Research Papers

Is There an “Ultimate” Autofrettage Process?

[+] Author and Article Information
M. Perl, J. Perry

Pearlstone Center for Aeronautical Engineering Studies, Department of Mechanical Engineering,  Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel

T. Aharon, O. Kolka

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 134(4), 041001 (Jul 09, 2012) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006780 History: Received September 17, 2011; Revised January 06, 2012; Published July 09, 2012; Online July 09, 2012

To increase the elastic-carrying capacity of a gun barrel, beneficial residual stresses are introduced to the barrel’s wall, commonly by the autofrettage process. There are two major autofrettage processes: the hydrostatic and the swage. While the theoretical solution for hydraulic autofrettage has been available and accessible for a long time, the available models for swage autofrettage have been quite limited. The issue of hydraulic versus swage autofrettage was intensively investigated pointing to the clear advantages of swage autofrettage in both the level of the residual stresses created and the total fatigue lifetime obtained. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that overstraining a barrel to the same level of autofrettage by either the swage or the hydraulic processes produces the same safe maximum pressure (SMP) for firing. In the present analysis, the recently developed 3D code, which finally enables a realistic simulation of both swage and hydraulic autofrettage, is validated against experimental findings for several gun barrels. All the numerical results are found in excellent agreement with the test results in terms of the permanent bore enlargement (PBE) and the safe maximum pressure for these barrels. In order to compare the two autofrettage processes, the code is applied to two hypothetic 120 mm gun barrels simulating both swage and hydraulic autofrettage. The detailed numerical comparison between the two different autofrettage processes points to the fact that the swage autofrettage process is superior to the hydraulic autofrettage process. These results are very encouraging and call for continuing the pursuit of finding an “ultimate” autofrettage process that will yield the “optimal gun barrel.”

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



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Pressure distribution for simulating swage autofrettage

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

The compressive yield stress Bauschinger effect factor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

The optimal design of MG251 swage autofrettaged barrel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

The optimal design of M256 swage autofrettaged barrel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

The “optimal” overstrain solution for the M256

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

The residual stresses for the two autofrettage processes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

The final residual stresses for the two autofrettage processes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

The residual plastic strains for the two autofrettage processes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

The SMP stresses for the two autofrettage processes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

The burst pressures for the two autofrettage processes



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