Finite Element Analysis of a Piping System

Claudia Silva Lozano, Aylin Davoudi

January 2024
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Modelling and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 Analyis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1 Mesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2 Design Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1
1 Introduction
In modern engineering systems, efficient and cost-effective designs are essential for ensuring both performance
and economic viability. One common challenge in piping systems is the need to manage thermal expansion,
especially when transporting fluids at varying temperatures.

The proposed piping system consists of a standard steel pipe subjected to three primary loading conditions:
the weight of the pipe, internal fluid pressure, and temperature rise due to the carried fluid. Finite Ele-
ment Analysis (FEA) is a numerical method used to solve complex structural, thermal, and fluid-related
problems in engineering. It divides a complex object into smaller, simpler parts (finite elements) and solves
the governing equations for each part. By performing a finite element analysis, we aim to identify the rela-
tive significance of each of these loading conditions on the stress distribution and deformation within the pipe.

The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the piping system under steady-state conditions to identify which
of the three loading factors most impacts its structural integrity. Comparing the stress results from each
case will determine the dominant load and assess the design’s feasibility, guiding potential modifications for
reliability.

2 Problem Definition
The piping system to be analyzed is made of standard steel, with the following material properties:

Young’s Modulus (E) = 200 GPa

Poisson’s Ratio (ν) = 0.3
Thermal Expansion Coefficient (α) = 12 × 10−6 K−1
3
Density (ρ) = 7800 kg/m
The geometric parameters of the pipe are:

Figure 1: Simplified geometry of the pipe.

Length(L) = 1.5 m, Curvature Radius(R) = 500 mm, Diameter(D) = 190 mm, Thickness(t) = 10 mm

2
The applied loading conditions are as follows:
• Internal pressure: P = 50 bars
• Temperature elevation: ∆T = 150 K
The analysis is based on several key assumptions to simplify the model while maintaining accuracy. The
pipe is modeled as a homogeneous, isotropic, and linearly elastic material (standard steel). The analysis will
be carried out in a general static framework, assuming that the deformations are small and that the mate-
rial remains within its elastic limits. Steady-state conditions are assumed, with constant internal pressure,
uniform thermal loading, and the pipe’s self-weight uniformly distributed. Dynamic effects, nonlinearities,
and fluid-structure interactions are neglected, focusing solely on static loading scenarios. For this analysis,
we assume a perfect embedding at both ends of the pipe.

3 Modelling and methodology

For the finite element analysis, Abaqus is the software used. The first step in the FEA process is to create
the geometric model of the pipe. This model is generated using Fusion 360. Once the geometry is complete,
it is exported from Fusion 360 and imported into Abaqus for the finite element analysis.

Figure 2: Pipe geometry in Fusion 360.

After importing the geometry into Abaqus and defining material properties, the internal pressure and gravity
loads were defined in a single static general step. However, temperature could not be applied in the static
general step as a load, so it was defined as a thermal field with a uniform temperature increase across the pipe.

To better understand the contributions of each load, they were turned on and off individually to analyze their
separate effects and determine which load had the most significant impact. Finally, all loads were applied
simultaneously to evaluate their overall combined effect on the structure. The pipe’s boundary conditions
were defined as fully fixed at both ends, preventing translation or rotation in all directions.

The next step involves meshing the model. In Abaqus, the pipe is discretized into smaller elements through
a process called meshing. The mesh consists of smaller shapes, typically tetrahedral or hexahedral elements,
depending on the complexity of the geometry and the accuracy required.

In this study, hexahedron elements were used instead of tetrahedrons because hexahedrons offer better ac-
curacy for structural problems with regular geometry. They provide superior convergence rates and fewer
elements are needed to achieve the same level of precision, leading to a more efficient analysis. The mesh
element size used is 20 mm, a choice that is justified in 4.1.

3
Furthermore, quadratic element types were chosen because we are working with a 3D geometry, and these
are better at capturing complex deformation patterns and offering faster convergence due to their second-
order interpolation and mid-edge nodes, providing better accuracy with fewer elements. For example, if
the error for a linear element mesh is eh = 0.1 with a characteristic element size h, halving h reduces the
error to approximately eh/2 ≈ 0.025 (a factor of 4 reduction). In contrast, for quadratic elements, the same
refinement reduces the error to eh/2 ≈ 0.003125 (an 8-fold improvement).

Both approaches—shell and solid—could work for this analysis. If we had used shell, we could position the
shell at the mid-thickness of the pipe wall and analyze the structural behavior at that location. Shell model
assume a simplified linear variation of stresses through the thickness, meaning the mid-thickness results
could approximate the overall stress and deformation behavior. From these results, it is also possible to
estimate stresses and strains at the inner and outer surfaces. This approach is computationally efficient and
well-suited for thin-walled structures, like the pipe, which has a thickness-to-diameter ratio (t/D=0.05).

However, the solid model was initially chosen and maintained for simplicity and consistency throughout the
project, as well as to avoid approximations, since it directly computes stresses and strains in 3D. The solid
model offers greater flexibility in modeling complex regions, such as bends and anchor points. The cost did
not increase significantly by using the solid model, as the choice of quadratic elements allowed for a coarser
mesh while maintaining an acceptable level of accuracy.

The mesh was not refined in regions where higher stress concentrations are expected, such as near the an-
choring points of the pipe. This decision was based on a balance between computational cost and accuracy,
as the chosen mesh size is sufficiently fine to capture the overall stress distribution needed for the analysis.

3.1 Results
The results will provide stress distribution and deformation for each loading case, allowing comparison to
determine the most critical load. These plots will show the stress distribution and deformation along the
pipe. Three separate loading cases will be considered:

• Case 1: Only Internal Pressure

Internal pressure alone resulted in a maximum von Mises stress of 119.8 MPa at the anchors, with stress
values ranging from 70 MPa to 90 MPa along the pipe. The internal pressure causes the pipe to enlarge
with a maximum deformation of 0.3255 mm at the middle of the pipe (unsupported region). The stress
distribution was relatively uniform along the pipe, due to uniform fluid flow throughout it, with slightly
higher concentrations near the curved regions due to geometry-induced stress amplifications.

4
 Figure 3: Stress distribution due to pressure. Figure 4: Deformation due to pressure.

• Case 2: Only Thermal Field

In the case of the temperature rise, the applied thermal load resulted in a peak von Mises stress of
678.2 MPa at the anchors, 56.7 MPa throughout the pipe, and a maximum deformation of 4.76 mm at
the middle of the pipe (unsupported region). The stress distribution remained largely uniform across
the pipe, being slightly higher at the curved regions. However, the highest stresses were observed near
the anchoring points, where the fixed boundary conditions restricted free thermal expansion, causing
localized stress concentrations. This behavior is consistent with the expected response of a overly
constrained structure exposed to temperature elevation.

Figure 5: Stress distribution due to temperature. Figure 6: Deformation due to temperature.

• Case 3: Only Weight of the Pipe due to Gravity

For the gravity case, the application of the pipe’s self-weight resulted in a peak von Mises stress of
6.451 MPa and a maximum deformation of 0.3394 mm. The stress distribution showed slightly higher
values near the anchoring points and the curved regions, as these areas experience greater resistance
to the gravitational force due to the fixed boundary conditions and the geometric bending of the pipe.

5
 The relatively small stress and deformation indicate that gravity has a less significant impact on the
structural response compared to temperature or internal pressure. The observed behavior and regions
of deformation aligns with the understanding that gravity-induced stresses are primarily dependent on
the weight distribution and boundary conditions rather than the material’s inherent properties.

Figure 7: Stress distribution due to gravity. Figure 8: Deformation due to gravity.

• Case 4: Combined Loading

During this simulation, all three loads are applied simultaneously. The maximum von Mises stress of
780 MPa is localized to a single element near the anchoring point, likely due to modeling inadequacies,
such as over-constraining, as can be seen Figure 13. Across the rest of the pipe, stresses remained
below the material’s yield stress, with a maximum of around 82.9 MPa in the curved regions. This
indicates that, aside from localized stress artifacts, the pipe operates well within safe limits for the
given loads.

Figure 9: Combined loading stress distribution. Figure 10: Combined loading deformation.

6
4 Analyis
Thermal expansion had the most significant effect on both stress and deformation, while internal pressure
and gravity resulted in comparable levels of deformation despite differing stress magnitudes, with pressure
having a greater impact on stress than gravity. In all cases, stresses were highest at the anchoring points,
where boundary conditions restricted the natural deformation of the pipe, and were slightly elevated near
the curved regions due to the pipe’s geometry. These stress concentrations are expected but highlight the
influence of modeling assumptions like perfect embedding, which amplify stresses near these areas. Away
from anchoring points, stresses remained within acceptable limits, ensuring structural integrity under the
given loading conditions.

Thermal expansion occurs as the material enlarges due to its thermal expansion coefficient, and the fixed
anchoring points restrict this expansion, leading to significant stresses. The pipe’s primary design challenge,
as outlined in the project description, is its exposure to high temperatures from the carried fluid, making
thermal effects the dominant factor influencing its structural behavior.

The stress concentrations near the anchoring points can be attributed to several modeling factors. Insuffi-
cient mesh refinement in these critical areas may fail to accurately capture stress gradients. Additionally, the
fully fixed boundary conditions, create overly restrictive conditions that exaggerate stress concentrations.
These limitations suggest areas for improvement, such as refining the mesh near anchors, applying smoother
transitions, and using more realistic boundary conditions to better reflect the pipe’s actual behavior.

A safety factor of 2 to 3 is recommended to ensure the design’s reliability, accounting for uncertainties like
manufacturing defects and material variations. Despite standard steel’s adequate strength, the safety factor
ensures the design remains within acceptable stress limits, even under extreme conditions. A safety factor
between 2 to 3 provides a sufficient margin for these uncertainties, ensuring that the maximum von Mises
stress remains well below the material’s yield strength (≈ 250M P a), with an allowable stress of ≈ 83.3M P a.
The finite element analysis shows a peak combined von Mises stress of 82.94 MPa with a 20 mm mesh, which
is below the allowable stress of 83.3 MPa. This indicates that the design is within safe operating limits under
the applied loading conditions.

4.1 Mesh
A mesh convergence study was conducted, comparing results for 25 mm, 20 mm, 15 mm, and 11 mm meshes.
Using a mesh size of 10 mm or lower to capture through-thickness stress variations was not feasible due to
the computational limitations of the teaching license of Abaqus, which restricts the total number of nodes to
250,000. A finer mesh, requiring 2–3 mm elements for adequate resolution through the 10 mm wall thickness,
would have exceeded this limit and significantly increased computational costs. The smallest mesh size that
could be used for reference within these constraints was 11 mm.

7
 Figure 11: 11 mm mesh. Figure 12: 25mm mesh.

For a high safety factor of around 2 to 3, a convergence error of up to 10% may be acceptable, as the
additional safety margin compensates for minor inaccuracies. The stress difference between the 11 mm and
20 mm meshes was around 8.5%, which is an acceptable convergence error. This error margin reflects the
trade-off between computational cost and accuracy. The results for the 20 mm mesh capture the overall
stress distribution and critical areas with reasonable accuracy while maintaining computational efficiency.
Given that the error margin remains within the acceptable range, the 20 mm mesh is justified as a reliable
choice for this analysis.

4.2 Design Implications

The analysis shows that the piping system is generally viable under the specified operational conditions, with
most of the pipe experiencing stresses below the material’s yield strength of 250 MPa. However, localized
stress concentrations at the anchoring points exceed the yield strength due to the restrictive boundary
constraints. These high stresses could lead to long-term issues like plastic deformation or crack initiation.
To address this, potential improvements include redesigning the anchors for more flexibility and better load
distribution, reinforcing critical regions with additional material, or using a higher-strength material near
the supports to enhance safety and durability.

5 Conclusion
The analysis of the pipe system under internal pressure, temperature rise, and gravity loading has provided
valuable insights into the structural behavior of the system. Among the three cases, the temperature rise
scenario proved to be the most critical, producing the highest von Mises stress and maximum deformation.
This underscores the significant impact of thermal expansion, especially in systems with constrained bound-
ary conditions, where stress concentrations arise due to restricted deformation.

The results from the finite element analysis are considered reliable within the constraints of the study. The
chosen mesh size of 20 mm represents a compromise between computational efficiency and result accuracy,
achieving a stress difference of approximately 8.5% compared to finer meshes. This level of accuracy is ac-
ceptable, which ensures that the design remains within safe operating limits, even under extreme conditions.
While the results inspire confidence, they are influenced by modeling assumptions such as idealized boundary
conditions, material homogeneity, and linear elastic behavior.

8
Appendix

Figure 13: High stresses near anchoring points.