Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference

IPC2012

September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90549

SPECIFYING MATERIAL TOUGHNESS TO AVOID BRITTLE FRACTURE INITIATION IN PIPE FITTINGS AND COMPONENTS

Gery M. Wilkowski and Do-Jun Shim Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus 3518 Riverside Drive - Suite 202 Columbus, OH 43221 U.S.A.

ABSTRACT Recently, there have been a few failures with brittle

ACRONYMS

 

same as when the material exhibits fully ductile fracture behavior

fractures occurring during hydrostatic or pneumatic proof testing in pipe fittings that rekindled the need for paying attention on how to specify the toughness for pipe fittings and other components such as valves. This paper shows how an analysis procedure called the “Master Curve of Fracture Transition Temperatures” can be used to specify a Charpy shear area percent at some target temperature so that ductile initiation

FPTT Fracture propagation transition temperature, the lowest temperature where the failure mode is fully ductile for a dynamic propagating crack HAZ Heat-affected zone OMAE Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (conference) PN-DWTT Pressed-notch DWTT specimen

behavior occurs for either a surface or through-wall cracks in

PRCI

Pipeline Research Council International

fittings, components or pipe material at the minimum design

PSL 1

A classification of pipe with specific

temperature. Due to differences in thickness, loading rate, and constraint conditions, the Charpy test transition temperature will

PSL 2

requirements as defined in API 5L A classification of pipe with higher requirements

not be at the same temperature as the minimum design temperature. In addition to the background and summary of

SEN(B)

that PSL 1 pipe as defined in API 5L Single-edge-notched bend test specimen

prior efforts, several examples of full-scale pipe and fitting/valve

SEN(T)

Single edge-notched tension test specimen

fracture tests on different materials will be presented to show that the methodology works well. It is also possible from this method to specify the Charpy shear area percent at some temperature to ensure that brittle fracture propagation will not

SC-FITT FITT for a pipe with a surface crack (axial or circumferential TWC-FITT FITT for a pipe with a through-wall crack (axial or circumferential)

occur. There are some limits on this methodology for some newer steels that have very high Charpy energy values, and those conditions are also summarized.

INTRODUCTION Pipe and fittings are made from ferritic steel that has a transition temperature for brittle versus ductile fracture behavior. Brittle fracture behavior could cause fractures to propagate for

ASME

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

long distances in high energy natural gas systems or large crack

ASTM

American Society of Testing and Materials

opening for leakage in liquid lines. Brittle fracture initiation

API

American Petroleum Institute

behavior is also possible, and in that case the critical flaw sizes

a/w, a/t flaw depth/specimen width or thickness CTOD Crack-Tip-Opening-Displacement test, typically a three-point bend test DWTT Drop weight Tear Test (API 5L3) FITT Fracture initiation transition temperature, the lowest temperature where the failure load is the

are much smaller to start the propagating crack. The transition temperature for brittle fracture initiation is much lower than the transition temperature for brittle fracture propagation. Hence, if adequate toughness is met for preventing brittle fracture propagation, there is inherently sufficient toughness to prevent brittle fracture initiation. Brittle fracture behavior should be avoided whenever possible. Pragmatically, it is desired to

ensure ductile fracture initiation behavior in all pipe and fittings in gas or liquid lines. Thus, for gas or other high energy lines, ductile fracture propagation behavior should be required.

SUMMARY OF INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE FRACTURE TRANSITION TEMPERATURE MASTER CURVE Starting in 2005, an empirical methodology for the prediction of a Master Curve for Fracture Transition Temperatures [1,2,3,4,5,6] was developed. Reference [1] presents the details of how one can construct the Fracture Transition Temperature master Curves, and a spreadsheet program was supplied to PRCI members as part of the project for Reference [3]. Alternatively, one can take any of the master curve figures and shift all of the curves up or down in temperature by the relative difference in the Charpy transition temperature for their material to the material used in creating the particular curve in this paper. This Master Curve is a relationship between impact tests and surface or through-wall cracks in pipes to predict the transition temperatures for brittle- to-ductile behavior for crack initiation and dynamic crack propagation. This work involved correlations of thousands of lab tests and hundreds of pipe fracture tests to establish the Master Curve of Fracture Transition Temperatures. The methodology was initially developed from older gas pipeline data combined with low grade ferritic nuclear pipe results [1,2], then validated for very old line pipe (1927 to 1948 vintage pipes [3,4]), and more recently has been shown to work on newer X100 weld metal as well [5]. In addition, the methodology has been implemented into Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for ferritic nuclear pipe applications [6]. This methodology allows one to use the shear area percent from Charpy or DWTT specimen testing versus temperature results, and predict the lowest temperature that ductile fracture initiation (under quasi-static loading) and ductile fracture propagation will occur for a pipe/fitting with either a through-wall crack or a surface crack (of any orientation). A series of transition temperature relationships was developed and used in constructing the whole Master Curve that generally applies to any ferritic steel with the exception of those having very high Charpy energy values [Charpy plateau energy values greater than 200 J (147.5 ft-lb)], see Reference [7]. From these correlations, one only has to know the temperature at which the Charpy specimen has 85-percent shear area (85% SATT), and then the lowest temperature for ductile failure mode for a surface or through-wall crack in a pipe or fitting is determined. It also doesn’t matter if the crack is in the axial, helical, or circumferential orientation in the pipe or fitting. As shown later in this document, these results are valid for cracks in elbows, valves, and other fittings as well. To understand this Master Curve of Fracture Transition Temperatures, it is necessary to recognize the following aspects and their correlations.

The Charpy specimen is an empirical impact test. From the

test the energy and shear area percent is determined as a function of temperature.

o

Pipe materials of different thicknesses may require

Charpy tests of different thicknesses (full thickness is 10.0 mm (0.394 inch), but ¾, , and ½ thickness specimen tests are common for thinner pipe). Charpy

test

sizes are given in Table 14 of API 5L. The 85%

SATT of the Charpy tests changes with the thickness of the Charpy specimen, so this needs to be accounted for.

o

There are statistical curve shapes for -thickness and full-thickness Charpy shear area percent versus temperature, hence if the temperature at which 30% shear area occurs is known, the temperature at which 85% shear area occurs (the 85% SATT) can be determined.

The standard API pressed-notch (PN) DWTT specimen was developed in the 1960’s as a simple mill test to ensure that brittle fracture would not occur in line-pipe steels. The DWTT has the full wall-thickness of the pipe, and hence could be considered an oversize Charpy impact test. Correlations between PN-DWTT and full-scale test results showed that they have about the same brittle-to-ductile transition temperature for older line-pipe steels, i.e., the DWTT specimen has good similitude with full-scale fracture behavior. The lowest temperature at which a ductile fracture will propagate is sometimes called the Fracture Propagation Transition Temperature (FPTT). The FPTT corresponds to very high-rate loading of a through- wall crack in a pipe.

o

Because of the thickness differences between the Charpy and the DWTT specimen, correlations are needed to relate the two. The difference of the 85% SATT of the Charpy and DWTT specimens are a function of the DWTT specimen thickness, see Figure

1. This is well documented for thicknesses less than 19

mm

(0.75-inch), but not as well for thicker pipes.

o

For

newer line-pipe steels that have greater than 200 J

(147.5 ft-lb) of Charpy upper-shelf energy, there is so much energy absorbed for initiation of the crack in the Charpy and PN-DWTT that neither of them give a proper indication of the material transition temperature [8]. Hence these correlations do not apply to such materials * .

o

The

Charpy to DWTT correlations were developed on

older line-pipe steels, but have not been validated against new controlled-rolled steels that exhibit splitting behavior. (Data exists from past tests, but these correlations should be verified in the future.)

* Emc 2 has an outstanding proposal to Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) to determine how to modify the API 5L3 PN-DWTT specimen to properly predict the dynamic fracture propagation transition temperature (FPTT) of line-pipe steels with greater than 200J (147.5 ft-lb) Charpy upper shelf energy.

The lowest temperature at which a through-wall crack in a

pipe will initiate at quasi-static rates is sometimes called the through-wall-crack fracture initiation transition temperature (or TWC-FITT). There are not as many full-scale validation tests for initiation behavior as there are for propagation behavior. However, in Reference [1], it was shown that there is a 15.6°C (60.0°F) to 32.2°C (90.0°F) temperature difference between the TWC-FITT and the FPTT (from the DWTT), see Figure 2. In the Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curve analysis, an average value of 23.9°C (75.0°F) was used for this part of the transition temperature shift.

o

It was also shown from other full-scale pipe tests, that the TWC-FITT corresponded well to the quasi-static single-edge notched bend, SEN(B), or compact tension, C(T), transition temperature, see Figure 3.

o

This temperature shift is close to that proposed in older work of Pellini from the US Naval Research Labs which determined the temperature shift from dynamic fracture test to the transition temperature for a brittle fracture in ship steels [9].

The lowest temperature at which a surface crack in a pipe will initiate at quasi-static rates is sometimes called the surface-crack fracture initiation transition temperature (or SC-FITT). There are more surface than through-wall- cracked pipe full-scale validation tests for initiation behavior. The surface crack in a plate or cylinder will have less “constraint” than a through-wall crack. “Constraint” is a technical term in advanced fracture mechanics that describes the stress field around the crack tip. If the stress field is pure tension in the ligament, then there is lower constraint. Lower constraint gives high upper-shelf toughness and a lower brittle-to-ductile transition temperature. Figure 4 shows an example of how much lower the surface-cracked pipe transition temperature is than a through-wall-cracked pipe (TWC pipe transition temperatures were 33°C (60°F) to 50°C (90°F) lower than the DWTT 85% SATT, while the surface-cracked pipe had more than 75.6°C (136°F) lower transition temperature than the DWTT 85% SATT). Figure 5 shows two similar sets of surface-cracked pipe tests that define the transition temperature relative to quasi-static bend specimen ([SEN(B) or CTOD] tests. In this figure, the surface- cracked pipe transition temperature was 40°C (72°F) lower than the bend specimen in one pipe material, while in the other material the transition temperature of the surface- cracked pipe was more than 95°C (171°F) lower than the bend specimen.

o

More recent work has shown that the “constraint” conditions in a surface-cracked pipe are very similar to a single-edge-notched tension SEN(T) specimen [10].

o

In the 1980’s there was an experimental effort that showed how the transition temperature (and upper-shelf toughness level) shifted between SEN(B) specimens and SEN(T) specimens with different surface crack

depths in the SEN(T) specimens, see Figure 6. Since the TWC-FITT is equivalent to the bend specimen transition temperature and the SEN(T) specimen has the same constraint conditions as a surface crack in a pipe, this work showed the temperature differences between the TWC-FITT and SC-FITT. o This temperature difference can be quite large depending on the depth of the surface crack (or a/W). As surface cracks get deeper, a saturation level is reached so the surface crack depth of approximately 50% of the thickness (a/W=0.5) is a reasonable bound for all surface-cracked pipes.

Battelle Battelle Battelle Stout Stout Stout Dennison and Brubaker Dennison and Brubaker Dennison and Brubaker
Battelle
Battelle
Battelle
Stout
Stout
Stout
Dennison and Brubaker
Dennison and Brubaker
Dennison and Brubaker

Figure 1 Relationship between 2/3-thickness Charpy and DWTT specimen 85% shear area transition temperatures as a function of thickness

shear area transition temperatures as a function of thickness (a) 30” by 0.375” X52 pipe 3

(a) 30” by 0.375” X52 pipe

Figure 2 (b) 30” by 0.50” X52 pipe Examples of through-wall-cracked pipe transition temperatures relative

Figure 2

(b) 30” by 0.50” X52 pipe Examples of through-wall-cracked pipe transition temperatures relative to DWTT transition temperatures (difference of FPTT to FITT)

to DWTT transition temperatures (difference of FPTT to FITT) Figure 3 Example of through-wall-cracked pipe transition

Figure 3 Example of through-wall-cracked pipe transition temperatures relative to quasi-static bend-bar specimen (CTOD) tests

relative to quasi-static bend-bar specimen (CTOD) tests Figure 4 Example of surface-cracked pipe transition

Figure 4 Example of surface-cracked pipe transition temperatures relative to the DWTT transition temperature

temperatures relative to the DWTT transition temperature (a)(a) StressStress--relievedrelieved pipepipe (b)(b)

(a)(a) StressStress--relievedrelieved pipepipe

temperature (a)(a) StressStress--relievedrelieved pipepipe (b)(b) NonNon--stressstress--relievedrelieved pipepipe

(b)(b) NonNon--stressstress--relievedrelieved pipepipe

Figure 5 Examples of surface-cracked pipe transition temperatures relative to quasi-static bend specimen (CTOD) transition temperatures

Fracture Transition Temperature, C

Fracture Transition Temperature, C Figure 6 Difference in transition temperatures of SENT specimens with different a/w

Figure 6 Difference in transition temperatures of SENT specimens with different a/w values and bend specimens with the standard a/w of 0.5 (difference in TWC-FITT and SC-FITT)

The above series of transition temperature shifts is illustrated in the flow chart in Figure 7. One could start either with Charpy, DWTT, quasi-static bend tests (CTOD), or SEN(T) tests and determine the FPTT, TWC-FITT and SC-FITT. The most common application is to start with the Charpy data and predict the FPTT, TWC-FITT, and SC-FITT temperatures. In the original work in Reference [1], the application was for A106 Grade B pipe. In that case, a statistical evaluation was made of the full-thickness Charpy shear area versus temperature data. The mean value was used to determine the 85% SATT which was 70°C (158°F) for this material. From the Charpy 85% SATT and the above correlations the Master Curve of Fracture Transition Temperatures was established, see Figure 8. There are a number of essential aspects in this figure to understand.

There are a series of transition curves as a function of thickness. One of them is for dynamic fracture propagation (FPTT), one is for initiation of a through-wall crack (TWC- FITT), and then there are a series of curves for surface cracks of different depths (a/t values).

If the operating temperature is above all the curves (bounded by the FPTT curve) for the pipe thickness of interest, then the failure modes would be ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth and ductile crack propagation. This is the ideal condition for gas line-pipe base metals.

If the operating temperature is below all the curves, then there would be brittle initiation and brittle propagation. This condition should be avoided for all applications (oil and liquid lines).

If the operating temperature for the thickness of the pipe of concern is above the surface crack curve but below the TWC-FITT curve, then

o

A surface crack would initiate in a ductile manner (large critical flaw size), but the crack propagation would be brittle. This might be an acceptable design condition for welds, and fittings. Leak-before-break behavior is affected if the TWC has a brittle failure mode.

o

A through-wall crack would initiate in a brittle manner and propagate in a brittle manner. This is not an acceptable condition if there is a likelihood of through- wall crack growth from some degradation mechanism like fatigue in a liquid line.

If the operating temperature for the thickness of pipe of concern is above the TWC-FITT but below the FPTT, then

o Both the surface and through-wall cracks would initiate in a ductile manner, but would have brittle crack propagation failure modes. This is more acceptable for applications like line-pipe base metal for liquid lines, welds, and pipe fittings.

Charpy SA% Charpy Charpy SA% Charpy versus specimen at a test 85% temperature size? temperature
Charpy SA%
Charpy
Charpy SA%
Charpy
versus
specimen
at a test
85%
temperature
size?
temperature
SATT
trend curves
= FPTT of
DWTT 85%
fcn of
pipe
SATT
thickness
Temperature
shift of 75F
= quasi-static bend or C(T)
= TWC-
specimen transition
FITT
temperature
= SC-
= SENT transition
fcn of surface
FITT
temperature
crack a/t

Figure 7 Flow chart of determining transition temperatures for through-wall or surface cracked pipes from Charpy data

200

150

100

50

0

-50

-100

-150

Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth and dynamic ductile crack growth Brittle initiation and brittle

Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth

and dynamic ductile crack

growth

ductile crack growth and dynamic ductile crack growth Brittle initiation and brittle crack growth TWC FPTT
ductile crack growth and dynamic ductile crack growth Brittle initiation and brittle crack growth TWC FPTT
Brittle initiation and brittle crack growth

Brittle initiation and brittle crack growth

TWC FPTT

TWC FITT

a/t=.750

a/t=.500

a/t=.375

a/t=.250

TWC FPTT TWC FITT a/t=.750 a/t=.500 a/t=.375 a/t=.250

Ductile

a/t=.187

a/t=.156

a/t=.125

initiation,

stable ductile

crack growth, and

brittle unstable

crack propagation

a/t=.187 a/t=.156 a/t=.125 initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and brittle unstable crack propagation
a/t=.187 a/t=.156 a/t=.125 initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and brittle unstable crack propagation
a/t=.187 a/t=.156 a/t=.125 initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and brittle unstable crack propagation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 8

Material Thickness, mm

Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curves for A106 B pipe [Charpy 85% SATT = 70°C (158°F)]

Fracture Transition Temperature, C

SUBSEQUENT EVALUATIONS 2006 THRU 2008

Since the initial evaluation from Reference [1] (described above), the following subsequent evaluations were conducted and further validated the Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curve methodology.

Comparisons of fracture initiation transition temperatures from SEN(T) and Charpy tests on 1927 and 1948 vintage line pipe base metals [3,4].

Comparisons of SEN(T), CTOD and Charpy tests on 2005 vintage X100 girth weld [5]. Additionally, in References [3] and [4], it was shown that if there was a blunt flaw such as a corrosion pit, then the transition temperature further decreased from that for a sharp crack and the change could be very significant depending on the radius of curvature at the bottom of the flaw, see Figure 9. This additional large shift in the fracture initiation transition temperature probably explains why there have not been brittle fracture initiation concerns for corrosion defects. The pipe used in the blunt flaw study was a 1927 vintage pipe with a full-size Charpy transition temperature of +100°C (+212°F), but the fracture initiation transition temperature for flaws with 3mm radius or larger was -80°C (-112°F), which is well below any service temperature for pipe in the lower 48 states in the US.

100 90 80 70 60 50 Experimental mean curve Estimated true curve 40 Conservative design
100
90
80
70
60
50
Experimental mean
curve
Estimated true curve
40
Conservative design limits
30
20
10
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
Notch root radius, mm
Decrease in FITT
from sharp crack, C

Figure 9 FITT shift for blunt flaws relative to sharp crack

NEW COMPARISONS In this paper, a few additional comparisons are made between past full-scale pipe/fitting fracture tests and the fracture initiation transition temperature predicted using the Master Curve methodology with Charpy data as input.

Elbow Fracture Test In 1985, several pipe fitting fracture tests were conducted for PRCI [11]. One test was on a 16-inch diameter elbow (Grade MSS SP75). Chemical analyses, tensile test data (coupon and actual in fitting), Charpy, and SEN(B) specimen data were developed. Additionally, one full-scale bend test was conducted on the elbow with a circumferential surface crack

(elbow was cut into three 30-degree sections one for material property testing and one for the full-scale test). The surface crack was 65% through the thickness and 30% of the circumference. The crack in the elbow was fatigue sharpened. The full-thickness Charpy 85% shear area transition temperature was -40°C (-40°F). Using that Charpy 85% shear area transition temperature for determining the Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curve approach gave the predictions shown in Figure 10. The test temperature in the elbow fracture test was -73.3°C (-100°F), and the failure mode was stable ductile crack growth and then brittle fracture dynamic propagation. The failure mode

in the experiment agrees well with the predicted failure modes.

Comparison of 16" elbow test to prediction; t=0.70" and a/t = 0.65

0

-50

-100

-150

Ductile initiation and ductile propagation Ductile initiation and brittle -73.3C = -100F; Elbow test; propagation
Ductile initiation and
ductile propagation
Ductile
initiation
and brittle
-73.3C = -100F; Elbow test;
propagation
Ductile initiation
and
cleavage propagation
TWC FPTT
SC FITT a/t=0.75
SC FITT a/t=0.50
16-inch elbow test
Brittle initiation
and brittle
propagation

0

10

20

30

40

50

Material Thickness, mm

60

Figure 10 Comparison of results on fracture test of MSS SP 75 elbow with circumferential crack under bending to predicted failure modes to Fracture Transition Master Curve predictions

Valve Fracture Test In the same 1985 PRCI report [11], there were two tests on

a 4-inch diameter Class 600 pound valve (Grade ASTM A216

WCB). Chemical analyses, tensile test data (coupon and actual in an identical valve), Charpy, and SEN(B) specimen data were developed. Additionally, two full-scale bend tests were conducted on the valve with a circumferential surface crack that was 24-percent of the circumference in the thinner neck region and a depth of 64 to 70-percent of the thickness in that region (thickness there was 1.095 inch). The full-thickness Charpy 85-

percent shear area transition temperature was +54°C (+129.2°F). Using that for determining the Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curve approach gave the predictions in Figure 11. The test temperatures in the two valve tests were 0°C (32°F) and -45.5°C (-50°F). The failure mode at -45.5°C (-50°F) was completely brittle at initiation and propagation; while at 0°C (32°F) the failure mode was a very small amount of stable ductile crack growth and then brittle dynamic fracture propagation. These experimental results agree very well with the predicted failure modes predicted in Figure 11.

Fracture Transition Temperature, C

Fracture Transition Temperature, C

Comparison of 4" valve tests to predictions; t=1.095" and a/t = 0.64 to 0.70

100

50

0

-50

-100

Ductile initiation and

ductile propagation

Ductile initiation and ductile propagation 0C = +32F; Valve test #1; Ductile initiation and cleavage propagation
Ductile initiation and ductile propagation 0C = +32F; Valve test #1; Ductile initiation and cleavage propagation

0C = +32F; Valve test #1; Ductile initiation and

cleavage propagation

-45.5C =

-50F; Test #2

Cleavage initiation and propagation

Brittle initiation

Ductile

TWC FPTT

SC FITT a/t=0.75

SC FITT a/t=0.50

4-inch valve tests

initiation and brittle propagation and brittle propagation
initiation
and brittle
propagation
and brittle propagation

0

10

20

30

40

50

Material Thickness, mm

60

Figure 11 Comparison of results on fracture tests of valve with circumferential crack under bending to predicted failure modes from the Fracture Transition Master Curve

Additional PRCI Arctic Valve Test Data In the same 1985 PRCI report [11], material property data were also developed on a 609.6-mm (24-inch) diameter Class 600-pound valve (Grade ASTM A757 A2Q) for arctic applications. No full-scale tests were conducted. The full-size Charpy 85% shear area transition temperature was 26.7°C (80°F). These Charpy data were used to determine the Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curves for this material, see Figure 12. When using the SC-FITT curve, this material is suitable for -20°C (-4°F) use in lower Canada for thicknesses of up to 50 mm (2 inch). When using the TWC-FITT curve, this material is suitable for 10°C (50°F) service in lower US for buried operations for thicknesses less than 50 mm (2 inch).

75

50

25

0

-25

-50

-75

-100

-125

Mean curve for full-size Charpy with 85% SATT = 80F (26.7C)

Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and dynamic ductile propagation

initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and dynamic ductile propagation Brittle initiation and brittle propagation
initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and dynamic ductile propagation Brittle initiation and brittle propagation
initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and dynamic ductile propagation Brittle initiation and brittle propagation
initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and dynamic ductile propagation Brittle initiation and brittle propagation
initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and dynamic ductile propagation Brittle initiation and brittle propagation

Brittle initiation and brittle

propagation

Brittle initiation and brittle propagation Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and
Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and brittle propagation
Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack
growth, and brittle propagation
Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and brittle propagation TWC FPTT TWC FITT SC FITT a/t=0.50

TWC FPTT

TWC FITT

SC FITT a/t=0.50

Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and brittle propagation TWC FPTT TWC FITT SC FITT a/t=0.50
Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and brittle propagation TWC FPTT TWC FITT SC FITT a/t=0.50
Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and brittle propagation TWC FPTT TWC FITT SC FITT a/t=0.50
Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and brittle propagation TWC FPTT TWC FITT SC FITT a/t=0.50
Ductile initiation, stable ductile crack growth, and brittle propagation TWC FPTT TWC FITT SC FITT a/t=0.50

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Material Thickness, mm

45.0

50.0

Figure 12 Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curves for ASTM A757 Grade A2Q valve material using Charpy data from a 609.6-mm (24-inch) diameter valve

APPLICATION TO PIPELINE DESIGN PROJECTS In general it is highly desirable to avoid using material that is susceptible to brittle fracture initiation for both oil and gas applications. The Fracture Transition curve to be used depends on the application, and below are some suggestions.

For liquid lines with low vapor pressure, then there is not a concern for dynamic crack propagation, and the material for pipe and fittings should exhibit ductile crack initiation behavior.

o

If the pipe and fitting are located in areas remote from workers and public, then the 50-percent deep surface crack curve can be used for the pipe and fitting material performance requirements.

o

If the pipe and fittings are located in closer proximity to workers and public, then one might want to have leak-before-break behavior, and in that case the through-wall crack curve can be used for defining minimum material performance requirements.

For gas and high vapor pressure liquid lines, typically it is desired to have ductile initiation behavior for the fittings and welds.

o

If the line is not susceptible to fatigue loading, then the surface crack transition curve can be used.

o

If the line is susceptible to fatigue loading or in close proximity to workers and the public (i.e., Class III locations), then the through-wall crack initiation curve is desired to use for determining minimum material Charpy requirements.

o

For strain-based designed girth weld applications, the weld metal and HAZ fracture initiation transition temperatures need to be sufficiently above the surface-crack transition temperature so that large ductile crack growth will occur. Selecting a temperature half way between the surface crack and through-wall crack curves should achieve this fracture behavior.

o

For the base metal of the pipe, it is desired to have ductile fracture propagation behavior, and the through-wall crack FPTT (fracture propagation transition temperature) curve should be used.

o

The axial seam welds in the pipe should have ductile initiation behavior. If the pipe is for non- fatigue applications, then the surface crack

transition curve can be used to define the Charpy requirements. If the pipe is for fatigue/cyclic service applications, then the through-wall cracked transition temperature curve would be better to ensure leak-before-break behavior.

As noted earlier, if the Charpy energy of the material is higher than 200J (147.5 ft-lb), then “abnormal fracture behavior” will invalidate the fracture behavior from Charpy and DWTT impact test results and greater care is needed for the material performance specification [7].

APPLICATION TO API PSL 1 AND PSL 2 LINE PIPE REQUIREMENTS So a question that sometimes arises is “What is the service temperature limits for off-the-shelf API PSL-2 linepipe?”. First of all, it depends on the application as noted in the previous section. Is it to be used for liquid or gas service? Is it to be used for just the pipe or fittings too? Is it to be located in a remote area or close to workers and public? Some suggested guidelines were given in the prior section. Additionally, let us review the API PSL-2 toughness requirements. For X70 and lower grade steels, there is a Charpy impact toughness requirement of 27J (20 ft-lb) for the average of three full-thickness transverse specimens tested at 0°C (32°F). There is no shear area requirement. Consequently, one cannot directly determine the minimum transition temperature for PSL 2 pipe unless there is also a mill certification test report that also supplied the non-required shear area percent values. If the shear area percent values are available from the mill certification report, then the fracture transition temperatures can be determined by the general methodology in this paper. It would be convenient for API to include a minimum shear area percentage value for PSL 2 pipe for grades of X70 and lower in the future. For X80 grade PSL 2 pipe, there is a higher Charpy energy requirement for the all-head average than for X70 or lower grade pipes. This is 68J (50 ft-lb) for a full-size specimen at 0°C (32°F). There is a minimum shear area percent requirement on the Charpy test results at 0°C (32°F), which is 40% on any one heat and 70% for the all-heat average. So with the current API 5L PSL 2 specification for X80 pipe we can make the following fracture transition temperature evaluations for the minimum property cases. For the X80 pipe case, let’s assume the minimum case of having 40% shear area in the Charpy tests at 0°C (32°F). The first step is to determine the temperature that would correspond to 85% shear area in the Charpy test. Figure 13 gives the typical trend curve of Charpy shear area percent versus temperature for a full-size specimen. T c corresponds to the average temperature where the Charpy specimen has 85% shear area. Although this data was developed for older as-rolled steel pipe, it will be used for X80 pipe for this example. X80 steel pipe might be controlled-rolled and the shape of the curve might be slightly different, but reasonably close. At 40% shear area, the T-Tc value is -30°C (-54°F). So if the 40% shear area occurred to 0°C (32°F), then 85% shear area should correspond to +30°C (86°F).

then 85% shear area should correspond to +30°C (86°F). Figure 13 Typical shape of full-size Charpy

Figure 13 Typical shape of full-size Charpy shear area versus temperature curve for conventionally as- rolled steel pipe

The 30°C (86°F) temperature for the full-thickness Charpy specimen was then used to create the Fracture Transition Temperatures Master Curves which is shown in Figure 14. This gives the transition temperature values as a function of thickness for fracture propagation (FPTT curve), through-wall-crack fracture initiation (TWC FITT curve), and fracture initiation for a 50% deep surface crack (a/t=0.500 curve). The upper curve would be the normal requirement for high energy linepipe design. Since ground temperature in the lower US is typically 10°C (50°F), or -5°C (23°F) in lower Canada, the minimum API PSL 2 X80 would be good for thicknesses of less than 10.0 mm (0.394 inch) in the US and 7.50 mm (0.295 inch) in lower Canada.

inch) in the US and 7.50 mm (0.295 inch) in lower Canada. Figure 14 Fracture Transition

Figure 14 Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curves for X80 pipe with the minimum PSL 2 X80 pipe Charpy shear area percent value of 40% at 0°C

(32°F).

If the all-heat average requirement for PSL 2 X80 pipe was used instead, then that requirement is 70% shear area for the Charpy at 0°C (32°F), which from Figure 13 would give a temperature of +15°C (59°F) when there is 85% shear area in the Charpy specimen. This causes all the curves in Figure 14 to shift 15°C (27°F) lower, as shown in Figure 15. So for the same lower US case with ground temperature of 10°C, or -5°C in lower Canada, the average API PSL 2 X80 pipe (with no additional specifications) would be good for thicknesses of less than 14.0 mm (0.551 inch) in the US and 10.0 mm (0.394 inch) in lower Canada.

inch) in the US and 10.0 mm (0.394 inch) in lower Canada. Figure 15 Fracture Transition

Figure 15 Fracture Transition Temperatures Master Curves for X80 pipe with the average PSL 2 X80 pipe Charpy shear area percent value of 70% at 0°C

(32°F).

If the same pipe material was used for a low energy pipeline application (i.e., oil) and there was some significant cyclic loading, then the TWC-FITT curves in Figure 14 and Figure 15 could be used to assess the minimum and average material performance for X80 pipe with no additional supplemental testing requirements. Pipes with thickness less than 50 mm (2 inch) could be used in the lower US, or less than approximately 18 mm (0.7 inch) could be used in lower Canada with the minimum API PSL 2 properties (from Figure 14). Using the average PSL-2 X80 properties, this same pipe material specification is good for less than 50-mm (2-inch) thicknesses in the lower US and 40 mm (1.57-inch) thicknesses in lower Canada. If this same material was used for fittings in a pipeline with no significant cyclic loading, then the surface crack fracture transition curves (a/t=0.500) could be used for the fittings material specification. For both the minimum and average API PSL 2 X80 Charpy shear area requirements, those fittings should be good enough for thickness up to 50 mm (2 inch) or more.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSSIONS This paper reviewed the Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curve approach, showed some of the past comparisons and presented some new validation results for pipe fittings such as for cracked elbows and cracks in the neck by a flange in a valve.

Some general guidelines were proposed for three different categories of pipeline design applications, where the three different Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curves are applicable. These three applications are: (1) for high energy pipe, the line pipe should have ductile fracture behavior so the fracture propagation transition temperature Master Curve should be used for material design; (2) for fittings or seam welds in pipe for low cyclic loading applications, then the surface crack fracture initiation transition temperature Master Curve should be sufficient for material selection; and (3) for pipe and fittings in high cyclic application the through-wall crack fracture initiation transition temperature Master Curve should be sufficient for material selection.

Some recent examples of fittings that have failed by brittle fracture initiation prior to going into service are shown in Figure 16 [ 12 ] and Figure 17 Reference [13]. If those materials had been purchased with the above recommendations they probably would not have failed in the brittle manner that was observed.

The methodology was then applied to assess if API 5L pipe purchased off-the-shelf could be easily assessed. The requirement for the Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curve methodology is to first know the Charpy (or DWTT) shear area values at a specific temperature. Once those values are known, then one can determine the temperature at which 85% shear area will occur in the Charpy test. The Charpy 85% shear area transition temperature is then used for input creating the Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curves.

Since there is no Charpy test requirement for PSL 1 pipe, there is no guarantee that that pipe will not have brittle initiation at any service temperature.

For PSL 2 pipe with Grades X70 and lower, there is only a minimum Charpy energy requirement, but no minimum requirement for shear area percent. So again, it is not possible to directly determine if PSL 2 pipe with grades X70 or lower will be brittle or ductile at any operating temperature. It would be most helpful if API 5L would consider adding in a minimum shear area requirement so that the transition temperatures could be determined. If the Charpy shear area value was reported in a mill certification sheet, then the Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curves could be created, but that is not a minimum for all X70 and lower grade PSL 2 pipe.

For PSL 2 X80 pipe, there is a minimum and average Charpy shear area percent requirement that was used to create the Fracture Transition Temperature Master Curves. Typical

examples for buried US and lower Canada pipe systems showed that for high energy pipes, the thicknesses have to quite small to be acceptable for fracture propagation control [7.5 mm (0.295 inch) in Canada and 10 mm (0.394 inch) in the US]. Hence, the supplemental toughness testing should be implemented rather than depending only on the PSL 2 requirements. The same PSL 2 pipe material requirements would be quite suitable for fittings in a pipeline that has very low fatigue loading even for fittings up to 50 mm (2 inch) in thickness. For low energy pipeline applications with significant pressure cyclicing, this same PSL 2 toughness requirement is adequate for pipe and fittings with thickness of 40 mm (1.57 inch) or less in lower Canada applications or 50 mm (2 inch) or less for US buried pipe applications.

Finally, it should also be noted that this methodology is applicable for many materials, but some newer line-pipe steels with very high Charpy upper-shelf energy values [more than 200J (147.5 ft-lb)] are susceptible to a phenomenon called “Abnormal Fracture Behavior” that affects both the Charpy and DWTT transition temperature results. Consequently the methodology in this paper is not applicable to such materials.

in this paper is not applicable to such materials. Figure 16 Brittle fracture in the neck
in this paper is not applicable to such materials. Figure 16 Brittle fracture in the neck

Figure 16 Brittle fracture in the neck of a weld-neck flange during a pneumatic test at compressor station of East-West pipeline

a pneumatic test at compressor station of East-West pipeline Figure 17 Brittle fracture of an elbow

Figure 17 Brittle fracture of an elbow during a hydrotest failure at 1,740 psig while being pressurized to 2,160 psig

REFERENCES

[ 1 ] G. Wilkowski, D. Rudland, and R. Wolt erman, “Predicting the Brittle-To-Ductile Fracture Initiation Transition Temperature for Surface-Cracked Pipe from Charpy Data,” Paper PVP2005-71199, Proceedings of ASME-PVP 2005 ASME/JSME Pressure Vessels And Piping Conference, Denver Colorado, July 17-21, 2005. [ 2 ] C. Williams, F. Brust, P. Scott, D. Rudland, and G. Wilkowski, “Validation of an Estimation Procedure to Predict the Quasi-static Brittle-to-Ductile Fracture Initiation Transition Temperature (FITT) for Ferritic Piping,” Paper PVP2005-71302, Proceedings of ASME- PVP 2005 ASME/JSME Pressure Vessels And Piping Conference, Denver Colorado, July 17-21, 2005. [ 3 ] G. Wilkowski, D. Rudland, P. Mincer, B. Metrovich, and D. Rider, “Predicting the Brittle-To-Ductile Fracture Initiation Transition Temperature for Older Linepipe with Surface-Crack or Through-Wall Cracks from Charpy Data,” in proceedings of PRCI-EPRG-APIA 15th Joint Technical Meeting on Pipeline Research, May 15 - 20,

2005.

[ 4 ] G. Wilkowski, D. Rudland, P. Mincer, and D. Rider, and W. Sloterdijk, “When Old Line Pipe Initiates Fractures in a

Ductile Manner,” paper # IPC2006-10326, 2006 International Pipeline Conference. [5] G.M. Wilkowski, D. Rudland, D.-J. Shim, and D. Horsley, Predicting The Brittle-To-Ductile Transition Temperatures For Surface Cracks In Pipeline Girth Welds - It’s Better Than You Thought,” Proceedings of IPC20087th International Pipeline Conference, September 29-October 3, 2008, Paper IPC2008-64658. [ 6 ] G. Wilkowski, D . - J. Shim, B. Brust, K. Miyazaki, and K. Hasegawa, “New Transition Temperature Tables for Ferritic Pipe Flaw Evaluation in Section XI,” presented at 2011 ASME PVP Conference. [ 7 ] G. Wilkowski, D . - J. Shim, Y. Hioe, S. Kalyanam, and F. Brust, “How New Vintage Line-Pipe Steel Fracture Properties Differ From Old Vintage Line-Pipe Steels,IPC2012- 90518, Proceedings of the 9th International Pipeline Conference, September, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

G.M. Wilkowski and R.J. Eiber, “Problems in Using the

[8]

Charpy & DWTT for High Toughness Q&T Steels - What Does Charpy Energy Really Tell Us?,” published by ASM, ISBN 0-87170-027-1, February 26-March 2, 1978, pp.

201-226.

[9] W.S. Pellini, Evolution of Engineering Principles for Fracture-Safe Design of Steel Structures, Naval Research Laboratory Report NRL 6957, September 23, 1969. [10] B. Nyhus, M.L. Polanco, and O. Orjasaether, “SENT Specimens an Alternative to SENB Specimens for Fracture Mechanics Testing of Pipelines,” OMAE2003-37370, Proceedings of OMAE03, 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Cancun, Mexico, June 2003. [ 11 ] P. Krishnaswamy, G.M., Wilkowski, and J.O. Wambaugh, “Brittle Fracture Initiation of Heavy-Wall Components,” NG-18 report No. 144, January 2, 1985. [12] http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=16074

ew=article&id=1119:24q-fitting-catastrophic-failure-

during-integrity-pressure-testing&catid=54:safety-

alerts&Itemid=178