Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vol.12, No.3
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
incorporating
The Journal of Pipeline Integrity
io
n
Journal of
Pipeline Engineering
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
141
The Journal of
Pipeline Engineering
incorporating
io
n
rib
ut
Contents
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
Guest Editorial..............................................................................................................................................143
A special issue of Journal of Pipeline Engineering on fracture-toughness testing, evaluation, and application
for pipeline steels
Dr Xian-Kui Zhu...........................................................................................................................................145
Fracture-toughness (K, J) testing, evaluation, and standardization
Dr William R Tyson, Dr Guowu Shen, Dr Dong-Yeob Park, and James Gianetto...........................................157
Low-constraint toughness testing
Dr Su Xu, Dr William R Tyson, and Dr C H M Simha..................................................................................165
Testing for resistance to fast ductile fracture: measurement of CTOA
Dr Robert Eiber............................................................................................................................................175
Drop-weight tear test application to natural gas pipeline fracture control
Dr Brian N Leis ............................................................................................................................................183
The Charpy impact test and its applications
Dr Robert L Amaro, Dr Jeffrey W Sowards, Elizabeth S Drexler, J David McColskey,
and Christopher McCowan............................................................................................................................199
CTOA testing of pipeline steels using MDCB specimens
Prof. Claudio Ruggieri and Leonardo L S Mathias......................................................................................... 217
Fracture-resistance testing of pipeline girth welds using bend and tensile fracture specimens
Dr He Li, Qiang Chi, Jiming Zhang, Yang Li, Lingkang Ji, and Chunyong Huo..............................................229
Fracture-toughness evaluations by different test methods for the Chinese Second West-East gas transmission
X-80 pipeline steels
Dr Philippa Moore and Dr Henryk Pisarski...................................................................................................237
CTOD and pipelines: the past, present, and future
Dr Rudi M Denys, Dr Stijn Hertel, and Dr Antoon A Lefevre......................................................................245
Use of curved-wide-plate (CWP) data for the prediction of girth-weld integrity
Dr Xian-Kui Zhu and Dr Brian N Leis...........................................................................................................259
Ductile-fracture arrest methods for gas-transmission pipelines using Charpy impact energy or DWTT energy
142
HE Journal of Pipeline Engineering (incorporating the Journal of Pipeline Integrity) is an independent, international,
quarterly journal, devoted to the subject of promoting the science of pipeline engineering and maintaining
and improving pipeline integrity for oil, gas, and products pipelines. The editorial content is original papers
on all aspects of the subject. Papers sent to the Journal should not be submitted elsewhere while under
editorial consideration.
rib
ut
io
n
Authors wishing to submit papers should do so online at www.j-pipeng.com. The Journal of Pipeline Engineering
now uses the Aires Editorial Manager manuscript management system for accepting and processing manuscripts,
peer-reviewing, and informing authors of comments and manuscript acceptance. Please follow the link shown
on the Journals site to submit your paper into this system: the necessary instructions can be found on the
User Tutorials page where there is an Author's Quick Start Guide. Manuscript files can be uploaded in text
or PDF format, with graphics either embedded or separate.
Please contact the editor (see below) if you require any assistance.
The Journal of Pipeline Engineering aims to publish papers of quality within six months of manuscript acceptance.
or
d
is
t
Notes
ot
f
py
-n
co
pl
Sa
www.j-pipe-eng.com
is available for subscribers
143
Guest Editorial
A special issue of Journal of Pipeline Engineering on fracture-toughness
testing, evaluation, and application for pipeline steels
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
144
io
n
rib
ut
ot
f
The eighth paper, by Dr He Li et al., presents fracturetoughness evaluations using the CVN and DWTT
energies for the X80 pipeline steels used for the Chinese
second west-east gas transmission pipeline. Based on a
variety of test data, these authors compare the 2-mm
striker and 8-mm striker CVN energies over a range
of temperatures, and the DWTT energy with the
8-mm striker CVN energy at the room temperature,
and thus obtain useful relationships between these
toughness parameters.
is
t
or
d
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
145
io
n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
HE STRESS-INTENSITY factor K and the J-integral are the two most important parameters in
fracture mechanics, serving as the material properties to quantify the toughness or resistance of
materials against fracture in linear elastic and elastic-plastic conditions, respectively.The fracture-toughness
characterized by K and J has been widely used as the essential material properties in fracture-mechanics
design and structural-integrity assessment for pipelines and other structures. Experimental testing and
evaluation has played a central role in providing reliable fracture-toughness for fracture-mechanics
analysis of structures containing cracks. Since the K-factor and the J-integral concepts were proposed,
numerous investigations have been made to develop valid experimental test methods, test techniques,
evaluation procedures, and test-method standardization, as evident in ASTM E399 and ASTM E1820
two commonly used fracture-toughness test standards. In recent years, important improvements for the
KIc testing and significant progresses for the J-integral testing have been achieved. To better understand
these two fracture-toughness parameters and to properly use the associated test standards, the present
paper delivers a brief review of historical efforts as well as recent advances in the development of the
K-factor and the J-integral experimental estimation and standard testing.
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
146
-n
io
n
ot
f
rib
ut
K (G) testing
is
t
To better understand the two most important fracturetoughness parameters and their test standards, the
present paper delivers an overview of historical efforts
and recent advances in the development of the K-factor
and the J-integral experimental test methods and
standards in ASTM. This includes the review of K
(G) testing, early J experimental estimation and testing,
advances of J experimental estimation and evaluation,
and development of the K-factor and the J-integral
based fracture-test standardization.
or
d
co
where E = E
E = E (1 2)
py
K I2 / E ' = G (1)
Sa
pl
KQ =
PQ
B W f (a / W ) (2)
B, b 2.5 ( K Q / ys )
(3a)
147
io
n
-n
ot
f
rib
ut
is
t
or
d
Sa
pl
co
py
J=
dU (4)
Bda
148
io
n
ot
f
rib
ut
A (5)
Bb
is
t
J=
or
d
py
-n
=
J J el + J pl (6)
co
n U n ,( n 1)
g ( ) n
=
J n J n 1 1 +
(an an 1 ) +
(9)
(W an )
B(W an )
The objective of the above separation is to improve the
pl
Sa
J el =
J pl =
Apl
BN b
i 1
i 1
149
(11)
io
n
rib
ut
-n
i 1,i
where the incremental plastic area Apl is calculated by:
i 1,i
A=
pl
pl
K 2 (1 2 ) CMOD ACMOD
+
(13)
E
Bb
ot
f
=
J pl (i ) J pl (i 1) + i 1 Aipl1, i 1 i 1 (ai ai 1 )
BN bi 1
bi 1
J=
is
t
or
d
1
( Pi + Pi 1 ) ( pl (i ) pl (i 1) ) (12)
2
Sa
pl
co
py
150
=
J pl (i ) J pl (i 1) 1 i (ai ai 1 ) + i Aipl1,i
bi
BN bi
(15)
1
=
J pl (i ) J pl (i 1) 1 i 1 + i (ai ai 1 )
2
b
b
i
i 1
1 i 1 i i 1,i 1 i 1 i
+
+
+ Apl 1
2 BN bi 1 bi
4 bi 1 bi
(16)
(ai ai 1 )
Pi
WB [1 abi / W ]
(17)
-n
ot
f
io
n
(14)
rib
ut
=
J pl (i ) J pl (i 1) + i 1 Aipl1,i 1 i 1 (ai ai 1 )
B
b
b
N i 1
i 1
is
t
or
d
pl
co
py
Normalization method
Sa
The two conventional test techniques, i.e. the elasticunloading-compliance method and the electric-potentialdrop method, are often used for growing-crack-size
measurement. They can be difficult or impractical to
implement under severe test conditions, such as high
loading rate, high temperature, or aggressive conditions.
A normalization method was then developed as an
alternative approach for directly estimating instantaneous
crack lengths from a load vs load-line-displacement
curve in conjunction with the use of initial and final
measurements of physical crack sizes. This method does
not require any test devices for online monitoring crack
growth, and thus the test costs are reduced.
=
pli
pli i PC
i i
=
(18)
W
W
PN =
c1 + c2 pl + c3 2pl
c4 + pl
(19)
151
Modified-basic method
is
t
ot
f
J pl (i ) (a0 )
m a (20)
1+
+ m b0
1
( Pi + Pi 1 ) (Vpli Vpli1 ) (22)
2
-n
=
J i ( a ) J el (i ) (a0 ) +
i 1,i
A=
V pl
or
d
rib
ut
io
n
For SENB specimens in three-point bending, successful of a crack-growth corrected J-R curve. To this end, Zhu et
applications of the normalization method were al. [44] developed a CMOD-based J-integral incremental
demonstrated by the present author and his coauthors: equation for determining the plastic component of the
Zhu and Joyce [40] for HY80 steel, Zhu and Leis J-integral that is similar to ASTM E1820 LLD-based
[41] for X-80 pipeline steel, and Zhu et al. [42] for J-integral incremental equation:
A285 carbon steel. They compared experimental J-R
i 1
i 1
curves obtained using the normalization method with
CMOD
CMOD
i 1, i
A
=
J
J
+
1
(ai ai 1 ) (21)
V pl
pl ( i )
bi 1 BN
bi 1
py
pl
co
Sa
152
io
n
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
Development of fracture-toughness
test standards
rib
ut
is
t
or
d
Sa
153
Conclusions
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
io
n
rib
ut
ot
f
is
t
References
or
d
measuring the critical values of J, K, and (the cracktip-opening displacement) as well as J-R curve and
-R curve. Due to the E1820 publication, E1737 was
withdrawn in 1998. The latest version ASTM E182011 [5] incorporates many recent updates, such as the
normalization method in annex A15, the modifiedbasic method in A16, the CMOD-based -equation for
basic procedure in A1, the CMOD-based incremental
equation for the resistance curve procedure in A1, and
the more-accurate expressions of the plastic and
factors in A1. Most recently, the E1820 also added
two new annexes: A17, a fracture-toughness test method
at impact loading rates using pre-cracked Charpy-type
specimens, and X2, the guidelines for measuring the
fracture toughness of materials with shallow cracks.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Professor James Joyce in
the US Naval Academy for his useful discussions on
the historic efforts of fracture-toughness testing and
standardization in ASTM, and to Jesse Zhu for his
helpful manuscript editing.
154
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
34.
X.-K.Zhu and J.A.Joyce, 2010. More accurate
approximation of J-integral equation for evaluating
fracture resistance curves. Journal of ASTM
International, 7, 1, Paper ID JAI102505.
35. W.R.Tyson and D.-Y.Park, 2009. Modified E1820
J-integral equation (A1.8) to allow larger increments
between unloading. ASTM E08.07.05 Task Group
Meeting, Atlanta, GA, USA, November.
36. X.-K.Zhu, 2012. Improved incremental J-integral
equation for determining crack growth resistance
curves. J. Pressure Vessel Technology, 134, Paper ID:
051404.
37. R.Herrera and J.D.Landes, 1988. Direct J-R curve
analysis of fracture toughness test. J. Testing and
Evaluation, 16, pp 427-449.
38. J.D.Landes, Z.Zhou, K.Lee, and R.Herrera, 1991.
Normalization method for developing J-R curves
with the LMN function. Idem, 19, pp 305-311.
39. J.A.Joyce, 2001. Analysis of a high rate round
robin based on proposed annexes to ASTM E
1820. Idem, 29, pp 329-351.
40. X.-K.Zhu and J.A.Joyce, 2007. J-resistance curve
testing of HY80 steel using SE(B) specimens and
normalization method. Eng Fract. Mech., 74, pp
2263-2281.
41. X.-K.Zhu and B.N.Leis, 2008. Fracture resistance
curve testing of X80 pipeline steel using SENB
specimen and normalization method. Journal of
Pipeline Engineering, 7, pp126-136.
42. X.-K.Zhu, P.S.Lam, and Y.J.Chao, 2009. Applications
of normalization method to experimental
measurement of fracture toughness for A285
carbon steel. Int. J. Pressure Vessels and Piping, 86, pp
599-603.
43. K.Wallin and A.Laukkanen, 2004. Improved crack
growth corrections for J-R curve testing. Eng Fract.
Mech., 71, pp 1601-1614.
44. X.-K.Zhu, B.N.Leis, and J.A.Joyce, 2008. Experimental
evaluation of J-R curves from load-CMOD record
for SE(B) specimens. Journal of ASTM International,
5, Paper ID: JAI101532.
45. S.Craveroand C.Ruggieri, 2007. Further developments
in J evaluation procedure for growing cracks based
on LLD and CMOD data. Int. J. of Fracture, 148,
pp 387-400.
46. J.A.Joyce E.M.Hackett and C.Roe, 1993. Effect of
crack depth and mode of loading on the J-R curve
behavior of a high-strength steel. In: Constraint
effects in fracture, ASTM STP 1171, American
Society for Testing and Materials, pp 239-263.
47. J.A.Joyce and R.E.Link, 1995. Effects of constraint
on upper shelf fracture toughness. In: Fatigue and
fracture mechanics: 26th Volume, ASTM STP 1256,
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp
142-177.
48. Ibid., 1997. Application of two parameter elasticplastic fracture mechanics to analysis of structures.
Eng Fract. Mech., 57, pp 431-446.
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
155
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
pl
Sa
py
co
io
n
rib
ut
is
t
or
d
ot
f
-n
157
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
IPELINES IN UNSTABLE terrain are sometimes subjected to large-scale bending and tensile deformation,
which places the girth welds in tension.These welds may contain small weld flaws, and it is important to
evaluate the resistance to growth (toughness) of these flaws under the relevant stresses. Current standards
require that toughness be evaluated in high-constraint bending tests, and this can significantly underestimate
the crack-growth resistance in tension.To provide a more meaningful measure of toughness,low-constraint
tests are being developed at a number of laboratories around the world using single-edge-notched tensile
specimens (SENT, or SE(T)). The intent of this paper is to describe these developments and to indicate
the state-of-the-art in measuring crack-growth-resistance curves (R-curves) that can be used to assess the
tolerance of weld flaws to tensile loads.
Background
It has been known for some time that shallow cracks
and tensile loading decrease constraint from that of
deeply cracked bend specimens and thereby increase the
resistance (toughness) of steel (see, for example, [1]).
A practice for testing single-edge-notched specimens in
tension (SENT, or equivalently SE(T); the latter term
will be used here) was introduced by Det Norske Veritas
(DNV) in 2006 [2]. However, this practice required
the testing of multiple specimens to generate data of
toughness as a function of crack growth (Resistance,
or R-curve) which is costly in terms of testing time
and material. Tests requiring only a single specimen
have been developed in several laboratories around the
world, and those of CANMET [3] and ExxonMobil [4]
are nearing standardization.
This paper is meant to provide an introduction to
the state-of-the-art in low-constraint toughness testing
suitable for linepipe steel rather than an in-depth review
of the evolution of low-constraint toughness tests. It
is heavily weighted by the authors experience, and
apologies are extended to the many scientists around the
world who are involved in developing this technology
but whose work is not referenced for lack of space in
this brief article.
158
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
-n
ot
f
or
d
py
Sa
pl
co
159
rib
ut
io
n
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
pl
Sa
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
160
-n
Sa
pl
co
py
Specimen type
a/W
PS
SG
SE(B)
0.5
650
450
SE(T)
0.25
1100
900
161
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
ot
f
or
d
co
py
-n
Sa
pl
162
Acknowledgements
io
n
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
pl
co
py
Closing remarks
Sa
References
1. J.A.Joyce, E.M.Hackett, and C.Roe, 1993. Effects
of crack depth and mode of loading on the
J-R curve behaviour of a high strength steel.
In: J.H.Underwood, K.-H.Schwalbe, R.H.Dodds
(Eds), Constraint effects in fracture. ASTM STP
1171, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, pp 239263.
2. DNV Recommended Practice DNV-RP-F108, 2006.
Fracture control for pipeline installation methods
introducing cyclic plastic strain, Det Norske Veritas,
Norway.
3. (i) G.Shen, J.A.Gianetto, and W.R.Tyson, 2008.
Development of procedure for low-constraint
toughness testing using a single-specimen technique.
MTL Report No. 2008-18(TR); (ii) W.R.Tyson,
G.Shen, J.A.Gianetto and D.-Y.Park, 2011.
163
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
Held under the Patronage of His Excellency Shaikh Ahmed bin Mohamed Al Khalifa, Minister of Finance,
Minister in Charge of Oil and Gas Affairs, Chairman of National Oil & Gas Authority, Kingdom of Bahrain
rib
ut
io
n
Keynote speaker: Mr Abdulrahman Al-Wuhaib, Senior Vice President for Downstream, Saudi Aramco
Opening address by Mr Abdulhakim Al-Gouhi, General Manager - Pipelines Department, Saudi Aramco
is
t
or
d
Global
Webb
PLATINUM SPONSOR
-n
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
ot
f
SILVER SPONSORS
py
Join leaders in the international pipeline industry as they converge for the Best Practice in Pipeline
Operations and Integrity Management Conference and Exhibition in Bahrain.
co
CONFERENCE
Sa
pl
EXHIBITION
A comprehensive exhibition will be part of the event, allowing
companies from around the world to showcase their products and
services. Visit our website to book your space.
NETWORKING
Throughout the event there will be ample opportunities to network
with participants to further your business relationships. Meet with
industry leaders from around the world.
W
O
N
R
E
T
REGIS
www.pipelineconf.com
165
rib
ut
io
n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
NSURING ARREST OF a fast ductile fracture (i.e. a running shear fracture) is an essential design
requirement for high-pressure natural gas and other (for example, CO2 and hydrogen) pipelines.
Fracture-arrest toughness has traditionally been measured and specified using standard Charpy absorbed
energy (CVN), such as used in the Battelle two-curve method (BTCM). But shortcomings of the Charpy test
have become evident when used to characterize modern high-strength and/or high-toughness steels. The
crack-tip-opening angle (CTOA) has been proposed as a better fracture-propagation toughness parameter.
In order to measure CTOA using a laboratory-scale specimen, a simplified single-specimen method (S-SSM)
has been developed. The S-SSM uses the familiar drop-weight tear test (DWTT) specimen, and CTOA is
calculated from instrumented outputs of force vs force-line displacement. This method is being evaluated
in an international round-robin project and has been proposed to ASTM for consideration of adoption.
This paper describes the test development and application with typical results, and step-by-step procedure.
On-going finite-element (FE) modelling work to support development of the CTOA procedure is discussed.
n:
exponent in hardening
model
P:
force
Pm:
maximum force applied by
tup during test
rp:
plastic rotation factor
S:
specimen span between two
supports (S = 254 mm for
DWTT tests)
SE(B): single-edge-bend specimen
S-SSM: simplified single-specimen
method
t:
thickness of specimen
T:
temperature
TM: melting temperature
TR: reference temperature
Sa
pl
co
py
a:
crack length
b:
remaining specimen
ligament
B:
specimen thickness
C1, C2: constants in flow stress
model
CTOA: crack-tip-opening angle
CTOAc:
crack-tip-opening angle in
the steady-state stage
CVN: Charpy absorbed energy
D: scalar damage variable
DWTT: drop-weight tear test
g:
function modifying damage
evolution law
m:
exponent in damage
evolution law
-n
W: specimen width
:
specimen rotation angle
:
constant in function g
p:
plastic strain
:
plastic strain rate
o:
reference rate
f:
average of the yield and
ultimate tensile strengths
:
force-line displacement
(LLD)
m:
force-line displacement
(LLD) at maximum force
:
negative slope of the Ln
(P/ Pm) vs ( m)/S
curve
:
thermal softening exponent
rib
ut
io
n
166
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
Sa
pl
167
Velocity
(m/s)
Surface
Mid-thickness
X100
510-5
19.0 (20.0,18.0) *
11.0 (10.0,12.0)
10.4
5.1
9.7
510-5
12.0
4.6
5.1
7.0
5.1
rib
ut
X52
io
n
Steel
7.5
or
d
4r *
tan (4)
ot
f
is
t
Table 1. CTOA of interrupted DWT/CTOA tests.Values in brackets are measurements from opposite side surfaces or sections.
-n
or
co
py
d
CTOA
tan
= rp b
2
da (1)
pl
CTOA=
c
8rp 180
() (5)
4rp
P
( m )
ln =
(3)
tan(CTOA/2)
S
Pm
Sa
P=
4A* f Bb 2 (2)
S
i.
ii.
iii.
168
S-SSM procedure
io
n
rib
ut
is
t
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
Sa
pl
169
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
or
d
Fig.5. An example of
anti-buckling guide for pipe
steel specimens of wall
thickness less than 10 mm.
ot
f
Apparatus
co
py
-n
pl
Specimen
Sa
170
rib
ut
io
n
(6)
ot
f
is
t
Procedure
or
d
Calculation
py
-n
co
Sa
pl
Validation
The CANMET recommended practice is intended for
ductile-fracture propagation and is not valid for cleavage
fracture. Cleavage fracture manifests itself as a sudden
drop of force in the force vs displacement curve; CTOA
values in cleavage fracture are very small.
Report
The values of CTOAc are reported to one decimal place.
The report must contain a summary including, as a
minimum: material and specimen ID, wall thickness,
specimen orientation, test temperature, initial tup velocity,
and fracture appearance (i.e. percent ductile fracture).
A graph of the force vs displacement curves (see Fig.1)
must be included in the report.
171
rib
ut
io
n
or
d
is
t
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
p T TR
n
o (1 + C1 p ) 1 + C2 1
(9)
material and the strength is governed by work hardening, =
o TM TR
g(p ) f
f
work is dissipated as heat, which leads to softening;
the terms in the final parentheses in Eqn 9 relate
where is our modification for strain-rate effect, p is the to model softening owing to the corresponding
equivalent plastic strain, f is the failure strain which temperature increase, which is assumed to depend on
depends on the Lode angle and mean stress, and m temperature, T, reference temperature TR, and melting
is an exponent. Function g is taken to be
temperature TM. Linear thermal softening is assumed
in our calculations, and the softening exponent is
set to unity.
p
g(p )= 1 + log( )
o (8) The model was implemented via a user-subroutine
in Abaqus/Explicit finite-element software and
computations to simulate the DWTT were performed.
where p / o is the ratio of the plastic strain rate to Element removal, when D = 1, in the element was
a reference rate, and is a constant. The reference used to model crack propagation. Strength properties
rate is usually chosen as the rate of the quasi-static of a typical X-70 pipe steel were used for the
tensile test. Notice that for positive , the introduction matrix. By trial and error, the model parameters were
of function g is equivalent to assuming a decrease in calibrated and some preliminary results are displayed
in Fig.6.
damage rate with increase in strain rate.
172
Summary
References
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
Sa
pl
Acknowledgement
This work forms part of a CanmetMATERIALS
project on fracture arrest toughness measurement and
specification supported by the Federal Program on Energy
Research and Development (PERD). The authors would
like to thank their colleagues R.Bouchard, R.Eagleson,
D.Y.Park, J.Liang, J.Sollen, and R.Guilbeault for their
contribution to experimental work, and to the guest
173
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
13.
S.Xu, W.R.Tyson, R.Eagleson, C.N.McCowan,
E.D.Drexler, J.D.McColskey, and Ph.P.Darcis, 2010.
Measurement of CTOA of pipe steels using MDCB
and DWTT specimens. Proc.8th International
Pipeline Conference (IPC 2010), ASME, IPC201031076.
14. S.Xu, R.Eagleson, W.R.Tyson, and D.-Y.Park, 2011.
Crack tunnelling and crack tip opening angle in
drop-weight tear test specimens. Int. J. Fracture, 172,
pp 105-112.
15. S.Xu and W.R.Tyson, 2011. Recommended practice
for determination of crack-tip opening angle of
structural steels using DWTT specimens. CANMETMTL Report, 2011-03(TRR).
16. CSA Z245.1-07, 2007. Steel pipe. Canadian Standards
Association.
17. BS 7448, 1997. Fracture mechanics toughness tests,
part 2, method for determination of KIC, critical
CTOD and critical J values of welds in metallic
materials. British Standards Institution, London.
pl
Sa
py
co
io
n
rib
ut
is
t
or
d
ot
f
-n
175
io
n
by Dr Robert Eiber
rib
ut
ot
f
or
d
is
t
HE DROP-WEIGHT tear test (DWTT) has had a significant positive impact on the fracture properties
of linepipe steels. This review summarizes the incidents that started the research leading to the
development of the DWTT from 1960 to present. The initial driver for the development of the test was
an incident that involved 8.3 miles (13.3 km) of brittle fracture during pre-service testing of a natural gas
pipeline with gas. The initial goal of the DWTT was to accurately define the ductile-to-brittle transition
temperature of pipeline steels to facilitate the specification of transition temperatures below the operating
temperature range for linepipe. As the pipeline industry used the low-transition-temperature steels, the
need for a measure of the steel toughness emerged to control ductile-fracture propagation arrest leading to
examination of the DWTT energy as a substitute for the Charpy V-notch energy which had been identified
as the way to define the steel fracture toughness.
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
io
n
176
is
t
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
rib
ut
177
io
n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
py
-n
co
Sa
pl
The question was which test represented the fracturesurface appearance in pipes pressurized with natural
gas. To resolve this, four full-scale fracture tests were
conducted over a range of temperatures on a single
length of 30-in diameter by 0.375-in wall thickness
X-52 pipe as indicated by the four solid data points
in Fig.5. The fractures were initiated in the pipes at
temperatures from 27o to 107oF (-2.7o to 42oC), and
the calculated stress levels varied from 73 to 78%
SMYS. It can be observed that the DWTT reproduces
the abrupt ductile-to-brittle transition region displayed
by the fractures in the full-scale pipe fracture tests.
Figure 6 presents the appearance of fractures in pipe
tests (right side photos) that were approximately 15-ft
(4.5-m) long pipe specimens pressurized with 6 to 10%
nitrogen. The sections through the fractures (left side
photos) show the difference in thickness reduction with
increasing ductility of the fracture.
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
178
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
pl
Sa
179
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
co
Sa
pl
The CVN energies at the failure temperature were on the plateau and thus
the same as the values quoted.
Fig.8.Two-curve model
prediction of arrest
toughness.
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
180
181
io
n
rib
ut
ot
f
is
t
or
d
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
CSM
182
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
References
rib
ut
Conclusions
is
t
or
d
183
io
n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
HIS PAPER REVIEWS the Charpy V-notch (CVN) impact test and assesses its utility to characterize
fracture resistance in applications to modern tough materials in contrast to those encountered prior
to the availability of such materials.The origin of the CVN test and its development into a standard for use
with metallic materials is discussed, with brief reference also made to application-based standards for use
with other engineering materials. Thereafter, the evolution of mechanical and other properties motivated
by industry demands is illustrated in regard to strength and toughness.The interpretation of the CVN test
in regard to (1) the force-displacement and compliance response that develops during the test, and (2)
factors affecting the energy measured and controlling failure of the CVN specimen, are discussed, including
the tup design and the use of sub-size specimens. The utility of CVN testing is illustrated and discussed in
the context of pipeline and other applications involving tough steels. Finally, the implications of evolution
in material properties is assessed for impact-test practices including ASTM E23 and ISO 148-1, which are
specific to the CVN practice, and the drop-weight tear test. It is concluded that where tough materials are
involved, alternative testing practices are needed that are better adapted to the specific loading and failure
response of the structure of interest.
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
184
(a)
(b)
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
Fig.1.Trends in CVN energy over time, adapted from Refs 18 and 19: (a) energy trends with grade, circa 1969; (b) historical
view of plateau energy and grade.
Sa
For those less familiar with the ASTM process, the tentative designation is
no longer part of its standards-development process.
185
io
n
is
t
rib
ut
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
186
co
Fig.2. Differences in CVN response with toughness, adapted from Refs 22 and 23.
Sa
pl
187
io
n
rib
ut
ot
f
is
t
or
d
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
rib
ut
io
n
188
(b)
is
t
(a)
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
Fig.3.Typical response trends developed in instrumented CVN testing: (a) moderate to higher toughness; (b) a range from low
to high toughness.
The plot shown in Fig.3a presents results for a controlrolled X-80 steel (labelled #3) cut from mill-expanded
line pipe with 0.61-in (15.5-mm) thick wall that was
produced in 1992. Figure 3b supplements this result
with data for an accelerated-cooled X-70 steel from
mill-expanded linepipe with 0.75in (19.1-mm) thick
wall that also was produced in 1992 (labelled #2), a
control-rolled X-60 steel from mill-expanded linepipe
with 0.546-in (13.9-mm) thick wall that was produced
in 1970 (labelled #7), and a conventionally-rolled X-52
steel from mill-expanded linepipe with 0.375-in (9.5-mm)
thick wall that was produced in 1960 (labelled #8).
All involved testing of full-size samples except for the
X-52, which made use of a 2/3 thickness specimens.
All results reflect tests that developed 100 %SA, such
that these trends reflect fully ductile response.
In reference to Fig.3a, a series of dotted vertical lines
have been added to the test record, which have been
located to tie key changes in compliance to events
evident in the force-displacement response. Note in this
context that if the stress-strain response is mapped onto
this coordinate system, the locus traced (assuming the
189
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
ot
f
or
d
pl
co
py
-n
Sa
Fig.4. Energy
components from
instrumented CVN
testing partitioned
as in Fig.3.
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
190
co
py
-n
Sa
pl
191
rib
ut
io
n
(a)
is
t
(b)
-n
ot
f
or
d
Fig.5. Cross sections through propagating shear contrasted to tearing shear (from Ref.27):
(a) symmetric shear (as polished, observed during steady-state propagation): t = 0.560 in (14 mm);
(b) asymmetric tearing shear (rough grind, observed during ring-off arrest): t = 0.560 in (14 mm).
pl
co
py
Sa
It follows that at least for pipelines made of highertoughness steels the usual CVN test practice appears to
have limited utility. Whereas the steady-state pipelinefailure process primarily involves stretching and thinning
that is largely free of bending, the CVN test relies
on bending with thickening developing as the failure
process in the specimen continues to the back face.
In this context, any bending-impact test falls short of
emulating the structural response. In spite of this fact,
it has been asserted that the issues with the CVN test
in pipeline applications evident in the stretching, tearing,
and lateral flow parallel to the notch could be offset by
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
192
py
-n
ot
f
(a)
co
(b)
Sa
pl
Like the pipeline industry, the automotive / groundvehicle industry has pushed the development of tough,
strong, weldable steels. As such, it is not surprising that
about the same time that issues with the CVN test
were emerging in applications to the pipeline industry,
similar concerns with the CVN test became evident in
that industry. For example, a 1987 paper [29] authored
from within the Structures and Dynamics Division of
Caterpillar Inc. notes that recently, two new families of
steels have become available that were of interest
to that industry. After considering those steels in light
of several basic materials tests, the paper concludes by
noting that some tests are reliable indicators of material
performance in components while Charpy V-notch energy
is of little value for quantitative engineering analysis.
The paper goes on to state that an alternative impact
test which more closely represents material behaviour
in components is needed.
193
rib
ut
io
n
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
(a)
co
pl
(b)
Sa
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
194
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
Fig.8. Comparison of
subsize and full-size
CVN energy for one
X-70 steel.
195
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
(a)
(b)
ot
f
co
py
-n
Sa
pl
196
io
n
is
t
rib
ut
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
Conclusions
While a number of conclusions have been drawn as
the paper developed, two primary conclusions bear
repeating here:
because the behaviour in an impact test can
be complex, data interpretation and assessment
of their practical implications is best based
on data developed using a well-instrumented
machine; and
because structural geometry and the loadings
act in conjunction with the materials properties
to control the failure response, where critical
differences exist in that context, alternative
testing practices are needed that are adapted
to the specific loading and failure response of
the structure of interest which is now the
case for fracture propagation in pipelines where
tough materials are involved.
Acknowledgments
The data reported herein in Figs 7, 8, and 9 were
generated under contract to Alliance Pipeline, as part
of developing its fracture-control programme in the
late 1990s. Permission to release that data is gratefully
acknowledged, as is the authors related collaboration
with David Rudland, then with Battelle.
197
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
io
n
rib
ut
is
t
ot
f
or
d
References
198
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
199
io
n
rib
ut
ot
f
or
d
is
t
HE CRACK-TIP-OPENING angle (CTOA) is used to rank the relative resistance to crack extension
of various pipeline steels. In general, the smaller the CTOA value, the lower the resistance to crack
extension. It is unclear, however, whether CTOA is a material property that is valid for all thicknesses and
rates of crack growth. Historically, drop-weight tear tests (DWTT) and modified double-cantilever beam
(MDCB) specimens have been used for measuring CTOA. Tests using either specimen may be conducted
at quasi-static and dynamic rates. The fastest displacement rates achieved in our laboratory were near
14 m/s, resulting in crack extension rates near 30 m/s for high-toughness linepipe steels. In-service crack
extensions for ductile-crack fracture can be more than 100 m/s. The failure mode at this rate is plastic
collapse, and it is uncertain if correlations can be drawn between in-service failures and laboratory tests
conducted on thinner material tested at slower rates.We describe the evolution of our test method using
MDCB specimens from 2006 to 2012 and the direction we anticipate for future CTOA research.
co
py
-n
Sa
pl
200
API Designation
O.D.
mm(inch)
Thickness mm
N/A (~X70)
517 (75)
0.51 (20)
9.7
X52
359 (52)
0.51 (20)
8.0
Grade B
244 (35)
0.56 (22)
7.4
N/A (~X52)
335 (48)
0.51 (20)
7.9
N/A
281 (40)
0.56 (22)
7.8
X65
448 (65)
0.61 (24)
X65
448 (65)
0.51 (20)
X65
448 (65)
0.76 (30)
17.0
X100
689 (100)
1.32 (52)
20.6
10
X100
689 (100)
1.22 (48)
20.0
11
X100
689 (100)
1.22 (48)
20.0
12
X70 spiral
483 (70)
0.91 (36)
13.7
is
t
rib
ut
25.0
-n
ot
f
31.5
or
d
io
n
ID Number
co
py
Sa
pl
Microstructures
The microstructures of the 12 pipeline steels tested
are briefly described as follows:
Steel #1 is a ferrite-pearlite steel with low carbon
(low pearlite) content and a fine ferrite grain
size. This steel represents a modern, fine-grained
ferrite pipeline steel.
Tensile properties
The tensile properties of steels #1 to #5 were measured
with flat tensile specimens (due to plate thickness),
while round tensile specimens (6-mm diameter) were
tested for steels #6 to #11. The flat specimens were
201
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
Al
0.031
<0.0002
0.06
0.24
0.27
0.18
0.25
0.07
Co
0.006
0.025
0.007
0.014
0.025
0.003
Cr
0.02
0.024
0.029
0.021
0.019
0.12
Cu
0.11
0.038
0.015
0.054
0.046
Mn
1.46
1.03
0.36
0.52
0.97
Mo
0.025
0.016
0.007
0.009
0.017
Nb
0.054
0.007
0.005
0.005
Ni
0.10
0.064
0.021
0.021
0.01
0.016
0.005
0.026
0.013
0.008
<0.01
0.013
0.015
0.010
0.012
0.004
Si
0.28
0.057
0.009
0.043
0.061
0.094
or
d
#7
#8
Al
0.030
0.039
<0.0002
0.0002
0.07
0.08
#9
Co
0.002
Cr
0.13
Cu
py
0.066
0.17
0.03
0.04
#10
#11
#12
0.025
0.012
0.039
<0.0001
0.0003
0.064
0.04
0.084
0.001
0.003
0.03
0.021
0.023
0.07
0.09
0.30
0.286
0.28
0.31
1.59
1.56
1.90
2.092
1.87
1.56
0.006
0.15
0.127
0.23
0.20
0.005
0.003
0.008
0.041
0.017
0.069
0.003
pl
Mo
0.04
0.10
Mn
0.07
0.003
0.002
ot
f
0.002
-n
0.045
co
1.48
rib
ut
0.003
Ti
0.12
0.007
is
t
io
n
0.03
0.04
Ni
0.14
0.21
0.50
0.501
0.47
0.11
0.009
0.011
0.008
0.10
0.009
0.010
0.004
0.003
0.0005
0.002
<0.001
0.009
Si
0.092
0.325
0.10
0.108
0.099
0.24
Ti
0.02
<0.01
0.007
0.17
0.013
0.04
0.04
0.006
0.002
0.003
Nb
Sa
Table 2. Chemical composition of the pipeline steels tested, by mass. Column numbers give identification number for the
steel, as defined in Table 1.
202
Steel #
Ferritic grain size (m)
Pearlite volume fraction (%)
6.5
11.8
10.8
N/A
22.2
37.1
25.3
37.9
17.1
Orientation
E (GPa)
0.2
(MPa)
UTS
(MPa)
0.2 / UTS
eu (%)
ef (%)
211*
517
611
0.846
6.7%
35.0%
0.19
N/A
543
606
0.896
8.0%
27.4%
0.29
211*
360
556
0.647
12.3%
32.7%
0.38
N/A
448
576
0.777
11.1%
25.6%
0.43
212*
244
451
0.541
19.6%
37.8%
0.52
N/A
255
459
0.555
18.8%
38.0%
0.49
210*
335
535
0.626
12.9%
34.9%
0.37
N/A
428
560
0.764
10.5%
22.0%
0.48
214
265
454
0.583
16.0%
38.0%
0.42
NA
248
453
0.547
19.5%
35.0%
0.56
201
460
534
0.870
8.2%
24.7%
0.33
218
497
560
0.890
7.7%
15.9%
0.48
NA
502
570
0.880
6.8%
25.7%
0.26
N/A
511
577
0.885
7.2%
20.9%
0.34
217
522
618
0.844
10.1%
27.3%
0.37
N/A
576
644
0.894
6.9%
24.8%
0.28
N/A
694
801
0.910
4.6%
20.3%
0.23
N/A
797
828
0.966
4.1%
19.3%
0.21
192
722
855
0.844
4.6%
17.8%
0.26
213
912
916
0.995
2.6%
18.0%
0.14
198
729
838
0.869
5.8%
20.5%
0.28
207
833
868
0.989
4.7%
17.5%
0.27
NA
576
650
0.940
NA
NA
NA
5
6
7
8
9
T
L
co
10
pl
12
11
rib
ut
is
t
or
d
ot
f
py
eu/ef
io
n
Steel #
-n
Table 3. Measurements of the grain size and ferrite fraction for the ferrite/pearlite steels.
Sa
Table 4.Tensile properties of the materials. (Note: * = average determined from dynamic-elastic-modulus test.)
6 mm wide. Full-thickness specimens (Table 1) were
tested for the longitudinal orientation, and typically
3-mm thick specimens were tested for the transverse
orientation. All specimens had a gauge length of 25.4
mm. Experiments were performed either in a screwdriven tensile testing machine of 100-kN capacity, or a
closed-loop servo-hydraulic machine of 100-kN capacity.
Tests were conducted in displacement control at rates
of 0.25 mm/min for the flat specimens and 0.1 mm/
min for the round specimens.
203
rib
ut
io
n
py
is
t
-n
ot
f
or
d
co
Sa
pl
Quasi-static apparatus
For quasi-static testing (0.002 to 3 mm/s), a 250-kN
uniaxial servo-hydraulic test machine was used. Tests
were conducted in displacement control. As shown
in Fig.3a, the load line ran through the centreline
of the first pair of holes in the specimen. A digital
camera and frame-capture software/hardware were used
to capture images. The camera was mounted on an
XYZ stage, which provided a stable platform to follow
the crack tip. The image acquisition was controlled by
a personal computer with image-analysis software: the
captured images had a size of 2048 pixels 1536 pixels,
which resulted in a resolution of about 32 pixel/mm.
Images were acquired and stored, along with time, load,
and displacement data as the crack propagated across
the specimen. Tests were stopped at 80 mm of crack
extension beyond the machined notch tip. Details of
the set-up have been reported previously [21].
Dynamic apparatus
Tests with actuator rates of 3, 30, and 300 mm/s were
performed on a 500-kN uniaxial servo-hydraulic test
machine shown in Fig.3b [22]. As with the quasi-static
204
Data processing
rib
ut
io
n
or
d
is
t
-n
ot
f
Highspeed
camera 2
Specimen
Sa
pl
co
py
Discspring
setup
Highspeed
camera 1
1 Sacrificial links were inserted into the load line and loaded to compress
the springs. The links were calculated to fail at the load required to full
compress the springs, which resulted in abruptly releasing the stored energy
onto the CTOA specimen.
205
io
n
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
Fig.4. Showing (a - left) crack edge traced by the operator and points marked on the gridlines adjacent to the crack, and
(b - right) two sets of lines fitted with grid points and crack trace respectively (grid = 1 mm x 0.5 mm).
ot
f
(a)
(b)
py
Steady-state region
-n
Fig.5. (a) Method 1 and (b) Method 2 for determining the CTOA. For both Methods, n was set equal to
3, L1 = r1 + r0 = 0.5 mm, L2 = r2 + r0 = 1 mm, and L3 = r3 + r0 = 1.5 mm (r0 was set to 0.15 mm).
co
pl
Sa
206
Standard deviation
(o)
Crack velocity
(mm/s)
11.7
2.04
0.05
0.22
9.1
1.71
0.05
0.26
9.8
1.39
0.05
0.20
10.0
2.00
0.05
0.28
9.51
0.05
11.4
0.02
9.9
NA
NA
0.002
8.6
1.42
NA
10
7.8
1.9
0.02
11
8.2
2.3
12
11.9
1.3
6-X65
11.7
6-X65
0.22
is
t
rib
ut
NA
NA
0.02
NA
1.2
0.002
0.004
11.4
1.2
0.02
0.044
6-X65
10.5
1.0
0.2
0.5
6-X65
11.6
2.2
9.20.6
6-X65
11.0
2.4
30
45.51.5
6-X65
11.2
1.1
300
5948
6-X65
11.3
1.7
8000
6500600
9-X100
8.6
1.1
0.002
0.008
8.3
1.8
0.02
0.088
9.3
1.1
0.2
0.66
9.4
1.0
6.70.7
ot
f
-n
py
9-X100
co
9-X100
or
d
0.02
9-X100
8.1
1.0
300
76235
9-X100
8.8
1.6
30
1183
9-X100
8.6
1.1
8000
7250605
9-X100
9.8
7500
5500
10-X100
7.3
2.3
10000
13000
10-X100
10.6
5.3
20000
29000
11-X100
8.1
11-X100
8.9
2.5
8000
7000
11-X100
9.3
3.2
20000
20000
12-X70
10.2
1.8
NA
5467
pl
9-X100
Sa
io
n
Steel #
2900
Table 5.The CTOA values (Method 4) calculated for the steels at various testing rates.
207
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
pl
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
208
Sa
209
rib
ut
io
n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
-n
co
py
Sa
pl
(a)
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
(b)
io
n
210
(d)
co
py
-n
ot
f
(c)
(e)
(f)
Sa
pl
Fig.11. Fracture-surface features associated with flat fracture.The overview (a) shows the flat central portion of an X-65
fracture, bounded at both surfaces by shear regions.The central region (b and c) is a mixture of large ductile dimples, elongated
in the direction of crack growth (and plate rolling), surrounded by smaller equiaxial dimples.The knife-edge final-fracture region
has a shear-fracture region for a distance of about 100 m into the specimen (d) on which shear dimples are apparent (e).
There is a gradient in texture on the surface of the final fracture, with a smoother shear dimple surface near the outside edge of
the specimen (e), and a more textured equiaxial dimple surface toward the centre of the specimen (f).
211
(b) Centre
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
(a) Edge
io
n
(d) Centre
co
py
-n
ot
f
(c) Centre
(e) Centre
(f) Edge
pl
Fig.12. Details of a slant-fracture mode from an X-100 CTOA specimen showing ductile dimple morphologies: (a) region very
near the outside surface of specimen, (b, c, d, e) regions through the thickness, not near the final fracture regions, (f) higher
magnification of a region very close to the final fracture of the knife-edge showing shear dimples.
Sa
Crack-front shape
The crack tip measured at the outside surface of
the specimen in the CTOA test is not the tip of the
crack in the interior of the specimen. For example,
in Fig.13 the tip of the crack front is about 1.5 mm
ahead of the intersection of the crack front with the
surface of the specimen.
212
is
t
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
1 Castings were
material used for
region when the
further extended,
213
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
ot
f
-n
co
py
Sa
pl
Plastic deformation
Deformation through the gauge length of the reduced
section indicates that the X-65 and X-70 steels are more
ductile than the X-100 steel, with quasi-static values
Numerical modelling
The stable tearing behaviour of the CTOA test was
modelled. Finite-element analysis (FEA) was applied to
predict the applied load vs crack extension behaviour
of steels #1 #5, and showed correlation coefficients
between the experimental and FEA results of between
0.92 and 0.993 [21]. This FEA model under-predicted
the initial crack extension, when the crack extension was
214
io
n
rib
ut
ot
f
is
t
References
or
d
-n
Future work
Sa
pl
co
py
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the many guest researchers who were
involved in developing and conducting CTOA tests over
the years: P.P.Darcis, G.Kohn, A.Bussiba, A.Shtechman,
R.Reuven, J.M.Treinen, and H.Windhoff.
215
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
25.
S.Xu, W.R.Tyson, R.Eagleson, C.N.McCowan,
E.S.Drexler, J.D.McColskey, and PhP Dacis, 2010.
Measurement of CTOA using MDCB and DWTT
specimens. Idem, IPC2010-31076.
26. J.Besson, C.N.McCowan, and E.S.Drexler, 2013.
Modeling flat to slant fracture transition using the
computational cell methodology. Eng Fract. Mech.,
104, pp 80-95.
27. J.W.Sowards, C.N.McCowan, and E.S.Drexler, 2012.
Interpretation and significance of reverse chevronshaped markings on fracture surfaces of API X100
pipeline steels. Mat. Sci. Eng A Struct., 551, pp
140-148.
M.Szanto, C.N.McCowan, E.S.Drexler, and
28.
J.D.McColskey, 2011. Fracture of X100 pipeline
steel: combined experimental-numerical process.
NIST BERB publication (B2011-0116).
29. R.J.Fields, J.D.McColskey, C.N.McCowan, P.P.Darcis,
E.S.Drexler, S.P.Mates, and T.A.Siewert, 2012.
Mechanical properties and crack behavior in line
pipe steel. Final Report to the Department of
Transportation. http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/matrix/
FilGet.rdm?fil=7883.
30. E.S.Drexler, PhP.Darcis, C.N.McCowan, J.W.Sowards,
J.D.McColskey, and T.A.Siewert ,2011. Ductilefracture resistance in X100 pipeline welds measured
with CTOA. Weld J., 90, 12, pp 241-s - 248-s.
31. PhP.Darcis, C.N.McCowan, J.D.McColskey, and
R.Fields, 2008. Crack tip opening angle measurement
through a girth weld in an X100 steel pipelines.
Fatigue Fract. Mater. Struct.. 31, pp 1065-1078.
32. ASTM, 1999. Standard E1290-99. Standard test
method for crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)
fracture toughness measurement. ASTM Book of
Standards, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
33. K.-H.Schwalbe, J.C.Newman, Jr, and J.L.Shannon,
Jr, 2005. Fracture mechanics testing on specimens
with low constraintstandardisation activities within
ISO and ASTM. Eng Fract. Mech., 72, pp 557-576.
34. K.-H.Schwalbe, J.Heerens, U.Zerbst, H.Pisarski, and
M.Kocak, 2002. EFAM-GTP 02, The GKSS test
procedure for determining the fracture behaviour
of materials, 2nd issue. GKSS Report 2002/24,
GKSS-Forschungszentrum Geesthacht.
35. ISO/FDIS 22889, 2013. Metallic materials: method
of test for the determination of resistance to stable
crack extension using specimens of low constraint.
J.Heerens and M.Schodel, 2003. On the
36.
determination of crack tip opening angle, CTOA,
using light microscopy and delta-5 measurement
technique. Eng Fract. Mech., 70, 3-4, pp 417-426.
37. S.H.Hashemi, 2012. Comparative study of fracture
appearance in crack tip opening angle testing of
gas pipeline steels. Mat. Sci. Eng A Struct., 558, pp
702-715.
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
13.
R.M.Andrews, I.C.Howard, A.Shterenlikht,and
J.R.Yates, 2002. The effective resistance of pipeline
steels to running ductile fractures; modelling of
laboratory test data. In: ECF14, Fracture mechanics
beyond 2000. EMAS Publications, Sheffield, UK,
pp 65-72.
14. D.S.Dawicke, 1996. Residual strength predictions
using a CTOA criterion. Proc. FAA-NASA Symposium
on Continued Airworthiness of Aircraft Structures,
Atlanta, GA, USA.
15. K.-H.Schwalbe, J.C.Newman, Jr, and J.L.Shannon,
Jr, 2005. Fracture mechanics testing on specimens
with low constraintstandardisation activities within
ISO and ASTM. Eng Fract.Mech., 72, pp 557-576.
16. ASTM ,2006. Standard E2472-06. Standard test
method for determination of resistance to stable
crack extension under low-constraint conditions.
ASTM Book of Standards, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
17.
G.Demofonti, G. Buzzichelli, S.Venzi, and
M.Kanninen, 1995. Step by step procedure for the
two specimen CTOA test. Pipeline Technology, 2.
Elsevier, Netherlands, pp 503-512.
18. A.Shterenlikht, S.H.Hashemi, I.C. Howard, J.R.Yates,
and R.M.Andrews, 2004. A specimen for studying
the resistance to ductile crack propagation in pipes.
Eng Fract. Mech., 71, pp 1997-2013.
19. S.H.Hashemi, R.Gay, I.C.Howard, R.M.Andrews,
and J.R.Yates, 2004. Development of a laboratory
test technique for direct estimation of crack tip
opening angle. Proc. 15th European Conference
of Fracture, Stockholm, Sweden.
20. S.H.Hashemi, I.CHoward, J.R.Yates, R.M.Andrews,
and A.M.Edwards, 2004. Experimental study of
thickness and fatigue precracking influence on the
CTOA toughness values of high grade gas pipeline
steel. Proc. International Pipeline Conference, pp
0681.1-8.
P.P.Darcis, G.Kohn, A.Bussiba, J.D.McColskey,
21.
C.N.McCowan, R.Fields, R.Smith, and J.Merritt,
2006. Crack tip opening angle: measurement and
modeling of fracture resistance in low and high
strength pipeline steels. Idem, IPC2006-10172.
22. A. Shtechman, C.N.McCowan, R.Reuven, E.Drexler,
Ph.Darcis, J.M.Treinen, R.Smith, J.Merritt,
T.A.Siewert, and J.D.McColskey, 2008. Dynamic
apparatus for the CTOA measurement in pipeline
steels. Idem, IPC2008-64362.
P.P.Darcis, C.N.McCowan, H.Windhof f,
23.
J.D.McColskey, and T.A.Siewert, 2008. Crack tip
opening angle optical measurement methods in five
pipeline steels. Eng Fract. Mech., 75, pp 245-246.
24. R.Reuven, E.Drexler, C.McCowan, A.Shtechman,
P.Darcis, M.Treinen, R.Smith, J.Merritt, T.A.Siewert,
and J.D.McColskey, 2008. CTOA results for X65
and X100 pipeline steels: influence of displacement
rate. Proc. International Pipeline Conference,
IPC2008-64363.
io
n
rib
ut
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
THE
PROFESSIONAL
INSTITUTE OF
PIPEINE
ENGINEERS
Sa
pl
co
py
Sign up today!
www.pipeinst.org
217
io
n
Fracture-resistance testing of
pipeline girth welds using bend
and tensile fracture specimens
rib
ut
ot
f
or
d
is
t
TRUCTURAL-INTEGRITY ASSESSMENTS of pipe girth welds play a key role in the design and safe
operation of pipeline systems. Current practices for structural-integrity assessments advocate the
use of geometry-dependent resistance curves so that crack-tip constraint in both the test specimen and
the structural component is similar. Thus, testing standards now under development to measure fracture
resistance of pipeline steels often employ single-edge-notched (SE(T)) specimens under tension.This paper
presents an investigation of the ductile-tearing properties for a girth weld of an API 5L X-80 pipeline steel
using experimentally measured crack-growth-resistance curves (also termed J-R curves).Testing of the girthweld pipeline steels employed clamped SE(T) specimens and three-point bend (SE(B)) specimens with weld
centreline cracks to determine the J-resistance curves. The experimental toughness data enables further
evaluation of crack growth resistance properties of pipeline girth welds.
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
rib
ut
io
n
218
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
(a)
(b)
pl
co
py
Sa
219
Experimental evaluation of
J-resistance curves
k
J=
J ek + J pk
(1)
io
n
rib
ut
K2
J ek = I (2)
E k
is
t
or
d
bk 1 d Jk 1LLD
k 1
LLD
= 1 + Jk 1LLD
(4)
k 1
W J LLD d ( a W )
ot
f
pl
co
py
-n
Sa
k 1
k 1
=
J pk J pk 1 + J CMOD ( Apk Apk 1 ) 1 LLD ( ak ak 1 ) (3)
bk 1 BN
bk 1
220
Be=
io
n
SET
(12)
+ 207.399 4 107.917 5
0.1 a / W 0.7
a
1.019 4.537 + 9.01 2 27.333 3
W =
(13)
SEB
ot
f
Current testing protocols to measure the crack-growthresistance response using a single-specimen test are
primarily based on the unloading compliance (UC)
technique to obtain accurate estimates of the current
crack length from the specimen compliance measured at
periodic unloadings with increased deformation. Figure
1b illustrates the essential features of the method. The
slope of the load-displacement curve during the k-th
unloading defines the current specimen compliance,
denoted Ck, which depends on specimen geometry
and crack length. For the clamped SE(T) specimen
with
H/W = 10 and the SE(B) specimen with
S/W = 4 analysed here, the specimen compliance
is often defined in terms of normalized quantities
expressed as [6, 14]:
rib
ut
Crack-length estimation
( B BN ) (11)
B
is
t
or
d
+ 74.4 4 71.489 5
and
(10)
py
EWBeCCMOD
SEB
CMOD
= 1 +
S 4
-n
SET
CMOD
= 1 + EBeCCMOD (9)
co
a
a
a
a
a
+ 7.81 18.27 + 15.30 3.08
W
W
W
W
W
pl
JSET
= 1.07 1.77
CMOD
(5)
Sa
0.2 a / W 0.7
JSET
LLD = 0.62 + 9.34
a
a
a
a
a
4.58 47.96 + 87.70 44.88
W
W
W
W
W
(6)
0.2 a / W 0.7
2
a
a
= 3.65 2.11 + 0.34 (7)
W
W
0.1 a / W 0.7
SEB
J CMOD
a
a
a
a
a
= 0.02 + 18.09 73.26 + 152.22 159.777 + 66.88 (8)
W
W
W
W
W
SEB
J LLD
0.1 a / W 0.7
221
rib
ut
io
n
where MBys and WMys denote the yield stresses for the
base-plate metal and the weld metal.
ot
f
or
d
is
t
co
py
-n
Experimental details
= 3.88 + 0.22
JSEB
CMOD
3
a
a
5.01
W
W
(14)
a
+ 4.02 0.41M y 0.05M y2
W
pl
Sa
JSET
CMOD = 0.36 + 11.69
a
a
23.59
W
W
(15)
a
+ 13.90 0.28M y 0.03M y2
W
My =
WM
ys
ysMB
(16)
The tested weld joint was made from the API X-80
UOE pipe having wall thickness tw = 19 mm. Girth
welding of the pipe was performed using the FCAW
process in the 1G (flat) position with a single V-groove
configuration in which the root pass was made by
GMAW welding. The main weld parameters used
for preparation of the test weld using the FCAW
process are:
(i) n
umber of passes = 12 (including the root
pass made by the GMAW process);
(ii) welding current = 165 A;
(iii) welding voltage = 23 V;
(iv) average heat input = 1.5 kJ/mm.
rib
ut
io
n
222
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
Specimen geometries
Mathias [23] conducted unloading compliance tests at
room temperature on weld-centreline-notched SE(T)
specimens with fixed-grip loading to measure tearing
resistance curves in terms of J a data. The clamped
SE(T) specimens have a fixed overall geometry and crack
length to width ratio defined by a/W = 0.4, H/W
= 10 with thickness B = 14.8 mm, width W = 14.8
mm (W = B) and clamp distance H = 148 mm (refer
to Fig.2a). Here, a is the crack depth and W is the
223
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
Sa
pl
Crack-growth-resistance curves
Effect of specimen geometry on J-resistance curves
The framework for determining J-resistance curves
based on CMOD from conventional fracture specimens
described previously provides the basis for evaluating
the ductile-fracture response of the tested material and
assessing effects of specimen geometry and loading
rib
ut
io
n
224
Configuration
Compliance estimation
ot
f
Specimen
or
d
is
t
a0 (mm)
af (mm)
a (mm)
af (mm)
a (mm)
8.79
3.13
8.77
3.11
0.78
8.66
2.55
8.56
2.45
3.87
6.29
9.32
3.03
9.20
2.92
3.75
6.70
10.59
3.89
10.59
3.89
0.03
SE(T) H/W=10
5.66
SET2 H10
SE(T) H/W=10
6.11
SET3 H10
SE(T) H/W=10
SET4 H10
SE(T) H/W=10
SEB1
SE(B) a/W=0.25
4.38
6.28
1.90
5.89
1.39
26.84
SE(B) a/W=0.25
4.99
7.00
2.01
6.38
1.48
26.37
SE(B) a/W=0.25
4.48
6.65
2.17
6.12
1.78
17.97
SEB4
SE(B) a/W=0.25
3.75
6.50
2.75
5.84
1.94
29.45
SEB5
SE(B) a/W=0.25
3.93
6.25
2.32
5.30
1.65
28.88
py
pl
SEB3
co
SEB2
-n
SET1 H10
Sa
Table 1. Predicted and measured crack extension for tested fracture specimens.
225
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
(a)
Crack-length estimates
(b)
py
-n
ot
f
After testing, all specimens were subjected to heattinting treatment (300C for 30 min), and then air
cooled before being broken apart. Following standard
methods based on the nine-point average technique,
such as the procedure given by ASTM E1820 [6], the
initial and final crack length measured after the test
by means of an optical method were compared with
crack length estimates derived from the UC method.
Table 1 provides the predicted and measured crack
extension for all tested fracture specimens, where the
deviation is defined as:
io
n
co
(c)
Sa
pl
(d)
Fig.7.Typical fracture surfaces of tested crack configurations: (a,
b) three-point SE(B) specimen with a/W = 0.25; (c, d) clamped
SE(T) specimen with a/W = 0.4.
226
co
py
-n
pl
Sa
io
n
rib
ut
ot
f
Concluding remarks
is
t
or
d
Acknowledgments
This investigation is primarily supported by Fundao de
Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de So Paulo (FAPESP)
through Grant 2009/54229-3 and by Agncia Nacional
de Petrleo, Gs Natural e Biocombustveis (ANP).
The work of CR is also supported by the Brazilian
Council for Scientific and Technological Development
(CNPq) through Grants 3041322009-8 and 47658120095. The authors acknowledge Tenaris-Confab Brasil and
Lincoln Electric Brasil for providing support for the
experiments described in this work.
References
1.
J.W.Hutchinson, 1983. Fundamentals of the
phenomenological theory of nonlinear fracture
mechanics. J. Applied Mechanics, 50, pp 1042-1051.
2.
U.Zerbst, R.A.Ainsworth, and K.-H.Schwalbe,
2000. Basic principles of analytical flaw assessment
methods. Int. J. Pressure Vessels and Piping, 77, pp
855-867.
3. T.L.Anderson, 2005. Fracture mechanics: fundaments
and applications. 3rd Edn, CRC Press, New York.
4. British Standard Institution, 2005. Guide to
methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws
in metallic structures, BS7910.
5. American Petroleum Institute, 2007. API Standard
579-1/ASME FFS-1, Fitness-for-service, 2nd Edn.
6. ASTM, 2011. ASTM E1820: Standard test method
for measurement of fracture toughness
227
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
io
n
rib
ut
is
t
or
d
-n
ot
f
.
.
r
e
e
f
n
n
c
o
e
C
Exhibition
s
e
s
r
u
Co
its 26 year, the PPIM Conference is recogniz
ed as
Now entering
tional forum for sharing and learning ab
a
n
r
e
t
n
i
t
s
o
m
e
r
out best
the fo
aintenance and condition-monitoring te
m
e
m
i
t
e
if
l
n
i
s
e
chnology
practic
for natural gas, crude oil and product pipelines.
www.clarion.org
Sa
pl
co
py
th
Organized by
229
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
Fracture-toughness evaluations
by different test methods for the
Chinese Second West-East gas
transmission X-80 pipeline steels
-n
ot
f
or
d
RACTURE RESISTANCE DETERMINATION was one of the most important aspects during the
research and development of the Chinese 2nd West-East X-80 pipeline steels. More than 30 kinds
of longitudinal submerged-arc-welded (LSAW) X-80 pipes were tested using the 2-mm striker Charpy
V-notch (CVN) test, the 8-mm striker CVN test, and the instrumented drop-weight tear test (DWTT).
It was found that the threshold energy was about 200 J for the 2-mm striker and 8-mm striker CVN
tests. Below this threshold, the difference between the 2-mm striker CVN energy and the 8-mm striker
CVN energy was small. Above the threshold, however, the difference between the 2-mm striker CVN
energy and the 8-mm striker CVN energy increases as the CVN energy increases. It was also found that
there is a linear relation between the DWTT energy and the 8-mm striker CVN energy when the latter
is lower than 400 J/cm2. Otherwise, the DWTT energy trends to reach a plateau.
co
py
Sa
pl
230
NbV
Ceq
+ Ti
Si
Mn
Mo
Cu
Ti
Nb
Requirements of 2nd
WEGP, maximum
0.09
0.42
1.85
0.022
0.005
0.35
0.3
0.025
0.11
0.23
Experimental
materials,
average
0.05
0.24
1.76
0.012
0.001
0.28
0.23
0.01
0.073
0.106
0.46
0.19
Pcm
io
n
Element
Table 1.The chemical composition of 2nd WEGP X-80 pipeline steels (wt %).
ASTM E23-06
rib
ut
Nominal
dimension (mm)
Allowable
deviation (mm)
Length (L)
55
0.6
55
+0, -2.5
Height (H)
10
0.075
10
0.075
Width (W)
10
0.11
45
0.075
45
0.075
0.025
0.25
0.025
0.42
ot
f
90
90
90
10
27.5
90
-n
0.25
or
d
10
is
t
Nominal
dimension (mm)
pl
co
py
Table 2. Dimensional requirements of Charpy V-notch specimens according to GB/T 229-2007 and ASTM E23-06.
(b)
(a)
Sa
Fig.1. Photos of (a) CVN specimen and (b) pressed-notch DWTT specimen.
231
Temperature (C)
Specimen 2
Specimen 3
8-mm striker
2mm striker
8mm striker
2mm striker
8mm striker
20
305
400
263
389
302
431
300
420
270
396
295
-10
295
385
250
349
288
-20
290
350
208
278
-40
295
356
207
189
-60
285
330
98
128
io
n
2-mm striker
396
rib
ut
415
340
165
217
171
158
is
t
291
or
d
Table 3. Comparison between CVN energy determined by the 2-mm and 8-mm strikers for specimens #1, #2, and #3.
ot
f
py
-n
co
Sa
pl
(a)
(b)
Fig.2. Schematic of Charpy impact strikers: (a) 2-mm striker
used in ISO148; and (b) 8-mm striker used in ASTM E23.
rib
ut
io
n
232
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
(a)
Sa
pl
co
(b)
(c)
233
rib
ut
io
n
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
pl
Sa
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
234
ot
f
or
d
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
Conclusion
More than 30 kinds of X80 LSAW pipe steels made
for the Chinese 2nd WEGP were experimentally
investigated by different test methods using the 2-mm
striker CVN test, the 8-mm striker CVN test, and the
instrumented DWTT. From the tests and discussions
presented in this work, the following conclusions
are obtained:
The differences between KV2 and KV8 can
be ignored for Charpy impact energy below
200 J. However, when the impact energy is
greater than 200 J, the differences between
KV2 and KV8 increase with increasing energy,
and this is usually accompanied by the increase
of unbroken specimen occurrence.
Both KV2 and KV8 have the similar change
trends with the change of test temperature.
235
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
(a)
pl
(b)
Sa
Acknowledgments
This project was supported by Natural Science Basic
Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (Program
No. 2011JQ6017) and by China National Petroleum
Cooperation (CNPC).
References
1. ASTM E23-06. Standard test methods for notched
bar impact testing of metallic materials.
2.
ISO 148-1:2006. Metallic materials Charpy
pendulum impact test method.
236
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
237
io
n
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
RACK-TIP-OPENING displacement (or CTOD) has been the most widely used fracture-toughness
parameter within the oil and gas industry for nearly 50 years. Originally developed from research at
TWI in the UK during the 1960s, CTOD was an ideal parameter for characterizing the fracture toughness
of medium-strength carbon-manganese steels used in pressure vessels, offshore platforms, and pipelines
where the application of linear-elastic fracture mechanics was insufficient to account for their ductility.
Once fracture-toughness testing (CTOD testing) became standardized within BS 7448, ASTM E1290, ISO
12135, and ISO 15653, the CTOD concept enjoyed an established international reputation.The development
of standardized fitness-for-service assessment procedures, initially through the use of the CTOD design
curve, and then to use of the failure-analysis diagram approach described in BS 7910, also allowed CTOD
to be used directly to determine tolerable flaw sizes to assess the structural integrity of welds. In more
recent times, single-edge-notched tension specimen (SENT) testing has been enthusiastically adopted by the
pipeline industry in place of the traditional single-edge-notched bend (SENB) specimen used for standard
CTOD tests. However, currently there is no national standard describing SENT testing, although this is being
developed. SENT testing is particularly advantageous when pipeline girth welds are subjected to plastic
straining, and a number of assessment procedures based on CTOD have been and are being developed to
define strain capacity and flaw-acceptance criteria.
Sa
pl
co
py
238
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
Definition of CTOD
In the days of development of the CTOD testing
standard BS 5762 within TWI, both Mike Dawes
(Fig.5) and Alan Wells put forward formulae to
determine CTOD from the test result, based respectively
on either the load and crack-mouth opening, or
the crack-mouth opening alone. The Dawes
approach [12] which combined separate elastic and
plastic components of the crack-tip-opening
displacement was that which was ultimately adopted
by the British Standard, and in the early editions of
ASTM E1290.
The equation to determine CTOD from bend specimens
in the current fracture-toughness-testing standards
ISO 12135 and BS 7448 Part 1 comprises an elastic
component and a plastic component which are added
together. The elastic part is based on the applied force
239
rib
ut
io
n
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
Sa
pl
CTOD or =
f 0
0.5
W 2 YS E
W ( BBNW )
0.4 (W a0 )V p
+
0.4W + 0.6a0 + z
2
(1)
CTOD or =
K I2
(2)
m YS E '
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
240
-n
ot
f
or
d
py
Fitness-for-service assessment
Sa
pl
co
241
(a)
(b)
(c)
io
n
rib
ut
Fig.6. Some definitions of CTOD [14]: (a) early idealization; (b) CTOD at original crack-tip position; (c) CTOD at positions
subtending 90 at crack tip.
ot
f
or
d
is
t
SENT testing
co
py
-n
Sa
pl
rib
ut
io
n
242
or
d
CTODmat =
-n
ot
f
is
t
pl
co
py
Sa
J mat
X . YS (1 2 )
(3)
243
io
n
rib
ut
ot
f
is
t
5.
P.Houldcroft, 1996. Fifty years of service to
industry a brief and occasionally lighthearted
history of BWRA and The Welding Institute. TWI.
6. BS 5762:1979. Methods for crack opening displacement
(COD) testing. British Standards Institution.
7. BS 7448-1:1991. Fracture mechanics toughness tests:
Part 1: Method for determination of Kic, critical
CTOD and critical J values of metallic materials.
Idem.
8. BS EN ISO 15653:2010. Metallic materials - method
of test for the determination of quasistatic fracture
toughness of welds. Idem.
9. ASTM, 2008. ASTM E1290-08e1: Standard test
method for crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD)
fracture toughness measurement. (Withdrawn 2013),
American Society for Testing and Materials.
10. Ibid., 2011. ASTM E1820-11e1: Standard test method
for measurement of fracture toughness. Idem.
11. ISO 12135:2002, 2008. Metallic materials - unified
method of test for the determination of quasistatic
fracture toughness. International Standards
Organization.
12. M.G.Dawes, 1979. Elastic-plastic fracture toughness
based on COD and J-contour integral concepts. In:
Elastic-plastic fracture. ASTM STP 668, American
Society for Testing and Materials, pp 307-333.
13. BS 7910:2005. Guide to methods for assessing the
acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. British
Standards Institution.
14. J.D.Harrison, 1980. The state of the art in crack
tip opening displacement (CTOD) testing and analysis.
TWI Members Report 108/1980, April.
15. API 1104:1973. Standard for welding pipelines and
related facilities. 13th Edn (superseded), American
Petroleum Institute.
16. F.M.Burdekin and M.G.Dawes, 1971. Practical use of
linear elastic and yielding fracture mechanics with
particular reference to pressure vessels. In: Proc.
Institution of Mechanical Engineers Conference
on Practical Application of Fracture Mechanics to
Pressure Vessel Technology, London, 3-5 April, pp
28-37.
17. PD 6493:1980. Guidance on some methods for
the derivation of acceptance levels for defects in
fusion welded joints (superseded). British Standards
Institution.
J.D.Harrison, M.G.Dawes, G.L.Archer, and
18.
M.S.Kamath, 1979. The COD approach and its
application to welded structures. In: Elastic-plastic
fracture, ASTM STP 668, American Society for
Testing and Materials, pp 606-631.
UK Department of Energy, 1984 and 1990.
19.
Standard: Offshore installations: guidance on design,
construction and certification. 3rd and 4th Edns,
HMSO, London.
20. J.D.Harrison and H.G.Pisarski, 1986. Background to
new guidance on structural steel and steel construction
standards in offshore structures. HMSO, London.
or
d
The future
py
-n
co
Acknowledgements
pl
References
Sa
1.
T.L.Anderson, 1995. Fracture mechanics
fundamentals and applications. 2nd Edn, CRC Press.
2. G.Irwin, 1957. Analysis of stresses and strains near
the end of a crack traversing a plate. J. Applied
Mechanics, 24, pp 361-364.
3. J.Knott, 1997. From CODs to CODES (the realisation
of fracture mechanics in the UK): Fracture research
in retrospect an anniversary volume in honour of
R.George Irwins 90th Birthday, Ed. H.P.Rossmanith,
A.A.Balkema, Netherlands, ISBN 9054106794.
4. A.A.Wells, 1961. Unstable crack propagation in metals:
cleavage and fast fracture. Proc. Crack Propagation
Symposium, Cranfield, UK, 2, p 210.
244
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
-n
ot
f
Sa
pl
co
py
245
io
n
rib
ut
ot
f
or
d
is
t
MULTITUDE OF interdependent material and geometric factors determine the response of a girth weld
containing a defect under installation or service loads. A carefully designed curved-wide-plate (CWP)
test enables a direct assessment of these factors. Consequently, the CWP test provides, as a predictor of
the failure conditions, a tempting tool to assess girth-weld integrity, establish material requirements, and
validate numerical models or fracture-mechanics-based defect assessments. However, multi-disciplinary
skills are required to explore this potential. This paper outlines the CWP testing requirements and the
material data required to obtain representative information.The evolution, and the current and future roles,
of CWP testing are also discussed.
-n
pl
co
py
Sa
The 0.5% strain limit coincides with the strain at which the value of the
specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) is defined.
246
rib
ut
io
n
is
t
ot
f
or
d
co
CWP test
py
-n
Sa
pl
In CWP testing, the term notch represents a real defect, crack, flaw, or
any other discontinuity.
CWP testing
Since its inception in 1979, UGent uses the CWP
test to study girth-weld integrity for both stress-based
and strain-based (axial remote strain > 0.5%) designs.
At present, more than 1100 CWP tests on old-vintage
low-strength and modern high-strength pipe grades up
to API 5L X-120 have been conducted [32].
247
io
n
co
py
is
t
-n
ot
f
or
d
rib
ut
pl
Sa
Fig.1.Typical sampling
plan (not to scale).
or
d
ot
f
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
248
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
249
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
or
d
ot
f
py
-n
pl
co
Sa
Specimen dimensions
The nominal dimensions of the standard UGent
dog-bone-shaped CWP specimen are shown in Fig.2.
The minimum CWP dimensions are 1.4W (loading
pull-tabs) by 4W (overall specimen length), where W
is the width (arc length) of the prismatic part of the
Notch location
The notch is oriented parallel to the welding direction.
In the region of the notch, the weld reinforcement is
ground flush to facilitate the accurate placement of the
notch. For HAZ testing, the notch can be placed in
the HAZ of either the strongest or weakest pipe. As
discussed in a later section, hardness testing can serve
to assist notch-tip placement. Similarly, when significant
wall-thickness variations exist, the HAZ of the thinnest
ot
f
Fig.3. Digital-image
correlation picture
of longitudinal strain
distribution in a
field weld.
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
250
-n
Notch dimensions
Sa
pl
co
py
Notch-tip acuity
The early CWP tests were carried out with a pre-fatigued
sharpened notch. Provided that the Charpy toughness
(CVN) of the notch area exceeds the 30/40-J threshold,
Deformation measurements
To capture the effects of the strength differences of
the neighbouring pipes, and the possible wall-thickness
differences (which can vary up to 1.5mm in the pipeline),
the overall remote axial strain (gauge length: l0) as well
as the strains of the pipe sections at either side of the
girth weld (gauge lengths lA and lB, Fig.2) are measured.
For room-temperature CWP tests, a more comprehensive
picture of the complex strain distribution occurring
in a CWP specimen / field weld can be obtained
by means of digital-image correlation (DIC), Fig.3
[60], which illustrates that a relatively small difference
in yield strength (22 MPa in the case shown) can
cause very large differences in remote strains; the
weaker pipe strains three times more than the
stronger pipe.
The crack-mouth-opening displacement (CMOD) is
monitored by a clip-on measuring device which follows
the relative displacement of two steel pins straddling the
notch at mid-length. However, CMOD is not directly
comparable with CTOD, as measured in a CTOD bend
test. For an experienced eye, a CMOD-elongation/strain
plot provides a simple means to explain the effects on
strain capacity of toughness, weld-strength mismatch,
251
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
ot
f
Note:The pipe material in girth weld E exhibited discontinuous yielding (Lders plateau).
Using established relationships between hardness and
tensile strength, hardness-test results allow a quick
screening to determine the possible strength differences
between adjacent pipe metals, to identify the weakest
pipe, and to obtain an estimate of the level of tensile
strength mismatch, and thus to verify whether the girth
weld is under- or overmatched.
py
-n
Sa
pl
co
ot
f
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
252
-n
Fig.5. Macrosections and corresponding hardness maps of a GMAW and SMAW girth weld.
py
co
Sa
pl
Practical considerations
The variation of the tensile properties of the pipe in
the axial and circumferential directions is often neglected
in the assessment of CWP test results. The associated
difference in post-yield stress-strain response is another
253
rib
ut
io
n
Fig.6.The effect of sampling position on weld yield strength and Y/T ratio of an undermatched weld (specimens were taken
from the 9 and 10 oclock positions).
or
d
is
t
co
Toughness testing
py
-n
ot
f
Sa
pl
Strain criterion
Unless the CWP data are used to validate fracturemechanics methods, it is safe for stress-based designs
to require that the remote longitudinal strain meets
or exceeds the 0.5% level [13,14]. In this context,
the 0.5% criterion has been applied to establish the
Charpy requirements of pressure-vessel steels [73]. The
rationale for adopting the 0.5% performance criterion
rib
ut
io
n
254
-n
or
d
circumferential surface-breaking defect(s) for both stressbased and strain-based designs. Since the CWP test
captures the influential factors affecting weld performance,
the test data play a useful role in identifying the
limitations inherent in the commonly used ECAbased defect assessments and associated material-test
requirements. At this time, CWP testing of a carefully
designed and instrumented specimen is often used as
a reliable tool for developing tailor-made weld-defectacceptance criteria, which account for the specified
girth-weld performance requirements and the available
material properties. However, for strain-based designs,
the effect of internal pressure on the crack-driving force
must be accounted for by applying a correction factor.
ot
f
is
t
Fig.7. Cross sections of valid and invalid notch locations in CWP specimens which failed by pipe necking. Note that significant
blunting occurred prior to failure.
pl
co
py
Sa
Concluding remarks
This paper gives a brief overview of the developments
and potential of CWP testing to assess the integrity
of girth welds containing either a single or a multiple
References
1. R.Denys, 1999. ECA-based girth weld defect acceptance
levels. Pipeline & Gas Journal, Dec., 226, 9, p 60, Part I.
2. E.L.von Rosenberg, 1980. Alternative girth weld
defect assessment criteria for pipelines. Proc. Conf.
on Pipeline and Energy Plant and Piping, pp 319328. Permagon Press.
255
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
256
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
257
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
rib
ut
io
n
DONT MISS
AN ISSUE!
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
SUBSCRIBE TODAY
pipelinesinternational.com/subscribe
259
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
or
d
HE STANDARDIZED CHARPYV-notched (CVN) impact energy has been used by the pipeline industry
since the 1960s to characterize fracture toughness of pipeline steels, and is central to the fracturecontrol technology developed for gas transmission pipelines. The drop-weight tear test (DWTT) has been
standardized to assess fracture mode in such applications, with DWTT energy suggested as a means to
quantify toughness, although not standardized for such a use.
py
-n
ot
f
Battelle developed its two-curve model (BTCM) in the early 1970s to determine the required toughness
to arrest ductile fracture in gas transmission pipelines in terms of CVN impact energy.The BTCM has been
found viable for pipeline grades up to X-65, but issues have emerged in applications to higher grades. Thus
different correction methods were proposed over the years to improve the BTCM predictions.This paper
reviews the use of CVN and DWTT energy in conjunction with the BTCM to predict arrest toughness to
control running fractures in gas transmission pipelines, and evaluates correction methods adopted to extend
its use to X-80 and above. The correction methods include the Leis correction factor, the CSM factor, the
Wilkowski DWTT method, and others. These methods are evaluated through analysis and comparison of
predictions with full-scale experimental data. Suggestions to further improve the BTCM also are discussed.
Sa
pl
co
rib
ut
io
n
260
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
Sa
pl
1
(1)
f
to assess arrest toughness for modern pipelines made
R Pa
of high-toughness and high-strength steels. Corrections
and correlations are evaluated through analysis and
comparison of predictions with full-scale experimental where:
data. Suggestions to further improve the BTCM also
are discussed.
Vf is the fracture propagation velocity in m/s
(or ft/s);
CVN impact energy and ductile
C is a backfill parameter with a constant
fracture arrest methods
value of 2.75 (or 0.648) and 2.34 (or 0.47),
respectively for no backfill in air conditions
Because high internal pressure can cause rapid axial
and soil backfill;
ductile fracture propagation along a gas-transmission
f = y + 69 MPa (or 10 ksi) is a flow stress
pipeline, technology has evolved as noted above to
in MPa (ksi);
261
io
n
CV ( 2 /=
7.2 103 h2 ( Rt )
3)
2 f
RE
a =
] (2)
arccos exp[
2
24 f Dt / 2
3.33
is
t
or
d
ot
f
rib
ut
1/ 3
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
Leis correction
It has been found the proportion of propagation to
initiation energy dissipated in the CVN specimen
varies greatly with increasing toughness for ductile
pipeline steels [for example, Ref.4]. Experimental data
showed this proportion was fairly constant for the
lower-toughness steels, with the propagation component
tending to zero as the toughness increases toward
250 ft-lb (340 J). From these observations, and
based on the energy-dissipation principle, Leis [4]
developed a correction to the BTCM for the
Alliance pipeline project. In this correction, the arrest
toughness in terms of CVN energy is found to be the
same as that determined by the BTCM if the measured
CVN energy is less than 95 J (or 70 ft-lb); otherwise,
a non-linear correction between actual arrest toughness
and the BTCM-predicted arrest toughness is needed.
The Leis correction can be expressed mathematically as:
( CV )arrest = ( CV )BTCM
(4a)
rib
ut
io
n
262
or
d
multiplier required
the BTCM. Thus,
linear relationship
and the BTCM
ot
f
is
t
py
-n
co
Sa
pl
Statistical factor
As the CSM factor depends on full-scale burst tests
and is grade-specific, a more-general factor was sought
via a statistical analysis. Wolodko and Stephens [14]
at C-FER obtained a statistical correction for testing
involving single-phase decompression in grades from
X-70 to X-100 in the form:
CSM factor
for (CV) 95 J
(4b)
(5)
263
rib
ut
io
n
1/ 6
Vf = C
f P
1
K R Pa
(8)
ot
f
or
d
is
t
pl
co
py
-n
where:
Sa
Backfill correction
In the fracture curve of the BTCM (Equn 1), the
effect of backfill on the fracture velocity is lumped
into a backfill coefficient that is empirically
based, and does not distinguish between different
soil types or strengths. In Equn 1, a constant
power-law exponent of 1/6 is fixed for all kinds of
backfill. In order to improve this, and to consider
the backfill effect due to different backfill depths and
different soil types, Rudland and Wilkowski [15, 16]
conducted a series of burst tests for gas pipelines.
where:
;
Rref is a reference fracture resistance at the
reference speed Vref; and
is a fracture-speed-dependent index.
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
264
ot
f
or
d
-n
Reformulated BTCM
Sa
pl
co
py
(ft-lb/in2)
(10)
265
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
Sa
E
E
= 175
1500 (11)
A BN DWTT
A PN DWTT
where the energy densities and the constant are in
ft-lb/in2.
An alternative to the brittle-notch DWTT specimen was
a termed the static-precracked (SPC) DWTT specimen,
which is the interrupted test of Fearnehough, but uses
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
266
175 E
E
=
1.3
3 A DWTT
A CVN (W 2000 )
pl
co
py
-n
600.0 (12)
Sa
175 E
E
=
3 A DWTT
A CVN (W 1977 )
ot
f
or
d
0.385
600.0 (13)
E
E
= 0.9431
A SPC DWTT
A PN DWTT (ft-lb/in2) (14)
267
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
ot
f
or
d
-n
0.9563
2
100 (ft-lb/in ) (15)
py
E
= 0.3144
A
A
CVN
DWTT
co
Sa
pl
2.597
2.597
12.4
(16)
16.8 (17)
rib
ut
io
n
268
where:
co
py
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
Sa
pl
t f
Pa = 0.382
D
0.393
(18)
3.81107 R (19)
]
arccos exp[
2f Dt
269
rib
ut
io
n
or
d
is
t
t/D
3.22 + 0.20
(25)
t0 / D0
ot
f
3.42
-n
co
4.57 107 R
] (22)
arccos exp[
2f Dt
t f
Pa = 0.382
D
py
f P
=
Vf
1 (21)
R Pa
Sa
pl
Dt
= 0.670
D0t0 (23)
D
= 0.393
D0
5/ 2
t
t0
1/ 2
(24)
rib
ut
io
n
270
-n
ot
f
or
d
is
t
pl
co
py
Sa
271
io
n
rib
ut
References
1.
X.-K.Zhu, 2013. Existing methods in ductile
fracture propagation control for high strength
gas transmission pipelines. Proc. ASME Pressure
Vessel and Pipeline Conference (PVP 2013), July,
Paris, France.
2. W.A.Maxey, 1974. Fracture initiation, propagation,
and arrest. Proc. 5th Symposium on Line Pipe
Research, November, Houston, USA.
3. R.J.Eiber, T.A.Bubenik, and W.A.Maxey, 1993.
Fracture control technology for natural gas pipelines.
NG-18 Report 208, Pipeline Research Council
International, Project PR-3-9113, Battelle.
4. B.N.Leis et al., 1998. Relationship between apparent
Charpy Vee-notch toughness and the corresponding
dynamic crack-propagation resistance. International
Pipeline Conference, Calgary Canada, pp. 723-732.
5. G.Mannucci, G.Demofonti, D.Harris, L.Barsanti,
and H.-G.Hillenbrand, 2001. Fracture properties of
API X100 gas pipeline steels. Proc. 13th Biennial
Joint Technical Meeting on Pipeline Research, 30
April-4 May, New Orleans, USA.
6. G.Wilkowski, D.L.Rudland, H.Xu, and N.Sanderson,
2006. Effect of grade on ductile fracture arrest
criteria for gas pipelines. Proc. International Pipeline
Conference, Canada. Paper IPC006-10350.
7. E.Sugie et al., 1982. A study of shear crack
propagation in gas-pressurized pipelines. J. Pressure
Vessel Technology, 104, p 338.
8. B.N.Leis and R.J.Eiber, 2013. Fracture control
technology for transmission pipelines. Battelle
Report on PRCI Projects PR-003-00108 and PR003-084506 (update of Reference 3).
py
-n
ot
f
is
t
or
d
pl
co
Conclusions
Sa
272
or
d
is
t
rib
ut
io
n
Sa
pl
co
py
-n
ot
f
io
n
0 0 0 2 0 1 2
20-23 October
11-12 November
11-12 November
11-13 November
11-15 November
11-15 November
11-15 November
11-15 November
11-15 November
18-20 November
ot
f
or
d
is
t
6-9 October
-n
NOV 2013
rib
ut
TRAINING
OCT 2013
1-4 October
2013
18-22 November
2-4 December
4-6 December
4-6 December
5-6 December
Sa
pl
DEC 2013
2-3 December
co
py
20-22 November
Working with a faculty of 38 leading industry experts, Clarion and Tiratsoo Technical are privileged to provide some of the best
available industry based technical training courses for those working in the oil and gas pipeline industry, both onshore and offshore.
Complete syllabus and registration details for each course are available at:
www.clarion.org
pl
Sa
py
co
io
n
rib
ut
is
t
or
d
ot
f
-n