A Series on Applications of Experimental Techniques
FEATURES in the Field of Pipeline Integrity
MEASUREMENT OF RESIDUAL STRESSES
IN UOE-SAW LINE PIPES
by L.D. Rodrigues, J.L.F. Freire, and R.D. Vieira
S
eam-welded pipes are fabricated from hot-rolled steel
plates in three cold-forming steps. In step 1, a U-
shape is generated. In step 2, the O-shape is formed.
The seam weld joining of the O-shape is produced by
submerged arc welding (SAW). Finally, in step 3, the diameter
of the pipe is E-expanded to its final dimension (UOE-SAW
process).
In terms of stress analysis, pipelines can be modeled as thin-
walled cylindrical vessels loaded primarily by internal pres-
sure and by longitudinal displacement restrictions caused by
support or soil interaction. Other stresses are caused by loads
induced by the pipeline sitting route, temperature differen-
tial, and sometimes undesirable and unpredictable soil move-
ment. Measurement of the loads or stresses generated by
these factors is a difficult task. Residual stress measurement
techniques are strong candidates because they measure the
absolute state of stress present at the assessed point of the
pipeline.
This study aims at providing some insight into how uncertain
such measurements can be when an experimental procedure
based on a residual stress measurement technique is used to
fulfill the load determination needs. Up to the present time,
a procedure has been employed which applies the blind-hole
drilling technique to three or more points of at least two pipe-
line cross-sections.1 Measurements are taken using small-
diameter residual stress rosettes. The diameter and depth of
the blind holes are preferably less than 10% of the remaining
pipe thickness. The stresses measured at these locations are
fed into an overdeterministic least-squares algorithm for
determining normal and bending loads. The primary stresses
caused by internal pressure and longitudinal soil restriction
are calculated beforehand and included in the algorithm to
reduce the number of unknowns to be determined. The major
drawback of this procedure is the existence of residual fabri-
cation stresses in the pipe wall. The unknown residual stress
amplitudes and distributions may be too complex to be deter-
mined and separated by the numerical algorithm, even if
a large number of measurement points are employed along
with the overdeterministic least-squares method.
Thus, before devising or improving a method for determining
primary and spurious loads in pipeline under operating condi-
tions, it is important to quantify the residual stresses occurring
at points on the external surface of cross-sections of the line
pipes. The literature is scarce with respect to this type of result.
Although residual stress measurements and analytical and
L.D. Rodrigues is a senior engineer affiliated with the Institute of Technology of the
Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (ITUC, PUC-Rio, Brazil). J.L.F.
Freire (SEM member; JLFreire@mec.puc-rio.br) and R.D. Vieira are associate pro-
fessors affiliated with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, PUC-Rio, Brazil.
58 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES January/February 2008
numerical models have been presented for steel plates and
pipes for points located at or near seam or girth electrical resis-
tance welds or through the thickness of the wall in a given line
pipe,2–4 the distributions of residual stresses along the entire
perimeter of cross-sections of line pipes have not been found.
The objective of this article was to present data showing how
residual fabrication stresses are distributed along the exter-
nal perimeter of cross-sections of two different line pipes. This
knowledge will provide insight into how significantly the fab-
rication residual stresses will influence the uncertainty in the
determination of the loads occurring within the pipeline. The
data presented in this article were obtained by applying the
blind-hole residual stress measurement technique to points
located on the external surfaces of two segments of seam-
welded line pipes classified as American Petroleum Institute
(API) 5L X46 and API 5L X60.5
LINE PIPES TESTED AND EXPERIMENTAL
PROCEDURE
The crude steel pipes used comprised two different classifica-
tions of line pipes. There were five segments (3-m long each)
classified as API 5L X46 line pipe.5 These segments were cut
from different locations of a pipeline that had been in opera-
tion for 30 years. Chemical analysis and tensile test results
showed that at least three of these segments belonged to dif-
ferent fabrication batches. The second crude line pipe com-
prised one segment (1.42-m long) of a new pipe classified as
API 5L X60.5 The nominal outside diameter and wall thick-
ness of the API 5L X46 pipe were 457.2 and 6.5 mm, respec-
tively, and 323.3 and 9.7 mm, respectively, for API 5L X60.
Nominal yield (Sy) and ultimate (Su) strengths of the API 5L
X46 pipe were 317 and 524 MPa, respectively, and 413 and
565 MPa, respectively, for the API 5L X60 pipe.
The application of the blind-hole residual stress measurement
technique followed the American Society for Testing and
Materials standard ASTM 837-01.6 The rosettes used were
specified as type A according to this standard and were
furnished from Vishay Micro-Measurements (Raleigh, NC)
under specification PA-06-062RE-120. Surface preparation
for bonding the rosettes took care not to introduce spurious
and nondesirable residual stresses. The drilling process used
a very low machining speed (4 cps), appropriate drills (Vishay
Micro-Measurements HS-200-062), and a centering and
milling guide (Vishay Micro-Measurement RS-200). Relieved
strains were monitored at milling depths of 0.5 mm or less.
The relieved strain values were plotted against milling depths
in a specific way proposed in standard ASTM 837-01 in order
to provide verification of the uniformity of the residual stress
profiles.
doi: 10.1111/j.1747-1567.2007.00297.x
Ó 2007, Society for Experimental Mechanics
 MEASUREMENT OF RESIDUAL STRESSES
IN LINE PIPES
The overall accuracy of the technique for drilling holes of 1.6-
and 3.2-mm diameter and like depth has been systematically
verified by authors JLFF and RDV of the present article. Max-
imum uncertainties range along the order of 620 MPa or 65%
(whichever is larger) of the tensile yield strength (Sy) of the
material under analysis. This uncertainty includes deviations
associated with the drill-hole centering, low-speed machining
process, and surface preparation for bonding the rosette with
cyanoacrylate adhesive. It should also be noted that the blind-
hole method is valid for measuring residual stresses up to 50%
of the material yield strength.7–10 Results reported where
stresses are larger than 0.50 Sy must be understood as quali-
tative and they only mean that the reported stresses are
high.
Figure 1 shows sketches of the location of the measurement
points. Four API 5L X46 pipe segments were instrumented
with two rosettes over the centerline of the seam weld. These
rosettes were spaced approximately 300 mm from each other.
The fifth segment was cut to a length of 900 mm and had
a third rosette bonded over the seam weld area and between
the first two. This rosette completed a set of 10 rosettes
bonded along the external perimeter of the pipe cross-sec-
tion. The spacing between these rosettes ranged from 22.5
to 458.
The API 5L X60 pipe segment was instrumented with 19
rosettes covering the perimeter of two cross-sections spaced
Fig. 1: Location of the residual stress rosettes on the surface of the line pipe segments. Five segments of line pipe API 5L X46
were used: four were instrumented with two rosettes in the seam weld and one was fully instrumented as shown in the figure
16.6 mm from each other. Each section had rosettes spaced
22.5 or 458 from each other. One of the sections did not have
a rosette installed over the seam weld area. The large number
of rosettes positioned in two neighboring cross-sections (only
16.6-mm apart) was used to check the repeatability of the
results and at the same time to verify the uniformity of the
residual stresses along the pipe length. A third cross-section
spaced 550 mm from the first two cross-sections was instru-
mented with uniaxial strain gages. Partial slits, as shown in
Fig. 1, were made near these gages in order to determine the
residual stresses occurring within the cross-section. This
newly proposed technique has been called quasi-elliptical cut-
ting technique.1
RESIDUAL STRESS DISTRIBUTIONS
Residual stress results are presented in Figs. 2–5. Figure 2
shows longitudinal and circumferential residual stresses
measured at points located at the seam welds of the five seg-
ments of line pipe API 5L X46. Three general observations can
be drawn from the graph: (1) the longitudinal stresses may
assume low values and they may even be compressive (seg-
ments 3 and 4); (2) the longitudinal stresses may be smaller
than the circumferential stresses (segments 1, 3, and 4); and
(3) neither longitudinal nor circumferential stresses vary sub-
stantially along the same pipe segment, but they differ con-
siderably from one segment to the next. This last conclusion
impacts field measurements that use the blind hole or any
January/February 2008 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES 59
 MEASUREMENT OF RESIDUAL STRESSES
IN LINE PIPES

300
(a) 600.0
250 Longitudinal Stress Cross section 1

Longitudinal residual stress (MPa)

500.0
Circumferential Stress Cross section 2
Residual stress (MPa)

200
400.0
150
300.0
100
200.0
50
100.0
0

1 2 3 4 5
0.0
-50
-180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135 180
-100.0
-100
-200.0
Fig. 2: Residual stress values of points located at the seam Point location along the external perimeter of the
weld area of the five segments of line pipe API 5L X46 taken cross section (degrees)
from the field
(b) 150.0
Cross section 1

Circumferential residual stress (MPa)

other residual stress measurement technique to determine Cross section 2
100.0
operating and soil interaction stresses—residual stress
results measured for one pipe segment cannot be used to infer
the residual stresses for one similar pipe segment unless high 50.0
uncertainties are allowed in loading determination.
0.0
Figure 3 presents the longitudinal and circumferential resid- -180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135 180
ual stress distributions along the external perimeter of the
fifth segment of line pipe API 5L X46. The stress graphs show -50.0
a steep variation of both stresses along the perimeter of the
section and values as high as the material yield strength (as -100.0
stated previously, results where residual stresses are larger
than 50% of the material yield strength may be seen as merely
qualitative). A word of caution should be given regarding the -150.0
fitting curves showed in Figs. 3–5. These curves are included Point location along the external perimeter of the
to connect and give easier visualization of the data point cross section (degrees)
sequence. However, they are by no means proposed as shape
Fig. 4: Longitudinal (a) and circumferential (b) residual
stresses at point locations along two closely spaced (16.6 mm)
transversal sections of a new segment of UOE-SAW line pipe
300.0 Longitudinal stress API 5L X60
Circumferential stress
250.0
distributions of the residual stress variations along the inves-
Residual Stress (MPa)

200.0
tigated cross-sections.
150.0
Figure 4 presents the residual stress distributions along the
100.0 external perimeter of the segment comprising the API 5L X60
line pipe. Given the nature of uncertainties generated in both
50.0
the pipe fabrication process and the blind-hole measurement
0.0 technique, it can be concluded that the resulting measure-
-180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135 180 ments for neighboring points that belong to cross-sections as
-50.0 close as 16.6 mm replicate quite well. This conclusion does not
apply when sections are set in locations far from each other or
-100.0
when they are close to the tube ends. Data on residual stresses
Point location along the external perimeter of for 15 measuring point locations covering the complete perim-
the section (degrees)
eter of one cross-section positioned 550-mm away from the two
sections mentioned above were determined by applying a
Fig. 3: Residual stresses at point locations along one recently developed partial slitting technique.5 The data points
transversal section of a segment of UOE-SAW line pipe API representing the measured circumferential and longitudinal
5L X46. The segment was cut from a pipeline that had been stresses are graphed in Fig. 5 and compared with the results
in operation for 30 years already presented in Fig. 4 (average results of cross-sections

60 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES January/February 2008

 MEASUREMENT OF RESIDUAL STRESSES
IN LINE PIPES

600.0
(a)
Blind-hole - cross sections 1-2
500.0

Longitudinal residual stress (MPa)

Partial slit - cross section 3

400.0

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0
-180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135 180
-100.0

-200.0
Point location along the external perimeter of the cross section (degrees)

150.0 Blind-hole - cross sections 1-2

(b)
Partial slit - cross section 3
Circumferential residual stress (MPa)

100.0

50.0

0.0
-180 -135 -90 -45 0 45 90 135 180

-50.0

-100.0

-150.0
Point location along the external perimeter of the cross section (degrees)

Fig. 5: Longitudinal (a) and circumferential (b) residual stresses at point locations along three transversal sections of a new
segment of UOE-SAW line pipe API 5L X60. Cross-sections 1 and 2 were closely spaced (16.6-mm apart), and their results
were averaged to be presented in this figure. The distance of cross-section 3 from section 2 was 550 mm

1 and 2). Although at some locations—particularly for the lon- ments from a given pipeline may have completely different
gitudinal stress distributions—similar trends may be observed, residual stresses distributions. A consequence of these conclu-
there are differences of more than 200 MPa for the stresses in sions is that the use of a residual stress measurement tech-
some angular locations. Thus, it can be concluded that there nique such as the blind-hole drilling method to determine
are variations in these distributions and that such variations general primary and spurious loading in operating pipeline
may be credited to heterogeneity in fabrication residual will furnish inaccurate results even if a reasonable number of
stresses along the length of the segment of the line pipe. These measurement points are used to describe the stress states of
variations may be caused either by different gaps generated points along the analyzed cross-sections.
during the ‘‘O’’ forming or by different straining in the ‘‘E’’ cold
expansion steps of the UOE process.
References
CONCLUSIONS 1. Rodrigues, L.D., Measurement of Residual Stresses in Pipes
Driving the Determination of Efforts in Buried Pipelines [in Portu-
This article presents the residual stress distributions along guese], MSc Dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
cross-sections of six segments of UOE-SAW line pipes classi- Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, PUC-Rio (2007).
fied as API 5L X46 and API 5L X60. The conclusions are as 2. Quach, W.M., Teng, J.G., and Chung, K.F., ‘‘Residual Stress
follows: (1) the residual stress distributions are complex in Steel Sheets Due to Coiling and Uncoiling: A Closed-Form Ana-
shaped along a given cross-section; (2) these distributions lytical Solution,’’ Engineering Structures 26:1249–1259 (2004).
are similar for cross-sections close to each other, but they 3. Yaghi, A.H., Hyde, T.H., Becker, A.A., Williams, J.A., and Sun,
differ expressively when the cross-sections are reasonably W., ‘‘Residual Stress Simulation in Welded Sections of P91 Pipes,’’
spaced in a given segment of pipe; and (3) similar pipe seg- Journal of Materials Processing Technology 167:480–487 (2005).

January/February 2008 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES 61

 MEASUREMENT OF RESIDUAL STRESSES
IN LINE PIPES
4. Law, M., Prask, H., Luzin, V., and Gnaupel-Herold, T.,
‘‘Residual Stress Measurements in Coil, Linepipe and Girth Welded
Pipe,’’ Materials Science and Engineering A 437:60–63 (2006).
5. API Specification 5L, Specification for Line Pipe, 43rd Edi-
tion, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC (2004).
6. ASTM 837–01, Standard Test Method for Determining Resid-
ual Stress by the Hole Drilling Strain-Gage Method, American Soci-
ety for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA (2001).
7. Beghini, M., Bertini, L., and Raffaelli, P., ‘‘Numerical Analy-
sis of Plasticity Effects in the Hole-Drilling Residual Stress Mea-
surement,’’ Journal of Testing and Evaluation 22(6):522–529
(1994).
62 EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES January/February 2008
8. Zhao, H.Y., Shi, Y.W., Pei, Y., Lei, Y.P., and Chen, Y.J., ‘‘On
the Correction of Plasticity Effect at the Hole Edge When Using the
Centre Hole Method for Measuring High Welding Residual Stress,’’
Strain 32(4):125–129 (1996).
9. Vangi, D., and Ermini, M., ‘‘Plasticity Effects in Residual
Stress Measurement by the Hole Drilling Method,’’ Strain 36(2):
55–59 (2000).
10. Soares, A.C., Evaluation of Plasticity Effects in Residual
Stress Measurement by the Hole Drilling Technique, Rio de Janeiro
[in Portuguese], DSc Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineer-
ing, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, PUC-Rio
(2003). n