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

net/publication/305894554

Comparison of Mechanical Properties Between PE80 and PE100 Pipe Materials

Article  in  Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance · August 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s11665-016-2274-2

CITATIONS READS

10 10,635

2 authors:

Yi Zhang P.-Y. B. Jar

University of Alberta University of Alberta
24 PUBLICATIONS   137 CITATIONS    152 PUBLICATIONS   1,867 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Canadian Rail Research Laboratory (CaRRL) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yi Zhang on 31 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JMEPEG ÓASM International
DOI: 10.1007/s11665-016-2274-2 1059-9495/$19.00

Comparison of Mechanical Properties Between PE80

and PE100 Pipe Materials
Yi Zhang and P.-Y. Ben Jar

(Submitted March 22, 2016; in revised form June 6, 2016)

Mechanical properties, including yield stress, relaxation behavior, moduli (elastic modulus at the strain of
0.5% and strain hardening modulus at strains above 70%), viscous stress, and quasi-static stress, are
compared between polyethylene (PE) pipes that are made of PE80 and PE100 resins. The mechanical
properties are measured using D-split tensile test on modified notched pipe ring specimens. The comparison
includes the influence of strain rate (by the change of crosshead speed) on the yield strength and influence of
pre-strain on the relaxation behavior and the modulus values. A two-stage approach is used to characterize
the influence of pre-strain on the moduli, to ensure that viscous recovery from the first-stage of the test, to
introduce the pre-strain, does not affect the modulus measurement from the second-stage test. The results
show that elastic modulus, yield stress, strain hardening modulus, viscous stress, and quasi-static stress for
PE100 are higher than those for PE80, but PE80 shows higher resistance to stress relaxation. The results
also show that with the increase in the pre-strain level, the elastic modulus drops but the strain hardening
modulus remains relatively constant.

experience from the field indicates that performance of PE80

Keywords mechanical properties, polyethylene pipe
1. Introduction
Polyethylene (PE) pipes has been increasingly used for gas
transportation due to the advancement in polymerization and
manufacturing technologies that enable the industry to produce
pipes with significant improvement in performance. Statistics
shows that over 90% of the newly installed gas pipeline
systems are made of PE (Ref 1). Currently, two types of pipes
are used for the gas transportation. One was first introduced to
North America and Europe around 1980s, categorized as PE80
according to the ISO 9080 Standard (Ref 2) which certifies the
pipe to be able to withstand a hoop stress, known as minimum
required strength (MRS), of 8 MPa at 20 °C for 50 years. For
PE100, the MRS is raised to 10 MPa, primarily due to the
bimodal molecular weight distribution of the PE resin.
In spite of the popularity in the gas pipe industry, PE80 and
PE100 are known to be different in mechanical performance,
but yet to be fully characterized. Results show that PE100 is
better than PE80 in crack growth resistance, according to PENT
test results (Ref 3), and has higher yield strength and elastic
modulus (Ref 4). Furthermore, cyclic loading tests on pre-
cracked round bar (CRB) specimens suggest that PE100 should
have a much longer service life than PE80 (Ref 5, 6). However,
not all properties for PE100 are better than PE80. For example,
compact tension (CT) and single-edge-notched bending
(SENB) tests suggest that PE80 has higher fracture toughness
than PE100 at room temperature and below (Ref 4). In addition,
Yi Zhang and P.-Y. Ben Jar, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Alberta, 10-203 Donadeo Innovation Centre for
Engineering, Edmonton, AB T6G 1H9, Canada. Contact e-mail:
yz4@ualberta.ca.
pipes is less affected by the squeeze-off process than PE100
pipes (Ref 7). Such mixed conclusions are an indication of the
need of further testing in order to fully characterize the
difference between PE80 and PE100 in their performance for
the gas pipe applications.
In this paper, influence of loading conditions on the
fundamental mechanical behavior of PE80 and PE100 pipe
materials is compared. In view of PEÕs significantly nonlinear,
time-dependent deformation behavior, the comparison is
focused on two aspects. The first is the influence of strain rate
(through the change of test crosshead speed) on the short-term
mechanical properties such as tensile modulus, yield strength,
and relaxation resistance and on the long-term properties such
as viscous stress and quasi-static stress. The second is the
influence of loading history (in terms of the maximum strain
which is to be named pre-strain hereafter) on elastic modulus
and strain hardening modulus, measured at strains of 0.5% and
above 70%, respectively. Despite that both PE80 and PE100
pipes are now widely used for gas transportation, systematic
comparison for the above properties are yet to be available in
the literature. Note that our previous study has shown the
influence of low pre-strain levels on the change of elastic
modulus for PE100 pipe material (Ref 8).
2. Experimental Testing
2.1 Materials and Specimens
Specimens used in the current study were prepared from two
kinds of commercial HDPE pipes, manufactured by Endot
Industries, which have inner diameter and SDR (standard
dimension ratio) of 2 inches and 11, respectively. The first,
PE3408 of cell classification 445574C, is made of unimodal
PE80 resin, and the second, PE4710 of cell classification
445576C, of bimodal PE100 resin. Dimensions of the modified
notched pipe ring (NPR) specimens follow those recommended

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

in ASTM D2290-12, except that the notch tip profile is flat, dependent viscous stress, rr which decreases eventually to zero
instead of round, in order to have a relatively uniform stress during the stress relaxation process. The bottom branch which
distribution in the ligament region. The ligament length is contains a spring and a finite plasticity element that are
selected to be equal to the nominal pipe wall thickness, 5.84 connected in series is responsible for the quasi-static stress, rep .
mm, in order to have the aspect ratio for the ligament cross In this study, the viscous stress at the beginning of the stress
section to be close to 1 so that during the test, contractions in relaxation process, denoted as rr ð0Þ, is determined by regen-
the width and thickness directions are similar. erating the results from a stress relaxation test using this
simplified model. Then, the quasi-static stress, rep , is deter-
2.2 Mechanical Testing mined by subtracting the viscous stress from the experimentally
measured total stress.
All tests were conducted using a universal test machine Detailed description of this procedure is given in ref. (Ref
(QUASAR 100) at ambient temperature of T = 23 °C. Setup 14) and is described briefly below. As suggested by Hong et al.
for the D-split tensile test, first proposed for characterizing (Ref 14), stress relaxation kinetics at a constant imposed strain
mechanical properties of composite materials (Ref 9), was (i.e., with zero homogeneous strain rate, e_ H = 0) can be
adopted for testing the NPR specimens. A two-stage test explicitly expressed using Eq 2:
procedure, proposed by Jar (Ref 10-12), was used for the study  
of the effect of pre-strain on the elastic modulus and the strain r_ r rr
e_ H ¼ þ e_ 0 sinh ¼0 ðEq 2Þ
hardening modulus. The first stage in this procedure was to Er r0
introduce pre-strain of different levels at various crosshead
speeds, and the second stage, at a constant crosshead speed of The above equation is reformulated to be
 
0.01 mm/min, to characterize the corresponding change in d rr 1 rr
elastic modulus and strain hardening modulus. It should be ¼  sinh ðEq 3Þ
dt r0 sr r0
noted that in this study, the strain hardening modulus was
measured at room temperature and at the crosshead speed of with
0.01 mm/min, which are different from the conditions specified
e_ 0 Er
in ISO 18488, i.e., at 80 °C and at a crosshead speed of 20 mm/ s1
r ¼ ðEq 4Þ
min. r0
Relaxation tests were conducted at the first stage, immedi- where rr , r0 , sr , and Er are relaxation stress, reference stress,
ately after the NPR specimens were stretched to the preselected characteristic relaxation time, and relaxation modulus, respec-
stroke levels, for a relaxation period of 10,000 s (around 3 tively. Solution for Eq 3 is
hours). Strain (e) is calculated based on the change of ligament     
width, using the following expression which is under the rr ðtÞ rr ð0Þ t
¼ 2 atanh tanh exp  ðEq 5Þ
assumption that contraction in the thickness direction is r0 2r0 sr
equivalent to that in the ligament width direction (Ref 13).
The stress decay (Dr), defined as the difference between the
e ¼ 2  lnðw0 =wÞ ðEq 1Þ total relaxation stress, rr ð0Þ, and relaxation stress at time t,
rr ðtÞ, can be expressed as
where w0 and w are original and deformed ligament lengths,
respectively. Variation of w during the test was measured Dr ¼ rr ð0Þ  rr ðtÞ ðEq 6Þ
using an extensometer. For PE80 specimens, three crosshead
By substituting rr ðtÞ in Eq 6 by Eq 5, Eq 6 can be rewritten
speeds of 0.01, 1, and 50 mm/min, corresponding to the ini-
as
tial strain rates of 7 9 105, 7 9 103, and 3.5 9 101/s,     
respectively, were used in the first-stage tests, to vary the rr ð0Þ t
deformation rate to reach the targeted strain levels. For PE80 Dr ¼ rr ð0Þ  2r0 atanh tanh exp  ðEq 7Þ
2r0 sr
specimens, the pre-strain levels were chosen to be 20%, 40%,
and 60% at the crosshead speeds of 0.01 and 1 mm/min, and Following the suggestion by Hong et al. (Ref 14), sr in Eq 7
5, 10, and 15% at the crosshead speeds of 50 mm/min. This is chosen to have a unique constant value of 1.6 9 104 s for all
is because at 50 mm/min fracture was generated at a strain relaxation strains. Values for the remaining constants in Eq 6,
around 20%. For PE100 specimens, test conditions are similar i.e., rr ð0Þ and r0 , are then determined by fitting the curve
to those used previously (Ref 8), thus not detailed here. generated by Eq 7 with that obtained from stress relaxation
tests. The above process is applied to PE80 and PE100 pipe
materials to determine the viscous stress and quasi-static stress
components.
3. Model for Determining Viscous Stress and
Quasi-Static Stress

The viscous stress and quasi-static stress of PE80 and PE100

pipe materials, which represent the long-term properties of PE
pipes, are determined and compared using an approach
originally proposed by StroblÕs group (Ref 14-16). The model
used in the current study is a simplified version of the model
proposed by Hong et al. (Ref 14), which as shown in Fig. 1
consists of two branches. The top branch, containing a spring Fig. 1 Schematic description of the two-branch model used in this
and a damper connected in series, is responsible for the time- study

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

4. Results and Discussion
Sample curves of engineering stress versus stroke from the
first-stage tests on NPR specimens are presented in Fig. 2.
Figure 2(a) presents curves from tests at the crosshead speeds
of 0.01 mm/min, and Fig. 2(b) at 1 mm/min. The targeted pre-
strain values for those curves are labelled next to the curves,
i.e., 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6, along with one curve from a test of
monotonic loading that allowed fracture to occur in one of the
ligaments. Figure 2 demonstrates good repeatability among
those curves and serves as a representative phenomenon for all
curves obtained from the study. Out of 42 tests conducted in the
study (30 for PE100 and 12 for PE80), only 3 for PE100 and 2
for PE80 showed relatively poor repeatability with the rest of
the curves, due to the presence of defects in the ligament
section. For those cases, an additional test was carried out. The
repeated tests generated curves that overlap with the rest of the
curves for the same material.
It should be noted that in addition to the use of curve
overlapping from the first-stage tests to ensure repeatability of
the test results, elastic modulus was measured from the first-
stage tests, at the area strain of 0.5%, to examine the data
repeatability. Since the first-stage tests were used to introduce
different pre-strain levels to the specimens, the measured elastic
modulus values should be very close to each other. For PE100
pipe material, the average elastic modulus so determined is 645
MPa and its standard deviation 26 MPa (4% of the average
value), and for PE80, 535 MPa and 28 MPa (5% of the average
value). These results also support that data obtained from this
study have good repeatability.
Yield stress is defined based on the cross-sectional area of
the virgin specimen, i.e., before the first-stage test. Yield stress
and elastic modulus at the strain of 0.5%, measured from the
first-stage tests, are presented in Fig. 3(a) and (b), respectively,
as functions of the logarithmic scale of the crosshead speed.
The results indicate that both yield stress and elastic modulus
increase linearly with the increase in the logarithmic scale of
the crosshead speed, which is consistent with that reported
before (Ref 17). Results in Fig. 3 also suggest that both yield
stress and elastic modulus of PE100 are larger than those of
PE80, which is consistent with results in the literature (Ref 4,
18). This phenomenon is known to be caused by higher density
of PE100 (Ref 19-21).
Fig. 2 Summary of curves of engineering stress vs. stroke at crosshead speeds of (a) 0.01 mm/min and (b) 1 mm/min
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
Figure 4 presents examples of results from the relaxation
tests for PE80 and PE100 pipe materials, measured from the
first-stage tests after reaching the specified pre-strain levels at
the crosshead speed of either 0.01 mm/min (a) or 1 mm/min
(b). Load in the figure is expressed as a fraction of the load at
the beginning of the stress relaxation. Although plots presented
in Fig. 4 are only for two pre-strain levels, 20% and 40%, the
trend of change is representative for all curves at other pre-
strain levels. The trend, as shown in Fig. 4, suggests that using
the same crosshead speed to reach a given pre-strain level, the
percentage of load drop for PE80 pipe material is lower than
that for PE100, indicating that the former has a higher
relaxation resistance than the latter. Figure 4 also suggests that
load drop in terms of the fraction of the load at the beginning of
the stress relaxation is smaller at the crosshead speed of
0.01 mm/min than at 1 mm/min. Furthermore, for both PE80
and PE100 pipe materials, relaxation resistance with a pre-
strain of 40% is larger than that with a pre-strain of 20%.
The above difference between PE80 and PE100 pipe
materials in the relaxation resistance has been suggested to be
due to the difference in their molecular chain mobility (Ref 22).
Based on results from the current study, it is also believed that
molecular chain mobility for the PE100 material should be
bigger than that for PE80, which has been suggested (Ref 23)
owning to the unimodal PE80 material having lower molecular
chain entanglement density in the amorphous phase than that of
the bimodal PE100 material. Thus, molecular chains in the
former are more easily oriented during the pipe extrusion
process, resulting in the reduced chain mobility. However,
further study is required to verify that this mechanism is indeed
responsible for the change in the relaxation behavior in order to
fully understand the implication of the difference in the
relaxation resistance on the PE pipe performance.
As mentioned earlier, elastic modulus was determined using
true stress-strain curves from the second-stage tests, at the strain
level of 0.5%. Results of the elastic modulus from specimens
subjected to the first-stage tests are summarized in Fig. 5, (a)
for the crosshead speed of 0.01 mm/min and (b) for 1 mm/min.
The elastic moduli for virgin specimens, i.e., without any pre-
strain, are also included in Fig. 5, which have the average value
and standard deviation of 645 and 26 MPa for PE100, and 535
and 28 MPa for PE80. As shown in Fig. 5, both PE80 and
PE100 show a decrease in the elastic modulus with the increase
Fig. 3 Variation of yield stress (a) and elastic modulus (b) with the crosshead speed for PE80 and PE100 pipe materials [color version is avail-
able online]

Fig. 4 Comparison of relaxation behavior of NPR specimens made from PE80 and PE100 pipe materials, stretched to pre-strains of 20 and
40% at crosshead speeds of 0.01 mm/min (a) and 1 mm/min (b)

in the pre-strain levels. Based on the classical damage
mechanics concept (Ref 24), in which damage parameter D is
defined using Eq 8, results in Fig. 5 indicate that damage can
be introduced to both pipe materials at an early stage of the
deformation, especially using a high speed to introduce the
deformation.
~
E of plots obtained from the second-stage tests, one for PE80 and
D¼1 ðEq 8Þ
E0
where E~ and E0 are elastic moduli of the damaged and virgin
specimens, respectively.
Much effort has been devoted to studying strain hardening
behavior of polymers (Ref 25-30). In particular, Kramer (Ref
29) conducted fundamental research on mechanisms that are
responsible for strain hardening and crazing. Kurelec et al. (Ref
30) found recently that strain hardening modulus (Gp ) can be
used to predict environmental stress cracking resistance
(ESCR) of high-density PE, measured at the crosshead speed
of 20 mm/min and at 80 °C. The procedure has been adopted in
ISO 18488 standard (Ref 31) to quantify Gp which is deter-
mined based on the slope of the post-yield section of the plot of
true stress versus neo-Hookean (NH) strain, the latter being
defined as k2  1=k, where k is the stretch ratio.
The above concept of using Gp to evaluate mechanical
performance of PE has been adopted in the current study, but
using results from the second-stage tests, instead of adopting
the test conditions recommended in the standard. Two examples
the other PE100, are shown in Fig. 6(a). The figure shows
clearly that with NH strain above 3.75, or the equivalent strain
(e, defined in Eq 1) larger than 70%, stress varies approxi-
mately linearly as a function of NH strain. However, for our
specimens that have been subjected to various pre-strains in the
first-stage tests, the strain range for the linear relationship
between stress and NH strain is not the same. A common strain
range for a linear relationship between stress and NH strain was
found to be with NH strain between 12 and 18, or the
equivalent strain e between 125% and 145%. Slope for the
stress-NH strain plots in this strain range has been used to
determine Gp for the PE100 and PE80 pipe materials.
Figure 6(b) summarizes Gp values for PE80 and PE100 as
functions of the pre-strain levels. The figure suggests that

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

Fig. 5 Effects of pre-strain on elastic modulus of PE80 and PE100 pipe materials, with pre-strain introduced at the first-stage tests at the cross-
head speed of 0.01 mm/min (a) and 1 mm/min (b) [color version is available online]

Fig. 6 Gaussian plots of PE80 and PE100 pipe materials with pre-strain of 0.2, and (b) strain hardening modulus (Gp) from the second-stage
tests as a function of pre-strain introduced in the first-stage tests at the crosshead speed of 0.01 mm/min (open symbols) and 1 mm/min (solid
symbols)

pre-strains up to 45%, introduced in the first-stage tests, have
little influence on the Gp values. This is different from the
trend shown in Fig. 5 in which elastic modulus, measured in
the second-stage tests, at the strain of 0.5%, is strongly
affected by the pre-strain values introduced in the first-stage
tests. Since Gp is measured at a high strain level, at the
equivalent strain above 70% at which the deformation should
have caused some disintegration of the crystalline lamellae,
the relatively constant Gp values in Fig. 6 indicate that pre-
strains of up to 45% do not affect the crystalline lamellae in
their resistance to deformation. On the other hand, deforma-
tion introduced for the measurement of elastic modulus, at the
equivalent strain of 0.5%, is expected to occur mainly in the
inter-lamellar amorphous region. Therefore, the change of
elastic modulus with the pre-strain level, as shown in Fig. 5,
is an indication of the influence of the pre-strain introduced in
the first-stage tests on the resistance to deformation in the
inter-lamellar amorphous region.
Figure 6 also suggests that Gp for PE100 is larger than that
for PE80, possibly due to the stronger crystalline phase in the
former. This is consistent with the expectation due to the higher
degree of crystallinity for PE100 pipe material (Ref 3, 4).
As mentioned in section 3, the experimentally determined
curves of stress decay (Dr) versus relaxation time were
regenerated using Eq 7, with sr being 1.6 9 104 s and values
for rr ð0Þ and r0 adjusted to fit the experimental results.
Figure 7 shows that the curves generated using Eq 7 can agree
well with those from the experiments. Note that Fig. 7 is for
PE80 pipe material, and Table 1 lists the corresponding rr ð0Þ
and r0 values for the curve fitting. Similar curve fitting has
been carried out for PE100 pipe material and reported
previously (Ref 32).
Figure 8 presents results of viscous stress and quasi-static
stress determined at crosshead speeds of 0.01 and 1 mm/min
for PE80 and PE100 pipe materials. As shown in Fig. 8(a),
viscous stress is larger at a higher deformation rate, which is
consistent with the experimental observation that the stress
measured during the stretching increases with the increase in
strain rate. Figure 8(a) also shows that at the same strain level,
viscous stress of PE100 pipe material is higher than that of

Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance

Fig. 7 Comparison between curves generated from Eq 7 (presented by markers) and curves obtained from stress relaxation tests (lines) for
PE80 at relaxation strains of 20, 40, and 60%, with the initial stretch introduced at the crosshead speeds of 0.01 (a) and 1 mm/min (b)
Table 1 Summary of values for rr (0) and r0 for Fig. 7 with sr = 1.6 3 104
0.01 mm/min
Relaxation strain, e rr (0) (MPa)
0.2 4.7
0.4 4.99
0.6 5.3
Fig. 8 Comparison of viscous stress (a) and quasi-static stress (b)
between PE80 and PE100 pipe materials [color version is available
online]
PE80 pipe material. Similar phenomenon has been reported in
Ref 16. Since PE100 has a higher degree of crystallinity, a
larger viscous stress is expected to activate the deformations of
the crystals at a given strain level (Ref 16). Although it has
been widely observed that the total stress increases with the
increase in strain rate, an opposite trend has been observed after
the viscous stress component is removed from the total stress.
This is supported by Fig. 8(b) in which the quasi-static stress
1 mm/min
r0 (MPa) rr (0) (MPa) r0 (MPa)
0.92 13.7 0.98
0.95 15.5 1.1
1.01 17.8 1.27
decreases with the increase in the deformation rate. Such an
opposite trend of change of stress with the increase in crosshead
speed is consistent with the results reported previously (Ref
12), and can serve as another evidence to support the influence
of strain rate on the damage development in PE. That is, higher
the strain rate, larger the damage generated at a given strain
level (Ref 8). As shown in Fig. 8(b), the quasi-static stress of
PE100, representing the long-term resistance to deformation, is
higher than that of PE80 measured at the same crosshead speed,
suggesting that PE100 should have better long-term mechanical
strength than PE80.
5. Conclusions
Mechanical properties, including short-term properties such
as yield stress, relaxation behavior, and elastic and strain
hardening moduli and long-term properties such as viscous
stress and quasi-static stress, were compared between PE80 and
PE100 pipe materials using the D-split tensile test on modified
notched pipe ring (NPR) specimens. The results show that yield
stress and elastic modulus of PE100 are larger than those of
PE80. PE100 also has a higher strain hardening modulus than
PE80, suggesting that the former is better in the resistance to
deformation. In addition, viscous stress and quasi-static stress
of PE100 are higher than those of PE80. However, PE80 has a
better resistance to relaxation.
Results from the study also show a different dependence of
elastic modulus (measured at an equivalent strain of 0.5%) and
strain hardening modulus (measured at the equivalent strain
levels above 70%) on the pre-strain level introduced in the first-
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
stage test, suggesting that the pre-strain levels used in the study,
with the equivalent strains up to 45%, affect mainly the
deformation resistance in the inter-lamellar, amorphous region,
not in the crystalline phase.
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and China Scholarship
Council (CSC). Sincere appreciation is due to technical staff in the
Department of Mechanical Engineering, in particular, Campbell,
Waege, and Bubenko for specimen preparation and Faulkner for
fabrication of the extensometer used in the testing.
References
1. N. Kiass, R. Khelif, L. Boulanouar, and K. Chaoui, Experimental
Approach to Mechanical Property Variability Through a High-density
Polyethylene Gas Pipe Wall, J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 2005, 97(1), p 272–281
2. Plastics Piping and Ducting Systems—Determination of the Long-term
Hydrostatic Strength of Thermoplastics Materials in Pipe form by
Extrapolation, 9080, ISO, 2012
3. A. Adib, C. Domı́nguez, J. Rodrı́guez, C. Martı́n, and R.A. Garcı́a, The
Effect of Microstructure on the Slow Crack Growth Resistance in
Polyethylene Resins, Polym. Eng. Sci., 2015, 55(5), p 1018–1023
4. L.M. Graice, M.Y.A. Younan, and S.A.R. Naga, Experimental
investigation into the fracture toughness of polyethylene pipe material,
J. Press. Vessel Technol., 2004, 127(1), p 70–75
5. A. Frank, G. Pinter, and R.W. Lang, Fracture Mechanics Lifetime
Prediction of PE 80 and PE 100 Pipes Under Complex Loading
Conditions, Proceedings Pipes XV, Vancouver, Canada, 2010
6. A. Redhead, A. Frank, and G. Pinter, Investigation of Slow Crack
Growth Initiation in Polyethylene Pipe Grades with Accelerated Cyclic
Tests, Eng. Fract. Mech., 2013, 101, p 2–9
7. P. Yayla and Y. Bilgin, Squeeze-Off of Polyethylene Pressure Pipes:
Experimental Analysis, Polym. Test., 2007, 26(1), p 132–141
8. Y. Zhang and P.Y.B. Jar, Quantitative Assessment of Deformation-Induced
Damage in Polyethylene pressure Pipe, Polym. Test., 2015, 47, p 42–50
9. R. Rafiee, Apparent Hoop Tensile Strength Prediction of Glass Fiber-
Reinforced Polyester Pipes, J. Compos. Mater., 2012, p 002199831
2447209
10. P. Y. B. Jar, 2014, ‘‘Degradation of Mechanical Properties for
Polyethylene by Small-Deformation Damage,’’ ASME 2014 Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, p V06BT06A040–V006BT006A040
11. P.Y.B. Jar, Effect of Tensile Loading History on Mechanical Properties
for Polyethylene, Polym. Eng. Sci., 2015, 55(9), p 2002–2010
12. P.Y.B. Jar, Transition of Neck Appearance in Polyethylene and Effect
of the Associated Strain Rate on the Damage Generation, Polym. Eng.
Sci., 2014, 54(8), p 1871–1878
13. S. Muhammad and P.Y.B. Jar, Effect of Aspect Ratio on Large
Deformation and Necking of Polyethylene, J. Mater. Sci, 2011, 46(4), p
1110–1123
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance
View publication stats
14. K. Hong, A. Rastogi, and G. Strobl, A Model Treating Tensile
Deformation of Semicrystalline Polymers: Quasi-Static StressStrain
Relationship and Viscous Stress Determined for a Sample of
Polyethylene, Macromolecules, 2004, 37(26), p 10165–10173
15. S. Hobeika, Y. Men, and G. Strobl, Temperature and Strain Rate
Independence of Critical Strains in Polyethylene and Poly(ethylene-co-
vinyl acetate), Macromolecules, 2000, 33(5), p 1827–1833
16. B. Na, Q. Zhang, Q. Fu, Y. Men, K. Hong, and G. Strobl, Viscous-
Force-Dominated Tensile Deformation Behavior of Oriented Poly-
ethylene, Macromolecules, 2006, 39(7), p 2584–2591
17. A. Dasari and R.D.K. Misra, On the Strain Rate Sensitivity of High
Density Polyethylene and Polypropylenes, Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 2003,
358(1–2), p 356–371
18. P.J. DesLauriers, M.P. McDaniel, D.C. Rohlfing, R.K. Krishnaswamy,
S.J. Secora, E.A. Benham, P.L. Maeger, A.R. Wolfe, A.M. Sukhadia,
and B.B. Beaulieu, A Comparative Study of Multimodal vs. Bimodal
Polyethylene Pipe Resins for PE-100 Applications, Polym. Eng. Sci.,
2005, 45(9), p 1203–1213
19. X. Lu, R. Qian, and N. Brown, The Effect of Crystallinity on Fracture
and Yielding of Polyethylenes, Polymer, 1995, 36(22), p 4239–4244
20. R. Popli and L. Mandelkern, Influence of Structural and Morphological
Factors on the Mechanical Properties of the Polyethylenes, J. Polym.
Sci. Part B: Polym. Phys., 1987, 25(3), p 441–483
21. S. Humbert, O. Lame, and G. Vigier, Polyethylene Yielding Behaviour:
What is Behind the Correlation Between Yield Stress and Crys-
tallinity?, Polymer, 2009, 50(15), p 3755–3761
22. Y. Lu, W. Yang, K. Zhang, and M.-B. Yang, Stress Relaxation
Behavior of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Articles Molded
by Gas-Assisted Injection Molding, Polym. Test., 2010, 29(7), p
866–871
23. N. Sun, M. Wenzel, and A. Adams, Morphology of High-density
Polyethylene Pipes Stored Under Hydrostatic Pressure at Elevated
Temperature, Polymer (United Kingdom), 2014, 55(16), p 3792–3800
24. J. Lemaı̂tre, A Course on Damage Mechanics, Springer, Berlin, 1996
25. R.N. Haward, Strain Hardening of High Density Polyethylene, J.
Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys., 2007, 45(9), p 1090–1099
26. R.N. Haward, Strain Hardening of Thermoplastics, Macromolecules,
1993, 26(22), p 5860–5869
27. R.A.C. Deblieck, D.J.M. Van Beek, K. Remerie, and I.M. Ward,
Failure Mechanisms in Polyolefines: The Role of Crazing, Shear
Yielding and the Entanglement Network, Polymer, 2011, 52(14), p
2979–2990
28. B.D. Lauterwasser and E.J. Kramer, Microscopic Mechanisms and
Mechanics of Craze Growth and Fracture, Philos. Mag. A, 1979, 39(4),
p 469–495
29. E. J. Kramer, Microscopic and molecular fundamentals of crazing,
Crazing in Polymers, Springer, Berlin, 1983, p 1–56
30. L. Kurelec, M. Teeuwen, H. Schoffeleers, and R. Deblieck, Strain
Hardening Modulus as a Measure of Environmental Stress Crack
Resistance of High Density Polyethylene, Polymer, 2005, 46(17), p
6369–6379
31. Polyethylene (PE) Materials for Piping Systems —Determination of
Strain Hardening Modulus in Relation to Slow Crack Growth—Test
Method, 18488, ISO, 2015
32. Y. Zhang and P.Y.B. Jar, Effects of Crosshead Speed on the Quasi-
Static Stress-Strain Relationship of Polyethylene (PE) Pipes, J. Press.
Vessel Technol., 2016. doi:10.1115/1.4033777