Case study to

calculate thickness of
Bend against pressure
load using PASS
START ELEMENT Tool

jafar sadiq sayyed

Application Engineer-Piping

DHIO Research and Engineering Pvt Ltd.,

# 28 (Old No 619/1), 2nd Floor, 36th Cross,
2nd Block, Rajajinagar, Next to Srinivasa
Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore-560010 India
CHALLENGE :
 The objective is to calculate bend thickness by B31.3 code calculation against pressure load
using special PASS START ELEMENT tool before analysis and using these values in actual
analysis

 Formula used:

􀀷􀀩 􀁆􀀍􀀖 􀀏 􀀌􀀷􀀩 􀁔 􀀌􀁠􀀷􀁅􀁠 􀀏 􀀷􀁆􀀍􀀖 􀀏 􀀌􀀖􀀷􀁘􀀍􀀖

Where P - Design pressure (bar)

T - Design temperature
Do - Outside diameter (mm)
S - Allowable stress Refer to Table A-1 (or Table A-1M) of the ASME B31.3
E - Joint quality factor Table A-1A or Table A-1B of the ASME B31.3
W - Weld joint reduction factor Table 302.3.5 of ASME B 31.3 (Refer to Fig. 5)
Y - Value of co-efficient given (refer to Fig. 6) ASME B 31.3
C - Corrosion allowance mm.
PROBLEM STATEMENT :
Let’s consider the following details for the pipe thickness calculation of a Long radius bend
􀀏 􀀷􀁆􀀍􀀖 􀀏 􀀌􀀖􀀷􀁘􀀍􀀖
MOC (Material of Construction) of the pipe – A106 Gr. B
NPS (Nominal Pipe Size) – 4”
Manufacturing type of the pipe (SMLS, EFW, ERW) – Seamless (SMLS)
Design Pressure (PSI) – 1200 PSIG (82.5 bar)
Design Temperature – 500° F (260 C)
Mechanical, corrosion and erosion allowances – 3 mm
Mill Tolerance – 12.50% of the thickness
Input given:
Design code - B31.3
pipe OD D - 114 mm
material of bend - A106 G B
Tempreture T - 260 C
Pressure P - 82.6 bar
mill tolerance - 12.5%
Corrosion allowance C - 3
Longitudinal weld reduction W - 1
factor
Factor Y - 0.4
Joint quality factor E - 1
SOLUTION :
Given :
O.D of pipe
D = 114.3 mm
SOLUTION :

Allowable stress of
material

From table
he allowable stress for
ASTM A106 Gr. B is
19,000 psi at 500°F
Equiv
131 MPa
SOLUTION :

Joint Quality factor E = 1

SOLUTION :

The weld joint strength reduction factor, W, is the ratio of the nominal stress to cause the
failure of a weld joint to that of the corresponding base material for an elevated temperature
condition of the same duration. It only applies at weld locations in longitudinal or spiral (helical
seam) welded piping components.

From table W = 1
SOLUTION :

Y: Values of Coefficient from Table 304.1.1,

The factor “Y” depends on temperature. At elevated temperatures, the factor Y
increases leading to a decrease in the calculated required pipe wall thickness.

From table Y = 0.4

CALCULATION :

t=(8.27*114.3)/{2(131*1*1/1.25)+8.27*0.4)}=4.37 mm; Hence

calculated thickness (t)= =4.37 mm

tc = t + c = 4.37 + 3
tc = 7.37 mm
Intrados
I = 4(1.5)-1/4(1.5)-2
tm = tc + 12.50 % of the pipe thickness = 1.25
tm =tc/0.875 =7.37/0.875 = 8.6 mm (This is required
thickness)

Pipe thickness for the same data is

tm = 7.54 mm
 Copy this data to START PROF
RESULTS :
CONCLUSION :
Real Bend Wall Thickness is Greater than the Matching Pipe Wall Thickness

This is a very serious issue. It leads to an underestimated pump, nozzle,

and support loads and stresses calculated by ASME B31 codes!
ASME B16.9 and all ASME B31 codes don’t regulate the bend, tee, and reducer wall
thickness. Only the pipe wall thickness is regulated. So many people think that the
elbows and other fittings have the same or almost the same wall thickness as the
matching pipe. But in most cases, the real bend, tee, reducer body wall thickness is
greater than matching pipe wall thickness with the same Schedule.
For elbows, the real wall thickness can be 10%-40% greater than the matching pipe. Because
bends must have greater wall thickness to hold the same pressure as the connected straight
pipe
CONCLUSION :
This problem quite often comes to light when Russian companies try to check the design made
according to ASME B31 codes for the Russian market. While rechecking the stress analysis using
PASS/START-PROF software according to GOST codes a lot of error messages appear. They say that the
wall thickness of the elbows is lower than the minimum required one to hold the pressure because it is
usually left blank in CAESAR II and software takes fitting thickness equal to connected pipe WT in the
piping stress model. When the real elbow wall thickness entered and model recalculated, the nozzle
loads and stresses become much greater than it was calculated in CAESAR II and other software! That’s
because the elbow flexibility k-factors used during analysis was incorrect.
Thank you
DHIO Research & Engineering Pvt Ltd.,
# 28 (Old No 619/1), 2nd Floor, 36th Cross,
2nd Block, Rajajinagar, Next to Srinivasa
Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore-560010 India

Email : info@dhioresearch.com
Web : www.dhioresearch.com