IIW Document No.

IX-2165-05

MODELLING OF HAZ HARDNESS IN C-Mn PIPELINE STEELS

SUBJECTED TO IN-SERVICE WELDING PROCEDURES

D. Nolan, Z. Sterjovski and D. Dunne

ABSTRACT

Welding onto pressurized pipelines that contain flammable fluid, in order to facilitate repairs
or branch connections, is a critical procedure with considerable risk to personnel and
infrastructure. Limiting the heat input is obviously an important consideration to prevent
“burn-through”, but the potential for rapid cooling of the weldment increases its susceptibility
to hydrogen assisted cold cracking (HACC). Therefore, one of the more important factors for
in-service welding procedure development relates to the increased risk of formation of hard,
brittle microstructures in the grain coarsened heat affected zone (GCHAZ) of the weld,
microstructures that increase the risk of HACC.

The current work has been successful in utilizing dilatometric simulations to derive two new
hardness prediction models that more accurately predict hardness in the GCHAZ for typical
in-service welding applications than a commercially adopted and widely used hardness
prediction algorithm. Although it is acknowledged that further work is required to validate the
models for a wider range of in-service welding conditions, the performance of the models
demonstrates their potential for developing improved in-service welding procedures.

KEYWORDS

In-service welding, Heat-affected zone, Hardness prediction, Dilatometry, Neural network

model.

AUTHOR CONTACTS

* Dr David Nolan (corresponding author), Dr Zoran Sterjovski,

Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Wollongong, University of Wollongong,
NSW Australia 2522 NSW Australia 2522
Email: dnolan@uow.edu.au Email: zoran@uow.edu.au

Prof Druce Dunne,

Faculty of Engineering,
University of Wollongong,
NSW Australia 2522
Email: druce@uow.edu.au

1
INTRODUCTION

In order to facilitate repairs or branching connections, it is often necessary to produce welded

joints on in-service pipelines containing highly flammable and pressurized fluids, such as fuel
gas and liquid petroleum products. Welding onto in-service pipelines which are pressurized
with flowing product can be conducted in a safe and cost-effective manner, however, there are
increased risks of pipeline material failure during such procedures. The first, and most
immediate, risk is caused by the internal fluid pressure which, when combined with localized
heating of the pipeline, can lead to failure of the pipe wall due to reduced material strength.
This effect, commonly referred to as “burn-through”, is a developing issue, since there is a
growing tendency to use higher strength pipe steels with reduced wall thickness, and the
benefits afforded by the high strength steels at lower temperatures are not realized at higher
temperatures. The second important risk to consider is the generation of relatively high
cooling rates in the weld zone by the fluid flowing inside the pipe. This has two important
consequences. Firstly, at higher cooling rates there is a greater prospect of austenite
transforming at lower temperatures to bainite and/or martensite, with an attendant increase in
hardness. This is particularly important wherever older pipe materials, with higher carbon and
alloy contents (high carbon equivalent) are encountered. Secondly, the higher cooling rate
leads to higher diffusible hydrogen content retained in the weld zone. Both of these factors
increase the risk of hydrogen-assisted cold cracking (HACC), a significant threat to the
integrity of a welded joint, particularly as the effect may not be immediately apparent and
may take several hours or days to develop.

Much of the past research effort pertaining to procedure development and risk management
for in-service welding has focused on predicting weld cooling rates and the risk of burn-
through [1-5]. While this effort has been fruitful, several other important factors have received
insufficient attention, including the quantification of diffusible hydrogen content during
typical in-service welding procedures and the effect of material composition and cooling rate
on hardness, particularly in the pipe heat-affected zone (HAZ) at the very high cooling rates
expected during in-service welding procedures. Hardness prediction algorithms that attempt to
predict weld HAZ hardness as a function of composition and cooling rate do exist, but these
relationships are derived from studies on steels with a wide range of compositions, using
cooling rates that are generally lower than those expected during in-service welding.

The current work addressed this matter by conducting a series of in-service welding
simulations and measurements of weld HAZ hardness, in order to assess the validity of
existing hardness prediction methods. The current work involved both numerical (regressive)
and neural network methods to predict HAZ hardness, and the results of these analyses were
compared with existing algorithms. An attempt was also made to correlate the output of all
models with actual in-service weld (ISW) hardness data.

BACKGROUND

Hydrogen-assisted cold cracking represents a significant threat to the integrity of pipelines,

acting as the source of defects which have the potential to initiate catastrophic failure under
normal service conditions [6]. It is generally accepted that for in-service welding, hydrogen
cracks are most likely to form at the toe of the multipass fillet weld in the HAZ of the pipe or
the fitting, since the outermost weld pass may not entirely be subjected to a tempering effect

2
from subsequent fill passes. HAZ hardness is therefore expected to be maximum in this
region.

HACC occurs at near ambient temperatures and may be delayed for several hours, or even
days, after welding is completed, making detection during normal fabrication operations
difficult. There have been a number of general reviews on the phenomenon of hydrogen
cracking in steel weldments [7-9] which reflect the general understanding that the main
factors determining susceptibility to HACC include; the presence of diffusible hydrogen, high
local concentrations of residual or applied stresses, the presence of defects, and a
microstructural susceptibility. However, these factors are interdependent and the critical
levels of diffusible hydrogen and stress necessary to initiate and/or propagate HACC are
specific to the particular welding process, weld configuration and material in question. A
number of standards and guidance notes have been developed to provide guidance on
processing parameters for the avoidance of HACC in the HAZ [10-16]. However, welding
onto pipelines that contain flowing fluid, liquid or gaseous, presents a very specific set of
welding conditions with much more severe cooling conditions and a consequently greater risk
of the hardness reaching critical levels in the weld zone. Some more specific guidance on the
particular case of welding onto in-service pipelines is given in AS 2885.2:2002 [13], the
Welding Technology Institute of Australia (WTIA) Technical Note 20 [17] and proprietary
software packages hereafter referred to as the Battelle model [18], the PRCI model [19] and
the CRC-WS model [20]. However, a considerable gap remains in knowledge pertaining to
effects of composition and hydrogen content on the risk of HACC for in-service welding.

To prevent HACC in any given application, the diffusible hydrogen content must be lower
than the critical level required to initiate and propagate cracking under the prevailing stress
and microstructural conditions. The applicable stresses include internal pressure and structural
loads, residual stresses from welding, and stress concentrations, such as those associated with
welding defects. Since no mechanical or thermal stress relief treatment is carried out, a
significant amount of residual stress acting on the weld cannot be avoided and must always be
assumed.

The first step toward avoiding HACC during in-service pipeline welding is therefore to
minimize the hydrogen level by using low-hydrogen electrodes, or a low-hydrogen welding
process. However, low hydrogen levels cannot always be guaranteed and the effect of welding
conditions (both atmospheric and process-related) on diffusible hydrogen levels is not well
quantified [21]. Given the uncertainty over diffusible hydrogen levels, even when using
designated low-hydrogen electrodes, it has been considered prudent to develop procedures
that minimize the formation of crack-susceptible microstructures as an added assurance
against hydrogen cracking. Although significant work has been undertaken in this regard [22],
further work is required to confirm the influence of material composition and cooling
conditions on the development of crack susceptible microstructures.

Hardenability and Hardness

Ferritic pipeline steels are prone to transformation hardening in the weld heat-affected zone
(HAZ) as a result of the relatively high cooling rates experienced during the weld cycle. This
is especially so in the case of in-service welding, where the fluid flowing within the pipeline
provides a very efficient heat sink, quenching the austenitised steel at rates of up to 150 °Cs-1
through the transformation range on cooling. The prior austenite grains produced in the pipe

3
during welding are coarsest in the HAZ near the fusion boundary and it is here that the
microstructure is at the greatest risk of HACC.

In general, increased rates of cooling lead to higher hardness levels for a given steel
composition. Combined with the introduction of diffusible hydrogen through the welding
process, and the increased levels of diffusible hydrogen trapped within the weld zone at
higher cooling rates, this increase in hardness causes an increase in susceptibility to hydrogen
cold cracking.

The susceptibility of a given steel composition to hardening in the HAZ as a result of the weld
thermal cycle is often predicted by the use of carbon equivalent (CE) formulae. These
formulae describe the compositional effect on hardenability, or the tendency to form
martensite, and when combined with the effects of plate (or pipe wall) thickness, weld
configuration and heat input on cooling time, they can be used in procedures for estimating
the preheat conditions necessary to avoid HACC. There are a number of such formulae used
in this way as a measure of weldability [23], but perhaps the most widely used is the
International Institute of Welding’s CEIIW formula:

CEIIW = C + Mn/6 + (Cu+Ni)/15 + (Cr+Mo+V)/5 (1)

The CEIIW formula is generally considered to be more relevant for evaluating the weldability
of older steel types, such as steels produced prior to thermomechanical controlled processing,
with higher carbon contents from 0.15-0.3%. Another widely used formula, Pcm, regards the
effect of carbon as much more significant than that of the alloying elements, and is generally
considered to be more appropriate for the more modern, carbon-reduced or microalloyed
steels:

Pcm = C + Si/30 + (Mn+Cu+Cr)/20 + Ni/60 + Mo/15 + V/10 + 5B (2)

For example, the AWS method for determining the minimum necessary preheat to avoid HAZ
cracking recommends Pcm be used for steels with C<0.11% and CEIIW for steels with
C≥0.11% [10].

Another formula, developed by Yurioka et al [24] as a weldability index for a wide variety of
steels, incorporates an interactive term for carbon and alloying elements. The CEN formula
approaches the values of CEIIW when applied to higher carbon steels and the values of Pcm
when applied to lower carbon steels:

CEN = C + A(C) {Si/24 + Mn/6 + Cu/15 + Ni/20 + (Cr+Mo+Nb+V)/5 + 5B} (3)

where: A(C) = 0.75 + 0.25 tanh [20(C-0.12)]

The following correlation between the formulae have been established:

CEN = 2 Pcm – 0.092 (where C ≤ 0.17%) (4)

and,

CEN = CEIIW + 0.12 (where C > 0.17%) (5)

4
The effect of cooling rate is not specifically incorporated as a variable in these CE equations,
even though it has a profound effect on microstructural evolution. Further, the cooling rates
associated with in-service welding on relatively thin pipe material, with and without
preheating, are likely to be at, or beyond, the upper limit of the cooling rates for which the
above equations have been developed. Note that the cooling rate parameter, t8/5, is widely
used to describe the critical cooling regime from 800-500°C where austenite transforms to
ferrite (at lower cooling rates), or bainite and martensite (at progressively higher cooling
rates). It is the development of the harder and less tough bainitic and martensitic constituents
that is of most concern with respect to HACC in the HAZ.

Yurioka [23] has provided an explanation of the effect of increased hardenability (as
determined by composition) and cooling rate on HAZ hardness in medium and low carbon
steels. This model was developed for the case of low heat input welding, where cooling rates
are sufficient to develop high levels of diffusible hydrogen at ambient temperature in the
presence of hard microstructures. He claims that the HAZ hardness of a higher carbon steel
increases more significantly with increasing hardenability (or an increase in tM, the critical
value of the cooling rate (t8/5) required for a fully martensitic structure) than it does for a
carbon-reduced steel. Due to the strong influence of carbon on hardenability, the higher
carbon steel has a higher value of tM than the lower carbon steel. Moreover, other factors that
promote hardenability, such as alloying and increased austenite grain size, will have a
stronger effect on raising tM than for lower carbon steels. For low carbon contents, the
hardenability is more strongly affected by carbon than the alloying elements. Therefore, as
suggested above, the weldability of a higher carbon steel (eg, 0.15-0.3%) is more
appropriately evaluated by a formula such as the CEIIW formula, whereas Pcm is more relevant
to low carbon steels because carbon is more strongly weighted. The CEN formula was
proposed as a compromise which, by incorporating an interactive effect between carbon and
alloying elements, approaches the CEIIW determination for higher carbon materials and the
Pcm determination for lower carbon materials.

The empirical CE formulae above indicate hardenability, but hardenability cannot be related
directly to hardness levels, since it only indicates the likelihood of transformation to
martensite on cooling. Once a fully martensitic structure is achieved, then the hardness of a
fully martensitic HAZ microstructure is determined largely by the carbon content, and can be
estimated by the following relationship [25]:

HM = 884C (1-0.3C2) + 294 (7)

where carbon content is less than 0.8%. Nitrogen is also an interstitial element that can affect
hardness of martensite, but Yurioka et al [25] maintain that it can be effectively ignored in the
HM formula, since the level of nitrogen in modern structural steels is generally far lower than
the carbon content [25].

If the cooling rate does not exceed the critical cooling rate for fully martensitic structure, then
the microstructure will be mixed, with both martensitic and bainitic constituents. Although it
has been shown [26] that the strength of steel can actually increase for small volume fractions
of bainite, before decreasing more markedly with a further increase in bainite at the expense
of martensite, as a general rule, it is to be expected that decreasing martensite volume fraction
will result in decreasing strength (and hardness).

5
Perhaps the most widely adopted empirical method for prediction of HAZ hardness in
pipeline steels is the one developed by Yurioka et al [25]. This relationship is said to be
reliable for transformable steels with the following composition range: C<0.3%, Ni<5%,
Cr<1%. The algorithm, hereafter referred to as the Yurioka model, is defined as:

HVmax = 442C + 99CEII + 206 + (402C – 90CEII + 80)arctan(x) (8)

where:

x = (log(t8/5) – 2.30CEI – 1.35CEIII + 0.882) / (1.15CEI – 0.673CEIII – 0.601) (9)

CEI = C + Si/24 + Mn/6 + Cu/15 + Ni/12 + Cr/8 + Mo/4 + ∆H (10)

CEII = C + Si/24 + Mn/5 + Cu/10 + Ni/18 + Cr/5 + Mo/2.5 + V/5 + Nb/3 (11)

CEIII = C + Mn/3.6 + Cu/20 + Ni/9 + Cr/5 + Mo/4 (12)

Note that ∆H is a term introduced to account for the strong hardening effect of boron, such
that;

∆H = 0 when B ≤ 1ppm,
∆H = 1.5 (0.02-N) when B ≤ 2ppm,
∆H = 3.0 (0.02-N) when B ≤ 3ppm, and
∆H = 4.5 (0.02-N) when B ≥ 4ppm,

While this relationship was developed using materials with a wide range of compositions and
cooling rates (t8/5 from 3 to 100 seconds), it has been adopted as the basic algorithm for
hardness prediction in a commercially-applied, software-based, procedure development tool
for in-service welding applications [19].

The current work seeks to review the application of this algorithm to in-service welding
applications, and to develop an improved predictive system based on empirical evidence
derived from materials and conditions more closely approximating those used for in-service
welding applications. It compares the output from the Yurioka model, and from numerical and
neural network models developed from data derived from dilatometer simulations. It also
compares the output of all three models against a set of measured results from actual welding
trials conducted under in-service welding conditions.

EXPERIMENTAL

Materials and Procedures

The experimental work was based on a series of thermal cycle simulations conducted in a
high quench rate dilatometer, that were designed to generate the cooling conditions
experienced by the grain-coarsened HAZ during in-service welding procedures. The
simulations were carried out using a Theta dilatometer, wherein samples with 5 mm outside
diameter, 3.5 mm inside diameter and 10 mm in length were held between two quartz tubes
and heated to 1400 °C by a water-cooled induction coil under vacuum (see Figure 1). Using
helium quench gas, it was possible to achieve t8/5 cooling times of between 2 and 10 seconds,

6
the range of cooling rates typical for in-service welding applications. A type 'S' thermocouple
was spot welded to the sample to monitor and control the temperature of the sample during
the thermal cycling.

induction coil quenching gas outlet

thermocouple

LVDT

specimen
quenching gas quartz tube holder

10 mm

5 mm 0.75 mm

Figure 1: A schematic illustration of the experimental setup for the dilatometer, including the
dimensions of the cylindrical test specimen.

The various Australian and USA pipeline and tap fitting steels investigated in the current
work are listed in Table 1. The table shows the compositional analysis and calculated CE
values for each material. Note that with the analytical methods available, it was not possible
to measure boron contents of less than 0.0003%. As no boron was detected in the analysis,
boron content was therefore assumed to be nil for calculations made in applying the Yurioka
model.

Standard procedures for metallographic preparation were used to prepare cross-sections for
optical microscopy. Polished sections were etched in 4% Nital solution to reveal
microstructures and images were captured in a digital format on a Leica optical microscope.

Hardness of materials was determined using a Vickers hardness tester, at a load of 5 kg for the
materials prior to heat treatment and 10 kg for material following thermal cycle simulation.
Hardness measurements are reported as an average of five results taken randomly in the heat
treated specimens. Hardness testing was carried out in accordance to AS1817.1-2003,
Metallic materials - Vickers hardness test - Test methods (ISO 6507-1:1997, MOD).

Modelling the effects of composition and cooling rate on the CGHAZ hardness

An empirical model was developed for predicting the HAZ hardness using the dilatometer
data and simple regression methods to approximate relationships of best fit between hardness
and carbon equivalent. The relationships for each of the cooling rate conditions were then
combined to form a hardness prediction model with carbon equivalent and cooling rate as
variables.

7
Table 1: Pipe and tap fitting steel data. Steels A1 to A10 are pipe materials typical of Australian
applications. The remaining steels are from North America, where the TAPf is a fitting materials.
Compositions are given in weight percentage.

Material A1 A2 A3 A5 A6 A8 A10 AGA-J TAPp P6 TAPf

%C 0.1700 0.0800 0.0700 0.1100 0.2400 0.1000 0.1000 0.2400 0.1300 0.2900 0.1300
% Si 0.2500 0.2600 0.1300 0.1300 0.0500 0.1500 0.2400 0.0300 0.1700 0.0050 0.3900
% Mn 1.2300 1.6300 1.3500 0.4400 0.9500 1.1500 1.4200 1.1900 1.3800 0.9600 1.4300
% Cu 0.0090 0.0010 0.0240 0.0330 0.0190 0.0140 0.0210 0.0100 0.0980 0.0400 0.2800
% Cr 0.0260 0.0220 0.0240 0.0120 0.0200 0.0190 0.3100 0.0440 0.2100 0.0300 0.1000
% Ni 0.0090 0.0200 0.0200 0.0230 0.0190 0.0180 0.0170 0.0140 0.0190 0.0380 0.1000
% Mo 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0330
%V 0.0050 0.0600 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0400 0.0530 0.0430 0.0050 0.0050
%B <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.0003
%P 0.0080 0.0160 0.0200 0.0110 0.0090 0.0150 0.0140 0.0150 0.0150 0.0110 0.0080
%S 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0060 0.0190 0.0080 0.0050 0.0180 0.0050 0.0240 0.0050
% Ti 0.0050 0.0050 0.0210 0.0210 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050
% Al 0.0210 0.0130 0.0250 0.0290 0.0050 0.0390 0.0300 0.0050 0.0300 0.0080 0.0330
% Nb 0.0460 0.0530 0.0400 0.0270 0.0050 0.0250 0.0400 0.0260 0.0400 0.0050 0.0390
%O 0.0012 0.0007 0.0024 0.0068 0.0078 0.0033 0.0019 0.0091 0.0020 0.0033 0.0017
%N 0.0072 0.0018 0.0056 0.0089 0.0036 0.0050 0.0077 0.0033 0.0054 0.0079 0.0087
CE IIW 0.38 0.37 0.30 0.19 0.41 0.30 0.41 0.46 0.41 0.46 0.42
Pcm 0.25 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.29 0.17 0.20 0.31 0.23 0.35 0.24
CE N 0.39 0.26 0.21 0.18 0.41 0.24 0.32 0.47 0.38 0.47 0.38
OD (mm) 508 406 406 324 273 324 864 508 1219 508 N/A
Thick (mm) 8.6 8.6 7.8 5.8 6.6 5.2 13.8 6.4 14.3 7.9 N/A
Grade (API 5L) X60 X70 X60 X42 X42 X42 X65 X52 X70 X52 A537*

A second predictive model was developed using Neuralworks Professional II/Plus software to
build a back-propagation neural network model. The input variables and ranges used for the
model are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Data ranges (maximum value – minimum value) and median values used in the sensitivity
analysis. Compositions are given in weight percentage.

Input
Variable Maximum Minimum Median

%C 0.29 0.07 0.18

%Si 0.39 0.005 0.1975
%Mn 1.63 0.44 1.035
%Cu 0.28 0.001 0.1405
%Cr 0.31 0.012 0.161
%Ni 0.1 0.009 0.0545
%Mo 0.033 0.005 0.019
%V 0.06 0.005 0.0325
%P 0.02 0.008 0.014
%Si 0.024 0.005 0.0145
%Ti 0.021 0.005 0.013
%Al 0.039 0.005 0.022
%Nb 0.053 0.005 0.029
t8/5 (s) 10 2 6
Original HV 234 159 197

8
The input variables can be combined into two major areas: one characterizing the original
pipe material (chemical composition and hardness); and another quantifying the HAZ
simulation conditions (t8/5). Three data files were used in the modelling process, namely the
training file, testing file and the sensitivity file. There were 63 cases in the data file that were
representative of the overall data, and 15 cases in the testing file that were excluded from the
training file. Sensitivity data was used to further validate the model and to interrogate the
model to try to gain a physical understanding of the predicted trends. The initial step in
building the model is to set the number of processing elements in the input layer (see Figure
2). Individual processing elements in the input layer correspond to an input variable, and the
processing element in the output layer corresponds to HAZ hardness. The role of the hidden
layer, which is a layer that contains a systematically determined number of processing
elements, is to help establish the relationships and inter-relationships between processing
elements in the input and hidden layers that lead to the best estimates of output. The latter
stages in building the model include defining other parameters such as selecting the learn rule
(the mathematical method the program uses to correlate all of the processing elements in all
layers), learning coefficients (values assigned to each layer and the overall model) and
transfer mode (transferring the weighted sum of the processing elements or neurons into an
output prediction) as listed in Table 3.

Output layer
Hidden layer

Bias

Input layer

Figure 2: An illustration of the structure of the artificial neural network program structure used to
develop a hardness prediction model.

Table 3: Key neural network model parameters for back-propagation.

Learn Rule Delta Rule

Learn Sequence Random
Learn Cycles 500000
Transfer Mode Hyperbolic Tangent
Input Data (0,1)
Range
Output Data (0.2,1)
Range
Epoch Size 63
Learning 0.80, 0.85
Coefficients
Momentum 0.35

9
The learn rule used in the model is the Delta rule and the error in the output layer is the
difference between the desired output and the actual output. The error calculated for the
model was the root mean square (RMS). This error, transformed by the derivative of the
transfer function, is “back-propagated” to prior layers where it is accumulated. This back-
propagated and transformed error becomes the error term for that prior layer. The process of
back-propagating the errors continues until the input layer is reached. The network-type back-
propogation derives its name from this method of calculating the error term [27]. The actual
weight update equations for the Delta rule are:

wij' = wij + C1 × ei × xij + C 2 × mij (13)

mij = wij' − wij (14)

where C1 and C2 are learning coefficients. The weights are changed in proportion to the error
(e), and the input to that connection (x). The momentum term (m) is used to help smooth out
the weight changes. Also, the subscripts i and j refer to the number of the processing element
and the number input variable, respectively. The term wi is the initial weight vector for the ith
processing element in the layer, and wi’ is the weight vector after it has been updated by the
learning rule [28].

The result of the weighted sum is then transferred into an output via a hyperbolic tangent
function [28].

( )(
f (z ) = e z − e − z / e z + e − z ) (15)

Random weightings are assigned to each processing element as an arbitrary starting point in
the training process and the weightings are progressively altered on exposure to numerous
repetitions of training examples. Hence, the neural network is in the process of learning and
constant adjustment of weightings between processing elements leads to a reduction in the
RMS error of the overall training data. In this model, 500,000 cycles at an epoch size of 63
were required to minimize and stabilize the RMS error. Certain indicators are set up during
the training process to ensure the model is learning properly and avoiding incorrect learning
patterns that may result, for example, from a saturation of weightings. The model reaches its
optimum when the RMS error has stabilized.

The model is verified against cases in the testing data file, which are independent of cases in
the training file. The predicted results are plotted versus the experimental (or actual) results.
In this paper, the sensitivity for carbon content, cooling time (t8/5) and and parent material
hardness are considered. Sensitivity is represented graphically and when conducting a
sensitivity analysis of a certain input variable the remaining input variables are set at their
median values (Table 2). Sensitivity measures the response of output (HAZ hardness) across
the entire range of an individual input variable, and is represented by ∆H.

∆H = HVi max − HVi min (16)

where HVi max is the hardness corresponding to the maximum input value for a particular input
variable while the remaining input variables are set at their median values, and HVi min is the

10
hardness corresponding to the minimum input value for a particular input variable while the
remaining input variables are set at their median values.

The output from the above models and the Yurioka model were compared to actual HAZ
hardness data from previous investigations by Painter and Sabapathy [29]. These data were
obtained from simulated welding trials on steels A1, A2 and A8, using conditions typical of
in-service welding procedures. The measured cooling rates and compositions from these trials
were used as input into the three hardness prediction models in order to compare their
accuracy.

RESULTS

The microstructure and hardness of each steel prior to the weld thermal simulation are
presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Photomicrographs showing the microstructures and mean hardness values (HV, 5 kg) for
each of the starting materials. Micron bars represent 20 µm.

11
The microstructure of the pipeline materials typically comprises of a mixture of ferrite and
pearlite, with coarse grained ferrite and higher proportion of pearlite for older normalized
steels with higher carbon content, and fine ferrite with low proportion of pearlite for more
modern low carbon steels. Microstructural banding due to rolling during the steelmaking
process is also evident in some of the steels, particularly for the A1, A10, AGA-J, TAPp and
TAPf materials.

The hardness values measured for each of the heat-treated materials are presented graphically
as a function of cooling time (t8/5) in Figure 4, and the microstructures of the post heat treated
steels at t8/5 cooling times of 2, 6 and 10 seconds are shown in Figures 5 and 6.

550
A-1
500 A-2
450 A-3
Hardness (HV)

400 A-5
350 A-6
A-8
300
A-10
250
200
150
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cooling time (t8/5 )
(a)

550
AGA-J
500
TAPp
450 P6
400 TAPf
Hardness (HV)

350
300
250
200
150
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Cooling time (t8 /5 )
(b)

Figure 4: Graphs showing the mean hardness of simulated thermal cycle samples of each material as a
function of cooling time, t8/5, for (a) Australian and (b) North American steels.

12
Figure 5: Photomicrographs showing the microstructures and mean hardness values for each of the
Australian pipe steels following thermal cycling with cooling times (t8/5) of 2, 6 and 10 seconds.
Micron bars represent 20 µm.

13
Figure 6: Photomicrographs showing the microstructures and mean hardness values for each of the
North American pipe and fitting steels following thermal cycling with cooling times (t8/5) of 2, 6 and
10 seconds. Micron bars represent 20 µm.

Development of the numerical model

The relationships between carbon equivalent and measured hardness of the grain-coarsened
HAZ for each cooling rate are shown in Figures 7-11. The equations representing lines of best
fit for each data set, and the relevant R2 values are also presented. The relationships between
carbon equivalent and hardness for the Pcm and CEN data sets are best represented by simple
logarithmic equations, whereas the relationships between hardness and CEIIW appear to be
best approximated by simple exponential equations. While the equation for hardness versus
Pcm has the best fit for the highest cooling rate condition, and the same can be said for the
hardness versus CEIIW equation for the lowest cooling rate, the equations relating hardness to
CEN give the most consistent predictions of measured hardnesses across the range of cooling
rates investigated. Therefore, an empirical relationship based on CEN has been developed in
the current work, rather than one based on the alternative carbon equivalent parameter CEIIW

14
and Pcm. The logarithmic relationships describing the lines of best fit for CEN and hardness,
and the relevant R2 values are given in Table 4.

Cooling time, t8/5 = 2 sec

550

450
Hardness (HV)

350

CE IIW
250
Pcm

150 CEN

Log. (CEN)
y = 259.59Ln(CEN) + 673.04, where R2 = 0.9347
50
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Carbon Equivalent (%)

Figure 7: Graph showing hardness as a function of carbon equivalent for t8/5 value of 2 seconds.

Cooling time, t8/5 = 4 sec

550

450
Hardness (HV)

350

250 CE IIW

Pcm
150 CEN
y = 261.46Ln(CEN) + 659.98, where R2 = 0.9371 Log. (CEN)
50
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Carbon Equivalent (%)

Figure 8: Graph showing hardness as a function of carbon equivalent for t8/5 value of 4 seconds.

15
 Cooling time, t8/5 = 6 sec

550

450
Hardness (HV)

350
CE IIW
250 Pcm

CEN
150
Log. (CEN)
y = 256.04Ln(CEN) + 643.29, where R2 = 0.9603
50
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Carbon Equivalent (%)

Figure 9: Graph showing hardness as a function of carbon equivalent for t8/5 value of 6 seconds.

Cooling time, t8/5 = 8 sec

550

450
Hardness (HV)

350

CE IIW
250
Pcm

150 CEN

2 Log. (CEN)
y = 254.45Ln(CEN) + 635.57, where R = 0.9614
50
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Carbon Equivalent (%)

Figure 10: Graph showing hardness as a function of carbon equivalent for t8/5 value of 8 seconds.

16
 Cooling time, t8/5 = 10 sec

550

450
Hardness (HV)

350

250 CE IIW

Pcm
150 CEN
2
y = 213.43Ln(CEN) + 549.36, where R = 0.8282 Log. (CEN)
50
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
Carbon Equivalent (%)

Figure 11: Graph showing hardness as a function of carbon equivalent for t8/5 value of 10 seconds.

Table 4: Formulae for predicting hardness as a function of CEN at each cooling rate.

C o o lin g rate E q u atio n R2

(t 8 /5 )

2 s H V C E N = 259.6 ln(C E N ) + 673 0.93

4 s H V C E N = 261.5 ln(C E N ) + 660 0.94

6 s H V C E N = 256.0 ln(C E N ) + 642 0.96

8 s H V C E N = 254.5 ln(C E N ) + 636 0.96

10 s H V C E N = 213.4 ln(C E N ) + 549 0.83

The equations for HVCEN (Table 4) have the form aln(CEN)+b where the coefficients a and b
are functions of t8/5.The equation developed from these logarithmic relationships in order to
predict CGHAZ hardness based on CEN and t8/5 between 2-10 seconds is given by:

HVCEN= (-1.3893x2+11.681x+239.58) ln(CEN) + (- 2.4286x2+15.543x+645.6) (17)

where x is t8/5 (s), and the two parabolic terms are best-fit relationships for the coefficients of
the HVCEN equations in Table 4 as functions of x.

17
This regression model is simpler than the Yurioka model (Equation 8) insofar as it is based on
a single carbon equivalent parameter, and the effect of C and alloy composition in general is
taken into account through this parameter. It is subsequently referred to as the CEN model.

Development of the neural network model

Figures 12 and 13 show graphs of measured HAZ hardness versus predicted HAZ hardness
for the training data and testing data, respectively. There is no overlap between the two sets of
data and the predictions that occur in both instances result in a significantly low RMS error
(the square root of the sum of errors between the predicted and experimental hardness for
each data case).

600
Predicted HAZ hardness (HV)

500

400

300

200

100
2
R = 0.9813
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Experimental HAZ VHN

Figure 12: Comparison of measured and predicted HAZ hardness values for the neural network model
training data (RMS error is 18.0 HV 10).

600
Predicted HAZ hardness (HV)

500

400

300

200

100
2
R = 0 .9 8 2 5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
E x p er im e n ta l H A Z V H N

Figure 13: Comparison of measured and predicted HAZ hardness values for the neural network model
testing data (RMS error is 17.9 HV 10).

18
The sensitivity of the key input variables is shown in Figures 14 to 16. Figure 14 shows the
effect of changes across the range of carbon contents on predicted HAZ hardness, and Figures
15 and 16, respectively, show the effect of changes across the range of original hardness and
t8/5 (s) on predicted HAZ hardness.
Predicted HAZ hardness

500
450
400
∆Η
(HV)

350
300
250
200
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
C (wt %)

Figure 14: Neural network model sensitivity data showing the predicted HAZ hardness across the
range of carbon contents used in the model.

500
Predicted HAZ hardness

450
400
∆H
(HV)

350
300
250
200
125 150 175 200 225 250
Orginal PM VHN

Figure 15: Neural network model sensitivity data showing the predicted HAZ hardness across the
range of original PM hardness values used in the model.

19
 500

Predicted HAZ hardness

450
400

(HV)
350 ∆Η
300
250
200
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
t8/5 (s)

Figure 16: Neural network model sensitivity data showing the predicted HAZ hardness across the
range of t8/5 cooling times used in the model.

Comparison of the predictive models

The Yurioka model appears to consistently underestimate the hardness arising from the
dilatometer thermal cycles, whereas the CEN model gives a much more reliable prediction of
hardness (see Figure 17).

600

500
Measured Hardness (HV)

400

300

200 HV YUR
HV CEN

1:1
100
100 200 300 400 500 600
Predicted Hardness (HV)

Figure 17: Comparison of the predictions of the Yurioka [32] and CEN models for the simulated weld
thermal cycle data.

In turn, the neural network model provides even higher accuracy in predicting hardness
resulting from the dilatometer experiments (see Figure 18). However, it should be noted that

20
the Yurioka model (equation 8) was developed from data acquired from actual welds
produced by Tekken testing where as the currently developed models (CEN and ANN) are
based on thermal simulations. Therefore, the actual heating and cooling cycles are unlikely to
be exactly compared in the two cases.

600

500
Measured Hardness (HV)

400

300

HV CEN
200 HV ANN

Linear ( )
100
100 200 300 400 500 600
Predicted Hardness (HV)

Figure 18: Comparison of the ouput of the CEN and the ANN models for the simulated weld thermal
cycle data.

The work thus far has succeeded in deriving hardness prediction algorithms that more
accurately predict hardness for the conditions and materials studied in the dilatometry work.
However, the question remains, how well do these algorithms predict the hardness of actual
welds?

In Figure 19, the measured and predicted results for CGHAZ hardness are presented for
selected Australian pipeline materials A1, A2 and A8. It can be seen that the Yurioka model
consistently underestimates the actual weld HAZ hardness. The neural network model (ANN)
consistently overestimates the hardness, but the differential is much smaller than for the
Yurioka model, and the predictions are close accurate for the A2 and A8 materials. The CEN
regression model provides the closest estimates of hardness for the A1 and A2 materials.

DISCUSSION

The in-service welding of pipeline and tap fitting materials is a critical procedure, involving
considerable risk to personnel and infrastructure. As such, a comprehensive appreciation of
microstructure and hardness development in the pipe steel is of paramount importance. The
current work seeks to enhance the methodologies currently available for predicting maximum
HAZ hardness in pipeline steels typical of in-service welding applications in the oil and gas
industry.

21
 450 HV meas (AGL)
HV ANN
400
HV CEN
350
HV YUR
300
Hardness (HV)

250

200

150

100

50

0
A1 A2 A8
Material

Figure 19: The measured hardness, HVmeas, from actual welding trials [29] on A1, A2 and A8 pipeline
materials (t8/5 cooling times of 4.3, 3.9 and 3 seconds, respectively) compared to the hardness
predicted for the same cooling conditions and compositions by the artificial neural network model
(HVNN), the CEN model (HVCEN) and the Yurioka model (HVYUR).

While this study provides a valuable analysis of material behaviour under such conditions, it
is important to recognize the limitations of the experimental work. For example, the
dilatometer is limited to a maximum heating rate of ~50 °Cs-1, which is much slower than the
heating rate of an actual weld HAZ and this limitation has implications for the extent of grain
growth on re-austenitisation of the steels. The actual heating time expected in a weld thermal
cycle over the temperature range from 1000 °C to 1400 °C is likely to be in the order of 1
second [30], whereas the dilatometer takes approximately 8 seconds to achieve heating over
this temperature range. The implication here is that there is likely to be greater austenite grain
growth during the dilatometer heating cycle than would be expected from typical welding
procedures. Further, the current simulations are likely to result in more complete dissolution
of alloying elements in the reaustenitised structure, resulting in a harder martensite on
cooling. If dissolution is complete then increasing austenite grain size is not likely to further
increase the hardness of a fully martensitic structure. However, greater austenite grain size
will result in higher hardenability, that is, the capacity to form martensite at lower cooling
rates. In this way, larger austenite grains could lead to a greater volume fraction of martensite,
and therefore higher hardness at any given t8/5 compared to the CGHAZ structure developed
during actual welding. In any case, this will mean that the results will tend to be conservative
with respect to hardness prediction, providing data that overestimates hardness in the
GCHAZ. This is a difficult effect to quantify, and the authors realise that further work is
required to properly investigate this matter. For example, it may be possible to upgrade the
dilatometer equipment to increase the capacity for heating and thereby increase the heating
rate so that it more closely approximates that of real weld applications. A related problem is
that austenite grain coarsening in an actual weld takes place in a steep gradient and it has been
suggested that grain growth in the GCHAZ is impeded by the grain size gradient extending

22
into the grain refined HAZ [31]. Thermal simulations in dilatometers and other simulators
produce a relatively uniform peak temperature zone with resultant grain sizes that are
typically higher than in the actual weld GCHAZ.

Another important source of experimental error lies in the simulation of the cooling rate. In
real applications, cooling is not linear but exponential, with higher cooling rate at elevated
temperatures, reducing to lower cooling rates at lower temperatures. The current work was
based on a linear cooling rate across the whole cooling range, such that for a given t8/5 value
the cooling rate through the martensitic transformation range is likely to be much higher than
for actual welding, underestimating the amount of auto-tempering and resulting in an over
estimate of material hardness for a given cooling condition. Again, such a scenario would be
expected to result in a conservative estimate of cracking susceptibility. The authors propose to
also review the cooling cycle and determine whether it is possible to more accurately simulate
the cooling cycle of a weld on the dilatometer equipment.

Hardness Values and Microstructures

The results show a tendency toward a consistent decrease in hardness with increasing t8/5.
Sharper decreases in hardness, such as the marked decrease for the A6 material from t8/5 of 8
to 10 seconds in Figure 4(a), can be attributed to the onset of diffusional transformation
products, that is, the structure is no longer fully martensitic. Hardness appears to decrease
with increasing t8/5, regardless of whether the structure remains martensitic or never was, as
illustrated by A1 and A5 materials in Figures 4(a). In the case of martensitic structures, the
decrease in hardness can be accounted for by more pronounced auto-tempering effects as
cooling rate decreases through the martensitic transformation range. For structures containing
diffusional transformation products, the softening with increasing t8/5 is probably also partially
related to auto-tempering effects, as well as to coarsening of the bainitic ferrite structures. For
the cooling rates examined, the microstructures were predominantly low carbon martensite, or
bainitic ferrite, or mixtures thereof. The martensite is expected to be supersaturated with
carbon and prone to auto-tempering because of the extended heating time. Bainitic ferrite is
also expected to form with residual carbon supersaturation, although carbon partitioning
results in islands of high carbon austenite that can transform at lower temperatures to bainite
or martensite. Both the bainitic ferrite and the residual “phase” are susceptible to auto-
tempering as cooling rate decreases.

The microstructures shown in Figures 5 and 6 appear to correlate well with the hardness
measurements. Fine, martensitic plate structures are apparent for high CE materials and short
t8/5 times and development of bainitic ferrite structures with increasing t8/5, associated with
progressive softening. The A6 and A10 materials are good examples of such a transition, with
predominantly martensitic structures apparent for t8/5 values of 2 and 6 seconds, but the
development of grain boundary ferrite and bainitic ferrite at t8/5 of 10 seconds (see Figure 5).

Relationship between Carbon Equivalent and Hardness – CEN Model

The CE formulae indicate the influence of composition on hardenability, that is, the likelihood
of formation of martensite on cooling. Increasing alloy content results in an increase in CE
values, and this is generally taken as an indication that a greater proportion of martensite will
be produced for a given cooling rate, and that a higher hardness level will result for a given
cooling rate. The relationships between CE and measured hardness for given cooling rates are
shown in Figures 7-11.

23
Of the three CE formulae considered, CEN appears to give the best correlation with hardness
for the examined range of cooling conditions from t8/5 of 2-8 seconds, and although this
correlation is less reliable at t8/5 of 10 seconds, it provides the most robust approximation over
the full range of cooling rates considered. The Pcm formula provides the closest correlation
with measured hardness values for the highest cooling rate condition (t8/5 = 2 s). However, as
t8/5 increases, the Pcm formula becomes less reliable and the CEN formula becomes more
accurate in predicting the hardness levels. The CEIIW formula provides a reasonable indication
of hardness, especially at lower cooling rates, but it is generally less reliable than the other
formulae. Further, although such a relationship may be acceptable where carbon equivalent is
lower than ~0.5, the predicted exponential increase in hardness with increasing carbon
equivalent beyond this level would be unrealistic. The finding that the use of CEN gave the
best predictions of hardness is consistent with the CEN formula being developed to account
for steels with a wide range of carbon contents, from the more modern low carbon steels (eg,
<0.1%C) to the older types that predate thermomechanical controlled processing and contain
higher levels of carbon (eg, up to 0.29%C in the current work).

The CEN formula for hardness developed in the current work is simpler than Yurioka’s
formula which involves three CE formula variants and the effect of carbon content being
considered both through direct terms and through the CE formulae.

Neural Network Model

A back-propagation artificial neural network was also successfully used to predict the
simulated HAZ hardness values of a number of pipeline and tap fitting steels with respect to a
number of input parameters. The 15 input parameters for this model included alloy
composition, cooling time (t8/5) and parent material hardness (see Table 2).

The levels of agreement for the training data and test data sets are shown in Figures 12 and
13. The errors of the predictions were quite low, with the RMS error in the training data being
18.0 HV10 and 17.9 HV10 in the test data.

A sensitivity analysis on selected input variables was also carried out to validate the model
and observe the response of the output data (HAZ hardness) over the input range (Figures 14
to 16). Positive values of sensitivity (∆H) indicate an increase in HAZ hardness with an
increasing value of the input variable being considered. Negative values of ∆H predict a
decrease in HAZ hardness with an increasing value of the input variable. Comparing the
effect of changes across the range of the input variable on HAZ hardness values, it is evident
that HAZ hardness is most sensitive to carbon content (∆H=188), followed by original parent
material hardness (∆H=53) and t8/5 (∆H=-47).

Carbon has long been reported to have a strong positive influence on hardness and strength.
The carbon content values used in the artificial neural network model ranged from 0.07 to
0.29 wt%, and the predicted hardness variation, ∆H, across this range was 188 (Figure 14).
The predicted effect of carbon on hardness in the model is confirmed by the work of Irvine
and Pickering [32]. Their work showed a significant increase in hardness with increasing
carbon content of various steels that have martensitic and bainitic microstructures, which are
the dominant microstructures of the simulated HAZ samples in the current work. Increasing
carbon content strongly increases the hardenability of steel [33], thus reducing the capacity to
form softer transformation products (such as high temperature bainite and ferrite) and

24
promoting the formation of a predominantly martensitic structure, which is significantly
harder than a bainitic or ferritic structure. In fully martensitic structures hardness increases
with increasing carbon content mainly due to the increased concentration of carbon in solution
[34].

The original (as-received) parent material hardness was incorporated into the model to further
define the influence of material characteristics on the output (HAZ hardness). Original
hardness was selected because it is a property that relates quantitatively to composition,
microstructure, grain size and segregation effects. The hardness of normalised low carbon
steels will depend overwhelmingly on carbon content (and hence volume fraction of pearlite)
and is therefore expected to correlate with the hardness of martensite produced in the HAZ
during ISW. Figure 15 shows that the predicted HAZ hardness increases with increasing
original hardness (∆H = 53).

Increasing t8/5 (s) from 2 s to 10 s (or decreasing cooling rate from 150°C/s to 30°C/s) results
in a ∆H value of –47 (see Figure 16). Hence, reducing the cooling rate (increasing cooling
time) results in a significant drop in hardness, although it is not as significant as the effect of
decreasing carbon content over the ranges considered. The reduction in hardness as a result of
decreasing cooling rate is due predominantly to martensitic microstructures undergoing auto-
tempering (if a predominantly martensitic structure is formed); or the formation of other
transformation products (such as bainite and/or ferrite) that have lower hardness values.
Bainitic and ferritic transformation products may also contain localized regions of martensite
in the microstructure, especially at shorter cooling times.

Comparison of the models

The accuracies of the CEN and ANN models examined in this current work were compared to
the Yurioka model for the dilatometer data. It is to be expected that the current models will
provide more accurate predictions, since they have been developed on the data being used to
“test” them. Indeed, the CEN model has shown to be significantly more accurate than the
Yurioka model (see Figure 17). It is also interesting to note that the neural network model
provides an even greater accuracy than the CEN model (see Figure 18).

As mentioned previously, the Yurioka model was developed using data from the actual welds
and therefore its relatively low performance for simulated weld data may not be surprising.
Therefore, the performance of the three models was examined against results obtained from
actual welding trials on the A1, A2 and A8 pipeline steels conducted by Painter and
Sabapathy [29]. The results of this comparison are presented in Figure 19. The Yurioka model
significantly underestimates HAZ hardness for all three materials. This is consistent with the
application of the Yurioka model to the dilatometer simulated weld thermal cycle data, where
a consistent underestimation of hardness was also observed. The two models developed in the
current work over-estimate hardness for the A1 steel, with the CEN model providing the most
accurate prediction. For the A2 and A8 steels, the neural network model slightly
overestimates the hardness while the empirical model slightly underestimates hardness. The
significant overestimation of hardness for the A1 steel may be attributable to the heat
treatment conditions used in the dilatometry work, which promoted excessive grain
coarsening of the prior austenite grains and perhaps more extensive dissolution of carbon in
austenite. The A2 and A8 materials had lower carbon contents and so the effects of excessive
grain coarsening and/or carbon dissolution on hardness levels are expected to be less
significant, as the ANN and CEN models predict.

25
It would be prudent to extend this evaluation of the predictive models to other examples of in-
service welds, and the authors intend to pursue this matter. However, on the basis of the
current results it can be said that the relationships derived from the current work more
accurately predict the measured hardness than the commercially applied Yurioka model.
Additionally, the ANN model consistently predicts slightly higher hardness values than those
measured and therefore has the advantage of being conservative in that it overestimates the
GCHAZ hardness. Moreover, both of the models developed in the current work are clearly
more appropriate for in-service welding applications than the Yurioka model.

CONCLUSIONS

The current work has been successful in utilizing dilatometric simulations of the weld thermal
cycles to derive two new hardness prediction models that more accurately predict hardness in
the grain-coarsened HAZ for typical in-service welding conditions. These models are shown
to provide more accurate estimates of hardness than a widely used commercial hardness
prediction algorithm. Further, the ANN model has the advantage, from a practical standpoint,
of making conservative predictions, that is, slightly overestimating the actual GCHAZ
hardness. It is acknowledged that further work is required to validate the models for a wider
range of in-service welding applications, but the work provides a useful demonstration of the
potential for improved in-service welding procedures.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The current work was conducted as part of a project sponsored by the Cooperative Research
Centre for Welded Structures (CRC-WS) and its core partners, the Australian Pipeline
Industry Association (APIA) and the Welding Technology Institute of Australia (WTIA).
CRC-WS was established and is supported by the Australian Government Cooperative
Research Centres Program. Additional in-kind support from Bluescope Steel is gratefully
acknowledged. The authors would also like to thank Bill Bruce from the Edison Welding
Institute (USA) for providing steels from North American applications for inclusion in the
work. It should also be noted that this paper has previously been submitted in similar form for
publication in the journal Science and Technology of Welding and Joining.

REFERENCES

1. B. Phelps, B.A. Cassie and N.H. Evans, “Welding onto live natural gas pipelines”,
Metal Construction, August, 1976, pp. 350-354.
2. D.J. Hicks, “Guideline for welding on pressurized pipe”, Pipeline and Gas Journal,
March, 1983, pp.17-19.
3. J. Kiefer and R. Fischer, “Repair and hot tap welding on pressurized pipelines”, Proc. of
the 11th Annual Energy Sources Technology Conference, New Orleans, 1988, Publ. by
ASME, New York, PD-Vol.14, 1987, pp. 1-10.
4. P.N. Sabapathy, M.A. Wahab and M. Painter, “The prediction of burn-through during
in-service welding of gas pipelines”, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping, 77, 2000, pp.669-677.

26
5. M. Painter, “In-service welding of thin-walled, high strength gas pipelines: CRC-WS
research”, Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Welding Onto In-Service
Petroleum Gas and Liquid Pipelines, Publ. by the Welding Technology Institute of
Australia, Wollongong, March, 2000, Paper 21.
6. W. Bruce and J. McHaney, “Lessons to be learned from past in-service welding
incidents”, Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Welding Onto In-Service
Petroleum Gas and Liquid Pipelines, Publ. by the Welding Technology Institute of
Australia, Wollongong, March, 2000, Paper 8.
7. N. Yurioka and H. Suzuki, “Hydrogen assisted cracking in C-Mn and low alloy steel
weldments”, International Materials Reviews, Vol.35, No.4, 1990, p.217-249.
8. J.L. Davidson, “Hydrogen-induced cracking of low carbon, low alloy steel weldments”,
Materials Forum, 19, 1995, p.35-51.
9. D. Dunne, “A review of the theoretical and experimental background of hydrogen
assisted cold cracking of steel weldments”, Proc. of the 1st International Conference on
Weld Metal Hydrogen Cracking in Pipeline Girth Welds, Publ. by the Welding
Technology Institute of Australia, Wollongong, Australia, March, 1999, p.3-1.
10. AWS D1.1-86, Structural welding code – Steel, AWS, Miami, Florida, 1986.
11. BS5135-1984, Process of arc welding of carbon and carbon-manganese steels, British
Standard Institution, 1984.
12. AS/NZS 1554.1:2000, Structural steel welding – Welding of structural steel, Standards
Australia, 2000.
13. AS 2885.2:2002, Pipelines – Gas and liquid petroleum, Part 2: Welding, Standards
Australia, 2002.
14. WTIA Technical Note 1, Weldability of steel, Publ. by the Welding Technology
Institute of Australia, 1996.
15. D. Uwer and H. Hokne, “Determination of suitable minimum preheating temperature for
the cold-crack-free welding of steels”, IIW Document IX-1631-91, International
Institute of Welding, 1991.
16. N. Yurioka and T. Kasuya, Welding in the World, 35, 1995, p.327.
17. WTIA Technical Note 20, Repair of steel pipelines, Publ. by the Welding Technology
Institute of Australia, 1994.
18. M. Cola, W. Bruce, J. Kiefner, R. Fischer, T. Bubenik and D. Jones, “Development of a
simplified weld cooling rate model for in-service gas pipelines”, Pipeline Research
Council International Inc., 1991.
19. Thermal Analysis Model for Hot-Tap Welding, Version 4.2, Pipeline Research Council
International Inc., 2002.
20. M.J. Painter and V. Tyagi, “Mechanized in-service welding and software development”,
CRC-WS Project 00-95 Final Report, Cooperative Research Centre for Welded
Structures, Wollongong, Australia, October, 2002..
21. D. Nolan, W. Bruce, P. Grace and D. Dunne, “Weldability issues for in-service pipeline
welding”, Proc. of the International Conference on Pipeline Repairs and In-Service
Welding, Wollongong, 2003, Published by the Welding Technology Institute of
Australia, 2003.
22. W.A. Bruce, “Selecting an appropriate procedure for welding onto in-service pipelines”,
Proc. of the International Conference on Pipeline Repairs, Wollongong, Publ. by the
Welding Technology Institute of Australia, March, 2001.
23. N. Yurioka, “Physical metallurgy of steel weldability”, ISIJ International, Vol.41, No.6,
2001, pp.566-570.
24. N. Yurioka, H. Suzuki and S. Ohshita, Welding Journal, 62(6), 1983, pp.147-153.

27
25. N. Yurioka, M. Okumura, T. Kasuya and H.J. Cotton, “Prediction of HAZ Hardness of
Transformable Steels”, Metal Construction, April, 1987, pp.217R-223R.
26. Y. Tomita and K. Okabayashi, Metallurgical Transactions A, 14A, 1983, p.485.
27. NeuralWare, Neural Computing Guide, Technical Publications Group, Pittsburgh, USA,
2003.
28. NeuralWare, Advanced Reference Guide, Technical Publications Group, Pittsburgh,
USA, 2003.
29. M.J. Painter and P. Sabapathy, “In-Service Welding of gas Pipelines”, CRC-WS Project
96:34 Final Report, Cooperative Research Centre for Welded Structures, Wollongong,
Australia, 2000.
30. J. F. Lancaster, Metallurgy of Welding, 6th Ed., Abington Publishing, Cambridge, 1999.
31. S. Mishra and T. DebRoy, Acta Mater., Vol. 52, 2004, p.1183.
32. K. Irvine and F. Pickering, Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, 187, 1957, p.292.
33. R. Honeycombe, Steels: Microstructures and Properties, Edward Arnold, 1981, p. 131.
34. D. Askeland, Ed., The Science and Engineering of Materials, 2nd Ed., Chapman and
Hall, 1990, p.263.

28