Autofrettage is used to introduce advantageous residual stresses into pressure vessels. The Bauschinger effect can produce less compressive residual hoop stresses near the bore than are predicted by “ideal” autofrettage solutions. A recently developed numerical analysis procedure is adopted and extended. The ratio of calculated autofrettage pressure (numerical)/ideal autofrettage pressure (Tresca criterion and plane stress) is calculated and verified against available solutions. The case of open-end conditions based upon von Mises and engineering plane strain (constant axial strain with zero net axial force) is examined in detail. The ratio in this case varies between unity and 2/$3$, but exhibits very significant variations from the plane stress case when the diameter ratio of the tube exceeds 1.8. Results are within 0.5 percent of available analytical, numerical, and experimental results. A simple numerical fit allows all autofrettage pressures to be replicated to within 0.5 percent. The true plane strain pressure ratio is examined and shown to be inappropriate in modeling engineering plane strain. A number of residual hoop and axial stress profiles is presented for radius ratio 2.0. Calculated pressures are used to determine residual hoop stress values for tube diameter ratios from 1.1 to 3.0 for the full range of percentage overstrain levels. These comparisons indicate that Bauschinger effect is evident when the ratio autofrettage radius/bore radius exceeds 1.2, irrespective of diameter ratio. To assist designers the important values of residual hoop stress at the bore are summarized in a composite plot and a numerical fit is provided. The accuracy of the current ASME code using pressure criteria is assessed. The code is shown to be generally and modestly conservative. A design procedure is proposed which appears capable of extending code validity beyond 40 percent overstrain (the limit of the current code) and of eliminating the small nonconservatism at very low overstrain. Hoop strain values are calculated at both the bore and outside diameter of a tube of radius ratio 2 at the peak of the autofrettage cycle using von Mises criterion with open-end, closed-end, and plane strain conditions. These are compared with available solutions; general agreement is demonstrated, with agreement within 2 percent with an accepted simple formula in the case of open ends. ASME code predictions of percentage overstrain based upon strains at the peak of the autofrettage cycle are generally within 6 percent of numerical predictions. This is in turn produces an agreement within approximately 3 percent in residual bore hoop stress calculation. This discrepancy is generally conservative, becoming non-conservative only at overstrain levels exceeding 80 percent. Strain during removal of autofrettage pressure, in the presence of Bauschinger effect, is also calculated. This shows that the difference in strain during the unloading phase is up to 8 percent (ID) and 6.3 percent (OD) compared with the predictions of elastic unloading. These latter results show similar agreement with the ASME code as in the peak-strain analysis and permit correction of estimates of percentage overstrain based upon permanent bore enlargement.

1.
Bauschinger
,
J.
,
1881
, “
Ueber die Veranderung der Elasticitatagrenze und dea Elasticitatamoduls verschiadener Metalle
,”
Zivilingenieur
,
27
, pp.
289
348
.
2.
Chakrabarty, J., 1987, Theory of Plasticity, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
3.
Jahed
,
H.
, and
Dubey
,
R. N.
,
1997
, “
An Axisymmetric Method of Elastic-Plastic Analysis Capable of Predicting Residual Stress Field
,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.
,
119
, pp.
264
273
.
4.
Parker
,
A. P.
,
Underwood
,
J. H.
, and
Kendall
,
D. P.
,
1999
, “
Bauschinger Effect Design Procedures for Autofrettaged Tubes Including Material Removal and Sachs’ Method
,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.
,
121
, pp.
430
437
.
5.
Milligan
,
R. V.
,
Koo
,
W. H.
, and
Davidson
,
T. E.
,
1966
, “
The Bauschinger Effect in a High Strength Steel
,”
ASME J. Basic Eng.
,
88
, pp.
480
488
.
6.
Troiano, E., 1998, private communication.
7.
Davidson, T. E., and Kendall, D. P., 1970, “Design of High Pressure Containers,” Mechanical Behavior of Metals Under Pressure, Elsevier, H. Pugh, ed., pp. 54–77.
8.
Marcal
,
P. V.
,
1965
, “
A Note on the Elastic-Plastic Thick Cylinder with Internal Pressure in the Open and Closed-End Condition
,”
Int. J. Mech. Sci.
,
7
, pp.
841
845
.
9.
ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Design Code, 1997, “Design Using Autofrettage,” Division 3, Section 8, Article KD-5, pp. 71–73.
10.
Hill, R., 1967, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
11.
Davidson, T. E., Barton, C. S., Reiner, A. N. and Kendall, D. P., 1963, “Overstrain of High Strength Open-End Cylinders of Intermediate Diameter Ratio,” Proc., First International Congress on Experimental Mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.
12.
Weigle, R. E., 1960, “Elastic-Plastic Analysis of a Cylindrical Tube,” Watervliet Arsenal Technical Report WVTRR-6007.
13.
Parker, A. P. and Underwood, J. H., 1998, “The Bauschinger Effect in Autofrettaged Tubes—A Comparison of Models Including the ASME Code,” Proc. ASME Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference, San Diego, CA.
14.
Prager, W., and Hodge, P. G., 1951, Theory of Perfectly Plastic Solids, J. Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
15.
Sutherland, C. D., 1962, “Elastic-Plastic Analysis of a Cylindrical Tube, Part II,” Watervliet Arsenal Technical Report No. WVT-RR-6205.