PSI - Issue 3

ScienceDirect Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Structural Integrity Procedia 3 (2017) 380 – 386 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Structural Integrity Procedia 3 (2017) 380 – 386 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Structural Integrity Procedia 3 (2017) 380 – 386 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 380–386

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co. groove defects for researchers and industrials. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co. Keywords: CPVC; HDPE; Burst behavior; Static damage; Expérimental validation; Theoritical modelisation. Abstract The HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) and CPVC (Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride) are extremely used in water piping systems. The CPVC have the particularity to support high temperatures of water. Those two materials are known for their different characteristics toward the internal pressure. To quantify their behavior we exposed pipe specimens, prepared according to ASTM 1599, to an increasing internal pressure and we registered the burst and the time of each specimen. To push further our analysis, we created groove notches over the same category of specimens and we exposed them to the same conditions. Then, we have noticed a drop of the internal pressure in function of the time and the life fraction which is the ratio of thickness and its fluctuation ( ∆ e/e). Indeed, the burst pressure, and the time of failure are drastically dropping according to the notch depth. Besides, one important consequence is noticeable over the mechanical behavior which shift from a ductile one, for neat pipes, to a brittle one for the other HDPE pipes. Meanwhile, The CPVC pipes have a brittle behavior for both of the specimen’s categories. The discrepancies can be explained by the nature of the two materials, the first one is an original polymer while the second is a Chlorinated PVC material. Furthermore, the comparison of the failure mode of the two polymers are slightly different compared to the linear damage of Miner. For HDPE pipes, the static damage is evaluating nearby the Miner one until getting to the critical life fraction ( β c) of 52% and then get over it. However, the CPVC damage has a very weak evolution bellow the β c of 60% from which we notice a drastic increasing and an acceleration of the damage. The CPVC show good performances toward the supported internal pressure, support up to 160 bars, and a brittle behavior. Meanwhile, the HDPE pipe can support up to 70 bars and show a ductile behavior. Finally, this paper can be considered as a window to understand the difference between HDPE and CPVC polymers under burst pressure and the severity of the groove defects for researchers and industrials. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co. XXIV Italian Group of Fracture Conference, 1-3 arch 2017, Urbino, Italy urst behavior of P co pared to HDPE thermoplastic polymer under a controlled internal pressure Fatima ajid a , * , ohamed Safe a , Mohamed Elghorba a a Laboratoire de contrôle et de caractérisation des matériaux et des structures, Génie Mécanique, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’ Electricité et de Mécanique, Université Hassan II, Km7, route ELJADIDA, 20000, Casablanca, MAROC. Abstract The HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) and CPVC (Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride) are extremely used in water piping systems. The CPVC hav the particularity to supp rt high temperatures f wate . Thos two materials r known for their different characteristics toward the internal pressure. To quantify their behavior we exposed pipe specimens, pr pared according to ASTM 1599, to an increasing internal pressure and we registered the burst and the time of each specimen. T push further our analysis, we created groove notches over the same cat gory of specimens and we exposed them to the same conditions. Then, we hav noticed a drop of the internal pressur in function of the time and the life fraction which is the ra of thickness and its fluctu tion ( ∆ e/e). I d ed, the burst pressure, and the time of failure are drastically dropping acc rding to the notch depth. Bes des, one important consequenc is noticeable over the mechanical behavior which shift from a ductile one, for neat pipes, to a brittle one for th other HDPE pipes. Meanwhile, The CPVC pipes have a br t le beh vior for both of th specimen’s categories. The discrepancies can be explained by t nature of the two materials, the first one is an original polymer while the second is a Chlorinated PVC material. Furthermore, the c mp rison of the failure mode of the two polymers ar slightly different compared to the linea damage of Miner. For HDPE pipes, the static damage is evaluating nea by the Miner one until getting to the crit cal life fr cti n ( β c) of 52% and then get over t. However, the CPVC d mage has a very weak evolution bellow the β c of 60% from which we notice a drastic increasing and an acceleration of the damag . The CPVC show good performances toward the supported nternal pressure, support up to 160 bars, and a brittle behavior. Meanw ile, the HDPE pipe an suppor up to 70 bars and show a ductile behavior. Finally, this paper can be c nsid red as a window to understand the difference between HDPE and CPVC polymers under burst pressu e d the severity of the groove defects for researchers and industrials. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under espons bility of the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co. Keywords: CPVC; HDPE; Burst behavior; Static damage; Expérimental validation; Theoritical modelisation. XXIV Italian Group of Fracture Conference, 1-3 March 2017, Urbino, Italy Burst behavior of CPVC compared to HDPE thermoplastic polymer under a controlled internal pressure Fatima Majid a , * , Mohamed Safe a , Mohamed Elghorba a a Laboratoire de contrôle et de caractérisation des matériaux et des structures, Génie Mécanique, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’ Electricité et de Mécanique, Université Hassan II, Km7, route ELJADIDA, 20000, Casablanca, MAROC. Abstract The HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) and CPVC (Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride) are extremely used in water piping systems. The CPVC have the particularity to support high temperatures of water. Those two materials are known for their different characteristics toward the internal pressure. To quantify their behavior we exposed pipe specimens, prepared according to ASTM 1599, to an increasing internal pressure and we registered the burst and the time of each specimen. To push further our analysis, we created groove notches over the same category of specimens and we exposed them to the same conditions. Then, we have noticed a drop of the internal pressure in function of the time and the life fraction which is the ratio of thickness and its fluctuation ( ∆ e/e). Indeed, the burst pressure, and the time of failure are drastically dropping according to the notch depth. Besides, one important consequence is noticeable over the mechanical behavior which shift from a ductile one, for neat pipes, to a brittle one for the other HDPE pipes. Meanwhile, The CPVC pipes have a brittle behavior for both of the specimen’s categories. The discrepancies can be explained by the nature of the two materials, the first one is an original polymer while the second is a Chlorinated PVC material. Furthermore, the comparison of the failure mode of the two polymers are slightly different compared to the linear damage of Miner. For HDPE pipes, the static damage is evaluating nearby the Miner one until getting to the critical life fraction ( β c) of 52% and then get over it. However, the CPVC damage has a very weak evolution bellow the β c of 60% from which we notice a drastic increasing and an acceleration of the damage. The CPVC show good performances toward the supported internal pressure, support up to 160 bars, and a brittle behavior. Meanwhile, the HDPE pipe can support up to 70 bars and show a ductile behavior. Finally, this paper can be considered as a window to understand the difference between HDPE and CPVC polymers under burst pressure and the severity of the XXIV Italian Group of Fracture Conference, 1-3 March 2017, Urbino, Italy Burst behavior of CPVC compared to HDPE thermoplastic polymer under a controlled internal pressure Fatima Majid a , * , Mohamed Safe a , Mohamed Elghorba a a Laboratoire de contrôle et de caractérisation des matériaux et des structures, Génie Mécanique, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’ Electricité et de Mécanique, Université Hassan II, Km7, route ELJADIDA, 20000, Casablanca, MAROC.

Keywords: CPVC; HDPE; Burst behavior; Static damage; Expérimental validation; Theoritical modelisation.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +212 663 49 90 78; E-mail address: majidfatima9@gmail.com * Corresponding author. Tel.: +212 663 49 90 78; E-mail address: majidfatima9@gmail.com * Corresponding author. Tel.: +212 663 49 90 78; E-mail address: majidfatima9@gmail.com

2452-3216 Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co. 10.1016/j.prostr.2017.04.041 2452-3216 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co. 2452-3216 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co. 2452-32 6 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co.