Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Available
Available ScienceDirect
online
online at at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Structural
Structural IntegrityIntegrity
Procedia300
(2017) 387–394
(2016) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

XXIV Italian Group of Fracture Conference, 1-3 March 2017, Urbino, Italy
XXIV Italian Group of Fracture Conference, 1-3 March 2017, Urbino, Italy
Mechanical behavior prediction of PPR and HDPE polymers
XV Mechanical behavior
Portuguese Conference prediction
on Fracture, of10-12
PCF 2016, PPRFebruary
and HDPE polymers
2016, Paço de Arcos, Portugal
through newly developed nonlinear damage-reliability models
through newly developed nonlinear damage-reliability models
Thermo-mechanical
Majid Fatimaa,*, Ouardimodeling Abderazzakaof a high
, Barakat pressure
Mohamed a turbine
, Elghorba blade aof an
Mohamed
Laboratoire de contrôle et de caractérisationairplane gas turbine engine
a
Majid Fatima *, Ouardi des
a,
Abderazzak
matériaux et des
a
, Barakat
structures,
Mohamed
Génie Mécanique,
a
, Elghorba Mohameda
Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Electricité et de
a
Laboratoire de contrôle et deMécanique, Université
caractérisation HassanetII,des
des matériaux Km7, route Eljadida,
structures, 20000, Casablanca,
Génie Mécanique, Maroc. Supérieure d’Electricité et de
Ecole Nationale
Mécanique, Université Hassan aII, Km7, route Eljadida,
b 20000, Casablanca,
P. Brandão , V. Infante , A.M. Deus * c Maroc.

AbstractaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Abstract Portugal
b
ManyIDMEC,polymersDepartment
have been of Mechanical
developed Engineering,
through the Instituto
years toSuperior Técnico,
satisfy the Universidade
continuous demand de of
Lisboa, Av. Rovisco
industrials Pais,
and the 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
development of the
fields of usage of these materials. Indeed, the High Density Portugal
Polyethylene (HDPE) and the Poly Propylene (PPR) are famous
Many c polymers have been developed through the years to satisfy the continuous demand of industrials and the development of the
CeFEMA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
materials and have
fields of usage of diversified utilizations.
these materials. Indeed,Tothe predict
Hightheir mechanical
Density Portugalbehavior,
Polyethylene we leaded
(HDPE) and burst testsPropylene
the Poly on multilevel groove
(PPR) are notched
famous
pipes
materials andand
we have
compared the general
diversified behavior
utilizations. of the internal
To predict pressure behavior,
their mechanical of burst. We noticedburst
we leaded a drastic
tests ondrop in the burst
multilevel groovepressure
notchedin
function
pipes andofwe
thecompared
life fraction. The HDPE
the general and PPR
behavior of the materials
internalare showing
pressure of aburst.
ductileWe behavior
noticedwith two characteristic
a drastic drop in the burst pressures at the
pressure in
end of theofelastic
function
Abstract the lifephase and the
fraction. The rupture
HDPEphase. The materials
and PPR HDPE hasare a stable
showingplastic phasebehavior
a ductile and showwith a perfect ductile behavior.
two characteristic Meanwhile
pressures at the
the PPR
end of thehave a short
elastic phaseplastic
and thephase
ruptureandphase.
showThe similarities
HDPE has toaan old plastic
stable HDPE phase pipe tendency.
and show aIt perfect
is shown that behavior.
ductile the PPR has reverse
Meanwhile
characteristic
theDuring
PPR have pressures
their a operation,at the
short plastic opposite
phase
modern and ofshow
the engine
aircraft HDPE ones.
similarities We
to an
components havearenoticed
old HDPE that
subjectedpipethe two
tendency.
to materials changethat
It is shown
increasingly demanding thethecorresponding level
PPR hasconditions,
operating reverse
of especially
loading tothe
characteristic recover
pressures theatnoticed
high pressure deformation
turbine
the opposite (HPT) in the ones.
of the blades.
HDPE plastic
Such We phase.
haveThe
conditions obtained
cause
noticed these parameters
parts
that the allowed
twotomaterials
undergo us to the
different
change establish
types of new concepts
time-dependent
corresponding level
of degradation,
damage
loading to one ofthrough
modeling
recover which
the is
thecreep.
noticed A modelof
modification
deformation inusing
usual the finite
nonlinear
the plastic element
models
phase. method
existing(FEM)
The obtained in was developed,
the literature
parameters which
allowed in
toorder
ushas been to benew
ableproposed
initially
establish to predict
concepts
of the
for steel
damagecreep behaviour
materials.
modeling The of
through HPT
staticthe blades.
model of the
modificationFlight
unified data
of usual records
theory which
nonlinear (FDR)
have for
models been a developed
specific
existing in theaircraft,
based onprovided
literature the
whichburst
has by a commercial
pressure
been parameters
initially aviation
and
proposed
forcompany,
allowed
steel us towere
predict
materials. usedtheto
The obtain
burst
static thermal
pressure
model theand
of damage mechanical
unifiedevolution data for
theory according
which three
haveto different
the life
been flight
fraction,
developed cycles.
on theInburst
representing
based order
the to create
harmfulness
pressure thethe3Dnotch.
of
parameters model
and
Theneeded
allowed usfor
static the FEM
damage
to predict the analysis,
evolution a HPT
burstispressure
representing blade
damage scrap was
the evolution
damage scanned,toand
corresponding
according its chemical
to each
the life notch. Then,
fraction, composition
we compared
representing and
the material
the effectproperties
harmfulness of the
of were
the notch.
notch
The static damage evolution is representing the damage corresponding to each notch. Then, we compared the effect of the notch3D
obtained.
level on PPR The
and data
HDPE that was gathered
materials. was
Finally, wefed into
analyzed the FEM
the model
noticeable and different
discrepancies simulations
between were
PPR andrun,
HDPEfirst with
and wea simplified
showed the
rectangular
advantages block
ofand
suchHDPEshape, in
models to order to
thebetter
makeFinally, quick establisheasier
the model,reliable
and then bywith
onlythe realstatic
3D mesh obtained from the blade scrap. The
level on PPR materials. wechecks
analyzed theand noticeable discrepancies using between test
PPRof burst.
and HDPE and we showed the
© overall expected
2017 TheofAuthors. behaviour
Published in terms of
by Elsevier displacement was observed, in particular at the trailing edge of the blade. Therefore such a
advantages such models to make the quickB.V.checks easier and reliable by only using static test of burst.
model can
Copyright © be useful
2017 The in the goal
Authors. of predicting
Published by Elsevierturbine
B.V. blade
This is life,
an given
open accessa set of FDR
article under data.
the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility
© 2017 The Authors. Published by of Elsevier
the Scientific
B.V. Committee of IGF Ex-Co.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review
Peer-review
© 2016 The under
under responsibility
responsibility
Authors. of
of theby
Published the Scientific
Scientific
ElsevierCommittee
B.V. Committee
of IGF of IGF Ex-Co.
Ex-Co.
Keywords: PPR; HDPE; Damage models; Unified theory; Mechanical behavior.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
Keywords: PPR; HDPE; Damage models; Unified theory; Mechanical behavior.
Keywords: High Pressure Turbine Blade; Creep; Finite Element Method; 3D Model; Simulation.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +212 663 49 90 78;

* Corresponding majidfatima9@gmail.com
E-mail address:author. Tel.: +212 663 49 90 78;
E-mail address: majidfatima9@gmail.com
2452-3216 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review underThe
* Corresponding
2452-3216 © 2017 responsibility
author. Tel.: +351
Authors. of218419991.
theby
Published Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co.
Elsevier B.V.
E-mail address:
Peer-review amd@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of IGF Ex-Co.

2452-3216 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of PCF 2016.
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.2017.04.043
388 Majid Fatima et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 387–394
2 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Nomenclature

γ is the instantaneous non-dimensional endurance limit.

n is the instantaneous number of cycles under an applied stress.
Nf is the total number of cycles at the rupture.
Pur is the ultimate residual pressure.
Pu is the ultimate pressure corresponding to an undamaged HDPE specimen.
Pa is the pressure just before the rupture.
P0 is the endurance limit’s corresponding pressure.
σθ is the circumferential stress.
R is the radius of the pipe specimen.
e is the thickness of the pipe specimen.
D is the damage (D = 0 for neat material, D = 1 for completely damaged material).
β= (∆e/e) = (n/Nf) is the life fraction in which ∆e is corresponding to the thickness fluctuation.

1. Introduction

Predicting and evaluating the mechanical behavior have been a serious concern for a long period. Thus, many
models have been developed in the literature to quantify the damage of steel materials, either by referring to linear
models or non-linear ones. Miner (1945) showed in his studies that the damage evolution is always linear and it is
directly proportional to the ratio between the number of cycle of the damaged specimen and the ultimate number of
cycles (n/Nf). However, Shaneley, Valuri, Gatts and Henry have developed non-linear damage theories showing a
different behavior of the materials and expressing the non-linearly of the damage evolution in function of the life
fraction, Bathias and Pineau (2013). Furthermore, Bui-Quoc (1971) was able to establish a unified theory based on
Shaneley, Valuri and Gatts ones.
The previous theories were widely applied to steel materials and their alloys [8-9]. In order to take benefit from these
theories, we intend to apply them over thermoplastic polymers such us HDPE and PPR. So, many researches have
been launched over these materials to quantify their mechanical behavior. Thus, Litvinov and Soliman (2005) have
studied the fracture modes and the effect of temperature on the rupture time of PPR tubes subjected to hydrostatic
pressure tests at different temperatures to investigate the influence of pressure time and temperature on the intrinsic
characteristics of PPR. Furthermore, Zgoul et al (2008) have evaluated the convenience of thermoplastic tubes in
transporting domestic and industrial hot water by comparing PPR to PEX tubes in terms mechanical strength under
pressure. Besides, Greetz et al (2009) have put under hydrostatic pressure pipes in the PPR for a long time, the purpose
was the study of the influence of the internal pressure and the temperature on the diffusion of an antioxidant.
For HDPE pipes, Majid (2016) has published a paper giving rise to a new concept of damage modeling allowing a
reproduction of the burst pressure mathematically through Faupel formulas and established the static damage model.
In another work, a validation of the static damage model for A36 and P265GH metals have been done. Majid (2017)
has proceeded to the failure analysis and the damage modeling of HDPE pipes subjected to an internal pressure through
three damage models using the burst pressure and the residual time to failure.
In this paper, we are introducing the results of newly developed non-linear damage models applied to those two
materials. In fact, we are basing our study over the obtained burst pressures of groove notched pipes’ specimens. The
developed model is a modified version of the static damage of the unified theory. Besides, the comparison of the
internal burst pressure and the notched pipes’ burst pressure evolutions according to time and the notch depth
respectively allowed us to predict the mechanical behavior of the two polymers.
 Majid Fatima et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 387–394 389
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

2. Methodology

To achieve the aim of this paper, we leaded burst test over groove notched pipes for both HDPE and PPR materials.
Thus, we prepared standard specimens according the ASTM 1599. Then, we created multi-level grooves in the
produced specimens from 0.5 mm to 5 mm that have a width of 10 mm and a length of 100 mm. After that, we exposed
neat and notched pipes to an increasing internal pressure until the rupture by a hydrostatic burst tester. The studied
specimens of HDPE and PPR have seemingly the same dimensions. So, they have a length of 400 mm, a diameter of
63 mm and a thickness of 5.8 mm and 5.6 mm respectively.
Moreover, the internal pressure evolution in the time have been registered for the neat pipe and the notched ones.
Besides, the burst pressure and the time of burst have been also got from the hydrostatic tester display. These pressures
are considered as the main parameter used in this paper to quantify the damage evolution. Firstly, we interpreted the
internal pressure evolution and the way it is representing the ductile behavior of the thermoplastic materials. In
additions, the representation of the burst pressure according to the life fraction, which have been chosen as the ratio of
the thickness and its fluctuation, have been detailed. The static damage of the unified theory based on the burst
pressures, MAJID (2016, 2017), has been developed to predict the damage evolution and the artificial preloading
impact which is represented by the notch depth.
The static damage model is presented in the equation (1). This model is justified by the proportionality between the
stress and the rupture pressure.

pur
1
Pu
D (1)
p
1 a
Pu

3. Results

In this paper, we leaded our study, comparing HDPE and PPR results, according to three stages. The first one is
focused over the internal pressure evolution in time and its reflect of the mechanical behavior. For the second stage,
the evolution of the burst pressure, for the different notches, in function of the chosen life fraction have been done.
Finally, we established the two studied damage models which are interpreted in complementarity. Then, a comparison
of the noticed differences between the two materials have been achieved.
The internal pressure evolution for HDPE and PPR are shown in the figure 1:

140
130 Neat PPR
120 Neat HDPE
110
100 Old HDPE
Pressure (bar)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (s)

Fig. 1. Comparison of internal pressure for neat PPR and neat & old HDPE.
390 Majid Fatima et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 387–394
4 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

From the curve above, we notice that both of the mechanical behavior of the HDPE and PPR polymers have a
ductile behavior. The curve trends can be interpreted through four phases. The first phase is a preloading stage, very
short (2s) for PPR and longer (35 s) for HDPE. The second phase is the elastic stage, higher for HDPE and lower for
PPR. Then, the plastic stage which very short for PPR and longer for HDPE. Finally, the last stage corresponding to
rupture which very high for PPR and Lower for HDPE. Indeed, the limit pressures at the end of the elastic phase and
the rupture one are behaving in a reverse way. Moreover, the time of burst of HDPE is very important than the PPR
material which confirm that the first one stand the increasing pressure for long time. Another comparison is done
between PPR and 15 years old HDPE. So, we notice that the old HDPE pipe has a similar behavior to the PPR one.
Both of them have a tendency to a fragile behavior due to the reduction of the elastic limit, an increasing of the rupture
one and the short time of the preloading (2s) and the plastic (3 s) stages.

140 Neat PPR
130 Notched PPR 1mm
120
Notched PPR 2mm
110
Notched PPR 3mm
100
90 Notched PPR 4mm
Pressure (bar)

80 Notched PPR 5mm
70 Notched PPR 6mm
60 Notched PPR 7mm
50
Notched PPR 8mm
40
30 Notched PPR 9mm
20 Notched PPR 10mm
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Time (s)

Fig. 2. Internal pressure evolution for neat and notched PPR pipes.

70
Pressure of undamaged pipe

60 Pressure for notch of 3 mm
Pressure for notch of 4 mm
50 Pressure for notch of 5 mm
Pressure for notch of 1 mm
Pressure (bar)

40 Pressure for notch of 2 mm
Pressure for notch of 1,5 mm
30 Pressure for notch of 2.5 mm
Pressure for notch of 3.5 mm
20 Pressure for notch of 4.5 mm

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 Time
25 (s) 30 35 40 45 50

Fig. 3. Internal pressure evolution for neat and notched HDPE pipes.
 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 5
Majid Fatima et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 387–394 391

The neat pipes and the multilevel groove notched pipes have been exposed to an internal pressure until burst. The
evolution of the internal pressure in function of the exposition time, for PPR and HDPE, shows the harmfulness of the
notch depth. Indeed, the groove notch reduce significantly the pressure and the time of rupture. Moreover, a notched
HDPE and PPR pipes have shifted to a brittle burst behavior instead of ductile one for the neat ones. Thus, we notice
a drastic drop of the rupture pressure in function of the life fraction (β = ∆e/e). For both the cases, the materials have
lost their characteristics until we get to a high embrittlement of them.
The obtained pressures have been used as a parameter for the newly developed non-linear damage-reliability
models. Indeed, the degradation that has occurred due to the different notches has known a drastic drop of the rupture
pressure proportionally to the notch depth. Besides, The HDPE specimens have an external diameter D of 63 mm, a
thickness e of 5.8 mm and a length L of 400 mm. For the PPR specimens, they have the same characteristics except
the thickness e which is equal to 12 mm. By comparing the static damage curves of both the materials, we notice that
they are showing almost the same trends of evolution. The figure 4 is giving the damage evolution of PPR and HDPE
damages. Then, we noticed that the PPR damage is slightly less than the one of HDPE. Its evolution progress under
the miner one until a life fraction around 50% of thickness loss and then it goes over it. However, the PPR damage
evolution cross the miner one around a life fraction of 60%. Thus, we can say that an HDPE of a thickness of 5.8 mm
has the same performance as a PPR of 12 mm of thickness.

1.00
0.90
0.80 Miner
0.70
Dommage statique basé sur les
0.60 pressions d'éclatement HDPE
Damage

0.50 Dommage statique basé sur les
pressions d'éclatement PPR
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Fraction de vie(β)

Fig. 4. Damage-reliability evolution in function of the life fraction.

By crossing the static damage-reliability curves of HDPE pipes, figure 5, we define precisely the critical life
fraction of this material which represented by βc1 (52%). From this curve also, we can define the three stages of
damage evolution corresponding to initiation (stage I [0, 20%]), propagation (stage II [20%- 75%]) and acceleration
(Stage III [75%- 100%]) of it.
For the PPR polymer we crossed the static damage-reliability curves, figure 6, and we find out the critical life
fraction of this material βc2 (58%). From this curve also, the stages of damage correspond to initiation (stage I [0,
38%]), propagation (stage II [38%- 78%]) and acceleration (Stage III [78%- 100%]) of it.
392 Majid Fatima et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 387–394
6 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

1.00
0.90
Miner
0.80
0.70 Dommage statique basé sur les
0.60 pressions d'éclatement HDPE
Damage

Stage II Stage II Stage III

0.50 Stage Fiabilité basée sur les pressions
d'éclatement HDPE
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 βc1
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Fraction de vie(β)

Fig. 5. HDPE’s damage-reliability evolution in function of the life fraction.

1.00
0.90
Miner
0.80
Stage II
0.70 Dommage statique basé sur les
0.60 pressions d'éclatement PPR
Damage

0.50 Stage I Stage III Fiabilité basé sur les pressions

d'éclatement PPR
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 βc2
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Fraction de vie(β)

Fig. 6. PPR’s damage-reliability evolution in function of the life fraction.

4. Discussion

The HDPE and PPR polymers are relatively different materials. In this paper, we leaded a study of their
performances by focusing over their mechanical behavior under an internal pressure until rupture. Though the
developed approach, we were able to compare the internal pressure evolution and the way it is representing ductility
of these materials. We showed that the impact of the internal pressure depends on the necessary time for burst and the
duration of each stage (preloading, elastic, plastic and rupture). Moreover, the damage-reliability curves, figure 7,
allowed us to define precisely the critical life fraction for both of them. Indeed, the critical life fractions are 52% and
58% for both HDPE and PPR respectively. The damage stages of them are different. So, the first stage limit is 20%
and 38%, the second one 75% and 78% and third over the last values for HDPE and PPR respectively. The
 Majid Fatima et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 387–394 393
Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7

performance of HDPE of 5.8 mm and PPR of 12 mm of thickness have a similar performance regarding the damage
behavior and the criticism of thickness reduction. However, the two materials are very different considering the elastic
and the rupture limits and the time to failure. In fact, the neat PPR reaches the burst pressure of 135 bars in 14 s.
meanwhile, the HDPE reaches the burst pressure of 69.5 bars at 49 s. The discrepancies of these values can be
explained by the range of each pipe, the PPR pipes are PN20 and those of HDPE are PN16, and the thickness
differences. In fact, we used the existing pipes in the market. In this paper also, we were able to validate our research
over HDPE, Majid (2017), by comparing the HDPE and PPR performances and developing the modified version of
the static damage model based on the burst pressures instead of the stresses as published in the literature, Bui-Quoc
(1971).

1.00
0.90 Miner
0.80 Dommage statique basé sur les
0.70 pressions d'éclatement HDPE
Fiabilité basée sur les pressions
0.60 d'éclatement HDPE
Dommage statique basé sur les
Damage

0.50 pressions d'éclatement PPR
Fiabilité basé sur les pressions
0.40 d'éclatement PPR
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 βc1 βc2
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

Fraction de vie(β)

Fig. 7. PPR and HDPE’s damage-reliability evolution in function of the life fraction.

5. Conclusion

The comparison of PPR and HDPE materials allowed us to check the performance of these two material by
exposing them to an increasing internal pressure until burst. The obtained pressure evolution was compared for neat
and notched specimens. From then, we confirmed the ductile behavior of them and focus on the discrepancies of the
obtained curves. The harmfulness of the notches has showed the critical impact of them over the burst pressure and
the time to failure. Indeed, we noticed a drastic drop of the burst pressure and the time to failure. The crossing of
damage-reliability curves allowed us to define precisely the critical life fraction of the studied polymers. Beyond the
critical life fractions, 52% for HDPE and 58% for PPR, the materials become instable and a serious maintenance
policy must be engaged. The non-linear static damage model of unified theory showed that the two materials has
almost a similar damage evolution with different stages for the initiation, propagation and acceleration phases. The
presented approach is a simplified method which can be used by industrials to do quality checks of these materials by
using only static test instead of dynamic one. This approach is coast effective and permit assessing the damage and
characterize the materials through burst tests.

References

Bui-Quoc, T., Dubuc, J., Bazergui, A., Biron, A., 1971. Cumulative fatigue damage under stress-controlled conditions, J. Basic Eng. Trans.
ASME. 93, 691–698.
Majid, F., Elghorba, M., 2017. HDPE pipes failure analysis and damage modeling. Engineering Failure Analysis 71, 157-165.
Majid, F., 2016. Damage Assessment of HDPE Thermoplastics Pipes. Journal of Advanced Research in Physics 6.2.
394 Majid Fatima et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 3 (2017) 387–394
8 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Majid, F., Nattaj, J., Elghorba, M., 2016. Pressure vessels design methods using the codes, fracture mechanics and multiaxial fatigue. Frattura ed
Integrità Strutturale 38, 273-278.
Miner, A.M., 1945. Cumulative damage in fatigue 159-164.
Bathias, C., Pineau, A., 2013. Fatigue of Materials and Structures. doi:10.1002/9781118616994.
Litvinov, M., Soliman, M., 2005. The effect of storage of polypropylene pipes under hydrostatic pressure and elevated temperatures on the
morphology molecular mobility and failure behaviour, Polymer journal, 46, 3077–3089.
Zgoul, M.H., Habali, S.M., 2008. An invistigation into pipes as hot water transporters in domestic and industrial applications, Jordan journal of
mechanical and industrial engineering, 2, 191 – 200.
Geertz, G., Brull, R., Wieser, M.J.R., Wenzel, M., Engelsing, K., Wust, J., Bastian, M., Rudscuck, M., 2009. Stabiliser diffusion in long-term
pressure tested polypropylene pipesanalyzed by IR microscopy, Polymer Degradation and Stability journal, 94, 1092-1102.