0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 52736 стр.Feb 08, 2011

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Просмотров: 527

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- 12_2_jian_sun
- ASME_PTB-5-2013_cont_0101
- Bolted Flanged Connections for Non-Circular Pressure Vessels
- NON Circular Pressure Vessels
- Finite Element Analysis Su Syllabus 2019
- Midterm Exam 2009
- En 13445-3 Design Rules
- All Sem Syllabus
- Midterm Solution
- Finite Element Analysismcq
- ch14summary
- Type 302 Solar Air Heater
- PressurizedCylinder2009
- Tutorial 6
- Workshop Slides EVERFE
- Caesar Report Example
- ANNALS-2013-4-51
- A Comparison of Test-Analysis Model Reduction Methods
- w Engineers Need Know About Fem
- Urn Nbn Si Doc 0e2ilttz

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 36

By

Jonathan C. Wang

of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER of Science.

Rensselaer at Hartford, Hartford, CT

December 8, 2005

Table of Contents

List of Figures 3

Abstract 5

1 Introduction 6

2 Theory 7

2.2 Non-Circular Pressure Vessels 9

2.2.1 Obround Vessels 10

3 Analysis 12

3.1.1 The Basis 12

3.1.2 The Ritz Method and FEM 12

3.1.3 The Computer Algorithm 13

3.2.1 Hoop Stress Uniformity in the Z-direction 14

3.2.2 Symmetry Conditions 14

3.2.3 Mesh Selection 17

4 Results 20

4.2 Elliptical Pressure Vessel 22

4.2.1 Vessels with Wall thickness = .1” 22

4.2.2 Vessels with Wall thickness = .3” 24

4.2.3 Vessels with Wall thickness = .5” 26

4.3 Interpretation of ANSYS Data 28

References 31

Appendices

Appendix A: ANSYS Model Parameters 32

Appendix B: Mesh Sensitivity Data 33

Appendix C: Excel Data for Obround Results 34

Appendix D: Excel Data for Ellipse Results 35

2

List of Figures

Figure 3.2.3.1 Hoop stress sensitivity to circumferential mesh density at locations A and D

Figure 3.2.3.2 Hoop stress sensitivity to circumferential mesh density at locations B and C

Figure 3.2.3.3 Hoop stress sensitivity to mesh density through thickness at locations A and D

Figure 3.2.3.4 Hoop stress sensitivity to mesh density through thickness at locations B and C

Figure 3.2.3.5 Mesh applied to ellipse having major axis=20, minor axis=20 and wall

thickness=.3”

Figure 4.2.1.1 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location A for a .1” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.2.1.2 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location B for a .1” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.2.1.3 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location C for a .1” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.2.1.4 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location D for a .1” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.2.1.5 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location A for a .3” thick elliptical pressure vessel

3

Figure 4.2.1.6 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location B for a .3” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.2.1.7 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location C for a .3” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.2.1.8 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location D for a .3” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.2.1.9 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location A for a .5” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.2.1.10 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location B for a .5” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.2.1.11 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location C for a .5” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.2.1.12 Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location D for a .5” thick elliptical pressure vessel

Figure 4.3.1 1st principal stress plot for an internally pressurized obround vessel

Figure 4.3.2 3rd principal stress plot for an internally pressurized obround vessel

4

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a study performed using finite

element analysis to determine the hoop stress in a pressure

vessel of elliptical cross-section. The motivation for the subject

matter is derived from certain applications of gas turbine

engines, where the outer exhaust duct assumes a non-circular

shape. To form a basis for comparison to the ellipse, theoretical

formulations for hoop stress in similar cross-sectional shapes are

first introduced, followed by a review of the finite element

modeling parameters and finally a discussion of the finite

element results performed for the ellipse.

5

1 Introduction

Internally pressurized vessels in use today generally assume two basic shapes: spheres and

cylinders. The reason for this is simply that a sphere will impart the lowest value of membrane

stress on its walls compared to any other shape. (The derivation of the formula for a sphere can

be found in a strength of materials textbook). Hence, for a given volume enclosed, a sphere

represents the most weight-efficient design for a pressure vessel. In many situations, a straight

cylinder is the preferred shape, as it is much more easily produced than a sphere while still

providing a reasonably weight-efficient design. However, there arise situations where neither a

cylindrical or spherical vessel may be best suited to the particular application due to additional

design constraints that must be satisfied. One example of this occurs in the design of aircraft

propulsion systems where the engine is to be packaged within the airframe structure. This type

of arrangement is most commonly seen in the design of military aircraft (as opposed to

commercial aircraft, where the engine is located external to the airframe). Shown below in Figure

1.1 is a sketch of what an engine cavity might look like for a military aircraft. To maintain a low

overall profile for the aircraft, the cavity is significantly oblong-shaped rather than circular.

Engine cavity

For military propulsion systems, maximizing thrust is often the foremost performance

requirement, and in general, a greater amount of air mass passing through the engine will result

in a larger amount of thrust produced. Therefore, with respect to the engine cavity shown in Fig.

1.1, it would be desirable to design the engine cross-section to be shaped as an ellipse, rather

than a circle, in order to enclose a greater area.

The above example establishes the motivation for this paper, which is to investigate the stress

imparted on an internally pressurized vessel of elliptical cross-section. As the Analysis and

Results sections of this paper will show, a pressure vessel designed with a non-circular cross-

section will produce significantly higher wall stresses than that of an axi-symmetric (circular)

pressure vessel. To fully appreciate this difference, it is helpful to first understand the principles

of axi-symmetric pressure vessel theory, which will be reviewed at the beginning of this paper.

Following this will be an overview of non-circular pressure vessel theory, as a precursor to the

discussion of the finite element methodology and analysis of various pressure vessel models.

Finally, the results of the finite element analyses for elliptical pressure vessels will be presented in

graphical format for discussion and interpretation.

6

2 Theory

2.1 Axi-symmetric Pressure Vessels

This section provides the derivation of the governing equations

for membrane stress in pressure vessels having circular cross-

section, which includes cylinders and any other shape having a p

revolved axis of symmetry.

σ2

Consider an element of size ds1 by ds2 by thickness t,

a b

extracted from the internally pressurized thin-shelled enclosure σ1

shown in Figure 2.1.1. Note that for computational simplicity, σ1

d c

the chosen element is oriented along the principal (longitudinal

and circumferential) directions of the part, so that only normal σ2

forces act on its sectioned faces.

axi-symmetric pressure vessel

F2 dθ 2

F1 dθ1 2

Flong

Fcirc 2

dθ 2 a

d θ1 b

2

2

t p t

p

dθ1 dθ 2

2 2

a d

Fcirc d θ1 Flong dθ 2

2 2

F1 F2

Figure 2.1.2 Circumferential cut-away Figure 2.1.3. Longitudinal cut-away section

section of element abcd of element abcd

By examining the view of the element along side a-b as shown in Figure 2.1.2, the resultant

circumferential force can be evaluated as simply the product of the circumferential stress and the

elemental facial area:

Fcirc = σ 1 × t (ds 2 ) (1)

Moreover, the vector component of this force that directly opposes the applied internal pressure

is:

dθ (2)

F1 = Fcirc × sin 1

2

7

where θ1 is the angle subtended by the arc produced by ds1.

Figure 2.1.3 shows a cut-away view of the longitudinal face of the element, and by similar

observation to that of Figure 2.1.2, it is seen that the resultant longitudinal force is simply

dθ

F2 = Flong sin 2 (4)

2

Considering now the inner surface of the element, as bounded by points a,b,c and d, the resultant

forcing acting outward on the element is simply product of the internal pressure and the surface of

the element. From Figures 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, it can be seen that arc lengths, ds1 and ds2, can be

computed as

dθ (5)

ds1 = 2 r1 sin 1

2

dθ (6)

ds 2 = 2 r2 sin 2

2

c d

where r1 and r2 are the radii of curvature in the circumferential and

longitudinal directions, respectively, and therefore the force F3 due to b a

internal pressure is

F3 = p (ds1 )(ds 2 ) (7 ) F2

F1 F1

F3

F2

Figure 2.2.4. Equilibrium force balance on

For static equilibrium to prevail on the element, the resultant element abcd

forces from the circumferential and longitudinal membrane

stresses must balance the outward force due to the pressure,

and therefore:

F3 = 2 F1 + 2 F2 (8)

dθ dθ dθ dθ (9)

p 2r1 sin 1 2r2 sin 2 = 2σ 1tds2 sin 1 + 2σ 2tds1 sin 2

2 2 2 2

8

Equation 9 can be simplified by observing that

dθ ds dθ ds (10,11)

sin 1 = 1 sin 2 = 2

2 2r1 2 2r2

σ1 σ2 p

+ = (12)

r1 r2 t

In the case of an exhaust duct for a gas turbine engine, the pressure vessel is an air conduit and

is therefore free of end restraints. Hence σ1=0, since no longitudinal stress would be induced.

With this simplification, only the circumferential stress remains, and Eq. 12 reduces to:

σ2 p

= (13)

r2 t

pr2

σ2 = (14)

t

At first glance, deriving the governing equation for hoop stress in a non-circular vessel may

appear to be a straightforward application of Eq. 14, whereby the constant value, r2, would be

replaced by the variable value for the local radius of curvature for the non-circular shape.

Furthermore, in the case of an ellipse, since both its algebraic curve equation and the equation

for the radius of curvature can be expressed in Cartesian coordinates, it would even be possible

to modify Eq. 14 to directly calculate the value of hoop stress, σ2, as a function of a given x-y

position on the curve, thus bypassing the intermediate calculation for the radius of curvature.

The above reasoning, however, is an improper extrapolation of Eq. 14. The error would become

apparent upon performing a finite element analysis (FEA) on the geometry. However, without

resorting to FEA, the logical flaw can be found by noting that for an ellipse (or any non-circular

geometry), the internal pressure induces a bending moment on the wall, which is only absent

from the circle due to its uniformity of curvature. In other words, rather than regarding the ellipse

as an extension of the theory for a circle, it is the circle that is regarded as a contraction of the

theory for an ellipse, whereby the component of hoop stress due to bending is zero as result of

having constant curvature.

Physically, the presence of bending can be accepted by considering the extreme case of a high

eccentricity ellipse under internal pressurize and recognizing that the deformed shape would not

be uniformly expanded, since the “flatter” regions would undergo much larger deflection than the

“corner” regions. From beam theory, it is clear a bending moment would produce an additional

circumferential stress on the pressure vessel, and therefore the total hoop stress for a non-

circular pressure vessel would the sum of the stress due to bending and the surface membrane

stress due to internal pressure.

9

Having identified the behavioral differences between circular and non-circular pressure vessels, it

should be noted that research into analytical methods for calculating hoop stress in non-circular

pressure vessels has been very limited to date. In the latest (2004) edition of the ASME Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Code [1], only two non-circular geometries, rectangles and obrounds, are

cited. However, due to the geometric similarity to an ellipse, it is useful to examine the obround

geometry in further detail, as one would expect the magnitude of hoop stress to be comparable to

that of an ellipse of equivalent eccentricity.

As mentioned in the preceding t B

general discussion of non-circular

vessels, the hoop stress in an A

obround is comprised of a shape- R p

dependent bending component C D

superimposed on the pressure-

induced membrane component. A

representative obround shape is

shown in Figure 2.2.1.1, and the

corresponding stress components at

the noted critical points are as L2 L2

follows:

Figure 2.2.1.1. Obround vessel with applied

Membrane Stress (σm) internal pressure, P

t

t

6 AI

6I A

t3 L2 2

C1 = L2 (2 + 3π ) + 12 R A = 2 + πR

2

I= 2

12 R

where

t

c= ≡ dist . from neutral axis to outer surface

2

10

Total Hoop Stress (σT):

11

3 Analysis

3.1 Overview of Finite Element Theory

The Finite Element Method (FEM) is a technique that is currently used to solve engineering

problems in a variety of fields such as solid mechanics, fluid mechanics and heat transfer.

The acceptance and growth of FEM has occurred almost concurrently with advancements in

computer technology and processing power in the recent decades, which has enabled the

solutions to increasingly complex problems to be analyzed and solved within a reasonable

timeframe. However, FEM was first developed as a tool for evaluating linear elastic solids,

which is the type of the problem being discussed in this paper. Therefore, the following

subsections will provide an explanation of FEM as it pertains to this fundamental application.

To solve a problem involving the deformation of linear elastic solids, generally the most

common approach is that which is first introduced in an undergraduate Strength of Materials

course. This method involves defining the three basic types of field equations—equilibrium,

constitutive (stress-strain), and compatibility (strain-displacement)—and solving for the

unknowns after appropriate substitutions have been made. The second method involves the

application of energy principles, which equates the state of equilibrium to the condition of

having minimum potential energy. A simple example of this is that of a ball being at rest at

the lowest point (or “valley”) of an uneven terrain. It is this fundamental concept that forms

the basis of the solution criteria of FEM.

∏ = U −W ( 21)

where the potential energy, Π, is defined as the internal energy (U) minus the external work

(W) performed on the system.

In FEM, the problem is expressed as the variational form of the above energy equation. The

variational form is analogous to expressing a function in differential form. Thus, in Eq. (21),

given that U and W have been properly expressed as functions of the unknown displacement,

u, a state of minimum potential energy exists only when an infinitesimal change in u will yield

no corresponding change in Π.

To obtain a solution for δΠ=0, classical methods for solving differential equations can be

used, or alternatively, approximate methods can be invoked. In the case of FEM and its

reliance on computers in practice, approximate methods tend to be the preferred approach.

One such approximate method, called the Ritz method, involves estimating the form of the

solution for u (assuming an appropriate expression of Eq. 21 as a function of u has first been

developed). The general form of this estimate is expressed as

u ( x ) = ∑ a kψ k ( x ) ( 22 )

k

12

where ψ is a function that must satisfy the principal boundary conditions of the problem and

ak are the unknown coefficients. Next, the partial derivatives of Π are taken with respect to

each of the coefficients

∂∏ ∂∏ ∂∏

= 0, = 0..... = 0.

∂a1 ∂a 2 ∂a k

This sets up a system of simultaneous algebraic equations that can be solved for ak to

determine the value of the displacement, and subsequently the value of stress if desired.

FEM essentially follows the same logic as the Ritz method, but introduces the notion of

discretization, where the solid body is considered as an assemblage of distinct sub-

geometries (or elements), that are user-specified with respect to size and shape. The

elements are interconnected by nodes, and similar to the Ritz method, the individual nodal

displacements—and hence the displacement of the overall structure—can be obtained by

solving the systems of algebraic equations resulting from the partial derivatives as follows,

∂∏ ∂∏ ∂∏

= 0, = 0..... =0

∂u1 ∂u 2 ∂u i

A common approach to linear algebraic systems of equations is to directly solve for the

unknown variables through substitution and elimination. There are a number of methods that

fall under this category such as the Gaussian Elimination, Choleski and Givens Factorization

methods. However, within the context of FEM, one must consider that a body can easily

consist of thousands of nodes, depending on the desired level of accuracy (with a greater

number of nodes resulting in a more accurate solution) and the geometric complexity of the

body. Likewise, the number of operations required to obtain the overall solution would also

be of the same order. Because computers can only store a finite number of decimal places

for each variable, a computer solution obtained using the direct approach could yield

significantly erroneous results simply due to round-off error magnified over the course of

thousands of sequential calculations.

Therefore, to avoid this potential pitfall, software designed for FEM utilizes an indirect,

iterative approach to converge to a solution of the systems of equations. The procedure

begins with an initial “guess” for a solution. With each subsequent iteration, a better

approximation results—assuming that each successive approximation satisfies the

established criteria for convergence—and convergence to a solution is attained after a finite

number of iterations. This algorithm for solving simultaneous algebraic equations represents

the final step in the basic sequence of logic that comprises the Finite Element Method. The

following sections will now discuss the preparation of ANSYS finite element models, which

were generated for both obround and elliptical pressure vessel geometries, and whose stress

results will be the topic of Section 4.

13

3.2 ANSYS Model Setup & Optimization

The selected parameters used in the construction of all ANSYS finite element models for this

project are provided in Appendix A. However, prior to utilizing the stress data obtained from

these models, it was first necessary to first verify that the chosen modeling and meshing

procedure was sound. Below is a summary of a number of checks that were performed, to

ensure that the stress values obtained from ANSYS were legitimate and not the result of improper

setup of the finite element model.

Due to the sheer number of finite element models that were required for data collection, it was

desirable to make exclusive use of 2D models for the analyses. In order to justify this

simplification, a number of 3D elliptical models were generated, meshed, and loaded with internal

pressure. Figure 3.2.1.2 below shows a plot of the 1st principal stress (hoop tensile stress) for

one of these test models, demonstrating that the hoop stress does not vary in the lengthwise

direction.

elements

For additional modeling efficiency, symmetry conditions were applied along the x and y axes, to

reduce the complexity of the model from a full hoop to a single quadrant. As shown in Figure

3.2.2.1, appropriate boundary conditions were placed along the lines of symmetry to correctly

constrain the model. A comparison of the stress values between the full hoop model and quarter

model shows very good correlation.

14

Ux=0

Uy=0

15

Figure 3.2.2.3. 2D full hoop mesh using Plane 82 elements

16

3.2.3 Mesh Selection

To determine the mesh size required to obtain an accurate stress plot, several models were run

with varying mesh density. The first series of trials involved varying the number of elements

along the circumference, with the number of elements through the wall thickness held constant,

and the results of this are shown in Figures 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.2, where the degrees of freedom

(DOF) plotted on the x-axis represents the number of nodal points present on the curve surface.

The second series involved varying the number of elements through the wall thickness, with the

number of circumferential elements held constant, and those results are shown in Figures 3.2.3.3

and 3.2.3.4. The model used to generate these plots was an ellipse having major axis=20, minor

axis=19.9, and wall thickness=.1”, with an applied internal pressure of 20 psi.

A

Hoop Stress vs Circumferential DOF

-990 C

-1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Stress(psi)

-1010

-1020

-1030

-1040

-1050

Degress of Freedom

Stress at A Stress at D

Figure 3.2.3.1. Hoop stress sensitivity to circumferential mesh density at locations A and D

B

A

C D

5040

5020

Stress (psi)

5000

4980

4960

4940

4920

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Degrees of Freedom

Stress at B Stress at C

Figure 3.2.3.2. Hoop stress sensitivity to circumferential mesh density at locations B and C

17

Hoop Stress vs DOF Through Thickness

-990

0 5 10 15 20 25

-995

Stress (psi)

-1000

-1005

-1010

-1015

Degrees of Freedom

Stress at A Stress at D

Figure 3.2.3.3. Hoop stress sensitivity to mesh density through thickness at locations A and D

B

A

C D

4990

4980

4970

Stress (psi)

4960

4950

4940

4930

4920

0 5 10 15 20 25

Degrees of Freedom

Stress at B Stress at C

Figure 3.2.3.4. Hoop stress sensitivity to mesh density through thickness at locations B and C

In the circumferential direction, the data from Figures 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.2 suggests that stability is

attained at approximately 150-200 DOF. Through the thickness, the data from Figures 3.2.3.3

and 3.2.3.4 suggests that about 9 DOF is sufficient. Based on these trials, the number of

circumferential and radial DOF selected all finite element models used to generate data for the

Results section was 801 (400 element divisions) and 13 (6 element divisions), respectively. They

were purposely chosen to be somewhat higher than the perceived stability threshold as an added

measure of safety, to account for possible variation when applied to ellipse models having

different eccentricity. Figure 3.2.3.5 below shows how the chosen mesh size would appear on an

ellipse of eccentricity=2 and wall thickness=0.3.”

18

Figure 3.2.3.5. Mesh applied to ellipse having major axis=20, minor axis=20 and wall thickness=.3”

19

4 Results

To further test the fidelity of the ANSYS modeling methodology discussed in the preceding

section, a series of finite element models was run using the obround pressure vessel geometry,

for the purpose of comparing the resulting magnitudes of hoop stress to their predicted values, as

stated earlier in Eqn’s (19) and (20). A range of aspect ratios was examined, and results are

shown below in Figures 4.1.1-4.1.4 at the 4 critical points labeled in Figure 6. The raw data

corresponding to these plots can be found in Appendix C.

50000

0

-50000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Stress (psi)

-100000

-150000

-200000

-250000

-300000

Aspect Ratio

Total width 2 L2 + 2 R + 2t

Aspect Ratio ≡ = (see Fig. 2.2.1.1)

Total height 2 R + 2t

300000

250000

Stress (psi)

200000

150000

100000

50000

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

Aspect Ratio

20

Obround: Hoop Stress at C

400000

350000

Stress (psi) 300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Aspect Ratio

50000

0

-50000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

-100000

stress

-150000

-200000

-250000

-300000

-350000

-400000

Aspect Ratio

Overall, the plots show good correlation between the predicted values for hoop stress and those

generated by the ANSYS model, which further substantiates the ANSYS modeling rationale

outlined in the preceding section and suggests that an elliptical model generated in the same

manner would yield fairly accurate results.

21

4.2 Elliptical Pressure Vessel

For the case of an ellipse, the hoop stress at four critical surface points was examined relative to

eccentricity and varying wall thickness. The resulting data obtained from ANSYS is shown below

in Figures 4.2.1.1-4.2.1.12. (See Appendix D for raw data)

Hoop Stress at A

50000

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

-50000

Stress (psi)

-100000

-150000 B

A

-200000 C D

-250000

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.1. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location A for a .1” thick elliptical pressure vessel

B

A

C D

Hoop stress at B

250000

200000

Stress (psi)

150000

100000

50000

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.2. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location B for a .1” thick elliptical pressure vessel

22

Hoop Stress at C

600000

500000

400000

Stress (psi)

300000

200000

100000

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.3. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location C for a .1” thick elliptical pressure vessel

B

A

C D

Hoop Stress at D

50000

0

-50000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

-100000

Stress (psi)

-150000

-200000

-250000

-300000

-350000

-400000

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.4. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location D for a .1” thick elliptical pressure vessel

23

4.2.2 Vessels with Wall Thickness = .3”

Hoop Stress at A

5000

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

-5000

Stress (psi)

-10000

-15000

-20000

-25000

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.5. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location A for a .3” thick elliptical pressure vessel

B

A

C D

Hoop stress at B

25000

20000

Stress (psi)

15000

10000

5000

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.6. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location B for a .3” thick elliptical pressure vessel

24

Hoop Stress at C

140000

120000

100000

Stress (psi)

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.7. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location C for a .3” thick elliptical pressure vessel

B

A

C D

Hoop Stress at D

5000

0

-5000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Stress (psi)

-10000

-15000

-20000

-25000

-30000

-35000

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.8. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location D for a .3” thick elliptical pressure vessel

25

Vessels with Wall Thickness = .5”

Hoop Stress at A

1000

0

-1000 0 2 4 6 8 10

-2000

Stress (psi)

-3000

-4000

-5000

-6000

-7000

-8000

-9000

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.9. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location A for a .5” thick elliptical pressure vessel

B

A

C D

Hoop stress at B

9000

8000

7000

6000

Stress (psi)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.10. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location B for a .5” thick elliptical pressure vessel

26

Hoop Stress at C

50000

45000

40000

35000

Stress (psi)

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.11. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location C for a .5” thick elliptical pressure vessel

B

A

C D

Hoop Stress at D

2000

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

-2000

Stress (psi)

-4000

-6000

-8000

-10000

-12000

Eccentricity

Figure 4.2.1.12. Hoop stress vs Eccentricity at location D for a .5” thick elliptical pressure vessel

27

4.3 Interpretation of ANSYS data

To determine the maximum value of hoop stress at each location (A,B,C,D) from the ANSYS

model, both the 1st principal stress and 3rd principal stress contour plots had to be examined, due

the fact that a large compressive hoop stress would be regarded as the numerically lowest stress

(and hence assigned to the 3rd principal stress) because of the negative sign. An example of this

is illustrated in Figures 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 below, which show plots of the 1st and 3rd principal

stresses, respectively, for an obround vessel. The hoop stress at C corresponds to the 1st

principal stress value, as shown by Figure 4,3,1. However, the hoop stress at D is found under

the 3rd principal stress because it is compressive. It is clearly not 0, as indicated by Figure 4.3.1.

C D

Figure 4.3.1. 1st principal stress plot for an internally pressurized obround vessel

C D

Figure 4.3.2. 3rd principal stress plot for an internally pressurized obround vessel.

Therefore, the data points appearing in Figures 4.1.1-4.2.1.12 represent a combination of 1st and

3rd principal stress values due to the manner in which principal stresses are ordered. From this, it

follows that whenever both tensile and compressive stresses are present, an accurate portrayal

of hoop stress can only be obtained by superposition of the 1st and 3rd principal stress plots.

28

5 Discussion & Conclusions

From the data plots, several useful observations can be made. In comparing the plots for a .1”

thick obround (Figs. 4.1.1-4.1.4) to that of an “equivalent” ellipse (Figs. 4.2.1.1-4.2.1.4), the

curves are very similar in shape and the stress values are comparable in magnitude. This

strongly suggests that the same underlying physical mechanisms that govern the obround hoop

stress equations (Eq. 19-20) are present in the ellipse as well.

Further evidence of this can be seen by examining the sensitivity of hoop stress to wall thickness,

such as by comparing the plots of Figures 4.2.1.1, 4.2.1.5 and 4.2.1.9. By noting the relative

stress magnitudes, it is apparent that the relationship is highly non-linear. Following the rationale

of an obround vessel, the non-linearity could be explained by noting that for smaller wall

thicknesses, the hoop stress is dominated by bending, which is exponentially sensitive to the wall

thickness due to the moment of inertia term (I) found in Equations 17 and 18.

In comparing the stress curves for the ellipse over the range of thicknesses evaluated, there is

some shape dissimilarity in the curves for locations C and D. At D, the hoop stress seems to

attenuate more rapidly for higher eccentricities with increasing wall thickness. Rather than being

an indication that the magnitude of maximum compressive stress on the outer surface of the

ellipse actually decreases above a certain eccentricity, this is more likely the result of the location

of the peak stress shifting away from D for higher eccentricities. This is illustrated below in

Figures 5.1-5.3. Note that the magnitude of maximum compressive stress increases with

eccentricity.

Max compressive

stress location Max compressive

stress location

Figure 5.1. Location of max compressive stress for ellipse Figure 5.2. Location of max compressive stress for ellipse

of eccentricity=1.33 of eccentricity=4

Max compressive

stress location

of eccentricity=6.66

29

At location C, Figures 4.2.1.7 and 4.2.1.11 show some graphical instability at higher

eccentricities. From the ANSYS stress corresponding to these apparent outlying points, it is seen

that the stress distribution is very narrow, except near point C, where the bands converge and the

stress concentrates (see Figure 5.4). This much resembles a crack initiation site, and the true

value of stress may be indiscernible due to its highly localized nature. Therefore, although the

points plotted represent actual data obtained from ANSYS, this is an area that may benefit from

additional scrutiny.

In summary, the results of this study have shown that the an internally pressurized ellipse will

exhibit significantly higher hoop stresses than that of an equivalently sized circle due its the non-

uniformity in curvature, which induces additional bending stresses. From the results obtained

from ANSYS, the net effect appears similar to that of an obround pressure vessel, for which some

prior analytical work has been performed. From an engineering standpoint, the consequence of

having to accommodate higher stresses is often a heavier and costlier design due to the need for

material reinforcement in the high stress areas. However, as stated in the opening of this paper,

there are situations where these drawbacks can be tolerated, because the perceived benefits of

utilizing a non-circular design more than adequately compensate for them.

30

References

13: Vessels of Noncircular Cross Section, from the ASME Boiler &

Pressure Vessel Code, ASME International, 2004.

[2] Barkanov, E., Introduction to the Finite Element Method, Riga Technical

University, 2001.

[3] Harvey, J., Theory and Design of Modern Pressure Vessels, 2nd Ed., Van

Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1974.

Application, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1980

[5] Mubeezi, J., Finite Element Analysis (FEA) method, and its Application in

Evaluating Stress-Strain Characteristics, Rensselaer at Hartford

Engineering Seminar, 2004.

31

Appendix A: ANSYS Model Parameters

The parameters apply to all ANSYS models used to generate data in Section 4

Element type: Plane 82

Material Properties: E=1.5x107 psi, ν=.33

Number of circumferential element divisions – N=400

Number of element divisions through wall thickness – N=6

Internal pressure applied: 20 psi

Model geometry:

Obround –

. 1"

20”

Ellipse –

20”

32

Appendix B: Mesh Sensitivity Data

The following is the raw data for the plots found in Section 3.2.3:

Axis Axis D B C A DOF

20 19.9 -1042.8 4982.1 5020.8 -1024.5 17

20 19.9 -1028.4 4961 4999.1 -1010.8 23

20 19.9 -1020.6 4948.6 4986.7 -1002.8 33

20 19.9 -1017.2 4943.2 4981 -999.58 43

20 19.9 -1013.8 4938.2 4975.4 -996.6 65

20 19.9 -1012.8 4936.7 4973.8 -995.66 81

20 19.9 -1012.1 4935.5 4972.6 -994.93 107

20 19.9 -1011.5 4934.6 4971.7 -994.38 159

20 19.9 -1011.2 4934.1 4971.2 -994.04 315

20 19.9 -1011.1 4934 4971.2 -993.98 449

20 19.9 -1011.1 4934 4971.1 -993.95 629

20 19.9 -1011.1 4933.9 4971.1 -993.94 1047

Axis Axis D B C A thk

20 19.9 -1011.1 4934 4971 -993.94 3

20 19.9 -1003.5 4926 4978.7 -1001.4 5

20 19.9 -1002.1 4925.2 4980 -1002.8 7

20 19.9 -1001.6 4924.5 4981 -1003.2 9

20 19.9 -1001.4 4924.4 4981 -1003.5 11

20 19.9 -1001.3 4924.3 4981.1 -1003.6 13

20 19.9 -1001.2 4924.3 4981.1 -1003.7 15

20 19.9 -1001.1 4924.3 4981.1 -1003.8 17

20 19.9 -1001.1 4924.2 4981.2 -1003.8 19

20 19.9 -1001.1 4924.2 4981.2 -1003.8 21

33

Appendix C: Data for Obround Pressure Vessel Results

The following is the raw data for the plots found in Section 4.1:

Major Minor a/b Stress at A Stress at C Stress at B Stress at D

20 20 1 1980 1980 1980 1980

20 19 1.053 -34316 23683.4 38076 -19723.4

20 18 1.111 -67405.21 45594.8 70965.21 -41634.8

20 15 1.333 -147908.4 112091.6 150868.4 -108131.6

20 10 2 -223101 221899 225061 -217939

20 6 3.333 -235822.2 303177.8 236982.2 -299217.8

20 5 4 -233283.6 321716.4 234243.6 -317756.4

20 4 5 -228725.6 339274.4 229485.6 -335314.4

20 3 6.667 -222307.2 355693.8 222867.2 -351733.8

20 2.5 8 -218455 363420 218915 -359460

Major Minor a/b Stress at A Stress at C Stress at B Stress at D

20 20 1 1990 1990 1970 1970

20 19 1.053 -34501 23877 38261 -19769

20 18 1.111 -67781 45981 71341 -41707

20 15 1.333 -148850 113130 151810 -108220

20 10 2 -224950 224490 226910 -217670

20 6 3.333 -238320 308220 239948 -297680

20 5 4 -235920 327850 236880 -315490

20 4 5 -231500 346990 232260 -331890

20 3 6.667 -225200 365970 225760 -346290

20 2.5 8 -221400 375730 221860 -352350

34

Appendix D: Data for Elliptical Pressure Vessel Results

The following is the raw data for the plots found in Section 4.2:

Axis Axis a/b D B C A

20 20 1 1970 1970 1990 1990

20 19.99 1.0005 1672.7 2266.6 2289.3 1689.5

20 19.95 1.002506 483.5 3450.1 3486.3 490.31

20 19.93 1.003512 -110.65 4040.5 4084 -107.94

20 19.9 1.005025 -1001.3 4924.4 4981 -1003.6

20 19.5 1.025641 -12811 16518 16873 -12750

20 18 1.111111 -56000 56808 60429 -53571

20 15 1.333333 -137050 122350 142640 -119980

20 10 2 -254240 188090 265070 -186740

20 6 3.333333 -322269 205210 352410 -204450

20 5 4 -332212 205500 376120 -204880

20 4 5 -333920 204600 407040 -204100

20 3 6.666667 -317520 202820 471100 -202450

20 2.5 8 -291540 201700 565420 -201410

Axis Axis a/b D B C A

20 20 1 636.81 636.81 656.81 656.81

20 19.99 1.0005 604.32 669.01 689.95 623.32

20 19.95 1.002506 474.36 797.44 822.51 489.63

20 19.93 1.003512 409.44 861.52 888.75 422.95

20 19.9 1.005025 312.11 957.44 988.04 323.1

20 19.5 1.025641 -977.91 2215.3 2305.4 -986

20 18 1.111111 -5687.8 6583.1 7138 -5530.4

20 15 1.333333 -14473 13666 16314 -12901

20 10 2 -26770 20675 30434 -20248

20 6 3.333333 -32128 22366 43269 -22136

20 5 4 -31486 22350 49562 -22165

20 4 5 -28291 22210 66289 -22069

20 3 6.666667 -17764 21937 123060 -21840

20 2.5 8 -7171.3 21589 127600 -21515

35

For wall thickness = .5”

Axis Axis a/b D B C A

20 20 1 370.25 370.25 390.25 390.25

20 19.99 1.0005 358.74 381.57 402.13 378.15

20 19.95 1.002506 312.74 426.71 449.71 329.86

20 19.93 1.003512 289.75 449.23 473.48 305.76

20 19.9 1.005025 255.3 482.94 509.12 269.7

20 19.5 1.025641 -201.21 924.99 982.08 -203.09

20 18 1.111111 -1865 2458.5 2720 -1842.5

20 15 1.333333 -4949 4936.9 6040.9 -4493.5

20 10 2 -9113.4 7355.1 11353 -7113.5

20 6 3.333333 -10160 7890.3 18019 -7766.8

20 5 4 -9250 7870.7 24293 -7774

20 4 5 -6650 7794.7 42875 -7725.2

20 3 6.666667 -1258.9 7479 45045 -7435

20 2.5 8 0 7109.5 39462 -7078

36

- 12_2_jian_sunЗагружено:Luiz Dal Castel Missio
- ASME_PTB-5-2013_cont_0101Загружено:pouya_ms
- Bolted Flanged Connections for Non-Circular Pressure VesselsЗагружено:Kenneth Beer
- NON Circular Pressure VesselsЗагружено:fergolz
- Finite Element Analysis Su Syllabus 2019Загружено:Vishwas Shetty
- Midterm Exam 2009Загружено:ReemALMousawi
- En 13445-3 Design RulesЗагружено:Maikel de Vries
- All Sem SyllabusЗагружено:Praveen S Das
- Midterm SolutionЗагружено:Anonymous 94I9kn
- Finite Element AnalysismcqЗагружено:Sudhakar Tpgit
- ch14summaryЗагружено:handinfan
- Type 302 Solar Air HeaterЗагружено:An Energy-Efficient Solar-Heated Greenhouse
- PressurizedCylinder2009Загружено:hashemjo
- Tutorial 6Загружено:ivosevicg
- Workshop Slides EVERFEЗагружено:tauquil
- Caesar Report ExampleЗагружено:putr4mu
- ANNALS-2013-4-51Загружено:Vladimir Milovanovic
- A Comparison of Test-Analysis Model Reduction MethodsЗагружено:sumatrablackcoffee453
- w Engineers Need Know About FemЗагружено:titolenny
- Urn Nbn Si Doc 0e2ilttzЗагружено:Oscar Cruz
- Code conversion FEM - XFEMЗагружено:jacobess
- LightningЗагружено:Diana Dudebabe
- ijnaoe-2013-0226Загружено:Arturo
- 227142020 Finite Element Design of Concrete Structures 2nd Rombach 16Загружено:Richard Bryan
- CAD31Загружено:Vikram
- Finite Elements Methods . PHD.pdfЗагружено:9290894
- NigerЗагружено:Rezi
- CylindersЗагружено:MOHIT PANT
- p h refinementЗагружено:satheesh kumar
- Assignment 5 SolutionЗагружено:solai murugan

- TDS Setup for suppliers in R12.docxЗагружено:kalpeshjain2004
- Online Consumer Behavior ProjectЗагружено:Amit Giri
- Dynamically Reconfigurable Architecture for Third Generation Mobile Systems _thesisЗагружено:narashimaraja
- Factors Influencing Actual Use of Mobile Learning Connected with E-LearningЗагружено:CS & IT
- Breakthrough New ThinkingЗагружено:Aditya Rahman Fadly
- CD4016Загружено:api-3708997
- Questions for AAIЗагружено:ashuchhabra01
- 42" LCD TV (10 Series) • Bottom Speaker • 1,920Загружено:willtsuru
- Study Guide for CertificationЗагружено:test_sent
- Hspice InstallЗагружено:Ashokkumar Ganesan
- Lab Intents - AndroidЗагружено:VictorFernandez
- Design multi kW SMPS presentation-Texas InstrumentsЗагружено:Cata
- Copy of MathsЗагружено:KoustavGhosh
- Set Up WebutilЗагружено:Gunadi Rismananda
- 12-10535-WGYЗагружено:barzilay123
- retransmission steganography and its detectionЗагружено:waheed_anwer3454
- Centos DNSЗагружено:sami_nowhere
- 689-CL2N3-GЗагружено:nevdull
- Mang Inasal Info SheetЗагружено:ilovelawschool
- SC Strategies With Product UncertaintiesЗагружено:غلام جیلانی
- FEM-Design Basic Training Documentation 8Загружено:jhoward2012np
- DFIGЗагружено:pmbalajibtech
- EGL_Dojo_Widgets_0711Загружено:umarsalaluddin
- AnkurKohliЗагружено:Kaleigh Marie Overdick
- AvayaAuraExperiencePortal6.0SecurityWhitePaperЗагружено:Miguel Gomez
- Major Incident Handling ProcessЗагружено:Sabin Ranjit
- GE Portascan Portable Bladder Scanner - Service ManualЗагружено:Harold Martinez
- Iaetsd Future Polling System Using Cloud Computing in Support With Smart Client TechnologyЗагружено:iaetsdiaetsd
- Fun With GoogleЗагружено:igi
- Module-6.scilab.pdfЗагружено:org25gr

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.