Int. J. Pres. Ves.

& Piping 31 (1988) 205-220

Determination of Residual Stress Distributions in

Autofrettaged Tubing

A. S t a c e y

Ocean Engineering Department, Lloyd's Register of Shipping,

71 Fenchurch Street, London EC3M 4BS, Great Britain

and
G. A. Webster
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College,
Exhibition Road, London SW7 2BX, Great Britain

(Received 30 July 1987; accepted 9 September 1987)

ABSTRACT

An investigation into the prediction of the residual hoop stress distribution in

autofrettaged thick-walled tubing of high-strength low-alloy steel with a
diameter ratio of 2"07 is described. Analytical and numerical estimates are
compared with experimental measurements made by the Sachs boring and
neutron diffraction methods. The significance of the choice of yield criterion,
the Bauschinger effect and work-hardening on the predicted residual hoop
stress distribution is examined.
The results showed that the analysis is sensitive to the particular model of
material behaviour assumed and the yield criterion employed. Neglect of the
Bauschinger effect causes the residual compression at the bore to be
overestimated. Closest agreement with experiment is achieved when the
unloading stress-strain behaviour of the material is modelled accurately and
the average of the Tresca and Von Mises yield criteria is used.

1 INTRODUCTION

This paper is concerned with the determination of residual stress

distributions in thick-walled tubing. Typically, thick-walled tubing is used
205
Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 0308-0161/88/$03-50 © 1988 Elsevier Applied Science Publishers
Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain
206 A. Stacey. G. A. Webster

for applications where high internal pressures must be withstood. Often

these pressures are cyclic and can cause initiation and propagation of cracks
by fatigue which may ultimately result in leakage of the pressurizing fluid or
bursting of the tube.
In order to predict the failure of internally pressurized thick-walled tubing
it is necessary to account for the influence of any residual stresses which may
be present initially. Residual stresses can be introduced into tubing during
manufacture by, for example, cold-reducing operations or by autofrettage.
Autofrettage involves the development of compressive residual hoop
stresses at the bore and is carried out deliberately to enhance fatigue life. 1'2
The residual stresses are generated after pressurizing to cause yielding part-
way (typically half-way) through the tube wall.
The reliable prediction of the influence of residual stresses on fatigue
crack growth and fracture in thick-walled tubing requires accurate estimates
of the residual stress field, z Residual stress distributions can be determined
by experiment and/or calculation. Several experimental methods are
available, 3 some destructive and some non-destructive. Surface stresses can
be obtained by X-ray diffraction 4 and hole drilling in conjunction with strain
gauge methods s and through-thickness stress distributions from the Sachs
boring, 6 slitting 7 and neutron diffraction 8- lo approaches. The calculation
procedures usually involve making simplifying assumptions about material
behaviour which may limit their accuracies.
In this paper analytical and numerical estimates of residual stress
distributions introduced by autofrettage will be compared with experi-
mental measurements made by the Sachs boring and neutron diffraction
methods. 10 The importance of choice of yield criterion and allowance for the
influence of the Bauschinger effect and work-hardening will each be
examined. Finally the significance of these assumptions on failure
assessments of autofrettaged tubing subjected to fatigue loading will be
considered.

2 ELASTIC L O A D I N G

The analysis will be presented for a tube of arbitrary internal and external
dimensions, as far as possible, to have the widest generality. It will then be
applied to the actual tube examined. Figure 1 shows a section through a tube
of internal radius a and external radius b. The radial and hoop stress
components a r and t70 at any radius r must satisfy the axisymmetric
equilibrium equation:

r d a r - (a o - a,) = 0 (1)
dr
 Residual stress distributionsin autofrettagedtubing 207

it

Fig. I. Principaltube dimensions.

Solution of this equation for elastic loading and an internal pressure p gives
the Lam6 stress distributions:
% 1
(kS-l)
[ k2] 1+ (2a)

and
°r _ 1
[1 kS
P (r/a)21 (2b)

where k = b/a. As pressure is increased yielding will develop and spread from
the bore causing stress redistribution. The actual stresses calculated will
depend upon the yield criterion adopted and whether work-hardening is
included. The significance of these factors will now be investigated.

3 NON-WORK-HARDENING SOLUTIONS

The Tresca and Von Mises yield criteria for non-work-hardening situations
will both be considered. Attention will be restricted initially to conditions
giving rise to elastic unloading after the pressurization process. Reverse
yielding on unloading will be examined later.

3.1 Elastic unloading

(a) Tresca yield criterion

For this situation yielding is independent of the end-load conditions and
occurs when:
O"0 - - (7 r = O'y (3)

where trv is the material uni-axial yield stress.

208 A. Stacey, G. A. Webster

Substitution of this expression into eqn (1) for a pressurized cylinder,

allows the radius ratio c/a up to which yielding takes place to be obtained
from:
k: -(c/a)q
2k 2 j (4)

In the yielded zone, i.e. a < r < c,

k 2 + (c/a)2~
-j (5)
and
k2 --(c/a)Z]
2k: J (6)

In the elastic region where c < r < b,

(c/a) 2 F, k z -]
(7)
3
and
(c/a) 2 [., k2
(8)
= ' (r/a) 2 3
The corresponding residual stress distributions obtained after removal of
the internal pressure, assuming elastic unloading, are determined by
substituting the elastic stress distributions, represented by eqns (2a) and (2b),
from eqns (5) to (8), respectively.

(b) Von Mises yield criterion

For axial symmetry, yielding is predicted to occur with this criterion when:
1
x/2 [a0 - O'r)2 + (at -- O'z)2 + (as -- a0)2] 1/2 = av (9)

where a~ is the axial stress. Substitution of this equation into eqn (1) with the
appropriate boundary conditions allows the stress field during the
autofrettage pressurizing process to be calculated. Different solutions are
obtained for plane stress and plane strain conditions. For plane strain,
assuming incompressible plastic deformation:
1
o"z = ~ ( a o + ar) (10)

and the yield criterion reduces to:

2
O"0 - - O"r ~ - ~ O ' y = 1-155a v (11)
 Residual stress distributions in autofrettaged tubing 209

which is the same as that obtained from the Tresca criterion (eqn (3)) with o"v
replaced by 1"1550-v. Equations (4)-(8) will therefore remain valid for a
material deforming in plane strain according to the Von Mises yield
criterion, provided that Cryis replaced by 1.1550-v. It is evident, however, that
the autofrettage pressure must be increased by 1.155 times to give yielding to
the same depth as that determined assuming the Tresca criterion.
When plane stress conditions prevail, the Von Mises criterion predicts
yielding when
[o-0 + O-r2 - - O.Oar] 1/2 = 0"y (12)
and a numerical solution of eqns (1) and (12) is required. A procedure
outlined by Davidson, Brown and Kendall ~ will be employed. It will be
shown that only marginally different stress distributions are obtained for
plane stress and plane strain loading. Consequently it is argued that the
simpler plane strain analysis can be used to provide sufficiently accurate
solutions for plane stress situations.

3.2 Yielding on unloading

For sufficiently thick cylinders and depths of yielding during the

autofrettage process, reverse yielding may take place adjacent to the bore
when the internal pressure is removed. For a yield stress in compression
equal in magnitude to that in tension, the analysis of Section 3.1 shows that
this will not happen until k exceeds a value of about 2.2. It can, however, take
place at lower k values if yielding occurs in compression at a lower stress
than in tension due to the Bauschinger effect. This effect can be taken into
account by letting the yield stress in compression be -~o-v where ~ is a
fraction. In general ~ is found to be material dependent and sensitive to the
amount of previous plastic strain. Typically values of ~ in the range 0.3-1.0
have been measured.lZ
The radius d to which reverse yielding takes place can be calculated 13 in
the same manner as was employed in Section 3.1 for determining the radius
of initial yielding c. The equations for the Tresca yield criterion only will be
presented because of the previous observations that corresponding Von
Mises solutions can be obtained by replacing O-v by 1"1550-v. The elastic
range for unloading will be (1 + ~)o-v so that, from eqn (4), d is given by

p = (1 + ~)o-v In -~ 2k 2 j (13)

The residual hoop stress distribution O-~by comparison with eqns (5) and (7)
becomes, for a < r < d,
k2 + (c/a) 2 k + (d/a) 2]
210 A. Stacey, G. A. Webster

which simplifies to

(15)

For d < r < c,

a R = a v In + ~ -(l+~)av 1 + ~ ~-~ (16)

and for c < r < b ,

o-0R=~-k-g 1 + ( r ~ g j [ _ \ a ] --(1 +~) (17)

Corresponding expressions can be obtained for the residual radial stresses

but will not be presented because it is the hoop stresses that are of most
interest in most subsequent failure assessments, z

4 I N F L U E N C E OF W O R K - H A R D E N I N G

The main effect of work-hardening is to cause increasingly higher stresses to

be required to produce further plastic strain. Typically, the high strength
steels used for high pressure applications exhibit an ultimate to yield stress
ratio (au/~v) of less than 1.2. Solutions for residual stress distributions
developed after autofrettage for linear strain-hardening behaviour have
been provided by Chen 14 and for the actual stress-strain curve by
Manning. 15 In this latter case a numerical procedure is required to obtain a
solution. It involves dividing the tube cross-section into a number of
concentric annuli and solving the equilibrium eqn (1) iteratively for an
equivalent yield (proof) stress in each annulus corresponding to that
obtained from the experimental stress-strain curve at the strain developed in
each annulus. It is also necessary to satisfy compatibility at each annulus
interface. With this approach both the Tresca and Von Mises yield criteria
can be adopted. The Manning procedure will be applied later, using both
yield criteria, to the experimental data obtained in this investigation.

5 EXPERIMENTS

Experiments have been performed to measure residual stress distributions in

high strength low alloy steel tubing with a nominal bore diameter of 60 m m
and outside diameter of 124 mm (k = 2.07). The tube material was designated
A1S14333 M4 steel. Its principal alloying additions were 0"34% C, 0"3% Mo,
 Residual stress distributions in autofrettaged tubing 211

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0,08

12001 ~ ' I ~ ~' ~ Ij I / ' '. ~ .' I . ' '. I . ' I. w . ' ' ~ ' I. ' ~' ' . ' I_ ' '_ ' ' I ' "~' ' 1200

1100 1100

0 0,001 0,002 0.003 0°004 0,005 0.006 0.007 0°008

12001_''''1 . . . . I ' ' , ' 1 ' ' ' ~ 1 . . . . I ' ' , ' 1 ' ' , ' l ' ' ' , . 1 1 2 0 0 1000
1000 O----Oy

900 90O

800
800 800

0.05% 400
Measured
700 stress - strain curve
700
200

o 600 o 0 600

-200
500 Compressive0.05% 500

- 400
I
/
proof stress //
~ / / , -400

40C -600
400
600 -

--~00~ ' / /~ Elastic - perfectly plastic -800

300 300
i~,i Z/ stress - strain curve
-1000 - 1000 "
O=--Oy
200 200
-1200 ,I,,LiI .... I,llli,J,iI .... i .... I,,, -1200 .
0 0o001 0.002 0.003 0°004 0.005 0.008 0.007 0.008
Strain. ¢
100 100

OL 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0°04 0,05 0.06 0°07 0.08
Strain.."
F i g . 2. Stress-strain properties of tube steel with inset showing unloading behaviour.
212 A. Stacey, G. A. Webster

1.0 1,2 1,4 1.6 1,8 2,0

200 , ' I ' ' ' I'' '1 ' ' ' I ' ' ' I 2oo

100 t- 100
I
I

I-
I
I
I
"~ 0 0

=g

- 100 \o - 10o

O Sachs boring (B = 10mm)

V Sachs boring (B=5mm)
& Sachs machining from OD (B = 5ram) /
-200
D Neutron diffraction (B= 5ram) 1

i_ _ 300
l
r/a = 2.07 ~ . ~
i
,,
-~ , , I ' i I I i I i I i i i I , , , I ~: -4oo
1,0 1,2 1,4 1.6 1,8 2,0
r/a
Fig. 3. Measured residual hoop stresses in as-received ring specimens.

1"7% Ni, and 0-8% Cr. It was supplied in the vacuum degassed, hot rolled
and cold reduced condition.
A section of the tube was autofrettaged to a pressure of 662 M P a to give
an estimated hoop strain at the bore of 0.7% and yielding part-way through
the wall thickness. The autofrettage process was carried out in such a way
that no end load was applied to the tubing to correspond with plane stress
conditions. The mechanical properties of the as-received material were
measured experimentally as shown in Fig. 2. The initial yield stress of the
material ~v was found to be 1070 M P a and its ultimate tensile strength o"U to
be 1150 M P a giving au/av = 1"07 and little indication of work-hardening as
is expected for this class of steel. The response to unloading and yielding in
compression after previously straining to correspond with the strain
induced at the bore during autofrettage is also illustrated in Fig. 2. It is
apparent that the initial sharp yielding behaviour is not reproduced and that
the onset of plastic deformation must be defined in terms of a p r o o f stress.
 Residual stress distributions in autofrettaged tubing 213

1.0 1.2 1.4 1o6 1o8 2.0

200 , , , i , , , i , , , i , , , i , , , 1 ,i 200
I
I
I'
I
Q I
100 ao~ o #aomo o t - 100
OQ~ O O~, t
O O & O~-
0 o
V0 0 0
i-O
I
h
I

oA :
- 100 o
,', - - 100
*T I
I
QO I
I
I/) -200 -200
I
V O Sachs boring (B =10mm) i
o o o
- v Sachs boring (B=25mm) I
I
O ,~ Sachs machining fromOD (B=,~mm) I. -300
-300
"-V O Neutron diffraction (B = 5mm)
I

7 t
- 400 :- - 400
I
I
I
I
I
- .50G r/a = 2,07-..~- - 5110
I
I
I

-600 J , , I , , , I , , , I , , , I , , , I ,I -600
1.0 1o2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0
r/a
Fig. 4. Measured residual hoop stresses in autofrettaged ring specimens.

No matter how yielding is defined, a pronounced Bauschinger effect is

evident. Taking the 0.05% proof stress in compression, which was found to
be = - 300 MPa, as a reasonable indication of yielding gives ~ = 0.3.
Rings 5, 10 and 25 mm thick were sliced from pieces of as-received and
autofrettaged tubing for residual stress measurements. These were
determined by the Sachs boring and neutron diffraction methods, as
described by Stacey and Webster.Z° Consistent results were obtained from
both techniques. The residual stress distributions measured in the as-
received and autofrettaged specimens are shown in Figs 3 and 4,
respectively. It is observed from Fig. 3 that the tube fabrication process has
introduced significant residual stresses into the as-received tubing which are
not eliminated by the autofrettage process (see Fig. 4) near the outer
diameter. The significant compressive hoop stress developed at the bore by
autofrettage is clearly evident in Fig. 4.
214 A. Stacey, G. A. Webster

6 DISCUSSION

It is apparent from Figs 3 and 4 that the residual stress distribution

measured in the autofrettaged tubing is due to a combination of the initial
manufacturing and the autofrettage processes. In order to determine the
effect due to the autofrettage process alone, the residual stresses present in
the as-received tubing (Fig. 3) have been subtracted from those recorded in
the autofrettaged tubing (Fig. 4) to produce the corrected experimental
distributions shown in Figs 5-7.
Figure 5 shows a comparison between the measured residual hoop
stresses due to the autofrettage process alone and analytical residual hoop

1,0 1,2 1.4 1,6 1,8 2,0

200 ~ i 200

-Von Mises solution

(plane stress)
100 100

13

O Ho

sca solution

- 100
A
#.

-200 solution (plane strain) -200

o

-300 -300
¢0

-0=
O Sachs boring (B = 10ram)
- 400
V Sachs boring (B =Smm)
A Sachs machining from OD (B =5ram)
n Neutron diffraction (B =Smm)
-500 - 500

-600 r/a =2 -600

- 7 0 ~ -700
1,0 1o2 1,4 1.6 1,8 2,0
r/a
Fig. 5. Comparison betweencorrected experimentalresidual stress distributions and non-
w o r k - h a r d e n i n g theoretical predictions.
 Residual stress distributions in autofrettaged tubing 215

stress distributions corresponding to elastic non-work-hardening behaviour

and yielding in compression at the same stress as in tension (Section 3.1). In
this case no reverse yielding on unloading is expected. Except close to the
bore and at the outer diameter the experimental data lie between the Tresca
and Von Mises estimates. Both the Tresca and Von Mises analyses predict
the same trends with a sharp transition in stress gradient, at the calculated
elastic-plastic interface during loading, which is not observed experiment-
ally. The Tresca criterion predicts yielding to a greater depth (r/a = 1"43)
than the Von Mises criterion (r/a -- 1.26), irrespective of whether plane strain
or plane stress conditions exist, and consequently greater maximum tensile
and compressive residual stresses. Although the Tresca analysis gives
identical residual stress distributions for plane stress and plane strain
loading, different distributions are obtained with the Von Mises criterion.
However, the difference is sufficiently small for most practical purposes that

1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0

200
Yon Mises i
I-
solution ( • = 0°3) I

1oo \ O_., ^. - 100

0
0
0
solution (¢ =0,3)

A¢u

-100 -100
=~

==
~-200 =q - 200
0 Sachs boring (B =lOmm)
V Sachs boring (B=5mm) .

~3 & Sachs machining from OD (B=5mm) II

"~ - 3 0 0 13 Neutron diffraction (B= 5ram) I---300
I
I
I.
I
I
-400'
( = > 0,38)
I--400
I
I
I-
I
I
-500 solution ( ~ = 0,5)
I
!
r/a = 2,07 ~ . ~
I
I
-600 ~ - 6 0 0
1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1°8 2.0
r/a
Fig. 6. Influence o f the Bauschinger effect on predicted residual h o o p stress distributions.
216 A. Stacey, G. A. Webster

1,0 1,2 1.4 1,6 1,8 2,0

2001~
I
I-
I
I
100 I-

t--./~J uo~ ~ ' ~ (~ ~ I

o' o 0
/?/ o =,
~ - 100
=g // ,aoo,n°so,o,,on
Von Mises yield criterion
_urn Manning solution with
~vu Tresca yield criterion I- - 2 0 0

/ ~-~ Manning solution with average

of Von Mises and Tresca
I
I
I-

-3oo
/ .....
yield criteria
Elastic -perfectly plastic
solution with Von Mises yield
0
Ii - - 3 0 0
I_
criterion [ 5 = 0,5 ( % + ou) ] II
0 Sachs boring (B = lOmm) Ii- - 4 0 0
-400" 7"
V Sachs boring (B = 5mm) I
A Sachs machining from ti "
OD (B = 5ram) Ii
- 500 13 Neutron diffraction (B= 5ram) :- -500
I

r/a =2.07~
- 600 , , I , , , I , = , i , I , I ,', -600
1,0 1,2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
r/a
Fig. 7. Influence of work-hardening and unloading behaviour on predicted residual hoop
stress distributions.

the simpler plane strain analysis (eqn 11) can be used to represent both plane
stress and plane strain loading.
It is clear from Fig. 5 that at the bore and outer diameter the Tresca
criterion significantly overestimates the magnitudes of the residual stresses
developed there. For example, at the bore the Tresca analysis gives a residual
hoop stress of - 6 6 0 M P a compared to a measured value of about
-400 MPa. The Von Mises analysis also overestimates the magnitude of the
residual stress at the bore and gives a value of approximately - 5 0 0 MPa.
The influence of the Bauschinger effect on the residual hoop stress
distribution developed after autofrettage using the analysis of Section 3.2 is
shown in Fig. 6. The analysis assumes non-work-hardening behaviour
during the loading and unloading processes and is sensitive to the value
assumed for ~. The dependence of the depth of reverse yielding on c~ is
illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 demonstrates that reverse yielding does not
 Residual stress distributions in autofrettaged tubing 217

TABLE 1
D e p t h o f Reverse Yielding

d/a

Tresca Von Mises

0"30 1' 14 1-03

0"38 1"10 1.00
0"50 1"035 --
0"63 1'00 --

occur until 0~is reduced below 0.63 for the Tresca criterion and below 0.38 for
the Von Mises criterion. The main influence in Fig. 6 of reducing ~ is to cause
a lower compressive residual hoop stress to be calculated in the immediate
vicinity of the bore with relatively little alteration to the stress distribution
elsewhere. In the absence of reverse yielding (Fig. 5) and for ~ = 0-5, use of
the Von Mises criterion gives lower compressive residual stresses at the bore
than the Tresca criterion whereas the reverse is true for 0~= 0.3. This is
because yielding in both the forwards and reverse directions is restricted to
shallower depths when the Von Mises rather than the Tresca analysis is
employed. For 0~= 0.3 both analyses give lower compressive residual stresses
at the bore than are obtained experimentally. On the whole, if the material is
assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic, closest agreement is achieved
between the experimental stress distribution and the Von Mises analyses in
Fig. 6.
The greatest discrepancy in modelling the stress-strain properties of the
steel has been to assume non-work-hardening behaviour during the
unloading process. Figure 2 shows that the elastic-perfectly plastic
behaviour on loading is not observed on unloading and in fact the unloading
curve exhibits a considerable amount of work hardening. In addition to the
unloading behaviour of the material being inaccurately modelled, the
definition of the yield stress in compression becomes to some extent
arbitrary; the 0.05% proof stress has been considered to be a reasonable
estimate of the yield stress in this investigation. This choice of flow stress will
clearly affect the value of 0~and hence the residual hoop stress predicted near
the bore when a non-work-hardening analysis is employed.
The Manning 15 solution provides a means of evaluating residual stress
distributions by employing the actual stress-strain loading and unloading
curves. The stress distributions calculated by this method assuming both the
Von Mises and Tresca yield criteria are shown in Fig. 7. Compared to the
distributions obtained by assuming non-work-hardening behaviour, smaller
stresses are generally predicted, particularly at the bore, and a less sharp
218 A. Stacey, G. A. Webster

transition in stress gradient is obtained in the region of the elastic-plastic

interface. The resulting distributions are consequently in better agreement
with the measured distributions and the importance of modelling the correct
stress-strain behaviour is thus apparent.
The calculated residual hoop stress distribution is seen to be particularly
sensitive to the assumed yielding behaviour irrespective of which material
model is used. An effective difference of approximately 15% in the yield
stress, corresponding to the difference between the Tresca and Von Mises
criteria from eqn. (11), can result in predictions of residual hoop stress
differing by up to a factor of about 2in the bore region. The results thus
indicate the overall significance of the yield criterion. It is apparent from
Figs 5-7 that generally the experimental data lie between the Von Mises and
Tresca predictions. This suggests that neither criterion accurately describes
the material behaviour. Comparison of the analytical solutions with the
experimental data suggests that better correlation can be achieved if an
intermediate criterion of yielding is assumed. When yielding behaviour half-
way between the Tresca and Von Mises criteria (i.e. a 0 - o - r -- 1-078av) is
used in the Manning analysis, excellent agreement is obtained with the
measured residual hoop stresses, particularly in the region near the bore.
It should be noted that in any subsequent failure assessment a
conservative estimate of the residual stress distributions generated is
required. Enhancement of fatigue life by autofrettage is a consequence of the
development of the compressive residual hoop stress in the bore region. 1.2. ~3
This stress will counteract the tensile stress produced by the internal pressure
and will inhibit crack initiation and propagation. The greater the residual
compression the greater the benefit. Hence in order to obtain a conservative
assessment of fatigue failure from the bore, it is necessary to underestimate
the compressive residual hoop stress distribution in this region. This can be
achieved by underestimating the amount of plastic deformation which
occurs during the autofrettage process. Several factors combine to influence
the magnitude of the plastic strain developed. Amongst these are the amount
of work-hardening exhibited by the steel, the choice of yield criterion and the
extent of the Bauschinger effect. Unless extensive reverse yielding occurs
adjacent to the bore (see Fig. 6), use of the Von Mises criterion will produce
lower compressive residual bore stresses than the Tresca criterion. Whether
reverse yielding can be expected will depend on the tube dimensions and
whether the material exhibits a pronounced Bauschinger effect. This requires
a knowledge of the material unloading behaviour.
An approximate method of dealing with work-hardening is to replace av
by 0"5(au + O'v). 16 If this is done, approximate correspondence is achieved
with the experimental data close to the bore (see Fig. 7) although agreement
elsewhere is less accurate than assuming a yield criterion half-way between
the Tresca and Von Mises predictions in the Manning solution.
 Residual stress distributions in autofrettaged tubing 219

7 CONCLUSIONS

A comparison has been made between the residual stress distributions

developed in autofrettaged tubing and those calculated from a number of
material models. The influences of work-hardening, the Bauschinger effect
and choice of yield criterion have each been considered. In general, except
close to the bore, it has been found that the experimental data lie between the
predictions based on the Von Mises and Tresca criteria irrespective of the
material model employed.
It has been shown that when a pronounced Bauschinger effect is observed,
reversed yielding can occur in the bore region. This can cause a significantly
reduced compressive residual hoop stress at the bore but little alteration to
the stress distribution elsewhere.
The predicted residual hoop stress distribution is very sensitive to the yield
criterion assumed in the analysis. The best correlation of analytical and
experimental results was obtained when the mean of the Tresca and Von
Mises criteria was used in conjunction with the Manning analysis.
Resistance to fatigue crack initiation and growth from the bore of
autofrettaged tubing is enhanced by an increase in the compressive residual
hoop stress developed there. Consequently it is necessary to underestimate
this stress to produce a safe assessment of failure. It is suggested, provided
extensive reverse yielding does not occur in the bore region, that this is most
likely to be achieved by using the Von Mises yield criterion in conjunction
with an elevated yield stress to allow for work-hardening.

A C K N O W L E D G E M ENTS

The authors would like to thank Mr G. Pumphrey and Mr R. E. Lane of the

Technical Illustrations Department at Lloyds Register for preparation of
the figures.

REFERENCES

I. Rogan, J., Fatigue strength and mode of fracture of high pressure tubing made
from low-alloy high-strength steels. In High Pressure Engineering, I. Mech. E.,
London, 1975, pp. 287-95.
2. Stacey, A. and Webster, G. A., Fatigue crack growth in autofrettaged thick-
walled high pressure tube material, In High Pressure in Science and Technology,
Homan, C., MacCrone, R. K. and Walley, E. (eds), Elsevier, New York, 1984,
pp. 215-19.
3. Parlane, A. J. A., The determination of residual stress: a review of contemporary
measurement techniques. In Residual Stresses in Welded Construction and their
Effect, Welding Institute, Cambridge, 1978, pp. 63-78.
220 A. Stacey, G. A. Webster

4. Hughes, H., X-ray techniques for residual stress measurement, Strain, 3 (1967),
pp. 26-31.
5. Beaney, E. M. and Proctor, E., A critical evaluation of the centre hole technique
for the measurement of residual stresses, Strain, 10 (1974), pp. 7-14.
6. Sachs, G., Der nachweis immerer spannungen in stangen und rohren, Zeits.
Metall., 19 (1927), pp. 352-7.
7. Williams, J. G., Grey, A. and Hodgkinson, J. M., The determination of residual
stresses in plastic pipe and their role in fracture, Polymer Engineering Science, 21
(1981), pp. 816-21.
8. Allen, A., Andreani, C., Hutchings, M. T. and Windsor, C. G., Measurement of
internal stress within bulk materials using neutron diffraction, N D T
International, 14 (1981), pp. 24954.
9. Slattery, G. F. and Windsor, C. G., Metallurgical applications of neutron beam
techniques, The Metallurgist and Materials Technologist, 15 (1983), pp. 67-73.
10. Stacey, A., MacGillivray, H. J., Webster, G. A., Webster, P. J. and Ziebeck,
K. R. A., Measurement of residual stresses by neutron diffraction, Journal of
Strain Analysis, 20 (1985), pp. 93-100.
11. Davidson, T. E., Brown, B. B. and Kendall, D. P., Materials and processes
considerations in the design of pressure vessels, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on High
Pressure Engineering, I. Mech. E., London, 1975, pp. 63-71.
12. Milligan, R. V., Koo, W. H. and Davidson, T. E., The Bauschinger effect on a
high-strength steel, J. of Basic Eng., 88 (1966), pp. 480 8.
13. Parker, A. P., Sleeper, K. A. and Andrasic, C. P., Safe-life design of gun tube
some numerical methods and results, Proc. of the 1981 Army Numerical
Analysis and Computers Conf., ARO Report 81-3, pp. 3t 1-33.
14. Chen, P. C. T., Prediction of residual stresses in an autofretted thick-walled
cylinder, Proc. of the IX A IRA P T High Pressure ColTf ,, High Pressure in Science
and Technology, Elsevier, New York, 1984, pp. 235 8.
15. Manning, W. R. D., The overstrain of tubes by internal pressure, Engineering,
159 (1945), 107 83.
16. Harrison, R. P., Loosemore, K., Miine, I. and Dowling, A. R., Assessment of the
integrity of structures containing defects, CEGB Report R/H/R6-Rev. 2, 1980.