Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

PVP2014
July 20-24, 2014, Anaheim, California, USA

PVP2014-28920

ON PIPE ELBOW ELEMENTS IN ABAQUS AND BENCHMARK TESTS

Lingfu Zeng1, Lennart G. Jansson and Yordan Venev2

ÅF-Industry AB, Box 1551, 401 51 Göteborg, Sweden

ABSTRACT components, or elbows, enable a practical layout of the pipeline

In this paper, elbow elements in commercial finite element
software ABAQUS are reviewed and two commonly used
elements, ELBOW31 (2-node, linear) and ELBOW32 (3-node,
quadratic), are numerically tested for two Benchmark
examples: a cantilever pipe and an in-plane bending pipe bend.
Two main issues are studied through the numerical tests: (1)
The effect of the element size and the number of ovalization
modes chosen for computation; (2) The accuracy of computed
deformation and stresses. To gain an insight into the behavior
of these elements, a comparison against published results by
experiment and computations using elbow elements in software
ADINA and MARC, as well as computations using ABAQUS
shell elements, is conducted. It is shown that: (i) these elements
predict a good peak stress solution with a reasonably coarse
mesh and 6 ovalization modes; (ii) the ovalization and the
distribution of stresses predicted around the pipe section show,
though using a relatively dense mesh, a notable difference as
compared to solutions computed by ABAQUS shell elements;
(iii) the ADINA elbow element seems to provide, though using
a very coarse mesh, a solution closest to analytic and
experimental results. It is concluded that there are great needs
for in-depth studies on elbow elements regarding reliability and
accuracy issues.
1. INTRODUCTION
Pipe structures are generally subjected to severe internal
pressure, thermal, seismic and several other mechanical loads.
The structural integrity and cost of pipe structures are of great
concern in various industries, particularly, in nuclear power
engineering. In recent years, huge costs have been reported in
Sweden for safety upgrade, power uprate and life extension
projects, for which the structural analysis of various pipe lines
has been a key task basically for every nuclear power station
[1]. Among key components in a pipeline, curved pipe
and, more importantly, provide a desirable degree of flexibility
to accommodate thermal expansion and deformation caused by
other external loads such that forces induced on pressurized
equipment and supporting structures become sufficiently small.
The design of a piping system relies heavily on the use of
various elbows. For this reason, it is essential to accurately
determine structural responses in elbows in structural
qualification of a piping structure. This is especially important
for cases dealing with severe accidents, such as earthquake,
extreme impact or explosion, for which a piping system
generally undergo a deformation dominated by plastic
behavior.
Piping elbows achieve their flexibility through a shell-type
behavior, responding to bending loads with significant
ovalization of the pipe cross-section. This is in contrast to the
beam response of straight pipes, where the cross-section does
not deform to any significant extent until Brazier buckling
occurs. It is known [2] that, for typical elbows in a primary
piping loop of nuclear reactors, ovalization can give a
flexibility that is 5 to 20 times of that appeared in the straight
pipe of same size in bending, which is known as a flexibility
factor. Moreover, the flexibility can be in turn accompanied by
stresses and strains of typically 3 to 12 times of those
experienced in the corresponding straight pipe under the same
load, which is known as stress-intensification factors. For many
standard types of elbows, these factors are available [3].
Traditional software for piping analysis and design are purely
based on beam theory for finite element formulation and these
factors for “correcting” relevant stiffness terms and elbow
stresses. Due to simplicity and availability, such software with
various enhancements is widely used in various industries
today, such as oil, gas and power engineering [4,5].

1
Corresponding author.
Contact info: L Zeng, Nuclear Technology, ÅF-Industry AB, Email. Lingfu.zeng@afconsult.com. Tel. +46 (10) 5053264.
2
Temporary engineer.

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 For non-linear analysis, or piping with non-circular cross- 2. PIPE ELBOW ELEMENTS IN ABAQUS
section, “flexibility factors” and “stress-intensification factors”
ABAQUS provides 4 sophisticated elbow elements for piping
are no longer useful. One earlier attempted approach was to
analysis in the current release (ABAQUS 6.11). All these
search for “nonlinear equivalents” to the linear elastic
elements are well-suited for linear and nonlinear applications
flexibility and stress intensity factors, which do not obviously
with large deflection and/or large strain. These elements can be
warrant a reliable solution, yet require a subsequent inelastic
used for applications in connection with most plasticity models
analysis. The other earlier attempt was to model the piping
available, including J2-plasticity and other advanced material
using shell elements, which is only practical for simple pipe
models.
models as shell structures exhibits severe stress gradients and
the numerical models required to provide detailed analysis of
ELBOW31 and ELBOW32
adequate accuracy are large and complicated. This approach is,
even with current computational facilities, not a practical
Both elements are of pipe-shell type. ELBOW31 is a 2-node
choice for analysis of a “typical” piping system in nuclear
element for modeling straight pipes, with a linear interpolation
industries. These difficulties and the need from, in particular,
along the pipe axis and a Fourier interpolation around the
nuclear industries, lead to the development of special pipe
cross-section. ELBOW32 is a 3-node element for modeling
elements which are formulated using shell theory, but look like
curved pipes, with a quadratic interpolation along the pipe axis
and work as beam elements.
and a Fourier interpolation around the cross-section. These two
elements provide a full possibility to model a continuous
The attempt to use the shell theory to develop special beam-like
ovalization and warping behavior from one (straight or curved)
elements for elbows dated back to 1970s, see an excellent
element to another (straight or curved).
survey in Ref. 6. Among several pioneering work, Hibbit [7]
Both elements need to be used with geometric non-linear
described such a special element which uses a piecewise cubic
option activated (NLGOEM ON) as ovalization and warping
interpolation of displacements around the pipe section and a
are treated simultaneously.
piecewise constant strain along the pipe axis. This element was
implemented in software MARC for commercial use in 1974
ELBOW31B and ELBOW31C
[8,9]. The most important idea from this work was probably as
follows: Curved pipes and elbows behave as shells, however,
These two elements are a simplified version of ELBOW31,
they have a simplified characteristic that strain gradients along
through an introduction of the following assumption: only
the pipe axis are mild compared to those around the pipe
ovalization is allowed and axial gradients of ovalization are
section, and upon “turning” this characteristic into a finite
neglected.
element formulation the complex shell behavior can be
predicted in an computationally affordable manner. This idea
The formulation of these elements is described in detail in Ref.
was implemented in most elbow elements subsequently
6, which is briefly given below for discussion.
developed (Ref. 10-16). To fully review the historic
development of elbow elements is beyond the purpose of this
paper, but it is worthwhile to mention that Hibbit’s element [7] 2.1 Geometric definitions
was basically an assembly of an axisymmetric isoparametric
shell element (around the pipe cross-section) and a linear beam The formulation uses a geometric definition as shown in Fig. 1
element (along the pipe axis), and elbow elements currently for the undeformed pipe. Let ( , S ) be the material coordinates
available in ABAQUS are much more rigorously formulated in of a point in the pipe wall middle surface. In the undeformed
several aspects. configuration,  measures the angular position of the point
from the crown of the section such that  increases towards the
This paper continues our earlier work on pipe elements
currently available in commercial finite element software for extrados (on a straight segment the “crown” and “extrados” are
nuclear power industries [17,18,19]. The focus is on two most arbitrarily defined as fixed positions around the pipe section),
commonly used elbow elements, ELBOW31 and ELBOW32, and S measures the distance along the pipe axis from an
in ABAQUS. An overview will be first given to these elements arbitrarily defined origin. Let x ( , S ) be the current and X ( , S )
with respect to their formulations, applications and limitations. the reference positions of a point. Let x (S ) and X (S ) be the
Aiming at gaining an insight into these elements, two current and reference positions of a point on the pipe axis, and
Benchmark examples are tested. Results will be compared to define y  x  x as the offset of a mid-wall point from the pipe
results computed by ADINA and MARC as well as those from
axis. Let a  [a1 , a 2 , a 3 ] be a right-handed set of orthogonal unit
experiment, published in Bathe and Almeida [12], and
computations using ABAQUS shell elements. vectors, with a3 approximately tangent to the pipe
axis. A  [ A1 , A2 , A3 ] are the same in the reference
configuration: The direction vector set A is chosen in a way so

2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 that the point   0 (the crown of an elbow section) lies on A1 ,
Extrados
and A2 points to the extrados (   / 2) . The offset of the mid- t
wall point can be for simplicity expressed by

Pipe axis
y  y i a i  ( r 0  u r ) r  u t t  y 3a 3 (1) r°
 Crown
where r  a1 cos   a2 sin  and t  a1 sin   a2 cos.

A unit vector, n , which will be made approximately outwardly

normal to the pipe wall middle surface, is defined as follows.
Let
Intrados
1

x  x x  2 R
tt   .  (2)
    
Axis of the
pipe bend
be a unit vector pointing around the pipe section at S=constant,
and let (, S)

tn  a3  a3 .tt tt (3) a2
r°
a3 S
The vector n is written as a1

1

n  n(n  n) 2 (4) x

where
x  
n  a3   3tn (5)  

Fig. 1 The undeformed configuration of a pipe and relevant 
notations used for formulation of ABAQUS elbow 
with  3   3 ( , S ) . elements 
 
This definition ensures that n  x /   0 , in addition, a penalty
term can be introduced later to ensure that n  x / S is small. where H n ( S ) is a polynomial interpolation function of order
(N-1). The same function is used to interpolate a rotation
With such a definition of the pipe geometry, the interpolation is triplet,
made for the deformed pipe section in the following way: The
N n
current position of the pipe axis, x , and the direction vectors,  ( S )   H n ( S ) (7)
n 1
a , are first interpolated as functions of S and, thereafter, the
offset of the mid-wall point, y , and the outward-normal
This gives a  C ( )  A , where C is the rigid rotation matrix.
direction vector, n , interpolated as functions of S and  .

2.3 Interpolation of cross-section deformation quantities

2.2 Interpolation of pipe axis deformation quantities
Numerical experiments with standard shell models have shown
The pipe axis position, x , is assumed to be a polynomial in S : that warping effects are important in the geometries and
loadings of interest. A Fourier interpolation is used for the axial
N n deformation:
x   H n (S ) x (6)
n 1
M P 3
y 3 ( , S )    H m ( S )Q sym ( p )(u I ) mp (in-plane)
m 1 p  2

3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 body motion. Each Fourier term, Qsym or Qasym included Eq.
M P 3
(10), (11) or (12), refers commonly as an ovalization mode.
   H m ( S )Q asym ( p )(u 0 ) mp (out-of-plane) (8)
m 1 p  2 For element ELBOW31, only linear polynomials for
the H n (S ) and H m (S ) are used and for ELBOW32 quadratic
where H m are polynomials of the same or lower order as
polynomials for these functions. Obviously, ELBOW31 has the
the H n above, and lowest order possible for such interpolation.

cos p for p even However, there is an another choice in ABAQUS:

Q sym ( p )   (9a)
Polynomials H n (S ) are linear, while M  1 and H 1 ( S )  1 ;
 sin p for p odd
that is, y and  3 are constant within an element and, thus,
 sin p for p even discontinuous from element to element. The interpolation of
Qasym ( p )   (9b)
cos p for p odd this choice is used for ELBOW31B. It is stated [6] that this
level of approximation was used in routine linear design
formula analyses according to Dodge and Moore [2] and also
The number p defines the order of Fourier interpolation, and used in Hibbit’s element developed in 1974 [7] and in the
the terms “in-plane” and “out-of-plane” refer to symmetries software MARC released in the same year for non-linear
that occur if the motion is symmetric about the plane of the applications [8,9].
pipe's initial curvature or antisymmetric about that plane.
For elements ELBOW31 and ELBOW31B, one-point
The ovalization is modeled thought the following interpolation integration is used with respect to S; for quadratic elements
for radial (ur) and tangential deformation (ut): ELBOW32 and ELBOW32C a two-point Gauss rule is used.
The choice of P, i.e. the number of terms taken in the Fourier
M r series, has been based on numerical experiments [10]. For most
u r   H m ( S )(u U ) m (uniform radial expansion) practical thin-walled piping system applications, it is suggested
m 1
that six modes are sufficient.
M P r
   H m ( S )Q sym ( p )(u I ) mp (in-plane)
m 1 p 1 2.4 Strains and constraints
M P r
   H m ( S )Q asym ( p )(u 0 ) mp (out-of-plane) (10) Using discrete Kirchhoff formulation, the Koiter-Sanders
m 1 p 1 generalized section strains at each point of the pipe wall middle
surface are given by
and
1
M P t
  ( , S )  ( g  G ) (13)
u   
t
H m ( S )Q asym ( p )(u I ) mp (in-plane) 2
m 1 p 1
and
M P t
   H m ( S )Q sym ( p )(u 0 ) mp (out-of-plane) (11)
m 1 p 1 k ( , S )  B  b  sym ( B   ) (14)

and for the outward-normal direction (n) where

M
 3   H m ( S )( u ) m
3 x x
g ( , S )  
  (15)
m 1  
M P 3
   H m ( S )Q sym ( p )( I ) mp (in-plane) is the metric of the pipe wall middle surface and
m 1 p 1

 x n 
M P 3
   H m ( S )Q asym ( p )( 0 ) mp (out-of-plane) b ( , S )   sym     (16)
m 1 p 1
(12)    

The p  0, 1 , terms in y 3 and ut, and the p  1 term in  3 are

omitted since these relative quantities should not include rigid

4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


is the curvature of the surface, where n is made normal to the
surface, and G and B are the same measures in the
reference configuration, i.e.  1  S and  2   . Greek indices
above span the range (1, 2).
The strain components at any point through the pipe wall are
then defined by the Kirchhoff assumption as
  ( h )     hk
where h is the material coordinate measuring position through
the pipe wall: t / 2  h  t / 2 . In implementation, numerical
integration is used through the wall. The integration rule varies
from case to case but is usually a five, seven or nine point
Simpson rule for inelastic material response involving creep
and plasticity.
The discrete Kirchhoff constraint is imposed by associating a
penalty with the strain
x
t n
S
The penalty is obtained from the transverse shear stiffness of
the pipe wall and suitably modified for thin walls according to
Hughes et al [20].
1
  x n 
b  (n  n ) 2 sym    
 (22)
   
The above formulation allows arbitrary rigid body motions to
occur with no strain and uniform thermal expansion with
constant strain. The detailed derivation of the strain variations,
initial stress matrix, etc., follows directly from the definitions
given above. Other implementation details are difficult to
follow in ABAQUS User’s Manual [6].
(17)
2.6 ABAQUS implementation compared to ADINA
The ABAQUS implementation of elbow elements, as
summarized above, seem to be more rigorous compared to that
of the elbow element in ADINA, which is a 4-node element by
Bathe and Almeida [12]. This element is a direct finite element
implementation of the classical von Karmann approach.
Warping is neglected, and in the plane of the cross-section only
pure bending of the pipe wall is allowed, of which the latter
restriction precludes the direct application of thermal loads to
the element. In addition, it does not allow for the
“circumferential membrane force correction” added by Gross to
the von Karman theory, see Dodge and Moore [2]. As an
(18)
additional simplification, the gradients of axial and shear strain
through the thickness of the pipe wall are ignored. Around the
pipe cross-section, a Fourier series is used for the tangential
displacement component of the pipe wall middle surface in the
plane of the pipe section, w , using ADINAs notation. Namely

2.5 Other simplifying approximations

4  Nc Nd 
w (r , )     hk cmk sin 2m   hk d mk cos 2m 
The warping is assumed to be be small so that a3  tt  1 , and k 1 m 1 m 1 
thus tn  a3 . Based on this, one may write
In-plane Out-of-plane
(23)
n  x /   a3   3a3 (19) bending bending

1 where hk=hk(r) is an interpolation function along pipe axis (r)


Since n  n( n  n ) 2 , we have k k
of Lagrange cubic type, cm and d m are unknown generalized
1 ovalization displacements, or Fourier magnitudes. The
n  n
 (n  n ) 2 [ I  nn ]  , (20) following observations can be made:
S S

where I is the unit matrix. Choose now (1) Only the even numbered Fourier terms are used in the
approximation (23), which is identical to that introduced
x originally by von Karman. This implies that these
n 0 (21) displacements are symmetric about the crown of the elbow.

This is satisfactory for cases where the pipe radius is small
compared to the elbow torus radius, but is likely to be
and impose a penalty to make n  x / S small. In the inadequate when the pipe radius is of the same order as the
computation of the curvatures, b , we torus radius.
approximate n  x / S  0 , so that

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


(2) The interpolation along the pipe is a piecewise Lagrange
cubic function which needs more degrees of freedom and
therefore more computational costs as compared to that
using a Hermite cubic function.
This example is a so-called Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF)
elbow, see Fig. 3 for various parameters, which is probably the
most known example in published literature on piping.

(3) Only 3 Fourier modes and 24 integration points around the

pipe section are restricted in the application.

(4) The specification of boundary conditions for elbow

elements of ADINA and ABAQUS are similar. Both need
a separate specification of restraints for translations and
rotations and restraints for cross-section distortion
(ovalization and warping).

The above discussions are made with reference to the original

paper of Bathe and Almeida [12], and the current Fig. 2 A straight cantilever pipe example and the tip deflection 
implementation in ADINA [21] may be improved in many and rotation by beam theory. 
aspects.

Tab. 1 Relative deflections and rotations at the cantilever tip 
3. BENCHMARK STUDIES computed by ELBOW31 and ELBOW32 elements 

Two examples are used for numerical studies of elbow Tip‐deflection:  = (δELBOW‐δTH)/δTH 

Tip‐rotation: φ =(φELBOW‐φTH)/φTH 
elements ELBOW31 and ELBOW32.

Example 1: A straight cantilever pipe

This example was used by Bathe and Almeida [12] for

demonstrating the numerical performance of their elbow
element, see Fig.2. Computations are made using the
ELBOW31 and ELBOW32 elements with 0, 3 and 6
ovalization modes, using a coarse mesh, namely three
ELBOW31 elements and two ELBOW32 elements, which is in
engineering sense comparable to one cubic element used by
Bathe and Almeida.

The computed results are summarized in Tab. 1, where a

comparison to straight beam theory and ADINA is made. The
results show up to a 5-10 percent difference to the analytical
solution for both elbow elements using 0 ovalization mode; and
the difference reduced to about 3-5 percent when 6 modes      
used. Moreover, the solutions using 3 and 6 ovalization modes
are identical, which can easily be understood as a straight pipe
is under consideration.
Notice from the table that the results computed with 0
vocalization mode, though non-linear effects included, are
smaller than those by beam theory and the difference is over
9%. These solutions suggest that the solution obtained from
such a very coarse mesh is not satisfactory. The results by
ADNIA using only one element agree surprisingly well with
those by linear beam theory.
   Notes:  
(1) The load (P) needs to be adjusted for convergence 
reason as computations are nonlinear when 
ovalization and warping considered.   
(2) Results computed using no ovalization (*). using 3 
ovalization modes (#) and 6 ovalization modes (¤).  
(3) Results obtained with nonlinear option off (NLGEON 
OFF). Solution diverged with non‐linear option 
activated. 

Example 2: An in-plane bending pipe bend

6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 The behavior of this pipe bend has been studied analytically by
Clark and Reissner (1951) [22], experimentally by Smith and
Ford (1967) [23] and computationally by Sobel (1976) using
MARC and by Bathe and Almeida (1980) [12] using ADINA
and others, see Dodge and Moore [2]. To our knowledge, this
example has not been included in ABAQUS User’s
Verification Examples.
pipe are “corrected” by multiplying a relevant SIF-value. Here,
the modification by flexibility knockdown factors was
introduced by Dodge & Moore [2], which modifies the bending
stiffness by simply scaling the moment of inertia of the beam
element by 1/k.

This elbow has the following geometric parameters defined by

Dodge and Moore [2]:
R
Radius factor:    3.07
rm
1 Rt
Pipe factor:    0.154
1  m2 r2

where rm is the mean radius of the pipe cross-section. The

flexibility factor of an elbow is defined as the ratio of the
flexibility of the curved pipe to that of the straight pipe with the
same dimension, material and loading. The flexibility factor of
this elbow is according to the Clark & Reissner’s asymptotic
solution [22] and the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code
[3]:

1.65
k  11.19
h

where h  Rt / rm2 =0.147<1/3 is known as the bend flexibility

characteristic. 

The stress intensification factor (SIF) is defined as the ratio of Integration points
through thickness
the maximum stress of the elbow to that determined by beam
theory. The analytical solution of the stress intensification
factor for this pipe bend under in-plane bending is [22]:

0.84 0.84
Axial stress: iA  2/3
  3.015               Pipe data (Bathe & Almeida, 1980):   
h 0.147 2 / 3 Wall‐thickness (t) = 0.374 in (9.525 mm) 
1.80 1.80 Outer radius of the pipe (ro) =20.8t  
Hoop stress: iH  2 / 3  =6.462 Radius of the pipe bend curvature (R) = 3.07r 
h 0.147 2 / 3 Length of the long straight pipe (L1) = R=3.07r 
Length of the short straight pipe (L2) = 0.77r 
These SIF-values are adopted by the ASME Boiler & Pressure Young’s modulus (E) = 24.1 x106 psi (169.74 GPa) 
Vessel Code for Class 1 nuclear piping. For Class 2/3 nuclear Posion’s ratio () =0.3 
 
power piping, the SIF values are one-half of the above values.
Fig. 3 A pipe bend subjected to in‐plane bending 
It may be worthwhile to note that beam-theory based software
for piping analysis. such as PIPESTRESS [5] or other similar
[4], is developed in such an ad hoc manner: Pipelines are all Computations are conducted using the ELBOW31 and
modeled by standard beam elements of circular pipe section, ELBOW32 elements, using 6 ovalization modes on two meshes
with bending stiffness terms for curved pipes “modified” as specified in Tab. 2 for modeling details, one relatively
through a so-called “flexibility knockdown factor”, and after coarse and one mesh with doubled number of elements, and
the finite element analysis the computed stresses in the curved using ABAQUS shell elements (4-node fully integrated shell

7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 elements S4) as shown in Fig. 4 and Tab. 2 for details, is also
made for comparison. An attempt is made to use finite element
meshes that are in engineering sense equivalent to that used by
Bathe and Almeida so that a relatively fair comparison can be
made. For one cubic element (ADINA), for example, three
linear elements (ELBOW31) and two quadratic elements
(ELBOW32) are used.
L1 
L2 
 
Fig. 4 Finite element mesh used for the computations                     
with S4 SHELL elements  used: Warping and ovalization are set to be free or to be
 
Tab. 2. Finite element modeling of the FFTF elbow                      
using elbow and shell elements  to his results are made: Mean pipe radius sets to 7.8125 in.
(20 elements around the cross-section)
The computed results are summarized in Fig. 5 – Fig. 11,
where a comparison to straight beam theory, ADINA, MARC
and ABAQUS shell elements is made. In the comparison,
dimensionless stresses normalized in the following way are
used in the paper:
 according to the analytic solution and the ASME BPV
* 
M EI
where M is the bending moment, E the elasticity modulus and I
the moment of inertia of the pipe section. Notice that the
8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
denominator value (M/EI) is the maximum axial stress given by
beam theory. Hence, the maximum values of such
dimensionless axial and hoop stresses.  * , are the SIF-values
of the pipe bend. iA and iH, respectively, according to the
definition.
The following results are reported:
(1) Stress solutions around the pipe, in two sections of the pipe
bend, one in the middle of the pipe bend and one at the
edge of the pipe bend, see Section A-A and B-B in Fig. 3,
are computed. The solutions of axial and hoop stresses, at
the outside, middle and inner layer of the wall-thickness,
are plotted.
(2) In Figs. 5. 6. 7 and 8 the results obtained by using both
elbow elements with 3 and 6 ovalization modes are plotted.
(3) In Figs. 9 and 10, the stress solutions computed using only
6 ovalization modes are shown. The stresses at the outside,
middle and inner layers are plotted in the same figure
separately for Section A-A and B-B and compared to the
solutions obtained by using S4-shell elements.
(4) In Fig. 11, ovalization deformation in the middle of the
pipe bend (Section A-A) predicted by using ELBOW31
and ELBOW32 elements is shown. The results are
computed using two restrain conditions at the free end are
              
fully restrained. We note that for comparison purpose the
pipe section data have slightly changed so that they are
identical to those used by Sobel [8] in 1976 as comparison
                     
This value (7.8125 mm) was used as the outer radius of the
pipe section in Bathe and Almeida [12] possibly due to
mistake.
Based on the results and comparisons reported above, the
following observations can be made:
(1) Axial stresses, at the mid-layer of Section A-A, computed
by ABAQUS ELBOW32, using 6 ovalization modes and
those computed by ADINA and MARC, and the analytical
solution are close to each other. See Fig. 5(a). But there is
a notable difference for the axial stresses at the outside and
the inside layer of Section A-A. The biggest difference
appears at the outside layer, see Fig. 5(c), where the peak
value predicted by ELBOW32, using 6 ovalization modes,
is more than twice as much as that predicted by the
ADINA and experiment. According to the results
computed by ELBOW32, the SIF-value for the axial stress
is almost 4.0, which can be compared to the SIF-value
code for Class 1 piping, i A  3.015 .
(2) Hoop stresses, at the inside layer of Section A-A,
computed by ELBOW32, using 6 ovalization modes and
 those computed by ADINA and MARC, and the analytical  
solution are close to each other. See Fig. 6(b). But at the
 (a) Axial stress, Section A‐A, Mid‐layer 
outside layer of Section A-A, the peak hoop stress
predicted by ELBOW32 with 6 ovalization modes is more
than twice as much as those predicted by ADINA and
experiments. The distribution around the cross section is
notably different compared to that by ADINA and
experiments see Fig. 8(c). According to the results
computed by ELBOW32, the SIF-value for the hoop stress
is about 6.70, which can be compared to the SIF-value
according to the analytical solution and the ASME BPV
code for Class 1 piping, iH  6.462 .

(3) The peak value of the axial stresses at the outside layer of
Section A-A, computed by ELBOW31 and ELBOW32,
agree well with the peak stress value predicted by
ABAQUS shell elements. But there is a notable difference
for axial stresses at the middle layer and at inside layers (b) Axial stress, Section A‐A, Inside layer
between the elbow and shell elements of ABAQUS. See
Fig. 9. Moreover, the locations where the peak stress taken
place predicted by ELBOW31 and ELBOW32 are at about
72 counting from the extrados, which are close to the
results by others, in particular, the analytic solution by
Clark & Reissner [22] and the experimental observation by
Smith & Ford [23]. However, the location predicted by the
shell elements is almost at 90 counting from the extrados,
which is probably due to that the mesh used for the
analysis, Fig. 4, is still too coarse.
(4) The axial stresses predicted for Section B-B by the
ELBOW31 and ELBOW32, using 6 ovalization modes,
agree well with those by the ABAQUS shell elements. See
(c) Axial stress, Section A‐A, Outside layer 
Fig.10.
(5) The ovalization predicted by the ELBOW31 and
ELBOW32 seem differ surprisingly much from that by
Dodge & Moore and by Sobel using software MARC. The
difference may possibly be caused by inconsistent
specification of input data and a careful verification of the
original data seems to be required.
(6) A significant difference in results using both ELBOW31
and ELBOW32 for choosing 3 and 6 ovalization modes
can be noticed. The minimum number of ovalization
modes for such a 90-degreed pipe bend requires at least 6
modes for a good prediction of peak stress values.
(7) It can be observed that the ADINA results, reproduced
directly from the original paper by Bathe and Almeida Fig. 5 Axial stresses computed in three layers at Section A‐A of 
[12], seem to be better close to the analytical [22] and the pipe bend using ELBOW31 and ElBOW32 with 3 and 
experimental results [23], although the computation was 6 ovalization modes.  (a) Mid‐layer, (b) Inside layer,                    
made on a coarse mesh with 3 uniform elements used in (c) Outside layer. 
the pipe bend.  
 
 
 
 

9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

    
(a) Hoop stress, Section A‐A, Mid‐layer  (a) Axial stress, Section B‐B, Mid‐layer 

 
   
(b) Hoop stress, Section A‐A, Inside layer  (b) Axial stress, Section B‐B, Inside layer 

 
   
(c) Hoop stress, Section A‐A, Outside layer  (c) Axial stress, Section B‐B, Outside layer 

 
Fig. 6 Hoop stresses computed in three layers at Section A‐A of  Fig. 7 Axial stresses computed in three layers at Section B‐B of 
the pipe bend using ELBOW31 and ElBOW32 with 3 and  the pipe bend using ELBOW31 and ElBOW32 with 3 and 
6 ovalization modes.  (a) Mid‐layer, (b) Inside layer,                        6 ovalization modes.  (a) Mid‐layer, (b) Inside layer,                      
(c) Outside layer.  (c) Outside layer. 

10 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

    
(a) Hoop stresses, Section B‐B, Mid‐layer  (a) Axial stresses at Section A‐A (ABAQUS/ELBOW31) 

(b) Hoop stresses, Section B‐B, Inside layer  (b) Axial stresses at Section A‐A (ABAQUS/ELBOW32) 

(c) Hoop stresses, Section B‐B, Outside layer 
(c) Axial stresses at Section A‐A (ABAQUS/SHELL S4) 

 
 
Fig. 8 Hoop stresses computed in three layers at Section B‐B of  Fig. 9 Axial stresses at Section A‐A of the pipe bend computed 
the pipe bend using ELBOW31 and ElBOW32 with 3 and  using ELBOW31 and ELBOW32, with 6 ovalization modes, 
6 ovalization modes.  (a) Mid‐layer, (b) Inside layer,                      and SHELL S4 of ABAQUS. (a) ELBOW31; (b) ELBOW 32, 
(c) Outside layer.  (c)  SHELL S4. 
 

11 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 (a) Axial stresses at Section B‐B (ABAQUS/ELBOW31)   (a) Ovalization at Section A‐A  
     (Warping/ovalization not restrained at the free pipe‐end) 

(b) Axial stresses at Section B‐B (ABAQUS/ELBOW 32)  (b) Ovalization at Section A‐A  
     (Warping/ovalization not restrained at the free pipe‐end) 

(c) Axial stresses at Section B‐B (ABAQUS/SHELL S4)  Fig. 11 Ovalization computed at Section A‐A of the pipe bend 
with different restraining conditions at the free pipe‐
end: (a) Warping and ovalization at the free end not 
restained, (b) Warping and ovalization at the free end 
fully restained.  

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this paper, elbow elements in ABAQUS are overviewed
and two most commonly used elements, ELBOW31 and
ELBOW32, are tested for two Benchmark examples. It is
shown from the tests that: (i) these elements predict a good
peak stress solution with a reasonably coarse mesh and 6
ovalization modes; (ii) the ovalization and the distribution of
  stresses predicted around the pipe section show, though using a
Fig. 10 Axial stresses at Section B‐B of the pipe bend computed  relatively dense mesh, a notable difference as compared to
using ELBOW31 and ELBOW32, with 6 ovalization  solutions computed by ABAQUS shell elements; (iii) the
modes, and SHELL S4 of ABAQUS. (a) ELBOW31;                      ADINA elbow element seems to provide, though using a very
(b) ELBOW 32, (c) SHELL S4.  coarse mesh, a solution closest to analytic and experimental
results. Moreover, it is observed that computations using these

12 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 two elements on a coarse mesh will not be satisfactory. Notice
that the above observations are only based on two simple
examples. To gain an in-depth understanding and a correct
assessment of these elbow elements, more comprehensive tests
are needed, for which we shall report in a later occasion.
There exist great numerical advantages using elbow elements
in piping analysis. However, elbow elements are practically
seldom used. There are possibly many reasons for this. The
tests reported in the paper indicate clearly great needs for in-
depth studies on elbow elements regarding reliability and
accuracy issues.
Acknowledgement
This work is partially funded by ÅFORSK through Agreement
Ref. No.10-174 and 11-333, which is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] Jansson, L. G., Zeng, L. and Dahlström, L., 2011, “Pipe
Work” (Structural verification of piping systems for the
power uprate of a BWR nuclear power plant - Challenges,
experiences and lessons), Nuclear Engineering
International Magazine, August Issue, UK.
[2] Dodge, W. G. and Moore, S. E., 1972, “Stress indices and
flexibility factors for moment loadings on elbows and
curved pipes”. Welding Research Council Bulletin 179.
[3] The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2010,
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Division I,
Section III – Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility
Components. Three Park Avenue, New York.
[4] Peng, L.-C. and Peng, T.-L., 2013, Pipe
Engineering. ASME Press, New York.
[5] DST Computer Service S.A., 2012, PIPESTRESS User’s
Manual. Version 3.7.0. CH-1216 Geneva, Swiss,
[6] Simulia Inc., 2010, http://www.simulia.com. (ABAQUS
User’s Manual, Vol. 2. Part V - Elements.)
[7] Hibbit, H. D., 1974, “Special Structural Elements of Piping
Analysis”. Pressure Vessels and Piping: Analysis and
Computers. ASME, New York.
[8] Sobel, L. H., 1977, “In-Plane Bending of Elbows.”
Computers and Structures. Vol. 7. pp. 701–715.
[9] MARC Analysis Corporation and Control Data
Corporation, 1974, MARC - Non-linear finite element
analysis program. Minnesota, USA.
[10] Ohtsubo, H. and Watanabe, O. W., 1976, “Flexibility and
Stress Factors for Pipe Bends — An analysis by the Finite
Ring Method”. ASME paper 76–PVP–40.
[11] Takeda, H., Asai, S. and Kwata, K., 1979, “A New Finite
Element for Structural Analysis of Piping Systems.”
Proceedings of the Fifth SMIRT Conference, Berlin.
[12] Bathe, K.-J. and Almeida, C. A., 1980, “A simple and
effective pipe elbow element – Linear analysis”, J. Appl.
Mech., 47(1), pp.93-100.
[13] Bathe, K.-J., Almeida, C. A. and Lo, L. W., 1983, “A
simple and effective pipe elbow element – Some nonlinear
capabilities”. Comput. & Struct., 17(5/6), pp.695-669.
[14] Militello, C. and Huespe, A. E., 1988, “A displacement-
based pipe elbow element”. Comput. & Struct., 29(2),
pp.339-343.
[15] Yan, A. M., Jospin, R. J. and Nguyen, D. H., 1999, “An
enhanced pipe elbow element – Application in plastic limit
analysis of pipe structures”. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 46,
409-431.
[16] Bathe, K.-J., 1996, Finite Element procedures, Prentice
Hall, Englewood cliffs, New Jersey.
[17] Zeng, L., 2011, “Toward a reliable, accurate and efficient
finite element computation and design evaluation for
nuclear power piping”. ÅF-Industry AB, PM NT2011-
401523-0007 utg.0, Göteborg.
[18] Zeng, L. and Jansson, L. G., 2012, “On pipe elements
currently available for nuclear power piping analysis and
their Benchmark tests”. Proc. ASME 2013 Pressure Vessel
and Piping Division Conference (PVP2012), Toronto,
Canada, July 15-19.
[19] Zeng, L. and Jansson, L. G., 2013, “On pipe elements
currently available for nuclear power piping analysis and
their non-linear applications”. Proc. ASME 2013 Pressure
Stress Vessel and Piping Division Conference (PVP2013), Paris.
France, July 14-18.
[20] Hughes, T. J. R., Taylor, R. L. and Kanokukulchai, W.,
1977, “A Simple and Efficient Element for Plate Bending.”
International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, vol. 11, no.10, pp. 1529–1543.
[21] ADINA Inc., 2013, http://www.adina.com. (ADINA User’s
Manual – Theory and Modeling Guide. Vol. 1).
[22] Clark, R. A. and Reissner, E., 1951, “Bending of curved
tubes”. Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol. 2, pp. 93-
122.
[23] Smith, R. T. and Ford, H., 1967, “Experiments on pipelines
and pipe bends subjected to three-dimensional loadings”.
Journal of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, Vol.9, pp.
124-135.

13 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms