See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267611799

Stress Predictions at Elbow Ends Under Internal

Pressure and System Moments

Conference Paper in American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pressure Vessels and Piping Division (Publication)
PVP · January 2010
DOI: 10.1115/PVP2010-25055

CITATIONS READS

0 164

6 authors, including:

Jinhua Shi Granson Lee

AMEC The University of Manchester
32 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yuebao Lei
EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd.
57 PUBLICATIONS 662 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of structural integrity assessment methodologies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jinhua Shi on 27 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2010 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division / K_PVP Conference
PVP2010
July 18-22, 2010, Bellevue, Washington, USA

PVP2010-25055
STRESS PREDICTIONS AT ELBOW ENDS UNDER INTERNAL PRESSURE AND SYSTEM MOMENTS

Jinhua Shi Granson Lee David Blythe

Serco Serco British Energy
Rutherford House Rutherford House Barnett Way
Olympus Park, Quedgeley Olympus Park, Quedgeley Barnwood
Gloucester GL4 4NF Gloucester GL4 4NF Gloucester GL4 3RS
United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1452 872571 Tel: +44 1452 872571 Tel: +44 1452 653139
Fax: +44 1452 872502 Fax: +44 1452 872502 Fax: +44 1452 653235
jinhua.shi@serco.com granson.lee@serco.com david.blythe@british-energy.com

John Buckland Yuebao Lei Timothy Soanes

Serco British Energy British Energy
Rutherford House Barnett Way Barnett Way
Olympus Park, Quedgeley Barnwood Barnwood
Gloucester GL4 4NF Gloucester GL4 3RS Gloucester GL4 3RS
United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1452 872563 Tel: +44 1452 652285 Tel: +44 1452 653278
Fax: +44 1452 872502 Fax: +44 1452 653025 Fax: +44 1452 653025
John.Buckland@sercoassurance.com yuebao.lei@british-energy.com timothy.soanes@british-energy.com

ABSTRACT A comparison of the calculated stress values using the

In order to assess postulated defects in the butt weld
joining a 90 degree elbow to a seamless straight pipe, both axial
and hoop stress components at this position are required.
ASME III NB-3685 provides a method of calculating elbow
stresses. However, this gives the maximum stress values in the
elbow and applies to the central section of the bend. If these
values are directly used in the defect assessments of welds at
the ends of the elbow, the assessment results will be overly
conservative. In order to obtain appropriate defect assessment
results, more accurate axial and hoop stress distributions at the
elbow ends are desirable.
In this paper, the axial and hoop stress distributions at the
elbow ends are predicted by deriving generalized stress
relationships between the elbow end and the central section of
the elbow, based on detailed finite element analyses and ASME
III NB-3685 calculations. In order to do so, a series of small
displacement elastic 3D finite element analyses have been
performed. The finite element results were then compared with
the ASME III NB-3685 stress predictions. Finally, the axial and
hoop stress relationships between the elbow end and the central
section of the elbow for internal pressure, in-plane moment and
out-of-plane moment were derived.
derived equations, the finite element analysis results and the
ASME III NB-3685 stress calculations confirms that the
derived stress relationships are appropriate to predict the axial
and hoop stresses at the elbow ends.
The objective of this paper is to show: 1) the ASME III
NB-3685 stress calculations agree well with the 3D finite
element analysis results at the central section of the elbow and
2) the derived stress relationships are appropriate to predict the
axial and hoop stresses at the elbow ends.
1. INTRODUCTION
Many research papers on an elbow can be found in the
literature, for instance [1-9]. Most of these papers analyzed
stresses at the central section of the elbow.
In order to assess postulated defects in the butt weld
joining a 90 degree seamless elbow to a seamless straight pipe,
both axial and hoop stress components at this position are
required. ASME III NB-3685 [10] provides a method of
calculating elbow stresses. However, this gives the maximum
stress values in the elbow and applies to the central section of
the bend. If these values are directly used in the defect
assessments of welds at the ends of the elbow, the assessment

1 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

results will be overly conservative. In order to obtain
appropriate defect assessment results, more accurate axial and
hoop stress distributions at the elbow end are desirable.
The hoop and axial stresses at the elbow end (weld) are
predicted in this paper based on a series of ASME III NB-3685
[10] calculations at the central sections of the elbows and 3D
finite element (FE) analyses of the elbows. The elbow
geometries analyzed vary from 2in NB to 6in NB with
thicknesses of 3.7mm to 6.67mm, as shown in Table 1.
2. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES
Small displacement elastic FE analyses were performed to
obtain stress distributions between the elbow ends and the
central sections of the elbows. Seven 3D FE models were
generated using the ABAQUS version 6.6 [11] FE package as
listed in Table 1. In Table 1, the definitions are as follows:
t – wall thickness, mm;
ri – pipe inner radius, mm;
r – pipe mean radius, mm;
R – bend radius, mm;
λ1 = R / r r / t (1)
All models comprised hexahedral, 20-node, second order
continuum elements (type C3D20R) having reduced
integration. Each model has four layers of elements through
the thickness, 36 elements around the circumference and 16
elements along the pipe bend. An example of the models used
for elbow 7 is shown in Figure 1. Extended pipes are attached
at both ends of the bend to such a length that the restraint
provided by the boundary conditions does not influence the end
of the elbow. The length of extended pipes is 3.5 times the
bend radius and is at least 6.5 times the pipe mean radius. The
extended pipe has 10 elements along its length. The element
edge length is graded such that the element edge length at the
elbow weld is similar to that used within the elbow. Grading
the mesh towards the loading/ fixed ends reduces the element
numbers and saves computing time.
Individual load cases were considered: internal pressure of
1MPa, in-plane moment and out-of-plane moment of 1kN-mm.
Whole geometries were modelled even though individual
loading cases such as pressure and in-plane moment could take
advantage of planes of symmetry. By using the whole model,
the same model can be used for all loading cases described
above.
Appropriate boundary conditions were applied to nodes
located on one of the extended pipe ends. For pressure loading
cases, the nodes are constrained in such a way that rigid body
motion is prevented and at the same time radial expansion is
allowed. For moment loadings, all the nodes are fully
constrained.
A distributing coupling constraint was imposed between a
reference node located at the centre of the unconstrained pipe
end and a group of nodes located on the surface at this end.
This uniformly splits the load applied to the reference node
over the surface. For moment loading cases, a concentrated
moment was applied to this distributed coupling. For pressure
loading cases, a pressure, P was applied to the internal surface
of the pipe and an end load of magnitude P x π x ri2 was applied
to the distributed coupling. P denotes pressure and ri denotes
inner radius.
For each FE model, stress components were obtained with
respect to a local cylindrical coordinate system centred on the
centre line of the pipe with the axial axis aligned with the local
pipe axis and the radial and hoop directions lying in the plane
of the pipe cross section. The hoop and axial stresses at
locations on the planes at mid elbow and elbow ends are of
interest here. For each plane, these stresses are extracted at the
locations around the circumferences at inner, mid and outer
surfaces of the pipe.
These hoop and axial stresses (S22 and S33, respectively)
are then plotted against the angle, θ, around the circumference.
The angle is measured, starting from the intrados, in the
direction as shown in Figure 1. Hence, 0o and 360o denote
intrados and 180o denotes extrados. The L1 plane is the weld at
the elbow end closest to the fixed end, while L2 plane is the
weld at elbow end closest to the loading end. The stress contour
plot for the axial bending stress under 1kN-mm in-plane
moment is presented in Figure 2.
3. STRESS COMPARISON
ASME III NB-3685 [10] provides a method of calculating
stresses for curved pipe or welding elbows.
Hoop stress: At the central section (45° position) of the
elbow, stress results from the FE analysis and ASME III NB-
3685 [10] calculation are compared and the agreement is found
to be reasonably good. The comparison for Elbow 2 is shown in
Figures 3 and 4 for internal pressure and in-plane moment
(closing), respectively.
Axial stress: At the central section of the elbow, results
from the FE analysis and ASME calculation are compared and
the agreement is also found to be reasonably good. The
comparison for Elbow 2 is shown in Figures 3 and 4 for
internal pressure and in-plane moment (closing), respectively.
Note that in this paper the maximum stresses obtained
between in-plane moment (closing) results and in-plane
moment (opening) results are used in deriving stress prediction
equations below for conservatism.
4. STRESS PREDICTIONS
4.1 Internal Pressure
Based on the FE analysis results for the models with the
parameter 1 ranging from 0.196 to 0.501, both hoop and axial
stress components at both ends of the elbows are linearised to
obtain membrane and bending stresses. The maximum
linearised membrane and bending stress components at both
ends of the elbows are identified respectively. For
conservatism, the bounding membrane and bending stress
components for both ends are used to compare with ASME III
calculation results for each elbow. After the comparison, a
series of stress factors of end/ cen were obtained, where end is
the maximum FE stress at ends of the weld and cen is the
2 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
maximum stress calculated in the elbow using ASME III NB-
3685.
For the hoop membrane stress, the calculated stress factors,
end/ cen, for unit pressure are tabulated in Table 2. It can be
seen that obtained stress factors for the elbows with the
parameter of R/r around 2.8 are generally decreasing with 1
increasing and for elbows 3 and 4 with R/r = 1.88 and 1.92 the
stress factors are significantly lower than others and that a
stress factor of 0.867 is bounding:
fhm_p = 0.867 (2)
A comparison of the prediction with the calculated stress
factors, end/ cen, for unit pressure is shown in Figure 5. It can
be seen that the predicted pressure hoop membrane stress
factors are bounding for the cases analyzed and for most of
them equation (2) is conservative. If more FE analysis results
become available in the future, the stress factor can be refined.
For the hoop bending stress, the calculated stress factors,
end/ cen, for unit pressure are tabulated in Table 3. It can be
seen that obtained stress factors for the elbows with the
parameter of R/r around 2.8 are increasing smoothly with 1
increasing and for elbows 3 and 4 with R/r = 1.88 and 1.92 the
stress factors are slightly higher than others and that a stress
factor of 0.095 is bounding:
fhb_p = 0.095 (3)
A comparison of the prediction with the calculated stress
factors, end/ cen, for unit pressure is shown in Figure 6. It can
be seen that the predicted pressure hoop bending stress factor is
bounding for the cases analyzed.
Note that the linearised hoop pressure bending stress is
positive on the internal surface and negative on the external
surface.
For the axial membrane stress, the calculated stress factors,
end/ cen, for unit pressure are tabulated in Table 4. It can be
seen that a stress factor of 0.991 is bounding and is overly
conservative for some elbows. In order to reduce the
conservatism, a second order polynomial curve was fitted and
an equation was derived with the parameter 1 as follows:
f am _ p = −0.208λ12 − 0.0287λ1 + 1.004 (4)
A comparison of the prediction with the calculated stress
factors, end/ cen, for unit pressure is shown in Figure 7. It can
be seen that the predicted pressure axial membrane stress
factors are in close agreement for the cases analyzed.
For the axial bending stress, the calculated stress factors,
end/ cen, for unit pressure are tabulated in Table 5. It can be
seen that the obtained stress factors are relatively small and that
a stress factor of 0.088 is bounding:
fab_p = 0.088 (5)
A comparison of the prediction with the calculated stress
factors, end/ cen, for unit pressure is shown in Figure 8. It can
be seen that the predicted pressure axial bending stress factor is
bounding for the cases analyzed.
Note that the linearised axial pressure bending stress is
positive on the external surface and negative on the internal
surface.
4.2 In-Plane Moment
For a defect assessment, Reference [12] can be used to
calculate Stress Intensity Factors (SIFs). For the moment
loadings, Reference [12] only requires the global bending
stress. Therefore, for the in-plane moment, the maximum
tensile hoop and axial stresses obtained from the FE analysis at
both ends of the elbow can be used.
For the hoop stress, the calculated stress factors, end/ cen,
for 1 kN-mm in-plane moment (maximum of in-plane closing
or opening) are tabulated in Table 6. It can be seen that
obtained stress factors are similar and that a stress factor of
0.604 is bounding:
fh_ipm = 0.604 (6)
A comparison of the prediction with the calculated stress
factors, end/ cen, for 1 kN-mm in-plane moment is shown in
Figure 9. It can be seen that the predicted hoop stress factor for
the in-plane moment is bounding for the cases analyzed.
For the axial stress, the calculated stress factors, end/ cen,
for 1 kN-mm in-plane moment (maximum of in-plane closing
or opening) are tabulated in Table 7. Then, a fourth order
polynomial curve was fitted and an equation was derived with
the parameter 1 as follows:
f a _ ipm = 156.67λ14 − 195.27λ13 + 80.678λ12 − 11.223λ1 + 0.9265
(7)
A comparison of the prediction with the calculated stress
factors, end/ cen, for 1 kN-mm in-plane moment is shown in
Figure 10. It can be seen that the predicted axial stress factors
for the in-plane moment are in close agreement for the cases
analyzed. Note that for elbow 5, the stress prediction is
significantly conservative and this is attributed to the artificially
low wall thickness.
4.3 Out-of-Plane Moment
Similarly, for the out-of-plane moment, the maximum
tensile hoop and axial stresses obtained from the FE analysis at
the loading end of the elbow are used here.
For the hoop stress, the calculated stress factors, end/ cen,
for 1 kN-mm out of-plane moment are tabulated in Table 8. It
can be seen that obtained stress factors are similar and a stress
factor of 0.539 is bounding:
fh_opm = 0.539 (8)
A comparison of the prediction with the calculated stress
factors, end/ cen, for 1 kN-mm out-of-plane moment is shown
in Figure 11. It can be seen that the predicted hoop stress factor
for the out-of-plane moment is bounding for the cases analyzed.
For the axial stress, the calculated stress factors, end/ cen,
for 1 kN-mm out-of-plane moment are tabulated in Table 9.
Then, a fourth order polynomial curve was fitted and an
equation was derived with the parameter 1 as follows:
3 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
f a _ opm = 100.75λ14 − 136.06λ13 + 64.487λ12 − 11.993λ1 + 1.3825
(9)
A comparison of the prediction with the calculated stress
factors, end/ cen, for 1 kN-mm out-of-plane moment is shown
in Figure 12. It can be seen that the predicted axial stress
factors for the out-of-plane moment are in close agreement for
the cases analyzed.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The detailed hoop and axial stresses obtained from seven
small displacement elastic 3D finite element analyses of the
elbows with the geometry parameter 1 varying from 0.196 to
0.501 have been used in this paper. The FE analysis results at
both ends of the elbow and at the central section of the elbow
have been compared with the stress values calculated using the
method given in ASME III NB-3685 and good agreements have
been obtained.
After the comparison, stress factors between the stresses
obtained from the FE analyses at ends of the elbow and the
stresses calculated using the method given in ASME III NB-
3685 at the central section of the elbow have been derived.
These stress factors are given in equations (2) to (9).
Equations (2) to (9) are valid for the geometry parameter
0.196 ≤ 1 ≤ 0.501 and R/r = 2.89 for the loadings of internal
pressure, in-plane moment (both closing and open) and out-of-
plane moment. For 1.88 ≤ R/r ≤ 1.92, the valid region is 0.268
≤ 1 ≤ 0.336.
For the internal pressure, equation (3) for the hoop bending
stress is positive on the internal surface and negative on the
external surface and equation (5) for the axial bending is
negative on the internal surface and positive on the external
surface. However, care should to be taken to ensure that the
combined membrane and bending stress is conservative on the
surface of interest when carrying out a limiting defect
assessment.
Use of the stress factors outside of these ranges (for other
geometries) would need to be done with care. These equations
can be refined in the future to include a wider range of
geometries, when more FE analysis results become available.
Finite Element Limit Analysis, International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 83, p. 148-153, 2006.
4. Kim, Y-J and Oh, C-S, Closed-form Plastic Collapse
Loads of Pipe Bends under Combined Pressure and In-plane
Bending, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 73, p. 1437-
1454, 2006.
5. Kim, Y-J and Oh, C-S, Effects of Attached Straight
Pipes on Finite Element Limit Analysis for Pipe Bends,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 84, p.
177-184, 2007.
6. Gupta, S K, Bhasin, V, Vaze, K K, Ghosh, A K and
Kushwaha, H S, General Limit Load and B2 Stress Index
Equation for Pipe Bends under in Plane Bending, The 19th
International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor
Technology (SMiRT 19), Toronto, August 2007, paper B04/5.
7. Mourad, H M and Younan, M Y A, Nonlinear Analysis
of Pipe Bends Subjected to Out-of plane Moment Loading and
Internal Pressure, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol.
123, p. 253-258, 2001.
8. Wang, C, Xuan, F and Li, P, Collapse Loads for Cracked
Piping Elbows under Internal Pressure and In-plane Moment,
The 18th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in
Reactor Technology (SMiRT 18), paper AMiRT18-J02-5,
Beijing, China, August 2007.
9. Yu, L and Matzen, V C, B2 Stress Index for Elbows
Analysis, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 192, p. 261-
270, 1999.
10. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III,
Division 1 - NB, 2007.
11. Version 6.6, Abaqus, Inc., 2006.
12. Marie, S et al, French RSE-M and RCC-MR code
appendixes for flaw analysis: presentation of the fracture
parameters calculation – Part III: cracked pipes. International
Journal of Pressure Vessel & Piping, 84 (2007) 614-658.
t, r i, r, R,
No mm mm mm mm R/r r/t 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1 5.56 77.8 80.58 228.6 2.84 14.5 0.196

2 4.3 51.75 53.9 152.4 2.83 12.5 0.226
This paper is published by permission of Serco and British
Energy. 3 3.7 24.63 26.48 50.8 1.92 7.16 0.268
4 4.85 24.63 27.05 50.8 1.88 5.58 0.336
5 5.5 36.83 39.58 114.3 2.89 7.2 0.401
REFERENCES
1. Chattopadhyay, J and Tomar, A K S, New Plastic 6 6.67 36.83 40.16 114.3 2.85 6.02 0.473
collapse Moment Equations of Defect-free and Through-wall 7 4.8 24.63 27.03 76.2 2.82 5.63 0.501
Circumferential Cracked Elbows Subjected to Combined
Internal Pressure and In-plane Bending Moment, Engineering TABLE 1: FINITE ELEMENT MODELS
Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 73, p. 829-854, 2006.
2. Robertson, A, Li, H and Mackenzie, D, Plastic Collapse
of Pipe Bends under Combined Internal Pressure and In-plane
Bending, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping,
Vol. 82, p. 407-416, 2005.
3. Kim, Y-J and Oh, C-S, Limit Loads for Pipe Bends
under Combined Pressure and In-plane Bending Based on

4 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

 FE ASME FE ASME
No 1 _end _cen _end/ _cen No 1 _end _cen _end/ _cen
1 0.196 16.1 18.56 0.867 1 0.196 0.26 7 0.037
2 0.226 13.86 16.09 0.861 2 0.226 0.23 6.02 0.038
3 0.268 8.6 11.2 0.768 3 0.268 0.26 3.33 0.078
4 0.336 6.65 8.92 0.746 4 0.336 0.22 2.54 0.088
5 0.401 7.7 9.23 0.834 5 0.401 0.17 3.35 0.051
6 0.473 6.38 7.78 0.82 6 0.473 0.15 2.76 0.054
7 0.501 5.94 7.3 0.813 7 0.501 0.14 2.57 0.056

TABLE 2: HOOP MEMBRANE STRESSES FOR UNIT TABLE 5: AXIAL BENDING STRESSES FOR UNIT
INTERNAL PRESSURE INTERNAL PRESSURE

FE ASME FE ASME
No 1 _end _cen _end/ _cen No 1 _end _cen _end/ _cen
1 0.196 0.89 18.56 0.048 1 0.196 0.028 0.047 0.596
2 0.226 0.85 16.09 0.053 2 0.226 0.074 0.127 0.583
3 0.268 0.93 11.2 0.083 3 0.268 0.344 0.57 0.604
4 0.336 0.84 8.92 0.095 4 0.336 0.219 0.363 0.603
5 0.401 0.59 9.23 0.064 5 0.401 0.073 0.129 0.566
6 0.473 0.58 7.78 0.075 6 0.473 0.053 0.092 0.576
7 0.501 0.63 7.3 0.086 7 0.501 0.155 0.271 0.572

TABLE 3: HOOP BENDING STRESSES FOR UNIT TABLE 6: HOOP STRESSES FOR 1KN-MM IN-PLANE
INTERNAL PRESSURE MOMENT

FE ASME FE ASME
No 1 _end _cen _end/ _cen No 1 _end _cen _end/ _cen
1 0.196 6.93 7 0.991 1 0.196 0.017 0.029 0.586
2 0.226 5.93 6.02 0.986 2 0.226 0.047 0.078 0.603
3 0.268 3.27 3.33 0.983 3 0.268 0.261 0.342 0.763
4 0.336 2.47 2.54 0.97 4 0.336 0.181 0.212 0.854
5 0.401 3.21 3.35 0.959 5 0.401 0.055 0.074 0.743
6 0.473 2.57 2.76 0.932 6 0.473 0.044 0.052 0.846
7 0.501 2.41 2.57 0.938 7 0.501 0.133 0.153 0.869

TABLE 4: AXIAL MEMBRANE STRESSES FOR UNIT TABLE 7: AXIAL STRESSES FOR 1KN-MM IN-PLANE
INTERNAL PRESSURE MOMENT

5 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

 FE ASME
No 1 _end _cen _end/ _cen
1 0.196 0.023 0.042 0.539
2 0.226 0.061 0.114 0.535
3 0.268 0.269 0.519 0.518
4 0.336 0.174 0.336 0.517
5 0.41 0.064 0.121 0.53
6 0.473 0.047 0.088 0.537
7 0.501 0.139 0.259 0.538

TABLE 8: HOOP STRESSES FOR 1KN-MM OUT-OF-PLANE

MOMENT
FIGURE 2: S33 BENDING STRESS UNDER 1KN-MM IN-
PLANE MOMENT
FE ASME
No 1 _end _cen _end/ _cen
1 0.196 0.021 0.033 0.635
20
2 0.226 0.057 0.087 0.651 ELM IDBENDIS (2)
18 FE Hoop
3 0.268 0.274 0.388 0.707 FE Axial
Pressure_H
16 Pressure_A
4 0.336 0.186 0.247 0.753 14

5 0.401 0.066 0.088 0.746

Stresses (MPa)
12

6 0.473 0.05 0.064 0.782 10

7 0.501 0.151 0.19 0.796 8

TABLE 9: AXIAL STRESSES FOR 1KN-MM OUT-OF-PLANE 4

MOMENT 2

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
o
θ( )

FIGURE 3: INTERNAL SURFACE HOOP AND AXIAL

STRESSES AT CENTRAL SECTION OF ELBOW 2 FOR UNIT
INTERNAL PRESSURE

0.2
FE Hoop FE Axial
ELM IDBENDIS (2)
IP Mom_H IP Mom_A
0.15

0.1

0.05
tresses(MPa)

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
S

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2
o
θ ( )

FIGURE 1: FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

FIGURE 4: INTERNAL SURFACE HOOP AND AXIAL

STRESSES AT CENTRAL SECTION OF ELBOW 2 FOR 1
KN-MM IN-PLANE MOMENT (CLOSING)

6 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

 1

0.9 0.5
0.8

0.7 0.4
Prediction
Stress Factor

0.6 FE _end/ _cen

Stress Factor
σ σ

0.3
0.5
_end/ _cen
σ σ

0.4
Prediction
0.2
0.3

0.2
0.1
0.1

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Lambda_1 Lambda_1

FIGURE 5: INTERNAL PRESSURE: HOOP MEMBRANE FIGURE 8: INTERNAL PRESSURE: AXIAL BENDING
STRESS COMPARISON STRESS COMPARISON

0.5 1.000

0.45 0.900
FE _end/ _cen
σ σ

0.4 0.800
Prediction
FE _end/ _cen 0.700
0.35
σ σ

Prediction
Stress Factor
Stress Factor

0.3 0.600

0.25 0.500

0.2 0.400

0.15 0.300

0.1 0.200

0.05 0.100

0 0.000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Lambda_1 Lambda_1

FIGURE 6: INTERNAL PRESSURE: HOOP BENDING FIGURE 9: IN-PLANE MOMENT: HOOP STRESS
STRESS COMPARISON COMPARISON

1
1.1
0.9
1
0.9 0.8

0.8 0.7
tressFactor
actor

0.7 0.6
Prediction
tressF

0.6 0.5
FE σ _end/ σ _cen
0.5
0.4
S
S

0.4 Prediction
0.3
0.3 FE σ _end/ σ _cen
0.2
0.2
0.1 0.1

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

La mbda _1 Lam bda_1

FIGURE 7: INTERNAL PRESSURE: AXIAL MEMBRANE FIGURE 10: IN-PLANE MOMENT: AXIAL STRESS
STRESS COMPARISON COMPARISON

7 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

 1
0.9
FE _end/ _cen
σ σ

0.8 Prediction
0.7
Stress Factor

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Lambda_1

FIGURE 11: OUT-OF-PLANE MOMENT: HOOP STRESS

COMPARISON

0.9
0.8

0.7
Stress Factor

0.6
0.5
Prediction
0.4
FE _end/ _cen
σ σ

0.3
0.2
0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Lambda_1

FIGURE 12: OUT-OF-PLANE MOMENT: AXIAL STRESS

COMPARISON

8 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

View publication stats