HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS CONCERNS

I think we know how to keep people safe on the roads, but, like with any other new commercial
product, there is a learning curve to figure out what can go wrong and lessons learned from the many
different way the consumer can misuse a product. In all the Engineering Organizations that I worked
in my career after we finished a new product or innovation on an existing product, the product was
not released to sales until it passed the “idiot proof test". During this phase we normally revised the
safety factors in every step in the design process then we build one and run it 24 hours for several
days until something failed. Fail mode analysis or FMEAs followed. Impact test also is part of this
stage in product development. Life test of every component are conducted by vendors or in-house
and results evaluated. Engineering Departments know how long each component on a product will
last. Critical components that impact user wellbeing are design to last (priority). Warranties are a
good indicator of confidence on the product. Leakage The molecules of hydrogen gas are smaller
than all other gases, and it can diffuse through many materials considered airtight or impermeable to
other gases. This property makes hydrogen more difficult to contain than other gases. Leaks of liquid
hydrogen evaporate very quickly since the boiling point of liquid hydrogen is so extremely low.
Hydrogen leaks are dangerous in that they pose a risk of fire where they mix with air. However, the
small molecule size that increases the likelihood of a leak also results in very high buoyancy and
diffusivity, so leaked hydrogen rises and becomes diluted quickly, especially out-doors. This results
in a very localized region of flammability that disperses quickly. As the hydrogen dilutes with
distance from the leakage site, the buoyancy declines and the tendency for the hydrogen to continue
to rise decreases. Very cold hydrogen, resulting from a liquid hydrogen leak, becomes buoyant soon
after is evaporates.
In contrast, leaking gasoline or diesel spreads evaporates slowly resulting in a widespread,
hazard. Propane gas is denser than air so it low spots and disperses slowly, resulting in a or
explosion hazard. Heavy vapors can also laterally, and lingering fire accumulates in protracted
fire form vapor clouds or plumes that travel as they are pushed by breezes. Methane gas is lighter
than air, but not nearly as buoyant as hydrogen, so it disperses rapidly, but not as rapidly as
hydrogen.

HYDROGEN PROPERTIES For small hydrogen leaks, buoyancy and diffusion effects in air are
often overshadowed by the presence of air currents from a slight ambient wind, very slow vehicle
motion or the radiator fan. In general, these currents serve to disperse leaked hydrogen even
more quickly with a further reduction of any associated fire hazard. When used as vehicle fuel, the
propensity for hydrogen to leak necessitates special care in the design of the fuel system to
ensure that any leaks can disperse with minimum hindrance, and the use of dedicated leak
detection equipment on the vehicle and within the maintenance facility.
"The most likely consequence of a crash is no additional hazard from the hydrogen fuel (98.1-
99.9% probability) beyond the existing hazards in a vehicle crash, although some factors need
additional data and study to validate. These scenarios include minor crashes with no release or
ignition of hydrogen. When the hydrogen does ignite, it is most likely a jet flame from the
pressure relief device release due to a hydrocarbon fire (0.03-1.8% probability).
Codes and Standards
There are comprehensive codes and standards promulgated that address vehicle fueling and
onboard vehicle safety. These codes and standards include:

International Fire Code2 that addresses hydrogen dispensing stations, storage, and aspects of the
built environment.

NFPA 2, Hydrogen Technologies Code,3 that addresses almost all infrastructure elements of
hydrogen storage, use, and handling including dispensing.

The SAE series of documents that include SAE J2578,

Recommended Practice for General Fuel Cell Vehicle Safety,1 SAE J2579, Fuel Cell Systems in
Fuel Cell and other Hydrogen Technologies,4 SAE J2600,

Compressed Hydrogen Surface Vehicle Refueling Connection Devices,5 and SAE J2601.6
CSA America: HPRD 17 and HGV 4.2.8

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPV),9 Section VIII Rules for the Construction of Pressure
Vessels.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFICK ADMINISTRATION

This focus is evident in the major research themes identified during Battelle’s review of nearly 100
HFV technical papers and presentations. The major themes in HFV safety research involve: •
Hydrogen leak, dispersion, and ignition research (modeling and testing)

• Enhancing existing hydrogen vehicle and container fire (bonfire) test methodologies (modeling
and/or testing to improve specifications)

• Compressed hydrogen container ruptures in the event of pressure relief device (PRD) failure
(testing to determine consequences)

• General hydrogen vehicle safety research (fuel cell safety, safety and risk analysis, vehicle
demonstration programs, and codes and standards)

• Hydrogen cylinder design and testing

• Fast fueling of 70 MPa compressed hydrogen containers (modeling and testing of thermal loads)
• Liquefied Hydrogen (LH2) storage system components and vehicles (design, testing, and
demonstration)

• Incident data for compressed natural gas (CNG) containers

Hydrogen leak, dispersion, and ignition research

Abundant research has been conducted involving modeling and/or testing of compressed
hydrogen fuel systems to determine allowable leak rates and minimum hydrogen concentrations
that will ignite and support a flame in various situations such as in a crash, during vehicle
refueling, and in enclosures (garages and tunnels). Much of this research has been conducted to
supplement the ongoing hydrogen vehicle codes and standards development efforts in the U.S.,
Japan, Canada, and Europe. Specific research focuses on hydrogen leak and dispersion within
the vehicle interior, allowable post crash leakage rates, effects of hydrogen ignition on the
vehicle and surroundings, hydrogen flammability limits, and hydrogen leak detection and
sensors. In general, the hydrogen leak, dispersion, and ignition research concluded:

• With adequate and appropriately placed ventilation, the hydrogen concentrations from a leak
into the interior of both a sedan and city bus can remain below the lower flammability limit of 4
volume percent.

• Leak testing into front vehicle compartments to determine hydrogen leak detection sensor
mounting positions and threshold alarm values concluded that safety is ensured by setting the
hydrogen alarm threshold to 4 volume percent.

• Allowable hydrogen leakage rates in a collision can be established similar to the method used for
FMVSS 303 (based on the amount of leakage with generated heat equivalent to gasoline vehicles)
and that the post-crash maximum hydrogen leak rate of 131 NL/min assures a sufficient level of
vehicle safety.
• For hydrogen releases under flowing and transient conditions, hydrogen concentrations near 8
to 10 percent were needed to sustain combustion and therefore researchers concluded that using
LFL criteria in SAE J2578 could be design restrictive and should be replaced with performance-
based criteria. This change has since been incorporated into SAE J2578.

• Experimentation and modeling to investigate the consequences of a hydrogen release in an

enclosed or partially enclosed area found good correlations between modeling and experiment
and concluded that computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling can be used as a reliable
prediction tool for evaluating the safety of situations in which experimental data is not available.

• Large hydrogen releases in refueling areas (200 mL/h and 250 mL/h) using different nozzle
materials and diameters did not generate hydrogen flames that are likely to spread to flammable
materials.

• Experiments were conducted to evaluate the potential explosion hazard associated with high-
pressure leaks from refueling systems compared the ‘worst-case’ condition of a premixed gas
cloud enveloping the vehicle with the results from an uncontrolled, full bore failure of a vehicle
refueling hose (40 MPa). The results indicate that, for a jet release, the turbulence on ignition has
a greater effect on explosiveness than does the total amount of fuel released. The implication is
that it is not necessary to release large quantities of hydrogen to obtain high overpressures
on ignition.

Allowable Collision Leakage Rates in the U.S., FMVSS 301 specifies the allowable amount of
fuel leakage of a gasoline vehicle in a collision (essentially 28g/min with a slightly higher
rate during the first 5 minutes after a crash). Similar specifications for Japan are provided in
the Road Transportation Vehicle Law, Appendix 10 (41 NL/min; 30 g/min). In addition, FMVSS
303 specifies the allowable amount of fuel leakage from a CNG vehicle as the amount of
leakage with generated heat equivalent to that of gasoline engines (40 NL/min; 28.6 g/min).

Researchers at the Japan Automobile Research Institute (JARI) conducted research to determine
the appropriateness of specifying the allowable amount of hydrogen leakage upon collision
similar to the method used for FMVSS 303 (based on the amount of leakage with generated heat
equivalent to that of gasoline vehicles). JARI’s research involved combustion tests on different
types of fuel (gasoline, CNG, and hydrogen) to compare parameters such as flame temperature,
flame size, and heat flux under seven different flow speeds;

Analysis of Published Hydrogen Vehicle Safety Research 53 downward-pointing flames; and with
other liquid flammable materials at the leakage rates specified in the FMVSS and Japanese
regulations.

• Gasoline: Flowrate = 41 NL/min (30 g/min)

• Methane: Flowrate = 40 NL/min (28.6 g/min)

• Hydrogen: Flowrate = 131 NL/min (11.8 g/min)

The results of the various tests showed that the flame lengths and temperatures near the flame
tip for upward hydrogen and methane flames are almost equal with no appreciable difference
between them in terms of the distance for assuring safety. Furthermore, they confirmed that
the irradiant heat flux from the mixed burning of hydrogen flame with liquid flammable
materials is almost equal to that of the gasoline leak. Thus, no clear difference was found
between various types of fuel. Therefore, JARI concluded that it would be appropriate to
specify the allowable amount of hydrogen leakage based on the amount of leakage with
generated heat equivalent to that of other types of fuel.