THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION Witness and … · To facilitate the verification process, the following...

THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION

Witness and Verification of Bead Diagnostic Instrument Test Programme Control Point LLP Derbyshire Carrwood Rd Chesterfield S41 9QB

Report No.: 1 Rev V0.1

Date: 28.02.2017

2

Project name: Third Party Verification DNV GL

Technical Advisory

Holywell Park

Ashby Road

Loughborough

LE11 3GR

Tel: +44 (0)7891 050886

Report title: Witness and Verification of Bead Diagnostic Instrument Test Programme

Customer: Control Point LLP Derbyshire Carrwood Rd Chesterfield S41 9QB

Contact person: David Carey

Date of issue: 28.02.17

Project No.: PP176489

Organisation unit: Pipelines

Report No: 1, Rev. V0.1

Document No.: n/a

Applicable contract(s) governing the provision of this Report:

Prepared by: Verified by: Approved by:

Chris O’Connor Principcal Consultant

Andy Cummings Principal Consultant

Micheal Pritchard Section Head - Pipelines

[Name] [title]

[Name] [title]

[Name] [title]

[Name] [title]

3

Copyright © DNV GL 2014. All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, whether digitally or otherwise without the prior written consent of DNV GL. DNV GL and the Horizon Graphic are trademarks of DNV GL AS. The content of this publication shall be kept confidential by the customer, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited.

DNV GL Distribution: Keywords:

☐ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) polyethylene, pipe, pipeline, bead, butt fusion, weld, asset management, inspection, Failure

☒ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL

☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years

☐No distribution (confidential)

☐ Secret

Rev. No. Date Reason for Issue Prepared by Verified by Approved by

V.0.1 2017-02-28 Revision for Comment Chris O’Connor Andy Cummings Michael Pritchard

4

Table of contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 5

2 SITE VISIT................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Equipment and Materials 5

2.2 Experimental Methodology 5

3 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 8

4 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 8

5

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is to confirm that at the request of ControlPoint LLP the undersigned Principal Consultant, representing DNV GL Technical Advisory Services attended the premises of ControlPoint LLP on the 24th & 25th January 2017 in order to witness the Bead Diagnostic Instrument Test Programme.

This does not constitute DNV GL Product certification. The testing prgramme was conducted out as per ControlPoint Report CP0031, Bead Diagnostic Verification Programme. Date 08/02/17. 2 SITE VISIT

2.1 Equipment and Materials

To facilitate the verification process, the following materials, equipment and apparatus were used to complete the components for the welding and test programme.

‐ Tinius Olsen 75 KN Tensometer serial number H75KS0058

‐ 250mm PE100 SDR17 pipe sections

‐ 250mm Gator 2 Butt Fusion Machine serial number GTR200908

‐ Contaminates

o SIGMA‐ALDRICH Talc – Powder, H2Mg3O12Si4.

o EP2 high load lithium grease

o Mud (generic creation from soil and water manual mixture)

o 180mm PE100 SDR11 pipe sections (10% polypropylene mix)

‐ Debeading tool, unit number 0001

‐ Bead Diagnostic Instrument (BDI) unit number BDI‐2‐0034

‐ Rothenberger RP50 manual pressure pump

2.2 Experimental Methodology

Chris O’Connor of DNV GL Technical Advisory Services attended ControlPoint LLP premises for the Verification Test Programme described in ControlPoint Report CP0031.

DNV GL confirm that all sample preparation, bead removal, assessment and hydrostatic testing was carried out as detailed in ControlPoint Report CP0031 (see Figures 1 – 6). All samples were clearly marked and identified for governance and traceability.

6

Figure 1: Preparation of Dummy Butt Fusion Weld

Figure 2: Preparation of Butt Fusion Welds

Figure 3: Debeading Butt Fusion Weld

7

Figure 4: Detached Beads

Figure 5: Assessment of Beads Using BDI

Figure 6: Integrity Assessment ‐ Hydrostatic Pressure Testing of Butt Fusion Weld

The tensile test programme was completed outside of the 2 day third party visit to ensure the sample preparation, conditioning and test process was completed in accordance with the identified specification ISO 13953. All tests were subject to risk assessment and carried out in a safe and well organised manner.

8

3 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the test programme DNV GL is in agreement with the broad conclusions given in ControlPoint Report CP0031. DNV GL can verify that;

1. The Bead Diagnostic Instrument (BDI) can detect significant butt fusion weld defects due to contaminants i.e. talc particulate, soil based particulate, grease, inter‐dispersed polymer and process variance due to excessive dwell time.

2. There was a 100% correlation between the induced defects and the detection of said defects by the BDI device.

3. Hydrostatic and tensile testing are well established industry practices, however, the BDI provides an insight to potential latent defects inherent within a weld not necessarily detected by the more established methods.

4. The integrated system (BDI device, Bluetooth connectivity, smartphone app, website) is considered an operator friendly system, easily operated with relatively little training required.

5. The BDI integrated system provides a means of generating / accessing real time data for butt fusion joints during the polyethylene pipeline construction phase and provides a comprehensive asset quality assurance record.

4 REFERENCES

1. ISO 13953; 2001 Polyethylene (PE) pipes and fittings — Determination of the tensile strength and failure mode of test pieces from a butt‐fused joint.

2. WIS 4‐32‐08 Issue 4 June 2016. Specification for the Fusion Jointing of Polyethylene Pressure Pipeline Systems Using PE80 and PE100 Materials.

3. Bead Diagnostic Instrument: A Reliable and Simple Non‐Destructive Test for Polyethylene Butt Fusion Joints Technical Paper by Eric Bridgstock and David Carey December 2015.

9

About DNV GL

Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical assurance along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas, and energy industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.

Registered office address: ControlPoint House, Carrwood Road, Chesterfield Trading Estate, Chesterfield S41 9QB

Registered in England No: 10500942 VAT No: GB 152 2397 21

www.controlpoint.co.uk

Report reference: CP0031

Bead Diagnostic Instrument Verification Program

Report Number: CP0031

Date: 28th February 2017

Author: David Carey






Background, Scope & Objectives

ControlPoint is a UK based business that helps utilities and their contractors to improve the long

term performance of their assets by eliminating poor installation on their pipelines -

www.controlpoint.co.uk.

Several of the suite of products and services offered by ControlPoint relate to the butt fusion of PE

pipelines – one particular product is called the Bead Diagnostic Instrument (otherwise known as the

“BDI”). This product is described in more detail on the ControlPoint website -

www.controlpoint.co.uk/controlpoint-technology/bdi.

The science is well established – when making a butt fusion weld on polyethylene (PE) pipes a weld

bead is formed, the ductility of the weld bead at any point around the circumference is consistent

with the ductility of the parent weld circumferentially adjacent to it. Removal of the bead by

specially prepared tooling and the checking of the ductility of the bead along the weld interface is a

well-established technique – however the ductility checking process is difficult, giving rise to the

following challenges:

Manual bending of beads is difficult and impossible to do over a significant proportion of the bead length – especially on larger bead sizes.

The output of the test is qualitative in that it is reliant on the assessment and vigilance of the person testing it.

Record keeping is invariably poor/non-existent.

The BDI tool, BDI app and JointManager website when used in conjunction with each other address

all of the above challenges.

Apart from rudimentary pressure testing processes, that are notoriously inconsistent in identifying

subtle/latent weld defects in PE pipes, or highly complicated and impractical ultrasonic/microwave

systems – there are no other plausible means of non-destructively testing a PE butt fusion weld

except for the BDI.

The BDI product has undergone extensive internal testing as part of the development and

production processes. This testing covered many aspects of the BDI function (pipe sizes, material

types, process variances, weld contamination types, etc.) – some 450 butt fusion joints were

produced, beads removed and then full tensile testing conducted on the associated welds. The

testing process confirmed the science – weld bead ductility directly correlates with weld ductility.

As part of the commercial launch of the BDI product there is a need to provide third party

accreditation to underpin its technical capability.


http://www.controlpoint.co.uk/

http://www.controlpoint.co.uk/controlpoint-technology/bdi





Given the novelty of the product there is no specific standard or test programme that suitably covers

the function of the device – therefore it has been decided to establish a tailored test programme for

third party assessment.

It is widely accepted that there are three primary causes of premature butt fusion failures in PE

pipelines – by far the most prevalent is contamination in the weld interface, followed by process

variance (classically referred to as ‘cold welds’ formed by excessive dwell times or over-pressure in

the joint interface during the fusion process) and finally some latent defect in the material that

manifests itself most likely in the jointing process (i.e. carbon black distribution or polypropylene

cross contamination).

The scope of this testing is to be focused on the core functionality of the BDI product in the most

common application situation – contaminated welds, however, two further basic tests will also be

completed to examine the performance of the BDI on welds with profound process and material

defects.

The objectives are for a third party expert to review, witness and verify the report on the results

from the test programme.

Test Programme

The test programme is based on the most common pipe material (PE100) on the most common pipe

size for butt fusion (250mm/SDR17) in the following scenarios:

Applied = time during the weld cycle where the contamination is introduced

Degree Circ = degrees of the circumference of the weld where the contamination is introduced

The butt fusion welding, BDI testing and subsequent Hydrostatic pressure testing were conducted in

the certified facilities at ControlPoint in Chesterfield over a 2 day period, 24th and 25th January 2017

– witnessed by the third party verifier, Dr Chris O’Connor, Principal Consultant, DNV GL.






The tensile test programme was completed outside of the 2 day third party visit in order to ensure

the sample preparation, conditioning and test process was completed in accordance with the

identified specification ISO 13953.

Equipment & Materials

To facilitate the verification process, the following materials, equipment and apparatus were used to

complete the components for the welding and test program:

250mm PE100 SDR17 pipe sections.

180mm PE100 SDR11 pipe sections (10% Polypropylene mix).

250mm Gator 2 Butt Fusion Machine serial number GTR200908.

Debeading tool, unit number 0001.

Bead Diagnostic Instrument (BDI) unit number BDI-2-0034.

Rothenberger RP50 manual pressure pump.

Tinius Olsen 75 KN Tensometer serial number H75KS0058.

Defect application

It is vital to control the introduction of the defect into the butt fusion weld to correctly correlate

bead performance against any subsequent testing.

The identified contaminates:

SIGMA-ALDRICH Talc – Powder, H2Mg3O12Si4.

EP2 HIGH LOAD LITHIUM GREASE.

Mud (generic creation from soil and water, manual mixture).

Where 20 degree circumference contamination defects were introduced, a new 50mm ‘paint brush’

was used to apply the identified contaminate to each pipe end face at directly opposite positions,

during the check stage of the welding process prior to offering the pipe faces to the heater plate.

The area of contamination was marked and identified through the welding process, BDI test, hydro

pressure test and tensile test processes.

The material defect element of the test program required the production of pipe sections with a

recorded mix of 90% PE100 and 10% polypropylene materials.






Scenarios Scenario A Two 250mm PE100 SDR 17 pipe sections were butt fused together using recommended industry best practice against WIS 4-32-08 Issue 4 June 2016 conditions and parameters. The bead was removed from the completed weld and tested through the BDI apparatus, with a ‘pass’ result recorded. The completed weld was subjected to a 1 hour hydro pressure test at a constant 15 bar pressure (1.5 designed pipe bar pressure rating) a ‘pass’ result was recorded. Subsequent tensile testing resulted in all six specimen samples passing in a ductile manner.

Sample A, BDI ‘Pass’ recorded.






Scenario B, C & D Two 250mm PE100 SDR 17 pipe sections were butt fused together using WIS 4-32-08 Issue 4 June 2016 conditions and parameters. Talc, Grease and Mud contamination were introduced into the weld at three identified positions, covering a 20 degree section of the weld interface. The bead was removed from the completed weld and tested through the BDI apparatus, with a ‘fail’ result recorded in the three specific areas with contamination introduced. The completed weld was subjected to a 1 hour hydro pressure test at a constant 15 bar pressure (1.5 designed pipe bar pressure rating) a ‘pass’ result was recorded. Subsequent tensile testing resulted in three specimen samples failing in a brittle manner corresponding to the specific areas where contamination was introduced, the remaining specimen samples passed in a ductile manner.

Samples B, C & D with a BDI ‘fail’ recorded at three specific points.






Scenario E Two 250mm PE100 SDR 17 pipe sections were butt fused together using WIS 4-32-08 Issue 4 June 2016 conditions and parameters. Talc contamination was introduced into the weld, covering the full circumference of the weld interface. The bead was removed from the completed weld and tested through the BDI apparatus, with a ‘fail’ result recorded. The bead parted in a complete brittle manner when the BDI initiated the first recorded split, negating the remaining section of the bead from being processed. The completed weld was subjected to a 1 hour hydro pressure test at a constant 15 bar pressure (1.5 designed pipe bar pressure rating) a ‘pass’ result was recorded. Subsequent tensile testing resulted in all six specimen samples failing in a brittle manner.

Sample E, BDI ‘fail’ recorded






Scenario F Two 250mm PE100 SDR 17 pipe sections were butt fused together using WIS 4-32-08 Issue 4 June 2016 conditions and parameters. Grease contamination was introduced into the weld, covering the full circumference of the weld interface. The bead was removed from the completed weld and separated in a brittle manner during the debeading process, negating the use of the BDI. The completed weld was subjected to a 1 hour hydro pressure test at a constant 15 bar pressure (1.5 designed pipe bar pressure rating) a ‘pass’ result was recorded. Subsequent tensile testing resulted in all six specimen samples failing in a brittle manner.

Sample F, complete brittle separation during the debeading process.






Scenario G Two 250mm PE100 SDR 17 pipe sections were butt fused together using WIS 4-32-08 Issue 4 June 2016 conditions and parameters. Mud contamination was introduced into the weld, covering the full circumference of the weld interface. The bead was removed from the completed weld and tested through the BDI apparatus, with a ‘fail’ result recorded. The bead parted in a complete brittle manner when the BDI initiated the first recorded split, negating the remaining section of the bead from being processed. The completed weld was subjected to a 1 hour hydro pressure test at a constant 15 bar pressure (1.5 designed pipe bar pressure rating) a ‘pass’ result was recorded. Subsequent tensile testing resulted in all six specimen samples failing in a brittle manner.

Sample G, BDI ‘fail’ recorded






Scenario H Two 180mm PE100 SDR 11 pipe sections were butt fused together using WIS 4-32-08 Issue 4 June 2016 conditions and parameters. The pipe sections used to create this weld were a composite of 90% PE100 and 10% polypropylene material. The bead was removed from the completed weld and tested through the BDI apparatus, with a ‘fail’ result recorded. The completed weld was subjected to a 1 hour hydro pressure test at a constant 24 bar pressure (1.5 designed pipe bar pressure rating) a ‘pass’ result was recorded. Subsequent tensile testing resulted in all six specimen samples failing in a brittle manner.

Sample H, a BDI ‘fail’ recorded.






Scenario I Two 250mm PE100 SDR 17 pipe sections were butt fused together using WIS 4-32-08 Issue 4 June 2016 conditions and parameters. A dwell time of 30 seconds was applied during the welding process, the standard requires a maximum of 10 seconds dwell to be achieved. The bead was removed from the completed weld and tested through the BDI apparatus, with a ‘fail’ result recorded. The completed weld was subjected to a 1 hour hydro pressure test at a constant 15 bar pressure (1.5 designed pipe bar pressure rating) a ‘pass’ result was recorded. Subsequent tensile testing resulted in all six specimen samples passing in a ductile manner.

Sample I, a BDI ‘fail’ recorded.






Pressure test procedure The completed butt fusion joints A through to I, were placed into three weld assemblies to facilitate a hydrostatic pressure test procedure to be completed and witnessed by the DNV GL representative. 250mm PE100 SDR17 end caps were attached to the weld assemblies containing samples A, B, C and D, with a separate assembly containing samples E, F, G and I. Sample H was pressure tested on an independent assembly due to different pipe diameter and maximum design pressure rating. A 180mm PE100 SDR11 end cap and flanged end plate were used to seal the weld assembly. The weld assemblies were pressurised to 15bar (SDR17) and 24bar (SDR11) pressure respectively, for a period of one hour to induce failure where defects were introduced into the jointing process. All three weld assemblies held pressure without failure for the one hour period.

Hydrostatic pressure test summary results table.






Weld assembly containing samples A, B, C and D.

Weld assembly containing samples E, F, G and I.






Weld assembly containing sample H.






Tensile Testing Upon completion of the pressure test procedure, samples A through to I were sectioned and prepared in accordance with ISO 13953; 2001 Polyethylene (PE) pipes and fittings — Determination of the tensile strength and failure mode of test pieces from a butt-fused joint. ISO 13593 is the required test standard referenced for use with butt fusion welded joints within WIS 4-32-08 Issue 4 June 2016. Specification for the Fusion Jointing of Polyethylene Pressure Pipeline Systems Using PE80 and PE100 Materials. The following test results represent the tensile performance of each butt fusion weld produced for the verification program.

Tensile test summary results table.






Test Details

ControlPoint Code: BDI Verification A Job No: DNV

Client: Control Point Test Date: 07/02/2017

Pipe DN (mm) 250mm Pipe Material: PE100

SDR: 17 Manufacturer: Withheld

Specification: WIS4-32-08(Iss4 6/16) Sample Type: TRS

Testing Machine: H75KS0058 Testing Speed (mm/min) 5mm/min

Test Program Butt Weld Test Temperature 23 deg C

Conditioning

Date & Time Started Date & Time Finished Total Hours

06/02/2017 17.00hrs 07/02/2017 09.00hrs 16hrs

Measuring Equipment Equipment No Calibration Date

Calipers 2550 17/08/2017

Test Results

Sample Number

Width (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Peak Load (kN)

Yield Stress (MPa)

Fracture Mode

Energy to

Failure (kJ/m2)

Pass/Fail

A1 25.6 16.2 10.3 24.8 Ductile N/A Pass

A2 25.6 16.3 10.4 24.9 Ductile N/A Pass

A3 25.6 15.8 10.3 25.5 Ductile N/A Pass

A4 25.6 16.2 10.4 25.1 Ductile N/A Pass

A5 25.6 16.3 10.4 24.9 Ductile N/A Pass

A6 25.6 16.2 10.5 25.2 Ductile N/A Pass

Overall Assessment/Comments

All specimens passed in a ductile manner, and therefore deemed conformant as defined by the criteria of WIS4-32-08 (Iss4 6/16).

Tested by: S Backhouse.






Sample A, specimens prepared for tensile test.

Sample A, specimens displaying ductile failure mode.






Sample A, specimens displaying ductile failure mode.






Test Details

ControlPoint Code: BDI Verification B,C&D Job No: DNV







Conditioning


06/02/2017 17.00hrs 07/02/2017 09.00hrs 16hrs


Calipers 2550 17/08/2017

Test Results

Sample Number

Width (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Peak Load (kN)

Yield Stress (MPa)

Fracture Mode

Energy to

Failure (kJ/m2)

Pass/Fail

B 25.5 15.7 5.47 13.7 Brittle N/A Fail

C 25.5 15.7 5.23 13.1 Brittle N/A Fail

D 25.5 15.4 7.77 19.8 Brittle N/A Fail

Good 1 25.5 16.6 10.4 24.6 Ductile N/A Pass




Three controlled contaminated samples failed in a 100% brittle manner, and therefore non-conformant as defined by the criteria of WIS 4-32-08 (iss 4 6/16) The remaining uncontaminated samples passed in a ductile manner.







Samples B, C & D, specimens prepared for tensile test.

Samples B, C & D, displaying brittle failure mode in contaminated sections.






Samples B, C & D, displaying brittle failure mode in contaminated sections.






Test Details

ControlPoint Code: BDI Verification E Job No: DNV







Conditioning


06/02/2017 17.00hrs 07/02/2017 09.00hrs 16hrs


Calipers 2550 17/08/2017

Test Results

Sample Number

Width (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Peak Load (kN)

Yield Stress (MPa)

Fracture Mode

Energy to

Failure (kJ/m2)

Pass/Fail

E1 25.4 16.2 4.84 11.8 Brittle N/A Fail

E2 25.4 16.3 10.3 24.8 Brittle N/A Fail

E3 25.4 15.6 8.39 21.2 Brittle N/A Fail

E4 25.4 16.2 9.11 22.1 Brittle N/A Fail

E5 25.4 16.2 10.5 25.4 Brittle N/A Fail

E6 25.4 15.9 5.06 12.5 Brittle N/A Fail


All six samples failed in a 100% brittle manner, and deemed non-conformant as defined by the criteria of WIS 4-32-08 (iss 4 6/16)







Sample E, specimens prepared for tensile testing.

Sample E, displaying a brittle failure mode in all specimens.






Sample E, displaying a brittle failure mode in all specimens.






Test Details

ControlPoint Code: BDI Verification F Job No: DNV







Conditioning


06/02/2017 17.00hrs 07/02/2017 09.00hrs 16hrs


Calipers 2550 17/08/2017

Test Results

Sample Number

Width (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Peak Load (kN)

Yield Stress (MPa)

Fracture Mode

Energy to

Failure (kJ/m2)

Pass/Fail

F1 25.7 16.4 3.84 9.11 Brittle N/A Fail

F2 25.7 16.3 5.04 12.0 Brittle N/A Fail

F3 25.7 16.6 10.3 25.6 Brittle N/A Fail

F4 25.7 16.1 5.20 12.6 Brittle N/A Fail

F5 25.7 15.8 6.97 17.2 Brittle N/A Fail

F6 25.7 16.4 4.90 11.6 Brittle N/A Fail


All six samples failed in a 100% brittle manner, and deemed non-conformant as defined by the criteria of WIS 4-32-08 (iss 4 6/16)







Sample F, specimens prepared for tensile testing.

Sample F, displaying a brittle failure mode in all specimens.






Sample F, displaying a brittle failure mode in all specimens.






Test Details

ControlPoint Code: BDI Verification G Job No: DNV







Conditioning


06/02/2017 17.00hrs 07/02/2017 09.00hrs 16hrs


Calipers 2550 17/08/2017

Test Results

Sample Number

Width (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Peak Load (kN)

Yield Stress (MPa)

Fracture Mode

Energy to

Failure (kJ/m2)

Pass/Fail

G1 25.6 15.8 7.43 18.4 Brittle N/A Fail

G2 25.6 15.4 7.43 18.8 Brittle N/A Fail

G3 25.6 16.2 9.75 23.5 Brittle N/A Fail

G4 25.6 16.2 9.34 22.5 Brittle N/A Fail

G5 25.6 16.4 9.52 22.7 Brittle N/A Fail

G6 25.6 16.4 7.58 18.1 Brittle N/A Fail


All six samples failed in a 100% brittle manner, and deemed non-conformant as defined by the criteria of WIS 4-32-08 (Iss 4 6/16)







Sample G, specimens prepared for tensile testing.

Sample G, displaying a brittle failure mode in all specimens.






Sample G, displaying a brittle failure mode in all specimens.






Test Details

ControlPoint Code: BDI Verification H Job No: DNV


Pipe DN (mm) 180mm Pipe Material: PE100-PE100/PP





Conditioning


06/02/2017 17.00hrs 07/02/2017 09.00hrs 16hrs


Calipers 2550 17/08/2017

Test Results

Sample Number

Width (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Peak Load (kN)

Yield Stress (MPa)

Fracture Mode

Energy to

Failure (kJ/m2)

Pass/Fail

H1 25.9 16.9 7.52 17.2 Brittle N/A Fail

H2 25.9 17.4 9.76 21.6 Brittle N/A Fail

H3 25.9 18.1 7.85 16.7 Brittle N/A Fail

H4 25.9 17.3 7.92 17.7 Brittle N/A Fail


All four samples failed in a 100% brittle manner, and deemed non-conformant as defined by the criteria of WIS 4-32-08 (Iss 4 6/16)







Sample H, specimens prepared for tensile testing.

Sample H, displaying a brittle failure mode in all specimens.






Sample H, displaying a brittle failure mode in all specimens.






Test Details

ControlPoint Code: BDI Verification I Job No: DNV







Conditioning


07/02/2017 17.00hrs 08/02/2017 09.00hrs 16hrs


Calipers 2550 17/08/2017

Test Results

Sample Number

Width (mm)

Thickness (mm)

Peak Load (kN)

Yield Stress (MPa)

Fracture Mode

Energy to

Failure (kJ/m2)

Pass/Fail

I1 25.7 15.4 10.3 26.0 Ductile N/A Pass

I2 25.7 16.2 10.4 24.9 Ductile N/A Pass

I3 25.7 16.5 10.2 24.0 Ductile N/A Pass

I4 25.7 16.2 10.2 24.5 Ductile N/A Pass

I5 25.7 16.2 9.98 24.0 Ductile N/A Pass

I6 25.7 15.7 10.1 25.1 Ductile N/A Pass


All specimens passed in a ductile manner, and therefore deemed conformant as defined by the criteria of WIS4-32-08(Iss4 6/16).







Sample I, specimens prepared for tensile testing.

Sample I, all specimens failed in a ductile mode.






Sample I, all specimens failed in a ductile mode.






Summary A control sample was produced, scenario A, to calibrate the performance of the Bead Diagnostic Instrument (BDI) when processing a ‘good’ butt fusion weld. The removed bead remained intact when processed through the BDI, and therefore deemed a ‘pass’. The BDI provided a 100% correlation when identifying defects within beads removed from butt fused welded pipe joints:

Talc contamination.

‘Mud’ contamination.

Grease contamination.

Material defect (10% Polypropylene mix).

Excessive dwell time (30 seconds versus 10 seconds). The accuracy of the BDI identified specific localised areas of an affected weld, as demonstrated in scenarios B, C and D, where a 20 degree circumferential section of the weld interface was subject to an introduced contaminant. The BDI device initiated a ‘split’ within the removed bead at the identified points along the weld interface, with the remaining sections proving ductile. Where full face contamination was introduced within scenarios E, F and G the BDI initiated complete failure along the removed bead weld interface in all cases. For each scenario a set of sample specimens were prepared for tensile test evaluation. In scenarios A through G the tensile performance of each sample specimen produced a brittle or ductile failure mode in direct correlation to the BDI recorded evaluation. The presence of a material defect, pipe sections with a controlled mix of 10% polypropylene and 90% PE100 ln scenario H also resulted in a significant ‘split’ across a large section of weld interface of the removed bead. For scenario I, excessive dwell time of 30 seconds, the BDI produced a ‘split’ in a localised section of the removed bead. The tensile test evaluation of this weld produced a ductile failure in all sample specimens, despite a major process variation. The bead produced during production of this weld was smaller than would be achieved using correct welding conditions. Despite the recorded performance of both the BDI and tensile testing processes, each scenario was subject to a hydrostatic pressure test, with a pressure of 1.5 times the maximum operating pressure of the pipe applied for a 60 minute period, in an attempt to induce premature joint failure. In each scenario the weld assemblies held pressure, and remained intact with no identified issues.






Conclusions The test programme allows the following broad conclusions to be drawn:

· The Bead Diagnostic Instrument (BDI) is capable of detecting all major butt fusion pipe weld

defects in polyethylene pipes (contaminants, manifest process error, material issues).

· There was a 100% correlation between the induced defects and the detection of said defects by

the BDI device.

· Hydrostatic and tensile testing are well established industry practices, however, the BDI provides

an insight to potential latent defects inherent within a weld not necessarily detected by the

more established method.

· The integrated system (BDI device, Bluetooth connectivity, smartphone app, and website) is easy

to use and provides a real time, comprehensive asset quality assurance record for butt fusion

joints in polyethylene pipe systems.

References

ISO 13953; 2001 Polyethylene (PE) pipes and fittings — Determination of the tensile strength and failure mode of test pieces from a butt-fused joint.

WIS 4-32-08 Issue 4 June 2016. Specification for the Fusion Jointing of Polyethylene Pressure Pipeline Systems Using PE80 and PE100 Materials.

Bead Diagnostic Instrument: A Reliable and Simple Non-Destructive Test for Polyethylene Butt Fusion Joints Technical Paper by Eric Bridgstock and David Carey December 2015.


THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION Witness and … · To facilitate the verification process, the following...

Documents

Transcript of THIRD PARTY VERIFICATION Witness and … · To facilitate the verification process, the following...