M. E.

Karabin
Alcoa Laboratories,
Alcoa Center, Pa. 15069;
Stress Component Indices for
formerly, Westinghouse Waltz Mill Site
Elbow-Straight Pipe Junctions
E. C. Rodabaugh
E. C. Rodabaugh Associates, Inc., Subjected to In-Plane Bending
Hilliard, Ohio 43026
Through use of the computer code BENDPAC, a number of solutions for elbows
attached to straight pipes are produced. This study focuses on the stresses at the
J. F. Whatham elbow-straight pipe junction. It is noted that the largest stress component is in the
Australian Atomic Energy Commission, hoop direction for h values less than 0.5, whereas for h greater than 0.5, the axial
Sutherland, Australia stress dominates. Simple expressions for stress indices in both directions are given.

Introduction
Recent analytical work by Whatham [1], resulting in the equilibrium over the pipe cross section, and £ | are self-
computer code BENDPAC, makes a parametric study of equilibrating but give the displacements. The !•% are of the
elbows feasible both in terms of time and expense. Thin- form
walled elbows subjected to one of five loading conditions can
be analyzed. Elbow end conditions may be either free,
flanged, flanged tangents, or infinitely long tangents, with dif- «= £a«/("0)
ferent conditions at each end.
The purpose of this work is to study elbows subjected to in- where f(nff) represent harmonic functions, either sine or
plane bending. Most of the elbows which are analyzed are con- cosine. For the straight pipe, the solutions, if, are simply the
nected to infinitely long straight pipe tangents, but one set of result of a straight pipe subjected to a bending moment. The
problems investigates elbows connected to finite tangents with H are solved through a system of eight equations—three
rigid flanges. The primary focus is centered on both major equilibrium, three force displacement relationships, and equa-
stress components (hoop and axial) at the junction of the tions relating the moment and rotation to the other forces and
elbow and straight pipe, which is commonly a location for a displacements.
weld. Simple design guidelines are suggested for both stress Expressions for if are of the form
components over a wide range of elbow geometries.
Figure 1 describes a number of the parameters associated
with the model. Definitions for the terms in the analysis are
^=tcje-^t^jf(^)
y'=i
given in the Nomenclature. where f(n&) are the appropriate harmonics, fly are the eigen-
values, and ri= Roc/r for the curved pipe and i\ = l/r for the
Background straight pipe; C, A, if are all complex; for in-plane bending,
The analytical model used to obtain the results in this study J=2N. Effects from opposite ends of the curved pipe are
is presented in a series of papers [1-3]. The eight unknowns of
the problem, three displacements, three forces, the in-plane
moment, and corresponding rotation are of the form
* = £' + ?
where £" are the solutions for an unterminated pipe or bend,
and the if represent the solution for a self-equilibrating stress
system which decays exponentially with distance from the
curved-straight pipe junction and flange. The unterminated
bend unknowns consist of

where iea satisfy, with no displacements, force and moment

Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division for publication in the
JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received by the
Pressure Vessels and Piping Division, September 25, 1984; revised manuscript
received April 11, 1985. Fig. 1 Problem description

86/ Vol. 108, FEBRUARY 1986 Transactions of the ASME

Copyright © 1986 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 Table 1 Problem description
Problem
set no. 1 2 3 4
90deg 90deg 90 deg 45 deg 180 deg 90 deg

L/R
h
R/r
0.0476 2 3 5 2 2 2
0.0714 2 3 5 3 3 3
0.143 2 3 5 3 3 3
0.191 2 3 5 2 2 2
0.286 2 3 5 3 3 3
0.715 2 3 5 3 3 3
0.954 2 3 5 5 5 5
1.43 2 3 5 5 5 5
Table 2 oH/S„
Problem
set no.

0.0476 -7.77 -7.52 -7.21 -7.43 -7.38 -3.37

/, 90 /, 90 /, 90 /, 95 /, 90 /, 95
0.0714 -6.05 -5.81 -5.53 -5.76 -5.52 -2.90
/, 95 /, 90 /, 90 /, 95 /, 90 /, 95
0.143 -3.96 -3.73 -3.52 -3.61 -3.51 -2.33
/, 95 /, 95 /, 90 /, 95 /, 90 /, 95
0.191 -3.29 -3.11 -2.86 -3.07 -2.53
/, 95 /, 95 /, 100 /, 95 /, 100
0.286 -2.52 -2.40 -2.23 -2.24 -2.24 -1.82
/, 95 /, 95 /, 90 /, 100 /, 95 /, 95
0.715 -1.48 -1.23 -1.10 -1.21 -1.19 -1.15
O, 180 O, 180 /, 95 O, 180 O, 180 O, 180
0.954 -1.20 -.988 -.865 -.890 -.861 -.764
O, 180 O, 180 /, 95 /, 95 /, 95 O, 180
1.43 -.841 -.695 -.613 -.625 -.613 -.568
O, 180 O, 180 /, 95 /, 95 /, 95 /, 95
r is aH/Sn, I (inside) or O (oiitside) denotes the surface, and the last number is the cir-
cumferential position as measured from the extrados.

superimposed. The eigenvalues are found from the Results

homogeneous form of the system of equations used to solve
for the £|. The £f and £c are added and equated across the
junction. This leads to a solution for the unknown C,. For an
infinitely stiff flange (at a finite distance from the elbow), the
four deformation parameters, summed from the straight pipe
eigenvectors and the unterminated straight pipe solution, are
equated to zero at the flange.
A somewhat different approach is used by Thomson and
Spence [4] to solve the same problem. A suitable kinematically
admissible displacement field in the form of a Fourier series is
sought to be used, along with the theorem of minimum poten-
tial energy, but the displacement field is approximate. Never-
theless, the errors produced in most cases are small, and a
comparison of results between the two methods shows good
agreement over a wide range of parameters. Flexibility factors
derived form Whatham's method are slightly higher (8 per-
cent), owing principally to the first mode of the hoop strain
being neglected in the Thomson and Spence analysis.
Six basic groups of problems, each with eight examples,
have been analyzed. The h values are the same in each group,
and they range from 0.0476 to 1.43. These are the same h
values used in [5]. Problems using the smallest h value have 12
terms in the eigenvalue expansions. All other problems use
only eight terms [3]. For the first basic problem set, a 90-deg
elbow ( « o = 90 deg) is analyzed with a constant R/r value of
two. The elbow is assumed to be connected to infinitely long
sections of straight pipe. Basic problem groups two and three
are identical to the first, except constant R/r values of three
and five, respectively, are used. Elbows of 45 and 180 deg are
analyzed in groups four and five, with various R/r values
( = 2, 3, or 5). The last problem set is the only one that in-
vestigates the effect of a nearby flange (L/r-T). For curved
pipes, the flange effect persists to a distance of one pipe cir-
cumference (L/r=6) from the flange [3]. A 90-deg elbow is
used for this case with the same R/r values in groups four and
five. Table 1 summarizes the six basic problem groups.

c2 --= 1.95//i 2/3 R' — R + /'cosf?

C
J --= series expansion coefficient r = elbow/pipe radius e = circumferential angle meas-
for £ s„ = M/irr2t ured from extrados
E --= Young's modulus t = elbow/pipe thickness V = Poisson's ratio
h --= Rt/r1 u = radial displacement f = system unknown
L =- length of elbow tangent a
0
= elbow angle <*H>aA = h o o p , axial stress
/ == variable distance along elbow oc = =
variable angle along elbow °mc c2s„
tangent e
H<eA = h o o p , axial strain 4>o = applied rotation produced by
M --= bending moment 1} = Rcc/r for elbow, l/r for M
R == elbow radius tangent ilj = eigenvalue

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1986, Vol. 108/87

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table3 aA/S„
Problem
set no. 3

0.0476 4.43 4.23 4.06 4.25 4.15 2.36

O, 80 O, 75 O, 75 O, 80 0, 75 O, 120
0.0714 3.49 3.33 3.15 3.34 3.17 -2.53
O, 75 O, 75 O, 75 O, 80 O, 75 O, 120
0.143 -2.51 2.17 2.05 2.13 2.06 -1.91
O, 130 O, 70 O, 70 O, 75 O, 70 O, 125
0.191 -2.26 -1.88 -2.12 -2.12 -1.97
O, 135 O, 135 O, 145 O, 135 O, 135
0.286 -1.96 -1.60 -1.37 -1.63 -1.53 -1.46
O, 145 O, 140 O, 140 O, 150 O, 140 O, 135
0.715 -1.81 -1.44 -1.28 -1.62 -1.42 -1.40
O, 180 O, 180 O, 180 O, 180 0, 180 O, 180
0.954 -1.86 -1.49 -1.31 -1.37 -1.32 -1.27
O, 180 O, 180 O, 180 O, 180 O, 180 O, 180
1.43 -1.93 -1.55 -1.34 -1.37 -1.35 -1.33
O, 180 O, 180 O, 180 O, 180 <9, 180 O, 180
The first number is oA/S„, I (inside) or O (outside) denotes the surface, and the last number is the cir-
cumferential position as measured from the extrados.
1.0 H
• °fc = 45°
a a
1.0
«o = 90°, R/r=2 D " 0.5 - 8 a • a a 9
a
e . a • a OO o a B a
0.5 a a
B« " B
SB
OPEN POINTS EXCEED THE THIN
t SHELL THEORY LIMITATION OF
1.0/0.1 t / r <0.3 1.0/0.1 B
a
o= 90° , R / r = 3 • «o = 180° _ a
B

u5 9 9

B B
a» a
, | B
• "
lo

a -
0

HOOP STRESS
J °-51— a

B
a

B
a • a

B
B B
a .
a

a- HOOP STRESS
b B - AXIAL STRESS
B- AXIAL STRESS
t B I
« 0 = 90° , R/r=5 B
a a a a
1.0/0.1 a„ = 90° , FINITE TANGIENTS B
1.0/0.1 ".. I a "
a a B • 0.5 a a
+ a a a
0.5 9 B B
a B
0.1 1 1 a B

0.01 0.1 1.0 10 B

Fig. 2 Maximum stresses at the elbow end («
elbows attached to long tangents
Tables 2 and 3 present the maximum stresses at the welds
(oc =0) in the hoop and axial directions, respectively. These
stress values are normalized by S„, which is equivalent to the
nominal bending stress in a straight pipe. Also given in the
tables are the location of maximum stress (6 value, inside (I) or
outside (O) surface) and the sign of the stress. This same infor-
mation is portrayed in Figs. 2 and 3; but in these figures, the
normalization factor is amc, where amc = C2S„ and
C2 = 1.95/h2/3. The open points in these figures are for
problems whose thickness ratios exceed the limits of thin shell
theory (t/r> 0.3) as established by Watham [2].
Comparisons of these numbers with the results obtained by
Rodabaugh, et al. [5] shows a general agreement. In most
cases, the stresses obtained in this analysis are greater than
those obtained in the Rodabaugh work. Contributing to the
differences in the results are the solution technique (the finite
element method is used in [5], and the stress at the weld
represents the average of the surrounding elements) and the
fact that rigid flanges are present in the Rodabaugh analysis at
L/r values of four to five (this should nearly approximate the
situation of long tangents present in problem groups one
through five in this analysis). Despite these differences, the
two analyses exhibit agreement to within 20 percent for small
h values and to within 5 percent for large h values.
Another finite element analysis looks at carry-over factors
for one specific case (Dhalla [6]). A carry-over factor is equal
to the ratio of the stress at the elbow end to the stress at the
0.1 |
0) for the 90-deg 0.01 0.1 1.0 10
Fig. 3 Maximum stresses at the elbow end (a = 0) for the 45-deg,
180-deg and those elbows with finite tangents
most highly stressed section within the elbow at the same cir-
cumferential location. Dhalla looks at the case ofoc0 = 90 deg,
R/r = 3, /J = 0 . 1 3 , and L/r = 4 (approximating the infinite
tangent). Carry-over factors of 0.48 in the hoop direction and
0.55 in the axial direction are reported. In the present analysis,
a comparable problem (h = 0.14) gives carry-over factors of
0.52 and 0.55 in the hoop and axial directions, respectively.
This provides analytical confirmation from a second indepen-
dent source.
Figures 2 and 3 exhibit some common trends. For the cases
with infinitely long tangents, aH/amc is relatively constant and
ranges from 0.5 to 0.6 for values of h less than 0.5. For larger
values of h, aH/omc decreases. The axial component always is
substantially smaller than the hoop component for small h
values. It increases slowly at first and then surpasses the hoop
component in the vicinity of h = 0.5. This same switch in max-
imum stress direction from hoop to axial at h = 0.5 is also
noted in [5]. The effect of the nearby flange is seen in the last
set of plots in Fig. 3. For h values less than 0.5, the hoop stress
is notably less than in any of the five previous cases. This is
due to the restriction on ovalization imposed by the flange.
Since both ends of the elbow are attached to pipes with nearby
rigid flanges, both ends have reduced hoop stresses, but in
cases where the flange is only present at one end of the elbow
[7], the carry-over factor is enhanced at the end where there is

88/ Vol. 108, FEBRUARY 1986 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 4 Diametric contractions/expansions—uirrEt/M
CT H > IN
/ - a = 45° Problem
OUT ,_
— <v set no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
/
2-
~~~~~>iC'
"^Z N
/
K
/
_
OCTCX N \
\>
/
//
/"^ ^-J^-
0.0476
0.0714
124.0
183.0
-80.5
-184.0 -302.0 -120.0 -119.0 - 4 2 . 4
271.0 443.0 170.0 174.0
-119.0 - 194.0 -118.0 -115.0 - 3 8 . 6
67.0
\\ // 109.0 162.0 264.0 158.0 156.0 65.2
—
0.143 -37.1 -54.8 -89.0 -53.7 -52.3 -28.7
„ a = o° ~ ^ yI ~~ / 43.5 65.0 106.0 62.0 61.7 36.3
-26.3 -23.7 -24.3 -19.2
\ /y / 0.191
29.0
-38.8
43.6 24.8 27.2 21.1
— 0.286 -15.5 -22.9 -36.8 -21.6 -21.5 -16.7
a = 45° 15.8 24.1 39.2 22.2 22.7 17.6
\ / aD= 90° -3.66 -5.22 -8.27 -4.85 -5.05 -4.74
\ / R/r = 5
0.715
3.03 4.87 8.14 4.47 4.71 4.39
\_/ h = .143 -2.24 -4.87 -4.99
0.954 -3.11 -4.85 -4.23
1 1.63 2.74 4.68 4.79 4.66 4.04
1.43 -1.15 -1.51 -2.29 -2.32 - 2 . 2 8 -2.11
(EXTRADOS) 0 0.590 1.15 2.08 2.11 2.07 1.90
Fig. 4 Stresses at the end and middle of a relatively flexible elbow tiber is the contraction along the extrados-intrados, and
the second number is the expansion along the crown-crown.
traction at the extrados-intrados is smaller than the expansion
cy OUT at the crown-crown for h < 0.5, but for h > 0.5, the reverse is
true.
Figures 4 and 5 plot a/S„ as a function of 6 for both com-
ponents of stress at the elbow middle (oc = 45 deg), as well as
at the elbow end (oc = 0 deg). Both figures examine 90 deg
elbows with R/r=5, but Fig. 4 considers a thinner elbow
(h = 0.143), while Fig. 5 is for a thicker elbow (h = 0.954). Ex-
tremes along the elbow end and middle occur at roughly the
same 6 values, and the elbow end values are about one-half
those at the middle, with the exception of the axial stress in
Fig. 5. In Fig. 4, the stresses at the elbow middle are more
sharply peaked. The two local maxima for the hoop stress at
the middle (0 = 40 and 140 deg) are also present at the elbow
end (oc = 0 deg) for smaller h values. By decreasing the
ovalization, either by going to oc = 0 deg or increasing h, the
0" 90" 180° hoop stress pattern is flattened, as can be seen in Figs. 4 and 5.
(EXTRADOS) The effect of increasing h for the axial stress not only flattens
Fig. 5 Stresses at the end and middle of a relatively rigid elbow out the response, but produces like responses at oc = 4 5 deg
and at oc = 0 deg. In all cases the hoop stress at the outside
no flange to a point that it exceeds the usual carry-over factor surface is nearly the opposite value of the stress at the inside
(0.5) in elbows attached to pipe tangents at both ends. The surface (as taken from figures not shown here). This is not
axial component of stress is only marginally smaller than the true for the axial stress.
hoop component for h < 0.3, and it exhibits a nearly linear The basic trends of the stress distributions at the elbow end
behavior with h (in a log-log sense) over the entire range of h. are quite similar for the other R/r values with the same h. In
As in the previous five problem groups, the crossover of max- fact, the stress distributions at oc = 0 deg are nearly indepen-
imum stress value from hoop to axial occurs in the vicinity of dent of oco for a given h. This can be seen for the hoop stress
/? = 0.5. Note that the data points in Fig. 2 all fall on smooth for R/r = 2 and h = 0.0476 in Fig. 6. The agreement for all
lines, whereas the points in Fig. 3 show some scatter owing to three oc0 values becomes more unified with increasing h.
the fact that more than one R/r value is used. Hence, the stress These same patterns are evident for the axial stress. This is an
results do show some dependence on R/r, independent of h. indication that stresses at oc = 0 deg are independent of the
For the range of h, where the axial stress component is max- angle subtended by the elbow for a wide range of oco. As h in-
imum (0.5 < h), aA/S„ is, to a large degree, independent of h. creases and ovalization decreases, this result is even more
It also appears to be independent of oc0 and the proximity of apparent.
the rigid flange (at least for L/r values of two or greater). For Many of the observations noted above can be explained by
R0/r values of 2, 3, and 5, <rA/S„ equals 1.9, 1.5, and 1.3, use of the analysis first presented by Von Karman and restated
respectively, to within 10 percent. Of course, all of the data by Den Hartog in [8]. It is assumed that the radial displace-
points for R/r = 2 and most for R/r=3 exceed the limits of ment is of the form
thin shell analysis for this range of h. So any sweeping — un cos 2 6 (1)
generalizations are difficult to justify.
Table 4 gives the ovalization effects for all the problems. (The displacement fields from problems in this analysis nearly
fit this form except that it may be noted from Table 4 that the
The two numbers for each case represent the normalized
diametric contraction along the extrados-intrados [9 = 0, 180
diametric contraction from the extrados to the intrados and
deg] does not equal the diametric expansion from crown to
the diametric expansion from crown to crown. The flange im-
crown [6 = 90, 270 deg], especially for the smaller values of h.)
poses a noticeable restriction on ovalization for cases where h Calculating the strains leads to
is small (very thin wall pipes), but in the cases where h and,
hence, the thickness are larger, the flange effect is not so pro- -3u0y
cos 26
nounced. It is also interesting to note that the diametric con-

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1986, Vol. 108/89

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 6 Hoop stress variation at the elbow end for different elbow
shapes
(2)
e = T
°*<> cos 0 ^— cos 3 0
A
R' a0 R'
where y is the distance from the pipe mid-plane (ymix - ?// 2),
4>0 is the rotation of the cross section caused by the applied
moment, and R' =R + r cos 6. (Note that the hoop strain is
due only to the ovalization, but the axial strain is the result of
axial stretching [or shortening], as well as the ovalization.)
Neglecting any radial stress, the other stress components are
E
°"//=-j Y^H + V eA>
(3)
E Using a program developed by Whatham [1], inexpensive
aA=- Y(eA+v eH)
In order to simplify the analysis, the assumption is made
that R' =R (which according to [8] is acceptable for R > 5r).
Using the principle of minimum potential energy leads to the
result
This gives the relative importance of the ovalization and axial
stretching deformation modes.
Using expressions (1) through (4), it is possible to explain
many of the trends found in the results. It has been noted that
the maximum stress component direction at the end of the
elbow changes from hoop to axial near the value of h = 0.5.
Note that the bending and ovalization terms of eA (expression
(2)) are always of the opposite sign. Using expression (4), it
can be seen that for h values less than 0.4, the ovalization term
dominates (at least where the cosine functions are near unity).
As h approaches zero,
* ' ^ ~ K „ ( y ^ - - l ) = - ° - 1 7 M 0 = O, 180 deg)
/R'y\ -3
R'e„=-3 u0{-—-) — uoh(d = 90 deg)
For values of h > 0.11, the hoop strain term dominates.
(For the results in the current analysis, the hoop strain term
dominates for even smaller values of h. This is because expres-
sion 1 does not describe the analytical displacement field ex-
actly—the diametric expansion at 0 = 90-270 deg is greater
than contraction at 6 = 0-180 deg.) As h increases from 0.11 to
0.4, the axial strain term decreases while the hoop strain term
increases. By expression (3), since Poisson's ratio is less than
one, the hoop stress term is the greater of the two stresses in where/is a function of R/r only. It appears to be independent
this range. For h > 0.4, the bending displacement term (4>0) is of ct0, h, and the proximity of the flanges. For values of
90 / Vol. 108, FEBRUARY 1986
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
the major component of axial strain. This is one of the con-
tributing factors for the axial stress becoming the maximum
component for h > 0.5. Another factor not accounted for in
the Von Karman theory is the fact that the presence of the
tangents, especially thick ones (large h) restricts ovalization.
Decreasing ovalization decreases hoop strain while increasing
axial strain, leading to an increase in axial stress.
It is possible to determine why the maximum axial stress
always occurs at 0 = 180 deg on the outside surface for h >
0.5. Maximum values (in the.absolute sense) for the axial
strain occur at 9 values equal to either 0 or 180 deg. At d equal
to 0 deg, eA is positive, and the maximum value of aA will oc-
cur on the inside surface because eH is positive on the inside
surface. Conversely, the maximum value (in the absolute
sense) of the axial stress at 6 equal to 180 deg occurs on the
outside surface because both eA and eH are the same sign. The
stress at the intrados (6 = 180 deg) takes precedence over the
value at the extrados because the R' value in expression (2) is
not really a constant (although that assumption was made to
simplify the analysis) but a minimum at the intrados.
Expression (2) shows that the maximum hoop strain values
will occur at 6 values of 0, 90, or 180 deg. Since eA is zero at 6
equal to 90 deg, one would surmise that the maximum hoop
stress would occur at either the intrados or extrados where the
strains are the same sign; but for h < 0.5, the diametric expan-
sion is greater in the crown-crown direction (0 = 90, 270 deg)
than the contraction through the intrados-extrados {8 = 0, 180
deg), and this seems to affect the hoop stress more than any
contribution by the axial strain through the Poisson effect.
The maximum occurs always on the inside surface because r is
minimum on the inside and eH is inversely proportional to r.
Summary
solutions to a large number of elbows subjected to in-plane
bending have been obtained. These elbows are connected to
either infinitely long tangents or flanged tangents at a distance
of L/r = 2 from the end of the elbow. Solutions are obtained
using a series expansion for the unknowns with the assump-
tions that normal stresses through the pipe wall are constant
and that nromals through the wall remain normal and un-
changed in length. Results are acceptable for relatively thick
shells (t/r < 0.3).
Results at the end of an elbow are independent of oc0 to a
great extent. This is evident in the terms of maximum response
(Tables 2-4, Figs. 2 and 3), as well as the overall response (Fig.
6).
For values of h < 0.5 the maximum stress component is in
the hoop direction. In the case of long tangents (L/r > 6), a
simple relationship for the hoop stress is
oH/amc = C for h<0.5
where C is a constant. C is less than 0.6 and is nearly equal to
0.5 for the problems in this analysis. C exhibits a slightly
decreasing trend for increasing R/r values. For h values
greater than 0.5, aH/amc decreases with increasing h, and C
equal to 0.5 provides an upper bound, provided that the cases
satisfy the thin shell limitation (t/r < 0.3).
When a flanged tangent is near the elbow, aH/a exhibits a
linear relationship (in a log-log sense) for h < 0.5 as the one
suggested in [5]. Still, a value of C equal to 0.5 provides a con-
servative estimate of the stress.
For h > 0.5, the axial stress is maximum due to the fact that
the dominant mode of deformation is due to axial stretching
(or shortening) as opposed to ovalization. Using the results in
this analysis, a simplified expression for the axial stress is
aA/S„=f(R/r) 0.5</2< 1.5
Transactions of the ASME
 /}//•= 2, 3, 5, and oo,/takes on corresponding values of 1.9,
1.5, 1.2, and 1 (although the results for/? /r= 2 are not valid in
this h range since t/r > 0.3). It is important to note that the
carry-over factor (aA /amc) in this range is no longer one-half,
but approaches unity.
Acknowledgment
This work was performed for the U. S. Department of
Energy under Contract DE-AC 15-76-CL5000.
References
1 Whatham, J. F., "Analysis of Circular Pipe Bends with Flanged Ends,"
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 72, 1982.
2 Whatham, J. F., "Thin Shell Equations for Circular Pipe Bends," Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Vol. 65, 1981.
3 Whatham, J. F., and Thompson, J. J., "Bending and Pressurizing of Pipe
Bends with Flanged Tangents," Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 54, 1979.
4 Thomson, G., and Spence, J., "Maximum Stresses and Flexibility Factors
of Smooth Pipe Bends with Tangent Pipe Terminations Under In-Plane
Bending," ASME JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY, Nov. 1983.
5 Rodabaugh, E. C , Iskander, S. K., and Moore, S. E., "End Effects on
Elbows Subjected to Moment Loadings," ORNL/Sub-2913-7, Mar. 1978.
6 Dhalla, A. K., "Simplified Inelastic Analysis Procedure to Evaluate a Butt-
Welded Elbow E n d , " ASME Special Publication PVP-50, 1981.
7 Thomas, K., "Stiffening Effects on Thin-Walled Piping Elbows of Adja-
cent Piping and Nozzle Constraints," ASME Special Publication PVP-50, 1981.
8 Den Hartog, J. P., Advanced Strength of Materials, Article 34, McGraw-
Hill, 1952.

REFERENCE CITATION FORMAT

Following action by the ASME Board of Editors, references List of References

for papers published in future issues of the JOURNAL OF
PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY will be cited by means of a dif- References to original sources for cited material should be
ferent format. This format should be followed in all Technical listed together at the end of the article; footnotes should not
Papers, Brief Notes, Discussions, etc., which are submitted be used for this purpose. References should be arranged in
after May 1, 1986, for consideration for publication in the alphabetical order according to the last name of the author, or
Journal. the last name of the first-named author for articles with more
than one author. Each reference should include the last name
Text Citation of References of each author followed by his initials. Reference to journal
articles, papers in conference proceedings or any other collec-
Within the text of an article, references should be cited by tion of works by numerous authors should include the year of
giving the last name of the author(s) and the year of publica- publication, the full title of the cited article, the full name of
tion of the reference. The year should always be enclosed in the publication in which it appeared, the volume number (if
parentheses; whether or not the name of the author(s) should any), and the inclusive page numbers of the cited article.
also be enclosed within the parentheses depends on context. Reference to textbooks, monographs, theses, and the technical
The two possibilities are illustrtated as follows: reports should include the year of publication, the full title of
It was shown by Smith (1981) that the size of the plastic the publication, the publisher, the city of publication, and in-
region decreases under these conditions. clusive page numbers for work being cited. In all cases, title of
books, periodicals, and the conference proceedings should be
or underlined or in italics. A sample list of references in which
It was shown that the size of the plastic region these forms are illustrated follows:
decreases under these conditions (Smith, 1981).
In the case of two authors, last names of both authors should
be included in the citation. For example, typical citations Sample References
would have the form: Cane, B. J., Middleton, C. J., Townsend, R. D. and
Willoughby, G., 1978, "Collaborative Programme on the
Johnson and Glen (1974) noticed
Correlation of Test Data for the Design of Welded Steam
or
Pipes. Uniaxial Data Analysis, 6th Progress Report," Central
was recently noticed (Johnson and Glen, 1974). Electricity Research Laboratories L M / M A T S / 1 9 3 ,
In the case of three or more authors, only the last name of the Leatherhead, United Kingdom.
first author of the reference should be included; other authors Johnson, R. F. and Glen, J., 1974, "Some Problems in the
should be denoted by "et al." Typical citations would have Assessment of High-Temperature Properties of Engineering
the form: Purposes," Proceedings of the Conference on Creep Strength
in Steel and High-Temperature Alloys, Metals Society, Lon-
Cane et al. (1978) discovered that don, pp. 37-39.
or Klein, R., 1982a, Plastic Deformation of Metals at High
. . . . was discovered by (Cane et al, 1978). Rates of Strain, Franklin Press, New York, pp. 82-109.
Klein, R., 1982b, "Ductile Fracture of Steel During High
In the case of two or more references with the same author(s) Rate Forming Operations," ASME Journal of Applied
and with the same year of publication, the references should Mechanics, Vol. 49, pp. 429-438.
be distinguished in the text by appending a lower case letter Smith, G. T., 1981, "Inverse Problems in Nondestructive
" a " to the year of publication of trie first-cited, a letter " b " to Evaluation of Materials," Ph.D. thesis, McHenry University,
the second-cited, and so on. For example, Minneapolis, Minn.
Klein (1982a) discovered Viswanathan, R., 1985, "Dissimilar Metal Weld and Boiler
Creep Damage Evaluation for Plant Life Extension," ASME
and, later in the text, JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 107, pp.
It was also noted (Klein, 1982b) that 218-225.

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1986, Vol. 108/91

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use