Proceedings of the 2018 12th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2018
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS TO ENGINEERING
FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS OF ENERGY PIPELINES
Sergio Limon
ELEVARA Partners
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Mike Barnum
Pacific Gas & Electric
San Ramon, CA, USA
ABSTRACT
The fracture process of energy pipelines can be described in
terms of fracture initiation, stable fracture propagation and final
fracture or fracture arrest. Each of these stages, and the final
fracture mode (leak or rupture), are directly impacted by the
tendency towards brittle or ductile behavior that line pipe steels
have the capacity to exhibit. Vintage and modern low carbon
steels, such as those used to manufacture energy pipelines,
exhibit a temperature-dependent transition from ductile-to-
brittle behavior that affects the fracture behavior. There are
numerous definitions of fracture toughness in common usage,
depending on the stage of the fracture process and the behavior
or fracture mode being evaluated. The most commonly used
definitions in engineering fracture analysis of pipelines with
cracks or long-seam weld defects are related to fracture
initiation, stable propagation or final fracture.
When choosing fracture toughness test data for use in
engineering Fracture Mechanics-based assessments of energy
pipelines, it is important to identify the stage of the fracture
process and the expected fracture behavior in order to
appropriately select test data that represent equivalent
conditions. A mismatch between the physical fracture event
being modeled and the chosen experimental fracture toughness
data can result in unreliable predictions or overly conservative
results. This paper presents a description of the physical fracture
process, behavior and failure modes that pipelines commonly
exhibit as they relate to fracture toughness testing, and their
implications when evaluating cracks and cracks-like features in
pipelines.
1 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/13/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
September 24-28, 2018, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2018-78723
Peter Martin
Pacific Gas & Electric
San Ramon, CA, USA
Robert Pilarczyk
Hill Engineering
Rancho Cordova, CA USA
Because pipeline operators, and practitioners of engineering
Fracture Mechanics analyses, are often faced with the challenge
of only having Charpy fracture toughness available, this paper
also presents a review of the various correlations of Charpy
toughness data to fracture toughness data expressed in terms of
KIC or JIC. Considerations with the selection of an appropriate
correlation for determining the failure pressure of pipelines in
the presence of cracks and long-seam weld anomalies will be
discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Gathering and transmission gas and liquids pipelines are
commonly made of ferritic steels having certain capacity to
tolerate damage of many types. However, pipelines as any other
in-service structure have a limit of how much initial and
cumulative damage they can absorb before fracture occurs under
operating conditions. Fortunately, advances in fields of Material
Science and engineering Fracture Mechanics have led to better
understanding of how pipelines fracture and improved methods
for evaluating the structural integrity significance of existing
damage and their potential for leading to fractures.
Material scientists and engineers know that the material
fracture toughness is an important indicator of the fracture
resistance of materials and a predictor of the type fracture
behavior expected. Moreover, if a sudden low energy brittle
fracture is to be avoided, a minimum fracture toughness must be
identified. Knowing this limiting value of fracture toughness will
assist with the design of new pipelines and the engineering
evaluations of existing service pipelines.
The most common fracture behaviors of pipelines are brittle
and ductile fractures. The fracture behavior is known to be
directly influenced by the quality of steel and how the line pipe
 was manufactured (material science & metallurgy), temperature,
loading rate and type of damage. The capacity of pipelines to
withstand damage and resist fracture can be measured by means
of standardized quantitative fracture toughness testing based on
engineering Fracture Mechanics principles. While a Fracture
Mechanics derived testing describes more completely the stress
state and fracture response of materials, often the only toughness
data available for energy pipelines is the qualitative Charpy V-
Notch (CVN) toughness. Practitioners of fitness-for-service
assessments using methods based on engineering Fracture
Mechanics will need to correlate CVN data to Fracture
Mechanics KC or JC stress intensity parameters in order to use
CVN toughness data. Several CVN to KC or JC correlations exist
but they were all empirically derived from steels used in nuclear
and pressure vessel piping applications which have much higher
yield strength and fracture toughness values than those typically
found in vintage API 5L line pipe [1-3].
This paper describes the relationship between fracture stress
and fracture toughness as a function of brittle and ductile fracture
behaviors, and identifies limitations when using existing CVN to
KC or JC correlations for fitness-for-service assessments of
pipelines. A comparison of measured CVN, KC and JC toughness
data obtained from API 5L line pipe to calculated Kc from CVN
data using the recommended correlations in API 579/ASME
FFS-1 and BS 7910 are presented and discussed [4-5].
FRACTURE OF METALS AND FRACTURE
TOUGHNESS TESTING
The fracture process of metallic materials can be expressed
in terms of fracture initiation, propagation, arrest and final
fracture or separation. The fracture behavior of ferritic steels
used in the manufacturing of gathering and transmission
pipelines is dependent on temperature, and so the resultant
fracture behavior exhibits a transition behavior between brittle
and ductile fracture. Brittle fracture is characterized by low
energy required for fracture, and the main fracture mechanism is
cleavage with little to no plastic deformation resulting in sudden
fractures. On the other hand, ductile fractures exhibit substantial
plastic deformation and the fracture mechanism is mainly driven
by microvoid coalescence that usually starts at metallic or non-
metallic inclusions.
Fracture toughness testing is intended to measure the ability
of a material to resist fracture initiation, propagation or arrest.
Various toughness methods have been designed throughout the
years to model one or more phases of the fracture process. It is
therefore imperative that the user of fracture toughness data is
able to match as closely as possible the source of the measured
data to the known or expected fracture mode of the pipeline
being evaluated. Ideally, one would want to have extracted a test
sample from the pipeline under consideration and subjected the
sample to a test that replicates the stress state, external
environment and constraints. However, reality forces us to adjust
and recognize what we can realistically obtain without overly
relying on the compensatory effects of applying safety factors in
fitness-for-service assessments. A brief description of the most
commonly used fracture toughness test methods applicable to
2 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/13/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
pipelines and developed under the auspices of the American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the International
Institute of Standards (ISO) are presented next. For detailed
explanations of the development and implications of qualitative
and quantitative fracture toughness testing methods, the reader is
encouraged to review T.L. Anderson book on Fracture
Mechanics [6].
Impact absorbed energy Charpy V-Notch is the most widely
used toughness test for pipelines. This type of qualitative test was
originally devised by Georges Charpy, a French scientist and
Navy officer, in the early 1900s to measure the energy that it took
to break metallic specimens taken from ships. This test method
was used to study the sudden in-service fractures of many US
Liberty class Navy ships as they navigated cold water during
World War II. These test efforts led to the use of Charpy testing
data at various temperatures and the introduction of the concept
of ductile-to-brittle transition temperature [7].
Charpy V-Notch then evolved to be a simple and useful test
for screening materials based on qualitative toughness. A
common issue arises for pipelines as their wall thickness are
mostly less than the specified test sample thickness of 0.394”
(10 mm) resulting in sub-size test samples. In such cases, the
natural tendency is to directly extrapolate sub-size test results
converting them into full size equivalent. Caution should be
exercised when attempting to convert measured energies and
shear appearance from testing sub-size Charpy specimens as it
has been shown that for some ferritic steels the correlation of
sub-size to full-size in lower shelf (brittle fracture) and upper
shelf (ductile) is not linear [8-9]. These data show that the direct
extrapolation is more likely for upper shelf ductile behavior.
Currently, the authors of his paper are not aware of a published
Charpy sub-size to full size correlation for API 5L line pipe.
However, one can reasonably use an available relationship for
ferritic steels as similar trends on the ductile-to-brittle fracture
behavior would be expected. For detailed test data analysis and
statistical treatment of converting sub-size Charpy test data to
full size equivalent, the reader is directed to review K. Wallin
book his Fracture Toughness of Engineering Materials and
testing work completed by NIST [10-11].
The Drop Weight Tear Test (DWTT) is similar to Charpy
testing with the deference being a larger test specimen for
DWTT, usually with the same thickness as the component from
which the test specimen came. This test is performed on a three-
point bend test set up and the same fracture response and
behavior are obtained from both test methods.
The Drop Weight Test or Pellini test is designed to test for
the temperature and toughness relationship at which fracture
propagation arrests. The Drop Weight Test is essentially a
qualitative measure of fracture arrest toughness.
Test specimens and methods designed using Fracture
Mechanics (FM) principles are considered to more completely
represent the state of stress and physical constraints ahead of a
crack or crack-like defect present in the structure of interest.
Because of this original purpose, the process of fracture initiation
and propagation in the test specimen must began with a crack
and not a blunted notch as in the case of Charpy, DWTT and
 Drop Weight tests. The field of engineering Fracture Mechanics CVN TO KC OR JC CORRELATIONS
provides the mathematical and physics based concepts and In the last decade, the application of modern engineering
methods for characterizing the crack-tip conditions that would Fracture Mechanics for evaluating the tolerance of pipelines to
lead to fracture initiation, propagation and arrest. Therefore, any the presence of cracks has become more widespread and widely
Fracture Mechanics design fracture toughness testing is intended accepted. However, the majority of pipe material fracture
to characterize in the best possible way the stress condition and toughness data are only in terms of Charpy toughness which need
material behavior ahead of the crack tip. Table 1 presents the to be converted to KC or JC to meet the data requirements of
most commonly standardized Fracture Mechanics based fracture Fracture Mechanics based methods. Known existing
toughness tests for measuring fracture initiation, stable correlations were empirically derived; therefore, care should be
propagation, ductile instability and arrest. exercised when evaluating which correlation to use by reviewing
the type of materials used in the testing, their range of yield
Table 1: Summary of FM Based Fracture Toughness Testing strength and CVN, and the temperature range of applicability
Fracture (brittle, transitional or ductile fracture behaviors). The original
Standard Test Loading
Test Name Toughness correlations were introduced in early 1970s using data taken
Method Rate
Value Reported from nuclear and pressure vessel piping [1-3,13-14]. Because of
Plain Strain the distinctive temperature dependent brittle-to-ductile fracture
Fracture ASTM E399, Brittle Fracture Quasi- behavior of ferritic steels, the most widely used CVN to KC or JC
Toughness ISO… Initiation static correlations were developed to fit test data in specific regions of
KIC the transition curve. It is imperative to ensure the use of a
Brittle fracture correlation that relates to the fracture behavior represented by the
ASTM E Quasi- CVN data and the level of conservatism that it carries. Moreover,
KIa propagation
1221, ISO… static only full size CVN data are to be used in any of the correlations
arrest
On-set of which necessitates a prior conversion of any measured sub-size
ASTM E ductile stable Quasi- CVN data by a proper methodology as noted previously.
JIC The Charpy to KC or JC correlations evaluated within the
1820, ISO… fracture static
propagation context of this paper are those vetted and recommended by API
Stable ductile 579/ASME FFS-1 and BS 7910, both 2016 editions. Other
ASTM E Quasi- relationships are available but less applicable to line pipe
J-R fracture
1820, ISO… static materials [3,15-16]. Table 2 shows the correlations being
propagation
ASTM E ductile fracture Quasi- evaluated along with their main characteristics.
JQC, JC
1820, ISO… instability static
Table 2: CVN to KC or JC Correlations
The fracture toughness values obtained from any of these Fracture
Source Correlation Behavior
tests directly serve as a basis for design parameters and fitness-
Range
for-service assessments of pipelines containing cracks or crack- Brittle
like features, whereas Charpy V-Notch, DWTT and Drop Weight Roberts- and
tests only provide a qualitative measure. For flaw tolerance Newton
𝐾" = 9.35 (𝐶𝑉𝑁)../0 ductile
analysis applied to pipelines, the KC plain strain fracture fracture
toughness testing is not very useful as metallurgical Upper
Rolfe- 𝐾123 7
𝐶𝑉𝑁
examinations of failed pipelines have shown that pipelines shelf
Novak – =5 − 0.05 ductile
exhibit plastic deformation beyond the minimum plasticity limits Barsom 𝜎56 𝜎56
stipulated in the standard test, including long seam weld material fracture
of vintage Electric Resistance Welded (ERW) or Flash Welded Upper
(FW) pipelines [12]. Wallin J- shelf
Integral
𝐽; 11 = 4.482(𝐶𝑉𝑁);.7? ductile
Most applicable to pipelines are fracture toughness tests that
fracture
account for plastic deformation and stable ductile fracture or Upper
crack growth. The tests that describe this ductile fracture BS 7910 ;.7? F.GHI
𝐸 0.53𝐶AB6 0.2..;00"CDE shelf
behavior are based on the J-integral concept was first proposed Upper 𝐾123 ..7 =
1000 1 − 𝜈 7 ductile
by J.R. Rice in 1968 and supported by the field of Elastic Plastic Shelf
fracture
Fracture Mechanics. When evaluating cracks and crack-like
features in pipelines, such as Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC),
fatigue cracks, and long seam weld anomalies, the fracture In the previous editions of API 579/ASME FFS-1, the
toughness values obtained from the standardized general ASTM Roberts-Newton CVN to KC correlation given below was
E1820 testing method can be used for analysis of flaw recommended when a high degree of conservatism was desired
acceptability and determination of failure stress. [3]. R. Roberts and C. Newton found that this correlation

3 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/13/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 provided more conservative results than those of Sailors-Corten,
Barsom-Rolfe-Novak, Thorby-Ferguson and Logan-Crossland
[1-2, 17-19]. Until recently, there was no single correlation of
CVN to KC that works for the entire brittle-to-ductile curve.
Wallin proposed in 2016 a correlation based on much of the data
previously generated in 1990 and early 2000 by Wallin [20]. This
correlation was not evaluated by the authors as part of this paper.
It is clear that in the correlations listed in Table 2, the CVN
and Fracture Mechanics test data were obtained from mostly
steel alloys with higher yield strength and toughness ranges than
vintage API 5L line pipe steels. Moreover, the majority of KIC
testing was performed following available standard test
protocols that in some cases are no longer valid based on modern
understanding of the fracture process.
When determining which CVN to KC or JC correlations to
use, the analyst should review the source of the toughness data
used to create the correlation, the fracture process being
described and limits of applicability. When evaluating a pipeline
with a crack or crack-like feature, the choice of which CVN to
KC or JC correlation to employ depends on the type of
engineering analysis being performed, the type fracture
toughness data available, the desired level of conservatism, and
the expected fracture behavior.
To the authors present knowledge, these correlations
presented in Table 1 have not been rigorously evaluated using
testing data from API 5L low carbon steels line pipe, nor does
there exist a correlation developed specifically for pipelines.
This represents a potential opportunity to improve the accuracy
of existing pipeline crack assessment methodologies.




 





 toughness since fracture is governed by the flow stress properties
The ability to determine when a crack or crack-like feature
present in a pipeline would become a safety concern is of great
importance to its safe continued operation. Most methods
available to evaluate the capacity of pipelines to tolerate cracks
are based on modern engineering Fracture Mechanics principles
which require an understanding of the expected fracture
behavior, stress analysis around the crack, assessment pressure
and the pipeline’s mechanical properties. Many mathematical
expressions have been developed relating the crack size, to the
material properties and fracture stress. Such expressions are
commonly referred to as Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) equations.
The fracture toughness is a key material parameter that describes
the ability of the pipeline to resist fracture initiation and
propagation. The influence of fracture toughness on the resultant
fracture stress for a given crack size has a characteristic response
described by the applicable Stress Intensity Factor expression
and shown in the Figure 1. In the brittle fracture regime (low
fracture toughness), the failure stress is sensitive to the fracture
toughness value. As the fracture toughness increases, rationally
the failure stress also increases to a point where the fracture
stress is insensitive to fracture toughness. The fracture is then
mostly governed by the tensile properties (flow stress) and
ductile fracture would be expected.
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/13/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Brittle
fracture,
Ductile – plastic collapse
Failure Stress
dominated
by fracture facture, governed by
tensile strength
toughness Mix-mode fracture
region, sensitive to
fracture toughness
and flow stress
Fracture Toughness
Figure 1: Failure Stress Plot as a Function of Fracture Toughness
When performing engineering analysis of pipelines with
crack-like defects in the long seam weld of vintage ERW
pipelines, where the fracture behavior is conservatively expected
to be brittle in nature, the analysis is sensitive to the chosen
fracture toughness value. The Charpy toughness of vintage ERW
long seam welds has been known to be in the range of 5-12 ft-lbs
at room temperature and full-size equivalent [21, see also Table
4 in this report]. The scatter in the test results is attributed to the
irregular microstructure of the long seam weld and the placement
of the V-notch with respect to the ERW bond line.
For pipelines with cracks located in the based material
(away from long seam or girth welds) and in relatively high
fracture toughness areas, the expected fracture would be mostly
ductile exhibiting considerable plasticity. For these conditions,
the failure pressure is almost insensitive to variations of fracture
of the pipeline (yield and tensile strengths).
The effects of fracture toughness on the calculated failure
pressure varies also by the size of the crack size being evaluated
as shown in Figure 2. For a pipeline with nominal dimensions
of 12-inch diameter and 0.250-inch wall thickness, Grade X-42,
MAOP of 990 psi (55% SMYS) and ERW long seam weld type,
failure pressures were calculated using API 579/ASME FFS-1
FAD Level-II for a semi-elliptical shape crack externally located
and axially oriented. Three failure pressure curves are shown
each representing a crack size. In purple color is a 20% deep by
6” long crack while in orange and green are 40% deep by 4” long
and 70% deep by 3” long cracks respectively. The red dashed
horizontal line represents an assumed MAOP of 990 psi and the
black line the pressure at 100% SMYS (1804 psi). If low rage
fracture toughness is assumed or measured to be 10 ft-lbs but it
can vary to be 5 ft-lbs as highlighted by the yellow band, the
reduction on the resultant failure pressure are estimated to be
13% for the smaller crack and 24% and 32% reductions for the
medium and large crack sizes. For high fracture toughness
values, the failure pressure is affected less by changes in the
fracture toughness as seen in the area highlighted in grey.
4 Copyright © 2018 ASME
 L∙N
𝐾123 = eq. (2)
;OP G

Only the full-size equivalent Charpy toughness at room

temperature were used to convert to KC via the appropriate
correlation. The full-size CVN values were in the range of
70 - 90% SFA for the all test samples, representing the upper
bound of the ductile-to-brittle transition area and lower bound of
the upper shelf ductile region, therefore upper shelf conversion
correlations were evaluated in this study. The Roberts-Newton
correlation was used to estimate an overall conservative KC
value. Table 4 presents CVN to KC conversion results and the
Kmat obtained from the measured JC testing. The sample identifier
indicates the pipe sample ID, location of machined sample and
test sample number (A-b1 indicates pipe A-base1 test sample)
Figure 2: Failure Pressure Plot vs Toughness for a 12” O.D., 0.250”
WT and X-42 Pipeline Table 4: Fracture Toughness Conversions
Wallin BS
Converte
As shown in Figure 2, pipelines with known relatively low Charp
d Kmat Kc
API J- 7910
toughness or expected to behave in a brittle manner are sensitive y V- 579/ASM Integra Upper
Sampl from Jc Robert
Notch E Upper l 5% Shelf
to fracture toughness. If the fracture toughness values to use in e
[ft-
Tests Newto
Shelf [ksi- [ksi- [ksi-
the analysis come from a CVN to KC or JC correlation, the analyst [ksi- n
lbs] sqrt(in)] sqrt(in) sqrt(in)
sqrt(in)]
should perform a sensitivity analysis of the conversion to obtain ] ]
a better understanding of the influence of the converted A-b1 20 103.2 61.7 71.9 82.7 64.3
toughness in the final analysis and the level of conservatism A-b2 28 97.4 76.3 87.2 102.6 77.9
A-b3 22 86.7 65.5 76.0 87.9 67.9
attained. A limited database of 26 samples of CVN toughness A-s1 8 46.4 34.7 39.1 102.6 37.7
and JC fracture toughness obtained from five API 5L line pipe A-s2 10 50.6 39.9 46.4 87.9 42.9
manufactured pre-1970s was organized. The toughness data A-s3 10 55.0 39.9 46.4 46.0 42.9
represent samples taken from base material and ERW long seam B-b1 20 94.0 61.7 69.3 53.1 64.3
weld. These data were used to compare the KC based on B-b2 24 91.3 69.2 76.9 53.1 71.4
B-b3 20 82.8 61.7 69.3 82.7 64.3
API 579/ASME FFS-1 and BS 7910 recommended CVN to KC
B-s1 13 69.4 47.8 54.2 92.9 50.8
or JC correlations. The pipeline nominal dimensions, long seam B-s2 13 72.6 47.8 54.2 82.7 50.8
weld type and grade and tensile properties are shown in Table 3. B-s3 13 72.4 47.8 54.2 92.9 50.8
C-s1 18 48.8 68.3 76.9 77.3 60.5
Table 3: Pipeline Characteristics C-s2 18 72.9 68.3 76.9 77.3 60.5
Yield C-s3 12 78.5 52.9 60.6 59.6 47.8
Wall Tensile C-s4 24 58.8 81.9 90.3 92.9 71.4
Pipe Diameter Strength Long Seam
Thickness Strength C-b1 36 109.0 89.4 104.6 120.5 89.9
Number (inches) [SMYS] Weld Type
(in) (ksi) C-b2 38 113.0 92.5 107.7 124.7 92.7
(ksi)
A 6 0.219 52 70 ERW D-b1 26 57.4 72.8 81.7 97.8 74.7
B 12 0.250 42 60 ERW D-b2 26 61.8 72.8 81.7 97.8 74.7
C 16 0.250 46 60 ERW D-b3 26 58.6 72.8 81.7 97.8 74.7
D 20 0.250 52 70 ERW D-s1 6 32.2 28.9 30.0 38.3 31.8
E 26 0.281 52 70 DSAW D-s2 8 45.6 34.7 38.4 46.0 37.7
D-s3 6 40.4 28.9 30.0 38.3 31.8
E-b1 32 105.0 83.0 88.9 111.7 84.1
All CVN test data were measured in accordance with E-b2 34 127.0 86.2 98.6 116.1 87.0
ASTM E23 standard test method using sub-size specimens and
therefore the data were converted to full-size equivalent CVN
and full-size equivalent percent Shear Fracture Appearance The measured Charpy toughness compared with the
(SFA) following the procedure in API 579/ASME FFS-1 Section converted Kmat using equation 2 is shown is Figure 3 for all data
9F.2.2. sets. The test data taken from the long seam ERW weld are
All JC fracture toughness data were obtained in accordance shown in pink, while the base material data are in blue. Most data
with ASTM E1820 standard and at a room temperature of 72 F show a general trend of linear correlation with the seam weld
(22 C). The JC values were converted to KC by means of the toughness being lower than in the pipe base, as expected. Some
following relationship points were outside the correlation band due to unusually high

5 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/13/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Kmat for the lower Charpy toughness that is sometimes obtained
in fracture toughness testing.
CONCLUSIONS
140.0 The fracture behavior of ferritic steels such as those
Base commonly used in the manufacturing of gathering and
120.0 transmission energy pipelines exhibit a transition behavior
Seam
between brittle and ductile fractures that depends on
100.0
temperature. If the fracture toughness of the pipeline is known or
assumed, then an engineering Fracture Mechanics evaluation can
Kmat (ksi-sqrt(in)

80.0
be carried out to determine the performance of pipelines in the
60.0
presence of cracks and cracks-like features. However, often the
only fracture toughness information on record for pipelines is
40.0 Charpy toughness which needs to be converted to KC or JC to
meet the data requirements of Fracture Mechanics based
20.0 analyses. Existing CVN to Kmat correlations exist to aid in the
conversion, but care should be exercised when evaluating
0.0 correlations to ascertain the type of materials used in the testing,
0 10 20 30 40 their range of yield strength and CVN, and their range of
CVN (ft-lbs) applicable fracture behavior (brittle, transitional or ductile
fracture behaviors).
Figure 3: Measured Charpy and Kmat Toughness for All In this paper, it was shown that the failure pressure
Specimens calculations of pipelines with cracks of varying sizes in areas of
low fracture toughness (brittle behavior) was sensitive to fracture
The results for each calculated Kmat were compared toughness, while that for relatively high fracture toughness
with the converted Kmat using the correlations listed in Table 4. (ductile behavior) was less sensitive to toughness and more
The predictions by each correlation was closer to each other for depended on tensile properties.
lower fracture toughness values and become wider for higher 26 samples of CVN toughness and JC fracture toughness
toughness, as seen in Figure 4. When combining all data, the representing pipe base material and ERW long seam weld were
Roberts-Newton correlation was the most conservative, with the obtained from five API 5L line pipe manufactured pre-1970s and
average predicted toughness approximately 30% lower than a fracture toughness databased was created from multiple testing
measured. The predictions by the Wallin J-Integral were found programs. CVN and Kmat test results were obtained from the
to be the most closely aligned with the measured data and same pipe sample and compared with calculated KC from the
resulted in 2% conservative on average. The Rolfe-Novak- measured CVN data using various correlations. Wallin 1-mm
Barsom and BS 7910 upper shelf correlations were both 19% J-Integral was found to produce the most closely aligned results
conservative. to the measured Kmat data and resulted in 2% conservative on
average. The Rolfe-Novak-Barsom and BS 7910 upper shelf
correlations were both 19% conservative while the
140 Roberts-Newton correlation more conservative than all others,
Roberts-Newton
Rolfe-Novak-Barsom
predicting fracture toughness 30% conservative on average.
120 While various CVN toughness to Kmat correlations have
Wallin 5%, 1 mm
BS 7910, eq. J.6 been developed throughout, all of them have been empirically
100 Measured derived from test data from nuclear and pressure vessel piping
Kmat (ksi sqrt(in)

with substantially higher yield strength and toughness than

80
vintage API 5L line pipe. It is therefore imperative that the user
of fracture toughness data perform an inspection and sensitivity
60
analysis of the conversion relationship to obtain a better
40
understanding of the influence of the converted toughness in the
final analysis and the level of conservatism that can be achieved.
20
REFERENCES
0
0 10 20 30 40 [1] Barsom, J. M. and Rolfe, S. T., 1970, “Correlations
CVN (ft-lbs) Between Klc and Charpy V-Notch Test Results in the
Transition-Temperature Range”, Impact testing of Metals,
Figure 4: Comparison of Measured and Calculated Fracture ASTM STP 466, American Society for Testing and
Toughness Materials, pp. 281-302.

6 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/13/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 [2] Rolfe, S. T. and Novak, S. R., 1970 “Slow-Bend Klc Center, Watervliet, New York.
Testing of Medium-Strength High-Toughness Steels”, [16] Konopik, P., Dzugan, J., Bucki, T., Rzepa, S., Rund, M.,
Review of Developments in Plane Strain fracture and Prochazka, R., 2017, “Correlation between standard
Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 463, American Society for Charpy and sub-size Charpy test results of selected steels
Testing and Materials, pp. 124-159. in upper shelf region”, 4th International Conference
[3] Roberts, R., Newton, C., 1981, “Interpretive Report on Recent Trends in Structural Materials, IOP Conf. Series:
Small-Scale Test Correlations with Klc Data”, Welding Materials Science and Engineering 179, IOP Publishing.
Research Council Bulletin 265, The Welding Research [17] Sailors, R. H. and Corten, H. T., "Relationship Between
Council. Material Fracture Toughness Using Fracture Mechanics
[4] American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American and Transition Temperature Tests," Fracture Toughness,
Petroleum Institute, 2016, “API 579-1/ASME FFS-1 2016 Proceedings of the 1971 National Symposium on Fracture
Fitness-For-Service”, Washington DC. Mechanics, Part II, ASTM STP 514, 1972, pp. 164-191.
[5] British Standards Institution, 2016, “BSI 7910 Methods [18] Logan, J. G and Crossland, B., "The Fracture Toughness
for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic of En25 and a 3% Ni-Cr-Mo-V Steel at Various Strength
Structures”. Levels Together with Charpy Impact Data," Practical
[6] Anderson, T. L., 2005, “Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Pressure Vessel
and Applications”, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, Technology, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1971,
FL. pp. 148-155.
[7] Wallin, K., Nevasmaa, P., Planman, T., and Matti, V., 002, [19] Thorby, P. N. and Ferguson, W. G., " The Fracture
“Evolution of the Charpy-V Test from a Quality Control Toughness of HY60, " Materials Science and
Test to a Materials Evaluation Tool for Structural Integrity Engineering, 22, 1976, pp. 177-184.
Assessment”, From Charpy to Present Impact Testing, D. [20] Wallin, K., Karjalainen-Roikonen, P., and Suikkanen, P.,
Francois and A. Pineau Eds., Elsevier Science Ltd. And 2016, “Sub-sized CVN specimen conversion
ESIS. pp. 57-68. methodology”, 21st European Conference on Fracture,
[8] McNicol, R., 1965. “Correlation of Charpy Test Results Catania, Italy. Procedia Structural Integrity 2, pp. 3735-
for Standard and Nonstandard Size Specimens”. Welding 3742.
Research Supplement, 385-393. [21] Quickel, G.T., Beaver, J. A., Moghissi, O.C.,
[9] Wallin, K., 2001, “Upper shelf energy normalization for “Characterization of Toughness of Pipe Containing ERW
sub-sized Charpy-V specimens”, International Journal of Seam Defect”, PHMSA ERW Study, May 2013
Pressure Vessels and Piping 78, pp. 463-470.
[10] Wallin, K., 2011, “Fracture Toughness of Engineering
Materials Estimation and Application”, EMAS
Publishing, Warrington, UK.
[11] Lucon, E., McCowan, C. N., and Santoyo, R. L., 2015,
“Impact Characterization of Line Pipe Steels by Means of
Standard, Sub-Size and Miniaturized Charpy Specimens”,
NIST Technical Note 1865, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
[12] Failure Analysis of a 16-inch ERW pipeline. Internal
Report. April 2007.
[13] Norris, D. M., Reaugh, J. E., and Server, W. L., 1981, “A
Fracture-Toughness Correlation Based on Charpy
Initiation Energy”, Fracture Mechanics: Thirteenth
Conference, ASTM STP 743, Richard Roberts, Ed.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 207-217.
[14] Bannister, A. C., 1998, “Structural Integrity Assessment
Procedures For European Industry SINTAP Sub-Task 3.3
Report: Final Issue Determination of Fracture Toughness
from Charpy Impact Energy: Procedure and Validation”,
British Steel, Rotherham, UK
[15] Kapp, J. A., Underwood, J. H., 1992, “Correlation
Between Fracture Toughness, Charyp V-Votch Impact
energy, and Yield Strength for ASTM A723 Steel”,
Memorandum Report ARCCB-MR-92008, US Army
Armament Research, Development and Engineering

7 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 01/13/2019 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use