<2154 232
23 ;657 '6 '22 G6 57
01234567 87323 ? (55 12345673 <242
!1 545673
01234567 8392
4
A3B/57.C90D349
(< *73454142 6' (5272 7
E2
766
6 46 2
12 7353 452 67 8 13
6
2 53 4957
613 46 6!242 7353 7
5
"2
2#72
$134 672 342!%
&
342! 53 6' 61
3267
3 7
5
"2 4234
31
342!3%
(6 5 722
272 45!3 31
3 57232 23
35)2 46
2
12 7353 452%
* 17
2347
4
4 3!22
57 1! 7353 5 5 2
6!65357 54
1%
8 13 *72274 (
224 24 F657
( 2
+,-./,01.23-/.4567.7,8,97:/
;657 <232
=42 46 39
12345673 24 57!14 7
"72
61 69%
;657 '6 '22 G6 57
634 2274 732
<53 =1!4
"5 I4567 *73454142 6' H4 ;1
E2 766 ;5!1
J5 6 "5 6 46 24 4 2 7353 452 57 4 2 8 13
5742'2%
K542
011034567489
6 79
7 3 674
33!6 6644"6##7 #7 61 $%3 3
33 7646& 63 7663 3&4 7 7'61 # $&
( 6 9)6 63 3
*+ 71
,)%34 6 -, 63 63 79
.63 1 !
# + 4 7 3 # 76/ 64 4$0 65 76
4 76366 3 7646 6 1 6433 6 7646
11
( 6
*+ 71 79
,)%34 6 -, 63 63
.63 1 !
2 76 4 6# 663 676.6#67 4$
( 6
6 79
7 3 674
4 13 7646& 63 7663 &4"63 634& 6
3 +67 - # &51167646$&
( 6 )6 63 34
*+ 71
,)%34 6 -, 63 63 79
.63 1 !
7$ 33 - 7 6#7 # 76#164$& 6+ #
34 7 76/ 64 3# - 731 44$4 776
8+6 46473 1 463 $ 3674 33!54
- 76 67 3 7663 511 3667 3 64 54
343!3 7663 4
( 6
6 3!(63 4 795
2 7 7( #3
&7*+
,6 671# 3 4 76 6 6 # 3 6- 7
3 7663 1- 73! 0008,9:;#1 <
9$3 7646 14#66$+ 3 -4 - 7 3
411 3$636367! 7 $&
$44413!6 67 7';6$ 7 7!6 =:>
5- 76;#16$+ 3 17!6- 7 3
411 3$636367! 7 $&
$ 3 7 1 # ?
@$ 464 6 7 - 7 61-# 44+16
$ 467! 1&
4A! = !> ! B 5 =5 5 5#2! A CD8E8F8
#A@ 0 @ AG
EA #!=@# 8 C9A/89AE89AF #AG
HA 5 I A! @ ? C !AG
FA@# !A= 7 ! " # > ! AG
.9A != > # ! ? 39J@ 5!" ?
> # !G
K5 C 05 < 5!2@@! 0A<#!> > !
AG
; " #2AG
LM 5!
N 3O # !" !
O !=! 5! 2 .9 5M!839.H
OPKQ1#5 !R!7 C
5 > STT# !"2 #5A0 "> A# T39.ET9/T39T0C L
L " # L 5 L# > !L L!LL@ L !T
N .O # !" !
QU ! / 5M 83939
VK? R!7 C
P5 5 C> @ 5 W " 8 3XDXY
N
012456789
41
212128
28
1""C ! 0
! !"" # !
$5%12&
88 6
'78622
2'
(85)(4(5 89
'7
1 1*6+8,
9
%
'
- ! ./! 0
1 2 "34 56 7839.:
15"5 !;5
< " !=# > ? @ !"# !#
=2154 23223 <657 6 22 K6 57
01234567 87323 ) *5 5 "12345673 =242
1!545673
01234567 8392
4 6
B0C:D/0679E4/,068
8 257 F752354 6 G2514
6 7 322
1 42 17757 45 2 6 6
2 54 !"13#2$554 %
6
257 6 63542 !2 6 3422 7
67242 54 32 341
3 677242
46
61 7 54 32 4! 7
2 3423 & 24273567 6 42 !643 6
57 2457
6657 1357 !"13#2$554 46 5
42 412' 57 42 32 4! ( 42 17 42
6
2 54 4923 617
3 46 6 242 () 464 45 2 6 342 ( *6 2 722
61
2 +++
8!"13 H67242 *422 ?275 G256 6 ?4253 I57542 J2 274 87 353
*2
,-./0-12/34.0/5678/8-9-:8;0
<657 =232>42 46 39 "12345673 24 5714 7
72 61
69(
<657 6 22 K6 57
?634 2274 732
!5 ?( ?24 L4 *2
61357 7
G15
57 4567 =232 H2742
5 61 132
12 2$554
7 5 7 353
6 764 5
6 146 45 33 357
H542
8 87323 @)A
=2M ?
75 2N
4 6
7 F752354 6 *5272 7
O2766
5 4579 54 2
54 572 274 57 342 4 1 7
2232 17757 45 2 + 7
42 !2442 53
2 42 23 35M2 3 3 42 2314
62374 2 7 ' !
2 24 67 61414+ 1 7
32 67 66 2 57 6
2 46 P7
5 2$ 2 P2 6 1 1632 + QA
66
19
H542
8
61375 >6
4 6
8 257 F752354 6 G2514
422 53 45 2 357 46 57 254 5 31 2
44 42 45 2 357 46 53 2"1 46 7
42 $ 572 2743 53 2"1 46 !14 5 764 312 5 44 53 412 (413 5 61 2
7
61 2743 6 31 234567 46 2 2 '232 327
54 2 ( 479 61 6 61 2 &A
H542 =26 27
4567
8
61375 >6 R4 6
8 257 F752354 6 G2514
012346789
3 2
3
03
1
3
3
2
01
1
01
702
2
23
7 1
73 673
6
070
3023 1
307302
3
3
30
0
070
73!"0
#$12
070
6018 67 80
73
07
2
01
1
301
#201
01
070
30
0%3
0
01206782
23
#
023
3
6781
#0123467822
3&'
(
0
%1 21783 /17 )*01+7,)-$.
%
2303
0679
80
7426012467817017678
70&'
( 0
3
1
2 )201+7,)-$.
/
40103
06
67823
3
2
22
3
(
0
0
#75
$'3
2
3 72
320
01
20
2
20
3
#
3
30
61
301
72
320
3
2
07
4
30 6 7
2782
!020
#71
,01
20
2 02
320
2 8 20
301
8 20
732
20
5
2 61
11601
2
207
2##
07
3
2
01
72
320
8 1
230
01
20
2
20
3
3
0
802
320
3
0
06
1
3 7
,
73
787 80
7323
8 0
)'322
3720
#
3
30 20
2
90
3
2 6
21
07232 6
2 7
3
032082 0
#
7
20
#
3
36
1
373
9 1
231
27 #
1
01781 22
3
:';22
80
73
%1278
2#22
2##
20
73232383
317013;23
312
!
7601
2
7
(
0
)<
7
320
73
"
6
=2 2 >21
:-01+7,)-$.
13
2 23?720
732 03
06723
@78230706#
72
3&0
2
323 22
3
2 7,
1
12
#70230
073830
180
6788
6 2
30,01
8 0
370
6
21
(
0
$<
7
320
73
%1 21783
/17 $0
,)-$.
%
2303
0679
80
7426
21 7
21780 22
3
31
28
2 21
33
321278%3
012346782 &'
(
0
$<
7
320
73
"236@23
48 $.01
,)-$A
1
34
#7
7 #
0
# 2320
737B212%112
23
100#&CC
37
8
737 C1 7C*!0
#!07!1
#!21278!83!20
(
0
"
6
=2 2 >21
$.01
,)-$A
13
2 23?720
732 03
06723
8
2
30
23 22
3
(
0
,2154 23223 H657 6 22 657
01234567 873"23 Z U5 5 %12345673 ,26 27
45673
01234567 8392
34
2 57 42 624 32
557 6 3 342 3
JF<@K;LMDF<@NOFK9;PEQF<FR@
8 2
ST7572257 1 $!
!6" 7 # 322
1 35 14567 "54 8$%13&
!5
79 61 '2 1 57
'72 6 61 2 7
45 2(
# '2 4"6 %12345673)
# "742
46 976" 6" 46 57232 42 2 6 6 439* + ,8+ 53 - $* 14 2'27 # 324
42 5654 46 5 57 439 72 6 2%1234 62 2 6 "27 5 "74 46 344 42 6$
42 642
6174
623 764 6 62 47 . $* !6" 7 # 57232 42 5 54& /
$2 453 5 54 53 "4 42 6$ 0* 722
3 7
422 53 76 722
46 6 52*
/7 42 642 7
# '2 4"6 623363 2 .*. 1!2* 14 461 # 17757 76"
4"6 35 145673 342 3267
35 14567 1323 1$ 6 ,8+4 67 5 6 53 132
* #3 422
7 " 46 57232 453&
# "742
46 976" 6" 1 42 22 274 4 2 243 42 17 45 2* 76 20 2 6
6
2 # 1357 4242
22 2743 7
54 322 3 46 492 672*
79 61
8$%13 757542 T2 274 +6
257
U2
89:;<9=>;?@:<;ABCD;D9E9FDG<
H657 ,232142 46 39 %12345673 24 5714 7
'72 61
"69*
H657 6 22 6 57
+634 2274 73"2
U22 V1272436' -4 72$
,13357 8
2 6 U52723
* 841 15623357 6
6
23 $26 23 132233 54 53 634 2'5
274 6"2'2 54
7 $2 235
2 63442
* U5 5 457 7
67 6
357 053 7 3534 $2
6 142
"54 32'2 623363 $14 764 7 5 42 71 $2 6 22 2743 57 42 633
324567 53 3 *
* # '2 - 623 57 4"6 62336 3 342 7
54 6735
2$ 322
3 1 6 1445673
6"2'2 57 #/U #
46 3"542
6 2S42
57 3 26 27
2
*
.* #7 3445 7 353 4 132 1IW 3"54 W 84 54 322
3 1 $14 764 1 3 61
$2
20242
* W7641742 T0554
7 53 7764 132 1IW 42 3 2 223 46 8XUYU
38146
74* 8274 $64 8$%13 T0554 7
8146
7 6
23 "22 "54427 $ 42 3 2
42 * U6 "2 '2 46 "54*
542 ,26 27
4567
012345689
6
5695 6 9
9
9 6
!6539
"
8#8$%5&5'3
139
5 41"54261
165
5(23( 6 )16 *13+5* 5913
23
,)16 -5+24 .
$9+1
+1 4
) *56
3/ 94*456" 8&5'3
54
44
1+16 23
" *13
4
+ &36 '36 +16 4 9
1 9
.
0 12 1++ 9519
84489
6
5695 6
9
9 6
!6539
"
(36+5*&
4+
5 41&+5-.9
59 6
919 1"1 " 6.(
061&5&4**
.5359
5444+
9 9674 8 6 '36 + +16* 4454
1& 269
9 5674 .
(194*9:
3
.$
6 59* 5*196 5
;(
86 1
354<'3516 261
16
;$9
5
96 5
93+& 61)261
16
8&5'3
3
23
,=16 5 6
6 '36 .
(#16 -5+24 )165+1 4$5+3
9" 65 654 4 + 9
59
+
15 419" 6.(
2 9
19 5 91)5434519*1356 19"69+24
+5*& 3 1
5 )61916 69"89 -24-+5*& 3 1
59"
+544 6+ 9
19
59
6 39" +9+3++ 96 + 9.
0 2 1++ 9519
>5 ?&65 +@5 $
)5 59
8* 6?9"9 69"A+&B
59 *13 6*+3 6.! 6.C
$ 574 59 5
6 5&136DA&EF1 5
6 5
19 $ 9
2 9
193#
.
$54
1 55224 59"
9 9.74 9$ 59 1
3&+ .41&5
G
.....
HIHJKLMNMOPQMRO
STUVNW
+2166 6 4
1
C
....
45
49 $231
1 6 $5 49
.$ 12
166 5*.89* 5*5
$
+ 919 $54
16 '3
+16 + +16*9
3&+
1949 1) 41&.
6666666
6 56 91
5 91 5
=00 16
1641"54261
16
.
5169"1
49
2G<< .7- &*199 .1+<=<< 66 19 66
65/9*66" 64 6261
65
6
+<X.Y?8-Z&$6%
B1 59$ 91 1 +59*16
12+5413
;
6 "56
0
5695 6 9
9
9 6
!6539
"
8#8$%5&5'3
139
5 41"54261
165
5(23( 6 )16 *13+5* 5913
23
,)16 -5+24 .
013456347895
6
885 81699855985899543485 84
98556 38
68 83489 815864 815
68 !84338176 415
'
7(
3)7805
1 ""6
#8$%"&
87*(1 188 1+3,
6
1 4 83
0
8$-.94 9485545
818049738954 685/"&
384381485
06 3983816 15/.
086
8881684 58
5886
8 3898586
8$7 6138 56
8
5888168176
846
8 56
8994687!1
074146 14 6 586686414185 396 41499893485 396 41523
3485585 45+
68
7888)18654 $1741$%"6
!55 17834 7 8185
9
89989 )6 41 5
8 97881781641843868 6
8418*7 3815 4198-9 6
713 49836 854134 566 41 6
:-;841546"%5865 19894 9
48554
481746$:%586&:94 9485545
58854<86="#4983>
846 41 1 34794766
85386 38$#17?#4983518
5855 899989 )87
68 $!84338176 415
177
@90593 " 6
1$%".
098 180156 6684 98
1494
, '
7(
3)7805
1
598589549865 14 4
8 417146 335866 1645887 6
6
8
436 1484
8
68
7 985
7
856
"$6
49$%".
05 64 4
5 15 6
"484192
"484:48
418744585617
2
68
,5539 14
3387
9*B69*5698
1 9C1 85 6 &6
A4 $%".
01124567891
67676686678
7698158578
627
986
!
2"9716#6
$5
92 8
%6&
97&6'
9(6798)8#5
7&69
'79
8686
66
879
&1
76456
8
9
&67686
561*6
66
876
&697
7
6886815766+6
66
87 ,*&1576 98979
6(98
69*86616897811&1
6+
229
8186769*156
66
87645289& 86
9897
175 97688988-67
1
6
896*115795
891
.
1267 66
66
8/ 015&
576777&
9
817 6625 9*
156&1
25&89
795
891
1
45716+
9&98
718579
1 895
561*
'7 86&15
9&891
1(6629
&6767969*155
6&6779 576 6
561* '7
%
-15
986
317515259 28!1(
06
8'
9(6798
46
1567279
7897112 &89&681
719(686715&61*869
*1891
8815(6 1(9262 786
67
6886788395
61
6
676*1*666576*5
*16(61
6
315&61*86112 &89&67888 79119
*1 795
61
&11
11889 788186
845785
8
*786
986 26&16
2891
7
:392 8$
%6+7;$'
9(6798
49$89
#6-6
8157(626&676286
561*6
66
879
126
625&9
8679<61*
6168 86795
891
64596716618
869661689816
561*6
66
87
6
66
879
18126
76
9
6
4(615&16&177897 1
6=
986
$89
#6-6 8$
%6&
97&6'
9(6798)8#5
7&69
!1
2789
-88979875 979
015>
27169
*1891
1
615769
86288> 6 88986 15815
2678
2897
986
23?
8$
'2
'
9(6798
7168967 1567297&689<891
2869
86&891
6866
29**66
8869 71
126 7&
**6&886795 891
7 662 6&5761*88-6756156797112
.
1268818
1269
86&891
/
986
:392 8$
%6+7;$'
9(6798
23?
015698 7(6&15789&6 66
87
228@6 66
879
126
7579
8686 66
87*118&15789&
271 92
8&15789&
271 926 66
89
86&891
866 66
879<676*1 19
9
&15789&6 66
879
28@6 66
879 A
4181(69**1112
1268818
1269
86&891
=
986
$629B298C-
6 836
@
'
9(6798
f _<4="
9 4!1D 4 " C C# I. J! 4 F = ! " @0 6
4 ! ! " 4 g C !!! " C C # !@g 4 6D #!
" # 4 ! < > ! = 4 4 \4 " ! ! "> 4 "@
E
b"4 45! ?h 4g <6272?
G!; D i >>6B4 G!; D>b /j 1
[ f@i 1 6
9 4 4 /!DC# 9#! !0i0-GaB4 k< ! / 4
\ >?2#C @g ; 4! 4 6 " ! !@
l :" 6
b"4 4
E ?l # !" !
012456789
41
212128
28
0""D ! /
! !"" # !
$71%&%785
%
'1926' 85(0)*(5 1+6,%12 1 ,
'691%
52
- ! .! /
0 1 "23 45 62727
5 ! 8!
9 !!!:; 0< ! / 4 " = >< ?@A!" : >
> " ! @B C " C 4 ## ! 9 D!: " #" /4 ! < >EFG
/ "< C !"/4 !H !#!:># I1 " = 6 C 6 C 6
C 64"/ #@J@9K! "! 4 ! /4 ! < 4 / !:!"
:!:>C !"" < / ! 4 ">> ! # / :4 4 < ! L >
!: C EFG @
m /
M5N12OPQ%7
85
2RS*,TQN8
U8
%5%
521%1%5%195(V
2%81%
52
5
2%
259
WN52%
266'X898'82%
- ! 2.! /
0 1 "2Y 40C627?A
Z4"[ D"@
[ ; D!
94; " !0< / 4: " > !@84 !9 ! 4 " 60< \ / 4
4 ]
^_\# ; " ! >`! : !C ! ! "I# ! ! J ! @^
[ /9#!L\ 4 a9 C ! ! 4 bcd_e !@
B4!1
m /
W
01234567809
7 2398188
! "#$!
% & 2402 0 '(1 317 '2 )
W * +,-./+0 1!23.+-./+4
W 5 671 "58
W .51!! "
9:1723 72'238 ;052 <'71 38
=>?@ABA@AC>A@@D>ACEDFGH@I-J@BHJBKLMB?@BHFNFOPFALNDB>ANLH>Q@RDLNBASOFD@IFLNG@>AWCNM@
N>I@-OFHHFJ@SGKPFIETNBN>FABHD@LFTDP@D@UT>D@I@ANLBASLFFAVN>L>IEFDNBANNFLND>Q@BGBHBAP@
G@NJ@@ANM@LFHTN>FAN>I@BASBPPTDBPKV M>LGHFCEFLN>L>AN@AS@SNFC>?@BA>S@BBGFTNMFJ B$!
010234547018945
25 9 9 799702720515
983451470229 950291929
9140
7019 207979051909451955102 9295 90549 7991
89 9994
99
524519175102539 091
92
49 0 07
!1 9401 9 3457024515 70179993 05190449
82301 5 9153929
9140
72 899 2079 83950291929
914 5294491
89 999499
"#0300102345412395 915 9 929
91449 009231 9401 98905
$%9 2079
91949929
914 5950291929
91401 700795&051949950291
929
9148049 19424010234547059 514971 49
'807(9551020449
82301 9 20799495 915 9 04 5950291929
91401
703945
2051
)9*4 547444
99+0
2947205390890 079,
22515 9 03510
075192701899 2079 834 51929
914-155022395 9 03
7018901023&9 49 00923830 23517901 979944 54 2079
91890570189
49 700795&994 51929
91409 207995 9 03
59'5
9 030
07519929
91./
" 495944 51929
91472
8949
9 20799229929
91451022989051059
"1
52#209441."/04
992 9
52991
924 57190 07 575492901
57
547445154 94919
99 4
022497089051540(91 99010+50220
54
0 259
9920
944
9
05192293079 03890554549149
9 19
94 51409 207992294
4
012345789
41 25 5
5 45
1 24 547
541 5451 2
455 415 45 45
554 54
34541 1 21 1
545 1 541 5 14 1 5 5
451
0123458!3 5 " 55 54 54541 2
#5 4$1 2%&7 1 012345745
455 35441 2 131 2&53131 23
51 5441 2 1"45
515
91 1 2
& 155
" 55'
5&(
53 53 545 5
"
4531 25
31 1 5"1 3 1 1 431 25)31 5 5 5 5 #5 5'-
3 "3 54541 1 "555)31 5 5 5 5 5143251 0* " 45
91$1 25 $5 + 11 & 545 4$1 2 55'
524
5 5
5,54
9553 15 5'5'11 2
012346
789
89 919
93
94 9
12 3 9 12 !" 4#$ 3 9 12 !" 4#%
&' (# 9332
)*+2,9##
2 12##91-9 1
3
./.012)34549-21 )29,9
)&"6
78 +2#
91): ;91 , )4 /<, )0 = 91>?
,8 @123>A91?)*2 # B9,2,9#
21
99,#9
12##91-9 1
342
#?>99
991
341 4 193-?C'+)3091 2, 02#?49
) &DE77)&""
19, 92 4 4 2
4 9)F 3 # 4 2
)9F A #9
49#99
43)3 143 # 4 2
)4 92
3
./.012).G2H2)(@+01I.I@G.8I+')2+18.I@G
JKLMNOPMLQKNRKSTNUKLNKVWXOYWKYNZ[OL\L]NR\^KL]ZWK_`
abcdefgehijkliefmielgnokfbfpgqbrefpniepqebestuevpnkrbfpgqewelbiqjxgirdlm3 ?3
+.H&")&"D.I!7!.+
y+?A91? 22,
1 9
, 3 #19 ,? ,9 234
2 1-#2 A
219,94 #319 1,
3
9F A #9
49#99
43
21F 913 # 4 2
3 y
8'08H
z{{3 ?3
|'('+/'8&})&"D.I&&70+
I
?2
21?2 1234
4 3A91? 39
#
8'08H
2I.8I./8@4.I~@8|08'22 (@+
p
01234567809
7
2398188
!""# $ "# % &% %' #(% $ "%) *#(%+
,91 12 92 -1.8 2402 92 0 /01 317
/2 3 1 1/71 32
p 3 456 4578$ 9% %* :6 4578
p %$+; %< '
p = %$"
>?@A BC@A D EFG?HIJ?@K JHEFGD?HLA HJ MDNNH@O LF? H? G@DOJ ?L CHPC MLEKF?D?HLADG MLJ?Q KDN? >NLE
MLEKF?D?HLADG ?HE@6 ?C@J@ MLEKG@R ELO@GJ HASLGS@ GL? L> ?HE@ ?L J@? FK MLNN@M? TLFAODNU MLAOH?HLAJ
DAO L?C@N KDNDE@?@NJ >LN @A?HN@ JHEFGD?HLA ELO@GQ "C@ JHEFGD?HLA ?HE@ SDNH@J >NLE >@B EHAF?@J ?L
EDAU ODUJ O@K@AOHAP LA ?C@ MLEKG@RH?U L> ?C@ ELO@GQ "C@N@ DN@ OHV@N@A? BDUJ ?L N@OFM@ ?C@
MLEKF?D?HLADG ?HE@ TF? ?CHJ EHPC? DG?@N ?C@ N@JFG?J EDNPHADGGU LN GDNP@GU O@K@AOHAP LA ?C@ KNLTG@EQ
#> DG?@NHAP JLE@ KDNDE@?@NJ OL@J AL? DG?@N ?C@ N@JFG?J PN@D?GU DAO J?HGG N@OFM@J ?C@ MLEKF?D?HLADG ?HE@6
?C@A ?C@ KNLTG@E MDA T@ MDNNH@O LF? D? N@OFM@O ?HE@Q F? HA JLE@ JHEFGD?HLAJ D JGHPC? MCDAP@ HA
KDNDE@?@NJ ?CLFPC N@OFM@ ?C@ MLEKF?D?HLADG ?HE@ CDS@ CHPC O@SHD?HLA HA ?C@ N@JFG?JQ #A ?CLJ@
JH?FD?HLAJ6 ?C@ JHEFGD?HLAJ DN@ T@W@N ?L T@ J@? D? CHPC MLEKF?D?HLADG ?HE@Q F? ?C@ HO@D ?L N@OFM@ ?C@
MLEKF?D?HLADG ?HE@ HJ ?L JLGS@ MLEKG@R ELO@GJ D? N@OFM@O ?HE@ ?L XAO ?C@ MLNN@M?A@JJ L> KDNDE@?@NJ6
MLNN@M?A@JJ L> ?C@ TLFAODNU MLAOH?HLA DAO JL LAQ "C@J@ N@OFM@O ELO@GJ BHGG C@GK FJ ?L N@XA@ LFN
JHEFGD?HLA ELO@G DAO H?J KDNDE@?@NJ T@>LN@ XADGHJHAP LF? ELO@GQ
"CHJ TGLP KLJ? PHS@J DA HO@D DTLF? JLE@ L> ?C@ BDUJ ?L N@OFM@ ?C@ MLEKF?D?HLADG ?HE@ TU N@KGDMHAP
JLE@ KDNDE@?@NJ DAO >@D?FN@J L> ?C@ LNHPHADG &% ELO@GQ
YDUJ ?L N@OFM@ MLEKF?D?HLADG ?HE@Z
7Q G?@NHAP E@JC JH[@
4Q J@ L> NHPHO TLOU MLAJ?NDHA?J
=Q DJJ JMDGHAP HA @RKGHMH? OUADEHM DADGUJHJ
\Q JHAP JUEE@?NU HA ELO@G
]Q %^FHSDG@A? %G@E@A?J >LN FHM_@N HEFGD?HLAJ
`abcdefghijbkflmblhnfo p
"C@ XNJ? DAO ELJ? MLEELA BDU ?L N@OFM@ ?C@ MLEKF?D?HLADG ?HE@ HJ ?L MCDAP@ ?C@ E@JC KDNDE@?@NJQ
'HPC E@JC O@AJH?U E@DAJ CHPC MLEKF?D?HLADG ?HE@Q *@OFMHAP ?C@ @G@E@A? JH[@ DAO ?C@ AFET@N L>
ALO@J6 N@OFM@J ?C@ ?L?DG HAMN@E@A?J ?L XAHJC D J?@K HA ?C@ JHEFGD?HLAQ YC@A D FJ@N BDA?J ?L XAO6
0123456178
0346 306 67 6 7
68 00 7 6 27 4 58 6 7385
78161780 6 30
58
18
50 6 4 2 86 01 1
3 0 6 72365617854 612 36 78 2306 477 7
161 54
1780 58 6 2181232 4 2 86 01 18 670
1780 1 734 5 6 6 0123456178
03460
564
5 18 1
86 2 0 80161 0 56 1
86
1780 7 6 27 4
564 58 0 6 72365617854
612 10 2 67 58 30 8 67 76518 1 5 3
56
03460 56
3 72365617854 612
524 !
"13
# 070 5 61
74418 78 6 5 2 86 67 125 0 07 6 1
8 18 2 018 1
144 12
7 6 72365617854 612 58 5407 40 67 76518 27
5 3
56 832
1 54 543 18 6
178 7
7865
6 6 8 6 61
58 6 5 2 86
$%&'()*+,*-%.)()/0*1)23*4)/2%0%)2
56*7%&%4*894:*;9/20(<%/0,
= 77 5 67
3
6 0123456178 612 16736 5
618 6
03460 8 736 7 6 0123456178 10
>818
11 71 0 18 6 27 4 0
11 7 >8 0
61780 7 6 27 4
?31
4561 4 4 00 0123456178 612 018 6 7
2561780 7 6 0 0 61780 5
876 54 3456 524 !
@7801
6 052 >3
# 18 1 6 61
10 500 24 7
5
12 6 7
256178 7 6
12 10 876
07 127
6586 8 6 30
78 86
56 0 78 6 7865 6 6 8 6 61
58 5 2 86 58 6 30
58 >8 6
12 67 5
11 7 67
3
6 0123456178 612
5
1
86 50 67 >8
11 7 >816178 41 >818 6
11 7 18 6 5
6 2734 7
>8 5
11 7 7806
5186
=
11 7 7806
5186 10 27
5 5865 0
6 30
58 25 6 0 6178
11 3
18 072
06 0 58 7
254 18 0 1> 06
10 58 186
0618 5
61 4 7012 1 25184 7 300 0 78
3 18 6 54 3456178 61I2
>818
11 7 7806
5186 A 3 18 54 3456178 612 0 7
50 01234561780
BC!DD6 7012 72D6 7012D8 04 C
D7 67
EFG#HD
3 18E 54 3456178E612 0E7
E
50E
012345617809
624
1080405057366
76770126736
01234561786127
50
0123456178818 06178076
274671 118072060587254318
50
9
! "#$% #$ &'("#!#) *+$ ,#! $ "+#
-.41168521585401076838072
730675058160700146730123456178612
16
73672721018 6
07436178535307250005418 9/250005418 7006
80161076
27475601 17805546675
6
612065638327
1828609/366
250005418 50606
0346 56416
250005418 7617801087674
54691801245672781676
25411676
250005418 10318 65376
8
56178686
012345617816
736250005418 58012345617816
250005418 947261205
5872832670546
2500708765066
5355072612016
5678758
072612016 7036727451439
9276514.458561785736250005418 144
58450505566719:)&;&$ < "&
50
255856145736250005418
1
1076
1218 55=
5610>50045418 58=
81016
9715618-.4116?852109854010@A
0BCC551972C47 C
56D2500D05418 D58D
8D16D
57156D.4116D85210D5854010
E F #$% +,,&)G+ #$ ,H*&"I
185010656736
723656178546121067545066736
27401J
547
2712428618 02261854470014509K6
3010456
566
2741002261
5654406016
066772561785847510613617856
86
30582533076
0226738578161785836
2701J6
318 6
832742860
586
723656178546129
L#%MG& NI OPHQ*#,&$#H$ " '#+,,&)G#! )#G& ,H*&" P#)R G&#$SHG!&,&$)
, )&G# " TUH" G#$P V W" )M$XHM$Y ZH;&,X&G N[[E\
]1 3^0
70502267000617876
6116
5446
4755873857816178990 e 73
5806
01J10
5476
6116
546118_561780031061361785873857816178
566
77676
619
` abM#; "&$) a"&,&$) SHG cM#!d&G :#,M" )#H$
01245267214859
48 2 94 6282228
4
26212 4 285241542282228
528448259212897252 22
2254196248 12984864 12
62852
2 5428516
6265 6526
4897 4 48 25264
2 6548 9
48
2 94 6282228
94 2
49648
1
!""6285 2
1 52
"#$%&"$&"%'"2 94
628(2228
(( 94 2(
49648
")
*12 998514
9
29 +26
228724 916
2
2 92
48
,2-
268
212.
/04
66 6816
22
234567854936:3;<5=43=>?345?3@=A93463>?B7C?345?
C6DE74=4F6:=G34FD?3F:3=3HIJ3KFD7G=4F6:LM
NOPQRSTPUVWSXYORPRZ[
6
!
\+1*,%]^#$%_\0%$!%&+
`\abcd,e`f 9
1226 46
48 4866
176422
\
49648
48\g\hie
6268546
9 48 4119
69648 42 416
2642514
215
4812
4964896486425455226
26 168 912
1+,j|
kPZl[mnZYOkR
6
!
\+1*,%]^#$%_\0%%!o%+
f4d
61pq651641225 \1272
41 999228526
1+,j|
XURWrWsStRPmVPUnVsu
6
!
viao^#$%_\0]!$w+
`68*16
225264
8x 94
628228
h94 2e49648
yz*68259212
22288972
"2592bd6
2
1+,j|
e0\10\g,dq\0{d1b+1ee `d
|
123456789
57
2765 448
6
762286 28 42678!48"#$"%&'()%*)"%+
9283678)
;<==> ?@AB CDEFB
+6746,7
8262)7464743765$48828
6-7$768637827.287.8///263$578
6
874.74552 6/0623452782 28
578
6874
767616,6874.786)27.,83726
4.2742
822,8564,28
6,,4,7664556238
257
37552,4736268616268,6.6786
6567234527866/
&/9787463766563688
86,6
8676328,7,782428
7648828
6626
843676
6676673$.2.2,6386
667
66735628
73768.2,6578
2345278/
2345278.25665636876366.25546
6/
973362,7563$7855,8623456/02
74564,62345278236.256,7.7/:26
82452278727828 422725678245266
,73566,784,$.256234528
7855/38
123362,7,,8646$2.25564,62345278
2366868376$.256255557.28
82452278766826
,784,/
38736,66
67368625728
66
123362,$4464685728
6287/ 861356
01345675118709
30
10653075
50 815
0
45 345307513
1 3457 8 184
151345
0713
0 1356
5108
35810
015370555 31
7 345
015370 5
5
55 57
35
45
13
350 345
015370 5
5 6053 345
5 10 3401
667
41
51108
30 305
!" 187534517
34
3
0310
871135#1$%&
'
0
57551
755 5 5151650
67 5
300
34517
34
3
345
101
57
65355(5630 5 7 45
8 3
5 7 555
3 (556
17
340 5 7015130
3545 0
3
45(
05 0 345
3
058 57)&"&*$+ *&,&-"
.*)/45 %
081 551 755 734
345
8 3
$%&
0
50738
5 705815101(16
501815
1
030
5 7/7030 3
75
0
7 01(75080751
030
30534817580 657
7
5
0 75
10
108
30 305
#3
10 5555 33
780 87108
30 16550
%
081."6003
% 56003
703401 030
13
5 453050 755 3
81581334575
7551
5 843 5 187513
003/45
1
573050 755 301815 750 755 31
75 5553
108
353451
5
8 3
3 3
305
345108
30 3
(51
57
4513
53050 755 301
15 555 35 1031095
130
511 4513
53050 755 3017585034
1
57
5 103
1095
15
1034
757130
511
%
081."6003345
0
13
53050 755 301
8
35657555 3 451
513
85
555 3101
345 815
7345
101 4015
134
30
555 3183
54
5
13
53050 755 3
253
345
13555 3
4
1
13
53050 755 3
254
3050 755 3
254
05815 45108
30 03
(52553051 57853
340110 5555 3034
1
5713
53050 755 36
75
815
3401030106 73
33 ( 404555 31
75
0030 3453050 755 3
0
3450
6 1105 45
#570
514#3 0 345514 85
404043555 31
034
13
53050 755 351134
1650
05
85 401
456153570 0 45754
51
4
5 1306
3/4
3
012045246782526049
6 14712
252609 202854629014949
9
8400260012594
2
6 494
285012 4
690479
1
6460125291901
0012942012922
25260946782
929
4
82 72945
046045229274
401282
82
2
2
252609 401
57195
2890
2045246782526001
6012
8290
9297
468
94 90
047
6
92946
9!"
4740
#6!"
4740
6
929945
04604527
6282 72 401200
045202945
02 4982 72 801290
2045246782526049
46782
92 $8
94 90
047
6
92901200
0452945
02
7
695204529282 72
46012
9028%1497
6
602 6246 246402
& 126012
49
42 0
90
6
5472270990
80
46
8
2
6 0129
0464971
62
'1269468
02 226 26082804290129291
92
97
2 #6971
7
92405
22
9428046782
9201290
2
0452467825260
%1290
204524678252607
6246782
92 46782
946012
5
99%1497
62 625
6
927446
828 26940
97
6
9
05
047
46782
92 26940046782
92012
90
20452467825260
6 5
(2012945
04686
9028%14949
7
2 5
9997
46#049
4
2460129022 4088!"
4740
90296 28012)5
9997
46)0
*27
925
9949
2
462804
8729 4
25 442 +
9 126012
49
42
90287
8291
20
(2601
0462804
22709 6)046
2672
0129
046,012(462047262891
295
- 92
8
2
4
046
.62012590227042
9082 7286646045249092
8
2
8729946#6
28270
8
2
446945
046012
945
046045249 44 2 0126528782992 #6
8
7047201494962280127
9227
92400
(299522800
44 20128
25
6 49084024028 4282607829*046
9527
9297
620287
92
/
8
2
4
0467
629 40712 685012)! 400) 4
"
46012)/
8
2
4
046)0
'126 8(4685012755
6
462
012046&7912 40120126528782902
92
#049 447
046045994
20 202854621 2
945
046
4
8
2
423 22801282
82952
708901
0
82(6 6
0
45400129944
40429
8
2
4
046971
9&
45402
560 28229822 545.$6%122812
8
012133435617589
5
243175 43
542
49
74
942
8
5
13342
4
1 4
4 49
449
19
41034
424
29959
89
824
824
1
17133
3842
749
29959
89
34
824
1
234
8
7
7424
83
4
17
341 7
042
824
!
89717"89 721597
59 83 59
1
3124
47589
8
74
8 43
#
13
8
74
8 43
5
593 4
59
1
5934
89 721597
717
19$7
4
5 5 4
8 42
824
749
74
8 43
533
987
134
0280423
49
59
824
719
%
824
&9959
89
375034
824
24'524
824
78(49
)8
19
8
944
19
4
133174
59
82
94
78(49
1331782
78(49
124
944 4
82
29959
89
1
5934
824
*0
78
+
824
41
1 5758913
824
24'524
19
1 5758913
78(49
82
1
042473
1359
5317589
75
419
717
859
28
78
,
78(49
74
5317589
754
19
4
13 4
82
1'
74
4
8
0427241 59
5
987
24849 4
41 4
57
84
987
044
0
74
5317589
534
824
78(49
124
4
-
1 4
89
74
80742
74
1513
942
8
0284 82
717
5
241 89134
5
74
942
8
0
513
824
987
74
942
8
52713
824
)
0427241 59
19
4
7294
8
28
74
.#/
#
498
78(49
19
80742
24 824
124
024 497
57
19
1(4
49 4
78
29
74
52 7
0127
8
19
1913
5
89
542497
942
8
824
78
44
8
433
57
134
19
4742594
19
8075
942
8
824
,
01
177497589
78
89 721597
1 49
5787
355759
012133435617589
2 44
08597
3
89 721597
19
1 4
1
94175 4
447
89
5317589
754
59
1' "103557
82
89 721597
1
-#1
4*05#67
804
19
46614-&/
19
503557
100281
5
4
59
1' "103557
-5
19
24173
24 4
29959
044
4 045133
5
19
98 4
124
59 83 4
4$ 4
449
19
41034
8
1
5317589
4859
824
719
9
754
1 742
248 59
19
804
19
1959
57
5978
89717
57
1
255
214:
;
&43123
24 7127
82
74
#
1 4
98754
717
89
259 8 3
82( 717589
29959
754
19
4
24 4
49
24 712759
74
74
59
47449
29959
5
1913
4
#$ 4
449
1
29959
754
8
187
<
19
8
187
%
82
82
74
14
02834
29959
89
133
9,
824
59
87
1 4
-8
74
24 7127
1
987
4
74
893
1 4
57
84
44
78
430
#9
198742
1 4
4
219
19
1913
5
59
187
,
012345679564
945 4 56
645079
24 56
05
2
616
12
2
4 52144
932 0123456 3 24
61095661574 595
56655045
2554
2 610
9564
94124 56
64500
95
1295
65932212655
24095 514 54412
39
36932
6459
42539 651
1646
4
!
16"
36745267# $73956
%&'()*(+(,&
-./0.10107-"02"-13$
4155
964155
96 9164125
269
39365364624 16614563
3
5
65
91
7
2563951
36163612
1943
0509
9
6103
412924
764 595
2
651
2139
4127 1 76 3 4
6541943
0509
958
057154 500
2 9
65441234 5
45
61
0509
$
366103
412646
4599364:129505246
5
3651263115240509
7
244217
2
654 5950
36121943
0509
2612
25
#5
4;<=>?@>A>B<
CD+&EF&'G)HII&'J)KL&MG+
-./0.101071"0"113$
41$12
7
N1943
0509
16365
340
41
714 5
61
0509
162O4523 16610
05
264
4156
95
9144524 16 569
4 19549
16365 94 16 595
03644 595955523 166
5124 569
4
19549
94904 167
0121030
0324# $16255 5 74 16
16152
6O01210300509
95 3195 O124 5
4157
012356789
99
8912
09898
8
801212
1 183 2
1308
9 3 39
389 8
5
0 1 ! "#$%&& "'$() *#
+,--./+0,1
234534646278679:;7
<
1
=
31
8
01
>
?19 3 9
2
9 8 99 9
9 1982
811 91
8
8
1982
818 @1 123
3>
@229 @1 9966A= 9 9
130891
12
2 =
4B3
3 C283 130
8 8
89 30
8
?29 42 0 DDD=
38
1 911 9
8E 29831F6A1 130 1:6A
2 1@
12
012
9
12
G
5
0 1HI##J$H IK
L0MNOPNQ-/RSSNQT/UVNW-M
234:34646947F676F;7
<8X
=@Y 81Z
898
1
0
89
88
813 81; 3
9
@1 @ 93 @
8
1 888992 9G=012 29 1 E
11E
8991318 138
9 @1 @
290 [8
13206C29 1388123
9
1\ 8
1
01231
9 3 39
389 8
+N,/ON-
F3]346469479^749;7
E012 302@
130123
2
19 9
5
0 1H I$ #
_,/̀a,MP0,
0123124245372879
5
32 5 !!
"# $# %
&'()*+,-*./0*
1234564789:;;47<9=>4?83
01941242452743708
#&@5
ABCC# # DE'
( ' !#$5! ('$
( FG'A 'AH5AAA 5AD
CC ( $# 'A$A
'#! $( G'A #C #
$D
I #C# 5
"#
&'(J0.KL/KMN,OPPKMQ,RSKTN.
UV2WXXWY9ZV>58[4W7
918124257\27\]^
"# 5
E_ $#( # $' D
B'#! C5 (!` A@!_
A C _(0 A '
!` $5! C0A' A# D
" ( ' ! %
&'(ab0*cc*d,ebSLNfK*M
1234564789:;;47<9=>4?83
91]124257079
# 5
B#ACg '#! B_
5! '#' D
I #C# 5
"#
012346789
!"#"#!$#%#&%# '(
)*11+67,*7--./6)06.11)*)121040611
3142)3111*60)*3/267206751201+$)-)330)123/61
31)*67371+77*7316151/1
01234678999:;
<=>?@> ABB>C DE>F=
!!#"#!$!%"G%H"I(
J*72302227362/K1L.6620%---M0)12317*M771 0)123)/N
0222736O4727/*6)*+/3)*,676.1./3+-/313142)3111*60M
012346789
P Q R B
H!"#"#!$G%H&%H&I(
S.1*)2011/0007/3)*K673TU23)7)60)123/6)7*M$-./6)
./V1677.17,6777*67316.131023/60W
0123467X9;YZ99::;
<=>?@> ABB>C DE>F=
H!!#"#!$#%H[%HHI(
\)]/41+$
^.)0+121*+07*-.16.13472/3120)*KTU23)7)6673/*
)*.131*634+4*/1)7/*/340)0$7367307116.)*K6./6)0
)*61*+1+675106/6)7M_*6.16)3067/01$6.17./*K1)*1/00
0.723+51V13401/3367*76)*6321*716.151./V)73M_*6.1
0177*+7/01$6.1/*/340)00.723+06)3351./V142/0)N06/6)7
/66131/0007/3)*K$076.1,)*16)71*13K40.723+5101/33M
`10631K/3+0$
a.3)06)*1
012346789
bc dRA
[#e#"#!$!% !%" I(
012235678
9
53737
12265
1 73216
3123 7 61
31233 56175313 73 663 5
13
312
15362166 3
1312 53621
637
6
65 5165 3 155155 76
1 5 3
6537
5
176 61211 033 36 2
7 61 9
3 1
123!"#$%&
'()*+,*-./011*-2/34*5.)
678978:8;;8<;=<>:?@
@31226
15362 576 67
17
137 215
32
71 2711377 613 116373
3 663 53 71 1 76 6 73 5656 33 2
1
3 57 1 531 5153 6712 2
3 73 663 5
6
153623211276 665
33
75
1 3126 656 576 5 37
A11
6523 <
5<776 356213 3723 7551 B3126 B
6
B5362B B5771B6 17 63 B6 B C5B 7B;37
3716 3 1D 21
123EFGHIJHKL#&MMHKN#OPHQLG
R.5S/TS-U.+,S-*
V7;W78:8;6<8;<W=?@
06
9
53737
12235
76 31D11
3 576371 1 312
@7315537
5WV=X 37
1?
3 31
6226538::X 6 3756
132236 17737<
YZ C5 62133 6 1376 115Y
11 3
137 76136D66
1
32236 31 <
515563 51[ 215\
17 12@137]66^W>:::::::_
03117 5622 16
15 117737
`32321 51
1216
7321
1234567
89
!"#$$ %"&' (!
)*+,*-.-+7+-/-./.+01
2374546
73889533
9 954:36 ;
34
236
<= 987
3456;>>96
23
;?4
3?
;<@=3A;66;
<
BC96
<9>3<567D2<36
349
89
EFGHIIJKLG
M!%N!$ O "P !O
Q*R*-.-+7S/R)/.+01
23D2<36
3497
12345 ;T< ;<;69T; 29
345?883
894
B423U9
3A;96
34B
4
<395
638; 3
9
:5366383 3<83
9<33 61+3451-7
19
3 6934T<3?
346
3<:9 534>7 9
2983
9<33 =96
99
345@ ;8;43;8B34
29638; 3
34<96;
;
;
29
<96;
T
29
98
9<3
;<9:3 =9+++Q595959><996
D9 ?3;6B2:9U9<7
2989
34>
98
9<3
;<9T@ 363=;
,..59>BD9 ?3;6345T<3?
346
3<:9 534>36
29:9 534>
T6383 3<3455366383 3<83
9<33 63
6 35V6
3
962:
?34
23683
?2:3
2
29<93 3
36@ ?344
6
3 3=U9
,..59><B?9 ?3;6W
2345 ;
89
JXIGFYF
!"#$$ %"&' (!
Q*R*-.-+7S/Z,/R,01
[38; 3
34859 63<94 36>536
2934
;
:9
;
34
298B4T:954
;
34 89
34>=923U3;<34
29859 7
294
29
98
9<3
;<9:3 599
<3634>B
4T
29<96;
5964
83
?2<93 3
7
294
3?3 49<
8<9366;8
3463<94
359A;3
97<
29T343
99 9894
89
25364
3
3953
<
<33
9 9B
89
EFGHIIJKLG
\]^ O$O"_$`]N%O
Q*S*-.-+7)/.S/.+01
01345167189
18
0195
591859597 4959748
618 979 95759
16 9987679 8
979 95759
16 99879998766 9
899769 !"79 671 17 94#158
$5 75989#955877 96%
&'67$18164
749617188(7 8 1$74161685$5 69
6756974181616618)
658 51718749691896*
+6 ,---18 695,$5 6,&.
6785/ 59,6#95187
0
+6 ,---18 695,$5 6,&.
!874957418(876594 9$$9 71#916679
697718 41 4166$ 6*
1279 89,279
&89,3
9-75 718,3
18 ,&''''''86,3
13 9"9 95759
16 9987 599 ,889
6796779
'''.&&9
&''''.
12718"9 481+97 9,245!0!"46
13875659697
138756 597956,71918 59987718
%'''%'''%'''%'''%'''%'''
59 179849 8 5#19
7 !
09 7789:;<;=><?8@AB;CD
EFGHIJHKLMNOOHKPMQRHSLG
TUVU.'.&&*.W*XX5
"48 $5749 198768(77418 86
8741869$87416 1747699187499"495959
86967477 9896 9 11$74959598
999878U5749 5 91641488
18957 86
9 988749 18$749 !" 954 6749591669
711718774959
09 7YBZD[:DC\=]<<DCA=^_D̀\Z
001
2345789
!"#$%"#&#&
'(") *+,-"-.,/ 0.-1
2 "3(44"- "(0".'(-"56-."'63".6"! /, ".' " 7.!*".( "86!"*0*49-(-"(0") *+,-
-68.3*! 1":8"3 "3*0.".6"5 !86! "-( ,4*.(60"(0") *+,-"-68.3*! "(0"/90* (
754( (." 6/ "6!"/90* ( ". 5 !*.,! "/(-54* 0." 754( (." 6/ "(." *0
-6 .( -".*; "*"460<".( ".6" 6 54 . ".' "-( ,4*.(60"*0*49-(-"!,01"='(-
-6 .( -"/ 5 0/-"60".' "5!6 --6!",- /"(0".' " 6 5,. !1"=!9".'
864463(0<" .'6/-".6"! /, ".' " 7.!*".( ".',-".*; 01
>?"=' "!(<(/"5*!." *0" ",- /"(0".' "*0*49-(-1
#?"@*. !(*4"5!65 !.( -",0(.-" ,-." " 60-(-. 0.1
A?"B !9"-'6!."/,!*.(60" *0" ",- /"(0".' "-. 51
$?"=!9"C7 /".( "D,- !0/ C0 /".( "(0 ! 0.?"(0"-. 5"(0 ! 0.*.(601
!"!
#$ "!$73353
783
%
& '1"!$#$"43!3(3#$34)!
#*3#$(3+3
51
43,3%
- .!$73351435"3(3!/1$1004#"#1$#$#$34!"#1$%
1 240!"3140!"3"1$!""!$7335333$#)3
833"3
014 3$34!
"1$!"%
4 23
3"(3"1443"/3(8
3%
56 73(343,#435$/73410/3(3
3/3$%
55 73/
#
3
41"314#$
!4!
3
#*!#1$%
9872
0123435789
1 34
3
1473
01213343464789
1863
7
9
!"# $%&' ( <=>?@=ABCDEFGH
) $ *+ ,$$ - # . *" + * $/ ;" . + *
) $ *+ ,$$ - . *" + )$ ) & 0 * I J .$
* $/
' ) $ ,$ $$ $ - )' ) + - *" +' $$ $ 3; -K )$
$)+ - ,$ $/
$0 "+ $-)** , *' $ $ . -)1"$) '0 L .M "'
-)1"$)) * ) *' $ *'* / )
$0 "+ " -$-)** , *' $ ) *' $ $ $ .
231"$)) * ) *' $ ' *'* 4
5-+ 6 . ' $) $ $$)(
30 7 .'' $$ .
8 * 10' 9
: '10' 9
2$ .''+ *
; '
NODAPG@HQ!"# $%&' !"# $%L!&
30 7 .'' $$ .
9 !"# $%&' $ *'* ) 6 6,$() * 0 ) '045-) * 10* - )"7$
-* ) ' ' . ) * $ )$$ . $-) * ' $$ 45-) * 10* - ) $ -)+ 45-
'10* - )' 9$ 610 '$ - $' $ "+ * $ + - *' $ 45-* R )R
) ' ' $ + -*M , + - 610' 9) $4
9 " 0 7)",$' +, . - *" +' $$ $ " $)4
STEP@BUF>=BVH?W=Q
& -+ 6 . ' - ** ) (
?X?YPHZDX[\]^_`abcGEPH[`
I *'R -+ 6 . ' 6 -M "d"*e 6 ' $$ $(
nonpqrstuovownxs
yzqrv{
fX?YPHghfiBVH?W=Q
| "* ) (M ") (N?O?>>=>F}?@FDT( .. VH=B~P>@FE>=BEODG=HHDOHR )$' +, - *" +' $$ $R`
8 * 10' 9
5-) * 10* - )$' $ -* ) *" + ' . ) * $45-$) * $+) $'
) * $ ) $ . $- -*+ * -) * $$$ )6 - - ,$ $45-) * $) $ " )0 ,* .
-0 "' $$ $45- ,$ $ $ - ) )' ) , -) * 4j 60R + * * $ "
'$$)" 6 -) * $ - * " $ -) * $$- ** " ) $4k -23 ) -)1
"$)' 9 * )$$ '' )6 - -) * 10* - )4
8 . 9 R -) * 10* - )) 0 )$ -* )$ - -$ .) * $ 7'' * , -$*
* + *' ' $45- )" $)+ )$ - + - *' ' $ +) * $
-* $ ' $ 0' $$ - +) * $ -$ ' $ 0' $$4I $$- " .$ . + )
*" R -" $ - )" . $ )# l$ *" m " $ *" )0 '$ 0
*l), * *" mR -), * )" . - # *,"'' )l$!"# $%J )) )
!"# $%&' m48, * )" . $"$) 01) *' $ ( - $$ $ *" +) * $
- $* ' + - *" +' $$ $48 . - R!"# $%&' 6 . ,*$ -
*' ' $ )) $ " -) * $ 0 -' $$ $$ $ * * 9 - ) *" 45-
+ 6 .+ , $ $ '' )6 -), * )" .(
J 0$ ", .lJ 0$ ", .m
L 1$ * l!" 1$ * m
)+ )+ )$ $ .$ $+ l)+ )I )$m
5-++ , + -), * )" .$-*)' )$ - ) *" - -' "*R -).
+ 0) *' $ R ) -++ , + --)642 $ *" )' "*$6 $ ' *'+ *
*' 0* 6- - *" +) * $ $ 6 + *$ - *" +' $$ $45-++ ,*,"
$ . + ,) ) $,$ *$6 -$ 6 R$ -$K ." & - $ $4k$ $ $ " )6-
$ ))R$ -$6 - * ) + $ R $-)1** ,$,$ *4
!'' $* $ 7, " + + *), * )" .' "*$6 -$ ., *1)' ) )%
$' ,0, . *' )4&*'$* )$ . ".$R6- 1 *' 0 , $- .-,
9) ) *)' ) / ) '):. . 1& ' "*$R6- $ 0 0 ,+ 6$ -*
$ * 0$ - .-*' ,$'4
01232457484982
25
7 2 27528
9 27 89374748 7424
2 52847
02
25
7 247328 !
"2 2#
5289374432
$ 4%527471&
!
27 752
5752'()*+ ,-./ 012748
212 528 2
15
'()*+ ,-./3452
12
7 2 275282 2"112942
5752748942
212 528 2
15
12
9 27 9 2
9 24734% 94624594
59724852 9 2
9 432 5952 12
473279 287312!52
5752 12
7 247328()*+ ,-./ 01/ !"2 2#
52 9 2
9 432 552 93125949 52
7471&
52486871 12
7 232 %28759375 711&4597
4%12 12' 9 287312!()*+ ,-./ 012!74852486871 12
7 28212528
9:;<=>?@AB>CDEFBG
0452 52
9119"4%459452 933748142H
EIEJ<DKLIMNOPQ#RSTU;<DM#;EVEAABAM WLXE@:DMSWY:EX@UZALEWZIEAE:U@:F
79 287312!52
9119"4%45"11 452[9\273]945"9 9 2
9
"55289374^126217 71121_7594
32598H
0 1{3|}0~04 |
{3~| 5545~ | 3~
289374^126217 71121_759432598 7471
92
25452246 943245
12
4%52246 943245
12
7 73252
;EVEAABAM`abcde748WLXE@:D
fIEJ<Dghfi>CDEFBG
939812H[92859 HEVEAABA@uE=@L:H59%%1294CDB>X<A=@;AB>;VLUBDDLVD
748
2
&52432 9
9 2
9
!#p
<XIBV>Lk>WLXE@:DGSp
59%%1294fU=@tE=B>WY:EX@U>ALEW>IEAE:U@:FpEVEAABA@uE=@L:>XB=qLWH
LXE@:
j9 747 567528&473 19787174 4%"2452432 9
89374
7315129
52432 9
9 2
9
hL:D@D=B:UY>Lk>VBD<A=D
27471&
2
15
7 24822482459
52432 9
9 2
9
28
9 527471&
l9"262 !52 2
15
898224894
52432 9
7 7112189374
288 4%528937482 939
59408 25
9 7
2
4" 52
4%12^74831512^
8937439821
7 28
2 2458259
275 2
5757 2495&257671712"5315127 7112189374
'8
28219"2!
52
28
2 24 2
91825 %%2 28941&&
452 2
942
2 5
79 287312!529 82 9
5249871
9 27
231&
37&822489452432 9
7 7112189374
!" 74 2
1548
2 24 2
45 714%8%5
452 93528
9 2
m932&
71
&
523
7 2%1&
24
56259
37112 5 7594
!
9754&8
2 24 2452
9 2712849424 23245
74 2
154495 27128
2 24 2
4 2
15
4
22454 23245
m317594
469164% n14%748952
7594
5248592
24
56259
37112 5 7594
99574 94
52457471&
2
15
93 459 4!52432 9
89374
284528937482 939
594
9182
94
5745o4 27
4%52432 9
89374
4 27
2
52 935759471 9
5
1%51&p52 2
9 2!412
8&473 1978
7174 4%
24%7128!5
2 9332482857552432 9
89374
2
25271595237833432 9
9 2
9
28
9 7471&
282 594
9 953712
9 374 2o
&989495
2
&52432 9
89374
!52432
82
715
5952432 9
9 2
9
?BE=<VBD>=qE=>WL>:L=>EAALr>WLXE@:sABtBA>;EVEAABA@uE=@L:
2
29
5289374^126217 71121_759432598
4957119"28"552
9119"4%
275 2
H
085 2326712955
m5278&^
57528252 594
o
52
2
275 2
7 24 1828!742 9 32
7%2"112
28
?BE=<VBD>=qE=>UE::L=>IB>D;A@=>EUVLDD>WLXE@:D
2 574
275 2
744952
157 9
89374
28937482 939
59471%9 53759375 711&57n2
5
4597 945
748
9 2
52
2
275 2
592 9457428245 21&"5494289374o
2"2 89374
574 22
528 9 2
9
7 2
27528!7
081 5
2
742 9 32
7%20624 5271%9 53
228
4 2754%52 22
528432 9
89374
!52197837&27174 28426241&o 5
2769
4957 25712!52[9
9182 4"552199^12621
7 71121_759432598
87562
39954%89374
74495
747 71121893749487 2
24982
94529487 &25"22474787562
39954%893747487494787562893747
"2117
527875624982
9452
7 29 52787562
39954%
89374 744952
7 28"574952 7 7112189374924 9 25
47 94
524537442 "247 7112189374
7 2
2 28!7114982
7 28&78[7 245787562
39954%89374
"112
257
494787562o45
7
2527471&
2
15
37&2
%4
7451&8
2 245
935759
7
2 71 4"5497 7112189374
m2552432 9
7 7112189374
59v!748
"5 5952199^126217 71121_759432598
5
2769
482
712m22$2
44%w078756232
89374
47
081 5
9 82571
9457 57 744952
157 9
7 7112189374
!5
27 752 9457 57
7 2495 2
5 528592452
732
7 7112189374 9457 57 575
2
52n42375 9457 571%9 53 2 2
5757119
524982
7
9 7528"552
4691628
7 2
2"547
4%127 71121893747484952
7 28"574&952 7 7112189374
9457 57 575
2
5224715& 9457 571%9 53 2 2
575527
9 75284982
27 59
7
4%127 7112189374!552
24982
37&71
927 59
952 7 7112189374
471&
2
4" 717 %22 2457%29
4982
7 246916284 9457 537&495
712"211
9457 57
7 2
28!2
2 711&"5n42375 24
9 232459
9457 5 94
5 745
x242 71 9457 5892
495
135528937482 939
5949487 2
y982
46916284n42375 94
5 745
'95z42375 94
5 745
2!"55228 25949
7 2^7
28
211^59^
918
94
5 745
!"112"547
4%127 7112189374p74852&"114952
7 28"574952 7 7112189374l9"262 !5"9
n42375 94
5 745
57589495
7 24982
74217 28"548
2 2457 7112189374
0134567836396856
6561 3 8 3 8
6814658964
761 4 638568
8
6
4581 3 861341
4
96853
436761 6
4583346314 74176 6
478 414 696851464
4
96853 8 418
16
83661
16
8 4 69685367 4196 84
4
543 61496853
!"#$% "& '"(')*!"( &')+' !,!'"
-4.7811
.6176 64581674543 41936714164
54
6
6413 8 8
6166161
67454361 48
.36
/36761.596
48
8
6
458134
93671 8 816
6561 36 3 4.
967413
816 4 638568
8
4581
067184581674543 41
64178196.36.
618
478
6414 6546
3745. 8 418
1 6136
16
4
58176813589687 66961 1 6
478
6418381166161 4581674543 41
6412
6
693
9. 1745. 8 414 6
478
641385418
476334 3-4.781367 64581674543 41
6419611816
6561 36 67
24 983.3456
7 781616 8 6 64581674543 41 64174133 14
8
6
6561 3 18.36
/3676946 68
4 6546
8 314 17
.6181.36
/36764581
674543 41
641374136
683 6
498
6418138
3467454361 4 6.36
/36761.596
48
8
45813-4.781367 8 687 674543 41
641781966745436.318
67.
36744
18 69367 41789
8
4
54
8
8 8
4118
4
5 8 515:63 61.596
43 8
61463 67898
4
53 668.
4
8
4581674543 41 6413-4.7818
34367 8 687 4581674543 41 6417819667454361 4
45813936718674543687 4 ; 645813 45687 166161 4581674543 41
8 63 9. 6661
8541 688
89
6 476334 329. 6364581378196 683316 46 61 476334 3. 1
6818
331857
4898
8171387 8 6 6 4 8
1.596 48 8
6
458134
635.
8 413
6
6
3 61.596
4
478
641361 683166161 4581674543 41
6413<
363.8
4=816
6561 38
614 17
.61
478
641361 683166161 4581674543 41
6413<4 6
362 3><
3 6674543687 4
4
4581674543 41
641<
3 6674543687 4
4
6
498
4581674543 41
641<81
3 6.36
/36761.596
4458136
4581674543 41
641366?4581/
66
8
8
6
:8 41
068
8 64581674543 41
6413589663
624
6685
6219
/3
6546
3 6
6741 87 /587 87
3
478
:681 5666161 8174.
65.
6
81/@8
8181
49
653
478
:688 6563
616561
6
66
6561 38
6
61681 4 6745. 8 418
743 66685
696
4A.
6=3 4383 6
78
4B67
6
587 18
8
8 6 88
.
6546
2 .38
41 6 4B67
6 46 4 8 6 6
8 6C164 645813741 813
6 4B67
6836
83831781 4 414 6587 8 68067184581674543 41 64174133 14 6
4B67
6836
83 6745. 8 418
1 6136587 8 68 63.
31854 698
81768 8
6
476331A.
6D01
36685
6 81 < 6
64
62
E!F% GHI !F!"*$(')*!"( &')+' !,!'"H
012345789
1 15
1 5
11
8
! " #$ "! %"!& '()! " & *# %+ ) ! " #$ ",
%- & ,)&#""!& ! " .") *# "'/ $& #"! %" !# ""
", 0% 1"234! ! - #$") ! " #$ ") ! & #") ! %
"'
5301657258
9")& +$ & ! " #$ "$ "#:"!& ";
FGHIJKLMGNOHIPHQKRKHLSMGNTKLKRKHLUNVQNRSNVQNRUWXWYWZ[\]W[\Z^YW
9")& +$ & ! " #$ %-"!&-$) 0% 1"234!")
$ # ) ! " #$ ! ""$ & "! +))"#:"!& % 4;
FGHIJKLMGNOHIPHQKRKHLSMGNTKLKRKHLU_H`SNVQNRUWXWYWZ[\]W[\Z^YW
9")& +$ ! ")#$ "$ #!#"*! # %"! $ #) < & =;
FGHIJKLMGNOHIPHQKRKHLSMINRaHGUbO_
9")& +$ ! ")#$ "$ $# ) # $ $ #) ;
FGHIJKLMGNOHIPHQKRKHLSMINRaHGUcbJPaMPJbRKRKHLKLc
9")& +$ "!&- ! "& ! #& #)#$ < & ">=;
FGHIJKLMGNOHIPHQKRKHLSMGNOHIPHQNMTJORHbUd
9")& +$ ! "# " )" # ;
FGHIJKLMGNOHIPHQKRKHLM
WXWYWZ[\]W[\Z^YWSMQJINMGHIJKL
?54
@)# #!# #"#! "& ##" #+) "$ :* # A '@ "#) # " "
!)* ,) %# &# !"" #"" & #)#" # -"" "%!) " " ) ) %# & # "
" #$) #$ -""! % "#% * - $)# !"" #"'B! ") ! " "
% " - )& #""!& ) #$ -"" "" & )#,& #") &&!
! " ##"#! &# %$ & #" #"" -&)-+ * ) #$
! " 'B! ")+- & #"+% 4"$ ",)#" & # % !
! ##" $ $# & # #& # !'
@)#" # -""#1#") )" # " "! #""&"!# #$) #$ -""%
! *# "$&", " "!#% 0% 1"2/ # 0% 1"234!4! '@)"") %
! - )! !" &) #$ -""'(&) #$ -""& " ! "!!""&-,- "
! *#)" "! #""&"# # #" #'0 0% 1"234! -"" !. $ # +) :*
# A !) 1! %#" # #! +) :* # A !) 1'
C
D1 361
@)! :" !) 1<0% ! :" =& ## : ! $ &0% 1"234! 0% 1"2/ # # )# :
#- -""# $# "! %" +)0% 1"234!# $)#"# # # '
E :* # A
012455674282492
15 6
44242457428244556
125 2
1
2
265425
95
5
12596
5 45
012
622 6
5
45567428246
4424
59 2
442
1 1
2 1282
1 59 742824
6
4424
5012622 6
5
448
262 5
122
24 2
12 425
442
2
42
6
44244556 9642
2
1222
45
45
19 29
5
012455674282492
15 9 42
655
45
95
2
1 5
6
525
262 5
12 4 94
6426
4424 59
1
192
15 44
2
26
442462
5
9 2 122 5
25992 2 012455674282492
15 5
665
2 5
12 5
64
5
9
4
24
5
192
15 55
262 5
1292
56
525
2
!"#$%&'()*&+,-.*/
2
1254456
5
12599 420
-1-2$,34156789:;<=>#$,5:#-?-))*)5@AAB
01245567428246
4424
592
15 4522
1228
592
42
1228
592
42
6
92
2
#-?-))*)5CDDE
F1-2$,GHFI&+,-.*/
U595 420V52
5
0W-?-))*)(X-%(4"0
5425+,*&Y$)%(#)*&#?4>*,,4?,
62
1292
56
525
:ZW-?-))*)(X-%(4"&Y*%[4\/&]44#
J*,%-?%
012
2
25
2
552
2
1
24 2
26 22
2
4124556742824
6
4424
5K5
62
5
9 2
2 5
1292
56
525
2 12
2
9
2
5
5
1292
5
6
525
2
125
4 401295
5995 254 2
2
1
12 9292
56
525
2
125
4 4 LM64
46 2
5
1 45567428246
4424
5
21L2
5
2
2
2 5
5
2
1 59 7428246
4424
5
21L2
N2 6 442462 5 9 2
O 442462 5 9 292 2 596
12
5
4
92 2L 2
5 5 426 525 P2 4 Q
5
12
5
4
92 2L 2
5 594
6426 525 P6 4424 Q01
5 22 2
5
12622 6
5 012622 6
5
442L 4
1292 56 525 2 5
126 4424
12 2562 2
6 4424
5R 4 22
5
12
21 85 5
12622 6
5
1292 56 525 2 2 O2 2
4
2
1
12622 6
5
2 242 4
1
1292 56 525 K5 5
16 4424
592
15
12622 6
5 421 85
212 846 5429 262 2
S22 4
12 59 74282492
15 44 42
5 4 2 92 56 525 52
12112 622 6
5
T
6
012
2
255
6
2
5
Michigan Technological University
Digital Commons @ Michigan Tech
Dissertations, Master's Theses and Master's Reports
2017
Minimizing Run Time of Finite Element Analyses: Applications in
Conformable CNG Tank Modeling
Paul M. Roehm
Michigan Technological University, pmroehm@mtu.edu
Copyright 2017 Paul M. Roehm
Recommended Citation
Roehm, Paul M., "Minimizing Run Time of Finite Element Analyses: Applications in Conformable CNG
Tank Modeling", Open Access Master's Report, Michigan Technological University, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.37099/mtu.dc.etdr/380
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etdr
Part of the Computer-Aided Engineering and Design Commons
MINIMIZING RUN TIME OF FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES:
APPLICATIONS IN CONFORMABLE CNG TANK MODELING
By
Paul M. Roehm
A REPORT
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
In Mechanical Engineering
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
2017
© 2017 Paul Roehm
This report has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE in Mechanical Engineering.
Department of Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics
Report Advisor: Dr. Gregory Odegard
Committee Member: Dr. Paulus van Susante
Committee Member: Dr. Adam Loukus
Department Chair: Dr. William Predebon
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………….vi
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Project Overview………………………………………………………1
1.2 Background…………………………………………………………….1
1.2.1 Alternative Fuels……………………………………………..1
1.2.2 State of the Art: CNG Tanks………………………………..2
1.2.3 REL Conformable Tank…………………………………….3
1.2.4 Large Models of Complex Geometry……………………….4
1.3 Mechanical Testing Standards: NGV2……………………………….4
1.3.1 Burst Testing…………………………………………………5
1.3.2 Drop Testing………………………………………………….5
2. Problem Analysis……………………………………………………………….7
2.1 Project Goal…………………………………………………………….7
2.2 Project Objectives………...…………………………………………….7
2.3 Limitations………………..…………………………………………….7
3. Geometry and Material Models……………………………………………….8
3.1 Tank Geometry………...……………………………………………….8
3.2 Concrete Floor Geometry………………………………………...…....9
3.3 Aluminum Material Model………..………………………………….11
3.4 Concrete Material Model……….…………………………………….13
4. Mesh Selection……………………………………………………………...….14
iii
4.1 Shell v. Solid Elements (First Order)………….…………………….14
5. Static Modeling – Starting Mesh Size Determination……………………..15
5.1 Static Model Overview – Boundary Conditions……….……………15
5.1.1 Static Displacement Constraints…….……………………..15
5.1.2 Static Loading Conditions………………………………….16
5.2 Static Convergence Criteria………………………………………….16
5.3 Static Analysis Results…………….………………………………….17
6. Dynamic Modeling – Convergence Verification…………………………….20
6.1 Dynamic Model Overview – Boundary Conditions……………….21
6.1.1 Dynamic Displacement Constraints……..………………….21
6.1.2 Dynamic Loading Conditions……………………………….22
6.1.3 Dynamic Contact Controls…………….…………………….23
6.2 Dynamic Convergence Criteria…………………………….……….23
6.3 Dynamic Analysis Results………..………………………………….24
6.4 Physical Validation…………………………………………………..28
7. Time Reduction Methods…………………………………………………….30
7.1 Symmetrical Building Block………………………………………….30
7.2 Gradient Meshing………………….………………………………….32
7.3 Hybrid Element Meshing………………….………………………….32
7.4 Planes of Symmetry………………………..………………………….33
7.5 2nd Order Elements………………………...………………………….33
7.6 Rigid Wall………………………………….….………………………34
iv
8. Dynamic Modeling – Runtime Reduction Testing………………………….34
8.1 Symmetric Building Block Analysis…………………...…………….35
8.2 Gradient Mesh Analysis……………………………………...……….37
8.3 Hybrid Mesh Analysis…………………………………………….......39
9. Conclusions and Recommendations………………………………………….43
10. Potential Future Work…………………………………………...………….44
References………………...………………………………………………………46
v
Abstract
REL Inc. has proposed a CNG tank that deviates from typical cylindrical storage methods. The
goal of REL working with Michigan Tech is to minimize mass and meet NGV2 safety standards
for pressure and drop testing for this tank.
The model has undulated outer surfaces and Schwarz P-surface internal geometry. To accurately
mesh this, a small element size is necessary; this creates a model with millions of elements. In
explicit analyses, this requires a large amount of computational resources to run.
This report focuses on methods to reduce model run time without reducing accuracy. Methods
covered include creating symmetric building blocks, gradient meshing, and hybrid (shell to solid)
meshing. Results indicate that building block and gradient methods reduce run time by 84% and
78% respectively for an accuracy cost below 5%. Hybrid meshing shows a potential of 50%
additional reduction but element formulation must be changed to reduce accuracy cost.
vi
1. Introduction
1.1. Project Overview
REL, Inc. needs to optimize a conformable compressed natural gas (CNG) tank to
minimize mass while meeting national safety standards. Instead of creating a large
number of physical models and going through an excess of tooling and molding
equipment, it is cost effective to simulate these standards using finite element analysis
(FEA). While many FEA models for optimization have a short runtime due to low
number of equations (few nodes) or have a large timestep in dynamic simulations, the
CNG tank requires a large number of elements with a small timestep. Additionally, future
CNG tank model CAD is predicted to increase in size by a factor of 3.5. Therefore it is
critical to explore methods to reduce the runtime of CNG tank models while maintaining
model accuracy. This report is focused on exploring these methods and recommending a
course of action for future modeling attempts.
1.2. Background
1.2.1. Alternative Fuels
Alternative fuels are a rising interest worldwide – as such, vehicle technology has started
to shift focus toward fuels that replace traditional gasoline. This is especially prevalent in
the public transportation sector, where it is reported that, as of 2013, over 35% of U.S
public buses are using “alternative fuels or hybrid technology” to reduce emissions. [1]
This growth is also being incentivize by the US government. Congress has continued to
extend the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act which provides tax
benefits for CNG and liquefied natural gas (LNG). [2]
Alternative fuels are defined by the lack of gasoline and therefore include a broad set of
fuel types. In the transportation sector leading fuel types include biodiesel, ethanol,
electric, natural gas (CNG or LNG), and hydrogen. Figure 1 shows the number of
vehicles made for different fuel types between 2004 and 2015.
1
Figure 1: Growth of Alternative Fuels Vehicles in the Transportation Sector from 2004
to 2015 [3]
Ethanol 85 (E85) and Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) both utilize petroleum gas.
Without these two components, the leading alternative fuel vehicles as of 2015 are
biodiesel, followed by CNG and Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs).
Focusing on natural gas, this fuel is highly available and is mass produced in the US. As
such it is easily accessible to the public. In addition to this, it is a clean-burning fuel and
provides similar “power, acceleration and cruising speed” compared to gasoline. The
current downside of using natural gas is that the total mileage a vehicle can travel before
refilling is reduced. [4]
In terms of manufacturing, CNG is simple to produce. Natural gas is compressed in a
range of 3000-3600 psi to a volume less than 1% what the free gas would take.
Conversely, LNG production requires cryogenic tanks and storage at a temperature of
-260°F [4]. Natural gas is therefore most accessible as a fuel in CNG form at this time.
1.2.2. State of the Art: CNG Tanks
The typical state of CNG tanks is the rounded cylinder shown in Figure 2.
2
Figure 2: Type 3 Cylindrical CNG Tank [5]
There are currently 4 types of CNG tank. As the type number increases the typical weight
decreases. Type 1 tanks are a formed steel or aluminum which typically have a protective
coating around them. Type 2 tanks use a steel liner around the volume which is
surrounded by a partial composite material ‘wrap’ in the middle of the tank. Type 3 tanks
are typically made with an aluminum liner and a full composite wrap (ex. carbon fiber).
Type 4 tanks have no metal, instead using plastic with a rubber liner and a composite
wrap around the natural gas. [6] [7]
The cylindrical tank geometry removes stress concentrations that would occur at sharp
corners. However, when mounting the cylinders, the geometry makes it difficult to place
the tanks on vehicles without a fixture that accounts for the circular cross section.
Therefore the tanks are typically placed in the back of truck beds, in trunks of cars, or on
top of buses. Of these options, only buses have an option that does not remove available
vehicle space. Additionally, because the fixtures must account for the circular cross
section, the true packaging space for the tank is a rectangular cross section along its
length. Therefore there is a motivation to find a tank design that uses this space and can
be mounted more conveniently on vehicles.
1.2.3. REL Conformable Tank
The CNG tank proposed by REL Inc. changes the tank structure to fit the packaging
space. The current iteration (phase 1) of the tank is a cube as shown in the REL brochure
image of Figure 3. This tank is considered a ‘modified type 1’ tank.
3
Figure 3: REL Modified Type 1 Conformable CNG Tank showing Additional
Volumetric Storage (left) and Internal Structure (right) [8]
The tank offers an increase in CNG storage and a more convenient mounting shape by
using radiused corners for the external surfaces and Schwarz P-surfaces for the internal
geometry. These tanks are called ‘conformable tanks’ because they are not limited to a
cube, but can instead form shapes around key components on vehicles or mounting
brackets.
1.2.4. Large Models of Complex Geometry
As shown in Figure 3, the internal geometry of the tank is small and complex relative to
the size of the tank and uses various radii throughout. It therefore requires a large number
of small elements to properly model. Typically, small elements are associated with a
small timestep in explicit analyses and require a large number of equations to solve in
both implicit and explicit analyses. The typical approach to model a complex geometry is
to construct a low runtime model (typically using a coarse mesh with the same boundary
conditions) then increase mesh quality and test for convergence at increasingly small
element sizes. This method aims to determine the minimum required size for an accurate
analysis.
1.3. Mechanical Testing Standards: NGV2
FEA test conditions for these tanks follows the NGV2 national safety standard. NGV2
standards cover a large number of tests that include but are not limited to: bonfire testing
of the pressure relief device (PRD), exposure to corrosive chemicals, burst testing, cycle
testing (type 4 only), drop testing, and bullet penetration testing. [9] While all of these
4
standards must be met, the focus of this research is the high-stress, non-fracture testing
scenarios. These tests include burst and drop testing.
Because drop testing should cause the highest stress concentrations and requires dynamic
simulation, this test method is the primary focus for this report. Pressure testing
conditions are only used to determine a starting point for drop test simulations.
It should be noted that physical v. simulated NGV2 test standards are not the focus of this
work. This report is not directly concerned with a model that exactly matches the
expected strains within these tank simulation. Instead, the report focuses on assessing a
‘generally accurate’ model to discern runtime reduction methods. As such, NGV2
standards are only referenced for completeness and an understanding of where the load
and boundary conditions originate. Further discussion on defining the ‘general accuracy’
of the simulations is discussed in the Physical Validation section of the dynamic
modeling results.
1.3.1. Burst Testing
NGV2 burst testing requirements focus on internal pressurization of the CNG tank. The
NGV2 standard assumes an operating pressure of 3000-3600 psi and burst (failure)
pressure of 2.25 times the operating pressure. A sketch of the general load case for REL’s
CNG tanks is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: NGV2 Burst Pressure Test - Loading Conditions
1.3.2. Drop Testing
NGV2 drop test requirements have 2 drop test scenarios: a horizontal drop test and a 45°
rotation drop test. The horizontal drop test involves the tank being dropped on its side
from a height of 72” onto concrete. After the drop test, the tank must be pressure cycled
from 10% to 125% of standard operating pressure for 3000 cycles without failure. The
5
45° rotation drop test is identical to the horizontal drop test except that the center of
gravity (CG) of the tank must be at a height of 72” (or higher) and the tank is rotated 45°.
[9] Both test conditions are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: NGV2 Drop Test Configurations for Horizontal and 45° Impact
6
Note that Figure 5 shows an exaggerated size of the current iteration of CNG tanks. The
decrease in height to initial impact in the 45° rotation configuration is not this large.
However, in the case that the height decrease is significant, the tank must be rotated such
that there is a minimum height of 24” and the CG is still at 72” above the ground. The
internal pressure of the tank for these tests should be 0 psi (empty) and dropped at
ambient temperature. [9]
2. Problem Analysis
2.1. Project Goal
The goal of the project is to recommend a method or set of methods that reduce current
model run time while maintaining model accuracy. The model run time is monitored by
CPU time taken by the simulation, while the model accuracy is measured by convergence
compared to a baseline simulation. Note that convergence has multiple measures that
must be considered. Acceptable percentile differences are further discussed in the
associated analysis sections.
2.2. Project Objectives
The project objectives to meet are:
• Determine a valid starting mesh size via static pressure analysis (implicit)
• Use converged static mesh size as a basis for dynamic impact convergence study
(explicit)
• Test timestep reduction methods and compare convergence to the baseline. Use
the converged dynamic impact model as this baseline.
These objectives were chosen to form a general method for replication and model
formation if and/or when new CNG tank designs are created. The final objective is the
critical piece of this report that directly answers the project goal. Note that validating a
converged mesh size should, in future, also include physical strain comparisons on a
model to further prove convergence. Since no strain data is known for drop test scenarios
at this time, this step was not available.
2.3. Limitations
Limitations of this project are runtime based. For the scope of this paper, all runs are
performed on Michigan Technological University’s SUPERIOR cluster with 4
processors. Even so, runs take up to ~17 hours. Therefore, a general upper limit of 12
hours was set to determine a lower bound of element size for baseline models in impact.
Considering phase 2 tanks are projected to increase the number of elements by a factor of
3.5, this would increase the runtime to ~42 hours per run. This time could increase
depending on quality of elements and any additional contact between parts in future
models. Running iterative mass optimization or full vehicle impact on models this large
would be too time consuming to make the process worth it.
7
This limitation constrains both the timestep and element size (aka number of equations in
the solver). Since the contact conditions given in the dynamic impact test case are simple,
the timestep is directly related to the element size, and therefore directly constrains the
minimum element size. If these results are replicated without use of SUPERIOR, element
sizes that require a large runtime may need to be removed from the analyses.
3. Geometry and Material Models
3.1. Tank Geometry
The tank geometry used in this report is a phase 1 tank. These tanks have a cubic shape.
As mentioned in the REL: Conformable Tank section, the internal geometry of the tank is
formed by Schwarz P-surfaces, a minimal surface designed with no edges. The external
surface is undulated to reduce tank mass (as opposed to a flat surface). An image of the
phase 1 CNG tank as-imported to HyperMesh is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Imported Entire Tank (left) and Internal Geometry (right) of a Phase 1 Tank
While the tank itself is formed symmetrically, the geometric lines seen in the left image
of Figure 6 do not allow for symmetry of the elements without a large amount of ‘line
toggling’. In this process the user manually removes geometric lines from the model to
re-impose symmetry and improve mesh quality.
Another critical point in the geometry is the ‘3-radius interface’, where 3 different radii
come together in the geometry. This location occurs at every connection between the
external and internal geometry as shown in Figure 7.
8
Figure 7: 3-Radius Interface Location in CNG Tank
This location has significance in element type selection and is further discussed in the
Shell v. Solid Elements (First Order) section.
Finally, it is important to note that this geometry is not the only type that the methods
described in this paper have been used for during research. Additional models include
prototype phase 2 models, fork truck tank models, and flat external surface models.
3.2. Concrete Floor Geometry
Floor geometry was used for dynamic impact analysis only. The width, length and
thickness of the slabs at REL. Inc. were given as 5’ x 5’ x 6” and is within the typical
precast concrete dimensions from online research. [10] A visual of the concrete
dimensions are given in Figure 8.
9
Figure 8: Concrete Slab Geometry with Front (bottom left), Top (top left) and Isometric
(right) Views
For consistency with the modeling units used in this research (kg, mm, ms), the model
dimensions in mm are 152.4 x 1524 x 1524 mm.
While concrete dimensions may vary between test locations in physical testing, the
general dimensions are only necessary to have a realistic concrete impact surface. As
long as the bending moment placed upon the concrete slab is relatively small (aka impose
small displacement of concrete), user defined dimensions should be appropriate for the
impact model. Note that there is a threshold at which small concrete plates without
fracture mechanisms will create a much higher effective stiffness of the concrete.
Similarly, using a larger concrete floor may reduce simulation noise (good for
convergence) at the cost of model realism.
For completeness of potential concrete floor geometry, an alternate geometry is possible
– a rigid wall. This method assumes the concrete absorbs no energy and is simply an
impact surface for the CNG tank. Further information on the impact of using a rigid wall
can be found in the Rigid Wall section.
10
3.3. Aluminum Material Model
The material used for these CNG tanks is A206 aluminum. The heat treatment options
considered during this research include hot isostatic pressing (HIP), solution heat treated
and natural aging (T4), and solution heat treated and artificial aging (T6). This report
focuses on a T6 aging condition. The tensile curve and general material parameters are
given in Figure 9 and Table 1 respectively.
Figure 9: Uniaxial Tension Test Data for A206 Aluminum
Table 1: A206 General Parameters Extracted from Uniaxial Tensile Curve
A206-T6 Aluminum
Elastic Modulus, GPa 65.392
Yield Strength @ 0.2% Offset, MPa 248.3
Ultimate Tensile Strength, MPa 370.5
Elongation @ Failure, % 9.03
Density, g/ccm 2.796
Poisson’s Ratio 0.33
11
Within FEA solvers, the plastic curve portion of this elastoplastic material data can be
created using multiple methods. The method used in this report is the Johnson-Cook
curve fit method. This follows the following equation format:
𝜎𝜎 = [𝐴𝐴 + 𝐵𝐵(𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝 )𝑛𝑛 ][1 + 𝐶𝐶 ∗ ln�𝜀𝜀̇𝑝𝑝 ∗ �][1 − (𝑇𝑇 ∗ )𝑚𝑚 ] Eqn. 1
Where σ is the stress, A is the yield stress, B is the strain hardening coefficient, n is the
strain hardening exponent, C is the strain-rate coefficient, 𝜀𝜀̇𝑝𝑝 ∗ is the normalized plastic
strain rate defined in equation 2, 𝑇𝑇 ∗ is the normalized temperature defined in equation 3,
and m is the temperature softening exponent.
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝̇
𝜀𝜀̇𝑝𝑝 ∗ ≡ Eqn. 2
𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝0̇
Where 𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝̇ is the input strain rate (strain rate at any given time), and 𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝0̇ is the reference
strain rate of the stress-strain data.
𝑇𝑇 − 𝑇𝑇0
𝑇𝑇 ∗ ≡ Eqn. 3
𝑇𝑇𝑚𝑚 − 𝑇𝑇0
Where T is the current temperature, T0 is the reference temperature, and Tm is the melting
temperature of the material.
The Johnson-Cook curve is a version of von Mises plasticity which assumes isotropic
hardening and can account for both strain rate and temperature effects on the material.
[11] Note that the isotropic hardening assumption is critical in this model and in future
modeling of the CNG tank.
Isotropic hardening assumes that the plastic properties of a material are the same in
tension and compression even after plastic deformation occurs. Therefore any work
hardening done in a tensile element will increase its compression properties equally. In
models, this hardening approach is considered valid when there is no cyclic loading that
alternates compression and tension.
For completeness, and to help potential cyclic loading models, the alternative hardening
approach is called kinematic hardening. This model assumes the yield surface shifts as
the material yields in compression or tension. Therefore, yielding in compression will
cause a decrease in required stress to yield in tension and vice versa.
The Johnson-Cook parameters for the A206 aluminum can be found in Table 2. The units
for these parameters match the units used in the simulations (kg, mm, ms).
12
Table 2: Johnson-Cook Material Parameters Fitted to Tensile Test Data
Johnson-Cook Parameters for A206 Aluminum
A – Yield Stress, GPa 0.2483
B – Strain Hardening Coeff, GPa 0.4156
n – Strain Hardening Exponent 0.4908
C – Strain-Rate Coeff, GPa 0*
m – Temp Softening Exponent n/a*
These values were found using an optimizer utilizing a Davidson-Fletcher-Powell (DFP)
algorithm with a golden section internal optimizer once the search direction was found.
The optimizer minimized the mean square error (MSE) between the Johnson-Cook curve
and the tensile data points. This method was used because the excel curve fit function
was not approximating the elastoplastic region of the data properly at the time. Note that
the optimizer only handled 2 variables (B and n); the A parameter is known to be the
yield strength. As such, which optimizer is used is not critical – this optimization can also
be done manually using many iterations. The C parameter was tested on a split
Hopkinson bar at Michigan Technological University at various strain rates and found to
be approximately zero. Similarly, the m parameter is considered to be not applicable
because T* is 0 for our simulations (performed at ambient temperature from the NGV2
test standard).
3.4. Concrete Material Model
The concrete material model only applies for impact analysis and uses Portland cement
concrete, a common, general purpose concrete. [12]
An elastic material model was selected to model this concrete – this assumes the concrete
does not fail by plastic deformation or fracture. Since concrete is typically brittle, the ‘no
plastic deformation’ assumption should be valid. The ‘no fracture’ assumption is only
valid if the concrete is not reaching stresses high above its ultimate strength. By assuming
an elastic model without fracture for the concrete, the concrete no longer has an energy
release mechanism; the stored energy must therefore stiffen the structure and increase the
reaction forces on the tank. In effect, the elastic concrete will stiffen where actual
concrete would release energy via fracture therefore creating a ‘worst-case’ scenario for
the tank. The associated concrete properties are given in Table 3.
13
Table 3: Concrete Elastic Properties for Portland cement concrete [12]
Portland Concrete Elastic Properties
Elastic Modulus, GPa 13.789
Density, g/ccm 2.24
Poisson’s Ratio 0.2
In future, fracture characteristics may need to be considered to ensure an accurate model.
This should be used only if physical testing shows a large discrepancy in strains when
compared to simulations.
4. Mesh Selection
Of the 3 general options for elements (1d, 2d shell and 3d solid), only 2d and 3d element
types are considered for this report. While 1d elements have potential to approximate
internal geometry, the error is likely to be too large to make it worth the run-time
reduction. As such, they are considered a potential area for future model reduction.
4.1. Shell v. Solid Elements (First Order)
2d elements are typically used in thin structures with small to no thickness gradients.
Compared to 3d elements they reduce run time and avoid problems such as shear locking.
The two primary element types are quad (4 side) and tria (3 side). Quads are typically
preferred since trias demonstrate difficulty in modeling bending problems. Both types
may be subject to hourglassing.
The internal geometry of the tank fits the requirements for a 2d mesh; there are no
thickness gradients or complex interfaces. However, the 3-radius interface shown in
Figure 7 and external geometry limit potential uses for 2d elements. A 2d mesh of the 3-
radius interface misses the connectivity between surfaces caused by the radii and the
external geometry has thickness gradients close to these interfaces. Therefore, a 2d mesh
is not recommended for the entire tank.
3d elements are the default element for 3d structures. The two primary elements are hex
(6 side cuboid), tetra (4 side triangular prism) and the connector pyramid element (5 side
pyramid). Hex elements are preferable as they shear lock less than tetra and pyramid
elements. Pyramid elements are only used when a transition between hex and tetra
elements is needed.
While hex elements are preferable, the tank geometry does not allow for parallel quad
meshes to create a valid set of hex elements. Therefore, a tetra mesh is the recommended
14
3d element style to model the tank if only 1 element type is used. These elements are
used for all initial convergence testing and defining baseline model results.
5. Static Modeling – Starting Mesh Size Determination
Initial modeling with static analyses is used to reduce the number of simulations required
to test convergence in the dynamic analyses. As such, the static convergence models
cover a large set of element sizes and assess potential variability in resultant stresses to
find a converged element size. The chosen range for element sizes is from 2.5mm to
5mm by 0.5mm increments. The maximum element size was chosen because the mesh
begins to have 1 solid element through the tank thickness at this size. This violates the
general rule for 1st order 3d meshing; always have a minimum of 2 elements through the
part thickness. The minimum size was chosen as an estimate of the minimum size desired
in impact analysis to maintain a reasonable runtime.
5.1. Static Model Overview – Boundary Conditions
5.1.1. Static Displacement Constraints
The CNG tank shown in Figure 6 in the Tank Geometry section is a full phase 1 tank.
However, since the tank is symmetric and internal pressure is uniform, the tank model for
static pressure can be cut along each plane of symmetry as shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Symmetry Boundary Conditions in Static Pressure Analysis
15
Along each of the 3 planes of symmetry, boundary conditions are set constraining
translation in the normal direction of that plane (ex. x-y plane of symmetry is constrained
in the z-direction). These constraints match the actual displacement of a full pressured
tank since the mid-plane of a symmetrically loaded specimen will not move.
5.1.2. Static Loading Conditions
The load conditions for static analysis match those of a tank at operating pressure of 3600
psi as shown in Figure 11.
Figure 11: 3600 psi Pressure Loading Conditions on Phase 1 Quarter Tank
While this pressure could have been set to 8100psi, the convergence study was performed
at 3600psi to compare with and validate convergence study data from previous students.
However, since the load conditions would not change beyond a simple scalar multiplier
the convergence of a 3600psi load should match that of an 8100psi load.
5.2. Static Convergence Criteria
Since this convergence study was initially performed before knowing more about
convergence, the criteria used to define convergence was the maximum von Mises stress
(75% average). Note that a 75% average (known as simple average in HyperView) is
used to reduce the effect of stress gradients within the tetra elements. Therefore, while
metrics such as recoverable strain energy are now known to be more useful, the issues
16
associated with element stress gradients in using maximum non-averaged stresses as the
convergence criterion should be minimized.
In an effort to further prove convergence with standard deviations, 3 simulations were run
at each element size. In each simulation the model was created using a building block
mesh. This mesh formed the entire tank by creating a 2-by-2 set of cores and extending it
either in the x, y or z direction. Each of the 3 simulations had a different primary
extension direction. This method forces all element quality criteria to be identical within
an element size setting and therefore removes noise associated with remeshed element
quality. The only variable tested by this standard deviation is what element stacking
orientation effects are on the model. Therefore, the standard deviation for these models
can be considered a true standard deviation used to determine whether models are
equivalent or not. A supporting visual for this method is shown in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Method to Assess Standard Deviation in Symmetrically Formed Tank
5.3. Static Analysis Results
A sample set of stress results from the simulation are shown in Figure 13.
17
Figure 13: 3mm z-extension Static Test Results at 3600 psi: Simple Average Mises
Stress
Note that the stress results are given in GPa due to the simulation units used. The
maximum stress in this simulation is therefore 205.7 MPa. These images show the
location of maximum 75% averaged von Mises stress in the model; this location is
consistent between models and is a key defining feature of the static analysis for all
pressures.
Another defining feature of the model is that the stress is not completely symmetrical
along the 2x2 section of the model (shown in the bottom left image). This demonstrates
the rationale for measuring the standard deviation of the models that occurs from mesh
stack-up error. If there are small differences using identical elements, the impact of
orientation should be considered.
18
Convergence results for the CNG tank including standard deviation are shown in Table 4
and Figure 14 respectively.
Table 4: von Mises Stress and Standard Deviation at Various Element Sizes with 3600
psi Loading
Max von Mises Stress
Average Max von Mises
Element Size, mm Standard Deviation
Stress (% Error), MPa
(%Error), MPa
2.5 215 (0) 3.2 (1.5)
3 206.3 (4) 4.9 (2.3)
3.5 201.5 (6.3) 2.3 (1.1)
4 193.2 (10.1) 1.1 (0.5)
4.5 172.9 (19.6) 6 (2.8)
5 167.3 (22.2) 3.5 (1.6)
Figure 14: Average Maximum von Mises Stress v. Element Size at 3600 psi with Error
Bars
19
The stress results show a decrease in accuracy below 3.5mm mesh size and a steep drop
off in accuracy below 4mm mesh size. Similarly, at 2.5mm the there is an increase in
maximum stress implying that there is still room to reduce the mesh size to increase
accuracy. However, when considering the standard deviation of the model, the 3mm
mesh size should be considered acceptable compared to the 2.5mm mesh size. Therefore,
the 3mm mesh size is chosen as the starting element size for dynamic impact analysis.
The standard deviation of these convergence results demonstrate the difficulties with
convergence criteria. While convergence can still be estimated, there is up to 2.8% error
in noise associated with mesh orientation in this model. When compounded with other
noise factors such as remeshed elements (varying element quality), and numerical error in
the solver this variation may reach 5% or higher. For this report the von Mises acceptable
deviation is considered to be below ~5%. This assumes variation will increase due to
remeshed elements and considers a statistical 5% error interval – ‘less than 5% error is
‘insignificant’.
6. Dynamic Modeling – Convergence Verification
While dynamic modeling of convergence takes longer, it is necessary to understand
convergence of the impact load condition. Since convergence of a model is defined by
having a small enough element size to accurately calculate the deformation tensor (and
by extension the stress, strain etc.), a significant change in load conditions implies a
potential change in converged element size. However, instead of using a large range of
element sizes, we can test a smaller range for convergence based on the convergence
estimated in the Static Modeling section. Due to the higher stress concentrations of the
load conditions it is safe to assume that the converged element size should not be larger
than the converged range of static analyses. Therefore, the selected element size range
was chosen to include 2.25, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4mm mesh sizes. No standard deviation was
considered for these models.
Within these element sizes a modified edge drop test condition was the primary focus.
The edge (45° rotation) drop test will have larger stress concentrations than the horizontal
drop test because the contact surface is smaller. In order to ensure this is the case for any
CNG tank, the drop height was changed to be 72” from the lowest point of the tank. This
test condition matches that of the horizontal drop test. Therefore, the converged element
size from these results can be used for any test condition.
In addition to an edge drop test, convergence was analyzed for a corner drop test (45° /
45° rotation). This test condition is a worst-case scenario for stresses applied to the tank.
Therefore, convergence results will provide a second estimate of the minimum element
size required for convergence.
20
6.1. Dynamic Model Overview – Boundary Conditions
6.1.1. Dynamic Displacement Constraints
Displacement conditions for the drop test are set on the concrete block on all outer
surfaces except for the impact surface as shown in the sketch and actual model views of
Figure 15.
Figure 15: Sketch of Constrained Concrete Slab (top) and Model of Constrained Slab
(bottom)
This configuration assumes that the sides and bottom surface of the concrete are not
allowed to move during impact. This ‘no bending’ assumption was chosen as a worst
case scenario; minimizing bending in an elastic model increases the concrete contact
forces resisting deformation during the impact.
The alternate assumption is to leave the bottom of the concrete unconstrained (similar to
conditions where it may bend slightly, such as compressing dirt below the concrete).
Since dynamic simulations show minimal deformation of the concrete, the difference
between the two assumptions should be minimal. The worst case scenario with no
bending is preferable for determining convergence.
21
6.1.2. Dynamic Loading Conditions
Loading conditions are applied to the tank such that the kinetic energy from a 72” drop is
converted to an initial velocity. The kinetic energy of each run is calculated to be
approximately 742.3 J. This initial velocity is derived from the mass of the tank (~41.24
kg) and the transfer of 100% potential energy of the tank at 72” to 100% kinetic energy
of the tank at 0”. Using this mass, the initial velocity is approximately 6 m/s for the
baseline 3mm phase 1 tank as shown in Figure 16 via sketch and model images.
Figure 16: Sketch of Initial Velocity Condition (top) and Modeled Velocity Condition
(bottom)
22
It is critical to note that the mass of the tank will have small fluctuations depending on
the mesh size. This occurs due to geometric approximation of elements adding or
subtracting small amounts of mass. Therefore the tank velocity is recalculated for each
model using 742.3 J as the target initial total energy.
6.1.3. Dynamic Contact Controls
This impact analysis considers contact to be a frictionless kinetic contact. The frictionless
assumption is typically considered valid in small-deformation systems. Friction in the
model serves to increase the shear force on the contact elements. With small deformation,
the contact surface is minimal and shear forces will be a small component in the analysis.
Because of this, as long as the friction setting is consistent it will not affect convergence
results. Friction may need to be considered in future models to ensure model accuracy
compared to physical testing.
The kinetic contact method uses a predictor/corrector algorithm. It is designed for precise
enforcement of contact conditions and is recommended for contact with elastic materials
(such as the concrete slab). Since the driver for loading in the simulation is contact, this
style of contact control is preferable. Limitations of this contact method include: inability
to model rigid-rigid contact, cases with ‘chatter’ contact (vibrations) and has difficulties
when interacting with other constraints (typically one constraint is removed if
interference occurs).
For completeness, the alternate method is the penalty contact method (via penalty
algorithms). This method is a considered the ‘general’ contact method and can account
for more types of contact (such as rigid-rigid contact) and interacts well with other
constraints, but will introduce minor additional stiffness as the contact is “less stringent”
in enforcing the constraint (penalizing any penetration so the solver can correct it via
reaction force). The primary limitation of the penalty method contact analysis is any large
deformation at the contact surface with high reaction forces. These scenarios may be
caused by displacement-controlled loading, coarse mesh, or elastic responses where large
deformation occurs. Additionally, Abaqus estimates this method to decrease the timestep
by up to ~4%. [13] Since many of these conditions are met and the timestep decrease is
not ideal, this method is not chosen in this simulation.
6.2. Dynamic Convergence Criteria
There are 3 different convergence criteria considered for these models: Recoverable
strain energy (strain energy), internal energy (total strain energy), and average maximum
signed von Mises stress (75% average). Each criterion is only considered for the tank, not
the entire model (tank and slab).
Internal energy, in reference to this simulation, is defined as the sum of elastic and plastic
strain energy of the tank. As such it is more sensitive to stress gradients within elements
and can vary accordingly. Recoverable strain energy is only the elastic strain energy of
the tank; while this criteria is less inclusive than internal energy, it is more robust as a
23
convergence criteria in elastoplastic models as high stress gradients will not contribute to
the recoverable strain energy. The simple average signed von Mises stress is also
measured because it is the primary output considered in the models and has a clear
physical connection to the results. As such this measure should still be included when
assessing a converged model. In physical validation this criteria should also include
strain.
For completeness it must be noted that signed von Mises stress (as opposed to regular
von Mises stress) is the desired metric to track for failure criteria in the drop test
simulations. Signed von Mises stress looks at the sign of the first principal stress in an
element and gives the same sign to the corresponding von Mises stress. This is critical for
this model because the edge/corner is put into bending. This bending applies a larger
compressive stress than tensile stress to the material. Since aluminum fails at different
compressive and tensile stresses and the compressive strength is known to be much
higher than the tensile strength due to plastic flow, we focus on tensile stresses in the
model.
6.3. Dynamic Analysis Results
A sample set of von Mises stress results from the simulation are shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17: von Mises Stress Results for 2.25mm Element Size with Maximum Stress
Region (bottom)
24
Note that the stress results are given in GPa due to the simulation units used. The
maximum stress in this simulation is therefore 390.7 MPa. These images also show the
location of maximum 75% averaged von Mises stress in the model; this location is
consistent between models.
While the model shows minimal deformation, it is important to note there is not
symmetry of the stresses along the tank in these runs. This is because the tank is not
located along the midplane of the concrete slab. This does not affect the convergence
results but must be recognized in future modeling efforts. The reason for this effect is
because the concrete can deform less near the boundary conditions. Therefore, the contact
forces closer to the edge of the slab are slightly larger.
Another key feature to note is that the maximum stress exceeds the tested ultimate
strength of the material. The Johnson-Cook material model does not have an input
maximum stress. This allows the stress to continue along the estimated stress-strain curve
which avoids any truncation past the ultimate tensile strength. Additionally, as mentioned
in the Dynamic Convergence Criteria section, the signed von Mises stress is a better
measure of failure in this model. The maximum stress regions shown are compressive
regions, while the stresses on the inside of the tank are in tension. Because of the
geometry, the internal stresses are much lower than the external stresses. The von Mises
stress results shown in Figure 17 are shown in Figure 18 in signed von Mises stress for
comparison.
Figure 18: Signed von Mises Stress Results for 2.25mm Element Size with Maximum
Compressive Stress Region (middle) and Maximum Tensile Region (bottom)
25
The previous maximum von Mises stresses are shown to be compressive stresses while
the new maximum tensile stress is located on the inside of the tank as shown in the
bottom image of Figure 18. However, by using signed von Mises stress in regions where
the stresses alternate between tensile and compressive, the stress gradients appear to be
larger than that of regular von Mises stress. This occurs due to averaging.
Convergence results for the CNG corner tank impact are shown in Table 5 and Figure 19
respectively. Similarly, convergence results for edge impact are shown in Table 6 and
Figure 20 respectively.
Table 5: Convergence Criteria and Run Time at Various Element Sizes in Drop Test
Average Max Recoverable Internal CPU Run
Element Size Signed von Strain Energy Energy Time
(mm) Mises Stress (%Error), MPa (%Error), (%Change),
(%Error), MPa MPa hr:min
4 279.3 (4.7) 83.3 (20) 413.3 (2.6) 1:02 (90.5)
3.5 282.8 (3.5) 76.0 (9.6) 417.7 (1.6) 1:50 (83.3)
3 291.5 (0.5) 72.0 (3.8) 419.7 (1.1) 3:10 (71)
2.5 293.4 (0.1) 70.5 (1.7) 423.20 (0.3) 7:06 (35.2)
2.25 293.0 (0) 69.3 (0) 424.29 (0) 10:58 (0)
Figure 19: Graphed Convergence Criteria and Run Time v. Element Size for Corner
Drop Test at Constant Initial Kinetic Energy (742.3 J)
26
Table 6: Convergence Criteria and Run Time at Various Element Sizes in Edge Drop
Average Max Recoverable Internal CPU Run
Element Size Signed von Strain Energy Energy Time
(mm) Mises Stress (%Error), MPa (%Error), (%Change),
(%Error), MPa MPa hr:min
4 245.3 (16.6) 153.2 (5.4) 463.9 (1.9) 1:00 (90.6)
3.5 247.8 (15.8) 151.0 (3.9) 469.2 (0.8) 1:50 (82.6)
3 259.9 (11.7) 152.5 (4.9) 467.5 (1.2) 3:03 (71.2)
2.5 293.6 (0.2) 146.9 (1) 475.3 (0.5) 6:34 (38.2)
2.25 294.3 (0) 145.3 (0) 473.1 (0) 10:37 (0)
Figure 20: Graphed Convergence Criteria and Run Time v. Element Size for Edge Drop
Test at Constant Initial Kinetic Energy (742.3 J)
Assuming an acceptable convergence of 5% or less, the stress and energy results indicate
a minimum element size of 3mm for the corner impact. The edge impact results imply an
element size of 2.5mm. This discrepancy is likely due to the ‘simple’ nature of the corner
impact where there is only 1 impact location. In the edge case, 4 different contact points
impact the concrete with varying concrete stiffness at each point due to the boundary
conditions. This results in more simulation noise. The edge impact case can therefore be
27
considered a more complex impact scenario and the driver for convergence if a non-
infinite concrete block is used.
From the stress results, it can be concluded that the models are either converged or
beginning to converge at 2.5mm. The corner and edge impact percent difference between
stresses from 2.5 to 2.25mm are both below 1%.
Contrary to this, the energy results seem to be continuing to increase / decrease instead of
completely tapering off at 2.25mm element size. This may indicate that the model is still
not 100% converged at 2.25mm. The energy results therefore support the static analysis
results that the convergence can be improved further. However, because the model
already requires 10.5 hours to run at a 2.25mm element size and because runtime displays
an exponential growth as element size decreases, this element size is considered the
minimum allowable size for the scope of this paper (and is recommended to be
considered a minimum for optimization purposes).
With this assumption, the 2.5mm element size can be considered a valid converged
element size as there is minimal difference in output stress and only minor error in energy
results between these element sizes. While this assumption will introduce error, it should
not affect the results of applying time reduction methods to the model. As long as the
time reduction methods are applied at a constant element size, noise associated with
convergence will be minimized.
For energy convergence criteria, it is critical to note that the difference between runs is on
the order of 1’s in Joules. Considering this is very small compared to the actual value
(less than 5% error in all cases of internal energy), it is difficult to decide upon a useful
percentage error that may be acceptable. This is reinforced by the fact that strain energy
(and strain energy density) are calculated over a specific area. In this case the entire tank
was used, but in cases that only take a small area of the tank, percentage error may
fluctuate. Numerical error within the solver may also be the source of this gap as
truncation can easily cause error on the order of 1’s. Therefore, numerical error should be
kept in mind for all convergence results. Additionally it is recommended to include stress
in future convergence criteria to maintain an understanding of the physical meaning of
error between runs. In physical testing this may also include strain convergence.
6.4. Physical Validation
This section is included for completeness in future modeling of the CNG tank.
Physical validation for drop testing has not been fully carried out at this point. As such,
the data that we currently have for impact scenarios is limited to photos as shown in
Figure 21.
28
Figure 21: 2.25mm Edge Impact Plastic Maximum Principal Strain Results
Both test scenarios show minimal deformation. A set of comparative views from
simulations are shown in Figures 22 and 23.
Figure 22: 2.25mm Edge Impact Plastic Maximum Principal Strain Results
Figure 23: 2.25mm Corner Impact Plastic Maximum Principal Strain Results
29
Note that the deformation of these simulations is ~1.6mm for the edge impact model and
~3.9mm for the corner impact model. Comparing the images, the edge impact case
should be considered reasonable for impact conditions. The maximum principal strain is
around the maximum seen in the material model and therefore requires minimal
extrapolation. Therefore, any errors that occur in measuring deformation are due to gaps
in the tensile v. compressive properties of the material.
In the corner impact case, the deformations are larger than depicted in the image. This
can be explained by the maximum principal strain which reaches 18% (~2x the maximum
tensile strain). This large strain forces the solver to extrapolate the stress-strain tensile
curve. Not only does this material curve need to be compressive for a better measure of
strain, the approximating tensile curve is significantly extrapolated which is likely the
root cause of this error.
Therefore, when further physical tests are performed, strain measurement is highly
recommended to improve calibration of the material model. Further compressive material
properties may also be necessary to better understand changes in tensile v. compressive
properties in the material curve. The simulations should use these results to edit the
material model and account for high compressive stress regions. This should improve
accuracy of corner impact deformation estimation on the outer surface.
Run time reduction is determined by increasing timestep (function of only element size in
these simulations) and decreasing the number of equations to solve (number of nodes).
Therefore, alterations to A206 material properties is considered a negligible factor in run
time reduction method assessment.
7. Time Reduction Methods
In previous analyses the element size and type was constant throughout the model to
ensure a consistent converged element size. However, elements that are located far from
the points of contact have minimal stresses and therefore have minimal contribution to
the output. Multiple methods can be applied to take advantage of this to reduce run time.
Four methods are considered in this paper: a symmetrical ‘building block method’,
gradient meshing, hybrid element meshing and planes of symmetry.
There are two additional methods that were considered but not used for run-time
reduction in this report. Either the user can opt to use second-order elements and reduce
the total number of elements or the concrete floor can be replaced with a rigid wall.
These methods are also described with reasoning as to why they were not used.
7.1. Symmetrical Building Block
The symmetrical building block method asserts symmetry in the model. As mentioned in
the Tank Geometry section, there are a large number of lines in the CAD file that obstruct
symmetry in the CNG tank model. However, it is known that the CNG tank is actually
symmetric. Instead of toggling each line on each cell (which still misses some geometry
30
fixes that need to happen), the user can split the model into unique parts. Each unique
part geometry is then corrected. The tank model can then be built using these parts (either
pre-meshed or meshed in a larger piece). The mesh is then reflected to produce repeating
element structures. A set of sample parts used for phase 2 CNG tank modeling are shown
in Figure 24.
Figure 24: Phase 1 and 2 Model – Unique Parts for Conformable Model Creation
Note that the top line shows the bulk piece within the model, and the bottom line shows
the piece the user needs to mesh. These small pieces represent the entire geometry of a
Phase 1 or Phase 2 tank (assuming only 90° corners and edges occur). In all cases, the
smaller blocks can be merged and meshed to form a larger component to be reflected like
the one shown in Figure 25.
Figure 25: 4mm Phase 1 Base Part – Colored Segments Indicate Different Parts from
Figure 20
31
The CNG tank model can be formed from this part simply by reflecting segments of the
base part. Each reflection follows geometric lines created by boundaries between parts.
This method is ideal to enforce a defined element size and element quality in the model
and ensures that stress concentrations do not occur in local regions due to differing mesh
quality. Additionally, once the parts are created, various tank geometries can be quickly
formed by rotating and reflecting these components. Therefore this method also reflects a
decrease in model creation time for all models after the building blocks are created.
7.2. Gradient Meshing
Gradient meshing is a common approach in FEA simulations where areas of minimal
impact are meshed at a larger element size than the critical zones. In effect, a gradient is
formed with small (converged) elements at the critical locations going to a larger element
size far away from these locations.
This method should be used for any model that has areas with minimal impact. However,
it is important to note the limitations to this gradient. Because there are elements that
transition from small to large element sizes, the transition should maintain the element
quality required of all other elements (typically the aspect ratio and jacobian are worse in
transition regions). To this point, the user must ensure that the gradient does not
significantly change the results of the simulation. In the case that they are affected, the
transition mesh may need to transition slower or begin farther from the critical location.
Determining if the results are significantly changed requires a full model to be tested at
the selected element size. While this may not be possible for very small element sizes
(ex. 1mm in the dynamic cases), it is the easiest method to prove results are not
significantly changed when gradient meshing.
7.3. Hybrid Element Meshing
Hybrid element meshing takes advantage of the fact that lower dimension elements take
less time to solve in an FEA solver (3d vs 2d vs 1d). In this paper, the hybrid element
meshing method uses a transition between 3d and 2d elements. As mentioned in the
Element Selection section, 2d elements are not ideal in the external surface and 3-radius
interface but are usable for the internal geometry. Therefore a transition region can be set
up such that the shell elements connect with the solid elements allowing the external
surface and 3-radius interface to be modeled with solid elements and the internal surface
to be modeled with shell elements. Figure 26 shows a sample hybrid mesh region.
32
Figure 26: Hybrid Element Mesh for 4mm Hybrid Model – Transition Elements in Light
Blue
Note that there are shell elements (light blue) covering the surface of the solid elements at
the 3-radius interface (red). These elements help transfer bending rotation of the 3d
elements to the shell elements on the internal P-surface (orange). Without these elements
any rotation of that surface about the point of contact between internal and external
surface would not be transferred to the internal surface. Despite this, the hybrid transition
will still not properly transfer shear stresses. Therefore, it is recommended to place this
transition away from critical regions similar to a gradient mesh.
7.4. Planes of Symmetry
Depending on the simulation there may be planes of symmetry that can be used to reduce
run time. The analyses for the time reduction consider only edge impact which has 1
plane of symmetry. Note that a plane of symmetry requires both the load conditions and
geometry to be symmetrical, therefore only 1 plane of symmetry exists while the static
load case had 3 planes of symmetry.
This method does not require simulation to understand – in a symmetrical model the run
time will be reduced by approximately half for each plane of symmetry (nodes on the
plane of symmetry are not halved). Planes of symmetry only change the number of
elements (not the timestep) and therefore are linearly related to the run time.
7.5. 2nd Order Elements
Second order elements are typically used to increase accuracy without increasing the
number of elements in a model. These elements increase the number of nodes which fixes
first order stiffness problems (ex. shear locking or tria bending stiffness). Additionally
33
these elements will converge at larger element sizes which may allow for lower run
times.
The rationale for not using second order elements in this analysis is due to the thickness
of the tank. Since the tank is thin, only 1 to 3 elements can fit within the thickness in the
range of first order elements tested. Therefore it is difficult to reduce the element size far
enough to make the computational time lower than the first order response. Additionally,
even if the element size can become large enough, the second order elements will still not
match the actual geometry. The element analysis tensors (deformation, strain, stress etc.)
may be second order but the element geometry remains first order. Any error associated
with geometry mismatch will not be fixed.
7.6. Rigid Wall
Using a rigid wall instead of a meshed concrete floor will save run time. However, this
run time is not related to the tank; therefore any percent decrease in run time associated
with using a rigid wall will be constant no matter the size of the tank.
Future iterations of the CNG tanks will need to make this decision based upon accuracy
v. run time. Using a rigid will reduce time due to removing elements. Additionally, it will
reduce noise associated with where the tank is dropped on the cement slab due to a
constant stiffness (infinite) at all points.
If the user prioritizes run accuracy, a rigid wall is not recommended. The amount of
elastic energy absorbed by the concrete in edge and corner impact was approximately 140
J and 60 J respectively. This increase in energy ranges from 10% to 30% of the energy
absorbed by the tank in concrete impact simulations. While drop location on the concrete
slab will affect maximum stress, a consistent drop location can fix this issue; the increase
in energy however cannot be corrected in the model.
Additionally, because the rigid wall has an infinite stiffness, the relative stiffness of the
tank to the rigid wall is very small. This large gap in stiffness will cause truncation error
in the analysis responses and potentially add more noise to the simulation results (in
addition to error in energy absorption / dissipation).
8. Dynamic Modeling – Runtime Reduction Testing
The dynamic model for these runs is identical to that described in Dynamic Model
Overview – Boundary Conditions with the exception of using the above methods to
assess runtime reduction. As such it is important to understand the requirements for
removing noise in a run’s timestep.
Timestep of an explicit run is generally defined by the amount of time taken for a wave at
the speed of sound to propagate through the defining length of an element. From this
definition, the smallest element’s size is the critical limitation to increasing the timestep
34
without artificial means. Therefore within these runtime reduction tests, the minimum
element size was kept constant for each model.
For completeness it should be noted that in an explicit analysis the timestep may change
during the run depending on contact or constraint interactions. Additionally, the timestep
may be adjusted using mass-scaling or direct control (user-defined minimum). While
these methods are applicable, these are considered outside the scope of this report
because direct timestep adjustment will vary between load rate and boundary conditions
even within a model. These methods can be used in tandem with the analyzed methods.
Note that care must be taken in manually adjusting timestep; a large timestep will cause
excessive error.
8.1. Symmetric Building Block Analysis
Testing between 3d symmetrical building block and non-symmetrical evaluates a model
that is ‘lightly cleaned up’ by toggling lines that cause very small elements to be meshed
against a model with reflected elements. Both models were evaluated as part of the
convergence study (using the same parameters). Models are compared at a mesh size of
3mm due to the run time required for the non-symmetrical tank. The only difference
between these models is the lack of ports on the symmetrical model and a decrease in
element size in non-toggled geometry regions as shown in Figure 27. Convergence
criteria comparisons are shown in Table 7.
Figure 27: Non-Symmetric Model (left) and Symmetrically Built Model (right)
35
Table 7: Convergence Criteria and Run Time Comparing Non-Symmetric (with ports)
and Symmetric Models
Average Max
Recoverable Internal CPU Run
Model Signed von
Strain Energy, Time,
Style Mises Stress,
Energy, J J hr:min
MPa
Non-
Symmetric 269.2 152.1 472.2 17:47:07
Edge
Symmetric
259.9 152.5 467.5 3:03:24
Edge
Error (%) 3.4 0.31 0.98 82.8
In stress, there is a notable difference of 10 MPa between simulations. While this
difference is within a 5% error, it is likely not solely due to numerical error. Instead, this
increase in stress is likely due to the location of the ports. While the symmetric model has
an equivalent kinetic energy this energy is spread equally across the tank. However, in
the non-symmetric model this energy is applied at the ports which will slightly increase
the bending moment applied to the impact edge. This bend is the cause of the maximum
tensile stress in the model that increases the maximum tensile von Mises stress.
This conclusion is further supported by the maximum compressive stresses in the models
which are 371.2 MPa and 370.9 MPa for the non-symmetric and symmetric edge runs
respectively. Because the maximum compressive stress is a combination of bending and
the impact itself, the compressive stresses are closer together than the tensile stresses. To
fix this gap in maximum stress, it is recommended that the next set of building blocks
include the ports. While this will take extra work, it will increase the accuracy of the
results.
Looking at strain energy and internal energy, the values are within 1% and imply that the
models are close enough to approximate each other. This gap with stress reemphasizes
that stress should be tracked in convergence analyses.
As for run time, there is an 83% decrease in runtime by using the symmetric model. This
decrease occurs due to the geometric fixes and mesh quality improvement prior to
reflection. If the non-symmetric edge impact were to undergo the same improvements the
run should take a similar amount of time. However, the time required to perform these
fixes will increase as the tank size increases. In the building block method, only 1 piece
needs to be fixed for each unique geometry while fixing the entire tank requires the same
fixes to be applied to each piece.
36
This method is recommended for all CNG tank models, and any model with systematic
fixes in geometry. The demonstrated runtime reduction for this model was roughly 83%.
However, the primary gain from using this method is consistency in mesh quality and
style.
8.2. Gradient Mesh Analysis
Gradient mesh analysis compares a ‘2.5 to X mm’ gradient mesh to a baseline converged
2.5mm model where X is the defined final transition element size. The edge impact
model is created by having a 2.5mm mesh along the edge as ¼ of a core. The rest of the
core is a 2.5mm to ‘X’ mm transition zone. Outside of this core, the model is meshed at
‘X’ mm. A figure demonstrating this mesh style is shown in Figure 28.
Figure 28: Gradient Mesh Transition; 2.5mm (Pink), 2.5 to 5mm (Green), and 5mm
(Light Blue)
The rationale for where to begin the transition mesh is important. In this case the
maximum stresses are all found within the first ¼ core (pink). Therefore, the lower
stresses outside of this region do not require a fine mesh. Using this information, the
transition zone (green) was placed outside of this critical region. Without this distinction
the method is not applicable.
37
Convergence results for the CNG tank edge impact are shown in Table 8 and Figure 29
respectively.
Table 8: Convergence Criteria and Run Time at Various Transition Element Sizes
Average Max Recoverable Internal CPU Run
Transition Signed von Mises Strain Energy Energy Time
Element Size Stress (%Error), (%Error), MPa (%Error), (%Change),
MPa MPa hr:min
2.5mm
293.6 (0) 146.5 (0) 467.4 (0) 6:34 (0)
(Baseline)
3.5mm 293.7 (0.03) 145.1 (0.9) 467.1 (0.05) 2:45 (58)
4mm 293.8 (0.07) 144.5 (1.3) 467.0 (0.08) 2:05 (68)
4.5mm 293.8 (0.07) 143.9 (1.7) 466.7 (0.15) 1:40 (74)
5mm 293.7 (0.03) 143.6 (2) 466.9 (0.1) 1:27 (78)
Figure 29: Graphed Convergence Criteria and Run Time v. Transition Element Size at
Constant Initial Kinetic Energy (742.3 J)
38
While the graphs initially seem to indicate a large decrease in accuracy between runs it is
important to note the scale of these points from Table 8. The stress results vary by less
than 0.1% between tests. Similarly, all values of internal energy are within 0.15% of each
other. The recoverable strain energy shows the largest difference between models which
goes up to ~3 J difference between the baseline and final model and is an ~2% error. The
closeness of these results implies that the gradient method is equivalent at all tested
values of transition element size.
It is critical to note that this does not mean that any element size can be used as a
transition size. The element sizes were limited to 5mm by measuring the aspect ratio of
the transition elements. At 5.5mm element size, the transition elements exceeded an
aspect ratio of 5. Therefore, the limitation on transition element size should be set by the
user’s quality criteria. However, this may allow for the user to continue the transition
from 5mm to a larger element size assuming the mesh quality is still met.
Overall, the gradient mesh method is recommended for every model with non-critical
stress locations. Using this method the runtime of edge impact models are shown to
decrease by up to 78% on top of the gains displayed by the Symmetric Building Block
method. This value should increase in corner impact tests because the entire edge does
not need to be at the converged element size. Again, it must be noted that these tests are
only considered valid after showing the gradient meshes do not deviate from the constant
element size mesh. Therefore, this method is recommended for iterative runs where the
runtime reduction can be utilized at least 1 subsequent model.
8.3. Hybrid Mesh Analysis
Hybrid mesh analysis uses tetra elements for the external surface and 3-radius interface
of the tank. For the internal surface there are multiple approaches; the entire internal
geometry can be 2d, or a set number of cells can be 3d and the rest be 2d. Four different
models are considered in this analysis: a model with 2d elements for the entire internal
geometry (full 2d), a model with the impact cell meshed with 3d elements and the rest
meshed with 2d elements (1 cell in), and a model with half the internal geometry meshed
with 3d elements (half 2d). These 3 models are shown in Figures 30, 31, and 32
respectively.
An additional model was created using a combination of the gradient mesh and hybrid
mesh styles. This model follows the ‘1 cell in’ method but uses a gradient mesh from
2.5mm to 4mm to test the combined effect of the two methods. This ‘1 cell in gradient’
model is shown in Figure 33.
39
Figure 30: ‘Full 2d’ Hybrid Mesh Model – Impact Edge and Surrounding Cores
Figure 31: ‘1 Cell In’ Hybrid Mesh Model – Impact Edge and Surrounding Cores
40
Figure 32: ‘Half 2d’ Hybrid Mesh Model – Impact Edge (lower left) and Mesh
Transition
41
Figure 33: ‘1 Cell In Gradient’ Hybrid Mesh Model – Impact Edge and Surrounding
Cores
The ‘full 2d’, ‘1 cell in’, and ‘half 2d’ models are designed to find where the transition
region needs to be to create an accurate model. The ‘1 cell in gradient’ model is designed
to understand the theoretical minimum time the model can run using the proposed
methods. Convergence and runtime results for all 4 models and the baseline are given in
Table 9.
Table 9: Convergence Criteria and Run Time for Hybrid Element Models
Average Max Recoverable Internal CPU Run
Model Signed von Strain Energy Energy Time
Name Mises Stress (%Error), MPa (%Error), (%Change),
(%Error), MPa MPa hr:min
Baseline
293.6 (0) 146.5 (0) 467.4 (0) 6:34 (0)
(full 3d)
Half 2d 330.3 (12.5) 150 (2.4) 453.7 (2.9) 7:56* (-32)
1 Cell In 346.2 (17.9) 150.1 (2.5) 461.8 (1.2) 5:25* (9.9)
Full 2d 346.6 (18) 150.85 (3.0) 462.1 (1.1) 5:45* (4.3)
1 Cell In
346.6 (18) 149.37 (2.0) 461.6 (1.2) 2:08* (65)
Gradient
42
In these cases the max signed von Mises stress shows that the hybrid mesh method used
is not applicable with the current connections between 2d and 3d elements. It should be
noted that the unsigned von Mises stress does not vary from the max von Mises stress of
the baseline model. This further proves that signed von Mises stress should be considered
in the convergence criteria.
The reason for this discrepancy in maximum stress is attributed to the transition regions
in the hybrid models. Because the connection elements cannot match the external
geometry (via thickness property), the bending stiffness of these elements is lower than
the actual bending stiffness in the tank.
The energy results all show below 3% difference in internal and recoverable strain
energy. These results are both small compared to the typical 5% statistical standard for
significant difference. In fact, these are large relative to the changes in energy seen in the
gradient models and in convergence testing. This supports the conclusion that the current
method of hybrid meshing does not properly replace the full 3d model. Additionally it
supports the conclusion that energy measures should not be the only consideration for
convergence of an FEA model.
The CPU time results show a minor decrease in run time when using a constant element
size and a slight increase in run time as the number of tetra elements increases in the
model. The reason for this is the timestep itself. In the hybrid models, Abaqus uses the
minimum timestep from all elements (in this case 9.54e-5 ms). However, in the tetra
models, the timestep is almost twice this value (1.78e-4 ms). Because the tetra models
can be run at a larger timestep it can be inferred that the hybrid mesh can also be run at
this timestep, reducing the run time.
With a user-defined timestep equal to the tetra mesh timestep, the hybrid models would
significantly reduce the run time of the model. This is especially true of the ‘1 cell in
gradient’ model which would reduce the run time to approximately 1 hour instead of 2.
The ‘1 cell in gradient’ model shows minimal difference from the ‘1 cell in’ model (less
than 0.5 MPa and 0.5 J) and reduces the run time by more than a factor of 2 (50%). This
is promising for combining the two methods if a valid hybrid mesh can be created.
Overall, the hybrid mesh must be fixed before further conclusions can be made on
potential time reductions.
9. Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, convergence study results imply that, if a concrete slab is used, edge impact
should be the driver for convergence. This report found that a mesh size of 2.5mm is an
acceptable size to stay below 10 hour runs during optimization of the tank.
43
Additionally, it is recommended that convergence criteria includes signed or unsigned
von Mises stress along with strain energy criteria. This allows the user to better
understand the physical implications of the convergence results.
The recommended methods to use for reducing model run time is the Symmetric
Building Block method and gradient meshing. These methods should be combined both
to improve consistency in geometry fixes and ensure that a valid transition region is
selected.
The Symmetric Building Block method should be performed by taking the primary parts
required to build the CNG tank, fixing their geometry and combining them into the
proper parts manually. This method is primarily based upon reflection and therefore does
not require a large amount of time. Results from the Symmetric Building Block Analysis
section indicate that, while ports were initially ignored, they should be included in the
building blocks to avoid small errors in maximum signed von Mises stress. This meshing
method reduced model runtime by 84% in the tested models. However, this reduction
will fluctuate depending on the amount of time the user spends attempting to fix the
entire tank if the method is not used.
The gradient mesh method should be performed after an initial (uniform element size)
model of the tank has be run to determine a valid element transition starting point and
baseline model. The mesh must maintain the user’s minimum element quality at all times
during the transition. For the edge impact condition, this transition was valid outside of
the ¼ core where maximum stresses occurred. It is recommended that the user measure
convergence criteria for all gradient models to ensure the model does not vary much from
the baseline model. Gradient meshing showed a runtime reduction of up to 78%. This
gain should be larger for corner impact.
Hybrid meshing in the style used in this report shows promise for reducing runtime by an
additional 50% on top of that indicated by gradient meshing with user-defined timestep
control (though no reduction occurs if timestep is not set to the value in non-hybrid
models). However, the meshing style used was not valid for maximum signed von Mises
stress convergence criteria and must be fixed before usage in any optimization runs.
10.Potential Future Work
Future work in time-reduction methods should focus on hybrid meshing and mass-scaling
or user-defined timesteps.
Hybrid meshing work may require user-defined elements or some other element type that
can fully transfer stresses from 3d to 2d elements. If a hybrid meshing method could be
used, there is a high potential to further reduce runtime.
Mass-scaling or user-defined timesteps should be worked into impact analyses rather than
studied directly. These methods typically are model and element dependent and will
44
likely shift between element sizes and geometries. This is especially true in the case of
potential thickness optimizations.
If further work must be done in increasing accuracy for high deformation loading
conditions, the material model in compression should be used to predict deformation.
Methods such as adaptive remeshing may need to be included if elements deform out of
acceptable tolerance.
45
References
[1] More than 35% of U.S. Public Transit Buses Use Alternative Fuels or Hybrid
Technology [Online]. Available: http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2013
/Pages/130422_Earth-Day.aspx
[2] Congress Passes Continuing Resolution into New Administration [Online]. Available:
http://www.apta.com/gap/legupdatealert/2016/Pages/Congress-Passes-Continuing-
Resolution-into-New-Administration.aspx
[3] Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data - Clean Cities Alternative Fuel and
Advanced Vehicle Inventory [Online]. Available: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/
10581
[4] Alternative Fuels Data Center: Natural Gas [Online]. Available:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/natural_gas.html
[5] Large Diameter CNG Cylinder [Online]. Available: http://www.government-
fleet.com/channel/natural-gas/product/detail/2015/05/large-diameter-cng-
cylinder.aspx
[6] CNG United [Online]. Available: https://www.cngunited.com/cng-tanks-2/
[7] CNG Tanks [Online]. Available: http://www.cngschool.com/cng-tanks
[8] Conformable Compressed Natural Gas Tank [Online]. Available:
http://www.relinc.net/advanced-materials/conformable-natural-gas-tank/
[9] L. Gambone, “Overview of NGV Fuel Tank Testing Requirements” CSA Group,
Nov 18, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/files/6_SessionA_Gambone_0.pdf
[10] Concrete Slab Thickness [Online]. Available:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thickness-concrete-slabs-d_1481.html
[11] Abaqus 6.14 [Online]. Available: http://129.97.46.200:2080/v6.14/
[12] Concrete – Properties [Online]. Available: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/
concrete-properties-d_1223.html
[13] Abaqus: Lecture 4 Contact Modeling [Online]. Available: http://imechanica.org/
files/l4-contact.pdf
46
You might also like
- 01ProfMolischSlides WC003 155Document77 pages01ProfMolischSlides WC003 155CajiNo ratings yet
- The 10 Best Shoe Glue in 2021 (Quick Shoe Fix)Document44 pagesThe 10 Best Shoe Glue in 2021 (Quick Shoe Fix)ian micallefNo ratings yet
- EVALUACIÓN DE ENTRADA - Revisión de IntentosDocument4 pagesEVALUACIÓN DE ENTRADA - Revisión de IntentosAli MaqqueNo ratings yet
- BN PPrint Summary PDFDocument7 pagesBN PPrint Summary PDFJeffrey WittyNo ratings yet
- Ats 818acsDocument38 pagesAts 818acsfernando.radioNo ratings yet
- (Material Vegetal) - Ministerio - Mapa - Gob ALBILLO REALDocument11 pages(Material Vegetal) - Ministerio - Mapa - Gob ALBILLO REALJavier HerguedasNo ratings yet
- RapDocument5 pagesRapJose Songel SanchisNo ratings yet
- 1987AJHSMEDocument6 pages1987AJHSMEKonstantarasAntonisNo ratings yet
- Joan Subirats Et Al. Capítulo 6, 7 y 8. en - Análisis y Gestión de Políticas PúblicasxDocument66 pagesJoan Subirats Et Al. Capítulo 6, 7 y 8. en - Análisis y Gestión de Políticas PúblicasxSilvia GomezNo ratings yet
- ch3 - Gestion Des Fichiers 2Document56 pagesch3 - Gestion Des Fichiers 2Oussama CherniNo ratings yet
- ch3 - Gestion Des Fichiers 2 PDFDocument56 pagesch3 - Gestion Des Fichiers 2 PDFOussama CherniNo ratings yet
- Acondicionamiento Pasivo en EdificacionesDocument31 pagesAcondicionamiento Pasivo en EdificacionessergioNo ratings yet
- Che Fine Ha Fatto Il Nuovo Sistema Di A..Document7 pagesChe Fine Ha Fatto Il Nuovo Sistema Di A..ozzzzzNo ratings yet
- Chap 08Document5 pagesChap 08Nacim El kechaiNo ratings yet
- ITM - UNIT 1 - ZA ApproachDocument4 pagesITM - UNIT 1 - ZA ApproachKalyana Sundaram M.SNo ratings yet
- (Material Vegetal) - Ministerio - Mapa - Gob BRANCELLAODocument11 pages(Material Vegetal) - Ministerio - Mapa - Gob BRANCELLAOJavier HerguedasNo ratings yet
- Evaluación - Módulo 5 - Revisión Del IntentoDocument3 pagesEvaluación - Módulo 5 - Revisión Del IntentoYanina Rios ChavezNo ratings yet
- Ocampo Silvina Cuentos Completos IIDocument438 pagesOcampo Silvina Cuentos Completos IImariana posadaNo ratings yet
- Lição 4Document4 pagesLição 4Yan CordeiroNo ratings yet
- Presentación VOTACIÓN CBC.Document15 pagesPresentación VOTACIÓN CBC.jaimertoNo ratings yet
- Apostila de Banco de Dados PDFDocument81 pagesApostila de Banco de Dados PDFMauro ZamboniNo ratings yet
- Aprendizado em Foco - PrimeiroDocument44 pagesAprendizado em Foco - Primeirodepto.pessoalbfaNo ratings yet
- Soal Ukk Kimia Sma Kls 10 (Ok)Document7 pagesSoal Ukk Kimia Sma Kls 10 (Ok)mi111232050044No ratings yet
- CuestionarioDocument10 pagesCuestionarioDaniel MedranoNo ratings yet
- Sanjay Rath - Page 9 - PJC2a PDFDocument22 pagesSanjay Rath - Page 9 - PJC2a PDFKrishna KumarNo ratings yet
- Cinco Segredos de ProdutividadeDocument22 pagesCinco Segredos de ProdutividadeZizi SenaNo ratings yet
- 01 - Matemáticas Técnicas TSMI 2022 - 220825 - 111027Document52 pages01 - Matemáticas Técnicas TSMI 2022 - 220825 - 111027Joaquin BravoNo ratings yet
- Presentación Bienvenida Usa Tu SeguroDocument30 pagesPresentación Bienvenida Usa Tu SeguroPriscillaLGNo ratings yet
- EVALUACIÓN No. 2 - Revisión Del IntentoDocument29 pagesEVALUACIÓN No. 2 - Revisión Del IntentoMARIANo ratings yet
- 150 Ah Battrery Wid BuybackDocument4 pages150 Ah Battrery Wid Buybacksam rockNo ratings yet
- Guía de Inicio Rápido de EP-54V-150WDocument11 pagesGuía de Inicio Rápido de EP-54V-150WCesar Enrique RivasNo ratings yet
- África - Uma Constelação de Reis e RainhasDocument4 pagesÁfrica - Uma Constelação de Reis e RainhasFelipe GomesNo ratings yet
- TR Viola 2020.2021Document3 pagesTR Viola 2020.2021Anto 02No ratings yet
- Questionário Unidade I - ...Document6 pagesQuestionário Unidade I - ...Iolanda AraujoNo ratings yet
- MonografiaspDocument130 pagesMonografiaspAndresNo ratings yet
- Pretest 2Document16 pagesPretest 2Nofal JamilNo ratings yet
- Tema 2. ActividadesDocument26 pagesTema 2. ActividadesMarianMenaNo ratings yet
- Práctica U1 Algebra IDocument7 pagesPráctica U1 Algebra IFranz CuellarNo ratings yet
- UntitledDocument9 pagesUntitledAlex CatilloNo ratings yet
- E LIDERANCA Exercício Avaliativo - Módulo 1 - Revisão Da TentativaDocument6 pagesE LIDERANCA Exercício Avaliativo - Módulo 1 - Revisão Da TentativaPriscilaa OliveiraNo ratings yet
- Protheus - Treinamento Bloco K - V2Document92 pagesProtheus - Treinamento Bloco K - V2Rubens FreitasNo ratings yet
- A Constitucionalidade Das Politicas de Ações AfirmativasDocument18 pagesA Constitucionalidade Das Politicas de Ações Afirmativasdayane dos santos da rochaNo ratings yet
- 24h TT 2020Document16 pages24h TT 2020freres280No ratings yet
- L - Attacco Hacker Alla Regione Lazio È P..Document8 pagesL - Attacco Hacker Alla Regione Lazio È P..ozzzzzNo ratings yet
- Generic 1..398Document401 pagesGeneric 1..398Cristian MendozaNo ratings yet
- Ensign Series Portable Davit Crane, Dav... Mobile Jib Crane, Portable Davit Crane PDFDocument14 pagesEnsign Series Portable Davit Crane, Dav... Mobile Jib Crane, Portable Davit Crane PDFAbdallah ElSamraNo ratings yet
- Cs3551distributed Computing QBDocument8 pagesCs3551distributed Computing QBragulnagarajan896No ratings yet
- Anexo Planes AbiertosDocument12 pagesAnexo Planes AbiertosMauricio AmroggiNo ratings yet
- Contactor GiratorioDocument5 pagesContactor GiratorioCarlosGarciaNo ratings yet
- Prestación Por Nacimiento - Trámites de La SSDocument5 pagesPrestación Por Nacimiento - Trámites de La SSMarc PerezNo ratings yet
- Latihan KSM IPA MIDocument8 pagesLatihan KSM IPA MIIlham AdNo ratings yet
- Fund Metod Da Matematica 1Document80 pagesFund Metod Da Matematica 1Sindi SecoviNo ratings yet
- Cour 1Document9 pagesCour 1arfaoui moezNo ratings yet
- Fallo ReinosoDocument11 pagesFallo ReinosoJessica FukmanNo ratings yet
- Aula 2Document33 pagesAula 2Virginia VieiraNo ratings yet
- (Material Vegetal) - Ministerio - Mapa - Gob CALMERIADocument10 pages(Material Vegetal) - Ministerio - Mapa - Gob CALMERIAJavier HerguedasNo ratings yet
- ID FirePumpController 1.2Document73 pagesID FirePumpController 1.2Juan Manuel GrossoNo ratings yet
