2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.

You can rely on Australias experts in steel

Page 1
WELDING THE FIRST ERW X80 GRADE PIPELINE
Barbaro F J, Bowie G F and Holmes W
ABSTRACT
Pipeline materials and construction costs are the most signicant components of
major transmission pipelines. In Australia these costs have been contained over
the past two decades by the utilisation of high strength thin walled pipe. API 5L
X70 grade pipe is common place and 13km of X80 grade pipe has been installed
in a looping section of the Roma - Brisbane pipeline. The aim of the Roma -
Brisbane looping project was to fully evaluate the economic benets associated
with the use of 8.8mm thick, 406mm diameter X80 grade pipe. The evaluation
involved development of weld procedures using both the conventional cellulosic
manual metal arc (MMA) process and a mechanised gas metal arc welding
(GMAW) system to determine the inuence of weld metal strength on allowable
girth weld defect tolerance.
Although currently available cellulosic consumables have been shown
to undermatch the strength of X80 pipe, the full section pipe tension test
demonstrated tolerance to both Tier 1 and Tier 2 girth weld defect allowances.
These results support recent research which has shown that the tolerable level of
weld metal strength undermatching is related to the pipe wall thickness and the
defect depth assumption
Weld metal strength matching with an appropriate level of toughness was shown
using engineering critical assessment procedures to provide increased defect
tolerance. Defect tolerance under axial yield stress loading is more accurately
determined using destructive test methods.
KEYWORDS
Pipelines, X80, GMAW, Cellulosic, Full section pipe tension test, Defect
acceptance, ECA, Destructive test.
AUTHOR DETAILS
Frank J Barbaro, Chief Development Ofcer and Graham F Bowie, Senior
Development Ofcer, BHP Steel Flat Products, Port Kembla Steelworks, New
South Wales and William Holmes, Technology Manager Pipeline & Coatings,
Agility Team Build, Fyshwick Canberra, ACT
First published in the proceedings of the Welding Technology Institute of
Australia International Conference on Pipeline Construction Technolog, 4-5
March 2002, Novotel North Beach, Wollongong, Australia.
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 2
The signicant cost of pipeline materials and construction in
conjunction with competition with other energy sources has
driven the development of high strength linepipe for transmission
of natural gas. The cost savings associated with high strength
pipe arise from a reduction in pipe wall thickness which reduces
both required steel tonnage and also welding cost. In comparison
with X70 grade pipe, X80 grade pipe represents approximately
12% reduction in total steel weight and up to 25% less deposited
weld metal. These benets however are balanced by any increase
in the pipe / weld consumable costs and require that eld welding
productivity is not compromised.
In Australia, where thin walled small diameter pipe is
commonplace, maximum economic benets have been obtained
by the use of high strength linepipe up to and including X70
grade pipe [1]. The continued use of conventional manual metal
arc (MMA)welding using cellulosic consumables for such pipe
designs has enabled eld construction rates which have been as
high as 8kms per day.
The strength of X80 however, challenges the continued use of
cellulosic welding consumables because of their limit in strength
and also high inherent hydrogen content. The main issues in
the welding of high strength linepipe are resistance to hydrogen
assisted cold cracking (HACC) and sufcient weld metal strength
to match the pipe [2, 3]. Extensive investigations have shown
that under normal eld construction practices HACC can be
avoided [4, 5]. The limited strength of cellulosic consumables is
a more serious concern and has been shown to undermatch the
yield strength of X80 grade pipe [6] and even X70 grade pipe at
the upper end of the normal strength range [7, 8]. It is pertinent
to point out however, that it is not simply the weld metal yield
strength that is the governing factor but rather the level of defect
tolerance relative to the pipe design. From an economic viewpoint
adequate weld metal strength matching is required to ensure
sufcient tolerance to the typical weld defects which occur during
pipeline construction in order to avoid unnecessary repairs.
There is an important difference between weld metal yield
strength matching and weld metal strength matching. The latter is
directly related to weld defect tolerance, which not only depends
on the actual yield strength of the weld metal and the pipe, but
also the specied defect limits (particularly depth) and pipe wall
thickness. Yield strength matching will provide maximum defect
tolerance but is difcult to determine [7], particularly where
different yielding phenomena can occur in different suppliers of
high strength pipe grades.
To address these issues of weld metal requirements and eld
welding productivity, AGL Pipelines undertook to construct a
section of the Roma to Brisbane Looping line using 8.8mm
thick, 406mm diameter API 5L X80 grade pipe. This particular
looping project was selected because the pipe dimensions
closely represented a number of proposed pipelines which could
also benet economically by the use of X80 grade pipe. The
justication for the use of X80 grade pipe involved evaluation
of different welding processes with particular emphasis on
the assessment of defect tolerance. Cellulosic MMA and two
commercial automatic GMAW processes were evaluated by full
section pipe tension (FSPT) [9] tests to determine limits in girth
weld defect tolerance. Further evaluation was undertaken using
approved fracture mechanics methods to support the FSPT tests.
This paper details the results of the investigation and some eld
welding experience using automatic GMAW.
01 INTRODUCTION
02 PROCEDURE
2.1. Pipe material
The pipe used in this program was 406mm diameter, 8.8mm thick
seam welded using the electrical resistance welding (ERW) process.
The chemical composition of the pipe (Table 1) is characterised by a
low carbon content and controlled additions of microalloys required
for advanced thermomechanical rolling to optimise the level of
strength and toughness as well as control of weldability.
2.2. Mechanical properties
Tensile tests were performed in both the longitudinal and transverse
direction of the pipe. Pipe body Charpy impact tests were carried
out over a range of temperatures. Girth weld Charpy impact tests
were carried out at the minimum design operating temperature
which was dened as 0C
2.2.1. Welding procedure
Pipe girth welding trials involved conventional MMA welding using
cellulosic consumables and two different commercially available
automatic GMAW processes.
The cellulosic welding procedure, C1, employed the standard
pipe mill prepared end bevel, which consisted of a 60 included
angle with a 1.5mm root face. Root opening varied between 1 and
1.5mm.
The rst GMAW process, which will be referred to as G1, utilised
the standard pipe mill bevel but was ground just prior to welding
to remove the root face. The pipe ends were aligned without a
gap and relied on the welding procedure to ensure full penetration.
Internal segmented copper shoes were employed to prevent
excessive internal weld reinforcement and/or burnthrough.
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 3
The second GMAW process, which will be referred to as G2,
utilised a narrow gap J type preparation machined on site
just prior to welding. This welding process employed a newly
developed mode of metal transfer, the surface tension transfer
(STT) technique, to deposit the root pass which avoided the
need to use internal copper shoes. Detailed welding conditions
are presented in (Table 2.).
2.3. Defect tolerance determination.
Defect tolerance was determined using a FSPT test, which was
developed by the Cooperative Research Centre for Welded
Structures. The test basically involves loading a complete
section of pipe, containing a girth weld and the dened
defect, in uniaxial tension up to the point of fracture. Defects
were produced in the root pass on the inside surface of the
pipe using electro discharged machining to a depth of 3mm
which is the assumed maximum depth of a girth weld defect.
Assessment of the complete pipe diameter eliminates the
conservatism associated with other smaller scale tests such
as the well-known wide plate test. The test rig used in this
investigation is described elsewhere [6, 7, 9].
The aim of the test is to demonstrate that gross section
yielding (GSY), and not net section yielding (NSY), occurs
before fracture. The GSY criteria, which is dened below, is
designed to ensure that the weld metal containing the defect
has sufcient strength to transfer strain to the adjacent pipe
and so ensure a reasonable level of overall elongation of the
pipe before failure. NSY occurs when the strain is concentrated
in the weld metal and fails at low levels of elongation. It is
important to state that the GSY criteria is not designed to
prevent catastrophic failure but to ensure a dened level of
defect tolerance.
The GSY criteria was originally dened by the European
Pipeline Research Group (EPRG) [10] and requires that the girth
weld, containing the maximum allowable defect, under load in
uniaxial tension achieve a:
maximum test stress >= the parent pipe yield stress,
total elongation >= 0.8%, and,
remote or parent pipe strain >= 0.5%
In the FSPT test the maximum load is determined using a
calibrated load cell. Total elongation was measured with a
linear displacement transducer attached along the length of the
welded test pipes. Remote or parent pipe strain was measured
using strain gauges. Recorded strain levels are veried by
subtracting the weld strain, measured by a clip gauge opening
across the weld defect, ie crack mouth opening displacement,
on the inside of the pipe, from the total elongation.
The crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) not only
provides a check on strain levels but also uniquely denes the
onset of strain transfer to the pipe body. At the point of strain
distribution to the parent plate (or yielding of the pipe) the
CMOD is interrupted as the uniaxial load increases.
03 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Australian Pipeline Standard AS2885.2 has a 3 tier approach
to assessment of girth weld defects, which is designed to improve
economics in pipeline construction. An increased level of weld
imperfections is permitted provided the girth weld possesses a
minimum level of strength matching and toughness. Tier 1 is a
workmanship level which, in general, permits 25mm long surface
breaking defects and 50mm long embedded defects. Tier 2
defect limits however, are a function of pipe diameter and wall
thickness and for the 406mm diameter 8.8mm wall thickness pipe
in the present investigation, the maximum defect length is 84mm,
irrespective of its position through the wall thickness.
The following results detail the pertinent characteristics of girth
welds produced in API 5L X80 grade pipe using different welding
procedures and its ability to meet the above mentioned defect
limits.
3.1. Radiography of welds
All welds fabricated as part of this investigation were examined
by conventional radiographic techniques and complied with
the requirements of AS2885.2. It was however noted that
radiographs of welds produced by the GMAW, G1 process
contained marks which corresponded with artefacts produced
on the surface of the root pass by the segmented copper shoes.
In general this did not interfere with the inspection process.
3.2. Chemical composition and microstructure
of welds
The chemical composition of nal cap weld deposits is given in
(Table 3). It will be noted that the carbon equivalent of the GMAW
consumables were markedly different. The carbon equivalent of
G1 was the highest of all assessed and is related to the addition
of Ni along with the Cr and Mo levels. The carbon equivalent of
G2 was extremely low and is reected in mechanical properties.
The MMA weld C1 also had a high carbon equivalent which
predominantly relied upon a relatively high carbon content and
additions of Mo and V for strengthening.
The relative level of deposited weld metal strength however
depends upon welding conditions and it is evident from the
macrophotographs presented in (Figure 1), that both GMAW
welds were welded at low heat inputs as evidenced by the
narrow width of visible weld HAZ. It is apparent from (Figure 1.)
that the MMA weld was carried out at weld heat inputs greater
than both GMA welds, refer (Table 2.).
The microstructure of weld C1 primarily consisted of ferrite
and pearlite throughout the entire weld thickness. This as
mentioned above is related to the weld heat input and also the
alloy design. A high weld heat input produces a low cooling
rate which promotes the formation of coarse equilibrium
microstructures and also increases the extent of recrystallisation
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 4
of previously deposited underlying weld runs. The level of
heat input employed in weld C1 was evident by the complete
recrystallisation of the root pass (Figure 2a.) which was up to
4mm of the girth weld thickness.
Both GMA welds were characterised by distinct columnar
structures which persisted throughout the weld thickness.
The low weld heat input employed limited the extent of
recrystallisation of underlying weld runs. As a result both welds
contained relatively ne grained acicular ferrite and martensite
microstructures outlined by columnar grain boundary ferrite
(Figure 2b and c). The difference between welds G1 and G2
can be related to the consumable alloy design. Weld G1 with
a carbon equivalent some 16 points higher than G2 contained
signicantly higher levels of martensite. This was most
prominent in the root pass of weld G1 where rapid cooling
over the copper shoes employed during root pass welding
further enhanced martensite formation. This observation was
supported by the hardness results presented later.
3.3 Mechanical properties
The results of tensile tests carried out on the parent pipe in both
the transverse and longitudinal directions are presented in Table
4. Recorded yield strengths in the transverse direction were
within a tight range with the maximum less than 70 MPa above
the minimum specication.
Conventional cross weld tensile tests demonstrated that all
weld procedures satised traditional workmanship requirements
with a tensile strength greater than that of the specied
minimum of the pipe (Table 5.). It should be noted however, that
both welds C1 and G2, with the weld reinforcement removed,
failed in the weld metal at a strength less than that of the pipe.
Assessment of weld metal strength matching as determined
by the notched tensile test, although acknowledged as difcult
to interpret, revealed signicant differences in weld metal yield
strength (Table 6.). Clearly the MMA weld C1 undermatched the
yield strength of the pipe by approximately 17% while the high
carbon equivalent of weld G1 provided a considerable level of
overmatching, approximately 8%. It is interesting to note that
the low carbon equivalent GMAW weld G2, that indicated slight
tensile strength undermatching in the standard cross weld
tensile test, in fact demonstrated yield strength matching in the
notched tensile test.
Clearly the recorded weld metal strength is directly related to
the alloy design and the welding conditions as evidenced by
the weld metal microstructures detailed above. The results
also highlight that the level of weld metal yield strength
undermatching may go unnoticed in the standard cross weld
tensile test. It is however important to emphasise that, as
mentioned in the introduction, strength matching is not the
only characteristic of a girth weld that inuences weld defect
tolerance.
3.4. Hardness
Through thickness hardness (HV5) proles were conducted
on all weld deposits, refer (Table 7). As expected the higher
strength GMA weld, G1, recorded the highest hardness with
values in the root pass up to 50 points higher than the pipe.
Both welds C1 and G2 recorded hardness values which were
below that of the pipe which supports the cross weld tensile
tests discussed previously. The level of hardness of weld C1
could again be attributed to weld microstructure.
It is important to note that the level of hardness recorded in
the root pass of weld G1 could not be solely attributed to the
carbon equivalent or weld conditions. The root pass of this
weld was carried out with the use of internal copper shoes
which has increased the cooling rate to produce the high levels
of martensite in the microstructure.
3.5. Toughness
Girth weld toughness was evaluated using the Charpy test at
0C and results are presented in Table 8. All welds satised
the minimum requirement of 22J minimum individual and 30J
minimum average specied in AS2885.2 which is required to
ensure that in the event of girth weld failure, fracture would
occur by plastic collapse and not in a brittle manner.
It is however evident that weld G2 clearly possessed a superior
level of toughness compared to both welds C1 and G1. The
low carbon equivalent of weld G2 along with the controlled low
heat input welding appear to have combined to provide a ne
grained microstructure. The outcome is an optimum balance
of toughness and, as shown later, adequate strength for the
welding of X80 grade pipe. Although a similar ne grained
ferritic microstructure was produced in weld G1, the higher
carbon equivalent and weld cooling rate has increased the level
of martensite to the detriment of toughness. The toughness
of the conventional MMA weld C1 can be explained by the
relatively coarse ferritic microstructure.
CTOD fracture toughness values for both weld C1 and G1 are
consistent with the measured Charpy impact test results Table
8. Unfortunately weld G2 was not tested, but based on Charpy
toughness, a CTOD signicantly exceeding that achieved with
C1 and G2 would be expected.
3.6. Full section pipe tension (FSPT) tests
Limited girth weld samples prevented a complete assessment
of all weld procedures. Four tests covering defect lengths
of 75-150mm were carried out on weld C1. Unfortunately
only two tests were carried out on weld G2 while insufcient
material prevented any tests on weld G1. The articial defects
produced were accurately controlled around the maximum
assumed depth of 3mm and provided a thorough assessment
of tolerance as dened by Australian Standard AS2885.2.
It is apparent from Table 9. that GSY was satisfactorily
demonstrated in weld C1 with a defect length up to 100mm.
The 125mm defect, which did not meet the gross stress
requirement by just 2 MPa could also be considered
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 5
satisfactory if the slight increase in defect depth of this test
is taken into consideration. Despite this however, the results
clearly demonstrate that the maximum dened limit of the less
conservative Tier 2, i.e. 84mm, was quite easily achieved.
The defect lengths selected for GMAW procedure G2 was
based on the level of weld metal yield strength and previous
experience and unfortunately for the two tests carried out,
neither completely satised the GSY criteria. Interpolation of
the data however, in the form of a plot of the maximum stress
versus defect area (Figure 3.) strongly suggests that the defect
limit to be a length approximately 170mm which is signicantly
greater than AS2885.2 Tier 2 limit of 84mm.
3.7. Field welding
The production sequence consisted of the normal pipe
stringing and alignment with an internal compressed air clamp.
The welding technique employed was identical to that of weld
procedure G1 above including pipe end preparation and the
use of internal segmented copper shoes. Only one welding
station was employed however.
The welding system consisted of two welding bugs each with
twin heads, which travelled around a metal band attached to
the pipe. Welding commenced by deposition of the root and hot
pass using one welding bug down one side of the pipe from the
12 oclock position to the 6 oclock position. Before completion
of this rst run the weld start position was ground in preparation
for a similar run down the other side of the pipe, which
commenced as soon as possible but generally on completion
of the rst side. As the root / hot pass on the second side of
the pipe was being deposited, preparation for the ll and cap
was underway in a similar sequence to the root / hot passes.
Unfortunately however, severe arc blow was experienced
during welding of the root / hot pass run on the second side of
the pipe. Efforts to eliminate the effect indicated that the root
cause may originate from induced magnetic effects from the
twin welding heads. As a result of these issues the majority of
the X80 section was successfully welded with MMA cellulosic
consumables in accordance with procedure C1.
3.8. Engineering critical assessment of girth
weld defect limits
The determination of critical defect dimensions in a girth
weld using fracture mechanics is not only dependent on the
mechanical properties of the weld metal and pipe but also the
assumed operating stresses. For a gas transmission pipeline
the stress imposed, which could be considered normal,
includes the eld hydrostatic test and the maximum allowable
operating pressure. These are dened levels of stress for
which a defect limit can be estimated. More recent attention
however, has focussed on the capacity of girth welds,
containing defects, to withstand displacement controlled
loading, i.e. axial yield stress loads, which could occur in areas
of unstable ground.
An engineering critical assessment (ECA) was carried out
on the current pipe design using The Welding Institute
software program CRACKWISE 3 which is based on British
Standard BS7910 - 1999 Guide on methods for assessing the
acceptability of aws in metallic structures, Level 2 analysis.
(Table 10.) presents the calculated critical length of 3mm deep
defects for the above three stress conditions as a function of
fracture toughness and enables a direct comparison with the
current experimental FSPT test results.
Evident from Table 10. is a signicant difference in the ECA
calculated critical defect length and the measured FSPT test
value under yield stress loading conditions. It is also apparent
that with the ECA under this loading condition (600MPa),
fracture toughness does not effectively inuence defect
tolerance since predicted tolerance is very low (length <6mm).
Clearly the ECA approach employed for this particular pipe
design has grossly underestimated defect tolerance and would
appear to be related to an assumption that failure occurs by a
brittle or tearing mechanism, whereas EPRG has found that if
fracture toughness exceeds a CTOD value of 0.1mm minimum,
0.15mm average, fracture would occur by plastic collapse.
For the MMA weld C1 with a fracture toughness of 0.156mm,
the calculated critical defect length increases to 239mm under
hydrotest conditions (1.4 x 0.72 x 0.3 x SMYS (552) = 167MPa)
and 465mm for maximum allowable operating conditions (0.3 x
0.72 x SMYS = 119MPa). Clearly under these stress conditions
defect tolerance is inuenced by fracture toughness and would
be considered reasonable predictions based on the current
destructive tests.
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 6
04 CONCLUSIONS
The results of this investigation have demonstrated that the
8.8mm thick API 5L X80 grade pipe can be welded with both
the conventional MMA cellulosic process and mechanised
GMAW systems. The mechanical strength of the girth welds
varied signicantly but, for the pipe design assessed, did not
compromise the structural integrity of the pipeline and meets
the accepted requirements of GSY for currently specied defect
limits in both Tiers 1 and 2 of Australian Standard AS2885.2.
MMA cellulosic weld, C1, provided adequate toughness and
defect tolerance despite a degree of weld metal yield strength
undermatching. In fact, the measured defect limit is some
15mm greater in length than currently specied in Tier 2 of
AS2885.2. GMAW processes offer a greater range of weld
metal strengths and increased defect tolerance.
Engineering critical assessments provide a reasonable
assessment of defect tolerance under normal operating
conditions. Under axial yield stress loads destructive tests
would provide a more accurate estimate however.
05 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank colleagues at Agility and BHP
Steel for their many contributions.
06 REFERENCES
Venton P October 1995. Pipeline construction costs in 1.
Australia. Paper 21. WTIA/APIA Research Panel 7 Seminar,
Wollongong, Australia.
Barbaro F J, Bilston K, Fletcher L, Kimber M and Venton 2.
P July 1999. Research shows that X80 pipe can be
economically and safely welded by conventional methods,
Australian Pipeliner 22-23.
Barbaro F J March 1999. Types of hydrogen cracking in 3.
pipeline girth welds. WTIA/APIA/CRC-WS International
Conference on Weld metal cracking in pipeline girth welds,
Wollongong, Australia.
Barbaro F J, Meta A, Williams J G and Fletcher L September 4.
1995. Weldability of high strength ERW X80 grade pipe.
Pipeline Technology Conference II, Ostend, Belgium.
Alam N, Dunne D P and Barbaro F J March 1999. Weld metal 5.
crack testing for high strength cellulosic electrodes. WTIA/
APIA/CRC-WS International Conference on Weld metal
cracking in pipeline girth welds. Wollongong, Australia.
Barbaro F J and Bowie G F October 2000. Assessment 6.
of workmanship defect acceptance levels in high strength
5mm wall thickness pipeline girth welds. IIW Asian Pacic
International Congress, Melbourne, Australia.
Bowie G F and Barbaro F J July 2000. Defect acceptance 7.
levels and fracture risk in pipeline girth welds. CRC-WS
nal report 98-62.
Barbaro F J, Bowie G F, Stathers P A and Williams J G 8.
November 1997. Factors controlling defect acceptance
levels in 5mm thick high strength pipeline girth welds. Intl
Welding and Joining Research Conference and WTIA 45
th

Annual Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Bowie G F and Barbaro F J July 1998. Defect acceptance 9.
levels in 5mm thick high strength pipeline girth welds. CRC-
WS nal report 96-31.
Hopkins P and Denys R May 1993. The background to the 10.
proposed European pipeline research groups girth weld
defect limits for transmission pipelines. Joint EPRG/PRC
Conference.
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 7
The chemical composition of X80 pipe-steel
C P Mn Si S Ni Cr Mo Cu Al V Nb Ti Ceq IIW
X80 pipe .065 .014 1.55 .31 .002 .023 .027 .28 .019 .026 .002 .068 .018 .39
TABLE 01
Reported conditions for each welding process
Weld Process Weld Pass Consumable Amps Volts
Travel Speed
mm/min
Heat Input kJ/
mm
Cellulosic C1 root E8010 120 25 400 0.45
hot E9010 180 28 390 0.77
ll E9010 165 27 210 1.27
cap E9010 140 27 195 1.16
GMAW G1 **
one consumable
root 0.9mm 230 22 ) )
hot austmig 250 22 ) ~ 950 ) ~ 0.35
ll NiCrMo 240 21 ) )
cap 80/20Ar/CO2 235 20 ) ~ 400 ) ~ 0.70
GMAW G2
one consumable
root 0.9mm 205 16 380 0.51
hot Hobart / 215 23 508 0.56
ll Thyssen 215 23 508 0.56
cap ER70S-6 80/20Ar/CO2 150 20 330 0.56
** Weld G1 employed internal copper shoes to avoid blow through during root pass welding
TABLE 02
The chemical composition of weld capping deposits
C P Mn Si S Ni Cr Mo Cu Al V Nb Ti Ceq IIW
C1 .155 .009 0.70 0.13 .007 0.47 0.39 0.33 .047 <.003 .049 .003 .007 0.46
G1 .065 .007 1.36 0.37 .009 1.15 0.24 0.23 0.11 .007 .070 .017 .005 0.48
G2 0.07 .008 1.35 0.59 .009 .025 .031 .064 .098 .008 <.003 .014 .028 0.32
Tensile properties of X80 pipe
Transverse Longitudinal
0.5% TEYS (MPa) Tensile Strength (MPa) Y / T ratio (%) 0.5% TEYS (MPa) Tensile Strength (MPa) Y / T ratio (%)
572 - 622 712 - 764 73 - 84 585 - 600 703 - 717 83 - 84
TABLE 03
TABLE 04
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 8
Cross weld tensile properties of girth welds
Weld Code Weld Consumable UTS (MPa) Fracture Location Weld Reinforcement
C1 E8010/ E9010 650 weld removed
709 weld/HAZ reinforced
G1 NiCrMo 727 pipe removed
724 pipe reinforced
G2 ER70S-6 692 weld removed
725 pipe reinforced
TABLE 05
Notched tensile properties of X80 pipe and deposited weld metal
X80 parent pipe Weld metal (notched tensile test)
0.5% TEYS
(MPa)
TS (MPa) Y/T ratio (%) YS (MPa) TS (MPa) Y/T ratio (%) YS matching ratio
C1 E8010/ E9010 585 703 83 483 629 77 0.83
G1 NiCrMo 600 714 84 649 741 88 1.08
G2 ER70S-6 591 717 83 590 692 85 1.00
Through thickness hardness prole of each Weld Procedure,
Vickers HV5
Root pass Hot Pass Fill Pass Cap Pass Parent Pipe
Cellulosic C1 185 207 199 191 228
GMAW G1 287 252 245 244 233
GMAW G2 228 226 196 203 232
Weld Metal Charpy V-notch Test Results, test temperature 0C
Weld Specimen Size (mm) Min Value (J) Average (J)
AS2885.2 reqts
min Indiv min Average
CTOD (mm)
Cellulosic C1 10 X 7.5 34 43 22 30 0.156
GMAW G1 10 X 7.5 54 72 22 30 0.113
GMAW G2 10 X 7.5 108 117 22 30 not tested
TABLE 06
TABLE 07
TABLE 08
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 9
Full Section Pipe Tensile Test Results
Defect Results
Weld Length (mm) Depth (mm) Area (mm2) Overall Elong (%) Parent Strain (%) Max Stress (MPa) Yielding Mode
C1 75 2.9 177 1.02 1.5, 1.4, 0.55, 0.5 587 GSY
100 2.9 236 0.74 0.5, 0.63, 0.48, 0.38 599 GSY
125 3.1 295 0.87 1.5, 0.53, 0.80, 0.51 583 GSY/NSY
150 2.9 353 0.75 1.7, 0.83, 0.54, 0.46 575 NSY
Tier 2 Reqt 84 3.0 >0.6 0.5 585 GSY
G1 not tested
G2 200 3.0 471 0.53 0.71, 0.55, 0.41, 0.26 573 NSY
250 3.0 589 0.52 0.42, 0.46, 0.60, 0.32 586 NSY
Tier 2 Reqt 84 3.0 >0.6 0.5 591 GSY
Calculated critical length of 3mm deep surface breaking defects in
API 5L X80 grade pipeline girth welds for 3 different stress conditions
and limits experimentally determined using the FSPT test
Fracture toughness c,
mm
Yield stress loading-
600MPa
Hydro test loading
167MPa
MAOP Loading 119Mpa
FSPT test, yield stress
loading, 600MPa
0.05 <6 11 14
0.06 <6 15 19
0.075 <6 22 30
0.1 <6 45 73
0.113 <6 67 113
0.156 <6 239 465 125
0.2 <6 629 919
0.22 <6 849 1069 (170)
0.25 <6 1041 1241
TABLE 09
TABLE 10
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 10
Macrographs of girth welds. a) Weld C1 b) Weld G1 c) Weld G2
FIGURE 01
a)
b)
c)
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 11
Fi
Photomicrographs showing the characteristic microstructure of each weld
a) Weld C1 b) Weld G1 c) Weld G2.
FIGURE 02
0.10 mm
0.10 mm
0.10 mm 0.10 mm
0.10 mm
0.10 mm
STEEL FOR PIPELINES
2010 BlueScope Steel is a registered trademark of BlueScope Steel Limited. ABN 16 000 011 058.
You can rely on Australias experts in steel
Page 12
Fi
Full section pipe tension test results of Weld G2. Maximum stress plotted against defect area in
conjunction with measure parent strain enables estimation of the maximum defect area to meet the
GSY criteria
FIGURE 03
Defect Area mm
2
S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)