You are on page 1of 70

BREAK

THROUGH

Breakthrough Strategy Committee


Construction Industry Institute

New Joining Technology for Metal Pipe in the Construction Industry Breakthrough Strategy Committee

BTSC Document 2003-01 September 2003

New Joining Technology for Metal Pipe in the Construction Industry


Prepared by Construction Industry Institute Breakthrough Strategy Committee

BTSC Document 2003-1 September 2003

ii

Breakthrough Strategy Committee Members


Steve E. Brindza, The Procter & Gamble Company Paul D. Domich, National Institute of Standards & Technology Edward S. Givens, Construction Industry Institute Paul M. Goodrum, University of Kentucky * Carl T. Haas, The University of Texas at Austin Robert C. Jacobs, 3M Company John B. Kapustay, Kier/CCC USA * Changwan Kim, The University of Texas at Austin Kenneth E. Olmsted, Smithsonian Institution Judith W. Passwaters, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. C. Robert Seay, Tennessee Valley Authority Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder, U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST C. Chatt Smith, Jacobs Gilbert M. Staudt, ExxonMobil Development Company * Principal Author

Past Members
Raymond P. Baker, Rohm and Haas Company W. Kendall Burkhart, BIBB & Associates John T. Capener, Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc. Michael P. Childers, The Shaw Group Inc. John L. Cutts, POM Technology Americas John F. Dunn, Chevron Project Resources Company Bryson G. Edmonds, BE&K Construction Company Peter H. Emmons, Structural Group Dwight A. Fiveash, Celanese Lee R. Hale, ALCOA Inc. William B. Hardin, Technip USA Corporation James F. Hilgers, Rust Constructors Inc. Emerson T. Johns, DuPont Company Timothy S. Killen, Bechtel Corporation Brigitte H. Laki, Exxon Chemical Company John S. Lambert, Eli Lilly and Company Michael W. Lowder, Eastman Chemical Company Daniel J. Maas, National Center for Manufacturing Gerhard Meinecke, SAP Labs, Inc. Kim Metcalf-Kupres, Johnson Controls, Inc. James W. Mortell, Cherne Contracting Corporation Get W. Moy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Jeffrey Jay Osmond, U.S. Department of State Boyd C. Paulson, Stanford University iii

Kenneth F. Reinschmidt, Kenneth F. Reinschmidt K. Keith Roe, Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. Larry E. Ruhland, Bechtel Corporation Robert E. Sellers, Champion International Corporation Mohan Singh, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jack E. Snell, U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST Zachary L. Zimmerman, Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc.

iv

Table of Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................... vi List of Tables .................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary .........................................................................................viii Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Current Joining Processes in the Construction Industry ................. 3 Chapter 3: Need for Advanced Pipe-Joining Technology ................................ 9 Chapter 4: Assessment of Advanced Joining Technologies ........................... 12 Chapter 5: Evaluation Process for Advanced Joining Technologies ............. 30 Chapter 6: Evaluation of Advanced Joining Technologies ............................ 36 Chapter 7: Business Analysis .......................................................................... 45 Chapter 8: Recommendations for Future Research ........................................ 48 Chapter 9: Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................... 55 References ........................................................................................................ 56

List of Figures

Number

Page

1. Technology Improvement Needs in the Construction Industry............. 4 2. Taxonomy of Joining Technology ........................................................ 12 3. Pressfit System .................................................................................... 13 4. Permalok System ................................................................................ 14 5. Metal Joining Using High Adhesive Bonding ...................................... 15 6. GasTungsten Arc Welding .................................................................. 17 7. Shielded-Metal Arc Welding ................................................................ 18 8. GasMetal Arc Welding ....................................................................... 19 9. Electron-Beam Welding ........................................................................ 20 10. Flash Butt Welding ............................................................................... 22 11. Explosion Welding ................................................................................ 23 12. Friction Welding ................................................................................... 24 13. Diffusion Weld Riveted ........................................................................ 25 14. Enclosed Orbital Weldhead .................................................................. 28 15. MIG Welding ........................................................................................ 29 16. Hierarchical Structure ............................................................................ 31 17. Ranking of Weighted Factors ................................................................ 34 18. Ranking of Applicability of Advanced Joining Technologies............... 44

vi

List of Tables

Number

Page

1. Profile of Piping Surveyed ................................................................. 3 2. Percentage of Rework in Piping .........................................................4 3. Piping Steps ....................................................................................... 5 4. Pipe Materials .................................................................................... 5 5. Example of Step 2 in Factor-Weighting Process ............................. 32 6. Example of Step 3 in Factor-Weighting Process ............................. 32 7. Example of Step 4 in Factor-Weighting Process ............................. 33 8. Pipe Joining Score Sheet .................................................................. 33 9. Evaluation Model for Pipe Joining ...................................................35 10. Assessment of Mechanical Joining .................................................. 36 11. Assessment of Adhesive Bonding ................................................... 37 12. Assessment of Fusion Welding ........................................................ 39 13. Assessment of Non-Fusion Welding ............................................... 41 14. Assessment of Brazing and Soldering ............................................. 42 15. Assessment of Welding Automation ............................................... 43 16. Welding Expenditure in 2000 ............................................................46 17. Labor Cost for Welding, CII Model Plant ...................................... 47 18. Equipment Cost for Welding ........................................................... 47 19. Total Direct Cost of Welding ........................................................... 47

vii

Executive Summary Pipe joining is one of the most critical but inefficient processes in the construction industry. This report identifies several of the underlying causes for that inefficiency, including: (1) the shortage of skilled labor, (2) the low productivity of joining processes currently in use, and (3) the reluctance on the part of welders to switch to newer technology. Also discussed is the general agreement within the construction industry of the need for identifying breakthrough methods that would improve the pipe-joining process. This paper covers mechanical joining, adhesive bonding, welding, and welding automation. Successful adoption of these advanced joining technologies for metal pipe could yield notable results, such as significant reductions in both processing time and the need for skilled labor, a decrease in costs associated with the joining process; and improvements in the strengths of joints. That is, advanced joining technologies may have an impact not only on costs and scheduling, but on productivity and maintenance. Which of these processes holds the most promise is open to question, however, for two reasons: first, the uncertainty as to what types of joints produced with these methods would be suitable for typical construction applications; and second, the fact that each of them would have to be adapted for field application or prefabrication work and then thoroughly tested before adoption by the industry.

viii

1 Introduction

Virtually every manufactured product contains joints that are used to assemble similar materials into a more complex shape or product. In the U.S., the $50 billion-ayear business of joining technologies is high tech and research efforts surrounding it are intense. In contrast to other industries, however, joining technology in construction has not seen much advancement. In particular, metal-pipe joining is an extremely laborintensive and costly process. In 1982, The Business Roundtable released the summary publication of its five-year study of the industry, the Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness (CICE) Project. The Roundtable found that pipe joining is one of the most expensive yet most inefficient elements of major industrial construction projects. Furthermore, the Roundtable identified it as the task with the greatest potential for technological advancement (Rickard and Tucker, 1982). Even today, some 20-plus years after the CICE Project was completed, the inefficiency of processes used in metal-pipe joining persists. In fact, according to 2002 benchmarking and metrics data published by CII, the percentage of work that has to be redone in piping processes is much higher than in other type of construction tasks. Besides the need for improved processes, the shortage of skilled labor has also become an issue of deep concern in the construction industry. Welders are offered lower compensation in construction than in other industries, and therefore many competent welders do not even consider taking on construction work. Although considerable research has been conducted outside of the construction industry in the area of welding, not all of the available technology is being used to its potential (Tucker, 1982). Successful application of advanced joining technologies requires a deep understanding of both current joining practice and advanced joining technologies (Eager, 1990). 1

The primary objective here is to explore the applicability of advanced joining technologies to the use of metal pipe in the construction industry. In support of this objective, this paper investigates current practices in metal-pipe joining in construction as well as utilization of advanced joining technologies in other industries. It is expected that an enhanced understanding of both of these areas would result in a better determination of the potential for application of alternative joining technologies in the construction industry and more effective implementation of those technologies. In addition, a number of advanced joining technologies are evaluated, from both technical and business perspectives, and recommendations are made regarding the adoption of advanced joining technologies that could serve as a replacement for current practices. The scope of this paper is limited to metal-pipe used in industrial construction projects. It begins with a review of current practices with respect to metal-pipe joining in construction. The current status of pipe joining is examined, and the materials from which metal pipe is made, the methods used in metal-pipe joining, and piping codes and specifications are discussed. Needs for, and benefits of, advanced joining technology are identified, and a tool for evaluating the applicability of various methods to construction is presented. New joining technologies, including mechanical joining, adhesive bonding, welding, and welding automation, are then introduced, and their applicability to the construction industry is assessed by means of this evaluation tool. A business analysis is then carried out to identify the business impact of advanced joining technologies in the industry. Finally, business cases are suggested.

2 Current Joining Processes in the Construction Industry This chapter provides background information on the joining of metal, beginning with a review of processes currently in use for the joining of metal pipe. The current status of pipe joining is addressed, and the materials and joining methods currently in use, as well as piping codes and specifications, are discussed. Status of Pipe Joining Piping in the Construction Industry Piping comprises a large portion of the work done in the construction industry, in terms of both the amount of labor required and the cost of construction (see Table 1). This is especially true of heavy construction and the power sector, where piping is the largest single contributing factor of all the different categories of work involved (Tucker, 1982; CII, 2002).
Table 1. Profile of Piping Surveyed (Tucker, 1982) Building 25 300 9 3.4 Light Industry 120 600 14 11.6 Heavy Industry 190 900 22 23.9 Power 470 1600 18 16.1

Average Project Cost ($ millions) Average Peak Work Force Labor Percentage by Craft (%) Construction Cost Distribution (%)

Piping Productivity In spite of its importance, piping is the most inefficient of all major construction areas (Tucker, 1982). According to 2002 CII benchmarking data, the amount of piping work that has to be redone is about 13.3 percent of the total (Table 2), compared to only six percent of the total, on average, for all areas of construction combined (CII, 2002).

Table 2 Percentage of Rework in Piping Total Rework (hours/year) Total work (hours/year) Percentage 288,480 2,170,244 13.29%

Technology Needs Assessment Given its low productivity, piping is the area with the greatest need for technological advancements that would yield improved processes. According to the technology needs assessment for the CICE Project, piping ranked ahead of all other categories of construction in terms of the need for technology improvements (Tucker, 1982). In Figure 1, the high numbers present significant opportunities for technological improvement.

Interior Finis hes

Building Light Ind. Heavy Ind. Power

Enclos ure Skin Mechanical Equipm ent Structure

Electrical

Piping 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Figure 1. Technology Improvement Needs in the Construction Industry (Tucker, 1982)

Pipe Joining Generally, piping encompasses six different tasks: lifting, joining, aligning, inspecting, transporting of materials, and procurement. Of these, joining is the most important, consuming 25 percent of the cycle time and requiring a greater degree of skill than any of the other five tasks. Most of the problems associated with piping, however, are related to the field of welding (Tucker, 1982) (Table 3).
Table 3 Piping Steps Percentage of Total Cycle Time (%) 25 25 20 15 10 5

Erection Step Lifting Joining Aligning Inspecting Transporting of materials Procurement

Ranking of Skill Required 3 1 2 4 6 5

Materials from Which Metal Pipe Is Made The selection of materials for pipe is a process that requires consideration of material characteristics appropriate to the specific application at hand (Nayyar, 1992). Pipe is available in many different materials. According to CII data, amassed by means of a survey of 12 different projects in the construction industry, carbon steel and stainless steel are heavily used for piping in the construction industry (CII, 2002) (Table 4). A brief discussion of the characteristics of stainless steel and carbon steel commonly used in the construction industry follows.
Table 4 Pipe Materials Material Type Carbon steel Stainless steel Chrome Other alloys Percentage (%) 57 28 3 12

Stainless Steel Stainless steel is commonly used in cryogenic and chemical pipelines, as well as in stainless steel tubing for domestic water supplies, plumbing, and heating. Stainless steel offers good corrosion resistance, toughness, ductility, and weld-ability, but is rather expensive (Dickenson, 1999). Schedule 5S pipe and Schedule 10S light-wall stainless pipe are commonly used to reduce costs (Nayyar, 1992). Carbon Steel Carbon steel, widely used for piping material, offers good strength and is relatively inexpensive. It has low corrosion resistance, however, so its use is limited to noncorrosive applications (Dickenson, 1999). Current Methods of Metal-Pipe Joining The choice of methods of pipe joining depends on a variety of factors, such as pipe diameter, pipe material, pressure rating, and other service requirements (Dickenson, 1999). A brief discussion of current methods of metal-pipe joining follows. Welding Welding can be used to join pipes of any diameter and is a leak-proof method. Because of the shortage of highly skilled welders, welding is somewhat limited (Dickenson, 1999). Stick welding (shielded-metal arc welding) is the most popular method in use in the construction industry. Even though MIG and TIG welding offer better performance than stick welding, it is still dominant because there has been considerable reluctance on the part of welders in the various construction trades to use other methods (Kapustay, 2002). Two of the major reasons for the welding processes being so inconvenient and costly are the need to utilize heavy equipment and the high degree of skill required. It is not uncommon for welders to have to take an hour or more of their time to break down the heavy equipment before moving it to the place where the next set of welds is to be made. 6

Some of the factors that contribute significantly to the high cost of welding stem from the complexity of the welding processes themselves. There tends to be an unacceptably high degree of variability in the welds that are produced, which results in a frequent need for rework. In shielded-metal arc welding, for example, the need to shield the weld arc from impurities in the atmosphere is a source of major concernand a source of extra expense if rework is required (Tucker, 1982). Mechanical Joining The concept of joining pipes by mechanical methods originated during World War I, when there was a need for rapid deployment of fuel and water, since traditional methods such as welding were too slow (Dickenson, 1999). Mechanical joining is generally effective and uncomplicated, and little mechanical skill is needed. Its use is limited, however, because it can be applied only to the joining of thick pipe (Dickenson, 1999). The use of mechanical joining methods often results in time lost to rework because of faulty assembly. This seems to stem from not having correct materials, and a tendency by the crafts to use the incorrect materials in lieu of obtaining the proper ones. This has been an ongoing problem in construction (Tucker, 1982). Codes and Standards Various codes and standards that are applicable to metal-pipe joining have been prepared by committees of leading engineering societies, trade associations, and standardization groups. These are generally written to cover requirements of design and welding only, rather than to provide detailed regulations for piping (AWS, 1973). The specifications of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section IX, are the requirements most widely recognized, not only within the industry and by insurance companies, but by state and municipal regulatory bodies (AWS, 1973).

American National Standards Institute The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) issued a joint code for pressure piping nearly 30 years ago with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Details follow: ASME/ANSI Code for Pressure Piping B31, Pressure Piping Code Sections: B31.1, Power Piping B31.2, Industrial Gas and Air Piping B31.3, Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping B31.4, Oil Transportation Piping B31.5, Refrigeration Piping B31.6, Chemical Industry Process Piping B31.7, Nuclear Power Piping B31.8, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems American Society of Mechanical Engineers The ASME has issued code to cover piping connected to boilers. Of the 11 sections of its Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, ASME cites the following as related to industrial piping: Section I, Power Boilers Section IV, Heating Boilers Section VI, Recommended Rules for Care and Operation of Heating Boilers Section IX, Qualification Standards for Welding and Brazing Procedures, Welders, Brazers, and Welding and Brazing Operators American Petroleum Institute In 1973, the American Petroleum Institute (API) issued a standard for field welding of pipeline, API Standard 1104, which includes weld-quality acceptability limits, inspection requirements, and welding-procedure test requirements.

3 Need for Advanced Pipe-Joining Technology

This chapter describes the motivation for the development and adoption of advanced pipe-joining technology in the construction industry, together with a discussion of the requirements that would have to be metand the benefits that would accruein the event of its use. Motivation for Advanced Pipe-Joining Technology Three major factors are forcing the construction industry to find alternatives for pipe joining: (1) the shortage of skilled labor, (2) the low productivity of existing joining methods, and (3) the reluctance of skilled laborers to adapt to new joining methods. Shortage of Skilled Labor The shortage of skilled welders is an issue of deep concern in the construction industry. Welders are offered lower compensation in construction than in other industries, so many competent welders do not even consider going into construction work. Low Productivity of Existing Methods Because of the low productivity of traditional joining methods in the construction industry, piping is one of the most inefficient aspects of construction work. As mentioned previously, some of the main causes of this low productivity are the variability of the joints produced and the high incidence of a need for rework. Reluctance of Skilled Laborers to Adapt to New Methods The reluctance of skilled laborers to adapt to new joining methods is one of the major factors that impede the construction industry to switch to improved joining processes. For example, the reason why stick welding has remained the dominant welding process is the

considerable degree of reluctance on the part of welders in the various construction trades to give other methods a try (Kapustay, 2002). Benefits/Requirements of Advanced Joining Technology Successful adoption of advanced joining technology for metal pipe could yield notable results, such as (1) significant reductions in both processing time and the need for skilled labor, (2) a decrease in costs associated with the joining process, and (3) improvements in the strengths of joints (Eager, 1990). To reap the benefits of new technology, however, certain requirements must be satisfied. The basic characteristics that any viable joining technique with a wide range of applicability must offer include the following: (1) production of strong and reliable joints, (2) suitability for small- and large-area bonding, (3) minimal need for surface preparation, and (4) suitability for use in a production environment (Silverman, 1989). The study by Thompson suggests six factors that are critical to the success of a pipe-joining operation: (1) pressuretemperature ratings, (2) material compatibility, (3) external loading, (4) operability, maintainability, and reliability, (5) long-term effects, and (6) cost. The following discussion of the impact of using advanced joining technology is broken down into four main categories: (1) structural integrity, (2) management concerns, (3) productivity factors, and (4) maintenance issues. Structural Integrity The structural integrity of a joint is determined by its ability to function properly within the overall system(s) of which it is a part. Structural integrity comprises three elements: (1) joint strength, (2) material compatibility, and (3) durability. Joint strength is a measure of the ability of a joint to sustain internal forces (such as internal pressure) and external forces (including shear forces, torsion, and bending) that are due to factors such as variations in temperature. Material compatibility is the degree to which the individual elements of a joint are able to function as a unit and resist the

10

tendency to corrode one another; this is important since corrosion can reduce the strength of a pipe joint (Thompson, 1998). Durability is the ability of a joint to retain its strength and serve its intended purpose over an extended period of time. Management Concerns Management concerns encompass all the factors that have an impact in terms of cost. Any given type of joining technology that is adopted has the potential to affect not only the direct costs of production, such as labor and equipment, but also indirect costs such as training of the welders. The costs that must be considered by management in choosing a joining technique can be classified as: (1) training, (2) materials, (3) equipment, and (4) labor. Productivity Factors Productivity factors consist of everything that affects the efficiency of the joining process. Productivity of any joining technique is dependent on the following properties: (1) processing time, (2) degree of rework, (3) ease of installation, (4) field usability, and (5) extent of surface preparation. Maintenance Issues The initial cost of producing a pipe joint is only part of its total cost. What needs to be considered are all the costs that accrue over the expected life of the plant, as well as the performance of the joints that are produced. Long-term effects due to erosion, fatigue, and creep, all of which can affect the performance of a pipe joint, may be significant. Maintenance issues can be grouped into two categories: (1) long-term performance reliability and (2) life-cycle cost.

11

4 Assessment of Advanced Joining Technologies The three predominant reasons for joining materials are to achieve function, to achieve structural efficiency, and to minimize costs (Messler, 1993). A number of different joining technologies exist, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Joining processes are usually divided into mechanical joining, welding, and adhesive bonding (fig. 2). A discussion of the characteristics of existing processes in these three categories, replete with examples of systems currently on the market, follows.

Figure 2. Taxonomy of Joining Technology

Mechanical Joining In mechanical joining, materials are joined by the use of fasteners (mechanical fasteners) or through an integral design feature (mechanical interlocking; Messler, 1993).

12

The mechanical joining process relies on residual stresses, which ensure the integrity of the joints (Brandon and Kaplan, 1997). These stresses may occur either in the fastening (mechanical fastener) or in the components themselves (mechanical interlocking; Brandon and Kaplan, 1997). Mechanical joining has several advantages, such as ease of installation and stability of the chemical composition of the materials. Because of significantly concentrated stresses resulting from this approach, however, mechanical joining has limited applicability (Messler, 1993). Mechanical Fastening Mechanical fastening, which applies interference forces to the elements, is divided into two categories: threaded fasteners and non-threaded fasteners. Threaded fasteners apply force using threads such as those in bolts, screws, or nuts, while non-threaded fasteners apply force using pin action such as that which takes place in rivets, pins, or keys (Messler, 1993). An example of a mechanical fastening process is the Pressfit System, developed by Victaulic , which has been widely used; this technology is used in piping installations and employs a system of Pressfit couplings, elbows, tees, reducers, and adapters (Victaulic, 2002). It incorporates Schedule 5 stainless product and carbon steel product from inch to 2 inches in length (Victaulic 2002). Currently, the Victaulic Pressfit System is available only on Schedule 5 pipe, and its use is limited to the conveyance of water because it cannot withstand pressures above 300 psi (Victaulic, 2002).

Figure 3. Pressfit System (Victaulic, 2002)

13

Mechanical Interlocking While mechanical fastening uses fasteners to apply force, mechanical interlocking exploits the interaction between the elements themselves (Messler, 1993). An example of a mechanical interlocking system is one developed by Permalok for joining steel pipes. As with the Victaulic Pressfit System, the Permalok Steel Pipe Joining System is easy to install and requires no field welding (Argent, Pecknold, and HajAli, 1999). Since the interference forces in a mechanical interlocking process act between the elements themselves, this system provides a simpler way to join pipes than does the Victaulic Pressfit System.

Figure 4. Permalok System (Argent et al., 1999)

Adhesive Bonding In adhesive bonding, materials are joined with adhesives that hold them together by means of surface-attachment attraction forces (Messler 1993). The adhesives are applied at room temperature to the surfaces to be bonded; they harden after curing and treatment such as heating or irradiation (Brandon and Kaplan, 1997). Adhesive bonding is divided into two categories: structural adhesives and non-structural adhesives. In structural adhesive bonding, the adhesives have the capacity to endure strengths close to the point at which the member collapses. Currently, structural adhesive bonding extends the limits of applicability of metal-to-metal bonding all the way up to those of structural bonding. Non-structural adhesive bonding is widely used in automobiles (Messler 1993).

14

The major benefits of adhesive bonding are convenience and relatively low cost. Adhesive bonding is difficult to use in the joining of pipe, however, because of the lack of a chemical bond between the composite and the adhesive (Lea, Stubblefield, and Pang, 1998). The low resistance of adhesive bonding techniques as a function of bending load is regarded as the most significant obstacle to its use (Lea, Stubblefield, and Pang, 1998). The magnitude of the resistance is just 30 percent of that which is obtained using buttweld methods, so failure is common at the composite-adhesive interface (Lea, Stubblefield, and Pang, 1998). The limitations of adhesive bonding have been lessened as a result of technology advances. In fact, 3M has developed a high-strength adhesive bonding technique that offers a normal tensile strength of 160 psi and dynamic shear strength of 100 psi. Highstrength adhesive bonding, developed by 3M, demonstrate the potential of this technique for use in a wide range of applications. They have been used in interior and exterior applications for the past 20 years. In many applications, these adhesives can replace mechanical fasteners while creating virtually invincible bonds. Unlike the stress points common to mechanical fasteners, high-strength bonding distributes the stress. They provide a clean, direct, and durable bonding of 24-oz. and 48-oz. copper panels, as well as 3/16-inch-thick cast-bronze medallions, to brass without the use of mechanical fasteners. The bond resists weathering and compensates for thermal expansion and contraction of the metals due to seasonal changes in temperature (3M, 2002).

Figure 5. Metal Joining Using High Adhesive Bonding (3M, 2002)

15

Welding According to Messler, welding is defined as a process in which materials of the same type or class are joined together through the formation of primary bonds under the action of heat, pressure, or the combined action of heat and pressure (Messler, 1993). The primary reason for welding being used so extensively as a joining process is that it offers high integrity of joints, a wide variety of processes and approaches, and considerable opportunities for automation. In spite of its many benefits, however, welding has serious disadvantages, such as high operating costs, a shortage of skilled labor, and lack of controllability of the process itself (Messler, 1993). Even though there are several classification systems for welding processes, welding is typically classified as either fusion welding or non-fusion welding, depending on whether or not significant melting is involved (Messler, 1993). Fusion Welding In fusion welding, the materials to be joined are heated to a temperature that lies above the melting points of both of them. Fusion welding processes include all those in which the melting or fusion of portions of substrates play a significant role in the formation of joining (Messler 1993). Fusion welding includes gas, arc, resistance, and high-energy beam welding; it requires significant melting, and usually produces a joint via the application of heat rather than pressure (Ageorges, Ye, and Hou, 2001) Arc Welding Arc welding uses an electric arc as a source of heat. The arc employed is created between an electrode and a workpiece. Arc welding is further subdivided into nonconsumable-electrode processes and consumable-electrode processes, depending on whether the electrode is intended to be permanent or not (Messler, 1993). One important feature of arc welding is the shielding that is done to prevent oxidation of the highly reactive molten weld metal, thereby helping to stabilize the arc (Messler, 1993).

16

Gastungsten arc welding and plasma arc welding are the predominant forms of nonconsumable-electrode arc welding. Gasmetal arc welding, shielded-metal arc welding, flux-cored arc welding, submerged-arc welding, electrogas welding, and electroslag welding are common forms of consumable-electrode arc welding (Messler, 1993). The processes reviewed here are (a) gastungsten arc welding, (b) shielded-metal arc welding and (c) gas-metal arc welding. Because of their strong potential for automation, these types of arc welding are the most heavily developed and most widely used in the industry. Gastungsten arc welding: Gastungsten arc welding, also referred to as tungsten inert-gas (TIG) welding, enables a wide range of ferrous alloys to be welded without the use of a flux, which is a chemical agent that is used to clean and activate the surface of a material in order to promote bonding. Gastungsten arc welding uses a permanent, nonconsumable tungsten electrode to create an arc (Messler, 1993). With this method, the arc burns between the tungsten electrode and the workpiece, both of which are shielded by the inert gas argon, thereby keeping out air and preventing contamination of the electrodes and the molten metal (Davies, 1993). The gastungsten arc welding process is good for welding thin sections and, because of its inherently low heat input, offers excellent bonding and better control of weld filler dilution by the substrate than many other processes. Its greatest limitation is its slow deposition rate (Messler, 1993).

Figure 6. GasTungsten Arc Welding (Messler, 1993)

17

Shielded-metal arc welding (stick welding): In shielded-metal arc welding, also referred to as stick welding, metal joining is brought about by the heat from an electric arc that is maintained between the tip of a consumable electrode and the surface of the base metal being welded. A core wire conducts the electric current from a constantcurrent power supply to the arc and delivers most of the filler metal to the joint (Messler, 1993). Advantages of shielded-metal arc welding are that it is simple and portable, and does not require expensive equipment. Like all manual processes, however, and to an even greater degree than most, shielded-metal arc welding requires considerable welding skill for best results. In addition, the operating cost of shielded-metal arc welding is higher than MIG welding because of the lower deposition rate achieved with the former (Messler, 1993).

Figure 7. Shielded-Metal Arc Welding (Messler, 1993)

Gas-metal arc welding: The gas-metal arc welding process, referred to as metal-inertgas (MIG) welding, utilizes an externally supplied inert shielding gas and a continuous solid-wire electrode. The consumable solid-wire electrode provides all of the filler to the weld joint. The externally supplied shielding gas guards the arc and the molten weld metal from penetration by air and offers desired arc uniqueness throughout its effect on 18

ionization (Messler, 1993). Gas-metal arc welding offers flexibility, versatility, and the potential for automation. In addition, it requires less welding skill and has a higher deposition rate than shielded-metal arc welding, thus making available a much faster process. Its greatest limitation is its high cost (Messler, 1993).

Figure 8. GasMetal Arc welding (Messler, 1993)

Gas Welding. Typically, gas welding includes any welding process in which the source of heat is a combustible fuel such as natural gas, propane, or butane. Oxyacetylene welding, which uses acetylene gas as fuel, is the most commonly applied gas welding technique (Messler, 1993). In this method, the oxygen is supplied from steel cylinders, and the acetylene from cylinders or an acetylene generator. Acetylene is passed to the blowtorch, where it is mixed with oxygen in approximately equal proportions and then passed into the tip to be burned (Davies, 1993). The oxyacetylene-gas welding process is simple and highly portable, and the equipment needed for its use is inexpensive. It is rather limited in its applicability,

19

however, on account of the small amount of energy provided by the source and the very nature of the process, which provides relatively little in the way of protective shielding and require high skill to weld (Messler, 1993). High-Energy Beam Welding High-energy beam welding, which uses a high-intensity beam as the heat source, is subdivided into two categories: electron-beam welding and laser-beam welding. In these two processes, heat is generated from collisions of electrons and photons, respectively, with the workpieces. High-energy beam welding is quite expensive, yet the joint fit is excellent, on account of the fact that the process takes place autogenously (Messler, 1993). Electron-beam welding of pipe was first developed in the late 1970s, but it was reported that welds exhibited poor mechanical properties on account of the high-vacuum requirement. Advances in other industrial sectors have since led to the ability to form an electron beam in the atmosphere (Blackman and Borling, 2000). Kawasaki Heavy Industries has developed an internal electron-beam welding process in which 30 in. 0.76 in. pipe can be welded in the 5G position in only one pass (Hara et al., 2000).

Figure 9. Electron-Beam Welding (Messler, 1993)

20

Resistance Welding Resistance welding is a process that takes advantage of a workpieces inherent resistance to the flow of electric current. As current is passed through the parts to be welded, the parts resist the passage of the current, thus generating the welding heat. A force is simultaneously applied, and the parts are joined together. Unlike other forms of welding, resistance welding does not utilize additional materials such as fluxes and filler rods. The weld nugget is formed directly from the base materials (Messler, 1993). Usually, resistance welding is used for joining overlapping sheets or plates. However, the rapid rate of heating, extremely short welding time, and rapid rate of cooling allow resistance welding to be used wherever heat input must be minimized, such as in joining refractory metals and alloys. The major types of resistance welding are resistance spot welding, resistance seam welding, projection welding, flash welding, upset welding, and percussion welding (Messler, 1993). Flash butt welding: In flash butt welding, heating at the faying surfaces (that is, the

surfaces of the mating parts) is generated by a combination of resistance and arcing. Once the faying surfaces are heated to the welding temperature under the action of an applied current, force is applied immediately and a weld is produced. Molten metal is expelled, the hot metal is plastically upset, and a flash of frozen expelled metal is formed (Davies, 1993). Flash butt welding was successfully developed for pipelines, and the process was accepted for inclusion in the API standard. However, it has not been commercialized, because of the unsatisfactory mechanical properties of the available materials (Blackman and Dorling, 2000).

21

Figure 10. Flash Butt Welding (Davies, 1993)

Non-Fusion Welding Non-fusion welding is defined as a welding process that occurs through plastic deformation by the application of pressure, or a combination of heat and pressure, at a temperature that lies below the melting point of the base material and without the addition of a filler that melts (Messler, 1993). In non-fusion welding, the base metals are heated but not significantly melted, and melting is not directly responsible for the joining process (Messler, 1993). In this regard, non-fusion welding has an advantage over fusion welding, in that the heat-affected zone is kept to a minimum, resulting in negligible alterations in the characteristics of the materials involved. Non-fusion welding is divided into four categories with respect to the source of energy: cold pressure, hot pressure, friction, and diffusion welding (Messler, 1993). Cold Pressure Welding Cold pressure welding is a method of joining sections of metal together by the application of pressure but using no heat or flux (Davies, 1993). Cold welding uses substantial pressure at room temperature to produce joining of materials through plastic deformation at the weld. It is of limited applicability, however, because it requires extremely clean surfaces and high pressures and it is difficult to accomplish consistently.

22

However, cold welding provides a valuable option for joining materials in the environment of outer space (Messler, 1993). Hot Pressure Welding Hot pressure welding uses heat and pressure as an energy source to accomplish the joining of materials through plastic deformation. Hot pressure welding includes forge welding, hot roll welding, and explosion welding (Messler, 1993). A discussion of explosion welding, which is the dominant form of hot pressure welding, follows. Explosion welding: In explosion welding, the cores of the workpieces remain cold, but at the surfaces they undergo local heating that is both significant and rapid. Air between the workpieces is squeezed out at supersonic speeds in order to achieve high temperatures and yield a metallurgical bond (Messler, 1993). Explosion welding is very successfully applied to the welding of tubes, either for joining one tube to another or for joining a tube to a tube plate, as well as for welding plugs into leaking tubes in order to seal the leaks (Davies, 1993). The applicability of explosion welding is limited, because the weld bondline is very distorted locally (Messler, 1993).

Figure 11. Explosion Welding (Messler, 1993)

23

Friction Welding Friction welding relies on friction to cause the heating that is needed to produce a weld. The friction is created by the use of machines that are designed to convert mechanical energy into heat at the joint that is to be welded. In friction welding, materials are joined under the compressive-force contact of workpieces moving relative to one another, either linearly or in rotation (Messler, 1993). A description of ultrasonic weldingone type of friction welding, albeit an exceptional form of itfollows. TWI developed radial friction welding (RFW) for the specific purpose of welding pipe. This method, in which a radial compression ring is rotated between two stationary pipes, overcomes some of the handling problems that tend to crop up with other types of friction welding. The ring is rotated under compression; as a result, heat is generated, and a weld is created between the ring and the two pipes (Gainand et al., 2000). Although this technology has been available for some twenty years, the RFW process has not been commercially exploited, in part due to the high cost of the equipment. However, its potential for use in the joining of titanium alloy risers for the offshore oil industry looks rather promising. Affordable RFW equipment will have to be developed, however, before the advantages of this process can be used to a significant extent in commercial applications (TWI, 2002).

Figure 12. Friction Welding (Messler, 1993)

24

Diffusion Welding Diffusion welding is a process that relies on heat and pressure to accelerate diffusion and produce joining through mass transport in the solid state (Messler, 1993). Usually, the solid-state bonding process based on the combined application of pressure and heat is also termed diffusion welding (Brandon and Kaplan, 1997). In diffusion welding, two surfaces are brought together under load. Under conditions of both high temperature and high pressure, there is considerable plastic flow in the region of greatest surface asperity, which continues until the interfaces have achieved a high degree of conformity with each other. At this point, the joint will have achieved considerable strength as a result of metallic bonding (Schwartz, 1979). Diffusion welding offers precise joining, with no fusion zone and no heat-affected zone. However, its use is limited, because of the expense of the materials involved and the small dimensional tolerance with which the pieces/components must comply (Messler, 1993).

Figure 13. Diffusion Weld Riveted (Messler, 1993)

Brazing and Soldering A major characteristic of brazing and soldering is that metals are joined without changing the composition of the workpieces, because the base metal is not melted (Bowditch, 1997).

25

Brazing is a type of welding in which the joint is heated to a suitable temperature in the presence of a filler material having a liquidus that is above 840F and yet below the solidus of the base metal. (The liquidus of a pure metal is the lowest temperature at which it is completely liquid, while its solidus is the highest temperature at which it is completely solid.) Bonding is accomplished without melting the substrate (Messler 1993). Brazing offers advantages such as the negligible effect it has on the composition of the base materials, the ability to join large structures under relatively low-stress conditions, and its high potential for automation. However, brazing is of limited applicability, on account of the low melting point of the filler (Messler, 1993). Soldering is another type of welding that requires a filler that melts and a substrate that does not. It is distinguished from brazing by the fact that the fillers liquidus is below 840F. Soldering offers almost the same advantages as brazing, but because of the weakness of the soldered joint, it is of limited applicability (Messler, 1993). Welding Automation The advantage of using welding automation to improve productivity has long been realized in the manufacturing industry. Besides improved productivity, welding automation offers reliability and lower labor costs, and it eliminates variability. One of the main reasons for the automation of welding is productivity, which is much higher in automated welding processes than in manual systems. In many cases, welding with a robot is two to five times faster than other methods (Woodnam, 2001). The shortage of skilled welders has become a matter of deep concern in the construction industry. Because welders are offered lower compensation in construction than in other industries, many competent welders do not consider going into construction work. In light of this skilled-welder shortage, welding automation is one of the best alternatives to current welding practice (Eager, 1990). Welding automation is divided into two categories: semi-automatic and fully automatic. In semi-automatic welding, a weld controller is involved in the welding process, to control the motion of the torch and the parts and to adjust the welding 26

parameter. Fully automatic welding uses machines to index the part or torch into position and to monitor the quality of the welds. A discussion of the characteristics of orbital TIG welding and MIG welding, which are the dominant automatic welding methods, follows. Orbital TIG Welding Orbital TIG welding has been applied in many industries, such as aerospace, boiler tubes, nuclear piping, offshore applications, semiconductors, and tube/pipefitting. This is because of its advantages over other joining technologies in the way of productivity, quality, consistency, and versatility (Mannion and Heinzman, 1999). Orbital TIG welding uses the gastungsten arc welding process as the source of the electric arc that melts the base material and forms the weld. Orbital TIG welding systems include a power supply and an orbital weldhead. The power supply/control system sets the welding parameter according to the specific program in use, which is stored in the control system. In orbital TIG welding systems, welding parameters are stored in a controlling computer for a variety of applications; the computer sets specific welding parameters for specific applications (Mannion and Heinzman, 1999). An orbital weldhead rotates an electrode and an electric arc around the joint to be welded, with the angle of rotation as welding parameter. The power supply/control system also supplies the arc welding current, switches the shielding gas, and sets the power that drives the motor in the weldhead (Mannion and Heinzman, 1999). Standard enclosed orbital weldheads are used in welding tubes with a diameter of 1/16 inch to 6 inches, with a wall thickness of up to .154 inch. Open orbital heads are used in tubes of larger diameter and wall thickness (Mannion and Heinzman, 1999).

27

Figure 14. Enclosed Orbital Weldhead (Mannion and Heinzman, 1999)

Mechanized Gas-Metal Arc (MIG) Welding Mechanized gas-metal arc (MIG) welding is an important process in welding fabrication practice because of advantages such as the consistently high quality of the joints and the great degree of compliance with radiographic standards for welds that are to be performed at high welding speeds (Thompson, 1998). The MIG torchesusually air cooled, even for currents up to 450 Aare carried on welding heads connected to the control system (Thompson, 1998). For repair work on thin sheets, as in the motor trade, semi-automatic MIG welding has replaced the traditional oxyacetylene methods because of the lower heat input required for the former. For larger fabrication work, use of mechanical handling equipment with automatic MIG welding heads enables a reduction in the amount of skilled labor employed in the joining process (Davies, 1993). Mechanized gas-metal arc welding is the most widely used welding process for largediameter transmission pipelines in the U.S (Blackman and Dorling, 2000).

28

Figure 15. MIG Welding (Davies, 1993).

29

5 Evaluation Process for Advanced Joining Technologies This chapter provides a discussion of an evaluation process that can be used to determine the applicability of each of the various joining technologies. In earlier chapters, the major categories of joining methods were described, and factors that have a significant impact on the applicability of those techniques to the joining of pipe were highlighted. Here, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used in order to weight the various factors according to their degree of impact. Factor-Weighting Methodology In Chapter 3, various factors that should be considered in selecting joining technology for piping in the construction industry were identified. Not all of these factors are equally important, however, in terms of their potential impact on the joining of pipe. Certain factors are higher in the hierarchical order than others with respect to their relative importance. Therefore, it is necessary to weight all of the factors relative to one other. AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a powerful and flexible decision-making process for establishing priorities among quantitative and qualitative sets of criteria by using data and the users knowledge or experience as input (Satty, 1990). The process has been formalized by Satty and used in a wide variety of problem areas. The AHP process involves the structuring of a problem according to a primary objective and then proceeding to secondary levels of objectives. Once the hierarchies have been established, comparison matrices are constructed (Satty, 1983). Factor-Weighting Process By the use of AHP, a weighting of the major factors that contribute to decisions regarding the use of various advanced joining technologies is derived. The steps of the AHP weighting process are given below (Tucker, 2001): 30

Step 1: Establish the hierarchical structure in the following way: First, list the major categories across the page from left to right. Then, for each of the major categories, list its subcategories below it (fig. 16).

Figure 16. Hierarchical Structure

Step 2: Compare the four major categories in pairwise fashion, ranking each pair on a scale of 1 to 5 according to the criteria indicated below, and then fill in the upper half of a matrix with the results. Then, for each of the major categories, use the same procedure to compare its subcategories in pairwise fashion. An example of one possible outcome of step 2 for a comparison of the subcategories within the management category is given in Table 5. 1: The two factors contribute equally 2: One factor is slightly favored over the other

31

3: One factor is moderate favored over the other 4: One factor is strongly favored over the other 5: One factor dominates

Table 5 Example of Step 2 in Factor Weighting Process Training Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Material Cost Training Cost 1 Labor Cost 0.20 1.00 Equipment Cost 0.25 3.00 1.00 Material Cost 0.33 4.00 3.00 1.00

Step 3: Now complete each of the matrices constructed in Step 2 as follows: First, compute the reciprocals of the entries in the cells in the upper half of the matrix, and place the resulting numbers into the appropriate cells in the lower half of the matrix. Once that has been done, add a new row at the bottom of the matrix, sum up the entries in each column, and fill in the cells of the new bottom row of the matrix with those sums. Now, add a new column to the matrix, to the right of the existing rightmost column. For each row of the matrix, compute the sum of the quantities ai/bi where ai is the entry in the ith column of the row and bi is the ith column sum. As the computation for each row is completed, place the resulting row sum in the appropriate cell of the new column of the matrix. The example from step 2 is worked out in Table 6.

Table 6 Example of Step 3 in Factor Weighting Process Training Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Material Cost Column Sum Training Cost 1.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 13.00 Labor Cost 0.20 1.00 0.33 0.25 1.78 Equipment Cost 0.25 3.00 1.00 0.33 4.58 Material Cost 0.33 4.00 4.00 1.00 8.33 Row Sum 0.28 2.08 1.07 0.56 4.00

Step 4: Compute a priority vector from the column of row sums by normalizing the entries in the far-right column to the number in the bottom row. The example from step 3 is worked out in Table 7.

32

Table 7 Example of Step 4 in Factor Weighting Process Row Sum 0.28 2.08 1.07 0.56 4.00 Normalization 0.07 0.52 0.27 0.24 1.00

Step 5: Perform a consistency check on the comparison scales. The consistency ratio should be smaller than 10%. CR = 0.04 (CI) / 0.9 (Random Consistency Index) = 4.7% The CR is 4.7%, indicating a good consistency is reached. Finalizing the Weighting Process Once the factor-weighting process is completed, the weight for each factor is finalized by multiplying its weight by the weight for its category. For instance, if the weight for the structure category is 0.18 and the initial weight for joint strength is 0.61, then the final weight for joint strength is (0.18)(0.61) = 0.110. The completed score sheet for pipe joining overall is given in Table 8.
Table 8 Pipe Joining Score Sheet Category Structure Weight 0.18 Subcategory Joint Strength Material Compatibility Durability Training Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Material Cost Processing Time Rework Reduction Field Usability Ease of Installation Surface Preparation Performance Reliability Life-Cycle Cost Weight 0.61 0.27 0.12 0.07 0.52 0.27 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.40 0.13 0.08 0.67 0.33 Relative Weight 0.110 0.049 0.022 0.028 0.208 0.108 0.056 0.072 0.102 0.102 0.022 0.035 0.067 0.033

Management

0.4

Productivity

0.32

Maintenance

0.1

33

Analyzing the Weighted Factors The weighted factors are displayed in descending order of their absolute weights, as shown in Figure 17. The factors with the highest weights may be regarded as the most important factors in making decisions about the use of advanced joining technology. The figure shows that the most important factors turn out to be labor cost, field usability, joint strength, and equipment cost.

Labor Cost Field Usability Joint Strength Equipment Cost Rework Reduction Performance Reliability Material Cost Processing Time Material Compatiblity Ease of Installation Life-Cycle Cost Training Cost Surface Preparation Durability 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250

Figure17. Ranking of Weighted Factors

Evaluation Model Now an evaluation model is established and is based on the weights of the various factors in the table just constructed. First, each factor is divided into three categories high, medium, and lowand then the various joining technologies are classified on the basis of their impacts on that factor. Once the different joining technologies are assessed relative to each factor, a weighted score is computed for each, and the joining technology with the highest total score is the one of greatest applicability.

34

Table 9 Evaluation Model for Pipe Joining

Category Structure Integrity

Weight 0.18

Subcategory Joint Strength

Weight 0.61

Relative Weight 0.110

Material Compatibility

0.27

0.049

Durability

0.12

0.022

Management Concern

0.4

Training Cost

0.07

0.028

Labor Cost

0.52

0.208

Equipment Cost

0.27

0.108

Material Cost

0.14

0.056

Productivity Factor

0.32

Processing Time

0.14

0.056

Rework Reduction

0.24

0.077

Field Usability

0.4

0.128

Ease of Installation

0.13

0.042

Surface Preparation

0.08

0.026

Maintenance Issue

0.1

Performance Reliability Life-Cycle Cost

0.67

0.067

0.33

0.033

Level of Impact High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low

Weight 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3 1 0.7 0.3

Weighted Score 0.110 0.077 0.033 0.049 0.034 0.015 0.022 0.015 0.006 0.028 0.020 0.008 0.208 0.146 0.062 0.108 0.076 0.032 0.056 0.039 0.017 0.056 0.039 0.017 0.077 0.054 0.023 0.128 0.090 0.038 0.042 0.029 0.012 0.026 0.018 0.008 0.067 0.047 0.020 0.033 0.023 0.010

35

6 Evaluation of Advanced Joining Technologies This chapter provides a brief discussion and assessment of the applicability of each of the various joining technologies to the joining of pipe. Each joining technology is assessed by use of the evaluation model, and then the final results are presented. Mechanical Joining In general, mechanical joining is uncomplicated and effective, requiring little mechanical skill to install. Because of the requirement of using thick pipe in this process and the high cost of the materials involved, however, its applicability to pipe joining is limited. In addition, many situations do not readily lend themselves to mechanical joining. An assessment of the applicability of this method to pipe joining is given in Table 10.

Table 10 Assessment of Mechanical Joining Major Category Joining Methods Mechanical Mechanical Fastening Interlocking Joint Strength 0.077 (High) 0.077 (High) Material Compatibility 0.034 (Med) 0.034 (Med) Durability 0.015 (Med) 0.015 (Med) Training Cost 0.028 (High) 0.028 (High) Labor Cost 0.208 (High) 0.208 (High) Equipment Cost 0.108 (High) 0.108 (High) Material Cost 0.017 (Low) 0.017 (Low) Processing Time 0.056 (High) 0.056 (High) Rework 0.054 (Med) 0.054 (Med) Field Usability 0.128 (High) 0.128 (High) Ease of Installation 0.029 (Med) 0.029 (Med) Surface Preparation 0.026 (High) 0.026 (High) Performance Reliability 0.047 (Med) 0.047 (Med) Life-Cycle Cost 0.023 (Med) 0.023 (Med) 0.85 0.85 Subcategory

Structure Integrity Management Concern

Productivity Factor

Maintenance Issue Total Score

36

Adhesive Bonding Currently, adhesive bonding is used for many applications because of its low cost and convenience of use. In addition, it is of sufficiently high strength that it can be used in the assembly of airplane parts. The low resistance of adhesive-bonding techniques as a function of bending load, however, has been regarded as the most significant obstacle to the use of adhesive bonding (Lea, Stubblefield, and Pang, 1998). This limitation has been lessened with technology advances in adhesive bonding. In fact, 3M has developed a high-strength adhesive bonding technique that offers a normal tensile strength of 160 psi and dynamic shear strength of 100 psi. Adhesive bonding has great potential and soon may become one of the best alternatives to current pipe-joining methods. Table 11 contains an evaluation of the applicability of adhesive bonding to pipe joining.
Table 11 Assessment of Adhesive Bonding Joining Method Major Category Structure Integrity Management Concern Subcategory Joint Strength Material Compatibility Durability Training Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Material Cost Processing time Rework Field Usability Ease of Installation Surface Preparation Performance Reliability Life-Cycle Cost Adhesive Bonding 0.077 (Med) 0.049 (High) 0.015 (Med) 0.028 (High) 0.208 (High) 0.108 (High) 0.039 (Med) 0.056 (High) 0.077 (High) 0.128 (High) 0.042 (High) 0.008 (Low) 0.047 (Med) 0.033 (High) 0.915

Productivity Factor

Maintenance Issue Total Score

37

Welding Fusion Welding Arc Welding: In general, arc welding techniques have been widely used for pipe joining for decades, and still dominate this area because of their good track record for durability and performance. However, various industries are reluctant to use these methods, because of the requirements for highly skilled labor and the inconsistent quality of the welds, so they are forced to find alternative technologies. Among arc welding methods, stick welding is the most popular joining method in the construction industry, even though it offers low productivity compared to gastungsten arc welding (TIG) and gasmetal arc welding (MIG) (Kapustay, 2002). In spite of the advantage that they have to offer in terms of performance, however, MIG and TIG welding suffer from some of the same problems as stick welding, such as a shortage of highly skilled labor. Another factor that contributes to the relatively low degree of adoption of MIG and TIG welding in the construction industry is the reluctance of welders to switch to new techniques (Kapustay, 2002). Gas Welding: The oxyacetylene-gas welding process is simple and highly portable, and the equipment needed for its use is inexpensive. The main drawbacks to its use in pipe joining in the construction industry may be its low productivity and the need for highly skilled labor. High-Energy Beam Welding: High-energy beam welding offers excellent performance, so it is extensively used in joint-fabrication applications that require high accuracy in terms of placement of the weld. Advances made in electron-beam welding, one of the high-energy beam welding techniques, have eliminated the need to work in vacuum, so this method can now be used in the atmosphere. Research on high-energy beam welding is ongoing. Resistance Welding: Resistance welding is a very useful joining technology because of benefits such as short processing time, mechanizability of the process, and high

38

performance. It is widely used in the manufacturing industry for the joining of overlapping sheets or plates. Flash butt welding, one form of resistance welding, is recognized as a very satisfactory method for fabrication of pipe (Thompson, 1998). It offers good quality and productivity because of its automated, remote-control system. However, it requires large equipment, so its applicability is limited to shop fabrication. Table 12 provides an assessment of the applicability of various types of fusion welding to pipe joining.

Table 12 Assessment of Fusion Welding Major Category Subcategory Stick Welding 0.11 (High) 0.049 (High) 0.022 (High) 0.008 (Low) 0.062 (Low) 0.032 (Low) 0.039 (Med) 0.017 (Low) 0.023 (Low) 0.128 (High) 0.012 (Low) 0.026 (High) 0.047 (Med) 0.01 (Low) 0.593 Joining Methods OxyGas Welding 0.11 (High) 0.049 (High) 0.022 (High) 0.008 (Low) 0.062 (Low) 0.032 (Low) 0.039 (Med) 0.017 (Low) 0.031 (Low) 0.128 (High) 0.012 (Low) 0.026 (High) 0.047 (Med) 0.01 (Low) 0.593 Electron Beam Welding 0.11 (High) 0.049 (High) 0.022 (High) 0.028 (High) 0.208 (High) 0.032 (Low) 0.039 (Med) 0.056 (High) 0.077 (High) 0.038 (Low) 0.029 (Med) 0.026 (High) 0.067 (High) 0.023 (Med) 0.804 Flash Butt Welding 0.11 (High) 0.049 (High) 0.022 (High) 0.028 (High) 0.208 (High) 0.032 (Low) 0.039 (Med) 0.056 (High) 0.077 (High) 0.038 (Low) 0.029 (Med) 0.026 (High) 0.067 (High) 0.023 (Med) 0.804

Structure Integrity

Joint Strength Material Compatibility Durability

Management Concern

Training Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Material Cost Processing Time Rework Field Usability Ease of Installation Surface Preparation Performance Reliability Life-Cycle Cost

Productivity Factor

Maintenance Issue Total Score

TIG 0.11 (High) 0.049 (High) 0.022 (High) 0.008 (Low) 0.062 (Low) 0.032 (Low) 0.039 (Med) 0.039 (Med) 0.054 (Med) 0.128 (High) 0.012 (Low) 0.026 (High) 0.047 (Med) 0.01 (Low) 0.638

MIG 0.11 (High) 0.049 (High) 0.022 (High) 0.008 (Low) 0.062 (Low) 0.032 (Low) 0.039 (Med) 0.039 (Med) 0.054 (Med) 0.128 (High) 0.012 (Low) 0.026 (High) 0.047 (Med) 0.01 (Low) 0.638

39

Non-Fusion Welding Explosion Welding: Explosion welding, one of the hot pressure welding techniques, has been successfully applied to the welding of tubes, either for joining one tube to another or for joining a tube to a tube plate. It has also been used for welding plugs into leaking tubes in order to seal the leaks (Davies, 1993). Friction welding: Friction welding has several advantages, such as ease of use, low cost, and speed of processing. In addition, it can be operated in the field, on account of the simplicity of the process. TWI developed radial friction welding for the specific purpose of welding pipe; this technique overcomes some of the handling problems associated with other types of friction welding. In view of its high cost and the need to use very heavy machinery that has large hydraulic and power requirements, however, radial friction welding has seen relatively little use, as it is best suited to the shop environment (Kapustay, 2002). Diffusion welding: Diffusion welding is a very precise joining process, with no fusion zone and no heat zone, so it is an ideal joining technology. However, the high cost of the materials used with this method militates against its applicability (Messler, 1993). The suitability of various types of non-fusion welding for pipe joining is summarized in Table 13.

40

Table 13. Assessment of Non-Fusion Welding Major Category Subcategory Explosion Welding 0.11 (High) 0.049 (High) 0.022 (High) 0.02 (Med) 0.146 (Med) 0.032 (Low) 0.039 (Med) 0.056 (High) 0.077 (High) 0.038 (Low) 0.012 (Low) 0.008 (Low) 0.067 (High) 0.023 (Med) 0.679 Joining Methods Friction Diffusion Welding Welding 0.11 0.11 (High) (High) 0.049 0.049 (High) (High) 0.022 0.022 (High) (High) 0.02 0.02 (Med) (Med) 0.146 0.146 (Med) (Med) 0.032 0.032 (Low) (Low) 0.039 0.039 (Med) (Med) 0.056 0.056 (High) (High) 0.077 0.077 (High) (High) 0.090 0.038 (Med) (Low) 0.029 0.012 (Med) (Low) 0.018 0.008 (Med) (Low) 0.067 0.067 (High) (High) 0.023 0.023 (Med) (Med) 0.805 0.679

Structure Integrity

Joint Strength Material Compatibility Durability

Management Concern

Training Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Material Cost

Productivity Factor

Processing Time Rework Field Usability Ease of Installation Surface Preparation Performance Reliability Life-Cycle Cost

Maintenance Issue Total Score

Brazing and Soldering Brazing and soldering are widely used in the manufacturing industry because of their utility in joining large structures under relatively low-stress conditions and their high potential for automation (Messler, 1993). Because of the low melting point of the filler metal used in these processes and the weakness of the joints produced, brazing and soldering are generally used in low-pressure pipe work. An assessment of the applicability of brazing and soldering to pipe joining is presented in Table 14.

41

Table 14 Assessment of Brazing and Soldering Major Category Subcategory Joining Method Brazing and Soldering 0.033 (Low) 0.034 (Med) 0.022 (High) 0.02 (Med) 0.146 (Med) 0.076 (Med) 0.039 (Med) 0.039 (Med) 0.054 (Med) 0.09 (Med) 0.029 (Med) 0.026 (High) 0.067 (High) 0.023 (Med) 0.698

Structure Integrity Management Concern

Productivity Factor

Maintenance Issue Total Score

Joint Strength Material Compatibility Durability Training Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Material Cost Processing Time Rework Field Usability Ease of Installation Surface Preparation Performance Reliability Life-Cycle Cost

Welding Automation Welding automation is an emerging technology that has already been successfully employed in the manufacturing industry. Benefits such as improvements in productivity and reliability, reductions in labor costs, and elimination of variability in weld quality have been realized through welding automation. In addition, the shortage of skilled welders in the construction industry may force companies to use welding automation in the near future. Despite its high initial cost and its lack of availability under certain circumstances and environments, the advantages of using welding automation in pipe joining will eventually become evident to those in the construction industry. Orbital TIG welding is one of best alternatives to current practice in the construction industry because it offers highly productivity and the process is simple and portable. Mechanized MIG welding is more suitable for the shop environment than the field environment because of the heavy equipment that is required for its use.

42

An assessment of the applicability of welding automation to pipe joining is presented in Table 15.
Table 15 Assessment of Welding Automation Major Category Subcategory Joining Methods Orbital Arc Welding 0.11 (High) 0.049 (High) 0.022 (High) 0.02 (Med) 0.208 (High) 0.032 (Low) 0.039 (Med) 0.056 (High) 0.077 (High) 0.09 (Med) 0.042 (High) 0.026 (High) 0.067 (High) 0.033 (High) 0.915 Mechanized MIG Welding 0.11 (High) 0.049 (High) 0.022 (High) 0.02 (Med) 0.208 (High) 0.032 (Low) 0.039 (Med) 0.056 (High) 0.077 (High) 0.038 (Med) 0.042 (High) 0.026 (High) 0.067 (High) 0.033 (High) 0.819

Structure Integrity

Joint Strength Material Compatibility Durability

Management Concern

Training Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Material Cost

Productivity Factor

Processing Time Rework Field Usability Ease of Installation Surface Preparation Performance Reliability Life-Cycle Cost

Maintenance Issue Total Score

Conclusion of Evaluation The applicability of each of the various joining technologies to the joining of pipe has been determined on the basis of the evaluation described in this chapter. According to the results of this evaluation, the processes that are of greatest applicability to pipe joining are orbital arc welding and adhesive bonding.

43

Orbital Arc welding Adhesive Bonding Mechanical Interlocking Mechanical Fastening Mechanized MIG welding Friction welding Flash butt welding Electron beam welding Brazing and Soldering Diffusion welding Explosion welding Gas-metal arc welding Gas-tungsten arc welding Oxyacetylen gas welding Stick welding 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 18. Ranking of Applicability of Advanced Joining Technologies to Pipe Joining

44

7 Business Analysis Market Analysis for Pipe Welding in the Construction Industry In 2002, the American Welding Society (AWS) released its Welding-Related Expenditures, Investments, and Productivity Measurement Report, which states that welding expenditures represent a substantial contribution to the U.S. economy. This report also states that the construction sector alone spent over $10 billion on welding in 2000 (Table 16) and that this constituted over 30 percent of the total expenditure on welding in the U.S. that year. Though this report does not provide figures for pipe welding per se, it does indicate that the total cost of industrial construction (including factors other than pipe welding) amounted to about $30 billion in 2000. This figure would be even higher if costs associated with welding of pipe for purposes other than industrial buildings, such as in the construction of pipe to be used in pipeline construction and commercial buildings, were taken into account.
Table 16 Welding Expenditures in 2000
Materials & Consumables ($1 M) 201 40 12 75 66 360 509 1,264 Other WeldingRelated Costs ($1 M) 300 48 4 115 11 69 446 993

Industrial Buildings Commercial Buildings Bridge & Tunnel Construction Pipeline Construction Structural Steel Erection Fabricated Structural Metal Products Miscellaneous Construction Totals Source: AWS (2002)

Labor ($1 M) 2,526 831 17 191 210 2,191 2,394 8,358

Total ($1 M) 3,027 919 32 381 287 2,620 3,349 10,615

Estimation of the Cost of Welding in the Construction of the CII Model Plant In the previous section, the total market cost of pipe joining was identified. In this section, the direct cost of pipe welding for the CII Model Plant is estimated.

45

One factor that figures heavily in the analysis of the impact of applying new technology to the joining of pipe in the construction industry is the ratio of pipe welding costs to the total cost of a construction project. An estimate of that ratio, based on the scope of the CII Model Plant project and data from R.S. Means, is given here. CII Model Plant. The Model Plant is a hypothetical installation valued at about $85 million that is to be constructed in 78 weeks. The scale and schedule are typical of industrial projects. Nine major components of a typical plant (refraction unit, tank farm, compressor unit, two turbine generators, underground piping, pipe bridge, and complete civil site package) were assembled to form the model plant. Basic Assumptions about Welding Costs. The estimates of welding costs presented in this paper are based on the following data, which combine the scope of the CII Model Plant project with basic data on labor and equipment costs taken from R.S. Means (2002): Number of joints: 12,514 (CII Model Plant Project) Bare wage of skilled welder: $173 per joint (R.S. Means, 2002) Equipment cost: $20.50 per joint (R.S. Means, 2002)

Labor Cost for Welding. The bare wage of a skilled welder is $173 per joint (R.S. Means, 2002), based on use of 12 and schedule 40 steel pipe. Once overhead is calculated, the cost of labor rises to about $251 per joint (R.S. Means, 2002). Thus the total labor cost of welding in the construction of the CII Model Plant is about $3.14 million (table 17).

46

Table 17 Labor Cost for Welding, CII Model Plant Bare Wage of Skilled Welder: $173 per joint Workers Compensation Insurance Average for U.S.: 18.7% Incremented Employee Cost per Joint Average Fixed Overhead Federal and State Unemployment Insurance Costs: 7.0% Social Security Taxes (FICA): 7.65% Builders Risk Insurance Costs: 0.3% Public Liability Costs: 1.55% Incremented Employee Cost per Joint Other Overhead Costs Average for U.S.: 10% (depends on factors such as the contractors annual volume and staff requirements) Incremented Employee Cost per Joint Number of Joints Total Labor Cost Sources: R.S. Means (2002) and CII Model Plant project $173.00 $32.35 $205.35 $12.11 $13.23 $0.52 $2.68 $233.89

$17.30 $251.19 12,514 $3.14 M

Equipment Cost for Welding. The equipment cost for welding is about $26.50 per joint, based on use of 12 and schedule 40 steel pipe (R.S. Means, 2001). Therefore, if welding were the only technique used for all the welding work done on the CII Model Plant, the total equipment cost of welding in the construction of the CII Model Plant would come to about $330,000 (Table 18).
Table 18 Equipment Cost for Welding Cost per Joint Number of Joints Total Equipment Cost Sources: R.S. Means (2002) and CII Model Plant project $26.50 12,514 $330 k

Total Direct Cost of Welding. The total direct cost of pipe joining for the CII Model Plant project is about $3.47 million (Table 19). Since the total construction cost of the project is $85 million, the cost of pipe joining makes up more than 4 percent of the total.
Table 19 Total Direct Cost of Stick Welding Wages Equipment Cost Total Cost $3.14 M $330 k $3.47 M

47

8 Recommendations for Future Research Several advanced technologies that could be applied to the joining of metal pipe in the construction industry and that are particularly likely to be of interest to CII members are recommended below. A brief discussion is given of each of the recommended techniques, including an identification of potentially interested parties; a classification of the payoff period, the level of risk, and the potential for success; and a suggested path for future research. New MechanicalAdhesive Bonding Technology Description The Welding Institute in the U.K. has done research on a hybrid joining system, known as AdhFASTTM, in which adhesives and fasteners are combined. The point of developing such a hybrid system is to exploit the desirable properties of each of the two components separately, such as the rapidity and ease of use of fasteners and the significant sealing ability and high fatigue resistance of adhesives. According to Kellar and Jones (2000), the AdhFASTTM system offers the following advantages: Little or no external jigging Simplified dry assembly, which enables greater precision in pinpointing the area where the weld is to be made and in performing checks of tolerance levels Protection of pre-treated surfaces (prior to bonding) from excessive atmospheric exposure and operator contamination Simplification of the process for applying the adhesive Ability to deal with complex joint geometries

48

Greater control of the bond line and greater precision in the metering of the amount of adhesive within the joint Potential for more accurate control of the fillet profile Adaptability to automation (semi or full)

The use of adhesive bonding as a primary structural joining method is often looked upon with skepticism, but near-total confidence can result if the adhesive is employed in a highly controlled manner that yields an elevated level of quality assurance. Hybrid joining systems that employ a combination of adhesive bonding and fasteners do indeed have the potential for engendering a high level of confidence. Interested Parties 3M may be one of the major interested parties when it comes to using mechanicaladhesive technology. Currently, 3M is working on developing techniques for highstrength adhesive bonding and may expedite research on hybrid systems (3M, 2002). Also, the Welding Institute (TWI) may have an interest in developing hybrid systems that could be applied to the joining of pipe. Payoff Duration: medium term Risk: medium Potential: high Path for Future Research Basic research is needed before mechanical-adhesive bonding technology can be applied in the construction industry. To date, there has been no research on the application of hybrid systems with fasteners and adhesives to the joining of pipe. Therefore, research should focus on the most basic issues surrounding use of this technology.

49

Exploiting the Benefits of Orbital Welding Technology Description The advantage of using welding automation to improve productivity has long been recognized in the manufacturing industry. Besides improved productivity, welding automation offers reliability and lower labor costs and eliminates variability. One of the main incentives for the use of automation in welding is productivity, which is much higher in automated welding processes than in manual systems. In many cases, welding with a robot is two to five times faster than other methods (Woodnam, 2001). The shortage of skilled welders has become a matter of deep concern in the construction industry. Because welders are offered lower compensation in construction than in other industries, many competent welders do not consider going into construction work. In light of this skilled-welder shortage, welding automation is one of the best alternatives to current welding practice (Eager, 1990). Orbital TIG welding has been applied in many industries, such as aerospace, boiler tubes, nuclear piping, offshore applications, semiconductors, and tube/pipefitting. This is because of its advantages over other joining technologies in productivity, quality, consistency, and versatility (Mannion and Heinzman, 1999). Interested Parties Orbital welding is already being applied in a number of industries. Many suppliers of orbital welding equipment exist, and they have made a vigorous effort to develop and expand the application of orbital welding. Once the benefits of orbital welding are identified and widely publicized, CII members could well be among the companies that end up joining the ranks of the major interested parties. Payoff Duration: short term Risk: low Potential: medium 50

Path for Future Research Currently, orbital welding technology is well developed and is ripe for application in the construction industry. In order to expedite use of this technology, however, a justification is needed for switching to this mode of operation from more traditional methods. One obvious justification would be the improvement in productivity that results from adoption of orbital welding technology. Therefore, research should focus on touting the benefits of orbital welding and surmounting existing barriers to its use. Alternative Pipe-Welding Technology for Improved Fabrication Description This paper covers several advanced welding technologies including those that have the potential to replace current practice in the construction industry. By means of an evaluation process outlined here, it has been shown that at least one of the advanced welding technologies (such as friction welding or flash butt welding) appears to offer much greater benefits than traditional methods. On the basis of that evaluation, it seems likely that advanced technology for joining of pipe will eventually replace current practice in the construction industry. Interested Parties Among the major parties that may be interested in the application of advanced technology to the joining of metal pipe are organizations such as the American Welding Society and the Welding Institute, both of which are currently working on the development of advanced joining technology in general. Payoff Duration: medium term Risk: medium Potential: medium

51

Path for Future Research As discussed, several advanced welding technologies have the potential to improve current pipe-joining practice in the construction industry. However, there is a need for further research, including a need for constructing test beds in order to measure the impact of the various technologies. Therefore, research should focus on developing and testing advanced methods for the joining of metal pipe.

Adhesive-Bonding Technology to Improve Metal Pipe Joining Practice Description Currently, adhesive bonding is widely used primarily for two reasons: low cost/convenience of use and the joints are of sufficiently high strength. In the past, the low resistance of adhesive-bonding techniques relative to bending load was regarded as the most significant obstacle to the use of adhesive bonding (Lea, Stubblefield, and Pang, 1998). This limitation has been somewhat lessened, however, as a result of technological advances in adhesive bonding. In fact, 3M has developed a high-strength adhesive bonding technique that offers a normal tensile strength of 160 psi and dynamic shear strength of 100 psi. Adhesive bonding has great potential, and soon may become one of the best alternatives to current pipe joining methods. Interested Parties 3M has made the greatest effort in the development of adhesive bonding thus far, not only in terms of basic research but also in terms of applications. It appears that 3M is likely to become a major player in the development, testing, and application of adhesive bonding in pipe joining.

52

Payoff Duration: high term Risk: high Potential: high Path for Future Research Basic research will be needed before adhesive bonding can be applied to the joining of metal pipe. Test beds need to be constructed and experiments need to be carried out in order to determine the parameters for using adhesive-bonding techniques in pipe joining. Remote, Tele-Operated Repair of Fossil-Fueled Power Plants Description Tube leaks in coal-fired boilers have consistently been the leading cause of downtime in the utility industry, and water-wall tubes have been one of the prime candidates for leaks. Tube leaks occur as a result of blistering, rupturing, cracking, corrosion, leaky joints, or other types of failure. The presence of a leak is particularly problematic whenever inspection of the tube reveals that progressive deterioration has already taken place, which is a sign that tube failure may be imminentand could occur before the date of the next scheduled outage. These leaks can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost generating capacity while repairs are being made. Given the current state-of-the-art of tube fabrication, however, it is rather unlikely that the incidence of leaks will decrease significantly, at least not without an inordinate expenditure of money. Given the urgent need for an affordable solution, perhaps the most feasible approach would be to devise a way to reduce the time needed for inspection and maintenance of the tubes so as to keep overall utility downtime to a minimum. One factor in particular that should be taken into account in minimizing costs of forced outages is the amount of downtime thats needed for cooling. According to a

53

report issued by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the cost of downtime for cooling typically amounts to $100,000 per hour. In order to expedite the cooling process as well as reduce costs and increase safety in regard to the repair of fossil-fueled power plants, perhaps a robot could be designed that would be capable of entering a boiler soon after shutdown, while the temperature is still elevated, and perform tasks such as repair of the tubes without exposing personnel to the hazardous environment. Interested Parties The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has begun to use remotely deployed, teleoperated equipment for inspection, maintenance, and cleanup operations in petroleumand waste-storage tanks. EPRI has successfully developed a method for removing clinker buildup in the hoppers of large coal-burning furnaces. Also, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is likely to become a major player in the development and deployment of systems of this type in the field. Payoff Duration: medium term Risk: medium Potential: high Path for Future Research Basic research will be necessary for identifying technologies which are most suited for use in settings where the temperature and pressure are comparable to those of a typical coal-fired boiler. Test beds need to be constructed and experiments need to be carried out under field conditions in order to evaluate the performance of tele-operated systems that are proposed.

54

9 Conclusion and Recommendations Pipe joining is one of the most critical yet inefficient processes in the construction industry. This report identifies several of the underlying causes of inefficiency in pipejoining processes currently in use in the construction industry, and describes several advanced joining technologies that, to varying degrees, have the potential to supplant conventional methods. Which of these newer processes holds the most promise is open to question, however, for two reasons: first, uncertainty as to what types of joints produced with these more advanced methods would be suitable for typical construction applications and second, the fact that each of the advanced technologies would first have to be adapted for field application or prefabrication work and then thoroughly tested before adoption by practitioners in the construction industry. The eventual impact of the technologies described on the construction industry presently is unable to be determined . Therefore, it is recommended that CII consider sponsoring further research on advanced joining technologies. Furthermore, it is recommended that any plan of action for future research consider one of the five possible paths forward that are summarized here: New mechanical-adhesive bonding technology Exploiting the benefits of orbital welding technology Alternative pipe-welding technology for improved fabrication Adhesive-bonding technology to improve metal pipe joining practice Remote, tele-operated repair of fossil-fueled plants

55

References
3M Inc. (2002), <http://www.3m.com> (Jan. 2002). Ageorges, C., Ye, L., and Hou, M. (2001), Advances in Fusion Bonding Techniques for Joining Thermoplastic Matrix Composites: A Review, Composites: Part A, Aug. 2001, pp. 839857. American Welding Society, Welding Handbook, Sixth Edition, Section 5, Miami, Fla., 1973. Argent, M., Pecknold, D., and HajAli, R. (1999), New Steel Pipe System for Trenchless Installation and Rehabilitation, Advance in Underground Pipeline Engineering II, Jun. 1995, pp. 697708. Benchmarking and Metrics Data (2002), Construction Industry Institute Blackman, S., and Dorling, D. (2000), Technology Advancement Push Pipeline Welding Productivity, Welding Journal, Aug. 2000, pp. 3944. Bowditch, W. (1997), Welding Technology Fundamentals, The GoodheartWillcox Company, Inc., Tinley Park, Illinois. Brandon, D., and Kaplan, W. (1997), Joining Processes: An Introduction, John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y. Business Roundtable (1982), Construction Technology Needs and Priorities, New York: The Business Roundtable, 1982, Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project, Report B-3.

56

Davies, A. (1993), The Science and Practice of Welding, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Dickenson, T. (1999), Valves, Piping & Pipelines Handbook, Elsevier Advanced Technology, New York, N.Y. Eager, T. (1990), Joining Technology, Advanced Materials & Processes, Jan. 1990, p. 65. Gainand, Y., Mas, J.P., Jansen, J.P., Coiffier, J.C., Dupont, J.C., and Vauthier, C. (2000), Development of electron beam welding for girth welding of gas transmission pipelines, Proceedings of the 3rd International Pipeline Technology Conference, 2000, pp. 327342. Hara, Y., Toyoda, M., Ushno, M., Irie, H., Masuda, H., and Yamakawa, T. (2000), Development of electron beam welding for girth welding of gas transmission pipelines, Proceedings of the 3rd International Pipeline Technology Conference, 2000, pp. 327342. Hastak, M. and Halpin, D. (2000), Assessment of Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost of Composites in Construction, Journal of Composites for Construction, ASCE, Aug. 2000, pp. 103111. Kapustay, J. "Re: Regarding Metal Joining" E-mail to Changwan Kim, 24. June 2002 Kluger, J. (2000), Coming up Next Joining, Time, Dec. 2000, p. 56. Lea, R., Stubblefield, M., and Pang, S. (1998), Innovative Development of Joining/Fitting Technology for Advanced Composite Piping System, Final ATP Technical Report, Advanced Technology Program/National Institute of Standards and Technology, Sep. 30, 1998.

57

Mannion, B. and Heinzman, J. (1999), Orbital Tube Welding, Pro-Fusion White Paper, Pro-Fusion Inc., Mar. 1999. Messler, R. (1993), Joining of Advanced Materials, ButterworthHeinemann, Stoneham, Mass. Nayyar, M. (1992), Piping Handbook, McGrawHill Book Company, New York, N.Y. Permalok Inc. (2002), <http://www.permalok.com> (Jan. 2002). Rickard, J., and Tucker, R. (1982), Construction Activities with Significant Technological Research Opportunities, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project Final Report. R.S. Means (2001), Building Construction Cost Data, R.S.Means Company, Kingston, MA Schwartz, M. (1979), Metals Joining Manual, McGrawHill Book Company, New York, N.Y. Seay, B. Re: Regarding Metal Joining E-mail to Changwan Kim, 27. June 2002 Stubblefield, M., Lea, R., Pang, S., and Zhao, Y. (1999), Innovative Development of Joining/Fitting Technology for Advanced Composite Piping Systems, Energy Sources Technology Conference & Exhibition, 1999, pp. 14. Thompson, G. (1998), An Engineers Guide to Pipe Joints, Professional Engineering Publishing, Suffolk, UK. Tucker, R. (1982), Construction Technology Needs and Priorities, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project Report.

58

Tucker, R. (2001), CE 395 R.4. Course Materials, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin Victaulic Inc. (2002), <http://www.victaulic .com> (Jan. 2002). Woodnam, C. (2001), Automation: Return-on-Investment, Welding Design & Fabrication, Apr. 2001, pp. 7174.

59

CII Member Companies


3M ABB Lummus Global Inc. Abbott Laboratories Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. Aluminum Company of America Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. Aramco Services Company Atlantic Richfield Company Bayer Corporation BE&K, Inc. Bechtel Group, Inc. Black & Veatch BMW Constructors Inc. BP Amoco Corporation Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc. Butler Construction Company CDI Engineering Group, Inc. Celanese Champion International Corporation Chemtex International Inc. Cherne Contracting Corporation Chevron Corporation Chicago Bridge & Iron Company Cianbro Corporation CITGO Petroleum Corporation Day & Zimmermann International, Inc. Dick Corporation Dillingham Construction Holdings Inc. DuPont Eastman Chemical Company Eichleay Holdings Inc. Eli Lilly and Company Exxon Research & Engineering Company Fisher Controls International, Inc. Fluor Daniel, Inc. Foster Wheeler USA Corporation FPL Energy, Inc. Fru-Con Construction Corporation General Motors Corporation General Services Administration Graycor H. B. Zachry Company H+M Construction Co., Inc. Hilti Corporation Honeywell Inc. Intel Corporation International Technology Corporation J. A. Jones Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. James N. Gray Company, Inc. Kellogg Brown & Root Kiewit Construction Group, Inc. Kvrner LTV Steel Company, Inc. M. A. Mortenson Company Mobil Technology Corporation Morrison Knudsen Corporation Murphy Company NASA Naval Facilities Engineering Command Ontario Power Generation Phillips Petroleum Company Raytheon Engineers & Constructors Reliant Energy Rohm and Haas Company S&B Engineers and Constructors Ltd. Shell Oil Company Solutia Inc. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Tennessee Valley Authority Texaco The Dow Chemical Company The Parsons Corporation The Procter & Gamble Company The University of Texas System U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST U.S. Department of State U.S. Steel Union Carbide Corporation Walbridge Aldinger Weyerhaeuser Company

60

Construction Industry Institute The University of Texas at Austin 3925 West Braker Lane (R4500) Austin, Texas 78759-5316

61

Bureau of Engineering Research The University of Texas at Austin


2