Anda di halaman 1dari 8

Niranjan Kumar et al.

/ International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

OPTIMIZATION OF SHELL-
THICKNESS IN MULTILAYER
PRESSURE VESSEL AND STUDY ON
EFFECT OF NUMBER OF SHELLS ON
MAXIMUM HOOP STRESS
Niranjan Kumar
Jadavpur University, Department of Mechanical Engg.,
City-Kolkata, State-West Bengal, ZIP/Zone-700032, Country-India

Dulal Krishna Mandal


Jadavpur University, Department of Mechanical Engg.,
City-Kolkata, State-West Bengal, ZIP/Zone-700032, Country-India

Samar Chandra Mondal


Jadavpur University, Department of Mechanical Engg.,
City-Kolkata, State-West Bengal, ZIP/Zone-700032, Country-India

Sanjib Kumar Acharyya


Jadavpur University, Department of Mechanical Engg.,
City-Kolkata, State-West Bengal, ZIP/Zone-700032, Country-India

Abstract:
Multilayer pressure vessel is designed to work under high pressure condition. In this paper, optimization
of thickness of each layer in multilayer vessel is carried out by Genetic Algorithm and then stress
distribution is analyzed under optimum shrink-fit condition. The fatigue life is calculated for shrink-fit
multilayer vessel. Thickness of each vessel is considered as design variable and objective function is
maximum hoop stress through-out the thickness at the given working pressure. Multilayer vessel is
assumed to be constructed by insertion of different vessels with zero interference and zero clearance such
that interface pressure at the mating surfaces is equal to the pressure generated at the same surface due
to interference fit. The mathematical model is derived from basic governing equation of thick cylinder.
The appropriate boundary conditions are applied to each successive layer. Effect of number of shells on
the maximum value of hoop stress is analyzed. Apart from this, effect of overall thickness of pressure
vessel on the effectiveness of multi-layering is brought into focus. Stress distribution and fatigue life for
the obtained thickness of each vessel from Genetic Algorithm is nearer to that obtained from Lagrange’s
multiplier method.

Keywords: Optimization; Multi-layer vessel; Autofrettaged vessel; Shell thickness; Genetic Algorithm;
Fatigue Life; FE Analysis.

1. Introduction
Design of pressure vessel is done with an objective to minimize the maximum value of hoop stress. Various
methods have been used by researchers to decrease the hoop stress. Autofrettaging is the method of reducing the
hoop stress by introducing compressive residual stress within the material. Shrink-fitted multilayer vessel
reduces hoop stress and decrease the difference between maximum and minimum stress value.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 4 April 2011 2693


Niranjan Kumar et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Effect of autofrettage has been discussed by X. Huang and T. Moan [Huang and Moan, (2009)]. They analyzed
elastic-plastic autofrettage process considering Bauschinger effect. X. P Huang and W.C. Cui [Huang and Cui,
(2006)] worked together and discussed the effect of Bauschinger effect and yield criterion on autofrettage. But
as far as multilayer vessel is concerned, Bauschinger effect is no more valid, since thickness of each layer
reduces [Hill, (1998)].
Multi-layering of shells is another effective method of reducing hoop stress by introduction of shrink-fit residual
stress. In earlier time, multilayer of pressure vessels was done by helical winding of roll strip on a cylindrical
portion formed by a pipe. But now a day, multilayer vessels are designed by insertion of different cylindrical
vessel by means of interference fit. Construction of multilayered vessel is discussed in [Fryer and Harvey,
(1997)].
This analysis is based on the fact that when working pressure is zero then interface pressure at the mating
surfaces is equal to the pressure generated at the same surfaces due to interference-fit. Amount of interference is
given by H.L.Cox [Brownell and Young, (2009)]. As the working pressure is increased, interface pressure is the
combined effect of working stress and shrink-fit residual stress. In this way, interface pressure is generated at all
the mating surfaces. Then stress-calculation of each layer is done from Lame’s relationship of thick cylinder
subjected to pressure at inner and outer surfaces (interface pressure for all vessels except the outer vessel). The
mathematical formulations were first presented by H.L.Cox in 1936. This is an alternative way to find out the
working stress without finding the amount of interference if the vessel is subjected to shrink-fit. Stress
distribution in shrink-fitted multilayered vessel is the function of loading conditions and thickness of each
vessel. Thus, at given working pressure thickness of each vessel is considered as design variable of Genetic
Algorithm.

1.1. Introduction to Genetic Algorithm


Genetic algorithm is computerized search and optimization algorithm based on the mechanics of natural
genetics and natural selection. Firstly, this concept of optimization was studied by Professor John Holland of
University of Michigan in 1975 [Deb, (2003)]. GA analysis is done on Matlab-7.
First of all an objective function (f) is defined and then depending on minimization or maximization problem,
fitness function is defined. If the objective function has to be maximized, then fitness function F(x) = f, while
for minimization the objective function F(x) =1/ (1+f). Then the design variables (xi) are selected with respect to
which fitness value is to be maximized. In GA, these variables are first coded into binary codes. Length of
binary string decides the accuracy of desired solution. GAs mimics the survival of the fittest principle of nature
to make a search process.
The operation of GAs begins with a population of random strings representing design variables. Thereafter, each
string is evaluated to find the fitness value. The population is then operated by three main operators–
reproduction, crossover, and mutation, to create new population of points. The new population is further
evaluated and tested for termination. If the termination criterion is not met, the population is iteratively operated
by the above three operators and evaluated. The process is continued until the termination criterion is met.

1.2. Introduction to FE analysis


FE analysis is conducted on ABAQUS 6.9. Solution obtained from GA is compared with FE solution under the
same optimized thickness.

2. Mathematical model
Let us consider,
“di, d1, d2… dn-1, dn (=do)” = diameter of ‘n’ successive inter-shell surfaces, (For outermost layer (nth), the co-
ordinate of pressure and diameter is: (pn, dn ) ≡ (po, do)),
pi, po = internal & external pressure respectively,
p1, p2 …, pn-1 = successive interface pressure due to multi-layering,
fq = hoop stress developed at the innermost shell surface due pi & po,
Kr+1 =ratio of outer diameter to inner diameter of (r+1) th shell (dr+1/dr),

2.1. Determination of Hoop stress for Multilayer vessel


While performing derivation for thick cylinder, basic governing equation is:

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 4 April 2011 2694


Niranjan Kumar et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

b 4* b 2
fr  a  a   p r (fr=-pr, because fr is compressive) (1)
2
r d2

Here, a & b are integral constants.


Applying above equation for the next layer with the incorporation of boundary condition of hoop stress and then
performing substitution method, final expression stands as:

Fig.1 Multilayer shell with notations

p  po
f q   po  i
F 1 (2)
This is equation of hoop stress due to multilayering.
Where,
F  C1 * C 2 * C3 ....* C r * C r 1 .......* C n
,
2
2* K
Cr 1  r 1 d
K r 1  r 1
,&
1 K 2
r 1 dr
Hence, hoop stress varies with the number of layers.

2.2. Determination of Interface pressure


Interface pressure is developed due to combined effect of shrink-fit stress and working pressure and hence can
be calculated from thickness of each circle as it is function of F only (eqn. (2)). Equation (2) gives interface
pressure as:
From eqn. (2),
f q * ( F  1 )   F * p o  pi
Let, interface pressure between rth & (r+1) th shell is pr, then
F  C r * C r 1 ....* C n

& above eqn reduces to:

f q * (C r * C r 1 .... * C n  1)  (C r * C r 1 .... * C n ) * p o  p r


p r  f q * ( C r * C r 1 ....* C n  1 )  ( C r * C r 1 ....* C n ) * p o
or, (3)

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 4 April 2011 2695


Niranjan Kumar et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

2.3. Determination of Hoop stress on the inner & outer shell surface
Since inner & outer pressure of each multilayer shell is known. So, we can apply Lame’s equation:
pi * d i2  p o * d o2 d i2 * d o2 pi  p o
ft   * (4)
d o2  d i2 d 2
d o2  d i2
pi & po for each shell is taken as interface pressure at inner & outer mating surface respectively.

2.4. Minimization of Hoop stress


Mathematically, from (2), for smallest value of maximum hoop stress under similar condition of loading, value
of F should be maximum, which is possible for all value of ‘K’ to be equal (From Lagrange’s multiplier
method).
Under this condition, diameter of nth shell should vary as:
dn= Kn*di, (5)
Hence, nth shell thickness = (Kn-Kn-1)*di/2
Applying (5) in (4), following relation is obtained as Lagrange’s solution of minimum hoop stress:
pi  po
f q   po 
Cn 1

2* K 2
Where, C  (6)
1 K 2
And interface pressure,
C n r  1
pr  (  1) * ( pi  po )  po (7)
Cn

2.5. Fatigue cycle calculation


The Paris law [Anderson, (1994)] describes the fatigue crack growth of material subjected to variable loading.
Paris law is recognized as:
da
 C * K n (8)
dN
Where,
C and n are material properties (For A723-1130 steel C=2.41e-11MPa-1m1/2 and n=2.80 [8]),
a= crack length,
N= No. of cycles
ΔK is related to stress behavior as:
K   * (a )1 / 2
As residual stress is generated in the vessel, hence Δσ are positive range of the sum of Lame hoop stress
(depending on nature of cyclic loading) and residual hoop stress [Troiano et al, (2003)]. i.e.
   Lame ( Hoop )   Re sidual ,Hoop (9)
Solving Paris equation takes the form:
1
N [a (f1 n / 2 )  ao(1 n / 2) ] (10)
C * n/2
* (1  n / 2) *  n

Where, ao and af are decided from ASME code standards. From above number of fatigue cycles can be
calculated.

3. Results and discussion


The analysis of multilayer is performed on a multilayer cylinder, whose innermost and outermost radii are
known. If it will be n-layered vessel, then remaining (n-1) radial positions of n layers will has to be optimized
for a given working pressure. Then comparison is done between the hoop stress generated and that in monobloc
vessel. The known dimensions and working pressure for the purpose of analysis are:
ri = 152.4 mm

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 4 April 2011 2696


Niranjan Kumar et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

ro = 297.66 mm
pi = 137.9 MPa
po =0 MPa
Earlier to that it is necessary to obtain the optimum number of shells for which reduction in maximum hoop
stress is effective (Table I).

3.1. Effect of no. of layer on maximum hoop stress:


With increase in no. of shells, hoop stress reduces. But reduction in hoop stress is not uniform. For n=2,

Fig. 2 Effect of maximum hoop stress at innermost surface with increase in no. of layers

reduction in maximum hoop stress is quite large compared to n>2. So, ‘n’ need to be optimized depending on
application.
Variation of hoop stress for different no. of layer has been obtained from (2) & (6):

Table I Effect of number of shells on hoop stress at the innermost surface

K = Variable
K = Const.
(Thickness = const.)
No. of shells
Max. Hoop Stress % Reduction Max. Hoop Stress % Reduction
1 235.8007 - 235.8007 -
2 184.09 22.02 184.7795 21.52
3 169.611 28.15 170.3005 27.78
4 162.7163 30.99 163.4057 30.71
5 158.5794 32.63 159.2689 32.40

Since for n=2, reduction in maximum hoop stress is 22.02 %, while for n=3 this value is 28.15 %. For n>3,
decrease in hoop stress is not effective. Hence n>3 is opted only under severe condition of loading.
Rate of reduction also depends on difference between outside & inside diameter. e.g. for three layer vessel with
different thickness, reduction percent is given in table II.
Table II Effect of total thickness of vessel on the effectiveness of multilayering

Dimension of monobloc vessel % Reduction


Sl. No. Difference in radius (thickness, mm)
(ri, ro) in mm n=2 n= 3
1. (152.4, 457.2) 304.8 36 45.35
2. (152.4, 297.66) 145.26 22 28.15
3. (152.4, 228.6) 76.2 12.5 16.31
4. (152.4, 165.1) 12.7(thin) 2.1 2.8

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 4 April 2011 2697


Niranjan Kumar et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

From table II, it is obvious that effect of double layering (n=2) is getting reduced from 36% to 2.1% as thickness
of vessel is reduced from 304.8 mm to 12.7 mm respectively. Similar behaviour is observed in case of triple-
layering of vessel. Hence, multilayering is effective for greater value of overall thickness. But at the same time,
overall thickness needs to be minimized so as to prevent material consumption.

3.2. Optimization of thickness of each layer


For different combinations of shell-thickness in 3-layered vessel, different value of hoop stress distribution
across radial position is generated (fig. 3(a), (b)) at a given working pressure as obtained from (3) & (4). Then
hoop stress under same working pressure is calculated by means of Lagrange’s multiplier method (fig. 5) and
found that hoop stress throughout the thickness is less for this combination of shell-thickness. An optimization
of shell-thickness is carried out with the help of Genetic Algorithm and compared with Lagrange’s multiplier
[5]. This solution as obtained from GA is closer to that obtained from Lagrange’s multiplier method (Table III,
& fig. 6, & 7).
Difference in hoop stress between multilayer & monobloc vessel at each surface is known as shrinkage stress.
Plot of hoop stress for different value of shell thickness:

a) b)

Fig 3a) & b) Hoop stress distribution for 3-layered vessels with the given thickness (in mm) [(10, 40, 95.26) & (40, 40, 65.26)
respectively]

Based on Lagrange’s -multipliers method, hoop stress distribution (based on (6), & (7)) is plotted in fig (4) and
(5).

Fig. 4 Hoop stress distribution for 2-layered Fig. 5 Hoop stress distribution for 3-layered

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 4 April 2011 2698


Niranjan Kumar et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Hoop stress distribution is analyzed for optimized thickness of multilayered vessel and then compared with that
of Lagrange’s. Hoop stress distribution for the optimized thickness is validated by FE analysis of multilayered
vessel of the same optimized thickness.
Comparison between optimum hoop stress distribution as obtained from GA, FE and Lagrange’s multipliers
method is shown below (fig. (6) & (7), Table III):

Table III comparison of hoop stress as obtained by means of GA and Lagrange’s multiplier method

For 2-layered vessel


Max.
Optimization method Radial position Thickness K-ratio
Hoop Stress
152.4000
Lagrange’s - 60.5868 1.3976
183.9437 212.9868
multiplier 84.6732 1.3976
297.6600
152.4000
60.6315 1.3978
Genetic Algorithm 183.9437 213.0315
84.6285 1.3972
297.6600
For 3-layered vessel
152.4000
38.1008 1.2500
Lagrange’s - 190.5008
169.4752 47.6262 1.2500
multiplier 238.1270
59.5330 1.2500
297.6600
152.4000
47.1263 1.3092
199.5263
Genetic Algorithm 170.3316 51.0074 1.2556
250.5337
47.1263 1.1881
297.6600
For 4-layered vessel
152.4000
27.7643
180.1643 1.1822
Lagrange’s - 32.8225
162.7670 212.9868 1.1822
multiplier 38.8021
251.7889 1.1822
45.8711
297.6600
152.4000
17.6903 1.1161
170.0903
26.3279 1.1547
Genetic Algorithm 164.2134 196.4182
39.5333 1.2013
235.9515
61.7085 1.2615
297.6600
Fig. (6) & Fig. (7) show the closeness of theoretical and FE analysis.

3.3. Calculation of Fatigue cycle


Nature of loading is of repeated in nature (i.e. loading-unloading in compressive zone is neglected). Hence, Δσ
of equation (9) is summation of working hoop stress at 137.9 MPa and net residual stress in each cases.
Initial crack length is assumed to ao= 0.5 mm and critical crack length (af) is calculated from ASME code
[ASME, (2007)]. For different cases, af are:
 Monobloc Vessel: af = 36.3 mm and maximum fatigue life is 81382cycles.
 Two layered vessel:
o Lagrange’s solution: af = 15.1 mm and maximum fatigue life is 148270 cycles.
o G A solution: af = 15.2 mm and maximum fatigue life is 148280 cycles.
 Three layered vessel:
o Lagrange’s solution: af = 9.5 mm and maximum fatigue life is 173450 cycles.
o G A solution: af = 11.8mm and maximum fatigue life is 177210 cycles.
 Four layered vessel:
o Lagrange’s solution: af = 27.7643mm and maximum fatigue life is 224250 cycles.
o GA solution: af = 17.7mm and maximum fatigue life is 207920 cycles.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 4 April 2011 2699


Niranjan Kumar et al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology (IJEST)

Fig. 8 Comparison of no. of Fatigue cycles for different cases

From above it is absolutely clear that with increase in number of layers, fatigue life increases. Above plot shows
closeness of fatigue life cycle for the Lagrange’s and GA solution. Though value of Hoop stress as obtained
from GA is slightly greater than that of Lagrange’s, but fatigue life cycle is greater than that as obtained from
later solution (n=3).
Multilayering can be done in more effective way by shrink-fitting each autofrettaged shell of optimized
thickness [Jahed et al, (2006)].

4. Conclusion
In present paper, effect of number of layers on maximum hoop stress throughout the thickness is studied and
stress behaviour under different conditions is brought into focus. Effect of multilayering on fatigue life is also
pointed out. From this work, following conclusions are drawn:
 Maximum hoop stress at the innermost surface decreases due to multilayering.
 Multilayering of vessel decreases the difference between maximum and minimum hoop stress. Thus
material is safer compared to monobloc or autofrettaged vessel.
 Though hoop stress decreases with increase in number of layers, but decrease in hoop stress is more
effective up to n=3. Hence, number of layers used in pressure vessel depends on requirement.
 Multilayering is more effective for greater values of overall thickness, but at the same time it needed to be
limited.
 Hoop stress at the mating surfaces for the optimized combination of thickness as obtained by GA is closer
to that of Lagrange’s multiplier method.
 Hoop stress distribution for optimized thickness is compared with the FE solution under the same condition
of thickness and found to be almost same.
 It is clear that fatigue life increases with increase in number of layers. Fatigue life for the GA solution and
Lagrange’s solution is quite nearer.

References
[1] Anderson, T.L. (1994): Fracture Mechanics, Fundamentals and Applications, Third Edition, Taylor & Francis, Chapter-(10).
[2] ASME (2007): An International Code, “ 2007 ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,” KD-412, pp- 74.
[3] Brownell, Llyod E.; Young, Edwin H. (2009): Equipment Design, Wiley Eastern Limited, Chapter- (15)
[4] Deb, Kalyanmoy (2003):Optimization For Engineering Design, P H I Pvt. Ltd., Chapter - (6).
[5] Fryer, Donald M.; Harvey, John F. (1997): High Pressure Vessels, International Thomson Publishing, Chapter- (5).
[6] Hill, R.(1998):The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford University Press, Chapter V.
[7] Huang, Xiaoping; Koan, Torgeir (2009): Residual Stress in an Autofrettaged Tube Taking Bauschinger Effect as a function of the
Prior Plastic Strain, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 131, Issue 2, 021207.
[8] Huang, X. P; Cui, W. C. (2006): Effect of Bauschinger Effect and Yield Criterion on Residual Stress Distribution of Autofrettaged
Tube, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 128, pp. 212-216.
[9] Jahed, Hamid; Fershi, Behrooz; Karimi, Morvarid (2006): Optimum Autofrettage and Shrink-Fit Combination in Multi-layer
Cylinders, Transactions of the ASME, Vol 128, pp 196-200.
[10] Troiano, Edward; Parker, Anthony P.; Underwood, John; Mossey, Charles (2003): Experimental Data, Numerical Fit and Fatigue Life
Calculations Relating to the Bauschinger Effect in High Strength Armament Steel , Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 125,
pp. 330-334.

ISSN : 0975-5462 Vol. 3 No. 4 April 2011 2700