A Review of Non-Destructive Evaluation Techniques for Butt-Fusion Welded High Density

Polyethylene Joints

B. Gray B.Sc.,
K.A. Murphy PhD, M.M Sadowski M.A.Sc., P.Eng.
Acuren Group Inc,
th
1411 25 Avenue NE
Calgary, AB. T2E 7L6, Canada
Correspondence to msadowski@acuren.com

ABSTRACT

High density polyethylene (HDPE) piping systems are increasingly important not only in the
oilfield but also in other areas such as gas distribution, water, sewer, power utilities, mining,
and nuclear plants.. While HDPE has been used in many applications for over 40 years, it is
only in the last 15 years that significant research has been done on the possible methods of
non-destructively evaluating the butt fusion welds contained in these piping systems.
Although, conventional methods such as ultrasonic inspection have had some success in
detecting foreign material or misalignment in these joints, the detection of so-called ‘cold fusion
or cold joints’ has remained inconclusive. Cold fusion joints are the single largest threat to the
long term integrity of these pipeline systems. As such, there is a significant incentive to find a
method to detect cold fusion defects in butt-fusion welded HDPE piping systems.

This paper is intended as an introduction to several possible NDE methods that might be used
in butt-fusion welded polyethylene pipeline systems, and their associated advantages and
disadvantages. It will also highlight the strategy chosen by Acuren Polymers Engineering
Group in tackling this problem. Some examples of the successful application of Acuren
Evisive Scan techniques will be provided.

KEYWORDS
Evisive, microwave, ultrasonic, radiography, WZIM, polyethylene, HDPE, butt fusion, heat
fusion, cold fusion

1
 INTRODUCTION

Polymeric piping systems and specifically high density polyethylene (HDPE) systems are
becoming increasingly popular due to the possibility of cheaper installation costs compared to
metallic systems, as well as a different range of physical and chemical properties that may be
desirable in the transportation of certain products. Currently, the non-destructive evaluation
(NDE) of metallic piping is ubiquitous and controlled by codes and standards (i.e. ASTM
E1444-5 for MPI). This has been the case for many years, and every organization utilizing
piping systems has had some contact with traditional metallic NDE methods. However,
despite the fact that HDPE systems have been in use for several decades, there has never
been developed a set of standards or codes requiring these systems to be non-destructively
examined, and only very recently has a code regarding mechanical testing been established
for HDPE butt-fusion welds as per CSA-Z662, ASME B31.3. With increased technology and
industry demand, HDPE systems are transporting not only water but hydrocarbon products,
natural gas, and a variety of related chemicals. Without proper NDE testing there is a very real
possibility of a line failure with serious repercussions. Currently a visual inspection involving
the weld bead (flash) is considered an acceptable method of determining weld quality. The
German standard DVS2202-1 (2006) contests this, claiming that no long-term information can
be determined from the weld bead. Examples of a typical butt-fusion weld are illustrated in
Figure 1.

To try and find a solution to this potential problem, industry has focussed on adapting existing
metallic inspection methods such as ultrasonics, WZIM and radiography (Table 1). There are
a variety of problems associated with adapting these technologies, as metals share little in
common with plastics with respect to chemical and physical composition.

Weld
flash

FIGURE 1: TYPICAL BUTT-FUSION WELD

FIGURE 2: MACROSCOPIC VIEWS OF FUSION AREA

2
 TYPES OF DEFECTS IN HDPE BFW

Mechanical damage (Figures 3-6)

This includes external and internal defects, both in the pipe and the fusion. There are many
types of possible mechanical defects, including:
- Cracks, scores, notches – these can result from improper handling pre/post weld, or
from the welding process itself.
- Weld bead notches – separation of the weld bead resulting from improper
heating/cooling times, improper welding pressure, or improper joint preparation, as well
as dirty or misaligned tools.
- Misaligned joints – includes axial and circumferential misalignments, as well as
mismatched bead widths on either side of the joint. Can be caused by improper
preparation and welding process, mismatched pipe sizes/PE types, or dirty or
misaligned tools.
Mechanical damage may occur due to the use of inappropriately high or low temperatures
and/or pressures during the welding process, as well as inappropriate handling of the pipe.

FIGURE 3: CRACK IN WELD FLASH

FIGURE 4: NOTCH IN WELD FLASH

FIGURE 5: IRREGULAR WELD FLASH

FIGURE 6: MISALIGNED FUSION AREA

Contaminants (Figure 7)
These are internal defects and include particulate contamination, oils, foreign bodies, joint
shrinkage, and pores/bubbles. Contaminants can arise from improper preparation of the

3
fusion area, poor adherence to accepted welding procedures, dirty or misaligned tools. Most
particulate inclusions would be caused by failing to protect the welding environment from
external conditions.

FIGURE 7: PORES/CONTAMINANTS IN FUSION AREA

Cold Fusion/Lack of Fusion (Figure 8)

While there is no concise definition of cold fusion, in general it defines a weld where the joint
faces (in whole or in part) are in physical contact but not physically joined together in a fusion.
There are multiple potential causes for cold fusion joints, including:
- Damp, contaminated, or poorly prepared joint faces
- incorrect heating temperatures and/or heating times
- incorrect fusion pressure
- inadequate cooling times
- excessive intervals between heating and applying joint pressure
It is currently unclear whether any of the listed defects are permissible, and at what level they
are permissible to. This leads to a problem with any proposed NDE technique, in that a set of
reliable accept / reject criteria must be established in order to perform repeatable inspections
on piping systems. For example, in metallic welded joints certain amounts of weld defect such
as undercut are allowable before the joint is rejected (which varies by standard). The German
DVS 2202-1 standard has proposed a set of criteria for HDPE based on allowable defects, but
as of this writing there are no North American criteria.

FIGURE 8: COLD FUSION/LACK OF FUSION

REVIEW OF NDE TECHNOLOGIES

ULTRASONIC TECHNOLOGIES
UT has been successfully used for decades in the inspections of metallic objects, and is
poised to all but eliminate the use of radiography in that area. There has been little relative
success with UT on existing polymers, as crystalline thermoplastics effectively attenuate
mechanical energy, and fiber-reinforced materials scatter the mechanical energy. Recent
advances allow for the possibility of somewhat overcoming this disadvantage. There are two
main types of UT that could be suitable for use on polymers inspections; phased array and
time-of-flight-diffraction (TOFD).
Traditional single transducer UT is a pulse-echo technique, meaning a sound pulse is sent into
the object and will echo off any physical boundaries (i.e. defects) inside. The transducer then
receives the echo and calculates time-of-flight to determine both the size and general location

4
of the defect. The limiting factor in single transducer UT is the incident beam angle is set
according to the wedge used. With phased array, there are a number of transducer elements
present in the same wedge. This way, any incident beam angle within a broad range can be
used with the same wedge. As well, by electronically controlling the time at which the
transducers fire it is possible to focus the beam and alter the shape of the beam, which means
the inspection can be tuned for the part being inspected. In relation to polymer inspections, it
is much more likely the correct beam angle for maximum reflection can be found using a broad
range phased array system. As well, the newer systems can use high power settings to help
overcome the attenuation of the sound.

TOFD is different in that there is just a single transducer element, and instead of high-
amplitude reflection the equipment is looking for low-amplitude diffraction. There are two units
used, a separate transmitter and receiver held a certain distance apart. Every time sound
waves hit a physical barrier, the barrier becomes an instantaneous source of sound waves,
essentially the wave is diffracted. Diffracted waves at the centre of a test piece will arrive at
the receiver before the reflection off the back wall of the test piece, so by measuring the time of
flight one can determine where the flaw is located.

There is little conclusive evidence that UT will work on all aspects of polymer inspections, but
there is some promising research done indicating that many types of defects could be detected
using these methods . There is currently no convincing evidence that UT can detect cold
fusion welds. In the past, McElroy (a major manufacturer of fusion equipment) released the
UltraMac, a single transducer UT system designed for HDPE fusion welds. The technology
had a number of issues which eventually led to discontinuance. Recently, there have been
independent projects by Flour2 and The Welding Institute (TWI)1 regarding the use of phased-
array TOFD and tandem UT. The Edison Welding Institute (EWI) has developed their own
technology (WZIM) but has also examined the feasibility of UT4. Varying degrees of success
in detecting cold fusion is reported. It should be noted that UT has an advantage of being
familiar, and having a wide variety of inspection equipment already manufactured and proven
for a wide variety of geometries and piping systems.

WZIM TECHNOLOGIES

In 2006, the Edison Welding Institute (EWI) in a joint project with NYSEARCH created an
inspection tool / method which they call the Weld Zone Inspection Method, or WZIM. This is
ostensibly a non-destructive technique, which uses a laser-based image recognition system to
determine whether a joint is standard or non-standard. There is significant joint preparation
required before an examination can occur. First, the external weld bead is removed, and the
pipe surface underneath the weld is polished to a smooth finish. The weld bead is then heated
for a short time. If the correct amount of heating is applied, a cold-fusion joint will, according to
EWI, appear as a “fusion line”, or “bond line”. This bond line is created as the intermolecular
forces joining the two pieces are relaxed during heating, and a sub-standard weld should
reveal the bond line as the two pieces pull apart from each other during this relaxation. The
WZIM tool then uses a laser to create a high-resolution topographical map of the weld surface,
which will reveal the presence (or lack of) the fusion line as a surface feature. It is claimed that
the laser resolution is on the order of several microns, which could detect fusion lines that are

5
not visible to a human visual inspector. It is important to note that electromagnetic frequencies
in the visible range (as with all lasers) are surface-only methods, and cannot peer inside the
joint or evaluate the inner weld surface.

The unit is software driven, meaning both the heating element and the laser inspection tool
(both of which make up the WZIM) are controlled by a single piece of software, developed by
EWI. The inspection parameters such as heating time, and alignment of the laser inspection
tool, were created by EWI based on an extensive destructive testing process. The equipment
is designed to generate a topographical image for evaluation, as well as offer a “pass/fail”
rating to the weld joint again based on EWI standards. This creates a situation where a
technician does not need extensive training to either operate the equipment or evaluate joints
in the field. EWI has shown fair repeatability in detecting cold-fusion joints during their
experiment. It is unknown at the time of this writing whether the heating process is detrimental
to the pipe weld over time, or whether the equipment can determine other weld issues such as
inclusions or misaligned joints.

DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY

Radiography (X-ray) has been used for many years in identifying flaws in metallic piping.
Radiography works by identifying density changes in a material, which would occur with a flaw
or inclusion. Polymers are traditionally much less dense than metallic objects, meaning that
very low energies are required in order for an image of a polymer to be produced. As an
example, metals are often inspected at 300kV of energy versus 16kV of energy for PE plastic5.
Recently, digital radiography (DR) techniques have been demonstrated, using CCD (charge
coupled device) type screens instead of film. These screens are significantly more sensitive
than traditional film, meaning very low X-ray energies can be used and bringing the possibility
of polymers inspection.

It has been demonstrated that DR can be successful in detecting some types of flaws in
polymers. Contamination inclusions (i.e. dust), lack of fusion, air voids, and weld bead thinning
have been found with repeatability. While cold welds have not been directly detected, they
have been successfully inferred from fusion and weld bead thinning6. Surface and near-
surface features can be located, but require the addition of a substrate to the surface of the
pipe to create a larger contrast ratio. TWI has successfully developed wire type image quality
indicators (IQIs) made from polyethylene strands, which can be varied with the grade of PE
pipe being used. As well, a “throwing” technique is required to complement the traditional
“pitch and catch” radiographic methods for reliable detection.

ACUREN EVISIVE SCAN AND HOW IT PHYSICALLY WORKS

Evisive consists of a transmitter and two receivers. The transmitter emits a single coherent
frequency of microwave energy between 5 and 50 GHz. The energy is reflected and

6
transmitted at every interface between materials with differing dielectric constants. All the
energy reflected from interfaces within the cone of transmitted energy is detected by the
receivers (Figure 9). This energy is converted to a voltage reading, which is the output used to
create images. This output voltage is discreetly sampled across the specimen and retained as
data3.

O bject
being
R eceivers examined

B A

Defect
TTransmitter
rans mitte
r
Reprinted with permission from Evisive Inc.

FIGURE 9: EVISIVE PROBE CONFIGURATION

The voltage difference between the emitter signal and reflection can be interpreted as a
standing wave pattern, with a well defined phase and amplitude based on the distance to the
reflector (Z-axis, Figure 10). This difference is expressed as a variable DC voltage, and is
used to create a point cloud of voltages for any given point on the sample surface. It is this
point cloud which directly yields the Evisive Scan images.
Typical Interference Pattern
1
0.625

0.5
signal amplitude

f.1( x)

f.2( x)
0
f.3( x)

− 0.5

− 0.648
−1
0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28
0.2 x .3

segment of Z (normal) axis

emitter signal
reflection
reflection + emitter

Reprinted with permission from Evisive Inc.

FIGURE 10: STANDING WAVE PATTERNS

Probe motion causes a point reflector to appear to translate through the beam. This means
that the reflected wave is shifted in phase by the additional distance (round trip) as the probe
moves away from direct center above the reflector. This yields a reflection pattern for each
reflector, with the centre of the pattern representing the true reflector position. The Evisive
Scan is a true volumetric scan method, and as such can image any portion of the fusion
surface.

7
 Defect at
centre of
pattern

Reprinted with permission from Evisive Inc.

FIGURE 11: TYPICAL REFLECTION PATTERN

FIGURE 12: EVISIVE EQUIPMENT

8
 TABLE 1:
GENERAL PROPERTIES OF NDE METHODS

Feature NDE Technique

Microwave/ Ultrasonic WZIM Digital

Evisive Radiography

Contact/ Contact / Contact Contact Contact

Non-contact Non-contact

Versatility of Yes With HDPE Yes

Materials Restrictions only
Detect Yes No Yes No
Cold-Fusion
Reliably
Detect Yes Yes No Yes
Inclusions
Detect Yes Yes Yes No
Surface/Impact
Damage
Bead Removal Yes No Yes No
Required

EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENT DEFECTS (PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES)

Figures 12 and 13 represent Evisive images of control samples of 100mm diameter HDPE
pipe with a “known” good weld, created by the same operator on the same equipment.
All signal returns from the welds are crisp and typically unbroken lines of similar color. When
viewing the images, the Y-axis represents the axial distance along the pipe sample, in inches
(software default). The X-axis is circumferential and in degrees, from 0-360o in most cases.
As well, it should be noted that the color gradients are simply a chosen scale of reference,
meaning that the colours can be chosen arbitrarily to aid viewing detail and have no meaning
on their own.

9
 Fusion line

FIGURE 13: ACCEPTABLE FUSION LINE

FIGURE 14: ACCEPTABLE FUSION LINE

Figures 14 and 15 represent excessive delay between the heating and the compression of the
fusion joint. The solid fusion line starts to become broken and discontinuous at 10 seconds
delay, and at 20 seconds delay there are areas clearly missing a fusion line indication that
resembles the control samples.

FIGURE 15: 10 SECOND DELAY BETWEEN HEATING AND PRESSURE

APPLICATION

10
 FIGURE 16: 20 SECOND DELAY BETWEEN HEATING AND PRESSURE
APPLICATION

Figures 16 through 21 are Evisive Scan images of a variety of artificially imbedded defects. All
of the defected scans clearly show a difference in the imaging of the fusion line from the
control standards. The samples represented in these images were verified as non-acceptable
fusion welds through mechanical testing completed by Acuren Group.

FIGURE 17: DIRT SPREAD ACROSS WELD SURFACE

FIGURE 18: COTTON THREADS PLACED ACROSS FUSION SURFACE

11
FIGURE 19: END-DRILLED HOLES IN FUSION SURFACE

FIGURE 20: WATER POURED ONTO JOINT DURING FUSION

FIGURE 21: SILICONE SPRAY CREATING LACK OF FUSION

12
 FIGURE 22: OIL SPREAD ACROSS ENTIRE FUSION AREA

Figures 23 through 26 represent 100mm diameter HDPE samples that were part of an Acuren
developed project to determine the effects of temperature and pressure variations on both the
Evisive Scanning, as well as subsequent mechanical testing. Figure 23 is a sample which was
welded in the middle of the generally accepted fusion pressure and temperature ranges, in this
case 218.3oC temperature and 413kPa pressure. Figure 24 is the macroscopic image of the
fusion. This weld passed all currently accepted mechanical tests as per CSA-Z662 and/or
ASME B31.3 and therefore deemed an acceptable fusion.

Fusion line

FIGURE 23: BUTT-FUSION WELD, TEMPERATURE=218C PRESSURE=

413KPA, MIDDLE OF RECOMMENDED FUSION RANGE

Well
defined
fusion
area

FIGURE 24: MACROSCOPIC SAMPLE OF ACCEPTABLE FUSION

13
Figure 25 is a sample which was welded on the extreme low end of the generally accepted
fusion pressure and temperature ranges, in this case 176.7oC temperature and 172kPa
pressure. Figure 26 is the macroscopic image of the fusion, with the non-fused area clearly
visible. This weld not only failed mechanical testing but literally fell apart during the
macroscopic sampling, due to such a strong lack of fusion.

FIGURE 25: BUTT-FUSION WELD, TEMPERATURE=177C,

PRESSURE=172KPA, EXTREME LOW END OF
RECOMMENDED FUSION RANGE. LACK OF FUSION NOTED
THROUGHOUT WELD.

Lack of
fusion

FIGURE 26: MACROSCOPIC SAMPLE OF POORLY FUSED JOINT

CONCLUSIONS
There is a clear need for appropriate non-destructive evaluation techniques in HDPE piping
systems, as well as the development of accept/reject criteria to support the use of such
techniques. Several potential technologies have been identified which may allow for the
characterization of defective butt-fusion welds, which could potentially minimize failure rates in
HDPE piping systems, as well as increase the desirability to use these materials. In brief, we
conclude from the study that:

1. WZIM has had success in the detection of cold fusion joints; however WZIM is limited
as a surface or near-surface technology only.
2. Radiographic detection in HDPE is suspect due to the extremely low energy required to
examine the joints and the lack of significant density changes in the fusion area,

14
 although some cold fusions have been inferred through detection of the heat affected
zone.
3. Ultrasonic inspection has been shown successful in detection of nearly every defect
mode except for cold fusion, where there is little conclusive evidence.
4. Evisive microwave imaging has demonstrated a clear ability to detect cold fusion in butt-
fusion welded joints, verified through mechanical and visual methods, as well as all
other defect modes.

Evisive Scan has shown a high degree of potential to assist in the development of appropriate
criteria to evaluate the health of an HDPE fusion joint, as each individual defect mode has a
clearly distinct Evisive image representation. While beyond the scope of this writing, Evisive
has also demonstrated an ability to inspect a wide variety of other non-metallic systems (i.e.
Fiberglass, coated steel pipe).

REFERENCES
1. Troughton MJ: “Welding with Integrated No-destructive testing of Polyethylene Pipes”.
Welding Beyond Metals: AWS/DVS Conference, New Orleans, USA March 2002.
2. Messer B, Yarmuch M, and den Boer P: “High Resolution Defect Detection for
Thermoplastic Butt-Welds in Operating Pipelines by Ultrasonic TOFD”. ASCE 2004.
3. Stakenborghs, Bob: “NDT Report on Polyethylene Piping Weld Scans”. Evisive Inc,
July 2004.
4. Edison Welding Institute: “Inspection of Fusion Joints in Plastic Pipe” February 2006.
5. Austin, RK: “Non-destructive Inspection of Heat Fusion Joints in Polyethylene Piping”.
#371, NACE Corrosion ’97, Houston, Texas, USA, 1997.
6. Munns IJ and Georgiou GA: “Ultrasonic and Radiographic NDT of Butt Fusion Welds in
Polyethylene Pipe”. Plastic Pipes IX, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh Scotland, UK,
Sep. 1985

ACKOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of Acuren Group Inc, Evisive Inc, and A. H.
McElroy Sales & Service Ltd.

15 Back to Disc Contents (Click)