4.7 Article

Evaluation of modeling techniques for a type III hydrogen pressure vessel (70 MPa) made of an aluminum liner and a thick carbon/epoxy composite for fuel cell vehicles

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 2353-2369

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.11.001

Keywords

Type III hydrogen pressure vessels; Laminates; Ply; Anisotropic property; Winding angle

Funding

  1. Ministry of Knowledge and Economy of Korea
  2. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [20093030040010] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [핵06A1107] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Stress distributions in the composite layers of a Type III hydrogen pressure vessel composed of a thin aluminum liner (5 mm) and a thick composite laminate (45 mm) were calculated by using three different modeling techniques. The results were analyzed and compared with the plausible stress distribution calculated by a full ply-based modeling technique. A laminate-based modeling technique underestimated the generated stresses especially at the border between the cylinder and dome parts. A hybrid modeling technique combining a laminate-based modeling for the dome part with a ply-based modeling for the cylinder part was also tried, but it overestimated the generated stresses at the border. In order for the ply-based modeling technique to carry out precise analysis, a fiber trajectory function for the dome part was derived and the composite thickness variation was also considered. Copyright (C) 2011, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available