Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T03:30:35.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Thermomechanical analysis and progressive damage modelling of composite cryogenic hydrogen tanks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2026

S.E. Valilis*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Technology and Strength of Materials, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patras, Rion, Greece
G.N. Lampeas
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Technology and Strength of Materials, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patras, Rion, Greece
*
Corresponding author: S.E. Valilis; Email: stavros_valilis@ac.upatras.gr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hydrogen is a leading candidate for zero-emission propulsion in aviation, particularly when stored and utilised in its liquid form. However, key components such as composite cryogenic pressure vessels remain at low Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), requiring further investigation into their structural performance under realistic operational conditions. The present work aims to provide a validated numerical methodology for simulating the thermomechanical behaviour and the progressive damage evolution of composite cryogenic hydrogen tanks. The finite element framework incorporates ply-level failure criteria and stiffness degradation laws to capture intra-laminar damage mechanisms under combined pressure and temperature loads. The modelling approach is validated against experimental data from coupon-level open-hole tension tests and subcomponent-scale composite pipes burst tests, demonstrating strong correlation in terms of failure onset and progression.

The validated methodology is subsequently applied to a demonstrator, comprising a composite liquid hydrogen tank, subjected to three representative loading scenarios: internal pressure, cryogenic temperature and combined cryogenic-mechanical loading. Results reveal that matrix-dominated damage initiates near the cylinder – dome interfaces of the tank and propagates across the laminate, while fibre failure is not observed in the investigated load cases. This suggests that potential hydrogen leakage is the initial critical failure condition that occurs before any other important structural damage of the tank, highlighting the need for appropriate tank design. The performed study contributes to the understanding of structural integrity of composite cryogenic tanks and offers a computational basis for future design and certification efforts in hydrogen aviation systems.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
Figure 0

Figure 1. Classification of hydrogen pressure vessels (Type I-V) based on material configuration and structural characteristics.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Progressive damage modelling flowchart.

Figure 2

Table 1. Hashin failure criteria and the corresponding degradation law [34, 35]

Figure 3

Table 2. Mechanical properties of T700/Epoxy composite material (adapted from Ref. [37])

Figure 4

Figure 3. Mesh convergence analysis for the open-hole tension model.

Figure 5

Figure 4. Finite element model of the open-hole tension specimen.

Figure 6

Figure 5. Effect of degradation parameters on the predicted load-displacement behaviour of the open-hole tension specimen.

Figure 7

Figure 6. Tensile load-displacement curves for the open-hole tension tests [37] versus the numerical results.

Figure 8

Figure 7. Longitudinal strain (εxx) contour at fracture moment obtained from (left) DIC [37] and (right) the numerical model.

Figure 9

Figure 8. Damage evolution in the open-hole tension simulation up to final failure.

Figure 10

Table 3. Mechanical properties of E-glass/Epoxy composite material (adapted from Ref. [38]

Figure 11

Table 4. Effect of element density on predicted burst pressure for the [45/−45/−45/45] composite pipe configuration

Figure 12

Table 5. Failure pressure for the [45/−45/−45/45] composite pipe Ref. [38] and the numerical model

Figure 13

Figure 9. Damage contour at burst pressure of the composite pipe.

Figure 14

Table 6. Geometry of the investigated composite cryogenic pressure vessel

Figure 15

Table 7. Lamination details of the investigated composite cryogenic pressure vessel

Figure 16

Table 8. Mechanical properties of IM7/PEEK composite material (adapted from Ref. [41]

Figure 17

Figure 10. Mesh convergence analysis for the radial displacement of the cryogenic pressure vessel.

Figure 18

Figure 11. Mesh convergence analysis for the axial displacement of the cryogenic pressure vessel.

Figure 19

Figure 12. Finite element model of the investigated composite cryogenic pressure vessel.

Figure 20

Figure 13. Radial displacement of the investigated pressure vessel at the first-ply- failure during pressurisation.

Figure 21

Figure 14. Average radial displacement versus internal pressure graph.

Figure 22

Figure 15. Average axial displacement versus internal pressure graph.

Figure 23

Figure 16. First-ply failure: matrix cracking in 0o layer at cylinder-dome interface.

Figure 24

Table 9. Axial and circumferential stresses for the cylindrical section of the investigated pressure vessel

Figure 25

Figure 17. Radial displacement of the investigated pressure vessel at the first-ply failure during cooling.

Figure 26

Figure 18. Absolute radial displacement versus internal temperature graph.

Figure 27

Figure 19. Absolute axial displacement versus internal temperature graph.

Figure 28

Table 10. Axial and circumferential stresses for the cylindrical section of the investigated pressure vessel

Figure 29

Figure 20. Axial displacement (left) and radial displacement (right) versus internal pressure.

Figure 30

Figure 21. Axial displacement (left) and radial displacement (right) versus internal temperature graphs.