FENET Barcelona Feb2003 DLE Wright

FENET THEMATIC NETWORKCOMPETITIVE AND SUSTAINABLE GROWTH(GROWTH) PROGRAMME

Industry Sector RTD Thematic Area DatePower & Pressure Systems Durability and Life Extension Feb-03

Comparison of Predicted and Measured Residual Stresses in a Pipeline Girth Weld

Keith Wright - Structural Integrity Assessments Ltd, Melbourne, Derbyshire, United Kingdom&

Vinod Chauhan – Advantica Technologies Ltd, Loughborough, Leicestershire, United Kingdom

SummaryThe use of FEA in the prediction of pipeline girth weld residual stresses and a comparison with experimental measurements is described. The effects of hydrotesting on the weld residual stresses are also considered. A summary of some possible future workshop activities for the Durability and Life Extension technology areas of FENet are presented.


Acknowledgement and Reference of Published Work:

• “Pipeline Girth Weld Residual Stresses and the Effects of Hydrotesting.“• Vinod Chauhan, Advantica Technologies Ltd, UK.• Zhilli Feng, Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus, USA.

• ASME 4th International Pipeline Conference, October 2002, Calgary, Canada.

• Reference: Proceedings of IPC’02 - 27140


Advantica

• A premier provider of advanced technology and systems solutions that help high performance energy and water delivery companies world-wide improve their operating performance.

• Origins in “British Gas“ in the UK and in “Stoner Associates“ in the US.

• Proven track record of over 30 years experience servicing more than 550 clients in over 50 countries.


Weld Residual Stresses

• Pipeline girth welds are not Post Weld Heat Treated.

• Hence weld residual stress is an important factor in Fitness-For-Purpose Assessments.

• Many Codes (BS7910, R6 Revision 4, API RP579) recommend residual stress profiles in weld region that could be overly conservative.

• Evidence that welding residual stresses are reduced following hydrotesting.


Axial Stress Profiles in Pipeline Girth Weld as Recommended by BS7910 and R6

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

(z/B)

Nor

mal

ized

Axi

al R

esid

ual S

tress

Low Heat InputMedium Heat InputHigh Heat Input

50 < E/B < 120 J/mm2

E/B < 50 J/mm2

E/B > 120 J/mm2

• Residual stress is normalized to yield or 0.2% proof strength of weld metal.

• Derived from upper bound data – not necessarily self equilibrating.

• For girth weld made with manual SMAW process, codes suggest using the high heat input profile.

SMAW = shielded metal arc welding


Case 1 – Assumed As Welded Residual Stresses (Hoop Direction)

• Weld elements at tensile yield (475MPa) in hoop direction.


Case 1 - Assumed As Welded Residual Stresses (Axial Direction)

• Axial Stress Distribution at Equilibrium with Weld elements at tensile yield (475MPa) in hoop direction.

• Tensile axial stress at inner surface of pipe close to weld of approx 49MPa.


Case 1 – Post Hydrotest Residual Stresses (Axial)

• Modified Axial Stress Distribution after application and then removal of hydrotestloading..

• Tensile axial stress at inner surface of pipe close to weld has reduced to approx 31MPa.


Case 2 – Assumed As Welded Residual Stresses (Hoop Direction)

• Weld elements have a through thickness variation of hoop stress from tensile yield (475MPa) at outer surface to 100MPa tensile at inner surface.


Case 2 - Assumed As Welded Residual Stresses (Axial Direction)

• Axial Stress Distribution at Equilibrium with Case 2 through thickness variation of hoop stress.

• Tensile axial stress at inner surface of pipe close to weld of approx 38MPa.


Case 2 – Post Hydrotest Residual Stresses (Axial)

• Modified Axial Stress Distribution after application and then removal of hydrotestloading..

• Tensile axial stress at inner surface of pipe close to weld has marginally increased to approx 40MPa.


Confidence in the Simplified Approach?

• NONE !!

• Experimental data required.

• Fortunately an experimental programme had been initiated.

Objectives of Work Programme:

• Conduct detailed experimental and finite element analysis to determine the residual stress fields in the vicinity of gas transmission pipeline girth welds.

• Determine the effects of hydrotesting on pipeline girth weld residual stress fields.

• Compare the results to those recommended in BS7910.


Experimental Programme – (Advantica)

• Materials and pipe geometry selected are representative of most common pipeline within UK gas transmission systems.

• API 5L grades X60 and X65 pipes: 0.13-0.2%C, 1.3-1.6%Mn, 0.31-0.33%Si• 3m long• 36-in OD (914.4mm)• Wall thickness: 5/8 and ½ in(15.9mm and 12.7mm)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

True Strain

True

Str

ess,

N/m

m2

Parent M01-04Parent M01-05Parent M01-06

Pipe A - API X65

• Stress-strain curves were measured for both base metal and weld metal


Welding Details

• Manual SMAW girth weld. Six passes, 60 deg V-groove

• AWS E6061 electrode for root and second pass, and E8010 for other 4 passes.

• Two welders simultaneous vertical down progression.

Pass No.

Travel Speed

(cm/min)

Interpass

Temp. (ºC)

Electrode

Size (mm)

Electrode

Type AWS

Heat Input

(kJ/mm) 1 26 50 4 E6010 0.84

2 35 60 4 E6010 0.76 3 24 80 5 E8010 1.26

4 12 50 5 E8010 2.16

5 13 70 5 E8010 1.86 6 (cap) 13 90 5 E8010 1.59

30o

1.5+1 0

+5 0


Typical Welds


Full Scale Hydrotesting

• 6m long girth welded pipes with two end-caps • Hydro-test pressures

• High pressure case: 120 bar on two ½-in thick X60 pipes– correspond to the 105% SMYS requirement (UK pipeline design code

IGE/TD/1) (SMYS = Specified Minimum Yield Stress)• Low pressure case: 105 bar on one 5/8-in thick X65 pipe

– simulate above-ground installation (AGI) pipework (IGE/TD/13)

Girth Weld

6 meters


Surface Residual Stress Measurements

• Air abrasive centre hole drilling method• Hole was about 2-mm diameter and depth• Estimated measurement accuracy:

– About 8% if stress is below 65% of SMYS– About 16% otherwise, due to plastic deformation in hole drilling

• Measurements both before and after hydro-test

• Measurements on both inside and outside surfaces • Initially, at one circumferential position at weld centreline and HAZ• Subsequent measurements on weld centreline at every 45 deg position

around the circumference, covering weld start and stop locations


Surface Residual Stress Measurements

Air abrasivecentre hole drilling method.


Finite Element Analysis – (Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus)

Weld Heat Flow Model

MechanicalModel

Experiment Validation

Microstructure & Property Model

Welding Process & Parameters

ThermalHistory

Residual Stress Distribution

Weldment Microstructure & Mechanical Properties

Steel & Weld Metal Compositions

Weld Heat Flow Model

MechanicalModel

Experiment Validation

Microstructure & Property Model

Welding Process & Parameters

ThermalHistory

Residual Stress Distribution

Weldment Microstructure & Mechanical Properties

Steel & Weld Metal Compositions

• Sequentially coupled approach• Weld heat flow• Microstructure, mechanical

property• Stress

• ABAQUS, enhanced with set of proprietary user subroutines developed specifically for microstructure and welding computations

An Integrated Thermal-Mechanical-Metallurgical Weld Stress Model


Finite Element Analysis – Axisymmetric Mesh

• Applicable for girth weld with the exception of the weld start/stop positions• Half model for perfectly aligned pipes, Full model for misaligned pipes• Four noded linear isoparametric quadrilateral element• Very fine mesh (element length about 0.1mm) in the weld and HAZ region for

microstructure analysis


Temperature Dependent Material Properties Used• Yield and flow stress functions of both temperature and microstructure.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Temp (K)

Stre

ss (M

Pa)

Base Metal

HAZ

Other temperature dependent properties included:

• Elastic Modulus

• Poisson’s Ratio

• Specific Heat

• Conductivity


FE Model Results – Predicted Microstructures consistent with those in Actual Weld.

Ferrite Fraction

Pearlite Fraction

Bainite & Acicular Ferrite Fraction


FE Model Results – Predicted Hardness consistent with those in Actual Weld.

200

250

0 5 10 15 20X (mm)

Weld MetalBase Metal

0

50

100

150

Har

dnes

s (V

HZ)

O

X


FE Model Results – As Welded Residual Stresses

Axial Stresses

• Max value 392MPa

Hoop Stresses


FE Model Results – Residual Stresses After Hydrotest

Axial Stresses

• Max value 196MPa

Hoop Stresses


Comparison of Predicted Through Wall & Experimental Surface Residual Stresses

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

z/B

Nor

mal

ised

Axi

al S

tres

s

FE simulation - Weld Centreline FE simulation - Location 1 FE simulation - Location 2 BS7910 High Heat Input Distribution Inner Surface Measurements Outer Surface Measurements

Weld Centerline

Location 1

Location 2

Outer Surface

z

B

ace

Max Axial Stress Point

As Welded Results


Comparison of Predicted Through Wall & Experimental Surface Residual Stresses

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

z/B

Nor

mal

ised

axi

al s

tres

s

FE simulation - Weld Centreline FE simulation - 7.2mm from Weld Centreline FE simulation - 13.5mm from Weld Centreline BS7910 High Heat Input Distribution Inner Surface Measurements Outer Surface Measurements

Results Following Hydrotest


Some Observations

• The objectives of the experimental programme of work were achieved in that it did demonstrate that hydrotesting does significantly reduce girth weld residual stresses.

• The through wall axial residual stress distribution recommended by BS7910 was shown to be conservative at and near to the inner surface of the weld. At the outer surface of the weld this is not the case, for both as welded and after hydrotesting.

• The supporting analytical work using a sequentially coupled Thermal-Mechanical-Metallurgical Weld Stress Model was able to predict reasonably well the as-welded microstructure and the mechanical properties (Hardness) observed in actual welds. Hence the predicted residual streses from this Model would appear to have greater credibility than the simplified modelling approach described at the outset.

• But the experimentally measured residual stresses exhibit significant variability at both inner and outer surfaces. Is it real or measurement error?


Observations Continued

• The scatter in the as welded measured axial stresses at the inner surface ranged from high tensile (244MPa) to compressive (-136MPa). The high tensile value was measured at the weld start/stop positions. The axisymmetric FE simulation is unable to predict stresses at the weld start/stop positions. If the weld start/stop locations are not considered then the comparison of the measured and FE stresses is much better.


So What About the Residual Stresses in the Practical Case?

• Confidence in the simplified approach simulation model was LOW as subsequently borne out by the experimental measurements.

• In light of the more advanced Thermal-Mechanical-Metallurgical simulation model would reliance be placed on predicted residual stresses now ?

• UNLIKELY – unless it was used with some form of safety factor.

• Therefore, an upper bound to the experimentally measured axial residual stress was used instead in the Fitness-For-Purpose assessments,


What Next ?

• It would be nice to have:-

• Simulation model extended to 3D and attempt to reproduce weld start/stops.

• Confidence limits associated with the through wall residual stress profiles. Hence a stress distribution to an appropriate confidence level could be used in defect assessments. Possibly by using Monte Carlo Simulation techniques with the Thermal-Mechanical-Metallurgical Weld Stress model.


Suggestions For Future FENet Activities

• Benchmarks for verification and validation

• Provide guidance on accuracy of simulations, identify potential pitfalls eg the simplified approach described.

Reference of Published Work:

• “Pipeline Girth Weld Residual Stresses and the Effects of Hydrotesting“, Vinod Chauhan & Zhili Feng.

• ASME 4th International Pipeline Conference, October 2002, Calgary, Canada, Proceedings of IPC‘’02 – 27140.

Documents

FENET Barcelona Feb2003 DLE Wright