R.V.

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, BANGALORE

Thesis Title
DESIGN OF POLYMER COMPOSITE SHELL STRUCTURES FOR UNMANNED
UNDERWATER VEHICLE APPLICATIONS

Carried out at
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, R.V. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Bangalore

Under The Guidance Of

Dr. H. N. NARASIMHA MURTHY
Prof. and Dean PG Studies (Mechanical)

by
MOORTHY G 1RV07PMM01

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles

Recently, UUV have emerged as a vital tool offshore and underwater

applications due to advancements in material technology, artificial
intelligence,

sensor

technology,

communication

technology,

image

processing besides many others.

The primary applications include offshore drilling, oceanographic studies,

underwater inspection and maintenance, surveillance and security and many
others.

The global ROV market is estimated to be $1.2 billion in 2014 and is

expected to register a CAGR of 20.11% in 2019. The global AUV market is
estimated to be $457 million in 2014 and is expected to register a CAGR of
31.95% in 2019.

Many Naval forces of the world have been adding UUVs to their fleet for boosting
their unmanned warfare capabilities.

The US Navy had released a UUV master plan in 2000 to establish a roadmap for
developing the UUV capabilities, and hence effectively introduce UUVs into the
Fleet which will significantly contribute to the Navys control of the maritime battle
space.

The roadmap was revised and updated in 2004 and 2011, considering the
developments. The Pentagons budget request for unmanned maritime systems
(including unmanned surface) research, development, testing, procurement,
operations and maintenance is approximately $641 million for the 2011 to 2015
period.

The Royal Navy is already using UUVs to help stop Iran laying mines in shipping
lanes and also are being considered for deployment for the pirate-infested waters off
Somalia. They are further exploring how to use unmanned systems to support the vast
range of future naval capabilities that will provide world-leading carrier strike from
2020.

In the Asia-Pacific region specifically, the BRIC countries will prove to be the
emerging markets for the UUV with their activities in the scientific research, oil
and gas sectors and military applications.

Chinas Qianlong-1 successfully completed seven diving missions from Oct. 6 to

12, 2013 with a record depth of 5,162 meters. Recently, in 2014 Tianjin University
researchers have completed a sea test of the Haiyan, a long endurance autonomous
underwater unmanned vehicle (UUV) for applications in oceanographic studies, oil
and gas exploration, etc.

Information concerning Russias new and modernized submarine capabilities

remains a state secret. That is why it is difficult to estimate whether or not the
Russian Fleet is keeping up with its foreign rivals in this sphere. However,
Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy said Russian fifth-generation submarines
will be armed with military robots (UUVs).

As far as India is concerned, our country has a coastline of 7516.6 km, the area and
average depth of Indian ocean is 73,556,000 km and 3890 m respectively. Due to
this vast interaction with sea, India has been one of the leading global contender of
UUV technology and applications.

Some of the potential applications of these unmanned underwater vehicles in

INDIA are data gathering, military artificial intelligence gathering, mine detection
and elimination, oil and gas exploration and marine energy besides many others.

The UUVs are being developed and used by defense organizations and research
institutes, which some of them have developed their own.

The Visakhapatnam-based Naval Science and Technology Laboratory (NSTL), a

DRDO firm, has been developing and testing a series of UUVs for maritime
security, straddling coastal and port defense to deep-sea operations.

The Central Mechanical Engineering Research Institute (CMERI), Durgapur a

constituent establishment of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
(CSIR) built a UUV named AUV 150 in technical collaboration with the Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur on Jan, 2011. The AUV was capable of
carrying out many underwater water operations including ocean floor-mapping,
surveillance activities and oceanographic studies

National Institute of Oceanography, Goa have successfully developed a small

AUV, Maya and are looking forward to commercialize the AUV technology.

Academic research projects Matsya from IIT-Bombay, Amogh from IIT-Madras

have been successfully developed and are participating in national and
international competitions.

Materials considered for UUV structures

The major requirements for a material to be used in an UUV are high buoyancy for
better maneuverability, work at ocean floors for better visibility and hence should
have high stability limit, should be immersed underwater for long periods without
corrosion related problem, should have good sound absorption ability for performing
military operations in stealth mode, etc.

Hence, steel, aluminium and titanium are some of the traditional choices used for
UUV structures, which usually requires one or more tradeoffs between above
mentioned requirements.

For example, in case of Trieste Bathyscaphe, the heavy weight of the thick hull had to
be compensated by using huge gasoline container to increase buoyancy. To account
for corrosion related problems sophisticated coatings or expensive titanium had to be
used in many.

 However, composite materials manufactured using two or more

complimentary materials can be used to overcome these discrepancies of
their metallic counterparts.
Composites

materials

have

good

buoyancy

which

increases

maneuverability of UUVs, have lower weight to strength ratios which

helps to achieve long endurance a greater depth, the most important of all
is their resistance to corrosion, have good acoustic transparency, besides
many others.
Composites may also reduce cost and supply problems that are associated
with complex high-density nickel aluminium bronze castings and titanium
castings.

Use of composite materials for

UUV structures
Many UUV manufacturing companies and government have been funding
research on use of composite materials for UUV structures.
Ocean Gate Inc. (Seattle, Wash., USA) announced on Aug. 21 2013 the
completion of the initial carbon fiber hull design and feasibility study for
its next-generation manned submersible Cyclops.
The deep glider developed by University of Washington School of
Oceanography for oceanographic studies, initially had depth of operation
of 1000m which is now being increased to 6000m by using carbon fiber
reinforced composite pressure hull.
IFREMER BREST, a French research institute for the exploitation of the
sea has been funding many research for design of composite pressure hulls.
On March 26, 2012, Canadian film director James Cameron piloted the
Deepsea challenger to reach record breaking depth 10,908 m. The pilot
sphere was made of carbon reinforce composite.

Literature Review
Polymer Matrix Composites (PMC) as UUVstructural materials
PMCs have several advantages over metallic materials for UUV structural applications. Hence, globally research is focused on
studying the behaviour of UUVs using PMCs.
Major advantages of PMCs include high specific stiffness, weight saving up to 50 % when compared with Al and up to 80%
when compared with steel, excellent corrosion and chemical resistance, better design flexibility, cost effective production of
complex 3D structure, improved acoustic performance and low maintenance.
Potential polymeric resins for these applications include polyester, isopolyester, epoxy, vinylester, phenolics and the fibre
reinforcements include glass, carbon and Kevlar. Table 1.2 presents relative merits and demerits of these materials.
Fibre materials used for marine applicationsare glass, aramid (Kevlar), and carbon. Chopped strand mats, woven fabrics and
unidirectional fibres are used as reinforcements. E-glass being cost effective is widely used in naval structures. Aramid fibres
possess greater strength and toughness, high static, fatigue and impact strength. But, they are difficult to cut and machine.
Carbon fibres possess greater elastic modulus, fatigue strength and service life than those of glass fibres. Hence, carbon
fibres outperform aramid and glass fibres.
C.S.Smith [8] examined UUVs using GFRP and CFRP with epoxy as resin for buckling, creep, compressive fatigue, impact
strength and effect of prolonged immersion combined with pressure.
Tanguy et. al. [9, 10] analyzed thin walled composite vessels made of GFRP and CFRP with epoxy as resin using numerical
tool and correlated the results with experimental and analytical methods.
Derek Graham [11, 12] developed a large scale model of deep diving pressure hull using CFRP and tested the model for a
depth of over 6 km.
V. Carvelli et. al. [13] tested glass/polyester shells in sea to verify the reliability of analytical and numerical tools. Chul-Jin
Moon et. al. [14] performed numerical and experimental buckling for filament wound CFRP cylinders subjected to hydrostatic
pressure for UUV applications.

Design considerations of UUV Structures

UUV structures have to withstand high external pressure. They are generally composed of conical, spherical,
cylindrical and elliptical profiles and fail mainly due to buckling.
Cylindrical and elliptical profiles are more prone to buckling than spherical and conical profiles because of
greater slenderness [13]. Authors [9, 10, 13 - 24] reported design of UUV considering thick [14, 22] and thin [9,
13, 17, and 19] shells.
Filament winding is widely adopted for fabricating UUV structures along with optimization of winding angle for
buckling resistance.
Chul-Jin Moon et.al. [14] studied combination of helical and hoop winding and bonding of metal flanges for
assembly.
C.T.F. Ross et.al. [15] reported that the composite structures experienced two forms of buckling, namely, shell
instability (or non-symmetric bifurcation buckling) and general instability.
Tanguy Messager et.al. [9] reported [902/60/305/60/90] as optimized stacking sequence.
Seong-Hwa Hur et.al. [16] reported fastening of the components by bolted joints along with adhesive for leak
proof joints.
S. Srinivasanet.al. [19] reported the effect of uncertainties in geometric and material parameters in the
manufacture of filament wound composite laminate tubes on matrix-dominated first ply failure.
H. Hernandez-Moreno et. al. [23] reported that 55o is the optimal winding angle for buckling resistance.
11

Design Approaches of UUV structures

Numerical approach
Several authors reported prediction of buckling pressure of underwater vehicles by FEA
approach. Both commercial and in-house codes are adopted for the investigation. While
authors [10, 13, 15 -17, 19, 21, 22, 24] used ANSYS, others such as [25, 38] employed
ABAQUS, authors [14, 16] adopted MSC. NASTRAN. A few authors [14] developed inhouse codes for buckling analysis and for validating the results obtained by commercial
codes.
While authors [14, 16 - 18, 20, 22, 24, 26 ] examined the performance of cylindrical part of
underwater vehicles by applying pure hydrostatic load, others [10,13,19,21] used combined
hydrostatic and axial loads in addition to pure hydrostatic loads. Discretisation by elements
such as CQUAD4 in MSC [14], Shell 93 and Beam 44 elements [15], Shell181 and solid
element Solsh190 [17] and shell 99 [21] is performed. There is a general agreement on the
application of boundary conditions. One end of the cylinder is completely fixed with all
degrees of freedom set at zero while the other end is left free. While most of the authors
analysed for critical buckling pressure, a few authors reported quasistatic loading.
Tanguy Messager et. al. [10] reported analysis for first ply failure based on Tsai-Wu
criterion. S. Srinivasan et. al. [19] reported probabilistic analysis by ANSYS to predict firstply failure of angle-ply composite laminate tubes under combined internal pressure and
axial loading.

Review of Buckling Studies of Underwater Vessels

References

Model Considerations

Load Considerations

Nature of analysis

Material
Considerations

Element
Considerations

Chul-Jin
Moon et. al.
[1]

Thick walled cylinders

external hydrostatic
pressure

Linear and nonlinear FE analysis

CFRP

Four node elements

Tanguy
Messager et.
al. [2]

Thin composite
Filament wound cylinder

Hydrostatic pressure

Non-linear FEM
stability analysis

Carbon/ epoxy and

glass/ epoxy

Mindlin composite
laminated shell
elements

V. Carvelli et.
al. [3]

Underwater vehicleassembly

Seong-Hwa
Hur et. al. [4]

Composite cylinders

Axial stresses
considered in
hydrostatic pressure
External hydrostatic
pressure

Numerical nonlinear buckling

analysis
Linear and nonlinear FE analysis

E-glass woven
roving with
polyester resin
Carbon-epoxy
prepreg tape

Myung-Hun
Kim et. al [5]

Filament-wound
composite cylinder

External hydrostatic
pressure

Nonlinear buckling
analysis

composite carbon
fiber T700

Shell 181 and the

solid Solsh190

Hae-Young
Jung et. al. [6]

Cylindrical composite
vessel hulls installed with
steel flange

Buckling pressure and

external hydrostatic
pressure

Linear and
nonlinear buckling
analysis

Carbon fiber T700

Shell181

Baoping Cai
et. al. [7]

Composite long cylinders

and steel flanges

External hydrostatic
pressure

Static analysis and

buckling analysis

Carbon-epoxy
composite

Shell element
SHELL99

Khairul Izman
Abdul Rahim
et. al. [8]

Circular cylindrical shape

with end caps closure

External
hydrodynamic
pressure

Buckling analysis

Aluminium alloy
6061-T6

Iso- parametric solid

element

Tanguy
Messanger [9]

Thin- walled laminated

cross-ply cylinders

External pressure

Linear buckling
analysis

Carbon-epoxy
composite

Hybrid, composite
laminated, shell
element

6800 shell elements

8-node laminated
shell, Element 139

Problem Definition

14

Research Objective

Study of comparative buckling performance of metallic i.e. High strength steel (HY 80),
titanium alloy (Ti5), aluminum alloy (Al 7075) which are currently employed for underwater vessels
and polymer composite such as carbon / vinylester and glass / vinylester as alternate materials for
cylindrical vessels of length 1650 mm and 350 mm inner diameter by numerical approach.

Predicting Critical Buckling Pressure, stresses and strains of polymer composite cylindrical vessels of
length 825 mm and inner diameter 175 mm (carbon / vinylester and glass / vinylester for 10 mm and 15
mm thick vessels with 550 fibre orientation) in static condition by using FEA

Fabricating cylindrical shells (glass / vinylester) of dimensions 825 mm length, 175 mm ID and 15 mm
and 10 mm thickness and 550 fibre orientations by Filament Winding method.

Performing buckling test using the Buckling tester for the Filament Wound tubes made of glass /
vinylester with fibre orientation 550 and determining corresponding strains.

Computing stresses analytically based on the experimental strain data for the cylinders by using
Reduced Stiffness Matrix

Predicting the buckling performance of underwater vessels under combined external pressure and axial
loads.

Predicting the Buckling behaviour of underwater cylindrical vessels in moving condition by FEA using
ANSYS.12 FLOTRAN CFD

Validation of Experimental, Analytical, and FEA results.

Proposed approaches for buckling behaviour of cylindrical shells

for UUV application
Comparative buckling performance of metallic and polymer composite underwater vessels by FEA

Buckling Response of Polymer Composite Shells by FEA

Proposed approaches..
Experimental Buckling Response of composite shells

Von-Mises stresses of cylindrical shells by RSM

Proposed approaches..
Buckling Response of Cylindrical Shells under combined hydrostatic and axial
loading by FEA

Buckling behaviour of underwater vessel in moving condition by FEA

Comparative Study of Metallic and Polymer Composites

for Underwater Structures
Materials considered for comparative study are high strength steel (HY 80), titanium
alloy (Ti5), aluminum alloy (Al 7075), glass/epoxy and carbon/epoxy composites.
The critical buckling pressure were calculated by performing eigen-bukling analysis
in FEA software ANSYS.
The shells of metallic vessels were discretized using SHELL63 ANSYS element in
which isotropic material properties of elastic modulus and Poissons ratio were
considered. Whereas, polymer matrix composites were modeled using SHELL 99,
which is a linear Layered Structural Shell Element with 8-node, 3-D shell element
with six degrees of freedom at each node.

19

The following dimensions were considered for the study: D = 350 mm, L
= 1650 mm. The thickness for each material was selected for a critical
buckling pressure of 10 MPa.
Thickness of the structures for each material is presented in table along
with the respective weight savings.
The results indicated weight savings of 46 % for carbon/epoxy and 31 %
in glass / epoxy when compared with HY80
Material

HY 80

Ti 5

Al 7075

Carbon/ep
oxy

Glass/epox
y

Thickness
(mm)

6.75

8.25

12

15

18

Weight
(Kg)

19

13.5

13.3

10

13.2

20

Thickness of shells corresponding to Critical Buckling Pressure of 10 MPa

Weight of shell structures for Critical Buckling Pressure of 10 MPa

21

Experimental Buckling Response of

composite shells.
Buckling Tester Setup

a) Filament wound shells, b) Strain gauge positions, c) Strain gauge with cables

Filament wound shell with flanges

and PU rubber

PU rubbers used as oil seal

Strain indicator used for

23
measuring strains

Results of Buckling Test Microstrains for 15mm thick vessel (Forward)

Position of the strain gauges (deg)
Circumferential
Position

Microstrain

Longitudinal

90

180

270

126

162

Pexp
(MPa)

647

633

650

676

380

450

2.5

1091

1076

1102

1118

660

770

5.0

1530

1450

1540

1524

940

1090

7.5

1970

1920

1980

1914

1210

1410

10.0

2412

2372

2423

2352

1494

1730

12.5

2847

2830

2863

2747

1770

2004

15.0

3024

3014

3039

2905

1882

2014

16.0

Microstrains for 15 mm thick vessel

(Reverse)
Position of the strain gauges (deg)
Circumferential
Position

Microstrain

Longitudinal

90

180

270

126

162

Pexp,
(MPa)

605

471

506

640

366

435

2.5

1050

993

1064

1066

648

742

5.0

1418

1441

1391

1444

929

995

7.5

1818

1856

1795

1815

1119

1369

10.0

2208

2285

2286

2265

1398

1699

12.5

2618

2721

2673

2632

1658

1984

15.0

2815

2945

2986

2857

1789

2005

16.0

Circumferential strains at various applied hydrostatic

pressures for 15 mm thick vessel (Loading))
3500

3500

3000

3000

2500

2500
2.5 MPa
5 MPa
7.5 MPa
10 MPa
12.5 MPa
15 MPa
16 MPa

2000

microstrain

Circumferential strains at various applied hydrostatic

pressures for 15 mm thick vessel (unloading))

1500
1000
500
0

90

180

270

Position of strain gauge (Degree)

360

2.5 MPa
5 MPa
7.5 MPa
10 MPa
12.5 MPa
15 MPa
16 MPa

2000

microstrain
1500
1000
500
0

90

180

270

Position of strain gauge (Degree)

360

Average circumferential strains for 15 mm thick vessel at

various applied hydrostatic pressures
(Forward and Reverse)

Forwar
d
Revers
e

3500
3000
2500
2000

microstrain
1500
1000
500
0
2.5

7.5

10

12.5

Hydrostatic Pressure in MPa

15

16

Circumferential strains as a function of applied pressure at

different locations for 15 mm thick vessel

Microstrains for 10 mm thick vessel

Position of the strain gauges (deg)
Circumferential
Position

Microstrain

Longitudinal

90

180

270

126

162

Pexp,
(MPa)

864

906

910

901

290

357

2.5

1392

1475

1460

1460

800

850

5.0

1890

2090

1975

2050

1325

1355

7.5

2060

2330

2143

2290

1530

1550

8.5

2215

2580

2310

2540

1750

1750

9.5

2330

2940

2395

2885

2010

1980

10.5

2294

3200

2260

3740

2140

2185

11.0

1536

4900

9371300

4750

2380

2250

11.5

collapse

collapse

collapse

collapse collapse collapse

12.0

Circumferential strains for 10 mm thick vessel at various

locations at lengthwise midpoint

0
90
180
270

6000
5000
4000
3000
microstrain
2000
1000
0
2.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

10.5

Hydrostatic Pressure (MPa)

11

11.5

Circumferential strains for 10 mm thick vessel at

various applied hydrostatic pressures

Average circumferential strains for 10 mm thick

vessel at various applied hydrostatic pressures

3500
3000
2500
2000

microstrain
1500
1000
500
0
2.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

10.5

Hydrostatic Pressure in MPa

11

11.5

Collapsed Composite Cylinder

a) Tested for buckling, b) Buckled cylinder and c) Exploded
view of the buckled portion

Buckled cylinder

Exploded view

Buckling Response of Polymer

Composite Shells by FEA.
Based on numerical studies of C.T.F. Ross et.al.[2] S. Srinivasan et.al.[11] who have
used ANSYS FE Program with SHELL LINEAR LAYER 99 element to conduct the
buckling analysis element used to conduct the buckling test is - SHELL ELEMENT LINEAR LAYER 99 with FIBER ORIENTATION: 550, -550
ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL PROPERTIES:
Elastic Constant

Glass/Epoxy

E1

45.6 GPa

E2

16.2 GPa

E3

16.2 GPa

G12

5.83 GPa

G13

5.83 GPa

G23

5.78 GPa

V12

0.27

V23

0.49

V13

0.278

Specific Density

1.7

Shell structure of UUV

Meshed model of cylindrical structure

Meshed model with boundary conditions

Meshed model with uniform external pressure

BLOCK LANCOZ BUCKLING ANALYSIS

Buckling analysis in ANSYS was carried out using BLOCK LANCOZ method to
extract the Eigen values to predict the critical buckling pressure. The Block Lanczos
method is the best of all the methods and it is recommended for most applications
because of the following reasons:
Efficient extraction of large number of modes (40+) in most models
Typically used in complex models with mixture of solids/shells/beams etc.
Efficient extraction of modes in a frequency range
Handles rigid-body modes well

CBP for 10 mm thick vessel

CBP for 15 mm thick vessel

CBP = Frequency X Applied Pressure

CBP = Frequency X Applied Pressure

= 5.169 X 2.5

= 13.639 X 2.5

= 12.92 MPa

= 34.09 MPa

STATIC ANALYSIS STRESSES AND STRAINS

Static analysis was performed in ANSYS to determine the
stresses and strains for the cylindrical structures.
FEA strains for 10 mm and 15 mm thick vessels
Pressure (bar)

FEA Micro-strain 10

Pressure (bar)

mm thick vessel

25

715

50

1429

75

2144

85

2430

95

2716

105

3002

110

3145

115

3287

strains for 10 mm thick vessel

FEA Micro-strain 15
mm thick vessel

25

585

50

933

75

1399

100

1866

125

2332

150

2799

160

2985

strains for 15 mm thick vessel

FEA stresses for 10 mm and 15 mm thick vessels

Pressure (bar)

FEA stresses 10 mm

Pressure (bar)

thick vessel (MPa)

25

37.011

50

74.023

75

111.034

85

FEA stresses 15 mm thick

vessel (MPa)

25

23.679

50

47.358

75

71.037

100

94.716

125

118.395

150

142.074

160

151.546

125.838

95

140.643

105

155.447

Stresses for 10 mm thick vessel

Stresses for 15 mm thick vessel

Von-Mises stresses of cylindrical shells by RSM..

Based on the studies of J. M. Lifshitz et.al.[15] Stresses for the cylinders were calculated analytically by
using experimental strain data by REDUCED STIFFNESS MATRIX method. The cylinder falls under
the orthotropic material category. Since the cylinder does not contain any out-of-plane loads, one can
assume plane stress condition for the cylinder.

1

2

12

Q11 Q12 0

= Q
Q
0
22
21

0
Q
66

1

2

12

Where Qij is the reduced stiffness coefficient

The stiffness coefficient is related to the engineering constants through the following relations:

Q11

E1

1 21 12

Q12

12 E2
1 21 12

Q22

E2
1 21 12

Q66 = G12

Stress at 25 bar for 10 mm thick vessel

49.4 103 4.88 103

= 4.88 103 17.55 103

0
0

49.4 10
4.88 10

910 10 6 4.88 103 357 10 6

910 10 6 17.55 103 357 10 6

1 = 46.69 MPa

910 10 6

6
357

10

5.83 103

0
0

2 = 10.7 MPa
3 = 0
12 = 0
Substituting the values of 1 and 2 in Von-Mises equation
2ys2 = (1 2)2 + (2 3)2 + (3 1)2
= (46.69 - 10.7)2 + 10.72 + 46.692
= 3589.72
ys2 = 1794.8
ys= 42.36 MPa

Stresses for 10 mm and 15 mm thick vessels

Pressure (bar)

Analytical stresses (MPa)

Pressure

Analytical stresses (MPa)

(bar)

25

42.36

50

25

31.51

68.68

50

52.15

75

97.41

75

71.87

85

108.65

100

92.42

125

113.10

150

128.28

160

141.69

95
105

120.3
137.13

Stresses for 10 mm thick vessel

Stresses for 15 mm thick vessel

Validation of Experimental critical buckling pressure with

that of FEA for 10 mm thick vessel

CBP

Experimental result

FEA result

Deviation

12.0 MPa

12.92 MPa

7.12%

Comparison of Experimental CBP with FEA CBP for 10 mm thick vessel

Validation of Experimental strains with that of

FEA strains
Pressure

Experimental

FEA Micro-

(bar)

Micro-strain

strain

25

906

715

21.08%

50

1475

1429

3.22%

75

2090

2144

2.42%

85
95

2330
2580

2430
2716

Deviation

Pressure

Experimental

FEA Micro-

Deviation

(bar)

Micro-strain

strain

25

633

585

7.58

50

1076

933

13.28

75

1450

1399

3.51

100

1920

1866

2.81

125

2372

2332

1.68

150

2830

2799

1.09

160

3014

2985

0.96

4.11%
5.00%

105

2940

3002

2.06%

110

3200

3145

1.71%

115

4900

3287

32.9%

Comparison of Experimental strains

with FEA strains for 10 mm thick vessel

Comparison of Experimental strains

with FEA strains for 15 mm thick vessel

Experimental and FEA Strains at various

applied pressures for 15 mm thick vessel

Experimental and FEA Strains at various

applied pressures for 10 mm thick vessel

6000

Experimental microstrain
FEA microstrain

5000
4000
3000
microstrain
2000
1000
0
2.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

10.5

Applie d Hydrostatic Pressure (MPa)

11

11.5

Validation of Analytical stresses with that of

FEA stresses
Pressure

Analytical

FEA stresses

(bar)

stresses (MPa)

(MPa)

25

42.36

37.011

12.62%

50

68.68

74.023

7.2%

75

97.41

111.034

Deviation

Pressure

Analytical

FEA stresses

Deviation

(bar)

stresses (MPa)

(MPa)

25

31.51

23.679

24.85%

50

52.15

47.358

9.18%

75

71.87

71.037

1.15%

100

92.42

94.716

2.42%

125

113.10

118.395

4.47%

150

128.28

142.074

9.7%

160

141.69

151.546

6.5%

12.2%

85

108.65

125.838

13.6%

95

120.3

140.643

14.4%

105

137.13

155.447

11.78%

Comparison of Experimental stresses

with FEA strains for 10 mm thick vessel

Comparison of Experimental stresses

with FEA strains for 15 mm thick vessel

Analytical and FEA stresses at various applied pressures

for 10 mm thick vessel

Analytical stresses (MPa)

FEA stresses (MPa)
180
160
microstrain
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2.5

Applied
Hydrostatic
Pressure
(MPa)
5
7.5
8.5
9.5

10.5

Analytical and FEA stresses at various applied pressures

for 15 mm thick vessel

Material Properties

Table 2 Material properties of Al

7075

Properties

Values

Modulus of Elasticity

71.7GPa

Poissons ratio

0.33

Density

2.81g/cc

Table 3 Orthogonal material properties of

carbon/ Vinyl ester and glass/ Vinyl ester
Elastic

Carbon/ Vinyl

Glass/ Vinyl

Constant

ester

ester

E1

83.192 GPa

32.11 GPa

E2

83.192 GPa

32.11 GPa

E3

12.0488 GPa

17.972 GPa

G12

5.47 GPa

5.83 GPa

G13

4.041 GPa

5.626 GPa

G23

4.041 GPa

5.626 GPa

V12

0.0312

0.1457

V23

0.4382

0.4225

V13

0.4382

0.4225

Figure 1 a Stacking sequence and

material orientation angle of composite
cylinder

Figure 1 b Stacking of layers

FEA Studies of Buckling

Figure 2 Meshed model with

boundary conditions- External
pressure

Figure 5 Cylinder under

external pressure- Side view

Figure 3 Meshed model of

cylindrical
vessel

Figure 6 Meshed model with

boundary conditions- Combined
load

Figure 4 Cylinder under external

pressure- Isometric view

Figure 7 Axial compression

applied on
the model

Eigen buckling of underwater vessels

Figure 8 Buckling mode shapes for carbon/ epoxy

vessel subjected to external pressure

Figure 9 Buckling mode shapes for carbon/ epoxy

vessel subjected to external pressure and axial load

Static buckling of underwater vessels

250

4000

200
FEA stress (MPa)

FEA micro- strain

3000

2000

1000

150

100

50
Variable
Al7075
Carbon/ epoxy
Glass/ epoxy

0
0

8
10
Pressure (MPa)

12

14

16

18

Figure 10 Pressure Vs. FEA micro- strain 1

5mm thick Al7075, carbon/ epoxy and glass/
epoxy vessels under external pressure

Variable
Al7075
Carbon/ epoxy
Glass/ epoxy

0
0

8
10
Pressure (MPa)

12

14

16

Figure 11 Pressure Vs. FEA stress

15mm thick Al7075, carbon/ epoxy and
glass/ epoxy vessels under external pressure

18

Dynamic analysis

Figure 15 Pressure plot

Results

Material

Al 7075
Carbon/epo
xy
Glass/
epoxy

Figure 16 Meshed region with boundary and

loading conditions

Table 6 Velocity ranges for cylinders

Lateral pressure

Lateral and axial load

V (m/s)

V (m/s)

t = 15mm

t = 10mm

t = 15mm

t = 10mm

140- 150

90- 100

120- 130

80- 90

110- 120

70- 80

100- 110

60- 70

80- 90

50- 60

70- 80

40- 50

Dynamic analysis
Variable
Al7075
Carbon/ epoxy
Glass/ epoxy

Critical buckling pressure (MPa)

16
14
12
10
8
6
4

Variable
Al7075
Carbon/ epoxy
Glass/ epoxy

7
Critical buckling pressure (MPa)

18

6
5
4
3
2
1

0
0

20

40

60
80
Velocity (m/s)

100

120

140

10

20

30

40
50
Velocity (m/s)

60

70

80

90

a) 15mm thick vessel

b) 10mm thick vessel
Figure 17 Comparison of CBP results of vessels under external hydrostatic pressure
Variable
Al7075
Carbon/ epoxy
Glass/ epoxy

Critical buckling pressure (MPa)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Critical buckling pressure (MPa)

16

Variable
Al7075
Carbon/ epoxy
Glass/ epoxy

5
4
3
2
1
0

20

40

60
Velocity (m/s)

80

100

120

10

20

30

40
50
Velocity (m/s)

60

70

a) 15mm thick vessel

b) 10mm thick vessel
Figure 18 Comparison of CBP results of vessels under external hydrostatic pressure and axial
load

80

Validation
Table 4 Calculated and FEA CBP values for cylinder under hydrostatic pressure

Material

FEA

Analytical

CBP (MPa)

CBP (MPa)

% deviation

FEA

Analytical

CBP (MPa)

CBP (MPa)

t = 15mm
Al7075
Carbon/
epoxy
Glass/ epoxy

% deviation

t = 10mm

17.062

18.34

6.96

7.103

8.58

17.21

10.318

9.837

4.89

4.141

3.297

25.59

5.453

4.8022

13.55

2.256

1.6

29

Table 5 Calculated and FEA CBP values for cylinder under hydrostatic
pressure and axial load
FEA
Analytical
%
FEA
Analytical
%
Material

CBP (MPa) CBP (MPa) deviation CBP (MPa) CBP (MPa) deviation
t = 15mm

t = 10mm

Al7075

14.602

12.478

17.02

5.538

4.506

22.9

Carbon/ epoxy

9.086

9.834

7.60

3.331

3.295

1.09

Glass/ epoxy
4.664
4.8
2.83
1.75
1.59
10.06
Table 6 Comparison of experimental CBP that of FEA for 10 mm thick glass/ epoxy vesselID=175mm, Length=825mm

CBP

Experimental result

FEA result

Deviation

12 MPa

10.987 MPa

9.2 %

Conclusions

Based on the numerical analysis for buckling of underwater vessels for an operating depth of 1000 m the following conclusions were
arrived at:

Carbon / vinylester employed for underwater shells (1:1 scale) model showed weight savings of 46 % compared to high strength steel
based on the thickness of the shell for sustaining 10 MPa buckling pressure.

Similar savings of 31 % was obtained for glass / vinylester when compared with that of High strength steel.

Buckling behaviour of (1:2 scale) of 10 mm and 15 mm filament wound cylindrical shells was investigated by experimental,
numerical and analytical approaches. Based on the results following conclusions were arrived at:

Experimental CBP of 10 mm thick shell of 825 mm length, 175 mm internal diameter using glass/vinylester was 12 MPa whereas the
CBP of the shell predicted by FEA was 12.92 MPa, showing good agreement between the experimental and FEA results.

Strain as a function of hydrostatic pressure from 2.5 MPa to 10.5 MPa for 10 mm thick shell was predicted by static buckling analysis
of ANSYS with deviations of 1.71 % to 32.9 % from the experimental strains. Highest deviation of 32.9 % occurred at 11.5 MPa
because at the onset of buckling the strains increase significantly, which is not predicted by the linear static analysis of ANSYS.

Von-Mises stresses at different hydrostatic pressures were predicted using RSM based on experimental circumferential and
longitudinal strains. The Von-Mises stresses predicted by FEA and RSM closely agreed with a maximum deviation of 14.4 % for 10
mm thick shell.

Strain as a function of hydrostatic pressure from 2.5 MPa to 16 MPa for 15 mm thick (1: 2 scale) shells was predicted by linear static
analysis of ANSYS with a maximum deviation of 13.28 % from the experimental strains. These shells were not loaded to collapse
pressure due to the limitations in the tester.

Von-Mises stresses as a function of applied pressure was obtained analytically and by FEA for 15 mm thick shells with maximum
deviations of 1.15% to 24.85 %. These stresses were derived from the experimental strain data.

Conclusions
Buckling behaviour of (1:1 scale) filament wound cylindrical shells under pure hydrostatic and combined hydrostatic and axial loading was
investigated by numerical approach. Based on the results, the following conclusions were arrived at:
Reduction in CBP for 10 mm and 15 mm thick Al 7075 vessel when the loading was changed from pure hydrostatic pressure to combined
hydrostatic pressure and axial load were 22.28 % and 14.58 % respectively.
Similarly, for carbon/ vinylester the reductions in CBP were 27.49 % and 18.92 %. For glass/ vinylester the corresponding values were 26.34 % and
18.12%. This showed that the percentage reductions in CBP for 10 mm thick vessels were much greater than that for 15 mm thick vessels.
The Von-Mises stresses and strains increased with increase in hydrostatic pressure. The microstrains predicted by FEA for carbon / vinylester and
glass / vinylester shells were considerably greater than those of Al 7075 shell. .
The Von-Mises stresses predicted by FEA for carbon / vinylester were greater whereas for glass/ vinylester they were close to those of Al 7075.

Buckling performance of underwater vessels under combined hydrostatic and axial loading in moving conditions was investigated by CFD approach.
Based on the results the following conclusions were arrived at:

Carbon / vinylester shells of 15 mm and 10 mm thickness can be safely towed at velocity of around 110 m/s and 70 m/s respectively. For glass/
vinylester the velocities were 80 m/s and 50 m/s and for Al7075 140 m/s and 90 m/s respectively when only lateral pressure was considered.

The velocities reduced by 10 m/s approximately in all the cases when the combined lateral and axial pressures were considered.

Scope for future studies

The research involved experimental, numerical and analytical methods of predicting buckling behaviour of underwater shell structures of
metallic and polymer composite structures based on the geometrical features of existing metallic shells. The methodology adopted in the
research can be effectively employed for the design of underwater vessels. However, the research may be extended in the following areas
to achieve underwater vessels of polymer matrix composites.
Though the front conical and rear hemispherical components are not of significance while establishing the safe operating depths of
underwater vessels, the analysis may be extended to full- fledged model considering flanges and the joints.

Adoption of grid stiffeners may be explored to further strengthen the shells.

Underwater vessels are operated under water for specific duration of time although intermittently. Thus, dwell time analysis may be
performed to establish their durability.

References
1.

Carl T.F. Ross, A conceptual design of an underwater vehicle, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 33, 2006, pp. 20872104

2.

T. Hyakudome., S. Ishibashi., Y. Watanabe., H. Yoshida., S. Tsukioka., T.Aoki., Application to Pressure Vessels for Underwater Vehicle
of Magnesium Alloys , IEEE, 2008, pp. 2126-2129.

3.

Blachut., P. Smith., Buckling of multi-segment underwater pressure hull, Journal of Ocean Engineering , Vol. 35, 2008, pp. 247260

4.

Busby.F.R., Undersea Vehicles. Office of the oceanographer of the Navy, Washington.D.C, 1985.

5.

Cho-Chung Liang., Sheau-Wen Shiah., Chan-Yung Jen., Hung-Wen Chen., Optimum design of multiple intersecting spheres deepsubmerged pressure hull, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 31, 2004, pp. 177-199

6.

Kubbin Kim., Ulnyeon Kim., Jinsoo Park., A study on effects of initial deflection on ultimate strength of ringstiffened cylindrical
structure under external hydrostatic pressure, Proceedings of thirteenth international off-shore and polar engineering Conference,
Hawaii, USA, May 25-30, 2003

7.

Khairul Izman Abdul Rahim, Abdul Rahim Othman, Mohd Rizal Arshad, Conceptual design of a pressure hull for an underwater pole
inspection robot, Indian Journal of Marine Science, Vol. 38 (3), 2009, pp. 352-358

8.

C.S.Smith., Design of Submersible Pressure Hulls in Composite Materials, Marine Structures, Vol. 4, 1991, pp. 141-182

9.

Tanguy Messager., Mariusz Pyrz., Bernard Gineste., Pierre Chauchot., Optimal laminations of thin underwater composite cylindrical
vessels, Journal of Composite Structures, Vol. 58, 2002, pp. 529-537

10.

Tanguy Messager, Buckling of imperfect laminated cylinder under hydrostatic pressure, Journal of Composite Structure, Vol. 53, 2001,
pp. 301-307

11.

Derek Graham., Composite Pressure Hulls for deep ocean submersibles, Composite Structure, Vol. 32, 1995, pp. 331-343

12.

Derek Graham., Buckling of thick section Composite pressure Hulls, Composite Structure, Vol. 35, 1996, pp. 5-20

13.

V. Carvelli., N.Panzeri., C.Poggi., Buckling strength of GFRP under water vehicle, Journal of Composite Part B: Engineering, Vol.
32, 2001, pp. 89-101

14.

Chul-Jin Moon., In-Hoon Kim., Bae-Hyeon Choi., Jin-Hwe Kweon., Jin-Ho Choi., Buckling of filament-wound composite cylinders
subjected to hydrostatic pressure for underwater vehicle applications, Composite Structures, Vol. 92, 2010, pp. 22412251

15.

C.T.F. Ross, K. O. Okoto and A.P.F. Little, Buckling by General Instability of Cylindrical Components of Deep Sea Submersibles,
Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 13, 2008, pp.289-296

16.

Seong-Hwa Hur., Hee-Jin Son., Jin-HweKweon., Jin-Ho Choi., Post buckling of composite cylinders under external hydrostatic
pressure, Journal of Composite Structures, Vol. 86, 2008, pp. 114-124

17.

Myung-Hun Kim., Jong-Rae Cho., Won-Byong Bae., Jin-Hwe Kweon., Jin-Ho Choi., Sang-Rae Cho and Yun-Sik Cho., Buckling
Analysis of Filament-Wound Thick Composite Cylinder under Hydrostatic Pressure, International Journal of Precision Engineering
and Manufacturing, Vol. 11, 2010, pp. 909-913

18.

J. Blachut., P. Smith., Buckling of multi-segment underwater pressure hull, Ocean Engineering, Vol. 35, 2008, pp. 247-260

19.

S. Srinivasan., B. Bhattacharya., Probabilistic failure of filament wound glass fiber reinforced

composite tube under biaxial

loading, Proceedings of 9th ASCE Joint Specialty Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, , Albuquerque,
New Mexico, July 26-28,2004

20.

Hae-Young Jung., Jong-Rae Cho., Jeong-Young Han., Woo-Hyung Lee., Won-Byong Bae., Yun-Sik Cho., A Study on Buckling of
Filament-Wound Cylindrical Shells under Hydrostatic External Pressure using Finite Element Analysis and Buckling Formula,
International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, Vol. 13, 2012, pp. 731- 737

21.

Baoping Cai., Yonghong Liu., Huazhou Li., Zengkai Liu., Buckling analysis of composite long cylinders using probabilistic finite
element method, MECHANIKA, Vol. 17(5), 2011, pp. 467-473

22.

Khairul Izman Abdul Rahim, Abdul Rahim Othman, Mohd Rizal Arshad, Conceptual design of a pressure hull for an underwater pole
inspection robot, Indian Journal of Marine Sciences, Vol. 38 (3), 2009, pp. 352-358

23.

H.Hernandez-Moreno. B.Douchin., F.Collobet, D.choqueuse., P.Davies., Influence of winding pattern on the mechanical behaviour of
filament wound composite cylinders under external pressure, Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 68, 2008, pp. 10151024

24.

X. Wang, Jun Xiao., Y.C. Zhang., A method for solving the buckling problem of a thin- walled shell, International Journal of Pressure
Vessels and Piping, Vol. 81, 2004, pp. 907912

25.

Kukbin Kim., Ulnyeon Kim., Jinsoo Park., A Study on Effects of Initial Deflection on Ultimate Strength of Ring-stiffened Cylindrical
Structure under External Hydrostatic Pressure, Proceedings of the Thirteenth (2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2003, pp. 2530

26.

Andew P.F Little., Carl T.F. Rss., Daniel short., Graham X., Inelastic Buckling of

Geometrically Imperfect tubes under external

Hydrostatic Pressure, Ocean Sovereignty, Vol. 3 (1), 2008, pp.75-81

27.

G. Forasassi., R. Lo Frano., Buckling of Imperfect Thin Cylindrical Shell Under Lateral Pressure, Journal of Achievements in
Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 18, 2006, pp. 287-293

28.

Anton Hu bner., Matthias Albiez., Dietmar Kohler,, and Helmut Saal,, Buckling of long steel cylindrical shells subjected to external
pressure, Thin Walled Structures, Vol. 45, 2007, pp.1-7

29.

S. Aghajari., K. Abedia., H. Showkatib., Buckling and post-buckling behaviour of thin-walled cylindrical steel shells with varying
thickness subjected to uniform external pressure, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 44, 2006, pp. 904909

30.

R. Lo Frano., G. Forasassi., Experimental evidence of imperfection influence on the buckling of thin cylindrical shell under external
pressure, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 239, 2009, pp. 193200

31.

J.R. MacKay., F. Van Keulen., A Review of External Pressure Testing Techniques for Shells including a Novel Volume-Control
Method, Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 50, 2010, pp.753772

32.

N.G.Pegg., Experimental determination of interframe buckling of a ring stiffened

Cylinder, National Defence Research and

Development Branch, Technical Memorandum 89/209, 1989

33.

Yamamoto, Research and development of past, present and future autonomous underwater vehicle technologies, Proceeding of
International Mater class AUV Technology Polar Science-Society Underwater Technology, Vol. 28, 2007, pp. 1726

34.

Hongwei Zhang, Shuxin Wang, Modelling and Analysis of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle via Multibody System Dynamics,
Proceedings of 12th IFTOMM World Congress, Besanon (France), Vol. 18-21, 2007

35.

Ettore, A.de Barros, Joao, L. D. Dantas, Antonio, M. Pascoal, Elgar de Sa, Investigation of Normal Force and Moment Coefcients
for an AUV at Nonlinear Angle of Attack and Sideslip Range, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, Vol. 33(4), 2008

36.

Jianguo Wu, Chaoying Chen, Shunxin Wang, Hydrodynamic Effects of a shroud Design For a Hybrid-Driven Underwater Glider, Sea
Technology, Vol. 51(6), 2010, pp. 45-47

37.
38.
39.
40.
41.

K. D. Kim, Buckling behaviour of composite panels using the Finite Element Method, Composite Structures, Vol. 36, 1996, pp. 33 43.
Larbi Siad, Buckling of thin-walled orthotropic cylindrical shells under uniform external pressure. Application to corrugated tin cans,
Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 35, 1999, pp. 101115.
Sathivel. R., Vengadesan. S., and Bhattacharyya. S.K., Application of non-linear k- turbulence model in flow simulation over
underwater axisymmetric hull at higher angle of attack, Journal of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Vol. 2, 2011, pp. 149163.
Sreekar Gomatam., Vengadesan. S., and Bhattacharyya. S.K., Numerical simulations of flow past an autonomous underwater vehicle
at various drift angles, Journal of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Vol. 2, 2012, pp. 135-152.
Md. Mashud Karim, Md. Mahbubar Rahman, and Md. Abdul Alim., Numerical computation of viscous drag for axisymmetric
underwater vehicles, Journal Mekanical, Vol. 1(26), 2008, pp. 9-21.

Publications
International Journal Publications
Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M , Raghavendra N, Comparative Study of Metallic and Polymer Composite
Shells for Underwater Vessels using FEA, International Journal of Ocean System Engineering, vol. 3(3), 2013, pp. 136-141.
Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Shiva Kumar M.S, Sudarsan K, Nandagopan O.R, Ajith Kumar K, Buckling Behaviour
of Underwater Vessels by Experimental, Numerical and Analytical Approaches, accepted for publications in Journal of Naval
Architecture and Marine Engineering,Volume 11, June 2014, pp.15-28
Moorthy G, H.N Narasimha Murthy, Monika Y, K Sudarshan, O.R Nandagopan, Ajith Kumar K, Buckling response of underwater
vessels subjected to Hydrostatic and Axial loads, accepted for publication in Indian journal of Geo-Marine Sciences. ( in print )
Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Finite Element Analysis of Grid Stiffened Structure for under water vehicle
Application, International journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies, Vol. II, Issue I, Oct-Dec, 2012, pp. 151-153.

International / National Conference and workshop presentation and publications

Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Modelling and Analysis of a Typical Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) Structure
for Buckling Failure using FEA, Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Technologies and applications in
Engineering, Technology and sciences- ICETAETS 2008, Saurashtra University. Rajkot, Gujarat, 13-14 January 2008.
Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Structural Analysis of Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) model for Buckling
Failure using FEA, Proceedings of the National Conference on Advances and Contempories in Mechanical Engineering- ACME 2008,
Erode Sengunthar Engineering College. Erode, Tamil Nadu, 7- 8 Febuary 2008.
Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Analysis of fibre reinforced polymer Structure, National workshop on Advanced
Manufacturing Technologies, St Peters College of Engineering and Technology. Chennai, 16 - 18August 2010.
Moorthy G, Narasimha Murthy H.N, Krishna M, Raghavendra N, Buckling analysis of Grid Stiffened Polymer composite vessels for
UUV Application, International Workshop on Underwater Technologies- UTW 2013, National Institute of Ocean Technology. Chennai,
21 October 2013.