Design Variation Simulation of

Tliicl(-walled Cylinders
R. J. Eggert
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Union College,
Schenectady, NY 12308
Thick-walled cylinders exposed to high, static internal pressures may experience both
elastic and plastic deformation. Primary design considerations include loads, geometry
and material properties. However, variations in geometry and material properties due to
conventional manufacturing processes, and variations of internal pressure due to actual
usage patterns, propagate through the system resulting in off-design stresses and strains
which may cause failure. These variations can be evaluated using probabilistic methods
which are discussed in this paper Von Mises-distortion energy yield theory is presented
to predict elastic, plastic and residual stresses in thick-walled cylinders. The design
variation simulation method using Monte Carlo simulation and available statistical
information is used to design a pressure vessel for servo-hydraulic experiments. The use
of autofrettage to induce favorable compressive stresses at the inner bore, thereby
improving the margin of safety and overall reliability, is also presented.

Introduction
The design of a product requires knowledge of how the
product will be used, how it will be manufactured, and of
what materials it is made. Successful design practices also
attempt to compensate for aging processes such as wear and
corrosion. The factor-of-safety method of design is one such
design practice, where allowable stresses or factors of safety
are specified on the basis of experience or recognized design
codes. While such design factors may comfort a design engi-
neer by providing "rules of thumb," these arbitrary limits
often lead to overly conservative designs. Probabilistic meth-
ods, however, can provide more quantitative and qualitative
design evaluations, leading to higher product functionality,
quality and overall value.
Probablistic methods are deeply rooted in the fertile fields
of worst case analysis, random variable algebra and Monte
Carlo simulation. Worst case analysis is a simple, but effec-
tive approach to analyzing alternatives with respect to per-
formance criteria. The design engineer merely poses the
appropriate what-if questions, such as what if the load is
doubled, will the machine element fail? What if the actual
yield strength is only 90 percent of the nominal strength?
And so on. Assuming that the right what-if questions are
asked, the resulting worst cases reveal the design's weak-
nesses. A more systematic approach couples the worst-case
of all the design variables, thereby describing the impact of
simultaneous variations (Balling et al., 1986; Parkinson et al.,
1991; Teng, 1992).
The random variable algebra approach incorporates statis-
tics such as the mean value and standard deviation of the
design variables and parameters. The statistics characterize
Contributed by the Reliability, Stress Analysis, and Failure Prevention
Committee for publication in the JOURNAL O F MECHANICAL DESIGN.
Manuscript received July 1993; revised June 1994. Associate Technical
Editor; T. H. Service.
the input random variations which propagate in a cause-and-
effect fashion according to a functional relationship. For
example, the margin of safety is a function of the strength
and stress. Variations in strength and or stress propagate
through to the margin of safety. The mean value and stan-
dard deviation of a function of independent random variables
can be estimated by calculating the expected values of a
Taylor series expansion of the function (Haugen, 1980; Ka-
pur and Lamberson, 1977; Mischke, 1980; Rao, 1992). The
mean value of the margin of safety and its standard devia-
tion, can therefore be estimated, and thus provide quantita-
tive measures of central tendency and dispersion of the
margin of safety. Note that these estimates only depend upon
the means and standard deviations of the input random
variables and are valid regardless of the type of input proba-
bility distribution. The method does however, require the
assumption that the input random variables be independent
(i.e., not correlated). Unfortunately correlations sometimes
exist, which reduces the generic value of this technique.
The likelihood of an event can be determined by matching
the estimated mean and standard deviation to the mean and
variance parameters of a normal (or log-normal) probability
distribution. For example, the probability that the margin of
safety is less than zero, assesses the likelihood that the
machine element fails, and can be calculated from a standard
normal distribution table. The random variable approach has
been applied to cylindrical, ellipsoidal and toroidal pressure
vessel analysis (Smith, 1984; Zibdeh, 1990); fatigue design
(Eggert, 1992; Mischke, 1987); factors of safety (Mischke,
1986, 1970); stochastic mechanical design (Eggert, 1991,
Mischke, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1989d); optimal design and
reliability of airplane wing structures (Rao, 1986a, 1985,
1984a, 1984b); gearboxes (Rao, 1986b); geartrains (Rao,
1984c, 1979); machine tool structures (Rao, 1977) and func-
tion generating mechanisms (Rao, 1977). A thorough treatise

Journal of Mechanical Design JUNE 1995, Vol. 117/221

Copyright © 1995 by ASME

Downloaded 11 Nov 2008 to 129.5.224.57. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 of random variable algebra and general applications in me-
chanical design has also been presented by Haugen (1980).
Monte Carlo simulation produces a large sample of possi-
ble what-if scenarios based on historical or a priori statistical
knowledge of the input design variables and parameters. The
margin of safety for example, can be assumed to be a
stochastic function of the two random variables, strength and
stress, each characterized by its own mean value and stan-
dard deviation. One simulation of the margin of safety is
generated by subtracting an instance of stress from an in-
stance of strength. Instances of stress and strength are com-
puter-generated according to their respective parent proba-
bility distribution functions which are known (historically) or
which can be assumed (a priori). After many instances of the
dependent function are simulated, appropriate sample statis-
tics are calculated. A distinct advantage of this approach is
that the engineer need not worry about selecting the right
combination of values, as compared to the worst case method.
Since historical data are used to characterize the input ran-
dom variables, the resulting sample of simulations is a natu-
rally-occurring collection of the possible instances. Most of
the what-if answers, if not all, are represented in the data
collection, naturally or automatically. Design variation simu-
lation methods have been applied to a number of engineering
problems including mechanism design (Crawford and Rao,
1989), manufacturing and assembly (Early and Thompson,
1989), brake design (Doepker and Nies, 1989), fatigue design
(Eggert, 1992), structural wind loading (Shah and Chamis,
1991); optimization (Rao, 1978; Siddall, 1983), and finite
element analysis (Thacker et al., 1991; Weber and Penny,
1991). A hybrid approach using simulation to "proof-test"
optimal designs obtained from random variable algebra solu-
tions has also been presented (Eggert and Mayne, 1990;
Eggert, 1989).
Design Variation Simulation
The design variation simulation method goes beyond mere
variation simulation analysis to include the design engineer
in an iterative feedback loop to successively synthesize, ana-
lyze and optimize the product under consideration. Com-
puter programs can be integrated into the loop as well, such
as in synthesis, to automate the generation of new candidate
designs, or in the optimization phase, to determine the best
feasible design. The resulting, improved design process
thereby makes effective use of historical or assumed statisti-
cal knowledge, and broadens the engineer's envelope of
understanding.
As a candidate design is synthesized, specific values for the
controllable design variables and parameters are determined.
In the case of a thick-walled cylindrical pressure vessel, the
inner and outer radii, internal operating pressure, and mate-
rial properties are determined. The candidate design is simu-
lated. The simulation results are analyzed, design variables
modified, and a revised candidate design is simulated. The
simulate, analyze, modify, and re-simulate iterations are con-
tinued until the design engineer (or computer program) has
optimized the controllable design variables.
The simulations result in a wealth of statistical measures
such as: (7) minimums and maximums of the response func-
tions, (2) sample average x, (5) sample standard deviation
(T^, {4) coefficient of variation C^ = &^/x, (5) coefficient of
skew ^/S], (6) coefficient of kurtosis ^2, (7) and probability
of a "failure" event. The average characterizes the sample's
central tendency, while the standard deviation characterizes
dispersion about the average. The coefficients of skew and
kurtosis measure the symmetry and peakedness of the proba-
bility density function. The coefficient of variation measures
dispersion relative to the mean value or average. The proba-
bility of an event, such as strength/stress failure, is directly
obtained by comparing the number of simulated instances
that "fail" to meet a prescribed specification, to the total
number of simulations.
The random variable algebra approach is relatively simple
and fast,;/ the required partial derivatives are readily obtain-
able. However, it usually provides first order estimates and
will be invalid if the random variables are correlated. The
design variation simulation method, on the other hand, is
relatively easy to program, capably deals with correlation and
can provide somewhat more accurate results. However, it
does require historical data or a priori assumptions and it is
computationally intensive. These drawbacks may not be that
problematic however. First, more and more information is
becoming available regarding the statistical nature of materi-
als, manufacturing methods, load applications and usages.
And secondly, as will be shown in this paper, existing per-
sonal computers have sufficient computing memory and pro-
cessing speed. The next sections discuss the elastic break-
down margin of safety for thick-walled cylinders under high
internal pressures, and the application of the design variation
simulation method.
Elastic Cylinder Wall Stresses
The thick-walled cylinder shown in Fig. 1 has an inner
bore radius a, outer wall radius c, is subjected to a static
internal pressure pi and zero external pressure. In the closed
case, the cylinder is modelled as being capped at both ends.
The resulting axial forces, sustained by the cylinder wall,
thereby create tensile axial stresses. In contrast, the open
case refers to the situation where the axial forces are sus-
tained by external supports such as bolts, thereby resulting in
no axial stresses. Solution of the governing equations is
credited to Lame, however a more contemporary derivation
is available (Faupel and Fisher, 1981). The resulting nominal
stresses are defined as the tangential or hoop stress o-^,, the
radial stress o-^, and the axial or longitudinal stress a^^ (open
case), (T^^ (closed case). The stresses are given below as

Nomenclature

a = inner bore radius R = radius or diameter ratio (c/a) &^ = standard deviation
b = elastic-plastic boundary r = radius ^/P^ = coefficient of skew
b/c = autofrettage ratio Sy = yield strength jSj = coefficient of kurtosis
COV = coefficient of variation S„ = ultimate strength
C„ = coefficient of variation of X = average of a random variable Subscripts
pressure a-/, = hoop stress o = open case
= outer surface radius o-^ = radial stress c = closed case
m. = margin of safety-elastic o-^j. = axial stress (open case) h = hoop
breakdown a^o = axial stress (closed case) r = radial
= internal pressure a' = Von Mises equivalent stress z = axial

222/Vol. 117, JUNE 1995 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 11 Nov 2008 to 129.5.224.57. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 / Von Mises

- ^ ^ / <?, + da,
Hoop, \
\ \

Axial ^ „

U
Radial/

y J
1 2 3
Radial Location r
Fig. 2 Normalized nominal and Von Mises stresses for thick-walled
cylinder; (R = 3; a = 1; c = 3; closed case)

Fig. 1 Thick-walled cylinder under Internal pressure

functions of the radius r, the nondimensional index of wall

thickness R, defined as the ratio of outer to inner wall radii
(or diameters), R = c/a, and the internal pressure p,:
Pi c
(1)
R^ - 1 1 + -^
c
l - - r (2)
R' - 1
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
Location in Wall r/o
(3) Fig. 3 Von Mises stresses for thick-wailed cylinders; (R = 1.5, 2, 3,
' R^-\
and 5; open case)
(T,„ = 0 (4)
These nominal stresses are the principal stresses and can Table 1 Normalized Von Mises stresses for open and closed
be combined into one equivalent Vori Mises stress cr' de- thick-walled cylinders for various diameter ratios
fined as: fl = 5.0 fl=3.0 fl=2.0 fl=1.5 fl=l.l

/I \'^ [o'lpi. 1.8057 1.9526 2.3333 3.2167 11.058

^' = \l\i^k - o>)' + (^. - o-z)' + (o> - o-/,)1 j (5) i.o'lp^. 1.8042 1.9486 2.3094 3.1177 9.980
Ogl O^ 1.0003 1.0021 1.0104 1.0324 1.108
Substituting the Lame solution forCT/,,(T„ a^^, and cr.^. into
the above equation, the equivalent Von Mises stress distribu-
tions are obtained for a function of the dimensionless wall Similarly, all curves are bounded on the right by the maxi-
location parameter r/c: mum value of r/c which is c/c = 1. Note that little decrease
in peak stress is obtained for R values larger than 3. For
1/2
Pi 3 example, the benefit of increasing the wall thickness from
(6) i? = 3 to 5, is to decrease the peak stress from about 2 p, to
R^-l {r/c) 4 1.8 pi or about ten percent. The maximum Von Mises
1/2 stresses at the bore, are obtained by substituting the mini-
Pi 3 mum value of the location parameter into Eqs. (6) and (7):
(7)
R^ - 1 [ir/c)'\
1/2
(37?" + 1)
Figure 2 illustrates the nominal and Von Mises stresses for a Pi (8)
closed cylinder of wall thickness ratio R = 3. The stresses R^ 1
have been normalized by /?, resulting in a convenient multi-
purpose graph. As the radius r increases, a^ and cr,. de- ^/3R^
crease in magnitude while the axial stress o-^^. does not vary Pi (9)
with location. The inner bore undergoes the largest hoop and R^ 1
radial stresses thereby producing the largest Von Mises stress,
approximately twice the value of the internal pressure. Fig- The open and closed Von Mises stresses in (8) and (9) are
ure 3 shows the effects of changing the diameter ratio R on similar for values of R > 2.0 as seen in Table 1. At R - 2.0
the open case Von Mises stress as a function of wall location the open condition stresses are about 1.04 percent larger
r/c for R values 1.5, 2, 3, and 5. Each stress curve is bounded than the closed. At R = 3 and R = 5 the open condition
on the left by the minimum value of r/c which is a/c or \/R. stresses are 0.21 and 0.03 percent larger, respectively.

Journal of Mechanical Design JUNE 1995, Vol. 117/223

Downloaded 11 Nov 2008 to 129.5.224.57. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Table 2 Simulation results assessing variations in static pressure
(p = 350 MPa; a = 25 mm; c = 50 mm; S„ = 950.3 MPa)

c, Min. Avg. Max. Std. Skew Kurt.

Dev.
c 0.20
s, all 840.46 950.30 1219.28 48.91 .392 2.859
0% 784.39 816.85 850.74 8.21 .150 3.071
5% 726.95 816.53 920.10 41.77 .019 1.894 0.15
"o
10% 658.97 816.22 990.89 82.20 .013 1.831
15% 590.99 815.91 1062.00 122.91 .011 1.819 0.10
0% 7.46 133.45 412.57 49.57 .370 2.859
m. 5% -49.20 133.76 446.40 64.27 .168 2.745 0.05
10% -119.95 134.07 502.59 95.61 .045 2.351
15% -190.70 134.38 570.01 132.24 .011 2.119
0 100 200 300 100 500 600
Margin of Safety (MPa)
The elastic breakdown failure criterion for thick-walled • 10% • •5% • 0%

cylinders compares the yield strength Sy to the maximum

equivalent Von Mises stress a' at the inner bore. This elastic
breakdown margin of safety m^, can be restated as:
m„ > 0 (10)
Sy- 0-' >0 (11)
Note that the yield strength Sy embodies material properties
and that the Von Mises stress depends upon the geometry
and the internal pressure. In the typical design situation,
after the operating pressure is characterized, the appropriate
material and geometry are determined to guarantee a satis-
factory margin of safety. The next section discusses how
design variations can be simulated and the design modified
to successively converge to a satisfactory design.
Design Example
An experimental program has been undertaken by the
author and a group of graduate and undergraduate students
to investigate the viability of using an Instron servo-hydraulic
testing machine and specially designed testing fixtures to
assess thick-walled high-pressure cylinder fatigue, fatigue of
reciprocating seals subjected to high pressure, computer-
aided fatigue testing and cylinder fatigue resistance improve-
ment gained by autofrettage processes. The Instron 245 kN
(55 kip) load frame will axially load a 20 mm diameter
piston-fluid-cylinder fixture to hydraulically generate internal
pressures up to 350 MPa (50.8 ksi). To corroborate prelimi-
nary design calculations, the author prepared a design varia-
tion simulation for the candidate thick-walled cylinder of
inner radius 25 mm, outer radius 50 mm, internal pressure
350 MPa, external pressure 0 MPa (gage), made of 4340 steel
whose average yield strength and standard deviation have
been determined as 950 MPa (138 ksi), and 48.9 MPa (7.1
ksi) respectively (Mischke, 1989a). A Fortran computer pro-
gram was written which includes subroutines to generate
pseudorandom numbers; generate uniform and Weibull vari-
ates using the inverse cumulative distribution method; gener-
ate normal and log-normal variates using a rational function
routine; simulate instances of the inner and outer radii,
internal pressure, yield strength, resulting Von Mises stress
and margin of safety; and then calculate desired statistical
measures.
The first aspect investigated was the impact of internal
pressure variation on the margin of safety. A steady, or static
pressure variation results from using the vessel at a pressure
different from the design pressure. A malfunctioning control
valve or deliberate constant overload pressure are typical
examples. Fluctuating or fatigue loading is different and will
be considered in a future paper. The internal pressure was
simulated from a uniform distribution, arbitrarily chosen,
with mean and standard deviation P ~ U(350,35) MPa. The
inner and outer radii were simulated as normally distributed
Fig. 4 Relative frequency diagram of margin of safety {Cp = 0,
5,10, and 15 percent; C^ ^ = 1 percent)
Table 3 Reliability estimates for thicl(-walled cylinder for increas-
ing Cp
Log- Relative Time
Normal Normal Frequency
c. (S)
0% .9965 .9979 1.0000 38.12
5% .9813 .9818 .9884 38.12
10% .9196 .9163 .9099 38.06
15% .8474 .8089 38.06
.8452
variates a ~ N(25,0.25) mm, and c ~ N(50,0.5) mm, respec-
tively. The material yield strength was simulated as a Weibull
distribution (Mischke, 1989a) with mean and standard devia-
tion Sj, ~ W(950.3, 48.9) MPa, (i.e., Weibull distribution pa-
rameters ^0 = 840 MPa, b = 2.4, Q = 965 MPa). Four dif-
ferent coefficients of variation of the internal pressure C
were examined (0 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent, and 15
percent). Each run resulted in 25000 simulated instances of
the input and output variables. The simulated arrays were
then processed by the statistical subroutine. The results are
shown in Table 2. When the internal pressure is deterministic
(C = 0 percent), the average margin of safety w^ is 133.45
MPa and the standard deviation 49.57 MPa. This is largely
due to the variation contributed by the yield strength. As C^
increases to 15 percent there is little change in m^,, however
the standard deviation increases to 132.24 MPa. The total
variation thus measured, is more than twice that caused by
the yield strength. The visual impact of static pressure varia-
tion on the probability density function (pdf) can be approxi-
mated by a relative frequency histogram or diagram, as
shown in Fig. 4. Note how the probability of failure increases
as Cp increases. This is seen as the area to the left of the
vertical line at w^, = 0. The pdf is slightly skewed to the right
and its kurtosis decreases, or flattens out with increasing C .
The cylinder reliabilities were estimated and are shown in
Table 3. If little or no pressure variation exists, the reliability
approximates 100 percent. As variation increases to C^ = 15
percent, the reliability decreases to 81 percent. The upper
and lower limits of a uniform distribution are u,l = ;u, + 1.731
&, therefore for C^ = 15 percent, the upper and lower limits
of pressure would correspond to + 26 percent of the mean
pressure. This simple example reinforces the importance of
using equipment at, or under, the design pressure and to
guarantee that control systems do not permit positive pres-
sure excursions. Normal and log-normal reliability estimates
were also obtained using the simulated averages and stan-
dard deviations. It appears that for C = 15 percent, the
normal and lognormal overestimate reliability by about 4
percentage points (85 percent versus 81 percent). Each simu-

224/Vol. 117, JUNE 1995 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 11 Nov 2008 to 129.5.224.57. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Table 4 Simulation results for elastic-breakdown margin of safety Table 5 Reliability estimates for thiicic-waiied cylinder for increas-
ntg, yield strengtii Sy, and Von MIses stress o-g for different C,,.
values
Log- Relative Time
c«. Min. Avg. Max. Std.Dev. Skew Kurt.
c„ Normal Normal Frequency (S)
Sy all 840.46 950.30 1219.28 48.91 0.392 2.859
0% .9209 .9176 .9118 37.73
0% 675.23 816.03 958.12 81.66 0.007 1.809 5% .8895 .8873 .8791 37.95
O^ 5% 605.55 821.18 1248.93 93.58 0.206 2.448 10% .7635 .7766 .8070 37.95
10% 564.83 840.57 4273.54 145.01 2.471 28.580
0% -103.99 134.26 510.37 95.16 0.049 2.346
m„ 5% -317.33 129.11 511.81 105.48 -0.104 2,650
10% 109.72 542.61 152.91 -2.111 24.137
lastly, autofrettage could be considered. It is a process which
-3364.57
mechanically induces compressive stresses at the inner bore
which offset the stresses caused by the pressure.
0,40'
Autofrettage of Thick-walled Cylinder
0.3S
As the internal pressure is increased, the inner bore
^ 0.30
stresses exceed the elastic breakdown limit. With further
% 0.26
cr
increases, a plastic/elastic interface at radius b, expands
0) from the inner bore, to the outer surface, until the whole
cylinder is in a state of plastic strain. The pressure required
£ 0.20' to cause plastic strain to radius b is (Faupel and Fisher,
1981):
'^ 0.10

-800 ~« «-!-«
-600 -400 -200 0 200
Margin o f Safety (MPa)
400 600
Ml.) = f 1 - + 2 In (12)

The outer portion of the cylinder, from b to c, undergoes

elastic stresses:
Fig. 5 Relative frequency diagram of margin of safety ( C , ,. = 0, 5,
and 10 percent; Cp = 10 percent)
<"'>•• 7f I c 1 + ( ;T (13)
lation run required about 38 seconds on a 16 MHz 386-sx
IBM compatible computer equipped with a math coproces- .('-
sor.
(0>)e. =
\/3 \ c 1 - 7 (14)
A second aspect to be investigated was the impact of
geometric variation as measured by the standard deviations
for the inner and outer radii. For this set of simulations, the (o-.c) (15)
cylinder radii instances were generated as normal variates
with 0 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent coefficients of (o-zo). = 0 (16)
variation and mean values of ix^ = 25 mm, and fx.^ = 50 mm.
The yield strengths were generated using the same Weibull The inner portion, from a to b, experiences plastic stresses:
distribution and the pressure variates were generated from a
uniform distribution of 350 MPa mean and 35 MPa standard y
deviation. Each run resulted in 25000 simulated instances of ((^h)p + 1 -F 2 In (17)
the input and output variables. The simulated arrays were
then processed by the statistical subroutine. The results are
shown in Table 4. The margin of safety for C^^ = 0 percent - I - H-2 (18)
is 134.26 MPa, or slightly better than the 1 percent COV case (-.). = ^
from Table 2, where w^ = 134.07 MPa. However, larger radii
variations significantly add to the dispersion of the margin of
safety. Note that for C„^ = 10 percent the standard devia- (oic)/. -I + 2 In (19)
tion for m^ is 152.91 MPa, compared to 95.6 MPa (Cp = 10
percent, C^,,. = 1 percent case from Table 2). The relative (20)
(Oio)n = 0
frequency is graphed in Fig. 5. Note that as the geometric
variations increase, the curve skews to the negative side, and The cylinder becomes fully plastic when b = c. Ultimately it
probabilities of failure increase. bursts at the following pressure (Faupel and Fisher, 1981):
The cylinder reliability for C„^ = 0 percent is abut 91.2
percent as measured by the relative frequency and is shown 25^
in Table 5. By relaxing the geometric tolerances to C^ j. = 1 Pbur In R (21)
73
percent, the reliability decreases to 90.99 percent (from Table
3). If the cylinder were dented, or otherwise significantly out The burst pressure is higher than the pressure required to
of tolerance, resulting in 10 percent radii COVs, the reliabil- plastically strain the entire wall. Therefore, during autofret-
ity would drop to 80.7 percent. tage, as the pressure is removed the material elastically
The design variation simulation results have shown that recovers and a residual compressive stress distribution is
the initial candidate design concepts are unsatisfactory. One obtained. This expansion/relaxation process is called au-
improvement can be attained by increasing the diameter tofrettage. For diameter ratios larger than 2.22 (closed) or
ratio to R = 3; resulting in the reliability approaching 100 2.02 (open), the full effect of autofrettage can be attained
percent. Another change could be to restrict excessive pres- with autofrettage ratios b/c less than 100 percent. Under
sure excursions with a relief valve, or other control. And these conditions, higher b/c values cause an elastic recovery

Journal of Mechanical Design JUNE 1995, Vol. 117/225

Downloaded 11 Nov 2008 to 129.5.224.57. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 56
Radial Distonce ( m m )

-800
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Radial Distance (mm) • Sh • Sr
• VMo • VMo

Sh • • • * - Sr ••••»••• S z
Fig. 7 Total stress distributions for autofrettaged cyiinder (jy c =" 67
VMo VMo percent; b = 33.49 mm; Sy = 950.3 MPa, p = 350 MPa)
Fig. 6 Residual stress distributions of autofrettaged cyiinder (tV c
= 75 percent; b = 37.50 mm; Sy = 950.3 MPa)

1100 \
that exceeds the inner bore yield strength, and re-yielding \\
1000
occurs. \ .>f
900
Autofrettage produces the following residual stresses in 55 \ X
the elastic portion of the cylinder: \ ,.-
,*
..-•'••" ^

b^^ 'v.. +-''"

...-••• /
1+ >
{'^h)re =
(7 /
^

1- I - + 2 1n- (22)
1 300
y'

R^ - 1 c j a 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1

Autofrettage Ratio b/c

b
{<rr)r 350 MPa • • 500 MPa
^ c
Fig. 8 Optimum autofrettage ratios
b\^ b
1- I- + 2 In - (23)
c/ a i^zc)rp-^\\-A +21n
b\^ b
(o,,=i((^r-
^fi\\c] R^ - 1 1- I- + 2 /« -
1 - -c / + 2 In a- (28)
c/ a R^
(24)
(Oio),p = 0 (29)
{'^zo)re = 0 (25)
The residual stress distributions shown in Fig. 6 result from a
The residual stresses in the plastic portion of the cylinder 75 percent autofrettage (i.e., b/c = 75 percent). Note that
the maximum Von Mises stresses occur at the inner bore
are: where the residual stresses are maximum. Figure 7 shows the
final total stress distributions for a cylinder that has been
5„ ilb previously autofrettaged to h/c = 67 percent and now oper-
(^^>- = ^ l7j -^^^^'% ates at a static pressure of 350 MPa. It is obtained by
superposing Eqs. (l)-(4) with Eqs. (22)-(29).
How much autofrettage is enough? For a given operating
b\^ b pressure, as the depth of autofrettage is increased, the maxi-
1+ 1 - I- +lln- (26) mum Von Mises stress location switches from the inner bore
R'-l
cI a to the autofrettage depth b. Therefore in some situations,
such as when the elastic/plastic interface approaches the
Sy ilb'^ outer wall, yield failure begins near or at the outer surface
^^r)rp=^\\-\ - l + 2 1 n - rather than the inner bore. The optimum autofrettage there-
\/3" ^\c
fore, minimizes the maximum Von Mises stresses, and is a
function of a, b, c, S^, and the operating pressure. A coarse,
1 b modified Newton's optimization routine was used to generate
+ 21n - (27) Fig. 8. It shows that for an operating pressure of 200 MPa,
/ ? 2 - l -(7! the optimum autofrettage results at about b/c = 60 percent;

226/Vol. 117, JUNE 1995 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 11 Nov 2008 to 129.5.224.57. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Table 6 Simulation results for autofrettaged cylinder; (tyc = 67
percent; p = 350 MPa; a = 25 mm; c = 50 mm; S^ = 950.3 MPa)
blc Min. Avg. Max. Std.Dev. Skew Kurt. ovg = 529 MPa

Sy all 840.46 950.30 1219.28 48.91 0.392 2.859

50.0% 658.97 816.22 990.89 82.20 0.013 1.831
o'a 67.0% 530.71 666.07 870.47 44.99 0.026 2.683
80.0% 767.97 823.51 893,08 24.40 0.057 1.986
50.0% -119.95 134.07 502.59 95.61 0.045 2.351
nig 67.0% 83.45 329.06 559.89 62.80 0.067 2.729
80.0% 116.14 285.26 511.24 54.63 0.207 2.810

Table 7 Reliability estimates for autofrettage cylinder

Q B ^1 e - » T " ^ ' i 1 1— -1 1 1 T=^^

Log- Relative Time so 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
b/c Normal Normal Frequency (S) Margin of Safety (MPa)
50.0% 0.9196 0.9163 0.9099 38.12 Fig. 9 Relative frequency for autofrettaged cylinder
67.0% 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 52.78
80.0% 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 52.79

The margin of safety relative frequency for the optimally

for 500 MPa, the optimum solution results at about b/c = 70 autofrettaged cylinder is shown in Fig. 9. Its almost symmet-
percent and for 350 MPa, the optimum is about b/c = 70 ric appearance reflects the 0.067 coefficient of skew and the
percent. The 350 MPa case was further optimized using a almost "normal" peakedness is depicted by the 2.729 coeffi-
higher accuracy search resulting in b/c = 61.0 percent and cient of kurtosis versus 3.0 for a normal distribution.
maximum Von Mises stress equal to 609.4 MPa.
The design example is evolving. However, will an autofret-
taged cylinder provide the reliability we require? The next Summary
section discusses the application of the design variation simu- The design of thick-walled cylinders subjected to large,
lation method to an autofrettaged thick-walled cylinder. static internal pressures, includes considerations of geometry,
loading and material properties. Naturally occurring varia-
tions of these items, can be evaluated using the design
Simulation of Autofrettaged Cylinder variation simulation method, in a reasonable amount of time
A computer program was written to calculate the residual on a personal computer. In addition, autofrettaged thick-
stress distribution as a function of the autofrettage radius b, walled cylinders exhibit an optimum autofrettage ratio which
according to Eqs. (22)-(29). Residual stress distributions can be determined using a conventional optimization tech-
were determined for b/c — 67 percent. Then elastic stresses nique. Also, as shown in the example design, an autofret-
as a function of operating pressure were simulated and taged cylinder may provide reliable and safe operation.
superposed to the residual stresses. The internal pressure
was simulated from a uniform distribution with mean and
standard deviation P ~ U(350,35) MPa. The inner and outer References
radii were simulated as normally distributed variables a ~ Balling, R. J., Free, J. C , and Parkinson, A. R., 1986, "Consideration
N(25,0.25) mm, and c ~ N(50,0.5) mm, respectively. And the of Worst-Case Manufacturing Tolerances in Design Optimization," ASME
material yield strength was simulated as a WeibuU distribu- JOURNAL OF MECHANISMS, TRANSMISSIONS, AND AUTOMATION IN DESIGN,
tion with mean and standard deviation S ~ W(950.3, 48.9) Vol. 108, No. 4, Dec.
MPa. Crawford, R., and Rao, S. S., 1987, "Reliability Analysis of Function
Generating Mechanisms Through Monte Carlo Simulation," ASME Ad-
The smallest autofrettage ratio is 50 percent which obtains vances in Design Automation, Vol. 2, pp. 197-202.
an inner bore radius of 25 mm. Similarly, the largest amount Doepker, P. E., and Nies, D., 1989, "Designing Brake Components
of autofrettage corresponds to the outer radius 50 mm which using Variation Simulation Modelling," Failure and Reliability 1989,
obtains a 100 percent autofrettage ratio. Three cases of ASME, DE-Vol. 16, pp. 131-138, Montreal, Canada.
Early, R., and Thompson, J., 1989, "Variation Simulation Modelling-
autofrettage are examined: 50 percent, 67 percent (determin- Variation Analysis using Monte Carlo Simulation," Failure and Reliability
istic optimum) and 80 percent. The 50 percent values shown 1989, ASME, DE-Vol. 16, pp. 139-144, Montreal, Canada.
in Table 6 correspond to the "no-autofrettage" case. There- Eggert, R. J., 1992, "Robust Fatigue Design for Combined Bending
fore data from Table 2 is repeated here for comparison, The and Steady Torsion," ASME Advances in Design Automation, Vol. 2, pp.
67 percent and 80 percent autofrettage results were obtained, 335-342.
Eggert, R. J., 1991, "Quantifying Design Feasibility Using Probabilistic
using 25000 simulations each, and assumed that the_ autofret- Feasibility Analysis," ASME Advances in Design Automation, Vol. 1, pp.
tage depth b is characterized by a mean value of b and a 5 235-239.
percent COV, normally distributed. Eggert, R. J., and Mayne, R. W., 1990, "Probabilistic Optimal Design
As shown for the optimal autofrettage case, the average using Successive Probability Density Functions," Proceedings of the 16th
margin of safety increases to 329.06 MPa as compared to the ASME Design Automation Conference, Vol. DE-Vol. 23-1, pp. 129-136,
Chicago, IL, September.
non-autofrettaged margin of 134 MPa. Note also that the Eggert, R. J., 1989, "Probabilistic Optimization Using Successive Surro-
minimum margin of safety is now 83.45 MPa, compared to gate Probability Density Functions," Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
— 119.95 MPa or failure. The 80 percent autofrettaged re- Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, State University of New York at
sults indicate that the margin of safety, although better than Buffalo.
Faupel, J. H., and Fisher, F. E., 1981, Engineering Design: A Synthesis of
the untreated cylinder, are somewhat worse that the opti- Stress Analysis and Materials Engineering, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons,
mum, as should be expected from the optimization results. New York, pp. 234-236, 444-452, 743-753, 790-794.
The simulated reliability increases to 100 percent from Haugen, E. B., 1980, Probabilistic Mechanical Design, Wiley, New York.
90.99 percent as shown in Table 7. A reliability of 100 Kapur, K. C , and Lamberson, L. R., 1977, Reliability in Engineering
percent is expected since Table 6 shows the minimum margin Design, John Wiley & Sons.
Mischke, C. R., 1989a, "Stochastic Methods in Mechanical Design:
to be greater than zero. Note that the required computer Part 1: Property Data and Weibull Parameters," Failure and Reliability
time was about 53 seconds. 1989, ASME, DE-Vol. 16, pp. 1-10, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Journal of Mechanical Design JUNE1995, Vol. 117/227

Downloaded 11 Nov 2008 to 129.5.224.57. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Mischke, C. R., 1989b, "Stochastic Methods in Mechanical Design:
Part 2: Fitting the WeibuU Distribution to the Data," Failure and Reliabil- teria Optimization of Function Generating Mechanisms," ASME JOUR-
ity 1989, ASME, DE-Vol. 16, pp. 11-15, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
MLschke, C, R., 1989c, "Stochastic Methods in Mechanical Design: Part
3: A Methodology," Failure and Reliability 1989, ASME, DE-Vol. 16, pp.
17-20, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Mischke, C. R., 1989d, "Stochastic Methods in Mechanical Design:
Part 4: Applications," Failure and Reliability 1989, ASME, DE-Vol. 16, pp.
21-28, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Mischke, C. R., 1987, "Prediction of Stochastic Endurance Strength,"
ASME Paper No. 86-WA/DE-lO, pp. 1-10.
Mischke, C. R., 1986, "Some Guidance of Relating Factor of Safety to
Risk of Failure," ASME Paper No. 86-WA/DE-22, pp. 1-10.
Mischke, C. R., 1980, Mathematical Model Building, 2nd. Rev. Ed., Iowa
State University Press, Ames.
Mischke, C. R., 1970, " A Method of Relating Factor of Safety and
Reliability," ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 92, pp.
537-542.
Parkinson, A., Pourhassan, N., and Sorenson, C , 1991, "Tolerances
and Robustness in Engineering Design Optimization: Further Results,"
Design Productivity International Conf, Hawaii, pp. 1-15.
Rao, S. S., 1992, Reliability in Design, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Rao, S. S., 1986a, "Automated Optimum Design of Wing Structures: A
Probabilistic Approach," Computers and Structures, Vol. 24, No. 5, 1986,
pp. 799-808.
Rao, S. S., and Eslampour, H. R., 1986b, "Multistage Multiobjective
Optimization of Gearboxes," ASME JOURNAL OF MECHANISMS, TRANSMIS-
SIONS, AND AUTOMATION IN DESIGN, Vol. 108, D e c , pp. 461-468.
Rao, S. S., 1985, "Optimization of Airplane Wing Structures Under
Gust Loads," Computers and Structures, Vol. 21, pp. 741-749.
Rao, S. S., 1984a, "Optimization of Airplane Wing Structures Under
Landing Loads," Computers and Structures, Vol. 19, pp. 849-863.
Rao, S. S., 1984b, "Multiobjective Optimization in Structural Design
With Uncertain Parameters and Stochastic Processes," AIAA Journal,
Vol. 22, pp. 1670-1678.
Rao, S. S., and Das, G., 1984c, "Reliability Based Optimum Design
Gear Trains," ASME JOURNAL OF MECHANISMS, TRANSMISSIONS, AND A U -
TOMATION IN DESIGN, Vol. 106, pp. 17-22.
Rao, S. S., 1981, "Reliability-Based Optimization Under Random Vi-
bration Environment," Computers and Structures, Vol. 14, pp. 345-355.
Rao, S. S., 1979, "Reliability Analysis and Design of Epicyclic Gear
Trains," A S M E JOURNAL O F MECHANICAL DESIGN, Vol. 101, Oct., pp.
625-632.
228/Vol. 117, JUNE 1995
Downloaded 11 Nov 2008 to 129.5.224.57. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Rao, S. S., and Hati, S. K., 1979, " G a m e Theory Approach in Multicri-
NAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN, Vol. 101, pp. 398-406.
Rao, S. S., 1978, Optimization: Theory and Applications, Wiley.
Rao, S. S., and Reddy, C. P., 1977, "Reliability Analysis of Machine
Tool Structures," ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 99, Nov.,
pp. 882-888.
Rao, S. S., 1974, " A Probabilistic Approach to the Design of Gear
Trains," International Journal of Machine and Tool Design Research, Vol.
14, pp. 267-278.Engineering for Industry, Vol. 99, Nov., pp. 882-888.
Shah, A. R., and Chamis, A. C , 1991, "Simulation of Probabilistic
Wind Loads and Building Analysis," Reliability, Stress Analysis and Failure
Prevention, DE-Vol. 30, pp. 5-14, Miami, FL.
Shigley, J. E., and Mischke, C. R., 1989, Mechanical Engineering Design,
McGraw-Hill, 5th Ed.
Siddall, J. N., 1986, "Probabilistic Modehng Design," ASME JOURNAL
OF MECHANISMS, TRANSMISSIONS, AND AUTOMATION IN DESIGN, Vol. 108,
pp. 330-335.
Siddall, J. N., 1984, " A New Approach to Probability in Engineering
Design and Optimization," ASME JOURNAL OF MECHANISMS, TRANSMIS-
SIONS, AND AUTOMATION IN DESIGN, Vol. 106, pp. 5-10.
Siddall, J. N., 1983, Probabilistic Engineering Design: Principles and
Applications, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Smith, C. O., 1984, "Probabilistic Design Criteria for Cylinders &
Spheres under Thermal Stresses," ASME Journal of Vibration, Acoustics,
Stress, and Reliability in Design, Vol. 106, Oct., pp. 523-528.
Smith, C. O., 1980, "Design of Ellipsoidal and Toroidal Pressure
Vessels to Probabilistic Criteria," ASME JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL D E -
SIGN, Vol. 102, Oct., pp. 787-792.
Teng, A., 1992, "Robust Optimal Design for Dynamic and Feedback
Control Systems," Ph.D. Dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo,
UT.
Thacker, B. H., Harren, S. V., and Millwater, H. R., 1991, "Combined
Stress and Resistance Modelling with the Nessus Software System," Relia-
bility, Stress Analysis and Failure Prevention, ASME, DE-Vol. 30, pp.
49-54, Miami, FL.
Weber, M. A., and Penny, R. K., 1991, "Probabilistic Stress Analysis
Methods," Reliability, Stress Analysis and Failure Prevention, ASME, D E -
Vol. 30, pp. 21-28, Miami, FL.
Zibdeh, H. S., 1990, "Reliability of Thermally Loaded Cylinders,"
Transactions of the ASME