i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 3 1 8 3 e1 3 1 9 2

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

700 bar type IV high pressure hydrogen storage

vessel burst e Simulation and experimental
validation

Juan Pedro Berro Ramirez a, Damien Halm a,*, Jean-Claude Grandidier a,

St
ephane Villalonga b, Fabien Nony b
a
Department Physics and Mechanics of Materials, Institute Pprime (UPR 3346), CNRS, ENSMA, Universit
e de
Poitiers, BP40109, 86961 Futuroscope Chasseneuil Cedex, France
b
CEA, DAM, Le Ripault, F-37260 Monts, France

article info abstract

Article history: The damage model described in [12,13] is used to predict the burst pressure and the burst
Received 31 October 2014 mode of type IV hyperbaric tanks for hydrogen storage. The shape of the composite shell
Received in revised form (as well as the fibre orientation at each point) ensuring the mechanical strength comes
14 May 2015 from the plug-in Wound Composite Modeler. The FE simulations are found not only to
Accepted 19 May 2015 predict the global behaviour of the vessel (radial and axial displacement when undergoing
Available online 22 July 2015 an increasing inner pressure, burst pressure value), but also the damage modes at the ply
scale. Thus, they are capable of explaining phenomena such as the non linearity due to the
Keywords: presence of a gap between the liner and the composite shell or the possible leaks due to
Wound composite vessel delamination in the dome and providing the strain level in each composite layer.
Finite element simulation Copyright © 2015, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
Burst prediction reserved.
Damage mode

pressure storage vessels [4]. Today, the use of high pressure

Introduction
Hydrogen is one of the most developed alternatives to tradi-
tional energy sources like oil and natural gases. It offers great
advantages, such as a quasi e infinite source (seas) and no
greenhouse gas emission. For more than a decade, this
way has been the focus of research and development efforts.
Hydrogen storage stays a key issue for the high scale deploy-
ment of fuel cell applications. There are different ways
to store hydrogen, such as liquid storage tanks [1], polymer
and composite foams [2], metal hydrides [3], gaseous high
vessel to store hydrogen represents the most mature tech-
nology. The four different high pressure vessels [5] developed
so far are: 1) Type I: metallic vessel; 2) Type II: thick metallic
liner hoop wrapped with a fibre e resin composite; 3) Type III:
metallic liner fully wrapped with fibre e resin composite and
4) Type IV: polymer liner fully wrapped with fibre e resin
composite. The gaseous hydrogen storage at high pressure
with type IV vessels is nowadays considered as finding an
answer to most of the technological issues. To be efficient, this
storage must be done at high pressure (above 350 bar and up to
700 bar for on-board applications). Recent developments on

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ33 5 49 49 82 31; fax: þ33 5 49 49 82 38.

E-mail address: damien.halm@ensma.fr (D. Halm).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.05.126
0360-3199/Copyright © 2015, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
13184 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 3 1 8 3 e1 3 1 9 2
700 bar type IV vessels have demonstrated very promising
results (high cycling resistance, burst pressure, hydrogen
tightness, gravimetric and volumetric storage capacities…).
To reach commercial deployments, this technology needs
research and development to cut costs and improve perfor-
mance, reliability and durability of current high pressure
vessels. The internal pressure generates high mechanical
stresses which lead to a massive use of carbon fibre. The
composite material represents from 50% to 70% of the final
cost of the vessel (Fig. 1).
An optimization of the composite mass and structure will
allow reaching a significant cost reduction of hydrogen de-
vices. An improvement of numerical simulation is needed
because today most of the research departments work with
simplified models, frequently far from the real problem
(complex lay-up and material architecture, very thick com-
posite parts…). The work presented in this paper is a part of
the OSIRHYS IV project, supported by the French Research
National Agency (ANR) through “Hydroge  ne et Piles a 
Combustible” program (HPAC program). The purpose of this
project is to clarify uncertainties and approximations of high
pressure vessel composite design and calculation. The project
is dedicated to the whole design and simulation chain. It aims
at improving material characterization, behaviour simulation
and tank design. The goal of OSIRHYS IV project is to develop
and validate models and methods for composite high pressure
design.
Facing the wide range of possibilities in the design of such
pressure vessels (materials, topology, process techniques,
composite lay-up, winding angles…), it was decided to
limit this study to a particular topology, material and
winding process. The aim of this approach is to gain in
knowledge, have a better comprehension of the behaviour
of these pressure vessels in order to figure out design rules
and effective optimization techniques in relation with
manufacturing processes. This preliminary step is pivotal
before enlarging design parameters and finally answering
industrial and economic stakes. Current simulation limita-
tions are related to different models and behaviour un-
certainties. For instance, the following aspects can be
quoted:
- The lay-up design, in particular in the end-closure revo-
lution areas (thickness evolutions [6e8], winding angle
evolutions with geodesic trajectories based on the Clairaut
equation or with non-geodesic techniques [9], layer su-
perposition, slippage parameters, …)
Fig. 1 e Cost repartition of a type IV pressure vessel (QUANTUM, USA).
- The choice of the element types in the FE models. Shell
elements are mainly suitable for analysing thin to
moderately-thick shell structures whereas solid elements
are more appropriate for accurate calculation in spite of
their more laborious use for winding mesh procedures,
which could appear to be too time consuming in the opti-
mization procedure. Another limitation concerns the ac-
curacy of axisymmetric models to faithfully simulate the
composite cyclic periodic behaviour.
- The damage models. An optimization procedure will have
to take into account all the damage mechanisms occur-
ring in the structure. Numerous damage models for
composite structures are available. For example, the
more sophisticated are based on micro-scale [10] but are
limited by their complexity and numerical cost. More-
over, macro-models [11] seem to be more appropriate for
complex and large structures but still remain to be tested
on pressure vessels.
In this paper, the results of burst simulations performed on
a type IV pressure vessel are presented. A continuum damage
model dedicated to wound composite structures [12,13] is
used to simulate accurately the material behaviour. The
pressure vessel FE model is built using the commercial soft-
ware ABAQUS. The complex wound composite geometry and
orientation, mainly in the domes, are managed by using a
specific ABAQUS subroutine (ABAQUS Wound Composite
Modeler). Two types of simulations are performed, one in a
three-dimensional framework whereas the other uses
axisymmetric elements. The goal of these two simulations is
to compare the advantages of each FE modelling, mainly in
terms of damage description and computational cost. The
specific continuum damage model used in this work is able to
simulate properly the damage state and predict not only the
burst pressure but also the safe/unsafe burst (no ejection/
ejection of metallic bosses). This damage model uses the fixed
damage directions approach to model wound composite
damage modes (fibre breakage, matrix cracking, out-of-plane
damage, shear-related damage) in the framework of the
Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes. In addition, initial
and induced anisotropy, residual shear strains and viscosity
are also taken into account. Details about this damage model
(formulation, identification) can be found in Ref. [12,13].
Its salient features are the following:
 The model is able to distinguish the different damage
modes (brittle fracture for fibres, fibreematrix interface
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 3 1 8 3 e1 3 1 9 2
and out-of-plane rupture) and the progressive degradation
due to matrix microcracking. Two additional phenomena
are incorporated in order to get a better representation of
shear behaviour: matrix viscosity and permanent shear
strain.
 It is supposed that each damage configuration is decom-
posed in a set of scalar damage variables, associated with
given directions related to orthotropy axes. The permanent
strain, due to irreversible sliding of cross-plies, and the
viscous behaviour are taken into account by specific scalar
variables.
 The tensorial functions representation theory is a guide to
build the thermodynamic potential (strain energy per unit
volume) from tensorial invariants.
 The normality rule, associated to different threshold
functions, is found to be flexible enough to simulate both
types of damage evolution (brittle and progressive) and the
permanent strain evolution. Regarding viscosity, it is
assumed to occur as soon as a shear strain is applied.
 As it is necessary to identify the model parameters from
samples representative of the pressure vessel, a specific
manufacture process has been implemented to elaborate
plates made of wound composite. Tensile tests performed
on [0 ], [0 , 90 ] and [±45 ] samples give access to the
parameters.
 In order to overcome the well-known mesh dependency
due to the use of softening damage constitutive relations, a
simple technique by delay effect (i.e., a viscous damage
evolution) has been selected. This technique can be easily
implemented in a User Material subroutine, unlike more
complex methods such as non-local models. In the present
work, a generalization of Duvaut-Lions scheme [14] has
been used in a similar way as in Ref. [15]: each “instanta-
neous” damage variable r is replaced by an equivalent
regularized one rv whose evolution is given by
r_ v ¼ 1=tðr  rv Þ, where t is a characteristic time associated
to the regularized damage. This parameter (which in-
troduces a dependence on the strain rate) has to be iden-
tified from tests performed on samples containing stress
concentrators [12,13].
This model has been validated by simulating the behaviour
of notched wound composite samples subjected to tension up
to fracture. It has been found not only to accurately predict the
Fig. 2 e Type IV pressure vessel.
13185
global mechanical response (load vs. displacement curve) but
also the local damage patterns (comparison with microg-
raphies or pictures from digital image correlation). This vali-
dation on “simple samples” is here completed by simulating
the damage mechanisms and the global mechanical behav-
iour of complex hyperbaric vessels. This paper deals with this
latter issue which is the heart of the project Osirhys IV
(comparison of simulation tools).
In a first part, the geometry of the tank is presented, as
well as the loading and the boundary conditions. The
emphasis is put on the complex winding orientation simu-
lation in the domes. The winding model is validated by
comparing the mass of the simulated structure and the
actual one. In a second part, simulations of global dis-
placements and burst pressure are carried out and
compared to experimental data. Damage maps at the ply
scale allow explaining the specific fracture modes of the
tank.
Tank finite element modelling
Geometric model
Wound pressure vessels are complex structures because (i)
they are multi material structures with a great number of in-
terfaces, (ii) they contain complex ply sequences, (iii) the
dome shape depends on thickness of the composite plies and
on their stacking sequence in the cylindrical part. The dome
strongly influences the whole structure behaviour (deforma-
tion, burst pressure, burst mode).
The inner volume of the pressure vessel of type IV at stake
is 2.5 L. It is composed of three different parts: the metallic
bosses made of 316L stainless steel, the polymeric liner (PA6)
and the carbon fibre/epoxy composite shell. Each part (or
material) has a determined function in the structure: the
metallic boss connects the structure with the outside for
refuelling operations (for example), the liner is used to ensure
the structure tightness. The composite shell has a mechanical
function: it endows the structure with thermo e mechanical
strength. Fig. 2 represents a schematization of this type of
vessel.
Burst tests on tanks have been performed, according to
Fig. 2. Two burst modes may occur:
13186 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 3 1 8 3 e1 3 1 9 2
 A safe mode: failure appears in cylindrical part and the
metallic bosses go inwards the tank. This kind of burst is
due to fibre breakage in circumferential plies. Other com-
posite damage modes as matrix cracking and delamination
have a little influence on this burst mode. This failure is
characterized by a brutal decrease of the axial displace-
ment measured on the tank, after the maximum
displacement point is reached.
 An unsafe mode: there is a metallic boss ejection due to
failure in a dome. The cause of this type of structural fail-
ure is the fibre breakage of helical plies but the contribution
of other damages modes, mainly matrix cracking, can be
determinant to change the burst mode from safe to unsafe
due to fibres overload. To simulate correctly this type of
failure, a full description of all damage modes is needed.
Fig. 3 displays typical examples for both modes.
Five tanks have been tested up to burst. The burst mode is
safe for each tank. The mean value of burst pressure is
1750 bar and the standard deviation is 27 bar.
The input data for the FEA computations are the di-
mensions of the liner and of the metallic bosses (320 mm
between the two boss ends and an outer diameter of 114 mm
for the liner). From this geometry, the composite shell has
been modelled by using the Wound Composite Modeler
(WCM) plug-in of ABAQUS software. The geometry of the
composite shell is automatically generated layer by layer.
Each layer is generated from the surface of the layer previ-
ously generated (or the liner surface in the case of first layer).
The input data for the WCM plug-in are the layer winding
angle q and the layer thickness t in the cylindrical part. At each
layer, WCM assigns material properties corresponding to an
angle couple ±q, corresponding to the crossed pattern due to
Fig. 3 e Burst modes.
Fig. 4 e a) Filament winding process (yarn positioning of ±q layer). b) Angle geometrical data for angle calculation in the
dome.
filament winding process. One “pseudo e layer” (couple ±q)
takes the following form [16] (Fig. 4a):
Each layer is thus considered as a couple of ply of orien-
tation ±q: the plug-in WCM allocates material elastic proper-
ties to each angle q so that the stiffness matrix associated with
this angle corresponds to assembling of a layer þq and a layer
q (without coupling between bending and extensional
strains and without in plane shear strains).
Concerning the dome structure, it is important to note
these angles evolve along this part, from the initial value q
imposed in the cylindrical part to 90 (i.e., perpendicular to the
vessel axis) at the layer end point. At this point, the composite
filament turns around the pole and goes back towards the
cylindrical part. The software calculates the angle evolution
along the dome by using the following equation:
   n
R0 R  R0
qðRÞ¼ sin1 ±d (1)
R Rtl  R0
where R is the radial distance from the pressure vessel axis to
current point in the layer, Ro is the radial distance from the
axis to the turnaround point, Rtl is the radius at the dome-
cylinder tangent line (Fig. 4b), d is a parameter controlling
the winding geodesy [17]. If d is chosen equal to zero (fric-
tionless winding pattern), Equation (1) corresponds to the
classical Clairaut formulation [6]. Accounting for friction
(d s 0) allows one choosing the location of the turnaround
point. The exponent n adjusts the influence of the friction
term. The evolution of the layer thickness t in the dome is
related to the winding angle by Equation (2).
ttl  cosðqtl Þ Rtl
tðrÞ ¼   4 (2)
cosðqr Þ Rtl R
R þ 2  BW  Rtl R0
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 3 1 8 3 e1 3 1 9 2 13187

with ttl the thickness at the tangent line (R ¼ Rtl), qtl is the
winding angle at the tangent line (R ¼ Rtl), qr the winding angle
at the current radius (R) and BW is the helical band width. This
last parameter controls the thickness growth at the turn-
around point.
In spite of the efficiency of WMC, some differences may be
observed between the actual shell composite dimensions and
those modelled by WCM. The main difference is the location
of the point at which the layer stops: modelled layers are in Fig. 6 e FE shell model (left) and 3D model (right).
general shorter the actual ones. This difference can be
observed by comparison with X-ray radiographies. This
discrepancy is probably due to an incorrect estimation of fibre
yarn sliding and requires adapting the model geometry to the
Table 1 e FE model specifications.
actual one by manually moving the layer end. Fig. 5 shows the
mesh of the two domes (axisymmetric model) once the ge- Model Elements type Elements number
ometry has been corrected. It can be noticed that the actual Axisymmetric CAX6 23,000
tank is not symmetrical. This dissymmetry can be modelled 3D (1/4 of total tank) C3D6 277,354
by the plug-in WCM: each dome is dealt with separately in
such a way the length of each simulated layer is close to the
actual one.
The different parts of the tank are put together, assuming a
perfect junction between liner and metallic boss. A tie-like
connection is imposed between composite on the one hand,
and liner and metallic boss on the other hand. This junction
forces the displacements of the nodes of both coincident parts
to be equal. The resulting model is shown in Fig. 6, which
compares two different versions of the tank vessel FE model.
These different models (shell and 3D) allow comparing results
and computational costs of each configuration.
Table 1 shows the two models (axisymmetric and 3D)
characteristics.
Axisymmetric quadratic triangles (CAX6) and 3D linear
tetrahedron (C3D6) finite elements have been chosen for a Fig. 7 e Mass comparison.
satisfactory match between the mesh and the complex dome
geometry. In the 3D case, a linear element has been chosen in
order to lower the computational time.
The Young moduli, the Poisson's ratios and the densities of
As a preliminary validation, the simulated tank mass
both materials are given in Table 2. The plastic hardening is
(composite, bosses, liner) is compared with the real value
identified from experimental data and considered linear
(Fig. 7). The FE model gives a mass of 1.81997 kg for the com-
(Fig. 8). As strain in metallic bosses is low, the plastic behaviour
posite shell, very close to the actual one (1.819 kg).
is identified from the beginning of the tension curve.
As far as the composite carbon/epoxy is concerned, the
Material behaviour
transversely isotropic elasticity is characterized by the pa-
rameters given in Table 3. This material is assumed to un-
As the PA6 undergoes very small strain levels (because of the
dergo complex damage phenomena (fibre breakage, matrix
high stiffness of the surrounding composite) and does not
cracking, shear damage, delamination, permanent shear
contribute to global deformation of the tank, the liner is
strains, matrix viscosity, …), which are captured by a specific
assumed to be elastic. The 316L stainless steel is elastic-plastic.
damage model presented in Ref. [12,13]. This model is built
by using a fixed directions damage approach: damage pref-
erential directions (related to material architecture) are
selected and associated to scalar variables representing the
damage/residual strain evolution. These couples (fixed di-
rections/damage variables) are the starting point for the
thermodynamic potential expression.

Table 2 e Metallic boss and liner material properties.

316 L PA6
Fig. 5 e Comparison of the simulated composite shell with E (MPa) y r (g/cm3) E (MPa) y r (g/cm3)
200,000 0.3 8 400 0.3 1.5
X - ray observations.
13188 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 3 1 8 3 e1 3 1 9 2
Fig. 8 e Metallic boss plastic behaviour (a) and identification (b).
Table 3 e Pseudo layer material properties. Direction 1 e
fibre direction, Direction 2 e transverse direction,
direction 3 ¡ Normal to layer direction.
E1 E2 E3 y12 y23 G12/13 G23
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
134400 8180 8180 0.36 0.38 4700 2920
Model parameters are identified from a series of tensile
tests on [08], [02,902]s and [±454]s flat parallelepipedic samples
and comparison with tests of the same nature are used to
identify the damage model parameters related to initiation
and kinetics. It is worth mentioning that although flat these
samples are cut from plates which have been wound on a
mandrel then laid down flat and cured and, consequently, are
representative of the tank.
 The 0 one is used to identify the damage threshold
and evolution parameters for fibre breakage (brittle
mechanism).
 The [0 , 90 ] sequence allows identifying matrix cracking
damage parameters. Unlike the 90 samples, the [0 , 90 ]
ones do not undergo a brutal fracture (thanks to the
0 plies). It is then possible to study the matrix crack evo-
lution and its influence on global rigidity.
 [±45 ] wound samples are used to identify diffuse damage
parameters, residual strains and viscosity. Real and simu-
lated rigidity losses are compared to identify the diffuse
damage parameters. The residual strain vs. the total one
gives access to the parameters controlling the residual
strain evolution. Once these parameters are identified, the
relaxation time and modulus are calibrated to simulate
properly the viscous unloading parts.
Details on this identification procedure can be found in
Ref. [12,13].
Boundary conditions and loading
The chosen boundary conditions are: (i) constrained degrees
of freedom (equal to zero) at one boss end and (ii) free
r
(g/cm3)
1.55 Fig. 9 e Boundary conditions and measured
displacements.
degrees of freedom at the other boss end (Fig. 9). The vessel
is loaded by an increasing inner pressure ramp on the in-
ternal surface, ranging from 0 to 2000 bar with a rate of 8 bar/
s (Fig. 2). The FE analysis simulates the axial displacement
(relative displacement of the boss ends) and the radial
displacement (inflation at the middle of the cylindrical part),
see Fig. 9.
Behaviour of the tank under inner pressure and
burst simulation
This section investigates the pressure vessel behaviour. The
displacement curves are first compared with simulation re-
sults. Different phenomena are analysed and explained by
using the axisymmetric simulation.
Displacement curves
Fig. 10 compares the experimental and simulated (axial and
radial) displacement curves (among the five burst tests,
Fig. 10 displays the “reference test” which is the closest to the
mean behaviour). Experimental displacements are drawn in
solid line and the simulated ones in dashed line. Displace-
ments are measured by LVDT sensors: a sensor is put on the
metallic base to record the axial displacement, another one
on the middle of the cylindrical part to measure the radial
swelling. The criterion chosen to detect the simulated burst
is the divergence of axial and radial displacements. The point
at which the slope of the axial displacement becomes zero
(horizontal tangent) is considered as the burst moment. Note
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 3 1 8 3 e1 3 1 9 2
Fig. 10 e Burst test simulation and comparison with
experimental data.
that the shape of the divergence of the displacement curves
gives important information, namely the burst mode: the
mode is “safe” when the metallic boss goes inwards the tank
(drop of the axial displacement) and “non-safe” if the
metallic boss is ejected (sudden axial displacement in-
crease). As it can be seen, the model predicts a burst pressure
of 1620 bar. The axial displacement at this point starts to
decrease, which indicates a safe burst mode. The burst is
caused by the fracture of all circumferential layers in the
cylindrical part: the fibre breakage controls the burst phe-
nomenon in the pressure vessel. The simulation however
underestimates the actual burst pressure: the experimental
mean value is 1750 bar. As the 3D simulation provides
an identical result, the results in the following correspond to
the axisymmetric case, which is less computational time
consuming.
Note that the experimental axial displacement curve ex-
hibits a strong nonlinearity in the very beginning, which
cannot be taken into account by the FE model. This phe-
nomenon is probably due to the existence of an initial gap
between the metallic boss and the composite shell, caused by
the cure cycle following the winding process: because of the
difference between expansion of composite and steel, high
stress gradients appear during the cooling phase of the pro-
cess, leading to the gap formation. The existence of this gap
has been confirmed by X eray observations (Fig. 11). The hy-
pothesis of the existence of the gap can be corroborated by the
FE simulation: a gap-like flaw has been introduced by making
the composite shell longer and thus creating an interstice
between the boss and the liner on one hand and the composite
shell on the other hand. A perfect contact between both parts
has been considered. Fig. 11b shows the result given by a
simulation without damage in the composite shell and a gap
of 0.125 mm.
It can be seen that the radial displacement obviously is
not influenced by the existence of this gap and remains
unchanged but the axial displacement exhibits an initial
nonlinearity similar to the real one. Note, in Fig. 10, a second
slight and more progressive nonlinearity of the axial
displacement appearing from a pressure level of around
500 bar. Two sources can be considered for this nonline-
arity. First, the role of plasticity of the metallic boss may
be put forward (the steel plasticity has a strong influence on
13189
Fig. 11 e X-ray micrography: gap location (a) displacement
simulation with introduction of a gap (b).
axial behaviour). Fig. 12 exhibits indeed a high level of
plastic strain in the neck zone of metallic bosses. As the
plastic strain level is highly influenced by the shape of the
boss, this result provides information to designers.
Local damage mechanisms
Another explanation for the non-linearity in the axial
displacement is the initiation of composite damage. Fig. 13
shows the diffuse damage (matrix micro-cracking, fibre-ma-
trix debonding, …) level at 650 bar. As it can be seen, this type
of damage can be found not only in the cylindrical part but
also in the dome (dashed red line (in the web version)) and
may partially explain the non linearity of the axial
displacement.
Fig. 10 also exhibits fluctuations of the radial displacement
occurring from a pressure of 1500 bar. As confirmed by the
simulation (Fig. 14), fibres in the circumferential layers of the
cylindrical part start to break at a pressure close to 1580 bar. In
a first step, these local failures do not lead to tank burst:
however, because of the load transfer, the surrounding
circumferential layers rapidly break, until the final burst at
1620 bar.
The damage model presented in Ref. [12,13] is able to
distinguish the different types of damage occurring in the
vessel. Whereas Fig. 13 represents the diffuse damage
(which groups several phenomena as fibre/matrix debond-
ing, matrix micro e cracking, …) and Fig. 14 the fibre dam-
age, Fig. 15(left) shows the out-of-plane damage (damage
caused by stress in the direction normal to composite shell
13190 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 3 1 8 3 e1 3 1 9 2

Fig. 12 e Equivalent plastic strain at 600 bar.

version) in Fig. 15 middle) and thus polymer e metal joint

Fig. 13 e Diffuse damage at 650 bar.
and responsible for delamination). As it can be seen in this
figure, this kind of damage is localized close to the junction
between polymer liner and metallic boss (black solid line).
Whereas this location for delamination is not intuitive, it
can be corroborated by experimental observations: this
delamination creates a path between the joint and the
outside of tank. In the case of loss of liner tightness (f.ex.
due to cracks revealed by endoscopy, red arrows (in the web
rupture, these local cracks are a path that can be followed
by hydrogen and lead to vessel leakage, as it has been
observed in several burst tests (Fig. 15, right). This example
proves that the continuum damage model [12,13] used to
simulate the composite behaviour in the vessel is capable of
providing global results such as the burst pressure and the
axial and radial displacement curves but also information
about the type, the location and the consequences of local
damages.
Other test data can be compared to simulation in order
to validate the damage model. Strain gauges have been
stuck on the cylindrical part. However, the filament winding
process implemented for the tank manufacture cannot ensure
a perfect alignment of the fibre tows and leads to surface ir-
regularities and local strong heterogeneity. The strain levels
provided by optical fibres are much more exploitable: the

Fig. 14 e Fibre damage (value 1 stands for broken fibres) at 1580 bar, 1600 bar and 1620 bar.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 3 1 8 3 e1 3 1 9 2 13191

Fig. 15 e Out of plane damage level at burst pressure (left), cracks in the liner observed by endoscopy (middle) and
corresponding liquid leak in a burst test (right).

Fig. 16 e Real and simulated strain comparison (left) e location of the circumferential layer containing optic fibres (right)
(helical layers are in blue, circumferential ones in red). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

strains within the composite shell are recorded by optic fibres
which are wound in several circumferential layers (orienta-
tion 90 ) during the manufacturing process. This device pro-
vides an accurate and reliable strain measurement in the optic
fibre direction during the test in real time. Comparison be-
tween real test and simulation is shown in Fig. 16. A good
correlation between local simulated and experimental mea-
sures can be observed, in particular in outer circumferential
layers (C12 and C17).
Conclusions
A FE model of a type IV wound composite pressure vessel has
been developed. In order to simulate properly the burst test, a
continuum damage model dedicated to wound composites
[12,13] has been used. The results obtained are fairly good: the
difference between the simulated burst pressure and the
actual one is 7.74%. In this structure, fibre breakage is the most
important damage mode, as it leads to tank burst. Even if this
mode drives the burst process, the use of a complex damage
model is justified by the existence and prediction of other
phenomena related to matrix cracking or delamination. These
damage modes influence burst pressure and burst mode. For
example, out of plane damage can create a hydrogen leak way
as it has been shown. Concerning the burst modes, matrix
cracking in the dome can be determining in the metallic boss
ejection (or not). These kinds of predictions can be made only
by using an accurate damage model which describes all
damage modes. The multi e scale character of the model al-
lows predicting quite well global behaviour, such as dis-
placements or burst pressure, but also more local phenomena,
such as different damage modes onset, evolution and locali-
zation. This description of local phenomena allows inter-
preting specific mechanisms (hydrogen leaks, displacement
perturbations, etc…).
The pressure vessel has been found to be a very complex
structure whose behaviour is influenced by a large number of
phenomena (plasticity of metallic boss, composite behaviour,
geometry and angle distribution in the dome, etc…). The most
important aspect to take account is the perfect knowledge of
composite material properties. This is complicated by a non-
negligible porosity and fluctuations of fibres volume fraction
in function of the vessel zone. Future works aim at investi-
gating a probabilistic approach of fibres breakage in order to
simulate burst in a more accurate way.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by French Research national Agency
(ANR) through Hydroge ne et Piles a
 Combustible (project
OSIRHYS IV, N ANR-09-HPAC-010).
13192 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 0 ( 2 0 1 5 ) 1 3 1 8 3 e1 3 1 9 2

references through the thickness direction. Compos Struct

2002;55:63e71.
[9] Zu L, Koussios S. Design of filament-wound domes based on
continuum theory and non-geodesic roving trajectories.
[1] Ifju P, Myers D, Schulz W. Residual stress and thermal
Compos Part A 2010;41:1312e20.
expansion of graphite epoxy laminates subjected to
[10] Mishnaevsky JL, Brondsted P. Micromechanical modeling of
cryogenic temperatures. Compos Sci Technol
damage and fracture of unidirectional fiber reinforced
2006;64:2449e55.
composites: a review. Comput Mater Sci 2009;44:1351e9.
[2] Levesque S, Ciureanu M, Ruberge R. Hydrogen storage for
[11] Spottswood SM, Palazotto AN. Progressive failure analysis of
fuel cell systems with stationary applications - I. Transient
a composite shell. Compos Struct 2001;53:117e31.
measurements technique for pached bed evaluation. Int J
[12] Berro Ramirez JP, Halm D, Grandidier JC. A fixed directions
Hydrogen Energy 2000;25:1095e105.
damage model for composite materials dedicated to
[3] Banyay GA, Shaltout MM, Tiwari H. Polymer and composite
hyperbaric type IV hydrogen storage vessel - part I. Int J
foam for hydrogen storage applications. J Mater Process
Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:13165e73.
Technol 2007;19:102e5.
[13] Berro Ramirez JP, Halm D, Grandidier JC. A fixed directions
[4] Villalonga S, Nony F, Magnier C, Yvernes JL, Thomas C.
damage model for composite materials dedicated to
Composite 700 bar - vessel for on - board compressed
hyperbaric type IV hydrogen storage vessel - part II. Int J
gasseous hydrogen storage. In: 17th International
Hydrogen Energy 2015;40:13174e82.
Conference on Composites Materials, Edinburgh; 2009.
[14] Duvaut G, Lions J-L. Inequalities in mechanics and physics.
[5] Barral K, Barthe
lemy H. Hydrogen high pressure storages:
Grundlehre. Berlin: Springer - Verlag; 1976.
overview and new trends due tu H2 energy specifications
[15] Lapczyk I, Hurtado J. Progressive damage modeling in fiber-
and constraints. In: 16th World Hydrogen Energy
reinforced materials. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf
Conference, Lyon, France; 2006.
2007;38:2333e41.
[6] Wang R, Jiao W, Liu W, Yang F. A new method for predicting
[16] Zhang Y, Xia Z, Ellyin F. Two-scale analysis of a
dome thickness of composite pressure vessels. J Reinf Plastic
filament-wound cylindrical structure and application of
Compos 2010;29:3345e52.
periodic boundary conditions. Int J Solids Struct
[7] Vasiliev VV, Krikanov AA. New generation of filament-
2008;45:5322e36.
wound composite pressure vessels for commercial
[17] Gray D, Moser D. Finite element analysis of a composite
applications. Compos Struct 2003;62:449e59.
overwrapped pressure vessel. In: 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
[8] Park J, Hong CS. Analysis of filament wound composite
Joint propulsion Conference, Florida; 2004.
structures considering the change of winding angles