0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Erosions and Their Effect on the Fatigue Life of Thick Walled, Autofrettaged, Pressurized Vessels

[+] Author and Article Information
C. Levy

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199

M. Perl

Pearlstone Center for Aeronautical Studies, School of Engineering Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105 Israel

Q. Ma

Mechanical Engineering Department, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 125(3), 242-247 (Aug 01, 2003) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1593698 History: Received March 12, 2003; Revised April 23, 2003; Online August 01, 2003
Copyright © 2003 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
(a) A half cylinder with three finite erosions and one crack. X–Y plane of symmetry is Z=0; (b) finite erosion front view.
Grahic Jump Location
(a) The submodel used; (b) definition of the angle ϕ; (c) crack geometry—the wedge angle γ is 4 deg
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Stresses in eroded cylinder (half of cylinder shown); (b) stresses in cylinder with nine erosions (half of cylinder shown)
Grahic Jump Location
SCF versus erosion number Ro/Ri=2,d/h=1,d/t=0.10; α=12 deg
Grahic Jump Location
SCFs versus erosion number Ro/Ri=2,d/h=1, α=12 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Maximum KIeff versus erosion ellipticity (three erosions) d/t=0.05,a/t=0.05, α=12 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Effective SIFs for an eroded pressurized autofrettaged cylinder r/t=0.05,d/t=0.05, α=12 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Maximums of the KIeff versus erosion curvature (three erosions) d/t=0.05,a/t=0.05, α=30 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Maximums of KIeff versus erosion ellipticity (three erosions) d/t=0.05,a/t=0.05, α=12 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Maximums of KIeff versus erosion span angle (three erosions) d/t=0.05,d/h=1,a/t=0.05
Grahic Jump Location
Maximums of KIeff versus erosion depth (three erosions) d/h=1,a/t=0.05, α=12 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Maximums of KIeff versus crack depth (three erosions) d/t=0.05,d/h=1, α=7 deg
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Normalized effective SIFs versus ϕ for a crack emanating from the farthest of three equidistant erosions; 30% autofrettage, d/t=0.05,d/h=1,a/c=0.5,a/t=0.05, α=12 deg; (b) normalized effective SIF’s versus ϕ for a crack emanating from the farthest of three equidistant erosions; 60% autofrettage, d/t=0.05,d/h=1,a/c=1.5,a/t=0.05, α=12 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Maximum normalized effective SIFs versus Le/L for a crack emanating from the farthest of three equidistant erosions, 30% and 60% autofrettage, d/t=0.05,d/h=1,a/t=0.05, α=12 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Maximum normalized SIFs versus Le/L for a crack emanating from the farthest of three equidistant erosions, 30% and 60% autofrettage, d/t=0.05,a/c=1,a/t=0.05, α=12 deg
Grahic Jump Location
Maximum normalized effective SIFs versus span angle for a crack emanating from the farthest of three erosions; 30% autofrettage, d/t=0.05,d/h=1,a/t=0.15,Le/L=0.4
Grahic Jump Location
Maximum normalized effective SIFs versus crack depth for one crack and three erosions; 30% autofrettage, d/t=0.05,d/h=1,a/t=0.15,Le/L=0.4, α=7 deg

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