Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90120

CRACK ARREST TESTING OF HIGH STRENGTH STEELS

Andre Hasenhtl Salzgitter Mannesmann Forschung GmbH Duisburg, Germany

Marion Erdelen-Peppler Salzgitter Mannesmann Forschung GmbH Duisburg, Germany

Christoph Kalwa Europipe GmbH Mlheim, Germany

Martin Pant Europipe GmbH Mlheim, Germany

Andreas Liessem Europipe GmbH Mlheim, Germany

ABSTRACT Fracture propagation is a major concern for the safe operation of gas transmission pipelines. Ductile fracture resistance, which is required according to line pipe standards, is commonly assessed by Charpy impact testing. If fracture occurs during pipe operation, fracture propagation is required to appear in ductile manner. The prerequisite for this is the demonstration of sufficient shear fracture in the BDWT test and minimum required Charpy impact energy. A combination of both requirements ensures avoidance of brittle fracture as well as control of ductile fracture propagation. The experimental chain of evidence and the Battelle-Two-Curve (BTC) model which is the most widely applied model to predict resistance against fracture propagation have been developed on basis of welded pipes of grade X70. The model has been calibrated against test data obtained from pipes with Charpy impact energy values below 100 J. In recent years, new material concepts were developed to increase material strength and material toughness. On the one hand, increase in material toughness, which is evaluated by Charpy impact testing, is often achieved by an increase in crack initiation resistance. On the other hand, crack propagation resistance, which is determined by BDWT testing with an instrumented striker, can remain on the same level. Increased material toughness and crack initiation resistance can be manifested by incomplete fracture of Charpy impact specimens in the upper shelf (ductile fracture). Actual Charpy impact test standards for metallic materials do not coincide with each other regarding the validity of Charpy energy of unbroken specimens. Increased crack initiation resistance also affects fracture initiation mechanism in BDWT tests, leading to invalid test results according test standards. Invalidity can be expressed

by inverse fracture appearance. To avoid inverse fracture, crack initiation energy can be reduced by changing notch type and therefore changing the constraint in the root of the notch. BDWT test standards also do not agree with each other concerning allowable notch types. While the pressed notch type is the preferred one for low toughness steels and the Chevron notch type for higher toughness steels according some test standards, other test standards allow only for a pressed notch type. Being semi-empirical by nature, the BTC concept strongly depends on the input parameters derived from different material tests. Changing test conditions can have a direct impact on the assessment results.

INTRODUCTION The avoidance and control of fracture propagation is the main prerequisite for safe gas transmission pipeline operation. Consequently, the resistance against propagating fractures is one of the most important requirements. To date, this is ensured with BDWT and Charpy impact requirements which were developed from the mid 60s onwards. In the middle of the last century, the phenomenon of propagating fractures in gas pipelines was observed. In the beginning, these were brittle fractures indicating that the pipelines were operated below their ductile-to-brittle transition temperature. As brittle fractures propagate extremely fast, it is not possible to arrest them by intrinsic pipe properties. When measuring these pipe properties it is important to distinguish between small and full scale behaviour. Small scale specimens often represent structural or full scale properties

Copyright 2012 by ASME

inadequately; this becomes especially dangerous as the full scale behaviour is over-estimated. So, in the end, the task was to develop testing methods easy and fast enough to be utilised as standard production test methods that were capable of estimating representative full scale properties. In an intermediate step, the partial gas burst test or West Jefferson test was developed in which a single pipe length is pressurised with a mixture of mainly liquid and a small amount of gas (1). While this was shown to give a good reproduction of pipe properties in full scale tests it is clearly not suited for quality control in production. Decreasing scale once more, this goal was finally achieved with the Battelle Drop Weight Tear (BDWT) test that is a full wall impact test with a ligament much longer than that of the Charpy test specimen (2). Correlating full scale propagation and BDWT transition temperature, it was concluded that 85% shear area fracture in BDWT tests correspond to the fracture propagation transition temperature and were sufficient to ensure that the pipe would sustain a propagating brittle fracture. Some time later, operators and researchers observed propagating fractures that were not arrested by intrinsic pipe properties; in contrast to earlier times, these fractures propagated in ductile mode. Series of full scale fracture propagation tests were conducted to understand the problem and present a solution. The first test series were conducted by Battelle Institute, followed later by British Gas and others. On basis of these tests, a semi-empirical model named Battelle Two Curve model was developed which has remained the most widely used approach up to now (3). It is considered to yield reliable predictions when applied to material with properties close to those used for calibration of the model. Main input parameter for the resistance curve, besides pipe geometry and strength, is the material toughness represented by Charpy impact energy. The original limitations were toughness not exceeding 100J in CVN tests and material grades below X70. As development proceeded, and both strength and toughness increased, it became evident that the original model yielded unsafe predictions. Safety factors were applied for pipes of grade X80, which again worked within the given limitations for some time. Test standards were also revised, sometimes leading to degrees of freedom in test conditions that could potentially have influence on predictions of fracture arrest, especially in borderline conditions. Nowadays, with borders being touched once more, researchers around the world are working on a solution for these high strength pipelines operated beyond the border of the original crack arrest prediction model. A critical analysis of influence of testing parameters on test results as well as the potential of tests involved in the experimental chain to derive alternative parameters is presented in the following. TESTING ISSUES In order to determine fracture propagation characteristics of pipeline steels different tests, such as Charpy impact, BDWT and West-Jefferson tests, were performed. All tests were

performed on longitudinally welded pipes, manufactured by Europipe GmbH, Germany. For some of the test methods the influence of test conditions on test results are shown. Charpy impact testing Charpy impact testing for pipeline applications is commonly performed according to test standards ASTM A370 (4) (ASTM E 23 (5)) and ISO 148 (6). The standard full size specimen is (10 x 10 x 55) mm in size and a 2 mm deep notch is inserted according to both standards. Therefore, the initial ligament below the root of the notch is (8 x 10) mm. While the specimens are broken by an impact of a drive hammer with a striker of 8 mm radius according ASTM, ISO 148 allows also for testing with a 2 mm striker radius. Depending on striker radius, the constraint at the root of the notch is high or low; this can have a significant impact on resulting Charpy energies. For some materials, testing with 2 mm striker can lead to higher energies compared to test results from 8 mm striker as described in ISO 148 (6) and DIN EN ISO 148 (7). A comparison of Charpy energies, obtained by testing with both strikers at room temperature (upper shelf) is shown in Figure 1. Material tested was of API grade X100 and specimens were extracted from plate material in transversal direction. The results show a clear difference in Charpy energy between both strikers. In tendency, impact energies of specimens tested with 8 mm striker are higher. This result is contrary to the statement in test standards, where test results from 8 mm striker could be lower.
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 2 100% SA 100% SA 100% SA 100% SA 100% SA

Charpy energy [J]

n o t b r o k e n

n o t b r o k e n

n o t b r o k e n

n o t b r o k e n
3

n o t b r o k e n
4

n o t b r o k e n
5

n o t b r o k e n
6

specimen number 2mm striker radius 8 mm striker radius

Figure 1: Comparison Charpy energy striker radius room temperature Additionally to Charpy impact energies, shear area fractions (SA in Figure 1) were determined from fracture surfaces of broken specimens. It was pointed out, that incomplete fracture was observed on all specimens tested with 2 mm radius striker. Even one out of six specimens from test series with 8 mm radius striker was not broken. Incomplete fracture means, that energy consumption is not caused by crack initiation and propagation only, but also by plastic deformation and friction. Charpy energy of the non broken specimen (specimen 1) from test series with 8 mm striker radius is the second highest value from the complete test series. The consumed energy is higher than for most of the broken specimens, but in average within the scatter.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

500

Both test standards describe how to operate with unbroken specimens. ISO 148 (6) allows for taking into account energy values from unbroken specimens for reporting or averaging with broken specimens. According ASTM A 370 (4), if specimens exhibit incomplete fracture, they shall be reported as unbroken, except those unbroken specimens, which can be separated into two pieces by bare hands. Fracture velocity is very important for the resistance of ductile crack propagation. The effect of fracture resistance on ductile fracture propagation is discussed by Zhou, Wilkowski, Shim and Duan in (8) and (9). Fracture resistance curve can be determined based on BTC model calculations. The influence of Charpy energy Kv on resistance against ductile crack propagation is shown in Figure 2.
160

400

Charpy energy Kv, J

300

200

100

2 mm striker radius 8 mm striker radius broken unbroken

2 mm striker radius
-40 -30 -20 -10

8 mm striker radius
0 10 20 30

0 -100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

T, C

Figure 3: Comparison Charpy energy striker radius ductile to brittle transition A clear difference in Charpy energies between the two striker modifications was observed. Also in this test series, energy values obtained from testing with 8 mm radius striker are higher in the upper shelf. The difference between Charpy energies of both strikers is approximately 40% in respect to 8 mm values. For predictions of pipe behavior with BTC model significant differences would be expected. In general, for predictions of pipe behavior with BTC model, material toughness evaluated with Charpy impact testing is essential. Small differences in Charpy impact energies can lead to predictions of crack arrest or crack propagation.

140 120

velocity, m/s

100 80 60 40 20 0 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5

8

Kv+

decompression curve resistance curve, Kv=120 J resistance curve, Kv=143 J resistance curve, Kv=166 J

pressure, bar

Figure 2: Resistance curves for different CVN energies As shown in resistance curves, differences in Charpy energy have a direct impact on pipe resistance. Keeping internal pipe pressure constant and increasing Charpy energy leads to a shift of resistance curve to lower crack propagation velocity and therefore to higher probability of ductile fracture and crack arrest. While the red curve for Kv of 120 J shows crack propagation, the green curve, obtained from calculation with 166 J, predicts crack arrest. Therefore, 46 J difference can lead to dramatic impact on fracture resistance predictions. Test results, shown in Figure 1, were observed from Charpy impact testing even at room temperature. To determine the influence of striker radius on ductile to brittle transition curve, further testing was performed at certain test temperatures on pipe material of grade similar to API grade X80. The resulting Charpy energies are shown in Figure 3.

BDWT testing During BDWT testing, a specimen, prepared with a notch, is broken by an impact. The commonly used BDWT test standards for pipeline applications are API RP 5L3 (10) and EN 10274 (11). Both standards prescribe test conditions, determination of test results, demands for testing machine and specimen geometries. According to standards, specimen thickness shall contain the full wall thickness, but observing the standard, thickness reduction is also allowed in exceptional case. Hong et. al reported about the effect of specimen thickness on fracture modes in the DWT test (12). According test standard API RP 5L3 (10), crack initiation must occur in brittle manner, except those specimens, which exhibit 100 % ductile fracture. Therefore, the notch is claimed to ensure brittle crack initiation, with the exception explained above. One of the main differences between the standards is based on the allowed notch types. The notch type, allowed according both test standards is the pressed notch. This type of notch is prepared by pressing a chisel into the material. The notch is 5.10.51 mm deep and leads to embrittlement of the adjacent material by plastic deformation. The other notch type is the Chevron notch, which is described in API RP 5L3 (10). This notch is a machined one, increasing the constraint in the root of the notch to ensure brittle crack initiation. API test standard allows for the preparation of both notch types, while the pressed notch is the preferred one for lower toughness steels and the Chevron notch for higher

Copyright 2012 by ASME

toughness line pipe steels. Test standard EN 10274 (11) only allows for preparation of the pressed notch, machined notches are not allowed. In recent years, a lot of research groups reported about abnormal fracture occurring during BDWT testing of high toughness line-pipe steels (13)-(15). This abnormal fracture is not a new phenomenon, occurring on modern steels only. Already in nineteen eighties, abnormal fracture was observed on high toughness quenched and tempered steels (16). Abnormal fracture is characterized by the appearance of ductile crack initiation at test temperatures not in the upper shelf. Therefore, after ductile initiation, the crack changes to cleavage type of fracture propagation in some distance to the notch. Those tests are invalid according to API standard (10). Based on this, the Chevron notch was introduced in order to avoid abnormal fracture. During that time it worked fine, but on modern high strength pipe line steels, it is not always given. In EN 10074 (11) there is no restriction concerning the validity or invalidity of test results depending on crack initiation type. Up to now, the correlation between shear area fractions, obtained from invalid BDWT tests and from real pipe is not clearly given. According to API test standard (10), both notch types are equivalent. Therefore, the resulting amount in shear area fraction, which is the only characteristic value determined by BDWT testing according to test standards, should be equal for botch notch types. Assuming that the Chevron notch only decreases crack initiation energy, propagation energy should also be the same for botch notch types, resulting in equal shear area fractions. BDWT testing at certain test temperatures was performed according to test standard API RP 5L3 (10). Full wall thickness specimens were extracted from pipe material in transversal direction and gull flattening was applied. Specimens were prepared with both notch types, the pressed and the Chevron notch type. The drive hammer of the drop weight tear tester with an energy capacity of 105 kJ was instrumented with strain gages. Force-time records from instrumentation can be used to get additional information concerning total, crack initiation and propagation energy portions. Furthermore, a high-speed monitoring system was mounted to determine the deflection behavior of the specimens. Ductile to brittle transition was investigated, determining fracture surfaces in terms of ductile and brittle fracture portions. Specific energy portions were established dividing absolute energy values by the cross section of the initial ligament, assuming that crack initiation takes place at force maximum. Shear area fractions, determined from specimens tested at different temperatures, and therefore the ductile to brittle transition behavior of pressed and Chevron notch specimens are shown in Figure 4. Test material was of API grade X65 and the pipe dimensions were OD34 in. x WT1.5 in.

100

90 80

shear area fraction, %

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -70

Chevron pressed

TTpressed -14 C
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20

TTChevron 8 C
-10 0 10 20

temperature, C

Figure 4: BDWT shear area pressed and Chevron notch The ductile to brittle transition of the test material takes place in a nearly linear manner, even if the notch is of pressed or Chevron type. The transition curve of Chevron notch specimens is shifted to higher temperatures compared to pressed notch specimens. The DBTT, which is defined as the temperature where fracture surfaces exhibit 85% shear fracture, was determined to be approximately -14C for pressed and 8C for Chevron notch specimens and thus also shifted to higher temperatures by an amount 22 K. As it was observed from Pistone, Demofonti and Junker, transition temperature curve can also be shifted to lower temperatures by using Chevron notch type (17) as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, it is very important to take into account the influence of notch type for ductile to brittle transition temperature determination.
85% Sh ear Area Tran s. Temp ., C (PN)
-2 0 -2 5 -3 0 -3 5 -4 0 -4 5 -5 0 -5 5 -6 0 W N ( W T = 1 9 m m ) P II W N ( W T = 1 9 mm ) P I C N ( W T = 3 0 mm ) P II W N ( W T = 3 8 ,1 m m ) P I C N ( W T = 3 8 ,1 mm ) P I W N ( W T = 30 mm ) P I

W N ( W T = 3 0 m m ) P II

-6 0

-5 5

-5 0

-4 5

-4 0

-3 5

-3 0

-2 5

-2 0

8 5 % S h e a r A re a T ra n s . T e m p ., C (m o d ifie d n o tc h )

Figure 5: Comparison of transition temperatures for different notch types (17) Specific crack initiation energy, which is assumed to be lower for Chevron notch specimens, is shown in Figure 6. While the energy portion, consumed by crack initiation is linear decreasing with decrease in test temperature for pressed notch specimens, Chevron notch specimens exhibit very low and nearly constant initiation energy over the complete test temperature range.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

1000

specific initiation energy, J/cm

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -70

Chevron pressed

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

temperature, C

Figure 6: BDWT specific initiation energy pressed and Chevron notch Specific crack propagation energy portions are shown in Figure 7. Propagation energies of both notch types show a linear behavior, while specific propagation energies for Chevron notch type are lower in the upper shelf and in the ductile to brittle transition.
2400

specific propagation energy, J/cm

2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -70

Chevron pressed

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

temperature, C

Figure 7: BDWT specific propagation energy pressed and Chevron notch Differences in shear area fractions and in specific propagation energies fully agree to each other. One of the most important results is that the ductile to brittle transition behavior in BDWT test can vary depending on notch type. This can have a significant impact on transition temperature determination. Since transition temperatures observed from BDWT and WestJefferson tests agree for older materials, the correlation between fracture behavior in small and full scale testing is not fully understood for modern high strength pipe line steels and a current topic for many research groups around the world. Differences in fracture behavior of both notch types were also observed from the installed high speed monitoring system. Single event pictures of deflection behavior at room temperature are shown in Figure 8 for pressed notch and in Figure 9 for Chevron notch specimens, respectively.

9 Figure 8: BDWT temperature deflection pressed notch

10 room

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Therefore, before crack was initiating into this specimen, the deflection was huge and not detected with monitoring system. As shown in Figure 9, crack opening before initiation was observed until single event picture 3. In picture 4, a crack is initiated and propagating with further deflection. Crack initiation was observed to occur much earlier on Chevron notch specimens. Therefore, energy consumed by initiation process is much lower than for pressed notch specimens. On pressed notch specimens a huge energy amount is already consumed by deflection and therefore by plastic deformation. BDWT test results show a clear influence of the notch type on fracture characteristics. Ductile to brittle transition temperature was observed to be shifted to higher temperatures for Chevron notch specimens. Furthermore, specific crack initiation energies are very low and nearly constant over the complete ductile to brittle transition region. Pressed notch specimens show very late crack initiation and a lot of energy is consumed by the specimens before initiation takes place by plastic deformation. This plastic deformation leads to embrittlement of the ligament and therefore to abnormal fracture as described in (18) and (19). Therefore, the transition temperature can vary by means of degree only by changing the notch type according API test standard. Thus, while ductile crack propagation is predicted from BDWT testing on specimens with pressed notch, Chevron notch specimens could still predict ductile fracture amount, which is not sufficient. Because crack initiation resistance is high for modern high strength line pipe steels, Charpy impact energies are not suitable as input parameter for BTC model in any case. Therefore, some research groups developed models taking into account initiation and propagation energy portions from BDWT tests. Using them, predictions can be more reliable in terms of pipe behavior predictions in the case of high crack initiation resistance of the material (20). During a full scale fracture test on high strength pipe line steel beyond boundaries, which is described in more detail in (21), fracture arrest was predicted to occur in pipe with highest Charpy impact energy and propagation was predicted to occur in pipes with low Charpy impact energy (pipe5 in Figure 10). But contrary to predicted behavior fracture arrest occurred in pipe5, where Charpy impact energy is the lowest and specific total BDWT energy is the highest.

10

Figure 9: BDWT temperature

deflection

Chevron

notch

room

As shown in Figure 8, deflection occurring before crack initiation on pressed notch specimen is very tight. The notch, which can be seen on the lower side of the specimen, is opening during specimen deflection, but crack initiation cannot be seen until the notch is out of the visible region (single event picture 7). During further deflection, if a crack had initiated, it would have propagated into visible region. But no crack was observed until the propagation path is completely out of visible region.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

1200 1100

arrest arrest prop

600

340

550 500

specific total energy BDWT, J/cm

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

330

450

start
Charpy energy, J
320

fracture velocity, m/s

400 350 300 250 200 150 100

310

300

290

50 0

280

10

11

12

13

14

5
Charpy energy

measurement point

specific total energy BDWT

Figure 10: BDWT and CVN energies full scale fracture test The results shown above indicate that high Charpy impact energy values are not a warrantor for crack arrest in pipe. For the prediction of pipe behavior of modern high strength steels, energy portions, obtained from BDWT testing, may also be beneficial for prediction of pipe behavior. West-Jefferson testing West-Jefferson testing is commonly performed to investigate ductile to brittle transition behavior of a full length of pipe. Therefore, a pipe is filled with liquid, water for instance, and pressurized with gas. Tests are then performed at a test temperature close to design temperature of pipe line. A crack is inserted by explosive charge in the middle of the pipe and then propagates. Fracture surfaces are investigated in terms of ductile and brittle fracture portions. In the full scale test, a running ductile fracture can be arrested, if velocity of crack propagation is smaller than velocity of gas decompression. Therefore, the crack velocity is very important in terms of crack arrest ability of pipe under operating conditions. In WestJefferson tests, additional to shear area fraction determination, crack velocity can be measured by instrumentation of test pipe. As an example, Figure 11 and Figure 12 show such a measurement.
500

Figure 12: Fracture velocity measurement West-Jefferson test 2 Both West-Jefferson tests were performed under the same test conditions. Crack velocity in test1 (Figure 11) was lower than in test2 (Figure 12). The crack propagation path was longer in test2 and fracture surfaces exhibited a higher amount in brittle fracture. Therefore, crack velocity correlates with the observed fracture length and amount of brittle fracture. Furthermore, this results correlates with the results from full scale tests. The energy, consumed by crack propagation in West-Jefferson tests can be calculated from the crack velocity. As already applied by some research groups, crack velocity and energy values, obtained from West-Jefferson testing, can be used to decrease the effort in full scale testing (22). SUMMARY For the prediction of real pipe line behavior under operating conditions, small scale testing is performed to determine characteristic input values. For instance, Charpy impact testing is performed in order to evaluate material toughness. Furthermore, BDWT testing is performed to determine ductile to brittle transition temperature, which shows a good correlation to transition temperature obtained from West-Jefferson testing. In recent years, modern high strength pipe line steels exhibit test results, where the interpretation and the correlation to real pipe behavior are not clear. During Charpy impact testing, for instance unbroken specimens were observed due to high resistance against crack initiation. Charpy energies of those specimens consist of energy portions due to specimen deformation, friction and possibly small amount of crack propagation. Because Charpy impact energy is an important characteristic value for prediction of pipe line behavior, differences in Charpy energies lead to different predictions concerning resistance against fracture propagation in pipe. To now, the correlation between predicted (based on unbroken CVN specimens) and real fracture behavior of pipe is not clear. Since the development of the BDWT test in mid 60s, abnormal fracture was observed on different materials and grades. While the interpretation of those test results is unclear, commonly BDWT test standards do not coincide regarding the validity of specimens exhibiting abnormal fracture. According to API RP

450 400

fracture velocity, m/s

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

measurement point

Figure 11: Crack velocity measurement West-Jefferson test 1

Copyright 2012 by ASME

5L3 those tests are invalid. Up to now, the usability of specimens showing abnormal fracture and the correlation between transition temperature of those BDWT tests and WestJefferson tests is not clear. In future, the correlations between real pipe behavior and experimental test results should be proven for modern high strength pipe line steels. REFERENCES (1) Eiber, R. J., Fracture propagation; 4th Symposion on Line Pipe Research, Paper I, American Gas Association, Catalogue No 30075, November 1969 (2) Eiber, R.J., Correlation of full scale tests with laboratory tests; 3rd Symposion on Line Pipe Research, pp. 83118, American Gas Association, Catalogue No 30000, November 1965 (3) Eiber R. J., Bubenik T. A., Maxey W. A., Fracture control technology for natural gas pipelines, Technical Report PRCI PR-39113, NG-18, Battelle Memorial Institute, 1993. (4) ASTM A370, Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, 2011 (5) ASTM E23, Standard Test Method for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials, 2007 (6) ISO 148-1, Metallic Materials Charpy pendulum impact test Part 1: Test method, 2009 (7) DIN EN ISO 148-1, Metallic materials Charpy pendulum impact test Part 1: Test method (ISO 148-1:2009), German version EN ISO 148-1:2010 (8) Do-Jun Shim, Gery Wilkowski, Da-Ming Duan, Joe Zhou, Effect of fracture speed on ductile fracture resistance Part 1: Experimental, 8th International Pipeline Conference 2010, IPC2010-31310 (9) Da-Ming Duan, Joe Zhou, Do-Jun Shim, Gery Wilkowski, Effect of fracture speed on ductile fracture resistance Part 2: Results and application, 8th International Pipeline Conference 2010, IPC2010-31021 (10) API RP 5L3, Recommended Practice for Conducting Drop-Weight Tear Tests on Line Pipe, 3rd edition, American Petroleum Institut API 1996 (11) EN 10274, Metallic Materials Drop weight tear test; German version July 1999 (12) Seokmin Hong, Sang Yong Shin, Sunghak Lee, Nack J. Kim, Effect of specimen thickness and notch shape on fracture modes in the drop weight tear test of API X70 and X80 linepipe steels, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society and ASM International 2011, Volume 42A, September 2011 - 2619 (13) Byoungchul Hwang, Yang Gon Kim, Sunghak Lee, Nack J. Kim, Jang Yong Yoo, Effects of Microstructure on inverse fracture occurring during Drop-Weight tear testing of high-toughness X70 (14) Byoungchul Hwang, Sunghak Lee, Young Min Kim, Nack J. Kim, Jang Yong Yoo, Chong Soo Woo, Analysis of abnormal fracture occurring during drop-weight tear test of

high-toughness line-pipe steel, Materials Science and Engineering, A368 (2004), 18-27 (15) Ryuji Muraoka, Nobuyuki Ishikawa, Shigeru Endo, Joe Kondo, Evaluation for abnormal fracture appearance in drop weight tear test with high toughness linepipe, 21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2002-28183 (16) G. M. Wilkowski, W. A. Maxey, R. J. Eiber, Problems in using the Charpy, dynamic tear test and drop weight tear test for high toughness quenched and tempered steels, 1978 (17) Valentino Pistone, Guiseppe Demofonti, Gerd Junker, Transition temperature determination for thick wall line pipes, 3R international, 3/2000, P. 199204 (18) Kjell Olav Halsen, Espen Heier, Drop weight tear testing of high toughness pipeline material, International Pipeline Cinference 2004, IPC04-0609 (19) A. Hasenhtl, M. Erdelen-Peppler, T. Schmidt, Drop weight tear testing of seamless linepipe, 21st International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference ISOPE 2011 (20) Kei Misawa, Yasuhito Imai, Shuji Aihara, A new model for dynamic crack propagation and arrest in gas pipelines, 8th International Pipeline Conference, IPC201231475 (21) M. Erdelen-Peppler, H.-G. Hillenbrand. G. Knauf; Limits of existing crack arrest models, Pipeline Technology Conference, Ostend, 12-14 October 2009, Paper No 2009-116 (22) H. Makino, I. Takeuchi, M. Tsukamoto, Y. Kawaguchi, "Study on the propagating shear fracture in high strength line pipes by partial-gas burst test", ISIJ INT, 41(7), 2001, pp. 788794

Copyright 2012 by ASME