In-situ Analyses to Characterize the Properties and Metallurgical Attributes of In-Service Piping

Bill Amend
Det Norske Veritas (USA), Inc.
3475 Condor Ridge Rd.
Yorba Linda, CA
USA

ABSTRACT

Historically, the primary focus of direct examination (commonly referred to as “bell hole inspection”) was
to assess coating condition and describe the attributes of mechanical damage or corrosion in addition
to verifying wall thickness, diameter and perhaps seam type. With recent regulatory emphasis on
verifying the accuracy of pipeline data, the role of in-situ, nondestructive determination of metallurgical
attributes becomes increasingly important.

This paper describes nondestructive analyses that can be performed on operating pipelines to evaluate
steel composition, yield strength and tensile strength, hardness, microstructure, and crack morphology.
The relevant technologies include visual examination, portable spectroscopy, laboratory analysis of
steel filings, portable hardness testing, automated ball indentation testing, and metallography using
replication techniques. The data can be used to support selection of optimized welding procedures,
determine the lower bound yield strength of a pipeline segment at a selected confidence level,
determine the acceptability of “hard spots” and weld heat affected zones, estimate toughness,
determine the origin of planar flaws (manufacturing flaw, fatigue crack, high-pH stress corrosion
cracking (high –pH SCC), or near neutral pH-SCC), and differentiate between electric resistance weld
(ERW) seams having high temperature versus low temperature post weld heat treatments.

Key words: in-situ metallography, bellhole examination, hardness, OES, direct examination, pipeline

INTRODUCTION

North American pipeline systems currently in operation can consist of piping manufactured up to a
century ago. Not surprisingly, antigua
documentation related to the manufacture, installation, testing,
maintenance and inspection of a vintage pipeline is often incomplete, uncertain, or even non-existent.
While some aspects of pipeline integrity management rely on knowing specific mechanical properties or
the metallurgical characteristics of piping, the relevant data are often unavailable in pipeline files. Data
can be verified or generated from analysis of hot tapped coupons or scrapped cylinders of pipe.
However, hot tapping represents a significant expense and potential safety issue associated with
welding and tapping pipe with questionable metallurgical characteristics and abandoned or scrapped
pipe related to the pipeline segment of interest is not always available. Further, while a single tapped
coupon or pipe cylinder may not be representative of the range of metallurgical characteristics or
properties in a long pipeline segment, obtaining multiple pipe samples for destructive testing can be
impractical. Fortunately, visual examination and interpretation of specific surface features
supplemented by nondestructive metallurgical analyses can provide a wealth of information to
supplement and/or validate pipeline records.

THE VALUE OF VISUAL EXAMINATION

To a trained inspector, visible features on a pipe surface can reveal details about manufacturing
methods, installation and inspection - details easily overlooked if the focus is merely on characterizing
in-service degradation. For example, fillet welded plugs or small patches at the 12:00 position within a
few inches of girth welds made in the late 1940s through early 1950s typically indicate that a
radiographic isotope was lowered into the pipe to enable single wall exposure radiographic inspection
of the girth weld.1 The plug or patch was used to seal hole after the inspection was complete.
Inspection by radiography has been identified as the leading indicator of girth weld quality.
Flush rectangular patches welded across girth welds are indicative of mobile tensile testing units that
were used on the right of way to spot check girth weld quality before reliable nondestructive testing
(NDT) methods were developed. If the test result failed the acceptance criteria the weld would have
been removed and replaced with a new weld. “Good” welds were patched. While the patch indicates
that the weld met the specifications for mechanical properties the practice of inserting the welded patch
to replace the test specimen was abandoned after it was discovered that the pipelines often leaked at
the patch.2

As another example, specific types of surface textures (“spellerizing”) are uniquely associated with lap
realzado
seam pipe. The surface pattern was embossed onto the pipe surface by the patterns engraved on the
rollers that gripped the pipe during processing. The patterns typically occur in two bands with the lap
seam located in one of the two bands. Furthermore, since the specific pattern of the spellerizing was
unique to each lap seam pipe manufacturer characterizing the spellerizing pattern can help confirm
records indicating the pipe manufacturer.3

Surface features are also useful in differentiating furnace butt weld seams from ERW seams. The ability
to differentiate these two types of seams from each other is important mainly because of the lower
seam efficiency factor assigned to butt welded seams by United States federal pipeline safety
regulations (see for example, Reference 4). In addition, butt weld seams are less likely than early
vintage ERW seams to have very high hardness microstructures in the seam heat affected zone. The
high hardness microstructures increase susceptibility to sulfide stress cracking and to brittle fracture
initiation.

A few characteristics enable butt seams to be differentiated from ERW seams. First, butt weld seams
were and are only manufactured in pipe no larger than 4.5 inch outside diameter (OD). Second, during
manufacturing the ERW seam is characterized by flash being expelled to the inside diameter(ID) and
outside diameter of the pipe. It is subsequently machined off nearly flush with the pipe surface. In
comparison, furnace butt welding, or the more modern variant of continuous butt welding, often leaves
a perceptible groove along the OD where the seam fusion line is located. Third, the butt weld process
often leaves a characteristic band of scratch marks alongside the seam (Figure 1).
sutil
Other important surface features are even more subtle than the features on butt weld seam pipe. From
1940 to 1951 manufacturers of API Specification 5L pipe were required to stamp the pipe with a mark
identifying the manufacturer within 305 mm (12 in.) of the end of the pipe, After the twelfth edition of
API 5L painted stencil marks were an acceptable alternative to stamped marks. The stamp marks are
shallow and each character is normally only about 6-10 mm (1/4-3/8 in.) across (Figure 2). However,
careful removal of coating and close visual examination of the area near girth welds will sometimes
reveal the stamp marks.

Girth weld joint designs and weld metal appearance are not frequently characterized during direct
examination but they can be significant from the standpoint of assessing likely resistance to large axial
strains such as those associated with ground deformation. Reference 5 describes the evolution of
several different types of girth weld joint designs. For example, fillet welded bell+spigot joint designs
were largely abandoned in the early 1930s in part because of the relatively low axial strain capacity of
the fillet welds. In comparison, the bell-bell-chill ring (BBCR) joint design that followed was found to
have much better strain capacity, even when workmanship was imperfect.

Oxyacetylene weld deposits are notorious for having workmanship flaws in the weld root and often
have a uniquely high and wide cap on the OD surface. While the dimensions of the weld cap are
seldom measured in the course of routine bellhole inspection, it has been demonstrated that very wide
caps (width at least five time the wall thickness) having a height greater than 50% of the wall thickness
reduce the applied stress intensity factor by a minimum of 25%. Smaller caps have smaller influence
with the effect being related to cap height to width ratio and dimensions relative to the pipe wall
thickness. As a result, the strain capacity of the welds can be somewhat larger than what is expected
based on conventional fracture mechanics evaluations that disregard the cap effects.6 Therefore,
recording the dimensions of weld caps can support fitness for service assessments of welds.

One typically overlooked feature of early girth welds is the consistency of the weld metal ripple pattern
that indicates the direction of weld progression. Early pipeline construction techniques included the
practice of making several girth welds above ground while pipe was rolled underneath the welding arc
cuneta
or torch. Segments of welded pipe were then placed into the ditch and welded together in the more
challenging fixed position. Sometimes different welding processes were used for the two different types
of welds. The rolled position and fixed position welds result in different weld ripple patterns that are
easily distinguishable from each other. In more modern pipe similar weld to weld variations in
workmanship and properties exist when pipe segments are made using pipe that is “double jointed”,
typically using submerged arc welding, at the mill prior to being delivered to the construction site. As a
result of the two different welding positions and/or use of different welding processes for different girth
welds the long pipeline segments can have two (or more) distinctly different populations of girth welds.
Each weld population can have different workmanship quality and mechanical properties that occur
repeated sequences. Identifying the presence of multiple populations of girth welds can influence
integrity assessment sampling plans and assessment methodologies.

Sometimes visual examination must be supplemented with NDT to differentiate among seam types.
For example, single side submerged arc welded (SSAW) and double sided submerged arc welded
(DSAW or SAW-L) seams look the same from the OD surface. Only the ID appearance is different.
Normally, the differences are apparent in radiographic inspection.

In another example, two separate types of seams are commonly mischaracterized as a product of an
early submerged arc welding process when in fact they are both unique types of seams manufactured
from about 1928 to 1932 by A.O. Smith Corporation.(1) The external appearance of both types of
seams is the same as a result of both types using a relatively broad, flat cap pass of metal deposited by
shielded metal arc welding (Figure 3). In both types of seams weld metal solidification cracks are often
found in the cap pass. Until 1930 the seam consisted only of multiple passes of weld metal deposited
by shielded metal arc welding process. Incomplete penetration and lack of fusion in the root region is
commonly observed. By 1930 the root portion of the seam was first formed by the flash weld process
and the cap pass was used only for additional reinforcement. As a result, the OD of the pipe is
indistinguishable from the earlier vintage pipe while the ID looks like a conventional flash welded seam.

1
Trade name.
While the mechanical properties of the cap can be similar in both types of seam the properties beneath
the cap can be quite different.

Chemical Composition

Chemical analysis in the field is used by a variety of industries to verify the composition of incoming
corrosion resistant, heat resistant, or high strength alloys. However, in the pipeline industry, chemical
analysis is most frequently performed on in-service pipelines to determine carbon equivalent of the
steel to support selection of optimized welding procedures. Therefore, for pipeline applications the
chemical analysis methods must be capable of accurately measuring the elements that are included in
the applicable carbon equivalent equations. The most frequently used equations are the CEIIW and
Pcm equations shown below in Equations 1 and 2.:

CEIIW : %C + %Mn/6 + (%Cr+%Mo+%V)/5 + (%Ni+%Cu)/15 (1)

Pcm: %C + (%Cr+%Cu+%Cr)/20 + %Ni/60 + %Mo/15 +%V/10 + 5x%B (2)

However, of the available field portable PMI (positive metal identification) techniques, only the optical
emission spectrography (OES) method is capable of measuring carbon (atomic number 6) (Figure 4).
The x-ray fluorescence (XRF) method will not typically detect and measure elements lighter than atomic
number 12 (magnesium). Even some portable OES devices are not capable of measuring carbon with
sufficient accuracy. Those that use an argon flushed sensor normally provide the best determination of
light elements.

In our experience, preparation of steel pipe surfaces for PMI includes first removing at least 0.25 mm
(0.01 in.) of the pipe surface to minimize or eliminate the influence of the decarburization that is often
present on the ID and OD surfaces (Figures 5 and 6). Inadvertent inclusion of the decarburized surface
in the analysis results in measurement of an anomalously low carbon content. In view of the ease of
surface preparation and performance of the measurements, three measurements are normally made,
including at least one measurement on either side of the longitudinal seam (for example, about 50-75
mm (2-3 in.) from the seam). After the completing the measurements, the metallurgical effects of the
“burned” spot caused by the arcing can easily be removed by using a powered sanding disc.
Metallographic cross sections through typical spectrographic burn marks show that the related heat
affected zone is only about 30 microns (1.2 mils) deep (Figure 7).

Note that the results of field portable spectrographs are sensitive to maintenance and calibration. An
instrument can appear to be functioning properly but produce results that are significantly different from
those obtained from standard laboratory chemical analysis methods. Sometimes the results for only
one or a few elements are inaccurate and technicians are not always adequately trained to recognize
the questionable results. Verification of proper instrument maintenance and on-site verification of
calibration is important.

The alternative method of determining the chemical composition of the steel involves removing steel
filings from the steel surface and then analyzing the filings using traditional chemical analysis methods
in a laboratory (Figure 8). As in the case of the PMI measurements, filings should not be collected until
at least 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) of the pipe surface have been removed to minimize the effect of
decarburization. The procedure for collecting the filings is detailed in Attachment A). While the
procedure references a specific suggested volume of filings, the required amount of filings should be
verified with the specific laboratory that is performing the analysis.

While removing steel from the pipe surface would seem to be destructive in nature, it is rarely
necessary to remove a total of more than about 0.4-0.5 mm (16-20 mils) of the pipe surface (including
the initial removal of 0.25 mm (10 mils) to minimize the effects of decarburization) from an area about 6
inches in diameter to obtain enough material for analysis. A thickness reduction of 0.5 mm (20 mils)
from a pipe having a nominal original wall thickness of 4.78 mm (0.188) inches represents a localized
thickness reduction of only 10.6% of the wall thickness. The example below illustrates the effect of the
metal removal on the integrity of a hypothetical pipeline.

Pipe specification: API 5L X42

O.D.: 219 mm (8.625 in.)
Wall thickness: 4.78 mm (0.188 in.)
Diameter of metal loss: 152 mm (6 in.)
Depth of metal removal: 0.5 mm (0.02 in.)
Calculated failure pressure using the effective area method of RSTRENG: 114% SMYS

For the hypothetical example of removing filings from a thin wall pipe, no repair would be required other
than recoating the exposed steel since the failure pressure exceeds the SMYS. The same metal loss
on thicker wall pipe would be even less significant.

The surface area and depth of metal removal required to collect the required mass of steel filings for
analysis can be approximated from Equation 3.

Mreq / (16.39 cm3/in3 x 7.86 gm/cm3 )= L x W x d (3)

Where: Mreq = milligrams of filings required for analysis

L = length of area from which filings are removed (in.)
W = Width of area from which filings are removed (in.)
d = depth of removal (after removal of 10 mils) (mils)

Hardness Testing

Hardness testing on pipelines can be performed for a variety of purposes, including:

 Evaluating the acceptability of “hard spots” on pipe surfaces

 Checking weld heat affected zone hardness
 Checking ERW seams and other seams for evidence of effective postweld heat treatment
 Estimating tensile strength and lower bound yield strength

Hard heat affected zones can be subject to cracking from exposure to fluids containing H2S (i.e., “sour
service”) or from the combined presence of sufficient amounts of stress, hydrogen from welding, and
hard microstructures (i.e., “hydrogen cracking” or “underbead cracking”).

Several types of field-portable hardness testers are available for determining the acceptability of hard
spots, weld heat affected zones, or for determining the lower bound expected yield strength. However,
each hardness tester has its own strengths and limitations. For example, results from some hardness
test methods are significantly influenced by technique, material thickness, surface curvature and
surface preparation and may even be affected by residual magnetism, vibration, or temperature.7

One of the most obvious differences among different hardness test methods pertains to the volume of
the metal that is sampled by the indentation. The indentations produced by a telebrineller have a
spherical cap profile that may be a few millimeters across, thus making them suitable for measuring the
general hardness of an area, but unsuitable for measuring the maximum hardness of a weld heat
affected zone. In contrast, the pyramid shaped indentations associated with the ultrasonic compact
(UCI) method may be barely visible to the unaided eye (Figures 9 and 10).
Considerations in the selection of a specific test method for use in the field include:

 Test material thickness limits and need for thickness-related correction factors. This is
particularly applicable to the Leeb (ball rebound) hardness test method in which correction
factors for thickness are recommended for substrates less than about 22 mm (0.875 in.) thick,
and correction factors can be quite large for wall thicknesses less than about 8 mm (0.3 in.).
 Influence of residual magnetic fields, particularly for methods that rely on measurement of ball
rebound velocity.
 Ambient temperature limitations, especially for methods that use electronic equipment
 Effects of pipeline vibration
 Sensitivity to technician technique. Results from handheld probes, especially UCI hardness test
indentors can be sensitive to impingement angle (Figure 3).

The need for more precise surface preparation increases as indentation size decreases. For both the
Leeb ball rebound hardness test method and the UCI hardness test method ASME(2) CRTD Vol. 91
recommends a surface finish no coarser than 180 grit, obtained after use of a series of abrasive
sanding discs having successively finer abrasive grit size.7 Hardness test results most representative
of the “bulk” hardness of the pipe wall are obtained after removal of at least 0.01 inches of the pipe
surface so that the results are not influenced by surface decarburization. (Figure 4).

ASME CRTD Vol. 91 contains extensive information about hardness tester selection and use for
pipeline applications. However, the majority of the report and an accompanying Checklist for
technicians8 describes the process for using field hardness testing on randomly selected pipe joints to
estimate the lower bound yield strength of a pipeline segment. The relationship of base metal hardness
to ultimate tensile strength has been long recognized, but the relationship of hardness to yield strength
has only been more recently studied. Two ASME CRTDs have been issued describing the correlation
between Rockwell B hardness and predictions of lower bound yield strength for pipes meeting a
defined set of boundary conditions related to age, size, and strength.7,9] The correlations are applicable
to determining the lower bound yield strength of individual tested pipeline joints and, when combined
with a defined statistical analysis procedure and data from multiple pipe joints, the correlation can be
used to calculate the lower bound yield strength of a pipeline segment at a selected confidence level.
Converting measured hardness into estimates of yield strength is based on empirical data and requires
strict adherence to boundary conditions (pipe size, age, etc.) to ensure that the established relationship
of hardness to strength is applicable.9 Those boundary conditions include:

 Pipe diameter no smaller than 114 mm (4.5 in.) OD

 D/t no smaller than 20
 359 mpa (52 ksi) and lower specified minimum yield strength (SMYS)
 Pipe manufactured before 1980

In addition, when determining the lower bound yield strength for all pipe joints within a pipeline segment
based on random sampling of pipe joints, all of the joints within the segment must be from a single pipe
population having characteristics that meet the boundary conditions described above and also have no
evidence of being from different pipe lots. Reference 7 defines a pipe population or lot as a set of pipe
joints having the same size, age, seam type and source.

(2)
ASME International, Three Park Ave., New York, NY 10016-5990.
In-situ Metallography

In-situ metallography is a process of performing a modified version of a laboratory metallographic

sample preparation and examination under field conditions. Proper polishing and etching techniques
and interpretation of replicated surfaces is a key to success. One key difference between laboratory
and in-situ metallography is that laboratory procedures usually involve preparation and examination of
cross sectional views of a pipe wall, whereas in the field, the preparation and examination is performed
on the plane approximately parallel to and just slightly below the outside surface of the pipe. As a
result, through-thickness variations in the microstructure or crack morphology are not apparent in in-situ
metallographic results. For example, stress corrosion cracking can initiate at the base of a mill flaw that
causes a local stress concentration. However, the transition from mill flaw to SCC may be undetected
by metallographic examination of a prepared area that represents only a single plane parallel to and
just slightly below the pipe surface.

The pipe surface is prepared by wet grinding small areas (i.e., a few square inches) of the pipe surface
with a series of successively finer adhesive-backed abrasive discs mounted in a drill or similar power
tool. The grinding typically finishes with 600 grit abrasive. Following the use of the abrasive discs, the
surface is polished with one or more diamond abrasive pastes, typically ending with a particle size no
coarser than about 6 micron. A final polish is obtained using either finer diamond abrasives or alumina
slurry. In all polishing stages the abrasive is normally applied to a small cloth disc that is once again
mounted on and powered by a drill or similar power tool. During the grinding and polishing stages, care
must be taken to completely eliminate the scratches caused by the previous abrasive before
transitioning to the next finer abrasive. Remnants of inadvertent cold working (superficial smearing) of
the surface can be further minimized by etching the surface with nital or another etchant, followed by
repolishing with the finest abrasive, and then re-etching. Alternatively, surfaces may be electropolished
and then etched, although electropolishing can sometimes have a detrimental effect on some types of
inclusions.

After the final etching step, the surface can be viewed directly with a field-portable microscope, or the
topography of the etched surface can be replicated for viewing later at a laboratory (Figures 11 through
13). Replication can be performed by a few different methods. Acetate film tape can be softened with
acetone and then pressed against the etched surface and then peeled off when it rehardens after a few
minutes. Alternatively, a castable resin (example, Struers “RepliSet”(3) system of fast curing two-part
silicone rubber) or proprietary replica foil consisting of reflecting plastic film with self-adhesive backing
can be used to replicate the etched topography of the prepared surface. The tape or casting can be
transported to a laboratory and be viewed directly with a metallurgical microscope or can be coated
with vaporized carbon and viewed with a scanning electron microscope. Resolution to 0.1 microns is
achievable. Details of in-stu metallographic procedures are described in Reference 10.

The Question of Toughness

Toughness is a key input when determining the failure stress of planar flaws and in predicting leak
versus rupture behavior. While toughness is normally measured in various types of destructive fracture
toughness tests or Charpy impact tests, efforts to estimate toughness via in-situ nondestructive
measurements continues. Toughness is known to have qualitative relationships to pipe characteristics
that can be measured nondestructively, including chemical composition, microstructure, and grain size.
Quantitative relationships between composition and grain size in ferrite-pearlite steels have been
published, for example, Equation 4.11

TT = -19 +44(Si) + 7000(Nf0.5) + 2.2(P) – 11.5 (d.-0.5 ) . (4)

(3)
Trade name.
 Where TT = Charpy transition temperature (°C)
Si = silicon (%)
Nf = free nitrogen content (%)
P = phosphorous (%)
d = ferrite grain size (mm)

DNV(4) staff have observed that the relationship of toughness data to pipeline composition data derived
from OES analysis can be relatively consistent for pipes within a single population of pipe joints.
However, for other populations of pipe different relationships of toughness to composition appear to fit
better.

Methods based on the automated ball indentation (ABI) test technique have been described and
evaluated by various researchers and service providers.12 The ABI method is nondestructive and
capable of measuring data regarding true stress-true strain characteristics from which tensile properties
can be derived. More recent work has been aimed at demonstrating the ability to derive fracture
toughness properties as well. We have found no North American or European standard that covers the
use of ABI methods for measurement of tensile or fracture toughness properties.

The power generation industry has used small punch test (SPT) specimens to estimate tensile and
fracture toughness properties, but the procedures are not yet standardized by ASTM(5) or standards
organizations in the European Union. The specimens encompass a range of sizes and shapes, a
generally ranging in size from 3 to 10 mm (0.12 to 0.40 in.) in diameter and between 0.1 to 0.75 mm
(0.004 to 0.03 in.) thick.13 Although the specimen thickness is small, a considerable amount of the wall
thickness of a typical transmission pipeline could be affected by the machining operation that removes
the required material from which the specimen is made.

(4)
Det Norske Veritas (USA), Inc., 5777 Frantz Rd. Dublin, OH 43017.
(5)
ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
 Figure 3:Typical appearance of the outside
surface of seams made by A.O. Smith from
about 1928 through about 1932. (Scale in
Scratches inches)

Groove

Figure 1: Surface of continuous butt weld

seam pipe showing characteristic groove
and band of subtle scratches. (Scale in
inches)

Figure 4:Typical in-field use of portable OES

chemical analysis equipment.

1 in. (25mm)
Figure 2: Stamp marks near the end of a
seamless pipe identifying the manufacturer
as Youngstown Steel & Tube Co.
Figure 5: Areas on either side of a girth
Figure 7: Metallographic cross section
weld on 16 in. pipe prepared for hardness
testing and chemical analysis. Coating has through OES chemical analysis burn mark
been stripped and the steel cleaned to shiny on high carbon equivalent steel. Arrow
metal and at least 0.01 in. has been removed indicates the approximate extent of the heat
from the surface. Each area is affected zone
approximately six to eight inches long.

Figure 8: An example of a set-up for the

collection of steel filings used for chemical
analysis
Figure 6: Metallographic cross section
showing alteration of the near-surface
microstructure resulting from
decarburization of the steel during
processing at high temperatures.
 Figure 10: Magnified view of a normal UCI
hardness indentation (at left) and examples
of poor test technique (at right)

Figure 11: Image of a metallographic replica

showing significant microstructural
differences on either side of a linear
indication revealed by magnetic particle
inspection. The microstructural variations
indicate that the indication is a mill flaw,
rather than any form of in-service cracking
Figure 9: Pipe surface having small “puddle
weld” used to repair external corrosion (at
top), and the same area after polishing and
etching to show the weld heat affected zone
and being hardness testing using the UCI
test method (bottom). Two of the many
hardness indentations are circled.
 Figure 13: Oxide-filled intergranular cracks
Figure 12: A higher magnification example typical of microstructural replicas of high-
of microstructural variations typical of mill pH SCC. Note that the microstructure is
flaws. consistent on both sides of the cracking.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct examination offers the opportunity for learning much about the metallurgical characteristics of an
exposed pipeline in addition to characterizing in-service damage and coating degradation. Careful
visual examination by technicians trained to identify and interpret specific features combined with one
or more non-destructive analysis techniques can help pipeline operators validate uncertain pipeline
records and provide important data in the pipeline integrity management process.

REFERENCES

1. E. Sterrett, “Pipelines Across the Desert”, Welding Engineer Vol 34, No. 4, April, 1949
2. Anon., “Report of the Natural Gas Transmission Pipe Lines Committee”, Proceedings of the Thirty-
Sixth Annual Convention of the Pacific Coast Gas Association, Del Monte, California, September
10-13, 1929
3. J.F. Kiefner, E.B. Clark, History of Line Pipe Manufacturing in North America, CRTD Vol. 43, ASME
1996
4. Anon. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 Part 192 “Transportation of Natural and
Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards”, § 192.113 Longitudinal joint factor (E)
for steel pipe http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfr192_main_02.tpl September 27, 2012
5. W. E. Amend, “Vintage Girth Weld Assessment – Comprehensive Study”, PRCI contract PR-355-
094502 final report, March 5, 2010
6. K. Koppenhoefer “Factors Influencing Girth Weld Reliability in Older Pipelines”, PRCI contract PR-
185-9830, final report, October 31, 2003
7. E.B Clark, W.E. Amend, “Applications Guide for Determining the Yield Strength of In-Service Pipe
by Hardness Evaluation, Final Report”, CRTD -Vol. 91, (City, State: ASME) 2009
8. B. Amend, “Using Hardness to Estimate Pipe Yield Strength; Field Application of ASME CRTD -
Vol. 91”, Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012-90262 (City,
State: ASME)
9. D.A. Burgoon, O.C. Chang, et.al, “Final Report on Determining the Yield Strength of In-service
Pipe” CRTD -Vol. 57, (City, State: ASME), December 1999
10. ASTM E 1351 “Standard Practice for Production and Evaluation of Field Metallographic Replicas”.
(West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM)
11. B.L. Bramfitt, “Structure/Property Relationships in Irons and Steels”, Metals Handbook Desk
Edition, Second Edition, J.R. Davis, editor, 1998
12. K. Sharma, P.K. Singh, et al., “Application of Automated Ball Indentation for Property Measurement
of Degraded Zr2.5Nb” Journal of Minerals & Materials Characterization & Engineering, Vol. 10,
No.7, pp.661-669, 2011
13. J.R. Foulds, M. Wu, S. Srivastav, and C.W. Jewett, “Fracture and Tensile Properties of ASTM
Cross Comparison Exercise A 533B Steel by Small Punch Testing”, Small Speciman Test
techniques, ASTM STP 1329, W.R. Corwin, S.T. Rosinski, E. van Walle editiors, ASTM, 1998

ATTACHMENT 1
COLLECTION OF STEEL FILINGS FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

MATERIALS / TOOLS NEEDED

Sample container
Carbide burr
Electric or pnuematic drill with 3/8 inch chuck
Tools to remove pipe coating
Grinder or drill equipped with coarse to medium grit sanding disks (example: 40-100 grit)
File folder or similar stiff paper or cardboard approx. 12x 18 inches or larger (when opened flat)
Duct tape or similar
Safety glasses / goggles
Magnet
Plastic wrap or plastic bag

PROCEDURE
1. Strip coating from pipe in area approximately 1 ft x 1 ft located at approximately the 1:00 to 3:00
position
2. Use sanding disks or grinder to remove pipe coating residue and any other contamination from area
approx. 9 x 9 inches. Metal should be shiny with no specks of dirt, rust, oxide scale, paint, or other
foreign material present. For best results remove about 0.01 inches of thickness before starting the
collection of filings
3. Open the file folder and tape one 12-inch side of file folder to bottom of cleaned area on the pipe.
Run the tape along the entire edge of the folder. The open file folder should now be hanging down
from the pipe.
4. Fold the file folder in half to form a vee-shaped trough into which steel filings can fall
5. Use two pieces of tape (one on each side) to bridge across the two sides of the vee so that when
you let go of the file folder the “vee” shape still remains. The “loose” or unattached side of the file
folder will stand out from the pipe at about a 30-45 degree angle
6. Hold the drill against the cleaned pipe so that the direction of burr rotation will push the steel
shavings into the bottom of the vee-shaped file folder trough.
7. Use a drill speed which allows you to control the direction and distance that the steel shavings are
thrown. A burr RPM that is too fast will cause the chips to be flung past the collection trough.
8. Check the burr occasionally for evidence of chipped cutting edges. If the burr is chipped then
discard the filings, mount a new burr, and continue collecting filings
9. Peel the tape off the pipe while being careful not to spill the filings
10. Dump the filings into the sample container if no evidence of chipping is seen on the burr teeth.
11. Reattach the file folder as in step 3-5 and continue to collect filings.
12. Collect enough shavings to form a volume about as large as a stack of 3 nickels or more
13. Before submitting the filings for analysis, dump the filings on paper and drag a magnet wrapped in
plastic wrap through the filings to collect the steel and leave any dirt, paint chips, rust, behind. Pull
the magnet out of the plastic wrap. The filings will fall away into a sample vial. Repeat this cleaning
process until no evidence of nonmagnetic materials are left behind after dragging the magnet
through the filings and no foreign material is visible in the filings.