Creep Analysis of a Thick Walled Spherical Pressure Vessel

Considering Large Strain
by
Tushar Kanti Acharya
A Project Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Approved:
_________________________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Project Adviser

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Hartford, Connecticut
April, 2012
(For Graduation May, 2012)

© Copyright 2012
by
Tushar Kanti Acharya
All Rights Reserved

ii

CONTENTS
Creep Analysis of a Thick Walled Spherical Pressure Vessel Considering Large
Strain……………………………………………………………...…………………...…..i
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iv 
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... v 
LIST OF SYMBOLS (WITH UNITS) ............................................................................. vi 
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... viii 
1.  Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1 
2.  Theory .......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.

Assumptions………………………………………………………...……3

2.2

Derivation of Creep Strain Rate Equation…………….………….….3

2.3

Stress and Strain Distribution…………………………………………….5

2.4

Norton's Creep Law………………………………………………………5

2.5

Equivalent Stress  ……………………………………………………...7

2.6

Radial Stress  r and Effective Strain Rate as Functions of Radius……..7

2.7

Small Strain Solution for Radial and Tangential Stresses………………..8

3.  Results of Analytical Formulae ................................................................................. 11 
4.  Finite Element Analysis and Results ......................................................................... 15
4.1

Equations and Input for ANSYS Analysis……………………………...15

4.2

Coarse Mesh Results…………………………………………………….18

4.3

Fine Mesh Results……………………………………………………….23

4.4

Coarse Mesh vs. Fine Mesh……………………………………………..28

5.  Discussion .................................................................................................................. 30 
6.  Conclusions................................................................................................................ 31 
7.  References.................................................................................................................. 32
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………33

iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table Description

Page

1

Data for Exact Solution

11

2

Data for Analysis

16

3

Coarse and Fine Mesh Comparison

17

4

von Mises Stress Comparison (Coarse Mesh,2300days)

19

5

von Mises Creep Strain Comparison (Coarse Mesh,2300days)

20

6

von Mises Stress Comparison (Coarse Mesh, 2300days)

21

7

von Mises Creep Strain Comparison (Fine Mesh, ε=1.03)

23

8

von Mises Stress Comparison (Fine Mesh,3000days)

24

9

von Mises Creep Strain Comparison (Fine Mesh, ε=0.6)

25

10 von Mises Stress Comparison (Fine Mesh,3000days)

26

11 Percentage Result Deviation of Finite Element model vs. Exact Solution 29

iv

von Mises Creep strain at internal radius for Time=3000days 14 24 Fine Mesh.LIST OF FIGURES Figure Description Page 1 Creep Rate vs. von Mises Creep Stresses at internal radius.Exact Solution 29 v . Fine w. with ε=0. with ε=0.0 14 5 Stress Distribution at Various Radii of Vessel for εa=0. von Mises Creep strain at internal radius for Time=2300days 16 25 26 Fine Mesh. both at Internal Radius 11 2 Strain at Internal Radius vs. von Mises Creep strain at internal radius for Time=2300days 11 20 21 Coarse Mesh.56 and Time=2300days 22 12 Comparison between Coarse Mesh and Exact Solution Results 23 13 Fine Mesh. Strain.r.62 14 6 A Hemispherical part. Time 12 3 Tangential Strain Rate ε't at various Radii of Spherical Vessel 13 4 Stress Distribution at Various Radii of Vessel for εa=0. with ε=1. von Mises Creep Stresses at internal radius.6 and Time=2300days 27 17 Comparison between Fine model and Exact Solution 28 18 Comparison between Coarse vs.93 and Time=3000days 10 Course Mesh. von Mises Creep strain at internal radius 19 9 Coarse Mesh. with ε=0. von Mises Creep Stresses at internal radius. von Mises Creep Stresses at internal radius.t.0 and Time=3000days 15 Fine. inner and outer radius are 20in and 100in 17 7 A Hemispherical meshing shown with SOLID187 18 8 Coarse Mesh.

C3.z coordinate axis Mechanical Data E Young’s Modulus (psi) B.n experimental material constants c material constant (psi) Pressure p internal pressure of spherical vessel (psi) Strain and Strain Rate ε effective strain ε’ effective strain rate a effective strain at inner radius a b effective strain at outer radius b  a' strain rate at inner radius a  b' strain rate at outer radius b εr radial strain εt tangential strain Stress  effective stress (psi) a effective stress at radius a (psi) b effective stress at radius b (psi) vi .C2.C1.LIST OF SYMBOLS (WITH UNITS) Functions f ( ' ) function of effective creep strain Geometry: a inner radius of sphere (inches) b outer radius of sphere (inches) r radius of sphere at random position (inches) r’ an element at radius r with further very small displacement u x.y.

r radial stress (psi) t tangential stress (psi)  FH effective stress per Finnie and Heller (psi)  rFH radial stress per Finnie and Heller (psi)  tFH tangential stress per Finnie and Heller (psi) Time t time (seconds) vii .

The analysis and numerical example will aid the designers in the prediction of correct creep strains. creep strains and strain rates. In engineering design predicting the behavior of creep over the long term is important.ABSTRACT In this report. a finite element approach has been implemented using ANSYS. Creep analyses of thick-walled spherical pressure vessels subjected to internal and or external pressure are important in solid mechanics and in engineering applications. The infinitesimal (small) strain discussion by Finnie and Heller (1959) was also considered for comparison. Spherical vessels are used as pressure vessels in power plants and in petrochemical industry. strain rates and stresses in cases where large creep deformations of spherical pressure vessels are permissible. viii .K. the creep analysis of a thick walled spherical pressure vessel made of a homogeneous and isotropic material and subjected to internal pressure is considered. In addition. Bhatnagar and V. The general theory developed by N. Arya (1973) has been applied to the solution of a specific problem using Norton’s law of creep.S. The strains considered are assumed to be large which necessitates the use of finite strain theory for evaluating the expressions for stresses.

strains and creep rates. so far.1. These appear to be the main reasons why the published literature. But under longer time creep deformation conditions the strains keep accumulating and may reach a value so large that the use of infinitesimal strain theory for the evaluation of stresses and strains is no longer valid. the assumption that the strains are infinitesimal yields values of stresses and strains which are in good agreement with the experimental observations. membrane forces and bending moments of the nodes cannot be easily expressed as due to implicit functions of strain-rate because of the high nonlinearity of stress-strain relation in creep. for the case of plastic flow of thick-walled tubes with large strains. For the elastic deformations and the early stages of creep. The large amount of previous work has been concerned with the investigation of stresses and strains in the wall of the vessel assuming the infinitesimal strain theory to be valid. under longer time exposures the deformations may attain a value where small strains can no longer be assumed. This study is based on a steady state law for creep together with the assumption of a homogeneous. . With this in mind an attempt has been made by Bhatnagar and Arya (1) to solve the problem of creep deformation of thick-walled spherical vessels under internal pressure considering large strains. In finite element analysis. While these assumptions are sufficiently accurate for small strains. developed in (2). has been extended for application to the creep deformation of a thick-walled spherical pressure vessel. based both on infinitesimal and finite strain theories are presented following the descriptions in (1) and (3). some simplifications have been usually introduced. is directed mainly towards problems of simpler nature such as hollow hemispherical pressurized vessel. Even in these cases. The finite strain theory. Most studies assume that the strains are small and that deformations can be referred to the original dimensions of the vessels rather than the instantaneous deformed values. isotropic material. In this project various expressions for stresses. incompressible. Introduction The problem of creep deformation of thick-walled spherical pressure vessels has been studied previously (3).

In chapter 2 below the large formulation of the problem is first presented and followed by the small strain formula. Chapter 4 contains the finite element model results. Chapter 3 then presents results obtained using the above formulae. 2 .

It may also be concluded from symmetry that the only displacement in this problem is radial and is such that concentric spherical surfaces remain concentric and spherical after deformation. are related by σ =f(ε’). The volume of the material remains constant (condition of incompressibility). 2. 2. The ratios of the principal shear strain-rates to the principal shear stresses are equal. 4. 3. respectively. respectively. the mechanical equilibrium equation is 3 . 2. The effective stress  and effective strain (creep) rate  . Consider a spherical vessel of internal and external radii a and b. Creep has no effect on the density of the material as summation of creep rates in the three principal directions is zero.2 [1] Derivation of Creep Strain Rate Equation By symmetry. Considering the radial equilibrium in the deformed state. 1. where creep is dominant the following assumptions are made.2. The material is homogeneous and isotropic. the principal stresses in the two tangential directions are equal. The large strain formulation follows (1) and small strain development follows (3). subjected to internal pressure p. Theory These chapter presents the development of large and small strain theory of creep of hollow spherical pressure vessel. We shall denote the stresses and creep rates in radial and tangential directions by subscripts r and t.1 Assumptions To investigate the deformation behavior of the vessel at high temperatures.

r' d r  2( t   r ) dr ' [2] The equation of compatibility is r  t  e r  t  1 r [3] The effective stress σ and effective strain ε equations are   t r [4] and 2 3   ( t   r ) [5] The condition of incompressibility is 2 t   r [6] The creep strain rate at any radius r as a function of given creep rate at the inner radius a. is a 3 ( ) e ( 3 / 2 ) a r  '  a' a 3 1  ( ) (e ( 3 / 2 ) a  1) r [7] Relation between creep strain rates and the creep strains is 1  e  ( 3 / 2 ) ' ' a  ( 3 / 2 ) a 1 e [8] The equation for internal pressure p in terms of creep rate as ' 2 a p   d ' 3  'b  ' [9] Where 4 .

both at the inner radius a . the tangential stress at any radius r is given as ' 2 a  t   p   d '  f ( ' ) 3 ' ' [12] The creep rate  ' t . provided the and creep rate  a . at any radius r is given as ' 2 a  r   p   d ' 3 ' ' [11] And. can then be obtained as a 3 ( ) e ( 3 / 2 ) a 1 r  t'   a' 2 1  ( a ) 3 (e (3 / 2) a  1) r 2. the effective stress  and creep rate  ' are assumed to be related by Norton’s Law 5 .3 Stress and Strain Distribution The effective stress  can be obtained as a function of effective strain a r from Eqn. in the tangential direction. ' The equation for radial stress  r .1. 2. are given.a ( ) 3 e ( 3 / 2 ) a b  b'   a' a 1  ( ) 3 (e (3 / 2) a  1) b [10] is the creep rate at the outer radius.4 [13] Norton’s Creep Law Under secondary creep conditions.

Integrating Eqn. given by a 3 ( ) e ( 3 / 2 ) a 3n p n B 1/ n n b 0 [1  { a 3 (3 / 2) a } ]  2n  cn n n t 1  ( ) (e  1) b a [18] This expression can then be numerically integrated to compute the strain at the inner radius for any given time. the strain  a can be obtained as a function of time t. '  B(  ) c n Where B . a  a' [16] at r  a as a function of the strain is given as a 3 ( ) e( 3 / 2 ) a 3 p B b  'a  n n n [1  { }1 / n ] n a 3 2 c n 1  ( ) (e (3 / 2 ) a  1) b n n [17] Note that the creep rate is function of the creep strain. 6 . the equation for internal pressure p in terms of  a .10.9.17 and simplifying. n [14] and c are experimental constants and c has the dimensions of  . the creep rate at r  a .14 can be rewritten as  c B (1 / n )  ' (1 / n ) [15] From Eqn. ' ' B and n is p 2 c n ' (1 / n ) ' (1 / n ) (    ) a b 3B (1 / n ) From this and Eqn.  c .  b . Eqn.

17 in Eqn.7 in Eqn. to obtain  a' ( 2 c r  p   ' 3 B (1/ n ) '  p 1n ) n d '  2 c 1 / n  a' n [  ' ] ' (1 / n ) 3B [21] 7 .6 Radial Stress r [19] [20] and Effective Strain Rate as Functions of Radius To find an expression for the radial stress at various radii of the vessel we insert Eqn.5 Equivalent Stress  To find an alternate numerical solution for Equivalent stress at various radii of vessel we use Eqn.15.2.15 in Eqn.11. to obtain a 3 ( ) e ( 3 / 2 ) a  r   1 c/ n [ ]1 / n  a' a 3 B 1  ( ) (e ( 3 / 2 ) a  1) r Inserting the expression for  a' from Eqn.19 a 3 ( ) e ( 3 / 2 ) a r [ ]1 / n a 3 1  ( ) (e( 3 / 2 ) a  1) 3p r  a 3 2n ( ) e ( 3 / 2 ) a b [1  { }1 / n ] a 3 1  ( ) (e (3 / 2) a  1) b 2.

1  ( )3 (e (3 / 2) a  1) r [23] Combining Eqn. since this ' [ '(1 / n ) ] a'   a' (1 / n )   '(1 / n ) [22] Using Eqn.11.21.17 and Eqn. The elastic stresses in a hollow sphere under internal pressure are given by the Lame Equations pa 3 b3 t  3 (1  3 ) b  a3 2r [25] 8 .7 Small Strain Solution for Radial and Tangential Stresses [3] The expressions obtained for strain elastic and creep deformations are presented below.However.24 is a closed form expression of Eqn. 2.23. we get a 3 ( ) e ( 3 / 2 ) a r [1  { }1 / n ] a 3 1  ( ) (e (3 / 2 ) a  1) r  r   p[1  ] a 3 ( 3 / 2 ) a ( ) e b [1  { }1 / n ] a 1  ( ) 3 (e (3 / 2 ) a  1) b [24] Eqn. we get a 3 ( 3 / 2 ) a ( ) e (1 / n ) (1 / n )  a' r [ ' ] '   'a [1  { }(1 / n ) ] a .7 in Eqn.22. Eqn. which is used below in Fig-4 and 5 to show the stress distribution at various radii.

pa 3 b3 r  3 (1  3 ) b  a3 r [26] Only two stresses need to be specified. we have  ' r  2 't  C r3 [27] In which C is a constant. radial stress  rFH  rFH   p [2. where u’ is the rate at which a radius r is changing. the corresponding expressions for creep deformation are given. since by symmetry the principal stresses in the two tangential directions are equal. The condition of incompressibility and  ' t becomes  ' r  du ' / dr  u ' / r .29 in Eqn. p187]  rFH   p at ra is [(b / r )3 / n  1] [(b / a )3 / n  1] [29] so that d rFH p 3 (b) 3 / n [ ] ( ) dr n [(b / a) 3 / n  1] 3nn r [30] Results obtained using Eqn. p186] is r d rFH  2( tFH   rFH ) dr [28] For a thick-walled creeping sphere under internal pressure and  rFH  0 at r  b . the tangential stress is obtained as 9 . Now.29 are shown in Fig-4 and Fig-5 for the assumption of infinitesimal small strains for radial stresses. Eqn7-36. Eqn7-35. Substituting Eqn.28. Finnie & Heller [2] obtained theoretical expressions for creep stresses in spherical vessel under small strain conditions assuming Norton’s Law. The equilibrium equation per Finnie and Heller [2.

10 .31 and Eqn. tFH b (3  2n) ] 1 ( )3 / n [ r d r r n 2    r  p.32 can be used to find the tangential stress in the spherical pressure vessel for small strain conditions. [(b / a) 3 / n  1] 2 dr [31] and the equivalent stress can be obtained as  FH   tFH   rFH [32] Eqn.

000 psi Fig-1 shows the effective creep rate  ' a at the internal radius a calculated in Excel from Eqn. Results of Analytical Formulae Using the formulation in chapter 2 above and the data considered by Bhatnagar and Arya [1] and Rimrott [4] the creep deformation of a spherical vessel was investigated.17 and plotted against the creep strain  a at the internal radius. Note that the creep strain rate increases with increasing creep strain. The following values of constants were taken.E-12 /day σc 1000psi n 6 b/a 5 p 40. Table-1: Data for Exact Solution Descriptions Data B 5.3. Fig-1: Creep Rate Vs Strain. both at Internal Radius 11 .

76.56 and 0. 12 . 0. It is also observed that the tangential creep strain rate decreases first quickly then slowly towards zero with distance from the inner radius of sphere to the outer radius. Time The tangential creep rate  't at various radii of the vessel was calculated from Eqn.Fig-2 shows the computed creep strain as a function of time obtained by numerical integration of Eqn. and is shown in Fig-3 for three values of the effective creep strain at the inner radius  a viz.18. the tangential creep strain rate increases with time.13 and Eqn.17. From Fig-3 it is observed that for all radii.24. Fig-2: Strain at Internal Radius vs. 0. Moreover the figure also shows that the creep strain rate is not constant but increases with time. The graph clearly indicates that the effective creep strain increases with time.

The stress distribution in the wall of the vessel for  a  0. 31 and 32).29. 20 and 24 at time zero. tangential and equivalent stresses for small strain described by Finnie and Heller [2] are also plotted in Fig-5 (Eqns. As expected.29. 13 . Also the radial. In this case.4. tangential and equivalent stresses for small strain described by Finnie and Heller [2] are shown (Eqn. the results are very close since the computed strain correction is negligible in this case. The radial. 31 and 32). Here stress distributions are shown following a considerable amount of deformation. larger differences exist between the predictions of small and large strain theories.Fig-3: Tangential Strain Rate ε't at various Radii of Spherical Vessel Fig-4 shows the distributions of radial tangential and equivalent stresses in the wall of the vessel as obtained from Eqn.62 is shown in Fig-5.

Fig-4: Stress Distribution at Various Radii of Vessel for εa=0.0 Fig-5: Stress Distribution at Various Radii of Vessel for εa=0.62 14 .

Although the analysis are made for a hemisphere and clamped to annular surface. 15 [33] .4. and z directions. A hemisphere model was analyzed. stress stiffening. The finite element model was created using ANSYS Student version 13 and the Norton Creep theory was applied. y. [10] SOLID187 gives better approximation over Axi-symmetric element PLANE182. hence it is used for the analysis. the method is quite general and other types of shells boundary conditions and geometries can be treated similarly. 4. The element is defined by 10 nodes having three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the nodal x. creep. and large strain capabilities. large deflection. hyperelasticity. Norton’s Law (Eqn. The element has plasticity.1 Equations and Input for ANSYS Analysis For Finite Element Analysis using the program ANSYS. SOLID187 element is a higher order 3-D. It also has a mixed formulation capability for simulating deformations of nearly incompressible elasto-plastic materials. Finite Element Analysis and Results In this project a finite element model was developed to compare with the results of Bhatnagar and Arya. In ANSYS the vessel was modeled as a hollow hemisphere (Fig-6) and SOLID187 elements were used for meshing (Fig-7).14 above) is written as (ANSYS Creep Model 10)  '  (C1 ) C exp( 2 Where C1  B  cn . and fully incompressible hyper-elastic materials.  C3 B )  ( n ) n c T C2  n and C3  0 The input data included in Table-2 were used in the calculations. SOLID187 has a quadratic displacement behavior and is well suited to modeling irregular meshes and non-linear problems. tetrahedral 10-node element.

45) 5. The hemisphere considered is a part of a thick spherical vessel under high internal pressure of 40. so that rigid body motion was avoided.5E6 psi Poisson’s Ratio 0. E 5.3 0. The results are shown below.000 psi 40.Table-2: Data for Analysis Descriptions First Set Analysis Data Second Set Analysis Data B 5.E-30 5. The inner radius is 20in and the outer radius of sphere is 100in. In Fig-6 the hemispherical part is shown.E-12 /day 5.45) 6 6 C3(Eqn.5E6 psi 5. p 40. A sample ANSYS input file is included in the Appendix.E-12 /day c 1000psi 1000psi n 6 6 C1 (Eqn. A displacement DY=0 was applied to the circular plane of the hemi-sphere. which was considered for the analysis.E-30 C2(Eqn.45) 0 0 Internal Radius. p is applied to the inner surface of the sphere. b 100in 100in Internal Pressure.000 psi. The analysis was done for two sets of data. 16 . Pressure. a 20in 20in Outer Radius.3 Number of Days to be 3000 2300 analyzed In ANSYS the implicit Norton Creep model (Model 10) was selected in Material modeling and considered half of a hollow sphere in analysis. 2300 days and 3000 days.000 psi Young’s Modulous.

Table-3 shows the resulting discretization in each case. Table-3: Coarse and Fine Mesh Comparison Mesh Type in Model 4 Line Subdivision Elements Nodes 643 1144 1336 2223 (Coarse Mesh) 5 Line Subdivision (Fine Mesh) 17 .Fig-6: A Hemispherical part. In this paper results obtained using 4 and 5 subdivisions for each main line in the geometry are compared. The increase in number of elements increases the time required for solutions. inner and outer radius are 20in and 100in Fig-7 shows the meshed model.

Fig-8 also shows that the creep strain rate increases with time in agreement with the previous result (Fig.0 for 2984days. The slope approximately matches that of the Exact Solution per Bhatnagar and Arya’s.-1).2 Coarse Mesh Results Results obtained using ANSYS with the coarse mesh consisting of 643 elements are now presented.Fig-7: A hemispherical meshing shown with SOLID187 elements 4. 18 .93 while per Exact Solution the creep strain is 1. Fig-8 shows that the von Mises creep strain at the internal radius of the sphere increases with time. The creep strain at 3000days is 0.

Fig-8: Coarse Mesh. Per Exact Solution for creep strain ε =0. The stress varies from 22743psi to 13493 from the inner to the outer radius.93. von Mises Creep strain at internal radius Fig-9 shows the computed von Mises creep stress in the hemisphere at 3000days. the equivalent stress varies from 22802 psi to 12802 psi (see Table-4 and Fig-12 below).3 b = 100in 12802 13493 5. Table-4: von Mises Stress Comparison (Coarse Mesh.4 19 .2300days) Radius  m (exact )  m ( Ansys) %age Deviation a = 20in 22802 22743 0.

Table-5: von Mises Creep Strain Comparison (Coarse Mesh.56 6.62. So for comparison we have included this time line. Bhatnagar and Arya [1] discussed the results of their model at effective creep strain ε =0.Fig-9: Coarse Mesh.with ε=0.2300days) Radius  (exact)  ( Ansys) %age Deviation a = 20in 0. The creep strain at 2300days is 0.7 20 . The agreement is reasonable but ANSYS seems to under predict the strain (Table-5).56 in ANSYS while per Exact Solution the creep strain is 0. von Mises Creep Stresses at internal radius.93 and Time=3000days Fig-10 shows the von Mises creep strain at the internal radius of the sphere as a function of time for up to 2300days. It is observed that the effective creep strain increases with time.56 for 2191days.6 0.

56 the equivalent stress varies from 20550 psi to 10550psi.56).8 b = 100in 10550 10841 2. Per Exact Solution for creep strain ε =0.Fig-10: Coarse Mesh. This has been plotted in Fig-12 (see also Table-6). Per analysis it is observed that the stress varies from 19764psi to 10841 from inner to outer radius. Table-6: von Mises Stress Comparison (Coarse Mesh. 2300days) Radius  m (exact )  m ( Ansys) %age Deviation a = 20in 20550 19764 3.8 21 . von Mises Creep strain at internal radius for Time=2300days Fig-11 shows the computed von Mises creep stress in the hemisphere for a time period of 2300days (and effective creep strain ε=0.

It seems that the ANSYS values are more stringent than those obtained from the Exact Solution.56.Fig-11: Coarse Mesh. The Equivalent stress at ε=0. 22 . So for design purposes the ANSYS values are preferred.56 is aligned approximately with ANSYS calculated von Mises stress.56 and Time=2300days Fig-12 plots the von Mises and Equivalent stresses at strains ε=0. It is also shown that the ANSYS von Mises stress values are slightly higher than the Exact stress.with ε=0. The same result is observed for ε=0.93.93 and 0. von Mises Creep Stresses at internal radius. as functions of radius obtained from ANSYS and from the Exact solution respectively.

Table-7 shows von Mises creep strain deviation of approx. The creep strain is 1. This is an effect of the finer mesh used (see Table-7).03) ε 1.03. ε=1.0.Fig-12: Comparison between Coarse Mesh and Exact Solution Results 4. The effective creep strain is 1.03 for 3019 days per Exact Solution.3 Fine Mesh Results Fig-13 shows how the von Mises creep strain at the internal radius of sphere increases with time for the Fine mesh model.6 23 .03 Days(exact ) Days( Ansys) %age Deviation 3019 3000 0. The result is slightly higher than the Coarse Mesh and Exact Solution results. Table-7: von Mises Creep Strain Comparison (Fine Mesh.60% at the creep strain ε=1.03 at 3000days.

03 (approx)). This has been plotted in Fig-7 and tabulated in Table-8.5 b = 100in 13573 14777 8.Fig-13: Fine Mesh.5% deviation at the inner radius.9 24 . Per Exact Solution for the creep strain ε =1.3000days) Radius  m (exact )  m ( Ansys) %age Deviation a = 20in 23573 24171 2. Table-8: von Mises Stress Comparison (Fine Mesh. von Mises Creep strain at internal radius for Time=3000days Fig-14 shows the von Mises creep stress in the hemisphere obtained from ANSYS at time 3000 days (and effective creep strain ε=1. Per analysis it is observed that the von Mises stress varies from 24171 psi to 14777 psi from the inner to the outer radius.03 the equivalent stress varies from 23573 psi to 13573 psi. The table shows that the ANSYS von Mises stress is more stringent with a 8.9% deviation at the outer radius and a 2.

Table-9: von Mises Creep Strain Comparison (Fine Mesh.4 compare to coarse mesh with 0. Table-8 shows that the von Misses creep strain %age deviation is 0.6. ε=0.6 in ANSYS while per Exact Solution the creep strain is 0. von Mises Creep Stresses at internal radius.6) ε 0.6 for 2291days (Table-9). The creep strain at 2300 days is 0.6 Days(exact ) Days(Ansys) %age Deviation 2291 2300 0. The ANSYS result seems to under predict the Exact solution but it is better than the Coarse mesh results.0 and Time=3000days Fig-15 shows the von Mises creep strain at the internal radius of the sphere for time period up to 2300 days.with ε=1.4 25 .Fig-14: Fine Mesh.

The von Mises stresses in ANSYS have higher deviation at the outer radius than at the inner radius.4 b = 100in 10779 11257 4. Table-10: von Mises Stress Comparison (Fine Mesh. von Mises Creep strain at internal radius for Time=2300days Fig-16 shows the von Mises creep stress in the hemisphere for a time period of 2300days (and effective creep strain ε=0.4 26 . This has been plotted in Fig-17 (see also Table-10). the equivalent stress varies from 20779 psi to 10779psi. Per analysis it is observed that the stress varies from 20488psi to 11257 from inner to outer radius. Per Exact Solution for creep strain ε =0.6.Fig-15: Fine.6).3000days) Radius  m (exact )  m ( Ansys) %age Deviation a = 20in 20779 20488 1.

So for design purposes the ANSYS values are preferred. The equivalent stress obtained from Exact Formula at ε=0.6. von Mises Creep Stresses at internal radius.03. It seems that the ANSYS values are more stringent than those obtained from Exact Solution. the ANSYS von Mises stress values are slightly higher than the Exact Solution Equivalent stress values for ε=1.with ε=0. However.Fig-16: Fine Mesh. 27 .03 and 0.6 agrees well with the ANSYS von Mises stress.6 and Time=2300days Fig-17 shows the Equivalent and von Mises stresses at ε=1. calculated from the Exact Formula and from ANSYS respectively as functions of radius.

the ANSYS von Mises stress at ε=1.03 and 0. but for higher creep strain values the ANSYS von Mises results are higher than the Exact values.6 using the fine mesh and the ANSYS von Mises stresses at ε=0.0 and 0. The ANSYS result matches Bhatnagar and Arya’s results well up to the creep strain ε=0.6 is aligned approximately with the ANSYS von Mises stresses both for the coarse and fine mesh models.56 using the coarse mesh model as functions of the radius inside the sphere.Fig-17: Comparison between Fine Mesh Model and Exact Solution 4. 28 .6. Fine Mesh Fig-18 shows a summary of results comparing the Exact Equivalent stress at ε=1.4 Coarse Mesh Vs.6. The equivalent stress at ε=0.93 and 0.

Fine Mesh and w.22% In Table-11.0. Exact Solution Maximum Deviation % Description of Model Detail ANSYS Coarse Mesh 3000day vs. Exact Solution Minimum Deviation % 0. Table-11: Percentage Result Deviation of Finite Element model vs. While for effective creep strain ε=1.26% -5. It is observed that for the effective creep strain ε=0.70% -2.r. Exact Solution ANSYS Coarse Mesh 2300day vs.Fig-18: Comparison between Coarse vs.t. the negative value indicates that the ANSYS results are higher than those from the Exact Solution.63% 3.6. Exact Solution In Table-11 we have summarized the deviations between the von Mises and Effective stress results obtained from ANSYS and from the Exact solution. the percentage deviation is +0.54% -9. 29 . Exact Solution ANSYS Fine Mesh 2300day vs.63%.7%.8% to -3.26% to -5.57% 1.40% -6. the percentage deviation is +3. Exact Solution ANSYS Fine Mesh 3000day vs.82% -3.

but from design point of view they are noticeable. Fig-2 shows that the creep strain increases nonlinearly with time as the deformation under creep continues. The figures show a negligibly small difference between the two stress distributions based on the assumptions of finite and infinitesimal strains for  a  0 i. It is to be expected that as the strain at the inner boundary increases from its initial value. 30 .e. at the outset of the creep process (i. But when analyzing beyond the creep strain ε=0.  a  0 ).6.5. The Finite Element model results show that the values of von Mises creep strain rate and von Mises creep stress match those predicted by the Bhatnagar and Arya’s solution. after a considerable deformation under creep (i. it is observed that the creep strain rate at the inner radius  a' increases with strain. the radial.6 ) the difference between the radial and tangential stresses and for the effective stress for the two assumptions. Moreover the creep rate is not constant but increases with time. the ANSYS predicted von Mises stresses are higher than the Exact Solution values. for  a  0.e. The significant results of the present investigations are observed in Fig-4 and Fig-5. as it should be. is quite large. In Fig-3 the tangential creep rate  t' is found to decrease rapidly with increasing radius for all the three values of  a .e. However. Discussion From the analytical results for the large strain creep deformation of a thick walled hollow spherical vessel shown in Fig-1. tangential and effective stresses all increase continuously and the difference in the predictions from the two theories goes on increasing. So for better accuracy a designer should consider a finite element analysis for worst scenario cases. The analysis results are not significantly higher.

6. Conclusions In this work. Therefore. 31 . The results from (1) have been verified in ANSYS and good agreement has been found. This is an important effect which is overlooked in the analyses making use of the infinitesimal strain theory. a comparison is made between the Theory by Bhatnagar and Arya and Finite Element Analysis for the creep analysis of isotropic and homogeneous thickwalled spherical pressure vessels. the predictions based on the results from small or infinitesimal strain analyses would be on unsafe side from a design point of view. Results show that the creep rate of the thick-walled spherical vessel increases rapidly even though the creep rate of the same material when subjected to constant true stress in simple tension is constant.

B. Mech. Heller. M. Miller. Solids Structures Vol... L.Ser. W. G.J.1973.E. 1995. Vol. Rimrott. McGraw-Hill Book Co. 3. Issue 1. Vol. 19. H. Int. Mechanical Behavior of Engineering Materials by Joseph Marin. 5. The plastic flow of thickwalled tubes with large strains.. pp 014501-1-5. J. p2162-2166. Niknejad. J. 7. M. (Department of Mathematics. Johnson. Roorkee). N. 130. Int. Creep of Metallic Thick-walled spherical vessels subject to pressure and radial thermal gradient at elevated temperatures... p271. Debnath... You. F. Inc. C. L. and Ghannad. J. 6.R.. K.. A. Hoseini. J.81. 9. V.7. appl.. and Khan. A New Analytical Solution for Creep Stresses in Thick-walled Spherical Pressure Vessels.E.. 1962.. Phys. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology.K. 32.. Arya. 2011. Stresses in a spherical vessel undergoing creep and dimensional changes. Steady-state creep analysis of thick-walled spherical pressure vessel with varying creep properties. Z. C. Coffin. F.. 11. pp.. 15. 10. V. 14. 2. Int. Prentice Hall Inc..S. p. N. J. 1959..S.Appl. J. ASME FEBRUARY 2008. 1948. No. A. and Arya. 185-193.K. and Fisher. Creep of engineering materials. Creep of Thick-walled spherical vessels under internal pressure considering large strains.ASME. Sci. 507-532. Bhatnagar. MacGregor. 5. 1959.Z. by. 26. 2077-2093. Vol. University of Roorkee.. Finnie. ANSYS Mechanical APDL Technical Manual 32 . pp. References 1. 291. W.P.. 4. I. 1 (11).K. and Ou.Mech. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research. pp. 8.. 1980.K. 1963. and Bhatnagar. The spherical vessel with anisotropic creep properties considering large strains.H. Nejad. Creep of thick-walled tubes under internal pressure considering large strains. Nonlinear Mechanics. New York. Trans.

_Y !* VMESH.0 KEYW.0 KEYW.MAGEDG.0 !* MPTEMP.1.PR_ELMAG..3d CM. .2.PR_SET.1.PR_MULTI.0 KEYW._Y CMDELE._Y1 CMDELE...0 KEYW.'VOLU' CMSEL.SOLID187 !* KEYOPT.1 KEYW.5e-30.0 KEYW.0 KEYW.EX. MPTEMP..0.PR_CFD.PRXY.FAST !* LESIZE.10 TBTEMP. ._Y1 !* CMDELE.VOLU CHKMSH._Y.VOLU VSEL.CREE.1. /COM.2 FITEM. .1.0 TBDATA.. .1 /REP.6.ORDE.100..6.20. Structural !* !* ET.5.2.-1 /ANG. SPHERE. /VIEW.0 KEYW.1. .3 TB.._Y1.Appendix !* /PREP7 !* /NOPR KEYW.0 /GO !* /COM.180.1.1. .1 KEYW. .1..PR_THERM.ALL.1.1.. . MSHKEY.Preferences for GUI filtering have been set to display: /COM.5e6 MPDATA..S. 1 CM.0.5 33 .MAGELC.MAGNOD.1..5._Y2 !* FLST.0 MPDATA.2.MAGHFE..0 MSHAPE.0.PR_FLUID.0 KEYW.PR_STRUC.5..3.

1.on.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.. ! no inertia effects.P51X.0e2.2.2.1.2.ORDE.off solve save time..on nlgeom.1.723.5.0e-1.0e-1.10 deltim.on nlgeom.2.0e2.-6 !* /GO DA.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.FITEM.0e-5 rate.2. rate.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .2.on nlgeom.40000 TUNIF.1.30 deltim.3 FITEM.on.on.1..50 deltim.40 deltim..0e2.on nlgeom.on.2..200 ! largest time step = 200 days .200 ! largest time step = 200 days ..2.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time..200 ! largest time step = 200 days ..static .1.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .1. rate.UY. so transient not needed time.1.0e-1.1.on TUNIF. rate.-4 /GO !* SFA.P51X.2 FITEM..2.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve 34 ..0e-5 deltim.PRES..0e-5. rate.0 FLST.0e-8. nlgeom. rate.2.1.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.on nlgeom..on.0.723.20 deltim. /solu antype.0e2.0e2.0e-1.0e-1.

rate.0e-1.1.2.1.on. rate...1.on nlgeom. rate.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .on nlgeom.on. rate.0e-1.200 deltim.600 deltim.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .. rate..on..1.200 ! largest time step = 200 days ..on.on nlgeom.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.0e-1.0e2.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.on.1.2.1.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.. rate.on.0e2.2.0e-1.on nlgeom..on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.300 deltim.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time. rate.400 deltim..2.save time.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .500 deltim.700 deltim..200 ! largest time step = 200 days .1..2.0e2.100 deltim.1.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .2.on..0e-1. rate..200 ! largest time step = 200 days .on nlgeom.2.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save 35 .0e2.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.0e2.on.on nlgeom.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .on nlgeom.0e2.800 deltim..0e-1.0e2.2..on nlgeom.0e2.0e-1.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time..0e-1.

on.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .1.2.. rate.1500 deltim..1.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.1300 deltim.0e-1.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.0e2..on.0e2.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .on nlgeom.on.0e-1.1.900 deltim.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .0e-1.0e2.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time..2.1200 deltim.2. rate.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.on.on nlgeom.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.1000 deltim.time.1600 deltim.0e-1.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .0e2..200 ! largest time step = 200 days ....2. rate.on nlgeom.on nlgeom.1.0e2.on..0e-1.on nlgeom.. rate.on nlgeom..2.1. rate..200 ! largest time step = 200 days .1100 deltim. rate.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .on.200 ! largest time step = 200 days . rate.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time..on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save 36 .1.0e-1.0e2.on..0e2.2.0e-1.. rate..on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.1.1400 deltim.2.on nlgeom.2.0e2.on nlgeom.0e-1.on.1.

2400 deltim..0e2.1.2300 deltim.1.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .200 ! largest time step = 200 days .0e2.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .1700 deltim.1.on nlgeom.1900 deltim..on nlgeom.0e-1.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .0e-1.0e2.on nlgeom... rate.0e-1.2.0e2.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time..0e2..2.2..on. rate.1.0e-1.1.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .0e-1.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .on nlgeom..on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time..0e-1.2200 deltim. rate.on nlgeom.on..on..1.on.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .0e-1. rate.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.2100 deltim.on.2.1.2.0e-1.2000 deltim.. rate.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time..on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.time.2.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .on.2..on.on nlgeom.1.on nlgeom.0e2.0e2.0e2. rate...1800 deltim.on nlgeom.on. rate.2.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save 37 . rate.

1. rate.on...on nlgeom.2.on.1.on.0e2.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save fini 38 .on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time. rate.2.0e2.on.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .2600 deltim.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .on nlgeom.200 ! largest time step = 200 days .3000 deltim.1..200 ! largest time step = 200 days ..0e-1.2.0e-1.0e2.0e2.1..on.2.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.200 ! largest time step = 200 days ..on nlgeom.0e-1.... rate. rate.0e-1.0e2.0e-1.2800 deltim.2.1.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time.0e2.2700 deltim.2.on nlgeom.on.200 ! largest time step = 200 days ..time.1..0e-1..on nlgeom.2500 deltim. rate.on ! load drop matches cross section area decrease solve save time. rate.2900 deltim.on nlgeom.