See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/248448853

Squeeze-off of polyethylene pressure pipes: Experimental analysis

Article  in  Polymer Testing · February 2007

DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2006.09.006

CITATIONS READS

21 4,891

2 authors:

Pasa Yayla Yasar Bilgin

Marmara University Kocaeli University
32 PUBLICATIONS   559 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yasar Bilgin on 28 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

POLYMER
TESTING
Polymer Testing 26 (2007) 132–141
www.elsevier.com/locate/polytest

Product Performance

Squeeze-off of polyethylene pressure pipes:

Experimental analysis
Pasa Yaylaa,, Yasar Bilginb
a
Engineering Faculty, Mechanical Engineering Department, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey
b
Kocaeli Vocational School of Higher Education, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey
Received 13 July 2006; accepted 6 September 2006

Abstract

Squeeze-off is used in routine or emergency situations to stop, or nearly stop, flow in polyethylene (PE) pipe by flattening
the pipe between parallel bars. Gas and water industries utilizing PE pipe in their systems have designed squeeze-off
procedures to suit their pipe material, environmental conditions and constructional needs, where it may be inconvenient
and/or expensive to isolate and empty pipelines.
The method provides a quick shut-off the lines, saving many hours, and eliminates the need for dangerous, costly and
lengthy excavations. Despite its widespread use, it is not known whether squeeze-off of the pipe damages the pipe and, if
so, what is the degree of the damage and how it should be minimized.
This paper is about the investigation of squeeze-off of pipes of various dimensions made from PE 80 and PE 100 grade
high-density PE and crosslinked PE. Experimental investigation on the damage related with the squeeze-off of the pipes
was carried out to study the influence of squeeze-off phenomenon on the short and long term performance of the pipes.
Hydrostatic pressure tests were performed on the squeezed pipe to examine the degree of damage. The influence of
squeezing ratio, pipe diameter and squeeze-off tool geometry on the overall pipe performance was also investigated.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Polyethylene pipes; Squeeze-off; Failure analysis; Hydrostatic pressure tests

1. Introduction While PE pressure pipes have excellent records of

The lower cost of installation, service and
maintenance are major advantages that favour
plastic pipes for potable water and natural gas
distribution networks. Polyethylene (PE) piping
constitutes the vast majority of new gas distribution
piping installed in the world.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 262 335 1148;
fax: +90 262 335 2812.
E-mail addresses: pyayla@kou.edu.tr (P. Yayla),
ybilgin@kou.edu.tr (Y. Bilgin).
performance, some abnormal service loadings may
result in field failures. One of the advantages of PE
pressure pipes is their suitability for squeeze-off
when flow is to be stopped in a section of pipe for
connections, downstream repair or maintenance to
be carried out. In this method, the pipe section is
compressed between two parallel bars until the gas
flow is almost stopped in a controlled manner. The
section of pipe remains compressed until the repair
is completed, at which time the pipe is released. It is
noted that flow does not completely stop: it is
reduced to a rate that does not endanger work. The

0142-9418/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.polymertesting.2006.09.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Yayla, Y. Bilgin / Polymer Testing 26 (2007) 132–141
industry has not defined a level of gas flow when
shut-off is said to have been achieved, but generally
a gas flow of less than 0.1 ft3/h (one-tenth cubic foot
per hour) is considered acceptable [1]. Würst [2]
ascertained that, up to a pipe wall thickness of
approximately 10 mm, the pipe materials examined
could be squeezed-off sufficiently, but for thicker
pipe walls the squeezed-off point is no longer gas or
water tight due to the formation of large internal
wrinkles which caused lasting damage of the pipe.
The more the pipe wall is squeezed, the greater
the amount of wall compression. However, this
technique is recommended according to DVGW
leaflet GW 332 [3] only up to diameter of 160 mm
with a maximum wall thickness of 10 mm. In order
to avoid damage to the PE pipe, the maximum
squeezing ratio of 80% must not be exceeded. The
undefined squeezing of the pipe until it is tight is
therefore not permitted. The distance from the
squeezed region to the nearest connection or
another squeezed region must exceed about five
times the external pipe diameter [4].
Damage mechanism research has shown that wall
compression greater than 30% is typically necessary
to induce damage in slow crack growth (SCG)
resistant materials of recent vintage. For less SCG-
resistant PE pipe materials, damage may occur with
less than 30% wall compression. Furthermore, if an
incorrect squeeze-off tool or procedure is applied
the flow in the pipe may continue since insufficient
compression has been applied. If the pipe is over
squeezed there is a possibility to induce damage to
the pipe. It is, therefore, rather important to
understand the whole squeeze-off phenomenon [1].
Sometimes it is recommended to re-round the
pipe if it does not regain its former shape once the
squeeze-off procedure is completed. Re-rounding
provides no practical benefits from the point of view
of damage formation or prevention in SCG-
resistant materials, but it may be performed for
other reasons such as increasing the flow area to
maintain a high flow rate. Rerounding may be
detrimental in cases where immediate damage
develops [5,6].
Research indicates that the duration of time the
pipe is compressed is of secondary importance to
the likelihood of inducing damage. Stresses decay
rapidly after wall compression is completed, and
then change relatively less with the length of time
held in the compressed position. Consequently, no
limitations are necessary on the length of time the
pipe is compressed [1]. Palermo [7] has reported a
133
number of failures in older PE pipelines resulting at
the squeeze-off locations.
A successful squeeze-off depends on a combina-
tion of the pipe material being squeezed, the tool
being used and the procedure. The following factors
should be considered when developing a field
procedure for squeeze-off. The geometry of the
squeeze-off tool should meet ASTM F 1563 and the
squeeze-off procedures should meet ASTM F 1041
standard. Further, the operator should qualify his
chosen combination of pipe, tool and procedure in
accordance with ASTM F 1734 [5,6,8].
The amount of squeeze bar displacement can be
defined in terms of the amount of pipe wall
compression. Zero percent wall compression implies
the inner walls of the pipe are not compressed but
are just touching each other. One hundred percent
wall compression implies the bars have completely
compressed, thus no plastic is left between the
squeeze-off bars. Negative wall compression indi-
cates that the inside walls are not in contact.
With the squeeze-off, drop-shaped areas of the
pipe create as the walls of the pipe are compressed
toward each other. A wrinkle in the wall of PE pipe
at the squeezed region occurs and the pipe material
flows out from between the squeeze bars. Thus, the
wall is locally thinner compared to adjacent areas.
Although most of the standards and application
instructions require the users of the squeeze-of
methods to inspect the squeeze-off area for any
visible damage, assessing the damage is not an easy
task.
Battelle Memorial Institute [1,9–12] has reported
that the damage could begin below the surface at
the squeeze-off ears; hence the assessment included
a sub-surface examination, Fig. 1. In some cases,
sub-surface voids were found to confirm the
hypothesis. The growth rate of the damage depends
on the slow-crack-growth resistance of the materi-
als.
In order to assess the squeeze-off induced damage
a combination of squeeze-off experiments, damage
assessment, and phenomenological modelling was
F
Squeeze-off Squeeze-off
ear cylinders
F
Fig. 1. Schematics of squeeze-off test [2].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
134 P. Yayla, Y. Bilgin / Polymer Testing 26 (2007) 132–141
performed in this study. In many squeeze-off tests,
the parameters such as pipe material, tool size and
geometry, wall thickness and pipe diameter were
repeatedly varied. After the pipe was released, it was
examined for signs of damage in the proximity of
the squeeze ears. Hydrostatic pressure and tensile
tests were performed on the squeezed pipe to assess
the degree of damage on the pipes. The influence of
squeezing ratio, pipe diameter and squeeze-off tool
geometry on the overall pipe performance was also
investigated.
2. Experimental analysis
In this study, PE pipes of different diameters
made from PE80, PE100 and crosslinked polyethy-
lene (PE-Xb) materials were examined to under-
stand the squeeze-off phenomenon in general; and
to assess their squeeze-off performance in particu-
lar. The effect of the geometry of the squeeze-off
tool on the pipe performance was also investigated.
After the pipe was squeezed-off, hydrostatic and
tensile tests were performed on the pipes to examine
for signs of damage in the proximity of the squeeze
ears.
2.1. PE materials
In this study, based on current practice, pipes
made from three different types of PE materials
Fig. 2. DARTEC servo-hydraulic tensile testing machine used in the squeeze-off tests and the configuration of the squeeze-off tests.
were used. These PE materials were pressure pipe
graded PE 80, PE 100 and silane crosslinked PE-Xb
materials. These materials are being extensively used
in pressure pipe systems, mainly in water and gas
transportations. The minimum required strength
(MRS) for PE 80, and PE 100 pipes on the bases of
50 yr minimum service life is 8 and 10 MPa,
respectively. Pipes of different diameters and
standard dimensional ratio (SDR) were extruded
according to the raw material producers’ instruc-
tions. The pipes were conditioned at least 1 month
before the testing.
2.2. Squeeze-off tests
The pipe samples were at least six pipe diameters
in length. The wall thickness of the pipe around the
circumference at 451 increments was measured and
the location of maximum wall thickness was
identified.
The pipes and the squeeze-off tool were condi-
tioned for 24 h before squeeze-off. The test specimen
was placed in the squeeze-off apparatus with the
plane of maximum wall thickness parallel with the
squeeze bars (i.e., the thickest portion of the pipe in
the squeeze-off ear). The specimen was located in
such a way that the midpoint of its length was
between the squeeze-off cylinders (Fig. 2).
The squeeze tests were performed on a computer
controlled servo hydraulic DARTEC tensile testing
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Yayla, Y. Bilgin / Polymer Testing 26 (2007) 132–141 135

machine with a M9500 controlling unit. The Stress whitening occurs when many plastic products
machine was operated at a constant crosshead are subjected to excessive bending or impact. In the
speed of 50 mm/min until the predefined squeezing squeeze-off tests, this stress whitening was more
ratio was attained, and then held at this compres- pronounced at the inner and outer surfaces at the
sion position for a duration of 60 min. Then the squeeze-off ears. These remarkable stress whitening
specimen was released at the designated rate. features have not been correlated with the overall
A typical force–time curve is shown in Fig. 3. As
seen, it has three unique sections. Between points A
and B, the pipe is squeezed-off until the inner 7
30%
surfaces of the pipe wall touch each other,
corresponding to 0% squeezing ratio. The variation
of squeeze force with time is not linear during this
20%
period of the test. After point B, the pipe walls are 6
compressed until the pre-defined squeezing ratio is
attained. The increase in force is rather sharp during

Forc e (kN)
this period of the test. At point C, the pre-defined
squeezing ratio is attained and the displacement is 4
held constant. Between points C and D, the 10%
squeezed pipe was kept at a fixed displacement for
1 h. As seen from the CD section of the curve the
0%
force decreased to almost half of the peak force
2
during this period. This decay in the force is due to
the visco-elastic nature of PE.
In these tests, the squeezing ratios were also
changed to determine its effects on the PE pipe
performance. It was observed that the maximum
squeeze-off force increased linearly with squeezing 0 5 10 15
ratio, as shown in Fig. 4. Displacement (mm)
After squeeze-off, damage in the form of stress Fig. 4. Variation of the squeezing force with compression rate for
whitening at the squeeze-off ears was observed. PE 80 f20  3 HDPE pipe.

120 120

C
100 100

Displacement
Displacement (mm)

80 80
Force
Force (kN)

60 60

D
40 40

B
20 20

A
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 40 50 60
Time (min)

Fig. 3. A typical displacement–time curve used in the squeeze-off tests and correspondent squeezing force–time response for PE 80
f110  11 HDPE pipe.

136 P. Yayla, Y. Bilgin / Polymer Testing 26 (2007) 132–141
3rdcycle
Force (kN)
4
nd
2 cycle
3 st
1 cycle
2 50 mm width and 5 mm side radius.
0 squeezing ratio increases in a more or less linear
0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 5. Force versus displacement response of f63  4.2 mm
PE100 pipe at 0% squeezing ratio for the first three cycles.
performance of the pipe. It would be rather
important to assess its negative effect, if there is
any, on the short and long term performance of PE
pipe.
In order to investigate the effect of cyclic
loading–unloading on the force–displacement re-
sponse, three-cycle squeeze-off tests were performed
at the same location. A typical force–displacement
record for f63  4.2 PE100 pipe at 0% squeezing
ratio is given in Fig. 5. Due to the viscoplastic [13]
nature of PE, the figure shows a remarkable
difference between each loading and unloading
history: the maximum force at the first, second
and third cycles were 6.56, 5.90 and 5.63 kN,
respectively.
In order to asses the effects of pipe diameter on
the variation of squeeze-off force, the squeeze-off
tests on f20, f32, f63 and f110 mm PE 80 and PE
100 pipes have revelled that the variation of the
squeeze-off force increased linearly with the pipe
diameters.
2.2.1. Squeeze-off tool geometry effect
In order to investigate the effect of the squeeze
tool geometry on the squeeze-off phenomenon, four
different tool sizes, shown in Fig. 6 were used. The
squeeze-off tool cylinders were machined from St 60
steel with length of 250 mm
The variation of maximum squeeze-off force as a
function of squeeze tool diameter for different
squeezing ratios is given in Fig. 7 for 63  4.3 mm
PE 100 pipe. As the squeezing ratio increases, the
maximum force needed to attain a predefined
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 6. Squeeze tool geometries used in this study. fD1 ¼ 35 mm,
fD2 ¼ 70 mm, fD3 ¼ 120 mm, and for D4 straight bar with
manner. As expected, the higher the squeeze tool
50 60
diameter the higher squeeze-off force, Fig. 7. The
increase in the squeeze force is much higher for a flat
tool.
Fig. 8 shows that for all tool geometries
considered, the maximum force increases almost
linearly with the squeezing ratio.
2.3. Tensile tests
Tensile tests were performed to assess the degree
of damage at the squeezed-off ears of the HDPE
pipe, to define if the squeeze-off affects the overall
short term tensile properties, specifically the yield
stress and yield strain.
Tensile test samples were extracted from the
squeezed-off pipes’ ears as shown in Fig. 9. Using a
cutting die, the samples were extracted in such a way
that the ear was at the middle of the gage length and
the sample was aligned either axially or circumfer-
entially. The dimensions of the tensile test samples
were according to the ISO 527 standards as depicted
in Fig. 10.
All the tensile tests were carried out at a
temperature of 23 1C on a screw driven computer
controlled ZWICK Z10 tensile testing machine
instrumented with an extensometer. From at least
three specimens for each test series, the average
values for yield stress, sys, yield strain, ey, and strain
at break, eB, were deduced. Typical stress-strain
curves for a PE 80 material are shown in Fig. 11.
The figure shows a proportional limit followed by a
maximum at which necking takes place. The neck
then propagates until it expands the full gage length
of the specimen. The necking process produces a
strengthened microstructure whose breaking load is
greater than that needed to induce necking in the
virgin material. After considerable elongation,
generally beyond 600%, the sample breaks.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Yayla, Y. Bilgin / Polymer Testing 26 (2007) 132–141 137

240
%40
220
200 Cylindrical %30
180
160 %0 %20
140
%10
%20
%30
Squeeze-off Force (N)
100
%40

80
%10

60

40

20
%0

0
20 40 60 80 100 120
Squeeze Cylinder Diameter (mm) Flat Squeeze Bar

Fig. 7. Variation of squeeze-off force as a function of squeeze tool diameter for different squeeze-off ratios for 63  4.3 mm PE 100 pipe.

220 The axial yield stress normal (as received) and

Tool Geometry
200 squeezed pipe, produced from PE100 material in
φ35 mm
180 φ70 mm f32  3 dimensions, are compared in Fig. 12. Pipe
φ120 mm squeezed to 0% squeezing ratio has a yield stress of
Squeeze-off Force (N)

160 Flat 50 mm

140
21.7 MPa, about 4% less than that of normal pipe
(22.6 MPa). As the squeezing ratio increases the
120
yield stress diminishes significantly and for 40%
100
squeezing ratio the yield stress is 20.1 MPa. Thus,
80 compared with the normal pipe, 0% squeezed pipe
60 gives 7% lower yield stress, 40% squeezed pipe gives
40 11% less yield stress. A similar trend is also
20 observed from tensile samples extracted along the
0 circumferential direction. Yield strain results are
0 10 20 30 40 given in Fig. 12.
Squeezing Ratio [%] From these tensile tests results it could be
concluded that the by squeezing PE 80, PE100 and
Fig. 8. Variation of squeeze-off force as a function of squeezing
ratio for different squeeze tool geometry for 63  4.3 mm PE 100 PEX pipes, the yield stresses decreases by around
pipe. 11% for all three PE grades. For the yield strains,
however, there are some variations from one grade
to another: a decrease for PE100 pipe, and increases
for PE 80 and PEX pipes (Figs. 13–17).
All the tensile properties for the squeezed-off
pipes have deteriorated. Particularly, the reduction 2.4. Pressure tests
of both yield stress as well as the yield strain for
40% squeezed circumferential sample is rather It is rather important to determine whether and to
striking (curve 4 in Fig. 11). The importance of this what degree the squeezing induces any reduction in
observation comes from the fact that the circumfer- the hydrostatic performance of PE pipe. To this
ential strength of the pipe determines the overall end, the hydrostatic pressure tests are vital to assess
performance of the pipe structure. the level of the damage.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
138 P. Yayla, Y. Bilgin / Polymer Testing 26 (2007) 132–141

Fig. 9. Position of the tensile tests samples extracted from the squeezed-off PE pipes.

25 15

14

Yield Stress (MPa)

Yield Strain (%)

20
13

12
Fig. 10. Dimensions of the tensile tests samples. 15
Yield Stress 11
Yield Strain

1 10 10
20 0 10 20 30 40
2 Squeeze-off Rate (%)
Stress [N/mm2]

15 Fig. 12. Variation in yield stress and yield strain in PE 100,

f32  3 pipe, samples were extracted in axial directions (The
normal pipe has a yield stress of 22.6 MPa, and yield strain of
4 12.5%).
10 3

25 15
5
14
Yield Stress (MPa)

Yield Strain (%)

0 20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 120 160 13
Strain [%]
12
Fig. 11. Stress-strain curves from a PE 80 (f32  2.8) pipe: (1— 15
unsqueezed, axial; 2—unsqueezed, circumferential; 3–40% Yield Stress 11
squeezed, axial; 4–40% squeezed, circumferential). Yield Strain

10 10
0 10 20 30 40
Squeeze-off Rate (%)
Squeezed PE 80, PE 100 and PEX pipes were
Fig. 13. Variation in yield stress and yield strain in PE 100,
hydrostatically tested according to the ISO 9080 f32  3 pipe, samples were extracted in circumferential direc-
standard. For the pressure tests, IPT 1443 (Ger- tions. (The normal pipe has a yield stress of 21.9 MPa, and yield
many) hydrostatic pressure testing equipment was strain of 14.5%).
used. Squeezing ratios at 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and
40% were applied to a number of PE 80, PE 100
and PE-Xb pipes having different diameters and for PE 80 and 5.5 MPa for PE 100 at 80 1C
thicknesses. Then, the squeezed PE 80 and PE100 according to the EN 12201-2. PE-Xb pipes were
pipes were hydrostatically tested with internal tested at 95 1C according to EN 12318 standard for
pressure equivalent to a hoop stress of 4.6 MPa a duration of 165 h.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Yayla, Y. Bilgin / Polymer Testing 26 (2007) 132–141 139

25 20 20 24

22
18 19
Yield Stress (MPa)

Yield Stress (MPa)

20

Yield Strain (%)

Yield Strain (%)

20
16 18 18

14 17 16
15
14
Yield Stress 12 16
Yield Strain Yield Stress 12
Yield Strain
10 10 15 10
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Squeeze-off Rate (%) Squeeze-off Rate (%)

Fig. 14. Variation in yield stress and yield strain in PE 80, Fig. 17. Variation in yield stress and strain in PEX f63  5.65
f32  2.8 pipe. The samples were extracted in axial directions pipe. The samples were extracted in circumferential directions.
(The normal pipe has a yield stress of 21.0 MPa, and yield strain (The normal pipe has a yield stress of 19.3 MPa and yield strain
of 12.7%). of 11.7%).

25 20 The pressure performance test results and the

shape of the damage in burst pipes are shown in
18 Figs. 18–23, showing ductile type failures at the
Yield Stress (MPa)

Yield Strain (%)

20 ears. The results show that the pipes produced from

16 PE 80 and PE-X are less damaged in squeeze-off
tests than pipe produced from PE100.
14
15 It needs to be pointed out that correlating the
12
results of room temperature short-term tensile tests
Yield Stress
Yield Strain and 80 1C for PE or 95 1C PE-X long-term hydro-
10 10 static pressure tests is not an easy task and is not
0 10 20 30 40 aimed at within the framework of this work.
Squeeze-off Rate (%)
3. Discussion and conclusions
Fig. 15. Variation in yield stress and yield strain in PE 80,
f32  2.8 pipe. The samples were extracted in circumferential
direction. (The normal pipe has a yield stress of 19.9 MPa and Pipe of several different diameters, extruded from
yield strain of 12.7%). three grades of PE, has been subjected to a range of
squeeze-off procedures. The effects of pipe perfor-
mance were than assessed using short-term tensile
20 24 tests and long term hydrostatic pressure tests.
22 Obviously, this experimental program cannot give
19 the whole picture of the pipe behaviour during
Yield Stress (MPa)

20
Yield Strain (%)

squeeze-off, but it may help to lay the foundation

18 18 for modelling work that will eventually lead to the
16 development of rational squeeze-off guidelines.
17
The following conclusions could be drawn:
14
16
Yield Stress 12 (1) The overall performance of PE pipes produced
Yield Strain
15 10 from PE-Xb and PE 80 grades is less affected by
0 10 20 30 40 squeeze-off than that of pipes made from PE 100
Squeeze-off Rate (%) grades.
(2) In the hydrostatic pressure tests, all PE pipes
Fig. 16. Variation in yield stress and yield strain in PEX
f63  5.65 pipe. The samples were extracted in axial directions.
failed at the squeeze-off ears and they failed in a
(The normal pipe has a yield stress of 19.4 MPa and yield strain ductile manner, underlying the fact that the
of 13.4%). squeezing the PE pipes has a destructive effect
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
140 P. Yayla, Y. Bilgin / Polymer Testing 26 (2007) 132–141

Fig. 18. f63 pipe made from PE 100 material, squeezed with fs ¼ 70 mm tool. The failure took place at 0% squeezing ratio region. Failed
at 7 h 38 min at the squeeze ear (ductile failure).

Fig. 19. f63  6.4 pipe made from PE 80 material, squeezed with fs ¼ 70 mm tool. The failure took place at 40% squeezing ratio region.
Passed 165 h successfully, withstand 40% extra pressure for about 4 min at the squeeze ear (ductile failure).

Fig. 20. f32  3.1 pipe made from PE 100 material, squeezed with fs ¼ 70 mm tool. The failure took place at 40% squeezing ratio region.
Failed at 55 h at the squeeze ear (ductile failure).

Fig. 21. f32  3.0 pipe made from PE 80 material, squeezed with fs ¼ 70 mm tool. The failure took place at 40% squeezed region. Passed
165 h successfully, withstand 40% extra pressure for about 20 min at the squeeze ear (ductile failure).

Fig. 22. f32 pipe made from PE 80 material, squeezed with fs ¼ 70 mm tool. The failure took place at 30% squeezed region. Passed 165 h
successfully, withstand 40% extra pressure for about 28 min.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Yayla, Y. Bilgin / Polymer Testing 26 (2007) 132–141
Fig. 23. f63 pipe made from PE 100 material, squeezed with fs ¼ 70 mm tool. The failure took place at 40% squeezed region. Failed at
26 h at the squeeze ear (ductile failure).
on the hydrostatic pressure performance. The
ductile failure mode implies that the PE pipes’
squeeze-off performance is not determined by
the environmental stress-cracking resistance
(ESCR) of the PE material. The pipes at the
squeeze-off ears undergo a visible thinning process
and, as the squeezed pipe is pressurized, it expands
at these regions and a nucleation zone at the most
thinned region triggers the ductile failure.
(3) Although the tensile properties of PE 80, PE 100
and PE-Xb pipes deteriorate with increasing
squeezing ratio, the pressure tests indicate that
the performances of PE 80 and PE-Xb pipes are
still above the minimum requirements set by the
related PE pipe standards.
(4) Squeezing ratios, varied between 0% and 40%,
had no detectable effects on the hydrostatic
pressure performance. In some squeezed pipes,
the failure occurred at the 0% squeezed sections,
in others it took place at 40% squeezed section.
However, the tensile tests on squeezed pipes
indicated that the tensile properties deteriorate
with increased squeezing ratio. In all the tensile
tests the yield stress diminished with squeezing
ratio. Regarding the yield strain, however, it
varies from one grade to another. Thus, it is
recommended that the squeeze-off tools should
have a stop mechanism to prevent excessive
compression.
(5) In order to eliminate any risk resulting from the
squeeze-off, it is advised that the pipe should be
reinforced at the squeeze-off regions using a full
encirclement or support clamp. This will sup-
press circumferential expansion resulting from
the thinning at the squeezed ears and compen-
sate for the lost performance of the pipe at the
squeezed section.
Acknowledgements
The authors are greatly indebted to colleagues at
both industrial as well as university laboratories for
View publication stats
141
their positive interest, and especially to Arili Pipelife
Plastik Sanayi A.S. of Turkey. Dr. PS Leevers of
Imperial College of Science, Technology and
Medicine (UK) and Prof. E Cavusoglu of Arili
Pipelife Plastik Sanayi A.S. (Turkey) are also
appreciated for their valuable discussion and com-
ments on the manuscript.
References
[1] S.M. Pimputkar, B. Leis, J.A. Stets, D.R. Stephens, M.M.
Mamoun, Flow shut-off and damage in polyethylene gas
piping during squeeze-off, in: International Gas Research
Conference, Chicago, IL, 1995.
[2] J. Würst, Examination concerning the squeeze-off of pipes
made of PE80, PE100 and PE-Xa, in: Plastic Pipes XI
Conference, Munich, Germany, 2001.
[3] DVGW GW 332, Abquetschen von Rohrleitungen aus
Polyethylen in der Gas-und Wasserverteilung, Technical
Data Sheet, 2000.
[4] R. Eckert, Integration, shut-off and repair technology for
PE pipe systems, in: Plastics Pipes XII Conference, Milan,
Italy, 2004.
[5] ASTM F 1734, Qualification of a Combination of Squeeze
Tool, Pipe, and Squeeze-Off Procedures to Avoid Long-
Term Damage in Polyethylene Gas Pipe.
[6] ASTM F 1563, Specification for Tools to Squeeze-off
Polyethylene (PE) Gas Pipe or Tubing.
[7] G. Polermo, Correlating aldyl ‘‘A’’ and century PE pipe rate
process method projections with actual field performance,
in: Plastics Pipes XII Conference, Milan, Italy, 2004.
[8] ASTM F 1041, Standard Guide for Squeeze-off of Polyolefin
Gas Pressure Pipe and Tubing.
[9] D.R. Stephens, B.N. Leis, Guidelines and Technical
Reference on Gas Flow Shut-Off in Polyethylene Pipes
Using Squeeze Tools, GRI-94/0205, 1994.
[10] D.R. Stephens, B.N. Leis, R.B. Francini, M.J. Cassady,
Users’ Guide on Squeeze-off of Polyethylene Gas Pipes, vol.
1, 92/0147.1, 1992.
[11] D.R. Stephens, B.N. Leis, R.B. Francini, M.J. Cassady,
Technical Reference on Squeeze-Off of Polyethylene Gas
Pipes, vol. 2, GRI-92/0147.2, 1992.
[12] D.R. Stephens, M.J. Cassady, B.N. Leis, Progress Report on
Preliminary Screening Tests on Squeeze–Off of Polyethylene
Gas Pipes, GRI-91/0403, 1991.
[13] A.P. Boresi, O.M. Sidebottom, Advanced Mechanics of
Materials, fourth ed., Wiley, New York, 1985.