\

=
a
f
f
P
P
R
C V
o
(1)
where V
f
is the crack propagation velocity in m/s (or ft/s), C is
a backfill parameter with a constant value of 2.75 (or 0.648)
and 2.34 (or 0.47), respectively for no backfill in air conditions
and soil backfill. o
f
=o
y
+69 MPa (or 10 ksi) is a flow stress in
MPa (ksi), R=C
V
/Ac is fracture resistance with C
V
the fullsize
Charpy veenotched (CVN) impact energy at the upper shelf in
Joule (or ftlb) and A
c
being the ligament crosssection area of
Charpy specimen with a value of 80 mm
2
(or 0.124 inch
2
), P is
the instant decompressed pressure near the crack tip in MPa (or
psi), and P
a
=2to
a
/D is the arrest pressure at the crack tip in
MPa (or psi). The arrest hoop stress is determined by:
(
(
= ]
2 / 24
exp[ arccos
33 . 3
2
2
Dt
RE
f
f
a
o
t
t
o
o
(2)
where E is the elastic modulus in GPa (or ksi), D is the pipe
diameter in mm (or inches), and t is the pipe wall thickness in
mm (or inches). Equation (2) was originally developed by
Kiefner et al. [6] for fracture initiation control for pipelines in
reference to the rudimentary fracture mechanics methods. In
this equation, a linear relationship between the CVN energy
and the fracture toughness G
C
was used.
When the fracture curve determined by Eq. (2) and the gas
decompression curve determined by GASDECOM are tangent,
as shown in Fig. 1, the minimum fracture arrest toughness in
terms of CVN energy is determined for the pipeline steel in
consideration. If the CVN toughness increases, the fracture
curve moves up to be above the gas curve and a running crack
will arrest because the fracture velocity is slower than the gas
decompression velocity at all pressure levels. If the CVN
toughness decreases, the fracture curve moves down and the
running crack will continue to propagate because the fracture
velocity is faster than the gas velocity. The gas decompression
code GASDECOM is unique because it embedded the BWRS
equations of state and accounted for both singlephase and two
phase decompression behaviors of gases. In contrast, Equations
(1) and (2) for determining the fracture curve were calibrated
with experimental data available in the late 1960s to the early
1970s, and so X52 to X65 pipeline steels were involved. As
such, the BTCM may not be accurate for grades above X65.
Figure 1
Fracture and gas decompression velocity curves
Copyright 2012 by ASME 3
Simplified BTCM
Maxey et al. [7] developed a simplified formula to allow
direct estimate of arrest toughness for normal pipeline design
pressures to control ductile fracture propagation for lean gases
in the allgas phase. Based on the results obtained from the
BTCM and using the curvefitting process, arrest fracture
toughness in terms of Charpy energy for the 2/3size specimen
was obtained as:
( )
3 / 1 2 3
) 3 / 2 (
10 2 . 7 Rt C
h V
o =
(US Units) (3)
where CVN energy is in ftlb, the hoop stress is in ksi, and the
pipe radius and wall thickness are in inches. Due to its
simplicity, the simplified BTCM model has been adopted in a
variety of codes and standards for gas transmission pipeline
design. At the same time, different simplified equations similar
to Eq. (3) were developed by other companies or organizations
for determining the arrest toughness of gas pipelines. Other
simplified equations can be found in Reference [5].
Since the mid1970s, fracture toughness of pipeline steels
has been increased significantly. It was found that the BTCM
and all simplified models predicted nonconservative arrest
roughness in comparison to the measured Charpy energy for
the highstrength pipeline steels with CVN energy larger than
70 ftlb (or 95 Joule). Therefore, different modified methods
were proposed in order to improve the BTCM. The following
sections overview these modified methods.
Leis Correction Method
It has been found the changes of fracture energy in the
CVN specimen with increasing toughness. Experimental data
showed that the ratios of the initiation energy to propagation
energy for high toughness steels were inherently different from
those for low toughness steels in reference to CVN energy.
From these observations and based on the energy dissipation
principle, Leis [2] developed a correction to the BTCM in a
project for the Alliance Pipeline. This correction was referred
to as the Leis correction method or Leis factor method that
assumes that the arrest toughness in terms of CVN energy is
the same as that determined by the BTCM if the measured
CVN energy is less than 95 Joule (or 70 ftlb), otherwise a
correction is needed. This can be expressed as:
( ) ( )
BTCM V arrest V
C C =
, for C
V
< 95 J (4a)
( ) ( ) ( ) 18 . 21 002 . 0
04 . 2
+ =
BTCM V BTCM V arrest V
C C C
, for C
V
> 95 J (4b)
where (C
V
)
arrest
is the CVN fullsize equivalent energy required
for crack arrest in Joule, and (C
V
)
BTCM
is the CVN fullsize
equivalent arrest energy calculated with the BTCM or the
simplified BTCM equation (3) in Joule. Because the
characteristics of the flow and fracture responses of the steels
involved in developing equation (4) had been limited to grades
X70 and less, and thus this modified equation was limited in its
utility to X70 and below [5]. Care must be taken if this
correction method is used for grades X80 and above.
Recently based on experimental burst data for X70 and
X80 high strength pipeline steels, Eiber [89] showed that the
Leis factor method is accurate for X70 steels, but not for X80
steels. When the coefficient of 0.002 in Eq. (4b) was replaced
by 0.003, Eiber found that the modified equation (5) can
predict results of arrest toughness in good agreement with the
experimental data for X80 steels:
( ) ( ) ( ) 18 . 21 003 . 0
04 . 2
+ =
BTCM V BTCM V arrest V
C C C
, for C
V
> 95 J (5)
CSM Factor Method
CSM [10] proposed a simple factor method to modify the
BTCM prediction of the minimum CVN energy (C
V
)
BTCM
in
determination of the required arrest toughness for high strength
pipeline steels, such as X80 and X100. The simple CSM factor
equation is expressed as a linear relationship between the arrest
toughness and the BTCM predicted toughness:
(C
V
)
arrest
=k (C
V
)
BTCM
(6)
The constant factor k is 1.43 for X80 and 1.7 or higher for
X100 as given by Demofonti [10] at CSM. In contrast to the
Leis factor method that considers the nonlinear relationship
between the required arrest toughness and the BTCM predicted
toughness for steels with CVN energy larger than 95 Joules, the
CSM factor method cannot consider the nonlinear behavior and
is valid only for an individual grade in consideration.
Statistical Factor Method
Since the CSM factor method depends on pipeline grade, a
more general factor method was sought in a statistical analysis.
Wolodko and Stephens [11] at CFER obtained a statistical
correction to the BTCM for pipeline grades from X70 to X100
in the following equation:
( ) ( )( )
BTCM V sd arrest V
C n C 29 . 0 5 . 1 + =
(7)
where n
sd
is the multiplier on the standard deviation of the
model error that can be selected to achieve the desired
probability of nonarrest of running cracks. For example, when
n
sd
=1.0, 1.5, and 2.0, corresponding to the probability of non
arrest of 16%, 6.7% and 2.3 %, the factor between the required
arrest toughness and BTCM prediction used in Eq. (7) will be
1.79, 1.935, and 2.08, respectively.
Figure 2 compares the arrest toughness predictions by the
four improved methods, i.e., the Leis factor method in Eq. (4)
and Eq. (5), the CSM factor method in Eq. (6), and the
statistical factor method in Eq. (7). It is assumed that an X80
pipeline steel is considered in this figure, and so the factor
k=1.43 in Eq. (6) and the factor in Eq. (7) is taken as 1.935. For
X80, the arrest toughness ranges from 130 to 270 Joules
generally and the CSM method gives a reasonable prediction,
as shown in Reference [10]. Therefore, Figure 2 shows that the
Leis factor equation (5) predicts a good result of arrest
toughness that close to the CSM factor equation (6), the Leis
factor equation (4) underestimates slightly the arrest toughness,
Copyright 2012 by ASME 4
and the statistical factor equation (7) overestimates the arrest
toughness for X80 gas pipeline steels.
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 50 100 150 200 250
(
C
v
)
a
r
r
e
s
t
,
J
o
u
l
e
(CV)BTCM, Joule
Equation (4)
Equation (5)
Equation (6)
Equation (7)
Figure 2. Comparison of arrest Cv toughness predictions
by four improved methods
Backfill Correction Method
In equation (1) of the BTCM, effect of backfill on the
propagating fracture velocity is lumped into one empirically
based backfill coefficient, which does not distinguish
different soil types or strengths, in addition to a constant
powerlaw exponent of 1/6. Rudland and Wilkowski [12, 19]
conducted a series of burst tests for gas pipelines in conditions
of different backfill depths and different soil types. Based on
their test data, the fracture curve equation (1) was modified as:
6 / 1
1


.

\

=
a
f
f
P
P
R K
C V
o
(8)
where K = 0.275H
actual
/ H
nominal
+ 0.725, H
actual
is the actual
backfill depth used in a burst test of gas pipes, and H
nominal
=30
inches that was used in the early gas burst tests for calibrating
the backfill coefficient C. Note that the burst tests in calibration
of Eq. (8) were conducted only for CVN<100 Joules.
SpeedDependent Toughness Method
In the original BTCM, the fracture toughness CVN was
assumed as a constant material resistance. Since experiments
showed that fracture toughness or resistance is dependent on
the crack speed, Duan and Zhou [1314] at TransCanada
modified the fracture resistance as a speeddependent value:
a
f
V R R
=
0
(9)
where
a
ref ref
V R R =
0
, R
ref
is a reference fracture resistance at the
reference speed V
ref
, and o is a fracture speed dependent index.
Figure 3 show the effect of speed dependent fracture toughness
on crack speed curves for an X80 pipeline steel, where o=0
represents the case of constant fracture toughness as used in the
BTCM. When o=0.2, the predictions are in good agreement
with fullscale burst tests of X80 pipes.
Figure 3. Effect of speed dependent fracture toughness on
crack speed curves (It was taken from [13])
DWTT ENERGY METHODS OF ARREST TOUGHNESS
DETERMINATION
Early DWTT Methods
Historically, a drop weight tear test (DWTT) specimen was
developed at Battelle as the first alternative candidate to
replace the Charpy impact specimen for accurately identifying
the ductiletobrittle transition temperature and for measuring
ductile fracture propagation resistance at the upper shelf for
tougher pipeline steels. It has been thought that a larger DWTT
specimen with the fullsize thickness of pipes is superior to the
smaller CVN specimen in quantifying fracture resistance for
ductile pipeline steels with high toughness and large plastic
deformation, particularly for modern high strength pipeline
steels. Different correlation between DWTT and CVN energies
were developed, as described next.
DWTT Method at Battelle. For traditional pipeline steels,
Wilkowski et al [1516] at Battelle in late 1970s developed a
linear correlation between the standard pressed notch DWTT
energy density and the CVN energy density in the form of:
300 3 + 
.

\

= 
.

\

CVN DWTT
A
E
A
E
(ftlb/in
2
) (10)
where E is the total fracture energy in ftlb, A is fracture area of
the specimen ligament in in
2
, and E/A denotes the energy
density (or the energy per unit area) in ftlb/in
2
. Note that there
is a useful conversion of 1 ftlb/in
2
= 0.0021 J/mm
2
. When the
minimum CVN energy for a crack arrest is determined using
the BTCM, the minimum DWTT energy for the crack arrest
can be determined from Eq. (10). Figure 3 shows the linear
relationship between the CVN and DWTT energy densities
from Eq. (10) for vintage pipeline steels up to X65.
Copyright 2012 by ASME 5
Figure 3. Correlation between Charpy and DWTT specific
energies (E/A) (It was taken from [15], 1ftlb/in
2
=0.0021J/mm
2
)
DWTT Method at British Gas. Fearnehough et al. [17] at
British Gas was one of the early investigators who developed
test methods and showed that the propagation energy in higher
toughness pipeline steels was not linearly related to the Charpy
energy. In their tests, a series of DWTT specimens were pre
cracked to different crack lengths from short to deep under
quasistatic loading, and then impacted under drop weight
dynamic loading. This test was called an interrupted DWTT
specimen test. The impact energy was determined for each
interrupted DWTT specimen with a different crack length, and
compared with the Charpy energy for the same steel. Figure 3
shows the variation of DWTT energy density (E/A) with
Charpy energy density (E/A) obtained by Fearnehough et al.
[17]. This figure indicates that for the lower toughness steels
the linear relationship between the DWTT and Charpy energies
exist (the data in groups A and B), but for the higher toughness
steels with CVN energy of 70 Joules or more the DWTT
energy is no longer linear with the Charpy energy instead of a
nonlinear relation (the data in group C).
Leis [18] discussed the linear correlation between DWTT
and CVN energies in Eq. (10) for pipeline grades up to X70,
and found that most burst test data for X70 Alliance pipeline
steel did not follow the linear trend, but behaved in a nonlinear
relation similar to that in Fig 4. This raised the questions about
generality of the linear correlation. For modern high toughness
pipeline steels with CVN energy larger than about 100 Joules,
experiments showed that the relation between DWTT and CVN
energies deviates from the linearity. Recently, Wilkowski et al.
[4] showed that the pipeline grade has significant effect on their
correlation. The slope of the linear function continues to
decreases from 2.94 for X60 to 1.91 for X100. Therefore, a
general correlation between CVN and DWTT is nonlinear for
high toughness pipeline steels.
Figure 4. Variation of DWTT (E/A) and Charpy (E/A) by
Fearnehough [17]
Figure 5. Variation of brittlenotch and pressednotch DWTT
energies for pipeline grades up to X70 (it was taken from [20])
Brittlenotch DWTT Specimens. In the 1970s, investigators
believed that the nonlinear relationship might be caused by the
large initiation energy obtained by the standard pressednotch
DWTT specimens for tougher steels. And thus, Battelle
modified the notch of standard DWTT specimen in an attempt
to reduce the initiation energy from the total DWTT energy so
that the propagation energy is dominated. Thus, a brittlenotch
DWTT specimen was introduced. Figure 5 shows experimental
results obtained by Wilkowski et al. [15, 20] in 1977 using the
brittlenotch DWTT specimens for pipeline grades up to X70.
Based on these test data, Wilkowski et al proposed a curve
fitted nonlinear function between the brittlenotch (BN) and
pressednotch (PN) DWTT energy densities:
Copyright 2012 by ASME 6
1500 175
385 . 0

.

\

= 
.

\

DWTT PN DWTT BN
A
E
A
E
(11)
where the energy density and the constant are in ftlb/in
2
.
An alternative to the brittlenotch DWTT specimen was a
staticprecracked DWTT specimen that was first developed at
Battelle. These DWTT specimens have cracklike notches. It
has been shown that the staticprecracked DWTT specimen
gives the results similar to the brittlenotch DWTT results [4].
Wilkowski DWTT Methods
In order to reflect the nonlinear relationship between the
DWTT and CVN energies, Wilkowski et al. [4] proposed two
new nonlinear correlations. They assumed that the standard
pressednotch DWTT specimen used for fitting equation (10)
and the brittlenotch DWTT specimen were equivalent because
both specimens have less initiation energy in the total absorbed
energy. In this case, they replaced the pressednotch DWTT
energy in Eq. (10) with the brittlenotch DWTT energy in Eq.
(11) and obtained the following socalled Wilkowski 1977
prediction of CVN energy from the standard DWTT tests:
0 . 600
3
175
385 . 0
) 1977 (

.

\

= 
.

\

DWTT W CVN
A
E
A
E
(12)
where the specific energy and the constant are in ftlb/in
2
,
(E/A)
DWTT
is the total pressednotch DWTT energy density, and
(E/A)
CVN(W 1977)
is the total CVN energy density.
When compared with the fullscale burst test results for
pipeline steels of X52, X60, X65 and X70, Wilkowski et al.
[21] in 2000 found that the prediction from Eq. (12) resulted in
an overestimation of arrest DWTT energy in comparison to the
fullscale DWTT data. A statistical factor of the overestimation
was determined as 1.291. Combining this correction factor
with Eq. (12) gives the Wilkowski 2000 prediction of the CVN
energy from the standard DWTT tests:
0 . 600 3 . 1
3
175
385 . 0
) 2000 (

.

\

= 
.

\

DWTT W CVN
A
E
A
E
(13)
This equation as well as Eq. (12) can be used to predict the
required arrest DWTT energy when the minimum CVN energy
is obtained by the BTCM. However, from Eqs (12) and (13),
Wilkowski et al. [4] also obtained the arrest CVN energy by
use of the BTCM predicted CVN toughness. It is unclear how
they obtained such predictions because the corrections only
relate the CVN energy to the DWTT energy, but not to the
BTCM predicted CVN values.
Kawaguchi DWTT Method
For X80 pipeline steels, Kawaguchi et al. [22] improved
the Wilkowski DWTT equations that are valid only up to X70.
They found that Eq. (11) did not match their test data for X80,
and proposed the following relationship to correlate the static
precracked (SPC) DWTT and the pressednotch DWTT energy
densities:
9563 . 0
9431 . 0
DWTT PN DWTT SPC
A
E
A
E

.

\

= 
.

\

(ftlb/in
2
) (14)
Following the Wilkowskis assumption and ideas to generate
the nonlinear correlation in Eq. (12), Kawaguchi from Eqs (10)
and (14) obtained the following correlation between the Charpy
and DWTT energy densities for X80 steels:
100 3144 . 0
9563 . 0

.

\

= 
.

\

DWTT CVN
A
E
A
E
(ftlb/in
2
) (15)
Note that both equations (14) and (15) are nearly linear because
the exponent approaches to 1.
Figure 6 compares the four correlations between DWTT
and Charpy energy densities determined by the Battelle linear
correlation in Eq. (10), Wilkowski 1977 correlation in Eq. (12),
Wilkowski 2000 correlation in Eq. (13) and Kawaguchi
correlation in Eq. (15). It is seen from this figure that Eqs (12)
and (13) have a nonlinear relation between the DWTT and
CVN energy densities that are different from the experimental
trend observed in Fig. 4. Equation (15) is nearly linear with
another slope. This raises the questions about these three
correlations proposed by Wilkowski [19] and Kawaguchi [22].
Further discussions will be given later.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
D
W
T
T
E
/
A
(
f
t

l
b
/
i
n
2
)
Charpy E/A (ftlb/in
2
)
Battelle linear correlation
Wilkowski 1977 correlation
Wilkowski 2000 correlation
Kawaguchi correlation
Figure 6. Comparison of three correlations between DWTT
and Charpy specific energies
Wilkowski CVN Correction Method
In the open literature, there is a socalled Wilkowski CVN
correction equation. Motivated by the Leis correction equation
(4b), Papka et al. [23] at ExxonMobil in 2003 proposed an
alternative correction by use of the experimental data and the
DWTT correlation obtained by Wilkowski et al. [15]. From
Eqs (10) and (12) with an assumption of C
v(W 1977)
=(C
v
)
BTCM
,
after the DWTT term was eliminated, the following correction
of the BTCM predicted CVN toughness was obtained:
Copyright 2012 by ASME 7
( ) ( )   4 . 12 29 . 10 138 . 0 04133 . 0
597 . 2
+ =
BTCM V arrest V
C C
(16)
where the CVN energy and constant are in ftlb.
Wolodko and Stephens [11] at CFER in 2006 converted
this Wilkowski CVN correction equation (16) from the English
units to the SI units as:
( ) ( )   8 . 16 29 . 10 1018 . 0 056 . 0
597 . 2
+ =
BTCM V arrest V
C C
(17)
where the CVN energy and the constant are in Joules. Equation
(16) or (17) is assumed to use for determining the arrest
toughness if the BTCM predicted CVN toughness is obtained
for high strength pipeline steels. Actually, Eiber [89] utilized
Eq. (17) in the evaluation of arrest CVN toughness for X70 and
X80 pipeline steels and showed its overestimation.
Figure 7 compares the predictions of minimum arrest CVN
toughness obtained by the four CVN correction methods, i.e.,
the Leis factor method in Eqs (4) and (5), the CSM factor
method in Eq. (6) and the Wilkowski CVN correction method
in Eq. (17). Again, it assumes that X80 pipeline steel is
considered in this figure, and the CSM factor prediction is
more accurate because it is a direct result by comparing the
BTCM prediction to measured arrest CVN data. Figure 7
shows that this Wilkowski correction equation (17) gives a
conservative result that is larger than that obtained by Leis
correction equation (5) or CSM factor equation (6). While it
looks not too bad in comparison to the CSM factor method, the
assumption embedded in Eqs (16) and (17) is incorrect.
Japan HLP Model
In the late 1970s, in parallel to the work done at Battelle on
DWTT specimens, Japanese researchers [2425] started a
research program called HLP and did extensive work in
developing an extended model of the fracture model in the
BTCM where the material resistance is expressed in terms of
precracked DWTT energy. For soil backfill conditions, Crack
velocity in the DWTTbased HLP model is expressed as:
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 50 100 150 200 250
(
C
v
)
a
r
r
e
s
t
,
J
o
u
l
e
(CV)BTCM, Joule
Equation (4)
Equation (5)
Equation (6)
Equation (17)
Figure 7. Comparison of arrest CVN toughness predictions
by four CVN correction methods
393 . 0
1 670 . 0


.

\

=
a
f
f
P
P
R
V
o
(18)
(
(
=
]
10 81 . 3
exp[ arccos 382 . 0
2
7
Dt
R
D
t
P
f
f
a
o
o
(19)
where V
c
is the crack velocity in m/s,
o
f
=(o
y
+o
uts
)/2 is the flow stress,
R=D
p
/A
p
is the material resistance in Joules/mm
2
,
D
p
is the estimated total energy of precracked DWTT
specimen in Joules,
A
p
is the fracture area of precracked DWTT specimen in
mm
2
,
P is the decompressed pressure at the crack tip in MPa,
P
a
is the arrest pressure in MPa,
D is the pipe diameter in mm, and
t is the pipe thickness in mm.
Since Eq. (18) was calibrated in reference to the fullscale
burst test data for X70 pipeline steels, and thus its applications
to X80 and above are not recommended. As such, this DWTT
based HLP model suffers the problems similar to the BTCM
for high strength pipeline steels X80 and above.
FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ON ARREST TOUGHNESS
METHODS
Discussions on CVN Energy Methods
Figure 8 shows the actually measured CVN energy versus
the predicted CVN energy by BTCM for high strength pipeline
steels X80 and X100 presented by Demofonti et al. [10], where
experimental burst data were extracted from the CSM database.
As evident in this figure, the BTCM underestimates the actual
arrest CVN energy and results in nonconservative predictions.
Similar results were observed for the simplified BTCM model.
Thus, a factor to determine arrest toughness from the BTCM
prediction is required as 1.43 for X80 and 1.7 for X100, as
embedded in Eq. (6) for the CSM factor method.
Figure 8. Actual vs predicted CVN energies by BTCM for high
strength pipeline steels X80 and X100 (it was taken from [10])
Copyright 2012 by ASME 8
Combining Figs (2) and (8) shows that (a) the Leis factor
equation (5) modified by Eiber [89] can obtain more accurate
predictions of arrest CVN toughness in comparison to the CSM
linear factor method, (b) the original Leis factor equation (4)
underestimates slightly the actual arrest CVN energy (this is
not surprising because Eq. (4) was calibrated for grades up to
X70), and (c) the statistical factor method overly estimates the
arrest CVN energy. As a result, the Leis factor method in Eq.
(5) is the best one for the X80 pipeline steel. However, this
promising method underestimates the arrest toughness for
X100. Thus the Leis correction is a viable method, but needs
further improvement in applications to grades above X80.
The backfill correction method proposed by Rudland and
Wilkowski [12, 19] only considered the effect of backfill height
and limited to the pipeline steels with CVN energy less than
100 Joules. If the backfill height used in an actual burst test for
high strength steels is equal to the original backfill height as
used in the BTCM, Equation (8) reduces to Eq. (1). As such,
there is no any improvement made for this situation. Thus, this
backfill correction method has a limited use.
The speeddependent toughness method proposed at
TransCanada considered the effect of fracture speed on the
fracture resistance in terms of CVN or DWTT energy, which is
consistent with the common understanding that dynamic
fracture toughness depends on the loading rate. This method is
a reasonable improvement of the BTCM where a constant
resistance was replaced by a speeddependent resistance.
However, it has involved the reference resistance, the reference
speed and a constant index. In general, how to quantify these
parameters is a challenge for this model.
Discussions on DWTT Energy Methods
Figure 9 shows broad experimental relations between the
standard pressednotch DWTT and CVN energy densities for
various pipeline grades, including high strength pipeline steels
X80 and X100 presented by Demofonti et al. [10], where
experimental burst data were extracted from the CSM database.
The linear correlation in Eq. (10) is included in this figure. Leis
and Eiber [5] obtained similar experimental trends for X65. As
evident in Fig. 9, the experimental trend deviates from the
linear relationship at the CVN energy density of ~120 J/cm
2
(or
570 ftlb/in
2
) that is equal to the CVN energy of ~95 Joules (or
70 ftlb). From Eq. (10), this CVN energy corresponds to the
DWTT energy density at 420 J/cm
2
(2000 ftlb/in
2
). Back to
see Fig. 5, it is seen that the linearity between the brittlenotch
and pressednotch DWTT specimens is good only up to the
measured DWTT energy density of 2000 ftlb/in
2
. Therefore,
this implies that the nonlinearity between the DWTT and CVN
energies or the notched and cracked DWTT energies starts at
the same critical point, where the actual CVN energy is 95
Joules and the actual DWTT energy density is 420 J/cm
2
. Thus,
the relationships between CVN, notched or cracked DWTT
energies are nonlinear for high toughness steels, and the similar
problem exists in the BTCM if any DWTT specimen is used.
Figure 9. Correlation between DWTT and CVN energies (it
was taken from [10]
After the critical point, the experimental trend in Fig. 9
becomes nonlinear in a bending down manner, which is similar
to the experimental trend in Fig. 4. In contrast, the three
correlations between DWTT and CVN energy densities
proposed by Wilkowski and by Kawaguchi have a nonlinear
relationship in a bending up manner. This opens to question the
utility of Eqs (12) to (15). Likewise, the same question goes to
Eq. (16) or (17) for the Wilkowski CVN correction method in
addition to the incorrect embedded assumption. And thus their
predictions become plausible if they are used in an assessment.
Demofonti et al [10] pointed out that while the DWTT
propagation energy seems to describe well the fracture
behavior for fullscale burst tests, the differences in terms of
absorbed energy between arrest and propagation conditions are
not so relevant, and for practical application could be within
the same level of scatter of pipe production. Thus, use of CVN
and DWTT energy may be in the same level for predicting
arrest toughness. Similarly, the DWTTbased HLP model bears
inaccuracy to determine arrest toughness for modern steels.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper evaluated the CVN and DWTT energy methods
in determination of arrest toughness for high strength gas
transmission pipelines. The BTCM and its modified methods in
terms of CVN or DWTT energy, including the often used Leis
correction method, the CSM factor method, and the Wilkowski
DWTT method, were reviewed and discussed in comparison
with the fullscale experimental burst data for high grade
ductile pipeline steels including X80 and X100.
The results showed that the available nonlinear models for
correlating DWTT and CVN energy densities are highly
questionable, and the similar problem to the CVN energy could
exist if DWTT energy was used in the BTCM. In contrast, this
evaluation showed that the Leis correction method is a viable
one for use to determine the arrest toughness of high strength
pipeline steels, but further investigation is needed for ultrahigh
pipeline grades like X100.
Copyright 2012 by ASME 9
REFERENCES
[1]. Maxey WA, 1974, Fracture Initiation, Propagation, and
Arrest, Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Line Pipe
Research, November 2022, 1974, Houston, Texas.
[2]. Leis B, et al, 1998, Relationship Between Apparent
Charpy VeeNotch Toughness and the Corresponding
Dynamic CrackPropagation Resistance, International
Pipeline Conference, Calgary Canada, pp. 723732.
[3]. Mannucci G, Demofonti G, Harris D, Barsanti L,
Hillenbrand HG, 2001, Fracture Properties of API X100
Gas Pipeline Steels, Proceedings from the 13th Biennial
Joint Technical Meeting on Pipeline Research, April 30
May 4, 2001, New Orleans, USA.
[4]. Wilkowski G, Rudland D, Xu H, and Sanderson N, 2006,
Effect of Grade on Ductile Fracture Arrest Criteria for
Gas Pipelines, Proceedings of the International Pipeline
Conference, September 2529, 2006, Calgary, Canada.
Paper ID: IPC00610350.
[5]. Leis BN, Eiber RJ. Fracture Control Technology for
Transmission Pipelines, PRCI Catalog L51846, 2010:
updates Eiber RJ, Bubenik TA, Maxey WA. Fracture
Control Technology for Natural Gas Pipelines, NG18
Report No. 208, Pipeline Research Council International,
Project PR39113, Battelle, 1993.
[6]. Maxey, WA, Kiefner, JF, Eiber, RJ, and Duffy, AR, 1972,
Ductile Fracture Initiation, Propagation and Arrest in
Cylindrical Vessels, Fracture Toughness, ASTM STP
514, Part II, pp. 347362.
[7]. Maxey WA, Kiefner JF, and Eiber RJ, Ductile Fracture
Arrest in Gas Pipelines, Final Report for PRC Project
NG18, Report No. 100, December 1975.
[8]. Eiber B, 2008, Fracture Propagation 1: FractureArrest
Prediction Requires Correction Factors, Oil and Gas
Journal, Vol. 106, No. 39, October 20, 2008.
[9]. Eiber B, 2008, Fracture Propagation Conclusion:
Prediction Steel Grade Dependent, Oil and Gas Journal,
Vol. 106, No. 40, October 27, 2008.
[10]. Demofonti G, Mannucci G, and Roovers P. Existing
Methods for The Evaluation of Material Fracture
Resistance for High Grade Steel Pipelines, Proceedings
of the PRCIEPRGAPRA 16
th
Biennial Joint Technical
Meeting on Pipeline Research, March 1619, 2007,
Canberra, Australia.
[11]. Wolodko J and Stephens M, 2006, Applicability of
Existing Models For Predicting Ductile Fracture Arrest in
High Pressure Pipelines, Proceedings of International
Pipeline Conference, September 2529, 2006, Calgary,
Canada, Paper No. IPC200610110.
[12]. Rudland DL and Wilkowski G, 2007, Effects of Backfill
Soil Properties and Pipe Grade on Ductile Fracture
Arrest, Proceedings of the 16
th
Biennial PRCI/EPRG/
APIA Joint Technical Meeting on Pipeline Research,
April 1619, 2007, Canberra, Australia.
[13]. Duan DM and Zhou J, Speed Dependent Fracture
Toughness and the Effect on Fast Ductile Fr4acture
Propagation in Gas Pipelines, The 12
th
International
Conference on Fracture, July 1217, 2009, Ottawa,
Canada.
[14]. Duan DM, Zhou J, Shim DJ and Wilkowski G, 2010,
Effect of Fracture Speed on Ductile Fracture Resistance
Part 2: Results and Application, Proceedings of the 8
th
International Pipeline Conference, September 27October
1, 2010, Calgary, Canada.
[15]. Wilkowski GM, Maxey WA and Eiber RJ, 1977, Use of
A Brittle Notch DWTT Specimens to Predict Fracture
Characteristics of Line Pipe Steels, The ASME 1977
Energy Technology Conference, Paper 77Pet21,
Houston, Texas, September 1822, 1977.
[16]. Wilkowski G, 1979, Fracture Propagation Toughness
Measurements, Proceedings of the 6th Symposium on
Line Pipe Research, Paper K, October 29November 1,
1979, Houston, Texas.
[17]. Fearnehough GD, Dickson DT, and Jones DG, 1976,
Dynamic Toughness Determination in Ductile
Materials, The Dynamic Fracture Toughness Conference,
July 57, 1976, London, England.
[18]. Leis, B.N., 2002, Evolution of LinePipe Steel and Its
Implications for Transmission Pipeline Design,
Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference,
September 29October 3, 2002, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
[19]. Rudland D and Wilkowski G, 2006, The Effects of Soil
Properties on The Fracture Speeds of Propagating Axial
Crack in Line Pipe Steels, Proceedings of International
Pipeline Conference, September 2529, 2006, Calgary,
Canada, Paper No. IPC200610086.
[20]. Wilkowski GM, Maxey WA and Eiber RJ, 1978,
Problems in Using the Charpy, Dynamic Tear Test and
Drop Weight Tear Test for High Toughness Quenched
and Tempered Steels, in What Does The Charpy Test
Really Tell Us? American Society for Metals.
[21]. Wilkowski G, Wang YY and Rudland D, 2000, Recent
Development on Determining SteadyState Dynamic
Ductile Fracture Toughness from Impact Tests,
Proceedings of the 3rd International Pipeline Technical
Conference, Brugge, Belgium, May 2124, 2000, Vol. 1,
pp. 359386.
[22]. Kawaguchi S, et al., 2004, Application of X80 in Japan:
Fracture Control, The 4
th
International Conference on
Pipeline Technology, May 812, 2004, Ostend, Belgium.
[23]. Papka SD, et al., 2003, FullSize Testing and Analysis of
X120 Linepipe, Proceedings of the 13
th
International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Hawaii,
May 2530, 2003.
[24]. Sugie E, et al. 1982, A Study of Shear Crack
Propagation in GasPressurized Pipelines, Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 104, 1982, p. 338.
[25]. Makino H, et al., 2001, Prediction for Crack Propagation
and Arrest of Shear Fracture in UltraHigh Pressure
Nature Gas Pipelines, ISIJ International, Vol. 41, 2001,
pp. 381388.