0
Design and Analysis

Investigation of Driving Force Variation During Swage Autofrettage, Using Finite Element Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Michael C. Gibson

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

Amer Hameed

Department of Engineering and Applied Science,  Cranfield University, Defence Academy College of Management and Technology, Shrivenham, Wiltshire, SN6 8LA, UKa.hameed@cranfield.ac.uk

John G. Hetherington

Department of Engineering and Applied Science,  Cranfield University, Defence Academy College of Management and Technology, Shrivenham, Wiltshire, SN6 8LA, UKj.g.hetherington@cranfield.ac.uk

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 134(5), 051203 (Aug 27, 2012) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006922 History: Received November 16, 2011; Revised March 05, 2012; Published August 27, 2012

Swaging is one method of autofrettage, a means of prestressing high-pressure vessels to increase their fatigue lives and load bearing capacity. Swaging achieves the required deformation through physical interference between an oversized mandrel and the bore diameter of the tube, as it is pushed along and through the bore of the tube. A finite element (FE) model of the swaging process, developed previously by the author in ANSYS , was configured for comparison with an earlier model; this allowed the accuracy of further properties of the ANSYS model to be investigated. Driving force was the main property of interest, specifically how it varied with mandrel slopes and parallel midsection, to allow direct comparison with the earlier model. The variation of driving force with respect to coefficient of friction was investigated; driving force increased in near proportion, but a subtle trend indicated a further study of stress component be made. This was followed by a two-pass swage process. Close agreement was found with empirical data and the discrepancies observed between the two models are explained by the relatively coarse mesh used by the earlier model. This further verifies the sensitivity of the model described here.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
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 2

Bilinear kinematic material model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Mesh sizing diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Initial driving force comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Driving force versus tube length comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Driving force for θMF  = 6 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Driving force for θMR  = 4.5 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Driving force for lll  = 6.6 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Driving force versus μ Comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of two-pass swage driving forces

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Contact pressures over Mandrel surfaces during two-pass swaging (distances from front of mandrel)

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