RSC - in Service Welding On Gas Pipelines - Part 1 - Michael Painter Final Report 01 Jun 2000

In-Service Welding of Gas Pipelines
CRC WS Pipeline Program Project Report March 2000
CRCWS Project 96:34, In-Service Welding on Gas Pipelines: Final Project Report Contents page
In-Service Welding Of Gas Pipelines Pipeline Program Report

September 1996- September 1999
Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Research Strategy & Outline 3. Literature Review: Experimental Studies of In-Service Welding 4. Literature Review: Simulation of Fusion Welding 5. Appraisal of Battelle In-Service Welding Software 6. Welding on In-Service Pipelines: Industry Survey 7. An Experimental Appraisal of Hydrogen Controlled Electrodes 8. Numerical Modelling of In-Service Welding 9. Burn-through Prediction 10. Model Validation Using the Gladstone Flow Loop 11. A Proposed Method of Presenting Results for Industry Use
Mike Painter, CSIRO Manufacturing Science and Technology Prakash Sabapathy, The University of Adelaide
CRCWS Project 96:34, In-Service Welding on Gas Pipelines: Final Project Report Contents page
Acknowledgement
This is a collaborative project of the Cooperative Research Centre for Welded Structures, under the sponsorship and guidance of the Pipeline Program Management Committee. Therefore it would not have progressed without the guidance, endeavor and financial assistance of the following organisations and people:
Collaborative Partners CSIRO Manufacturing Science & Technology The University of Adelaide BHP Epic Energy AGL Gas The Pipeline Program Management Committee Researchers M.A.Wahab, The University of Adelaide Bing Feng, BHP Prakash Sabapathy,The University of Adelaide Industrial mentors Paul Grace, WTIA Hans Borek, Epic Energy
To which, I express thanks and gratitude.

CRCWS Project 96:34 Final Report
Final Project Report

June 2000
M.J.Painter, CSIRO Manufacturing Science and Technology P. Sabapathy, The University of Adelaide
CRCWS
CRCWS Project 96:34, In-Service Welding on Gas Pipelines: Final Project Report

September 1996 September 1999
A collaborative project of the Cooperative Research Centre for Materials Welding & Joining, under the sponsorship and guidance of the Pipeline Program Management Committee.
Collaborative Partners
CSIRO Manufacturing Science & Technology The University of Adelaide BHP Epic Energy AGL Gas The Pipeline Program Management Committee
Researchers
Mike Painter, CSIRO Manufacturing Science & Technology M. A. Wahab, The University of Adelaide Bing Feng, BHP Prakash Sabapathy, The University of Adelaide
Industrial mentors
Paul Grace, WTIA / ex AGL Gas Sydney Hans Borek, Epic Energy
Project Objective
To develop recommended weld procedures for the safe and effective in-service welding of thin-wall, high-strength steel, high-pressure gas pipelines.
Executive Summary
Background
The process of welding onto a live high-pressure pipe is frequently employed for the repair, modification or extension of gas pipelines. This in-service welding has significant economic advantages for the gas transmission and gas distribution industries, since it avoids the costs of disrupting pipeline operation, and it maintains continuity of supply to customers. In-service welding is an essential part of hot-tapping, a technique which allows the creation of a branch connection to a live pipeline. In-service welding is also important for pipeline maintenance, such as the installation of sleeves around damaged sections of pipe. Direct deposition of welds onto live pipes has been suggested as a way of replacing wall thickness lost through corrosion or local damage. If in-service welding is not possible then sections of a pipeline have to be sealed and degassed prior to welding, and then re-purged prior to reinstatement. These are costly, wasteful, and environmentally damaging actions, since there are large gas losses and methane is a green-house gas. TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. has estimated that relative to a cold connection a hot-tap avoids gross revenue losses of approximately 1M$Canadian per hot- tap.
Welding Onto a Gas Pipeline

Two factors make it difficult to weld onto a live pipeline. Firstly, the flowing gas creates a large heat loss through the wall of the pipe, resulting in accelerated cooling of the weld. High carbon equivalent steels are sensitive to such rapid cooling rates, which increase hardness, and increase the possibility of heat affected zone (HAZ) cracking. The second factor concerns the local
heating, and the reduction in pipe-wall-strength during the welding process. If this reduction in strength is too great the pipe wall can burst under the pipes internal pressure. This hazardous event is termed burn-through. Increasing the welding heat input can reduce fast cooling, but this promotes weld penetration and increases the risk of burn-through. Suitable weld procedures must ensure the HAZ hardness is not high enough to cause cracking, whilst heat input and penetration are not so high that the integrity of the pipe wall is jeopardised. In Australia, there is a significant trend towards the use of high yield strength steels for pipeline construction. Future pipelines using X70 and X80 steels could have wall thickness as low as 3mm. Unfortunately, in-service welding is made much more difficult with such thin-walled pipes. Thin pipe walls increase the risk of burn-through during welding, and are more easily cooled by the flowing gas. High strength steels can also be susceptible to the generation of excessive hardness for a given cooling rate. If the economic advantages of in-service welding are to be maintained then technology to support the safe and effective welding of thin-walled high-strength pipelines must be established.
In-Service Welding: Current Technology

Much of the technology associated with in-service welding was generated in the USA. This has consisted of two approaches: 1. An experimental method of measuring the cooling capacity of the pipeline. This data is used to establish the required heat input and weld cooling rates from laboratory pipe welds under the same simulated cooling conditions. This method, generally known as the EWI Test, was developed by Edison Welding Institute (EWI). 2. Numerical simulation of in-service welding. From 1980 to 1990 researchers at Battelle Memorial Institute developed a 2D finite difference approach to simulate sleeve and direct-branch in-service welds. For a given pipe geometry and a set of welding parameters the weld cooling times, t8/5 (the time to cool from 800 to 500C) and the maximum inside wall temperature could be calculated. HAZ hardness was estimated from this predicted cooling rate and the carbon equivalent of the steel. Hardness below 350 HVN was considered to have a low potential for cracking. Pipes were considered safe from burn-through if the maximum inside wall temperature was below 980C. These limits were determined from a comparison of experimental in collaboration with EWI. These tests were mainly on thick walled (6.35 mm), lower strength (X52) materials. Recommended limits for the valid use of the Battelle approach are pipe wall thickness within the range 3.2-9.6 mm, for steel grades, up-to and including X52.
In-Service Welding: The Current Project

A survey of the Australian pipeline industry established that there was a substantial conservatism in the in-service welding procedures currently used. Procedures generally involved a reduction of pressure and gas flow before welding. The potential value to the pipeline industry of a research program, which would allow the safe relaxation of such constraints, was estimated to be $2-4 M over the period 1998-2002. In recognition of: the differences between Australian conditions and those previously researched, namely, reduced pipe wall thickness and use of higher strength steels, the lack of quantified information on burn-through limits for thin walled pipes, the importance of being able to carry out in-service welding on new , thin-walled pipelines, the indicated economic benefits that improved in-service welding would achieve, the CRCMWJ Pipeline Program initiated a research project with the following aim:
Project Objective
To develop recommended weld procedures for the safe and effective in-service welding of thinwalled, high-strength steel, high-pressure gas pipelines.
Project Structure
The important features of the project were: 1. An experimental study of circumferential manual metal arc (MMA) welding in the vertical-up and vertical-down position, with low hydrogen electrodes (E8018G and E7016, 2.5 mm & 3.2 mm diameter). These tests used a water-cooled simulation of in-service welding and a range of typical Australian pipe grades (X42-X80). 2. The extensive development of numerical finite element simulations of in-service welding. These numerical simulations covered 2D and 3D models, and unlike previous research work aimed to develop numerical simulations of burn-through. 3. The transfer of technology to the pipeline industry.
Brief Project Outcomes

Appraisal of Current Knowledge
It has been suggested that the Battelle program over-estimates the t8/5 cooling times for thin-walled pipe and under-estimates t8/5 for thick walled pipe. This leads to the possibility of choosing nonconservative heat input values for thin pipe (4.8 mm). The producers of the Battelle software considered it should be restricted to a wall thickness range of 3.2-12 mm. The calculation of hardness relies on a relatively simple estimate of a carbon equivalent, which does not necessarily apply to modern high-strength steel compositions, and should be restricted to grades up to X52. It is generally accepted that in-service welds on pipes with wall thickness greater than 6.35 mm have no significant risk of burn-through with good welding practice. The literature review confirmed the sporadic nature of information relating to burn-through limits on pipes less than 6.35mm thick. Recommended weld procedures have the following characteristics: Severe restriction on welding conditions for pipes less than 5mm wall thickness. Some recommendations that in-service welding should be restricted to pipes thicker than 4 mm. Use of low hydrogen electrodes of small diameter 2-2.4 mm (restricting arc current), in the vertical-down welding position. Limitations on heat input, typically 0.5 kJ/mm for 3.2 mm wall thickness, 1.4kJ/mm for 5mm wall thickness. Limits on pressure, typically < 6 MPa for thin pipes. Careful control of arc current, heat input and welding practice.
Experimental studies have generally used water flow to simulate the cooling effect of the gas, but there is a general recognition that water gives much higher quench rates than gas flow. It therefore generates conservative welding conditions for a required hardness. That is heat input determined with water-flow will give slower t8/5 with gas flow. The corollary of this however, is that using waterflow simulations may give non-conservative heat inputs for burn-through.
Outcomes from the Experimental Study of Hydrogen Controlled Electrodes. The analysis of welding conditions and welds produced using pipe cooled with a water jacket to generate a rapid quench, gave the following results;
It was possible to generate a weld on 7.8 mm thick X80 pipe with a maximum hardness of 325 HVN with a weld t8/5 cooling time of 3.8 seconds. For the range of pipe grades examined (X42-X80), the Yurioka-1 carbon equivalent (CE) relationship provided the best correlation between composition, hardness and t8/5 cooling time. This correlation gave an absolute error of 5.7% for E5548-G (E8018-G) electrodes, and a
3.4% error with E7016. Based on this relationship the X80 grade of pipe used in this work would only require a t8/5 of 0.8 seconds in order to achieve a hardness of >350 HVN. A small beneficial tempering effect was measured from multi-pass [3 passes] welds. This was most noticeable for the X70 grade steel, which with a CE of 0.288 gave a hardness of 381 HVN after a single root pass. After three passes, the maximum hardness was reduced to an acceptable 321 HVN. Only the two X60 steels with CE of 0.38 and 0.41 gave multi-pass hardness >350 HVN. A minor difference in the incidence of weld defects was observed between the two electrode types tested. There was a greater incidence of HAZ cracking with E8018-G in keeping with its reduced heat input. Some HAZ cracks were detected with X80 grade although the maximum hardness was 299-310 HVN. There was no systematic variation in heat input as the weld progressed around the pipe. However, whilst total weld energy remained reasonably constant the natural variation in welding speed, since this is a manually skilled process, caused variation in the heat input. This was significant and amounted to approximately a 20% variation on a nominal value. Penetration into the run-pipe was generally greater when using the E7016 electrode in the vertical-up position rather than with E8018-G in the vertical-down. Penetration into the run-pipe slightly increased with increasing heat input although this effect was largely swamped by a significant variability at a given heat input. At a nominal heat input of about 1 kJ/mm this variability was approximately, 0.2-0.8 mm with E8018-G and 0.5-1.0 mm with E7016.
These experiments also provided, empirical data to relate the deposited weld bead volume, and weld bead shape to heat input for both E8018-G and E7016 electrodes, and preliminary data on measured t8/5 cooling times and measured weld penetrations in order to validate and refine numerical models of MMA in-service welds.
Development of Numerical Simulations

Utilising commercial finite element software, a wide range of 2D and 3D models of in-service welds has been developed. The capacity to generate stable, accurate models of all in-service joint forms has been demonstrated. To represent the heat loss due to the flowing gas the numerical models follow the Battelle model and utilise the Sieder & Tate non-dimensional approach. This determines an effective heat transfer coefficient at the pipe wall, based on the pipe diameter, gas pressure, and flow speed. By incorporating empirical data describing weld bead volume and joint form the representation of the welding heat input has been tailored for both vertical-up and vertical-down welding with lowhydrogen electrodes. For circumferential fillet welds, predictions of both t8/5 cooling times and weld penetrations have been made with acceptable accuracy. Model development has concentrated on a 3D quasi-steady-state analysis of circumferential fillet welds. In practice, this is the most popular joint form. It also provides a numerical analysis which allows an acceptable, short CPU time. Pre-processing software has been produced to efficiently construct and mesh models of varied geometry. Post-processing software has been established to calculate the distribution of t8/5 cooling times throughout the weld zone. This can be further used to calculate a distribution of hardness based on an empirical relationship with composition and t8/5. Isotherms give an estimate of weld penetration and size and extent of the HAZ.
Models have mainly considered single root pass welds but some multi-pass welds have been simulated. Various methods of assessing the risk of burn-through have been developed. These were based on: the maximum temperature at the inside surface of the pipe, following Battelle, a thermo-elastic plastic stress analysis, using the thermal field in the pipe wall to calculate the reduction in wall strength.
Thermo-elastic-plastic models of circumferential welds have showed similar deformation patterns to those observed during burn-through, namely a localised bulge in the pipe wall near the weld. Failure can be specified as a bulge that exceeds a limiting height. Plots of internal pressure versus bulge height have shown an effective yield pressure, which can also be used as a failure index. Only a limited numbers of these models were studied because they were very computationally demanding. Estimating the reduction in pipe wall strength in the weld zone has created a novel alternative method of assessing burn-through risk. This method determines the reduction in material strength around the weld based on the predicted temperature field, and the known relationship between material yield strength and temperature. This reduced strength is regarded as equivalent to a local reduction in the thickness of the pipe-wall at constant ambient temperature. Hence, the temperature field around the in-service weld effectively converts to a cavity in the pipe wall. A number of alternate strategies can be considered. The limiting pressure for safe welding can be based on the remaining wall thickness, or based on the effective reduction in cross-sectional area. The risk of burn-through is equivalent to the possibility of this cavity causing rupture at the current operating pressure. This assessment can also be easily carried out utilising the approach specified for the evaluation of corrosion cavities in Australian Standard AS2885. This method has produced excellent results. Although limited by lack of data, comparison between predicted safe welding pressures and published values measured on 5 mm thick pipes has been good. The approach provided a way of assessing burn-through potential which is in agreement with reported behaviour. Longitudinal welds are more prone to burn-through than circumferential ones of the same heat input. Pressure has a significant effect. The width or size of the weld is important as well as penetration. It provides an efficient approach to in-service weld simulation since it does not require a stress analysis and uses only thermal predictions. Unlike Battelles maximum wall temperature approach, it is more realistic since it accounts for weld orientation and internal pipe pressure.
Model Validation
The above numerical simulations were validated by comparing predicted values with: published result for t8/5 cooling times measured on pipes of 4.8 mm wall thickness, measured HAZ and fusion zone geometries from a hot-tap coupon, data from welds carried out on an uncooled, empty pipe, measured values of t8/5 and HAZ hardness obtained from a number of test welds carried out on a flow loop at Duke Energys Gladstone Gate facility.
This last extensive validation used simulated circumferential fillet welds on three materials, 4.8 mm and 5.2 mm thick X70, and 6.4 mm thick Ultrapipe X42, under a range of gas pressures and flows. The t8/5 cooling times were measured, welds were metallographically sectioned and HAZ hardness determined. Predicted values of fusion zone depth, HAZ depth, t8/5 cooling time, and HAZ hardness, compared favourably with measured values. This was an aggressive test of the models validity and accuracy.
Transferring Project Knowledge to Industry.

Although finite element software is readily available, developing and using thermal models to simulate weld processes is a specialised activity. It would be difficult for industry to attempt this
analysis without significant investment in software and the development of personnel with appropriate expertise. Although access to the modeling capabilities developed within this project will remain, it was felt that results could be put in a more accessible form. One possibility has been developed to a prototype stage. This consisted of using the finite element models to develop a database of predicted values for a range of heat inputs, pipe wall thickness, and heat transfer conditions at the pipe wall. Concentrating on the circumferential fillet weld, it has been established that the t8/5 cooling time is almost independent of pipe diameter provided the heat transfer coefficient at the pipe wall is constant. That is, the heat transfer coefficient determines the weld cooling rate. This effectively means that a single model can provide results for any combination of gas pressure, flow rate and pipe diameter, which gives a constant heat transfer coefficient. There is a smooth variation in calculated t8/5 cooling time, weld penetration, effective cavity sizes etc. as heat input, and pipe wall thickness varies. Hence, it is feasible to interpolate values from a data set with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Using this approach it is possible to develop a very fast computer program which produces estimates of HAZ hardness, and burn-through risk by simply interpolating an established database.
1. In-Service Welding of Gas Pipelines:

1.1 Introduction
Metal welding processes are used for the fabrication of structures ranging from, the large and complex to, the small and simple. The significance of welding may not be directly noticeable, but it has an important role in the manufacture of many tools, consumer objects, and in almost all industrial structures. Fusion welding is a significant engineering process because of the unparalleled advantages it has over other joining methods, and it is used extensively in the construction of Australia's gas pipeline network. Unfortunately undesirable changes to material properties can occur during welding and these have the capacity for generating structural weakness or premature failure. Therefore a large amount of research has been carried out on pipeline welding to avoid failures and such detrimental economic and environmental results. A weld procedure defines all the weld process parameters which must be used in order to achieve a weld with the required service properties, e.g. type of welding process, (gas metal arc (GMA), manual metal arc (MMA)), electrode type, voltage, arc current range, welding speed etc. The present work concerns the development of MMA welding procedures used for the maintenance and repair of gas pipelines. These in-service welding procedures are carried out whilst those pipelines are 'live', or in continuous service. Due to the unique conditions inservice welds and welding procedures have particularly demanding requirements.
1.1.2 Industrial significance of In-service welding

In-service welding may be used as part of a pipeline construction technique called "hottapping". This technique enables the connection of a branch pipe to a pipeline without stopping or significantly disrupting the gas flow. The major advantage of this operation is that it avoids the need to decommission the pipeline. That would be costly to the pipeline operator both in terms of wasted gas and in un-serviced customers. McElligott et al (1) of TransCanada Ltd have estimated that relative to using a cold connection, a single hot-tap can reduce gross losses by $1 millon. In a simplified hot-tap, a pipe sleeve is initially welded to the live pipe, and a slide valve is attached to this fitting, see Figure 1.1(a). The hot-tap drill is fitted to this valve, see Figure 1.1(b). Next, the drill is used to cut a hole in the wall of the pipe, see Figure 1.1(c). As the drill is extracted it carries with it the cut-out or coupon, see Figure 1.1(d). Finally the valve is closed allowing the drill assembly to be removed, see Figure 1.1(e). The success of the operation depends on the ability to weld the valve assembly or sleeve fitting onto the 'live' pipeline. Because of the difficulties associated with this welding operation many hot-taps are currently carried out under conservative conditions which are achieved by reducing gas pressures and flows. This can have significant impact on normal pipeline operation. Vented gas and curtailment costs associated with such planned hot-taps in Australia from 1998-2002 have been estimated by Venton (2) to be 4 M$. As methane is a green-house gas, purging and venting of pipelines is potentially hazardous to the environment. TransCanada Pipelines Ltd. estimates that their use of hot-tapping will avoid an annual emission of 603 kTonne of carbon dioxide equivalent in 1999 and 2000(3). That represents 18% of the total emissions reduced by their green house gas management program. In-service welding can also be used as a technique for pipeline maintenance, to weld circumferential sleeves at points of pipeline damage. It has also been suggested, Bruce(4), that weld deposits made directly on to a pipeline could be used to replace pipe wall thickness lost by corrosion. The success of such operations depends on safe and effective in-service welding procedures.
Figure 1(a) Sleeve welded in place and Slide valve attached.
Figure 1(b) Hot-tap drill attached to Slide valve
Figure 1(c) Drill used to cut hole in pipe under pressure
Figure 1(d) Drill and cut coupon removed and Slide valve closed
Figure 1(e) Drill removed, branch ready for connection
Figure 1.1 An illustration of the hot-tapping process taken from IPSCOs animation of hot-tapping on http:/www.hottap.com.us
1.2 In-service welding problems

There are two significant problems associated with in-service welding. Firstly the high gas flow within the pipe (up to 15 m/sec) causes the weld to cool rapidly due to the convective transfer of heat from the pipe-wall to the flowing gas. The result of increased weld cooling rates is greater hardness levels within the weld and in the surrounding heat affected zone (HAZ). With the increased hardness of the microstructure in the HAZ there is an increased possibility of hydrogen assisted cracking. The conditions needed for hydrogen assisted cracking include, hydrogen present to a sufficient degree, tensile stresses acting on the weld, and a susceptible, hard, HAZ microstructure. The second problem concerns the risk of bursting the pipe wall during welding. Pressurised natural gas (up to 15 MPa) imposes a significant stress on the pipe wall, and since the strength of the pipe is decreased due to the localised heating during welding this can result in failure of the pipe wall. The result can vary from a small localised bulging of the pipe wall, up to bursting of the pipe. This is termed burn-through and occurs when the region around the weld pool has insufficient strength to withstand the internal gas pressure, see Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.2 Schematic illustration of burn-through, caused by localised heating and internal gas pressure.
1.3 Australian Conditions

The recent development of high yield-strength, control-rolled, micro-alloyed steels has allowed thinner steel pipes to have the same load capacity as earlier, low strength, thicker pipes. The Australian Pipeline Standard AS 2885, designates that the maximum pressure allowed for pipeline design is one giving a hoop stress equal to 72% of the yield strength. That is:
P.D
2.t w
= 0.72. y
where P is the internal pressure, D is the pipe diameter, tw is the pipe wall thickness, and is the minimum specified yield strength.
Hence for a given diameter pipe and gas pressure the tonnage of pipe required for a given distance can be reduced as the materials yield strength is increased. Alternatively using high yield strength pipe permits the transmission of natural gas at higher pressures and flow rates. The Australian pipeline industry recognises the economic advantages of using high strength steels. Unfortunately the use of thin walled, high strength steel pipelines increases the difficulties associated with in-service welding. With the combination of enhanced gas transmission and diminished wall thickness the weld cooling rate for a given weld procedure increases. Such high strength steels have a greater sensitivity to strength reduction during welding and together with the decreased wall thickness are more prone to bulging or burnthrough.
10
1.4 Summary
Weld procedure development is particularly difficult for in-service welding. For safety and practicality, experimental test welds can not simply be carried out on live pipelines. Hence, external means of establishing weld procedures have to be used. Traditionally two approaches have been developed. Laboratory simulation of pipe flow conditions (Edison Welding Institute, 1980-1990 (5,6)) or through the use of simple numerical calculations (Battelle Memorial Institute, 1985(7,8)). Approximations in such approaches may lead to inaccuracies and excess conservatism in the choice of weld parameters. Such difficulties will be increased by the Australian pipeline industrys use of higher strength, thin walled pipelines because the existing technology may not apply to such new materials.
1.5 Aim of Current Research

The aim of this current research is:
To develop recommended welding procedures for the safe and effective in-service welding of thin-wall, high-strength steel, high pressure, gas pipelines.
The technical challenge is to develop methods of establishing welding procedures which produce welds that are free from the risk of cracking, and do not risk bursting the pipe wall during welding: and to confirm their application for the thin walled high strength materials that will be used in future pipeline construction.
References
1. McElligott J. A., Delanty J., & Delanty B. Full Flow High-Pressure Hot Taps: The New Technology and Why Its Indispensable to Industry, Paper Presented at International Pipeline Conference pub. ASME v2, 1988, pp813-820. 2. Venton P., Report Prepared for Pipeline Program of Cooperative Research Centre for Materials Welding & Joining 1996. 3. TransCanada Pipeline, http://www.transcanada.com 4. Bruce W. A., Holdren R.L., Mohr W. C., Kiefner J.F. & Swatzel J.F., Repair of Pipelines by Weld Metal Deposition, Paper presented at PRCI 9th Symposium on Pipeline Research, Houston Texas, September 1996. 5. Bruce W. A. & Threadgill P. L. Welding Onto In-Service Pipelines Welding Design & Fabrication Feb 1991, pp19-24. 6. Cola M.J. & Threadgill P.L., Final Report on Criteria for Hot Tap Welding, American Gas Association, Edison Welding Institute Project J7038, March 1988 7. Kiefner J.F & Fischer R. D. Models Aid Pipeline Repair Welding Procedure Oil & Gas Journal March 1988, pp41-47. 8. Fischer R.D., Kiefner J.F. & Whitacre G.R., User Manual for Model1 & Model 2 Computer Programs for the Predicting Critical Cooling Rates and Temperatures During Repair and Hot Tap Welding on Pressurised Pipelines, Battelle Memorial Institute Report, June 1981.
11
2. Research Strategy & Outline

2.1 Background
The development of a weld procedure is essentially a trial-and-error process. For example a hypothetical structure may require a weld with predefined properties (e.g. penetration). Through experimental welding trials, involving welding on a replica or similar structure, many different weld procedures are tested and the one with the closest properties to those desired is chosen, and replicated in the field. Often weld procedures are set by standards based on past welding trials and as a result may lack a scientific footing. The cost of establishing a weld procedure can be large. In relation to hot-tap welding, the majority of research has involved welding trials, either using a flow-loop (a diversion adjacent to an operating pipeline which allows welding trials to be carried out on a test section of pipe without disruption to the existing pipeline) or using a laboratory simulation. For in-service welds this process is made difficult since the heat loss due to gas flow cannot be reliably simulated in the laboratory. The details of the normal experimental approach will be discussed later, but it often consists of using water flow to generate high cooling rates. Water is a more efficient coolant than gas and hence there is a basic limitation in duplicating the heat losses due to high gas flow. In addition, with this approach only part of the problem is addressed. Such tests examine the required penetration, bead shape and HAZ hardness but fail to consider burn-through, since the system is not pressurised. The determination of burn-through limits requires further testing. If carried out at all, these tests would use pressurised, non-flowing gas, and again this represents an approximation to the real pipeline conditions. Because of the expense and time-consuming nature of this experimental approach there is a tendency to only examine a limited range of parameters. This can result in a lack of understanding of the sensitivity of the process to slight variation in welding parameters, and it may not establish how close a particular weld is to the failure limit. Lack of knowledge of process sensitivity can cause the welding trial to be both unreliable and unstable. The economic cost of performing in-service welding trials to this degree of accuracy would be prohibitive. Because of the inherent difficulties with an experimental approach some research has used numerical methods to calculate temperatures and cooling rates. Numerical simulations of inservice welding offer significant advantages. Firstly this approach avoids or minimises the use of time-consuming experimentation. The wide range of fittings and pipe geometries that are used in hot-tapping do not represent a significant problem to computer models. Similarly, the variation of gas flows and pressures can be economically dealt with. Numerical models also allow the alternative of determining safe pressures and appropriate gas flows for a given welding process and this information can facilitate the management of hot-tapping and inservice welding procedures. To-date only 2D models have been applied in the pipeline industry. These have only treated burn-through control in a simple fashion by suggesting that it be signified by a limit to the pipe wall temperature.
2.2 Project Strategy

This research programme has developed 3D numerical models of in-service welding using the Finite Element Method. 3D numerical models of the welding process, calculate the thermal field during welding. This provides estimates of the cooling rate, and by linking this data to appropriate empirical equations relating hardness and cooling rate the HAZ hardness is also predicted. Burn-through has been directly examined by combining the thermal analysis with an elastic-plastic stress analysis. The numerical analysis of burn-through has been a novel feature of this research programme. In particular this research has developed a new method of assessing burn-through risk which takes into account the major factors affecting burn-through, namely, thermal field and its distribution, weld orientation, wall thickness and gas pressure.
12
Different joint configurations are used by the pipeline industry which require individual analysis. Australian hot-tap fittings can be broadly classified under three types, the full encirclement, circumferential sleeve fitting, see Figure 2.1(a), the direct-branch with reinforcement-saddle, see Figure 2.1(b), and the direct-branch-to-pipe weld, see Figure 2.1(c). As the pipe thickness decreases the full encirclement sleeve provides the best structural support to both the pipe and attachments. Therefore it is the most common joint configuration. Although longitudinal welds are used to secure the sleeve around the pipe these do not directly contact the pipeline and therefore are not critical. This research program has concentrated on numerical simulations of circumferential sleeve welds and branch connections with reinforcement sleeves.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2.1 Common in-service welding pipe configurations: (a) full encirclement fitting, longitudinal weld to join sleeves and a circumferential fillet to the run pipe. (b) Reinforcing saddle around branch pipe. (c) Directly welding the branch pipe on to the run pipe.
Numerical models of fusion welding processes always include some empirical factors to ensure that the resulting calculated values agree with those found in practice. This means that such models can not be created without significant experimental input, and their accuracy must be validated. The welding process commonly used for in-service welding in Australia is MMA welding using hydrogen controlled electrodes. Unlike other welding processes, MMA welding requires relatively little equipment (power supply + stick electrode) and is the traditional process for infield pipeline welding. An experimental assessment of the performance of two typical electrode types in common use has been carried out using a range of pipe material grades. Although there is a large body of work on numerical modelling of fusion welding there is little specifically addressing MMA welding. This research has addressed that deficiency. In particular it has developed appropriate modelling strategies, for vertical-up or vertical-down MMA welding positions. The current numerical simulations have been validated by comparing predicted values with: published results for t8/5 cooling times measured on pipes of 4.8 mm wall thickness, with measured HAZ and fusion zone geometries from a hot-tap coupon, with data from welds carried out on an uncooled, empty pipe,
13
measured values of t8/5 and HAZ hardness obtained from a number of test welds carried out on a flow loop at Duke Energies Gladstone Gate facility. The results of thermal analysis have been directly compared with micrographs of test welds to ensure the correct calculation of weld penetration and HAZ geometry. The measured cooling rates of test welds have been compared with predicted values. HAZ hardness has been measured for a range of materials and test welds and has allowed further comparisons between predicted hardness and measured values.
This last extensive validation was an aggressive test of the models validity and accuracy under operational conditions on a live pipeline. Although finite element software is readily available, developing and using thermal models to simulate weld processes is a specialised activity. It would be difficult for industry to adopt this approach without significant investment in software and the development of personnel with appropriate expertise. Although access to the modelling capabilities developed within this project will remain, it was felt that results could be put in a more accessible form. One possibility has been developed to a prototype stage. This consists of using the finite element models to develop a database of predicted values for a range of heat inputs, pipe wall thickness, and heat transfer conditions at the pipe wall. Using this approach it is possible to develop a very fast program which produces estimates of HAZ hardness, and burn-through risk by simply interpolating an established database. It is anticipated that through the development of improved numerical simulations of in-service welding, and the establishment of their accuracy and scientific credibility, more efficient weld procedure development will result. Validated numerical models will also allow a safe combination of welding procedure, gas pressures and gas flows to be determined for a given pipe geometry, and this in itself will facilitate more efficient management and control of inservice procedures.
2.3 Outline
Section 3 will discuss the experimental work that has examined in-service welding. The areas of post weld hardness and the possibility of pipe wall failure during in-service welding will be its foci. Section 4 will introduce the concepts related to the numerical simulation of welding processes. Sections 5 & 8 will concentrate on the computer simulation of in-service welding, and on work related to the development of a numerical approach to the prediction of safe welding procedures.
14
3. Literature Review:
Experimental Studies of In-Service Welding

3.1 Introduction
This section reviews the past research on in-service welding. In particular it will identify the need for additional research and the reasons for the current research activities. The research work into in-service welding can be grouped into three areas, namely: experimentally determined weld procedures, experimental studies of burn-through and investigations of weld repair, and, the development and application of numerical simulation. This list does not imply that there is a large amount of information available, for published research work and data related to in-service welding is rare. Most work has been carried out by the American Gas Associations Pipeline Research Committee, in sponsored work at the Edison Welding Institute (EWI), by Cola & Threadgill (1) and Bruce & Threadgill (2,3), and at the Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI), by Kiefner & Fischer (4) and Fischer et al (5). The results of that work form the basis of the common methods used to establish appropriate in-service welding procedures. EWI (2) developed a method for experimentally establishing in-service welding procedures, following similar work by British Gas. At BMI, Fischer, Kiefner & Whitacre (5) developed a numerical approach, and produced commercial software to predict weld cooling rates and the possibility of the pipe bursting (burn-through) during in-service welding. In collaboration with the EWI, their numerical approach was validated and connections between the two approaches established (6). Other literature is sporadic, generally relating to limited experimental studies of particular hot-tap welding conditions. Phelps et al (7), Wade (8,9,10) and Bruce et al (11,12), have produced data on burn-through limits.
3.2 Experimental Studies of In-Service Welding - Factors controlling cracking

The older generation of steel pipes has compositions (high carbon equivalent) which are susceptible to hydrogen assisted cracking. Much experimental work on in-service welding was therefore concerned with determining which of the process variables controlled post weld hardness, since this is commonly the property used to assess crack susceptibility. Figure 3.1 broadly summarises the relationships between post weld hardness and the weld process variables. Baileys work (13), reported by Graville & Read (14), identified that with manual metal arc (MMA) welding using low hydrogen or rutile electrodes, cracking did not occur below a critical HAZ hardness of 350 HVN. Graville & Read considered that in Baileys work even the low-hydrogen weld exhibited significant hydrogen implying some conservatism in the critical hardness specified by Bailey. For in-service welding, as in any fusion weld, the cooling rate and the chemical composition of the steel are the main factors influencing post weld hardness. The weld heat input clearly influences the cooling rate, but for in-service welding the complicating factor is the high heat loss generated by the gas flowing in the pipe. This accelerated cooling, which in-turn depends on the pressure, the flow rate of the gas and the pipe geometry, has a dominating influence on the process. Experiments on operational pipelines and under simulated conditions have clearly shown that gas flow strongly increases the cooling rate of the weld, particularly in thin walled pipes (1,3), see Figure 3.2 for example. This observation is of particular relevance to Australian conditions, where there is a significant trend towards the use of thin-walled pipes. Phelps et al(7) reported that the HAZ of inservice welds could become brittle, giving rise to cracking immediately after welding, or at a later stage
15
through hydrogen embrittlement. They quoted the case of a 200mm diameter 8mm thick, steel pipe with a carbon equivalent (CE) of 0.48. Welds on this pipe gave a HAZ hardness of 415 VHN for a gas flow of 0.518 scm/h and 285 VHN with no gas flow. Whilst their main concern was with the pipes HAZ hardness they also indicated that the composition and cooling rate within the fitting should not be ignored. Cola et al(1) reported on the cracking propensity of welds made with basic and cellulosic electrodes. They considered that with cellulosic electrodes a limiting t8/5 (time to cool from 800C to 500 C) could be established independent of pipe composition. This conclusion was based on data generated from simulated in-service welds using an E6010 electrode at 1kJ/mm heat input. For a range of steels with a CE of 0.3-0.5 cracking was only found for t8/5 cooling times below 5 seconds. When using basic electrodes they recognised that the pipe composition was an important factor, and determined that cracking was only a concern for an HAZ hardness >400 VHN. They also reported that, provided basic electrodes and a sound low-hydrogen welding practice were used, the risk of cracking was not significant for steel having a CE < 0.5. The significance of this relates to the age of the pipe since modern steel compositions generally give a CE < 0.4-0.45. The use of basic electrodes is not just related to their cracking propensity. Whilst they clearly reduce the risk of hydrogen embrittlement, as Phelps et al(7) showed, they also generate significantly lower penetration for a given heat input and hence reduce the risk of burn-through (see Section 9). Welding vertically-down or welding with the electrode DCEN were also reported (7) to give a lower penetration than welding vertically-up, or using electrode DCEP. Boran(15) found that post-weld hardness was influenced by the electrode polarity of the MMA welding process. The polarity influenced the apportionment of heat between the electrode and the workpiece,. DCEN gives the greater fraction of heat in the weld region, which reduces the weld cooling rate and gives the least post weld hardness for a given heat input. Preheating the joint before welding is an obvious, traditional, way of controlling and reducing the cooling rate of during welding. For example, DeHertogh & Illeghems (16) preheated a 323.5 mm 3 diameter 4.4 mm thick, X60 pipe with a gas flow of 25,000 m /hr at 4.8 MPa. They found that the hardness of a weld decreased considerably from 367 to 317 when using an 80C preheat. Using inductive heating they examined preheat levels from 50-200C and reported that minimum hardness was achieved at a 100C preheat, although no explanation of the minimum value was proposed. Cassie et al (17) listed the recommended features of a satisfactory in-service welding procedure as; use of basic low hydrogen electrodes, a preheat of 100C for material with a CE < 0.4 and 150C for material with CE>0.4, and the use of a stringer bead technique. Preheating has an economic penalty of course, but for in-service welding there are other significant difficulties. These relate to the extremely high heat loss generated by the flowing gas. Under such conditions achieving a consistent preheat is difficult. A number of methods were tried, including direct gas flame heating, electrical resistance and inductive heating. Phelps et al (7) reported that none of these was entirely satisfactory. The method they recommended was direct flame heating using a hand-held propane torch. This was used to heat the region ahead of the weld to a maximum temperature of 250C. This preheating step was followed by welding for a short time, until the temperature of the region fell below the desired preheat level. This cyclic process was then repeated. Cooling rates were extremely high so it followed that welding-runs would be short. Since consistency of heat input relies on manual skill of the welder, such an intermittent process can only contribute to the variability in welding speed and in heat input. In-service welds are multi-pass, so the sequence of welding can be controlled to minimise HAZ hardness. Using a stringer bead technique, Figure 3.3(c), in which the current weld tempers the hardening created by the previous one, is recommended by Cassie (17) and Bruce & Threadgill (2). Bruce (18) describes the sequence recommended by British Gas which uses a buttering layer and a temperbead sequence, also shown in Figure 3.3(b). Rietjens (19) made reference to a desirable weld
16
preparation for split circumferential sleeves, as shown in Figure 3.3(a) and identified that buttering and temperbead sequences were useful in minimising crack susceptibility. He also advocated using weld metal with low yield strength, in order to relieve residual stress. Cassie et al (17) examined the application of post-weld heating as a means of reducing the hardness at the weld toe. They found that using a gas tungsten arc was effective but they did not consider it a viable field technique, other methods were not reported in detail but were considered ineffective. Variability in the manual welding process was identified as a concern by a number of researchers. Cola et al (1) referred to the inherent variability in the manual process. Cassie (17) identified variations in hardness due to different welders using different welding speeds and hence a varied heat input. Bruce et al (3) recommended the use of controlled deposition rates in order to minimise such variations. There are some reports of a systematic variation in weld properties around circumferential welds. DeHertogh et al(16) indicated an increase in the depth of HAZ as the weld progressed from the top to the bottom-dead-centre of a circumferential MMA weld. They considered that this was a consequence of the general heating of the pipe as welding progressed. For 4.8 mm thick pipe and vertical-down MMAW Phelps et al (7) also found that penetration was significantly greater at the 6 oclock position (1.3-1.4 mm) than at the 3 oclock position (1.0 mm).
3.3 Experimental Studies of In-service Welding - Factors Controlling on Burn-through

Considering the safety implications, there have been few attempts to determine the conditions necessary to avoid pipe-wall failure during in-service welding. Experimental work has generally used a small number of test welds under widely varied experimental conditions, so conclusions tend to be general directions rather than quantified limits. The relevant factors are shown in Figure 3.4. Clearly, the risk of burn-through is related to the loss of pipe wall strength in the weld zone, and its inability to resist local stress. The reduction in wall strength depends on the elevated temperature around the weld, and on the depth of weld penetration relative to the original wall thickness. Observations of burn-through generally show significant local plastic distortion of the pipe wall, and a fracture along the weld pool axis (11,12).
3.3.1 The influence of pipe wall thickness on burn-through

In-service welds on thin pipe walls have a high risk of burn-through. Weld penetration is largely influenced by the welding heat input, so the same heat input on a thinner walled pipe causes a greater relative reduction in the wall strength. Research efforts have generally sought to determine the lower limit of pipe wall thickness that could be safely welded. For longitudinal welds on X60 using 3.2 mm and 4 mm diameter electrodes, Wade(8) found that successful welds could be made on 6 mm thick pipe at normal operational pressures with a heat input of up to 1.8 kJ/mm. For 5 mm thick pipe he considered that welding could still take place but recommended a considerable restriction of pressure (below 3 MPa) and heat input (less than 1.4 kJ/mm). He established that burn-through was probable for pipe with 3 mm wall thickness, even at low pressure. Specifying a minimum pipe-wall thickness below which in-service welding should not take place has been a convenient way of designating a safe procedure. It is generally accepted that burn-through risk is minimal for pipes which have walls thicker than 6.35 mm(18). Many operational standards have restricted in-service welding by specifying a minimum wall thickness, with restrictions in the range 4-5 mm being common(20). In 1983 Hicks(21) listed a recommended approach for avoiding burn-through. This indicated that at the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP), {equivalent to the pressure giving a hoop stress of 72% of the yield strength} burn-through was possible with a 4 mm wall thickness. His recommendations included limiting in-service welding for longitudinal welds to pipes greater than 4.8mm thick, and for circumferential welds to greater than 4mm wall thickness. He also recommended that pressure should be restricted to that specified by the ASME Gas Piping Standard,
17
D Where p is pressure, y is minimum yield strength, D is pipe diameter, t is pipe wall thickness, and, c is an assumed thickness reduction, to account for reduced wall strength equivalent to 2.38 mm.
3.3.2 Influence of heat input on burn-through
As the welding heat input is increased the weld penetration, and size of the heated region increases, with a consequent increase in the possibility of burn-through. Cassie(17) investigated the process parameters controlling weld penetration using various out-of-position welds on 6, 9 and 12 mm thick plate. From these results, he determined that welds in a vertical-down position using basic electrodes provided the lowest penetration, and therefore would be the most appropriate for in-service welding. Cassie(17) used simulated in-service welds on pressurised cylinders of 450 mm diameter X52 steel with wall thickness of 3.2, 4.8 and 6.4 mm. He defined a safe limit by specifying the maximum arc current allowable for a given pipe thickness, see Figure 3.5. Safe welding currents could be determined for all pipes with wall thickness above 3.2 mm. However, the final recommendation was that welding should not take place on pipes of less than 4 mm thickness at an internal pressure greater than 7 MPa. Bruce et al(11) also referred to a restriction on welding current for safe in-service welding on pipe walls 3 mm thick. They identified that at the same heat input, welding with a smaller diameter electrode (equivalent to a reduced current) reduced the burn-through risk. The limits suggested are shown diagrammatically in Figure 3.6. This shows an interesting difference in behaviour between 3.2 mm and 4 mm thick pipes. For a 3.2 mm pipe wall the division between safe and unsafe welding was strongly dependent on electrode diameter (arc current), with 2 mm diameter (50 A) electrodes safe, and 2.4 mm diameter (80 A) electrode borderline. With a 4 mm thick pipe-wall the conditions are more dependent on heat input. This apparent difference is unexplained. Bruce et al(11, 12), determined recommendations for safe in-service weld repair as: A maximum internal pressure of 6.7 MPa during welding on a minimum remaining wall thickness of 3.2 mm, Electrode type to be a hydrogen controlled, E7018, with electrode size to be restricted to 2.4 mm diameter, A heat input of 0.51 kJ/mm for the first weld runs.
p=
1.44. y (t c )
3.3.3 Influence of welding technique on burn-through

Manual metal arc welding (MMAW) is a process requiring considerable skill and hence the control of penetration and heat input is welder dependent. Wade(8) recommended that electrode types should be specified for their capacity to run smoothly and produce uniform penetration at all points in the weld. He also recommended that welds should have equal leg length and that weaving should be minimised and a planned sequence of short welds should be used to minimise heat build up ahead of the welding arc. Phelps et al(7) observed that penetration was greater at the 6 o-clock position, during vertically-down welding.
3.3.4 Influence of preheat on burn-through

Cassie(17) considered that preheat did not influence burn-through limits. Wade(9) found a small effect, noting an increased tendency for local bulging with increased preheat. However, for typical preheat levels of around 100C the effect was not large.
3.3.5 The influence of pipe diameter on burn-through

Wade(10) considered that the diameter was not important. He argued that internal pressure acting on the weakened pipe wall was the main driving factor, not the hoop stress. Bout & Gretskii(22) however
18
considered burn-through limits in terms of hoop stress, implying that the pipe diameter has an influence.
3.3.6 The influence of welding direction on burn-through

Longitudinal welds are more prone to burn-through than circumferential ones. Bout & Gretski(22) quote limiting heat inputs for welds in both directions indicating that welds in a circumferential direction can tolerate higher heat input before burn-through, see Table 3.1. This observation appears to point towards the importance of the applied hoop stress on burn-through, and it is difficult to rationalise this with Wades(10) conclusion that the pipe diameter is not significant.
3.3.7 Influence of internal pressure on burn-through

Internal pressure is recognised as a factor influencing burn-through, although Bruce et al(11) considered it secondary to heat input. Wade(8) carried out longitudinal fillet welds on 250mm diameter cylinders pressurised with nitrogen. For safety, a mechanised welding system was used in the down-hand position. He observed that significant plastic deformation occurred within the weld zone prior to bursting. Therefore he measured the local pipe wall deformation at the weld site and determined the onset of burn-through to be a critical local bulge height of 1 mm. He produced graphs relating pressure, bulge height and heat input, and determined a critical pressure/heat input line for burn-through (see Figure 3.7). His work lead to a diagram, as shown in Figure 3.8, which specified acceptable working zones (pressure, versus heat input) for in-service welding on pipes of different wall thicknesses.
3.3.8 The influence of pipe grade on burn-through

Steel undergoes a dramatic reduction in strength as its temperature is increased, such that at temperatures over 800C its yield strength is 4-10% of its room temperature value. The strength at temperature of a higher grade steel such as X70 is not significantly higher than that of a low strength grade. So although a high room temperature strength allows pipes to be thinner, this increased strength is not present in the weld pool region during welding. This non-proportional reduction in strength is an additional factor that increases the burn-through risk with thin X70 or X80 pipe materials. Because many of the above observations have been made on statically pressurised pipes, and the gas flow within a normal operational pipe is an aggressive coolant, it is thought that many of these burn-through conditions are conservative. It is interesting that Hicks(21) recommended that a minimum gas flow of 0.4 m/sec be maintained during welding since this acts to reduce pipe wall temperatures. It is recognised that the unsafe region for MMA welding is on pressurised pipes with wall thickness around 4 mm, however no clearly defined, quantitative limits exist.
3.3.9 A Burn-through Avoidance Strategy

Pipe failures at defects such as corrosion cavities or notches are referred to as pressure controlled failure. Bursting strength is dependent on defect dimensions and yield strength. Bout & Gretskii(22) were the first to use this approach to estimate the load carrying capacity of the pipe during in-service welding. They considered that above 700C the metals strength was effectively zero, therefore, the 700C isotherm around the weld pool could represent a surface defect, of a given depth and length. They determined that the following formulae could be used to estimate the maximum hoop stress that could be sustained during welding.
= 0.2 0.85 /
Where,
t r
t r
0.85 M
19
M = 1+
0.4 L Rt
t is the pipe wall thickness L is the axial length of the weld pool perpendicular to the hoop stress r is the maximum depth of the defect R is outside radius of the pipe Using these formulae Bout & Gretskii(22) then estimated the critical length of heated zone (Lcritical) before the pipe would not be able to operate at its maximum load carrying capacity.
t Lcritical = 1.12 2 Rt. 1 0.85 / 0.1 r 9.935

This was a potentially valuable approach to assessing the impact of a weld on the load carrying capacity of the pipe but Bout & Gretskii(22) did not continue with this or integrate this method with a numerical thermal model. Instead, they determined that the permissible sizes of heated zone were very restrictive and suggested a way of overcoming this. They considered that by increasing the support of the pipe wall during welding the freedom for the pipe wall to plastically deform would be reduced, and burn-through would be prevented. They achieved this by surrounding the weld with reinforcing rings or bands as shown in Figure 3.9. The gap between the rings could be adjusted to give varied support to pipes of different wall thickness or pressure. The relationship between allowable pressure, effective thermal penetration and gap width (ao) between the reinforcing rings was given as follows.
at 700 C (t r ) / ao p = 4 0 .2 2 2
For a 3 mm wall thickness, 320 mm diameter pipe with an internal pressure of 4 MPa, burn-through occurred at a heat input of 0.475 kJ/mm with a normal sleeve. With a constraining band the critical heat input was 0.915 kJ/mm. This represents an interesting novel approach. The only concerning feature is that the practical field application quoted are for 9mm thick pipes. Also no consideration was given to the increased cooling rate that would be generated within this joint configuration.
3.4 The Determination of Safe In-Service Welding Procedures

The major thrust of research work on in-service welding has been to generate sound welding practices and to determine processes whereby weld procedures can be easily and efficiently established for a given hot-tap. Because the gas flow, gas pressure and pipe geometry strongly influence welding outcomes this latter aspect is particularly relevant, since a weld procedure must be established for each individual hot-tap. As Bruce et al(3) indicates, many codes require that a qualified welding procedure must be determined for a given in-service weld. AS 2885(23) requires that, welds shall be made following a qualified welding procedure which takes into account pressure and cooling effects from the flow of fluid within the pipe and simulates site condition. Although such techniques seem essential, not all pipeline companies use them. It has been reported(3) that of eleven member companies of the American Pipeline Research Committee, only three used specific procedure development. The others either weld on decommissioned pipelines, or weld using reduced pressures, flows and preheat to overcome high cooling rates.
20
An important feature of procedure development concerns selecting the minimum suitable heat input. This should be selected to achieve a weld with HAZ hardness below the level likely to cause cracking, but not be so high that the pipe wall may burn-through during welding. The most comprehensive approach is to carry out a conventional weld procedure development using test welds on a special flow loop or pipe by-pass. This provides a controllable segment of pipe under identical conditions to those in-service. However such facilities are not common, and the normal approach is to physically simulate the thermal characteristics of the operational pipeline by using water, air or oil flow through a section of test pipe. Following on from early work by British Gas, EWI developed an experimental method of determining the cooling capacity of a working pipeline(2). This is achieved by a simple procedure suitable for use in the field. An oxy-propane torch is used to heat a 50mm diameter area on the exposed pipe wall. Heating is stopped when the temperature reaches approximately 325C. Using a stopwatch and a thermometer, the temperature drop is monitored as the pipe wall cools. The time taken to cool between 250 and 100C is taken as the cooling capacity of the pipeline. This value is often referred to as the EWI cooling time, Tewi. The experiment is repeated on other spots upstream from the first, and a final cooling time is arrived at by averaging six readings. The philosophy behind the test is to measure a parameter which reflects the cooling capacity of the working pipeline, and to do this in a safe, experimentally simple and practical way. An experimental test bed can then be set up by duplicating the measured Tewi for this test pipe. To use this method for establishing a physical simulation it is not necessary to adhere to the EWI procedure. Simply duplicating the experimental procedure, heat source, spot size, temperature range etc, in the field and in the workshop should be sufficient. The general philosophy is satisfied provided the heat transfer behaviour of the gas or the test fluid is not significantly altered by the wall temperature achieved during welding as compared with that generated during EWI testing. Tests have been reported in which water, water-mist sprays, compressed air or oils are used to achieve the desired cooling capacity. EWIs work also generated much experimental data relating the weld heat input and cooling rate for inservice welds. The data were measured from flow loop tests and from test welds carried out under simulated conditions. The t8/5 weld cooling times were measured for heat inputs between 1 2 kJ/mm using pipe materials ranging in thickness from 4.8-8.0 mm and E6010, E7018 and E8018 electrodes. The cooling capacity was measured using the EWI process and t8/5 values were determined from temperatures measured by thermocouples harpooned into the weld pool. For a given pipe thickness and gas flow an approximately linear relationship between t8/5 and heat input were often found. In addition, EWI established that there was a proportional relationship linking the cooling capacity Tewi, and the t8/5 value obtained for a given heat input. Experimental data were used to form graphs such as Figure 3.10 for a 4.8 mm thick pipe. To use this graph to derive a suitable heat input requires a measurement of the cooling capacity of the operational pipeline. Take the value of 20 seconds for example. This represents a particular line between t8/5 and weld heat input on Figure 3.10. For a given CE, the IIW relationship between hardness and t8/5 can be used to estimate the minimum t8/5 cooling time required to give a hardness level of 350 HVN, (6 seconds in this example). The point on the relevant cooling capacity line at this t8/5 value gives the required minimum heat input (1.1 kJ/mm). The empirical data used to establish these lines are also shown in Figure 3.10, so it can be seen that the data points are relatively sparse and the extrapolations have generally been chosen conservatively. With this approach, the required heat input to achieve a desired hardness can be estimated directly from the measured heat capacity. To make use of the existing EWI data linking t8/5, and EWI cooling time it is necessary to have more concern about using the same procedure as EWI for determining the cooling capacity. The EWI test is not rigorously defined, and there is some concern about possible variability due to the changes in the size of the heated region and the heating rate used (see Appendix 1). EWI carried out some numerical analysis of the test process and concluded that the cooling capacity was not overly sensitive to the chosen spot size or heating rate(1). There are other difficulties here however, since the relationships between heat input and t8/5 are empirical and may vary with electrode type, welding position, joint type
21
etc. Similarly, the EWI approach makes no reference to fluid type, joint position, weld preparation, electrode type or preheat. It simply relies on the measured heat capacity and the developed empirical data set. It was pointed out by Cola & Threadgill(1) that the correlation between heat sink capacity and the cooling rate of the weld had only been established over a limited range of field conditions. Certainly the data are sparse and requires considerable extrapolation in some instances. Data are not available for pipes less than 4.0 mm thick. EWI was mainly concerned with determining a weld heat input that would produce a suitable HAZ hardness. The approach is conservative. Empirical relationships are chosen such that t8/5 values are likely to be under estimated, and heat inputs are likely to be over estimated, thus being sure to obtain hardness below the chosen limit. The critical level of hardness is chosen at 350 HVN, which is also considered as a conservative limit for low hydrogen welds(14). Both physical simulation and the EWI test have some problems. There is the additional cost of determining the cooling capacity of the pipeline, for although it is a simple process it may require excavation and incur site costs. To use the EWI methodology requires considerable empirical data to build up a database relating EWI cooling time, t8/5 cooling time and heat-input. The EWI methodology does not make any distinction between the saddle or sleeve configuration, and does not consider the effect of multi-pass welds or tempering effects. It also provides no direct information about burnthrough risk. Simulating the field cooling capacity directly and developing the welding procedure on a sample of the same pipe clearly overcomes the reliance on a database, but in some cases achieving the same cooling capacity can be difficult. Figure 3.11 illustrates the difficulties of selecting a fluid that is capable of duplicating the thermal characteristics of flowing high-pressure gas. In this figure the convective heat transfer coefficients for a selection of test fluids has been estimated using the DittusBohler equation (Holman(24)). The heat transfer coefficient for methane gas flow under typical operational conditions is also included. It seems reasonable to assume that a fluid that gives a similar heat transfer coefficient to that of methane would be suitable as a experimental substitute. Air clearly gives much lower values than methane at the same flow rate. Engine oil likewise gives lower convective coefficients. A low viscosity cooling oil does give heat transfer coefficient similar to that of methane, but it also requires a similar flow rate (1-10m/sec). Such high flow rates are not practical under laboratory testing. Water generally gives higher values and is clearly a more aggressive coolant than a gas flow. Values equivalent to gas flow could be achieved by using a low flow of water, <0.1 m/sec. However, this analysis does not include the boiling or vaporisation of water, which drastically increases heat extraction. The difficulty of generating cooling rates similar to gas flow is also illustrated in Figures 3.12 & 3.13. In these figures, data from EWI are replotted to illustrate how test pipes artificially cooled with water generally have more aggressive cooling than pipe cooled by gas flows. In these graphs, this effect is manifested as a reduced t8/5 cooling time for a given heat input when using water. Oil and air both give less severe cooling characteristics. A comparison between Figure 3.12 for 6.35 mm thick pipe, and Figure 3.13 for 4.8 mm thick pipe demonstrates that the differences between these fluids increases for thin walled pipe. Bruce et al(3) attempted to set up guidelines for the appropriate selection of model fluid, water, oil or air to be used in qualification procedures. Often the rationale is to accept the more aggressive coolant, normally water, since then the experimentally determined critical heat input value is conservative. That is on the operational pipeline it will produce longer cooling times and less HAZ hardness. It should be borne in mind however, that an over conservative heat input with respect to hardness could be non-conservative with respect to burn-through. Unless care is taken to match cooling capacities, Figures 3.12 & 3.13 indicate that this conservatism would increase as the pipe wall thickness is decreased, because there is a greater differential between the cooling effects of water and gas flow. This trend combined with the increasing sensitivity of thin walls to burn-through should be of concern.
22
The simulated flow is usually unpressurised, so these tests do not rigorously establish burn-through conditions. If burn-through limits are required, these are commonly determined with a static pressurised test using compressed inert gas. A test vessel is fabricated using a sample length of pipe. This should include an internal cylinder to reduce the volume of compressed gas and increase safety. The static gas has a lower cooling capacity than the gas flow in an operational pipeline so burnthrough limits established on such test are also conservative. That is, for a given heat input wall temperatures during the test are likely to be higher than those achieved on the working pipeline. Hence, under test conditions burn-through is likely to take place at a lower heat input than it would do in practice.
3.5 Summary Of Section 3 and Required Research

With care and systematic planning it is clear that systems and technology are in place to allow inservice welding to be carried out on pipes with wall thickness greater than 6 mm. However as pipe wall thickness is reduced it is clear that experience and information about in-service welding becomes less and the process becomes inherently more difficult.
3.5.1 Increased use of thin walled pipes burn-through limits

In Australia, there is a significant trend towards the use of high yield-strength steels for pipeline construction. Future pipelines using X70 and X80 steels could have wall thickness as low as 3 mm. The reduced wall thickness is more sensitive to strength loss and increases the risk of burn-through during welding. Thin walls are more easily cooled by the flowing gas and high strength steels can be susceptible to the generation of excessive hardness for a given cooling rate. If the economic advantages of in-service welding are to be maintained then technology to support the safe and effective welding of thin-walled high-strength pipelines must be established. This inevitably raises a question about the wall thickness at which in-service welding becomes unsafe. The consensus is that the current lower limit is approximately 4-5 mm, although welds have been made on pipes of 3.2 mm thickness. Current burn-through limits largely rely on experimental data that have been determined under conservative conditions, or use a restricted pipe wall temperature. The degree of conservatism in the established limits is unknown. Clear information on the heat input and pressure limits to avoid burn-through particularly on thin walled pipes is desirable.
3.5.2 Experimental weld procedure development

Weld procedure development is particularly difficult for in-service welding. Clearly, for safety and practicality, experimental test welds can not be carried out on live pipelines. Hence other means of establishing weld procedures have to be used. Simulation of accelerated cooling generally use systems that give greater cooling rates during the test than will be experienced on the live pipe. This generates a weld procedure with a conservative heat input with respect to the generation of excess hardness. However this may be non-conservative with respect to burn-through. In such cases, say with pipe < 6.4 mm thick, then additional experiments on pressurised segments of pipe are generally required. Again because such tests rarely use flowing gas the heat input limits will be conservative. Such conservative outcomes may unnecessarily restrict in-service welding to thicker pipes. Approximations in such systems may lead to inaccuracies and excess conservatism in the choice of weld parameters. Such difficulties will be enhanced with thin walled pipes. On thin pipes the heat input to avoid burn-through is very restricted, and it is necessary to recognise the danger of the potential loss of control over heat input in a manual process.
3.5.3 Heat Input Variation

Manual processes are inherently variable in welding speed, and hence in heat input. This is a clear problem for a welding procedure that depends on meeting a critical working range of heat input. Interestingly the possibility of addressing this through the introduction of automated systems was raised by Cassie(17) some 20 years ago. He suggested the possibility of using an automated GMA
23
welding system to accurately control heat input. In addition, he speculated on the possibility or incorporating pre-heat or post heating within such a system.
3.5.4 Hardness limits to assess potential for cracking

With appropriate validation computer models can reliably predict weld cooling behaviour, however hardness is conventionally used to assess the potential for cracking. This raises two possible gaps in our knowledge. Firstly there is some inaccuracy possible in the determination of hardness from the relationships between composition, and cooling rate. There are many such relationships, which may have varied relevance for certain ranges of steel. The current solution to this is to adopt the conservative approach, but here again for thin-walled pipe this may lead to the selection of higher heat inputs than necessary, and run into conflict with burn-through conditions. Secondly, HAZ hardness may not be the sole criteria for the assessment of hydrogen assisted cold cracking and t8/5 may not be the most relevant factor to assess weld cooling.
3.6 Technical Challenges

Techniques for in-service welding on pipes with wall thickness greater than 6 mm are well established. Provided a careful and systematic approach is taken, such welds can be produced with safety. To apply similar techniques to pipes with wall thickness below 5 mm, or for weld repair where remaining wall thickness is low is a technical challenge. For it is below this thickness, that our conservative approach, and lack of knowledge about suitable HAZ hardness levels, burn-through limits, and the impact of a poorly controlled manual process, becomes prohibitive. The technical challenge is to address in-service welding on the thin walled high strength materials that will be used in future pipeline construction. The major aspects will be: the determination of quantifiable, validated burn-through limits for thin walled pipes, improve confidence in the hardness limits that are used for modern pipe compositions, quantifying the role of temperbead techniques, and addressing improved control of heat input.
3.7 References
1. Cola M. J. & Threadgill P. L., Final Report on Criteria for Hot Tap Welding, American Gas Association, Edison Welding Institute Project J7038, March 1988. 2. Bruce W. A. & Threadgill P. L., Welding Onto In-Service Pipelines, Welding Design & Fabrication Feb 1991, pp19-24. 3. Bruce W. A. & Threadgill P. L., Effect of Procedure Qualification Variables for Welding Onto Inservice Pipelines, American Gas Association Report J7141, July 1994. 4. Kiefner J.F & Fischer R. D., Models Aid Pipeline Repair Welding Procedure, Oil & Gas Journal March 1988, pp41-47. 5. Fischer R. D., Kiefner J. F. & Whitacre G. R., User Manual for Model1 & Model 2 Computer Programs for the Predicting Critical Cooling Rates and Temperatures During Repair and Hot Tap Welding on Pressurised Pipelines, Battelle Memorial Institute Report, June 1981. 6. Bruce W. A., Bubenik T. A., Fischer R. D. & Kiefner J.F., Development of Simplified Weld Cooling Rate Models For In-Service Gas Pipelines, Line Pipe Research Proceedings, 8th Symposium, September 1993, Paper 31, pub Arlington VA 22209, 1993, pp31.1-31.22.
24
7. Phelps B., Cassie B. A., & Evans N. H., Welding Onto Live Natural Gas Pipelines, Metal Construction, August 1976, pp350-354. 8. Wade J. B., Hot Tapping of Pipelines, Australian Welding Research Association Research Report, Snowy Mountains Corporation 1978. 9. Wade J.B., Effect of Preheat on Hot Tapping Procedures, Australian Welding Research Association Research Report, Snowy Mountains Corporation, September 1978. 10. Wade J.B., Description of Experimental Results on the Effects of Pipeline Damage on Performance and Hot Tapping Techniques, paper presented at Australian Welding Research Associations conference Pipeline Welding in 80s, Melbourne March 1981, Paper 4a. 11. Bruce W. A., Holdren R.L., Mohr W. C., Kiefner J.F. & Swatzel J.F., Repair of Pipelines by Weld Metal Deposition, Paper presented at PRCI 9th Symposium on Pipeline Research, Houston Texas, September 1996. 12. Bruce W. A., Holdren R.L. & Mohr W. C., Repair of Pipelines by Direct Deposition of Weld Metal Further Studies, Final report Edison Welding Institute, EWI Project J7283, November 1996. 13. Bailey N., Welding Procedures for Low Alloy Steels, The Welding Institute Cambridge England 1970. 14. Graville B. A. & Read J. A., Optimization of Fillet Weld Sizes, Welding Journal Research Supplement pp161s-167s. 15. Boran J The Hot-Tapping of Sub Sea Pipelines Welding Review, vol6, no 4 Nov 1987, pp283-284 16. DeHertogh J. & Illeghems H., Welding Natural Gas Filled Pipelines, Metal Construction & British Welding Journal, March 1972, pp224-227. 17. Cassie B. A., The Welding of Hot Tap Connections to High Pressure Gas Pipelines, paper presented Pipeline Industries Guild J. W. Jones Memorial Lecture, October 1974. 18. Bruce W. A., Welding Onto In-Service Pipelines: A Review, paper presented at Pipeline Welding 98, International Symposium on Pipeline Welding, May 1998. 19. Rietjens I. P., Safely Weld and Repair In-Service Pipelines, Pipeline Industry, December 1986, pp26-29. 20. Considerations of Welding Methods Adopted on Pipelines During Operation, IIW Document XI-E477-87, 1987. 21. Hicks D. J. Guideline for Welding on Pressurised pipe, Pipeline & Gas Journal, March 1983, pp17-19 22. Bout V.S. & Gretskii Yu.Ya., Arc Welding Application on Active Pipelines, Pipeline Technology, Volume 1, R. Denys Ed. R. Denys, pub Elsevier Science BV. pp550-558. 23. Australian Standard Pipelines Gas & Liquid Petroleum AS 2885 1987 Clause 7.13.11.
th 24. Holman J.P., 1976, Heat Transfer, 7 edition pub. McGraw-Hill.
25
gas flow gas pressure
hydrogen electrode type
gas thermal properties Pipe geometry
weld cooling rate
HAZ Cracking
hardness > 350 susceptible microstructure
weld heat input
material composition
Figure 3.1 Factors influencing the possibility of hydrogen assisted cracking during in-service welding.
8 7 T85C Cooling Time (secs) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Gas Flow (mmscmd) 4.8 mm 6.4 mm 9.3 mm 15.1 mm
Figure 3.2 For a constant heat input of 0.9 kJ/mm this graph shows the reduction of t8/5 cooling time due to increased gas flow in pipes of different wall thickness(3).
26
10 8 9 6 2 7 3 4
2t
45 deg . t
5 1
(b) Buttering layers & temperbead

6 3 1 5 2 4
(a) Less than 1 mm
(c) Stringer bead arrangement
Figure 3.3 Recommended weld bead deposition sequences in order to make most benefit of tempering, (a) general view of recommended joint configuration (b) buttering layers and a temperbead at weld toe (c) stringer bead arrangement.
27
Arc current Arc voltage
Heat Input
Weld Penetration Pipe Wall Temperature
Local Pipe Wall Strength
Welding speed Electrode polarity Electrode type Electrode diameter Welder technique/direction Pipe wall thickness
BURN THROUGH RISK
Pipe Wall Cooling
Preheat temperature Gas flow rate Gas temperature Pipe diameter
Local Applied Stress
Gas pressure Yield strength at temperature Weld orientation Local wall support
Figure 3.4 Causal factors involved in burn-through during in-service welding
28
Not allowed without significant pressure restriction

220
Burn-through Limits Maximum Allowable Welding Current (Amps)

200 4 mm diameter electrode
180
160 3.2 mm diameter electrode 140 burn-through safe < 0.87 kJ/mm 100 3 4 5 6 7
120
Pipe Wall Thickness (mm)
Figure 3.5 Burn through limits expressed as limits to the allowable welding current, for both 3.2 mm and 4 mm diameter electrodes from Cassie(17). Additional points from Bruce et al (11).
1.1
Maximum Heat Input (kJ/mm)
1 4 mm wall thickness 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 50 2.0 mm 60 70 80 2.4 mm 90 100 110 3.2 mm 3.2 mm wall thickness
Welding Current (Amps) / Electrode Diameter
Figure 3.6 Recommended limits for avoiding burn through during repair welding from Bruce et al(11)
29
Table 3.1 Conditions for burn-through from Bout & Gretskii(22)
Pipe Diameter (mm) 320 320 320 320
Wall Thickness (mm) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Internal Pressure (MPa) 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
Welding Direction
Critical Heat Input for Burn-through (kJ/mm) 0.37 0.48 0.48 0.51
Longitudinal Circumferential Longitudinal Circumferential
14
Wade results, bulge height < 1.0 mm Wade results, bulge height > 1.0 mm
12
Wade results, burst
Pipe Internal Pressure (MPa)
10
0 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9
Welding Heat Input (kJ/mm)
Figure 3.7 Burn-through limits established by Wade (8) for welding onto a 300 mm diameter, X60 steel pipe of 5 mm wall thickness.
30
1.8 1.6 1.4
Arc Energy (kJ/mm)
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0
3mm thickness limit
5mm thickness limit
6mm thickness limit
4mm thickness limit
welding not permitted
Gas Pressure (MPa)
Figure 3.8 Burn-through limits recommended by Wade(8) based on tests carried out on 300 mm diameter, X60 steel pipe, using test pipes pressurised with non-flowing nitrogen.
Gap ao
Band to support weld zone
fitting
Figure 3.9 Schematic illustration of the joint configuration proposed by Bout & Gretskii(22) to eliminate burn-through by supporting the pipe wall during in-service welding.
31
2 1.8 1.6 Heat Input (kJ/mm) 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 2
4.8 mm thick pipe

Tewi = 10 sec
Tewi = 25.5 secs Tewi = 14.4 secs Tewi = 23.9 secs

Tewi = 30 sec Tewi = 20 sec
Tewi = 40 sec
4 6 T85C Cooling Time (secs)
10
Figure 3.10 A typical diagram derived by EWI(6) to enable the determination of required heat input from a measurement of the pipes heat capacity.
100000
methane 'real' pipe air flow low pressure w ater flow Mobiltherm 603 Engine Oil
Effective heat transfer coefficient (W/m 2.K)
10000
1000
100
10
1 0.01 0.1 1 10 Flow velocity (m/sec)
Figure 3.11 The estimated effective heat transfer coefficient at the inside of the pipe wall for different fluids and flow conditions.
32
15
Water Motor Oil
T85 for 6.35 mm thick pipe
12.5 T85 cooling times (secs)
Air Flow Data from Natural Gas Pipes
10
7.5
2.5
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Heat Input (kJ/mm) 2 2.5
Figure 3.12 The relationships between t8/5 cooling time and the weld heat input on 6.35 mm pipe containing different fluids, compared with points for gas flow. Data replotted from (3).
25
Water Motor Oil
T85 data for 4.8 mm thick pipe
20 T85 cooling times(secs)
Air flow Data from natural gas pipes
15
10
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Heat Input (kJ/mm) 2 2.5
Figure 3.13 The relationships between t8/5 cooling time and the weld heat input on 4.8 mm pipe containing different fluids compared with points for gas flow. Data replotted from (3).
Welding on In-Service Pipelines: Final Report.
100
References
1. Cola M.J. & Threadgill P.L., Final Report on Criteria for Hot Tap Welding, American Gas Association, Edison Welding Institute Project J7038, March 1988 2. Bruce W.A. & Threadgill P.L. Welding Onto In-Service Pipelines Welding Design & Fabrication Feb 1991, pp19-24 3. Bruce W.A. & Threadgill P.L., Effect of Procedure Qualification Variables for Welding Onto Inservice Pipelines, American Gas Association Report J7141, July 1994. 4. Kiefner J.F & Fischer R.D. Models Aid Pipeline Repair Welding Procedure Oil & Gas Journal March 1988, pp41-47 5. Fischer R.D., Kiefner J.F. & Whitacre G.R., User Manual for Model1 & Model 2 Computer Programs for the Predicting Critical Cooling Rates and Temperatures During Repair and Hot Tap Welding on Pressurised Pipelines, Battelle Memorial Institute Report, June 1981 6. Bruce W.A., Bubenik T.A., Fischer R.D. & Kiefner J.F., Development of Simplified Weld Cooling Rate Models For In-Service Gas pipelines 7. Phelps B., Cassie B.A., & Evans N.H., Welding Onto Live Natural Gas Pipelines, Metal Construction, August 1976, pp350-354 8. Wade J.B., Hot Tapping of Pipelines, Australian Welding Research Association Research Report, Snowy Mountains Corporation1978 9. Wade J.B., Effect of Preheat on Hot Tapping Procedures, Australian Welding Research Association Research Report, Snowy Mountains Corporation, September 1978 10. Wade J.B., Description of Experimental Results on the Effects of Pipeline Damage on Performance and Hot Tapping Techniques, paper presented at Australian Welding Research Associations conference Pipeline Welding in 80s, Melbourne March 1981, Paper 4a 11. Bruce W.A., Holdren R.L., Mohr W.C., Kiefner J.F. & Swatzel J.F., Repair of Pipelines by th Weld Metal Deposition, Paper presented at PRCI 9 Symposium on Pipeline Research, Houston Texas, September 1996. 12. Bruce W.A., Holdren R.L. & Mohr W.C., Repair of Pipelines by Direct Deposition of Weld Metal Further Studues, Final report Edison Welding Institute, EWI Project J7283, November 1996 13. Bailey N., Welding Procedures for Low Alloy Steels, The Welding Institute Cambridge England 1970 14. Graville B.A. & Read J.A., Optimization of Fillet Weld Sizes, Welding Journal Research Supplement pp161s-167s 15. Boran 16. DeHertogh J. & Illeghems H., Welding Natural Gas Filled Pipelines, Metal Construction & British Welding Journal, March 1972, pp 224-227
Welding on In-Service Pipelines: Final Report.
101
17. Cassie B.A., The Welding of Hot tap Connections to High Pressure Gas Pipelines, paper presented Pipeline Industries Guild J.W.Jones Memorial Lecture, October 1974. 18. Bruce W.A., Welding Onto In-Service Pipelines: A Review, paper presented at Pipeline Welding 98, International Symposium on Pipeline Welding, May 1998 19. Rietjens I.P., Safely weld and Repair In-Service pipelines, Pipeline Industry, December 1986, pp26-29 20. Considerations of Welding Methods Adopted on Pipelines During Operation, IIW Document XI-E-477-87, 1987 21. Hicks D.J. Guideline for Welding on Pressurised pipe, Pipeline & Gas Journal, March 1983, pp17-19 22. Bout V.S. & Gretskii Yu.Ya., Arc Welding Application on Active Pipelines, Pipeline Technology, Volume 1, R.Denys Ed. R.Denys, pub Elsevier Science BV. pp550-558 23. Australian Standard Pipelines Gas & Liquid Petroleum AS 2885 1987 Clause 7.13.11.
th 24. Holman J.P., 1976, Heat Transfer, 7 edition pub. McGraw-Hill

RSC - in Service Welding On Gas Pipelines - Part 1 - Michael Painter Final Report 01 Jun 2000

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RSC - in Service Welding On Gas Pipelines - Part 1 - Michael Painter Final Report 01 Jun 2000

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

In-Service Welding of Gas Pipelines

CRC WS Pipeline Program Project Report March 2000

In-Service Welding Of Gas Pipelines Pipeline Program Report

To which, I express thanks and gratitude.

In-Service Welding of Gas Pipelines

Final Project Report

In-Service Welding of Gas Pipelines

Welding Onto a Gas Pipeline

In-Service Welding: Current Technology

In-Service Welding: The Current Project

Brief Project Outcomes

Development of Numerical Simulations

Transferring Project Knowledge to Industry.

1. In-Service Welding of Gas Pipelines:

1.1.2 Industrial significance of In-service welding

Figure 1(a) Sleeve welded in place and Slide valve attached.

Figure 1(b) Hot-tap drill attached to Slide valve

Figure 1(c) Drill used to cut hole in pipe under pressure

Figure 1(e) Drill removed, branch ready for connection

1.2 In-service welding problems

1.3 Australian Conditions

1.5 Aim of Current Research

2. Research Strategy & Outline

2.2 Project Strategy

Experimental Studies of In-Service Welding

3.2 Experimental Studies of In-Service Welding - Factors controlling cracking

3.3 Experimental Studies of In-service Welding - Factors Controlling on Burn-through

3.3.1 The influence of pipe wall thickness on burn-through

3.3.3 Influence of welding technique on burn-through

3.3.4 Influence of preheat on burn-through

3.3.5 The influence of pipe diameter on burn-through

3.3.6 The influence of welding direction on burn-through

3.3.7 Influence of internal pressure on burn-through

3.3.8 The influence of pipe grade on burn-through

3.3.9 A Burn-through Avoidance Strategy

t Lcritical = 1.12 2 Rt. 1 0.85 / 0.1 r 9.935

3.4 The Determination of Safe In-Service Welding Procedures

3.5 Summary Of Section 3 and Required Research

3.5.1 Increased use of thin walled pipes burn-through limits

3.5.2 Experimental weld procedure development

3.5.3 Heat Input Variation

3.5.4 Hardness limits to assess potential for cracking

3.6 Technical Challenges

gas flow gas pressure

hydrogen electrode type

gas thermal properties Pipe geometry

weld cooling rate

weld heat input

(b) Buttering layers & temperbead

(a) Less than 1 mm

(c) Stringer bead arrangement

Arc current Arc voltage

BURN THROUGH RISK

Pipe Wall Cooling

Preheat temperature Gas flow rate Gas temperature Pipe diameter

Local Applied Stress

Figure 3.4 Causal factors involved in burn-through during in-service welding

Not allowed without significant pressure restriction

Burn-through Limits Maximum Allowable Welding Current (Amps)

Pipe Wall Thickness (mm)

Maximum Heat Input (kJ/mm)

Welding Current (Amps) / Electrode Diameter