0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Autofrettage of Open-End Tubes—Pressures, Stresses, Strains, and Code Comparisons

[+] Author and Article Information
Anthony P. Parker

Engineering Systems Department, Royal Military College of Science, Cranfield University, Swindon, Englande-mail: tony_parker@tesco.net

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 123(3), 271-281 (Nov 24, 2000) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1359209 History: Received April 15, 2000; Revised November 24, 2000
Copyright © 2001 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Bore pressure for given percentage overstrain, von Mises and plane stress conditions assumed
Grahic Jump Location
Bore pressure for given percentage overstrain, von Mises and engineering plane strain (open-end) conditions assumed
Grahic Jump Location
Bore pressure for 100 percent overstrain—comparison with other work, von Mises and engineering plane strain conditions
Grahic Jump Location
Pressures at autofrettage peak for plane strain, open-end, and closed-end conditions, b/a=2. Results normalized using Eq. (1).
Grahic Jump Location
Average axial stress/autofrettage pressure for plane strain and quasi-plane strain (b/a=2)
Grahic Jump Location
Percentage error in bore hoop stress and in percentage overstrain resulting from use of Hill’s approximation 10
Grahic Jump Location
Hoop residual stress profile for b/a=2 with various percentage overstrains; von Mises and engineering plane strain (EPS) conditions assumed
Grahic Jump Location
Axial residual stress profile for b/a=2 with various percentage overstrains; von Mises and engineering plane strain (EPS) conditions assumed
Grahic Jump Location
Bore hoop stress values as a function of c/a for a range of autofrettaged tube geometries. (I) indicates ideal solution, (B) indicates results incorporating Bauschinger effect.
Grahic Jump Location
Ratio of bore hoop stresses, von Mises EPS/ideal Tresca plane stress. Broken lines indicate linear fit to Bauschinger-affected results.
Grahic Jump Location
Bore hoop stresses, von Mises EPS, Tresca EPS, and von Mises TPS, each normalized with Tresca plane stress
Grahic Jump Location
Percentage difference between ASME Code and von Mises EPS numerical model; negative values indicate code conservatism. Note: code validity limited to 40 percent overstrain.
Grahic Jump Location
Bore hoop strain values at autofrettage peak for plane strain, open-end, and closed-end conditions
Grahic Jump Location
Bore hoop strain values at autofrettage peak for plane strain, open-end, and closed-end conditions. Results normalized using Eq. (19).
Grahic Jump Location
Bore hoop strain versus OD hoop strain at autofrettage peak for plane strain, open-end, and closed-end conditions. Results for open and closed-end conditions coincide with 8.
Grahic Jump Location
OD hoop strain values at autofrettage peak for plane strain, open-end, and closed-end conditions
Grahic Jump Location
OD hoop strain values at autofrettage peak for plane strain, open-end, and closed-end conditions. Results normalized using Eq. (20).
Grahic Jump Location
ID and OD hoop strain values during unloading from autofrettage peak for plane, strain, open-end, and closed-end conditions. Results normalized using Eq. (21).
Grahic Jump Location
Percentage difference between code predictions and numerical predictions of c/a and of residual bore hoop stress using OD strain at autofrettage peak
Grahic Jump Location
Percentage difference between code predictions and numerical predictions of c/a and of residual bore hoop stress using permanent strain at ID after autofrettage

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In