Journal of Composite Materials http://jcm.sagepub.

com/

A multiscale modeling approach to analyze filament-wound composite pressure vessels

Ba Nghiep Nguyen and Kevin L Simmons
Journal of Composite Materials 2013 47: 2113 originally published online 22 July 2012
DOI: 10.1177/0021998312454508

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/47/17/2113

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Society for Composites

Additional services and information for Journal of Composite Materials can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jcm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jcm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jcm.sagepub.com/content/47/17/2113.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jul 11, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 22, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014

 JOURNAL OF
COMPOSITE
Article M AT E R I A L S
Journal of Composite Materials
47(17) 2113–2123
! The Author(s) 2012
A multiscale modeling approach Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
to analyze filament-wound composite DOI: 10.1177/0021998312454508
jcm.sagepub.com
pressure vesselsa

Ba Nghiep Nguyen and Kevin L Simmons

Abstract
A multiscale modeling approach to analyze filament-wound composite pressure vessels is developed in this article. The
approach, which extends the Nguyen et al. [Prediction of the elastic-plastic stress/strain response for injection-molded
long-fiber thermoplastics. J Compos Mater 2009; 43: 217–246.] model developed for discontinuous fiber composites to
continuous fiber ones, spans three modeling scales. The microscale considers the unidirectional elastic fibers embedded
in an elastic–plastic matrix obeying the Ramberg–Osgood relation and J2 deformation theory of plasticity. The mesoscale
behavior representing the composite lamina is obtained through an incremental Mori–Tanaka [Average stress in matrix
and average elastic energy of materials with misfitting inclusions. Acta Metall 1973; 21: 571–574.] type model and the
Eshelby [The determination of the elastic field of an ellipsoidal inclusion and related problems. Proc R Soc Lond, Ser A 1957;
241: 376–396.] equivalent inclusion method. The implementation of the micro–meso constitutive relations in the
ABAQUSÕ finite element package (via user subroutines) allows the analysis of a filament-wound composite pressure
vessel (macroscale) to be performed. Failure of the composite lamina is predicted by a criterion that accounts for the
strengths of the fibers and of the matrix as well as of their interface. The developed approach is validated in the analysis
of an aluminum liner – T300 carbon/epoxy pressure vessel to predict the burst pressure. The predictions compare
favorably with the numerical and experimental results by Lifshitz and Dayan [Filament-wound pressure vessel with thick
metal liner. Compos Struct 1995; 32: 313–323]. The approach will be further demonstrated in the study of the effects of
the lamina thickness, helical angle, and fiber–matrix material combination on the burst pressure.

Keywords
Filament-wound composite, pressure vessel, multiscale modeling, elastic–plastic, micromechanical modeling, burst pres-
sure, failure

From aerospace to automotive applications, prac-

Introduction
Filament-wound fiber composite vessels have been used
in aerospace applications as high-pressure storage
tanks for many years.1–2 Type 3 vessels typically con-
tain an aluminum liner overwrapped by continuously
reinforced fiber composite layers that are designed to
withstand high pressure loading. The liner also serves
as a barrier against gas permeation through the vessel
wall. When the liner is thick, it also contributes to sup-
port the pressure loading. More recently, type 3 pres-
sure vessels have also been considered for compressed
hydrogen or cryo-compressed hydrogen storage tanks
in fuel cell powered vehicles.3,4 The storage pressure for
compressed hydrogen tanks can attain 70 MPa,
which severely constrains the material selection and
tank design.
tical design and analysis of filament-wound composite
vessels have been widely based on the classical lamin-
ation theory5–8 or a finite element method associated
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Battelle Memorial Institute, USA
a
This article has been authored by Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific
Northwest Division, under contract no. DE-AC06-76RL0 1830 with
the US Department of Energy. The United States Government retains
and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges
that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up,
irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published
form of this article, or allow others to do so, for United States
Government purposes.
Corresponding author:
Ba Nghiep Nguyen, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PO Box 999,
Richland, WA 99352, USA.
Email: ba.nguyen@pnl.gov

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014

2114
Figure 1. Schematic of the multiscale modeling approach used to analyze filament-wound composite pressure vessels.
with a macroscopic failure criterion.9–13 More recently,
a continuum damage mechanics approach has been
used by Liu and Zheng14 in a finite element formulation
to predict progressive damage due to different mechan-
isms that lead to the bursting of a hydrogen storage
composite vessel.
In all the above models, the response of the composite
vessel is obtained from the constitutive behavior of the
unidirectional (UD) composite lamina by means of the
classical lamination theory or a finite element method.
The model developed in this article is different from the
current models for pressure vessels in its micro–macro
approach (Figure 1). It accounts for the fiber and matrix
constituent properties to build the macroscopic response
by means of a multiscale modeling approach using an
incremental Eshelby–Mori–Tanaka (EMTA) homogen-
ization method15,16 associated with a finite element for-
mulation.17,18 Indeed, our model extends the Nguyen
et al.17 model developed for discontinuous fiber compos-
ites to continuous fiber ones. It considers the elastic–
plastic behavior of the matrix material that obeys the
Ramberg–Osgood relation and J2 deformation theory
of plasticity under small strain assumption. Failure is
predicted by the Van Hattum–Bernardo19 model that
was adapted to the elastic–plastic fiber composite by
Nguyen et al.17 This failure criterion incorporates the
strengths of the fibers and the matrix as well as the inter-
facial fiber–matrix strength. Thus, it explicitly accounts
for the properties of the constituent materials that con-
trol failure of the composite vessel.
The link between this multiscale modeling approach
and the classical lamination approach resides in the
lamina behavior. In this approach, the lamina behavior
is built through a numerical homogenization based on
micromechanics and continuum mechanics, while in the
classical lamination theory, it is given in advance based
on experimental measurement and simplified approxi-
mations. Multiscale modeling presented in this article
offers an efficient way to obtain the lamina behavior in
complex laminated composite structures such as fila-
ment-wound pressure vessels.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014
Journal of Composite Materials 47(17)
The structure of this article is as follows. After
‘Introduction,’ ‘An elastic–plastic failure model for fila-
ment-wound composite pressure vessels’ describes the
extension of the Nguyen et al.17 model to filament-
would fiber composites by developing constitutive rela-
tions that use an incremental EMTA approach and a
failure criterion for filament-wound elastic–plastic com-
posites. Model validation is presented in ‘Results and
discussion’ where results of the current multiscale
model for a filament-wound composite are compared
with the experimental results by Lifshitz and Dayan.6
The model is further demonstrated in this section by
studying the effects of the lamina thickness, helical
angles, and fiber–matrix material combination on the
burst pressure. ‘Conclusions’ summarizes the features
of this multiscale model for analysis and design of fila-
ment-wound composite pressure vessels.
An elastic–plastic failure model for
filament-wound composite pressure
vessels
This section describes the extension of the Nguyen
et al.17 model developed for discontinuous fiber poly-
mer composites processed by injection molding to fila-
ment-wound composites that possess continuously
reinforcing fibers. Fiber length and orientation are
given in filament-wound composite laminates unlike
injection-molded fiber thermoplastics where the fiber
length and orientation distributions are entirely deter-
mined by the injection molding process.
Constitutive relations
Nguyen et al.17 applied an incremental EMTA to com-
pute the elastic–plastic stress–strain response of a UD
fiber composite. The fibers are assumed to be elastic
while the matrix is elastic–plastic and obeys the
Ramberg–Osgood relation under small strain assump-
tion. For a filament-wound composite, the fiber aspect
ratio is extremely large (l=d ! 1Þ; the current stiffness
Nguyen and Simmons 2115

tensor of this composite according to the Mori–Tanaka induces the strain increments in the fiber and matrix
mean field approach is given by phases

Hðl=d ! 1Þ ¼ Hm þ f ðHf  Hm Þ : Af ð1Þ ef ¼ Af : e ð8Þ

where f is the fiber volume fraction. H, Hm , and Hf are em ¼ Am : e ð9Þ

the current stiffness tensors of the UD composite,
matrix, and fiber phases, respectively. Af is the fiber where the matrix strain concentration tensor Am is
strain concentration tensor given by related to Af as

Af ¼ T : ½ð1  f ÞI þ f T1 ð2Þ ð1  f ÞAm þ f Af ¼ I ð10Þ

1
with T ¼ ½I þ S : H1 m : ðHf  Hm Þ , where S is the The overall strain increment and the strain incre-
Eshelby tensor and I the fourth-order identity tensor. ments in the fiber and matrix phases represent the
Assuming proportional loading, the Ramberg–Osgood volume average strain quantities at the scale of the
relation20 is used to describe the elastic–plastic behavior RVE. However, at the macroscale of the composite
of the matrix in terms of the total matrix equivalent vessel, they represent the local overall strain increment,
stress ( m ) and strain ("m ) and the local microscopic fiber strain and matrix strain
  n increments, respectively. These concepts are equally
m 0  m applied to the corresponding stress quantities asso-
"m ¼ "em þ "pm ¼ þ ð3Þ
Em Em 0 ciated with the as-defined strain quantities.
Next, the matrix stress increment is then
where  0 and n are material coefficients and are defined computed by
as the reference stress and the power-law exponent. Em,
"em , and "pm are the matrix elastic modulus, equivalent ijm ¼ Hm m
ijkl "kl ð11Þ
elastic strain, and equivalent plastic strain, respectively.
The tangent elastic modulus of the matrix material where the matrix tangent stiffness, Hm
ijkl , is calculated by
determined from equation (3) is used to compute Hm equations (5) to (7) using the matrix tangent modulus
Etm given by equation (4). The computation of the
Em matrix stress increment allows the matrix stress to be
Etm ¼ ð4Þ
nEm updated, and therefore, the matrix equivalent stress can
1þ
kð"pm Þ1n=n be determined using the J2 deformation theory of
plasticity
where k ¼ ð1=hÞ1=n with h ¼ 01n =Em : The non-zero
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
components of the symmetric tangent stiffness tensor 3 0m 0m
Hm(Hm,ij ¼ Hm,ji ) for a general three-dimensional  m ¼   ð12Þ
2 ij ij
stress state are given by
0
where ijm is the matrix deviatoric stress tensor. The
ð1  m ÞEtm computation of  m allows the current matrix equivalent
Hm,11 ¼ Hm,22 ¼ Hm,33 ¼ ð5Þ
ð1 þ m Þð1  2m Þ strain and plastic strain to be determined using the
Ramberg–Osgood relation (3). These quantities are
m Etm saved to start the next increment of the loading process.
Hm,12 ¼ Hm,13 ¼ Hm,23 ¼ ð6Þ Finally, to update the overall stress of the composite at
ð1 þ m Þð1  2m Þ
the end of the current increment, the composite overall
Etm stress increment is computed by
Hm,44 ¼ Hm,55 ¼ Hm,66 ¼ ð7Þ
2ð1 þ m Þ
ij ¼ Hijkl "kl ð13Þ
where Etm is given by equation (4) and m the Poisson’s
ratio of the matrix material. For computational effi- where the tangent stiffness tensor of the composite Hijkl
ciency and stability of the algorithm, the variation of is determined by equation (1).
the Poisson’s ratio with the deformation state is neg-
lected. The elastic Poisson’s ratio is then used in equa-
Failure prediction
tions (5) to (7).
The overall strain increment e applied to the rep- At each load increment, failure is predicted using the
resentative volume element (RVE) of the composite Van Hattum–Bernardo19 model that was adapted to

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014

2116
the elastic–plastic composite by Nguyen et al.17 Van
Hattum and Bernardo applied the Kelly–Tyson21 micro-
mechanical model to evaluate the strength parameters
used in the Tsai–Wu13 criterion for an elastic discontinu-
ous fiber composite. As the Van Hattum–Bernardo
model is valid for an elastic composite, Nguyen et al.17
adapted this model to an elastic–plastic composite by
considering at each load increment an equivalent elastic
composite which contains the same fiber length and
orientation distributions as the actual composite but a
matrix whose elastic modulus is given by the current
secant modulus of the actual matrix material.
For a filament-wound composite lamina, the failure
criterion takes a simpler form as there is no need to
apply the averaging techniques for fiber length and
orientation distributions developed for injection-
molded materials. The lamina in a filament-wound
composite contains UD fibers with an extremely large
aspect ratio. In terms of stress in the lamina orthotropic
axes, the failure criterion reads
~:p¼1
f ¼ F : p þ pT : F
where F and F ~ are the second- and fourth-order
strength tensors, respectively, and p the stress tensor.
If the behavior of the UD composite is the same in
tension and compression (i.e. its tensile and compres-
sive strengths are the same), then F ¼ 0. The compo-
nents of F~ are determined in terms of the strengths of
the UD composite. In Nguyen et al.17 and Van Hattum
and Bernardo,19 the components of F ~ were obtained
21
using the Kelly–Tyson model. The details of the der-
ivation to obtain the components of F ~ are provided in
19 ~
Van Hattum and Bernardo. F is a function of the
longitudinal (L ), transverse (T ), and shear ( s)
strengths of the UD fiber composite. For a strong inter-
facial bond, the transverse strength of the UD compos-
s
ite is approximated by the strength of the matrix, ~m , the composite layers, and the change in helical layer’s
and its shear strength is
p limited
ffiffi
ffi by the shear strength of
s
the matrix: m ¼ m = 3. The Kelly–Tyson model is
equivalent to the rule of ‘mixtures’ for the longitudinal
strength of a UD continuous fiber composite
s
L ¼ f f þ ð1  f Þ m
The failure criterion can be expressed in terms of
strains for an elastic–plastic composite if we define an
equivalent elastic composite at each stress increment
such that
~ :e
f ¼ G : e  eT : G
where
G ¼ F : Heq
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014
Journal of Composite Materials 47(17)
and
~ ¼ HT : F
G ~ : Heq ð18Þ
eq
with Heq being the current stiffness tensor of the UD
composite given by equation (1) in which the matrix
stiffness tensor Hm is calculated using the current
matrix secant modulus, Esm ¼ m ="m : As the failure cri-
terion ignores the loading history, using the as-defined
equivalent composite is a way to bring the UD elastic–
plastic composite to the same current stress state at
which the correspondence between the strength tensors
given by equations (17) and (18) still holds as in the
elastic case.17
Results and discussion
The incremental EMTA constitutive model associated
with the failure criterion described in the previous sec-
tion has been implemented in ABAQUSÕ by means of
the user subroutine UMAT. It is part of the predictive
ð14Þ capability termed ‘EMTA-NLA’ (EMTA approach for
non-linear analysis).22 The material input data for the
model execution include the fiber volume fraction, con-
stituent elastic properties, fiber strength, matrix
strength, and interfacial shear strength. In addition,
the parameters of the Ramberg–Osgood relation
describing the elastic–plastic behavior of the matrix
material must be provided. This section first applies
the developed model to analyze a pressure vessel
having a thick 6061-T6 aluminum liner and an over-
wrap made of T300 carbon/epoxy. The predictions
are then compared to the Lifshitz–Dayan6 experimental
results of hoop strain versus applied pressure up to the
point of bursting to validate the model. Next, the com-
putational tool is further illustrated in the analyses of
the same type of vessel subject to thickness changes of
orientation. Finally, its usefulness in the design of fila-
ment-wound composite pressure vessels is discussed
considering the use of a higher mechanical performance
epoxy.
ð15Þ
Analysis of an aluminum liner – T300 carbon/epoxy
pressure vessel
The tank dimensions are given in Lifshitz and Dayan.6
The 6061-T6 aluminum liner has outside diameter, wall
thickness, and total length of 139, 4.5, and 520 mm,
ð16Þ respectively. The behavior of 6061-T6 aluminum is elas-
tic–plastic with the elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio
being 70,000 MPa and 0.3, respectively. The liner plas-
ð17Þ tic flow is described by the power law  e ¼ Y þ H "m p,
where  e and "p are the equivalent stress and equivalent
Nguyen and Simmons
Table 1. Elastic properties of constituents and UD T300/epoxy lamina
T300 fiber Epoxy matrix
E11 ðMPaÞ 230,000a 4700
E22 ¼ E33 ðMPaÞ 13,800
G12 ¼ G13 ðMPaÞ 9500
G23 ðMPaÞ 5520
12 ¼ 13 0.2 0.35
23 0.25
a
ToraycaÕ technical data sheet.
plastic strain. The initial yield stress Y , hardening coef-
ficient H, and power-law exponent m of the 6061-T6
material used in the computation are Y ¼168 MPa,
H ¼ 465 MPa, and m ¼ 0.26, respectively.
The T300 carbon/epoxy overwrap has reinforcement
consisting of helical and hoop winding, with the helical
angles of 20 between the fiber direction and the lon-
gitudinal axis of the vessel. The experimental design has
two helical units, each of 0.8 mm thickness, and the
hoop layers of 3.8 mm total thickness. The elastic prop-
erties of the T300/epoxy lamina given in Lifshitz and
Dayan6 are the data for the homogenized lamina
(mesoscale), and thus, cannot directly be used in our
micro–macro modeling approach that requires the
properties for the fiber and matrix materials.
Therefore, a kind of ‘reverse engineering’ is necessary
to obtain the constituents’ elastic properties. To do so,
some realistic guess values of the carbon fiber and
epoxy properties as well as of the fiber volume fraction
are used in the iterative EMTA elastic properties calcu-
lation. The predicted results are then compared to the
T300/epoxy lamina elastic properties given in Lifshitz
and Dayan.6 If the agreement between the EMTA pre-
dictions and the values in Lifshitz and Dayan6 is within
5%, the reverse engineering procedure stops, and the
elastic properties of the constituents are then identified.
Table 1 presents the as-identified elastic properties for
the T300 carbon fiber and epoxy resin. In the same
table are also shown the predicted elastic properties
(engineering constants) for the T300/epoxy lamina,
which are in good agreement with the corresponding
values used in Lifshitz and Dayan.6 The percentages
of relative errors are very small and are given in the
same table. Next, adopting the power-law exponent
n ¼ 4 in the Ramberg–Osgood relation (3) for the
epoxy matrix,22 and considering a matrix strength
value in the 80–85 MPa range, a reference stress,  0,
of 90 MPa and matrix failure strain of 3.15% are
obtained for the epoxy material used in the analysis.
Table 2 presents the constituent material strengths
used in the failure criterion (11). The fiber–matrix
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014
2117
T300/epoxy T300/epoxy (from
(EMTA prediction) Lifshitz and Dayan6)
124,144 (0.92%) 123,000
8409 (1.31%) 8300
4440 (3.25%) 4300
3265 –
0.267 (1.11%) 0.27
0.415 –
Table 2. Constituent strengths for the UD T300/epoxy lamina
Strength (MPa)
T300 fibera 3530
Epoxy 83
Fiber–matrix interface 48
a
ToraycaÕ technical data sheet.
interfacial strength is assumed to be equal to the
shear strength of the matrix material.
The finite element model for the analysis uses the
composite layered shell element of ABAQUS. The
internal pressure is applied incrementally, and the
action of the dome is replaced by an axial load distri-
bution at one end of the vessel equal to P R2in , where P
is the internal pressure and Rin the internal radius of the
liner. The shell element layup has four layers represent-
ing the liner, the two helical units, and the hoop unit.
The layup is denoted by the layer thickness in milli-
meters and ordered as [4.5 0.8 0.8 3.8]. Figures 2 and
3 present the distributions of the failure criterion at the
onset of failure (corresponding to the applied pressure
of 83.5 MPa) in the helical and hoop layers, respect-
ively. Failure, as indicated by the value of the criterion
greater than or equal to unity, is predicted to first occur
in the helical layers. Figure 3 shows that the hoop layer
has approached failure at this pressure level (failure
criterion close to unity).
The predicted evolution of the internal pressure
versus the laminate hoop strain is illustrated in
Figure 4 that also presents the Lifshitz–Dayan6 experi-
mental results. The experiment in Lifshitz–Dayan6
included an initial small gap between the liner and the
composite laminate that resulted when the tank was
cooled to room temperature. When the vessel was
loaded for the first time, all the load was supported
by the liner until the gap was closed. This explains a
small but non-zero value of the experimental pressure
in Figure 4 before the composite layers start to deform.
The prediction has neglected this initial condition and
2118 Journal of Composite Materials 47(17)

Figure 2. Contour of the failure criterion value in a helical layer at the onset of failure (corresponding to the applied pressure of 83.5
MPa).

Figure 3. Contour of the failure criterion value in the hoop layer at the onset of failure (corresponding to the applied pressure of
83.5 MPa).

Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014

Nguyen and Simmons
Figure 4. Predicted and experimental pressure vs. hoop strain
for an aluminum liner - T300 carbon/epoxy pressure vessel: The
experimental results were extracted from the experimental
curve reported in Lifshitz and Dayan.6
therefore has assumed that the liner and composite
layers deform at the same time. This assumption only
has a minor effect on the predicted pressure versus the
laminate hoop strain and burst pressure shown in
Figure 4, which indicates a good agreement between
the predicted and experimental results. The predicted
results based on the two different finite element meshes
(Mesh 1 with 7650 elements and Mesh 2, 30,780 elem-
ents) are practically identical. This indicates that Mesh
1 already has the adequate number of elements used.
The predicted burst pressure is 84 MPa while the experi-
mental value reported in Lifshitz and Dayan6 was
860 atm (87 MPa).
Figure 5 presents the evolution of equivalent stress
in the liner with the applied pressure. The plastic flow in
the liner allows the pressure to be increased from
30 MPa to the burst pressure of 84 MPa with small
increases in the liner equivalent stress. The sudden
increase in the liner equivalent stress when the internal
pressure has exceeded 84 MPa is caused by the total
failure of the composite layers.
The effect of hoop-to-helical thickness ratio on the
burst pressure
This section applies the developed multiscale model to
perform a parametric study to determine the effect of
hoop-to-helical thickness ratio on the burst pressure.
A similar study was conducted in Lifshitz and
Dayan;6 however, the application of the present
model allows the evolution of the failure criterion in
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014
2119
Figure 5. Predicted liner’s equivalent Mises stress vs. applied
pressure for the studied aluminum liner - T300 carbon/epoxy
pressure vessel.
different layers to be closely monitored, and thus, the
model offers an efficient way to optimize the compos-
ite layup to maximize the burst pressure. The vessel
that was built and reported in Lifshitz and Dayan6
has the liner–helical–hoop layer structure [4.5 0.8 0.8
3.8]. This parametric study keeps the total thickness
and thickness of the liner constant but varies the
thickness of the helical and hoop layers. The follow-
ing layups are then analyzed in addition to the experi-
mental one: [4.5 0.4 0.4 4.6], [4.5 0.6 0.6 4.2], [4.5 1.2
1.2 3], and [4.5 1 1 3.4]. The experimental layup is used
as the reference.
The results from the simulations are reported in
Figure 6 that generally shows a significant effect of
the hoop-to-helical thickness ratio on the burst pres-
sure. Figure 6 shows that increasing the thickness of
the helical units from 0.8 to 1.2 mm (decreasing the
hoop layer thickness from 3.8 to 3 mm) has a modest
effect on the burst pressure. The [4.5 1 1 3.4] layup
achieves the maximum burst pressure (87 MPa);
however, increasing the thickness of each helical unit
to 1.2 mm and decreasing the hoop layer thickness to
3 mm practically does not affect the burst pressure. On
the other hand, decreasing the thickness of the helical
units from 0.8 to 0.4 mm has significantly reduced the
burst pressure. The [4.5 0.4 0.4 4.6] vessel has the
lowest burst pressure (67.5 MPa). These findings
agree with the numerical results in Lifshitz and
Dayan.6
To understand the reason for the reduction of the
burst pressure with the reduction of the helical layer
2120
Figure 6. Predicted effect of hoop-to-helical thickness ratio on
the burst pressure for a 4.5-mm thick aluminum liner - T300
carbon/epoxy pressure vessel.
Figure 7. Predicted failure criterion values vs. applied pressure
in the [4.5 0.8 0.8 3.8] (reference vessel) and [4.5 0.4 0.4 4.6]
vessels.
thickness, the evolutions of the failure criterion with the
applied pressure in the reference (experimental) and [4.5
0.4 0.4 4.6] vessels are examined. Figure 7 shows rapid
increases of the failure criterion values in all the layers
of these vessels beyond the 30 MPa applied pressure.
The increase is faster in the [4.5 0.4 0.4 4.6] vessel com-
pared to the results for the experimental one. This has
led the [4.5 0.4 0.4 4.6] vessel to earlier failure. A close
examination of the matrix equivalent stress values in
these vessels shows that near the 67 MPa pressure, the
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014
Journal of Composite Materials 47(17)
Figure 8. Predicted matrix equivalent stress vs. applied pres-
sure in the [4.5 0.8 0.8 3.8] (reference vessel) and [4.5 0.4 0.4 4.6]
vessels.
matrix equivalent stresses in all the composite layers of
the [4.5 0.4 0.4 4.6] vessel have practically attained the
matrix strength (83 MPa), while the corresponding
values in the [4.5 0.8 0.8 3.8] vessel are still quite
below the matrix strength (Figure 8). A more detailed
insight into the failure mechanism is obtained by exam-
ining the evolutions of the matrix stress components
versus applied pressure in the helical layers of the ref-
erence and [4.5 0.4 0.4 4.6] vessels (Figures 9 and 10,
respectively). Figures 9 and 10 show that the matrix
m m
stress components 11 and 22 are the most important
m
while the shear component 12 is not significant.
Therefore, it is indicated that failure of the vessels is
m m
caused by the stress components 11 and 22 which
practically attain the matrix strength in the reference
vessel at 84 MPa and in the [4.5 0.4 0.4 4.6] vessel at
67 MPa.
The effect of helical layer orientation on the burst
pressure
This section illustrates the application of the present
multiscale modeling approach to predict the burst pres-
sure as a function of the helical angles. The helical
layers play an important role in the tank overall stiff-
ness, strength, and stability. Therefore, it is important
to determine the effect of the helical angles on the tank
burst pressure. Due to geometrical design constraints,
the helical layers cannot take any angle. Their orienta-
tion must insure the tank stability and correct wrap-up
of the domes. In this section, all the layer thicknesses
are kept constant, but some small variations of the
Nguyen and Simmons
Figure 9. The matrix stress components vs. applied pressure in
the [4.5 0.8 0.8 3.8] (reference) vessel.
Figure 10. The matrix stress components vs. applied pressure
in the [4.5 0.4 0.4 4.6] vessel.
helical angles with respect to the reference case (ana-
lyzed in the previous section) are allowed to investigate
the effect of helical angles on the tank burst pressure.
The reference vessel presents the helical layers oriented
at 20 . From these values, the helical angles of 15
and 25 are considered in this study. Figure 11 shows
the analysis results in terms of the tank pressure versus
hoop strain. More alignment of the helical layer orien-
tation in the axial direction by 5 does practically not
affect the burst pressure, while more deviation of the
orientation of these layers from the axial direction
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014
2121
Figure 11. Effect of the helical layer orientation on the burst
pressure.
Figure 12. Effect of fiber-matrix material combination on the
burst pressure.
by the same amount decreases the burst pressure by
about 3%.
The effect of fiber–matrix material combination
It has been observed in the previous analyses (Figure 8)
that when the failure criterion is verified at a given
pressure, the equivalent stress in the epoxy matrix is
close to the matrix strength (83 MPa). This would sug-
gest that using a stiffer and stronger epoxy matrix
2122
would lead to higher burst pressure. To investigate the
effect of fiber–matrix material combination, this section
considers a significantly stiffer and stronger epoxy
material having 5 GPa elastic modulus and 90 MPa
strength. The other parameters (reference stress and
power-law exponent) of the Ramberg–Osgood relation
are kept constant. The effect of fiber–matrix material
combination is presented in Figure 12 that shows a sig-
nificant increase of the burst pressure by the use of a
stiffer and stronger epoxy (Epoxy 2) compared to the
reference vessel that used the actual epoxy (Epoxy 1).
The increase in burst pressure obtained is about 4.8%.
Conclusions
A multiscale modeling approach to analyze filament-
wound composite pressure vessels is developed in
this article. The approach accounts for the continu-
ous elastic reinforcing fibers in an elastic–plastic
matrix material. The response of the composite is
built using an incremental EMTA homogenization
procedure. Failure of the composite is predicted by
the Van Hattum and Bernardo19 model adapted to
the elastic–plastic composite by Nguyen et al.17 The
multiscale constitutive model is applied to composite
pressure vessel analysis through the ‘EMTA-NLA’
software22 which links to the ABAQUS finite elem-
ent package through the UMAT user subroutine. It
incorporates the microscale constituent properties
and features in the computation of the composite
behavior to closely capture the physics of the con-
stituent materials and their effects on the macro-
scopic response. As a result, it provides an
effective design tool for filament-wound composite
pressure vessels.
The application of this multiscale model is demon-
strated in the analysis of a composite pressure vessel
with a thick aluminum liner. The prediction of the
applied pressure versus hoop strain up to bursting is
in good agreement with the experimental results in
Lifshitz and Dayan6 The computation tool is further
demonstrated in parametric analyses to study the
effects of the hoop-to-helical thickness ratio, the helical
angles, and the fiber–matrix material combination on
the burst pressure. These analyses demonstrate the
effectiveness of the tool for the design of composite
pressure vessels.
Future work will include the extension of the cap-
ability to incorporate the material property change with
temperature in order to analyze composite storage
tanks that are used to store hydrogen in the cryo-
compressed state and hydride form. In this study,
tank failure is predicted by a micromechanics-based
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014
Journal of Composite Materials 47(17)
criterion. Although the use of the current failure criter-
ion is practical and sufficiently accurate, damage and
failure predictions of filament-wound composite vessels
can be improved by expanding this multiscale modeling
approach to incorporate progressive damage mechan-
isms in a local or non-local formulation using con-
tinuum damage mechanics.
Funding
The development of EMTA-NLA was funded by the United
States Department of Energy’s (US DOE) Office of Vehicle
Technologies (Dr Carol Schutte, Team Lead for Materials
Technology). The application of EMTA-NLA to filament-
wound composite pressure vessels has been supported by
the US DOE’s Office of Fuel Cells Technologies (Dr Ned
Stetson, Technology Development Manager).
Conflict of interest
None declared.
References
1. Hamstad MA, Chiao TT and Patterson RG. Fatigue
performance of metal-lined graphite/epoxy pressure
vessels. Composites 1975; 6: 249–253.
2. Shen FC. A filament-wound structure technology
overview. Mater Chem Phys 1995; 42: 96–100.
3. Jorgensen SW. Hydrogen storage tanks for vehicles:
recent progress and current status. Curr Opin Solid
State Mater Sci 2011; 15(2): 39–43.
4. Ahluwalia RK, Hua TQ, Peng JK, et al. Technical assess-
ment of cryo-compressed hydrogen storage tank systems
for automotive applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;
35: 4171–4184.
5. Fukunaga H and Uemura M. Optimum design of
helically wound composite pressure vessels. Compos
Struct 1983; 1: 31–49.
6. Lifshitz JM and Dayan H. Filament-wound pressure
vessel with thick metal liner. Compos Struct 1995; 32:
313–323.
7. Al-Khalil MFS, Soden PD, Kitching R, et al. The effects
of radial stresses on the strength of thin-walled filament
wound GRP composite pressure cylinders. Int J Mech Sci
1995; 38(1): 97–120.
8. Zheng JY and Liu PF. Elasto-plastic stress analysis and
burst strength evaluation of Al-carbon fiber/epoxy
composite cylindrical laminates. Comput Mater Sci
2008; 42: 453–461.
9. Chapelle D and Perreux D. Optimal design of a type 3
hydrogen vessel: Part I – Analytic modeling of the
cylindrical section. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2006; 31:
627–638.
10. Kobayyashi S, Imai T and Wakayama S. Burst strength
evaluation of the FW-CFRP hybrid composite pipes
considering plastic deformation of the liner. Composites
Part A 2007; 38: 1344–1353.
Nguyen and Simmons
11. Kang S-G, Kim M-G, Park S-W, et al. Damage analysis
of a type 3 cryogenic propellant tank after LN2 storage
test. J Compos Mater 2008; 42(10): 975–992.
12. Suemasu H and Sakajiri K. A failure mechanism of pres-
sure vessels from filament-wound hoop layer. J Compos
Mater 2010; 44(6): 657–673.
13. Tsai SW and Wu EM. A general theory of strength
for anisotropic materials. J Compos Mater 1971; 5:
58–80.
14. Liu PF and Zheng JY. Progressive failure analysis of
carbon fiber/epoxy composite laminates using con-
tinuum damage mechanics. Mater Sci Eng A 2008; 485:
711–717.
15. Eshelby JD. The determination of the elastic field of an
ellipsoidal inclusion and related problems. Proc R Soc
Lond, Ser A 1957; 241: 376–396.
16. Mori T and Tanaka K. Average stress in matrix and
average elastic energy of materials with misfitting inclu-
sions. Acta Metall 1973; 21: 571–574.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014
2123
17. Nguyen BN, Bapanapalli SK, Kunc V, et al. Prediction of
the elastic-plastic stress/strain response for injection-
molded long-fiber thermoplastics. J Compos Mater
2009; 43: 217–246.
18. Nguyen BN and Kunc V. An elastic-plastic damage
model for long-fiber thermoplastics. Int J Damage
Mech 2010; 19(6): 691725.
19. Van Hattum FWJ and Bernardo CA. A model to predict
the strength of short fiber composites. Polym Compos
1999; 20(4): 524–533.
20. Aboudi J. Mechanics of composite materials: a unified
micromechanical approach, Studies in Applied
Mechanics, 29. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1991.
21. Kelly A and Tyson WR. Tensile properties of fibre-rein-
forced metals: copper/tungsten and copper/molybdenum.
J Mech Phys Solids 1965; 13: 329–350.
22. Nguyen BN. EMTA-NLA’s user guide. Technical report,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Report no.
PNNL-20013, 2010.
Downloaded from jcm.sagepub.com at HUNTER COLLEGE LIB on May 25, 2014