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

net/publication/321293892

Collapse Analysis of Longitudinally Cracked HDPE Pipes

Conference Paper · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-66697-6_54

CITATION READS

1 175

6 authors, including:

Mohamed Ali Bouaziz Mohamed Amine Guidara

Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne University of Sfax
12 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Manel Dallali
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Rouen
8 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Safety of drinking water supply systems View project

Multidisciplinary Analysis of DOMINO Effects (MADE) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Ali Bouaziz on 03 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Collapse analysis of longitudinally cracked
HDPE pipes

M.A. BOUAZIZ1,2, M.A. GUIDARA1,2, M. DALLALI1,2, C. SCHMITT2, E.

HAJ TAIEB1, Z. AZARI2
1
Laboratoire de Mécanique des Fluides Appliqués, Génie des Procédés et Environnement,
Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Sfax, Université de Sfax, BP 1173, 3038, Sfax, Tunisie
2
Laboratoire de Biomécanique, Polymères et Structures (LaBPS), Ecole Nationale
d’Ingénieurs de Metz, 57070 Metz, France.
mohamedali.bouaziz@gmail.com, gem3_guidara@yahoo.fr

Abstract. High density polyethylene (HDPE) is one of the most widely used ma-
terials in fluid transport networks due to its good resistance to wear and corrosion,
ease of installation and low cost. However, HDPE is a flexible material and there-
fore more vulnerable to scratches and other types of damage during transport and
installation. Therefore, accurate prediction of crack initiation pressure in damaged
pipes is a very important point in the safety analysis of HDPE piping systems. In
this study, a new semi-empirical formulae, which predicts this critical pressure, is
developed. The cracking pressure depends on the mechanical characteristics of the
material and the geometric parameters (pipe geometry and defect size). A para-
metric study based on numerical simulations was established in order to quantify
the influence of each parameter on the cracking pressure.
The pressures calculated by the proposed formulae in a HDPE pipe having a su-
perficial defect are in good agreement with the burst pressure determined experi-
mentally for the same geometry.

Keywords: HDPE pipe, crack initiation pressure, damaged pipes, parametric

study

1 Introduction

The preoccupation of pipe network operators is to avoid breaks that pose a po-
tential threat because of their economic and social impact. In addition, repairing
defects and premature pipe’s replacement entails considerable financial losses.
Therefore, the residual strength evaluation of pipes with defects should be as accu-
rate as possible and based on confirmed experimental and numerical methods.
Over the past 40 years, such an analysis has been based on so-called empirical
2 M.A. BOUAZIZ

formulas developed by the Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI). These formulas are
used in the calculation procedures of almost all normative documents in different
industries. Many studies have been performed on cracked metal pipes based on
burst test results or finite element analysis results (A. N. S. Institute 1991; Miller
1988; Staat 2004; Staat 2005; Kiefner et al 1973). Some methods of estimating the
critical dimensions of cracks have been developed from the flow limit or elastic
limit or from the combination of the yield strength and the tensile strength such as
Kiefner in 1973 (Kiefner et al 1973) and Staat in 2004 (Staat 2004). However for
polymeric materials, the existing models are not sufficient hence the need to make
improvements. In this context we propose a simplified formulation to determine
the crack initiation pressure in a high density polyethylene pipe with a surface de-
fect. This critical pressure depends essentially on the geometric parameters, in-
cluding the geometry of the pipe and the default size. A parametric study is carried
out based on numerical results from a finite element calculation campaign. The
numerically calculated fracture pressures and those given by the proposed formu-
lation will be compared to experimentally determined bursting pressures (Guidara
et al 2015).

2 Methodology

In this study, the crack initiation pressure is defined as the minimum loading
level involving the initiation of the crack. This condition is verified when the inte-
gral J, computed numerically in the vicinity of a pre-existing defect, exceeds the
value of the resistance to cracking JIc (toughness). On the one hand, the cracks ini-
tiation pressure depends on the material’s mechanical characteristics (law of be-
havior and toughness) and on the other hand it is strongly linked to the geomet-
rical parameters, in particular the pipe geometry and the size of the defect. The
studied material is HDPE PE100 used for drinking water supply (Bouaziz et al
2015). Therefore, based on the characterization carried out on this material, the
study focuses on geometrical parameters (Ben Amara et al 2015).
The pipes fracture under pure pressure loads is analyzed generally by applying
the formula allowing to calculate the main stress as a function of the geometrical
parameters of the structure. In the case of a cylindrical pipe free of any defect
charged only under internal pressure, this equation is:

pri
   (1)
e

This formulation is valid only for thin-walled pipes. In general, thick-walled

pipes are characterized by a wall thickness that exceeds 1/20 of the pipe diameter.
In this case, the circumferential stress is calculated according to the Lamé equa-
tions (Westergaard 1952; Eringen 1967; Timoshenko and Goodier, 1970).
Collapse analysis of longitudinally flawed HDPE pipes 3

ri2 p  re2 
   1 (2)
re2  ri2  r 2 

In this study, the crack initiation pressure in a flawless pipe is deduced from
equation (2). The crack is initiated when the hoop stress on the mean radius
( r  ri  re  2 ) reaches the material elastic limit. Flawless HDPE pipe cracking
pressure is:

re2
1
ri2
p Max   y (3)
4re2
1
re  ri 2
This formulation is limited to flawless pipes. A defect in the wall of the pipe
causes a change in the stress state. Locally high stress concentration occurs in the
vicinity of the defect. The presence of a defect makes the formulation of the dis-
tribution of constraints complex, hence the use of numerical resolution methods,
in particular the finite element method (FEM). This method requires a developed
expertise and a long characterization process. For these reasons, charts and prede-
fined formulas are widely preferred by designers and operators. In this context, we
establish a new formulation allowing to define the critical pressure as a function of
the tube geometry as well as the size of the pre-existing defect in the structure.

3 Formulation

The pipe geometry is characterised through “ri”, “re” and “e”the internal and
external radius and the wall thickness, respectively. The defect size is character-
ized by crack depth “a” and crack length “c” as shown in Figure 1.
The first step of this study is devoted to the influence of the size of the defect
on the priming pressure. For this purpose, only one pipe geometry is considered:
125 mm outside diameter and 12 mm thickness. The crack initiation pressure for a
longitudinal defect on the outer surface (Figure 1) is calculated numerically for
five defect lengths (35 mm, 50 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm and 250 mm). For each
crack length, the depth was varied between 2 mm and 10 mm. 27 numerical simu-
lations were performed to represent the cracking pressure variation as a function
of the defect depth and length, Figure 2. The numerically calculated cracking pres-
sure is plotted as a function of the ratio of the defect depth to the pipe wall thick-
ness “a/e”.
4 M.A. BOUAZIZ

For a constant defect length (c fixed), we find that the priming pressure de-
creases with the increase of the depth of the crack and also decreases with the in-
crease of the length of the defect, “c”. This result is entirely consistent with the lit-
erature ((Benhamena et al 2010 et Benhamena et al 2011). The cracking pressure
converges to a single value which is the crack initiation pressure in a crack-less
pipe (equation (3)).

Fig. 1 Pipe with longitudinal defect

The cracking pressure as a function of "a/e" is expressed using the func-

tion f ( x)  A(1   x ) . The calculated numerical values can be interpolated with
the following function:

pcracking (a e)  A(1   a e ) (4)

Where A and  are interpolation parameters and   0

When a/e tends to zero, the pipe is assumed to be perfect and has no defect.
The priming pressure pMax is calculated by the equation (3)
 
Lim pamorçage(a e)  A  p Max
a e 0
(5)

Fig. 2 Variation of the cracking pressure as a function of the ratio a/e

Collapse analysis of longitudinally flawed HDPE pipes 5

The interpolations of the numerical points are shown in Figure 3. The coeffi-
cient  is determined for the different studied defect lengths. The coefficients of
determination R² for the interpolation functions are satisfactory, and are very close
to 1.

Fig 3 Interpolation of numerical results

The β value depends on the defect length “c”. Therefore, it shows the effect of
“c” on the approximation function of the cracking pressure (3). Table 1 and Figure
4 shows calculated β coefficients for the five studied defect lengths. A large varia-
tion is observed when “c” is less than the pipe diameter, in contrast to the relative-
ly long cracks where the coefficient β continues to increase gradually to near 1, for
extremely high “c” values. Based on this finding, it is assumed that in the case of
relatively long cracks the effect of crack length becomes minor in comparison
with depth’s one. For this reason, we limit our study to cracks whose length does
not exceed twice the diameter of the pipe. In the following, the defect length “a”
will be associated to the outer pipe radius “ri” and will be introduced in the ap-
proximation of the priming pressure function by the dimensionless term " c 4ri ".
In Figure 5, the variation of β as a function of ( c 4ri ) is interpolated by the
function f x  1 1   x ; Where α is an interpolation coefficient. The best in-
terpolation for the numerical points gives a value of   0.31 for a coefficient of
determination R²=0.992.
Thus β is written as follows:

1
 (c 4re ) 
0,31 (1)
1
c 4re
6 M.A. BOUAZIZ

Table 1. Interpolation coefficient β as a function of c.

c (mm) 35 50 100 125 250

β 0,546 0,629 0,754 0,786 0,853
R² 0,987 0,995 0,997 0,997 1

1
0,9
0,8
0,7 c=35mm
0,6 c=50mm
0,5
β

c=100mm
0,4 c=125mm
0,3
c=250mm
0,2
0,1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
c (mm)
Fig 4. β variation as a function of the length of the defect

1
0,9
0,8 c=35mm
0,7
c=50mm
0,6
0,5 c=100mm
β

0,4 c=125mm
0,3 c=250mm
0,2
Interpolation
0,1 α= 0,317396
0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2
c/2De
Fig 5. Interpolation of β variation as a function of (c/4re)

We propose a new formulae which gives the crack initiation pressure of an ex-
isting crack on the outer wall of a HDPE PE100 pipe. This pressure is also consid-
ered as the maximum allowable pressure. The model takes into account the geom-
etry of the pipe and the defect size in addition to the material properties.
Collapse analysis of longitudinally flawed HDPE pipes 7

 
 
 ae 
pcracking (a, c, re , e)  p Max 1   (6)
0,31
 1 
 c 4re 
This developed formulation is based on a numerical study involving only one
pipe diameter. It is therefore necessary to check the validity of this equation for
other diameters.

4 Validation

In this part of the parametric study, we are interested in the effect of the pipe
geometry (diameter) on the cracking initiation pressure of an already existing lon-
gitudinal crack on its external wall. The ratio of thickness to defect depth was set
to 0.5 ( a e  0.5 ) and we studied three lengths of defects ( c  50mm , c  125mm ,
and c  250mm ). The numerically calculated cracking pressures for the six treated
diameters are shown in Figure 6.

Fig 6. Effect of pipe’s diameter on cracking pressure

We interpolate the numerical results for the different values of "c" with the
function of equation (7) by fixing “a” and “c” and tacking the diameter of the pipe
as a unique variable.

re2  
1  
ri2  a e  (7)
pcracking (a, c, ri , re , e)   y 1 
4re2  
1  1 
c 4re 
re  ri 2 
8 M.A. BOUAZIZ

Where “α” is the interpolation coefficient.

It is noted that the developed model gives a fairly accurate approximation of
the cracking pressure with a slight variation in the interpolation coefficient, Figure
7. Indeed, “α” slightly varies from 0.278 to 0.305, without major effect on the ap-
proximation function of the cracking pressure.

Fig 7. Cracking pressure variation interpolation as a function of diameter

Now coefficient “α” previously calculated can be corrected thanks to the three
new values. An average of the fourth value of “0.3” is retained. The final equation
estimating the maximum inside pressure for a PE100 pipe with a surface crack can
be written as follows:

re2  
1  
ri2  ae 
pcracking (a, c, ri , re , e)   y 1   (8)
2 0,3
4re  1 
1
re  ri 2  c 4re 

5 Comparison with burst tests

The cracking pressures given by the developed formula will be compared to the
experimentally determined burst pressures. The burst tests were performed on
pipes HDPE PE100 with superficial defect in the pipe axial direction (Guidara et
al 2015). The experimental test was reproduced numerically by using the EF mod-
el to calculate the cracking pressure, while maintaining the same test conditions
(pipe size, size and position of the defect, loading speed, boundary conditions ...).
The studied geometry is a pipe with an outside diameter of 125 mm and a thick-
ness of 12 mm containing a longitudinal defect on its outer surface of length “c”
and depth “a”. Different sizes of the defect are treated (Table 2). The crack initia-
Collapse analysis of longitudinally flawed HDPE pipes 9

tion pressures determined numerically and those given by the proposed formula as
well as the experimentally determined burst pressures are summarized in Table 2
and shown in Figure 8.
Table 2. Burst Pressure vs crack initiation pressure.
a (mm) 2 4 6 8 10
a/e 0,167 0,333 0,5 0,667 0,833
c (mm) 25 34,87 42,14 48 52,91
Pburstng (MPa) [5,36 ; [4,58 ; [4,25; 4,03; [3,52 ; [3,11]
Experimental 5,11] 4,84 ; 4,81] 4,1] 3,59; 3,58]
Pcracking (MPa) 3,9 3,417 2,8 2,4 2,167
Formula
Pcracking (MPa) 3,98 3,37 2,88 2,45 2,06
Numerical
Δ 1(%) 2 1,25 2,83 2,07 4,72
Δ 2(%) 25,88 28,02 32,24 32,73 30,43

Fig 8. Comparison between burst Pressure and crack initiation pressure

The values given by the formula are in good agreement with the numerically
calculated cracking pressure with an error Δ1 which does not exceed 5%. The
cracking initiation pressures are lower than the burst pressures with an offset Δ2
varying between 25% and 33%.

6 Conclusion
In the present study, a new simplified formulae is proposed to estimate the crack
initiation pressure in a PE100 PEHD pipe with a surface defect. The cracking
pressure is the minimum loading level involving the initiation of the crack. It de-
pends on the material mechanical characteristics and the geometrical parameters
(pipe geometry and size of the defect). The pressures given by the proposed for-
mula are in perfect agreement with numerically calculated priming pressure val-
ues. The cracking pressures are less than the burst pressures with a slightly varia-
 10 M.A. BOUAZIZ

ble offset. This offset comes from the crack propagation phase. Indeed, the initia-
tion of the crack is followed by a propagation phase of the crack on the ligament
remaining until the total bursting. The advantage of the proposed formula lies in
its simplicity since its application requires only knowledge of the elasticity limit
of the material and the geometrical parameters of the pipe and the size of the de-
fect.

References
A. N. S. Institute, “Manual for Determining the Remaining Strength of Corroded Pipelines:
A Supplement to ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping,” (1991).
Miller A, “Review of limit loads of structures containing defects,” Int. J. Press. Vessel.
Pip., (1988).
Staat M, “Plastic collapse analysis of longitudinally flawed pipes and vessels,” Nucl. Eng.
Des., (2004).
Staat M, “Local and global collapse pressure of longitudinally flawed pipes and cylindrical
vessels,” Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip., (2005)
Kiefner J, W. Maxey, R. Eiber, and A. Duffy, “Failure stress levels of flaws in pressurized
cylinders,” ASTM STP vol.536. Philadelphia, p. 461–81 (1973)
Guidara M A, Bouaziz M A, Schmitt C, Capelle J, Haj Taïeb E, Azari Z, and Hariri S,
“Structural integrity assessment of defected high density poly-ethylene pipe: Burst test
and finite element analysis based on J-integral criterion,” EFA, vol. 57, pp. 282–295
(2015).
Bouaziz MA, Guidara MA, and Schmitt C, “Failure Analysis of HDPE Pipe for Drinking
Water Distribution and Transmission,” Design and Modeling of Mechanical Systems -
II. pp 407-414. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Design and Modeling of Me-
chanical Systems, CMSM'2015, March 23-25, Hammamet, Tunisia
Ben Amara M, Pluvinage G, Capelle J, and Azari Z, “Crack Tip Opening Angle as a Frac-
ture Resistance Parameter to Describe Ductile Crack Extension and Arrest in Steel Pipes
under Service Pressure,” Phys. Mesomech., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 355–369, (2015).
Westergaard H, “Theory of elasticity and plasticity,” (1952).
Eringen W, “Mechanics of continuaJohn Wiley and Sons,” New York, (1967).
Timoshenko S and Goodier J, Theory of Elasticity, New York, (1970).
Benhamena A, Aminallah L, Bouiadjra B, Benguediab M, Amrouche A, and.
Benseddiq N, “J integral solution for semi-elliptical surface crack in high
density poly-ethylene pipe under bending,” Mater. Des., vol. 32, no. 5, pp.
2561–2569 (2011).
Benhamena A, Bouiadjra B, Amrouche A, Mesmacque G, Benseddiq N, and
Benguediab M, “Three finite element analysis of semi-elliptical crack in
high density poly-ethylene pipe subjected to internal pressure,” Mater.
Des., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 3038–3043, (2010).

View publication stats