Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 1648–1655

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Science and Engineering A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Strength–hardness statistical correlation in API X65 steel

S.H. Hashemi ∗
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Birjand, POBOX 97175-376, Birjand, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Accurate determination of pipe yield strength (as an indication of material resistance to plastic collapse)
Received 9 September 2010 is of great importance to pipeline engineers. In this research, Vickers hardness data from 100 tested pipes
Received in revised form 24 October 2010 (API X65) was used to derive strength–hardness statistical correlation. First, hardness data were measured
Accepted 26 October 2010
in different sub-zones of weldment (i.e. weld metal, HAZ, and base metal). Next, tensile properties of
base and weld metal were measured on flat tensile strips. The minimum, maximum, mean and standard
deviation of test data were calculated then for statistical variation and difference of mean value in each
Keywords:
test zone. All test data were described by probability density function (PDF), and zones with the largest
API X65 steel
Weld microstructure
variance were determined. It was shown that hardness data could be used for yield strength prediction in
Weldment properties API X65 steel with reasonable accuracy. Discussion on weldment microstructure correlation with strength
Gas transportation pipeline and hardness data concluded the paper.
Probability density function © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The increasing demand for natural gas as clean energy has led
to mass production of high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steels in
recent years. These steels are used in construction of long-distance,
high-pressure gas transportation pipelines and networks. The pipe
technical specifications are given by standard codes, such as API [1].
The API X80 (80 ksi yield strength) for large-diameter gas pipelines
is currently in use [2], and high toughness materials (X100 and
X120) have reached the stage of full-scale testing [3]. The apparent
benefits of such pipe steels are reduction in overall project cost as
a result of reduced quantity of steel, lower pipeline transportation
and laying cost, and lower welding time and cost due to thinner
wall thicknesses [4].
The API steels offer combined strength and toughness, coming
from their TMCR (thermo-mechanical controlled rolling) pro-
cess. This process favours the formation of acicular ferrite-based
microstructure, which is the preferred microstructure for pipe
steels [5]. The main objective is to obtain the best possible combi-
nation of strength and toughness, for pipe steels experiencing high
internal pressures of 10 MPa and even above [6]. These properties
(strength and toughness) are vital for pipeline structures, which are
vulnerable to plastic collapse and to ductile crack propagation. Typ-
ically, the latter is evaluated either on Charpy or drop weight tear
test (DWTT) samples [7,8], whereas flat-strip tensile specimens are
used for measurements of material strength [9].
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 561 2502516; fax: +98 561 2502515.
E-mail addresses: shhashemi@birjand.ac.ir, s h hashemi@yahoo.com
In this research, tensile test on API X65 steel was conducted
to assess its mechanical characteristics. Moreover, Vickers hard-
ness test [10] was performed on this steel, to ensure no hard spots
existed in test material, and to use hardness data for strength
prediction. In total, 100 spiral pipes with similar heats and manu-
facturing processes were used. Material characterisation was done
in different sub-zones of weldment in tested steel. The obtained
data were analysed statistically, and their mean value in vari-
ous weldment sub-zones were calculated and compared to service
requirements set by API industry standard. The establishment of an
empirical relationship for prediction of yield strength in pipe base
metal (as an indication of structure resistance to plastic collapse)
from measured hardness data and detailed discussion on the rela-
tionship between weldment microstructure and experimental data
concluded the paper.
2. Characteristics of test pipes
The material under investigation was API X65 (gas pipe steel)
with 1219 mm outside diameter (OD) and 14.3 mm wall thickness
(WT). Its average chemical composition (wt.%) was 0.071C, 0.209Si,
1.515Mn, 0.018Cu, 0.011Ni, 0.003Mo, 0.044Nb, 0.042V, 0.017Ti, and
0.157Cr. It is worth noting that the sum of Nb and V contents
should not exceed 0.06% for welded pipes, according to API stan-
dard. The sum of Nb (0.044) and V (0.042) contents (i.e. 0.086%)
in this research was higher than the specified value from standard
code, which is agreed between pipe purchaser and manufacturer
[1].
The API X65 pipes were formed by spiral welding technique.
The original coil used for pipe manufacture was produced by

0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.msea.2010.10.089
 S.H. Hashemi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 1648–1655
Fig. 1. Location and orientation of flat strip tensile samples in spiral pipe.
thermo-mechanical control-rolled (TMCR) process. The API X65
steel, together with API X70 are the most commonly used pipe
materials in Iran high-pressure gas transportation pipelines and
networks. The typical working pressure of these pipelines in Iran
is around 750–1000 psi (equivalent to 5–7 MPa). It should be noted
that hoop stresses caused by the internal pressure in the natural
gas pipelines confined to 0.4–0.8 SMYS (specified minimum yield
strength) of the used pipe steel [11]. As the SMYS of the API X65
steel is 448 MPa, its hoop stress ranges from 180 MPa (0.4SMYS) to
360 MPa (0.8SMYS).
3. Tensile experiments
Gas pipe steels are subjected to high internal pressures and
should have high strength and toughness levels to withstand sever
loading conditions. Accordingly, tensile tests are the very first
(destructive) mechanical experiments, which are conducted on
pipe materials. In this research, flat strip tensile specimens were
used to measure mechanical properties of API X65 steel, as recom-
mended by API code [1]. In total, 100 pipes with similar heats and
manufacturing processes were analysed. The general mechanical
characteristics of base and weld metal were determined for each
pipe, and compared then to industry requirements set by API 5L
standard code.
3.1. Tensile test standard and sample preparation
Tensile test procedure conformed to the requirements of API
5L [1]. Flat test samples were cut from each pipe in the specified
position and direction, as shown in Fig. 1.
As can be seen in this figure, base metal (BM) specimens were cut
in hoop orientation (parallel to the direction of maximum stress),
whereas weld metal (WM) specimens were machined perpendic-
ular to spiral weld [1].
The design geometry of tensile test specimens (for base metal)
is demonstrated in Fig. 2. Flat test samples had gauge width, thick-
ness, and length of 38.1, 14.3, and 50 mm, respectively.
According to API standard, the transverse tensile test pieces
for seam weld experiments shall be approximately 38 mm (1.5 in.)
wide, and shall have the butt weld at the mid-length of the test
piece. Furthermore, the weld reinforcement shall be removed from
both faces [1].
It should be noted that the thickness of flat strip samples was
equal to pipe full-thickness (t = 14.3 mm) to accurately capture
material properties. The initial test plates for specimen prepara-
1649
Fig. 2. Dimensions of flat strip tensile specimens (used for base metal testing).
tion were extracted from each pipe body by flame cutting first,
and flattened then by hydraulic pressing machine to remove the
initial curvature. This process introduced slight pre-strains in test
samples, which is tolerated by standard code.
3.2. Tensile tester specifications
A 600 kN Zwick tensile testing machine with hydraulic clamps
and computer data logger was used in this research. All tensile
experiments were conducted at room temperature under displace-
ment control with ram displacement of 0.05 mm/s. In each test, the
applied load and specimen elongation were measured. An exten-
someter with 50 mm gauge length was used to monitor specimen
axial strains. The computer software gave yield strength (at 0.5%
total elongation according to API 5L), ultimate tensile strength
(UTS), and specimen elongation (in 50 mm gauge length) at fracture
point for each test.
3.3. Tensile test results
In total, 100 tensile data were obtained in each test set from
tensile testing of two different specimens (i.e. base and weld
metal). The yield strength (YS), ultimate tensile strength (UTS),
and specimen elongation were obtained from base metal experi-
ments, whereas only UTS was measured for weld metal specimens
according to test standard recommendations [1].
Tensile test data, like other statistical quantities, can be
described by their mean, standard deviation, and distribution type.
The probability density is defined as the number of occurrences
divided by the total sample number. If the tensile test data are
given in the form of Gaussian or normal distribution, the proba-
bility density function (PDF) is calculated for each set, as follows
[12]:
  x − mean 2 
1 1
f (x) = √ exp − (1)
SD 2 2 SD
where SD is the standard deviation of test data in each set, x is the
measured strength (in MPa), and mean is the average strength (in
MPa) in each set. Table 1 contains all test results from tensile exper-
iments, together with target values given in API 5L [1]. As can be
seen from this data, the material tensile properties fulfilled the API
specifications (448 MPa < YS < 598 MPa, 531 MPa < UTS < 758 MPa)
for API X65 steel.
Fig. 3 demonstrates the frequency distribution of yield strength
for API X65 (base metal). As can be seen in this figure, the
most occurrence of yield strength (30%) was associated with yield
strength level of 540–560 MPa. This was close to average yield
strength of API X65 steel of 538 MPa (±26 MPa SD), see Table 1.
In Figs. 4 and 5, the cumulative probability and probability den-
sity function of material strength are demonstrated. As can be seen
in these plots, an average ultimate tensile strength of 624 MPa and
638 MPa were obtained for base and weld metal, respectively.
1650 S.H. Hashemi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 1648–1655

Table 1
Tensile data of API X65 pipes measured on flat strip.

Property Min. Max. Mean PDF (%) SD

Base metal yield strength (MPa) 479 589 538 1.6 26

Target (MPa, API 5L standard) 448 598 – – –
Base metal tensile strengtha (MPa) 582 672 624 2.2 18
Target (MPa, API 5L standard) 531 758 – – –
YS/UTS 0.77 0.89 0.86 29 0.02
Target (API 5L standard) – 0.93 – – –
Base metal elongation (%) 30 38 34 24 1.7
Target (API 5L standard) 24 – – – –
Weld metal tensile strengthb (MPa) 549 676 638 2.5 16
a
Measured in pipe circumferential direction.
b
Measured perpendicular to spiral weld.

Fig. 3. Frequency versus yield strength in API X65 steel.

Fig. 5. Probability density function versus strength in API X65 steel.

a maximum value corresponding to unfavourable hard spots. High

Fig. 4. Cumulative probability versus strength in API X65 steel.
4. Hardness experiments
Gas pipe steels should have a minimum hardness (resistance to
indentation and deformation) to resist surface scratch and dents.
On the other hand, their average hardness level should be less than
hardness of weld metal generates weak spots for crack initiation.
The API standard states that any hard spot of hardness level greater
than or equal to 35 HRC (327 HB or 345 HV10) shall be rejected.
Therefore, hardness experiment is required to control pipe accept-
able hardness level and to ensure its safety and structural integrity.
In this research, Vickers hardness test was used to determine
the hardness levels of API X65 steel in four different sub-zones of
weldment (i.e. weld metal, HAZ(1) in the left side of fusion line,
HAZ(2) in the right side of fusion line, and base metal). In total, 100
welded joints were tested for hardness measurement.
4.1. Hardness test standard and sample preparation
The hardness test did not include in older API 5L standard
(43rd edition) [1], and this experiment was conducted on weld-

Fig. 6. Photograph of hardness tester and test samples for hardness measurement.
 S.H. Hashemi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 1648–1655 1651

Table 2
Hardness data (HV10) of 100 pipes measured in four different sub-zones of API X65
weldment.

Specimen Vickers hardness

Min. Max. Mean PDF (%) Standard deviation

Weld metal 230 239 235 27.5 1.44

HAZ(1) 213 215 214 39.7 0.98
HAZ(2) 213 218 215 35.4 1.00
Base metal 217 228 221 19.7 1.99
API 5L standard – 345 – – –

Fig. 7. Schematic of weldment cross-section demonstrating different sub-zones for

hardness measurement.

ment according to the more recent API 5L standard (44th edition)

[13]. This standard required that samples for hardness tests should
contain a section of the helical seam at their centre.
Each weld joint included indentation on the weld metal (WM),
HAZ (both in the left side and right side of fusion line), and base
metal (BM). The Vickers method HV10 (transverse weight of 10 kg)
was used. In Fig. 6, hardness test samples, cut from test pipes are Fig. 8. Frequency versus hardness data in API X65 steel (base metal).

demonstrated.
Before hardness test, the transverse weldment cross-section
was prepared and polished using different grades of emery papers
and diamond paste. The specimen then was etched with Nital 2%,
and examined by light optical microscopy, and by scanning electron
microscopy.
In total, 43 test points were examined in each test sample on
the cross-section of API X65 weldment, as shown in Fig. 7.
Indentations were made from one base metal side to the other,
below the surface and in the horizontal centre line, on either side
of the weld. From this, the hardness of test material was deter-
mined for each pipe, and compared then to industry requirements
set by standard code. It should be noted that while the control of Fig. 9. Variation of hardness and tensile strength in weldment cross-section of API
all 43 data points was required for hard spots examination, only X65 steel.
three test points (out of 43) was used for average hardness mea-
surement in each zone. This is common industry practice, based on In Fig. 9, the variation of hardness and tensile strength data in
pipe delivery conditions. The data points used for hardness evalu- weldment cross-section is demonstrated. As can be seen from this
ation were 10,23,36 (in vertical centreline of seam weld) for weld plot, the weld metal had the highest level of hardness (235 HV) and
metal, 7,21,33 for HAZ(1) in the left side of fusion line, 13,25,39 for tensile strength (638 MPa). On the contrary, the HAZ(1) and HAZ(2)
HAZ(2) in the right side of fusion line, and 3,18,29 for base metal, sub-zones had the lowest hardness level, with an average value of
respectively. 215 HV.
In Fig. 10, the cumulative probability of hardness values for API
4.2. Hardness tester specifications X65 base metal, HAZ and weld metal are demonstrated. As can be
seen in these plots, an average hardness level of 235 and 221 HV
Generally, a square-base diamond pyramid is used in Vickers were obtained for weld and base metal, respectively. The HAZ(1)
hardness testing as the indenter with the included angle between and HAZ(2) sub-zones had close hardness levels with average value
opposite faces of the pyramid of 136◦ . The loads (ranging from 1 to of 214 and 215 HV, respectively.
120 kg, depending on the hardness of test material) are applied for
10–15 s. The Vickers hardness number (HV) is defined as the load
divided by the surface area of the indentation [10]. In this research,
a Vickers HTM hardness tester with 10 kg (constant) transverse load
was used for hardness measurement (see Fig. 6).

4.3. Hardness test results

Table 2 summarises all test results from hardness experiments,

together with target value given in API 5L [13]. As can be seen, all
measured hardness data conformed to the API specifications.
Fig. 8 demonstrates the distribution of hardness in API X65 (base
metal). As can be seen from this data, the maximum occurrence of
hardness values was 27% corresponding to hardness level of 221 HV
in base metal. Fig. 10. Cumulative probability versus hardness data in API X65 weldment.
1652 S.H. Hashemi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 1648–1655

Fig. 11. Plot of base metal yield strength versus hardness data in API X65 steel. Fig. 12. Linear correlation between yield strength and hardness data in API X65
steel.

4.4. Relationship between hardness and yield strength

Tensile strength measurement in pipe materials is time consum-
ing, and requires flame cutting of test plate, specimen flattening,
machining and preparation, and finally test set up and experiment.
On the other hand, hardness experiment is rather easy and quick,
as it requires specimen preparation and indentation. Thus, it is
favourable to use hardness data and predict material strength level
whenever possible. In this research, the measured hardness data
were used to obtain an empirical equation for yield strength cal-
culation in pipe base metal. Fig. 11 shows the variation of yield
strength versus measured hardness data in API X65 (base metal).
As can be seen in this plot, the scatter in the measured data
made it difficult to derive a linear relationship (as is common for
steel specimens) between material yield strength and hardness.
The hardness data were in the range of 217 and 228, with an aver-
age value of 221 HV (all of which conformed to API 5L). On the
other hand, yield strength fell in the range of 479 and 589 MPa,
with an average value of 538 MPa (again all of which conformed
to API 5L). However, the yield strength data for pipe base metal
had different values even for the same hardness level. For exam-
ple, yield strength between 488 and 570 MPa was observed for the
same hardness level of 221 HV (see Fig. 11). The probable reason
for this inconsistency is that yield strength measurement was car-
ried out on full-thickness flat strip specimens in hoop direction.
The thick tensile specimen could accurately capture the average
tensile strength of the bulk material. Hardness measurement how-
ever, was conducted on different specimen (though from the same
pipe), cut in a plane perpendicular to the seam weld. This is nec-
essary as different sub-zones in weldment cross section should be
analysed for hard spots. Moreover, hardness value in each pipe is
the algebraic average of 3 discrete points in the base metal on weld-
ment cross section (see Fig. 7). Despite this, the experimental data
can be used to reasonably correlate hardness and yield strength of
base metal, as shown in Fig. 12.
The graph shows a linear relationship of yield strength with
hardness, with low correlation coefficient (R2 = 0.2), indicating rel-
ative scattering. This linear relationship was obtained by the use
of average yield strength in each hardness data point. For example,
27 tensile specimens had yield strength between 488 and 570 MPa,
with equal hardness level of 221 HV. The average 538 MPa yield
strength of these 27 specimens was calculated, and all discrete
points were shown in the plot of Fig. 12 by a single point with
538 MPa yield strength, and 221 HV hardness level. This was con-
ducted for all other test data in this graph, from which the following
equation was obtained for yield strength prediction in base metal:
YS = 2 × HV + 105 (2)
The comparison between measured yield strength data and
those predicted by Eq. (2) is given in Table 3.
As can be seen from this table, the minimum and maximum error
(absolute values in percent) between the measured yield strength
and the predicted one was 0.2 and 13.8, respectively. The calcu-
lated error of 13.8% was associated with the point of hardness level
of 220 HV with 479 MPa minimum measured yield strength in the
whole 100 measured data. The use of prediction equation gave yield
strength level of 545 MPa for this point (with 220 HV), equivalent to
66 MPa strength overestimation. As the 545 MPa predicted strength
still fell in API 5L recommendations, and as this value is close to
564 MPa (538 MPa average yield strength plus 26 MPa standard
deviation), it can be concluded that the linear Eq. (2) can be applied
for strength prediction in tested steel with reasonable accuracy.

Table 3
Measured and predicted yield strength of API X65 base metal.

HV Predicted YS Measured Absolute error Measured Absolute error Measured Absolute error
(MPa) from Eq. minimum YS (%) maximum YS (%) average YS (%)
(2) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

217 539 521 3.5 550 2.0 536 0.7

218 541 528 2.5 528 2.5 528 2.5
219 543 504 7.7 572 5.1 550 1.2
220 545 479 13.8 589 7.5 529 3.1
221 547 488 12.1 570 4.0 539 1.5
222 549 490 12.0 570 3.7 538 2.2
223 551 506 8.9 580 5.0 550 0.2
224 553 491 12.6 550 0.5 518 6.8
225 555 527 5.3 554 0.2 540 2.8
226 557 537 3.7 547 1.8 542 2.8
228 561 573 2.1 573 2.1 573 2.1
 S.H. Hashemi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 1648–1655
Fig. 13. Linear correlation between tensile and yield strength in API X65 steel.
4.5. Relationship between tensile and yield strength
In this research, yield strength was estimated from hardness
data. A similar relationship between tensile strength and hardness
can be found in Table 2A and B of ASTM 370 [14]. However, there is
no conversion table from hardness to yield strength. On the other
hand, it can be argued that plastic deformation is produced on the
surface of hardness test specimen when the indenter is applied
to specimen. Hardness value is calculated then from indented size
of tested specimen, implying that hardness is more related with
tensile strength. This point can be addressed properly with respect
to test information in Fig. 13.
This figure demonstrates a linear relationship between tensile
and yield strength of API X65 (base metal), with relatively low
scatter (R2 = 0.8). It shows rising trend in tensile strength with an
increase in material yield strength, as expected. Figs. 12 and 13
demonstrate that both yield and tensile strength are linearly related
to hardness data. This also facilitates conversion from yield to ten-
sile strength and vice versa, provided that hardness data of test
material is available beforehand. The combination of test infor-
mation from Figs. 12 and 13 resulted in the following relationship
between tensile strength and hardness, which is comparable with
similar equation from Ref. [14]:
UTS = 1.3 × HV + 344
4.6. Microstructural features
The microstructure of BM, HAZ and WM was examined by
optical microscopy and SEM. This was conducted to correlate
mechanical properties of tested steel to its microstructure. The
standard metallurgical analysis was carried out through mount-
ing, grinding, polishing, and etching of test specimens in nital 2%.
From this, different zones in the weldment were revealed. Fig. 14
demonstrates the microstructure of different sub-zones in welded
joint, including WM, HAZ and BM [15].
5. Discussion
5.1. Statistical considerations of tensile data
From the probability density function of the experimental
data (see Figs. 4 and 5), the minimum, maximum and average
yield strength of 479 MPa, 589 MPa and 538 MPa, respectively
(with ±26 MPa SD and 1.6% PDF) were found for API X65 base
metal. The measured average elongation of base metal at frac-
ture point was 34% (±1.7 SD). Similarly, the average ratio of yield
to tensile strength for base metal was obtained as 0.86 (±0.02
SD). As expected, the API X65 weld metal had higher tensile
1653
strength (638 ± 16 MPa SD) compared to base metal (624 ± 18 MPa
SD).
Statistical analysis of all tensile data demonstrated that even not
a single value exceeded the lowest or highest standard targets, and
all measured parameters conformed to API 5L test specifications.
5.2. Statistical considerations of hardness data
From the probability density function of the experimental data
(see Fig. 10), an average hardness level of 235(±1.44 SD), 214(±0.98
SD), 215(±1.00 SD), 221(±1.99 SD) HV, corresponding to 50% prob-
ability was obtained for weld metal, HAZ(1), HAZ(2), and base
metal, respectively. The probability density function (PDF) of the
hardness experimental data gave values of 28%, 40%, 35%, and 20%
for the four tested sub-zones, respectively. As can be seen, a gra-
dient of hardness values observed in the weldment. The average
ratio of weld metal hardness to base metal hardness was 106%,
demonstrating hardness increase in weld metal centreline. A slight
HAZ softening (compared to base metal) was observed in the HAZ
weldment.
Statistical analysis of all hardness data demonstrated that even
not a single value exceeded the highest standard target (345 HV10),
and all measured parameters conformed to API 5L test specifica-
tions.
5.3. Sources of strength and hardness variation
In general, the variation in mechanical properties is a conse-
quence of a number of factors including material re-crystallization,
grain refinement and growth, phase composition, and precipitates
[16]. The variation of strength and hardness data in this research
can be expalined by SEM observations from API X65 weldment (see
Fig. 14). This figure shows gradient of microstructure from proeu-
tectoid and Widmanstatten ferrite (in weld metal centreline) to fine
acicular microstructures (in the unaffected base metal).
5.3.1. Weld metal hardness and strength level
The weld metal had the highest hardness level (235 HV) and ten-
sile strength (638 MPa) in the weldment cross-section, as shown
in Fig. 9. The average ratio of weld metal to base metal hardness
was 106%. Similarly, the average ratio of tensile strength of weld
(3) metal to base metal was 102%. This demonstrated hardness and
strength increase in weld metal centreline (compared to API X65
base metal). It should be noted that tensile strength overmatch
in WM is favourable in natural gas pipelines for in-service safety.
Another important point to emphasise here is that none of the weld
metal tensile specimens (with the butt weld at their mid-length,
and removed weld reinforcement from their both faces) was broke
at the weld. Instead, test specimens fracture occurred at the base
metal, where tensile strength is lower than that of the weld metal.
This suggested the use of (round or flat strip) all-weld tensile speci-
mens to get accurate tensile properties from weld metal joint. Such
test data were not available for this research, and conventional flat
strip test data (suggested by API standard) were used for weld metal
characterisation.
From microstructural point of view, the higher hardness and
strength level of the WM can be attributed to its cast microstructure
and presence of grain boundary phases in the micorsructure (i.e.
lower temperature transformation products such as Widmanstat-
ten ferrite, see Fig. 14) [17,18].
During the welding process, WM was melted and re-solidified.
The weld microstructure was inherently coarse-grained. The
coarse directionally solidified grains in the WM can be seen in
Fig. 14A and B. The average grain size within the solidified grains
of WM was around 2–4 ␮m. Fig. 14A also demonstrated that the
WM microstructure mainly consisted of acicular ferrite and grain
1654 S.H. Hashemi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 1648–1655
Fig. 14. Micrographs of welded joint and microstructure of different sub-zones: (A) centre of the weld metal; (B) near the end of the weld metal; (C) coarse-grained HAZ;
(D) fine-grained HAZ; (E) unaffected base metal [15].
boundary phases (i.e. proeutectoid and Widmanstatten ferrites).
Such products exhibited high level of strength and hardness.
5.3.2. HAZ hardness and strength level
The hardness level of HAZ (i.e. 214 HV for HAZ(1) and 215 HV for
HAZ(2)) was slightly lower than that of the BM (221 HV), and not-
icably lower than that of the WM (235 HV). This can be attributed
to HAZ microstructure (bainite, polygonal and acicular ferrite), as
shown in Fig. 14.
During the welding process, the HAZ did not experience melt-
ing, but its microstructure changed due to phase transformation.
Fig. 14C and D illustrates the coarse-grained (CG) and fine-grained
(FG) HAZ microstructure, respectively. These zones were consisted
of bainite, polygonal and acicular ferrite. The grain size of HAZ grad-
ually varied with distance from fusion line. The coarseness of the
microstructure was due to high heat input of SAW process (around
11.4 kJ, obtained by multiplication of average welding parameters;
I = 750 A, V = 32 V, weld speed S = 1.2 m/min and arc weld efficiency
of 0.95) [15].
The CGHAZ experienced subsequent thermal cycles in this
high energy welding, and then the grains in this zone tended
to grow and become relatively coarse. The lower hardness level
of HAZ compared to BM hardness, demonstarted slight HAZ
softening in API X65 weldment [19]. Considerable HAZ soften-
ing reported for similar steel (API X65, 762 mm O.D, 17.5 mm
W.T) [20]. The HAZ softening effect in this reference attributed
to decomposition of martensite by over-tempering. The high
temperature from the welding process altered the hard low-
temperature transformation products to soft high-temperature
products [20]. This further tempering resulted in lower hardness
and strength levels in the HAZ. It should be noted that tensile
properties of HAZ were not tested in the current research, and
was not addressed in API standard [1]. Determination of strength
levels of HAZ is notably difficult and requires special testing
setup. Interestingly, Ref. [20] proposed micro-tensile experiments
 S.H. Hashemi / Materials Science and Engineering A 528 (2011) 1648–1655
to measure HAZ tensile properties (both for longitudinal seam
and girth weld HAZ). An average yield and tensile strength of
396 MPa and 567 MPa were found for seam weld HAZ, respec-
tively.
5.3.3. Base metal hardness and strength level
The average hardness, yield strength and ductility of base metal
were 221 HV, 538 MPa, and 34%, all of which fulfiled API standard.
The excellent mechanical prperties of API X65 (base metal) can
be attribiuted to BM fine grianed microstrcuture (bainite–acicular
ferrite), produced via TMCR process [21–23]. During the welding
process, the base metal region remained unaffected. As can be
seen in Fig. 14E, the BM had a very fine-grained microstructure.
The average ferrite grain size of the BM was around 3–7 ␮m. The
improved cooling rate and reduced cooling interrupt temperature
led to the complete change of the final microstructure of this steel
from traditional ferrite–pearlite structure to bainite–acicular fer-
rite microstructure [5].
6. Conclusions
Variation of mechanical properties in base and weld metal of
100 test pipes (API X65 steel) were measured, and compared to
API 5L standard specification to qualify the test steel performance
under design conditions. Standard full-thickness flat strips were
used for tensile testing on 14.3 mm thick, 1220 mm outside diam-
eter spiral pipes, from which yield strength, tensile strength and
maximum elongation were determined for each test pipe. The hard-
ness properties data were measured too in different sub-zones of
pipe weldment (i.e. weld metal, heat affected zone, and base metal).
The minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation of mea-
sured mechanical properties were calculated then for statistical
variation and difference of mean value in each test pipe. All test data
were described by probability density function (PDF), and zones
with the largest variance were determined. The probability density
function of the experimental data gave an average yield strength
of 538 MPa (±26 MPa SD) with 1.6% PDF for base metal. Similarly,
the average hardness with 50% probability was obtained for weld
metal (235 ± 1.44 SD), HAZ(1) (214 ± 0.98 SD), HAZ(2) (215 ± 1.00
SD), and base metal (221 ± 1.99 SD), respectively. The sources of
tensile and hardness variation in different sub-zones of API X65
weldment were correlated then to material microstructure in each
tested zone. Finally, an empirical relationship was proposed to pre-
dict yield strength in pipe base metal from available hardness data.
This relationship was found to be reasonably linear. Comparison
between the obtained and predicted results and industry code con-
1655
firmed that API 5L requirements were fulfilled for the tested steel.
From this, it can be concluded that the obtained experimental data
from this research were sufficient to meet the final properties on
pipe safely in accordance to API 5L specifications.
Acknowledgements
Supply of raw hardness and tensile data of API X65 steel by Sadid
Pipe and Equipment Company (via Mr. N. Pourkia), and financial
support by The University of Birjand is greatly acknowledged. The
author would like to thank Mr. D. Mohammadyani (Materials and
Energy Research Center, Tehran, Iran) for his help and comments
on SEM analysis of API X65 weldment.
References
[1] API Specifications 5L, Specifications for line pipe, forty-third ed., American
Petroleum Institute, 2004.
[2] Z. Huang, M. Kai, J. Liu, J. Kong, Y. Wang, Proceeding of IPC06, 6th International
Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Albert, Canada, 2006.
[3] I. Takeuchi, H. Makino, S. Okaguchi, N. Takahashi, A. Yamamoto, Proceeding of
23rd World Gas Conference, Amsterdam, 2006.
[4] J.G. Williams, in: J.M. Cairney, S.P. Ringer (Eds.), Materials Forum 31, 31, 2007,
Available at: http://www.materialsaustralia.com.au/lib/pdf/MF01.pdf.
[5] B. Beidokhti, A.H. Koukabi, A. Dolati, Mater. Charact. 60 (2009) 225–233.
[6] G. Demofonti, G. Mannucci, H.G. Hillenbrand, D. Harris, International Pipeline
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2004.
[7] B.N. Leis, R.J. Eiber, L. Carlson, A. Gilroy-Scott, Proceedings of International
Pipeline Conference, 1998.
[8] API RP 5L3, Recommended Practice for Conducting Drop-Weight Tear Tests on
Line Pipe, API Standard, 2004.
[9] H. Motohashi, N. Hagiwara, T. Masuda, Weld. Int. 19 (2005) 100–108.
[10] G.E. Dieter, Mechanical Metallurgy, McGraw-Hill, 1988.
[11] ASME B31.8, Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, 2003.
[12] J.K. Nisbett, R.G. Budynas, Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design, eighth ed.,
McGraw-Hill Companies, 2006, Chapter 18.
[13] API Specifications 5L, Specifications for Line Pipe, forty-fourth ed., American
Petroleum Institute, 2007.
[14] ASTM A370-97, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing
of Steel Products, ASTM International, 1997.
[15] S.H. Hashemi, D. Mohammadyani, Int. Press. Ves. Piping, (2010), submitted for
publication.
[16] S. Shanmugam, N.K. Ramisetti, R.D.K. Misra, J. Hartmann, S.G. Jansto, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 478 (2008) 26–37.
[17] K.E. Esterling, Introduction to the Physical Metallurgy of Welding, Butterworth
Publishers, 1983.
[18] S. Kou, Welding Metallurgy, John Wiley and Sons, 2003.
[19] S.H. Hashemi, D. Mohammadyani, M. Pouranvari, S.M. Mousavizadeh, Fatigue
Fract. Eng. Mats. Struct. 32 (2009) 33–40.
[20] J.-S. Lee, J.-B. Ju, J.-I. Jang, W.-S. Kim, D. Kwon, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 373 (2004)
122–130.
[21] H. Baker, ASME Handbook, vol. 6, tenth ed., 1996.
[22] G.G. Kraus, Principle of Heat Treatment, ASM International, 1989.
[23] B. Verlinden, J. Driver, I. Samajdar, R.D. Doherty, in: R.W. Cahn (Ed.), Thermo-
Mechanical Processing of Metallic Materials, 2007.