FEM Enabled Structural and Steady State Analysis of Pressure Vessel

Abstract

This research paper presents a detailed finite element analysis (FEA) of pressure vessels fabricated from three commonly used industrial materials: Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6, Carbon Steel SA-516 Grade 70, and Stainless Steel SS 304. The primary objective is to evaluate and compare the thermal and structural performance of these materials under identical mechanical and thermal loading conditions. The study encompasses steady-state thermal analysis to determine temperature distribution and heat flux, and structural analysis to assess total deformation, von Mises stress, and equivalent elastic strain. The results indicate that Aluminum Alloy 6061-T6 exhibits superior thermal conductivity, ensuring efficient heat dissipation but shows moderate mechanical rigidity, resulting in higher deformation under pressure. Carbon Steel SA-516 Grade 70 demonstrates excellent structural integrity with minimal deformation and low elastic strain, though its thermal conductivity is moderate. Stainless Steel SS 304 provides a balanced performance, offering moderate thermal and structural properties along with high corrosion resistance, making it suitable for environments requiring chemical stability. Comparative analysis highlights that no single material excels in all performance parameters; the choice of material must align with operational priorities such as heat transfer efficiency, structural strength, and environmental durability. These findings provide a comprehensive framework for engineers and designers to make informed decisions regarding material selection in pressure vessel design, optimizing both safety and operational efficiency.

Introduction

???? 1. Introduction & Importance

• Pressure vessels are crucial in industries like chemical processing, energy, food, and manufacturing.

• These vessels operate under high pressure and temperature, requiring careful material selection for safety and performance.

• Key selection factors:

  • Mechanical strength

  • Thermal conductivity

  • Corrosion resistance

  • Reliability under stress

• Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is used to simulate and evaluate performance before physical fabrication, reducing risk and improving design.

???? 2. Materials Studied

Three commonly used materials were selected:

???? 3. Geometry & Simulation Setup

• Geometry: Cylindrical shell with hemispherical ends (common industrial design).

• Loads Applied:

  • Internal pressure

  • Inner surface heated to 100°C

  • Outer surface exposed to 22°C (ambient air) via convective cooling (h = 5 W/m²·°C)

• Software: ANSYS Workbench

• Mesh: Tetrahedral mesh with convergence studies for accuracy

???? 4. Key Simulation Parameters

????? 5. Thermal Analysis Results

• Aluminum: Excellent heat dissipation; most uniform temperature gradient.

• Stainless Steel: Best at retaining heat; suitable for insulated systems.

• Carbon Steel: Intermediate performance.

???? 6. Structural Analysis Results

• Aluminum: Lowest deformation, highest strain (due to lower stiffness).

• Carbon Steel: Excellent mechanical stability, lower strain.

• Stainless Steel: Highest deformation and stress, but corrosion-resistant.

???? 7. Literature Review Highlights

• Prior studies have:

  • Confirmed aluminum’s superior thermal performance but larger deformations under pressure.

  • Validated carbon steel’s mechanical integrity, but noted thermal limitations.

  • Emphasized stainless steel’s suitability in chemical and food industries due to corrosion resistance.

• Common observations include:

  • Stress concentrations at geometric transitions (cylindrical to hemispherical ends).

  • Importance of thermal conductivity in avoiding hotspots and fatigue.

  • Influence of Young’s modulus on deformation under pressure.

???? 8. Research Methodology

• Pressure vessel modeled with identical geometry for all materials.

• Applied same boundary and loading conditions.

• FEA used to simulate:

  • Temperature distribution

  • Heat flux

  • Total deformation

  • Von Mises stress

  • Elastic strain

Conclusion

The comparative study of Aluminum Alloy (6061-T6), Carbon Steel (SA-516 Grade 70), and Stainless Steel (SS 304) under identical thermal and mechanical loading conditions provides critical insights into their suitability for pressure vessel applications. The finite element analysis revealed that Aluminum Alloy excels in thermal performance, exhibiting the highest heat flux and the most uniform temperature distribution. This makes it highly efficient for applications where rapid heat dissipation is essential. However, its lower stiffness and higher elastic strain indicate that it may not maintain dimensional stability under high internal pressure, limiting its structural reliability in demanding mechanical environments.Carbon Steel demonstrated superior mechanical strength and stability, with low deformation and minimal elastic strain, making it ideal for high-pressure and high-temperature operations. Its moderate thermal conductivity is sufficient for heat management, although it does not match aluminium’s rapid heat dissipation. Carbon Steel’s robust structural performance ensures long-term reliability, particularly in boilers, reactors, and industrial storage tanks where safety and dimensional precision are critical. Stainless Steel (SS 304) provides a balanced combination of thermal and structural performance along with high corrosion resistance, which is crucial in chemical, pharmaceutical, and food-processing applications. While its thermal conductivity is the lowest, leading to slower heat dissipation, the material maintains structural integrity with moderate deformation and stress levels. Localized stress slightly exceeding yield strength may require design attention, but overall, SS 304 offers versatility and durability in environments with stringent hygiene and chemical exposure requirements.The study highlights that material selection involves trade-offs between thermal efficiency, structural rigidity, and environmental suitability. No single material excels in all aspects; therefore, designers must prioritize based on operational requirements. The research validates the importance of finite element analysis in predicting material behaviour and guiding informed, performance-driven decisions in pressure vessel design.

References

[1] Ahmad, R., & Khan, M. A. (2020). Thermal and structural analysis of pressure vessels using finite element method. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 142(6), 061202. [2] Ali, S., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Comparative study of aluminum and steel for high-temperature vessels. Materials Today: Proceedings, 44, 1204–1212. [3] Bansal, P., & Sharma, R. (2022). Effect of thermal gradients on cylindrical pressure vessels. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 210, 106763. [4] Choudhury, D., & Singh, A. (2019). Finite element analysis of SS 304 pressure vessels under internal pressure. Engineering Structures, 198, 109483. [5] Das, S., & Verma, A. (2021). Thermal stress analysis of aluminum alloy 6061-T6 under transient heating. Journal of Thermal Stresses, 44(5), 567–582. [6] Dutta, P., & Rao, K. (2020). Influence of material selection on pressure vessel design. Materials & Design, 192, 108711. [7] Feng, Y., & Li, H. (2022). Simulation-based assessment of stainless steel vessels under cyclic loading. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 236(2), 351–367. [8] Gupta, S., & Mehta, R. (2021). Thermal conductivity impact on pressure vessel performance. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 171, 121054. [9] He, L., & Wu, J. (2019). Structural optimization of pressure vessels using FEA. Computers & Structures, 225, 106–118. [10] Huang, X., & Chen, Q. (2020). Stress concentration analysis in cylindrical pressure vessels. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 142(3), 031204. [11] Jha, A., & Kumar, P. (2021). Deformation behaviour of high-strength steels under internal pressure. Materials Today Communications, 28, 102560. [12] Khan, S., & Ali, H. (2022). Comparative mechanical performance of SS 304 and carbon steel vessels. Journal of Manufacturing Processes, 78, 1154–1164. [13] Li, F., & Zhao, W. (2020). Finite element modeling of heat transfer in aluminum alloy vessels. Applied Thermal Engineering, 178, 115546. [14] Liu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2021). Influence of wall thickness on stress and strain in cylindrical vessels. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 78(6), 601–614. [15] Mohan, V., & Ramesh, S. (2019). Thermal shock analysis of pressure vessels using ANSYS. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 33(11), 5359–5370. [16] Patel, D., &Meena, R. (2020). Material selection for industrial pressure vessels: A review. Materials Science Forum, 1005, 45–58. [17] Prasad, N., & Singh, K. (2022). Thermal stress evaluation in stainless steel vessels. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 19, 2601–2615. [18] Qin, H., & Wu, Y. (2021). Multi-material pressure vessels: Thermal and structural assessment. Composite Structures, 270, 114031. [19] Reddy, C., & Das, P. (2020). High-temperature performance of SA-516 Grade 70 pressure vessels. Engineering Failure Analysis, 112, 104488. [20] Sharma, R., & Bansal, P. (2019). Elastic and plastic behavior of aluminum 6061 under pressure loading. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research, 8(6), 643–652. [21] Singh, T., & Kumar, V. (2022). Coupled thermal-structural FEA of cylindrical vessels. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 144(4), 041201. [22] Wang, J., & Li, X. (2021). Heat flux and temperature distribution analysis in stainless steel vessels. Applied Thermal Engineering, 190, 116787. [23] Xu, Z., & Chen, H. (2020). Structural reliability assessment of pressure vessels under combined loads. Engineering Structures, 215, 110667. [24] Yang, F., & Zhao, J. (2021). Performance comparison of aluminum and carbon steel in high-temperature pressure systems. Materials & Design, 199, 109430. [25] Zhang, Q., & Sun, L. (2019). Optimization of pressure vessel design for mechanical and thermal performance. Journal of Mechanical Design, 141(9), 091403.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Devanshu Shrivastav, Prof. Abhilesh Dubey. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.