0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

6 просмотров8 страницMay 08, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

6 просмотров8 страниц© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

M. A. Shalaby

With Internal Pressure

ECG Engineering Consultants Group,

Piping Department,

Cairo, Egypt

Under In-Plane Closing

Bending Moments

M. Y. A. Younan

The American University in Cairo, The purpose of this study is to determine limit loads for pipe elbows subjected to in-

Engineering Department, plane bending moments that tend to close the elbow (i.e., decrease its radius of

P.O. Box 2511, curvature), and the influence of internal pressure on the value of the limit load.

Cairo, Egypt 11511 Load-deflection curves were obtained, and from these curves plastic collapse or

E-mail: myounan@acs.auc.eun.eg instability loads at various values of internal pressure were determined. This was

done for different pipe bend factors (h = Rt/r 2 ) using the nonlinear finite element

analysis code (ABAQUS) with its special elbow element. The limit load was found

to increase and then decrease with increasing pressure for all the elbow geometries

studied.

Introduction exist in the pipe elbows change the values of limit loads and

affect their collapse behavior. Therefore, it is very important to

Smooth pipe bends or pipe elbows are commonly regarded determine conservative values of limit loads for pipe elbows

as critical components in a piping system. They are incorporated with internal pressure under various loading conditions.

into piping systems to allow modification of the isometric rout-

The pipe bend problem has been analyzed by several ap-

ing, but more importantly pipe elbows are usually incorporated

proaches either elastic or inelastic using small and large defor-

to reduce anchor reactions. Due to their increased flexibility in

comparison to straight pipes, they allow a reduction of the reac- mation solutions with both theoretical and numerical tech-

tion forces and moments within the system as a whole by virtue niques, in addition to experimental investigations. In the follow-

of their elastic deformations. Hence, they are forced to accom- ing, the inelastic analysis of pipe elbows will be discussed

modate disproportionate displacements arising from differential through the available work in the literature.

movements. Under complex stressing of this kind, severe load- Marcal (1967) presented the first results for elastic-plastic

ing may be set up within the elbow and this may lead to strain behavior of pipe bends with in-plane bending. His collapse

concentrations and major cross-sectional deformation. moment to moment of first yield ratios ranged from about 2 for

bends of short radius to a value of about 1.55 for bends of

Due to their specific deformational behavior when exposed

beyond the elastic limit, pipe elbows are capable of plasticizing larger radius. Spence and Findlay (1973) found approximate

over large areas when a system is overstressed. Thus, they bounds on limit moments for in-plane bending by utilizing pre-

absorb considerably large thermal expansions and seismic viously existing analyses in conjunction with the limit theorems

movements in addition to cushioning transiently loaded systems of perfect plasticity. They pointed out that a bend has a signifi-

by energy dissipation as a result of plastic material flow. How- cantly lower collapse load than a straight pipe, and this load

ever, care must be taken to ensure that the collapse load is increases with increasing pipe bend factor (h). Calladine

avoided. Therefore, it is very important to determine the safety (1974) tried to find the value of pure bending moment at which

margin between incipient local yield and the load at which the full plastic bending of the bend occurs according to classical

pipe bend collapses. limit analysis. He sought a lower bound to the limit value of

If an adequate limitation of plastic deformation cannot be the moment by using a classical elastic shell analysis in conjunc-

assured, then the pipe elbow or the piping system may fail tion with the lower-bound theorem of plasticity. Goodall

sooner or later depending on the type of load imposed, because (1978a) presented the first large displacement analysis to obtain

of the decreasing resistance of the components to further plastic limit loads of thin pipe elbows under in-plane bending moments.

deformation. Several cases of damage which have occurred in His analysis was based on the lower-bound theorem of plastic-

the region of pipe elbows in various piping systems have ity, and the process of elbow buckling under in-plane closing

prompted the initiation of various investigations with regard to bending moment was examined by solving the large deforma-

deformation and failure behavior of pipe elbows. Plastic limit tion problem for a simplified yield surface. The maximum load-

analysis concepts are used for establishing allowable loads. carrying capacity obtained from his analysis was about 10 per-

They provide estimates of plastic collapse loads, i.e., loads cent lower than the limit load obtained from small displacement

above which large increases in deformation occur with small analysis. Goodall (1978b) also obtained the first lower-bound

increases in load. The low value of the limit load for pipe solution for the limit load of thin elbows under the combined

elbows relative to that of straight pipes should be sufficient effects of in-plane bending and internal pressure using small

warning not to neglect elbows when considering the design of displacement analysis. Kitching et al. (1979) presented a lower-

piping systems. The high values of internal pressure that may bound analysis, but without making restrictions on the geome-

try, so any value of radius ratio (R/r) and (h) could be used.

They showed that the limit moment is dependent upon (R/r)

Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division and presented at the as well as on (h). Rodabaugh (1979) gave a lower-bound limit

Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Orlando, Florida, July 27-31, 1997, of pressure and showed that for an elbow with R/r = 3 the limit

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS . Manuscript received by the pressure is 0.8 times the limit pressure of a straight pipe. He

PVP Division, March 18, 1997; revised manuscript received August 1, 1997.

Associate Technical Editor: M. B. Ruggles.

noted that the pressure did not reduce the limit moment; indeed,

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 1998 by ASME FEBRUARY 1998, Vol. 1 2 0 / 3 5

it increased the limit moment by an average of 8 percent. experimental limit moment. They also showed that internal pres-

Brashel et al. (1983) conducted a large displacement analysis sure stiffens the elbow and opposes ovalization of the cross

of the load-bearing capacity of pipe bends. They stated that section, thus increasing the experimental limit moment by a

the limit load is reached when a kinematic chain is formed value of 55 percent for closing tests. The angular deflection was

circumferentially as a result of plastic joints, but it is almost shown to vary with internal pressure as the experimental limit

impossible to obtain the exact solution by analysis. Chain et al. moment does.

(1984) presented an approximate limit-load analysis for pipe The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of inter-

bends with end constraints under in-plane and out-of-plane load- nal pressure on the behavior of pipe elbows subjected to in-

ing. They extended a previous simplified steady-state creep plane closing bending moment loads, and the influence of this

analysis for pipe bends with end constraints using the same internal pressure on the value of the limit load. Therefore, it is

approach suggested by Spence and Findlay (1973). They required to determine plastic collapse or instability loads at

showed that the limit load of pipe elbow depends on several various values of internal pressure for different pipe elbow ge-

parameters, which are pipe bend factor (h), radius ratio (R/r), ometries.

bend angle (a), and the type of end constraints. The presence

of end constraints will stiffen the elbow and increase the limit

load. Analysis

Sobel and Newman (1977) carried out some investigations The finite element method was used to conduct the investiga-

into the instability of elbows in the plastic range using the finite tion. ABAQUS, which is a general nonlinear finite element

element method and special pipe bend element. They showed analysis package, was used with its special elbow element that

that geometric nonlinear effects are significant. If such effects takes the ovalization deformation into consideration, but as-

are included in the analysis, buckling into a circumferential sumes constant deformation along the element length. In order

ovalization mode occurs at a maximum point in the load-deflec- to study internal pressure effects and determine plastic collapse

tion curve and a definite buckling load can be established in or plastic instability loads, both geometric and material nonlin-

the case of closing moment. Dhalla (1980) presented a nonlin- earities were included in the analysis.

ear finite element analysis using doubly curved shell elements, From the finite element solution, a load-deflection curve was

and studied the effects of both load step and mesh refinements. obtained for each case with certain bend factor (h) and internal

He showed that both geometric and material nonlinearities inter- pressure value. From these curves it was possible to generate

act to cause collapse of an elbow, and that the geometric nonlin- limit curves which show the variation of instability and collapse

ear effects become significant at load levels above 80 percent loads with internal pressure for each value of bend factor (h).

of the buckling load. Sobel and Newman (1980) compared the Finite Element Model Using ABAQUS

results of a simplified finite element analysis using special pipe

bend element with experimental results. They showed that the Geometry. The pipe elbow used in this study is a 90-deg

analysis overestimates the deformations especially at high loads, 16-in. nominal diameter long radius elbow; i.e., its radius ratio

and it underestimates the experimental limit load by about 10 (R/r = 3), with different wall thickness (pipe schedules). Ten

percent as it does not account for end constraints. Sobel and values of wall thickness (f) were used which ranged from 0.165

Newman (1986) compared the results of simplified and detailed to 1.031 in., representing pipe schedules from Schedules, 5S to

finite element analysis with experimental results. Special pipe Sch. 100, and giving values of pipe bend factor (h = Rtlr1)

bend elements were used in the simplified analysis, whereas between 0.0632 and 0.4417, with Dlt ratios between 96.97 and

doubly curved shell elements were used in the detailed analysis. 15.52. Since it was required to study the behavior of pipe elbows

They showed that the simplified method of analysis is consid- alone without the effect of different types of end constraints,

ered a viable tool for the prediction of elastic-plastic behavior and to concentrate on the elbow's central section, only a 90-

as it is conservative and economical. Dhalla (1987) compared deg unconnected (stand alone) elbow model was used. The

the results of a detailed finite element analysis using doubly elbow configuration is shown in Fig. 1.

curved shell elements with experimental results, and showed

that they were in excellent agreement up to 60 percent of the Material. The material was assumed to be isotropic and

measured buckling load. The experimental analytical correlation elastic-plastic, following the measured response of type 304

was considered reasonable up to 80 percent of the buckling stainless steel at room temperature, as reported by Sobel and

load, and at higher loads the analysis predicted an increasingly Newman (1980); but for this study, in order to isolate the

stiffer response, and overpredicted the collapse load by 15 per- different parameters that affect the collapse behavior and to

cent. focus on the effect of internal pressure on that behavior, it was

required to neglect the effect of strain hardening of the material

Bolt and Greenstreet (1972) presented an experimental inves- and to assume that the material is elastic-perfectly plastic. From

tigation into plastic collapse of pipe elbows, and showed that a design point-of-view, this is a conservative approach, since it

the load-deflection curves provide acceptable indicators of the is expected that strain hardening would increase the value of

behavior of pipe elbows. They stated that internal pressure gen- limit loads. Also, it was found (Kussmaul et al., 1987) that

erally increases the collapse moment, although the load at the collapse under in-plane closing bending moment (which is the

onset of nonlinear response is decreased. Brouard et al. (1981) critical case) occurs with strain values of about 2 percent at

conducted some tests on pipe bends and showed that the col- which strain hardening of stainless steel is not very significant.

lapse moments of elbows depend also on both the end effects

and angle of the bend. Hilsenkopf et al. (1988) performed tests The material properties were:

on both thin and thick elbows subjected to in-plane and out-of- Young's modulus = 28 X 106 lb/in 2 (193 GPa)

plane bending moments. They showed that the in-plane closing Yield stress = 39440 lb/in 2 (271.93 MPa)

bending case is the most critical loading mode with the lowest Poisson's ratio = 0.2642

Nomenclature

D = diameter of pipe or bend P = internal pressure ; = wall thickness

E = Young's modulus R - radius of curvature a = subtended angle of bend

M = bending moment h = pipe bend factor v = Poisson's ratio

ML = limit moment r — mean radius (jy = yield stress

(R/r=3)

(h^Rt/r2)

t = 0 . 1 6 5 - 1 . 0 3 1 in

Fig. 1 Elbow model configuration

Model and Elements. The model used in this study was the prescribed loading. In this model, six Fourier modes with

based on the assumption of uniform bending, which means that 20 integration points around the pipe cross section were used.

the applied load is a pure bending moment and that all cross In addition, seven integration points were used through the pipe

sections deform in the same way (i.e., the effect of end con- wall. These are sufficient for the range of elbow geometries

straints is neglected). Therefore, the model was chosen as an used.

unconnected elbow subjected to combined loading of in-plane

pure bending moment and internal pressure. Loading. The load on the pipe bend has two components:

The one-dimensional cross-sectional deformation pattern ex- a "dead" load consisting of internal pressure (with closed end

pected allows very simple modeling to be adopted. Element condition), and a "live" load of pure in-plane bending moment

type ELBOW31B is a special pipe bend element with uniformly applied to the free end of the model.

deforming cross section. This element is based on an analysis The pressure is applied to the model in an initial step, and

which assumes that axial variations of both the ovalization of then held constant in the second analysis step while the bending

the cross section and the bending moment (M) are constant moment is being increased. The pressure values range from 0.0

over the axial length of the element, with the amount of ovaliza- psi to the maximum pressure that causes gross plastic deforma-

tion being dependent on the magnitude of (M), so it is ideal tion or collapse for the specific elbow geometry used in each

for this case of unconnected elbow. case. The equivalent end force, caused by the closed end condi-

tion, is applied as a follower force because it rotates with the

It is known that the elbow cross section ovalization varies in

motion of the end plane. The closed end condition was chosen

the axial direction due to the stiffening effects afforded by the

for the analysis in order to include the axial component of the

adjacent flanges or straight pipes of the elbow structure, How-

stresses caused by the internal pressure.

ever, for elbows with radius-to-thickness ratios (r/t) in the

range of 20 to 50, with reasonable angle extent (90 deg), and The elbow was subjected to in-plane pure bending moments,

with lengths of straight pipes that are typical of those normally and the loading was extended far enough in the plastic regime

encountered in practice, it seems reasonable to expect the axial in order to reach plastic collapse or instability. This large dis-

variation of the ovalization to be rather gradual and that buck- placement analysis is rotation-controlled, i.e., increments of ro-

ling will be initiated at the central section of the elbow where tation are prescribed at the free end rather than increments of

the stresses are the highest (Sobel and Newman, 1977). The moment, since it is anticipated that the collapse will be unstable.

present analysis concentrates on the behavior of this section. In these cases, displacement or rotation control can provide a

Hence, the use of special elbow element with constant ovaliza- solution even when the conjugate load (the reaction force or

tion is appropriate for such an analysis in addition to being moment) decreases as the displacement or rotation.increases.

economical. For this model, the rotation is applied to produce in-plane bend-

ing that tends to close the elbow (increase its curvature).

Moreover, this model is considered a conservative one, be-

cause end constraints increase the stiffness of the connected Verification of Model. This model was verified by compar-

elbow, and consequently increase its limit load. Furthermore, ing the same model, but with strain-hardening material with

the approximation involved in neglecting end effects is a logical that of unit length element model and shell elements model

one and agrees with what has been reported in the literature used in example 4.2.1 of ABAQUS Example Problems Manual

that internal pressure reduces the effect of end constraints. The (1995). The shell elements model is convergent with respect to

reason for this is that pressure causes the primary stresses to discretization, as the mesh convergence tests demonstrated that

be dominant; hence, the axial gradients of total (primary plus the meshes were convergent to overall response of the system.

secondary or bending) stress become small and the variation Therefore, the shell elements solution is considered exact solu-

of stress between the pipe bends and the straight pipe runs is tion, and is useful for comparison with ELBOW31B element

reduced (Hibbitt and Leung, 1985). For the case of 90-deg solution for its validation. The twelve ELBOW31B elements

bend, connected flanges only marginally reduce stresses and model predicted the same response of both the shell elements

bend deflections compared to those for an unconnected bend model and the unit length ELBOW31B element model. This

(Whatham and Thompson, 1979). Therefore, in this case where increases the confidence in the model used in this study.

high values of internal pressure are used, the approximation

appears to be quite good. Definition of Limit Loads Adopted in This Work. In this

A single element could suffice under pure bending moment, work, the term "limit load" is used as a collective term for

but the existence of internal pressure may be inconsistent with both "instability load" and "collapse load." The instability

the pure bending assumption (Boyle and Spence, 1977). Also, load is considered the maximum load in the load-deflection

the end force associated with the closed end condition makes plot where the curve approaches a horizontal asymptote. The

it better to use more than one constant bending elbow element collapse load is obtained by applying the "angle method" in

for the model. which the angle that the linear part of the load-deflection curve

The finite element model used to represent the 90-deg elbow makes with the vertical axis is measured, and a line making

consists of 12 elements of type ELBOW31B with 13 nodes double this angle with the vertical axis is drawn to intersect the

along the elbow length. The node at the fixed end is restrained load-deflection curve. The load at the intersection point is called

in all degrees of freedom; the other end node is free, except for the collapse load.

Table 1 Elbow geometric parameters and loading cases / Pr V'3

ML = 1.04ft2'3 1 (D2tay) (4)

Model Outside Radius Pipe Wall Thickness Bend Internal Pressure V 2oyt)

No. Diameter Ratio Schedule Thickness Ratio Factor Load Cases

1 16 3 58 0.165 96.97 0.0632 9 0-800 which shows that internal pressure reduces the value of the

2 16 3 10S 0.188 85.11 0.0722 11 0-1000 limit load since the stiffening effect of internal pressure is not

3 16 3 10 0250 64.00 0.0967 13 0-1200

4 16 3 20 0.312 51.28 0.1217 16 0-1600

considered in this small displacement approximate solution.

S 16 3 30(Std) 0.375 42.67 0.1475 20 0-1900

Loading Cases. Each elbow with certain (h) and internal

e 16 3

- 0.41 39.02 0.1615 23 0-2200

7 16 3 40 (X8) 0500 32.00 0.1996 27 0-2600 pressure value was subjected to in-plane bending moment,

S 16 3 60 0.656 24.39 0.2675 35 0-3400 which was applied to close the elbow. The bending loading in

9 16 3 80 0.844 18.96 0.3527 46 0-4400 each case was increased and extended far enough in the plastic

10 16 3 100 1.031 15.52 0.4417 55 0-5400

regime until plastic instability (or buckling) could be reached.

This was indicated by the inability of the finite element compu-

tations to converge for a reasonably small load step. The varia-

Theoretical Models. There has been considerable contro- tion of parameters and loading cases is shown in Table 1.

versy concerning the term limit load, how it should be calculated Since both geometric and material nonlinearities were in-

or measured, and how it should be used in the design of piping cluded in the analysis, the study could address the problem of

components. Analytical developments were based on idealized combined material and geometric collapse or instability.

concepts of limit analysis. According to these concepts, the

theoretical limit load is the maximum load obtained from an Results and Discussion

analytical model of the structure. All theoretical limit loads for

pipe bends are based on the theorems of limit analyses. Lower- Load-Deflection Curves. From the results of the finite ele-

bound solutions and upper-bound solutions were developed to ment analysis, load-deformation plots were obtained for each

bracket the theoretical limit load because bounding solutions case with certain bend factor (h = Rtlr1) and internal pressure

are easier to' obtain than exact solutions. value under in-plane closing moment. In each plot, the external

Approximate bounds on limit moments for in-plane bending moment expressed in pound-inches (lb-in.) was plotted against

were found (Spence and Findlay, 1973) by utilizing previously the free end rotations expressed in radians (rad). The plastic

existing analyses in conjunction with the limit theorems of per- collapse and plastic instability loads were determined from each

fect plasticity. Results were presented in nondimensional form plot. Plastic collapse load was determined using the angle

covering most practical pipe bend geometries and providing method discussed previously, whereas the plastic instability was

useful design information. considered the maximum moment that could be attained (where

the curve tends to approach a horizontal asymptote).

Generally, the results of their study can be reasonably well

expressed as Figure 2 shows the moment-rotation curve for the case of

elbow with bend factor (h) = 0.1615 and zero internal pressure

ML = 0.8 h06(D2t<Ty); for h < 1.45 under in-plane closing bending moment. It is clear from this

figure that the moment finally approaches a horizontal asymp-

= (DV,); for h a 1.45 (1) tote, and the plastic instability load in this case is 1.013 X 106

lb-in. (KM AX in the plot). The plastic collapse load determined

Calladine (1974 ), in his study to find the value of pure bend- by the angle method has nearly the same value of plastic insta-

ing moment at which full plastic bending of the bend occurs bility in this case.

according to classical limit analysis, obtained this relation

The moment-rotation relation for the same model, but with

ML = \A9-Khwrhoy, for h < 0.5 (2) internal pressure of 500 psi, is shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen

that the curve approaches a horizontal asymptote at a much

The large displacement effect was not considered in the previ- higher moment and deformation than in the case without pres-

ous analyses. Moreover, the effect of internal pressure which sure. In this case, the plastic instability moment was 1.68 X

has a significant effect on the limit load was not considered. 106 lb-in., whereas the plastic collapse load was 1.345 X 10 6 .

Only ideal plastic material behavior was used. Therefore, it It is clear from this figure that the internal pressure increased

should be noted that limit theorems used in calculating theoreti- both plastic instability and collapse moments. Also, the maxi-

cal limit loads, while of great practical use, are of necessity mum deformation attained (XMAX) was 0.3169 rad instead of

restricted in the information they provide. 0.06519 rad in the case without pressure.

The only large displacement analysis is that of Goodall

(1978a), who obtained an approximate solution for the case of

elbow instability under in-plane closing bending moment. The InslaWily

maximum load-carrying capacity of the elbow with (h < 0.5) CoBntise ~ x Ul ' ' i i i • ^ _ | « n •

I n—K ooo pit I : : / i : / ;

1

1 04h213 1 o.e ', •'/• <• .\,..y...;.

ML = ^j{Dhay) (3)

1 o.e ;.../...; :.../....\ j.

where

0.4-

. J ; i (3ft)a'3\/4V3(l-i/2)*, A

o.i....l....y. : i ;. ; ;....

XHIM i.oooc~o4 / / ! : : : : :

The only analytical solution that treats the problem of com- XHAX (.S19E-03 IS \ J ; ;

YHIM 4-407E.03 0.0*- ' ' 1 1 1 1 1

bined in-plane bending and internal pressure loading is the small VHAX l.olJE.Oi 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

End R o t a t i o n I tad I

displacement analysis of Goodall (1978b), which accounts for

the effect of internal pressure on the value of the limit moment Fig. 2 Moment-end rotation for an elbow with h = 0.1615, no internal

of elbows with (h < 0.5) as follows: pressure

InsUfcilily

• h»0.4417 6.0E*6

• MJ.3527 i

h=0.2675 7.0E*6

• rpO.1996

• 6.0E+6-, * H • 4 «4

1+ 1

h"0.1«15

*

-•

¥ 6.06*6, «,it

I 4'0M » •I

J 3.0E*6- •••!•••

2.0E+6 '

1.06*6 "i"

0.0&0- l44-- M 4 - -4*

t4-1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 32003600 4000 4400 4400 5203

H

0 400 800

Internal Pressure (psi)

VH1N .

yHKX 1 . 0.00 0.04 0 0,11 O . l t 0.20 O.J.I l).200.12 case

End R o t a t i o n I r i d )

nal pressure collapse and instability of the elbow result from the flattening

deformation or ovalization of the elbow cross section under

bending loads. This ovalization progressively reduces the cross

section stiffness with further bending until collapse or instability

Ixio 6

occurs. The existence of the internal pressure works against

*-•—K

t . |

000 p « l

l»l

this; it counteracts the elbow cross section ovalization and tends

< - • »

too

200 p.i to keep the cross section circular, thereby increasing its bending

1 i M J 01)

pil

*.. » 400 pil stiffness and, consequently, its collapse and instability loads.

S00 PI I

O-—O— (00 pil The subsequent decrease in both collapse and instability loads

a—a 700 Pi!

*•—* too 100 p i l with further increase of internal pressure is attributed to the

• — • p»l

added axial and hoop stresses resulting from internal pressure

which weakens the cross section, and at a certain value of

internal pressure the loss in cross section stiffness due to these

added stresses exceeds the gain in stiffness due to ovalization

resisting; hence, the decrease in both the instability and collapse

moments at higher values of internal pressure.

ivx warn 0.00 0.05 0.10 0. IS 0.20 0.25

End RotAdon ( r i d )

Variation of Limit Moment With Internal Pressure.

Fig. 4 Moment-end rotation for an elbow with h = 0.1615, at internal From the previous results it is possible to generate a set of limit

pressure values from 0-900 psi curves that could be used in design purposes. These limit curves

should be used in determining the maximum bending moment

that could be applied to an elbow with a certain value of internal

Figure 4 shows the variation of moment-rotation relation with pressure, or the value of internal pressure that the elbow could

increasing internal pressure from 0 psi to 900 psi. The general have in combination with a certain applied bending moment.

trend of increasing both the maximum moment and deformation Each limit curve shows the variation of both the instability

with increasing internal pressure is clear from this figure. The and collapse moment with internal pressure for each elbow

increase and the subsequent decrease of instability and collapse geometry under closing bending moment. Therefore, ten

moment with increasing pressure is clearly shown in Fig. 5. curves were generated and plotted. These curves are com-

The same type of behavior under in-plane closing moment bined together in Figs. 6 through 9. The variation of instabil-

was repeated for the remaining elbow geometries used in this ity moment with internal pressure for five elbow geometries

study, showing the general trend of increasing and then decreas- with (h) ranging from 0.4417 to 0.1615 is shown in Fig. 6.

ing of the instability and collapse moments with increasing the The increase and decrease in instability moments with inter-

internal pressure. nal pressure is clearly shown in this figure. It should be noted

The increase of collapse and instability moments with in- that the peak value of instability moment increases and shifts

creasing internal pressure could be explained by the increase to the right (i.e., at a higher pressure value) with increasing

of the elbow cross section stiffness due to internal pressure. The bend factor (h). The same trend is shown in Fig. 7 for the

rest of (h) values. This is because the maximum value of

internal pressure that could be used in an elbow increases

Ixio 6 ]

000 pit

soo p i t 4> h'0.1475 3.0E*6

1000 pil • M1.1217

1300 p»l • h-0.0967

1500 pii • h-0.0722 25E*6

2000 pil » h»0.0632

2200 pal

¥ i6£**

= l.0E*6

50E*5

0.0E*0

0.4 0.6 0 200 400 600 800 I00O 1200 1400 1600 1800

End Rootlon (rndl Internal Pressure (psi)

Fig. 5 Moment-end rotation for an elbow with h = 0.1615, at selected Fig. 7 Variation of instability moment with internal pressure, closing

internal pressure values (0-2200 psi) case

• h=0.4417

1IIIIIIIIII

6.0Et6 -•—hlBlBbilly

• M1.3527 ! 1

• h-0.2675

6.0E+6

4t{tittn -•—CcJapse j ]••••

/

* h=0.1998 !

• h=0.1615

•g 4.0E<« JJ- ill 1 i j

•

& II I /

3 0£ 6

1 ' * 1 /

"[*jl ..-•i** ''!'!'>»! 1

I 2.0E*6 f

.A

1 _ <>--^-ityWM.jn^...,f

] i

1 --

1.0E*6

JJJ^

0.0E«O

\ 44-H • i - i • i • i -• H 4- - M i 1 i 1

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200 0.0652 0.0722 0.0967 0.1217 0.1475 0.1615 0.1996 0.2675 0.3627 0.4417

Internal Pressure (psi) Bend Factor (n)

Fig. 8 Variation of collapse m o m e n t w i t h internal pressure, closing c a s e Fig. 10 Variation of limit m o m e n t w i t h b e n d factor [h) 0 psi, closing

case

with increasing bend factor (ft) of the elbow, and that the

effect of internal pressure depends on both the diameter and and Findlay's limit equation (Eq. (1)) was 1.109 X 10 6 lb-

wall thickness of the elbow (the maximum effect is in the in. and was 1.147 X 10 6 lb-in. using Calladine's equation

case of highest diameter-to-thickness ratio Dlt). (Eq. ( 2 ) ) . The large displacement finite element solution for

The variation of collapse moment with internal pressure for the ideal plastic material gave an instability moment value

all the (h) values is shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The increase of 1.013 X 10 6 lb-in. As was expected, the theoretical limit

and then decrease of collapse moment with internal pressure is moments calculated using the limit equations of Spence and

clearly shown. Also, the peak value of collapse moment in- Findlay and that of Calladine are higher than the finite ele-

creases and shifts to the right with increasing (h). ment instability moment for the closing case. This is because

these limit equations are based on small displacements and

Variation of Limit Moment With Pipe Bend Factor (h).

do not take geometric nonlinearity or instability into account.

For the cases of internal pressure with values of 0 psi and 500

Therefore, these equations are not conservative when geo-

psi, the variation of instability and collapse moments with elbow

metric instability is concerned. On the other hand, Goodall

geometry is shown in Figs. 10 and 11.

approximate equation for the maximum load-carrying capac-

Figure 10 shows the variation of instability and collapse mo-

ity under closing moment gave a value of 1.077 X 106 lb-

ment with pipe bend factor (h) for the closing case without

in., which approaches the finite element solution.

internal pressure. This plot indicates an increase in both the

instability and collapse moment with the increase of pipe bend Another comparison was made between the finite element

factor. It should be noted from this figure that the instability small displacement solution and the theoretical small dis-

and collapse moments have nearly the same value for all elbow placement limit moment solution. In this case, both solutions

geometries under in-plane closing moment without internal do not take geometric instability into account. The small

pressure. This adds more significance to the angle method of displacement finite element analysis gave an instability mo-

determining collapse load as it predicts the same value of insta- ment value of 1.209 X 10 6 lb-in., which is closer to the

bility load. theoretical limit moment values than in the case of large

Figure 11 shows the case of in-plane closing moment with displacement finite element analysis. In fact, it is somewhat

500 psi internal pressure. In this case, there is a difference higher than the theoretical values, and this difference might

between collapse and instability moments, especially at low (h) be attributed to the approximations involved in each theoreti-

values, with the collapse load as a conservative estimate of cal limit load equation.

instability load. For the rest of elbow geometries, the large displacement

finite element instability were compared with the theoretical

Comparison With Analytical Limit Loads. It is useful limit moments calculated from Spence and Findlay, Callad-

to compare some of the finite element results with those ob- ine, and Goodall limit equations. The results are shown in

tained using the approximate equations of limit load pre- Table 2.

sented by Spence and Findlay (1973), Calladine (1974), or It should be noted that for the elbow geometries with h =s

that of Goodall (1978a), which were previously discussed. 0.09675, the finite element closing instability moment was

These equations are derived using limit theorems of plasticity greater than the limit moment calculated from limit equa-

and they assume ideal plastic material and small displacement tions, although it should be lower as it takes geometric insta-

(apart from that of Goodall, which is based on large displace- bility into account. At larger values of (h), the finite element

ment analysis). instability moment was lower. Therefore, it can be concluded

At first, the case of the elbow geometry with h = 0.1615 that the theoretical limit moments calculated from the limit

will be discussed. In this case, the limit moment using Spence

HI Hifi

— • — kiBtabiity

« h=01475

?

ZOE+6

» h=O.I217 —•—Gotflpse

• h=0D967

. h=0.0722 i

. h=0.0632

^ / 7

—™i • ^

5.0E*5-

0.0E+0- 1 — i —

0.0662 0.0722 0.0967 0.1217 0.1475 0.1615 0.1! 0.2675 0.3627 0.4417

600 1000 1200 Bend Faclw lh)

Internal Pressure (psi)

Fig. 11 Variation of limit m o m e n t w i t h b e n d factor (/>) 5 0 0 psi, closing

Fig. 9 Variation of collapse m o m e n t with internal pressure, closing c a s e case

Table 2 Analytical and FEA limit loads L.D. Meb. 3.6E+6-,

LD.Colip.

SO. Instab.

&D. Colop. 106*6 •

Bend Spence & Calladine Goodall, F.E.A., A

Goodal

Factor Findlay Closing Closing t

(h) Ib-in Ib-in Ib-in Ib-in

-*« ___..

0.0632 2.495x10s 2.470x10s 2.066x10s 3.135x10s

1 1.56*6-

0.0722 3.136x10? 3.076x10s 2.638x10s 3.693x10s

0.0967 4.972x10s 4.970x10s 4.456x10s 5.129x10s 1.0E+6' Sfe iss •te ate 5tE -+H - 4 -

0.1217 7.121x10s 7.230x10s 6.648x10s 6.761x10s 5.0E+5-

0.1475 9.606x10s 9.879x10s 9.222x10s 8.796x10s

1.109X108

0.06+0- —_,— H _ ^ _ ^ — — H _*_ _^_

0.1615 1.147x10s 1.077x10s 1.013x10s 200 400 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000

0.1998 1.536x10s 1.613x10s 1.526x10s 1.417x10" Internal Pressure (psl)

0.2675 2.401x10s 2.570x10s 2.424x10s 2.256x10s

0.3527 3.648x10s 3.976x10s 3.734x10s 3.438x10s Fig. 13 Variation of limit m o m e n t with internal pressure h 0.1615—

small and large displacement analyses, closing case.

0.4417 5.100x10s 5.544x10s 5.224x10s 4.757x10s

equations are conservative for elbows with bend factors (h) has nearly the same value of plastic instability load in the clos-

lower than about O.l. At values of (h) above 0.1, the large ing moment case without internal pressure for all elbow geome-

displacement finite element analysis gives more conservative tries; but in the case with internal pressure, the plastic collapse

results. load is a conservative estimate of instability load, especially for

The results of analytical limit equations and finite element elbows with low bend factor (h).

closing instability are plotted and compared in Fig. 12, which Both the plastic instability and collapse loads increase with

shows the variation of analytical limit moments and finite ele- increasing pipe bend factor (h) due to the increased bending

ment closing instability moment without internal pressure. It is stiffness of the elbow cross section. The effects of internal

clear from this figure that the analytical limit moments are more pressure depend on the diameter-to-thickness ratio {DIt) of the

conservative at values of bend factor (h) s 0.1. The limit elbow, and they are more pronounced at high values of {DIt),

moment calculated from the small displacement of Spence and i.e., low values of {h).

Findlay is more conservative and is closer to the instability

moment than that of Calladine. References

Figure 13 shows the variation with internal pressure of insta- ABAQUS, 1995, ABAQUS/Standard Version 5.5, User's Manual Vol. I, Ex-

bility moment and collapse moment (using angle method) ob- ample Problems Manual Vol. I, and Theory Manual, Hibbitt, Carlsson & Sorensen,

tained from small and large displacement analyses for the same Inc., RI.

Bolt, S. E., and Greenstreet, W. L„ 1972, "Experimental Determination of

elbow with bend factor (h = 0.1615), and it compares them Plastic Collapse Loads for Pipe Elbows," ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL

with values calculated using the approximate equation obtained TECHNOLOGY Paper No. 71-PVP-37, pp. 1-12.

by Goodall (1978b) small displacement analysis with internal Boyle, J. T., and Spence, J., 1977, "The Nonlinear Analysis of Pressurized

pressure. It is clear from this figure that for small displacement Pipe Bends," Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Pressure Vessel

analysis, both instability and collapse moments continue to de- Technology, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 121-131.

Brashel, R. A., et al., 1983, "Calculation of the Load Carrying Capacity of

crease with increasing internal pressure. The limit moment cal- Pipe Elbows With the Help of the Method of Approximation," Proceedings, 7th

culated from Goodall also decreases with increasing internal SMiRT Conference, Chicago, IL, G/F5/8, pp. 373-380.

pressure, but the rate of decrease is smaller than that of the Brouard, d„ et al., 1981, "In-Plane and-Out-of-Plane Bending Tests on Carbon

finite element solution. Steel Pipe Bends," Proceedings, 6th SMiRT Conference, Paris, France, F3/2.

Calladine, C. R„ 1974, "Limit Analysis of Curved Tubes," Journal of Mechan-

ical Engineering Sciences, Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.

Conclusions 85-87.

Chain, K. L. C , et al., 1984, "Approximate Limit Loads for Pipe Bends With

For pipe elbows under in-plane closing moments, both plastic End Constraints," Applied Solid Mechanics— /, eds., A. S. Tooth and J. T. Boyle,

instability and collapse loads increase with increasing internal Elsevier, 275-285.

Dhalla, A. K., 1980, "Plastic Collapse of a Piping Elbow: Effect of Finite

pressure up to a certain value, and then decrease with increasing Element Convergence and Residual Stresses," Proceedings, 4th International

pressure. This stiffening effect of internal pressure is directly Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 11, The Institution of Mechanical

associated with geometric nonlinearities since neglecting large Engineers, London, U.K., pp. 243-249.

displacements in the analysis results in a decrease of both insta- Dhalla, A. K„ 1987, "Collapse Characteristics of a Thin Walled Elbow: Valida-

bility and collapse loads with increasing internal pressure. The tion of Analytical Procedure," ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOL-

OGY, Vol. 109, 394-401.

value of instability load from small displacement analysis for Goodall, I. W., 1978a, "Large Deformations in Plastically Deforming Curved

zero pressure is not conservative, since only material instability Tubes Subjected to In-Plane Bending," Research Division Report RD/B/N4312,

is accounted for in the analysis. Central Electricity Generating Board, England.

Goodall, I. W„ 1978b, "Lower Bound Limit Analysis of Curved Tubes Loaded

by Combined Internal Pressure and In-Plane Bending Moment," Research Divi-

sion Report RD/B/N4360, Central Electricity Generating Board, England.

—•— Catodire 6.06*6-| Hibbitt, H. D., and Leung, E. K„ 1985, "Verification and Application of an

—•—Silence

! . Inelastic Analysis Methods for LMFBR Piping System,'' Welding Research Coun-

...../<

— •—Goodal

—»—F-ECMnj

6.06*6-

Hilsenkpf, P., et al., 1988, "Experimental Study of Behavior and Functional

Capability of Ferritic Steel Elbows and Austenitic Stainless Steel Thin-Walled

3.06*6-

2,06*6-

i J\

!

Elbows," International Journal of Pressure Vessels & Piping, Vol. 33, No. 2,

pp. 111-128.

Kitching, R., et al., 1979, "Limit Moment for a Smooth Pipe Bend Under In-

Plane Bending," International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 21, pp. 7 3 1 -

1.06*6- • !« > ^ 738.

•i^*' ! Kussmaul, K., et al., 1987, "Investigation of the Plastic Behaviour of Pipe

0.06*0 ; t = 1 - " " i.—i—I—1__ Bends," ASME PVP-Vol. 127, pp. 55-66.

0.0632 0.0722 0.0967 0.1217 0.1475 0.1615 0.1998 0.2675 0.3827 0.4417

Marcal, P. V., 1967, "Elastic-Plastic Behavior of Pipe Bends With1 In-Plane

Bend Factor (h) Bending," Journal of Strain Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 84-90.

Rodabaugh, E. C , 1979, "Interpretive Report on Limit Load Analysis and

Fig. 12 Variation of analytical and finite element limit moments with Plastic Deformation of Piping Products," Welding Research Council Bulletin,

bend factor (h) No. 254, pp. 65-82.

Sobel, L. H., and Newman. S. Z., 1977, "Instability Analysis of Elbows in the an Elbow," ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 108, pp.

Plastic Range," Proceedings, 4th SMiRT Conference, San Francisco, CA, Vol. 297-304.

L, Paper No. L 3/2, pp. 1-11. Spence, J., and Findlay, G. E„ 1973, "Limit Loads for Pipe Bends Under In-

Sobel, L. H., and Newman. S. Z., 1980, "Comparison of Experimental and Simpli- Plane Bending," Proceedings, 2nd, International Conference on Pressure Vessels

fied Analytical Results for In-Plane Plastic Bending and Buckling of an Elbow," Technology, San Antonio, TX, Vol. 1-28, pp. 393-399.

ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 102, pp. 400-409. Whatham, J. F., and Thompson, J. J., 1979, "The Bending and Pressurizing of

Sobel, L. H., and Newman. S. Z., 1986, "Simplified, Detailed, and Isochronous Pipe Bends With Flanged Tangents," Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 54,

Analysis and Test Results for the In-Plane Elastic Plastic and Creep Behavior of pp. 17-28.