Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Analysis of hazards related to syngas production and transport

Katarzyna Stolecka, Andrzej Rusin*
Silesian University of Technology, Institute of Power Engineering and Turbomachinery, Konarskiego 18, 44-100, Gliwice, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The growing demand for energy raw materials and the ongoing implementation of restrictions on
Received 12 April 2019 emissions of pollutants have caused considerable intensification of research on alternative fuels. Among
Received in revised form them, syngas seems to be an especially promising option to use for electricity generation. Due to the fact
15 July 2019
that syngas is mainly composed of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, which are both flammable gases and
Accepted 21 August 2019
the latter of which is also toxic, its uncontrolled release can pose a serious hazard. The paper presents the
Available online 21 August 2019
processes involved in syngas production from coal and biomass with respect to the produced gas
composition. An analysis is carried out of potential effects of a syngas release from the pipeline to the
Keywords:
Syngas
environment, such as a jet fire, an explosion and formation of a toxic gas cloud. Hazard zones arising
Hazards around a damaged synthesis gas pipeline are determined. The size of the zones depends on the gas
Fire composition and is generally much smaller in the case of a release of syngas obtained from biomass
Toxic gasification. It also depends on the degree of damage to the pipeline. The created hazard zone is the
biggest if the pipeline is ruptured completely.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction presented data indicate that gasification plants can be found on

Due to the growing demand for energy raw materials and to the
ongoing implementation of restrictions on emissions of pollutants,
considerable intensification of research on alternative fuels can be
observed nowadays. Among them, synthesis gas seems to be an
especially promising option to use for electricity generation. It is
now used in industrial petrochemical processes, in the production
of fertilizers, chemicals and electricity. It is also used as a substitute
for natural gas. Syngas-based technologies for electricity genera-
tion make it possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the
atmosphere. The increasing utilization of syngas is related to the
development of technologies using the gas on the one hand and of
those used for its production on the other. Worldwide, there are
now more than 272 gasification installations with 686 generators.
Another 74 are under construction. Most of the currently operating
industrial gasification installations are located in China. The one in
Jima (China) produces syngas for chemical purposes with the
output of 90,000 Nm3/h (mass fractions of hydrogen and carbon
monoxide total about 35e43%). The installation gasifies local raw
materials with a high content of ash [1]. Examples of other, existing
and planned, gasification installations are listed in Table 1. The
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andrzej.rusin@polsl.pl (A. Rusin).
almost every continent. Syngas can be produced using coal,
biomass or waste. Gasification technologies are being constantly
developed and newly designed installations are being built not only
in Europe or America but also in Asia and Africa.
Also in Poland, which is one of the European countries with the
highest output of coal, works are now being carried out on the
development and commercial implementation of installations
producing syngas from hard coal, low-quality coal in particular.
Parallel scientific research is also being conducted to improve
syngas production processes based on different fuels, including
biomass. For example, combustion simulations were performed in
Ref. [2] to evaluate the technical feasibility of using waste-based
syngas as a supplementary fuel in a coal-fired steam boiler with
the output of 70,000 kg/h. The syngas was either co-fired with coal
at the burners or injected downstream as a reburning fuel in both
lean and conventional fuel reburning configurations. In Refs. [3,4]
syngas production from microwave-assisted air gasification of
biomass is discussed. In Ref. [5], the potential use of waste feed-
stocks as fuels for energy recovery by a gasification process in a BFB
reactor is explored. Optimal operating parameters for syngas/diesel
RCCI engines in a wide range of operating conditions are investi-
gated in Ref. [6]. The effects of different operating parameters on
the syngas composition in gasification process are investigated in
Ref. [7]. A thermodynamic analysis and an experimental study of
partial oxidation reforming of biodiesel and hydrotreated vegetable

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.102
0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2536 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555

Table 1
Gasification installations worldwide [1].

facility status plant name facility type country commissioned in (year) main feed syngas output (Nm3/d)

Operating €dra Cell Va

So €ro
€ Pulp & Paper Processing Sweden 1987 Biomass 190,000
Operating Varkaus ACFBG Plant Pulp & Paper Processing Finland 2001 Waste 234,133
Operating Holzverstromung Nidwalden Other Switzerland 2007 Biomass 26,000
Operating Sinopec KPC Zhanjiang H2 plant Refinery China 2016 Coal 5,112,000
In development SHED SNG Plant Gas Plant USA 2017 Coal 2,500,000
Operating Tacuarembo CHP Unit Pulp & Paper Processing Uruguay 2010 Biomass 500,000
Under construction Eagar Biomass Power Plant Independent Power Producer USA 2017 Biomass 15,000
In development Bilsthorpe Recycling Plant Independent Power Producer United Kingdom 2017 Waste 85,000
Planned CCI Mozambique Petrochemical Plant Mozambique 2018 Coal 36,400,000
Planned Baganuur CTL Plant Petrochemical Plant Mongolia 2020 Coal 6,250,000

oil for hydrogen-rich syngas production are discussed in Ref. [8]. in the first place, but it can also contain smaller amounts of carbon
Hydrogen-rich syngas production from the catalytic steam dioxide, methane, nitrogen or sulphur. The fraction of individual
reforming of bio-oil from fast pyrolysis of pinewood sawdust are constituents in the mixture may vary. The composition is deter-
investigated in Ref. [9]. The effects of fuel variability on physico- mined by the process parameters, as well as the gasification agent
chemical properties, such as the adiabatic flame temperature and and the bed type [7,11,20e22]. Gasification itself is considered a
the laminar flame speed of premixed bio-syngas combustion are clean, efficient and environment-friendly process [23]. It is also
investigated in Ref. [10]. relatively cheap, especially if costs related to feedstocks are not too
Synthesis gas production, transport and storage also create high. Compared to combustion, gasification requires a smaller,
problems related to the hazards posed by the fact that syngas limited amount of oxygen because the chain reactions that take
contains hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Considering their prop- place during the process are characterized by higher thermal effi-
erties, the two gases present fire/explosion and toxicity hazards. ciency. The schematic diagram of gasification process is presented
The analysis of the hazards is therefore an important element of the in Fig. 1 [20e22].
assessment of safety of the operation of installations using syngas.
This aspect of the syngas installation operation is also investigated
2.1. Coal gasification
in scientific works. For example, syngas-related hazards and mea-
sures of the hazard mitigation are presented in Ref. [11]. In Ref. [12],
Coal gasification is a complex process. Considering the chemical
the pressure history in the explosion of syngas/air mixtures with an
effect, the chemical reactions that occur in it can be divided into
addition of H2O over a wide range of equivalence ratios at elevated
endothermic and exothermic ones. Depending on the methods of
temperatures was recorded to study the explosion characteristics in
satisfying the needs of endothermic reactions, the following can be
a constant-volume confined vessel. Hazards of syngas fires and
distinguished [20,21]:
explosions are discussed in Ref. [13]. A failure analysis of a syngas
bypass-pipe rupture in an industrial ammonia plant is presented in

autothermal gasification e the exothermic reactions occurring
Ref. [14]. An optimization-based approach enabling incorporation
in the process satisfy the needs of endothermic reactions
of economic and safety considerations in the selection of a

allothermal gasification e the heat required for the endothermic
reforming technology for the production of syngas from shale gas is
reactions is supplied from an external source.
presented in Ref. [15]. Paper [16] offers a comprehensive review of
the recent progress in experimental studies on explosive limits and
The gasification process can be carried out in a fixed- or a flu-
the minimum ignition energy for syngas. The procedure for
idized bed reactor, or in an entrained flow gasifier. Depending on
assessing the explosion risk in the presence of hydrogen-rich syn-
temperature, pressure, the coal transport velocity in the reactor and
gas is described in Ref. [17]. The paper also presents a comparison
the coal grain size, three gasification processes are distinguished.
between the results of the application of technical standards and
In the case of gasification in a fixed bed reactor, which is the
those obtained from a CFD model for potential emission scenarios.
oldest and historically most common technology, coal with the
Experimental investigation of micro gas turbine running on natu-
grain size of 5e80 mm is fed from the reactor top through a feed
rally aspirated syngas is presented in Ref. [18]. Glucose gasification
chute, whereas oxygen and steam are fed in a countercurrent flow
in super-critical water conditions for syngas production and green
chemical is described in Ref. [19]. The aim of this paper is a
comprehensive analysis of fire, explosion and toxicity hazards
related to the production and transport of syngas. The analyses are
performed for synthesis gases with different compositions ob-
tained from coal and biomass gasification. The range of hazard
zones and the level of risk arising around a typical pipeline trans-
porting syngas are determined.

2. Gasification technologies

Synthesis gas (syngas) is the product of gasification of different

types of coal, biomass, solid municipal waste or solid recovered
fuels. The gasification process consists in transforming a combus-
tible substance into a gaseous fuel using a gasifying medium at a
high temperature under normal or elevated pressure. The process
product e syngas e is a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of gasification process.
 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555
from the bottom. The following zones are located over a travelling
grate one by one: the slag zone, the coke combustion zone, the
reduction zone, the coal gasification zone, and at the very top e the
zone of heating and drying. Flowing through the bed, the gasifying
medium reacts with coal and leaves the reactor as a raw generator
gas. The heat needed for the conversion, i.e. for the feedstock
heating and drying and for the reactions with steam, comes from
partial combustion of char. The temperature values in the com-
bustion zone are of the order of 1500e1800  C [22].
The fluidized bed reactor is fed with coal with the grain size of
about 1e5 mm. Steam and oxygen flow in from the bottom. The
physical and chemical processes arising during coal gasification are
similar to the combustion processes occurring in a fluidized bed
boiler. The bed temperature of 800e1050  C is achieved due to
partial combustion of coal. The gasification product is raw gener-
ator gas composed of carbon monoxide and hydrogen mainly.
In entrained flow reactors, pulverized fuel is fed into the reac-
tion zone in a jet of oxygen and steam. The high temperature
reaching of the order of 1400e1600  C ensures the process high
efficiency. The short time of the gas residence in the reaction sys-
tem makes it possible for the reactor to achieve high flow capacity
[20e22].
In the coal gasification process the obtained gas composition
will vary depending on the applied technology (cf. Table 2).
Hydrogen and carbon monoxide contents may vary from 20 to over
45% and from 18 to 65%, respectively. Big differences in the syn-
thesis gas composition resulting from the coal quality and origin,
from the gasification process nature and from the technique of final
processing will have an impact on the level of potential hazards
posed by an uncontrolled gas release from the installation [20].
2.2. Biomass gasification
Biomass is usually gasified using air. Lower heating value of
biomass is rather low (2e6 MJ/kg). The gasification process is car-
ried out using fixed and fluidized bed reactors [20,23]. Generally,
low-output gas generators are fixed bed reactors. Gas generators
used in waste incineration plants, which are more efficient, are
fluidized bed reactors. Fixed bed reactors can be divided into co-
and countercurrent gasifiers (cf. Fig. 2). The oxidation zone supplies
energy for the processes of gasification, pyrolysis and drying
[20,24e26].
In countercurrent reactors, air and fuel are transported in
opposite directions. Air is fed through the grate from the bottom to
enable coke combustion in high temperature first. The flue gases
produced in the combustion process move higher to the reduction
zone with coke, where CO2 and H2O are reduced to carbon mon-
oxide and hydrogen, and then to the pyrolysis zone (200e500  C).
Table 2
Syngas composition.
Gasification process
fixed bed (the Lurgi fluidized bed (the Winkler reactor) entrained flow reactor (the Koppers-Totzek
process) reactor)
coal hard and brown coal brown coal mainly any
type
H2 36e40 35e46 21e32
CO 18e25 30e50 55e65
CO2 27e32 13e25 7e12
CH4 9e10 1e3 0.1
2537
They then encounter biomass, which they heat and dry. The
advantage of such systems is that the requirements concerning the
biomass quality are low. An essential downside, on the other hand,
is the big content of tar in the gas.
In countercurrent reactors, air and gas flow in the same direc-
tion. Such systems require a better quality of fuel and the fuel has to
be pulverized. They are less efficient and more prone to fouling, but
they produce better-quality gas compared to countercurrent re-
actors, i.e. the gas contains less tar [20,26e28].
Another type of gas generators used in biomass gasification
technologies is the fluidized bed reactor [20,29]. There are two
types of the device: bubbling fluidized bed reactors and circulating
fluidized bed reactors. The fluidized-bed technology makes it
possible to gasify biomass with the moisture content of even up to
60%. A diagram of the fluidized bed gas generator is presented in
Fig. 3. Table 3 presents example compositions of gases resulting
from biomass gasification [20,27e31]. Hydrogen and carbon mon-
oxide contents may vary from 7 to 17% and from 12 to 24%,
respectively. The content of nitrogen exceeds 50%.
3. Hazards related to synthesis gas utilization
Syngas released during production or transport may pose fire/
explosion hazards because it contains flammable gases, such as
hydrogen. It also creates a toxic risk due to the presence of carbon
monoxide [6]. Hydrogen is a highly flammable gas, with a wide
range of flammability and a low minimum ignition energy [32]. The
other main component of synthesis gas e carbon monoxide e is not
only flammable but also toxic. It binds with haemoglobin easily,
decreasing cellular respiration, which is especially harmful to the
central nervous system [33].
The negative effects on health due to high thermal radiation and
to high concentrations of carbon monoxide are listed in Table 4 and
Table 5, respectively [32,33].
After a longer time of exposure, thermal radiation of more than
4 kW/m2 produces negative effects. Heat flux values exceeding
37.5 kW/m2 cause immediate human death.
Lethal concentration of carbon dioxide is above 12,800 ppm;
lower concentrations at the level of 1600 ppm cause headaches and
nausea. The permissible 8-h-exposure concentration of CO is
50 ppm.
The magnitude of the potential hazards posed by an uncon-
trolled release of a mixture of flammable gases depends on the
mixture physical properties, such as the limit of flammability, the
self-ignition temperature and the minimum ignition energy in the
first place.
The flammability limit is one of the basic quantities character-
izing the fire hazard presented by a gas release. It represents the
entrained flow reactor
(Texaco technology)
any
34
45
15
2
2538 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555

Fig. 2. Fixed bed gas generators.

experimentally determined minimum concentration of fuel needed

for the flame self-propagation. The gas flammability limit depends
on temperature and pressure. A rise in the gaseous mixture tem-
perature extends the limits of flammability. A decrease in pressure,
on the other hand, narrows down the difference between the lower
and the upper flammability limit.
The synthesis gas flammability limit depends on the gas
composition. The decisive factors are the contents of hydrogen and
carbon monoxide. The lower and the upper limits of hydrogen
flammability are 4% and 75%, respectively. For carbon monoxide,
the flammability limits in air are 12.5% (LFL) and 74% (UFL).
Methane also belongs to syngas flammable components. Its lower
and upper flammability limits are 5% and 15%, respectively. The
lower and the upper flammability limits for mixtures of gases
flammable in air which do not contain any inert components can be
found using the Le Chatelier relation [16,17]:

100
LFL ¼ Pn ci (1)
i¼1 LFLi

100
Fig. 3. Fluidized bed gas generators. UFL ¼ Pn ci (2)
i¼1 LFLi
where:

Table 3
Syngas composition.

gasifier

downdraft downdraft multistage hybrid fluidized bed

biomass switchgrass 95% hardwood chips coconut shell and charcoal N/A

H2 component (%, dry) 7e12 17 11e14 9

CO 12e18 23.9 17e22 14
CO2 10e17 11 10e15 20
CH4 e 1.4 1e3 7
N2 60 46.7 50e60 50
 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555 2539

Table 4
Thermal radiation effects on humans.

heat flux effects on humans

1.6 kW/m2 no damage for long exposure

4e5 kW/m2 pain at a 20-s exposure; first-degree burns
9.5 kW/m2 second-degree burns after 20 s
12.5e15 kW/m2 first-degree burns after 10 s; 1% death rate within 1 min
25 kW/m2 considerable injuries within 10 s; 100% death rate within 1 min
35e37.5 kW/m2 1% death rate within 10 s

Table 5
Effects of carbon monoxide concentrations on humans.

CO concentration Health effects

0 ppm normal, fresh air

9 ppm maximum recommended indoor CO level
50 ppm maximum permissible exposure for an 8-h working day
100 ppm slight headache after 1e2 h
200 ppm dizziness, nausea, fatigue, headache after 2e3 h of exposure
400 ppm headache and nausea after 1e2 h of exposure
life threatening in 3 h
800 ppm headache, nausea and dizziness after 45 min of exposure, collapse and unconsciousness after 1 h of exposure
death within 2e3 h
1000 ppm loss of consciousness after 1 h of exposure
1600 ppm headache, nausea and dizziness after 20 min of exposure
death within 1e2 h
3200 ppm headache, nausea and dizziness after 5e10 min, collapse and unconsciousness after 30 min of exposure
death within 1 h
6400 ppm death within 30 min
12,800 ppm immediate physiological effects, unconsciousness
death within 1e3 min of exposure

LFL, UFL e lower or upper flammability limit of the mixture
flammable components [% or g/m3]
ci e concentration of the i-th component in the fuel [volume or
mass percentage]
LFLi, UFLi e lower or upper flammability limit of the i-th
component of the mixture [% or g/m3]
If the mixture additionally contains non-flammable compo-
nents, its lower flammability limit is determined using the
following relation [16,17]:
 
N
1 þ 100N ,100
LFLm ¼ LFLmp N
(3)
100 þ LFLmp ,100N
where:
LFLm e lower flammability limit of the mixture [% or g/m3]
LFLmp e lower flammability limit of the mixture flammable
components calculated under the assumption that the sum of
the contents of the components totals 100% [% or g/m3]
N e total concentration of non-flammable components in the
mixture [volume or mass percentage].
The mixture self-ignition temperature is the point at which it
ignites by itself at its given pressure and composition. In the anal-
ysis of fire hazards, this quantity is an essential factor defining the
combustion initiation mechanism. Self-ignition temperatures for
hydrogen and carbon monoxide, i.e. for the two principal compo-
nents of synthesis gas, are 500  C and 630  C, respectively. The self-
ignition temperature of a mixture of the two gases is difficult to
establish because even small amounts of moisture or hydrogen can
substantially alter the self-ignition point for a mixture of carbon
monoxide with air or oxygen [6,16].
The ignition energy for a stoichiometric mixture of syngas and
air varies in the range from 0.02 mJ (for 100% of hydrogen) to 0.3 mJ
(for 100% of carbon monoxide). Both these values are included in
the range of typical values of the electrostatic discharge perceptible
by humans and are much lower than the energy produced by a
spark, for example. The hydrogen low value of ignition energy and
the wide difference between its limits of explosivity contribute to
fast ignition of the released gas [6,16,32].
As already mentioned, one of synthesis gas main components,
carbon monoxide, is highly toxic. Even if small amounts are inhaled,
the gas causes headaches, general weakness and nausea. Higher
concentrations cause an increased pulse rate, very strong head-
aches and convulsions. Strong poisoning results in a cardiac and
respiratory arrest, which leads to death. The gas mixture lethal
toxicity is established using a method based for example on
determination of the LC50 quantity characterizing gas mixtures. The
quantity, i.e. Lethal Concentration, is the amount of the dangerous
agent in a volume of air that causes death of 50% of the tested
species population. Lethal concentration (LC50) of a two-
component mixture made of a toxic and a non-toxic gas can be
calculated using the following relation [35]:
1
LC50 of gas mixture in ppm ¼ molar fraction of toxic component
(4)
ppm LC50 of toxic component
OR
ppm LC50 of toxic component
¼ *1 000 000 (5)
ppm of toxic component
For a bigger number of toxic gases in the mixture:
2540 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555

1
LC50 of gas mixture in ppm ¼ ppm of toxic #1 ppm of toxic #2
*1 000 000 (6)
ppm LC50 of toxic #1
þ ppm LC of toxic #2
þ…
50

4. Consequences of a synthesis gas release
An uncontrolled release of syngas from an installation or a
pipeline can trigger different scenarios of events, as shown in Fig. 4.
The following can occur: the released gas immediate or delayed
ignition and an explosion, or formation of a cloud which, due to the
presence of carbon monoxide in it, can be toxic [13,17,34].
An immediate ignition of synthesis gas released from a syngas
installation/pipeline may cause a jet fire. In this case, the potential
hazard presented to humans and the environment is related to the
direct impact of the flame or the generated heat flux q. A delayed
ignition of released syngas may also cause an explosion generating
a pressure wave (Dp), which poses a threat to humans and the
environment [17,32,36,37]. If the released syngas cloud does not
ignite, depending on the content of individual components, the
cloud may not create danger to humans or the environment, or the
hazard will be related to the toxic effect of carbon monoxide. An
analysis of hazards for different emergency scenarios is presented
below.
Which individual scenario is realized depends, among others, on
the syngas proneness to ignition, and this in turn depends on the
gas flammability limits. Because synthesis gas is a mixture of gases,
its flammability limits vary depending on the content of each in-
dividual component in the mixture. Example values of the lower
flammability limit for syngas with different compositions obtained
using different gasification methods are presented in Table 6. The
values are calculated from Le Chatelier's equation (3), which is
implemented in the Phast v6.7 program [38]. The range of vari-
ability in the lower flammability limit of syngas is from 7.45 to
23.26% depending on the mixture composition.

Fig. 4. An event tree related to damage to an installation intended for syngas production or transport.
 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555 2541

Table 6
Synthesis gas lower flammability limit.

component (molar fraction) fixed bed reactor (Lurgi method) fluidized bed reactor (Winkler method) downdraft fluidized bed
biomass gasification biomass gasification

CO 22 29 10 14
CO2 30 30 16 20
H2 38 36 14 9
CH4 9.5 4.5 e 7
N2 0.5 0.5 60 50
LFL 7.45 8.10 23.26 20.16

Fig. 5. Mass of released syngas I.

Fig. 6. Mass of released syngas II.

2542 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555

In the first step, therefore, the safety analysis must identify areas
where the released gas concentration will exceed the level corre-
sponding to the lower flammability limit.
The considerations are related to mixtures with the highest and
the lowest content of hydrogen. The former can be obtained by
means of coal gasification in a fixed bed reactor. The product is
synthesis gas I with the following composition: CO e 22%, CO2 e
30%, H2 e 38%, CH4 e 9.5% and N2 e 0.5%. The latter is syngas II
being a product of biomass gasification. It has the following
composition: CO e 10%, CO2 e 16%, H2 e 14% and N2 e 60%.
The lower flammability limit for mixture I is 7.45%, whereas for
mixture II e 23.26%.
Considering that gasification installations are often integrated
with installations of chemical plants, power stations or other in-
dustrial facilities, the gas transport path is usually shorter
compared to pipelines transporting natural gas. For this reason,
further analyses are conducted for a pipeline with the assumed
length of 1 km and the diameter of 650 mm. The transported gas
pressure and temperature parameters are 0.17 MPa and 20  C,
respectively. The meteorological conditions: wind speed: 1.5 m/s,
air temperature: 15  C. Two variants of damage are analysed: a
puncture (partial local damage) to the pipeline located on the
ground level and the pipeline complete rupture.
The time-dependent changes in the mass of the released gases
for mixture I and mixture II are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, respec-
tively. Depending on the degree of the pipeline damage, the time of

Fig. 7. Flammable concentration range (top and side view) of the syngas cloud e mixture I (local puncture).
 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555 2543

Fig. 8. Flammable concentration range (top and side view) of the syngas cloud e mixture II (local puncture).

the gas outflow ranges from about 3 to about 9 s. In the case of
syngas I, about 500 kg of gas will be released; for syngas II the
released mass will total about 600 kg.
The Figs. 7e10 below present calculation results concerning
potential fire hazard zones with a concentration value corre-
sponding to the lower flammability limit. Fig. 7 presents the area
where syngas I concentration exceeds the level of the lower flam-
mability limit. Fig. 8 shows the same area for syngas II. The cases
shown in the two figures relate to the pipeline partial damage
(puncture). Similar areas with syngas concentration higher than
the lower flammability limit, but for the case with the pipeline
complete rupture, are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The calculations
were performed using the PHAST v6.7 program [38]. The zones
with a flammable concentration illustrate the worst possible sce-
nario related to the syngas release, i.e. the moment when the gas
cloud covers the biggest area. The time for which a cloud with an
elevated concentration persists depends, among others, on the
pipeline length, the size of the damage causing the gas leak, the
moment of safety valves activation, etc. [32]. In the case under
analysis, the time is about 8 s. After that, the cloud area gets smaller.
The range of hazardous zones with a flammable concentration
resulting from the pipeline puncture reach 62 and 13 m for an
uncontrolled release of synthesis gas I and II, respectively.
The change in the area of a syngas cloud with an elevated
2544 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555

Fig. 9. Syngas cloud flammable-concentration range e mixture I, complete rupture of the pipeline.

Fig. 10. Syngas cloud flammable concentration range e mixture II, complete rupture of the pipeline.

concentration due to a change in the pipeline damage degree is
illustrated in Figs. 9 and 10.
Figs. 9 and 10 present zones with the concentration equal to the
lower flammability limit for syngas I and syngas II, respectively,
assuming the pipeline complete rupture. Like in the previous case,
the worst possible scenario is presented, i.e. the maximum size of
flammable-concentration clouds.
Analysing the charts presented above, it can be noticed that in
the case of a complete rupture, clouds with a flammable concen-
tration of syngas with compositions as in mixtures I and II reach a
much bigger range compared to the pipeline local puncture.
The areas presented in the figures above are potential zones
where gas may ignite in the case of its uncontrollable release. This
means that in these places there should be no devices that could
become a source of the gas ignition.
The impact of the gas pressure in the pipeline on the range of a
 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555 2545

Fig. 11. Syngas cloud flammable-concentration range e mixture I (p ¼ 0.25 MPa).

Fig. 12. Jet fire hazard zones for syngas I (partial damage to the pipeline).

cloud with the released gas elevated concentration is shown in
Fig. 11. The figure presents a syngas cloud with composition I
formed due to partial damage to a pipeline located on the ground
level and transporting synthesis gas under a pressure by about 48%
higher, i.e. 0.25 MPa. Compared to the lower pressure value, the
cloud area increased by about 12%.
According to the event tree presented in Fig. 4, if a source of the
syngas immediate ignition appears in the flammable cloud area, or
if ignition occurs immediately after the gas is released from the
pipeline, the possible consequence of such a scenario is a jet fire.
Fig. 12 presents the areas of hazard zones with the heat flux value of
37.5 kW/m2, 12.5 kW/m2 and 4 kW/m2 created due to a jet fire of
synthesis gas leaking from a partially damaged pipeline. The heat
flux values correspond to those that cause death, first-degree burns
or, if not exceeded, present no essential hazard to humans within
the radiation range, respectively.
Fig. 13 presents zones with an elevated heat flux value that are
created due to a jet fire of syngas II.
2546 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555

Fig. 13. Jet fire hazard zones for syngas II (partial damage to the pipeline).

Fig. 14. Jet fire hazard zones for syngas I (complete damage to the pipeline).

Analysing the charts presented above, it can be noticed that a
lower content of hydrogen in synthesis gas creates a smaller hazard
if the gas uncontrolled release and ignition occur. In the case of
syngas obtained from biomass gasification (mixture II), the zone
with a heat flux value causing death to humans, i.e. higher than
37.5 kW/m2, will not occur at all. And the zones corresponding to
the heat flux values causing first-degree burns and exceeding 4 kW/
m2 are substantially smaller.
Jet fire hazard zones arising due to complete damage to the
pipeline (a complete rupture) for syngas I and syngas II are
presented in Fig. 14 and in Fig. 15, respectively.
In this case, the areas included in the high radiation range are
bigger, but the relations between the zones for syngas I and syngas
II remain the same as for partial damage to the pipeline.
A delayed ignition of synthesis gas may potentially cause an
explosion. In such a case, humans in the immediate vicinity of the
failure site will be exposed to the hazard created by the pressure
wave. The figures below present the results of calculations of the
range of zones arising due to an explosion of syngas I, obtained
from coal gasification, and syngas II, obtained from biomass
 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555 2547

Fig. 15. Jet fire hazard zones for syngas II (complete damage to the pipeline).

Fig. 16. Explosion hazard zones for syngas I (complete damage to the pipeline).

gasification. As already mentioned, the hazard due to a syngas release will

The zones relate to the value of the explosion-generated pres-
sure wave at the level of 13.8 kPa, which causes damage to a human
eardrum. They are presented in Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 for syngas I and
syngas II, respectively. Zones with a pressure wave value causing
human death will not occur at all.
Like in the case of a jet fire, the zone created due to an explosion
of syngas obtained from biomass gasification is smaller compared
to an explosion of coal-based syngas.
depend on physicochemical properties of the gas components.
Apart from the jet fire and the explosion hazards related to the
flammable components, hydrogen in the first place, another
essential problem is the toxic hazard related to the presence of
carbon monoxide in the gas mixture. The concentration of carbon
monoxide which is toxic to humans totals 12,800 ppm [33,35].
According to equation (4), such a CO concentration may occur in a
syngas cloud with the concentration of 58,182 ppm and
2548 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555
Fig. 17. Explosion hazard zones for syngas II (complete damage to the pipeline).
128,000 ppm for coal-based syngas I and biomass-based syngas II,
respectively.
The Fig. 18 present toxic-concentration clouds that are formed
as a consequence of partial and complete damage to the pipeline
with mixture I under analysis.
A similar cloud for mixture II is presented in Fig. 19.
One of the parameters that have an essential impact on the
range of the released gas cloud, and consequently on the hazard
level, is the wind. For example, Fig. 20 presents the toxic-
concentration cloud range for syngas I for different wind speeds,
i.e. 1.5, 3 and 6 m/s for the pipeline partial and complete damage.
For the pipeline under analysis, the wind speed of 6 m/s in-
creases the range of the toxic cloud zone almost 2 times for com-
plete damage and almost 1.2 times for partial damage compared to
the wind speed of 1.5 m/s.
5. Risk analysis
5.1. Methodology of risk analysis
The risk related to the installation operation is understood as the
product of the consequence of an unwanted event C and the
probability of its occurrence Pf. If more unfavourable scenarios are
the case, the risk is the sum of all risks related to individual sce-
narios, i.e. [32]:
X
n
R¼ P fi C i
i The third scenario is a release of a gas cloud with a high con-
where:
n e number of hazardous scenarios,
Pfi e probability of occurrence of scenario i,
Ci e consequence of occurrence of scenario i.
The possible scenarios and the probability of their occurrence
for the analysed synthesis gas pipeline are presented in Fig. 4.
The consequences or the effects of the impact of an uncontrolled
release of syngas on humans and the environment can be estimated
using probit functions. The functions enable estimation of the
probability of injuries suffered due to the impact of external stimuli.
In the installation under consideration, the functions can be utilized
to calculate the probability of negative effects caused by thermal
radiation, the pressure wave or the toxic gas concentration.
The probability of the risk of a loss of life can be assessed using a
probit function equation expressed in the following form [32,36]:
 4 
=
Pr ¼  14:9 þ 2:56ln qt 3 (8)
where:
q e fire-generated heat flux, kW/m2,
t e time of exposure, s.
The probit function for the assessment of the effects of an ex-
plosion due to the pipeline failure has the following form:
Pr ¼  77:1 þ 6:91lnðDpÞ (9)
where Dp represents the pressure wave arising due to the explo-
(7) sion; the quantity is expressed in kPa.
centration of carbon monoxide. The probit function related to the
gas toxicity has the following form [33]:
Pr ¼  37:98 þ 3:7lnðC*tÞ (10)
where:
C e carbon monoxide concentration, mg/m3, t e exposure time,
min.
 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555 2549

Fig. 18. Syngas toxic-concentration cloud e mixture I, partial and complete damage to the pipeline.

5.2. Risk assessment
Using the pipeline failure probability calculated based on the
event tree shown in Fig. 4 and the probability of the occurrence of
the failure negative consequences in the form of a fire, explosion or
high concentration of CO, the risk value was calculated according to
formula (7). Figs. 21e23 present the probability of a loss of life due
to the impact of harmful effects depending on the distance from the
pipeline failure site.
Figs. 21 and 22 present the dependence of the probability of
death due to thermal radiation caused by a jet fire of syngas on the
distance from the pipeline failure site for partial and complete
damage to the pipeline (puncture and rupture), respectively. The
curves in the chart relate to the release and ignition of synthesis gas
obtained from coal and biomass gasification (synthesis gas I and
synthesis gas II). The analysis is conducted for a 1-km pipeline with
the diameter of 650 mm; the assumed time of exposure to thermal
radiation is 1 min.
If the transported syngas contains more flammable gases,
methane and hydrogen in coal-based syngas (synthesis gas I) in the
first place, the range of zones posing hazard to human life is several
metres longer.
The analysis of the explosion caused by an uncontrollable
release of syngas from the pipeline indicates that both for coal- and
2550 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555

Fig. 19. Syngas toxic-concentration cloud e mixture II, partial and complete damage to the pipeline.

biomass-based synthesis gas the generated pressure wave is so low
that it creates no hazard to the life or health of humans in the
closest vicinity of the failure site.
Fig. 23 presents the probability of death depending on the dis-
tance from the failure site of a pipeline transporting synthesis gas
containing CO. The curves in the chart relate to different degrees of
damage to a pipeline transporting synthesis gas I, i.e. syngas con-
taining 22% of carbon monoxide. For synthesis gas II, the toxic gas
concentration will be too low to create any death hazard. The
analysis is performed assuming that the time of exposure to the
impact of the released gas totals 1 min.
As already mentioned (eq. (7)), the risk related to failures of
technical installations is defined as the product of the failure
occurrence probability and the failure consequence. In the case of
failures of pipelines transporting synthesis gas, the probability of
the occurrence of individual hazardous scenarios can be deter-
mined based on an event tree (cf. Fig. 4). The triggering event here
is the pipeline damage, the probability of which can be determined
based on statistical data concerning failures of existing in-service
pipelines, natural gas pipelines in the first place. According to
literature data, for the pipeline 1-km section, the probability totals
2$105 in a year [36]. Therefore, according to the diagram presented
 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555 2551

Fig. 20. Syngas toxic-concentration cloud for different wind speeds e mixture I.

in Fig. 4, the probability of the occurrence of individual hazardous
scenarios resulting from a release of synthesis gas is as shown
below (Table 7). If the pipeline is partially damaged (puncture), the
probability of occurrence is the highest for the scenario of a gas
cloud release, whereas at the pipeline complete rupture, the most
probable event is a jet fire of released syngas.
The risk related to the pipeline failure causing a fire of synthesis
gases with different compositions calculated using relations (7) and
(8) is presented in Fig. 24. The curves relate to different times of
exposure to thermal radiation.
The risk related to the pipeline failure causing a hazard posed by
toxicity of the carbon monoxide contained in the released cloud of
syngas is presented in Fig. 25.
The total risk covering all the scenarios related to an uncon-
trolled release of synthesis gas I and synthesis gas II is shown in
Fig. 26.
The analysis of the charts presented in Figs. 24e26 indicates that
the risk related to the transport of syngas I for the jet fire scenario
reaches a value higher than 4,106 at the distance of 50 m from the
failure site. The risk related to high concentrations of CO is only
essential in the closest vicinity of the gas release site, i.e. in the area
within the radius of several meters.
2552 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555

Fig. 21. Probability of human death due to thermal radiation depending on the distance from the failure site of a partially damaged pipeline (t ¼ 1 min).

Fig. 22. Probability of human death due to thermal radiation depending on the distance from the failure site of a completely damaged pipeline (t ¼ 1 min).

6. Summary and conclusions
Considering that the synthesis gas is a mixture of many gases,
the estimation of the hazards related to an uncontrolled release of
syngas must take account of the fact that it contains hydrogen and
carbon monoxide. Compared to biomass-based syngas, the product
of coal gasification may be characterized by substantially different
contents of the two gases.
The presented results of the analysis of damage to a typical
synthesis gas pipeline show that the release and ignition of syngas
with a 32% content of hydrogen, i.e. of coal-based syngas, can create
the death hazard to humans in the area of about 214 m2 in the case
of the pipeline partial damage (a puncture), and in the area which is
about 2.5 times bigger if the pipeline is damaged completely
(complete rupture). For biomass-based synthesis gas, a zone posing
a hazard to human life will not occur. The analysed pipeline failure
 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555 2553

Fig. 23. Probability of human death due to carbon monoxide toxicity depending on the distance from the failure site (released cloud of synthesis gas I, t ¼ 1 min).

Table 7 will not create an essential explosion hazard related to the gas
The probability of the occurrence of individual hazardous scenarios. release, either.
damage jet fire explosion gas cloud release The area covered by a toxic cloud posing a death hazard to
humans due to the presence of carbon monoxide in synthesis gas
partial damage (puncture) 3.79E-6 1.94E-7 1.40E-5
complete damage (rupture) 1.40E-5 2.16E-8 1.56E-6 will total about 444 m2 and 60 m2 for the product of coal and

Fig. 24. Risk related to a jet fire of synthesis gas I and synthesis gas II released from the damaged pipeline.
2554 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555

Fig. 25. Risk related to the presence of carbon monoxide in synthesis gas I released from the damaged pipeline.

Fig. 26. Total risk related to an uncontrolled release of synthesis gas I and synthesis gas II.

biomass gasification, respectively.
The risk related to an uncontrolled release of synthesis gas will
depend, among others, on the released gas amount and composi-
tion, the gas thermodynamic parameters and the time of exposure
to the harmful factors being the effects of the failure.
In the case of the syngas fire, the risk totals 4.22$106 and keeps
at a constant level up to the distance of about 54 m for synthesis gas
I. The risk total 1.82$106 and keeps at a constant level for 30 meters
for synthesis gas II, respectively. The maximum value of the risk
related to the toxic effect of the released syngas cloud totals
4.46$106.
The total risk arising due to the syngas pipeline failure is
8.68$106 and 1.86$106 for synthesis gas I and synthesis gas II,
respectively.
The results of the analysis of hazards related to synthesis gas
utilization indicate that in every case of design and operation of
 K. Stolecka, A. Rusin / Renewable Energy 146 (2020) 2535e2555 2555

installations intended for the gas production, transport or storage, a (2019) 5600e5649.
[17] A. Molino, G. Braccio, G. Fiorenza, F.A. Marraffa, S. Lamonaca, G. Giordano,
detailed analysis has to be conducted of the synthesis gas envi-
G. Rotondo, U. Stecchi, M. La Scala, Classification procedure of explosion risk
ronmental impact and the risk created by the installations has to be areas in presence of hydrogen-rich syngas: biomass gasifier and molten car-
assessed. bonate fuel cell integrated plant, Fuel 99 (2012) 245e253.
[18] K.A. Al-attab, Micro gas turbine running on naturally aspirated gas: an
experimental investigation, Renew. Energy 119 (2018) 210e216.
Acknowledgements [19] A. Molino, M. Miglori, D. Macri, V. Valerio, A. Villone, F. Nanna, P. Iovane,
Glucose gasification in super-critical water conditions for both syngas and
The presented work was supported by the Silesian University of green chemicals with continuous process, Renew. Energy 91 (2016) 451e455.
[20] W. Kordylewski, Spalanie I Paliwa, Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wro-
Technology within statutory research funds. cławskiej, Wrocław, 2008.
[21] T. Chmielniak, S. Stelmach, Wspo  łczesne technologie zgazowania we˛ gla,
References Probl. Ekol. 13 (2) (2009) 69e76.
[22] A. Mishra, S. Gautam, T. Sharma, Effects of operating parameters on coal
gasification, Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 5 (2) (2018) 113e125.
[1] Global Syngas Technologies Council, World gasification database. https://
[23] S. Yang, Y. Yang, R.K. Kankala, B. Li, Sustainability assessment of synfuels from
www.globalsyngas.org/resources/world-gasification-database/.
biomass or coal: an insight on the economic and ecological burdens, Renew.
[2] K.T. Wu, H.T. Lee, C.I. Juch, H.P. Wan, H.S. Shim, B.R. Adams, S.L. Chen, Study of
Energy 118 (2018) 870e878.
syngas co-firing and reburning in a coal fired boiler, Fuel 83 (2004), 19991- blewski, Mały gazogenerator biomasy zintegrowany z układem ko
[24] R. Wro
2000.
generacyjnym, logistyka 4 (2015) 9956e9963.
[3] C. Ke, Y. Zhang, Y. Gao, Y. Pan, R. Ruan, Syngas production from microwave-
[25] R.M. Slivka, M.S. Chin, A.M. Grunden, Gasification and synthesis gas fermen-
assisted air gasification of biomass: Part 1 Model Development, Renew. En-
tation: an alternative route to biofuel Production, Biofuels 2 (4) (2011)
ergy 140 (2019) 772e778.
405e419.
[4] Y. Zhang, C. Ke, Y. Gao, S. Liu, R. Ruan, Syngas production from microwave-
[26] A.V. Bridgwater, The technical and economic feasibility of biomass gasification
assisted air gasification of biomass: Part 2 model validation, Renew. Energy
for power generation, Fuel 14 (5) (1995) 631e653.
140 (2019) 625e632.
[27] J.D. Martinez, K. Mahkamov, V.A. Rubendilo, E.E.S. Lora, Syngas production in
[5] S. Maisano, F. Urbani, F. Cipiti, F. Freni, V. Chiodo, Syngas production by BFB
downdraft biomass gasifiers and its application using internal combustaion
gasification: experimental comparison of different biomasses, Int. J. Hydrogen
engines, Renew. Energy 38 (2012) 1e9.
Energy 44 (9) (2019) 4414e4422.
[28] R.A.M. James, W. Yuan, M.D. Boyette, D. Wang, Airflow and insulation effectsa
[6] Z. Xu, M. Jia, Y. Chang, G. Xu, L. Xu, X. Lu, Computational optimization of fuel
on simultaneous syngas and biochar production in a top-lit updraft biomass
supply, syngas composition, and intake conditions for a syngas/diesel RCCI
gasifier, Renew. Energy 117 (2018) 116e124.
engine, Fuel 234 (2018) 120e134.
[29] K. Woytiuk, W. Campbell, R.W. Gerspacher, R.W. Evitts, A. Phoenix, The effects
[7] C.L. Lin, W.C. Weng, Effects of different operating parameters on the syngas
of torrefaction on syngas quality metrics from fluized bed gasification of SRC
composition in a two-stage gasification process, Renew. Energy 109 (2017)
willow, Renew. Energy 101 (2017) 409e416.
135e143.
[30] R. Rauch, J. Hrbek, H. Hofbauer, Biomass gasification for synthesis gas pro-
[8] K.W. Lin, H.W. Wu, Thermodynamic analysis and experimental study of par-
duction and applications of the syngas, Energy Environ. 3 (4) (2014) 343e362.
tial oxidation reforming of biodiesel and hydrotreated vegetable oil for
[31] L.P.R. Pala, Q. Wang, G. Kolb, V. Hessel, Steam gasification of biomass with
hydrogen-rich syngas production, Fuel 236 (2019) 1146e1155.
subsequent syngas adjustment using shift reaction for syngas production: an
[9] G. Chen, J. Yao, J. Liu, B. Yan, R. Shan, Biomass to hydrogen-rich syngas via
Aspen Plus model, Renew. Energy 101 (2017) 484e492.
catalytic steam reforming of bio-oil, Renew. Energy 91 (2016) 315e322.
[32] A. Rusin, K. Stolecka, Reducing the risk level for pipelines transporting carbon
[10] K. Zhang, X. Jiang, An investigation of fuel variability effect on bio-syngas
dioxide and hydrogen by means of optimal safety valves spacing, J. Loss Prev.
combustion using uncertainty quantification, Fuel 220 (2018) 283e295.
Process. Ind. 33 (2015) 77e87.
[11] A. Nandan, N.A. Siddiqui, P. Mondal, K. Chaudhar, R. Pandey, Hazards associ-
[33] HSE UK 2010 SPC/Tech/OSD/30, rev, Methods of approximation and deter-
ated to synthesis gas and its mitigation measures, Res. J. Eng. Technol. 5 (3)
mination of human vulnerability for offshore major accident hazard assess-
(2014) 144e146.
ment. http://www.hse.gov.uk/, 2013.
[12] Y. Xie, J. Wang, X. Cai, Z. Huang, Pressure history in the explosion of moist
[34] J. Vílchez, V. Espejo, J. Casal, Generic event trees and probabilities for the
syngas/air mixtures, Fuel 185 (2016) 18e25.
release of different types of hazardous materials, J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 24
[13] A.J. Pierorazio, Q.,A. Baqer, Hazards for syngas fires and explosions, Process
(2011) 281e287.
Saf. Prog. 29 (4) (2010) 288e292.
[35] CGA - P20, Standard for Classification of Toxic Gas Mixtures, third ed., Com-
[14] P. Darvishi, F. Zareie-kordshouli, A. Lashanizadehgan, Failure analysis of
pressed Gas Association, INC, USA, 2003.
syngas bypass line rupture in an industrial ammonia plan, Eng. Fail. Anal. 84
[36] R. Gerboni, E. Salvador, Hydrogen transportation systems: elements of risk
(2018) 59e69.
analysis, Energy 34 (2009) 2223e2229.
[15] J. Martinez-Gomez, F. N apoles-Rivera, J.A. Ponce-Ortega, M.M. El-Halwagi,
[37] A. Witkowski, A. Rusin, M. Majkut, K. Stolecka, Analysis of compression and
Optimization of the production of syngas from shale gas with economic and
transport of the methane/hydrogen mixture in existing natural gas pipelines,
safety considerations, Appl. Therm. Eng. 110 (2017) 678e684.
Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 166 (2018) 24e34.
[16] W.Q. Wang, Z.Y. Sun, Experimental studies on explosive limits and minimum
[38] Phast v6.7, DNV Software.
ignition energy of syngas: a comparative review, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44