Review of Mechanical and Corrosion Testing of CRA Flowlines

OPERATIONS / PROJECTS USE ONLY

Operating Facility:

Key TAG No’s:

DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION

Full Name / External Organisation Name (if applicable) Electronic

Copy No. (Show Username (WOPID) to differentiate between persons with Hard Copy
Notification
identical names).

00 Document Control

01 Andrew Pearce

02 Steve Thornley

03 Jesper Hoj-Hansen

04 Lee Cunningham

05 David Barker

06 George Clapp

07 John McManus

08 Mark Hoffmann

09 Emille Janssen

10 Mark Casey

11 Alastair.walker@intecsea.com

12 Ahmed.reda@intecsea.com

This document is protected by copyright. No part of this document may be reproduced, adapted, transmitted, or stored in any form by any
process (electronic or otherwise) without the specific written consent of Woodside. All rights are reserved.
Controlled Ref No: D0400RN0029 Revision: 00 Native file DRIMS No: 5405935 Page 2 of 2
Uncontrolled when printed. Refer to electronic version for most up to date information.
 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

To: Andrew Pearce

From: Peter Scott

Date: 3 February 2010

Reference: MEI-TC043 Revision 1

Subject: Review of mechanical and corrosion testing of CRA clad pipe welds

1. INTRODUCTION
The Sunrise flow lines will transport wet gas containing both CO2 and H2S at high
temperature and pressure. The fluid composition and operating conditions have
dictated the use of CRA clad (or lined) carbon steel pipe for the flow lines. The
present design case makes use of pipe ranging from 8 inch to 16 inch diameter. This
size of pipe may be supplied as either mechanically lined pipe or metallurgically clad
pipe.

Two issues of concern for the flow lines are the performance of the preferred CRA
(316L) at the Sunrise design conditions and the performance of the pipeline when
exposed to operational and installation strains. The problem with the use of 316L at
the Sunrise temperature is that there are no direct analogues to gauge the likely
performance. This necessitated testing specifically aimed at assessing the performance
of 316L and another potential CRA candidate material (904L) in the Sunrise
environment

It is understood that the flow lines will experience some strain during operation,
however, this is not likely to exceed yield strain. A potential installation method is
reeling and it is possible that strains as high as 2% might be experienced during
installation using this method.

In order to assess the performance of different CRA’s and different pipe

manufacturing methods, a number of test welds were commissioned by WEL.
Welding test pieces were completed by Acergy. These were subjected to mechanical
tests. They were also subjected to a full set of corrosion tests in accordance with a
scope of work provided by WEL. This technical note examines the results from the
test programme and presents recommendations for further work.
2. TEST PIPES

Three different pipes were welded and tested:

• 316L mechanically lined Grade 450 pipe (12 inch x 15.9+3mm) manufactured
by Cladtek

• 904L mechanically lined Grade 450 pipe (12 inch x 15.9+3mm) manufactured
by Cladtek

• 316L metallurgically clad Grade 415 pipe (12 inch x 15.4+3 mm)
manufactured by JSW

A total of 12 test welds were produced and 9 were subjected to mechanical and
corrosion tests. A summary of the test pipes produced and the testing they were
subjected to is given in Table 1.

The welding procedures used for welding the lined test pipes were the same; utilizing
the same welding consumables as well as the same welding parameters. The welding
procedure used for welding the clad pipe was different. It used duplex stainless steel
filler metal as well as a vertical down root pass using the STT-GMAW process. The
heat input of the root and hot pass were, however, similar to that of the lined pipes,
which were welded vertically up with conventional GMAW.

The mechanical tests performed included all the tests required by DNV OS F101. Full
details can be found elsewhere [1]. The corrosion tests were performed in test
solutions replicating the sunrise fluid. Tests included pitting tests, 4-pont bend tests,
ripple slow strain rate tensile tests and crevice corrosion tests [2]. Full details can be
found in the Exova report [3].

3. RESULTS

Mechanical tests

A summary of tensile test results is given in Table 2. The results show that for the
lined pipe, which was welded using the Inconel 686CPT (ERNiCRMo-14) filler
metal, the weld over matched the base material at ambient temperature but only
marginally. At 140 °C, the Inconel 686CPT weld metal under matched the grade 450
base material. The 0.2% proof stress was marginally higher than might have been
expected from Inconel 625 weld metal but the increase was not significant. The
tensile strength of the 686CPT weld metal was considerably higher at both ambient
and elevated temperature indicating that the work hardening of the weld metal was
significant. In the terminology used by DNV the weld metal would be described as
partially over matching.

The duplex stainless steel weld metal used for the 316L clad pipe over matched the
base material at both ambient and elevated temperature. Whilst the nominal strength
of the base metal in the clad pipe was less than that of the lined pipe, the duplex weld
metal would also have over matched the Grade 450 pipe.

The base metal tensile tests on the 904L lined pipe showed a distinct Lüders plateau.
This is clearly undesirable from a high strain perspective. The presence of a Lüders
plateau is not unexpected for seamless pipe with this heat treatment and chemical
composition. The use of an ERW backing pipe might provide a better alternative,
however, ERW pipe may also display discontinuous yielding behaviour. It has also
been shown that pipe with continuous yielding behaviour in the as-manufactured
condition may develop a Lüders plateau after the pipe coating operation. There has
been some work on this subject in the past few years by a number of pipe
manufacturers and this is an area where further research could be justified.

CTOD toughness for duplex stainless steel welds was higher than that of the Inconel
686CPT welds. This is not unexpected. There is considerable industry experience
with the use of Inconel weld metal for welding cryogenic equipment and typical
CTOD values range from 0.3 to 0.6 mm.

At least in the case of installation at ambient temperature, the HAZ toughness of the
pipe is perhaps of greater importance. The fusion line CTOD test results from the
904L lined pipe were considerably lower than those obtained from the 316L clad pipe.
The pipe used for the carbon steel was seamless pipe manufactured by Tenaris. The
low fusion line CTOD results were supported by low fusion line charpy results in the
316L lined test pipe, which used the same Tenaris backing steel. It is reasonable to
assume that JSW clad pipe is likely to produce superior fusion line toughness,
however, the CTOD results may be misleading. Low fusion line toughness is a
recognised phenomenon and is not necessarily confined to seamless pipe. Fusion line
toughness will be dependent upon the welding thermal cycle and the chemical
composition of the base material. It should also be remembered that the clad pipe
backing steel was Grade 415. For the same thickness and heat treatment cycle it is
likely that a more alloyed composition will be used for Grade 450. This could be
expected to reduce the fusion line toughness. The toughness of the backing steel in
lined pipe can also be improved. This is an issue that should be further investigated in
conjunction with lined pipe manufacturers. It is recommended that a requirement be
added to the specification, for weldability data to be supplied by the backing pipe
manufacturer. The weldability testing should include HAZ fracture toughness testing
made on girth welds typical of mechanized GMAW used for offshore pipe
installation.

Whilst the low HAZ toughness is of some concern, it should be remembered that the
tests performed used SENB specimens. The constraint in a pipe girth weld will be
considerably less than that of an SENB test specimen. Use of a less highly restrained
SENT specimen can be expected to produce more realistic (and higher) toughness
values.

A further issue that should be considered is the temperature. Whilst the toughness of
the HAZ is likely to improve at elevated temperatures, the same does not apply to
duplex stainless steel weld metal. Elevated temperature SENT tests performed on
duplex stainless steel have produced CTOD values at 120 °C, approximately half that
obtained at room temperature. In order to perform these tests, it is necessary to test
SENT specimens. If in Engineering Critical Assessment is to be performed for both
the operational and installation cases, this testing should be considered.

As a point of interest, the CTOD values reported by Bodycote were calculated using
an incorrect modulus of elasticity. Substitution of the correct E value into the CTOD
calculation resulted in a small reduction in the CTOD value. They also used an
incorrect yield stress value for one of the tests.

The possibility of very small critical defect sizes being predicted by an ECA should
also not be ignored. Experience has shown that the results of ECA’s conducted in
accordance with BS7910 are very conservative. The results of representative wide
plate tests generally demonstrate superior performance than predicted by the ECA.
Future work should include the production of curved wide plate tests. Curved wide
plate tests are performed on pipe segments, typically 300 mm wide, extracted from
welded pipe the same, or similar to, project pipe and production welds. Defects are
introduced into the weld and HAZ and the wide plate is pulled in tension. The strain
to failure is then measured. The test is recognized as more accurately simulating
actual conditions.

Corrosion Tests

The corrosion testing showed that the 316L lined pipe performed well in all tests.
From a corrosion perspective, there is no reason to doubt the performance of
mechanically lined pipe. The 316L clad pipe passed the pitting, 4-point bend tests and
Ripple Slow Strain Rate Tensile tests, however, failed the crevice corrosion tests in
the HAZ of both the internal longitudinal weld and the girth weld at 140ºC. Further
crevice corrosion tests were performed at 130ºC. In these tests the longitudinal weld
passed, however, the girth welds again showed evidence of crevice corrosion. Visual
examination of the welds showed a very marked heat tint in the base metal adjacent to
the weld resulting from the welding operation.

The superior performance of lined pipe is probably attributable to the treatment after
welding. The liner in lined pipe is heat treated and then acid pickled after welding.
This ensures consistent corrosion resistance throughout all parts of the liner. Similar
treatment is impractical for clad pipe.

The difference in performance of the girth and longitudinal welds is more difficult to
explain. The internal longitudinal weld on the JSW clad pipe is deposited using the
pulsed plasma arc welding process. The heat input for this process is typically 3
kJ/mm. The girth weld was produced using the GMAW process. The heat input in
each of the welding procedures produced by Acergy was between 0.5 and 0.8 kJ/mm
for the root pass and between 0.45 and 0.63 kJ/mm for the hot pass. The heat tint
produced by the longitudinal weld could therefore be expected to be more severe and
more extensive. Nevertheless, both welds failed the crevice corrosion tests at 140ºC.
Clearly at the conditions of the test, only minor oxidation is sufficient to cause a
problem. At 130ºC, the longitudinal weld passed the crevice corrosion test whilst the
girth weld failed. This suggests that heat input played a minor role in the performance
of the weld.

The most likely reason for the superior performance of the longitudinal weld lies in
the shielding atmosphere during welding. In the case of the girth weld, the internal
surface of the pipe is protected by the backing gas, which will contain finite levels of
oxygen. Depending upon the level of oxygen in the backing gas, the extent of
oxidation may be sufficient to cause deterioration in the crevice corrosion
performance of the heat affected region adjacent to the weld. In the case of the
longitudinal weld, the surface of the weld and adjacent base material is protected by
the shielding gas, which will be of much higher purity (less oxygen). In a similar
fashion, the overlay weld and adjacent base metal in the lined pipe will be protected
by the higher purity shielding gas.

All of the lined pipes (both 316L and 904L) had an Inconel 625 weld overlay at the
ends of the pipe. This would need to be made using a different material (possibly
309MoL) in the event that 316L mechanically lined pipe was selected for the Sunrise
 flow lines and duplex stainless steel were to be used for the weld metal. Anecdotal
reports suggest that the partially mixed regions of duplex stainless steel deposited on
Inconel 625 may be the site of embrittling phases. Overlay weld of 309MoL
composition should perform as well as 316L due to its nominally higher alloy
composition, however, this could be confirmed by further corrosion tests.

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The test results for the duplex stainless steel welds were excellent and it is the
preferred welding consumable for 316L clad/lined Grade 450 pipe. There is, however,
a discrepancy with the results reported by DNV [4] in their recent JIP, where duplex
stainless steel weld metal was found to under match Grade 450 base metal. This needs
to be further investigated. To this end it is recommended to contact DNV and ask
them for details of the welding consumable and welding procedure used in their tests.
The installation contractors could be asked or similar information and the data
compared. It is also recommended that the toughness at elevated temperature be
assessed by the use of elevated temperature SENT tests.

The use of lined pipe is the preferred option from an economic perspective, however,
the performance of the carbon steel liner pipe may be inadequate. It is recommended
that the stress-strain behaviour of different carbon steel pipes be investigated. The
issues at hand should be discussed with the manufacturers so that they might have the
opportunity to supply pipe (if necessary) made specifically to exhibit continuous
yielding behaviour. The influence of short term heating, simulating the treatment
given to pipes during coating should also be investigated. The toughness of alternative
backing steels should also be investigated. The application of specific weldability
testing as part of the procurement specification for lined pipe backing steel should
also serve to address this problem.

There exists the possibility that the critical defect size for girth welds may be less than
generally accepted by installation contractors after an ECA. Experience has shown
that the results of an ECA are highly conservative. The true performance of the girth
weld can be assessed by conducting curved wide plate tests taken from representative
welds. It is recommended that these tests be performed.

The corrosion performance of the 316L lined pipe was demonstrated by the testing;
no further testing is necessary. It is understood that additional tests are being
performed on 31L clad pipe. Until the results of these tests are known, no
recommendations can be made.
5. REFERENCES

1. CRA Flowline Girth welding Procedure Qualification Record.

WEL Controlled document no. D0400RN0023. 15/9/2009

2. Sunrise LNG Development – Flowline Material Corrosion Testing Scope of Work.

WEL Document no. D0400TN001 Rev 1.

3. DNV Report 2006-3119 State if the Art Report Lined and Clad Pipeline Materials.
Det Norske Veritas, 3/3/2006

4. Flowline Material Corrosion Testing for Sunrise LNG Development Project. WEL
Controlled Document no. D0400RN0025, 16/11/09
Table 1. Summary of Test Welds used for mechanical and corrosion tests

Pipe Welding Pipe Weld metal Weld ID Testing

procedure
316L PA 0960 Seamless- ERCrNiMo-3/ LN-316L-TR02 Corrosion tests
lined Tenaris ERCrNiMo14 LN-316L-TR03 -
LN-316L-TR04 Corrosion tests
LN-316L-TR05 Mechanical tests
904L PA 0963 Seamless- ERCrNiMo-3/ LN-904L-TR03 Corrosion tests
lined Tenaris ERCrNiMo14 LN-904L-TR04 Corrosion tests
LN-904L-TR05 Mechanical tests
LN-904L-TR06 -
316L PA 0958 Welded- ER2209 CL-316L-TR03 Corrosion tests
clad JSW CL-316L-TR04 Mechanical tests
CL-316L-TR05 Mechanical tests
CL-316L-TR06 -
Table 2 Summary of Tensile test results

Pipe Weld Weld metal Temperature, Test type 0.2% PS, TS, %El
°C MPa MPa
316L lined LN-316L-TR05 ERCrNiMo-3/ ambient Transverse AWT 578 878 -
LN-316L-TR05 ERCrNiMo14 ambient Cross weld - 608 -
904L lined LN-904L-TR05 ERCrNiMo-3/ +140 Transverse AWT 493 789 -
LN-904L-TR05 ERCrNiMo14 ambient Cross weld - 645 -
LN-904L-TR05 ambient Parent metal 573 654 26.0
LN-904L-TR05 ambient Parent metal 563 647 26.5
LN-904L-TR05 +140 Parent metal 531 614 21.0
LN-904L-TR05 +140 Parent metal 528 609 22.0
316L clad CL-316L-TR04 ER2209 Ambient Transverse AWT 697 857 -
CL-316L-TR04 ambient Cross weld - 585 -
CL-316L-TR05 +140 Transverse AWT 565 736 -
CL-316L-TR05 ambient Parent metal 440 504 29.5
CL-316L-TR05 ambient Parent metal 530 569 22.5
CL-316L-TR05 +140 Parent metal 409 464 25.5
CL-316L-TR05 +140 Parent metal 496 536 17.5

Table 3. Maximum hardness measurements from the test welds

Pipe Weld Maximum hardness HV10

Weld Base metal CS HAZ Cladding Clad HAZ
316L lined LN-316L-TR05 271 224 328 253 260
904L lined LN-904L-TR05 270 243 305 228 258
316L clad CL-316L-TR04 279 220 221 209 218
Table 4. Summary of Charpy Impact test results

Pipe Weld ID Pipe Weld Metal Location Test temp, Absorbed energy, joules
°C 1 2 3 Average
316L Lined LN-316L-TR05 Seamless - ERCrNiMo-3/ Weld cap -10 86 93 95 91
LN-316L-TR05 Tenaris ERCrNiMo14 FL cap -10 37 44 39 40
LN-316L-TR05 FL cap -10 148 222 92 154
LN-316L-TR05 FL cap -10 120 105 123 116
LN-316L-TR05 FL+2 cap -10 273 203 261 246
LN-316L-TR05 FL+5 cap -10 300 303 309 304
LN-316L-TR05 Weld root -10 69 54 54 59
LN-316L-TR05 FL root -10 79 78 63 73
LN-316L-TR05 FL root -10 84 48 105 79
316L clad CL-316L-TR04 Welded- JSW ER2209 Weld cap -10 246 276 255 259
CL-316L-TR04 FL cap -10 240 240 240 240
CL-316L-TR04 FL+2 cap -20 285 285 300 290
CL-316L-TR04 FL+5 cap -10 285 297 300 294
CL-316L-TR04 Weld root -10 105 108 105 106
CL-316L-TR04 FL root -10 75 75 96 82

Table 5. Summary of CTOD test results

Pipe Weld ID Pipe Weld Metal Location Test temp, °C CTOD, mm

904L lined LN-904L-TR05 Seamless- ERCrNiMo-3/ Weld CL 21 0.19 0.25 0.21
Tenaris ERCrNiMo14 HAZ 21 0.09 0.12 0.12
316L clad CL-316L-TR05 Welded -JSW ER2209 Weld CL 21 0.91 0.74 1.03
HAZ 21 0.50 0.84 0.85