Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90605

BURNTHROUGH PREDICTION FOR IN-SERVICE WELDING PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

Matthew A. Boring EWI Columbus, Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT The methods of determining burnthrough risk have changed over the years. The first burnthrough limits were developed experimentally and then, with the development of computers, came computer models. The first major advancement in computer models came at Battelle, in the early 1980s, with the development of the Hot-Tap Thermal-Analysis Models. The Battelle models use two-dimensional numerical solutions to predict the inside surface temperature as a function of the welding parameters, pipe parameters, and the operating conditions. The Battelle model considers an inside surface temperature of less than 1800F (982C) when using lowhydrogen electrodes, [1400F (760C) when using cellulosiccoated electrodes] to be safe. Since the release of the Battelle model, introduction other models have been developed which are based on Battelles logic as well as other approaches. PRCI, as well as others, has funded research to develop an alternative burnthrough prediction model which is based on a thermo-mechanical approach taking into account the stress associated with pressurized pipe. These alternative approaches differ from Battelles criteria which only uses the inside surface temperature as the lonely determining factor of safe welding practices. INTRODUCTION Any steel structure requires some form of rehabilitation or modification over its design life. The methods used to alter these steel structures are as diverse as the design and construction requirements employed during fabrication. One type of such steel structure that requires constant rehabilitation or modification is a steel pipeline system. Steel pipelines are used to transport liquid or gas products. These structures are constantly being repaired as a result of environmental or maninduced defects or modified to include more inputs or outputs.

One of the most common methods used to repair or modify steel pipelines is the practice of in-service welding. In-service welding is defined as welding onto an operating pipeline that may or may not be pressurized and/or flowing. These welds are commonly deposited between an operating pipeline and a steel repair sleeve or branch connection. Applying sound in-service welding practices require the engineer to evaluate two main concerns. The first concern is for the safety of the personnel that will be performing the inservice welding which can be addressed by mitigating the risk of burnthrough. The second concern is for the integrity of the steel pipeline system after the in-service weld is complete which can be addressed by mitigating the risk of hydrogen cracking. There are several factors that contribute to the risk of burnthrough. These factors include the wall thickness of the pipeline at the weld location, the welding parameters (e.g., current, voltage, travel speed, electrode type and diameter) and the operating conditions of the pipeline (e.g., flow, pressure, temperature). Historically, companies have controlled the risk of burnthrough by limiting the wall thickness on which an inservice weld is allowed with typical minimum wall thicknesses ranging from 0.156 to 0.188 in (4.0 to 4.8 mm) [1, 2]. However, limiting the wall thickness only addresses one aspect of burnthrough which could result in unsafe conditions when using excessively high heat inputs or overly conservative conditions such as not allowing the welding to proceed even when it could be considered safe. BACKGROUND A burnthrough occurs when the pipe wall ligament underneath the weld pool loses the ability to contain internal pressure. When steel is exposed to elevated temperature, such as the temperatures associated with welding, the strength of the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

material in the vicinity of the weld is reduced. The internal pressure acting on the reduced strength, pipe wall ligament underneath the weld pool can cause local yielding (Figure 1) [3]. When the reduced strength in the remaining pipe wall ligament is not sufficient to contain the internal pressure the pipe wall yields through the weld pool and expels the molten metal through a small hole located in the weld pool crater (Figure 2).

A well-established rule of thumb indicates that penetrating the pipe wall with the welding arc (i.e., burning through) is unlikely if the wall thickness is 0.250 inch (6.4 mm) or greater, provided that low-hydrogen electrodes and normal welding practices are used. This rule of thumb seems to have been lost by some companies, who have requirements for maintaining flow and/or reducing pressure even when the wall thickness is 0.250 inch (6.4 mm) or greater. If the wall thickness is 0.250 inch (6.4 mm) or greater, the primary in-service welding concern should be for hydrogen cracking and not for burnthrough. If the wall thickness is less than 0.250 inch (6.4 mm), there may be a need to take special precautions to minimize the risk of burnthrough. These precautions include minimizing the penetration of the arc into the pipe wall by using smalldiameter, low-hydrogen electrodes and a procedure that limits heat input. BURNTHROUGH PREDICTION METHODS There are several methods that have been used by industry to predict the risk of burnthrough. These methods can be grouped into three general categories; experimental approach, thermal analysis models and thermo-mechanical models.

FIGURE 1. EXAMPLE OF LOCAL YIELDING UNDERNEATH AN INSERVICE WELD

FIGURE 2. EXAMPLE OF A TYPICAL BURNTHROUGH

The occurrence of a burnthrough typically does not result in a catastrophic event (e.g., ignition) [4]. For ignition to occur there needs to be an ignition source in close proximity to a flammable fuel and air mixture. A flammable fuel and air mixture is between the lower and upper flammability limits and varies depending on the fuel type. When a burnthrough occurs the electrical welding circuit is usually broken, extinguishing the welding arc, which eliminates the ignition source. In addition, the fuel and air mixture tends to be far above the upper flammability limit as a result of the high volume of gas being expelled into the environment through the resulting small hole in the pressurized pipeline. There are, however, two known instances where an ignition did occur as a result of burning through the pipe wall. Both of these instances occurred on a refined liquid product line and did not result in any consequential damage since the fires were quickly extinguished.

Experimental Approach The experimental approach to predicting burnthrough is an iterative approach of making welds under simulated conditions and analyzing the completed weld. There has been much research directed at determining experimental burnthrough limits [3, 5 11]. A majority of the reported data was for beadon-pipe welds made both in the circumferential and longitudinal direction with the pipe pressurized with nitrogen, methane, water, or liquid propane and under flowing or nonflowing condition. The acceptance criteria for these welds was based on analysis of weld sections looking for the presence of yielding of the pipe wall (i.e., bulging) or the proximity of the weld heat-affected zone (HAZ) to the inside surface of the pipe. Welds were typically considered safe if there was no presence of bulging and the coarse-grained region of the HAZ did not encroach on the inside surface. The weld was considered marginal if there was no presence of bulging but the coarsegrained region of the HAZ did encroach on the inside surface. Welds were considered unsafe if there was any bulging (Figure 1), a burnthrough occurred or the weld cracked. A majority of the data was plotted as a function of heat input and pipe pressure (Figure 3) [10]. A safe heat input limit, for a specific pipe diameter and wall thickness combination, was overlaid onto the plotted data between the safe and marginal welding heat input data. It is important to note that engineering judgment was used to determine which welds were considered safe or marginal. The method of determination was not precise but the results are still considered conservative when welding an attachment onto an operating pipeline.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

FIGURE 3. AN EXAMPLE OF EXPERIMENTALLY DERIVED SAFE HEAT INPUT LIMIT

Figure 4 highlights this conservatism by comparing the safe heat input limit of bead-on-pipe welds (open symbols) to circumferential fillet welds (closed symbols) deposited under the same conditions [10]. Safe welds were deposited between a sleeve and pressurized pipe wall using heat inputs above what was considered safe for bead-on-pipe welds. The main reason for this conservatism is that the heat from welding is being split between the pressurized pipeline and the attachment.

FIGURE 4. CONSERVATISM ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Thermal Analysis Models The iterative experimental trials provide an accurate method for determining burnthrough risk but it is specific to the application that is being evaluated and would be cost prohibitive to evaluate all potential in-service welding applications. To address the wide range of in-service welding applications thermal analysis models have been developed. The thermal analysis models generally consist of finite element analysis (FEA) models that allow the user to input pipeline geometries, operating conditions and welding parameters to evaluate what-if in-service welding scenarios. The two most widely known thermal analysis models in the transmission pipeline industry are the Battelle model [12, 13] and the PRCI thermal analysis model [14]. A third model has developed by Equity Engineering and mainly targets oil refining and petrochemical plants [15]. The Battelle model was developed at Battelle Columbus Laboratories in the late 70s and early 80s. The model

determines burnthrough risk by solving two-dimensional heat transfer equations to predict the temperature at the inside diameter surface (i.e., inside surface temperature). The idea of using the inside surface temperature to characterize burnthrough risk has been discussed by previous researchers and was related to the loss of pipe strength in the weld region at elevated temperature [16, 17]. The Battelle model was compared to experimental measurements taken from thermocouples attached to the inside surface of the pipe to monitor the inside surface temperature response to welds being deposited onto the outside surface under simulated conditions. The data from the experimental welds, along with other research, showed that burnthroughs occurred when the inside surface temperature approached 2300F (1260C). A temperature reduction was incorporated into the model as a factor of safety and is based on the welding electrode used to deposit the in-service welds. The model characterizes any weld deposited using low-hydrogen electrodes that produces an inside surface temperature less than 1800F (982C) as a weld that is unlikely to burnthrough. If cellulosic electrodes are used then the maximum allowable inside surface temperature is reduced to 1400F (760C) as a result of the increased penetration characteristics of the cellulosic electrode. Since the burnthrough risk is greater when using cellulosic electrodes, due to the increased penetration, and the associated increase in hydrogen cracking risk, low-hydrogen electrodes are strongly preferred over cellulosic-coated electrodes for in-service welding applications. Since the original introduction of the Battelle model, PRCI funded EWIs development of a thermal analysis model which has similar functionality as the Battelle model [14]. The PRCI thermal analysis model is a Microsoft Windows-based software package uses the same basic principles as the Battelle model when it comes to evaluating burnthrough risk (i.e., limits on inside surface temperature). The Equity Engineering model (i.e.VCESage) is also based on the Battelle model but has been updated to improve some modeling aspects and to expand the pipeline product options available to the user [18]. One limitation of the Battelle, PRCI, and Equity Engineering models is they are limited to analyzing a single pass weld. A more recent model was developed that evaluated the burnthrough risk of a multipass in-service welds but the model was only applicable to branch connections [19]. Thermo-mechanical Models Thermo-mechanical models are different from the thermal analysis models in that they take into consideration the stress acting on the pipe, as a result of the pipeline pressure, as well as the thermal effects of the weld. There have been several thermo-mechanical models developed that pertain to specific industries or applications. One model was developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia [20]. The CSIRO model initially performs a thermal analysis to predict the temperature profile of the weld pool. An isotherm around the weld pool is

Copyright 2012 by ASME

then selected and the material with a temperature higher than the isotherm is considered to have no strength and the material with a temperature lower than the isotherm is considered to have full strength. The full strength material is then evaluated for burnthrough risk by calculating the remaining strength of the reduced thickness section of pipe using an American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B31G procedure [21]. In addition to the cavity approach described above the CSIRO model uses two other methods to determine burnthrough risk. One of the methods is the inside surface temperature approach which is the same approach used by the thermal analysis models. The second approach checks the percentage of cavity depth to the wall thickness to a preset value. The CISRO model then reports the most conservative result to the user. Two other thermo-mechanical models have been developed that used pipe wall displacement as a measure of burnthrough risk instead of inside surface temperature [22, 23]. These models take into consideration the temperature dependent properties of the pipe wall and apply stress fields to the pipe wall as it is experiencing the elevated temperature. The primary output of these models is the displacement of the inside surface which is the distance from the original inside surface location prior to welding to inside surface location after welding which is a measure of the local yielding of the pipe wall. One of the pipe wall displacement models was funded by PRCI. The PRCI thermo-mechanical model considers safe welds as welds that had no pipe wall displacement. Marginal welds are considered to be welds with a maximum of 0.015 in. (0.4 mm) of pipe wall displacement. Unsafe welds were welds with a pipe wall displacement that exceeded 0.015 in. (0.4 mm). Figure 5 shows a comparison between the PRCI thermomechanical model predictions to experimental weld and shows the predictions are reasonable.

calculated the actual stress state of the pipe wall and did not really solely on the presence of pipe wall displacement. The yield stress model was developed specifically for stainless steel branch connections. COMPARISON OF BURNTHROUGH PREDICTION METHODS The various burnthrough prediction methods described above were compared. The comparison is limited in that not all the computer models mentioned were available to the author or the models were not applicable to the specific application. Figure 6 shows a burnthrough risk comparison between two thermal analysis models and the CSIRO model [25]. The example was for a fillet weld used for a full encirclement reinforcing sleeve deposited onto a 14-in. (356-mm) diameter pipe, 0.213-in (5.4 mm) thick, API5L X-52 grade pipe. For this example, the Battelle model provided the least conservative result or highest permitted heat input of the three models evaluated (CSIRO model selects the lowest permitted heat input of the three different analyses).
Battelle PRCI CRC/CSIRO-IST CRC/CSIRO-Cavity CRC/CSIRO-Remaining Wall

80 70 60

64 55 45 42

Heat input, kJ/in.

50 40 30 20 10 0

40

Maximum allowable heat input

FIGURE 6. COMPARISON OF THE BATTELLE, PRCI AND CSIRO BURNTHROUGH PREDICTION MODELS

FIGURE 5. PRCI THERMO-MECHANICAL MODEL PREDICTIONS COMPARED TO EXPERIMENTAL WELDS

A third type of thermo-mechanical model was recently developed using yet another approach for predicting burnthrough [24]. The third type of model predicted the through thickness stress field of the pipe wall under the weld pool. Using this model, in-service welds were considered safe if the stresses in at least one-third of the pipe wall were below the minimum yield stress of the pipe material. If one-third of the pipe wall was not in the yield stress range then it was believed that the pipe would not burnthrough since the pipe wall would not locally deform. This is slightly different than the previously mentioned thermo-mechanical models in that it

FIGURE 7. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PRCI THERMAL ANALYSIS MODEL PREDICTION AND EXPERIMENTALLY DERIVED SAFE HEAT INPUT LIMITS

Even though the Battelle and PRCI thermal analysis models do have comparable results [55 kJ/in. and 45 kJ/in (2.2

Copyright 2012 by ASME

kJ/mm and 1.8 kJ/mm), respectively] the models are considered conservative by the industry. This conservatism is highlighted by Figure 7 which shows the maximum permitted heat input predicted by the PRCI thermal analysis model and the safe heat input limits derived from experimental data for 4.5-in (114mm) diameter pipe [10]. The PRCI thermal analysis model results indicate that the maximum allowable heat input when depositing bead-on-pipe welds on 0.188-in. (4.8-mm) thick pipe would be 10 kJ/in. (0.4 kJ/mm) and there would be no condition when a weld could be made onto 0.125-in. (3.2-mm) thick pipe. On the other hand, the experimental derived heat input limits range between 50 kJ/in. at 200 psi to 27 kJ/in. at 1200 psi (2.0 kJ/mm at 1.4 MPa to 1.1 kJ/mm at 8.3 MPa, respectively) for 0.188-in. (4.8-mm) thick pipe and 22 kJ/in. at 200 psi to 8 kJ/in. at 1200 psi (0.9 kJ/mm at 1.4 MPa to 0.3 kJ/mm at 8.3 MPa, respectively) for 0.125-in. (3.2-mm) thick pipe. The significant difference in allowable heat input does highlight how overly conservative the thermal analysis models can be. It is important to note that some of the over conservatism can be associated with the different factors of safety used by the various approaches. The PRCI thermal analysis model uses the same factor of safety as the Battelle model [500F (278C)] whereas the experimental generated results are based on analysis of weld cross-sections and not the inside surface temperature.

differences between the two methods [3]. The PRCI thermal analysis model is based solely on inside surface temperature and the PRCI thermo-mechanical model is based on inside surface displacement. The inside surface displacement is affected mainly by the hoop stress and the hoop stress decreases as the pipe diameter decreases. So even at high inside surface temperatures, if the hoop stress is low there will be less driving force for inside surface displacement which would indicate an acceptable welding condition. There are differences between all the burnthrough prediction methods but a vast majority of the factors affecting burnthrough are consistent. That is, all the methods show a reduced burnthrough risk as the wall thickness is increased, the welding heat input is reduced or the flow rate is increased. However, there is one factor that does appear to generate a discrepancy between the different approaches and that is the effect of pipeline pressure. Pressure was two components as it applies to burnthrough risk; a stress component and a cooling component. Increasing the pressure of a pipeline, for a given wall thickness and diameter, increases the hoop stress in the pipe wall. If the pipe contains a pressurized gas, increasing the pressure also alters the thermal conductivity of the gas which tends to make the pipe product more effective in removing heat from the pipe wall resulting in a lower inside surface temperature. Pressure tends to be a more important variable for gases but it also does alter the properties of liquid by changing the boiling point of the product which can change the cooling capacity of the product.

FIGURE 8. PRCI THERMAL ANALYSIS AND THERMOMECHANICAL MODEL COMPARISON

FIGURE 9. THE EFFECT OF PIPE PRESSURE ON THE PRCI THERMO-MECHANICAL MODEL PREDICTIONS OF SAFE WELDING HEAT INPUTS

Figure 8 is a comparison between the PRCI thermal analysis model and PRCI thermo-mechanical model predictions for bead-on-pipe welds deposited using a heat input of 15 kJ/in. (0.6 kJ/mm) on pipe pressurized to 650 psi (4.5 MPa) for a range of pipe diameters and wall thicknesses. The PRCI thermal analysis model results, represented by the vertical dashed line, indicate that the minimal wall thickness that is required when welding at 15 kJ/in. (0.6 kJ/mm) under these conditions would be 0.218 in. (5.5 mm). The PRCI thermomechanical model, on the other hand, predicts safe welds could be made on 0.15-in. (3.8-mm) thick pipe depending on the diameter. Similar to Figure 7, Figure 8 highlights the

Both the experimental data and PRCI thermo-mechanical model shows the risk of burnthrough does increase with increasing pressure (Figure 7 and Figure 9) [3]. This observation is a result of these approaches only evaluating welds based solely on the stress component of pressure. The thermal analysis models, on the other hand, show that increasing pressure (at a constant linear flow rate) results in decreasing the inside surface temperature resulting in a decrease in burnthrough risk (Figure 10). This observation is a result of the thermal analysis approach of only evaluating welds based solely on the temperature or cooling component of pressure. For the thermal analysis models, changing the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

pressure at a constant volumetric flow rate has little or no effect on inside surface temperature and burnthrough risk.

FIGURE 10. EFFECT OF PRESSURE ON THE BATTELLE MODEL INSIDE SURFACE TEMPERATURE PREDICTIONS

These two components of pressure do appear to be opposing forces, from a burnthrough perspective, in that increasing the pressure does increase stress but, if the linear flow rate remains the same, also cools the weld region. Even though pressure does appear to have two components they are related. The higher the cooling capacity of the pipe the cooler the weld region remains meaning there is a smaller region of reduced strength in the pipe wall making the pipe wall less likely to yield. It is difficult to quantify which component of pressure has the largest effect on burnthrough but it would be safe to assume that it is dependent on other factors such as flow rate, pipe diameter, and pipe wall thickness. It is important to note that neither the experimental welds nor PRCI thermomechanical model evaluated the effect of volumetric or linear flow rate. It could be assumed that the stress component has a larger effect on burnthrough for applications on thin walled pipe and no/low flow conditions but these limits have yet to be determined. SUMMARY If the wall thickness is 0.250 inch (6.4 mm) or greater, the primary in-service welding concern should be for hydrogen cracking and not for burnthrough. If the wall thickness is less than 0.250 inch (6.4 mm), there are several different approaches that are used by companies to determine the risk of burnthrough. The experimental approach does allow for direct comparison to the field application of interest which eliminates some of the conservatisms associated with computer models but the factor of safety associated the experimental approach is difficult to quantify. A downside to the experimental approach is the scope of the data is limited to the pressures, wall thickness, welding variables and pipe diameters included in the study. Changing any of these factors would require additional experimental welds to assure the company is operating in a safe manner.

Thermal analysis models are the most common and widely used burnthrough predictions methods and have had the most industry acceptance. The thermal analysis models are flexible and can evaluate various field applications without experimental trials. These models include a factor of safety based on an inside surface temperature reduction which varies with the type of welding electrode used. It is important to note that there have been no known cases where the thermal analysis models were shown to be non-conservative; meaning that no burnthroughs have occurred as the result of using the welding parameters predicted to be safe by the models. The thermo-mechanical models are the most recent approach to in-service welding burnthrough prediction and are more realistic than thermal analysis models in the manner in which it handles pressure. The thermo-mechanical models include the cooling and stress components of pressure whereas the thermal analysis models only account for the cooling component. Because the thermal analysis models do not take the effect of hoop stress into account, they tend to be very conservative at low pressure. The thermo-mechanical models have been discussed previously but, until recently, the computing power and time associated with such an analysis made development of such models unrealistic. The factor of safety for the thermo-mechanical models, specifically the PRCI thermo-mechanical model, is based on the pipe wall displacement and not the inside surface temperature. The burnthrough prediction approaches do show some opposing results when it comes to pressure. There appears to be opposing forces at work and a better understanding of the limits of these forces would be beneficial to the industry. Even though more research needs to be performed to evaluate the effect of pressure it must be noted that pressure is considered to be a secondary factor that effects burnthrough where as heat input, flow rate and wall thickness are considered primary factors. Regardless of the approach used to predict safe welding parameters it is essential that the user understands who the approach was developed and the factors of safety associated with each approach. With a clear understanding of how to apply any of these approaches the engineer should have the tools to determine the safe welding parameters for the specific field application of interest.

FUTURE WORK Thermal analysis models predict the inside surface temperature based on a single node point in the FEA mesh however for a burnthrough to occur an area of the pipe wall needs to yield and not a single point. Future thermal analysis models should move away from the single node approach and should determine burnthrough risk based on an area of elevated temperature. Evaluating an area of elevated temperature could reduce some of the over conservatism associated with these models.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Thermo-mechanical models do appear to be a reasonable approach in evaluating in-service welding applications but more work needs to be done. When it comes to thermomechanical models, the validation data set should be expanded to increase the confidence of the thermo-mechanical model predictions. Secondly, a determination of what is an appropriate level of pipe wall displacement, if any, or stress field needs to be scientifically substantiated [22, 23, 24]. REFERENCES [1] Mishler, H.W., Kiefner, J.F., and Howden, D.G. Procedures for Repair and Hot Tap Welding on Pressurized Pipelines. Final Report. Repair and Hot Tap Welding Group. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. August 1977 [2] Lamberts, G. Consideration of Welding Methods Adopted on Pipelines During Operation with Questionnaire on Welding of Pipelines Under Pressure. IIW XI-477-87. Distrigaz, Brussels, Belgium. December 1986 [3] Boring, M.A., Bruce, W.A., Effect of Pressure on Burnthrough Risk for In-service Welds, Pipeline Research Council International, Contract No. PR-1850351, Edison Welding Institute, EWI Project Number 47120CAP, 2006 [4] Private communication, DNV Dublin, Dublin, Ohio and Kiefner and Associates, Columbus, Ohio. [5] Wade, J.B., Effect of Diameter and Thickness on Hot Tapping Practice AWRA Contract 84, Australian Welding Research, Vol 11 pp 55-56, December 1982 [6] Howden, D.G., Welding on Pressurized Pipeline, Loss Prevention, Vol. 9, American Institute of Chemical Engineers., New York, NY, pp 8-10 [7] Bruce, W.A., Mishler, H.D., Kiefner, J.F., Repair of Pipelines by Direct Deposition of Weld Metal, Pipeline Research Committee, American Gas Association, Project PR-185-9110, Edison Welding Institute, 1993 [8] Bruce, W.A., Holdren, R.L., and Kiefner, J.F., Repair of Pipelines by Direct Deposition of Weld Metal Further Study, Pipeline Research Council International, Contract No. PR-185-9515, Edison Welding Institute, EWI Project Number J7283, 1996 [9] Bruce, W.A., Welding onto In-service Thin-Wall Pipelines, International Conference on Pipeline Repairs, Welding Technology Institute of Australia, Wollongong, Australia, March 2001 [10] Bruce, W.A., Boring, M.A., Burnthrough Limits for In-service Welding, Pipeline Research Council International, Contract No. GRI-8441, Edison Welding Institute, EWI Project Number 44732CAP, 2003 [11] Boring, M.A., Sobilo, J., Relaxation of In-service Welding Procedure Flow Restrictions, 7th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta,

Canada, September 29-October 3, 2008, Paper IPC2008-64352 [12] Kiefner, J.F., Fischer, R.D., Mishler, H.W., Development of Guidelines for Repair and Hot Tap Welding on Pressurized Pipelines. Final Report Phase 1. Repair and Hot Tap Welding Group. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. September 1981 [13] Kiefner, J.F., Barnes, C.R., Gertler, R.C., Fischer, R.D., and Minshler, H.W. Experimental Verification of Hot Tap Welding Thermal Analysis. Final Report Phase II Volume 2, Liquid Propane Experiments. Repair and Hot Tap Welding Group. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. May 1983 [14] Bruce, W.A., Li, V. Citterberg, R., Wang, Y.Y., and Chen Y., Improved Cooling Rate Model for Welding on In-service Pipelines, Pipeline Research Council International Catalog No. L51837, Edison Welding Institute Project No. 42508CAP, 2001 [15] http://www.equityeng.com/software-solutions/vcesage [16] Wade, J.B., Hot Tapping of Pipelines, Australian Welding Research Association Symposium on Developments in Gas Pipeline Technology, Paper 14, Melbourne, Australia, 1973 [17] Cassie, B.A., The Welding of Hot Tap Connections to High Pressure Gas Pipelines, J.W. Jones Memorial Lecture, Pipe Line Industries Guild, October, 1974 [18] Private communication, Equity Engineering, Cleveland, Ohio [19] Ogayu, Yasushi, Confirmation of Validity of Hot Tapping Welding, ASME 2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, Paper PVP2009-77072, 2009 [20] Painter, M., In-Service Welding on Gas Pipelines, Software Documentation for INservice, for Cooperative Research Centre for Welded Structures (CRC-WS) and Australian Pipeline Industry Association (APIA), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Adelaide, SA, Australia [21] American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), B31G Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines: Supplement to ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping, New York, ASME [22] Boring, M. A., Zhang, W., Bruce, W. A., "Alternative Approach for Predicting Burnthrough for In-service Welds," for Pipeline Research Council International (PRCI), PRCI Contract No. PR-185-0351,EWI Project No. 46345CAP, Edison Welding Institute, Columbus, OH [23] Liu, W., Han, T., Li, C., Guo, G., GU, G., The Effect of Pressure on Burnthrough Susceptibility During Inservice Welding, Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vols. 121-126, 2012, pp 2313-2317] [24] Daei-Sorkhabi, A.H., Saeimi-Sadigh, M.A., VakiliTahami, F., Zehsaz, M., Behjat, B., Study of the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Burn-through During In-service Welding of T Joint Branch Connections, ASME 2010 10th Biennial Conference on Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, Istanbul, Turkey, Paper ESD2010-25113, 2010 [25] Bruce, W.A., Boring, M.A., Comparison of Methods for Predicting Safe Parameters for Welding onto Inservice Pipelines, 6th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary Alberta, Canada, Paper IPC200610299, 2006

Copyright 2012 by ASME