Proceedings of IPC2008 7th International Pipeline Conference September 29-October 3, 2008, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2008-64354
THE EFFECT OF HOOP STRESS ON THE BURNTHROUGH SUSECPTIBILITY DURING INSERVICE WELDING OF THIN-WALLED PIPELINES

Matthew A. Boring, PE Edison Welding Institute Columbus, Ohio

William A. Bruce, P.E. CC Technologies Dublin, Ohio

ABSTRACT Most companies control the risk of burnthrough by prohibiting welding on pipelines with wall thicknesses below a specified thickness. This is a safe approach but the risk of burnthrough depends not only on the wall thickness, but also on the welding parameters and the operating parameters of the pipeline which include pressure. It is generally acknowledged that the hoop stress caused by pressurizing the pipeline has a relatively minor effect on the risk of burnthrough since the size of the area heated by the welding arc is small. While this has certainly been shown to be true for thicker materials, previous research has shown that the pressure can have a dramatic effect on burnthrough risk for thinner materials. The objective of this project was to further investigate the effects pressure and hoop stress has on the burnthrough risk of welding onto thin-walled pipelines in service. For circumferential welds, pressure and wall thickness determine the burnthrough risk and pipe diameter appears to have no effect. The failure mechanism for circumferential welds is consistently a burnthrough. For longitudinal welds, pipe diameter does appear to affect burnthrough risk even though the effect appears to be secondary to pressure and wall thickness. The pipe diameter is believed to be more influential for longitudinal welds because of the larger area of heated material that is exposed to the hoop stress. Also, the results indicate that the magnitude of the hoop stress has a direct effect on the failure mechanism for longitudinal welds (i.e., burnthrough or weld centerline cracks). For longitudinal welds, the failure mechanism is commonly burnthrough for welds made onto pipes with a hoop stress below 30% specified minimum yield stress (SMYS) which indicates that the internal pressure of the pipe is the main driving force for failure. Longitudinal welds made on pipes which are experiencing hoop stress above 30% SMYS commonly fail by weld cracking. It is important to note that even though pressure does

have an effect on the burnthrough susceptibility of welds made on thin-walled pipelines, pressure only becomes a factor for welds made at heat input levels in excess of what is predicted safe by thermal analysis modeling. INTRODUCTION There are risks associated with welding onto pipelines which are in service. One such risk is the potential of burning through the operating pipeline. Most companies control the risk of burnthrough by prohibiting welding on pipelines with wall thicknesses below a specified thickness. The wall thickness limits vary from company to company. The risk of burnthrough depends not only on the wall thickness, but also on the welding parameters and the operating parameters of the pipeline which include pressure. In an attempt to incorporate many of the factors associated with the risk burnthrough, thermal analysis computer models have been developed (1, 2). The thermal analysis models are used to predict safe welding parameters for the specific in-service welding application. It is generally acknowledged that the hoop stress caused by pressurizing the pipeline has a relatively minor effect on the risk of burnthrough. This is due to the hoop stress in the pipe wall redistributing itself around the small area heated by the welding arc in a similar manner to the hoop stress in the pipe wall redistributing itself around an isolated corrosion pit. While this has certainly been shown to be true for thicker materials, previous research has shown that the pressure (hoop stress) can have a dramatic effect on burnthrough risk for thinner materials (3). The objective was to further investigate the effect pressure has on the burnthrough risk of thin-wall pipelines as well as investigate if hoop stress significantly increases the risk of burnthrough of thin-wall pipelines.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

BACKGROUND A burnthrough will occur if the weld zone, which consists of the molten metal of the weld pool and the un-melted area beneath the weld pool, has insufficient strength to contain the internal pressure of the pipe. In recently completed work at EWI for PRCI, it was shown that welding onto in-service pipelines as thin as 0.125 in. (3.2 mm) could consistently and safely be carried out provided that the welding parameters were carefully selected and controlled (3). The work indicated that it may even be possible to safely make in-services welds onto pipelines approaching 0.109-in. (2.8-mm) thick if the electrode diameter is restricted to 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) using a welding current around 60 amps. The traditional method of determining burnthrough risk has been the inside surface temperature approach. The inside surface temperature approach requires the use of a computer model to predict the temperature of the pipe underneath the weld (1, 2). The inside surface temperature approach defines safe parameters as those which produce an inside surface temperature of less than 1800F (982C) when using lowhydrogen electrodes, [1400F (760C) when using cellulosiccoated electrodes]. The thermal analysis models have been shown to predict safe welding parameters but the models tend to be overly conservative for thin-walled applications (Figure 1). The figure compares experimentally derived safe upper limits for in-service welds made on 4.5-in.-diameter pipe at three different wall thicknesses as they compare to the safe upper limits predicted by the PRCI model for the same pipe.
50

8.0-in.-diameter carbon steel pipes with wall thicknesses of 0.125 and 0.188 in. (3.2 and 4.8 mm) under various pressures. The pipe used for these trials had strengths and chemistries comparable to API 5L Grade B. The pipe sections had plates welded to the end of each length to create a pressure containing pipe length. The pressure was applied by charging a pipe section, with welded ends, with nitrogen. The non-flowing, pressurized pipe section simulated the worse-case condition for burnthrough (i.e., minimizing the ability of the pipe contents to cool the pipe wall). Bead-on-pipe welds were deposited in both the longitudinal and circumferential direction using a mechanized shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) system that automatically fed the welding electrode as it was being melted. The electrodes that were used were 7018 H4R electrodes. A single current level was used for each electrode diameter [approx. 125 and 95 amps for 1/8- and 3/32-in. (3.2- and 2.4-mm) diameter electrodes, respectively] with the heat input being varied by increasing or decreasing the travel speed. For each combination of pipeline and welding variables the heat input was increased until an unsafe weld was produced from external inspection (e.g., a burnthrough, a weld centerline crack, or excessive pipe bulging). After welding the pipes were sectioned for analysis. The analysis included visual inspection of the weld and the area underneath the weld. Metallographic sections were also removed from each weld and inspected to determine the extent of bulging and location of the coarse-grained heat-affected zone (CG-HAZ) relative to the ID of the pipe. Each weld was categorized as safe, marginal, or unsafe. Welds with no evidence of ID bulging were categorized as safe. Welds that exhibited slight ID bulging or a CG-HAZ that extended to the ID were categorized as marginal. Welds that exhibited excessive ID bulging, burned through, or had a centerline crack were categorized unsafe (Figure 2).

40

Heat Input, kJ/in.

Empirical Limit - 0.125 in. Empirical Limit - 0.156 in. Empirical Limit - 0.188 in. PRCI Limit - 0.156 in. PRCI Limit - 0.188 in.

30

20

10

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Pressure, psig

FIGURE 1. PRCI MODEL-PREDICTED AND EMPIRICALLY DERIVED HEAT INPUT LIMITS FOR LONGITUDINAL WELDS ON 4.5-in.-DIAMETER PIPE SHOWNG THE EFFECT OF PRESSURE

APPROACH To evaluate the effect of hoop stress on burnthrough susceptibility, welds were made onto 6.625-in.-diameter carbon steel pipe with a wall thickness of 0.125 in. (3.2 mm) and onto

FIGURE 2. UNSAFE WELD SHOWING ID BULGING

Copyright 2008 by ASME

RESULTS Once the welds were analyzed and rated for acceptance the data was plotted to compare the welding heat input to the pressure at which the weld was made (Figure 3). A similar analysis was made for each diameter, wall thickness, weld direction, and welding electrode combination utilized during the experiments. The black line on Figure 3 represents the empirically determined maximum safe heat input for the given pipe and welding conditions (i.e. safe upper limit).
Safe
50

All three safe upper limits have practically identical slopes and lie nearly on top of one another. This would indicate that pipe diameter (hoop stress) does not have a large effect on burnthrough risk for circumferential welds under these conditions. Figure 5 shows the safe upper limits for the circumferential welds made with 1/8-in. (3.2-mm)-diameter electrodes on 0.188-in. (4.8-mm)-thick pipe. These results also indicate that the pipe diameter (hoop stress) does not have a large effect on burnthrough risk for circumferential welds deposited on 0.188in. (4.8-mm)-thick pipe for the pipe diameters tested. For comparison, a third safe upper limit was plotted on Figure 5 that represents the safe upper limit for circumferential welds made on 0.188-in. (4.8-mm)-thick pipe using 3/32-in. (2.4mm)-diameter electrodes. Comparison of the safe upper limits in Figure 5 clearly show that welding current has a much larger effect on burnthrough risk than pipe diameter (hoop stress) under the conditions used during this study.
4.5-in. OD (1/8) 8.0-in. OD (1/8) 4.5-in. OD (3/32)

Marginal

Unsafe

Safe Upper Limit

40

Heat Input, kJ/in.

30

20

10

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

50 Pressure, psig 40

Heat Input, kJ/in.

FIGURE 3. EMPIRICALLY DERVIVED SAFE UPPER LIMIT FOR WELDS MADE ONTO 4.5-in. DIAMETER, 0.188-in. (4.8 mm)-THICK PIPE

30 20 10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Circumferential Weld Analysis The empirical safe upper limits for circumferential welds made with 3/32-in. (2.4-mm)-diameter electrodes on 0.125-in. (3.2mm)-thick pipe are shown in Figure 4.
4.5-in. OD 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 6.625-in. OD 8.0-in. OD

Pressure, psig

FIGURE 5. EMPIRICALLY DERVIED SAFE UPPER LIMITS FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELDS MADE ONTO 0.125-in. (3.2 mm)-THICK PIPE

Heat Input, kJ/in.

Pressure, psig

FIGURE 4. EMPIRICALLY DERIVED SAFE UPPER LIMITS FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELDS DEPOSITED ONTO 0.125in. (3.2 mm)-THICK PIPE

The safe upper limits for all the circumferential welds are plotted on Figure 6 (3). The figure shows two distinct groups of safe upper limits which are related to the pipe wall and the electrode diameter used to make the welds. The two groups are the same safe upper limits shown in Figures 4 and 5. Since diameter does not appear to have a measurable effect on the safe upper limits of circumferential welds, it is safe to assume that the groups could be consolidated and represented as single safe upper limit lines for each wall thickness. If this is the case then Figure 6 would show that burnthrough risk for circumferential welds is mainly controlled by wall thickness, pressure, and welding current; and pipe diameter (hoop stress) would be a slight secondary factor.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

4.5 OD, 0.125 WT (3/32) 6.625 OD, 0.125 WT (3/32) 8.0 OD, 0.188 WT (1/8)

4.5 OD, 0.156 WT (3/32) 8.0 OD, 0.125 WT (3/32)

4.5 OD, 0.188 WT (3/32) 4.5 OD, 0.188 WT (1/8)

the safe upper limits for the longitudinal welds when they are plotted as a function of hoop stress instead of pressure. High Pressure Welds. At low pressure the weld was characterized as marginal mainly due to the location of the CG-HAZ relative to the ID which is a highly subjective measurement. At high pressure the factor that most commonly made a weld marginal was the presence of a bulge, which is a much less subjective measurement. Since the subjectivity of the low-pressure data of the safe upper limits can be slightly skewed it was decided to further analyze only the high-pressure data. The predicted heat input values for each safe upper limits plotted on Figures 6 and 7 are listed in Table 1.

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Heat Input, kJ/in.

Pressure, psig

FIGURE 6. EMIRICALLY DERIVED SAFE UPPER LIMITS FOR ALL CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELDS

TABLE 1. PREDICTED MAXIMUM SAFE UPPER LIMIT HEAT INPUT VALUES FOR WELDS DEPOSITED AT THE HIGHEST PRESSURE EVALUATED
Pipe Diameter (in.) 4.5 6.625 8.0 Wall Thickness (in.) 0.125 0.156 0.188 0.188 0.125 0.125 0.188 Electrode Diameter (in.) 3/32 3/32 3/32 1/8 3/32 3/32 1/8 Max. Safe Heat Input, kJ/in Circumferential Longitudinal Weld Weld 7.5 8.5 15.0 11.5 19.4 17.0 15.5 11.9 7.0 7.0 9.5 5.5 22.0 16.5

Longitudinal Weld Analysis The safe upper limits for all the longitudinal welds are plotted on Figure 7 (3). There is one main difference between the circumferential and longitudinal weld results. The difference is that the safe upper limits for the longitudinal welds made under the same conditions as the circumferential welds were not grouped like they were for the circumferential welds (Figure 6). The longitudinal safe upper limits are spaced apart indicating that pipe diameter (hoop stress) plays more of a role in burnthrough susceptibility for longitudinal welds than circumferential welds.
4.5 OD, 0.125 WT (3/32) 6.625 OD, 0.125 WT (3/32) 8.0 OD, 0.188 WT (1/8) 4.5 OD, 0.156 WT (3/32) 8.0 OD, 0.125 WT (3/32) 4.5 OD, 0.188 WT (3/32) 4.5 OD, 0.188 WT (1/8)

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Heat Input, kJ/in.

For five of the seven conditions the maximum heat input for the longitudinal weld was less than the maximum heat input for the circumferential weld. In other words, a longitudinal weld made under specific conditions would be considered unsafe; whereas, a circumferential weld made under the same conditions would be considered safe. The five cases that fit the trend had variations of the predicted maximum heat input, as a result of welding direction, ranging from 2.4 kJ/in. (0.09 kJ/mm) to 5.5 kJ/in. (0.22 kJ/mm). The two cases that did not follow the trend either predicted the same maximum heat input limit or the difference in the maximum predicted heat input was considered negligible [1 kJ/in. (0.04 kJ/mm)]. Hoop Stress Effect on Longitudinal Welds. The second observation is the apparent effect hoop stress has on the failure mechanism of longitudinal welds. The previous circumferential welds on 4.5-in.-diameter pipe were rated unsafe due to excessive bulging or burnthrough. The previous longitudinal welds on 4.5-in.-diameter pipe were considered unsafe if there was excessive bulging or centerline cracking. There was no example of a circumferential weld centerline cracking or a longitudinal weld burning through (3). For circumferential welds deposited onto larger diameter pipe during this study the unsafe rating was again attributed to bulging or burnthrough. For longitudinal welds, on the other hand, the unsafe rating was not necessarily a centerline crack. There were several instances when longitudinal welds made on

Pressure, psig

FIGURE 7. EMIRICALLY DERIVED SAFE UPPER LIMITS FOR ALL LONGITUDNAL WELDS

Comparison of Longitudinal and Circumferential Welds There are two interesting observations when all the data for the circumferential and longitudinal welds were compared (Figures 6 and 7). The first dealt with the safe upper limit heat input values for welds made at high pressures. The second dealt with

Copyright 2008 by ASME

8.0-in. pipe failed by burning through rather than developing a centerline crack. The burnthroughs that occurred on the longitudinal welds occurred at 400 psig (2.8 MPa) or below. The safe upper limits for all the longitudinal welds were replotted as a function of hoop stress (Figure 8). The hoop stress is given as a percentage of the SMYS of Grade B pipe.
4.5 OD, 0.125 WT (3/32) 6.625 OD, 0.125 WT (3/32) 8.0 OD, 0.188 WT (1/8) 50.0
B

4.5 OD, 0.156 WT (3/32) 8.0 OD, 0.125 WT (3/32)

4.5 OD, 0.188 WT (3/32) 4.5 OD, 0.188 WT (1/8)

If the welds with data points labeled bulge are discounted because the final failure mechanism could not be predicted, the resulting data points would be split between welds which eventually burned through or cracked. Figure 8 shows an apparent hoop stress level below which longitudinal welds tend to fail by burning through and above which longitudinal welds tend to fail by developing a centerline crack. The hoop stress limit is approximately 33% SMYS. Further work is required to validate this apparent hoop stress limit between burnthrough risk and centerline cracking risk for longitudinal welds. SUMMARY Several welds were made on different pipe diameters, wall thicknesses and pressures to determine if pipe diameter (hoop stress) decreases the probability of making safe welds on thinwalled pipelines. The analysis of the 6.625- and 8.0-in.diameter pipe welds show that pressure has a similar effect on burnthrough risk that was first seen when analyzing the 4.5-in.diameter pipe welds for the range of wall thicknesses that were investigated. In other words, as pressure increases the risk of making an unsafe weld increases regardless of diameter. For circumferential welds, pipe diameter (hoop stress) appears to have no effect on burnthrough risk and the final failure mechanism is consistently a burnthrough. It is believed that hoop stress does not affect circumferential welds because the weld direction is parallel to the hoop stress direction and the cross section of the material affected by welding arc that is exposed to the hoop stress is relatively small. For longitudinal welds, pipe diameter (hoop stress) does appear to affect burnthrough risk even though the effect appears to be secondary. The hoop stress is believed to effect longitudinal weld because the weld direction is perpendicular to the hoop stress direction and the cross section of the material affected by the welding arc that is exposed to the hoop stress is but much larger relative to a circumferential weld deposited under the same condition. The magnitude of the hoop stress also appears to have a direct effect on the final failure mechanism of longitudinal welds (i.e., burnthrough or weld centerline cracks). The maximum hoop stress that results in a burnthrough is approximately 33% and above 33% the failure mechanism tends to change to a weld centerline crack. At low hoop stress levels, the weld region can accommodate the hoop stress and the failure only occurs when the weld region loses the ability to contain the internal pressure resulting in a burnthrough. At high hoop stress levels, the weld region cannot accommodate the hoop stress causing the weld to pull apart or crack during solidification prior to the occurrence of a burnthrough. It is important to note that all the burnthrough trials were performed on a simulated pressurized pipeline with no flow which represents the worst-case condition for burnthrough. For gas pipelines, the thermal conductivity of the product is

BT
B B B

Crack

40.0

Heat Input, kJ/in.

30.0
B

BT B B

C C C C C C B B C C C

20.0

B B

10.0

BT

BT

BT C

0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Hoop Stress, % SMYS Grade B

FIGURE 8. LONGITUDINAL SAFE UPPER LIMITS AS A FUNCTION OF HOOP STRESS (BT = BURNTHROUGH, C = CENTERLINE CRACK, B = EXCESSIVE BULGING)

Each data point of the safe upper limit represents the predicted heat input for a weld that transitions from safe to marginal. Since welds could only be characterized after they were sectioned, welding was continued until a weld was deemed unsafe from visual inspection of the weld profile (i.e., the weld burned through, cracked, or bulged excessively which was obvious from examining the weld without sectioning). So in addition to the safe upper limits shown in Figure 8, the factor that was used to rate each weld as unsafe, under the specific condition, is also labeled on Figure 8. For example, the weld with the data point highlighted by the red circle (10 kJ/in., 13% SMYS) did not burnthrough. That data point represents the safe upper limit for a weld made on 8.0 in.-diameter pipe with a wall thickness 0.125 in. with an internal pressure equal to 13% SMYS. In other words, a weld deposited under the same conditions but at a higher heat input would be considered marginal or unacceptable. The BT identification represents a weld that was made under the same condition but at a higher heat input that did burnthrough. Another example is the weld with the data point highlighted by the green circle (7 kJ/in., 60% SMYS). Again, this data point did not crack but a weld made at a higher heat input under the same conditions did crack. In several instances the higher heat input welds did not burnthrough or crack so those weld data points were labeled bulge.

Copyright 2008 by ASME

dependent on pressure. Assuming some flow in the gas pipeline, the gas at a higher pressure has a higher thermal conductivity resulting in smaller cross sectional area of the pipe wall affected by the welding arc. The small weld region may be able to counteract the detrimental mechanical effect that higher pressures may have on longitudinal welds. CONCLUSIONS There are several conclusions which came from the completion of this project. 1. Wall thickness, heat input, and pressure are the primary factors when determining burnthrough risk of thin-walled pipelines. Pipe diameter (hoop stress) and welding direction are secondary factors. Hoop stress does not have a measurable effect on burnthrough risk for circumferential welds but hoop stress does appear to have a measurable effect on burnthrough risk for longitudinal welds. The criterion used to determine an unacceptable weld tended to be excessive bulging, burnthrough, or a weld centerline crack. Even though excessive bulging was not considered for failure analysis of circumferential and longitudinal welds, it could be used as an alternative criterion to predict the unacceptable welding parameters. The failure model for circumferential welds is burnthrough regardless of pressure or hoop stress. The failure model for longitudinal welds appears to switch between a burnthrough and weld centerline cracks. Burnthroughs occur at pressures which result in hoop stress values less than 33% SYMS and weld centerline cracks occur at pressures which result in hoop stress values greater than 33% SMYS. For this reason, it is recommended when making in-service welds on thin-walled pipelines [e.g., less than 0.250 in. (6.4 mm)] at hoop stress levels greater than 33% SMYS that the welds should be deposited in the circumferential direction whenever possible (e.g., weld deposition repairs) to eliminate the possibility of weld centerline cracks.

REFERENCES 1. Kiefner, J. F., Fischer, R. D., and Mishler, H. W., "Development of Guidelines for Repair and Hot Tap Welding on Pressurized Pipelines," Final Report, Phase 1, to Repair and Hot Tap Welding Group, Battelle Columbus Division, Columbus, OH, Sept. 1981. 2. Bruce, W. A., Li, V., Citterberg, R., Wang, Y.-Y., and Chen, Y., "Improved Cooling Rate Model for Welding on InService Pipelines," PRCI Contract No. PR-185-9633, EWI Project No. 42508CAP, Edison Welding Institute, Columbus, OH, 2001. Bruce, W. A. and Boring, M., "Burnthrough Limits for InService Welding," GRI Contract No. GRI-8441, EWI Project No. 44732CAP, Edison Welding Institute, Columbus, OH, May 2003.

3.

2.

3.

Copyright 2008 by ASME This paper is posted here by permission of ASME for personal use only. Additional reproduction, redistribution, or transmission either in print or digital form is not permitted without ASME's prior written permission.

4.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank the Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI) for its funding of the current project through PRCI Contract PR-185-0351 and for allowing the work to be published.

Copyright 2008 by ASME