Defence Technology 14 (2018) 412e416

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Defence Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dt

Numerical evaluation of an autofrettaged thick-walled cylinder under

dynamically applied axially non-uniform internal service pressure
distribution
€ r a, *, Veli Çelik b
Onur Güngo
a
MKE Kurumu Mühimmat Fabrikası Ar-Ge Müdürlüg ü, 71100, Merkez, Kırıkkale, Turkey
b a Bilimleri Fakültesi, 06010, Keçio
Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Dog €ren, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A dynamical moving pressure structural numerical calculation model using the internal ballistics
Received 18 March 2018 calculation pressure-time results was constituted and the vicinity of the internal ballistics and quasi-
Received in revised form internal ballistics structural model was checked. The Von Mises stresses obtained by the dynamical
26 May 2018
structural numerical model calculations and the Von Mises stresses calculated from the shot test strain
Accepted 6 June 2018
Available online 7 June 2018
measurements were compared. The difference for the worse case was 20% and for the best case was 0.1%.
Furthermore, the model gave better agreement for the higher charge masses. The numerical structural
quasi-internal ballistics computation model created was verified for the top charge mass which repre-
Keywords:
Gun tube design
sents the highest stress condition and used in a gun barrel design.
Thick wall cylinder © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
Residual stress creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Internal ballistics
Service pressure
Wall thickness
Numerical modeling of internal ballistics

1. Introduction the thermal-structure direct coupling method.

Inspection of the effects of the pressure in a gun barrel which is
the result of the ignition of the propellant in order to propel the
projectile along the barrel and which creates different loading
conditions at different points of the barrel, has been the subject of
various studies. Rabern and Lewis [1] performed two and three-
dimensional simulations to study the effect of this pressure front
and its influence on projectile gun tube interaction and lateral
movement of the projectile in the gun tube caused by variation of
the gun centerline during projectile launch and recoil. Tzeng and
Hopkins [2] studied the dynamic effects of moving internal pres-
sure through a composite barrel by using finite element method. Qu
et al. [3] studied the influence of the autofrettage levels on the
residual stress distribution of the rapid-firing gun barrel after
autofrettage and 50 consecutive shots were investigated by using
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: onur.gungor@mkek.gov.tr (O. Güngo € r),
(V. Çelik).
Peer review under responsibility of China Ordnance Society
In the former study [4], residual stresses inherited by the
autofrettage process and changes in the residual stresses in the
inner and outer diameters where material removed from the barrel
by machining after autofrettage process were incorporated into the
numerical calculations by using Abaqus finite element software [5].
The efforts given to understand the autofrettage and post-
autofrettage processes, were not included in this work.
2. Materials and methods
The autofrettage operation was verified by comparing numerical
calculation results and permanent expansion measurements, after
autofrettage process. The sections removed by machining were also
removed from the numerical model by using proper subtraction
technique explained in the Abaqus user's manual [5] to obtain the
residual stress state of the gun barrel at the onset. Internal ballistics
calculations were done using BALLISTICeda software MKEK release
that MKE Corp. financed EDA Engineering Design & Analysis Co. to
vlc@ybu.edu.tr
develop. Inside the barrel, the one-dimensional motion of projectile
with spin was simulated by using the software [6]. After this step, a
separate finite element model was created to affect the load on the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2018.06.002
2214-9147/© 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 €r, V. Çelik / Defence Technology 14 (2018) 412e416
O. Güngo
barrel during the movement of the projectile in the barrel, which
changes according to the axis and the projectile motion. For this, a
disc with a mass equal to the mass of the projectile was included in
the model. The internal gas pressure vs. time profile from the bal-
listics calculation was applied to the bottom side of the projectile.
Since the projectile was mobile, it was necessary to write a sub-
routine within Abaqus [4] to apply the pressure-time curve to the
inner wall of the barrel behind the projectile. The subroutine ap-
plies pressure values corresponding to the time of the pressure-
time curve to the inner wall of the barrel according to the new
position, which occurs with the pressure applied behind the pro-
jectile for each millisecond of time. In this way, the load forces in
the gun barrel due to the gas pressure could be calculated. The load
that the projectile applies to the gun barrel due to friction was
defined using friction coefficient of 0.15, which was the highest
value that would define the friction surface at the projectile-barrel
interface and it would not increase the calculation burden. The
most important reason for choosing the highest value of friction
coefficient here was to be able to include in the calculations the
resistance forces that would occur during the engraving process,
due to the rifling of the barrel, in the basic model. Because, one of
the effects that delay the movement of the projectile in the gun
barrel is actually the engraving of the driving band. The
commencement of rifling region is the region where the highest
frictional forces occur between the gun barrel and the projectile
during the engraving process. The details of the model are
described in Fig. 1. Preliminary trial calculations were conducted to
make the subroutine work correctly. The consistency of the results
was checked and the confirmed the pressure was loaded correctly
onto the barrel and behind the projectile.
The projectile starts to move with the effect of pressure applied
(forward and spin motion). In this calculation, the internal ballistics
simulation was dynamically handled with the structural behavior
of the materials in the structural simulation program. The struc-
tural analysis and the internal ballistics calculation were inter-
connected in a sense. In Abaqus, angular velocity vs. time values
Fig. 1. Axially variable barrel loads and projectile movement.
413
from internal ballistics calculations could be applied on the pro-
jectile as boundary conditions to simulate the spinning motion that
results in circumferential frictional forces at the barrel-projectile
interface in addition to the axial ones. Unfortunately, spin could
not be applied because of subroutine did not let to do so. So that,
frictional forces because of axial motion of the projectile could be
included in the model but frictional forces because of rotational
motion could not. In the above-mentioned model frame, first of all,
autofrettage was applied to the original dimensions of the gun
barrel by displacing the inner radius as much the autofrettage ratio
then the machined inner and outer parts of the gun barrel were
numerically removed from the model and the pre-stressed barrel
was obtained.
Using pressure-time profiles calculated from internal ballistics
calculations, together with the structural simulation model
described above, then the loading profile could be extracted along
the axis of the gun barrel for different combinations of ammunition
and propellant masses. Obtained findings were compared for
different ammunition models with different charge masses to
stress values obtained in shot tests with the gun barrel having the
same dimension as with the model. Loading conditions differ for
different types of ammunition and propellant charge in the barrel
in each case. The maximum loading for this gun barrel is for the
long-range ammunition which is the situation when trying to send
the ammunition to its longest range.
In Fig. 2, the upper part of the figure shows that the projectile is
in the start position to move and the gun barrel having the stresses
left on after autofrettage and chip removal processes respectively.
In the lower part, the stress distribution of the gun barrel and the
highest Von Mises stress are shown where the pressure is highest.
For different combinations of ammunition and propellant masses,
the place where the highest stress occurs and the amount of stress
varies. The figure below shows the load case that can occur at the
highest working pressure.
414 €r, V. Çelik / Defence Technology 14 (2018) 412e416
O. Güngo

Fig. 2. Von Mises stress values at initial residual stress state (above) and maximum load case of the gun barrel (below).

3. Results and discussion

A series of tests were held in Ministry of Defense firing range in

Konya. One dimensional rosette type strain gauges were used. For
the measurements, the total of six strain gauges was bonded on the
gun barrel at three different angles (
45 , 0 and þ45 to the barrel
bore axis) and two different positions (470 mm and 670 mm off
from the breech) (Fig. 3).

3.1. Ballistics and numerical dynamic model calculation findings

The pressure time obtained by the ballistics calculation was

applied in the structural numerical model. Travel time and velocity
time curves calculated by both models of the projectile in the barrel
are compared below (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). In this way, it was desired to
demonstrate that the loading case is accurately represented in the
structural model by showing the internal ballistics harmony.
Fig. 4. Projectile travel vs time in the barrel.
Compared to the ballistics calculations, it was determined that

Fig. 3. Placement of strain gauges on the barrel.

 €r, V. Çelik / Defence Technology 14 (2018) 412e416
O. Güngo 415

From Figs. 5 and 6, it can be seen that the highest pressure point
in the barrel compared to the internal ballistics calculation is nor-
mally a little further ahead than expected due to the faster-
advancing movement of the projectile. This means that the critical
section where the stresses are highest is displaced a bit forward in
structural quasi-internal ballistics model compared to internal
ballistics model. This might represent an unexpected increase of
the pressure in reality so that by using the calculated stress results
of the quasi-structural internal ballistics model might end up with a
safer design of a gun barrel. Considering these possibilities that,
critical section where the loading occurs most is the first 15% of the
gun barrel throughout the length. The muzzle velocities are also
similar to each other, but there is a bias in velocity and time (Fig. 5).

3.2. Comparison of measurement and calculation results and

determination of model accuracy
Fig. 5. Projectile velocity vs time in the barrel.

When the stresses on the normal and the shear stresses occur-
ring on the surface of a plane are measured according to the co-
ordinate system, the principal stresses (Fig. 7) of the unit element
can be found by rotating the coordinate system at an angle where
shear stresses to be zero and the highest normal and shear stresses
can be expressed in terms of each other. Thus, the safety condition
of the material is evaluated by calculating Von Mises Stress with the
help of the principal stresses found. Von Mises stresses were
calculated by using normal and shear stresses obtained by mea-
surements which were used to calculate principal stresses.
Similar to the strain gage measurements, Von Mises stresses
were obtained in the calculations by placing artificial probes on the
barrel construction elements 470 mm and 670 mm from the barrel
breech. Internal ballistics curves obtained by ballistics calculation
and used in structural numerical calculations were calibrated with
measured barrel exit velocities. The values obtained from numeri-
cal calculations performed with different charge masses were
Fig. 6. Pressure applied on projectile vs projectile travel in the barrel.
Table 1
Measurement and calculation results.
the projectile moves faster in the barrel in finite element model
Measurement Calculation
calculation (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). The projectile leaves the barrel
approximately 2.5 ms early in Abaqus calculation. The early de- Strain gage number N-R01 N-R02 N-R01 N-R02

parture of the projectile from the barrel was an indication that it Von Mises stress/MPa
begins to accelerate earlier and it was considered that the delay of Charge mass 1 (CM1) 220.30 e 470.90 425.30
the projectile during the engraving process was not fully repre- Charge mass 2 (CM2) 248.40 e 634.74 577.90
sented in the model. Furthermore, the complexity of applying the 262.40 e 634.74 577.90
changing friction coefficient in terms of time and disabled rota- 254.00 e 634.74 577.90
e 293.40 634.74 577.90
tional friction effects because of the subroutine in Abaqus might
Max charge mass (CM3) 330.60 378.80 692.50 722.67
have led that kind of result.

Fig. 7. Normal and shear stresses in the coordinate system (left) and principal stresses (right).
416 €r, V. Çelik / Defence Technology 14 (2018) 412e416
O. Güngo

Table 2 values are added to the measured values (Table 2).

Corrected measurement and calculation results.
Strain gage number
Von Mises stress/MPa
Charge mass 1 (CM1)
Charge mass 2 (CM2)
Max charge mass (CM3)
CM1 represents the minimum, CM2 the medium and CM3 the
Measurement Calculation maximum charge mass. Fig. 8 shows that while increasing the
N-R01 N-R02 N-R01 N-R02
charge mass, calculated (NR# - C) and measured (NR# - M) values
of Von Misses stresses were getting closer. The difference for the
minimum charge mass (CM1) between the calculated and
586.19 e 470.90 425.30 measured stresses was up to 20%, for the medium charge mass
614.29 e 634.74 577.90
(CM2), it was up to 9% and for the maximum charge mass (CM3), it
628.29 e 634.74 577.90
619.89 e 634.74 577.90 was up to 0.6%. For the best case, the difference was 0.1%. It was
e 636.89 634.74 577.90 determined that the calculation models have very close results for
696.49 722.29 692.50 722.67 the highest charge mass compared to the lower charge masses. To
calibrate internal ballistics models, the Doppler radar measured
muzzle velocity and copper crusher measured maximum pressure
and those values were utilized. In similar closed volume systems,
for the lower propellant charge masses, the volume between pro-
jectile and propellant is more than the one for the higher charge
masses. This results in the changing of internal ballistics hence the
standard deviation increase of muzzle velocities. Therefore, it's
harder to calibrate the highest volume (lowest charge mass) state. If
piezoelectric pressure transducer could have been utilized, there
could have been the better ballistic match for each circumstance.
As a result, the numerical structural quasi-internal ballistics
computation model created was verified for the top charge mass
which represents the highest stress condition and used in a gun
barrel design. It is also concluded that results of strain measure-
ment should be carefully examined.

Fig. 8. Comparing of measured and calculated Von Misses Stress values for different
charge masses.
summarized below and compared to the measurements (Tables 1
and 2).
At first glance, it can be seen that there are serious differences
between measurement and calculation values (Table 1), but it
should be noted that the diameter expansion of the barrel exposed
to loading with pre-tension is less than without pre-tension one.
The working logic of strain gauges is to detect the shape change and
to pass the strain values in the frame of the material properties of
materials. For this reason, a material with less deformation will
cause a less calculated stress value to be assessed. That's why the
residual Von Mises stresses calculated must be added to the
measured Von Mises values. The residual Von Mises stress on the
element at the position where the N-R01 strain gauge was placed at
is 365.89 MPa and the element at the position of the N-R02 strain
gauge is 343.49 MPa. The following table appears when these
Acknowledge
The author would like to thank Ministry of Science, Industry,
and Technology which supported this project under the Industrial
Thesis Support Program, to Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University and
MKE Corporation and to everyone who contributed to the Project.
References
[1] Rabern DA, Lewis MW. 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional simulations of
moving pressure fronts in gun tubes. J Pressure Vessel Technol 1992;114(2):
181e8.
[2] Tzeng JT, Hopkins DA. Dynamic response of composite gun tubes subjected to a
moving internal pressure. 1995. ARL-TR-889.
[3] Qu P, Li Q, Yang S. Residual stress study of autofrettaged barrel under impulsive
loading. Appl Mech Mater 2014;518:144e9.
[4] Güngo € r O. An approach for optimization of the wall thickness (weight) of a
thick-walled cylinder under axially non-uniform internal service pressure
distribution. Defense Technol 2017;13(3):150e7.
[5] Abaqus User's Manual. Abaqus release 6.13 documentation: Abaqus Inc.
[6] BALLISTICeda User's Manual. BALLISTICeda MKEK release documentation: EDA
Engineering Design & Analysis Co.