Study on Hydrogen Leakage-Explosion and Risk of Hydrogen Bus in Station

doi:10.12141/j.issn.1000-565X.220422

Abstract

Abstract:

Hydrogen vehicles have developed rapidly in recent years. Compared with hydrogen cars, hydrogen buses have greater safety risks due to their large sizes and large passenger capacity, so it’s of great significance to study the hydrogen leakage-explosion accidents and risks of hydrogen buses in station. The study predicted the dispersion of hydrogen under different leakage conditions after the failure of critical components of hydrogen bus with software FLACS. It studied the overpressure characteristics of the explosion after the explosion induced by the vapor cloud under different ignition locations according to the volume concentration distribution characteristics of hydrogen. And it analyzed the impact range of the accident, quantified the consequences of the explosion accident, and put forward the explosion risk prevention and control suggestions. Based on the risk analysis of hydrogen leakage in the parking lot, it put forward a risk analysis method of hydrogen leakage and explosions.The results show that the environmental wind and the planning layout of the station will affect the hydrogen dispersion after leakage. When the environmental wind direction is perpendicular to the length of the parking lot ceiling, it is most conducive to the dispersion of hydrogen; the dispersed velocity after the hydrogen leakage in the large sides station is fast; the hydrogen volume concentration decreases rapidly; the overpressure generated by ignition induced gas cloud explosion is less powerful; the maximum overpressure in the most severe leakage scenario is approximately 12.38 kPa. The high sensitivity hydrogen sensors can be installed near the TPRD device of hydrogen bus and at the corresponding ceiling position in the middle of the parking space to improve the sensitivity of real-time monitoring of hydrogen leakage.The risk of gas cloud explosion accident after hydrogen leakage in the parking lot is approximately 3.64×10^-7 times per year, which is lower than the risk acceptable level, indicating the bus parking lot meets the safety requirements. The research results provides reasonable suggestions for the layout of hydrogen sensors in hydrogen buses and station, as well as the planning and construction of station.

Key words: hydrogen bus, hydrogen leakage, gas explosion, risk assessment

CLC Number:

X932

CHEN Guohua, XIE Mulin, ZHANG Qiang, et al. Study on Hydrogen Leakage-Explosion and Risk of Hydrogen Bus in Station[J]. Journal of South China University of Technology(Natural Science Edition), 2024, 52(2): 84-94.

Figures/Tables 14

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Table 1

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Table 2

Table 3

Fig.9

Table 4

Fig.10

References 22

1	LI H， LIU J D， TIAN Y，et al ．Optimization design of the permanent seat structure of the hydrogen supply system of fuel cell bus［C］∥Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Image Processing，Electronics and Computers（IPEC）．Dalian：IEEE，2021：689-692.
2	黄亚娟．中国氢燃料电池汽车技术发展现状及前景［J］．时代汽车，2020（9）：79-80.
	HUANG Yajuan ．Development status and prospect of hydrogen fuel cell vehicle technology in China［J］．Auto Time，2020（9）：79-80.
3	SHU Z， LEI G， LIU Z，et al ．Motion trajectory prediction model of hydrogen leak and diffusion in a stable thermally-stratified environment［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2022，47（3）：2040-2049.
4	EHRHART B D， HARRIS S R， BLAYLOCK M L，et al ．Risk assessment and ventilation modeling for hydrogen releases in vehicle repair garages［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2021，46（23）：12429-12438.
5	SHEN Y H， ZHENG T， LV H，et al ．Numerical simulation of hydrogen leakage from fuel cell vehicle in an outdoor parking garage［J］．World Electric Vehicle Journal，2021，12（3）：118/1-10.
6	HUANG T， ZHAO M， BA Q，et al ．Modeling of hydrogen dispersion from hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in an underground parking garage［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2022，47（1）：686-696.
7	SALVA J A， TAPIA E， IRANZO A，et al ．Safety study of a hydrogen leak in a fuel cell vehicle using computational fluid dynamics［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2012，37（6）：5299-5306.
8	CHEN M， ZHAO M， HUANG T，et al ．Measurements of helium distributions in a scaled-down parking garage model for unintended releases from a fuel cell vehicle［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2020，45（41）：22166-22175.
9	MAKAROV D， VERBECKE F， MOLKOV V，et al ．An inter-comparison exercise on CFD model capabilities to predict a hydrogen explosion in a simulated vehicle refuelling environment［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2009，34（6）：2800-2814.
10	TANAKA T， AZUMA T， EVANS J A，et al ．Experimental study on hydrogen explosions in a full-scale hydrogen filling station model［J］．Pergamon，2007，32（13）：2162-2170.
11	KIM E， PARK J， CHO J H，et al ．Simulation of hydrogen leak and explosion for the safety design of hydrogen fueling station in Korea［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2013，38（3）：1737-1743.
12	MIDDHA P， HANSEN O R ．CFD simulation study to investigate the risk from hydrogen vehicles in tunnels［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2009，34（14）：5875-5886.
13	MERILO E G， GROETHE M A， COLTON J D，et al ．Experimental study of hydrogen release accidents in a vehicle garage［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2011，36（3）：2436-2444.
14	TOLIAS I C， VENETSANOS A G， MARKATOS N，et al ．CFD modeling of hydrogen deflagration in a tunnel［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2014，39（35）：20538-20546.
15	PAPANIKOLAOU E A， VENETSANOS A G， HEITSCH M，et al ．HySafe SBEP-V20：numerical studies of release experiments inside a naturally ventilated residential garage［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2010，35（10）：4747-4757.
16	HUSSEIN H， BRENNAN S， MOLKOV V ．Dispersion of hydrogen release in a naturally ventilated covered car park［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2020，45（43）：23882-23897.
17	XIE H， LI X， CHRISTOPHER D M ．Emergency blower ventilation to disperse hydrogen leaking from a hydrogen-fueled vehicle［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2015，40（25）：8230-8238.
18	JUWARI， HANDOGO R， CAHYONO T，et al ．Simulation of natural gas dispersion and explosion in vented enclosure using 3D CFD FLACS software［C］∥Proceedings of the 26th Regional Symposium on Chemical Engineering （RSCE 2019）．Kuala Lumpur：［s.n.］，2020：12144/1-13.
19	LIANG Y， PAN X， ZHANG C，et al ．The simulation and analysis of leakage and explosion at a renewable hydrogen refuelling station［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2019，44（40）：22608-22619.
20	GROTH K M， LACHANGE J L ．Early-stage quantitative risk assessment to support development of codes and standard requirements for indoor fueling of hydrogen vehicles［R］．California：Sandia National Laboratories，2012.
21	DADASHZADEH M， KASHKAROV S， MAKAROV D，et al ．Risk assessment methodology for onboard hydrogen storage［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2018，43（12）：6462-6475.
22	LACHANCE J， TCHOUVELEV A， ENGEBO A ．Development of uniform harm criteria for use in quantitative risk analysis of the hydrogen infrastructure［J］．International Journal of Hydrogen Energy，2011，36（3）：2381-2388.

案例编号	失效类型	泄漏压力/MPa	泄漏孔径/mm	环境风向	最大泄漏容量/L	初始泄漏速率/（kg·s^-1）
Ⅰ	TPRD失效	35	2	-Y（1 m/s）	140	0.040
Ⅱ			2	-X（1 m/s）		0.040
Ⅲ			4	-Y（1 m/s）		0.170
Ⅳ			4	-X（1 m/s）		0.170
Ⅴ	管道减压阀失效	2	2	-Y（1 m/s）	140	0.002
Ⅵ			2	-X（1 m/s）		0.002
Ⅶ			4	-Y（1 m/s）		0.010
Ⅷ			4	-X（1 m/s）		0.010
Ⅸ	TPRD失效	35	10	-Y（1 m/s）	840	1.070
Ⅹ	TPRD失效	35	4	无环境风	140	0.170

场景	泄漏时间/s	点火位置/m	ER（当量比）
1	10	（25.12，20.40，6.827）	1.60
2		（25.30，20.40，6.827）	1.40
3		（25.50，20.30，6.827）	1.20
4		（25.55，20.00，6.827）	1.00
5		（24.80，20.20，6.827）	0.80
6		（24.50，20.30，6.827）	0.60
7	20	（25.02，20.48，6.827）	1.60
8		（25.03，20.45，6.827）	1.40
9		（25.06，20.42，6.827）	1.20
10		（25.04，20.36，6.827）	1.00
11		（25.00，20.28，6.827）	0.80
12		（24.80，20.28，6.827）	0.60
13	30	（25.00，20.48，6.827）	0.80
14		（24.90，20.44，6.827）	0.60
15		（24.75，20.23，6.827）	0.40
16		（22.90，18.50，6.827）	0.20
17	40	（25.00，22.55，6.827）	0.40
18	40	（25.00，20.00，6.827）	0.20
19	50	（25.00，20.55，6.827）	0.20
20	60	（25.00，22.46，6.827）	0.14
21	70	（8.50，14.05，6.827）	0.03

场景	泄漏孔径/mm	点火时间/s	点火位置/m	最大爆炸超压/kPa
1	4	10.05	（25.12，20.40，6.827）	1.90
2			（25.30，20.40，6.827）	1.89
3			（25.50，20.30，6.827）	1.90
4			（25.55，20.00，6.827）	1.90
5			（24.80，20.20，6.827）	1.90
6			（24.50，20.30，6.827）	1.90
7	4	20.05	（25.02，20.48，6.827）	0.77
8			（25.03，20.45，6.827）	0.77
9			（25.06，20.42，6.827）	0.77
10			（25.04，20.36，6.827）	0.77
11			（25.00，20.28，6.827）	0.77
12			（24.80，20.28，6.827）	0.77
13	4	30.05	（25.00，20.48，6.827）	0.29
14			（24.90，20.44，6.827）	0.29
15			（24.75，20.23，6.827）	0.29
16			（22.90，18.50，6.827）	0.29
17	4	40.05	（25.00，22.55，6.827）	0.18
18	4	40.05	（25.00，20.00，6.827）	0.18
19	4	50.05	（25.00，20.55，6.827）	0.14
20		60.05	（25.00，22.46，6.827）	0.12
21		70.05	（8.50，14.05，6.827）	含量过低，无法点燃

场景	泄漏方向	泄漏孔径/mm	点火位置/m	点火时间/s	最大爆炸超压/kPa
1	+Y	10	（25.00，35.00，6.564）	10.05	12.38
2			（25.05，31.50，3.800）	15.05	8.73
3			（25.00，37.00，6.564）	20.05	6.11
4			（25.00，36.00，6.564）	25.05	5.01
5			（25.10，29.30，3.600）	30.05	6.11

[1]	WEN Huiying, WU Jiabin, QI Weiwei, et al. CP-CS Fusion Model for On-Ｒamp Merging Area on the Highway [J]. Journal of South China University of Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2020, 48(2): 50-57.
[2]	CHEN Peizhu CHEN Guohua QI Shuai ZHOU Zhihang . Quantitative Analysis of Ｒisk Ｒeduction of Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline with Explosion Proof Wall [J]. Journal of South China University of Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2018, 46(2): 124-130.
[3]	CAI Ze-xiang LIANG Yi TIAN De-liang LI Xiao-hua LI Shu-yong. Probability Model and Risk Assessment of False Tripping of Traveling Wave Protection on UHVDC Transmission Lines Under Thunder Strike [J]. Journal of South China University of Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2016, 44(11): 119-125.
[4]	Ma Ming-lei Ma Ru-jin Chen Ai-rong. Safety of Cables and Full Structure of a Cable-Stayed Bridge Exposed to Fires on Deck [J]. Journal of South China University of Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2014, 42(10): 117-124.