,MLMKM
,MLMKM
,MLMKM
September 2010
“I certify that:
I am responsible for the work submitted in this project report, and that
the original work is my own.
I have not submitted this work to any other institution for the award of a
degree.
All laboratory work has been carried out by myself with no more
assistance from members of the department than has been specified. All
additional assistance which I have received is indicated and referenced
in the report.
Signature ……………………………………….
Date ……………………………………………..
Individual Project Access Form
Location: WEDC Resources Centre, Loughborough University
Authors Declaration:
This project report shall be made available within the WEDC Resource
Centre, and may be borrowed by WEDC staff and students. Pages may
be copied subject to copyright regulations. It may also be copied by the
British Library for supply to requesting libraries and individuals, subject
to a written assurance that it will not be published in part or in full.”
Signature ……………………………………….
Date ……………………………………………..
Signature ……………………………………….
Date ……………………………………………..
Appendices
Appendix A – Risk assessments and method statements
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank his Dad and Brother for their continued support during the
Water and Waste Engineering MSc course at WEDC, Loughborough.
The author would also like to thank Michael Barker and Michael Smeeton, Laboratory
Technicians, Loughborough University for their assistance in the preparation of the testing
rigs and technical support during the testing, and finally Geoffrey Belton, Engineering
Operations Manager, National Grid, North London for his support and the supply of
polyethylene pipe used for testing.
Table of Contents d
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1
3 METHODOLOGY 28
a
Table of Contents d
4 RESULTS 45
6 CONCLUSIONS 66
6.1 Recommendations 66
7 REFERENCES 69
b
Table of Contents d
List of figures
Figure 14 - Machined tensile test piece for pipes with wall thickness less 24
than 25mm
c
Table of Contents d
Figure 28 - End restraint design (two pipe clamps and wide clamp) 44
Figure 39 - Manual butt fusion jointed test piece necking during tensile 63
strength test
Figure 42 - Trim pipe ends to ensure smooth, clean mating surfaces xxi
Figure 43 - Recheck pipe alignment. Pipe ends aligned ready to be heated xxii
Figure 44 - Application of heat to both sides of heating plate using blow lamp xxii
Figure 45 - Check temperature of heating plate using thermo chrome crayon xxiii
to ensure the plate temperature is in the correct range
Figure 46 - When heating plate at correct temperature carefully insert into xxiii
Teflon coated paper sleeve
d
Table of Contents d
Figure 47 - Place heating plate vertically and perpendicular to the pipe ends xxiv
in the alignment clamp and firmly press pipe ends against heating
plate
Figure 48 - Upon formation of 2mm bead around perimeter of pipe relax xxiv
pressure while maintaining contact with heating plate to allow
for heat soak time (20 seconds)
Figure 49 - Carefully remove heating plate and join pipes together xxv
(maximum time pipes ends apart should not exceed 10 seconds)
Figure 50 - Completed manual butt fusion joint (test piece 3) showing xxv
slight misalignment
Figure 51 - Pipe ends firmly pressed against heating plate in alignment xxvi
clamp
Figure 52 - Completed manual butt fusion joint on 32mm nominal outside xxvi
diameter water pipe note poor alignment
List of tables
Table 1 - Comparison of costs of straight fittings of alternative pipe 11
jointing methods
e
Table of Contents d
f
Introduction d
1 Introduction
Butt fusion techniques have been used for polyethylene pipe jointing in the UK since
the 1970‟s. Today in the UK butt fusion operations are conducted using fully
automatic butt fusion machines minimising potential human error. In Developing
Countries such as Nepal and Timor Leste (formerly known as East Timor) manual
butt fusion techniques have been developed and are used as a cost effective alternative
to mechanical and electro fusion jointing. Despite their use in Developing Countries,
no extensive testing has been undertaken to determine the strength of these manual
butt fusion joints.
This research project will examine manual butt fusion joints by constructing manual
butt fusion jointed test pieces using the equipment and techniques used in Developing
Countries, and testing the butt fusion joints to determine joint strength and
performance under different testing conditions. As well as testing of manual butt
fusion joints, testing of compression joints has been undertaken as part of this
research project to enable direct comparison between the two different methods of
pipe jointing.
After a detailed analysis of the testing results and comparison of jointing methods I
shall end the report with my conclusions, describing how the testing went and how
and why manual butt fusion jointing could be improved.
1
Introduction d
Chapter 3: Methodology. This chapter will provide details and justification of the
testing parameters selected for the laboratory testing. It will also detail the test piece
preparation including equipment required and the jointing procedures for manual butt
fusion and compression joints. Finally this section will provide details of each testing
2
Introduction d
rig for the different testing parameters and the testing procedures to be undertaken.
Limitations of each testing procedure will be included where appropriate.
Chapter 4: Results. This chapter will present the results of the test piece preparation
and testing results. The results of the test piece preparation will be presented in the
form of a written account of the procedure including any difficulties experienced.
The testing results will be presented in the form of graphs, tables and simple
calculations. Observations, photographs and problems experienced will also be
included in the results.
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion. This section will contain a full analysis and
discussion of the results of the manual butt fusion jointed test piece preparation and
testing of the manual butt fusion and compression jointed test pieces.
Chapter 6: Conclusion. Chapter 6 will draw definitive conclusions from the results
and analysis of the manual butt fusion jointing. Recommendations will be made
regarding how the manual butt fusion jointing procedure could be improved. The
conclusion will also detail limitations of the research project and potential areas for
further research.
3
Background and Literature Review .
Polyethylene pipe systems are cost effective and reliable. Polyethylene offers a
number of advantages including corrosion resistance, chemical resistance, flexibility,
light and easy to handle, low frictional resistance, good flow characteristics, strong
and durable, and simple welding technologies for leak tight joints (WRc 1986). The
flexibility of polyethylene pipe also allows it to absorb high levels of impact loads
associated with the construction phase, and vibration and stress caused by soil or
ground movement post installation (Radius Systems 2008b).
4
Background and Literature Review .
There is a range of possible jointing methods for polyethylene pipes. These include;
butt fusion, electrofusion couplers, socket fusion, push-fit and compression joints.
The following sections will examine in detail butt fusion and compression joints.
Butt fusion techniques have been used for polyethylene pipe jointing in the UK since
the 1970‟s with fusion provida at the forefront of butt fusion machine design. Early
butt fusion machines were manually operated and optimum results depended on the
successful completion of an involved sequence of steps with considerable scope for
error (Fusion Provida 1990). Advancements in butt fusion machine technology led to
the introduction of the automatic butt fusion machine in 1987, which was essentially
an old manual BF3 butt fusion machine converted. The automatic butt fusion
machine was not designed to simply follow a fixed sequence, but was designed as a
„intelligent‟ system (Fusion Provida 1990) able to adjust to changing conditions.
Providing the user enters the correct information (Pipe type, diameter, SDR) into the
control box of the automatic butt fusion machine, the only remaining human error can
be misalignment of pipe and contamination of the joint (Fusion Provida 1990).
5
Background and Literature Review .
Modern automatic butt fusion machines (Figure 2) now additionally have a printer
attached to enable joint records to be kept or a facility to allow joint information to be
downloaded to a pc.
Today in the UK and the USA automatic butt fusion machines are the only approved
form of butt fusion machinery and are widely available, in a wide range of sizes from
63mm to 630mm (Fusion Provida 2010), and in some cases are constructed on self-
propelled tracked machines, similar to units produced by Trackstar.
Butt fusion joint welding is also undertaken in Nepal (Scribd 2010) and Timor Leste
(Reed 2010) but using much simpler technologies. In Nepal and Timor Leste
sophisticated automatic butt fusion machines are not readily available. Instead butt
fusion pipe jointing is completed using a hand held heating plate constructed from
scrap metal, Teflon coated paper and a thermo chrome crayon (see Figure 3) (Reed
2010, Scribd 2010). The heating plate is heated by using charcoal or good quality
firewood to a temperature of approximately 220ºC (Junejo 2010, Jordan 1982). The
6
Background and Literature Review .
temperature of the heating plate is determined by marking the plate with the thermo
chrome crayon. If the colour of the marking changes from white to brown within 5-
10 seconds the plate is at operating temperature. If the marking changes colour in
under 5 seconds then the plate is too hot, if the mark changes colour after 10 seconds
then the plate is too cold and must be reheated. The Teflon coated paper is used to
make a sleeve in which the heating plate is inserted so when pipe ends are pushed
against plate molten material does not stick to the plate and contaminate the weld.
The manual butt fusion process requires high levels of competency and skill as there
are currently no pipe alignment tools used and the hot pipes ends are just „held
together by hand‟ to make the joint.
Manual butt fusion welding operations in Nepal and Timor Leste are only performed
on pipes of 32mm and 63mm nominal outside diameters at present (Reed 2010).
Additionally, municipalities in Nepal have also developed the manual butt fusion
process to fabricate mitred bends and pipe cap ends from straight lengths of
polyethylene pipe by cutting straight sections at strategic angles (Scrib 2010).
7
Background and Literature Review .
in Nepal and Timor Leste, the welding procedure follows the same basic procedure.
The basic butt fusion welding procedure will now be described.
Stage 1
The first stage of the procedure is to ensure that the pipe ends are clean. If necessary
the pipe ends should be cleaned with clean water and dried with a cotton rag (Plastic
Pipes Institute 2009). All surfaces must be clean and the pipes must be cut squarely
so that when pipe ends are pushed together there are no gaps between the pipe ends
greater than 1millimetre (Jordan 1982). The pipe ends should also be checked to
ensure the pipe is round and not oval (usually a result of handling damage).
In a modern automatic butt fusion machine the lengths of pipe are secured and aligned
in the butt fusion machine.
Stage 2
The ends of both pipes require trimming. This stage is completed to ensure that the
pipe ends are smooth, parallel and clean mating surfaces (Plastic Pipes Institute 2009).
Simple tools such as a file (Jordan 1982) are used to trim the pipe ends in Nepal and
Timor Leste whereas a trimmer plate is used in the automatic butt fusion machine.
Once the pipe ends are trimmed all pipe shavings, cuttings and debris should be
removed and bagged for disposal. No contact should be made with the pipe ends, as
this will contaminate the pipe end (Plastic Pipes Institute 2009). If pipe ends become
contaminated then the cleaning and trimming procedures in stages 1 and 2 should be
repeated. Finally, a second alignment check is carried out to ensure there are still no
gaps between the pipe ends greater than 1millimetre (Jordan 1982, National Grid
2007)
Jordan (1982) also recommends that the manual pipe jointing crew (Nepal and Timor
Leste) make a practice attempt at the jointing procedure using the unheated heating
plate, to be familiar with procedure as once pipe ends are joined together when heated
they can not be separated and realigned.
8
Background and Literature Review .
Stage 3
Ensuring that the heating plate is clean, undamaged, and at the correct temperature,
220ºC (Jordan 1982), the heating plate will be inserted in to a Teflon coated paper
sleeve (heating plate in butt fusion machine has Teflon coating) and the two pipe ends
are pressed firmly against the plate. When the pipe is heated a bead of molten
material will form around the perimeter of the pipe (Jordan 1982). For pipe diameters
of 32mm and 63mm the melt bead size required is approximately 2millimetres
(Wavin 2001). When the correct sized melt bead has formed equally around both
pipe ends the heating plate should be removed carefully so as not to damage the pipe
ends and the pipe ends joined together. The time period between the heating plate
removal and pipe ends joining must be as short as possible, ideally less that 10
seconds to prevent the fall in temperature of the pipe ends from being too large
(Barber and Atkinson 1974). Once the pipe ends have been joined together, the pipe
ends should still be pressed together until the joint has cooled down and can be
touched by hand.
When using the automatic butt fusion machine, joining pressures, heater temperatures,
bead size, fusion time, heat soak time and cool period are all controlled by the
machines „intelligent‟ system (Fusion Provida 1990). When operating an automatic
butt fusion machine it is also common to complete dummy joints at the start of each
day, or when changing pipe diameter to clean the heater plate (National Grid 2007).
A dummy joint is a joint made following the same procedure as normal but aborted
after the heating plate is removed so that the pipe ends are not brought together and
joined.
Stage 4
Following cooling of the joint, a visual inspection can be carried out to check for
potential jointing faults such as pipe misalignment, melt cooling and interface
contamination as shown in Figure 4. The bead width can also be measured and
checked that is consistent in width around the perimeter of the pipe (Radius Systems
2008b) and free of any contamination. In some cases the bead may be removed and
will also be subject to a visual inspection. For short lengths of pipe the joint can also
be flexed vigorously (Jordan 1982) to check the joints do not fail under simple
manipulation.
9
Background and Literature Review .
Additionally because butt fusion jointing does not require any specialist fittings the
manual pipe joining crews will not have to potentially wait for the import of fittings
or experience supply problems before completing repairs, which will in return reduce
the leakage times.
10
Background and Literature Review .
The low cost manual butt fusion procedure does not require any expensive machinery,
tools or power supply. The heating plate is constructed from scrap metal and heated
to the correct temperature using a natural fire source (Reed 2010).
Butt fusion jointing is commonly used in Nepal and Timor Leste for repairs, where
sections of existing pipe are cut out (Junejo 2010). In this process two butt fusion
joints will be required, one joint at each end of the section being replaced. This will
require the second joint to be completed inside the excavation, which will increase the
likelihood of joint contamination and pipe misalignment. Additionally the excavation
required will have to be larger to increase the amount of movement in the existing
pipeline and allow the new section of pipe to be “sprung in”.
Finally, successful butt fusion jointing requires the system being worked on to be
fully isolated (i.e. no water flowing through repair section) and the pipe to be dry
11
Background and Literature Review .
inside. This will require effective flow stop equipment (squeeze offs). Compression
joints may be carried out with small quantities of water still flowing through the
isolated pipe section.
The main components of a polyethylene pipe plastic compression joint (see Figure 5)
are the body, a threaded compression nut, a floating split ring, a thrust ring (a ring that
holds the polyethylene pipe in position and prevents pull out from the fitting), a pipe
stiffener (rigid internal tube stiffener that provides permanent support for
polyethylene pipe to prevent creep in the pipe wall under radial compressive forces)
and a gasket (George Fischer 2010a, Gas Industry Standard 2006). The design
principle of the compression joint is that when the threaded compression nut is
tightened onto the body of the fitting, the gasket and thrust ring become compressed
between compression nut and body of fitting and grip the outside pipe creating a
pressure tight seal (Plastic Pipe 2010, Wavin 2001). Additionally, as a result of the
gasket and thrust ring gripping the outside of the pipe, pull out resistance exceeding
the yield strength of the polyethylene pipe is also achieved. It is essential that the
pipe stiffeners are inserted into the ends of the polyethylene pipes to be joined. If
stiffeners are not inserted the pipe will creep under radial compressive forces,
potentially resulting in a loss of pressure tight seal reducing pressure integrity and
leak tightness, or grip which would reduce pipe pull out resistance (Plastic Pipe
2010).
12
Background and Literature Review .
Compression joints have been in use in the Water Industry in the UK since the 1980‟s.
Today compression joints are a common joining method for the repair of damaged
polyethylene and lead pipes. Compression joints are also now used in the gas
industry to repair damaged polyethylene of 16mm-63mm outside diameter (Gas
Industry Standard 2006). George Fischer Italy piping systems have been exporting
compression joints to developing countries since the late 1980‟s.
Stages 1&2
The pipe is cut using pipe cutters or a hack saw at the point of damage leaving a
distance of Z between the pipe ends (George Fischer 2010b). The pipe ends should be
13
Background and Literature Review .
cut square and all sharp edges removed (Polypipe 2010). Pipe stiffeners are fully
inserted into the pipe ends up to the stop.
Figure 6. Stages 1&2 compression coupler joining procedure (George Fischer 2010b)
Stage 3&4
The compression nut, thrust ring and gasket (or O ring seal) should be fitted over both
pipe ends in the correct order. Align pipe ends and mark on pipe position of the body
of the fitting. This is to be used to aid alignment of fitting at stage 6.
Figure 7. Stages 3&4 compression coupler joining procedure (George Fischer 2010b)
Stage 5&6
Insert the body over one side of the pipe, ensuring the pipe itself comes out of the
body on the opposite side (George Fischer 2010b). Align the two pipe ends and slide
the body over pipe ends until it aligns with the marks on the pipe applied at stage 4.
Figure 8. Stages 5&6 compression coupler joining procedure (George Fischer 2010b)
14
Background and Literature Review .
Stage 7&8
Without allowing the body to move along the pipe, slide the thrust rings and gasket
until at the correct position on the body. Slide the compression nut up to the body and
screw together ensuring the compression of the gasket (Figure 9). For pipe diameters
20mm-63mm tighten nut until a maximum of 1 thread on the body remains visible.
For pipe diameters 75mm-90mm tighten nut until a maximum of 1.5 threads on the
body remain visible (George Fischer 2010b). Fittings can be tightened manually by
hand, using grips or a special wrench.
Figure 9. Stages 7&8 compression coupler joining procedure (George Fischer 2010b)
Unlike butt fusion jointing methods, compression joints do not require highly skilled
labour to complete the connections and, when installing compression joints in a new
system, no dismantling of the fitting is required (George Fischer 2010a). Modern
compression joints enable easy and fast installation, and can be installed in tight
spaces, such as in an excavation, and are suitable for damp and wet conditions
(George Fischer 2010a). Because there is no heat fusion required for compression
joints, small pipe flows can still occur through pipe system when completing repairs.
Additionally, as there are no heat fusion operations, the pipe and fitting do not
become homogenous, and can therefore be taken apart easily and reused (George
Fischer 2010a).
15
Background and Literature Review .
Compression joints are able to join polyethylene pipes together of different polymer,
wall thickness, and SDR rating. With the use of an adaptor kit, compression joints
can also be used to join polyethylene pipes of different diameters (using a reducer)
and polyethylene pipe with PVC, ABS, PE-Xa, copper and metal pipes (George
Fischer 2010a). This range of compatibility makes compression joints very useful in
Developing Countries where pipe networks may consist of a range of different
materials.
16
Background and Literature Review .
enable any leakage within the system to be identified. Hydrostatic pressure is defined
as the static pressure exerted due to the weight of a column of water, for example
100mbar water gauge pressure is one tenth of a bar therefore one bar pressure equates
to a column of water 10metres high. A watch tested for water resistance at 5bar is
subjected to the same pressure that would be exerted at the bottom of a water tank
50metres deep.
Unlike ductile iron and steel pipes, polyethylene pipes demonstrate a visco-elastic
(creep) behaviour (WRc 1999). A polyethylene pipe sealed under test pressure will
experience a non-linear reduction in pressure (pressure decay) due to the visco-elastic
(effectively a stretching of the pipe) behaviour of the pipe (Wavin 2001) as shown in
Figure 10. This will occur even in a leak free system and allowance must be made for
this condition.
Figure 10. Graph showing visco-elastic behaviour of polyethylene pipe (Radius Systems 2008a)
When testing polyethylene pipes, tests should take place between blank flanges bolted
to pipe ends or electro-fusion welded full end-load resistant end caps (Radius Systems
2008a, BS 1167-1: 2006). Testing against a closed value is not recommended and
should not be undertaken unless there is no alternative (WRc 1986).
The Water Research Council (WRc) recommend that testing should not be undertaken
in temperatures in excess of 30ºC because the creep behaviour of the polyethylene
pipe may affect the results obtained. This can be overcome by either partially
17
Background and Literature Review .
backfilling or covering the pipe to maintain ambient temperatures throughout the test
period (WRc 1986).
The pipe system will have a rated pressure marked on the side of the pipe, which is
the maximum pressure that the pipe can operate throughout its design life (50 years).
When applying a hydrostatic pressure test a system test pressure is used, this is a
higher pressure than the rated pressure to enable the mechanical integrity and
tightness of the system to be verified (WRc 1999). See table 2 for system test
pressures for different pressure rated polyethylene pipes.
Table 2. Recommended System Test Pressure for PE pipe (WRc 1999, Radius Systems 2008a)
Rated pressure of PE pipe Test pressure
Up to 10bar 1.5 x rated pressure
12bar to 16bar 1.5 x rated pressure (or 5 bar +
working pressure, whichever is less)
Other considerations when conducting hydrostatic pressure tests include ensuring that
air is removed from the pipe system when the system is being charged. This can be
achieved by installing air valves at high points in the system (Wavin 2001). Due to
compressibility of air, if any air remains in the systems this will distort the pressure
test results (WRc 1986). When pumping water into the pipe system it is important to
use a pump of adequate size (WRc 1999). It is recommended by the WRc that the
pump should pressurise the system fully in 15 to 45 minutes as the loading time has
an effect on the overall duration of the test. A long test duration is inconvenient and
can increase the chances of temperature fluctuations.
There are two hydrostatic pressure tests recommended by the WRc and undertaken by
manufacturers when testing a pipe system. These are the classified as Pressure Test
Type 1 and Pressure Test Type 2. In this next section both pressure tests shall be
explained and alternative test methods will also be briefly described.
18
Background and Literature Review .
The system test pressure is applied to the pipe system and maintained by additional
pumping as required for a period of 30 minutes (WRc 1986). This sustains the creep
in the polyethylene pipe. After maintaining the system test pressure for 30 minutes,
the pressure in the system should be reduced rapidly to a nominal pressure
(approximately 2bar) and the system should be isolated. A record of the pressure
readings following the isolation of the system should be kept. The WRc (1986)
recommend pressure readings every 2 minutes for the first 10 minute period, every 5
minutes for the following 20 minute period, and every 10 minutes for the following
60 minute period. The pressure in the system should rise following the isolation due
to the visco-elastic behaviour of the polyethylene pipe as shown in Figure 11. If
during the 90 minute period following the depressurising and isolation of the system
the pressure drops, this would indicate a leak in the system.
19
Background and Literature Review .
20
Background and Literature Review .
For a sound pipe system with no leakage N1 and N2 should lie within the range 0.04
and 0.1. If N1 and N2 are lower than 0.04 this would indicate that there is air in the
system. If N1 and N2 are greater than 0.1 this would indicate that there may be a leak
in the system (WRc 1999).
To further improve the reliability of the test more than three pressure decay readings
can be taken. Additionally, extending the time between reaching system test pressure
and the final pressure reading, can increase the test sensitivity (Wavin 2001).
Simplification of the test procedure can be achieved with the use of data loggers to
automatically record pressures (Radius Systems 2008a) as the logging facility will
enable analysis of pressure data and can enable early leakage to be identified.
If a pipe system fails a test due to air in the system or an unacceptable leak then,
following repair or venting, the system must be allowed sufficient time to recover.
The WRc (1999) recommend a period at least five times the test period to enable the
system to recover.
21
Background and Literature Review .
Following a successful preliminary stage, the remaining pressure in the system should
be rapidly reduced to 10-15% of initial system test pressure, by bleeding water from
the system, recording the volume of water removed. The allowable water loss will be
calculated to ensure that the volume of water removed does not exceed allowable
water loss. If water removed exceeds allowable water loss the test should be stopped.
The final stage of the test is to observe the pressure in the system for 30 minutes
following the pressure reduction. The pressure should then slowly increase as a result
of the contraction of the polyethylene pipe. The test is deemed successful if the
pressure in the system is recorded to increase. If the pressure drops in the system in
the final 30 minute period this would indicate a leak in the system.
British Standard 805 (2000) and WRc (1999) also describe alternative water loss, and
pressure loss test procedures, however both of these tests are unsuitable for
polyethylene pipes, as they are unable to accommodate the visco-elastic behaviour of
the pipe material.
Finally the UK Water Industry has developed a hydrostatic pressure testing method
for testing compression fittings (UK Water Industry 1998). This test method tests the
compression fitting in a pipe system of minimum 300mm free length (length of pipe
between fitting and end cap) each side of the fitting at a specified pressure and time
(table 3). If the system does not fail within the specified time the pressure shall then
be raised at a steady rate until failure occurs (UK Water Industry 1998).
22
Background and Literature Review .
Table 3. Example of specified test pressure and time for 63mm Compression fitting
(UK Water Industry 1998)
Duration (hours) Minimum Test Pressure (bar)
5 000 to 10 000 20
100 to 1 000 22
1 to 10 25
The pipe system should fail by the pipe bursting in a ductile manner (Figure 13) prior
to any leakage or failure of the fitting (UK Water Industry 1998). If failure occurs in
a brittle manner (Figure 13) or within a distance less than 10% free length from the
fitting the test should be disregard.
23
Background and Literature Review .
joints and compression joints. All testing should be undertaken at a test temperature
of 23°C (BS 12201-5:2003). The testing methods for butt fusion joints and
compression joints will now be briefly discussed.
Figure 14. Machined tensile test piece for pipes with wall thickness less than 25mm (BS 13953:2001)
24
Background and Literature Review .
Loading on
pipe / fitting
Figure 15. Diagram of apparatus for test for resistance to pull out of assembled joint (BS 712:1993)
The British Standard (BS 712:1993) procedure is to apply a force, F, to the test
specimen gradually over 30seconds and then hold test piece in constant tension for a
period of one hour. Force, F is calculated as;
The UK Water Industry (1998) procedure is to apply test force gradually over a period
of 15 to 30seconds. The test piece is then held in constant tension for a period of 5
minutes. The test force applied to the test piece is determined by the nominal outside
diameter of the pipe (mm) (see table 4).
Table 4. Test forces for test under constant load (UK Water Industry 1998)
Nominal pipe size (mm) 20 25 32 50 63
Test force (kN) 1.9 2.5 4.1 9.8 15.6
25
Background and Literature Review .
On completion of the test, the test piece is removed and examined for pull out from
the compression ring and/or fracture of the pipe (UK Water Industry 1998).
Finally, National Grid (Gas Industry 2006) has an alternative tensile strength test for
compression joints in polyethylene pipes. A test piece is subjected to a tensile stress
at a constant speed of 25mm/min ± 10mm/min until the polyethylene pipe yields. The
leak tightness of the test piece at 25mbar (air test) is verified before test and checked
again after the pipe has yielded.
Figure 16. Diagram of apparatus for hydrostatic pressure test when subject to bending stresses
(UK Water Industry 1998)
26
Background and Literature Review .
In this test, the test piece (25-63mm nominal outside diameter) is prepared with a
maximum bend radius of 20 times nominal outside diameter and shall be subjected to
a hydrostatic pressure test at 25bar test pressure (UK Water Industry 1998) for one
hour. If the test piece does not fail the pressure shall be increased at a steady rate
until failure occurs. The pipe should fail in a ductile manner (Figure 13) and before
any leakage occurs on the fitting.
2.3.4 Fatigue
Fatigue testing is undertaken to determine the working life of a polyethylene pipe
system for quality control purposes (WRc 1986). Fatigue testing can be completed
using hydrostatic pressure tests as described in section 2.3.1 at elevated temperatures
(80°C) (Wavin 2001) for long test durations (5 000-1 0000 hours).
Notch sensitivity tests (Wavin 2001) may also be conducted to assess the fatigue of a
polyethylene pipe. In a notch sensitivity test a test piece is notched to 20% of wall
thickness at four points around circumference of pipe. The test piece is then subjected
to a wall stress of 8bar (for PE80 polyethylene pipe) at 80°C for 170 hours. The
purpose of this test is to record the stress crack resistance and ensure that crack
growth does not occur within the required test life represented by the test duration
(Wavin 2001).
This review also provides some background information on why pipes are tested and
the different criteria by which a pipe can be tested. Finally, testing methods for each
criteria are examined.
27
Methodology .
3 Methodology
To investigate the quality of manual butt fusion joints produced in polyethylene pipes.
Manual butt fusion joints will be constructed and laboratory testing will be
undertaken. From the information on pipe testing included in the literature review
(section 2.3), the ability to withstand elevated hydrostatic pressures and testing the
tensile strength of the manual butt fusion jointed test pieces have been chosen as the
test parameters. For comparison purposes, the same tests will also be undertaken on
test pieces joined using compression fittings.
The author acknowledges the fact that fatigue testing would have enabled a better
assessment of the working life performance of manual butt fusion joints, however,
due to time constraints, he was unable to obtain the appropriate test pieces (weathered
polyethylene pipe with manual butt fusion joints) to conduct standard hydrostatic
pressure tests, and did not have the facilities to complete elevated temperature
hydrostatic pressure tests for long time durations.
28
Methodology .
In total 12 test pieces will be required; 6 manual butt fusion jointed test pieces and 6
compression jointed test pieces. Hydrostatic pressure and tensile strength testing will
be conducted on three of each type of jointed test piece picked randomly.
The remainder of this chapter will detail the preparation of test pieces for manual butt
fusion jointed and compression jointed test pieces, the preparation of the testing
equipment, and the hydrostatic pressure and tensile strength testing procedures. How
the test results will be presented will also be explained.
In Developing Countries the heat source for the heating plate would be a fire made
with charcoal or good quality firewood (Jordan 1982). For the manual butt fusion
procedure used here, the author has used a blowlamp for the heat source. The
blowlamp was selected as the heat source as it was able to provide instantaneous heat
29
Methodology .
30
Methodology .
and enabled safer and instantaneous control of the heat source (on/off control). All
operatives using the blowlamp were given training in its safe use by Michael Barker,
Laboratory Technician, Loughborough University, and were issued heat resistant
gloves as required by the risk assessment (Appendix A).
A J
B I
C
D G H
E
PE cutters (item G) were used to cut the polyethylene pipe instead of a hacksaw due
to the fact that they gave a cleaner, straighter cut. An alignment clamp (item F) was
utilised to minimise misalignment of pipe ends. In addition to the equipment shown
31
Methodology .
in Figure 19, all operatives wore suitable personal protective equipment (PPE)
including safety boots and overalls.
Stage 1 and 2
The pipe ends were cut squarely using the PE cutters and trimmed using a hand
scraper to ensure clean mating surfaces. Alignment of the pipe ends was checked
using the alignment clamp. Once pipe ends were aligned, each pipe end was marked
to aid alignment when joining the pipes during stage 3. Additionally the pipe was
marked to ensure that the joint was made within the two red lines on the alignment
clamp (Figure 20).
Stage 3
When using the blowlamp to heat the heating plate it is very important to heat all
areas of the heating plate evenly otherwise there could be a localised cool spot. A
thermo chrome crayon is used to ensure the heating plate is at the correct temperature
32
Methodology .
(220ºC). The thermo chrome crayon used in the manual butt fusion procedure was
manufactured by Tempil (Tempil 2010) and was rated at 246ºC. When the heating
plate is at the rated temperature the crayon mark will turn to a liquid smear. The
higher rated temperature of the thermo chrome crayon allows for a drop in heating
plate temperature between being heated by blowlamp, placed in the Teflon bag and
being positioned between the two pipe ends. It is critical that when the blowlamp is
not in use it is turned off and stored safely.
After the pipe ends have been pressed firmly and evenly against the heating plate and
a molten bead of approximately 2mm has formed around the perimeter of the pipe
(Figure 21), the applied pressure of pipe end against the heating plate should be
reduced while maintaining contact. The following period is known as the heat soak
time and ensures that the polyethylene pipe ends are not just heated at the ends but
also heated through pipe. During the fabrication of the manual butt fusion test pieces,
after examining the initial butt joints produced, the heat soak time was adjusted from
15 to 20 seconds.
Following the heat soak time the heating plate should be carefully removed and the
pipe ends pushed together. As stated in the literature review the time period between
removal of heating plate and joining of pipe ends should be as short as possible
(maximum 10 seconds) to prevent heat loss in the melted pipe ends. To limit possible
33
Methodology .
misalignment, when joining pipes one pipe end was secured in the alignment clamp
with the other pipe end being brought towards and pressed firmly against the secured
pipe end. Once pipe ends were joined the joint was allowed to cool in the alignment
clamp until could be touched by hand.
Appendix B contains photographs showing each step of the manual butt fusion
procedure.
Once the author was confident in performing the manual butt fusion joining procedure
eight manual butt fusion joints were constructed with six chosen for testing. The first
three had heat soak times of 15 seconds, and the remaining five had heat soak times of
20 seconds. The author selected six of the eight joints to be the manual butt fusion
jointed test pieces, two with heat soak time of 15 seconds, and four with heat soak
time 20 seconds.
In addition to the manual butt fusion jointing of the 63mm nominal outside diameter,
PE80 SDR11 gas pipe for the test pieces, trial manual butt fusion joints on 32mm
nominal outside diameter, PE80 SDR11 water pipe were also completed. Trial joints
on 32mm pipe were completed to enable the author to experience the difficulties of
attempting to join smaller diameter curved lengths of pipe. Photographs of the trial
joints are included in Appendix B
The results of the manual butt fusion jointing will be presented in the form of a
written account of the experiences of the procedure. Photographs of completed joints
and bead examination will also be included.
34
Methodology .
35
Methodology .
During the construction of the compression joints the author was surprised at the
difficulty he had tightening the compression nuts on to the body of the fitting. This
difficulty would have been further amplified if jointing was carried out within an
excavation, in a confined space in muddy conditions.
The most complex aspect of the design was the end load resistant caps. This is
because the end load resistant caps were required to include an inlet at one end of the
test piece for pressurizing water in test piece, and a valve in the opposite end of the
test piece for filling the test piece with water and releasing the pressure after testing.
Initial design proposals had electro fusion end caps permanently fused at each end of
the test pieces. This would have required drilling and threading end caps and would
have been a complex procedure as each test piece would have required its own
individual end caps, increasing costs and test complexity. Additionally, electro fusion
equipment would have to needed to be sourced which would have increased the cost
of testing. A simpler design solution was selected which used MDPE flange adaptors
at each end of the test piece.
36
Methodology .
A systematic drawing and photograph of the hydrostatic pressure testing rig are
shown in Figures 23 and 24. Each part of the testing rig is detailed after the
photograph.
Pump
Two different types of pump were used in the hydrostatic pressure tests to pressurize
the water in the test piece. For the low pressure tests (up to 12bar) a simple pressure
vessel was used to provide air to pressurize the water in the test pieces. A compressed
air line was used to pressurize the water in the test piece. For the high pressure tests
(18-25bar), an accumulator pump was used to provide air to pressurize the water in
the test pieces. Again compressed air was used for the pressurization. The author was
given training in the safe use of each pump by Michael Barker, Laboratory
Technician, Loughborough University
37
Methodology .
Valve
Isolation valves were installed at each end of the test piece to enable the test piece to
be isolated for the pressure decay test. The isolation valve could also be used to fill
the test piece with water and ensure all air had been vented from the test piece prior to
testing. The isolation valves were manufactured from aluminium and were supplied
from the laboratory equipment store.
Flange Adaptor
MDPE flange adaptors were chosen for the end pieces of the test piece. The flange
adaptors selected were 63mm x 2” MDPE flange adaptors procured from Pipestock.
The flange adaptors have a rated pressure of 16bar. MDPE flange adaptors were
selected because they could easily and quickly be connected to the different test
pieces and, after testing, they can be removed and re-used. Blank flanges for the ends
of the MDPE flange adaptors were constructed in the Laboratory by Michael Barker
and bolted to the MDPE flange adaptor. To enable the testing equipment to be
connected the blanks were drilled and tapped with ¾” British Standard Pipe (BSP)
threads. The prepared blanks were bolted to the flange adaptors using nitrile rubber
gaskets to make the seal.
Transducer
A tee section was inserted into the testing rig between the isolation valves to enable a
transducer to be installed. A transducer is a sensor that is able to detect pressure and
convert it to an electrical current at a remote gauge. The transducer used for the
testing was limited to 10bar pressure and therefore was only used for the pressure
decay test. For the high pressure tests the transducer was removed to avoid damaging
it and the tapping point was plugged.
The transducer was connected to a data logger capable of recording pressures 6 times
a second (6Hz). For these tests the data logger was configured to record pressures
every 10 seconds (0.1Hz). This frequency was deemed sufficient for the testing being
undertaken.
The data logger computer programme enabled the results to be saved directly to a
Microsoft excel spreadsheet. The programme also included a facility to display a
38
Methodology .
graph showing real time pressure recordings. Figure 25 shows a screen shot of the
data logger computer programme
Start Button
Last date
and time
logged
Pressure
39
Methodology .
polyethylene pipe with rated pressure up to 10bar, is 1.5 times the rated pressure.
Therefore system test pressure for the test pieces was 8.25bar (5.5x1.5).
The application of pressure was completed at a constant rate until system test
pressure, 8.25±0.05bar was achieved in pipe system. The test piece was then isolated
and the pressure was allowed to decay in the test piece. The procedure in 2.3.1.2 in
the literature review was then followed; taking pressure readings at predetermined
multiples of tl. The author undertook rough calculations during each test enabling him
to predict any problems. Accurate values of N1 and N2 were determined using the
information from the data logger computer programme following testing.
The results of the pressure decay test will be presented in the form of graphs and
simple calculations. Observations and any problems experienced will also be
included in the results. Full pressure reading results for each test piece will be
included in Appendix C.
The main limitation of the pressure decay test is that any leakage on the mechanical
fittings of the testing rig (MDPE flange adaptors) will affect the results obtained.
Throughout testing all mechanical fittings were regularly inspected for leaks.
The application of pressure was completed at a constant rate until 11bar test pressure
was reached. The pressurization was completed in 15-30 seconds for each test piece.
The test piece remained connected to the pump throughout the test enabling the test
pressure to be maintained. Throughout testing the pressure gauge was constantly
monitored and all mechanical fittings were inspected for leaks.
40
Methodology .
The long duration constant pressure test is a pass/fail test. The results of the long
duration pressure test will be descriptive stating if the test piece passed or failed the
test. If the test piece failed the time and type of failure (joint failure/ductile failure of
pipe/brittle failure of pipe) was recorded.
The application of pressure was completed at a constant rate until pressure in the test
piece reached 18bar. The pressurisation was completed in 15-30 seconds for each test
piece. Once 18bar test pressure had been reached the pressure was then increased at a
slower rate to a maximum pressure of 25bar. The test piece was then subjected to a
45minute test at a constant pressure of 25bar.
The results of the high pressure test will be in the form of observation and comments.
If the test piece failed the pressure, time and type of failure (joint failure/ductile
failure of pipe/brittle failure of pipe) was recorded. Photographs of the point of
failure on the test piece will also be included.
When completing all hydrostatic pressure tests the test pieces were covered in plastic
sheeting (Figure 26). This was to protect the author and all observers from any failure
of the test piece. Because of the short length of test piece and low volume of
pressurized water this safety precaution was adequate and there was no need for the
testing to be conducted within a cage. During testing the author and all observers
were additionally required to wear safety glasses.
41
Methodology .
42
Methodology .
Loading on
pipe / joint
When conducting trial tests, the wide clamps were unable to provide sufficient grip to
the pipe and aluminium insert stiffener, resulting in the test piece being pulled out of
the end restraint at 15KN (below the test force of 15.6KN). The aluminium insert
stiffeners were then machined to have three deep grooves on the body enabling the
stiffener body to grip into the pipe wall and the test was repeated however this did not
resolve the problem. An alternative end restraint was designed using a secured
MDPE flange adaptor at the base of the test piece, and both wide clamps at the top of
the test piece and secured perpendicular to each other. This design was also
unsuccessful.
The end restraint design solution was to procure 4no. 63mm exhaust pipe clamps from
a local Ford Dealers and fit two pipe clamps at top and bottom of test piece. The
clamps were fitted in opposite directions to provide a uniform grip. The wide clamps
were then re-fitted at the top and bottom of the test piece (Figure 28). Finally, extra
grooves were machined around the stiffener along the full length of the body to
43
Methodology .
provide additional purchase. This new end restraint design solution when tested was
able to withstand forces up to 21KN.
Figure 28. End restraint design (two pipe clamps and wide clamp)
The test force, 15.6KN (see table 4) was applied to the test piece gradually over 30
seconds and then the test piece was held in tension for 5 minutes. The elongation of
the test piece was recorded when the test force was reached and then every 30 seconds
during the test.
The results of the tensile strength tests will be presented in the form of graphs, tables
and simple calculations. Measurements of pull out from compression joints and pipe
condition will also be stated. Observations, photographs and problems will also be
included in the results where appropriate.
44
Results .
4 Results
Manual butt fusion jointed test piece construction, hydrostatic pressure testing and
tensile strength testing was conducted between the 14th July and 4th August 2010.
Following a number of initial trial joints the jointing team developing a working
relationship that enabled successful joints to be constructed. The jointing team
consisted of the author and his brother, Alex Castle, Postgraduate student,
Loughborough University. The pipe ends were cut square and loose material removed
using a hand scraper. While one team member was heating the heating plate using the
blowlamp, the second team member would be aligning and marking the pipe ends.
When the heating plate was at the correct temperature (checked using the thermo
chrome crayon) and the pipe ends were aligned and marked, the blowlamp was shut
down and the heating plate was inserted into the Teflon coated paper sleeve and
positioned vertically and perpendicular to the pipe ends in the centre of the alignment
clamp. The first team member would hold the heating plate in the centre of the
alignment clamp and the second team member pressed one pipe end firmly against the
heating plate. The second team member then simultaneously held the heating plate
while pressing one pipe end firmly against heating plate, as the first team member
pressed the other pipe end firmly against the heating plate. When equal force was
being exerted on both sides of the heating plate, it was left free standing while a
uniform bead of molten plastic around the pipe perimeter and the heating plate
formed. If the jointing team had consisted of three members then one member would
have been solely responsibly for handling the heating plate.
The jointing team initially experienced difficulty in applying an equal grip around the
pipe perimeter to provide an equal force on the heating plate. This would lead to a
non-uniform bead forming around the pipe perimeter, with a very small bead forming
45
Results .
on the underside of the pipe. This problem was overcome by applying pressure on the
pipe from the opposite open end of the pipe, while maintaining a downward force to
keep the pipe in position in the alignment clamp.
After the formation of a bead approximately 2mm width around the whole perimeter
of the pipe and following the heat soak time (15-20seconds) the pipe ends were pulled
cleanly away from the heating plate and the heating plate was removed. During the
trial stage both pipe ends were then pushed together to form the joint however this
caused misalignment in most cases. For the production of the test pieces one pipe end
was held securely and the team member who removed the heating plate then joined
their pipe end to the secured pipe end (Figure 29). This reduced the possibility of
human error and misalignment.
Figure 29. Completed manual butt fusion joint (hydrostatic pressure test piece 3)
The manual butt fusion test pieces were constructed on the 15th July 2010. The joints
were visually inspected for any contamination, distortion in the bead, and bead size
was measured around the perimeter of the pipe to check for uniformity (an indicator
that pressures had been applied evenly). Before any joint was used for testing it was
flexed vigorously by hand to ensure it did not fail under simple manipulation. No
manual butt fusion joints constructed failed under simple manipulation.
46
Results .
The manual butt fusion joint of hydrostatic pressure test piece 1 was additionally
examined by removing the outer bead from the pipe and carrying out a visual
inspection on the bead for defects and any contamination at the joint face. A visual
inspection of the bead can highlight any contamination, lack of fusion or slit defects
of the joint, all indicators of poor fusion. The check is completed by bending the bead
backwards on itself. No faults were found on the bead.
When conducting trial manual butt fusion jointing on 32mm nominal outside diameter
SDR11 PE80 water pipe, not a formal part of this research, the jointing team
encountered difficulties due to the curvature of the pipe. The jointing team attempted
to straighten the pipes by flexing the pipe to ensure pipe ends were as straight as
possible before joining. This enabled the alignment clamp to be used for the jointing
procedure. The jointing team followed the same procedure as used for the larger
diameter test pieces. The completed trial joints were slightly misaligned and the
beads were not uniform compared to the large diameter test pieces. Photographs of
the completed trial joints are included in Appendix B.
If the jointing team had been jointing two 50m coils of 32mm nominal outside
diameter SDR11 PE80 water pipe together, then the jointing team would have initially
connected a short straight length of pipe to the ends of the two coils to improve
alignment and manageability.
47
Results .
Test piece 1 – Manual butt fusion joint heat soak time 15 seconds
Test start 10:31:24 20/07/2010. System test pressure 8.25bar.
6
Pressure (bar)
0
00:00.0
01:30.0
03:00.0
04:30.0
06:00.0
07:30.0
09:00.0
10:30.0
12:00.0
13:30.0
15:00.0
16:30.0
18:00.0
19:30.0
21:00.0
22:30.0
24:00.0
25:30.0
27:00.0
28:30.0
30:00.0
31:30.0
33:00.0
34:30.0
36:00.0
37:30.0
39:00.0
40:30.0
42:00.0
43:30.0
45:00.0
46:30.0
48:00.0
49:30.0
51:00.0
52:30.0
54:00.0
55:30.0
57:00.0
58:30.0
00:00.0
01:30.0
03:00.0
04:30.0
Time (min)
The value of N1 is ok and is within the allowable range. The value of N2 is just
outside the allowable range and would suggest the system is leaking. Upon inspection
48
Results .
of the test piece and mechanical fittings, a leak was discovered on one of the blank
flanges (Figure 31). The testing equipment was removed and then refitted applying
polytetrafluorothylene (PTFE) tape around the thread to ensure a seal, and testing was
continued.
Leakage
49
Results .
Test piece 2 – Manual butt fusion joint heat soak time 20 seconds
Test start 10:40:04 24/07/2010. System test pressure 8.29bar.
6
Pressure (bar)
0
00:00.0
01:30.0
03:00.0
04:30.0
06:00.0
07:30.0
09:00.0
10:30.0
12:00.0
13:30.0
15:00.0
16:30.0
18:00.0
19:30.0
21:00.0
22:30.0
24:00.0
25:30.0
27:00.0
28:30.0
30:00.0
31:30.0
33:00.0
34:30.0
36:00.0
37:30.0
39:00.0
40:30.0
42:00.0
43:30.0
45:00.0
46:30.0
48:00.0
Time (min)
The value of N1 is outside the allowable range and would suggest that there is
probably air in the system. The value of N2 is ok and within the allowable range.
50
Results .
Test piece 3 – Manual butt fusion joint heat soak time 20 seconds
Test start 14:41:05 22/07/2010. System test pressure 8.28bar.
6
Pr essure (bar )
0
00:00.0
01:30.0
03:00.0
04:30.0
06:00.0
07:30.0
09:00.0
10:30.0
12:00.0
13:30.0
15:00.0
16:30.0
18:00.0
19:30.0
21:00.0
22:30.0
24:00.0
25:30.0
27:00.0
28:30.0
30:00.0
31:30.0
33:00.0
34:30.0
36:00.0
37:30.0
39:00.0
40:30.0
42:00.0
43:30.0
45:00.0
46:30.0
48:00.0
Time (min)
The value of N1 is outside the allowable range and would suggest that there is
probably air in the system. The value of N2 is ok as it is just within the allowable
range (0.04).
51
Results .
6
Pressure (bar)
0
00:00.0
01:30.0
03:00.0
04:30.0
06:00.0
07:30.0
09:00.0
10:30.0
12:00.0
13:30.0
15:00.0
16:30.0
18:00.0
19:30.0
21:00.0
22:30.0
24:00.0
25:30.0
27:00.0
28:30.0
30:00.0
31:30.0
33:00.0
34:30.0
36:00.0
37:30.0
39:00.0
40:30.0
42:00.0
43:30.0
45:00.0
46:30.0
48:00.0
Time (min)
The value of N1 is outside the allowable range and would suggest that there is
probably air in the system. The value of N2 is ok as it is limit of the allowable range.
52
Results .
6
Pressure (bar)
0
00:00.0
01:30.0
03:00.0
04:30.0
06:00.0
07:30.0
09:00.0
10:30.0
12:00.0
13:30.0
15:00.0
16:30.0
18:00.0
19:30.0
21:00.0
22:30.0
24:00.0
25:30.0
27:00.0
28:30.0
30:00.0
31:30.0
33:00.0
34:30.0
36:00.0
37:30.0
39:00.0
40:30.0
42:00.0
43:30.0
45:00.0
46:30.0
48:00.0
Time (min)
The value of N1 is outside the allowable range and would suggest that there is
probably air in the system. The value of N2 is ok as it is just within the allowable
range (0.04).
53
Results .
6
Pressure (bar)
0
00:00.0
01:30.0
03:00.0
04:30.0
06:00.0
07:30.0
09:00.0
10:30.0
12:00.0
13:30.0
15:00.0
16:30.0
18:00.0
19:30.0
21:00.0
22:30.0
24:00.0
25:30.0
27:00.0
28:30.0
30:00.0
31:30.0
33:00.0
34:30.0
36:00.0
37:30.0
39:00.0
40:30.0
42:00.0
43:30.0
45:00.0
46:30.0
48:00.0
Time (min)
The values of N1 and N2 are both significantly lower than the lower limit of the
allowable range (0.04). This would suggest that there was air remaining in the
system.
54
Results .
Summary
From the pressure decay test results it can be seen that in most test pieces there may
have been a small volume of air in the system affecting the results leading to low
values of N1 and N2 (<0.04). A second factor impacting these results was that the
loading profile was not uniform and constant for each test. Due to the speed of the
pump and the manual adjustments on pressure it can be seen that there are steps in
pressure level in each graph. The only time the results indicated a leak was in test 1,
where a leak in the mechanical fitting was subsequently found and repaired.
High pressure testing was undertaken on the 29th and 30th July 2010. All three manual
butt fusion jointed test pieces successfully passed the high pressure test sustaining a
constant pressure of 25bar for 45minutes, a pressure 4.5 times greater than the rated
pressure of the 63mm nominal outside diameter SDR11 PE80 gas pipe, and 2.5 times
the rated pressure of 63mm nominal outside diameter SDR11 PE80 water pipe
(10bar). Unfortunately hydrostatic pressure testing could not continue above 25bar
due to the limitations of incubator pump and as such the ultimate strength of the
manual butt fusion joints could not be obtained.
55
Results .
56
Results .
80
70
60
Elongation (mm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.00 0.30 1.00 1.30 2.00 2.30 3.00 3.30 4.00 4.30 5.00
Time (min)
Test piece 1 Test piece 2 Test piece 3
Test piece 4 Test piece 5 Test piece 6
Figure 37. Graph showing elongation of test pieces at 15.6KN constant force
From Figure 37 it can clearly be seen that the manual butt fusion jointed test pieces
(1-3) performed in a uniform manner during the tensile strength tests. The range of
variation in elongation after 5 minutes between the manual butt fusion jointed test
pieces in only 2.46mm. During the tensile tests it was possible for the author to see
the manual butt fusion jointed test pieces necking around the joints. From Figure 37 it
can also be seen that the compression jointed test pieces (4-6) also had similar
performance. The major difference between the elongation of the compression
jointed test pieces was the amount of pipe pull out from the compression joint. The
results suggest that test piece 4 may not have been sufficiently tightened.
57
Analysis and Discussion .
Because of the short lengths of polyethylene pipe being joined together (500mm) and
the more rigid characteristics of the larger (63mm) nominal outside diameter pipe, the
alignment clamp could be used to assist the joining process. Smaller nominal outside
diameter pipe, such as the 32mm nominal outside diameter, SDR11 PE80 water pipe
which was also trial jointed, is delivered in 50m coils and can be more difficult to
straighten which is necessary when using the existing alignment clamp.
From the manual butt fusion jointing experience the author believes that the most
important factors for a successful joint are; cleanliness of the process, ensuring that
the pipe ends are cut squarely, and applying a uniform grip around pipe to ensure
uniform pressure around perimeter of pipe end against heating plate. When the pipes
were cut squarely alignment problems were significantly reduced. Preparation of the
pipe ends was the most time consuming element of the manual butt fusion procedure
but necessary to ensure a good quality joint.
The alignment clamp being used for the manual butt fusion procedure was a simple
steel angle section (from a proprietary racking system) attached to a plank of wood to
58
Analysis and Discussion .
provide stability. The design principle of the steel angle is that the alignment clamp
can be used for wide ranges of pipe diameters (20-63mm). The jointing team had
difficulties applying an equal grip around the perimeter of the pipe when pressing the
pipe ends against heating plate. This problem could be overcome with a slight re-
design if 150mm sections of angle were cut out of each side of alignment clamp. For
larger lengths of pipe being joined this would not be a problem as jointing team would
be able to get strong grip around perimeter of pipe outside of alignment clamp.
When joining larger lengths of polyethylene pipe, potentially 50/100m coils, a larger
jointing team will be required. Following discussions with Bob Reed, Lecturer,
Loughborough University, extra manpower is not an issue in developing countries as
communities are willing to help improve/repair water supply systems. When using a
larger jointing team communication will be essential to avoid human error and pipe
misalignment. The author would recommend that the team member handling the
heating plate be in charge of the joining operation. The alignment clamp should also
be adapted to enable the polyethylene pipe to be secured in the clamp, possibly by the
use of straps.
The author is aware that the test pieces were manually butt fused together above
ground in a clean working environment. In developing countries this may not be
possible and care should be taken to ensure the pipe ends remain uncontaminated
during the joining procedure. If manual butt fusion jointing is to be completed to
repair existing polyethylene water pipes sufficient excavation will be required to
enable movement of the existing pipes. When new polyethylene water pipes are laid
in a trench, they are snaked along the trench to provide flexibility and movement in
pipe if repairs are required. The author is unaware of the flow stop procedures and
equipment used in developing countries which would have to be considered for the
use of manual butt fusion jointing pipe ends must be dry with no flow permitted while
the repairs are taking place.
By the time the last manual butt fusion jointed test piece was completed, the jointing
team were able to complete the jointing procedure in under 10 minutes, not including
the cooling period. The jointing team visually inspected the completed manual butt
fusion jointed test pieces and no obvious contamination or faults could be seen.
59
Analysis and Discussion .
The compression jointed test pieces were constructed in one day. The compression
nuts were tightened using two pairs of adjustable pipe wrenches (Stilsons). Whilst not
ideal, Stilsons were selected over a special strap wrench as they are a universally
popular tool and more likely to be used and available in developing countries. The
compression nut on the compression fitting is manufactured from plastic. When using
the Stilsons the exterior of the compression nut was damaged. The author has already
expressed his surprise at the difficulty he had tightening the compression nut to the
body of the fitting, the jointing procedure may have been easier using the special strap
wrench, as is designed specifically for tightening plastic fittings.
The pressure should be applied at a constant rate during the pressure decay test. Some
difficulty was experienced by the author in applying the pressure at a constant rate
due to the small length/volume of test piece and poor sensitivity of pressure valve.
The pressure decay test is commonly used to test larger diameter, longer length
polyethylene water mains in the UK.
Following testing the author believes that the testing rig could have been improved by
installing filling points and an air bleed at a higher level than the test piece. Figure 38
60
Analysis and Discussion .
shows a systematic drawing of a revised testing rig. By having the filling point and
air bleed valve above the test piece, when the system is filled, and water is coming out
of air bleed valve, the water should displace all air from the test piece. Connection of
high level filling point and air bleed valve would be best achieved using electro fusion
top tees heat fused to the test piece. The mechanical fittings could also be adapted by
inserting a t-section to at each end, setting the pipe in a vertical position and filling the
pipe from the bottom before laying down for testing.
The second hydrostatic pressure test conducted was the long duration constant
pressure test, each test piece was subjected to a constant pressure of 11bar for 5 hours.
From the results it can be seen that all test pieces successfully passed this test. When
reviewing this test it can be seen that despite pressurizing the test piece to double the
rated pressure of the polyethylene pipe (5.5bar) the pipe and test joint was easily able
to withstand the pressure. Additionally, because the pipe tested was gas pipe, the test
pressure for the long duration constant pressure test was within the rated operating
pressures of the equivalent SDR11 PE80 water pipe (10bar/12.5bar). As a result of
this finding an additional high pressure test was designed and implemented for the
manual butt fusion jointed test pieces.
The high pressure test tested the manual butt fusion jointed test pieces at pressures
over 18bar. The high pressure test was only conducted on the manual butt fusion
jointed test pieces as the ultimate strength of the manual butt fusion joints was
61
Analysis and Discussion .
currently unknown and the manual butt fusion joints are the focus of the research
project. The manual butt fusion jointed test pieces all successfully passed the high
pressure test, sustaining a maximum of 25bar for 45 minutes. The ultimate strength of
the manual butt fusion joint i.e. the failure pressure could not be established due to the
constraints of the testing equipment (delivering a maximum pressure from incubator
pump of 25bar).
Having obtained the results of the long duration constant pressure test and high
pressure test, the author would have liked to merge the two tests enabling all test
pieces (manual butt fusion and compression jointed) to have been subjected to the
higher pressure for a longer duration (5-10 hours). This was not possible due to time
constraints.
Test pieces had to be prepared for pressure testing by attaching the flange adaptors,
consisting of a compression fitting similar to the compression joints to connect the
polyethylene pipe. The jointing procedure for joining the flange adaptors to the test
piece was the same as the procedure described in section 2.2.1. However, because the
compression nuts on the flange adaptors were being repeatedly tightened and
loosened, the exterior of the compression nuts became badly damaged causing
considerable difficulty in gripping the nut when tightening. Replacement flange
adaptors had to be obtained for the high pressure tests as the flange adaptors initially
used had became damaged beyond safe use.
It was noted that when the high pressure tests were carried out the flange adaptors
would begin to leak once the test pressure in the system was above 21bar. The flange
adaptors had a rated pressure of 16bar.
62
Analysis and Discussion .
The manual butt fusion joint performed in a homogenous manner. At no stage during
the tensile strength test were the manual butt fusion joints affected by the force
applied. When the force was removed from the test piece, the test piece returned to its
original length.
Figure 39. Manual butt fusion jointed test piece necking during tensile strength test
From the elongation results and visual observation of the testing (Figure 40) of the
compression jointed test pieces it would appear that the compression joint was not
sufficiently tightened on test piece 4. The pull out recorded above and below
compression fitting for test piece 4 is considerably higher than the pull out recorded
for the other compression jointed test pieces. The affects of this additional pull out
can clearly be seen in Figure 37. When the force was removed from the test pieces
there were some misalignment when the free polyethylene pipe was pushed back
inside the compression joint fitting.
63
Analysis and Discussion .
The author is aware that the elongation results of the tensile strength tests are
contributed to by the elongation of the free lengths of polyethylene pipe each side of
the test joint. If the end restraints had been able to withstand forces greater than
25KN the author would have tested each test piece till yield to determine if the joint
had a higher yield strength than the parent polyethylene pipe.
Each of the jointing methods could be taught to operatives from a water utility
company or volunteers on a community project in a developing country within a day
using simple language and hands on training. The use of compression joints should
ensure each joint is constructed to the same quality as long as the joint is assembled
correctly. The manual butt fusion procedure has a large potential for human error.
This can include poor cleanliness, heating the plate to the wrong temperature, not
64
Analysis and Discussion .
applying the correct force on pipe end against heating plate, pipe misalignment, and
insufficient cooling periods.
The manual butt fusion jointing equipment includes a heating plate which can be
constructed from scrap metal, and a thermo chrome crayon and Teflon coated paper
sleeve that would have to be purchased. The alignment plate can be manufactured
from scrap materials. Thermo chrome crayons and Teflon coated paper can be
purchased for approximately £8 (Tempil 2010) and £8.50/m² (Reed 2010)
respectively. The equipment required for compression jointing is either two pairs of
Stilsons or a special universal strap wrench. For the joining of the compression
jointed test pieces the author used Stilsons as they are a universally popular tool.
However good quality Stilsons are expensive (24” Stilsons approximately £70, 36”
Stilsons approximately £153.50). A special universal strap wrench costs £28.50. As
can be seen the cost of equipment for the compression jointing procedure is
considerably higher than the manual butt fusion jointing equipment. Additionally
because Stilsons are a universally popular tool with many different applications there
is a greater risk of theft or the tool being unavailable. A thermo chrome crayon and
Teflon coated paper sleeve would have limited use apart from manual butt fusion pipe
jointing.
In addition to the higher equipment cost, as already shown in Table 1 in the literature
review, compression couplers are expensive (£5.41 per 63mm coupler). Manual butt
fusion jointing requires no expensive fittings, making them more economically viable.
If part of the compression coupler is lost, e.g gasket seal, the compression coupler
cannot be used. Compression joints would have to be shipped to Developing
Countries, which may take considerable time, increasing potential levels of non-
revenue water.
There is also a risk to the health of members of the jointing team during the manual
butt fusion procedure. The use of charcoal or good quality firewood to heat the
heating plate means there is a risk of burns. Care should be taken when handling and
storing the plate, and heat resistant gloves, if available, should be used.
65
Conclusions .
6 Conclusions
The focus of this research project was to examine the performance of joints in
polyethylene pipe produced using manual butt fusion techniques in field conditions
and compare these with compression joints. Before this report there had been no
extensive testing of manual butt fusion joints.
The research project has successfully achieved the objectives set out in section 1.1. –
Aims and objectives, which was „to investigate the performance of manually welded
butt fusion joints in comparison to compression joints on polyethylene pipes‟. The
research project contains a detailed literature review on manual butt fusion and
compression jointing, and the results of hydrostatic pressure and tensile testing of
manually welded butt fusion and compression joints, which have been analysed and
discussed.
The manual butt fusion joints tested were constructed at Loughborough University
using similar equipment and procedures to those used in Developing Countries by a
jointing team who had no previous experience in manual butt fusion jointing prior to
this project. After one day of training and trialling the jointing team were able to
produce robust, good quality joints that withstood all the testing procedures. There
was no failure of any joints during testing. The ultimate (failure) strength of manual
butt fusion joints was unable to be determined due to the constraints of the testing
rigs.
Throughout the research and testing there was no advantage in the compression joint
over the manually butt fused joint, in some cases the butt joints performed more
favourably.
6.1 Recommendations
Where there is a relatively skilled local workforce, manual butt fusion jointing should
be considered as a serious alternative to mechanical and electro fusion jointing in all
Developing Countries. Simple picture guidance sheets which could be laminated
would serve as training guides and also show faulty and poor joints caused by poor
joint preparation, incorrect fusion temperature and misalignment.
66
Conclusions .
This report has highlighted the strength and performance of manual butt fusion joints
and the low production costs involved.
Improvements in the design of the alignment clamp should improve joint quality and
with modifications may enable mitred joints to be constructed from straight pipe and
the use of straps to secure pipe to the clamp. It may be possible for one side to be on a
sliding clamp to allow pipes ends to slide together although this adds to cost and
complexity to the equipment which, ideally, would be made locally.
To ensure standards are maintained simple pass / fail gauges could be produced to
check for misalignment and minimum bead size and a simple and cheap bead
removing tool could be used to remove joint beads and allow quality checks for
contamination and slit defects. Any quality assurance, however basic, is worthwhile in
maintaining standards.
It was not possible to source pipes used in Developing Countries which are
manufactured with different specifications and properties to UK sourced polyethylene
pipes but this was not a major factor as the tests were undertaken to UK water
industry standards.
After commencement of testing, the author was informed that 63mm nominal outside
diameter polyethylene pipe is not commonly used in developing countries, more often
50mm and 32mm nominal outside diameter polyethylene pipe is used. The author
had already sourced materials and commenced testing when told of this and it would
not have been feasible to re- source materials, construct new joints and reconfigure
testing apparatus. However, this setback did not affect the nature or purpose of the
research to examine the performance of manual butt fusion joints. The resulting joints
67
Conclusions .
were successfully tested at much higher pressures than the specified design ratings to
conform with UK water industry testing standards.
The author would like to highlight the following topics that came to his attention
during the research project and could provide areas for further research:
1. Design of a low cost simple technology pipe alignment clamp to assist in the
manual butt fusion procedure with a mitre jointing facility.
3. Fatigue testing to develop whole life data on manual butt fusion joints.
68
References .
7 References
Barber, P. and Atkinson, J.R. (1974) The use of tensile tests to determine the optimum
conditions for butt fusion welding certain grades of polyethylene, polybutene-1 and
polypropylene pipes. Journal of Materials Science, 9(1974), pp. 1456-1466
BS EN 805 (2000) Water supply – Requirements for systems and components outside
buildings. London: BSI.
BS EN 1167-1 (2006) Thermoplastic pipes, fittings and assemblies for the conveyance of
fluids. Determination of the resistance of internal pressure. General Method. London: BSI.
BS EN 12201-5 (2003) Plastic piping systems for water supply – Polyethylene (PE) – Part 5:
Fitness for purpose of the system. London: BSI.
BS EN 13953 (2001) Polyethylene (PE) pipes and fittings – Determination of the tensile
strength and failure mode of test pieces from a butt-fused joint. London: BSI.
Fusion Provida (1990) Automatic Butt Fusion Machine Brochure. Chesterfield: Fusion
Provida plc
Fusion Provida (2010) Butt fusion & Electrofustion Equipment and Tooling. Available:
http://equipment.fusiongroup.com/FilestoreDownload.fusion?intFilestoreObjectID=387 [Last
checked 27/06/2010]
Gas Industry Standard (2006) Specification for Self-anchoring mechanical fittings for natural
gas and suitable manufactured gas GS/PL3:2006. Warwick: National Grid plc.
George Fischer (2010a) Poly16 Plus and Polyfast AZ The compression fittings that always
seal. Available:
http://www.georgfischer.co.uk/go/6AAAFFE9D60EB5FC032224483464C698?action=GF_D
ocumentDownload&doc_uuid=6AAAFFE9D60EB5FC032224483464C698 [Last checked
04/07/2010]
Jordan, T.D. (1982) Handbook of Gravity-Flow Water Systems. Nepal: Jore Ganesh Press Pvt.
Ltd.
Junejo, A.A. (2010) Maintenance and Repair for private micro hydro-power plants. Nepal:
Development and Consutling Service
National Grid (2007) Work Procedure for Pipe System Construction, Module 4, PE Main
Laying up to and including 630mm diameter at pressures up to and including 2 bar.
Warwick: National Grid plc.
69
References .
Plastic Pipes Institute (2010) Handbook of Polyethylene Pipe. Chapter 9 PE Pipe joining
procedures. Available: http://plasticpipe.org/pdf/chapter09.pdf [Last checked 03/07/2010]
Plastic Pipes Institute (2009) Recommend Minimum Training Guidelines for PE Pipe Butt
Fusion Jointing Operators for Municipal and Industrial Projects TN-42. Available:
http://www.plasticpipe.org/pdf/tn-42-min-training-guide-pe-butt-fusion.pdf [Last checked
24/06/2010]
Reed, B. (2010) Interview with B. Reed, Advisor to the Minister of Water on water and
sanitation policy and strategy for East Timor.
UK Water Industry (1998) WIS 4-32-11. Specification for thermoplastic end load resistant
mechanical fittings for polyethylene pipes of nominal size <63. Swindon: WRc plc.
WRc (1986) Manual for the Design, Installation and Operation of MDPE pipe systems for
Water Supply Distribution. Swindon: WRc Engineering.
WRc (1999) A Guide to Testing of Water Supply Pipelines and Sewer Rising Mains 1st
Edition. Swindon: WRc plc.
70