In this study, a progressive failure model for hydrogen storage composite pressure vessel (CPV) burst is established. The burst pressure and progressive damage behavior of the CPV are analyzed. Besides, kriging and response surface (RS) surrogate models for CPV burst are established. The verification and the comparative analysis of the surrogate models are carried out. Then, the reliability of the CPV is analyzed with hybrid random-fuzzy uncertainties, and the influence of longitudinal tensile strength, hoop layer thickness, and helical layer thickness on the hybrid reliability is explored. Finally, a unified reliability index is established with hybrid random-fuzzy uncertainties, and the modified particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm is applied to carry out reliability-based optimization design. The minimum weight of the composite shell is set as the objective, and the reliability of the CPV with hybrid random-fuzzy uncertainties is set as the constraint. The results show that the hoop layer of the CPV is the main load-bearing structure. The kriging and RS surrogate models are effectiveness to surrogate the burst pressure of the CPV, and the RS model is simpler and more computationally efficient than kriging model, which is more suitable for reliability analysis and optimization design. Under the condition of hybrid random-fuzzy uncertainties, the reliability of the hydrogen storage CPV exhibits fuzzy uncertainty, and there is a possibility of reliability equal to 0 under the low λ-cut level, making it difficult to meet reliability requirements. Increasing the longitudinal tensile strength, the hoop layer thickness and the helical layer thickness can improve the reliability of the hydrogen storage CPV. Furthermore, the optimization method proposed in this study improves its reliability from 0.7043 to 1. This study establishes reliability analysis and optimization design methods for hydrogen storage CPV with hybrid random-fuzzy uncertainties, which contributes to further improvement on the safety of CPV.
VezirogluTNSahinS. 21st Century’s energy: hydrogen energy system. Energy Convers Manag2008; 49: 1820–1831.
2.
IshaqHDincerICrawfordC. A review on hydrogen production and utilization: challenges and opportunities. Int J Hydrogen Energy2022; 47: 26238–26264.
3.
FayeOSzpunarJEduokU. A critical review on the current technologies for the generation, storage, and transportation of hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy2022; 47: 13771–13802.
4.
KimCChoSHChoSM, et al.Review of hydrogen infrastructure: the current status and roll-out strategy. Int J Hydrogen Energy2023; 48: 1701–1716.
5.
AbeJOPopoolaAPIAjenifujaE, et al.Hydrogen energy, economy and storage: review and recommendation. Int J Hydrogen Energy2019; 44: 15072–15086.
6.
MoradiRGrothKM. Hydrogen storage and delivery: review of the state of the art technologies and risk and reliability analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy2019; 44: 12254–12269.
7.
BarthelemyHWeberMBarbierF, et al.Hydrogen storage: recent improvements and industrial perspectives. Int J Hydrogen Energy2016; 42: 7254–7262.
8.
ZhangMLvHKangH, et al.A literature review of failure prediction and analysis methods for composite high-pressure hydrogen storage tanks. Int J Hydrogen Energy2019; 44: 25777–25799.
9.
LiWLvHZhangL, et al.Experiment, simulation, optimization design, and damage detection of composite shell of hydrogen storage vessel-A review. J Reinforc Plast Compos2023; 42: 507–536.
10.
ZhangQXuHJiaX, et al.Design of a 70MPa type IV hydrogen storage vessel using accurate modeling techniques for dome thickness prediction. Compos Struct2020; 236: 111915.
11.
ZhouWWangJPanZ, et al.Review on optimization design, failure analysis and non-destructive testing of composite hydrogen storage vessel. Int J Hydrogen Energy2022; 47: 38862–38883.
12.
XuPZhengJChenH, et al.Optimal design of high pressure hydrogen storage vessel using an adaptive genetic algorithm. Int J Hydrogen Energy2010; 35: 2840–2846.
13.
GohariSGolshanANiaAB, et al.Prediction of failure in thin-walled hemispherical GRP dome subjected to static internal pressure based on a failure factor. Adv Mater Res2012; 488–489: 358–366.
14.
XingJGengPYangT. Stress and deformation of multiple winding angle hybrid filament-wound thick cylinder under axial loading and internal and external pressure. Compos Struct2015; 131: 868–877.
15.
SharmaPBeraTSemwalK, et al.Theoretical analysis of design of filament wound type 3 composite cylinder for the storage of compressed hydrogen gas. Int J Hydrogen Energy2020; 45: 25386–25397.
16.
SonDHongJChangS. Determination of the autofrettage pressure and estimation of material failures of a Type III hydrogen pressure vessel by using finite element analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy2012; 37: 12771–12781.
17.
FarhoodNHKaruppananSYaHH, et al.Burst pressure investigation of filament wound type IV composite pressure vessel. AIP Conf Proc2017; 1901: 030017.
18.
HuaTQRohHSAhluwaliaRK. Performance assessment of 700-bar compressed hydrogen storage for light duty fuel cell vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy2017; 42: 25121–25129.
19.
ChangRR. Experimental and theoretical analyses of first-ply failure of laminated composite pressure vessels. Compos Struct2000; 49: 237–243.
20.
MccarthyCTMccarthyMALawlorVP. Progressive damage analysis of multi-bolt composite joints with variable bolt–hole clearances. Compos Part B-Eng2005; 36: 290–305.
21.
GarnichMRAkulaVMK. Review of degradation models for progressive failure analysis of fiber reinforced polymer composites. Appl Mech Rev2009; 62: 121–128.
22.
HuZChenMHZuL, et al.Investigation on failure behaviors of 70 MPa Type IV carbon fiber overwound hydrogen storage vessels. Compos Struct2021; 259: 113387.
23.
NebeMSorianoABraunC, et al.Analysis on the mechanical response of composite pressure vessels during internal pressure loading: FE modeling and experimental correlation. Compos Part B-Eng2021; 212: 108550.
24.
WangLZhengCLuoH, et al.Continuum damage modeling and progressive failure analysis of carbon fiber/epoxy composite pressure vessel. Compos Struct2015; 134: 475–482.
25.
MagnevilleBGentilleauBVillalongaS, et al.Modeling, parameters identification and experimental validation of composite materials behavior law used in 700 bar type IV hydrogen high pressure storage vessel. Int J Hydrogen Energy2015; 40: 13193–13205.
26.
KangalSKartavOTanoluM, et al.Investigation of interlayer hybridization effect on burst pressure performance of composite overwrapped pressure vessels with load-sharing metallic liner. J Compos Mater2020; 54: 961–980.
27.
PerilloGGryttenFSrbS, et al.Numerical/experimental impact events on filament wound composite pressure vessel. Compos Part B-Eng2015; 69: 406–417.
28.
HuppNStahlUKunzeK, et al.Influence of fire intensity, fire impingement area and internal pressure on the fire resistance of composite pressure vessels for the storage of hydrogen in automobile applications. Fire Saf J2018; 104: 1–7.
29.
RafieeRTorabiMA. Stochastic prediction of burst pressure in composite pressure vessels. Compos Struct2018; 185: 573–583.
30.
LehDMagnevilleBSaffréP, et al.Optimisation of 700 bar type IV hydrogen pressure vessel considering composite damage and dome multi-sequencing. Int J Hydrogen Energy2015; 40: 13215–13230.
31.
BouvierMGuiheneufVJean-MarieA. Modeling and simulation of a composite high-pressure vessel made of sustainable and renewable alternative fibers. Int J Hydrogen Energy2019; 44: 11970–11978.
32.
HaradaSAraiYArakiW, et al.A simplified method for predicting burst pressure of type III filament-wound CFRP composite vessels considering the inhomogeneity of fiber packing. Compos Struct2018; 190: 79–90.
EllulBCamilleriD. The influence of manufacturing variances on the progressive failure of filament wound cylindrical pressure vessels. Compos Struct2015; 133: 853–862.
35.
BertinMVillalongaSVernedeM, et al.Mechanical behaviour of 700 bar type IV high pressure vessel: comparison between simulations and experiments through Osirhys IV project. In: Proceedings of 15th European conference on composite materials, Venice, Italy, 24–28 June 2012: The University of Naples “Parthenope. paper no.8. Naples.
36.
HwangTKHongCSKimCG. Probabilistic deformation and strength prediction for a filament wound pressure vessel. Compos Part B-Eng2003; 34: 481–497.
37.
WangDLiaoBHuaZ, et al.Experimental analysis on residual performance of used 70 MPa type IV composite pressure vessels. J Fail Anal Prev2019; 19: 204–211.
38.
BurovAE. Burst pressure estimations of a composite pressure vessel accounting for the composite shell imperfections. J Phys Conf Ser2019; 1260: 112007.
39.
ZhangXZhaoJWangZ. Burst pressure prediction and structure reliability analysis of composite overwrapped cylinder. Appl Compos Mater2018; 25: 1269–1285.
40.
CaiBLiuYLiuZ, et al.Reliability-based load and resistance factor design of composite pressure vessel under external hydrostatic pressure. Compos Struct2011; 93: 2844–2852.
41.
LiuPFZhengJY. Strength reliability analysis of aluminium–carbon fiber/epoxy composite laminates. J Loss Prevent Proc2010; 23: 421–427.
42.
GhouaoulaAHocineAHadj MelianiM, et al.Reliability analysis of type III gas storage vessel under pressure loading. J Fail Anal Prev2019; 19: 445–452.
43.
MianHHWangGDarUA, et al.Optimization of composite material system and lay-up to achieve minimum weight pressure vessel. Appl Compos Mater2013; 20: 873–889.
44.
FrancescatoPGilletALehD, et al.Comparison of optimal design methods for type 3 high-pressure storage tanks. Compos Struct2012; 94: 2087–2096.
45.
LiuPXuPZhengJ. Artificial immune system for optimal design of composite hydrogen storage vessel. Comput Mater Sci2010; 47: 261–267.
46.
AlcántarVAcevesSMLedesmaE, et al.Optimization of type 4 composite pressure vessels using genetic algorithms and simulated annealing. Int J Hydrogen Energy2017; 42: 15770–15781.
47.
VafaeesefatA. Optimization of composite pressure vessels with metal liner by adaptive response surface method. J Mech Sci Technol2011; 25: 2811–2816.
48.
ChenJTangYGeR, et al.Reliability design optimization of composite structures based on PSO together with FEA. Chin J Aeronaut2013; 26: 343–349.
49.
ChenJTangYHuangX. Application of surrogate based particle swarm optimization to the reliability-based robust design of composite pressure vessels. Acta Mech Solida Sin2013; 26: 480–490.
50.
WinkelmannKGórskiJ. The use of response surface methodology for reliability estimation of composite engineering structures. J Theor App Mech-Pol2014; 52: 1019–1032.
51.
ZhaoWTGuoFLiX. Reliability analysis of composite structure using ANSYS software. Adv Mater Res2014; 945: 1155–1158.
52.
ImJParkJ. Stochastic structural optimization using particle swarm optimization, surrogate models and Bayesian statistics. Chin J Aeronaut2013; 26: 112–121.
53.
AydinLAydinOArtemHS, et al.Design of dimensionally stable composites using efficient global optimization method. P I Mech Eng L-J Mat2019; 233: 156–168.
54.
LiuZZhangLZhuP, et al.Reliability-based design optimization of 3D orthogonal woven composite automobile shock tower. J Compos Mater2021; 55: 4617–4631.
55.
KalitaKHaldarSChakrabortyS. A comprehensive review on high-fidelity and metamodel-based optimization of composite laminates. Arch Comput Method E2022; 29: 3305–3340.
56.
SunZWangCNiuX, et al.A response surface approach for reliability analysis of 2.5 DC/SiC composites turbine blade. Compos Part B-Eng2016; 85: 277–285.
57.
Rais-RohaniMSinghMN. Comparison of global and local response surface techniques in reliability-based optimization of composite structures. Struct Multidiscip O2004; 26: 333–345.
58.
AzizianMAlmeidaJHSJr. Stochastic, probabilistic and reliability analyses of internally-pressurised filament wound composite tubes using artificial neural network metamodels. Mater Today Commun2022; 31: 103627.
59.
MonticeliFMNevesRMOrnaghiHLJr, et al.Prediction of bending properties for 3D-printed carbon fibre/epoxy composites with several processing parameters using ANN and statistical methods. Polym Bull (Heidelberg, Ger)2022; 14: 3668.
60.
MonticeliFMAlmeidaJHSJrNevesRM, et al.The influence of fabric architecture on impregnation behavior and void formation: artificial neural network and statistical‐based analysis. Polym Compos2022; 43: 2812–2823.
61.
SankarPAMachavaramRShankarK. System identification of a composite plate using hybrid response surface methodology and particle swarm optimization in time domain. Measurement2014; 55: 499–511.
62.
KimCKwonYW. Reliability-based design considering prediction interval estimation to optimize composite patches. Mech Based Des Struc. Epub ahead of print 29 Dec 2022. doi:10.1080/15397734.2022.2159836.
63.
JianWZhiliSQiangY, et al.Two accuracy measures of the Kriging model for structural reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2017; 167: 494–505.
64.
AmeryanAGhalehnoviMRashkiM. Investigation of shear strength correlations and reliability assessments of sandwich structures by kriging method. Compos Struct2020; 253: 112782.
65.
ZhouCLiCZhangH, et al.Reliability and sensitivity analysis of composite structures by an adaptive Kriging based approach. Compos Struct2021; 278: 114682.
66.
WangBLuoLNieX, et al.Post-buckling reliability and sensitivity analysis of composite stiffened plates based on adaptive kriging method. Acta Mech Solida Sin2023; 36: 340–348.
67.
HaeriAFadaeeMJ. Efficient reliability analysis of laminated composites using advanced Kriging surrogate model. Compos Struct2016; 149: 26–32.
68.
WangZAlmeidaJHSJrSt-PierreL, et al.Reliability-based buckling optimization with an accelerated Kriging metamodel for filament-wound variable angle tow composite cylinders. Compos Struct2020; 254: 112821.
69.
WangZAlmeidaJHSJrAshokA, et al.Lightweight design of variable-angle filament-wound cylinders combining Kriging-based metamodels with particle swarm optimization. Struct Multidiscip O2022; 65: 140.
70.
LiuZLuJZhuP. Lightweight design of automotive composite bumper system using modified particle swarm optimizer. Compos Struct2016; 140: 630–643.
71.
TaoWLiuZZhuP, et al.Multi-scale design of three dimensional woven composite automobile fender using modified particle swarm optimization algorithm. Compos Struct2017; 181: 73–83.
72.
LiuZZhuCZhuP, et al.Reliability-based design optimization of composite battery box based on modified particle swarm optimization algorithm. Compos Struct2018; 204: 239–255.
73.
KeshtegarBNguyen-ThoiTTruongTT, et al.Optimization of buckling load for laminated composite plates using adaptive Kriging-improved PSO: a novel hybrid intelligent method. Def Technol2021; 17: 85–99.
74.
AlmeidaJHSJrSt-PierreLWangZ, et al.Design, modeling, optimization, manufacturing and testing of variable-angle filament-wound cylinders. Compos Part B-Eng2021; 225: 109224.
75.
KangKZuLWuQ, et al.Research on burst strength and fatigue performance of carbon fiber wound composite cylinder with aluminum alloy liner. Comput Sci Eng2022; 9: 35–43.
76.
ISO 11515. Gas cylinders — refillable composite reinforced tubes of water capacity between 450 L and 3000 L — design, construction and testing. 2013.
77.
AlmeidaJHSJrFariaHMarquesAT, et al.Load sharing ability of the liner in type III composite pressure vessels under internal pressure. J Reinforc Plast Compos2014; 33: 2274–2286.
78.
LehDSaffrePFrancescatoP, et al.A progressive failure analysis of a 700-bar type IV hydrogen composite pressure vessel. Int J Hydrogen Energy2015; 40: 13206–13214.
79.
BachocF. Parametric estimation of covariance function in Gaussian-process based kriging models. In: Application to uncertainty quantification for computer experiments. Paris: Universit Paris-Diderot-Paris VII, 2013. Ph.D. thesis.
80.
RoustantOGinsbourgerDDevilleY. DiceKriging, DiceOptim: two R packages for the analysis of computer experiments by Kriging——based metamodeling and optimization. J Stat Software2012; 51: 1–55.
81.
PapillaM. Accuracy of response surface approximations for weight equations based on structural optimization. Gainesville: University of Florida, 2001. Ph.D. thesis.
82.
RezaeiMFazelzadehSAMazidiA, et al.Fuzzy uncertainty analysis and reliability assessment of aeroelastic aircraft wings. Aeronaut J2020; 124: 786–811.
83.
LiWZhangLLvH, et al.Reliability analysis of hydrogen storage composite pressure vessel with two types of random-interval uncertainties. Int J Hydrogen Energy2023; 48: 31685–31699.
84.
LiuHBJiangCXiaoZ. Efficient uncertainty propagation for parameterized p-box using sparse-decomposition-based polynomial chaos expansion. Mech Syst Signal Process2020; 138: 106589.
