You are on page 1of 14

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

IPC2012-90416

MECHANICAL ANISOTROPY OF HOT ROLLED LINE PIPE STEEL COIL

Nuria Sanchez* OCAS NV, ArcelorMittal Global R&D Gent, Belgium

Dennis Van Hoecke OCAS NV, ArcelorMittal Global R&D Gent, Belgium

Martin Liebeherr OCAS NV, ArcelorMittal Global R&D Gent, Belgium

ABSTRACT The mechanical anisotropy of hot rolled coils for linepipe grades in the range between X52 and X80 have been investigated in terms of tensile strength and Charpy impact toughness. Samples were taken in different orientations with respect to the strip rolling direction: 0, 30, 45, 60 and 90 degrees. Tensile tests were performed on round tensile specimens to avoid the need for strip levelling. Results from this investigation reveal that the hot rolled coils display different degrees of anisotropy varying as function of strength level and thickness. The material anisotropy is reflected in variations in yield, tensile strength and ovality of the gauge section after fracture. At the same time, variations of the CVN absorbed energy in the upper shelf energy and in the ductile to brittle transition temperature were also observed. Finally, detailed texture studies revealed a relation between mechanical anisotropy and crystallographic texture.

commonly display mechanical anisotropy [1-8]. Hence, this planar anisotropy of the mechanical properties of linepipe steel coils for spiral welding application needs to be known due to the different orientation of the pipe hoop direction with respect to the coil reference system, which depends on the coil width and the pipe forming angle. Mechanical anisotropy of pipeline steels has been explained previously, by analyzing the effect of microstructural parameters and texture [3-8]. Several anisotropy patterns have been reported, mainly toughness anisotropy and tensile anisotropy was observed. Toughness anisotropy is mainly characterized by the energy absorbed during Charpy V-notch testing at different temperatures. The reported anisotropic profiles of linepipe steel grades do not always coincide. Toughness anisotropy in the ductile region, i.e. variations in the upper shelf energy (USE) of the CVN transition curves obtained for different sampling orientation has been commonly attributed to the presence of non metallic inclusions, mainly elongated MnS [9]. However modern steel making technologies ensure an excellent control of impurities in steel, such as sulphur. The anisotropic profile observed in the upper shelf of the transition curves has been also attributed to crystallographic texture. Ju et al [3] reported lower CVN absorbed energy in samples from a X65 pipe hoop direction as compared with the longitudinal direction. Similar results were previously reported on skelp material by Baczynski et al [4]. In both cases this observation was correlated with the distribution of {110} crystallographic

INTRODUCTION The increasing energy demand has pushed continuous improvements on the transport efficiency of gas and oil transmission pipelines by using higher strength steel grades which in turn allow higher operating pressure and gas transmission rate. At the same time, the elevated dimensional versatility of the spiral pipe production dedicated to natural gas transport has promoted the development of hot rolled linepipe steel coils. However, thermo-mechanically processed metallic materials

Copyright 2012 by ASME

slip planes of bcc crystals and their ability to accommodate plastic deformation, hence to increase in fracture toughness. On the other hand, this USE anisotropic profile was not always observed. Several studies reported identical upper shelf energy after CVN tests at room temperature despite the specimen orientation [5-8]. Nevertheless, same studies reported toughness anisotropy in the ductile to brittle transition region, i.e. the ductile to brittle transition temperature of the linepipe grades varied with the specimen orientation. The distribution of the {001} planes, bcc cleavage planes, was here the explanation to the anisotropic profile observed in the transition region [4, 5, 7, 8]. The anisotropic profiles observed in the tensile properties of linepipe steel for spiral welded pipe leads often to confusion. Two sources can be considered to have an influence on the strength anisotropy: (i) The anisotropic properties of the material. It is generally accepted that texture is responsible for the planar anisotropy of the yield strength (YS) and tensile strength (TS) [4-5]. This is mainly attributed to the formation of the RD (<110>//RD) fiber. Sometimes, the grain size and shape combined with the crystallographic texture has been reported as a potential parameter to control the strength anisotropy [10-12] (ii) Usually, a YS drop is measured when the coil transverse direction and the pipe transverse direction is compared, in particular when flat strips were used for tensile testing. It is commonly known that the repeated bending operations during pipe forming and flattening of the pipe segments causes an apparent decrease of the YS which is usually described with by the Bauschinger effect [8, 13]. Occasionally observed large YS drops may lead to the conclusion that the specified pipe properties were not reached and hence the coil skelp properties were insufficient. The aim of this investigation is to determine quantitatively the material anisotropy without considering the variations of the properties derived from the forming process. For that, all samples were machined from non flattened blanks taken from coils.

Grade X52 X70 X70 X70 X70 X80 X80

Coil thick (mm) 20 20 20 19.5 16 16.5 15.5

Spec. Id S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7

C 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05

Mn 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.6

V+Nb+Ti

Ni+Cu+ Mo+Cr

<0.6 <0.6 0.15 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6 <0.6

Table 1. Overview of the evaluated materials and corresponding chemical composition (wt%)

Fracture toughness anisotropy was characterized by the amount of energy absorbed by a Charpy V-notch specimen during impact testing. Minimum 2 standard size (10 mm) V-notched Charpy samples were tested from each sample orientation. Subsurface specimens were machined with the long axis oriented at different angles with respect to the strip rolling direction (RD): 0, 30, 45, 60 and 90 degrees. The set of samples was tested at 7 different temperatures varying between 0 and 120 C C with a step of 20 on a 750J Zwick Charpy pendulum . C Tensile tests on round bar specimens were carried out using 2 specimens from each orientation with the tensile axis enclosing angles of 0, 30, 45, 60 and 90 degrees with the coil rolling direction. The specimens were machined with nominal diameter 8.7mm and gauge length 35mm. Yield stress (YS) was determined, like defined by the linepipe standards, as the stress reached at 0.5% of the total elongation [13,14]. The elliptical shape of the necking section from broken round bar tensile samples, the ovality, was quantified as the ratio between the major axis to the minor axis of the gauge section after fracture. Optical microscopy observations were carried out at different thickness positions in a longitudinal cross section of the coil. Specimens were prepared by mechanical polishing and etched using 2% Nital solution for 10s. The crystallographic texture was determined by X-Ray diffraction. The specimens were prepared by mechanical polishing in the normal plane in the quarter thickness position. Macrotexture measurements were carried out with a D8 Discover Bruker X-ray diffractometer using cobalt K radiation recording the (110), (200), (211) and (310) incomplete pole figures from which the orientation distribution functions ODFs were calculated.

EXPERIMENTAL Seven industrially processed coils of linepipe steel grades in the range from X52 to X80 were selected from ArcelorMittal commercial or trial production. Material grade, thickness and chemical composition are presented in Table 1.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Crystal plasticity models have been used with the intention to describe the in-plane anisotropy of the yield strength. In continuum mechanics the plastic anisotropy of a material is described by the yield surface, i.e. the locus in the stress space that represents the stress states for which plastic yielding occurs. The yield loci stresses calculated by the crystal plasticity laws represent the ratio of the equivalent stresses corresponding to the stress state under consideration to the critically resolved shear stress. Calculations of the Yield Loci of the coils were done by employing the Full Constraint Taylor model and the Relaxed Constraint Taylor model [15]. These models were applied on a set of discrete orientations that were derived from the experimentally determined ODFs, obtained from pole figures measured with X-ray diffraction. Once the Yield Loci were calculated the bi-axial planestress section was considered, because in this section the uni-axial stress 11 can be read, which corresponds to the yield stress in a tensile test. By appropriate rotation of the sample reference system the anisotropy of 11 can be observed. The 11 - 22 sections of the yield loci of each strip and tensile test orientation (after appropriate rotation) were generated by the mentioned crystal plasticity models and

the 11 values were represented as a function of the tensile axis orientation in agreement with the uniaxial stress condition (33=0 and 22=0). Normalized results were plotted as a function of the tensile test orientation and compared with the experimental yield strength.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Microstructure and texture The microstructure of the evaluated grades differs with the strength level, chemical composition and thickness. The lowest linepipe grade studied, X52, presents ferrite pearlite microstructure (cf. Figure 1(a)); whereas at increasing the alloying content to reach higher strength targets the microstructure becomes finer and low temperature transformation products appear. The microstructure of the X70 grade shown in Figure 1 (b) presents a combination of ferrite and bainite with clearly finer grain size as compared with the X52 grade. Further refinement is observed in the X80 grade bainitic microstructure (cf. Figure 1(c)), at the same time, the volume fraction of ferrite grains is drastically reduced.

(a) S1 X52 linepipe grade

(b) S4 X70 linepipe grade

(c) S7 X80 linepipe grade

Figure 1. Microstructure longitudinal cross section of sample S1, S4 and S7 ( thickness)

Copyright 2012 by ASME

x2

x2

x2

x2

x2

x2 x2

x2 x2

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

(a) S1 X52 grade

(b) S2 X70 grade

x3

x3

x5

x5

x5

x5

x2 x2 x2

x3 x2 x3

x5 x3 x3

(c) S3 X70 grade

(d) S4 X70 grade

(e) S5 X70 grade

x9

x9

x4

x4

x5 x3 x5

x4 x2 x3
(332)[113]

(f) S6 X80 grade

(g) S7 X80 grade

(h) Principal ideal orientations playing significant roles in the processing of bcc steel [16]

Figure 2. 2 = 45 section of the ODF of the linepipe grades

Copyright 2012 by ASME

{112}<110> {112}<131> {332}<113> X52S1 X70S2 X70S3 X70S4 X70S5 X80S6 X80S7 1.5 2.5 2 3 5 5 4 2 2 2 2.5 3 3.5 2 2 2.5 2 3 3.5 5 3

{001}<110> 2 2 3.5 5 5 9 4

Table 2. Maximum intensity expressed as multiple of random levels (rls) in the vicinity of the relevant crystallographic components

The crystallographic texture in the quarter thickness of the sample exhibits a typical bcc transformation type texture originated from a deformed austenite, with the presence of the <110>// RD fibre known as fibre running from the {001}<110> rotated cube component to the {111}<110> component and the so called bcc transformation fiber (also known as the bcc fibre) (cf. Figure 2) running from the vicinity of the transformed Cu position, i.e. between the {113}<110> and {112}<110> components, to the vicinity of the transformed Br location, i.e. between {554}<225> and {332}<113>. The intermediate positions along this fiber are assumed to result from the transformed Goss and the transformed S components [17]. The main difference observed among the studied coils lies in the measured intensities of the textures. The maximum intensity expressed as multiple of random levels (rls) in the vicinity of the relevant components is presented in Table 2.

The detailed anisotropic profiles observed in the USE of the CVN transition curves is presented in Figure 5a, where the USE of each evaluated steel is plotted versus the testing orientation. The anisotropic profile results particularly clear in Figure 5b, where the average normalized USE, calculated according to Eq. 1, is plotted. In all cases the USE absorbed by the samples oriented parallel to the coil TD is lower than the average of the USE at all tested orientations; although the most important deviation from the average is observed in the grade X52.

USEi =

(i = 0,30,45,60,90 deg )
Eq. 1 The observed anisotropic profile in the ductile region is similar to the ones reported previously by Ju et al [3] and Baczynski et al [4] where the specimens oriented along the TD displayed lower USE than the specimens oriented along the RD. In both cases, this behaviour was attributed to the presence of the RD fiber. All evaluated grades present a crystallographic texture with some intensity centered on the vicinity of the {112}<110> component from the RD fiber (cf. Figure 2), which, according to Ju et al [3] and Baczynski et al [4], is responsible for the anisotropic profile in the upper shelf energy. This argumentation was tested by plotting the deviation of the USE of the specimens from the transverse direction, defined in Eq. 1, as function of the intensity of the {112}<110> component from the RD fiber. As it can be seem in Figure 6a, the opposite was found, i.e. the anisotropy actually decreases with increasing intensity of the considered texture component. Further attempts to

USEi USEav

Toughness Results from CVN impact testing at test temperatures between 0 and -120 of all evaluated grades and C C specimen orientations are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The toughness anisotropic profiles varied for the different evaluated specimens. The transition curves (cf. Figure 3) display the three intervals as function of temperature, associated with the fracture modes, ductile, ductile-to-brittle transition and brittle. The ductile region displays high energy values above 150J in the samples tested at 0 and -20 C. Moreover, the absorbed energy varies with the specimen orientation. This observation is clearly revealed if the absorbed energy is plotted versus the sample orientation (cf. Figure 4).

Copyright 2012 by ASME

correlate the lower USE in the transverse direction with other texture components failed also (cf. Figure 6 b, c). These results suggest that the texture is not the only parameter affecting the anisotropy in the USE. Possibly, the effect of other microstructural characteristics, such as

grain shape or distribution of second phases, needs to be taken into account.

Figure 3. Transition curves of the linepipe grades for all tested orientations

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 4. Absorbed CVN impact energy versus sample orientation

Copyright 2012 by ASME

300 250 USE (J) 200 150 100 50 0 0 30 45 60 90 Angle to RD X52S1 X70S3 X70S5 X80S7 X70S2 X70S4 X80S6
Normalized USE

1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0

X52S1 X70S4 X80S7

X70S2 X70S5

X70S3 X80S6

30 45 60 Angle to RD

90

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. Left: USE of all evaluated grades. Right: corresponding average normalized USE

0.35 0.3 Dev USE(90) 0.25 0.2

X52S1

X52S1

X52S1
X70S3

X70S3 X70S2 X80S7 X70S5 X80S6 0 2 4 6


0 1 2

X70S3

X70S2 X80S7 X70S5 X70S4 X80S6 3 4

0.15 0.1 0.05 0

X70S2 X80S7 X70S5 X70S4 X80S6 0 2 4 6

X70S4

Intensity {112}<110>

Intensity {112}<131>

Intensity {332}<113>

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 6. Deviation of the USE in the transverse direction of the different evaluated grades as function of the intensity of the texture components material is calculated for each of the testing orientations, as presented in Figure 7a. The DBTT of all grades increases on the specimens oriented 30, 45, 60 degrees with respect to the coil RD. Figure 7b display the normalized DBTT according to Eq. 2 with respect the specimen orientation.

At low CVN testing temperatures the evaluated specimens enter in the ductile-to-brittle transition region where the absorbed energy decreases drastically. Despite the scatter observed in the absorbed Charpy impact energy in the test temperature range between -40 and C 100 C, some directional anisotropy is detected. The specimens oriented 30 to 60 degrees with respect to the coil RD absorbed in general less energy than the specimens parallel to the TD and RD during CVN at test temperatures between -40 and -80 (cf. Figure 4). C This anisotropic profile appears more evident when the ductile to brittle transition temperature (DBTT) of the

DBTTi =

(i = 0,30,45,60,90 deg )
Eq. 2

DBTTi DBTTav

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Angle to RD 0 0 -20 DBTT ( C) -40 -60 -80 X52S1 X70S3 X70S5 X80S7 X70S2 X70S4 X80S6
(b)

30

45

60

90

0 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Angle to RD 30 45 60

90

Normalized DBTT ( C)

-100 -120
(a)

X52S1 X70S3 X70S5 X80S7

X70S2 X70S4 X80S6

Figure 7. Left: DBTT of all evaluated grades. Right: corresponding average normalized DBTT

Similar anisotropic behaviour in the transition region is generally related to the presence of larger volume fraction of bcc cleavage planes {100} parallel to the fracture planes of the CVN specimens [4, 5, 7, 8]. It has been shown that smaller angles between the specimen axis and the normal to the {001} planes correspond to more brittle fracture [4]. Therefore, the presence of the {001}<110> component observed in the corresponding ODFs (cf. Figure 2) of all materials indicates the higher amount of {001} cleavage planes normal to samples oriented 30, 45 and 60 degrees with respect to the coil RD. A schematic representation of the {001}<110> component with respect to the coil reference system and the specimen orientation is presented in Figure 8. This concentration of cleavage planes normal to the specimen axis can be related to the observed anisotropy of the DBTT of the materials under study.
RD R90 TD Orientation CVN specimens R45

An attempt to correlate the deviation of the DBTT of the specimens oriented 30, 45 and 60 degrees, calculated according to Eq. 3 with the presence of {100} cleavage planes is presented in Figure 9. The deviation from the material average DBTT of the specimens oriented at 30, 45 and 60 degrees is plotted versus the intensity of the {001}<110> components of the corresponding ODFs. An increase of the anisotropy, as defined in Eq. 3, is indeed observed at increasing intensity of the {001}<110> component, i.e. at higher volume fraction of {001} cleavage planes parallel to the brittle fracture plane of the CVN specimens. Similar behaviour was previously observed [5, 10] by correlating the volume fraction of cleavage planes parallel to the fracture plane of each specimen orientation and the drop on the absorbed energy at low temperature during CVN of the specimens oriented at 45 degrees with respect to the coil RD.

DBTT =

DBTTav (30, 45,60 ) DBTTav


Eq. 3

R0 {001}<110>

Figure 8. Crystal orientation

CVN

specimen

reference

Copyright 2012 by ASME

0.3 X80S6 0.25

600 500

Stress (MPa)

0.2

DBTT

X70S5

400 300 200 100 0 45 90 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0.15 X70S2 0.1 0.05 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 X52S1 X70S3 X70S4 X80S7

Intensity {001}<110>
Figure 9. Deviation of the DBTT in the 30, 45 and 60 degrees orientation of the different evaluated grades as function of the intensity of the {001}<110> component

Strain (% )
Figure 10. Tensile curves of specimens oriented 0, 45 and 90 degrees with respect to the coil rolling direction of material X52S1.

Strength Strength requirements specified for yield and tensile strength for each of the evaluated grades, presented in Table 3, are satisfied in all the coils and sample orientations.

Similar variations in the tensile curves with respect to the specimen orientation were observed in all tested materials. The yield and tensile strength of the studied grades versus the tensile axis orientation is presented in Figure 11 left and right, respectively. The observed anisotropy is in both cases (yield and tensile) characterized by a higher strength in the samples oriented along the transverse direction (90 deg). The strength values were was normalized as expressed in Eq. 4. The anisotropic profile is clearly observed in Figure 12, where the normalized values of the yield strength (left) and tensile strength (right) are plotted versus the specimen orientation. In general, the yield strength anisotropy is characterized by an increase of 3% in the transverse direction as compared with the average value measured in all orientations and a drop of ~1-3% in the orientations enclosing angles 30 and 45 degrees with respect to the coil RD. Consequently the observed anisotropy in tensile strength is proportional to that observed in yield, also characterized by a decrease of ~2% on the 30 and 45 deg and an increase of 2-4% on the TD. Only the X52 grade presents larger deviations from the average value, particularly in the TD, where the YS and TS are 5% higher than the average value.

Linepipe grade X52 X70 X80

Yield strength MPa 360-530 485-635 555-675

Tensile strength MPa 460-760 570-760 625-825

Table 3. Strength requirements of linepipe grade according to the API [14].

Some variations are observed in the tensile properties of the different specimen orientations. An example of the effect of the specimen orientation on the strength is presented in Figure 10, where the tensile curves of three specimens of material X52S1 with orientations 0, 45 and 90 deg with respect to the coil rolling direction are plotted. The tensile curve measured on the specimen oriented along the transverse direction is noticeable different than the other two orientations (0 and 45 deg), both yield and tensile strength are higher and the total elongation is significantly lower.

i =

i av
Eq. 4

10

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 11. Yield (left) and tensile (right) strength versus tensile axis orientation

Figure 12. Average normalized values of the yield (left) and tensile (right) strength versus tensile axis orientation differences observed in the texture intensity of the different grades (cf. Table 2). In line with this observation, the corresponding agreement between the prediction of the crystal plasticity models, purely based on the crystallographic texture of the material, and the experimental values reveals significant differences between the different materials. Figure 13 presents the normalized values of the YS and TS, experimentally determined, together with the predictions of the Taylor model (both full constraint and relaxed constraint).

Analogous yield strength anisotropy profiles have been reported in pipeline steel [1, 4]. Previous research attributed the difference in yield strength between the RD and TD to the formation of the RD fiber, i.e. fiber (<110>//RD) although other orientations were suggested to contribute to the anisotropy as well. On the other hand, anisotropic strength profiles have been explained with high accuracy by combining the crystallographic texture and the aspect ratio of the grains [10, 11]. The presence of the RD fiber is confirmed in ODFs of all grades studied here (cf. Figure 2). There are however

11

Copyright 2012 by ASME

(a) X52 S1

(b) X70 S2

(c) X80 S7

Figure 13. Normalized predictions on the 11 values obtained by means of the FC Taylor model and the RC Taylor model compared with the normalized experimentally measured YS and TS of the material (a) X52S1, (b) X70S2 and (c) X80S7. orientation. However, the quantitative predictions of the FC Taylor model are closer to the experimental results. On the other hand, the anisotropy of the X52 grade is poorly predicted. This observation indicates that the inplane strength anisotropy can not purely be explained by the crystallographic texture of the material. Possibly other parameters need to be taken into account, like the homogeneity of the microstructure, i.e. grain shape or distribution of second phases. The observation of the fracture surface of the round bar tensile specimens revealed an oval shape of the necking

Both crystal plasticity models predict with accuracy the strength anisotropy of the X70 and X80 grades. The models predict very well the trend observed in the anisotropic behaviour: (i) higher strength of the specimens from the TD and (ii) lower strength of the specimens from the intermediate angular positions (30, 45 and 60 degrees). The RC Taylor model predicts a local minimum on the samples oriented 30-40 degrees close to the minimum displayed by the experimental values located 30-45 degrees. In contrast, the FC Taylor model predicts the local minimum slightly shifted towards the 60 degrees

12

Copyright 2012 by ASME

section (cf. Figure 14). This indication of the anisotropy in the ductile behavior was quantified by the ratio of the major axis and the minor axis of the elliptical shape of the fracture surface. This parameter should be related to the anisotropy of the material by the plastic strain ratio (rvalue) defined as the ratio width strain to thickness strain using a simple uniaxial tension test.

specimens from the RD and the intensity of the {112}<110> component is presented in Figure 16. An increase of the ovality is observed at increasing intensity of the {112}<110> component from the RD fibre. i.e. the ovality of the fracture surface can be related to the amount of slip planes available to accommodate plastic deformation.
1.8 1.7 1.6 Ovality RD 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0 2 4 6

Figure 14. Ovality of the gauge section after fracture

For all investigated sheets, it was found that the fracture surface of the 45 degrees samples was almost circular. While X80 and X70 samples showed a continuous increase of the ovality towards the TD and more noticiable towards the RD. The X52 grade display oval shape with some scatter in the different testing directions. (cf. Figure 15).
1.8 1.7 1.6 Ovality 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0 30 45 60 90 Angle to RD
X52S1 X70S3 X70S5 X80S7 X70S2 X70S4 X80S6

Intensity {112}<110>

Figure 16. Ovality of the fracture surface of the round bar tensile specimens in the RD as a funtion of the intensity of the {112}<110> component

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigation revealed both toughness and strength anisotropy on a number of linepipe steel grades: (i) Toughness anisotropy appears both, in the shear fracture region and in the ductile to brittle transition region. a. Lower upper shelf energy was measured in the specimens oriented along the transverse direction, as compared with other testing orientations. This anisotropy is generally attributed to the presence of the RD crystallographic fiber. However, in this study no correspondence between the most representative crystallographic orientations of the RD fiber and the quantification of the anisotropy was observed. Therefore the effects of microstructural parameters such as grain shape or distribution of second phases need to be quantified too. On the other hand, the minimum Charpy absorbed energy corresponds with the current standard evaluation direction, i.e. transverse to the rolling direction, consequently, no risk of failure will be derived from material anisotropy when the design toughness limits are full filled.

Figure 15. Directional dependence of the plastic strain ratio measured as ovality of the gauge section before fracture versus the tensile specimen orientation

The occurrence of ovality seems to confirm the texture control of the strength anisotropy. Following the argumentation previously explained about the presence of the RD fibre and the ability of the slip planes to accommodate plastic deformation, i.e. to increase the ductility, the ovality of the fracture surface of the

13

Copyright 2012 by ASME

b. High DBTT of specimens oriented 30, 45 and 60 degrees with the coil RD were observed as compared with the DBTT of the specimens from the RD and TD. These variations of the DBTT were related with the presence of larger volume fraction of cleavage planes {001} parallel to the fracture plane of the CVN specimens. This anisotropy is higher at higher intensity of the {001}<110> crystallographic component. Nevertheless, the DWTT was generally much lower than the usual design temperatures. (ii) The maximum difference observed between the high strength in the coil transverse direction and the low strength of the specimens oriented 30-45 degrees was found to be ~5-6%. a. In this case, influence of the crystallographic texture on the strength anisotropy is confirmed by the reliable predictions obtained from crystal plasticity models. b. The effect of the anisotropy is also confirmed by the variations observed in the plastic strain ratio determined by the ovality of the gauge section before fracture. c. Nevertheless no correlation was observed between the observed anisotropy on the X52 grade and the predictions from the crystal plasticity models for this grade. Therefore complementary effect of the microstructure such as grain shape or presence of inclusions can not be discarded.

4. Baczynski GJ, Jonas JJ, Collins LE. Metall Mater Trans A 1999; 30A:3045. 5. Sanchez N., Petrov, R., Bae, J.-h., Kim, K. and Kestens, L. A. I. Texture dependent mechanical anisotropy of X80 pipeline steel. Advanced Engineering Materials (2010), 12: 973980. 6. R. Petrov, O. Len Garca, N. Sanchez, L. Kestens, J.H. Bae and K.B. Kang. Microstructure Texture Related Toughness Anisotropy of APIX80 Pipeline Steel Characterized by means of 3D-EBSD Technique. Materials Science Forum Vols. 558-559 (2007) pp 1429-1434. 7. Bae JH, Choi SH, Kim KS. Kang KB. Mater Sci Forum 2005;495:531 8. Kisoo Kim, Jin-Ho Bae. Metallurgical and process parameters for commercial production of high toughness API-X80 grade hot rolled strips. IPC 2008.Paper 64249 9. ASM Handbook. Fractography. ASM International 1998. 10. Sanchez Mourio, Nuria, Crystallographically Controlled Mechanical Anisotropy of Pipeline Steel, PhD Thesis UGent, 2010. 11. Delannay, Laurent, and Matthew R Barnett, Modelling the Combined Effect of Grain Size and Grain Shape on Plastic Anisotropy of Metals, Computational Materials Science 45 (2009) 739 743 12. L. A.I. Kestens, N. Sanchez, K. Decroos, R. H. Petrov. Yield Strength Anisotropy of Steel Sheet Induced by Grain Shape and Crystal Anisotropy. 2011, Materials Science Forum, 702-703, 419 13. P.Thibaux, D. Van Hoecke, G. De Vos. Influence of forming and flattening on the measured tensile properties of linepipe. IPC 2006.Paper 10116. 14. International Standardisation Organisation, ISO 3183, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries-Steel Pipe for Pipeline Transportation Systems, 2nd Edition (2007) 15. Van Houtte P, Textures and Microstrutures 1987; Vol. 7:29-72. 16. R. K. Ray, J. J. Jonas, M.P. Butronguillen, J. Savoie, Transf ormation Textures in Steels. ISIJ International, Vol. 34 (1 994). No, 12, pp. 927-942 17. L. Kestens, J.J. Jonas, Transformation and Recrystallization Textures Associated with Steel Processing. ASM Handbook, Vol. 14. 2005.

REFERENCES 1. Tchorzewski, R M, W B Hutchinson. Anisotropy of Fracture Toughness in Textured Titanium-6AI-4V Alloy, Metallurgical Transactions A, Vol. 9A, August 1978-1113. 2. Raabe, Dierk, Peter Klose, Bernhard Engl, Klauspeter Imlau, and Frank Friedel. Concepts for Integrating Plastic Anisotropy into Metal Forming Simulations, Advanced Engineering Materials, 2002, 169-180. 3. Jang-Bog Ju, Jung-Suk Lee, Jae-il Jang. Fracture toughness anisotropy in a API steel line-pipe. Materials Letters 61 (2007) 51785180.

14

Copyright 2012 by ASME