Fracture Control for the Oman India Pipeline

T.V. Bruno, Metallurgial Consultants, Inc.

Abstract
This paper describes the evaluation of the resistance to fracture
initiation and propagation for the high-strength, heavy-wall pipe
required for the Oman India Pipeline (OIP). It discusses the
unique aspects of this pipeline and their influence on fracture
control, reviews conventional fracture control design methods,
their limitations with regard to the pipe in question, the extent to
which they can be utilized for this project, and other approaches
being explored. Test pipe of the size and grade required for the
OIP show fracture toughness well in excess of the minimum
requirements.
Introduction
The Oman India Pipeline (OIP) will transport natural gas
approximately 1100 km from Oman to India under the Arabian
Sea, at water depths to 3525 meters. Because of the unprecedented
water depth the design requires line pipe of a size and grade never
before manufactured, much less utilized for an offshore pipeline.
The pipe will be API Specification 5L Grade X70, with an inside
diameter of 610 mm and a wall thickness ranging from 36 to
44mm. The maximum hoop stress will be 330.4 MPa (under shutin conditions) and the design temperatures are 0C minimum, 50C
maximu m.
The pipeline will be constructed with U-O-E pipe made
from low-carbon, low-sulfur, microalloyed steel plate
manufactured with thermo -mechanical process control (TMPC)
including accelerated cooling. The specified mechanical properties
are shown in Table 1. Because so much of the pipeline will be in
deep water, the hoop stress of approximately 70 percent of the
length of the pipeline will be less than 50 percent of the specified
minimum yield strength (SMYS). Therefore, for most of the
pipeline the potential for fracture will be much lower than for most
pipelines. Figure 1 shows the maximum hoop stress vs. location
along the pipeline.
Principles of Fracture Control Design
Fracture control design of pipelines requires that under the most
adverse conditions: 1) the pipe has sufficient fracture toughness to
tolerate small flaws without fracturing; 2) if the pipe ruptures from
any cause, the fracture is ductile; 3) the steel has the capacity to
absorb sufficient energy to arrest a ductile fracture, or crack
arrestors are added.
Considerable research on the behavior of pipelines
sponsored by the Pipeline Research Committee of the American
Gas Association, (1) British Gas, (2) the European Pipeline
Research Group (3) and others has resulted in analytical and test
methods to evaluate these three requirements based on the
properties of the pipe and the design of the pipeline. Evaluation of
these methods by full-scale burst tests as well as their widespread
successful application has shown them to be adequate within
certain limits of operating conditions and pipeline designs.
However, as will be discussed, some aspects of the OIP, especially

the wall thickness and design pressure are outside these limits.
Nevertheless, as will be shown, the methods can be conservatively
applied to evaluate resistance to fracture initiation and to give a
reasonable estimate of resistance to fracture propagation.
Fracture Initiation.
AGA-Battelle Equations. The resistance to the initiation
of ductile fractures can be evaluated for through-wall or partialwall flaws using Equations (A-1) and (A-2) shown in the
Appendix, which were developed by Battelle under AGA
sponsorship. These equations give the size of a critical flaw, i.e.,
one that will cause a leak or rupture, as a function of the Charpy Vnotch (CVN) toughness, the pipe size and grade, and the hoop
stress. Similar equations have been developed for high-toughness,
the pipe size and grade, and the hoop stress. Similar equations
have been developed for high-toughness pipe for which fracture
initiation is independent of the CVN toughness but Equations (A1) and (A -2) were used because the results are conservative.
As a first approach, critical flaw sizes for the OIP were
calculated assuming a CVN fracture toughness of 100 J as
specified for the longitudinal weld seam, as opposed to 200 J for
the base metal, for conservatism. For convenience only throughwall (T.W.) and 50-percent wall surface flaws are considered. The
pipeline has been divided into 17 increments by wall thickness for
design purposes. As shown in Table 2 and Figure 2, the calculated
critical flaw sizes are very large, ranging from 254 mm to more
than 1000 mm.
Equations (A-1) and (A-2) have been verified
experimentally only for wall thickness up to 21.9 mm for the OIP
and using the hoop stress based on the actual design pressure we
can calculate critical flaw sizes within the wall thickness limits for
which the equations have been verified experimentally. These
values are very conservative because the assumed wall thickness
gives a higher hoop stress than the actual hoop stress.
Table 3 and Figure 3 show the calculated hoop stresses
and critical flaw sizes based on a constant wall thickness of 21.9
mm. First consider the pipe from KP segments 3 through 15. The
flaw lengths over this portion of the pipeline are orders of
magnitude above the limits of detectability by ordinary inspection
methods. Moreover, the assumed wall thicknesses are 39.2 percent
(36.0 to 21.9 mm) to 50.2 percent (44.0 to 21.9 mm) less than the
specified wall thicknesses and the hoop stresses are 1.4 to 2.2
times the actual maximum design stresses.
Next consider the pipe in KP segments 1, 2, 16, and 17.
Even in these shallow-water areas the flaw sizes assuming a 21.9mm wall thickness are relatively large and well within the limits of
detectability. For these segments the wall thicknesses are 43.6
percent (38.8 to 21.9 mm) to 46.7 percent (41.1 to 21.9 mm) less
than the specified wall thicknesses and the hoop stresses are 1.7 to
1.8 times the design stresses.

From the above it can be seen that even with conservative

assumptions the OIP has adequate resistance to fracture initiation,
based on the AGA -Battelle equations.
BSI PD 6493. Resistance to fracture initiation can also be
evaluated using crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) and the
method of British Standard Institute's PD 6493 : 1991, "Guidance
on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion
welded structures"(4) This method is commonly applied to welds
but is equally applicable to the pipe base metal.
Two cases were analyzed, a shallow-water case and a
deep-water case, with the conditions shown in Table 4. The critical
flaw size was determined for the weld and base metal, and for
internal and external surface flaws. The results were plotted as
critical flaw length vs. depth (d) expressed as a fraction of the wall
thickness (t), i.e., d/t, for CTOD values of 0.38 mm and 0.64 mm.
Figure 4 shows the results for the shallow-water weld metal. (The
cusps in the curves are due to the formulas for calculating stress
intensity; in reality the curves would be smooth.) As shown,
internal flaws have a smaller critical flaw size than external flaws
and are therefore more significant. For the lower CTOD value, the
critical internal flaw length for deep flaws (>d/t = 0.40) is in the
neighborhood of 20 mm and increases rapidly for shallower flaws.
Figure 5 shows the results for the deep-water weld metal, internal
flaw (the external flaw size, which is larger, is not shown). For
deep flaws at the lower CTOD value, the critical flaw length is in
excess of 30 mm.
The shallow-water base metal internal flaw case is shown
in Figure 6. At the lower CTOD value, the minimum critical flaw
length is about 40 mm. The deep-water base metal case gives even
larger flaws and is not shown.
The critical flaw sizes for the weld metal are smaller than
those for the base metal because PD 6493 assumes residual
welding stresses for the former. Also, for the same design
conditions, PD 6493 gives smaller flaw sizes than the AGA Battelle equations because of more conservative assumptions.
Consequently, the flaw sizes derived from the PD 6493 method
can be considered a lower bound.

fracture velocity vs. pressure and gas decompression velocity vs.

pressure on the same curve. For a given pipe size and grade at a
given operating pressure, the fracture velocity varies inversely with
CVN upper shelf toughness. The fracture velocity curve has a "J
shape and levels off at a constant pressure that represents the
fracture arrest pressure. The decompression curve is a function of
the gas composition.
When the CVN toughness is such that the two curves are tangent,
fracture is unstable and will eventually arrest. When the curves are
separated, the pressure quickly reduces to the arrest pressure and
the fracture arrests quickly. When the curves intersect, the crack tip
remains at a pressure sufficient to support fracture and propagation
continues.
Curves were generated for a shallow-water and a deepwater case to determine the CVN toughness necessary to preclude
long fractures. As shown in Figures 7 and 8, the required upper
shelf energies for fracture arrest are:
Shallow-water Case: ~45 J
Deep-water Case: ~3.4 J
The required toughness for fracture arrest is extremely low for the
deep-water case and lower than might be expected for the shallowwater case. One reason for the low values for the deep-water case
is the low hoop stress; because of water pressure the tensile hoop
stress is only 22 percent of SMYS.
Both cases are influenced by the fact that the gas
composition and high pressure are such that the gas is very dense
and tends to behave more like a liquid than a gas, and
decompression waves travel faster than less dense gases.
Crack Tip Opening Angel. The CVN test currently is the
most widely used test to evaluate the resistance of pipelines to
propagating ductile fractures. Recently a new approach utilizing
the crack tip opening angle (CTOA) has been proposed. (5-7) With
this approach, the fracture resistance of the pipe, termed (CTOA) c
is compared to the driving force of the pressurized gas, termed
(CTOA) max for a given pipeline design. The equilibrium
condition for ductile fracture propagation/arrest is:
(CTOA) c = (CTOA) max .(1)

Fracture Propagation.
The resistance to the propagation of ductile fractures can
be evaluated by comparing the fracture speed to the decompression
behavior of the gas in the pipeline. When a pipeline ruptures, gas
decompression waves at different pressure levels propagate along
the pipeline away from the opening in each direction. Under some
conditions the fracture speed is slow enough that the
decompression wave at the pressure necessary to support fracture
passes the crack tip and the fracture arrests. Under other conditions
the fracture speed is fast enough for the crack tip to always lead the
decompression wave of the pressure necessary to cause arrest and
the crack continues to propagate.
AGA-Battlle Equations. The velocities of gas
decompression and fracture propagation can be calculated using
Equations (A-3), (A-4), and (A-5) in the Appendix, which were
also developed by Battelle for the AGA. The same data can be
generated using two computer programs, GASDECOM and
DUCTOUGH, available from the AGA. (1) The programs plot

and the condition to preclude propagation is:

(CTOA)c > (CTOA)max (2)
The value of (CTOA)c is determined by dynamic fracture
tests using three-point bending specimens of two different ligament
lengths and the value of (CTOA)max is determined using a
computer program called PFRAC.(7)
Ten CTOA tests were run on samples of 660-mm O.D. x
41.3-mm wall test pipe with a yield strength of 478 MPa. This
pipe had been produced from plate with similar chemical
composition and processing as specified for the OIP. The
(CTOA)max was determined based on the OIP design conditions.
The average CTOA of the ten specimens was 11.7 compared to
the calculated (CTOA)max of 3.3. The fact that (CTOA)c was more
than three times (CTOA)max indicates that fracture propagation is
highly unlikely.

Two other CTOA studies were conducted. One used a

parametric equation based on a number of PFRAC runs with a
broad range of variables.(6) Inserting the OIP conditions in the
parametric equations gave the following values for (CTOA)max:
Methane3.8
Rich Gas

4.8

These values are slightly higher but reasonably close to

that given by PFRAC for the OIP conditions.
The second study consisted of calculating an approximate
CTOA from CVN and drop weight tear tests (DWTT) run on a
number of test pipes produced for the OIP project. Data from ten
test pipes gave a range of CTOA values from 9.4 to 32.4, with an
average of 19.4. Although the use of CVN and DWTT tests is not
as accurate as proper CTOA specimens, the results are consistent
with the other tests that indicate a high degree of resistance to
fracture propagation.
Effects of Water Pressure. Water pressure has three
effects that tend to mitigate against fracture propagation. The first
is a reduction in hoop stress, which increases with depth. Secondly,
water offers physical resistance to the outward movement of the
flaps that form behind a propagating fracture, thereby slowing the
fracture; this effect is similar to but greater than the effect of earth
backfill on an onshore pipeline and does not increase with water
depth. The third effect is due to an overpressure wave in the water
surrounding the pipeline, which is caused by the exiting gas. The
overpressure wave also slows the fracture speed. Burst tests 9 have
shown beneficial effects of the overpressure at depths of 12 meters
or more.
The effects of water pressure give added assurance that
the potential for crack propagation is very low in the deep-water
sections of the pipeline.
Evaluation of Ductile Fracture Behavior . To guard against long
propagating fractures it essential that the pipeline operate above its
ductile-to-brittle transition temperature and that the fracture absorb
enough energy to arrest a fracture. These two properties are
commonly evaluated with either the CVN test, the DWTT, or both.
The CVN test is generally suitable for thin-wall pipe but the fullwall DWTT is preferred for heavy-wall pipe.
Ductile-to-Brittle Transition Temperature. Because the
size and grade of the OIP pipe are outside the range of variables
for which the correlation between DWTT or CVN tests and fullscale behavior has not been verified, West Jefferson tests were
conducted by Europipe on two pipes made to the OIP
specifications. Two tests were conducted in the fall of 1995, one of
which confirmed that the DWTT accurately evaluated the
transition temperature. In the second test the pipe leaked without
rupturing; this test is to be repeated.
Energy Absorption. Typically, a plot of CVN or DWTT
energy vs. temperature shows a maximum energy level at the
lowest temperature at which the fracture appearance is 100 percent
shear and no increase in energy at higher temperatures. This
behavior gives a flat upper shelf to the transition curve. Some
steels, particularly TMPC steels, show an increase in energy

beyond the lowest temperature for 100 percent shear, which gives
a rising upper shelf. The rising upper shelf is accompanied by
through-thickness separations on the fracture surface of the CVN
or DWTT specimens. Some of the tests on OIP test pipe have
exhibited separations and a rising shelf and some have not. To
fully evaluate the fracture propagation resistance of pipe with a
rising upper shelf generally requires full-scale burst tests of several
pipe lengths welded together and pressurized with gas. This issue
relates only to the length, but not the likelihood, of a rupture and
there are other means of limiting the length of fracture should a
failure occur, such as with crack arrestors. The cost of full-scale
burst tests compared to the cost of crack arrestors justify such tests
when considering a single project such as OIP .
Properties of Trial Pipe General.
A trial production of one kilometer of 711-O.D. x 41-mm wall pipe
was produced to the OIP specification to be used for various test
purposes. The pipe was made from plate produced by two
suppliers, each supplier utilizing five different heats of steel.
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the chemical compositions and tensile
properties respectively. As shown in Table 5, the chemical
composition was similar for the two plate suppliers and the pipe
showed good weldability as measured by the IIW carbon
equivalent (CE) and the Pcm. The tensile properties were quite
satisfactory.
Vickers hardness (10-kg) surveys were made in the base metal and
weld and heat-affected zone of the longitudinal welds. All the
values met the requirement of 248 HV 10 maximum, and the large
majority of readings was well below this value.
Fracture Toughness. CVN, DWTT, and CTOD tests were made
on pipes from each heat of steel. The test temperature was -10C
and the results are summarized in Table 1. All the base metal CVN
specimens exhibited 100 percent shear with energy levels well in
excess of the specified minimum. The weld-metal CVN specimens
showed lower shear and energy values than the base metal, as
expected, but all values were well above the minimum
requirements. The heavy-wall pipe will be given a thermal aging
treatment to increase the collapse resistance. As reported
elsewhere 9 this treatment has no significant affect on the CVN
toughness.
The shear area of the DWTT specimens easily met the
requirements and the absorbed energy, reported for information
only, was quite high.
The initial requirements for weld CTOD values was 0.15
mm because pipe of this size and grade had not been previously
produced and the minimum value that could be attained
consistently was questionable. As a result of the trial run, the
minimum value was increased to 0.40 mm; only one test, the
minimum shown in Figure 7, was below 0.40 mm.
Discussion
The primary fracture control method is to design against fracture
initiation. Work completed to date shows that the
OIP pipe will have sufficient toughness to resist fracture initiation
from small flaws, with critical flaw sizes much lower than the
limits of detectability by non-destructive inspection. However,

because it is virtually impossible to assure resistance to fracture

initiation from all causes, such as marine accidents and other lowprobability occurrences, fracture propagation must also be
considered. For the OIP, consideration of fracture propagation is
secondary to consideration of fracture initiation and is an issue
only in the shallow-water areas of the pipeline. Moreover, fracture
propagation is principally an economic consideration relating to
the cost of repairing "long" failures as compared to "short" failures.
Analyses using conventional methods that have not been
verified for the OIP conditions indicate a high probability that the
pipe will have adequate resistance to fracture propagation.
Verification will require an expense that may not be justified and
other means of limiting fracture propagation, such as the use of
crack arrestors may be more practical.
Conclusions.
1.
Based on conventional fracture control technology using
conservative assumptions, pipe produced to the OIP specification
(will have adequate resistance to fracture initiation under the most
adverse operating conditions.
2.
Resistance to fracture propagation evaluated by
conventional methods is high, however, these methods have not
been verified for the OIP pipe size and grade and operating
pressure. Considering the costs of verifying the resistance to
fracture propagation by full-scale testing, the use of crack arrestors
may be more cost effective.
3.
Tests on a trial production of one kilometer of pipe
showed fracture toughness well in excess of the minimum
requirements of the project.

Acknowledgements
We thank Europipe for conducting the West Jefferson tests.
References
1. Eiber, R.J., Bubenik, T. A., and Maxey, W.A., "Fracture
Control Technology for Natural Gas Pipelines," AGA,
Project PR-3-9113, NG-18 Report No. 208, Dec. 1993.
2. Fearnehough, G.D., "Crack Propagation in Pipelines,"
The Institution of Gas Engineers, March 26-27,1974.
3. Vogt, G.H., Bramante, M., Iones, D.G., Koch, F.O.,
Koglar, J., Pro, H., and Re, G., "EPRG Report on
Toughness for Crack Arrest in Gas Transmission
Pipelines," 3R Internatiof1al (1983) 22,98.
4. PD 6493, "Guidance on Methods for Assessing the
Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion-Welded Structures,"
BSI, Bulletin Box No. 15A, 1991.
5. Kanninen, M.F. and Grant, T.S., "The Development and
Validation of a Theoretical Ductile Fracture Model,"
Eighth Symposium on Line Pipe Research, AGA -Pipeline
Research Committee, Sept. 26-29,1993.
6. Demofonti, G., Kanninen, M.F., and Venzi, S., "Analysis
of Ductile Fracture Propagation in High-Pressure
Pipelines: A Review of Present-Day Prediction Theories,"

7.

8.

9.

Eighth Symposium on Line Pipe Research, AGA -Pipeline

Research Committee, Sept. 26-29,1993.
Basically, G., Demofonti, G., Kanninen, M.F., and Venzi,
S., "Step by Step Procedure for the Two Specimen CTOA
Test," Pipeline Technology, II, 503.
Preston, R., "Improvement in UOE Pipe Collapse
Resistance by Thermal Aging," paper OTC 8211
presented at the 1996 Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, May 6-9.
Bruno, T.V., "The Effect of Water Overburden on Ductile
Fractures in Gas Pipelines," Doc. No. 9100-ALA -RD-L1001, 1995.

TABLE 1 - SPECIFIED MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Yield Strength, MPa
Tensile Strength, MPa
Hardness, HV 10

482 min., 586 max.

565 min., 793 max.
248 max.

CVN at -10 deg. C

Energy, J: Base Metal

200/150 min.*

Weld
% Shear: Base Metal

100/75 min. *
90/75 min. *

DWTT at -10 deg. C.

% Shear

85 min.

CTOD at -10 deg. C, mm

0.40 min.

(Weld Metal)
* Avg. of 3/Any 1

TABLE 2 - FLAW SIZES FOR SPECIFIED WALL THICKNESS

AND SHUT-IN HOOP STRESS
Location
Increment
KP
1
0-29
2
29-42
3
42-56
4
56-68
5
68-278
6
278-282
7
282-535
8
535-611
9
611-617
10
617-742
11
742-755
12
755-788
13
788-854
14
854-869
15
869-976
16
976-984
17
984-1139

Stress
% SMYS
68.5
62.9
60.5
40.2
31.6
21.9
22.4
27.8
27.7
33.1
32.4
41.8
46.2
38.6
60.0
58.7
68.5

MPa
330.6
303.6
292.0
194.0
152.5
105.7
108.1
134.2
133.7
159.8
156.4
201.7
223.0
186.3
289.6
283.3
330.6

Flaw Length, mm
T.W.
d/t = 0.5
254.0
355.6
292.1
431.8
292.1
495.3
457.2
>1000
558.8
>1000
736.6
>1000
736.6
>1000
673.1
>1000
533.4
>1000
558.8
>1000
584.2
>1000
431.8
>1000
381.0
812.8
508.0
>1000
292.1
508.0
330.2
508.0
254.0
355.6

TABLE 3 - FLAW SIZES FOR HYPOTHETICAL 21.9-MM WALL PIPE

SUBJECTED TO OIP DESIGN PRESSURE
Location

Stress

Flaw Length, mm

Increment

KP

% SYMS

MPa

T.W.

d/t = 0.5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

0-29
29-42
42-56
56-68
68-278
278-282
282-535
535-611
611-617
617-742
742-755
755-788
788-854
854-869
869-976
976-984
984-1139

118.3
114.8
99.8
81.7
66.8
49.1
47.3
44.9
58.0
55.8
65.0
63.8
66.5
76.7
65.7
107.6
118.3

571.3
554.2
481.9
394.4
322.6
237.2
228.6
216.6
280.0
269.6
313.8
308.2
320.8
370.4
317.2
519.2
571.3

25.4
25.4
88.9
139.7
203.2
292.1
304.8
330.2
241.3
254.0
215.9
228.6
203.2
165.1
203.2
50.8
25.4

38.1
38.1
101.6
190.5
330.2
647.7
736.6
762.0
457.2
469.9
355.6
368.3
342.9
215.9
330.2
63.5
38.1

TABLE 4 - CASE CONDITIONS

Pipe: Grade X70
Yield Strength

Tensile Strength

Minimum:
Maximum:

483 MPa
586 MPa

565 MPa
793 MPa

Case

Inside
Diameter

Wall
Thickness

Hoop
Stress

Net Internal
Pressure

Shallow-Water:
Deep-Water:

610 mm
610 mm

38.8 mm
44.0 m

331 MPa
106 MPa

422 barg
152 barg

TABLE 5 - CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

711-MM O.D. x 41.0-MM WALL TRIAL PIPE
Element,

Plate Mill A

Wt. %

Min.

Carbon
Silicon
Manganese
Phosphorus
Sulfur
Aluminum
Copper
Chromium
Nickel
Molybdenum
Vanadium
Titanium
Niobium
Nitrogen
C.E.
Pcm

Plate Mill B

Max.

Avg.

Min.

Max.

Avg.

0.06
0.30
1.58
0.009
0.001
0.032
0.16
0.03
0.22
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.038
0.0030

0.08
0.36
1.64
0.011
0.001
0.043
0.20
0.03
0.39
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.043
0.0050

0.07
0.34
1.62
0.010
0.001
0.039
0.17
0.03
0.28
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.041
0.0039

0.08
0.23
1.61
0.010
0.001
0.038
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.01
0.08
0.02
0.043
0.0029

0.09
0.25
1.66
0.011
0.001
0.046
0.03
0.04
0.22
0.01
0.08
0.02
0.051
0.0038

0.08
0.24
1.64
0.010
0.001
0.043
0.03
0.03
0.21
0.01
0.08
0.02
0.046
0.0034

0.37
0.17

0.40
0.20

0.39
0.19

0.39
0.18

0.41
0.20

0.40
0.19

TABLE 6 - TRANSVERSE TENSILE PROPERTIES

711-MM O.D. x 41-MM WALL TRIAL PIPE
Base Metal

RANGE
AVERAGE

Yield Strength,
MPa
492-536
515.8

Tensile
Strength, MPa
593-642
616.4

Weld
Elongation in
50 mm, %
53-59
56.9

Tensile
Strength, MPa
635-637
658.8

TABLE 7 - 711-MM O.D. x 41-MM WALL TRIAL PIPE

CVN Tests at -10 deg. C
(Average of 3 Specimens)
Base Metal
Joules
% Shear
RANGE
AVERAGE

216-321
284.00

100
100

Weld
Joules

% Shear

143-181
159.00

96.7-100
98.8

DWTT Tests at -10 deg. C

RANGE
AVERAGE

Energy, KJ

% Shear

18.3-42.0
27.9

90-100
95.3

CTOD Tests at -10 deg C

CTOD, mm
RANGE
AVERAGE

0.373-1.559
0.95

MMAXIMUM HOOP STRESS VS. LOCATION

Fig. 1

FLAW SIZES FOR SPECIFIED W.T.

CHARPY UPPER SHELF ENERGY = 100 J

1000

Through Wall Flaw

900

50% Surface Flaw

Flaw Length, mm

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Pipeline Route Segment

Fig. 2
FLAW SIZES FOR SPECIFIED W.T.
CHARPY UPPER SHELF ENERGY = 100 J
800

50% Surface Flaw

700

Through Wall Flaw

Flaw Length, mm

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1

10

11

Pipeline Route Segment

Fig. 3

12

13

14

15

16

17

SHALLOW-WATER CASE
WELD METAL
FLAW DEPTH/ WALL THICKNESS(d/t)

0.8

INTERNAL FLAW, CTOD=0.38mm

INTERNAL FLAW, CTOD=0.64mm

EXTERNAL FLAW, CTOD=0.38mm

EXTERNAL FLAW, CTOD=0.64mm

0.6

0.4

0.2

100

50

350

300

250
200
150
CRITICAL FLAW LENGTH, mm

Fig. 4
DEEP-WATER CASE, WELD METAL
INTERNAL FLAW

FLAW DEPTH/WALL THICKNESS(d/t)

CTOD=0.38mm

CTOD=0.68mm

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

50

100

250
200
150
CRITICAL FLAW LENGTH, mm

300

400

350

Fig. 5

SHALLOW-WATER CASE, BASE METAL

INTERNAL FLAW

FLAW DEPTH/WALL THICKNESS(d/t)

CTOD=0.38mm

CTOD=0.64mm

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Fig. 6

50

100

250
200
150
CRITICAL FLAW LENGTH, mm

300

350

400

688-MM O.D. x 38.8-MM WALL GRADE X70

SHALLOW-WATER CASE, CVN = 45 JOULES
400

PRESSURE. BARG

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

100

200

300
400
VELOCITY, M/SEC

500

600

700

Fig. 7

698.5-MM 0.D. x 44.0-MM WALL GRADE X70

DEEP-WATER CASE, CVN = 3.4 JOULES

DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE. BARG

200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0

Fig. 8

100

200

300

400
500
600
VELOCITY, M/SEC

700

800

900

1000