Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Flaw Testing of Fiber Reinforced Composite Pressure Vessels

[+] Author and Article Information
John Makinson

Senior Design Engineer
Lincoln Composites, Inc.,
5117 NW 40th Street,
Lincoln, NE 68524
e-mail: jmakinson@lincolncomposites.com

Norman L. Newhouse

Vice President, Technology
Lincoln Composites, Inc.,
5117 NW 40th Street,
Lincoln, NE 68524
e-mail: nnewhouse@lincolncomposites.com

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received March 1, 2011; final manuscript received January 31, 2012; published online May 6, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Marina Ruggles-Wrenn.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 136(4), 041409 (May 06, 2014) (5 pages) Paper No: PVT-11-1070; doi: 10.1115/1.4026962 History: Received March 01, 2011; Revised January 31, 2012

The ASME Boiler Pressure Vessel Project Team on Hydrogen Tanks, in conjunction with other ASME Codes and Standards groups, is developing Code Cases and revisions to the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, including such to address the design of composite pressure vessels. The Project Team had an interest in further understanding the effect of cuts to the surface of composite tanks, and how the burst pressure would be affected during the lifetime of the pressure vessel. A test program was initiated to provide data on initial burst pressure, and burst pressure after pressure cycling, of composite cylinders with cuts of different depth. This test program was conducted by Lincoln Composites under contract to ASME Standards Technology LLC, and was funded by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [1]. These results were considered during the development and approval of the ASME Code Cases and Code Rules. Thirteen pressure vessels with a design pressure of 24.8 MPa (3600 psi), approximately 0.406 m (16.0 in.) in diameter and 1.02 m (40.2 in.) long, were tested to investigate the effects of cuts to the structural laminate of a composite overwrapped pressure vessel with respect to cycling and burst pressure. Two flaws, one longitudinal and one circumferential, were machined into the structural composite. The flaws were 57 mm long by 1 mm wide (2.25 in. × 0.04 in.) and varied in depth from 10% to 40% of the structural composite thickness of 11.4 mm (0.45 in.). These pressure vessels were cycled to design pressure 0, 10,000, and 20,000 times then burst. The resulting burst pressures were evaluated against the performance of a pressure vessel without flaws or cycling. The burst pressures were affected by depth of cut, but the pressure cycling did not have a significant effect on the burst pressure.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


ASME International, STP-PT-043, 2010, Compressed Hydrogen Performance Verification Flaw Testing of Fiber Reinforced Pressure Vessels ASME, Standard Technology Procedures (STP-PT-043), New York.
ISO 11119-3:2002(E), 2002, Gas Cylinders of Composite Construction—Specifications and Test Methods—Part 3: Fully Wrapped Fibre Reinforced Composite Gas Cylinders With Non-Load-Sharing Metallic or Non-Metallic Liners, ISO, Revised 2013. Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=50523.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Longitudinal flaw before (top) and after (bottom) 20,000 cycles to design pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Pressure versus time of tank 5 burst

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Example of longitudinal (top) and transverse (bottom) flaws

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Location of longitudinal and transverse flaws

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Dimensions of longitudinal and transverse flaws machined into the structural composite layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Typical pressure vessel used for testing

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Burst initiation site at the longitudinal flaw. The red arrows indicate flat edge on the composite formed by machining the flaw.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Transverse flaw on same tank shown in Fig. 7 after burst. Red arrow indicates location of transverse flaw.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Burst pressure versus cycling and depth of flaw

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Burst pressure versus depth of flaw and cycling

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Pressure versus time of tank 2A burst (30% flaw, 0 cycles)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Pressure versus time of tank 3A burst (40% flaw, 0 cycles)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Pressure versus time of tank 3B burst (40% flaw, 20,000 cycles)



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In