Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

Paper no: Ostend2009-025

Design criteria for X80 pipe

welding: process and strength
effects on weld performance in
wide plate tests
by C Dallam1, S Huysmans2, R Denys3, and V van der Mee1
1 Lincoln Electric Europe, Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Spain
2 Laborelec, Belgium
3 Laboratory Soete, University of Gent, Gent, Belgium

G REAT EFFORT AND RESOURCES are expended to design and fabricate safe and economical
pipelines. Diverse philosophies may be employed in the design, but the suitability for service and the
risk of failure ultimately depend on the material behavior in actual service conditions.

The trend in design, and consequently pipeline materials development, is to use higher strength materials
to take advantage of either 1) less material performing the same function, or 2) the same amount of
material supporting greater operating loads. Not only are materials evolving, but design philosophies are
advancing to fully exploit the available materials. “Overmatching” the weld metal yield strength is one
approach.

The motivation for this is to achieve the performance and safety at a lower total project cost. With
increased pipe strength (and the potential for thinner wall pipe), cost reductions can be realized through
decreased pipe weight, less welding because of the thinner pipe, greater ease in reaching the required
preheat and interpass temperatures, as well as lower cost of transporting the pipe to the job site. By
simply switching from X-70 to X-80 pipe, a 12 % reduction in wall thickness is possible because of the
ratio of pipe strength, while the weld metal volume could be decreased by 25%.

Small- scale tests are typically used to prove out the materials and the design. Tensile tests and
Charpy V-notch (CVN) impact tests, for example, are performed on small specimens and consider the
most extreme set of expected service conditions. On the other extreme, large-scale tests can be used
that more accurately simulate service conditions.

The objectives of this study were:

 Serve as a procedure qualification for consumable/ pipe combinations;

 Examine the effects of mismatching weld and pipe strength on high strength steel;
 Compare traditional design criteria (strength, impact toughness, and fracture toughness) to wide
plate tests on X-80 pipe.

This paper is © copyright of the organizers of the Pipeline Technology Conference held in Ostend, Belgium, on 12-14 October, 2009, and of
the author(s). No copying (either electronic or otherwise), transmission electronically, or reproduction in any way is permitted without the
specific permission of the copyright holders.
2 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

Background

Pipeline design philosophies

Various approaches can be used in pipeline design. Glover (1) has presented a description of several of these. Stress
based design (called Allowable Stress Design, or ASD) is accomplished using a single property of the pipe and weld
metal (strength). This is tempered by safety factors, and the design is completed using the expected service
conditions. This can be modified to accommodate the natural variation of strength. Reliability based design
involves the probability of various outcomes and the consequences.

To present a more realistic view of actual conditions, “Limit State Design” can be used. Possible failure modes are
defined, and then the property controlling each failure mode is determined. Acceptance limits are then attached
to property.

Load and Resistance Factors Design (LRFD) uses this approach. For limiting properties, the resistance to failure
(with a factor of safety) is defined to withstand anticipated conditions (also with a factor of safety).

Strain Based design is a “Limit State Design” where the strain that the pipeline might experience is the controlling
property. If the potential strain that the pipes will experience in service is known, the required weld and pipe
properties can be determined.

Small or large scale testing?

The suitability of materials can be tested on a small or large scale. Small-scale tests directly measure specific
properties, as with a tensile test. The yield strength, tensile strength, total elongation or uniform elongation can be
measured. Small-scale tests might also be indirect measures of the service behavior, such as impact toughness.

Large scale testing generally simulates service performance more closely. Specimen geometry, stress states, and
service conditions can be recreated to represent the actual structure and service conditions, revealing likely failure
modes. In practice, large scale tests are improved, less conservative approximations of service behavior compared to
small scale tests. The temperature, internal and external service pressures, and environmental conditions might not
be included. Wide plate tests and CAPSIS corrosion tests, (used for sour gas applications) are large scale tests. (2)

A combination of mechanical properties (primarily strength and toughness), and workmanship standards have
provided acceptable performance with stress based designs. With the trend towards increased material strength,
problems that had been effectively controlled earlier assume a renewed importance.

Testing for procedure qualification and design should address the controlling failure mode, which is not a
stationary target. If strength and weld metal strength overmatching are considered as the principal design
requirements, the weld may be adequately protected from overloading. However, the likely failure mode may shift
to hydrogen cracking, corrosion, or something else. One advantage of large scale testing is that it can
simultaneously “push” several failure modes, exposing the “weakest link”.

A brief explanation of several design parameters will be presented, followed by a description of the experiments
that were performed for this study. The results will then be analyzed.

Strength as a design parameter

Selecting materials and procedures on the basis of the expected tensile properties is one means of minimizing the
failure risk. Tensile property measurement requires only simple standardized tensile tests. Overmatching weld
strength is one means of protecting the pipeline, as has been documented. (3, 4, 5)

The ratio of yield to tensile strength is often considered, a low ratio is considered “good”. This ratio serves a
surrogate for two fundamental properties:
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 3

 the total elongation before reaching instability. This is critical for pipeline designs that revolve around the
ability to accommodate strain.
 the strain hardening capacity.

Impact toughness as a design parameter

Impact toughness is a relative measure of material (weld metal) performance. Average and minimum permissible
impact values are commonly specified, then consumables and procedures are chosen accordingly. The impact
toughness requirements may be chosen to assure that the weld metal is not brittle at the service temperature. The
underlying assumption is that when Charpy specimens is representative of service conditions . While it might be
comforting to specify and meet average and minimum values. in practice, the stress conditions at the tip of the
initiating crack in a Charpy V-notch test are not the same as in production welds. Individual values are also prone
to variation. The goal is avoid brittle fracture in the elastic loading range in service.

Impact toughness values can also be considered in terms of the probability of measuring specific values.
Procedures can certainly be designed to minimize the likelihood of encountering low CVN values, but single low
values may still occur.

Impact toughness is generally useful in comparing one material with another similar material, and once “adequate”
impact toughness is attained, additional toughness serves more as a margin of security than a functional attribute.

Fracture toughness as a design parameter

Tests such as the Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) can be used to evaluate materials for their fracture
toughness. By forcing plane strain conditions in the tests specimens, the “worst case” condition for brittle failure
can be monitored. Standard specimens are loaded until critical failure conditions are met. Fracture toughness
(CTOD) is a more “fundamental” measure of the risk of brittle failure than impact toughness. There is normally
not a strong correlation between the impact toughness and fracture toughness.

Armed with the detectable defect size in a weld, (known through non-destructive testing) and the expected service
conditions; the required fracture toughness to avoid brittle failure in the weld can be calculated. Conversely,
knowing the fracture toughness and the expected defect, allowable service conditions can be determined.

If the expected failure mode is not brittle fracture, designing and selecting the consumables and procedures to
maximize the fracture toughness is ultimately an unproductive effort. The minimum toughness to avoid brittle
failure has been analyzed (6). After brittle failure is avoided, the strain hardening (yield / tensile ratio) and
“tearing” behavior of the material control failure.

The fracture mechanics approach is limited in that it addresses only the resistance to brittle failure, and as all small
scale tests, has the sampling limitations.

Large scale/ curved wide plate testing

The structural performance of a weld with a defect can be simulated on a “macro-” scale using wide plate testing.
This offers the opportunity to test material with the full range of variables affecting straining capacity of the pipe.
The full thickness weld is tested, comprised of metal deposited in each of the weld passes. The effects of the
procedures and consumables, including the residual stresses are included. This is a better estimation of actual
service behavior than small scale tests, can not be completely representative of the actual performance unless all of
the possible loading conditions and the environment are included.

The design tools traditionally used (primarily strength, impact toughness and fracture toughness) focus on
individual failure modes. They necessarily miss the possible interactions and “macro” effects of a welded assembly.
When done properly, wide plate testing most closely represents the loading of anticipated service conditions, and
tests the likely in-service failure modes.

Strain based designs

Structural materials that can plastically deform prior to failure are better than materials that can’t. For strain based
4 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

designs, this ability to accommodate plastic deformation is key. If the weld fails in a metallurgically brittle fashion,
(based on fracture appearance) after a great degree of plastic deformation in the pipes, the result is much better
that if the weld fails in a ductile fashion, but with little total strain.

How much toughness is needed?

The toughness of weld metal should be sufficient to prevent brittle failure,. Beyond this point, additional
toughness doesn’t help. Pressure vessel and bridge codes are written with Charpy requirements sufficient to
prevent brittle fracture.

Fracture toughness measurements help indicate the onset of brittle fracture. Unfortunately, the required toughness
involves assumptions concerning the possible defect size, stress levels, strain rates and location of probable defects.
Because of this, there is no reason for independently developed requirements/ codes to be the same. (7)

Curved wide plate tests have been used to determine the requisite toughness to avoid brittle failure in a pipe.
EPRG (8) demonstrated that failure by pipe metal yielding (0.5% pipe metal strain) is ensured if

 the defective area is less than 7% in any 300 mm length of weld, and
 the average weld metal impact energy at the design temperature exceeds 40 J, with a 30 J minimum single
value.

For a wall thickness of 12.7 mm or less, the impact requirement is reduced to 27 J at the service temperature
because the amount of restraint is decreased.

Both BS4515 (9) and Australian Standard AS2885.2-1995 (10) used this minimum requirement for pipe grades up
to X-65. When fracture mechanics are considered, various codes set various threshold minimum fracture
toughness. Through correlation between curved wide plate and CTOD tests, EPRG arrived at the conclusion that
for matched or overmatched weld metal, an average of 0.15 mm CTOD was satisfactory, with a 0.10 mm minimum
value.

Other design constraints

By no means can the previously listed properties be considered comprehensive for the design criteria for welding a
complex structure such as a pipeline. The desire for corrosion testing NACE testing (11) has grown in recent years.
For corrosion concerns, procedures are developed and consumables chosen which limit the peak hardness in the
weld metal and heat affected zone.

Technical approach

Test materials

In the current study, 1117 mm (44 inch) diameter, 17 mm wall thickness pipes (API 5L X80) have been welded
using three different consumables, producing three welds with varying degrees of overmatching. The welds were
chosen to produce A) significant yield strength overmatch of the weld over the base pipe, B) slight overmatch
between the weld and the pipe yield strength, and C) nominally equal strength pipe and weld. All welds was
subjected to both radiographic inspection and ultrasonic inspection.

Welding procedures

Weld A – A SMAW electrode (E12018G) was welded vertically upward, with the strength selected to be
significantly higher than the base pipe strength. The welding parameters are shown in table 1. The preheat
temperature was 50°C minimum and the maximum interpass temperature was 120°C.
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 5

Table 1: Summary of the welding procedure for weld A

Weld pass/ Process Polarity Voltage Travel Speed Arc Energy Interpass
Consumable size Current cm/min kJ/mm Temperature °C
1 GTAW DC-
11.4-12.5 3.5 2.5 50
ER80S-Ni1 2mm 111-133
2 GTAW DC-
11.1-12.3 5 2.1 120
ER80S-Ni1 2mm 108-148
3-4/ AWS SMAW DC+ 111-
21.8-23.9 11.3 1.4 120
E12018-G H4 3.25mm 135
5,6,7/ AWS SMAW DC+ 107-
21.5-25 8.2 2 100
E12018-G H4 3.25 mm 143
8,9,10/ AWS SMAW DC+ 143-
22.7-25.3 11.8 1.9 80
E12018-G H4 4.0 mm 173
12,13/ AWS SMAW DC+ 149-
22.7-23.9 14.4 1.5 120
E12018-G H4 4.0 mm 168

Weld B was made with the root pass completed using a controlled short arc GMAW commercially known as
(SurfaceTensionTransfer, or “STT”). A 1.0 mm ER80S-Ni-1 solid wire consumable was used. The hot pass was
performed with a 1.2 mm E71T-5 flux cored electrode, while the fill and cap passes 3)- 12) were made with a
submerged arc process consuming 2.4 mm electrodes. The AWS classification of the flux/wire combination was
F9A6EA3K-A3. A maximum 250°C interpass was specified.

Table 2: Welding procedure information for Weld B.

Interpass
Current Wire Feed Travel Speed Arc Energy
Pass Process Voltage temperature
DC+ Speed mm/min kJ/mm
(°C)
160
1 STT* 117-124 19.3 8.75-15 .9-1.6 53
m/min
2 FCAW 248-268 29.3 24-29 1.5-1.7 100
3 SAW 295-348 30.6 50 1.2 100
4 SAW 349-411 29.6 50-55 1.4 100
5 SAW 349-411 29.6 50-55 1.4 117
6 SAW 349-411 29.6 50-55 1.4 148
7 SAW 400-418 29 50 1.6 148
8 SAW 400-418 29 50 1.6 148
9 SAW 400-418 29 50 1.6 148
10 SAW 403-420 29.2 46 1.5 148
11 SAW 402-420 29.3 46 1.5 243
12 SAW 426-440 33.8 46 2.0 248
* The STT root was welded with the following parameters:
Peak 293 amps 1.5 mm land/ face preparation
Background 93 amps 4-5 mm gap
160 inches per minute wire feed speed

The pipe was rotated, simulating normal fabrication procedures, with an effective travel speed of 500 –550 mm/
minute for all of the submerged arc welds. The arc energy was held at 1.2 kJ/ mm for the first submerged arc pass,
while the remaining fill passes were increased to 1.4-1.6 kJ/ mm arc energy The final cap pass rose to 2.0 kJ/ mm
while the interpass temperature rose steadily from 100°C for the initial submerged arc pass up to 248 °C for the
final cap pass. The details are presented in Table 2.

Weld C was welded entirely vertically downward with SMAW electrodes, and was intended to match the strength
of the pipe. The root and hot passes were welded with a cellulosic E6010 electrode, the root being run with an
average current of 140 amps, DCEP polarity. No preheat was applied, and the interpass was below 65°C. The arc
energy was 0.6 kJ/ mm for the root pass, 2 kJ/ mm for the hot pass. The first fill pass was done with a 3.2 mm
E10018-G electrode. A total of thirteen passes were needed to fill the joint.

The joint preparation was a 60° included angle with a 1.6 mm land and a 1.6 mm gap between the pipes. All non-
6 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

destructive evaluation was done in accordance with ASME B31.8:2000 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping
Systems. (12)

Table 3: The Welding procedure information for weld C

Pass 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Electrode
4 5 3.2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
diameter
P/H, I/P
temperatu 50 38 40 65 56 35 42 47 50 54 57 50 56
re
160- 160- 160-
Current 140 180 150 190 190 190 190 190 190 190
180 180 180
Arc
Energy kJ/ 0.6 2 1.1 .8 1.1 09 1.2 08 .9 1 1.2 1 1
mm

Figure 1: Schematic representation of how samples were removed from the pipe. Depending on the weld, different numbers of wide plate
samples were taken, but in all cases there was a pattern of alternating curved wide plate specimens and specimens for other mechanical
property measurements.

Specimen sampling

Each weld was subject to several small scale tests and curved wide plate testing. Figure 1 shows the sample lay-out,
alternating a wide plate specimen with the other mechanical tests specimens.

Tensile data were measured for all base materials, using all-weld metal specimens, and transverse specimens. Bend
tests were performed, and toughness was measured using Charpy V-notch impact toughness and Crack Tip
Opening Displacement (CTOD) on both all-weld metal and fusion line/heat affected zone specimens. Wide plate
crack mouth opening tests (CMOD) were done using a variety of defect size to specimen size ratios, listed later in
table. Wide plate testing was done at –10°C.

Wide plate tests were taken from several points around the pipe, described in Tables 4, 5, and 6. Defects of varying
degrees of severity were machined into the root side of the wide plate specimens, as tabulated. For Weld B, the
submerged arc weld,. The procedures for curved wide plate testing are described in Appendix 1, while Figure 2
shows the test schematically.
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 7

Table 4: Wide Plate Test Details for Weld A

Specimen Location Defect Length X Height Notched Area (%)
(o’clock position)
0.6-1.8 66 mm X 5 mm 4WT 4.44
4.2-5.4 100mm X 5mm 6WT 7.37
6.6-7.8 168 mm X 3 mm 10WT 8.05
8.4-9.6 50mm 3 mm 3WT 2.12
10.2-11.4 117 mm X 3mm 7WT 5.45

Table 5: Wide Plate Test Details for Weld B

Specimen Location Length X Height Notched Area (%)
0.6-1.8 66 mm X 5 mm 4WT 4.47
4.2-5.4 100mm X 5mm 6WT 7.40
0.4- 1.6 66 mm X 3 mm 4WT 4.47

Table 6: Wide Plate Test Details for Weld C

Specimen Location Length X Height Notched Area (%)
0.6-1.8 66 mm X 5 mm 4WT 4.46
4.2-5.4 100mm X 5mm 6WT 7.42
6.6-7.8 168 mm X 3 mm 10WT 8.08
8.4-9.6 50mm X 3 mm 3WT 2.11
10.2-11.4 117 mm X 3mm 7WT 5.44

“WT” refers to the wall thickness. As such, “7WT” signifies that the length of the machined “defect” is seven time
longer than the wall thickness of the pipe.

Figure 2: Schematic drawing of curved wide plate specimens within a pipe. Several wide plate specimens can be removed from the pipe,
with defects of various sizes machined into the curved wide plate specimen. The Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT)
measures the total displacement; the extensometer is used to measure the crack mouth opening displacement.
 8 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

Results
Chemical composition

The compositions of the base pipe and each of the welds are shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Compositions of the welds and the pipe.

C Mn Si Mo Ni P S Cr V Ti Al Nb N Cu Co B CE
0.08
Pipe 1.95 0.34 0.14 0.04 0.014 0.003 0.050 0.004 0.018 0.04 0.057 0.003 0.022 0.01 0.001 0.209
2
Weld A 0.074 1.78 0.44 0.39 2.00 0.015 0.007 0.400 0.010 0.009 0.01 0.008 0.012 0.033 0.014 0.001 0.263
Weld B 0.106 1.59 0.54 0.42 0.03 0.010 0.006 0.020 0.003 0.006 0.01 0.006 0.006 0.099 0.010 0.003 0.253
0.05
Weld C 1.40 0.41 0.20 0.91 0.016 0.006 0.040 0.016 0.009 0.01 0.005 0.010 0.027 0.012 0.001 0.172
2

Tensile test results

The mechanical properties of the pipe metal in the axial direction are summarized in Table 8. The pipe metal
samples were taken from both sides of the joint. The position of the test, the yield strength, ultimate tensile
strength, yield to tensile ratio, and the elongation are listed, while Figure 3 shows the variation of pipe mechanical
properties around the pipe. The all weld tensile tests were taken from various locations around the pipe. The yield
and tensile strength measurements are presented in Figure 4, while Table 9 includes ductility measurements and
yield to tensile strength ratios. Transverse tensile tests were taken from the 2 o’clock and 4 o’clock positions for
each of the welds. Specimens of two geometries were used, conforming to EN895:1995 and ASME IX QW
462.1(b) (13,14).

Table 8: Tensile Test Results for X-80 Pipe Steel

Yield Strength, R0.5 Ultimate Tensile Yield To %
Side Position
(MPa) Strength, Rm (MPa) Tensile Ratio Elongation
1 1 o’clock 619 691 0.89 36
Pipes 1 3 o’clock 585 679 0.86 30
for 2 2 o’clock 584 675 0.86 31
Weld A 2 4 o’clock 590 682 0.86 35
mean 595 682 0.87 33
Pipes 1 1 o’clock 575 672 0.85 33
for 2 2 o’clock 568 667 0.85 34
Weld B mean 572 670 0.85 33
1 1 o’clock 580 678 0.85 33
Pipes 1 3 o’clock 582 677 0.86 35
for 2 2 o’clock 586 687 0.85 31
Weld C 2 4 o’clock 585 677 0.86 31
Mean 583 680 0.85 32
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 9

Pipe Steel Tensile Properties

Strength (Yield or Tensile) MPa 750

700
A Yield Strength
A Tensile strength
650
B Yield Strength
B Tensile Strength
600
C Yield Strength
C Tensile Strength
550

500
0 2 4 6
Position on the pipe

Figure 3: Tensile properties at various positions on the base material pipe.

Table 9: All Weld Metal Tensile Test Results

Yield Strength, Ultimate Tensile
Yield to % % Reduction in
Position R0.5 Strength, Rm
Tensile Ratio Elongation Area
(MPa) (MPa)
12-1 725 886 0.82 15 60
5-6 690 877 0.80 17 64
Weld A 8 727 897 0.81 17 62
10 697 934 0.75 15 61
mean 710 899 0.79 16 62
1 583 716 0.81 24 66
Weld B 5 604 722 0.84 24 71.5
mean 594 719 0.83 24 69
1 588 669 0.88 20 71
5 568 660 0.86 23 70
7-8 595 683 0.87 20 65
Weld C
8 615 705 0.87 21 68
10 614 686 0.90 23 67
mean 596 681 0.89 21 68
10 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

Weld Metal Tensile Properties

1000
Yield or Tensile Strength,

950
900
850
800
MPA

750
700
650
600
550
500
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Position on Pipe

A Yield A tensile B yield B tensile C yield C tensile

Figure 4: Weld metal tensile properties at various positions around the pipe.

Figure 5 shows the strength mismatch for each of the welds. For generalizing the degree of mismatch, the mean
values have been used to show the levels of overmatching, as shown in Figure 5.

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1 2 3
A B C
Yield Strength Mismatch Tensile Strength Mismatch

Figure 5: Degree of strength mismatch for the three test welds, indicated by “A”, “B” , and “C”. The mismatch for both the yield and tensile
strength are shown.

In weld A (19% yield strength overmatch weld) and B (3.8% yield strength overmatch) the tensile specimens all
broke in the base metal instead. In the case of the matching yield strength samples, only the sample taken from the
C1 position failed in the weld metal. In both cases (the EN and the ASME geometry specimens), the failure was
precipitated by porosity in the weld metal. For strength, all of the welds surpassed the required and actual yield
strength of the pipe.

Transverse side bend tests were performed on samples taken from the 2:00 and 4:00 o’clock positions of each girth
welds. Acceptable results were seen in all cases. Minor surface breaking indications were seen in Weld C, the
SMAW weld that had the same strength as the pipe.
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 11

160

Absorbed Energy, joules

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Test Temperature, C

Weld A Weld B Weld C

Figure 6:Charpy V-notch impact energy transition curves for weld metal from the three welds

Charpy V-notch impact toughness

Figure 6 documents the CVN properties of the test welds. Three weld metal centerline Charpy specimens were
tested at each of 4 temperatures. At –40°C, the lowest Charpy energies that were measured were 50 joules in the
samples taken from weld C (no overmatch)

Fracture toughness (CTOD) testing

Figure 7 summarizes the CTOD testing. Three weld metal centerline notched specimens were tested at each of two
temperatures, -10°C and –25°C. Unlike the CVN impact toughness testing, where the matching strength weld
made with the E10018 electrode had the lowest impact toughness, in the fracture toughness tests, the lowest values
were seen in the highest strength weld metal (Weld A).

0.6

0.5

0.4
CTOD, mm

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Test Temperature, °C

Weld A Weld B Weld C

Figure 7: Weld Metal CTOD Results at two test temperatures.

12 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

Weld A

6
Remote strain or CMOD, mm

4
Remote Strain
3
CMOD
2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Imposed defect, % Area Notched

Weld B

6
Remote Strain or CMOD, mm

4
Remote Strain
3
CMOD
2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Imposed Defect % Area Notched

Weld C

6
Remote Strain or CMOD, mm

4
Remote Strain
3
CMOD
2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Imposed Defect % Area Notched

Figure 8: Results from the curved wide plate tests for the three welds
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 13

Curved wide plate (large scale) tests

Table 10 shows the results of the wide plate tests for the notch of varying severity, while the results of the wide plate
tests are shown for each of the three welds are shown graphically in Figure 8. The gross stress and remote strain at
maximum load is listed in the table, along with the CMOD. The highly overmatched weld A failed at the
maximum load, necking Weld B had only three wide plate tests run failed at maximum load. The matching yield
strength weld with the most severe notch suffered unstable fracture, the only such observance in the entire study.
As might be expected, the remote strain at fracture in this weld was low, as seen in Figures 8 a-c.

Table 10: Summary of Wide Plate Test Measurements

Gross stress at Remote strain CMOD at % Yield % Tensile
Notched area
maximum load at Maximum load Maximum Strength Strength
%
MPa % load (mm) Mismatch Mismatch
4.44 736 2.78 4.206
7.37 692 3.16 4.967
Weld A 8.05 706 3.93 4.153 19 32
2.12 703 4.44 1.704
5.45 704 4.51 1.98
4.47 671 1.56 5.145
Weld B 7.4 682 2.19 5.134 4 7
4.47 707 4.45 3.871
4.64 679 1.48 3.722
7.42 628 0.49 2.673
Weld C 8.08 631 0.63 1.278 2 0
2.11 693 3.04 3.388
5.44 634 0.8 1.623

Discussion

The relative performance of welds can be considered in several ways. Some will be considered in the following
section.

Strength

Based upon standards of strength and workmanship, each of the welds would have to be considered acceptable for
a stress based design. The failure stress measured in each of the transverse tensile tests was greater than the
specified minimum yield strength in all cases. In the all weld metal tensile tests, both welds B and C had yield
strength measured at over 590 MPa, while the weld A had a measured yield strength of 701 MPa. The specified
minimum yield strength is 550 MPa, while the measured strength of the pipe was ranged from 568MPa to 590 MPa
except for an isolated measurement of 619 MPa for one of the pipes used in weld A, which coincidentally had the
highest weld strength.

Impact toughness

Weld B, the submerged arc weld with a 3.8 % yield strength overmatch, absorbed the greatest amount of energy to
failure at each test temperature. However, each of the three welds absorbed over 40 joules to failure down to –
40°C, as seen in Figure 6.

Fracture toughness

Weld A, (with by 19% yield strength overmatch), had the lowest measured CTOD values of the three welds, with
both Welds B and C exhibiting higher CTOD values. This was shown in Figure 7. Depending on the design
requirements, the measured CTOD values may not be considered acceptable.
14 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

Wide plate tests

While not necessarily stellar in toughness measurements, in this test the best performance came in weld A. The
highest remote strain was recorded in these welds, featuring significant yield strength overmatched. Assuming that
the large scale test is more representative of service conditions, Weld A should be more resistant to failure than the
others welds.

In Weld A, as the severity of the imposed defect increased, the CMOD also increase. The load carrying burden is
passed to the weld from the base pipe material with increasing defect size. The strain hardening capacity of the
weld is sufficient that the remote strain remains significantly higher than the requisite 0.5% needed to avoid brittle
failure.

Although the fracture toughness, CTOD, is the lowest in this case, the threshold of toughness to prevent brittle
failure has been surpassed, the toughness loses importance.

In weld B, with a slight strength overmatch, the remote strain at failure was small with the small imposed defect. As
the defect severity increased, the remote strain at failure increased for unknown reasons.

In the weld that matched the pipe yield strength weld C, the remote strain at failure was quite small compared to
the other welds. The weld deformed under loading, instead of being having deformation distributed through the
pipe. As the severity of defect is increased, the weld can carry less load, so the remote strain decreases. The CMOD
decreased with increasing defect severity. This was the only weld in the study that experienced a metallurgically
brittle failure. However, the criteria of 0.5% remote strain was met in all but the most severe defect.

Selected data to simplify the discussion are included in the following Table 11. These data represent the most
conservative values measured. The CMOD is clearly much greater than the CTOD, and the defect size is clearly
important.

Table 11: Summary of tests data for each weld, listing the most conservative values measured
% Weld % Weld Minimum Minimum Remote Strain % Minimum CMOD
Overmatch Overmatch CVN CTOD @ max load @ max load
(YS) (UTS) -40°C –10°C (Minimum) mm
–10°C –10°C
Weld A 19% 32% 83 0.151 2.78 1.704 pipe necking
Weld B 4% 7% 94 0.404 1.56 3.871
Weld C 2% 0% 58 0.276 0.49 1.278

Effect of overmatching

Overmatching weld metal strength controlled the weld performance in this study using X-80 pipe. Significant
overmatch offered the advantage of accommodating deformation within the pipe, instead of concentrating the
deformation within the weld..Figure 9 shows how the minimum remote strain in the wide plate tests varied with
the degree of overmatching (weld stronger than the base pipe).Both yield and tensile strength mismatch are shown.

The remote strain is one of the fundamental measures of performance in the wide plate test, and is presumed to be
the best predictor of actual service performance. In weld A, the remote strain reached the highest levels of the three
welds under investigation.
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 15

Minimum Remote Strain

2.5 YSA UTSA
2
YSB UTSB
1.5

1
YSC
0.5 UTSC

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% Strength Overmatch

Weld A Weld B Weld C

Figure 9: Variation of the minimum measured remote strain measured for welds with various levels of mismatch

Weld metal overmatching reduces the importance of weld metal toughness, provided the weld possesses a level of
toughness assuring that plastic deformation is achieved in the pipe/weld system. Through overmatching, the ability
to tolerate weld metal defects increases. With the overmatching, weld A, even with the highest severity of imposed
defect, managed to withstand nearly 3% remote strain. This indicates that tensile properties control the welds
mechanical performance.

Provided it can be accomplished, both technically and economically, overmatching can provide very real advantages
for mechanical performance.

General considerations: overmatching high pipe strength

The value of overmatching weld metal was confirmed in this study for API 5L X-80 pipe. Weld strength
overmatching provided improved wide plate results for the remote strain. Nevertheless, with ever-increasing weld
strength requirements, other concerns will ultimately limit the acceptability of non-negotiable weld metal strength
overmatching. Factors that have been on the periphery until now will emerge to limit unconditional overmatching.
Economics will determine the feasibility of overmatch at any pipe strength.

Toughness for the sake of toughness

Designers and engineers strive to develop consumable/ procedure combinations maximizing weld metal toughness.
However, the most appropriate consumable/ procedure combination may not call for maximized toughness. If wide
plate tests are assumed to represent a better estimator than small scale tests, toughness is not necessarily the
property to define “best” performance.

Welding consumables can be designed to consistently meet a specified weld metal strength. However, ever-
increasing weld strength comes with a cost. Performance in other areas suffer, as well as potential financial costs.
In general, the strengthening mechanisms that permit high weld strength add to the risk of hydrogen assisted
cracking, lower toughness, decreased corrosion resistance, and lower ductility. For this reason, very high strength
pipe steels will not be used for sour oil service.

As a practical consideration, as the “safety” of the weld increases through the increased weld metal strength
overmatching, other concerns arise. The number of possible solutions that are available to successfully weld a
pipeline decrease as the required strength increases.

A non-comprehensive list of complications that come with increased weld metal strength follows:
16 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

 Hydrogen assisted cracking;

 Corrosion for sour gas applications/ peak hardness in the weld and the heat affected zone;
 Weldability;
 Number of welding processes and procedures capable of meeting the required strength levels;
 Field availability of the welding consumables;
 Ease of use and application in the field;
 Availability of the proper skill set in field welders;
 Likelihood of defects and their severity;

The ease of dealing with defects once encountered/ difficulty of field repair. While this is presented in the form of
“complications”, each item on this list can be translated to a cost.

Available Consumables/ Processes

Possible Welding Solutions

Property Variability
SMAW
Cellulosic
Increased
Toughness
FCAW-S - Requirements
Allowable Defect size
FCAW -G Likelihood of large defects
Weldability/ Usability
PH/IP control
SMAW Basic SAW
Hydrogen Assisted Cracking
Skill/Sophistication
GMAW/ Metal Cored

Low Medium High

Required Weld Strength

Figure 10: Schematic representation of how the possible acceptable solutions to making a weld are affected by the required strength of the weld.

The number of possible solutions for welding a pipe are schematically shown in figure 10 for varying required weld
strength. This represents indirectly the cost or difficulty to complete welds successfully, With progressively higher
strength, fewer options are available.

The possible welding solutions are schematically seen to decrease as the required weld metal strength goes up. One
possible view of this situation would be to consider the consequences of matching the pipe strength, or possibly
undermatching. While the advantages of overmatching are undeniable (provided the toughness is adequate), once
the weight of the opposing factors is considered, at some strength level either equal matching strength or
undermatching might become necessary. Welding consumables may not be available, reliable, or economically
feasible. Processes and procedures may not be available to overmatch the pipe. Under matching has been used
successfully in other industries, including bridge building and combat shipbuilding, but the advantages of
overmatching are clear.

If the weld undermatches the pipe, the toughness of the weld metal is no longer an afterthought, but becomes a
controlling factor in preventing failure. This may require considering new weld metal alloy systems because of the
strain hardening characteristics. The toughness requirements of undermatching welds or the allowable defect size
(and location) might also become more demanding.
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 17

Other metallurgical concerns

Heat affected zone properties

As measures are introduced to lower the risk of weld metal brittle failure, the heat affected zone properties become
more critical. Aside from existing as another component in the mechanical structure, depending on the joint
preparation, the heat affected zone is orientated close to the maximum shear planes for axial loading of the pipe.

Strain hardening rates

If the weld is equal strength or undermatched compared to the pipe, the strain hardening behavior becomes
important. The objective is to have the weld share the deformation with the pipe, and strain hardening is the only
avenue through which the undermatched weld can push some of the load carrying burden to the pipe. If the weld
is bearing the brunt of the loading, both the risk of brittle failure and the chances of overloading the weld increase.
This was observed directly in the case of Weld C with no weld strength overmatch. As the extent of the imposed
notch increased, the weld ultimately did suffer a brittle failure. Welds A and B, with additional weld strength above
that of the pipe, withstood brittle failure at the same defect size.

Along the same lines of reasoning, as the defect size increases, there is less load carrying capability. The ability to
strain harden before suffering brittle failure becomes more important. Defect size and toughness become more
important with matching or undermatching weld strength. Additionally, strain hardening becomes an absolute
requirement and the toughness threshold to ensure plastic deformation should increase.

Conclusions
In the scope of weld metal strength studied on X-80 pipe, the best performance (as measured using wide plate tests)
was associated not with toughness, but the degree of weld strength overmatching the base pipe strength. Through
strength overmatching in the weld, the burden of load carrying and accommodating deformation is pushed on to
the pipe.

Up to X-80 pipe strength, overmatching is an effective method of attaining improved wide plate tests performance.
This presumably would hold true at even higher pipe strength levels. However, a degree of toughness is required to
assure that brittle failure does not occur.

As the required strength increases, the number of possible processes, procedures, and consumables that are suitable
for welding decreases.

References
1. Glover, Application of Grade 550 (X80) and Grade 690 (X100) in Arctic Climates
2. CM Fowler, JA Bray “A Test Method to Determine the Susceptibility to Cracking of Linepipe Steels in Sour Service”
HSE Health and Safety Executive, 1996
3. Proceedings of the international Pipe Dreamers Conference 7-8 November, 2002, Yokahama, Japan
4. Denys, R., and A. A. Lefevre, "Weld Metal Mismatch, Challenges and Opportunities," Proc. ICAWT ’99 – Pipeline
Welding and Technology Conference, EWI-AWS, Galveston, Texas, Oct. 26–28, 1999.
5. R. Denys “Implications of Overmatching, and Certification of HSLA-80 and HSLA-100 Steels” Proceedings
International Conference on The Metallurgy, Welding, And Qualification of Microalloyed (HSLA) Steel Weldments,
Nov 6-8, 1990, Houston Texas
6. R. Denys. “ A Rational Approach to Weld and Pipe Material Requirements for Strain-based Pipeline Design
Proceedings of the international Pipe Dreamers Conference 7-8 November, 2002, Yokahama, Japan
7. Wang, J Swatzel, D Horsley, A. Glover Girth Weld ECA from the perspective of Code Revisions in North America,
Proceedings 4th International Pipeline Conference 2002, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Sept 29-October 3, 2002
8. P Hopkins, R Denys (1992) “ Background to the EPRG’s Girth Weld Limits for Transmission Pipelines”,
EPRG/PRCI, 9th Biennial Meeting on Line Pipe Research, Houston TX, 1993
9. BS4515-2; 1999, Specification for Welding of Steel Pipelines on Land and Offshore Duplex Stainless Steel Pipelines
10. Australian Standard AS2885.2-1995 Pipelines-Gas and Liquid Petroleum- Welding; Standards Australia International
18 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

11. NACE Standard TM0177 “Laboratory Testing of Metals for Resistance to Specific Forms of Environmental Cracking
in H2S Environments (Houston, TX), NACE
12. ASME B31.8:2000 Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems.
13. EN895:1995 Destructive tests on welds in metallic materials. Transverse tensile test
14. ASME IX QW 462.1(b)
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 19

Appendix 1
Procedure used for curved wide plate testing:

Preparation:

A complete description for wide plate testing is not readily available in a reference. Sections of the pipe are
removed, as indicated in Figure 1. Normally each single wide plate specimen is approximately 10-15% of the total
circumference of the pipe. Material from both pipes being joined are included, as well as the weld joining them.
Several specimens are typically removed, each prepared for testing with a “defect” introduced with a different size.

The root reinforcement is ground away to a smooth, flush surface, and then the region is polished and etched so
the root can be located. A notch of pre-determined length and depth is machined through the root pass of the weld
with a cutter, along the length of the root pass, representing a surface-breaking defect in the weld on the inside of
the pipe. The notch is machined to predetermined dimensions of length and depth, selected to represent a desired
level of crack severity.

If the weld is suspected to be at risk of brittle failure, the wide plate specimen is fatigue pre-cracked. If the
toughness of the weld is sufficient that brittle failure is unlikely, a machined notch is used.

Running the test:

The wide plate specimen, at test temperature, is axially loaded in the pipe longitudinal direction (perpendicular to
the weld) until a critical condition is met. This is generally to the point of instability, when additional displacement
is accompanied by decreasing loads. In this sense, it is analogous to a tensile test. A support can be added to
prevent hinging.

If an increment of measurable deformation occurs without any corresponding increase in load, this corresponds to
an increment of brittle crack growth. In this sense, it is analogous to the fracture mechanics tests.

The uniaxial loading condition does not necessarily represent the actual service conditions, and it is somewhat
conservative. The effect of the restraint (triaxiality) from the material surrounding the weld is not included.

In field service situations, when a pipe is strained, the typical condition is that one part of the pipe will be put into
tension, while the point diametrically opposite will be put into compressive loading. Instead of testing the entire
pipe, of which the compressive and non-peak loaded regions are of no interest, a wide plate test subjects the
specimen to the full brunt of the tensile loading condition.

Test measurements:

Two measures are used in wide plate testing to measure the mechanical behavior. One is the “remote strain”. This
is the strain associated with deformation in the base material, independent from the weld. The second measure is
the crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD), a measure of displacement within the weld. If the total
displacement of the weld is monitored, the sum of 1) the displacement of the specimen associated with the
“remote strain” in the pipe and 2) the local deformation of the weld (CMOD) should sum up to the displacement
imposed upon the specimen. The behavior of the heat-affected zone is ignored in this case.

The total displacement can be measured in many ways, including with a linear variable differential Transformers
(LVDT), while the CMOD is measured with an extensometer. Two LVDT’s are mounted on the surface of the
pipe, both with a fixed gage length, both straddling the weld, located on opposite sides of the notch. The total
displacement is determined by the average of the output of the two LVDT’s. The extensometer directly reads the
crack mouth opening displacement.
20 Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009

Wide plate tests are done with “defects” of known dimensions. (6) There is no “absolute” standard defining
acceptable behavior, as it must be described in terms of the expected defect. In turn, this will be related to the non-
destructive examination technique. The notches are made to recreate defects that could possibly be encountered in
a weld.

Remote strain:

The initial answer to the acceptability of wide plate tests is that the “remote strain” (with the defined defect size)
must be above 0.5%. This value related to the traditional 0.2% offset yield strength, plus an amount to account for
Lüders strain. Below 0.5% remote strain, brittle failure or net section yielding (weld overload) can be the failure
mechanism. Once general yielding is reached in the base pipe material, (greater than 0.5% remote strain) there is
no risk of brittle failure.

Crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD):

There are similarities between the wide plate tests and a fracture toughness test such as crack tip opening
displacement (CTOD). Just as the fracture toughness can be used to define acceptable loading conditions or
tolerable defects for certain loading conditions, it would make sense that there should be a value of CMOD that
could be used to determine acceptability of weld metal.

The situation is not necessarily so clear. The difference between a small scale and a large scale test help point out
the differences. The wide plate test is performed under uniaxial loading, and both of the pipes and the weld
participate in the test. CTOD testing is done in four point bending and test only the material metal in the vicinity
of the notch.

The CMOD result from the wide plate test can not be cleanly separated from the remote strain, except in the cases
of highly overmatched or highly undermatched weld metal. On the other hand, if the weld is undermatched with
respect to the pipe, applied loads can overload the weld metal, causing yielding, unstable overload or brittle failure
in the weld metal.
Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009 21

Appendix 2
Strain in a wide plate test:
In a simple uniaxial tensile test, weld metal can reach 25% strain. In a pipe 5% overall strain is considered
significant. Why is there such a discrepancy? The figure below can be used to explain this. In this figure, the weld
is shown to be stronger than the pipes. (Assume that both pipes are the same strength.)

Consider first the case of the defect free weld (Weld 1). If the tensile test is loaded under displacement control, up
to point A, , only elastic deformation is imposed. Any further deformation will be plastic, and occur in the pipes.
These are idealized stress strain curves, ignoring the effects of restraint and triaxiality.

When the load in the weld reaches the level for plastic deformation, at point B, the pipe has plastically deformed a
great deal, while the weld has only experienced elastic deformation. Once the specimen has been loaded up beyond
the weld yield strength, to point C in the defect free weld, the pipes are still plastically deforming, eventually failing
before the stress in the weld ever reaches the overload level at point D.

Now introduce a defect to the system. This causes two significant modifications. First, a defect causes the load
carrying area to decrease. The stress in the weld at any imposed load (or strain) is proportionally higher. Secondly,
the defect serves as a local stress riser. This local stress (and strain) enhancement further lowers the total elongation
that can occur before instability.

As the defect size grows, following the dotted line downward, the net effect is to reduce the amount of deformation
that can be accommodated in the pipe. while increasing the amount of deformation that needs to be
accommodated in the weld metal. This is represented as Weld 2 in the figure. The defects reduce the total
straining capacity of the system. When the defect becomes large, either the weld metal will yield before the pipe, or
brittle failure will occur. Once again, since this considers the system as being loaded in simple uniaxial tension, the
analysis is conservative because it does not include the effects of restraint from the surrounding material.

This points out the value of total uniform strain to failure. The capacity for an entire structure to deform is limited
by the amount of stable deformation that can be reached, in combination with the strain hardening capacity.

The achievable strain is reduced when the yield to tensile ratio increases, and the achievable strain is reduced when
the weld does not overmatch the strength of the pipe.

Weld
D
C Weld 1: No
B Pipe
Load (stress)

A
Weld 2: Contains Large

Displacement (strain)

Schematic representation of load-displacement curves for defect free and defect containing welds, as well as a pipe.