0
RESEARCH PAPERS

A Comparison of Methods for Predicting Residual Stresses in Strain-Hardening, Autofrettaged Thick Cylinders, Including the Bauschinger Effect

[+] Author and Article Information
Michael C. Gibson

Defence College of Management and Technology, Engineering Systems Department, Cranfield University at the Defence Academy, Swindon, SN6 8LA, UKm.c.gibson@cranfield.ac.uk

Amer Hameed, Anthony P. Parker, John G. Hetherington

Defence College of Management and Technology, Engineering Systems Department, Cranfield University at the Defence Academy, Swindon, SN6 8LA, UK

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 128(2), 217-222 (Dec 19, 2005) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2172964 History: Received December 05, 2005; Revised December 19, 2005

High-pressure vessels, such as gun barrels, are autofrettaged in order to increase their operating pressure and fatigue life. Autofrettage causes plastic expansion of the inner section of the cylinder, setting up residual compressive stresses at the bore after relaxation. Subsequent application of pressure has to overcome these compressive stresses before tensile stresses can be developed, thereby increasing its fatigue lifetime and safe working pressure. This paper presents the results from a series of finite element models that have been developed to predict the magnitude of these stresses for a range of end conditions: plane stress and several plane-strain states (open and closed ended, plus true plane strain). The material model is currently bilinear and allows consideration of strain hardening and the Bauschinger effect. Results are compared to an alternative numerical model and a recent analytical model (developed by Huang), and show close agreement. This demonstrates that general purpose finite element analysis software may be used to simulate high-pressure vessels, justifying further refining of the models.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of residual hoop stresses, ν=0.5, for K=2.0, β=0.45, and K=2.5, β=0.7

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Residual hoop stresses for the open-ended tube

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Residual hoop stresses for the closed-ended tube

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Residual hoop stresses for the plane strain tube

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Residual hoop stresses for the plane stress tube

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Tube geometry and yield diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Material stress-strain diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Plane stress model diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

True plane strain model diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Open-ended model diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Closed-ended model diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

r,z Section mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of autofrettage stresses, ν=0.5, K=2.0, β=0.45

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