TWI main site Technical Capabilities Industrial Membership Training and Examinations Accessibility Text Only Site Map

y Site Map Global websites

> Technical Knowledge > FAQs > Material FAQs > FAQ: What is the difference between the various carbon equivalent formulae
used in relation to hydrogen cracking?

Share:          

What is the difference between the various Carbon Equivalent Formulae

used in relation to hydrogen cracking?
Frequently Asked Questions
Carbon equivalent formulae were originally developed to give a numerical value for a steel
composition which would give an indication of a carbon content which would contribute to an
equivalent level of hardenability for that steel. These formulae were later extended to represent the
contribution of the composition to the hydrogen cracking susceptibility of steel. They are also used as compositional characterising
parameters for other properties that may be linked to hardness, such as toughness and strength.

These kind of relationships originate from about 1940 when Dearden and O'Neill proposed a carbon equivalent formula to predict steel
strength, hardenability and HAZ hardness [1]. In 1967, the International Institute for Welding (IIW) adopted a somewhat simplified form
of Dearden and O'Neill's formula for hardenability which became a generally accepted measure of steel weldability - CEIIW

Since its adoption by IIW, the equation has been incorporated into a number of material standards and codes, including EN 1011-2:2001
[2] (replaces BS 5135-1984 [3] ) and in a modified form in AWS D1.1 [4] , with a "+Si/6" term added to the equation.

Further development of Carbon equivalent formulae has taken place and several can be found in technical literature today. Three of the
more common ones are Pcm, CEq and CEN. Ito and Bessyo [5] developed Pcm in Japan based on a wider range of steels than the IIW
formula:

The CEq formula devised by Düren [6] has a similar appearance:

Both the Pcm and the CEq formulae were developed for low carbon steels for which the CEIIW is less suitable. Pcm is generally used for
modern steels typically used for pipeline manufacture, where carbon contents are no more than ~0.11 wt% [7] .

However, it should be noted that the Pcm formula was derived largely from lower C low alloy steels.

The CEN formula was proposed to evaluate the weldability of a wide variety of steels. For the higher C range, the values of CEN
correlate well with carbon equivalents such as CEIIW, whereas for lower carbon steels the values are close to those of the CEq formula.
CEN is given by:

Yurioka [8] illustrated a good correlation between Pcm and CEN for structural steels, low-alloy steels (Ni-Cr-Mo type) and carbon steels,
provided the carbon content was less than 0.17 wt%. From this comparison the following relationship was derived:

CEN = 2P cm - 0.092 (C ≤ 0.17%)

For carbon steels, the values deviate from this relationship as the Pcm overestimates the cold cracking susceptibility. Where the carbon
content exceeds 0.17 wt%, there is a better correlation between CEN and CEIIW :

CEN = CEIIW + 0.012 (C ≥ 0.17%)

Yurioka [8] grouped a number of carbon equivalents for the assessment of weldability, as follows:

Group Formula

Group A are characterised by 1/6 as the coefficient of Manganese; Group B has Carbon as more important than the other alloying
elements and is more applicable to modern steels; Group C includes interactions between Carbon and other elements.

Other existing formulae that could be classified as Group B are the CEw developed by Cottrell [9] , and the CET included in the standard
EN 1011-2:2001 [3] . Cottrell claimed that the CEw formula could improve the predictions of cracking by a factor of three, compared to
CEIIW. The data on which the formula was based was collected from results published in open literature, and covered a wide range of
composition and welding conditions. The resulting formula is as follows:

The CET formula is based on similar elements to the CEIIW formula with the exception of Vanadium, although carbon is considered to
have more significance than the other elements:

References
N
Author Title
°
 1 Dearden J and 'A guide to the selection and welding of low alloy structural steel' Transactions of the Institute of Welding, Vol.3,
O'Neill H: 1940, pp203-214.
EN 1011-2, 'Welding - Recommendations for welding of metallic materials - Part 2: Arc welding of ferritic steels',
2  
British Standards Institution, March 2001 AMD A1 Dec 2003.
BS5135-1984, 'Process or arc welding of carbon and carbon manganese steels', British Standards Institution, 1984.
3  
Superseded by (2)
AWS D1.1-2010 Annex I, 'Guideline on alternative methods for determining preheat', American Welding Society Inc.,
4  
2010
Ito Y and 'Weldability formula of high strength steels related to heat affected zone cracking', Published by the International
5
Bessyo K: Institute of Welding, 1968, Doc IX-576-68.
'Prediction of the hardness in the HAZ of HSLA steels by means of the C-equivalent', Select Conference on
6 Düren C F:
Hardenability of Steels, Derby, UK, 17 May 1990, Paper 4.
'Factors Influencing Weldability', In Book 'Weldability of Ferritic Steels', Abington Publishing 1994, ISBN 1 85573 092
7 Bailey N:
8
'Carbon equivalents for hardenability and cold cracking susceptibility of steels', Select Conference on Hardenability
8 Yurioka N:
of Steels, Derby, UK, 17 May 1990, Paper 3.
'An improved prediction method for avoiding HAZ hydrogen cracking', Welding and Metal Fabrication, Vol. 58, No. 3,
9 Cottrell C L M:
April 1990, pp 178-183.
 
See further information about Materials and Corrosion Management, or please contact us.