0
Research Papers: NDE

Residual Stress Measurements of Explosively Clad Cylindrical Pressure Vessels

[+] Author and Article Information
D. J. Taylor

 TPL, Inc., 3921 Academy Parkway North, Albuquerque, NM 87109 e-mail: dtaylor@tplinc.com

T. R. Watkins

C. R. Hubbard

e-mail: hubbardcr@ornl.gov High Temperature Materials Laboratory, Materials Science and Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, One Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6064

M. R. Hill

 Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 e-mail: mrhill@ucdavis.edu

W. A. Meith

 Hill Engineering, LLC, 3035 Prospect Park Drive, Ste 180, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 e-mail: wameith@hill-engineering.com

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 134(1), 011501 (Dec 22, 2011) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4004615 History: Received September 10, 2010; Revised March 25, 2011; Published December 22, 2011; Online December 22, 2011

Tantalum refractory liners were explosively clad into cylindrical pressure vessels, some of which had been previously autofrettaged. Using explosive cladding, the refractory liner formed a metallurgical bond with the steel of the pressure vessel at a cost of induced strain. Two techniques were employed to determine the residual stress state of the clad steel cylinders: neutron diffraction and mechanical slitting. Neutron diffraction is typically nondestructive; however, due to attenuation along the beam path, the cylinders had to be sectioned into rings that were nominally 25 mm thick. Slitting is a destructive method, requiring the sectioning of the cylindrical samples. Both techniques provided triaxial stress data and useful information on the effects of explosive cladding. The stress profiles in the hoop and radial directions were similar for an autofrettaged, nonclad vessel and a clad, nonautofrettaged vessel. The stress profiles in the axial direction appeared to be different. Further, the data suggested that residual stresses from the autofrettage and explosive cladding processes were not additive, in part due to evidence of reverse yielding. The residual stress data are presented, compared and discussed.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Geometry of tube (left) and ring (right) residual stress measurement samples (dimensions in mm; inside diameter shown; outside diameter varied from 270 to 390 mm)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Schematic of the neutron diffraction measurements (not drawn to scale), locations of gauge volumes and radial distance from cladding/PV interface. Gauge volume sizes in mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Slitting measurement sequence: install strain gages (•) on in-tact sample (left); cut open sample (center) while recording strain change; perform slitting experiment (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Follow-on measurement of stress in a block removed from the tube wall (second strain gage was present on the inner diameter of the half tube shown at left, and used to measure strain released when the block was cut from the half tube). Strain gage indicated by small rectangle.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Triaxial residual stress distribution in baseline ring sample for ND measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Triaxial residual stress distribution in clad sample from ND

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Triaxial residual stress distribution in AF/C sample from ND

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Residual hoop stress distribution in autofrettaged ring sample (slitting method)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Triaxial residual stress distribution in AF sample (slitting method)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Triaxial Residual stress distribution in clad sample (slitting method)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Triaxial residual stress distribution in AF/C sample (slitting method)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of measured and computed axial direction residual stress distribution in removed block (AF/C sample)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Comparison of methods, AF/C samples

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Comparison of methods, clad ring samples

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison of hoop stresses, ND

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of hoop stresses, slitting

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