FINITE ELEMENT MODELING OF LOCALLY THINNED SHORT

RADIUS PIPE BENDS

Usama Abdelsalam, Ph.D., P.Eng.(1) & Dk Vijay, Ph.D., P.Eng.(2)
(1) (2)
Technical Expert Section Manager
Component Integrity, Operations Engineering, AMEC NSS Ltd.
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
usama.abdelsalam@amec.com

ABSTRACT
This paper addresses the finite element modelling, analysis, and qualification of Carbon Steel pipe bends with Local
Tinned Areas (LTA) under internal pressure and dead weight loading. Detailed 3D solid finite element models are
constructed to represent short radius pipe bends typically used in feeder piping of the Primary Heat Transport (PHT)
system in CANDU nuclear reactors. Two in-plane end-to-end bends are considered with the local thinned area
located close to the middle of the second bend. Measured thickness data is used to construct idealized axial and
circumferential thickness profiles ensuring a lower bound on the wall thickness over the entire bends region. Linear
elastic finite element analysis is performed using the general purpose finite element program ANSYS. The pipe
bends are assessed following the ASME Code SEC III NB-3221 approach and Section XI Code Case N-597-2. The
results presented illustrate the effectiveness of the detailed finite element analysis in qualifying wall thickness
significantly below the pressure-based thickness in locally thinned pipe bends.
Introduction
In a typical CANDU reactor, 380 or 480 Fuel Channels (FC) are arranged horizontally in a lattice inside the
Calandria Vessel. The nuclear fuel bundles are placed inside the Fuel Channels. The heavy water flowing inside the
Fuel Channels transports the heat energy generated from the nuclear reaction to the steam generators. The flow of
the heavy water coolant through the Fuel Channels is provided by Primary Heat Transport (PHT) pumps and carried
through pipes running from the inlet headers and removed through pipes connecting to the outlet header. Each Fuel
Channel is connected to two pipes called inlet and outlet feeders. Feeders are made of Low Carbon Steel SA-106 Gr.
B pipes with tight radius bends/elbows welded to the Grayloc hub that is assembled to the end-fittings at the ends of
the Fuel Channels with a bolted connection. The pipe sizes used for feeders in a typical CANDU reactor are in the 2-
3.5” outer diameter range with thickness in the 0.218-0.3” range. Figure 1 shows a typical CANDU reactor face with
inlet (blue) and outlet (red) feeders connecting the Fuel Channels to inlet and outlet headers.
Feeders as part of the Primary Heat Transport
system (PHT) are classified as Class 1 piping
components. Therefore, feeders were designed
according to ASME B&PV Code Section III
Division 1 Subsection NB-3600 (Piping
Design). It is observed that the outlet feeders
encounter considerable wall thinning due to
the flow accelerated corrosion (FAC)
phenomenon. The wall thinning is more
pronounced at the tight radius elbow/bend
regions close to the Grayloc hub. The reduced
wall thickness leads to higher stresses that
need to be assessed to demonstrate feeders’
fitness for continued service under specified
loads. This paper focuses on the pressure and
dead weight loads only.
The pressure requirement in the ASME SEC
III protects against the catastrophic collapse of
the designed components due to a single Figure 1: CANDU Reactor Face
application of the primary load. The basic
criterion for internal pressure loading under the ASME Code SEC III NB-3600 “Piping Design” rules is given in
NB-3640 “Pressure Design“. This criterion is applicable for straight pipe segments as described in NB-3641.1. For
curved segments of pipe, NB-3642 provides guidance relating to pipe bends in NB-3642.1 where the minimum wall
thickness, tmin, required for a design pressure is determined using a simple formula. For curved segments of pipe,
NB-3642.1 “Pipe Bends” adopts the same equation for determining the wall thickness for the straight segments of
pipe with three limitations. Of special relevance to this paper, the second limitation, expressed in the form of Table
NB-3642.1(b)-1, guides the designer when ordering a pipe to use a higher than tmin thickness for the pipe prior to
bending. For instance, for a 3inch pipe diameter, the recommended minimum thickness prior to bending is 1.25tmin.
When a straight pipe is bent, the extrados thins out and the intrados thickens. As such, the thickness on the intrados
will be even higher than 1.25tmin after the bending operation. In other words, the code acknowledges that a pipe bend
with uniform thickness having the pressure based thickness of NB-3640.1 equation is not acceptable.
Under NB-3630 “Piping Design And Analysis Criteria” it is stated that “(c) When a design does not satisfy the
requirements of NB-3640 “Pressure Design” and NB-3650 “Analysis of Piping Products”, the more detailed
alternative analysis given in NB-3200 or the experimental stress analysis of Appendix II may be used to obtain
stress values for comparison with the criteria of NB-3200 “Design By Analysis”. Considering the design pressure
loading, the design by analysis rules of NB-3221 requires that general primary membrane stress intensity, Pm, meet
the Sm limit (NB-3221.1), the local membrane stress intensity, PL, meet the 1.5Sm limit (NB-3221.2) and the primary
membrane (Pm or PL) plus primary bending stress intensity, Pb meet the 1.5Sm limit (NB-3621.3). Moreover, the
ASME Code provides relief from the linear elastic analysis rules of NB-3621 by applying plastic analysis techniques
as per NB-3228 as stated under article NB-3621 “Design Loadings”. In summary, there are three options to meet the
pressure requirements for a piping component during the design stage; Equation 1 of NB-3640, linear elastic
approach in NB-3221, and plastic analysis in NB-3228.
The wall thinning may be general or local depending on the piping geometry and the fluid flow characteristics. For
fitness for service assessments, the wall loss needs to be considered. The ASME Code SEC III, being a construction
code, does not provide explicit guidance as to how to deal with locally thinned areas (LTA). EPRI [5] provides
guidance and acceptance criteria for the evaluation of Carbon Steel piping erosion/corrosion wall thinning. A three-
step evaluation process is proposed based on the ASME code design requirements and defines the degree of wall
thinning (depth and extent) which can be safely left in service. This guidance is consistent with the ASME Code
SEC XI Code Case N-597-2 that provides a criterion to assess the LTA for Class 2 and Class 3 pipes. Osage et al.
[6] provided an overview of the latest technology at the time for the assessment of non-crack like flaws including
erosion/corrosion, pitting, blisters, shell out-of-roundness, weld misalignment, bulges and dents. With regard to
LTAs, they provided a review and evaluation of available methodologies for LTA assessment including effective
area methods (ASME B31G), extensions to the effective area method, and thickness averaging approaches. Zhang et
al. [7] calculated the plastic collapse load of a single elbow using a finite element analysis model. Only pressure
loading is considered and as such, both the geometry and loading are symmetric with respect to the in-plane plane of
the elbow. To preserve the model symmetry, only symmetric thinning patches could be modelled. The thinned
regions were modeled by removing elements resulting in sharp transitions from the LTA and the surrounding
material. The effects of the LTA location, bend radius, and LTA size are investigated. S. Iyer and R. Kumar [8]
presented an assessment of LTA in class 1 piping components using the finite element method and following the
ASME Code SEC III NB-3221 criteria. Two tight radius bends connected by a straight piece of pipe were
considered. S. Iyer [9] re-iterated the methodology and procedure in his previous paper with more focus on the
calculation of stress indices considering the local nature of the thinned areas to be used in the piping analysis. On the
regulatory side, J. Jin [12] summarized the regulatory view point regarding the fitness for service assessments
employing the ASME Code elastic and plastic methodologies emphasizing the opinion of maintaining the same
margin of safety.
In this paper, double tight radius bends are considered under pressure and dead weight loading only. It should be
noted that the methodology and procedures developed for this study is independent of the geometry or the
configuration of the piping system. The analysis presented in this paper focuses on the development of axial and
circumferential thickness profiles that idealize the measured thickness over the entire tight radius bends region. The
idealized profiles are combined with a variable thinning rate function to develop the predicted thickness profiles
corresponding to a target operation period. These idealized profiles are implemented in detailed finite element
models to perform the pressure assessment of typical CANDU feeder pipe bends according to the ASME Code SEC
III NB-3221 criteria. Out-of-roundness is considered and is represented by an elliptical cross-section at the middle of
the bend that gradually tapers down to a circular cross-section at the ends of each bend. The results of the analysis
are presented for all locations covering the entire tight radius bends region.
Finite Element Model
In the finite element modelling presented in this paper, the full feeder length is considered. Solid brick elements are
used at the tight radius bends region to provide flexibility in introducing wall thinning profiles on the inner surface
only. The rest of the piping away from the area of interest is modelled using pipe elements.
Feeder Piping Geometry
Figure 2 illustrates a typical CANDU feeder model with a close up view showing the lower portion with the tight
radius bends and the Grayloc hub. The tight radius bends and the Grayloc hub are called the feeder extension. The
focus of this paper is the tight radius bends where the most significant wall thinning is observed. As such, the feeder
extension portion and the attached straight segment of pipe are modelled using ANSYS SOLID95 elements. Three
through-thickness layers of ANSYS SOLID95 brick elements were used along with seventy two elements along the
circumferential direction. The rest of the feeder up to the header nozzle weld is modelled using pipe elements. The
general purpose finite element program, ANSYS is used to setup the numerical models, perform the stress analyses,
and post-process the results. The nominal piping
cross-section dimensions used to build the
geometric models are:
Outer Diameter, Do = 2.361 in (60 mm)
Nominal Thickness, tn = 0.218 in (5.54 mm)
Bend Angle, θ = 50o
Bend Radius, R = 3 in (76.2 mm)
Material Model
A linear-elastic isotropic material model, using
the properties of ASME material SA-106 Grade
B [1], is used for the analysis (at 605 oF).
Elastic Modulus, E = 26.7x106
psi
Poisson’s Ratio, ν = 0.3
Allowable stress Intensity, Sm = 17.26 Ksi
Pressure Based Thickness
The pressure based allowable thickness for a
straight pipe, tmin, is calculated in accordance Figure 2: Typical CANDU Feeder Model
with the ASME Section III, NB-3641.1(1) as
follows:
PDo
tmin = +A
2( S m + Py ) 1.5

P is the internal Design Pressure (1455psig), Do 1.4

2" Extrados:
t aloc /t min = 0.863
is the outside diameter of the pipe, A is the 2" Intrados: 2" Feeders
corrosion allowance, y is equal to 0.4, and Sm is 1.3
t aloc /t min = 1.303
the max allowable stress intensity for the 1.2
2.5" Extrados:
material at the design temperature. Therefore, the t aloc /t min = 0.878
2.5" Intrados:
pressure-based thickness for a straight pipe 1.1
t aloc /t min = 1.238
2.5" Feeders
segment calculated using the above formula is,
taloc /tmin

1.0
tmin = 0.096 in
2.45 mm
0.9
t aloc 0.5
In the central area of a pipe bend, Osage et al [6] ≥ 0.5 +
0.8
t min Rmin
presented a criterion for the allowable thickness 1+ Cosθ L
Rb
that is developed using the required thickness of 0.7

a toroidal vessel compared to a straight pipe. 0.6

This criterion is illustrated graphically in Figure Extrados Cheek Intrados
3 for 2” and 2.5” pipe bends where, 0.5
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180
taloc is the allowable local wall θL
thickness
Figure 3: Allowable Thickness in Pipe Bends.
 Rmin is the mean radius of the piping item based on tmin.
Rb is the bend radius of curvature
θL is the circumferential angle.
This criterion is adopted by SEC XI Code Case N-597-2 [3 & 4].

For the 2” feeder considered in this paper with a thin spot centered at the intrados, the allowable local minimum
thickness is 1.303tmin = 0.125in = 3.19mm. It is worth noting that for 2.5” feeders, the allowable local minimum
thickness at the center of the intrados is 1.238tmin. This is close to the ASME Code recommended wall thickness of
1.25tmin as per Table NB-3642.1(b)-1.
Axial & Circumferential Thickness Profiles
To closely simulate the pipe bend wall thickness distribution, the actual measured thickness data is used as
illustrated in Figure 4 to develop a bounding thickness profile. The thickness measurements are performed using a
bracelet tool that has 14 probes equally spaced along the circumference covering a 140o angle. For the intrados scan,
the tool is centered with the intrados of the first bend and moved axially to cover both bends. As such, the second
half of the intrados scan represents the extrados scan for the second bend. Similarly, the second half of the extrados
scan represents the intrados scan over the second bend. Figure 4 shows the minimum measured thickness plots for
the intrados, extrados, left cheek, and right cheek scans of the tight radius bends region along the axial direction of
the feeder. The idealization of the measured data is plotted in red and it is bounding along the entire tight radius
bend region in the axial direction. It is evident in this figure that the maximum thinning is downstream from the
transition between the first and second bends. In the circumferential direction, Figure 5 illustrates the comparison
between the idealized profile and the measured thickness data at the cross-section having the minimum local
thickness of 2.7mm.
To develop the projected idealized profiles corresponding to a target operation period, a uniform thinning rate is
traditionally assumed. However, using a uniform thinning rate could be either conservative or non-conservative
considering that not all locations started with the same thickness (extrados started thinner than intrados). For
instance, if the thinnest spot is at the intrados, assuming a uniform thinning rate produces a too conservative estimate
of the projected thickness on the extrados. To reduce the conservatism, a location dependent thinning rate function is
adopted instead.
The location dependent thinning rate is developed realizing that the intrados started thicker than nominal and the
extrados started thinner. In this investigation, a 5% thicker than nominal intrados and 5% thinner than nominal
extrados are used to approximate the original thickness. As such the thinning rates at the bend middle section
extrados and intrados are as follows:
Extrados Thinning Rate = (0.95tnom-tmeasured)/EFPY
Intrados Thinning Rate = (1.05tnom-tmeasured)/EFPY

Close to the cheeks, both the intrados and extrados have original thickness equal to the nominal thickness. This
increase and decrease in the initial wall thickness is consistent with data obtained from thickness measurements of
inlet feeders (where in-significant thinning occurs) and spare bends. Figure 6 illustrates the assumed axial
distribution of the original thickness and the idealized thinned profile along the second tight radius bend. Figure 7
shows the axial distribution of the calculated thinning profile along the second tight radius bend.

Table 1 summarizes the FEA model statistics (minimum and maximum) of the predicted thickness, original
thickness, and thinning rate for the second bend. The maximum thinning rate in the model is 0.173mm/EFPY at the
intrados of the second bend. EFPY stands for Effective Full Power Years of continuous operation. The maximum
thinning rate at the extrados is 0.11mm/EFPY. Figure 8 shows the locally thinned spot on the inside surface of the
intrados of the second tight radius bend.

As recorded in Table 1, the minimum local thickness introduced in the finite element model is 2.37mm which is
significantly lower than the allowable thickness of 3.19 mm for the inner portion (intrados) of a pipe bend.
Out of Roundness
Bending of pipes introduces out of roundness to the short radius bends. The out-of-roundness is represented by an
elliptical cross section with the major axis connecting the left and right cheeks of the bend. 8% out of roundness is
used in constructing the FEA models for this paper. The maximum out of roundness is placed at the center of each
bend. The beginning and end of each bend is modeled as a perfect circle.
Boundary Conditions & Loading
The finite element model is fixed in all six degrees of freedom at the two terminal ends; at the Grayloc hub flange
and at the header nozzle weld. The location of the rigid hanger support is constrained in the vertical direction. A
linear spring is attached at the spring hanger location with the appropriate spring constant.

taloc 14-probe Extrados

14-probe Intrados 14-probe Left Cheek
5.5
14-probe Right Cheek 6-Probe Extrados
6-Probe Intrados Idealized Profile
5
Wall Thickness (mm)

4.5

t
3.5

taloc = 3.19 mm

3
Idealized Profile

2.5
Lm(a)

2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Axial Distance Along Feeder Centerline (mm)

Figure 4: Measured & Idealized Axial Thickness Profiles

5 Measurement

4
Lm(t)
t aloc = 3.19mm
t (mm)

2
Model

1
Extrados LC Intrados RC

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Circumferential Angle (deg)

Figure 5: Measured & Idealized Circumferential Thickness Profiles

 7 0.2

tnom =5.54mm Original Thickness 0.18

6
Max. = 0.173

Thinning Rate (mm/EFPY)

0.16
Min. = 0.044
Wall Thickness (mm)

5 0.14
Avg. = 0.100
0.12
4
0.1
3
Idealized Thickness 0.08

2 0.06

0.04
1
0.02

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Axial Distance (Deg) Axial Distance (Deg)

Figure 6: Original & Idealized Thickness Profiles Figure 7: Axial Distribution of Thinning Rate

Table 1: Thickness Profile Statistics along Tight Radius Bends

Straight Intrados Extrados
tp to α tnom
tmin taloc taloc
(mm) (mm) (mm/EFPY) (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Min 2.37 5.26 0.044
5.54 2.44 3.19 2.05
Max 4.66 5.81 0.173
tp predicted minimum thickness
to original thickness used to calculate the thinning rate
α calculated thinning rate
tnom Nominal thickness

Figure 8: Local Thinning at the Intrados Figure 9: Pressure Loading Stress Intensity Plot

Finite Element Results

The solution for the primary stress intensity (using the full feeder models) is organized as follows:
• Apply the internal design pressure and dead weight of the pipe metal and water as a static load.
• Perform a linear elastic finite element static analysis applying the load in one step. Figure 9 illustrates the stress
intensity contour plot for the feeder extension under the applied pressure loading. As shown on the figure, the
maximum stress intensity is at the intrados of the second tight radius bend at the local thin spot.
• Linearize the resulting stress solution across the wall thickness to obtain the corresponding membrane, and
membrane plus bending stress intensities. The linearization is carried out at every location over the entire tight
radius bends region using ANSYS path operations.
• Plot the linearized stress intensity results and check against ASME SEC III NB-3221 criteria. The maximum
general membrane stress intensity, Pm, is checked against Sm and the maximum local membrane plus bending,
PL+Pb, stress intensity is checked against 1.5Sm over the whole tight radius bend region. In the locally thinned
areas, the local membrane stress intensity, PL, is checked against 1.5Sm.
The above procedure is followed and the results are presented in Figures 10, 11, 12, and 13 where,
• The horizontal axes represent the axial direction starting from the Grayloc hub weld (top graph) or the
circumferential direction starting from the centre of the extrados (two bottom graphs).
• The left vertical axis represents wall thickness or stress intensity.
• Each point on a graph represents the result of stress linearization along a path going from one node on the inner
surface to a corresponding node on the outer surface of the two tight radius bends.
Figure 10 shows the distribution of the wall thickness over the entire tight radius bends region at each single through
thickness path (Classification LINe) from one node on the inner surface to a corresponding node on the outer
surface. The top graph shows the axial distribution illustrating the major thin spot downstream from the transition
between the two bends in the axial direction. The second and third graphs on Figure 10 show the thickness
distribution on the first and second bends distributed circumferentially, respectively. It is worth noting that the thin
spot on the second bend is centered at the intrados and extends over a considerable portion of the circumference.
The compliance with the ASME Code SEC III NB-3221 elastic criteria for pressure loading is illustrated
graphically. The primary membrane stress intensity in the general thinned areas (Pm) is compared to Sm represented
by a horizontal line. Stress intensity points below the Sm line meet the general membrane stress intensity criterion of
ASME SEC III NB-3221.1. The local primary membrane stress intensity (PL) in the locally thinned areas is
compared to 1.5Sm represented by a second horizontal line. Stress intensity points below the 1.5Sm line meet the
local primary membrane stress criterion of ASME SEC III NB-3221.2 as long as the extent of the region with stress
intensity higher than 1.1Sm is limited by Rmin t min in both the axial and circumferential directions (Rmin is the
mean radius and tmin is the minimum wall thickness). The primary membrane (Pm or PL) plus primary bending (Pb)
stress intensity everywhere is compared to 1.5Sm. Stress intensity points below the 1.5Sm line meet the ASME SEC
III NB-3221.3. Table 2 summarizes the results of the stress linearization as obtained from the analyses including the
internal pressure and dead weight.
Figure 11 (a), (b), and (c) show the distribution of the primary membrane stress intensity in both the axial and
circumferential directions. The stresses away from the local thin spot are classified as general primary membrane
and it is shown that the Sm limit of NB-3221.1 is met. As can be observed from graph (a), the maximum stress
intensity is at the second bend. The maximum local primary membrane stress intensity is located at the local thin
spot on the intrados of the second tight radius bend. At this location the stress is classified as local primary and it is
checked against the 1.5Sm limit of NB-3221.2. Figure 12 and Figure13 show the primary membrane plus primary
bending Code check along the inner and outer surfaces of the tight radius bends, respectively.

Table 2: Linearized Stresses along Tight Radius Bends

Pm PL (Pm+Pb)i (Pm+Pb)o (Total)i (Total)o
(Ksi) (Ksi) (Ksi) (Ksi) (Ksi) (Ksi)
Sm (17.26) 1.5 Sm (25.89) 1.5Sm (25.89) 1.5Sm (25.89) N/A N/A
st
1 Bend 15.22 23.92 18.40 24.34 18.33
nd
2 Bend 19.10 24.09 25.62 24.67 25.47
Pm General Primary Membrane Stress Intensity
PL Local Primary Membrane Stress Intensity
Pb Primary Bending Stress Intensity
Sm Allowable Stress Intensity
tp,min Predicted Minimum Wall Thickness at 18.75EFPY
()i Value along inner surface
()o Value along outer surface
 7 30

(a) 1.5 Sm
6
25

Primary Membrane Stress Intensity (Ksi)

5 tp
20 1.1 Sm
Wall Thickness (mm)

4
Sm
15

3 taloc
10
2
t min
Lm(a)

1 5
st nd
1 Bend 2 Bend st nd
1 Bend 2 Bend
0 0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Axial Distance Along Feeder Centerline (deg.) Axial Distance Along Fe eder Centerline (deg.)

7 30

(b)
6
25
1.5 S m
st
1 Bend Primary Membrane Stress Intensity (Ksi) st
5 tp 1 Bend
20 1.1 S m
Wall Thickness (mm)

4
Sm
15

3 taloc
10
2 t min

5
1
LC Intrados RC LC Intrados RC

0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Circumferential Angle (deg.) Circumferential Angle (deg.)

7 30

(c) 1.5 Sm
6
25
nd nd
Primary Membrane Stress Intensity (Ksi)

2 Bend 2 Bend
5
tp 20 1.1 Sm
Wall Thickness (mm)

4
Sm
15

3 taloc
10
2 t min
Lm(t)
5
1
LC Intrados RC LC Intrados RC
0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Circumferential Angle (deg.) Circumferential Angle (deg.)

Figure 10: Idealized Thickness Profiles Figure 11: NB-3221.1 (Pm) & NB-3221.2 (PL) Check
 35
35

(d) (g)
st nd 30
30 1 Bend 2 Bend

Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Ksi)

Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Ksi)

1.5 Sm 1.5 Sm
25 25

Outer Surface Inner Surface

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Axial Distance Along Feeder Centerline (deg.)
Axial Distance Along Feeder Centerline (deg.)

35 35

(e) st
1 Bend Outer Surface (h) st
1 Bend Inner Surface
30 30
Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Ksi)

Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Ksi)

1.5 S m 1.5 Sm
25 25

LC Intrados RC
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

LC Intrados RC
0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Circumferential Angle (deg.) Circumferential Angle (deg.)

35 35

(f) nd (i) nd
2 Bend Outer Surface 2 Bend Inner Surface
30 30
Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Ksi)

Membrane + Bending Stress Intensity (Ksi)

1.5 Sm 1.5 Sm
25 25

LC RC
20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5
Intrados
LC Intrados RC
0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Circumferential Angle (deg.) Circumferential Angle (deg.)

Figure 12: NB-3221.3 (Pm+Pb) Check (Outer Surface) Figure 13: NB-3221.3 (Pm+Pb) Check (Inner Surface)
ASME Section XI Code Case N-597-2 Evaluation
The detailed finite element analysis evaluation of the local thinned area is compared to the evaluation procedure
following the approach of the ASME Code Case N-597-2. Table 1 summarizes the feeder bend characteristic
dimensions used in the Code Case evaluation.

Table 3: Characteristic Dimensions of the Locally Thinned Area at the Intrados of the 2nd Bend
Rb Ro tnom tmin Rmin t'min R'min √(R'mint'min tp,min
76.2 29.98 5.54 2.45 28.76 3.19 28.39 9.51 2.37
Rb is the Radius of curvature of the pipe bends
Ro is the outer radius of the pipe cross-section
tnom is the nominal pipe thickness
Rmin is the mean radius of the pipe bend based on tmin.
R'min is the mean radius of the pipe bend based on t'min.

The axial and circumferential extents of the local thinned area are calculated based on the idealized profiles as
shown on Figure 10 and compared to the limited area criteria as follows,
Lm(a) (14.9 mm) > √(R'mint'min) (9.51 mm)
Unlimited Axial Extent
Lm(t) (96.1 mm) > √(R'mint'min) (9.51 mm)
Unlimited Circumferential Extent

Therefore, the wall thickness for the inner portion of the pipe bend is evaluated using the Code Case article -3622.4
(Local Thinning – Unlimited Transverse Extent).

The criterion for evaluating unlimited circumferential extent is tp,min ≥ taLoc (Table -3622-1 of the Code Case)
Lm(a) /√(R'mint'min) = 1.58
taLoc / t'min = 0.87
taLoc = 2.77 mm

Since tp,min (2.37 mm) < taLoc (2.77 mm), it is concluded that the criterion for the unlimited circumferential extent is
not met.

Figure 14 shows a graphical representation of the Limited Circumferential (LC) and Unlimited Circumferential
(UC) Code Case criteria for local thinned areas. It is noted that the Code Case qualified thickness of 2.77mm is 17%
higher than the 2.37mm thickness qualified by the detailed FEA using ASME NB-3221 elastic analysis rules. This
difference amounts to roughly 2.35 EFPY of additional operation time gained when using the detailed FEA to
qualify the feeder. This gain is attributed to the fact that the UC criteria assumes that the full circumference is
thinned out uniformly. In the case addressed in this paper, the circumferential extent of the wall thickness below the
t’min does not satisfy the LC criteria but rather only a little larger than half the full circumference.

1.00

UC
0.75
tp,min = 2.37 mm
taloc/t'min=0.87
taloc = 2.77 mm
taloc/tmin

0.50
0.3 tnom =1.66 mm

0.25
Lm(a) = 14.9 mm
LC
Lm(a)/√R'mint'min = 1.58

0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Lm (a)/√Rm intm in

Figure 14: ASME SEC XI Code Case N-597-2 Allowable Wall Thickness for Limited
Circumferential (LC) and Unlimited Circumferential (UC) local Areas Applied to 2”
Pipe Bend
Conclusions
The linear elastic rules of the ASME Code SEC III NB-3221 are used to assess the structural integrity of thinned
short radius pipe combined bends under internal pressure loading. Three dimensional finite element models are
constructed to simulate general and local inner wall thinning. The thinning profiles are smoothly varied in both the
axial and circumferential directions and are constructed as a lower bound to the measured wall thickness distribution
over the entire tight radius bends region. The stress intensity obtained from the finite element solution corresponding
to the pressure loading plus dead weight is linearized through the wall thickness producing membrane, bending and
peak stress components. The results of the linearization are plotted in both the axial and circumferential directions
and compared to the ASME Code SEC III NB-3221.1, 2, and 3 criteria.

It is demonstrated that a local wall thickness of 2.37mm that is less than the allowable wall thickness of the
corresponding straight pipe is qualified according to NB-3221 rules. Using the ASME Code SEC XI Case N-597-2 a
significantly higher allowable local thickness of 2.77mm is qualified. The comparison demonstrates the
effectiveness of the detailed modelling using the finite element method in extending the useful life of the feeder pipe
considered.

Results regarding the effects of out-of-roundness under internal pressure and bending moment will be
communicated in a future publication. Results from other loading types will also be communicated in future
publications.
Acknowledgements
The authors of this paper wish to thank their colleagues at AMEC NSS component integrity section for their help
and support. In particular, thanks to R. Smerd, O. Orlov, and W. Mekky for their help in the post-processing of the
data files obtained from the thickness measurements allowing for the development of and comparison with the
idealized axial and circumferential thickness profiles. Thanks are also due to S. Soliman and A. Meysner for the
valuable discussions.
References
1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Part D, Material Properties, 1998 Edition
2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plants”, 1998.
3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, “Case N-597-2: Requirements for Analytical Evaluation of Pipe Wall
Thinning, Section XI, Division 1”, Approval Date: November 18, 2003, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code.
4. D. A. Scarth, et al., “Supplementary Technical Basis for ASME Section XI Code Case N-597-2”, Proceedings
of PVP2006-ICPVT-11, 2006 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 23-27, 2006,
Vancouver, BC, Canada.
5. T.L.Gerber et al, "Acceptance Criteria for Structural Evaluation of Erosion-Corrosion in Carbon Steel Piping",
NP-5911SP, Research Project 1757-61, EPRI, July 1988.
6. D.A. Osage, et al, “Technologies for the Evaluation of Non-Crack-Like Flaws in Pressurized Components-
Erosion/Corrosion, Pitting, Blisters, Shell Out-of-Roundness, Weld Misalignment, Bulges and Dents”, WRC
Bulletin 465, September 2001.
7. Zhang Li, et al, “Evaluation of local thinned pressurized elbows”, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping, Volume 78, pp697-703, 2001.
8. S. Iyer and R. Kumar, “Application of Code Case N-597 for Local Thinning Assessment for Class 1 Piping”,
PVP-Vol. 440, Design and Analysis of Piping, Vessels and Components, ASME2002, PVP2002-1267.
9. S. Iyer, “Stress Classification and Assessment of Locally Thinned Class 1 Piping Components”, PVP-Vol. 471,
Fitness for Service, Life Extension, Remediation, Repair, and Erosion/Corrosion Issues for Pressure Vessel
Components, July 25-29, 2004, San Diego, California USA, PVP2004-2250.
10. A.R. Veerappan and S Shanmugam, “Stress analysis of pipe bends subjected to internal fluid pressure using the
finite element technique”, J. Strain Analysis, Vol. 41, No. 8, pp. 561-573, 2006.
11. T.L. Gerber, et al., “Acceptance Criteria for Structural Evaluation of Erosion-Corrosion Thinning in Carbon
Steel Piping, NP-5911SP, Research Project 1757-61, Final Report, July 1988.
12. J. Jin et al, “Some Issues In Fitness for Service Assessment of Wall Thinned CANDU Feeder Pipes”,
Proceedings of PVP2008, 2008 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, July 27-31, 2008,
Chicago, Illinois, USA.