REVIEW

Challenges and developments in pipeline

weldability and mechanical properties
C. Liu*1 and S. D. Bhole2
Recent economic and political events have further highlighted the need for new and strategically
accessible sources of oil and gas. With the continually increasing demand for oil and gas, the
requirement for pipeline steels with higher strength, toughness and weldability has been one of
the most important factors driving the development of high strength pipeline steels, particularly
with the oil exploration proceeding into arctic and deep sea regions, enhancing the weldability
and mechanical properties of the new pipeline steels and weld consumables. Developments in
the welding processes for manufacture and field welding are described in terms of process
principles, equipment, consumables, weld quality, process economics and further developments.
The increasing and changing requirement for weldability and mechanical properties in the heat
affected zone and weld metal of pipeline welds are presented along with the reported solutions to
the problems.
Keywords: Pipeline, Weldability, Mechanical properties, Welding process

Introduction Developments of high grade pipeline

Pipelines used for the transportation of crude oil or
natural gas over long distance and under high pressure
primarily require a combination of high strength and
toughness, and good weldability for lowering transpor-
tation cost.1–3 Particularly during the late two decades,
the exploration of energy has expanded to cold regions
such as northern Canada, the North Sea and Siberia.4
The higher grade steel pipes and enhanced weldability
are being proposed for the purpose of enhancing the
transport efficiency of pipelines. Thus, the investigation
and development of improved and innovative welding
techniques to face the new technical challenges is a
major consideration in the pipeline industry.
This paper presents an overview of challenges and
developments in the weldability of pipeline steels in
grades from X70 to X120. The various welding processes
for both the manufacturing of pipes and the construc-
tion of pipelines are evaluated. The mechanical proper-
ties of the base metal (BM), heat affected zone (HAZ)
and weld metal (WM) in pipeline welds and the
approaches to improve the toughness of the HAZ and
WM are summarised.
1
College of Mechanical Engineering, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou
225009, China
2
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson
University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ont. M5B 2K3 Canada
*Corresponding author, email bessiechengliu@yahoo.ca
steels
The development and the changes in production
techniques of high strength pipeline steels from 1990 to
2010 are shown in Fig. 1.5–13 The chemical composition
and mechanical properties of pipeline steel from X70 to
X120 are given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.8,14,15
It is seen that X80 steels instead of X60 and X65 are
microalloyed with molybdenum, niobium and titanium,
and the reduced carbon content has been developed and
utilised for gas pipelines. A 163 mile, 48 in gas pipeline
installed in 1992–1993 in Germany was the first to use
X80 steel in the world. It thus has a higher design
potential than the more widely used X70 because it
allows system design with either thinner wall thicknesses
at constant operating pressure or a corresponding in-
crease in operating pressure.16 From the 1990s, the higher
strength of X100 pipeline steels, having a further reduced
carbon and a good combination of higher strength and
better toughness (see Tables 1 and 2), compared with
either X80 or X70 steels has been developed by an
improved processing method, consisting of thermome-
chanically controlled process (TMCP) plus subsequent
accelerated cooling (ACC). The aim of the TMCP process
is to create an extremely fine grain microstructure by a
skilled combination of rolling steps at particular tem-
perature control. The grain in strength obtained by the
grain refinement can reduce effectively the contents of
both carbon and alloys in TMCP steel compared with
normalised steel of the same grade. Thus, the weldability
can be improved due to the leaner steel composition. For
thick plates, an ACC after final rolling pass is beneficial
for the achievement of the most suitable microstructure as
it forces the transformation of elongated austenite grains

ß 2013 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute
Received 22 August 2012; accepted 4 November 2012
DOI 10.1179/1362171812Y.0000000090 Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2013 VOL 18 NO 2 169
 Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties

1 Development of pipeline steel grades and production techniques from 1990 to 2010

before recrystallisation.3 The characterisation of proto- Generally, the ferrite grain of X70 steels (ASTM 10-11) is
types of X100 pipes has been extensively studied by pipe finer than that of X60 (ASTM 7-8).18 Changing the
manufacturers.7,17–19 Further additions of Mo, Ni and B microstructure of the steel matrix from ferrite–pearlite to
enable the strength level to be raised to that of grade X120 ferrite–bainite can attain further increases in strength and
by the same processing method.9 To enable the develop- toughness, which leads to the development of X80 steel. It
ment of remote gas sources in the future, higher strength has been observed that the ferrite–bainite microstructure
pipelines such as X100 and X120 will play very important in X80 steel is more uniform and extremely fine with a
roles in the pipe industry.20,21 It is also seen from Fig. 1 mean grain size of ,1 mm.22 However, this is still not the
that the grain refinement is the key method by which both end. In order to significantly increase the strength above
strength and toughness can simultaneously be improved. the X80 level, a fully bainitic microstructure with a very
fine grain size has been aimed for X100 and X120 steels.
Table 1 Chemical composition of pipeline steel from As applying the high strength steels, the materials
grade X70 to X120*/wt-%8,14,15 used for pipeline can be saved greatly. The use of grade
Grade X70 X80 X100 X120 X80 pipeline in the construction leads to a materials
saving of ,20 000 t, compared with X70 pipes, through
C 0?095 0?075 0?06 0?03–0?06 a reduction in the wall thickness from 20?8 mm for X70
Si 0?32 0?31 0?35 0?36 to 18?3 mm for X80.23 The use of higher strength, such
Mn 1?55 1?59 1?90 1?95 as grade X100 or grade X120, can result in further
P 0?015 0?018 NS NS
S 0?001 0?001 NS NS
savings. For example, the X100 pipeline could give
Nb 0?040 0?057 0?05 0?04 investment cost savings of ,7% compared with grade
Ti 0?013 0?013 0?018 0?02 X80 pipeline. This study claims cost savings of up to
Al 0?030 0?026 NS NS 30% when X70 and X100 are compared.24
V 0?06 NS NS NS
Mo NS 0?22 0?28 0?20
Ni NS NS 0?25 NS Developments in weldability in X70 and
Cu NS NS NS NS
Cr NS NS NS NS
X80 pipelines
B/ppm 2 NS NS 10–20 In the early 1970s, grade X70 was introduced in the
N/ppm 52 60 40 40 world for use as a pipe in the construction of gas
Ca/ppm 8 11 NS NS
transmission.25 Since then, there are satisfactory experi-
*NS: not specified. ences to show that it can be welded trouble free with

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2013 VOL 18 NO 2 170


2 Influence of strength and weldability considerations on
alloy design for X70 and X8014
cellulosic electrodes providing care taken to avoid
hydrogen induced cold crack.13,25,26 In summer 1994, a
33 km of NGT’s Eastern Alberta system main line along
the gas pipeline system operated in Alberta was the first
North America long distance, large diameter pipeline to
use X80 steel.27 Up to 2001, X80 pipeline was used
widely in the world. Now, it becomes the basis of a
standard platform for design and construction of large
diameter pipeline projects in the network.
Achieving the balance between strength and weld-
ability in the development of X70 and X80 has been a
major consideration in respect of alloy design as
indicated schematically in Fig. 2.14 The higher carbon
equivalent (CE) values are obtained in the commercial
X70 grade steels (Nb/V steel A and Nb/V steel B).
Particularly, the Nb/V steel B provides little margin for
pipe yield strength at a specified maximum CE per cent
level of 0?39. An increase in CE to 0?40 allows for more
comfortable achievement of strength but can be a
questionable approach if heavier wall thicknesses are
required from a weldability viewpoint. The application
of Mo/Nb steel C in a subsequent X70/X80 provides for
a good wide excellent strength at a considerably lower
CE. The trend of X80 and X70 development is also
indicated on the diagram, suggesting that the balance of
strength/weldability also requires appropriate welding
procedures for higher strength X80 pipelines for either
metallurgical or economic reasons because of the
changing of the alloying elements and the strength.
Welding process developments for X70 and X80
pipelines
The pipeline welding can be divided into the following:
manufacture welding and field welding. Good weld-
ability of the steel used for the manufacture of pipeline is
a prerequisite for trouble free welding in pipe laying. The
Table 2 Mechanical properties of pipeline steel from grade X70 to X120*8,14,15
Grade
Pipe size Thickness/mm
Mechanical properties Yield strength/MPa
Tensile strength/MPa
Elongation/%
Charpy V-notch toughness Test temperature/uC
Energy/J
50% FATT{/uC
*NS: not specified.
{The 50% ductile to brittle appearance fracture transition temperature measured in the Charpy impact test.
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties
field welding to be used has to meet requirements for
maximum productivity and reliability.28,29
The manufacture of large diameter pipeline involves
the forming of plate to pipe, followed by seam welding
and finally expansion of pipe to final shape. The seam
welding operation is generally carried out using the high
productivity submerged arc welding (SAW) process.30
Manual shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) process
and mechanised gas metal arc welding (GMAW) process
are two principal welding methods for field welding.15,27,31
These welding methods are well established now and
regarded as sufficiently validated for large scale use. The
method adopted depends on economic considerations: the
most cost effective use of mechanised GMAW and manual
SMAW depends on the type of mechanised welding
system, the length of each individual construction and the
topography of the land to be traversed.32
Submerged arc welding process
During longitudinal SAW seam process, the welded pipe
is usually formed by a double SAW method, whose
longitudinal butt joint is welded in at least two passes,
one of which is on the inside of the pipe; the welds are
made by heating with an electric arc between the bare
metal electrodes. Pressure is not used. Filler metal for
the welds is obtained from the electrodes. This process
can penetrate the full thickness of the pipe because the
heat input during the SAW is §2 kJ cm21 per milli-
metre of thickness and gives a high productivity with
good mechanical properties and a low repair rate.33–35
The SAW welds in X70 pipeline are generally made
with wire electrodes alloyed with Mn and Mo or with Mn,
Mo and Ni.34–39 The chemical composition of the wires is
adjusted in such a way that the WMs, which contain 60–
70%BM by dilution, exhibit maximum toughness. A
proper balance between C, Mn and Mo contents as well
as microalloying with Ti and B has a beneficial effect on
WM toughness.6 Welding of X80 is carried out similarly
using the same slightly basic agglomerated fluxes that
have been well established for welding X70 line pipe steel.
There are no needs of developing welding wires specifi-
cally for this material.38 Owing to reduced carbon
content, X80 exhibits a slightly improved toughness in
the HAZ compared with X70.29,38
Since the high strength pipelines are welded by high
heat input SAW process, the high heat input results in
an increased grain size in the HAZ, and often leads to
softening and a detrimental effect on the properties of
the welded joint.2,11 Jansen et al.35 pointed out that this
problem became even worse for the thin wall pipe due to
the deep penetration of the second weld pass. Thus, pipe
manufacturers have to take care of this by adjusting the
chemical compositions of both BM and WM.
X70 X80 X100 X120
5?2 3 16 15–18
580 685 752 843
630 718 816 1128
35 28 18 14?3
10 215 20 240
70 32 270 227
2100 ,2125 NS NS
2013 VOL 18 NO 2 171

3 Diagram of mechanised GMAW process steps40
Manual SMAW process
Because of the high tensile strength of X80 pipe steel, it
is not possible for the WM deposited by the cellulosic
electrode used in X70 welding procedure to fulfil the
requirement for the minimum tensile strength and to
have simultaneously satisfactory toughness and resis-
tance to cold cracking.25 Considerable changes have to
be made to the manual SMAW method required in the
construction of large diameter in high strength pipes. A
combined electrode manual welding procedure has been
proposed for use in X80 welding. This consists of
making the root and hot pass welding with soft (lower
strength grade) cellulosic electrodes, as in the case of
X70, and the filler and cap passes with high strength
vertical down basic electrodes (such as MAW type
E55010 or AWS type E 10018-G) are used for both the
root and hot passes. It is thus possible to ensure uniform
progress during pipe laying.26,39
Mechanised GMAW process
Besides manual SMAW, the mechanised GMAW be-
comes increasingly important as an economic process.
For example, the SMAW process traditionally has been
used to make the field girth welds; however, increasing
use is being made of mechanised GMAW systems and for
large diameter pipeline construction.40 The different steps
in pipe welding with mechanised GMAW are shown in
Fig. 3. It has several advantages over manual processes as
follows: high metal deposition rates, a reduced gap, low
hydrogen, consistency in both strength and toughness,
very narrow welds, relatively low heat input with a variety
of wires and gas shielding, and reduced welding time.25,27
Unlike the 100%CO2 shielding gas used in GMAW for
X70, the mechanised GMAW process for X80 requires
the use of a principally inert gas shield, which greatly
increases the notch and fracture toughness of the WM
and virtually eliminates defects according to Price’s
investigation.40
Even with the developments in mechanised GMAW,
manual SMAW remains important in pipeline construc-
tion for repairing and future maintaining depending on
the flexibility of this process. It should be carefully
considered also in the case of frequent interruptions
(road or rivers) where it may be more economical to
apply manual SMAW welding.
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties
Investigation of HAZ and WM in X70 and X80
welds
The mechanical properties of both HAZ and WM play
very important roles for the use of pipeline welds.
Generally, the joint is constituted of three different
regions: WM, HAZ and BM. If the failure occurs in the
WM, the material will not be approved since it is
designed to have higher strength than BM; if failure
occurs at the HAZ, it is said to be embrittled. Therefore,
the best result for a joint is when the failure occurs in the
BM rather than either WM or HAZ.41 In such high
strength pipeline, excellent toughness in the HAZ and
WM is required to arrest a running shear fracture and to
prevent brittle fracture for improving the installation
efficiency. Thus, the possibilities of improving the tough-
ness of HAZ and WM with increasing strength of
pipeline have received extensive investigations.42–47
Heat affected zone
For a typical X80 pipeline, the resulting microstructure of
the commercial alloy is one containing ferrite and bainite
(see Fig. 1). This microstructure can increase the strength
without significant losses of toughness. However, the
excellent combination of strength and toughness can be
greatly degraded by the thermal cycles imposed during
the fabrication of the final pipeline product and its onsite
assembly for service. On one hand, welding processes
impose cycles that can lead to intercritical coarse grain
regions to form local brittle zones in the HAZ.5,41 On the
other hand, the microstructure of the HAZ changes from
martensite to lower bainite, upper bainite and then to
ferrite and pearlite, as the heat input at welding increases,
or the rate of cooling decreases.41,48,49 Especially, the low
temperature toughness will deteriorate when the micro-
structure consists of hard martensite–austenite (MA)
islands. Figure 4 shows that the reduction in toughness is
dependent on the volume fraction of MA present.50 The
crack tip open distance (CTOD) value decreases with the
increasing volume fraction of MA. Thus, the initial
balance between strength and toughness in the BM can be
lost in the HAZ of the weld.
High or ultrahigh heat input (about 300–1300 kJ cm21)
in highly efficient welding technologies to reduce the
fabrication cost has recently been widely applied in
pipeline industry.2,11,28,44 It is easy to form coarse grain
microstructure and MA constituent in HAZ after such
2013 VOL 18 NO 2 172
 Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties

5 Relationship between Ti/N ratio, microhardness in HAZ

and austenite grain size beside fusion boundary (0?14C/
1?15Mn/0?025Nb structural steel)14,51

4 Dependence of reheated HAZ toughness on volume

fraction of MA50
ultrahigh heat input welding. Since grain coarsening and
the MA constituent present in HAZ structure are the main
reasons for toughness deterioration in the weld area, a fine
microstructure and reduced formation of MA will lead to
improve the HAZ toughness in X70 and X80 pipes.35,41,48
Three main methods have been advanced to increase the
HAZ toughness, which are summarised in Table 3. The
first method used titanium as TiN has been utilised in
pipeline steels to improve the HAZ toughness. It is also
clear from Fig. 5 that the hardness of the HAZ can be
reduced by austenite (c) grain size refinement from 95 to
63 mm, which is controlled by the adjustment of Ti/N ratio.
This result cannot be obtained in the predicted Ti free
steels (also shown in Fig. 5).14,51 However, this method is
not always satisfactory in the refinement of c grain size
because the TiN particles coarsen or disappear near the
fusion line (FL) where the weld is heated to 1400uC or
higher, and, as a result, their effect to inhibit the coarsening
of c grain is lost (see Fig. 6a).3,35,48
Under these circumstances, a new technology has
been developed where fine TiO particles dispersed in
steel are utilised (TiO steel).3,52–54 In a TiO steel, TiO
particles existing inside a c grain serve as nuclei of
intragranular ferrite (IGF). The IGF forms around the
TiO particles, and as a result, coarse c grains are divided
into fine ferrite grains to give excellent HAZ toughness
(see Fig. 6b). On the basis of this, an innovative HTUFF
technology has been developed by Terada et al.48 In the
steel based on HTUFF, the coarsening of c grains near
the FL is suppressed by pinning particles of oxides, and
the IGF forms inside them. As a consequence, the
microstructure of the HAZ is made remarkably fine (see
Fig. 6c). The average size of c grain in HTUFF pipe
steel is much finer (200 mm) than that in TiO pipe steel
(500 mm). The HAZ of toughness of the HTUFF steel
under X80 is superior to that in the conventional TiN
steel.
The MA volume fraction is related to the carbon
content.30 It was shown from the research result of Bott
et al.41 that the volume fraction of MA in HAZ of X80
(Nb–Cr–Mo) pipeline steel was increased from 7?3 to
8?3% as the carbon content increased from 0?04 to
0?07 wt-%. It was also observed that the volume fraction
of MA increased with increasing CE. For the same level
of carbon content of 0?04 wt-%, the volume fraction of
MA in NbCrMo X80 pipeline steel was 1?4 times as high
as that in NbCr X80 pipeline steel because the formal
steel has a higher CE. For pipeline steels, there is a
general ‘shift’ of toughness values depending on the
extent to which the microalloying additions contribute
to grain size refinement of the HAZ. Fracture appear-
ance transition temperature (FATT) is the temperature
for which the fracture surface of the broken Charpy
specimen exhibits 50% brittle and 50% ductile morphol-
ogies. Various microstructures and different chemical
compositions influence the FATT values. This effect is
particularly noticeable in the HAZ of weldments.18,22,46
It was shown from Fig. 7 that the FATT value in HAZ
decreased with increasing Ni content from 1 to 5 wt-%.
Ni additions in excess of ,3% would shift the upper
bainitic transformation range to longer cooling times, as
a result of which favourable transformation conditions
would be achieved in the cooling time range.40
It was apparent from Fig. 8a that the most susceptible
region to cracking was not the HAZ but the WM in X70
grade, no doubt reflecting the enhanced weldability of
the pipe.14,55 These steel characteristics also provided the
added benefits of the high fracture toughness in the
HAZ of field welded X70 pipeline. The higher CTOD
value in HAZ was also obtained as in field welded X80
line pipe (see Fig. 8b). However, it was evident that WM
toughness was inferior to that recorded in the X70 field

Table 3 Methods of improving HAZ toughness of pipeline

I Refinement of grain size
II Decrease in MA constituent
III Modification of matrix alloy
TiN method
Suppression of austenite grain coarsening by fine particles such as TiN14,52
TiO method
Utilisation of intragranular ferrite nucleated from precipitates such as Ti oxide4,14,52–54
HTUFF method
Suppression of austenite grain coarsening near FL and formation of intragranular ferrite3,48
Reductions in C content and CE value30,41
Addition of Ni30,43

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2013 VOL 18 NO 2 173


6 Schematic of HAZ microstructure control in three kind steels3,48
welding. This can be attributed to the increased WM
strength (E9010) employed in the X80 trials. From the
above results, it can be seen that the low toughness
problem is displaced from the HAZ to the WM with the
increasing strength of pipeline steel. Thus, the improve-
ment of the WM toughness is becoming more important
for the higher strength pipeline steels.
Weld metal
The relationships between the WM microstructure,
composition and welding conditions are even more
complex than in the HAZ. This is because, while all the
factors discussed above come into play, the chemical
composition of the WM and its macrodistribution in the
solidified weld pool are functions of the BM and
consumable compositions, the flux activity and the
welding process variables.
7 Correlation between FATT and cooling time for coarse
grained HAZ microstructures of pipeline steels40 [CEIIW5
CzMn/6z(MozCrzV)/5z(CuzNi)/15]
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties
Specified minimum strength requirements for pipelines
and currently available cellulosic consumables are shown
in Fig. 9.55 It is seen that with the introduction of X80
pipeline, the maximum available cellulosic consumable
strength level is now marginal with respect to strength
matching for the pipe. Studies have shown that over-
matching the WM strength causes gross section yielding
in the pipe; undermatching the WM strength will cause
straining of the weld.40 Generally practice in industry is
that the welding WM overmatches the pipe yield
strength.23 However, this can lead to some undesirable
results when applied to higher strength pipe, such as X80.
First, with SMAW with cellulosic consumables, the
weldability decreases as strength increases, which will
result in the potential for more defects. Since the higher
strength electrode will be more susceptible to cracking, it
will certainly promote WM cracking. Second, the defects
could be of the more deleterious planar type, including
hydrogen cracks. Third, toughness usually decreases with
increasing strength.27,40,56 Therefore, the development of
SMAW procedure for X80 pipelines is a greater challenge
than for GMAW because of the difficulty in selecting
consumables to match strength and toughness while
maintaining good productivity and acceptable weld
quality.
Two major approaches have been pursued to improve
the toughness of the WM in SAW process. One is to use
different types of fluxes/wires.57,58 The other of great
interest is to alter WM composition either through the use
of newer filler metals or by metal powder additions in the
WM.59–63 Many of the basic microstructural principles
that apply to the HAZ are also valid with respect to the
WM. However, an additional important microstructure
is acicular ferrite (AF), consisting of fine interlocking
grains, which is associated with good toughness. The for-
mation of AF depends not only on a suitable combination
of alloying elements and cooling rate but also on the
existence of an appropriate distribution of inclusions.64–66
It is well known that Ni and Mo in the WM play
important roles in microstructural control.67,68 However,
there is no general agreement regarding the optimum
2013 VOL 18 NO 2 174

8 Girth weld CTOD test results for a X70 (wall thickness 7?5 mm) and b X80 pipeline (wall thickness 9?0 mm)
(E9010 WM)14,55
amount and combinations of Ni and Mo in the WM. Ni
can be either detrimental or beneficial to impact tough-
ness. It has been reported that the WM toughness can be
increased markedly by an increase in Ni content.69
However, some investigations have shown that the benefit
from Ni is conditional. Keehan et al. found that once Ni
exceeded a critical point, which depends on Mn concen-
tration, the Charpy toughness at 240uC decreases.70,71
Shankar and Devletian61 found the toughness decreased
due to Ni increasing in Fe–Ni alloys but could be better in
Fe–C–Ni ternary alloys related to composition in terms of
a variable coefficient for C in the Ni equivalent. It was
reported by Evans72 that the best impact toughness
occurred at ,0?5 wt-%Mo in a controlled manner with
respect to Mn. Thuvander et al.73 showed that significant
amounts of Mo offered excellent properties in WMs in a
highly alloyed steel. The addition of Mo and Ni together
has been reported to harden the WM and therefore
decrease the impact toughness.74 On the contrary, Snyder
and Pense75 found an improvement in impact toughness
by introducing 0?42 wt-%Mo and 0?84 wt-%Ni in WMs.
It was shown by Bhole et al.37 that the addition of Mo in
the range 0?817–0?881 wt-% resulted in a decrease in
9 Specified minimum strength requirements for pipe and
currently available cellulosic consumables55
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties
FATT and an increase in impact toughness in X70 pipe
steel. It was also found that the combined presence of
2?03–2?91 wt-%Ni and 0?75–0?995 wt-%Mo in the WM
led to a high volume fraction of fine AF with good
toughness (see Fig. 10).
Figure 11 shows the chemical composition of the
longitudinal seam WM deposited by the two pass SAW
method in X80 grade pipe plate with the thickness of
18?3 mm [the chemical composition of X80 steel is
0?09C–1?9Mn–0?02Nb–0?02Ti (wt-%)]. Also shown in
the figure are the impact energy values measured at
0uC.26 The WM has a high Mn content and is addi-
tionally alloyed with Mo. This Mn–Mo WM represents
a good compromise with respect to toughness and
mechanical strength. The average impact energy value
measured varied between 100 and 200 J, which is higher
than that (,95 J) of the BM. Therefore, the weldment
breaks in the BM, which is outside the weld region. It is
said that the beneficial effect of Mo is due to the
10 Grain size of AF of weld samples37 [LWMo1 (0?75 wt-
%Mo); LWMo2 (0?90 wt-%Mo); LWMoNi1 (2?03 wt-%Ni,
0?995 wt-%Mo); LWMoNi2 (2?99 wt-%Ni, 0?75 wt-%Mo]
2013 VOL 18 NO 2 175

11 Mean chemical composition and distribution of impact energy values for SAW longitudinal seam WM for X80 pipe26
formation of predominant AF and granular bainite, at
the expense of ferrite with second phase and grain
boundary ferrite in the WM.37
Careful control of the flux is beneficial controlling the
WM toughness. In welding high strength pipe steel using
the SAW process, neutral Al basic or fluoride basic
fluxes are the only options. With higher strength, the
lowest diffusible hydrogen content level is preferred.
Usually, the use of a certain flux is necessary to control
the oxygen content of the weld deposit in relation to
aluminium (Al) content of the BM (dilution).35,76
As proposed by Peng et al.,65 the chemical composi-
tions of wire for the SAW of higher strength pipeline steel
are designed according to the following requirements:
(i) the WM mainly consists of AF
(ii) microalloying elements are added to increase
the strength and toughness of the WM, and to
produce particles of high temperature stability
(iii) the wire is purified to decrease the content of S,
P, H, O and N
(iv) low carbon content is adopted.
Typically, solid wires are used when the SAW process is
applied. The chemical composition of these solid wires
also includes Mn, Ni, Mo and Cr in some cases. Today,
cored wires (metal core) are more often used for
increasing the deposition rate.39 The most important
issue from a manufacturer point of view is the possibility
of making any desired alloy and choosing flux/wire
combination in order to obtain a satisfactory weld.35
In summary, X80 is becoming more popular pipeline
than X70 in the pipe industry, since it is more economical.
With the development of welding processing methods and
further optimisation of the TMCP treatment, consistently
predictable and reproducible mechanical properties and
good field weldability can be achieved without difficulty.
Developments and challenges of
weldability in X100 and X120 pipelines
The natural environment of resource development sites
has become more severe with the increasing demand for
oil and gas. As a consequence, increasingly sophisticated
and diversified properties are required for pipelines, such
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties
as shown in Fig. 12.4 Hence, the development of higher
strength steels has intensified worldwide. As the devel-
opment of grade X80 matures, this grade is now state of
the art application for high pressure gas pipelines. Grade
X100 has currently reached the stage of full scale testing.
Some pipe manufacturers have produced large diameter
pipes in grade X100 on a commercial scale for extensive
research.28,58 In the case of X120 grade steel, some
companies8,9,77 have developed a basic concept for
manufacturing and using the steel for high pressure
gas pipelines. In February 2004, a pipeline was laid in
Canada under frigid conditions using X120. Since higher
grades like X100 and X120 are not yet specified in the
current line pipe standards such as API 5L, a lot of
investigations have to be established by correlation with
the minimum specified yield strength and tensile strength
of X70 and X80.8 Welding procedure specifications
using existing welding technologies for producing
welded joints with good toughness and strength have
been designed and studied extensively.7–9,12,15,20,21,24,31,78
Welding processes challenges for X100 and
X120 pipelines
A significant challenge in the deployment of higher
strength pipeline such as X100 and X120 is the develop-
ment of welding technology that is compatible with
existing pipeline manufacture and construction methods.
Successful welding of high strength pipeline requires
sufficient hydrogen cracking resistance, good welding
productivity and ease of welder use, while maintaining the
proper balance between strength and toughness.20
Longitudinal seam welding technology
In order that as many existing production facilities as
possible can be used for the production of X100 and
X120 pipelines, the multiwire SAW welding process with
a high heat input used to deposit the two-pass long-
itudinal seam weld in pipe has been adopted for the
longitudinal seam welding of X100 and X120 pipes.9
However, there are two problems emphasised by Gräf
et al.15 First is the softening of the BM beside the
longitudinal seam weld. This problem also exists in
grade X80 but can be easily managed. Production
experience available today is not sufficient to permit an
2013 VOL 18 NO 2 176
 Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties

12 New requirements for pipeline for oil exploration4

assessment of the softening that occurs in the BM beside
the weld. To advice this aspect, the X120 pipe steel
contains some amount of V for its precipitation
hardening effect.8 Second is continuing the use of the
proven SAW and achieving adequate strength and
toughness for the WM of two-pass longitudinal seam
weld in the higher strength X100 and X120. The new
high strength and high toughness WMs for SAW have to
be developed. Any conventional consumable cannot be
used for either X100 or X120 pipe because the strength
equal to or higher than that of the BM is required in the
WM of the seam weld. This problem cannot be resolved
by simply electing a matching chemical composition for
the consumable alone. It would be rather necessary to
reduce the heat input per pass. From the view of
production safety, it is impossible to reduce the heat
input with two-pass SAW to the extent necessary.
Field girth welding technology
Manual SMAW and mechanised GMAW field welding
of high strength pipeline in grades X100 and X120 do
not pose any severe problems.7,15 From the results of
Barsanti et al. given from Tables 4 and 5,79 it can be seen
that the WM of SMAW weld deposited in the vertical
down position, in combination with softer root pass
welds, has sufficient strength to achieve the strength
specified for the BM of X100. The GMAW weld also
shows enough tensile and yield strengths compared with
the BM. Both WMs of SMAW and GMAW welds
exhibit sufficiently high Charpy V-notch impact energy
at 230uC. It is also clear that besides the manual vertical
down SMAW methods, the mechanised GMAW tech-
niques are very promising considering the fact that this
technique will be much more involved in the applica-
tions suitable for X100 steel grade and above under the
situation of long distance natural gas transportation
over large diameter and high pressure. It is also said that
the X100 and X120 pipes produced respond favourably
to manual SMAW and mechanised GMAW field
welding due to their reduced carbon contents.
It should be noted that cold cracking is a typical pro-
blem associated to high strength pipeline welding.7,8,15
Table 6 shows that it is not the BM but the filler WM
(with the highest maximum hardness) deposited with
ultrahigh strength electrodes that is more sensitive and,
therefore, plays the major role with regard to avoid-
ing cold cracking in grade X100. The preheat tempera-
ture must be appropriate to the WM chemistry and
the hydrogen input during welding. Barsanti et al.79
suggested that using a preheat temperature of 100–
120uC would be sufficient for hydrogen to adequately
diffuse from the ultrahigh strength basic WM in the

Table 4 Welding process of SMAW and mechanised GMAW X100 girth welds79

Welding Root pass Hot pass Filler and cap

process (AWS type) (AWS) passes (AWS) Note

SMAW E6010 E9010 E11018-G First and second cellulosic vertical down,
rest basic vertical down welded
GMAW ER 100 S-G … … On a quarter of circumference following
passes have been executed from the root to cap

Table 5 Strength properties of SMAW and mechanised GMAW X100 girth welds79

All WM test (two samples) Transverse weld tensile test (two samples) Charpy V-notch

Welding Fracture Absorbed energy

process Yield strength/MPa Tensile strength/MPa Tensile strength/MPa position at 230uC/J

SMAW 865–865 885–895 803–808 HAZ-BM 69

GMAW 851–886 921–941 813–816 BM-BM 58

Science and Technology of Welding and Joining 2013 VOL 18 NO 2 177


13 Hardenability of pipeline steel X100 and X12015
[CEIIW5CzMn/6z(MozCrzV)/5z(CuzNi)/15]
filling and cap passes before the weld cooled down to
room temperature. This is also the case for X120 field
girth welding. This is because, in girth welds, which are
characterised by cooling times of t8/552–6 s, the peak
hardness of the root pass HAZ is due to a 100%
martensitic microstructure and dependent on the carbon
content rather than the CE. Thus, it is seen from Fig. 13
that there is no difference in the HAZ cold cracking
behaviour in the range of girth welding between X100
and X120 pipe steel.15
Investigation of HAZ and WM in X100 and X120
welds
Heat affected zone
The possibilities to improve the HAZ toughness of
longitudinal seam weld have been widely discussed.38,48,80
It is difficult to improve the HAZ toughness of a X100
and above pipeline steel by conventional microstructure
refining technologies because of the presence of the
detrimental MA in the HAZ of such steels. It has been
reported by Terada et al.48 that the most effective method
for improving the HAZ toughness of either X100 or X120
pipeline would lower the carbon content. Figure 14
shows that under the single cycle condition as well as
the double cycle condition, the simulated HAZ Charpy V-
notch value tended to increase when C content decreased
to 0?04 wt-% or less. Under the double cycle condition,
the MA formed in great amounts at the boundaries of
prior austenite grains when the C content was high, but
the amount of the MA decreased drastically when C
content was #0?04 wt-%. The improvement of HAZ
toughness is attributed to the decrease in the formation of
the MA.
It was mentioned by Bott et al.41, Ouchi81 and Li et al.82
that the deleterious effect of MA on HAZ toughness was
not only associated with MA volume fraction but also
with its morphology, size and distribution in the matrix.
They also found that the MA particles with small average
Table 6 Peak values of hardness of SMAW and
mechanised GMAW X100 girth welds79
Maximum HV10 (average
values at three positions)
Welding process HAZ WM BM
SMAW 287 332 281
GMAW 298 323 281
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties
14 Effect of carbon content on simulated HAZ toughness
of X100 pipe steel48
size resulted in not very low HAZ toughness in SAW X80
welds.
The preexisting welding technology is modified and
optimised by reducing the heat input of each pass as
mentioned in this paper. A low heat input welding
process leads to a minimisation of the softening of the
HAZ in combination with an improvement in its
toughness.8 However, the potential for rapid cooling
of the weldment increases its susceptibility to formation
of hard, brittle microstructures in the grain coarsened
HAZ of the weld, microstructures that increase the risk
of hydrogen assisted cold cracking.46 Wu et al.47
attempted to overcome this problem by controlling the
fast cooling process with holding time above Ac3 and
the cooling time from 800 to 500uC. They found that the
shorten holding time led to thinner HAZ width and finer
austenite grains in the FL and coarse grained HAZ,
while the decreased cooling time from 800 to 500uC
resulted in finer bainitic ferrite in the HAZ.
The low carbon content in conjunction with a
relatively high CE has been found to be optimum with
respect to reducing the softening of the HAZ, which
gains in significance as the pipeline steel grade increases
to X100 and X120.48,79
Weld metal
Okaguchi et al.21 suggested that WM toughness and
hydrogen cracking were expected to be the primary
challenges for grades X100 and X120 welds. Particularly
for X120 application, since the AF is likely to be too
weak, the martensite, bainite and/or their derivatives
should be the primary WM components.9,21 Therefore,
the design of the chemical composition of the WM to
obtain the desired microstructure for adequate strength
and toughness to match BM is a major consideration.
The WM properties reported by Hillenbrand et al.83,84
for X100 pipelines show that both the conventional C–
Mn–Mo and C–Mn–Mo–Ti–B WMs result in adequate
toughness and strength of the X100 weld. The almost
fully AF with an ultrafine grain size (1–2 mm) leads to
the optimum strength and toughness obtained in Mo–B–
Ti alloyed WMs.1 Some experimental work has been
carried out to develop a new WM for the longitudinal
seam weld of X120, given in Table 7.8,9 It is possible to
obtain a WM that yields a combination of strength of
roughly 1000 MPa and a high toughness by appropriate
2013 VOL 18 NO 2 178

design of the chemistry (Mn–Ni–Mo–Cr) of WM in
grade X120.
X100 pipeline has been developed, and the character-
isation of prototype pipes has been extensively studied
by pipe manufacturers and major oil companies. Further
development is required to extend grade X100 to higher
pipe diameters and lower design temperatures. During
the current development, the heavy plate rolling and
pipe production as well as processes for longitudinal
seam welding are modified or even completely newly
developed with respect to the new high strength grade
X120. Furthermore, new welding consumables and low
heat input welding technology have to be developed to
avoid typical problems associated to X120 microstruc-
tures and chemical compositions, namely, cold cracking,
weld joint toughness and hydrogen susceptibility.
After extensive developments, the X100 and X120
options appear to be mature from the technological
point of view. Although the welding processes have to be
modified or even developed with respect to them, it is to
be expected that both X100 and X120 pipelines will be
increasingly used in the incoming years.
Latest developments and challenges of
non-conventional welding technology
The arc welding processes have been applied for pipeline
welding of oil and gas for many years. However, with an
increasing demand for high strength steels for pipeline
applications, some novel welding techniques have been
investigated to achieve higher quality welds and more
efficiency operations compared to conventional SMAW
and GMAW.28,44,58,85–88
Electron beam welding (EBW) and laser processes have
been introduced into pipeline industry recently. The
advantages of both processes are an extremely high power
density and thus a low heat input. The EBW is a mature
welding process, in which the gun can rotate along the
horizontal direction and move inside. It offers many
advantages in terms of weld productivity, avoidance of
distortion and minimal metallurgical disturbance. How-
ever, the necessity to weld in a high vacuum atmosphere
has restricted the application of the process to com-
ponents and structures that can be entirely contained
within a vacuum chamber.28,44 Hybrid laser arc welding
(HLAW) is a combined process of GMAW and laser
beam welding, which improves the absorption of laser
energy in GMAW weld pool as well as the arc stability
due to laser induced ionisation. Hybrid laser arc welding
allows welding to be performed at higher travel speeds,
with greater penetration and reduced distortion than
conventional arc welding processes. It has been demon-
strated that the improvements in weld microstructures
and WM toughness are possible using the HLAW
process.85,86 Although HLAW is a productive and
Table 7 Chemical composition of WM for X120 longitudinal seam welds/wt-%8,9
Grade WM C Si Mn
X120 (A) Outside 0?05 0?23 1?63
Inside 0?05 0?18 1?69
X120 (B) Outside 0?06 0?29 1?88
Inside 0?06 0?30 1?87
*Pcm5CzSi/30z(MnzCuzCr)/20zNi/60zMo/15zV/10z5B.
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties
advantageous welding process, there are certain limita-
tions that restrict its use such as expensive laser
equipment.
Recently, FRIEX, a new variant of the well known
friction welding process, has been developed for use in
pipeline welding. A welding ring is placed in between the
pipes, and rotating the ring under an axial pressure
generates the required friction heat during welding. It
greatly reduces distortion and eliminates solidification
defects.28,58 Because the joining takes place below the
melting temperature, the better quality weld can be
created with low heat input, minimal distortion, no filler
material and no fumes. Despite extensive development
efforts on pipe grads from X70 to X120, this process has
so far failed to archive widespread benefits for pipeline
construction due to the need for a better understanding
on the role of process parameters on microstructural
evolution and weld quality.87,88
The main advantages of using these welding techniques
instead of conventional arc welding processes are to
reduce the number of passes at constant and to improve
weld quality. Although they have shown promise for field
pipeline construction, more research and development is
still being required to optimise the processes and to
balance cost for a practical industrial application.
Conclusions
During more than two decades of developments, X80 is
becoming a more popular pipeline than X70 in the pipe
industry. The use of X80 causes no problems with respect
to mechanical properties and welding. Recent market
requirements for enhanced pipelines with higher strength,
larger diameter, greater operating pressure and reduced
cost have led to new high grade pipes, such as X100 and
X120. With regard to the arc welding of X80 pipelines,
the challenge for welding X100 and X120 is even more
significant. The following main challenges need to be
addressed for the high strength steels including X100 and
X120.
First is to develop appropriate welding procedures.
The strength softening in the HAZ and the low HAZ
toughness at the FL boundary are two weakest links for
the SAW of high strength pipe steels, which are attributed
to the high heat input between BM and WM in SAW
process. The major challenge during girth welding of
X100 and X120 is how to avoid cold cracking that
resulted from WM deposited with ultrahigh strength
electrodes. Therefore, the existing welding techniques
have to be optimised and a low heat input welding process
has to be developed.
Second is to produce WM with suitable mechanical
properties.
The WM should overmatch the minimum yield
strength of the BM of either X100 or X120 and provide
Cr Ni Mo Pcm*
1 2?2 0?92 0?31
1?1 2?6 0?98 0?32
0?9 1?3 0?82 0?32
0?8 1?3 0?75 0?32
2013 VOL 18 NO 2 179

the considerable satisfactory levels of toughness even at
low temperatures simultaneously. However, based on
current technology, it is difficult for WM to fulfill the
existing requirements at the same time. Commercially,
such WMs are not yet available and need to be designed
and developed.
The novel welding techniques including EBW, HLAW
and FRIEX have now been developed to a stage where
they present opportunities for cost savings, which arise
from reductions in labour content. However, a wide
range of implementation of these new processes has been
limited for its popular applications for different reasons.
References
1. G. Thewlis: ‘Weldability of X100 linepipe’, Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 2000, 5, 365–377.
2. A. K. Pathak and G. L. Datta: ‘Study of grain size and
microhardness of submerged arc welded joint of AISI 1060 steel’,
Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2005, 10, 139–141.
3. K. Nishioka and K. Ichikawa: ‘Progress in the thermomechanical
control of steel plates and their commercialization’, Sci. Technol.
Adv. Mater., 2012, 13, 1–20.
4. H. Akasaki: ‘Progress in pipe and tube technology and its future
prospect – application and manufacturing’, Nippon Steel Tech.
Rep., 2004, 90, 75–81.
5. Hrivnak: ‘Weldability of modern steel materials’, ISIJ Int., 1995,
35, 1148–1156.
6. M. Sireesha, S. K. Albert and S. Sundaresan: ‘Importance of filler
material chemistry for optimising weld metal mechanical properties
in modified 9Cr–1Mo steel’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2001, 6, 247–
254.
7. G. Demofonti, G. Mannucci, H. G. Hillenbrand and D. Harris:
‘Suitability evaluation of X100 steel pipes for high pressure gas
transportation pipelines by full scale tests’, Proc. 14th Joint
Technical Meet. on ‘Pipeline research’, Berlin, Germany, May
2003, EPRG-PRCI-APIA, 1–18.
8. H. G. Hillenbrand, A. Liessem, K. Biermann, C. J. Heckmann and
V. Schwinn: ‘Development of grade X120 pipe materials for high
pressure gas transportation lines’, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on ‘Pipeline
technology’, Ostend, Belgium, May 2004, Scientific Surveys Ltd.,
1–10.
9. H. Asahi, E. Tsuru, S. Ohkita, N. Maruyama, K. Koyama,
H. Akasaki, M. Murata, H. Miyazaki, T. Hara, H. Morimoto,
M. Sugiyama, K. Shinada, Y. Terada, N. Ayukawa, N. Doi and
T. Yoshida: ‘Development of ultra-high-strength linepipe X120’,
Nippon Steel Tech. Rep., 2004, 90, 82–97.
10. B. Beidokhti, A. Dolati and A. H. Koukabi: ‘Effects of alloying
elements and microstructure on the susceptibility of the welded
HSLA steel to hydrogen-induced cracking and sulfide stress
cracking’, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2009, A507, 167–173.
11. L. Y. Lan, C. L. Qiu, D. W. Zhao, X. H. Gao and L. X. Du: ‘Effect
of single pass welding heat input on microstructure and hardness of
submerged arc welded high strength low carbon bainitic steel’, Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2012, 17, 564–570.
12. F. Huang, J. Liu, Z. J. Deng, J. H. Cheng, Z. H. Cheng, Z. H. Lu
and X. G. Li: ‘Effect of microstructure and inclusions on hydrogen
induced cracking susceptibility and hydrogen trapping efficiency of
X120 pipeline steel’, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2010, A527, 6997–7001.
13. J. Ni, Z. Li, J. Huang and Y. Wu: ‘Strengthening behavior analysis
of weld metal of laser hybrid welding for microalloyed steel’,
Mater. Des., 2010, 31, 4876–4880.
14. J. G. Williams, C. R. Killmore, F. J. Barbaro, J. Piper and
L. Fletcher: ‘High strength ERW linepipe manufacture in
Australia’, Mater. Forum, 1996, 20, 13–28.
15. M. K. Gräf, H. G. Hillenbrand, C. J. Heckman and K. A.
Niederhoff: ‘High-strength large pipe for long-distance high
pressure gas pipelines’, Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng., 2004, 14, 69–74.
16. V. Chaudhari, H. P. Ritzmann, G. Wellnitz, H. G. Hillenbrand and
V. Willings: ‘German gas pipeline first to use new generation line
pipe’, Oil Gas J., 1995, 93, 40–47.
17. W. Deng, X. Gao, X. Qin, D. Zhao and L. Du: ‘Microstructure
and properties of an X80 pipeline steel manufactured by untradi-
tional TMCP’, Adv. Sci. Lett., 2011, 4, 1088–1092.
18. H. G. Hillenbrand, M. Gräf and K. Christoph: ‘Development and
production of high strength pipeline steels’, Proc. Int. Symp.
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties
Niobium 2001, Orlando, FL, USA, May 2001, Minerals, Metals
and Materials Society, 543–569.
19. N. Bannenberg, A. Streißelberger and V. Schwinn: ‘New steel plates
for the oil and gas industry’, Steel Res. Int., 2007, 78, 185–188.
20. D. P. Fairchild, M. L. Macia, N. V. Bangaru and J. Y. Koo: ‘Girth
welding development for X120 linepipe’, Int. J. Offshore Polar
Eng., 2004, 14, 18–28.
21. S. Okaguchi, H. Makino, M. Hamada, A. Yamamoto, T. Iked,
I. Takeuchi, D. P. Fairchild, M. L. Macia, S. D. Papka, J. H.
Stevens, C. W. Patersen, J. K. Koo, N. V. Bangaru and M. J.
Luton: ‘Development and mechanical properties of X120 linepipe’,
Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng., 2004, 14, 29–32.
22. H. G. Hillenbrand and P. Schwaab: ‘Determination of the
microstructure of high strength structural steels for correlation
with their mechanical properties’, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 1987, A94,
71–78.
23. D. Yapp and S. A. Blackman: ‘Recent developments in high
productivity pipeline welding’, J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng., 2004,
26, 89–97.
24. L. Barsanti, H. G. Hillenbrand, G. Mannucci, G. Demofonti and
D. Harris: ‘Possible use of new materials for high pressure linepipe
construction: an opening on X100 grade steel’, Proc. 4th Int.
Pipeline Conf., Calgary, Alta, Canada, September 2002, ASME,
287–298.
25. H. G. Hillenbrand, K. A. Niederhoff, G. Hauck, E. Perteneder and
G. Wellnitz: ‘Procedures, considerations for welding X-80 line pipe
established’, Oil Gas J., 1997, 95, 47–56.
26. H. G. Hillenbrand, C. J. Heckmann and K. A. Niederhoff: ‘X80
line pipe for large-diameter high strength pipelines’, Proc. APIA
2002 Annual Conf., X80 Pipeline Workshop, Hobart, Tas.,
Australia, October 2002, Australian Pipeline Industry
Association, 35–49.
27. A. G. Glover, D. J. Horsley and D. Dorling: ‘High-strength steel
becomes standard on Alberta gas system’, Oil Gas J., 1999, 97, 44–
49.
28. Y. Komizo: ‘Overview of recent welding technology relating to
pipeline construction’, Trans. JWRI, 2008, 37, 1–5.
29. D. Ren, F. Xiao, P. Tian, X. Wang and B. Liao: ‘Effects of welding
wire composition and welding process on the weld metal toughness
of submerged arc welded pipeline steel’, Int. J. Miner., Metall.
Mater., 2009, 16, 65–70.
30. G. E. Ridings, R. C. Thomson and G. Thewlis: ‘Prediction of
multiwire submerged arc weld bead shape using network model-
ing’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2002, 7, 265–279.
31. S. Jindal, R. Chhibber and N. P. Mehta: ‘Issues in welding of
HSLA steels’, Adv. Mater. Res., 2012, 365, 44–49.
32. D. J. Widgrey: ‘Welding high strength pipelines: from laboratory to
field’, Svetsaren, 2002, 57, 22–25.
33. ‘Rautaruukki, your partner in steel, gas and oil pipes’,
Rautaruukki, Helsinki, Finland, 1–8.
34. J. C. Coiffier, J. P. Jansen, G. Peru and J. Clays: ‘Combination of
laser beam and submerged arc process for the longitudinal welding
of large-diameter welded pipes’, Proc. Int. Symp. on ‘Safety in
application of high strength steel’, Trondheim, Norway, July 1997,
Statoil Research Centre, 235–252.
35. J. P. Jansen, J. C. Coiffier and V. Thillou: ‘How to improve the
toughness at low temperature of the longitudinal weld seam of pipes
with w.t. , 12?7 mm’, Proc. 3rd Int. Pipeline Technology Conf.,
Bruges, Belgium, May 2000, Technologisch Instituut, 527–543.
36. V. Schwinn, W. Schuetz, P. Fluess and J. Bauer: ‘Prospect and state
of the art of TMPC steel plate for structural and linepipe
application’, Mater. Sci. Forum, 2007, 539, 4726–4731.
37. S. D. Bhole, J. B. Nemade, L. Collins and C. Liu: ‘Effect of nickel
and molybdenum additions on weld metal toughness in a
submerged arc welded HSLA line-pipe steel’, J. Mater. Process.
Technol., 2006, 173, 92–100.
38. D. Hejazi, A. J. Haq, N. Yazdipour, D. P. Dunne, A. Calka,
F. Barbaro and E. V. Pereloma: ‘Effect of manganese content and
microstructure on the susceptibility of X70 pipeline steel to
hydrogen cracking’, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 2012, A551, 40–49.
39. V. V. D. Mee and F. Neessen: ‘Development of high strength
consumables form project to products’. www.pdfio.com/k-739934.
html#
40. J. C. Price: ‘Welding needs specified for X80 offshore line pipe’, Oil
Gas J., 1993, 91, 95–100.
41. S. Bott, L. F. G. D. Souza, J. C. G. Teixeira and P. R. Rios: ‘High-
strength steel development for pipelines: a Brazilian perspective’,
Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 2005, 36A, 443–454.
42. N. Coniglio, V. Linton and E. Gamboa: ‘Coating composition,
weld parameter and consumable conditioning effects on weld metal
2013 VOL 18 NO 2 180

composition in shielded metal arc welding’, Sci. Technol. Weld.
Join., 2010, 15, 361–368.
43. M. R. Krishnadev, W. L. Zhang and J. T. Bowker: ‘Influence of
alloying and progress on the HAZ and base plate properties of
experimental HSLA-80 steels’, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on ‘Trends in
welding research’, Gatlinburg, TN, USA, June 1992, ASM, 599–603.
44. S. Y. Shin, K. Oh, K. B. Kang and S. Lee: ‘Effects of complex
oxides on Charpy impact properties of heat affected zones of two
API X70 linepipe steels’, ISIJ Int., 2009, 49, 4876–4880.
45. P. K. Ghosh, P. K. Singh, K. K. Vaze and H. S. Kushwaha:
‘Characterisation of pipe welds and HAZ in primary heat transport
system piping of pressurised heavy water reactors’, Sci. Technol.
Weld. Join., 2004, 9, 200–208.
46. D. Nolan, Z. Sterjovski and D. Dunner: ‘Hardness prediction
models based on HAZ simulation for in-service welded pipeline
steels’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2005, 10, 681–694.
47. H. H. Wu, K. M. Wu, X. W. Lei and Y. Qian: ‘Effect of fast
cooling process on microstructure and toughness of heat affected
zone in high strength pipeline steel X120’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join.,
2012, 17, 309–313.
48. Y. Terada, A. Kiyose, N. Dol, H. Morimoto, A. Kojima,
T. Nakashima, T. Hara and M. Sugiyama: ‘High-strength linepipes
with excellent HAZ toughness’, Nippon Steel Tech. Rep., 2004, 90,
88–93.
49. C. Liu, Z. B. Zhao and D. O. Northwood: ‘Mechanical properties
of the heat-affected zone in a bainitic high strength low alloy steel’,
Mater. Sci. Technol., 2002, 18, 1325–1328.
50. S. Aihara and K. Okamoto: ‘Influence of local brittle zones on
HAZ toughness of TMCP steels’, Proc. AWS Int. Conf. on
‘Metallurgy, welding and qualification of microalloyed (HSLA)
steel weldments’, Houston, TX, USA, November 1990, AWS, 402–
426, IITT Internat, 125–131.
51. K. A. Belyaev, V. A. Polyanskiy and Y. A. Yakovlev: ‘Stresses in a
pipeline affected by hydrogen’, J. Mater. Sci., 2011, 46, 715–722.
52. H. Nakaugi, H. Tamehiro, K. Nishioka, Y. Ogata and Y. Kawada:
‘Recent development of X80 grade line pipe’, Proc. Int. Conf. on
‘Welding technology, materials and fracture’, Geesthacht,
Germany, October 1990.
53. ‘NSC patent on Ti-oxide treated structural steels’, EP 0177851.
54. Y. Terada, H. Ishikawa, R. Chijiiwa, K. Tomioka, T. Takamoto,
G. Itsubo and H. Tamehiro: ‘High-strength titanium-oxide bearing
tether pipe for tension leg platform’, Proc. 8th Int. Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conf., Montreal, Que., Canada, May 1998,
International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, 131–137.
55. J. G. Williams, C. R. Killmore, P. D. Edwards and P. G. Kelly:
‘Thermomechanical processing of Mo–Nb high strength steels for
application to X70 and X80 ERW linepipe’, THERMEC 97: Proc.
Int. Conf. on ‘Thermomechanical processing of steels and other
materials’, Wollongong, NSW, Australia, July 1997, TMS, 475–482.
56. L. Fletcher and N. Yurioka: ‘A holistic model of hydrogen
cracking in pipeline girth welding’, Proc. Conf. on ‘Weld metal
hydrogen cracking in pipeline girth welds’, Lidcombe, NSW,
Australia, April 2000, WTIA, 12-1–12-14.
57. D. Nolan, D. Dunne and J. Norrish: ‘Root pass solidification
cracking in low carbon pipeline girth welds deposited via cellulosic
manual metal arc welding’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2003, 8, 102–112.
58. P. Kah and J. Martikainen: ‘Current trends in welding processes
and materials: improve in effectiveness’, Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci.,
2012, 30, 189–200.
59. M. Krishnadev and W. Zhang: ‘Extra low carbon welding
consumables for HSLA80 and HSLA100 steels and improving
HAZ toughness at high heat inputs’, in, Montreal, , ‘Metal welding
and applications’, (ed. J. P. Boillot et al.), 55–70; 1999, Metallurgy
and Materials Society of CIM Montreal.
60. A. Barbangelo: ‘Influence of alloying elements and heat treatment
on impact toughness of chromium steel surface deposits’, J. Mater.
Sci., 1990, 25, 2975–2984.
61. V. Shankar and J. H. Devletian: ‘Solidification cracking in low
alloy steel welds’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2005, 10, 236–243.
62. J.-G. Jung, J. Kim, K.-M. Noh, K. K. Park and Y.-K. Lee: ‘Effects
of B on microstructure and hardenability of resistance seam welded
HSLA linepipe steel’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2012, 17, 77–84.
63. B. Dixon: ‘Submerged arc welding with alloy powder additions for
high strength steels’, Int. J. Join. Mater., 1996, 8, 14–21.
64. M. C. Zhao, Y. Y. Shan, E. R. Xiao and K. Yang: ‘Acicular ferrite
formation during hot plate rolling for pipeline steels’, Mater. Sci.
Technol., 2003, 19, 355–359.
65. Y. Peng, W. Chen and Z. Xu: ‘Study of high toughness ferrite wire
for submerged arc welding of pipeline steel’, Mater. Charact., 2001,
47, 67–73.
Science and Technology of Welding and Joining
Liu and Bhole Pipeline weldability and mechanical properties
66. B. Hwang, S. Lee, Y. M. Kim, N. J. Kim and J. Y. Yoo:
‘Correlation of rolling condition, microstructure and low-tempera-
ture toughness of X70 pipeline steels’, Metall. Mater. Trans. A,
2005, 36A, 1793–1805.
67. G. M Evans and N. Bailey: ‘Metallurgy of basic weld metal’, 161–
185; 1997, Cambridge, Woodhead Publishing Limited.
68. W. Wang and S. Liu: ‘Alloying and microstructural management in
developing SMAW electrodes for HSLA-100 steels’, Weld. J., 2002,
81, 132s–145s.
69. S. H. Kim, C. Y. Bang and K. S. Bang: ‘Welding metal impact
toughness of electron beam welded 9% Ni steel’, J. Mater. Sci.,
2001, 36, 1197–2000.
70. D. S. Taylor and G. M. Evans: ‘Development of MMA electrodes
for offshore fabrication’, Met. Constr., 1983, 15, 438–443.
71. E. Keehan, H. O. Andren, L. Karlsson, M. Murugananth and H.
K. D. H. Bhadeshia: ‘Microstructural and mechanical effects of
nickel and manganese on high strength steel weld metals’, Proc. 6th
Int. Conf. on ‘Trend in welding research’, Pine Mountain, GA,
USA, April 2003, ASM, 695–700.
72. G. M. Evans: ‘Effect of molybdenum on microstructure and
properties of C–Mn all-weld metal deposits’, Join. Mater., 1988, 1,
239–246.
73. M. Thuvander, L. Karisson and B. Munir: ‘Controlling segregation
in Nickel-base weld metals by balanced alloying’, Stainless Steel
World, 2004, 16, 52–57.
74. D. D. Crockett, J. A Rhone, R. F. Young and D. C. Noernberg:
‘Design considerations for submerged arc consumables intended for
the manufacture of line pipe’, Pipeline Technol., 1995, 1, 151–162.
75. J. P. Snyder and A. W. Pense: ‘Effects of titanium on submerged
arc weld metal’, Weld. J., 1982, 61, 201-s–211-s.
76. J. F. Dos Santos, V. R. Dos Santos and J. C. Jorge: ‘Properties of a
ferritic metal cored wire weld metal deposited in the pressure range
from 51 bar to 110 bar’, Proc. 6th Int. Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conf., Los Angeles, CA, USA, May 1996, ASM, 141–
146.
77. N. Pradhan, N. Banerjee, B. B. Reddy, S. K. Sahay, D. S. Basu, P.
K. Bhor, S. Das and S. Bhattyacharya: ‘Control of defects during
continuous casting of line pipe (API) quality steels’, Scand. J.
Metall., 2005, 34, 2332–2340.
78. B. Tanguy, T. T. Luu, G. Perrin, A. Pineau and J. Besson: ‘Plastic
and damage behavior of a high strength X100 pipeline steel:
experiments and modeling’, Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip., 2008, 85,
322–335.
79. L. Barsanti, G. Pozzoli and H. G. Hillendbrand: ‘Production and
field weldability evaluation of X100 line pipe’, Proc. 13th Joint
Meet. PRCI-EPRG, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 2001, PRCI-
EPRG, 7.
80. H. K. D. H. Bhadeshia, L.-E. Svensson and B. Gretoft: ‘Prediction
of the microstructure of submerged-arc linepipe weld’, Proc. 3rd
Int. Conf. on ‘Welding and performance of pipeline, Abington,
UK, November 1986, The Welding Institute, 17-1–17-10.
81. C. Ouchi: ‘Development of steel plates by intensive use of TMCP
and direct quenching processes’, ISIJ Int., 2001, 41, 542–553.
82. Y. Li, D. N. Crowther, M. J. W. Green, P. S. Mitchell and T. N.
Baker: ‘Effect of vanadium and niobium on the properties and
microstructure of the intercritically reheated coarse grained heat
affected zone in low carbon microalloyed steels’, ISIJ Int., 2001, 41,
46–55.
83. H. G. Hillenbrand, E. Amoris, K. A. Niederhoff, C. Perdrix,
A. Streisselberger and U. Zeislmair: ‘Manufacturability of linepipe
in grades up to X100 from TM processed plate’, Proc. Pipeline
Technology Conf., Oostende, Belgium, September 1995. TI-K VIV,
273-286.
84. H. G. Hillenbrand, K. A. Niederhoff, E. Amoris, C. Perdrix, A.
Streisselberger and U. Zeislmair: ‘Development of linepipe in grades
up to X100’, Proc. Biennial Joint Technical Meet. on ‘Linepipe
research’, Washington, DC, USA, April 1997, EPRG/PRC, 6.
85. J. Ni, Z. Li, J. Huang and Y. Wu: ‘Strengthening behavior analysis
of weld metal of laser hybrid welding for microalloyed steel’,
Mater. Des., 2010, 31, 4876–4880.
86. L. Quintino, R. M. Miranda, S. Williams and C. J. Kong: ‘Gas
shielding in fiber laser welding of high strength pipeline steel’, Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join., 2011, 6, 399–404.
87. K. Faes, A. Dhooge, P. Baets and P. Afschrift: ‘Influence of
deceleration phase on properties of friction welded pipelines using
intermediate ring’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2008, 10, 136–145.
88. H. K. D. Bhadeshia and T. DebRoy: ‘Critical assessment: friction
stir welding of steels’, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join., 2009, 14, 193–196.
2013 VOL 18 NO 2 181
Copyright of Science & Technology of Welding & Joining is the property of Maney Publishing and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.