Int. J. of Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2021, vol.26, No.3, pp.

198-207
DOI: 10.2478/ijame-2021-0045

NUMERICAL STUDY ON DIMENSIONS AND ORIENTATION EFFECT OF

SEMI-ELLIPTICAL CRACKS IN PE100 PIPELINES

T.A. ZITOUNI* and Z. LABED

Laboratory of Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Brothers Mentouri Constantine 1, ALGERIA
E-mail : tidjani.zitouni@umc.edu.dz

The through-thickness crack or surface crack in PE100 pipes subjected to internal pressure represents a serious
risk to the structural integrity of HDPE pipes, which has attracted wide attention in modern industry. Although
experimental research offers reliable predictions of surface crack influence on pipes, the relatively high cost hinders
its application. The numerical simulation, as a cost-effective alternative, has been widely applied to assess stress
displacement and strain to the entire pipe structure. This is the initial approach adopted in recent decades. This
article provides simulations tests of an uncracked pipe and cracked PE100 pipe under different internal pressure
values, with varying each time the dimensions of the crack with 1 mm rate for minor and major radius and 0.5mm
rates for the largest contour radius, using ANSYS MECHANICAL STRUCTURAL STATIC for simulation.

Key words: pipelines, PE100, semi-elliptical crack, stress concentration, HDPE.

1. Introduction

A pipeline structure is subjected to complex loads because of its geometry and different duty loading
conditions. The transport of the HDPE pipes requires minimal equipment and it is easy to use them on ice or
in marshy areas in all field conditions HDPE pipes do not rust.
Due to manufacturing defects, mechanical component failure maybe caused by cyclic loading, and
cracks may develop. It is important to have a good understanding of the mechanical behavior of polymers, as
well as their mode of damage, depending on the type of loading they undergo. The durability of these structures
is also an important concept to take into account when estimating their lifespan. Indeed, they are often exposed
to severe environmental constraints (exposure to UV rays, chemicals, etc.), which generally lead to a
modification of the very nature of the material (microstructure, physical state, chemical composition, etc.).
The whole stake then rests on a realistic estimate of the lifespan of these structures, taking into account the
"aging" aspect of the material which constitutes them. The difficulties associated with this type of prediction
are significant because of the limited time available to the experimenter to analyze the phenomena involved.
The prediction of fractures and pipe durability is important in numerous practical applications [1, 2]. In most
cases the surface cracking is presented in a semi-elliptic form [3, 4]. In a case when a polyethylene pipe is
exposed to internal pressure Benhamena et al. [5] proved that axial cracks are more harmful than
circumferential cracks. On the other hand, a simulation study confirmed that the orientation of the crack gives
important results (stresses, displacements, deformations) under the same initial conditions [6]. Additionally,
we can figure out exactly the direction for a crack to propagate from the edge to the center point of the mesh
contour (see Fig.1.)
The integrity test of the polyethylene defective (semi-elliptical crack) pipeline involves a non-linear
analysis at the crack front. The finite element analysis (FEA) is an important tool to design a practical
mechanical component, such as the pipelines.

*
To whom correspondence should be addressed
T.A. Zitouni and Z. Labed 199

a) b)

Fig.1. Displacement results: a) longitudinal crack; b) transversal crack [6].

2. Modeling and material

The chosen material was the third-generation high-density polyethylene (PE100). The nominal
diameter and the thickness of the pipe are needed. In this paper we define a tube with an external diameter
( = 63mm ) and wall thickness ( = 8.6 mm ) . In Fig.2. the geometry of the structure is schematically shown with
an initial defect in two different orientations.

a) b)

Fig.2. Pipe dimensions and crack orientation: a) transversal crack; b) longitudinal crack.

Table 1. Mechanical proprieties of PE100.

PE100 proprieties References

Young’s modulus 1000 MPa [7]
Poisson ratio 0.46 [7]
Tensile yield strength 20 MPa [7]
Ultimate yield strength 34 MPa [8]

3. Analytical study and setup

3.1. First case: uncracked pipe

Based on the standards EN 12201, as well as DIN 8074/DIN 8075 and EN 13244, the next section
provides various definitions used and the applicable calculations while referring to PE pipes.
200 Numerical study on dimensions and orientation effect of …

Outside Diameter 63
SDR ( Standard Dimension Ratio ) = = = 7.4 . (3.1)
Wall Thickness 8.6

According to ISO 4427, the MRS for PE100 pipe is 10.0MPa . When calculating stresses due to
internal pressure, here we apply the maximum operating pressure using the SDR calculated value ( = 7.4 ) .
This is shown in the following industrially recognized formula:

( 20 x MRS ) ( 20 x10 )
MOP = = = 25 bar = 2.5 MPa (3.2)
( C x ( SDR − 1) ) (1.25 x (7.4 − 1) )
where C is the overall service (design) coefficient or safety factor for water applications, the minimum value
of C is 1.25 (in the case of our study, the fluid is water).
Next, we have to determine the stresses and deformations for the case of an internal pressure, using
the following formulas which govern the radial displacement as well as the axial, radial and hoop stresses:

1 + μ r1 r2 ( P1 − P2 ) 1
2 2
1 − μ r12 P1 − r22 P2
u= . 2 2 r+ . , (3.3)
E r2 − r1 E r22 − r12 r

r12 P1 − r22 P2 r12 r22 ( P1 − P2 ) 1

σr = − , (3.4)
r22 − r12 r22 − r12 r2

r12 P1 − r22 P2 r12 r22 ( P1 − P2 ) 1

σh = + , (3.5)
r22 − r12 r22 − r12 r2

r12 P1 − r22 P2
σa = . (3.6)
r22 − r12

We will suppose that we do not have any external pressure so we get:

1 − μ r12 P1 1 + μ r12 r22 P1 1

u= . 2 2 r+ . , (3.7)
E r2 − r1 E r22 − r12 r

r12 P1 r12 r22 P1 1

σr = − , (3.8)
r22 − r12 r22 − r12 r 2

r12 P1 r12 r22 P1 1

σh = + , (3.9)
r22 − r12 r22 − r12 r 2

r12 P1
σa = . (3.10)
r22 − r12

Von Mises’s equation is:

T.A. Zitouni and Z. Labed 201

( σ − σ ) 2 + ( σ − σ ) 2 + ( σ − σ ) 2 
 a θ θ r r a 

σv = . (3.11)
2

3.2. Second case: cracked pipe

It requires defining the boundary conditions; both ends of the pipe are fixed. The automatic meshing of
hexahedral elements is used, but for the crack, it is universal knowledge that tetrahedral components can
combine almost every complex structure (Fig.4.). Constant internal pressure is defined by maximum operating
pressure or nominal pressure (Eq.(3.2)) and applied to the structure ( 2.5MPa ) (Fig.3).

Fig.3. Section view identifying the fixed and pressured faces.

Table 2. Initial parameters of crack dimension and all possibilities

Minor radius [ mm ] Major radius [ mm ] Largest contour radius [ mm ]

1 2 3 0.25
2 3 3 0.75
3 3 2 0.25
4 2 2 0.75
5 2 2 0.25
6 2 3 0.75
7 3 3 0.25
8 3 2 0.75

Fig.4. Tetrahedral mesh and contours presentation.

202 Numerical study on dimensions and orientation effect of …

The goal is to vary the ( Mi ) minor and ( Ma ) major radius and the (LCR) largest contour radius of
the crack each time to predict which factor is more important by comparing the maximum stresses and
displacements and deformations. Table 2 shows all the tested possibilities.

4. Simulation and results

4.1. First case:

Starting with the MOP value shown in Eq.(3.2) we suppose another 4 more pressure values to do the test
and calculate displacements Eq.(3.7), the axial Eq.(3.10), radial Eq.(3.8) and hoop Eq.(3.9) stresses, next we
try to calculate via Eq.(3.11) the von Mises equivalent stresses values for the 5, pressures applied to the internal
wall of the pipe. The chosen pressure values are ( 2.1MPa, 2.3MPa, 2.5MPa, 2.7MPa, 2.9MPa ) .

Fig.5. The maximum calculated displacements in different positions on the pipe wall.

Fig.6. The calculated axial, radial and hoop stress results.

T.A. Zitouni and Z. Labed 203

Fig.7. Numerical and analytical von Mises stress results.

Figure 5 shows that the displacement takes the highest value when it converges to the internal wall
area. In other words, every augmentation in the applied pressure causes a remarkable increase in displacements.
Next, we can estimate the stresses for each of the five practical pressure values considering that r = r1
which represents the internal wall area.
Figure 7 shows a comparative diagram of theoretical and numerical von Mises stress values, and the
quadratic mesh adaption was used to calculate the von Mises stress through the maximum operating pressure
( MOP = 2.5MPa ) .
4.2. Second case:

In this section, we mention all the results for each case of transversal and longitudinal defect using the
inverse method for optimization.

Fig.8. Maximum total displacements for a transversal crack.

204 Numerical study on dimensions and orientation effect of …

Figure 8 shows that the most dangerous case is when we have the highest minor and major radius
( Mi = 3mm; Ma = 3mm ) and a maximum value of displacement δ equal to 0.20285mm , next we define
another critical value when ( Mi = 3mm; Ma = 2mm ) with maximum displacement value of δ = 0.19988mm,
these values are calculated for two different factors of LCR ( 0.25 and 0.75 ) which give the same converged
results.

a) b)

Fig.9. Maximum elastic strain results for the longitudinal crack a) LCR = 0.25; b) LCR = 0.75.

A maximum elastic strain value ε up to 0.049336 mm mm was illustrated in Fig.9a when ( Mi = Ma = 3;

LCR = 0.25 ) , with the same dimensions just by changing the LCR to 0.75 we note an important diminution
of deformation ε to 0.031094 mm mm as shown in Fig.9b.

a) b)

Fig.10. Maximum stress results for the transversal crack a) LCR = 0.25; b) LCR = 0.75.

In order to evaluate stress results, Fig.10. illustrates the effect of the LCR value on the transversal crack
(0.25 and 0.75 ) . Testing all possibilities of dimension the most critical stress was observed for
( Mi = Ma = 3; LCR = 0.25 ) followed by the case when ( Mi = 2; Ma = 3; LCR = 0.25 ) in which the critical
stress was reduced to 35.8MPa. Then there is the case of ( Mi = 3; Ma = 2; LCR = 0.25 ) with a max value
T.A. Zitouni and Z. Labed 205

equals 34.136 MPa and the other case ( Mi = 2; Ma = 2; LCR = 0.25 ) , with a minimum of stress value
reaching 29.687 MPa.
For LCR = 0.75 (Fig.10b) we have:

( Mi = Ma = 3; LCR = 0.75 ) = 23.677MPa,

( Mi = 2, Ma = 3; LCR = 0.75 ) = 23.033MPa,

( Mi = 3, Ma = 2; LCR = 0.75 ) = 20.717MPa,

( Mi = Ma = 2; LCR = 0.75 ) = 19.265MPa.

a) b)

Fig.11. Results for longitudinal crack a) LCR = 0.25 ; b) LCR = 0.75.

Figure 11 shows that:

a) The red region gives the extreme values δ = 0.19804mm, ε = 0.016767mm / mm, and σ = 13.322MPa
for ( Mi = Ma = 3mm ) .
b) The same figure indicates the following most critical value for ( Mi = 2; Ma = 3 ) with max values
δ = 0.19704mm, ε = 0.016459mm / mm and σ = 12.948MPa.
c) A clear diminution of δ, ε, and σ for ( Mi = Ma = 2 ) makes this kind of change in dimensions the safest.

For the largest contour radius ( = 0.75 ) for longitudinal defect (Fig.11b.):
a) There is a disparity in deformation not in the same order as the transversal crack.
b) ( Mi = 3; Ma = 2 ) would be more serious than ( Mi = 2; Ma = 3 ) also for this situation.
c) The blue color means that max σ ( = 12.528MPa ) and ε (= 0.012537mm / mm) are constant for all
dimensions ( Mi = 3; Ma = 3 ) , ( Mi = 2; Ma = 3 ) and ( Mi = 3; Ma = 2 ) .
206 Numerical study on dimensions and orientation effect of …

5. Conclusion

In this study, an analytical and numerical analyses were carried out on PE100 class pipe. We
considered two cases, an uncracked pipe in which we applied 5 different internal pressures; in the other case,
a pipe with two different orientations of crack initiation. Therefore, this is an extended work with changing
randomly in each test the cracks, one longitudinal and the other transversal, varying the geometric parameters.
It is about recognizing the effect of the most detrimental type of crack on the behavior of the pipe. The variation
of the large radius of the contour as well as the small radius allowed us to see their effect on the behavior of
the pipe. If the radius of the contour is small, the damage is greater.
The second most influential factor is the small radius for the two orientations which allowed us to
observe the highest displacement, strain and stress values in the case of the transversal crack due to the circular
shape of the pipe and the distribution of the internal pressure applied.
In addition, the value of the maximum stress in the case of the longitudinal crack is less than the yield
strength of the material PE 100 ( 13.322MPa < 20MPa ) , which is supposed to slow the propagation of the
crack or stop it.
Undoubtedly, the results obtained for the transversal crack are higher than for the tensile limit
( > 20MPa ) and the ultimate elastic limit ( > 34MPa ) of the material with the same applied value of internal
pressure ( 2.5MPa ) . In this case, the crack spreads more quickly. To conclude with, one can define the
direction of propagation of the fracture starting from values of stresses centered on the edges of the crack
which represent the centers of the contour of the mesh.

Nomenclature

C − safety factor for water applications

E − Young’s modulus
LCR − Largest Contour Radius
Ma − major crack radius
Mi − minor crack radius
MOP − Maximum Operating Pressure
P1 − internal pressure
P2 − external pressure
PE100 − polyethylene class 100
r − position radius
r1 − internal radius

r2 − external radius
SDR − standard dimension ratio
u − displacement
σr − radial Stress
σa − axial Stress
σh − hoop Stress
σv − von Mises stress
μ − Poisson ratio
T.A. Zitouni and Z. Labed 207

References

[1] Miller A.G. (1988): Review of limit loads of structures containing defects.– Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip., vol.32,
pp.197-327.
[2] Kim Y.J., Shim D.J., Nikbin K., Hwang S.S. and Kim J.S. (2003): Finite element based plastic limit loads
for cylinders with part-through surface cracks under combined loading.– Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip., vol.80,
pp.527-540.
[3] Richard H.A. and Sander M. (2016): Fatigue Crack Growth.– Springer: Berlin, Germany.
[4] Li Z., Jiang X., Hopman H., Zhu L., Liu Z. and Tang W. (2020): Experimental investigation on FRP-
reinforced surface cracked steel plates subjected to cyclic tension.– Mech. Adv. Mater. Struct.,
DOI:10.1080/15376494.2020.1746448.
[5] Benhamena A., Bachir Bouiadjra B., Amrouche A., Mesmacque G., Benseddiq N. and Benguediab M.
(2010): Three finite element analysis of semi-elliptical crack in high-density poly-ethylene pipe subjected
to internal pressure.– Mater Des., vol.31, pp.3038-3043.
[6] Zitouni T.A. and Labed Z. (2019): Modeling of a crack in an internal pressure pipeline.– Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference on Energy, Materials, Applied Energetics and Pollution ICEMAEP,
pp.1134-1139.
[7] Alimi L., Ghabeche W., Chaoui W. and Chaoui K. (2012): Mechanical properties study in extruded HDPE-
80 pipe wall used for natural gas distribution.– Matériaux Tech., vol.100, pp.79-86.
[8] Ulmanu V., Draghici G. and Aluchi V. (2011): Fracture mechanics testing of high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipe material with compact tension (CT) specimens.– J. Eng. Stud. Res., vol.17, No.3, pp.98-103.
[9] ISO I. 6259. (1997): Thermoplastic Pipes-Determination of Tensile Properties.– Part 1: General Test Method.
[10] Djebli A., Bendouba M., Aid A., Talha A., Benseddiq N. and Benguediab M. (2015): Fatigue life
prediction and damage modeling of high-density polyethylene under constant and two-block loading.–
Procedia Eng., vol.101, pp.2-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.02.002.
[11] Williams M.L. (1957): On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary crack.– J. Appl. Mech., vol.24,
pp.109-114
[12] Chao Y.J., Liu S. and Broviak B.J. (2001): Brittle fracture: variation of fracture toughness with constraint
and crack curving under mode I conditions.– Exp. Mech. vol.41, No.3, pp.232-241.
[13] Richardson D.E. and Goree J.G. (1993): Experimental verification of a new two-parameter fracture model,
in Fracture Mechanics.– ASTM International, Twenty Third Symposium pp.738-750.
[14] Alimi L., Ghabeche W., Chaoui W. and Chaoui K. (2012):Mechanical properties study in extruded
HDPE-80 pipe wall used for natural gas distribution.– Matériaux Tech., vol.100, pp.79-86.
[15] Ulmanu V.A, Draghici G. and Aluchi V. (2011): Fracture mechanics testing of high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) pipe material with compact tension (CT) specimens.– J. Eng. Stud. Res., vol.17, No.3, pp.98-103.
[16] Engineering Toolbox (2018): EN 12201 - Polyethylene (PE) pipes for water supply, and drainage and
sewerage under pressure- dimensions.– [online] Available at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/EN-
12201-PE-polyethylene-pipes-d_2135.html [Accessed 19 04. 2020].
[17] Deutsche Norm (1999): DIN 8074 - Polyethylene (PE) pipes Dimensions.– DIN German Institute for
Standardization e. V., Berlin.

Received: December 26, 2020

Revised: May 18, 2021