Congreso SAM/CONAMET 2007 San Nicolás, 4 al 7 Septiembre de 2007

Fracture Toughness of the Heat Affected Zone in Girth Welds

G. M. Castelluccio, R. E. Bravo(1), H. A. Ernst (1), A. A. Yawny(2) y J. E Perez Ipiña(3)

(1) Departamento de integridad estructural –TENARIS
Dr. Simini 250, Campana, Buenos Aires, Argentina
(2) Grupo física de metales – Instituto Balseiro
Av. Bustillo 9500 (8400) San Carlos de Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina
(3) Grupo Mecánica de Fractura – Universidad Nacional del Comahue
Buenos Aires 1400 (8300), Neuquen, Neuquen, Argentina
E-mail castellg@ib.cnea.gov.ar

ABSTRACT
An experimental study was conducted to assess the fracture toughness properties of the Heat Affected Zone
(HAZ) from girth welds of offshore pipes for different heat inputs (0.8, 2.5 and 3kJ/mm). Welds with a semi K
bevel were used for easier crack location on the side of the planar HAZ. Fracture toughness properties at –
10°C were measured using standardized methods (BS7448 Part 2, 1997). The emphasis was placed on the
coarse grain HAZ (CGHAZ) because it usually exhibits the lowest toughness in HSLA steels. The CGHAZ
showed lower toughness than the base metal, with quantitative results depending on the heat input. For the
heat inputs of 0.8 and 3kJ/mm fracture occurred in the ductile – to brittle transition region with a consequent
increase of the variability of the maximum load toughness parameters (CTODm and Jm) or critical CTOD
and J. The resistance curves based on the CTOD or J integral however, exhibited lower variability.

Key words: HAZ, toughness, resistance curve, CTOD, J.

1. BACKGROUND
The reeling process provides a fast and efficient means of laying offshore pipelines. It consists of girth
welding on shore pipes segments, reeling the welded segments onto a drum and reeling them off at its final
location in an offshore installation. During the welding process some portion of the metal achieves the liquid
state while the surrounding material suffers from the influence of the diffused heat. As result, three main
regions can be distinguished in the weld microstructure: the Base Metal (BM), the Weld Metal (WM) and the
Heat Affected Zone (HAZ). The HAZ is generally some millimeters in width, possesses an inhomogeneous
microstructure accompanied with a steep gradient on mechanical properties. While an appropriate analysis of
pipeline structural integrity should include a thorough characterization of all the three regions, HAZ is
particularly critical. Therefore, attention will be focused on the HAZ toughness in what follows.

1.1. HAZ
The HAZ is the region adjacent to the fusion line that has been heated during the welding. It extends from
the liquid-solid interface to the region that has raised its temperature slightly over the ambient. It has
practically the same chemical composition of the BM and may be thought as a region where each point
received a different thermal cycle. As a consequence, the HAZ exhibits an inhomogeneous microstructure
with an associated gradient on the resulting properties. Four main zones can be distinguished along the HAZ:
• The Coarse Grain HAZ (CGHAZ) is the region adjacent to the fusion line where the grain size grows
due to the high temperature reached.
• The Fine Grain HAZ (FGHAZ) is next to the CGHAZ and transforms completely to austenite, but
grains are refined due to the recrystallization process.
• The Intercritical HAZ (ICHAZ) follows the FGHAZ and corresponds to the region that has not become
fully austenitic. The austenite formed is enriched in carbon and has a higher hardenability.
• The Subcritical HAZ (SCHAZ) is the zone that has been tempered.
The microstructures of the HAZ, and consequently their properties, depend on the heat input (HI) and on
material properties (phase diagram, the Constant Cooling Curves, etc). The heat input is the amount of heat
used to melt the electrode and is one of the variables used to control the welding process. The HI can make
the HAZ become softer or harder than the base metal and vary the width of the affected zone.

837
Previous studies have shown that the CGHAZ and the region between the ICHAZ and SCHAZ exhibit the
lowest toughness in low alloy steels [1, 2, 3]. In these regions Local Brittle Zones (LBZ) can be found and;
they are composed of brittle microstructures, generally martensite and retained austenite surrounded by a
ferrite matrix. High amounts of LBZ can diminish the HAZ’s toughness dramatically.

1.2. FRACTURE MECHANICS

Fracture mechanics studies the behavior of the materials in the presence of a discontinuity (cracks). When
the occurrence of plastic deformation at the tip of a crack is only limited, Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
(LEFM) adequately characterizes material toughness. The stress intensity factor, K, is used for analyzing the
structural reliability. This parameter carries with information about geometry and applied stresses that
influence the crack stability.
Tough metals do no fulfill LEFM requirements, i.e., plastic deformation is not limited to a small region. In
those situations, the Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanic approach (EPFM) expands the LEFM limits allowing
the occurrence of larger amount of plastic strain. The stress intensity factor K is now replaced, for example,
by the J integral parameter.
Another parameter used for characterizing a crack is the Crack Tip Open Displacement (CTOD). It
quantifies how much the crack tip surfaces separate when a load is applied. Figure 1 represents a blunted
crack and the CTOD geometrical definition with two perpendicular lines.
The applied CTOD and J attained at maximum load during a fracture mechanics test (CTODm and Jm) are
usually used for rating materials. Its value is employed as an estimation of real material properties, the
critical parameters CTODc and Jc, which determine the beginning of the crack growth.
Tough materials can attain safely values higher than the CTODc or Jc, due to the stable crack growth. In these
cases the resistance curve, this is the CTOD vs crack growth (or J vs crack growth) is used to evaluate the
material behavior because critical parameters do not carry information about the stable crack extension.

Figure 1. a) Sketch of a crack and the measurement of the CTOD. b) Resistance curve. [4]

2. THIS WORK
The fracture toughness of HAZs corresponding to girth-welded pipes were studied using Single Edge Notch
Specimen in bending (SENB) in the first author’s Master Thesis [7] and the main results are presented in this
work. The SENB geometry has been selected for the study because, for specimens with equal cross section,
it provides higher constraint where crack tip stresses better approach plane strain conditions.

2.1. MATERIAL
The material used in the present study corresponds to a pipe grade X65 with an outside diameter of 310 mm
and thickness of 17.5 mm. The pipe was quenched and tempered and its chemical composition is presented
in Table 1.

Table 1. Main chemical elements of the steel, pipe grade X65, used in the present study
Al C Cr Cu Mn Mo N Nb Ni P S Si Ti V
0,028 0,107 0,043 0,116 1,06 0,074 0,005 0,005 0,053 0,006 0,002 0,250 0,016 0,052

838
 2.1.1. WELDING TECHNIQUES
The main characteristics of the welding procedure are:
- Surface Tension Transfer STT for root pass with a HI of 0.8kJ/mm.
- Submerged Arc Welding (SAW) process for fill and cap passes with three HI 0.8 kJ/mm, 2.5 kJ/mm or
3.0 kJ/mm. The same electrode was used in all cases.

2.1.2. “SEMI K” BEVEL

A bevel with a straight side, usually called “K” or “semi K” was used and is shown in Figure 2a. If
conventional X or V welds were used, mixed microstructures would be sampled, see Figure 2b.

Figure 2. a) and c) Semi K bevel used for evaluating HAZ’s toughness. b) Conventional X bevel.

This methodology is widely accepted for evaluating HAZ’s toughness in multipass welds [5], and has been
adopted by many institutions [6]. In actual welds the straight side of the weld was not perpendicular to the
specimen edge as it is shown in Figure 2c). The cause for this is the lower HI used in the root pass. To
overcome this difficulty, the root pass was machined and eliminated from the specimen as indicated in
Figure 2c).

2.2. MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

The BM had a yield strength of 470 ± 25 MPa, an ultimate tensile strength of 570 ± 40 MPa and the mean
Chapy V Notch energy of 455 J @ -10 °C. Tensile properties were determined according to ASTM E8 and
from production registers. Uncertainties correspond to the dispersion found in tests considered.
HAZ’s tensile properties cannot be directly determined using standardized methods due to its small
dimensions. Alternative indirect methods like hardness measurements were used to estimate tensile
properties. The HAZ with a HI of 0.8 kJ/mm has a higher hardness than the BM, so it is expected that it has a
higher strength. On the contrary, the HI of 2.5 kJ/mm and 3.0 kJ/mm produced HAZs with lower hardness
and strength than the BM. These trends were verified using in situ test presented in [7].

2.3. SPECIMENS
SENB specimens were cut from the double joint as shown in

Figure 3 a). In this specimen the crack grew in the through thickness direction, this is referred as the LC
orientation in accordance to BS7448 part 4 [8]. This configuration maximizes the specimen dimensions,
providing higher constraint.

839
 Figure 3. a) The crack grew in the through thickness direction. b) Sketch of the SENB specimen.
SENB specimen dimensions are shown in

Figure 3 b). B x 2B specimens were chosen, and B was as similar as possible to the pipes thickness (around
70% of the pipe’s thickness). This requirement tends to assure that the stress and strain states at the crack tip
are similar to those found in an actual pipe.
Crack location criteria and lateral-compression method for relieving residual stresses used in this work were
already described in [7, or in 6 and 8].

3. TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

Three magnitudes were measured during the fracture toughness testing:
1) Load Point Displacement (LPD): displacement of the heads measured with a LVDT.
2) Crack Mouth Open Displacement (CTOD): crack opening measured at the edge of the specimen with
a clip gauge.
3) Load: applied load measured with a load cell.
The CMOD-Load diagram was used to obtain the CTOD. On the other hand, the area under the curve load-
LPD was used for the calculus of J.
Test were carried out at (–10 ± 2) °C with the specimens submerged in alcohol. Figure 4 presents a typical
record obtained for a ductile material. Upon reaching the maximum load, a partial unload was performed.
This allowed obtaining the CTOD and the J at maximum load, and continuing the test for reaching further
crack growth.
The CTOD and J values were calculated when the maximum load was attained (CTODm and Jm). When
brittle unstable crack growth developed the critical CTOD or J was calculated using the final values attained.

840
 20000
20000

15000 15000

Load [N]
Load [N]

10000 10000

5000 5000

0
0
0 1 2 VPmax 3 4V 5
Pfinal 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
CMOD [mm] LPD [mm]
Figure 4. Examples of the load-displacements diagrams registered.

3.1. MAXIMUM LOAD PARAMETERS RESULTS

CTODm and Jm results for the HAZ, the BM and WM are presented in Figure 5. Results for the WM are not
drawn, but locate for all HI in the band drawn in green. BM had a CTODm mean value of 1.4mm and Jm of
1400N/mm and results spread ±8 %. For the WM, CTODm varied from 0.62mm to 0.96mm and Jm values
varied between 560N/mm and 870N/mm. For all cases the tests were stopped when the maximum load was
attained and no brittle unstable crack growth developed.
HAZs with a HI of 0.8 kJ/mm and 3.0 kJ/mm had wide variability in the results, which was presumably
originated due to the brittle unstable crack growth. All the tests with a HI of 2.5 kJ/mm failed in ductile
manner. As a result a significant lower dispersion was found.
Although all specimens attained the maximum load, differences in the stable crack growth were observed.
Maximum load parameters do not give information about the stable crack extension.
Despite the fact that it was not verified if the crack grew in the CGHAZ, most results for the HAZ are lower
than those for the BM and many are outside the band were WM results are placed. In those cases neither base
metal nor welded metal were evaluated. Thus, it seems that the notches were correctly placed and HAZ’s
properties were measured.
HAZ 3,0 kJ/mm HAZ 2,5 kJ/mm HAZ 0,8 kJ/mm Base Metal HAZ 3,0 kJ/mm HAZ 2,5 kJ/mm HAZ 0,8 kJ/mm Base Metal
1.6 1600

1.4 1400

1.2 1200
CTOD m [mm]

1.0 1000
Jm [N/mm]

Weld metal
0.8 800 Weld Metal

0.6 600

0.4 400

0.2 200

0.0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

# Specimen # Specimen
Figure 5. CTOD and J attained at maximum load or critical for brittle fracture.

3.2. RESISTANCE CURVE DETERMINATION

In order to evaluate ductile crack growth, the resistance curve was obtained. In Figure 6 results for all the HI
are presented. Notice that the variability previously found has been corrected due to the introduction of a
new variable, the crack growth. The tests with low crack growth (lower than 0.5 mm) correspond to
specimens that failed in a brittle unstable manner.

841
 2.5 2000

1800

2.0 1600

1400
CTOD [mm]

1.5 1200

J [N/ mm]
1000

1.0 Base Metal 800 Base Metal

HAZ (3,0 kJ/mm) HAZ (3,0 kJ/mm)
600 HAZ (2,5 kJ/mm )
HAZ (2,5 kJ/mm)
HAZ ( 0,8 kJ/mm ) HAZ (0,8 kJ/mm )
0.5 400
Weld Metal (3,0 kJ/mm) Weld Metal (3,0 kJ/mm )
Weld Metal (2,5 kJ/mm ) 200 Weld Metal (2,5 kJ/mm )
Weld metal (0,8 kJ/mm) Weld Metal (0,8 kJ/mm )
0.0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Crack Growth [mm] Crack Growth[mm]

Figure 6. CTOD resistance curves for different HAZs. Low crack growth values correspond to brittle
failures.

3.3. RESISTANCE CURVE FITTING

For each of the evaluated HAZs, the corresponding resistance curves were fitted according to:

CTOD or J = b(∆a )
c
(1)

Where ∆a is the crack growth and b and c are fitting parameters to be determined. This equation is proposed
by ASTM 1820 [9] and differs from the one proposed in BS7448 Part 4 in a non-zero constant term. This
fitting law was preferred due to the lack of statistics, i.e.: six data point for fitting the law.
Figure 7 compares the resistance curve for the HAZ with different HI evaluated with SENB specimens. It is
found that:
• no distinguishable trends can be observed up to 1mm of crack growth and some differences appeared
for larger growths.
• results for the HAZ with a HI of 0.8 kJ/mm had the highest dispersion. As a result, confidence bands
are widely open, and the resistance curve can not be differenced from the other HAZ.

2.5
2000

1800

2.0 1600

1400
CTOD [mm]

1.5 1200
J [N/mm]

1000

1.0 800

600 HAZ 3.0kJ/mm

HAZ 3.0kJ/mm
95% Confidence band HAZ 3.0kJ/mm
95% Confidence band HAZ 3.0kJ/mm
0.5
400 HAZ 2.5kJ/mm
HAZ 2.5kJ/mm 95% Confidence band HAZ 2.5kJ/mm
95% Confidence band HAZ 2.5kJ/mm 200 HAZ 0.8kJ/mm
HAZ 0.8kJ/mm
67% Confidence band HAZ 0.8kJ/mm
67% Confidence band HAZ 0.8kJ/mm 0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Crack Growth [mm] Crack Growth [mm]

Figure 7. CTOD and J resistance curve best-fit comparison

4. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

- An important variability was observed for maximum load parameters (CTODm and Jm) or critical CTOD
and J for brittle fracture. However, the variability was significantly reduced when results were shown in
terms of the fracture toughness resistance curve.
- The HAZ had lower values of CTOD and J than the BM, and in many specimens brittle fracture occurred.
Actual pipes may not lead to brittle instability due to its lower constraint.

842
- The WM had lower toughness than the BM and HAZ specimens that did not failed in a brittle manner.
The HI does not seem to affect significantly the results for the WM.
- The HI had an important effect on the results of the HAZ. Some specimens with a HI of 0.8 kJ/mm and
3.0 kJ/mm failed in a brittle manner at -10 °C, but none of the HAZ with a HI of 2.5 kJ/mm. The existence of
some brittle failures indicates that the HAZ is in the ductile to brittle transition at –10 °C.
- Maximum load and critical CTOD or J showed wide variability for the HAZs with a HI of 0.8 kJ/mm and
3.0kJ/mm, partially due to the ductile - brittle transition. All the tests with a HI of 2.5 kJ/mm failed in ductile
manner that led to a significant lower dispersion.
- Resistance curves obtained for HAZs with different HI were compared. No distinguishable trends were
observed for crack growths up to 1mm. Some differences appeared for larger growths.

REFERENCES
1. B. C. Kim, S. Lee, N. J. Kim, and D. Y. Lee. Microstructure and local brittle zone phenomena in high-
strength low-alloy steel welds. Metallurgical Transactions A: Physical Metallurgy and Materials Science,
22A:139–149, 1991.
2. J. H. Kim and E. P. Yoon. Notch position in the HAZ specimen of reactor pressure vessel steel. Journal of
Nuclear Materials, 257:303–308, 1998.
3. C. L. Davis and J. E. King. Cleavage initiation in the intercrıtically reheated coarse-grained heat-affected
zone: Part I. Fractographic evidence. Metallurgical Transactions A, 25A:563–573, march 1994.
4. T. L. Anderson. Fracture Mechanics. Fundamentals and Applications. CRC Press, 2 edition, 1994.
5. Pisarski H. G. A review of HAZ toughness evaluation. TWI Research Report 566/1996, The Welding
Institute, Abington Hall, August 1996.
6. BS 7448: Part 2. British Standard. 1997.
7. Castelluccio, G. M. Master thesis. Tile: Toughness of Inhomogeneous Materials: The Heat Affected Zone
in Welds, Instituto Balseiro, 2006.
8. BS 7448: Part 4. British Standard. 1997.
9. ASTM E 1820 –05. American Standard for Testing and Materials. August 2005.

843