IBP1128_19

IN-SERVICE WELDING HOT TAP OF REFINARY

PIPELINE WITH HYDROGEN AND ETHYLENE
Marcelo T. Piza Paes1, Giovani Dalpiaz1, Pedro S. Craidy1
Hélio C. Miranda2, Bruno H. S. Colares3
Ricardo R. Marinho4, Sydney B. S. Braga5,
Carlos Q. V. Langendonk6, Frederico F. Costa7

IBP1128_19
Copyright 2019, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP
This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019, held
between 03 and 05 of September, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the
Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the
author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is
presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its
Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Pipeline
Conference and Exhibition 2019.

Abstract

In-service welding of hydrocarbon pipelines is generally not allowed in the presence of

contaminants such as H2, ethylene and oxygen. However, each specific case should be evaluated
in more detail, considering aspects related to weldability (burn through risk and hydrogen
assisted cracking) and HSE (healthy, safety and environment). Ethylene is a hydrocarbon that
may decompose unstably due to an exothermic reaction, when submitted to certain level of
temperature and pressure, especially when oxygen is present as a catalyzer for such reaction.
Additionally, hydrogen molecule decomposition may occur because of exposure to the
weldment thermal cycle, releasing hydrogen atoms into the pipe, which may lead to
embrittlement and delayed cracking of steel pipeline. This paper presents the results of several
analysis conducted and successful welding qualification program for in-service fillet welding
and hot tap of a 16 in diameter C-Mn steel pipeline (6 mm thick), 30ºC and 400 kPa operating
conditions, containing ethylene, hydrogen and oxygen. Various investigations and
computational analyses were performed supporting this work: inner pipe surface full thermal
cycle by thermal models (ANSYS and SYSWELD, BATTELLE and PRCI); mechanical tests
requested for in-service welding procedure qualification (API 1104 Appendix B); analytical
calculations considering hydrogen solubility and diffusion taking into account thermal cycles
data. Finally, hydrotest and NDE using both magnetic particle and ultrasonic were carried out
12 hours after weldment completion, together with the laboratory metallographic evaluation of
hot tapped coupon previously in-service welded to the pipeline, have all demonstrated that the
fillet weld performed was metallurgically adequate.

Keywords: Hot Tap, In-service Welding, Hydrogen Cracking, Ethylene, API 1104, Fillet
Weld, Burnthrough.

______________________________
1
D.Sc., PETROBRAS/CENPES
2
D.Sc., PROFESSOR FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF CEARA, BRAZIL
3
Metallurgical Eng. FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF CEARA, BRAZIL
4
M.Sc., PETROBRAS/CENPES
5
M.Sc., PETROBRAS/TRANSPETRO
6
Eng., PETROBRAS/TRANSPETRO
7
Eng., PETROBRAS/RLAM
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

1. Introduction

In-service welding of C-Mn pipelines containing hydrocarbons are normally conducted

worldwide when certain critical aspects are respected such as maximum internal temperature
(i.e. 982ºC or 1800ºF) and maximum hardness (i.e. 325-350 HV10), (Bruce, 2013). Such
qualification related work are usually governed by API 1104 (2013). Dedicated thermal cycle
prediction software’s are often used such as those from BATTELLE (Kiefner et al., 1991) and
PRCI (Bruce et al., 2002), allowing welding engineers to safely specify welding qualification
procedures, taking into account both the risk of burnthrough and hydrogen cracking. Welding
techniques such as heat input control, temperbead, use of extra low hydrogen welding
consumables, preheat (up to 60ºC to remove surface moisture), low diameter electrodes (i.e. 2.0
mm to limit weld penetration) have been used as typical counter measures to avoid the two
main mentioned risks (Bruce, 2002). However, in case hydrocarbon fluids have either hydrogen
gas, H2S, or ethylene, in-service welding is not normally allowed by pipeline operators or
severely restricted depending on pressure and temperature (Bruce et al., 2009).
Hydrogen partial pressure plays a critical role in the maximum allowed hardness.
International standards limits the maximum hardness in 215 HV10 for hydrogen service, when
hydrogen partial pressure is above 100 psia (API RP 941, 2016). Also, fluid contaminants such
as oxygen, Fe2O3 and copper, may act as catalyzer for ethylene decomposition reaction (Bruce
et al., 2009). However, pipeline operators rarely transport such types of contaminants. On the
other hand, petroleum refineries have from time to time such demand, especially for critical
pipes in the system such as fuel gas pipes that feeds refinery furnaces and boilers.
This paper aims to give an overview of the particular technical aspects analyzed and
calculations carried out in order to allow the qualification of an in-service welding procedure
for the hot tap of a 30 years old fuel gas C-Mn steel pipe. This pipe is 16 in diameter, 6 mm
minimum thickness, 600 kPa - 30ºC operating pressure-temperature, located at PETROBRAS
Refinery (RLAM – Refinaria Landulfo Alves Mataripe, Bahia State, Brazil). Figure 1 shows
the pipe location, welded fitting and hot tap machine used.

2. Operational conditions and adopted technical approach

During the initial technical discussions with the refinery operating team, it was first
decided to have an in situ chemical composition analysis of the actual pipe (Mn, Si, Al, P, Cr,
Mo, V, Ni, Cu, Ti, Nb) in the area where the hot tap fitting was supposed to be welded. Such
work was performed by both portable pipe in situ milling cutter (máx. 1.5 mm deep
circumferential cuts), exactly where the hot tap machine would drill the hole, and a portable
optical emission spectrometer (BELEC compact port model). The %C and %S were both
measured by combustion technique using the steel mill removed from the pipe. The results are
presented in Table 1, which offered a positive signal in terms of a very low risk for hydrogen
weld cracking (%C = 0.15% and %CEIIW = 0.28%), even taking into account a 32 mm thick
fitting, although its factory buttering with E7018 consumables was required. The average gas
chemical composition during the welding and hot tap is presented in Table 2. By taking into
account the hydrogen partial pressure under the proposed operational conditions, it would lead
to a value bellow 60 psia, therefore allowing in-service welding at a higher than 215 HV10
maximum heat affected zone (HAZ) hardness. In relation to the presence of H2S, this has not
been an issue, as the pipe carried no water. These results have allowed the technical team to ask
the refinery operation to maximize the flow rate (average of 1.1 MM Nm3/day, equivalent to
2
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

111 m/s gas linear velocity) and reduce operating pressure to 400 kPa during the in-service
welding in order to avoid any risk of hydrogen embrittlement and ethylene decomposition. Such
understanding was further established after several thermal cycle simulations using both
BATTELLE and PRCI software’s. Figure 2 presents one of such simulations.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 1. (a) Pipe in situ chemical analysis. (b) Fitting Clamping. (c) Completed welds. (d) Hot Tap machine.

Table 1. Pipeline Chemical Composition.

Element (%)
Carbon (C) 0.15
Manganese (Mn) 0.77
Silicon (Si) 0.18
Aluminum (Al) 0.047
Chrome (Cr) 0.021
Molybdenum (Mo) <0.002
Vanadium (V) <0.002
Nickel (Ni) <0.002
Copper (Cu) <0.01
Titanium (Ti) <0.002
Niobium (Nb) <0.002
Sulphur (S) 0.018
Phosphorous (P) 0.022

3
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Table 2. Hydrocarbon Chemical Composition.

Element (%)
Methane (CH4) 69
Ethylene (C2H4) 3.87
Ethane (C2H6) 6.02
C3H8 0.75
C3H6 0.73
H2 9.66
O2 0.20
N2 8.87
CO 0.44
CO2 0.46
H2S <0.01

3. Weld procedure qualification, thermal cycle and hydrogen accumulation simulations

The maximum hardness obtained from PRCI simulation (Figure 2), using chemical
composition from both pipe and fitting buttering (%C < 0.08%), is below 325 HV10 (~313
HV10 max. hardness). Under such hardness level, the risk of hydrogen cracks, due to hydrogen
present in the weld arc, can be securely avoided by specifying a welding procedure using extra
low hydrogen E7018 consumables (pre-baked and vacuum packed with maximum 2 wt-ppm
diffusible hydrogen). Additionally, an applied preheat was specified for removing moisture
during welding (minimum 80ºC for the circumferential welds on pipe and above 100ºC for
fitting longitudinal welds, respectively), allowing a critical hydrogen level around 4 wt-ppm
(Lundin et al., 1990). Such understanding was validated by the in-service welding procedure
qualification, applying API 1104 Appendix B (Figure 3), by using a C-Mn pup piece having
slightly higher %C and %Mn than the actual refinery pipe. Comparatively, the cooling time
between 800-500ºC (t8/5) was slightly lower for the welding procedure qualification scheme
(flowing tap water inside the pipe) compared to the actual simulated t8/5 for the operating
flowing gas (t8/5 of 1.2 seconds with flowing tap water against 1.7 seconds for hydrocarbon
gas).
The preheat was applied by an electrical resistance system (Figure 4). Longitudinal
welds were performed simultaneously using two welders. Circumferential welds were
performed only after NDE (non destructive examination) of longitudinal welds, one fillet weld
at a time. In terms of burnthrough risk, this has been eliminated by using consumables with 2.0
mm diameter, stringer beads and low heat input (0.63 kJ/mm). As noted in Figure 2, the
maximum internal temperature was limited to 569ºC, even by using 100% CH4 for the PRCI
simulation, which would lead to a higher temperature compared to the actual hydrocarbon gas
mixture.
Although hydrogen cracking from the weld arc source had been demonstrated not to be
pose any risk, still, the potential dissociation of hydrogen contained in the process fluid, which
will diffuse to the HAZ, needed further technical consideration. In this respect, a different
approach was adopted in order to calculate the total amount of potential hydrogen present. The
first step was to calculate the existing hydrogen content in the pipe base metal (solubilized
during 30 years of operation). This was performed by adopting a simplified procedure based on
one-dimensional thick plate solution of Fick’s second law (Equation 1), assuming an ideal metal
4
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

without trapping, hydrogen charging only from the inner diameter and that the exit side (outer
diameter) had marginal or no influence on the hydrogen concentration.
C(x,t)−Co x
= 1 − erf ( ) (1)
Ci −Co √4Dt

Figure 2. Thermal cycles simulations (PRCI software).

5
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 3. (a) and (b) Fitting cross section. (c) Schematic of welding procedure.

(a) (b)

Figure 4. (a) and (b) Preheat system used.

Equation (1) parameters are: “C(x,t)” is the hydrogen concentration as a function of

depth (x) and time (t); “Ci” the subsurface hydrogen concentration at the entry side; “Co” is the
constant residual hydrogen concentration; “D” is the hydrogen diffusion coefficient. The
operation temperature used was 30ºC. As per Table 2, an average of 9.66% H2 is expected
which, under 0.6 MPa internal pressure, corresponds to a H2 partial pressure of 0.05796 MPa.
Different expressions are mentioned in the literature for hydrogen concentration estimation as

6
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

function of the hydrogen partial pressure e.g. Equation 2, obtained for α-Fe (Johnson 1988).
From it, Ci is estimated as 1.81x10-3 wt-ppm.
6170 cal/mol
Ci = 66.9√pH2 (bar)exp (− ) (wt-ppm H) (2)
RT

The hydrogen diffusion coefficient is considered equal to 10-10 m²/s (C-Mn steel at
30ºC) and the initial or residual bulk hydrogen concentration Co is assumed zero. Figure 5
presents the estimated hydrogen concentration along the thickness after 30 years, showing that
the accumulated hydrogen concentration is notably very low, because of the low operation
temperature.

1.810E-03
Hydrogen concentration

1.805E-03
(wt-ppm)

1.800E-03

1.795E-03

1.790E-03

1.785E-03
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

Depth from the inner surface (mm)

Figure 5. Calculated hydrogen profile through thickness after service for 30 years at 30ºC.

The relative lower internal pipe surface temperature (569ºC by PRCI simulation), by
using low heat input (0.63 kJ/mm) and electrode diameter (2.0 mm), together with maximum
flow rate, would likely lead to constrained time-temperature window for allowing hydrogen gas
dissociation. Therefore, the second step was to estimate the hydrogen amount introduced into
the pipe due to the decomposition of the hydrogen present in the gas fluid by the in-service
welding heat. In order to allow such calculation, it was necessary to characterize the complete
thermal cycle on the internal pipe surface using finite analysis (ANSYS 19.0 and SYSWELD).
This paper will not go into detail how the simulations were performed, as this will be published
separately. The SYSWELD and ANSYS simulation used the data extracted from the
BATTELLE simulation (convection coefficient, h = 1024 W/m2.K; weld bead area = 6.82
mm2). The modelled multipass welding was limited to three passes (see Figure 3 as reference).
Each stringer weld bead deposited roughly 100 mm in length with an overlap of approximately
50% between passes. Figure 6 displays the thermal cycles data at the inner surface, showing
that the pass nº2 presented the maximum temperature (575.6ºC), slightly higher than 569ºC
from PRCI simulation.
A further assessment estimates the hydrogen amount introduced by process fluid H2 gas
decomposition during in-service welding. The maximum hydrogen penetration depth can be
calculated (Equation 3), by considering the simulated thermal cycles contemplating the three
welding passes (Figure 6). The maximum hydrogen penetration depth calculated is 11.28 mm.
It is thus estimated that the hydrogen concentration on the outer surface reaches the steady state
within the welding thermal cycle.

x = √6 ∑(Dt) (3)

7
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

Finally, the total hydrogen sum is calculated considering the times and temperatures
obtained from the thermal cycles numerical simulations. Each temperature corresponds to a
hydrogen diffusivity value calculated by Equation 4 (Johnson, 1988). Considering Equation 2,
hydrogen partial pressure of 0.05796 MPa and 575.6ºC, the hydrogen concentration in the
internal pipe surface is calculated as equal to 1.31 wt-ppm. From Equation 1, considering Ci =
1.31 wt-ppm, Co = 0, T = 575.6ºC and, from Equation 4, D = 5.9.10-8 m²/s, the hydrogen content
at the outer surface (6 mm depth) after 1200 s is estimated as 0.8 wt-ppm. It should be noted
that the assumption of constant temperature of 575.6°C is clearly conservative.
−1690 cal/mol
D (m2 /s) = 1.6x10−7 exp ( ) (4)
RT

Diffusible hydrogen contents up to 4 wt-ppm are usually defined as the allowable limit
for welding high strength steel welding, for hardness levels up to 325 HV10 (Lundin et al.,
1990). So, the estimated content (0.8 wt-ppm) summed with a conservative value of 2 wt-ppm
diffusible hydrogen from the weld arc was still below the 4 wt-ppm, considering the achieved
maximum HAZ hardness level from API 1104 Appendix B qualification (258 HV10).
Moreover, a post heating of 150ºC for 12h was applied on the fitting after welding, which kept
the circumferential weld around 80ºC, allowing for a further 50% reduction of total amount of
hydrogen present at the circumferential in-service welds, before cooling to operating pipe
temperature (COE et al., 1993).

600

500
Temperature (°C)

400

300

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Time (s)

Figure 6. Simulated thermal cycle on the internal pipe surface (1st, 2nd and 3rd passes).

4. Laboratory analysis of in-service welded hot tapped coupon

Another issue of concern was the risk of ethylene decomposition. Data from literature
have shown that in-service welding of ethylene pipes has been successfully achieved by limiting
the internal pressure to 8.27 MPa, O2 level inferior to 1000 wt-ppm and temperature below
148.9ºC (Bruce, 2009). Although the internal pressure is much lower than 8.27 MPa, the fluid
temperature is only 30ºC, achieved maximum temperature during welding (575.6ºC) will
exceed the auto-ignition literature value (450ºC) for a maximum 8 seconds according to
8
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

simulations (Figure 6). Such amount of time together with the presence of oxygen level (O2)
above 1000 wt-ppm raised safety concerns, although gas velocity proposed was extremely high.
After consultations with petrochemical experts at PETROBRAS, it was mentioned that the
decomposition will actually occur above 350ºC, meaning that the time period between heating
and cooling would be around 13 seconds. On the other hand, the actual ethylene concentration
was quite low (less than 4%). Considering all these aspects, a go-ahead signal was given for a
field trial of an in-service welding circular coupon onto the pipe (Figure 7), by simultaneously
monitoring the external surface temperature and local pipe bulging. Such procedure was
performed and no excessive hot spots were detected as well as no process pipe instability was
noticed. Consequently, the Refinery HSE allowed the actual in-service welding and fitting hot
tap.
A final verification of the weld joint metallurgic sanity was achieved by the subsequent
laboratory analysis of the in-service welded hot tapped coupon (Figure 7). This has shown that
the maximum hardness measured in coarse grain HAZ was below 212 HV10. Such lower value
is compatible with the expected reduction in hardness generated by multipass welding (Abson
and Nicholas, 2000). The achieved hardness was also below NACE MR-0175 level (248
HV10). Contrastingly, the maximum hardness measured on the specimens retrieved from the
qualification procedure (flowing water as per API 1104 Appendix B) was 258 HV10, which
demonstrated that the assumption of increasing the gas flow rate was adequate. Besides, no
indication of internal pipe surface decarburization or cracking was detected due to a potential
ethylene exothermic decomposition (Figure 7-c).

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 7. (a), (b) Both sides of circumferential in-service welded coupon drilled from pipe. (c) Fillet welded
cupon cross section.
9
 Rio Pipeline Conference and Exhibition 2019

5. Conclusions

The in-service welding and hot tapping of a refinery pipeline containing methane,
ethylene and hydrogen was successfully performed after several computer welding thermal
cycle simulations and analytical models calculations which have evaluated the risk of hydrogen
cracking and burnthrough. This has been achieved by the successful combination of low heat
input (0.63 kJ/mm) and electrode diameter (2.0 mm), an imposed fast cooling by internal fluid
(111 m/s) coupled with the relatively low carbon and carbon equivalent of mother pipe. A
coupon previously welded to the pipe, and subsequently hot taped, has demonstrated that all
premises initially considered were fully satisfied in terms of absence of cracks, excessive
penetration and inexistence of internal pipe surface carburization.

6. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to PETROBRAS-TRANSPETRO

Center for Pipeline Repair and Hot Tap (Guarulhos – São Paulo), under the supervision of Chief
Engineer Jeferson Faria Vianna and Hot Tap Engineer Willien Quim Wa.

7. References

ABSON, D. J., NICHOLAS, J. M., The prediction of maximum HAZ hardness in multiple pass
C-Mn and low alloy steel weldments, 1998-2000 CRP – Programme 9802, TWI, Cambridge,
UK, September 2000.
API RP 941, Steels for hydrogen service at elevated temperatures and pressures in petroleum
refineries and petrochemical plants, February 2016.
API 1104, Welding of pipelines and related facilities, September 2013.
BRUCE, W. A., LI, V., CITTERBERG, R., PRCI Thermal analysis model for hot-tap welding
– V 4.2, Rev.3, May 2002.
BRUCE, W. A., Qualification of procedures for welding onto in-service pipelines, 4th
International Pipeline Conference, IPC2002-27131, September 2002.
BRUCE, W. A., ZACHARY, T. B., AGRAWAL, A. K., Development of criteria/guidelines for
welding onto in-service chemical pipelines, Contract PRCI MAT 3-2, DNV Final Report for
PRCI, Nº ENAUS826BRUCE-20090911, Rev. 1, November 2009.
BRUCE, W. A., AMEND, B., Welding on in-service pipelines: dispelling popular myths and
misconceptions, Canadian Welding Association Journal, Spring 2013, pp 30-39.
COE, F. R., BAILEY, N., GOOCH, T. G., HART, P. H. M., JENKINS, N., PARGETER, R. J.,
Welding steels without hydrogen cracking, Woodhead Publishing, P. 46-76, 1993.
JOHNSON, H. Hydrogen in Iron. Metallurgical Transactions B. v. 19B, p. 691-707, 1988.
KIEFNER J. F., JONES, D. J., FISCHER, R. D., , BUBENIK, T. A., User’s manual for
Battelles’s hot-tap thermal-analysis models, Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, December 1991.
LUNDIN, C. D., GILL, T. P. S., QIAO, C. Y. P., WANG, Y., KHAN, K. K., Weldability of
low-carbon micro-alloyed steels for marine structures, WRC Bulletin nº359, 1990.
NACE MR-0175, Petroleum and natural gas industries – materials for use in H2S - containing
environments in oil and gas production – Part 1 – general principles for selection of cracking-
resistant materials, 2001.
10