X.

P Huang
School of Naval Architecture,
Ocean and Civil Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai 200030,
China
e-mail: xphuang@sjtu.edu.cn

W. C. Cui
China Ship Scientific Research Center,
P.O. Box 116, Wuxi,
Jiangsu, 214082,
China
e-mail: wccui@sjtu.edu.cn

Effect of Bauschinger Effect and

Yield Criterion on Residual Stress
Distribution of Autofrettaged Tube
Many analytical and numerical solutions for determining the residual stress distribution
in autofrettaged tube have been reported. The significance of the choice of yield criterion,
the Bauschinger effect, strain hardening, and the end conditions on the predicted residual
stress distribution has been discussed by many authors. There are some different autofrettage models based on different simplified material strain-hardening behaviors, such
as a linear strain-hardening model, power strain-hardening model, etc. Those models
give more accurate predictions than that of elasticperfectly plastic model, and each of
them suits different strain-hardening materials. In this paper, an autofrettage model considering the material strain-hardening relationship and the Bauschinger effect, based on
the actual tensile-compressive stress-strain curve of material, plane-strain, and modified
yield criterion, has been proposed. The predicted residual stress distributions of autofrettaged tubes from the present model are compared to the numerical results and the
experimental data. The predicted residual stresses are in good agreement with the experimental data and numerical predictions. The effect of Bauschinger effect and yield
criterion on residual stress is discussed based on the present model. To predict residual
stress distribution accurately, it is necessary to properly model yield criterion, Bauschinger effect, and appropriate end conditions. DOI: 10.1115/1.2172621
Keywords: autofrettage, residual stress distribution, Bauschinger effect, yield criterion

Introduction
The autofrettage process is a practical method for increasing the
elastic-carrying capacity and the fatigue life of a thick-walled
tube, such as a cannon or a high-pressure tubular reactor, etc. The
essence of the autofrettage technique is the introduction and utilization of residual stresses. These residual stresses are generated
after pressurization causes yielding partway through the tube wall.
The reliable prediction of the influence of residual stresses on the
elastic-carrying capacity, fatigue crack growth, and fracture in a
thick-walled tube requires accurate estimation of the residual
stress field 1. Residual stress distributions can be determined by
experiments or calculations. The calculation procedures usually
involve making simplifying assumptions about the material behavior which may limit their accuracies 2. The basic autofrettage
model proposed by Hill 3 is elastic perfectly plastic. Because of
the Bauschinger effect and strain hardening, most materials do not
satisfy the elasticperfectly plastic assumption, and consequently,
alternative autofrettage models, based on various simplified material strain-hardening characteristics, have been proposed 4.
These are the unloading linear strain-hardening 5, bilinear
strain-hardening 6,7, loading elasticperfectly plastic and unloading power strain-hardening 7,8, loading and unloading
power strain-hardening 9, and loading linear and unloading
power strain-hardening 10 models. These models give more accurate solutions than the elasticperfectly plastic model, and each
of them suits different strain-hardening materials. Kendall 11
proposed a quadratic fit to the Bauschinger-unloading profile. This
fit is a function of prior plastic strain and is based on the work of
Milligan et al. 12. It was also the basis of 13 in which several
Tresca, plane stress solutions are presented. In later extensive exContributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 10,
2005; final manuscript received November 22, 2005. Review conducted by Anthony
Parker. Paper presented at the Gun Tubes Conference 2005, April 1014, 2005,
Keble College Oxford, hosted by Cranfield University, RMCS, Shrivenham, SN6
8LA.

212 / Vol. 128, MAY 2006

perimental work and associated curve-fitting 14,15, a nonlinear

kinematic hardening fit to both loading and unloading profiles is
proposed; the latter also represents unloading as a function of
prior plastic strain. This work shows that Kendalls fit 11 is
appropriate to A723-type steels, but that other candidate pressure
vessel steels exhibit significantly different profiles. Associated
work 16 indicates the crucial importance of end conditions e.g.,
plane stress, plane-strain, and open-end conditions in analyzing
the autofrettage process.
In this paper, a general autofrettage model considering the material strain-hardening relationship and the effect of Bauschinger
effect, based on the actual tensile-compressive curve of material
and the modified yield criterion and plane strain, incompressible
material, is proposed. Based on this model, the effect of Bauschinger effect and yield criteria on residual stress distribution are
discussed.

Theoretical Analysis
Material Stress-Strain Relationship. A general material
tensile-compressive stress-strain curve is shown in Fig. 1. The
curve can be divided into four segments, O-A, A-B, B-D, and DE,
and be expressed by four equations.
1. Loading phase O-A-B: in the Cartesian coordinate system
O, shown in Fig. 1. An initial tensile loading regime,
O-A, during which the steel behaves elastically up to the
yield point ss, the elastic modulus over this range is E1.
The material then behaves plastically, A-B. This phase may
involve significant nonlinearity. The relationship of stress
and strain can be expressed as
Linear elastic regime O-A

= E 1

Strain-hardening regime A-B

Copyright 2006 by ASME

= A 1 + A 2 B1

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 07 Dec 2008 to 219.228.116.47. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 2 Radii of elastic plastic zones

+ r + z = 0

3. Plane-strain assumption with closed ends

z = 0
Fig. 1 General material tensile-compressive stress-strain
curve

2. Unloading phase B-D-E: in the Cartesian coordinate system

*B*, shown in Fig. 1, unloading elastic regime, B-D,
during which the steel behaves elastically up to the yield
point Es*, the elastic modulus over this range is E2. The
material then behaves plastically, D-E. This phase behaves
significant nonlinearity. The relationship of stress and strain
can be expressed as
Elastic regime B-D

= E 2
*

s*

Yield Criterion. The experiments have shown that von Mises

yield criterion and Tresca yield criterion are more suitable for the
elastic-plastic analysis of thick-walled tubes than other yield criteria 5. Stacey and Webster 2 found that close agreement with
experiment is achieved when the unloading stress-strain behavior
of the material is modeled accurately and the average of the
Tresca and von Mises yield criteria is used 1. Some researchers
have suggested that adopting von Mises yield criteria will give a
more accurate solution than that of Tresca. The yield criterion can
be rewritten as the unified form as

i =

* s*

1. Unique curve assumption The relationship between equivalent strain strain intensity i and equivalent stress stress
intensity i under complex stress states is the same as the
strain-stress relationship under uniaxial tensile-compressive
loading, i.e., Eqs. 14 remain valid when , * , * is
replaced by i , i* , *.
Stress intensity i

i = 21 r2 + r z2 + z 2
2
3

Residual Stress Distribution. Loading and unloading stress

analysis is performed in the Cartesian coordinate system O and
*B* shown in Fig. 1, respectively. The radii of elastic plastic
zones in the tube wall were shown in Fig. 2. The residual stress
distribution can be determined by using loading stress minus corresponding unloading stress, i.e., R = *. The residual stress
calculation should be expressed in two different cases and three
zones, respectively.
Ideal Elastic Unloading. Loading elastic zone rc r ro

r2 + r z2 + z 2

rR =
R

r2o
pa
s 2 1 1
rc 2 2 2 2 ri2 1 2
2
r
ro r
ro ri

r2o
pa
s 2 1 1
=
rc 2 + 2 2 2 ri2 1 + 2
2
r
ro r
ro ri

Loading plastic zone ri r rc

2. Incompressible material assumption

rR =

where = 1, = 2 / 3, and 1 2 / 3, for Tresca, von Mises,

Strain intensity i
i =

3
2 s

and modified yield criterion, will give.

Strain hardening regime D-E

* = A3 + A4*B2
Fundamental Assumptions

1
s A1 2B1 1

r
2A1 ln
+
r

2
ri
B1 c ri2B1 r2B1

pa
r2o

r2o
ri2

1
s A1 2B1 1

r
=
+ 2B1 1 2B
2 ln
+ 1 A1 +
r
2
ri
B1 c ri2B1
r 1

ri2
r2

pa
r2o

r2o
ri2

ri2
1+ 2
r

10

11

Elastic Plastic Unloading. Loading elastic zone and unloading elastic zone rc r ro

1 1

sr2c Er2d 2 2
2
ro r
1 1

R = sr2c Er2d 2 + 2
2
ro r

rR =

12

Loading plastic zone and unloading elastic zone rd r rc

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

MAY 2006, Vol. 128 / 213

Downloaded 07 Dec 2008 to 219.228.116.47. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Loading plastic zone and unloading plastic zone ri r rd

s A1 2B1 1
E A3 2B2 1
1
1

r
2A1 A3ln
+
r

rd

2
ri
B1 c ri2B1 r2B1
B2
ri2B2 r2B2
1
1
s A1 2B1 1
E A3 2B2 1

r
2 ln
+ 1 A1 A3 +
r
+ 2B1 1 2B
rd
+ 2B2 1 2B
R =
2
ri
B1 c ri2B1
r 1
B2
r 2
ri2B2

rR =

Autofrettage Pressure
The relationship of pa rc

s A1

rc
pa =
2A1 ln
+
2
ri
B1

E A3

rd
2A1 ln
+
2
ri
B2

13

14

Discussion

rc
ri

2B1

rc
1 S 1
ro

15

The relationship of pa rd
pa =

s A1 2B1 1
1
r
E 2 1 ri2

2A1 ln
+
rc

pa
r
2B1 2B1
2
ri
B1
r
2 d r2o r2
ri
s A1 2B1 1
1

r
E 2 1 1
+ 2B1 1 2B
R =
2 ln
+ 1 A1 +
r

+
pa
r
2
ri
B1 c ri2B1
r 1
2 d r2o r2

rR =

rd
ri

2B2

1 E 1

rd
ro

16

Critical autofrettage pressure

The critical autofrettage pressure is defined as the autofrettage
pressure when the reverse yield just takes place at the inner surface of the autofrettaged tube. Replace rd with ri in Eq. 16, the
critical autofrettage pressure is

E
ri
1
pacr =
2
ro

17

Validations

Effect of Bauschinger Effect on Residual Stress. For sufficiently thick tubes and depths of yielding during the autofrettage
process, reverse yielding may take place adjacent to the inner
surface when the internal pressure is removed. For a yield stress in
compression equal to that in tension, reyielding occurs when
ro / ri 2.22. It can take place at lower k values due to the Bauschinger effect. In general, Bauschinger effect coefficient bef is found
to be material dependent and sensitive to the amount of prior
plastic strain. Typical values of bef in the range 0.31.0 have been
measured 12. The greater the previous plastic strain the smaller
the Bauschinger effect coefficient is. The smaller Bauschinger effect coefficient causes the reverse yielding to take place more
easily and affects the residual stress distribution.
In the present model, the effect of Bauschinger effect is considered by parameter E.

E = A1 + A2b1 + befs

18

The effect of Bauschinger effect on residual stress is illustrated in

Fig. 6. The smaller the bef, the larger the reversed yielding radius
is and the less compressive the hoop residual stress is near the
bore. Plastic strain through the wall thickness is not constant; thus,
in reality bef varies with radius. In this analysis, bef was set pragmatically and the parameter E was determined by stress-strain

Experimental Validation. The experimental material of the

specimen is 30CrNiMo8. The tensile-compressive stress-strain
curve of the material is shown in Fig. 3. The parameters needed in
the present model were determined by fitting the tensilecompressive stress-strain curve using Eqs. 14 and are listed in
Table 1. The dots shown in Fig. 3 are determined by Eqs. 14
using the data in Table 1. It shows that Eqs. 14 fit the strssstrain curve well. There is a small difference at the two knots of
the elasticity and plasticity of the stress-strain curve. To eliminate
the difference, parameters s and E should be correspond to the
values of intersection of Eqs. 1 and 2 and Eqs. 3 and 4,
respectively. The internal and external radii, autofrettage pressure,
and some important results are listed in Table 2. The predicted
residual stress distributions and the experimental data measured
by Sachs boring method are shown in Fig. 4. This figure shows
that the calculated elasto-plastic radius is a little smaller than the
measured value when = 1.11, and the predicted residual stresses
are in good agreement with test data.
Numerical Validation. The residual stress distributions predicted by the present model for 30CrNiMo8 may be compared to
some numerical results of Parker 17 that are shown in Fig. 5.
Parkers results are for A723 steel of the same yield strength and
include Bauschinger effect that varies as a function of plastic
strain and, hence, radius as defined in Ref. 14. There is some
difference between the various results near the bore. To understand these differences now consider some important parameters
affecting residual stress distribution.
214 / Vol. 128, MAY 2006

Fig. 3 Stress-strain curve of 30CrNiMo8

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 07 Dec 2008 to 219.228.116.47. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 1 Calculation parameters of 30CrNiMo8

s
MPa

E1
MPa

A1
MPa

A2
MPa

B1

E
MPa

E2
MPa

A3
MPa

A4
Mpa

B2

bef

960.7

207000

928.1

7026

1.0

1420

201000

5.0

10850

0.405

0.47

curve fitting in this model. For simulating the stress-strain relationship of the tube under autofrettage pressure with the uniaxial
tensile-compressive curve of the material, the maximum strain of
the curve should be approximately equal to or less than the von
Mises equivalent strain at the inner surface of the tube under
autofrettage pressure.
Table 2 Radii and autofrettage pressure of the tube:
rcc-calculation value; rcm-experimental measuring value
ri
mm

ro
mm

pa
MPa

pacr
MPa

rcc
mm

rcm
mm

rd
mm

19.3

43.7

1.11

740

601.9

29.43

30.2

21.16

Effect of Yield Criterion on Residual Stress. The effect of

yield criterion on residual stress under same Pa is shown in Fig. 7.
The yield radius using Tresca yield criterion is larger than that
using the von Mises yield criterion, but both criteria give a similar
value of residual stress at the bore under the same autofrettage
pressure.
The effect of yield criterion on residual stress under same rc is
shown in Fig. 8. Larger residual stresses are given by using von
Mises criterion under same rc. Some experimental results indicate
that a proper value of the yield criterion parameter will properly
model different conditions. In the present paper, = 1.11 is proper
for giving more accurate prediction of residual stress.

Conclusions
A general autofrettage model considering the material strainhardening relationship and Bauschinger effect, based on actual
tensile-compressive curve of material, modified yield criterion,
and plane-strain, incompressible conditions, has been proposed.
Experimental results show that the present model has strong
curve-fitting ability, and the predicted residual stresses are in good

Fig. 6 Effect of Bauschinger effect on residual stress

Fig. 4 Comparison of predicted results with test data

Fig. 5 Comparison of predicted results with numerical simulation data

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology

Fig. 7 Effect of yield criterion on residual stress under same

Pa

MAY 2006, Vol. 128 / 215

Downloaded 07 Dec 2008 to 219.228.116.47. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

References

Fig. 8 Effect of yield criterion on residual stress under same rc

agreement with test data and numerical simulation data. Those

parameters needed in the present model are determined by fitting
the actual tensile-compressive curve of the material using Eqs.
24. Because the Bauschinger effect is material dependent and
sensitive to the amount of prior plastic strain, the parameter of the
Bauschinger effect should be a function of radius. In this analysis,
bef was set pragmatically. The maximum tensile strain of the
tensile-compressive curve should be approximately equal to or
less than the equivalent strain at the inner surface of the tube
under autofrettage pressure. The yield criterion will influence the
distribution of residual stress, and an appropriate choice of parameter will suit different conditions.

Acknowledgment
The authors greatly appreciate Professor A. P. Parker, who supplied many references and provided some useful suggestions and
comments to this work.

216 / Vol. 128, MAY 2006

1 Stacey, A., and Webster, G. A., 1984, Fatigue Crack Growth in Autofrettaged
Thick-Walled High Pressure Tube Material, High Pressure in Science and
Technology, C. Homan R. K. MacCrone, and E. Walley, eds., Elsevier, New
York, pp. 215219.
2 Stacey, A., and Webster, G. A., 1988, Determination of Residual Stress Distributions in Autofrettaged Tubing, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 31, pp.
205220.
3 Hill, R., 1950, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford University
Press, London.
4 Zhang, Y. H., Huang, X. P., and Pan, B. Z., 1997, Fracture and Fatigue
Control Design in Pressure Vessels in Chinese, Press of Petroleum Industry,
Beijing, China.
5 Chen, P. C. T., 1980, Generalized Plane-Strain Problems in an Elastic-Plastic
Thick-Walled Cylinder, Trans. 26th Conference of Army Mathematicians, pp.
265275.
6 Lazzarin, P., and Livieri, P., 1997, Different Solution for Stress and Strain
Fields in Autofrettaged Thick-Walled Cylinders, Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 31, pp. 231238.
7 Livieri, P., and Lazzarin, P., 2002, Autofrettaged Cylindrical Vessels and
Bausching Effect: An Analytical Frame for Evaluating Residual Stress Distributions, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 124, pp. 3845.
8 Pan, B. Z., Zhu, R. D., and Su, H. J., 1990, Autofrettage Theory and Experimental Research I in Chinese, J. Daqing Pet. Inst., 121, pp. 1416.
9 Su, H. J., and Huang X. P., 1995, Autofrettage Technology Research II in
Chinese, J. Daqing Pet. Inst., 192, pp. 7882.
10 Huang, X. P., and Cui, W. C., 2004, Autofrettage Analysis of Thick-Walled
Cylinder Based on Tensile-Compressive Curve of Material, Key Eng. Mater.,
274276, pp. 10351040.
11 Kendall, D. P., 1998, Unpublished discussion of a technical report The
Bauschinger Effect in Autofrettaged TubesA Comparison of Models Including the ASME Code by A. P. Parker, and J. H. Underwood, Technical report
ARCCB-TR-98010, US Army ARDEC, Watervliet, New York.
12 Milligan, R. V., Koo, W. H., and Davidson, T. E., 1966, The Bauschinger
Effect in a High Strength Steel, J. Basic Eng., 88, pp. 480488.
13 Parker, A. P., Underwood, J. H., and Kendall, D. P., 1999, Bauschinger Effect
Design Procedures for Autofrettaged Tubes Including Material Removal and
Sachs Method, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 121, pp. 430437.
14 Parker, A. P., Troiano, E., Underwood, J. H., and Mossey, C., 2003, Characterization of Steels Using a Revised Kinematic Hardening Model Incorporating Bauschinger Effect, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 125, pp. 277
281.
15 Troiano, E., Parker, A. P., Underwood, J. H., and Mossey, C., 2003, Experimental Data, Numerical Fit and Fatigue Life Calculations Relating to Bauschinger Effect in High Strength Armament Steels, ASME J. Pressure Vessel
Technol., 125, pp. 330334.
16 Parker, A. P., 2001, Autofrettage of Open End TubesPressures, Stresses,
Strains and Code Comparisons, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 123, pp.
271281.
17 Parker, A. P., private communication.

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 07 Dec 2008 to 219.228.116.47. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm