Professional Documents
Culture Documents
212 / Vol. 128, MAY 2006 Copyright 2006 by ASME 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 7
3. Plane-strain assumption with closed ends
z = 0 8
Fig. 1 General material tensile-compressive stress-strain Yield Criterion. The experiments have shown that von Mises
curve yield criterion and Tresca yield criterion are more suitable for the
elastic-plastic analysis of thick-walled tubes than other yield cri-
teria 5. Stacey and Webster 2 found that close agreement with
2. Unloading phase B-D-E: in the Cartesian coordinate system
experiment is achieved when the unloading stress-strain behavior
*B*, shown in Fig. 1, unloading elastic regime, B-D,
of the material is modeled accurately and the average of the
during which the steel behaves elastically up to the yield Tresca and von Mises yield criteria is used 1. Some researchers
point Es*, the elastic modulus over this range is E2. The have suggested that adopting von Mises yield criteria will give a
material then behaves plastically, D-E. This phase behaves more accurate solution than that of Tresca. The yield criterion can
significant nonlinearity. The relationship of stress and strain be rewritten as the unified form as
can be expressed as 3
Elastic regime B-D i = 2 s 9
= E 2
* *
*
s* 3 where = 1, = 2 / 3, and 1 2 / 3, for Tresca, von Mises,
Strain hardening regime D-E and modified yield criterion, will give.
Strain intensity i 10
s 2 1 1 pa r2o
R rc 2 + 2 2 2 ri2 1 + 2
i =
2
3
r2 + r z2 + z 2 6
=
2 ro r ro ri r
2. Incompressible material assumption Loading plastic zone ri r rc
r s A1 2B1 1 1 pa ri2
rR = 2A1 ln + r r2o 1
B1 c ri2B1 r2B1 r2o ri2 r2
2 ri
11
r s A1 2B1 1 1 pa ri2
R = 2 ln + 1 A1 + r + 2B1 1 2B r2o 1+ 2
2 ri B1 c ri2B1 r 1 r2o ri2 r
Elastic Plastic Unloading. Loading elastic zone and unloading elastic zone rc r ro
1 1
rR = sr2c Er2d 2 2
2 ro r
12
1 1
R = sr2c Er2d 2 + 2
2 ro r
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
r s A1 2B1 1 1 E 2 1 ri2
rR = 2A1 ln + rc 2B1 2B1 r pa
2 d r2o r2
2 ri B1 ri r
13
r s A1 2B1 1 1 E 2 1 1
R = 2 ln + 1 A1 + r + 2B1 1 2B r + pa
2 ri B1 c ri2B1 r 1 2 d r2o r2
Loading plastic zone and unloading plastic zone ri r rd
r s A1 2B1 1 1 E A3 2B2 1 1
rR = 2A1 A3ln + r rd
B1 c ri2B1 r2B1 ri2B2 r2B2
2 ri B2
14
r s A1 2B1 1 1 E A3 2B2 1 1
R = 2 ln + 1 A1 A3 + r + 2B1 1 2B rd + 2B2 1 2B
2 ri B1 c ri2B1 r 1 B2 ri2B2 r 2
Effect of Bauschinger Effect on Residual Stress. For suffi-
rc s A1 rc 2B1
rc 2 ciently thick tubes and depths of yielding during the autofrettage
pa = 2A1 ln + 1 S 1 process, reverse yielding may take place adjacent to the inner
2 ri B1 ri ro surface when the internal pressure is removed. For a yield stress in
15 compression equal to that in tension, reyielding occurs when
The relationship of pa rd ro / ri 2.22. It can take place at lower k values due to the Bausch-
inger effect. In general, Bauschinger effect coefficient bef is found
rd E A3 rd 2B2
rd 2
to be material dependent and sensitive to the amount of prior
pa = 2A1 ln + 1 E 1 plastic strain. Typical values of bef in the range 0.31.0 have been
2 ri B2 ri ro
measured 12. The greater the previous plastic strain the smaller
16 the Bauschinger effect coefficient is. The smaller Bauschinger ef-
Critical autofrettage pressure fect coefficient causes the reverse yielding to take place more
The critical autofrettage pressure is defined as the autofrettage easily and affects the residual stress distribution.
pressure when the reverse yield just takes place at the inner sur- In the present model, the effect of Bauschinger effect is consid-
face of the autofrettaged tube. Replace rd with ri in Eq. 16, the ered by parameter E.
critical autofrettage pressure is
E = A1 + A2b1 + befs 18
pacr =
E
2
1
ri
ro
2
17 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 prag-
Validations matically 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 tensile-
compressive 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 strss-
strain 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 pre-
dicted 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 under-
stand these differences now consider some important parameters
affecting residual stress distribution. Fig. 3 Stress-strain curve of 30CrNiMo8
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 E1 A1 A2 E E2 A3 A4
MPa MPa MPa MPa B1 MPa MPa MPa 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 rela- Effect of Yield Criterion on Residual Stress. The effect of
tionship of the tube under autofrettage pressure with the uniaxial yield criterion on residual stress under same Pa is shown in Fig. 7.
tensile-compressive curve of the material, the maximum strain of The yield radius using Tresca yield criterion is larger than that
the curve should be approximately equal to or less than the von using the von Mises yield criterion, but both criteria give a similar
Mises equivalent strain at the inner surface of the tube under value of residual stress at the bore under the same autofrettage
autofrettage pressure. 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
Table 2 Radii and autofrettage pressure of the tube: Mises criterion under same rc. Some experimental results indicate
rcc-calculation value; rcm-experimental measuring value that a proper value of the yield criterion parameter will properly
model different conditions. In the present paper, = 1.11 is proper
ri ro pa pacr rcc rcm rd for giving more accurate prediction of residual stress.
mm mm MPa MPa mm mm mm
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
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 Dis-
tributions 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 Pip-
ing, 31, pp. 231238.
7 Livieri, P., and Lazzarin, P., 2002, Autofrettaged Cylindrical Vessels and
Bausching Effect: An Analytical Frame for Evaluating Residual Stress Distri-
butions, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 124, pp. 3845.
8 Pan, B. Z., Zhu, R. D., and Su, H. J., 1990, Autofrettage Theory and Experi-
Fig. 8 Effect of yield criterion on residual stress under same rc mental 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.,
agreement with test data and numerical simulation data. Those 274276, pp. 10351040.
parameters needed in the present model are determined by fitting 11 Kendall, D. P., 1998, Unpublished discussion of a technical report The
the actual tensile-compressive curve of the material using Eqs. Bauschinger Effect in Autofrettaged TubesA Comparison of Models Includ-
24. Because the Bauschinger effect is material dependent and ing the ASME Code by A. P. Parker, and J. H. Underwood, Technical report
ARCCB-TR-98010, US Army ARDEC, Watervliet, New York.
sensitive to the amount of prior plastic strain, the parameter of the 12 Milligan, R. V., Koo, W. H., and Davidson, T. E., 1966, The Bauschinger
Bauschinger effect should be a function of radius. In this analysis, Effect in a High Strength Steel, J. Basic Eng., 88, pp. 480488.
bef was set pragmatically. The maximum tensile strain of the 13 Parker, A. P., Underwood, J. H., and Kendall, D. P., 1999, Bauschinger Effect
tensile-compressive curve should be approximately equal to or Design Procedures for Autofrettaged Tubes Including Material Removal and
Sachs Method, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 121, pp. 430437.
less than the equivalent strain at the inner surface of the tube 14 Parker, A. P., Troiano, E., Underwood, J. H., and Mossey, C., 2003, Charac-
under autofrettage pressure. The yield criterion will influence the terization of Steels Using a Revised Kinematic Hardening Model Incorporat-
distribution of residual stress, and an appropriate choice of param- ing Bauschinger Effect, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 125, pp. 277
eter will suit different conditions. 281.
15 Troiano, E., Parker, A. P., Underwood, J. H., and Mossey, C., 2003, Experi-
mental Data, Numerical Fit and Fatigue Life Calculations Relating to Bausch-
inger Effect in High Strength Armament Steels, ASME J. Pressure Vessel
Acknowledgment Technol., 125, pp. 330334.
16 Parker, A. P., 2001, Autofrettage of Open End TubesPressures, Stresses,
The authors greatly appreciate Professor A. P. Parker, who sup- Strains and Code Comparisons, ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 123, pp.
plied many references and provided some useful suggestions and 271281.
comments to this work. 17 Parker, A. P., private communication.
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