1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

EVALUATION OF LEAK/RUPTURE BEHAVIOR FOR AXIALLY PART-THROUGH-

WALL NOTCHED HIGH-STRENGTH LINE PIPES

Toshihiko Amano and Hiroyuki Makino
Corporate R&D Laboratories, Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd.
Amagasaki, Hyogo, JAPAN


ABSTRACT
Concerning the fracture assessment of high strength linepipes for
natural gas transportation, it is necessary to take into consideration not
only the crack arrestability of running ductile fractures but also the
characteristics of ductile fracture initiation from defects which can
cause fracture propagation. The original leak/rupture criteria proposed
by Kiefner et al. have been widely used in many industries and
worked well for ordinary grade pipes. However, as pointed out by D.-
J. Shim et al., recent modern line pipes have some unusual
characteristics that differ from older materials. Kawaguchi et al. also
revealed that the leak/rupture prediction using Charpy V-notch (CVN)
absorbed

energy-based equation was not applicable

to pipes having
CVN energy (C
v
) greater than

130 J and flow stress greater than X65.
To verify the leak/rupture criteria using CVN absorbed

energy-
based equation for high strength linepipes with higher Charpy energy,
hydrostatic burst tests were conducted for API 5L X100 linepipes with

an axial part-through-wall (PTW) notch. Based on the relationship
between the axial PTW notch length/depth and

hoop stress, Leak-
Before-Break

(LBB) criteria was experimentally determined. A series
of tests demonstrated that the CVN-based equation underestimates the
failure stress for X100 linepipes i.e., the predicted failure stress is
0.943 times the experiment on average and the flow stress dependent
equation has a tendency to overestimate the failure stress for longer
notched pipes. Concerning the leak/rupture behavior, it is observed
that the flow stress-dependent curve for through-wall (TW) notch
overestimates the leak/rupture boundary and the toughness-dependent
curve for TW notch is relatively close to the leak/rupture boundary.

INTRODUCTION
World energy demand has been continuously increasing alongside
world economic growth in the last few decades. There is now an
unprecedented focus on energy efficiency and lower carbon dioxide
emissions. Natural gas has the benefit of lower carbon dioxide
emissions and fewer pollutants than oil and coal in combustion. In
view of this, it is expected to increase its share as a primary energy
source.
High pressure gas transmission pipeline using high strength line
pipes is one of the main options for reducing total cost of supplying
gas to consumption markets. Recent progress in the technology such
as thermo-mechanical control process (TMCP) has allowed us to
obtain high-grade linepipes. Steel makers have successfully developed
high strength linepipes such as API 5L [1] X80, X100 and more [2, 3].
By improvement of steel quality the toughness of such pipes also has
been improved. X80 linepipes are already being used for gas pipelines
[4, 5].
Before high strength pipes can be used for gas transmission
pipelines, their structural reliability has to be clarified. In particular, the
toughness requirement for ductile fracture propagation should be
investigated. Concerning the fracture assessment of high strength
linepipes for natural gas transportation, it is necessary to take into
consideration not only the crack arrestability of running ductile
fractures but also the characteristics of ductile fracture initiation from
the defects which can cause fracture propagation. Fracture control is
concerned with designing a pipeline with a high tolerance to defects
introduced during manufacturing, construction and service; and
preventing or minimizing the length of long running fractures [6, 7]. A
failure caused by third-party mechanical damage resulting in notches
is one of the major concerns in maintaining gas pipeline integrity. The
fracture behavior of a damaged linepipe can be classified into three
fracture modes mainly based on the eventual ductile crack length in
general [6, 8]: Leak-Before-Break (LBB), rupture and running ductile
fracture (RDF).

Third-party mechanical
damage
Crack propagation or arrest
RUNNING DUCTILE
FRACTURE (RDF)
RUPTURE
Crack extension
LEAK
No axial crack extension
Fracture
Initiation
Control
Fracture
Propagation
Control

Figure 1 Fracture control for gas transmission pipeline

A fracture control for gas pipelines should consider two issues,
fracture initiation control and fracture propagation control. A running
ductile fracture can run for a long distance along a pipeline, from tens
to thousands of meters [7]. Fracture propagation control is achieved by
ensuring that the toughness of linepipe steel is sufficiently high to
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90216
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME
arrest propagating fractures. Running ductile fractures are prevented
by specifying a minimum toughness to ensure that a ductile fracture
can be arrested. The required toughness depends on the pipeline
geometry, the tensile properties, the type of backfill, and the
decompression characteristics of fluid.
In high population density areas, not only arrest but also leak
should be required. There are few reports [9, 10] on the evaluation of
the leak/rupture criteria for high-grade linepipes, although many
studies on the arrestability of running ductile fractures have been
published [11-13].
Kiefner/Maxey et al. of Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) [14,
15] have studied the leak/rupture behavior of axial through-wall and
surface flaws by conducting a large number of hydrostatic burst tests.
Based on the test results, they have developed semi-empirical
equations for predicting the ductile failure stress levels of through-wall
flaw and surface flaw pipes using flow stress, Charpy V-notch (CVN)
upper-shelf absorbed energy and the dimensions of linepipes. A CVN
energy-based equation, as proposed by Kiefner/Maxey, has been
widely used in many industries and worked well for ordinary grade
pipes. However, as pointed out by D.-J. Shim et al. [16], recent
modern line pipes with a higher CVN energy have some unusual
characteristics that differ from older materials.
Kawaguchi et al. [9, 10] reported the evaluation of leak/rupture
criteria for X60, X65, X80 and X100 linepipes having various levels
of CVN absorbed energies by conducting hydrostatic burst tests for
the pipes with an axial through-wall (TW) notch. They compared the
experimental leak/rupture boundary which represents the relationship
between the initial notch lengths and the maximum hoop stresses, to
the predicted leak/rupture criteria using CVN energy based equation.
They have clarified that the original CVN-based equation provided
inaccurate results for the high-strength materials and was not
applicable

to the pipes having CVN energy greater than

130 J and the
flow stress greater than X65. In addition, they conducted instrumented
Charpy impact tests and static 3-point bending tests to evaluate the
difference of characteristics of notch ductility between dynamic and
static fracture toughness, and a modified equation was proposed for
reasonable prediction of the leak/rupture criteria for X80 and X100
linepipes with a higher CVN energy [10].
D.-J. Shim et al. [16] have reviewed available models for
predicting the failure behavior of axial through-wall and external
surface cracked pipes. They have also investigated the applicability of
these models to high strength linepipe materials using recent
hydrostatic burst test results. Based on the analyzed results, they
identified the shortcomings of these models. They concluded that the
major shortcomings were related to the characterization of the material
toughness for both through-wall and surface cracks. However, as D.-J.
Shim mentioned in the paper, these findings were based on limited
data from a few through-wall cracked pipes and a very few surface
cracked pipes. More experimental data is needed to investigate the
characterization of the material toughness and identify a reasonable
model which can predict the failure behavior of axial-flaw pipe for
high-strength line-pipe materials.
In the present study, hydrostatic burst tests were conducted for
API 5L X100 linepipes with

an axial part-through-wall (PTW) notch
and without

an axial surface notch to verify the leak/rupture criteria
using CVN absorbed

energy-based equation for high strength linepipes
having higher charpy energy. From the relationship between the axial
PTW notch length/depth and

the hoop stress, the leak/rupture criteria
is experimentally determined. The experimentally obtained plane-
stress strain energy release rate or critical stress intensity factor, which
represents actual fracture initiation resistance for pipes, is then
compared to the CVN absorbed energy. The applicability of the CVN-
based equation to the recent line pipes is discussed.

PREDICTION OF FAILURE HOOP STRESS BY CVN-
BASED EQUATION FOR LINEPIPES HAVING AXIAL
FLAWS

CVN-based equation for axial through-wall crack in
pipe [14, 16]
The CVN-based equation proposed by Kiefner/Maxey et al. of
BMI [14] was originally developed from Dugdale plastic-zone
correction solution [17] for an infinite-width flat plate. The solution
was first developed for axial through-wall flaws and then empirically
modified for axial surface flaws [7]. A pipe having an axial crack has
a higher crack-driving force than a cracked flat plate due to outward
pipe bulging. For the axial crack in a pipe, the Folias bulging factor,
M
T
[16] was introduced and the crack driving force was modeled as
shown in Equation (1).

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
flow
h T
flow
c
M
sec ln
c
K
o
o t
o
t
2 8
2
2

(1)
where,
K
c
= critical plane-stress stress intensity factor ( m MPa ),
c = half length of an axial through-wall crack length (m),
M
T
= Folias bulging factor for a through-wall axial crack,
o
h
= hoop stress at failure (MPa), and
o
flow
= flow stress of a material (MPa).

In this study, flow stress is defined as the average between yield stress
and tensile strength of a material [18]. The Folias bulging correction
factor was then updated to be valid for longer crack lengths as shown
in Equation (2) [9, 14].

4 2
0135 0 255 1 1
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
Rt
c
.
Rt
c
. M
T

(2)

Where, R is outside radius of a pipe. The limit of the updated Folias
bulging correction factor (Equation (2)) corresponds to a Rt c value
of approximately 4.4 when v=0.3. Hoop stress, o
h
is obtained from the
internal pressure of a pipe and the pipe dimensions, as shown in
Equation (3).

t
' PR
h
= o

(3)
where,
o
h
= hoop stress of a pipe (MPa),
P = internal pressure of a pipe (MPa),
R = mean radius of a pipe (mm) (= (D-t)/2),
t = wall thickness of a pipe (mm), and
D = outer diameter of a pipe (mm).

To use CVN absorbed energy as fracture resistance for a ductile
fracture, Maxey et al. [14, 15] have empirically correlated K
c
and
CVN absorbed energy, C
v
. This empirical relationship is given in
Equation (4).

3 Copyright 2012 by ASME
c
v c
c
A
C
E
K
G ~ =
2

(4)
where,

G
c
= plane-stress strain energy release rate (J/mm
2
),
E = elastic modulus (MPa),
C
v
= Charpy V-notch absorbed energy (J), and
A
c
= fracture area of Charpy V-notch specimen (mm
2
).

Combining Equation (4) with Equation (1) gives Equation (5).

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
flow
h T
c
v
flow
M
sec ln
A
C
c
E
o
o t
o
t
2 8
2

(5)


Equation (5) is the CVN-based equation to estimate hoop stress for
leak/rupture criteria for axially notched linepipes. This equation is a
function of the pipe dimensions such as D and t, the flow stress, o
flow
,
the CVN absorbed energy, C
v
, and the Folias bulging correction
factor, M
T
.

CVN-based equation for axial part-through-wall crack
in pipe [14, 16]
Kiefner/Maxey et al. have also proposed the predicted model for
an axial part-through-wall cracked pipe. They empirically determined
a modification to the Folias through-wall-crack bulging factor for a
constant-depth surface crack. This modification is shown in Equation
(6).

( )
t d
t M d
M
T
p

=
1
1

(6)

where,
M
p
= surface-crack bulging factor,
M
T
= through-wall-crack bulging factor,
d = depth of the surface crack (mm), and
t = pipe wall thickness (mm).

The surface-crack length is accounted for by using it in the M
T
term.
The M
p
term is then used instead of M
T
in Equations (1) or (5) to
predict the pressure at which the surface crack breaks through the
thickness.

CVN-based equation for axial through-wall crack
modified by Kawaguchi [10]
Kawaguchi et al. [9, 10] performed hydrostatic burst tests of
pipes with an axial through-wall crack. The pipes tested ranged from
X60 to X100 where the full-size Charpy energy ranged from 33 J
(24.3 ft-lb) to 287 J (211.6 ft-lb). The burst pressures, i.e., maximum
hoop stresses, measured from the tests were compared with that
predicted from Equation (5). These results demonstrated that Equation
(5) overestimates the leak/rupture criteria for pipes with relatively
high CVN energy. In order to clarify this difference, Kawaguchi
investigated the validity of the empirical correlation between G
c
and
C
v
, i.e., Equation (4), for pipes with relatively high CVN energy.
Kawaguchi also investigated the effect of flow stress and concluded
that the original CVN-based model is not applicable for pipes with
CVN energy higher than 130 J (95.9 ft-lb) and flow stress greater than
X65.
In order to further investigate why Equation (4) was not valid for
pipe materials with CVN energy higher than 130 J (95.9 ft-lb),
Kawaguchi conducted instrumented Charpy tests for all pipe materials.
Based on these observations, Kawaguchi suggested that it might be
more appropriate to use the absorbed energy up to the onset of ductile
cracking as a parameter to characterize the material fracture initiation
toughness. For this purpose, he conducted static three-point bend tests
using Charpy specimens and determined the load-point displacement
at crack initiation as the critical load-point displacement. The static
absorbed energy for ductile crack initiation (C
vs,i
) was determined as
the area under the curve up to the critical load-point displacement. The
correlation between static absorbed energy for ductile cracking and G
c

was determined. Using this correlation, the original CVN-based model
was modified, as Equation (7).

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
flow
h T
c
i , vs
flow
M
sec ln
A
C .
c
E
o
o t
o
t
2
5 4
8
2

(7)

where, stress, length and CVN are in MPa, m and Joule, respectively.

Besides the above, there are J-T analysis based models [19, 20]. D.-
J. Shim et al. [16] have reviewed available J-T analysis based models,
such as the Battelle J-T analysis method, the GE/EPRI method [21],
the ductile flaw growth model (DFGM) [22] and the CorLAS model
[23]. They have also investigated the applicability of these models to
high strength linepipe materials using hydrostatic burst test results
reported by Tokyo Gas Co. and Centro Sviluppo Materiali (CSM). As
a follow up, D.-J. Shim et al. identified the shortcomings of these
models. See Reference [16] for details.

MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Material
The material used in this study is API 5L [1] X100 grade
submerged arc-welded (SAW) linepipe steel manufactured by thermo-
mechanical control process (TMCP). The nominal outer diameter
(OD) and the nominal wall thickness (WT) of the test pipes are 914.4
mm (36 in.) and 19.1 mm, respectively. Nine pieces of X100 grade
linepipe were prepared for the hydrostatic burst tests. Table 1
summarizes the major chemical composition of the test pipes and
Figure 2 shows the microstructure revealed by nital etching.

Table 1 Major chemical composition of the test pipes.

20m

Figure 2 Microstructures of the test pipe by nital etching.
Grade Major chemical composition (mass %)
C Si Mn P S
X100 0.07 0.1 1.84 0.006 0.0005
4 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Mechanical properties
Table 2 shows the mechanical properties of the base metal of the
test pipes. The yield stress, o
y
, and the tensile strength, o
T
, in Table 2
were obtained from API 5L round-bar specimens with 8.9 mm
diameter in the transverse direction. The material strength is well
above the minimum required yield value for the API 5L X100. All the
pipes exhibit tensile properties with a marked uniformity in terms of
yield and tensile strength as well as yield to tensile ratio. The round-
bar test results are used for the evaluation in this study, because these
results represent the exact tensile properties of the linepipe materials.
Table 2 also shows the fracture toughness of the base metal of the
test pipes. The CVN energy was measured with full-size V-notched
specimens (10 x 10 x 55 mm) in the T-L direction at 10C. The shear
fracture areas (S. A.) of CVN impact tests were 100 % for all the
specimens. It is noted that all the pipes exhibit similar CVN energies
except for the W1 pipe. The average Charpy absorbed energy value of
the W2 to W9 pipe is 249 J and the maximum scatter value is about 4
J (1.6 %). In consideration of the CVN impact tests, the hydrostatic
burst test without

notch was conducted for the W1 pipe to verify
internal pressure containment integrity. On the other hand, the W2 to
W9 pipes were used for evaluation of the leak/rupture criteria. The
DWTT specimens with a size of 76.2 x 305 x 20 mm in T-L direction
were prepared in accordance with the API RP 5L3 specifications [24],
and then a pressed notch or a static pre-crack (SPC) was introduced into
them. The cracks were introduced statically by three-point bending in the
standard DWTT specimen with press notch. These specimens were
tested at a temperature of 10 C. The shear fracture areas of the DWTT
were 100 % for all the specimens.

Table 2 Mechanical properties of the base metal
of the test pipes
(a) Tensile properties

(b) Fracture toughness

Hydrostatic burst test without notch
In order to verify internal pressure containment integrity,
hydrostatic burst tests were conducted for the W1 pipe without notch
at Sumitomo Metal Industries (SMI)s burst test facility. SMI have in-
house facilities to perform burst testing of pipes. Figure 3 shows the
burst test site with test pipe.
The elongation meters were put on three cross-sectional surfaces
of the test pipe at intervals of 2000 mm pipe length to record
circumferential elongation change during the test. The overall length
including end caps and sleeve pipes is approx. 10.2 m (approx. 11 D).
The pipes were pressurized with water at room temperature until
failure occurred. The internal pressure change until bursting was
measured by a pressure transducer. A video recording was also made.
All measured data are available as digital data.

Hydrostatic burst tests with axial PTW notch
Eight full-scale hydrostatic burst tests were conducted for the
linepipes with an axial PTW notch to reveal the relationship between
the initial notch length/depth and maximum hoop stress during the
burst tests. Figure 4 illustrates the cross section of the axial PTW
notch machined at the center of the pipe. The axial PTW notch was
induced using electric discharge machining (EDM). The axial length
and the depth of the EDM notch are summarized in Table 3. The depth
of the notch is measured for six locations at equal intervals using the
vernier caliper before a burst test. The wall thickness values of the test
pipe are also summarized in Table 3. Before machining the notch, the
wall thickness was measured for eight points whose locations are in
consistency with the notch depth measurements. Additionally, the wall
thicknesses of three cross-sectional surfaces at intervals of 2000 mm
pipe length were measured at seven positions excluding the
longitudinal welded portion. As a result, it was confirmed that there is
no difference between the wall thickness of the notch location and
cross-sectional surface.
The axial length of the notch was 560 mm for the W2, W3, W4
and W5 pipes, and 280 mm for the W6, W7, W8 and W9 pipes. End
caps and sleeve pipes were then welded to both ends of the pipe to
have the overall length of approx. 10.2 m, which is greater than 10 D.
After the welding, the pipe was hydraulically pressurized until
bursting at an ambient temperature.
During the burst tests, the internal pressure of the pipe and the
crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) of the PTW notch in
circumferential direction were recorded. To obtain crack extension
velocity on the occurrence of rupture for the PTW notch tests,
conductive wires covered with paper were glued with adhesive onto
the test pipe.


Figure 3 Burst test site with test pipe.


Pipe ID oy (MPa) oT (MPa) EL (%) Y/T (%)
X100-W1 792 854 20.0 92.8
X100-W2 779 843 21.1 92.4
X100-W3 775 847 20.6 91.5
X100-W4 775 840 21.5 92.3
X100-W5 775 840 21.5 92.3
X100-W6 771 834 21.2 92.4
X100-W7 770 841 21.0 91.6
X100-W8 779 846 21.8 92.1
X100-W9 770 841 21.0 91.6
Ave. 776 843 21.1 92.1
Pipe ID
Absorbed energy at +10 deg. C
Full-size CVN
(J) [S.A.%]
PN-DWTT
(J) [S.A.%]
SPC-DWTT
(J) [S.A.%]
X100-W1 221 [100] 8875 [100] 4372 [100]
X100-W2 249 [100] 8778 [100] 4805 [100]
X100-W3 251 [100] 8336 [100] 4441 [100]
X100-W4 247 [100] 9405 [100] 4531 [100]
X100-W5 247 [100] 9405 [100] 4531 [100]
X100-W6 249 [100] 9076 [100] 4996 [100]
X100-W7 249 [100] 9409 [100] 5091 [100]
X100-W8 249 [100] 9704 [100] 4987 [100]
X100-W9 249 [100] 9409 [100] 5091 [100]
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 4 Schematic illustrations for the axial PTW notch.
(units in mm)

Table 3 Measured values of wall thickness and PTW notch
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Internal pressure containment integrity
The result of the hydrostatic burst test without notch for the W1
pipe is summarized in Table 4, with respect to the burst pressure, the
deformability and the fracture initiation. The burst pressure was 35.1
MPa (5.09 ksi). It was confirmed that the fracture stress is 823 MPa
(119 ksi) and it is above SMTS (=760 MPa or 110 ksi). Experimental
evidences reveal that crack initiated and propagated at base metal
(BM) located near to the weld toe in a ductile manner.
The deformability of the tested pipe was evaluated for uniform
elongation and water volume change. The uniform elongations during
the test were measured three cross-sectional surfaces of the test pipe at
intervals of 2000 mm pipe length. Uniform elongation was defined as
the elongation at the maximum pressure. The uniform elongation at
the location nearest to the crack initiation, which is 1010 mm away
from the crack initiation, was 0.68 %. The injected water volume
during the test was 2.92 % of the initial water volume.
The accurate prediction of burst limit states is essential for safe
design and integrity assessment. The burst pressure was predicted by
Zhu & Leiss model [25, 26] and Barlows model [25]. In Barlows
model, the tensile strength in Table 2, the wall thickness in Table 3 and
nominal outside diameter are used. The predicted burst pressure is
38.0 MPa (5.51 ksi) for Zhu & Leiss model and 35.7 MPa (5.18 ksi)
for Barlows model. The Barlows model, which is a simplified
equation, is in close agreement with the experimental result. On the
other hand, the Zhu & Leiss model overestimates (8%) the burst
pressure in this study.

Table 4 Summary of the test result for W1 pipe
*Near weld toe

Results of hydrostatic burst tests with axial PTW
notch
Figure 5 shows a typical fractured pipe after the hydrostatic burst
test with PTW notch. In the case of rupture, axially extended ductile
crack and outward bulging are observed as shown in Figure 5 (a). This
figure also shows the fracture surfaces. A ductile crack was initiated
from the initial PTW notch and grew in the direction shown by the
arrow. On the other hand, in the case of leak, there is no crack
extension and only a little bulging is observed as shown in Figure 5
(b).


(a) Rupture


(b) Leak
Figure 5 Fractured pipes after the burst test.

Predicted failure stress using the CVN-based equation (Equation
(5) and M
p
instead of M
T
) is compared with the experimental results in
Figure 6. In this figure, the x-axis represents the initial PTW notch
length and the y-axis represents the normalized stress (o
h
/o
flow
). The
circles and the solid curves represent the experimental results and the
predicted failure stress, respectively. Here, the hoop stress at
failure, o
h
, is calculated from Equation (3) and the wall thickness is
used the average value obtained from Table 3. The flow stress is
calculated as the average between yield stress and tensile strength. The
burst pressures for W2 to W9 pipes obtained from the tests are
summarized in Table 5. As shown in Figures 6 (a) and (b), the hoop
stress decreases as the PTW notch length increases. This is due to the
fact that the degree of strain concentration becomes higher for longer
axial notched pipes when the same hoop stress was applied.


Table 5 Summary of the test result for axial PTW notched pipes



Pipe ID t (mm) 2c (mm) d (mm) d/t (-)
X100-W1 19.13
X100-W2 19.39 560 12.62 0.651
X100-W3 19.18 560 14.56 0.759
X100-W4 19.20 560 15.17 0.790
X100-W5 19.20 560 15.44 0.804
X100-W6 19.20 280 13.31 0.693
X100-W7 19.32 280 14.20 0.735
X100-W8 19.18 280 15.25 0.795
X100-W9 19.28 280 16.98 0.881
Pipe ID
Burst
pressure,
Pb (MPa)
Uniform
elongation,
(%)
Water
Volume change,
(%)
Fracture
initiation
X100-W1 35.1 0.68 2.92 BM*
Burst pressure (MPa)
W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8 W9
13.10 9.69 8.36 7.67 17.39 14.80 12.44 8.28
6 Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 7 compares the actual measured and the predicted failure
stress using the CVN-based (toughness dependent) equation and flow
stress dependent equation. The flow stress-dependent equation is given
in Equation (8) as the failure curves.


(8)


The solid line in Figure 7 shows the 1:1 values, and the dashed
lines show 10 % from the 1:1 values. The predicted failure stress by
the toughness dependent equation is 0.94 times the experiment on
average and the standard deviation is 3.0 %. On the other hand, the
predicted failure stress by the flow stress dependent equation is 1.03
times the experiment on average and the standard deviation is 8.5 %. It
is shown that the CVN-based toughness dependent equation slightly
underestimates the failure stress for all the tested X100 pipes. On the
other hand, the flow stress dependent equation has a tendency to
overestimate the failure stress for longer notched pipes, i.e., the notch
length of 2c = 560 mm. This indicates that there is a difference
between the experimental bulging and the bulging correction factor in
Equation (6). Therefore, it is needed to investigate bulging correction
factor for improving the accuracy of failure stress prediction.

Validation of leak/rupture criteria by original surface
flaw model
Battelle surface flaw model is illustrated in Figure 8, as a plot of
o
h
/o
flow
versus d/t. The failure curves in this figure were assumed to
extend from a normalized hoop stress value of 1.0 for a pipe without a
defect (d/t = 0) to a normalized hoop stress value of zero for a
through-wall defect (d/t = 1.0). Since the tested X100 pipes have high
toughness values, flow stress-dependent predictions are applicable by
simplifying the CVN-based equation. Kiefner et al. [14] have shown
that the hoop stresses for TW notched pipe become dependent on the
flow stress of the pipes and the bulging correction factor, irrespective
of the CVN energy, with the increasing value of C
v
/o
flow
2
.
The data for nine experiments which includes both the result of
unflawed pipe and those of axial PTW flawed pipe are plotted in
Figure 8. It is noted that the flow stress for unflawed pipe (W1) is
consistent with that for axial PTW flawed pipe (W2 to W9) because
all the pipes exhibit tensile properties with a marked uniformity as
shown in Table 2. It is seen that the data for the crack length 2c = 280
mm lie closer to the corresponding curve. On the other hand, the data
for the crack length 2c = 560 mm lie slightly below the corresponding
curve because the behavior of surface flaws becomes increasingly
Figure 6 Comparison of experimental results and Battelle CVN-based prediction for axial part-through-wall notched pipe.
200 300 400 500 600 700
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Initial notch length, 2c (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
r
i
z
e
d

h
o
o
p

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

h
Battelle CVN-based equation
Experiment
/

f
l
o
w
d=12.62, 14.56,
14.17 and 15.44 mm
200 300 400 500 600 700
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Initial notch length, 2c (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
r
i
z
e
d

h
o
o
p

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

h
Battelle CVN-based equation
Experiment
/

f
l
o
w
d=13.31, 14.20,
15.25 and 16.98 mm
(a) 2c=560 mm (b) 2c=280 mm
Figure 7 Relationship between the experimental and the predicted failure stress.
(a) CVN-based (toughness dependent) equation (b) Flow stress dependent equation
100 200 300 400 500
100
200
300
400
500
Actual failure stress, MPa
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
1:1 line
2c=560mm - flow stress dependent
2c=280mm - flow stress dependent
+10 %
-10 %
100 200 300 400 500
100
200
300
400
500
Actual failure stress, MPa
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

M
P
a
1:1 line
2c=560mm - toughness dependent
2c=280mm - toughness dependent
+10 %
-10 %
T
flow
h
M
o
o =
7 Copyright 2012 by ASME
toughness-dependent with increasing crack length in much the same
manner as in the case of through-wall flaws [7]. The dashed line
separates leak and rupture, with leaks below and ruptures above the
line. It can be seen that flow stress-dependent prediction overestimates
leak/rupture criteria compared to the results in this study. As
mentioned above, the accuracy of the flow-stress dependent equation
is affected by not only inherent material toughness but also the
bulging correction factor, i.e., the flaw size, pipe geometry. The flow
stress dependent equation and the toughness dependent equation
predict the different failure stress as shown in Figure 7 (a) and (b).

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
d/t
N
o
r
m
a
r
i
z
e
d

h
o
o
p

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

h
Experiment (RUPTURE)
Experiment (LEAK)
/

f
l
o
w
2c=280mm
2c=560mm
L
e
a
k

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

Figure 8 Relationship between the experimental and the
predicted failure stress using flow stress dependent equation.

Figure 9 shows the relationship between the experimental results
and the leak/rupture criteria, as a plot of o
h
/o
flow
versus 2c. The dashed
line and the dashed-dotted line, which separate leak and rupture,
represent the toughness-dependent curve calculated using CVN-based
equation for TW notch (Equation (5)) and the flow stress-dependent
curve for TW notch, respectively. Based on both flow stress-
dependent curve and toughness-dependent curve for TW notch, the
leak/rupture criteria in these tests are verified. It is assumed that the
remaining ligament of PTW notch is severed and the notch turns into
the TW notch when failure occurred. What follows is either a leak if
the stress level, o
h
/o
flow
, is below the critical level for that length TW
notch or a propagating rupture if it is above the critical level.
Therefore, in the case of flow-stress dependent prediction, for
example, the surface flaw will leak if the experimental failure stress is
less than M
T
-1
o
flow
and rupture if the experimental failure stress is
greater than or equal to M
T
-1
o
flow
. As shown in Figure 9, it is observed
that the flow stress-dependent curve for TW notch overestimates the
leak/rupture boundary and the toughness-dependent curve for TW
notch is relatively close to the leak/rupture boundary.
In the present study, based on the hydrostatic burst tests with

an
axial PTW notch and without

an axial surface notch, the leak/rupture
criteria was experimentally determined. Figure 10 shows the
leak/rupture criteria obtained from hydrostatic burst tests. The K
c

value obtained from Equation (1) is 685 MPa m. As shown in Figure
10, if both the burst pressure of pipe without surface crack and the
maximum hoop stress at which leak occurs are experimentally
determined, it is possible to estimate the flaw size tolerance of the
pipes in the arbitrary design coefficient or operating pressure.
200 300 400 500 600 700
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Initial notch length, 2c (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
r
i
z
e
d

h
o
o
p

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

h
Flow stress-dependent curve for TW notch
Toughness-dependent curve for TW notch
Experiment (LEAK) Experiment (RUPTURE)
/

f
l
o
w

Figure 9 Relationship between the experimental results and the
leak/rupture criteria for through-wall notched pipe.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Initial notch length, 2c (mm)
N
o
r
m
a
r
i
z
e
d

h
o
o
p

s
t
r
e
s
s
,

h
Experiment (RUPTURE)
Experiment (LEAK)
/

f
l
o
w
D
e
s
i
g
n

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,

%

Battelle's toughness-dependent craiteria
(Kc=685 MPa-m )
Flow stress-dependent criteria
(Kc=)
0.5

Figure 10 Leak/rupture criteria obtained from
hydrostatic burst test.

Applicability of correlation between C
v
and G
c
value
Figure 11 shows the correlation of full-size CVN absorbed
energy with G
c
value calculated from K
c
. The x-axis represents the
C
v
/A
c
value where A
c
is the fracture area of 80 mm
2
for a full-size
Charpy V-notch specimen, and the y-axis represents G
c
value obtained
from K
c
using Equation (4). The 1:1 slope line represents an empirical
correlation in Equation (4). The original data by Maxey et al. [7, 14]
and the experimental results for high-strength linepipes by Kawaguchi
et al. are collectively shown in this figure. If the linear correlation
between G
c
and C
v
/A
c
is valid, the experimental results should be
located close to the 1:1 slope line. In a previous study, Kawaguchi et
al. [9, 10] revealed that the linear correlation (Equation (4)) had a
limitation and that it was valid for pipes with CVN energy less than
approx. 130 J. It can be seen that the data for below 130 J coincide
with the 1:1 slope line. On the other hand, the data for above 130 J, i.e.,
the results of TMCP steel by Kawaguchi, deviate from the line. The
results from this study are also shown in this figure. The results of the
W5 pipe (2c = 560 mm, o
0
/o
flow
= 0.23) and the W7 pipe (2c = 280
mm, o
0
/o
flow
= 0.43) are shown as representative of all the test results
in this study. It can be seen that the PTW notch test results in this
study clearly deviate from the line in the same way as the results of
TMCP steel by Kawaguchi. The non-linearity of the correlation
between G
c
and C
v
/A
c
indicates the CVN-based equation is not
8 Copyright 2012 by ASME
applicable for relatively high CVN energy pipes. The experimental
results in this study confirm limitation and the inapplicability of the
Battelle CVN-based equation to high CVN energy pipes.
Note that, in this study, the leak/rupture criteria for X100
linepipes were determined from the experimental results of the
hydrostatic burst tests with PTW notch. Therefore, the findings in this
paper may be limited to these test data. However, it was clarified that
the Charpy-based equation and the linear correlation of full-size
Charpy absorbed energy with G
c
are not applicable to high-strength
linepipes having higher Charpy energy. Further investigation is needed
in order to identify a reasonable model predicting the failure behavior
for high-strength linepipes with high Charpy energy. Alternatively,
various J-T analysis based models were proposed in the previous
paper [16, 20]. The correlation between Charpy energy and J-R curve
will be investigated in the future. FE analysis will also be conducted to
evaluate the applicability of J-T analysis based models to high-
strength linepipes with high Charpy energy.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
Cv / Ac x 10
-6
G
c

x

1
0
-
6
1:1 line
Maxey et al. [14]
Kawaguchi et al. (CR steel) [9]
Kawaguchi et al. (TMCP steel) [9]
Present study (X100 pipe)
, J/m
2
,

J
/
m
2
Full size Charpy absorbed energy, J

Figure 11 Correlation of full-size CVN absorbed energy
with G
c
value calculated from K
c
.

CONCLUSIONS
In the present study, the hydrostatic burst tests were conducted
for API 5L X100 linepipes with

an axial part-through-wall (PTW)
notch and without

an axial surface notch to verify the leak/rupture
criteria using Charpy V-notch (CVN) absorbed

energy-based equation
for high strength linepipes having higher Charpy energy. Based on the
results of the hydrostatic burst tests, the leak/rupture criteria from
original surface flaw models were investigated. In addition, the
leak/rupture criteria for X100 linepipe were experimentally
determined and the experimentally obtained plane-stress strain energy
release rate was compared to the CVN absorbed energy. The main
conclusions obtained are as follows;

1) Battelle CVN-based equation by Kiefner/Maxey et al. which
predicts failure stress for axial PTW notched pipe slightly
underestimated the failure stress for X100 linepipes. On the
other hand, the flow stress dependent equation has a tendency
to overestimate the failure stress for longer notched pipes. This
indicates that there is a difference between the experimental
and the calculated bulging correction factors. It is needed to
investigate bulging correction factor for improving the
accuracy of failure stress prediction.
2) Assuming that the remaining ligament of PTW notch is severed
and the notch turned into the through-wall (TW) notch when
the failure occurred, both the flow stress-dependent and the
toughness-dependent leak/rupture criteria are verified. It is
observed that the flow stress-dependent curve for TW notch
overestimates the leak/rupture boundary and the toughness-
dependent curve for TW notch is relatively close to the
leak/rupture boundary.
3) Based on experimentally obtained critical stress intensity factor,
K
c
, which represents actual fracture initiation resistance for
pipes, it was clarified that CVN-based equation and the linear
correlation of full-size Charpy absorbed energy with G
c
are not
applicable to high-strength linepipes having higher Charpy
energy. Note that, in this study, the leak/rupture criteria for
X100 linepipes were determined from the experimental results
of the hydrostatic burst tests with PTW notch. Therefore, the
findings in this paper may be limited to these test data. Further
investigation using a reasonable model i.e., J-T analysis based
model is needed to predict the failure behavior of high-strength
linepipes with high Charpy energy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd. for
support in preparing this reports and permission to publish the results and
Kiyokazu Susuki, Seiji Kase, Yasuhiro Tanaka of Sumitomo Metal
Technology, Inc. for their technical assistance in the hydrostatic burst
tests.

REFERENCES
[1] American Petroleum Institute (API), 2000, Specification for Line
Pipe, API SPEC 5L.
[2] Okaguchi, S., Hamada, M., Makino, H., Yamamoto, A. Takahashi,
N., Takeuchi, I., 2005, Production and Development of X100 and
X120 Grade Line Pipes, Seminar Forum of X100/X120 Grade High
Performance Pipe Steels, Beijing, China.
[3] Yamashita, E., Hara, T., Murata, M., Terada, Y., Asahi, H., Shinohara,
Y., Tsuru, E., Doi, N., 1995, Development and Commercialization of
High Strength Linepipe, Proceedings of International Seminar on
Application of High Strength Line Pipe 2010, Xian, China.
[4] Glover, A. G., Horsley, D. J. , and Dorling, D. V., 1998, Pipeline
Design and Construction Using Higher Strength Steels, Proc. 2nd
International Pipeline Conference (IPC1998), Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 2, pp. 659 -
664.
[5] Chunyoug, H., Yang, L., Chuanjing, Z., Lingkang, J., Qingren, X,
Application of X80 Linepipe in China, Proceedings of International
Seminar on Application of High Strength Line Pipe 2010, Xian,
China.
[6] Cosham. A., Eiber, R. J., 2008, Fracture Control in Carbon
Dioxide Pipelines The Effect of Impurities, Proceedings of
International Pipeline Conference 2008, Paper number IPC2008-
64346.
[7] Eiber, R. J., Bubenik, T. A., and Maxey, W. A., 1993, Fracture
Control Technology for Natural Gas Pipelines, NG-18 Report No.
208, Final Report to Line Pipe Research Supervisory Committee of the
9 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association,
Project PR-3-9113, Battelle, USA.
[8] Maxey, W. A., 1974, Fracture Initiation, Propagation and Arrest,
Proc. 5
th
Symposium on Line Pipe Research, Houston, Texas,
American Gas Association. Paper J.
[9] Kawaguchi, S., Hagiwara, N., Masuda, T. and Toyoda, M.,
Evaluation of Leak-before-break (LBB) Behavior for Axially
Notched X65 and X80 Line Pipes, Journal of Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, Vol. 126, 2004, pp. 350-357.
[10] Kawaguchi, S., Hagiwara, N., Ohata, M., and Toyoda, M.,
Modified Equation to Predict Leak/Rupture Criteria for Axially
Through-Wall Notched X80 and X100 Linepipes Having Higher
Charpy Energy, Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference
2004, Paper number IPC04-0322.
[11] Mannucci, G., and Demofonti, G., 2009, Control of ductile
facture propagation in X80 gas linepipe, Pipeline Technology
Conference, Ostend, Belgium, Paper number Ostend2009-036.
[12] Igi, S., Kawaguchi, S. and Suzuki, N., Running ductile fracture
analysis for X80 pipeline in JGA burst tests, Pipeline Technology
Conference, Ostend, Belgium, Paper number Ostend2009-068.
[13] Makino, H., Takeuchi, I., Higuchi, R, Fracture Propagation and
Arrest in High-pressure Gas Transmission Pipeline by Ultra High
Strength Line Pipes, Proceedings of International Pipeline
Conference 2008, Paper number IPC2008-64078.
[14] Kiefner, J. F., Maxey, W. A. , Eiber, R. J. , and Duffy, A. R.,
1973, Failure Stress Levels of Flaws in Pressurized Cylinders,
Progress in Flaw Growth and Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM
STP 536, American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 461-481 .
[15] Maxey, W. A., Kiefner, J. F., Eiber, R. J., and Duffey, A. R.,
1972, Ductile Fracture Initiation, Propagation, and Arrest in
Cylindrical Vessels, Fracture Toughness, Proceedings of the 1971
National Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, ASTM STP 514,
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 70-81.
[16] Shim, D.-J., Wilkowski, G. M., Brust,F., Horsley, D., Toch, M.,
Applicability of Existing Fracture Initiation Models to High-Strength
Steel Line Pipe, Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference
2010, Paper number IPC2010-31461.























[17] Dugdale, D. S., 1960, Yielding of Steel Sheets Containing Slits,
J. Mech. Phys. Solid, 8, pp. 100-104.
[18] Hahn, G. T., Sarrate, M., and Rosenfield, A. R., 1969, Criteria
for Crack Extension in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels, International
Journal of Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 187-210.
[19] Paris, P.C., Tada, H., Zahoor, A., and Ernst, H., The Theory of
Instability of the Tearing Mode of Elastic-Plastic Crack Growth,
Elastic-Plastic Fracture, STP 668, ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 5-36,
1979.
[20] Kawaguchi, S., Hagiwara, N., Rudland, D. L., Wilkowski, G., M,
Evaluation of Leak/Rupture Limit for Axially Through-Wall Notched
Line Pipes Using J-Integral Resistance Curve, Proceedings of
International Pipeline Conference 2006, Paper number IPC2006-
10505.
[21] Zahoor, A., Ductile Fracture Handbook, NP-6301-D, N14-1,
Electric Power Research Institute, 1989.
[22] Leis, B., Brust, F., and Scott, P., Development and Validation of
a Ductile Flaw in Growth Analysis for Gas Transmission Line Pipe,
NG-18 Report No. 193, Pipeline Research Council International,
1991.
[23] Jaske, C.E. and Beavers, J.A., Integrity and Remaining Life of
Pipe with Stress Corrosion Cracking, PRCI Report, Catalog No.
L51928, 2001.
[24] American Petroleum Institute (API), 1996, API Recommended
Practice for Conducting Drop-Weight Tear Tests on Line Pipe, API RP
5L3.
[25] Steffen Z., Susanne H. and Ulrich M., Modeling Ultimate Limit
States. Burst Pressure and Yielding of Flawless Pipes, Report on
behalf of the EPRG Design Committee, 2007.
[26] Zhu X. K., Leis B.: Accurate prediction of burst pressure for
linepipes, The Journal of Pipeline Integrity 3, 2004, PP.195-206.