Proceedings of the National Conference on Cryogenics for Space (NCCS-2019)
December 12-14, 2019, LPSC, Thiruvananthapuram, India.
Integrity Evaluation of Spherical Gas Bottles by measuring the
Expelled Water after Proof Pressure Test - A case study
Rajesh Kumar G*, Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Rajeev G Nair, Abhilash JO, Sudhir S Nair
Integrated Structural Testing Facility, Structures Entity, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram
*Corresponding Author: rajeshpulluvila@rocketmail.com
ABSTRACT
Launch vehicle liquid engine uses hemispherical Titanium
alloy gas bottles for storing helium gases for the
pressurization of various systems. The fabrication of bottle
involves hot forming of titanium alloy plates into
hemispheres, annealing of formed hemispheres, machining of
hemispheres and end adaptors and finally electron beam (EB)
welding of the bottle. Before application of these gas bottles
it undergoes a proof pressure test with a factor for 1.5 times
of the working pressure. During the initial stages of titanium
alloy gas bottles development, these bottles were proof
pressure tested and the design and process methodology were
verified with the help of sufficient number of strain gauges,
displacement transducers, etc. In addition to this Acoustic
Emission (AE) sensors were also used for the assessment of
these gas bottles.
After development phase, the gas bottles are being
realized in production batches under the strict process quality
control. Conducting pressure tests with strain gauges,
displacement transducers is a time consuming process. For
the acceptance of gas bottles expelled water measurement
can be effectively used as a quantitative technique which can
minimise/avoid use of instrumentation. Qualitative technique
like Acoustic emission will provide the quality aspect of the
gas bottle. AE will indicate the presence of defects, if any,
under the action of pressure stimulus. Present paper describes
the integrity evaluation of titanium alloy gas bottles by
measurement of expelled water without use of
instrumentation.
Keywords: Gas bottle, strain gauge, compressibility, dilation
NOMENCLATURE
Symbols
σ1, σ2 - Principal Strain
ε - Strain
β - Bulk modulus
NCCS-2019-1024
INTRODUCTION
Proof pressure test data of a titanium alloy gas bottle is
used for this case study and the measured dilation was related
to the measured strain by defining the compressibility of
medium used for the test and the pressurization parameters.
The experienced strain values can be calculated very
accurately if the pressurization area factors is separated.
During the proof pressure test, water is pumped in to the
bottle until the test pressure is achieved. The volume of water
that is to be pumped into the bottle to reach the test pressure
is measured to determine the total expansion. The volume of
water that is expelled from the bottle when pressure is
released is measured to calculate the strains. Since air has a
different compressibility factor than water, air trapped inside
the bottle will cause inaccurate test results. So it is very
important that the bottle is completely filled with water to
eliminate the trapped pockets of air.
FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATION
An axi-symmetric analysis was carried out to estimate the
volumetric expansion of the gas bottle as well as to estimate
the global strain, when subjected to a pressure of 21.5 MPa.
The axi-symmetric FE model for the gas-bottle is
shown in Fig.-1, where the medium (water) is also modelled,
along with the gas-bottle having the material property of
Titanium. The primary purpose of modelling the medium is
to predict the spilled volume of water after the test. A very
small value is considered for the modulus of the medium.
The inner edge of the titanium bottle is subjected to 21.5
MPa. The bolt PCD location indicated as Fixed BC in the
Fig. 1 is constrained.
The comparison of deformation for the pressurized and
non-pressurized medium of gas-bottle is indicated in Fig.-2.
The spilled volume of water is calculated by estimating the
change in the volume of the medium (a python script is used
to calculate the same). The estimated spilled volume is 442
ml.
 GOVERNING EQUATIONS

For a thin spherical pressure vessel, the principal stresses σ1

and σ2 are equal and alike
pd
σ1 = σ2 =
4t
Where ‘p’ is the internal pressure, ‘d’ is the diameter of the
bottle and ‘t’ is the nominal thickness.
∂d
Also we know that the strain, ε =
d
Increase in diameter due to internal pressure is ∂d = ε. d
4πr3 πd3
We know that the capacity of a sphere, V = =
3 6
π ∂V ∂d
Now, ∂V = 3 d2 . ∂d , i.e. =3 = 3ε
6 V d
∂V = 3ε. V
But this ∂V is having an effect of compressibility of medium
used for pressurization.
1
We know, compressibility =
Bulk modulus
ΔP ΔP
And Bulk modulus, β = ∂V ∂V = .V
β
V
In addition to this ∂V is having an effect of pressurization
system, that is the hose size, hose length, entrapped air in the
system etc.

∂V = Effect of pressurization system

Fig.1: Finite Element Model of the Gas-bottle
CASE STUDY

A titanium alloy gas bottle with the following specification

was used for the case study.

Material of construction : Ti 5Al 2.5Sn - ELI grade

Volume of the gas bottle : 58.3 litre
Internal diameter of the bottle : 482 mm
Thickness of the bottle : 5.4 mm
Mass of the bottle : 16 Kg.
Proof pressure : 21.5 MPa.
Yield strength of the material : 620 MPa (min.)
Young’s modulus : 110 GPa

Fig. 2: Deformation of the medium in the gas bottle Fig.3: Titanium alloy gas bottle under test
 Test setup and methodology 0.005 300

0.004 250
The gas bottle was kept on a tripod allowing it to freely
0.003 200

Radius
dilate on pressurization. The bottle was filled with DM water
0.002 150

Strain
and then pressurized till proof pressure was reached.
0.001 100
Pressurization was done in steps and the strain and pressure Vertical Distance
0 50
values were recorded at different stages of pressurization. At -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
-0.001 0
the proof pressure the bottle was held for 3 minutes and the
-0.002 -50
final strain values were recorded. Then the pressure was
reduced to zero by releasing the water in to the measuring jar. Hoop strain Meridional strain Radius
The expelled water was measured.
Fig.6: Hoop and Meridional strain profile of gas bottle

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The applied pressure and the recorded strain values are

tabulated in the table-1

Proof Pressure test cycle

Control Location Strain Gauge
Applied readings
Pressure Gauge-1 Gauge-2 Gauge-3
(bar)
( microstrain)
0 0 0 0

Fig.4: Typical gas bottle pressurisation scheme. 33.7 426 426 429
78.6 992 991 999
This gas bottle was instrumented with strain gauges and 100.3 1267 1265 1276
acoustic emission sensors. For our case study the strain
147.3 1861 1857 1873
gauges bonded at the control location was selected because
195.6 2478 2471 2492
the control locations are free from any geometrical variation
and the strains can be accurately predicted at control location. 210.3 2666 2658 2680
A three element rosette strain gauge is put at this location as 0.1 -4 -3 -4
shown in this figure 5. Table-1: Details of strain recorded during pressurisation

3000

1
2500
2
3
Strain in micro strain

2000

1500

1000

500

Fig.5: Control location gauge 0

0 50 100 150 200 250

Pressure in bar
Hoop and meridional strain profile of the gas bottle
Fig.7: Strain Vs. Pressure plot for the strain gauges
(Courtesy: Design and analysis team, LPSC/ISRO)

It is clear from the strain profile diagram shown in Fig. 6,
near the control location, the expected strain values are
constant for around 100 mm vertical distance. The Electron
Beam weld location area is experiencing around 1200 micro-
strain more compared to the control location.
The gas bottle was pressurized to 210.3 bar in steps and
strains were recorded. From the strain plot shown in Fig.7, it
is evident that all the strain gauges at control location
followed a linear trend during the pressurization. The average
strain value recorded at control location was 2668 micro
strain. The residual strains were very minimum. The
measured dilation through expelled water after the test was volume of this manifold is 100cc and corresponding change
1110 ml. The test was repeated for 8 cycles with different gas in volume calculated is only 1cc = 0.001 litre
bottles of same specification. The measured dilation was in
the range of 1090-1150 ml. c. Air entrapment
In a hydraulic system, there is always a possibility of
Comparison of measured dilation with theoretical 0.1% air entrapment of the total volume. In present
and analytical value pressurization system also, there are some areas like
pressure indicator micro bore hoses, bourden tube gauges,
Theoretical estimate of dilation of gas bottle due to internal
pressure pickup manifold resulting in possibility of slight air
entrapment. By considering this 0.1% air entrapment, the
Change in the volume of thin spherical bottle due to volume is 60 cc = 0.060 litre.
𝜋𝑃𝑑 4
internal pressure = (1 − 𝜇)
8𝑡𝐸
𝜋∗21∗4844 Now dilation due to elongation of bottle
= (1 − 0.3) = 533030 mm3 = 533 ml. = 1.11 – (0.554 +0.010 +0.001 +0.060) = 0.485 litre.
8∗5.4∗110∗103

That is 0.485 = 3ε. V

Calculation of experienced strain from the
measured dilation 𝟎.𝟒𝟖𝟓
𝛆= = 0.002773 = 𝟐𝟕𝟕𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧
𝟑 𝐱 𝟓𝟖.𝟑
The measured dilation of 1.11 litre through expelled water
is a cumulative effect of the three parameters.
Calculated strain Measured % difference
1. Dilation due to elongation of the bottle. average strain
2. Dilation due to compressibility of water 2773 2668 3.89 %
3. Dilation due to the pressurization system
components Thus it can be seen that by measuring the expelled water,
experienced strain in the bottle can be calculated within 5 %
i.e. Dilation due to elongation of the bottle = 1.11 – accuracy bands. This 5 % difference may be due to the
(Dilation due to compressibility of water + Dilation due
following factors:
to pressurization system parameters)
1. Accuracy in the predicted strain due to material
Dilation due to compressibility of water property and thickness variation.
2. Slight thickness variations in the bottle, so that the
Bulk modulus of DM water = 2.21 x 103 N/mm2 at 20oC theoretical volume may differ from the actual
volume.
𝛥𝑃
∂V = .V 3. Accuracy of the measuring jar (in present case the
β accuracy was +/- 10 cc)
21.0 x 106 (58.3 x 10−3 )
= = 0.554 x 10−3 m3 = 0.554 litre 4. Accuracy of the pressure measuring devices.
2.21 x109
5. Amount of air entrapment, the actual air entrapment
may vary from the considered value.
Dilation due to the pressurization system
components CONCLUSIONS
a. Pressurization line hose.
The Yield strength of this titanium alloy gas bottles is 620
Here the parameters to be defined are length and MPa (min.). The corresponding strain for this stress is
diameter of the hose. For this case study during around 5600 microstrain. Since the weld location area is
pressurization, 40 metres of 6 mm. dia. hose was used. experiencing a higher strain compared to the control location,
strain is limited to around 4000 microstrain at control
𝝅 .( 𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟔)𝟐 location. From this case study it can be seen that the water
Total used volume of medium = . 40
𝟒 compressibility factor and the pressurization system
= 1.13 x 10−3 m3 contribute 625cc of dilated volume and the balance 485cc is
contributed for the elongation of the bottle. The first
= 1.13 litre
parameter of 625cc will remain same for all the bottles if the
𝛥𝑃
Now ∂V in the hose is ∂V = .V test sequence and procedure is same. In case the total
β
dilation measured is above 1325cc, we should be alerted and
21.0 x 106 x (1.13 x 10−3 )
= = 10.74 x 10−6 m3 this could be the starting of yielding of the gas bottle
2.21 x109
(especially at the weld location). At this point of time the
= 10.74 x 10−3 litre =0.010 litre.
maximum stress developed is crossing the specified 0.2%
b. Pressure manifold proof stress value (620 MPa) of the titanium alloy.
One Pressure manifold is put in line for connecting
pressure measuring devices as shown in Fig.4. The internal
References

1. S Ramamrutham & R Narayanan, Book on Strength of

materials-Sixteenth revised and enlarged edition-2008
(Page Nos. 945-947 & 961)
2. Paper on Development and qualification of titanium
alloy high pressure gas bottles through plate forming
route for PSLV second stage, by George Thomas, Bhanu
Pant, R.Ganesan, S.K.Singh & PP Sinha of VSSC
3. Methods for pressure testing compressed gas cylinders,
10th edition by compressed gas association (CGA-C-1-
2009).
4. Internal communication report (ISRO-VSSC-TR- 0491-0-
18).