Sunteți pe pagina 1din 54

ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X

PROPOSED American National Standard

Space Systems—Composite
Overwrapped Pressure Vessels
—Draft for Public Review—
November 2016

Warning

This document is not an approved AIAA or American National Standard. It is distributed for review and
comment. It is subject to change without notice.

Recipients of this draft are invited to submit, with their comments, notification of any relevant patent rights
of which they are aware and to provide supporting documentation.

Sponsored by

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Approved Month Year

XXXXXXXXXX

Abstract

This standard establishes baseline requirements for the design, analysis, fabrication, test, inspection,
operation, and maintenance of composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs). These COPVs are
used for pressurized, hazardous, or nonhazardous liquid or gas storage in space systems including
spacecraft and launch vehicles. This standard is applicable to COPVs constructed with a metal liner and a
carbon fiber/epoxy overwrap.
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

American Approval of an American National Standard requires verification by ANSI that the
National requirements for due process, consensus, and other criteria have been met by the
standards developer.
Standard
Consensus is established when, in the judgment of the ANSI Board of Standards
Review, substantial agreement has been reached by directly and materially affected interests. Substantial
agreement means much more than a simple majority, but not necessarily unanimity. Consensus requires
that all views and objections be considered, and that a concerted effort be made toward their resolution.

The use of American National Standards is completely voluntary; their existence does not in any respect
preclude anyone, whether he has approved the standards or not, from manufacturing, marketing,
purchasing, or using products, processes, or procedures not conforming to the standards.

The American National Standards Institute does not develop standards and will in no circumstances give
an interpretation of any American National Standard. Moreover, no person shall have the right or authority
to issue an interpretation of an American National Standard in the name of the American National
Standards Institute. Requests for interpretations should be addressed to the secretariat or sponsor whose
name appears on the title page of this standard.

CAUTION NOTICE: This American National Standard may be revised or withdrawn at any time. The
procedures of the American National Standards Institute require that action be taken to affirm, revise, or
withdraw this standard no later than five years from the date of approval. Purchasers of American
National Standards may receive current information on all standards by calling or writing the American
National Standards Institute.

Published by
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
12700 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 200, Reston, VA 20191

Copyright © 201X American Institute of Aeronautics and


Astronautics
All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval
system or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America


ISBN XXX-X-XXXX-XXX-X

ii
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Contents

1   Scope  ................................................................................................................................  1  
1.1   Purpose  ..................................................................................................................................  1  
1.2   Applicability  ...........................................................................................................................  1  
1.3   Designation  of  Responsibilities  ...............................................................................................  1  
1.3.1   Owner  .....................................................................................................................................  1  
1.3.2   Procuring  Authority  ................................................................................................................  2  
1.3.3   Manufacturer  .........................................................................................................................  2  
2   Tailoring  ...........................................................................................................................  2  
3   Applicable  Documents  ......................................................................................................  2  
4   Vocabulary  .......................................................................................................................  3  
4.1   Acronyms  and  Abbreviated  Terms  ..........................................................................................  3  
4.2   Terms  and  Definitions  ............................................................................................................  5  
5   General  Design  ...............................................................................................................  11  
5.1   System  Analysis  ....................................................................................................................  11  
5.1.1   Service  Classification  ............................................................................................................  11  
5.1.2   Service  Category  ...................................................................................................................  11  
5.1.3   Maximum  Expected  Operating  Pressure  ..............................................................................  11  
5.1.4   Maximum  External  Pressure  Differential  .............................................................................  12  
5.1.5   Service  Life  ............................................................................................................................  12  
5.1.6   Capacity  ................................................................................................................................  12  
5.1.7   Physical  Envelope  .................................................................................................................  12  
5.1.8   Acceptable  Leak  Rate  ...........................................................................................................  12  
5.1.9   Mass  .....................................................................................................................................  12  
5.1.10   Cleanliness  Level  ................................................................................................................  12  
5.1.11   Fluids  ..................................................................................................................................  12  
5.1.12   Shipping  Environment  ........................................................................................................  12  
5.1.13   Mechanical  Damage  Environment  .....................................................................................  13  
5.1.14   Thermal  Environment  ........................................................................................................  13  
5.1.15   Load,  Acoustic,  Shock,  and  Vibration  Environment  ...........................................................  13  
5.1.16   Unique  Operating  Environments  ........................................................................................  13  
5.1.17   Reliability  ............................................................................................................................  13  
5.2   Composite  Overwrapped  Pressure  Vessel  Design  Parameters  ...............................................  13  
5.2.1   Burst  Factor  ..........................................................................................................................  13  
5.2.2   Design  Burst  Pressure  ...........................................................................................................  14  
5.2.3   Proof  Pressure  ......................................................................................................................  14  
5.2.4   Design  Safety  Factor  .............................................................................................................  15  
5.2.5   Margin  of  Safety  ...................................................................................................................  15  
5.2.6   Negative  Pressure  Differential  .............................................................................................  15  
5.2.7   Stability  .................................................................................................................................  15  
5.2.8   Stress  Rupture  ......................................................................................................................  15  
5.2.9   Fluid  Compatibility  ...............................................................................................................  15  
5.2.10   Load,  Acoustic,  and  Vibration  Environment  .......................................................................  15  
5.2.11   Fracture  Control  .................................................................................................................  15  
5.2.11.1   Damage  Tolerance  Life  ....................................................................................................  16  

iii
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

5.2.11.2   Leak  Before  Burst  ............................................................................................................  17  


5.2.12   Fatigue  Life  .........................................................................................................................  17  
5.2.13   Reserved  .............................................................................................................................  17  
5.2.14   Reserved  .............................................................................................................................  17  
5.2.15   Reserved  .............................................................................................................................  17  
5.2.16   Reserved  .............................................................................................................................  17  
5.2.17   Reserved  .............................................................................................................................  17  
5.3   Damage  Control  Plan  ............................................................................................................  17  
5.4   Materials  ..............................................................................................................................  18  
6   General  Verification  ........................................................................................................  18  
6.1   Fracture  Control  Verification  ................................................................................................  18  
6.1.1   Damage  Tolerance  Life  Verification   .....................................................................................  18  
6.1.2   Leak  Before  Burst  Verification  ..............................................................................................  19  
7   Verification  by  Analysis  ...................................................................................................  19  
7.1   Metallic  Material  Properties  .................................................................................................  19  
7.2   Composite  Material  Properties  .............................................................................................  20  
7.3   Analysis  Model  .....................................................................................................................  20  
7.3.1   Strength  Analysis  Model  .......................................................................................................  20  
7.3.2   Loads  Analysis  Model  ...........................................................................................................  20  
7.3.3   Liner  Analysis  Model  ............................................................................................................  21  
7.3.4   Overwrap  Analysis  Model  .....................................................................................................  21  
7.3.5   Stiffness  Analysis  Model  .......................................................................................................  21  
7.3.6   Thermal  Effects  Model  .........................................................................................................  21  
7.4   COPV  Analysis  ......................................................................................................................  21  
7.4.1   Proof  Pressure  Analysis  ........................................................................................................  21  
7.4.2   Design  Burst  Pressure  Analysis  .............................................................................................  22  
7.4.3   Margin  of  Safety  Analysis  .....................................................................................................  22  
7.4.4   Negative  Pressure  Differential  Analysis  ................................................................................  22  
7.4.5   Stability  Analysis  ...................................................................................................................  22  
7.4.5.1   Linear  Buckling  Analysis  .....................................................................................................  23  
7.4.5.2   Nonlinear  Buckling  Analysis  ...............................................................................................  23  
7.4.6   Capacity  Analysis  ..................................................................................................................  23  
7.4.7   Physical  Envelope  Analysis  ...................................................................................................  23  
7.4.8   Mass  Analysis  .......................................................................................................................  23  
7.4.9   Load,  Acoustic,  Shock,  and  Vibration  Environment  Analysis  ................................................  23  
7.4.10   Unique  Operating  Environments  Analysis  ..........................................................................  23  
7.4.11   Stress  Rupture  Analysis  ......................................................................................................  23  
7.4.12   Fluid  Compatibility  Analysis  ...............................................................................................  24  
7.4.13   Fatigue  Life  Analysis  ...........................................................................................................  24  
7.4.14   Damage  Control  Plan  Analysis  ............................................................................................  24  
7.4.15   Reserved  .............................................................................................................................  24  
7.4.16   Reserved  .............................................................................................................................  24  
7.4.17   Reserved  .............................................................................................................................  24  
7.4.18   Reserved  .............................................................................................................................  24  
7.4.19   Reserved  .............................................................................................................................  24  
7.5   Fracture  Control  Analysis  ......................................................................................................  24  
7.5.1   Damage  Tolerance  Life  Analysis  ...........................................................................................  24  

iv
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

7.5.2   LBB  Analysis  ..........................................................................................................................  26  


7.6   Reliability  Engineering  Analysis  ............................................................................................  26  
7.6.1   Reliability  Analysis  ................................................................................................................  26  
7.6.2   Failure  Modes  and  Effects  Analysis  ......................................................................................  26  
8   Manufacturing  ................................................................................................................  26  
8.1   Process  Control  ....................................................................................................................  26  
8.2   Corrosion  Control  and  Fluid  Compatibility  ............................................................................  27  
8.3   Embrittlement  Control  .........................................................................................................  27  
8.4   Liner  Fabrication  and  Process  Control  ...................................................................................  27  
8.5   Overwrap  Fabrication  and  Process  Control  ...........................................................................  27  
9   Quality  Assurance  ...........................................................................................................  27  
9.1   QA  Program  Procedures  .......................................................................................................  28  
9.2   Quality  Plan  ..........................................................................................................................  28  
9.3   Qualification  Plan  .................................................................................................................  28  
9.4   Acceptance  Plan  ...................................................................................................................  28  
9.5   Inspection  and  Test  Plan  .......................................................................................................  28  
9.6   Inspector Qualification  ......................................................................................................  29  
9.7   Quality Documentation  .....................................................................................................  29  
10   Verification  by  Test  .........................................................................................................  29  
10.1   Damage  Tolerance  Life  Test  ................................................................................................  30  
10.1.1   Damage  Tolerance  Life  Test—Coupon  Specimens  ...........................................................  30  
10.1.2   Damage  Tolerance  Life  Test—COPV  Specimens  ................................................................  31  
10.2   LBB  Test  .............................................................................................................................  31  
10.2.1   LBB  Test—Coupon  Specimens  ............................................................................................  31  
10.2.2   LBB  Test—COPV  Specimen  .................................................................................................  32  
10.3   Mechanical  Damage  Control  Test  .......................................................................................  32  
10.3.1   Worst  case  threat  damage  tolerance  life  testing  ...............................................................  33  
10.3.2   Visual  mechanical  damage  threshold  testing  .....................................................................  33  
10.3.3   Protective  cover  testing  .....................................................................................................  33  
10.3.4   Damage  indicator  testing  ...................................................................................................  33  
10.4   Qualification  Test  ...............................................................................................................  33  
10.4.1   Qualification  Test  Instrumentation  ....................................................................................  34  
10.4.2   Nondestructive  Testing  ......................................................................................................  34  
10.4.3   Physical  Envelope  Test  .......................................................................................................  35  
10.4.4   Mass  Test  ...........................................................................................................................  35  
10.4.5   Capacity  Test  ......................................................................................................................  35  
10.4.6   Proof  Test  ...........................................................................................................................  35  
10.4.7   Leak  Test  ............................................................................................................................  35  
10.4.8   Pressure Cycle Test  ..........................................................................................................  36  
10.4.9   Vibration  and  External  Loads  Test  ......................................................................................  36  
10.4.10   Burst Test  ........................................................................................................................  36  
10.5   Validation  of  Analysis  Model  With  Qualification  Test  Data  .................................................  36  
10.6   Acceptance  Tests  ................................................................................................................  37  
11   Operations and Maintenance  ......................................................................................  37  
11.1   Operating Procedures  ........................................................................................................  37  

v
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

11.2   Safe Operating Limits  ......................................................................................................  38  


11.3   Special  Requirements  for  Pressurized  COPV  .......................................................................  38  
11.4   Embrittlement  Control  .......................................................................................................  38  
11.5   Inspection  and  Maintenance  ..............................................................................................  38  
11.6   Material  Review  Board  .......................................................................................................  39  
11.7   Repair  and  Refurbishment  ..................................................................................................  39  
11.8   Storage   ..............................................................................................................................  39  
11.9   Operations  Documentation  ................................................................................................  39  
12   Documentation  Retention  ..............................................................................................  39  
Annex  (Informative)  ..............................................................................................................  41  

List of Tables

Table 1. Determination for Burst Factor, Proof Factor, Negative Pressure Factor, and Design
Safety Factor ............................................................................................................................ 14
Table A. Design Requirements Verification Matrix ................................................................................... 41

vi
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Foreword
This version of S-081 was developed as an industry consensus to represent the accepted practices for
the design, development and operation of pressure vessels in space systems.

This version of S-081 was developed in collaboration with manufacturers, launch-site operators, range
safety authorities, as well as individuals affiliated with universities and government entities.

The key elements in the revised version of this standard are as follows:

• Updated the requirements for liner design and verification including requirements for damage
tolerance (formerly referred to as safe life) and leak before burst

• Articulated the responsibility of the owner, manufacturer, and procuring authority

• Organized the requirements into separate sections for design, analysis, and test

• Added a design requirements verification matrix

• Added sections to identify the manufacturing, quality and operations and maintenance
requirements

• Added requirements for maximum mass and minimum volume

• Added requirements for quantifiable reliability and a failure modes effects analysis

• Identified requirements associated with reuse

• Articulated requirements for manufacturing, quality assurance, operations and maintenance,


and data documentation

• Incorporated loading spectra into the service life

• Added references to ASTM standards for inspection.

The AIAA Aerospace Pressure Vessels (APV) Committee on Standards (CoS) was initially formed in
March 1996 as a working group within the AIAA Structures Committee on Standards with an emphasis on
inclusion of aerospace prime companies, pressure vessel suppliers, and all applicable government
agencies. Deliberations focused on adapting the standard to address commercial procurement of
aerospace composite pressure vessels.

The current members of the AIAA APV CoS appreciate the valuable input from several original members,
and express their gratitude to past committee members and reviewers whose contributions over many
years has resulted in an improved standard. At the time of approval of this document, members of the
APV CoS were:

Michael Kezirian, Chair The Boeing Company

Nathanael Greene, Co-Chair NASA Johnson Space Center

Alejandro Vega, Co-Chair U.S. Air Force

Subcommittee Chairpersons:

Kevin Case U.S. Department of Defense

Owen Greulich NASA Headquarters

vii
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Lorie Grimes-Ledesma NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Joe Hamilton APT Research

Norman Newhouse Hexagon Lincoln

Tommy Yoder NASA White Sands Test Facility

Members:

Pravin Aggarwal* NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

Joachim Beek* NASA Johnson Space Center

Harold Beeson* NASA White Sands Test Facility

Manoj Bhatia Keystone

Robert Biggs Lockheed Martin Corporation

Randy Brown* Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company

Matt Buchholz* MasterWorks Composite Solutions

Jim Chang Analytical Mechanics Associates

Robert Conger Microcosm, Inc.

Harry Conomos Moog, Inc.

John Duke, Jr. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Amy Engelbrecht-Wiggans Cornell University

Scott Forth The Spaceship Company

Susan Gavin Independent Technical Advisor

Robert Geuther* U.S. Air Force, 45th Space Wing

Jon Griffith Blue Origin

Jim Harris MasterWorks Composite Solutions

Luis Hernandez MEI Technologies

Mike Holt Virgin Galactic

Kaiser Imtiaz The Boeing Company

Sri Iyengar United Launch Alliance

Jim Kabbara* FAA/AST

Michael Kelly DARPA

Peter Kinsman Aerojet Rocketdyne

Andre Lavoie Virgin Galactic

Joseph Lewis* NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Edward Lira U.S. Department of Defense

viii
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

David McColskey National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dan Mueller Space Exploration Technologies Corporation

Cornelius Murray General Dynamics/Armament and Technical Products

Yenyih Ni The Aerospace Corporation

Jay Nightingale Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company

Michael Papadopoulos* The Aerospace Corporation

James Patterson HyPerComp Engineering

Kevin Richards Orbital ATK

Michael Robinson* The Boeing Company

Markus Rufer Scorpius Space Launch Company

Rick Russell* NASA Kennedy Space Center

Regor Saulsberry* NASA White Sands Test Facility

Joseph Seidler USAF, 45th Space Wing

Kay Kimberly Siegel H2Safe, LLC

Gerben Sinnema European Space Agency

Kirk Sneddon Ardé, Inc.

Brian Spencer* Spencer Composites

Mark Stevens MEI Technologies

Michael Surratt University of Southern California

Jim Sutter* Independent Consultant

Pete Taddie* NASA Kennedy Space Center

Walter Tam* ATK Space

John Thesken* NASA Glenn Research Center

Bruce Wallace Boeing Commercial Airplanes

Jess Waller HX5, Inc.

Daniel Wentzel* NASA Johnson Space Center

Jerry Widmar GHG Corporation

Paul Wilde* Federal Aviation Administration

Steven Wilson United Launch Alliance

Robert Wingate* NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

Kamil Wlodarczyk Orbital ATK

Donald Zimmerman Samtech International

ix
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

NOTE. Names marked with an asterisk participated as Observer, nonvoting member.

The above consensus body approved this document in Month Year.

The AIAA Standards Executive Council (VP-Standards Name, Chairperson) accepted the document for
publication in Month Year.

The AIAA Standards Procedures dictates that all approved standards, recommended practices, and
guides are advisory only. Their use by anyone engaged in industry or trade is entirely voluntary. There is
no agreement to adhere to any AIAA standards publication and no commitment to conform to or be
guided by standards reports. In formulating, revising, and approving standards publications, the
committees on standards will not consider patents that may apply to the subject matter. Prospective users
of the publications are responsible for protecting themselves against liability for infringement of patents or
copyright, or both.

x
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

1 Scope
This standard establishes baseline requirements for the design, analysis, manufacturing, test, and
operation of a composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) used for aerospace systems such as
spacecraft and launch vehicles.

Requirements for COPVs levied from other authorities (such as Range Safety, FAA, DOT, etc.) may also
be applicable. These requirements should be identified before the design process and addressed through
all stages of the COPV lifecycle.

1.1 Purpose
These requirements are intended to assure the safety and enhance the success of the operation of a
COPV in an aerospace system.

1.2 Applicability
This standard is applicable only to COPVs containing a metallic liner and constructed with a carbon
fiber/polymer matrix overwrap.

COPVs that include a fiberglass overwrap layer that serves to protect the vessel from impact damage are
permitted.

A companion standard, ANSI/AIAA S-080A Space Systems⎯Metallic Pressure Vessels, Pressurized


Structures, and Pressure Components, is applicable to spaceflight metallic pressurized hardware.

1.3 Designation of Responsibilities


This section identifies the responsibilities for the key agents: owner, procuring authority, and
manufacturer.

It is noted that the owner and procuring authority may be the same entity.

The procuring authority and the manufacturer may also be the same entity, in which case additional
consideration should be given regarding independent oversight.

1.3.1 Owner

The owner establishes the system level requirements. The owner develops the aerospace system
incorporating the COPV to meet these system level requirements. The owner performs the system
analysis on the aerospace system to identify the operational envelope, establishing the design
requirements. The owner is responsible for determining the criticality of the aerospace system.

The owner specifies options provided for in the standard before contracting with the manufacturer. For
example, the burst factor (Section 5.2.1) and design safety factor (Section 5.2.4) must be established. In
addition, for the conditions established in Section5.1.2, there may be options for the liner design and
verification approach.

The owner is responsible for recognizing the certification of trained COPV visual inspectors.

The owner has the responsibility for approving engineering source approved (ESA) processes and
subsequent changes. The owner should solicit engineering input prior to accepting ESA process changes.

The owner may delegate any of the above authority and decision making responsibility to a procuring
authority (typically an intermediary contractor or a consultant) but remains responsible for the overall
system.

The owner should give special consideration before accepting (or allowing the procuring authority to
accept) deviations from approved procedures and acceptance criteria.

1
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Upon acceptance of the aerospace system, the owner is responsible for the operation of the COPV. The
owner should operate the aerospace system in compliance with the identified system analysis
requirements specified in Section 5.1. The owner should operate the COPV in compliance with the
Operations and Maintenance Requirements specified in Section 11.

1.3.2 Procuring Authority

The procuring authority performs on behalf of the owner those responsibilities and authorities
contractually agreed between the two parties.

Typically this includes delegated authority from the owner for development of an aerospace system
incorporating the COPV, performance of the system analysis on the aerospace system to identify the
operational envelope as specified in Section 5.1 and establishing the design requirements as specified in
Section 5.2.

This standard permits options for the COPV. With concurrence from the owner, the procuring authority
may specify such options before contracting with the manufacturer. For example, the burst factor (Section
5.2.1) and design safety factor (Section 5.2.4) must be established. In addition, for the conditions
established in Section 5.1, there may be options for the liner design and verification approach.

With concurrence from the owner, the procuring authority may have final responsibility for manufacturing
and design decisions and may be required to review and approve all manufacturing and test procedures
and results. This includes the preparation of coupons, samples, and reference COPVs for damage
tolerance and LBB verification by test.

The procuring authority should give special consideration before accepting deviations from approved
procedures and acceptance criteria.

1.3.3 Manufacturer

The manufacturer is responsible for the overall design and fabrication of the COPV, including analysis
and testing. This process involves procuring materials, constructing, testing, and certifying that the COPV
is in compliance with the requirements of this standard. The manufacturer is also responsible for
developing the documentation required throughout the design and manufacturing of the COPV.

2 Tailoring
The requirements defined in this Standard may be tailored to match the actual requirements of the
particular program or project. Tailoring of requirements shall be undertaken in agreement with the owner
and procuring authority (as appropriate) and the authority having safety jurisdiction (i.e., range safety)
where applicable.

NOTE. Tailoring is a process by which individual requirements or specifications, standards, and related documents
are evaluated and made applicable to a specific program or project by selection, and in some cases, modification and
addition, or deletion of requirements in the standards. Such exceptions or modifications should be expressly
delineated in applicable purchase orders, contracts, and other technical documents.

3 Applicable Documents
The following documents contain provisions which, through reference in this text, constitute requirements
of this standard. For dated references, subsequent amendments to or revisions of any of these
publications do not apply. However, parties to agreements based on this standard are encouraged to
investigate the possibility of applying the most recent editions of the documents indicated below. For
undated references, the edition in effect at time of publication of this standard applies.

2
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

AFFDL-TR-79-3021 USAF Damage Tolerance Design Handbook: Guidelines for the


Analysis and Design of Damage Tolerant Aircraft Structures, 1994
th
AFML-TR-68-115 Aerospace Structural Metals Handbook 38 edition, 2004 or online
Aerospace Structural Metals Database, CINDAS LLC, 2007

AIA/NAS NAS 410 National Aerospace Standard Certification and Qualification of


Nondestructive Test Personnel Rev. 4, 2014

ANSI/AIAA S-080A Space Systems—Metallic Pressure Vessels, Pressurized Structures,


and Pressure Components, year

AS-9100 Quality Management Systems—Requirements for Aviation, Space


and Defense Organizations, 2009

ASNT SNT-TC-1A ASNT Recommended Practice No. SNT-TC-1A: Personnel


Qualification and Certification in Nondestructive Testing, 2016

ASTM E2981-15 Standard Guide for Nondestructive Testing of the Composite


Overwraps in Filament Wound Pressure Vessels Used in Aerospace
Applications, 2015

ASTM E2982-14 Standard Guide for Nondestructive Testing of the Thin-Walled


Metallic Liners in Filament Wound Pressure Vessels Used in
Aerospace Applications, 2014

ASTM E2899-15 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Initiation Toughness in


Surface Cracks Under Tension and Bending, 2015

ASTM E740/E740M-03 Standard Practice for Fracture Testing with Surface-Crack Tension
(Reapproved 2010) Specimens

CMH-17 Composite Materials Handbook, 2012

DOT/FAA/AR-MMPDS-10 Metallic Materials Properties Development Standardization


(MMPDS), 2015

ISO 9000 Quality management systems—Requirements, 2015

MIL-STD-1540D Military Standard, Product Verification Requirements for Launch,


Upper-Stage, and Space Vehicles, January 1999
NASA/TM-2012-217371 Elements of Nondestructive Examination for the Visual Inspection of
Composite Structures, September 2012

SMC-S-016 Test Requirements for Launch, Upper-Stage and Space Vehicles,


2014

4 Vocabulary
4.1 Acronyms and Abbreviated Terms
a crack depth

AFFDL Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory

AFML Air Force Materials Laboratory

3
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

AIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ASNT American Society for Nondestructive Testing

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials International

BF burst factor

c half crack length for a surface flaw

C Celsius

COPV composite overwrapped pressure vessel

da/dN fatigue crack growth rate in depth direction

dc/dN fatigue crack growth rate in length direction

DCP damage control plan

DoT Department of Transportation

ECF environmental correction factor

EPFM elastic/plastic fracture mechanics

ESA engineering source approved (as in ESA process)

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FMEA failure modes and effects analysis

Ftu ultimate tensile strength

Fty tensile yield strength

ITP inspection and test plan

K stress intensity factor

Kc plane stress fracture toughness

KF knockdown factor

KIc plane strain fracture toughness

Kle surface crack fracture toughness

KIEAC environment assisted fracture toughness

KR stable tearing

LBB leak before burst

LEFM linear elastic fracture mechanics

MEOP maximum expected operating pressure

MEPD maximum external pressure differential

MIL military

4
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

MRB Material Review Board

MS margin of safety

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NDT nondestructive testing

POD probability of detection

QA quality assurance

SMC Space and Missile Systems Center

ε-N strain-life

S-N stress-life

STD standard

USAF United States Air Force

VT Visual Test

4.2 Terms and Definitions


For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply:

A-basis allowable
the lower of either a statistically calculated number or the specification minimum (S-basis). The
statistically calculated number indicates that at least 99% of the population of values is expected to equal
or exceed the specified values, with a confidence level of 95%.

Acceptance tests
the required tests conducted by the manufacturer on a flight item to ascertain that the materials,
manufacturing processes, and workmanship meet specifications and that the item is acceptable for its
intended use

Allowable load
the maximum load that can be accommodated by a structure (material) without rupture, collapse, or
detrimental deformation in a given environment

NOTE. Allowable loads commonly correspond to the statistically based minimum ultimate strength, buckling strength,
and yield strength, as applicable.

Autofrettage pressure cycle


the highest pressure cycle to which a metal lined COPV is subjected with the intent of yielding the liner

NOTE. The autofrettage results in compressive residual stresses in the liner.

Burst factor
a multiplying factor applied to the maximum expected operating pressure (MEOP) to obtain the design
burst pressure

NOTE. An environmental correction factor (ECF) may be used to account for the difference in temperature at which
the burst test is performed and the worst case environment as defined in Section 5.1.14.

Composite overwrapped pressure vessel


a pressure vessel with a composite shell fully or partially encapsulating a liner

5
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

NOTE 1. The liner serves as a fluid (gas or liquid) permeation barrier and may or may not carry substantial pressure
loads. The composite shell generally carries a large portion of the pressure and environmental loads.

NOTE 2. This standard is applicable only to metal-lined COPV.

Critical damage
damage that results in degraded strength of the COPV such that it can no longer meet the requirements
of this standard

Critical process
term usually used in industry to refer to a “special” manufacturing processes such as welding, heat
treating, and brazing that can substantially affect material properties. The term could also be used to refer
to fiber wrapping, application of resin to fibers, and other processes applicable to COPVs. A critical
process may also be an engineering source approved process.

NOTE. If the term is used in a sense that is broader or different than industry standard, then it should be clearly
defined.

Damage control plan


a plan that identifies the damage threats to a COPV throughout the service life and documents the steps
taken to reduce the possibility of damage due to these threats. The DCP also identifies the visual
inspection points.

Damage tolerance life


the required period of time and number of cycles that the metallic liner of a COPV, containing the largest
undetected crack, flaw, or discontinuity based on analysis or test, will survive without leak or burst in the
expected service environment

Defect
one or more flaws whose aggregate size, shape, orientation, location, or properties do not meet specified
acceptance criteria and are rejectable

Design burst pressure


the pressure that a COPV must sustain without rupture in the applicable operating environment

Design safety factor


a multiplying factor applied to the limit load and/or MEOP for the purpose of analytical assessment and/or
test verification of structural adequacy

Detrimental deformation
distortion, deflection, or displacement that prevents any portion of the COPV from performing its intended
function or that reduces the probability of successful completion of the mission

Development test
a test that is conducted by the manufacturer in order to ascertain information used to check the validity of
analytic techniques and assumed design parameters; to uncover unexpected system response
characteristics; to evaluate design changes; to determine interface compatibility; to prove qualification and
acceptance procedures and techniques; to establish accept/reject criteria for nondestructive tests (NDT);
or any other purpose necessary to establish the validity of the design and manufacturing processes

Embrittlement
a reduction in the fracture toughness of a metal alloy resulting from an interstitial interaction of a second
element or compound, or other mechanisms, within the matrix of the alloy

NOTE. Examples of elements involving interstitial interactions are hydrogen in steel and liquid metals in aluminum
and titanium alloys.

Engineering source approved (ESA) process

6
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

a manufacturing process that is placed under configuration management. Changes to this process would
require appropriate written authorization.

NOTE. ESA processes may include investment castings, unique or critical NDT techniques, and fiber surface
treatments.

Environmental correction factor (ECF)


a multiplying factor applied to account for the change in material properties associated with the difference
between the temperature at which burst or proof test is performed and the established operating
environment

NOTE. The ECF for the proof test and the ECF for the burst test may be different.

Environments
the environmental exposures (such as mounting, humidity, temperature, vibration, acoustic, shock, and
radiation levels) that the COPV is subjected to after completion of manufacture and final inspection

Fatigue
the process of progressive localized permanent structural change occurring in a material subjected to
fluctuating stresses and strains, and which may culminate in cracks or complete fracture after a sufficient
number of cycles

Fatigue life
the number of cycles of applied external loads and/or pressurization that the unflawed pressurized item
can sustain before a fatigue failure could occur

Flaw
a local imperfection or discontinuity in a structural material (examples include cracks, voids, delamination,
etc.) that may be detectable by visual inspection or nondestructive testing and is not necessarily
rejectable

NOTE. Flaws can be manufacturing defects, which are rejectable.

Flaw (crack) aspect ratio (a/2c or a/c)


the aspect ratio of a surface flaw (crack) or a corner flaw (crack) in the liner where a is the depth and 2c
or c is the length of the flaw (crack)

Fracture control
the application of design philosophy, analysis method, manufacturing technology, quality assurance, and
operating procedures to prevent premature structural failure due to the propagation of cracks or crack-like
defects during fabrication, testing, transportation and handling, and service

Hazard
any real or potential condition that can cause injury, illness, or death to personnel; damage to or loss of a
system, equipment, or property; or damage to the environment

Hazard analysis
the determination of hazards and recommended resolutions for those conditions which may cause loss of
personnel capability, injury, illness, or death to personnel or the public, damage to or loss of system,
equipment, or property, or damage to the environment. The hazard analysis includes assessment,
causes, controls and proven mitigations.

Hazardous application
an application for which a hazard exists (i.e., a potential risk situation may be cause by an unsafe act or
condition, such as a hazardous fluid)

NOTE. A hazard is the presence of a potential risk situation caused by an unsafe act or condition.

Hazardous fluid  

7
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

a fluid that presents a hazard to personnel

NOTE. Examples include fluids with high toxicity, flammability, explosivity, and corrosivity (but not asphyxiation).

Launch site/Range safety authority


the entity responsible for the safety review and approval of the COPV design, analysis, and test program;
hazard and risk assessments; and operating and maintenance procedures for meeting launch site/range
safety requirements

Leak before burst (LBB)


a design approach in which, at MEOP, assumed flaws in the liner, should they exist in any location and
grow by any mechanism, result in leakage to a pressure below MEOP rather than unstable crack growth

NOTE. LBB does not apply at pressures higher than MEOP and is not a safety measure against over-pressurization.

Limit load
the maximum expected external load or worst case combination of loads that a structure may experience
during the performance of specified missions in specified environments

NOTE. When a statistical estimate is applicable, the limit load is that load not expected to be exceeded at 99%
probability with 90% confidence.

Linear elastic fracture mechanics


an approach to analyze the propagation of flaws in materials. The material is assumed to be isotropic and
linear elastic and the stress field near the crack tip is calculated using the theory of elasticity. When the
stresses near the crack tip exceed the material fracture toughness, the crack will grow.

Liner
the metallic component of a COPV, including the bosses, which serves as a permeation barrier, fluid
system interface, and which may serve as structural mounting

Manufacturer
the organization that develops the COPV; includes the design, analysis, fabrication, and test of the COPV

Margin of safety
the parameter that expresses structural capability with respect to the design safety factor

NOTE 1. The margin of safety may be expressed in terms of force, stress, or strain.

NOTE 2. The margin of safety applies to a single loading condition (mechanical, thermal, or pressure).

Material review board


an entity within an organization with designated authority to adjudicate disposition of noncompliance
conditions

Maximum expected operating pressure


the maximum pressure at which the system or component operates throughout its service life. It includes
the effect of temperature, transient peaks, vehicle acceleration, and relief device tolerance.

Maximum external pressure differential


the largest pressure differential as measured from outside the pressurized hardware to the inside

Mechanical damage
an induced anomaly in the composite shell of a COPV caused by surface abrasion, cut, impact, over-
constraint, or other load

Mission critical
a system, component, configuration, or operation whose failure can result in mission failure or significantly
degraded mission performance

8
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Negative pressure factor


a multiplying factor that is to be applied when the COPV is to be exposed to a negative pressure
differential during the service life
Nondestructive testing
the technical methods to examine materials or components in ways that do not impair future usefulness
and serviceability in order to detect, locate, measure, and evaluate flaws; to assess integrity, properties,
and composition; and to measure geometrical characteristics
Owner
the organization that procures an aerospace system which incorporates a COPV. The owner may
delegate responsibility to a procurement authority. After the completion of the procurement, the owner
assumes the responsibility of the procuring authority.

Plastically responding liner


a liner that deforms plastically during operation, that is, anytime during the service life after autofrettage

Precrack
a fatigue crack of regular configuration (i.e., a half-ellipse or a segment of a circle) produced at a
prescribed location, whose depth and length are close to predetermined target values, and whose
subsequent fracture behavior will not be influenced by any detail of the preparation process

Pressure vessel
a container designed primarily for the storage of pressurized fluids which (1) contains stored energy of
14,240 ft-lb (19307 J) or greater, based on adiabatic expansion of a perfect gas, or (2) contains gas or
liquid, in excess of 15 psi (103kPa), which will create a mishap (accident) if released, or (3) will
experience a MEOP greater than 100 psi (700 kPa)

Procuring authority
the organization that contracts or is delegated by the owner to work with a manufacturer to design,
analyze, fabricate, and test the pressurized hardware. This may be the owner. After the completion of the
procurement, this responsibility and authority of the procuring authority transfers to the owner.

Proof factor
a multiplying factor applied to the limit load or MEOP to obtain the proof load or proof pressure

Proof test logic


an approach in which proof testing and analysis are used to determine that the largest flaw that can exist
after a proof test will not propagate to critical size over the service life

Protective cover
a device such as a blanket or shell that serves as a sacrificial barrier to protect a COPV against
atmospheric and handling damage. It is used during processing and removed prior to operation.

Qualification test
a required test used to verify that the design, manufacturing, and assembly of a COPV has resulted in a
design that conforms to specification requirements

Residual stress
the stress that remains in a structure after processing, autofrettage, fabrication, assembly, testing, or
operation

NOTE. One example is welding induced residual stress.

S-basis allowable
the minimum property value specified by the governing industry specification or federal or military
standards for the material. Statistical assurance associated with this value is not known.

9
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Safety critical
any component, configuration, or operation that may cause personnel injury or loss or loss of system, or
damage to or loss of equipment or property

Service life
the period of time and/or number of cycles for all relevant load events that occur over the entire vessel
lifetime. The service life includes all manufacturing (including autofrettage), operational cycles, testing,
loading, handling, storage, transportation, and launch. The service life shall incorporate the effects of all
conditions and environments encountered. The service life also includes, if applicable, reentry or recovery
from orbit, post-landing events, refurbishment, retesting, and reuse.

NOTE 1. For damage tolerance assessment, the portion of the service life prior to screening (NDT) for pre-existing
flaws may be excluded.

NOTE 2. For reliability assessment, service life includes only operational cycles.

Stable crack growth


a condition in which a material exhibits slow, stable crack extension under increasing crack driving force

Stress-corrosion cracking
a mechanical–environmental induced failure process in which sustained tensile stress and chemical
attack combine to initiate and propagate a crack or a crack-like flaw in a metallic part of a COPV

Stress intensity factor


a parameter that characterizes the stress–strain behavior at the tip of a crack contained in a linear elastic,
homogeneous, and isotropic body

Stress rupture
a sudden failure mode for COPVs that can occur at normal operating pressures and temperatures. This
failure mode can occur while at stress levels below ultimate strength for an extended time. The failure
mechanism is complex, not well understood, and difficult to accurately predict or detect prior to failure.
The location and mechanism of triggering damage causing sudden failure is highly localized, but at a
random location. This location and extent of local damage has not been able to be detected by current
NDT techniques prior to catastrophic failure. Pressure, duration of time at pressure, and temperature
experienced contribute to the degradation of the fiber and/or the fiber-matrix interface, particularly around
accumulations of fiber breaks, and these increase the probability of COPV stress rupture.

Sustained load crack growth


growth of a pre-existing crack in susceptible metallic alloys under sustained stress, without assistance
from an external environment

Trained COPV visual inspector


an individual who is qualified to visually inspect and identify damage on the composite shell of a COPV by
satisfying the criteria established in an approved plan or by being accepted as a recognized competent
authority

Visual damage threshold


the lowest impact energy level shown by test(s) that creates an indication on the composite shell of a
COPV and is detectable by a trained inspector using an unaided visual inspection technique

NOTE. Typically, a 0.5-inch diameter hemispherical steel impactor is used to qualitatively establish this threshold.

Worst case location


an identified location in the liner (includes the boss and associated shear region) where a flaw would lead
to the most unfavorable LBB or damage tolerance life condition

NOTE. The analyses to determine the worst case location for LBB and damage tolerance life are different.

10
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

5 General Design
This section provides the general design requirements for an aerospace system containing a COPV and
the corresponding design of the COPV. This section also includes the requirements for the material
selection and characterization.

5.1 System Analysis


A detailed system analysis must be performed for the aerospace system containing the COPV to
determine the operational envelope, liner design and verification approach, and reliability requirements.

5.1.1 Service Classification

A hazard analysis shall be performed on the pressure system to determine if the COPV will be used for a
hazardous application or a nonhazardous application. For this determination, the entire service life of the
COPV shall be evaluated.

5.1.2 Service Category

The pressure system shall be analyzed for criticality of leakage to determine which of the following two
service categories is appropriate to characterize the use of the COPV:

Category 1

This category includes all COPVs that meet any one of the following three criteria:

1. The COPV is used in a human spaceflight system and the COPV is safety or mission critical.

2. The service classification determination is that the COPV will be used for a hazardous
application.

3. The COPV is used in a critical unmanned spaceflight system and the COPV is mission
critical. Examples of critical unmanned spaceflight systems might include ones associated
with national security and/or determined to be a high value asset.

Category 2

This category includes all COPVs that do not meet any individual criterion established in Category 1, and
therefore meets all of the following criteria:

1. The COPV is used in a human spaceflight system and does not have a safety or mission
critical application. OR If the COPV is used in a human spaceflight system, then it does not
have a safety or mission critical application.

2. The service classification determination is that the COPV will not be used for a hazardous
application.

3. The COPV is used in a noncritical unmanned spaceflight system or the COPV is not mission
critical.

The service classification is specified in Section 5.1.1.

5.1.3 Maximum Expected Operating Pressure

The pressure system shall be analyzed to determine the maximum expected operating pressure (MEOP)
throughout the service life. The system analysis should account for the effects of temperature, transient
peaks, vehicle acceleration, and relief device tolerance.

11
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

5.1.4 Maximum External Pressure Differential

The pressure system shall be analyzed to determine maximum external pressure differential (MEPD).
Examples of external pressure conditions include vacuum fill, purge, and applied external pressure.

5.1.5 Service Life

The system shall be analyzed to determine the service life.

If the system analysis identifies thermal and/or pressure transients such as compressive heating, surge
pressure, regulator lockup, or water hammer, then the service life shall incorporate the effects of these
phenomena. These transients may be included in the service life as additional pressure cycles.

If the service life spectrum contains less than 13 cycles, then it shall be increased to 13 cycles by adding
MEOP cycles.

5.1.6 Capacity

The pressure system shall be analyzed to determine the required COPV volume at MEOP.

5.1.7 Physical Envelope

The pressure system shall be analyzed to determine the mounting and other interface requirements, inlet
and outlet port geometry, and envelope dimensions (including tolerances) at MEOP and at proof. The
analysis shall incorporate the appropriate temperatures and the corresponding effects on fluids and
materials.

The envelope dimensions shall include all relevant shape and minimum and maximum linear dimensions.

5.1.8 Acceptable Leak Rate

The pressure system shall be analyzed to determine the maximum acceptable leak rate.

NOTE. The leak rate may be selected in guidance of ASTM E2982 (see Section 10).

5.1.9 Mass

The pressure system shall be analyzed to determine the maximum mass of the COPV.

5.1.10 Cleanliness Level

The pressure system shall be analyzed to determine the required cleanliness level.

If applicable, final particulate and other cleanliness requirements shall be specified.

5.1.11 Fluids

The pressure system shall be analyzed to define all internal and external fluid exposures. The analysis
shall include all planned operations and potential environmental exposures.

Multiple fluids may be identified. If the fluid is a mixture, then the composition (relative content) shall be
specified. The analysis shall include changes in composition during the service life; fluids required for
servicing, processing, and cleaning; and potential environmental exposure including moisture.

5.1.12 Shipping Environment

The operation of the COPV throughout its lifetime shall be analyzed to determine transportation
requirements. Any necessary containers and equipment for shipping of the COPV shall be specified.

12
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

5.1.13 Mechanical Damage Environment

The system shall be analyzed to determine credible sources of mechanical damage to the COPV
throughout manufacturing and the service life.

5.1.14 Thermal Environment

The system shall be analyzed to define the thermal environment, specifying the maximum and minimum
temperatures. These maximum and minimum temperatures shall include a margin of at least 11°C on
operating temperature. A smaller margin may be utilized when necessitated by fluid properties.

COPV heating and cooling rates and localized thermal conditions shall be defined.

During nominal and off-nominal operations, a COPV can be subject to different heating and cooling rates.

5.1.15 Load, Acoustic, Shock, and Vibration Environment

The system shall be analyzed to define the anticipated load-pressure-temperature history and
corresponding load, acoustic, shock, and vibration environment throughout the service life. The analysis
shall include the ranges and variability on the magnitudes, frequencies, and duration for induced loads
and pressure. It shall also include potential environmental conditions and their effect on these induced
loads and pressure. It may include cases of partially filled and empty configurations, as appropriate.

Limit load and MEOP are used as the baseline external load and internal pressure.

A minimum value for the first fundamental structural mode shall be specified. This frequency shall be
specified for each direction for the filled and pressurized COPV as mounted.

The integrated load, acoustic, shock, and vibration environment is coupled with the design of the COPV.
The final COPV design shall be evaluated with respect to the integrated system.

5.1.16 Unique Operating Environments

The system shall be analyzed to identify any unique operating environments that are not otherwise
addressed. Such conditions might include exposure to extremely high or low temperatures, high levels of
radiation, ultraviolet light, or exposure to atomic oxygen.

5.1.17 Reliability

The system shall be analyzed to define a quantitative reliability requirement for the COPV. The reliability
may be specified for the operational portion of the service life or for a specified period, such as a per-flight
basis.

5.2 Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel Design Parameters


The general design requirements are delineated in the following sections. These parameters characterize
the operational envelope and are necessary inputs to design, acceptance, and qualification.

The following COPV design requirements are established from the system analysis requirements of this
standard.

5.2.1 Burst Factor

The burst factor (BF) shall be specified in order to comply with Equation 1:

BF ≥ 1.50 Eq. 1

13
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

5.2.2 Design Burst Pressure

The COPV shall be designed to sustain the design burst pressure without leakage or rupture.

The design burst pressure is determined from the BF, environmental correction factor (ECF), and MEOP
in accordance with Equation 2.

Design Burst Pressure = BF x ECF x MEOP Eq. 2

The ECF accounts for any difference between the temperature at which the burst test is performed and
the worst case temperature as specified by the thermal environment defined in Section 5.1.14. The ECF
is greater than or equal to 1.

NOTE. The ECF for the proof test and the ECF for the burst test may be different.

If a COPV incorporates a fiberglass overwrap layer that serves only to protect the tank from external
damage, then the strength requirements for design burst pressure shall be achieved without the presence
of the fiberglass overwrap layer.

5.2.3 Proof Pressure

The COPV shall be designed to sustain proof pressure without detrimental deformation, leakage, or
rupture.

The proof pressure is determined from the proof factor derived from Table 1, ECF, and MEOP in
accordance with Equation 3:

Proof Pressure = Proof Factor x ECF x MEOP Eq. 3

The ECF is selected to account for any difference between the temperature at which the proof test is
performed and the worst case temperature as specified by the thermal environment defined in Section
5.1.14. The ECF is greater than or equal to 1.

NOTE. The ECF for the proof test and burst test may be different.

If a COPV incorporates a fiberglass overwrap layer that serves only to protect the tank from external
damage, then the strength requirements for proof pressure shall be achieved without the presence of the
fiberglass overwrap layer.

Table 1 — Determination for Burst Factor, Proof Factor, Negative Pressure Factor, and
Design Safety Factor

Minimum
Negative
Minimum Burst Design
Component Proof Factor Pressure
Factor (BF) Safety
Factor
Factor
1.50 1.25
Composite overwrapped Between 1.50 and 1 + Burst  Factor 1.00 1.40
pressure vessel 2.00 2
Greater than 2.00 1.50

14
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

5.2.4 Design Safety Factor

The design safety factor must be established to meet or exceed the minimum design safety factor
identified in Table 1. The design safety factor is applied to the limit loads to compare against the allowable
load.

5.2.5 Margin of Safety

The COPV shall be designed such that the margin of safety (MS) is positive for all loading conditions
applied to the COPV throughout the service life.

The MS is defined in terms of the allowable load and limit load in accordance with Equation 4.

MS = Allowable Load / (Limit Load * Design Safety Factor) – 1 Eq. 4

MS can be evaluated for force, stress, or strain. The MS applies to a single loading condition (mechanical,
or thermal), unless specified otherwise.

5.2.6 Negative Pressure Differential

The COPV shall be designed to sustain the negative pressure differential without detrimental deformation,
leakage, or rupture. Liner buckling is a form of detrimental deformation.

The negative pressure differential is determined from the negative pressure factor derived from Table 1,
and the MEPD in accordance with Equation 5.

Negative Pressure Differential = MEPD X Negative Pressure Factor Eq. 5

5.2.7 Stability

The COPV shall be designed be stable to all plausible combinations of residual manufacturing stresses,
thermal environments, and external destabilizing loads (with appropriate uncertainty factors).

5.2.8 Stress Rupture

There shall be no credible stress rupture failure mode over the service life. The COPV will be designed
such that the composite shell meets the design life considering the time it is under sustained load.

5.2.9 Fluid Compatibility

Through the selection of materials, the COPV shall be designed to be chemically compatible with the
specified fluids.

Fluids are identified in Section 5.1.11.

5.2.10 Load, Acoustic, and Vibration Environment

The COPV shall be designed to sustain the specified load-pressure-temperature history and
corresponding load, acoustic, and vibration environment.

The load, acoustic, and vibration environment loads and natural frequency environments are identified in
Section 5.1.15.

5.2.11 Fracture Control

The COPV liner shall be designed, based on the service category, as follows:

For Category 1, the COPV shall meet both of the following:

The COPV is designed to meet damage tolerance life.

15
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

The COPV is designed to meet LBB except for the boss.

For Category 2, the COPV shall meet either damage tolerance life, LBB, or a combination of damage
tolerance life and LBB approaches. If a combination is selected, then all parts of the vessel shall be
covered by one of these approaches.

The shear region of the boss is exempt from Fracture Control. The shear region of the boss is that portion
of the liner at the edge of the composite where a high shear stress results from the internal pressure.

The service categories are specified in Section 5.1.2. Damage tolerance life and LBB requirements are
specified in Sections 5.2.11.1 and 0, respectively.

5.2.11.1 Damage Tolerance Life

The region(s) of the COPV to which damage tolerance is applied shall be designed such that the COPV
liner possesses a minimum damage tolerance life of four (4) times the service life, without detrimental
deformation, leakage, or rupture. The portion of the service life prior to screening (NDT) for pre-existing
flaws may be excluded from the damage tolerance life. The damage tolerance life may be different for
different regions of the COPV depending on the point at which inspection is conducted for each region.

NOTE. A minimum of 13 cycles is specified per the service life in accordance with Section 5.1.5.

The initial flaw (crack) size shall be greater than or equal to the minimum NDT capability associated with
the COPV liner inspection technique (Section 10.4.2) for screening of initial flaws. The initial flaw (crack)
size and orientation shall be determined from the sensitivity limit of the 90% probability of detection (POD)
at 95% confidence level for this inspection technique.

Proof test logic shall not be used to determine the initial flaw size.

The worst case location(s) in the liner shall be determined based on an analysis that establishes the
greatest potential for a flaw to grow to leakage or rupture. The worst case location analysis shall include
all regions of the liner (including the boss). The analysis shall incorporate, at each location, the stress,
strain, and material properties of the COPV. The assessment may involve multiple candidate worst-case
locations, including the boss region. If this damage tolerance life requirement applies to a portion of the
COPV, sufficient analysis or assessment shall be performed to fully characterize the applicable region
and transitional zones to other regions. The rationale for the determination of this worst case location(s)
shall be documented.

In determining the damage tolerance life, the following criteria shall be evaluated:

• The initial flaw (crack) at the worst-case location(s) and in the worst case orientation.

• Aspect ratios (a/2c) in the range of 0.1 to 0.5. The range of potential aspect ratios shall be
determined based on the manufacturing process or NDT. If the potential ranges (worst case)
is shown to be broader than the ranges of 0.1 to 0.5, then the larger range shall be used.

• The worst case combination of conditions that support flaw (crack) extension including
external load combinations/resident pressure, composite stiffness, liner yield response, and
work hardening.

• The effects of residual stresses from manufacturing processes.

• The effects of all stress conditions (cyclic and sustained), environments, and their
combinations.

• The assessment of both embedded and surface flaws (cracks).

16
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

• In assessment of flaw growth in the service life, it is permissible to delete cycles in the service
life below 25 percent of MEOP provided that those cycles are conservatively shown to
develop stress intensity below Kth.

NOTE. Autofrettage is included in the service life for damage tolerance assessment, if the autofrettage cycle occurs
after NDT.

5.2.11.2 Leak Before Burst

The region(s) of the COPV to which leak before burst (LBB) is applied shall be designed such that the
COPV will exhibit LBB at or below MEOP.

The worst case location(s) shall be determined based on an analysis that establishes the greatest
potential for a flaw to grow to leakage. The analysis of the liner shall incorporate the material
properties/microstructure, stress/strain state of the COPV, residual stresses, and orientation.

The length of a through crack for LBB must be determined by evaluating the potential for a surface crack
to grow in length before it becomes a through thickness flaw.

For Category 2, the analysis shall incorporate the growth of surface cracks and whether there is potential
for a surface crack to grow beyond the 10t length before becoming a through crack. If the longer crack is
not shown to remain stable upon breakthrough or does not breakthrough then the Damage Tolerance is
applied.

All embrittling effects from manufacturing processing or other toughness reduction factors shall be
included. The assessment may involve multiple candidate worst-case locations, including the boss region.
If this LBB requirement applies to a portion of the COPV, sufficient analysis or assessment shall be
performed to fully characterize the applicable region and transitional zones to other regions. The rationale
for the determination of this worst case location(s) shall be documented.

The overwrap design shall be such that, if the liner develops a leak, the composite will allow the leaking
fluid to pass through it so that composite rupture will not occur, for COPV pressures at or below MEOP.

5.2.12 Fatigue Life

The COPV shall be designed such that all parts of the COPV possess a fatigue life, without detrimental
deformation, leakage, or rupture, greater than or equal to four (4) times the service life.

5.2.13 Reserved

5.2.14 Reserved

5.2.15 Reserved

5.2.16 Reserved

5.2.17 Reserved

5.3 Damage Control Plan


Damage control plan(s) (DCP) shall be developed to mitigate credible sources of mechanical and other
forms of damage to the COPV during manufacturing and throughout the service life. These credible
sources are identified through the analysis of the mechanical damage environment.

The DCP shall include the use of protective covers. The DCP will include additional protections, as
necessary, such as damage indicators.

The DCP will list mitigations to these credible threats. The mitigations must include the effectiveness and
specific approach (protection, indicators, and/or surveillance), and be incorporated into work instructions
and assembly procedures. The plan will document the specific times that the detailed visual inspections

17
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

or other NDT techniques are required. Guidance for inspection methods is provided in ASTM E2981 and
E2982. Consideration should be given to the material characteristics, fabrication processes, design
concepts, structural configuration, corrosion control, accessibility for inspection, and operations and
maintenance. The DCP will also specifically address any close proximity operations that could potentially
damage the COPV after the close-out visual inspection has been performed.

The mechanical damage environment is identified in Section 5.1.13.

5.4 Materials
Materials used for COPV fabrication shall be selected on the basis of proven compatibility and material
properties. The effects of fabrication processes, coatings, fluids, temperature, load spectra, impact
spectra, and other environmental conditions shall also be evaluated in the selection of materials.

The materials shall be evaluated with respect to the material processing, fabrication methods,
manufacturing operations, refurbishment procedures and processes, and operating environments that
affect the resulting properties of the material in the fabricated and refurbished configurations.

The composite material properties shall be determined for the expected operating environment.

If conductive fiber reinforcement is used in the presence of metallic materials, then the design shall
incorporate a means of preventing galvanic corrosion with metallic components.

All known embrittlement mechanisms, such as thermal embrittlement, hydrogen embrittlement, or liquid
metal embrittlement, applicable to the liner, fiber, or resin, shall be identified and controlled in the design
of the COPV.

6 General Verification
A comprehensive verification program shall be conducted to demonstrate that the design requirements in
Section 5 are met. The analysis requirements are presented in Section 7; and the qualification and
acceptance test requirements are presented in Section 10.

The requirements that specify the permissible verification methods (analysis, inspection, and/or test) for
fracture control are presented in Section 6.1.

The Annex contains a reference matrix of the verification methods for design requirements.

6.1 Fracture Control Verification


The following requirements determine whether the liner design requirements are to be verified by test or
by analysis.

6.1.1 Damage Tolerance Life Verification

The damage tolerance life requirement identified in Section 5.2.11.1 shall be verified either by analysis, in
accordance with Section 7.5.1, or test, in accordance with Section 10.1, according to the following
criterion:

The damage tolerance life requirement may be verified by analysis if both of the following conditions are
met:

1. The liner (or region of the liner) must be shown to be elastically responding and characterized
by linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) throughout the operational portion of the service
life.

18
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

2. The fracture toughness properties of the liner materials are determined in accordance with
Section 7.1

Otherwise, the damage tolerance life requirement will be verified by test.

NOTE. Verification by test may be chosen for all circumstances.

6.1.2 Leak Before Burst Verification

The LBB requirement identified in Section 0 shall be verified either by analysis, in accordance with
Section 7.5.2, or test, in accordance with Section 10.2, according to the following criterion:

The LBB requirement may be verified by analysis if both of the following conditions are met:

1. The liner (or region of the liner) must be shown to be elastically responding and characterized
by linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) throughout the operational portion of the service
life.

2. The fracture toughness properties of the liner materials are determined in accordance with
Section 7.1

Otherwise, the LBB requirement will be verified by test.


NOTE. Verification by test may be chosen for all circumstances.

7 Verification by Analysis
This section provides the comprehensive analysis program to verify the design requirements in Section 5
(see Annex, Table A).

7.1 Metallic Material Properties


A-basis design allowables shall be used for:

• Tensile yield strength, Fty,

• ultimate tensile strength, Ftu

• elongation.

A-basis design allowables shall be calculated per the procedures in Metallic Materials Properties
Development Standardization (DOT/FAA/AR-MMPDS-10). The mechanical properties and the fatigue and
fracture properties of all metallic materials shall be established for the expected operating environment.
Properties shall be established from reliable sources such as Metallic Materials Properties Development
Standardization, Aerospace Structural Metals Handbook, and Damage Tolerance Design Handbook.
When material properties are not available, they shall be determined by test. The test program shall
produce the following properties for the parent metal, any weld joint, and heat-affected zones, all taking
into account the fluid contents, service life, and expected operating and test environments, as
appropriate.

• Plane strain fracture toughness, KIC surface-crack fracture toughness, KIE and environment
assisted fracture toughness, KIEAC

• Fatigue crack growth rates, da/dN, dc/dN and corrosion fatigue growth rates

• Fatigue, stress, and strain with respect to number of cycles, S-N ,or ε-N data.

If properties determined by test are used, then they shall be obtained in accordance with recognized
standards such as those developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials International
(ASTM).

19
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Sufficient tests shall be conducted so that meaningful nominal values of fracture toughness, fatigue and
crack growth rate data corresponding to each alloy system, temper, product form, thermal and chemical
environments, and service life can be established to evaluate compliance with damage tolerance life
requirements. For example, fluid / material / temperature combinations having a KIEAC value less than
60% of KIC must have at least four (4) independent test data points.

7.2 Composite Material Properties


A-basis design allowables shall be used for all composite materials. The design allowables shall be
calculated per the procedures in Composite Materials Handbook (CMH-17). The mechanical properties of
all materials shall be established for the expected operating environment.

For the carbon fiber overwrap, the data used to generate the A-basis allowable material properties shall
come from vessel testing. A relationship shall be established between the production COPV and the
reference COPV(s) from which data is available. This relationship must be shown to be properly scalable
for the purpose of establishing material properties. In evaluation of this relationship and its
appropriateness for the COPV development, consideration must be given to size, shape, and liner
configuration.

The vessel manufacture shall perform acceptance testing on all lots of fiber to verify material properties.

If a change is made in the resin system, then equivalency shall be established per CMH-17.

NOTE. For other composite materials used during manufacturing, such as adhesives and spacers or barriers, then
reference data is acceptable.

7.3 Analysis Model


A finite element analysis (FEA) model of the COPV shall be created to show strength, stiffness, thermal
effects on the COPV response, and the elastic/plastic response of the liner on the COPV response. This
model does not include crack-like flaws in the liner or boss nor damage or flaws in the composite shell.
The model may include the effects of microcracking in the composite material properties.

Structural analysis tools should have demonstrated accuracy based on previous experience with COPV
design and fabrication.

7.3.1 Strength Analysis Model

The FEA model shall have the capability to determine strains resulting from the combined effects of
internal pressure, ground or flight loads, temperatures, and thermal gradients. The analysis shall include
heating rates, temperatures, thermal gradients, thermal stresses, and deformations.

Worst case material thicknesses including tolerances, thickness gradients, and variations in
manufacturing process parameters shall be used.

Both membrane strains and bending strains resulting from pressure and external loads shall be analyzed
to account for the effects of geometrical discontinuities, design configuration, structural support
attachments, piping, restraints, manufacturing tolerances, test conditions, thermal conditions, residual
stresses, and assembly stresses.

7.3.2 Loads Analysis Model

The FEA model shall have the capability to evaluate the combined effects of pressure and external loads
in order to assess random vibration (usually low compared to pressure loads), shock (can be significant),
temperature, or mounting structure loads (load from the mounts being driven into the vessel). Other
possible details (geometric discontinuities, such as weld details, boss geometry, taper, etc.) shall be
specifically addressed using combined loads.

20
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Loads shall be combined by using the appropriate design safety factors on the individual loads and
comparing the resulting strains to allowables. Design safety factors on external loads shall be those
specified for the structure(s) supporting the pressurized system.

7.3.3 Liner Analysis Model

The FEA model shall have the capability to determine strains at MEOP, and proof, and
autofrettage/sizing. Structural analysis tools shall have demonstrated accuracy based on past test results
for vessels of similar shape, lamination, and wrap pattern. The analysis shall include the nonlinear
material response of the liner, if appropriate.

For bonded liners, the liner/composite bondline interface shall be analyzed for shear capability.

7.3.4 Overwrap Analysis Model

The FEA model shall employ composite laminate theory in order to analyze the composite shell. The
model shall be capable of analyzing the effects of ply orientation, stacking sequence, and geometrical
discontinuities. The model shall contain all potential load carrying composite in the COPV design.

If the COPV incorporates a fiberglass overwrap layer then the model shall include the fiberglass overwrap
layer.

7.3.5 Stiffness Analysis Model

The FEA model shall have the capability of characterizing the stiffness of the COPV accounting for
material properties of the liner and overwrap and appropriate interactions between them while subject to
the applicable environments.

The FEA model shall be capable of analyzing mounted structures to characterize any potential effects of
input loads.

7.3.6 Thermal Effects Model

The FEA model shall have the capability of characterizing the effects of induced thermal loads on the
COPV, including the effect of thermal conditions (gradients and stresses), heating rates, temperatures,
and deformations. The FEA tool shall also account for temperature effects on material properties of the
liner and overwrap and appropriate interactions between them while subject to the applicable
environments.

7.4 COPV Analysis


A comprehensive analysis of the COPV will be performed to consider the full set of design requirements.

7.4.1 Proof Pressure Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV is capable of sustaining proof pressure without detrimental
deformation, leakage, or rupture.

The analysis shall account for all manufacturing and operational activities prior to the performance of the
proof pressure test.

If the COPV incorporates a fiberglass overwrap layer that serves only to protect the COPV from external
damage, then the analysis shall show that the proof pressure requirement can be met without the
presence of the fiberglass overwrap layer.

The proof pressure is identified in Section 5.2.3.

21
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

7.4.2 Design Burst Pressure Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV is capable of sustaining design burst pressure without leakage, or
rupture.

If the COPV incorporates a fiberglass overwrap layer that serves only to protect the COPV from external
damage, then the analysis shall show that the design burst pressure requirement can be met without the
presence of the fiberglass overwrap layer.

The design burst pressure is identified in Section 5.2.2.

7.4.3 Margin of Safety Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV meets the MS requirement.

The analysis shall show that the MS requirement is met throughout the COPV at the following pressures:
MEOP, proof, design burst, and configured with the MEPD.

At each identified pressure, the minimum MS associated with the critical locations that has different
material allowables (including parent material, weldment, and heat-affected zones for parts made of
metallic materials) shall be calculated and tabulated along with their locations and stress levels.

The MS requirement is identified in Section 5.2.5.

7.4.4 Negative Pressure Differential Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV is capable of sustaining the negative pressure differential without
detrimental deformation, leakage, or rupture.

The negative pressure differential is identified in Section 5.2.6.

7.4.5 Stability Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV is stable with respect to infinitesimal changes in load.

The analysis shall include the following:

1. Evaluation of local instability, global instability, and crippling of structural elements.

2. Buckling deformation at worst case condition.

3. Geometric and material imperfections.

In stability analysis the worst case geometric conditions that can reduce elastic stability per drawing/
assembly requirements shall be evaluated. The worst case combination of constituent stiffness and pre-
stress shall also be incorporated in the analysis. Where bonding between elements is used to enhance
stability, lower bound strength allowables for bond agent shall be utilized. The failure criteria for stability
analysis shall be documented and traceable to coupon or vessel test data. For nonbonded liners, the
analysis can apply standard techniques for eigenvalue solution for the constrained/higher order buckling
mode of the metal liner contained within the overlying composite.

Thermal destabilizing forces shall be defined through evaluation of coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)
mismatch and its effect on strain flow and reduction in properties in the assembly. Analysis shall
incorporate an additional 10º C margin on worst case mismatch from static or transient conditions that
can develop in the service life.

Resident thermal condition shall also be combined with the relevant pressure conditions and external
loads, as can occur in service to calculate and apply worst case destabilizing loads. For stability analysis,
a load uncertainty factor should be applied on external reaction loads to demonstrate structural stability
for the combined load cases.

22
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

The assessment shall be performed with either linear buckling analysis or nonlinear buckling analysis.

7.4.5.1 Linear Buckling Analysis

The most critical buckling eigenvalue, λ, which is the load factor to the worst case condition, shall be
adjusted by a knockdown factor (KF) that accounts for effects such as geometric-induced and load-
induced imperfections. KF shall be defined from either reliable sources (e.g., NASA-SP-8007) or test data.

7.4.5.2 Nonlinear Buckling Analysis

The load factor, λ, to the worst case condition shall correspond to the point of collapse initiation. The load
factor shall be determined from potential geometric imperfection amplitude in conjunction with buckling
modes. Material nonlinearity with an A-basis or S-basis stress-strain curve shall be evaluated when
yielding is predicted to occur below the ultimate worst case loads. The load factor shall be applied only to
the portion of the load that induces instability.

7.4.6 Capacity Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV meets the volume requirement at MEOP.

The analysis shall identify the initial volume needed to meet the capacity requirement, any volume growth
during manufacturing operations such as autofrettage, and the predicted final volume.

The capacity is identified in Section 5.1.6.

7.4.7 Physical Envelope Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV meets the envelope dimensions at ambient pressure, at MEOP,
and at proof pressure. The analysis shall incorporate the appropriate temperature.

The envelope dimensions shall include all relevant shape and minimum and maximum linear dimensions.

The physical envelope is identified in Section 5.1.7.

7.4.8 Mass Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV meets the mass requirement.

The mass requirement is identified in Section 5.1.9.

7.4.9 Load, Acoustic, Shock, and Vibration Environment Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV can sustain the load, acoustic, shock, and vibration environment.

The load, acoustic, shock, and vibration environment requirement that is identified in Sections 5.1.15 and
5.2.10 shall be used to define the design load/environment spectra. The design spectra shall be revised
as the structural design develops and the loads analysis matures.

7.4.10 Unique Operating Environments Analysis

The analysis shall account for all identified unique operating environments.

The unique operating environments are identified in Section 5.1.16.

7.4.11 Stress Rupture Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV meets the stress rupture requirement. The stress analysis shall
include test data used to substantiate the stress rupture approach.

The stress rupture requirement is identified in Section 5.2.8.

23
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

7.4.12 Fluid Compatibility Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV is chemically compatible with the specified fluids.

For materials and fluids to be compatible, each of the following shall apply over the total service life:

a. There are no chemical compounds formed between the fluid and the materials.

b. There is no discernable weight gain or loss in the material.

c. There is no stress corrosion.

d. There are no discernable effects of the flight fluid on the fracture properties.

e. There is no galvanic corrosion between components.

Soft good swell and mass gain is acceptable. Alternatively, the effects of any incompatible fluid exposures
shall be accounted for in the COPV design.

The fluid compatibility requirement is identified in Section 5.2.9.

7.4.13 Fatigue Life Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV will meet the fatigue life requirement. The fatigue analysis shall
include nominal values of fatigue life characteristics including appropriate stress-life (S-N) data and/or
strain-life (ε-N) data of the structural materials. The analysis shall account for the spectra of expected
operating loads, pressures, and environments (including external loads). The conventional fatigue
damage accumulation technique, Miner's Rule (Σn/N), is an acceptable method for handling variable
amplitude fatigue cyclic loading. The limit for accumulated fatigue damage using Miner’s Rule shall be
80% of the total life.

The fatigue life requirement is identified in Section 5.2.12.

7.4.14 Damage Control Plan Analysis

The analysis shall show that the DCP will mitigate threats that are identified in the mechanical damage
environment.

The DCP is identified in Section 5.3. The mechanical damage environment is identified in Section 5.1.13.

7.4.15 Reserved

7.4.16 Reserved

7.4.17 Reserved

7.4.18 Reserved

7.4.19 Reserved

7.5 Fracture Control Analysis


The following sections describe the analyses for fracture control approaches.

7.5.1 Damage Tolerance Life Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV liner meets the damage tolerance life. The analysis may be
performed using a crack growth software package.

For  the  cycles  in  the  service  life  during  which  the  liner  remains  elastic,   the analysis shall use nominal or
conservative values of fracture properties (fracture toughness, stable tearing, sustained-load crack growth

24
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

threshold, and fatigue crack growth rate data) associated with each alloy, heat-treat condition, thickness,
and product form in the applicable thermal and chemical environments.

For analysis of autofrettage cycles, the factor of four may be waived provided conservative crack growth
properties and methodology are used in the determination of crack growth for autofrettage. These cycles
may be assessed using elastic/plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM). The data used for the EPFM analysis
shall conservatively represent the material alloy, condition, thickness, and autofrettage cycle as validated
through COPV testing.

A separate analysis shall be conducted for each region. If mechanical properties are not known for the
materials used in the COPV, then those properties must be determined from a characterization test
program, as specified in Section 10.2.1.

Example 1:
The autofrettage cycle might be approached through analysis of a single event predicting the potential
extension in a conservative manner using a lower bound J(r) resistance curve or equivalent technique,
rather than a nominal resistance curve. This extended defect size might then be used as the starting
defect size in the damage tolerance analysis.

At all times in the service life, the applied stress intensity factor shall be less than the stress intensity
factor for initiation of stable crack extension (see ASTM E2899) or KIEAC for the applicable environment
(such as embrittlment), whichever is lower.

The stress in the uncracked ligament shall remain below the flow stress throughout the analysis of the
damage tolerance life.

The analysis shall account for changes in the flaw (crack) aspect ratio (a/2c or a/c) and the effects of all
environment(s) on the crack growth rate. An assessment shall be performed to determine the range of
potential aspect ratios based on the manufacturing process or NDT. If the potential ranges (worst case) is
determined to be broader than the ranges of 0.1 to 0.5, then the larger range shall be used. Beneficial
retardation effects on crack growth rates from variable amplitude loading shall not be used in the analysis.
The strain rate of the da/dN data used for the analyses shall be assessed for applicability.

The damage tolerance life analysis shall be documented with the following:

• Fracture mechanics data including surface crack fracture toughness (KIE), stable tearing (KR),
plane strain fracture toughness (KIC) (if applicable), environmentally assisted sustained-load
crack growth limit (KIEAC) in both reactive and inert fluids, and fatigue crack growth rates
(da/dN)

• Service life and environments

• NDT method(s) and corresponding initial liner flaw sizes

• Analysis assumptions and rationale including substantiation of worst case location,


orientation, and aspect ratio

• Calculation methodology

• Summary of significant results

• References.

This documentation shall reflect the final design iteration.

The damage tolerance life requirement is identified in Section 5.2.11.1.

25
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

7.5.2 LBB Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV meets LBB. The analysis may be performed using a crack growth
software package.

The analysis shall show that a through crack will grow to a length equal to ten times the wall thickness
and does not result in failure (i.e., K < KIc at all times). A shorter crack may be used in the analysis if it can
be verified to leak at a rate sufficient that the crack remains stable at the maximum flow rate into the
COPV.

Kc may be used instead of KIc if supporting data, produced in accordance with established methodology,
is obtained and documented. If Kc is used instead of KIc, the stability limit shall be demonstrated
traceable/applicable to the materials and process used in liner manufacture.

The assessment shall show that the overwrap design will be such that if the liner develops a leak, the
composite will allow the leaking fluid to pass through it so that composite rupture will not occur, for COPV
pressures at or below MEOP.

The leak before burst requirement is identified in Section 0.

7.6 Reliability Engineering Analysis


7.6.1 Reliability Analysis

The analysis shall show that the COPV meets the reliability requirement.

The analysis shall establish a quantitative reliability associated with each credible failure mode and the
corresponding cumulative COPV reliability.

The reliability requirement is identified in Section 5.1.17.

7.6.2 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

A failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) shall be performed on the COPV.

In addition to primary effects, the FMEA shall include the effects of any potential secondary or subsequent
occurrence, failure, or COPV malfunction, which initiated by a primary failure, could result in personnel
injury. Such items identified by the analysis shall be designated safety critical. They shall require the
following:

• specific design action

• specific safety operating requirements

• specific hazard identification and proposed corrective action

• special safety supervision.

8 Manufacturing
The section identifies requirements for manufacturing COPVs.

8.1 Process Control


The COPV design shall specify processes and procedures and demonstrate their suitability for
manufacture.

The process shall provide for initial and in-process inspections.

26
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Proven processes and procedures for handling and vessel protection shall be employed during
manufacture to preclude damage or material degradation.

8.2 Corrosion Control and Fluid Compatibility


Operational, test, and manufacturing support fluids that come in contact with the COPV shall be identified,
along with the frequency of contact, duration of contact, and fluid temperatures. Only fluids that have been
identified as compatible shall be used during manufacturing. The fluids shall not cause corrosion, stress
corrosion cracking, change to fracture properties, or other deleterious effects that would reduce
performance.

All efforts should be made to prevent degradation of the COPV from corrosive or other environmental
incompatibilities.

8.3 Embrittlement Control


All known embrittlement mechanisms, such as thermal embrittlement, hydrogen embrittlement, and liquid
metal embrittlement applicable to the liner, fiber, or resin, shall be identified and controlled in the
manufacture of the COPV.

8.4 Liner Fabrication and Process Control


The COPV design shall specify manufacturing processes and procedures for melt process, thermal
treatment, welding, forming, joining, machining, drilling, and grinding.

Fabrication processes and procedures (such as melt, thermal treatment, welding, forming, joining,
machining, and grinding) that are compatible with the material characteristics of the COPV shall be
specified to ensure that the final product complies with design requirements.

Mechanical properties of the parent materials, weld joints, and heat-affected zones shall be within design
limits after fabrication.

8.5 Overwrap Fabrication and Process Control


A detailed procedure shall be developed and implemented for the overwrap fabrication process, including
appropriate verification steps.

Fabrication processes and procedures (winding tension, curing profile, etc.) shall be specified to ensure
that the final product complies with design requirements.

In-process inspection and process monitoring shall be used to verify the setup and the acceptability of
critical parameters during the composite manufacturing process.

The amount of each material (fiber and resin) used during composite fabrication shall be verified and
recorded.

9 Quality Assurance
A quality assurance (QA) program shall be developed and implemented.

The QA program shall include quality management system (QMS) aspects of process management, the
quality policy, quality plan for the hardware product(s), and related procedures and work instructions. The
QMS frequently is maintained and registered under a recognized protocol such as ISO 9000 or AS-9100.

The QA program shall include the program procedures, quality plan, qualification plan, acceptance plan,
and inspection and test plan. The program shall also include qualification for inspectors and design
documentation.

27
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

9.1 QA Program Procedures


The QA program shall specify procedures for identifying issues such as nonconformances or deviations in
process control. The QA program shall develop corrective actions, including processing nonconforming
items through a material review board (MRB).

The QA program shall specify procedures for maintaining configuration control of QA records, internal
specifications, drawings, and test and production hardware, and "locking" designated manufacturing
processes, sometimes termed “engineering source approved” (ESA) processes, which may coincide with
processes typically identified as "critical" (e.g., welding, heat treating, etc.).

9.2 Quality Plan


The quality plan for products shall address design verification, manufacturing control, and quality control
documentation.

The quality plan for products shall include designation of inspection techniques, inspector certifications,
and documentation for qualification and acceptance test.

9.3 Qualification Plan


The qualification plan(s) for design verification shall be integrated into the quality plan. The qualification
data package shall be integrated into the quality plan for configuration control. The qualification data
package shall include model correlation (see Section 10.5) to qualification hardware. The qualification
hardware must undergo acceptance testing (see Section 10.6) to document the relationship between the
qualification and production hardware.

9.4 Acceptance Plan


The acceptance plan(s) for hardware acceptance shall be integrated into the quality plan. The purpose of
acceptance testing (see Section 10.6), also known as workmanship, is to assure that production hardware
adequately corresponds to the qualified design. The acceptance data package shall be integrated into the
quality plan for configuration control.

9.5 Inspection and Test Plan


The inspection and test plan (ITP) is the master plan for all manufacturing quality control. The ITP may be
part of the manufacturing plan if it includes inspection points and test specifications.

The ITP, including NDT methods with corresponding acceptance and rejection criteria, shall be
established prior to start of fabrication and may be included within the DCP.

The plan shall specify appropriate inspection points and inspection techniques for use throughout the
program. In establishing inspection points and inspection techniques, consideration should be given to the
material characteristics, fabrication processes, design concepts, structural configuration, corrosion
control, accessibility for inspection, and any limitations of the NDT techniques (i.e., field deployment,
surface treatments/coupling, configurations and defect configurations for which the technique is
ineffective, etc.). NDT technique(s) and inspection procedures shall be developed and documented for
use in the field and during servicing.

At a minimum, inspections shall be performed after final liner fabrication, application of the composite
overwrap, COPV cure, and autofrettage if one is performed, after integration, prior to close-out, and prior
to any re-use.

Visual inspection shall be required prior to pressurization to determine if there is evidence of visible critical
damage to the composite shell. If this inspection is not possible prior to pressurization (i.e., 100% of

28
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

COPV composite shell is not accessible), then it shall be conducted and documented at the last time the
vessel is accessible.

NOTE: For reference, there is guidance in ASTM E2981, ASTM E2982 and NASA/TM-2012-217371.

9.6 Inspector Qualification


The inspectors shall have expertise with the composites being inspected.

For an inspector to be qualified, the individual shall have expertise equivalent to American Society of
Nondestructive Testing (ASNT) Recommended Practice No. SNT–TC-1A visual inspection criteria or
AIA/NAS NAS 410 “other methods” criteria. A qualified inspector’s skills should be equivalent to those of a
Level II visual inspector in either criteria.

The qualification of the inspector shall be achieved under the instruction of a recognized competent
authority in accordance with the corresponding inspection plans and techniques.

Qualification may be achieved through an in-house program that tailors ASNT Recommended Practice
No. SNT–TC-1A and fulfills requirements for a “written practice” that addresses the following basic
elements, at a minimum:

a. Level of qualifications specific to composite COPVs per SNT–TC-1A or AIA/NAS NAS 410
“other methods—visual test (VT)”

b. Qualification organization written practice specific to COPVs per SNT–TC-1A or AIA/NAS


NAS 410 “other methods—visual test (VT)”

c. Inspector education, training, and experience requirements for initial qualification

d. Inspector qualification examination and technical performance evaluation

e. Inspector interrupted service, recertification, termination, and reinstatement requirements.

9.7 Quality Documentation


A qualification report for the COPV design shall be generated to document verification to all design
requirements by analysis (Section 7) and test (Section 10).

For each COPV, there shall be traceability of all design, material, fabrication, inspection, acceptance and
qualification test, and similar data. There shall be traceability for the overwrap, including material lot
traceability for the carbon fiber, the epoxy resin, and the impregnated tow, and relevant quality control
elements including travelers (if applicable). There shall be traceability for the liner, including, as
appropriate, material certifications, weld certification, heat treatment records, and lot traceability to
material stock. If liner bonding is performed, traceability to appropriate records for adhesives shall be
included.

For each vessel, the manufacturing data shall be reviewed during the course of manufacture to identify
anomalous results. During production of multiple vessels, the manufacturing data shall be reviewed
periodically and assessed to evaluate trends between vessels in order to identify anomalous results. The
traceability records shall be retained for the life of the COPV.

10 Verification by Test
This section provides the requirements for a comprehensive test program to verify compliance with the
design requirements in Section 5.

It is noted that the requirements in Section 10.5 are intended to provide validation for analytical models.

29
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

10.1 Damage Tolerance Life Test


The damage tolerance life requirement shall be verified by test using either test coupons, a flight COPV,
or a flight-representative reference COPV.

The effects of service environment (e.g., temperature, humidity, fluids) shall be accounted for either by
representative testing or by analytical rationale.

10.1.1 Damage Tolerance Life Test—Coupon Specimens

The testing shall use coupons that are representative of the liner material at the worst case location(s)
based on material, weld procedure, weld thickness, geometry and/or product form. Consideration should
be given to the different properties and thicknesses in the parent material, weld nugget, and heat affected
zones.

Rationale that the coupons are representative or conservative with respect to the flight COPV shall be
documented.

At least two coupons shall be tested for each condition (location and aspect ratio). Uniaxial coupons may
be used. The coupons shall meet the requirements for validity of ASTM E740. Each coupon shall contain
a surface crack. Each coupon shall be precracked. The size of each precrack shall be greater than or
equal to the minimum flaw size associated with the NDT inspection technique(s). The coupon sets shall
envelope plausible aspect ratios.

After precracking, all strains in the damage tolerance life shall be applied to each coupon in sequence.

NOTE. The required damage tolerance life is four (4) times the service life. The portion of the service life, prior to
screening (NDT) for pre-existing flaws, may be excluded from the damage tolerance life. A minimum of 13 cycles is
specified per the service life in accordance with Section 5.1.5.

Strains equal to or greater than those associated with each pressure cycle, including the compressive
liner strains at zero pressure, shall be tested. Test strains and strain rate shall be verified by
measurement.

After completion of cyclic strain testing, the following procedures and measurements on the coupons shall
be performed.

1. The crack faces shall be separated in a way that will not affect the ability to characterize
subcritical crack extension and discriminate it from ductile tearing that will occur during
opening.

2. The fracture surface shall be examined to verify that the crack has not grown to become a
through-crack.

3. The initial and final crack sizes shall be measured.

4. The fracture surfaces shall be inspected to identify if stable tearing/sustained load crack
growth has occurred during testing.

The following three criteria shall be met for verification of damage tolerance life:

1. The cracks have not grown to through-cracks in test.

2. The precrack size has been verified for conformance to liner NDT thresholds.

3. The testing confirms that no stable tearing/sustained load crack growth has occurred during
the test.

NOTE. For some materials, it is difficult to differentiate between stable tearing and sustained crack growth.

30
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

The damage tolerance life requirement is identified in Section 5.2.11.1.


10.1.2 Damage Tolerance Life Test—COPV Specimens

Verification by test shall be performed on test specimen COPVs that are representative of the flight
COPV. The test specimens shall represent liner and overwrap configuration and properties. The test
specimen COPVs shall operate with the same stresses/strain hysteresis response as the flight COPV.

Rationale that the test specimen COPVs are representative or conservative with respect to flight COPV
shall be documented.

At least two cracks shall be tested for each condition (location and aspect ratio). Each location shall
contain a surface crack. Each location shall be precracked. The size of each precrack shall be greater
than or equal to the minimum flaw size associated with the NDT inspection technique(s).After precracking,
all pressurizations in the damage tolerance life shall be applied to each test specimen, in sequence.

NOTE. The required damage tolerance life is four (4) times the service life. The portion of the service life, prior to
screening (NDT) for pre-existing flaws, may be excluded from the damage tolerance life. A minimum of 13 cycles is
specified per the service life in accordance with Section 5.1.5.

The effects of service environment (e.g., temperature, humidity, fluids) shall be accounted for either by
representative testing or by analytical rationale.

After completion of cyclic strain testing, the following procedures and measurements on the specimens
will be performed.

1. The crack faces shall be separated in a way that will not alter the fracture surfaces.

2. The fracture surface shall be examined to verify that the crack has not grown to become a
through-crack.

3. The initial and final crack sizes shall be measured.

4. The fracture surfaces shall be inspected to identify if stable tearing/sustained load crack growth
has occurred during testing.

The damage tolerance life is verified by test using specimens if the following three criteria are met:

1. The cracks have not grown to through-cracks in test.

2. The precrack size has been verified for conformance to liner NDT thresholds.

3. The testing confirms that no stable tearing or sustained load crack growth has occurred
during the test.

The damage tolerance life requirement is identified in Section 5.2.11.1.

10.2 LBB Test


The LBB requirement shall be verified by test using either test coupons, a flight COPV, or a flight-
representative reference COPV.

The effects of service environment (e.g., temperature, humidity, fluids) shall be accounted for either by
representative testing or by analytical rationale.

10.2.1 LBB Test—Coupon Specimens

The testing shall use coupons that are representative of the liner material at the worst case location
based on material, weld procedure, weld thickness, geometry and/or product form. Consideration should

31
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

be given to the different properties and thicknesses in the parent material, weld nugget, and heat affected
zones.

Rationale that the coupons are representative or conservative with respect to the flight COPV shall be
documented.

At least two coupons shall be tested for each condition. Uniaxial coupons may be used. The coupons
shall meet the requirements for validity of ASTM E740. Each coupon shall be prepared with a notch, an
initial through-crack, or a surface crack. The coupon shall be representative of the material condition and
microstructure that exist in the relevant location of the COPV. The thickness of the coupons shall be
greater than or equal to the maximum liner thickness at the location of interest. The width of the coupon
shall be adequate to allow strain control in test.

Loading shall be applied to the test coupon to generate a peak strain at or above the strain at MEOP.

LBB is verified if the crack grows to a length of ten (10) times the coupon thickness without failure. A
shorter crack may be used if it can be verified that an equivalent crack remains stable at the maximum
flow rate into the COPV.

The assessment shall show that the overwrap design will be such that if the liner develops a leak, the
composite will allow the leaking fluid to pass through it so that there will be no risk of composite rupture
will not occur, for COPV pressures at or below MEOP.

The LBB requirement is identified in Section 0.

10.2.2 LBB Test—COPV Specimen

Verification by test shall be performed on test specimen COPVs that are representative of the flight
COPV. The test specimen COPV shall represent liner and overwrap configuration and properties
(materials, thickness, processing, configuration and stiffness). The test specimen COPVs shall operate
with the same stresses/strain hysteresis response as the flight COPV.

Rationale that the test specimen COPVs are representative or conservative with respect to the flight
COPV shall be documented.

At least two cracks shall be tested for each condition. Each test specimen COPV shall be prepared with a
surface notch or a surface crack. Each test specimen COPV shall contain only one flaw.

Pressure cycles shall be applied to each test specimen COPV with the upper pressure limit equal to
MEOP until a leak is detected.

The LBB failure mode is verified by test with a COPV if both of the following two criteria are met:

1. The COPV remains stable at MEOP with a through crack in the liner.

2. The COPV leaks fluid through the crack at a rate sufficient to be detectable at MEOP.

The assessment shall show that the overwrap design will be such that if the liner develops a leak, the
composite will allow the leaking fluid to pass through it so that composite rupture will not occur, for COPV
pressures at or below MEOP.

The LBB requirement is identified in Section 0.

10.3 Mechanical Damage Control Test


Mechanical impact testing on the composite shall be based on credible threats identified in the DCP.

Depending on the damage control approach identified in the DCP (see Section 5.3), one or more of the
following mechanical damage control tests or damage protection methods may be performed:

32
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

10.3.1 Worst case threat damage tolerance life testing

Worst case threat damage tolerance life testing shall consist of application of a test impact of 1.25 times
the worst case credible impact energy. Inspection of the COPV shall be performed prior to burst testing to
document the extent of the damage induced. A burst test of the impacted COPV shall meet or exceed the
minimum design burst pressure.

NOTE. The inspection and test reports from this test will be useful for future MRB dispositions on damaged flight
COPVs.

10.3.2 Visual mechanical damage threshold testing

Visual mechanical damage threshold testing shall consist of application of an impact to the COPV to
determine the barely visible damage threshold. A burst test of the impacted COPV shall meet or exceed
the minimum design burst pressure.

NOTE. The intent of this test is to verify that any flight COPVs without visible damage will still meet design
requirements.

10.3.3 Protective cover testing

Protective covers are temporary or permanent covers that provide protection during the processing and
handling of the integrated COPV. Protective covers are intended to shield the COPV from impact
damage, inadvertent exposure to fluids, and other unplanned events.

Verification of protective cover effectiveness is accomplished by application to the installed cover of 1.25
times the worst case credible impact energy. The cover shall protect the COPV from damage and meet
the following two post-test criteria:

1. Visual inspection will confirm no visible damage to the COPV.

2. NDT will confirm no detrimental subsurface damage of the COPV.

10.3.4 Damage indicator testing

Damage indicators are indicators that detect and record the occurrence of impacts above a threshold
established at a level that has been demonstrated to have no effect on COPV burst factor.

Verification of damage indicator effectiveness is accomplished by application to the indicator of 1.25 times
the worst case credible impact energy. For energy levels below which the damage indicator fails to
activate, the following two post-test criteria shall be achieved:

1. Visual inspection will confirm no visible surface damage to the COPV.

2. Acoustic emission, eddy current testing, laser shearography, radiographic testing, thermographic
testing, and/or ultrasonic testing will confirm no detrimental subsurface damage of the COPV.

10.4 Qualification Test


The full qualification test program shall be performed on two separate COPVs. If the development test
COPV is sufficiently similar in design and processing to the production COPV, then it may be considered
as a test COPV for qualification. Alternatively, if there is a reference COPV that is sufficiently similar in
design and processing to the production COPV, then it may be considered as a test COPV for
qualification. The vibration and load test may be omitted from one of the qualification test programs.

Before the initial pressurization to proof pressure and any autofrettage pressurization, the following tests
shall be performed, in any order.

• Nondestructive test per Section 10.4.2

33
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

• Physical envelope test per Section 10.4.3

• Mass test per Section 10.4.4

• Capacity test per Section 10.4.5.

After completion of vessel manufacturing including any autofrettage pressurization, the following
qualification test shall be performed:

• Proof pressure test per Section 10.4.6.

After this test, the following qualification tests shall be performed, in any order:

• Capacity test per Section 10.4.5

• Physical envelope test per Section 10.4.3

• Nondestructive test per Section 10.4.2

• Leak test per Section 10.4.7

• Pressure cycle test per Section 10.4.8

• Vibration and external loads test per Section 10.4.9.

The following two qualification tests shall be performed in this order.

• Leak test per Section 10.4.7

• Burst test per Section 10.4.10.


10.4.1 Qualification Test Instrumentation

Qualification test COPVs shall be instrumented as needed in order to provide engineering data from
qualification testing for validation of the analysis model. NDT equipment used should include, but not be
limited to, one or more from the following list:

• Strain gauges on the COPV exterior

• Fiber optic Bragg grating (FOBG) sensors

• Linear variable differential transformers (LVDT)

• Acoustic emissions (AE) sensors

• Axial boss, cable girth measurement instruments

• Eddy current sensors

• Strain gauges on the COPV interior.

If feasible or deemed appropriate, other remote sensing NDT methods (e.g., laser shearography,
thermographic testing, ultrasonic testing, etc.) may be used to augment date collected using the above
bonded sensors.

10.4.2 Nondestructive Testing

The COPV shall be subjected to visual and other nondestructive testing (NDT), per the inspection plan in
Section 9.5. When possible, an internal liner inspection for buckles or other internal defects should be
conducted on all COPVs after proof/autofrettage. Common NDT methods to detect internal liner flaws and
defects include eddy current testing, laser profilometry, and tangential x-ray radiography.

34
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

The selected NDT techniques and inspection sensitivity for the metallic liner shall be in accordance with
Section 9.5 and guidance in ASTM E2982 when damage-tolerance demonstration is required.

Liner NDT may be performed either prior to or following wrapping of the COPV provided the NDT is
qualified as specified in Section 9.3.

The selected NDT techniques and inspection sensitivity for the composite overwrap shall be in
accordance with Section 9.5 when demonstration of the absence of undesirable surface and subsurface
composite flaws and defects is required.

10.4.3 Physical Envelope Test

The COPV shall be tested to determine all relevant shape and minimum and maximum linear dimensions.

The physical envelope parameters are identified in Section 5.1.7.

10.4.4 Mass Test

The mass of the COPV shall be measured to establish compliance with the applicable requirement.

The mass requirement is identified in Section 5.1.9.

10.4.5 Capacity Test

A capacity test shall be performed on the COPV to determine the interior volume. The volume of the
COPV shall be calculated from these measurements.

From the capacity test results on the COPV performed before and after manufacturing, the volume growth
from manufacturing including autofrettage (or proof if autofrettage is not part of the design) shall be
calculated.

For production COPVs, the mean and standard deviation of the volume growth during manufacturing shall
be calculated. Any COPV for which the volume growth is greater than either 10% from the mean or one
standard deviation from the mean should be assessed for disposition.

NOTE. It is not expected that the threshold of one standard deviation become the criterion for accept/reject of COPV.
A COPV with a larger or smaller expansion should be analyzed and compared to model predictions for indications of
fabrication defects.

The COPV capacity is identified in Section 5.1.6. The analysis to establish volume growth during
manufacturing including autofrettage (if applicable) is identified in Section 7.4.6.

10.4.6 Proof Test

The COPV shall be pressurized to the proof pressure.

The duration of the proof test hold shall be sufficient to verify pressure stability. The pressurization rate
should be set to match the identified pressurization rates during the service life. The minimal hold time at
the proof pressure shall be 5 minutes.

The COPV shall not leak, rupture, or experience detrimental deformation during the proof test.

After proof testing, visual inspection of the external composite surface shall be performed.

The proof pressure is identified in Section 5.2.3.

10.4.7 Leak Test

The COPV shall be leak tested at MEOP. The acceptable leak rate is identified in Section 5.1.8.

35
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

10.4.8 Pressure Cycle Test

The COPV shall be pressure cycle tested.

Pressure cycling shall be performed for four (4) times service life (including proof tests).

NOTE 1. A minimum of 13 cycles is specified per the service life in accordance with Section 5.1.5.

NOTE 2. The temperature should be consistent with the critical use temperature. Through the determination of the
ECF, test pressures will be adjusted to account for worst case temperature effects on static strength and/or fracture
toughness.

10.4.9 Vibration and External Loads Test

The COPV shall be tested to the maximum expected flight level vibrations and external loads at the
appropriate pressure. Qualification testing shall be performed in accordance with MIL-STD-1540 or
SMC-S-016.

The application of external loads in combination with internal pressures during testing shall be evaluated
based on the relative magnitude and/or destabilizing effect of strains due to the external loads. When
external loads significantly contribute to the COPV stress state, then the test fixture shall simulate the
structural response or reaction loads of the flight mounting.

When the application of external loads is performed, the loads spectrum shall be applied to the test COPV
for four (4) times the service life.

NOTE. Vibration and external loads tests are required on a single COPV only.

The load, acoustic and vibration environment is identified in Section 5.2.10. The analysis to establish the
load, acoustic, and vibration environment is identified in Section 7.4.9.

10.4.10 Burst Test

The COPV shall be burst tested to verify that the burst pressure exceeds the design burst pressure.

During the test, the pressure in the COPV shall be increased at a pre-specified ramp rate (≤200 psi/sec).
When the test pressure reaches the design burst pressure, the pressure shall be held fixed for sufficient
time to stabilize transients. After holding at the design burst pressure, the pressure may be increased until
the COPV burst occurs.

The design burst pressure is identified in Section 5.2.2.

10.5 Validation of Analysis Model With Qualification Test Data


Test results from qualification testing including instrumentation identified in Section 10.4.1 shall be
analyzed to validate design models used in the development of the COPV.

Available measured data shall be analyzed and compared with model predictions to correlate:

a. the volume of the COPV before and after manufacturing and the corresponding volume
growth during manufacture

b. the physical envelope of the COPV and the corresponding change in external dimensions at
autofrettage, proof, and subsequently MEOP after manufacturing is complete

c. the mass of the COPV

d. the strain and stress at available locations on the exterior of the COPV at all available
pressures, with attention at specific pressures: autofrettage, proof, MEOP, and burst

36
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

e. the strain from strain gauges on the interior of the COPV liner at all available pressures, with
attention at specific pressures: autofrettage, proof, MEOP, and burst

f. the rupture pressure and the failure location.

10.6 Acceptance Tests


The following acceptance tests shall be conducted on each COPV. Accept/reject criteria shall be
formulated prior to tests. The test fixtures and support structures shall be designed to permit application of
all test loads.

Before the initial pressurization to proof pressure and any autofrettage pressurization, the following tests
shall be performed, in any order.

• Nondestructive test per Section 10.4.2

• Physical envelope test per Section 10.4.3

• Mass test per Section 10.4.4

• Capacity test per Section 10.4.5.

After completion of vessel manufacturing including any autofrettage pressurization, the following
qualification test shall be performed:

• Proof pressure test per Section 10.4.6.

After this test, the following acceptance tests shall be performed, in any order:

• Capacity test per Section 10.4.5

• Physical envelope test per Section 10.4.3

• Nondestructive test per Section 10.4.2

• Leak test per Section 10.4.7.

11 Operations and Maintenance


This section provides the operation and handling requirements that apply to the COPV throughout the
service life.

11.1 Operating Procedures


Operating procedures shall be established for each COPV. Step-by-step procedures shall include
sufficient detail to allow a qualified technician or mechanic to accomplish the operations. Schematics that
identify the locations, pressure limits, and flow capacities of relief valves and burst discs shall be
provided/available when applicable, and procedures to ensure compatibility of the pressurizing system
with the structural capability of the pressurized COPV shall be established.

NOTE. It is noted that each facility where operations are conducted will have their own safety requirements. It is
important that these procedures be compatible with these requirements.

The operating procedures shall incorporate and reference the DCP (Section 5.3). The damage mitigation
strategies in the DCP should be incorporated into work instructions and assembly procedures.

The operational procedures for the COPV shall include instructions for storage.

37
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Prior to initiating or performing a procedure involving hazardous operations, consideration should be given
to performing practice runs on nonpressurized systems until the operating procedures are well rehearsed.
Consideration should also be given to performing initial tests at reduced pressure levels until operating
characteristics can be established and stabilized. Restricting the pressure to an established percentage of
the MEOP may be appropriate in some cases.

Procedures shall be established for recording, tracking, and analyzing operational data as it is
accumulated. Only qualified and trained personnel shall work on or operate pressure systems.

11.2 Safe Operating Limits


Safe operating limits shall be specified for pressure, pressurization rate, temperature, number of pressure
cycles, and internal and external fluid exposures. These limits shall apply to operational activities as well
as fabricating, handling, and testing. Restrictions apply to all exposed fluids including those for testing,
cleaning, and servicing.

Safe operating limits should reference the appropriate design drawings, detail analyses, inspection
records, test reports, and other backup documentation.

11.3 Special Requirements for Pressurized COPV


Pressurization should be conducted remotely or under protection from a blast shield. Visual inspection,
per the DCP, with acceptable result, shall be conducted prior to pressurization. If this inspection is not
possible prior to pressurization (i.e., 100% of COPV composite shell is not accessible), then it shall be
conducted and documented at the last time the vessel is accessible prior to the close out of any
composite areas.

If protective covers and/or damage indicators are employed, then they should be removed at the last
practical time before launch site pressurization.

When personnel are to be in proximity of a pressurized COPV:

1. An analysis shall be performed to identify hazards and the need for protective measures.

2. Safety clears and/or physical barriers shall be implemented to protect personnel for the first
10 minutes after pressurization.

3. Protective measures such as safety clears and/or physical barriers should be implemented at
all times when the pressure exceeds one-third (33%) of the design burst pressure and each
time the COPV is subsequently pressurized to a pressure level not previously attained by that
particular COPV.

11.4 Embrittlement Control


All known embrittlement mechanisms, such as thermal embrittlement, hydrogen embrittlement, or liquid
metal embrittlement applicable to the liner, fiber, or resin shall be identified and controlled in the operation
of the COPV (Section 5.4).

11.5 Inspection and Maintenance


Inspection shall be conducted in accordance with the DCP (Section 5.3) and procedures shall be included
in the inspection plan (Section 9.5).

Analyses will include prediction of remaining life and reassessment of required inspection intervals to
identify critical areas requiring assessment for corrective actions (Section 11.6).

38
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

11.6 Material Review Board


A material review board (MRB) or other process shall be established to assess and disposition deviations,
variances from standard procedures, and nonconformance conditions.

The MRB shall be used to disposition identified issues and to authorize all corrective actions.

11.7 Repair and Refurbishment


If repair or refurbishment is allowed by the procuring authority, then any repaired or refurbished COPV
shall be re-certified after each repair or refurbishment to verify its structural integrity and to establish its
suitability for service. Documentation shall be in accordance with Section 11.9.

A used or damaged COPV shall be evaluated by the MRB according to the following protocol:

1. The COPV is evaluated.

2. The presence and extent of mechanical damage or flaws are identified and then assessed
against original manufacturing specifications.

3. A decision to repair/refurbish is made.

4. A repair procedure is developed and approved in accordance with the applicable QA plan.

5. Repair is performed in accordance with the approved procedure and documented


appropriately.

6. The original acceptance test program (Section 10.6) may be repeated on the repaired COPV.

11.8 Storage
The operational plan shall include procedures for the storage of the COPV. This plan may be included in
the DCP.

If the requirements for storage are violated, then a nonconformance report shall be generated and
dispositioned accordingly. This may require the original acceptance test program (Section 10.6) to be
repeated.

11.9 Operations Documentation


All inspection records, verification test and analysis results, transportation and handling records, vehicle
integration processing data, and operations data (such as temperature, pressurization history, and
pressurizing fluid for both tests and operations) shall be developed throughout the life of each COPV.

12 Documentation Retention
All records in accordance with Sections 9.7 and 11.9 shall be retained throughout the life of each COPV,
including the following:

• Verification tests and analyses results.

• Transportation and handling records.

• Vehicle integration processing data.

• Temperature, pressurization history, and pressurizing fluid for both tests and operations.

39
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

• Inspection results including inspector, inspection dates, inspection techniques, location and
character of flaws, and flaw origin and cause. Typically this inspection file includes data
beginning with the inspections performed during fabrication.

• Results of all testing including mechanical damage tolerance life testing.

• Storage conditions.

• Maintenance and corrective actions, including refurbishment or repair.

• Sketches and photographs to show areas of structural damage and extent of repairs.

• Acceptance and recertification tests performed, including test conditions and results, analysis,
and test data supporting repair or modification.

40
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Annex (Informative)
Table A presents a summary of the verification methods for design requirements for COPVs.

Table A. Design Requirements Verification Matrix

Parameters
Derived from Verification Verification
Aerospace COPV Design Verification Verification
Qualification Acceptance
System Parameters Method Analysis
Test Test
Analysis
5.1.2 Service 5.2.11 Analysis or 7.5.1 Damage 10.1.1
Category Fracture Test Tolerance Life Damage
Control Analysis Tolerance Life
6.1.1 Damage
Test–Coupon
5.2.11.1 Tolerance Life
Specimens
Damage Verification
Tolerance Life or
10.1.2
Damage
Tolerance Life
Test–COPV
Specimens

5.2.11 Analysis or 7.5.2 LBB 10.2.1 LBB


Fracture Test Analysis– Test–Coupon
Control Simulation Specimens
6.1.2 Leak
0 Leak Before Before Burst or
Burst Verification
10.2.2 LBB
Test–COPV
Specimens

5.1.3 Maximum 5.2.3 Proof Analysis and 7.4.1 Proof 10.4.6 Proof 10.4.6 Proof
Expected Pressure Test Pressure Test Test
Operating Analysis
Pressure
5.2.2 Design Analysis and 7.4.2 Design 10.4.10 Burst
Burst Pressure Test Burst Pressure Test
Analysis

5.2.5 Margin of Analysis 7.4.3 Margin of


Safety Safety Analysis

5.1.4 Maximum 5.2.6 Negative 7.4.4 Negative


External Pressure Pressure
Pressure Differential Differential
Differential Analysis

5.2.7 Stability 7.4.5 Stability


Analysis

41
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Parameters
Derived from Verification Verification
COPV Design Verification Verification
Aerospace Qualification Acceptance
Parameters Method Analysis
System Test Test
Analysis
5.1.5 Service 5.2.12 Fatigue Analysis and 7.4.13 Fatigue 10.4.8 10.4.8
Life Life Test Life Analysis Pressure Pressure
Cycle Test Cycle Test

5.1.6 Capacity Analysis and 7.4.6 Capacity 10.4.5 10.4.5


Test Analysis Capacity Test Capacity
Test

5.1.7 Physical Analysis and 7.4.7 Physical 10.4.3 10.4.3


Envelope Test Envelope Physical Physical
Analysis Envelope Test Envelope
Test

5.1.8 Test 10.4.7 Leak 10.4.7 Leak


Acceptable Leak Test Test
Rate

5.1.9 Mass Analysis and 7.4.8 Mass 10.4.4 Mass 10.4.4 Mass
Test Analysis Test Test

5.1.10 Test 9.7 Quality


Cleanliness Documentation
Level

5.2.8 Stress Analysis 7.4.11 Stress


Rupture Rupture
Analysis

5.1.11 Fluids 5.2.9 Fluid Analysis 7.4.12 Fluid


Compatibility Compatibility
Analysis

5.1.12 Shipping Inspection 11.9


Environment Operations
Documentation

5.1.13 5.3 Damage Inspection 7.4.14 Damage 10.3


Mechanical Control Plan Control Plan Mechanical
Damage Analysis Damage
Environment Control Test
11.9
Operations
Documentation

5.1.14 Thermal Analysis and Several Several Several


Environment Test

42
ANSI/AIAA S-081B-201X
DRAFT

Parameters
Derived from Verification Verification
COPV Design Verification Verification
Aerospace Qualification Acceptance
Parameters Method Analysis
System Test Test
Analysis
5.1.15 Load, 5.2.10 Load, Analysis and 7.4.9 Load, 10.4.9
Acoustic, Shock, Acoustic, and Test Acoustic, Vibration and
and Vibration Vibration Shock, and External Loads
Environment Environment Vibration Test
Environment
Analysis

5.1.16 Unique Analysis 7.4.10 Unique


Operating Operating
Environments Environments
Analysis

5.1.17 Reliability Analysis 7.6.1 Reliability


Analysis

Analysis 7.6.2 Failure


Modes and
Effects
Analysis

5.4 Materials 7.1 Metallic


Material
Properties
7.2 Composite
Material
Properties

43
American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics

12700 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 200


Reston, VA 20191-4344

www.aiaa.org

ISBN XXX-X-XXXXX-XXX-X

44

S-ar putea să vă placă și