View

Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2003
Structural Analysis and Design of

Lightweight Composite Mortar Barrel
Sasi N. Kuppannagari
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
FAMU-FSU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

OF
LIGHTWEIGHT COMPOSITE MORTAR BARREL
By
SASI N. KUPPANNAGARI
A Thesis submitted to the

Department of Industrial Engineering
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2003
The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Sasi N. Kuppannagari defended on
July 11, 2003
Ben Wang
Professor Directing Thesis
Okenwa Okoli
Committee Member
Zhiyong Liang
Committee Member
Approved:
Ben Wang, Chair, Department of Industrial Engineering
Ching-Jen Chen, Dean, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee
members
ii
To
My late brother, K. Ravi Kumar
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge the support of many people without whom I never

would have completed this thesis program. First and foremost, I would like to express my
sincere gratitude and thanks to my advisor, Dr. Ben Wang. I am greatly indebted to him
for all his support through out the program. Special thanks go to Charlie Liu without
whom this thesis would not exist. Words cannot truly express my deepest gratitude and
appreciation to him. He has been an excellent mentor and tutor to me.
I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Okenwa Okoli and Dr.
Zhiyong Liang, whose guidance and assistance are greatly appreciable. The unfailing
support of my colleagues at the FAC2T research group had provided brilliant ideas, ever
lasting optimism and assistance. I would like to thank Frank Allen for his patience and
contribution in the thesis documentation.
I would like to immensely thank my parents, K.V.S. Patnaik and K. Vijaya
Lakshmi, for their undying love, encouragement, and support throughout my life and
education. Without them and their blessings, achieving this goal would not have been
possible. I am proud and thankful to my younger brother, K.R.S. Mahesh, for his
affection and support. I would like to thank my fiancé, Pragyansri Pathi, for her support
and encouragement throughout the completion of my thesis and graduate degree.
I would like to dedicate this work to my late brother, K. Ravi Kumar, who is
directly responsible for all the success in my life.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….viii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………….....x
ABSTRACT…...………………………………………………………………………...xii
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………….. 1
1.1 Vision of Future Combat Systems……………………………… 1
1.2 Light weight composite mortar…………………………………. 3
1.3 Objective………………………………………………………... 5
1.4 Thesis structure…………………………………………………. 6
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………….. 8

2.1 Review on the structural response of the mortar barrel………... 8
2.2 Review on ARL’s mortar barrel model………………………... 10
2.3 Literature on high temperature resins………………………….. 12
2.4 Literature on thermal barrier materials………………………… 13
2.5 Summary of literature review………………………………….. 14
3 MATERIAL SELECTION ………………………………………… 15

3.1 Selection of material for the liner………………………………. 15
3.2 Evaluation of material properties of a composite material……... 16
3.2.1 Prediction of elastic modulus………………………... 17
3.2.2 Prediction of tensile strength ………………………... 20
3.2.3 Prediction of co-efficient of thermal expansion……... 20
3.2.4 Prediction of density………………………………… 21
3.3 Selection of composite material for the sheath………………… 21
v
3.4 Selection of thermal barrier materials………………………….. 26
3.5 Summary of material selection…………………………………. 29
4 QUARTER MODEL ……………………………………………….. 30

4.1 Theoretical study of the stresses induced in the mortar barrel…. 30
4.2 Design and analysis of the quarter model………………………. 31
4.2.1 Base design of the quarter model……………………. 32
4.2.2 Material orientation………………………………….. 33
4.2.3 Boundary conditions and loading……………………. 35
4.2.4 Meshing of the model………………………………... 37
4.2.5 FEA results of the quarter model……………………. 38
4.2.6 Validation of results…………………………………. 41
4.2.7 Study of the effect of material orientation…………... 44
4.3 Strength failure evaluation for the quarter model…………..…… 46
4.3.1 Strength failure evaluation of the liner material…….. 46
4.3.2 Strength failure evaluation of the composite material. 47
4.3.2.1 Maximum stress failure theory…………. 48
4.3.2.2 Tsai-Wu Failure Theory………………… 50
4.4 Summary of the quarter model…………………………………. 51
5 FULL LENGTH MODEL …………………………………………. 52

5.1 Pressure variation along the length of the barrel………………… 52
5.2 Design of the full length model………………………………… 54
5.3 FEA on full length model………………………………………. 55
5.4 FEA results……………………………………………………... 56
5.5 Comparison of the results with those of the quarter model……… 63
5.6 Strength evaluation of the full length model…………………….. 64
5.6.1 Strength failure analysis at time 8.2 secs……………. 64
5.6.2 Strength failure analysis at time 9.5 secs……………. 66
5.6.3 Strength failure analysis at time 12.1 secs…………... 68
5.7 Summary of the full length model……………………………… 69
vi
6 WEIGHT REDUCTION …………………………………………… 70
6.1 Weight calculation on ARL’s model…………………………… 70
6.2 Weight evaluation on the final design of the composite mortar... 73
6.3 Summary of weight reduction…………………………………. 76
7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK………...………………... 77

7.1 Summary……………………………………………………….. 77
7.2 Conclusion……………………………………………………… 78
7.3 Future work…………………………………………………….. 78
APPENDIX ………………….………………………………………………….. 79
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………. 82
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH…………………………………………………... 84
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Properties of 4340 steel………………………………………………….. 16
3.2 Properties of the IM7/RP46 composite with fiber volume of 60%……… 24
3.3 Properties of SI-ATP-4 (cyanate ester resin)……………………………. 25
3.4 Properties of IM7/cyanate ester composite with fiber volume of 60%…. 26
3.5 Properties of Sialyte resin…………………………………………….…. 27
3.6 Properties of Nextel 610 fiber…………………………………………… 28
3.7 Properties of Nextel 610/Sialyte composite with fiber volume of 40%… 29
4.1 Circumferential stresses at the nodes under study in all the three cases… 40
4.2 Comparison of the results………………………………………………... 43
4.3 Ultimate strengths of the TBC material with fiber volume of 45% …….. 48
Ultimate strengths of the composite sheath material with fiber volume
4.4 49
of 65%……………………………………………………………………
5.1 Radial displacements at nodes in the liner……………………………… 57
5.2 Radial stresses at nodes in the liner……………………………………… 57
5.3 Circumferential stress at nodes under study…………………………….. 58
5.4 Comparison of the results of quarter and full length model…………….. 63

5.5 Strength failure evaluation of the TBC and sheath on the full length
model at analysis at 8.2 seconds………………………………………… 65
model at analysis at 9.5 seconds………………………………………… 67
viii
68
model at analysis at 12.1 seconds.……………………………………….
6.1 Weight evaluation of the ARL’s model…………………………………. 72
6.2 Total weight calculations of the ARL’s model………………………….. 72
6.3 Weight evaluation of the composite barrel model………………………. 75
6.4 Total weight calculations of the mortar barrel model……………….….. 75
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 FCS-Lighten force structure……………………………………………. 2
1.2 Mortar used in hilly area………………………………………………... 3
1.3 A mortar barrel with ammunition at the breech end……………………. 5
1.4 Thesis structure…………………………………………………………. 6
2.1 FEA results of ARL’s design…………………………………………… 11
3.1 DMA test on the IM7/RP46 composite before post curing…………….. 22
3.2 DMA results on the post cured IM7/RP46 composite………………….. 23
4.1 Basic design of the quarter model………………………………………. 33
4.2 Material orientation in the thermal barrier and composite sheath………. 34
4.3 Study of the boundary conditions on the quarter model………………... 35
4.4 Boundary conditions and loading on the quarter model………………... 35
4.5 Thermal loading on the quarter model…………………………………. 36
4.6 Meshing on the quarter model…………………………………….……. 37
4.7 Deformation of the quarter model after FEA…………………………… 38
4.8 Mises stress distribution on the quarter model…………………………. 39
4.9 Meshed model of the ARL……………………………………………… 41
4.10 Barrel stress plot after analysis…………………………………………. 42
4.11 Barrel stress plot of ARL’s analysis……………………………………. 43
x
4.12 Circumferential stresses in the layers at different degree of
orientations……………………………………………………………… 44
4.13 Displacement in the layers under different material orientations……..... 45
5.1 Pressure along the length of the barrel at different times………………. 53
5.2 Dimensions of the full length model…………………………………… 54
5.3 Meshed model of the full length barrel under analysis…………….…… 55
5.4 Nodes under study for the full length analysis………………………….. 56
5.5 Circumferential plot along the length of the barrel at 8.2 seconds……... 59
5.6 Circumferential plot along the length of the barrel at 9.5 seconds……... 61
5.7 Circumferential plot along the length of the barrel at 12.1 seconds……. 62
6.1 PRO/E model of the ARL’s design……………………………….……. 71
6.2 Dissembled PRO/E model of the ARL’s design………………….……. 71
6.3 PRO/E model of the final design of the mortar barrel…………………. 73
6.4 Dissembled PRO/E model of the final design of the mortar barrel…….. 74
xi
ABSTRACT
A 81-mm mortar barrel that is at least 50% lighter than the current steel barrel used in the
M252 mortar system would prove to be advantageous for the army. The desire for the
weight reduction was based on the army’s vision of the future combat systems. The
current barrel has a maximum rated pressure of 109 MPa (15,800 psi) and is capable of
sustained fire rates of 15 rounds per minute. The concept of sheathing a steel liner with a
lightweight material to meet the weight saving goal while satisfying the performance
requirements was investigated. The perceived need for lightweight mortars led to the
study of composite materials. Composites are increasingly being used because of their
lightweight, high strength to stiffness ratio and high durability under severe loading
environments.
High temperatures around 550oC (1022oF) are produced in the mortar barrel
during firing. Very few resins are now available that are susceptible to working
temperatures of as high as 350oC (662oF). A thermal barrier material was introduced
between the steel liner and the composite sheath to reduce the transmission of high
temperatures to the sheath, hence reducing the working temperature of the resin. Viable
materials for the barrel were investigated and identified. 4340 steel was considered for
the liner material, Nextel 610/Sialyte composite for the thermal barrier material and
IM7/cyanate ester composite for the sheath material. The lightweight composite mortar
barrel was modeled and analyzed using the finite element analysis software ABAQUS.
Finite element analysis was conducted on the mortar barrel to determine the integrity of
the design against the maximum expected pressure and temperature loads. The failure
strength analysis determined that the design was susceptible to the rated loads. The
weight of the composite mortar barrel was evaluated to be 5.3 Kg (11.68 lb) while the
weight of the current steel barrel is 12.4 Kg (27.4 lb). The composite mortar barrel design
achieved a potential weight reduction of 57% compared to that of the current steel barrel.
xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Infantry companies have traditionally relied on mortars as their means of providing

organic fire support. The current 81-mm mortar being used by the US Army was
found to be too heavy and unwieldy in the jungle environments. Based on the
perceived need for lightweight, yet lethal, mortar systems, an effort was undertaken to
determine the feasibility of reducing the weight of the current 81-mm mortar barrel
system by at least 50%. The mission of army’s future combat systems had set the
vision to go ahead with the design and analysis of lightweight mortar barrel system.
The need to reduce the weight of the mortar barrel system had instigated the
consideration of composite materials as the best candidate for the material system.
This thesis details the work performed concerning the lightening of the 81-mm mortar
barrel.
1.1 Vision of Future Combat System (FCS)
The Army is a premier strategic instrument for national policy that serves citizens in
peace and war. For the Army to continue its vital tasks, the Army must change. The
requirement to transform today’s Army is based upon the security challenges of a
vastly different and dangerous 21st century and the need to respond more rapidly and
decisively across the full spectrum of military operations. The U.S. Army is
transforming into a full spectrum force, which is strategically responsive and
dominant. The goal of this transformation is to deploy a combat capable brigade
1
anywhere in the world within 96 hours after liftoff, a war fighting full division in 120
hours and five divisions on the ground within 30 days. The army transformation
program is called Future Combat Systems (FCS). FCS is a joint venture of
DARPA/Army program that is identifying the promising systems and technologies
for achieving the Army’s vision of fielding an “Objective Force”. The Objective
Force (OF) is the Army’s future full spectrum force: organized, manned, equipped
and trained to be more strategically responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal,
survivable and sustainable across the entire spectrum of military operations from
major theater wars through counter terrorism to homeland security. This OF is
targeted to be more light and mobile. The aggregated force structure will be
significantly (at least 50%) lighter than the existing force structure and at equal force
level. The FCS is aiming to lighten the force structure using Science and Technology
(S&T). Figure 1.1 shows the concept of transformation and shows a prototype of the
FCS.
Figure 1.1 FCS – Lighten force structure
Lightening the force structure means decreasing the weight of the weapons,
ammunitions and systems used by the Army. Following Army endeavors, the
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering at FAMU-FSU College of
Engineering, in collaboration with Lockheed Martin, is working on a US Army
funded project, “Lightweight Composite Mortar”. This project is expected to follow
2
the FCS mission by decreasing the weight of the current M252 81mm mortar barrel
by at least 50%.
1.2 Lightweight Composite Mortar
The mortar is one of the most conventional types of firearm and its existence
dates back to as early as the fourteen century. Mortars are used as supporting
weapons in every modern army. Mortar is a smoothbore, muzzle-loaded, high-angle-
of-fire weapon. It consists of a mortar barrel with a base plug and a fixed firing pin
for drop firing, a base plate that supports and aligns the mortar, and a bipod assembly
to support the mortar barrel. This indirect fire weapon with its high mobility often is
the only applicable artillery that features high precision and firepower, especially in a
hilly area. Figure 1.2 shows the typical use of a mortar in hilly area.
Figure 1.2 Mortar used in hilly area
The weight of the mortar is a major concern as the soldiers carry them on their
backs along with their other gear and other ammunition. Significant work was done in
the past to decrease the weight of the mortar without any compromise on the rate of
performance. The current M252, 81-mm mortar, uses a cannon that weighs 27.4 lb.
(12.4 Kg) without the Blast Attenuation Device (BAD) [1]. Weight reduction of the
3
mortar barrel by 50% results in reducing the weight of the barrel by 13.7 lb. (6.2 Kg).
The current barrel is a single material barrel made up of steel. Investigations are
underway to change the single material (steel) barrel into a barrel that has steel liner
with a lightweight material overwraps. The scope of making the barrel with a single
lightweight material was ruled out as it requires extensive work on developing a
means of treating or coating the bore to minimize wear and erosion. Changing the
material of the liner was not considered. Steel is still maintained as the liner material
to take advantage of the years of study that have been devoted to investigating the
steel-bore gun tube to wear and erosion. So, it is felt that sheathing a thin steel liner
with a lightweight material would meet the required weight reduction. Metals and
composites appear to be good candidates as lightweight materials but composites
rules over metals when situations demand lightweight with performance. So different
composite materials were investigated with different fiber and matrix combinations
with different fiber volume ratios. Selecting the composite material turned out to be a
challenging issue because one of the obvious requirements of any material used for a
mortar barrel is that it has sufficient strength to withstand the expected pressure and
thermal loading caused by firing.
The firing in the mortar takes place by inserting the ammunition through the
muzzle end. Figure 1.3 shows a design of a mortar barrel and a cross section view at
the breech end showing the ammunition. The elevation of the barrel causes the bomb
to slide toward the base of the barrel. On reaching the base, a propelling charge on the
shell is ignited by the firing pin. The pressure of the gas produced by the burning
propellant charge drives the ammunition up and out of the barrel. The maximum
operating pressure in the mortar is around 109 MPa (15,800 psi) and the maximum
operating temperature is 550 oC (1022oF) [1].
4
Mortar barrel
Ammunition
inserted in the
barrel
Figure 1.3 A mortar barrel with ammunition at the breech end
Though many composite materials could withstand the maximum operating

pressure, none were successful in withstanding the maximum operating temperature
due to the unavailability of viable resins to resist high temperatures. This lead to the
introduction of a new layer between the steel liner and the composite layer. This new
layer is a thermal barrier-coating layer. This layer reduces the transmission of high
temperatures to the composite material, thus reducing the maximum operating
temperature of the composite material. Selecting the appropriate materials and the
design for the mortar barrel to achieve the required weight reduction was the area of
research. The weight of the barrel is in the clutches of materials selection and in the
design of the mortar barrel.
1.3 Objective
The Army transformation demands agile, light and lethal systems. The objective of
this research is to find the feasibility of decreasing the weight of the current mortar
barrel by at least 50%. This research work explores materials that are lightweight and
susceptible to high temperature and structural loads. The results will show the design
of the mortar barrel and the stresses responses in the barrel when subjected to the
5
rated loads. The results will also portray the potential weight reduction that has been
achieved on the mortar barrel.
1.4 Thesis Structure
This thesis focuses on the structural design and analysis of lightweight composite
mortar barrel. The thesis works on building a new design for the mortar barrel that
would weigh 50% lighter than the current mortar barrel
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Problem statement and objective
Chapter 2 - Literature Review

Literature on ARL’s model and resin systems
Chapter 3 - Material Selection

Selection suitable material system
Chapter 4 - Quarter Model

Modeling and analysis on quarter model
Chapter 5 – Full Length Model

Modeling and analysis on full length model
Chapter 6 – Weight Estimation

Weight estimation on the final design
Chapter 7 – Conclusion and Future Work

Results and the scope of future work
Figure 1.4 Thesis Structure
6
Chapter 2 looks into the literature of the intended research work and previous
work done by the people in the concentrated area. Chapter 3 reviews the material
selection of the mortar barrel, which is important as it determines the viable materials
for the barrel fabrication. The modeling of the mortar barrel starts from the next
chapter. Chapter 4 examines the detailed research in modeling and finite element
analysis on the barrel structure. In Chapter 4, a base model is analyzed and the
working procedures of the simulation and finite element analysis are validated. A
quarter part of a small section of the barrel at the breech end is analyzed and
explained successfully in this chapter, which led to the analysis of the full length
barrel model. Chapter 5 reports how the full length barrel is modeled and analyzed.
The pressure variations data along the length of the barrel were obtained from Army
Research Laboratories (ARL). The full length barrel was analyzed when sustained to
the rated loads. A viable design of the mortar barrel was obtained and the weight of
the final designed mortar was estimated in the next chapter. Chapter 6 examines how
the total weight of the final design of the mortar was estimated and the weight
reduction of the designed mortar barrel in comparison with the current mortar barrel
was calculated. All the calculation procedures and steps were validated in the
estimation of the weight reduction. The conclusions of the research and the proposed
future work are discussed in Chapter 7.
7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The structural analysis and design of lightweight composite mortar barrel involves the
understanding of an effective analytical design methodology. Design methodology
involves the geometry of the structure, material systems used and the stress response
of the structure when subjected to loads. An effort was made to look into the literature
regarding the material systems and the structural response of the mortar barrel.
2.1 Review on the Structural Response of the Mortar Barrel
The structure of the mortar barrel is identical to that of a thick-walled cylinder. The
study of the mechanisms involved in thick-walled cylinder, when subjected to internal
loading, would enhance the knowledge of the mechanisms involved in the mortar
barrel when subjected to the pressure and thermal loads due to firing. Thick cylinders
are used widely in industry as pressure vessels, pipes, gun tubes, etc. The
deformations in a cylinder when subjected to uniform internal pressure and
temperature loads are symmetrical with respect to the axis of the cylinder and the
deformations at a cross section sufficiently far from the junction of the cylinder and
its end cap are practically independent of the axial coordinate. In particular, if the
cylinder is open and unconstrained, it undergoes axisymmetric deformations, when
subjected to uniform internal pressure and temperature loads, which are independent
of the axial coordinate, z [2]. The structure of the mortar barrel can be illustrated as a
8
hollow cylinder with one end open and the other end closed. Even if the cylinder is
closed at one end, the deformations in the cylinder are irrespective of the axial
coordinate, excluding the vicinity of the junction between the cylinder and the closed
end. So, in the treatment of the mortar barrel structure, the study of the stresses and
the displacements in the axial coordinate of the barrel need not be issued, when the
barrel structure is subjected to uniform internal pressure and temperature loads. The
study of the mortar barrel structure involves the mechanisms along the layers through
the thickness of the barrel. The study of the structural response of pressure vessels
fetches good literature in the mechanics involved in the mortar barrel. To develop a
lightweight mortar barrel, it was necessary to identify the parameters that can
effectively mitigate the weight reduction.
One of the parameters that can contribute to the weight reduction was the
material used. Changing the material system to achieve weight reduction instigates
the use of composite materials. Composites are being widely used in pressure vessels
to reduce the weight by a factor of 2-3 compared to the conventional metallic vessel.
In many applications, fiber/matrix materials are lighter and stronger compared to
traditional materials like metals. In aerospace applications, composite tanks with
load-sharing liner provide significant weight saving on the order of 40% or more over
the highest performance of homogeneous metal vessels [3].
Kabir [3] had worked on the numerical analysis of filament reinforced
internally pressurized cylindrical vessels with over wrapped metallic liner. He
modeled the structure as an elastic, ideally plastic liner reinforced with a quasi-
isotropic elastic composite. His primary objective in designing a fiber reinforced
metal pressure vessel was to obtain maximum operating performance at a minimum
weight. The applications of composites for weight saving give support to use
composite material as the material system for the mortar barrel.
Several authors have worked on the use of composite materials in the
manufacturing of pressure vessels. Park et al. [4] worked on the structural analysis of
the filament wound composite motor case. They performed FEA using ABAQUS
9
software to predict the behavior of the filament wound composite structures and did
water pressure tests to verify the analysis procedures. They used Tsai-Wu failure
criterion to predict the occurrence of failure under various stress conditions. This
motor case had a design pressure of 17.2 MPa (2.5 ksi) and progressive failure
analysis was conducted to predict the burst pressure at 20.7 MPa (3 ksi). Ng et al. [5]
had worked on shallow water composite pressure vessels, which were designed,
analyzed and manufactured to withstand a hydrostatic pressure of 1.14 MPa (165.5
psi) that corresponds to a depth of 91m in ocean [5]. In the design and analysis of the
pressure vessels, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is often used as a technique to
analyze and determine mechanical performance of the vessels.
2.2 Review on ARL’s Mortar Barrel Model
Based on the perceived need for a lethal, yet light, mortar system, an effort was
undertaken by the ARL to reduce the weight of the mortar barrel by 30% in 1999 [1].
The concept of sheathing a steel liner with a lightweight material to meet the weight-
saving goal while meeting the current M252 81mm mortar performance requirements
was introduced. The M252 81mm mortar is required to fire 30 rounds per minute
(rpm) for the first 2 minutes and 15 rpm indefinitely (U.S. Departments of the Army
and Air Force 1990) [1]. This leads to proof testing of the mortar barrel to a
maximum operating temperature of 550oC (1022o F). Larry Burton, Army Research
Laboratory, worked on reducing the weight of the mortar barrel by sheathing
lightweight material over steel liner. The lightweight materials he investigated were
aluminum alloys, titanium alloys and graphite/epoxy composites. Upon the discovery
of extreme elevated operational environment, the graphite-reinforced composites
were dropped from consideration as viable sheath material, due to the limitation of
the polymeric resins available at that time. Very few resins can withstand
temperatures above 260oC (500oF) and none were know to be capable of withstanding
anything above 483oC (900oF). Aluminum alloys are observed to undergo substantial
10
loss of strength at elevated temperatures and titanium alloys appear to outperform the
aluminum alloys. This made titanium alloy (Ti21S) a better choice for the sheath
material. A small section at the breech end (critical section) experiences the
maximum pressure and thermal loads. ARL went for fin augmentation around those
sections for better heat dissipation. After designing the mortar barrel, Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) was performed on the critical section to determine whether the design
is susceptible to the rated loads.
Figure 2.1 FEA results of ARL’s design
Figure 2.1 shows the FEA results on the fin augmented critical section at the
breech end. The design of the barrel and the barrel materials are able to withstand the
induced stresses due to firing. ARL was successful in achieving its objective of 30%
weight reduction. However, the Army transformation program, FCS, demands still
lighter systems. The Army is aiming to lighten the aggregate force by 50%. This led
the current research to design a lightweight composite mortar, composite sheath over
steel liner, which weighs at least 50% lighter to that of the current M252 81-mm
mortar barrel.
11
2.3 Literature on High Temperature Resins
Composite materials have long been used in a wide range of applications in road
transportation, aircraft structures, space vehicles and underwater vehicles.
Composites have superior strength- and stiffness-to-weight ratios as compared with
metals. Previous studies showed that using composite pressure vessels instead of
conventional metals could reduce the weight of the pressure vessel by a factor of 2-3
[4]. Initially composite materials were not considered as a viable sheath material due
to the limitations of the polymeric resins working under extreme elevated
temperatures. With technology changing and invention of new materials, a search was
launched to find resins that are susceptible to high temperatures. Some resins were
found to offer advantages as composite matrices because of their high thermal
stability, low outgassing, low water absorption and radiation resistance. This invoked
a detailed study in the area of high temperature resins. One of the leading high-
temperature matrix resins is the PMR-15 polyimide, developed by the NASA-Lewis
Research Center [6]. PMR stands for polymerization by monomeric reactants. High
temperature polymer matrix composites are continually being utilized or evaluated for
a number of aerospace applications by NASA.
Aromatic polyimides, in particular, have long been recognized as attractive
matrices for such applications. The stiff molecular backbone provided by the imide
group offers a desired high glass transition temperature, Tg, and a superior chemical
resistance and excellent mechanical properties. However, PMR-15 has a number of
serious limitations, which restrict its applications. These limitations include non-
reproducible processing and severe microcracking, which is exacerbated by thermal
cycling. NASA Langley Research Center has developed a new resin system that has
improved characteristics of PMR-15, such has low raw materials cost and superior
processability, combined with excellent processing reproducibility.
This resin system was designated as LARCTM-RP46 [6]. This resin has higher
composite fracture toughness even at higher temperatures. So RP46 is felt as the
12
option to be the composite resin for the mortar barrel. The working temperature of
RP46 resin is around 350oC (660oF). Composite materials wounded and cured under
certain methods yield excellent ring tensile strengths both at room and elevated
temperatures. The working temperature of the mortar barrel at the breech end was
found to be around 550oC (1022oF) [1]. Though RP46 is the best high temperature
resin available, still it is not good enough to be considered as a resin for the
composite sheath. To decrease the working temperature of the composite sheath, the
idea of introducing a thermal barrier coating layer between the steel liner and the
composite sheath was considered. This thermal barrier layer reduces the transmission
of high temperatures to the composite sheath and is anticipated for the research to be
successful in achieving the weight reduction with the RP46 resin system.
2.4 Literature on Thermal Barrier Materials
Key parameters for thermal barrier materials are low thermal conductivity and the
ability to operate at high temperatures. Thermal barrier materials are widely used in
industry for applications involving high temperatures insulation. Thermal barrier
materials are used in gas turbine engines and hot surfaces of structural components to
extend the lifetimes of these components. However, the durability of the thermal
barrier material may be a problem under increasing operating temperatures and the
extended exposure times. One of the crucial parameters for the design of thermal
barrier materials is the thermal conductivity. Zirconia is one of the most commonly
and widely used thermal barrier material. Values typically found in the literature for
thermal conductivity of yttria-stabilized zirconia range from 1.4 W/m.K to 1.7
W/m.K [8]. Zirconia can be considered as a viable thermal barrier material for the
composite.
13
2.5 Summary of the Literature Review
The structural issue of the mortar barrel structure is similar to that of a hollow
cylinder subjected to uniform internal loads. The structural response of the hollow
cylinder when subjected to uniform internal loads was analyzed. The effort of the
ARL to reduce the weight of the mortar barrel by 30% was investigated and provided
an insight of the approach to be followed in the current research. Literature on the
existing high temperatures resins and the thermal barrier materials was reviewed. This
review has given potential information concerning the material selection for the
mortar barrel. RP46 resin and zirconia were considered as the promising material
system for the mortar barrel.
14
CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL SELECTION
To decrease the weight of the barrel while still maintaining its ability to withstand the
rated loads needs materials that are lightweight and durable. The criteria that was
concentrated in the material selections was that the material should have enough
strength to withstand the rated pressure loading, the material should be thermally
stable to withstand high temperatures and the density should be low enough to incur
the objected weight reduction. The following sections examines the concerns
involved in the selection of the viable materials for the composite mortar barrel.
3.1 Selection of Material for the Liner
Steel is the most conventional liner material used in mortar barrels. Bockholt has
designed a 120-mm mortar barrel, which uses a Gr/PMC composite barrel with a
titanium liner [9]. Though titanium can be considered as a candidate for the liner
material, still steel was preferred as the liner material to take the advantage of the
years of study that have been devoted in the investigation of steel-bore gun tube wear
and corrosion. 4340 steel was considered as the material for the liner. 4340 steel is a
highly alloyed steel, nominally 1.8% Ni, 0.8% chromium and 0.25% molybdenum
and it has high strength characteristics and is usually used for heavily stressed parts.
Table 3.1 contains the properties of 4340 steel
15
Table 3.1 Properties of 4340 steel
Young’s Poisson’s Coefficient of Yield

Modulus ratio thermal expansion Strength
210 GPa 1.40 E-05 /oC 1240 MPa
0.29
(30,458 ksi) 0.78 E-05 /oF (179.85 ksi)
3.2 Evaluation of the material properties of a composite material
Fiber reinforced composites are microscopically inhomogeneous and nonisotropic.

The mechanics of fiber reinforced composites are far more complex than that of
conventional metal materials. The mechanics of fiber reinforced composites materials
are generally studied at two levels, the micro mechanics level and the macro
mechanics level [11]. In the micro mechanics level, the interaction of the constituent
materials is examined on a microscopic scale. In the macro mechanics level, the
response of a fiber-reinforced composites material to mechanical and thermal loads
are examined on a macro mechanics scale. So, generally two approaches may be used
for evaluating material properties data, one approach is prediction using micro
mechanics and the other is testing composite material. Prediction allows the
composite properties to be calculated with available properties data of its constituents.
Its major disadvantage is that all the predictions are based on some assumptions about
the interactions between the fiber and matrix. As the modulus properties and the
strengths of a composite are dependent on the macro performance of the composite,
predictions usually show acceptable agreement with the test data. In contrast, the
strength predictions of a composite show obvious differences from the test data,
which can be attributed to the fact that the strength of a composite is dominant with
the micro interaction between the fiber and matrix, as well as their complex failure
mechanisms. The approach implemented in this research was twofold, number one is
to predict material properties data of the composite with its constituents before any
16
test data are available and number two is to cooperate with the vendors to test the
material properties of the composite and verify the predictions whenever the test data
are available.
The following sections regard the conventional prediction formulas of
modulus, strength, coefficient of thermal expansion and density. Some basic
assumptions are considered in evaluating the composite material properties [12]
1. Fibers are uniformly distributed throughout the matrix
2. Perfect bonding exists between the fibers and the matrix
3. The matrix is free of voids
4. The fiber possess uniform strength
5. The composite is initially in a stress free state.
6. Both fibers and matrix follow Hooke’s law (linearly elastic)
3.2.1 Prediction of elastic modulus

Assuming a perfect bonding between fibers and matrix, the longitudinal elastic
modulus of a composite can be estimated as follows.
e f =em =ec (3.1)
where ef, em and ec are the longitudinal stains in fibers, matrix and composite
respectively. In the following sections the subscripts f, m, and c are exclusively used
to denote fiber, matrix and composite respectively.
Since both fibers and matrix are elastic, the respective longitudinal stresses
can be calculated as
s f = E f e f = Ef ec (3.2)
s m = E me m = E me c (3.3)
where E and s stands for the Young’s modulus and longitudinal stress
respectively. The total tensile force P applied on the composite lamina is shared by
the fibers and matrix so that
17
P = Pf + Pm
Since load = stress x area, the above equation can be written as

s c Ac = s f A f + s m Am
or
Af Am
sc =s f +sm (3.5)
Ac Ac
Since the fiber volume fraction, Vf = Af / Ac, and the matrix volume fraction,
Vm = Am / Ac, the above equation can be written as
s c = s f V f + s mVm
or
s c = s f V f + s m (1 - V f ) (3.6)
Dividing both sides of the above equation by ec, the longitudinal modulus for
the composite can be written as
E L = E f V f + E m (1 - V f ) (3.7)
where EL is the longitudinal modulus of the composite. The above equation is

called the rule of mixtures and shows that the composite longitudinal modulus is
intermediate between the fiber and matrix moduli.
The transverse composite strain eT is related to longitudinal composite strain

eL by
e T = V f e fT + Vme mT = -(V f n f + Vmn m )e L (3.8)
The subscripts L, T, and S are exclusively used to denote longitudinal,

transverse and shear directions. As the Poisson’s ratio is the ratio of the lateral
contraction per unit breath to the longitudinal extension per unit length, equation 3.8
gives the Poisson’s ratio for composite as
n L = V f n f + Vmn m (3.9)
18
It can be observed that the Poisson’s ratio also follows the rule of mixtures.
Equation 3.8 can also be written as
Vf Vm
e T = V f e fT + Vme mT = ( + )s T (3.10)
Ef Em
The resulting transverse Young’s modulus can obtained as

1 Vf V
= + m (3.11)
ET E f Em
However, in actual composites, fibers are completely surrounded by matrix.

Therefore a more realistic approach is better to estimate the moduli instead of the
simple rule of mixtures. This approach involves an experimental parameter. The
experimental parameter for transverse loading is the stress partitioning parameter hT,
which measures the relative magnitudes of the average matrix stress as compared to
the average fiber stress. hT can be obtained by test data or generally can be assigned
0.5 for convenience [13]. The reformed equation for the transverse Young’s modulus
is
1 1 1 1
= (V f + h T Vm ) (3.12)
E T V f + h T Vm Ef Em
The prediction of the longitudinal shear modulus has a formulation similar to

the formulation of the transverse elastic modulus.
1 1 1 1
= (V f + h sV m ) (3.13)
E S V f + h sVm Gf Gm
hs is the stress partitioning parameter of shearing deformation, which should

be obtained by test data or assigned as 0.5 for convenience
The transverse shear modulus relates the shear strain to the shear stress. The
prediction of transverse shear modulus of a composite can be obtained by following
the same procedure as in the preceding formulations.
19
1 1 1 1
= (V f + hGVm ) (3.14)
GT V f + hGVm Gf Gm
where
1 G
hG = (3 - 4Vm + m ) (3.15)
4V f Gf
GT gives the transverse shear modulus, hG is the stress partitioning parameter

which can be obtained from equation 3.6.
3.2.2 Prediction of tensile strength

The longitudinal tensile strength of composite can be estimated by the rule of
mixtures. Since the fibers carry most of the load in the composite, it is assumed that
the when the fiber fails, the whole composite fails [11]. Therefore the composite
tensile strength can be obtained as
Em
s cu = (V f + Vm )s fu (3.16)
Ef
where scu and sfu are the composite and the fiber strength respectively. The final
composite strength should be decided based on material strength test.
3.2.3 Prediction of coefficient of thermal expansion

The Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) is defined as the change in the linear
dimension of a body per unit length per unit change of temperature. For a
unidirectional lamina, the dimension changes differ in both the longitudinal and
transverse directions. The longitudinal CTE of a composite can be predicted by
applying the mixture of rule.
V f E f a f + (1 - V f ) E ma m
aL = (3.17)
V f E f + (1 - V f ) E m
20
The transverse CTE of a composite can be predicted by using the
thermoelastic extremum principle [15]. The Composite transverse CTE, aT, is given
by
a T = V f a f + Vma m + V f n f a f + Vmn ma m - (V f n f + Vmn m )a L (3.18)
3.2.4 Prediction of density

The density of a composite is predicted by using the rule of mixtures
r c = V f r f + (1 - V f ) r m (3.19)
where rc, rf and rm are the densities of the composite, fiber and the matrix
respectively.
3.3 Selection of the Composite Material for the Sheath
Selecting a viable composite as a sheath material for the mortar barrel is a challenging
task. The composite is exposed to temperatures around 1100oF but to date there are
very few resins that are susceptible to temperatures as high as 600oF. From the
literature review on high temperature resins in chapter 2, important information on
the RP46 resin system can be obtained. It is felt better to consider RP46 resin as the
resin system based on the literature reviewed. To determine the glass transition
temperature and the safe working temperature of the resin, samples were ordered
from the Unitech Corporation. Dynamic Mechanical Analysis (DMA) were carried
out on the samples. IM7 carbon was considered as the best available fiber material for
the composite and the composite IM7/RP46 was considered for DMA. DMA is
performed to measure the viscoelastic properties, such as modulus and damping, of
solid and soft solid materials. DMA is a technique that bridges the disciplines of
thermal analysis and rheology [7]. IM7 carbon/RP 46 composite samples were fixed
into position in the DMA instrument using single cantilever fixture and mechanical
21
deformation was applied to the sample via the instrument’s drive motor to obtain the
combination of the temperature and deformation profile.
Figure 3.1 DMA test on the IM7/RP46 composite before post curing
Figure 3.1 depicts the curves obtained from the DMA testing on the
IM7/RP46 composite before post curing. From the curves it was observed that the
glass transition temperature of the resin was around 330oC (625oF). After this
temperature the storage modulus curves drops drastically. DMA testing was also
performed on a post cured composite. The composite was post cured using a Vulcan
programmable furnace and the sample was post cured by increasing the temperature
to 350oC (660oF) over 6 hours and kept hold for 4 hours at 350oC and then cooled to
room temperature over 6 hours. The advantage of post curing the sample is that it has
more thermal stability and can withstand higher thermal loads. Figure 3.2 depicts the
curves obtained from the DMA testing on the post cured IM&/RP46 composite.
22
Figure 3.2 DMA results on the post cured IM7/RP46 composite
Figure 3.2 shows that the glass transition temperature of the cured composite
is around 380oC (715oF). Post curing the resin increased the thermal stability of the
composite and the composite has higher glass transition temperature compared to that
of before post curing. Even RP46 can withstand temperatures only up to 700oF. In
order to decrease the temperatures in the composite sheath a thermal barrier material
was introduced between the steel liner and the composite sheath. The thermal barrier
material reduces the amount of heat to be transmitted to the composite sheath so that
it lowers the working temperature of the resin, reducing the working temperatures of
the composite sheath. So, RP46 is opted to be used as the viable sheath resin. This led
to a design such that the temperature in the composite sheath is not greater than
700oF. IM7 carbon fiber is chosen as the fiber material for the composite, since IM7
carbon fiber has good tensile properties and can efficiently reinforce the composite.
The composite was considered to have a fiber volume of 60%. From the properties of
23
the fiber and the resin the properties of the composite are predicted based on the
formulae discussed in section 3.2 (Appendix). The estimated properties of the IM7 /
RP46 composite are provided in the Table 3.2.
Table 3. 2 Properties of the IM7/RP46 composite with a fiber volume of 60%
Longitudinal elastic modulus 152.14 GPa (22.1 msi)

Transverse elastic modulus 8.87 GPa (1.3 msi)
Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Shear modulus G13 = G12 = 5.717 GPa (0.8 msi)
G23 = 3.58 GPa (0.5 msi)
Coefficient of thermal expansion a11 = -5.47 E-07 /oC
= -3.04 E-07 /oF
a22 = 2.46 E-05 /oC
= 1.36 E-05 /oF
Thermal conductivity 5.089 W/m-K (35.28 Btu.in/h.ft2. oF)
Specific heat 0.921 KJ/Kg-C (0.22 Btu/lbm. oF)
Density 1.552 E03 Kg/m3 (0.056 lbm/in3)
After the design, the composite was ordered for fabrication but unfortunately
RP46 emitted flammable fumes at the time of fabrication. The fabrication technique
that is considered for manufacturing is filament winding due to its efficiency and low
cost. Therefore, RP46 resin could not be considered as composite sheath resin due to
the potentially dangerous fabrication issue.
Cyanate ester resin designated as SI-ATP-4 was found as a substitute for
RP46 resin. The properties of the resin were obtained from Atard Laboratories, which
is a division of Shade Inc. The properties of the cyanate ester resin are shown in the
table 3.3.
24
Table 3.3 Properties of SI-ATP-4 (cyanate ester resin)
Glass transition temperature 410.6 oC (771oF)

Coefficient of thermal expansion 60.19 E –06 /oC
(33.44 E –06 /oF)
Tensile strength 37.89 MPa (5.5 ksi)
Tensile modulus 3.77 GPa (0.547 msi)
Flexural strength 86.19 MPa (12.509 ksi)
Flexural modulus 3.98 GPa (0.578 msi)
Shear strength 78.78 MPa (11.434 ksi)
Compressive strength 162.7 MPa (23.614 ksi)
The cyanate ester resin properties meet the requirements to be a good

candidate for the resin in the composite sheath. A composite made from IM7 carbon
fiber and cyanate ester resin with a fiber volume percentage of 60% is considered to
be a viable sheath material. Filament winding technique was chosen for the
fabrication of the IM7/cyanate ester composite sheath. The properties of the
IM7/cyanate ester composite were estimated based on the formulae discussed in
section 3.2. Some properties of the cyanate ester resin were assumed to be that of an
epoxy resin due to unavailability of data (Appendix).
The properties of the sheath material are in the Table 3.4. The properties of
the composite are similar to those of the IM7/RP46 composite, furthermore cyanate
ester resin has no problem with the fabrication environment of the composite.
IM7/cyanate ester composite was opted as the sheath material for the mortar barrel.
25
Table 3.4 Properties of IM7/cyanate ester composite with a fiber volume of 60%

G23 = 3.26 GPa (0.47 msi)
Coefficient of thermal expansion a11 = -4.113 E-07 /oC
= -2.285 E-07 /oF
a22 =3.532 E-05 /oC
= 1.962 E-05 /oF
Specific heat 0.922 KJ/Kg-C (0.22 Btu/lbm oF)
3.4 Selection of the Thermal Barrier Material
Initially, Zirconium was considered as a suitable candidate for the thermal barrier
material. However the physical properties of zirconia would not support the rated
structural loads. Therefore a composite that would act as a thermal barrier and as well
as has the ability to withstand structural loads was sought. Sialyte resin being
developed by Cornerstone Research Group (CRG) Inc. has provided a suitable
solution for the current thermal problem. The resin is expected to withstand
temperatures up to 1093-1315 oC (2000-2400 oF) [10], therefore the resin will tolerate
the operating temperatures seen in all thermal models of the mortar tube till date, the
maximum having been up to 650oC (1200oF). The problem regarding CRG resin is
the compressive strength and other mechanical properties of the Sialyte resin.
Fiberglass was woven to reinforce the Sialyte material. The glass fiber reinforced
26
Sialyte resin was found to be the best choice for the thermal barrier layer. Some of the
properties of the Sialyte resin obtained from CRG are shown in the Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Properties of Sialyte resin
2.1 – 5 E-06/C @ rt – 650oC

Coefficient of thermal expansion
(1.2 – 2.8 E-06/F @ rt – 1202oF)
0.2 – 0.4 W/m-K
Thermal conductivity
(1.4 – 2.8 Btu.in/h.ft2. oF)
Storage modulus 3 GPa (0.44 msi)
Tensile modulus
79 GPa (11.47 msi)
(with carbon fiber reinforced)
High temperature strength
40 GPa (5.8 msi)
(with carbon fiber reinforced)
1.3 – 1.4 g/cm3
Density
(0.047 – 0.051 lb/in3)
Crush strength 35.5 – 55.1 MPa (5 – 8 ksi)
0.7 – 1.0 KJ/Kg-C
Specific heat
(0.17 – 0.24 Btu/lbm oF)
The properties of the Sialyte resin in Table 3.5 have not been published since
the resin is in the development stage. CRG Inc. does not accept any responsibilities
for the use of the resin since it is still under research. Under a technical understanding
with the CRG Inc. and their promising insight in the resin properties, the Sialyte resin
is opted as a viable resin for the thermal barrier composite.
Nextel 610 is considered as the suitable ceramic fiber for the composite. The
properties of Nextel 610 fiber are obtained from 3M company as listed in Table 3.6.
27
Table 3.6 Properties of Nextel 610 fiber
Filament tensile strength 3100 MPa (449.9 msi)

Filament tensile modulus 380 GPa (55.15 msi)
Thermal expansion 8.0 E-06/oC @ (100 – 1000 oC)
(4.4 E-06/oF @ (212 – 1832 oF))
Thermal conductivity 8.362 W/m-K
(57.98 Btu.in/h.ft2. oF)
Density 3900 Kg/m3 (0.14 lbm/in3)
The properties for the Nextel 610/Sialyte composite were calculated using
40% fiber ratio. This ratio was chosen because a higher fiber volume ratio increases
the thermal conductivity of the composite because the thermal conductivity of the
fiber was high compared to that of the resin. A lower fiber volume ratio decreases the
physical properties of the composite because the strength of the resin is very low
compared to that of the fiber. After further study, 40% of fiber volume was
considered to be appropriate for the thermal barrier composite. Some of the properties
of the resin, like Poisson’s ratio, are assumed to be that of the standard epoxy due to
the unavailability of the data. Some of the properties of the fiber are assumed to be
that of a glass fiber due to the unavailability of the data. The properties of the
composite are estimated based on the formulae discussed in section 3.2 (Appendix).
Table 3.7 depicts the properties of the Nextel 610/Sialyte composite. The properties
of the Nextel 610/Sialyte resin were promising enough to be considered as a thermal
barrier material for the mortar barrel.
28
Table 3.7 Properties of Nextel 610/Sialyte composite with a fiber volume of 40%

G23 = 2.285 GPa (0.332 msi)
Coefficient of thermal a11 = 7.947 E-06 /oC
expansion = 4.415 E-06 /oF
a22 = 4.345 E-06 /oC
= 2.414 E-06 /oF
3.5 Summary of the Material Selection
Steel was opted to be used as the liner material. A study was conducted to obtain the
properties of composite materials. The required formulae were obtained to estimate
the properties of the composite materials from the properties of its constituents, fiber
and resin. A detailed study in high temperature susceptible resins determined cyanate
ester resin to be the best composite sheath resin and IM7/cyanate ester is opted as the
composite sheath material. Nextel 610/Sialyte composite was identified as a suitable
thermal barrier material and the properties of the composite were obtained. The
materials for the mortar barrel are selected and the properties of the barrel materials
are obtained. The final materials, which were intended to be used for the analysis are
4340 steel for the liner, Nextel 610/Sialyte composite for the thermal barrier layer and
IM7/cyanate ester composite for the composite sheath.
29
CHAPTER 4
QUARTER MODEL
With selection of the material system for the mortar barrel, the stage was set for
structural design and analysis of the mortar barrel. A schematic approach was used in
the design of the barrel. A theoretical model was analyzed to understand the
mechanical behavior of the barrel structure. A quarter model was designed and
analyzed to study the stresses induced in the barrel when subjected to the rated
pressure and temperature loads. A theoretical model and a quarter model are
discussed in this chapter, which set the foundation to proceed further with design and
analysis of the full length mortar barrel.
4.1 Theoretical Study of the Stresses Induced in the Mortar Barrel
The case of the mortar barrel can be compared to that of a pressure vessel or a thick
walled cylinder that is subjected to uniform internal pressure. A study of the
theoretical model of the mortar barrel, when subjected to loads, would be beneficial
in the aspect of understanding the distribution of stresses and the rheology of the
model. The stresses induced in the mortar barrel can be illustrated as a typical stresses
induced in that of a hollow cylinder. There are two typical stresses induced in the
hollow cylinders when subjected to internal pressure loading: the radial stress and the
circumferential stress. As the mortar barrel is subjected to only internal pressure
loading, the analytical formulae for the stresses induced in the hollow cylinder with
only internal loading can be considered for study [2].
30
a 2 (r 2 - b2 )
sr = P (4.1)
r 2 (b 2 - a 2 )
a 2 (r 2 + b2 )
sc = P (4.2)
r 2 (b 2 - a 2 )
where sr and sc are the radial and circumferential stresses respectively
P – Internal pressure applied to the hollow cylinder,
a – Inner radius of the hollow cylinder,
b – Outer radius of the hollow cylinder, and
r – Radius at which the stresses values are needed
Equations 4.1 and 4.2 demonstrate that radial and circumferential stresses
induced in the mortar barrel are dependent on only one variable, r (because the terms
P, a and b are constant for the mortar barrel). This implies that the stresses induced in
the mortar barrel are along the radius and the study of the stresses should be
concentrated on the layers of the barrel. Equations 4.1 and 4.2 also demonstrate that
the circumferential stress induced in a hollow cylinder is greater than the radial stress
induced. This can be inferred because, analyzing the equations 4.1 and 4.2, the
denominator terms of both the equations are the same and the numerator term for the
circumferential stress is greater than that of the radial stress because the numerator
term of the circumferential stress has the product of sum of the squares of two terms,
however the numerator of the radial stress has the product of the difference of the
squares of two terms. It is obvious that the circumferential stress induced are much
greater than that of the radial stresses. So, circumferential stresses induced should be
more focused as they are the main stress carrying elements.
4.2. Design and Analysis of the Quarter Model
The ARL report data indicated that the barrel experiences the maximum pressure at a
distance 13.1 inch (33.3 cm) from the breech end, which is reasonable because the
mortar experiences the maximum pressure and temperature at the breech end, since
31
the firing takes place at this end. The critical barrel section, which is at a distance of
13.1 inch from the breech end and experiences the maximum loads were analyzed.
The length of the critical section, which is prone to the maximum loads, is around 4
inches (10 cm) at a distance of 13.1 inches from the breech end. The stresses induced
in the mortar barrel are layered stresses and the barrel model has symmetric boundary
conditions along each of the faces parallel to the principal axes. The barrel can be
illustrated as a case of the hollow cylinder subjected to uniform pressure loading. A
quarter part of the critical barrel section was analyzed. This quarter barrel section will
be here after be addressed as the critical section and the modeling of the critical
section will be referred to as quarter model of the mortar barrel.
4.2.1 Base design of the quarter model

Performing an analysis of the quarter model requires designing a suitable quarter
model. The quarter model had three layers at the critical section, liner (4340 steel),
TBC (Nextel 610/Sialyte composite) and composite sheath (IM7/cyanate ester
composite). The thickness of each layer had to be determined for an effective design
of the quarter model. The thickness of each layer should be high enough to withstand
the loads yet low enough to contribute for the possible weight reduction. The
thickness of steel was taken as that of the ARL’s model (0.04 inch) since a lower
thickness would effect the steel bore wear and a high thickness would increase the
weight. The thickness of the thermal barrier and the sheath were obtained based on
analyzing various combinations and checking the stresses with different iterations.
The thickness of the TBC was designed at 0.15 inch and that of the sheath at 0.095
inch. The TBC was assigned a high thickness so that it would reduce the transmission
of high temperatures to the composite sheath.
32
Sheath
TBC
Liner
Figure 4.1 Basic design of the quarter model
Figure 4.1 shows the basic design of the quarter model. In the design, there
are four layers instead of the three layers. The TBC is split into two layers to allow
better temperature distribution. In the design, the inner most layer is the steel liner
with 0.04 inch thick and the next two layers are thermal barriers, a total thickness of
0.15 inch (each layer is 0.075 inch), the outer layer is composite sheath is 0.095 inch
thick. The quarter model was designed using a FEA software ABAQUS, which was
also used for carrying out the FEA on the model. ABAQUS software is widely used
in the market for FEA purposes.
4.2.2 Material orientation

Steel is an isotropic material and has uniform material properties in all directions. The
thermal barrier and the sheath are anisotropy materials and have different material
properties in different directions. The material direction was oriented to allow the
maximum strength in the direction of the maximum stress induced. The theoretical
33
study of the stresses induced in the mortar barrel showed that the maximum stresses
induced are the circumferential stresses.
Orientation of direction 1
of the composite along
the circumferential
direction of the model
Global triad
Figure 4.2 Material orientation in the thermal barrier and composite sheath
Figure 4.2 shows that the material orientation in the thermal barrier and
composite sheath is different from that of the global triad. The material is oriented
such that the maximum strength is in the circumferential direction. The properties of
the thermal barrier composite and the sheath composite indicated that the maximum
strengths are in the fiber direction of the composite. From the theoretical study it was
observed that the maximum stress induced in the barrel are in the circumferential
direction. The material was oriented so that the maximum strength of the material are
in the circumferential plane (global direction 2). The material property direction was
oriented at a 90o angle with respect to the axis 3.
34
4.2.3 Boundary conditions and loading
After assigning the material properties to the model, the boundary conditions and the
loads were assigned.
Constraints on the
quarter model Cross-section of
the barrel
Figure 4.3 Study of the boundary conditions on the quarter model
In order to assign the boundary conditions on the quarter model, the

deformation behavior of the model was studied. Figure 4.3 shows the cross-section
view of the barrel and the quarter section was constrained along the faces parallel to
the principal axis in order to meet the boundary conditions.
Boundary
conditions D
Load B
C
Figure 4.4 Boundary conditions and loading on the quarter model
35
Figure 4.4 depicts the quarter model with boundary conditions and load
applied. The plane CD is towards the breech end and the plane AB is towards the
muzzle end. The planes AC and BD were constrained in the plane normal to their
plane as discussed in Figure 4.3. The plane CD is also constrained in the plane normal
to its plane because the breech end is fixed and the plane AB is not constrained,
which is assumed to be the free end. So accordingly boundary conditions are applied.
The arrows that can be seen in the Figure 4.4 were the loads in the form of uniform
internal pressure of 109 MPa (15,800 psi), which is applied to the internal layer of the
liner. The thermal loads are assigned in the input file of the model. All the layers of
the model are given a initial temperature of 80oF.
TBC outer @ 800oF
Sheath @ 750oF
TBC inner @ 900oF
Liner @ 1100oF
Figure 4.5 Thermal loading on the quarter model
Figure 4.5 depicts the thermal load distribution along the layers. The steel
liner was assigned a temperature of 593 oC (1100 oF) because it experiences the total
temperature produced in the barrel. This temperature does not get completely
transmitted to the TBC and there will be a drop in the working temperature of the
TBC compared to that of the liner. The inner layer of the thermal barrier material was
36
assigned a temperature of 482 oC (900 oF) and the outer layer was assigned a
temperature of 427 oC (800 oF). The working temperature of the composite sheath
will be lower than that of the TBC, since TBC resists part of the thermal loads. The
composite sheath layer was assigned a temperature of 399 oC (750 oF). In the code of
the input file, the composite sheath was first assigned the working temperature,
followed by the outer layer of the TBC, then the inner layer of the TBC and then the
liner. This is done so that program reads the higher temperature for the nodes, which
are located at the interface of the layers.
4.2.4 Meshing of the model

The quarter model needs to be meshed for finite element analysis to be carried out.
The mesh density is an important factor as it varies the accuracy of the results.
Increasing the mesh density gives more refined results but it increases the
computational time. A balanced comprise should be reached with the accuracy of the
results and the computational time, so that an appropriate mesh density can be
decided.
Element type: C3D8R

No. of elements: 4000
Figure 4.6 Meshing on the quarter model
37
Figure 4.6 depicts the meshed quarter model. The quarter model was
discretized into 4000 elements and the mesh was generated using FEA software
ABAQUS. The element type used for the meshing was C3D8R hexahedron element.
C3D8R is an 8-node reduction integration element. A reduction integration element
was chosen because it uses lower-order integration to form the element stiffness and
thus reduces the running times [17].
4.2.5 FEA results of the quarter model

The model was meshed and the program ran to find the deformations and stresses
induced in the model after applying the loads.
Deformed model
Undeformed model
Figure 4.7 Deformation of the quarter model after FEA
Figure 4.7 depicts the deformation plot of the quarter model after FEA. It can
be observed that the deformation is uniform along the thickness, which supports the
boundary conditions.
38
Figure 4.8 Mises stress distribution on the quarter model
Figure 4.8 depicts the contour plot of the Von-Mises stress distribution on the
quarter model after FEA. It was observed that the maximum stresses were induced in
the composite sheath. The stresses induced along each layer were uniform, which
supports the boundary conditions. To better understand the results and check the
contribution of the structural load and the thermal load to the final stresses induced in
the model, the quarter model was again analyzed in two different cases. In one case
only the structural loads were considered. The other case only considered thermal
loads. The results obtained in all the three cases were noted. The circumferential
stress at the nodes along the thickness was studied because the stresses induced were
layer by layer. Therefore, the circumferential stress values from the results at these
nodes are tabulated for further study.
39
Table 4. 1 Circumferential stresses at nodes under study in all the three cases
At Circumferential stress under the following loading in MPa (ksi)

radius Temperature load only Pressure load only Temperature +
(mm) (1100, 900, 800, 750) oF 109 MPa (15.8 ksi) Pressure load
40.500 - 991.9 (-143.9) 936.2 (135.8) - 55.7 (-8.1)

41.516
- 150.6 (-21.8) 623.5 (90.5) 472.8 (68.6)
(T)
45.326
428.6 (62.6) 515.4 (74.8) 944.0 (137.0)
(C)
47.739 503.5 (73.0) 474.9 (68.9) 978.4 (142.0)
Table 4.1 shows the circumferential stress values at 5 different nodes. The
nodes at radius 41.516 mm [the interface of steel liner (S) and the thermal barrier
composite (T)], the node value of the TBC was considered, and at radius 45.326 mm
[the interface of thermal barrier material (T) and the composite sheath (C)], the node
value of the composite sheath was considered. It can be observed that in the case of
only temperature load the maximum stress induced was in the steel liner. The
maximum stress induced was in the form of compressive stress with a magnitude of
around 992 MPa. The liner was subjected to compressive stress because steel has a
positive coefficient of liner expansion, which tends to expand outward when
temperature load is applied but the composite sheath has a negative coefficient of
linear expansion in the circumferential direction, which tends to contract on the
application of thermal loads. Even the thermal barrier material has positive coefficient
of linear expansion in the circumferential directions and tends to expand when
subjected to thermal loads but the composite sheaths contracts and obstructs the
expansions of the steel liner and the thermal barrier material resulting in the induction
of compressive stresses in both the steel and thermal barrier layers. All the layers are
subjected to tensile stresses. The maximum stress is induced in the steel liner with a
40
magnitude of around 940 MPa. The sum of the results obtained from the individual
loading was very close to the results obtained from the combined loading. In the
combined loading analysis, the steel liner was subjected to compressive stress in the
circumferential direction, and the thermal barrier layer and composite sheath was
subjected to tensile stress in the circumferential direction.
4.2.6 Validation of the results

To design the mortar barrel, finite element analyses had to be performed. To validate
the procedures and the boundary conditions, a model was built to perform
simulations. The results were compared with those of ARL’s to ensure that the
procedures and simulation to be performed on the real model are appropriate.
ARL considered a small section at the breech end that experiences the
maximum pressure for analysis. Due to symmetric boundary conditions, the model
was constrained along each of the faces parallel to the principal axes so that only a
quarter of the section is required for modeling. The model represented a titanium
sheath around a steel liner and titanium radiating fins were incorporated around the
titanium sheath.
Figure 4.9 Meshed model of the ARL
41
The analysis was run using an internal barrel pressure of 15,800 psi (109
MPa). Figure 4.9 shows the meshed model under analysis. The model had a steel liner
of 0.04 in. thickness and titanium sheath of 0.95 in. thickness and the fins were 0.25.
in. This model was very similar to that of the ARL but not the same due to the
unavailability of the data regarding the dimensions of the fin. The model was meshed
using ABAQUS FEA software. The element used for meshing was C3D8R and a total
of 1242 elements were used. The model was constrained along the two faces of the
longitudinal axes and boundary conditions were applied. Figure 4.10 shows the barrel
stress plot obtained after running the analysis.
Figure 4.10 Barrel stress plot after analysis
The maximum stress induced in the model was 177600 psi and the results
were compared with that of ARL’s analysis. Figure 4.11 shows the barrel stress plot
obtained from ARL’s analysis.
42
Figure 4.11 Barrel stress plot of ARL’s analysis
From ARL’s analysis it is observed that the maximum stress in the liner is
1241 MPa (180,116 psi) and the maximum stress in the sheath is around 621 MPa
(90,130 psi). Table 4.2 shows the tabulated results of ARL’s and the results obtained
from the analysis using ARL’s model.
Table 4.2 Comparison of the results
ARL results FAMU-FSU results

Barrel stress
MPa (psi) MPa (psi)
Maximum stress in the liner 1241 (180,116) 1228 (178,200)
Maximum stress in the sheath 621 (90,130) 614 (89,100)
Table 4.2 shows that the results are similar to each other. There is very minute
difference in both the results, which can be accounted for the unavailability of the
exact geometry of the model, mesh element type and mesh density.
43
4.2.7 Study of the effect of material orientation
In order to find out what happens when the material is oriented at any angle other
than 90o, some observations were taken with material orientation at 80o, 70o and at
60o with respect to axis 3. Different cases were studied at these orientation angles to
find the orientation angle that gives the best results.
The basic design of the barrel section was used to run the analysis and only a
structural load of 109 MPa (15,800 psi) was used to find the stresses induced under
different material orientations.
4000
3500
3000
Circumferential Stresses in MPa
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
90 80 70
Degree of Orientation
Stress in Steel Stress in TBC Stress in Composite
Figure 4.12 Circumferential stresses in the layers at different degree of

orientations
Figure 4.12 shows the graph of the circumferential stress induced in the steel,
the thermal barrier and the composite sheath as material orientation was changed. It
can be noticed that as the degree of orientation was decreased from 90 degree, the
44
stresses induced in the steel liner increased and the stresses induced in the thermal
barrier and composite decreased. This is because as the maximum modulus direction
of the material is at angle to the circumference, the stresses taken by the composite is
decreased as a result the stresses induced in the steel are increased. This is not a good
sign as high stresses are induced in the steel liner.
0.7
0.6
0.5
Displacement in mm
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
90 80 70
Degree of orientation
Steel TBC Composite
Figure 4.13 Displacement in the layers under different material orientations
Figure 4.13 shows the plot of the displacement in the three layers under
different material orientations. It can be noticed that as the degree of orientation is
changed from 90, the displacement in the layers increase. This is due to the decrease
in the material properties in the direction of maximum stress. It can be inferred that
the deformation of the model is subjected to the degree of orientation. The model was
subjected to minimum deformation at a local orientation of 90 degrees. The analysis
45
was conducted at a material orientation of 90 degrees with respect to axis 3 (Global
axis).
4.3 Strength Failure Evaluation of the Quarter Model
A successful design of a structure requires efficient and safe use of materials.

Theories need to be developed to compare the state of stress in a material to a failure
criterion. It should be noted that failure theories are only stated and their applications
should be validated by experiments.
4.3.1 Strength failure evaluation of the liner material

The failure analysis of a structure was performed by comparing stresses due to
applied loads with allowable strengths of the materials. For an isotropic material, such
as steel, a simple failure theory is based on finding the maximum stresses induced.
These maximum stresses, if greater than that of the yield strength, indicate failure in
the material.
The strength of the 4340 steel material used in the quarter model when
subjected to loading can be calculated based on the following criteria.
Yield strength of 4340 steel is 1240 MPa [16]
Maximum stress was observed in the inner layer of the steel liner at the breech
end when subjected to only temperature loading. The maximum stress induced was
noted to be a compressive circumferential stress of 992 MPa.
As the maximum stress induced in the steel liner is less than the yield strength
of the steel, no failure occurred in the liner material according to the maximum stress
theory. The factor of safety of the material can be obtained by dividing the yield
strength with the maximum stress induced. The factor of safety of the steel liner was
calculated to be 1.25. This factor of safety was acceptable because the pressure and
temperature loads taken into analysis are the projected safe working loads of the real
loads.
46
4.3.2 Strength failure evaluation of the composite materials
In a lamina of a composite, the failure theories are not based on yielding because fiber
reinforced composites do not exhibit gross yielding. This was because a lamina is
orthotropic and its properties are different at different angles, unlike an isotropic
material. Considering the case of a unidirectional lamina, there are two material axes,
one which is parallel to the fibers and one which is perpendicular. Hence, the strength
parameters for a unidirectional lamina are: the first for tension and the second for
compression in the axis parallel to the fiber, the third for tension and the fourth for
compression in the axis perpendicular to the fiber. The fifth strength parameter is the
shear strength of a unidirectional lamina composite. The five strength parameters of a
unidirectional lamina are
1. (s1T)ult = Ultimate longitudinal tensile strength (in direction 1)
2. (s1C)ult = Ultimate longitudinal compressive strength (in direction 1)
3. (s2T)ult = Ultimate transverse tensile strength (in direction 2)
4. (s2C)ult = Ultimate transverse compressive strength (in direction 2)
5. (t12)ult = Ultimate in-plane shear strength (in plane 1-2)
The failure theories are based on first finding the stresses in the local axes and
then using these five strength parameters of a unidirectional lamina to find whether a
lamina has failed. In this thesis two common failure theories, the maximum stress
failure theory and Tsai-Wu failure theory, are considered to evaluate the strength of
the composite under the application of the loads. Maximum stress failure theory
considers no interaction between various components of strains and even the
maximum strain theory are considered the same. The maximum stress failure theory
gives the strengths and predicts the occurrence of failure, if any. Tsai-Wu failure
theory considers the interaction between the three unidirectional lamina strength
parameters, unlike the maximum stress and maximum strain failure theories.
47
4.3.2.1 Maximum Stress Failure Theory
The maximum stress failure theory, related to the maximum normal stress theory by
Rankine and the maximum shearing stress theory by Tresca, is similar to theories
applied to isotropic materials. The stresses acting on a lamina are resolved into the
normal and shear stresses in the local axes. Failure is predicted in a lamina, if any of
the normal or shear stresses in the local axes of a lamina are equal to or exceed the
corresponding ultimate strengths of the unidirectional lamina [11]. Given the stresses
or strains in the global axes of a laminate, the laminate is considered to how failed if
one of the below equations is violated.
- (s1C)ult < s1 < (s1T)ult (4.3)
- (s2C)ult < s2 < (s2T)ult (4.4)
- (t12)ult < t12 < (t12)ult (4.5)
Note that all five strength parameters are treated as positive numbers, while
the normal stresses are positive if tensile and negative if compressive. It should be
also noted that each component of stress is compared with corresponding strength and
hence does not have an interaction with the others. This failure theory was applied to
find any failures incurred in the TBC and in the composite sheath.
Maximum stress failure criterion on the thermal barrier composite material
can be evaluated as follows.
Table 4. 3 Ultimate strengths of the TBC material with fiber volume of 45%
Ultimate strength parameters Strengths in MPa (ksi)

Longitudinal tensile, (s1T)ult 1062 (154.03)
Longitudinal compressive, (s1C)ult 610 (88.47)
Transverse tensile, (s2T)ult 31 (4.49)
Transverse compressive, (s2C)ult 118 (17.12)
In-plane shear, (t12)ult 72 (10.44)
48
The ultimate strengths of the Nextel 610/Sialyte composite were not obtained
due to the unavailability of test data. The typical ultimate strengths of a glass/epoxy
composite were considered for the failure analysis. The ultimate strengths of the TBC
taken into analysis are in Table 4.3 [11]
The maximum stresses induced were obtained by checking all the nodes in the
TBC layer when subjected to individual and combined pressure and temperature
loads. The maximum longitudinal, transverse and shear stresses were located at the
inner layer of the TBC at the breech end when subjected to both pressure and
temperature loads.
Maximum longitudinal stress induced in the TBC, s1 was 472 MPa (93.8 ksi).
Maximum transverse stress induced in the TBC, s2 was -111 MPa (-3.1 ksi).
In plane shear stress induced in the TBC, t12 was -25 MPa (3.8 ksi).
Substituting all the values in equations 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, indicates that no
failure incurred in the TBC layer when subjected to the loads.
Maximum stress failure criterion on the composite sheath material can be
evaluated as follows. The ultimate strengths of the IM7/cyanate composite were not
obtained due to the unavailability of test data. The typical ultimate strengths of a
graphite/epoxy composite were considered for the failure analysis.
Table 4. 4 Ultimate strengths of the composite sheath material with fiber volume
of 65%
Ultimate strength parameters Strengths in MPa (ksi)

Longitudinal tensile, (s1T)ult 1500 (217.56)
Longitudinal compressive, (s1C)ult 1500 (217.56)
Transverse tensile, (s2T)ult 40 (5.80)
Transverse compressive, (s2C)ult 246 (35.68)
In-plane shear, (t12)ult 68 (9.863)
49
Table 4.4 shows the ultimate strengths of the composite sheath taken into
analysis [11]. The maximum stresses induced were obtained by checking all the
nodes in the sheath layer when subjected to individual and combined pressure and
temperature loads. The maximum longitudinal, transverse and shear stresses were
located at the inner layer of the sheath material at the breech end when subjected to
both pressure and temperature loads.
Maximum longitudinal stress induced in the TBC, s1 was 944 MPa (93.8 ksi).
Maximum transverse stress induced in the TBC, s2 was -48 MPa (-3.1 ksi).
In plane shear stress induced in the TBC, t12 was -40 MPa (3.8 ksi).
Substituting all the values in equations 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, indicates that no
failure incurred in the composite sheath layer when subjected to the loads.
4.3.2.2 Tsai-Wu Failure Theory

This failure theory is based on the total strain energy failure theory of Beltrami. Tsai
and Wu applied the failure theory to a lamina in plane stress. A lamina is considered
to be failed if the below inequality is violated.
F1s 1 + F2s 2 + F6t 12 + F11s 12 + F22s 22 + F66t 122 + 2 F12s 1s 2 < 1

(4.6)
where
1 1 1 1 1 1
F1 = T
- C ; F2 = T - C ; F11 = T C
; F22 = T
(s ) ult (s 1 ) ult
1 (s 2 ) ult (s 2 ) ult (s 1 ) ult (s 1 ) ult (s 2 ) ult (s 2C ) ult
1 1
F66 = 2
; F6 = 0; F12 = -
(t 12 ) ult 2
2(s 1T ) ult
Using the data from the previous section in the equation 4.6, the value of the
left hand side of the inequality was calculated to be 0.91 for the TBC material and -
8.5 E-03 for the composite sheath material. Since both the values are less than one,
50
the TBC material and the composite sheath material should not fail when subjected to
loading.
4.4 Summary of the Quarter Model
The quarter model was designed and modeled using FEA software. The materials
were assigned to the layers and the materials orientations were incorporated.
Boundary conditions and meshing were incorporated in the model for FEA. FEA
results were obtained under the rated loading and the results were analyzed and
explained. The strength failure theories were studied and implemented on the quarter
model. The failure theories indicate no failure in the material strengths supporting the
design of the model. The FEA study on the quarter model set a strong platform for the
further analysis on the full length barrel model.
51
CHAPTER 5
FULL LENGTH MODEL
In the previous chapter, an analytical model of the barrel structure was studied and a
quarter model was modeled and analyzed. These studies set the platform to go ahead
with the design and analysis of full length model. Since pressure along the length of
the barrel varies, the full length barrel must be designed according to the pressure
variation so that the barrel has strength sufficient to withstand the pressure.
5.1 Pressure Variation along the Length of the Barrel
ARL specified pressure data for the 81mm mortar barrel along the length of the
barrel, when the barrel is subjected to firing at the rate 30 rounds per minute (rpm) for
two minutes, followed by 15 rpm. Thereafter the readings of the pressure induced in
the barrel at the time of firing were noted at three different timings: 8.2 seconds, 9.5
seconds and 12.1 seconds after firing. The pressure induced in the barrel due to firing
increase drastically until 8.2 seconds and drops down a little and remains almost
constant. The maximum pressure that is induced in the barrel is around 73 MPa
(10,595 psi).
52
80
70
60
Pressure (MPa)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 13 24 46
Distance from the breech end (inch)
t=0 sec t=8.2 sec t=9.5 sec t=12.1 sec
Figure 5.14 Pressure along the length of the barrel at different times
Figure 5.1 depicts the plot of the pressure along the length of the barrel at the
three different times. At time zero seconds, that is just before the start of firing, it is
assumed that the pressure along the length of the barrel is zero. At time 8.2 seconds
the maximum pressure was around 73 MPa (10,595 psi) for the length of 13 inches
from the breech end and then it fell to almost zero in the next length of 11 inches (24
inches from the breech end) and the pressure reading was almost zero till the muzzle
end. At time 9.5 seconds, the pressure dropped to 51 MPa (7,402 psi) through the
length of the first 13 inches from the breech end and maintained that pressure to the
next length of 11 inches and it dropped to zero gradually until it reaches the muzzle
end. At time 12.1 seconds the pressure along the length of the barrel has reached a
saturation state and the pressure along the length of the barrel was almost 17.9 MPa
(2,600 psi).
53
5.2 Design of the Full Length Model
With the pressure variations study along the length of the barrel at different times a
suitable design of the barrel could be established such that it withstands the pressure
at the minimum possible weight. A final design was found after working with
different designs and analyzing the model with different iterations.
18
TBC
0.095 16
Composite
0.285 Liner
0.1
0.04 46
Note: Not to scale D = 3.2
(81 mm)
All dimensions are in inches
Figure 5. 2 Dimensions of full length model
Figure 5.2 (not to scale) depicts the design of the full length model. The
internal diameter of the barrel is 81 mm. It consists of three different layers, liner,
thermal barrier composite and the composite sheath. The liner is made of 4340 steel
and has a uniform thickness of 0.04 inch along the length of the barrel. The thermal
barrier composite is sheathed over the steel liner up to 18 inches from the breech end
and is made of Nextel 610 fiber and Sialyte resin with fiber volume fraction of 40%.
The TBC has a uniform thickness of 0.15 inch up to 16 inches from the breech end
and gradually converges to zero in the next 2 inches. The composite is sheathed over
the TBC up to 18 inches from the breech end and is sheathed over steel liner for the
rest of the length. The composite sheath is made of IM7 carbon fiber and cyanate
54
ester resin with a fiber volume fraction of 60%. The composite sheath has a uniform
thickness of 0.095 inch up to 18 inches from the breech end and gradually converges
to a thickness of 0.06 inch at the muzzle end. The design was built into a model using
the FEA software ABAQUS and the model is subjected to pressure at the different
times and further analysis is carried out.
5.3 FEA on the Full Length Model
Symmetric boundary conditions constrained the model along each of the faces
parallel to the principal axes so that only a quarter (90 degrees) of the full length
barrel was considered for modeling. After modeling the part for analysis, material
properties were assigned to the layers as in accordance with the design. Boundary
conditions were applied to the model in the same pattern as applied to the quarter
model. Varying pressure loads were applied to the model by using a user subroutine
FORTRAN file. A code was generated in FORTRAN to apply pressure along the
length of the barrel according to the pressure data obtained from the ARL
Muzzle end
Breech end
TBC converging span
Figure 5.3 Meshed model of the full length barrel under analysis
55
Figure 5.3 depicts the meshed full length barrel model. The model was
meshed using C3D8R element type. Precautions were taken in meshing such that the
elements at the interface of the layers are interpolated mutually. Figure 5.3 illustrates
enlarged cross sections at the breech end, at the mid span and at the muzzle end for
better understanding of the model and the meshing. Finite element analysis was
carried out on the meshed model under different pressure variations and at the three
different times.
5.4 FEA Results
Hereafter, the model analyzed with pressure variation at time 8.2 seconds after firing
is designated as FT8. The model analyzed with pressure variation at time 9.5 seconds
after firing is designated as FT9 and the model analyzed with pressure variation at
time 12.1 seconds after firing is designated as FT12. The model results are noted at
six different nodes for study and analysis of the results.
Figure 5.4 Nodes under study for the full length analysis
Figure 5.4 depicts the positions of the nodes under study. Nodes A and B were
the inner and outer nodes at the breech end respectively. Nodes C and D were the
inner and outer nodes at the muzzle end, respectively, and nodes E and F are the inner
and outer nodes at the end of the thermal barrier layer, respectively. These nodes were
studied since the stress was layer-by-layer basis and studying the nodes along the
length was also important. The radial displacements at the nodes in the steel liner
were recorded and tabulated in Table 5.1.
56
Table 5. 1 Radial displacements at the nodes in the liner
Disp. at A Disp. at E Disp. At C

Model
mm (inch) mm (inch) mm (inch)
8.2 secs 0.122 (0.0048) 0.112 (0.0044) 0.0 (0.0)
9.5 secs 0.099 (0.0039) 0.142 (0.0056) 0.0 (0.0)
12.1 secs 0.030 (0.0012) 0.048 (0.0019) 0.061 (0.0024)
Table 5.1 shows the radial displacements at the nodes in the liner in all the
three cases. The maximum radial displacement induced was around 0.142 mm
(0.0056 inch) at 18 inches from the breech end when subjected to pressure at 9.2 secs.
Table 5. 2 Radial stress at nodes in the liner
sr at A sr at E sr at C
Model
MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi)
68.63 36.36 0.0

8.2 secs
(9.96) (5.28) (0.0)
47.95 46.50 0.0
9.5 secs
(6.96) (6.75) (0.0)
16.83 16.32 15.79
12.1 secs
(2.44) (2.36) (2.29)
Table 5.2 shows the radial stresses induced at the nodes in the liner. The
maximum radial stress induced was around 69 MPa (9.9 ksi) at the breech end when
subjected to pressure at 8.2 secs.
57
Table 5. 3 Circumferential stress at nodes under study
sc at A sc at B sc at E sc at F sc at C sc at D
Model
MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi) MPa (ksi)
8.2 589.9 334.2 545.2 362.5 0.0 0.0

secs (85.6) (48.5) (79.1) (52.6) (0.0) (0.0)
9.5 412.2 233.5 714.6 445.8 9.8 4.5
secs 59.8) (33.9) (103.7) (64.7) (1.4) (0.6)
12.1 144.7 81.9 250.8 156.5 345.2 238.5
secs (21.0) (11.9) (36.4) (22.7) (50.1) (34.6)
Table 5.3 shows that the circumferential stresses at the six nodes, which were
under study. The maximum circumferential stress induced in the steel layer in all the
three cases was around 714.6 MPa (103 ksi) and the yield strength of steel was 1240
MPa. This gives a factor of safety of around 1.7 in the steel layer. The maximum
circumferential stress induced in the composite sheath in all the three cases is around
445 MPa (64.7 ksi) and the strength of the composite was calculated to be around
1880 MPa. This gives a factor of safety of around 4.2 in the composite layer. From
the factor of safety values, the stresses produced in the layers can be accepted for the
barrel to be assured to withstand the given pressures.
To study the circumferential stress induced along the length of the barrel in
the three layers under the three different cases, the circumferential stresses values
were noted at all the nodes along the length of the barrel in all the three layers. The
variation of stresses along the length of the barrel with varying thickness and varying
pressures was investigated. First considering the analysis at time 8.2 seconds, the FT8
model, all the stress values obtained in the three layers were plotted along with the
thickness and the pressure variations.
58
Circumferential Stress at time 8.2 sec
700 1000
900
600
Circumferential Stress (MPa)
800
Thickness (* 10-3 inches)

500 700
600
400
500
300
400
200 300
200
100
100
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance from Breech End (inches)
Steel TBC Comp.CE Load Thickness
Figure 5.5 Circumferential plot along the length of the barrel at 8.2 seconds
Figure 5.5 shows that the circumferential stresses induced in the steel liner at
the breech end were around 600 MPa and this stress remained almost constant up to
13 inches from the breech end. For easy interpretation, all the distances along the
length of the barrel are referred from the breech end. It can be noticed that the stress
is constant because the load applied (73 MPa) and the thickness of the barrel are
constant up to 13 inches. This pattern can be observed in both the thermal barrier
layer and in the composite layer. The circumferential stress in the thermal barrier
layer at the breech end was around 400 MPa (58 ksi) and almost constant up to 13
inches. The circumferential stress in the composite sheath at the breech end was
around 330 MPa (47.9 ksi) and almost maintained the same up to 13 inches from the
breech end. Along the length of the barrel from 13 inches to 16 inches, the thickness
of the barrel was constant but the pressure on the barrel began gradually decreasing.
59
From 16 inches to 18 inches, the thickness of the barrel drops and the pressure on the
barrel is still gradually decreasing. However the thickness decreased at a higher rate
than the pressure, which caused an increase in the circumferential stresses in the three
layers. The circumferential stresses in the three layers increase along the length of the
barrel as it moves from 16 inches to 18 inches. The thermal barrier material was
sheathed over the liner for only 18 inches from the breech end along the length of the
barrel, there will be no study of circumferential stresses in the thermal barrier material
after 18 inches. From 18 inches to 24 inches, the thickness gradually decreased but at
a very low rate and the pressure decreased to zero. The pressure decreased at higher
rate than the thickness and the pressure dropped to zero. From 24 inches to 46 inches
there is no pressure applied to the barrel, so no stresses were induced in the liner and
the sheath layers. This study gives a scope to support the results as the results flow
through a meaningful pattern. Figure 5.6 shows the analysis at time 9.5 seconds
From Figure 5.6 it can be observed that the circumferential stresses induced in
the steel liner at the breech end were around 420 MPa (60.9 ksi) and this stress
remained almost constant up to 16 inches. The stress was constant because the load
applied (51 MPa) and the thickness of the barrel was constant up to 16 inches. This
pattern can be observed in both the thermal barrier layer and in the composite layer.
The circumferential stress in the thermal barrier layer at the breech end was around
280 MPa and remained almost constant up to 16 inches. The circumferential stress in
the composite sheath at the breech end was around 230 MPa (33.4 ksi) and almost
remained the same up to 16 inches from the breech end. From 16 inches to 18 inches,
the thickness of the barrel dropped and the pressure on the barrel was constant, which
caused an increase in the circumferential stresses in the three layers. As discussed
earlier, there will be no study of circumferential stresses in the thermal barrier
material after 18 inches.
60
Circumferential Stress at time 9.5 sec
1200
800
700 1000
Thickness ( *10-3 inches)

600
800
500
600
400
300
400
200
200
100
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance from Breech End (inches)
Steel TBC Comp. CE Load Thickness
From 18 inches to 24 inches, the thickness gradually decreased but at a lower

rate and the pressure remained constant. So the stresses in the liner and the sheath still
increased but at a lower rate. From 24 inches to 46 inches, the thickness gradually
decreases to 0.1 inch and the pressure gradually dropped to zero.
Figure 5.7 shows the analysis on the full length model after 12.1 seconds of
firing, which is a simple case to explain because the pressure is constant along the
length of the barrel. The only factor that affects the stresses induced in the layers was
the thickness of the barrel along the length. Figure 6.7 depicts the circumferential plot
of the stresses along the length of the barrel after 12.1 seconds of firing. In this
61
analysis the whole length of the barrel was exposed to a uniform pressure of 17.9
MPa.
C ircu m fe ren tia l S tres s a t tim e 12 .1 s e c

40 0 1 00 0
9 00
35 0
8 00
30 0
Thickness (*10-3 inches)

7 00
25 0
6 00
20 0 5 00
4 00
15 0
3 00
10 0
2 00
50
1 00
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
D is ta n c e fro m B re e ch E n d (in c h e s )
S teel TBC C om p.C E Load T hic knes s
Figure 5.7 shows that the circumferential stresses induced in the steel liner at
the breech end were around 150 MPa (21.7 ksi) and this stress remained almost
constant up to 16 inches from the breech end. The stress was constant because the
thickness of the barrel was constant up to 16 inches. This pattern can be observed in
both the thermal barrier layer and in the composite layer. The circumferential stress in
the thermal barrier layer at the breech end was around 90 MPa (13 ksi) and remained
almost constant up to 16 inches. The circumferential stress in the composite sheath at
62
the breech end was around 120 MPa and almost remained the same up to 16 inches
from the breech end. From 16 inches to 18 inches, the thickness of the barrel dropped
and caused an increase in the circumferential stresses in the three layers. The
circumferential stresses in the three layers increase along the length of the barrel as it
moves from 16 inches to 18 inches. As discussed earlier, there will be no study of
circumferential stresses in the thermal barrier material after 18 inches. From 18
inches to 46 inches, the thickness gradually decreased at a low rate to 0.1 inch at the
muzzle end. So the stresses in the liner and the sheath increase up to the muzzle end.
5.5 Comparison of the Results with those of the Quarter Model
The results obtained from the full length model were compared with those of the
quarter model. The results cannot be directly compared because the pressures applied
in both the cases were different. The ratio of the circumferential stresses induced to
that of the pressure applied was taken into consideration for the comparison. The data
of the circumferential stresses at the inner node of the barrel at the breech end, at
node A, for all the cases were tabulated and compared.
Table 5. 4 Comparison of the results of quarter and full length model
Quarter Full length model at times

At node A
model 8.2 secs 9.5 secs 12.1 secs
Load in MPa 109.0 73.0 51.0 17.9
Circumferential
936.2 604.4 422.3 148.2
stress in MPa
Stress / load 8.59 8.28 8.28 8.23
The ratio of the circumferential stress to the load applied in the case of the
quarter model was 8.59 and in the case of the full length model was around 8.28. The
63
minute difference between the two ratios can be accounted due to the mesh density
The proximity of the ratio values validates the implementations of the procedures of
the quarter model to the full length model.
5.6 Strength Evaluation of the Full Length Model
Taking into consideration the failure theories discussed in section 4.6, the strengths of
the materials used in the full length models can be determined. The maximum
principal stresses induced in the analysis of the full length model at different times
were noted and the strength failure theories of the materials were evaluated based on
the ultimate strengths of the materials.
5.6.1 Strength failure analysis at time 8.2 secs

In this section the strength failure theories of the materials are evaluated on the full
length model when subjected to analysis at pressures induced at 8.2 secs.
The strength of the 4340 steel material that was used in the full length model
when subjected to loading at time 8.2 secs can be calculated as
Maximum stress induced in the steel liner was around 604.4 MPa. The
maximum stress induced in the liner was evaluated by checking all the nodes in the
liner layer and the maximum stress was found to be in the inner layer of the steel liner
at the breech end.
The maximum stress induced in the steel liner was less than the yield strength
of the steel, indicating that no failure occurred in the liner according to the maximum
stress theory. The safety factor of the material can be obtained by dividing the yield
strength with the maximum stress induced. The factor of safety of the steel liner in
this case is calculated to be 2.0.
The strength failure of the TBC and the composite sheath materials was
evaluated using the maximum stress failure theory discussed in section 4.3. The data
64
for the ultimate strengths of the TBC and the composite sheath materials were
obtained from section 4.3. The maximum stresses induced in the two directions and
the maximum shear stress induced in the full length model when subjected to loading
at time 8.2 secs were recorded and tabulated in Table 5.3. The maximum stresses
induced in the TBC material were observed at the inner layer of the TBC at the
breech end. The maximum stresses induced in the sheath material were observed at
the outer layer of the sheath material at the breech.
Table 5. 5 Strength failure evaluation of the TBC and sheath on the full length
model at analysis at 8.2 secs
Material Material strength parameters and induced stresses (MPa)

Parameters Stresses induced Parameters
- (s1C)ult = - 610 < s1 = 455.5 < (s1T)ult = 1062
TBC - (s2C)ult = - 118 < s2 = -50.0 < (s2T)ult = 36
- (t12)ult = - 72 < t12 =-2.0 < (t12)ult = 72
- (s1C)ult = - 1500 < s1 = 330.0 < (s1T)ult = 1500
Sheath - (s2C)ult = - 246 < s2 = -4.0 < (s2T)ult = 40
- (t12)ult = - 68 < t12 = -0.5 < (t12)ult = 68
Table 5.5 shows that none of the inequalities were violated, indicating that
there was no failure in either the TBC or the composite sheath material when
subjected to stress at analysis at time 8.2 secs.
The strength failure of the TBC and the composite sheath materials can also
be evaluated using the Tsai-Wu failure theory discussed in section 4.3. The Tsai-Wu
theory states the composite material fails if the following inequality is violated.
65
Using the data from Table 5.5, for the thermal barrier composite, the value
was –0.48 and for the composite sheath, the value was –0.03. Since both the values
are less than 1.0, the TBC material and the composite sheath materials in the full
length model should not fail when subjected to the loading at 8.2 secs according to
Tsai-Wu failure theory.

The strength of the 4340 steel material that was used in the full length model
when subjected to loading at time 9.5 secs was calculated as
Maximum stress induced in the steel liner was 727.2 MPa. The maximum
stress induced in the liner was evaluated by checking all the nodes in the liner layer
and the maximum stress was found to be in the inner layer of the steel liner at the 18
inches from the breech end.
Since the maximum stress induced in the steel liner was less than the yield
strength of the steel, no failure occurred in the liner. The safety factor of the material
can be obtained by dividing the yield strength with the maximum stress induced. The
factor of safety of the steel liner in this case was calculated to be 1.7.
The data for the ultimate strengths of the TBC and the composite sheath
materials were obtained from section 4.3. The maximum stresses induced in the two
directions and the maximum shear stress induced in the full length model when
subjected to loading at time 9.5 secs were recorded and tabulated in Table 5.6. The
maximum stresses induced in the TBC were observed at inner layer of the TBC at 18
inches from the breech end and the maximum stresses induced in sheath material
were obtained at the outer layer of the sheath material at 18 inches from the breech
end.
66

- (s1C)ult = - 610 < s1 = 446.9 < (s1T)ult = 1062
TBC - (s2C)ult = - 118 < s2 = - 28.0 < (s2T)ult = 36
- (t12)ult = - 72 < t12 = 2.1 < (t12)ult = 72
- (s1C)ult = - 1500 < s1 = 485.0 < (s1T)ult = 1500
Sheath - (s2C)ult = - 246 < s2 = - 6.2 < (s2T)ult = 40
- (t12)ult = - 68 < t12 = - 2.1 < (t12)ult = 68
Table 5.6 shows that none of the inequalities were violated, which indicates
that no failure should occur in either the TBC or the composite sheath material when
subjected to stress at analysis at time 9.5 secs.
be evaluated using the Tsai-Wu failure theory discussed in section 4.3. The Tsai
theory states the composite material fails if the below inequality is violated.
was -0.44 and for the composite sheath, the value was -0.02. As both the values are
less than one, the TBC material and the composite sheath materials in the full length
model should not fail when subjected to loading at analysis at 9.5 secs according to
the Tsai-Wu failure theory.
67
The strength of the 4340 steel material that is used in the full length model
when subjected to loading at time 12.1 secs can be calculated as
Maximum stress induced in the steel liner was 348.6 MPa. The maximum
stress was found to be in the inner layer of the liner at the muzzle end.
As the maximum stress induced in the steel liner was less than the yield
strength of the steel, no failure occurred in the liner according to the maximum stress
theory. The factor of safety of the material was obtained by dividing the yield
strength with the maximum stress induced. The factor of safety of the steel liner in
this case is calculated to be 3.6.
The data for the ultimate strengths of the TBC and the composite sheath
materials are obtained from section 4.6.

- (s1C)ult = - 610 < s1 = 156.6 < (s1T)ult = 1062
TBC - (s2C)ult = - 118 < s2 = - 10.3 < (s2T)ult = 36
- (t12)ult = - 72 < t12 = 0.77 < (t12)ult = 72
- (s1C)ult = - 1500 < s1 = 237.7 < (s1T)ult = 1500
Sheath - (s2C)ult = - 246 < s2 = - 1.9 < (s2T)ult = 40
- (t12)ult = - 68 < t12 = - 1.1 < (t12)ult = 68
68
The maximum stresses induced in the two directions and the maximum shear
stress induced in the full length model when subjected to loading at time 12.1 secs
were recorded and tabulated in Table 5.7. The maximum stresses induced in the TBC
material were observed in the inner layer of the TBC at 18 inches from the breech end
and the maximum stresses induced in the sheath material were obtained at the outer
layer of the sheath at the muzzle end. Table 5.7 shows that none of the inequalities
were violated, which indicates that no failure should occur either in the TBC or the
composite sheath material when subjected to stress at analysis at time 12.1 secs.
be evaluated using the Tsai-Wu failure theory discussed in section 4.6. The Tsai
theory states the composite material fails if the below inequality is violated.
was -0.28 and for the composite sheath, the value was -0.01. As both the values are
less than 1.0, indicates that the TBC material and the composite sheath materials in
the full length model does not fail when subjected to loading at analysis at 12.1 secs
according to the Tsai-Wu failure theory.
5.7 Summary of the Full Length Model
This chapter reports how the full length barrel was designed according to the pressure
variation and the design was modeled in ABAQUS. The model was meshed and FEA
carried out with the pressure data at three different times. The results of the full length
model were compared with those of the quarter model, and the circumferential stress
to load applied ratio for the two models were in good agreement. The strength of the
materials used in the full length model were checked and found that none of the
material fails when subjected to the loads, which implies that the full length model
was successfully designed and analyzed.
69
CHAPTER 6
WEIGHT REDUCTION
In the previous chapter the structural design and analysis of the full length mortar
barrel was explained. The weight of the designed barrel should be calculated to
estimate the amount of the weight reduction. The data for the dimensions of the full
length model obtained from ARL is not adequate. A PRO/E model was built with the
available data in order to get a approximate design of the mortar barrel and then
evaluate its weight. The study on the weights was conducted on different models of
the barrel to compare the percentage of weight reduction, and validate the procedures
of the weight calculations. In order to do this, Larry Burton's model was used as the
reference model.
6.1 Weight Calculations on the ARL's Model
The weight of the current 81 mm mortar barrel is 27.4 lb (12.4 Kg) without the blast
attenuation device. ARL's design of the barrel is supposed to be 30% lighter than the
existing all steel model. ARL's model was designed in PRO/E according to the design
obtained. Larry Burton’s model has steel liner with a titanium sheath on it. The
titanium sheath was wrapped with titanium fins for a length of 13.1 inches from the
breech end. The titanium fins are used at the breech end for effective heat dissipation.
70
Titanium sheath over
the steel liner
Titanium fins over

the titanium sheath
Figure 6. 1 PRO/E model of the ARL's design
Figure 6.1 depicts the assembled mortar barrel of the ARL's design. At the
breech end of the barrel, titanium fins can be observed. For better understanding of
the model, the barrel was disassembled as shown in Figure 6.2
Titanium
fins
Titanium
sheath
Steel liner
Figure 6.2 Dissembled PRO/E model of ARL's design
71
Figure 6.2 depicts the disassembled model of the mortar barrel. The model has
three layers: the steel liner, the titanium sheath and the fins. The data of the densities
of the materials used were fed into PRO/E for weight evaluation.
Table 6.1 Weight evaluation of the ARL’s model
Material Length Volume Density Weight

(inches) (inches 3) (lbm/ inches 3) (lbm)
Steel liner 46 18.67 0.282 5.26
Titanium sheath 46 42.01 0.16 6.72
Titanium fins 18 29.88 0.16 4.78
Table 6.1 depicts the weight evaluation of the three layers of the ARL model.
The weight of the steel liner is around 5.26 lbs, the titanium sheath around 6.72 lbs
and the titanium fins around 4.78 lbs. Some additional parts must be considered in the
barrel, which weigh around 2.65 lbs. The total weight of the ARL's barrel model is
calculated in Table 6.2
Table 6.2 Total weight calculations of the ARL's model
Part Weight (lbm)

Steel liner 5.26
Titanium sheath 6.72
Fins 4.78
Additional parts 2.65
Total 19.41
72
Table 6.2 delineates the total weight of the ARL barrel model. The total
weight is estimated to be around 19.41 lbs, which achieves a weight reduction of
around 29% compared to that of the existing all steel 81 mm mortar barrel (27.4 lbs).
The calculations procedures and the weight evaluation techniques was validated and
allows the weight evaluation of the final design of the mortar barrel.
6.2 Weight Evaluation on the Final Design of the Composite Mortar
The final design of the mortar barrel contains a steel liner wrapped with thermal
barrier composite and a composite sheath. The thermal barrier is wrapped on the steel
liner for a length of 18 inches from the breech end. The design was then modeled in
PRO/E and the materials assigned their respective densities to evaluate the total
weight.
Muzzle end
with thickness
of 0.1 inch
Breech end
with thickness
of 0.285 inch
Figure 6.3 PRO/E model of the final design of the mortar barrel
73
Figure 6.3 pictures the PRO/E model of the final design of the mortar barrel.
In the figure, the full length of the barrel can be seen and the enlarged sections of the
muzzle end and the breech end can also be identified. It can be observed that the
muzzle end sheathed with a composite over a steel liner and the breech end has three
layers: the liner and the thermal barrier composite and the composite sheath. For
better understanding of the model, the model is dissembled as shown in figure 6.4
Composite Sheath
TBC
Steel liner
Figure 6.4 Dissembled PRO/E model of the final design of the mortar barrel
Figure 6.4 shows the layers involved in the final design of the mortar barrel.
The model has a steel liner of length 46 inches wrapped with a thermal barrier
composite for a length of 18 inches from the breech end. The thermal barrier
composite is wrapped with a composite sheath. The rest of the steel liner, which is not
exposed to thermal barrier composite, is wrapped with the composite sheath. The data
of the densities of the materials are assigned and the total weight is obtained from
PRO/E model.
74
Table 6. 3 Weight evaluation of the composite barrel model
Length Volume Density Weight

Material
(in) (in3) (lbm/ in3) (lbm)
Steel liner 46 18.67 0.282 5.26
Nextel 610/Sialyte
18 27.37 0.086 2.35
Thermal barrier composite
IM6 carbon/Cyanate ester
46 42.47 0.057 2.42
Composite sheath
Table 6.3 depicts the weight evaluation of the layers of the final design of the
full length mortar barrel model. The weight of the steel liner is around 5.26 lbs, the
weight of the thermal barrier composite around 2.08 lbs and the weight of the
composite sheath around 2.92 lbs. Some additional parts must be considered in the
barrel, which weigh around 2.65 lbs. The total weight of the mortar barrel model is
calculated in Table 6.4
Table 6.4 Total weight calculations of the mortar barrel model
Part Weight (lbm)

Steel liner 5.26
Nextel 610/Sialyte 2.35
Thermal barrier composite
IM6 carbon/Cyanate ester 2.42
Composite sheath
Additional parts 1.65
Total 11.68
75
The total weight was estimated to be around 11.68 lbs, and the weight of the
all steel mortar barrel is 27.4 lbs, indicating that a potential weight reduction of
around 57% was achieved.
6.3 Summary of Weight Reduction
The designs of the mortar barrels were modeled in PRO/E and the weight of the
design was estimated. The weight calculations procedures were validated and a
reference model was generated to validate the weight estimation techniques. The
obtained total weights of the designs were tabulated. The final design of the mortar
barrel demonstrated a potential weight reduction of around 57% compared to that of
the all steel barrel.
76
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The thesis focused on the study of structural analysis and design of the 81mm
lightweight composite mortar barrel. The summary and the conclusions of the work
and the proposed future work are in the following sub-sections.
7.1 Summary
The army needs a lightweight composite mortar barrel weighing at least 50% less
than the current all steel mortar barrel. Changing the material system and the
geometry of the mortar barrel were identified as the major factors to be concentrated
to achieve the desired weight reduction. Sheathing a steel liner with a thermal barrier
composite and with a composite sheath was identified as a suitable material system.
The final design of the motor barrel was determined to have a steel liner of thickness
0.04 inches wrapped with a thermal barrier composite (Nextel 610/Sialyte) of
thickness 0.15 inches up to 18 inches from the breech end and a composite sheath
(IM7/cyanate ester) of 0.095 thickness sheathing the thermal barrier composite and
the liner. The design was then modeled in a FEA software ABAQUS. Appropriate
boundary conditions and loads were applied on to the model and the model was
meshed and analyzed in ABAQUS. The stress response on the model was studied in
detail. Various failure theories were applied to the materials of the model to find out
their strengths in withstanding the loads. It was found out that the materials are
susceptible to the loads applied.
77
7.2 Conclusions
A lightweight composite mortar barrel was designed and analyzed. This new design
of the composite mortar barrel weighs 11.68 lbs and provides a potential weight
reduction of 57% when compared to the weight of the current all steel mortar barrel
(27.4 lbs). The lightweight composite mortar barrel allows the soldiers to carry the
mortar with less effort, while meeting the vision of the FCS mission.
7.3 Future Work
Based on the successful results of this investigation, the design of the lightweight
composite mortar was forwarded to Lockheed Martin company for the fabrication of
the barrel. Upon the completion of the manufacturing of the barrel, a maximum
operating temperature test was planned to proof the barrel design. The results of the
experimental test are expected to substantiate the proposed theoretical design and
analysis. Future work includes performing a progressive failure analysis, which
would analyze the progressive mode of failure through the materials. Progressive
failure analysis would yield the maximum stresses at which the model would fail.
This gives an estimate of the strength of the material and subsequently the design can
be altered to achieve more weight reduction. Future work also includes the
investigation of more lightweight and high strength composite materials. The use of
carbon nano tubes composites may achieve further weight reduction. With technology
improving continuously, the invention of new lightweight material systems should be
identified and implemented on the mortar barrel to make it much more lighter.
78
APPENDIX
Estimation of IM7/RP46 Composite Properties
Inputs:
IM7 carbon fiber properties
Fiber longitudinal elastic modulus, EfL = 250.7 GPa
Fiber transverse elastic modulus, EfT = 13.9 GPa
Fiber Poisson’s ratio, vf12 = vf13 = 0.26 and vf12 = 0.33
Fiber shear modulus, Gf12 = Gf13 = 50.9 GPa and Gf23 = 8.28 GPa
Fiber coefficient of thermal expansion, af11 = -0.566 E-06 1/oF
af22 = 1.8 E-06 1/oF
Fiber thermal conductivity, Kf = 8.362 W/m-K
Fiber specific heat, Cpf = 0.836 KJ/Kg-C
Fiber density, rf = 1.744 E03 Kg/m3
Fiber volume fraction, Vf = 0.6
RP46 resin properties
Matrix elastic modulus, Em = 4.34 GPa (Assumed that of Epoxy)
Matrix Poisson’s ratio, vm = 0.36 (Assumed that of epoxy)
Matrix shear modulus, Gm = 1.596 GPa (Calculated)
Matrix coefficient of thermal expansion, am = 22.4 E-06 1/oF
Matrix thermal conductivity, Km = 0.18 W/m-K (Assumed that of epoxy)
Matrix specific heat, Cpm = 1.047 KJ/Kg-C (Assumed that of epoxy)
Matrix density, rf = 1.265 E03 Kg/m3 (Assumed that of epoxy)
79
Outputs:
The properties of the IM7/RP46 composite were estimated according to the
formulae discussed in section 3.2.
Estimation of IM7/Cyanate Ester Composite Properties
Inputs:
IM7 carbon fiber properties
From Appendix 1
Cyanate ester resin properties
Matrix elastic modulus, Em = 3.77 GPa
Matrix thermal conductivity, Km = 0.18 W/m-K (Assumed that of epoxy)
Matrix specific heat, Cpm = 1.047 KJ/Kg-C (Assumed that of epoxy)
Matrix density, rf = 1.265 E03 Kg/m3 (Assumed that of epoxy)
Outputs:
The properties of the IM7/Cyanate ester composite were estimated according to
the formulae discussed in section 3.2.
Estimation of Nextel 610/Sialyte Composite Properties
Inputs:
Nextel 610 fiber properties
Fiber longitudinal elastic modulus, EfL = 380.0 GPa
Fiber Poisson’s ratio, vf = 0.3
80
Fiber shear modulus, Gf = 146.2 GPa (Calculated)
Fiber coefficient of thermal expansion, af = 4.4 E-06 1/oF
Fiber thermal conductivity, Kf = 8.362 W/m-K
Fiber specific heat, Cpf = 0.836 KJ/Kg-C
Fiber density, rf = 3.9 E03 Kg/m3
Fiber volume fraction, Vf = 0.6
Sialyte resin properties
Matrix elastic modulus, Em = 4.34 GPa (Assumed that of Epoxy)
Matrix thermal conductivity, Km = 0.3 W/m-K
Matrix specific heat, Cpm = 0.85 KJ/Kg-C
Matrix density, rf = 1.35 E03 Kg/m3
Outputs:
The properties of the Nextel 610/Sialyte composite were estimated according to
the formulae discussed in section 3.2.
81
REFERENCES
[1] Larry Burton. (1995). Analysis of a Titanium-Sheathed 81-mm Mortar Barrel,

Army Research Laboratories, ARL-TR-1896
[2] Arthur P Boresi., Richard J. Schmidt., Omar M. Sidebottom. (1993). Advanced
mechanics of materials, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Fifth Edition, 443-445
[3] Mohammad Z Kabir. (2000). Finite Element Analysis of Composite Pressure
Vessels with a Load Sharing Metallic Liner, Composite Structures, Vol. 49, 247-
255
[4] Jae S Park., Cheol U Kim., Hyun K Kang., Chang S Hong., Chun G Kim. (2002).
Structural Analysis and Strain Monitoring of the Filament Wound Motor Case,
Journal of Composite Materials, Vol. 36, No.20, 2373-2388
[5] Ng R.K.H., Yousefpour A., Uyema M., and Ghasemi Nejhad. (2002). Design,
Analysis, Manufacture, and Test of shallow water pressure vessels using E-
Glass/Epoxy woven composite material for a Semi-Autonomous Underwater
Vehicle, Journal of Composite Materials, Vol.36, No.21, 2443-2479
[6] Hou T H., Wilkinson S P., Johnston N J., Pater R H., Schneider T L. (1996).
Processing and Properties of IM7/LARCTM-RP46 Polyimide Composites, High
Performation Polymers., Vol. 8, 491-505
[7] TA Instruments, Inc. (2002). DMA 2980 Technical Reference User’s Manual
[8] Slifka A J., Filla A J. (2003). Thermal Conductivity Measurement of an Electron-
Beam Physical-Vapor-Deposition Coating, Journal of Research of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Vol. 108, No.2, 147-150
[9] Bockholt, K C. (1996). 1-D Thermal Analysis of 120-mm Mortar Barrel, Report –
IDC V2-10/THM/1391
[10] Cornestone Research Group, Inc., (2003), Properties of Silayte resin
82
[11] Autar K Kaw. (1997). Mechanics of Composite Materials, CRC Press LLC, 186-
192
[12] Mallick P K. (1993). Fiber-Reinforced Composite-Material, Manufacturing and
Design, Marcel Dekker, Inc. Second edition, 90-190
[13] Tsai, S W. (1980). Introduction to Composite Materials, Technomic Publishing
Company, Inc., 394-396
[14] Tsai, S W. (1980). Introduction to Composite Materials, Technomic Publishing
Company, Inc., 411-415
[15] Schapery R A. (1968). Thermal expansion coefficients of composite materials
based on energy principles, Journal of. Composite Mater, Vol. 2, 280
[16] http://web.mit.edu/course/3/3.11/www/modules/props.pdf
[17] Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., (2001). ABAQUS User’s Manual
83
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Sasi N. Kuppannagari is currently a masters student in Industrial Engineering

at FAMU-FSU College of Engineering and expecting graduation in August, 2003. He
was born in June of 1980, to Mr. and Mrs. K.V.S. Patnaik. He received his Bachelor’s
of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering in August, 2001 from Andhra University
at Visakhapatnam, India. His favorite hobbies include cricket, tennis, snookers,
music, dance and parties. He is looking forward to pursue a career in the field of
Industrial Engineering. For more information, please feel free to contact him at
sasi606@hotmail.com
84

View

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

View

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

Structural Analysis and Design of

FAMU-FSU COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

A Thesis submitted to the

Ben Wang, Chair, Department of Industrial Engineering

Ching-Jen Chen, Dean, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering

I gratefully acknowledge the support of many people without whom I never

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………….. 8

3 MATERIAL SELECTION ………………………………………… 15

4 QUARTER MODEL ……………………………………………….. 30

5 FULL LENGTH MODEL …………………………………………. 52

7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK………...………………... 77

3.1 Properties of 4340 steel………………………………………………….. 16

3.2 Properties of the IM7/RP46 composite with fiber volume of 60%……… 24

3.3 Properties of SI-ATP-4 (cyanate ester resin)……………………………. 25

3.4 Properties of IM7/cyanate ester composite with fiber volume of 60%…. 26

3.5 Properties of Sialyte resin…………………………………………….…. 27

3.6 Properties of Nextel 610 fiber…………………………………………… 28

3.7 Properties of Nextel 610/Sialyte composite with fiber volume of 40%… 29

4.2 Comparison of the results………………………………………………... 43

5.2 Radial stresses at nodes in the liner……………………………………… 57

5.3 Circumferential stress at nodes under study…………………………….. 58

5.4 Comparison of the results of quarter and full length model…………….. 63

6.2 Total weight calculations of the ARL’s model………………………….. 72

6.3 Weight evaluation of the composite barrel model………………………. 75

6.4 Total weight calculations of the mortar barrel model……………….….. 75

1.1 FCS-Lighten force structure……………………………………………. 2

1.2 Mortar used in hilly area………………………………………………... 3

1.3 A mortar barrel with ammunition at the breech end……………………. 5

1.4 Thesis structure…………………………………………………………. 6

2.1 FEA results of ARL’s design…………………………………………… 11

3.1 DMA test on the IM7/RP46 composite before post curing…………….. 22

3.2 DMA results on the post cured IM7/RP46 composite………………….. 23

4.1 Basic design of the quarter model………………………………………. 33

4.2 Material orientation in the thermal barrier and composite sheath………. 34

4.3 Study of the boundary conditions on the quarter model………………... 35

4.4 Boundary conditions and loading on the quarter model………………... 35

4.5 Thermal loading on the quarter model…………………………………. 36

4.6 Meshing on the quarter model…………………………………….……. 37

4.7 Deformation of the quarter model after FEA…………………………… 38

4.8 Mises stress distribution on the quarter model…………………………. 39

4.9 Meshed model of the ARL……………………………………………… 41

4.10 Barrel stress plot after analysis…………………………………………. 42

4.11 Barrel stress plot of ARL’s analysis……………………………………. 43

4.13 Displacement in the layers under different material orientations……..... 45

5.1 Pressure along the length of the barrel at different times………………. 53

5.2 Dimensions of the full length model…………………………………… 54

5.3 Meshed model of the full length barrel under analysis…………….…… 55

5.4 Nodes under study for the full length analysis………………………….. 56

6.1 PRO/E model of the ARL’s design……………………………….……. 71

6.2 Dissembled PRO/E model of the ARL’s design………………….……. 71

6.3 PRO/E model of the final design of the mortar barrel…………………. 73

Infantry companies have traditionally relied on mortars as their means of providing

1.1 Vision of Future Combat System (FCS)

Figure 1.1 FCS – Lighten force structure

1.2 Lightweight Composite Mortar

Figure 1.2 Mortar used in hilly area

Figure 1.3 A mortar barrel with ammunition at the breech end

Though many composite materials could withstand the maximum operating

1.4 Thesis Structure

Chapter 2 - Literature Review