Heckman, David: Finite element analysis of pressure vessels, MBARI 1998

Finite Element Analysis of Pressure Vessels

David Heckman, University of California, Davis
Mentor: Gene Massion, Mark Greise Summer 1998

Keywords: Pressure Vessel Finite Element Analysis ANSYS

ABSTRACT Pressure vessels are a commonly used device in marine engineering. Until recently the primary analysis method had been hand calculations and empirical curves. New computer advances have made finite element analysis (FEA) a practical tool in the study of pressure vessels, especially in determining stresses in local areas such as penetrations, O-ring grooves and other areas difficult to analyze by hand. This project set out to explore applicable methods using finite element analysis in pressure vessel analysis. Having tested three dimensional, symmetric and axisymmetric models, the preliminary conclusion is that finite element analysis is an extremely powerful tool when employed correctly. Depending on the desired solutions, there are different methods that offer faster run times and less error. The two recommended methods included symmetric models using shell elements and axisymmetric models using solid elements. Contact elements were tested to determine their usefulness in modeling the interaction between pressure vessel cylinder walls and end caps. When modeled correctly, contact elements proved to be useful, but the operator also needs to be able to interpret the results properly. Problems such as local stress risers, unrealistic displacements and understanding how to use such data become extremely important in this kind of analysis. This highlights the key to proper use of finite element analysis. The analyst should be able to approximate the solution using classical methodology (hand calculations) in order to verify the solution.

INTRODUCTION This project set out to verify finite element analysis, or FEA, when applied to pressure vessel design. While finite element analysis offers another way to analyze structures, it requires an understanding of the program and subject being modeled. If the operator does not use the correct model, time is wasted and more importantly the data is useless. Finite element analysis is a powerful tool in the field of engineering. Initially, finite element analysis was used in aerospace structural engineering. The technique has since been applied to nearly every engineering discipline from fluid dynamics to electromagnetics. The difficulty in analysis of stress and strain in structural engineering depends on the structure involved. As the structure grows in complexity, so does the analysis. Many of the more commonly used structures in engineering have simplified calculations to approximate stress and strain. However, these calculations often provide solutions only for the maximum stress and strain at certain points in the structure. Furthermore, these calculations are usually only

http://www.mbari.org/education/internship/98interns/98internpapers/98heckman.html (1 of 7)

Heckman, David: Finite element analysis of pressure vessels, MBARI 1998

applicable given specific conditions applied to the structure. For example, Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain is an engineering handbook containing equations for different structures and associated loads. Table 28, condition 1c shows a thin walled cylinder with external pressure and ends capped (Figure 1). The structure is essentially a can with pressure acting uniformly over the outside of the cylinder. In order to use the given equations several conditions must be met. First, the cylinder wall thickness must be at least ten times smaller than the cylinder radius. The calculated stresses and radial displacement that are calculated apply only to points far away from the cylinder ends. Thus, while the strain of the cylinder is known towards the center, it is unknown at the ends. To complicate matters, the stress and strain near the endcaps are not easy to calculate. Are the caps thick or thin? Are they actually part of the walls, or are they bolted on? Do the caps fit perfect, or are there irregularities? All of these conditions will greatly affect the stress and strain. Finite element analysis is one solution to the problem. In finite element analysis the structure is broken up into small pieces that are easier to analyze. In the case of the cylinder it might be broken up into small cubes or plates called elements. All of the elements make up the mesh (Fig 2). Each of these elements can be easily solved for by using simple equations for stress and strain. As the number of elements increases (increasing mesh size), their size decreases and the solution will grow more accurate. An excellent comparison to finite element analysis can be found in looking at a simple curved line on a graph. If one is trying to find the area under the curve, breaking the curve up into a series of rectangles and adding their areas can approximate the solution. While the solution is not exact, it can be simpler than integrating to find the area. In order to increase solution accuracy the size of the rectangles can be decreased to better approximate the curve. With the recent increases in the speed and processing power of computers, finite element analysis has become a practical way to solve many problems. The increase in computer capabilities has allowed for even greater numbers of elements and higher order elements to be used so that calculated solutions will be fairly accurate. Unfortunately, finite element analysis is often used in a manner that produces incorrect results. These errors are rarely due to a problem with the finite element analysis program. Generally, they are a result of the operator incorrectly constraining or meshing a structure in a way that does not simulate the actual structure being analyzed. Depending on the subject being modeled the method used can become extremely important. One application of finite element analysis in a marine environment is for pressure vessels. The majority of pressure vessels employed by MBARI are the can type. These are simply a cylinder with a flat cap on each end. There are several ways to model pressure vessels using finite element analysis. If modeled correctly these methods should result in the same solution, but the time spent in calculating solutions can be different. If the finite element analysis solution has an error of five percent and takes an hour to run, that solution may be considered acceptable when compared to a solution with a one percent error that takes twenty hours to run depending on the particular use of the structure and factor of safety. Contact between parts can also become extremely important in structural analysis. For example in a pressure vessel, the end cap will flex as the cylinder and cap are compressed against each other. These contact points can produce stress risers that may lead to unexpected structural failures. If the cylinder wall deforms enough, it may buckle and fail. These conditions involve nonlinear equations where both wall and end cap must be solved for simultaneously. In a linear equation the wall stress would be dependent on the end cap stress, or the end cap stress would be dependent on the wall stress. However, in this case where both end cap and the wall stresses vary as a result of their interactions the solution becomes extremely difficult to solve for. Finite element analysis enables one to solve these nonlinear calculations. For this study several methods were tested. Element types included shell and solid elements. In the case of shell elements, linear and quadratic elements were compared. Models tested included three dimensional models, symmetric models and axisymmetric models. Contact elements were then tested to determine how best to employ them to determine contact points between parts

http://www.mbari.org/education/internship/98interns/98internpapers/98heckman.html (2 of 7)

Heckman, David: Finite element analysis of pressure vessels, MBARI 1998

and the resultant stresses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS All finite element analysis was run using ANSYS 5.4 (http://www.ansys.com/Products/Ansys54/Mechanical/index.html). The educational program was run on a Pentium 60 for smaller models. For more complex models, the full ANSYS 5.4 was run on a Hewlett Packard Apollo workstation. Element Types (Fig 3) Shell Elements Structures composed of thin walls can be modeled using shell elements. Shell elements are treated as two dimensional, with a thickness for the element entered, but not shown on the model. Testing included linear (SHELL63) elements and quadratic (SHELL91) elements. The linear elements have four nodes, one node at each corner of the element. The quadratic shell has a node midway between corner nodes adding up to eight nodes per element. Solid Elements The eight node brick (SOLID45) element was used for comparison with other elements. In the eight node brick there is a node at each corner of the brick. For the axisymmetric model, plate elements were used. In the axisymmetric model, the solid remains two-dimensional and is treated much like a shell element. The major difference is that instead of inputting a thickness, the plate is made axisymmetrical. Once again there are linear (PLANE42) and quadratic (PLANE82) elements. Contact Elements Point to point (CONTAC52) elements join two nodes. If contact between two nodes is expected a contact element is created between the nodes. This element, when set properly, will enable the nodes to touch but prevent them from passing each other. Model Types The pressure vessel models assumed a cylinder with both ends capped. To simplify modeling and hand calculations, both ends were treated as part of the cylinder. The hand calculations from Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain table 28, condition 1c were used for comparison. Since the pressure vessels generally used by MBARI are axisymmetrical there are three ways to run the model; three dimensional, symmetric and axisymmetric (Fig 4). Each model was meshed with an element size of one centimeter along the cylinder and every fifteen degrees around the circumference. To compare the linear and quadratic a second run was made where the linear model was meshed with twice as many elements. This was run to compare linear and quadratic results where the number of nodes were equal. File size was recorded after the model was run and all data had been saved, so it includes both the initial model and final solution. Error is calculated against the hand calculations from Roarks Formulas for Stress and Strain. In the results s1 is the meridonial stress, s2 is the circumferential, or hoop stress while DZ is the total change in length of the cylinder wall and DR is the change in radius of the cylinder away from the ends. Three Dimensional Model This model is the complete pressure vessel model. One end is pinned along the edge in the Z direction. One node is

http://www.mbari.org/education/internship/98interns/98internpapers/98heckman.html (3 of 7)

Heckman, David: Finite element analysis of pressure vessels, MBARI 1998

also pinned in the X and another in the Y direction. Symmetric Model The symmetric model only models half of the pressure vessel. Symmetric boundary conditions are applied along the edges. One end is pinned along the symmetry edge. One node is pinned in the X direction. The model is pinned in the Y direction due to the symmetry of the model. Axisymmetric Model The axisymmetric model takes a two-dimensional cut to model the pressure vessel since it is symmetrical about the Z-axis. Symmetry boundary conditions are applied along the endcaps. One node is pinned in the Y direction to prevent the model from being under constrained. The axisymmetric model was also run with two refined axisymmetric models. These models had element sizes of 0.5 and 0.25, versus the original run of element size one. Thus, mesh size increased by four and sixteen times respectively.

RESULTS: Thin Wall

Element Type

Run Time (s) 107 557 747 30 122 180

4 Node Shell (SHELL63) 8 Node Shell (SHELL93) 4 Node Shell Doubled (SHELL63) Symmetric 4 Node Shell (SHELL63) Symmetric 8 Node Shell (SHELL93) Symmetric 4 Node Shell Doubled (SHELL63)

Output File Size (MB) 4.52 5.67 16.66 2.47 2.97 8.21

s1 Error (%) 4 4.8 3.3 3.9 4.8 3.3

s2 Error (%)

DZ Error (%)

DR Error (%) 6.5 6.2 6.3 7.0

6.7 3.7

0.5 0.1

6.2 6.9

http://www.mbari.org/education/internship/98interns/98internpapers/98heckman.html (4 of 7)

Heckman, David: Finite element analysis of pressure vessels, MBARI 1998

Full Solid Cylinder (SOLID45) Axisymmetric Plane42 (PLANE42) Asymmetric Plane42 Doubled (PLANE42) Asymmetric Plane42 Quadrupled (PLANE42)

200 2 4 14

5.73 0.48 0.85 2.24

40.9 3.2 6.4 3.2

6.3 3.1 5.2 3.0

13.3 4.5 1.4 1.9

0.7 4.7 1.1 6.2

DISCUSSION The axisymmetric model had by far the shortest run time with comparatively small computational error. Even the highly refined axisymmetric model ran in half the time of the fastest shell model. The quadratic shell had the longest of the initial mesh size times. However, when the number of linear shell elements was doubled, the run time increased above that of the quadratic models. The solid model took roughly twice as long as the shell model to run. Not surprisingly, run time is proportional to the number of elements for a given element type. In axisymmetric models, when the mesh doubled, run time doubled and when mesh size quadrupled, the run time nearly quadrupled. Symmetric models offered an impressive improvement in run time. For the shell elements run time was reduced by roughly four times in each case. File space was dependent on model size. The axisymmetric models were the smallest. The standard mesh axisymmetric model was five times smaller than the next closest model. Doubling the mesh size resulted in slightly less than doubling the file size. A quadratic model was larger than a linear model of the same mesh size, but significantly smaller than a twice as refined linear model. The solid model was the largest of the initial mesh models. The calculated error for all of the models was roughly the same. Only in one case did the error exceed seven percent. Even with the refined meshes, error did not necessarily improve. Comparing the axisymmetric models showed that the error fluctuated around three to six percent even with the higher refinement. This error is most likely the result of constraints applied to the model. Constraints do not completely simulate reality and slight errors are a result. It is also worth comparing the stress plots for each model. The shell (Fig 5) plots look different from the solid model (Fig 6) and axisymmetric (Fig 7) plots due to the fact that the solid model shows the bending from the thick endcaps, while the shell elements do not give the appearance of as much bending. Since error between each element is fairly similar the choice of which to use will be dependent on the analysis being run. In cases where the required wall thickness is unknown, shell elements are an excellent choice since the wall thickness can be iterated by simply changing a constant without having to change the model geometry. When the wall thickness is known solid and axisymmetric models can provide greater data resolution. Shells only provide data at the wall edges. Solids allow for meshing inside the wall so the stress distribution can be studied through the wall thickness as well as on the outer surface. However, solid models have extremely high run times and consume large amounts of disk space. Axisymmetric models run considerably faster with no greater error. In fact, an axisymmetric model can be used with much greater resolution than a full solid model, yet will still run in less time and use less disk space. Problems Noted Shell elements were found to have some unique problems that should be noted. When modeled using symmetric boundary conditions, a small number of elements can result in incorrect stresses along the boundary. In a low element number model (Fig 8) stresses along the boundary was slightly higher than for the rest of the cylinder. Another model

http://www.mbari.org/education/internship/98interns/98internpapers/98heckman.html (5 of 7)

Heckman, David: Finite element analysis of pressure vessels, MBARI 1998

were tested with a slightly finer mesh (Fig 9). The stress along the boundary decreased in the center of the cylinder, but was still apparent near the corners. When interacting with solids, shell element thickness does not completely apply. A model was tested where shells were used for the cylinder wall. A cap was placed on the end of the cylinder for the end cap. When the cylinder walls were composed of solid elements the cap showed a fairly even stress distribution (Fig 10). When a pressure was applied the solid and shell interaction was not that of a flat surface against a flat surface. The shell acts as a point load on the solid (Fig 11). In such models solids should be used instead of shell elements. Contact Elements For contact between the cylinder and end cap three-dimensional point to point (CONTAC52) elements were used. The CONTAC52 works by preventing the two nodes from passing through each other. An element is generated between both nodes and given a stiffness. If the stiffness is too low the outer node will pass through the inner node. However, if the stiffness is set too high the problem will not converge and no solution will be found. Thus, some experience in using these elements is useful The first test model succeeded in preventing the outer nodes from penetrating the inner nodes. The model consisted of two cylinders composed of linear shell elements. The outer cylinder was longer than the inner cylinder to illustrate the effects of the inner and outer shell interactions. When the outer shell compresses and impacts the inner shell some of the load is transferred to the inner shell so the displacement of both shells will be lower than the end of the outer cylinder that is unsupported. For the initial tests all inner and outer nodes lined up radially so that as the cylinders compressed the nodes would directly impact one another (Fig 12). Under these conditions the outer cylinder stopped as soon as it impacted the inner cylinder (Fig 13). The inner cylinder showed the greatest stress at the end where the outer cylinder started bending as it was unsupported (Fig 14). Axisymmetric models were tested using CONTAC52 elements. Initial tests were successful in using the contact elements to prevent penetration between the endcap and cylinder (Fig 15). Stress risers are located at the point where they impacted (Fig 16). A larger model was next run using contact elements. This pressure vessel was far more complex, including a center hole and Oring grooves (Fig 17). The solution was within five percent of hand calculations for the cylinder wall (Fig 18) and the center of the end cap (Fig 19). However, extremely high stresses were found at the contact point, roughly 945 MPa (137 ksi) (Fig 20). The only other area in the pressure vessel that came even close to this stress was at the other end where stress reached 303 MPa (44 ksi). The extremely high stress was primarily the result of the sharp corner of the cylinder model. What actually would happen in a ductile material is the edge of the cylinder would deform to reduce the stress. This deformation would increase the contact area over which the force between the cylinder and end cap acts, which in turn reduces stress.

CONCLUSIONS Finite element analysis is an extremely powerful tool for pressure vessel analysis when used correctly. Tested models were run with errors ranging from seven to nearly zero percent error and could be run in a relatively short time. However, even with such results the operator still is required to be knowledgeable of not just how to run the finite element analysis, but also how to read the results. Data must be verified with hand calculations to confirm that solutions are relatively accurate. Where results are questionable, such as in the final contact element model, one must understand just what the finite element model is modeling and how well this approximates the actual subject. For this pressure vessel, the model had a sharp corner, where in the actual pressure vessel there is a small radius which reduces the stress.

http://www.mbari.org/education/internship/98interns/98internpapers/98heckman.html (6 of 7)

Heckman, David: Finite element analysis of pressure vessels, MBARI 1998

For pressure vessels finite element analysis provides an additional tool for use in analysis. However, it must be compared to other available data, not taken as being correct just because it looks right. Used with this understanding, finite element analysis offers great insight into the complex interactions found in pressure vessel design.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to David Beals for help in the editing of this paper and assistance in modeling.

REFERENCES ANSYS Basic Analysis Procedure Guide, Release 5.3. (1996). Ansys, Houston, Pennsylvania ANSYS Expanded Workbook, Release 5.4. (1997). Ansys, Houston, Pennsylvania ANSYS Modeling and Meshing Guide, Release 5.3. (1996). Ansys, Houston, Pennsylvania ANSYS Structural Analysis, Release 5.3. (1996). Ansys, Houston, Pennsylvania Craig, R. (1996). Mechanics of Materials. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 639 Pages Young, W. (1989). Roarks Formulas for Stress & Strain. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York. 763 Pages

http://www.mbari.org/education/internship/98interns/98internpapers/98heckman.html (7 of 7)