JuO\ 2015 

NASA/TM–2015-

Comparison of Analysis with Test for Static 

Loading of Two Hypersonic Inflatable 

Aerodynamic Decelerator Concepts 

Karen H. Lyle 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 
NASA STI Program . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA scientific and technical information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role. 

The NASA STI program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Officer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NTRS Registered and its public interface, the 

NASA Technical Reports Server, thus providing one 

of the largest collections of aeronautical and space 

science STI in the world. Results are published in both 

non-NASA channels and by NASA in the NASA STI 

Report Series, which includes the following report 

types: 

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major significant phase of 

research that present the results of NASA 

Programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of significant 

scientific and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counter-part of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations. 

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. 

Scientific and technical findings that are 

preliminary or of specialized interest, 

e.g., quick release reports, working 

papers, and bibliographies that contain minimal 

annotation. Does not contain extensive analysis. 

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and 

technical findings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees. 

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. 

Collected papers from scientific and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or 

co-sponsored by NASA. 

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific, 

technical, or historical information from NASA 

programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest. 

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. 

English-language translations of foreign 

scientific and technical material pertinent to 

NASA’s mission. 

Specialized services also include organizing 

and publishing research results, distributing 

specialized research announcements and feeds, 

providing information desk and personal search 

support, and enabling data exchange services. 

For more information about the NASA STI program, 

see the following: 

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

• E-mail your question to help@sti.nasa.gov 

• Phone the NASA STI Information Desk at 

757-864-9658 

• Write to: 

NASA STI Information Desk 

Mail Stop 148 

NASA Langley Research Center 

Hampton, VA 23681-2199 
National	Aeronautics	and		

Space	Administration	

Langley	Research	Center	

Hampton,	Virginia	23681-2199

	 	 	 	

JuO\ 2015

NASA/TM–2015-

Comparison of Analysis with Test for Static 

Loading of Two Hypersonic Inflatable 

Aerodynamic Decelerator Concepts 

Karen H. Lyle 

Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia 
Available from: 

NASA STI Program / Mail Stop 148 

NASA Langley Research Center 

Hampton, VA 23681-2199 

Fax: 757-864-6500 

The use of trademarks or names of manufacturers in this report is for accurate reporting and does not constitute an 

official endorsement, either expressed or implied, of such products or manufacturers by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 
Abstract

Acceptance of new spacecraft structural architectures and concepts requires validated 

design methods to minimize the expense involved with technology demonstration via 

flight-testing. Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) architectures are 

attractive for spacecraft deceleration because they are lightweight, store compactly, and 

utilize the atmosphere to decelerate a spacecraft during entry. However, designers are 

hesitant to include these inflatable approaches for large payloads or spacecraft because 

of the lack of flight validation. This publication summarizes results comparing analytical 

results with test data for two concepts subjected to representative entry, static loading. 

The level of agreement and ability to predict the load distribution is considered sufficient 

to enable analytical predictions to be used in the design process. 

Introduction

High reliability entry, descent, and landing systems have been in demand for all classes 

of space applications. Specific applications include International Space Station (ISS) 

return mass, sample return, Mars exploration vehicles, and human-rated exploration 

vehicles. Architectures that incorporate Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators 

(HIADs) show promise for many of these applications, as discussed in Refs. [1-3]. Also 

various Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators (IADs) were proposed, studied, and 

reported in publications dating from the 1960s, see Refs. [4-6]. More recently, a series of 

small-scale test flights have demonstrated a basic functionality of a stacked torus 

configuration at the 3-m diameter scale, see Refs. [7 and 8]. HIAD diameters up to 81-m 

have been proposed, Ref. [1]. Traditionally, for such designs to gain acceptability, they 

need to be verified and validated through full-scale testing. Unfortunately, ground test 

demonstration of the structural reliability to aerodynamic loading is difficult due to limited 

test facility size and gravity effects. Therefore, such concepts will require certification 

through test-validated analysis. Fortunately, significant advances have occurred in the 

numerical simulation of these complex structural systems. For example, simulations can 

incorporate structural aspects such as geometrically accurate models and advanced 

material models to include nonlinear stress-strain behaviors, woven fabrics, and airbag 

inflation. This was demonstrated for the Orion Landing System – Advanced 

Development Project, where the spacecraft landing system effectively incorporated 

modeling of airbags (soft goods) in the early design process, see Refs. [9 and 10].

Additional simulations incorporating structural members with fabrics can be found in 

Refs. [11 and 12].

For this HIAD family of structures, a series of stacked tori are constrained by a network 

of woven straps. The HIAD structural analysis problem presents several design 

challenges: 1) Formal design approaches do not exist to address the various HIAD 

concepts. 2) HIAD structures exhibit complex structural responses to include soft goods 

and numerous load paths. 3) Such systems require computationally efficient and robust 

modeling tools to support the design and development phases. Detailed computational 

tools to analyze the structural response of such systems are becoming sufficiently 

mature to accurately model the response of these complex structures. Computationally 

efficient models are also critical to enable completion of hundreds of transient dynamics 

simulations needed to verify the design. 

1

 

Model Description

The numerical simulations were executed in LS-DynaTM, a commercial, general-purpose, 

nonlinear, transient-dynamic, finite element code, see Ref. [16]. A baseline (or asdelivered) model, was provided by the HIAD vendor and modified to correspond to the 

as-tested tori and strap configurations, strap and axial cord material properties, material 

thicknesses, and contact definition details. 

Figures 2 and 3 show the FEM representations for Concept A and Concept B, 

respectively. In the figures, the radial and chevron straps are represented in black, the 

pairing loop straps in gray, the tori in alternating gold and rose, the center body in green, 

and the axial cords in pink. For both concepts, the complete FEM is provided in (a). 

Many of the radial straps are often co-incident, but not attached, to the pairing loop 

straps. This co-incidence leads to software visualization issues at many of the strap 

locations. Therefore, separate figures highlighting the pairing loop straps (b) and radial 

and chevron straps (c) have been included. Comparing Figures 2(c) and 3(c), it is 

apparent that the radial to Torus 5 and the chevron to Torus 7 have been removed for 

Concept B. An additional torus (designated Torus 5.5) was incorporated in Concept B, 

see Figure 4. To accommodate the addition of Torus 5.5, the pairing loop straps holding 

Torus 5 and Torus 6 together in Concept A have been expanded.

A number of unique modeling features were implemented in the simulations. For 

example, the tori and straps are represented as fabric material models. This fabric model 

was originally developed for automotive airbag applications. Specifically, the fabric 

material model is based on an existing orthotropic composite model only valid for 

membrane elements. However, this material model has since been used in broader 

applications as documented in Refs. [11 and 12]. The axial cords are represented as 2-D 

seatbelt elements and assigned seatbelt material properties, which allow the user to 

input nonlinear loading and unloading load-strain curves. Like the tested HIAD axial 

cords, these specialized seatbelt elements do not allow compressive loads. The center 

body is assigned rigid material properties. The tori are inflated using the Wang-Nefske 

airbag model. The FEMs for Concepts A and B contained over 250,000 nodes, 220,000

4-node, fully-integrated, shell elements and 3500 2-node seatbelt elements.

A critical aspect for successful shape prediction for this application is an appropriate 

sequence of events at the beginning of the simulations. This sequence directly impacts

the initial tori inflations, strap loads, and interference bonds (also designated “contact” in 

LS-DynaTM). Contact is a numerical modeling technique used in these types of 

applications to prevent the penetration of one part into another and allow two nonconnected parts to interact with forces. Details about the implementation of contact 

modeling can be found in LS-Dyna User’s Manual, Ref. [16]. In our simulations, the

event sequence has been divided into four steps.

Step 1) The simulations begin with tori-to-tori positions showing some interference, see 

Figure 5(a), since no contacts have been defined. For clarity, a wedge of the complete 

model with straps removed has been extracted. The tori and straps have been sized and 

positioned in the model to mimic the test article. This overlap at the outset will enable the 

tori to effectively bear against each other by the end of Step 3. At the start of the 

simulations, the tori pressures are prescribed based on test data. For Concept A, the tori 

3
pressures are set to the final inflated state. A number of tori pressure combinations (pt) 

were tested experimentally, see Table 1. For Concept B, all of the tori are initially inflated 

to 2 psi for this step.

Step 2) The tori are then compressed by applying a pressure to the external surface of 

each torus to uniformly reduce the diameter, see Figure 5(b). This pressure applied to 

the external surface must be greater than the internal pressure specified in Step 1 to 

produce the desired results. Once the tori are compressed to the point where no 

interference is evident, the contact definitions are enabled. 

Step 3) The tori external compression loads are now ramped down to zero, which allows 

the tori to expand under the internal pressure prescribed in Step 1. Since the contact has 

been enabled, as the tori expand then the torus-to-torus and torus-to-strap contacts are 

effective, see Figure 5(c). Note that the interference between tori in Figure 5(a) has been 

eliminated. For Concept B only, the tori are now inflated to the test values by applying an 

additional 13-psi pressure load to the internal surfaces of the tori. At the end of Step 3, 

the HIAD cover is ready to be loaded.

Step 4) A pressure load (equal to the vacuum pressure) is applied to the forward (top)

side of the cover. The final shape of the HIAD structure is shown in Figure 5(d). The 

cover load produces an overall decrease in the cone angle and an aft-ward deflection of 

Torus 7. Additional details, specific to each concept, are provided.

• In Concept A, the cover pressure is ramped up to the final value over 0.02 seconds; 

and the contact frictions are set to 0.5, which is sufficient to keep the various parts 

fixed relative to each other. The transient solution is allowed to run for 0.2 seconds at 

which time the transient dynamics are insignificant. All results are extracted at 0.2 

seconds. Thus, for each of the cover pressure load cases, a separate simulation is 

required. These simulations required 4 hours on 4 CPUs for each load condition

using double precision. 

• For Concept B, the maximum cover pressure load is slowly ramped up over 8 

seconds, which more closely simulates the quasi-static test loading. The slower 

loading mitigates the transient response and allows for the extraction of intermediate 

loading conditions during one simulation. The contact friction is increased to 3.0 to 

prevent the relative motion of the torus-to-torus and torus-to-strap bonds. Note that 

these contact friction values are simply a numerical method to “bond” the parts.

Concept B simulations required 3 days on 4 CPUs using double precision. 

Results

The photograph of Concept A under vacuum load in the test facility, see Figure 6(a),

shows the conforming of the cover to the HIAD structure. The indentations of the straps 

on the tori are also visible. Similarly, the FEM model, with an equivalent pressure load 

applied to the forward side of the cover, shows significant conforming of the cover and 

the indentations of the straps into the tori, see Figure 6(b). 

Early model assessments were based on comparisons of the center body loads and the 

load distribution in the straps. Significant uncertainty existed in the measured strap load

distribution at inflation (Step 3) due to uncertainty in the unloaded strap lengths. 

Therefore, the project requested that all strap load results (measured and predicted) be 

presented relative to the state at the end of Step 3. A comparison of global loads for the 

4

number of numerical studies were performed to evaluate sensitivity of the predicted 

results to the contact friction modeling. These studies resulted in an increase in contact 

friction to adequately “fix” the relative motion of the various parts under a more 

challenging load condition. Second, the impact on the dynamic behavior of the coverpressure loading rate (Step 4) was evaluated. For Concept A, the loading rate was quick 

to shorten runtime. A reduced ramping rate of the cover load was exercised in Concept 

B to mitigate the dynamic effects. 

The next two figures provide results for subsequent simulations implementing the 

changes highlighted above. A companion set of results for Concept B strap loads have 

been processed and consolidated on one chart, see Figure 10 and one table, see Table 

4. In this case, the tori inflation conditions are held constant, while the cover load is 

varied. Figure 10 shows analysis and test results for all the strap loads measured and 

predicted as well as the +/- 100 lbs bounds. In this case, 34 out of 42 strap load values 

are within the desired bounds. Table 4 shows the mean error metrics. As the pressure 

load increases, the absolute value of the difference increases and shows a nearly linear 

relationship with cover pressure. Unlike Concept A, the test cone angle is greater than or 

equal to the prediction values, see Figure 11 and Table 5. Again, these differences are 

well within the proposed 0.5-deg. requirement and will not impact the aerodynamic 

performance.

Finally, the relative adequacy of the two modeling approaches (Concept A and Concept 

B) was also evaluated. Based on these comparisons, the difference in cover loading rate 

did not appreciably impact the prediction errors. The selection of loading rate is likely 

dependent on the number of cover loading states to be examined and the available 

computation time. However, care must be exercised in selection of contact friction to 

prevent slipping of parts. 

Concluding Remarks

Data from multiple ground tests of a 6m-HIAD inflatable structure have been used to 

compare simulation results with test. The finite element model used for comparison is a

revised version of the contractor delivered model. Model revisions include updated 

material properties, updated test conditions, and minimal modifications to the complex 

simulation sequence of events. One of the main goals for the study was to develop

confidence in this type of analysis code to predict the structural response of an inflatable 

structure under a representative reentry aerodynamic load. For this type of reentry 

vehicle, aerodynamic performance relies heavily on the forward shape (i.e., cone angle) 

under load. From this study, it was determined that predicted cone angles were within 

0.5-degrees of the measured values, which satisfied the requirements. Additionally strap 

loads, a major design concern, were predicted at various locations. The vast majority of 

the individual strap loads were predicted to be within 100 lbs of the measured loads. In 

addition, the mean errors of the straps loads were well within the 100-lb bounds. Hence, 

this level of agreement of the cone angle and the strap loads is considered sufficient to 

enable these types of analysis tools to be used in the design process. 

Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge Mr. Benjamin Tutt (Airborne Systems North 

America) for generating the baseline HIAD LS-Dyna model. The vendor-provided model 

6
incorporated several unique modeling features and overall replicated the physics of the 

testing quite well.

References

1. Dwyer Cianciolo, A. M., et al: Entry, Descent and Landing Systems Analysis Study: 

Phase 1 Report. NASA TM 2010-216720, July 2010.

2. Smith, B. P., et al: A Historical Review of Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator 

Technology Development. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 

IEEEAC Paper No. 1276, Big Sky MT, March 2010.

3. Bose, D. M., et al.: The Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) 

Mission Applications Study. Proceedings of the AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator 

Systems Conference, AIAA Paper No. 2013-1389, Dayton Beach FL, March 25-28, 

2013.

4. Leonard, R. W.; Brooks, G. W.; McComb, H. G.: Structural Considerations of 

Inflatable Reentry Vehicles. NASA TND-457, September 1960.

5. Anderson, J. S.; Robinson, J. C.; Bush, H. G.; Fralich, R. W.: A Tension Shell 

Structure for Application to Entry Vehicles, NASA TN D-2675, March 1965.

6. Bohon, H. L.; and Miserentino, R.: Attached Inflatable Decelerator Performance 

Evaluation and Mission-Application Study. Proceedings of the AIAA Aerodynamic 

Deceleration Systems Conference, AIAA Paper No. 70-1163, Dayton OH, 

September 14-16, 1970.

7. Lindell, M. C.; Hughes, S. J.; Dixon, M. and Willey, C. E.: Structural Analysis and 

Testing of the Inflatable Re-entry Vehicle Experiment (IRVE). Proceedings of the 47th 

AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials 

Conference, AIAA Paper No. 2006-1699, Newport RI, May 1-4, 2006.

8. Hughes, S. J., et al.: Inflatable Re-entry Vehicle Experiment (IRVE) Design Overview. 

Proceedings of the 18th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology 

Conference and Seminar, AIAA Paper AIAA 2005-1636, Munich, Germany, May 23-

26, 2005.

9. Timmers, R. B.; Hardy, R. C.; and Welch, J. V.: Modeling and Simulation of the 

Second-Generation Orion Crew Module Air Bag Landing System. Proceeding of the 

20th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, 

AIAA Paper No. 2009-2921, Seattle WA, May 4-7, 2009.

10. Tutt, B.; Johnson, R. K.; and Lyle, K.: Development of an Airbag Landing System for 

the Orion Crew Module. Proceedings of the 10th International LS-Dyna Users 

Conference, Dearborn MI, June 8-10, 2008. 

11. Tutt, B. A.; and Taylor, A. P.: Applications of LS-Dyna to Structural Problems Related 

to Recovery Systems and Other Fabric Structures. Proceedings of the 7th

International LS-Dyna Users Conference, Dearborn MI, May 19-21, 2002.

12. Tanner, C. L.; Cruz, J. R.; Braun, R. D.: Structural Verification and Modeling of a 

Tension Cone Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator. Proceedings of the 51st

AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials 

Conference, AIAA Paper No. 2010-2830, Orlando FL, April 12-15, 2010.

13. Lyle, K. H.: Preliminary Structural Sensitivity Study of Hypersonic Inflatable 

Aerodynamic Decelerator Using Probabilistic Methods. NASA TM-2014-218290, July 

2014.

14. Cassell, A. M., et al: Overview of Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamics Decelerator 

Large Article Ground Test Campaign. Proceedings of the 21st AIAA Aerodynamic 

Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar. AIAA Paper No. 2011-

2569, Dublin, Ireland, May 23-26, 2011.

7
15. Swanson, G. T., et al: Structural Strap Tension Measurements of a 6 meter 

Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator under Static and Dynamic Loading. 

Proceedings of the AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Conference, AIAA 

Paper No. 2013-1287, Dayton Beach FL, March 25-28, 2013. 

16. LS-Dyna Keyword User’s Manual, Version 971, July 27, 2012 (revision: 1617).

Table 1. Concept A tori pressure conditions 

pt, psi 

Torus Pressures, psi

1-2 3 - 8 

20 20 20

15 15 15

15/10 15 10

15/12.5 15 12.5

Table 2. Concept A strap load mean errors. 

pt, psi pv, psi (Test-Pred)mean, lb |Test-Pred|mean, lb

20 0.55 17 55

15 0.55 -4 22

15 0.75 -8 37

15/10 0.55 26 41

15/12.5 0.55 -7 27

Table 3. Concept A cone angle. 

pt, psi pv, psi Test, deg. Pred, deg.

20 0.55 58.8 58.8

15 0.55 58.4 58.5

15 0.75 57.8 58.1

15/10 0.55 57.6 58.2

15/12.5 0.55 58.3 58.6

Table 4. Concept B strap load mean errors. 

pt, psi pv, psi (Test-Pred)mean, lb |Test-Pred|mean, lb

15 0.25 -6 30

15 0.50 -11 58

15 0.75 -15 79

Table 5. Concept B cone angles. 

pt, psi pv, psi Test, deg. Pred, deg.

15 0.25 58.9 58.6

15 0.50 58.4 58.0

15 0.75 57.9 57.5

8
Figure 1. HIAD in Test Facility 

9
Figure 2. FEM of Concept A. 

Figure 3. FEM of Concept B.	

10
Figure 4. Cross-sectional illustration highlighting modifications to incorporate 

Torus 5.5 in Concept B. 

Figure 5. Nominal FEM loading states for HIAD simulations (cross-sectional view 

of Concept A).

11
Figure 6. Representative test and analysis cover behavior at final loaded state. 

Figure 7. Comparison of strap load distribution for Concept A (pt=15psi; 

pv=0.75psi) 

12
Figure 8. Comparison of test vs analysis for strap loads, Concept A. 

Figure 9. Comparison of test vs analysis for cone angle, Concept A. (Solid lines 

connect test data and dashed lines connect analysis.) 

13
Figure 10. Comparison of test vs analysis for strap loads, Concept B. 

Figure 11. Comparison of test vs analysis for cone angle, Concept B. (Solid lines 

connect test data and dashed lines connect analysis.) 

14
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

2. REPORT TYPE 

Technical Memorandum

 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Comparison of Analysis with Test for Static Loading of Two Hypersonic 

Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator Concepts

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

 6. AUTHOR(S)

Lyle, Karen H.

 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

NASA Langley Research Center

Hampton, VA 23681-2199

 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington, DC 20546-0001

 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

L-20573

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NASA

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified - Unlimited

Subject Category 18

Availability: NASA STI Program (757) 864-9658

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email: help@sti.nasa.gov)

14. ABSTRACT

Acceptance of new spacecraft structural architectures and concepts requires validated design methods to minimize the expense 

involved with technology demonstration via flight-testing. Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) 

architectures are attractive for spacecraft deceleration because they are lightweight, store compactly, and utilize the 

atmosphere to decelerate a spacecraft during entry. However, designers are hesitant to include these inflatable approaches for 

large payloads or spacecraft because of the lack of flight validation. This publication summarizes results comparing analytical

results with test data for two concepts subjected to representative entry, static loading. The level of agreement and ability to 

predict the load distribution is considered sufficient to enable analytical predictions to be used in the design process. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Aerodynamic decelerator; Model correlation; Numerical analysis

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

19

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

(757) 864-9658

a. REPORT

U

c. THIS PAGE

U

b. ABSTRACT

U

17. LIMITATION OF 

 ABSTRACT

UU

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

77714.04.02.0

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

NASA-TM-2015-218778

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and 

Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person 

shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01- 07 - 2015