Research Article

Impact Factor: 4.226
Arunkumar SM, IJPRET, 2014; Volume 3 (2): 131-156

ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PURE AND
APPLIED RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY
A PATH FOR HORIZING YOUR INNOVATIVE WORK

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF CFRP COMPOSITE PRESSURE STORAGE VESSEL
FOR VARIOUS FIBER ORIENTATION ANGLES
ARUNKUMAR SM1, THIPPESWAMY EKBOTE 2
1. Postgraduate Student, Machine Design, Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Davangere, India.
2. Associate Professor and Head, PG Program in Machine Design, Bapuji Institute of Engineering
and Technology, Davangere, India.
Accepted Date: 12/08/2014; Published Date: 01/10/2014
Abstract: The composite materials are used for fabrication of pressure vessels by placing
the fibers in different orientations for each layer. These layers are stacked in such a way to
achieve high stiffness and strength. The design of the composite vessel as a fundamental
research work relates the physical and mechanical properties of materials to the geometric
specifications. The project demonstrates a study on High-Pressure Hydrogen Storage Vessel
of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite having four layers. The pressure vessel
is designed and modeled using the finite element software ANSYS 14.0. Laminate plies were
oriented symmetrically with [+15° / -15°]s, [+30° /- 30°]s, [+45° /- 45°]s, [+60° / -60°]s, [+75° /
-75°]s, and [+90° / -90°]s, orientations separately. For each combination of fiber orientation,
the effect of pressure vessel deflection and stress were obtained and discussed. Finally the
best fiber orientation was selected.
\
Keywords: Modeling- ANSYS Design Modeler, Meshing-ANSYS Meshing, Analysis- ANSYS
14.0.
Corresponding Author: MR. ARUNKUMAR S. M.
Access Online On:
www.ijpret.com
How to Cite This Article:
PAPER-QR CODE

Arunkumar SM, Thippeswamy Ekbote; IJPRET, 2014; Volume 3 (2): 131156

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

131

Research Article
Impact Factor: 4.226
Arunkumar SM, IJPRET, 2014; Volume 3 (2): 131-156

ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET

INTRODUCTION
A composite material is made by combining two or more materials to give a unique
combination of properties. The above definition is more general and can include metals alloys,
plastic co-polymers, minerals, and wood. Fiber-reinforced composite materials differ from the
above materials in that the constituent materials are different at the molecular level and are
mechanically separable. In bulk form, the constituent materials work together but remain in
their original forms. The final properties of composite materials are better than constituent
material properties.
The main concept of a composite is that it contains matrix materials. Typically, composite
material is formed by reinforcing fibers in a matrix resin as shown in Fig. 1. The reinforcements
can be fibers, particulates, or whiskers, and the matrix materials can be metals, plastics, or
ceramics.

Carbon/Epoxy Composite Material

The material utilized for this design project is carbon fibers in an epoxy matrix. It will be
implemented using lamina sheets of the material. Carbon fiber and epoxy are quite different
materials when their individual properties are viewed. The carbon fiber is made out of long,
thin sheets of carbon. It is a chemically inert rigid material that is difficult to stretch and
compress. On the other hand, epoxy is a thermosetting plastic, or resin that is liquid when
prepared but hardens and becomes rigid when is heated.
Carbon-epoxy materials are finding increased structural uses in areas such as aerospace,
structural engineering, automotive, and sporting goods applications.
The primary goal of this design project is to use the knowledge gained about composites and
their advantages to create a carbon fiber / epoxy pressure vessel. The materials utilized in this
project will consist of carbon / graphite fibers acting as reinforcement in an epoxy matrix
formed in several layers or lamina. These materials are usually flexible, and can be molded into
almost any desired shape in this case they will be molded into a cylinder and then baked in a
kiln or high pressure oven until both materials mesh together and become a single hard
structure.
Pressure Vessel
It is a closed container designed to hold gases or liquids at a pressure substantially
different from the ambient pressure. The pressure vessels may be thin or thick. When the ratio

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

132

The forces applied in the different directions of the pressure vessel are directly related to the magnitude of the pressure and are given below. 2. Assumptions for Thin Cylindrical Pressure Vessel The key assumptions used here are: wall thinness and geometric symmetries. 1.226 Arunkumar SM.ijpret. [12] = (ii) 3. 2014. Hoop stress Hoop stress is a circumferential loading of a cylindrical mechanical body. As a result. otherwise. When the vessel has closed ends the internal pressure acts on them to develop a force along the axis of the cylinder. The design of a pressure vessel is entirely reliant upon mechanics of materials.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. It is the circumferential stress in a cylindrically shaped part caused by internal or external pressure. Longitudinal stress or axial stress. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET of the plate thickness to mean radius of the pressure is less than 1/15 then the pressure vessel is termed as a thin pressure vessel. the geometry and the loading are cylindrically symmetric. Usually R/t >10. 1. When building a pressure vessel out of composite materials. Radial stress Radial stress in thin cylinder can be neglected as the radial pressure is not generally high and that radial pressure acts on a larger area. Available Online at www.  Pressure Vessel Theory Pressure vessel is a container designed to operate at pressures. Prediction of the ultimate strength of a designed vessel is done using various failure theories. Symmetries. and maximum stress and strain theory. IJPRET. we may assume that the stresses are uniform across the wall. The wall is assumed to be very thin compared to the other dimensions of the vessel. In cylindrical vessels. a thick pressure vessel. [12] (i) 2. some the theories employed to optimize strength and predict failure are the Tsia – Hill energy based interaction theory. Wall Thinness.com 133 .

226 Arunkumar SM.3.ijpret.850×10-6 Kg/mm3.6 MPa. Poisson’s ratio ν=0. =119.  Longitudinal stress =  Equivalent stress [12] = 68. The internal pressure. 2014.  Analytical calculation of the stress Inner Radius of pressure vessel r = 2585 mm. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET 3. young’s modulus of structural steel is E=2×10 5 MPa. IJPRET.933 MPa. Thickness of pressure vessel t=30 mm  Hoop stress =137. Inner diameter of pressure vessel is d = 5170 mm. Analysis of CFRP Composite Pressure Vessel for Various Fiber Orientation Angles The layered configuration is the most important characteristic of a composite material. denoted by P is uniform and everywhere positive. Features that may affect the symmetry assumptions are ignored. the layer thickness and the number of Available Online at www. the fiber orientation angle.com 134 . The layered configurations are determined by specifying individual layer properties and therefore the properties of the composite as a whole depends greatly on its layered configuration. 4.8667 MPa.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. Material is structural steel. Ignoring End Effects. density ρ=7. Uniform Internal Pressure. This includes supports and cylinder end caps. Cylinder length of pressure vessel is L = 8000 mm and Pressure vessel thickness is t = 30 to 100 mm. tensile yield strength 250 MPa. Pressure Vessel Model Data Internal pressure is P = 1. The material properties.40 MPa.

60 MPa. Therefore nine material properties are required for the purpose of the analysis. The maximum equivalent stress is 314.3. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET integration points per layer must be specified for individual the definition of the layered configuration to be complete. ± 60°. 8 shows the maximum and minimum equivalent stress of composite pressure vessel. in symmetrical stacking sequence. ± 75° and ± 90°. 11 shows the maximum and minimum equivalent stress of composite pressure vessel. Fig. The material properties for carbon/epoxy are listed in Table.75 MPa and minimum equivalent stress is 8.5 mm. The maximum deformation is 16. Material.41 MPa and minimum equivalent stress is 13.com 135 .  Fiber Angle [+30°/-30°/-30°/+30°] Fig. 9 shows the maximum and minimum principal stress of composite pressure vessel. The fibers are oriented for various fiber orientations such as ± 15°. For the hoop windings of the carbon fibers. 10 shows the maximum and minimum total deformation of composite pressure vessel.94 mm. The CFRP layers in the composite pressure vessels are assumed to be orthotropic. Each layer Thickness =12.10 MPa. the fibers are oriented at an angle of 0° with the axis of the cylindrical pressure vessel. 6 shows the enlarged view of angle of orientation of 4 layers of the composite pressure vessel. IJPRET.226 Arunkumar SM.49 mm and minimum deformation is 3.Carbon/Epoxy Results  Fiber Angle [+15°/-15°/-15°/+15°] Fig. The maximum equivalent stress is 248. The modeling is performed for the CFRP cylindrical pressure vessel for both. Thickness of composite pressure vessel =50 mm. ± 30°. The maximum stress is 130.0166 MPa. The cylindrical composite pressure vessel is designed for various fiber orientations.ijpret.42 mm. The maximum deformation is 27. the hoop and the helical windings of the carbon fiber. 7 shows the maximum and minimum total deformation of composite pressure vessel. ± 45°. Fig. 2014.44 mm and minimum deformation is 4. Available Online at www.69 MPa and minimum stress is -0.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. Fig. Fig.

com 136 .8 MPa and minimum equivalent stress is 24.66 MPa and minimum stress is 3. 30 to 32 we can observe that the middle principal stresses. Fig.2758 MPa.  Fiber Angle [+75°/-75°/-75°/+75°] Fig.  Fiber Angle [+45°/-45°/-45°/+45°] Fig.50 MPa.ijpret. The maximum deformation is 44. 18 shows the maximum and minimum principal stress of composite pressure vessel.03273 MPa.79 MPa and minimum stress is -0.097 MPa.56 mm.9 MPa. Fig.1399 MPa.91 mm and minimum deformation is 3. 14 shows the maximum and minimum equivalent stress of composite pressure vessel. 2014. 16 shows the maximum and minimum total deformation of composite pressure vessel. The maximum stress is 61.829 mm. The maximum stress is 63. Fig.42 MPa and minimum stress is 0. The maximum stress is 70. The maximum equivalent stress is 155.23 MPa and minimum equivalent stress is 16. The maximum stress is 103. strains and deformations are minimum for the fiber angle orientation of 45° for all pressure values. 13 shows the maximum and minimum total deformation of composite pressure vessel. Fig. 19 shows the maximum and minimum total deformation of composite pressure vessel.74 mm and minimum deformation is 1.865 mm. 21 shows the maximum and minimum principal stress of composite pressure vessel.226 Arunkumar SM. The maximum equivalent stress is 171. 12 shows the maximum and minimum principal stress of composite pressure vessel. Hence fiber angle orientation 45° is the optimizing angle for the composite pressure vessel  Fiber Angle [+60°/-60°/-60°/+60°] Fig. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Fig.68 MPa.  Fiber Angle [+90°/-90°/-90°/+90°] Available Online at www. Fig. The maximum deformation is 33. 17 shows the maximum and minimum equivalent stress of composite pressure vessel. Fig.91 MPa and minimum equivalent stress is 18. Fig. equivalent stresses. 15 shows the maximum and minimum principal stress of composite pressure vessel.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. 20 shows the maximum and minimum equivalent stress of composite pressure vessel.95 mm and minimum deformation is 6. The maximum deformation is 9.82 MPa and minimum stress is -0. The maximum equivalent stress is 137. IJPRET.

The maximum stress is 89.com 137 . 24 shows the maximum and minimum principal stress of composite pressure vessel.226 Arunkumar SM. The classical DOE methods were developed for laboratory and field tests which have random error sources while the modern DOE methods relate to deterministic computer simulations.96 mm and minimum deformation is 0.ijpret. 4. IJPRET. The maximum equivalent stress is 139. Input parameters can either come from Design Modeler or from various CAD systems. The maximum deformation is 45. 2014. length. The mass of the composite pressure vessel is reduced when compared to steel for same volume and surface area.094075MPa. These parameters can be in terms of thickness. The output parameters are calculated in Mechanical and can for example be in terms of total mass. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Fig. shows the properties of structural steel and composite pressure vessel. 22 shows the maximum and minimum total deformation of composite pressure vessel. etc. Fig. etc.  Design Explorer Design Explorer is based on a method called Design of Experiments (DOE). stress or frequency response.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. the DOE techniques can be classified as classical and modern DOE methods. 23 shows the maximum and minimum equivalent stress of composite pressure vessel. This together with various optimization methods helps the program to develop an optimized structure based on selected input and output parameters. After setting up an analysis with a number of input parameters and out parameters there are the steps that can be run within DesignXplorer:  Design of Experiments  Response surface  Optimization  Six Sigma Analysis Available Online at www.259 mm. Weight Reduction The Table. They can also come from Mechanical in terms of forces. material properties.84MPa and minimum stress is -0.706 MPa. Design of Experiments Study In general.46 MPa and minimum equivalent stress is 9. Fig.

CONCLUSION Finite element method was an advantage to design a pressure vessel more effectively. These 27 Design Points were then run automatically to make output at these points. is default meta-model which creates a Standard Response Surface. Fig.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. A DOE with 27 design points was started and the results were investigated. It can be seen Equivalent stress decreases at ply 1and 4 angle between 85 to 90 degree angles. Initially Metal Pressure vessel is done using Analytical and FEA method. 29 shows the complete workflow for optimization study. Volume 3 (2): 131-156  ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Optimization of Pressure Vessel Ply Angle Fig. In this project from the CAD creation to ANSYS simulation steps performed within the Workbench framework. Goal Driven Optimization (GDO) was started. ± 30°. Available Online at www.com 138 . No manual involvement was needed to run calculations at these points and right from geometry modification to determining the value of the output parameter. 26 to 28 shows 3D response surfaces variation of the output parameter maximum von-Misses stress as a result of variation of five input parameters. The 1ststep towards GDO was to make a Design of experiments. Then the ANSYS results show that the fiber angle 45° is optimizing angle for the composite pressure vessel.ijpret. Then Design of Experiments optimization study was carried out. ± 75° and ± 90°. Table 5 to 7 shows these ranges. The range in which the two design parameters should change to get the most optimized design was chosen. The modeling is performed for the CFRP cylindrical pressure vessel for the fibers oriented for various fiber orientations such as ± 15°. in symmetrical stacking sequence. the complete process was carried out automatically. IJPRET. the goal of the study was to optimize the angle in the permissible range of input design parameters to minimum Equivalent Stress. a finite element analysis approach is employed using ANSYS. As mentioned above. This is effective when the variation of the output is smooth with regard to the input parameters. In this study. Once the complete ANSYS process was set. ± 45°. The cylindrical composite pressure vessel is modeled for four uniform thickness layers.226 Arunkumar SM. A Central Composite Design (CCD) based DOE was setup. which created nine Design Points for the identified five input design parameters. ± 60°. Then the cylindrical composite pressure vessel is designed for various fiber orientations. Response surfaces in 2D and 3D were generated from the results of the 27 design points. 2014. On the full second order polynomial method which uses different regression analysis to obtain a polynomial Standard Response Surface 2nd-Order Polynomial.

Available Online at www.com 139 . 2014. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET A Central Composite Design (CCD) based on DOE was setup. 2 Geometric dimensions for one half pressure vessel. As mentioned above. which created nine Design Points for the identified five input design parameters. However comparing similar thickness of the pressure vessel the weight of the composite is reduced by approximately 80% Fig.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. These 27 Design Points were then run automatically to make output at these points. So shell design is safe. IJPRET. the goal of the study was to optimize the angle in the permissible range of input design parameters to minimum Equivalent Stress. which is similar to range of manual optimization. 1 Formation of a composite material using fibers and resin. 30mm 5170mm Axis of pressure vessel 2585mm Pressure vessel end 4000mm Fig. From the finite element analysis report of ± 45° the maximum stress obtained in each lamina is less than the allowable working strength of the CFRP lamina.ijpret.226 Arunkumar SM. It shows the ± 45° fibre angle gives less stress.

Available Online at www.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. 4 Pressure Vessel model for analysis and Boundary conditions. 2014. 3 Pressure vessel created by ANSYS design modeler and meshed by ANSYS design meshing. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Fig. IJPRET. Fig.com 140 .ijpret.226 Arunkumar SM.

Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Fig.ijpret. IJPRET.com 141 . 5 Equivalent (Von-Mises) Stress from ANSYS. 2014.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. Available Online at www.226 Arunkumar SM.

6 Four layers fiber angle [+15°/-15°/-15°/+15°] of pressure vessel.226 Arunkumar SM. 2014. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET 1st Layer +15º Enlarged view 2nd Layer -15º Enlarged view 3rd Layer -15º Enlarged view 4th Layer +15º Enlarged view Fig. IJPRET.ijpret.com 142 .Research Article Impact Factor: 4. Available Online at www.

Available Online at www. IJPRET.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. Fig. Fig. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 Fig. Fig.ijpret.com 143 . 10 Total Deformation [+30° / -30°]s. 11 Equivalent Stress [+30° / -30°]s. 7 Total Deformation [+15° / -15°]s. 2014. 8 Equivalent Stress [+15° / -15°]s.226 Arunkumar SM. ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Fig. 9 Principal Stress [+15° / -15°]s.

Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Fig. Fig.ijpret. Available Online at www.com 144 . Fig.226 Arunkumar SM.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. 15 Principal Stress [+45° / -45°]s. IJPRET. 12 Principal Stress [+30° / -30°]s. 14 Equivalent Stress [+45° / -45°]s. 13 Total Deformation [+45° / -45°]s. Fig. 2014.

2014. ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Fig.226 Arunkumar SM. 16 Total Deformation [+60° / -60°]s. 17 Equivalent Stress [+60° / -60°]s. 20 Equivalent Stress [+75° / -75°]s. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 Fig.ijpret. Available Online at www. Fig.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. IJPRET. Fig.com 145 . 19 Total Deformation [+75° / -75°]s. 18 Principal Stress [+60° / -60°]s. Fig.

Fig.ijpret. Fig.226 Arunkumar SM. 23 Equivalent Stress [+90° / -90°]s.Research Article Impact Factor: 4.com 146 . 21 Principal Stress [+75° / -75°]s. Fig. Available Online at www. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Fig. 22 Total Deformation [+90° / -90°]s. 24 Principal Stress [+90° / -90°]s. 2014. IJPRET.

ijpret.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Optimized Design Geometry Initial CAD update Optimization update DesignXplorer update Design Modeler Mesh WB solver ANSYS Meshing ANSYS Mechanical ANSYS Workbench Fig. 25 Workflow for optimization. 26 Response surfaces ply angle 1 & 3 variation V/s Maximum Stress. IJPRET. Fig.226 Arunkumar SM. Available Online at www. 2014. 27 Response surfaces ply angle 1 & 4 variation V/s Maximum Stress.com 147 . Fig.

Research Article Impact Factor: 4. 2014.226 Arunkumar SM. 28 Response surfaces ply angle 2& 3 variation V/s Maximum Stress. Analytical Equivalent stress MPa FEA Equivalent stress MPa Equ ival ent stre ss MP a Pressure vessel thickness mm Fig. 29 Comparison of FEA and analytical Results for different thickness of Structural steel pressure vessel. IJPRET.com 148 .ijpret. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Fig. Available Online at www.

Research Article Impact Factor: 4. Available Online at www. 31 Equivalent Stress v/s angle of fiber orientation for different pressure. 2014.6 MPa 40 20 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 Angle of fiber orientation (Degree) 90 Fig. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Middle Principal Stress MPa 140 120 100 80 Pressure 60 1. 350 Equivalent Stress MPa 300 250 200 Pressure 150 1.com 149 . IJPRET.6 MPa 100 50 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 Angle of fiber orientation (Degree) 90 Fig.226 Arunkumar SM. 30 Middle Principal Stress v/s angle of fiber orientation for different pressure.ijpret.

98 45.96 39. IJPRET.64 60 2585 34.6 MPa 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 Angle of fiber orientation (Degree) Fig.77 90 2585 22.Deformation mm Research Article Impact Factor: 4.466 68.775 51. Comparison of Thickness v/s Equivalent Stress of structural steel. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Pressure 1. t Thickness Inner radius mm Longitudinal Stress MPa Hoop Stress MPa mm Equivalent Stress MPa 30 2585 68.866 119. Table.70 44.1.36 82.54 59.226 Arunkumar SM.70 70 2585 29.087 51.361 35. 32 Deformation v/s angle of fiber orientation for different pressure.68 41.17 80 2585 25.933 137.40 89.com 150 .80 Available Online at www.54 50 2585 41.80 100 2585 20.70 103.722 71. 2014.935 59.ijpret.40 40 2585 51.

50 -4.17 53.2 80 44.3.6 70 51.80 42.ijpret. Thickness Analytical Equivalent Stress MPa t mm FEA Equivalent Error % Stress MPa 30 119. IJPRET.226 Arunkumar SM. Comparison of analytical and FEA Results of structural steel.21E+05 MPa Young’s Modulus in Y direction 8600 MPa Young’s Modulus in Z direction 8600 MPa Poisson’s Ratio XY 0.70 62.4 100 35.27 Poisson’s Ratio YZ 0. Material properties for Carbon/Epoxy from ANSYS engineering data.87 -5.4 Poisson’s Ratio XZ 0.96 40 89.54 92.86 90 39.82 38. 2014.40 -5.1 60 59.37 -6.94 -2.34 -7.2.58 -4.Research Article Impact Factor: 4.27 Shear Modulus XY 4700 MPa Shear Modulus YZ 3100 MPa Shear Modulus XZ 4700 MPa Available Online at www.0 Table. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Table.64 74.com 151 .54 50 71. Young’s Modulus in X direction 1.71 -3.40 122.77 47.

74 [+90°/-90°/-90°/+90°] 89.376 x 109 mm3 Surface Area  1.3 Kg 413860.376 x 109 mm3  5.82 155.84 139.49 [+45°/-45°/-45°/+45°] 63. density.68 314.85 x 10-6 Kg/mm3 Available Online at www.com  78578. 2014.10 N 1. IJPRET.     Properties  Mass   Structural Steel Carbon/Epoxy  42202 Kg  Weight  Density  Volume  5.49 x 10-6 Kg/mm3 152 .0752 x 108 mm2   8010.4.0752 x 108 mm2  1.79 171. comparison of mass.45 45.65 248. weight.75 16. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Table. Angle of fibre Principal Stress MPa Equivalent Stress MPa orientation Deformation mm [+15°/-15°/-15°/+15°] 130.80 9.23 44.95 [+75°/-75°/-75°/+75°] 70.226 Arunkumar SM.912 [+60°/-60°/-60°/+60°] 61.ijpret.240 N 7.Research Article Impact Factor: 4.5.42 137.41 27. volume and surface area of the structural steel and carbon/epoxy pressure vessel.91 33.96 Table.44 [+30°/-30°/-30°/+30°] 103. Results of carbon/epoxy pressure vessel for different orientation angles.

Available Online at www. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Table 6. Table.com 153 .8. 2014.7.ijpret.226 Arunkumar SM.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. Table. Composite Ply angle upper and lower bound for 1st and 4th layer. IJPRET. Composite Ply angle upper and lower bound for 2 nd and 3rd layer. Ply Thickness upper and lower bound.

5 214. IJPRET.5 184.37495 199.25 -32.62505 145.226 Arunkumar SM.75 57.ijpret.75 -32.7312 3 90 -45 -45 45 12. Run Modeling Ply angle Modeling Modeling Modeling ply angle Thickness Equivalent stress No 1 Ply angle 2 Ply angle 4 mm MPa 3 1 45 -45 -45 45 12.75 -57.Research Article Impact Factor: 4.75 -57.7434 11 45 -45 -45 45 20 85.75 32.9549 Available Online at www.75 32.25 32.5 155.4963 8 45 -45 -45 0 12.801 19 57. 2014.com 154 .75 -57.25 -57.25 32.5 137.75 -57.62505 164.5513 21 57.25 14.75 -32.4567 16 32.37495 291.25 -32.8024 2 0 -45 -45 45 12.37495 171.8908 6 45 -45 -90 45 12.5 122.62505 122.0172 7 45 -45 0 45 12.9963 20 32.25 32.75 14.75 -57.37495 300.25 10.3436 17 57. DOE Runs.5 225.25 10.25 -57.25 14.62505 143.456 18 32.75 57.25 32.75 -32.25 -57.75 10.5 157.25 10.25 14.1427 15 57.25 -57.5614 5 45 0 -45 45 12.6497 10 45 -45 -45 45 5 345.75 32.08644 12 32.1557 13 57. 9.0916 14 32.75 -32.75 32.25 14.37495 183.2867 4 45 -90 -45 45 12.62505 197. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET Table.25 10.25 -32.24 -32.25 -57.5 241.75 -57.5386 9 45 -45 -45 90 12.75 -57.5 111.

75 -32.75 14.62505 141. REFERENCES 1.25 -32.75 -57.75 14.75 -32.25 -57.4392 23 57.8791 25 57.62505 191. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET 22 32. IJPRET. Moscow.com 155 . Table.4225 26 32. (1981). A. 2. Result for optimized design of pressure vessel. Roy. G.25 -32.75 10.75 -32.75 10. K.25 -57.25 -57.25 -32. Optimization of stress.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. S.37495 172. Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic Body. Journal of Reinforced Plastic and Composites. T.226 Arunkumar SM.37495 172.75 14. 10.25 57. A Design Study of Multilayered Composite Spherical Pressure Vessels.75 -32.75 57.. Massard.2353 27 57.25 57.25 57.ijpret.75 10. 11.582 Table.25 57.25 -32.75 57.62505 106. 2014. Lekhnitskii. VII.37495 227.8128 24 32. 479-493 Available Online at www.(1992). Mir Publishers. N.

76. et al. Mirza. 203-312. 55-59. K. (1999). 6. Dynamic Response of Multidirectional Composites in Hygrothermal Environments. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. The Effect of Cyclic Hygrothermal Conditions on the Stresses near the Surface of a Thick Composite Pipe. Design data hand book. 16. 53. & Kim. E. Moss. Amin Paykani. Composites Part A. (2005). S. (2002).K. Sun. IJPRET. P. 2012. Roychowdhury.Research Article Impact Factor: 4. K. Chakraborty. (2002). & Vautrin. 567-570. Pressure vessel design manual. Y. Mahadevan. Verijenko.. S. Maiti. J. 13. Design of machine elements. 14. Design and Burst Pressure Analysis of CFRP Composite Pressure Vessel for Various Fiber Orientations Angles. Analysis of Multi-Layered Composite Cylinders Under Hygrothermal Loading. (2001). G. Finite element analysis of composite high-pressure hydrogen storage pressure vessels. Mackerle. Size Effect on the Fiber Strength of Composite Pressure Vessels. Pandit. 62. Composite Structures. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. 143-151. Medhavi Sinha.com 156 . S. Volume 3 (2): 131-156 ISSN: 2319-507X IJPRET 3. Bryan. 64. & Sinha. Machine design databook. Javad Marzbanrad. & Wang. Balaveera Reddy. Bursting Problem of Filament Wound Composite Pressure Vessels. Sayman. 1-11.226 Arunkumar SM. S. 11.(1995). S. McGrew. T. F. 329-338. 4. ASME. M. Composite Science and Technology. Optimization of multilayered composite pressure vessels using exact elasticity solution. C. K. V. K. C.. A.. Adali. for mechanical engineers. V. Fiber-Reinforced Composite Cylindrical Vessel with Lugs. the McGrew Hill companies. G. 2004. A.. Composite Structures. (2003). 2008. gulf professional publishers. PVP-V302. Jacquemin. Amir Afkar. X. O. 10. Du. B. D. Rao. Noori. 79. Dr. N. V. 1-26. Available Online at www. Composites for the Pressure Vessels Industry. 2014. S. 15. 8. G.Hill. 59. (2004). S. 489-498. Mostafa Ghajar. 9.. 12. 7. K. Composite Structures. 5. Hwang. 2004.ijpret. Finite Elements in the Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping. an Addendum: a Bibliography (1998-2001). Hong. Deniss R..