International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2012)

Investigation of Weld Integrity of X70 Grade Line Pipe by Full

Scale Burst Test
A. A. Shaikh1, J. C. Purohit2
1

Associate Professor, Mech. Engg. Dept. S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat-7 (India)
2
Head operation of HPML, Essar Steel India Ltd, Hazira, Surat (India)
To ensure better quality material, its testing becomes
mandatory. A large number of mechanical testing are
conducted to analyze the properties of the pipe and to
predict its bearing capacity.
Researcher [3] shows that pipelines with higher strength
levels are subjected to a variety of mechanical tests. For
pipelines designed for high operating pressures, the
assessment of fracture behavior has been studied by means
of laboratory and full scale tests. Researchers have
attempted to define safety criteria against a possible
fracture by determining various fracture properties by
means of studying the initiation and propagation of fracture
upon failure. Also the influence of higher impact energy of
pipe to resist such failures has contributed such pipes to
sustain such hostile operating conditions.
Burst test [4] forms a major part of the entire testing
schedule in such pipes. During operating condition, the
primary load on any pipeline is the internal pressure.
Design pressures that result in hoop stresses in the pipe as
high as 80% of the specified minimum yield strength are
allowed by many pipeline codes. So to ensure sufficient
pressure capacity, a series of burst tests are conducted. The
objective of the burst tests is to ascertain the fracture
behaviour of the pipes, integrity of the weld and thus
understand the ductile fracture propagation control for the
pipes so as to assure complete safety in their application.
During the formation of a pipe [5], the steel loses its
strength during the forming process due to mechanical
work hardening, Bauschingers effect and development of
corresponding residual stresses. The tendency of steel
softening becomes more prominent in steels of higher
grade, typically X70 and above. The consumable selection
during the welding process must therefore be ensured to
match this effect, and becomes very important aspect for
weld integrity.
The pre-service hydro test [6]or a full scale burst test with
water has been widely used to combat the consequence of
failure experienced as a result of pipeline testing using air
or product. In more recent years the purpose of the test has
moved from being a leak tightness test to one which
benefits the pipeline as a structural system.

AbstractIn the oil and gas industry, high pressure long

distance pipe lines are widely used for efficient and effective
movement of natural gas, oil and other petroleum products.
The gases are transported at extremely high operating
pressures that can range from 200 to 1600 PSI depending on
the size and length of the line pipe. For operating safety,
Hydrostatic test is used for confirming mechanical integrity of
pipe lines and is applied to check for leakages before putting
the pipe lines in use. The test aims to evaluate the point of
failure of the material and assess the structural integrity of a
welded pipe.
In present work, an experiment is carried out to confirm
weld integrity of two X70 grade carbon steel pipes under the
manufacturing process of hot rolling with left and right hand
spiral plants. The tests are conducted at pressure in excess of
the UTS of the steel/ pipes and aimed to sustain the pressure
as per API convention. Both the pipes attained the expected
results; however the results of theoretical predicted pressure
minutely diverge as the thickness variation is not considered.
Keywords - Burst, HSAW, Tolerance, UTS, Weld Integrity.

I. INTRODUCTION
During the actual useful life of a Pipeline [1], it is
exposed to internal and external corrosion. Internal
corrosion is on account of hydrocarbon fluids which are
susceptible to CO2 corrosion and external corrosion is on
account of harsh environment of adjacent soil in case of
offshore and hostile marine environment in case of offshore pipe lines. These corrosion leads to wall thinning
process over periods of time. This leads to weakening of
mechanical strength when the pipelines are subjected to
high pressure conditions for longer periods of use.
Over period of time, macro-economic considerations [2]
have influenced the development of higher strength steel
grades for pipeline use with lower wall thickness. As a
result steel pipes of grades with strength levels X80, X100
and lately X120 are being proposed by pipeline designers.
Accordingly attempts are made to improve the grade of the
steel in order to have better mechanical properties. As
manufacturing of higher strength pipes of smaller wall
thickness becomes feasible, pipes would become lighter in
weight reducing the cost significantly.
280

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2012)
Apart from assessing the integrity of weld, studies have
shown that a full scale burst test with water or a pre-service
hydro test offers several advantages: Such as any unusual
mid-wall lamination in the steel. In many cases,
manufacturing defects such as leaks concentrated at the
weld seam leading to surface morphology of pipes and
metallurgical properties of steel as revealed in the
Hydrogen induced cracking tests can be ascertained. Any
localized weld heat and the impact on property
misalignment at the weld leading to subsequent
susceptibility (acute) to hydrogen embrittlement can be
foreseen. Field pressure testing has been done usually at a
pressure that induced a hoop stress of less than the uniaxial specified minimum yield stress (SMYS). In some
cases a high level pressure test are conducted that resulted
in a hoop stress equivalent or greater than the uniaxial
SMYS.
During the actual operation, a line pipe experiences
cyclic pressure condition [7] which tend to fatigue the
material construction. Under various operating conditions,
pipe line experience different hoop stresses. Accordingly
designers recommend fixation of the maximum allowable
hoop stress compensating a fatigue cycle testing under
various design codes and recommended practices by the
American Petroleum institute.
Use of micro-alloying elements [8] such as Niobium has
led to improved weldability, particularly in field welding,
higher operating pressures and a decrease in wall thickness.
Pipelines made with lower wall thickness exhibit ease of
handling, lower cost of construction, in addition to high
impact toughness and the capability to arrest cracks
assuring high safety standards of operating pipelines which
have variable pressure conditions.
Burst resistance [9, 10, 11] of the pipe is related to the
Ultimate tensile strength of the pipe material, which
comprises of the Steel, Weld-seam and the Heat affected
zone. Since each of these zones of a pipe possess different
strength, the full-scale burst test reveals a composite
integral response of the pipe to a high pressure condition.
The control of ductile fracture initiation and propagation
has been a concern for regulatory agencies, it has been
studied that pipes with low toughness and lower ( % shear
area) tend to crack easily in-spite of their higher UTS. A
correlation therefore with impact values of weldment or
base steel and also with residual stresses developed during
the pipe forming process helps to ascertain crack
propagation mechanism.

Since limited experience on the characteristic of fracture

resistance was available for the given pipe manufacturing
processes, in the experiment which is presented here, two
pipes manufactured from two different machines were
selected and subjected to full scale burst test.
The Pipes selected were as of API 5L X70 (480 MPa
yield strength) grade and were subjected to full scale field
burst test. Both the pipes were made from two opposite
direction left and right hand spiral plants in size
914mm*14.3mm [from HSAW-1 (Helical submerged arc
welded) and HSAW-2 machines]. Upon bursting it was
found that while the pipes burst well above the calculated
burst pressure; one of the pipe burst at a pressure very close
to the design or calculated burst pressure. Detailed study
was conducted to explore possible explanations and
variations.
II. EXPERIMENTATION AND TEST LAYOUT
Two pipes selected were manufactured using the SAW
process in two steps. The first step comprised of forming
followed with simultaneous GMAW welding and the
second stage comprised of off-line submerged arc welding.
To check the mechanical integrity of the pipes, the weld
seam on the pipes were subjected to X-ray and ultrasonic
testing for 100% of length. In addition the pipes were
subjected to Hydrostatic test for 15 seconds and also cyclic
hydro test for 24-hours before burst test.
Prior to burst testing, the two open ends of the pipes
were closed with metallic dish ends of thickness higher
than the wall thickness of the pipes. The dish end weld was
tested using NDT methods for its integrity and thus making
the complete sealing of the pipes. Pipe plugs were fitted on
the dish ends for filling the pressurizing media. The
pressurizing medium chosen for the test was water. For
safety, prior to filing water, the pipes were lowered into a
deep pit so that any unwarranted incident upon release of
high pressure water during pipe bursting can be proactively
avoided.
A high pressure, high volume flow pump was connected
to the sealed pipes and water was allowed to fill in. High
pressure water pump capable of delivering 28 liters/min
with 965 bar maximum capacity propelled by 55 kW motor
was used for the purpose.
III. EXPECTED BURST PRESSURE
HSAW (Helical submerged arc welded) pipes as per API
5L X 70 PSL-2 with the dimensions mentioned below are
considered.

281

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2012)
TABLE I

Thickness, t=14.3mm; Outer Radius, r0 = 457mm; Inner

Radius, ri = (457-14.3) mm = 442.7mm
UTS, = 603MPa;
Burst Pressure, P= (t/ ri) = 194 bar
Considering API convention tolerance of 10%, the burst
pressure prediction from calculated formulae was
calculated to provide the experiment with a bursting
pressure range.
HSAW-1 and 2 pipes
Considering the wall thickness tolerances of pipe used, a
range of values of maximum and minimum bursting
pressure for the given value of Ultimate Tensile Strength,
603 MPa can be calculated as;
For r/t= maximum

Sr

Pipes

Dimensions

Actual
Burst
Pressure (bar)

HSAW 1

914x14.3 mm

194

HSAW 2

914x14.3 mm

180

Subsequent to the filling of the water, and continuously

increasing water pressure, the first pipe made from the
HSAW-1 unit burst at 194 bar pressure. Upon examination
of the failure,as shown in Figure 1, it was observed that the
crack was apparently a ductile fracture initiated from the
body of the pipe and traversed in two opposite longitudinal
directions parallel the pipe axis and perpendicular to the
radial hoop stresses as the dimension detail is highlighted
in Figure 2.
The crack however did not propagate beyond the weld
seam, which meant that not only was the weld seam strong
enough, but it also acted as a crack arrestor. The second
pipe made from the HSAW-2 unit also revealed a similar
failure characteristic and crack propagation; however it
burst at 180 bar pressure which was lower than expected.
During the pressuring cycle of HSAW-2 pipe, it was
observed that the pressure did not increase for a significant
period of time, and the pipe burst after a long 130-minute
wait as shown in Figure 3 and the dimension detail is
shown in Figure 4. Before bursting, the pipe bulged from
the centre like a balloon until it finally gave way.

Tolerance for thickness of pipe=0.1 * thickness=1.43mm

Nominal thickness, t = (14.3-1.43) mm=12.9mm
So maximum radius of pipe body under tolerance limit=
(457-12.9) mm=444.1 mm
Bursting pressure, P=175.16 bar
For r/t= minimum
Tolerance for thickness of pipe=0.1 * thickness=1.43mm
Nominal thickness, t= (14.3+1.43) mm=15.73mm
So maximum radius of pipe body under tolerance limit=
(457-15.73) mm=441.27mm
Bursting pressure, P= 214.95bar
Hence for a given tolerance of +10% on the wall
thickness of pipe, the expected burst pressure for HSAW-1
and HSAW-2 pipes can range between 175-215 bar for a
given average UTS of 603 MPa
The expected burst pressure in bar can be calculated
based on formulae available in literature and as per API
convention are listed below;
Barlows Prediction[4,9]:188.69
Zeus Prediction[4,9]:191.64
Papka Steven Prediction[4,9]:191.68
API : 194 calculated within Range (174-215)

Fig 1. Photographic view of HSAW 1 burst pipe

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The actual burst pressure observed for both pipes with
same dimension, same material with welded on different
spiral plant are depicted in Table I.
Fig 2. Dimensional detail of HSAW 1 burst pipe

282

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2012)
This aspect can be controlled by streamlining the rolling
mill temperature controls [12,13], and by appropriate
chemistry design.
There might be little divergence in the calculation of
minimum burst pressure which may be on the account of
the exact value of UTS or the diameter (external instead of
internal yields wrong results). This is because the actual
radial stresses act upon the ID of the pipe.
The another reason for divergence may be the presence
of air pocket inside the pipe prior the experiment.
Therefore on increase of pressure the air present inside may
be shrinking gradually, resulting in the pressure being
constant.
On taking tolerances into consideration, the minimum
expected pressure comes out be 175.16 bars where the pipe
actually burst at 174 bars. The pressure has reached up to
179 bars before the failure. This means that the pipe has
attained its UTS value and then plastically deformed
leading to drop in pressure before failure.

Fig 3. Photographic view of HSAW 2 burst pipe

REFERENCES
[1]
Fig 4. Dimensional detail of HSAW 2 burst pipe
[2]

The criteria for judging the initiation point of the crack is

from that portion of the pipe which has maximum bulge.
On observing the pipes, it is found that pipes of HSAW-1
and HSAW-2 both had the crack initiated at the base metal
which indicates that the weld joint of each pipe is defect
free and stronger than the base metal. Fractured surfaces of
all the pipes show ductile failure as the surfaces appear
rough and show patches of cup and cone structure.

[3]

[4]

V. CONCLUSIONS
[5]

It is found that the thickness is the most sensitive

parameter for the calculation of burst pressure calculation.
In practice that localized wall thinning can cause bursting
at lower pressures. Therefore in pipeline applications
tolerance considerations play an important role in design.
Practical demonstration of a full scale burst test
represent results very close to those warranted by the
theory, which reflect consistency in the pipe manufacturing
process.
In case of the pipe made from HSAW, one of the
probable reasons for pressure not increasing beyond a
certain value was due to the plastic deformation, which
suggests localized lower yield strength. Due to increase in
the volume of pipe on expansion could accommodate
greater amount of the fluid.

[6]

[7]
[8]

[9]

283

Nasir Shafiq, Mokhtar Che Ismail, Chanyalew Taye, Saravanan K

and M F Nuruddin; Burst test Finite element analysis and structural
integrity of Pipeline system, Petromin Pipeliner Jul-Sept-2010pp38-43
M.K. Graf, H.G. Hillenbrand, C.J, Heckmann, K.A. Niederhoff,
High-Strength large diameter pipe for long distance high pressure
gas pipelines ISOPE-2003, May26-30, 2003, Honolulu, Hawaii,
Conference proceeding Paper No. 2003-SMYP-03 pp 1-9
G. Demofonti, G. Mannucchi, C.M. Spinelly, L. Barsanti, H.G.
Hillenbrand, Large diameter X100 gas line pipes Fracture
propagation evaluation by full-scale burst test, Eupropipe
publication, Yr 2000, pp 1-12
A. Liessam, M. K. Graef, G. Knauf, U. Marewski, Influence of
thermal treatment on mechanical properties of UOE linepipe, 4th
International conference on Pipeline technology, May-9-12, 2004,
Ostend, BelgiumTavel, pp1-18
I.Yu. Pyshmintsev, D.A. Pumpyanskyi, L.G. Marchenko, V.I.
Stolyarov, Strength and Bauschinger Effect in TMCP Line Pipe
Steels, Publication of Russian Research Institute for the Tube and
Pipe Industries, Russia.2004, pp 1-5
Mike Kirkwood, Andrew Cosham , Can the Pre-service Hydrotest
be Eliminated, Pipes & Pipelines International Vol. 45, No. 4, JulyAugust 2000, pp 1-19
Leo Corcoran CEng MBA FIEI, Report on Corrib Gas Pipeline
Design October 2005, pp 1-6
Dr. Ronald Rittmann and Dr. Klaus Freier, Niobium Containing
Steels For Spiral And Electric Resistance Welded Line Pipe
Production, Development publication by Salzgitter Flachstahl
GmbH 38239 Salzgitter, Germany, pp 1-20
S. D. Papka, J. H. Stevens, M. L. Macia, D. P. Fairchild, C. W.
Petersen , Full-Size Testing and Analysis of X120 Linepipe,
Proceedings of The Thirteenth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, May 25 30,
2003, ISBN 1 880653 60 5 (Set); ISSN 1098 6189 (Set), pp
50-59

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 2, Issue 12, December 2012)
[10] John F. Kiefner and Willard A. Maxey, Periodic Hydrostatic
Testing Or In-Line Inspection To Prevent Failures From PressureCycle-Induced Fatigue, Report for American petroleum institute,
2000, pp 1-9
[11] Duan Qingquan, Zhang Hong,Yan Feng,Deng Changyi, Hydrostatic
Burst Test 0F X80 Grade Steel Pipe, Journal of Loss Prevention in
the Process Industries, Elsevier, 22 (2009) 897900

[12] Guedri , B. Merzoug , A. Zeghloul, Improving Mechanical

Properties Of Api X60/X70 Welded Pipeline Steel Sciences &
Technologie B N29, (Jun 2009), pp 51-58. 51,
[13] Choong-Myeong Kim, Jong-Bong Lee, Jang-Yong Yoo, A Study
on the Metallurgical and Mechanical Characteristics of the Weld
Joint of X80 Steel, Proceedings of the fifteenth International
offshore and polar engineering conference, Seoul, South Korea, June
19-24, 2005, ISBN, 1-880653-64-8 (Set), ISSN 1098-6189 (set),
pp158-162

284