EVS28 KINTEX, Korea, May 3-6, 2015
Development of hydrogen storage tank
used for Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
(FCEV) by numerical analysis
Dongsun Lee1, Jaehan Jung2, Jungik Kim2, Chulho Im2 1, 2Fuel cell vehicle team, HYUNDAI MOTOR GROUP, 17-5, Mabuk-ro #240,yongin-si,
kyeonggi-do, 446-716, Korea, [email protected]
Contents
I. Introduction -Background and objectives of study
II. Research procedures
III. Development of engineering design technique - Development of FE modeling tool on winding patterning
- Development of estimating method on the boss thickness of composite
- The manner of optimizing on the filament winding pattern
IV. Results and Discussions - The estimation of boss thickness after filament winding
- Burst test
- Main expected effect of optimized model
2
I. Introduction Background and objective
What is the core technology on FCEV and
the method of weight reduction?
3
Item World 1st mass produced
Fuel Cell Vehicle (’13/2)
Gas mileage 415 km
Weight percent 4.4 wt%
Price 77,000$
※ 1,100 KRW/1$
Cost down and weight reduction by optimization on the laminate design of
carbon fiber which is about 85% of CFRP
- %
18%- %
- %
- %
- %
- %- %
0
Portion of the price on component Component of hydrogen tank
Liner
: Gas seals and withstanding winding force of carbon fiber
CFRP : Withstanding high pressure of hydrogen
Plastic
Aluminum Hydrogen storage system
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
4
Design optimization of winding pattern by development both structural
modeling and analysis technique on hydrogen tank
Development of optimization technique
Production and evaluation
Designing of winding pattern by
Reverse Engineering
Product development by trial and error
Production Evaluation Design
Need for
designing
/ analysis
technique
Development of modeling technique - Improving pilot program (W/SIMULIA South)
- Standard satisfaction (2.5times of charging pressure)
Proposition of equation on the revised design
regarding real shape FE modeling of winding
angle and thickness of
CFRP
Estimating boss
thickness by
proposed equation
Design/analysis of winding pattern Evaluation of optimal pattern Burst test Comparison analysis/experiment
b
c Max strainregion
2nd strainregion
1.524 %
1.490 %
Fracture at cylinder
a
Burst pressure:
1,729bar
(Predict value)
1,798bar
c
b
II. Research procedures Approach
5
III. Development of engineering design technique Development of FE modeling tool on winding patterning
Dome
Cylinder
Symmetry condition
Tie condition (Al6061 & DPE)
Contact condition (liner & composite)
Improving pilot program
defining material properties
(w/SIMULIA South)
Characteristics
- Generation of material
property with winding
angle
- Defining composite
thickness with variable
dome curvature
- Calculation of strain and
stress in the fiber direction
1
2
3
1
2
3
Development of modeling technique on the variable winding angle
and thickness with variable dome curvature
■ The method of Classical equation estimating composite
thickness Estimation of composite thickness near boss
→ It is hard to estimate the composite thickness
near boss (The angle is 90 degree)
Fig.1 Illustration of H2 tank model Magnification of “1” in Fig.1
n
tl
rrr
rr
r
rr
0
001sin)(
4
2)cos(
)cos(
rr
rrBWr
rtt
tl
tl
tl
r
tltlr
ttl = Thickness at tangential line
Θtl = Angle at tangential line, Θr= Winding angle
rtl = Radious at at tangential line in dome
r0= Radious at helical end tip
BW= Bandwidth
1
Fig.2 Fig.1의 1”구역 확대 그림
composite
Thickness of boss Thickness
of composite
Dome
part
Cylinder
part
Aluminum
Liner
Composite
Plastic
Liner
1 -------- Eq.6
-------- Eq.7
6
III. Development of engineering design technique Development of estimating method on the boss thickness of composite
Proposition of equation that is able to estimate
the thickness of composite near boss
■ The method of Classical equation estimating composite thickness
Estimation of composite thickness near boss
→ It is hard to estimate the composite thickness
near boss (The angle is 90 degree)
Fig.1 Illustration of H2 tank model Magnification of “1” in Fig.1
n
tl
rrr
rr
r
rr
0
001sin)(
4
2)cos(
)cos(
rr
rrBWr
rtt
tl
tl
tl
r
tltlr
ttl = Thickness at tangential line
Θtl = Angle at tangential line, Θr= Winding angle
rtl = Radious at at tangential line in dome
r0= Radious at helical end tip
BW= Bandwidth
1
Fig.2 Fig.1의 1”구역 확대 그림
composite
Thickness of boss Thickness
of composite
Dome
part
Cylinder
part
Aluminum
Liner
Composite
Plastic
Liner
1-------- Eq.6
-------- Eq.7
7
III. Development of engineering design technique Development of estimating method on the boss thickness of composite
Proposition of equation that is able to estimate
the thickness of composite near boss
Illustration of overlapping composite layer near boss
* 6 overlapping region of composite layer
Outside diameter
of boss
Composite band
)))/)/((360/(90 BWrN lp
hphboss NNtt 2))1/((
■ Numenclature
tboss = The thickness of boss
ηα = Rduction rate of band width
th = Initial thickness of helical layer
Np α = A number of overlapping on helical band
at winding angle α
Nh α = A number of helical layer with winding angle α
rl = Full diameter of plastic liner
rb = Full diameter of aluminum boss
BW = Bandwhidth
bb rrBW 2)(if , 1 pp NN
bb rrBW 2)(if , pp NN
-------- Eq.8
-------- Eq.9
■ The equation of estimating thickness on composite
8
III. Development of engineering design technique The manner of optimizing on the filament winding pattern
The estimation of optimal winding pattern by stress/strain
trend line and burst limit condition
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Ma
x. P
rin
c. S
tres
s [
MP
a]
Winding angle [˚]
Inside tube helical
Outside in Transition region
Inside in transition region
Inside hoop
2322 2326 2330
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fib
er d
irec
tio
na
l S
tres
s [
MP
a]
Number of helical layers [EA]
1st_hoop
2nd_hoop
3rd_hoop
1st_tube helical
2nd_tube helical
3rd_tube helical
Helical_23D
Helical_12D
Helical_10D
■ Stress variation with winding angle ■ Stress variation with thickness of composite layers
- Investigation of minimum stress
condition with winding angle
- Investigation of minimum stress
condition with thickness of composite layers
- Investigation on the hoop stress with variable
helical thickness
9
IV. Results and Discussions Production of hydrogen storage tank
Production of hydrogen storage tank by filament winding method
Carriage
b
Composite
Liner (Al6061)
Liner (HDPE)
c
Rotation
Moving direction of carriage
Liner Motor
a,b: Winding appratus c: Aluminum/HDPE liner
Resin Bath
a
■ Winding condition
- Tension of fiber: 9.8~14.7 N
- Motor rpm: 60 rpm
- Carriage speed: 500mm/sec
■ Curing condition
- 60 ℃ (2hr) → 85℃ (2hr)
→ air-cooling (10hr) Hoop
Helical
Composite
Liner(Al6061)Liner
(HDPE)
10
IV. Results and Discussions The estimation of boss thickness after filament winding
#2 #3 #4
Tank
No.
Estimating
thickness [mm]
Producing
Thickness [mm]
Error
[%]
Pass/
fail
#1 46.0 58.0↑ 26.0↑ Fail
#2 54.8 57.0 4.0 Pass
#3 54.8 56.0 2.2 Pass
#4 54.0 56.0 3.7 Pass
1
Fig.2 Fig.1의 1”구역 확대 그림
composite
Thickness of boss Thickness
of composite
With equation
Without equation
■ The results of evaluation on the estimated equation
Production of the hydrogen tank and estimation the thickness of composite near boss within 4% error
11
IV. Results and Discussions Burst test
b
c
Burst pressure:
1,755bar
(Predict value)
Max strainregion
2nd strainregion
1.524 %
1.434 %
c
b
Fracture at cylinder
a
1,792bar
The result of burst test of sample #3 The result of burst test of sample #4
b
Burst pressure:
1,729bar
(Predict value)
Burst pressure:
1,755bar
(Predict value)
C
b
c Max strainregion
2nd strainregion
1.524 %
1.490 %
Fracture at cylinder
a
Burst pressure:
1,729bar
(Predict value)
1,798bar
c
b
b
c Max strainregion
2nd strainregion
1.524 %
1.490 %
Fracture at cylinder
a
Burst pressure:
1,729bar
(Predict value)
1,798bar
c
b
b b
c
Burst pressure:
1,755bar
(Predict value)
Max strainregion
2nd strainregion
1.524 %
1.434 %
c
b
Fracture at cylinder
a
1,792bar
C
Test sample #3: Error 3.9% (Anal.: 1,729 bar, Exp.: 1,798 bar)
Test sample #4: Error 2.1% (Anal.: 1,755 bar, Exp.: 1,792 bar)
12
IV. Results and Discussions Main expected effect of optimized model
The effect of optimal hydrogen tank model
→ weight of carbon fiber 8.5% ↓/ weight efficiency of H2 13.6%↑
Tank sample The weight of
hydrogen tank
The weight of
carbon fiber
Weight efficiency
of hydrogen
Commercial
product 90.0 kg (standard) 52.0 kg (standard) 4.4 wt% (standard)
Optimal
sample 82.5 kg (8.3%↓) 47.6 kg (8.5%↓) 5.0 wt% (13.6%↑)
Conclusion
13
1 Development of modeling technique on hydrogen storage tank
☞ The reliability between analysis and experiment was approximately 3%
2 Proposition of equation on the revised design regarding real shape
☞ Estimating error on the composite thickness near boss 4% was approximately 4%
3 Effect of the optimal design on the weight reduction and efficiency
☞ Weight efficiency of hydrogen 13.6% ↑, The weight of carbon fiber 8.5% ↓