Rate Process Method for

Projecting Performance of
Polyethylene Piping Components
TN-16/2008

105 Decker Court, Suite 825, Irving, TX 75062 P: 469-499-1044 F: 469-499-1062 www.plasticpipe.org
 Foreword

This report was developed and published with the technical help and financial
support of the members of the PPI (Plastics Pipe Institute, Inc). The members have
shown their interest in quality products by assisting independent standards-making
and user organizations in the development of standards, and also by developing
reports on an industry-wide basis to help engineers, code officials, specifying
groups, and users.

The purpose of this technical note is to provide general information on use of an

industry-accepted method (Rate Process Method) to evaluate performance of
polyethylene pipe and fittings.

This report has been prepared by PPI as a service of the industry. The information
in this report is offered in good faith and believed to be accurate at the time of its
preparation, but is offered without any warranty, expressed or implied, including
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE. Any reference to or testing of a particular proprietary product should not
be construed as an endorsement by PPI, which does not endorse the proprietary
products or processes of any manufacturer. The information in this report is offered
for consideration by industry members in fulfilling their own compliance
responsibilities. PPI assumes no responsibility for compliance with applicable laws
and regulations.

PPI intends to revise this report from time to time, in response to comments and
suggestions from users of the report. Please send suggestions of improvements to
the address below. Information on other publications can be obtained by contacting
PPI directly or visiting the web site.

The Plastics Pipe Institute, Inc.

http://www.plasticpipe.org

July 2008

105 Decker Court, Suite 825, Irving, TX 75062 P: 469-499-1044 F: 469-499-1062 www.plasticpipe.org
 RATE PROCESS METHOD FOR PROJECTING PERFORMANCE
OF POLYETHYLENE PIPING COMPONENTS

1.0 Introduction

The PPI Hydrostatic Stress Board (HSB) conducted an extensive evaluation of

various methods for forecasting the effective long-term performance of polyethylene
(PE) thermoplastic piping materials. Basically, these methods require elevated
temperature sustained pressure testing of pipe where the type of failure is of the slit
or brittle-like mode. Details of this evaluation and conclusions are contained in
reference 1.

As a result of this study, HSB determined that the three-coefficient rate process
method (RPM) equation provided the best correlation between calculated long-term
performance projections and known field performance of several PE piping
materials. It also had the best probability for extrapolation of data based on the
statistical “lack of fit” test.

The Rate Process Method (RPM), which was developed out of this study, was
incorporated in two ASTM standards. ASTM D 2837 (2) added a “validation”
requirement for PE piping materials, and ASTM D 2513 (3) added a validation
requirement for the pipe producer. Since some high performance PE materials do
not exhibit SCG (slit or brittle-like failure) under elevated temperature testing, the
RPM method can not be applied to these materials for the established validation
methods. The ASTM standard test method for determining chlorine resistance of
PEX tubing, ASTM F 2023 (4), uses the Rate Process Method for its projected
performance calculations.

Provided that the RPM method is applied to materials that demonstrate SCG (slit or
brittle-like failure) resin and pipe producers, as well as end-users, may apply RPM
calculations to make relative judgments on specific materials and/or piping
products. One example has been to use the RPM to estimate projected life of
SCG-susceptible PE pipe exhumed from buried service. Projections from the Rate
Process Method for this exhumed PE gas pipe were shown to have very good
correlation with actual field failures from three gas companies (5). These
projections are based on the primary load, which is the internal pressure. RPM can
also be used to determine the effects of secondary loads such as indentation (rock
impingement), bending, deflection or squeeze-off.

Another example is projected performance of polyethylene fittings as discussed in

references 6 and 7. Because fittings have different geometries, different failure
modes may be observed at different test conditions. The three RPM coefficients
from each fitting will be different; again, this is due to their different geometries.
 The referenced paper by Bragaw (6) shows different Arrhenius plot slopes (log t vs.
1/T) for the different fittings tested, indicating different coefficients. This RPM test
protocol is not intended for mechanical fittings.

Single-point elevated temperature stress rupture testing is used for quality control
testing of PE piping products once RPM data are available, as discussed in
reference 8.

More recently, the Rate Process Method has been used to determine long-term
performance of corrugated PE pipe and the effect of recycled materials on long-
term performance (9).

In addition, the RPM has been applied to a notched constant load specimen test to
forecast the slow crack growth resistance of corrugated HDPE pipes (10).

PPI is publishing this Technical Note covering the recommended RPM procedure to
offer guidance and a degree of standardization to the evaluation of PE piping
components using elevated temperature sustained pressure testing.

A number of state-of-the-art PE resins, when properly extruded into pipe, will not
exhibit slit mode failures in reasonable test times even when tested at the maximum
temperature. Therefore, the RPM procedure is not applicable for these materials
except as a qualifying procedure to ensure, in fact, slit mode failures do not occur.

2.0 Test Procedure

Testing of pipe assemblies shall be in accordance with ASTM D 1598 (11). Fittings
are joined to pipe using standard heat fusion joining procedures, such as butt
fusion, socket fusion, saddle fusion or electrofusion. This RPM test procedure is
not intended for mechanical fittings. Other test configurations such as notched
constant load specimens (NCLS) per ASTM F 2136 or PENT per ASTM F 1473 can
be used as well.

3.0 Test Conditions

3.1 Temperatures. Select two or three elevated temperatures appropriate

for the PE material (T1, T2, T3). The maximum temperature chosen
should not be greater than 95°C. Typical temperatures selected for PE
pipes are 80 and 60ºC when two temperatures are used, and 90, 80 and
70°C for three temperatures. The minimum temperature difference
should be 10ºC for three temperatures, and 20ºC for two temperatures.
 3.2 Stress. If a selected hoop stress results in a ductile failure, the stress
should be lowered. Stresses selected should be such as to produce only
slit mode failures. There should be a 10 percent minimum difference
between selected stresses. Also, there should be a minimum of three
specimens at each selected stress if three temperatures are used as in
Table I. If only two temperatures are used, the minimum specimens at
each stress should be four as in Table II.

TABLE I (THREE TEMPERATURES)

Temperature T1 T2 T3
Number of hoop stresses 3 2 1
Number of specimens 9 6 3

TABLE II (TWO TEMPERATURES)

Temperature T1 T2
Number of hoop stresses 3 2
Number of specimens 12 8

Therefore, to do a typical RPM experiment would require a minimum of

18 specimens for three temperatures, or a minimum of 20 specimens for
two temperatures. An RPM calculation can be made with fewer
specimens, but the confidence in the projection decreases as the number
of specimens decreases. If one wants to test more specimens, we
recommend testing more specimens at each hoop stress, followed by
more hoop stresses at each temperature, and lastly, more temperatures.

4.0 Calculations

Using all the slit failure mode data points, calculate the A, B and C coefficients for
the following three-coefficient rate process method extrapolation equation:

B C Log S
Log t = A + +
T T
Where:

t = slit mode failure time, hours

T = absolute temperature, K
S = hoop stress, psi or pressure, psig
When testing and evaluating pipe and fittings it is very important that all the failure
modes be the same (i.e. either ductile or brittle). When applying the RPM
calculation all failure modes must be the same.

Example
Here are stress rupture data for a polyethylene pipe lot obtained at two
temperatures. All these data have the slit failure mode:

Temp. Stress Failure time

(ºC) (psi) (hours)
80. 600. 30.0
80. 600. 32.0
80. 600. 23.0
80. 600. 19.0
80. 600. 27.0
80. 600. 22.0

80. 300. 280.0

80. 300. 222.0
80. 300. 198.0
80. 300. 379.0
80. 300. 194.0
80. 300. 243.0

80. 175. 728.0

80. 175. 1413.0
80. 175. 1485.0
80. 175. 985.0
80. 175. 1548.0
80. 175. 996.0

60. 600. 207.0

60. 600. 163.0
60. 600. 390.0
60. 600. 547.0
60. 600. 416.0
60. 600. 130.0

60. 300. 3472.0

60. 300. 3198.0
60. 300. 2672.0
60. 300. 3936.0
60. 300. 2790.0
 The three coefficients for the RPM equation are:

A = -16.241
B = 9342.2
C = -1120.4

5.0 Application

5.1 Once the A, B and C coefficients are calculated, the RPM equation can
be used for various performance projections. For the above example, at
an average ground temperature of 20ºC (68ºF) and an average hoop
stress of 300 psi (60 psig for SDR 11 pipe), the mean projected failure
time is 165 years. Some RPM calculations can also include a lower
confidence limit (LCL) by using the distribution of the data points. In this
case the 5% LCL is 65 years. This means there is 95% probability that
the pipe failure time will be greater than 65 years.

5.2 Mathematically, these RPM projections are sound. However, they are
not absolute and are subject to various experimental errors, unknown
deviations and judgment factors.

5.3 Calculations from the RPM equation should be used in conjunction with
all other mechanical, performance, and use factors in making judgments
as to design, useful life or application suitability. When mixed ductile-
SCG failures are observed or where SCG failures do not occur, RPM may
not be used.

6.0 References

1. “Rate Process Concepts Applied to Hydrostatically Rating Polyethylene,” by E. F.

Palermo and I. K. DeBlieu, presented at the Ninth Plastic Fuel Gas Pipe
Symposium, 1985, in New Orleans, Louisiana

2. ASTM D 2837, “Standard Test Method for Obtaining Hydrostatic Design Basis for
Thermoplastic Pipe Materials”

3. ASTM D2513, “Standard Specification for Thermoplastic Gas Pressure Pipe,

Tubing, and Fittings”

4. ASTM F2023, “Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Oxidative Resistance of
Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Tubing and Systems to Hot Chlorinated Water”,

5. “Correlating Aldyl “A” and Century PE Pipe Rate Process Method Projections With
Actual Field Performance” by E.F. Palermo (Jana Laboratories), presented at the
2004 AGA Operations Conference.

6. “Prediction of Service Life of Polyethylene Gas Piping Systems” by C. G. Bragaw,

presented at the Seventh Plastic Fuel Gas Pipe Symposium, 1980, in New Orleans,
Louisiana

7. “Rate Process Method Applied to Service Life Forecast of PE Molded Fittings” by

E. F. Palermo and S. Chung, presented at the 2008 AGA Operations Conference

8. “Rate Process Method as a Practical Approach to a Quality Control Method for

Polyethylene Pipe” by E. F. Palermo, presented at the Eighth Plastic Fuel Gas Pipe
Symposium, 1983, in New Orleans, Louisiana

9. “New Test Method to Determine the Effect of Recycled Materials on the Life of
Corrugated HDPE Pipe as Projected by the Rate Process Method”, E. F Palermo
and K. Oliphant (Jana Laboratories), presented at Plastics Pipes XIII, October 2006,
in Washington, DC

10. “Evaluate the Long-Term Stress Crack Resistance of Corrugated HDPE Pipes”,
Y. Grace Hsuan, J-Y Zhang and W-K Wong, Department of Civil, Architectural and
Environmental Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA

11. ASTM D 1598, “Standard Test Method for Time-to-Failure of Plastic Pipe Under
Constant Internal Pressure”