Review Article

Experimental Perspective on the Buckling of Pressure Vessel Components

[+] Author and Article Information
J. Błachut

Institute of Physics,
Cracow University of Technology,
ul. Podchorążych 1,
Kraków, 30-085Poland

Manuscript received August 18, 2013; final manuscript received November 14, 2013; published online December 30, 2013. Editor: Harry Dankowicz.

Appl. Mech. Rev 66(1), 010803 (Dec 30, 2013) (24 pages) Paper No: AMR-13-1061; doi: 10.1115/1.4026067 History: Received August 18, 2013; Revised November 14, 2013

This review aims to complement a milestone monograph by Singer et al. (2002, Buckling Experiments—Experimental Methods in Buckling of Thin-Walled Structures, Wiley, New York). Practical aspects of load bearing capacity are discussed under the general umbrella of “buckling.” Plastic loads and burst pressures are included in addition to bifurcation and snap-through/collapse. The review concentrates on single and combined static stability of conical shells, cylinders, and their bowed out counterpart (axial compression and/or external pressure). Closed toroidal shells and domed ends onto pressure vessels subjected to internal and/or external pressures are also discussed. Domed ends include: torispheres, toricones, spherical caps, hemispheres, and ellipsoids. Most experiments have been carried in metals (mild steel, stainless steel, aluminum); however, details about hybrids (copper-steel-copper) and shells manufactured from carbon/glass fibers are included in the review. The existing concerns about geometric imperfections, uneven wall thickness, and influence of boundary conditions feature in reviewed research. They are supplemented by topics like imperfections in axial length of cylinders, imperfect load application, or erosion of the wall thickness. The latter topic tends to be more and more relevant due to ageing of vessels. While most experimentation has taken place on laboratory models, a small number of tests on full-scale models are also referenced.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cylinders with uneven length at the top end

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Buckling response for axially compressed cylinders with various waviness of length

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Combined stability plot for cylindrical shell (axial compression, F, versus external pressure, p) [67]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Load carrying capacity of equivalent barrels as a function of barrelling, Δ/Ro. Photographs of tested models at a, b, c, and d.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

The magnitude of failure pressure for a shell generator described by generalized ellipse [76]. View of barrel's shape at bifurcation corresponding to pmax.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Plot of the cost function versus design vector components n1 = n2. Also, photograph of two tested barrels E1 and E1a [76].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Buckling strength of two-segment vessel versus the flange thickness [67]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Collapsed four-segment vessel [67]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of buckling loads with Bosor5 predictions [93]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

View of machined cones: (a) β = 26 deg, (b) β = 14 deg, and (c) arrangement for combined loading. Adapted from Ref. [103].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Combined stability plots for β = 26 deg cones [106]. Loading paths shown in Fig. 11(a) while configurations given by the current Design Codes are superimposed in Fig. 11(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Combined stability plot for ten, β = 14 deg, cones [110]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Photographs of collapsed cones by external hydrostatic pressure (β = 26 deg for C6 model, β = 14 deg for CS6 model)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Geometry of inward, axisymmetric dimple imperfection [116]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

The worst interactive stability plots for different imperfection profiles (a). Collapsed shapes at points a, b, and c [116].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Plot of buckling load versus shallowness parameter, λ. Also, view of collapsed cap and joining arrangements between the cap and integral base flange (adapted from Ref. [123]).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Safe and unsafe domains in PD 5500 code. Models 1A and 1C fall outside admissible geometry stipulated by PD 5500 (a). Test data for ten machined and two spun torispheres is plotted in (b) (pe=1.21Et2/Rs2 and pyss=2σypt/Rs) adapted from Ref. [138].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Various stages of manufacturing of a hemisphere to be externally pressurised ((a) and (b)). View of collapsed hemisphere (c).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Photographs of collapsed petal-welded and plain, nominally identical, torispheres

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Female molding tool after the first ply being draped. Also, view of hemisphere after the collapse test.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Pattern of distorted fibers after draping (a). One quarter of draped fabric superimposed on the FE grid (b) [151].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

View of cone T4 as machined (a), and after collapse (b). Buckled toricones T2 and T2a are seen in (c) and (d). External pressure in all cases.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

View of collapsed ellipsoidal shells (adapted from Ref. [159]). External pressure.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Currently allowed and proposed ellipsoids (a), prolate and oblate geometries sketched in (b), (c), and view of three pairs of elliptical domes after tests (d)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Failure pressures of optimized generalized ellipsoids. Also shown is the failure of standard ellipsoids (ν1 = ν2 = 2.0). Points a, b, c, and d denote experiments (two tests per point) [166].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Bifurcation and collapse pressures for toroidal shell with circular cross-section and r/t = 18.74 [177]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 27

Two spun halves prior to welding into TS1. Toroids TS1 and TS2 after collapse [177].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 28

View of stainless steel toroidal shell, TE1 being lowered to pressure tank for testing (a), and the model after collapse (b) [177]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 29

Comparison of computed plastic load pC1 with experimental values. Also, plot of experimental burst pressures. View of burst models K1, K2, and K6, adapted from Ref. [201].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 30

History of plastic strains growth versus number of pressure cycles in steel torisphere T8 (a). Also views of burst oblate ellipsoidal models: (b) mild steel, and (c) aluminum (adapted from Ref. [206,207]).




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In