Composite Structures 48 (2000) 119±127

Composite pressure vessels with higher sti€ness

Alexis A. Krikanov *
Department of Mechanics and Optimization of Processes and Structures, MATI-Russian State University of Technology, Moscow, Russia

Abstract
A new method to design laminated composite pressure vessels under strain and strength constraints is proposed in this paper. A
graphical analysis is presented to ®nd optimum layer thicknesses for given ®ber orientations. Minimum pressure vessel mass is
determined from active execution of two constraints. Replacing circumferential layer by second helical layer is suggested as a new
way of strain suppressing among the commonly used ways for strain suppressing such as (1) addition of extra plies and (2) use of
composite material with a higher sti€ness. Numerical results and graphics are given to obtain optimum laminate con®gura-
tion. Ó 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Design; Composite material; Pressure vessel; Winding process; Sti€ness; Strength constraint; Stress±strain analysis; Laminate parameters;
Layer thickness; Fiber orientation; Graphical presentation; Optimization procedure

1. Introduction
Cylindrical pressure vessels are widely used for
commercial and aerospace applications. The use of
composite materials improves the performance of the
vessel and o€ers a signi®cant amount of material sav-
ings. Usually composite pressure vessels are designed for
minimum mass under strength constraints. However, for
special applications (e.g., solid propellant motor cases)
they should also satisfy sti€ness constraints. As follows
from calculation, pressure vessels made of aramid
composites change their dimensions up to 2.4% under
ultimate load, which often is not allowed.
As known, ®ber reinforced composites have high
strength and low sti€ness as compared to metals. As a
rule, composites do not combine high strength and
sti€ness, and usually composites that have relatively
high strength possess low sti€ness. As follows from
Table 1, composite materials outperform graphite and
boron composite materials in strength, but fall short in
sti€ness. So, the composite material which can meet
both strength and sti€ness constraints is usually not
available, and hybrid composites should be used for this
purpose. Characteristics of typical composite materials
that may be used as components of hybrid materials are
listed in Table 1.
*
Present address: 19-3-255, Shosseinaya Str., 109548 Moscow,
Russia.
E-mail address: akrikan@openmail.irex.ru (A.A. Krikanov)
There are two commonly used ways for strain sup-
pressing such as (1) addition of extra plies and (2) use of
composite with a higher sti€ness.
Usually a …u; 90°† laminate is used in ®lament
wound pressure vessel technology. Helical plies form
geodetic domes and the circumferential layer is added to
reinforce the cylindrical part of the vessel [1], as shown
in Fig. 1.
Optimum design of graphite/epoxy pressure vessels
using lamination parameters was considered in paper
[2], however, the fact that helical plies should form the
domes of the vessel made by ®lament winding was not
taken into account. This condition was allowed for in
paper [3], where a numerical algorithm for pressure
vessel optimization was proposed. In the present paper,
analytical optimization in conjunction with graphical
representation of the results is developed to determine
lamination parameters of composite pressure vessels
under sti€ness and strength constraints.
2. Experimental study
To support the simpli®ed material model used to
develop a design procedure, experimental study of
pressure vessels made of hybrid composite materials
was performed. The vessels had the following param-
eters: R ˆ 0:2 m ± radius of a cylindrical part;
r0 ˆ 0:07 m ± radius of the polar opening (the same for
both domes); Lc ˆ 0:37 m ± cylinder length;

0263-8223/00/$ - see front matter Ó 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 3 - 8 2 2 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 8 3 - 5
120 A.A. Krikanov / Composite Structures 48 (2000) 119±127

Table 1
Properties of unidirectional epoxy compositesa
Fibers r (GPa) E (GPa) e (%) hp (mm) q (g/cm3 ) r=q†  106
… …E=q†  106 gp (kg/m2 )
(m2 /s2 ) (m2 /s2 )
Aramid 1.8 75 2.4 0.33 1.3 1.38 57.7 0.43
Graphite 1.4 135 1.04 0.30 1.5 0.93 90 0.45
Boron 1.5 150 1.0 0.35 2.1 0.714 71.4 0.735
a
Here, r is the tensile strength along the ®bers, E the longitudinal modulus, e ˆ r=E the ultimate strain along the ®bers, hp an elementary ply
thickness, and q is the density; gp ˆ hp q.

pR
E1 ˆ ;
2h1 cos2 u1 …ex cos2 u1 ‡ ey sin2 u1 †
…1†
pR
E2 ˆ …2 ÿ tg2 u1 †:
2h2 ey
Indices 1 and 2 correspond to helical and hoop layers,
respectively. Experimental dependences of axial and
hoop strains on intensity of internal pressure are shown
in Fig. 3 for three types of pressure vessels (see Table 2).
Moduli E1 and E2 obtained with the aid of Fig. 3 and
Eqs. (1) are compared with the corresponding values Ei
Fig. 1. Cylindrical pressure vessel.
determined from the data given in Table 1. For the layer
made of hybrid composite material, longitudinal mod-
ulus is determined using the mixture rule as follows:
Ei0 h0i ‡ Ei00 h00i
Ei ˆ …i ˆ 1; 2†; …2†
hi
where hi ˆ h0i ‡ h00i is the total thickness of the ith layer,
Ei0 ; Ei00 are longitudinal moduli of components presented
in Table 1. Three types of experimental pressure vessels
shown in Table 2 were studied. Comparison of results
obtained with the aid of Eqs. (1) and (2) is given in Table
3. As follows from Table 3, there exists fair agreement
between elastic constants Ei obtained with the aid of the
mixture rule (2) and experimental results. It may be also
seen that neglecting transverse and shear sti€ness of the
ply and taking into account only longitudinal sti€ness
we do not induce a signi®cant error, and such a sim-
pli®ed material model may be used for the purpose of
design.

Fig. 2. Experimental pressure vessel.

3. Problem formulation

Lv ˆ 0:645 m ± total vessel length. An experimental
pressure vessel is shown in Fig. 2. The vessels were
made of a combination of aramid, graphite, and boron
composites and had similar laminate con®guration ±
two symmetric 21° sets of helical plies and four hoop
plies. The vessels were loaded with internal pressure p,
and the polar openings of the domes were closed.
Strain gauges were used to measure axial ex and cir-
cumferential ey strains. Knowing the vessel structure
(thickness hi and orientation angle ui of each layer) and
measuring strains ex ; ey under the given pressure p, the
experimental modulus along the ®ber of each layer may
be found using the following equations:
Consider a laminated cylindrical pressure vessel
loaded with internal pressure p as shown in Fig. 1. We
assume that the vessel consists of two angle-ply layers.
The ®rst layer has thickness h1 and is formed by sym-
metric ®lament winding under angle u1 which is
known, because the preassigned radius of the polar
opening should satisfy Clairaut's equation for geodetic
winding
r01 ˆ R sin u1 : …3†
The second layer is an arbitrary angle-ply laminate
characterized with thickness h2 and angle u2 . The
design parameters for the vessel under study are h1 ; h2
 A.A. Krikanov / Composite Structures 48 (2000) 119±127 121

Fig. 3. Axial (a) and hoop (b) strains via pressure p for three types of pressure vessels (see Table 2).

Table 2
Vessel structure
Vessel no.
1 2 3
Thickness of aramid plies, mm Helical 1.32 0.44 1.32
Hoop
0.66 0.44 0.66
Thickness of graphite plies, mm Helical ± 0.80 ±
Hoop
0.60 0.80 ±
Thickness of boron plies, mm Helical ± ± ±
Hoop
± ± 0.70

Table 3
Moduli along ®bers for helical and hoop layers
Vessel no. 1 2 3
Modulus Ei Ei Ei Ei Ei Ei
Helical …i ˆ 1† layer, GPa 60 58.9 87 86 60 55.8
Hoop …i ˆ 2† layer, GPa 79 71.6 87 87 98 97.5

and u2 . The objective function whose minimum is re- pR X 2 X

2

quired is the minimum mass of a cylindrical part of the ˆ hi ri cos2 ui ; pR ˆ hi ri sin2 ui : …6†
2 iˆ1 iˆ1
vessel
For the pressure vessel, the laminate is assumed to be
X
2
symmetric with respect to the mid-surface and balanced
G ˆ 2pRLc hi qi ! min : …4†
iˆ1
to satisfy the equation Nxy ˆ 0. Constitutive equation
for a ply yields
Here qi is ith layer density. Axial and hoop stress re- ri ˆ E i e i …i ˆ 1; 2†: …7†
sultants shown in Fig. 1 are as follows:
Here, ei may be expressed in terms of axial and hoop
Nx ˆ pR=2; Ny ˆ pR; Nxy ˆ 0: …5† strains of the vessel, i.e.,
ei ˆ ex cos2 ui ‡ ey sin2 ui ; …8†
Since we neglect transverse and shear sti€nesses of the
ply, these stress resultants may be expressed in terms of where ex ˆ DL=L; ey ˆ DR=R: Strength constraints for
stresses along the ®bers as the vessel under design are
122 A.A. Krikanov / Composite Structures 48 (2000) 119±127

ri 6 ri ; …9† ppR2 3 sin2 u2 ÿ 2

r1 ˆ cos u1 :
where ri is the ith layer tensile strength along the ®bers. A sin2 u2 ÿ sin2 u1
The strain constraints are imposed on axial and cir- And ®nally using this equation to eliminate A from (16)
cumferential strains that should be lower than the al- we have the following constraint:
lowable strains ex ; ey , i.e.,
…3 sin2 u2 ÿ 2† cos u1
ex 6 ex ; ey 6 ey : …10† r1 6 r1 p 3 ; …17†
D sin u2
The objective is to ®nd layer thicknesses h1 and h2 and
®ber orientation u2 satisfying constraints (9) and (10) where D ˆ sin u22 ÿ sin2 u1 . As may be seen, constraint
and providing the minimum value of the vessel mass (4). (17) is more strict than (9) for i ˆ 1, and reduces to (9)
For pressure vessels made by ®lament winding there for u2 ˆ 90° only. So, if there are no constraints on
exists the additional constraint on the strength of the sti€ness, the minimum mass of a pressure vessel is
®rst layer …u1 † that forms the domes. To establish this reached for u2 ˆ 90°, which is traditional for ®lament
constraint, assume that geodetic domes are formed by wound pressure vessels [1]. However, design under
two layers. The ®rst layer providing the polar opening sti€ness constraints (10) can give a di€erent result. To
with radius r01 is overlapped with the second layer for show this transform, the foregoing equations introduce
r02 6 r 6 R, where the following parameters: gi ˆ hi qi which is the mass per
unit area and ai ˆ ri =qi ; Ki ˆ Ei =qi which are normal-
r02 ˆ R sin u2 : …11† ized stress and modulus of the ith layer. Then, Eqs. (4)±
If u2 ˆ 90°, we get traditional isotensoid dome formed (10) may be written in the following explicit form:
with the ®rst layer only. The strength of this dome is g ˆ G=2pRLc ˆ g1 ‡ g2 ! min; …18†
provided if the corresponding constraint for the cylin-
drical part is satis®ed. However, for the case u2 < 90°, pR
ˆ a1 g1 cos2 u1 ‡ a2 g2 cos2 u2 ;
we have a two layered dome and need to write an ad- 2 …19†
ditional strength constraint for r ˆ r02 , i.e., at the dome pR ˆ a1 g1 sin2 u1 ‡ a2 g2 sin2 u2 ;
cross section where the pressure is taken by the ®rst
layer only. This constraint may be written as [1] a1
ˆ ex cos2 u1 ‡ ey sin2 u1 ;
pr02 K1
r1 cos2 u…r02 † P
h1 …r02 † : …12† a2 …20†
2 ˆ ex cos2 u2 ‡ ey sin2 u2 ;
K2
Here, in accordance with Eqs. (3) and (11)
sin2 u1 a1 6 a1 ; 0 < a2 6 a2 ; …21†
cos2 u…r02 † ˆ 1 ÿ ; …13†
sin2 u2 ex 6 ex ; ey 6 ey ; …22†
where u1 and u2 are the angles of the ®rst and second where
layers on the cylindrical part of the vessel. Thickness h1
entering Eq. (12) may be expressed in terms of A which …3 sin2 u2 ÿ 2† cos u1
a1 ˆ a1 p : …23†
is the total area of the ®ber's cross sections in the vessel sin3 u2 D
cross section A solution with respect to normalized stresses and
A strains yields
h1 …r† ˆ : …14†
2pr cos u…r† pR 3 sin2 u2 ÿ 2
a 1 g1 ˆ ;
It is important to note, that for continuous ®lament 2 D …24†
winding, A is one and the same for all cross sections of pR 2 ÿ 3 sin2 u1
the vessel. Particularly, for the cylindrical part, we get a 2 g2 ˆ ;
2 D
A  
h1 ˆ : …15† 1 a1 a2
2pR cos u1 ex ˆ sin2 u2 ÿ sin2 u1 ;
D K1 K2
Now transform constraint (9) for i ˆ 1 with the aid of   …25†
1 a2 2 a1 2
constraint (12). First, using Eqs. (3), (11), (13) and (14) ey ˆ cos u1 ÿ cos u2 :
D K2 K1
we may write (12) as
s Because ai gi P 0 for a pressure vessel, using Eqs. (24) we
Ar1 sin2 u pR2 get
1ÿ 2 1P sin u2 : …16†
2p sin u2 sin u2 2 0° 6 u1 6 54:7°; 54:8° 6 u2 6 90°: …26†
Solving Eqs. (6) for r1 and changing h1 for A with the Using Eqs. (18) and (24) to express g1 and g2 the vessel
aid of Eq. (15) we arrive at mass may be expressed as
 A.A. Krikanov / Composite Structures 48 (2000) 119±127 123
 
pR 3 sin2 u2 ÿ 2 2 ÿ 3 sin2 u1
g ˆ g1 ‡ g 2 ˆ ‡ : …27†
2D a1 a2
Thus, to design a pressure vessel, we should ®nd orien-
tation angle of the second layer u2 , two normalized layer
thicknesses g1 ; g2 and determine the type of composite
material for each layer.

4. Graphical analysis

To analyze the problem, particularly, to ®nd out

which constraints are active, consider its graphical pre-
sentation. There are seven unknown variables, a1 ; a2 ; ex ;
ey ; g1 ; g2 ; u2 , connected with four Eqs. (19) and (20),
which allow us to arrive at the problem with three un-
known variables, e.g., g1 ; g2 ; u2 .
Expressing normalized stresses a1 ; a2 in terms of
normalized thicknesses g1 ; g2 , with the aid of Eqs. (24),
substituting them into strength constraints (21) we ob- Fig. 4. Graphical presentation of the design problem on g1 ±g2 plane
tain for hoop strain constraint ey 6 1% (a) and axial strain constraint
ex 6 1% (b).
pR sin3 u2 pR 2 ÿ 3 sin2 u1
g1 P p ; g2 P : …28†
2
a1 cos u1 D 2
a2 D and calculating g1 ‡ g2 for all u2 values and determining
Similarly, substituting a1 and a2 from Eqs. (24) into Eqs. u2 for which g1 ‡ g2 acquires the minimum value we
(25) we may write sti€ness constraints (22) as may construct the optimal structure. For the case under
study, we get u2 ˆ 75° and g1 ‡ g2 ˆ 18.8 kg/m2 (this
b 2 g1 b4 g1
g2 6 ; g2 6 ; …29† case is shown in Fig. 4a).
b1 ÿ ex g1 b3 ‡ ey g1 The similar case when the ®rst layer is made of ar-
where amid ®bers and second one of graphite ®bers has the
optimum solution which is also located at the intersec-
pR …3 sin2 u2 ÿ 2† sin2 u2 tion of the boundary lines of two constraints a1 6 a1 and
b1 ˆ ;
2K1 D2 ey 6 ey . Minimum mass g ˆ 14 kg/m2 is attained at an
pR …2 ÿ 3 sin2 u1 † sin2 u1 angle of 90°.
b2 ˆ ; The case of constraint imposed on axial strain only,
2K2 D2
i.e., ex 6 1% is presented in Fig. 4b, for a vessel made of
pR …3 sin2 u2 ÿ 2† cos2 u2 aramid/epoxy composite. The local optimum corre-
b3 ˆ ; sponds to the point of intersection of boundaries of two
2K1 D2
constraints a1 6 a1 and ex 6 ex , or a1 6 a1 and a2 6 a2 .
pR …2 ÿ 3 sin2 u1 † cos2 u1
b4 ˆ : The minimum mass g ˆ 12:5 kg/m2 corresponds to the
2K2 D2 point at which the three constraints are active, i.e.,
To perform graphical analysis on the plane, assume that a1 ˆ a1 ; ex ˆ ex and a2 ˆ a2 . The corresponding opti-
angle u2 is given, and there is only one sti€ness con- mum angle is equal to 62°.
straint, e.g. that imposed on the hoop strain ey . Then, As follows from the graphical analysis, for a given
constraints (28) and (29) may be presented on the g1 ±g2 angle u2 , the minimum mass is determined under the
plane, as in Fig. 4. All examples below are made for p ˆ condition of two actively ful®lled constraints. It permits
10 MPa, R ˆ 1 m and r01 ˆ 0:5 m. The shaded area to obtain two additional equations to ®nd the optimum
represents the feasible region of the laminate parameters solution.
g1 ; g2 . The objective function (18) is shown with a
straight line g1 ‡ g2 ˆ const. The closer it is to the origin
of coordinates g1 ; g2 , the less is the vessel mass. The 5. Analytical optimization
diagram shown in Fig. 4a corresponds to constraint
ey 6 1% for pressure vessel made of aramid/epoxy com- It is important that the active constraints may be used
posite. The local optimum corresponds to the point of in the form of equality. This allows us to construct an-
intersection of boundaries of two constraints a1 6 a1 and alytical optimization procedures which are described
ey 6 ey . Constraint a2 6 a2 is not active. Varying angle u2 below in three subsections.
124 A.A. Krikanov / Composite Structures 48 (2000) 119±127

5.1. Circumferential strain constraint

Consider the vessel whose hoop strain is restricted

while the axial strain is arbitrary. As follows from Fig.
4a, two constraints are active, i.e.,
a1 ˆ a1 ; ey ˆ ey : …30†
a1
Putting a1 ˆ into Eq. (27) and substituting a1 with the
aid of Eq. (23) we obtain
p !
pR sin3 u2 D 2 ÿ 3 sin2 u1
gˆ ‡ : …31†
2D a1 cos u1 a2

The unknown normalized stress a2 and axial strain ex

may be found from Eqs. (20). Taking into account Eqs.
(30) we get
a2 ˆ K2 …ex cos2 u2 ‡ ey sin2 u2 †;
 
ex ˆ a1 =K1 ÿ ey sin2 u1 = cos2 u1 :

Substituting these equations into (31) we arrive at the

following expression for the vessel mass:
" ,
pR y3 pR 2
gˆ p ‡ …2 ÿ 3 sin u1 †
2
a1 cos u1 D 2K2
( p )# …32†
e1 …3y 2 ÿ 2† D…1 ÿ y 2 † ey …D†2
‡ ;
y 3 cos u1 cos2 u1

where y ˆ sin u2 and e1 ˆ a1 =K1 is the ultimate tensile

strain along the ®bers of the ®rst layer. Variation of
vessel mass with u2 for di€erent values of ey is shown in
Fig. 5. The curves correspond to the vessel made of
aramid/epoxy composite material. As may be seen, for
relatively high values ey P ey the minimum vessel mass
corresponds to u2 ˆ 90°, while for ey < ey the optimum
angle is less than 90°. The boundary value ey may be
found from the condition dg=dy ˆ 0 for y ˆ 1, where
the expression of g is taken from Eq. (32). Omitting
cumbersome calculations we arrive at
 r
 a1 K2
ey ˆ 2 1ÿ 1ÿ :
K2 2K1
If both layers are made of one and the same composite
material (K1 ˆ K2 ˆ K), then
p
ey ˆ …2 ÿ 2†e ˆ 0:586e:
For aramid/epoxy composite, which has allowable ten-
sile strain e ˆ 2:4% (Table 1), we obtain ey ˆ 1:4%. So, if
ey P 1:4%, the optimum angle of the second layer
u2opt ˆ 90°. If ey < 1:4% the optimum angle u2opt < 90°
and its value may be found from equation dg=dy ˆ 0,
which is too cumbersome to be presented here.
The proper type of a composite material for each
layer is determined by the trial-and-error method. De-
pendence of the minimum mass on allowable hoop
strain ey is shown in Fig. 6. Curve 1 corresponds to the
Fig. 5. Dependence of the pressure vessel mass g on orientation angle
u2 for various values of allowable hoop strain ey : 1 ± ey P 2:4%, 2 ±
ey 6 2%, 3 ± ey 6 1:5%, 4 ± ey 6 1%, 5 ± ey 6 0:8%, 6 ± ey 6 0:5%.
vessel with both layers made of aramid composite ma-
terial, while curve 2 corresponds to the vessel whose ®rst
layer is the same and the second layer is made of
graphite ®bers. As may be seen, for ey < 1:6% we should
change aramid ®bers of the second layer for graphite
®bers.
5.2. Axial strain constraint
Consider the vessel whose axial strain is restricted,
while the hoop strain is arbitrary. As follows from the
foregoing graphical analysis (Section 4), two sets of
constraints may be active, i.e.,
a1 ˆ a1 ; a2 ˆ a2 …33†
or
a2 ˆ a2 ; ex ˆ ex : …34†
Substituting a2 from (33) into Eq. (31) we obtain the
dependence of vessel mass on angle u2 , which is pre-
sented in Fig. 7 (curve 1). To allow for conditions (34)
and using Eq. (27) we have
 A.A. Krikanov / Composite Structures 48 (2000) 119±127 125

Fig. 6. Dependence of minimum mass g on allowable hoop strain for

aramid±aramid/epoxy composite (1) and aramid±graphite/epoxy
composite (2).
Fig. 7. Dependence of vessel mass g on angle u2 for various values of
allowable axial strain: 1 ± ex P 2:4%, 2 ± ex 6 2%, 3 ± ex 6 1:5%, 4 ±
 
pR 3 sin2 u2 ÿ 2 2 ÿ 3 sin2 u1 ex 6 1%.
g ˆ g1 ‡ g 2 ˆ ‡ : …35†
2D a1 a2
a1 and x ˆ sin2 u2 . Using Eqs. (20) and
where ka ˆ a1 =
The unknown stress a1 may be found from Eqs. (20). (37) we have
Taking into account Eqs. (34) we obtain
1
K1 ka ˆ …ex cos2 u1 ‡ ey sin2 u1 †;
a1 ˆ …e2 cos2 u1 ÿ ey D†; e1 …39†
cos2 u2 ey ˆ ‰e2 ÿ ex …1 ÿ x†Š=x:
where e2 ˆ a2 =K2 is the ultimate tensile strain along the
Substituting these equations into (38) we arrive at the
®bers of the second layer. Substituting a1 into (35) we
following biquadratic equation:
arrive at the following expression for the vessel mass:
" # Ax4 ‡ Bx3 ‡ Cx2 ‡ Dx ‡ E ˆ 0; …40†
pR …3 sin2 u2 ÿ 2† cos2 u2 2 ÿ 3 sin2 u1
gˆ ‡ : …36† where
2D K1 …e2 cos2 u1 ÿ ey D† a2
A ˆ e2x ; B ˆ ex …2e2 ÿ 3ex † sin2 u1 ;
Variation of the vessel mass with u2 is shown in Fig. 7
C ˆ …e2 ÿ ex †…e2 ÿ 3ex † sin4 u1 ÿ 9e21 cos2 u1 ;
(curves 2±4, which correspond to di€erent values of ex
2
for the vessel made of aramid/epoxy composite). As may D ˆ 12e21 cos2 u1 ÿ …e2 ÿ ex † sin6 u1 ;
be seen from Fig. 7, the broken segments of the lines
E ˆ ÿ4e21 cos2 u1 :
correspond to the vessel that does not meet the strength
constraint for the ®rst layer. The minimum mass of the Conditions (26) provide the following limits for the
vessel is accomplished at the points of intersections of roots of Eq. (40): 2=3 < x 6 1. Eq. (40) may be solved
curve 1 and curves 2±4. At each point of intersection approximately supposing that sin u2 is close to unity.
three constraints are active, i.e., Substituting x ˆ 1 ÿ 2 Dx, where Dx  1, into Eq. (40)
and neglecting higher power of Dx we ®nd
a1 ˆ a1 ; ex ˆ ex ; a2 ˆ a2 : …37†
7A ‡ 5B ‡ 3C ‡ D ÿ E
The optimum angle of the second layer is determined sin u2 ˆ : …41†
8A ‡ 6B ‡ 4C ‡ 2D
from Eq. (23), which can be reduced to the form
2
As an example, consider a vessel made of aramid com-
ka2 x3 …x ÿ sin2 u1 † ÿ cos2 u1 …3x ÿ 2† ˆ 0; …38† posite material with u1 ˆ 30°. We should ®nd angle u2
126 A.A. Krikanov / Composite Structures 48 (2000) 119±127

providing the minimum of the vessel mass. If there is

only axial strain constraint ex 6 2%, then using Eq. (41)
we obtain sin u2 ˆ 0:9581, and u2 ˆ 73°220 (the exact
solution of Eq. (40) is sin u2 ˆ 0:9489; u2 ˆ 72°) and
the minimum mass is g ˆ 11:4 kg/m2 which corresponds
to the point of intersection of curves 1 and 2 in Fig. 7. If
the allowable axial strain is ex ˆ 1:5%, then using ap-
proximate solution (41) we have sin u2 ˆ 0:9384 and
u2 ˆ 69°470 (the exact solution of Eq. (40) gives
sin u2 ˆ 0:9093; u2 ˆ 65:7°) and g ˆ 12 kg/m2 which
corresponds to the point of interaction of curves 1 and 3.
Dependence of the optimum angle u2 on allowable axial
strain is shown in Fig. 8, from which we may conclude
that the less the axial allowable strain is, the less is the
optimum angle.
Dependence of vessel mass g on the allowable axial
strain ex is shown in Fig. 9. Curve 1 corresponds to the
minimum vessel mass with optimum angle u2 found
from Eq. (40). Curve 2 corresponds to the traditional
pressure vessel with u2 ˆ 90°. As can be seen, consid-
erable mass may be saved if we change u2 from 90° to
the optimum value. This method to save the mass is
more ecient than that of implying the introduction of a Fig. 9. Dependence of vessel mass on axial allowable strain ex : 1 ±
more sti€ material. For example, if we change aramid aramid/epoxy composite for both layers and u2 ˆ u2opt ; 2 ± aramid/
epoxy composite for both layers and u2 ˆ 90°; 3 ± graphite ®bers for
®bers of the ®rst layer for graphite ®bers with higher the ®rst layer and aramid ®bers for the second layer and u2 ˆ 90°.
sti€ness and use traditional orientation of the second
layer (u2 ˆ 90°), we arrive at curve 3 in Fig. 9.
It should be noted that the allowable axial strain may and 5.2. To design a pressure vessel with two sti€ness
be zero or negative. The minimum value of ex follows constraints in this case, we impose only one of them, e.g.,
from the ®rst Eq. (25) ey 6 ey , use the procedure described in Section 5.1, and
check whether the second constraint (ex 6 ex ) is satis®ed.
a2 =K2 sin2 u1 If this is the case, the problem is solved. If this constraint
ex min ˆ ÿ :
…2=3 ÿ sin2 u1 † is violated, we try another case and design the pressure
vessel under constraint ex 6 ex using the procedure de-
For the foregoing example ex min ˆ ÿ1:43%.
scribed in Section 5.2 and check whether the second
constraint (ey 6 ey ) is satis®ed. In case it is, the problem is
5.3. Axial and hoop strain constraints solved. However, it can occur that the foregoing opti-
mization procedures fail to provide both constraints.
Consider the case of simultaneous restriction of axial This means that they are active and may be written as
ex 6 ex and hoop ey 6 ey strains. It should be emphasized
ex ˆ ex ; ey ˆ ey : …42†
that usually only one of these constraints is active, and
we return to one of the cases discussed in Sections 5.1 To allow for conditions (42) we change ex and ey for ex
and ey in Eqs. (20) and substitute, thus obtained, stresses
a1 and a2 into Eq. (27). We arrive at the following ex-
pression:
"
pR 3 sin2 u2 ÿ 2
gˆ
2D K1 …ex cos2 u1 ‡ ey sin2 u1 †
#
2 ÿ 3 sin2 u1
‡ : …43†
K2 …ex cos2 u2 ‡ ey sin2 u2 †

Dependence of vessel mass g on angle u2 is presented in

Fig. 10 (curves 2±4 which correspond to various values
of allowable axial strain ex and ey ˆ 1:2%). As may be
Fig. 8. Dependence of optimum angle u2 on axial allowable strain ex . seen from Fig. 10, the less u2 is, the less is the vessel
 A.A. Krikanov / Composite Structures 48 (2000) 119±127 127

Table 4
Laminate con®guration under axial and hoop constraints
ex (%) ua2 (°) ue2 (°) g (kg/m2 )
2.3 71.7 70 17.3
2.0 69.5 66 18.1
1.6 67.9 62.8 19.6

5 cos2 u1 ÿ ka2 …1 ‡ 2 cos2 u1 †

Fig. 10. Dependence of the vessel mass g on angle u2 for allowable
hoop strain ey 6 1:2% and various values of allowable axial strain: 1 ±
ex P 2:4%, 2 ± ex 6 2:3%, 3 ± ex 6 2:0%, 4 ± ex 6 1:6%.
mass. However, the minimum allowed value of u2 may
be limited by the strength constraints. As follows from
the analysis of these constraints, condition a1 6 a1 can
be violated in this case and should be used instead of
constraint ex 6 ex . Thus, we arrive at the case studied in
Section 5.1 and speci®ed by conditions (30). The vessel
mass is determined in this case by Eq. (32) which allows
us to plot the limiting curve 1 in Fig. 10. The minimum
vessel mass is achieved at the points of intersections of
curve 1 and curves 2±4. At each point of interaction
three constraints are active, i.e., a1 ˆ a1 ; ex ˆ ex and
ey ˆ ey . To determine the minimum allowable angle u2
we should equate the right-hand parts of Eqs. (32) and
(43) and arrive at the biquadratic equation (40) with x ˆ
sin2 u2 and the following coecients:
1 2
Aˆ …ex cos2 u1 ‡ ey sin2 u1 † ;
e21 …44†
2
B ˆ ÿA sin u1 ;
C ˆ ÿ9 cos2 u1 ; D ˆ 12 cos2 u1 ; E ˆ ÿ4 cos2 u1 :
Conditions (26) provide the following limits for the
roots of Eq. (40): 2=3 < x 6 1. It should be noted that
Eq. (40) may be solved approximately supposing that
sin u2 is close to unity. Omitting calculations we get the
following expression:
sin2 u2 ˆ ; …45†
6 cos2 u1 ÿ ka2 …1 ‡ 3 cos2 u1 †
where ka ˆ …1=e1 †…ex cos2 u1 ‡ ey sin2 u1 †. As an exam-
ple, consider a vessel made of aramid composite mate-
rial. Let u1 ˆ 30° and allowable hoop strain ey ˆ 1:2%.
Results of calculation of optimum angle u2 using Eq.
(45) (approximate solution) and Eq. (40) with coe-
cients from Eqs. (44) (exact solution) for di€erent values
of allowable axial strain are listed in Table 4. A follows
from comparison of ue2 with ua2 with the di€erence not
more than 5°.
6. Conclusion
As follows from the foregoing analysis, restriction of
deformation for the pressure vessel with traditional
structure consisting of a helical layer forming the vessel
domes and a hoop layer reinforcing the vessel's cylin-
drical part may be performed in two possible optimal
ways. If the axial strain of the vessel is restricted, the
hoop layer should be transformed in the helical layer
with a proper angle u2 . If the hoop strain is restricted,
the best way is to change the material of the hoop layer
for one with higher sti€ness. If both strains are re-
stricted, both ways may be used.
References
[1] Vasiliev VV, Mechanics of Composite Structures. London: Taylor
and Francis, 1993:401±5.
[2] Fukunaga H, Chou TW. Simpli®ed design techniques for laminat-
ed cylindrical pressure vessels under sti€ness and strength con-
straints. J Composite Mater 1988;22:1156±69.
[3] Krikanov AA, Soni SR. Minimum weight design of pressure vessel
with constraints on sti€ness and strength. In: Proceedings of the
10th ASC Technical Conference on Composite Materials, Santa
Monica, CA, 1995:107±13.