Proceedings of the ASME 2010 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference

PVP2010
July 18-22, 2010, Bellevue, Washington, USA

PVP2010-25178

ASME CODE QUALIFICATION OF PIPE BENDS WITH LOCALIZED WALL THINNING

Usama Abdelsalam & Dk Vijay

AMEC NSS Limited - Power & Process Americas

Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
usama.abdelsalam@amec.com

ABSTRACT calculated from this equation is often called the pressure-

This paper addresses the application of the design by
analysis rules of the ASME B&PV Code SEC III
Division 1 NB-3200 criteria on degraded Class 1 piping.
A tight radius pipe bend with a local thin area (LTA)
located on the inner surface and super imposed on
general thinning region is considered using a detailed
FEA model implementing idealized smooth axial and
circumferential thickness profiles. A location dependent
thinning rate function is developed (based on the
smoothed profiles and the assumed original thickness
distribution) to predict the wall thickness distribution at
the end of an arbitrary evaluation period. Internal
pressure and dead weight loads are statically applied.
Linear elastic analysis is performed and the results are
checked against the ASME Code criteria for the primary
stress intensity. It is demonstrated that a local wall
thickness considerably below the pressure based
thickness for the corresponding straight pipe segment
meets the requirements of the ASME Code SEC III for
the primary stresses. The effect of the extent of the local
thin area in the axial direction is explored. This paper
also compares the allowable pressure obtained from
elastic analysis of NB-3221 and limit analysis of NB-
3228.1.
INTRODUCTION
The pressure requirement in the ASME Code SEC III
protects against the catastrophic collapse of the designed
components due to a single application of the primary
load. The basic criterion for internal pressure loading
under the ASME Code SEC III NB-3600 Piping
Design is given in NB-3640 Pressure Design[1]. This
criterion is applicable for straight pipe segments as
described in NB-3641.1 and the wall thickness
1 Copyright by ASME
based thickness, tmin. 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 Bend Radius Versus
Thickness, guides the designer when ordering a pipe to
use a higher than tmin thickness for the pipe prior to
bending.
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).
During operation under flow accelerated corrosion
(FAC) favourable conditions, pipes experience general
and/or local wall thinning depending on the piping
geometry and the fluid flow characteristics. For fitness
for service assessments, the wall thickness loss needs to
be evaluated. The ASME Code SEC III, being a
construction code, does not provide guidance as to how
to deal with locally thinned areas (LTA). SEC XI Code
Case N-597-2 of SEC XI of the ASME Code [2]
provides evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
to justify continued operation of Class 1, 2 & 3 piping
items subject to wall thinning. The technical basis for the
Code Case is provided by D. Scarth et. al [4]. Validation
for these procedures is performed by comparing with
field rupture data and pipe burst test data [3]. Reinhardt
& Zobeiry [5] studied the plastic failure mechanisms in a
locally thinned cylinder using the finite element method.
The authors of this paper analyzed double tight radius
pipe bends with general and local wall thinning using
idealized wall thickness profiles implemented in detailed
finite element models [7]. In these analyses, pressure
loading assessments of typical CANDU feeder pipe
bends are performed according to the ASME Code SEC
III NB-3221 criteria. These feeder pipes are made of
Low Carbon Steel Grade B. The detailed modelling of
the local thin area is achieved through smooth axial and
circumferential thickness profiles based on the measured
thickness data. The concept of a location dependent
thinning rate function is later on introduced [8]. In
addition, results from elastic plastic limit load analyses
(NB-3228.1) are presented and compared to the results
from the linear elastic rules of the ASME Code (NB-
3221).
In this paper, the main focus is to demonstrate the ability
to qualify very thin local spots using the detailed FEA
approach following the elastic rules of the ASME Code
SEC III NB-3221. A tight radius pipe bend with general
thinning and one locally thinned area is studied. The
LTA is located on the inner surface of the bend. Results
are presented for the analysis models to show the effect
of the axial extension of the LTA on the life of the bend.
Results from plastic limit load analysis are also
presented.
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
Geometry
The nominal piping cross-section dimensions used to
build the geometric models are:
Outer Diameter, Do = 3.03 in (76.96 mm)
Nominal Thickness, tnom = 0.276 in (7.01 mm)
The bend dimensions are as follows:
Bend Angle, = 73o
Bend Radius, Rb = 4.5 in (114.3 mm)
Finite Element Mesh
A uniform finite element mesh is used with 45 and 72
elements distributed along the axial and circumferential
directions, respectively. In the through thickness
direction, three layers ANSYS 20-node SOLID95 brick
element are used. The fine mesh size used ensures
converged results.
Material Model
The numerical values for the material properties used in
the analysis models are obtained from the ASME Code
2 Copyright by ASME
Section II Part D. A linear-elastic isotropic material
model, using the properties of ASME material SA-106
Grade B, is used for the analysis. The material properties
used are as follows:
Elastic Modulus, E = 26.7x106 psi (at 605 oF)
Poissons Ratio, = 0.3
Allowable Stress Intensity, Sm =17.26 Ksi
Pressure Based Thickness
The pressure based thickness, tmin, is calculated in
accordance with the ASME Section III, NB-3641.1(1) as
follows [1]:
PDo
tmin = +A (1)
2( S m + Py )
where P is the internal Design Pressure (1455psig), A is
the Corrosion Allowance (not used), Y is equal to 0.4,
and Sm is the max allowable stress intensity for the
material at the design temperature (17.26 Ksi at 605oF).
Therefore, the pressure-based thickness calculated using
the above formula is,
tmin = 0.124 in
3.15 mm
Allowable Local Thickness for Bends
For pipe bend, the following equation is provided by the
ASME Code SEC XI Code Case N-597-2 for the
calculation of the allowable local wall thickness (taloc):
t aloc 0.5
0.5 + (2)
t min Rmin
1+ cos L
Rb
where,
Rmin pipe mean radius based on tmin
Rb bend radius
L Circumferential Coordinate
Therefore the required thickness for the tight radius bend
in consideration is 1.238 tmin on the intrados (L = 180o)
and 0.878 tmin on the extrados (L = 0 o).
Thinned Model
Thickness measurements of CANDU feeder bends 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 centred with the
intrados of the tight radius bend and moved axially to
cover the entire bend. Similarly, the tool is centered with
the extrados, left cheek and right cheek and moved
axially along the bend. Figure 1 shows the developed
axial and circumferential thickness profiles implemented
in the FEA model of the tight radius. The left graph
shows the axial distribution of the cross section
minimum of the measured thickness data from the six
thickness scans. The right graph shows the
circumferential distribution of the measure thickness
values from the six probe tool used close to the weld.
Location Dependent Thinning Rate
The idealized axial and circumferential profiles as
implemented in the FEA models are used as basis to
develop the projected idealized profiles corresponding to
a target evaluation period. Applying a uniform thinning
rate over the entire length of the bend leads to a simple
uniform shift of the thickness distribution to lower
values. This uniform treatment is overly conservative or
non-conservative considering that not all locations
started with the same thickness (extrados started thinner
and the intrados started thicker than the nominal
thickness as a result of the bending operation during
manufacturing of the bend). 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.
A location dependent thinning rate function is developed
based on the smooth thickness profiles (ensuring a lower
bound on the measured thickness distribution) and an
assumed original thickness distribution to account for
the thicker intrados and the thinner extrados produced as
a result of the bending operation. It is assumed that the
percentage increase in the intrados wall thickness is
equal to the percentage decrease in the extrados wall
thickness preserving the material volume. In this
investigation, a 7% (maximum at the center) thicker than
nominal intrados and 7% (maximum at the center)
thinner than nominal extrados are used to approximate
the original 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. In addition,
it is assumed that the middle of the bend has the
maximum non-uniformity and the ends have perfectly
uniform thickness distribution.
Figure 2 shows the original and idealized thickness
distributions in both the axial (left) and circumferential
(right) directions. Each point on these graphs represent a
through thickness measurement from one node on the
inner bend surface to the corresponding node on the
outer surface. Figure 3 shows the axial and
circumferential distribution of the thinning rate as
calculated from the Original Thickness distribution
and the Idealized Thickness distribution plotted in
Figure 2. The maximum thinning rate in the model is
0.26 mm/EFPY close to the intrados of the bend at the
beginning of the bend where EFPY stands for Effective
Full Power Year of continuous operation. The maximum
thinning rate at the extrados is 0.13 mm/EFPY. Figure 4
shows two longitudinal sections (on the left) and a
transverse section (on the right) of the tight radius bend
and the Grayloc hub (fitting) showing areas of general
and local thinning.
The finite element mesh used in this analysis is evenly
divided in both the axial and circumferential directions.
A very fine mesh is used with three layers of ANSYS
SOLID95 (20 node) brick elements through the
thickness. In the axial and circumferential directions, 45
and 72 elements are used, respectively. A mesh
sensitivity analysis was performed showing that this
mesh produces converged results in both the elastic and
plastic analyses.
ELASTIC ANALYSIS
The finite element analysis is organized as follows:
Apply the internal pressure as a static load and
perform a linear elastic finite element analysis.
Linearize the resulting stress solution across the wall
thickness to obtain the corresponding membrane,
and membrane plus bending stress intensities.
Examine the membrane and membrane-plus-bending
stress intensities against the ASME SEC III NB-
3221 criteria.
The question often arise at what point should the
linearization be performed since the maximum output
from the linearization operation is not necessarily at the
point having the maximum stress. In this paper, the
linearization operation is performed over the whole tight
radius bend region and all the points representing all the
classification lines are checked for compliance with the
NB-3221 criteria.
The above procedure is followed and the finite element
analyses are conducted with different minimum local
thicknesses as shown in Figure 5 (Four cases
representing the original thickness, tloc,min=2.55,
tloc,min=1.99, and tloc,min=1.53 mm). Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9
show the primary membrane stress intensity results for
the four cases considered. The horizontal axes represent
the axial direction starting from the Grayloc hub weld
(Left graph) or the circumferential direction starting
from the centre of the extrados (Right graph). The left
vertical axis represents the membrane stress intensity.
Each point on these graphs represents the result of stress
linearization along a path (Classification Line) going
from one node on the inner surface to a corresponding
node on the outer surface of the bend. Only the
membrane stresses are presented here since these were
limiting. In these figures, 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
3 Copyright by ASME
1.1Sm is limited by (Rmintmin) in both the axial and
circumferential directions (Rmin is the mean radius and
tmin is the pressure based 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.
It can be seen that the local thinned area manifested
itself in higher local stresses approaching the criteria
lines as the minimum local thickness decreases from the
nominal. Figure 8 shows the results corresponding to the
maximum qualified operation (tloc,min = 1.99 mm) for this
particular bend with the particular thinning profiles.
Figure 9 shows the results corresponding to an extended
operating period where the NB-3221 criteria are not met
since both the axial and circumferential extents of the
local stress area are beyond rt. This particular case is
handled using plastic analysis.
In Figure 10, the left graph represents the results
obtained from the FEA using uniform axial and
circumferential thickness profiles over the entire bend.
As shown, the minimum acceptable uniform thickness
corresponding to the design pressure is 1.215 tmin. The
right graph shows the results of the analysis using the
local axial and circumferential thickness profiles (as
summarized in Figure 5). As shown, the minimum
acceptable local wall thickness is significantly lower
than the pressure based thickness (0.631 tmin =1.99mm)
for the specific axial and circumferential extents of the
LTA.
LTA AXIAL EXTENT
The axial extent of the locally thinned area is varied
preserving the same circumferential extent and the
corresponding models are analyzed to calculate the
corresponding allowable pressure using the linear elastic
criteria of NB-3221. The right graph on Figure 11 shows
how the axial extent is measured considering the
pressure-based thickness (tmin) and the allowable local
thickness (taloc) based on Equation (2). The axial extent is
measured between the two intersection points of the line
representing the thickness distribution and the horizontal
lines representing tmin and taloc producing Lm(a)1 and Lm(a)2,
respectively. On the right graph, the allowable pressure
is plotted against the two axial distances Lm(a)1 and Lm(a)2.
As can be seen, the allowable pressure decreases as the
axial extent of the local thin area increases. It can also be
seen that the axial extent beyond which the allowable
pressure will fall below the design pressure is around 2.0
rt.
PLASTIC ANALYSIS
The ASME SEC III NB-3228.1 Limit Analysis states
that The limits on General Membrane Stress Intensity
(NB-3221.1), Local Membrane Stress Intensity (NB-
4 Copyright by ASME
3221.2), and Primary Membrane Plus Primary Bending
Stress intensity (NB-3221.3) need not be satisfied at a
specific location if it can be shown by limit analysis the
specified loadings do not exceed two-thirds of the lower
bound collapse load. This statement is converted to the
following mathematical form:
PD (2/3) PC OR PC /PD 1.5
Where,
PD Design Pressure
PC Collapse Pressure
The same finite element analysis models used for the
linear elastic analyses are used for the limit load
analysis. The finite element analysis results are post-
processed to produce the load-displacement curves for
selected points in the tight radius bend region. For each
load-displacement curve, a tangent line (elastic line) is
developed starting from the origin (0, 0). The angle that
this line is making with the vertical axis is . A second
line (double slope line) is developed with an angle
where tan() = 2 tan(). The intersection point between
the double slope line (making an angle with the
vertical axis) and the load-displacement curve defines
the limit load.
It is noted that the Code allowable stress intensities are
based on Tresca yield criterion. However, the Code does
not explicitly or implicitly prohibit the use of von Mises
yield criterion in plastic analyses. For instance, under
NB-3228.6 (Reversing Dynamic Loading in Piping), the
equivalent strain is calculated using the von Mises yield
criterion. The von Mises yield criterion is also used in
SEC III Div 1 NH Appendix T sub-article T-1411 to
calculate the effective stress. Therefore, von Mises yield
criterion is used in the analysis presented in this paper
without any correction to Trescas.
Figure 12 shows the load displacement curve and the
limit load for the minimum local thickness of 1.53 mm
that did not meet the NB-3221 linear elastic criteria as
represented by Figure 9. The calculated limit load is 1.65
PD. On the same figure, the von Mises color contours are
plotted corresponding to the design pressure and the
limit load. At the design pressure the stresses are shown
to be in the elastic range. At the limit load pressure, a
plastic zone is developed but still surrounded by elastic
material providing support that delays the unbounded
plastic deformation at higher pressures.
CONCLUSIONS
The ASME Code SEC III NB-3200 is used to assess the
structural integrity of thinned tight radius pipe 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 lower bounds to the
measured wall thickness distribution over the entire tight
radius bend region. A location dependent thinning rate Conference, PVP2009, July 26-30, 2009, Prague,
function is developed to provide an estimate for the wall Czech Republic.
thickness at the end of an arbitrary evaluation period. 4. D. A. Scarth, et al., Supplementary Technical Basis
for ASME Section XI Code Case N-597-2,
Results from the linear elastic FEA are checked against
Proceedings of PVP2006-ICPVT-11, 2006 ASME
the ASME Code criteria of NB-3221. Different cases
Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference,
were presented showing the significant margin of safety
July 23-27, 2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
in the original design and the acceptability of very thin
5. Wolf Reinhardt and Nima Zobeiry, Implications of
local area close to the fitting with limited axial and
Limit Analysis on the Evaluation of Locally Thinned
circumferential extents. The plastic limit load criterion
Vessels and Piping, Proceedings of the ASME
of NB-3228.1 is used to show additional margin over the
2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division
linear elastic criteria of NB-3221.
Conference, PVP2009-77896, Prague, Czech
REFERENCES Republic, July 26-30, 2009.
1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, 6. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II,
Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plants, Part D, Material Properties, 2004.
2007. 7. Usama Abdelsalam and Dk Vijay, Finite Element
2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Case N- Modelling of Locally Thinned Short Radius Pipe
597-2: Requirements for Analytical Evaluation of Bends, Presented at the 8th International Conference
Pipe Wall Thinning, Section XI, Division 1, on CANDU Maintenance (CMC2008), Toronto,
Approval Date: November 18, 2003, ASME Boiler Ontario, November 16-18, 2008.
and Pressure Vessel Code. 8. Usama Abdelsalam and Dk Vijay, Detailed FEA of
3. Kunio Hasegawa, et. Al, Assessment of Piping Locally Thinned Pipe Bends, 20th International
Field Failures and Burst Tests on Carbon Steel Pipes Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor
with Local Wall Thinning Using ASME Section XI Technology (SMiRT 20), SMiRT20-Division 3,
Code Case N-597-2, Proceedings of the ASME Paper 2575, Espoo, Finland, August 9-14, 2009.
2009 Pressure Vessels and Piping Division
7 7.0

6 6.0

5 5.0
Wall Thickness (mm)
Wall Thickness (mm)

4 4.0
Idealized Profile tmin tmin
3 3.0

Idealized Profile
2 2.0
14-probe Extrados 14-probe Intrados
E,1 E,2 E,3 E,4 E,5 E,6
1 14-probe Left Cheek 14-probe Right Cheek 1.0
I,1 I,2 I,3 I,4 I,5 I,6
6-Probe Extrados 6-Probe Intrados
0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360
Axial Distance Along Bend Centerline (mm) Circumferencial Angle (Deg)

Figure 1: Axial & Circumferential Thickness Profiles (tloc,min=2.55 mm = 0.810 tmin)

9 9

Original Thickness Original Thickness

8 8

7 7

6 6
tp (mm)

tp (mm)

5 5

4 4
tmin tmin
3 3
Idealized Thickness
2 2
Idealized Thickness
1 1 RC Intrados LC

0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 0 90 180 270 360
Axial Distance (Deg.) Circumferential Distance (Deg.)

Figure 2: FEA Original & Idealized Thickness Distributions (tloc,min =2.55 mm = 0.810 tmin)

5 Copyright by ASME
 0.3 0.3

0.25 0.25
Thinning Rate, t R (mm/EFPY)

Thinning Rate, t R (mm/EFPY)

0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

RC Intrados LC
0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 0 90 180 270 360

Axial Distance (Deg.) Circumferential Distance (Deg.)

Figure 3: FEA Model Thinning Rate Distributions (tloc,min = 2.55 mm = 0.810 tmin)

Figure 4: FEA Model Axial & Transverse Sections

8.0 8.0

7.0 7.0
tnom tnom
6.0 L m(a) 6.0 Lm(t)
Thickness (mm)
Thickness (mm)

5.0 5.0

taloc 4.0 4.0 taloc

3.0 3.0
tmin tmin
2.0 tloc,m in=2.55 mm 2.0 tloc,min=2.55 mm
tloc,m in=1.99 mm 1.0 tloc,min=1.99 mm
1.0
tloc,m in=1.53 mm tloc,min=1.53 mm
0.0 0.0
-15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Axial Distance (mm) Circumferential Distance (mm)

Figure 5: LTA Axial & Circumferential Extent at Different Evaluation Periods

6 Copyright by ASME
 30 30

1.5 Sm 1.5 Sm
25 25

20 1.1 Sm 20 1.1 Sm
Pm (Ksi)

Pm (Ksi)
Sm Sm
15 15

10 10

5 5

RC Intrados LC
0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 0 90 180 270 360
Axial Distance (Deg.) Circumferential Distance (Deg.)

Figure 6: Primary Membrane Stress Intensity (Nominal Thickness)

30 20 30 20

1.5 Sm RC Intrados LC
1.5 Sm 18 18
25 25
16 16

14 14
20 1.1 Sm 20 1.1 Sm

Thickness (mm)

Thickness (mm)
12 12
Pm (Ksi)

Pm (Ksi)
Sm Sm
15 10 15 10

8 8
10 10
6 6

4 4
5 5
tmin tmin Thickness 2
Thickness 2

0 0 0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 0 90 180 270 360

Axial Distance (Deg.) Circumferential Distance (Deg.)

Figure 7: Primary Membrane Stress Intensity (tloc,min = 2.55 mm = 0.810 tmin)

30 20 30 20

1.5 Sm RC Intrados LC
1.5 Sm 18 18
25 25
16 16

14 14
20 1.1 Sm 20 1.1 Sm
Thickness (mm)

Thickness (mm)
12 12
Pm (Ksi)

Pm (Ksi)

Sm Sm
15 10 15 10

8 8
10 10
6 6

4 4
5 5
tmin tmin Thickness 2
Thickness 2

0 0 0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 0 90 180 270 360

Axial Distance (Deg.) Circumferential Distance (Deg.)

Figure 8: Primary Membrane Stress Intensity (tloc,min = 1.99 mm = 0.631 tmin)

30 20 30 20

RC Intrados LC
1.5 Sm 18 1.5 Sm 18
25 25
16 16

14 14
20 1.1 Sm 20 1.1 Sm
Thickness (mm)

Thickness (mm)

12 12
Pm (Ksi)

Pm (Ksi)

Sm Sm
15 10 15 10

8 8
10 10
6 6

4 4
5 5
tmin tmin Thickness 2
Thickness 2

0 0 0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 0 90 180 270 360

Axial Distance (Deg.) Circumferential Distance (Deg.)

Figure 9: Primary Membrane Stress Intensity (tloc,min = 1.53 mm = 0.486 tmin)

7 Copyright by ASME
 2.5 2.5

tuniform/tmin = 1.215 tloc,min/tmin = 0.631

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

Pall /PD
Pall/PD

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5
Not Acceptable Acceptable
Not Acceptable Acceptable
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
tuniform / tmin tloc,min / tmin

Figure 10: Liner Elastic Allowable Pressure for Uniform & Local Thickness
7.0 1.5

6.0
Lm(a)2 Lm(a)1 Lm(a)2
1.3
5.0
Thickness (mm)

4.0
taloc

Pall/PD
1.0
3.0
tmin
2.0
0.8

1.0
Lm(a)1

0.0 0.5
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Axial Distance (mm) Lm (a)/(rt)

Figure 11: LTA Axial Extent & Allowable Pressure (tloc,min = 1.99 mm = 0.631 tmin)

Figure 12: Limit Pressure & Von Mises Stresses (tloc,min = 1.53 mm = 0.486 tmin)

8 Copyright by ASME