END EFFECTS ON ELBOWS SUBJECTED TO MOMENT LOADINGS
E. C. Rodabaugh S. K. lskandler S. E. Moore
Work funded by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offioe prf Nudear Regulatory Research Under Intelragmcy Agreements 4055175 and 4055275
March, 1978
Work Performed by
for OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 operated by DIECOR PORATION UNION CAR &I for the ENlERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION Contrrrlct No. W7405eng26
'
I
BATTEUE Columbus Laboratolries 505 King Avenue Columbus, Ohm 43201
~
ORNL/S~b2913/7 Dist. Category NRC5
END EFFECTS ON ELBOWS SUBJECTED TO MOMENT LOADINGS
E. C. Rodabaugh
S. K. Iskander S. E. Moore
Manuscript Completed: March, 1978 Date Published: March 1978
NOTICE This document contains information of a preliminary nature and was prepared primarily for internal use at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It is subject to revision or correction and therefore does not represent a final report
Work funded by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Under Interagency Agreements 4055175 and 4055275
/ l y c 5 . . . ...
. . . .. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 27 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. FLEXIBILITY FACTORS . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGNGUIDANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 13 OutOfPlane Moment . . .. . . . . . . 17 Flexibility Factors . . . . . . 29 10. . . . SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . ii ABSTRACT .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 14 7.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 30 Figures in Numerical Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Maximum Stresses . . . . . 11 6 . . . 10 OutofPlane Moment . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . STRESSES AT WELDS . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VALIDATION OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . : . v . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . FINITE ELEMENT MODEL . . . . 5263 FOREWORD . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOMENCLATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . STRESSES. . 21 Discussion of Recommendations . . . 20 Recommended Code Rules . . SUMMARY . 10 InPlaneMoment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . 8 5. . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . vi 1 1. . . . 6. . . . . 7 3. . . . 13 InPlaneMoment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8. 3251 Tables in Numerical Order .
W.S. C. 2.. 1975). and R. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sponsorship: J.'Theoretical and Experimental Stress Analyses of ORNL ThinShell CylindertoCylinder Model 2'. Moore. Gwaltney.5 0 2 1 (October 1975). 2 Results from the ORNL program are used by appropriate Codes' and Standards' groups in drafting new or improved design rules and criteria. Subcontract No. Bryson. Division of Engineering Technology (formerly Reactor Division) is the program manager. C. E. Battiste et al. R. "Stress Indices for ANSI Standard B16. Vol. O m . Rodabaugh and S.. E. The following reports have been issued under U. J. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. E.' ORNL5044 (July. 2913 in support of the ORNL Design Criteria for Piping and Nozzles Program being conducted for the U . Lynn of the Metallurgy and Materials Branch. Nuclear Division. ORNL5044 (July 1975). E. C. J. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Comparison of Stresses in a OneNozzletoFlatPlate Configuration and in a TwoNozzle Configuration with Theoretical Predictions". Gwaltney. E. Division of Reactor Safety Research. Bolt. R.ii FOREWORD The work reported here was performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and at BattelleColumbus Laboratories under Union Carbide Corporation. L. USNRC is the cognizant rsr engineer and S. . Callahan. Pressure Vessel Research Committee (PVRC) of the Welding Research Council and through the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Committees. Vol.11 SocketWelidng Fittings'. S . "Esperimental Stress Analyses of a Flat Plate with One Nozzle Attached. Bryson. 1. ORNL/TM4929 (August 1975)."Stress Analysis of Flat Plates with Attached Nozzles. "Stress Analyses of Flat: Plates with Attached Nozzles. K. Activities under the program are coordinated with other safety related piping and pressurevessel research through the Design Division. and S. P. The objectives of the ORNL program are to conduct integrated expermental and analytical stress analysis studies of piping system components and pressure vessel nozzles in order to confirm and/or improve the adequacy of structural design criteria and analytical methods used to assure the safe design of nuclear power plants. W. Moore of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
BattelleColumbus Laboratories (May. "Flanged Joints with Contact Outside the Bolt Circile ASME Part B Design Rules'. E. 1975'. W. C. M. 1975. E. J. 'FLANGE: ' A Computer Program for the Analysis of Flanged Joints with RingType Gaskets'. Moore and J."Design Criteria for Piping and Nozzles Program Quarterly Progress Report for AprilJune 1976'. Press. User's Guide for'bHFA: SteadyState Heat Flow Analysis of Tee Joints by the Finite Element Method': UCCND/CSD/INF60. E.'%lastic Stresses at Reinforced Nozzles in Spherical Shells with Pressure and Moment Loadin& ORNL/Sub/29134. 1975. ORNL/Sub/29131.. ERDA 7650.ASME Part A Flanges': ORNL/Sub/29133. S. Bryson. '* S . E. BattelleColumbus Laboratories (October. L. I'Appropriate Nominal Stresses for Use With ASME Code PressureLoading Stress Indices for Nozzles'. C. E. ' S. I E. 31. ASME 99. P. W.' ORNL5044 (December 1975). "Contributions of the ORNL Piping Program to Nuclear Piping Design Codes and Standards". Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (January 1976). "Stress Analyses of Flat Plates with Attached Nozzles. Vol. 1112. Rodabaugh. Robinson. BattelleColumbus Laboratories (September 1976). ERDA7650. Moore. Rodabaugh and S . "Summary and Accomplishments of the ORNL Program for Nuclear Piping Design Criteria". ORNL/NUREG/TM18 (June 1976). N. Holland. Nov. E. Moore. C. W. Proceedings of the Technology Information Meeting on Methods for Analyzing Piping Integrity. BattelleColumbus Laboratories (June 1976). W. E. Rodabaugh. Greenstreet. R. 'bimensional Control of Buttwelding Pipe Fittings for Nuclear Power Plant Class 1 Piping Systems': ORNL/ Sub/29135. L. 1112. (January 1976).'kvaluation of the Bolting and Flanges of ANSI B16. Proceedings of the The Technology Information Meeting on Methods for Analyzing Piping Integrity.'Stress Analyses of Perforated Flat Plates Under InPlane Loadings': ORNL/NUREG2 (August 1976). Moore. also in J. 1976). W. E. . E. C. Textor. F. Rodabaugh and S. Moore. Jr. Bryson. C.. Moore. Vessel Technol. Experimental Stress Analyses of a Flat Plate with Two Closely Spaced Nozzles of Equal Diameter Attached'. Rodabaugh and R. University of Tennessee (July 1976) . Zero Penetration'.'Progress Report for'the Design Criteria for Piping and Nozzles Program for the Two Quarterly Periods July 1 to Sept. Bryson and W. 30 and Oct. Gwaltney. F. 22430 (February 1977). Trans. and J. Bryson. E. BattelleColumbus Laboratories (December 1976). Nov. E. ORNL5035. R.5 Flanged Joints . S. Swinson. Callahan and J. Moore and J. Rodabaugh.iii . O'Hara.'Bxperimental Stress Analysis of the Attachment Region of a Hemispherical Shell with a Radially Attached Nozzle. 3. ORNL/Sub/29132. 1976). and S. 1 to Dec. ORNL/NUREG/TM107 (April 1977) . C. J. E.. C. Maxwell and R. W. ORNL/Sub/22034.  E.
J. Greenstreet. J. W. .9 Tees". K. '%lexibility Factors for Small (d/D < 1/3) Branch Connections with External Loadings!: ORNL/Sub/29136. BattelleColumbus Laboratories (March 1977). E. Element Method .A Parameter S F."Stresses in Reinforced NozzleCylinder Attachments Under Internal Pressure Loading Analyzed by the Finitet u d y ' : ORNL/NUREG4 (October. 925. E. J. Fowler and J. Vol. W. W. 1977). RVPPB024. Moore and J. Hayes and S. Bryson. K. W. presented at the ASME Energy Technology Conference and Exhibition. Bass. Rodabaugh and S. Moore. ORNL/NUREG/TM127 (August 1977). "Validation of the Finite Element Stress Analysis Computer Program CORTESSA for Analyzing Piping Tees and Pressure Vessel Nozzles". 'hxperimental Study of Plastic Responses of Pipe Elbows': ORNL/NUREG24 (February 1978). Bryson. 1. R. Paper 77PVP4. Bryson. W. W. Bass.'Stress Analysis of Cylindrical Pressure Vessels with Closely Spaced Nozzles by the FiniteElement Method. R. ASME (1977). Johnson. E. Moore. W. pp. Moore. S. Sept.%ser's Manual for the CORTES Graphics Package GRFP&. 1977. G. Houston. E.iv E. C. Tex. P. and S.. "Experimental Stress Analysis for Four 24in. Bryson.. B.'!Design Criteria f o r Piping and Nozzles Program Quarterly Progress Report for JulySeptember 1976': ORNL/NUREG/TM91 (February 1977). Pressure Vessels and Piping Computer Program Evaluation and Qualification. 1823. Tso et al. Stress Analysis of Vessels with Two Closely Spaced Nozzles Under Internal Pressure': O m / NUREG18/V1 (November 1977). L. ANSI Standard B16. and B. G.
. or 180°.V ABSTRACT End effects on elbows subjected to moment loading are investigated using the finite element program EPACA. Relatively simple but more accurate (than present Code) equations are developed and recommendation for an alternative Code method using these equations is presented. a 0 Parameters covered are R/r = 2 or 3 . A simple equation is given for estimating the maximum stresses at the welds. Data from EPACA on stresses at welds (elbowtopipe juncture) are presented. go". "long" straight pipe attached to the ends of the elbows. = 45".
M3 = Mt P = wall thickness variation coefficient R = elbow bend radius.G = shear modulus of elasticity 2 h = tR/r I = moment in inertia J = polar moment of inertia k = flexibility factor. kt = flexibility factor for inplane. M = M2. ki. respectively M1. outofplane. ko. respectively L = length of straight pipe. M t = inplane. see Figure 1 f . of an outofround elbow cross section E = modulus of elasticity . M1 = Mo. outofplane and torsional moments. respectively. M = moment Mi Y Mo. see Figure 1 r = elbow midwall cross section radius r = radius of flange.vi NOMENCLATURE C2 = stress index for moment loading used in Code Do = nominal outside diameter D D = maximum. max’ Dmin. M2  Mi. torsional moment. minimum and average diameter. M3 = Code definition of moments. see Figure 1.
y. 8 YY = rotations in directions x. see Figure 1 = coordinate angle. see Figure 1 x.vii NOMENCLATURE (Continued) S = n M / m t. see Figure 1 y = EI/GJ = 1. see Figure 1 Q 0 = arc angle of elbow. nominal stress 2 t = wall thickness tf = thickness of flange. y.95/h2 / 3 u maximum stress at weld (elbowtopipe juncture) shear stress coordinate angle. and z X = tR/[r (1v ) 2 2 1/2] v = Poisson's ratio u U = normal stress = maximum stress max U mi = maximum stress by interpolation of EPACA calculations cr 6 = stress intensity mc W = = 1.3 used herein 6 x' 6 y) 6 0 z = displacements in directions x. z Q = coordinates. y. and z .3 for Poisson's ratio = 0.ex. see Figure 1 T = ( I = .
P .
* .Ub Tb I (3Sm (1) Equation ( 1 ) involves stress indices C1' C2. where Sm is the Codetabulated terms.1 of the Code is: n '  1 ' 2 t+ P0D0 D C2+ E a AT1 I I + + 2 (1v) C3Eab laaTa . 1977 edition. The moments obtained from the piping system analysis are then used in Code equations and criteria to determine if a particular piping system is acceptable. The value of Sn is the sum of these four 3Sm. Nuclear Power Plant Components. this analysis gives the moment loads acting on each and every portion of the piping system. moment loading M in the second term and thermal gradient loadings in the last two terms. branch connections and elbows in each piping system. simplified methods of evaluation have been developed and are now included as part of the Code. (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). and C3.1 1. in NB3600 thereof for Class 1 piping systems. the Code Criteria* is that Sn An alternative procedure is provided for Sn > 3Sm. Section 111. moments and thermal gradients. Piping systems are characterized by (1) there are numerous piping systems in each nuclear power plant. For example. Flexibility factors are used in the analysis of the piping system. (3) every product in the piping system is subjected to a complex combination of loadings consisting of internal pressure. Equation (10) in NB3653. A s the result of the magnitude and complexity of piping systems stress evaluations. along with standardization of some of the products. requires an evaluation of the stresses in Class 1 piping systems and gives acceptance criteria in the form of allowable stresses or stress ranges. INTRODUCTION The ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. These simi plif ied methods use "flexibility factors" and "stress indices" to represent the structural characteristics of the complexshaped products used in the piping systems. pressure loading P0 in the first term. and ( 4 ) some of the complexshaped products used in piping systems are dimensionally standardized. (2) each piping system consists of a complex structure and there are usually a number of complexshaped products such as tees.
e. girth welds. flexibility factors and stress indices are such that overestimate of the stresses is anticipated. all of which provide additional potential failure locations compared to a piping system evaluated on a more accurate basis. we hereinafter refer to this theory as NEEtheory (No End Effects theory). Accordingly.2 allowable stress intensity for the material at the Codedefined temperature. The report is concerned with a type of piping product that is used in many piping systems. in a more subtle sense. 3 ) or ANSI Standard B16. For example. c .28 (elbows The flexibility factors and stress indices now given in the Code are based on a theory which ignores the effect of whatever may be welded to the ends of the elbow and. this increased length means that there is more pipe. for brevity. Such a design process is usually labeled as being "conservative" and it is 11 7 so from the viewpoint of evaluation of stresses. a conservative" evaluation of one aspect of design does not necessarily lead to increased reliability of piping systems. in a broader sense. a buttwelding elbow made in accordance with ANSI Standard B16. i.9 (elbows with R/r with R/r 2 ) . the effect of variations in moments through the elbows. and elbows in the piping system.65/h C2 = 1. the simplified procedures. However. At present. However. there is a need for more accurate evaluation rather than simply a conservative stress evaluation. failure to meet Equation ( 1 ) might lead the designer to increase the length of the piping system so as to increase its flexibility and thus decrease E. The present Code equations are: (2) k = 1.95/h213 (3) We seek herein to develop more accurate representations of flexibility factors and stress indices for such elbows.
are r e l a t i v e l y simple design r e l a  t i o n s h i p s which t h e d e s i g n e r can use e i t h e r by hand c a l c u l a t i o n o r by i n s e r t i o n i n t o h i s p i p i n g system a n a l y s i s computer program. Much of t h e t h e o r e t i c a l work on elbows i s based on energy methods i n which t h e d i s t o r t e d c r o s s s e c t i o n i s described by a Fourier s e r i e s of t h e form w = C a n s i n n @. o t h e r elbows ( g o o . o t h e r kinds of e n d . However. t h i s approach could be a p p l i e d t o o t h e r endconditions. i t i s u s u a l l y n o t f e a s i b l e t o run a f i n i t e . t h e energy method can T h a i l e r and Cheng (I6) developed elbows with end The v a l u e s of a t o t h e known energy of t h e a p p l i e d moment. v a l v e o r p r e s s u r e v e s s e l nozzle. However. subjected t o moment loading. e. i are n t h e n obtained by minimization of t h e energy and equating t h a t minimized energy Conceptually. numerous a u t h o r s I n 1 9 1 1 . f o r r o u t i n e d e s i g n of p i p i n g systems. Such simple design equations c a n be developed by conducting a parametric e v a l u a t i o n of a class of elbows/end . Von Karman") have expanded and r e f i n e d t h e e l a s t i c t h e o r y i n v a r i o u s ways. elbow. no published r e s u l t s etc.). Th. These t h e o r i e s a l l c o n t a i n t h e assumption t h a t a l l c r o s s Obviously.p l a n e moment.3 The e l a s t i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a curved p i p e . t h i s s e c t i o n s taken along t h e arc of t h e elbows deform i n d e n t i c a l l y .e l e m e n t a n a l y s i s of each What i s needed. o t h e r t h a n t h e paper by T h a i l e r and Cheng. General purpose f i n i t e element programs have been developed over t h e p a s t few y e a r s which have t h e c a p a b i l i t y of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e e l a s t i c c h a r a c t e r  i s t i c s of elbows i n c l u d i n g "endeffects". of t h i s kind of approach are known. such a n a n a l y s i s method a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e s p e c i f i c case of 1 8 0 ' constraints. assumption i s n o t v a l i d a t t h e end s e c t i o n s where t h e elbow i s a t t a c h e d t o p i p e o r t o a r e l a t i v e l y r i g i d s t r u c t u r e such a s a f l a n g e . Since then. nor i s t h e assumption v a l i d when two 90 g e t h e r i n an "S" 0 elbows a r e welded t o  shape and s u b j e c t e d t o i n .r e s t r a i n t s .p l a n e moment.g.15) of a curved p i p e s u b j e c t e d t o i n . i n c l u d i n g outofp l a n e bending and combinations of both inplane and outofplane bending with i n t e r n a l pressure. f o r r o u t i n e d e s i g n . a t t a c h e d p i p e l e g s . published a t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s (2. 45O. b e extended t o i n c l u d e endeffects by d e s c r i b i n g t h e v a r i a t i o n i n c r o s s s e c t i o n shape as a f u n c t i o n of l o c a t i o n along t h e elbow. where w i s t h e r a d i a l displacement of t h e cross s e c t i o n and (b i s t h e c o o r d i n a t e a n g l e around t h e circumference. I n p r i n c i p l e . This d i f f e r e n c e between a curved p i p e and a curved beam i s due t o d i s t o r t i o n s i n t h e plane of the cross section. may be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t t h a n i n d i c a t e d by beam theory.
using the finite element computer program EPACA(17). but this kind of end restraint is not the subject of this report. Markl ran a series of fatigue tests on elbows with the only variable being the elbow arc angle. 9 y on elbows to determine stresses and flexibility have mostly been conducted on 90' and 1 8 0 ' elbows with attached straight pipe. it is the purpose of this report to present the most significant results of that parametric study and to develop relatively simple design equations which account for end effects on elbows with arc angles of 4 5 O . 90°. of course. 90°. then select the most significant results and fit those results to relatively simple design equations. as shown by the finiteelement results presented herein. All elbows were welded to straight pipes * There is design guidance for elbows with flanges attached directly to one or both ends of the elbow. these contain only a few specific cases and do not provide a basis for development of simple design guidance. we would not expect much endeffects with respect to maximum stresses and flexibility factors in these tests. There are at least two papers which contain results of studies on 1 9 ) . While the design guidance does not* include endeffects of the type considered herein.. Design guidance for elbows given in industrial piping codes and in the ASME Nuclear Power Plant Components Code for Class 2 and 3 piping is based on fatigue tests reported by Mark1(24). i. References (18) and ( However. . with R/r = 2 or 3 . This. with straight pipe attached to the elbow ends. Such a parametric study was conducted. elbows using finiteelement analysis. is not the total range of the endeffects problem but is deemed to cover a major application area. and with a "long" straight pipe attached to both ends of the elbow. Tests (" lo' 2125) That study was conducted with a special type of finite element. and 15'. 4 5 O . the basic test data given by Markl includes a quite direct indication of end effects of the type considered herein. A recent paper by Ohtsubo and Watanabe (20) gives the results of a parametric study of 90' elbows with R/r = 2 and 3. and 180°. I i While. 135'.4 effects. 60°. 8 0 ' The arc angles tested were 1 (a Ubend) . 75O.e. ring elements. c1 0 . the test results did show that stresses and flexibility factors were somewhat less than predicted by the usual "noendeffects" theories.
the welds for CYo = 1 5 ' were.63 of 9 0 ' 11 11 Elbow 90 75 60 45 30 15 i Pipetoelbow weld II 11 I Markl observed that for and larger. .70 1. His results for this series of tests were: CY 0' deg . 6 0 ° . and Sn is the nominal stress. and that the ifactor increased for small CY He attributed this to the interaction between the two closely spaced welds 0 . i is the fatigueeffective stress intensification factor. Markl correlated his tests by the equation S f = i Sn.10 1. and 45O elbows. Markl noted that for arc lengths of 3 0 ' and 15O.46 CYo 2.95 1.36 1. indeed. It is the arc angle effect which is the main aspect of this report. not in the body of the elbow as expected by theory. However. the ifactor was about constant and about equal to that anticipated by noendeffects theory.53 1.39 1.02 2. the ifactor decreased in a consistent manner.32 1.45 1.only about three wallthicknesses apart. ~ ifactor InPlane OutofPlane ~ ~ ~ Fatigue Failure Location ~~ ~ ~ 180 135 2.28 1. the failures occurred at the welds.29 1.90 1.5 with pipe length of about 5 times the elbow/pipe cross section radius.07 1. where S f is the fatigueeffective stress. for 75O.52 1. and. arbitrarily taken as unity for a typical girth butt weld in straight pipe.
Chapter 8 contains a discussion of stresses at the girth butt welds between straight pipe and elbows.6 2. both in the circumferential and longitudinal directions. Chapter 6 contains a discussion of how the flexibility factors were derived from the finiteelement (FE) calculations and includes tables of calculated flexibility factors. Chapter 4 discusses the validation of the models and computer program for the specific application herein. SCOPE This report is concerned with the development of more accurate 3 representations of the flexibility factors and stress indices for butt welding elbows with R/r of 2 or 3 and with "long" straight pipe attached to both ends of the elbow. These are used in Chapter 7 to develop relatively simple but more accurate equations for flexibility factors. Chapter 5 also includes tables of maximum stresses (in the form of stress indices). a parametric study was conducted using the finite element computer program EPACA (17) . \ . To accomplish this. Chapter 3 contains a brief description of the finite element models. Chapter 7 discusses the development of relatively simple but more accurate equations for stress indices and flexibility factors and contains recommendations for an addition to the Code to implement these new equations. these are used in Chapter 7 to develop relatively simple but more accurate equations forstress indices. Stresses at welds are also tabulated in Chapter 5 and discussed further in Chapter 8. Chapter 5 contains examples of detailed stress distributions.
dashed All models = 4 5 ' and 1 8 0 ' . The longitudinal spacing of the elements is indicated by the entries under "ROWS of Elements'' . solid lines. in Table 1 Boundary conditions consisted of complete fixity of the righthand end of the models. The lefthand end was loaded at the node points to obtain the i or outofplane moment. symmetry conditions are such that only in Table 1 onehalf of the assembly (@from 90 to +90 degrees) was modeled. Q 0 0 = 90°. For inplane moment loading. . * Figures and Tables are included in numerical order following the text of the report. consist of an elbow with pipe attached to both ends and ring flanges attached The reference surface radius r is 10 inches for all models. MO static equivalent of inplane moment M . given in Table 1. FINITE ELEMENT MODELS The The general arrangement of the models is shown in Figure : 1 ' r dimensions of all models are shown in Table l Figure 1. The wall thickness t. The numbers of circumferential elements used in the models are shown .7 3. is for both the elbow and attached pipes. illustrates a model with CY lines indicate the arrangement for models with to the pipe ends.
The aim was to use as few elements as possible and still obtain good results.75 inch f ' Number of Circ.214 2. the aspect ratio corresponding to the selected node spacings ranges from 1. accordingly closer circumferential spacing was used for small A . 0 .75 inch 24 ( 1 2 in the halfmodel) 9 7 (each leg) . both in the longitudinal and circumferential direction. These decisions were. less so for large A. which are essentially those of the test assembly. were as follows: 8 A R/r a 0 0. The parameters of the model. VALIDATION OF FINITE ELEMENT MODEL Before conducting the parametric study using EPACA. it was necessary to decide upon two details of the models: (a) Appropriate straight pipe lengths (L in Figure 1). It was desirable to ? make L sufficient so that the flanges/boundary conditions would not significantly affect the calculated stresses near or in the elbows. ( b ) Element spacing. The rate of change of stress with a was expected to be slow. of course. Such models represent actual piping systems where the pipe is long enough to to be (insofar as elbow characteristics are concerned) infinite in length.390 inch 2 1 inch L tf 2.80 90 degrees R t 15 inch 0. influenced by cost considerations. The NEEtheory indicated that the rate o f change of stress with 0 is quite rapid for small A. In order to check out the decisions. Elements Rows of elements Elbows Pipes 10.5 to 4 .8 4. longitudinal spacing was selected so that the ratio of lengthtowidth of the elements was not excessive. an analysis was made of an elbow which was tested with inplane moment loading at ORNL(28).
. 01 . = 45 0 = 45' from the FEtheory (solid lines) compare with the experimentallydetermined stresses ci . Figure 2 also shows calculated stresses from the NEEtheory (dashed It can be seen that the agreement with test data is not as good as The test data versus FEtheory comparison served to check out boundary it is for the FEtheory (solid lines). condition assumptions and element spacing as well as satisfactory performance of the EPACA computer program for this specific application. It is apparent that the agreement Similar good agreement was obtained between test and FEtheory is very good. = constant sections.9 Figure 2 showshow the calculated stresses at a obtained from strain gages at at other lines).
3. It should be noted that large values of A also involve heavywall cross sections. 1 9 for A = 0. Figure 5 illustrates the substantial reduction in maximum stress in the 45' elbow due to the endeffects of the attached pipe.25 S versus 12. However. for large values of A . .75 and r/t is 2. figures also show the stresses obtained from the NEEtheory.e. toward the crotch of the elbow. However. Accord ingly. Figure 5 shows the variation of stress along the @ = constant line containing the maximum calculated stress. 0.e. i. This may be due to the assumption in the NEEtheory that R/r >> 1. r/t is 4 . It can be seen that the stress varies rapidly with @ in the region of peak stresses whereas the circumferential element spacing is . STRESSES InPlane Moment The maximum calculated stresses are summarized in Table 2.50. mi For X 7 0. the FEtheory predicts higher maximum stresses than the NEEtheory.for example see Reference ( 8 ) . 5 at the cross section ct = \ c The These variation in stress as a function of the circumferential location angle @ for 3 5 ' is shown in Figures 3 and 4 . = 4S0 show large For A decreases in maximum stresses as compared to NEEtheory.03 Sn) and shifts n the stress pattern slightly toward the @ = 90 location. surface and location. loo. the stress is in the circumferential direction on the inside Figure 5 also surface.30. and 6 along @ = 5'.10 5. the FEtheory may not have picked up the maximum stress.10 for both X = 1. These data are for Models 4 .00 and 1. Shell theory would not be expected to give accurate evaluations for these heavywall cross sections. 5. It can be seen in Figures 3 and 4 that the FEtheory gives lower maximum stresses than the NEEtheory (10. Model No. This suggests that the NEEtheory may overpredict maximum stresses by about lo%. quite independent of endeffects. it may be noted that models with a. it can be seen in Table 3 that the FEtheory and NEE* theory agree (except for the slight shift in @ > as to the maximum stress direction. To adjust for this aspect. interpolations were made between elements in the vicinity to obtain (J These interpolated stresses are summarized in Table 3. i. . the change in stress magnitude with change in a from 90" to 180' is relatively small and 0 the maximum stresses for ct 0 = 180' remain significantly below the NEEtheory.
.
.
: I
11
illustrates the small difference in maximum stress between a 90'
1 8 0 '
elbow and a
elbow, suggesting that the NEEtheory overpredicts maximum stress (for quite independent of end effects. Figure 6 is analogous to Figure 5, except it is for Models 22, 23,
0
small A),
and 24. For these models, the maximum stresses occur on the @ = 81 line (the nearest element to @ = 90 ) and are in the longitudinal direction on the
0
I t should be recalled that these models involve a very heavy8 1 ' is essentially wall cross section; i.e. r/t = 2.10. The location @ = By thinwallshell aligned with the maximum compressive nominal stress, a n ' 2 theory, an = M/(m t ) , hence an/Sn = 1.0. However, if we simply adjust 0n by
outside surface. the ratio of the outside radius to the mean radius, we obtain Un/Sn = 1.0 x (12.385/10) = 1.2385. Applying this same adjustment to the NEEtheory leads to the dashed line shown in Figure 6 . With this adjustment, the NEEtheory agrees with the FEtheory as to the direction, surface and location of the maxi
9 0 ' . mum stress; i.e. it is a longitudinal stress on the outside surface at @ = 
In real piping systems, there will ordinarily be a girth butt weld at the juncture of the elbow with the pipe. For some design work, It may be useful1
.
to know the maximum stress at these welds so that they can be combined with other stress factors for the welds. Review of the detailed calculated results indicates that the maximum stress at the weld essentially occurs along the same @line containing the maximum calculated stress. Table 4 summarizes the stresses at the welds along the $line containing the maximum calculated stress. This table will be discussed further in Chapter 8. OutofPlane Moment The maximum calculated stresses are summarized in Table 5. for Model 5 at the cross section
ci
The
variation in stress as a function of the circumferential location angle 0
= 35'
is shown in Figures 7 and 8. These
figures also show the stresses obtained from the NEEtheory. For outofplane moment, the results obtained from the NEEtheory are a function of c1 because the outofplane moment applied to one end of the elbow changes to a torsional moment at the opposite end of the elbow. At is cos 35
0
ci
= 35O,
_the
outofplane moment
times the applied outofplane moment.
12 It can be seen in Figures 7 and 8 that the FEtheory gives lower maximum stresses than the NEEtheory (5.98 S stress pattern.
A s for inplane moment, interpolations were made between elements in
n
versus 7.98 S ) and shifts the n
the vicinity of the element with the maximum calculated stress to obtain estimates of the maximum stress, u in Table 6 . Table 5 shows changes in signs of the maximum stress and changes of +location. However, as can be seen in Figure 7, for circumferential stresses, there are two locations of high inside surface stresses; one at about mi These interpolated stresses are summarized
+
=
200
0
where the stress is tension and one at about 4 = 340°, where the stress is compression. The FEtheory results waver between these two locations for models with a0
= 4 5 O , 90°,
or 1 8 0 ' .
Figures 9, 10, and 11 show the variation in circumferential stress as a function of longitudinal location in models 4, 5, and 6 , respectively. These data are along the +lines containing the maximum calculated stress; i.e. along
( I =
205O, 335O, and 2 0 5 ' For 90'
for Models 4, 5, and 6 , respectively. The NEE
theory is also shown in these figures. elbows, as indicated in Figure 10, there is an "inverse" end
=
effect in that the circumferential stress at a sign of the outofplane moment. mately for small A .
a = 2 2 . 5 '
a
0
= 90
0
is not zero; as would
=
be indicated by the NEEtheory. For 180° elbows, there is a reversal in the This leads to an antisymmetry about a 900 which was accurately reflected by the FEtheory for large A but only approxiFor example, in Model 6 the stress was the same magnitude, opposite sign, to four significant figures but for Model 24 the stress at 6.5778 whereas the stress at a = 157.50 was 5.823Sn. This pren sumably reflects the fact that the two sets of endconditions are not entirely was
+
equivalent.
13 6. FLEXIBILITY FACTORS InPlane Moment To o b t a i n f l e x i b i l i t y f a c t o r s f o r t h e elbows, one f i r s t needs t o o b t a i n displacements and r o t a t i o n s of one end of t h e model with r e s p e c t t o t h e o t h e r end.
As i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 1, one end of t h e model i s "fixed" so we
can o b t a i n t h e needed i n f o r m a t i o n d i r e c t l y from t h e displacements and r o t a t i o n s
a t t h e "loadedend" f l a n g e node p o i n t s .
F i g u r e 12 shows t h e x  d i r e c t i o n ( s e e F i g u r e 1 ) displacements, Model 5, p l o t t e d a g a i n s t s i n g . v a l u e s of 6
X 6X'
for
I f t h e f l a n g e r o t a t e d as a r i g i d body, t h e n t h e
It can be seen i n Figure 12 t h a t
would f a l l i n a s t r a i g h t l i n e .
t h i s i s almost t h e c a s e ; t h e s l i g h t bowing of t h e f l a n g e i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t with respect t o f l e x i b i l i t y f a c t o r s . The average 6x i s 3.746 x by t a k i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e between d i f f e r e n c e by 2 r ; e.g. ( a t Sn = 1000 p s i ) . of t h e 0
Z
inches.
The r o t a t i o n and @ = , + g o
0
Q2
can be obtained dividing t h a t
a t @ = 90'
Q2
, and
f o r Model 5 ,
= (.0680

.0050)/20 = 3.15 x
lom3 r a d i a n s
A check of t h i s r o t a t i o n can be made a g a i n s t t h e average
loaded f l a n g e s ; t h e s e v a r y from 2.81
r o t a t i o n s of t h e nodes on t h e
x
t o 3.52 x
r a d i a n s , with an average of 3.15 x 10
3
radian.
(The
.
v a r i a t i o n i n 8, i s a n o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e loaded f l a n g e i s n o t a c t i n g l i k e
a r i g i d body.)
The o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t displacement, f o r i n  p l a n e moments, i s
t h i s i s obtained from t h e average of t h e 6 displacements of t h e nodes on Y' Y t h e ''loaded" f l a n g e . The remaining displacement , 6 , and two r o t a t i o n s , 8 and
X
6
should b e z e r o from symmetry c o n d i t i o n s .
The FE'theory r e s u l t s a r e s a t i s 
f a c t o r y i n t h i s r e s p e c t i n t h a t , while n o t z e r o , t h e y a r e much s m a l l e r t h a n t h e significant displacement/rotations. For example, f o r Model 5
= 2.667 x (0)
(0)
6
6
X
= 3.746
x l o ' *
Y
= 1.890 x 10
1
(0)
@Z
= 2.490 x = 3.153 x
6 z = 1.683 x
loe3
However, f o r t h i s example, we n o t e t h a t 8 (which should be z e r o ) ' i s a b o u t a x Y of Bz; i n d i c a t i n g t h a t small e r r o r s a r e p r e s e n t i n t h e FEtheory r e s u l t s . Table
7 summarizes t h e average v a l u e s of t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i s p l a c e m e n t s / r o t a t i o n s 6x,
6
Y
and
Q2.
I n o r d e r t o compare t h e f l e x i b i l i t y of t h e elbows with t h a t obtained
from NEEtheory, we assume t h a t t h e f l e x i b i l i t y i s uniform throughout t h e elbow;
14 the significance of this assumption will become apparent in the following discussion. the three flexibility factors k k and kZ xy yy are slightly different from each other. However. of the elbow as a function of a and include that function as a part of the integration process. The NEEtheory. flexibility factors can be calculated using the equations shown in Table 8. X ' for Model 5 plotted X If the flange rotated as a rigid body. The resulting flexibility factors are shown in Table 7. which assumes that the flexibility of the elbow is uniform over its length. three x ' y' different flexibility factors emerge. when endeffects are included. With these assumptions. It can be seen in Figure 13 that this is almost * The displacement flexibility factors would be significant only where the elbow or elbows constitute a major portion of the entire piping system. e.g. 0 = ML/EI. then these values of 6 would fall in straight lines. For most piping systems. Usually. To obtain an "exact" result. we obtain the appropriate data from the displacements and rotations at the "loaded end" flange node points. it doesn't make any difference how the flexibility varies through the elbow because each slice of the elbow contributes equally to the total rotation. However. da. the rotational flexibility factor k is of primary importance I t can be seen in Table 7 that k derived from FEtheory z f o l l o w s a c o n s i s t e n t pattern. 6 against cos@. Figure 13 shows the xdirections (see Figure 1) displacements. for displacements. it i s always l e s s than kv obtained from the NEEtheory but approaches the NEEtheory k as . We also assume that the flanges act as rigid bodies and that the pipe legs contribute to the overall displacement by the nominal relationships. a increases from 4 5 O to 180° z *. As shown in Table 7. X Y . For kZ. . the elbows are attached to pipe with lengths significantly greater than Ra 0' in which case the local displacements 6 and 6 are insignificant. leads to a single flexibility factor for 6 6 and e Z . This is a refinement which would lead to very complex design procedures and is not deemed to be worth the added complexity. each slice of the elbow contributes differently to the overall displacements. z OutofPlane Moment As for inplane moments. we would need to know the flexibility of each slice. which indicates the rotation of one end of the elbow with respect to the other end.
while not zero. a pure outofplane moment exists only in the loaded pipe and at a = 0 of the elbow. With these assumptions. ex and 8 Y ' In order to compare the flexibility of the elbows with that obtained from NEEtheory we assume.800 x radian. The FEtheory x ' Y Z is satisfactory in this respect in that. with an average of 1.) radian. that: flexibility is uniformly distributed throughout elbow.955 x (0) 1.800 x los3 = 6. for a > 0 there is a combination of outofplane and torsional moment acting on the elbow. however there is some slight bowing of the flange. flanges act as rigid bodies pipe legs displace/rotate by the nominal relationships. 6 6 and 8 should be zero.01797)/20 = 1. .224 x (0) (0) = 9.950 x 6 = 4.g.(I1797 + 0. e. We assume that the incremental rotation for an elbow section under torsional moment is given by the nominal relationship: de = MtRda/GJ.405 x Y 6 = Z = 1.132 x 101 Table 9 summarizes the average values of the significant displacements/rotations of b2..27 x 10 to 2. A n check of this rotation can be made against the average of the 8 rotations of 3 y the nodes on the "loaded" flange. they are much smaller than the significant displacements/rotations of 6 2 ' (The variation in 8 ex and 8 Y ' For example. at @ = 0 and @ = 1 = 1000 psi). For outofplane bending. For outofplane moment. where G = shear modulus and J = polar moment of 3 inertia = 2nr t.797 x radians (at S is Y another indication that the loaded flange is not acting as a rigid body. for Model 5: 6X = 9. flexibility factors can be calculated using the equations shown in Table 10. these vary from 1. as for inplane bending.24 x loe3 = (.15 the case. The rotation 8 can be obtained by taking the difference between 6 Y X 8 0 ' and dividing that difference by 2r. however. . for Model 5.
Y 8 0 ' ) A s shown in Table 9. For outofplane moment we have two such rotational flexibility In subsequent evaluation in Chapter 8. the endeffects of the straight . kx and k Y average of k and k I t may be noted that. a value of k . For most piping systems. for a = 45 . by FEtheory the value of 0 is small and essentially negligible. These differences presumably reflect 0 the endeffects plus variation of the moment from M at a = 0 to M 0 coscl and M t sina for a > 0. the X Y z values of k and k do not increase monotonically as a increases. A s can Y be seen in Table 9. the rotational flexibility is of primary importance. unlike k for inplane moment. the endeffects of the attached pipe are relatively small but Mo is converted to M t at a = 90' and to Mo 1800 . under the assumptions made.16 for a = 1 8 0 ' cannot be 0 Y obtained because. ( are slightly different from each other. pipe are large but M 0 persists throughout the elbow while for at a = clo = M O O . the three flexibility factors (two for a = 1 0 A s indicated in Table 10. . . There are 0 X Y 0 apparently balancing influences. we will use the factors. the value of 8 is zero.
17 7. with linear interpolation labeled C2 = 1. I = section modulus of the elbow cross section and % = [M. DESIGN GUIDANCE The parametric study made using EPACA provides a basis for introducing relatively simple but more accurate design procedures than now in the Code. The equa tion C = 1.5) is at present a part of NB3600 2 of the Code.95/h2l3 (but not less than 1. The line . elbows are not significantly reduced by the endeffects of the attached pipe.65/h.43 are for models with r/t = 2. However. It is essentially the same for r/t > 10.1.95 and 1. 2 For r/t = 2. It is used to calculate stresses by the equation: 0 = c2 2 D S M where D = outside diameter of the elbow cross section. = L 1.95/11~/~. This essentially compensates for the stresses that are above the line C2 = 1. a significant reduction in maximum stress occurs. for 45 elbows. the ratio of (D0 / 2 1 ) / (lhr t) is 1.95/h2/3 . However.1. Maximum Stresses InPlane Moment Figure 14 shows maximum stresses from Table 3 as a function of the parameter h. . 3 It should be noted that Sn = M/mLt hence the line represented by C2 = 1. quite independent of any end effects. along with the straight line labeled C . These must be described as "relatively" simple because they are necessarily more complex than the present method of the Code where C2 = 1.95/h2l3 is not precisely the same as the Code equation ( 4 ) herein. + M 0 1 0 2 f Figure 14 may be con sidered as investigating the accuracy of equation ( 4 ) for the particular condition where M 0 = Mt = 0.171.75/h on c1 Figure 14 indicates that maximum stresses for 90' and 1 8 0 ' 0 0 permitted for c1 0 between 4 5 ' and 90'.95/h 2/3 and k = 1.56 0 is recommended for 45 elbows. the points plotted at h = 0.
5).18 E x t r a p o l a t i o n of t h e d a t a would i n d i c a t e t h a t elbows w i t h a. along w i t h t h e FE theory d a t a p o i n t s . 0 = 180". At s m a l l v a l u e s of a a 0 ' Ref. F i g u r e 1 5 a l s o shows curves taken from ReferReference (27) states t h a t t h e d a t a on which t h e i r curves are based w e r e obtained from a g e n e r a l threedimensional t h i n s h e l l f i n i t e element program. a g r e e q u i t e w e l l w i t h Ref. (27) curves go t o z e r o . hence. o u r d e s i g n e q u a t i o n s encompass t h e maximum stress i n any d i r e c t i o n . w h i l e n o t a t e x a c t l y t h e s a m e hvalue as Ref. hence t h e t h e o r e t i c a l stress index i s n o t less t h a n 1. only inplane moments. (27) covers f i r m t h e r e s u l t s obtained from t h e FEE t h e o r y parametric study. t h e design e q u a t i o n s a r e simply t h e NEE theory. ence (27). (27) curves which are above t h e d e s i g n e q u a t i o n s . (27) curves except a t a It should be r e c a l l e d t h a t f o r a. A s a f u r t h e r source of confirmatory d a t a . However.0 even f o r v e r y s m a l l ao. b u t C2 s h a l l n o t b e less than = 30' and n o t less t h a n 1. for a 0 < 45O W e do n o t have any FEtheory 0 < 45 0 b u t w e do have a t h e o r e t i c a l a i m p o i n t .0 f o r any ao. o u r d e s i g n e q u a t i o n s f o r a 0 < 30" c o n t a i n a judgemental margin f o r pos s i b l e adverse e f f e c t s of two closelyspaced g i r t h b u t t welds ( s e e d i s c u s s i o n on P. Figure 1 5 shows examples of t h e proposed design e q u a t i o n s . (27). i t i s recommended t h a t f o r inplane bending: a c2 = 1 . Also. S p e c i f i c a l l y . Except a t l a r g e v a l u e s of a 0 ' t h e d a t a from Ref. which g i v e s r a t i o s of t h e maximum c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l stress t o t h e nominal stress. (27) theory. (27) serves t o conRef. w e doubt t h e v a l i d i t y of t h o s e p o r t i o n s of Ref. t h e curves shown i n F i g u r e 1 5 are from F i g u r e 3 of Ref. could be assigned s t i l l lower stress i n d i c e s . and f o r s m a l l 0 ' t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l stress i s l a r g e r t h a n t h e c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l stress. I n summary. 0 f o r a 0 Linear i n t e r p o l a t i o n w i t h a interpolated for a 0 0 i s t o be used. That t h e maximum stress i n 180" elbows i s g r e a t e r t h a n o b t a i n e d from NEE theory i s deemed t o be i m p l a u s i b l e . we have reviewed . as they should.75/h'56 90" = 45" for a = 0 0 C2 = 1 . The FEtheory d a t a p o i n t s . C2 = 1 . 0 a t a 0 = 0. = 180". It i i s recommended t h a t t h i s e x t r a p o l a t i o n be permitted t o a = 30'. c2 = 1. 9 5 / 1 1 ~ / ~f o r .
087. the difference between D /21 and l/rr t compensates for. the latter is the condition for which we have calculated results. We have not covered the case where Mo/Mt < 1. for a = 45O.values shown in Figure 16 at h = 0. for this case 0 M 0. the 0 endeffects of the straight pipe are relatively large but M 0 persists through the elbow while for a 0 = 1800 the endeffects of the straight pipe are relat tively small but M 0 is converted to M at a = 900 and to M 0 at a = 1 8 0 ' . * 2 A s discussed for inplane bending. . subjected to a unit value of M t on one end. For a given value of M and a M is simply n 0 0 0 ' t However.19 the results given by Ohtsubo and W a t a n a b e " ' ) . outofplane bending but only 9 / which covers boJh inplane and The results from Ref.95/11~/~.0.95 and 1?43. 0 ' elbows. (20) also are in reasonably good agreement with the results of the FEE theory parametric study. = = 1. Figure 16 indicates that for all a 0 ' the maximum stress is signifi cantly less* than indicated by Equation ( 4 ) . along with the straight line labeled C2 = 1.71/h'~~ * results. can exist for elbows with a < 9 0 "elbow" with a = 5O.0. there could be an 0 ' . normalized to S M 0 sin a 0 . M The common assumption is that the shear stress in an elbow due to Mt is just the same as in straight pipe. However. this relationship A s an extreme example.Figure 16 may be considered as investigating the accuracy of Equation (4) for the particular condition where M function of a 0 = 0. i Figure 16 indicates that there are relatively small differences as a . These results represent stresses due to combinations of M0 and Mt. There are apparently balancing effects. OutofPlane or Torsional Moments Figure 16 shows maximum stresses from Table 6 as a function of the parameter h. our calculations only cover those conditions where 2 Mo/Mt 1. The straight dashed line shown is deemed appropriate to represent these in Figure 16 labeled C2 = 1.e.0. = M /rr t. i. We wish to cover loadings where M /M is less than unity t 0 o t as well as those where Mo/Mt is equal to or greater than unity.
M 21 t (6) We have no evidence. that Equation ( 6 ) is valid but it seems almost certain that it is. 0 and by the correlation equation of Figure 16.00 . The line in Figure 17 labeled k = 1. C2 = 1. flexibility factor for small (< labeled k = 'L The line labeled k = 1. Recalling that the flexibility factors represent an integration over the arc length. from Table 7 plotted against the parameter h.(5) can be written D 0 o = 1. from the present work. Figure 16 2 0 directly indicates'the accuracy of Equation ( 7) where M Equation ( 7) to overestimate stresses where M 0 > Mt. Equation .65/h is the NEEtheory = 1 . The finite element results indicate that flexibility factors for a = 180" are about the same as for 90" elbows. Possibly the FEtheory loses its accuracy for large values of ct 0 because more elements are involved. Flexibility Factors InPlane Moment Figyre 17 shows the rotational flexibility factors.10h represents the flexibility factors for 45". then we would expect t and M such that M t > Mo. the maximum stress can be calculated by the equation: OO = M c2 21 DO 0 where M 0 is the outofplane moment at = ' a 0 and C = 1. = M /Tr t. we would expect maximum values of n t o /Sn to be equal to or less than obtained in the Finite Element calculations mi for Mo/M > 1 . we would expect 180° bends to have flexibility factors higher than 90" elbows and approaching the factors given by NEEtheory. Accordingly. that if we apply to an elbow a combination of M and normalized the stress to S '2 If 0 so. and that end effects occupy a smaller portion of the arc length in 90" elbows than in 180" bends. This .20 Because the Code limits stress intensities and stress intensity is equal to 2. k3.r.3/h represents the flexibility factors for a = 90".71/h'~~.71/h' 53 t . we would expect < Mt. 0 ) values of h. The line in Figure 17 ct 0 1.
30/h k = 1.10/h k = 1.65/h. our best judgement is that the flexibility factors for 180" bends should be the same as given by NEEtheory. OutofPlane Moment and Torsional Moment Figure 19 shows the average of the rotational flexibility factors.25/h represents an 0 average value for an outofplane flexibility factor.21. at this time. Mo = M1. . = 45" for a. ( 2 7 ) . Accordingly. For this purpose. Mi = M2. 0 for any Line r interpolation is to be used. and Mt = M3.e. It is recommended Noting that the values of flexibility factors shown in Table 9 were derived using de = M Rda/GJ. a = 90" for a . along with the FEtheory data points. X Y A s remarked earlier. The recommended addition reads as follows: . but k shall not be less than 1 a.65/h for . a 2 180" for .00/h . Recommended Code Rules The preceding recommendations are summarized in the form of a recommended addition to footnote 8 to Table NB3683. it is recommended that: k = 1. i. 0 Figure 18 shows examples of the proposed design equations. The dashed line labeled ko = 1. k that this be used for outofplane moments.21. along with the straight line labeled k = 1. flexibility factors for outofplane moment are not a monotonic function of a 0 . it is appropriate to assign a flexibility of 1. ( k + k )/2.21 aspect needs further checking but. = 0 k = 1. Figure 18 also shows curves taken from Reference The correlations are good except at . we change to the moment definitions of footnote 5 to Table NB3683.00 t for torsional moments. a = 180". from Table 9.
for butt welding elbows per ANSI B16.9. In conducting the p3ping system analysis (NB3672.0 for uo 0 between a Linear interpolation with a0 shall be used for . the limits of Equations ( 9 ) through (14) may be checked by replacing those terms containing M i or M? with terms given in (c) and ( d ) . but not less than 1. the flexibility factors for elbows used in the analysis are : k 1 = 1.65/h for a 0 > 1 8 0 ' 90' kl = 1. shall not be less than 1.22 Alternatively. I k2 k where 3 = = 1.25/h.10/h for . or ANSI B16. 180° and O o .0 1.28.k. but. MSS SP87.0 flexibility factor for moment M 1 flexibility factor for moment M2 k 1 = = k2 k3 a 0 = flexibility factor for moment = M3 arc angle (degrees) of the elbow 2 h = tR/r 9 ) with: Replace B2Mi in Equation ( . provided: 1 the elbows are welded on both ends to straight pipes of the same nominal thickness a s the elbow and the length of those straight pipes is not less than two times the nominal outside diameter of the elbow.6).30/h for a.0. a = = 45" kl = 1. = kl = 1.
and (12) apply t o t h e moment components M1' M2' and M 3' .23 Replace C2Mi o r C2M2 i n Equations (10) through ( 1 4 ) with: (d) (e) Definitions: = 1.0.95/h2l3 f o r a c22 0  > 90' c~~ = 1. 0 Linear i n t e r p o l a t i o n w i t h a s h a l l be used. = 3 0 ' and n o t less than '23 = 1 .0 f o r any a 0 .75/h'56 for a = 0 0 = 45' C22 = 1. 2 h = tR/r a 0 = arc a n g l e (degrees) of elbow . ( l l ) . The d e f i n i t i o n s of types of loadings given under Equations ( 9 ) . b u t C22 s h a l l 0 n o t be less t h a n i n t e r p o l a t e d f o r a 1. 7 1 / h * ~ ~but . n o t l e s s t h a n 1. .0 f o r a.
simple approximation. Calculations were made using EPACA for M2 (inplane moment. + 1’ M2’ and M might be applied to the elbow. For M2 = 0. by itself. At this bound. Mi). comment. the expression in (d) reverts back to the calculated results for the = M = 0. in general.’ from which we obtained the C23 index. 1 (a=O) . the stress due to M 2 Accordingly. We could do this by simply adding the 3 maximum stress due to M 2 to the maximum stress due to M1 and M 3’ However. at which location the stress due to M 2 1 (Mo) is about zero and. we use the statistical mean of the two maximum stresses as a occurs at 1 is about zero. it is apparent that the expression in (d) reverts back to the calculated results for that special case where M2 = 0.24 Discussion of Recommendations The limitation in (a) simply reflects the conditions under which the calculations were made. at which location (9 = 20 ) . The maximum 1’ stress due to M (Mi) occurs at 4 2 0. the maximum stress due to M does not occur at the same location as 2 that due to M An example of this is shown in Figures 3 and 7. . At large values of h. the elbow stresses are the same as stresses in equivalent straight pipe. we have a longitudinal stress given 2 2 112 and a shear stress given by T = (Do/41)M3. The by u = (Do/21)(M1 + M2) expression in (d) is intended to reflect maximum stress intensities due to . developed. the expression in (d) can be written: The flexibility factors in (b) and stress indices in (e) are a straightforward presentation of the recommendations previously Calculation of stresses due to combined moments in (d) merits some special case where M which is equivalent to: 2 ‘23 Ml(a=O) [cos a 2 Noting that cos a + 2 1/2 sin a] 2 sin a = 1.It is believed that this is conservative but a more rigorous check should be made. 1 3 The stresses were indexed to M .0. similarly. and combinations of M (Mo) and M (Mt) such that M 1 ( a ) = Ml(a=o)sina. the maximum stress due to M 0 We wish to cover the general case where all combinations of M 9 t 340°. Calculations were also made using EPACA for 1 3 M2‘= 0.
r = [a2 max for Q + 2 1/2 4 . h = 0 . For a specific example. However. The amount that calculated stresses are changed by the proposed rules depends upon the relative contribution of the elbow or elbows t o that of other parts of the piping system. inplane moment by. J. To illustrate what may happen. r ] 3 + M2)1/2 2 0 and (Do/41)M 2 M2 2 + M3) for T we obtain: = D o 2 (M 21 1 + '23 Accordingly. the expression in (d) becomes an exact equation for stress intensity due to a combination of moment loads.the proposed rules. 4 . let us consider a "piping system" consisting of a 45O elbow with attached straight pipe and subjected to an inplane rotation.10/h = 2. Equation (12) The ratio Min/Mio. stress intensity is defined as 2 ~ . for a given thermal expansion or anchor movement. B Z . of elbowtopipe contribution to end (12) Under the proposed rules. In a stress field consisting of a combination of normal stresses and shear stresses.75 times the elastic stress index. will \ result in higher magnitudes of the applied moments. From this aspect alone. is given by: . M present rules. let us consider Then ki = 1. The lower flexibility factors. it may be possible to accept piping systems which might not be acceptable under the present rules. then gives a maximum value of J = 0. the proposed rules require the use of a lower flexibility factor in conjunction with the lower stress indices. It may be noted that the proposed stress indices are equal to or less than the present stress indices.75.447. where M in is the io is the inplane moment by the I an elbow with R/r = 3. the maximum stress intensity is given by: a = Substituting (D0/21)(M1 2 2 .s/4 J = 2L + kiR*a/4 The ratio.O). rotation is: kiR. L 4r. Provision (c) follows the present practice of assigning a "limit load stress index" equal to 0. for large h(C22 = = l.25 moment loading.
795 .795 elbow. it should be noted that the proposed Code addition is an alternative to the present rules.41. There are two reasons for this. for this particular example ( 4 5 ' legs. is a maximum of 0. .224 . particularly when considering other sources of errors in the evaluation of piping systems. the more accurate proposed rules will permit acceptance where the present rules might not.875 . are: p\ stress calculated . The value of J. A s a final point in this discussion. if accepted. straight pipe However. it could range down to zero as the pipe lengths increase and thus the flexibility contribution of the elbow becomes negligible. Some illustrative values of = un/uO. no generali 1. The recommended rules. R/r = 3. Dynamic analysis cannot be predicted without going through the complete piping system analysis because the change in flexibility factors may significantly change the frequency response.795 .795 . First.100 0 1. respeitively.26 where kio and kin are the present and proposed flexibility factors. u 0 n by present rates. where u = stress calculated by proposed rates.000 Accordingly. h = 0. the proposed rules.447 . inplane rotation. zation can be made. for this example. the proposed rules will require changes in existing piping system analysis computer programs and this will take time to implement. while deemed more accurate than the present rules. is not a compelling reason to prohibit the present rules. are not grossly different than the present rules and their improvement in accuracy.447.973 .2 1. even for static analysis for specified displacements or weight loading. would presumably be implemented to evaluate borderline cases which are not quite acceptable under the present rules. Second.
g.95/h 11 Equation (14) is such that a / S aim point” is deemed appropriate because at h > 2. LMFBR piping). The designer who is concerned with stresses at the welds can then obtain a reasonable estimate of maximum stresses at the welds by the equations “wlsn = [1. Simple design guidance can be 0 obtained by using the straight line approximations shown in Figure 20. i. It should be noted that Markl’s fatigue tests on elbows automatically include the interactions between stresses at the welds due to the presence of an elbow and the weld discontinuities inherent in the welds he used to attach legs to the elbow. In evaluating the welds. occurred in the body of the elbows rather than in the welds.95/h2/3] [0. the interaction effects may not be negligible. 0 Fatigue failures. However. one in the body of the elbow at an alocation that produces maximum stresses as a function of a. Figure 20 shows the averages of aw/amc for u w / ‘ m c a = 45O. It can’be seen in Table 4 that the ratio of is almost independent of a0. some of his results are cited in Chapter 1.27 8. the intent of the Code is that at least two checks be made of welding elbows. STRESSES AT WELDS Under NB3600. in effect. ignored. h 2 2. 90°.7. equal to those in straight pipe and the maximum stress in the weld is the same as in the elbow. for arc angles 45 and larger. For piping covered by NB3600 (design temperature below 700F).0. and 180° plotted against h. Use of this value as required to make 1. the roomtemperature fatigue tests run by Mark1 give some assurance that elbowweld interactions can be neglected. the procedure is the same as if the weld were between two lengths of straight pipe.76 h*27] = 1. the other at one of the two welds which produces the maximum stresses.e. with thinwall stainless steel piping intended for reliable. long time service at elevated temperatures (e. Table 4 shows the stresses at the elbowtopipe juncture for both inplane and outofplane moment. In doing this.48/he4 (14) is equal to unity at essentially the same h*2/3 equal to unity. . the elbow stresses are The value of aw/Sn should not be taken as less than 1. The justification for this procedure stems from the fatigue tests run by Mark1(24).7. the stresses due to the interaction between the elbow and straight pipe are.
thinwall piping is needed before any recommendations can be made for Code rules such as those in Code Case 1592. for h this bound at h = the maximum stress is 0. 7. circumferential. However. .3. If that maximum stress is in the circumferential direction then it does not directly intensify stresses due to the usual types of weld discontinuities such as root imperfections.5 in Figure 20. For h 7 0. as illustrated by Figures 3. It should be noted that Figure 20 indicates that maximum stresses at the welds are in the circumferential direction for h < 0. and 8. the stress in the longitudinal direction is not much less than in the circumferential direction. Further study of the subject of elbowweld interaction effects and their implication to design of hightemperature.28 The direction of the maximum stress at the welds is significant.5. 4 . if the maximum stress is in the longitudinal direction then it does. However. We can establish a rough bound on h for circumferential or longitudinal maximum stresses at the welds from Tables 2 and 5. intensify stresses due to the usual types of weld discontinuities.75 the stress is usually longitudinal. We have shown 0. weld reinforcement or radial weld shrinkage. One notes further in Figures 4 and 8 that the axial stresses are high only for a small portion of the circumference and hence would not necessarily be equivalent to a more general longitudinal stress such as occurs in straight pipe. to some extent.
where h = tR/r 2 .but not less than 1. 90°. be estimated by the equation: ow’sn = 1. to the weld for larger h. The recommended equations for maximum stresses and flexibility factors are in reasonable accord with similar design guidance given in Reference ( 2 7 ) . these are contained in Chapter 7 in the form of a recommended alternative method for addition to the Code. ranging from 0. The data obtained from EPACA calculations was also used to determine the stresses at welds (elbowstopipe junctures). or 180’ and for h = tR/r 2 The elbows were modeled with lengths of straight pipe attached. SUMMARY The finite element computer program EPACA was used in a parametric study of elbows with R/r = 2 or 3 . 4 3 .48/h The maximum stresses can .048 to 1 . the lengths were sufficient to simulate an elbow welded to effectively infinite length straight pipe on both ends. .4 .29 9. The data obtained from EPACA calculations were used to develop relatively simple but more accurate equations for maximum stresses and flexibility factors.5.0 normal The maximum stress is parallel to the weld for h less than about 0. a0 = 45O.
Cheng. and Thailer.. 78. Zeitschrift des Vereines deutscher Ingenieure. "Examination of the Theories for Calculating the Stresses in Pipe Bends Subjected to InPlane Bending". H. H.. R. "InPlane Bending of a ShortRadius Curved Pipe Bend". of Applied Mechanics. Engr. and Dunn. Vol. Trans. Vol. ASME. G. Dodge. Mech. of Mathematics and Physics. and Reissner. and Ford. Trans. Vol. ASME. M. 67. December 1972. Proc. 92. REFERENCES (1) Von Karman. S. ASME.. of Eng'g for Industry. Jones.. Trans. D. 90. Vol. B. Gross. P. 9. 55. L. lB. W. "Characteristics of ShortRadius Tube Bends". "On Bending of Curved Circular Tubes". "Theoretical Analysis of the Stresses in Pipe Bends Subjected to OutofPlane Bending". Academic Press. Turner. Hovgaard. (2) (3) ( 4 ) (5) Clark. Kafka. H. Inst. Vol.. 89. H. 2. 1945. Advances in Applied Mechanics. P. Smith. T. T .... Eng'g Science. N. C. Oct.. 179. 1970. Vol. Beskin. Rodabaugh. S.. D. Welding Research Council Bulletin No. ASME J. 1952. VOl. Mech. 1911.. "Bending of Curved Thin Tubes". J.. 1967. and Thailer. 1968. 1943. "Uber die Formaenderung duennwandiger Rohre. J. 2. Engrs. "InPlane Bending of Curved Circular Tubes".. . New York. R. and George. H. 1967.. Vol. ASME. Trans. Vol.. insbesondere federnder Ausgleichrohre". Second Partial Report (Theoretical). Trans.. 1951. A. N.... 1956. H. 1957. Vol... Trans. . Naval Research Laboratory Report No. Engrs. and Pardue. Vol. W. I. Vol. Th. Engr. Vigness. Trans. J.. Stress Indices and Flexibility Factors for Moment Loadings on Elbows and Curved Pipe". Proc. J. 7. 92761. for Industry. ASME. 1928. J. 171.30 10. E. ( 6 ) (7) ( 8 ) ( 9 ) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) . G. "Experiments on ShortRadius Pipe Bends". E.. "Bending of Curved Tubes". Mech. C. 1957. Vol.. "Elastic Properties of Curved Tubes". of Industry. "Effect of Internal Pressure on Flexibility and StressIntensification Factors of Curved Pipe or Welding Elbows". J.. H. E.. "Stiffness of Curved Circular Tubes with Internal Pressure". J. No.. Symonds. E . ASME.. and Moore. 1945. Cheng. 11Deformation of Plane Pipes". of Applied Mechanics. J. 79. Inst. 65. E.
ASME. 1970... Vol..C. H. Argonne National Laboratory.. G. C. for Industry. Electric Boat Company.R. Vol. (27) "Flexibilities of and Stresses in Thin Pipe Bends Under InPlane Bending: Influence of Bend Angle and Tangent Pipe Ends. K. "InPlane Bending of a Large 9 Bend". J. "Specification for High Test Wrought Welding Fittings". W. REFERENCES (Cont . E. 345 E. U. A. "Experimental Stress Analysis of Machined 10in.. "Flexibility and Stress Factors of Pipe Ohtsubo. J . May 1977. 10017. EBU41166030.Y. and Bolt. N16126198. B. General Purpose Finite Element Analysis Program for ThreeDimensional Thick Shell Structures" Available from Argonne Code Center. of Strain Analysis.. and Cheng. I. Naval Marine Engineering Laboratory Contract No. Davidson.. D. Imamaza. "The Determination of the Flexibility of a ShortRadius Elbow Using Discrete Element Methods". ASME 1973. New York. E. J. of Pressure Vessel Technology. H. 1966. Proceedings.. 1974. E. 92. VA 22209. and Uragami.. 4. J. and Watanabe. 1966. H. 65. Arlington. T. 74. and Spence. Vol. O W / NUREG36 (To be published) (28) . Ill.31 10. H Bends An Analysis by the Finite Ring Method". pp 417426. ESDU75014.. I. E. London W1R 7AD Dodge..  (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Vigness... 1951. Engineering Sciences Data Unit.. and Thailer. 1943. and Vigness. (20) . (17) (18) (19) Wright. Rodabaugh. ASME. June. 1. Trans. 1815 North Fort Myer Drive. ASME. Trans. Vol. O. "Elastic Properties of Curved Tubes". 251259 Regent Street. S. "Influence on EndEffects on Stresses and Flexibility of a Piping Elbow with InPlane Moment". 73.. "Experimental Study of Flexibility Factors and Stresses of Welding Elbows with End Effects". Vol. Trans. 1952. ASME. (26) MSSSP75(1975 edition). ASME. Part 130. J. Trans. "Properties of ThinWalled Curved Tubes of ShortBend Radius". I t InPlane Bending of a UShaped Tube With End Constraints". J.". Markl. Second Int'l Conf. Engr. Report No. G. H . In Pressure Vessels and Piping: Analysis and Computers. S. Published by ASME. See'!L'heory and Users Manual For EPACA. N. Pardue. W. Trans. J. EPACA. Diameter Pipe Elbows with Specified Geometric Distortions". No. 47th St. 0 ' Smooth Findlay.. "Fatigue Tests of Piping Components".) (16) Thailer. Published by Manufacturer's Standardization Society.. and Godino. Argonne.May. V. on Pressure Vessel Technology.
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL.A ' L FIGURE 1. See Table 1 f o r dimensions and e1.ement l a y o u t ./Loaded pipe Section A .
INPLANE MOMENT = .33 90 I 1 70 50 I . I 0 IO degrees I I 30 I 50 I I 70 90 I I I 4 . R/r = 2. 2 f 4 . c E 5) 2 E . a 2 0 0 m 0 0 .E4 V h / f ' .80 AND a0 = 90°. Experimental inside A Experimental outside NEEtheorv 30 FEtheory 0 1 6 90 70 60 .30 10 0 I O +. COMPARISON OF FETHEORY WITH TEST DATA.t c .30 I 10 I +. ELBOW WITH X 0 . degrees 50 70 i 90 FIGURE 2.
INPLANE MOMENT.0.075.34 FE Theory Outside Inside I IO o X m NEE Theory I I I l l I I I 0 6 4 2 c v. R/r = 3. at a = 3 5 O 0 . a = g o o ) . MODEL 5 (A = 0. ‘bo 2 4 6 0 10 \ \ \ x\ I I I \ \ \X \ i 1 x l I I I I I 12 +. CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS AS A FUNCTION OF $. degrees FIGURE 3 .
MODEL 5 ( A = 0. degrees 10 0 1 0 I 30 I 50 1 70 i 90 FIGURE 4 .0 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 IO 8 6 4 1 2 t n b c \ o 2 \ 4 6 8 I 70 .0.IO 90 I 50 I 30 1 1 1 +. at ct = .35 FE NEE Theory Theory Outside Inside 1 0 X 0. R/r = 3. ' 5 3 0 .075. INPLANE MOMENT. ct = g o o ) . LONGITUDINAL STRESS AS A FUNCTION OF I$.
5. CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS AS A FUNCTION OF LONGITUDINAL LOCATION.075. R/r = 3.b U=Qo/2 Q =a0 Elbow. AND 6 (A = 0. AT I$ = 5' . MODELS 4 . INPLANE MOMENT. 45 90 I80 I I 4 5 6 I 1 2 II J XO O X N E E Theory I I O 9 xo 0 ox 7 3 E A A A v) \ 6 b I c A 5 0 4 A X 3 $3 2 I A A X A X A A A a=O L o a d e d Pipe. degrees Model NO.&Fived Pipe _I FIGURE 5.0)..36 Symbol A 0 X a.
.4 0. INPLANE MOMENT. 0 X X I 0 X 0 X X I . R/r = 3.0 0...0  NEE Theory.0) at I+ = 81’ . I E l bow Fixed Pipe FIGURE 6. AND 24 ( A = 1.2 0 +Loaded Pipe ~+ 4 a=O a =a 0 / 2 a=a.o.2 ‘1 c n b I C ‘ 1.50. 23. 6 0..37 Symbol A 0 X a o .8 0 . 45 90 180 22 23 24 2 .6 r I . LONGITUDINAL STRESS AS A FUNCTION OF LONGITUDINAL LOCATION MODELS 22. adjusted for thick wall 1. degrees Model No.4 (B I I I vNEE I Theory ‘a I .8 x x xo I .
38 zc $ I I I I' 3 O H I c 0 0 Q) (D t N 0 N I t I (D I Q) I s I Q) " S P .
39 I I I I 1 I I .. I 0 a0 I (D I t a0 0 cu 0 cu I t I (D I a0 I 0I "S /a . I rn a W 8 8 n Fr 0 E H w U z c Y rn rn W Eu.
\5  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4  0 3 0 20 0 0 0 I 0 0 .40 101 9 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NEE Theory 8 7 0  6  FE Theory  m b E .
0 AT 4 = 35' .Loaded Pipe r FIGURE 10.41 IO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 0 7 6 m c 7 4 3 0 0 0 2 I 0 0 ' 0 0 I I0 I I I I I a= . MODEL 5 ( A = 0. R/r = 3. OUTOFPLANE MOMENT.075. CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS AS A FUNCTION OF LONGITUDINAL LOCATION. c1 = g o o ) .0.
42 0 0 0 0 I 0 I a 0 0 0  1 (D I t I cu C 0 cu I t I u) I aD I 0 I " S V .
0 Q.03 .8 0.07 I 1 I I' I I 1 I I 0. FIGURE 12.2 0.04 m L Y c 0 cn C . 0 I 0 1. e 6 a x I Q) 0.6 0:8 1 .02 0 .43 0.6 0.06 0.4 0. INPLANE MOMENT. ILLUSTRATION OF ESSENTIALLY PLANAR ROTATION OF LOADEDEND FLANGE. cn Q II 0. MODEL 5.4 Om2 0 Sin 0. 0.0 0.05 . FLEXIBILITY FACTOR CALCULATIONS .
02 0. FLEXIBILITY FACTOR CALCULATIONS . a0.02 I 0 I cos FIGURE 13.0I .u) a 8 II ' n C Y 0 b 0 ma Q) r c . + 0 I ILLUSTRATION OF ESSENTIALLY PLANAR ROTATION OF LOADEDEND FLANGE. MODEL 5.01 ax . OUTOFPLANE MOMENT.44 I I I 0.0.
E. Theory Symbol A 0 X a0  20 45" 90" I80"  1. .0 3.0 2.6 h = tR/r2 0.95 I 2/3 l a . MAXIMUM STRESSES AS A FUNCTION OF h.45 P 40 30 F.4 0. INPLANE MOMENT.2 0.3 0.0 FIGURE 14.0 4. RECOMMENDED a = 45" STRESS INDEX EQUATION FOR . IO 4 3 2 I .1 0.08 0.8 1.06 .04 .
143 h = 0. INPLANE BENDING OF ELBOWS WITH PIPE TANGENTS ’ .191 / 1 2 I1 y c b  I O 0 2 G 9 c m In 8 G 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 0 0 20 40 60 80 1 0 0 120 140 160 180 CZ~ degrees .071 A h = 0 0. / FIGURE 15: COMPARISONS OF MAXIMUM CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS INDEX.46 1 7 1 6  00 ESDU75014 Recommended C2 1 5 1 4 1 3 EPACA O h = 0.048 o h = 0.
0 FIGURE 16. MAXIMUM STRESSES AS A FUNCTION OF h.8 1. E. OUTOFPLANE MOMENT.2 I I I I 0.04 0. Theory Symbol a0 A 0 X 30 45" 90" 180" = 1.1 I 0. RECOMMENDED STRESS INDEX EQUATION FOR ALL a0 .6 h = tR/r2 2.08 0.95/h2'3 3 2 I I I .3 0.0 4.06 I .47 40  I I I I 1 I I 1 F.4 0.0 3.0 .
08 0.3 0.1 0.+ 8 .4 0. 0 2.8 1 .6 h = tR/r2 0.65 / h \ 9 IO . INPLANE MOMENT.48 60 1 40 30 2 0 \  I I I I 1 I F.2 0. FLEXIBILITY FACTORS AS A FUNCTION OF h.0 3. RECOMMENDED FLEXIBILITY FACTOR EQUATION FOR a = 45" 0 .04 .06 . Theory Symbol A 0 X a0 45O 9oo 180" "\ \&\ L t 1.n .0 FIGURE 17.0 4.E.Q) ) r 0 0 *\' x 6 i i 4 3 2 \ I .
degrees FIGURE 18: COMPARISONS OF F L E X I B I L I T Y FACTORS.071 A h = 0.07 4 5  2c 0 9 n . e ESOU75014 Recommended k 0 EPACA 0 h = 0.143 24 22 Y 0.048 .20 i 1 20 1 40 1 60 Q .. 1 80 1 1 0 0 1 120 1 140 1 160 1 180 ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ .0. 14 12 IC t f 4 c.X 0 le . ) r 4  16 L .49 34 32 30 28 26 . INPLANE BENDING OF ELBOWS WITH P I P E TANGENTS . o h = 0.
08 0. 3.4 h = tR/r 0. . OUTOFPLANE MOMENT.% ) r 8  2 LL 6 4 3 2 I &. I 0. 0 6 . Theory I Symbol 40 30 A 0 X a0 45O 90" 180°  20 c 5 0 1 0 . % . E.50 60 I I 1 F. FLEXIBILITY FACTORS AS A FUNCTION OF h . RECOMMENDED FLEXIBILITY FACTOR EQUATION FOR ALL . a .0 4 .3 0.n . . 0 FIGURE 1 9 .2 0.0 .8 1.0 2.6 0.04 .
6 h = tR/r2 0.1 0.95/h2l3 0.3  X In out X 0.0 2.8 0.0 Y X I / X / / I F.4 0.0 I0 X Maximum Stress in Longitudinal Direction 0.0 4.3 0. I 04 .6  0 bE \ 0 0.08 0.06 .4 .Theory Symbol Plane 0 / b 3 / X 0. E.0 3. MAXIMUM STRESSES AT WELDS (ELBOWTOPIPE JUNCTURE) .2 0. 2 .8 1.51 .o I I 1 I I I 1 Maximum Stress in Circumferential Direction I I 1 I 1 I 1. stress at welds cmc = 1.0 FIGURE 20.2 cW I = max.
0 m m 0 h 0 d 0 m d . 0 0 h l m 0 m 0 N 0 m 0 m 0 hl 0 m d m Q o d m 0 0 d m a d m 0 0 d d m o o m o o m o o m o o m o o m o o m o o m o o d Il *m004m004m00 d d d 4 m m d hl m m h l 0 0 hl m I n m 0 0 h m I l . . n ll 4 .. m hl d m 0 0 \o d d d d 0 0 h d h d 0 0 0 m d m m m 0 m m m m 0 0 m m m 0 0 m m “f 4 “i d h 0 0 0 0 h 0 0 h hl N 4 4 0 0 d 4 00 00 .52 Qo 00 \o 00 \D m m m mmhl m m N d d d mmhl d d I l r i m 0 m m o m m o m m o m m o Il d \o ri N N \D m 4 hl 0 0 hl 4 0 hl h l . 0 hl . d 00 0 m 0 m m 0 m H m h 00 4 h hl m hl 00 0 4 h h.
26 C C C C C C In In In In In In In In In In In In Out In In 5 5 5 7.88 L L Out Out 45.0 82.5 45.5 7.0 153.50 4.05 degrees 45 90 180 um’Sn (1) .67 2. 8.5 7.5 22.15 2.5 22.0 97.28 2.93 1.5 7.00 45 90 180 2.91 Dir.0 .41 3.5 81 9 22.15 4.5 7. L = longitudinal (3) In = inside surface.5 7.30 45 90 180 .5 45.0 81.38 L Out Out .31 5.0 99.0 (1) (2) 2 maximum calculated stress.15 45 90 180 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Om = .0 1.96 3. Out = outside surface (4) See Figure1 for definition of coordinate angles @ and cy . Sn = nominal stress = M / m t C = circumferential.81 .25 10.58 5.5 45.0 1. 81 L .97 10.5 7.04 4.0 135.53 TABLE 2 : INPLANE BENDING.19 2.60 6.5 7.0 22.81 81 45. SURFACE AND LOCATION R r cy c Model A 0’ No.75 45 90 180 L C C 9 81.96 6.0 22.0 C 4 5 6 7 .5 35.5 7.20 45 90 180 C C C C C C .15 12.5 45. (2) C Surface (31 In In Locat ion(4) @ 5 5 cy 22. 1 2 3 .50 45 90 180 1. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM CALCULATED STRESSES AND THEIR DIRECTION.075 45 90 180 6.5 45.
16 2.0 99.5 7.99 @J 5 5 0 cy 1 2 3 Theory .30 22.17 4.80 762.07 4.5 45.5 45.29 2.31 11. L = longitudinal (3) In = inside surface.45 4.20 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 22.64 5.5 35.39 2.58 12.5 0 81 9 9 0 _ 22. h 0' 0m i " n Dir (2) .81 2.0 .5 7.93 15.00 2 L L C L L C Out Out In out out In 81 81 0 45.0 153.5 22. Surface (3) In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In In Out In In In ) Location(4 (5) degrees 45 90 180 45 90 180 (1) 8.5 7.61 3. Sn = nominal stress = M/nr t (2) C = circumferential.13 12.5 7. SUMMARY OF FETHEORY MAXIMUM INTERPOLATED STRESSES AND COMPARISON WITH NEETHEORY MAXIMUM STRESSES R r cy Model NO.0 135.0 4 5 6 Theory 7 8 9 Theory 10 11 12 Theory 13 14 15 Theory 16 17 18 Theory 19 20 21 Theory .47 2.5 0 7.93 1.5 7. 3.0 97.54 TABLE 3.03 5.00 6.0 .67 6.0 81.5 45.22 10. ~ 3 . ( 1 5 ) .19 2.075 7.0 2 (1) Qmi = maximum interpolated stress.46 C C C C C C C C C C C C C L C C C 5 5 5 0 7.18 1.5 '45.50 23 24 Theory .10 6.0 81. INPLANE BENDING.15 3 . .31 6.89: 1.5 0 7.05 C C C C C C 22.5 45.0 22 1.5 7.0 22. Out = ouside surface (4) See Figure 1 for definition of coordinate angles @ and cy (5) "Theory" is the NEE (noendeffects) theory of Ref.0 82.5 .75 3 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 1.67 2.81 81 0 45.
45 0.40 0.41 0.45 0.40 0.59 0.29 0.50 0.65 1.11 2. For outofplane moment. except where marked *.01 2.40 0.44 0.52 3. 2 = nominal stress = M / m t = stress corressponding to Code Stress Index: umc C2 = 1.39 0.93 2.51 0.50 3 0.95/h 2 13 .52* 1.46* 1.20 3.48 4.47 0.75 3 .53 1.0476 5.47 0.88 (1) Ow = n ' (2) maximum stress at welds.36 0.91 2.26 0.95 0.e.26 2.95 4. i.43 0.954 0.43 1. 1 2 3 h R r 2 In Plane C Y 0 OutofPlane uw/sn 4.075 3 .79 0. These were obtained from tabulations of the stress along the @line containing.05 45 90 180 45 90 1\80 0.33 2.57 3./ TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM STRESSES AT WELDS .00 2 .44 1. the higherstressed weld zone.the maximum calculated stress.59 0. For inplane moment uW is the average of the 4 elements on each side of the weld.79 2.51 4.35 u w / ' m c 0.44 1.33 3.191 0.76 0. .63 0.35 1. Ow is the average of the 2 elements on each side of the weld at CY = 0.54 1.46 6.95 1.33 3.44 0.43 0.47 0. .431 1.47 4 5 6 7 8 9 . Model No.55 1.28 3.60 1.13 2.715 1.46 0.84 0.60 .59 0.28 2.0714 .77 h .37 .12 2. these are averages of the two end elements on the elbow.92 1.62 0.32 0.11 1.65 4.39 0.143 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .88 0.28 0.82 3.286 .69 1.75 2. .15 3 45 90 180 .20 2 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 .44 0.39 0.77 2.02 1.46 uw/amc 0.46 1.44 0.30 3 .
0 6 . Out = outside surface (4) See Figure 1 for definition of coordinate angles q5 and CY.0 / 1.09 4.15 ‘ 3 . Sn = nominal stress = M / m t (2) c = circumferential.0 22.5 322.45 90 180 C C C L C C In In In Out In In Out In In 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . .5 217.56 TABLE 5: OUTOFPLANE BENDING.5 207 333 207 C C 45 90 180 L L L Out Out Out 1.0 27. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM CALCULATED STRESSES AND THEIR DIRECTION.98 6.5 322. L = longitudinal (3) In = inside surface.85 In In In 205 335 205 322.0 27.0 22.5 217.02 1.5 27.54 1.58 4.O (1) am = maximum calculated stress.05 R 2 cy 0’ om/sn (1) 6.5 217.5 22.82 2.5 27.0 27 .41 3.5 35.5 22.30 3 45 90 180 .5 < 22.20 2 45 90 180 .5 322.63 2.0 27. SURFACE AND LOCATION Model No.86 1.5 45.83 1.90 / L L Out Out 333 207 27. .82 1.0 22.5 13.31 3.40 7.23 5.5 25.0 22.07 Dir.50 3 45 90 180 1.5 27.5 202.09 4.38 3. (21 Surface (31 In In Locat ion (41 degrees 45 90 180 @ 335 205 (Y C C 22.81 3.75 3 L 202.075 3 45 90 180 5.00 2 45 90 180 1.55 L L Out Out 207 333 2 27.0 4 5 .
75 1.0 0.0 27.5 13.0 0.08 3.15 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 .0 0.5 330/210 2 07 333 2 07 320/220 cy .57 TABLE 6: OUTOFPLANE BENDING.5 27.30 .11 4.75 9.5 0. Out = outside surface  (4) See Figure 1 for definition of coordinate angles @ and (5) cy "Theory" is the NEE (noendeffects) theory of Ref.00 333 333 320/220 2 07 333 165 2 27.39 3.5 322.5 25.5 0 .0 22. (15) .0 22.075 5. (2 ) C C C C C C C C C C C L C C C L C C C L L ' L C L L C L L L Surface (31 In In In In In In In In In In In out In In In out In In In Out Out out In Out out In Out Out out Location(4 1 @ 335 205 340 / 2 00 205 335 205 340/220 322.5 217.09 6.05 45 90 180 45 90 180 I 22.48 3.0 0.0 27.69 Dir.98 1.95 2.89 1.74 4.0 27.62 1. L = longitudinal (3) In = inside surface. Sn = nominal stress = M / m t (2) C = circumferential.5 322.91 5.0 27.0 27.0 4 5 6 Theory 7 8 9 Theory 10 11 12 Theory 13 14 15 Theory 16 17 18 Theory 19 20 21 Theory 22 23 24 Theory .5 335 /205 202.70 2.5 27.94 1.0 22.95 1.82 1.5 45.5 217.5 322. SUMMARY OF FETHEORY MAXIMUM INTERPOLATED STESSES AND COMPARISON WITH NEETHEORY MAXIMUM STRESSES Model No. 0 22.50 (1) umi = maximum interpolated stress.0 .5 217.62 1.61 7.5 335 /2 05 202.92 1.0 22.15 1.0 22.0 1.31 22:5 35.18 3. (5) 1 2 3 ' Theory h R r c Y Umilsn 0 (1) 6.0 0.20 .16 4.5 27.87 3.49 6.27 2.0 0.44 12.54 6.
04477 .0009674 .15 23.08 2.1018 .0376 .65 9.61 23.94 7.55 5.93 2.17 1. SUMMARY O F FE DISPLACEMENTS ( 1 ) AND DERIVED FLEXIBILITY FACTORS Mod e l No.17 1.63 8.1245 .0006830 1.01807 .001839 .78 1.02278 .0004616 . 7 E = 3 x 10 p s i .20 1.04666 .55 5.05226 .80 23.73 1.0007357 .17 2.67 1. 22 18.30 34.03526 .02336 .01297 .04865 .53 6.06327 .17 27.075 45 90 180 .48 1. 03835 .80 1.  (1) Displacements are f o r S (2) 2 = M/rr t = 1 .63 1.58 4.04289 .63 14.28 1.02843 .87 4.56 27.03521 .83 6.68 4. n "Theory".50 45 90 180 45 90 180 .96 5.001908 .03 2.02659  21.14 8.69 1.92 7.92 9.01323 .98 18. is t h e NEEtheory.74 1.2276 . 0 0 0 p s i .15 45 90 180 45 90 180 .93 34.82 2.001039 .68 3.73 1.02984 .36 1.02554 .009452 .1201 . 01413 .24 9. A r .3698  .68 3.80 4.93 1%.001425 .03 2.32 .30 .1122 . i n t h i s column.56 1.0006096 .69 1.55 5.001387 .003125 k z 1 2 3 Theory 4 5 6 Theory 7 8 9 Theory 10 11 12 Theory 13 14 15 Theory 16 17 18 Theory 19 20 21 Theory 22 23 24 Theory .15 9.0004881 .87 11.30 1.78 11.09 4.05 .79 7.37 18. a 6 X k X 6 Y k Y .03746 .1683  22.14 8. 17.0006186 .75 45 90 180 45 90 180 .02194 .94 4.32 21.68 7.92 5.95 5.73 1. .32 .04164 .58 TABLE 7 : INPLANE MOMENT.67 9.20 .003153 .63 14.14 8. 05629 .06917 .003402 .58 8.29 1.05910 1.68 1.001867 .89 2.81 11.37 2.58 8.03099 .0006308 .0009703 .63 15.05838 .69 1.91   .01214 .001045 .006114 45 90 180 .01710 .0005219 . 02956 .43 17.75 18.40 27.1 8 9 0 .02562 .60 1.14 34.00 .59 4.81 9.
7854R) 90 0.59 TABLE 8 : INPLANE MOMENT.571L I R ) ] k = [Gy/(M/EI) Y kz = [ B . ./(M/EI) k = [Gx/(M/EI) X 2L]/(O.1416L X + 2R)] k = [ 6 /(M/EI) Y X kZ 2RL1/(3*1416R2) 2~]/ (3.1416~) = [ eZ/ (M/EI)  .0783R)l k2 = [B.555L 0.571R 2) RL]/[R(1.571R) 180 k = [ 6 /(M/EI) X L2]/[R(3.5L2 1. EQUATIONS FOR CALCULATING FLEXIBILITY FACTORS USING FETHEORY CALCULATED END DISPLACEMENTS Ly 0 Equations for Flexibility Factors 45 k = [6 /(M/EI) X X  1.061L2 k = [bY/(M/EI) Y   0.5L2  RL]/(0.707RL]/[R(0.293R)I + 0.561L2 1. / ( M / E I )   2L]/(1.555L + 0.293RL]/[R(0.
35 6.3196 0.55 18.5219 1.32 5.837 19.44 1.77 5.3999 0.80 2.3749 0.00 0.14 8.15 4.6283 1.07 1.75 0. .4550 0.000 p s i .02 0.0021 0.5419 0.8065 < .5493 0.22 1.26 1.97 6.73 1.3970 1.20 0.222 11.544 1.55 5.0458 34.203 4.95 9.372 7 8 9 Theory 10 1 1 12 Theory 13 14 15 Theory 16 17 18 Theory 19 20 21 Theory 22 23 .182 0.14 7.3833 0. SUMMARY OF FE AND DERIVED FLEXIBILITY FACTORS DISPLACEMENT^^) k Y 20.60 1.32 24 Theory   ~~ 1.5742 0.OOOl 8.17 1.20 16.03 7.71 0. k Z 3 x 10 0.17 5.55 4.50 1.132 1.6303 0.8178 0.91 21.69 1.68 3.01371 7.28 10.3537 0.48 21.05 r 0 k x 10 ex 4 X s .69 1.68 1.63 14.6302 < .13 1.50 0.20 9.3430 0.58 32. E = 3 x 10 7 .3388 8.73 * .4627 0.63 14.87 11.2920 .0001 __ 0.55 5.494 2.75 0.09893 6.12 9.154 0.73 1. 1.6005 0.55 6.0001 1.3947 0.53 4.60 TABLE 9: OUTOFPLANE MOMENT.84 _0.31 0.32 1.7590 0.68 3.73 4.32 8.18 23.679 = 1 x 10 0.075 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 45 90 180 10.00 11.90 10.91 1.800 0.17 1.63 20.68 3.17 23.33 5.9545 .9991 0.06 14.393 4.5428 0. .60 1.59 17.888 12.74 34.5199 0.18 8.12 6.265 0. i s t h e NEEtheory.33 1.6701 1.3222 0.6581 1.91 (2) Model A R  cy NO 1 2 3 Theory 4 5 6 Theory .08 4.55  .88 17.28 _ .30 _ 3.0001 5.92 24.0001 11.14 8.17 1.13 _ (1) (2) 2 Displacements a r e f o r S = M/ar t = 1.60 9.69 1.4336 0.32 ~~ 11.92 34.98 1.72 2.29 1.98 26. n "Theory".043 2. i n t h i s column.46 7.97 8.58 23.950 30.
571R) k Y kZ = not =  2 .7854L + 0 .65R2I/[R(0.9548RL   .042R]/(1.25R)] 90 k = [Bx/(M/EI) X 0.571W .6312R) 0.321RL   0.6427L + .61 TABLE 10: OUTOFPLANE ZOMENT.6R 21/(1.3610R]/i0.8L2 k Y k z = = [By/(M/EI) [GZ/(M/EI)  1.0986R]/(0.021R]/(Oe7854R) 2.004L2 + 0.6263L 2.0558R2l'/[R(0.3L 1.65R1/(O05R) 2.2777R) 0.LCuLTING FLEXIBILITY FACTORS USING FETHEORY CALCULATED END DISPLACEMENTS o ! 0 Equations for Flexibility Factors 45 kX = [BX/(M/EI) k Y kz = = [By/(M/EI) [GZ/(M/EI) +  1. 0 4 2 ~ ~ L2   2.4142L 1. 5 R ) I 180 k X = [eX/(M/EI) defined [G=/(M/EI) 2L  2. EQUTIONSFOR C .
31 1.0477 .265 32. COMPARISONS OF FLEXIBILITY FACTORS FOR OUTOFPLANE MOMENTS.97 7.13 I 11 14 17 20 23 ~~~ ~ .0715 .84 1.50 7.25 10.60 1.00 1.104 1.05 .267 1.54 1.954 1.431 ~~ ~~ 1.98 1.97 5.15 .88 1. O kt 0 (1) 2 5 8 (1) k X k Y .20 .94 1.17 4.075 .74 21.06 6.02 20.143 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 ~~ 31.357 .61 4.50 (1) ko and k t obtained by simultaneous solution of Equations (4a) and (4b) (2) kx and k obtained using equations shown in Table 8 .244 1.20 10.08 1.TABLE 11:. t . 3 .191 .24 .30 .286 .33 24.28 1.422 . x h R  r k Assumed ( 2 ) kt=l . these involve Y the assumption that k = 1 and that E I / G J = 1 .71 9.826 .715 .91 17. ELBOWS WITH a = 90' 0 a Model No.75 .944 1.
24 1.05 1.05 .50 .20 . (2) when R/r is assumed to be 2.05 1.0 = 0.03 1.03 (1) t/r = h/(R/r).02 . with 60/t = 1.04 .20 .12 .08 .04 1.30 .025 (3) (4) Ratios of stress in elbows with (DmaxDmin) / D cross section elbow to stress in circular Ratios of flexibility factor of elbow with (DmaxDmin)/D = 0.04 .12 .04 .97 0.04 1.03 1.40 .30 .03 1.025 to flexibility factor of circular cross section elbow .98 0.04 .20 .16 .5 = (6 0 (DmaxDmin)/D / t ) ( t / r ) ( 2 ) .02 1.02 .16 .025 (4) In .04 1.05 .08 .025 (3) Flexibility Factor Ratio for (DmaxDmin) /D=.20 I 1.08 1.16 . Bending Plane h TABLE 12: EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF OUTOFROUNDNESS USING CALCULATED RESULTS FROM REFERENCE ( 2 0 ) t/r (1) DmaxDmin D (2) .99 0.04 .04 Maximum Stress Ratio for (DmaxDmin) /D=.99 0.02 1.03 0.03 1.32 .32 .50 .16 .40 .63 .40 1.10 .04 1.40 .05 1.99 out .24 .99 0.10 .04 .08 1.