. The large weld heat input produces slow cooling rates. Thus the submerged arc weld metal with a rich chemistry is required to achieve high strength. In addition, high weld metal toughness should be required because the high strength weld metal can generally deteriorate the low temperature toughness. High strength weld metal performance has been developed by using the SAW process on the seam welding for large diameter welded pipes [6, 7, 8]. There is some information about the metallurgical approach to obtain high toughness and high strength weld metal. However, this type of weld is produced using single pass welding techniques and multielectrodes. Typically, double joints are produced by using a single wire and multi-pass welding techniques. Currently the weld metal strength/toughness balance for high strength girth weld metals is not fully understood. This paper summarizes mechanical properties of girth welding joints made by SAW and GSFCAW with various welding consumables procured from commercial markets and with various welding conditions. Furthermore, SAW and GSFCAW procedures were developed. THE X90 SEAMLESS PIPES The X90 seamless pipe used during this testing was API5L X90-grade line pipe. It was produced at the seamless pipe mill in Wakayama steel works of Sumitomo Metals. The pipe dimensions were 323.9 mm in outer diameter and 20.0 mm in wall thickness. The pipe was produced using the following processes. Chemical composition of the steel was controlled by the basic oxygen converter. The melt steel was cast continuously to a round billet. The round billet was rolled by the rotary single piercing and the mandrel mill process. The crude pipe was directly quenched after the pipe rolling. To satisfy the X90-grade strength, the adequate tempering temperature was applied. The chemical composition of this steel is provided in Table 1. The CE (IIW) of this composition was 0.60 %. The steel has been designed with low carbon and low Pcm to obtain excellent HAZ properties. The tensile properties of this pipe are shown in table 2.

GIRTH WELDING PROCEDURES All welding was performed by RTI Energy Systems, a riser fabricator, using their welding equipment and peripheral devices for their riser productions. Welds were made using
Table 1 Chemical compositions of the pipe (mass %) C 0.05 Si 0.30 Others Cr, Mo and Ti Mn 2.06 P 0.010 CE (IIW) 0.60 S 0.002 Pcm 0.23

CE (IIW) = C+ Mn/6+ (Cr+Mo+V)/5+ (Ni+Cu)/15 Pcm= C+ Si/30+ (Mn+Cu+Cr)/20+ Ni/60+ Mo/15+ V/10+ 5B Table 2 Typical tensile properties of the pipe* YS** (MPa) 675 TS (MPa) 733 YS/TS 0.92 EL (%) 44

* Longitudinal direction, 38.1 mm reduced strip specimen ** 0.5% total extension under load

typical welding parameters for two welding processes, which are SAW process for double joints and GSFCAW process for joining pipes and connectors. For both processes, pipe butt welding was performed using both a single V and single U bevel preparation. Several welding consumables and welding conditions were used for this welding procedure development. Girth welding procedures for SAW joints are listed in Table 3. Two SAW joints were made; each employing different combinations of wire and flux. The root pass and hot pass welding were conducted by using GTAW. The fill and cap pass welding were performed by using SAW with the respective combination of wire and flux. All passes were welded in the 1G position from the OD of the pipe.
Table 3 Welding procedures for SAW joints
Weld A Weld B GTAW + SAW GTAW + SAW 1G 1G 121 deg. C 121 deg. C Pre-heat temp. (250 deg. F) (250 deg. F) Max. 260 deg. C Max. 232 deg. C Interpass temp. (500 deg. F) (450 deg. F) GTAW for root and hot passes AWS A5.28 AWS A5.28 Consumable ER100S-G ER100S-G Wire dia. 1.0 mm 1.0 mm 1.06 kJ/mm 1.32 kJ/mm Ave. heat input (27.0 kJ/in) (33.5 kJ/in) SAW for fill and cap passes Consumables Wire AWS A5.23 EM2 AWS A5.23 EG Wire dia. 2.4 mm 2.4 mm Fluoride basic flux Fluoride basic Flux system agglomerated flux 1.22 kJ/mm 1.26 kJ/mm Ave. heat input (30.9 kJ/in) (32.0 kJ/in) Welds Process Position

Girth welding procedures for GSFCAW joints are listed in Table 4. Three GSFCAW joints were made using combinations

Copyright 2012 by ASME

of two flux cored wires, preheat and interpass temperatures. The wires of Weld C and D are the same. Weld D and E were made with lower pre-heat and interpass temperatures than Weld C. The root pass and hot pass welding was conducted by using GTAW. The fill and cap pass welding were performed by using GSFCAW. All passes were welded in the 1G position from the OD of the pipe.
Table 4 Welding procedures for GSFCAW joints
Welds Process Position Pre-heat temp. Interpass temp.
Consumabl e

Reduced Section Cross Weld Tensile Tests Cross weld tensile tests were performed using standard size specimens with a 38.1 mm reduced section width. Hardness tests Vickers hardness tests were performed at locations shown in Figure 2. Line A-A and C-C represent 1 mm from outside and inside the pipe surface, respectively. Line B-B indicates the middle of the pipe wall thickness. Line D-D shows the weld center line. All hardness impressions had a 1 mm interval.

Wire dia. Ave. heat input


Consumabl e

Weld C Weld D Weld E GTAW + FCAW GTAW + FCAW GTAW + FCAW 1G 1G 1G 121 deg. C Not applied Not applied (250 deg. F) (ambient temp.) (ambient temp.) Max. 232 deg. C Max. 121 deg. C Max. 121 deg. C (450 deg. F) (250 deg. F) (250 deg. F) GTAW for root and hot passes AWS A5.28 AWS A5.28 AWS A5.28 ER100S-G ER100S-G ER100S-G 1.0 mm 1.0 mm 1.0 mm 1.29 kJ/mm 1.30 kJ/mm 1.19 kJ/mm (32.8 kJ/in) (32.9 kJ/in) (30.2 kJ/in) GSFCAW for fill and cap passes AWS A5.29 ER111T1-K3M 1.2 mm Ar:CO2 = 75:25 1.74 kJ/mm (44.2 kJ/in) AWS A5.29 ER111T1-K3M 1.2 mm Ar:CO2 = 80:20 1.69 kJ/mm (43.0 kJ/in) AWS A5.29 ER111T1-GMH4 1.2 mm Ar:CO2 = 80:20 1.68 kJ/mm (42.6 kJ/in)

D A B C D
Figure 2 Measurement lines of hardness distributions

A B C

Wire Wire dia. Shielding gas Ave. heat input

THE EVALUATION PROCEDURES The testing conducted in this evaluation included all weld metal tensile tests, cross weld tensile tests, hardness tests, Charpy V Notch (CVN) tests and fracture toughness (CTOD) tests. The weld reinforcement was removed on the OD and ID of each weld specimen. Typical riser productions would remove weld reinforcement to meet UT testing requirements and fatigue requirements. All Weld Metal Tensile Tests All weld metal tensile tests were performed using roundbar specimens as shown in Figure 1. The 6.4 mm diameter specimen was taken from the middle of the wall thickness. The gage length (G.L.) was 25.4 mm.

Charpy V Notch Tests Charpy impact tests were performed by using standard 10 x 10 mm test samples. The specimens were taken from the middle of the pipe wall thickness. The tests were conducted from -40 to +20 deg. C for weld metal, at -20 deg. C for fusion line (FL) (WM: HAZ = 50 : 50 position), FL + 2 mm and FL + 5 mm of the notch position. Fracture Toughness (CTOD) Tests CTOD testing was performed using standard single edge notch bend specimens (Bx2B) with notch depth of 1/2 of specimen thickness (a0/W = 0.5). The tests were conducted at 0 deg. C for weld metal, FL, FL + 2 mm and FL + 5 mm of the notch position.

RESULTS SAW joints Chemical composition of the submerged arc weld metals is shown in Table 5. In terms of Weld A, the CE (IIW) value was 0.58 mass%, same as base metal. The boron content of 43 ppm for weld A was higher than expected. This most likely came from boron being added to the flux composition during manufacturing and was picked up during welding. Regarding Weld B, the CE (IIW) value was 0.74 mass%, significantly higher than Weld A. This increase was the result of using a higher alloy content welding wire than in Weld A. The boron free weld metal was obtained by using type boron free flux. Oxygen content was 357 ppm, 100 ppm lower than Weld A and in the range for maintaining good weld metal toughness.

Weld metal
by SAW or GSFCAW hot by GTAW root

Figure 1 Location for all weld metal tensile test specimen

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 5 Chemical compositions of the submerged arc weld metal (mass %)


Weld A C Si Mn P S Cu Cr Ni Mo 0.048 0.64 1.80 0.011 0.0030 0.11 0.08 1.80 0.45 Weld B 0.041 0.32 1.66 0.014 0.0028 0.14 0.88 2.13 0.48 Ti V Nb Sol. Al B O N CE (IIW) Pcm Weld A 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.014 0.0043 0.0468 0.0043 0.58 0.25 Weld B 0.010 0.006 0.002 0.015 0.0002 0.0357 0.0056 0.74 0.26

For the Weld B weld metal, the upper shelf energy was 138 J. The weld metal transition temperatures of Weld A and B were 20.6 deg. C and below -40 deg. C (the lowest test temperature), respectively. Therefore, the large difference of the absorbed energy at -20 deg. C in the Figure 3 occurred in association with a difference in the transition temperature.
Shear area (%)
Notch position: Weld center line

100 50 250 0 200 150 100 50 0 -40


Weld A Weld B

Figure 3 shows the test results of all weld metal tensile tests and weld metal CVN tests at -20 deg. C. The impact energy value shows an average of 3 specimens. The yield strength of Weld A weld metal was 593 MPa (86 ksi). This is lower than the X90 minimum requirement of 620 MPa as specified in ISO 3183 [10]. The impact energy at -20 deg. C was 70 J (51.6 ft-lbs). The yield strength of Weld B was 694 MPa (100.7 ksi). This is higher than the X90 strength requirement and would be overmatching for the X90 pipe. The Weld B weld metal impact energy at -20 deg. C was 117 J (86.3 ft-lbs), is higher absorbed energy than 68 J for riser applications. The weld metal of Weld B was considered to be superior to that of Weld A in terms of strength and CVN energy.
900 YS 850 Weld metal strength (MPa) 800 100 728 694 YS > 620 MPa 750 700 650 600 550 500 Weld A Weld B 0 593 25 vE ave. @-20 deg. C (J) TS vE -20 deg. C 833 125 150

CVN energy (J)

-20 0 20 Temperature (deg. C)

Figure 4 Charpy transition curves of submerged arc weld metal

75

50

The hardness test, CVN test, and CTOD test results are summarized in Table 6. The maximum weld metal hardness was 286 HV10 for Weld A and 295 HV10 for Weld B. The maximum HAZ hardness was 287 HV10 for Weld A and 290 HV10 for Weld B. For each joint, there was no significant hardening in HAZ. These hardness values would be suitable for high strength riser applications. The impact energy at -20 deg. C in the HAZ of both welds A and B was more than 68 J at each notch location which was acceptable for this project. The minimum CTOD value in the HAZ was more than 0.20 mm at each notch location. The weld metal of Weld A had a minimum CTOD value of 0.197 mm, but the weld metal of Weld B was 0.267 mm. This slight increase may have been the result of the decrease in weld metal oxygen and the leaner weld wire chemistry. This trend was also noticed for the CVN results at weld metal notch location.

Figure 3 All weld metal tensile test and CVN test results of SAW joints

Table 6 Hardness, CVN and CTOD test results of SAW joints


Hardness (HV10) Weld metal maximum Weld A Weld B 286 295 HAZ maximum 287 290

Charpy transition curves of submerged arc weld metal are shown in Figure 4. The upper shelf energy of Weld A would be more than 122 J of average absorbed energy because the average shear area at highest temperature (0 deg. C) was 75 %.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Impact energy at -20 deg. C min./ave. (J) Notch Weld A Weld B Weld metal 55/70 108/117 FL 154/175 109/135 FL+2mm 247/276 153/208 FL+5mm 293/300 218/250
Weld metal strength (MPa)

900 YS 850 800 YS > 620 MPa 750 700 650 600 550 500 Weld C Weld D Weld E Base metal 585 682 663 645 733 675 TS vE -20 deg. C

150

125 vE ave. @-20 deg. C (J)

CTOD value (mm) Notch Weld A Weld metal 0.340 0.231 0.197 0.364 Weld B 0.379 0.267 FL 0.437 0.440 0.290 0.338 0.474 0.571 FL+2mm 0.861 0.391 0.707 1.033 0.516 0.821 FL+5mm 1.142 0.978 1.066 1.083 1.130 1.042

100

721

721

75

50

25

GSFCAW joints Chemical composition of the weld metal for the gas shielded flux cored arc process is shown in Table 7. It should be noted that Weld C and Weld D were produced using the same filler metal however, the pre-heat and interpass temperature of Weld D was lower than Weld C. The weld metal of Weld E had a leaner CE (IIW) value of 0.54 compared with Weld C and D. The Weld E sulfur and oxygen content of 83 ppm and 536 ppm were 36 ppm and 74 ppm lower than seen in Weld D.
Table 7 Chemical compositions of the gas shielded flux cored arc weld metal (mass %)
C Si Mn P S Cu Cr Ni Mo Weld C 0.048 0.22 1.56 0.009 0.0114 0.04 0.07 1.82 0.60 W eld D 0.054 0.24 1.56 0.008 0.0119 0.04 0.06 1.87 0.55 W eld E 0.048 0.23 1.69 0.009 0.0083 0.02 0.18 2.43 0.04 Ti V Nb Sol. Al B O N CE (IIW) Pcm Weld C 0.023 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.0037 0.0495 0.0053 0.57 0.23 W eld D 0.028 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.0040 0.0610 0.0052 0.56 0.23 Weld E 0.051 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.0036 0.0536 0.0031 0.54 0.21

Figure 5 All weld metal tensile test and CVN test results of GSFCAW joints

The cross weld tensile test results are shown in Table 8. Figure 6 shows the fracture appearance of Weld E. The Weld C joint fractured in weld metal during testing. The Weld D and E joints fractured in base metal, and the all specimens had a tensile strength over 730 MPa (105.9 ksi). The strength was larger than the specified minimum tensile strength of 695 MPa for X90 pipes. Therefore, the welding joints had structural soundness although all weld metal strength was lower than the X90 pipe.
Table 8 Cross weld tensile test results of GSFCAW joints
Tensile strength (MPa) Weld C 712 700 Weld D 736 733 Weld E 735 735 Fractured position Weld metal Weld metal Base metal Base metal Base metal Base metal

Figure 5 shows the test results of all weld metal tensile tests and weld metal CVN tests at -20 deg. C including the base metal tensile test results. The impact energy value is an average of 3 specimens. The yield strength of 585 MPa (84.8 ksi) for Weld C weld metal was lower than the required 620 MPa (90 ksi). The yield strength of Weld D and E was 663 MPa (96.2 ksi) and 645 MPa (93.5 ksi). The yield and tensile strength of Weld D and E (all welds) were higher than the minimum specified properties at pipe but lower than the actual X90 pipe. The impact energy at -20 deg. C of Weld D was 80 J while the CVN energy of Weld E was 108 J. These absorbed energies would be considered acceptable for riser applications.

Figure 6 Appearance of cross weld tensile test specimens of Weld E after fracture

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Charpy transition curves for the gas shielded flux cored arc welding process are shown in Figure 7. The upper shelf energies were 117 J (86.3 ft-lbs), 93 J (68.6 ft-lbs) and 119 J (87.8 ft-lbs) for Weld C, D and E, respectively. The weld metal transition temperatures were below -40 deg. C for all Welds. Therefore, the difference between Welds D and E for the absorbed energy at -20 deg. C in the Figure 5 was occurred in association with a difference of the upper shelf energy.
Notch position: Weld center line

Table 9 Hardness, CVN and CTOD test results of GSFCAW joints


Hardness (HV10) Weld metal maximum Weld C Weld D Weld E 245 274 263 HAZ maximum 277 296 299

Impact energy at -20 deg. C min./ave. (J)


Shear area (%)

100 50 250 0 200 150


Weld C Weld D Weld E

Notch Weld C Weld D Weld E

Weld metal 84/87 77/80 104/108

FL 88/98 118/124 168/168

FL+2mm 106/136 165/170 264/270

FL+5mm 302/310 280/292 255/272

CTOD value (mm) Notch Weld C Weld metal 0.268 0.233 0.267 0.144 Weld D 0.198 0.190 0.330 Weld E 0.300 0.295 FL 0.579 0.316 0.269 0.345 0.481 0.294 0.532 0.711 0.546 FL+2mm 0.572 0.942 0.632 0.974 0.742 0.584 0.772 0.772 0.717 FL+5mm 1.267 1.145 1.155 0.908 1.049 1.035 0.994 0.993 0.968

CVN energy (J)

100 50 0 -40 -20 0 20 Temperature (deg. C)

Figure 7 Charpy transition curves of GSFCA weld metal

The hardness test, CVN test and CTOD test results are shown in Table 9. The maximum weld metal hardness was 245 HV10, 274 HV10 and 263 HV10 for Weld C, D and E, respectively. The maximum HAZ hardness was 277 HV10, 296 HV10 and 299 HV10 for Weld C, D and E, respectively. This slight hardening for Welds D and E may have been affected by decreased the interpass temperature. These hardness values would be suitable for high strength riser applications. The impact energy at -20 deg. C in the HAZ of both welds D and E was more than 68 J at each notch location in the HAZ and was acceptable for this project. The minimum CTOD value of HAZ was more than 0.20 mm on each notch location. The weld metal of Weld C which is the lowest weld metal strength had a minimum CTOD value of 0.233 mm. The weld metal of Welds D and E which are achieved X90 weld metal strength had a minimum CTOD value of 0.144 mm and 0.295 mm, respectively. The minimum CTOD value of Weld E weld metal was acceptable for riser applications.

Microstructural Observation of Submerged Arc Weld Metal The microstructural observation was conducted by using transmission electron microscope (TEM) with x10,000 magnification. The microstructure of Welds A and B are shown in Figure 8. The specimens for the observation were taken from the weld cap region to eliminate complicated microstructural transformations by multi-pass welding. Figure 8 (a) shows a typical microstructure on Weld A weld metal. Lath bainite or bainite/martensite structures were observed without intragranular transformation. Figure 8 (b) shows a typical microstructure on Weld B weld metal. Some intra-granular bainitic ferrite that is fine acicular ferrite was generated at the inclusions.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

1 m

(a) Weld A

acicular ferrite generation. When tensile strength exceeded 800 MPa, boron additions promoted the microstructural change from fine acicular ferrite to lath bainite or bainite/martensite and rose Charpy transition temperature because of lowering the transformation temperature. The lean boron weld metal (type B weld metal on Figure 9) still retained the absorbed energy. Regarding Weld D and E weld metal of GSFCAW joints, the yield and tensile strength were acceptable for X90 riser applications. The each Charpy transition temperature was below -40 deg. C (the lowest test temperature) as shown in Figure 7 even though the boron content was around 40 ppm. It was considered that the effect of boron on Weld D and E was good for weld metal toughness because of low weld metal tensile strength or the transition strength region.
Labo. seam weld metal Wall thickness: 20~25mm Weld heat input: 3.0~4.5kJ/mm :TypeA (Boron content: 30ppm) :Type B(Boron content<15ppm)

250 200 vE-30C(J)


1 m

150 100 50 0 600

(b) Weld B Figure 8 Microstructure of submerged arc weld metal

700

800

900

1000

1100

Weld metal tensile strength(MPa)

DISCUSSION Effect of Boron Addition on Weld Metal Toughness The Weld B of simulated double jointing had sound weld metal properties for X90 risers. The weld metal achieved both high strength and high toughness properties when compared with Weld A. The Weld B weld metal had significantly low Charpy transition temperature of below -40 deg. C (the lowest test temperature). Fine grain microstructures promote low transition temperature. It was confirmed that the improvement of Charpy transition temperature was caused by microstructural refining of the weld metal as shown in Figure 8. Weld A and Weld B had lath structure and refined structure, respectively. It is considered that the microstructural change was affected by the boron content. The effect of boron addition on weld metal toughness has been researched for seam weld metal on high strength large diameter welded pipes. Hamada et al. have reported the effect of boron addition on toughness for a wide range weld metal tensile strength, shown in Figure 9 [6]. In this paper, it was discovered that when tensile strengths were less than or equal to 700 MPa, boron additions improved weld metal toughness because of fine

Figure 9 Relationship between Charpy absorbed energy at -30 deg. C and weld metal tensile strength [6]

Effect of cooling time on weld metal strength for GSFCAW joints For SAW joints, Weld B achieved the high strength weld metal. It can be assumed that high CE (IIW) value of 0.74 can be obtained high strength by using the high alloy content solid wire. In terms of the Weld D and E weld metal, the tensile strength was superior and is suitable for X90-grade welding joints. A reason for this is that the weld cooling time from 800 deg. C to 500 deg. C (T8/5) was decreased. Regarding Weld C and D, the chemical compositions were almost the same. The only difference for these welds was the interpass temperature. Weld C interpass temperature was 232.2 deg. C and Weld D interpass temperature was 121 deg. C. The cooling time T8/5 was calculated to be 18.2 s for Weld C and 10.1 s for Weld D. Each cooling time T8/5 was calculated by the modified Rosenthal weld heat conduction formula which considers specimen wall thickness limitations, increasing

Copyright 2012 by ASME

temperature by pre-heat and interpass temperature and heat convection from the specimen surface [11]. Figure 10 shows the relationship between predicted weld metal tensile strength and the cooling time T8/5 by using a predictive formula [11]. The weld metal chemical composition from Weld C was used for this estimation. The predicted weld metal tensile strength of Weld C and D was 770 MPa and 830 MPa, respectively. The data based on the prediction suggests that weld metal strength can increase significantly by decreasing the interpass temperature from 232.2 to 121 deg. C. Therefore, when the weld metal or the filler wire had lean CE (IIW) value of 0.56, a decrease in interpass temperature could be effective in increasing the weld metal tensile strength for this welding procedure development.
Predicted weld metal tensile strength (MPa) ) 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 1 10 100 Cooling time from 800 to 500 deg. C (s)
Figure 10 Effect of cooling time from 800 to 500 deg. C on strength of gas shielded flux cored arc weld metal (Prediction)

impact energy, CTOD value and hardness of weld metal and HAZ for riser applications. REFERENCES [1] Y. Arai, K, Kondo, H. Hirata, M. Hamada, N. Hisamune, K. Hitoshio, T. Murase, Metallurgical Design of Newly Development Material for Seamless Pipes of X80-X100 Grades, (2007), Proc. of OMAE 2007, International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Sandiego, California, USA. [2] Y. Arai, H. Hirata, M. Hamada, H. Nagayama, K. Hitoshio, T. Oka, Microstructure Control and Weldability of High Strength Seamless Line Pipe, (2009), Pipeline Technology Conference, paper no. Ostend2009-046, Ostend, Belgium. [3] N. E. Biery, M. L. Macia, R. J. T. Appleby, D. P. Fairchild, D. S. Hoyt, D. Dorling, D. Horsley, Godin Lake Trial: X120 Field Welding, (2006), Proc. of IPC 2006, No. 10397, International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [4] D. Widgery, Double Jointing of High Strength Pipelines, (2010), IIW, Doc. IIW-2112-10 (ex-doc. XI922-09). [5] D. Duan, R. Lazor, D. Taylor, Evaluation of Double Joining Girth Welds of High Grade Line Pipes, (2010), Proc. of IPC2010, No. 31022, International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. [6] M. Hamada, S. Okaghchi, Y. Komizo, A. Yamamoto, N. Takahashi, T. Ikeda, I. Takeuchi, The Effect of Boron Addition on the Toughness and the Microstructure of Seam-Weld metal, (2004), Proc. of Pipeline Technology Conference, Vol. III, p1077 [7] H. G. Hillenbrand, A. Liessem, G. Knouf, K. Niederfoff, J. Bauer, Development of Large Diameter Pipe in X100, (2000), Proc. of Pipeline Technology Conference, Vol. I, p469 [8] M. Nagase, S. Endo, N. Mifune, N. Uchitomi, O. Hirano, Development of X100 UOE Line Pipe, (1992), NKKGiho, No. 138, p24 (In Japanese) [9] O. Grong, Metallurgical Modeling of Welding, (1997), (Second edition), Edited by Bhadeshia, HKDH, published by the Institute of Material, Bokk677, ISSN1352-9692. [10] ISO 3183, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Steel Pipe for Pipeline Transportation, (Second edition), (2007) [11] N. Yurioka, K. Kojima, A Predictive Formula of Weld metal Tensile Strength, (2004), Journal of Japan Welding Society, Volume 22, No. 1, p53-60 (In Japanese).

Weld D x: 10.1, y: 830

Weld C x: 18.2, y: 770

CONCLUSIONS Welding procedures for X90 riser fabrications were developed. The SAW joint for double jointing of Weld B was realized by using a consumable combination a high alloy content solid wire and type boron free flux. The boron free high strength weld metal had high toughness because of refining the microstructures. The GSFCAW joints for pipe to connector jointing of the Weld E was performed by decreasing interpass temperature for increasing weld metal strength. These joints had suitable mechanical properties which are strength,

Copyright 2012 by ASME