Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90262
Using Hardness to Estimate Pipe Yield Strength; Field Application of ASME CRTD - Vol. 91
Bill Amend. P.E. Det Norske Veritas (USA), Inc. Yorba Linda, CA, USA Phone: (714) 350-1838 E-mail: bill.amend@dnv.com

ABSTRACT The mechanical properties of some operating pipelines are unknown or uncertain, yet pipe yield strength is a required input of design pressure calculations. ASME CRTD -Vol. 91 Applications Guide for Determining the Yield Strength of InService Pipe by Hardness Evaluation: Final Report[1] describes the means by which the lower bound yield strength of a pipeline segment can be determined based on nondestructive measurements of hardness in the field on randomly selected pipe joints. The procedure allows the lower bound limit of yield strength to be determined at a selected confidence level and with selected percentile limit of pipe that could have yield strengths lower than the calculated lower bound limit of yield strength. Key steps in the process include : Preassessment to ensure that the pipeline segment includes pipe having consistent characteristics Development of a qualified hardness testing procedure that replicates laboratory hardness test results Qualification testing of the test technician Adjustment of the data from randomly selected pipe joints to estimate the lower bound hardness of the pipeline segment Determination of the lower bound yield strength for the pipeline segment based upon the calculated lower bound hardness. This paper describes the key requirements of ASME CRTD Vol. 91, the capabilities and limitations of the procedure for estimating yield strength from hardness, and the field application of the procedure.

INTRODUCTION When pipe yield strength is unknown codes and standards typically require that very conservative assumptions of yield strength be used or that pipe samples be removed from service and destructively tested. As a result, the internal pressure may be limited to relatively low values, thus limiting pipeline throughput, or large expenses are incurred for removal and testing of samples. Currently, 49CFR Part 192 [2] requires that destructive testing be used to establish the yield strength for pipe of unknown grade unless the operator chooses to use an assumed yield strength of only 24 ksi (165.5 MPa) in design calculations. To obtain the required specimens for testing, the pipeline must either be removed from service and depressured, or the samples must be removed by hot tapping coupons from which tensile specimens meeting the size requirements of API 5L can be obtained. The number of required tensile tests depends upon the number of pipe joints in the pipeline segment of unknown properties. An alternative to destructive testing of pipeline samples could allow a pipeline operator to safely establish the lower bound yield strength of in-service pipelines without having to either 1) make new welds on pressurized piping or 2) removing the pipeline from service to obtain samples. The results could be used as an alternative to a very low assumed yield strength, or to support the validation of uncertain pipeline records or values. In 1999 the ASME Gas Pipeline Safety Research Committee published "Determining the Yield Strength of In-Service Pipe," as ASME CRTD -Vol. 57 [3]. ASME CRTD -Vol. 57 established the relationship between Rockwell B hardness (HRB) and the lower bound yield strength of steel pipe based upon analysis of empirical data. In view of the scope of the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

data, the relationship of hardness to yield strength is considered to be valid for wrought steel pipe (not cast iron or wrought iron pipe) having the characteristics listed in Table 1: Table 1 Boundary Conditions for Applying ASME CRTD - Vol. 57 API 5L Grade X52 and lower pipe Manufactured before 1980 Nominal Pipe Size 4 inches (102 mm) Diameter/thickness ratios 20 DEVELOPMENT OF A FIELD HARDNESS TESTING COMPANION GUIDE TO CRTD - VOL. 57 CRTD - Vol. 57 established the statistical relationship between Rockwell B (HRB) hardness of a defined population of steel pipe and a lower bound pipe yield strength. While the statistically based correlation of hardness to yield strength was established for pipes that meet the boundary conditions, the report was not immediately transferrable to field applications that are intended to determine the yield strength of an entire pipeline segment. Two challenges remained, as noted in Table 2: Table 2 Challenges to Field Application of ASME CRTD Vol. 57 How can hardness measurements comparable to standard laboratory Rockwell B measurements be made under field conditions? How can the minimum hardness of a long pipeline segment be estimated using data from a limited number of sampled pipes? To address those two challenges, a group of sponsors cofunded a research project managed by ASME. The project culminated in the publication of CRTD -Vol. 91, Applications Guide for Determining the Yield Strength of In-Service Pipe by Hardness Evaluation: Final Report in 2009. CRTD -Vol. 91 is designed to enable users to achieve each of the key steps in determining the lower bound hardness for a pipeline segment (Table 3). Table 3 Key Conditions for Determining Pipeline Segment Lower Bound Hardness The procedure for determining yield strength based upon hardness is suitable for the subject pipeline segment, The hardness testing procedure has been appropriately qualified and is applicable to the pipeline segment, The test technician is qualified to make the required measurements, and The resulting calculated lower bound hardness of the pipeline segment accounts for variability in the test data and the number of tested pipe joints.

The report, CRTD - Vol. 91 standardized an approach by which pipeline operators and service providers could demonstrate that: 1) Field hardness testing procedures provide results comparable to laboratory testing procedures, 2) Test technicians demonstrate adequate skills to perform the testing under conditions comparable to those anticipated in field testing, and 3) The test data generated on randomly selected samples provide defensible estimates of the lowest probable hardness in a long pipeline segment. Following the publication of CRTD - Vol.- 91, a related Field Checklist was developed that is intended to enable the reliable and consistent application of the testing procedures and data analysis by field technicians [4]. Finally, a spreadsheet version of the checklist was developed to further enable easy application by field technicians having little background in quality control of data and statistical analysis. CRTD - Vol. 91 describes in detail the means by which each of the key conditions is achieved. The content of CRTD - Vol. 91 includes the topics summarized in Table 4. Table 4 CRTD -Vol. 91 Topics The background of using hardness testing to estimate yield strength of steel Advantages and limitations of various hardness measurement methods applicable to field hardness testing and a criteria for selecting appropriate testers Limitations on the applicability of the test procedure with regard to effects of environmental variables, pipeline operating conditions, pipe size, wall thickness, maximum yield strength, pipe vintage, proximity to welds, seams and areas of mechanical damage on the pipe surface, and selection of test locations on pipe joints Appropriate pipe surface preparation procedures Requirements for hardness test procedure qualification and technician qualification testing, In-process validation checks on hardness test results, A statistically defensible methodology for determining the appropriate number of test locations and calculating the lower bound hardness expected for the tested pipeline segment The methodology for determining the pipeline segment yield strength based on the lower bound hardness In addition CRTD - Vol. 91 describes optional strategies for requesting special permits from regulatory authorities to use hardness testing in lieu of destructive mechanical testing for establishing the yield strength of pipelines. The CRTD can therefore serve as the basis for developing statistically

Copyright 2012 by ASME

defensible Company procedures for economically and nondestructively determining the lower bound yield strength of in-service pipelines when yield strength is unknown. The general sequence of steps to achieve the four key conditions of Table 3 is illustrated graphically in Figure 1.

facilitate the consistent documentation of each step in the testing and data analysis process. The Field Checklist is meant to be used by technicians who are familiar with the details of the testing methodology and who have been properly qualified using a qualified hardness testing procedure. The steps required to perform the complete hardness test methodology can be further subdivided into steps that are performed before the field work begins, and those steps performed in the field, as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. Each step is described in detail in the sections that follow.

Figure 1 Summary of Key Steps Note that a subset of the steps described by CRTD - Vol. 91 is embodied in a Field Checklist. The Field Checklist describes the step-by-step procedure for field technicians to follow to ensure that the hardness testing methodology is followed consistently and that the data meets predetermined quality standards. The rather complicated statistical calculations and data quality checks are broken down into simple intermediate calculations that are easily performed with a pocket calculator. The Field Checklist has also been adapted to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in which all calculations are automated and conditional formatting is used to alert the user to data that does not meet predefined quality standards. Both the Excel spreadsheet and the paper version of the Field Checklist Figure 2 Steps performed before field work begins PREASSESSMENT Pre-assessment establishes process feasibility, provides a basis for selection of the appropriate hardness testing equipment, and identifies locations or segments where the pipe surface accessibility for hardness testing may not be sufficient or practicable. Successful use of the process for determining the yield strength of a pipeline segment based upon hardness measurements requires that the subject pipeline segment be suitable for testing with the available hardness test instruments and that the segment be comprised of a single population of pipe so that the statistical methods embedded in the process

Copyright 2012 by ASME

remain valid. A single population of pipe consists of pipe joints having basically the same physical and metallurgical characteristics. Examples of changes in characteristics that indicate that more than one population of pipe exists in the segment include but are not limited to evidence of changes in nominal wall thickness, diameter, seam type or manufacturing process, manufacturer, nominal pipe length, and evidence of use as reclaimed or rehabilitated pipe of unknown origin. Changes in external coating type, installation date or installation work order alone may or may not indicate that the pipe is comprised of multiple populations.

The report organizes preassessment data into several categories, including Pipe-Related, Maintenance-Related, Operational Data, and Corrosion-Related records. Some of the data elements in the various categories related to selection of the most appropriate hardness test method, while others relate to whether or not the pipe segment is comprised of multiple populations of pipe. Some of the considered data elements are intended to identify the presence of electrical fields, extreme service temperatures, pulsation, vibration, residual magnetism, and other characteristics that can interfere with measurement accuracy of some types of field hardness testers. The presence of significant amounts of internal or external corrosion can not only influence personnel safety, but can reduce wall thickness to the extent where some hardness test methods are not applicable or where correction factors must be applied to the measured hardness. Other data elements identify conditions that may make the testing infeasible. For example, since hardness testing requires direct access to the pipe surface for at least some of the pipe joints, conditions that impede access to the pipe, such as presence of restricted access areas (e.g., cased crossings, water crossing, areas restricted by local permitting), or rugged topography where excavation is difficult can make the process impractical. HARDNESS TESTER ATTRIBUTES AND SELECTION Figure 4 illustrates the general types of available field hardness testing technology. Conventional hardness test methods have been subdivided into static/quasi-static (slow loading) indentation methods, rebound (spring loaded impact), and dynamic loading.

Figure 4 Field Hardness Tester Classification Figure 3- Steps performed in the field

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Static/quasi-static methods include the ultrasonic contact impedence (UCI) method, a portable version of the standard Rockwell hardness tester that is mounted to the pipe with a strap or magnetic show, the through indentor view (TIV) device, and spring loaded devices that apply a manually triggered, calibrated indentor load to the pipe surface. The term Rockwell-type tester is sometimes used to describe those methods. The ball rebound method based on the Leeb hardness (HL) scale uses a small spring loaded ball that impacts and rebounds off the pipe surface. The ratio between impact and rebound velocity is used to calculate the hardness. The field portable Brinell hardness testers, typically either the TeleBrineller tester or the Pin type Brinell tester comprise the impact load test method. The hardness is derived from measurements of the impression diameter. Since both the UCI and TIV methods result in very small indentations, both are very sensitive to surface preparation effects. The ball rebound testers result in a slightly larger indentation, but are also very sensitive to surface preparation and sensitive to wall thickness. Correction factors are required for measurements made on pipe with a wall thickness les than about 0.8 inches and their use is not recommended on thicknesses of less than about 0.25 inches (6.4 mm). In comparison, the Rockwell-type testers and Brinell testers sample an appreciably larger volume of the pipe surface and are somewhat less sensitive to surface preparation. The Rockwell-type and the Brinell testers are also less likely to be influenced by electrical fields and extreme ambient temperatures, since they are less reliant upon electronics for the test procedure. However, each of the several test methods described above has its own advantages and limitations and no single test method is best for all applications. HARDNESS TESTING PROCEDURE QUALIFICATION The hardness testing procedure qualification test is similar to a welding procedure qualification test. The purpose of the hardness test procedure qualification is to ensure that procedure used is capable of obtaining accurate hardness data on pipes representative of those to be tested in service. The CRTD Vol. 91 describes the required content of a documented hardness testing procedure, including the information listed in Table 5. Essential variables have been defined to set the limits for procedure applicability. For example, the procedure must be qualified by testing within 30 degrees of the intended circumferential position that will be tested in the field. The pipe diameter is grouped into pipe equal to or larger than 10inch (254 mm) nominal, and pipe smaller than 10-inch (254 mm) nominal. The procedure is considered to be qualified if coupons cut from the areas of the hardness tests are submitted

for testing using standard laboratory Rockwell B scale hardness test methods and the difference between the data from the field hardness method and the laboratory hardness test is within the specified tolerance. Table 5 Required Procedure Specification Content Hardness tester-specific information and limitations, Pipe diameter range, Wall thickness range, Coating removal and surface preparation methods, Axial and circumferential position of the hardness tests made on the pipe, The circumferential positions qualified, The tolerance on indentor alignment and whether any alignment devices are used, Tester calibration methods, Ambient weather condition limitations, and, The units of hardness used TEST TECHNICIAN QUALIFICATION The test technician qualification test is similar to a welder performance qualification test. The purpose of the test is to ensure that technician is capable of using the qualified testing procedure to obtain accurate hardness data on pipes representative of those to be tested in service and in positions that the technician may be required to work. Performing the tests on the side or bottom of a pipe can be significantly more difficult than performing the same test on the top of the pipe. The test technician is considered to be qualified if they have demonstrated the ability to perform the Primary technician functions in Table 6. The technician or other personnel on site should be capable of performing the Secondary technician functions of Table 6. Some of the Secondary technician functions relate to the ability to verify that the as-found pipe is consistent with what is expected based on the results of the preassessment. As noted in Figure 3, the presence of conditions that conflict with the findings of the preassessment triggers the need to reassess the suitability of the segment for testing. Those functions not only pertain directly to ensuring the accurate measurement of data, but they also provide a means to verify that the as-found pipe attributes match the preassessment data that was used to define the pipe population and to select an appropriate hardness test method.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 6 Primary and Secondary Test Technician Functions Primary Technician Functions Verify proper operation of the test equipment Calibrate the test equipment using a standard reference block Produce hardness measurements that are within +2% and -4% of the of the hardness measured using a standard laboratory HRB hardness test conducted on a coupon cut from the qualification test pipe Produce hardness measurements that meet the applicable standards for data quality Secondary Technician Functions Identification of pipe seam type and location Identification of coating type Identification of pipe features indicative of reused or rehabilitated pipe or of specific manufacturers Identification of physical, operating, or environmental conditions that could adversely affect hardness testing Measurement of pipe wall thickness using ultrasonic thickness gages Completion of proper surface preparation Completion of basic statistical calculations (mean, standard deviation, data range, etc.) to support in-process validation of data being collected

lengths selected for testing be tested in the middle third and near one end of the pipe. If significant variation in hardness is found, then remaining pipe can be tested at a single location corresponding to the area of lowest measured hardness found in the initial testing. SURFACE PREPARATION As previously noted, some of the test methods are extremely sensitive to surface preparation and rely upon application of small loads that result in very small indentations. As a result, proper surface preparation is necessary to ensure that the prepared surface minimizes the effect of any surface decarburization and does not include any work hardening of the surface that could result from worn abrasives smearing the surface. While the surface preparation requirements for each method can differ slightly and should meet or exceed the hardness testing equipment manufacturers recommendations, the author has had good success by removing a minimum of 0.01 inch (0.25 mm) of the surface of the pipe to ensure minimal effect of surface decarburization. The initial grinding or sanding with coarse grit paper is followed by use of powered sanding discs of successively finer grit until a final finish equivalent to 180 grit or finer is obtained. The orientation of the sanding disc relative to the pipe surface should be altered so that the direction of abrasive scratches rotate by about 90 degrees each time a finer grit disc is used. The sanding should continue until scratches from the previous disc are removed. Ultrasonic thickness measurements are made to record the initial and final thickness of the prepared area to ensure that at least 0.01 inch (0.025 mm) has been removed. A marking pen is used to bound the area of the pipe surface in which appropriate surface preparation has been achieved and all hardness measurements are made within that area. Typically an area about 4 inches x 4 inches (100 x 100 mm) is more than adequate to perform the required measurements.

SELECTION OF TEST LOCATION WITHIN A PIPE LENGTH Two primary factors are considered when selecting a test location on a specific length of pipe. First, since the objective is to measure the hardness of the pipe body, the test location should be unaffected by girth welds, seam welds, fabrication welds, mechanical damage, or repairs. Generally, measurements should be made at least two inches from those features and at least 12 inches (305 mm) from any open pipe end. Second, the test location should represent the area most likely to have the lowest hardness on the pipe joint. Available data suggests that no systematic variation in hardness exists from one end of a pipe joint to the other for seamless pipe and pre1960 pipe produced on conventional hot rolling mills. As a result, the axial location of the test is not critical. For pipe produced after 1960 that may have been produced by controlled rolling practices, yield strength, and therefore hardness, tends to be highest near the pipe ends. However, the patterns of hardness variation can be different in pipe from different mills. Therefore, it is recommended that initial pipe

Figure 5 Two hardness test locations separated by a girth weld

Copyright 2012 by ASME

DATA VALIDATION Although a hardness test instrument has been properly calibrated and is working properly, minor variations in operator technique combined with point to point variations in the metallurgical characteristics of the pipe combine to produce variability in the hardness measurements. By reviewing simple statistical measures such as the coefficient of variation (COV) and the data range (i.e., the maximum measurement minus the minimum measurement) and comparing them against predetermined target values, the technician can quickly determine if the measured data indicate excessive variations in the test technique or the metallurgical characteristics. For example, the recommended limits for UCI hardness data are shown in Table 7. Table 7 Data Quality Checks for UCI Hardness Data The COV should be no greater than 0.07 on each pipe The range should be no greater than 0.1 x the mean hardness on each pipe High standard deviations produce a high COV resulting in lower calculated values for lower bound hardness of the pipeline segment and, therefore, lower estimates of yield strength. If the technician is confident that the variations are unrelated to the test technique, variations can often be reduced by re-preparing the test surface to a slightly deeper plane below the original surface of the pipe and/or finishing with a finer grit abrasive (for example, 220 or 320 grit instead of 180 grit). CONVERTING MEASURED HARDNESS VALUES TO ESTIMATES OF LOWER BOUND YIELD STRENGTH CRTD - Vol. 57 established the method by which the lower bound yield strength of pipe could be estimated if the hardness measured by a standard laboratory HRB hardness test is known. The preceding sections primarily described how hardness measurements made under field conditions could replicate the results of standard laboratory hardness tests. However, there is seldom a need to determine the yield strength of a single joint of pipe. Rather, the pipeline operator typically wants to know what the lowest yield strength is likely to be anywhere in a long pipeline segment. Since it is seldom practical to measure the hardness of all pipe joints within the segment, the lower bound hardness anywhere within the segment must be estimated based on data from randomly selected pipe joints within the long segment. The estimate of the lower bound hardness is influenced by the variables summarized in Table 8. Some of the listed variables, including the number of tested pipes, the number of measurements made on each pipe, the mean value of hardness, and the standard deviation of the measurements, are strictly dependent upon the measured data.

On the other hand, the confidence level and the targeted percentile are selected by the user and reflect the degree of conservatism desired in the answer. For example, a confidence level of 95%, expressed as = 0.05, and a targeted percentile of 1%, expressed, as * = 0.01, means that the user is calculating a lower bound hardness indicative of a 95% confidence level ( = 0.05), that no more than 1% (* = 0.01) of the pipe (1 out of 100 joints) in the segment is expected to have a hardness lower than the calculated lower bound. If, however, more conservative estimates are preferred, the user could select a higher confidence level (smaller ) and/or a smaller targeted percentile (smaller *) . For example, at = 0.01, and * = 0.001, the user would conclude that at a 99% confidence level, no more than 0.1% of the pipe (1 out of 1000 joints) would have a hardness lower than the calculated lower bound. As the level of conservatism increases (smaller and *) the calculated lower bound hardness decreases. Table 8 The Effects of Test Variables on the Predicted Lower Bound Hardness of the Pipeline Segment Variable Effect of Change on Predicted Minimum Hardness of the Pipeline Segment More hardness measurements on each pipe Higher average hardness of each pipe Higher standard deviation of hardness measurements on each pipe Higher standard deviation of average hardness on all tested pipes More tested pipes Very slightly increases Increases Decreases Decreases Increases (smaller effect as sample size continues to increase) Decreases Increases

Higher selected confidence level Larger selected targeted percentile

CRTD-Vol. 91 states that a confidence level of 95% ( = 0.05) is typical and a targeted percentile of either 1% or 0.1% (* = 0.01 or 0.001) are recommended when determining lower bound hardness. Similar selection of targets for conservatism are applied when converting the lower bound hardness to the estimate of lower bound yield strength. CRTD Vol. 91 recommends using confidence levels of 95%, 99%, or 99.9% with a targeted percentile of 0.1%. Table 9 illustrates how the predicted yield strength is affected by the lower bound hardness and also by

Copyright 2012 by ASME

two different combinations of confidence level and targeted percentile. The process of adjusting the measured hardness data to address the size of the random sample, variability in the measured data, and desired level of conservatism is illustrated in Figure 6. After the lower bound hardness is calculated, that hardness number is used to determine the lower bound yield strength as described in CTRD-57 and the example illustrated in Table 9. Table 9 Examples of the Effect of Confidence Level and Targeted Percentile on Predicted Lower Bound Yield Strength of a Pipe or Pipe Segment Hardness Predicted Yield Predicted Yield (HRB) Strength at Strength at 99% Confidence, 0.5% Targeted Percentile KSI (MPa) 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 31.4 (216) 33.8 (233) 36.1 (249) 38.3 (264) 40.6 (280) 42.8 (295) 45.0 (310) 99.9% Confidence, 0.1% Targeted Percentile KSI (MPa) 28.3 (195) 30.7 (212) 33.1 (228) 35.4 (244) 37.7 (260) 39.9 (275) 42.1 (290) Figure 6 Process for calculating lower bound hardness from pipe random sample hardness data ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful input that Mr. Jon Loker of ASME provided during the development of this paper. REFERENCES [1] Clark, E.B, Amend, W.E., Applications Guide for Determining the Yield Strength of In-Service Pipe by Hardness Evaluation, Final report, CRTD -Vol. 91, ASME, 2009 [2] Anon., Transportation of Natural and Other gas By Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 192, [3] Burgoon, D.A., Chang, O.C., et.al, Final Report on Determining the Yield Strength of In-service Pipe, CRTD Vol. 57, ASME, December 1999 [4] Amend, W.E, Field Inspector Checklist for Using the ASME Applications Guide for Determining the Yield Strength of In-Service Pipe by Hardness Evaluation, Det Norske Veritas (USA), Inc., November, 2011

CONCLUSIONS The lower bound yield strength of long pipeline segments can be calculated by using carefully conducted, qualified hardness testing procedures carried out on random samples or pipe in the field. Key steps in the process include: Preassessment to ensure that the pipeline segment includes a single population of pipe having consistent characteristics Development of a qualified testing procedure that has been shown to replicate laboratory test results Qualification of the test technician to demonstrate their ability to produce reliable test results and detect anomalous data Adjustment of the sample data to estimate the lower bound hardness of the pipeline segment Determination of the lower bound yield strength for the long pipeline segment based upon the calculation of the lower bound hardness of the segment

Copyright 2012 by ASME