SSC Resistance

of Pipeline Welds
This article was developed by Task Group T-1F-23 on Sulfide Stress Cracking
Resistance of Pipeline Welds, chaired by T.V. Bruno (Metallurgical Consultants,
Inc., Houston, Texas).

Sulfide stress cracking (SSC) is the failure of steel caused by

the simultaneous action of stress and hydrogen absorbed from
corrosion by aqueous hydrogen sulfide. Susceptibility to SSC is a
function of a number of variables: two of the more important are
strength or hardness of the steel and the level of tensile stresses.
Because welding can induce high hardness and residual stresses,
weldments often are particularly susceptible to SSC. Although
reported pipeline failures by SSC are relatively few, the trend toward
(1) increasing the strength of pipeline steels and (2) transporting
increasingly aggressive environments has raised concern about
pipeline welds. A review is presented of the variables that control SSC
in pipeline welds and the current state of knowledge.

Sulfide stress cracking (SSC) in pipelines can occur from two

sources: internally, from transporting wet, sour products or from
water containing sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB); and
externally, from SRB in soil or water in contact with the pipe.
Internal SSC is far more common than external, which is rare.
Environmental variables that increase the entry of hydrogen into
the steel, such as low pH, high hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) partial
pressure, etc., increase the likelihood of cracking. The influence
of these variables is discussed in detail in other literature and is
not considered in this report.
Pipelines transporting sour gas products are susceptible
to another type of failure sometimes called stepwise cracking or
hydrogen-induced cracking (HIC). This type of cracking is
stress independent and is the subject of NACE TM0284-87.1 It
is not addressed here except as it relates to SSC.
An observation regarding SSC was that hard steels are
more susceptible to cracking than soft steels. Though not
absolute, hardness limits are effective guidelines and common
requirements for pipelines in sour service. However, there are
several questions regarding hardness limits, and some forms of
heat-affected zone (HAZ) cracking occur at low rather than high
hardness.
Seam welds (made during pipe manufacture) and girth
welds (made during pipeline construction) are susceptible to
cracking. There are essentially two common types of seam
welds in line pipe: submerged arc (straight seam and spiral
seam) and electric resistance. There are three common types of
girth welds: shielded-metal arc, automatic gas metal arc, and
submerged arc double-joint welds. The stresses, residual and
applied, vary for each type of weld and have a strong influence
on the susceptibility of the pipe to cracking.
Stresses
The total stress acting on pipeline welds is the sum of
applied stress and residual stress. The principal applied stress
acting on seam welds arises from internal pressure in the pipe.
The maximum pressure at which a pipeline can be operated is
that producing a hoop stress of 80 percent of the specified
minimum yield strength (SMYS) in some countries, 72 percent
in the United States, and lower in some other countries. In
straight-seam pipe, the seam is subject to the maximum applied
hoop stress; in spiral-seam pipe, the stress is some fraction
thereof, depending on the angle of the weld with the
longitudinal axis.
The longitudinal stress from internal pressure acting
across the girth weld in buried pipelines in normally only about
one-third to one-half of the hoop stress. However, the girth
weld also may be subject to thermal stresses from expansion and
contraction and to bending stresses from outside forces such as
subsidence. The residual stresses acting on the seam weld result
from a combination of forming stresses and welding stresses. In
submerged arc welds (SAWs), the magnitude of the residual
stress acting on the seam weld is a function of wall thickness,
sequence and number of weld passes, heating and cooling rates,
and other variables. Most straight-seam SAW pipe and some
spiral-welded pipe are cold-expanded after welding, and all pipe
is hydrostatically tested. Cold expansion often significantly
reduces residual tension stresses, while hydrostatic testing
reduces them only marginally. Therefore, residual stresses are
much more likely to contribute to cracking in nonexpanded
pipe. However, cold expansion and hydrostatic testing do not
always remove tensile residual stresses; research has shown that
post-weld heat treatment can improve the resistance of some
SAW line pipe to SSC.2, 3

Nearly
all
electric -resistance
welded (ERW) pipe is post-weld heat treated
and cold-reduced for diameter control after
welding. Consequently, residual stresses
from welding and forming not only are
relieved, but residual compressive stresses
are often induced on the inside surface. In
one study of 6- and 8-inch (15.24-cm and
20.32-cm) API Grade X46 ERW line pipe,
compressive residual hoop stress of about 10
to 50 percent of the pipes yield strength
(YS) was found on the inside surface.4 As a
result, residual stresses normally are not a
serious consideration in cracking of ERW
pipe.
Most pipeline girth welds are not
subject to post-weld heat treatment, cold
expansion,
or
other
stress-relieving
influences, and the residual stresses are
often assumed to approach the US, although
this may not always be the case. Both
experimental and theoretical residual stress
measurements reported on 24-in. (61-cm)
OD by 0.610-in (16mm) wall X65 pipe
show the maximum residual tensile hoop
stresses on the inside surface adjacent to the
weld to be about 60 percent of the pipes
YS.5 These stresses decrease rapidly and
become compressive within a short distance
(e.g., 1/2 in. [12mm]) from the weld
centerline. Axial stresses on the inside
surface are actually compressive for up to
6.25 in. (15 cm) from the weld, but studies
have indicated that, for thinner wall pipe,
axial stresses are tensile. In any event, the
residual stresses at girth welds can be fare
below the YS.
Some companies post-weld heat
treat girth welds to be used in critical service
using electric-resistance or exothermic
methods.
The heat treatment reduces
residual stresses and softens hard
microstructures.
Submerged Arc Welded Pipe
Potential conditions in SAWs that
can lead to cracking are:
1) Hard welds resulting from the wire
and flux combinations.
2) Local hard spots in otherwise soft
welds.
3) Hard HAZs resulting from the
chemical composition of the base metal.
4) Susceptible soft microstructures
that develop in the subcritical or intercritical
areas of the HAZ.
The first three conditions are hardness
dependent: susceptibility increases with
increasing hardness. However, chemical
composition and microstructure are also
important variables, and there effect is
unclear.

Figure 4
Hard spots in inside weld of SAW pipe that failed
in service.

Figure 1
Schematic illustration of the morphology
of hydrogen-induced stepwise cracks,
SSC-1 and SSC- II

Figure 2
Service failure of SAW pipe.

Figure 5
(top) Hard spots from Figure 4 at higher
magnification.
Figure 6
(bottom) Small hard spot with crack that did
not propagate.

Figure 3
Cracks in Figure 2 at higher magnification.

Figure 7
Fracture and cracks (arrow) in ERW that
failed in sour service.

Figure 8
Area indicated by arrow in Figure 7 at
higher magnification.

Figure 9
Distribution of manganese in ferrite-pearlite
bands in carbon steel. 17

Figure 10
Cracking of ERW casing that failed in
sour service.

Figure 11
Microstructure near cracks showing darketching pearlite and bainite bands.

Figure 12
SEM micrographs showing incipient
crac king in inclusions in bainite bands.

Figure 13
Influence of ERW defects on KISCC

Cracking of hard welds has been a serious

problem in the refining industry for many
years. Research and operating experience
show that some types of SAWs are
susceptible to SSC at hardnesses as low as
200 Brinell (HB) (93 Rockwell B [HRB]).6
Similar problems have not been prevalent in
SAW line pipe, most likely because of
differences
in
steels
and
welding
consumables.
In addition to overall hardness,
small localized hard spots can arise in
SAWs from insufficient mixing of alloy
fluxes in the weld pool.7
Such
hard
spots may or may not lead to failure
depending on their size and location and
the properties of the surrounding metal.
Because of the high heat input in SAW,
the overall HAZ hardness can generally
be controlled to acceptable levels. Small
localized hard zones can also arise in
HAZs and pose the same problem as those
in welds, namely, determining the
acceptable size and hardness limits. In
one reported investigation, local hard
spots well in excess of 300 Vickers
Hardness (HV300 ) did not cause SSC
failures in constant deflections tests.8
More recently, attention has been
focused on HAZ cracking that is not highhardness dependent but occurs in the
softened zone heated just above or below
the Ac1 .9
Cracking in this region is
attributed to a number of factors including
formation
of
susceptible
microconstituents (martensite-austenite islands,
pearlite
colonies,
fine
niobium
carbonitrides), lowering the YS, and
concentration of strains in the softened
region.10 At least two investigators found
the threshold stress for cracking (as a
percent of YS) is lower in the softened
HAZ than in the pipe base metal.11,12
The type of cracking found in the
softened HAZ appears to be the same as is
sometimes found in other relatively soft
(<22 HRC) steels. The cracks are akin to
hydrogen-induced stepwise cracking and
have different morphology than those in
harder steels. The tow types of cracking
are called SSC Type I and SSC Type II
(Figure 1).13 SSC Type I is also called
stress-oriented hydrogen-induced cracking
or SOHIC.
In the previously cited literature,
there are several examples of the different
types of cracking found in SAWs. Most
of these, however, are either from
pressure vessels or other equipment in
refinery service or from tests of line pipe
welds. Few are from line pipe service
failures.
A service failure that occurred in
July 1981 exhibited several types of

cracking in the weld and HAZ of SAW

pipe.13, 14 The welds in this pipe showed
cracking from three causes:
high-weld
hardness, localized hard spots, and cracking
in the intercritical area of the HAZ. Figures
2 and 3 show typical SSC Type I in the HAZ
where the hardness was low (191 to 211
HV500 ). The same weld also contained
streaks in the inside pass where the hardness
was relatively high, 259 to 315 HV500 , which
did not crack. Figures 4 through 6 show
another weld from the same pipeline. This
weld failed in the soft HAZ but also
contained a hard spot (HV500 ) with a crack
that arrested in the surrounding softer weld
metal.
Electric-Resistance Welded Pipe
Electric-resistance welded (ERW)
pipe is made without filler metal; the
abutting edges are heated by flow of electric
current and forced together to form a forge
weld. The weld zone consists of a narrow
weld line with an HAZ on each side. There
are two common types of ERW pipe: low
frequency and high frequency.
Lowfrequency ERW pipe is made with 60 to 360
Hz alternating current that travels between
two rotary electrodes and across the abutting
surface. High-frequency ERW is made with
400,000 Hz or higher alternating current that
travels along the apex formed as the abutting
edges are brought together.16 Most highstrength pipe today is made by the highfrequency process, but many low-frequency
ERW pipelines are in service.
(Some
manufacturers distinguish between highfrequency seam welds in which the current
is introduced by sliding contact shoes and
pipe in which the current is introduced by
induction coils. In this report both are
included as ERW pipe.)
These are two conditions that can
lead to SSC in ERW pipeboth relate to
high hardness. The first relates to the
hardness of the HAZ. Because the HAZ is
relatively small and cools rapidly, the aswelded hardness of ERW can be quite high
(i.e., well above values equivalent to 22
HRC). For this and other reasons, the weld
is normally post-weld heat treated.
However, the heat treatment is not always
adequate.
The welds of most ERW pipe are
heat treated with induction coils, although
some pipe is full-body heat treated in barrel
furnaces. Because of the speed at which
ERW pipe is manufactured (e.g., 100 ft/min
[30.4 m/min]), momentary malfunctions of
the induction heaters can result in many feet
of pipe with improperly heat-treated welds.
In addition, the induction heater must be
properly positioned and centered to heat
treat the full weld.

Figure 14
Typical GMA pipeline girth weld showing HV
10 hardness.

Figure 16
Specimen from pipeline girth weld tested in sour
water without failure.
Figure 15
Cracks in HAZ of GMA girth weld in sour
service.

Figure 17
Effect of second pass on maximum girth weld hardness.20

Figure 18
Hardness survey (HRB and HV -10) of pipeline
girth weld.

Figure 19
Girth weld with one-pass backweld.

Figure 20
Girth weld with thru-pass backweld.

One example of an SSC failure in

the hard HAZ of ERW pipe is shown in
Figure 7, which shows a cross section
from high-frequency ERW pipe in a line
handling sour gas. The welds had not
been heat treated, and the cracks initiated
in a martensitic microstructure (Figure 8)
with a microhardness (HK500 ) equivalent
to 43 HRC.

The second problem that can lead

to SSC of ERW welds relates to alloy
segregation. Skelp used for ERW pipe
often contains alternating thin layers or
bands of ferrite and pearlite. The banding
is due to segregation primarily of
manganese and carbon that reduces the
austenite-to-ferrite
transformation
temperature (i.e., the A3 temperature). As
a result, the alloy-rich bands are more
hardenable than the alloy-lean bands.
Figure
9
illustrates
a
banded
microsturcture.17
In plate and skelp the bands are
elongated in the rolling direction. When
skelp edges are forced together for
welding, the bands are bent in a radial
direction along the weld. The alloy-rich
bands may contain bainite or martensite,
or these hard microstructures may form as
a result of the welding thermal cycle.
Even after the normal heat treatment of
the weld seam, the alloy-rich bands may
remain hard and susceptible to SSC.
There is at least one reported
failure of ERW line pipe caused by SSC
that initiated in hard areas of a banded
microsturcture.18 Similar failures have
occurred in ERW casing in sour service.
Figure 10 shows a cross section of a
failure in ERW casing. The dark-etching
alloy-rich bands are bent in a radial
direction. At higher magnifications, the
structure in many of the dark bands
appears
bainitic
(Figure
11).
Microhardness tests gave values up to 770
HK50 in the bainitic areas in the weld
zone, compared to 429 HK50 in pearlite
bands and 378 HK50 in ferrite bands.
Scanning electron microscopy showed
incipient cracking at manganese sulfide
inclusions in the bainitic bands (Figure
12).
Many service failures in ERW
line pipe occurring along the fibers
parallel to the weld are attributed to hook
cracks, which are fiber-line separations
that originate during manufacture of the
pipe. It is possible that some of these
failures are due to environmentally
induced cracking initiating in hard bands.
Weld defects can also reduce the
resistance of ERW pipe to SSC. Research
by one manufacturer using doublecantilever beam specimens showed that
defect density above a small percent
reduces KISSC significantly below that of
the base metal (Figure 13). 19
Girth Welds
Three processes are commonly
used for pipeline girth welds:
1)
Shielded metal arc welding
(SMAW),

2) Automatic gas metal arc welding

(GMAW),
3) Submerged arc welding (SAW).
The first is used for field and lay
barge welding, the second for field, lay
barge, and double-joint welding, and third
for double-joint welding.
(Semiautomatic GMAW and flash welding also
have been used, but these processes are
not common.)
The same factors influencing the
resistance of other types of welds to SSC
apply as well to girth welds, especially
HAZ hardness.
The as -welded HAZ
hardness is
function of the chemical composition of
the base metal, the number of passes, and
the cooling rate is influenced by heat
input,
wall
thickness,
ambient
temperature, and preheat. For a given
base metal, the maximum HAZ hardness
is lowest for SAWs and usually does not
exceed 250 HV.
For the wire/flux
combinations used in double-jointing,
weld hardness normally is not a problem.
The experience in the refining industry of
SSC failures of SAWs at relatively low
hardness levels has not been reported in
pipelines.
There is a greater potential for
objectionably high hardnesses in the HAZ
of an automatic GMA weld than in an
SMA weld, particularly in heavy-wall
pipe. Either the weld, the HAZ, or both
may be hard, depending on the tempering
effects of multiple passes.
Figure 14 shows a typical
automatic GMA girth weld. Hardnesses
above 330 HV-10 were found in the weld
and HAZ of the root pass; the small
second pass and subsequent passes were
insufficient to reduce the hardness to more
acceptable limits. This weld cracked in
service handling wet sour gas. Cracks
were found in the hard HAZ of the girth
weld but did not extend beyond the
second pass (Figure 15).
For heavy-wall pipe, post-weld
heat treatments are effective in reducing
the root bead and HAZ hardness to
acceptable limits.
The hardnesses of SMA welds
and HAZs have not been a serious
problem to date. One reason for this is
that, when necessary, welding procedures
can be developed to maximize heat input
and the tempering effect of multiple
passes. Occasionally, the hardnesses in
small areas of the HAZs adjacent to the
root and cap passes may exceed 250 HV,
sometimes by a considerable amount.
However, as previously noted, small hard
spots do not always lead to cracking. As
an example, Figure 16 shows a specimen

cut from a pipeline girth weld and tested

in four-point bending with the root pass in
tension.4 The hardness in the HAZ of the
root on one side was as high as 330 HK500
but the sample did not fail in 30 days in an
aqueous solution saturated with a gas
consisting of 85% H2 S and 15% CO2 .
Backwelds, repair welds, and
hot-tap welds can lead to high HAZ
hardness and susceptibility to SSC.
Single pass backwelds and repair welds
do not receive the benefit of tempering
from subsequent passes, and even two- or
three-pass small welds often are not
tempered sufficiently to eliminate
susceptibility. Figure 17 illustrates the
effect of the second pass on the hardness
of the root bead HAZ.20 Without
subsequent passes, the root bead hardness
can well exceed 250 HV even for steels
with relatively low carbon equivalents.
For backwelds and repair welds,
preheating is usually effective in
preventing high HAZ hardness.
The effect of backwelding on
girth welds in 30-in. (72.2-cm) O.D. by
0.500-in. (12.7-mm) wall X60 pipe with a
Pcm of 0.30 is illustrated in Figures 18
through 20.4 (Pc m is a parameter related to
chemical composition and is similar to
carbon equivalent.) Figure 18 shows a
standard SMA weld in which all the
hardnesses are below 200 HV-10. With a
single-pass backweld (Figure 19) the
maximum hardness in the HAZ was above
400 HV-10. Even a three-pass backweld
(Figure 20) left hardnesses above 350
HV-10.
Influence of Chemical
Composition, Microstructure
and Hardness
The influence of strength and
associated hardness on susceptibility to
SSC has been recognized for at least 40
years.21 Recommended hardness limits to
avoid cracking have ranged for 20 to 30
HRC, 22 but 22 HRC and its equivalent in
other hardness scales is most common.
Moreover, a limit of 22 HRC is generally
adequate, if sometimes conservative, for
hardenable welds and HAZs, with the
notable exception of SAWs in the refining
industry addressed by NACE RP047287.23 This exception notwithstanding, 22
HRC has been adopted by NACE
MR0175-92, probably the most widely
used document of its kind.24
The hardness level above which
steels are susceptible to SSC is a function
of the environment, as well as other
variables.
Figure 21 summarizes the
relationship between H2 S partial pressure,

Figure 21
Relationship between typical carbon contents and yield strength of line pipe steels.

Figure 22
Evolution of low -carbon contents for high-strength line pipe steels.

hardness, and susceptibility for several

line pipe and plate steels.
The maximum hardnesses in
pipeline welds arise in the HAZ and are a
function of the chemical composition of
the base metal and thermal cycles induced
by welding. Fortunately, the trend in
pipeline steels is toward continued use of
microalloys with controlled rolling and
accelerated cooling to achieve the desired
strength and toughness without a
commensurate increase in hardenability.
As shown in Figures 21 and 22, 25 both the
carbon content and carbon equivalent tend
to be lower in higher strength grades,
contrary to what might be expected by
those not familiar with modern pipeline
steels.
There are several unresolved
problems related to the use of hardness as
a measure of SSC resistance.
One
problem is that the hardness below which
cracking will not occur is a function of
stress level, severity of environment, and
microstructure. Many SSC tests are run at

or near yield stress, which may make

them conservative. The use of fracture
mechanics tests is one way of quantifying
critical stress levels for a given hardness
level.26 Similarly, the environments used
for SSC tests are often much more severe
than service environments.
However,
high stresses and severe environments are
justified on the bas is that the test duration
is only a small fraction of anticipated
service life.
Although susceptibility generally
increases with increasing hardness, some
microstructures are more susceptible to
cracking than others at the same hardness.
For example, tempered bainite or mixed
structures at the same hardness level. The
degree of segregation and the type, size,
shape, and distribution of inclusions are
other microstructural variables that
influence resistance to SSC.27
For applications involving high
strengths and heavy walls in mild to
moderate environments, a hardness
maximum of 22 HRC may be too
restrictive. In view of the fact that todays

pipeline steels are often made with close

control over chemical composition,
melting, casting, and plate rolling, higher
maximum hardness limits may be
justified, as they are for certain materials
in
MR0175-92
and
some
API
specifications28 for high-strength tubing
and casing.
Conclusion
Tolerable hardnesses and sizes of
local hard spots continue to be a problem,
despite extensive research. Associated
with this is the problem of appropriate
hardness tests. Commonly, Rockwell,
Vickers, and Brinell hardness tests are
used but are inadequate for testing small
areas. Vickers and Knoop microhardness
(1 to 1,000 gm loads) tests are most often
used to evaluate hard spots, but the
significance of microhardness tests
continues to be controversial. Five-kg and
10-kg Vickers hardness tests are widely
used in the United Kingdom and Europe
and are more satisfactory than Rockwell
or Brinell for assessing resistance to SSC.
While SSC cracking attributable
to high hardness is reasonably well
understood and controllable, cracking in
the subcritical and intercritical regions of
SMAW HAZs is not. Recent research has
advanced our understanding of the
problem but not sufficiently to solve it.
Fortunately, this type of cracking alone
has not been cited as the cause of any
reported service failures.
Summary
Based on the information
reviewed,
the
following
general
statements summarize the present state of
knowledge.
1) SSC of pipeline welds is not a
widespread problem to date, but there is a
growing potential for such problems
because of increases in the strength of
pipeline steels and aggressiveness of
transported fluids. Preventing SSC of
pipeline welds requires proper material
selection and quality control.
2) Resistance of pipeline welds to
SSC is influenced by a number of
materials properties, but hardness (or
strength level) has been the single most
evaluated property.
Consequently,
hardness control traditionally has been the
most widely used means to prevent
cracking.
3) There is considerable evidence
that many pipeline welds are resistant to
SSC at hardnesses above the maximum
level most often cited for the base metal
of carbon and low-alloy steels (e.g.,
Rockwell C 22).
However, residual
stresses,
microstructure,
chemical

composition, and other properties of the

steel also affect resistance to SSC. These
other properties will likely become more
important considerations as strength and
hardness levels for pipe in sour service
increase.
4) Despite considerable research on
the subject, significant questions remain
concerning localized hard spots and the
application of microhardness testing in
evaluating SSC resistance.
References
1. NACE Standard TMO284-87, "Stepwise
Cracking of Pipeline Steel" (Houston, TX. NACE,
1987).
2. C. Fowler, W Haumann F.O. Koch, "Influence
of Residual Stresses to the SSC Resistance of SAWPipe, Hoesch Rohr, reprinted from 3R International,
vol. 5 (1986).
3. C. Christensen, F.O. Koch, "The Effect of Post
Weld Inductive Thermal Treatment on SSC
Resistance of SAW Line Pipe Steel,
CORROSION/88, paper no.55 (Houston, TX:
NACE, 1988).
4. Metallurgical Consultants, Inc., unpublished
test data.
5. The Welding Institute Research Bulletin 23,
6(1982): p. 185.
6. E.L. Hildebrand, "Aqueous Phase H2 S
Cracking of Hard Carbon Steel Weldments--A Case
History, paper presented at May 1970 American
Petroleum Institute meeting, (Washington, DC:
API).
7. D.J. Kotecki, D.G. Howden, Welding Research
Council Bulletin 184, (1973).
8. C. Christensen, R.T. Hill, "Characterizing
Acceptable Weld Heat Affected Zone Hardness in
Low Alloy Steels, CORROSION/85, paper no. 241,
(Houston, TX: NACE, 1985)
9. Seventh Symposium on Line Pipe Research
presented by the Pipeline Research Committee,
October 1986 (Arlington, VA: AGA).
10. R.J. Pargeter, Factors Affecting the
Susceptibility of C-Mn Steel Welds to Cracking in
Sour Environmentally Assisted Cracking: Science
and Engineering, November 1987, (Philadelphia,
PA: AST M, 1987).
11. G.J. Biefer, M.J. Fichera, Hydrogen Sulfide
Cracking of Linepipes: Final Report, Physical
Metallurgy Research Laboratories Report: ERP/P
MRL 84-13 (TR), CANMET.
12. M. Kimura, N. Totsuka, T. Kurisu, K. Amano,
J. Matsuyama, Y. Nakai, Sulfide Stress Corrosion
Cracking of Linepipe, CORROSION/86, paper no.
160, (Houston, TX: NACE, 1986).
13. T. Kaneko, M. Takeyama, M. Nakanishi, Y.
Sumitomo, A. Ikeda, Improvement of Hydrogen
Sulfide Cracking Susceptibility in Line Pipes for
Sour Gas Services, held April 1979, NACE Middle
East Corrosion Conference (Houston, TX: NACE,
1979).
14. V.B. Lawson, C. Duncan, R.S. Treseder,
"Pipeline Failures in the Grizzly Valley Sour Gas
Gathering System, CORROSION/87, paper no. 52,
(Houston, TX: NACE, 1987)
15. G.T. Beynon, H.M. Yamauchi, "Failures in a
Spiral Welding Sour Gas Pipeline," presented at
Corrosion Protection in Sour Service in Oil, Gas and
Petro-Chemical Industries, May 1987.
16. C. Hubbard, Journal of the Fabricator,
January/February 1980 (Rockford, IL: Fabricator
and Manufacturer Association International).
17. L.E. Samuels, "Optical Microscopy of Carbon
Steels," (Metals Park, OH: ASM International,
1980).

18. Minutes for T-1F-23, March 24, 1988 meeting,

NACE, Houston, TX.
19.
M. Iino, K. Nakajima, N. Nomura,
"Environmental Strength of Linepipes Used in
Environments Containing Hydrogen Sulfide," APC84 Asian-Pacific Colloquium on Strength
Evaluation, February 1984.
20.
T. Tanaka, Y. Ito, M. Nakanishi, T. Kaneko,
Y. Komizo, "Prevention of Sulphide Stress
Corrosion Cracking at Welds in Line Pipe," 2nd
International Conference on Pipe Welding,
November 20, 1979, vol. 1, (Cambridge, UK: The
Welding Institute, 1979).
21.
K. Horikawa, Tetsu-to-Hagane, 54(1968) p.
610.
22.
M.H. Bartz, CE Rawlins, Corrosion 4,
5(1948): pp. 187-206.
23.
NACE Standard RP0472-87, "Methods
and Controls to Prevent In-Service Cracking of
Carbon Steel Welds in P-1 Materials in Corrosive
Petroleum Refining Environments," (Houston, TX:
NACE, 1987).
24.
NACE
Standard
MR0175-90,
"Materials Requirements for Sulfide Stress
Cracking-Resistant Metallic Materials for Oil Field
Equipment," (Houston, TX: NACE, 1990).
25.
B.L.
Jones,
HSLA
Steels
Technology
&
Applications,
Conference
Proceedings of International Conference on
Technology and Applications of HSLA Steels,
October 1983, (Metals Park, OH: ASM), p. 715.
26.
R.B. Heady, "Evaluation of Sulfide
Corrosion Cracking Resistance in Low Alloy
Steels," Corrosion 33, 3(1977).
27.
J.C. Charbonnier, H. Margot-arette,
F. Moussy, "Influence of Metallurgical Parameters
on HIC and SSC Behavior of Linepipe Steels,"
CORROSION/87, paper no.293, (Houston, TX:
NACE, 1987).
28.
API
Specification
5CT,
"Specification for Casing and Tubing," 1st Ed.,
(Washington, DC: API, 1988).