MAINTENANCE & RETROFITTING

How to prevent transit

fatigue to tubular goods
Good loading and shipping practices can eliminate denting is severe, more cracks will
transit fatigue damage initiate on the inside.
The environment also can lower fa-
tigue resistance because even mild cor-
rosion can significantly lower fatigue
T. V. Bruno, Metallurgical Consultants, Variables. Many variables influence life. Transit fatigue during ocean ship-
Inc., Houston, Texas transit fatigue, such as the number and ment is usually accelerated by cor-
magnitude of the cyclic forces, the size of rosion and, hence, may be considered a
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT of all the contact area, the nature of the bearing form of corrosion-fatigue.
types is commonly transported by ship, surface, the amount of surface damage Bearing strip. The type of bearing
rail and truck all over the world. Con- and the ambient environment. strip has a strong effect on transit fa-
sequently, shipping damage is not un- Transit fatigue is usually, but not al- tigue. Table 1 shows the results of fa-
common. One particularly serious type of ways, accompanied by surface damage tigue tests on pipe sample supported on
damage is fatigue cracking that occurs such as abrasion, denting and fretting. steel and on wood bearing strips.2 In the
during transportation, or transit fatigue. Surface damage can lower the fatigue tests, the static load and the cyclic loads
Many types of equipment are subject to resistance and, in the absence of dent- were varied to cover a wide range.
transit fatigue, but it is probably most ing, more cracks are found at the out- Under all conditions, pipe supported on
common in tubular goods. side surface than at the inside. Where
Fatigue cause. Transit fatigue results
from cyclic stresses induced by gravita- TABLE 1 -- Results of fatigue tests
tional and inertial forces. The manner in
which pipe is subjected to fatigue-induc- Test Load, lb Base No. of Fatigue
ing stresses during transportation is il- no. Static Cyclic plates cycles cracks
lustrated schematically in Fig.1. The 1 9,200 ± 3,960 Steel 31,900 Yes
weight of a load of pipe imposes a steady 2 7,000 ± 3,080 Steel 21,700 Yes
3 5,600 ± 2,640 Steel 35,800 Yes
stress of a given magnitude. As the load
4 4,800 ± 2,200 Steel 433,600 Yes
moves up and down, the pipe flexes, 5 9,600 ± 4,180 Wood 29,700 No
inducing alternating tension and 6 7,000 ± 3,080 Wood 968,600 Yes
compression at both the inside and the 7 6,000 ± 2,640 Wood 1,714,400 No
outside surfaces. The alternating stresses
initiate cracks. TABLE 2 -- Line pipe failures
In the past, transit fatigue failures of- Date Size Grade Type D/t Transportation
Jan. 1960 30" x 0.375" X52 DSAW 80.0 Rail
ten were not recognized as being related Apr. 1962 10 3/4"x 0.250" X52 Seamless 43.0 Rail
to fatigue effects. They were frequently May. 1968 20" x 0.250" X52 DSAW 51.0 Ship
attributed to mill defects, to impact- type Sep. 1969 12 3/4" x 0.250" X52 ERW 51.0 Rail
mechanical damage, or to other causes. (three failures)
Mar. 1970 8 5/8" x 0.250" X46 ERW 34.5 Ship
In 1968, following several hydro- Aug. 1971 8 5/8" x 0.203" X42 ERW 42.5 Ship
static test failures in a new pipe line, the Aug. 1976 14" x 0.500" X42 ERW 28.0 Ship
pipe manufacturer conducted a number Dec. 1977 8 5/8" x 0.188" X46 ERW 45.9 Ship
of experiments to determine the cause of Jan. 1979 16" x 0.250" X60 ERW 64.0 Rail
the leaks, which were associated with Jun. 1979 12 3/4" X 0.213" X60 ERW 59.6 Rail
external damage in the body of the pipe. (three failures)
Dec. 1979 16" X 0.344" X56 Seamless 46.5 Ship
Attempts were made to duplicate the
(two failures)
damage by denting a test pipe with a rod Nov. 1980 6 5/8" x 0.188" X42 ERW 35.2 Ship
using a universal testing machine; by Mar. 1981 6 5/8" x 0.156" X46 ERW 42.5 Rail
denting with a punch; by striking pipe Apr. 1982 24" x 0.281" X60 DSAW 85.4 Ship
with a large hammer; by stacking the (six failures)
pipe on a sharp protrusion; by dropping Jul. 1982 20" x 0.281" X60 ERW 71.2 Rail
pipe 15 feet onto different types of Dec. 1985 16" x 0.500" X65 DSAW 32.0 Ship
Jun. 1986 8 5/8" x 0.250" X42 ERW 34.5 Ship
protrusions; by impacting at high speeds
Jan. 1987 8 5/8" x 0.188" X42 ERW 45.9 Ship
with a lead ball; by repeated blows of a (two failures)
hammer; by repeated percussions with a Oct. 1987 20" x 0.438" X70 DSAW 45.7 Ship
rivet machine and by repealed stressing (two failures)
of a pipe sample in a fatigue testing OCTG failures
machine.1 All of the tests produced dents Sep. 1980 5 1/2", 17 ppf (o.304") L-55 Seamless 18.1 Ship
and surface damage but only the fatigue Nov. 1985 2 3/8" , 4.7 ppf (0.190") N-80 Seamless 12.5 Ship
loading caused cracks.
Fig. 1-Drawing showing pipe deflection during
shipping.
wood had a much higher fatigue life than
pipe supported on steel.
Survey of failures. Table 2 shows 21
reported incidents over a 17-year period
from 1960 to 1987, covering 28 separate
line pipe failures, and one failure each
casing and tubing. All were found during
initial hydrostatic testing. Of the 21 failure
incidents, including the casing and tubing,
• The diameters ranged from 2 3/8-
in. to 30-in.
• The wall thickness ranged from
0.156 to 0.500-in.
• The D/t ratio ranged from 12.5 to
85.4.
Of the 19 incidences of line pipe fail-
ures:
• The grades ranged from Grade B
through X70.
• 12 were in electric-resistance
welded pipe
• Five were in submerged-arc welded
pipe
Fig 3. – Transit fatigue cracks caused by rivet
head
Fig 5. – Magnetic particle indications of crack
emanating from transverse bearing contact.
Fig. 2 – Photomacrograph of cracks in submerged-arc welded pipe. From Reference 4
• Two were in seamless pipe (the
tubing and casing were also
seamless)
• Seven were transported by rail
• 12 were transported by ship (all
ocean shipments).
There appears to be no particular
pattern of failures related to either the
type of pipe, the grade or the mode of
transport between rail and ship.
Similarly, there appears to be no
relationship between the number of
failures and the size of pipe, although
more have been expected in large
diameter pipe or in pipe with larger
diameter-to-thickness ratios.
Fig 4. – Crack and abrasion from rectangular
bearing surface.
Fig 6. – Magnetic particle indications of cracks
in abraded areas.
Characteristics of transit fatigue
failures. Transit fatigue cracks develop
at three general areas:
• Along the edge of submerged arc
welds
• In the base metal in the pipe body
• And at the ends of the pipe, either
at the edge of a submerged arc
weld or in the base metal
Electric resistance welds do not ap-
pear to be preferentially susceptible to
this type of cracking.
Of the failures in Table 2, cracking
was most prevalent in the pipe body
base metal and most often was associ-
ated with some mechanical damage.
Second most frequent were cracks at
the end of the pipe in the base metal,
which often were not associated with
obvious mechanical damage. These
cracks are usually found by X-ray of
the girth weld. Cracks at the edge of
the submerged arc weld were least
common, perhaps because they have
been well publicized3 and are easily
Fig 7. – Fatigue crack at pipe end.

Fig. 8 – Magnetic particle indications of fatigue
cracks found during radiography of girth weld.
Fig 10. – Cross section at leak showing mare
cracks at outside surface. Original
magnification 12X; unetched.
Fig. 12-Small fatigue crack in cold-worked
metal at outside surface. Original magnifica-
tion 400X; nital etch.
and are easily avoidable by loading pipe
so that the weld is not in a highly stressed
location.
All the cracks in the failures in Table 2
were longitudinal and almost invariably
initiated and grew from both the inside
and outside surfaces. This is a
distinguishing feature of transit fatigue.
There is no other common cause of
cracks in line pipe that results in crack
initiation at both the inside and outside
surfaces.
Transit fatigue nearly always causes
multiple cracks. There will generally be
one major crack growing from the out-
side that intersects one growing from the
inside to cause a leak. In addition, there
usually will be several secondary cracks
at either the inside surface, the outside
surface, or both.
Some cracks tend to be relatively
Fig. 9 – Leak Broken open in lab showing
cracks starting from both surfaces.
Fig 11. – Cross section at leak showing more
cracks at inside. Original magnification 12X;
unetched.
Fig. 13-Small fatigue crack at inside surface.
Original magnification 400X; nital etch.
straight, which is typical for other types
of fatigue cracking, but others tend to be
jagged or crooked.
Examples. The following examples will
illustrate some of the important
characteristics of transit fatigue. Fig. 2
shows the type of crack that can occur
due to the natural stress concentration at
the edges of submerged arc welds.
Cracking of this type can be prevented by
positioning the pipe during loading so
that the weld is not at points of maxi-
mum flexing.
Surface damage that frequently ac-
companies transit fatigue can take sev-
eral forms, depending upon the size and
shape of bearing surfaces in contact with
the pipe. Figs. 3 through 5 show
respectively cracks associated with a
rivet head; a broad, flat bearing surface
and two thin, transverse bearing sur-
faces. Note that even when the
bearing surfaces concentrate stresses
transverse to the pipe axis, cracking
is always longitudinal to the pipe
axis.
Abrasion from shifting of the pipe
may accompany denting and contri-
bute to cracking. Fig. 6 shows cracks
resulting from abrasion and denting.
Occasionally, pipe may suffer
transit fatigue with no apparent sur-
face damage. Such cracking usually
occurs near a pipe end where the pipe
is less rigid than elsewhere. Figs. 7
and 8 show such cracks adjacent to a
field girth weld. End cracks are often
discovered when the girth weld is
radiographed.
Transit fatigue usually results in
multiple cracks with at least one init-
iating at the outside surface and one
at the inside surface. Fig. 9 shows a
transit fatigue leak that was broken
open in the laboratory. The fracture
surfaces show clear evidence of fa-
tigue cracks starting at both surfaces.
The presence of multiple cracks at
both surfaces is most obvious upon
examination of metallographic cross
sections. Fig. 10 shows a cross section
through a leak caused by transit fa-
tigue. The leak resulted from the
intersection of a large crack that
started on the outside with a crack that
started on the inside. The leak shown
in Fig. 11 was severely eroded during
hydrotesting, but numerous small
cracks were found at both surfaces.
Some smaller cracks, such as those in
Figs. 12 and 13, are visible only at
high magnifications.
Prevention. Damage of the type illus-
trated can be prevented by following
good loading and shipping practices.
The American Petroleum Institute
(API) publishes recommended
practices for transportation of line
pipe5 designed to prevent damage
during transit. Adherence to these
practices should eliminate transit
fatigue and save producers, shippers
and users of tubular goods the ex-
pense of finding and replacing dam-
aged pipe after it is installed.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Based on a paper, "Transit Fatigue of Tubular

Goods," presented by the author at the 1987
Standardization Conference of the Production
Department, American Petroleum Institute, New
Orleans, La., June 29, 1987.

REFERENCES
1
Unpublished research by Kasasaki Steel
Corp" June 1968.
2
"Investigation Report on Simulated Fatigue
Test," by Sumitomo Metals Industries, Ltd.,
Bulletin No. 186-77, Jan 14, 1978.
3
Atterbury, T. J., "Cyclic Stresses in Rail
Shipment of Pipe Line Pipe Research," The
Oil & Gas Journal, Sept. 13, 1963.
4
Fourth Symposium on Line Pipe Research,
American Gas Association, Dallas, Texas,
Nov 18-19, 1969.
5
API RP 5L1, " Recommended Practice for
Railroad Transportation of Line Pipe," 36th
edition, June 30, 1987, and API RP 5L5,
"Recommended Practice for Marine
Transportation of Line Pipe," 1st edition,
March 1975, published by the American
Petroleum Institute, Dallas, Texas.