AR. Veerappan et al.
/ (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
A Study on the Effect of Cross Section
Approximation on the Behaviour of Pipe Bends
with Ovality and Thinning
T. Christo Michael AR. Veerappan*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli – 620 015, Tamilnadu, INDIA.
*
Corresponding author email: aveer@nitt.edu
Abstract— The effect of cross section approximation on the
behaviour of pipe bends with shape imperfections under internal
pressure was performed numerically. Two cross sections namely
elliptical and semi oval were taken for analysis. FE analyses were
performed on these cross sections. The hoop stress induced due to
internal fluid pressure load was obtained for the models. On
comparison, the stress induced in the elliptic and semi oval
sections differed by a large amount. Five cross sections from first
off trial report which is the actual cross section at the bend
section were analysed and the stress induced was compared with
the elliptic and semi oval cross sections. The results confirmed
that approximation in cross section produces considerable effect
ES
on the induced stresses. The effect of bend radius and the
combined effect of ovality and thinning/thickening on the stress
developed were studied for the assumed (elliptic and semi oval)
cross sections and compared
Keywords- Axisymmetric, Bend angle, Bend radius, Ovality, Pipe
bend, Thinning.
I. INTRODUCTION
Pipe bends are critical components in piping systems and
generally are the most economical means of changing
directions while providing flexibility and end reactions to
A
piping systems within the allowable limits [1]. The bend
section may be a potential source of damage during service,
due to internal pressure and other loads, particularly in the
cases where significant ovality and wall thickness variation
(thinning/thickening) exist, which are introduced during the
manufacturing process[2 - 4]. The acceptability of pipe bends
IJ
depends on the magnitude of these shape imperfections [5].
For numerical investigation when ovality is considered, the
cross section of the pipe bend is often assumed to be perfectly
oval or elliptical [6 - 9] as shown in Fig. 1(a). Distortion in
cold bend tubes is usually limited to the outer half of the bend
where flattening occurs and the distortion can be described by
a semi-oval/semi-round section [10] as shown in Fig. 1(b).
Both the aforesaid shapes do not represent the true cross
section of pipe bend but are only approximated. In industries
generally the contour of the pipe bend cross sections are
captured in their first off trial test (FOT) to study and accept
the pipe bends with ovality and thinning/thickening. The
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 2, 132 - 138
S. Shanmugam
contours reveal that the cross section is neither elliptical nor
semi oval. Nevertheless, as literatures propose, elliptical and
semi oval cross sections are employed to analyse the pipe
bend analytically and numerically.
T
Analyses in pipe bends rely on the assumptions of constant
wall thickness along the contour of the pipe’s cross section
and no initial ovality [11]. However, the majority of short-
radius curved pipes are made using a forming process, and, as
a result, have variable wall thickness along the contour of the
pipe’s cross section. The pipe wall is thinner than nominal on
the convex side and is thicker on the concave one [11].
Bending of a curved pipe is accompanied by the flattening
forces. They transform initial circular cross sections of a pipe
into oval cross sections [12]. Ovality is a main defect in all
pipe bending techniques [13].
The current study aims at determining the effect of shape
approximation in cross section on induced stresses in pipe
bend by comparing the stress induced in elliptical and semi
oval cross sections of pipe bend with each other and with
those obtained from actual cross section taken from FOT
reports. The effect of ovality and thinning/thickening is
studied for the assumed cross sections. Studying the combined
effect of ovality and thinning/thickening is more significant in
the stress analysis than studying the shape imperfections
individually as the real geometry of pipe bend has both the
irregularities.
Previous study has shown that when internal pressure is the
predominant load, in a 90° pipe bend, without considering
initial ovality and variable wall thickness, 2D axisymmetric
models provide accurate stress results compared with those
obtained from 3D models [14]. The determination of the effect
of ovality and thinning on the performance of 2D and 3D pipe
bends was done and it was observed that they produce
comparable results [15]. Hence 2D models have been used to
determine the effect of shape approximation on the induced
stresses in the present analysis. The effect of bend radius on
the induced stress was also studied for the elliptic and semi
elliptic sections by considering four different bend radii
namely 101.6 mm, 152.4 mm, 203.2 mm and 304.8 mm.
Page 132
 AR. Veerappan et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 2, 132 - 138

(b) Semi elliptic section

(a) Elliptic section
Fig. 1 Assumed pipe bend sections for the analysis

T
II DEFINITIONS Bend Radii
101.6, 152.4, 203.2 and 304.8
mm
Percent ovality C0, thinning Ct, and thickening Cth, are defined
as follows [16 – 18]: Percent Ovality 0% to 20% in steps of 5%
Dmax  Dmin 
Co   100 (1) Percent Thinning/Thickening 0% to 20% in steps of 5%
Dmax  Dmin  2
Ct 
t  t min   100

Cth  max
t
t
 t
 100
ES (2)

(3)
t become a perfect ellipse after bending as shown in Fig. 1(a).
III ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions are made in the analysis: Linear
behaviour, homogeneous isotropic material, and steady static
state loading. The effects of the following are not considered
in the present evaluation: Bourdon’s effect, external pressure,
external forces, external moments, centrifugal forces due to
A
change of fluid flow direction, effects of friction between the
pipe inside fluid and the pipe bend inner surface, fluid
turbulence, interfaces between the straight pipe and pipe bend,
tolerances and deviations of the straight pipe before
fabricating into pipe bend and pipe bend surface roughness [5,
6].
IJ
V ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON BETWEEN
ELLIPTIC AND SEMI ELLIPTIC CROSS SECTIONS
The elliptic cross section of a typical bend is assumed to
The major axis of the elliptical shape of pipe bend is assumed
to be perpendicular to the plane of bending of the pipe bend.
The minor axis of the elliptical shape of pipe bend is assumed
to be in the plane of pipe bend. The pipe bend is assumed to be
smooth, without ripples. The assumed semi elliptic cross
section is shown in Fig. 1(b).
5.1 Stress Analysis
The finite element method is a numerical analysis technique
used by engineers, scientists, and mathematicians to obtain
solutions to the differential equations that describe, or
approximately describe a wide variety of physical and non-
physical problems. During the last three decades considerable
advances have been made in the applications of numerical

techniques to analyze pressure vessel and piping problems.

IV INPUT DATA
Among the numerical procedures, finite element methods are
The parameters considered for analysing the assumed cross the most frequently used [20].
sections (elliptic and semi elliptic) is given below.
5.1 Methodology
Pipe Parameters Specification In this paper linear static analyses were carried out using the
commercial FE program ANSYS v12. A scripting language,
Material ASME SA234 WPB [19] APDL (ANSYS Parametric Design Language) [21], was used
to automate the common tasks and build the model in terms of
Internal Pressure 10 MPa parameters. By exploiting symmetry one half of the problem
was modelled for the 2D models. The axisymmetric model
Outside Diameter 114.3 mm was meshed with PLANE183 [22] quadrilateral elements. The
FE models, after supplying necessary boundary and loading
Nominal Thickness 8.56 mm
conditions, were solved. The required output results were

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 133

 AR. Veerappan et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 2, 132 - 138

obtained, using APDL commands and directly written into an aforementioned, apply the internal pressure load and solve the
excel file. problem.

5.2 Pre-Processing Input diameter, thickness, bend

radius and material properties
The 2D axisymmetric cross sections were modelled using
PLANE183 element with axisymmetry option. PLANE183 is
a higher order 2-D element. It has quadratic displacement
behavior and is well suited to modeling irregular meshes. This Ovality = 0
element is defined by 8 nodes having two degrees of freedom
at each node: translations in the nodal x and y directions. The
element may be used as a plane element (plane stress, plane
strain and generalized plane strain) or as an axisymmetric If
element. no
Ovality ≤ 20
Material properties namely modulus of elasticity and
Poisson’s ratio were specified to the models. The
axisymmetric model was generated using mapped meshing
ensuring proper aspect ratio. The total number of elements for yes
the axisymmetric model is chosen as 60 with 3 elements
across the thickness of the pipe cross section to develop the Thinning = 0

T
mesh model. Symmetry boundary condition was supplied to
the models. Internal fluid pressure load was applied to the
inner surface of the models.
5.3 FE Analysis If
Thinning ≤ 20 No
ES Yes

Model
Ct = 10 creation
Co = 10 Constraints
R = 152.4 mm Load
Solution
A
(a) Elliptic cross section
Thinning + 5

Ovality + 5
IJ

Ct = 10 Hoop stress at intrados

Co = 10 and extrados written as an
R = 152.4 mm Excel file

(b) Semi elliptic Stop

Fig. 2 Meshed models with constraints and load
The models were solved to obtain the required results. The
programmes using APDL were written to create the models
with various combinations of ovality and thinning/thickening
from 0% to 20 % in steps of 5%, constraint the models as
Fig. 3 Flow chart for the APDL program
The hoop stress values obtained at intrados and extrados
sections of the two cross sections of pipe bend were written
into an excel file.

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 134

 AR. Veerappan et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 2, 132 - 138

Fig. 2 shows the meshed model of elliptic (Fig. 2(a)) and semi
elliptic (Fig. 2(b)) cross sections with boundary conditions and
internal pressure load.
5.4 The Computer Program
A program was written in APDL to create the models, analyze
and get the results into a separate file which is then plotted as
graphs for all different problems. Fig. 3 shows the flowchart
of the program.
The program prompts the user to enter the pipe diameter, bend
radius, thickness, internal pressure and material properties. On
giving the required input, the program creates the models in
sequence keeping ovality constant at 0% and varying
Fig. 4 shows the absolute percentage difference in the hoop
stress values at the intrados between elliptic and semi elliptic
models for bend radius 101.6 mm. It can be observed that this
difference increases with increase in ovality. For constant
ovality, increase in thinning also causes an increase in this
difference. At the extrados section (Fig. 5), the difference is
less compared to the intrados section but still large in
magnitude, the minimum and maximum being 9.62% and
14.75% respectively.
35
30

Hoop stress difference, %

thinning/thickening from 0% to 20 % in steps of 5%, applies 25
the internal pressure load and solves the problem. Hoop stress
values at intrados and extrados sections are obtained and 20
written into an Excel file. The ovality is then incremented in
steps of 5% up to 20% repeating all the other steps. The 15
procedure is repeated for other bend radii. 10

T
5.5 Interpretation of Stress Analysis Results
5
30
0
25 0 5 10 15 20
Hoop stress difference, %

Ovality, %
20

15

10
ES Fig. 6 Percent difference in hoop stress between elliptic and
semi elliptic sections at the intrados for R = 152.4 mm
Hoop stress difference, %

25

5 20

0 15
0 5 10 15 20
Ovality, %
10
Fig. 4 Percent difference in hoop stress between elliptic and
A
semi elliptic sections at the intrados for R = 101.6 mm
5
16
0
14
Hoop stress difference, %

0 5 10 15 20
12 Ovality, %
IJ

Fig. 7 Percent difference in hoop stress between elliptic and

10
semi elliptic sections at the extrados for R = 152.4 mm
8 As the bend radius is increased to 152.4 mm, at the intrados,
6 the difference increases with increase in thinning for 5%
ovality alone. As ovality is increased beyond 5%, the
4 difference decreases with increase in thinning keeping ovality
constant (Fig. 6). At the extrados, increase in ovality keeping
2
thinning constant causes an increase in the difference
0 percentage (Fig. 7). The maximum and minimum percentage
0 5 10 15 20 difference at the intrados are 28.77% and 6.99% respectively
while it is 21.76% and 1.53% respectively at the extrados.
Ovality, % As the bend radius is increased to 203.2 mm, 5% ovality
Fig. 5 Percent difference in hoop stress between elliptic and produces a decrease in the difference with increase in thinning
semi elliptic sections at the extrados for R = 101.6 mm at the intrados (Fig. 8) and extrados (Fig. 9). As ovality is

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 135

 AR. Veerappan et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 2, 132 - 138

increased to 10% and beyond, increase in thinning causes an
increase in the percentage difference in hoop stress between
elliptic and semi elliptic cross sections. The maximum
difference is as high as 38.28% at the intrados and 28.53% at
the extrados while the minimum difference at these sections
are 2.23% and 7.26% respectively, both occurring at 20%
thinning and 5% ovality.
45
40
Hoop stress difference, %
It has been observed that the common assumptions of elliptic
and semi elliptic cross sections found in literature do not give
comparable results. The difference between the results is very
high and therefore unacceptable. The general observation is
that at the intrados, up to R = 203.2 mm, the semi elliptic
models yielded higher values than the elliptic models while for
R = 304.8 mm, the elliptic models gave higher hoop stress
values than semi elliptic models. At the extrados, the elliptic
cross section gives higher values for most of the combinations
of bend radius, ovality and thinning.

35
60
30

Hoop stress difference, %

25 50
20
40
15
10 30
5

T
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 10
Ovality, %
Fig. 8 Percent difference in hoop stress between elliptic and 0
semi elliptic sections at the intrados for R = 203.2 mm 0 5 10 15 20

30
ES Ovality, %
Fig. 10 Percent difference in hoop stress between elliptic and
semi elliptic sections at the intrados for R = 304.8 mm
Hoop stress difference, %

25
40
20
35
Hoop stress difference, %

15 30
25
10
20
5
A
15
0 10
0 5 10 15 20 5
Ovality, %
Fig. 9 Percent difference in hoop stress between elliptic and 0
semi elliptic sections at the extrados for R = 203.2 mm 0 5 10 15 20
IJ

The percent difference in hoop stress increases with increase
in bend radius. Figures 10 and 11 show the percent variation
in the hoop stress values between elliptic and semi elliptic
cross sections at the intrados and extrados respectively for
bend radius of 304.8 mm. The maximum difference is
observed at this bend radius. At the intrados, the difference is
as high as 55.01% while at the extrados it is 38.37%.
For all bend radii, the models with 0% ovality and thinning
varying from 0% to 20% yield the same hoop stress for both
the cross sections considered, since for these combinations of
ovality and thinning, both the assumed cross sections become
the same i.e. circular with thinning, hence validating the
modeling and analysis procedure used.
Ovality, %
Fig. 11 Percent difference in hoop stress between elliptic and
semi elliptic sections at the extrados for R = 304.8 mm
VI REAL CROSS SECTION ANALYSIS AND
COMPARISON
The pipe manufacturing industries always accept or reject pipe
bends based on the magnitude of shape imperfections obtained
from the first off trial reports. The pipe after bending is cut at
the bend section, the impression at this section is taken on a
graph paper, thinning and ovality measurements are made
from these impressions and based on the magnitude of these
imperfections the pipe bend is accepted or rejected. Hence it
would be realistic to analyse real time pipe bend cross sections

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 136

 AR. Veerappan et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 2, 132 - 138

obtained from these reports for the stresses induced. Five cross extrados sections were extracted. The elliptic and semi elliptic
section impressions as shown in Fig. 12 were taken for the models were also modelled to the dimensions of the actual
analyses. The details of these bend sections is given in table 1. cross section and solved to obtain the hoop stress induced. Fig.
Table 1 Details of the actual cross sections considered for 13 shows the steps involved in the creation of the actual
analysis model.
Id Diameter, Thickness, Bend Thinning, Ovality,
No. mm mm Radius, % %
mm
A 31.75 17.31 1.28
B 38.00 8.75 4.58
51 5.0
C 51.00 15.19 4.26
D 95.25 13.09 8.64
E 121.00 20.4 5.57

(a) Scanned image (Id No. E) (b) AutoCAD image

T
Id No. A Id No. B
ES
Id. No. C Id No. D (c) Actual cross section imported into ANSYS, meshed,
constrained and internal pressure applied
A
Fig. 13 Steps involved in creation of the actual cross section
Table 2 Percentage difference in hoop stress between actual
and assumed cross sections
Comparison Between Actual Comparison Between Actual
Id and Elliptic Cross Sections, % and Semi Elliptic Cross
No. Sections, %
IJ

Intrados Extrados Intrados Extrados

A 75.08 32.51 70.95 29.46
B 72.00 21.07 86.29 33.98
C 22.02 9.75 36.38 23.03
Id No. E D 22.72 25.14 7.27 45.94
Fig. 12 Scanned image of the actual cross sections considered E 37.89 48.17 56.35 57.74
for analysis The actual cross section was compared with elliptic and semi
The FOT reports of these cross sections were first scanned and elliptic sections for the hoop stress induced due to internal
the image was converted into an AutoCAD drawing file. fluid pressure load. Table 2 gives the absolute percentage
Necessary corrections were made to the image in AutoCAD difference in the stress values between actual cross section and
and the drawing was saved and converted into IGES file and assumed cross sections. It can be seen that the difference is
imported into ANSYS and necessary corrections in the model large. It was observed that the stress induced in the actual
was done. The ANSYS models were meshed with PLANE183 cross section was higher than the assumed sections for Id No.
elements and solved after applying necessary constraints and A, B and C while for Id. No. D and E, it was lower than the
internal pressure load. The hoop stress induced at intrados and assumed sections.

ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 137

 AR. Veerappan et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES
VII CONCLUSIONS
Stress analysis carried out for the assumed and actual pipe
bend cross sections show that they are not comparable. The
actual cross sections taken from FOT reports gave results
much different from the assumed sections. Therefore the pipe
bend analysis needs to be necessarily carried out with actual
cross section models to obtain its actual performance which
will lead to a better design and will also improve the
procedure involved in accepting/rejecting pipe bends based on
the shape imperfection. Higher bend radii can cause a greater
difference in the stresses induced between elliptic and semi
elliptic sections.
REFERENCES
[1] Reno C King, Piping Handbook, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1973.
[2] B.P. Patel, C.S. Munot, S.S. Gupta, C.T. Sambandam, M. Gunapathi,
“Application of higher order finite element for elastic stability analysis
of laminated cross-ply oval cylindrical shells” Finite Elements in
Analysis and Design, vol. 40, pp. 1083 – 1104, 2004.
[3] T.H. Hyde, W. Sun, J.A. Williams, “Life estimation of Pressurised
Pipe Bends Using Steady-State Creep Reference Rupture Stress”,
International Journal of Pressure Vessels & Piping, vol. 79, pp. 799-
805, 2002.
[4] T.H. Hyde, A.A. Becker, W. Sun, J.A. Williams, “Influence of
geometry change on creep failure life of 90° pressurised pipe bends
with no initial ovality”, International Journal of Pressure Vessels &
Piping, vol. 82, pp. 509-516, 2005.
[5]
[6]
ES
AR. Veerappan, S. Shanmugam, “Analysis for Flexibility in the
Ovality and Thinning Limits of Pipe Bends”, ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, vol. 3, pp. 31–41, 2008.
AR. Veerappan, S. Shanmugam, S. Soundrapandian, “The Accepting
of Pipe Bends With Ovality and Thinning Using Finite Element
Method” ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, vol. 132, pp.
031204-1–031204-9, 2010.
[7] M.L. Nayyar, Piping handbook, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, A269, 2000,
[8] Dan Vlaicu. “The Influence of the Initial Ovality Tolerance on the
Nonlinear Cycling Analysis of Piping Bends”, ASME Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology, 2009, vol. 131, 041203-1–041203-7.
[9] V.B. Sarin, “The Steady Laminar Flow of an Elastico-Viscous Liquid in
a Curved Pipe of Varying Elliptic Cross Section”, Mathl. Comput.
Modelling, vol. 26, pp. 104-121, 1997.
A
[10] J.T. Boyle, J.A. Spence, “Simple Stress Analysis for Out-of-Round,
Pressurised Pipe Bends”, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping, , vol. 9, pp. 251-261, 1981.
[11] V.P. Cherniy, “The Bending of Curved Pipes with Variable Wall
Thickness. Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 70, pp. 253–259, 2003.
[12] V.P. Cherniy, Effect of Curved Bar Properties on Bending of Curved
Pipes, Journal of Applied Mechanics, Vol. 68, pp. 650–655, 2001.
IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.
Vol No. 2, Issue No. 2, 132 - 138
[13] A.V. Kale, H.T. Thorat, “Effect of Precompression on Ovality of Pipe
after Bending”, “Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology”, vol. 131, pp.
011207-1–011207-7, 2009.
[14] T.H. Hyde, V. Yaghi, A.A. Becker, P.G. Earl, “Comparison of toroidal
pipes and 90° pipe bends during steady state creep analysis”,
Proceedings of the fifth international colloquium on ageing of materials
and methods for the assessment of lifetimes of engineering plant Cape
Town, pp. 305-317, 1999.
[15] T. Christo Michael, AR. Veerappan, S. Shanmugam, “Effect of Bend
Angle on Induced Stresses in Pipe Bends – Numerical Investigation”
International conference on Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering, pp.
92–98, 2010.
[16] LI Xue-tong, WANG Min-ting, DU Feng-shan, XU Zhi-qiang, “FEM
Simulation of Large Diameter Pipe Bending Using Local Heating”,
Journal of Iron and Steel Research, International, vol. 13, pp. 25-29,
2006.
[17] Jochen Weber, A. Klenk, M. Rieke, “A new method of strength
calculation and lifetime prediction of pipe bends operating in the creep
range”, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, vol.. 82,
77–84, 2005.
[18] Z. Hu, L.Q. Li, Computer simulation of pipe-bending processes with
small bending radius using local induction heating”, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, vol. 91, 75–79, 1999.
[19] ASME, 2008a. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II:
T
Materials Part A- Ferrous Material Specifications, ASME New York,
376, 2008
[20] Jaroslav Mackerle. “Finite elements in the analysis of pressure vessels
and piping, an addendum: a bibliography (2002-2004)”, International
journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, vol. 82, pp. 571-592, 2005.
[21] ANSYS Help System. Mechanical APDL Documentation Descriptions,
ANSYS Parametric Design Language Chapter 1: Introducing APDL.
Canonsburg PA, Compact Disc, 2009.
[22] ANSYS Help System. Mechanical APDL Documentation Descriptions,
Element Reference, Part I Element Library, plane 183, Canonsburg, PA,
Compact Disc, 2009.
NOMENCLATURE
Co : percent ovality
Ct : percent thinning
Cth : percent thickening
D : pipe outside diameter, mm
Dmax : maximum outside pipe diameter, mm
Dmin : minimum outside pipe diameter, mm
t : nominal thickness of pipe bend, mm
tmax : maximum pipe thickness, mm
tmin : minimum pipe thickness, mm
R : bend radius to neutral axis, mm
Page 138