0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Crack Growth Behavior of Pipes Made From Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe Material1

[+] Author and Article Information
Tarek M. A. A. EL-Bagory

Mechanical Design Department,
Faculty of Engineering Mataria,
Helwan University,
Cairo El-Mataria,11724, Egypt
e-mail: telbagory@yahoo.com

Maher Y. A. Younan

Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies
School of Sciences and Engineering,
The American University in Cairo AUC,
Cairo 11835, Egypt
e-mail: myounan@aucegypt.edu

2Present address: Assistant Professor, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department, Engineering College, Majmaah University, P.O. Box 66, Majmaah, Riyadh, 11952, Saudi Arabia.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 14, 2015; final manuscript received March 18, 2016; published online August 5, 2016. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(1), 011404 (Aug 05, 2016) (17 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1255; doi: 10.1115/1.4033124 History: Received November 14, 2015; Revised March 18, 2016

The behavior of crack growth of polymeric materials is affected by several operating conditions such as crosshead speed, specimen thickness, load line, and specimen configurations, which reverse the behavior of crack from stable to unstable crack growth behavior. The main objective of the present paper is the determination of plane strain fracture toughness (KIC) for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) used in piping water transmission systems. The dimensions of the PVC pipe are outside diameter, Do = 315 mm, standard dimensions ratio, SDR = 13.23, ratio between outside to inside radii Ro/Ri = 1.179, and pipe thickness, t = 24 mm. Curved specimens are prepared from a pipe by cutting 12 mm thickness ring segments. The curved specimens are divided into two specimen configurations, namely, curved three-point bend (CTPB) and C-shaped tension (CST) specimens. All specimens are provided artificially with a precrack. CTPB specimen is further cut into five 72 deg sectors with each being centrally notched to a depth approximately a = 0.479 of the wall thickness. CST specimen configuration is characterized by the eccentricity X = 0, and 0.5 W, of the loading holes from the bore surface. The linear elastic fracture mechanics theory (LEFM) is used to predict the plane strain fracture. The tests are carried out at room temperature, Ta equal 20 °C, and different crosshead speeds of (10–500 mm/min). The numerical analysis carried out within the frame of the present work is done using the finite element program Cosmos 2.6. Finite element method (FEM) is used to compute the stress intensity factor KQ surrounding the crack tip. The computed stress intensity factor can then be compared with that obtained by theoretical equation. The experimental fracture test results reveal that the crosshead speed has been proven to affect the mode of failure and mode of fracture. At lower crosshead speeds, the mode of failure is ductile, while at higher crosshead speeds, it is brittle. The specimen configuration also affects the fracture toughness. CST specimens show higher fracture toughness in the case of pin loading location X = 0.5W than X = 0 by about (12%). The transitional crosshead speed is affected by specimen geometry. CST specimens (CST) at X = 0 and 0.5W have higher transitional crosshead speed compared with the CTPB specimen configuration.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Mandell, J. F. , Roberts, D. R. , and McGarry, F. J. , 1983, “ Plane Strain Fracture Toughness of Polyethylene Pipe Materials,” Polym. Eng. Sci., 23(7), pp. 402–409. [CrossRef]
Crawford, R. J. , 1987, Plastics Engineering, 2nd ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Takaki, A. , and Yasui, H. , 1997, “ Fracture and Impact Strength of Poly (Vinyl Chloride)/Methyl Methacrylate/Butadiene/Styrene Polymer Blends,” Polym. Eng. Sci., 37(1), pp. 105–119. [CrossRef]
Che, M. , Grellmann, W. , and Seidler, S. , 1997, “ Crack Resistance Behavior of Polyvinyl Chloride,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 64(6), pp. 1079–1090. [CrossRef]
Chiesa, M. , Nyhus, B. , Skallerud, B. , and Thaulow, C. , 2001, “ Efficient Fracture Assessment of Pipelines: A Constraint-Corrected SENT Specimen Approach,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 68(5), pp. 527–547. [CrossRef]
Gross, B. , and Srawley, J. E. , 1983, “ Analysis of Internally Radially Cracked Ring Segment Subject to Three-Point Radial Loading,” J. Test. Eval., 11(6), pp. 357–359. [CrossRef]
Jones, A. T. , 1974, “ Fracture Toughness Testing With Section of Cylinders,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 6(4), pp. 653–662. [CrossRef]
Tracy, P. G. , 1975, “ Analysis of a Radial Crack in a Circular Ring Segment,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 7(2), pp. 253–260. [CrossRef]
Darwish, A. E. S. Y. , Mandell, J. F. , and McGarry, F. J. , 1981, “ Applicability of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics to Rigid PVC Pipe Materials,” J. Vinyl Tech., 3(4), pp. 246–250. [CrossRef]
Darwish, A. E. S. Y. , Mandell, J. F. , and McGarry, F. J. , 1981, “ Fracture Analysis of PVC Pipe Materials,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, MIT TAP Report No. R81-7.
Underwood, J. H. , and Kendall, D. P. , 1977, “ Fracture Toughness Testing Using the C-Shaped Specimen,” Developments in Fracture Mechanics Test Method Standardization, W. F. Brown, Jr ., and J. G. Kaufman , eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Special Technical Publication STP 632, pp. 25–38.
Underwood, J. H. , Scanlon, R. D. , and Kendall, D. P. , 1974, “ K-Calibration for C-Shaped Specimen of Various Geometries,” Fracture Analysis, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Special Technical Publication 560, pp. 81–91.
Frederick, J. M. , John, F. M. , and Lidia, H. L. , 1985, “ Brittle Fracture in PVC Pipe Material,” J. Polym. Sci. Symp., 72(1), pp. 83–110.
ASTM, 2012, “ Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness KIc of Metallic Materials,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 03.01, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM Standard No. E399-12e3.
Lee, G. S. , and Epstein, M. M. , 1982, “ Fracture Surface Features of Polyethylene Pipe Samples,” Polym. Eng. Sci., 22(9), pp. 549–555. [CrossRef]
Anderson, T. L. , 1995, Fracture Mechanics: Fundamental and Applications, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
EL-Bagory, T. M. , and Younan, M. A. , 2015, “ Crack Growth Behavior of Pipes Made From Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe Material,” ASME Paper No. PVP2015-45657.
Jingshen, W. U. , and Yin, W. M. , 1996, “ The Essential Fracture Work Concept for Toughness Measurement of Ductile Polymer,” Polym. Eng. Sci., 36(18), pp. 2275–2228. [CrossRef]
ASTM, 2007, “ Standard Test Methods for Plane–Strain Fracture Toughness and Strain Energy Release Rate of Plastic Materials,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 8.03, Plastics–General Test Method, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM Standard D5045-99(2007)e1.
Kaufman, J. G. , 1977, “ Experience in Plane–Strain Fracture Toughness Testing Per ASTM Method E-399,” Development in Fracture Mechanics Test Methods Standardization, W. F. Brown, Jr ., and J. G. Kaufman , eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Special Technical Publication 632, pp. 3–24.
ASTM, 2007, “ Standard Test Methods for Plane–Strain Fracture Toughness and Strain Energy Release Rate of Plastic Materials,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 8.03, Plastics–General Test Method, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, ASTM Standard D5045-99(2007)e1.
Benzley, S. E. , 1974, “ Representation of Singularities With Isoparametric Finite Elements,” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 8(3), pp. 537–545. [CrossRef]
Owen, D. R. J. , and Fawkes, A. J. , 1983, Engineering Fracture Mechanics: Numerical Methods and Applications, Pineridge Press, Swansea, UK.
Barsoum, R. S. , 1976, “ On the Use of Isoparametric Finite Elements in Linear Fracture Mechanics,” Int. J. Numer. Methods, Eng., 10(1), pp. 25–37. [CrossRef]
Hensheel, R. D. , and Show, K. G. , 1975, “ Crack Tip Elements are Unnecessary,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 9(3), pp. 495–509. [CrossRef]
Gallagher, R. H. , 1971, “ Survey and Evaluation of the Finite Element Method in Linear Fracture Mechanics Analysis,” First International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology Conference (SMiRT 1), Berlin, Germany, Sept. 20–24, Paper No. L6/9, pp. 637–653.
Hellen, T. K. , 1975, “ On the Method of Virtual Crack Extensions,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 9(1), pp. 187–208. [CrossRef]
Parkes, D. M. , 1974, “ A Stiffness Derivative Finite Element Technique for Determination of Elastic, Crack Tip Stress Intensity Factors,” Int. J. Fract., 10(4), pp. 487–502. [CrossRef]
Caddell, R. M. , 1980, Deformation and Fracture of Solids, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
EL-Bagory, T. M. , El-Fadaly, M. S. , Younan, M. A. , and Abdel-Latif, L. A. , 2004, “ Influence of Crack Orientation and Crosshead Speed on the Fracture Toughness of PVC Pipe Materials,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 126(4), pp. 489–496. [CrossRef]
Garwood, S. J. , 1979, “ Effect of Specimen Geometry on Crack Growth Resistance,” Fracture Mechanics, C. W. Smith , ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Special Technical Publication 677, pp. 511–532.
Gradin, P. A. , and Arve, E. , 1984, “ Crack Growth in High-Density Polyethylene Pipes,” J. Test. Eval., 12(6), pp. 371–374. [CrossRef]
EL-Zoghby, A. A. , Younan, M. Y. A. , and Mohamed, A. F. T. , 1989, “ A Thick Walled Cylindrical Fracture Toughness Specimen,” Current Advances in Mechanical Design and Production IV, Proceedings of the 4th Cairo University MDP Conference, Cairo, Egypt, Dec. 27–29, 1988, Y. H. Kabil and M. E. Said , eds., Pergamon, Oxford, UK.
Shannon, R. W. E. , and Wells, A. A. , 1974, “ Brittle Crack Propagation in Gas Filled Pipelines—A Model Study Using Thin Walled Unplasticised PVC Pipe,” Int. J. Fract., 10(4), pp. 471–486. [CrossRef]
Kapp, J. A. , and Eisentadt, R. , 1979, “ Crack Growth in Externally Flawed, Autofretaged Thick-Walled Cylinders and Rings,” Fracture Mechanics, C. W. Smith , ed., American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, Special Technical Publication 677, pp. 746–756.
Francois, D. , and Pineau, A. , 2002, From Charpy to Present Impact Testing, Elsevier Science Ltd. and ESIS, Oxford, UK.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

CST specimen according to Ref. [14]. (a) X/W = 0.5 and (b) X/W = 0.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Configurations of CTPB specimen according to Ref. [15]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Crack geometry and razor blade configurations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Schematic illustration of double cantilever clip-in displacement gauge [14]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Determination of P5, and PQ [15]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Measuring system used to determine KIC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

(a) Reaction force for (CTPB) specimen and (b) force analysis for (CTPB) specimen at roller pin

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) Initial finite element mesh for (CTPB) specimen, (b) detail (A) load application node, (c) detail (B) reaction force node, and (d) detail (C) singularity elements 1201 and 1221

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

(a) Finite element mesh for (CTPB) specimen after shift, (b) detail (A) load application node shifted in Y-direction, (c) detail (B) reaction force node, and (d) detail (C) location of singularity elements 1201, and 1221 after shifting nodes in Y-direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Load–COD for (CST) 12 mm thick specimen, X = 0, at crosshead speed (10–500 mm/min)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Fracture toughness versus crosshead speed for (CST) 12 mm thick specimen, X = 0 at crosshead speed (10–500 mm/min)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Fracture configuration at crosshead speeds from (10–500 mm/min) for (CST) 12 mm thick specimen and X = 0

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Load–COD for (CST) 12 mm thick specimen, X = 0.5W, at crosshead speed (10–500 mm/min)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Fracture toughness versus crosshead speed for (CST) 12 mm thick specimen, X = 0.5W at crosshead speed (10–500 mm/min)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Fracture configuration at crosshead speeds from (10–500 mm/min) for (CST) 12 mm thick specimen, and X = 0.5W

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Load–COD for (CTPB) 12 mm thick specimen, at crosshead speed (50–500 mm/min)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Fracture toughness versus crosshead speed for (CTPB) 12 mm thick specimen, at variable crosshead speed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Fracture configuration at crosshead speeds from (10–500 mm/min) for (CTPB) 12 mm thick specimen. (a) VC,H = 10 mm/min, (b) VC,H = 40 mm/min, (c) VC,H = 50 mm/min, (d) VC,H = 60 mm/min, (e) VC,H = 70 mm/min, (f) VC,H = 100 mm/min, (g) VC,H = 200 mm/min, (h) VC,H = 300 mm/min, (i) VC,H = 400 mm/min, and (j) VC,H = 500 mm/min.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Fracture toughness versus specimen geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

COD at PQ versus crosshead speed for CST at (X = 0.5W and x = 0) and CTPB specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Fracture toughness versus crosshead speed for CST at (X = 0.5W and X = 0) and CTPB specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Displacement chart in X-direction for (CTPB) specimen

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

(a) Stress chart in X-direction for (CTPB) specimen and (b) detail (A) magnified stress chart at crack tip

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In