Carbon Epoxy

Research Article
Impact Factor: 4.226

Arunkumar SM, IJPRET, 2014; Volume 3 (2): 131-156
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PURE AND

APPLIED RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY
A PATH FOR HORIZING YOUR INNOVATIVE WORK
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF CFRP COMPOSITE PRESSURE STORAGE VESSEL

FOR VARIOUS FIBER ORIENTATION ANGLES
ARUNKUMAR SM1, THIPPESWAMY EKBOTE 2
1. Postgraduate Student, Machine Design, Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Davangere, India.
2. Associate Professor and Head, PG Program in Machine Design, Bapuji Institute of Engineering
and Technology, Davangere, India.
Accepted Date: 12/08/2014; Published Date: 01/10/2014
Abstract: The composite materials are used for fabrication of pressure vessels by placing
the fibers in different orientations for each layer. These layers are stacked in such a way to
achieve high stiffness and strength. The design of the composite vessel as a fundamental
research work relates the physical and mechanical properties of materials to the geometric
specifications. The project demonstrates a study on High-Pressure Hydrogen Storage Vessel
of carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) composite having four layers. The pressure vessel
is designed and modeled using the finite element software ANSYS 14.0. Laminate plies were
oriented symmetrically with [+15 / -15]s, [+30 /- 30]s, [+45 /- 45]s, [+60 / -60]s, [+75 /
-75]s, and [+90 / -90]s, orientations separately. For each combination of fiber orientation,
the effect of pressure vessel deflection and stress were obtained and discussed. Finally the
best fiber orientation was selected.
\
Keywords: Modeling- ANSYS Design Modeler, Meshing-ANSYS Meshing, Analysis- ANSYS
14.0.
Corresponding Author: MR. ARUNKUMAR S. M.
Access Online On:
www.ijpret.com
How to Cite This Article:
PAPER-QR CODE
Arunkumar SM, Thippeswamy Ekbote; IJPRET, 2014; Volume 3 (2): 131156
Available Online at www.ijpret.com
131
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
INTRODUCTION
A composite material is made by combining two or more materials to give a unique
combination of properties. The above definition is more general and can include metals alloys,
plastic co-polymers, minerals, and wood. Fiber-reinforced composite materials differ from the
above materials in that the constituent materials are different at the molecular level and are
mechanically separable. In bulk form, the constituent materials work together but remain in
their original forms. The final properties of composite materials are better than constituent
material properties.
The main concept of a composite is that it contains matrix materials. Typically, composite
material is formed by reinforcing fibers in a matrix resin as shown in Fig. 1. The reinforcements
can be fibers, particulates, or whiskers, and the matrix materials can be metals, plastics, or
ceramics.
Carbon/Epoxy Composite Material
The material utilized for this design project is carbon fibers in an epoxy matrix. It will be
implemented using lamina sheets of the material. Carbon fiber and epoxy are quite different
materials when their individual properties are viewed. The carbon fiber is made out of long,
thin sheets of carbon. It is a chemically inert rigid material that is difficult to stretch and
compress. On the other hand, epoxy is a thermosetting plastic, or resin that is liquid when
prepared but hardens and becomes rigid when is heated.
Carbon-epoxy materials are finding increased structural uses in areas such as aerospace,
structural engineering, automotive, and sporting goods applications.
The primary goal of this design project is to use the knowledge gained about composites and
their advantages to create a carbon fiber / epoxy pressure vessel. The materials utilized in this
project will consist of carbon / graphite fibers acting as reinforcement in an epoxy matrix
formed in several layers or lamina. These materials are usually flexible, and can be molded into
almost any desired shape in this case they will be molded into a cylinder and then baked in a
kiln or high pressure oven until both materials mesh together and become a single hard
structure.
Pressure Vessel
It is a closed container designed to hold gases or liquids at a pressure substantially
different from the ambient pressure. The pressure vessels may be thin or thick. When the ratio
132
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
of the plate thickness to mean radius of the pressure is less than 1/15 then the pressure vessel
is termed as a thin pressure vessel, otherwise, a thick pressure vessel.
Pressure Vessel Theory
Pressure vessel is a container designed to operate at pressures. The design of a pressure vessel
is entirely reliant upon mechanics of materials. Prediction of the ultimate strength of a
designed vessel is done using various failure theories. When building a pressure vessel out of
composite materials, some the theories employed to optimize strength and predict failure are
the Tsia Hill energy based interaction theory, and maximum stress and strain theory. The
forces applied in the different directions of the pressure vessel are directly related to the
magnitude of the pressure and are given below.
1. Hoop stress
Hoop stress is a circumferential loading of a cylindrical mechanical body. It is the
circumferential stress in a cylindrically shaped part caused by internal or external pressure. [12]
(i)
2. Longitudinal stress or axial stress.
When the vessel has closed ends the internal pressure acts on them to develop a force along
the axis of the cylinder. [12]
=
(ii)
3. Radial stress
Radial stress in thin cylinder can be neglected as the radial pressure is not generally high and
that radial pressure acts on a larger area.
Assumptions for Thin Cylindrical Pressure Vessel
The key assumptions used here are: wall thinness and geometric symmetries.
1. Wall Thinness. The wall is assumed to be very thin compared to the other dimensions of the
vessel. Usually R/t >10, As a result, we may assume that the stresses are uniform across the
wall.
2. Symmetries. In cylindrical vessels, the geometry and the loading are cylindrically symmetric.
133
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
3. Uniform Internal Pressure. The internal pressure, denoted by P is uniform and everywhere
positive.
4. Ignoring End Effects. Features that may affect the symmetry assumptions are ignored. This
includes supports and cylinder end caps.
Pressure Vessel Model Data
Internal pressure is P = 1.6 MPa,
Inner diameter of pressure vessel is d = 5170 mm,
Cylinder length of pressure vessel is L = 8000 mm and
Pressure vessel thickness is t = 30 to 100 mm.
Material is structural steel, youngs modulus of structural steel is E=210 5 MPa, tensile yield
strength 250 MPa, density =7.85010-6 Kg/mm3, Poissons ratio =0.3.
Analytical calculation of the stress
Inner Radius of pressure vessel r = 2585 mm.

Thickness of pressure vessel t=30 mm
Hoop stress
=137.8667 MPa.
Longitudinal stress
Equivalent stress [12]
= 68.933 MPa.
=119.40 MPa.
Analysis of CFRP Composite Pressure Vessel for Various Fiber Orientation Angles
The layered configuration is the most important characteristic of a composite material. The
layered configurations are determined by specifying individual layer properties and therefore
the properties of the composite as a whole depends greatly on its layered configuration. The
material properties, the fiber orientation angle, the layer thickness and the number of
134
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
integration points per layer must be specified for individual the definition of the layered
configuration to be complete.
The CFRP layers in the composite pressure vessels are assumed to be orthotropic. Therefore
nine material properties are required for the purpose of the analysis. The material properties
for carbon/epoxy are listed in Table.3.
The cylindrical composite pressure vessel is designed for various fiber orientations. The
modeling is performed for the CFRP cylindrical pressure vessel for both, the hoop and the
helical windings of the carbon fiber. For the hoop windings of the carbon fibers, the fibers are
oriented at an angle of 0 with the axis of the cylindrical pressure vessel. The fibers are oriented
for various fiber orientations such as 15, 30, 45, 60, 75 and 90, in symmetrical
stacking sequence.
Thickness of composite pressure vessel =50 mm,
Each layer Thickness =12.5 mm. Material- Carbon/Epoxy
Results
Fiber Angle [+15/-15/-15/+15]
Fig. 6 shows the enlarged view of angle of orientation of 4 layers of the composite pressure
vessel.
Fig. 7 shows the maximum and minimum total deformation of composite pressure vessel. The
maximum deformation is 27.44 mm and minimum deformation is 4.94 mm.
Fig. 8 shows the maximum and minimum equivalent stress of composite pressure vessel. The
maximum equivalent stress is 314.41 MPa and minimum equivalent stress is 13.10 MPa.
Fig. 9 shows the maximum and minimum principal stress of composite pressure vessel. The
maximum stress is 130.69 MPa and minimum stress is -0.0166 MPa.
Fiber Angle [+30/-30/-30/+30]
135
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
maximum stress is 103.66 MPa and minimum stress is 3.50 MPa.
Fiber Angle [+45/-45/-45/+45]
maximum stress is 63.42 MPa and minimum stress is 0.1399 MPa.
Fig. 30 to 32 we can observe that the middle principal stresses, equivalent stresses, strains and
deformations are minimum for the fiber angle orientation of 45 for all pressure values. Hence
fiber angle orientation 45 is the optimizing angle for the composite pressure vessel
Fiber Angle [+60/-60/-60/+60]
Fiber Angle [+75/-75/-75/+75]
Fiber Angle [+90/-90/-90/+90]
136
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
maximum stress is 89.84MPa and minimum stress is -0.094075MPa.
Weight Reduction
The Table. 4. shows the properties of structural steel and composite pressure vessel. The mass
of the composite pressure vessel is reduced when compared to steel for same volume and
surface area.
Design of Experiments Study
In general, the DOE techniques can be classified as classical and modern DOE methods. The
classical DOE methods were developed for laboratory and field tests which have random error
sources while the modern DOE methods relate to deterministic computer simulations.
Design Explorer
Design Explorer is based on a method called Design of Experiments (DOE). This together with
various optimization methods helps the program to develop an optimized structure based on
selected input and output parameters. Input parameters can either come from Design Modeler
or from various CAD systems. These parameters can be in terms of thickness, length, etc. They
can also come from Mechanical in terms of forces, material properties, etc. The output
parameters are calculated in Mechanical and can for example be in terms of total mass, stress
or frequency response. After setting up an analysis with a number of input parameters and out
parameters there are the steps that can be run within DesignXplorer:
Design of Experiments
Response surface
Optimization
Six Sigma Analysis
137
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Optimization of Pressure Vessel Ply Angle
Fig. 29 shows the complete workflow for optimization study. In this project from the CAD
creation to ANSYS simulation steps performed within the Workbench framework.
Once the complete ANSYS process was set, Goal Driven Optimization (GDO) was started. The
1ststep towards GDO was to make a Design of experiments. The range in which the two design
parameters should change to get the most optimized design was chosen. Table 5 to 7 shows
these ranges. A Central Composite Design (CCD) based DOE was setup, which created nine
Design Points for the identified five input design parameters. These 27 Design Points were then
run automatically to make output at these points. No manual involvement was needed to run
calculations at these points and right from geometry modification to determining the value of
the output parameter, the complete process was carried out automatically.
As mentioned above, the goal of the study was to optimize the angle in the permissible range of
input design parameters to minimum Equivalent Stress. A DOE with 27 design points was
started and the results were investigated. Response surfaces in 2D and 3D were generated from
the results of the 27 design points. On the full second order polynomial method which uses
different regression analysis to obtain a polynomial Standard Response Surface 2nd-Order
Polynomial, is default meta-model which creates a Standard Response Surface. This is effective
when the variation of the output is smooth with regard to the input parameters. Fig. 26 to 28
shows 3D response surfaces variation of the output parameter maximum von-Misses stress as a
result of variation of five input parameters. It can be seen Equivalent stress decreases at ply
1and 4 angle between 85 to 90 degree angles.
CONCLUSION
Finite element method was an advantage to design a pressure vessel more effectively. In this
study, a finite element analysis approach is employed using ANSYS. Initially Metal Pressure
vessel is done using Analytical and FEA method. Then the cylindrical composite pressure vessel
is designed for various fiber orientations. The modeling is performed for the CFRP cylindrical
pressure vessel for the fibers oriented for various fiber orientations such as 15, 30, 45,
60, 75 and 90, in symmetrical stacking sequence. The cylindrical composite pressure
vessel is modeled for four uniform thickness layers. Then the ANSYS results show that the fiber
angle 45 is optimizing angle for the composite pressure vessel. Then Design of Experiments
optimization study was carried out.
138
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
A Central Composite Design (CCD) based on DOE was setup, which created nine Design Points
for the identified five input design parameters. These 27 Design Points were then run
automatically to make output at these points. As mentioned above, the goal of the study was to
optimize the angle in the permissible range of input design parameters to minimum Equivalent
Stress. It shows the 45 fibre angle gives less stress, which is similar to range of manual
optimization. From the finite element analysis report of 45 the maximum stress obtained in
each lamina is less than the allowable working strength of the CFRP lamina. So shell design is
safe.
However comparing similar thickness of the pressure vessel the weight of the composite is
reduced by approximately 80%
Fig. 1 Formation of a composite material using fibers and resin.

30mm
5170mm
Axis of pressure vessel

2585mm
Pressure vessel end

4000mm
Fig. 2 Geometric dimensions for one half pressure vessel.
139
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Fig. 3 Pressure vessel created by ANSYS design modeler and meshed by ANSYS design
meshing.
Fig. 4 Pressure Vessel model for analysis and Boundary conditions.
140
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Fig. 5 Equivalent (Von-Mises) Stress from ANSYS.
141
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
1st Layer +15
Enlarged view
2nd Layer -15
Enlarged view
3rd Layer -15
Enlarged view
4th Layer +15
Enlarged view
Fig. 6 Four layers fiber angle [+15/-15/-15/+15] of pressure vessel.
142
Research Article
Fig. 7 Total Deformation [+15 / -15]s.
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Fig. 8 Equivalent Stress [+15 / -15]s.
Fig. 9 Principal Stress [+15 / -15]s.
143
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
144
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
145
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
146
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Optimized
Design
Geometry
Initial CAD
update
Optimization
update
DesignXplorer
update
Design Modeler
Mesh
WB solver
ANSYS Meshing
ANSYS
Mechanical
ANSYS Workbench
Fig. 25 Workflow for optimization.
Fig. 26 Response surfaces ply angle 1 & 3

variation V/s Maximum Stress.
Fig. 27 Response surfaces ply angle

1 & 4 variation V/s Maximum Stress.
147
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Fig. 28 Response surfaces ply angle 2& 3 variation V/s Maximum Stress.
Analytical Equivalent stress MPa
FEA Equivalent stress MPa
Equ
ival
ent
stre
ss
MP
a
Pressure vessel thickness mm
Fig. 29 Comparison of FEA and analytical Results for different thickness of Structural steel
pressure vessel.
148
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Middle Principal Stress MPa
140
120
100
80
Pressure
60
1.6 MPa
40
20
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
Angle of fiber orientation (Degree)
90
Fig. 30 Middle Principal Stress v/s angle of fiber orientation for different pressure.
350
Equivalent Stress MPa
300
250
200
Pressure
150
1.6 MPa
100
50
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
Fig. 31 Equivalent Stress v/s angle of fiber orientation for different pressure.
149
Deformation mm
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Pressure
1.6 MPa
15
30
45
60
75
90

Fig. 32 Deformation v/s angle of fiber orientation for different pressure.
Table.1. Comparison of Thickness v/s Equivalent Stress of structural steel.
t Thickness
Inner radius mm Longitudinal Stress MPa Hoop Stress MPa
mm
Equivalent
Stress MPa
30
2585
68.933
137.866
119.40
40
2585
51.70
103.40
89.54
50
2585
41.36
82.722
71.64
60
2585
34.466
68.935
59.70
70
2585
29.54
59.087
51.17
80
2585
25.775
51.70
44.77
90
2585
22.98
45.96
39.80
100
2585
20.68
41.361
35.80
150
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Table.2. Comparison of analytical and FEA Results of structural steel.

Thickness
Analytical Equivalent Stress MPa
t mm
FEA Equivalent
Error %
Stress MPa
30
119.40
122.94
-2.96
40
89.54
92.71
-3.54
50
71.64
74.58
-4.1
60
59.70
62.50
-4.6
70
51.17
53.87
-5.2
80
44.77
47.40
-5.86
90
39.80
42.37
-6.4
100
35.82
38.34
-7.0
Table.3. Material properties for Carbon/Epoxy from ANSYS engineering data.

Youngs Modulus in X direction
1.21E+05 MPa
Youngs Modulus in Y direction
8600 MPa
Youngs Modulus in Z direction
8600 MPa
Poissons Ratio XY
0.27
Poissons Ratio YZ
0.4
Poissons Ratio XZ
0.27
Shear Modulus XY
4700 MPa
Shear Modulus YZ
3100 MPa
Shear Modulus XZ
4700 MPa
151
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Table.4. Results of carbon/epoxy pressure vessel for different orientation angles.

Angle of fibre
Principal Stress MPa Equivalent Stress MPa
orientation
Deformation
mm
[+15/-15/-15/+15]
130.68
314.41
27.44
[+30/-30/-30/+30]
103.65
248.75
16.49
[+45/-45/-45/+45]
63.42
137.80
9.912
[+60/-60/-60/+60]
61.79
171.91
33.95
[+75/-75/-75/+75]
70.82
155.23
44.74
[+90/-90/-90/+90]
89.84
139.45
45.96
Table.5. comparison of mass, weight, density, volume and surface area of the structural steel
and carbon/epoxy pressure vessel.
Properties
Mass
Structural Steel
Carbon/Epoxy
42202 Kg
Weight
Density
Volume
5.376 x 109 mm3
5.376 x 109 mm3
Surface Area
1.0752 x 108 mm2
1.0752 x 108 mm2
8010.3 Kg
413860.240 N
7.85 x 10-6 Kg/mm3
78578.10 N
1.49 x 10-6 Kg/mm3
152
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Table 6. Composite Ply angle upper and lower bound for 1st and 4th layer.
Table.7. Composite Ply angle upper and lower bound for 2 nd and 3rd layer.
Table.8. Ply Thickness upper and lower bound.
153
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
Table. 9. DOE Runs.
Run
Modeling Ply angle
Modeling
Modeling
Modeling ply angle
Thickness
Equivalent stress
No
Ply angle 2
Ply angle
mm
MPa
3
1
45
-45
-45
45
12.5
137.8024
-45
-45
45
12.5
214.7312
90
-45
-45
45
12.5
241.2867
45
-90
-45
45
12.5
157.5614
45
-45
45
12.5
122.8908
45
-45
-90
45
12.5
155.0172
45
-45
45
12.5
111.4963
45
-45
-45
12.5
184.5386
45
-45
-45
90
12.5
225.6497
10
45
-45
-45
45
345.7434
11
45
-45
-45
45
20
85.08644
12
32.25
-57.75
-57.75
32.25
14.62505
122.1557
13
57.75
-57.75
-57.75
32.25
10.37495
300.0916
14
32.24
-32.25
-57.75
32.25
10.37495
183.1427
15
57.75
-32.25
-57.75
32.25
14.62505
145.4567
16
32.25
-57.75
-32.25
32.25
10.37495
171.3436
17
57.75
-57.75
-32.25
32.25
14.62505
164.456
18
32.25
-32.25
-32.25
32.25
14.62505
197.801
19
57.75
-32.25
-32.25
32.25
10.37495
199.9963
20
32.25
-57.75
-57.75
57.75
10.37495
291.5513
21
57.75
-57.75
-57.75
57.75
14.62505
143.9549
154
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
22
32.25
-32.25
-57.75
57.75
14.62505
191.4392
23
57.75
-32.25
-57.75
57.75
10.37495
172.8128
24
32.25
-57.75
-32.25
57.75
14.62505
141.8791
25
57.75
-57.75
-32.25
57.75
10.37495
172.4225
26
32.25
-32.25
-32.25
57.75
10.37495
227.2353
27
57.75
-32.25
-32.25
57.75
14.62505
106.582
Table. 10. Optimization of stress.
Table. 11. Result for optimized design of pressure vessel.
REFERENCES
1. Lekhnitskii, S. G. (1981). Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic Body, Mir Publishers, Moscow.
2. Roy, A. K., Massard, T. N.(1992). A Design Study of Multilayered Composite Spherical
Pressure Vessels, Journal of Reinforced Plastic and Composites, VII, 479-493
155
Research Article
ISSN: 2319-507X
IJPRET
3. Sayman, O. (2005). Analysis of Multi-Layered Composite Cylinders Under Hygrothermal

Loading, Composites Part A, 1-11.
4. Mackerle, J. (2002). Finite Elements in the Analysis of Pressure Vessels and Piping, an
Addendum: a Bibliography (1998-2001), International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping,
79, 1-26.
5. Rao, V. V. S. & Sinha, P. K. (2004). Dynamic Response of Multidirectional Composites in
Hygrothermal Environments, Composite Structures, 64, 329-338.
6. Adali, S., Verijenko, V. E. et al.(1995). Optimization of multilayered composite pressure
vessels using exact elasticity solution, Composites for the Pressure Vessels Industry, PVP-V302,
ASME, 203-312.
7. Jacquemin, F. & Vautrin, A. (2002). The Effect of Cyclic Hygrothermal Conditions on the
Stresses near the Surface of a Thick Composite Pipe, Composite Science and Technology, 62,
567-570.
8. Mirza, S., Bryan, A., Noori, M. (2001). Fiber-Reinforced Composite Cylindrical Vessel with
Lugs, Composite Structures, 53, 143-151.
9. Sun, X. K., Du, S. Y. & Wang, G. D. (1999). Bursting Problem of Filament Wound Composite
Pressure Vessels, International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 76, 55-59.
10. Hwang, T. K., Hong, C. S., & Kim, C. G. (2003). Size Effect on the Fiber Strength of Composite
Pressure Vessels, Composite Structures, 59, 489-498.
11. S.K. Roychowdhury, B. Maiti, G. Chakraborty. Design of machine elements.
12. K. Mahadevan, K. Balaveera Reddy. Design data hand book, for mechanical engineers, 2008.
13. Medhavi Sinha, Dr. S. N. Pandit. Design and Burst Pressure Analysis of CFRP Composite
Pressure Vessel for Various Fiber Orientations Angles.
14. Javad Marzbanrad, Amin Paykani, Amir Afkar, Mostafa Ghajar, 2012. Finite element analysis
of composite high-pressure hydrogen storage pressure vessels.
15. Deniss R. Moss. Pressure vessel design manual, gulf professional publishers, 2004.
16. McGrew- Hill. Machine design databook, the McGrew Hill companies, 2004.
156

Carbon Epoxy

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Carbon Epoxy

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Research Article

Impact Factor: 4.226

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PURE AND

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF CFRP COMPOSITE PRESSURE STORAGE VESSEL

Arunkumar SM, Thippeswamy Ekbote; IJPRET, 2014; Volume 3 (2): 131156

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Carbon/Epoxy Composite Material

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Pressure Vessel Theory

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Analytical calculation of the stress

Inner Radius of pressure vessel r = 2585 mm.

Equivalent stress [12]

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Fiber Angle [+15/-15/-15/+15]

Fiber Angle [+30/-30/-30/+30]

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Fiber Angle [+45/-45/-45/+45]

Fiber Angle [+60/-60/-60/+60]

Fiber Angle [+75/-75/-75/+75]

Fiber Angle [+90/-90/-90/+90]

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Six Sigma Analysis

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Optimization of Pressure Vessel Ply Angle

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Fig. 1 Formation of a composite material using fibers and resin.

Axis of pressure vessel

Pressure vessel end

Fig. 2 Geometric dimensions for one half pressure vessel.

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Fig. 4 Pressure Vessel model for analysis and Boundary conditions.

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Fig. 5 Equivalent (Von-Mises) Stress from ANSYS.

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

1st Layer +15

2nd Layer -15

3rd Layer -15

4th Layer +15

Fig. 6 Four layers fiber angle [+15/-15/-15/+15] of pressure vessel.

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Fig. 7 Total Deformation [+15 / -15]s.

Fig. 8 Equivalent Stress [+15 / -15]s.

Fig. 9 Principal Stress [+15 / -15]s.

Fig. 10 Total Deformation [+30 / -30]s.

Fig. 11 Equivalent Stress [+30 / -30]s.

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Fig. 12 Principal Stress [+30 / -30]s.

Fig. 13 Total Deformation [+45 / -45]s.

Fig. 14 Equivalent Stress [+45 / -45]s.

Fig. 15 Principal Stress [+45 / -45]s.

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Fig. 16 Total Deformation [+60 / -60]s.

Fig. 17 Equivalent Stress [+60 / -60]s.

Fig. 18 Principal Stress [+60 / -60]s.

Fig. 19 Total Deformation [+75 / -75]s.

Fig. 20 Equivalent Stress [+75 / -75]s.

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Fig. 21 Principal Stress [+75 / -75]s.

Fig. 22 Total Deformation [+90 / -90]s.

Fig. 23 Equivalent Stress [+90 / -90]s.

Fig. 24 Principal Stress [+90 / -90]s.

Available Online at www.ijpret.com

Fig. 25 Workflow for optimization.