A comparative study on failure pressure estimations of unawed

cylindrical vessels
T. Christopher
a
, B.S.V. Rama Sarma
b
, P.K. Govindan Potti
b
, B. Nageswara Rao
b,
*
,
K. Sankarnarayanasamy
c
a
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Tirunelveli 627007, India
b
Structural Engineering Group, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Trivandrum 695022, India
c
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Regional Engineering College, Tiruchirappalli 620015, India
Received 20 January 2001; revised 20 July 2001; accepted 30 September 2001
Abstract
There is a need to design a reliable lightweight solid rocket motor case, pressure vessel for a launch vehicle or a missile system. The rocket
motor case used in the advanced solid propulsion system is essentially a lightweight shell acted upon by static internal pressure and dynamic
and thermal loads during ight, but for practical structural integrity purposes, consideration of internal pressure is all that is necessary. This
paper examines existing test data, theories and procedures, frequently used for evaluating the maximum pressure in closed ended cylindrical
vessels. q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Failure pressure; Cylindrical vessels; Aluminium alloy; High strength steels
1. Introduction
Two failure criteria [13] are recognised by the Rocket
industry, yielding and fracture. Failure due to yielding
occurs when some functional of stress or strain is exceeded
and fracture occurs when an existing crack extends. This
paper examines existing test data on different materials in
the context of various theories and procedures, used to
predict failure by yielding for evaluating the maximum
pressure in closed ended cylindrical vessels.
2. Failure pressure estimates
The design of a motor case under internal pressure
requires the study of two modes of failure. The rst occurs
when the deformation becomes excessive and there is a
possibility of permanent deformation. The second occurs
at a higher pressure and takes the form of bursting the
motor case.
For a closed end cylindrical vessel subjected to internal
pressure, p
i
, the elastic stresses are
s
r

p
i
k
2
21
1 2
k
2
R
2
i
r
2
_ _
; 1
s
u

p
i
k
2
21
1 1
k
2
R
2
i
r
2
_ _
; 2
s
z

p
i
k
2
21
; 3
where s
r
is the radial stress; s
u
; the hoop stress; s
z
; the
axial stress, R
i
, the inner radius, R
o
, the outer radius, r is any
radius between R
i
and R
o
and k R
o
=R
i
: From Eqs. (1)(3),
the mean stress is equal to the axial stress.
The shear stress, t s
u
2s
z
s
z
2s
r
; is
t
k
2
k
2
21
R
2
i
p
i
r
2
: 4
Yield occurs at the inner surface when the maximum
shear stress reaches the shear yield stress and the pressure
at rst yield, assuming the Von Mises yield criterion, can be
expressed in terms of the tensile yield stress s
ys
as
p
y

s
ys

3
p 1 2
1
k
2
_ _
: 5
If the pressure is raised beyond the yield pressure, the
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366
0308-0161/02/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0308-0161(01)00126-0
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpvp
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 191-471-565-640; fax: 191-471-415-236,
ext. 233.
yield spreads radially through the wall. For an elastic
perfectly plastic material, yield occurs within the
overstrained zone (say, R
i
# r # R
s
) for an internal
pressure
p
i

s
ys

3
p 2 ln
R
s
R
i
_ _
11 2
R
2
s
k
2
R
2
i
_ _
: 6
When R
s
R
o
; the internal pressure is the collapse
pressure (p
c
)
p
c

2

3
p s
ys
ln k: 7
If the cylinder is to remain elastic on unloading, the resi-
dual shear stress at the inner surface t
ys
2p
c
k
2
=k
2
21
should not exceed the shear yield in reverse yielding. If the
cylinder is completely overstrained to the outer surface, the
minimum diameter ratio that will give reverse yielding on
the removal of the pressure is given by
t
ys
2p
c
k
2
k
2
21
2t
ys
:
From Eq. (7), this gives
ln k
k
2
21
k
2
: 8
Solving Eq. (8) gives k 2:218: Above a value of k
2:218; a cylinder cannot be over strained to the outer
diameter without causing reversed yielding.
The maximum pressure that can be continued elastically
without reversed yielding is given by the pressure to give a
change in shear stress from t
ys
to 2t
ys
at the inner surface.
p
auto

2s
ys

3
p 1 2
1
k
2
_ _
: 9
Cylinders with k less than 2.218 can be completely over
strained without reverse yielding occurring on unloading;
therefore, the maximum pressure that can be contained
elastically after autofrettage is the collapse pressure, p
c
.
The various methods used to estimate maximum pressure
p
m
, may be classied into four groups. In the rst group, are
the empirical formulae based on some test results. The
second group uses theories of failure based upon either the
ultimate or tensile strength of the material. The third group
is based on the maximum pressures from plastic stress
strain relations in simple tension and assuming small or
innitesimal strains, whereas in the fourth group, these are
obtained by assuming large or nite strains.
2.1. Empirical formulae based on some test results
Faupel [4] proposed an expression for burst pressure
p
c

2

3
p s
ys
2 2
s
ys
s
ult
_ _
ln k: 10
Eq. (10) has not been derived using plasticity theory to
predict the collapse. It stems from the observation that
collapse occurs at a pressure between the value predicted
by Eq. (7) and the value predicted when s
ult
was used in the
place of s
ys
. The ratio of s
ys
=s
ult
is used as the weighing
factor to interpolate between the two limits.
Wellinger and Uebing [5] proposed the formula
p
m

1:1s
u
1 12:41
u
ln k; 11
where the true stress and the true strain at the ultimate load
are
s
u
1 11
ult
s
ult
; 12
1
u
ln1 11
ult
; 13
1
ult
is the nominal strain at the ultimate load.
2.2. Formulae based upon ultimate tensile strength
ASME Boiler code [6]
p
m
s
ult
k 21
0:6k 10:4
_ _
for k # 1:5
s
ult
k
2
21
k
2
11
_ _
for k . 1:5:
14
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 54
Nomenclature
e 2.718281828
E Young's modulus
E
s
Secant modulus
n Strain-hardening exponent
p
auto
Pressure associated with autofrettage
p
c
Collapse pressure
p
i
Internal pressure
p
m
Maximum/failure pressure
p
m
p
p
m
/s
0
r Radius, R
i
# r # R
o
R
i
, R
o
Inner and outer radii
R
s
Radius of elasticplastic interface
t
i
Initial thickness
u Radial displacement
x r 1u=R
o
k R
o
=R
i
n Poisson's ratio
1 Strain
1
r
, 1
u
, 1
z
Radial, circumferential and axial strains
1
u
True strain at the ultimate load
1
ult
Nominal strain at the ultimate load
s Stress
s
0
Material constant in the stressstrain Eq. (29)
s
u
True stress at the ultimate load
s
ult
Ultimate tensile strength
s
ys
Yield strength
t Shear stress
Soderberg [7]
p
m

4

3
p s
ult
k 21
k 11
_ _
: 15
Maximum stress criterion
p
m
s
ult
k 21: 16
Maximum shear stress criterion
p
m
2s
ult
k 21
k 11
_ _
: 17
Turner [8]
p
m
s
ult
ln k: 18
Nadai [9]
p
m

2

3
p s
ult
ln k: 19
BaileyNadai [10]
p
m

s
ult
2n
1 2
1
k
2n
_ _ _ _
: 20
Nadai [11]
p
m

s
ult

3
p
n
1 2
1
k
2n
_ _ _ _
: 21
Marin and Rimrot [12]
p
m

2

3
p
s
ult
1 11
ult

ln k: 22
Svensson [13]
p
m
s
ult
0:25
1
u
10:227
_ _
e
1
u
_ _
1
u
ln k: 23
2.3. Pressure expansion relation
The pressure expansion relation for an isotropic cylin-
drical vessel under internal pressure is derived here based
on nite strain considerations.
The equation of equilibrium for an element in a thick-
walled cylinder initially at a radius r and instantaneously at
a radius r 1u; can be represented by the equation of
equilibrium [14]
r 1u
ds
r
dr 1u
s
u
2s
r
; 24
where u is the radial displacement. Since large displace-
ments are involved, the radial and tangential (circumferen-
tial) strains are dened as:
1
r
ln 1 1
2u
2r
_ _
; 25a
1
u
ln 1 1
u
r
_ _
: 25b
If the displacement u is eliminated between Eqs. (25a)
and (25b), the following strain compatibility equation may
be derived
r 1u
d1
u
dr 1u
1 2e
1
u
21
r
: 26
For convenience, effective stress and strain are made
proportional to the octahedral shear values which are
dened as
s
1

2
p s
u
2s
z

2
1s
z
2s
r

2
1s
r
2s
u

2
_ _
1=2
; 27
1

2
p
3
1
u
21
z

2
11
z
21
r

2
11
r
21
u

2
_ _
1=2
: 28
It will be observed that s and 1 are also true stress and
natural strain as determined in a simple tensile test. In this
problem, the principal axes of stress and strain remain xed
and coincident. Thus, a deformation law of plastic ow can
be employed and s is expressed as a function of 1. One
form of equation which has been employed to represent the
stressstrain law for many materials is
s s
0
1
n
; 29
where s
0
and n are material constants, n being referred to
as the strain-hardening exponent. For ductile materials, the
onset of instability is dened by the condition [15]
2s
21
s at 1 1
u
: 30
Using Eq. (29) in Eq. (30), the material constant is
n 1
u
: 31
The other material constant s
0
in Eq. (29) can be
expressed in terms of the ultimate tensile strength of the
material as
s
0

e
n
_ _
n
s
ult
: 32
In a series of burst tests on a number of closed end cylin-
drical vessels [1618], it was found that the axial strain e
z

was small and could be neglected. In the plastic range, the

material is incompressible (i.e. Poisson's ratio n 1=2). For
the present case
1
r
21
u
; 33
s
z

1
2
s
r
1s
u
: 34
Substituting 1
z
0 and 1
r
21
u
in Eq. (28), the
effective strain is
1
2

3
p 1
u
: 35
Using Eqs. (27) and (34), the effective stress is
s

3
p
2
s
u
2s
r
: 36
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 55
Dening x r 1u=R
o
and using Eq. (36), Eqs. (23) and
(26) may be written as:
x
ds
r
dx

2

3
p s; 37
x
d1
u
dx
1 2e
1
u
21
r
: 38
Using Eq. (33) in Eq. (38), the compatibility equation
becomes:
x
d1
u
dx
1 2e
21
u
: 39
From Eq. (25), 1
u
at the inner surface can be written as:
1
u
ln x
i
; at x x
i
: 40
The solution of Eqs. (39) and (40) can be written as
1
u

1
2
ln
x
2
1 2x
2
i
1x
2
_ _
: 41
Using solution (41), the effective strain from Eq. (35) is
1
1

3
p ln
x
2
1 2x
2
i
1x
2
_ _
: 42
At the initiation of the instability, the material is incom-
pressible and there is no change in the volume of the
material before and after deformation. As the meridional
strain is negligible, the growth of the cylindrical shell in
the axial direction is negligible. This indicates that the
area of the cross-section of the material before and after
deformation remains the same that is
pR
o
1u
o

2
2R
i
1u
i

2
pR
2
o
2R
2
i
: 43
Dividing Eq. (43) by pR
2
o
x
2
o
2x
2
i
k
2
21: 44
Using Eqs. (35) and (44) in Eq. (42), the effective strains
at the inner surface r R
i
and at the outer surface
r R
o
are
1
i

2

3
p ln x
i
; 45
1
o

1

3
p ln 1 2
1 2e

3
p
1
i
k
2
_ _
: 46
Now, dividing Eq. (37) by Eq. (39) and using Eq. (35)
ds
r
d1

s
1 2e

3
p
1
: 47
At the inner surface, s
r
2p and 1 1
i
and at the
outer surface, s
r
0 1 1
o
:
Integrating Eq. (47), and using the power-law expression
for stress in Eq. (29) for the material, the internal pressure
can be expressed as:
p s
0
_1
o
1
i
1
n
1 2e

3
p
1
d1: 48
The applied pressure in Eq. (48) is written in terms of the
effective strains. Failure is assumed to take place when the
derivative of the applied pressure with respect to the effec-
tive strain vanishes. This is an instability criterion followed
for the present case. 1
o
; dened in Eq. (46) is a function of
1
i
: At the point of instability, the derivative of p with respect
to 1
i
vanishes (say at 1
i
1
p
), which leads to a non-linear
equation for 1
p
: It is solved here by using the Newton
Raphson method. The second derivative of p with respect
to 1
i
at 1
i
1
p
is found to be negative. Hence, the value of
p at 1
i
1
p
becomes a maximum, which is denoted by p
m
.
For evaluation of p
m
from Eq. (48), the limits of the inte-
gration namely, 1
i
and 1
o
are obtained by substituting
1
i
1
p
in Eq. (46). Substituting these values in Eq. (48)
and integrating, gives the maximum pressure, p
m
. A ten-
point Gauss rule is adopted for evaluating the integral in
Eq. (48). For long closed end cylindrical vessels, the axial
strain 1
z
at failure is noticed to be small compared to the
hoop strain 1
u
and the compressive radial strain 1
r
is
approximately equal to the tensile hoop strain 1
u
[i.e. 1
z

0 and 1
r
21
u
].
To verify the accuracy of the Svensson's simplied
formula (Eq. (22)), the non-dimensional failure pressure,
p
p
m
; p
m
=s
0
is numerically evaluated from Eq. (48) for
different values of the wall ratio, k and the strain hardening
exponent n. Fig. 1 shows the comparison of p
p
m
obtained
from the Svensson's simplied formula (Eq. (22)) and the
exact integration (Eq. (48)). For lower values of n, the
values of p
p
m
obtained from Eqs. (22) and (48) are very
close, whereas for n . 0:5; these two equations differ by
more than 15%. Svensson's simplied formula (Eq. (22))
will be useful for conservative estimation of failure
pressure.
2.4. Thin walled cylindrical vessels
Although the preceding analysis applies to any wall ratio
k, the computation tends to become exact when k is slightly
greater than unity. It is thus convenient to consider analysis
of the simpler thin walled vessel problem. Assuming the
growth of the cylindrical shell in the axial direction to be
negligible compared to its length and the material to be
incompressible at the initiation of instability, the area of
cross section of the material in the shell before and after
deformation, remains the same. This condition implies that
2pR
i
t
i
2pr 1ut; 49
where (r 1u) and t are the current radius and thickness,
respectively.
The principal stresses s
u
and s
z
along the circumferential
and meridional directions for the thin walled cylindrical
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 56
shells under internal pressure p
i
can be written as:
s
u

p
i
r 1u
t
; 50a
s
z

p
i
r 1u
2t
: 50b
Dening x r 1u=R
i
and using Eq. (49) in Eqs. (50a)
and (50b), s
u
and s
z
can be expressed as:
s
u

pR
i
t
i
x
2
; 51a
s
z

pR
i
2t
i
x
2
: 51b
For thin walled shells, the outer and inner surface strains
at the initiation of instability are nearly equal because k is
slightly greater than unity. Hence, the effective strain for
thin walled shells can be written from Eq. (45) as
1
1

3
p ln x
2
: 52
Assuming the radial stress, s
r
0 and using Eqs. (51a)
and (51b) in Eq. (27), the effective stress is
s

3
p
2
pR
i
t
i
x
2
: 53
Substituting Eqs. (52) and (53) in Eq. (29)
p
2

3
p
_ _
n11
s
0
t
i
R
i
ln x
n
x
2
: 54
At the point of instability, p is maximum and dp=dx 0:
This implies that the value of x at which p is maximum is
x e
n=2
: 55
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 57
Fig. 1. (a, b) Variations of non-dimensional pressure, p
p
m
; p
m
=s
0
with the wall ratio k.
Substituting the value of x given by Eq. (55) in Eq. (54)
gives the maximum pressure
p
m

2

3
p

n11
s
0
n
e
_ _
n
t
i
R
i
: 56
Using Eq. (32) in Eq. (56)
p
m

2

3
p

n11
s
ult
t
i
R
i
; 57
which is similar to that of Marin and Sharma [19].
3. Results and discussion
To examine the applicability of several existing formulae
for predicting the failure pressure of cylindrical vessels,
experimental data in the literature on different materials
are considered.
The relative error (%) and the standard error (SE) are
computed as
Relative error % 100 1 2Analysis result=Test result;
Standard error SE

N
i1
1 2Analysis result=Test result
2
i
=N
_ _
1=2
;
where N is the number of test results. The best criterion
followed here is the one which can predict the failure
pressure within ^20% of the test results and has the average
standard error of less than 0.1 in the ratio of predicted-to-test
failure pressures.
Experimental investigations were carried out on burst
tests of rocket motor cases made of 15CDV6 steel [20].
15CDV6 steel is a low alloy steel. Table 1 gives the details
of the dimensions, mechanical properties and failure
pressure data. It also gives a comparison of failure pressure
for the three rocket motor cases using various failure
theories. Failure pressure estimates based on the empirical
relation of Faupel and the present analysis by evaluating
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 58
Table 1
Comparison of analytical and experimental failure pressure of 15CDV6 steel rocket motor cases n 0:05
Chamber number s
ys
(MPa)
s
ult
(MPa)
Inner diameter
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa)
Test [20] Present analysis
(Eq. (48))
Relative error (%)
1 915 1060 206.6 2.6 29 29.6 22.4
2 915 1060 206.6 2.6 30 29.6 0.0
3 915 1060 154.5 3.8 58 56.4 3.4
Standard error 0.024
Formulae Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa) Standard error
Chamber 1 Chamber 2 Chamber 3
p
m
Relative
error (%)
p
m
Relative
error (%)
p
m
Relative
error (%)
Faupel (Eq. (10)) 29.9 23.3 29.9 20.9 56.9 2.5 0.024
Wellinger and Uebing (Eq. (11)) 27.2 5.9 27.2 8.1 51.9 11.2 0.087
ASME boiler code (Eq. (14)) 26.3 9.1 26.3 11.2 50.0 14.4 0.118
Soderberg (Eq. (15)) 30.4 25.3 30.4 22.8 58.0 0.7 0.035
Maximum stress (Eq. (16)) 26.7 7.7 26.7 9.9 51.5 11.9 0.100
Maximum shear stress (Eq. (17)) 26.3 8.8 26.3 11.0 50.2 14.0 0.115
Turner (Eq. (18)) 26.3 8.8 26.3 11.0 50.2 14.0 0.115
Nadai (Eq. (19)) 30.4 25.3 30.4 22.8 58.0 0.7 0.035
Baily-Nadai (Eq. (20)) 26.3 8.9 26.3 11.1 50.1 14.2 0.116
Nadai (Eq. (21)) 30.4 25.1 30.4 22.7 57.9 0.9 0.034
Marin and Rimrott (Eq. (22)) 28.9 20.1 28.9 2.2 55.2 5.5 0.034
Svensson (Eq. (23)) 29.0 20.5 29.0 1.9 55.4 5.2 0.032
Fig. 2. Photograph of hydro-burst pressure tested 15CDV6 chamber.
numerically the integral for p
m
in Eq. (48), are found to be in
good agreement with the test results. Fig. 2 shows one of the
failure chambers after hydro-burst pressure test. Since the
wall ratio, for the tested chambers is less than 1.05, an
attempt is made to verify Eq. (57), which gives the failure
pressure from thin walled vessel theory. For the rst two
chambers, Eq. (57) gives p
m
29:97 MPa; whereas the test
burst pressure values are 29 and 30 MPa. Similarly, in the
case of the third chamber, the estimated value is 58.57 MPa,
whereas, the test result is 58 MPa.
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 59
Table 2
Comparison of analytical and experimental failure pressure of ESR 15CDV6 steel cylindrical vessels with hemispherical domes n 0:05
Chamber number s
ys
(MPa)
s
ult
(MPa)
Inner diameter
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa)
Test [21] Present analysis
(Eq. (48))
Relative error (%)
1 1275 1589 194.0 1.5 23 27.4 217.8
2 1275 1650 560.0 8.2 42 53.6 228.8
3 1380 1469 560.0 8.0 44 46.6 26.3
Standard error 0.199
Formulae Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa) Standard error
Chamber 1 Chamber 2 Chamber 3
p
m
Relative
error (%)
p
m
Relative
error (%)
p
m
Relative error
(%)
Faupel (Eq. (10)) 27.1 216.1 52.2 225.4 47.6 28.7 0.181
Wellinger and Uebing (Eq. (11)) 25.2 28.1 49.2 218.2 42.7 2.4 0.116
ASME boiler code (Eq. (14)) 24.3 24.5 47.5 214.2 41.3 5.8 0.092
Soderberg (Eq. (15)) 28.2 220.8 55.0 232.2 47.8 29.1 0.228
Maximum stress (Eq. (16)) 24.6 25.5 48.3 216.2 42.0 4.2 0.101
Maximum shear stress (Eq. (17)) 24.4 24.7 47.6 214.5 41.4 5.5 0.093
Turner (Eq. (18)) 24.4 24.7 47.6 214.5 41.4 5.5 0.093
Nadai (Eq. (19)) 28.2 220.8 55.0 232.2 47.8 29.1 0.228
Baily-Nadai (Eq. (20)) 24.4 24.6 47.6 214.3 41.3 5.7 0.093
Nadai (Eq. (21)) 28.1 220.8 54.9 232.0 47.7 28.9 0.226
Marin and Rimrott (Eq. (22)) 26.8 214.9 52.3 225.8 45.5 23.8 0.173
Svensson (Eq. (23)) 26.9 215.3 52.5 226.2 45.6 24.1 0.177
Fig. 3. Photograph of hydro-burst pressure tested ESR 15CDV6 chamber.
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 60
Table 3
Comparison of analytical and experimental failure pressure of Maraging steel rocket motor cases n 0:021
Chamber number s
ys
(MPa)
s
ult
(MPa)
Inner diameter
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa)
Test [18] Present analysis
(Eq. (48))
Relative error (%)
1 2128 2155 90.0 1.6 87 87.5 21.1
2 2128 2155 90.0 1.8 94 96.1 22.2
3 2128 2155 90.0 1.7 92 93.2 21.0
Standard error 0.015
Formulae Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa) Standard error
Chamber 1 Chamber 2 Chamber 3
p
m
Relative
error (%)
p
m
Relative
error (%)
p
m
Relative
error (%)
Faupel (Eq. (10)) 88.5 22.2 97.2 23.4 94.1 22.0 0.026
Wellinger and Uebing (Eq. (11)) 82.0 5.3 90.0 4.2 87.2 5.5 0.051
ASME boiler code (Eq. (14)) 76.4 11.8 83.9 10.8 81.2 12.0 0.115
Soderberg (Eq. (15)) 88.5 22.2 97.2 23.4 94.1 22.0 0.026
Maximum stress (Eq. (16)) 78.1 9.9 85.9 8.7 83.1 10.0 0.095
Maximum shear stress (Eq. (17)) 76.7 11.5 84.2 10.4 81.5 11.7 0.112
Turner (Eq. (18)) 76.7 11.5 84.2 10.4 81.5 11.7 0.112
Nadai (Eq. (19)) 88.5 22.2 97.2 23.4 94.1 22.0 0.026
Baily-Nadai (Eq. (20)) 76.6 11.5 84.1 10.5 81.5 11.7 0.113
Nadai (Eq. (21)) 88.5 22.2 97.1 23.3 94.1 21.9 0.026
Marin and Rimrott (Eq. (22)) 86.7 20.1 95.2 21.3 92.2 0.1 0.007
Svensson (Eq. (23)) 85.6 1.1 94.0 0.0 91.0 1.4 0.010
Table 4
Comparison of analytical and experimental failure pressure of AISI 4340 cylindrical vessels n 0:1
Chamber number s
ys
(MPa)
s
ult
(MPa)
Inner diameter
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa)
Test [4] Present analysis
(Eq. (48))
Relative error (%)
1 714 858 38.2 33.4 917 935.4 22.0
2 710 855 38.2 33.3 924 929.6 20.6
3 595 792 38.0 33.4 827 864.2 24.5
Standard error 0.028
Formulae Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa) Standard error
Chamber 1 Chamber 2 Chamber 3
p
m
Relative
error (%)
p
m
Relative
error (%)
p
m
Relative
error (%)
Faupel (Eq. (10)) 973.9 26.2 968.1 24.8 869.4 25.1 0.054
Wellinger and Uebing (Eq. (11)) 850.8 7.2 846.3 8.4 786.9 4.9 0.070
ASME boiler code (Eq. (14)) 657.7 28.3 654.6 29.2 607.7 26.6 0.280
Soderberg (Eq. (15)) 924.7 20.8 919.9 0.4 854.9 23.3 0.020
Maximum stress (Eq. (16)) 1500.8 263.7 1491.5 261.4 1389.7 268.0 0.644
Maximum shear stress (Eq. (17)) 800.8 12.7 796.6 13.8 740.4 10.5 0.124
Turner (Eq. (18)) 867.9 5.4 863.2 6.6 802.6 3.0 0.052
Nadai (Eq. (19)) 1002.1 29.3 996.7 27.9 926.8 212.0 0.099
Baily-Nadai (Eq. (20)) 785.7 14.3 781.6 15.4 726.5 12.2 0.140
Nadai (Eq. (21)) 907.3 1.1 902.5 2.3 838.9 21.4 0.017
Marin and Rimrott (Eq. (22)) 906.8 1.1 901.9 2.4 838.6 21.4 0.017
Svensson (Eq. (23)) 923.2 20.7 918.2 0.6 853.8 23.2 0.019
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 61
Table 5
Comparison of analytical and experimental failure pressure of different steel cylindrical chambers
s
ys
(MPa) s
ult
(MPa)
Inner diameter
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa)
Test
[4]
Faupel
Eq. (10)
Relative error
(%)
Present analysis
Eq. (48)
Relative error
(%)
AISI 1025 n 0:1
552 621 3.2 7.7 1110 1252.8 212.9 1150.5 23.6
AISI 1030 n 0:25
244 478 44.7 32.0 393 373.0 5.1 417.3 26.2
444 614 44.5 32.1 572 585.6 22.3 541.3 5.4
AISI 1025 n 0:2
440 713 38.2 33.3 752 708.6 5.7 724.4 3.6
428 710 38.1 33.4 738 698.0 5.4 723.7 1.9
565 856 38.1 33.4 821 886.3 28.0 873.8 26.5
AISI 1035 n 0:3
268 459 9.5 6.4 345 374.5 28.6 375.0 28.8
289 485 9.7 6.3 352 391.2 211.3 386.9 210.0
289 485 9.6 4.7 297 322.9 28.9 321.9 28.6
289 485 9.7 4.7 297 318.8 27.5 317.9 27.2
292 529 38.1 33.3 465 493.5 26.0 504.9 28.5
480 736 38.3 31.8 679 731.2 27.7 681.9 20.4
AISI 3130 n 0:25
372 653 38.1 28.6 528 563.3 26.8 587.3 211.3
AISI 3320 n 0:1
524 743 38.1 14.2 407 436.3 27.2 450.0 210.6
858 944 38.2 33.4 986 1093.4 210.9 1029.0 24.4
561 722 38.7 52.1 1158 1033.7 10.8 1005.2 13.2
583 732 38.3 71.2 1327 1255.4 5.4 1198.9 9.7
470 743 38.2 33.3 676 749.1 210.9 807.9 219.6
545 729 38.2 33.3 731 795.3 28.8 792.6 28.4
777 894 39.8 37.3 1007 1070.6 26.4 1014.4 20.8
Standard error 0.082 0.087
AISI 4130 n 0:25
415 629 38.1 28.6 565 588.6 24.1 565.7 0.0
AISI 4140 n 0:1
821 822 12.7 12.7 952 1042.1 29.5 970.2 22.0
783 800 12.7 12.7 883 1014.1 214.9 944.6 27.0
1076 1119 12.6 12.7 1220 1428.7 217.1 1331.7 29.1
1076 1119 12.5 12.8 1379 1438.3 24.3 1339.2 2.9
AISI 4340 n 0:1
621 770 6.4 6.3 896 936.7 24.5 906.4 21.1
652 789 6.4 6.3 869 967.2 211.3 928.3 26.8
648 778 19.1 19.0 869 958.3 210.3 916.9 25.5
690 799 50.9 50.8 938 994.0 26.0 942.4 20.5
837 859 12.7 9.5 807 908.4 212.6 849.9 25.3
AISI 6130 n 0:2
444 683 38.1 29.1 614 641.7 24.6 641.2 24.5
AISI 8630 n 0:2
428 624 38.1 28.5 545 593.0 28.9 576.8 25.9
AISI 304 SS n 0:65
269 714 9.8 4.7 310 339.1 29.3 378.5 222.0
269 714 9.8 4.7 303 339.3 211.8 378.8 224.8
269 714 9.7 4.7 324 340.4 25.0 379.4 217.1
248 621 38.1 33.4 434 463.3 26.7 480.3 210.6
210 576 38.1 33.3 410 401.6 2.1 444.4 28.3
An ultra high strength low alloy steel with a nominal
composition of 0.3C1.35Cr0.9Mo0.25V0.1Nb has
been developed by modifying the basic chemistry of
15CDV6 steel and using Electroslag rening and inocula-
tion technologies [21]. To examine the potential of the steel,
pressure chambers having diameters of 200 and 560 mm,
were fabricated and hydro-burst pressure tested. Table 2
gives details of the dimensions, mechanical properties,
failure pressure data and a comparison of failure pressure
estimates using various theories. Failure pressure estimates
based on the ASME boiler code (Eq. (14)) are found to be in
reasonably good agreement with test results. Computations
were also made by assuming no strain hardening and using
the expression for collapse pressure (p
c
) of Eq. (7). For the
three chambers that are listed in Table 2, the p
c
values are
found to be 22.6, 42.5 and 44.9 MPa, respectively. These
results are found to be within ^3% of the test results. The
present analysis assumes strain hardening while calculating
p
m
, using Eq. (48), whereas chamber test results indicate that
there is no strain hardening at the failure initiation. For this
reason, the failure pressure estimates using Eq. (48) were
found to be non-conservative. For this material, the yield
stress criterion is the best choice, though the tensile coupons
show strain hardening. Fig. 3 shows one of the chambers
after hydro-burst pressure test.
Table 3 gives a comparison of failure pressure estimates
for high strength Maraging steel ow formed Rocket motor
cases. The present analysis results are in good agreement
with test results [18]. Table 4 shows a good comparison of
present analysis results with the test results on AISI 4340
cylindrical vessels [4]. An examination of the results in
Tables 14 shows that of the 12 formulae considered,
there are six, which give better agreement than the others
(i.e. SE #0.1). These are the formulae suggested by Well-
inger and Uebing [5], Marin and Rimrott [12], Svensson
[13], Turner [8], and Faupel [4]. Values of the strain hard-
ening exponent (n) for the materials in Tables 14 are less
than or equal to 0.1. As expected, failure pressure estimates
through Eq. (48) are close to those obtained from
Svensson's simplied formula.
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 62
Table 5 (continued)
s
ys
(MPa) s
ult
(MPa)
Inner diameter
(mm)
Thickness
(mm)
Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa)
Test
[4]
Faupel
Eq. (10)
Relative error
(%)
Present analysis
Eq. (48)
Relative error
(%)
AISI 316 SS n 0:1
879 1048 6.4 4.8 1110 1078.2 2.9 1035.0 6.8
838 1007 3.7 3.7 1379 1236.0 10.4 1184.2 14.1
AISI 347 SS n 0:5
251 629 19.6 12.4 407 380.5 6.5 438.5 27.8
251 629 19.6 12.7 365 385.8 25.6 443.6 221.4
251 629 20.6 12.2 386 362.3 6.2 418.2 28.3
Standard error 0.088 0.111
Bethlehem gun steel n 0:1
936 1031 38.2 33.4 1117 1193.4 26.8 1122.5 20.5
310 602 38.2 33.3 559 536.3 4.0 655.1 217.3
1027 1124 38.1 33.4 1296 1303.2 20.5 1225.5 5.5
1027 1131 38.1 33.4 1310 1309.9 0.0 1233.0 5.9
965 1055 38.0 33.4 1131 1225.9 28.4 1152.5 21.9
331 665 25.5 22.2 662 579.2 12.5 722.9 29.2
CMnFe alloy n 0:2
510 678 38.1 28.6 627 673.5 27.4 629.6 20.4
510 678 38.1 28.6 593 673.5 213.6 629.6 26.2
509 681 38.1 28.6 600 674.2 212.4 631.9 25.3
MnMoV welded ends n 0:2
593 710 76.2 57.2 683 730.9 27.1 659.1 3.4
767 829 25.7 20.7 793 912.7 215.1 802.6 21.2
731 789 25.5 20.8 759 875.2 215.4 770.1 21.5
Nickel lined MnMoV tubing n 0:1
536 656 13.0 9.4 607 657.5 28.3 636.5 24.9
576 641 13.1 9.4 586 651.7 211.2 616.1 25.1
462 609 13.1 9.4 600 588.2 2.0 584.3 2.6
528 834 13.1 9.4 879 741.7 15.6 803.2 8.6
269 390 13.1 9.4 448 361.7 19.3 374.4 16.5
Standard error 0.109 0.074
Table 5 gives comparisons of failure pressure estimates
with test results [4] for thick walled cylinders made of
different steels. The failure theory based on the empirical
formula of Faupel and the present analysis through exact
integration of Eq. (48) are in good agreement with the test
results, except for AISI 304 stainless steel. Faupel [4] states
that Eq. (10) is accurate to ^15% on a 95% certainty basis.
Empirical formulae can, of course be quite accurate for the
range of wall thicknesses and materials on which they are
based. The rate at which the material work hardens is also
important if a rigorous prediction of the collapse pressure is
to include the effect of strain hardening. For this reason, the
formula (10) suggested by Faupel [4] is only an estimate,
since two materials with similar strengths may strain harden
at very different rates. Formulation based upon the theory of
plasticity is more appropriate, since the bursting of a ductile
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 63
Fig. 4. (af) Comparison of analytical and experimental failure pressure of cylindrical steel chambers.
pressure vessel involves large plastic strains. Fig. 4 shows
the comparison of various failure theories examined in this
paper for different steel cylindrical vessels tested by Faupel.
The data within boundaries of the dotted lines in Fig. 4
indicate that failure pressure estimates were within ^20%
of the test results. In order to understand the AISI 304
stainless steel behaviour, the test data of Ref. [22] are
considered. Table 6 gives a good comparison of the present
analysis results with the test results of Ref. [22] for AISI 304
stainless steel, A 212 and A 285 steels and also Aluminium
6061 T4. It is interesting to note from the results presented
in Tables 5 and 6, for AISI 304 stainless steel that large
scatter is noticed in the ultimate strength values compared
to the yield strength properties. For the cases of low strength
properties, the present analysis results are reasonably in
good agreement with the test results. The discrepancy in
the failure pressure estimates may be due to scatter in the
strength properties and the assumption that the strain hard-
ening exponent n, is the same for all the cylinders in the
group. The details on chemical composition of the steel
materials can be found in Ref. [23].
Table 7 gives a comparison of failure pressure esti-
mates for high strength D6AC and 18% Ni Maraging
steel rocket motor cases. The failure pressure estimates
are found to be in good agreement with the test results
of Ref. [24].
Margetson [18] has presented failure pressure data on
three types of rocket motor cases. The rst batch comprised
of 255 mm diameter helically wound motor manufactured
from Air steel X200; a medium carbon, 2%Cr1.5%Si
0.5%Mo steel. The second and third batches consisted of
ow formed motor cases manufactured from the high
strength Maraging and Murphy E type steels. All the
motor cases were cylindrical. The results presented in
Tables 3 and 8 show a good comparison with test results
[18]. Failure pressure estimates using Eq. (48) in Tables 68
show within ^20% of test results. The average standard
error is found to be less than 0.1.
4. Concluding remarks
Various theories were developed to understand the
failure behaviour of materials in a bi-axial stress eld.
Experiments with a variety of materials showed that there
is no unique failure theory, which predicts the failure load
accurately for all materials. This paper examines failure
data on various pressure vessels and compares the
frequently used theories for validation and further use in
the design of aerospace pressure vessels. In choosing design
formulae, consideration must be given to simplicity,
availability of data on material properties and accuracy.
If, due to unavoidable variations in material properties,
the accuracy cannot be high, it must be known what
the accuracy is, so that adequate safety factors can be
applied. The primary limitation of all elastic analysis
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 64
Table 6
Comparison of analytical and experimental failure pressure of steel and aluminium cylindrical chambers
s
ys
(MPa) s
ult
(MPa) Inner diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa)
Test [22] Present study Eq. (48) Relative error (%)
A 212 Grade B n 0:5
454 562 31.8 3.2 90 90.0 0.0
454 562 25.4 6.4 168 198.4 218.0
454 562 19.1 9.5 332 333.9 20.7
454 562 11.1 13.5 570 565.8 0.7
A 285 Grade C n 0:2
333 426 31.8 3.2 81 80.4 0.2
333 426 19.1 9.5 302 301.8 0.0
333 426 12.7 12.7 466 468.9 20.6
333 426 9.5 14.3 591 581.4 1.7
Grade 304 SS n 0:5
267 574 31.8 3.2 93 91.9 1.1
267 574 19.1 9.5 343 340.9 0.5
267 574 12.7 12.7 528 522.4 1.0
267 574 9.5 14.3 640 637.5 0.3
6061T4 Aluminium n 0:3
224 262 31.8 3.2 46 46.7 21.8
224 262 19.1 9.5 169 175.0 23.6
224 262 12.7 12.7 254 270.3 26.5
224 262 6.4 15.9 419 413.6 1.3
224 262 4.8 16.7 483 464.9 3.8
224 262 3.2 17.5 553 529.1 4.3
Standard error 0.048
methods is that they do not account for plastic action
and therefore do not predict the considerable differences,
which exist between the bursting pressures of vessels
made with materials of different strain-hardening properties.
Though various degrees of renement can be made on the
plastic true stressstrain relationships, the present formula-
tion requires knowledge of only two properties of the
material, the nominal ultimate tensile strength and the true
ultimate strain 1
u
: The strainhardening exponent (n) is
assumed to be equal to 1
u
; which may be obtained from
tting of the stressstrain curve to have the form of
Eq. (29). The actual true stressstrain curve/data can also
be introduced without difculty in the present numerical
analysis.
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 65
Table 8
Comparison of analytical and experimental failure pressure of high strength steel rocket motor cases
s
ys
(MPa) s
ult
(MPa) Inner diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa)
Test [18] Present study Eq. (48) Relative error (%)
Murphy-E-Steel n 0:0297
2292 2317 147.0 1.0 37 37.1 21.5
2292 2317 147.0 1.1 37 38.0 22.2
2292 2317 147.0 1.1 39 39.9 22.2
2292 2317 147.0 1.0 35 34.6 20.2
2292 2317 147.0 1.0 37 37.1 0.4
2292 2317 147.0 1.0 37 37.1 21.5
AirSteel X 200 n 0:0327
2089 2178 255.0 1.4 27 27.9 25.2
2089 2162 255.0 1.4 27 27.7 23.7
2089 2100 255.0 1.5 27 27.4 22.2
2089 2116 255.0 1.5 27 27.6 22.6
2089 2162 255.0 1.5 27 28.2 23.7
1884 1884 255.0 1.7 28 27.9 21.1
1637 1637 255.0 1.6 23 23.5 21.8
1822 1822 255.0 1.7 29 27.0 7.3
1946 1946 255.0 1.7 26 28.4 28.5
1961 1961 255.0 1.6 27 28.2 22.8
1853 1853 255.0 1.7 28 27.4 0.6
Standard error 0.036
Table 7
Comparison of analytical and experimental failure pressure of high strength steel rocket motor cases
s
ys
(MPa) s
ult
(MPa) Inner diameter (mm) Thickness (mm) Failure pressure, p
m
(MPa)
Test [24] Present study Eq. (48) Relative error (%)
D6AC Steel n 0:05
1345 1482 1663.7 3.7 8 7.4 5.6
1400 1558 1663.7 3.7 8 7.7 0.8
1510 1627 1663.7 3.7 8 8.1 23.6
1455 1607 368.3 3.6 35 34.8 20.5
1420 1551 368.3 3.6 35 33.6 4.4
1407 1531 368.3 3.6 34 33.1 2.9
1538 1586 368.3 3.6 35 34.3 0.6
1448 1620 368.3 3.6 34 35.1 22.2
1489 1662 368.3 3.6 35 36.0 21.8
1489 1662 368.3 3.6 35 36.0 21.8
1538 1613 368.3 3.6 34 34.9 23.3
1510 1586 368.3 3.6 33 34.3 24.0
Maraging steel n 0:05
2006 2062 1663.7 3.7 10 10.2 20.4
1937 2013 1016.0 1.8 8 7.9 5.3
1937 2006 157.2 2.0 62 57.7 6.5
1937 2006 157.2 2.0 62 57.7 7.3
1937 2006 157.2 2.0 60 57.7 3.4
Standard error 0.038
References
[1] Willams FA, Barrere M, Huang NC. Fundamental aspects of solid
propellant rockets (AGARD No. 116). Slough, UK: The Advisory
Group for Aerospace Research and Development, Technical Services,
1969.
[2] James BH. Structural integrity analysis of solid rocket motors.
Conference on Stress and Strain in Engineering, Brisbane, National
Committee on Applied Mechanics. The Institution of Engineers,
Australia, 1973.
[3] Nageswara Rao B. Fracture of solid rocket propellant grains. Engng
Fract Mech 1992;43:4559.
[4] Faupel JH. Yielding and bursting of characteristics of heavy walled
cylinders. J Appl Mech 23, Trans ASME 1956;78:103164.
[5] Wellinger K, Ubeing D. Festikeitsverhalten dickwandiger hohlzylin-
der unter innerdruck im vollplastischen bereich. Mitteilungen der
Vereinigung der Grosskessel bestizer, Heft, June 1960:66.
[6] Boiler and pressure vessels code. 1962 ed. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 1962.
[7] Soderberg CR. Interpretation of creep tests on tubes. Trans ASME
1941;63:73748.
[8] Turner LB. The stresses in a thick hollow cylinder subjected to inter-
nal pressure. Trans Camb Phil Soc 1910;21:37796.
[9] Nadai A. Plasticity. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931.
[10] Bailey RW. Thick-walled tubes and cylinders under high pressure
and temperatures. Engineering (London) 1930;129:7727, see also
p. 7856 and 8189.
[11] Nadai A. Theory of ow and fracture of solids. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1950.
[12] Marin J, Rimrott FPJ. Design of thick walled pressure vessels based
upon the plastic range. Weld Res Coun Bull Ser, July 1958;41.
[13] Svensson NL. Bursting pressure of cylindrical and spherical vessels.
J Appl Mech, 25, Trans ASME 1958;80:8996.
[14] MacGregor CW, Cofn LF, Fisher JC. The plastic ow of thick
walled tubes with large strains. J Appl Phys 1948;19(3):2917.
[15] Jonas JJ, Holt RA, Coleman CE. Plastic instability in tension and
compression. Acta Metall 1976;24:9118.
[16] Crossland B, Bones JA. The ultimate strength of thick walled cylinders
subjected to internal pressure. Engineering (London) 1955;179:803,
see also p. 1147.
[17] Costantino CJ. The strength of thin-walled cylinders subjected to
dynamic internal pressures. Trans ASME J Appl Mech
1965;32:1048.
[18] Margetson J. Burst pressure predictions of rocket motors. AIAA paper
No. 78-1569, AIAA/SAE 14th Joint Propulsion Conference, Las
Vegas, NV USA, 227 July, 1978.
[19] Marin J, Sharma MG. Design of thin walled cylindrical vessel based
upon plastic range and considering anisotropy. Weld Res Coun Bull,
May 1958;40.
[20] Beena AP, Sundaresan MK, Nageswara Rao B. Destructive tests of
15CDV6 steel rocket motor cases and their application to light weight
design. Int J Pressure Vessels Piping 1995;62:31320.
[21] Development of 0.3CCr Mo V (ESR) ultra HSLA steel (MOD
15CDV6 steel). Report No. MPD-ESR-02-96, Materials and Metal-
lurgy Group, Vikram Sarabai Space Centre, Trivandrum, India, 1996.
[22] Marin J, Weng TL. Strength of thick-walled cylindrical pressure
vessels. Trans ASME 85, J Engng Ind 1963:40516.
[23] Unterweiser PM, Penzenik M. Worldwide guide to equivalent irons
and steels. Cleveland, OH: American Society for Metals, 1982.
[24] Benjamin CI. Wei Destructive tests of full size rocket motor cases and
their applications to light weight design. J Space Craft Rockets
1965;2:3638.
T. Christopher et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 79 (2002) 5366 66