151

The Application of ROV's to Underwater Welding Repair Tasks - J.H.Nixon,

Marine Technology Centre, Cranfield Institute of Technology.

Over the last twenty years, the capabilities of underwater welding have
improved immensely. As a result of the increasingly sophisticated
requirements of the offshore oil industry, it is now possible to repair
pipelines and structures at depths up to 200 metres to the same standards as
those to which the structure was originally constructed. While research
continues on new welding techniques (Ref. 1), the main motivation for
innovation is improvements in welder productivity and reductions in
operational costs. It should be recognised, however, that the hyperbaric
repair industry is almost entirely based on the manual skills of
diver/welders.
The major processes currently in use for hyperbaric environments are
shielded metal arc (SMAW) or 'stick' welding, gas tungsten arc (GTAW) or 'TIG'
welding, and flux cored arc (FCAW) welding. Significant interest is also
being shown in the development of controlled transfer pulse gas metal arc
welding (CTP GMAW). While all these processes have their own specific
characteristics, they share the fact that they are basically techniques best
suited to manual operation, requiring precise manipulation of the welding
electrode and a high degree of interaction between the manipulation strategy
and the welding situation. As environmental pressure increases, all the
welding processes listed above are affected in various ways (Refs. 1,2,3).
Without describing the above processes in detail, it may be instructive
to examine why such precise manipulation is required. In all arc welding
techniques, a molten pool is formed by the heating action of the arc. Filler
material is added to this pool to form the weld bead, which solidifies as the
arc is traversed down the joint and the metal cools. Typically, the molten
pool will be several millimeters in width, sufficiently large so that gravity
will have an effect in determining the pool shape. When welding any structure
which requires a change in orientation of the weld pool, or welding position,
the effects of gravity must be counteracted by modifications to the welders
technique. This may entail altering the relative attitude of the welding
torch to the pool, or the manipulation strategy of the torch as a whole, in
order to utilise arc pressure or pool surface tension forces to maintain the
desired bead shape. To a skilled welder, these modifications are instinctive,
and are based on the correlation of many factors related to the welding
situation. At present, even for normal atmospheric pressure, the development

R. L. Wernli et al., ROV ’86: Remotely Operated Vehicles

© MTS, SUT, AODC 1986
152

of control algorithms to simulate the skill of a manual welder is at an early

stage. When, in addition, control of fusion is required, as in the case of a
root weld, and it may also be necessary to compensate for changes in the
geometry of the weld preparation itself, it will be appreciated that a great
deal more development of control technology is required before these
situations can be attempted.
Of the range of underwater activities carried aut by divers, welding
represents one of the mast demanding. The welding of a major structural item
can occupy several days, and the mechanical and metallurgical properties of
the final weld are dependent on the thermal cycle to which each part of the
final weld is subjected. If a diver is tightening a bolt, for example, and
pauses for a few minutes, the final state of the tightened bolt is not
affected, but every time a diver / welder interrupts the welding process, or
modifies his welding technique, the properties of the resultant joint are
affected. Hence, in order to achieve satisfactory welding standards, high
levels of training and discipline are required, and these impose considerable
strains on the diver.
In addition, there is an increasing awareness that there may be long-term
physiological effects associated with diving, and particularly with deep
diving. The problems of long bone necrosis have been widely reported, and the
action of the heart and lungs may also be affected (Ref. 4). The small
numbers of divers operating regularly at great depths inhibits the study of
these effects in practical environments, although some reports have referred
to the short term effects (Ref. 5). Once again, welding operations are
particularly affected by these considerations, because of the duration of a
typical welding repair.
Because of these problems, increasing interest has been shown in the
development of welding systems less dependent on the physical capabilities of
the diver. As pipe welding represents a considerable proportion of the
current applications for hyperbaric welding, and is also simple geometrically,
it was logical that this would farm the basis for early studies, and several
systems have been developed, or are currently under construction.
One of these was the OTTO system, developed by Sub Sea Offshore, of
Aberdeen (Ref. 6). This system, which utilises similar technology to that
developed for surface based automated orbital welding, reduces the workload on
the saturation diver by controlling the welding process from the surface. The
diver is then required to carry out pipe alignment, install the equipment, and
change electrodes and filler wire spools as necessary. STAW was selected as
 153

the welding process because of the large amount of experience with surface
based systems using the technique, and the high level of control it was
possible to achieve, with independent setting of arc current and consumable
feed. It is, in addition, a process with a very low hydrogen potential. The
details released on other systems would indicate that they are similar in
overall concept, and it seems likely that they will be capable of extending
the operating range of the saturation diver/welder by perhaps a hundred
metres.
Having mentioned, above, the pro~lems inherent in operating arc processes
using a mechanised system, techniques had to be devised to overcome these
difficulties. This was achieved, in general, by a closer control of weld
joint preparation than is customary with manual welding, and the exploitation
of the consistency and high speed capability of modern servo manipulation
systems to enable the size of the molten pool to be controlled. Weld pool
viewing systems, normally combining fibre optic and CCTV elements, enable the
welding process to be observed in some detail, and to be recorded for quality
assurance and for later analysis.
Once it is required to operate at depths significantly beyond 400 metres,
it seems unlikely, at least in the short term, that saturation divers will be
capable of economic activity. One possibility is to carry out the repair at
one atmosphere environmental pressure, using a developed version of one of the
various systems which have been proposed by, among others, Comex and CanOcean
Resources. However, the problems of making a seal capable of resisting a
pressure differential of some tens of bars, to the surface of an API schedule
pipe from which the weight coating has been removed, would seem considerable.
Where the welded connection has been preplanned, and some provision for
sealing can be prepared in advance, the one atmosphere technique may prove
effective. Operational requirements will normally demand a repair technique
capable of joining unprepared pipe, however.
Although the repair of platform jackets would also provide possible
applications for new welding techniques, several factors suggest that pipeline
welding will utilise this technology first. It will be appreciated that the
pipeline butt joint represents a far simpler geometry than a complex jacket
node, and it is easier to control the relative positions of the various
components. In addition, alternative techniques, such as grouting, exist
which would seem more suited to the repair of structures than pipelines, and
which it would be possible to develop for diverless operation.
154

For thse reasons, it would be logical to study the possibility of

conducting pipe repair operations utilising one atmosphere environment, one
man operated submersibles lADS's) and remotely operated vehicles (ROV's). At
this stage, the evolutionary process which has governed the development of
hyperbaric welding to date must be reconsidered, and a fresh assessment made
of the entire repair process, bearing in mind the particular characteristics
of ADS's and ROV's.
Before considering possible joining techniques in more detail, it should
be recognised that in order to produce a practical pipe repair system, it is
necessary to consider the repair activity' as a whole. Although the proportion
will vary due to operational conditions, it is generally accepted that the
actual welding of a submerged structure only comprises some 10 to 25% of the
actual task completion duration. The rest of the time is occupied by
locating, surveying and preparing the structure for welding, habitat mounting
and commissioning, post repair inspection, corrosion protection procedures and
demobilisation of equipment. Thus, to provide a credible ROV repair
capability, these tasks must also be carried out by ROV. To cover these
ancillary tasks in detail is outside the scope of this particular paper, but
some brief comments have been included, to draw attention to these important
elements of the repair process.
The location of an underwater pipeline is now a well established
technology, and a routine task for an ROV. Should the pipe be trenched,
magnetic detection techniques can be used. The removal of protective ballast
could be carried out by the use of air or water lifting systems, or even by
remotely controlled excavators.
Once the pipe is exposed, it will be necessary to remove the weightcoat
before the pipe can be prepared. A system based on explosive techniques was
developed by BUE Hydra-Lok (BUEHl, for deployment from Pisces submersibles.
The use of high pressure water jets and mechanical removal techniques have
also been proposed, but this is an area in which further development may be
needed.
Over the last few years, a considerable number of pipe end preparation
machines have been offered on the market. Several of these are hydraulically
powered, and would require little conversion for underwater use. Such
equipment would enable pipe to be mechanically cut, and could also machine the
necessary end preparation for those joining techniques requiring one.
Explosive cutting techniques have also been developed for ROV deployment
 155

(Ref.7) I but these require additional pipe end preparation as distortion of

the cut end frequently occurs.
Some years ago, Oceaneering carried out an underwater trial using a pipe
alignment frame modified to be compatible with their range of ADS systems.
Similar equipment should be capable of working with current ROV's, although
some problems may well exist relating to the sensing of the position ond
orientation of the pipe in the frame. When BUE developed their system, this
used a rather different technique. A location frame was clamped to one of the
sections of pipe to be joined, and this was utilised as a location point for
the various engineering packages used to carry out the joining process. The
provision of some form of stable workframe around the repair site would be
advantageous, both to provide pipe manipulation capabilities, and also to
assist in the consistent positioning of the various engineering packages
required to carry out the repair. The workframe could also act as a mounting
for other equipment, such as electrohydraulic convertors, lift pumps, and the
like.
Once the joint was completed, some form of inspection technique would be
required to ensure that a satisfactory repair had been made. Although systems
have been proposed to enable magnetic particle inspection (MPl) to be carried
out by ROV, these are still in the development stage, and can, in any case,
only detect defects close to the surface of the pipe. A more satisfactory
system would be the use of radiography, probably by the 'through tube' system,
in order to avoid the necessity to position any equipment within the pipe.
Recently, equipment capable of real time radiography has been developed
(Ref.S), but this is an area requiring further development to produce an
operational underwater system.
Following completion of the repair, some form of corrosion protection
would be required. While it would, in theory, be possible to develop some
form of wrapping or casting system to coat the pipe, it would appear more
feasible to utilise the sacrificial anode technique. The attachment of
electrical connections will be discussed later, but it would appear that the
necessary technology to install and connect sacrificial anodes already exists.
In summary, although considerable work has been carried out in the last
few years on the development of intervention equipment or ROV use, several of
the engineering elements required for a complete repair system still require
considerable development.
At this stage, it is worth reviewing the characteristics required of a
joining system suitable for ROV's. It is possible to carry out conventional
156

6TH, SMAW, and GMA by remote control, as has been demonstrated by the unmanned
hyperbaric welding research facilities at Cranfield. Some manipulators
currently in use offshore, such as the OSEL and NOWSCO units, have been
demonstrated performing welding tasks, but a major problem is the transmission
of adequate feedback information to the manipulator operator. Current video
systems lack the fine detail capability and depth perception to enable the
shape of the weld pool to be accurately seen, and further development is
required in this area. At Cranfield, video systems are not used, the
manipulator operator viewing the weld directly through a pressure window, and
this suggests that an appropriate manipulator mounted on an ADS may be capable
of carrying out some welding tasks.
While the orbital 6TA systems have been demonstrated to be capable of
carrying out all positional welding under surface control, they are
mechanically complex, and a great deal of development work would be required
to produce a compiete diverless system. Before embarking on such a programme
of development, it is logical to review other possible techniques, which might
better exploit the capabilities of ROY systems.
Ideally, to be suitable for ROV's, a process should not be sensitive to
minor changes in pipe alignment, and should not require adaption of the
process variables to suit any specific joint. The fewer manipulation axes or
parameters requiring monitoring and control, the easier it will be to
accomodate the control requirements within the ROV's own control system.
On this basis, there would appear to be two welding processes which would
be suitable for consideration. These are the friction welding process, and
the high energy bonding system. Some mechanical joining techniques would also
appear suitable, such as the Big Inch mechanical swaging system, and the BUE
Hydra-Lok technique, but these are beyond the scope of this paper.
The basis of the friction welding process is very simple - if two pieces
of metal are moved relative to each other, with a measure of axial force
applied, friction, and hence heat, will be generated. Under suitable
conditions, the temperature at the interface will rise to near the melting
point of the material, and once this has been achieved over the whole
interface, the relative movement is halted and the axial pressure increased.
This causes a pressure weld to be made between the two components. It has
been stated that melting as such does not take place, as the liquid material
thus formed would act as a lubricant, reducing the friction until the
temperature was low enough for the material to resolidify.
 157

Control of the weld heat input, and hence the resultant metallurgical
structure, is achieved by varying the rotational speed, axial force during
heating, heating process duration, and forging force. Because the original
surface material in the interface is expelled from the joint during either the
heating or forging phases, the process is less sensitive to the surface
conditIon of the structure than other techniques, a significant advantage in
field and offshore welding. In addition, the low operating temperatures and
the lack of flux material ensure that the process has a low hydrogen
potential.
Obviously, in the case of pipe welding, It is not practical to rotate one
section of pipe. However, two possible solutions to this problem have been
suggested. One is to rotate a short pup piece between the main pipe
sections. The other technique is known as radial friction welding (Ref.91 I in
which the ends of the pipes are machined to a 'V' shaped preparation, and the
pup piece is, after spinning to generate the necessary heat, forged in
radially to make the joint. It was acknowleged that there would be problems
in supporting the pipe internally in order to resist the high forging forces,
and there is also a need to control the internal bead shape. possibly by the
use of a ceramic backlng strip which could be broken up after welding.
Because the friction welding process is entirely mechanical In nature,
the only effect of the underwater environment is the enhanced rate of heat
extraction because of the surrounding water. A proposal to overcome this was
included in a patent by the Welding Institute (Ref.IO). This proposed the use
of shrouding material, such as expanded polystyrene or foamed polyurethane to
form a thermal barrier around the weld zone. The patent stated that such an
innovation could reduce the maximum hardness observed in a friction weld made
underwater to a value comparable with a similar surface weld. The torque
demand of the process while welding was also stated to be made more
consistent, and the shape of the resultant weld was improved.
Basically, it would appear that the joining of pipelines by the friction
welding process is technically feasible. At present, however, a machine to
join pipes of typical offshore diameters does not exist, and an investment of
some millions of pounds would be required to produce it. With the current
price of oil dropping, high capital investment programmes of this type are
likely to be deferred for the present.
Explosive welding, or high energy bonding (HEBI, was developed during the
1950's for land based use. During the mid 1970's BUE Hydra-Lok, then a part
of the Vickers organisation, in collaboration with International Research and
158

Development (IRDI. developed the process for underwater use, with the various
components of the system being deployed by 'Pisces' submersibles.
Essentially, the process depends on the conversion of kinetic energy into
a solid phase bond between two surfaces. The bond is made virtually
instantaneously, and the process is little affected by environmental pressure.
The process utilises the energy liberated by a small explosive charge to
accelerate a free metal component, or flyer, into an oblique collision with a
fixed component, or target. In order to achieve a satisfactory bond three
conditions must be met. These are:-

a) The impact pressure at the contact point between flyer and

target must be at least ten times the yield stress of the target.
b) The rate of travel of the collision point must be sub-sonic but
greater than a defined critical value for the target material.
c) The surface must be clean.

During bonding, a molten jet is formed between the components which

further cleans the bonding surfaces. These very clean surfaces are then
pressed together under high pressure, and an interatomic solid phase bond is
formed. The process can be controlled by altering the relative geometry of
flyer and target, and the explosive charge distribution and quantity. When
these parameters are correctly optimised, a characteristic sinusoidal
interface bond is formed between the two components.
In order to avoid damage to the adjoining structure, it is necessary to
absorb the excess energy generated by the explosive. Radial energy is
absorbed by an anvil arrangement external to the pipe, while longitudinal
energy is absorbed by bag type shock absorbers within the pipe.
In order to produce a joint underwater, SUE produced a series of
dedicated engineering packages capable of cutting the pipe, removing the
weightcoat, forming and machining the pipe to a defined size and surface
finish, and installing a premachined target sleeve over the pipe to be joined.
The annulus between the target and flyer is then sealed, and the interspace
flushed with cleaning fluid and then dried. Immediately before welding a
light gas is introduced to minimise the influence of environmental pressure.
Although some effect has been noted (Ref.ll), the technique has been proven in
tests at depths in excess of 500 metres (Ref.12).
Because HEB is a solid phase bonding technique, many of the criteria for
fusion welding are inappropriate for its assessment. Ultrasonic techniques
 159

can be used to detect areas of lack of bond, and the welds perform well under
static and fatigue loading.
Due to the nature of the process, it is virtually impossible to carry out
a butt weld. This is something of a limitation in pipe welding, as a sleeve
type connection must, by definition, suffer from a crevice type connection at
the joint between the two pipes. It has been syggested that polymeric
material could be introduced at this point to fill this crevice when sour line
applications are under consideration (Ref.13).
Despite the existence of a prototype practical system, there has been
little development in HEB over the last few years. Some of this may be due to
a concentration of interest, for the present, in the exploitation of manual
fusion welding techniques. It is possible that the system will receive the
attention it merits when applications are contemplated significantly beyond
the capabilities of saturation diving.
One application in which it seems likely that ROV's will be utilised
relatively quickly is the attachment of stud type connections. These may be
used for the attachment of electrical connections for sacrificial anodes, as
shear connectors when making grouted connections, or as the basis for bolted
mechanical repairs. Two companies are currently offering stud welding systems
commercially which, although operated by divers at present, are confIgured in
such a way as to enable them to be readily deployed by ROV.
The advances in underwater friction welding techniques mentioned above
encouraged its development for stud welding applications. Sub Sea Offshore,
of Aberdeen, started development of a practical system in mid 1983, based on
the Welding Institute prototype. This unit was tested at 150 metres in Loch
Linnhe in late 1983, and a commercial system was used operationally in early
1984. Offshore production welds have been carried out at 180 metres in the
North Sea (Ref.14).
The equipment comprises a welding head which is capable of rotating the
stud and applying the required axial force. The buoyancy of this welding head
has been adjusted to ensure that it can be readily manoeuvered by a diver or
ROV. When deployed by an ROV, it seems likely that an electrohydraulic
convertor would be mounted on the vehicle, or on a pallet slung beneath the
ROV, taking power from the main umbilical. Control over the welding process
is provided by a surface based computer, and as ROV experience was used to
develop the original system, inclusion of the equipment data link into the
main vehicle umbilical should present few difficulties.
160

The welding head incorporates sensors monitoring rotational speed, axial

pressure, and axial displacement, while the applied torque is inferred by
monitoring the pressure drop across the rotation motor. These parameters are
displayed on the surface and can be recorded for process monitoring purposes.
As the process is already controlled entirely from the surface, deployment by
ROV would not affect the welding technique. All submersible systems are
currently rated to operate to a maximum depth of 300 metres.
The component of the system requiring the most redesign for ROV
deployment would be the jigging necessary to absorb the mechanical forces
generated by the process. A logical technique for pipeline applications would
be the use of large hydraulic grippers to clamp around the pipe, ensuring that
no force was actually transmitted to the vehicle. Electromagnets have also
been proposed for this purpose.
The weld time for a typical stud is of the order of 8 to 10 seconds, with
a total weld operation cycle time of about 15 minutes, including preparation
of worksite, rigging of system, pre-welding checks, welding, de-rigging and
weld inspection. These times have been quoted, however, for applications
involving the attachment of anode connections by divers, and it would seem
likely that substantially faster production rates than this could be achieved,
with appropriate tooling. Weld production times of the order of one every ten
minutes would seem feasible, and higher rates may be possible.
Recently, a second generation equipment, incorporating the experience
gained with the first unit, has been commissioned. Process development with
the initial unit has suggested that the joint quality can be significantly
enh~n~4 by modifications to the weld process parameters. The second machine
has a revised specification to ensure that these developments can be utilised.
It has already been mentioned that the gas tungsten arc (BTA) process is
recognised as the most controllable and flexible of all the welding systems,
although the deposition rates which can be achieved are frequently lower than
with other techniques. In addition, the BTA process has been used in the vast
majority of surface based and hyperbaric automated welding systems. For these
reasons, when Wharton Williams wished to develop an automated stud welding
system, they elected to utilise the BTA process (Ref.1S).
The welding unit is housed in a small chamber which functions as the
welding habitat. While this is being transported through the water to the
work Site, a closure plate seals the chamber, and it is pressurised to 0.1/0.2
bar higher than the surrounding environmental pressure to minimise water
seepage. Again, the buoyancy of the unit has been adjusted, in order that it
 161

will be easily manoeuverable by a diver or ROV. At the worksite the closure

plate is removed, the chamber clamped in position with straps or magnets, and
the chamber dewatered and dried by the circulation of hot inert gas. In order
to achieve an acceptable seal, the base structure must be cleaned by grinding
or wire brushing.
At this stage the stud/torch unit within the chamber is lowered until it
is touching the base structure. The arc is then initiated, on the surface and
at shallow depths by high frequency discharge, at greater depths by a touch
strike technique.
The torch is then traversed around the stud, employing a weldIng current
and travel speed defined by prior procedure trials. All welding parameters
are controlled from the surface and may be recorded for quality assurance
purposes. The base of the stud is fitted with a "washer" to provide the
filler material for the joint. In this way, no wire feed system or
manipulator is required. The specification of the stud and washer material
are selected to minimise hardenability effects and to resist hydrogen induced
cracking.
After the arc is extinguished, the weld is allowed to cool for several
minutes with heated inert gas again being circulated through the welding
chamber. After this, the chamber may be removed, a new stud fitted into the
handling system, and the unit attached at a new site.
In order to further reduce heat affected zone hardnesses, it is possible
to carry out a second, autogenous pass to temper the heat affected zone. This
will, however, increase the weld production cycle time. Weld times of the
order of 3 to 4 minutes have been quoted for the unit, with a similar period
for the tempering pass. Such a weld time implies a rather slow travel speed,
but this is said to be necessary in order to achieve complete fusion of the
filler material washer, and to optimise the shape of the fillet weld. Weld
production cycle times of approximately 30 minutes would seem feasible for the
equipment as at present configured, and it may be possible to improve this
with a more developed system.
Both of the above systems were configured to enable them to be compatible
with ROV systems, and it seems likely that this development will take place
during the next year or so. With regard to the welding of pipelines
themselves, the current price of oil makes high capital cost projects less
attractive, and will not encourage the development of high cost oil reserves.
For these reasons, it may well be some years before significant developments
take place towards the replacement of divers for pipeline welding. At
162

present, the problems relate more to the cost and applicability of these
techniques than their technical feasibility.
Acknowledgements.
The author would like to thank all those members of various offshore
engineering companies who have contributed information incorporated in this
paper. Any factual errors are, however, the responsibility of the author. It
must be stated that any opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and
do not necessarily represent the views or policy of any commercial
organisation.

References.

1) Nixon, J.H., and Richardson, I.M. 'Open arc pulsed current SMAW
-Application to hyperbaric welding operations.' The American Society for
Metals International Welding Congress, Toronto, Canada, October 1985.
2) Allum, C.J., 'Characteristics and structure of high pressure (1-42 bar)
gas tungsten arcs.' Ph.D. Thesis, Cranfield Institute of Technology, 1983.
3) Nixon, J.H. 'Underwater welding a review.' A.T.M.A. Conference on
Undersea Technology, Paris, December 1982.
4) Mc'Callum, R.I. 'Long term effects of professional diving.' Divetech '84,
The Society for Underwater Technology, London, November 1984.
5) Knagenhjelm, H.O., and Ovland, S., 'Deep Ex 81, Deep weld.' Norsk Hydro,
October 1982.
6) Lyons, R.S., and Middleton, T.B., 'Orbital TIG system simplifies
underwater welding.' Metal Construction, October 1984.
7) Allan, F., 'The philosophy and application of shaped charge explosives.'
International Underwater Systems Design, February / March, 1981.
8) Anon, 'Real time radiography.' The Oilman, November 1985.
9) Nicholas, E.D., and Lilly,R.H. 'Radial friction welding.' Advances in
Welding Processes, 4th. International Conference, Harrogate, May 1978.
10) Ellis, C.R.S., and Lilly, R.H., 'Friction welding in liquid environments.'
Patent Publication 1451447, October 1976.
11) Chadwick, M.D., 'Pipe to pipe welding by explosives.' A Welding Institute
Publication, 1975.
12) Stalker, A.W., 'Explosive welding of undersea pipelines.' Marine
Technology, April 1978.
13) Redshaw, P.R., and Stalker,A.W., 'Underwater explosive welding of
pipelines.' Lecture at the Caxton Hall, January 1978.
 163

14) Schofield, 1.0., 'Underwater friction welding.' Annual Conference of the

Association of Offshore Diving Contractors, 1984.
15) Smith, C., 'An automatic stud welder for surface and underwater
applications.' SUT/AODC Subtech Conference, October 1985.