Weld Code Revision Progress Report

DRAFT
A Comprehensive Update in the Evaluation of Pipeline

Weld Defects
U.S. DOT Agreement No. DTRS56-03-T-0008
PRCI Contact No. PR-276-04503
Authors:
Yong-Yi Wang and Ming Liu

Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus
3518 Riverside Dr., Suite 202
Columbus, OH 43221
Publication Date:
November 2004
For internal circulation within PRCI, DOT, and API
This page is intentionally left blank.
03-G78-20
This page is intentionally left blank.
ii
03-G78-20
Table of Contents
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... viii
1.0
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1
1.1
Background ...........................................................................................................................1
1.2
Scope.....................................................................................................................................2
1.3
Structure of the Defect Assessment Procedures....................................................................2
1.4
Terminology and Notation ....................................................................................................3
1.4.1 Pipe Properties ....................................................................................................................3
1.4.2 Girth Weld Properties .........................................................................................................3
1.4.3 Applied Loads.....................................................................................................................3
1.4.4 Defect Dimensions..............................................................................................................3
2.0
Level 1 Assessment Procedures...........................................................................................................4
2.1
Overview...............................................................................................................................4
2.2
Level 1 Option 1 Assessment................................................................................................4
2.2.1 Additional Requirements ....................................................................................................4
2.2.2 Acceptance Criteria.............................................................................................................5
2.2.3 Computation of the Load Level Pr .....................................................................................7
2.3
Level 1 Option 2 Assessment................................................................................................8
2.3.1 Overview.............................................................................................................................8
2.3.2 Additional Requirements ....................................................................................................8
2.3.3 Determination of the Key Components in the FAD Procedure ........................................10
2.3.4 Defect Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................................11
2.4
Limitations of the Level 1 Procedures ................................................................................12
3.0
Level 2 Assessment Procedures.........................................................................................................13
4.0
References..........................................................................................................................................14
Appendix A Validation of the Assessment Procedures against Full-Scale Bend Tests ............................ A-1
A.1
Background ...................................................................................................................... A-2
A.2
Experimental Database for Validation ............................................................................. A-2
A.3
Validation Process............................................................................................................ A-3
A.4
Results of the Validation .................................................................................................. A-3
A.5
Observation from the Validation against Full-scale Bend Tests ...................................... A-4
A.6
References ........................................................................................................................ A-7
Appendix B Validation of the Assessment Procedures against Curved Wide Plate Tests .........................B-1
B.1
Background .......................................................................................................................B-2
B.2
Overview of the Wide Plate Tests.....................................................................................B-2
B.3
Validation Process.............................................................................................................B-2
B.4
Validation Results against Curved Wide Plate Test Data .................................................B-3
B.5
Observation from the Validation against Curved Wide Plate Test Data...........................B-3
B.6
References .........................................................................................................................B-7
Appendix C Stress Intensity Factor Solution .............................................................................................C-1
C.1
Background .......................................................................................................................C-2
C.2
Parametric Equations.........................................................................................................C-3
C.3
Comparison between Fitted Equations and the FE Results...............................................C-3
C.4
References .........................................................................................................................C-5
Appendix D Plastic Collapse Solution ...................................................................................................... D-1
D.1
Background ...................................................................................................................... D-2
D.2
New Defect Size Correction Factor ................................................................................. D-2
D.3
Comparison with Full-scale Test Data ............................................................................. D-3
D.4
References ........................................................................................................................ D-4
iii
03-G78-20
Appendix E Estimation of Applied Stress from Applied Strain.................................................................E-1

E.1
Assumed Stress Strain Relations.......................................................................................E-2
E.2
Estimation of Strain Hardening Exponent ........................................................................E-2
E.3
Estimation of Y/T Ratio from Pipe Grade or Yield Stress.................................................E-2
E.4
Estimation of Uniform Strain ............................................................................................E-4
E.5
References .........................................................................................................................E-4
Appendix F Incorporation of Weld Strength Mismatch............................................................................. F-1
F.1
Background ....................................................................................................................... F-2
F.2
Determination of Weld Width for Girth Weld .................................................................. F-2
F.3
Suggested Approach for the Treatment of Weld Strength Mismatch ............................... F-3
F.4
References ......................................................................................................................... F-3
Appendix G Example Problem for a Level 1 Option 2 Assessment ......................................................... G-1
G.1
Background ...................................................................................................................... G-2
G.2
Input Data......................................................................................................................... G-2
G.3
Steps to Derive the Defect Acceptance Level .................................................................. G-2
G.4
Comments and Observations............................................................................................ G-5
Appendix H Comparison of Acceptance Criteria...................................................................................... H-1
H.1
Background ...................................................................................................................... H-2
H.2
Comparison of Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................. H-2
Appendix I Limits of Applicability of the Current API 1104 Appendix A Acceptance Criteria ................ I-1
I.1
Background of API 1104 Appendix A ................................................................................... I-2
I.2
Appendix A from the Perspective of the Code Structure ....................................................... I-2
I.3
Limits of Applicability from Analytical and Experimental Work Funded by API ................ I-3
I.4
Limits of Applicability from 1980s Work Funded by DOT.................................................. I-4
I.5
Observation from Historical and More Recent Work............................................................. I-6
I.6
Limits of Applicability of the Current API 1104 Appendix A Acceptance Criteria .............. I-7
I.7
Recommendation about the Limits of Applicability of API 1104 Appendix A ..................... I-7
I.8
References .............................................................................................................................. I-9
iv
03-G78-20
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Dimension of a pipe with a surface-breaking defect.........................................3
Figure 2-1 Level 1 Option 1 defect acceptance level at various applied load
levels for CTOD toughness equal to or greater than 0.25 mm (0.010
inch) ..................................................................................................................6
Figure 2-2 Level 1 Option 1 defect acceptance level at various applied load
levels for CTOD equal to or greater than 0.10 mm (0.004 inch) and
less than 0.25 mm (0.010 inch).........................................................................6
Figure 2-3 Relation between Y/T ratio and pipe grade of Eq. (1) .....................................7
Figure 2-4 Schematic overview of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure ..................................9
Figure A-1 Full-scale test data plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option 2
procedure. The nominal SMYS were used as the strength input................ A-5
Figure A-2 Full-scale test data plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option 2
procedure. The measured yield stresses were used as the strength
input. ............................................................................................................ A-5
Figure A-3 Full-scale test data that fall within the defect size and CTOD
limitations plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure.
The nominal SMYS were used as the strength input................................... A-6
Figure A-4 Full-scale test data that fall within the defect size and CTOD
limitations plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure.
The measured yield stresses were used as the strength input. ..................... A-6
Figure B-1 Curved wide plate test data plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option
2 procedure. The nominal SMYS were used as the pipe strength
input. .............................................................................................................B-4
Figure B-2 Curved wide plate test data plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option
2 procedure. The measured yield and tensile strength of the pipe were
used as the pipe strength input......................................................................B-5
Figure B-3 Curved wide plate test data plotted on the FAD of the procedure that
is an extension of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure. The measured
yield and tensile strength of the pipe AND weld were used as the
strength input. ...............................................................................................B-5
Figure C-1 Comparison of the fitted equations as a function of defect depth ratio ........C-2
Figure C-2 Comparison of the fitted curves with the original data of Chapuloit for
pipes with D/t of 42. The symbols are from the original data and the
curves are from the fitted equations. ............................................................C-4
03-G78-20
Figure D-1 Comparison of the Miller plastic collapse solution and the full-scale
test data. The prior and current defect size correction lines are shown...... D-3
Figure E-1 Comparison of linepipe longitudinal test data with the Webster and
Bannister correlation equations [2]...............................................................E-3
Figure E-2 Comparison of the relations between Y/T ratio and pipe grades from
estimation equations and codes ....................................................................E-3
Figure F-1 Determination of weld width 2H for a typical girth weld geometry ............ F-2
Figure G-1 Defect acceptance curve from the example problem with the Level 1
Option 2 procedure ...................................................................................... G-6
Figure G-2 Illustration of the critical points on the failure assessment curve from
the example problem. Points 8 and 9 are on the cut-off line, therefore
the acceptable defect sizes for those points are toughness
independent.................................................................................................. G-6
Figure G-3 The upper right corner of Figure G-2 .......................................................... G-7
Figure H-1 Comparison of the defect acceptance levels from API 1104 Appendix
A and those of the current procedures with no safety factor on the
allowable defect length ................................................................................ H-4
A and those of the current Level 1 procedures with the recommended
safety factor on the allowable defect length ................................................ H-4
Figure H-4 Comparison of the defect acceptance levels from the current Level 1
Option 1 and Option 2 ................................................................................. H-5
A and those of the current procedures with no safety factor on the
allowable defect length ................................................................................ H-6
Figure H-8 Comparison of the defect acceptance levels from the current Level 1
Option 1 and Option 2 ................................................................................. H-7
vi
03-G78-20
Figure I-1 Comparison of allowable flaw size between API 1104 Appendix A
and the NBS criteria with an assumed CTOD toughness of 0.005 inch
(0.127 mm) ....................................................................................................I-5
Figure I-2 Comparison of allowable flaw size between API 1104 Appendix A
and the NBS criteria with an assumed CTOD toughness of 0.010 inch
(0.254 mm) ....................................................................................................I-5
Figure I-3 Comparison of allowable defect size among various codes and
procedures......................................................................................................I-6
Figure I-4 Comparison of the defect acceptance criteria from the current plastic
collapse solution with no safety factor and those of API 1104
Appendix A....................................................................................................I-8
Figure I-5 Comparison of the defect acceptance criteria from the current plastic
collapse solution with a safety factor of 1.5 on the defect length and
those of API 1104 Appendix A .....................................................................I-9
vii
03-G78-20
A Comprehensive Update in the Evaluation of Pipeline Weld

Defects
Executive Summary
Girth weld defect acceptance criteria are set and enforced in all pipeline constructions
in the U.S. per federal regulations (CFR 49 Parts 192 and 195). With the increased use of
mechanized welding and AUT (Automated Ultrasonic Testing) in new pipeline
constructions, alternative defect acceptance criteria based on ECA (Engineering Critical
Assessment) principles are frequently used in lieu of the traditional workmanship criteria.
The alternative defect acceptance criteria in the current Appendix A of API 1104 have
remained largely unchanged since its introduction in the early 1980s. In the meantime,
the characteristics of the linepipe materials, welding processes, and construction practice
have evolved since the adoption of the code. The recent surge in the use of mechanized
welding/AUT/ECA created a mismatch between the new materials/welding processes and
the outdated alternative defect acceptance criteria. Looking ahead, the trend in pipeline
construction is moving towards larger diameter and higher strength linepipes, such as
X80, X100, and even X120. The characteristic of these ultra-high strength materials and
their welding processes make the use of the current Appendix A highly questionable.
This report presents the girth weld defect assessment procedures for stressbased design. The major components of this report are (1) technical basis for the
development of the revised girth weld defect acceptance criteria, (2) validation of the
acceptance criteria against experimental test data, and (3) recommended structure for the
revision of API 1104 Appendix A. The main body of the report is written in such a way
that it can be easily turned into code language. The supporting data, both analytical and
experimental, are given in the appendices. Examples are given to show the use of the
new assessment procedures. Comparisons in defect acceptance criteria are made between
the new procedures and the current API 1104 Appendix A.
The new proposed procedures have two options. Option 1 is given as an easy to use
graphical approach, whereby allowable flaw dimensions can be determined on the basis
of a somewhat more restrictive minimum toughness level. Option 2 provides more
flexibility and generally allows larger flaws, at the expense of more complicated
calculations.
In comparison to the current API 1104 Appendix A, the major advantages of the
newly proposed procedures are:
Consistent level of conservatism
Inclusion of both plastic collapse and fracture criteria. The current API 1104
Appendix A includes only fracture criterion.
The acceptance criteria are easier to use for the most frequently occurring defects
in modern pipeline construction.
Reduced minimum CTOD toughness requirements, accompanied by tighter defect
tolerance, allows wider application of the alternative acceptance criteria.
viii
03-G78-20
1.0
1.1
Introduction
Background
Girth welds made in field welding conditions often contain some imperfections. These
imperfections are sometimes referred to as defects. Many of these defects are a natural
occurrence of the field welding processes. Traditionally, the tolerable defect sizes are set by
workmanship-based criteria. One of the earliest and perhaps the most widely recognized
workmanship criteria is that given in the main body of API Standard 1104 [1]. These criteria
are empirically-based and historically proven safe in practice. In most cases, they are not
quantitatively related to the severity of the defects in safely maintaining the operation of the
pipelines.
Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, alternative defect acceptance criteria
have been implemented in various codes and standards. These criteria are based on fracture
mechanics principles. They relate the tolerable defect size with the magnitude of loading in
pipelines and materials resistance to failure. When correctly used, these criteria allow
engineers to assess the suitability of the pipelines containing the defects for intended service
conditions, or fitness-for-service (FFS). Assessment based on the FFS principles is
alternatively referred to as Engineering Critical Assessment, or ECA. The ECA codes that
are most frequently used in the North American pipeline industry are API 1104 Appendix A
[1], CSA Z662 Appendix K [2], and BS7910:1999 [3]. Although certain parts of API 1104
Appendix A and CSA Z662 Appendix K had their root in PD6493:1980 [4], the defect
acceptance criteria vary significantly. The PD 6493:1980 was succeeded by PD 6493:1991
[5] and more recently by BS 7910:1999. A more complete review of the evolution of
pipeline ECA procedures is given in Reference [6].
This document takes advantage of the significant progress made in understanding the
girth weld behavior over the last two decades. Significantly, the following elements form the
basis of this document.
Historical and recent experimental data, from small specimen to full-scale tests,
Fundamental fracture mechanics principles as implemented in weld defect assessment

procedures for engineering structures,
Recently published and/or updated pipeline codes around the world, such as EPRG
guidelines [7], Australian Standard AS2885 [8], API RP 579 [9], CSA Z662 2003
Edition [2], etc.
State-of-art research in weld defect assessment, such as the SINTAP procedure [10]
and the PRCI GWIS procedure [11,12].
This document presents procedures for the assessment of defects in transmission pipeline
girth welds. The assessment procedures are simplified, whenever possible, to address the
03-G78-20
specific needs of this industry without sacrificing the necessary consistency and accuracy of
the procedures.
Unless otherwise specified, the defects or imperfections here refer to planar defects.
1.2
Scope
This use of these assessment procedures is restricted to the following conditions:
1.3
Girth welds between pipes of equal wall thickness
No onerous fatigue crack growth in construction and under service conditions
No sub-critical crack growth, such as creep and environmentally-assisted crack

growth
No dynamic loading
Structure of the Defect Assessment Procedures
The assessment procedures is structured in two levels. Level 1 is for stress-based design
and Level 2 is for strain-based design. There are two options in each level. Option 1 is the
simplified procedure. Option 2 allows for broader applications than Option 1, but at the
expense of more complex computation and/or more required input data. The major
characteristics of the assessment procedures are given in Table 1.
Option
Assessment
Level
Table 1 Structure of the Proposed Assessment Procedures

Range of Applicability
Basis
Feature
Plastic collapse
criterion, corrected Graphical format. Minimal
by the Option 2
calculation required.
procedure
Allow the assessment of brittle

fracture, plastic collapse, and
Failure assessment
the interaction of the two
diagram (FAD)
failure modes in a single
format. Extensively
consistent format. Ability to
updated from the
accommodate new features,
PRCI GWIS
such as weld strength mismatch,
procedure
welds between pipes of unequal
wall thickness, if desired.
Current work
Graphical or tabular format that

covers majority of applications
Current work
Complex multi-variable format,

may require computational
software for easy application
2
2
Diameter
Grade and
Longitudinal
Tensile Property
Load
No limit
Applied stress
SMYS.
Test data available
up to X100
Applied strain
0.50%.
No limit
TBD
Applied strain
> 0.5%
03-G78-20
1.4
1.4.1
Terminology and Notation

Pipe Properties
D
=
pipe outer diameter, inch or mm
R
pipe outer radius, R D/2, inch or mm
pipe wall thickness, inch or mm
pipe diameter to wall thickness ratio, D/t
y, Y =
specified minimum yield stress of the pipe material, or SMYS, ksi or MPa
t, T =
ultimate tensile strength of the pipe material, or UTS, ksi or MPa
flow stress of the pipe material, f = (y+t)/2, ksi or MPa
Youngs modulus
Poissons ratio
1.4.2
Girth Weld Properties
1.4.3
Applied Loads
1.4.4
applied longitudinal stress, ksi or MPa
Pr
normalized applied stress or load level, Pr a / f
Defect Dimensions
a
=
defect depth, inch or mm
c
defect half length, inch or mm
ratio of defect length to pipe circumference, c/R = 2c/D,
defect height to crack-depth ratio, a/t
2c
a
Figure 1-1 Dimension of a pipe with a surface-breaking defect
03-G78-20
2.0
2.1
Level 1 Assessment Procedures
Overview
The Level 1 assessment procedures represent the state-of-art understanding in the

assessment of the significance of pipeline girth weld defects under stress-based design,
normally defined as applied longitudinal strain less than 0.5% and applied longitudinal stress
less than the specified minimum yield stress of the pipe material. There are two options at
this assessment level.
Option 1 is a simplified approach in graphical format. It relies on theoretically sound and
experimentally validated plastic collapse criterion when the fracture toughness is sufficiently
high. The criterion is modified by the Option 2 approach when the fracture toughness is
lower, but sufficiently high to avoid brittle fracture. The Option 1 approach is based on the
premises that modern pipeline steels joined using modern welding procedures and
consumables usually produce girth welds with good toughness. Consequently, brittle
fracture is usually not a concern. The defect acceptance level can be derived from a suitable
plastic collapse criterion, provided that certain minimum toughness requirements are met. A
notable example of this philosophy is the EPRG Guideline [7].
Option 2 is in the form of a failure assessment diagram, or FAD, which was first
proposed in the mid-1970s [13]. The FAD format has become by far the most widely used
defect assessment procedure for a wide range of industries, from the petroleum refining
industry (API RP 579 [9]) to the nuclear power generation industry (R6 [14] and ASME
Section XI [15]). The FAD format allows the simultaneous consideration of brittle fracture,
plastic collapse, and the interaction between those two failure modes (elastic-plastic
fracture). The FAD approach is considerably more complex in computation. Furthermore,
some proficiency and understanding of fracture mechanics is necessary to ensure the
procedure is applied correctly. However, validated computer programs, either from
commercial market or developed internally, should greatly facilitate the assessment process.
2.2
Level 1 Option 1 Assessment
2.2.1
Additional Requirements
In addition to the requirements of Section 1.2, the following requirements are necessary
at the minimum design temperature.
1. Weld metal strength even- or over-matches that of pipe material
2. No failure in the HAZ (heat-affect-zone) when defect-free welds are tested
3. Applied longitudinal stress no greater than SMYS and the applied longitudinal strain
no greater than 0.5%
4. The minimum CTOD toughness no less than 0.10 mm (0.004 inch)
03-G78-20
5. The minimum and averaged Charpy values are greater than 30 J and 40 J,
respectively.
The requirements of 1 and 2 are considered met if the cross-weld API tensile specimens
do not break in the weld or HAZ. The weld reinforcement on both sides of the specimen
shall be removed for such tests.
2.2.2
Acceptance Criteria
Two sets of acceptance criteria are given, depending on the fracture toughness of the
materials.
When the CTOD toughness is equal to or greater than approximately 0.25 mm (0.010
inch), the critical defect size is largely independent of toughness value. The defect
acceptance level is given in Figure 2-1 at various levels (Pr). This acceptance level is
derived from the plastic collapse criteria given in Appendix D, with a safety factor of 1.5 on
the defect length. If a load level is not given in Figure 2-1, the acceptance level can be
obtained by interpolating the adjacent curves or by taking the value of the next higher load
level.
At a CTOD toughness equal to or greater than 0.10 mm (0.004 inch) and less than 0.25
mm (0.010 inch), the critical defect size is dependent on toughness values for deep defects,
but fully plastic-collapse-controlled for shallow defects. Some examples of this defect depth
dependence are shown in Appendix H. The defect acceptance level given in Figure 2-2 is
calibrated to a CTOD toughness level of 0.10 mm (0.004 inch). The safety factor on the
defect length is approximately 1.5 at the toughness level of 0.10 (0.004 inch), but higher at
higher toughness levels.
The total defect length shall be no greater than 12.5% of the pipe circumference. The
maximum defect height shall be no greater than 50% of the pipe wall thickness.
03-G78-20
0.5
0.725
P r =0.700
Allowable Height / Pipe W. T.
0.750
0.4
0.775
0.800
0.825
0.3
0.850
0.875
0.900
0.2
0.925
0.950
0.975
0.1
0.0
0.000
Figure 2-1
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.100
Allowable Length / Pipe Circumference
Level 1 Option 1 defect acceptance level at various applied load levels for
CTOD toughness equal to or greater than 0.25 mm (0.010 inch)
0.5
0.625
0.675
0.650
0.125
0.4
0.575
0.550
0.600
0.700
P r =0.725
0.775 0.750
0.3
0.825
0.875
0.2
0.800
0.850
0.925 0.900
0.975
0.1
0.0
0.000
Figure 2-2
0.950
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.125
Level 1 Option 1 defect acceptance level at various applied load levels for
CTOD equal to or greater than 0.10 mm (0.004 inch) and less than 0.25 mm
(0.010 inch)
03-G78-20
2.2.3
Computation of the Load Level Pr
In accordance with the definition given in Section 1.4.3, it is necessary to determine

materials flow stress in order to obtain the load level Pr. The yield to tensile (Y/T) ratio of
the pipe material for a given grade is estimated as,
Y /T =
1
21.75
1 + 2

y
2.25
(1)
where the pipe grade, y , is in the unit of ksi. Alternatively, the Y/T ratio may be obtained
from Figure 2-3. The background of the Y/T ratio and pipe grade relation is given in
Appendix E.
The flow stress is therefore computed as,
f = 0.5 y 1 +
1
,
Y /T
(2)
The load level, Pr, is given as,
Pr =
a
.
f
(3)
The applied longitudinal stress, a, is obtained from stress analysis.

1.0
Y /T
0.9
0.8
0.7
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Grade (ksi)
Figure 2-3
Relation between Y/T ratio and pipe grade of Eq. (1)
03-G78-20
2.3
Level 1 Option 2 Assessment
2.3.1
Overview
There are three key components in the defect assessment in FAD format, see Figure 2-4:
1.
Failure assessment curve (FAC),
2.
Stress or load ratio, Sr or Lr, and
3.
Toughness ratio, Kr.
The FAC is a locus that defines the critical states in terms of the stress and toughness
ratios. The stress ratio defines the likelihood of plastic collapse. The toughness ratio is the
ratio of applied crack driving force over the materials fracture toughness. It defines the
likelihood of brittle fracture.
The exact form of FAC and the computation of stress and toughness ratios depend on the
type of structural geometry, defect location, defect size, and materials strain hardening
behavior. Over the years, many solutions have been developed for various structural
geometries, defect locations, and material properties. The assessment procedures presented
here is specifically developed and validated for pipeline girth welds.
The defect assessment in the FAD format may be used in one of two ways:
1.
2.3.2
For a structure with a known defect and applied load level, the significance of
the defect, i.e., safe or unsafe, can be determined. This is done by comparing
the location of the assessment point with the FAC. If the point falls inside
the FAC locus, the structure is deemed safe. Figure 2-4 shows how this type
of assessment is done.
2.
For a structure with known defect location, material property, and applied
load level, the critical defect size can be determined. This is almost always
done iteratively, and therefore can be time-consuming without the aid of a
computer program.
Additional Requirements
In addition to the requirements of Section 1.2, the following requirements are necessary
at the minimum design temperature.
1. Weld metal strength even- or over-matches that of pipe material
2. No failure in the HAZ (heat-affect-zone) when defect-free welds are tested
3. Applies longitudinal stress no greater than SMYS and applied longitudinal strain no
greater than 0.5%
4. The minimum CTOD toughness is greater than 0.05 mm.
03-G78-20
e = dn
Kr =
Je
dn, Eqs. (8), (9), (10), and (1)
, Eq. (7)
Je, Eqs. (11), (12), and (13)
e
, Eq. (6)
mat
mat, CTOD toughness
1.6
Kr
Brittle Fracture
1.4
Failure Assessment
Curve, Eq. (4)
1.2
1
0.8
Assessment
Point
0.6
0.4
Unacceptable
Region
Acceptable
Region
0.2
Cutoff, Eq. (5)

Plastic Collapse
0
0
0.2
Lr =
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
Lr1.6
a, stress analysis
a
, Eq. (14)
c
c, Eq. (15)
Figure 2-4 Schematic overview of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure
03-G78-20
2.3.3
2.3.3.1
Determination of the Key Components in the FAD Procedure

Failure Assessment Curve (FAC)
The FAC is taken from R6 Option 1 [14],
K r = f (Lr ) = (1 0.14 L2r ) 0.3 + 0.7 exp ( 0.65 L6r )
(4)
The cut-off of the FAC on the Lr axis is at,
Lcutoff
= f / y ,
r
(5)
where f is determined by Eq. (2).

2.3.3.2
Assessment Point, Toughness Ratio Kr
When materials fracture toughness is measured in CTOD, Kr is given as,
Kr =
e
mat
(6)
where mat is the CTOD toughness of the material. The elastic component of the CTOD
driving force, e, may be computed as,
e = dn
Je
(7)
The J to CTOD conversion factor, dn, is given as,

2
1
1
d n = 3.69 3.19 + 0.882
n
n
n=
(8)
ln( t / 0.005)
,
ln{1 / (Y / T )}
(9)
t = 0.00175 * y + 0.22 ,
(10)
where the pipe grade, y , is in the unit of ksi. The elastic J integral is given as,
Je =
K I2
E / (1 2 )
(11)
K I = a a Fb
(12)
The parameter Fb is a function of pipe diameter ratio, , and defect length , and defect
height ,
Fb ( , , ) = 1.09 + 2.31 0.791 0.906 0.983 +
10
m1
+ 0.806 m2
(13a)
03-G78-20
m1 = 0.00985 0.163 0.345 2
(13b)
m 2 = 0.00416 2.18 + 0.155 2
(13c)
Additional corrections apply to Fb for the following defect conditions,
2.3.3.3
80
80
,
Fb ( , , ) = Fb , =
, if 0.1, and >

(13d)
80 0.1
80 0.1
,
Fb ( , , ) = Fb , =
, if < 0.1, and >

(13e)
Assessment Point, Stress Ratio Lr
The stress ratio Lr is given as,

Lr =
a
c
(14)
sin( )
c = + 385(0.05 )2.5 cos
y
2
4
2
c =
2.3.4
sin ( )
cos
4 2
2
if < 0 .05
(15a)
if 0.05
(15b)
Defect Acceptance Criteria
The total defect length shall be no greater than 12.5% of the pipe circumference. The
maximum defect height shall be no greater than 50% of the pipe wall thickness.
A safety factor of 1.5 on defect length must be given from the critical defect size
computed per Section 2.3.3 procedure.
The defect acceptance level is computed iteratively. The following steps may be
followed:
1.
Select a defect size as a start point. A reasonable start point is a defect with the
maximum allowed height, =0.5, and a small defect length that represents the
smallest defect length that the selected AUT procedure can confidently detect.
2.
Determine the assessment point in the FAD format per Section 2.3.3.
3.
If the assessment point falls in the safe region,

(a) increase the defect length until the assessment point falls on the failure
assessment curve. This represents a critical state with the combination of
load, material property, and defect size. Make a note of the defect height and
length.
(b) Reduce the defect height by a small increment, say =0.05 (=0.45). Start
from the defect length determined in (a) and increase the defect length until
11
03-G78-20
the assessment falls on the failure assessment curve. This represents another
critical state with a shallower and longer defect than that determined in (a).
Make a note of the defect height and length.
(c) Repeat the process (b) until the shallowest defect height of interest has
reached.
4.
If the assessment point falls outside the safe region,

(a)
Decrease the defect length until the assessment point falls on the
failure assessment curve. This represents a critical state with the
combination of load, material property, and defect size. Make a note
of the defect height and length.
(b)
Repeat the steps 3(b) and 3(c).
An example of the procedure is given in Appendix G.

2.4
Limitations of the Level 1 Procedures
Due to the availability of public domain data, the validations of the procedures have been
primarily limited to large diameter and large D/t ratio pipes. The fundamental basis of the
assessment procedures does not place limits on diameter or D/t ratio. It is prudent, however,
that cautions be exercised in applying the procedures to heavy wall and small diameter pipes.
The effects of residual stress are not explicitly considered. It is believed that the residual
stress has minimal effects on the defect acceptance criteria provided that (1) the failure
mechanism is not time-dependent and (2) the CTOD toughness is greater than the minimum
required value of 0.05 mm (0.002 inch). The examples of time-dependent failure
mechanisms include, but not limited to, fatigue and stress corrosion cracking.
12
03-G78-20
3.0
Level 2 Assessment Procedures
The part is under development.
13
03-G78-20
4.0
References
API Standard 1104, "Welding of Pipelines and Related Facilities," 19th Edition, September
1999.
Canadian Standards Association, CSA-Z662, "Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems," 2003.
British Standard Institute, BS7910, Guidance on methods for assessing the acceptability of
flaws in structures, 1999.
British Standard Institution, PD6493:1980, Guidance on Some Methods for the Derivation of
Acceptance Levels for Defects in Fusion Welded Joints.
British Standard Institution, PD6493:1991, Guidance on Some Methods for the Derivation of
Acceptance Levels for Defects in Fusion Welded Joints.
Wang, Y.-Y., Swatzel, J., Horsley, D., and Glover, A., Girth Weld ECA from the Perspective
of Code Revisions in North America, Proceedings of the International Pipeline Conference
2002, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 29-October 3, 2002.
Knauf, G. and Hopkins, P., EPRG Guidelines on the Assessment of Defects in Transmission
Pipeline Girth Welds, Sonderdruck aus 3R International, 35 Jahrgang, Heft 10-11/1996, s.
620-624.
Australian Standard, AS 2885.2-1995, Pipelines Gas and Liquid Petroleum, Part 2:

Welding.
API RP 579, Fitness-for-Service, First Edition, January 2002.
10
SINTAP Procedure, Final Version, November 1999.
11
Wang, Y.-Y., Rudland, D., Horsley, D., Development of a FAD-Based Girth Weld ECA
Procedure, Part I Theoretical Framework, Proceedings of the 4th International Pipeline
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 29-October 3, 2002.
12
Procedure, Part II Experimental Verification, Proceedings of the 4th International Pipeline
13
Harrison, R. P., Loosemore, K., and Milne, I., Assessment of the Integrity of Structures
Containing Defects, CEGB Report No. R/H/6, Central Electricity Generating Board, United
Kinddom, 1976.
14
British Energy Generation Ltd., Assessment of Integrity of Structures Containing Defects,

R/H/R6-Revision 3, 1999.
15
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, Appendix H, 1992 Edition, July 1992.
14
03-G78-20
Appendix A Validation of the Assessment Procedures against Full-Scale

Bend Tests
A-1
03-G78-20
A.1
Background
This appendix provides the validation of the Level 1 Option 2 procedures. Since the
plastic collapse criterion implemented in the Level 1 Option 1 procedure is a part of the
Option 2 procedure, this validation is also an indirect confirmation of the Option 1
procedure.
The Level 1 Option 2 procedure is substantially taken from the PRCI-funded work of
Wang, et al. [1,2]. This document incorporates several improvements made to the initial
work. They include:
Slightly revised plastic collapse criterion,
Updated stress intensity factor solutions,
Updated Y/T ratio estimation from pipe grade,
Updated estimation of strain hardening exponent, and
Revised conversion factor from J-integral to CTOD.
These improvements represent incremental advances to the initial work. The outcome of
this validation was not expected to be significantly different from that of the initial
validation. Nevertheless, this validation is the direct confirmation of the exact procedures
outlined in this document.
A.2
Experimental Database for Validation
Data from 69 full-scale experimental tests were collected and used as the basis for this
validation. All the tests were conducted in bending with artificially introduced defects in the
circumferential direction, simulating girth weld defects. These 69 tests represent perhaps the
largest test database for large diameter pipelines in the open literature. Among these tests, 54
tests came from full-scale experimental tests conducted at the Welding Institute of Canada
(WIC) and the University of Waterloo [3,4]. Most of the tested pipes were API Grade X70
(483 MPa), a few were X65 (448 MPa) and X60 (414 MPa) grades. The pipe diameter
ranged from 20 inch (508 mm) to 42 inch (1067 mm). The reported CTOD toughness was in
the range of 0.03 to 0.10 mm (0.0012 to 0.0039 inch). The bending moments, stresses, and
remote nominal strains at the critical events were reported for many of these tests. The
critical events could be brittle fracture, brittle fracture after ductile tearing, buckling, or
manual intervention.
In addition to the WIC and University of Waterloo tests, four tests by Erdogan [5] are
included in the test database. These tests were conducted on X60 pipes with 20 inch OD and
0.344 inch (8.74 mm) wall thickness. The reported CTODs were 0.554 mm. The other test
data include 8 tests by Hopkins on X65 36 inch (914.4 mm) OD pipe [6] and 3 tests by
Wilkowski on X60 30 inch (762 mm) OD pipes [7]. The CTOD toughness of the Hopkins
and Wilkowski tests were in the range of 0.02 to 0.10 mm.
A-2
03-G78-20
A.3
Validation Process
For each test, 7 parameters were entered into the assessment procedure,
1.
Pipe diameter,
2.
Pipe wall thickness,
3.
Pipe grade or measured yield stress
4.
Defect depth,
5.
Defect length,
6.
CTOD toughness, and
7.
Magnitude of the applied stress.
An assessment point is produced for each test, following the procedure outlined in
Section 2.3.3. The relative conservatism and accuracy of the assessment procedure is
determined by examining the location of the assessment points. A computer program was
developed to facilitate the calculations.
A.4
Results of the Validation
The assessment points of all 69 full-scale tests are plotted on the FAD in Figure A-1 and
Figure A-2. The nominal pipe grades are used as the pipe strength input in Figure A-1,
whereas the measured yield stresses are used as the pipe strength input in Figure A-2. In
reference to Eq. (5), the cut-off for the FAC varies by pipe grade (pipe strength). The cut-off
for a nominal X70 pipe is shown in the figures. The cut-off points for the entire database
vary slight as the grades are in the narrow range of X60 to X70.
Since the assessment points represent actual failure events, points falling outside of the
FAC mean the FAC is conservative with respect to the actual failure events. Conservative
predictions are obtained for all tests. When the nominal yield strength is used, the median
value of the safety factor in stress is 1.66 with a standard deviation of 0.37. The safety factor
is the ratio of the experimentally measured maximum stress over the predicted failure stress,
with the material property and defect size remaining the same. The median value of the
safety factor in stress is 1.51 with a standard deviation of 0.35 when the measured yield
stresses of the pipes were used as the pipe strength input.
The database of 69 full-scale tests include defects from as shallow as 6% of the wall
thickness to as deep as through-wall defects. The CTOD toughness ranges from 0.02 mm to
0.55 mm. In reference to Section 2.3.4, the tests that are directly relevant to the acceptance
criteria are those with defects less than 50% of pipe wall thickness and CTOD toughness
greater than 0.05 mm. The maximum defect length in the database is 12% of the pipe
circumference, therefore all within the acceptance limits. When the maximum defect size
and the minimum CTOD toughness criteria of Section 2.3.4 are applied, 35 tests fall within
the limits, or about one-half of the total number of tests.
The assessment points of these 35 full-scale tests are plotted on the FAD in Figure A-3
and Figure A-4. The nominal pipe grades are used as the pipe strength input in Figure A-3,
A-3
03-G78-20
whereas the measured yield stresses are used as the pipe strength input in Figure A-4. In
comparison, the scatter of the test data with respect to the FAC is markedly reduced when the
limits of Section 2.3.4 are applied. When the nominal yield strength is used, the median
value of the safety factor in stress is 1.46 with a standard deviation of 0.28. The median
value of the safety factor in stress is 1.44 with a standard deviation of 0.23 when the
measured yield stresses of the pipes were used as the pipe strength input.
A.5
Observation from the Validation against Full-scale Bend Tests
1.
The assessment procedure is conservative when compared to all 69 full-scale test

data. The database contains tests with defect size and CTOD toughness outside
the limits of the current acceptance criteria. This demonstrates the robustness of
the assessment procedure.
2.
When the limitations on defect size and CTOD toughness, as proposed in the
recommended acceptance criteria, are applied, the consistency of the assessment
procedure shows marked improvement with respect to the test data.
3.
It should be noted that no safety factor was applied when the assessment
procedure is validated against the experimental test data. The assessment
procedure is assumed to predict critical failure events. In the recommended
acceptance criteria, a safety factor of 1.5 is applied after the critical defect size
is determined. This safety factor in defect length is in line with historical
recommendations. A higher degree of conservatism than that shown here is
preserved when the recommended acceptance criteria are applied.
4.
The scatter in the test data with respect to the FAC is perhaps due to the fact that a
number of factors affecting the test results cannot be reconstructed from the
published papers and reports. These factors include, but not limited to, weld
strength mismatch, scatter in CTOD toughness, variation in stress-strain curves of
the pipe material and weld metal, etc. It is believed that, for instance, the reported
CTOD toughness is the minimum value of a batch of tests. It may or may not
reflect the CTOD toughness on a specific piece of pipe at the specific defect
location. On the other hand, such details are frequently not available if the
assessment procedure is applied to existing pipelines. This validation shows that
the procedure is conservative, but not overly so, when used with minimum
required input data.
A-4
03-G78-20
3.0
2.5
Kr
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Lr
Figure A-1
Full-scale test data plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure.
The nominal SMYS were used as the strength input.
3.0
2.5
Kr
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Lr
Figure A-2
Full-scale test data plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure.
The measured yield stresses were used as the strength input.
A-5
03-G78-20
3.0
2.5
Kr
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Lr
Full-scale test data that fall within the defect size and CTOD limitations
plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure. The nominal SMYS
were used as the strength input.
Figure A-3
3.0
2.5
Kr
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
Figure A-4
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Lr
Full-scale test data that fall within the defect size and CTOD limitations
plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure. The measured yield
stresses were used as the strength input.
A-6
03-G78-20
A.6
References
Pick, R. J., Glover, A. G., and Coote, R. I., Full Scale Testing of Large Diameter Pipelines,
Proceedings of Conference on Pipeline and Energy Plant Piping, Pergamon Press, 1980, pp.
357-366.
Glover, A. G., Coote, R. I., and Pick, R. J., Engineering Critical Assessment of Pipeline Girth
Welds, Proceedings of Conference on Fitness for Purpose Validation of Welded Construction,
The Welding Institute, Paper 30, 1981.
Erdogan, F., "Theoretical and Experimental Study of Fracture in Pipelines Containing

Circumferential Flaws," DOT-RSPA-DMA-50/83/3, Contract DOT-RC-82007 Final Report to
USDOT, September 1982.
Hopkins, P., Demofonti, G., Knauf, G., and Denys, R., an Experimental Appraisal of the
Significance of Defects in Pipeline Girth Welds, 8th EPRG/PRC Biennial Joint Technical
Meeting on Line Pipe Research, Paris, 1991.
Wilkowski, G. M., and Eiber, R. J., "Evaluation of Tensile Failure of Girth Weld Repair
Grooves in Pipe Subject to Offshore Laying Stresses," Journal of Energy Resources
Technology, v. 103, March 1981.
A-7
03-G78-20
Appendix B Validation of the Assessment Procedures against Curved Wide

Plate Tests
78
B-1
03-G78-20
B.1
Background
This appendix provides further validation of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure, using
experimental test data from curved wide plates. Since the plastic collapse criterion
implemented in the Level 1 Option 1 procedure is a part of the Option 2 procedure, this
validation is also an indirect confirmation of the Option 1 procedure.
This validation is similar to the PRCI-funded work of Wang, et al. [1]. It is useful as this
is a direct confirmation of the proposed assessment procedures, which incorporate the
improvements to the prior work as listed in Section A.1.
This appendix also covers the validation of the assessment with the option of
incorporating the effects of weld strength mismatch. The inclusion of the weld strength
mismatch is further discussed in Appendix F.
B.2
Overview of the Wide Plate Tests
The test data were taken from 31 curved wide plate (CWP) tests performed at the
University of Gent [2]. The pipe material was a longitudinally welded API 5L X60 pipe with
36-inch (914.4 mm) OD and 11.6-mm (0.457-inch) wall. The averaged 0.5% proof stress in
the longitudinal direction was 64.7 ksi (446 MPa). The averaged tensile strength in the same
direction was 81.2 ksi (560 MPa). There were ten girth welds made with seven combinations
of cellulosic electrodes (AWS Exx10). This offered seven levels of weld strength mismatch
ranging from 20% undermatching to 24% overmatching.
The CWPs were cut from welded pipe sections in the longitudinal direction with the girth
weld in the mid-length. The girth weld defects were introduced by sharp starter notch and
fatigue pre-cracked. The gauge section of the CWPs had a nominal width of 300 mm. All
CWPs were loaded in tension until failure. The load, overall deformation, and CMOD (crack
mouth opening displacement) were recorded during the tests. The test temperatures were
10, -30, and 50oC.
B.3
Validation Process
The validation process consists of three input options (IO). Each IO represents different
levels of available data that might be encountered in practice.
The IO 1 assumes the following input data are available:
Pipe diameter,
1.
2.
Pipe wall thickness,
3.
Pipe grade,
4.
Defect depth,
5.
Defect length,
6.
CTOD toughness, and
7.
Applied longitudinal stress.
78
B-2
03-G78-20
In IO 2, the pipe grade is replaced with the measured pipe yield stress and tensile
strength.
In IO 3, the measured yield stress and tensile strength of the pipe material and weld
metals are both known. The effectiveness of incorporating the weld strength mismatch in the
assessment procedures is evaluated in this IO.
B.4
Validation Results against Curved Wide Plate Test Data
The assessment results are given in FAD format in Figure B-1, Figure B-2, and Figure
B-3 and in tabulated form in Table B-1. The assessment points are listed for all cases. In
addition, the safety factors in terms of applied stress are also listed. The safety factor is the
ratio of the experimentally measured maximum stress over the predicted failure stress.
The results of IO 1 are given in Figure B-1. There is a single cut-off of the FAC for all
cases, as the cut-off is related to the nominal pipe grade. The median value of the safety
factor is 1.23 with a standard deviation of 0.11. All test cases are conservatively predicted,
even for the undermatched cases. This is the direct result of using the nominal pipe grade as
the strength input. The actual pipe strength was higher. The weld strength mismatch is not
considered in this IO.
The results of IO 2 are given in Figure B-2. The single cut-off of the FAC for all cases is
determined by the measured yield and tensile strength of the pipe. The median value of the
safety factor is 1.12 with a standard deviation of 0.10. Since the measured tensile properties
are greater than the SMYS (pipe grade), the assessment procedure predicted higher failure
stresses than those obtained if the nominal pipe grades are used. Consequently, some of the
undermatched cases are not conservatively predicted. The weld strength mismatch is not
considered in this IO.
The results of IO 3 are given in Figure B-3. The cut-off of the FAC is affected by the
weld strength mismatch, therefore, represented by a broken line. The median value of the
safety factor is 1.12 with a standard deviation of 0.07. One case has a safety factor of 0.99.
All others are conservatively predicted. In comparison to other IOs, this one is clearly the
best, as it offers the lowest standard deviation and very good overall accuracy. This
demonstrates that the accuracy of the procedure is improved with the inclusion of the weld
strength mismatch effects.
B.5
Observation from the Validation against Curved Wide Plate Test Data
It should be noted that no safety factor was applied when the assessment procedure is
validated against the curved wide plate test data. The assessment procedure is assumed to
predict critical failure events. In the recommended acceptance criteria, a safety factor of 1.5
is applied after the critical defect size is determined. The recommended acceptance criteria
have a higher degree of conservatism than that shown in this appendix.
78
B-3
03-G78-20
1.
In comparison with the validation against the full-scale test data, the assessment
procedure showed a higher degree of consistency and accuracy. This is reflected
in the small values of standard deviation.
2.
In the absence of explicit consideration for weld strength mismatch, the

assessment procedure is conservative and accurate when the weld strength at least
overmatches that of the pipe.
3.
When the weld strength mismatch levels were taken into account, the new
procedure produced consistent and highly accurate predictions against the
experimental results.
4.
If the pipe grade is the only known strength input, even or over-matching weld
metal is necessary to ensure conservative predictions.
1.2
1.0
Kr
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
Figure B-1
78
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Lr
Curved wide plate test data plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option 2
procedure. The nominal SMYS were used as the pipe strength input.
B-4
03-G78-20
1.2
1.0
Kr
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Lr
Curved wide plate test data plotted on the FAD of the Level 1 Option 2
procedure. The measured yield and tensile strength of the pipe were used as
the pipe strength input.
Figure B-2
1.2
1.0
Kr
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
Figure B-3
78
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Lr
Curved wide plate test data plotted on the FAD of the procedure that is an
extension of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure. The measured yield and tensile
strength of the pipe AND weld were used as the strength input.
B-5
03-G78-20
78
(mm)
0.26
0.24
0.14
0.21
0.27
0.37
0.37
0.30
0.30
0.18
0.18
0.28
0.28
0.23
0.23
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.26
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.11
0.06
0.07
0.21
0.08
Factor of Safety
in Stress
Kr
Lr
Factor of Safety
in Stress
Kr
IO 2, Using
IO 3, Using
Measured Yield Measured Yield
and Tensile of
and Tensile of
Pipe
Pipe and Welds
Lr
Factor of Safety
in Stress
Kr
IO 1, Using
SMYS of Pipe
Lr
Defect Length
0.82
0.94
1.07
1.16
1.15
0.82
0.82
0.94
0.94
1.07
1.07
1.05
1.05
1.10
1.10
1.16
1.16
1.15
1.15
0.82
0.82
0.94
0.94
1.07
1.07
1.05
1.05
1.10
1.10
1.16
1.15
1.07
0.12
Defect Height
0.80
0.93
1.06
1.20
1.24
0.80
0.80
0.93
0.93
1.06
1.06
1.09
1.09
1.12
1.12
1.20
1.20
1.24
1.24
0.80
0.80
0.93
0.93
1.06
1.06
1.09
1.09
1.12
1.12
1.20
1.24
1.09
0.14
CTOD
Mismatch Ratio at UTS
(MPa) (MPa)
359
461
415
527
473
598
533
649
554
646
359
461
359
461
415
527
415
527
473
598
473
598
488
586
488
586
498
614
498
614
533
649
533
649
554
646
554
646
359
461
359
461
415
527
415
527
473
598
473
598
488
586
488
586
498
614
498
614
533
649
554
646
Median
488
598
Std. Dev.
65
65
1
6
11
28
24
2
3
7
8
12
13
16
17
20
21
29
30
25
26
4
5
9
10
14
15
18
19
22
23
31
27
Mismatch Ratio at Yield
Weld Tensile
Weld Yield
Test No.
Table B-1 Summary of the Validation against the Curved Wide Plate Test Data
(mm) (mm)
3.50 48.7 1.19 0.32 1.08 1.11 0.30 0.98 1.29 0.30 1.15
3.70 45.6 1.25 0.35 1.14 1.16 0.33 1.03 1.23 0.33 1.09
3.90 45.0 1.20 0.45 1.09 1.11 0.43 1.01 1.09 0.43 0.99
3.40 48.0 1.56 0.45 1.42 1.45 0.42 1.29 1.38 0.42 1.22
3.60 48.5 1.53 0.40 1.38 1.42 0.38 1.26 1.33 0.38 1.18
3.50 27.1 1.12 0.23 1.01 1.04 0.21 0.92 1.21 0.21 1.07
4.30 48.0 1.25 0.31 1.13 1.16 0.29 1.03 1.38 0.29 1.22
3.80 25.7 1.27 0.30 1.16 1.18 0.28 1.05 1.25 0.28 1.11
4.30 49.3 1.29 0.35 1.17 1.19 0.33 1.06 1.27 0.33 1.12
4.10 25.0 1.37 0.42 1.24 1.27 0.40 1.12 1.25 0.40 1.10
3.70 50.5 1.25 0.41 1.14 1.16 0.39 1.03 1.14 0.39 1.01
4.70 50.3 1.51 0.45 1.37 1.40 0.42 1.24 1.36 0.42 1.20
4.20 72.4 1.33 0.39 1.20 1.23 0.37 1.09 1.20 0.37 1.06
4.80 48.6 1.44 0.48 1.30 1.33 0.45 1.18 1.29 0.45 1.14
3.40 73.6 1.45 0.42 1.32 1.35 0.39 1.19 1.31 0.39 1.16
4.00 23.3 1.61 0.60 1.46 1.49 0.56 1.34 1.42 0.56 1.29
4.30 49.7 1.29 0.56 1.20 1.20 0.53 1.12 1.14 0.53 1.08
3.50 22.2 1.58 0.53 1.43 1.47 0.50 1.30 1.38 0.50 1.23
4.10 49.8 1.36 0.56 1.25 1.26 0.52 1.16 1.18 0.52 1.10
3.60 24.0 1.22 0.30 1.11 1.14 0.28 1.01 1.33 0.28 1.18
3.00 48.5 1.28 0.31 1.16 1.19 0.29 1.05 1.37 0.29 1.22
4.20 26.8 1.30 0.36 1.18 1.20 0.33 1.07 1.27 0.33 1.13
2.50 47.2 1.30 0.30 1.18 1.21 0.28 1.07 1.26 0.28 1.12
3.40 24.1 1.41 0.46 1.28 1.31 0.43 1.16 1.29 0.43 1.14
3.50 48.5 1.34 0.48 1.21 1.24 0.45 1.11 1.22 0.45 1.09
2.90 23.2 1.37 0.43 1.24 1.27 0.40 1.12 1.24 0.40 1.10
3.50 49.6 1.36 0.51 1.23 1.26 0.48 1.14 1.23 0.48 1.11
3.10 24.5 1.40 0.49 1.27 1.29 0.46 1.15 1.26 0.46 1.12
3.80 50.2 1.36 0.58 1.26 1.26 0.54 1.17 1.22 0.54 1.14
4.00 47.3 1.35 0.79 1.36 1.25 0.74 1.26 1.18 0.74 1.22
5.00 49.0 1.23 0.76 1.26 1.14 0.71 1.17 1.07 0.71 1.12
3.70 48.0 1.34 0.43 1.23 1.24 0.40 1.12 1.26 0.40 1.12
0.56 13.9 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.07
B-6
03-G78-20
B.6
References
Denys, R. M., The Effect of Weld Metal Matching on Girth Weld Performance, Volume II
Experimental Investigation, final report to the Pipeline Research Committee of the American
Gas Association, PR-202-922, January 24, 1993.
78
B-7
03-G78-20
Appendix C Stress Intensity Factor Solution
78
C-1
03-G78-20
C.1
Background
Chapuloit, et al., conducted over 200 3-D FE analyses of pipes containing finite-length
semi-elliptical defects [1]. The KI solutions were derived for pipes with D/t ratio ranging
from 4 to 162 and a/t ratio up to 0.8. The solutions were also calibrated with the flat plate
solutions of Newman and Raju and Irwins analytical solution of an elliptical crack in an
infinite body [2,3]. Overall, Chapuloits solutions are perhaps one of the most
comprehensive solutions in the published literature for circumferentially-cracked pipes under
bending loads.
In the previously published PRCI-funded work of Wang, et al. [4,5], the KI solutions of
Chapuloit at the deepest point were fitted to a set of parametric equations. The KI solutions
took a similar form as those of ASME Section XI solutions. However, due to the use of a
high order polynomial function in the parametric equations, the fitted equations did not give
correct KI values at either very small or large a/t ratios. As shown by an example in Figure
C-1, the trends at a/t < 0.1 and a/t > 0.6 are not consistent with the original data.
Furthermore, the overall fit has some oscillation even within the range of 0.1 < a/t < 0.6 due
to the high order polynomial functions.
A new fitting was conducted to remove the polynomial functions. The new
parametric equations provide more consistent agreement with the original data as shown in
Figure C-1.
1.8
D /t =82, =0.012
Previous Fit
Current Fit
1.6
Data of Chapuloit
Fb
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
a/t
Figure C-1
78
Comparison of the fitted equations as a function of defect depth ratio
C-2
03-G78-20
C.2
Parametric Equations
The newly fitted equations are given as follows.
2c
D
a
, =
, =
t
t
D
(C.1)
K I = a a Fb
(C.2)
Fb ( , , ) = 1.09 + 2.31 0.791 0.906 0.983 +
m1
+ 0.806 m2
(C.3a)
m1 = 0.00985 0.163 0.345 2

m 2 = 0.00416 2.18 + 0.155 2
Additional corrections apply to Fb for the following defect conditions,
80
80
,
Fb ( , , ) = Fb , =
, if 0.1 and >

(C.3b)
80 0.1
80 0.1
,
Fb ( , , ) = Fb , =
, if < 0.1 and >

(C.3c)
The above equations were fitted to data in the range of 0.1 0.8 , 42 162 , and
2
32
.

When the D/t ratio is sufficiently large, the KI solution reverts back to the flat plate
solution. Under such conditions, the KI value at the deepest point is no longer a function of
defect length. This is essentially the KI solution specified in Eqs. (C.3b) and (C.3c).
C.3
Comparison between Fitted Equations and the FE Results
The accuracy of the parametric fit of Eqs. (C.1)-(C.3) are examined by comparing the KI
values from the fitted equations with the original data of Chapuloit. In Figure C-2 to Figure
C-4, the comparisons are made for three D/t ratios and various defect sizes. The overall
agreement is very good. The points at which the curves turn flat indicate that the conditions
of Eq. (C.3b) are satisfied. At larger values, the parameter Fb remains constant.
78
C-3
03-G78-20
2.5
= D/t = 42
2.0
Fb
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
= 0.1
= 0.2
= 0.4
= 0.6
0.12
0.15
Figure C-2
Comparison of the fitted curves with the original data of Chapuloit for pipes
with D/t of 42. The symbols are from the original data and the curves are
from the fitted equations.
3.0
= D/t = 82
2.5
Fb
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
= 0.1
= 0.2
= 0.4
= 0.6
0.15
Figure C-3
78
C-4
03-G78-20
3.5
= D/t = 162
3.0
2.5
Fb
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.12
= 0.1
= 0.2
= 0.4
= 0.6
0.15
Figure C-4
C.4
References
Chapuloit, S., Lacire, M. H., and Le Delliou, P., Stress Intensity Factors for Internal
Circumferential Cracks in Tubes over a Wide Range of Radius over Thickness Ratios, PVP
Vol. 365, ASME 1998, pp. 95-106.
Newman, J. C., Jr. and Raju, I. S., Analysis of Surface Cracks in Finite Plates Under Tension
and Bending Loads, NASA Technical Paper 1578, NASA, Washington, D. C., December
1978.
Irwin, G. R., Crack-extension force for a part-through crack in a plate, Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Vol. 29, 1962, pp. 651-654.
78
C-5
03-G78-20
Appendix D Plastic Collapse Solution
D-1
03-G78-20
D.1
Background
Plastic collapse solutions suitable for girth weld defect assessments have been
investigated extensively by Wang [1,2]. There are several earlier reviews, e.g., Rosenfeld [3]
and Clyne and Jones [4], that targeted pipelines. Miller [5] conducted an extensive review of
limit load solutions for a wide range of structural geometries, including pipes.
The plastic collapse solution adopted here follows the recommendation of Wang [6,7].
The basis of the recommendation has been covered extensively in prior publications. The
plastic collapse solution is due to Miller [5],
cMiller = f cos
sin( )
(D.1)
where cMiller is the nominal longitudinal stress at plastic collapse. The Miller solution of Eq.
(D.1) was compared with the full-scale test data of Glover [8,9] and Erdogan [10]. The
features of the test database are described in Appendix A. Based on the comparison, a defect
size correction factor was proposed [6],

cGirth = f f cos
2
sin ( )
(D.2)
where cGirth is the nominal longitudinal stress at plastic collapse of a girth weld with the
correction factor f. The defect size correction factor f was given as [6],
f =
f =
1

4
1 + 1
0.05
if
0.05
(D.3a)
if
> 0.05
(D.3b)
The modified Miller solution of Eqs. (2) and (3) is the basis of the revised plastic
collapse criterion in CSA Z662 Appendix K 2003 Edition. The acceptance criteria of CSA
Z662 Appendix K has a safety factor of 2 on the defect length computed from Eqs. (2) and
(3). This safety factor is consistent with historical recommendations.
D.2
New Defect Size Correction Factor
The plastic collapse solution of Eqs. (D.2) and (D.3) worked well in comparison to test
data [1,2,6,7]. However, the discontinuity of the first order derivative at = 0.05 can pose a
problem if the current assessment procedures are cast into an optimization procedure.
Although this is not an immediate concern for this project, revisions were made to the defect
size correction factor.
D-2
03-G78-20
f =
f =
D.3
+ 385(0.05 )
2.5
if
0.05
(D.4a)
if
> 0.05
(D.4b)
Comparison with Full-scale Test Data
The bending stresses at the critical events in the full-scale tests, normalized by the plastic
collapse stresses of Eq. (D.1) are shown in Figure D-1. When the stress ratio is greater than
1.0 on the y-axis, the actual failure stress is greater than the predicted plastic collapse stress.
In such cases, the Miller solution is conservative. It is evident from Figure D-1 that the
Miller solution is less conservative for larger defects. A defect size correction line, Eq.
(D.3), was suggested by Wang [6]. The new defect size correction line, corresponding to Eq.
(D.4), is also shown in the figure. The new correction line gives lower plastic collapse stress,
and therefore, is more conservative than the prior correction line.
It should be noted that no minimum toughness criterion is applied to the test data.
Consequently, it was not expected that all test data would fall conservatively above the
correction line. The test data are used to set the overall trend.
1.4
1.2
Miller
0.6
/ c
0.8
Exp
1.0
0.4
Full-Scale Test Data

Prior Defect Size Correction Line
0.2
New Defect Size Correction Line
0.0
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Figure D-1
Comparison of the Miller plastic collapse solution and the full-scale test data.
The prior and current defect size correction lines are shown.
D-3
03-G78-20
D.4
References
Wang, Y.-Y., Wilkowski, G. M., and Horsley, D. J., Plastic Collapse Analysis of Pipelines
Containing Surface-Breaking Circumferential Defects, in Pipeline Technology, Vol. I, R.
Denys, Ed., Elsevier Science B. V., May 21-24, 2000, pp. 191-209.
Wang, Y.-Y., Wilkowski, G. M., and Horsley, D. J., Plastic Collapse Analysis of Pipeline
Girth Welds, in Assessment Methodologies for Preventing Failure: Deterministic and
Probabilistic Aspects and Welding Residual Stress, Vol. 1 ASME PVP-Vol. 410-1, Edited by R.
Mohan, 2000, pp. 3-9.
Rosenfeld, M. J., "Serviceability of Corroded Girth Welds," Draft Final Report, PRI Contract
No. PR 218-9438, March 31, 1995.
Kastner, W., Roehrich, E., Schmitt, W., and Steinbuch, R., Critical Crack Sizes in Ductile
Piping, International Journal of Pressure Vessel and Piping, Vol. 9, 1981, pp.197-219.
Miller, A. G., "Review of Limit Codes of Structure Containing Defects," International Journal
of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 32, 1988, pp. 191-327.
Pick, R. J., Glover, A. G., and Coote, R. I., Full Scale Testing of Large Diameter Pipelines,
Proceedings of Conference on Pipeline and Energy Plant Piping, Pergamon Press, 1980, pp.
357-366.
Glover, A. G., Coote, R. I., and Pick, R. J., Engineering Critical Assessment of Pipeline Girth
Welds, Proceedings of Conference on Fitness for Purpose Validation of Welded Construction,
The Welding Institute, Paper 30, 1981.
10

D-4
03-G78-20
Appendix E Estimation of Applied Stress from Applied Strain
E-1
03-G78-20
E.1
Assumed Stress Strain Relations
Sometimes, it is easier to determine the applied longitudinal strain than the applied
longitudinal stress. When applied stress is needed for computation, such as for the
determination of applied stress in the application of the Level 1 Option 1 procedure, the
following process may be followed.
The overall stress strain curve is assumed to take the form that is suggested in CSA Z662,
a =
+ 0.005 y
E
E
a
(E.1)
where y is the nominal yield stress (SMYS) and E is the Youngs modulus. There is an
unique relation between applied stress a and applied strain a , if the strain hardening
exponent n is known.
E.2
Estimation of Strain Hardening Exponent
By assuming a pure power stress strain relation, the strain hardening exponent may be
estimated as,
n=
E.3
ln( t / 0.005)
.
ln{1 / (Y / T )}
(E.2)
Estimation of Y/T Ratio from Pipe Grade or Yield Stress
Webster and Bannister examined the correlation of Y/T ratio and yield strength [1]. Two
simple relations were produced, one providing upper bound Y/T ratio, the other providing the
best fit to the data. The relations were derived from theoretical and empirical considerations,
and are applicable to many kinds of structural steels. Mannucci, et al., found the relations to
be reasonable for pipeline steels tested in longitudinal direction [2]. The comparison of the
linepipe test data and the upper bound and best fit relations is shown in Figure E-1.
E-2
03-G78-20
Figure E-1
Comparison of linepipe longitudinal test data with the Webster and Bannister
correlation equations [2]
1.0
Y /T
0.9
Upper Bound, Webster and Banister

CSA Appendix K
Eq. 1 of the Current Document
API min Y and T requirements
Best Fit, Webster and Banister
0.8
0.7
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Grade (ksi)
Figure E-2
Comparison of the relations between Y/T ratio and pipe grades from
estimation equations and codes
E-3
03-G78-20
The relations for the upper bound and best fit by Webster and Bannister are shown in
Figure E-2. Some reference points are added by computing the Y/T ratio from the API 5L
minimum yield and tensile requirements. In addition, the plastic collapse criterion of CSA
Z662 Appendix K 2003 provides a reference table between pipe grade and flow stress. The
implied Y/T ratio may be obtained when the flow stress is taken as the averaged value
between yield and tensile strength. The API 5L and CSA Z662 values are also shown in
Figure E-2. A new equation in the same format as that of Webster and Banister, but
providing the best fit to the API 5L and CSA Z662 Appendix K, is suggested as follows,
Y /T =
1
21.75
1 + 2

y
2.25
(E.3)
The nominal yield stress y is in the unit of ksi.

E.4
Estimation of Uniform Strain
Estimating the strain at the ultimate tensile strength (UTS), often termed uniform strain
or tensile strain, can be difficult. It is generally true that the uniform strain is inversely
related to pipe grade. The following equation is suggested for grades up to X100 if no other
proven estimation procedure is available.
t = 0.00175 y + 0.22 .
(E.3)
The nominal yield stress y is in the unit of ksi.

E.5
References
Webster, S., Bannister, A., Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 67 (2000), pp. 481-514.
Mannucci, G., Di Vito, L., Malatesta, G., Izquierdo, A., and Cumino, G., Evaluation of the
Effect of Yield-to-Tensile Ration on the Structural Integrity of an Offshore Pipeline by a LimitState Design Approach, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pipeline
Technology, May 9-13, 2004, Ostend, Belgium, pp. 1283.
E-4
03-G78-20
Appendix F Incorporation of Weld Strength Mismatch
F-1
03-G78-20
F.1
Background
The effects of weld strength mismatch on the weld integrity have received great attention
in the last two decades. There were two international symposia organized by GKSS
(Germany) dedicated to this subject [1,2]. With the trend towards using high-strength
linepipes, girth weld strength undermatching has become a distinct possibility [3]. It is
therefore necessary to consider how girth welds with mismatching welds should be assessed.
Early work by Wang indicated that the effects of weld strength mismatch in ECA
procedures of FAD format can be accounted for by scaling the stress ratio (Sr or Lr) [4,5,6].
The newly developed European structural integrity assessment procedure SINTAP has
adopted this approach [7]. Therefore, the weld strength mismatch effects can be effectively
incorporated into the ECA procedure by providing a correction factor to the plastic collapse
solutions,
cMis = f Mis cGirth
(F.1)
where cMis is the mismatch corrected plastic collapse stress and f Mis is the mismatch
correction factor.
Extensive studies have been conducted by researchers at GKSS on the effects of weld
strength mismatch on the plastic collapse loads. The results of these studies have been
incorporated into a structural integrity assessment procedure termed Engineering Treatment
Model, or ETM [8,9]. They did not, however, study pipes with finite length girth weld
defects. The geometry that most closely matches the girth welds in pipes is pipes containing
fully-circumferential surface-breaking defects. The mismatch correction factor f Mis from this
geometry was found to provide good approximation by Wang [10]. The formulae for the
mismatch correction factor are given in the same reference.
F.2
Determination of Weld Width for Girth Weld
One of the key parameters in the mismatch correction factor is the weld width. The
original GKSS work assumed the welds are parallel-sided. For a typical girth weld, the weld
width (2H) corresponding to the defect depth may be used as the weld width in determining
the mismatch correction factor, see Figure F-1.
2
Figure F-1
Determination of weld width 2H for a typical girth weld geometry
F-2
03-G78-20
F.3
Suggested Approach for the Treatment of Weld Strength Mismatch
A multi-level approach may be taken in the treatment of weld strength mismatch,

depending on the availability of weld property data.
Level 1:
If the weld tensile property is not known, conservative assessment can be

conducted by (1) using the pipe tensile property and (2) ensuring the weld
metal strength even- or over-matches the pipe tensile property. This is the
default condition assumed in the Level 1 assessment procedure.
Level 2:
If the weld tensile property is known, but the weld profile is not known,
conservative assumption can be made on the weld width and the assessment
can be done by incorporating the weld strength mismatching effects. For
undermatching welds, upper bound weld width should be assumed. For
overmatching welds, lower bound weld width should be assumed.
Level 3:
If the weld tensile property and the weld profile are known, the assessment
can be done using the actual properties and dimensions.
Care should be taken when assessing defects on the fusion boundary. The lower of the
base and weld metal tensile property should be taken when a single value of tensile property
is needed, such as converting stress intensity factor KI to CTOD. The crack tip deformation
is dominated by the lower strength material for fusion boundary defects [11]. For weld
centerline defects, the tensile properties of the weld metal should be taken.
F.4
References
Schawalbe, K.-H., etc., Mis-Matching of Welds, First International Symposium on Weld Metal
Mis-Matching, Luneburg, Germany, April 1993.
Schawalbe, K.-H., etc., Mis-Matching of Welds, Second International Symposium on Weld

Metal Mis-Matching, Luneburg, Germany, April 24-26, 1996.
D. J. Horsley and A. G. Glover, Girth Weld Strength Under-Matching in High Pressure

Natural Gas Pipelines, Second International Symposium on Weld Metal Mismatching,
Schawalbe, etc., Eds., Luneburg, Germany, April 24-26, 1996.
Wang, Y.-Y., Kirk, M. T., Gordon, J. R., and Pisarski, H. G., Incorporating Weld Metal
Mismatch into Structural Integrity Assessment, in Pipeline Technology, Vol. 1, R. Denys,
Eds., Elsevier Science B. V., 1995, pp. 475-486.
Wang, Y.-Y., and Kirk, M. T., The Effect of Weld Metal Strength Mismatch and Structural
Geometry on Failure Assessment Diagram, Second International Symposium on Weld Metal
Mis-Matching, Schawalbe, etc., Eds., Luneburg, Germany, April 24-26, 1996.
Wang, Y.-Y., and Kirk, M. T., A Structural Assessment Procedure for Welded Structures with
Weld Metal Strength Mismatch, ASME PVP Conference, Montreal, July 22-26, 1996.
SINTAP Procedure, Final Version, November 1999.
F-3
03-G78-20
Schawable, K.-H., etc., EFAM ETM 97 The ETM Method for Assessing the Significance of
Crack-Like Defects in Engineering Structures, Comprising the Versions ETM 97/1 and ETM
96/2, GKSS 98/E/6, Geesthacht, 1998.
Schawable, K.-H., etc., EFAM ETM-MM 96 The ETM Method for Assessing the
Significance of Crack-Like Defects in Joints with Mechanical Heterogeneity (Strength
Mismatch), GKSS 97/E/9, Geesthacht, 1997
10
11
Wang, Y.-Y., Fracture Testing Procedure and Crack-Tip Fields of HAZ Cracks, 26th
National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Shilo Inn, Idaho Falls, ID, June, 1994.
F-4
03-G78-20
Appendix G Example Problem for a Level 1 Option 2 Assessment
G-1
03-G78-20
G.1
Background
The purpose of this appendix is to show the steps needed for the derivation of the defect
acceptance using the Level 1 Option 2 procedure. Although the procedure can be applied
using pencil and paper, it is far more efficient with the aid of a computer.
G.2
Input Data
Pipe outer diameter:
D = 36 in (914.4 mm)
Pipe wall thickness:
t = 0.75 in (19.05 mm)
Youngs Modulus:
E = 3.002104 ksi (2.070105 MPa)
Poissons ratio:
= 0.3
SMYS:
y = 70 ksi (483 MPa)
Minimum CTOD Toughness:
mat = 3.910-3 inch (0.1 mm)
Applied stress:
a = 63 ksi (434.4 MPa)
G.3
Steps to Derive the Defect Acceptance Level
The following steps serve as an example. Other suitable steps can also be effective.
Step 1 Start with the deepest (a/t = 0.5) crack allowed
a = 0.3750 in (9.525 mm)

Step 2 Guess an initial crack half length (usually start with a small value)
c = 0.1969 in (5.0 mm)

Step 3 Calculate the non-dimensionalized geometry parameters
= D/t = 48.0
= 2c/D = 0.003481
= a/t = 0.50
= 0.001741
80/ = 0.2653
800.1/ = 0.05305
Step 4 Calculate Kr
Y/T = 0.8740, Eq. (1), note that the unit of y must be ksi
f = 75.04 ksi (517.4 MPa), Eq. (2)

G-2
03-G78-20
t = 0.09750, Eq.(10), note that the unit of y must be ksi

n = 22.06, Eq. (9)
dn = 0.7450, Eq. (8)
m1 = -0.1776, Eq. (13b)
m2 = -1.055, Eq. (13c)
Fb = 0.09193, use Eq. (13a) as > 0.1 and < 80/
KI = 6.286 ksiin1/2 (218.4 MPamm1/2), Eq. (12)
Je = 0.001198 ksiin (0.2097 MPamm), Eq. (11)
e = 1.27410-5 in (0.0003237 mm), Eq. (7)

Kr = 0.05690, Eq. (6)
Step 5 Calculate Lr
c = 68.57 ksi (472.8 MPa), use Eq. (15a) as < 0.05

Lr = a/c = 0.9187, Eq. (14)
Step 6 Calculate FAC
KrFAC = 0.6822, Eq. (4), Lr is taken from Step 5

Lrcutoff = f/y = 1.072, Eq. (5)
Step 7 Determine if the data point is on the FAC; and if not, select a new crack length
Lr < Lrcutoff and Kr < KrFAC assessment point is inside the FAC Increase crack
length
c = 0.7874 in (20.0 mm)
Step 8 Repeat Steps 3 7, until the data point is on the FAC
c = 0.7874 in (20.0 mm)
= 2c/D = 0.01392
Kr = 0.6259
Lr = 0.9750
KrFAC = 0.6073
Lrcutoff = 1.072
Lr < Lrcutoff and Kr > KrFAC Outside the FAC Decrease crack length
c = 0.7469 in (18.97 mm)
G-3
03-G78-20
= 2c/D = 0.01321
Kr = 0.6125
Lr = 0.9712
KrFAC = 0.6125
Lrcutoff = 1.072
Lr < Lrcutoff and Kr = KrFAC on the FAC Record the defect size a, c and , .
a = 0.375 in (9.525 mm), c = 0.7469 in (18.97 mm);
= a/t = 0.5, = 2c/D = 0.01321

Step 9 Select a new crack depth: usually decrease the depth by 0.05t
a = 0.3375 in (8.5725 mm); ( = 0.45)

Step 10 Select an initial crack length: use the one determined in Step 7
c = 0.7469 in (18.97 mm)

Step 11 Repeat Steps 3 8 to find critical crack length for the reduced crack depth
a = 0.3375 in (8.5725 mm), c = 0.8232 in (20.91 mm);
= a/t = 0.45, = 2c/D = 0.01456

Step 12 Repeat Steps 9 11 to find critical crack length for every selected crack depth
a = 0.30 in (7.620 mm), c = 0.9583 in (24.34 mm);
= a/t = 0.4, = 2c/D = 0.01695
a = 0.2625 in (6.668 mm), c = 1.200 in (30.49 mm);
= a/t = 0.35, = 2c/D = 0.02123
a = 0.2250 in (5.715 mm), c = 1.640 in (41.65 mm);
= a/t = 0.30, = 2c/D = 0.02900
a = 0.1875 in (4.763 mm), c = 2.442 in (62.03 mm);
G-4
03-G78-20
= a/t = 0.25, = 2c/D = 0.04319
a = 0.1500 in (3.81 mm), c = 3.953 in (100.4 mm);
= a/t = 0.20, = 2c/D = 0.06990
a = 0.1125 in (2.858 mm), c = 6.366 in (161.7 mm);
= a/t = 0.15, = 2c/D = 0.1126
a = 0.07500 in (1.905 mm), c = 9.598 in (243.8 mm);
= a/t = 0.10, = 2c/D = 0.1697
a = 0.03750 in (0.9525 mm), c = 19.75 in (501.6 mm);
= a/t = 0.05, = 2c/D = 0.3492

Step 13 Apply the safety factor
Divide all the calculated c and by the safety factor of 1.5.

Step 14 Create critical defect size curve, see Figure G-1
G.4
Comments and Observations
From Figure G-2 and Figure G-3, it is evident that Points 8 and 9 are on the cut-off line
of the failure assessment curve. The defect acceptance levels are entirely controlled by the
plastic collapse criterion. On the other hand, the other points are in the elastic-plastic
fracture regime, therefore, are toughness dependent.
G-5
03-G78-20
0.5
Pt.1
0.4
Toughness Dependent
Pt.3
Pt.4
0.3
Pt.5
Pt.6
0.2
Pt.7
Pt.8
Toughness
Independent
Pt.2
0.1
0.0
0.000
Figure G-1
Pt.9
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.125
Defect acceptance curve from the example problem with the Level 1 Option 2
procedure
1.2
FAC
Example points
1.0
Kr
0.8
Pt.1 Pt.5
Pt.6
Pt.7
Pt.8
0.6
0.4
Pt.9
0.2
0.0
0.0
Figure G-2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Lr
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
Illustration of the critical points on the failure assessment curve from the
example problem. Points 8 and 9 are on the cut-off line, therefore the
acceptable defect sizes for those points are toughness independent.
G-6
03-G78-20
1.2
FAC
Example points
1.0
0.8
Kr
Pt.1 Pt.5
0.6
Pt.6
Pt.7
Pt.8
0.4
Pt.9
0.2
0.0
0.8
Figure G-3
0.9
Lr
1.0
1.1
The upper right corner of Figure G-2
G-7
03-G78-20
Appendix H Comparison of Acceptance Criteria
H-1
03-G78-20
H.1
Background
The defect acceptance criteria from the proposed procedures are compared with the
acceptance criteria in the current version of API 1104 Appendix A for two sample
applications.
X70, diameter = 36 inch (914.4 mm), W.T. =0.50 inch (12.7 mm)
X100, diameter=48 inch (1219.2 mm), W.T.=0.75 inch (19.05 mm).
For the X70 pipe, the longitudinal applied strain is 0.20%. Using the suggested
procedure of Appendix E gives the applied stress of 58.5 ksi. The flow stress is estimated at
75 ksi, using Eqs. (1) and (2). Therefore, the applied stress is at 84% and 78% of the SMYS
and flow stress, respectively.
For the X100 pipe, the longitudinal applied stress is at 90% of SMYS, or 90 ksi. The
flow stress is estimated at 103.2 ksi, using Eqs. (1) and (2). Therefore, the applied stress is at
87% of the flow stress.
Three CTOD toughness levels were evaluated, 0.10 mm (0.004 inch), 0.127 mm (0.005
inch), and 0.254 mm (0.010 inch). The latter two CTOD values correspond to the defect
height curves of Figure A-5 of API 1104 Appendix A, 19th Edition.
H.2
Comparison of Acceptance Criteria
Figure H-1 shows the defect acceptance curves of the X70 pipe from the proposed
procedures at various levels of CTOD toughness with no built-in safety factor. The API
1104 curves are included for comparison. A few observations may be made:
The acceptable length for the long defects in the current API 1104 is barely
adequate in comparison to the current procedure. The safety factor in the current
API 1104 is higher for short defects.
The acceptance curves of Level 1 Option 2 are toughness dependent for relatively
deep defects. The acceptance curves converge to the toughness-independent
curve of Option 1 (high toughness) at different defect depths, depending on the
toughness level.
If the maximum defect height is limited to 50% of W.T., the Level 1 Option 2
curves become almost toughness-independent when the CTOD toughness is equal
to or greater than approximately 0.25 mm (0.010 inch).
Figure H-2 provides comparison at a CTOD toughness of 0.254 mm (0.010 inch) with
recommended safety factors in the Level 1 procedures. Figure H-3 provides comparison at
the CTOD toughness levels of 0.127 mm (0.005 inch) with recommended safety factors in
the Level 1 procedures. The low toughness curve of the Level 1 Option 1 procedure is below
that of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure. Further comparison between Option 1 and Option 2
is given in Figure H-4 at the CTOD toughness of 0.10 mm (0.004 inch). API 1104 Appendix
H-2
03-G78-20
A cannot be used at this toughness level. The degree of conservatism in API 1104 Appendix
A decreases with the decrease of toughness level, as its allowable defect lengths remain
unchanged with respect to the toughness reduction.
Figure H-5 shows the defect acceptance curves of the X100 pipe from the proposed
procedures at various levels of CTOD toughness with no built-in safety factor. The
following observations may be made:
The acceptable length for long defects in the current API 1104 can be much
greater than that of the current procedure. The safety factor for short defects can
also be an issue, depending on the toughness level. In comparison with the X70
pipe (Figure H-1), this X100 case shows that the defect acceptance level of the
current API 1104 Appendix A is very much questionable. The reduced
conservatism of the Appendix A in the X100 pipe, as compared to the X70, is due
to (1) a higher level of applied stress and (2) higher Y/T ratio of the material.
The acceptance curves of Level 1 Option 2 are toughness dependent for relatively
deep defects. The acceptance curves converge to the toughness-independent
curve of Option 1 (high toughness) at different defect depths, depending on the
toughness level.
A CTOD toughness of 0.25 mm (0.010 inch) or greater is required if the Level 1

Option 2 curve were to become toughness-independent at the maximum defect
height of 50% W.T.
Figure H-6 provides comparison at a CTOD toughness of 0.254 mm (0.010 inch) with
recommended safety factors in the Level 1 procedures for the X100 pipe. The high
toughness curve of Option 1 is identical to that of the Option 2, except at the defect height
close to the maximum allowable height (height/wall thickness = 0.5). Figure H-7 provides
comparison at the CTOD toughness levels of 0.127 mm (0.005 inch) with recommended
safety factors in the Level 1 procedures for the X100 pipe. The low toughness curve of the
Level 1 Option 1 procedure is below that of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure. Further
comparison between Option 1 and Option 2 is given in Figure H-8 at the CTOD toughness of
0.10 mm (0.004 inch). API 1104 Appendix A cannot be used at this toughness level.
The conservatism of the current API 1104 Appendix A in the application to the X100
girth welds is highly questionable. The degree of conservatism decreases with the decrease
of toughness level. The welds and test data beyond X70 were not available when the
acceptance criteria in the Appendix A were established. However, the use of grades X70 and
above is becoming wide spread in the current and future constructions. There is an urgent
need to review and update the acceptance criteria.
H-3
03-G78-20
D=36", W.T.=0.50", X70

Applied Strain = 0.20%
Defect Height (mm)
4
Level 1 Option 1, CTOD >= 0.25 mm, No SF
Level 1 Option 2, CTOD=0.254 mm, No SF
API 1104 Appendix A, Surface, CTOD=0.254 mm
API 1104 Appendix A, Buried, CTOD=0.254 mm
0
0
Figure H-1
100
200
300
400
Defect Length (mm)
Comparison of the defect acceptance levels from API 1104 Appendix A and
those of the current procedures with no safety factor on the allowable defect
length
8
Level 1 Option 1, CTOD >= 0.25 mm
cutoff
Level 1 Option 2, CTOD=0.254 mm

Defect Height (mm)
cutoff
D=36", W.T.=0.50", X70

0
0
Figure H-2
100
200
Defect Length (mm)
300
400
those of the current Level 1 procedures with the recommended safety factor
on the allowable defect length
H-4
03-G78-20
8
Level 1 Option 1, 0.10 mm =< CTOD < 0.25 mm
cutoff

Defect Height (mm)
cutoff
D=36", W.T.=0.50", X70

0
0
Figure H-3
100
200
Defect Length (mm)
300
400
8
cutoff
Defect Height (mm)
cutoff
2
D=36", W.T.=0.50", X70

0
0
Figure H-4
100
200
300
400
Defect Length (mm)
Comparison of the defect acceptance levels from the current Level 1 Option 1
and Option 2
H-5
03-G78-20
10
Level 1 Option 1, CTOD >= 0.25 mm, No SF
Defect Height (mm)
D=48", W.T.=0.75", X100

Applied Stress = 90 ksi
0
0
Figure H-5
100
200
300
400
Defect Length (mm)
500
600
those of the current procedures with no safety factor on the allowable defect
length
10
Level 1 Option 1, CTOD >= 0.25 mm
Defect Height (mm)
cutoff

cutoff
D=48", W.T.=0.75", X100

0
0
Figure H-6
100
200
300
400
Defect Length (mm)
500
600
H-6
03-G78-20
10
cutoff
Defect Height (mm)

cutoff
D=48", W.T.=0.75", X100

0
0
Figure H-7
100
200
300
400
Defect Length (mm)
500
600
10
cutoff

Defect Height (mm)
cutoff
D=48", W.T.=0.75", X100

0
0
Figure H-8
100
200
300
400
500
600
Defect Length (mm)
Comparison of the defect acceptance levels from the current Level 1 Option 1
and Option 2
H-7
03-G78-20
Appendix I Limits of Applicability of the Current API 1104 Appendix A

Acceptance Criteria
I-1
03-G78-20
I.1
Background of API 1104 Appendix A
The construction of the TransAlaska oil pipeline prompted the development of fracture
mechanics based alternative defect acceptance criteria [1]. The alternative defect acceptance
criteria to the main body of API 1104 was first published in 1983 in its 16th Edition [2].
Certain parts of the Appendix were loosely taken from PD 6493:1980 [3], which had its
origin in the CTOD design curve of Burdekin and Dawes [4]. The CTOD design curve
provides a semi-empirical relation between applied strain and the CTOD driving force. The
PD 6493:1980 has gone through two major revisions. One was in 1991 when it became PD
6493:1991 and again in 1999 when it became BS 7910:1999.
The alternative acceptance criteria in API 1104 are given in Appendix A in the most
recently published API Standard 1104, 19th Edition. However, at the time of its first
publication, there were no other appendices to API Standard 1104. Therefore, what is now
Appendix A was referred to as the Appendix. Since the appendix has remained largely
unchanged since its first adoption, the term Appendix A is used hereafter to refer to the
alternative acceptance criteria since its first adoption.
I.2
Appendix A from the Perspective of the Code Structure
The original CTOD design curve was derived for a tension-loaded wide plate containing
a small through-thickness center crack. The defect size is represented by a single parameter,
i.e., the defect length. This single-parameter representation of the defect size posed a
problem for girth weld defects. At least two parameters, defect height and length, are
required to represent the size of a girth weld defect. In PD6493:1980, the principle of
equivalent driving force had to be employed to evaluate defects that had more than one
dimension. A defect of multi-dimension is equivalent to the one dimensional defect of a
center-cracked plate if both defects produce the same driving force. When the deformation is
elastic, the value of this equivalent defect size can be determined easily. However, this
equivalent defect size cannot be determined easily under plastic deformation. A family of
charts was provided in PD 6493:1980 that allowed the computation of critical defect length
and height. CSA Z662 Appendix K adopted this approach, but with some corrections
proposed by Glover and Coote based on full-scale tests [5]. In a review by Hilton and
Mayville for the Office of Pipeline Safety [1], the correction was found reasonable.
In API 1104 Appendix A, the allowable defect length is 0.4D if the defect height is less
than 25% of the wall thickness, or 4t if the defect height is between 25% and 50% of the pipe
wall thickness. The allowable defect lengths are independent of the magnitude of the applied
stress/strain and materials toughness, apart from its aforementioned dependence on the
allowable defect height. This defect length criterion was inconsistent with the actual
procedure of PD 6493:1980. It is shown by a number of investigators and organizations that
this criterion produces vastly different degree of conservatism when applied to pipes of
different grades and applied stress/strain levels.
I-2
03-G78-20
I.3
Limits of Applicability from Analytical and Experimental Work Funded by API
In the early to mid-1980s API funded work at the University of Kansas (UK) and the
Welding Institute of Canada (WIC), in part to support and validate the defect acceptance
criteria proposed in API 1104 Appendix A. The work at the University of Kansas consisted
of numerical analysis of pipes containing largest defects allowable in the proposed appendix.
One defect had a depth of 25% wall thickness and a length of 0.4D. The other defect has a
depth of 50% wall thickness and a length of 4t [6]. The work at WIC consisted of one fullscale experimental test of X60 pipe with an external circumferentially-oriented flaw [5]. The
pipe had a diameter of 36 inch and a nominal thickness of 0.875 inch (0.9 inch actual). The
yield stress at 0.5% strain was 63.85 ksi and the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was 89.9 ksi,
which gave a Y/T ratio of 0.71. The flaw had a depth of 0.118 inch, or 0.13t. The flaw
length was 13.75 inch, or 0.38D. It should be noted that this is not one of the largest flaw
sizes permitted by the appendix. At a flaw length of 0.4D, the maximum allowed depth is
0.25t. The major conclusions from the UK and WIC work are as follows:
1.
The UK team performed numerical simulation of the full-scale experimental test.

Good agreement was obtained between the numerical simulation and
experimental test. It showed that the numerical analysis provided reasonable
approximation to the test.
2.
Failure occurred by local buckling near the transitional weld between the X60 test
pipe and the X70 carrier pipe in the experimental test. The strain in the pipe at
the buckling was greater than 0.5%. Although this strain was greater than the
maximum allowed strain of 0.5% in Appendix A, this test did not constitute a
critical validation as the flaw size was less than that allowed under the code.
3.
The UK work concluded that the critical condition is reached when the applied
strain was in the range of 0.25-0.30%, depending on whether the CTOD
toughness was taken as 0.005 or 0.010 inch. The critical condition was defined as
the point when the CTOD driving force reached materials toughness, i.e., CTOD
toughness in this case.
4.
A conclusion in a draft report from the University of Kansas [7], but not presented
in the final report stated the flaw acceptance criteria in Figure A5 of API1104:Appendix A has safety factor of 1.5 or greater against fracture for long
shallow crack (a/t=0.25, L/D=0.4) provided the applied strain due to external
loading is limited to 85-90% of the material yield strain. At larger applied strains,
the safety factor approaches and then falls below 1.0. The yield strain was
0.295% in the UK numerical model. This translates to a maximum applied strain
of 0.27% before the acceptance criteria became non-conservative. Although the
same statement was not present in the final report, the data contained in the final
report supported this conclusion.
I-3
03-G78-20
I.4
Limits of Applicability from 1980s Work Funded by DOT
In the mid- to late-1980s, the U.S. Department of Transportation funded work to provide
validation to the proposed alternative acceptance criteria of API 1104. The Arthur D. Little
(ADL) work involved primarily literature review [1]. The National Bureau of Standards
(NBS) proceeded to develop its own acceptance criteria based on rigorous engineering
analysis [8]. Further analysis and experimental tests were done at Lehigh University [9].
A part of the ADL conclusions states:
We recommend that API 1104 Appendix A be altered in two
areas prior to usage as a girth weld defect tolerance standard for
pipeline service conditions. First, it should be made consistent with
the base standard on the topic of allowable longitudinal pipeline
stresses. In addition, the standard should be altered (or new data
provided) to address the apparent lack of conservatism in its
application to the long flaw problem. Possible approaches for
altering the standard in this area include, but not limited to, further
restriction on allowable defect length, inclusion of a plastic collapse
limit, and/or inclusion of a crack geometry correction to the CTOD
Design curve.
The crack geometry correction referred to the flaw length charts in PD 6493:1980
derived from the equivalent driving force principle. CSA Z662 Appendix K adopted this
approach with some revisions. API 1104 Appendix A did not.
The NBS defect acceptance criteria had the targeted application of the Trans-Alaska
pipeline system with API X70 material, 48-inch diameter, and 15.9-mm (0.625-inch) wall
thickness. The comparison between its acceptance criteria and API 1104 Appendix A is
given in Figure I-1 and Figure I-2 for the CTOD toughness of 0.005 inch (0.127 mm) and
0.010 inch (0.254 mm), respectively. The CTODRS is the CTOD driving force due to
welding residual stress. The flow stress is an approximate value to the X70 material, and
is the applied stress (63 ksi, or 90% of SMYS).
In comparison to the acceptance criteria proposed by NBS as shown in Figure I-1 and
Figure I-2, the acceptance criteria of API 1104 for long defects are overly generous.
In the ADL work, further comparison of the acceptance criteria was conducted among
several codes available at the time, as shown in Figure I-3. It is evident that none of the
other codes allowed a defect length as generous as that of API 1104 Appendix A.
I-4
03-G78-20
Figure I-1
Comparison of allowable flaw size between API 1104 Appendix A and the
NBS criteria with an assumed CTOD toughness of 0.005 inch (0.127 mm)
Figure I-2
Comparison of allowable flaw size between API 1104 Appendix A and the
NBS criteria with an assumed CTOD toughness of 0.010 inch (0.254 mm)
I-5
03-G78-20
Figure I-3
I.5
Comparison of allowable defect size among various codes and procedures
Observation from Historical and More Recent Work
In addition to the historical data presented above, Appendix H provides further

comparison between the acceptance criteria of the current API 1104 Appendix A and the
more advanced and validated acceptance criteria proposed in this document. The following
overall observations can be made.
1.
At low to moderate strain levels (<0.20-0.25%), the long allowable defect length
(0.4D) was justified for the materials at that time. Modern linepipe materials
generally exhibit lower strain hardening capacity than older materials. This is
particularly true at high strength levels (X70 and above). The degree of
conservatism in the current API 1104 Appendix A is progressively reduced when
applied to lower strain hardening materials.
2.
Based on the evidence collected so far, the validity of the long allowable defect
length (0.4D) at the high end of the permissible applied strain (approximately
>0.20-0.25%) has not been adequately proven. In contrast, there is a large
volume of work dated as early as 20 years ago that demonstrated the potential
non-conservatism of the long allowable defects at the high end of the permissible
applied strain.
3.
The allowable defect length in the current API 1104 Appendix A is independent
of (1) applied strain, (2) CTOD toughness, and (3) materials strain hardening
rate. These parameters directly affect the critical flaw dimensions. The decoupling of these input parameters and the allowable defect length in the current
API 1104 Appendix A results in vastly varying degree of conservatism.
I-6
03-G78-20
I.6
Limits of Applicability of the Current API 1104 Appendix A Acceptance
Criteria
Attempts are made here to determine the limits within which the acceptance criteria in
the current API 1104 Appendix A may be applied. Such limits are difficult to determine for
all possible cases of application. The primary obstacle is that Appendix A does not mention
a consistent theoretical, analytical, or experimental basis upon which the actual acceptance
criteria were derived.
As shown in Appendix H and this appendix, the acceptance criteria of the current
Appendix A tend to be overly generous and potentially non-conservative for long defects
(maximum length = 0.4D criterion). At CTOD toughness of 0.25 mm (0.010 inch) or greater,
the critical defect size is generally determined by plastic collapse criteria. The curves in
Figure I-4 represent the critical flaw size without safety factor at different load levels. These
curves were derived from the plastic collapse solution of Appendix D. Figure I-5 provides
similar flaw size curves with a safety factor of 1.5 on the defect length. The permissible size
for long defects in the current API 1104 Appendix A, at Length/Circumference=0.127 and
Depth/W.T.=0.25, is plotted on the same figures. The maximum safe load level Pr is
estimated at 0.77 without safety factor and 0.73 with the safety factor, respectively. The Pr
level of 0.77 results in an applied stress of 85% SMYS and applied strain of 0.25% for an
X70 material with the assumed stress strain relation of Appendix E. At the Pr level of 0.73,
the applied stress is at 78% SMYS and the applied strain is at 0.18% for an X70 material
with the assumed stress strain relation of Appendix E. The maximum safe applied stress
and strain would be higher if the materials have higher strain hardening than the assumed
value of Appendix E.
The above analysis confirms the findings of the University of Kansas. The defect
acceptance criteria can become non-conservative when the applied strain is greater than 0.200.25%. The current Appendix A has a maximum allowable strain of 0.5%.
It should be noted that above limits are determined from (1) the long defect acceptance
criteria (maximum length = 0.4D), (2) assumed CTOD toughness of 0.25 mm (0.010 inch) or
greater, and (3) a typical X70 material. The limits of applicability would be even more
restrictive if the CTOD toughness and strain hardening rate are lower than the above
assumed values. Appendix H shows that the acceptance criteria in the current API 1104
Appendix A can be highly non-conservative when applied to X100 welds.
I.7
Recommendation about the Limits of Applicability of API 1104 Appendix A
For many onshore and some offshore constructions, the maximum applied longitudinal
stress/strain occurs in pipe laying. The maximum applied stress is in the 80-90% SMYS
range and the applied strain is in the 0.20-0.30% range. Consequently, the acceptance
criteria of the current API 1104 Appendix A are safe for (1) materials with strain hardening
rates that are comparable to that of early-generation X70 and (2) when the applied
stress/strain does not go beyond the above mentioned pipe-laying stress and strain. This,
I-7
03-G78-20
plus weld strength overmatching that can be easily achieved for grades X70 or lower, may
have explained the safety record of API 1104 Appendix A.
With the reduced strain hardening capacity of new TMCP linepipe materials and
increased difficulty of achieving a high degree of weld strength overmatching for these high
strength materials, the safety or the conservatism of the current API 1104 Appendix A cannot
be demonstrated and guaranteed.
It is difficult to define the precise limits of applicability of the current API 1104
Appendix A for all possible scenarios of applications. It is clear that the maximum safe
applied stress and strain can drop below the typical pipe laying stress and strain for modern
linepipe materials. Consequently, there is no significant merit of keeping the acceptance
criteria in the current Appendix A. Even within its safety limits, the structure of the current
acceptance criteria results in vastly varying degree of conservatism. Furthermore, at a
CTOD level below 0.25 mm (0.010 inch), the defect height can be more restrictive than
necessary while allowing an unnecessarily long defect. In summary, there is no apparent
advantage of using the acceptance criteria in the current API 1104 Appendix A over the
acceptance criteria newly proposed in this document.
0.5
0.800
0.750
0.725
P r =0.700
0.4
0.850
0.775
0.900
0.3
App. A Limit
0.825
0.875
0.2
0.950
0.925
0.1
0.975
0.0
0.000
Figure I-4
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.125
0.150
Comparison of the defect acceptance criteria from the current plastic collapse
solution with no safety factor and those of API 1104 Appendix A
I-8
03-G78-20
0.5
P r =0.700
0.4
0.750
0.725
0.800
0.3
App. A Limit
0.775
0.850
0.825
0.900
0.2
0.950
0.875
0.925
0.1
0.975
0.0
0.000
Figure I-5
I.8
0.025
0.050
0.075
0.100
0.125
0.150
Comparison of the defect acceptance criteria from the current plastic collapse
solution with a safety factor of 1.5 on the defect length and those of API 1104
Appendix A
References
Hilton, P. D. and Mayville, R. A., An Evaluation of Girth Weld Defect Acceptance Criteria,
Final report to U. S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Projects
Administration, November, 1985.
API 1104, Sixteenth Edition, Appendix Alternative Standards of Acceptability for Girth
Welds, API, 1983.
British Standards Institution, BS 7910, Guidance on Methods for Assessing the Acceptability
of Flaws in Metallic Structures, 1999.
Burdekin, F. M. and Dawes, M. G., Practical Use of Linear Elastic and Yielding Fracture
Mechanics with Particular Reference to Pressure Vessels, Proceedings of the Institute of
Mechanical Engineers Conference, London, May 1971, pp. 28-37.
Glover, A. G., and Coote, R. I., Full-Scale Fracture Tests of Pipeline Girth Welds, in
Circumferential Cracks in Pressure Vessels and Piping-Vol. II, PVP Vol. 95, G. M.
Wilkowski, Eds, 1984, pp. 107-121
Dodds, Jr., R. H., Attiogbe, E. K., Vargas, P. M., Crack Opening Displacements in Pipes
Containing a Part-Through Circumferential Flaw, Report No. CRINC-SM-19, the University
of Kansas final report to API, September 1987.
I-9
03-G78-20
Dodds, Jr., R. H., Attiogbe, E. K., Vargas, P. M., Crack Opening Displacements in Pipes
Containing a Part-Through Circumferential Flaw Subjected to Bending, SM Report No. 12,
The University of Kansas, July 1987.
Reed, R. P., Kasen, M. B., McHenry, H. I., Fortunko, C. M., and Read, D. T., Fitness-forService Criteria for Pipeline Girth Weld Quality, final report to Materials Transportation
Bureau, U.S. Department of Transportation, November 1, 1983.

I-10
03-G78-20

Weld Code Revision Progress Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Weld Code Revision Progress Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DRAFT

A Comprehensive Update in the Evaluation of Pipeline

Yong-Yi Wang and Ming Liu

For internal circulation within PRCI, DOT, and API

This page is intentionally left blank.

This page is intentionally left blank.

Appendix E Estimation of Applied Stress from Applied Strain.................................................................E-1

A Comprehensive Update in the Evaluation of Pipeline Weld

Fundamental fracture mechanics principles as implemented in weld defect assessment

Girth welds between pipes of equal wall thickness

No onerous fatigue crack growth in construction and under service conditions

No sub-critical crack growth, such as creep and environmentally-assisted crack

Table 1 Structure of the Proposed Assessment Procedures

Allow the assessment of brittle

Graphical or tabular format that

Complex multi-variable format,

Terminology and Notation

pipe outer radius, R D/2, inch or mm

pipe wall thickness, inch or mm

pipe diameter to wall thickness ratio, D/t

ultimate tensile strength of the pipe material, or UTS, ksi or MPa

flow stress of the pipe material, f = (y+t)/2, ksi or MPa

Girth Weld Properties

applied longitudinal stress, ksi or MPa

normalized applied stress or load level, Pr a / f

defect half length, inch or mm

ratio of defect length to pipe circumference, c/R = 2c/D,

defect height to crack-depth ratio, a/t

Figure 1-1 Dimension of a pipe with a surface-breaking defect

Level 1 Assessment Procedures

The Level 1 assessment procedures represent the state-of-art understanding in the

Level 1 Option 1 Assessment

Allowable Height / Pipe W. T.

Allowable Height / Pipe W. T.

Computation of the Load Level Pr

In accordance with the definition given in Section 1.4.3, it is necessary to determine

The load level, Pr, is given as,

The applied longitudinal stress, a, is obtained from stress analysis.

Relation between Y/T ratio and pipe grade of Eq. (1)

Level 1 Option 2 Assessment

dn, Eqs. (8), (9), (10), and (1)

Je, Eqs. (11), (12), and (13)

mat, CTOD toughness

Cutoff, Eq. (5)

Figure 2-4 Schematic overview of the Level 1 Option 2 procedure

Determination of the Key Components in the FAD Procedure

The FAC is taken from R6 Option 1 [14],

K r = f (Lr ) = (1 0.14 L2r ) 0.3 + 0.7 exp ( 0.65 L6r )

The cut-off of the FAC on the Lr axis is at,

where f is determined by Eq. (2).

Assessment Point, Toughness Ratio Kr

When materials fracture toughness is measured in CTOD, Kr is given as,

The J to CTOD conversion factor, dn, is given as,

m1 = 0.00985 0.163 0.345 2

m 2 = 0.00416 2.18 + 0.155 2

Additional corrections apply to Fb for the following defect conditions,

Assessment Point, Stress Ratio Lr

The stress ratio Lr is given as,

Defect Acceptance Criteria

If the assessment point falls in the safe region,

If the assessment point falls outside the safe region,

Repeat the steps 3(b) and 3(c).

An example of the procedure is given in Appendix G.

Limitations of the Level 1 Procedures