IT

t;
5'

N A S AC O N T R A C T O R REPORT
h
00

N
I

PC:
U

AEROSPACE PRESSURE VESSEL DESIGN SYNTHESIS

by George Gerard
Prepared under Contract No. NASw-928 by

ALLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.

Concord, Mass.

for

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D. C.

AUGUST 1965

TECH LIBRARY KAFB. NY

AEROSPACE PRESSURE VESSEL

DESIGN SYNTHESIS

By George Gerard

Distribution of t h i s r e p o r t is provided in the interest of informationexchange.Responsibilityforthecontents it. r e s i d e s i n the author or organization that prepared

Prepared under Contract No. NASw-928 by ALLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. Concord, Mass.

for
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
For sale

by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information

Springfield, Virginia

22151

P r i c e $3.00

Summary

A governing structures-materials-design synthesis relationship

is derived for

t h e p r i m a r y s t r u c t u r a l w e i g h t of m e m b r a n e t y p e p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s . T h e s t r u c t u r a l efficiency is associated with the configuration and the failure law characterizing the material used. Closed pressure vessels of various shapes utilizing monolithic and filamentary materials are examined in some detail to establish optimum designs. The structural strength/weight ratio has a profound influence up.on t h e p r e s s u r e vessel efficiency. Values of this ratio realized currently in monolithic and filamentary
of anisotropic metalo, filamentary-

designs are evaluated, Likewise, the potential

monolithic composites and whisker composites is studied. The configuration and material efficiencies are then combined to investigate the comparative efficiencies of p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s of v a r i o u s s h a p e s a n d m a t e r i a l s c o n c e p t s .

iii

Table of Contents Summary Symbols 1.

2.

iii vii
1
2

Introduction Structures-Materials-Design Synthesis Governing Equations Monolithic Membranes Maximum Shear L a w Filamentary Isotensoid Membranes Monolithic Membranes - Octahedral Shear Law

5
7 8
10
10 13 15

3.

Structural Configuration Efficiencies Basic Configurations Cylinders With Closures S u m m a r y of ,Results

4. Efficiencies

of M a t e r i a l s

18 19 26
31 32 34

High Strength Sheet Metals Filamentary Composites Materials for Inflatable Structures C o m p a r a t i v e E f f i c i e n c i e s of M a t e r i a l s

5.

Potential of NewerMaterialsConcepts Anisotropic Metals Texture Hardening Mechanical Anisotropy Filamentary-Monolithic Composites Whisker Composites

34 35 39 42 48 50 53

6.

Overall Pressure Vessel Efficiencies

References

Symbols a texture hardening coefficient, a = Z / C 1 3 surface area mechanical anisotropy coefficient, b = C / X 1 2 filament croBs-over coefficient structural configuration efficiency coefficient diameter ductility ratio ellipsoidal closure minor diameter elastic stress concentration factor plastic stress concentration factor overall length of p r e s e u r e v e s s e l p r e s s u r e ,p s i radial coordinate principal radius a r c length uniaxial structural strength, psi thicknes s average thickness 3 volume,in weight penalty coefficient weight,lbs. axial coordinate thickness coefficient strain density,pci s t r e s s ,p s i uniaxial strength, psi angle anisotropic cylinder ellipsoidal filamentary hemispherical isotropic monolithic of c u r v a t u r e

A
b
C C

C
d e h ke

L
P
r

R
s S

t t
V
W

W
z
(Y

P
0

Subscripts a
C

e f h
i

ten tu s uilo tn imate 1 , 2 , 3p r i n c i p a ld i r e c t i o n s

AEROSPACE PRESSURE VESSEL DESIGN SYNTHESIS

1.

Introduction

The utilization of p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s i n a e r o s p a c e a p p l i c a t i o n s is manifold. Consequently, it is the objective here to examine systematically those parameters which have a major influence upon the weight of thin w a l l p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s u n d e r specified design conditions. Since our interest here is i n a broad design synthesis viewpoint which generally applicable in the preliminary design stage, we shall is

be concerned with the

primary structural weight associated with optimum membrane type pressure vessels.

It is assumed that the secondary weight comprises the additional material associated
with nonoptimum membrane thicknesses, discontinuities, joints, cutouts and fittings. Accordingly, Section 2 p r e s e n t s a g e n e r a l i z e d t r e a t m e n t of the governing primary weight equation which relates the structural configuration efficiency, the material efficiency and the prescribed design conditions for several different failure criteria. The configuration efficiencies closures. In Section 4 , the structural strength/weight ratios attained with current monolithic metallice , f i l a m e n t a r y c o m p o s i t e s a n d i n f l a t a b l e s t r u c t u r e e a r e e v a l u a t e d . The potential of newer materials concepts such monolithic composites, and whisker composites of v a r i o u s p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s h a p e s a r e t r e a t e d in Section 3 and encompasses both simple shapes

a s well as cylindrical vessels with

as a n i s o t r o p i c m a t e r i a l s , f i l a m e n t a r y is evaluated in Section 5.

The configuration efficiencies and material efficiencies considered separately in Sections 3-5 a r e combined in Section 6 t o t r e a t t h e o v e r a l l e f f i c i e n c y of p r e s s u r e vessels utilizing various shapes and materials. The results m a j o r r e s u l t s of this investigation. of a comparative e f f i c i e n c y s t u d y a r e p r e s e n t e d i n a design synthesis chart which summarizes the

2.

Structures-Materials-DesignSynthesis*

The optimum design problem for pressure vessels can be stated in the following manner: for prescribed pressure (p) and volume configuration and material that results in

(V) d e t e r m i n e t h e s t r u c t u r a l

a minimum weight design. The following

development is based upon the simplifying assumption that the pressure vessel can be treated as a m e m b r a n e a n d , t h e r e f o r e , r e p r e s e n t s t h e p r i m a r y s t r u c t u r a l w e i g h t as defined in the preceding section. This problem has been considered in various aspects
4 1 2 by Schuerch , Hoffman ,

Pipkin and Rivlin3, and Brewer and Jeppeson for filamentary isotensoids and also for monolithic membranes. In the following, a systematic development of the design synthesis equation is presented for three cases: optimum monolithic membranes that fail according to the maximum shear lithic membranes that

l a w , filamentary membranes, and monolaw.

The latter results,

fail according to the octahedral shear

which were not obtained in the above cited references, can represent an improvement in structural efficiency as compared to the maximum shear case. Governing Equations In general 'form, we have the following relationships for the membrane revolution shown in Fig. 1. The weight d s ,i s ( dW 1) = 2rrprt ds The equations of e q u i l i b r i u m i n t e r m s of p r i n c i p a l s t r e s s e s a n d r a d i i of c u r v a t u r e a r e a s follows: of an elemental ring of

of r a d i u s , r , and width,

u2 = pR1/2t By substituting Eq. ( 3 ) into ( 2 ) , we obtain

*The contributions of C. Lakshmikantham to Sections 2 and 3 a r e g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged.

-Z
Note: R 2 is principal radius of curvature of profile r(z)

Figure 1

Pressure Vessel

Membrane

For u

to be positive (tension), the following condition

is imposed upon Eq.

(4)

is a l s o This condition is n e c e s s a r y f o r a n i s o t e n s o i d f i l a m e n t a r y m e m b r a n e a n d d e s i r a b l e f o r a monolithic membrane to avoid buckling. Furthermore, in the following development for monolithic membranes it is convenient (although not essential)

> cr2. that crl Eq. ( 4 )

For this purpose

we c a n i m p o s e t h e m o r e r e s t r i c t i v e c o n d i t i o n

on

R2

for

> u ul - 2

In o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m i n i m u m w e i g h t d e s i g n f o r a p r e s c r i b e d p r e s s u r e and volume in a g e n e r a l m a n n e r , we can integrate Eq. (1)

W/p
Now, i f

= 2 a / r t ds
(7)

(7)

representsthethicknessaveragedoverthesurfacearea,thenEq.

c a n be w r i t t e n a s

Note that Eq.

( 8 ) represents the volume of s t r u c t u r a l m a t e r i a l r e l a t i v e t o t h e e n c l o s e d

volume and as such is equivalent to the solidity familiarly used in the minimum weight a n a l y s i s of c o m p r e s s i o n s t r u c t u r e s . F o r a given. shape with u1 = Z l , w h e r e Z 1 r e p r e s e n t s t h e f a i l u r e s t r e n g t h of the material, Eq.
( 4 ) can be put in the following form,

t
Substituting Eq.

= ap/C1

( 9 ) into ( 8 )

= C(p/Z1)pV

where:

C = aA/V

It can be observed that the structural configuration efficiency factor ( C ) is a nondimensional function of the membrane shape. prescribed design conditions. In o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e v a l u e s f o r C , a failure law descriptive of t h e m a t e r i a l is required to obtain the minimum weight design. In the following, three different f a i l u r e l a w s are examined in conjunction with the assumption that each point on the s u r f a c e is subjected to the local failure strength and thus optimum thickness is achieved. Monolithic Membranes In addition to C , Eq. (10) contains the material efficiency parameter (p/Zl) and the design index (pV) representing the

Maximum Shear Law

As p e r h a p s t h e s i m p l e s t e x a m p l e , w e c o n s i d e r first a monolithic membrane

designed according to the maximum shear

law as the failure criterion. This critera s X1 a s i n d i c a t e d i n

i o n c a n b e u s e d f o r y i e l d o r f r a c t u r e s t r e n g t h a c c o r d i n g t o t h e b e h a v i o rof the material under consideration. Denoting the failure strength simultaneously, then the optimum thickness u1 = Zl. F i g . 2 , a n d a s s u m i n g t h a t e a c h e l e m e n t on the membrane surface i s subject to Zl
(4) since

is obtained directly from Eq.

By substituting Eq. ( 1 1) into ( 1 ) and integrating, we obtain

Eq. (8) can conveniently be written in the form CV =

H

of Eq. ( 10 ) , w h e r e now

R1 2 (2-R1/R2)dz (13)

In obtaining Eq. (13), the relation r = Rl(dz/ds) was utilized. F r o m Eq. (13) we can immediately obtain the following results: for cylnder R2-cO0 and C = 2; f o r a s p h e r e , R1 = R2 and s h a p e s , it is more convenient to utilize the r-z coordinates. R1 = r[l t ( r ' )2 ] 1 / 2 R,=

a long

C = 3/2. For other axisymmetric

[1 t ( r ' )

2 3/2

Maximum Shear Law

ff/

=c/

Figure 2

FailureLawsforMonolithicandFilamentaryMembranes

Differentials with respect to the tuting Eqs.

( 14) into ( 13)

c o o r d i n a t e a r e i n d i c a t e d by t h e p r i m e s .

By suhsti-

CV = In an alternate form

TT

/[2r2

t 2r

(rl)

3 t r r"] dz

cv

= 2 1 T

il'
0

r d e - a
0

r 2 ( r ' ) 2dz t

l~ 0

( d / d z ) ( r r')(16) dz

F o r m e m b r a n e s w h i c h a r e c l o s e d a n d s y m m e t r i c w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p l a n ez = 0 , Pipkin and Rivlin3 have shown that the

last i n t e g r a l i n Eq. (16) vanishes.

As a conse-

quence, Eq. (16) reduces to the following form

Eq. (17) applies to a c l o s e d m e m b r a n e of revolution sywmetrical about the equatorial plane, for which each point on the surface Filamentary Isotensoid Membranes Under a c o m b i n e d t e n s i l e s t r e s s f i e l d , w h e r e
u1 and u2 a r e t h e p r i n c i p a l s t r e s s e s , fails according to the maximum shear law.

an isotensoid filamentary network can be oriented along the principal stress directions o r a specific optimum angle with the u1 direction given by

For these conditions, the principal stresses are related to the failure strength filamentary isotensoid membrane by the following relationship

ofa

This failure law is illustrated in Fig.

2.

By adding Eqs. (3) and any point on t h e m e m b r a n e is

(4) and utilizing Eq. (19), the thickness required

at

t = (20) (pR1/2C1)(3-R1/R2)
Substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. ( l ) , Eq. (10) is obtained where now

A s discussed following Eq.

(16), the last integral vanishes for closed symmetric Eq. ( 2 1 ) r e d u c e s s i m p l y t o

membranes and, therefore,

Thus, for closed filamentary isotensoid membranes the equatorial plane and designed for

of revolution, symmetrical about

a prescribed pressure and volume, the structural

configuration efficiency factor is independent of shape and has a constant value of 3. T h i s r e s u l t is in contrast with that obtained for the monolithic membrane. Monolithic Membranes

- Octahedral Shear

Law

Returning to the monolithic membrane now, it i s a s s u m e d t h a t it is designed according to the octahedral shear law as the failure criterion rather than the maxi-

mum shear law.

Fig. 2, strength

We then have the interesting situation that the failure strength in a s indicated in is a function of u / r 2 1'
law

general depends upon the location on the membrane surface since,

According to the octahedral shear

From Eqs. (3) and (4) u2/u1 = ( 2

- R~/R~)-'

Consequently, r1 in Eq. (24) is a function of the shape of t h e m e m b r a n e a n d , i n g e n e r a l , u1 = r,(z). The optimum thickness required

at any point is

B y substituting Eq. (23) into

Eq. ( l ) , Eq. (10) is obtained where now

Using Eqs. results: for

( 2 3 ) and (24) in conjunction with Eq. (26), we can obtain the following
a sphere C = 3/2, the same result obtained using the maximum shear

l a w , w h e r e a s f o r a long closed cylinder C = 1. 732, a significant reduction a s compared to the result obtained from using the maximum shear law. For other shapes, we utilize the r-z coordinates in conjunction with the following approximation for Eq. (23)

Substituting Eq. (24) into (27) Z1/r1 = 1 Utilizing Eqs. (14), (26) and

- 0.6

(1

- R1/R2)(2 - R ~ / R2 ~ )

( 2 7 ) , we obtain
t 2 r 2 ( r 1 ) 2 t r r"1dz

CV =

'TTJ [2r2

- 0. 6 a

2 r [l t

(rl)

1 (1 t

r r t t ) ( 2t r r t t ) - ' dz

Following the argument used with Eq. (16), Eq. (29) reduces to CV =

'TT

1[ 2 r 2 -

2 2 r ( r ' ) 1 dz

- 0.

~'TT

[l t

(rl)

1 ( 1 t rrtt)(2 t r r t t ) - 'd z

In comparing Eqs. (16) and (30). it c a n b e o b s e r v e d t h a t o c t a h e d r a l s h e a r v a l u e s of C will always be lower than such values for the maximum shear case by virtue negative value of the last i n t e g r a l i n Eq. (30). of t h e

3.

StructuralConfigurationEfficiencies-

In Section 2 , the following design synthesis relation, Eq. apply to monolithic and filamentary membranes of revolution.

(lo),

was shown to

In a

strict sense, the structural configuration efficiency coefficient,

C is a function

of the failure law as well as the shape. However, since effects it is convenient to incorporate them directly in
all shape effects and the strength Z1 in Eq.

of biaxiality upon

t h e f a i l u r e l a w a s r e p r e s e n t e d by u 2 / u 1 can be directly related to the configuration,

C.

Thus, the coefficient

C represents

(31) represents the uniaxial tensile

s t r e n g t h i n all c a s e s . Values of

C for optimum thickness spheres and cylinders were given in Section

we consider in some detail the configuration efficiency of i n t e r e s t .

as illustrative examples. Here,

of o t h e r p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s h a p e s

I n addition, closures

of v a r i o u s s h a p e s f o r

cylinders of d i f f e r e n t l e n g t h s a r e c o n s i d e r e d i n t e r m s of their comparative efficiencies. Basic Configurations By utilizing Eq. (17) and Eq. (26) or their equivalents in r-z coordinates, configuration efficiency coefficients were computed for long cylinders, spheres and ellipsoids. It is noted that Johnston has previously treated the ellipsoid for the maximum shear case. The formulas for

C are presented in Table

1 and numerical results for optimum connection with Fig. 3

thickness membranes are presented in Fig. it is to be noted that because

3 i n t e r m s of t h e p a r a m e t e r L / d . F o r a l l

c l o s e d f i l a m e n t a r y m e m b r a n e s of optimum thickness C = 3. In

of the equal volume requirement associated with Eq. (31),

comparative values of C a t t h e s a m e L / d do not n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c i e s . Also given in Table tical. 1 a r e C values based upon the maximum rather than the optiof interest when optimum tapering may not be prac-

mum thickness. Such results are

Both results are obviously identical for long cylinders and spheres but not for

other shapes. For the latter, the maximum thickness and ( 2 5 ) . In conjunction with Eq.

is d e t e r m i n e d f r o m E q s . ( 1 1 )
= tmax the value for C i s d e t e r -

( 9 ) , where nowT

mined as indicated in Eq.

(10).

10

Table 1 Configuration Efficiency Coefficients for Monolithic Membranes

~~~~

Configuration Long Cylinder: t and tmax

0

Maximum Shear L a w
2

Octahedral Shear Law

1. 732\

Sphere: to and t

ma x

1. 5

1.5

Ellipsoids:
0< (d/L) < 1; t

2 - (1/2) (d/LI2 1 t (1/2) (d/Lj2

-1 (3/4) [ 2 - (d/L)21 [(d/L) t (1/A) sin X ]

d/L
C

0.2 1.0 1. 530

0.4

0.6 1.600 1.534

0.8

0.8

1.0

1.732 1.711 L/d C

1.665

1.500

0.707 < (L/d) 5 1; tmax

0< (d/L) < 1; tmax

0.9
1.518 1.611

0.707
1.850

(3/4) [3

3(d/L)2 t (d/L)4f/2 [(d/L) t (1/X) sin-lh]

0.707 < (L/d) 5 1; tmax

(3d/4L)[(d/L) t (1/2X) log

(d/L)t A (d/L)
2

Same as M a x i m u m Shear Case

where: A

(1 - (d/L)2

c
c

3.0
d

2.0
I .9
1.8

Maximum Shear Monolithics

I .7

Closed Cylinders

I .6

1.5
4
I

I .8

I. 7
I .6

1.5
I. 4

Octahedral Shear Monolith

0 . 2
Long Cylinder
!
i

0.4

0.6

0.8
d/L

I .o
Sphere

I .2

1.4

Figure 3

ConfigurationEfficienciesforOptimumThicknessMembranes

The weight penalty for using the maximum thickness relative to the optimum thickness is given by the coefficient

w t = C(for tmax)/C(for to)

R e s u l t s f o r t h e e l l i p s o i d a r e g i v e n i n Fig. 4.

It is interesting to observe from Eq. (31), that for a given shape, no weight penalty is i n c u r r e d if the volume is divided among several pressure vessels. This
fact may be useful in certain design situations where space limitations may importance. In this connection, it is possible to uae be of a s e r i e s of s p h e r e s i n p l a c e of

a cylinder and obtain the inherently greater efficiency associated with the sphere.
T h i s i s t h e l i m i t i n g c a s e f o r a segmented sphere design. Cylinders with Closures of m o n o l i t h i c m e m b r a n e e n d c l o s u r e s f o r c y l i n d r i 7 c a l p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s h a s b e e n c o n s i d e r e d i n s o m e g e n e r a l i t y by Hoffman6 and Bert , among others. The design problems that they considered different ways: a) Find the minimum weight closure for prescribed pressure and diameter. b) Find the minimum weight closure for prescribed pressure and volume. c) Find the minimum weight design of c l o s u r e s a n d c y l i n d e r s Cali b e s t a t e d i n s e v e r a l The minimum weight design

for prescribed pressure and volume. Hoffman and Bert have considered (a) and (b) and an extension of (c) which includes consideration of minimum skirt length. Because of o u r i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o m p l e t e p r e s s u r e v e s s e l i n t e r m s of the configuration efficiency coefficient, design p r o b l e m ( c ) i s t h e m o s t m e a n i n g f u l h e r e a n d a c c o r d i n g l y is used in the following. F o r o u r p u r p o s e s we s h a l l r e s t r i c t o u r a t t e n t i o n t o h e m i s p h e r i c a l a n d e l l i p s o i d a l c l o s u r e s of optimum design. Other closure shapes may be slightly more efficient than the ellipsoid but a r e g e n e r a l l y m o r e c o m p l e x t o t r e a t a n a l y t i c a l l y . The configuration efficiency coefficients for cylinders with hemispherical a n d e l l i p s o i d a l c l o s u r e s of v a r i o u s o v e r a l l L / d r a t i o s c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d by summing t h e r e s p e c t i v e C V values for the cylinder and closure and dividing by the total volume.

13

I .3 I .2 1.1

Maximum Shear Monolithies

1 . 0
,
I

I
1.3

I.2
I. I I.o

0.2

0.4

0.6

0 . 8
d/L

I.o

I .2

I .4

Figure 4

Weight Penalty for Maximum Thickness Ellipsoidal Closures

In Eq. ( 3 3 ) , Ce is the ellipsoidal closure value and

i n T a b l e 1. are illustrated in Fig. 3.
A l s o shown in Fig.

is the cylinder value

a s given

Numerical values of C for closed cylinders are given in Table

2 and

4 are the weight penalties associated

with using a constant rather than optimum thickness closure.

A d i r e c t c o m p a r i s o n of the relative efficiencies of t h e h e m i s p h e r i c a l a n d

ellipsoidal closures cannot be obtained from Fig. different for the same volume. For the latter condition

3 since the L/d ratios are slightly

In Eq. ( 3 4 ) , t h e s u b s c r i p t s e and h r e p r e s e n t e l l i p s o i d a l a n d h e m i s p h e r i c a l c l o s u r e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .F o rt h es a m ed i a m e t e r ,d ,
( L / d I h = ( L / d )e t (1/3)(1 -(35) h/d)

e associated with an ellipsoidal as compared to an hemis p h e r i c a l o p t i m u m c l o s u r e is obtained by using the C values given in Table 2 f o r t h e s e The weight penalty
w

cases in conjunction with

Eq. ( 3 5 ) . N u m e r i c a l r e s u l t s f o r b o t h t h e m a x i m u m s h e a r 5. It can be observed that the hemi-

and octahedral shear cases are shown in Fig. volume. S u m m a r y of Results

spherical closure results in the most efficient pressure vessel for a prescribed

Of the monolithic structures considered, the sphere

is the most efficient by

v i r t u e of t h e l e a s t s u r f a c e a r e a p e r u n i t v o l u m e a n d f a v o r a b l e t h i c k n e s s d i s t r i b u t i o n . Other monolithic shapes such as closed cylinders and ellipsoids are somewhat less efficient depending upon their L/d. ratio and the failure law characterizing their behavior. In t e r m s of the configuration efficiency coefficient, filamentary shapes are considerably less efficient than corresponding monolithic shapes by a s 2 for the sphere. This significant difference a factor a s high a
a monois a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e f a c t t h a t f o r

b i a x i a l s t r e s s f i e l d , two s e p a r a t e s e t s of f i l a m e n t s a r e r e q u i r e d , w h e r e a s i n requirement.

l i t h i c m e m b r a n e t h e m i n o r p r i n c i p a l s t r e s s is carried without any additional thickness

15

Table 2 Configuration Efficiency Coefficients for Monolithic Cylinders With Ellipsoidal Closures

"

d/L = Case

h/d
0.707

0
2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 1.732 1.732 1.732 1.732 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 1.732 1.732 1.732 1.732

0. 2
"

0. 4
-~ ..____
~ ~

0. 6
2.000 1.915 1.830 1.750 1.769 1.688 1.638 1.618 2. 143 2. 015 1.881 1.750 1.964 1. 849 1.731 1. 618

0. 8
~

1.0 2.000 1.840 1. 670 1. 500 1.806 1.648 1.549 1. 500 2.268 2.028 1.768 1. 500 2. 166 1.955 1.730 1. 500

Max. Shear
L

2.000 1.975 1.950 1.930 1.741 1.719 1.705 1.702 2. 043 2. 004 1.965 1.930 1. 802 1.767 1.732 1.702

2.000 1.945 1.910 1.845 1.760 1.705 1.674 1.661 2.090 2.009 1.926 1.845 1. 879 1. 805 1.731 1.661

2. 000 1. 880 1.760

0. 8

0. 9
1.0
Oct. S h e a r

1. 635
1.788 1.670 1. 597 1. 562 2.203 2.020 1. 829 1.635 2. 059 1. 898 1.731 1. 562

0.707

to

0. 8

0. 9
1.0

Max. Shear
I

0. 707 0. 8
0.9 1. 0

max

Oct. S h e a r

0.707

0. 8
0. 9

1. 0

16

1 . 3

1 2

1 I Ahxihum Shear Monolifhics

/
I.0

-%

I
1.2
1. I -

Ocfohedrol Shear M m l i f h h
I

I-0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Figure 5

Weight Penalty for Cylinder with Ontimum Ellipsoidal Closures a s Compared to an Equal Volume and Diameter Cylinder with Hemispherical Closures

"

.. .

. . . .._. . . -. " . .

4.

Efficiencies of M a t e r i a l s

In the preceding section, the efficiencies f a c t o r as l a r g e a s 2 .

(p/Zcl).

of v a r i o u s p r e s s u r e v e s s e l c o n f i g u r a -

tions were investigated and it was shown that the overall weight can be affected by a

A s indicated by Eq. (31), the only other factor affecting the

a most profound effect upon the overall efficiency. of weight/strength

weight for prescribed design conditions (pV) is the material efficiency parameter This factor obviously has Consequently, we shall examine in some detail various aspects applications.

levels that can be achieved with materials characteristically used in pressure vessel

A t t h e o u t s e t , i t is important to recognize that there can be significant differences between the tensile strength of m a t e r i a l s a n d t h e s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h l e v e l s achieved in pressure vessels, particularly when high strength materials are used. Accordingly, we shall be concerned in this section with structural strength levels. However, for reference purposes, Table indication of their potential. Table 3 Representative Strength/Weip;ht Levels of M a t e r i a l s

3 l i s t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e v a l u e s of room
of m a t e r i a l s a s a n

temperature material strength/weight ratios for various classes

At R o o m Temperature

~~

Material
~ ~

Type
. "
~~~

" "

metals monofilaments films fabrics

6 x 10
5-8
0. 5
2. 5

monolithic filamentary monolithic filamentary

The appropriate strength/weight ratio to be used in the design synthesis relation, Eq. (31) is the uniaxial value since any effects of biaxiality have been incorporated into the configuration efficiency coefficient. Furthermore, this ratio should be

18

the structural strength/weight strength/weight (C1/p) such

(s/p)

rather than that associated with the material

a s given in Table

3.

In g e n e r a l , S / p i s l e s s t h a n Z l / p

and we shall evaluate in the following,structural strength levels achievable in monolithic and filamentary structures. High Strength Sheet Metals One of t h e m a j o r f a c t o r s l i m i t i n g t h e u s e of h i g h s t r e n g t h s h e e t m e t a l s i n p r e s s u r e v e s s e l a p p l i c a t i o n s is t h e i r l o s s of ductility as t h e s t r e n g t h l e v e l i n c r e a s e s . Ductility i s r e q u i r e d t o r e d u c e by plastic behavior the stress concentrations resulting from geometric discontinuities and fabrication processes and thus permit the struct u r a l s t r e n g t h t o a p p r o a c h t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e m a t e r i a l u s e d . T h e p r o b l e m

is r e a s o n -

a b l y w e l l r e c o g n i z e d a n d t e r m s s u c h a s fracture mechanics, notch toughness, fract u r e i n i t i a t i o n a n d f r a c t u r e p r o p a g a t i o n a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h v a r i o u s a s p e c t sof t h i s problem. levels. T h e s i m p l e s t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a t e n s i l e s t r u c t u r e is a f l a t s t r i p similar t o t h e smooth tensile specimen used to obtain the strength of a material, but containing a suitable stress concentration. be determined. By testing to failure specimens containing We shall be concerned here with the fracture initiation phase since this appears to be the governing factor in achieving satisfactory structural strength

a range

of e l a s t i c s t r e s s c o n c e n t r a t i o n f a c t o r s , t h e p l a s t i c s t r e s s c o n c e n t r a t i o n f a c t o r c a n
As shown in Refs.

8 and 9 , these data can be plotted in

a form which

yields the ductility ratio, a quantity which can be looked upon a s a basic mechanical property that provides a meaningful measure of ductility in a s t r u c t u r a l s e n s e . T h e ductility ratio has a value of unity for a c o m p l e t e l y b r i t t l e m a t e r i a l a n d a value of zero for a completely ductile material. In general, the ductility ratio

=
is the local strain

In Eq. ( 3 6 ) , cb = CtU/E and is the "brittle material" strain while or zero gage length strain at fracture.

Ductility ratio data obtained from such tests on various steels, titanium alloys a n d b e r y l l i u m a r e s h o w n i n F i g . 6 i n t e r m s of t h e m a t e r i a l s f r e n g t h / w e i g h t r a t i o . The data tend to follow the line shown in the figure within ten percent limits and thus r e f l e c t t h e following convenient strength/weight-ductility r a t i o I r l a w f tt h a t h a r d l y could have been anticipated.
1/ 6

tu

/p

= 1.6 x

lo6

19

Also shown in Fig.

6 is a n e s t i m a t e of the improvement in ductility ratio that may be

associated with the more recent hot-work and maraging ultrahigh strength steels. By u s e of such data, it is possible to estimate the influence of ductility and s t r e s s c o n c e n t r a t i o n s upon s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h . F o r s u c h p u r p o s e s , followingdevelopment we utilize the

. The structural strength of Ref. 8

S = Z / k tu P

The plastic stress concentration factor

(k ) a n d e l a s t i c s t r e s s c o n c e n t r a t i o n

.factor (k ) a r e r e l a t e d by the ductility ratio as e k

fOllOW6:

= 1 t (ke

1);

(39)

By utilizing Eqs. ( 3 7 ) and (39), Eq. (38)becomes

The results presented in

Fig. 7 a r e obtained from Eq. (40) w h e r e s t r u c t u r a l

s t r e n g t h / w e i g h t i s p l o t t e d a s a function of material etrength/weight for various r e f e r e n c e v a l u e s of t h e e l a s t i c s t r e s s c o n c e n t r a t i o n f a c t o r , ing to observe that for each value

It is m o s t i n t e r e s t of k e , t h e s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h r e a c h e s a maximum
ke.

and then declines with further increases in the material strengthlweight ratio. This r e s u l t is associated with the reduced ductility as the strength level of t h e m e t a l is increased. The results shown in

Fig. 7 indicate that there is an optimum Ztu/p for

S / p has a maximum value. Departures

each elastic stress concentration at which

t o e i t h e r s i d e of t h i s s t r e n g t h l e v e l r e s u l t i n a d e c r e a s e in s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h . In o r d e r t o c o n f i r m t h e s e p r e d i c t i o n s , b u r s t p r e s s u r e t e s t d a t a o n w e l d e d s t e e l cylinders heat treated to various strength levels from Ref. Also shown is the predicted trend based on the use
10 a r e shown in F i g . 8.

of F i g . 6 and Eq. (40).

It can be

o b s e r v e d t h a t a m a x i m u m s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h (S)and optimum Ztu a r e indeed obtained. The results presented in Fig.

7 can be synthesized to p.rovide some approxi-

mate guidelines for the use of h i g h s t r e n g t h m e t a l s i n p r e s s u r e v e s s e l a p p l i c a t i o n s . By using the elastic stress concentrations factor as a reference value which characterizes the efficiency of the structural design and its fabrication, the results shown

21

1.2 x IO6

I .o

0.8

SIP psi/pci

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

I .o

1.2

I .4

Ct" /p-psi/pci
Figure 7 Structural StrengthIWeight as a Function of Material StrengthIWeight for Various Elastic Stress Concentration Factors

300

200
0

S ks i

1 0 0

IO0

200

300

Ztu

ksi

Figure 8

S t r u c t u r a l a n d M a t e r i a l S t r e n g t h s of Welded Cylinders Fabricated f r o m High Strength Steels. Test Data from Ref. 10.

23

in Fig. slmwn.

9 are obtained.

On t h e l e f t s c a l e , t h e o p t i m u m m a t e r i a l s t r e n g t h l w e i g h t

ratios and the associated maximum attainable structural strengthlweight levels are On the right scale, the minimum required ductilityfor
is to be noted that

a given elastic
a s shown in Ref;

stress concentration factor is shown. It

9 , the

ductility is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e z e r o g a g e l e n g t h f r a c t u r e s t r a i n . The results shown in Fig.

9 a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t e r m s of t h e e l a s t i c s t r e s s c o n a meaning-

centration factor, ke, because it is believed that this factor can provide example, the maximum k

ful characterization of the efficiency of the structural design and fabrication. For resulting from geometric discontinuities in the structure e can be established analytically or by experimental techniques such a s photoelasticity, strain gages or coatings. The stress concentrations arising from fabrication such
a s tolerance mismatches or the minimum detectable flaw size can also

be r e p r e s e n t e d as

i n t e r m s of an effective elastic stress concentration factor. Thus,

a basic design parameter to characterize the efficiency or quality

ke can be used
of t h e s t r u c t u r a 1

design and fabrication. It is for this reason that the horizontal scale divided into three "quality" regions Region Requirements k p Range Quality A Quality B Quality C 1-3 meticulous design and fabrication careful design and fabrication routine design and fabrication
as follows:

of Fig. 9 i s s o m e w h a t a r b i t r a r ily

3-8
> 8

T h e s e r e g i o n s a r e t o be looked upon

as conceptual rather than quantitative at this of providing some of these regions.

stage of development and were selected primarily for the purpose guidelines as to the minimum ductility that is required in each

In the Quality C region which i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t r e s s c o n c e n t r a t i o n f a c t o r s g r e a t e r t h a n 8 , s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h l w e i g h t l e v e l s of approximately 0. 7 x 10 p s i / p c i can be realized using

0 . 85 x 10 p s i / p c i s t r e n g t h l w e i g h t m e t a l s of ade'quate ductility. is approximately

A rough estimate of the minimum required zero gage length ductility

30 percent a s indicated in Fig.

9.

For this region, it

i s anticipated that rather

routine aerospace design and fabrication techniques can be employed because of the relatively large ductility requirements.

24

1.1

ID '

g 0.9
2
w

0
t o 0.8

0.7

0.6
ELASTIC STRESS CONCENTRATIONFACTOR -ke

Figure 9

Optimum Strength Levels and Required Ductility Concentrations

for Various Elastic Stress

The Quality B r e g i o n r e q u i r e s r a t h e r c a r e f u l d e s i g n a n d f a b r i c a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s
3 to 8 range. For k = 3 and to achieve elastic stress concentration factors in the e 6 0 . 9 x 10 psi/pci structural strengthlweight 10 percent zero gage length ductility, 6 levels appear to be attainable with 1. 1 x 10 psi/pci ultimate tensile strengthlweight

metals. Meticulous design and fabrication techniques a r e r e q u i r e d t o o p e r a t e in the Quality A region because of the relatively low s t r e s s c o n c e n t r a t i o n f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d with this region. The required ductility values become quite s t r e n g t h l e v e l r e f l e c t s a dangerous sensitivity to low a n d t h e s t r u c t u r a l
small c h a n g e s i n s t r e s s c o n c e n t r a t i o n .

T h e s e t e n t a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s a r e b a s e d upon the main trend line shown in Fig.

6 . It is

believed that a significant improvement in this picture can be realized with the newer hot-work and maraging steels for which an estirr,ate of improvement in ductility is shown in Fig.

6.

With r e g a r d t o t h e f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t of m e t a l l i c m a t e r i a l s , i t i s quite apparent that improvements in the zero gage length ductility particularly in the Quality A a n d B regions are most desirable. More important, perhaps, is the concept that optimum heat treatment procedures should not be based upon achieving the highest tensile s t r e n g t h of t h e m a t e r i a l , b u t upon achieving the highest structural strength for an elastic stress concentration representative of the quality region of i n t e r e s t . T h i s
its effect upon

concept, which is illustrated in Fig. 10, accounts for ductility and level of existing high strength sheet metals. In summary, it is quite obvious from Figs.

stress concentrations and could lead to an effective increase in the structural strength

7 , 8 and 9 t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r a l d e s i g n e r If relatively low s t r e s s c o n c e n ofa

must strive to reduce stress concentrations in order to achieve maximum structural strength levels compatible with the material selected. tration factors cannot be achieved there materials.
is obviously no point in using ultrahigh strength

In f a c t , t h e i r u s e c o u l d l e a d t o l o w e r s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h t h a n b y u s e

lower strength, more ductile material. Data such as presented in Figs. may be used to provide estimates junction with Eq.

7 , 8 and 9

of the appropriate values of S / p to be used in con-

(31).

Filamentary Composites

It is a well known fact that filamentary composites, such

of their monofilament strength potential.

a s the glass-epoxy

composites currently used in pressure vessel applications, realize only

a fraction

In a m a n n e r s o m e w h a t a k i n t o s t r e s s c o n -

26

STRENGTH

AGEING OR TEMPERINGTEMPERATURE

Figure 10

Schematic Illustration that Heat Treatment Should be Selected to Provide Smax Rather Than

c e n t r a t i o n s i n m e t a l l i c m a t e r i a l s , t h e f o r m a t i o n of f i l a m e n t s i n t o s t r a n d s a n d r o v i n g s a n d t h e c r o s s - o v e r of the rovings in the composite act to reduce the useable structural strength. The composite becomes a structural material for pressure vessel applicat i o n s by v i r t u e of the fact that the filaments provide the load carrying function while the matrix basically provides the contouring and sealing functions. Thus the degradation of the monofilament strength is t o s o m e e x t e n t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s t r u c t u r a l functions required of the composite. Although it is not now p o s s i b l e t o a n a l y z e t h e s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h of f i l a m e n t a r y
it is possible

composites in a m a n n e r s i m i l a r t o t h a t u s e d f o r m o n o l i t h i c m e t a l l i c s , composites. For this purpose, vessels. we s h a l l u t i l i z e t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d

to obtain an insight into the factors which tend to affect the structural strength

of

by M o r r i s " i n

h i s r a t h e r c o m p r e h e n s i v e s u r v e y of c y l i n d r i c a l g l a s s - e p o x y c o m p o s i t e p r e s s u r e

In this evaluation, it is i m p o r t a n t t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t strength levels that are significant; monofilament strength, roving strength, uniaxial composite strength and biaxial composite strength. The uniaxial composite strength is the proper structural strength value to be used in conjunction with the design synthesisrelation,

Eq. (31).

F r o m d a t a p r e s e n t e d by M o r r i s f o r E g l a s s a n d S - 9 9 4 glass-epoxy composites the information presented in Table data indicate the following:

4 has been assembled.

An evaluation of these

a)

The average roving strength

is 0 . 7 of the average mono-

filament strength. This reduction

is p r o b a b l y a s s o c i a t e d

with local contact stresses among filaments. b) The uniaxial composite strengthiweight ratio ratio. For a 67 vol. yoglass (small s c a l e ) epoxy composite

i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0. 73 of the average roving strengthiweight

- 33 vol.

'70

this value should be 0. 8 f o r a non-load carrying matrix, thereby indicating some loss probably associated with c r o s s - o v e r of the glass filaments. c) The biaxial composite strength is approximately 2/3 uniaxialcompositestrength.Thisfactorcorresponds directly with that predicted by Eq. (19) for a cylinder (u2/u1 = 1/21. of the

28

Table 4

Test Data on Glass-Epoxy Composites

At Room Temperature (Ref. 11)

"

glass Property

S-994

E-glass SIP*
.. .

SIP*
0. 088 pci

92

density monofilament average C tu roving average C tu composite density uniaxial composite strength 500 ksi 5.45 350 k s i
0. 076 pci

6 x 10 in.
3. 81 6 x 10

650 ksi 7. 38 450 ksi 5. 11

x 10 in.
x 10

0. 073 pci
90 x 10

220 ksi 2.

260 ksi 3.

56 x 10

(small scale)

biaxial composite strength 120

( c y l i n d e r s - s m a l l scale)
. .
~~

150 ksi
_"

58 1.
~

64
X

170

.~ ~ _ _ .
"

1. 97 x

6 10
106

2.33

180 k s2 i .47 155 k 2s.i 47

6 x 10
x 1 06

~ ~

biaxial composite strength 125 ksi 1.

(cylinders -full scale) 187 ksi (calculated)

6 6 232 ksi 3. 18 strength x 10 2 . 4 6 x 10 uniaxial composite

29

d) The full scale cylinder biaxial composite strength data shown in Table 4 a r e somewhat lower than the small scale data. The corresponding uniaxial composite s t r e n g t h w a s c a l c u l a t e d by multiplying the biaxial data by 3 1 2 . On t h i s b a s i s , t h e f u l l s c a l e u n i a x i a l c o m p o s i t e strengthlweight is approximately 0 . 6 3 of t h e a v e r a g e roving strengthlweight.

To summarize these data on full scale glasa-epoxy composite pressure vessels,

the following uniaxial structural strengthlweight ratios are representative practice: of c u r r e n t

S l p = 0 . 4 4 C1/p (monofilamente)

(41

S l p = 0. 6 3 C1/p (rovinga)
The appropriate value to be used depends upon what one conriders to material, process.

(42

be the raw

Eq. (41) i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the potential of t h e m a t e r i a l w h e r a a r

Eq. ( 4 2 ) i s r e a l i s t i c i n t e r m s of t h e m a t e r i a l c u r r e n t l y u e a d in the fabrication

T h e r e a r e S t h e r f i l a m e n t a r y matsriala such a @high atrength rnetaJlis wirea that can be utilized for preeaure veeael applicationa particularly filamentary-monolithic composites, Although such compoeite in the next section, it

in the form of we a h a l l c o n r i d e r t h e efficisnciea of

is advantageour to conrider the rtructurrrl

strength/weight of t h e f i l a m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l s h e r e ,

material t e n e i l e strengtha (Zl) given in Table 5 w e r e a s s e m b l e d f r o m a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e ( R e f r . 1, 11, 12). Also given in

For this purpoae, the rspreeentative
Table 5 a r e t h e m a t e r i a l s t r e n g t h / w e i g h t r a t i o r ( Z , / p ) a n d t h e t h e o r e t i c a l u n i a x i a l compoeite strength/wcight ratios (C1/p), based epoxy composite. The laet column upon a 67 vo1.70 filament

- 33

vol.

'70

l i e t e the S / p values based upon 9070ofthe theow a e cited by retical uniaxial composite etrength/weight ratio. This number 1 S c h u e r c h a s that typically obtained in filament wound structures utilizing hoop
windings only.

30

Table 5 F i l a m e n t a r y M a t e r i a l s and . Composites at R o o m

~

"

~~

~~

Temperature

Type
~~ ~

zl (ksi)
~ ~. _ _ _

x+

F1lP)c

SIP

-.

(PCi)
~~

(psi/pci) 3 . 1 x 10 5. 1 5. 6 1.6 2. 1 2 . 3 10 ~ 4.1 4. 5 1.4 1.9 2.1x10 3.7 4.0 1.3 1.7

"

beryllium w i r( e m 5 ils) roving S-994 glass 450 t i t a n i uw mi r e wire steel

200

0.066 0.088
0.090 0.174

il.ament boron

(5 mils)

280 57 5

0. 278

It can be observed from Tables

4 and 5 that filamentary composites as

a class

have a considerably higher S / p potential than monolithic metallics for certain pressure vessel applications. This observation is based upon room temperature and
is to be noted,

short time load applications for which the data given herein apply. It materials for pressure vessels cannot be obtained from considered. Materials for Inflatable Structures

however, that an evaluation of the relative efficiencies of monolithic and filamentary

a direct comparison of t h e i r

respective S / p values since the configuration efficiency coefficients must also be

For inflatable structures applications where packaging requirements are important, monolithic plastic
films and filamentary fabrics have been employed.

Because of the fact that pressurization is used to expand the packaged structure and then maintain the expanded shape, inflatable structures are essentially pressure vessels. In this case, the various structural functions are performed
"

as follows:

Function load carrying contouring sealing

~~

Film

Fabric cloth pressurization sealant

film pressurization film

31

Because of these functional requirements, the overall efficiency

of inflatable

s t r u c t u r e s w h e n c o n s i d e r e d a s pressure vessels should include the weight of the pressurization equipment and that associated with the sealant required for fabrics, In addition, there is an inherent penalty on the configuration efficiency coefficient since maximum rather than optimum thickness structures may be required when using films a n d f a b r i c . F r o m a materials standpoint, joining of film a n d f a b r i c s e g m e n t s t o a c h i e v e t h e d e s i r e d s h a p e c a u s e s a significant degradation of t h e s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h l w e i g h t a s compared to the material strengthlweight when the weight penalty associated with seams is considered. Brewer and Jeppeson4 have considered these factors in considerable detail. Because of the form in which they present their data, it is not p o s s i b l e t o a s c e r t a i n s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h l w e i g h t l e v e l s f o r films and fabrics in the sense used herein. Consequently, further consideration of the efficiency of i n f l a t a b l e s t r u c t u r e s is r e s e r v e d f o r d i s c u s s i o n i n a subsequent section. Comparative Efficiencies of M a t e r i a l s Fig. 11 h a s b e e n p r e p a r e d t o s u m m a r i z e t h e e v a l u a t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s s e c tion. On t h e h o r i z o n t a l s c a l e , t h e u n i a x i a l m a t e r i a l t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h l w e i g h t r a t i o s
glass f i l a m e n t s , t h i s r a t i o i s b a s e d upon t h e s t r e n g t h of the

are indicated. For

rovings.Theverticalscalerepresentstheuniaxialstructuralstrengthlweight ratios which can be achieved by application of the best current technology. Although filamentary composites appear to be superior to monolithic construction, it must be noted that the configuration efficiency coefficient must also be considered when evaluatingoverallpressurevesselefficiencies.Consequently, pressure vessels. It i s a l s o t o be noted that

F i g . 11 does not

p e r m i t a d i r e c t c o m p a r i s o n of the relative efficiencies of m a t e r i a l s a s u s e d i n

F i g . 11 i s b a s e d upon s h o r t t i m e l o a d a p p l i c a t i o n s a t
of cryogenic and elevated temperatures and other of monolithic and fila-

room temperature. Consideration mentary materials substantially.

environmental factors can change the relative efficiencies

32

/
4
3

Fi'/amentary Composites

Glass Rovings,

Baron
filapnts

4
lo6 psi/pci

X, /p
w w

Figure 1 1

Comparative Structural Efficiencies of Various Materials in Pressure Vessel Applications at Room Temperature

5.

Potential of Newer Materials Concents

Materials characteristically employed in aerospace pressure vessel applications were considered in the previous section. Here, we shall be concerned with the potential efficiencies of c e r t a i n n e w e r m a t e r i a l c o n c e p t s f o r s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n s : anisotropic metals for monolithic construction, combined monolithic and filamentary designs, and whisker composites. Obviously, there may be many problems in the application of t h e s e c o n c e p t s t o the production of p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s a n d m a n y of t h e f a c t o r s w h i c h r e s u l t i n a reduction of t h e m a t e r i a l s t r e n g t h t o t h e s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h l e v e l s d i s c u s s e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g section w i l l operate here also. Although the full potential represented s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e s in s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h l w e i g h t l e v e l s i n t h e f u t u r e . Anisotropic Metals Although t h e o r i e s of yielding and plastic flow of anisotropic metals have been available for some time, Backofen et all3 appear to have been the first to observe that significant strengthening effects are predicted loadings typical .of p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s . A n i s o t r o p y by such theories for combined of m e c h a n i c a l p r o p e r t i e s is inby t h e m a t e r i a l strengthlweight ratio may not be realizable, these newer concepts could result in

h e r e n t i n m e t a l l i c m a t e r i a l s a s a r e s u l t of t h e i r b a s i c c r y s t a l l i n e f o r m a n d a l s o a s a r e s u l t of differences in deformation along various rolling axes in processing the material into sheet form. In f a c t , m e t a l p r o d u c e r s e x p e n d c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t t o achieve a s nearly isotropic a product a s practical. Conversely, it should be possible to produce sheets with controlled anisotropy for pressure vessel applications. Anisotropy due to a p r e f e r r e d o r i e n t a t i o n o r t e x t u r e of t h e c r y s t a l s t r u c t u r e w a s suggested by Backofen13 a s a method of increasing the yield strength in the thickness direction of s h e e t . P a r t i c u l a r l y f o r h e x a g o n a l c l o s e - p a c k e d m e t a l s s u c h as titanium and beryllium, the slip systems can be s o o r i e n t e d as t o r e s u l t i n a significant increase in yield strength in the thickness direction. Other important f o r m s of anisotropy can be obtained by unidirectional plastic working of t h e s h e e t

a s a r e s u l t of rolling or stretching.
H i d 4 h a s p r e s e n t e d a generalization of the octahedral shear law for anisotropic behavior.

In t e r m s of t h e p r i n c i p a l s t r e s s e s ,

h i s relation reduces to the

following for plane stress:

34

-E =l2 2 1

l-(lt7 Z12

7 -i ) 2 (-1
Z3 1
Z2

Zl2

Z12

(43)

Z2

represent the uniaxial strengths in the principal stress 3 and thickness directions, respectively. Texture Hardening To represent texture hardening, we c a n l e t C 1 / Z 2 = 1 and Z1/Z3 = a. Thus

In Eq. ( 4 3 ) , Zl, Z2 and Z

Eq. (43) becomes

= [l

= 1 h

- ( 2 - a 2 ) (u2/u1)
a < 1.

2 1/2
(U2/U1)

(44) 12. Note

Tensile strength surfaces for various values that strengthening occurs for

of a a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g .

F o r a >1 weakening occurs and, in fact, for

a = 2, the filamentary strength law,

Eq. ( 1 9 ) i s obtained.

By u s e of Eq. ( 2 6 ) i n

conjunction with Eq. ( 4 4 ) , we can obtain the following results for the configuration efficiency coefficient of anisotropic monolithic shapes:

Sphere: Long Cylinder :

C = 1. 5a C = (1t2a)
2 1/2

(45 (46

T h e s e r e s u l t s a r e i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g s . 13 and 14 and it can be observed that significant improvements in efficiency can be realized Backofen13 has discussed the degree HCP, BCC a n d F C C m e t a l s . weight saving potential by raising Z3 r e l a t i v e t o Z l . of texture hardening associated with various of roughly 50 p e r c e n t s e e m s A hemispheric-

crystallographic structures and his estimates are indicated in these figures for

A weight saving potential

p o s s i b l e f o r a s p h e r e of properly textured HCP metal. For the long cylinder the

is considerably less although still a t t r a c t i v e .

ally closed cylinder would lie between these two limiting cases. It i s important to note that Sliney et a l l 5 have conducted tests on two c y l i n d e r s f a b r i c a t e d of Ti-5A1-2. 5Sn titanium alloy sheet which has a v e r a g e v a l u e of 2/3.

a HCP s t r u c t u r e . F r o m
of 2070is obtained

a u x i l i a r y t e n s i l e t e s t s , i t w a s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e a n i s o t r o p y c o e f f i c i e n t ( a ) had an By u s e of F i g . 14, a weight saving potential f o r a = 2 / 3 as c o m p a r e d t o a n i s o t r o p i c m a t e r i a l (a = 1). Although in the two cylinder tests failure occurred at longitudinal welds, the burst strengths higher than the uniaxial tensile strength

(S) were significantly

(X1) a s indicated in Table 6.

35

Figure 1 2

StrengthSurfacesRepresentative

of TextureHardening

36

2.0

I .5
I

1.0

1
02
0.4

I
I
I

0.5

"tI

0.6

0.8

1 .o

F i g u r e 13

ConfigurationEfficiencyCoefficientsforTextureHardenedMetals

37

1.0

0.8
'I

0.6
Ca/Ci
I

0.4
I

I
f cc
I

0.2

HCP
"

ecc

/'

I
0.4

'

I
0.6

0.2

0.8

I.o

a = X l / C3

F i g u r e 14

WeightSavingPotential of Texture Hardened Metals ( F o r S a m e Xl a s I s o t r o p i c M e t a l )

38

Table 6 Test Data on Anisotropic Titanium Alloy Cylinders . .

At Room Temperature

Mate rial

(ksi)';'

S/ S Z (l ksi)**

Reference

Ti-5A1-2. 5Sn 1. 195 Ti-6A1-4V 195 198 ::cUniaxial Tensile Strength

18 132.5 1. 153 132.5 147 147 147

156 16 1.33 1.33 1.35 ':"Hoop S B tr u a e r ts ss t

0. 67

15 15 16 16 16

0. 67
"

"

--

Additional test data by Martin et v e s s e l s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 6. ( a ) is u n c e r t a i n , t h e b u r s t s t r e n g t h s

a l l 6 on Ti-6A1-4V cylindrical pressure

Although the value

of the anisotropy coefficient of the fact

(S) are significantly higher than the uniaxial

tensile strength. These results are particularly encouraging in view that they are based on failure rather than yield strength. Mechanical Anisotropy

Another technically interesting form of anisotropy is that obtained by mechanical unidirectional plastic working of the sheet by rolling or stretching. Here
= 1 a n d Z l / Z 2 = b w h e r e b > 1, then Eq. (43)

t h e t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h s i n t h e p l a n e of the sheet are intentionally different s o that

If it is a s s u m e d t h a t Z l / Z 3 2' becomes for this case

Z1 > Z:

=1/'l

= [1

- b (u2/u1)(1

u,/u,)]

1/ 2

(47)

Tensile strength surfaces for various values

ofb a r e shown in Fig. 15.

It i s important to note that mechanical anisotropy can improve efficiency by two different mechanisms. The
f i r s t i s the biaxiality effect displayed in Fig. 15.

The second is t h e i n c r e a s e in Z l o v e r t h a t f o r a n i s o t r o p i c m a t e r i a l w h i c h p r e s u m a b l y can be attained as a r e s u l t of t h e d e c r e a s e i n Zz. the presentation of Fig. 15. 39 T h i s m e c h a n i s m is not shown by

I .c

=0.5

OX
0 . 6

1 . 0

1.2

1 . 4

1.6

1.8

2.0

u1

Figure15StrengthSurfacesRepresentative

of MechanicalAnisotropy

40

By u s e of Eq. ( 2 6 ) in conjunction with Eq. ( 4 7 ) , the following configuration efficiency coefficients are obtained for monolithic shapes tropic materials: Sphere: Long Cylinder: of mechanically aniso-

= 1.5

C = (4

b 2 ) 112

It can be observed that the biaxiality effects of mechanical anisotropy do not result in any improvement in efficiency for the sphere. For
2 , dramatic improvements are predicted.

a long cylinder, on the other In f a c t , a s b a p p r o a c h e s

hand, significant improvements in efficiency can be obtained.

In comparing the results obtained for the texture hardening and mechanical anisotropy cases for the sphere, significant improvements in efficiency are predicted for texture hardening only. anisotropy. Thus, the type On the other hand, comparable results obtained a given shape for the long c y l i n d e r i n d i c a t e t h a t l a r g e i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e p r e d i c t e d f o r m e c h a n i c a l of anisotropy that may be optimum for depends specifically upon the configuration.

T o account for the possible increase in

material as compared to that

E of the mechanically anisotropic 1

of t h e i s o t r o p i c m a t e r i a l ( X ) the following assump1 i' tion i s m a d e w h i c h a p p e a r s r e a s o n a b l e f o r a s m a l l d e g r e e of anisotropy:

Zl t

z2

= 2(Z14

Since Zl/Z2

= b,

b = [2(Zl)i/C1 By i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e i n c r e a s e i n t e n s i l e s t r e n g t h

11"

(51)
a s indicated by Eq. ( 5 0 ) , t h e

corresponding configuration efficiency coefficients become:

Long Cylinder:

C =

(4 - [z(Zl)i/Zl - 1 r 2 }

(53)

41

N u m e r i c a l r e s u l t s b a s e d upon Eqs. ( 5 2 ) and ( 5 3 ) a r e shown in Figs. 16 and It would appear that really significant improvements in efficiency are predicted for long cylinders for moderate degrees of m e c h a n i c a l a n i s o t r o p y . F o r s p h e r e s , i t

17. is

apparent that texture hardening has the greater potential for weight saving. Thus, for a hemispherically closed cylinder, mechanically anisotropic materials are indicated for the cylindrical portion and texture hardened materials for the hemispherical closures. Filamentarv-Monolithic ComDosites Although the configuration efficiency coefficient is more favorable for monolithic a s compared to filamentary shapes, the latter have a greater overall efficiency of i n t e r e s t , t h e r e f o r e , because of the use of h i g h e r s t r e n g t h l w e i g h t m a t e r i a l s . I t i s

to consider filamentary-monolithic composites which would use to advantage the greater configuration efficiency inherent in monolithics with the greater material efficiency of t h e f i l a m e n t a r i e s . Of t h e p r a c t i c a l p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s h a p e s of i n t e r e s t , t h e c y l i n d r i c a l p o r t i o n o f
a closed cylinder appears to have the most interesting potential as

a filamentary-

monolithic composite. The monolithic portion

of t h e c y l i n d e r f o r m s t h e i n s i d e s h e l l

to which the closures are attached. This shell provides the contouring and sealing functions, and it is designed to carry the end loads and one-half the circumferential loads. The filaments are wound on the cylindrical position in the hoop direction only a n d c a r r y t h e o t h e r half of t h e c i r c u m f e r e n t i a l l o a d s . A s s u c h , t h e f i l a m e n t s a c t i n a uniaxial stress field and should not be degraded by t h e f i l a m e n t c r o s s - o v e r a s s o ciated with biaxial stress fields. The filaments provide only carrying function in the composite. the monolithic material. The weight of the composite cylinder minus the end closure weight (approximately equal to a long cylinder) is given by W Here, the subscripts = 2rRL (pmtm pftf)
(54)

a unidirectional load-

It is a s s u m e d t h a t t h e e l a s t i c m o d u l u s m i s m a t c h

b e t w e e n t h e m o n o l i t h i c a n d f i l a m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l s c a n b e a c c o m o d a t e dby yielding of

m and f refer to monolithic and filamentary, respectively, Eq. (54) can be written a s

In

both c a s e s , t = p R / 2 S , a n d t h e r e f o r e ,

42

2.0

I.5

Sphere
C

I .o

0.5

I .o

I. I

I.4

I.5

F i g u r e 16

ConfigurationEfficiencyCoefficientsforMechanicallyAnisotropicMetal

43

I.o

0.8

0.6
Ca/Ci

0.4,

0.2

0
1 . 0
I.I I.2 I.3 I.4 I.5

F i g u r e 17

WeightSavingPotential of MechanicallyAnisotropicMetals ( F o r Same as Isotropic Metal)

44

In Eq. (56), the coefficient a is the anisotropy coefficient for texture hardened monolithic metals. For an isotropic material in the limiting case when

(a = 1 ) note that C = 2 r a t h e r t h a n C = 1. 732

is u 2 / u l = 1 f o r

( P / S )= ~ (p/S), because the biaxiality effect

the composite a s compared to u2/u1 = 1/2 in the monolithic design. N u m e r i c a l r e s u l t s b a s e d upon Eq. ( 5 6 ) a r e shown in Fig. 18 together with appropriate strength/weight ratios
of filamentary composites given in Table

5. The

potential increases in efficiency for both isotropic and anisotropic materials are indeed attractive particularly for rhe glass filaments. In order to indicate the overall weight saving potential of the composite, it is of i n t e r e s t t o c o m p a r e t h e w e i g h t of the composite with a filament wound cylinder. For the filamentary-monolithic cylinder, Eqs. (55) and (56) are used while the weight of a filament wound cylindrical pressure vessel is taken a s

Since ( P / S ) ~ r e p r e s e n t s t h e u n i a x i a l t e n s i l e c o m p o s i t e s t r e n g t h / w e i g h t r a t i o i n b o t h

Eqs. ( 5 6 ) and (57), the factor cc

field,Theweightratio

is introduced in Eq. (57) to account for the degra-

dation in strength associated with filament cross-over required for

a biaxial stress

is thus

Numerical results based anisotropicmetals.

upon Eq. (58) are shown in F i g . 19 for isotropic and c

C

With glass rovings for which

= 1. 15 ( S / p for 5-994 in

Tables 4 and 5) i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e only when anisotropic metals construction.

of c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e , i t c a n b e o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e

filamentary-monolithic composite is more efficient than the filamentary composite

(a = 0. 5) a r e u t i l i z e d . F o r i s o t r o p i c m e t a l s t h e r e -

sults are sufficiently close that other considerations may govern the choice

of

45

2.o

1.5

I.o

0.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

I.o

Figure18ConfigurationEfficiencyCoefficientsforFilamentary Windingson a LongMonolithicCylinder (S/p)

Hoop = 106 p s i / p c i

46

2.o

I .5

7
\

I .o

,\ /

Isotropic Metals a=/.O

0.5
Aniso tropic Metals a =0.5
I

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

I.o

F i g u r e 19

OverallEfficiencies of Filamentary-MonolithicComposites Compared tg Filamentary Composites. Long Cylinder (S/p), = 10 p s l / p c i

47

Whisker Composites The filamentary composites considered up to this point all utilize continuous 2 r e i n f o r c e m e n t s i n t h e f o r m of rovings, monofilaments or fine wires. Hoffman has d i s c u s s e d , at s o m e l e n g t h , t h e i n t e r e s t i n g p o t e n t i a l f o r p r e s s u r e v e s s e l a p p l i c a t i o n s
of composites with discontinuous reinforcements in the form

of whiskers. Although of whisker

t h e c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h w o r k i n t h i s a r e a is e x p l o r a t o r y i n m a n y r e s p e c t s , t h e a c h i e v e ments are sufficiently encouraging to warrant serious consideration composites as a potential pressure vessel material. Table tive strength levels of the best whiskers tested. Table 7 Reoresentative Strength Data on the Best Whiskers At Room Temperature 7 lists some representa-

=1
(ksi) Material graphite aluminum oxide iron silicon 3,000 1,800
1,900

P =I1 P (PCi) ( p s i / p c i ) ( p s i / p c i )

SIP

0. 07
0. 13 0. 284

43 x 10 14

1 3 . 4 x 10

3. 3

5 50

0. 087

6.7 6. 3

2.9
2. 1

Although Table

7 lists the best whisker properties currently achieved, the

far below these values. For our
a batch of w h i s k e r s t h e r e i s a n o r m a l

a v e r a g e p r o p e r t i e s of a batch of whiskers will be purposes here, it will be assumed that within lowest strength which is taken 1/ 2 of the Table 7 values.

distribution of tensile strengths between the highest values given in Table 7 and the a s zero. Hence, the batch tensile strength would be

F o r p u r p o s e s of comparison with filamentary composites,

it is a s s u m e d t h a t

a n epoxy matrix may be suitable for whisker composites, Since the packing density of the whiskers in the composite will probably not be as high as that achieved for filamentary composites, it is a s s u m e d t h a t 50 vol. O/owhiskers and 50 vol. m a y be representative. Using this composition and the batch tensile strength, the

7 ' epoxy

48

uniaxial composite strength/weight ratios ( S / p ) given in Table 7 were computed. Degradation effects due to whisker cross-over and improper whisker alignment are not accounted for. A c o m p a r i s o n of the S / p values with the uniaxial composite strength s c a l e S-994 glass composite (Table 4) of S / p = 3 . 18 x 10 of a full

(psi/pci) indicates that On t h e o t h e r

i r o n a n d s i l i c o n w h i s k e r c o m p o s i t e s a r e not competitive on this basis. hand, graphite and aluminum oxide whisker composites are attractive. In a b i a x i a l s t r e s s f i e l d , t h e w h i s k e r m u s t b e o r i e n t e d a c c o r d i n g t o so a s t o c a r r y both principal stress components in an optimum manner. materials. For

Eq. (18) In this

respect whisker (and filamentary) composites are less efficient than monolithic
all whisker composites of optimum design, the configuration

efficiency coefficient]

C = 3.

In the preceding evaluation] the whiskers were assumed to have the optimum orientation associated with filamentary membranes in a biaxial stress field. This may be unrealistic in a practical sense and, therefore] it may t o be c o n s i d e r e d a s a monolithic rather than filamentary membrane. possible to obtain anisotropic monolithic membranes. The analyses oriented whisker composite. In particular, be important
is

to consider randomly oriented whisker composites. In this case the composite By s o m e control of t h e r a n d o m n e s s of whisker orientation in the composite it should be

of monolithic

m e m b r a n e s t r u c t u r e s p r e s e n t e d p r e v i o u s l y h e r e i n would apply to the randomly

Eq. (44) a n d i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n

F i g . 12 indicates that this composite must have significant compressive strength

in the thickness direction to be an efficient monolithic material for pressure vessel applications.

49

6 . O v e r a l lP r e s s u r eV e s s e lE f f i c i e n c i e s

In previous sections, the configuration efficiencies s o m e detail.

of v a r i o u s p r e s s u r e v e s s e l

shapes were investigated and the efficiencies of v a r i o u s m a t e r i a l s w e r e s t u d i e d i n Now, we combine the two efficiency factors to determine the overall of m e m b r a n e t y p e p r e s s u r e v e s s e l s . F o r t h i s primary structural weight efficiency

purpose we return to the design synthesis relationship in the following form: w l p v = CpIS

(59)

In Eq. (SS), t h e d e s i g n c o n d i t i o n s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e p r e s s u r e ( p ) a n d volume (V). The latter can usually be specified in on the other hand,

a completely straightforward
is usually taken a s t h e m a x i m u m

manner. The design pressure,

o p e r a t i n g p r e s s u r e m u l t i p l i e d by a s u i t a b l e s a f e t y f a c t o r . F o r a structural reliability standpoint, the maximum operating pressure s t a t i s t i c a l i n n a t u r e a s is t h e s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h value of structural reliability, which can also be taken m a t e r i a l when comparing the efficiencies is

(S). Consequently, for a p r e s c r i b e d

a s a specified design condition,
In t h i s m a n n e r

t h e s p e c i f i c s t a t i s t i c a l v a r i a t i o n s of the structural strength should be charged to the of a v a r i e t y of m a t e r i a l s . we would be comparing pressure vessels designed for the same structural reliability. Unfortunately, there are insufficient data available to permit incorporation of strength distributions in the present investigation. Based upon the C and S / p values obtained herein, to evaluate the overall efficiencies cross-hatched regions in Fig.

F i g . 20 h a s b e e n p r e p a r e d

of m o n o l i t h i c a n d f i l a m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l s . T h e i s to be noted, however, that the aeroupon

20 represent materials that have been utilized in full

scale aerospace production components. It which Fig. 20 is based.

space environment encompasses temperatures other than room temperature

It can be observed that inflatable structures

a s a c l a s s ( b a s e d o n d a t a of Ref. 4 )
a s efficient a s g l a s s a weight saving potential

are inherently much less efficient than metallic and glass-epoxy composites. Based on r o o m t e m p e r a t u r e p r o p e r t i e s , i s o t r o p i c m e t a l l i c s a r e n o t epoxy composites. Under the best circumstances for each,

of approximately 113 can be attained with the glass-epoxy composite.

50

Films

Structures

IO-^

pc i ps i

,/sotropic Metallics

Filamtwt W w n d Ttuture hbrdened Mhl Cy/inders

c-

Monolithies

10

lo7
S/p
psl/pci

Figure 20

OverallMembraneEfficiencies Temperature

of Pressure Vessels at

Room
51

For other materials concepts which have not,

as yet, reached the aerospace

at r o o m t e m p e r a t u r e ,
On the other hand,

production stage, filament wound i s o t r o p i c m e t a l c y l i n d e r s r e p r e s e n t a n i n h e r e n t improvement over monolithic isotropic metallics. However, the glass-epoxy composites

still appear to be at an advantage.

the development of a n i s o t r o p i c metals c a n r e p r e s e n t a significant weight saving potential a s c o m p a r e d t o c u r r e n t l y u s e d m a t e r i a l s . T h i s p o t e n t i a l d e p e n d s s t r o n g l y upon t h e d e g r e e of anisotropy that can be achieved with high strength metals and the configuration of t h e p r e s s u r e v e s s e l . T h i s hardened metal cylinders. An important improvement in overall efficiency appears possible with oriented whisker composites. However, on the basis of s u c h c o m p o s i t e s a p p e a r s t o of t h e a n a l y s i s u s e d h e r e i n t h e p o t e n t i a l 2 be far l e s s d r a m a t i c t h a n p r e d i c t e d by Hoffman In
is a l s o t r u e f o r f i l a m e n t wound t e x t u r e

fact, only the low d e n s i t y w h i s k e r s s u c h a s graphite and aluminum oxide appear to be attractive when used in the form of o r i e n t e d w h i s k e r c o m p o s i t e s . Should it not be possible on thecompositewouldtendtoact

a production basis to orient properly the whiskers,

a practical solution. In t h i s c a s e , a s a na n i s o t r o p i cm o n o l i t h i cm a t e r i a lw i t h

then randomly oriented whisker composites may be

a conse-

q u e n t l a r g e r e d u c t i o n i n s t r u c t u r a l s t r e n g t h a s compared to the oriented composite.

In p r e s s u r e v e s s e l a p p l i c a t i o n s t h i s r e d u c t i o n i n s t r e n g t h w o u l d b e c o m p e n s a t e d t o
s o m e d e g r e e by the inherently more efficient configuration coefficient associated with monolithic materials.

52

References

1.

Schuerch, H. , " A n a l y t i c a lD e s i g nf o rO p t i m u mF i l a m e n t a r yP r e s s u r eV e s s e l s , AIAA Preprint 2914-63, April 1963.

It

2.

Williams, M. L . , G e r a r d ,G . ,a n dH o f f m a n , Structural Research in Rocket Vehicles, Congress, Stockholm, 146-166, 1960. Vol. 1, pp.

C.A , ," S e l e c t e dA r e a so f

XI International Astronautical

3.

Pipkin, A. C.

andRivlin,R.

S.

"Minimum-WeightDesignfor

Pressure

Vessels Reinforced with Inextensible Fibers, ' I 103-108, March 1963. Vol. 3 0 , No. 1 , pp. 4 .B r e w e r , W. N. andJeppeson,

Journal of Applied Mechanics,

N. L. , "Methods of Evaluation of Inflatable

It

Structures for Space Applications,

AIAA Fifth Annual Structures and

MaterialsConference,pp.344-360,April1964. 5. Johnston, G. s. , "Weight of Ellipsoid of RevolutionwithOptimumTapered T h i c k n e s s , "J o u r n a l 1270, Oct. 1962. of t h e A e r o s p a c e S c i e n c e s , VOl. 29, No. 10,pp-1269-

6.

Hoffman, G.A. , "Minimum-WeightProportions J o u r n a l of AppliedMechanics,Vol.29,

of P r e s s u r e - V e s s e lH e a d s , "

No. 4, pp.662-668,Dec,1962.

7.

B e r t , C. W . , "EllipsoidalClosuresforMinimumWeightPressureVessels," Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, Vol.

9, pp. 133-136,May1963.

8.

G e r a r d , G., 'IStructuralSignificance of D u c t i l i t yi nA e r o s p a c eP r e s s u r e Vessels," ARS J o u r n a l , Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1216-1221, Aug. 1962.

9.

G e r a r d , G. a n d P a p i r n o ,

R. , "DuctilityRatioofAgedBetaTitaniumAlloy,
1962.

It

T r a n s a c t i o n s of t h e ASM, V O ~ . 55, NO. 3, pp. 373-388,Sept.

53

10.

M i l l s , E. J.

A t t e r b u r y , T. J.

C a s s i d y , L. M. , E i b e r , R. J. , Duffy, A. R.

I m g r a m , A. E . , andMasubuchi,

K . , "Design,Performance,Fabrication

andMaterialConsiderationsforHigh-pressureVessels,

U. S. A r m y M i s s i l e

Command, Redstone Scientific Information Center, RSIC-173, March 1964. 11. Morris,E.

E. , "Glass Cases for the Biggest Solids,

1964.

I1

Astronautics and Aero-

n a u t i c s , Vol. 2, No. 7 , pp. 28-38,July 12. B e r t , C. W. , and Hyler, CenterReport180,Dec. 13.Backofen,

W . S . , "Design Considerations in Selecting Materials

If

for Large Solid-Propellant Rocket-Motor Cases, 1962.

Defense Metals Information

W. A. , Hosford, W. F. , and Burke,

J. J. , "Texture Hardening,"
1962.

T r a n s a c t i o n s of the ASM, Vol. 14.Hill

55, No. 1, pp. 264-267,March

R . ,T h eM a t h e m a t i c a lT h e o r y pp. 318-320.

of P l a s t i c i t y , O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,

London, 1950, 15. Sliney,

J. L. , C o r r i g a n , D. A. , and Schmid, F. , " P r e l i m i n a r y R e p o r t on the

of A n i s o t r o p i c S h e e t M a t e r i a l s , AMRA TR63-11, Aug.1963.

Biaxial Tensile Behavior

U. S. A r m y M a t e r i a l

Research Agency, Tech. Rept. 16.

Martin, W. J. , Matsuda, T., and Kaluza, Tankage at C r y o g e n i c T e m p e r a t u r e s , SM-43116, May 1964.

I'

E. F. , "Study of TitaniumAlloy
AD604 053).

Douglas Aircraft Co. Report No.

(U.S. Dept. C o m m e r c e ,O T S ,

54

NASA-Langley, 1965

CR-287