Martin Connelly, Technical Manager, Tubes

Linepipe Manufacturing &

Materials Selection

Challenges for deep sea oil

& gas exploration &
production
Agenda

• Materials Selection
• Design elements

• Development of linepipe grades

• Linepipe Manufacture
• Size capability - Pipe forming processes - Advantages / disadvantages of individual
processes
• Pipe welding processes - Inspection Activities

• Linepipe Properties
• Chemical properties - Mechanical properties - Dimensional properties
• Variability in test methods
• Di
Dimensions
i
Linepipe applications
Materials selection

• Know Your Limits!

• Limit states interact with the materials selection to provide a range of cost
competitive options and pipeline designs, e.g.:
• Sour service: SMLS vs SAW, CRA vs Carbon etc.
• Large diameter vs multiple smaller diameter lines
• Collapse on deepwater systems; high t/D.
• There is an element of ‘chicken
chicken and egg’
egg ……..although
although certain absolutes will
become clear in the design process (e.g. corrosion requirements, fatigue etc)
• The usual rule is to start with the most cost competitive option, and scale up as
the design drives more demanding requirements
• Important to define the key limit state – this usually has the biggest impact on
the final material selection
• Grade: Lower Grade = higher WT, higher grade = lower WT, but decreased
weldability
Key elements in pipeline design

• Key aspects that should be understood by all stakeholders, from the designer
to the manufacturer:
• Dimensions and dimensional control: OD or ID, thickness, length, shape, straightness
etc
• Mechanical p
properties:
p strength
g range,
g , ductility,
y, toughness,
g , weld toughness,
g , HAZ
toughness, DWTT, test temperatures, hardness etc
• Sour service properties: is sour service testing required, test acceptance criteria and
testing solution, maximum hardness etc
• Corrosion properties: is CRA required, if using carbon steel - what corrosion
allowance is in place?
• Integrity: NDT requirements, max flaw sizes etc
• Weldability: reaction to various heat inputs and the toughness of the HAZ/Weld
• These elements should be defined before selecting the appropriate standard
and writing the amending specification
specification.

API 1111 (Design) OS-F101

API 1104 (Construction) Design, ISO 3183
f
Manufacture &
API 5L (Manufacture) Construction
Manufacture
 Typical design…….questions you should ask

• Assumption: for cost viability and to allow for general corrosion, a pipeline design of
610mm OD x 31.8mm wall thickness has been selected

Toughness
Mechanical Properties Dimensions Sour Service NDT Weldability

Is theIsstrength
the bodyrange
Cv high
OK enough Is the shape and size Is sour service testing Is the NDT regime able to What is the toughness of
to ensure that pressure long control adequate to ensure
to protect against required, or is detect all the assumed the HAZ of the girth weld?
running
retention ductile fracture?that the pipes can be
is maintained maximum hardness defects from the ECA? How will this vary with the
and the girth welds will welded together without sufficient? range of heat inputs that
always overmatch?
Is the body Cv high enough compromising fatigue could be applied?
to protect against long (high/low)?
running ductile fracture?
Is the body material Cv Is the length/straightness If required, is the What is the maximum Is there a concern with
high enough to ensure acceptable to ensure the HIC/SSC testing to be permissible flaw size from the strain concentration in the
resistance to long running lay barge doesn’t have conducted in standard ECA? girth weld HAZ? Is there a
ductile fracture? problems? solutions or in buffered minimum hardness that is
solutions? desired?
Are DWTT required to How close is the start of Are there any Where POD is not able to be Is there a concern over
guarantee against long life minimum wall modifications as close to 100% as you residual magnetism?
running brittle fracture thickness to that permitted necessary to the would like, are you happy with
(high pressure)? in the pipe mill? international standards the frequency / effectiveness
for HIC/SSC testing? of the systems proposed?
Is there sufficient ductility Is the shape control What % of SMYS is the mill Is there existing data for
in the line to allow for a adequate to protect hydrostatic test required to the composition being
strain event? Is the design against collapse? perform at, and for what used?
stress or strain based? duration?
If collapse is a factor, is Unless you can answer all of these, and satisfy yourself that your intended supply chain
there sufficient derating
can present a manageable and acceptable risk, you need to go back to the drawing
given to the SMYS?
board…..
Grade Evolution (1)

• The modern era of linepipes is dominated by the API 5L

• Pre and post 1970’s
• The pre- era was dominated by lower grade pipelines
which used ‘normalisable’ grades
• Normalising was a way of improving toughness by heating
above the Ac3 temperature (circa 850-875°C for typical
linepipe compositions) – this resulted in an equiaxed grain
structure of ferrite and pearlite
p
• At this time, the concern with long running brittle
fracture was high after several major incidents – this led
to development of the Battelle Drop Weight Tear Test –
essentially a big charpy V test which would allow the
initiation of a brittle fracture and show whether the steel
could arrest the crack.
• Some of the normalisable steels struggled with the
DWTT test…….
 Grade Evolution (2)
• Very small additions of some elements; e.g. Nb, increased strength = MICROALLOYING
• Precipiation Hardening = Birth of Thermo-Mechanically (TM) Rolled Steel.
• Avoids very rich compositions that are not readily weldable and are extremely expensive to
make.
• The early 70’s saw a rapid period of development of what these microalloyed steels could
achieve;
• Normalised steels = X52 max for linepipe
• Microalloyed steels = X65 by the early 80’s, and X70 by the mid-late 80’s
• Mid 90’s; X80 was being used for landlines, and X100 had been trialled successfully.
• Offshore applications remained with X60/X65/X70 due to weldability and sour service
requirements
• Other advantages were apparent, as were some limitations;
• Lean composition = much easier welding
• Higher strengths = lower thicknesses
• Fracture behaviour of TM steel > normalised steel.
• TM steel sensitive to heat treatment – too hot and you would revert to the strength achieved
b the composition alone
by alone. Great care was
as req
required……
ired
Grade Evolution (3)
• Accelerated cooling or Q&T + microalloying
• Weldability
y / sour service
Grade Evolution (4)
• Microalloying and accelerated cooling has now allowed for design of X100 (and greater)
lines, and for grades that can withstand seismic events. However, these present some
further issues:
• X100 – weld overmatching.
• Strain based design – ageing resistant steels and high work hardening steels.
• Acic lar ferrite/bainite type
Acicular t pe str
structures
ct res
• X100 or strain based design steels; ferrite + islands of martensite (caution!)

X100 X70
• Ferrite
appears light
/ bainite is
darker
• Martensite
appears very
similar to
ferrite, but is
usually
smaller
LINEPIPE MANUFACTURE
Size Range Capability

Not shown - Spiral

Dashed box is the typical

‘offshore’ size range

Spiral also available, but not currently

used for offshore
Feedstock & Process

Feedstock Process
Cold Forming
Discrete cut lengths (12 -
UOE / JCOE 18 m) Single Pass (ID & OD) SAW Welding
Mechanical Expansion

Discrete cut lengths (9 - Hot or Cold Forming

Three Roll Bend 12 m)
Single or Multi-pass SAW Welding

Cold Forming
Helical SAW Coil
Single Pass (ID & OD) SAW Welding
Cold Forming
Linear forming (ERW / HFI) Coil Continuous Welding
Heat Treatment (Inline or Offline)
Piercing
Billets
Seamless (from continuous casting)
Sizing
Heat Treatment
UOE
Process flow
UOE
Crimp - U Press - O Press - Expander
UOE
Observations

Influences from Forming Process

• Forming Ratios
─ Expansion
p ratio – compression
p ratio ((O-press)
p )
– Magnitude of compression & expansion ratios affect
compressive/tensile strength
• Weld prep nose deforms during final stages of O-press –
need high heat input single pass per side weld to ‘punch
through and interpenetrate
• Non-uniform strain distribution pre-expansion
• Expansion significantly reduces point residual stress
stress,
straightens pipe and enhances shape.
Three roll bending
Process low
Three roll bending
Cold or Hot bending/Heat Treatment

• Flexible process inc heat treatment (if req’d)

• Mechanical properties heavily dependent
upon
─ Feedstock properties
─ Any applicable heat treatment
• Uniform strain distribution
• Non-optimum weld seam fit-up can
adversely affect weld properties
Linear forming
Process Flow
Linear forming
Forming & in
in-line
line heat treatment
Form/ Weld
Weld Line
Anneal

• Minimal change in
strength properties
during forming
• Uniform strain
distribution around
circumference
• Consistent
dimensional
properties
Full Body
Heat
Sizing Treatment
 Seamless
Feedstock
• Small diameters – continuously cast
• Large diameters – ingot cast
• Rotary Hearth Furnace
• Main Function: raise feedstock to hot
forming temperature
• Billet temperature: 1200 - 1300°C

• Create
C t ahhollow
ll shell
h ll (bl
(bloom))
• Then 2 options:
─ Pierce a hot round steel billet with a mandrel
– Does
D nott pierce
i entire
ti llength
th off bill
billett
─ Pierce a hot round steel billet with a mandrel
during rolling
– Pierce entire length of billet

Pictures Courtesy of V&M

Seamless
Forming Options + HT

Pilger
Pil

• Eccentricity created on ID surface during piercing rolling

• Rotary motion of OD rollers causes some spiral
imperfection
Plug • Re-straightening
e s ag e gp pipe
pe a
after
e ssizing
g removes
e o es Lüders
üde s Bands
a ds
• Anisotropic yield behaviour

• Subsequent Quench & Temper reinstates Lüders Bands

• Isotropic yield behaviour
Continuous •
Final microstructure is very homogenous and no weld
concerns.
• More expensive/slower…
Pipe forming
Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages Disadvantages
G d up tto X120 available
Grades il bl Minimum quantity required
Consistent dimensional properties High capital costs
UOE / JCOE
High throughput rate (UOE) Compressive strength de-rated by upto 15%
High wall thickness
thickness’ available (mainly JCO) (if expanded)

Flexible process
Small quantities available Low forming power
Three Roll Bend
Q i k changeovers
Quick h C
Compressive
i strength
t th d
de-rated
t dbby 7%
Heat treatment capability
High throughput rate
Not accepted byy all offshore linepipe
Linear forming Minimal HAZ
customers
(ERW / HFI) Reduced testing
Lower toughness (FLCv and DWTT)
Consistent dimensional properties
Heavy wall thickness
thickness’ available
Absence of HAZ/weld Ovality worse than UOE & LFP
Seamless No de-rating of compressive strength Eccentricity worse than UOE & LFP
g
Flexible lengths Inferior surface q
quality
y
Improved sour resistance
Pipe forming
Ideal applications

Applications
High tonnage / length projects with demanding delivery requirements
UOE / JCOE Onshore and offshore
Hi h pressure systems
High t

Small, lesser demanding projects

Three Roll Bend Process plant
Structural elements
Lower safety class onshore high capacity linepipes (>20”)
Helical SAW Cost critical projects
Lower risk of long running fracture projects
Lower safety
y class onshore lower capacity
p y linepipes
p p ((<20”))
Linear forming
Cost critical projects
(ERW / HFI)
Lower risk of long running fracture projects
High integrity projects (e
(e.g.
g ultra demanding SCRs or extreme sour
Seamless environments that are still carbon steel capable)
Small diameter subsea lines
WELDING & INSPECTION
Pipe welding processes
Submerged Arc Welding

• Solid wires (upto 5) continuously fed into

a layer of flux
• Flux used to generate protective gases
and slag, and add alloying elements into
weld
ld pooll
• Operated using single or multi-wire with
DC or AC current
• Weld bead is ~ 30% weld metal and 70%
parent plate in pipe mill
• Properties dependant on
• chemistry of the base material & wire
• heat input
• consumables
Submerged Arc Welding
Weld shape
Submerged Arc Welding

• Advantages
• High operating speeds & deposition rate
• Travel speeds in excess of 2.5 m.min-1 with multi-wire
• Deep
D penetration
i minimizes
i i i weld
ld metall ffor ffullll strength
h jjoints
i
• No spatter with self releasing slag

• Limitations
• Intermediate to high start up costs
• Welding must be done in the flat position (1G)
• High knowledge level required
• High
Hi h h
heatt iinputs
t require
i careful
f l th
thought
ht as tto ttoughness
h requirements.
i t
Pipe Welding Processes Resistance Welding

Two methods
• High Frequency Induction (HFI)
• Electrical Resistance Welding (ERW) – contact based
Resistance welding

• Advantages
• T
Travel
l speeds
d around
d 20 - 35 m.min-1
i 1
• Narrow fusion line
• Narrow heat affected zone (HAZ)
• Flush weld bead profile

• Limitations
• Limited to lower wall thicknesses
• ERW:
─ can gett stitch
tit h effect
ff t along
l seam
─ Can get burning of surface under contacts
─ Possible copper transfer
• I h
Inherent
t toughness
t h levels
l l llower th
than SAW
Inspection activities

Technique
q Process
Manual – pipe ends
Ultrasonic
Automatic – 100% of weld seams (except very end)

Digital (possibly real-time) or Film based

Real time can do 100% of all welded pipe or spot testing
X Ray (seam weld)
X-Ray (e g ends and indications),
(e.g. indications) although slower than AUT
Film – 100% on qualification pipe, then spot testing (e.g.
ends and indications)
Magnetic Particle
Weld repairs, and pipe ends post-beveling (including weld)
Inspection
Measurement of pipe dimensions
Measurement
may be percentage of whole population, or 100%
LINEPIPE PROPERTIES
Composition - Welded pipes

Main Elements Process Plant Onshore Non- Offshore Non-Sour Offshore Sour
Sour
Carbon (C ) < 0.17 0.12 0.08 0.04
Silicon (Si) 0.25 – 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.30
Manganese (Mn) < 1.30 < 1.70 < 1.70 < 1.50
Nickel (Ni) * * NDA – 0.3 NDA – 0.3
Copper (Cu) * * NDA – 0.3 NDA – 0.3
Chromium (Cr) * * 0.03 0.05
Molybdenum * 0.1 (X80) 0.01 0.01
(Mo)
Niobium (Nb) * 0.04 0.04 0.04
Vanadium (V) * * 0.04 0.07
Titanium (Ti) * * <0
0.02
02 <0
0.02
02
Sulphur (S) 0.012 0.007 < 0.003 < 0.001
Phosphorus (P) 0.020 0.020 0.015 < 0.010

Reduction in Carbon Replaced by Strengthening Elements

Composition - Seamless pipes

Main Elements Offshore Non-Sour Offshore Sour

Carbon (C ) 0 12
0.12 0 10
0.10
Silicon (Si) 0.35 0.35
Manganese (Mn) < 1.40 1.30
Nickel (Ni) 0.15 0.25
Copper (Cu) 0.15 0.25
Chromium (Cr) 0.20 0.20
Molybdenum (Mo) 0.15 0.10
Niobium (Nb) 0 04
0.04 0 04
0.04
Vanadium (V) 0.04 0.06
Titanium (Ti) 0.02 < 0.02
Sulphur (S) < 0.005 < 0.003
Phosphorus (P) 0.015 < 0.010

Reduction in Carbon Replaced by Strengthening Elements

Mechanical properties: Test types

Property Test Reason for test

type
Transverse Tensile Minimum operating pressure

Strength Longitudinal Tensile Pipe laying strains

Transverse Compressive Hydrostatic collapse

Resistance to fracture initiation / ductile

Charpy V-Notch
propagation

Fracture Battelle Drop Weight Tear Test Resistance to brittle fracture propagation

Resistance to fracture propagation

Crack Tip Open Displacement
(due to pre
pre-existing
existing defect)
Ensure soundness / overmatching of weld
Weld Integrity Transverse Weld Bends/Tensile
seam
Ensure overmatching of weld seam / resistance
Hardness Hardness
to sour cracking
Hydrogen Induced Cracking Resistance to sour environment
Corrosion
R i
Resistance Resistance to so
sourr en
environment
ironment
Sulphide Stress Corrosion Cracking
(whilst in stressed state)
Strength

Key parameters
• g
Yield strength
• Tensile strength
• Strength ratio
• Elongation
• Uniform
• At fracture
• Shape of stress strain curve

Purpose Location
T
Transverse tensile
t il Mi i
Minimum operation
ti pressure W ld & Body
Weld B d

Longitudinal tensile Pipe laying strain Weld & Body

Transverse compressive Hydrostatic

y collapse
p Body
y
 Strength
Typical requirements

P
Property
t N t ti
Notation Typical
T i l specification
ifi ti Reason ffor
R
requirement requirement
100 – 120 MPa Range To prevent against applicable
Yield strength Rp0.2
0 2, Rt0.5
0 5, Rt2.0
20
f il
failure mode
d
(SMYS + 120 MPa)
100 – 120 MPa Range To ensure overmatching by
Tensile strength Rm
girth weld
(SMTS + 120 Mpa)

0.92 Transverse Safety factor to ensure no

Strength ratio Rt0.5 / Rm plastic rupture occurs during
0.93 Longitudinal pipe laying
Elongation at High deformability prior to
A50mm 32%
fracture fracture
Strength
Variability in test methods

Increasing
Yield
Strength

Flattened Strap Round Bar Tensile Ring Expansion

• Traditionally Used Sample

• Most conservative
• No Flattening • No Flattening
• Basis
B i ffor allll UOE/JCO pipe
i
Advantages mill ‘calibrations’ • Low Cost (not as low as • Full Wall Thickness
strap) • True Strength of Pipe
• Full Wall Thickness
• Low
Lo Cost
• Expensive
• Only tests a portion of
Disadvantages • Low Cost
wall thickness • Only Provides Yield
Strength
Strength
Hydrostatic collapse

• API RP 1111 & DNV OS-F101 both de-

rate the strength of SAW pipe
• 7% for Three Roll Bend & UO pipe
• 15% for UOE pipe
• Magnitude
M it d off reduction
d ti b based
d on
historical data
• De-rating due to reduction of
compressive
i strengthh through
h h fforming
i
process
• Bauschinger Phenomenon / Effect
• Pipe Companies Research
• Use of Low Temperature Heat Treatment
• Modified forming
gppractices
• Processes designed to gain back
compressive strength of plate material or
better
Deliver
D li capability
bilit tto reach
h greater
t water
t ddepths
th
Possibility of reduction in wall thickness
Strength De-Rating
Improving compressive strength

Normal
80 Mean 497.6
StDev 16.31
Heat Treatment & Modified N 337
70
Forming
60
Heat Treatment
50
cy
Frequenc

Modified
40 forming

30

20

10

0
450 470 490 510 530 550 570 590
Compressive Strength (MPa)
LINEPIPE PROPERTIES -
FRACTURE
C
Fracture resistance

Property Test Reason for test

type
Resistance to fracture initiation / ductile
Charpy V-Notch
propagation

Fracture Battelle Drop Weight Tear Test Resistance to brittle fracture propagation

Resistance to fracture propagation

Crack Tip Open Displacement
(due to pre-existing defect)

42
Fracture toughness
Charpy impact toughness

Measure energy required to break sample (Joules) – ranking test

120 Mean 208.6

N 975
110
100
90
80

uency
70

Frequ
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
Fusionline Cv (J)

Weld Centreline (Mid-Thickness)

Fusion Line (Mid-Thickness); - 25% Weld + 50% HAZ + 25% Weld

Fusion Line (Sub-Surface OD): - 50% Weld + 50% HAZ

43
Fracture resistance
Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD)

• Full thickness sample

• Plastic deformation followed by cleavage
• Measure the CTOD
• Adequate toughness shown for CTOD values 0
0.1
1 – 0.2
0 2 mm

Pictures Courtesy of TWI

44
Fracture resistance
Battelle Drop Weight Tear Test (BDWTT)

• To assess the ability of a pipe

t resist
to i t a long
l running
i b brittle
ittl
fracture
• Hammer drops onto a notched
specimen to break in two
• Fracture surface analysed to
determine ductility
• Ductile
• Shear, dull finish, fibrous
• Brittle
• Cleavage, bright, crystalline

45
BDWTT
Fracture faces

B ittl
Brittle
Ductile

Increasing ductility

Increasing temperature
46
BDWTT
Sample assessment

• Battelle Drop Weight Notch

T
Tear Test
T t
• Test result given as
percentage shear Section A
• Subjective interpretation
of fracture surface
• G
Generally
ll iinclude
l d ‘i‘inverse
fracture’ Section B

Section C

47
LINEPIPE PROPERTIES - SOUR
Corrosion resistance
Hydrogen Induced Cracking (HIC)

• Monotomic hydrogen diffuses to

H atom H2 molecule
o ecu e Elongated inclusion
o gated c us o
voids
id around
d iinclusions
l i
• Build up of internal pressure
• Cracking occurs when pressure
exceeds local threshold
• Hard segregated regions at
plate/pipe mid-thickness are
more pprone to cracking
g

49
HIC - Sample assessment

W
CSR = Σa.b
W.t
1 mm: CTR = Σb
b
t These areas
are disregarded
t
CLR = Σa
a
W
Crack over 0.5 mm apart from nearest crack
end is not counted as the same stepwise crack

50
HIC
What to avoid !

Micro scale
Micro-scale

Macro scale
Macro-scale
51
HIC
Segregation

• Segregation at centre line promotes

t
transformation
f ti tot hard
h d phases
h Continuous Casting
Machine
• Keep C level low
• Keep bulk Mn low
low, e
e.g.
g 11.65%
65% Mn max
• Keep other strongly segregating
elements as low as possible e.g. Cu,
Mo, Ni, Si, P
Soft
• Cool quickly after rolling to reduce Reduction
C segregation
• Good caster conditions
– Uniform cooling
– Soft reduction
Corrosion Resistance
Sulphide stress corrosion

Applied Stress

• Pits form due to corrosion

• Highly
g y sensitive to microstructure
• Stress applied to test piece
• Test piece immersed in acidic solution saturated with H2S
• Test duration 720 hours (30 days)
• No cracking / Cracked – Pass / Fail criteria
• Stress usually applied via uni-axial tension or bending
 Dimensions
Typical offshore requirements

Typical
T i l Cold
C ld formed
f d S
Seamless
l R
Reason ffor requirement
i t
tolerances products
Minimum to guarantee strength &
corrosion
i allowance
ll
Wall thickness ± 1.0 mm ± 12.5 % W.T.
Maximum to calculate weight and
cost of material

Diameter ± 1.6 mm ± 2.0 mm Ease of pipe fit-up

Ease pipe fit-up and resistance to

Ovality 0 5 - 1.0
0.5 10%OO.D.
D
collapse

Straightness ≤ 0.15 % Length Ease pipe fit-up

Ensure girth welds are within range

Length Average ± 100 mm
of lay barge stations