Limit Loads for Pipe Elbows

M. A. Shalaby
With Internal Pressure
ECG Engineering Consultants Group,
Piping Department,
Cairo, Egypt
Under In-Plane Closing
Bending Moments
M. Y. A. Younan
The American University in Cairo, The purpose of this study is to determine limit loads for pipe elbows subjected to in-
Engineering Department, plane bending moments that tend to close the elbow (i.e., decrease its radius of
P.O. Box 2511, curvature), and the influence of internal pressure on the value of the limit load.
Cairo, Egypt 11511 Load-deflection curves were obtained, and from these curves plastic collapse or
E-mail: myounan@acs.auc.eun.eg instability loads at various values of internal pressure were determined. This was
done for different pipe bend factors (h = Rt/r 2 ) using the nonlinear finite element
analysis code (ABAQUS) with its special elbow element. The limit load was found
to increase and then decrease with increasing pressure for all the elbow geometries
studied.

Introduction
Smooth pipe bends or pipe elbows are commonly regarded
as critical components in a piping system. They are incorporated
into piping systems to allow modification of the isometric rout-
ing, but more importantly pipe elbows are usually incorporated
to reduce anchor reactions. Due to their increased flexibility in
comparison to straight pipes, they allow a reduction of the reac-
tion forces and moments within the system as a whole by virtue
of their elastic deformations. Hence, they are forced to accom-
modate disproportionate displacements arising from differential
movements. Under complex stressing of this kind, severe load-
ing may be set up within the elbow and this may lead to strain
concentrations and major cross-sectional deformation.
Due to their specific deformational behavior when exposed
beyond the elastic limit, pipe elbows are capable of plasticizing
over large areas when a system is overstressed. Thus, they
absorb considerably large thermal expansions and seismic
movements in addition to cushioning transiently loaded systems
by energy dissipation as a result of plastic material flow. How-
ever, care must be taken to ensure that the collapse load is
avoided. Therefore, it is very important to determine the safety
margin between incipient local yield and the load at which the
pipe bend collapses.
If an adequate limitation of plastic deformation cannot be
assured, then the pipe elbow or the piping system may fail
sooner or later depending on the type of load imposed, because
of the decreasing resistance of the components to further plastic
deformation. Several cases of damage which have occurred in
the region of pipe elbows in various piping systems have
prompted the initiation of various investigations with regard to
deformation and failure behavior of pipe elbows. Plastic limit
analysis concepts are used for establishing allowable loads.
They provide estimates of plastic collapse loads, i.e., loads
above which large increases in deformation occur with small
increases in load. The low value of the limit load for pipe
elbows relative to that of straight pipes should be sufficient
warning not to neglect elbows when considering the design of
piping systems. The high values of internal pressure that may
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division and presented at the
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Orlando, Florida, July 27-31, 1997, of
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS . Manuscript received by the
PVP Division, March 18, 1997; revised manuscript received August 1, 1997.
Associate Technical Editor: M. B. Ruggles.
exist in the pipe elbows change the values of limit loads and
affect their collapse behavior. Therefore, it is very important to
determine conservative values of limit loads for pipe elbows
with internal pressure under various loading conditions.
The pipe bend problem has been analyzed by several ap-
proaches either elastic or inelastic using small and large defor-
mation solutions with both theoretical and numerical tech-
niques, in addition to experimental investigations. In the follow-
ing, the inelastic analysis of pipe elbows will be discussed
through the available work in the literature.
Marcal (1967) presented the first results for elastic-plastic
behavior of pipe bends with in-plane bending. His collapse
moment to moment of first yield ratios ranged from about 2 for
bends of short radius to a value of about 1.55 for bends of
larger radius. Spence and Findlay (1973) found approximate
bounds on limit moments for in-plane bending by utilizing pre-
viously existing analyses in conjunction with the limit theorems
of perfect plasticity. They pointed out that a bend has a signifi-
cantly lower collapse load than a straight pipe, and this load
increases with increasing pipe bend factor (h). Calladine
(1974) tried to find the value of pure bending moment at which
full plastic bending of the bend occurs according to classical
limit analysis. He sought a lower bound to the limit value of
the moment by using a classical elastic shell analysis in conjunc-
tion with the lower-bound theorem of plasticity. Goodall
(1978a) presented the first large displacement analysis to obtain
limit loads of thin pipe elbows under in-plane bending moments.
His analysis was based on the lower-bound theorem of plastic-
ity, and the process of elbow buckling under in-plane closing
bending moment was examined by solving the large deforma-
tion problem for a simplified yield surface. The maximum load-
carrying capacity obtained from his analysis was about 10 per-
cent lower than the limit load obtained from small displacement
analysis. Goodall (1978b) also obtained the first lower-bound
solution for the limit load of thin elbows under the combined
effects of in-plane bending and internal pressure using small
displacement analysis. Kitching et al. (1979) presented a lower-
bound analysis, but without making restrictions on the geome-
try, so any value of radius ratio (R/r) and (h) could be used.
They showed that the limit moment is dependent upon (R/r)
as well as on (h). Rodabaugh (1979) gave a lower-bound limit
pressure and showed that for an elbow with R/r = 3 the limit
pressure is 0.8 times the limit pressure of a straight pipe. He
noted that the pressure did not reduce the limit moment; indeed,

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

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 it increased the limit moment by an average of 8 percent.
Brashel et al. (1983) conducted a large displacement analysis
of the load-bearing capacity of pipe bends. They stated that
the limit load is reached when a kinematic chain is formed
circumferentially as a result of plastic joints, but it is almost
impossible to obtain the exact solution by analysis. Chain et al.
(1984) presented an approximate limit-load analysis for pipe
bends with end constraints under in-plane and out-of-plane load-
ing. They extended a previous simplified steady-state creep
analysis for pipe bends with end constraints using the same
approach suggested by Spence and Findlay (1973). They
showed that the limit load of pipe elbow depends on several
parameters, which are pipe bend factor (h), radius ratio (R/r),
bend angle (a), and the type of end constraints. The presence
of end constraints will stiffen the elbow and increase the limit
load.
Sobel and Newman (1977) carried out some investigations
into the instability of elbows in the plastic range using the finite
element method and special pipe bend element. They showed
that geometric nonlinear effects are significant. If such effects
are included in the analysis, buckling into a circumferential
ovalization mode occurs at a maximum point in the load-deflec-
tion curve and a definite buckling load can be established in
the case of closing moment. Dhalla (1980) presented a nonlin-
ear finite element analysis using doubly curved shell elements,
and studied the effects of both load step and mesh refinements.
He showed that both geometric and material nonlinearities inter-
act to cause collapse of an elbow, and that the geometric nonlin-
ear effects become significant at load levels above 80 percent
of the buckling load. Sobel and Newman (1980) compared the
results of a simplified finite element analysis using special pipe
bend element with experimental results. They showed that the
analysis overestimates the deformations especially at high loads,
and it underestimates the experimental limit load by about 10
percent as it does not account for end constraints. Sobel and
Newman (1986) compared the results of simplified and detailed
finite element analysis with experimental results. Special pipe
bend elements were used in the simplified analysis, whereas
doubly curved shell elements were used in the detailed analysis.
They showed that the simplified method of analysis is consid-
ered a viable tool for the prediction of elastic-plastic behavior
as it is conservative and economical. Dhalla (1987) compared
the results of a detailed finite element analysis using doubly
curved shell elements with experimental results, and showed
that they were in excellent agreement up to 60 percent of the
measured buckling load. The experimental analytical correlation
was considered reasonable up to 80 percent of the buckling
load, and at higher loads the analysis predicted an increasingly
stiffer response, and overpredicted the collapse load by 15 per-
cent.
Bolt and Greenstreet (1972) presented an experimental inves-
tigation into plastic collapse of pipe elbows, and showed that
the load-deflection curves provide acceptable indicators of the
behavior of pipe elbows. They stated that internal pressure gen-
erally increases the collapse moment, although the load at the
onset of nonlinear response is decreased. Brouard et al. (1981)
conducted some tests on pipe bends and showed that the col-
lapse moments of elbows depend also on both the end effects
and angle of the bend. Hilsenkopf et al. (1988) performed tests
on both thin and thick elbows subjected to in-plane and out-of-
plane bending moments. They showed that the in-plane closing
bending case is the most critical loading mode with the lowest
Nomenclature
D = diameter of pipe or bend P = internal pressure
E = Young's modulus R - radius of curvature
M = bending moment h = pipe bend factor
ML = limit moment r — mean radius
36 / Vol. 120, FEBRUARY 1998
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
experimental limit moment. They also showed that internal pres-
sure stiffens the elbow and opposes ovalization of the cross
section, thus increasing the experimental limit moment by a
value of 55 percent for closing tests. The angular deflection was
shown to vary with internal pressure as the experimental limit
moment does.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of inter-
nal pressure on the behavior of pipe elbows subjected to in-
plane closing bending moment loads, and the influence of this
internal pressure on the value of the limit load. Therefore, it is
required to determine plastic collapse or instability loads at
various values of internal pressure for different pipe elbow ge-
ometries.
Analysis
The finite element method was used to conduct the investiga-
tion. ABAQUS, which is a general nonlinear finite element
analysis package, was used with its special elbow element that
takes the ovalization deformation into consideration, but as-
sumes constant deformation along the element length. In order
to study internal pressure effects and determine plastic collapse
or plastic instability loads, both geometric and material nonlin-
earities were included in the analysis.
From the finite element solution, a load-deflection curve was
obtained for each case with certain bend factor (h) and internal
pressure value. From these curves it was possible to generate
limit curves which show the variation of instability and collapse
loads with internal pressure for each value of bend factor (h).
Finite Element Model Using ABAQUS
Geometry. The pipe elbow used in this study is a 90-deg
16-in. nominal diameter long radius elbow; i.e., its radius ratio
(R/r = 3), with different wall thickness (pipe schedules). Ten
values of wall thickness (f) were used which ranged from 0.165
to 1.031 in., representing pipe schedules from Schedules, 5S to
Sch. 100, and giving values of pipe bend factor (h = Rtlr1)
between 0.0632 and 0.4417, with Dlt ratios between 96.97 and
15.52. Since it was required to study the behavior of pipe elbows
alone without the effect of different types of end constraints,
and to concentrate on the elbow's central section, only a 90-
deg unconnected (stand alone) elbow model was used. The
elbow configuration is shown in Fig. 1.
Material. The material was assumed to be isotropic and
elastic-plastic, following the measured response of type 304
stainless steel at room temperature, as reported by Sobel and
Newman (1980); but for this study, in order to isolate the
different parameters that affect the collapse behavior and to
focus on the effect of internal pressure on that behavior, it was
required to neglect the effect of strain hardening of the material
and to assume that the material is elastic-perfectly plastic. From
a design point-of-view, this is a conservative approach, since it
is expected that strain hardening would increase the value of
limit loads. Also, it was found (Kussmaul et al., 1987) that
collapse under in-plane closing bending moment (which is the
critical case) occurs with strain values of about 2 percent at
which strain hardening of stainless steel is not very significant.
The material properties were:
Young's modulus = 28 X 106 lb/in 2 (193 GPa)
Yield stress = 39440 lb/in 2 (271.93 MPa)
Poisson's ratio = 0.2642
; = wall thickness
a = subtended angle of bend
v = Poisson's ratio
(jy = yield stress
Transactions of the ASME

(h^Rt/r2)
Fig. 1 Elbow model configuration
Model and Elements. The model used in this study was
based on the assumption of uniform bending, which means that
the applied load is a pure bending moment and that all cross
sections deform in the same way (i.e., the effect of end con-
straints is neglected). Therefore, the model was chosen as an
unconnected elbow subjected to combined loading of in-plane
pure bending moment and internal pressure.
The one-dimensional cross-sectional deformation pattern ex-
pected allows very simple modeling to be adopted. Element
type ELBOW31B is a special pipe bend element with uniformly
deforming cross section. This element is based on an analysis
which assumes that axial variations of both the ovalization of
the cross section and the bending moment (M) are constant
over the axial length of the element, with the amount of ovaliza-
tion being dependent on the magnitude of (M), so it is ideal
for this case of unconnected elbow.
It is known that the elbow cross section ovalization varies in
the axial direction due to the stiffening effects afforded by the
adjacent flanges or straight pipes of the elbow structure, How-
ever, for elbows with radius-to-thickness ratios (r/t) in the
range of 20 to 50, with reasonable angle extent (90 deg), and
with lengths of straight pipes that are typical of those normally
encountered in practice, it seems reasonable to expect the axial
variation of the ovalization to be rather gradual and that buck-
ling will be initiated at the central section of the elbow where
the stresses are the highest (Sobel and Newman, 1977). The
present analysis concentrates on the behavior of this section.
Hence, the use of special elbow element with constant ovaliza-
tion is appropriate for such an analysis in addition to being
economical.
Moreover, this model is considered a conservative one, be-
cause end constraints increase the stiffness of the connected
elbow, and consequently increase its limit load. Furthermore,
the approximation involved in neglecting end effects is a logical
one and agrees with what has been reported in the literature
that internal pressure reduces the effect of end constraints. The
reason for this is that pressure causes the primary stresses to
be dominant; hence, the axial gradients of total (primary plus
secondary or bending) stress become small and the variation
of stress between the pipe bends and the straight pipe runs is
reduced (Hibbitt and Leung, 1985). For the case of 90-deg
bend, connected flanges only marginally reduce stresses and
bend deflections compared to those for an unconnected bend
(Whatham and Thompson, 1979). Therefore, in this case where
high values of internal pressure are used, the approximation
appears to be quite good.
A single element could suffice under pure bending moment,
but the existence of internal pressure may be inconsistent with
the pure bending assumption (Boyle and Spence, 1977). Also,
the end force associated with the closed end condition makes
it better to use more than one constant bending elbow element
for the model.
The finite element model used to represent the 90-deg elbow
consists of 12 elements of type ELBOW31B with 13 nodes
along the elbow length. The node at the fixed end is restrained
in all degrees of freedom; the other end node is free, except for
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
(R/r=3)
t = 0 . 1 6 5 - 1 . 0 3 1 in
the prescribed loading. In this model, six Fourier modes with
20 integration points around the pipe cross section were used.
In addition, seven integration points were used through the pipe
wall. These are sufficient for the range of elbow geometries
used.
Loading. The load on the pipe bend has two components:
a "dead" load consisting of internal pressure (with closed end
condition), and a "live" load of pure in-plane bending moment
applied to the free end of the model.
The pressure is applied to the model in an initial step, and
then held constant in the second analysis step while the bending
moment is being increased. The pressure values range from 0.0
psi to the maximum pressure that causes gross plastic deforma-
tion or collapse for the specific elbow geometry used in each
case. The equivalent end force, caused by the closed end condi-
tion, is applied as a follower force because it rotates with the
motion of the end plane. The closed end condition was chosen
for the analysis in order to include the axial component of the
stresses caused by the internal pressure.
The elbow was subjected to in-plane pure bending moments,
and the loading was extended far enough in the plastic regime
in order to reach plastic collapse or instability. This large dis-
placement analysis is rotation-controlled, i.e., increments of ro-
tation are prescribed at the free end rather than increments of
moment, since it is anticipated that the collapse will be unstable.
In these cases, displacement or rotation control can provide a
solution even when the conjugate load (the reaction force or
moment) decreases as the displacement or rotation.increases.
For this model, the rotation is applied to produce in-plane bend-
ing that tends to close the elbow (increase its curvature).
Verification of Model. This model was verified by compar-
ing the same model, but with strain-hardening material with
that of unit length element model and shell elements model
used in example 4.2.1 of ABAQUS Example Problems Manual
(1995). The shell elements model is convergent with respect to
discretization, as the mesh convergence tests demonstrated that
the meshes were convergent to overall response of the system.
Therefore, the shell elements solution is considered exact solu-
tion, and is useful for comparison with ELBOW31B element
solution for its validation. The twelve ELBOW31B elements
model predicted the same response of both the shell elements
model and the unit length ELBOW31B element model. This
increases the confidence in the model used in this study.
Definition of Limit Loads Adopted in This Work. In this
work, the term "limit load" is used as a collective term for
both "instability load" and "collapse load." The instability
load is considered the maximum load in the load-deflection
plot where the curve approaches a horizontal asymptote. The
collapse load is obtained by applying the "angle method" in
which the angle that the linear part of the load-deflection curve
makes with the vertical axis is measured, and a line making
double this angle with the vertical axis is drawn to intersect the
load-deflection curve. The load at the intersection point is called
the collapse load.
FEBRUARY 1998, Vol. 1 2 0 / 3 7
 Table 1 Elbow geometric parameters and loading cases / Pr V'3
ML = 1.04ft2'3 1 (D2tay) (4)
Model Outside Radius Pipe Wall Thickness Bend Internal Pressure V 2oyt)
No. Diameter Ratio Schedule Thickness Ratio Factor Load Cases

D (In.) R/r t (In.) D/t h No. Values (call

1 16 3 58 0.165 96.97 0.0632 9 0-800 which shows that internal pressure reduces the value of the
2 16 3 10S 0.188 85.11 0.0722 11 0-1000 limit load since the stiffening effect of internal pressure is not
3 16 3 10 0250 64.00 0.0967 13 0-1200
4 16 3 20 0.312 51.28 0.1217 16 0-1600
considered in this small displacement approximate solution.
S 16 3 30(Std) 0.375 42.67 0.1475 20 0-1900
Loading Cases. Each elbow with certain (h) and internal
e 16 3
- 0.41 39.02 0.1615 23 0-2200
7 16 3 40 (X8) 0500 32.00 0.1996 27 0-2600 pressure value was subjected to in-plane bending moment,
S 16 3 60 0.656 24.39 0.2675 35 0-3400 which was applied to close the elbow. The bending loading in
9 16 3 80 0.844 18.96 0.3527 46 0-4400 each case was increased and extended far enough in the plastic
10 16 3 100 1.031 15.52 0.4417 55 0-5400
regime until plastic instability (or buckling) could be reached.
This was indicated by the inability of the finite element compu-
tations to converge for a reasonably small load step. The varia-
Theoretical Models. There has been considerable contro- tion of parameters and loading cases is shown in Table 1.
versy concerning the term limit load, how it should be calculated Since both geometric and material nonlinearities were in-
or measured, and how it should be used in the design of piping cluded in the analysis, the study could address the problem of
components. Analytical developments were based on idealized combined material and geometric collapse or instability.
concepts of limit analysis. According to these concepts, the
theoretical limit load is the maximum load obtained from an Results and Discussion
analytical model of the structure. All theoretical limit loads for
pipe bends are based on the theorems of limit analyses. Lower- Load-Deflection Curves. From the results of the finite ele-
bound solutions and upper-bound solutions were developed to ment analysis, load-deformation plots were obtained for each
bracket the theoretical limit load because bounding solutions case with certain bend factor (h = Rtlr1) and internal pressure
are easier to' obtain than exact solutions. value under in-plane closing moment. In each plot, the external
Approximate bounds on limit moments for in-plane bending moment expressed in pound-inches (lb-in.) was plotted against
were found (Spence and Findlay, 1973) by utilizing previously the free end rotations expressed in radians (rad). The plastic
existing analyses in conjunction with the limit theorems of per- collapse and plastic instability loads were determined from each
fect plasticity. Results were presented in nondimensional form plot. Plastic collapse load was determined using the angle
covering most practical pipe bend geometries and providing method discussed previously, whereas the plastic instability was
useful design information. considered the maximum moment that could be attained (where
the curve tends to approach a horizontal asymptote).
Generally, the results of their study can be reasonably well
expressed as Figure 2 shows the moment-rotation curve for the case of
elbow with bend factor (h) = 0.1615 and zero internal pressure
ML = 0.8 h06(D2t<Ty); for h < 1.45 under in-plane closing bending moment. It is clear from this
figure that the moment finally approaches a horizontal asymp-
= (DV,); for h a 1.45 (1) tote, and the plastic instability load in this case is 1.013 X 106
lb-in. (KM AX in the plot). The plastic collapse load determined
Calladine (1974 ), in his study to find the value of pure bend- by the angle method has nearly the same value of plastic insta-
ing moment at which full plastic bending of the bend occurs bility in this case.
according to classical limit analysis, obtained this relation
The moment-rotation relation for the same model, but with
ML = \A9-Khwrhoy, for h < 0.5 (2) internal pressure of 500 psi, is shown in Fig. 3. It can be seen
that the curve approaches a horizontal asymptote at a much
The large displacement effect was not considered in the previ- higher moment and deformation than in the case without pres-
ous analyses. Moreover, the effect of internal pressure which sure. In this case, the plastic instability moment was 1.68 X
has a significant effect on the limit load was not considered. 106 lb-in., whereas the plastic collapse load was 1.345 X 10 6 .
Only ideal plastic material behavior was used. Therefore, it It is clear from this figure that the internal pressure increased
should be noted that limit theorems used in calculating theoreti- both plastic instability and collapse moments. Also, the maxi-
cal limit loads, while of great practical use, are of necessity mum deformation attained (XMAX) was 0.3169 rad instead of
restricted in the information they provide. 0.06519 rad in the case without pressure.
The only large displacement analysis is that of Goodall
(1978a), who obtained an approximate solution for the case of
elbow instability under in-plane closing bending moment. The InslaWily

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

is given by (X106) i j J^"\ \

I n—K ooo pit I : : / i : / ;
1
1 04h213 1 o.e ', •'/• <• .\,..y...;.
ML = ^j{Dhay) (3)
1 o.e ;.../...; :.../....\ j.
where
0.4-
. J ; i (3ft)a'3\/4V3(l-i/2)*, A
o.i....l....y. : i ;. ; ;....

XHIM i.oooc~o4 / / ! : : : : :
The only analytical solution that treats the problem of com- XHAX (.S19E-03 IS \ J ; ;
YHIM 4-407E.03 0.0*- ' ' 1 1 1 1 1
bined in-plane bending and internal pressure loading is the small VHAX l.olJE.Oi 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
End R o t a t i o n I tad I
displacement analysis of Goodall (1978b), which accounts for
the effect of internal pressure on the value of the limit moment Fig. 2 Moment-end rotation for an elbow with h = 0.1615, no internal
of elbows with (h < 0.5) as follows: pressure

38 / Vol. 120, FEBRUARY 1998 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 InsUfcilily
• h»0.4417 6.0E*6
• MJ.3527 i
h=0.2675 7.0E*6
• rpO.1996
• 6.0E+6-, * H • 4 «4

1+ 1
h"0.1«15
*
-•

¥ 6.06*6, «,it
I 4'0M » •I

J 3.0E*6- •••!•••

2.0E+6 '
1.06*6 "i"
0.0&0- l44-- M 4 - -4*
t4-1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 32003600 4000 4400 4400 5203
H
0 400 800
Internal Pressure (psi)

«KAX Fig. 6 Variation of instability moment with internal pressure, closing

VH1N .
yHKX 1 . 0.00 0.04 0 0,11 O . l t 0.20 O.J.I l).200.12 case
End R o t a t i o n I r i d )

Fig. 3 Moment-end rotation for an elbow with h = 0.1615,500 psi inter-

nal pressure collapse and instability of the elbow result from the flattening
deformation or ovalization of the elbow cross section under
bending loads. This ovalization progressively reduces the cross
section stiffness with further bending until collapse or instability
Ixio 6
occurs. The existence of the internal pressure works against
*-•—K
t . |
000 p « l
l»l
this; it counteracts the elbow cross section ovalization and tends
< - • »
too
200 p.i to keep the cross section circular, thereby increasing its bending
1 i M J 01)
pil
*.. » 400 pil stiffness and, consequently, its collapse and instability loads.
S00 PI I
O-—O— (00 pil The subsequent decrease in both collapse and instability loads
a—a 700 Pi!
*•—* too 100 p i l with further increase of internal pressure is attributed to the
• — • p»l
added axial and hoop stresses resulting from internal pressure
which weakens the cross section, and at a certain value of
internal pressure the loss in cross section stiffness due to these
added stresses exceeds the gain in stiffness due to ovalization
resisting; hence, the decrease in both the instability and collapse
moments at higher values of internal pressure.
ivx warn 0.00 0.05 0.10 0. IS 0.20 0.25
End RotAdon ( r i d )
Variation of Limit Moment With Internal Pressure.
Fig. 4 Moment-end rotation for an elbow with h = 0.1615, at internal From the previous results it is possible to generate a set of limit
pressure values from 0-900 psi curves that could be used in design purposes. These limit curves
should be used in determining the maximum bending moment
that could be applied to an elbow with a certain value of internal
Figure 4 shows the variation of moment-rotation relation with pressure, or the value of internal pressure that the elbow could
increasing internal pressure from 0 psi to 900 psi. The general have in combination with a certain applied bending moment.
trend of increasing both the maximum moment and deformation Each limit curve shows the variation of both the instability
with increasing internal pressure is clear from this figure. The and collapse moment with internal pressure for each elbow
increase and the subsequent decrease of instability and collapse geometry under closing bending moment. Therefore, ten
moment with increasing pressure is clearly shown in Fig. 5. curves were generated and plotted. These curves are com-
The same type of behavior under in-plane closing moment bined together in Figs. 6 through 9. The variation of instabil-
was repeated for the remaining elbow geometries used in this ity moment with internal pressure for five elbow geometries
study, showing the general trend of increasing and then decreas- with (h) ranging from 0.4417 to 0.1615 is shown in Fig. 6.
ing of the instability and collapse moments with increasing the The increase and decrease in instability moments with inter-
internal pressure. nal pressure is clearly shown in this figure. It should be noted
The increase of collapse and instability moments with in- that the peak value of instability moment increases and shifts
creasing internal pressure could be explained by the increase to the right (i.e., at a higher pressure value) with increasing
of the elbow cross section stiffness due to internal pressure. The bend factor (h). The same trend is shown in Fig. 7 for the
rest of (h) values. This is because the maximum value of
internal pressure that could be used in an elbow increases
Ixio 6 ]
000 pit
soo p i t 4> h'0.1475 3.0E*6
1000 pil • M1.1217
1300 p»l • h-0.0967
1500 pii • h-0.0722 25E*6
2000 pil » h»0.0632
2200 pal

¥ i6£**
= l.0E*6

50E*5

0.0E*0
0.4 0.6 0 200 400 600 800 I00O 1200 1400 1600 1800
End Rootlon (rndl Internal Pressure (psi)

Fig. 5 Moment-end rotation for an elbow with h = 0.1615, at selected Fig. 7 Variation of instability moment with internal pressure, closing
internal pressure values (0-2200 psi) case

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1998, Vol. 1 2 0 / 3 9

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 • h=0.4417
6.0Et6
• M1.3527
• h-0.2675
6.0E+6
4t{tittn
* h=0.1998
• h=0.1615
•g 4.0E<« JJ- ill 1
& II
3 0£ 6
1 ' * 1 /
"[*jl ..-•i** ''!'!'>»! 1
I 2.0E*6 f
.A
] i
1 --
1.0E*6
0.0E«O
\ 44-H • i - i • i • i -• H
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200
Internal Pressure (psi)
Fig. 8 Variation of collapse m o m e n t w i t h internal pressure, closing c a s e
with increasing bend factor (ft) of the elbow, and that the
effect of internal pressure depends on both the diameter and
wall thickness of the elbow (the maximum effect is in the
case of highest diameter-to-thickness ratio Dlt).
The variation of collapse moment with internal pressure for
all the (h) values is shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The increase
and then decrease of collapse moment with internal pressure is
clearly shown. Also, the peak value of collapse moment in-
creases and shifts to the right with increasing (h).
Variation of Limit Moment With Pipe Bend Factor (h).
For the cases of internal pressure with values of 0 psi and 500
psi, the variation of instability and collapse moments with elbow
geometry is shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
Figure 10 shows the variation of instability and collapse mo-
ment with pipe bend factor (h) for the closing case without
internal pressure. This plot indicates an increase in both the
instability and collapse moment with the increase of pipe bend
factor. It should be noted from this figure that the instability
and collapse moments have nearly the same value for all elbow
geometries under in-plane closing moment without internal
pressure. This adds more significance to the angle method of
determining collapse load as it predicts the same value of insta-
bility load.
Figure 11 shows the case of in-plane closing moment with
500 psi internal pressure. In this case, there is a difference
between collapse and instability moments, especially at low (h)
values, with the collapse load as a conservative estimate of
instability load.
Comparison With Analytical Limit Loads. It is useful
to compare some of the finite element results with those ob-
tained using the approximate equations of limit load pre-
sented by Spence and Findlay (1973), Calladine (1974), or
that of Goodall (1978a), which were previously discussed.
These equations are derived using limit theorems of plasticity
and they assume ideal plastic material and small displacement
(apart from that of Goodall, which is based on large displace-
ment analysis).
At first, the case of the elbow geometry with h = 0.1615
will be discussed. In this case, the limit moment using Spence
« h=01475
ZOE+6
» h=O.I217
• h=0D967
. h=0.0722
. h=0.0632
600 1000 1200
Internal Pressure (psi)
Fig. 9 Variation of collapse m o m e n t with internal pressure, closing c a s e
40 / Vol. 120, FEBRUARY 1998
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
1IIIIIIIIII
-•—hlBlBbilly
! 1
-•—CcJapse j ]••••
/
!
i j
•
I /
1 _ <>--^-ityWM.jn^...,f
JJJ^
4- - M i 1 i 1
0.0652 0.0722 0.0967 0.1217 0.1475 0.1615 0.1996 0.2675 0.3627 0.4417
Bend Factor (n)
Fig. 10 Variation of limit m o m e n t w i t h b e n d factor [h) 0 psi, closing
case
and Findlay's limit equation (Eq. (1)) was 1.109 X 10 6 lb-
in. and was 1.147 X 10 6 lb-in. using Calladine's equation
(Eq. ( 2 ) ) . The large displacement finite element solution for
the ideal plastic material gave an instability moment value
of 1.013 X 10 6 lb-in. As was expected, the theoretical limit
moments calculated using the limit equations of Spence and
Findlay and that of Calladine are higher than the finite ele-
ment instability moment for the closing case. This is because
these limit equations are based on small displacements and
do not take geometric nonlinearity or instability into account.
Therefore, these equations are not conservative when geo-
metric instability is concerned. On the other hand, Goodall
approximate equation for the maximum load-carrying capac-
ity under closing moment gave a value of 1.077 X 106 lb-
in., which approaches the finite element solution.
Another comparison was made between the finite element
small displacement solution and the theoretical small dis-
placement limit moment solution. In this case, both solutions
do not take geometric instability into account. The small
displacement finite element analysis gave an instability mo-
ment value of 1.209 X 10 6 lb-in., which is closer to the
theoretical limit moment values than in the case of large
displacement finite element analysis. In fact, it is somewhat
higher than the theoretical values, and this difference might
be attributed to the approximations involved in each theoreti-
cal limit load equation.
For the rest of elbow geometries, the large displacement
finite element instability were compared with the theoretical
limit moments calculated from Spence and Findlay, Callad-
ine, and Goodall limit equations. The results are shown in
Table 2.
It should be noted that for the elbow geometries with h =s
0.09675, the finite element closing instability moment was
greater than the limit moment calculated from limit equa-
tions, although it should be lower as it takes geometric insta-
bility into account. At larger values of (h), the finite element
instability moment was lower. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the theoretical limit moments calculated from the limit
HI Hifi
— • — kiBtabiity
?
—•—Gotflpse
i
^ / 7
—™i • ^
5.0E*5-
0.0E+0- 1 — i —
0.0662 0.0722 0.0967 0.1217 0.1475 0.1615 0.1! 0.2675 0.3627 0.4417
Bend Faclw lh)
Fig. 11 Variation of limit m o m e n t w i t h b e n d factor (/>) 5 0 0 psi, closing
case
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 2 Analytical and FEA limit loads L.D. Meb. 3.6E+6-,
LD.Colip.
SO. Instab.
&D. Colop. 106*6 •
Bend Spence & Calladine Goodall, F.E.A., A
Goodal
Factor Findlay Closing Closing t
(h) Ib-in Ib-in Ib-in Ib-in
-*« ___..
0.0632 2.495x10s 2.470x10s 2.066x10s 3.135x10s
1 1.56*6-
0.0722 3.136x10? 3.076x10s 2.638x10s 3.693x10s
0.0967 4.972x10s 4.970x10s 4.456x10s 5.129x10s 1.0E+6' Sfe iss •te ate 5tE -+H - 4 -
0.1217 7.121x10s 7.230x10s 6.648x10s 6.761x10s 5.0E+5-
0.1475 9.606x10s 9.879x10s 9.222x10s 8.796x10s
1.109X108
0.06+0- —_,— H _ ^ _ ^ — — H _*_ _^_
0.1615 1.147x10s 1.077x10s 1.013x10s 200 400 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1600 2000
0.1998 1.536x10s 1.613x10s 1.526x10s 1.417x10" Internal Pressure (psl)
0.2675 2.401x10s 2.570x10s 2.424x10s 2.256x10s
0.3527 3.648x10s 3.976x10s 3.734x10s 3.438x10s Fig. 13 Variation of limit m o m e n t with internal pressure h 0.1615—
small and large displacement analyses, closing case.
0.4417 5.100x10s 5.544x10s 5.224x10s 4.757x10s

The plastic collapse load determined by the angle method

equations are conservative for elbows with bend factors (h)
lower than about O.l. At values of (h) above 0.1, the large
displacement finite element analysis gives more conservative
results.
The results of analytical limit equations and finite element
closing instability are plotted and compared in Fig. 12, which
shows the variation of analytical limit moments and finite ele-
ment closing instability moment without internal pressure. It is
clear from this figure that the analytical limit moments are more
conservative at values of bend factor (h) s 0.1. The limit
moment calculated from the small displacement of Spence and
Findlay is more conservative and is closer to the instability
moment than that of Calladine.
Figure 13 shows the variation with internal pressure of insta-
bility moment and collapse moment (using angle method) ob-
tained from small and large displacement analyses for the same
elbow with bend factor (h = 0.1615), and it compares them
with values calculated using the approximate equation obtained
by Goodall (1978b) small displacement analysis with internal
pressure. It is clear from this figure that for small displacement
analysis, both instability and collapse moments continue to de-
crease with increasing internal pressure. The limit moment cal-
culated from Goodall also decreases with increasing internal
pressure, but the rate of decrease is smaller than that of the
finite element solution.
Conclusions
For pipe elbows under in-plane closing moments, both plastic
instability and collapse loads increase with increasing internal
pressure up to a certain value, and then decrease with increasing
pressure. This stiffening effect of internal pressure is directly
associated with geometric nonlinearities since neglecting large
displacements in the analysis results in a decrease of both insta-
bility and collapse loads with increasing internal pressure. The
value of instability load from small displacement analysis for
zero pressure is not conservative, since only material instability
is accounted for in the analysis.
—•— Catodire 6.06*6-|
—•—Silence
! .
...../<
— •—Goodal
—»—F-ECMnj
6.06*6-
has nearly the same value of plastic instability load in the clos-
ing moment case without internal pressure for all elbow geome-
tries; but in the case with internal pressure, the plastic collapse
load is a conservative estimate of instability load, especially for
elbows with low bend factor (h).
Both the plastic instability and collapse loads increase with
increasing pipe bend factor (h) due to the increased bending
stiffness of the elbow cross section. The effects of internal
pressure depend on the diameter-to-thickness ratio {DIt) of the
elbow, and they are more pronounced at high values of {DIt),
i.e., low values of {h).
References
ABAQUS, 1995, ABAQUS/Standard Version 5.5, User's Manual Vol. I, Ex-
ample Problems Manual Vol. I, and Theory Manual, Hibbitt, Carlsson & Sorensen,
Inc., RI.
Bolt, S. E., and Greenstreet, W. L„ 1972, "Experimental Determination of
Plastic Collapse Loads for Pipe Elbows," ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL
TECHNOLOGY Paper No. 71-PVP-37, pp. 1-12.
Boyle, J. T., and Spence, J., 1977, "The Nonlinear Analysis of Pressurized
Pipe Bends," Proceedings, 3rd International Conference on Pressure Vessel
Technology, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 121-131.
Brashel, R. A., et al., 1983, "Calculation of the Load Carrying Capacity of
Pipe Elbows With the Help of the Method of Approximation," Proceedings, 7th
SMiRT Conference, Chicago, IL, G/F5/8, pp. 373-380.
Brouard, d„ et al., 1981, "In-Plane and-Out-of-Plane Bending Tests on Carbon
Steel Pipe Bends," Proceedings, 6th SMiRT Conference, Paris, France, F3/2.
Calladine, C. R„ 1974, "Limit Analysis of Curved Tubes," Journal of Mechan-
ical Engineering Sciences, Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.
85-87.
Chain, K. L. C , et al., 1984, "Approximate Limit Loads for Pipe Bends With
End Constraints," Applied Solid Mechanics— /, eds., A. S. Tooth and J. T. Boyle,
Elsevier, 275-285.
Dhalla, A. K., 1980, "Plastic Collapse of a Piping Elbow: Effect of Finite
Element Convergence and Residual Stresses," Proceedings, 4th International
Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 11, The Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, London, U.K., pp. 243-249.
Dhalla, A. K„ 1987, "Collapse Characteristics of a Thin Walled Elbow: Valida-
tion of Analytical Procedure," ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOL-
OGY, Vol. 109, 394-401.
Goodall, I. W., 1978a, "Large Deformations in Plastically Deforming Curved
Tubes Subjected to In-Plane Bending," Research Division Report RD/B/N4312,
Central Electricity Generating Board, England.
Goodall, I. W„ 1978b, "Lower Bound Limit Analysis of Curved Tubes Loaded
by Combined Internal Pressure and In-Plane Bending Moment," Research Divi-
sion Report RD/B/N4360, Central Electricity Generating Board, England.
Hibbitt, H. D., and Leung, E. K„ 1985, "Verification and Application of an
Inelastic Analysis Methods for LMFBR Piping System,'' Welding Research Coun-

4.06*6 v// cil Bulletin, No. 308., pp. 1-28.

Hilsenkpf, P., et al., 1988, "Experimental Study of Behavior and Functional
Capability of Ferritic Steel Elbows and Austenitic Stainless Steel Thin-Walled
3.06*6-

2,06*6-
i J\
!
Elbows," International Journal of Pressure Vessels & Piping, Vol. 33, No. 2,
pp. 111-128.
Kitching, R., et al., 1979, "Limit Moment for a Smooth Pipe Bend Under In-
Plane Bending," International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, Vol. 21, pp. 7 3 1 -
1.06*6- • !« > ^ 738.
•i^*' ! Kussmaul, K., et al., 1987, "Investigation of the Plastic Behaviour of Pipe
0.06*0 ; t = 1 - " " i.—i—I—1__ Bends," ASME PVP-Vol. 127, pp. 55-66.
0.0632 0.0722 0.0967 0.1217 0.1475 0.1615 0.1998 0.2675 0.3827 0.4417
Marcal, P. V., 1967, "Elastic-Plastic Behavior of Pipe Bends With1 In-Plane
Bend Factor (h) Bending," Journal of Strain Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 84-90.
Rodabaugh, E. C , 1979, "Interpretive Report on Limit Load Analysis and
Fig. 12 Variation of analytical and finite element limit moments with Plastic Deformation of Piping Products," Welding Research Council Bulletin,
bend factor (h) No. 254, pp. 65-82.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1998, Vol. 1 2 0 / 4 1

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Sobel, L. H., and Newman. S. Z., 1977, "Instability Analysis of Elbows in the
Plastic Range," Proceedings, 4th SMiRT Conference, San Francisco, CA, Vol.
L, Paper No. L 3/2, pp. 1-11.
Sobel, L. H., and Newman. S. Z., 1980, "Comparison of Experimental and Simpli-
fied Analytical Results for In-Plane Plastic Bending and Buckling of an Elbow,"
ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 102, pp. 400-409.
Sobel, L. H., and Newman. S. Z., 1986, "Simplified, Detailed, and Isochronous
Analysis and Test Results for the In-Plane Elastic Plastic and Creep Behavior of
42 / Vol. 120, FEBRUARY 1998
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
an Elbow," ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 108, pp.
297-304.
Spence, J., and Findlay, G. E„ 1973, "Limit Loads for Pipe Bends Under In-
Plane Bending," Proceedings, 2nd, International Conference on Pressure Vessels
Technology, San Antonio, TX, Vol. 1-28, pp. 393-399.
Whatham, J. F., and Thompson, J. J., 1979, "The Bending and Pressurizing of
Pipe Bends With Flanged Tangents," Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 54,
pp. 17-28.