1.

THE FLEXIBILITY OF PIPING SYSTEMS;

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE STRESSES
AND END REACTIONS IN FULL-SCALE PIPING SYSTEMS
CAUSED BY THERMAL EXPANSION AND OTHER MOVEMENTS

by

R. T. Smith, B.Sc.(Eng.)., A.M.I.Mech.E.

A Thesis Submitted to the University of London

for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in the Faculty of Engineering

Department of Mechanical Engineering,

City and Guilds College,
Imperial College of Science and Technology,
August 1965
University of London.
 2.

THE FLEXIBILITY OF PIPING SYSTEMS;

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE STRESSES
AND END REACTIONS IN FULL-SCALE PIPING SYSTEMS
CAUDED BY THERMAL EXPANSION AND OTHER MOVEMENTS

ABSTRACT

Many calculation methods have been evolved for analysing the

flexibility of pipeline systems and hence determining the end reac-
tions and the resulting stresses in the pipe but most experimental
xork in this field has been carried out on single pipe bends. In
the present t^Jork tests have been made at room temperature on two-
anchor, two-dimensional and two-anchor, three-dimensional pipelines
and at operating temperature on the two-dimensional system only.

Measurements on individual pipe bends subjected to in-plane

and out-of-plane bending moments gave experimental values of de-
flection, flexibility and stresses for comparison with theoretical
values. Some empirical modification of the flexibility of pipe
bends to allow for end restraints is suggested and formulae for the
deflecticn of 90-deg bends are given. Existing theories for in-
plane bending of curved tube predict the stresses with sufficient
accuracy but for out-of-plane bending a more exact theory has been
developed.

Consideration is given to the application of the results of

this investigation in the stressing of piping systems.
 3.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This programme of experimental work was undertaken for the

British Ship Research Association who supplied the necessary funds.
Pipes Nos. 1 and 2 were supplied by Messrs. Swan, Hunter and
Wigham Richardson Ltd., and the welding elbow by B.K.L. Alloys Ltd.

Particular thanks are due to Professor Hugh Ford, D.Sc.(Eng.),

Ph.D., F.C.G.I., Wh.Sch., M.I.Mech.E., M.I.C.E., F.I.M. for his
continued interest and guidance throughout.


4.

CONTENTS
Page No.
ABSTRACT 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3
CONTENTS 4
NOMENCLATURE 6
CHAPTER 1 PIPING-FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
1.1 The Design of Pipeline Systems 11
1.2 Methods of Piping-Flexibility Analysis 11
1.3 Previous Work 13
1.4 Outline of Present Work 13

CHAPTER 2 APPARATUS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

2.1 Description of the Test Rig 16
2.2 Testing Technique 23
2.3 Experimental Pipelines 24

CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTS ON PIPELINE SYSTEMS

3.1 Calculation Methods 29
3.2 Tests on the Two-Dimensional Pipeline at
Room Temperature 30
3.3 High-Temperature Tests on the Two-
Dimensional Pipeline 37
3.4 External Loading Tests on the Three-
Dimensional Pipeline 40

CHAPTER 4 TESTS ON INDIVIDUAL PIPE BENDS

4.1 Description of Tests 45
4.2 Distortion of Pipe Cross Section 46
4.3 Deflection and Flexibility Measurements 46
4.4 Stress Measurements 50


5.

CHAPTER 5 THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF OUT-OF-PLANE

BENDING
5.1 General Analysis of the Problem 53
5.2 Further Approximations 67
5.3 Comparison with In-Plane Bending 68

CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Modification of Piping-Flexibility Analysis
to include Variable Flexibility Factors 73
6.2 Calculated Flexibility Factors 73
6.3 Stress Calculations for Complex Loading 74
6.4 Practical Considerations 76

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78

REFERENCES 79
APPENDIX 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY 82
APPENDIX 2 SLOPE FORMULAE 91
APPENDIX 3 DISTORTION OF PIPE CROSS SECTION 93
APPENDIX 4 DEFLECTION OF 90-DEG PIPE BEND 96
APPENDIX 5 TRIGONOMETRICAL IDENTITIES 99
TABLES 100
PLATES 135
FIGURES 140
PUBLISHED MATERIAL
 6.

NOMENCLATURE
(except CHAPTER 5)

A - A Constants defined in Table 29.

1 5
D Dial gauge reading kith suffixes).
E Young's modulus.
F ,F ,F Forces in directions x,y,z.
x y z
Resultant force.
I Second moment of area of pipe cross section
3 2
= 2 nhr (l+k ).
Flexibility factor at angle Nt.
K Average flexibility factor between = 0 deg
and lip = 90 deg.
M Out-of-plane bending moment.
b
M Torsional bending moment.
t
M ,M ,M Bending moment about axes x,y,z.
x y z
R Radius of curvature of pipe-bend axis.
S ,S Shift of F ,F (co-ordinates of elastic centre).
x y y x

al- a
Constants defined in Appendix 2.
n
b A dimensionless parameter = R/r.
d d Effective diameter of pipe (see Fig. 7).
h' v
f Equivalent stress.
h Half pipe-wall thickness.
k A dimensionless parameter =
1 Length of pipeline element (with suffixes).
q Torsional shear stress.
r Mid-wall radius.
Longitudinal stress.
t Transverse (hoop) stress.
x,y,z Co-ordinates on orthogonal axes of pipeline.
 7.

A Displacement of pipe axis.

Qx 9 A ' Displacement of pipe axis in directions x,y,z.
y

Equivalent stress factor.

Angular position around pipe cross section,
e = 0 at extrados.
The pipe factor = 211R/r2 = 2kb.
Poisson's ratio.
Angular displacement of pipe about axes x,y,z.
f6x y9 0z
Angle around pipe bend.
4)

Since many symbols are used in Chapter 5 only and others are used
in a different sense, it is convenient to list them separately.
 8.

NOMENCLATURE
for CHAPTER 5 and APPENDIX 3

A nth coefficient of a series denoting the mid-wall

n
transverse strain.
B nth coefficient of a series denoting the mid-wall
n
longitudinal stress.
C nth coefficient of a series denoting the
n
transverse deformation.
D
n nth coefficient of a series denoting the
transverse direct stress.
E Young's modulus.
G nth coefficient of a series denoting the mid-wall
n
longitudinal strain.
H Transverse shear force.
I Second moment of area of pipe cross section =
2nhr3(1+k2).
J nth coefficient of a series denoting the transverse
n
bending moment in pipe wall.
K Flexibility factor.
L nth coefficient of a series denoting the forces
n
tending to distort the cross section.
Psi Applied bending moment.
Q Radius of curvature of pipe axis due to bending.
R Radius of curvature of pipe-bend axis.
T Transverse direct force.
W Quantity describing the deformation of the
pipe cross section.
X nth coefficient of a series denoting the variation
n
of longitudinal strain through the wall thickness.
 9.

b A dimensionless parameter = R/r.

el Longitudinal strain.
e Transverse strain.
t
f Transverse direct stress.
g Component of force tending to distort the
cross section.
h Half pipe-wall thickness.
j A function of the modified second moment
of area of the pipe wall.
k A dimensionless parameter = h/r.
m Transverse bending moment on pipe wall.
p Transverse bending stress.
q Mid-wall radius of curvature after deformation.
r Mid-wall radius.
Longitudinal stress.
t Transverse stress.
w ,w Deformation of pipe wall in direction x,y.
x y
x Co-ordinate of pipe cross section perpendicular
to the plane of the bend.
y Co-ordinate of pipe cross section in the plane of
the bend.
z Co-ordinate through the pipe-wall thickness.

Variable component of longitudinal strain.

'7 Angle subtended by pipe after bending.
6 Angular position around pipe cross section,
6 = 0 at extrados.
X The pipe factor = 2hR/r2 = 2kb.
v Poisson's ratio.
 10.

on, Longitudinal stress factor.

s
a Transverse stress factor.
t
0 Rotation of pipe wall.

)11 Angle subtended by pipe at centre of curvature.

Suffix o Value of quantity at 0 = 0.

Suffix p Value of quantity at 0 = 8p.
Prime' Value of quantity at mid.-wall layer.
 11.

CHAPTER 1

PIPING-FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

1.1 The Design of Pipeline Systems

In designing the layout of pipelines, the problem of providing

sufficient flexibility to accommodate thermal expansion without in-
ducing excessive stresses has led to the development of various cal-
culation methods known generally as "piping-flexibility analysis".
Although first developed for steam power plant these methods have
been applied to pipelines for oil refineries and chemical plant and
have been extended to include dead weight and wind loading in addition
to expansion movements. The stresses resulting therefrom are gen-
erally considered separately from any stresses due to internal
pressure which can usually be more readily calculated.

1.2 Methods of Piping-Flexibility Analysis

The basis of all the different methods of flexibility analysis

is to consioer the pipeline as a structure with displacements im-
posed at the various anchor points, these being equal and opposite
to the expansion which would occur if the ends of the pipeline were
not fixed. Generally only bending of the pipe is considered, the
stresses and deflections due to direct loads being small enough to
be neglected. The pipeline consists of straight or tangent lengths
of pipe and sections of curved pipe usually known as pipe bends.
While simple bending theory may be applied directly to the straight
lengths, the behaviour of curved pipe subjected to bending is more
complex,,providing a greater flexibility but involving higher
stresses than indicated by simple theory. This effect is taken
 12.

into account in most methods of piping flexibility analysis by the

use of flexibility factors relating the flexibility of the curved
pipe to that obtained in a straight pipe of the same length and
cross section and subjected to the same bending moment. In a
similar way, stress intensification factors are used to give the
maximum stress in terms of that calculated by simple bending theory.

The magnitudes of these factors depend on the proportions of

the pipe bend: these can be represented by two non-dimensional
factors giving the radius of curvature of the pipe axis and the
wall thickness in terms of the pipe radius. The actual value
chosen for the stress and flexibility factors will also depend on
the "exactness" of the theory used for the bending of the pipe bend.

The theory for long-radius (say, greater than four diameters)

curved pipe subjected to bending in the plane of the bend was first
developed by von Karman in 1911 and later by Hovgaard who subse-
quently outlineda procedure for the analysis of forces and moments
in.a three-dimensional pipeline (1,2) X• It vas then assumed that
the increased flexibility did not apply to bending perpendicular to
the plane of the bend but Vigness (3) showed that a flexibility
factor should be applied for out-of-plane bending.

Many different procedures were developed for piping flexib-

ility and some were reviewed by Jones (4), while in a series of
articles in the journal "Heating, Piping and Air Conditioning" be-
tween 1946 and 1953 (5) various authors described their own methods.
All these methods were intended for computation using mechanical
calculating machines and all require many hours of calculation for
all but the simplest systems. In some methods approximations were

References are given on p. 79.

 13.

made to reduce the time required but in the last few years the use
of all these calculation methods and of model test apparatus has
been largely superseded by the electronic digital computer. Approx-
imate methods are no longer needed as computer programmes can be
based on one of the exact methods such as the Meyer-Hovgaard (6),
the Kellogg General Analytical Method (7) or the grapho-analytical
method (4).

1.3 Previous Work.

The literature relating to piping flexibility and stresses in

pipe bends is extensive and has been reviewed many times, notably
in the book published by the Kellogg Company (7) and by Markl (8).
'Norks published since 1955 and not given by Markl are included in
a bibliography forming Appendix 1. Apart from Poynor (9) who
extended the Meyer-Hovgaard method to include dead-weight loading,
most recent publications on piping-flexibility analysis have dealt
with the application of computers. Theoretical work on pipe bends
has been carried out by Turner and Ford (10) who published a theory
for in-plane bending which eliminated many of the simplifying assump-
tions previously made and by American workers on the effect of in-
ternal pressure on the flexibility (11, 12). Recent experimental
work on pipe bends has generally been concentrated on short-radius
bends (13-16) but Swanson and Ford (17) made tests on two very thick-
walled bends. The range of pipe bend parameters involved in this
experimental work is illustrated in Fig. 1.

1.4 Outline of Present Work.

The work described in the following chapters was initiated

 14.

with the object of providing an experimental check of the flexib-

ility calculations on a full-scale pipeline. At that time the main
concern was the time required for such calculations using mechanical
calculating machines and although the digital computer has reduced
this time by several orders of magnitude, the increased use of
piping-flexibility analysis makes an experimental check equally
desirable.

It was decided that the first need was to make a suitable test
rig by which definite loads could be applied or known displacements
made to the ends of typical pipework systems. The rig was to be
capable of testing various types of loading and be so arranged that
two-.and three-dimensional layouts could be tested.

The first experiments were carried out on a two-dimensional

pipeline incorporating two right-angled bends. Measurements were
made of strains at the bends and of deflection at the anchors and
along the pipeline while the following various forms of loading were
applied;

(a) end displacements corresponding to thermal expansion move-

ments were imposed and the resulting end loads compared with
calculations made using the grapho-analytical method of
piping-flexibility analysis and based on the nominal
dimensions of the pipe.

(b) end forces were applied to obtain experimentally the

flexibility coefficients calculated by the grapho-
analytical method.

(c) a bending moment .vas applied, the value being constant

throughout the length of the pipeline.

(d) the pipe was subjected to internal pressure.

 15.

(e) external loading as in (a) was combined with internal

pressure.

After these tests at room temperature, the pipeline was heated

to operating temperature with end movement restrained and while no
attempt was made to measure stresses, the end loads were measured
and compared with the earlier tests and with the calculations.

The same pipeline was then re-assembled to form a three-

dimensional system which was subjected to anchor displacements at
room temperature to simulate expansion movements and to obtain
flexibility coefficients for comparison with the grapho-analytical
calculations.

While no stress measurements were made on the three-dimensional

system, after the apparatus had been moved to a new but smaller
laboratory, part of the pipeline incorporating only one bend was
subjected to bending moments of the type which occur in three-
dimensional systems and the resulting strains and deflections were
measured.

Finally, in view of higher pressures and temperatures requiring

in the future the use of thicker pipes, a thick-walled pipe bend
was tested by applying in-plane and out-of-plane bending moments
and measuring stresses and deflections.

The results of these tests showed the need for a more accurate
theory for out-of-plane bending and this is developed in Chapter 5.
 16,

CHAPTER 2

APPARATUS AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES

2.1 Description of the Test Riq.

2.1.1 .
Requirements for Test Ricer

To accommodate various pipeline layouts a site with good head-

room and floor area was required. It was considered impracticable
and unnecessary to make completely rigid abutments for the anchor
points but a strong floor or framework with means for bolting the
anchor frames to it at a number of positions was needed.

The anchor points had to be capable of giving known and mea-

surable movements to the ends of the pipes; they had also to in-
corporate suitable load-measuring units, so that both the direct
forces and the bending moments could be measured in three orthogonal
planes.

Suitable means had also to be provided for measuring the dis-

placements of the pipework over the whole length and for checking
the stresses at critical sections.

2.1.2 Foundations.

For the tests on complete pipelines the laboratory floor was

formed of a reinforced-concrete slab with heavy sockets cast into
it at regular spacing (Figs. 2 and 3). In the smaller laboratory
it was not possible to make use of the floor to take the reactions
of the loads imposed on the pipe, so the anchor frames were modified
for bolting to a substantial L-shaped underframe.
 17.

2.1.3 Anchor Frames.

The anchor frames were made up of steel sections, cross-

braced for rigidity and could be bolted to the floor in many diff-
erent positions thus providing considerable scope for variation in
pipeline layout. The anchor frames are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 and
in Plates 1, 2 and 3.

Controlled movements of the ends of the pipeline could be

imposed by means of six turnbuckles acting through universal cou-
plings on each anchor. The turnbuckles were arranged in pairs in
three mutually perpendicular directions, so providing translation
and rotation in three planes. The universal joints allowed free
movement except in one direction at each turnbuckle and it was con-
sidered that this method would give the greatest scope for applying
a constant moment, a single force, or any combination of forces and
moments from which the characteristics of the pipeline system could
be determined. In most forms of model-testing apparatus end
movements are applied by three mutually perpendicular micrometer
heads or slides held rigidly to prevent rotation. This method
would be impracticable in full-scale testing and does not permit
rotation of the end points.

2.1.4 Dynamometer.

The dynamometer was initially arranged as a two-dimensional

unit and experience of its use in this form showed the need for
some modifications which were incorporated before final assembly
in the three-dimensional form as shown in Plate 3.

The inner frame of the dynamometer was of welded construction

and was bolted to the flange at the end of the pipeline. The outer
frame was fabricated by ,,relding from steel angle and was coupled
 18.

on its outer side to the turnbuckles.

Between the two frames :ere the load-measuring units. Three

of these units vere used in the two-dimensional dynamometer and six
arranged in pairs in the three-dimensional dynamometer (Fig. 4), one
of each pair being in line with the end of the pipeline and the other
at a distance of 20 in. The moment in any one plane is therefore
given by the reading of the latter multiplied by the arm of 20 in.
and the force in any direction is given by - he algebraic sum of the
two readings. Tensile forces in the load-measuring units were taken
as positive and compressive forces as negative so that the relation
between the dynamometer readings and the end forces and moments
were as shown in Fig. 4.

Requirements to be met by the load-measuring units were:-

(a) They must measure tensile and compressive forces.

(b) Universl joints with the minimum of friction must be provided

at both ends of each unit so that each component force is
fully recorded on the appropriate unit.

(c) Deflection under load must be small so that alignment

is retained.

(d) That direct indications from all units should be available

simultaneously to facilitate setting up any required load
condition.

These conditions were met by the use of hydraulic capsules

for the measurement of forces, the arrangement shown in Fig. 5.
enabled both tension and compression to be measured. The angular
flexibility of the capsule was used to meet condition (b) together
with a universal coupling incorporating needle roller bearings.

Fig. 5 and Plate 4 show details of the load capsules. The

 19.

bonded capsule A (Fig. 5) was bolted rigidly to the base B thus

forming the space for the hydraulic fluid. For the measurement
of tension, four equally-spaced studs H transferred the load through
the spacers V from E to the base of the capsule B, while similE,r
studs G coupled the head of the capsule C to the outer frame. To
measure a compressive force, the rings U were rotated through an
angle of 45 deg. so that the spacers W took up the axial clearance
between B and D and between C and E, while a clearance was introduced
under the head of the studs. Freedom for small angular movement in
the rubber bonding of the capsule was thus permitted, while retain-
ing the same overall length of the unit for tensile cr compressive
measurements.

The hydraulic fluid was connected by a flexible capillary tube

to a standard pressure gauge which was calibrated directly in pounds.
The calibrations were checked against a standard proving ring and
correction graphs were prepared. The gauges indicated loads up
to 10,000 lbf and could be read to an accuracy of 5 lbf. Errors
caused by friction, the resistance of the capsule to bending and
misalignment under load were estimated to be of the same order as
the accuracy of reading. The deflection of the outer frame under
load was small and in practice the frame was not heavily loaded as
the turnbuckles were arranged in line with each load-measuring unit.

2.1.5 Reference Frame and Deflection Measurements.

Owing to the difficulty of obtaining absolute rigidity in the

end fixing with a full-scale pipe, it was decided to make all
measurements of the pipeline displacement with respect to a refer-
ence frame which was completely independent of the anchor frames.
For each pipe layout a framework was constructed using light slotted
angle and examples are shown in Fig. 2 and Plates 1 and 2.
 20.

Displacement and rotation of the pipe flanges were measured by dial

gauges mounted on brackets which were bolted to the flange (Fig. 2
and Plate 2). Attached to the frame was a number of short lengths
of steel channel section the faces of which were machined to provide
flat surfaces against which the dial gauges acted. The relationship
between the dial gauge rsadings and the deflections are shown in
Fig. 6.

Deflection measurements were made at points along the pipe-

line by a dial gauge adapted for use as a "stick" micrometer (Plate
5), exact location being ensured by small impressions made on the
pipe surface with a ball-ended punch. This method was used to
find the displacement of the pipe centre-line in the two-dimensional
tests, a correction being made to compensate for the flattening of
the pipe near the bends. However, the technique had to be modi-
fied for the three-dimensional loading when it was necessary to
measure two perpendicular components of displacement and the rota-
tion of the pipe. The apparatus used for this is shown in Fig. 7
and Plate 6. The dial gauge frame had a ball point which located
in the small spherical indentation in the pipe surface and by
rocking the frame about this point a maximum reading of the dial
gauge was obtained. Four readings at each section were needed
to give the displacements as shown in Fig. 7 and because of the
distortion of the cross-section near the bends, all four readings
were also needed to give the rotation.

In the tests with uniform bending moment, these deflections

were measured at points along the pipeline in order to find the
change of slope of the pipe at the tangent points. TwD methods
were used4

(a) the deflection of the tangent point with respect to the pipe
 21.

flange was obtained from the measurements and the slope

found by +he application of simple bending theory.

(b) a series of measurements was taken near the tangent point

as shown in Fig. 8 and the slope calculated from the for-
mulae given in Appendix 2. If n points are taken these
expressions are obtained by assuming the deflection of the
2 n-1
pipe centre line to be of the form a1 x + a x + +a x .
2 n-1
Since for uniform bending the deflected form should be para-
bolic, three points should be sufficient and it was found in
practice that taking more only tended to exaggerate errors.
The best results were obtained by taking several different
combinations of three points and averaging the results.

These two methods gave good agreement and so it was reasonable

to average the results obtained from them thus reducing the errors
which tend to occur when small differences are involved.

All dial gauges were calibrated with slip gauges and while
errors were generally small, correction graphs were prepared for
each gauge so that inaccuracies in subsequent calculations should
be kept to a minimum.

2.1.6 Strain Measurements.

Electrical resistance strain gauges were used to measure the

stresses at critical sections of the pipeline. For the tests with
three-dimensional loading gauges were arranged in rosette form as
shown in Plate 7. Conventional techniques were employed and the
readings were taken on a 50-way static strain gauge indicator.

2.1.7 Pressure Testing.

Internal hydraulic pressure was applied to the pipeline, a

 22.

weak solution of soluble oil in water being used as the pressure

medium to minimize corrosion. A hand-operated pump was used to
apply pressures up to 1000 lbf/in2 which were indicated on a
bourdon-type pressure gauge.

2.1.8 Heating Tests.

For the experiments in which the pipeline was heated the

apparatus used at room temperature required several modifications.
In order to isolate the dynamometer from the high temperatures a
shcrt extension pipe was bolted to the end of the pipeline (Plate
8).
The pipeline was heated by electrical heating tapes wound
around the pipe in a spiral (Plate 9) and giving a total power of
6000 watts. The full length of the pipeline was covered in eight
sections each with a separate energy regulator providing control
of the temperature by varying the timing of the periodic switching
of the heaters on and off. At the mid-point of each section an
iron-Eureka thermocouple was fitted giving an indicator reading on
the heater control panel. In addition, to provide for a more
accurate measurement of the temperature, 38 copper-Eureka thermo-
couples were attached at intervals throughout the length of the
pipeline and at various positions around the section. These thermo-
couple circuits included cold junctions and a selector switch and
readings were taken on a potentiometer to an accuracy of about 2°F.
The hot junctions of the thermocouples were fitted into small holes
drilled in the surface of the pipe and scouted by sealing with a
punch. A 3-in. thickness of cellular asbestos insulation was used
to cover the heating tapes and this necessitated the use of a new
reference frame.
 23.

2.2 Testing Technique.

The procedure followed in carrying out a test was firstly to

stabilize a small initial load and take initial readings of dial
gauges, etc before the end displacements were applied in incre-
ments by operation of the turnbuckles. To maintain the maximum
load steady while readings were being taken, slight adjustment
of the turnbuckles was required to compensate for "creep" of the
anchor frames.. The load was then removed and the initial zero
readings checked, the whole test taking about three hours.

In the case of the tests with constant bending moment the

overall deflection was first calculated and then established by
preliminary tests. A calculation was then made to distribute the
displacements and rotation between the two ends of the pipeline
to give the minimum absolute deflection. To reduce reading errors
in the extreme positions, the flat surfaces attached t' the ref-
erence frame were adjusted to be square with the dial gauges when
half the maximum load was applied. The apparatus was then ready
and the calculated deflections were applied in increments and
final adjustment made as indicated by the dynamometer readings.
To keep the time required for each test as short as possible,
separate tests were made to obtain deflections, strain gauge
readings and diameter measurements.

All tests were repeated at least once to check the con-

sistency of the results.
 24.

2.3 Experimental Pipelines.

2.3.1 Two-Dimensional Pipeline.

From a study of typical layouts for high pressure service it

was decided to use a pipe of nominal bore 6-6in. with a *in. thick
wall. The pipeline was assembled from two pipes with a flanged
joint as shown in Fig. 9; the pipes Nere numbered 1 and 2 and
are so identified in Table 1 which gives the nominal dimensions.
The pipes were supplied by shipbuilders and conformed to Lloyd's
Rules for pressure piping with welded flanges for service at
450 lbf/in2 pressure and a steam temperature of 750°F. The
suppliers followed their normal practice in all respects and
in particular in hot-forming the bends from the straight pipe.
Two different bend radii were chosen, one being the shortest
possible with this method of forming.

In order to establish how far variations from the nominal

dimensions may affect the flexibility and stress calculations,
extensive measurements of the pipeline were made.

2.3.1.1 Overall Dimensions.

The nominal dimensions of the pipeline are shown in Fig. 9.

After the two pipes had been bolted together and freely supported
at each end and at the middle flanges, careful measurements of the
overall dimensions were made, the results of /Filch are given in
Fig. 10.

Measurements of the bend radii showed that the 90-deg. bends

consisted of an are of about 60 deg, of a uniform radius somewhat
less than the nominal radius, and two transition curves of approx-
imately 15 deg. blending into the adjoining tangents. These short
transition curves of varying and indeterminate radii can be
 25.

approximately represented by circular arcs indicated in Fig. 10.

For ease of reference, sections generally at 10-in. intervals

along the tangent lengths and at 15-deg. intervals around the
bends were numbered as shown in Fig. 11.

2.3.1.2 Sample Lengths.

Short lengths of the materials used for each pipe were

supplied to provide test specimens. From each test length four
tensile test pieces were cut, two in the axial direction and two
in the transverse or circumferential direction, care being taken
to provide a gauge :length of unstrained material. The results of
tests on these specimens are shown in Table 2 and Table 3 gives
the chemical analyses of the material from the test lengths.

2.3.1.3 Cross-Sectional Measurements.

A special apparatus was constructed to obtain measurements

of the true shape of the pipe cross section and is shown in Plate
10. Measurements were made at 10-deg. intervals around sections
20 in. apart on the tangent lengths and at the 15-deg. sections at
the bends (Fig. 11). These showed that the straight pipe was
circular to within 0.020 in. while at the bends some distortion
was observed. At both bends this ,,as such that the diameter in
the plane of the bend was about -41- in. greater than that perpendicular
to it. The extent of this distortion is illustrated in Figs. 12
and 13 which show, to scale, the cross section at the mid point of
each bend.

2.3.1.4 Thickness Measurements.

Measurements of the pipe-wall thickness were made initially

 26.

with an ultrasonic apparatus. The results obtained by this method

on flat surfaces are accurate to within 1 per cent; on curved
surfaces the accuracy is somewhat less, and on the double curva-
ture at the bends it is substantially reduced, and in a few cases
it was not possible to obtain reliable readings.

On the pipeline, twelve readings were taken at 30-deg. in-

tervals around sections 20 in. apart on the tangent lengths and
15 deg. apart at the bends. Twelve readings were also taken on
four sections of each sample length. Measurements with a micro-
meter were also made at each of these 96 positions for direct
comparison; additional micrometer measurements at 10-deg. in-
tervals giving a total of 144 readings for each sample length gave
the same average thickness and the same type of distribution. For
any particular point agreement between the micrometer reading and
the ultrasonic thickness measurement was generally within 0.005 in.
and the average values were identical. A few readings exceeded
the specified tolerance of + 122 per cent, but the standard devia-
tion from the mean value was 5 per cent for both pipes. The
measurements are summarized in Table 4.
Because of the difficulty of obtaining accurate thickness
measurements using the ultrasonic apparatus, the bends were cut
into sections after the tests had been completed and micrometer
measurements made. The results are set out in Tables 5 and 6 and
summarized in Table 4. There was some thinning at the extrados
and while this was difficult to measure accurately because of the
variation of thickness in the straight pipe it appears to be about
the same as the permitted tolerance on thickness, that is about
122 per cent.
 27.

2.3.2 Three-Dimensional Pipeline.

The pipes described in the previous section were re-arranged

to form the simple three-dimensional two-anchor system shown in
Fig. 3. and Plate 2. To accoirmodate this layout within the
height of the laboratory it was necessary to adopt the arrange-
ment shown with two of the principal axes inclined at 45 deg.
to the horizontal plane. This had the additional advantage that
the anchor points were brought close to the floor which takes the
reactions from the forces imposed on the pipeline.

No extensive measurements of the pipe assembly were made,

but care was taken to ensure that, so far as this was determined
by the alignment of the middle flanges, the axes of the pipes were
perpendicular to each other within 0.2 deg. The previous measure-
ments showed deviations of 0.3 deg. from the nominal 90-deg. angle
of the bends. Bushes were fitted to two of the holes in the
flanged joint to reduce the angular clearance, but in general
adequate tightening of the bolts was relied upon to prevent tor-
sional movement between adjacent flanges and, in fact, no slip
was observed during the tests.

2.3.3 Thick-walled Pipe.

The required proportions of thickness and diameter having

been determined, it was found that the capacity the dynamo-
meter limited the size of the pipe to 4-in. nominal diameter. To
obtain the shortest possible bend radius a 90-deg. welding elbow
was used and two straight lengths of the same size pipe were
welded to it and flanges velded to each end of the pipeline for
attachment to the end frames of the test rig as shown in Fig.
14. Strain gauges were fixed to the inside surface at the
 28.

mid-section of the pipe bend before the adjacent tangent lengths

were attached by welding. Micrometer measurements of the wall
thickness were made on the pipe bend and also near the ends of
the tangent lengths. No detailed measurements of the cross
sections were made but the welding elbow appeared to be circular
to Afithin 0.015 in. and the tangent lengths to within 0.005 in.
The principal dimensions of the pipe are given in Tables 1 and
4 under Pipe No. 3 and details of the thickness measurements
made on the bend are given in Table 7.
 29.

CHAPTER 3

EXPERIMENTS ON PIPELINE SYSTEMS

3.1 Calculation Methods.

For comparison with the experimental results, the grapho-

analytical method was used to calculate the pipeline flexibilities
and the end reactions but the procedure outlined by Hoath (4, 18)
was modified slightly. Typical calculations for the two-
dimensional pipeline are set out in Fig. 15 which shows figures
based on the nominal dimensions which are, of course, the only
data available to the designer. The flexibility factors used here
differ very slightly from those obtained from Chapter 5 and were
obtained from calculations using fewer terms in the series solu-
tion. The lengths of the elements in all these flexibility
calculations are expressed in inches and not in terms of the bend
radius as used by Hoath which is a useful simplification only when
several bends of equal radii are involved.

The meth ,d of calculating the overall flexibility coe-

fficients differs from that given by Hoath in that the uniform
moment equal to the force F , F multiplied by the appropriate
x y
shift S S is not added to the diagram but the deflections
y x
resulting therefrom are separately computed making use of the
Maxwell reciprocal relationship,
dO
e.g.x = z =
area of free diagram with force Fx.
dF
z x

These are subtracted from the "free" deflections to give the

deflections with end rotation restrained. This considerably
simplifies the moment diagram but may involve the subtraction
 30.

of nearly equal quantities; however, if a calculating machine is

used there need be no loss of accuracy.

Another variation which was found useful when similar cal-

culations were made with a number of different flexibility factors
was to calculate separately the contribution to the overall flex-
ibility of each element. This form of the grapho-analytical method
was used by Poynor(9) and corresponds more closely with the Meyer-
Hovgaard method.

In calculating the end reactions it was assumed that they

result solely from thermal expansion and that the deflections are
therefore directly proportional to the corresponding lengths. It
may be considered that the stresses shown in Fig. 15 are higher
than is desirable. This was because the pipe layout had to be
kept within the limits of the available laboratory space, resulting
in a less flexible arrangement than would be possible in practice.

3.2 Tests on the Two-Dimensional Pipeline at Room

Temperature.

3.2.1 Simulated Thermal Expansion and Cold Pull-Up.

Displacements were applied to one end of the pipeline by

means of the turnbuckles, corresponding to the displacements
which would have occurred under free expansion for a temperature
rise of 540°
F. It was assumed that the maximum cold pull-upm

A condition sometimes called "cold spring" obtained when the pipe-

line assembled cold is smaller than the nominal dimensions by a
proportion of the estimated expansion. When pulled up to the
anchors the pipeline is therefore pre-stressed and if 100 per cent
cold pull up is applied it will be free from expansion stresses at
operating temperature.
 31.

would be of equal numerical amount. Inward displacements (i.e.

the positive values of 6 x and 4.1 in Fig. 16) represent the case
of a pipeline with fixed ends subject to a temperature rise; out-
ward displacements (negative values of and p ) represent the
condition of a pipeline with cold pull-up at room temperature.

The displacements were applied in steps and Figs. 17 and 18

show that the end reactions are directly proportional to the dis-
placements, although the values for the two cases differ slightly.
The results are set out in Table 8 together with the bending moments
at critical sections of the pipeline for comparison with the cal-
culated values.

It will be noted that the largest discrepancy occurs at the

end of the pipeline (section 28) but the stresses at this point are
not high. The most serious variation from the calculated values
of bending moment occurs at the 19-in. radius bend (section 20C)
in the pull-up test where the figure for the calculated moment is
10 per cent lower than the experimental result. Generally, how-
ever the agreer4ent is in the region of 5 per cent.

Comparison of the experimental values for inward and outward

displacements (corresponding to the expansion and pull-up cases)
reveals a slight but definite difference in the end reactions.
This difference is confirmed by the experimental values for the
flexibility coefficients and is caused mainly by the pipe bends
being slightly more flexible under the action of a bending moment
tending to close the bend than when the moment is applied so as to
open it, although the deflection not being negligibly small may
be a contributory factor.

In Table 9 the experimental values of the end forces Fx and

F are compared with the original design calculations based on the
 32.

nominal dimensions and also with a number of others based on

various measured quantities. For example, from the measured
thicknesses the flexibility factors can be calculated for the
tangent lengths and bends. The uniform bending moment tests
to be described later provided direct measurement of the flexib-
ility factors and also showed the effective lengths of the pipe
at the welded flanges to differ slightly from the values assumed
in the initial calculations. These tests also indicated that the
restraining effect of the tangent pipes caused the flexibility of
the bends to vary with the angle around the bend and this effect
can be taken into account in the flexibility calculations. Men
all these effects are included the end reactions calculated from
the measured dimensions and measured flexibility factors are seen
to agree very closely with the experimental values, particularly
if the deflections due to shear and direct loads are included.

These results show that the apparently good agreement be-

tween the experiments and the initial design calculations is to
some extent fortuitous, the measured values of the flexibility
factors being by chance close to those calculated from the nominal
dimensions.

The stresses were also measured in this series of tests and

in Table 10 the maximum measured stresses and stress factors at
the highly-stressed sections of the 19-in. and 27-in. bends (i.e.
sections 20C and 11C) are compared with the maximum stresses cal-
culated for the predicted bending moments at these sections. On
this basis the differences between the maximum calculated and
experimental values are not more than 10 per cent. If, however,
the stresses are expressed as stress factors (involving the
measured bending moment) the differences are larger being as much
as 17 per cent in the worst case.
 33.

3.2.2 Tests to Determine Overall Flexibility Coefficients.

In piping-flexibility analysis, it is necessary to determine

constants representing the flexibility of the pipeline under the
action of various forces. In the grapho-analytical method these
are clearly shown on the calculation sheets as due to F , etc. The
x
force F is applied so as to prevent rotation of the end flange,
x
that is,it is displaced from the origin by the shift S as shown
in Fig. 19.

Tests were carried out to determine these constants experi-

mentally. For example, to obtain the deflections due to the force
F , a displacement was applied to the free end in the x-direction
x
with no rotation of the pipe and the y-deflection varied to make
the force Fy zero. From the resulting end reactions it is
possible to obtain the equivalent force Fx and the position of its
line of action. The results are set out in Table 11, where the
constants are given as the deflections in inches due to a load of
1000 lbf. These show small differences in the flexibilities
pending upon whether the force opens or closes the bends corres-
ponding to the differences found in the flcNibility factors.

The next step in piping-flexibility analysis is to obtain

the end reactions by the solution of a set of simultaneous equa-
tions involving the flexibility coefficients and the known dis-
placements. Using the experimental values of Table 11, the end
reactions were calculated and are set out in Table 12. These
closely approximate (within 2 per cent) to the values obtained by
direct experiment (Table 8) indicating that most of the errors arise
in predicting the flexibility factors from the idealised dimensions
of the pipes.

Theoretical values for the overall flexibility coefficients

 34.

(which were needed to obtain the results of Table 9) are given

in Table 13. As before, substitution of the measured dimensions
gives a closer agreement with the experimental figures.

3.2.:; Tests with Uniform Bending Moment.

In order to determine experimentally the flexibility of each

element, loads were applied by the turnbuckles to give a bending
moment of 80,000 lbf-in. in the plane of the pipeline. The
results for the pipe bends are fully discussed in Chapter 4 but
as the tests were carried out on the assembled pipeline and the
results used in calculating the flexibilities in the two previous
sections, it is appropriate to discuss them here. When first
analysed the results indicated that the tangent pipe remote from
the dynamometer was apparently about 10 per cent more flexible
than the application of simple bending theory to the measured
dimensions would suggest. As this seemed unlnely, the possi-
bility of the bending moment being greater than that indicated was
considered and this was confirmed by strain gauge readings at
section 3. This could have resulted from an error in F (which
x
was given by the difference of two readings of approximately
4000 lbf) of about 60 lbf. This was considered the most likely
cause of the discrepancy and a correction was applied before the
results given in Table 14 were calculated.

3.2.4 Tests with Internal Pressure.

3.2.4.1 With Internal Pressure Only.

As the pressure was applied in these tests the turnbuckles

were adjusted to maintain constant the small datum load on the
dynamometer and the movements of the pipeline were noted from
 35.

the dial-gauge readings. These movements are shown in Figs. 20

and 21. They are due to the "bourdon-tube" effect produced by
the non-circular section at the bends; this causes the bends to
close slightly under the action of internal pressure. The re-
lationship between deflection and pressure is non-linear because
the effect of pressure is reduced as the section becomes more
nearly circular.

The effect of internal pressure acting alone should be to

cause membrane stresses only but an important consequence of the
non-circular sections shown in Figs. 12 and 13 is illustrated in
Figs. 22-25. These show that large bending stresses are superim-
posed on the membrane stresses as the pressure attempts to pull the
section circular. In Table 15 the maximum values of stresses
measured are compared with those calculated from the measured
dimensions for two internal pressures, 450 and 1000 lbf/in2.
On
the straight lengths where the departures from true circularity
are not excessive agreement is reasonable but the results for the
bends show measured stresses from 70 to 100 per cent above those
calculated.

3.2.4.2 Tests with Internal Pressure. Ends Restrained.

The application of internal pressure while the ends of the

pipeline remained fixed caused small changes in the end reactions.
These reactions can be calculated from the measured deflections of
the previous tests and the flexibility coefficients for the pipe-
line. The results of the calculations and direct measurements
are given in Table 16 and Fig. 26.
 36.

3.2.4.3 Combination of Internal Pressure and External

Loading.

Tests were carried out in which inward anchor displacements

corresponding to those caused by thermal expansion Nere applied to-
gether with internal pressure equal to the working pressure of
450 lbf/in2.
A similar test was made by applying outward dis-
placements corresponding to 100 per cent cold pull-up at zero
pressure and taking readings from a datum with 450 lbf/in2 internal
pressure. The results are shown in Table 17 and in Figs. 27 and
28.
The distortion of the cross sections was such that the bend-
ing stresses due to pressure coincided with those induced by
external loading. Very high stresses can occur in this way but
in these tests they were somewhat reduced because the bending
moments were substantially less than the theoretical values.

For the purpose of predicting stresses the law of super-

position may safely be assumed to apply without serious error,
but that it does not apply exactly is shown in Fig. 26. where the
change in end reactions due to the application of internal press-
ure is seen to be reduced when the pressure is applied after the
forces tending to close the bends ( P = 0.756 in. and
x
Ay = 0.420 in). This is in accordance with the fact
demonstrated by Gross and Ford (15) that the flexibility of a
pipe bend is slightly reduced by internal pressure. This was
confirmed by Kafka and Dunn (11) and Rodabaugh and George (12)
whose work shows that for the bends used in these tests the
effect of internal pressure should be very small.
 37.

3.3 High-Temperature Tests on the Two-Dimensional

Pipeline.

3.3.1 Testing Procedure.

When the room temperature tests had been completed the appara-
tus was modified as described section 2.1.8 to enable the pipeline
to be heated to approximately operating temperature. It was
found that with the full heating rate the temperature of the pipe-
line was raised uniformly at about 130°F per hour. When the
desired temperature was attained the power was reduced so as to
maintain an approximately constant value and Fig. 29 shows typical
examples of the temperature distribution along the pipeline.
These examples show that the temperature dropped towards the
ends of the pipeline in spite of the heater winding being more
closely spaced to compensate for the loss of heat. This tempera-
ture drop was found to be proportional to the mean temperature
rise and so the total expansion in the x-direction could be re-
garded as equivalent to that produced by a slightly shorter pipe-
line. As shown in Fig. 29 an effective length of 204.5 in.
instead of 216 in. was used to find the expansion and thus the
calculated end reactions.

Before switching on the heaters, zero readings of the

thermocouples, dynamometer loads and the deflection dial gauges
were taken. When a reasonably uniform temperature had been
attained the turnbuckles were adjusted so that the load readings
on the dynamometer units were the same as the small zero readings
noted as the start of the test. The dial gauge readings were
noted and used to calculate the expansion of the pipeline. The
results are given in Table 18 and Fig. 33. At the same
temperature the turnbuckles were then adjusted so that the net
 38.

deflection of one end of the pipeline relative to the other was

zero. The changes in the dynamometer loads were noted and used to
calculate the end reactions (Table 19 and Fig. 31).

Further tests were made with an initial displacement of the

anchors corresponding to cold pull-up so that the end reactions
were reduced as the temperature was increased. The results are
given in Table 20 and Fig. 32.

3.3.2 Discussion of Results.

The measurements of the free expansion of the pipeline given

in Table 18 and Fig. 30 confirm the value for the coefficient of
thermal expansion assumed in the previous calculations. A mean
-6 o
value of 7.4 x 10 per F was taken for expansion from 60 to
600°F and this is represented in Fig. 30 by the straight lines
drawn from the test zero of 65°F. The experimental points show
a slight departure from the mean line at intermediate temperatures
and the values for coefficients of expansion obtained from the
measurements are in close agreement with calculations from the
formula quoted in B.S. 806 (19) in which the mean coefficient of
expansion per °F from 0 to T °F is given by

(6.3 + 0.0017 T)10-6.

This formula is stated to give values for low-carbon steels within

+ 5 per cent and the appropriate values of the coefficient of ex-
pansion are given in the last line of Table 18.

Heating the pipeline between fixed anchors gave end reactions

which are shown in Table 19 and Fig. 31. The measured temperature
rise in each test was used in the formula quoted above to calculate
the expansions and for comparison the figures for the end reactions
obtained in the previous tests at room temperature for these
 39.

deflections are included in Table 19. The corresponding values

for the end loads are in close agreement up to 500°F but the results
for the test at 580°F are approximately 72 per cent lower than
for the equivalent room-temperature test. This corresponds with
the decrease in the elastic modulus for this temperature, which
from published results (4, 20) may be expected to be 7 to 10 per
cent of the room-temperature value. By using the results of the
tests at room temperature as the basis for comparison rather than
the initially calculated figures, the effects of variations from
the nominal flexibility characteristics are eliminated although
for comparison the calculated figures together with the results
of both sets of experiments are summarized in Table 21. Fig. 31
shows that the end reactions increase linearly with temperature,
the slightly non-linear characteristics of the expansion-temperature
and the modulus-temperature relationships tending to canc61.

The results of the tests with initial pull-up (Table 20 and

Fig. 32) again show a linear relationship between the loads and
temperature. The applied cold pull-up corresponded to the ex-
pansion resulting from a temperature rise from 65 to 540°F and
Fig. 32 shows that the reactions are reduced to approximately
zero at this temperature. In assessing the accuracy of these
tests the actual difference between measured and calculated loads
should be considered rather than the percentage difference.

The correction applied to compensate for the temperature

drop at the ends of the pipeline cannot be regarded as completely
exact because of the variation in the coefficient of expansion,
but the errors involved would be less than the possible accuracy
of measurement. Similar very small errors may result because
owing to the variation in the elastic modulus, the small initial
 40.

"zero" load does not have exactly the same effect at high tempera-
tures.

3.4 External Loading Tests on the Three-Dimensional

Pipe] ine.

3.4.1 Calculation Methods.

As for the two-dimensional system the grapho-analytical

method was used to obtain the overall flexibility coefficients.
For a three-dimensional system this required calculations for each
of the three planes and these are set out in Figs. 33-37. In the
procedure given by Hoath (4, 18) it is assumed that a pipe bend
subjected to a bending moment.other than in the plane of the bend
behaves as a curved solid rod but Vigness (3) has shown that a
flexibility factor equal to that for in-plane bending should be
applied. In three-dimensional systems with some elements not
wholly parallel to one of the principal axes (i.e. a straight
skew pipe or a pipe bend) certain secondary terms arise owing to
bending in planes other than that in widch the bending moment is
applied. This had been shown by Hovgaard (2) but he had not taken
into account the flexibility factor for out-of-plane bending and
revised formulae were given by Vigness (3).

The secondary rotations and out-of-plane flexibility factors

have been included in the revised form of the grapho-analytical
standard cases 8 to 10 given in Fig. 38. These have been used

Further revision of these cases allowing for variation of the

flexibility factor is given in Table 29.
 41.

in the analysis given on the calculation sheets Figs. 34-36 and in

the calculation of the secondary terms Fig. 37. In the discussion
of the paper by Vigness (3) consideration was given to the problem
of how to represent the secondary rotations in the grapho-analytical
method and in particular to fixing the length of the base line of the
diagram. This is unimportant, as the need to fix a length for the
base line only arises in the simplified solution when the secondary
rotations are neglected, the full solution requires, for a two-
anchor problem, the solution of six equations. In this case the
length of the base line does not affect the subsequent calculations.

The flexibility coefficients given in Table 22 together with

the end displacements form the six simultaneous equations from
which the end reactions were calculated using the method given by
Cront (20). It has been usual to neglect the secondary terms
as this enables a considerable simplification to be made in the
two-anchor problem by expressing the bending moments in terms of
the forces thus reducing the number of equations to three (Table
23). The results of the calculations for the experimental pipe-
line system by the complete and the approximate analysis are given
in Table 24, which shows that the omission of the secondary terms
makes a negligible difference in the end reactions. While this
appears to be generally true for most pipework systems it may not
necessarily apply to short pipelines in which the bends form a
substantial fraction of the total length.

3.4.2 Simulated Thermal Expansion and Cold Pull-Up Tests.

By means of the turnbuckles displacements were applied to

one end of the pipeline corresponding to the movements which would
have occurred under free expansion from a temperature 60°F to
o
600 F. These take the form of displacements ax,ley,6
z
 42.

proportional to the respective lengths of the system with no angular

rotation in any plane. Tests .vere made with inward displacements
simulating thermal expansion (positive values of A ) and also out-
ward displacement (negative values of A ) corresponding to the
condition of 100 per cent cold pull-up. The co-ordinate axes of
the pipeline being at 45 deg. to those of the dynamometer, it
was necessary to transpose the forces recorded to give the forces
and moments in the reference system of the pipeline.

The displacements were applied in steps and the resulting

forces were in all cases found to be directly proportional to the
displacement (Fig. 39). The tests were repeated three or four
times and the forces were reproducible within 10 lbf. The aver-
age results for the maximum displacement applied are given in
Table 24 and they show a close agreement with the calculated
values. The differences are no greater than might be expected
when the variations in the pipe dimensions, particularly thick-
ness, are taken into account. Unlike the experiments on the two-
dimensional layout, these tests do not show any marked differences
in the flexibility of the pipeline under the action of inward and
outward forces, the differences being of the same order as the
probable experimental errors,

To provide a further comparison of the results Table 25 has

been prepared and this gives the values for the bending moments
at principal sections throughout the length of the pipeline as
determined by calculations and by the experiments. In general
the differences between the calculated and experimental values are
less than eipc-r cent of the greatest bending moment. A larger
discrepancy was found in the pull-up test at one end of the pipe-
line (a) but here the measured value is 17 per cent less than
that predicted by calculation.
 43.

3.4.3 Tests to Determine Overall Flexibility

Coefficients.

Because of the flexibility of the pipeline, tests with single

forces at the end of the pipeline were not practicable and tests
were therefore made with all end rotation restrained. This
corresponds to the analysis of piping flexibility neglecting the
secondary terms, the applied forces being displaced by the appro-
priate shifts to reduce the end rotations to zero.

The following procedure was used in carrying out the tests.

To determine, for example, the characteristics due to a force F p

a positive displacement 6 y of 1.0 in. was applied while negative

displacements /Nz and Lx were made and varied slightly using the
calculated values as a guide. The forces F , F , F were measured
x y z
and by interpolation values of A and were found which would
'-x
give F = F = O. These values were then checked by further
z x
tests.

Readings were obtained for all three component forces and

for both positive and negative values and the results are given
in Table 26 where the deflections are expressed in inches due to
a unit force of 1000 lbf. In this table the approximate cal-
culated values are obtained directly from Figs. 34-36 (or Table
23) while the inclusion of the secondary terms requires the
solution of three simultaneous equations. In this array of
coefficients there are comparatively large discrepancies between
calculated and experimental values for some of the non-diagonal
elements but these cannot be determined experimentally with very
great accuracy. This may also account for the differences in
SOME of the coefficients which by the reciprocal relationship

should be identical. The inclusion of the secondary terms results

 44.

in additional bending moments (e.g. a moment Mx due to a force Fx )

and th-,se were found experimentally but the magnitude of the
moments was not much greater than the accuracy of measurement.

The experimentally determined flexibility coefficients were

used to calculate the end reactions resulting from the displace-
ments corresponding to the assumed thermal expansion and a com-
parison of these results with those obtained by direct experiment
is given in Table 27.

In this chapter the experimental results have been compared

with theoretical values based on the nominal dimensions of the
pipe this being the information normally available to the designer.
The following chapter examines the theories for the deflections
of and stresses in individual pipe bends and the measured dimen-
sions are used as a basis for comparison.
 45.

CHAPTER 4

TESTS ON INDIVIDUAL PIPE BENDS

4.1 Description of Tests.

The tests to be discussed in this chapter were made by apply-

ing bending moments about the principal axes of the three 90-deg.
pipe bends. The net forces were made zero so that the moments
were constant throughout the length of the pipeline and shear
force effects eliminated. Experimental results are compared with
calculations based on the measured dimensions of the bends and
these are summarized in Table 28.

Measurements were made of the distortion of the pipe cross

section, the deflection at the tangent points and of the strains at
the outside surface of the two thin-walled pipe bends numbered
1 and 2 and at both the inside and outside surfaces of the thick-
walled bend, numbered 3. The in-plane tests on pipes Nos. 1 and
2 were made when the two pipes were assembled to form the two-
dimensional pipeline but the out-of-plane tests on No. 1 and all
the tests on No. 3 were caTried out on the individual pipes with
the dynamometer as close as possible to the bend. The layout
is shown in Fig. 40, while Fig. 41 gives the notation for the axes
used throughout this chapter. Thus an in-plane bending moment
applied so as to open the bend is represented by +Mz and one in
the opposite direction tending to close the bend by -Mz. Out-
of-plane bending moments applied about the x and y axes were con-
stant throughout the length of the pipeline and resulted in torsion
only on one tangent pipe and bending only on the other. The
loading on the pipe bend was then a combination of out-of-plane
bending and torsion, the proportions varying with the angle
 46.

around the bend. The strains were measured at the mid-section of

the bend and to eliminate torsion and produce pure out-of-plane
bending at this section, additional tests were carried out using
a suitable combination of M and M .
x y

4.2 Distortion of Pipe Cross-section.

The forms of distortion of the cross-section under the

different types of loading are shown in Fig. 42. This flattening
of the cross-section accounts for the increased flexibility of
pipe bends and is due to the longitudinal stresses which, acting
in the curved pipe, produce component forces acting towards and
away from the centre of curvature of the bend. Figs. 43, 44 and
45 show the measured changes in the principal diameters plotted
against the angle around the bend. The calculated values shown
in these figures were obtained by using the measured dimensions
of the bends in the equations of Chapter 5 and Appendix 3.

4.3 Deflection and Flexibility Measurements.

4.3.1 Calculation of Deflections.

The usual formulae for the deflection of pipe bends are based
on the assumption that the flexibility factor is constant throughout
the bend. However measurements show that the restraining effects
of the adjacent tangent pipes produce a considerable variation in
the flattening of the pipe cross-section which suggests a corres-
ponding variation in the flexibility factor. This variation is
symmetrical about the mid-section of the bend and may therefore
be represent by a cosine series. For a 90-deg. bend this could
 47.

be of the form

= A K cos n(4/ - 714)

whcro Kip = Flexibility factor at angle IP (Fig. 40).

K = Average flexibility factor for whole bend.

n, Al = Constants.

The development of deflection formulae for a 90-deg. pipe bend

assuming this form of variation of the flexibility factor is out-
lined in Appendix 4 and the results are summarized in Table 29.
The reduction of the flattening to zero would imply a flexibility
factor of unity so that it would seem reasonable to assume that
(K)1, - 1) is proportional to the measured change of diameter at
angle 1P. For the three 90-deg. bends tested a fair approximation
to this is given by taking only one term in the cosine series.
Since the measured values of the diameter changes approach the
calculated values, it is reasonable to conclude that for a 90-
deg. pipe bend conditions at the mid-section approximate to the
idealised state with no end restraint. The maximum value for the
flexibility factor may therefore be assumed to equal the theore-
tical value based cn the measured dimensions.

4.3.2 Deflection and Flexibility Measurements.

For each cf the tests made with bending moments applied about
the x, y, and z axes, measurements were made of the deflections of
the pipe. From these the deflection at each end of the pipe bend
with respect to the other was calculated. The results are given
in columns 1 and 2 of Tables 30, 31 and 32, using the notation
 48.

of the axes given in Fig. 41, irrespective of which end of the pipe
bend was in fact taken as the reference section.

The overall flexibility factors were found experimentally

for in-plane bending from the measured changes of slope between
the two tangent points. All three pipe bends when subjected to
in-plane bending moments showed a greater flexibility under the
action of a moment tending to close the bend (-1%) compared with
a moment applied so as to open it (1-Mz ). In all cases the diff-
erence was about 5 per cent which is rather more than the probable
accuracy of this measurement. Some of this variation can be
accounted for, particularly in the case of the thin-walled pipes,
by a change in the magnitude of the second moment of area (I) owing
to the flattening of the cross section. All the theories for the
elastic bending of curved tubes are small-deflection theories and
are assumed to apply irrespective of the direction of the moment;
they all assume a constant value for I giving a linear relationship
between load and deflection.

The value of I for in-plane bending is proportional to the

square of the mean radius in the plane of the bend so that a
flattening of 1 per cent would cause a change of 2 per cent in the
value of I and a 4 per cent difference in the flexibility for
moments applied in opposite directions. The effect of this would
be to give a non-linear relationship and although this was not
detected experimentally, the departure from a linear characteristic
would be within the limits of experimental error. The change of
I due to flattening would be much larger in thin-walled short-
radius bends. In previous experimental work, while different
investigators have applied opening or closing moments to pipe bends,
few tests (if any) have been made in which both forms of loading
were applied to the same bend.
 49.

The first column of calculated deflections in Tables 30-32

(column 3) is based on the measured values of the flexibility
factor (K) and this is assumed to be constant as in the Standard
Cases of Fig. 38 or by taking n = 0 in Table 29. The value of
K used for out-of-plane bending was based on the average experi-
mental value for in-plane bending with an adjustment corresponding
to the difference in the theoretical values for in-plane and out-
of-plane bending.

In Table 30 the calculated in-plane deflections and out-of-

plane primary rotations gave satisfactory agreement with the
measured values but the secondary rotations calculated for out-
of-plane bending were considerably less than those measured. The
possibility that the variation of the flexibility factor around the
bend might account for this difference was considered and in column
4 of Tables 30-32 the deflections are calculated as explained in
Section 4.3.1. using the same average flexibility factor. The
agreer-ent was improved but was not entirely satisfactory for Bend
No. 1 probably because of the irregular cross section and the
local variations of thickness and for Bend No. 3 the secondary
rotations were too small for the discrepancies to be significant.
Experiments on more flexible pipe bends would be needed to check
the effect of the variation of the flexibility factor.

Column 5 of Tables 30-32 was compiled using a variable

flexibility factor the maximum value of which was that calculated
from the measured dimensions (Table 28). In the case of Bends
No. 1 and 2 the minimum bend radius was used in calculating the
flexibility factor although of course the overall radius was used
in calculating the deflections by the formulae of Table 29. Had
the overall measured radius been used to find K the value obtained
would have been a very close approximation to the measured value.
 50.

4.4 Stress Measurements.

4.4.1 In-Plane Bending.

The stresses at the bends are most conveniently expressed in

terms of the stress factor which can be regarded as the ratio be-
tween the actual stress and the nominal maximum stress given by
simple bending theory for a thin-walled straight pipe so that

actual stress = (stress factor) Mr/I

Although the flexibilities were found to be different for

opening and closing bending moments, no measurable differences in
the maximum stresses could be detected but if the second moment of
area were modified to allow for the flattening of the cross section
a slight difference would be introduced in the stress factor.

The r,,:
. sults for Bends Nos. 1 and 2 are given in Figs. 46-49
the experimental points being shown, together with curves calculated
from the equations of Chapter 5 using the Turner and Ford analysis.
Because of the relatively small dimensions of Bend No. 3 it was not
possible to form a rosette pattern of strain gauges at each point
around the circumference of the pipe. It was therefore necessary
to plot the strain readings and calculate the stresses from the
graphs. Thus, in presenting the experimental results in Figs.
50 and 51 it is not possible to show individual points. However
in Figs. 52 and 53 where the results are expressed as strain factors
(i.e. (actual strain)EI4vr) the experimental points can be shown.

In general, for all the three bends the agreement between

measured and calculated stresses is very close except that the
transverse stresses measured in Bend No. 3 are somewhat lower than
those calculated.
 51.

4.4.2 Out-of-Plane Bending.

Strain gauge readings were taken only at the mid-section of

the bends and for moments M and M the loading at this section
x y
resolves into out-of-plane bending and torsional components as
shown in Fig. 40, The stresses can be analysed into longitudinal
and transverse stresses due to the bending and shear stresses due
to torsion. The out-of-plane stress factors could thus be ob-
tained from at least three different tests and a close agreement
between the results was found. The results for Bend No. 1 are
given in Figs. 54 and 55 and for Bend No. 3 in Figs. 56-63. In
these figures the experimental results are compared with theoretical
curves obtained by use of the Rodabaugh and George solution (12).
This is a series of which only the first two germs are needed for
the two bends considered here. It is a "long-radius" theory
which neglects the transverse direct stress and the "pipe-bore
term"N and if only the first term is taken it reduces to the
formulae given by Vigness (3) although in calculating the stresses
Vigness ignored the Poisson's ratio effect.

As the agreement between calculated and measured stresses

was less satisfactory than for in-plane bending, the theory des-
cribed in Chapter 5 was developed and the results of calculations
using this theory are included in the figures.

The new theory for out-of-plane bending gives a much better

agreement but the transverse stresses measured in Bend No. 3 are
lower than those predicted by the theory. This was also found
for in-plane bending, so presumably the restraint of the tangent
pipes in this thick-walled, short-radius bend prevents the idealised

see Turner and Ford (10).

 52.

conditions being obtained completely within the 90-deg. arc.

The torsional shear stresses could not be determined very

accurately from the strain gauge rosette analysis because they were
so much smaller than the longitudinal and transverse stresses but
the average values (given in Tables 33 and 35) confirmed the
stresses predicted by the theory of simple torsion.

4.4.3 Combination of In- and Out-of-Plane Bending.

In order to check the application of superposition to com-

bined in-plane and out-of-plane bending moments, further tests
were made on Bend No. 3 in which strains were measured while the
bend was subjected to an out-of-plane moment at the mid-section
(hS - M ) and an in-plane moment (4- M ) of equal magnitudes.
x y —
The calculated and measured strain factors are shown in Figs.
64-67.

The maximum stresses recorded in each test are summarized

in Tables 33, 34 and 35.
 53.

CHAPTER 5

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING

5.1 General Analysis of the Problem.

In view of the discrepancies between the measured stresses

and those calculated using the available, approximate theories,
it was thought worth while to make a more exact theoretical ana-
lysis of out-of-plane bending of a curved tube. This has been
carried out for in-plane bending by Turner and Ford (10) and the
approach of these authors is followed closely in this chapter.
The notation is as far as possible the same and for equations (1)
to (22) the same numbering is used for analogous equations.

Similar basic assumptions are made and these are:

(a) A bending moment is applied in a plane which is perpendicular

to the plane of the bend and parallel to the pipe axis at the
section under consideration, that is a moment about the y-axis
in Fig. 68.

(b) Out-of-plane bending can occur only at one section so that

the solution is obtained for a very short arc length, it being
assumed that the stresses and strains are unaffected by the end
conditions.

(c) Plane sections remain plane, the radius of bending curva-

ture is large compared with the radius of the pipe and the
solution is obtained in the form of sine series with skew
symmetry about the neutral axis which remains coincident with
the y-axis.

(d) Radial stresses are neglected.

 54.

(e) Elastic strains only are considered and all stresses and
strains are proportional to the deflection of the bend, that is,
only a linear small-deflection theory is being developed.

(f) The mid-wall radius of the pipe cross-section r is not

negligible compared with the bend radius R. The half-wall thick-
ness h is not negligible compared with r but h is negligible
compared with R.

The analysis is carried out in eight steps.

5.1.1 Step 1

This is identical with the in-plane condition. The trans-

verse (hoop) stress at any layer distance z from the mid-wall
radius is written

t = f + p (la)

where t is the transverse stress

f is the transverse direct stress
p is the transverse bending stress

and for the middle layer where z = 0

tl = f + p' (lb)

If the longitudinal stress be s and the longitudinal strain el

then

Ee
l
= s - vt = s - v(f + p) (2a)

and if the transverse strain be e

t
 55.

Ee = t - vs (f + p) - vs (2b)
t

Equations (2a) and (2b) can also be written with the prime
notation for the middle layer.

5.1.2 Step 2

Consider a short length of the pipe (Fig. 68) subtending an

angle )4.) at the centre of the bend and an angle resulting from
the applied bending to a radius of curvature Q. The length of
the element at the centre line is

R = Q -9

In the out-of-plane case R and Ap are constant and is

initially zero.

The longitudinal strain el is increased by E compared with

that at the middle layer e' so that
1

e = es + E (3)
1 1

If plane sections remain plane, E is proportional to z and may

be found by taking an element of the pipe wall at an angle e
from the extrados (Figs. 68, 69 and 70) and considering the change
in position of a smaller element at z compared with the middle
layer where z = 0. This gives

(a) due to the rotation of the pipe wall, 0 (positive clock-

wise)

dy = - Oz sin 0
dx + Oz cos 6
 56.

(b) due to the thickness of the wall, z

dy = + z cos e (this does not increase strain,

since 1p remains constant)

dx = + z sin e

and hence

z sine + risz cos R Oz sine

Q +x R + y R + y

Neglecting Oz compared with z

and x compared with Q this reduces to

z sin e R Oz sin e
Q R + y R + y

hence

0 sin e = sin e (R + y) (4)

By considering the change in transverse curvature and transverse

direct strain at the middle layer of the pipe wall, another
expression for the change of slope 0 can be obtained. The
radius of curvature initially r changes to q whence

-
c12 = (1 + elt )( - 1-) + et
r de q r r

and
P (5)
0 = 00 + (1 + e0( - + -e-i } r de .
ife
0

5.10 Step 3

This step is exactly as for in-plane bending. The transverse

 57.

strain at any layer z from the middle surface is given by

(1 + et)( it)rz
e
t
e' +
r + z (6)

From equations (2) and (3)

s = s' + vp vp' + EE (7)

From equations (lb) (2b) (6) and (7)

Ezr(1 + et)(
+ p' vE E
p 2 (8)
(1 - v) (r + z) 1-v

From equations (1) (2) and (8)

Ezr(1 + et)( )
t vEE + vs' Eel
2 t .(9)
(1 - v2)(r + z) 1-v

Since by definition

t+h
b + cos 6
p dz = Op
b
-h

Ejr2(1 + e')(q - )
1
t r
Pt 2h (10)

where
rz2
j(1 - v2)r3 = jrfh
r+ z dz
-h

and a modified second moment of area as in the Winkler Theory of

the bending of curved beams and

1 + k
j(1 - v2) = log 2k (11)
1 k
 58.

5.1.4 Step 4

An expression for the deflection of the middle surface of

the pipe wall can be derived by considering its rotation and ex-
tension. Due to the rotation of the pipe wall, the deflection
in the y-direction w at an angle 6 (Fig. 71) is

p
0 r sin ep r(sin e - sin 6 ) dO
o

and that in the x-direction

je
p
wx = w 0 r(1 -cos e) r(cos e - cos e )c193
x
o o
0

Due to the direct strain in the pipe wall the deflections are

wy = - p el sin e r de
0
and
wx et cos 6 r de

Combining these expressions the total deflections are given by

=- Pr
w Oor sin - t0(1+ t )
0 p -1
q r
)(sin 0 -sin )r2+ et r sin 6 p de

. . . (12a)

w =w - 0 r(1-cos e )- 0 (1+0 )(1- - 1)(cos6 -cos

t q r
6 p)r2-e'r cos e I de
X X o
o

. . (12b)
 59.

Boundary conditions are obtained from consideration of skew

symmetry which requires that when 0 = 0 and when 0 = n ,

wy = 0 (12c)

Since the net rotation of the whole section is zero,

- w ) + 2w = 0 (12d)
(wx x Yn
o
/2
Another expression for wyis derived from consideration of
the longitudinal strain

x R + __Y__
e'x + w w
-
1 Q R + y R + y
w R
x
and neglecting compared with w
Q Y
w
x R
e'
1 Q R + y R + y

hence
xR
w = el(R + y) - (13)
y Q

5.1.5 Step 5
Two expressions can be obtained for the transverse bending
moment m acting on an element at angle 0 , the first using t from
equation (9) and giving

j1+h
m = (R + tz dz (14)

-h

The second expression is obtained by considering the forces on an



60.

element at angle 0 shown in Fig. 68 and 72. The longitudinal

stress s produces a force dg tending to flatten the pipe cross
section and which for s tensile acts towards the centre of the
bend and
if+h
dg = de s(r + z)dz (15)
-h

Assuming the forces act at mid-wall radius (Fig. 72)

m = m + T (r - y ) H (x - x) dg
p o o o xp +
Jie
0
where m is the value of m at 0 = 0
o
T is the transverse direct force at 0 = 0
o
H is the transverse shear force at 0 = 0
o
From the condition of skew symmetry

T =0 and m =0
0 o
so that

mp = - H (x - x) dg (16)
o xp +
Jiep
0

5.1.6 Step 6

Two expressions for the transverse direct force T can be

obtained, the first by considering the equilibrium of the element
subtended by 0 p (Fig. 72)

T = H sine sin e dg (17)

o


61.

The second expression is found from the direct stress f thus

T = 2hf(R + y) -y (18)

5.1.7 Step 7

The solution is now taken in the form of four infinite

series, namely

St = E I B sin ne (19)
NV n

(1 + e ) (1 - 1)
= .1) it 2 C sin ne (20)
t q r IP n

E =
ip ii 2 Xn sin ne (21)
1)
f = - E 1 D sin nO (22)
Y n
Before substituting these series in equations (4) (5) and (12) to
(18) it is convenient to take four more series derived from the
four basic ones, thus

et = 2 A sin ne
n
(23)

where A + C - vB
n = Dn 2k n n

ej = G sin ne (24)
Nv n
where G = B - vDn - 1*.
ri C
n n 2k n
+h
2
tz dz = ") Er J sin ne (25)
n
-h 2
2vk
where J = jC +
n n 2 Xn
3(1-v )

1411 = nEr2 L sin ne (26)

de n
2
2k
where L = 2kB + X
n n 2
3(1-v ) n


62.

The expressions for w T and 0 sin e now become

n C _1
xi) w = [11) Vo An
+Al4iA21-iC2+ n sin e
3
A
1 n-1 A n+1 cn-1 C
n+1
• • •
n-1 n+1 nTh1 71Y . n
177r 1-1 sin ne

(27b)
From (13)

I 3
sin e + riGi+loG2+EG sin 20 • • • •

+ bG + iG 1 sin ne (27a)
n-1 n n+1

From (14)
m
= bJ1+ -1-J sin . . „ +[-Jn-1 + bJ n+ sin no
Er 3-9 2 2 1-Jn+1
2

(28a)
From (16)
Ln Ho
= rL1+ + sine
Er 31 42
Er27)
3
L n+1
• • • • 21 nn(n--11) +- 11. -1sin ne
n(r17 (28b)

From (17)
T Ho
= L1 al sin e [Ln-1 Lau
Er2-19 Er2 1 --'2 n ' I. n-1 n+1 sin ne
3
(29b)
 63.

From (18)

T
= 12bkD + kD 1 sin
. .0 . . + [k
-D + 2bkD + kD] sin ne
1 2j n-l n
Er?"9

(29a)

From (4)
x x X -
by 2
+k v
4 A
31' 0 sin 0 sin 20 .
• •
-1- k s-n - 2k .1`2 ' 2k

X
•• • + + n+1.]sin n e . . (30a)
2k k xn 2k

From (5)

CL1
V 0 sin e = 0 0 +A + iA + iC + 7 _ . 4. 75 An sin 0 • • • •
1) 1 2 2 z- n
3 3

+ C A + C :1
An+1 n+1 n-1 n-1
. • • i 2 sin n0
n + 1 n - 1
(30b)

The term in 6 in equation (28b) is balanced by the external moment

(Mi) resulting from the difference in torsion at each end of the
pipe element which occurs since pure out-of-plane bending can be
obtained only at one section. This is given by equation (35)
from which

m = 3
nErICO -gt = Er 1) iLle

The internal moment only need be considered and equated with (28a).

The coefficients of sin ne are equated and if n terms are

taken and the coefficients of sin(n+l) 8 put equal to zero, a
set of 4n simultaneous equations is obtained. Two more equations
are given by the boundary conditions (12c) and (12d) from which


64.

C=0 (31a)

and

A A Ao° C Co
An r + +... + 4
+ +... =0
n

(31b)

There are thus (4n + 2) equations for the evaluation of 4n coe-

fficients and the two constants and Ho Terms con-
o
2
Er 70
taining these two constants can be eliminated, thus reducing the
number of equations to 4n and in this form, taking n = 10 the 40
equations have been programmed for solution by a computer.

These equations are then, for the first term when n = 1 and
H
eliminating V 0 and o
Er2-9
x
bG + - IC - 1)- X - 2 = 0 (32a)
1 2 2 2 k 1 2k

C = 0 (32b)

bJ + 2J +,2 + 2bkD1+ kD = 0 ( 32c )

1 2 2

C C
+ IG + 4A 4c
bG - + 4,4
- + 4 8
. (32d)
= .
1 2 - 2 2 - 4 8 3.4.5 7.8.9

For n = 2
A, C
G + 2bG +G -A + - -) = 0 (33a)
1 2 3 1 3- 3
Li L
J + 2bJ2 + J + + 3 = 0 (33b)
1 3 2 6
Li L
3
kD + 2bkD + kD3- -= + = 0 (33c)
1 2 2 6


65.

X X A
+C3
= 0 (33d)
kb X2 + k Al + 33 3

and for the general term

A c C
G+ 2bG n + G n+1
-A n-1 n+1 0
n+1 n-1 n+1 n-1 n+1 (34a)

L
J + 2 + J + Ln-1 n+1 = 0 (34b)
n-1 bjn n+1 n(n-1) ' n(r177
1-1.

Ln_i L11+1
kD + 2bkD + ka - 0 (34c)
n-1 n n+1 .
5770. 2(n+1)

X A A
n-12b
+ x + n-1 n+1 Cn-1 Cn+1
= 0 . . .(34d)
k k n n-1 n+1 n-1 n+1

5.1.8 Step 8
5.1.8.1
The solution obtained above is in terms of the angular change
and this is related to the applied moment M by
-9)
2n +h
M = xs (r + z)dz de
)( 0 -h

n Er3L (35)
1 14,

The flexibility factor K is normally used to relate the angular

change with the applied moment thus

= K
3
and using the approximation I = 2nhr this gives

2k 1
K = - (36a)
bL kb X
1 bB1 + 1
3(1-v2)


66.

5.1.8.2
Although the approximations made in the last section are con-
sistent with those made in the development of equation (16) a more
exact expression is

271 f-h
2
M = s(r+z) sin e dz de
0 -h

1
,2
2
= 2Thr E [ (1+ L )B +
2k X 22
3 1
3(1-v2) 1
From which, using the exact expression I = 27thr3(1+k2)

2
1 + k
K
1,2
(36b)
bB (1+ .f•-= )+
2kb x
1 3
3(1-v2)
i

5.1.8.3
The stresses can now be obtained in the form of stress
factors using the equations of Steps 1 and 3. Thus the longi-
tudinal stress factor

n r
v
a 7
= bK z C 1
+1
- X 1 sinne (37a)
Bn+r*z 2 n
1 1-v2 n h
1-v _,

and the transverse stress factor

at = bK + C C + X
1
sin ne
n r+z 2 n 2k n h 2 n
1-v 1-v
(370
where z = +h for the outside surface
and z = -h for the inside su rface.
 67.

5.2 Further Approximations.

Some simplifying assumptions may be justified in certain

cases. For example, with long-radius bends R may be used for
R + y. Equations (27a) (28a) (29a) and (30a) are then re-
written as
w
= 1-loG - 1 ] sin 0 +. . . . + bG sin ne (27c)
r 1 n

= bJ sin 0 + + bJ sin ne
Er3 11 I n (28c)

2bkD sin 0 + . . . + 2bkD sin ne (29c)

Er2 11 1 n

b X
-‘) Osin 8 = [1 -
k Xl I sin 0 - k X2sin 20 - . . k nsin n0

(30c)
equations (27b) (28b) (29b) and 30b) remaining as before..

For thin-walled pipes the transverse bending stress may be

assumed to be distributed linearly through the pipe wall in which
case
3
2k
2
3(1-v )

A = D - vB
n n n

and G B - vD
n n

Also for thin-walled pipe the longitudinal strain may be

assumed to be constant through the wall thickness and then the
terms in X are no longer needed so that
n
 68.

3
2k
J = jC C
n n , 2 n
30.-v )

and L 2kB
n
Finally, if the transverse direct stress be neglected the
terms in D are eliminated and then
n
A = -vB
n

and G = B
n
As an example, if all these approximations are made and the
terms in B and C only taken, then
1 2
2
4X
B
1 2
b [4X + 3(1-v2)]

-12(1-v?)
C
2 2 2
0% 30.-v )
3
and K = 1 + 4 (1-v2)
2

5,3 Comparison with In-Plane Bending.

The equations for in-plane bending can be written in exactly

the same way as those given for out-of-plane bending, the basic
series being
E B cos n8 (19a)
n

(1 + e.ft )(3ti C cos nO (20a)

n

X cos ne (21a)
n

D cos ne (22a)
n
 69.

and the derived series

e A
cis 7 cos ne (23a)
n
where An=Dn + j—C - vB
2k n n

Or for linear transverse bending A = D - vB

n n n
or neglecting transverse direct stress An = vB
n

el= Fly
-tp
2 G cos nO
n
(24a)

where G = B - vD - C
n n n 2k n

or for linear transverse bending G = B - vD

n n n

or neglecting transverse direct stress G = B

n n
+h

tz dz = Er2 • J cos nO (25a)
n

2
2k
where J = jC + X
n n n
3(l-v2)
3
2k
for for thin-walled tube J C
n n
3(l -v2)

cja di Er2 L cos nO (26a)

de n
2
2k X
where L = 2kB + n
n n / 2
30.-v )

or for thin-walled tubes L = 2kB
n

The equations are then for short-radius geometry

 70.

-18111'
- -1 + 1G -(b+1)(G + + bG + iG -1] cos 0
alp 2 r 1= o 1 1 +G2 o 1 2

-F[gl-G + bG + 2G 3 cos 29 + +bG n+1 cos ne

1 2 n-1 n''-

(27d)
m r
LIDJJ,
+ i J. 40
+ + + bJ1 ',
--.1--IJ
2J 1 cos 6+ ....+LJ +bJ -1-0 1
if n-1 n n+1 cos no
Er3a1p= • 0
1 [J
(28d)
T
2 = [i2bkDo+ kD1", + 1.
!1(1) + 2bkD + kD 1 cos 0
0 1 2
Er 0p

+FD +2bkD +kD cos 2e + ++2bkD + cos nO

1 2 3 n kDn+1

(29d)
-_ ,)( [X0 tx 4. X2 [ X
0 sin 6 = t 1 cos 6 + 2k +k2 + X3
- cos 2e
this k o 2k k k 1 2k 2k

[
Xn...1 tk 4. X11+1
cos ne (30d)
2k k n 2k

and for long-radius geometry

= +
r 1:G1 2 •• -bGn 1 + [G, -1 cos 0 + 1:Z2cos 20

+ bG cos ne (27e)
n

= bJ + bJicos 0 + + bJ cos ne (28e)

3 o n
Er

T
2 4, = 2bkD + 2bkD cos 0 + . . . + 2bkD cos ne . . .(29e)
Er d o 1 n

0 sin e = 1k2X
o+ -11 cos 0 + —X2 cos 20 +. .+ -X cos nO
kl k k n
(30e)


71.

and for both long and short-radius bends

C C
wo-wy Co
C 2 n [C + A e sin 0
chi/ r 1- 1.3 (n-1)(n+1) o o

A, C, 6C
+4C cos 6 + L- Al- -=2 + + loos 2e + . .
o 22 3 2

A A
n-1 n+1 + Cn-1 4_ C n+1
• II • -1-3
2.-
n-1 n+1 n(n-1) 7717 cos nO . .(27f)

m L, L
n
° -L o+IL + + +Le
o sin e
Er 3d-tli Er d1
dIi)
2
Er d'y - 1 1.3 (n-1)(n+1)

_
T L L
+ L -*L cos 0 3.
2 2
_1 4- -3- 1 cos 20 - • . .
Er2dlit o 2 6
....
L
1 Ln-1 n+1
.
• • 2 n(n -1) TITFITTT cos n0 (28f)

1- Lo sin e + F T2o 3
2
Er dlp = L Er dip 7112 cos + Li- —
3 cos 20 + •4,

, 1 [ Ln-1
L n+1
• 2 n_ l cos n e (29f)
n+1

dy 0 sin 0 = 2 C+ + (1r-8) A + Co l sin e- -1- r- c2 + A 2 1 cos 0

A +C
+2 A + C - 3 3 cos 20 + • •
1 1 3
An_i+ Cn _ i
2 n-I
A
n+1 F
+C
n+1
cos n6 . (300
n+1
 72.

and from the boundary conditions

L = 0 (31c)
o
C 0 (31d)
1
A + C = 0 (31e)
0 0
It will be noted that the resulting equations for the general
term are identical for both in- and out-of-plane bending. The
solution of the equations for in-plane bending has also been
programmed taking terms up to cos 106.
 73.

CHAPTER 6

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Modification of Piping-Flexibility Analysis to

include Variable Flexibility Factors.

The assumption of a variable flexibility factor for pipe

bends could be included in programmes of piping-flexibility analysis
but until a theoretical basis is developed the assumptions would
have to be empirical. The few published results for pipe-
diameter changes of 90-deg. pipe bends suggest that taking ric21
in Table 29 would give a reasonable approximation for most bends
with tangent pipes and it may be assumed taking n=2 would approxi-
mate to the condition with end flanges. The main effect would
then be a reduction of the average flexibility factor by 10 per
cent in the first case or 35 per cent with flanges. The diff-
erences in deflections except possibly the secondary rotations are
of the second order and are unlikely to affect the overall flex-
ibility of a pipeline system.

More tests on a wider range of pipe bends would be needed

before these modifications can be applied generally to flexibility
calculations.

6.2 Calculated Flexibility Factors.

The computer programmes developed for the theories of

Chapter 5 enable these complex calculations to be made for a wide
range of pipe-bend parameters. These have been made for four
values of the parameter b(R/r), two values (b = 10 and b = 6)
being representative of long-radius bends and two (b = 3 and b = 2)
 74.

corresponding to long-radius and short-radius welding elbows.

For each bend radius a range of pipe thickness represented by
values of the parameter k(h/r) from 0.01 to 0.3 was examined.

The flexibility factors for different values of the pipe

factor X vary widely and to present the results of the calculations,
use is made of the fact that the product KX is approximately con-
stant. In Fig. 73 KX is plotted against X for b = 2, 3 and 6
for in-plane and out-of-plane bending.

6.3 Stress Calculations for Complex Loading.

Since in practice the loading on a pipe bend is seldom en.-

tirely in-plane or out-of-plane but a combination of the two to-
gether with torsion, a design procedure is required which will
give the stresses under these conditions.

Computer programmes have been prepared to give the maximum

longitudinal, transverse and equivalent stresses for varying com-
binations of in-plane and out-of-plane bending. The data applic-
able to bends with R/r = 3 were used to prepare Figs. 74 and 75 which
show the maximum equivalent stress factors in terms of the largest
bending moment. The equivalent stress here is based on the von
Mises criterion of yielding and is given by

2 2 2
f = s + t - st (1)
where f = equivalent stress

longitudinal stress

t = transverse stress

Fortunately the equivalent stress with the addition of a torsional

 75.

shear stress q can be found without further graphs since in this

case
2 2 2 2
f s + t - st + 3q (2)

The graphs (Figs. 74 and 75) give the maximum equivalent

stress factor y for the combined in-plane and out-of-plane bending
moments so that

2
+ t st (3)

M being the larger of the two moments.

The torsional moment T produces a shear stress

q = 1.— r (14k) at the outside surface . . . . (4a)

21

and q = T1 r (1-k) at the inside surface . . . . (4b)

2

The equivalent stress is then given by

/ 2 2
f = r
— 1/ M y + (1 + k)2T2 (5)
The design procedure is then, for a point of maximum stress
(usually the mid-section of a pipe bend), to resolve the component
bending moments into in-plane, out-of-plane and torsional moments.
The smaller of the first two is then expressed as a fraction of
the larger and lr found from the graphs and the maximum equivalent
stress from equation (5).

This shows how the data could be applied and is to be pre-

ferred to the usual practice of combining the in-plane and out-of-
2
plane bending moments (as," M2 + M ) and multiplying by a single
stress factor, although the graphs show that this method is not
greatly in error.
 76,

These calculations, of course, take no account of stresses

due to internal pressure.

6.4 Practical Considerations.

The assumed design conditions are, of course, seldom exactly

realized in practice. For instance, the anchor points are rarely
fixed with absolute rigidity and there may be discrepancies be-
tween their actual and nominal locations; dimensional inaccura-
cies in the fabrication of the pipeline may also occur. For
example, Fig. 10 shows the overall dimensions of the experimental
pipeline in its two-dimensional form and if section 0 is regarded
as fixed it will be found that displacements of 6 x = + 1.02 in.,
= - 0.96 in. and 0 = + 0.0072 radians are needed at section
y z
28 to bring the pipeline to its nominal dimensions. Flexibility
calculations show that this would involve end reactions of
F = + 477 lbf, F = + 172 lbf and M = - 1300 lbf-in. causing a
x y z
bending moment at section 11C of 36,400 lbf-in. which is 37 per
cent of the moment due to thermal expansion.

It is frequently stated that in service relaxation of a pipe-

line causes a loss of cold pull-up while on the other hand re-
laxation or creep in the hot condition of a pipeline which has been
assembled without cold pull-up can produce self-induced pull-up or
"self-spring". These apparently conflicting circumstances may
possibly be explained by dimensional inaccuracies. In this
connection it should be noted that a small angular error can
represent quite a large movement at an extreme point on the pipe-
line and this should be remembered when measuring the amount of
cold pull-up.

In many cases, notably in the ASA B.31.1 Code for Pressure

 77.

Piping, design procedure is based on the idea of a "stress range".

This assumes that, since failures in service are generally due to
fatigue, the most important consideration is the difference in
stress between the hot and cold condition and that the pipeline
will adjust itself, by local yielding, to the most favourable
condition.

The most serious discrepancies between calculated and actual

stress range are likely to result from variations from the nominal
pipe-wall thickness. The tolerance permitted on wall thickness
is usually ± l2t- per cent and local variations of this order are
not uncommon. The average thickness may also be significantly
different from the nominal and if sample measurements were to show
donsistent averages it might possibly be better to take the "average
measured thickness" instead of the nominal in flexibility cal-
culations.
 78.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In so far as the results of the tests on the pipeline systems

may be applied generally, they may be said to confirm that the
standard methods of piping-flexibility analysis are adequate in
predicting the forces and moments in two-dimensional and three-
dimensional pipework systems.

The deflection measurements on individual pipe bends show

a satisfactory agreement with theoretical values especially when
these were modified to allow for variations of the flexibility

factor. When bends were subjected to in-plane bending they were
found in all cases to be slightly more flexible with a closing
moment.

The measured stresses agree well with the theoretical values

calculated from the equations of Chapter 5.

It is recommended that further experimental work be carried

out on short-radius, thin-walled pipe bends with out-of-plane bend-
ing to check the deflection formulae of Chapter 4 and the stresses
calculated in Chapter 5.

It should be possible to modify the theories of Chapter 5

to include the effect of internal pressure on the flexibility
and stresses.

Further theoretical work is required to investigate the

restraining effect of tangent pipes and flanges.
 79.

REFERENCES

1. Stresses in Three-Dimensional Pipe Bends.

HOVGAARD, W. Trans.Amer.Soc.Mech.Engrs., 57 (1935) p.401.

2. Further Studies of Three-Dimensional Pipe Bends.

HOVGAARD, W. Trans.Amer.Soc.Mech.Engrs., 59 (1937) p.647.

3. Elastic Properties of Curved Tubes. VIGNESS, I.

Trans.Amer.Soc.Mech.Engrs., 65 (1943) p.105.

4. Survey of Existing Information on Steam Pipes for

Advanced Steam Conditions. JONES, A.W.
B.S.R.A. Report No. 13, 1948.

5. Methods of Making Piping Flexibility Analyses.

CROCKER, S. and McCUTCHAN, A. Heating, Piping and
Air Conditioning, June 1946 p.69 and July 1953 p.87
with contributions by

SPIELVOGEL, S.W. July 1946 p.78

FISH, M.J. Sept 1946 p.83
HOOPER, W.G. Nov 1946 p.70
DEHART, R.C. Jan 1947 p.91
WALLSTROM, H.V. May 1947 p.69
ANDREWS, L.C. Aug 1947 p.73
CARLIER, H. Sept 1947 p.86
WOLOSEWICK, E.W. Sept 1948 p.78
PARTSCH, L.E. July 1950 p.92
BRIDGE, T.E. Feb 1951 p.107
BROCK, J.E. July 1952 p.78
McCUTCHAN, A. and GREGORY, W.P. Mar 1953 p.92
 80.

6. Thermal Expansion Stresses in Piping. NOYES, M.S.

J.Amer.Soc.Nay.Engrs., 53 (1941) p.275.

7. Design of Piping Systems. THE M. W. KELLOGG COMPANY.

John Wiley & Sons. 1956.

8. Piping-Flexibility Analysis. MARKL, A.R.C.

Trans.Amer.Soc.Mech.Engrs., 77 (1955) p.127.

9. Dead-Weight Stresses in Piping Systems and Their

Inclusion in Thermal Stress Analyses.
POYNOR, J.F. Proc.Instn.Mech.Engrs., 172 (1958) p.513.

10. Examination of the Theories for Calculating the Stresees

in Pipe Bends Subjected to In-plane Bending.
TURNER, C.E. and FORD, H. Proc.Instn.Mech.Engrs., 171
(1957) p.513.

11. Stiffness of Curved Circular Tubes with Internal Pressure.

KAFKA, P.G. and DUNN, M.B. J. Applied Mech. 23 (1956)
p.247.

12. Effect of Internal Pressure on Flexibility and Stress-

Intensification Factors of Curved Pipe or Welding Elbows.
RODABAUGH, E.C. and GEORGE, H.H. Trans.Amer.Soc.Mech.
Engrs., 79 (1957) p.939.

13. Properties of Thin-Walled Curved Tubes of Short-Bend

Radius, PARDUE, T.E. and VIGNESS, I. Trans.Amer.Soc.
Mech.Engrs. 73 (1951) p.77.

14. Experiments on Short-radius Pipe-Bends. GROSS, N.

Proc.Instn.Mech.Engrs., 1B (1952-53) p.465.
 81.

15. The Flexibility of Short-radius Pipe-bends. GROSS, N.

and FORD, H. Proc. Instn.Mwch.Engrs., 1B (1952-53) p.480.

16. In-Plane Bending Properties of Welding Elbows. VISSAT, P.L.

and DEL BUONO, A.J. Trans.Amer.Soc.Mech.Engrs., 77 (1955)
p.161.

17. Stresses in Thick-walled Plane Pipe Bends. SWANSON, S.A.V.

and FORD, H. J.Mech.Engng.Sci., 1 (1959) p.103.

18. Steam Pipework Design in Ships. HOATH, P.T.

Trans.Inst.Mar.Engrs. 59 (1947) p.189.

19. Ferrous Pipes and Piping Installations for and in

Connection with Land Boilers.
British Standards Institution, B.S. 806; 1942.

20. Elastic Constants and Coefficients of Thermal Expansion

of Piping Materials Proposed for 1954 Code for Pressure
Piping. MICHEL, R. Trans.Amer.Soc.Mech.Engrs., 77
(1955) p.151.

21. A Short Method for Evaluating Determinants and Solving

Systems of Linear Equations With Real or Complex
Coefficients. CROUT, P.D. Trans.Amer.Inst.Elec.Engrs.,
60 (1941) p.1235.
 82.

APPENDIX 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

This list of publications, in approximately chronological

order, supplements the very comprehensive bibliography given by
Markl in 1955.

1945

Application of Relaxation Method to Solution of Simultaneous

Equations of Type that Occur in Multi-anchored Pipe Thermal Stress
Computations. OSBOURNE, A. and MEYER, R.M. J. Am. Soc. Nev.
Engrs., 57 (1945) p.147.
and 58 (1946) p.470.

1946

Square-Bend Expansion Loop. HORELICK, H. Power, 90 (1946) p.561.

Good Design, Proper Fabrication Make High Temperature Piping System

Safe. CROCKER, S. Power, 90 (1946) pp.652, 732, 7/6.

1947

Analysis of Stresses in U Bend Pipe Frame. YEAKE, J.E.

Petroleum Refiner, 26 (1947) pp. 147, 541.

1950

Expansion Bends for Pipelines. PEARSON, G.H. Power and Works

Engr,, 45 (1950) p.5.

1951

Provision for Expansion in Steam and Hot Water Pipes. WESTON, S.G.
J.Instn.Heating and Ventilating Engrs., 19 (1951) p.147.
 83.

Charts Simplify Refinery Design. Petroleum Engr., 23 July 1951

p. C16.

Easier Way to Find Hot-Pipe Movement. KARMARCK, F. Power, 95

(1951) Jan. p. 75. April p.91.

1953

How to apply Method of Slope Deflection to Thermal Stress Analysis

of Piping. PICARDI, E.A. Petroleum Processing, 8 (1953) p. 368.

Is Your Piping System Right? JACKSON, W.M. Petroleum Processing,

8 (1953) p. 868.

How Model Tests Cut Piping Design and Fabrication Costs.

OtRnUKE, J.F. Power, 97 (1953) Sept. p.90.

Calculating Flexibility. PARTCH, L.E. Heating, Piping and Air

Conditioning, 25 Dec. 1953, p.74.

The Solution of Pipe-Expansion Problems by Punched-Card Machines.

JOHNSON, L.H. A.S.M.E. Miscellaneous Paper No. 53-F-23, 1953.

1954

Design of Steam Piping and Valves for 1100F. RITCHINGS, F.A. and
CROCKER, S. Trans.Am.0oc.Mech.Engrs., 76 (1954) p.261.

Flexibility of Piping Systems Supported by Equally Spaced Rigid

Hangers. BROCK, J.E. J.Appl.Mech., 21 (1954) p.11.

Design of Steam-Piping Systems for Large Central-Station

Applications. JACKSON, R.L. and JOHNSON, L.H. A.S.M.E.
Miscellaneous Paper No. 54-SA-59, 1954 (see also Heat.Pip.Air
Condit., 26 Nov. 1954 p.112).

Analysis of Pipe Systems with Special Expansion Features.

DONAHUE, J.E. A.S.M.E. Miscellaneous Paper No. 54-SA-70, 1954.
 84.

1955

Try these Rules for Easy U Bend Design. BROCK, J.E. Heat.Pip.
Air Condit., 27 April 1955 p.99.

Matrix Analysis of Piping Flexibility. BROCK, J.E. J.Appl.

Mech., 22 (1955) p.361.

In-Plane Bending Properties of Welding Elbows. VISSAT, P.L.

and DEL BUONO, A.J. Trans.Am.Soc.Mech.Engrs., 77 (1955) p.161.

Steam-Piping Design to Minimize Creep Concentrations.

ROBINSON, E.L. Trans.Am.Soc.Mech.Engrs., 77 (1955) p.1147.

1956

How to Calculate Pipe Stresses. HSIAO, K.H. Pipe Line Industry,

4 (1956) Feb.,p. 20, Mar., p. 51, April p. 43.

Stresses in Boiler Tubes. PARKES, E.W. Engineering, Lond.,

181 (1956) p. 84.

The Solution of Multiple-Branch Piping-Flexibility Problems by

Tensor Analysis. SOULE, J.W. J.Appl.Mech., 23 (1956) p.176.

Tensor-Flexibility Analysis of Pipe-Supporting Systems.

MULE, J.W. J.Appl.Mech., 23 (1956) p.181.

Stiffness of Curved Circular Tubes with Internal Pressure.

KAFKA, P.G. and DUNN, M.B. J.Appl.Mech., 23 (1956) p. 247.

End Reactions and Stresses in Pipe-Lines. RANDOLPH, L.F.

Engineering, Lond., 182 (1956) pp. 492, 555, 774.

How to Solve Pipe Expansion Problems by Punched Card Machines.

JOHNSON, L.H. Heat. Pip. Air Condit., 28 (1956) Nov., p.122.

1957

How Giant Brains Aid Piping Design. BROCK, J.E. Heat.Pip.Air

Condit., 29 (1957) May p. 106, June p. 106, July p. 116.
 85.

Full Scale Stress Experiments on Some Common Pipe Bends.

POTTER, J.H. J.Am.Soc.Nay.Engrs., 69 (1957) p.771.

Effect of Internal Pressure on Flexibility and Stress-

Intensification Factors of Curved Pipe or:Melding Elbows.
RODABAUGH, E.C. and GEORGE, H.H. Trans.Am.Soc.Mech.Engrs.,
12 (1957) 939.

Investigation of Thermal-Stress Fatigue as Related to High-

Temperature Piping Flexibility. COFFIN, L.F. Trans.Am.Soc.
Mech.Engrs., 79 (1957) p. 1637.

Examination of the Theories for Calculating the Stresses in Pipe.

Bends Subjected to In-Plane Bending. TURNER, C.E. and FORD, H.
Proc.Instn.Mech.Engrs., 171 (1957) p. 513.

Pipe Stress Analysis for Static and Dynamic Loading. CRAWFORD, L.

Trans.Soc.Nay.Archit.Mar.Engrs., N.Y., 65 (1957) p. 197.

Matrix Method for Analysis of Piping Subject to Restrained Thermal

Expansion. BLANJEAN, L. and DONY, E. Acier-Stahl-Steel, 22
(1957) pp. 365, 413, 463, 515.

Calculating Pipe Stress Efficiently. HSIAO, K.H. Heat.Pip.Air

Condit., 29 (1957) Sept. p. 98, Dec. p. 114, 30 (1958) Jan. p. 172.

1958
The Automatic Calculation of Forces and Deflections in Piping
Systems. PECK, L.G., MEYER, R.F., STRONG, P.F. and KALSON, H.
Trans.Am.Soc.Mech.Engrs., BO (1958) p. 235.

Computing Stresses in Pipe Systems. Pipes and Pipelines, 3

(1958) April p. 30.

Dead-weight Strdsses in Piping Systems and Their Inclusion in

Thermal Stress Analyses. POYNOR, J.F. Proc.Instn. Mech.Engrs.,
Ill (1958) p. 513.
 86.

Advanced Approach Simplifies Piping Flexibility Analysis for

Process and Power Piping System. WERT, E.A. Heat.Pip.Air.
Condit., 30 (1958) Sept. p. 130, Oct. p. 86, Nov. p. 95.

Tensor Flexibility Analysis of Closed Loop Piping Systems.

SOULE, J.W. J.Appl.Mech., 25 (1958) p.11.

Flexibility Analysis of Piping Systems Formulated for Digital

Computer Solution. OWENS, R.H. Proc.Third U.S. Nat.Congress
of Applied Mechanics (1958) p. 419.

1959
New Method Speeds Design of Pipeline Expansion Loops. PARTCH, L.E.
Heat.Pip.Air Condit., (1959) July p. 123.
Some Aspects of High-Temperature Pipe Work Design. SMITH, A.A.
Pipes and Pipelines, 4 (1959) Aug./Sept. p. 45.
Programming for Electronic Computation of Stresses in Piping
Systems. COLDHAM, V. J.Mech.Engng.Sci., 1 (1959) p. 934

Stresses in Thick-walled Plane Pipe Bends. SWANSON, S.A.V. and

FORD, H. J.Mech.Engng.Sci., 1 (1959) p. 103.
Time-Saving Procedure for Pipe Stress Analysis. HSIAO, K.H.
Air Condit.Heat.Vent., 56 (1959) June p. 81, Sept. p. 94.

Piping Stress Calculations Simplified. SPIELVOGEL, S.W.

Heat.Pip.Air Condit.,31 (1959) Sept. p. 106, Oct. p. 122.

Piping Stress Analysis Simplified. MOLONEY, J.S. Petroleum

Refiner, 38 (1959) Oct. p. 133.

Piping Flexibility Analysis by Stiffness Matrix. CHEN, L.H.

J.Appl.Mech., at. (1959) P. 609.
 07.

1960

New Formulas aid Computer Solution of Piping Design Stress Problem.

BRIDGE, T.E. Heat.Pip.Air Condit., 32 (1960) Jan. p. 196.

Elementary Development of Piping Flexibility Analysis. OWENS, R.H.

J.Am.Soc.Nay.Engrs., 72 (1960) p. 159.

Calculating Pipe Stresses on IBM-650 Computer. JACKSON, D.H. and

SHOR, S.W.W. Bur. Ships J., 9 (1960) Feb. p. 27.

High Temperature Pipeline Models; Flexibility Analysis by the

Experimental Method. BAASCH, R.J. S.Afr.Mech.Engr., 9 (1960)
p. 183.

1961

Stresses in Pipe with Discontinuous Bend. GREEN, A.E. and

EMERSON, W.C. J.Mech.Phys.Solids, 9 (1961) p. 91.

Some Formulas for Piping Design. BROCK, J.E. J.Am.Soc.Nay.

Engrs., 73 (1961) p. 391.

Piping Flexibility Analysis. SPIJKERS, A.A. and BOONSTRA, B.H.

Ingenieur, 73 (1961) 2 June p. 093.

How to Calculate Expansion Stresses in Pipe Bends for Single

Plane Structures. LEE, C.A. Heat.Pip.Air Condit.,33 (1961)
July p. 109.

Experiments on Fabricated Pipe Bends. LANE, P.H.R. and ROSE, R.T.

British Welding J., 8 (1961) p. 323.

Chart Method for Pipe Stress Calculations. PORTER, H. Engineer,

Lond., 212 (1961) p. 1074.

1962,

Find Best Pipe Expansion Loop Quickly. ELLISON, G.L. Petroleum

Refiner, 41 (1962) Jan. p. 151.
 88.

Calculating Pipe Stresses Efficiently - Further Simplification.

HSIAO, K.H. Heat.Pip.Air Condit., 34 (1962) Jan. p. 194.

Graphical Short-cuts to Pipe Stress Analysis. HAQUE, M.S. and

STARCZEWSKI, J. Hydrocarbon Processing and Petroleum Refiner,
41 (1962) June p. 135.

Use Short Cut Method to Analyze 180-deg. Pipe Bends. MASEK, J.A.
Hydrocarb. Process.Petrol.Refin., 41 (1962) June p. 165.

Experimental Study of the Flexibility of a Full-Scale Two-

dimensional Steam Pipeline. SMITH, R.T. and FORD, H. J.Mech.
Engng.Sci., 4 (1962) p. 270.

Fatigue Strength of Gusseted Pipe Bends. MACFARLANE, D.S.

British Welding J., 9 (1962) p. 659.

New Tables Give Properties of Weld Elbows and Miters. BRIDGE, T.E.
and McILVAIN, D.R. Heat.Pip.Air Condit., 34 (1962) 5ept‘ p. 135,
35 (1963) Jan. p. 153, Mar. p. 131.

1963

Shear Distribution in Piping. BROCK, J.E. Heat.Pip.Air

Condit., 35 (1963) Jan. p. 141.

Stresses in Curved, Circular Thin-Wall Tubes. UTECHT, E.A.

J.Appl.Mech., 33 (1963) p. 134.

Short-Cut Stress Analysis of 90-deg. Piping. MASEK, J.A.

Hydrocarb.Process.Petrol.Refin., 42 (1963) Feb. p. 135,
Mar. p. 139.

Analyzing Pipe Line Stresses. WILBUR, W.E. Pipe Line Industry,

18 (1963) Feb. p. 25.

Relaxation of Piping Subject to Restrained Thermal Expansion.

DONY, E. Acier-Stahl-Steel, 28 (1963) p. 183.
 89.

Effect of Creep on Stresses in Piping Systems. GORCZYNSKI, W.

Engineer, Lond., 215 (1963) p. 565.

Electrical Analogue for Flexibility Analysis of High Temperature

Pipelines. BAASCH, R.J. S.Afr.Mech.Engr., 13 (1963) p. 73.

Comparative Analysis of Piping Systems. OWENS, R.H. Air

Condit;Heat.Vent., 60 (1963) Oct. p. 34.

Designing for Thermal Expansion Through Piping Configuration.

MASEK, J.A. Heat.Pip.Air Condit., 35 (1963) Nov. p. 123,
Dec. p. 100.

1964

Some Secondary Effects in a Simple Piping Structure Under Heating.

BROCK, J.E. J.Appl.Mech., 31 (1964) p. 88.

Tables Provide Short Cut for Pipe-Stress Analysis. BRAMLEY, E.W.

Heat.Pip.Air Condit., 36 (1964) Mar. p. 104.

Avoid Overstressing Piping through Flexible Layout. BRAMLEY,

Heat.Pip.Air Condit., 36 (1964) April p. 125.

Tips on Pipe Layout for Flexibility. MASEK, J.A. Hydrocarb.

Process.Petrol.Refin., 43 (1964) July p. 143.

Compliance of Pipe Components. BROCK, J.E. Naval Engrs. J.,

76 (1964) p. 535.

Stresses in and Flexibility of Mitred Bends and Lobster-Back Bends.

OWEN, B.S., HOLLAND, M. and EMERSON, W.C. Proc.Instn.Mech.Engrs.,
178, Part 3J (1963-64) p. 70,

Effect of Thermal Cycling on Pre-Stressed Steam Pipelines.

JEAL, R.H. and BINDLEY, D. Proc.Instn.Mech.Engrs., 178 Part 3J
(1963-64) p. 148.
 90.

A Method of Assessing the Structural Efficiency of Pipework Designed

for High Temperature Service. GORCZYNSKI, W. Proc.Instn.Mech.
Engrs., 178 Part 3L (1963-64) p. 334.

Simplified Stress Analysis for Piping Systems. MAURER, L., MASON,

J.P. and YOUNG, L.B. Air Condit.Heat.Vent., 61 (1964) Oct. p. 94.

A Numerical Method of Calculation of Thermal Expansion and External

Loading in Complex Piping Systems. NAKHALOV, V.A. Thermal
Engineering, 11 (1964) p. 122.

Flexibility Analysis of Three-Dimensional Pipeline Networks.

MICHALOS, J. and GROSSFIELD, B. Trans.Am.Soc.Mech.Engrs.,
J.Engng. for Power, 86 (1964) p. 369.
 91.

APPENDIX 2

SLOPE FORMULAE

The deflection measurements were made at the tangent point

and at distances of 5, 10, 15, 25 and 35 inches along the tangent

pipe. These are shown in Fig. 8 as A, (A - -f A ), etc.
o 1
The assumed form of the deflected pipe is
2 3 n-1
y= a1 x + a2x + a x
3
+ + a
n-1
x (1)

and 2 n-2
dx = a1
+ 2a x + 3a x + a
2 3
x (2 )
n-1

when x = 0 , i
c I = a which is the required slope, 00 ... (3)
dx 1
If n readings are taken, a may be found by substitution in
l
equation (1) and the following expressions are found for 00;

Selected Readings (5in) 00

A A 2 - i-- A
o A l 2 Al 2
A A 2 A _ I-
o A l 3 2 6 A3 3
A 3
— A - --?-
o A 2 A 3 2 -2 A3 3
46 o A2 A 5 25 6 _ .2?___L
6 2 15 5
A A A
o 3 5 105
A L A_ 2_A
o A 3 A 7 12 3 28-7
A 7 A 5
o A 5 A 7 10-5 - 14 7
A _ 2 A
LI A
o A 2 A 7 10 2 35 7
A A A
o 1 2 3 3 .. +
1 2 A 2 3A 3
A A
o Al A 3 5 12A _ 4. 2--A
8 12 3 40 5
 92.

Selected Readings (5in) 00

A o A A5 A 7 Z A LA + 1 A 7
2 2 15 5 7 7
A A A A 35 _ 21.A
35A 12,A
o 3 5 7 24 3 20 5 56 7
A A A
l 3 5 - Al+ —3 A - i--
253 A
Al A A
l 3 7 - 2 A + A - 2-- A
6 1 3 6 7
Al A
A2 3 - ..
2A + 4A - A
1 2 2
2 3
'12
A5 A7 - 1A + lA - 7 A
5 2 2 5 1.v7


93.

APPENDIX 3

DISTORTION OF PIPE CROSS SECTION

From the theories of Chapter 5 the distortion of the pipe

cross section may be calculated. For out-of-plane bending the
deflection in the y-direction can be found by direct substitution
in equation (27b). The corresponding expression for w developed
x
from equation (12b) is
-w n n C C +A I n C +A C A
...."2 0 _
=[ n 1 l 4. 20 7 4. n n + _2_1 cos()
.1 IN2C
---2
r2 "0 0 .. (n-1)(n+1)- 2 r) 0 n4. 4 4
2 - - 1 --

A
•• • "
1
2
n-1 Cn+1 4. An-1 + n-±- 1- cos ne (27g)
r7i;:37)" n(n+1) n-1 n+1

For in-plane bending the y-deflection can be found from

equation (27f) and consideration of the rotation and extension of
the pipe wall gives
P5 1 1 2
w (1+el)(- -)(cos Op- cos Or + e r cos Ord. de (12e)
x t1 rq

which leads to

A, C,
wx sin 0 + + - sin 2e + . .
r 1 3 6
A A C C
+k n-1 + n+1 n-1 n+1
sin n 0
n-1 n+1 n (n-1) n(n+l) -1
. . (27h)

Changes of Diameter

Changes of diameter were measured in the in-plane tests on

 94.

o o o
Bend Nos. 1 and 2 on the axes 0 = 0 and 180 and 0 = 90 and
.
270° In all the tests on Bend No. 3 (both in- and out-of-plane)
measurements were made

(a) between 0 = 0 and 180°

(b) between 0 = 90°and 270°

(c) between 0 = 45°and 225°

(d) between 0 = 135°and 315°

Out-of-plane tests showed no change of diameter on axes (a)and

(b); in-plane tests showed no change on axes (c) and (d).

These deflections may be calculated by substituting the

appropriate constants and values for 0 in equations (27b) (27g)
(27f) and (27h). The deflection (w) may be expressed in the form

2
w = W K br — (38)
ET

For out-of-plane bending the change of diameter on axes (c) and

(d) is given by
C C C
2 6 10
W= 2
1.3 5.7 9.11
• • • . . (39)

o
For in-plane bending the y-deflection between 8 = 0 and 0 = 9D°
is given by

C
W = (C - 2
C4
o 1.3 - 3.5
'041
A
3
+
A
5
A
5 _ 7
7
+. . -- rc3
.
C C
7
5 + 67
123 + 56 +..

. . . . (40a)
and between 0 = 90° and 0 = 180° by

C C C C C
2 4 3 + +
5 +..
7
W = C - +
+ Al- 3 +..
o 1.3 3.5 3 5 -7 2.3 5.6 6.7

• • • • (40b)

95.

so that between 0 = 0°and 0 = 180° (i.e. the change of diameter)

C C
2 4
W = 2 [C
o 1.3 3.5
• • • (406)

The x-deflection between 0 = 0°and 0 = 90°is given by

m
C C C C
2 4 6 8
W = C
o 1.3 3.55. 7 7.9 +
OOP .
. . (41a)

SO that for the change of diameter between 0 = 90° and 0 = 270°

= [C o +
C
Ea__ c6 8
. . (41b)
1.3 3.5 5.7 7.9

The first term in this expression is consistent since

co
(.4 )( 4.1 ) = Co


96.

APPENDIX 4

DEFLECTION OF 90-DEG PIPE BEND

The deflections are found by considering the rotations within

an element of the pipe at angle 1p (Fig. 76) and subtending an
angle d4 . The applied moments Mx, My or Mz are resolved into
in-plane, out-of-plane and torsional components Mz, 1 b and Mt,
thus:
M = M
z z
Mb = Mx sin - M cos qf
y
M = M cosy + M sin ILI
7
t x y

The rotations are obtained from

_
K- MR
dOz =
(3,1, (2a)
EI

K. M R
dO = EIb dlp (2b)
b

and dOt = (l+v) EI dAp (2c)

the assumed form of variation of K AI) being

K 141 = A K cos n(4)- n/4) (3)

1

These rotations are resolved into the orthogonal axes, thus:

sin 1p ddb (4a)

c/93x = cos lk c193t
do = sin cos (4b)
\I) dot dob
do2 = doz (4c)
 97.

The total rotations for the whole 90-deg. pipe bend are then

dox (5a)
515x =
JrnA
0

7E/2
=f do (5b)
y

0
n/2
0 = dOz
z
0

and the deflections

n/2
A = (l-cosy)dgiz (6a)
x
0

Ay sin 1) doz (6b)

A = R
z sin )1) dO - (1 -cosy)d95x 1 . . (6c)

0
For applied moments M ,M and M angular and linear displacements
x y z
can be found by substituting from equations (1)(2)(3) and (4) in
equations (5) and (6). For applied forces F and F , the
x Fy z
moments at angle 1.1) are

M = F R(1 - cos 1p ) (7a)

z x
M = -F R sin \I) (7b)
z y
M = F R sin IV
y z
1(7c)
Mx = -F R (1 - cos Ap )
z


98.

and these expressions can be substituted in equation (1).

For example, to find A , from equations (2a) (3) and (5c)

1
EI 71/2
cos (nip n )dip
°
x 4
0

MR n n
= A K (cos -- cos n ip + sin nn sin n')d'i
1 EI 4 4
0

2 sin I°
EI 4

_ KMR n
— 7 from the definition of K as the
EI

average flexibility factor

nn
n
A1 = cosec —
4 4
 99.

APPENDIX 5

TRIGONOMETRICAL IDENTITIES

The following identities were found useful in the calculations

of Chapter 5, Appendix 3 and Appendix 4;

2 cos 0 sin ne = sin (n+1)0 + sin(n-1)0

2 cos 0 cos nO = cos (n+1)0 + cos(n-1)6

2 sin 0 sin n0 = cos (n-1)0 cos(n+1)0

2 sin 6 cos ne = sin (n+1)0 sin(n-1)0

where n is any number, integral or fractional.

Expressions of the form sine cosn0 , where m and n are

positive integers, can always be reduced to multiple angle form
by an application of De Moivre's theorem. This is given in, for
example, "Advanced Mathematics for Technical Students, Part I"
by A. Geary, H. V. Lowry and H. A. Hayden (Longmans, 1947) p.281.
 100.

TABLE 1

NOMINAL DIMENSIONS OF TEST PIPES

Pipe No. 1 1 2 3

Outside Diameter in 6.625 6.625 4.50

Wall Thickness 2h in 0.25 0.25 0.531
Mean Radius r in 3.1875 3.1875 1.984
4
Second Moment of Area I in 25.47 25.47 13.275
Bend Radius R in 19.0 27.0 6.0

b = R/r 5.961 8.471 3.024

k = h/r 0.039 0.039 0.134
X = 2kb 0.468 0.664 0.809
 101.

TABLE 2

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Pipe No. 1 Pipe No. 2

Axial }Transverse Axial Transverse

2 27.8 27.8 29.0 29.5

Tensile Strength tonf/in
2 21.3 21.8 22.6 23.6
Yield Point tonf/in
Elongation on
4/area - per cent 43 38 42 37
2 6 6 61 6
Young's Modulus lbf/in 30.1x10 30.5x10 30.1x10 ! 30.2x10
Diamond Pyramid Hardness No. 140-150 145-160
 102.

TABLE 3

CHEMICAL ANALYSES

Pipe No. 1 Pipe No. 2

per cent per cent

Carbon 0.12 0.13

Manganese 0.49 0.45
Silicon 0.16 0.22
Sulphur 0.024 0.020
Phosphorus 0.011 0.006
 103.

TABLE 4

AVERAGE MEASURED DIMENSIONS OF TEST PIPES

Pipe No. 1 2 3

Tangent Lengths
Outside Diameter in 6.588 6.606 4.528
x
Wall Thickness in 0.262 0.248x 0.526
Mean Radius in 3.163 3.179 2.001
Second Moment of Area in4 25.87 24.93 13.47

Bends
Outside Diameter in 6.556 6.588 4,535
Wall Thickness in 0.244 0,232 0.555
Mean Radius in 3.156 3.178 1.990
4
Second Moment of Area in 24.14 24.18 14.01

Ultrasonic measurement
 TABLE 5

THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS ON PIPE NO. 1 (inches)

Section No. 17 18 20 20A 20B 20C 20D 20E 21 23 25 27

Extrados .26Q .256 .241 .217 .223 .224 .216 .222 .243 .282 .253 .266
30 .256 .254 .249 .222 .223 .232 .216 .220 .229 .269 .252 .246
60 .264 .255 .273 .254 .255 .263 .250 .246 .251 .266 .263 .258
90 .279 .273 .263 .258 .247 .255 .262 .260 .275 .264 .270 .285
120 .256 .268 .245 .250 .247 .245 .249 .251 .250 .260 .257 .262
150 .268 .262 .264 .270 .257 .263 .271 .262 .263 .260 .252 .255
Intrados .248 .251 .268 .275 .262 .273 .268 .287 .266 .286 .270 .264
210 .236 .242 .255 .246 .250 .244 .244 .263 .240 .274 .263 .259
240 .244 .244 .266 .255 .257 .243 .248 .265 .241 .265 .267 .260
270 .252 .270 .253 .275 .263 .254 .266 .267 .271 .268 .274 .265
300 .252 .266 .231 .236 .217 .208 .223 .222 .241 .250 .264 .272
330 .260 .258 .235 .231 .212 .218 .211 .217 .239 .247 .264 .265
Average .256 .258 .254 .249 .243 .244 .244 .2494-- .251 .266 .262 .265
I 25.28 25.40 25.49 24.11 24.25 24.84 23.81 23.67 24.88 •26.68 26.04 25.96
 TABLE 6

THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS ON PIPE NO. 2 (inches)

Section No. 1 3 . 5 7 9 11 11A 11B 11C 11D 11E 12 15

Extrados .277 .250 .255 .248 .249 .233 .237 .241 .224 .238 .237 .238 .246
30 .270 .246 .247 .241 .252 .224 .216 .222 .207 .226 .215 .222 .239
60 .257 .256 .253 .251 .250 .245 .241 .230 .212 .232 .225 .227 .241
50 .254 .274 .270 .278 .261 .246 .246 .237 .238 .234 .245 .238 .242
120 .246 .253 .257 .256' .253 .240 .236 .233 .232 .231 .235 .224 .240
150 .245 .238 .272 .250 .259 .255 .254 .254 .252 .255 .263 .234 .239
Intrados .264 .259 .244 .244 .251 .243 .265 .257 .257 .270 .255 .248 .243
210 .238 .250 .239 .228 .240 .230 .242 .232 .225 .244 .225 .224 .229
240 .267 .252 .238 .232 .251 .240 .243 .227 .221 .232 .225 .231 .239
270 .250 .273 .258 .255 .235 .246 .228 .239 .245 .219 .243 .242 .245
300 .229 .222 .252 .240 .223 .235 .201 .209 .213 .195 .208 .228 .241
330 .227 .226 .248 .237 .231 .242 .206 .211 .221 .207 .219 .238 .256
Average .252 .250 .253 .247 .246 .240 .235 .233 .229 .232 .233 .233 .242
I 25.44 24.90 25.36 24.67 24.91 24.09 23.46 24.12 23.76 24.79 24.75 24.38 24.32
 106.
TABLE 7

THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS ON PIPE BEND NO. 3 ( inches )

Ap =15° Ap=45° y =75°

Extrados .541 .533 .549
10 .535 .537 .549
20 .535 .535 .548
30 .537 .536 .550
40 .542 .538 .551
50 .546 .543 .553
60 .556 .551 .562
70 .565 .562 .566
80 .564 .570 .566
90 .560 .566 .560
100 .556 .561 .553
110 .551 . 559 .548
120 .546 .553 .540
130 .545 .549 .537
140 .550 .550 .537
150 .553 .555 .540
160 .551 .556 .539
170 • 558 .558 .542
Intrados .559 .561 .545
190 .561 .567 .550
200 .559 .560 .551
210 .559 .559 .551
220 .560 .555 .550
230 .563 .559 .553
240 .568 .565 . 556
250 .571 •563 .558
260 .572 .563 .561
270 .580 .565 .566
280 • 584 .570 .571
290 .583 .569 .573
300 .576 .560 .571
310 .570 .553 .565
320 .563 .545 .559
330 .559 .540 .556
340 .555 .537 .553
350 .547 .534 .551
 107.

TABLE 8

END REACTIONS AND MOMENTS

Experimental
Expansion Pull-up
test test
Calculated
inward outward
displacement displacement

F lbf 1877 + 1830 .- 1884

x
F lbf 2059 + 1940 - 2047
y
F lbf 2786 + 2667 - 2782

M lbf-in 142 250 - 131 230 + 145 710

o
lbf-in 98 700 + 94 580 - 92 970
M1lC
PA lbf-in 74 110 - 74 760 + 80 740
2GC
lbf-in 77 250 + 67 500 - 69 640
M28
 108.

TABLE 9

END REACTIONS (lbf)

Expansion Case Pull,»Up Case

F F F F
x Y x y
Experimental Values + 1830 + 1940 - 1884 - 2047
Calculated from,
1. Nominal Dimensions KF2.345,
3.405 + 1876 + 2058 - 1876 - 2058
11
2.1/ K=2.332,
3.375 + 1686 + 2065 - 1886 - 2065
3. Measured Dimensions and
Thickness K constant + 1672 + 1837 - 1672 - 1837

4. As (3) but K variable + 1810 + 1928 1810 - 1938

5. As (4) with shear deflection + 1784 + 1905 - 1784 - 1905
6. Measured K (constant) + 1688 + 2001 - 1958 - 2055
7. Measured K (variable) + 1869 + 1983 1- 1939 - 2036
8. As (7) with shear deflection + 1840 + 1949 - 1909 - 2000
 109.

TABLE 10

MAXIMUM STRESSES

Bend No. 1 (19-in R) Bend No. 2 (27-in R)

Calculated Experimental Calculated Experimental
Expansion Pull-up Expansion Pull-up

Bending
Moment lbf-in 74 110 74 760 80 740 98 700 94 500 92 970
Maximum
Longitudinal 2
Stress lbf/In 15 770 17 000 16 270 16 550 19 270 19 500
Stress
Factor 1.70 1.82 1.61 1.34 1.63 1.68

Maximum Transverse
Stress lbf/In2 23 650 22 350 22 800 23 590 25 900 26 000
Stress
Factor 2.55 2.39 2.26 1.91 2.19 2.23
 110

TABLE 11

MEASURED FLEXIBILITY COEFFICIENTS

F = F = F = F =
x x Y y
+ 1000 lbf - 1000 lbf + 1000 lbf - 1000 lbf

a x in + 1.47 - 1.45 - 0.98 + 0.915

6 y in - 0.935 + 0.94 + 1.10 - 1.10

S in 63,2 63.0 96.1 92.1

 TABLE 12

END REACTIONS

Expansion Case Pull-up Case

A x = + 0.864 in A =
x - 0.864 in
L\ = + 0.480 in & = - 0.480 in
Y Y
Calculated Calculated
Direct from from
experimental Direct
experiment
flexibility experiment flexibility
coefficients coefficients

F lbf 1830 1860 1884 1891

x
F lbf 1940 1908 2047 2052
Y
M lbf-in 67 500 65 810 69 64C 69 860
28
 112.

TABLE 13

CALCULATED FLEXIBILITY COEFFICIENTS

in/i )00 lbf inches

db. d db, dA
x _i x = ___y
dF x dF dF dF
Calculated from& y y x
1. Nominal Dimensions K=2.345,
3.405 +1.524 +1.118 -0.970 63.98 95.85
2. " 11 K=2.332,
3.375 +1.518 +1.117 -0.969 64.04 95.89
3. Measured Dimensions and
Thickness K constant +1.636 +1.189 -1.019 64.92 95.89

4. As (3) but K variable +1.545 +1.179 -0.997 65.32 96.49

5. As (4) with :hear
deflection +1.549 +1.185 I -0.997 65.32 96.49

Expansion Case;
6. Measured K ( constant) +1.511 +1.178 -0.994 65.35 96.70
7. Measured K (variable) +1.514 +1.176 -0.991 65.36 96.69
8. As (7) with shear
deflection +1.519 +1.183 -0.991 65.36 96.69

Pull-up Case
6. Measured K (constant) +1.478 +1.175 -0.988 65.43 96.94
7. Measured K (variable) +1.480 +1.173 -0.985 65.44 96.93
8. As (7) with shear
deflection +1.485 +1.180 -0.985 65.44 96.93
 113.

TABLE 14

FLEXIBILITY FACTORS
(referred to nominal cross-sectional dimensions)

Measured Values Calculated

from
Pipeline Element Theoretical +ve M -ve M measured
value thickness

a - b 0 - 11 1.0 1.02 1.02 1.02

b - c 11 - 12 2.332 2.36 2.24 2.78 max.

2.47 average

c - d 12 - 16 1.0 1.06 1.06 1.05

d - e 16 P- 20 1.0 1.04 1.02 1.01

f - g 20 - 21 3.375 3.02 3.17 3.74 max.
3.30 average

g - h 21 - 28 1.0 0.964 0.965 0.97

 114.

TABLE 15

INTERNAL PRESSURE TESTS

MAXIMUM TRANSVERSE STRESSES

(lbf/in2)

Pressure lbf/in2 450 1000

Calculated 5 210 11 570

Straight Pipe
Measured 6 450 14 000
Pipe

No.1 Calculated 6 170 13 710

19-in Radius Bend
Measured 10 000 22 700

Calculated 5 5;0 12 320

Straight Pipe
Measured 5 950 13 100
Pipe

No.2 6 350
Calculated 14 110
27-in Radius Bend
Measured 14 600 27 500
 115.

TABLE 16

INTERNAL PRESSURE TESTS

Deflections and Reactions Caused by

Pressure of 1000 lbf/in2

Deflections + 0.224 in
x
- 0.143 in
oz + 0.00140 radians

End Reactions

Calculated
Measured from
Deflections

F lbf - 212 - 186

x
F lbf - 171 - 153
Y
lbf-in - 5180 - 5281
M28
 116.

TABLE 17

COMBINED END MOVEMENTS AND INTERNAL PRESSURE

Expansion test Pull-up test

Calculated Measured Calculated Measured

Pressure lbf/in2 450 450 ON ON

A in + 0.756 + 0.756 - 0,864 - 0.864
x
oy in + 0.420 + 0.420 - 0.480 - 0.480

F lbf + 1642 + 1546 -1877 - 1805

x
F lbf + 1802 + 1672 - 2059 - 1950
Y
lbf-in +67 590 +57 200 -77 250 -67 000
M28

M lbf-in -64 880 .-65 590 +74 110 +76 190

20c 2
t (20c) lbf/in 26 270 27 200 29 200 30 200
max

M lbf-in +86 280 +77 050 -98 700 -90 370

llc
t (11c) lbf/1n2 26 350 30 300 29 320 33 200
max

2
From a zero at 450 lbf/in
 117.

TABLE 18

FREE EXPANSION OF PIPE LINE

Test No. 9 8 3

Temperature rise, °F 178 289 448 464 515

A x(measured), in. - 0.249 - 0.416 - 0.665 0.691 - 0.777

Coefficient of expansion
from 65°F (derived from
L ). 10-6/OF 6.87 7.01 7.30 7.30 7.36
x

L\ (measured), in. ,- 0.147 - 0.255 - 0.404 - 0.421 - 0,464

Y
Coefficient of expansion
from 65°F (derived from
AY), 10-6/0F 6.95 7.33 7.48 7.52 7.48

Coefficient of expansion
from 650F, 10-6PF 6.82 7.01 7.28 7.31 7.39
(calculated from
B.S. 806)
 118.

TABLE 19

END REACTIONS DUE TO THERMAL EXPANSION

Test No. 5 1 4 2 5 3

Temperature rise, °F 261 290 290 3D4 448 515

Experimental values:
Fx, lbf 796 886 875 939 1379 1524
FY,lbf 882 972 983 1024 1528 1689
M28,lbf-in 31 120 34 580 35 260 36 680 55 270 62 540

Calculated:
/I x, in. 0.372 0.416 0.416 0.437 0.667 0.779
A , in. 0.218 0.244 0.244 0.257 0.391 0.457
Y

Experimental values from

tests at room tempera-
ture and corresponding
displacements:
Fx, lbf 801 897 897 943 1438 1679
FY,lbf 856 958 958 1008 1537 1794
M28,1bf-in 30 160 33 750 33 750 35 500 54 140 63 200
 119.

TABLE 20

END REACTIONS IN PULL-UP TEST

Test No. 7 8

Temperature
rise, of 0 52 288 446 191 389 473

Experimental
values:.
F ,lbf -1667 -1493 -669 -118 -1013 -340 -34
x
F lbf -1817 -1612 -724 -111 -1114 -363 -22
rI
-61 700 -54 410 -23 680 - 1740 -37 230 -10 220 + 1600
M2891/3f-in

Calculatedg
1 , in -0.756 -0.684 -0.343 -0.092 -0.489 -0.185 -0.048
-x
Ley, in -0.420 -0.379 -0.178 -0.031 -0.263 -0.085 -0.004

Experimental
values from
tests at
room temp-
erature and
corresponding
displacements:
F ,lbf -1649 -1493 -733 -176 -1056 -381 -77
x
F ,lbf -1791 -1621 -788 -178 -1141 -403 -70
Y
M,lbf-in -60 940 -55 060 -26 380 -5370 -38 560 -13 120 -1630
 120.

TABLE 21

END REACTIONS

Calculated Room-temperature High-temperature

values experiments experiments
Temperature rise, °F 0 0 515

fix, in. 0.779 0.779 (0.779)

G , in. 0.457 0.457 (0.457)
Y

Fx, lbf 1723 1679 1524

FY,lbf 1904 1794 1689
M281 lbf-in. 72 250 63 200 62 540
 121.
TABLE 22

FLEXIBILITY CALCULATIONS

Temperature rise 540°F =120 x 0.004 = 0.480 in.

x
Expansion per
-6
unit length 540 x 7.4 x 10 = 0.004 i1 = 84 x 0.004 = 0.336 in.
6
El 30.1 x 10 x 25.47=767 x 106lbf Yin2.
Cs z=132 x 0.004 = 0.528 in.
Primary Coefficients from Figs. 34 - 36
F F F M M M
x Y z x Y z
+3401292 -2439072 -1074747 0 -8983.46 +33397.86 Ax
-2439072 +3852594 - 768343 +9146.94 0 -29056.26 Ay
-1074747 - 768343 +5358737 -30129.40 +27974.72 0 Lz
0 +9146.94 -30129.40 +401.7456 0 0 Ox
-8983.46 0 +27974.72 0 +421.9856 0
+33397.86 -29056.26 0 0 0 +443.2376 !
C_Y
Pz

Secondary Coefficients from Fig. 37.

F F F M M M
x Y z x Y z
+ 99542 -1185.03 '-'x
-110208 +1312.00 Ay
+ 99542 -110208 +1299.84 +1185.00 .L. z
-1185.03 +1312.00 -19.9975 -14.1075 Ox
+1299.84 -19.9975 Oy
+1185.03 -14.1075 Oz

Total Flexibility Coefficients for Complete Solution

of Six Simultaneous Equations
F F F Mx My M EI
x Y z 1 z
+3401292 -2439072 - 975205 -1185.03 I-8983.46 +33397.86 +368160000
2439072 +3852594 - 878551 +10458.94; 0 -29056.26 +257712000
- 975205 - 878551 +5358737 1
-30129.40:+29274.56 + 1185.03 +404976000
-1185.03 +10458.94 -30129.40 +401.7456i-19.9975 - 14.1075 0
-8983.46 0 +29274.56 -19.9975 1+421.9856 0 0
+33397.86 -29056.26 + 1185.03 -14.1075 1 0 +443.2376 0
 122.

TABLE 23

FLEXIBILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR SOLUTION

OF THREE EQUATIONS

(Neglecting secondary rotations)

F F F EI A
x Y z

+693 526.1 -249 689.8 -479 206.4 +368 160 000

-249 689.8 +1 739 564.8 - 82 357.1 +257 712 000
-479 206.4 - 82 357.1 +1 244 615.9 +404 976 00C
 123.

TABLE 24

END REACTIONS

Calculated Experimental

Complete Approximate Expansion Pull-up

F lbf + 1229 + 1231 + 1186 - 1132
x
Fy lbf + 375 + 364 + 375 - 375
Fz lbf + 821 + 823 + 793 - 833
Mx lbf-in + 51 590 + 53 462 + 48 590 - 49 390

M lbf-in - 28 324 - 28 379 - 27 580 + 27 080

y
M lbf-in - 68 565 - 68 886 - 62 790 + 64 220
z
 TABLE 25

BENDING MOMENTS AT PRINCIPAL SECTIONS

Section(Fig.33) a b c f g h
C +31 145 - 7220 -17 335 -17 335 -- 1745 +49 457
Mx E +30 500 - 7900 -18 020 -18 020 - 2960 +46 530
lbf-in P -27 940 +10 460 +20 580 +20 580 + 4760 -47 220

C -88 838 +36 969 +47 986 -12 734 -428 324 -28 324
My E -85 890 +35 560 +46 170 -12 510 -27 580 -27 580
lbf-in P +73 600 -42 320 -50 390 +11 250 +27 030 +27 080

C -10 V2 -10 322 - 207 +27 517 +11 293 -65 371
Mx E - 8170 - 8170 + 1960 +29 710 +14 300 -59 710
lbf-in P +14 120 +14 130 + 4010 -23 740 - 9360 +61 280

C Calculated., Mx =Mxj +zF-y Fz

E Experimental; expansion test. M =M Y+xFz -zFx
Y i
P Experimental; pull-up test. M z • yFx -xF
= Mzj
 TABLE 26

FLEXIBILITY COEFFICIENTS

L\x A Mx M Mz
tir. ; Y
(in.) tin.) (in.) (lbf-in) (lbf-in) (lbf-in)

Fx ,A + 0.904 - 0.326 - 0.625 0 +21 289 -75 350

+ 1000 lbfC + 0.903 - 0.309 - 0.627 + 1368 +21 353 -75 306
E + 0.954 - 0.370 - 0.650 + 700 +23 260 -74 850
- 1000 lbf P - 0.955 + 0.318 +0.645 - 1270 -21 880 +75 010

F A - 0.326 + 2.268 - 0.107 -22 766 - 0 +65 555

Y
+ 1000 1bfC - 0.309 + 2.244 - 0.153 -23 815 - 1129 +64 797
(E - 0.311 + 2.283 - 0.114 -23 880 - 1920 +67 080
- 1000 lbf P + 0.314 - 2.288 + 0.112 +22 970 + 2750 -66 360

Fz e A - 0.625 - 0.107 + 1.623 +74 996 -66 293 O.

+ 1000 lbfiC - 0.627 - 0.153 + 1.651 +71 698 -65 976 - 392
(E - 0.583 - 0.300 + 1.621 +71 230 -64 600 - 7550
- 1000 lbf P +0.591 + 0.187 - 1.562 -68 050 +61 810 + 4690

A Approximate calculation (neglecting secondary terms).

Complete calculation (including secondary terms).
E Experimental: inward (positive) displacements. N)
P Experimental; outward (negative) displacements.
 126.

TABLE 27

END REACTIONS

Expansion Pull-up
.C. -I- 0.480 in. LS x-0.480 in.
x
/:, + 0.336 in. 2._\ - 0.336 in.
Y Y
A+ 0.528 in. .6. - 0.528 in.
-- z z
Czlculated Calculated
from from
Direct experimental
Direct experimental
experiment flexibility experiment flexibility
coefficients coefficients

F lbf + 1186 + 1145 - 1132 - 1144

x
F lbf + 375 + 440 - 375 - 374
Y
F lbf + 793 + 816 --833 - 837
z
Mx lbf-in. +48 590 +48 410 -49 390 -49 820

M lbf-in. -27 580 -26 910 +27 080 +27 750

Y
M lbf-in. -62 790 -62 360 +64 220 +64 880
z
 127.

TABLE 28

MEASURED DIMENSIONS OF PIPE BENDS

Pipe Bend No. 1 2 3

Outside Diameter in 6.556 6.588 4.535

Wall Thickness 2h in 0.244 0.232 0.555
Mean Radius r in 3.156 3.178 1.990
Bend Radius R in 18.23 25.6 6.06

b = R/r 5.776 8.055 3.045

k = h/r 0.0387 0.0365 0.1394
X= 2kb 0.4466 0.5880 0.8493

4
I (in-plane, average) in 24.14 24.18 14.01
I (out-of-plane, average) in4 24.14 - 14.01

I (in-plane, mid section) in4 24.84 73.76 14,01

I (out-of-plane, mid 4
section) in 23.85 - 14.01

From Chapter 5:
K(in-plane) 3.547 2.639 1.893
K(out-of-plane) 3.503 2.620 1.837


128.

TABLE 29

DEFLECTIONS OF 90-DEG PIPE BENDS

K t K cos n(q)-7V4)= A K cos n("tp-V4)

F R3 A F R
2
MR A
:4, ,..= _z____K.
4 )
L = x "= -Y.- 2
x El K A5 x EI K(A -A x EI 3
In- F R3 F R3 -M R 2
= xEI K (A 2 -A 4 ) LS = -Y- K JI t_ I.
- -Z--
plane y EI - 4 EI K A4
F R2 -F R 2 M._
_ .E,
....zR K
= EI K A
z 0z=
E-Y I-- K A 4 Cc EI 2
E 3

F 3 - Tr„.- M R2 M R2 '
A --
= EEI1(1-v)(- 41 LE -2 )+ ? A = -2C— I- (i+v)(1- 2)- Ac. 6=-1—1.-
1
Out-of- 2
__, z EI 4 4 z EI 1÷v 2
+A 2 K
F R 1- M R - - - M R 1--114,
2 1
plane 0x EI I(1-v)(1- jit)- i1 0x= t Il+v+K zl
It 1
0xx EI , 2 4-' 14= +A2K I
,
2
= FzR i11+v
,) -1-A2K 1 M R -i+v MR
EI L 4' 95 -t—S
y= EI
) , 2 2-A K 0 =-Y-
y EI 4.1 L -iii
7 11+v

n=0 n= 1 n=2
nit
cosec
Al
1171
Al = 1 A = A1=2-
4
4 1 4
A2 = nit cot D21
n2
A2 = A2 = A2=16
2(4-n2 ) 4

A3 rn cot nit A3 = 2 -1 A3 = 71-1-6-(6-n) A3= 6

= 4(n2-1) 4
71
A4 = n2-n cot 4 A4 = 1 A 4 = 16(n+2) A4= 3

2n cot 4nn +n2-3 A5

5 4
air
4-2 5
A 4(22 ) A5 12
 129.

TABLE 30

MEASURED DEFLECTIONS OF PIPE BEND NO. 1

Column No. 1 2 3 I 4 1 5
Experiment Values Calculated Vilues
(from Table 29)
n = 0 n=1.09 n=1.09
Reference Section 20 21
K=2.86 K=2.86 K=3.13
M 6. in + .07o +.062 +.0649 +.0636 +.0696
+z 80 050 - .117 -.11:.9 -.1137 -.1150 -.1259
lbf-in 4in
Oz +.00941
K 2.86
K=-8.01 K=3.01 K=3.13
Mz Ax in -.068 -.C70 -.0683 -.0669 -.0696
-80 000 by in +.117 +.120 +.1196 +.1210 +.1258
lbf-in Oz -.00989
K 3.01
K=2.90 K=2.90 K=3.09
Mx 6 z in -.045% -.0456 -.0456 -.0490
+45 880 Ox +.00387 +.004008 +.004008 +.004189
lbf-in Oy -.00120 -.000960 -.001058 -.001179
Mx A z in +.048 +.0477 +.0477 +.0512
-48 000 Ox -.00408 -.004193 -.004193 -.004383
lbf-in Oy +.00127 +.001004 +.001107 +.001234
My Az in +.045 +.0402 +.0417 +.0437
+38 500 0x •..00113 -.000805 -.000888 -.000989
lbf-in 0y +.00324 +.003363 +.003363 +.003515
My Lz in -.094 -.0819 -.0851 -.0890
-78 500 0 +.002,13 +.001642 +.001811 +.002017
lbf-in 0; -.00699 -.006857 -.006857 -.007168
 130.

TABLE 31

MEASURED DEFLECTIONS OF PIPE BEND NO. 2

Column No. 1 2 3 4 5
Experimental Values Calculated Values
(from Table 29)

Reference Section 11 12 n = 0 n=1.06 n=1.06

K=2.12 K=2.I2 K=2.34

Mz L. in +.103 +.110 +.1047 +.1027 +.1136
x
+87 000 A in -.178 -.185 -.1834 -.1854 -.2050
lbf-in Oz +.010722
K 2.12

K=2.24 K=2.24 K=2.34

Mz Ain -.103 -.104 -.1081 ,.1060 ..11110
-85 000 A ,in +.194 +.194 +.1792 +.1913 +.2003
lbf-in 0z -.011068
K 2.24
 131.

TABLE 32

MEASURED DEFLECTIONS CF PIPE BEND NO. 3

Column No. 1 2 3 4 1 5
Experimental Values Calculated Values
(from Table 29)
n=0 n=0.8 n=0.8
Reference Section 20 21
K=1.744 1.744 1.771
Mz Ain +.0120 +.0117 +.0122 +.0120 +.0122
+140 000 ,o, in -.0215 -.0213 -.0213 -.0215 -.0218
Y
lbf-inOz +.00553
K 1.744

K=1.848 K=1.848 K=1.771

Mz 4 x in -.0108 -.0113 -.0129 -.0128 -.0122
-440 000 L Yin +.0240 +.0249 +.0226 +.0227 +.0218
lbf-in Oz -.00586
K 1.848

K=1.74 K=1.74 K=1.719

Mx A z in -.0150 -.0153 -.0133 -.0133 -.0131
+140 000 Ox +.00466 +.00472 +.004804 +.004804 +.004770
lbf-in 0y -.00067 -.00032 -.000454 -.000506 -.000484

M A in -.0153 -.0175 -.0185 -.0188 -.0187

Y z
-140 000 0x +.00032 +.00067 +.000454 +.000506 +.000484
lbf-in 0 y
-.00472 -.00466 -.004804 -.004804 -.004770
 TABLE 33
MAXIMUM STRESSES, PIPE BEND NO. 1
(outside surface at mid section)
Applied Bending Mx+59400
Moment lbf-in Mz+80400 M-80260 Mx+45880 My-48000
48000 +38500 Mv-.78500 MY-59940
Mb lbf-in 0 " 0 32 400 33 900 1,200 55 500 84 400
Maximum Measured
Stress lbf/in2 18 480 18 880 10 220 10 450 8640 19 550 29 000
Longitudinal

Stress Factor 1.80 1.84 2.38 2.32 2.39 2.65 2.59

Stresses

Maximum .
Calculated 2
Stress lbf/in 18 250 18 220 10 290 10 760 8630 17 .620 26 790
Stress Factor 1.78 1.78 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.39
Maximum Measured
Stress ibf/1n2 24 730 25 200 10 650 10 850 9500 21 250 30 900
Transverse

Stress Factor 2.41 2.46 2.48 2.41 2.63 2.88 2.76

Stresses

Maximum
Calculated 2
Stress lbf/1n 26 970 26 920 11 070 11 570 9290 18 950 28 820
Stress Factor 2.63 2.63 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.57
Average Measured
Torsional

Stresses

Stress lbf/in? - - 2190 2300 1690 3700 -

Shear

Calculated Stress
(Mtr/20 lbf/in2 - - 2190 2290 1840 3750 -
 133.

TABLE 34

MAXIMUM STRESSES, PIPE BEND NO. 2

(outside surface at mid section)

Applied Bending Moment, Mz lbf-in + 87 500 - 85 000

Maximum Measured Stress lbf/in2 17 900 17 730

Longitudinal

Stress Factor 1.53 1.56

Stresses

i 2
Maximum Calculated Stress lbf/in 16 380 15 920

Stress Factor 1.40 1.40

2
Maximum Measured Stress lbf/in 23 760 23 300
2.03 2.05
0 0 Stress Factor
0 0
PA
0
0 0
> 0
0 $-1
2
N03
+,
Maximum Calculated Stress lbfAn 24 900 24 190
E-4
Stress Factor 2.13 2.13
 134.
TABLE 35
MAXIMUM STRESSES, PIPE BEND NO. 3
Mx+99950
Applied Bending Moment Mz+140000 Mz-140000 Mx+140000 My-139850 My-99950
lbf-in
Mb lbf-in 0 0 98 960 98 900 141 300
Measured lbf/in2 16 480 16 550 7380 6970 9800
Longitudinal

In- Stress Factor 0.83 0.83 0.53 0.50 0.49

side
Stresses

Calcul- / 2
ated lbf in 17 840 17 840 13 630 13 630 19 470
Stress Factor 0.90 0.90 0.97 0.97 0.97
2
Measured lbf/1n 36 800 36 500 28 000 27 000 39 000
Out- Stress Factor 1.85 1.84 1.99 1.92 1.94
side Calcul-
ated lbf/in2 33 000 33 000 27 510 27 500 39 280
Stress Factor 1.66 1.66 1.96 1.96 1.96
Measured 1bf/in2 37 480 37 100 26 300 26 700 38 250
Stress Factor 1.89 1.87 1.87 1.90 1.91
In-
side Calcul-
Transverse Stresses

2
ated lbf/in 45 300 45 300 33 420 33 400 47 700
Stress Factor 2.28 2.28 2:38 2.38 2.38

Measured lbf/1n2 33 200 33 400 17 800 19 500 26 100

Stress Factor 1.67 1.68 1.27 1.39 1.30
Out-
side Calcul-
ated lbf/in2 36 790 36 790 22 100 22 080 31 550
Stress Factor 1.85 1.85 1.57 1.57 1.57

Average 2
Measured lbf/in - - 6120 4910 -
2 1-1
CD

Calcul-
Tors iona l Shear

2
ated lbf/in - - 6050 6050 .-
Stresses

fD1

Average 2
Measured lbfAn - - 7300 6710 -

Calcul 2
ated lbf/in - - 8010 8000 -
 PLATE I GENERAL VIEW Of TEST RIG

PLATE 2 THREE- DIMENSIONAL ARRANGEMENT OF PIPELINE

 PLATE 3 THREE- DIMENSIONAL DYNAMOMETER

PLATE 4 LOAD-MEASURING UNIT FOR DYNAMOMETER

PLATE 5 DEFLECTION GAUGE

Mow

PLATE 6 DEFLECT ION GAUGE

 PLATE 7 STRAIN GAUGES

PLATE 8 APPARATUS ARRANGED FOR HEATING TESTS

PLATE 9 HEATING TAPES AND INSULATION

PLATE 10 MEASUREMENT OF CROSS SECTION

 (00

REFERENCE
13 o

14 •
IS A
ic:, 0

17 •

h.
PRESENT WORK A

N
\
*

N
N
0

0.01 K.ivt_

FIG. I. PIPE-BEND PARAMETERS

 FIG. 2

UNIVERSAL COUPLINGS ANCHOR FRAME

TURN BUCK LE

ELEVATION

HYDRAULIC 7- 0-
CAPSULE UNIT

ANCHOR POINTS
IN FLOOR

DYNAMOMETF-R

DIAL GAUGES

oio-

STRAIN GAUGES DIAL GAUGE FOR REFERENCE FRAME

DEFLEXION MEASUREMENTS

FIG. 2. ARRANGEMENT OF

EXPERIMENTAL PIPELINE
 FIG. 3

ELEVATION

ANCHOR POINTS IN FLOOR

DYNAMOMETER

FIG. 3. THREE- DIMENSIONAL ARRANGEMENT

OF EXPERIMENTAL PIPELINE
 FIG.4

fx._ = - ( 11 -} F2 )

F3 = + (F3 + F4 )

c = + ( FS + F6 )

Mx = - 20 14

M . + 20" F 6
5
M2 = + 20" F 2

FIG. 4. THREE- DIMENSIONAL DYNAMOMETER

 0')

\\C
"11011.1MIIIIE • I:-
MIME Bit
\NISEI PX\\

•,*

TENSION

.1-
L
COMPRESSION

FIG. 5. LOAD MEASURING UNIT FOR DYNAMOMETER

 FIG. 6

A z 2. CD ' t DO Om.= CD3-D4)fic.,"

Atd =-Ds cby = ( bco-tos) /IG,"
4z ::-D5 Oz= (ba-bi) /2.4"

FIG. 6. DEFLECTION MEASUREMENT AT

ANCHOR POINTS
 FIG. 7

DIAL
qAUqE SPHERICAL
INDENTATIONS

SPRINg

'6

r
..S.11•••••••••••••••.

th = 1 { + Dr-
TX• 2 Dg- DT
ill . deuD0

Fl. 7. MEASUREMENT OF DEFLECTIONS

 FIG. 8

T ZEFEreewce SUR_PACE
lo 15 25
INCHES

FIG. 8. SLOPE FROM DEFLECTION

MEASUREMENTS
 1--- o"
I4 MP

7/
in'
-

Q
.e.
.
61

i"
fa HOLES I " 41) ON IOZPCID
7"
FOR. 11,0 BoLTS
DETAIL OF FLANGiE

_ff
-7.- 0"

FIG. 9. NOMINAL DIMENSIONS OF EXPERIMENTAL PIPELINE

 30 RAD. APPROX.'

119.88"

0 2 3 4 5 FEET

20 6" F2AD.
0 2 3 INCHES

SCALE FOR DEVIATIONS

FIG. 10. MEASURED DIMENSIONS OF EXPERIMENTAL PIPELINE

 10 x 10.0" 5.0" 26.9

0 I 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 II
26 • 9"
.6)
0(

12
5 • 0"
3 --
1 10 • 0"
14 --
PIPE No. 2 10 • 0"
15 —

16 14 • 0"

0"
-./.• -1 •
— 17
10 • 01 PIPE No.
—18
10.0"
—19
5 0" 20
6x15° ,
19 • 0. 25 26 27 28
•:21 22 /23 24

D
EI
11.:]

19 • 0" 5.0" 5 x 10.0" 10.0

FIG.II. NUMBERING OF SECTIONS

 FIG. 12

90°

O
\Is)
0 •
10^

3.29 3.35 3

180° 3.359 3.359 0°

INTRADOS EXTRADOS
3-382

32

tb'

r7/ CO;
1,/
(1

ft.)/

FIG. 12. CROSS SECTION AT MID POINT C) OF

27 IN.RADIUS BEND


FIG. 13

90°
~wc rho
• 11 NO1
r° r‘11 co 0,
I:. • • ti qil
(,) I r /
1"/
`.
qb/

siC)f
325

3 '361 3 348

180° 3.364 3.364 0°

INTRADOS 3 .320 EXTRADOS
3374

380
3 2i .?)e
c4

. 0 0
0-)
/
• Lo
(%) r‘i t`../
.1)
3>

270°
FIG. 13. CROSS SECTION AT MID POINT (20C) OF

19 IN.RADIUS BEND
 FIG. 14

es.e2-7"

'9 2113"

7
0 0
W
N

0
y
2

l it
12 woLEs 1110 osl toZ
EAC4 FLANGE

Sscrkost 28

FIG. 14. THICK- WALLED PIPE

 FIG.15

POINT ROT SECT. BASE LINE POINT ROT. SECT. BASE LINE
°F
TEMPERATURE RISE 540 .
c 12 288•00 ab 102.40 C 16609. 28 ab
d 23 246817 bc 99.455 EXPANSION PER 540 x 7.4 x 10 '= 0 004 d 939-277 bc
2.64 102.4 b c 25 969.537 cd 36 -40 UNIT LENGTH 28996.877 Cd
C
27R f 25 969.537 de 0 E.I. 30.1 x le x 25 47 = 767 x 104 L6 - IN' I 28996.877 de
K = 2 345
g 27 110.017 ef 32 • 40 Ax = 216 X 0004 = 0.664 IN g 31718.477 cf
h 27 811-643 fg 101-623 h 39553.155 fg
0004 0.480 IN
120 =
Ay = x
j 27 131 1 -643 gh 62.40 j 41 662.275 gh
36 4 k hi 0 k hj
I jk I jk
m kl m kI
d 5.2
n Im n 1m
o mn o mn
Chk no Chk no
TOTAL 434678 TOTAL
AREA 27 811643 AREA 41 662.275
19 R h SHIFT 63.982 975•779 2721•6 SHIFT 95846
K=3.405 -4----- F.
62 2.6 3057.6
1709.505 111EIMFM211.....
662.40 113664
12 288
8354 217
6605.473
1 946. 88
2060.24 Fr
9249.312 I L524•11113 162.24
615-6
wihr..2.01- 626 c d g n
1
.

Ax DUE TO Fx Ay DUE TO Fx Ay DUE TO Fy Ax DUE TO Fy

CASE AT AREA MULT. CASE AT AREA MULT. CASE AT AREA MULT. CASE AT AREA MULT.
I c 12 288.0 27 00 + 3 b 12 28800 51 .20 - 2 b 5242.88 68.266 67 + I c 16 609.28 27.00 -
5a c 1709.505 21 .205 75 + I c 12 288-00 27 00 - 3 b II 366.40 51 • 20 • 6b c 975.779 23.651 17 -
7a c 9249.312 17.188 73 + . 5b c 1709.505 13 -50 - I c 16 609.28 27.00 • 7a c 8354.217 17.188 73 -
I d 23 246.817 36.40 + 7b c 9249.312 9.811 27 - 6a c 975.779 16. 848 83 + I d 25 939.277 36.40 -
2 d 662.48 24.266 67 + I g 27110-017 19-00 - 7b c 8354217 9.811 27 + 3 d 3057. 60 18.20 -
3 d 2060.24 I 8 •20 4" 6b g 701.626 16.643 42 - I g 31 718.477 19 -00 + I c 28 996.877 5.20 -
I c 25 969.537 5.20 + I 11 27 811. 643 62 .40 - 5a g 1229.205 14.922 57 + I f 28 996.877 32.40 -
I f 25 969.537 32.40 + I j 27811.643 2•60 - 7a •
g 6605.473 12.095 78 + 3 1 2721.60 16.20 -
2 f 524.88 21 .60 + I h 39 553.155 62.40 + I g 31 718.477 19.00 -
3 I 615.60 16.20 • 2 h 1946.88 41.60 + 5b g 1229.205 9.50 -
6a g 701.626 II .856 59 + 3 h 162.24 31.20 + 7b g 6605. 473 6.904 22 -
_I g 27 110.017 19.00 • I j 41 662.275 2.60 +

TOTAL +2947 941.9 TOTAL -3 409 271.9 TOTAL +4 850 113.5 TOTAL -3 409 2719
41 662.275 95.846 37 -3 993 1780 27 811.643 95.846 37 +2 665 6451
27 811.643 63.982 23 -I 779 450.8 41 662.275 63.982 23 +2665 6451

J .
TOTAL +I 168 491 TOTAL -743 627 TQTAL + 856 936 TOTAL -743 627
Fx = 1877 LB BM AT a -136 900 LB - IN. MAXIMUM EQUIVALENT STRESS AT a 17 130 LB PER SO. IN.
Fy = 2059 LB BM AT b - c + 98 700 LB - IN. MAXIMUM EQUIVALENT STRESS AT b - c 24 820 LB PER SO. IN.
2786 LB BM AT t - g - 74 110 LB- IN. MAXIMUM EQUIVALENT STRESS AT g 25 220 LB PER SQ. IN.
BM AT j + 77 250 LB- IN MAXIMUM EQUIVALENT STRESS AT 11 9000 LB PER SQ. IN.

FIG. 15. FLEXIBILITY CALCULATIONS

 FIG. 16

11c

5imuL4-rEt,
EXPANSION T_EsT
px c SW."

2e 17 Fx
20c

Fy
4r- 4.0.4.80"
M28

PULL-UP "TEST ax=-0. 864

174
-Fd 2g

FIG. 16. EXTERNAL LOADING TESTS

 FIG. 17

0
IA-

A x (in.) + 0- 21.6 + 0.432 + 0.648 + 0 • 864

A y (in) + 0. 120 + 0 • 240 + 0 360 + 0 • 480

FIG. 17. END REACTIONS IN EXPANSION TEST

 FIG. 18
4000

3000

-__
',F = M 28
2 20"

4-
12 2000

LC?
FY ...

-----...F x

1000

0
ax (in) -•2I6 -•432 -•648 -•864
A y (it • 120 - •240 - •360 - •480

FIG. 18 END REACT IONS IN PULL- UP TEST

 FIG. 19

rx

--i - _ ,,
_.] I. 1 ' 'd

+Lx

__ I _ tA uj
5x

FIG. 19. TESTS TO DETERMINE

FLEXIBILITY COEFFICIENTS


FIG. 20

0 II

x = + 0.018"

12 Ay = — 0-018"
(1) = + 0.00240

07K
x
ex =+0.196"
ey =-0.0113" 20

cp :+ 0.00240
20 28

x =+0.224" Ax =+0.224

Ay =— 0.052- Ay =-0•143"

0.00140 sC4=+0
.00140

FIG. 20. DISPLACE MENTS DUE TO INTERNAL

PRESSURE OF 1000 lbf/in2

 FIG. 21

0.2
Ax

.
— Ay
-z
0
.
0-1
Li

0.0015
z
cl)
cc
0 0 0 0 1 0

La.

0.0005
A NGULAR

0 200 . 400 600 800 10 00
PRESSURE ( I b-fj int)

FIG. 2I. OVERALL DISPLACEMENTS

 FIG. 22
+I0 0 0 0
7
Z>
:
.0 CALCULATED

(r) 0
EXTRADOS INTRADOS
OC

- 1000 0
0
0 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180°

LONGITUDINAL STRESSES

+ 2 000 0

+ I0000

CALCULATED

EXTRADOS INTRADOS

- 1000 0
0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180°

TRANSVERSE STRESSES

FIG. 22 STRESSES DUE TO INTERNAL PRESSURE OF 450 LB PER

SQ. IN. MEASURED AT OUTSIDE SURFACE OF 27 IN.-
RADIUS BEND
 FIG. 23
4 20000

+ 10000

CALCULATED

EXTRADOS INTRADOS

- 10000
0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180°

LONGITUDINAL STRESSES

+30000

+ 20000

CALCULATED

• 10000

EXTRADOS INTRADOS

- I 0000
0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180°

TRANSVERSE STRESSES

FIG. 23. STRESSES DUE TO INTERNAL PRESSURE OF

1 0 0 0 11v-Vine. OUTS, SURFACE OF 27-in. BEND

 FIG. 24

+I0000
ed

9- CALCULATED

0
EXTRADOS
INTRADOS
Ci
p..
V)

— 10000
0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180°

LONGITUDINAL STRESSES

+20000

CALCULATED

INTRADOS
EXTRADOS

— 10000
O° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180°

TRANSVERSE STRESSES

FIG. 24. STRESSES DUE TO INTERNAL PRESSURE Of

450 liaqin2 . OUTS. SURFACE OF I9-in BEND

+20000

+ I0000
CALCULATED
STRESS ( lbfiin2

INTRADOS
0
-EXTRADOS

- 10000
O° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° leo°
LONGITUDINAL STRESSES

+30000

+20000

CALCULATED

+10 000

INTRADOS
EXTRADOS

}-
V?

- 10000

- 20000

O° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180°
TRANSVERSE STRESSES

FIG. 25. STRESSES DUE TO INTERNAL PRESSURE OF 1000 LB

PER SQ. IN. MEASURED AT OUTSIDE SURFACE OF 19 IN.
RADIUS BEND
 FIG. 26
-200

-2 00

— 100
>-
ax=0.754:
G y•0.420

- 6000

"N
00

C 4000

D
.D

03 Axa0.756:
0 Ay=0'420
- 2000

0 200 400 600 BO 0 1000

PRESSURE ( ibrf /1n2)

FIG. 26. END REACTIONS DUE TO INTERNAL PRESSURE

 FIG. 27
+30000

( MEASURED)\ (MEASURED)
LONGITUDINAL \ TRANSVERSE
STRESS STRESS
+20000 (CALCULATED) (CALCULATED)

•
In 0
EXTRADOS / INTRADOS

0
- 10000

—20000

—30000
00 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 11300

FIG. 27, STRESSES DUE TO COMBINED END MOVEMENTS

(Ax = 0.756 IN., Ay = 0.420 IN) AND INTERNAL PRESSURE

(450 LB PER SQ. IN.) AT OUTSIDE SURFACE OF 27 IN.-

RADIUS BEND
 FIG. 28
+30000

/ N
1
/
/ III \

(MEASURED) ./ 1 ‘‘ ( MEASURED)
/ \
+20000 LONGITUDINAL TRANSVERSE
STRESS ‘ STRESS
—7— -- (CALCULATED)
(CALCULATED) ' / \\
‘
r

/,
+ 10000 V'
/ \
/ ‘
/ \
/ ‘
‘
/ \
• / ‘
/ ‘
0 / ‘ 4
EXTRADOS0 / \ INTRADOS
U, /i \
u-I /\
eL / o
1
//
(i) •
,.. /
- 10000 __-. . _
•
e
0

- 20000

- 30000 I
0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180°

FIG. 28. STRESSES DUE TO COMBINED END MOVEMENTS

(LX = 0.7561N., Ay= 0.4201N) AND INTERNAL PRESSURE

(450 LB PER SQ. IN.) AT OUTSIDE SURFACE OF 19 IN.

RADIUS BEND
 600

I I
I I
500

I I

400

u_
0

LU
ei 300

< I
cZ
ILJ ti
a.
2 200

100
t
x. = 126 irk =120in. t xz = 78'5 ir`'
1

I I I 1 I I I
0 6 8 II 16 20 21 24 26 28
SECTION NUMBE R

FIG. 29. TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION ALONG PIPELINE

 FIG.30

1.0

0.6 ,o•

Lx. 7.4. 10-6(r.65) #,

,ft
•
ax / '
0.6 #
DuPLEvrtoNt (fn )

#
#
#
#
# • _..rotaor
,•
o•4
Ly . 7.4. I046(7-65) ## ..-4.
#
"\
.....
#•# .-..-
0.2 # __..
# C ALCULAT ED
..-••-• ..- EXPANSION
. ., ..-

0 100 200 300 400 500 500

TemPEIZAITURE 6F

Ft 30. MEE EXPANSION of PIPELINE

 FIG. 31
80

/
/
i•
/ Go
/
/
/
•
M2e

F
L4_
0

2000 40
0
0
/40 . 0
z• /
7 ,##X,
• x• ,--f
40 10
-V
lv r 2
0 0
tL
Fx
100 xx ao
+
X/ if

O 100 ZOO 300 400 500 Goo
TEMPERATURE °F

END ZEACTIONS Due TO THEZMAL EXPANSION

 FIG. 32
so

•
GO

\ •\25

2000 40-0

x • 0
- 0

\
0
x
1-
2
hl
2
• O

20

No

4\.

o 100 Zoo 300 400 500

41M

• G00
TEMPERATURE ° F

FIG. 32. ENO REACTIONS IN PULL UP TEST

 FIG. 33

3.405
F2
191N RAD

32-4 IN
--134"--,,62•4 IN
5-2IN
36-41N.
27 IN RAD

K.2-345 Fr

1024 IN.

Fig.33. Diagram of Pipeline Layout.



POINT ROTATION SECT BASE LINE

f g 182.08 c 15974.400 ab 133.120

do 17 d /24 491•43.4 bc 77-29496
20732-- 457 e 27 214- M4 cd 36-4
-------
20732.45: 1 J27214.154- de 0
'-F 23454-057 g 28354-634 of 32-4
b
31 288.735 056.259 f9 -
IDI-622 67
33397.855 056'259 gh 62.4 _
hj 8

TOTAL 443.23763
AREA 29056.259
SHIFT
.,_ 65.554 59

1328.603
1229.205
662.48
1 9 6.880 524.88
.0 15974-4
L 72I•6

II 182.080 6492.777 l' 6605.473 162.240 /701.626

2

9
(1
WI Illir...-
d 9 d f
C 615.6
Ax DUE TO Fx Ay DUE TO F) A DUE TO Fi Ax DUE TO Fy
CASE AT AREA 1 MOLT. MOLT
C.tx-r AT AREAi IN AT AREA MOLT C+ AT AREA MOLT
g 23454-057 19.0 I c II 182-08 27. 0 I c 15 974.4 27-0 + I g 28 354.634 19.0 -
5a 9 1229.205 14.922 57 9 c 6 492-777 17.188 73 85 c 1328-60 18.382 52 + 6b 701-626 16.643 42 -
7a 9 6605-473 12-095 78 I d j7 674-857 36. 4 9 c 7188-431 17.188 73 +, h 29 056.25962•4 -
1 h 31 288.735 62.4 3 d 3 057-6 18_2 I d 24491-43 36.4 L 29 056.259 2.6 -
2 h 1946-880 41-15 I e 20732.457 5.2 - 2 d 662.4 24.266 67 +
3 h 162.240 31.2 I f 20732-457 32 4 - 3 d 2060-2 18.2
1 j 33397.855 2.6 3 f 2721.6 16 . 2 - I c 27 214.154 5.2 +
1 9 23 654-057 19.0 _ I f 27 214.154 32.4 I
56 g 1229.205 9.5 J- 2 1 524.8 21.6
7b g 6605.473 6.904 22 - 3 f 615.6 16.2 +
I g 26354.634 19 -0
6c g 701-626 II -856 59 +
•

TOTAL +2 669 171 TOTAL -2439072 TOTAL +3 115 972 TOTAL -2 439 072
(END FREE)
• (END FREE) (END FREE) (END FREE)
33 397.855175-349 77 129 056-259175-349 77 29 056-259t 65.554 59 - 133 397.855 65.554 59 4-
TOTAL + 152 651 TOTAL 1- -249 690 TOTAL +1211201 TOTAL - 249 690
ZERO END ROTATION) (ZERO END ROTATION) (ZERO END ROTATION) (ZERO END ROTATION)

FIG. 34. FLEXIBILITY CALCULATION SHEET. XY PLANE

 ROTATION 01 ROTATION SECT NASE LINE
Fz
8007.tip 8601-6 0b 02-4
d 9146.944 d 15 094.377 be 77.294 96
e 9146.944 e 9 069.25 cd 47.320
9146.944 t 9 069.257 de 0 _
Fz
9 4-9146. 607-337 e f 42.120
h 9146.944 213020.283 f 9 70.20 67
9146.944

1
30 129-403 . h 62.4
c-t 9 hi I F
r 0
b
Mx ••1-745 63
A 9146.944 AFEAc•129.4ai
MET 22-768 •• FT 74.C96 22

a
849.253
..• / /

co co 1946.88
\c /
co 9
8601.6 6492,777 4
r,
a, 162.24
4563693
a to /
1,1 fr)

0 a b c d 9 h
e 1

A DUE TO F Az DUE TO Fy A z DUE TO Fz Ay DUE TO Fz

CASE AT AREA MULT. CASE AT AREA MULT gell ATTAPEA MULT CASE AT AREA MULT
2 b 5242.880 68 • 266 67 + 9 9146. 944 19.0 I I g 22607.337 19•0 1- 3 b 8601.6 51•2
3 b 2764.8 51.2 9146. 944 62-4 8b 9 849 •253 12.555 15 + I c 8601 .6 27.0
1 c 8007.680 27.0 1 9146.944 L2-6 9 9 4563-693 12.095 78 + 10 c 6492-777 14.739 18 -
a 1139.264 18.382 52 h 29020.283 62. 4 -t

tTI___11 1 0 46.880 41.6 +

3 11 I 162.240 31.2 -1-
j 130 129-403 2-6 +

L
TOTAL + 736 622 TOTAL - 768 343 TOTAL +2408 258 TOTAL - 768 343
(END FREE) (END FREE) (END FREE) (END FREE) -
9146.944 22.768 00 - 30 129.403122-768 00 {3O 129.40451996 22 - T9146.944 17_4.996 22 +
I--
TOTAL +52B 364 TOTAL - 82 357 TOTAL 1- 148 666 TOTAL - 82 357
(ZERO END ROTATION) (ZERO END ROTATION) (ZERO END ROTATIO N) (ZERO END ROTATION
L._ 1_

FIG. 35. FLEXIBILITY CALCULATION SHEET. YZ PLANE

 POW ROTATION
k1NT ROTATION SECT BASE LINE
.0/. 8007-680 b e:22-4
r c 12 288.0 d be
f . 9 8983.459 99.454 97
Fx d 23246-817 8983.459 cd 36.4
de c25969-537 8983.459 de 0
f 25 969.537 8983.459 ef 32.4
9
g 27 110.017 h 70.210 67
8983.459
h '127974-720 g h 81.120
8983.459
I 27 974.720 hj 0
c de f
Fx
9t1I TOTAL 421-98564

..-
J b AREA 8983-459
SHIFT 21.288 54
_,-, 9-1Fr 66-293 ..015
s''''.... _

a
1709.50 /662.480

12 288.0 ;.524- 880

9249.312
/864.703

a b c- I
615.6

Ax DUE TO Fr Ax DUE TO Fx az DUE TO Fx

Az DUE TO Fr
CASE AT AREA MULT 4cr AT AREA MULL
C AT AREA MULT Gag AT AREA MULT.
2 b 5242.880 68-266 67 4 I C 8007.680 27.0
1 c 12 288.0 27.0 + 3 b 12 288•0 51.2 -
a c + 1 c 12 288.0 27.0 -I 3 b 2764.8 51.2 6b c 975.779 23.651 t7
1709•505 21.205 75
7a c 9249.312 17.188 73 + 56 c 1709-50513- 5 -1 8007.68 27.0 4 I d 8983.459 36.4
1 d 23 246-817 36- 4 + 7b c 9249.312 9-811 27 - 975-779 16.848 83 t I c 8983.459 5.2
2 a 662-413024-266 67 + I f 8983-459 32.4
3 d 2060.24018.2 + I g 8983.459 19.0
I t 25 969.537 5. 2
I f 25 969.53732.4 +
2 f 524.880 21.6 +
3 I 615.6 16.2 +
1 g , 27 110.017 19-0 +
Ila g 864-703 i2 - 555 15 + 4.

TOTAL 42 9504130 TOTAL - 1 074 767 TOTAL 1- 732 120 TOTAL 1 074 74 7
(END FREE) (END FREE) (END FREE) (END FREE)
--,
27 974.720 66.293 06 - 8983.459 166.293 06 +
1
8983.459 121.288 54 - J27 974.720121.288 54
TOTAL -.1 095 950 TOTAL - 479 206 TOTAL 540 875 TOTAL 479-2-C71
6
• (ZERO END ROTATION) (ZERO END ROTATION) (ZERO END ROTATION (ZERO END ROTATION)

FIG. 36, FLEXIBILITY CALCULATION SHEET. Z X PLANE

 Fz

de
hji

9
F
b r ,-..
\..,...,
x
1

, z

SECTION bc . SECTION f g

XY PLANE YZ PLANE YZ PLANE Z X PLANE

DUE TO Mx 'Ax A DUE TO Mz A Y A z DUE TO My A Y A z DUE TO M, Az A x s

Y
C.ASJAT AREA MULT MULT CA54 AT AREA MULT MULT CASE AT AREA MULT MULT CASE AT AREA MULT MUC
10 c -14-1075 0 0 9 c -14.1075 0 0 10 g -19-997 5 0 0 9 g - 19.997 5 0 0
I j -14.1075 + 84.0 -93.0 I j -14.1075 0 - 84.0 1 j -19.997 5 0 - 65-0 1 j -19.997 5 0 0

TOTAL -1185 030 +1311.9975 TOTAL 0 + 1185.030 TOTAL 0 t1299.8375 TOTAL 0 0

DUE TO F1 - Ax Ay DUE TO Fx Ay Az DUE TO Fz A z Ax

CASti AT AREA MULT MULT CASE AT AREA MULT MULT CASE AT AREA MULT MU LT
10 c +1185.030 0 0 19 c -11135.030 0 0 9 9 +1299.8375 0 0
I j +1185.030 + 84.0 - 93- 0 I j -1185.030 0 - 84.c) I j +1299.8375 0 0

TOTAL +99542.52 -110207.79 TOTAL 0 +99542.52 TOTAL 0 0

,

DUE TO F Ay
Y Az
c.A54 AT AREA MULT MULT
9 c +1311-9975 0 0
I 1 +1311-9975 0 - 84.0

TOTAL 0 -110 207.79

FIG. 37. FLEXIBILITY CALCULATION SHEET. SECONDARIES _

_ - - -

FIG. 38

CASE 8 PLANE 04,

AREA [4K-- (140(1-1-

ivlFR2
FR 4

n.(K41+1)R
PLANE b

FR AREA 2((4i4-v)FR2

ILK+ 04v)O-Lx FR3

- t (K+1+ v
4t-
[4 4

CASE 9
PLANE b
AREA= 1r4K+1-1-V)WIR
4
44(K41+v)R
1

PLANE a.

AREA AK- (1-4.vMR

Ac = i(K+ 1-1-v)rvie= Ab R
is

CASE 10
PLANE a•
M AREA= 11(K+14-* R
4-%

-4
1-Y-(K+ I +V) R

PLANE b
AREA [K- (1-1-NAMR

[14
4 .K- (I4-v)(1-14
11MR2

FIG. 38. STANDARD CASES

 FIG. 39

30 00 0

20 000 400

m
ic ••
w
24:n •

F
10 000 Zoo
e

• loo

Ax •IZO •
240 •
BG0 •
460
•
064- •168 •252 •336
A7- •
1 32. •2Q,4 •396 •528
END DISPLACEMENT (11)

FIG. 39. TYPICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWE E N

END REACTIONS AND DISPLACEMENT

 FIG. 40

Mx
i cz
2o

10%,' N A NA C tVI ErEi2

28

FIG. 40. PI PE LAYOUT

FIG. 41. NOTATION OF PIPE- BEND AXES
 FIG. 42

ES TRADoS +Mx
00

Ss rtAlo S
0° -.. Isn z

-4. M=.
-My

FIG. 42. DISTORTION OF CROSS SECTION

 a .05 I ! I
CALCU LATED
04 ...- -
1 - DEGREASE
-Mz
O o3
/ INC2 EASE
it + ma
0 .02

tg
.oi
4
3 0 • a •
SECTION co 17 tS2oA Tbcz s el ae 21 ed. 25
40._______.
O -1,------•-
C.i.tAsNeof 90°-2:70°DiA

. 0t

.0
DEGREASE
DMZ
.0
INCREASE
-Viz ---- \\
atrft - -
•
CALCULATED
.0

FIG.43. DIAMETER CHANGES. PIPE BEND No.1

Mz ± 80 300 111-F-4.-
 •05
I
4 CALCULATED
A•04
1 / 4 li)EcS2 SAS e
. - Foe. - rviz
/
1 -03
°C, LINcIZEASE
U- - F°R * tv Z
0 .02
U
7
a
-c • 01
I
U

SECTION 7 8 9 10 II A BCD E1213 14 15
C4ANqEOFZ01:4-2.70 DMA,

•01
+ Mz
DE C fa EASE. y
°

r—IP
.02 IN C2. EASZ - M2

.03

•
04
CALCULATED
. I I
•
05

FIG. 44. DIAMETER CHANGES. PI PE BEND No. 2

tviz ± 87 000 114"-1.
 FIG. 45

INCZE.AsE
OF o•-• 60° DIA
Mz
z 0 + 140,000 '
0 EMEASE lb-IN
OF 90°-2.70° DIA

-.01

INCREASE
OF 115°3t5° DIA

140, eroo
ECR EASE I b.t t-i.
of A-S°- 2.Z.S° DIA

01

4.01
N cR EASE
OF 135°- 315° DIA
+ I crO, coo
My - too, 000

DECREASE
OF 459-225° DIA
MEASORED
— — CALCULATE-t)
30° 60° 90 °
ANGLE OF BEND -4)

FIG. 45. DIAMETER CHANGES,

PIPE BEND No. 3

 2

LIE
0

0
•

•
! •

-2 90° 1 800 270° 360°

EXTRADOS NITRAD OS E XTRA,0 OS

FIG. 46. IN-PLANE LONGITUDINAL STRESSES (OUTSIDE).

BEND No. I
3

•
2

•
-2

-3
0c. 90° 1800 270° 360°
EXT RA DOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

FIG. 41 IN-PLANE TRANSVERSE STRESSES (OUTSIDE).

BEND No. I
 a
••
0

0/
0
1--
u
4
IL
o •
- IP
oli
W
0/ •
i-
ul
-I •
•
-./i------

-2.

2o° lao° 2700 3S00
EXTRAD05 iNTRADos iwTRADoS

FIG. 48. IN-PLANE LONGITUDINAL STRESSES (OUTSIDE),

BEND No. 2
 1

•
-2 00
900 lee 270° 3600
EXTQADo% INTRADOS ExTRAD0S

FIG. 49. IN- PLANE TRANSVERSE STRESSES (OUTSIDE).

BEND No. 2
 2

__.... - - _.--
_ / /j
\\ i
/ \N / I/

01 / /

-2
9o0 I So° Vio° 3410
EXTRADOS EXTRADOS
Ok.rr SI OE MILASUR Er) —

OUTSIDE C AL CUL AlED — — — iNsoa

FIG.50. IN- PLANE LONGITUDINAL STRESSES. BEND No. 3

3

,
2
/ --- i„ \

\ \
if
i
\ II \

/1 \\
\ \ ..... 1
\
\ _, i
2
_,

-3
90° 180 270° 360
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS
OUTSIDE MEASURED 4=1
INSIDE -n
OUTSIDE CALCULATE D — — INSIDE ONO.

FIG. 51. IN-PLANE TRANSVERSE STRESSES. BEND No.3 In

 2

1 •
e • •
•
— -- „
— 0 ---- o 1
0 /
N
• o
0 1
o -..„.
.---
...-- ___

• •
•
•

-2
0° 90° 180 ° 270° 360°
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

OUTSIDE
— INSIDE

FIG. 52. IN-PLANE LONGITUDINAL STRAINS. BEND No. 3

 2

/
1
CZ
0 • 1
Li
U- I
\ /
0 • / 7
\ i 1 /
/ \
\
/ • \
\ 1
/ \
_2 \ z
0° 90° 180° 2700 360°
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

OUTSIDE
- INSIDE

FIG. 53. IN-PLANE TRANSVERSE STRAINS . BEND No.3

 •

\ •

/ \

/
-N

\ • / \
/
/ 0
\ •
/
/

\ /
\
-2 /
\ _,'

-3
SCP 180 2700 3600
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

CHAPTER 5
RoDABAUGH GEORGE

FIG. 54. OUT-OF-PLANE LONGITUDINAL STRE55Es (OUTSIDE). BEND NO. I

 3
/ -41

2 I \
I \
I
I •\
l i
0
in
In
ia
I
\ I I
\ i I
I •
\ l
-2
• I
\ \
i I
•\ /
-3
90 1800 2700 360
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

CHAPTER 5
IKODABAUGH & GEORGE

FIG. 55. OUT- OF- PLANE TRANSVERSE STRESSES (OUTSIDE). BEND No.1
 ----

/
/
0 \
/ •
4
0 /
—_

/
\ /

0 90° sae 2700 . 3 SO°

EXTRADOS mEASLIZEb INTRADOS EXT RADO5

CALCULATED = C.64ADT ER 5
cALcuLATED: RotIATIAul-i, E-c,1211:1E.

FIG. 56. OUT- of- PLANE LONGITUDINAL STRESSES (ouTS1DE).

6END No. 3
 ,--- --..,.
/
/ \
1
/ \
/ \

\ _ - \
\
/
\ _ /
\

N /

-2
0° 900 IGO° 2700 3600
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS
N/lmAsuce_em

CALCULATED , CI-IATEZ S
CALCULATED : 2obABAL3G114 et ClecYiGi
FIG. 57 OUT- OF- PLANE LONGITUDINAL STRESSES ( INSIDE).

BEND No. 3
 2
/-'

01
\
0
/
0

(1)
\di

-2
0 900 180° 270° 3G00
EXTRADOS MEASURED EXTRADOS

CALCULATED CI-IAPTEZ 5
-CALCULATED RODASAUGO-1 4 ElzDIZE

FIG. 58. OUT- OF- PLANE TRANSVERSE STRESSES (OUTSIDE)

BEND No. 3
 3

/ \
/ \ /
/
\ \
\
0
\
STRE SS,

/
\ \
\
-2

-3
90° ISO° 270 360
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS
MEASURED
CALCULATED : CHAPTER 5 -r1

- CALCULATED : RODABAUGH Er GEORGE 61

Lri
FIG. 59. OUT-OF- PLANE TRANSVERSE STRESSES ( INSI DE). BEND No. 3 (0
 2

/ \ •
/
•
0 \ .
I-

."--.
0 •
•
z •
• \
•
I- \ /
• /
N •

-2
00 900 1800 2700 3600
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS
CHAPTE R 5
RODABAUG I-1 for GEORGE

FIG. 60. OUT-OF-PLANE LONGITUDINAL STRAINS (OUTSIDE). BEND No.3

 2

1
z
/

0 .— . ---
o
Z_ N
.. o /
ce \ /
I—
cr \ /
\ /
' ' ' • - - - - . .••••

-2
0° 900 180° 270° 3600
E XT RADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

CHAPTER 5
RODABAUGH Ire GEORGE

FIG. 61. OUT-OF- PLANE LONGITUDINAL STRAINS (INSIDE). BEND No. 3

 2

/- ,
\
• .\
0 / • /
U
.\• \
0
.
/ . /
cc
/
—

\
/ \ /
-2
00 900 I $0° 2700 3600
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

CHAPTER 5
RODABAUGH 6 GEORGE

FIG. 62. OUT-OF-PLANE TRANSVERSE STRAINS (ouTsiDE) BEND No. 3

3

0
---
/
/ /
\

/
0 0
•

/
/
/
0 /
/

-2

-3
90° %SO° 270° 3600
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

CHAPTER 5
- RODASAUGH Er GEORGE

FIG. 63. OUT-OF- PLANE TRANSVERSE STRAINS (INSIDE). BEND No. 3

 3

•
•
ct 1 S
0 ..---- -......

I— /".
I) / N..
•••••..
5. / --- _0--
0 c
1111

..-- • 0
_0- -
• \ 0,..- - -
-.., ..-- ---- ill
. • •
•
-2 •

-3
900 180° 270° 360
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

OUTSIDE
INSIDE

FIG. 64. LONGITUDINAL STRAINS (Mx - My t Mz)

3
/ \
/
2
\ to I
/ \ 1
/ \ I- o \ ••
► / \ \
/ 1 1
/ \
0
/
\
/
• 0 c
• 1 I \
\ /
1 0/ _,
2
1 /I
\ /
-3 \ /
900 1800 2700 360
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

OUTSIDE
- INSIDE

FIG. 65. TRANSVERSE STRAINS

 3

2
•

eZ
• ---- -- , N •

U — o ----
u_
O
—o o
•
•••,„ o /
-- _

•
•

-2 •
•

-3 0
900 180 2700 360 0
EXTRADOS INTRADOS EXTRADOS

OUTSIDE
- - - - INSIDE

FIG. 66. LONGITUDINAL STRAINS (Mx —Ms — Mz)

3

/
/ \
2
/5 0 \ r
/
/) •
\
/
\
/ 1 /
\ I /
0 \ 1
1
1 / 1
/
1 /
' • 1 • •• 1 0/
.
1• • \
'... / 0 /
-2 \ /
1 /
/
\ /
-3 \ /
0 90 1800 270° 3600
EXTRADOS IN T RADOS EXTRADOS

OUTS% DE
- - INSIDE

FIG. 67. TRANSVERSE STRAINS

 FIG. 68

FIG. 68. NOTATION FOR OUT-OF- PLANE

BENDING
 FIGS. 69 & 70

FIG. 70

FIGS. 69 6- 70. ROTATION OF PIPE WALL

 FIG5. 71 F 72

FIG. 71. DEFLECTION OF PIPE WALL

( To t°

Mot 0

FIG. 72. FORGES CAUSING DISTORTION

OF CROSS SECTION
 \ K . 1 + I-v
-4- Az

17 b= 2
w

•%
4%
b= 3
--L_ 2

10+ I2X2
I + 12 A2 b=6
/#
____------- .
b=3
16 / OgraiaA4
/°.-- b=2

.
/

0 0I 0.2 0-3 0-4 0.5 0.6 o.7 0.8 I.0

FIG. 73. FLEXIBILITY FACTORS



16 16

14 14

0.0' 1
... 0,
cc
° 12 12
1-
U

V)
I0

0
EQUIVALE NT

8 .,... 8
. -- 0. o

6 , .0 ' .,
6

2
,..... .0 A .,
-24
2
A:0..3
K . 0.05
< 4 A = 0.36 4
vo., 0.06
'x;0.48
lc' 0*"
A=0.6
K ., 0•I

2 2
k.0-2 0-3 A- 1 .2._ 1.8

0 0
0 0 2 0 4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.8 0 6 0.4 0.2 0
M (OUT-Or- PLANE)/ M (IN- PLANE) M (IN-PLANE)/M (OUT- OF- PLANE)

FIG. 74, EQUIVALENT STRESS FACTORS. OUTSIDE SURFACE

 16 16

o•
v- •o
, I4
14

..."°#'
..---
_.---• /..N
'N. '.1•••,.,.. 12
tx 12

U ,... o.oN \
`moo -.....,,......
N..<9. ......_
..----. /* "•••••......
‘17 10
117
ta.1
---' -•-•„..
I0

OC
.----"\. -._.. -....„,....
------ •••.. .,. . . ....„....
_----- o't
v_,(2.>..- ......--•••-...... ...„.
8
EQUIVAL ENT

----- .------ ------ .03 ••„,....... A .....,..... -.........

o•/s
-....„..
8

0.
-----
--- ------ .....„
.----- *------ -L,.......... ,.„
6
o 0A"
N4..---- o..?.61 6
• ---- ..------ '- ------
o.os ------. A : .....___
M AXIM UM

.----- ......,
------
._---- .--- v-- ----
----
4 ...---.'r •
055 -•*" 4
14 0• %
.....----'
.-----""
.....----

..__.—• 1,. ,. 0•2•

\ =-• i• 8
•
2 k - 0-3 2

0 0
0 0 2 0-4 0 6 0-B 10 0 5 0-6 0•4 0 2 0
M (OUT—OF— PLAN OM (IN—PLANE IA (IN— PLANE.) /INA ( OUT—OF— PLANE)

FIG. 75. EQUIVALENT STRESS FACTORS_ INSIDE SURFACE

 FIG. 76

NIL

dc68

cp,

FIG. 76. PIPE- BEND DEFLECTIONS

270

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF A

FULL-SCALE TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEAM PIPELINE
By R. T. Smith* and Hugh Ford-
This paper describes tests made to check the reliability of the calculation methods used
to predict the flexibility, forces, and stresses in a typical pipework system.
A test rig set up in the laboratory has been used to carry out tests on a full-scale pipeline
of 61-in. nominal bore pipe for 450 113/in2 working pressure and 750°F steam temperature
with two right-angle bends. Tests at room temperature have been made with controlled
anchor movements corresponding to those which would occur on cold pull-up, thermal
expansion, or pure bending, all without internal pressure. In addition tests have been
made with internal pressure only, and with internal pressure combined with controlled
anchor movements. Further tests were carried out by heating the pipeline and measuring
the increase of the forces at the restrained anchors, but no strain measurements were made
at high temperatures.
The results show that the calculation methods are sufficiently reliable for predicting the
forces and stresses in such a pipeline, having regard to the allowable tolerances on pipe
dimensions.

INTRODUCTION dimensions of any given pipe, the actual stresses in the

WHILE many small-scale model tests have been made to
test the adequacy of pipework calculations, there appears
to be no record of comprehensive tests on full-scale steam
pipelines. The present paper describes a general investiga-
tion, which was sponsored by the British Shipbuilding
Research Association, of the forces and stresses in a
bore, 450 lb/in2 steam main caused by thermal expansion,
cold pull-up or anchor movements. In an early report to
the B.S.R.A., Jones and Hoath (r)t surveyed the state of
knowledge up to 1948 on methods of calculating the dis-
placements and forces in steam pipework, and also reviewed
the theories for the stresses in pipe bends. Since that
report, several detailed experiments and theoretical
investigations have been made (z) (3) (4) (5) (6) and these
have shown that it is possible to calculate the stresses and
deflections of pipework with an accuracy of about ±15 per
cent over a wide range of pipe dimensions and for long-
and short-radius bends (6).
The allowable tolerances on the pipe dimensions are
such that if the designer calculates his forces and stresses
by the methods now available based on the nominal
The MS. of this paper was received at the Institution on 6th February
1962.
* Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College of Science
and Technology, London. Associate Member of the Institution.
j- Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College of Science
and Technology, London. Member of Council of the Institution.
* A numerical list of references is given in the Appendix.
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
pipe delivered to this nominal specification can differ by a
greater amount than ±15 per cent. While there is some
satisfaction in finding an exact theoretical solution, the
engineer's practical problem is solved if he can avail himself
of an approximate calculation method which has an
accuracy greater than manufacturing imperfections require.
The imperfections are not only those that arise in making
the original tube (i.e. diameter, thickness, and eccentricity
of bore with respect to outside diameter) but also variations
induced by subsequent operations such as bending.
The importance of having a calculation method for the
stresses in pipe bends lies in the fact that they are by far
the most flexible part of the pipework system and the critical
conditions of stress will occur in them. From the point of
view of assessing the adequacy of the design provision, the
main consideration in any programme of research must be
to find how accurately, under the action of external forces
and internal pressure, the stress distribution in the pipe
can be calculated.
It was decided that the first need was to make a suitable
test rig by which definite loads could be applied or known
displacements made to the ends of typical pipework systems.
The rig was to be capable of testing various types of loading
and to be so arranged that two- and three-dimensional
systems and two- and three-anchor layouts could be
tested.
It was clearly important to limit the difficulties and
Vol 4 No 3 1962
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF A FULL-SCALE TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEAM PIPELINE 271
complications in the first part of the work. Accordingly it
was decided to try first a simple two-anchor pipework
system, the whole pipeline being in one plane. The investi-
gation of this system was undertaken in the following
stages:
(1) To calculate the distribution of loading along the
pipeline when given displacements are made to one end;
the stresses in the pipes to be calculated by the best
available methods.
(2) To set up the pipeline in the laboratory, subject it
to the above displacements, and measure the reactions,
stresses and deflections of the actual pipeline.
(3) To apply internal pressure over the practical range,
and to measure the stresses and end forces so caused; and
in addition to measure the stresses caused by combina-
tions of internal pressure and end displacements.
(4) To heat up the pipeline and, with one end free, to
measure the displacements so caused.
(5) To heat up the pipeline with the ends restrained
and measure the resulting forces. It was considered that
this would provide a satisfactory check on the calcula-
tions, while any attempt to use high-temperature strain
gauges was, at the time the investigation was started,
unlikely to give sufficiently accurate results.
Notation
E Modulus of elasticity.
F,, F,, Forces in directions, x, y.
F Resultant force.
h Half pipe-wall thickness.
I Second moment of area of pipe cross-section.
K Flexibility factor.
1 Length of pipeline element.
M Bending moment in plane of pipeline.
P Internal pressure.
PI Longitudinal stress.
Ph Hoop (or transverse) stress.
R Radius of curvature of pipe-bend axis.
r Mid-wall radius.
SE Maximum equivalent stress by von Mises criterion.
Sx, S3, Shift of F,,, Fx (co-ordinates of elastic centre).
x Ordinate in direction of pipe at point of application
of load.
y Ordinate in direction normal to axis of pipe at
point of application of load.
A, tl y Displacements in directions x, y.
0 Angular position around pipe bore, 0 = 0 at
extrados.
The pipe factor 2hR1r 2.
E Maximum equivalent stress factor.
Angular displacement.
CALCULATION METHODS
There are two main stages in the stress analysis of a pipe-
line under the action of thermal expansion or anchor
movements: the analysis of the forces and moments along
the pipe and the analysis of the stresses at any section as a
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
result of the moment at that section. The two stages can be
considered separately.
Analysis of the forces and moments
Various methods have been developed for calculating the
forces which result from given displacements. The methods
differ mainly in the way the data are tabulated and evaluated,
the basis being the static equilibrium of the pipeline. The
grapho-analytical method has been used to evaluate the
pipework system studied in this paper and as this method
has been fully described (x) (7) it will not be dealt with here.
Other methods, such as the Kellogg (8) and the Meyer-
Hovgaard (x) would give identical results.
Stress calculations
Von Karman (9) using the minimum strain energy method,
was the first to show how to calculate the flexibility factor
and the stresses in a pipe bend. In his original paper he
took only the first term in the series expansion, but Gross (3)
has shown that by taking three or more terms, the results
are accurate for the practical range of pipe bends. Hovgaard
(ro) (ix) obtained the same result as von Karman by stress
analysis and pointed out that the longitudinal stresses
(i.e. those acting along the pipe parallel to its axis) will have
a resultant inward force which can only be equilibrated by
a hoop compressive stress, but he ignored this stress in his
solution and it was not considered by von Karman. Gross
(3) showed that this stress could be allowed for.
The geometrical proportions of the pipe bends are usually
expressed in terms of a non-dimensional factor
A = 2hR/r2
called the 'pipe factor'.
For pipe bends for general service, the important range
of this factor is from about 0.05 to FO.
DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST RIG
Several typical engine-room layouts were studied so as to
form some idea of the kinds of pipeline that would need
to be tested. A pipeline with two right-angle bends of
different radii of curvature was chosen to fit the space
available in the laboratory. While in this paper, only tests
on a two-dimensional (plane) system with two anchors are
described, the pipeline was designed with a flange joint in
the intermediate straight length so that by turning the
flanges with respect to each other, a three-dimensional
two-anchor system can be made out of the same pipes.*
The laboratory used for these experiments was fitted
with a heavy reinforced concrete floor to take the reactions
of the loads imposed on the pipeline. Anchor frames of
braced steel sections were bolted to sockets cast in the
floor. These sockets were positioned at regular spacing over
the whole area so that a variety of pipe layouts could be
accommodated (Figs 1 and 2).
Controlled movements of the ends of the pipeline corre-
sponding to the movements caused by thermal expansion,
* Tests on this system have now been made.
Vol 4 No 3 1962
272 R. T. SMITH AND HUGH FORD

UNIVERSAL COUPLINGS
ANCHOR FRAME
TURNBUCKLE

ELEVATION

HYDRAULIC 7 ft 0 in.
CAPSULE UNIT

t
4 ft 6 in.
ANCHOR POINTS
10 f t 0 in. IN FLOOR

DYNAMOMETER

5 ft 6 in.

11 ft Din. DIAL GAUGES

18 ft 0 in.

STRAIN GAUGES DIAL GAUGE FOR REFERENCE FRAME

DEFLECTION MEASUREMENTS

PLAN OF LABORATORY

Fig. 1. Arrangement of experimental pipeline for investigation of flexibility and expansion stresses

JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF A FULL-SCALE TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEAM PIPELINE 273

The inner frame of the dynamometer is of welded con-

Fig. 2. General view of test rig
bulkhead flexing, etc. could be imposed by means of six
turnbuckles acting through universal couplings on each
anchor. For a three-dimensional system the turnbuckles are
arranged in pairs in three mutually perpendicular direc-
tions, so providing translation and rotation in three planes.
It was considered that this method would give the greatest
flexibility for applying a constant moment, a single force,
or any combination of forces and moments, from which the
characteristics of the system can be determined.
In most forms of model-testing apparatus (12) (13) end
movements are applied by three mutually perpendicular
micrometer heads or slides rigidly held to prevent rotation
(i4). This method would be impracticable in full-scale
testing, and does not permit rotation of the end points.
struction and is bolted to the pipe flange. It is especially
rigid and suitable lugs enable the load-measuring units to
be connected at all the necessary application points. The
outer frame was fabricated by welding from steel angle and
is coupled on its outer edge to the turnbuckles.
Between the two frames are the load-measuring units.
Three of these units were used in the two-dimensional
dynamometer and six arranged in pairs in the three-
dimensional dynamometer (Fig. 3), one of each pair being
in line with the end of the pipeline and the other at a distance
of 20 in. The moment in any one plane is therefore given
by the reading of the latter multiplied by the arm of 20 in.,
and the force in any direction is given by the algebraic sum
of the two readings.
Requirements for the load-measuring units are:
(1) They must measure tensile and compressive forces.
(2) Universal joints with the minimum of friction
must be provided at both ends of each unit so that each
component force is fully recorded on the appropriate
unit.
(3) Deflection under load must be small so that align-
ment is retained.
(4) Direct indications from all units should be available
simultaneously to facilitate setting up any required load
condition.
These conditions were met by the use of hydraulic
capsules for the measurement of forces; the arrangement
shown in Fig. 4 enables both tension and compression to be

Reference frame
Owing to the difficulty of obtaining absolute rigidity in
the anchor frames it was decided to make all measurements
of the pipeline displacement (deflection and rotation) with
respect to an independent reference frame. The frame
carried a series of short lengths of steel channel section
the vertical faces of which were machined to provide flat
surfaces. Deflection measurements were made at points
along the pipeline by a dial gauge adapted for use as a
stick micrometer, exact location being ensured by small
impressions made on the pipe surface with a ball-ended
punch.
Displacement and rotation of the ends of the pipeline
were measured by dial gauges mounted on brackets which
were bolted to the pipe flanges. All dial gauges were
calibrated and, while errors were generally small, correction
graphs were prepared for each gauge so that inaccuracies in
subsequent calculations should be kept to a minimum.

Dynamometer
The dynamometer was initially arranged as a two-
dimensional unit and experience of its use in this form
showed the need for some modifications which were incor-
porated before final assembly in the three-dimensional
form. Fig. 3. Three-dimensional dynamometer
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962
 274 R. T. SMITH AND HUGH FORD
U H
Fig. 4. Load-measuring unit for dynamometer
measured. The angular flexibility of the capsule is used to
meet condition (2), together with a universal coupling
incorporating needle roller bearings.
Figs 4 and 5 show details of the load capsules. The bonded
capsule A is bolted rigidly to the base B thus forming the
space for the hydraulic fluid. For the measurement of
tension, four equally-spaced studs H transfer the load
through the spacers V from E to the base of the capsule B,
while similar studs G couple the head of the capsule C to
the outer frame. To measure a compressive force, the
rings U are rotated through an angle of 45° so that the
spacers W take up the axial clearance between B and D
and between C and E, while a clearance is introduced under
the heads of the studs. Freedom for small angular move-
ment in the rubber bonding of the capsule is thus permitted,
while retaining the same overall length of the unit for tensile
or compressive measurements.
The hydraulic fluid is connected by a flexible capillary
tube to a standard pressure gauge which is calibrated
directly in pounds. The calibrations were checked against
a standard proving ring and correction graphs were pre-
pared. The gauges indicate loads up to 8000 lb and can be
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962
COMPRESSION
read to an accuracy of 5 lb. Errors caused by friction, the
resistance of the capsule to bending, and misalignment
under load are estimated to be of the same order as the
accuracy of reading. The deflection of the outer frame under
load is small and in practice the frame is not heavily loaded
as the turnbuckles are arranged in line with each dynamo-
meter unit.
Measurement of the strains and diameter changes
in the pipe
A 50-way static strain-gauge recorder was used for measur-
ing the strains as indicated by electrical resistance strain
gauges at critical sections of the pipeline, following normal
practice.
Diametral changes were measured as required by a
suitable micrometer with ball attachments located in the
small spherical impressions referred to above.
Pressure testing
Internal hydraulic pressure was applied to the pipeline,
a weak solution of soluble oil in water being used as the
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF A FULL-SCALE TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEAM PIPELINE 275

pressure medium to minimize corrosion. A hand-operated

pump was used to apply pressures up to 1000 lb/in2 which
were indicated on a Bourdon-type pressure gauge.
Electrical heating
The pipeline was heated by electrical heating tapes wound
around the pipe in a spiral (Fig. 6) and giving a total power
of 6000 watts. The full length of the pipeline was covered
in eight sections each with a separate energy regulator
providing control of the temperature. Measurements of
temperature were made with 38 thermocouples attached
at intervals throughout the length of the pipeline, and at
various positions around the pipe section. A 3-in. thickness
of cellular asbestos insulation (Fig. 6) was used to cover the
heating tapes and in order to isolate the dynamometer from
the high temperatures, a short extension pipe was bolted to
Fig. 5. Load-measuring unit the end of the pipeline.

Two-dimensional pipeline
From a study of typical pipeline layouts, it was decided to
use a pipe of 61-in. nominal bore with a +-in. thick wall.
Table 1 sets out the main characteristics and the layout of
the pipe is shown in Fig. 7. The two bend radii give values

Table 1. Pipe data: nominal dimensions

Diameter 61/6-1- in.

Wall thickness, 2h 0.25 in.
Mean radius, r 31875 in.
Second moment of area, 1 25.47 in4
Bend radius, R 27 in. 19 in.
Pipe factor, A 0.664 0468
Flexibility factor, K 2.345 3.405
Maximum equivalent stress factor, trE 2.01 2.72
Fig. 6. Apparatus for heating tests

10x10.0 in. 5.0 in., 26.9 in.

1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11
26.9 in.

5-0 in.
10.0 in.

PIPE No 2
15

16
10.0 in.
17
10.0 in. PIPE No 1
18
10-0 in.
19
5-0 in., 20
6 x15
19.0 in. 2122/23 24 25 26 27 28

19.0 in. 5.0 in. 5 X10. 0 in. 10-0 in.

Fig. 7. Numbering of sections

JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962
276 R. T. SMITH AND HUGH FORD

for the ratio bend radius/pipe radius, 121r of 5.96 and 8.47. Table 2. Mechanical properties at room temperature
The flanges were welded to the pipes which were bent, hot,
to the desired radii and heat treated to relieve induced Pipe No. 1 Pipe No. 2
stresses. The pipeline conforms to Lloyds Rules for
Axial Trans- Axial Trans-
pressure piping for service at 450 lb/in2 pressure and a verse verse
steam temperature of 750°F. It was made according to
standard practice from carbon steel piping, but otherwise Tensile strength,
ton/in2 27.8 27.8 29.0 29.5
not specially chosen. This was deliberate since one of the Yield point, ton/in2 . 21.3 21.8 22.6 23.6
main objectives of the investigations was to test how Elongation on
closely the best calculation methods allow the stresses in 4Varea, per cent . 43 38 42 37
Modulus of
the pipes to be predicted, having regard to recognized elasticity, lb/in2 . 30.1 x 106 30.5 x 106 30.1 x 106 30.2 x 106
tolerances and the effects of bending and manipulating the Diamond pyramid
hardness number. 140-150 145-160
pipes.
In order to establish how far variations from the nominal
dimensions may affect the flexibility and stress calculations,
extensive measurements of the pipes were made. The Table 3. Chemical analyses
overall dimensions of the assembled pipeline were care-
fully checked and measurements of the bend radii showed
Pipe No. 1, Pipe No. 2,
that the 90° bends consisted of an arc of about 60° of a per cent per cent
uniform radius slightly less than the nominal radius and
two transition curves of approximately 15° blending into Carbon . 0.12 0.13
Manganese 0.49 0.45
the adjoining tangents. Silicon . 0.16 0.22
For ease of reference, sections generally at 10-in. intervals Sulphur. 0.024 0.020
Phosphorus 0.011 0.006
along the tangent lengths and at 15° intervals around the
bends were numbered as shown in Fig. 7.
Short lengths of the material used for each pipe were
supplied to provide test specimens. The mechanical at the bends some distortion was observed. At both bends
properties are shown in Table 2, and the chemical analyses this was such that the diameter in the plane of the bend was
of samples in Table 3. about jin. greater than that perpendicular to it. The extent
Measurements to obtain the true shape of the pipe cross- of this distortion is illustrated in Fig. 8 which shows, to
section were made at 20-in. intervals along the tangent scale, the cross-section at the mid-point of the 19-in. radius
lengths and at the 15° sections at the bends. These showed bend.
that the straight pipe was circular to within 0.020 in. while Measurements of the pipe-wall thickness were made

90°

270°
Fig. 8. Cross-section at mid-point of 19-in. radius bend
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF A FULL-SCALE TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEAM PIPELINE 277
-12.5 +12.5
par cant par cant
10
z Nominal Pipe No. 1 Pipe No. 2
0
cr
t,
0 (straight pipe), in. .
Ui
co
z
O
0.24 025 0.26 0-27 0.28 0.29 0.30
MICROMETER MEASUREMENTS TEST LENGTH 1
-12.5 +12.5
par cant par cant
T-
4
0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30
ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENTS TEST LENGTH 1
-12.5 +12.5
par cant par cant
"I'
t I I „
0.23 0.24 0 25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30
ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENTS PIPE 1
Fig. 9. Distribution of thickness measurements
using an ultrasonic pulse method. The results obtained in
this way on flat surfaces are accurate to within one per
cent; on curved surfaces the accuracy is somewhat less, and
on the double curvature at the bends it is substantially
reduced, and in a few cases it was not possible to obtain any
reliable readings.
As a check on the wall thickness of the pipeline, some
300 readings were taken. In addition, 48 readings were
taken on each sample length for a comparison with micro-
meter measurements. These generally agreed within
0.005 in. and the average values were identical. The
distribution of these measurements and of those on the
tangent lengths of one of the pipes is shown in the histo-
gram (Fig. 9). A few readings exceed the specified tolerance
of ±121 per cent, but the standard deviation from the
mean value is 5 per cent for both pipes. The thickness
measurements on the pipe bends show some evidence of
thinning at the extrados, and, while no accurate values can
be given because of the difficulty of obtaining reliable
readings on the double curvature, the extent of this thinning
on the bend of 19 in. radius (i.e. three diameters) is about
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
6
Table 4. Summary of cross-sectional measurements
Average outside diameter, in. 6.625 6.588 6.606
Standard deviation, in. . 0.022 0.020
Average wall thickness
0.250 0.262 0.248
Standard deviation, in. . 0.012 0.013
Second moment of area (I),
in4 . . . . 25.47 26.09 25.07
12i per cent, that is of the same order as the permitted
tolerance on thickness.
The results of the cross-sectional measurements are
summarized in Table 4. Approximate calculations of the
second moment of area of the section at the bends indicate
that the thinning of the wall thickness almost exactly com-
pensates for the increased diameter in the plane of the bend
and the value of I may thus be considered constant. The
results show that the pipeline meets the requirements of
standard practice, the variation in thickness being within
the allowable tolerance and the other dimensions very dose
to specification.
CALCULATION OF REACTIONS FOR
THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL PIPELINE
The grapho-analytical method outlined by Hoath (x) (7),
which follows Admiralty practice, was used for calculating
the pipe flexibilities and end reactions, but with some
modifications. The calculations for the two-dimensional
pipeline are set out in Fig. 10. It is assumed that the end
reactions are due solely to thermal expansion and that the
deflections are therefore proportional to the corresponding
lengths. The lengths of elements in all these calculations are
expressed in inches and not in terms of the bend radius,
which is a method useful only when using equal bend
radii.
The method followed differs from that given by Hoath
in that the uniform moment equal to the force F„, F y
multiplied by the appropriate shift S y, S, is not added to
the diagram, but the deflections resulting therefrom are
separately computed, making use of the Maxwell reciprocal
relations, e.g.
azx
area of free diagram with force Fx.
These are subtracted from the 'free' deflections to give the
deflections with the end rotation restrained. This somewhat
simplifies the moment diagram but may involve the sub-
traction of nearly equal quantities; however, if a calculating
machine is used there need be no loss of accuracy.
It may be considered that the stresses shown in the
calculation sheet, Fig. 10, are higher than is desirable. This
is because the pipe layout had to be kept within the limits
of the available laboratory space, resulting in a less flexible
arrangement than would be allowable in practice.
Vol 4 No 3 1962
278 R. T. SMITH AND HUGH FORD

2.6a 102.4
27R Point Rotation Section Base line
ic=2.345
c 12 288.000 ab 102.40
d 23 246.817 be 99.455
35.4 e 25 969.537 cd 36.40
f 25 969.537 de 0
d 5.2 27 110.017 of 32.40
g
h 27 811.643 fg 101.623
32.4 j 27 811.643 gh 62.40
t k hj 0
19R 9 hi 1 jk
1709.505 X=3.405 m kl
62.4 n lm
662.48 o mn
2060.24 Chk no
12 288.0 9249.312 524.88 Total 434.678
615.6 Area 27 811.643
IL'
c d f
701. 626
9
Shift 63.982
a

Ax due to Fx dy due to Fx

Case At Area Mult. Case At Area Mult.

1 c 12 288.0 27.00 + 3 b 12 288.00 51.20 -
5a c 1 709.505 21.205 75 + 1 c 12 288.00 27.00 -
7a c 9 249.312 17.188 73 + 5b c 1 709.505 13.50 -
1 d 23 246.817 36.40 + 7bc 9 249.312 9.811 27 -
2 d 662.48 24.266 67 + 1 g 27 110.017 19.00 -
3 d 2 060.24 18.20 + 6b g 701.626 16.643 42 -
1 e 25 969.537 5.20 + 1 h 27 811.643 62.40 -
1 f 25 969.537 32.40 + 1 j 27 811.643 2.60 -
2 f 524.88 21.60 +
3 f 615.60 16.20 +
6a g 701.626 11.856 59 +
1 g 27 110.017 19.00 +
Total +2 947 941.9 Total -3 409 271.9
27 811.643 63.982 23 -1 779 450.8 41 662.275 63.982 23 +2 665 645.1
Total +1 168 491 Total - 743 627

Fx = 1877 lb BM at a -136 900 lb.in.
Fy = 2059 lb BM at b-c + 98 700 lb.in.
F = 2786 lb BM at f-g - 74 110 lb.in.
BM at j + 77 250 lb.in.
Fig. 10. Calculations for two- dimensional pipeline

TESTS ON THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL
PIPELINE
Without internal pressure
Simulated thermal expansion and cold pull-up
Displacements were applied to one end of the pipeline by
means of the turnbuckles, corresponding to the displace-
ments which would have occurred under free expansion for
a temperature rise of 540 deg F. It was assumed that the
maximum cold pull-up would be of equal numerical
amount. Inward displacements (i.e. the positive values of
d, and Ay in Table 5) represent the case of a pipeline with
fixed ends subject to a temperature rise; outward displace-
ments (negative values ofd, and dy) represent the condition
of a pipeline with cold pull-up at room temperature.
The displacements were applied in steps, and Fig. 11
shows that the end reactions are directly proportional to
the displacements. Similar results were obtained in the
pull-up test and the results are set out in Table 5, together
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962
with the bending moments at critical sections of the pipe-
line and the calculated values (Fig. 10).
It will be noted that the largest discrepancy occurs at
the end of the pipeline (section 28), but the stresses at this
point are not high. The worst error from the point of view
of stress is at section 20C where the calculated moment is
exceeded by 10 per cent in the pull-up test.
Tests to determine overall flexibility coefficients
In piping-flexibility analysis, it is necessary to determine
constants representing the flexibility of the pipeline under
the action of various forces. In the grapho-analytical method
these are clearly shown on the calculation sheets as 4, due
to F„ etc.
Tests were carried out to determine these constants
experimentally. For example, to obtain the deflections due
to the force Fx, a displacement was applied to the free end
in the x-direction with no rotation of the pipe ends and the
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF A FULL-SCALE TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEAM PIPELINE 279

TEMPERATURE RISE 540 °F

EXPANSION PERT 540 x 74 x 105=0-004 Point Rotation Section Base line
UNIT LENGTH
E.I. 30.1 x 106 x 25.47=767 x 105 lb. in2
= 216 x 0.004=0.854 in.
c 16 609.28 ab
6y= 120 x 0.004=0.480 in.
d 25 939.277 be
e 28 996.877 cd
f 28 996.877 de
g 31 718.477 of
h 39 553.155 fg
j 41 662-275 gh
k hj
1 jk
m kl
n lm
o mn
Chk no
Total
Area 41 662-275
Shift 95.846

4, due to Fy dx due to Fy

Case At Area Mutt. Case At Area Mutt.

.0 4U Uu b0 bpao.444.,,

2 5 242.88 68.266 67 + 1 c 16 609.28 27.00 -

3 11 366-40 51.20 + 6b c 975.779 23-651 17 -
1 16 609.28 27.00 + 7a c 8 354.217 17.188 73 -
6a 975.779 16.848 83 + 1 d 25 939.277 36.40 -
7b 8 354.217 9.811 27 ± 3 d 3 057.60 18-20 -
1 31 718.477 19.00 + 1 e 28 996.877 5.20 -
5a 1 229.205 14.922 57 ± 1 f 28 996.877 32.40 -
7a 6 605.473 12.095 78 + 3 f 2 721.60 16.20 -
1 39 553.155 62.40 + 1 g 31 718.477 19.00 -
2 1 946-88 41.60 + 5b g 1 229-205 9.50 -
3 162.24 31.20 + 7b g 6 605.473 6.904 22 -
1 41 662-275 2.60 +
Total +4 850 113.5 Total -3 409 271.9
41 662.275 95-846 37 -3 993 178.0 27 811.643 95.846 37 +2 665 645.1
Total + 856 936 Total - 743 627

Maximum equivalent stress at a 17 130113/in2.

Maximum equivalent stress at b-c 24 820 lb/in2.
Maximum equivalent stress at f-g 25 220 lb/in2.
Maximum equivalent stress at h 9000 lb/in2.
Fig. 10.-continued

y-deflection varied to make the force F., zero. From the
resulting end reactions it is possible to obtain the equivalent
force Fx and the position of its line of action, corresponding
to the 'shift' in the grapho-analytical method. The results
are set out in Table 6, where the constants are given as the
deflection in inches due to a load of 1000 lb.
The next step in piping-flexibility analysis is to obtain
the end reactions by the solution of a set of simultaneous
equations involving the flexibility coefficients and the
known displacements. Using the experimental values of
Table 6 values for the end reactions are obtained which
agree closely (within 2 per cent) with those obtained by
direct experiment (Table 5). The results for the end
reactions are given in Table 7.
Test with uniform bending moment
To determine experimentally the flexibility of each element
of the pipeline, loads were applied by the turnbuckles to
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962
give a bending moment of 80 000 lb. in. The net forces
were made zero so that this moment was constant through-
out the length of the pipeline and shear-force effects were
eliminated. By measuring the deflection at points along the
tangent lengths, the change of slope in each element under
the action of this loading was obtained. The flexibility of
an element of the pipeline can be expressed relative to
calculated flexibility of an equal length of straight pipe of
the nominal dimensions, i.e.
M1
= •
EI
where q is the change of slope in element. The results of
the tests are given in Table 8 where it will be seen that
higher values are obtained for the flexibility factors of the
bends when the bending moment was applied so as to
increase the curvature (i.e. to close the bend) compared
with the values obtained by loading in the opposite direc-
tion. This is apparently due to the change in the second


280 R. T. SMITH AND HUGH FORD

moment of area caused by the flattening of the bend and caused by the flattening of the bends were made and typical
so should introduce a slight non-linearity. The flexibility results are plotted in Fig. 12.
of all the straight lengths was about 8 to 12 per cent higher
than would be expected from the measured dimensions. Resistance strain gauge measurements
Measurements of the changes in the principal diameters Strain gauges were fixed to the external surface of the pipe
4000 at sections 3, 11C, 20C, 21, and 25 (Fig. 7). On the tangent
lengths at sections 3 and 25 four gauges were arranged to
M
28
measure longitudinal strains as a check on the measurement
F= of bending moment. At the bends (sections 11C, 20C, and
2 20in.
21) eight gauges were used for measuring longitudinal strains
3000
and six gauges for transverse or circumferential strains at
the positions of maximum stress.
The stresses at the bends are best expressed in terms of
the stress factor, which can be regarded as the ratio between

I 2000
Table 6. Flexibility coefficients
w
U
ce 0 T000lb 0 \-v..:c:•5
0`
0
Fy
(..._.ff! ,I17
Fx ,c2;,,„ -.
1;i°1-5,-1
1000
Experimental:
41x, in. +1.46 -144 -0.96 +0.904
tly, in. -0.947 +0.956 +1.175 -1.11
S, in. 63.1 63.1 96.1 92.0
Calculated:
d x, in. 1.523 0.97
O
Lly, in. 0.97 1.118
+0.216 +0 432 +0.648 +0 864 S, in. 63.98 95.88
ey +0.120 +0 240 +0.360 +0 480
DEFLECTION - in.
Fig. 11. End reactions in expansion test
Table 7. End reactions
Table 5. End reactions and moments Expansion case Pull-up case
dx = +0.864 in., zl„ = -0.864 in.,
Zly = +0.480 in. Zly = -0.480 in.
11 C
-27 in. radius Direct Calculated Direct Calculated
experiment from experiment from
xperimental experimental
flexibility flexibility
coefficients coefficients
Fx , lb . 1 830 1 830 1 884 1 897
19 in. radius Fv, lb . 1 940 1 884 2 047 2 067
ey = 04 8 in. M,8, lb.in . 67 500 65 580 69 640 70 650
20C

t.,.r0 864 in.

Table 8. Flexibility factors

Calculated Experimental
Expansion case, Pull-up case, Pipeline element Theo- Measured values
inward outward retical
displacement displacement values +ve M -ve M

Fx , lb . 1877 +1830 -1884 a-b 0-11 Straight pipe 1.00 1.13 147
2059 +1940 -2047 b-c 11-12 27-in. radius bend. 2.345 2.49* 2.41t
Y, lb . 2786 +2667 -2782 c-d 12-16 Straight pipe . 1.00 1.11 1.11
e-f 16-20 Straight pipe 1.00 1.07 1.07
Ma, lb.in. . 142 250 -131 230 +145 710 f-g 20-21 19-in. radius bend. 3.405 3.08*
Mi ic, lb.in. 98 700 +94 580 -92 970 g-h 21-28 Straight pipe . 1.00 1.05 1.05
M2oc, lb.in. . 74 110 -74 760 +80 740
M28, lb.in. . 77 250 +67 500 -69 640 * Closing bend.
t Opening bend.

JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF A FULL-SCALE TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEAM PIPELINE 281
+005
INCREASE IN 90° CONSTANT MOMENT CLOSING EXPANSION CASE
+ 0.04 •0°- 150° __ CALCULATED _ _ . (-I-)1800
DIAMETER -41'-- 270° CONSTANT MOMENT OPENING PULL -UP CASE
3
+ 0 03
I \\.."--)p.i=
, 80 000
lb in._
i ',1 1 ... -....
2 ........ I
• EXTERNAL
•
I
••
0 • /
17 18 19 20 A BC D E 21 22 x /
23 24 25 • I
SECTION NUMBER •
0 /
%
U
• - 0.01 \I
z 1,
.1
X
• - 0.02 1
1
\ /
- 0.03
1 I
DECREASE lh, A I
- 0.04 - 90°- 270° 1 -- - - - — - -1 t4 i
DIAMETER CALCULATED
d 1 I
- 0.05 1 /

Fig. 12. Changes of diameter: 19-in. radius bend 2 X

/
I
INTERNAL X1 /
\ / or
• / r
the actual stress and the nominal maximum stress given by •
-3 • e
simple theory for thin-walled pipes so that 0 30 60 90

120

150 180
EXTRADOS degrees
actual stress = (stress factor) Mr/I. INTRADOS
Fig. 14. Transverse stress: 19-in. radius bend
The distribution of the stresses around the section
calculated from the nominal dimensions of the pipe by the With internal pressure
method given by Turner and Ford (6) is shown in Figs 13
and 14. The full and dotted lines show the calculated stresses Tests with internal pressure only
on the external and internal surfaces respectively, while the As the pressure was applied in these tests the turnbuckles
points indicate the values obtained from the strain-gauge were adjusted to maintain constant the small datum load
readings. It was not possible to attach gauges to the internal on the dynamometer, and the movements of the pipeline
surfaces where the maximum stresses are known to occur, noted from the dial-gauge readings. These movements are
but previous experimental work has shown that these shown in Fig. 15. They are due to the 'Bourdon-tube'
stresses can be confidently predicted from external-surface effect produced by the non-circular section at the bends;
readings, the stress factors for internal and external surfaces this causes the bends to close slightly under the action of
being assumed to vary in the proportion given by the internal pressure. The relation between deflection and
theoretical calculations. The maximum values of stress are pressure is non-linear because the effect of pressure is
summarized in Table 9. reduced as the section becomes more nearly circular.
CONSTANT MOMENT CLOSING EXPANSION CASE
Combination of internal pressure and external loading
CONSTANT MOMENT OPENING PULL-UP CASE
Tests were carried out in which inward anchor displace-
2 ow
ments corresponding to those caused by thermal expansion
EXTERNAL
were applied together with internal pressure equal to the
'r working pressure of 450 lb/in2. A similar test was made by
applying outward displacements corresponding to 100 per

,
STRESSFACTOR

,---
cent cold pull-up at zero pressure and taking readings from
Ada a datum with 450 lb/in2 internal pressure. Typical results
0

INTERNAL %
/,
/
are shown in Table 10 and Fig. 16.

Resistance strain-gauge measurements

/
/ Strain-gauge readings were taken with all the previous tests
-1
••
......, ii' and the stresses produced by internal pressure are shown in
Fig. 17. These should be studied with reference to the
-2
shape of the cross-sections, Fig. 8. The distortion of the

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 cross-section is such that the maximum stresses induced by
EXTRADOS clogreas INTRADOS
internal pressure coincide with those due to the external
Fig. 13. Longitudinal stress: 19-in. radius bend loading.
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962


282 R. T. SMITH AND HUGH FORD

Table 9. Maximum stresses

27-in. radius bend 19-in. radius bend

Experimental Experimental
Calculated Expansion Pull-up Calculated Expansion Pull-up
Bending moment, lb.in . 98 700 94 580 92 970 74 110 74 760 80 740
Maximum stress external surface, lb/in2 24 330 25 900 26 000 24 200 22 350 22 800
Stress factor . 1.97 2.15 2.21 2.61 2.48 2.33
Estimated maximum equivalent stress at
internal surface, lb/in2 . 24 820 26 430 26 530 25 220 23 290 23 760
Stress factor . 2.01 2.19 2.25 2.72 2.58 2.43

Table 10. Combined end movements and internal pressure

Expansion case Pull-up case

Calculated Measured Calculated Measured
P, lb/in2 450 450 0* 0*
d x, in. + 0.756 + 0.756 — 0.864 — 0.864
dy, + 0.420 + 0.420 — 0.480 — 0.480
Fx, lb . + 1 642 + 1 546 — 1 877 — 1 805
Fy, lb . + 1 802 + 1 672 — 2 059 — 1 950
M2s, lb.in. . . . . +67 590 +57 200 —77 250 —67 000
ph(max.) 27-in. bend (11C), lb/in2 26 800 29 500 29 840 33 200
ph(max.) 19-in. bend (20C), lb/in2 . 26 690 26 800 29 710 30 200

* From a zero at 450 lb/in2.

High-temperature tests the calculated end reactions. When the pipeline had been
Fig. 18 shows typical examples of the steady temperature heated and a reasonably uniform temperature attained, the
distribution along the pipeline. These examples show that turnbuckles were adjusted so that the load readings on the
the temperature dropped towards the ends of the pipeline dynamometer were the same as the small initial readings.
in spite of the heater winding being more closely spaced to The free expansion of the whole pipeline was measured
compensate for the loss of heat. This temperature drop was with the results given in Fig. 19. At the same temperature,
found to be proportional to the mean temperature rise and +30000
so the total expansion in the x-direction could be regarded I •
as equivalent to that produced by a slightly shorter pipe- (MEASURED)— i "•`•% `\ (MEASURED)
LONGITUDINAL % TRANSVERSE_
line. As shown in Fig. 18 an effective length of 204.5 in. +20 000 STRESS --44f %%
STRESS
,
instead of 216 in. was used to find the expansions and thus (CALCULATED)
—(CALCULATED)
11 111
ppr

A, = • 0.018 In.
12 .• 0.018 in. EXTRADOS 7
• I
•% INTRADO
= • 0.00240
0°
ill
—10 000 -
4,7".

A, = • 0.196 In. —20 000

ny =- 0.018 In. 20
4 = • 0.00240
20 28
—3000
Ax= • 0.2241n. • 0.224 In. 30 60 90 120 150 180
Ay= -0.052 in. Ay = - 0.143 in. degrees
= • 0.00140 = • 0.00140
Fig. 16. Stresses due to combined end movements (d„ =
Fig. 15. Displacements due to internal pressure of 0.756 in., d y = 0.420 in.) and internal pressure (450 lb lin2 )
1000 lb/in2 at outside surface of 19-in. radius bend
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962
 EXPHRIMENTAL STUDY OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF A FULL-SCALE TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEAM PIPELINE 283
+20 000

N
N+10000
17
,4-10
c CALCULATED
CALCULATED
...
INTRADOS
0 0
EXTRADOS EXTRADOS
INTRADOS

—10 000 0 -10 000

0 30 60 90 120 150 180
degrees clagraas
a Longitudinal stresses. b Transverse stresses.
Fig. 17. Stresses due to internal pressure of 450 lb lin2 measured at outside surface of 19-in. radius bend

600
--I

500

400
LL

w
ce
tz-t 300
cc

200

100
1r1 =1261n. ly =120 In. 42=78'5 In.

2 4 6 8 12 15 20 21 24 26 28
SECTION NUMBER

Fig. 18. Temperature distribution along the pipeline

3500 70
/
1.0 1
3000 60
/
H28
08 2500 50C
0
/ x. 7.4 x 106 (T-65)
DEFL ECTION—In.

\\ A /
T 2000 40 8
06 0
C) , K̀
° 1500
u..
x",.,4f 30
F
:7+"
04 2
/y. 7.4X 106(T-65)... ...,X 0
, -oy 1000 20 2
x„+
02 Ti -..ik
- CALCULATED 500 10
EXPANSION

0 I 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 100 200 300 400 500 600
TEMPERATURE— °F TEMPERATURE- 0F

Fig. 19. Free expansion of pipeline Fig. 20. End reactions due to thermal expansion

JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962

284 R. T. SMITH AND HUGH FORD
3500 70
3000 60
M28
2500 50
•_
2000 4 08
X
0 in the value of the second moment of area (I) due to
0 flattening of the cross-section. All theories of the bending of
Cr s.. x .r
+N
1500 N+ 30
Fr
0
X
1000 +N
N 20
500 10
N square of the mean radius in the plane of the bend; a
4 flattening of 1 per cent would therefore cause a change of
O 100 200 300 400 5001 600
TEMPERATURE— °F
Fig. 21. End reactions in pull-up test
the turnbuckles were then adjusted so that the net deflection
of one end of the pipeline relative to the other was zero
and the end reactions noted from the dynamometer
readings (Fig. 20).
Further tests were made with an initial displacement of
the anchors corresponding to cold pull-up so that the end
reactions were reduced as the temperature was increased.
The results are given in Fig. 21.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The experiments were devised and carried out in such a
way as to minimize random errors. The highest accuracy
in force, displacement and stress measurements was aimed
at, and reproducibility was tested. It is believed that the
errors caused by experimental technique are of secondary
importance and that the results can be confidently used for
the main objective of comparing calculated and experimental
values. In the tables, calculated figures are based on the
nominal dimensions except in Table 11 where allowance
is made for the variations in the pipe thickness and diameter.
From the simulated thermal expansion and cold pull-up
tests, a number of comparisons can be made. One way of
assessing the accuracy of the flexibility calculations is to
compare the bending moments at critical sections along
the pipeline. Table 5 lists the moments at the bends and
near the anchors. The most serious variation from the
calculated values of bending moment occurs at the 19-in.
radius bend (section 20C) in the pull-up test, where the
figure for the calculated moment is 10 per cent lower than
the experimental result. Generally, however, the agreement
is in the region of 5 per cent.
The end forces Fx and F,, provide another means of
comparison, and Table 5 gives the relevant information.
The results are within 5 per cent. Comparison of the values
for inward and outward displacement (corresponding to
the expansion and pull-up cases) reveals a slight but definite
difference in the end reactions in these two cases. That
there is some difference in the flexibility of the system when
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
loaded in opposite directions is confirmed by the flexibility
coefficients (Table 6) and by the flexibility factors (Table 8).
It can only be concluded that the difference is real, the pipe
bends being slightly more flexible under the action of a
bending moment tending to close the bend than when the
moment is applied so as to open it.
This variation can be partly accounted for by a change
curved tubes are assumed to apply irrespective of the
direction of the moment and for them all a constant value
for I is assumed, giving a linear relation between load and
deflection.
The value of I is approximately proportional to the
2 per cent in the value of I and a 4 per cent difference in
the flexibility for moments applied in opposite directions.
The effect will be non-linear and should be much larger in
short-radius bends. In previous experimental work, while
different investigators have applied opening or closing
moments to pipe bends, few tests (if any) have been made
in which both forms of loading were applied to the same
bend.
The stresses were also measured in this series of tests
and the maximum stresses and stress factors are compared
in Table 9 for the most highly stressed sections in the
19-in. and 27-in. bends (i.e. sections 20C and 11C). The
basis of comparison in this table is for the measured stresses
as against the calculated stresses for the predicted moments
at these sections. On this basis the differences between
calculated and experimental values are not more than
10 per cent. If, however, the stresses are expressed as stress
factors (involving division by the applied moment), the
differences are larger, being as much as 12 per cent in the
worst case. Variations of the second moment of area are
also inherent in these calculations.
On a straight comparison of stresses it can reasonably be
said that the calculation methods are reliable to ±10 per
cent.
The uniform bending-moment tests show (Table 8) the
difference in flexibility as between opening and closing the
bends. Fig. 12 shows that the calculated change in diameter
at the mid-section of the 19-in. radius bend is approxi-
mately equal to the maximum change measured, but it will
be noticed that the stiffening effect of the tangent pipes
makes the average measured change in diameter less than
that calculated. The experimental value for the flexibility
factor is also less than the theoretical value.
Table 8 illustrates clearly that the main variation be-
tween the calculated values and the experimental results
resides in the flexibility factors. It was to be expected that
the departures from the geometrically perfect bends shown
in the dimensional studies would cause disparities in the
flexibility factors for the bends, but the discrepancies for
the straight length cannot be explained and require further
investigation. The discrepancies are of the order of 8 to
12 per cent when account is taken of the variations in second
Vol 4 No 3 1962
 EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE FLEXIBILITY OF A FULL-SCALE TWO-DIMENSIONAL STEAM PIPELINE 285
Table 11. Internal pressure tests—maximum
hoop stresses (lb/in2 )
Pressure, lb/in2 450 • 1000
Pipe No. 2:
Straight pipe
Calculated . 5 770 12 820
Measured . . 5 950 13 100
27-in, radius bend (11C)
Calculated . 6 150 13 670
Measured . 14 600 27 500
Pipe No. 1:
Straight pipe
Calculated . 5 430 12 070
Measured . . 6 450 14 000
19-in. radius bend (20C)
Calculated . 5 970 13 280
Measured . 10 000 22 700
moment of area found from the thickness and diameter
measurements.
The effect of internal pressure acting alone should be to
cause membrane stresses only, and if the pipe, including the
bends, is truly circular there should be no displacements
of the pipe on pressurizing. The small displacements that did
occur, shown in Fig. 15, are a measure of the non-circularity
of the pipe at the bends. The important result of the non-
circularity is that large bending stresses may be super-
imposed on the membrane stresses. This is shown in Table
11 where the maximum values of stresses measured are
compared with those calculated from the measured dimen-
sions, for two internal pressures, 450 and 1000 lb/in2. On
the straight lengths where the departures from true cir-
cularity are not excessive, agreement is reasonable, but the
results for the bends show measured stresses from 70 to
100 per cent above those calculated. However, these stresses
form only a small proportion of the total when combined
with the stresses due to bending. They can be estimated by
the method given by Haigh (ii) if the geometrical form of
the cross-section is known.
When combinations of internal pressure and external
loading are imposed, very high stresses can result in this
way. The measured stresses in the combined end-movement
and pressure tests of the present series are shown in Table 10
and Fig. 16. In these tests the increased stresses resulting
from internal pressure are partially compensated by the
bending moments being less than the calculated values.
For the purpose of predicting stresses, the law of super-
position may safely be assumed to apply without serious
error but it does not apply exactly since it has been shown
(4) (x6) that an effect of internal pressure is to reduce the
flexibility of a pipe bend. This effect was found in the present
tests to be measurable but small enough to be neglected.
The measurements of the free expansion of the pipeline
confirm the value for the coefficient of thermal expansion
assumed in the previous calculations. A mean value of
7.4 x 10-6/deg F was taken for expansion from 60°F to
600°F and this is represented in Fig. 19 by the straight
lines drawn from the test zero of 65°F. The experimental
JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
7
points show a slight departure from the mean line at inter-
mediate temperatures and the values for coefficients of
expansion obtained from the measurements are in close
agreement with the formula quoted in B.S. 806:1942 (x7)
in which the mean coefficient of expansion per degree
Fahrenheit from 0 to T°F is given by
(6.3+0.0017 T)10-6
Heating the pipeline between fixed anchors gives end
reactions which are shown in Fig. 20. The corresponding
values for the end loads are in close agreement up to 500°F,
but the results for the temperature test at 580°F are
approximately 7+ per cent lower than for the equivalent
room-temperature test. This corresponds with the probable
decrease in the elastic modulus for this temperature. By
using the results of the tests at room temperature as the
basis for comparison rather than the initially calculated
figures, the effects of variation from the nominal flexibility
characteristics are eliminated. Fig. 20 shows that the end
reactions increase linearly with temperature, the slightly
non-linear characteristics of the expansion-temperature
and modulus-temperature relations tending to cancel
each other.
The correction applied to compensate for the temperature
drop at the ends of the pipeline cannot be regarded as
completely exact because of the variation in the coefficient
of expansion, but the errors involved would be less than
the possible accuracy of measurement. Similar very small
errors may result because owing to the variation in the
elastic modulus, the small initial 'zero' load does not have
exactly the same effect at high temperatures.
Summarizing, the results show that the loads and stresses
agree within about ± 10 per cent with the values predicted
by calculation. The calculation methods can therefore be
considered reliable and used with confidence for two-
dimensional pipework.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was carried out under a research contract from
the British Shipbuilding Research Association and the
authors are grateful to the Council and Director of Research
of the Association for permission to publish these results.
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
Jorms, A. W. and HoATH, P. T. 1948 B.S.R.A. Report
No. 13, 'Survey of existing information on steam pipes
for advanced steam conditions'.
(a) PARDUE, T. P. and VIGNESS, I. 1951 Trans. Amer. Soc.
mech. Engrs, vol. 73, p. 77, 'Properties of thin-walled
curved tubes of short bend radius'.
(3) GROSS, N. 1952-53 Proc. Instn mech. Engrs, Land., vol. 1B,
p. 465, 'Experiments on short-radius pipe-bends'.
(4) GROSS, N. and FORD, H. 1952-53 Proc. Instn mech. Engrs,
Lond., vol. 1B, p. 480, 'Flexibility of short-radius pipe-
bends'.
(5) VissNr, P. L. and DEL BuoNo, A. J. 1955 Trans. Amer. Soc.
mech. Engrs, vol. 77, p. 161, 'In-plane bending properties
of welding elbows'.
Vol 4 No 3 1962
286 R. T. SMITH AND HUGH FORD

(6) TURNER, C. E. and FORD, H. 1957 Proc. Instn mech. Engrs,
Lond., vol. 171, p. 513, 'Examination of the theories for
calculating the stresses in pipe bends subjected to in-
plane bending'.
HOATH, P. T. 1947 Trans. Inst. mar. Engrs, vol. 59, p. 189,
(7)
`Steam pipcwork design in ships'.
(8) M. W. KELLOGG COMPANY 1956 'Design of piping systems' (15)
(John Wiley and Sons).
(9) VON KARMAN, T. 1911 Z. Ver. dtsch. Ing., vol. 55, p. 1889,
`Deformation of thin-walled pipes'. (z6)
(io) HOVGAARD, W. 1926 J. Math. Phys., vol. 6, p. 69, `Elastic
deformation of pipe-bends'.
I) HOVGAARD, W. 1928g. Math. Phys., vol. 7, p. 239, `Further
research on pipe bends'.
(zz) SEMAR, H. W. 1939 Trans. Amer. Soc. mech. Engrs, vol. 61, (17)
p. A21, 'Determination of the expansion forces in piping
by model experiments'.
(13) ANDREWS, L. C. 1952 Trans. Amer. Soc. mech. Engrs,
vol. 74, p. 123, 'Piping flexibility analysis by model test'.
POTTER, J. H. 1957/. Amer. Soc. nay. Engrs, vol. 69, p. 771,
(14)
`Full scale stress experiments on some common pipe
bends'.
HAIGH, B. P. 1936 Proc. Instn mech. Engrs, Lond., vol. 133,
p. 96, 'An estimate of the bending stresses induced by
pressure in a tube that is not initially quite circular'.
RODABAUGH, E. C. and GEORGE, H. H. 1957 Trans. Amer.
Soc. mech. Engrs, vol. 79, p. 939, 'Effect of internal
pressure on flexibility and stress-intensification factors
of curved pipe or welding elbows'.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION 1942 B.S. 806, 'Ferrous
pipes and piping installations for and in connection with
land boilers'.

JOURNAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE Vol 4 No 3 1962