SESS 6061 Advanced Finite Element Analysis - COURSEWORK 2 Cdric Bontemps

(a)
Material properties: = 70 GPa, = 0.33, = 240 MPa, T = 12 GPa. Dimensions of the cylinder: Ri=0.125m Ro=0.175m I used the same mesh size as in the workshop 2 example: 0.0125m.

Analytical solutions:

PY = 67.868 means that for this value of pressure, the maximum stress in the cylinder wall should be 240MPa:

With mesh size = 0.025

With the initial mesh size:

With mesh size = 0.00625

Here is a table summarizing the results.

Mesh size (m) 0,025 0,0125 0,00625 Maximum stress (MPa) 231 241 240

The maximum stress definitely converges to 240MPa.

(b)
Dimension of the quarter of the complete cylinders section:

50mm 50mm 250mm mm

175mm

(c)
Initial end-cap from (b): Hoop stress PY=67.868MPa Von Mises Stress

Pmax=80.753MPa

Second end-cap:
5mm

50mm 120m m 80mm 175mm 250mm mm

Hoop stress PY=67.868MPa

Von Mises Stress

Third end-cap:
100m m

50mm

25mm 250mm mm

125mm

175mm

Hoop stress PY=67.868MPa

Von Mises Stress

Observations and conclusions: The design with the end-caps failing at the same pressure as the cylinder walls would be close to the first one, with a fillet of 50mm. The second design with a large fillet can be assimilated to two half sphere attached to each side of a cylinder. As sphere is the best shape to contain pressure, due to the even repartition of the stress in the material, it is logical to see that the cylinder walls are going to fail before the end-caps. The difference of the stress value in the endcaps compared to the one in the cylinder walls is quite significant in this design, but it has the lower maximum stress compared to the others design. This is logical regarding that this design is the most used for pressure vessel. The third design with a small fillet is definitely the worse. It has higher stresses values for the same intern pressure and the end-caps are going to fail first.

Here is the comparison between (a) and (c) at PY: Hoop stress

Von Mises stress

We can see on those profiles at z=0 that the stresses values correspond quite well: Hoop stress: -(a) min=139MPa, (c) min 140MPa -(a) max=208MPa, (c)max210MPa Von Mises stress: -(a) min=143MPa, (c) min 140Pa -(a) max=240MPa, (c)max240MPa

(d)
I managed to obtain the evolution of the Von Mises stress and the radial displacement versus the time, but I couldnt access to the evolution of the pressure. The command NSOL,3,406,PRES returned an error message saying that the label PRES is invalid even if it is in the NSOL functions valid item in Ansys help. To obtain the asked plots, the log would have been something like... /POST26 NSOL,2,node(.125,0,0),U,X,X displacment, ESOL,4,305,352,S,EQV,Von Mises stress NSOL,3,406,PRES XVAR,3 PLVAR,4 PLVAR,2 I suppose that the increase of the pressure is linear (P=120Mpa*t) from 0 to 1 second. So by multiplying by 120Mpa the horizontal axis of the two following graphs, I obtained the radial displacement and Von Mises stress at (z =0, r = Ri) versus increasing pressure. Von Mises vs time X displacement vs time

We can see that the results are logical: -The Von Mises stress graph shows that the stress increase linearly from 0 to the yield stress 240MPa (0.6s). Then while the material starts to yield, the stress increase become less important for a few moments (until the whole wall is totally yielding (0.8s)) and then start to increase again at a higher rate because of the strain hardening. -The displacement graph shows a linear evolution of the displacement until 0.6s which correspond to the yield stress. Then the displacements rate increase a bit during the propagation of the yield in the wall. And once the whole wall is yielding (0.8s), the displacements rate increase again quite significantly.

(e)
Height variation:
R 3384,198 2540,000 2033,909 1696,869 (rad) 0,075 0,100 0,125 0,150 roof width Rsin() 253,577 253,577 253,577 253,577 height(/2) 9,514 12,689 15,869 19,054 (deg) 4,297 5,730 7,162 8,594 90- 85,703 84,270 82,838 81,406

H1:

H2:

H3:

H4:

Observations: These graphs show that a flatter roof is less affected by the buckling: the case H1 shows less variation in the load versus deflection graph. But the load needed for a certain amount of deflection is smaller compared to the other cases, which means that the roof is less resistant to buckling. In the contrary, a rounder roof shows more resistance: the maximum load before buckling on the case H4 is about 4 times higher than on the case H1. But once the buckling occurs, the roof quickly looses its resistance and even push down (negative load). So rounder roofs are more resistant to a vertical load but the effects of buckling are much more important than on a flatter roof.

Width varies: Table of Values:

R 4513,760 2540,000 1626,308 1130,028 0,075 0,100 0,125 0,150 roof width Rsin() 338,215 253,577 202,760 168,869 height(/2) 12,689 12,689 12,689 12,689 (deg) 4,297 5,730 7,162 8,594 90- 85,703 84,270 82,838 81,406

W1:

W2:

W3:

W4:

Observations:

Here the results show similar things: The case W1 is a large roof quite flat so not really affected by buckling. For the case W2 to W4, the roof becomes smaller and rounder so their resistances increase as well as the effects of buckling. Also it doesnt seem to have any push down effect (negative load).

(f)
Roof side constrained

Observations:

It looks like the roof reacts more like a cantilever beam, the buckling effect isnt really visible. Infinite roof by symmetry

Observations:

Results quasi similar to the base case (W2 and H2) but the roof isslightly more resistant.

Roof totally constrained at wall

Observations:

Again the roof reacts like a cantilever beam and the buckling effect is really small.

(f)
Displacement in mm with a pressure of 0.05MPa

Displacement in mm with a pressure of 0.01MPa

Graph of displacement versus time.

I didnt manage to obtain the graph of the load versus displacement. But once again the time in this graph is proportional to the pressure. So the non linear part of this graph at time=0.28s correspond to the buckling. The pressure at this moment is around 0.014MPa.