i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Review Article

Hydrogen storage and delivery: Review of the state

of the art technologies and risk and reliability
analysis

Ramin Moradi*, Katrina M. Groth

Systems Risk and Reliability Analysis Lab (SyRRA), Center for Risk and Reliability, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD, 20742, USA

article info abstract

Article history: Among all introduced green alternatives, hydrogen, due to its abundance and diverse
Received 8 January 2019 production sources is becoming an increasingly viable clean and green option for trans-
Received in revised form portation and energy storage. Governments are considerably funding relevant researches
4 March 2019 and the public is beginning to talk about hydrogen as a possible future fuel. Hydrogen
Accepted 5 March 2019 production, storage, delivery, and utilization are the key parts of the Hydrogen Economy
Available online 28 March 2019 (HE). In this paper, hydrogen storage and delivery options are discussed thoroughly. Then,
since safety and reliability of hydrogen infrastructure is a necessary enabling condition for
Keywords: public acceptance of these technologies and any major accident involving hydrogen can be
Hydrogen safety difficult to neutralize, we review the main existing safety and reliability challenges in
Hydrogen storage hydrogen systems. The current state of the art in safety and reliability analysis for
Hydrogen delivery hydrogen storage and delivery technologies is discussed, and recommendations are
Reliability mentioned to help providing a foundation for future risk and reliability analysis to support
Safety safe, reliable operation.
Risk assessment © 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12255
Drivers of hydrogen technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12255
The importance of risk and reliability analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12255
Purpose and organization of this paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12255
Hydrogen storage technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12256
Physical-based storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12256
Compressed H2 storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12256
Liquid/cryogenic H2 storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12256
Cryo-compressed H2 storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12257

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: raminmrd@umd.edu (R. Moradi), kgroth@umd.edu (K.M. Groth).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.041
0360-3199/© 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9 12255

Material-based H2 storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12258

Chemical sorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12258
Physical sorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12258
Large scale H2 storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12258
Hydrogen delivery technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12259
Gaseous hydrogen delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12259
Gaseous hydrogen transportation with pipelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12259
Gaseous hydrogen transportation with tube trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12259
Liquid hydrogen delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12259
Hydrogen carriers (material based) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12259
Risk/reliability assessment of hydrogen systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12260
Problems to address and related studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12260
Material properties-related issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12260
Hydrogen handling-related issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12261
Remaining useful life estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12262
Quantitative risk/reliability assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12263
Recommendations and potential future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12263
Data collection and modularization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12263
Expanding the application of Bayesian Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12264
Higher-level reliability and feasibility analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12265
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12265
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12266

The importance of risk and reliability analysis

Introduction
Drivers of hydrogen technology
Hydrogen is becoming an increasingly viable clean, green
option for transportation and energy storage. Hydrogen has
the highest energy content by weight, and when used in fuel
cells produces only water as a byproduct. Another feature of
hydrogen is that it can be stored in small and large quantities
by a number of methods. In addition, hydrogen can be pro-
duced by a diverse mix of energy sources, and can play an
important role in energy storage and U.S. energy security [1].
Hydrogen can be utilized as a very low emission fuel for the
transportation sector, heating and cooling purposes, storing
excess generated electricity and also making the possibility of
using that stored hydrogen for transport application that
would unify transport and power energy sectors. One can
imagine a whole city running on hydrogen with almost zero
pollution, as illustrated by pilot projects like Fukuoka Japan.
This flexibility is a driver behind the vision of a Hydrogen
Economy (HE) [2].
Another advantage of hydrogen is that there is already a
huge global market for hydrogen gas (predicted market value
of $154:74 billion by 2022 [3]), because it is widely used in re-
fineries for hydrocracking and desulphurization purposes, in
agriculture for fertilizer production, and in ammonia and
methanol production, food processing, and etc. The existence
of this market provides a good starting point because the in-
dustry is familiar with hydrogen and a portion of the required
production, storage, delivery, and utilization infrastructure is
already in place.
Safety and reliability of the required infrastructure is a
necessary condition for the HE to become a reality. The system
designs should be robust, with the ability to demonstrate
levels of safety equivalent to, or safer than the currently used
technology. Utilization of hydrogen for new applications is in
its early stages, and early stage technologies often experience
“early life” or “infant mortality” failures [4]. While hydrogen,
like many fuels, is flammable, hydrogen also faces increased
public concern about hydrogen-related hazards due to major
accidents involving hydrogen including the Hindenburg fire in
1937 and the hydrogen explosion in Fukushima nuclear plant
in 2011 [5]. As such, even minor incidents involving hydrogen
systems (fuel stations, storage facilities) could significantly
delay the development, deployment and public acceptance of
hydrogen technologies. Safe, reliable performance of these
systems in the early years of utilization can build trust among
people, and this public opinion has an important impact on
policies [6]. Therefore, ensuring safe and reliability systems is
a critical accelerating factor in development and deployment
of hydrogen technologies.
Purpose and organization of this paper
In this paper, we review the current state of the art in risk and
reliability analysis for hydrogen technologies, and identify
research needs and gaps relevant to ensuring continuing safe,
reliable operation. The focus is on two key sections of
hydrogen economy: hydrogen delivery and hydrogen storage.
Hydrogen storage is required in a range of capacities and at
various operating conditions to support consumer's demand,
12256 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
and hydrogen delivery is essential to make this green energy
carrier widely accessible.
In the current study, the sections of storage and delivery
are reviewed with the following purposes:
1 Describing hydrogen storage and delivery technologies
(Sections Hydrogen storage technologies and Hydrogen
delivery technologies)
2 Explaining current work in risk and reliability for hydrogen
storage and delivery (Section Risk/reliability assessment of
hydrogen systems)
3 Identifying gaps, challenges, possible future work for
hydrogen systems risk and reliability (Section
Recommendations and potential future research
directions and Conclusions)
The review has been performed by referring to journal ar-
ticles, US Department of Energy reports, and relevant industry
literature. We focused on reviewing the most recent publica-
tions, with the majority being published in the past five years.
Hydrogen storage technologies
Hydrogen storage is a key element in hydrogen energy sys-
tems, especially when it comes to large scale utilization of
hydrogen. To address the current and potential future de-
mands of hydrogen energy market, having a robust and reli-
able storage solution for each application is vital. Hydrogen
storage applications in the context of hydrogen economy are
summarized in Fig. 1. The applications of hydrogen storage
can be divided in two groups: stationary and mobile applica-
tions. Stationary storage methods are mainly for on-site
storage at either point of production or use, and for station-
ary power generation. Mobile applications are either for the
purpose of transporting the stored hydrogen to point of stor-
age or use, or use of hydrogen in a vehicle.
Hydrogen has a low energy density by volume in compar-
ison to fossil fuels (9:9MJ=m3 LHV(Lower Heating Value) [7])
which could result in extremely large storage vessels. To avoid
that, at least one of the three following features are required to
store sufficient quantity of hydrogen: high storage pressure,
low storage temperature, or using a material that attracts
large amount of hydrogen molecules. Note that large scale
Fig. 1 e Types of hydrogen storage applications: Stationary
that includes on-site storage at point of production or use
and stationary power generation. Mobile applications
include vehicle fuel and hydrogen transportation.
storage is not the focus of this study, and will be only briefly
discussed in Section Large scale H2 storage.
The hydrogen storage technologies can be divided into two
main groups: physical-based and material-based, as demon-
strated in Fig. 2. The first group includes storing hydrogen as
compressed gas, cold/cryo-compressed, and liquid hydrogen
storage. Material-based storage has two main sub-groups of
chemical sorption/chemisorption and physical sorption/
physisorption [8].
Physical-based storage
Compressed H2 storage
There are four types of pressure vessels that can be used for
storing hydrogen [9].

Type I: Fully metallic pressure vessels. This type is the
most conventional, least expensive, and also heaviest with
approximately 3.0 lb=L.They are normally made from
aluminum or steel and can contain pressures up to 50 MPa.

Type II: Steel pressure vessel with a glass fiber composite
overwrap. The steel and composite material share about
the same amount of structural load. Manufacturing Type II
vessels costs about 50% more than Type I, but they offer
30e40% less weight. This type of pressure vessel has the
highest pressure tolerance.

Type III: Full composite wrap with metal liner. The struc-
tural load is mainly carried by the composite structure
(carbon fiber composite) and the liner (aluminum) is for
sealing purposes. In this type of pressure vessel the metal
liner shares about 5% of mechanical load. This type of
pressure vessel has proven to be reliable for 45 MPa
working pressure but still has problems with passing the
againg tests at 70 MPa [9]. Type III provides 0.75e1 lb=L
weight, which is about half of the type II but their cost
would be twice the cost of Type II.

Type IV: Fully composite. Commonly a polymer like High
Density Polyethylene, HDPE, is used as liner and carbon
fiber or carbon-glass composites are used for carrying the
structural load. This type of pressure vessel is the lightest
yet again the price is still relatively very high. Type IV
pressure vessels can withstand pressures up to 100 MPa.
There is also a full composite, linerless pressure vessel (so-
called Type V) which is pre-commercial. This type was first
developed in 2010 by Composites Technology Development
Inc. Its first built vessel was 20% lighter than similar type IV
and had an operational pressure of 1.37 MPa [10] which at this
stage is far less than pressures required to store sufficient
amounts of hydrogen outside of laboratory use.
Liquid/cryogenic H2 storage
Liquifying hydrogen is done at very low temperatures
(  250 C) and maintaining hydrogen at such a low tempera-
ture is probably the main challenge of cryogenic hydrogen
storage. Liquifaction is both time and energy consuming and
up to 40% of energy content can be lost in the process as
apposed to about 10% energy loss in the Compressed
hydrogen storage [9]. Thus, this storage method is most often
used for medium to large-scale storage and delivery such as
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9 12257

Fig. 2 e Hydrogen Storage methods.

truck delivery and intercontinental hydrogen shipping as

illustrated in Fig. 3. Typically a cryogenic tanker can carry
5000 kg of hydrogen which is about five times the capacity of
compressed hydrogen gas tube trailers.
As far as the safety is concerned, cryogenic vessels have an
additional protection layer (vacuum jacket) in case of acci-
dents and also hydrogen has low adiabatic expansion energy
at cryogenic temperatures [12]. Therefore, in case of leakage or
tanker rupture a severe explosion wouldn't happen unless Fig. 4 e sample design for a material based storage unit. 1.
something cause ignition of the gas. Low temperature of the Container, 2. Storage material, 3. Gas filter, 4. Gas
leaked hydrogen gas can lead to damage and malfunctioning connector, 5. Transversal fins, 6. Water-cooled heat
of the adjacent valves or pressure relief devices which are not exchanger unit. Reproduced from Ref. [36] carbon fiber
rated for strictly. Such an accident happened in 2016 in a filament winded around a core is depicted.
cryogenic hydrogen lab. A pressure relief valve could not
operate at its set point since it was in a section that wasn't
expected to see a cryogenic temperature so wasn't rated promising with respect to storage and safety level. Cryo-
accordingly [13]. compressed storage provides high storage density (80 g/L,
which is about 10 g/L more than cryogenic storage), quick and
Cryo-compressed H2 storage efficient refueling, and high safety level due to the existence of
This method of hydrogen storage was first introduced by a vacuum enclosure [15]. Ahluwalia et al. have performed a
Aceves et al. [14]. Cryo-compressed hydrogen is a super crit- comprehensive technical assessment on this storage method
ical cryogenic gas. liquefaction does not happen and gaseous and concluded that it has the potential of meeting the ulti-
hydrogen will be compressed at about  233 C. It has proven mate DOE target for system gravimetric capacity, system

Fig. 3 e Left: Kawasaki heavy industry concept design for liquid hydrogen carriers and on the right: Cryogenic trailer [11].
12258 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
volumetric capacity, and hydrogen loss during dormancy [16].
As a technology that has the potential to be widely used, it is
important to consider it in research and development efforts.
However, main challenges still would be the availability and
cost of infrastructure.
Material-based H2 storage
For both chemical and physical sorption storage, some of the
base materials are initially in powder form (some are liquid
such as liquid organic hydrogen carriers). During charge and
discharge process of hydrogen heat is being produced/absor-
bed and powder shape material is not an efficient form of
material when it comes to heat transfer. Therefore, the base
materials are pre-processed by a number of methods sum-
marized by Ren et al. [35] which are casting, templating,
foaming, coating, and uniaxial pressing. Then processed ma-
terial will be fitted into a containment. In most cases a heat
exchanger for thermal management purposes is embedded in
the design of the containment, and connections for control-
ling hydrogen flow and filtration of the input and output
hydrogen gas as demonstrated by Lototskyy et al. [36]. As a
proof of concept, Jehan and Fruchart [37] have proposed a
design that can potentially be used for fueling station-scale
hydrogen storage. Nevertheless, as mentioned, commercial
usage of these methods is unlikely to happen in a close future
due to reasons that will be discussed in what follows (see
Fig. 4).
Chemical sorption
In chemical sorption, hydrogen molecules are split into atoms
and integrated with the chemical structure of the material.
Among all, metal hydrides are probably the most famous
group of materials that can be used for chemical sorption.
Detailed information and a comprehensive list of related ref-
erences about metal hydrides can be found in Refs. [35,38].
Lowering the cost, weight, and operating temperature,
enhancing the charge-discharge kinetics and controlling for-
mation of unwanted gases during desorption are the main
remaining challenges facing the chemical sorption materials.
In the above discussion, the focus was mainly on solid ma-
terials while it is worth mentioning that Liquid Organic
Hydrogen Carriers (LOHCs) are among the most promising
options. In LOHC storage systems, hydrogen is stored by
chemically bonding with hydrogen-lean molecules and it is
Table 1 e Maximum storage capacities (percentage of weight %wt) reported for a number of different physical and chemical
hydrogen storage methods.
Material-based storage method
Chemical Ammonia Borane
Metal Hydrides
Alanates
Formic Acid
Carbohydrate
Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers
Physical Carbon Materials
Zeolites
Glass Capillary Arrays
Glass Microspheres
released by going through a catalytic dehydrogenation [26].
These storage systems are attractive because they can be
managed easily in ambient conditions, the store and release
processes are carbon free, and the carrier liquid is not
consumed and can be used repeatedly. These carriers are not
toxic or corrosive and the storage pressure is low. While, the
issue is low hydrogen storage capacity (max reported value 7.2
%wt as mentioned in Table 1) and this would limit the appli-
cation of LOHCs [27].
Physical sorption
Porous material-based storage systems are potentially a mean
to achieve high capacity and reliable storage units. Among all
porous materials, Metal Organic Frameworks (MOFs), and
porous carbon materials are known to be most promising
[28,39]. Using this method will provide high surface area, low
hydrogen binding energy, faster kinetics in charge and
discharge processes, and low cost of the materials. Plus,
potentially physical absorption can mitigate thermal man-
agement issues during charge and discharge of the storage
unit. On the other hand, the issues involved with this method
are weight of the carrier materials, requirement of low tem-
perature and high pressure, and still low gravimetric and
volumetric hydrogen density [40]. As of today, Physical sorp-
tion technologies are far from being widely used since all ex-
periments have been conducted on small scales and the
performance criteria (like volumetric/gravimetric hydrogen
density, pressure and temperature) are not satisfactory.
Large scale H2 storage
In this study, large-scale storage term is used when grid-scale
energy storage is being discussed. For an industrial country
like Germany, this scale would mean double figure terawatts
of energy. In the future hydrogen economy, large-scale stor-
age can be used for storing the excess energy in the grid,
supplying a large number of customers by hydrogen, or a
combination of the two. The main method available is using
the artificially built salt caverns for storing hydrogen gas. Salt
caverns are a good option since salt is inert and it would not
react with hydrogen. About 170 caverns are being used in
Germany for storing natural gas, 3 in Texas, US, and 3 in the
UK. Therefore, the technical knowledge is already gained, but
this method is limited to certain regions. Typically, the vol-
ume of these caverns is about 700,000 m3 with maximum
Maximum reported storage capacity [%wt] References
19.4 [17,18]
12.6 [19,20]
9.3 [21,22]
4.4 [23,24]
14.8 [25]
7.2 [26,27]
8 [28,29]
9.2 [30,31]
10 [32,33]
14 [34]
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
operating pressure of 20 MPa. Another option is using the
depleted natural gas reservoirs or natural aquifer formations.
However, hydrogen reaction with micro-organisms and min-
erals in these caverns needs to be studied [41,42]. Under-
ground storage of hydrogen provides higher safety levels in
comparison with above-ground storage methods due to the
thickness of the walls and low operating pressure. However,
ecological and environmental concerns about the impacts of
hydrogen leakage through the walls to the neighboring areas,
plants, and organisms need to be addressed.
Hydrogen delivery technologies
Hydrogen delivery is a critical contributor to the cost, energy
use and emissions associated with hydrogen pathways. In the
case of centralized hydrogen production, hydrogen delivery to
end users includes two main phases: Transmission (delivery
of hydrogen from the production plants to the city gates), and
Distribution (delivery from the city gates to the fueling sta-
tions or end users). There are three main pathways for de-
livery, which depend largely on storage method:
1. Gaseous hydrogen delivery
2. Liquid hydrogen delivery
3. Material based hydrogen carriers
The choice of the delivery method will depend on specific
geographic and market characteristics like target population
and consuming behaviors, population density, size of refuel-
ing stations and market penetration of fuel cell vehicles and
other hydrogen-consuming units.
Gaseous hydrogen delivery
Gaseous hydrogen is transported by either compressed H2
pressure vessels (as described in Section Hydrogen storage
technologies arranged in tube trailers, and or via gas pipelines.
Gaseous hydrogen transportation with pipelines
Roughly 2600 km of hydrogen pipelines are available in United
States, mainly located near the mass hydrogen consumers
(refineries and ammonia plants) [43]. To use pipelines for
hydrogen delivery across the US, hundreds of thousands ki-
lometers of dedicated hydrogen pipeline is necessary [44]. As a
result, researchers and policy makers have started exploring
the use of the current natural gas pipeline infrastructure to
distribute hydrogen across the country.
Gaseous hydrogen transportation with tube trailers
Transportation of hydrogen gas via tube trailers has been
under attention by DOE and its collaborators from several
years ago. A report by HEXAGON Lincoln [45] describes the
steps taken to develop a high-pressure tube trailer, called
TITAN. The operating pressure of these tanks is 250 bar and
the total capacity of a TITAN is 616 kg of hydrogen considering
the mass of hydrogen stored in large tanks is approximately
7% of the tank weight.
12259
Utilizing tube trailers is of interest since generally it is the
simplest method in terms of infrastructure requirements.
Moreover, the history behind gaseous storage and trans-
portation of other gases has given us ample knowledge about
the physics involved. Another advantage of tube trailers is
that hydrogen loss is minor and compression cost at fueling
stations is low and can be further reduced by 60% according to
Elgowainy et al. [46] in comparison with liquid hydrogen
transportation which will be discussed in the next section. To
make sure the tube trailer is safe to use, several tests such as
hydrostatic burst, penetration test, leak before burst, pressure
and temperature cycle tests, etc. are performed. To name a
few issues of such products, one can mention liner blistering
due to saturation and decompression (observed experimen-
tally at 350 bar test pressure), high cost of manufacturing the
COPV vessels (70% of the total cost), still low storage capac-
ity of the tube trailer, and limitations on dimensions
and maximum pressure in tanks, enforced by transport
regulations.
Liquid hydrogen delivery
Despite the higher energy loss mentioned before, this
method is considered to be economical for high demands
(above 500 kg/day) and mid range distances [47]. A report by
California Air Resources Board (CARB) [48] anticipates that
hydrogen fueling stations will be supplied by liquid hydrogen
by 2020e2025 due to much higher storage capacity. Cryo-
genic hydrogen delivery consists of three main stages: liq-
uifaction, storage (Discussed in Section Compressed H2
storage), and transportation with cryogenic tanks to the
end users. There are eight existing liquefaction plants in
North America with production capacity of 5e10 metric ton
per day (tpd). If liquid hydrogen is to become the future de-
livery path, to supply the future hydrogen market with the
proper amounts of hydrogen, more liquefaction plants with
higher production rates, less specific energy consumption
(up to 40% reduction is required to meet the target value of 6
kwh per kg of liquid hydrogen), lower capital cost, and higher
efficiency is required. Cardella et al. have investigated best
approaches to obtain optimized large scale and economically
viable liquefaction processes [49,50]. There are also ongoing
efforts to develop more efficient processes. For example,
Asadnia and Mehrpooya [51] have proposed a new large-
scale liquefaction method with 7.69 kWh/(kgLH2), while the
current plants energy consumption is between 12.5 and
15 kWh/(kgLH2).
Hydrogen carriers (material based)
Material based hydrogen delivery has the potential to offer
higher safety levels, due to low storage pressure, manageable
properties at ambient conditions, and good gravimetric den-
sity compared to gaseous storage (as mentioned in a tube
trailer the weight of hydrogen is only 7% of the tank weight),
but they are not proper for high demands (more details are
discussed in material based storage Section Material based H2
storage).
12260 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9

Risk/reliability assessment of hydrogen systems

In this section, a number of factors that could negatively in-

fluence the reliability of storage and delivery systems are
categorized (see Table 2) and explained, Remaining useful life
estimation as a component level reliability measure is dis-
cussed, and quantitative risk and reliability assessment
studies related to hydrogen Systems are reviewed. Finally,
challenges of reliability analysis of hydrogen systems and
recommendations to improve it are introduced.

Problems to address and related studies

Fig. 5 e FRP pipeline installation [62].
Material properties-related issues
Hydrogen impact on materials: hydrogen embrittlement is an
important concern when it comes to steels. Several steel types
manufacturers (Such as Fiberspar LinePipe, LLC) [58]. FRP is
have been analyzed in different studies. For example, Siddiqui
mainly used in upstream oil and gas industry. FRP pipelines
and Abdullah [52] showed that by increasing hydrogenation
commonly consist of an inner non-permeable liner, a pro-
time the reduction of ductility in 0.31% carbon steel would
tective layer on the liner, an interface layer between the pro-
increase. Hardie et al. [53] investigated the impact of cathodic
tective layer and the reinforcement layers, multiple glass or
protection systems on the susceptibility to hydrogen embrit-
carbon fiber reinforcement layers, an outer pressure barrier
tlement in X60, X80 and X100 by straining the specimens
layer, and an outer protective layer. The pipeline has the
made of each steel at 2:8105 s1 after cathodic charging of the
desirable mechanical properties and usually about 0.5 mile of
samples at various current densities. They concluded that
continuous pipe can be unspooled and trenched. Adjoining
charging current densities above 0.44 mAmm2 would make a
segments of pipeline can be joined without welding using
distinct difference in hydrogen embrittlement susceptibility.
simple connection techniques. The installation of FRP pipe-
Capelle et al. [54] have performed burst test on notched X52
lines is less demanding in terms of labor, heavy machinery,
pipes after being in contact with hydrogen either from inside
space etc., therefore right-of-way restrictions would become
the pipe or outside. Also, they Showed the existence of a
less problematic. This material lowers installation cost of
critical hydrogen concentration that results in a significant
hydrogen pipeline by 30%. In addition, it was accepted into the
loss of local fracture resistance (4:3106 mol=cm3 for the spe-
ASME B31.12 (Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines Code) in 2016 for
cific test condition). Amaro et al. [55] have formulated fatigue
service up to 170 bar. According to the report by Rawles et al.
crack growth in X100 steel material and Nanninga et al. [56]
[58], technical targets for FRP hydrogen pipeline are: distri-
have compared embrittlement behavior of X52, X65 and
bution pipeline lifetime: 50 years, pressure: 100 bar, leakage:
X100 steel in a high pressure hydrogen gas environment and
0.02%. Steel welding spots are another subject of analysis. A
concluded that hydrogen embrittlement increases with
project performed by Sandia and Oakridge national labs [59]
increasing two factors, the first factor is hydrogen pressure,
has tried to characterize the behavior of steel pipeline welds
and the second is alloy strength. Alloy strength plays a
when encountering hydrogen gas. As mentioned, there is an
role since lower yield strength would decrease the stress
inclination towards using the natural gas pipeline to distribute
concentration in the notch or crack roots due to plastic
hydrogen.
deformation. Consequently, more stress is required for the
Here comes the question of how hydrogen would affect the
crack to propagate [57].
end users such as natural gas turbines, gas-fueled internal
One approach, rather than using other types of steel, to
combustion engines and even household boilers and ovens in
tackle hydrogen impact on pipeline steel material is to utilize
the long term. Despite several projects like NATURALHY [60]
materials like Fiber Reinforced Polymer (FRP) (see Fig. 5). A
and H21 [61], there is still a lack of actual operation or large
DOE funded project performed by Savannah River National
scale experiments data to evaluate this impact. Another
Laboratory (SRNL) has been investigating the use of FRP
approach can be extracting hydrogen from the natural gas
pipelines since 2006 in collaboration with FRP pipe
pipelines at the gates of the cities and then distribute it in
cities by other means. In this case, hydrogen will be used only
for transportation and other hydrogen specific applications.
Table 2 e List of factors that can negatively impact This would solve end users concern but extraction units’
reliability of hydrogen systems. reliability and economical assessments should be done, their
Material properties Hydrogen handling locations should be optimized based on cost, risk and safety
related issues related issues concerns, and so forth.
Hydrogen impact on materials Temperature variation Liner blistering in pressure vessels: in a COPV pressure
Liner blistering Compression process vessel, a polymer liner is assembled with a metallic boss and
Damage mechanisms of carbon fibers Pressure fluctuation wrapped with carbon fiber composites. Liner is used to ensure
Fire encounter of COPVs Hydrogen leakage that the vessel is sealed. Under high pressures, plastic liner
Contamination
absorbs hydrogen gas and if depressurization occur too fast,
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
then the accumulated gas cannot escape by diffusion and
blistering happens. Yersak et al. [63] have developed a model
to predict blistering as a function of liner thickness and
depressurization rate. Pepin et al. [64] built a test rig that en-
ables replicating liner blistering and separation on small
samples by explosive decompression rather than performing
test on cylinders. This approach could accelerate the process
of understanding the physics of liner failure. Blistering is
related to liner permeability in different pressures and tem-
peratures, liner thickness, max pressure in the cylinder, re-
sidual pressure after emptying and rate of emptying. Still, the
question of how exactly blistering can affect leakage in pres-
sure vessels needs to be addressed and a definitive measure
for material and manufacturing process selection should be
devised (see Fig. 6).
Damage mechanisms of carbon fibers: composite pressure
vessels are known as very complex structures whose proper-
ties depend on a large number of parameters. Understanding
the physics behind fiber breaks, delamination, matrix
cracking, dome geometry impact on burst pressure of the
composite tanks, and how they resist against different kinds
impact is vital to design a reliable storage vessel. For instance,
Ramirez et al. [65] have performed simulation and experi-
mental validation of bursting of a 700 bar type IV hydrogen
vessel and have been able to predict the burst pressure with
7.74% error. Damage mechanisms of carbon fiber have been
analyzed by Wu et al. [66] by experimental and numerical
analysis of damage mechanisms by changing impact force,
shape of the impactor, duration of impact, and Demir et al. [67]
investigated the effect of single and repetitive impacts on
burst pressure of glass fiber reinforced composite pressure
vessels and observed a 47% decrease in burst pressure.
Despite the mentioned studies, Composite materials proper-
ties vary considerably by stacking procedure, fiber density and
so forth. Therefore, exact properties are very hard to achieve
and as proposed by Ref. [65], using probabilistic approaches
for predicting fiber failures is a reasonable path forward.
Resistance to fire and high temperature in storage vessels:
whenever resins and polymers are used, the maximum
operational temperature would be a concern for engineers
since commonly they are much more vulnerable to high
temperatures in comparison to metallic materials. Accord-
ingly, fire protection and understanding the composite ma-
terials behavior in fire is of great importance, especially when
it comes to on-board applications since a vehicle can be in
diverse locations with different populations and surrounding
Fig. 6 e HDPE liner before (On the left) and after (on the right) hydrogen cycling [45].
12261
conditions. Ruban et al. [68] did bone-fire test on fully com-
posite hydrogen storage vessels and showed that the increase
in pressure before bursting or leakage is minor (maximum
12.7%) and burst delay (time before burst) is in the range of
6e12 min, depending on the initial pressure of the vessel,
which is not acceptable. To become able to predict composite
cylinder behavior in fire without necessarily doing experi-
ments, Saldi and Wen [69] simulated a Type IV cylinder
response to fire via a combined CFD-FE module and predicted
the burst delay pretty accurately. Failure prediction of the
current designs is one aspect of this problem. Another aspect
would be what can be done to protect these cylinders from
burst since it is already known that they have relatively poor
resistance to fire. A common protection method in hydrogen
storage vessels is Thermally activated Pressure Relief Device
(TPRD), this device empties the vessels in case of elevated
temperatures to reduce the chance of burst/explosion. Ruban
et al. also concluded that to reduce the flame length in case of
TPRD activation, an opening of 0.5 mm diameter would be able
to safely release hydrogen (current diameters are 3.6e6 mm),
this proposed reduction would result in a considerable
decrease in hydrogen flame length from 11-18 me1.5 m at
pressure 70 MPa. Another method to protect high pressure
storage vessels from fire is to apply intumescent paint on their
outer surface. Kim et al. [70] simulated the impact of intu-
mescent paints on fire resistance of hydrogen pressure vessels
and concluded that using these paints would decrease the
required TPRD opening diameter which consequently would
make the operation of pressure vessels safer. In another study
by Kuroki et al. [71], the impact of using container walls
around above-ground hydrogen storage vessels in a fueling
station is investigated. This study proves that container walls
are able to greatly reduce the radiative heat flux from a fire
located near the storage tanks. Therefore, there is a number of
strategies to mitigate the problem of fire resistance of storage
tanks:
1. Protecting them from the heat by containers, insulations,
2. Preventing burst and rupture in case of fire by using TPRDs
and similar mechanisms
3. Improving design and material properties
Hydrogen handling-related issues
Temperature variation: another factor to take into consider-
ation for selecting materials and design purposes is hydrogen
12262 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
temperature variation inside tanks during filling and
emptying, in nozzles used in fueling stations [72], and in
pumps and compressors used to handle hydrogen [73]. CFD
simulations, and experimental measurements have been
performed during filling, holding pressure and emptying of
the pressure vessels [74e76]. Determining the best location
of installing measurement devices is of interest but not
known yet (specifically for onboard applications). Estimating
the temperature inside the tank by monitoring external
temperatures (bosses and outer surface) is another measure-
ment approach which is being investigated and can be
more convenient (to install and maintain) but it would require
more experimental data to calibrate sensors accurately.
Temperature changes, in the long term, can result in a shorter
lifetime of storage vessels unless design improvements be
applied.
Hydrogen leakage: hydrogen molecules are light and small.
Therefore, they can permeate through materials and/or
penetrate in normally fine seals relatively easily. As a com-
parison, leakage measurement has shown that volume
leakage rate of hydrogen in steel and ductile gas distribution
systems is about three times higher than natural gas. This
issue would become more important in the case of using
pipelines when it comes to long distances with thousands of
weld lines, numerous valves and pumps, several compressor
stations, etc. An analysis performed on Germany's natural gas
pipeline has shown a 0.00005% gas leakage rate for a 17%
hydrogen and natural gas blend [77]. Further research and
empirical data is needed to obtain a better gas loss estimate.
Especially for on-board applications, composite materials
offer low weights in comparison with metallic vessels.
Therefore, there is an inclination towards making full-
composite COPV for gas (liner-less) and even cryogenic fuel
storage (without a metallic liner). The main research focuses
are on crack and cycling behavior of the liner and composite
wrap interface, and liner material itself [78e80]. Gas leak from
elastomeric seals and joints in hydrogen systems is another
source of leakage that requires attention. Yamabe et al. have
studied the behavior of plastic and rubber seals in confron-
tation with hydrogen gas, effects of fillers on rubber com-
posites behavior when exposed to high-pressure hydrogen
[81], fracture behavior of EPDM rubber O-ring under cyclic
exposure to hydrogen gas [82], and utilization of acoustic
emission to detect rubber seals internal fractures after
enduring high-pressure hydrogen cycles [83]. Another point of
view in studying gas leakages is detection. Specifically, in
enclosed areas where the leakage might have severe conse-
quences. Since hydrogen is odorless and colorless, people
would not realize if there is a leak. Thus, sensors should
be accurate and reliable. Fortunately, good advances has
been made on this front as explained thoroughly by Hubert
et al. [84].
Contamination: if the current natural gas pipeline were
going to be used to transport hydrogen, an important
consideration would be the unknown amount of corroded
spots in the pipelines. Hydrogen gas may become contami-
nated by the corroded materials, which would require purifi-
cation for certain applications like fuel cells. Another source of
contamination can be lubricating oils in pumps and com-
pressors. Thus, zero-lubrication leakage or non-lubricated
designs are needed. Water degas from polymer liners in
composite storage vessels can become another source of
hydrogen contamination (for using hydrogen gas in fuel cells
very high purity is required) - 5 ppm specification. Prior
desiccation and keeping the moisture level low during pro-
duction could help preventing this issue. In our literature
survey, studies on how contamination can affect the perfor-
mance of fuel cells was found as reviewed by Cheng et al. [85],
but there was no study evaluating the mentioned
possible contamination sources and how they should be
compensated for.
Compression process: the compression and pumping
power required for hydrogen gas is higher than natural gas at
same flow rates due to lower molar mass of hydrogen, and
the fact that energy density of hydrogen by volume is one
third of natural gas. Therefore, more compression power is
required which translates into higher tip speeds in com-
pressors which would result in higher degradation rate, and
consequently shorter maintenance periods, better lubrication
requirement, and other reliability concerns that would come
into picture. Unless, design modifications compensate for
them.
Pressure fluctuations in pipelines: either using the current
natural gas pipelines (P2G) or having a devoted pipeline for
hydrogen distribution. Pressure fluctuation would exist in the
system due to variability in energy production rate of renew-
able sources in one hand, and variations in the demand for
hydrogen gas (due to seasonality, rush hours) on the other
hand. These fluctuations may severely damage the distribu-
tion network, as explained by Yu et al. [86]. In this study,
different loadings based on possible routine operational con-
ditions are applied on X60 steel pipe and it is shown that
pressure cycles can accelerate the corrosion crack propaga-
tion by a factor of 2.7 and 5.3 for tests in air and near-neutral
conditions. This result is alarming enough to motivate further
detailed analyses on this topic. Green gas injection into the
natural gas network has been modelled by Pellegrino et al. [87]
and it is concluded that bulk storage facilities are required to
balance the fluctuations in input and outputs of the system in
the P2G concept. This would emphasize on the need for
developing durable and reliable large storage vessels, which is
a relatively untouched research topic. Furthermore, Studies
are required to estimate the amplitude of the expected fluc-
tuations, characterize the impacts, and design the control
scenarios.
Remaining useful life estimation
Remaining Useful Life (RUL) is an estimate of the useful life
left in an item, component, or system, in accordance with its
intended purpose before replacement. RUL can be estimated
based on observations (condition and health monitoring, In-
spection), or average estimates of similar items, components,
or systems, or hybrid methods that combine the two [88].
Estimating RUL is pivotal in condition-based maintenance,
and prognostics and health management. Therefore, it would
affect safety evaluation, budget allocation, and maintenance
cost considerably. Components and systems that are being or
will be used in hydrogen economy can be divided in two
groups: group one, ones with abundant data and in-field
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
experience (like methane reforming production plants, Cryo-
genic storage vessels and so forth), and group two, ones that
are relatively new with limited in-field experience (COPVs,
hydrogen fueling station systems, and so forth). Clearly, the
knowledge about the functionality of the second group over
time is not sufficient for widespread implementation and
planning. As discussed in Section Problems to address and
related studies, a great amount of simulations, experiments,
and field tests are required for systems like composite storage
vessels, pipelines, pumps and compressors, and fueling sta-
tions in order to be able to more accurately plan the devel-
opment path of HE. Fuel Cells are one of the relatively new
hydrogen systems that are being analyzed thoroughly and
accurately. A good number of literature can be found on the
RUL estimation of fuel cells, utilizing up to date prognostics
and RUL estimation methods [89e91]. Fuel cells are a few steps
ahead of other new systems due to more funding and research
attention in addition to the fact that they are small and rela-
tively easy to handle in the lab environment for experiments.
As a result, proper quantity of data is generated for further
RUL and reliability analysis. This progress has made it
possible to have commercially available fuel cell cars on the
streets. This result should be motivating for going down the
same path for other new HE sub-systems.
Quantitative risk/reliability assessment
The purpose of Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) is to
provide information for decision making about a system,
though it is not the decision-making system. To illustrate, a
Common way that QRA can help making decisions is to
determine whether or not the risk of failure in a system is As
Low As Reasonably Practical (ALARP) or not. Commonly the
required steps to perform a QRA includes the steps illustrated
in Fig. 7 [92].
Hydrogen infrastructure and its usage in transportation
sector are new when it is being compared with natural gas
infrastructure. As a result, the amount of available data for
hydrogen related failures and accidents is limited and this is
mainly why performing a credible QRA is still challenging for
Fig. 7 e Main steps of the QRA process.
12263
hydrogen. Despite the difficulties in performing QRA for
hydrogen infrastructures, numerous papers have discussed it
to some extent and tried to improve the field. For instance,
Zhiyong et al. [93] investigated a hydrogen refueling station is
Shanghai, performed QRA, assessed the safety distances
considering EIHP2 (European Integrated Hydrogen Project
Phase 2) acceptance risk criteria and risk to station personnel,
costumers, and third parties. Jafari et al. [94] have gone
through hazard identification, scenario selection, conse-
quence modeling, frequency and risk estimation and per-
formed QRA for a hydrogen generation unit that uses natural
gas reforming process, identified the high risk regions in the
plant, the scenario with highest fatality, and safety distances.
Kikukawa et al. [95] have considered a liquid hydrogen fueling
station for performing risk assessment. Hazards and sce-
narios are identified, a risk matrix is made and safety mea-
sures are applied to the model to reduce the probability levels
of consequences. More similar studies can be found on other
cases of hydrogen systems, the issue is that each of these
studies has its own assumptions (CFD modeling, station
location assumptions, materials and equipment's properties,
etc.) and risk assessment method. Thus, it is a cumbersome or
even impossible task to integrate all of them and use them as a
uniform guideline for designing hydrogen systems required
for the proposed notion of hydrogen economy. Considering
the mentioned explanation on RUL and QRA and the dis-
cussed material in Sections Material properties-related issues
and Hydrogen handling-related issues, one can summarize
the challenges and gaps existing in risk and reliability analysis
of hydrogen systems, as follows [96]:

Lack of degradation, failure, and accident data

Detailed and validated probability models for hydrogen gas
ignition

Flame and gas detection accuracy and proper probability
models

Complexity of full CFD, FE, or the combination of the two,
simulation

Consideration of the impact of environment and humans

Controlling the variations in analyses due to difference in
assumptions
Recommendations and potential future research
directions
Data collection and modularization
To improve the quality of risk assessment in this field, having a
comprehensive database that researchers and industries can
have access to Ref. [97], and a set of widely accepted physics-
based formulations, probability models combined with most
accredited risk analysis tools/methods seems to be necessary.
Valuable efforts have been made to mitigate the issue of lacking
data. For instance, Hydrogen Incident and Accident Database
(HIAD) [98] is a collaborative and communicative online data-
base that is continually collecting and categorizing data. ARIA is
another source of hydrogen incident data which is less orga-
nized and less backed by European hydrogen community [99]. A
general categorization of QRA data in hydrogen systems is
12264 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
Fig. 8 e Types of data needed to perform QRA for a hydrogen system.
depicted in Fig. 8. As mentioned, accidents and root cause data
are not the only pieces in this puzzle and for being able to
properly assess the risks and predict the consequences of
various possible scenarios, one needs to know the hydrogen
physical behavior in different conditions, its interaction with
other materials and all other influencing parameters to be able
to accurately figure out the consequences and risks. For this
purpose, Sandia national lab has initiated HyRAM which is a
tool for hydrogen system's QRA [100].
HyRAM incorporates generic probabilities of failure for
nine types of hydrogen system components, hydrogen igni-
tion probabilities, and probabilistic models for taking into
account the impact of heat flux and pressure on humans and
structures. Moreover, hydrogen release and flame behavior is
modelled and the models are experimentally validated which
makes the consequence analysis faster since it reduces the
need for full CFD modeling of the system. HyRAM is able to
calculate three risk metrics:

FAR (Fatal Accident Rate): Expected number of fatalities per
100 million exposed hours

AIR (Average Individual Risk): Expected number of fatal-
ities per exposed individual

PLL (Potential Loss of Life): Expected number of fatalities
per dispenser-year
And has built-in models for physical behavior of:
- Hydrogen jets: width, velocity, density etc.
- Jet fires: flame length, heat flux etc.
- Deflagrations: ignitable volume, over-pressure etc.
LaFleur et al. [101] show in detail how HyRAM can be used,
what are its input and output parameters, and how it can
accelerate the process of risk analysis. Such projects can
considerably contribute to have higher quality risk assessment.
Expanding the application of Bayesian Networks
The phrase “Hydrogen system” incorporates various systems
with a wide range of complexity. A single pressure vessel or an
entire fueling station, delivery network or production plant,
each of these systems might be called hydrogen systems. For
simple examples usually methods that totally rely on data can
be used since data can be collected by performing an accel-
erated life testing on a device. While for larger systems, uti-
lizing the frequentist methods requires data for all
components, and how the components behave as an inte-
grated system. Although [93,94] are good examples of per-
forming classic QRA on hydrogen systems based on generic
data, assumptions and estimations, the existence of uncer-
tainty due to lack of data is the reason for an increasing
inclination in risk and reliability society towards using prob-
abilistic methods like Bayesian Networks (BN) [102]. A
Bayesian network builds a model based on the current
knowledge and narrows it down by taking into account new
information (observations) and thus reducing the uncertainty
of the model [103]. BNs were first defined by Ref. [104] back in
1985 and system risk and reliability assessments using BN
started few years later by Ref. [105]in 1987. From that time,
BNs have been becoming more and more popular in risk and
reliability analysis applications. Today, they are being used in
general system reliability modeling, Software reliability
assessment [102,106], prognostics and root cause detection
[107], human reliability assessment [108,109], and merging the
impact of human errors and operation environment with
system's reliability model [110,111]. BNs provide the following
features:
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9

Ability to use all available information. Even if that infor-
mation is obtained from outside experiments i.e. subjec-
tive information. In practice, a considerable portion of
available information is subjective.

A powerful tool for supporting decisions and decision
analysis.

Results with minimum amount of information.

Transparent visualization of component and causes and
effects dependencies.
Hamada [112] discusses the details of BNs implementation
in risk and reliability assessment. Kelly and Smith [113]
discuss the practical applications and more advanced imple-
mentation of Bayesian inference via Markov Chain Monte
Carlo approach (MCMC). Pasman and Rogers [103] Try to
explain how the BNs can improve the accuracy of risk analysis
by applying discrete, mixed discrete-continuous BN analysis
on a defined case. They conclude that BN can potentially
replace fault tree, event tree, and bow-tie methods. Many
examples of utilizing Bayesian networks to assess reliability of
industrial systems such as chemical process plants and nat-
ural gas fueling stations that are in essence similar to
hydrogen systems, can be found in the literature. For instance,
Khakzad et al. [114] have done a case study of assessing the
performance of a feeding control system in a gas process plant
and compared fault tree and BN methods. BN is identified as
the superior method due to updating and uncertainty
handling capability and inclusion of more complex casual
relationships. Zarei et al. [115] have utilized FMEA for hazard
analysis, bow-tie for cause and consequence analysis, and BN
to handle conditional dependencies and update the risk for
the worst case scenario in analyzing the safety of natural gas
stations. Xin et al. [116] demonstrated the application BN to
analyze hazard scenarios. A method is proposed to map ac-
cident scenarios to BN and update the BN by imposing the
existing evidences. Doing so will provide the possibilities of
occurrence, associated with different scenarios given the ev-
idences. As far as the hydrogen systems are concerned, there
are not that many studies using BNs maybe because hydrogen
economy has not proven itself as a certain future path yet.
Although valuable researches can be found in the literature.
For instance, Haugom and Friis-Hanse [117] re-investigated a
hydrogen fueling station risk analysis via BN, formerly per-
formed by classic QRA method. Authors acknowledged all the
mentioned benefits of using BN and its potential fitness to be
applied on hydrogen infrastructure risk analysis. This study is
the first that uses BN for hydrogen systems. In a higher level
risk analysis, Pasman and Rogers [118] used BN to perform risk
assessment for liquid hydrogen fueling station versus gaseous
fueling station and three different hydrogen supply trans-
portation methods. The results show that compressed
hydrogen fueling station combined with truck hydrogen de-
livery introduces the lowest risk level in comparison with
other scenarios. As explained, BN can be a powerful tool for
risk and reliability analysis but it has some drawbacks as well.
Due to the complexity of calculations and memory re-
quirements, its application for large systems is still limited.
Tien and Der Kiureghian [119] Tried to address this issue
by introducing a compression algorithm and an updating
12265
algorithm that can handle compressed matrices. Yet this
problem needs to be addressed and is an active research topic.
Higher-level reliability and feasibility analysis
As mentioned by Moen et al. [120], there are critical questions
about large scale utilization of hydrogen as the energy source
such as distributed production protocols, maintenance and
safety regulations, allowable impurity levels for each appli-
cation, critical measurement errors, and so forth. Exact anal-
ysis might not be possible but based on former experiences
with large-scale natural gas utilization we should be able to
address some of the mentioned concerns. For hydrogen to
become a widely used energy carrier, much further research
on the operation of a large and interconnected production,
storage, and delivery network is required.
Conclusion
An overview of the current state-of-the-art on the storage,
delivery, and the related safety and reliability open questions
was presented in this paper.
The hazards are well-known, and there is much progress
on material compatibility, storage capacity, and simulation
accuracy. However, topics like pressure vessel's production
cost, liner blistering issue, resistance to fire, contamination
and leakage control, and large scale utilization of hydrogen
have only preliminary studies, and need significant develop-
ment. Surveying the literature about hydrogen storage, the
following conclusions can be made:

Cryogenic and compressed storage are the most mature
technologies. Cryogenic has a poor energy efficiency and
compressed storage requires large volumes due to low
density of hydrogen.

Composite storage vessels reliability needs to be further
improved. Damage mechanisms, inspection methods, and
maintenance policies have to be determined.

Material-based storage methods are still in their early
development stage and need more time to prove them-
selves as viable long term solutions.
Assessing the status of methods for delivering hydrogen, it
was found that:

Gaseous delivery with tube trailers is not economically
viable for long distances and high demands, liquid
hydrogen tankers are a better option in that sense but their
energy loss is high (up to 40%). Pipeline is the most
reasonable solution but for it to be used, huge amount of
resources and high market demand is needed.

Selection of the delivery method should be based on
regional specifications and potentials, demand, and
economics.

Central hydrogen production would require careful selec-
tion of delivery method. On the other hand, the idea of
distributed hydrogen production is another pathway that
is being investigated by many researchers in the field and
12266 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
could potentially lessen difficulties of delivering hydrogen
to far destinations.
Identified gaps in reliability analysis of hydrogen systems
can be summarized as follows:

Experimental and on-site data is not sufficiently available
for almost all of the storage and delivery technologies
relevant to the hydrogen infrastructure. While there is
ample experimental research on the reliability of individ-
ual components, there is very little data collection on
hydrogen systems, and even fewer large-scale data
collection projects. Active data collection and categoriza-
tion are needed in reliability assessments. However, data
alone is not sufficient.

Adoption of appropriate modeling paradigms is necessary
to enable integration and appropriate use of all data. The
use of quantitative risk assessment methods, in combina-
tion with Bayesian analysis techniques, are critically
needed to enable robust system-level studies. Activities
such as HyRAM [100] are a step in the right direction, but
also require modernization. In addition to data needs, these
tools critically need: 1. Appropriate methods for handling
components dependency and 2. treatment of uncertainty.
Extension to include Bayesian Networks is a way to partly
resolve the former, and dynamic use of the consequence
simulation capabilities of HyRAM will address the latter.

The hydrogen safety community needs to explore the op-
portunities offered by advances in sensors, data collection
and prognostics. There is an opportunity to modernize the
approach to safety beyond classic QRA, bow-ties, and
HAZOPs, moving toward dynamic QRA methods and into
PHM. These more modern methods offer the opportunity
to advanced both safety evaluation and enable cost-
effective condition-based maintenance and regulation.
references
[1] Pivovar B, Rustagi N, Satyapal S. Hydrogen at scale
(H2@Scale): key to a clean, economic, and sustainable
energy system. Electrochem Soc Interface 2018;27(1):47e52.
https://doi.org/10.1149/2.F04181if.
[2] Bockris JOM. The hydrogen economy: its history. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2013;38(6):2579e88.
[3] Global trends and outlook for hydrogen. December 2017.
Tech Rep URL: http://ieahydrogen.org/pdfs/Global-Outlook-
and-Trends-for-Hydrogeny_Dec2017y_WEB.aspx.
[4] Modarres M, Kaminskiy MP, Krivtsov V. Reliability
engineering and risk analysis: a practical guide. 3rd ed. CRC
press; 2017.
[5] Itaoka K, Saito A, Sasaki K. Public perception on hydrogen
infrastructure in Japan: influence of rollout of commercial
fuel cell vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(11):7290e6.
[6] Page BI, Shapiro RY. Effects of public opinion on policy. Am
Pol Sci Rev 1983;77(1):175e90.
[7] White C, Steeper R, Lutz A. The hydrogen-fueled internal
combustion engine: a technical review. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2006;31(10):1292e305.
[8] Niaz S, Manzoor T, Pandith AH. Hydrogen storage:
materials, methods and perspectives. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2015;50:457e69.
[9] Barthelemy H, Weber M, Barbier F. Hydrogen storage: recent
improvements and industrial perspectives. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2017;42(11):7254e62.
[10] Legault M. Next-generation pressure vessels :
Compositesworld. Aug 2012. https://www.
compositesworld.com/articles/next-generation-pressure-
vessels. [Accessed 11 June 2018].
[11] Kawasaki hydrogen road, http://global.kawasaki.com/en/
hydrogen/, (Accessed on 11/06/2018).
[12] Petitpas G, Aceves S. Modeling of sudden hydrogen
expansion from cryogenic pressure vessel failure. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2013;38(19):8190e8.
[13] Burgess RM, Post MB, Buttner WJ, Rivkin CH. High pressure
hydrogen pressure relief devices: accelerated life testing
and application best practices, Tech. rep.. Golden, CO
(United States): National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL);
2017.
[14] Aceves SM, Espinosa-Loza F, Ledesma-Orozco E, Ross TO,
Weisberg AH, Brunner TC, Kircher O. High-density
automotive hydrogen storage with cryogenic capable
pressure vessels. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(3):1219e26.
[15] Stolten D, Samsun RC, Garland N. Fuel cells: data, facts, and
figures. John Wiley & Sons; 2016.
[16] Ahluwalia R, Hua T, Peng J-K, Lasher S, McKenney K,
Sinha J, Gardiner M. Technical assessment of cryo-
compressed hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive
applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(9):4171e84.
[17] Petit J-F, Miele P, Demirci UB. Ammonia borane h3nbh3 for
solid-state chemical hydrogen storage: different samples
with different thermal behaviors. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41(34):15462e70.
[18] Lan R, Irvine JT, Tao S. Ammonia and related chemicals as
potential indirect hydrogen storage materials. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(2):1482e94.
[19] Rusman N, Dahari M. A review on the current progress of
metal hydrides material for solid-state hydrogen storage
applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(28):12108e26.
[20] Sakintuna B, Lamari-Darkrim F, Hirscher M. Metal hydride
materials for solid hydrogen storage: a review. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(9):1121e40.
[21] von Colbe JMB, Lozano G, Metz O, Bücherl T, Bormann R,
Klassen T, Dornheim M. Design, sorption behaviour and
energy management in a sodium alanate-based lightweight
hydrogen storage tank. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2015;40(7):2984e8.
[22] Zaluska A, Zaluski L, Stro€ m-Olsen J. Sodium alanates for
reversible hydrogen storage. J Alloy Comp
2000;298(1e2):125e34.
[23] Fellay C, Dyson PJ, Laurenczy G. A viable hydrogen-storage
system based on selective formic acid decomposition with a
ruthenium catalyst. Angew Chem Int Ed 2008;47(21):3966e8.
[24] Joo F. Breakthroughs in hydrogen storageformic acid as a
sustainable storage material for hydrogen. ChemSusChem:
Chemistry & Sustainability Energy & Materials
2008;1(10):805e8.
[25] Zhang Y-HP. Renewable carbohydrates are a potential high-
density hydrogen carrier. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2010;35(19):10334e42.
[26] Preuster P, Papp C, Wasserscheid P. Liquid organic hydrogen
carriers (lohcs): toward a hydrogen-free hydrogen economy.
Accounts Chem Res 2016;50(1):74e85.
[27] Teichmann D, Arlt W, Wasserscheid P. Liquid organic
hydrogen carriers as an efficient vector for the transport
and storage of renewable energy. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37(23):18118e32.
[28] Xia Y, Yang Z, Zhu Y. Porous carbon-based materials for
hydrogen storage: advancement and challenges. J Mater
Chem 2013;1(33):9365e81.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
€ bel R, Garche J, Moseley P, Jo
[29] Stro € rissen L, Wolf G. Hydrogen
storage by carbon materials. J Power Sources
2006;159(2):781e801.
[30] Langmi H, Book D, Walton A, Johnson S, Al-Mamouri M,
Speight J, Edwards P, Harris I, Anderson P. Hydrogen storage
in ion-exchanged zeolites. J Alloy Compd 2005;404:637e42.
[31] Weitkamp J, Fritz M, Ernst S. Zeolites as media for hydrogen
storage. In: Proceedings from the ninth international zeolite
conference. Elsevier; 1993. p. 11e9.
[32] Zhevago N, Denisov E, Glebov V. Experimental investigation
of hydrogen storage in capillary arrays. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2010;35(1):169e75.
[33] Zhevago N, Chabak A, Denisov E, Glebov V, Korobtsev S.
Storage of cryo-compressed hydrogen in flexible glass
capillaries. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38(16):6694e703.
[34] Rambach GD. Hydrogen transport and storage in
engineered glass microspheres, Tech. rep.. CA (United
States): Lawrence Livermore National Lab.; 1994.
[35] Ren J, Musyoka NM, Langmi HW, Mathe M, Liao S. Current
research trends and perspectives on materials-based
hydrogen storage solutions: a critical review. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2017;42(1):289e311.
[36] Lototskyy MV, Davids MW, Tolj I, Klochko YV, Sekhar BS,
Chidziva S, Smith F, Swanepoel D, Pollet BG. Metal hydride
systems for hydrogen storage and supply for stationary and
automotive low temperature pem fuel cell power modules.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(35):11491e7.
[37] Jehan M, Fruchart D. Mcphy-energys proposal for solid state
hydrogen storage materials and systems. J Alloy Compd
2013;580:S343e8.
[38] Motyka T. Metal hydrides. Jan 2015. https://www.energy.
gov/sites/prod/files/2015/02/f19. [Accessed 11 July 2018].
[39] Zhu Q-L, Xu Q. Metaleorganic framework composites.
Chem Soc Rev 2014;43(16):5468e512.
[40] Zhang F, Zhao P, Niu M, Maddy J. The survey of key
technologies in hydrogen energy storage. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2016;41(33):14535e52.
[41] Cortogino F. Chapter 20: larger scale hydrogen storage.
Storing Energy 2016;41:411e29.
[42] Crotogino F, Donadei S, Bünger U, Landinger H. Large-scale
hydrogen underground storage for securing future energy
supplies. In: 18th World hydrogen energy conference, vol.
78; 2010. p. 37e45.
[43] Hydrogen pipelines d department of energy, https://www.
energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-pipelines, (Accessed on
11/14/2018).
[44] Doe hydrogen and fuel cells program: Doe H2A delivery
analysis, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2adelivery.
html, (Accessed on 11/14/2018).
[45] Baldwin D. Development of high pressure hydrogen storage
tank for storage and gaseous truck delivery. Tech. rep.
Lincoln, NE (United States): Hexagon Lincoln LLC; 2017.
[46] Elgowainy A, Reddi K, Sutherland E, Joseck F. Tube-trailer
consolidation strategy for reducing hydrogen refueling
station costs. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(35):20197e206.
[47] Hydrogen delivery roadmap. July 2017. https://www.energy.
gov/sites/prod/files/2017/08/f36. [Accessed 14 November
2018].
[48] Board CAR. Staff report: Initial statement of reasons.
October 2011. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2011/
soreci2011/soreisor.pdf. [Accessed 14 November 2018].
[49] Cardella U, Decker L, Klein H. Roadmap to economically
viable hydrogen liquefaction. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(19):13329e38.
[50] Cardella U, Decker L, Sundberg J, Klein H. Process
optimization for large-scale hydrogen liquefaction. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(17):12339e54.
12267
[51] Asadnia M, Mehrpooya M. A novel hydrogen liquefaction
process configuration with combined mixed refrigerant
systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(23):15564e85.
[52] Siddiqui R, Abdullah HA. Hydrogen embrittlement in 0.31%
carbon steel used for petrochemical applications. J Mater
Process Technol 2005;170(1e2):430e5.
[53] Hardie D, Charles E, Lopez A. Hydrogen embrittlement of
high strength pipeline steels. Corros Sci
2006;48(12):4378e85.
[54] Capelle J, Gilgert J, Dmytrakh I, Pluvinage G. Sensitivity of
pipelines with steel api X52 to hydrogen embrittlement. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(24):7630e41.
[55] Amaro RL, Rustagi N, Findley KO, Drexler ES, Slifka AJ.
Modeling the fatigue crack growth of x100 pipeline steel in
gaseous hydrogen. Int J Fatigue 2014;59:262e71.
[56] Nanninga N, Levy Y, Drexler ES, Condon R, Stevenson A,
Slifka AJ. Comparison of hydrogen embrittlement in three
pipeline steels in high pressure gaseous hydrogen
environments. Corros Sci 2012;59:1e9.
[57] Nanninga N, Grochowsi J, Heldt L, Rundman K. Role of
microstructure, composition and hardness in resisting
hydrogen embrittlement of fastener grade steels. Corros Sci
2010;52(4):1237e46.
[58] Rawles G. Fiber reinforced composite pipelines - DOE
hydrogen and fuel cells program FY 2015 annual progress
report. 2015. https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/
progress15. [Accessed 14 November 2018].
[59] Ronevich JA, Feng Z, Wang Y, Slifka A, Drexler L, Amaro R.
Fatigue performance of high-strength pipeline steels and
their welds in hydrogen gas service., Tech. rep.. Livermore,
CA (United States): Sandia National Lab.(SNL-CA); 2017.
[60] Florisson O, Gasunie NN. A step towards the hydrogen
economy by using the existing natural gas grid (the
naturalhy-project. 2010.
[61] D. Sadler, A. Cargill, M. Crowther, A. Rennie, J. Watt, S.
Burton, M. Haines, H21 leeds city gate, Northern Gas
Networks, London.
[62] Flexible,spoolable line pipe: Fiberglass, http://www.nov.
com/Segments/Completion_and_Production_Solutions/
Fiber_Glass_Systems/Oil_and_Gas, (Accessed on 11/14/
2018).
[63] Yersak TA, Baker DR, Yanagisawa Y, Slavik S, Immel R,
Mack-Gardner A, Herrmann M, Cai M. Predictive model for
depressurization-induced blistering of type IV tank liners
for hydrogen storage. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(48):28910e7.
[64] Pepin J, Laine
 E, Grandidier J-C, Benoit G, Mellier D,
Weber M, Langlois C. Replication of liner collapse
phenomenon observed in hyperbaric type IV hydrogen
storage vessel by explosive decompression experiments. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(9):4671e80.
[65] Ramirez JPB, Halm D, Grandidier J-C, Villalonga S, Nony F.
700 bar type IV high pressure hydrogen storage vessel burst-
simulation and experimental validation. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2015;40(38):13183e92.
[66] Wu Q, Chen X, Fan Z, Jiang Y, Nie D. Experimental and
numerical studies of impact on filament-wound composite
cylinder. Acta Mech Solida Sin 2017;30(5):540e9.
[67] Demir I, Sayman O, Dogan A, Arikan V, Arman Y. The
effects of repeated transverse impact load on the burst
pressure of composite pressure vessel. Compos B Eng
2015;68:121e5.
[68] Ruban S, Heudier L, Jamois D, Proust C, Bustamante-
Valencia L, Jallais S, Kremer-Knobloch K, Maugy C,
Villalonga S. Fire risk on high-pressure full composite
cylinders for automotive applications. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2012;37(22):17630e8.
12268 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
[69] Saldi Z, Wen J. Modeling thermal response of polymer
composite hydrogen cylinders subjected to external fires.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(11):7513e20.
[70] Kim Y, Makarov D, Kashkarov S, Joseph P, Molkov V.
Modelling heat transfer in an intumescent paint and its
effect on fire resistance of on-board hydrogen storage. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(11):7297e303.
[71] Kuroki T, Sakoda N, Shinzato K, Monde M, Takata Y.
Temperature rise of hydrogen storage cylinders by thermal
radiation from fire at hydrogen-gasoline hybrid refueling
stations. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(5):2531e9.
[72] Kuroki T, Sakoda N, Shinzato K, Monde M, Takata Y.
Prediction of transient temperature of hydrogen flowing
from pre-cooler of refueling station to inlet of vehicle tank.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(3):1846e54.
[73] Bourgeois T, Ammouri F, Baraldi D, Moretto P. The
temperature evolution in compressed gas filling processes:
a review. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43(4):2268e92.
[74] Gentilleau B, Touchard F, Grandidier J. Numerical study of
influence of temperature and matrix cracking on type IV
hydrogen high pressure storage vessel behavior. Compos
Struct 2014;111:98e110.
[75] De Miguel N, Cebolla RO, Acosta B, Moretto P, Harskamp F,
Bonato C. Compressed hydrogen tanks for on-board
application: thermal behaviour during cycling. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(19):6449e58.
[76] Melideo D, Baraldi D, Galassi MC, Ortiz Cebolla R, Acosta
Iborra B, Moretto P. CFD model performance benchmark of
fast filling simulations of hydrogen tanks with pre-cooling.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(9):4389e95. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.12.196.
[77] Melaina MW, Antonia O, Penev M. Blending hydrogen into
natural gas pipeline networks. a review of key issues. Tech.
rep. National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2013.
[78] Choi S, Sankar BV. Gas permeability of various graphite/
epoxy composite laminates for cryogenic storage systems.
Compos B Eng 2008;39(5):782e91. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesb.2007.10.010.
[79] Roy S, Benjamin M. Modeling of permeation and damage in
graphite/epoxy laminates for cryogenic fuel storage.
Compos Sci Technol 2004;64(13):2051e65. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compscitech.2004.02.014.
[80] Yokozeki T, Ogasawara T, Ishikawa T. Evaluation of gas
leakage through composite laminates with multilayer
matrix cracks: cracking angle effects. Compos Sci Technol
2006;66(15):2815e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compscitech.2006.02.024.
[81] Yamabe J, Nishimura S. Influence of fillers on hydrogen
penetration properties and blister fracture of rubber
composites for o-ring exposed to high-pressure hydrogen
gas. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(4):1977e89. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.11.105.
[82] Yamabe J, koga A, Nishimura S. Failure behavior of rubber
o-ring under cyclic exposure to high-pressure hydrogen gas.
Eng Fail Anal 2013;35:193e205. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.engfailanal.2013.01.034.
[83] Yamabe J, Matsumoto T, Nishimura S. Application of
acoustic emission method to detection of internal fracture
of sealing rubber material by high-pressure hydrogen
decompression. Polym Test 2011;30(1):76e85. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2010.11.002.
[84] Hubert T, Boon-Brett L, Black G, Banach U. Hydrogen sensors
a review. Sensor Actuator B Chem 2011;157(2):329e52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2011.04.070.
[85] Cheng X, Shi Z, Glass N, Zhang L, Zhang J, Song D, Liu Z-S,
Wang H, Shen J. A review of PEM hydrogen fuel cell
contamination: impacts, mechanisms, and mitigation. J
Power Sources 2007;165(2):739e56. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2006.12.012.
[86] Yu M, Chen W, Kania R, Van Boven G, Been J. Crack
propagation of pipeline steel exposed to a near-neutral pH
environment under variable pressure fluctuations. Int J
Fatigue 2016;82:658e66. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijfatigue.2015.09.024.
[87] Pellegrino S, Lanzini A, Leone P. Greening the gas network
the need for modelling the distributed injection of
alternative fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;70:266e86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.243.
[88] Si X-S, Wang W, Hu C-H, Zhou D-H. Remaining useful life
estimation a review on the statistical data driven
approaches. Eur J Oper Res 2011;213(1):1e14. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2010.11.018.
[89] Bressel M, Hilairet M, Hissel D, Bouamama BO. Extended
kalman filter for prognostic of proton exchange membrane
fuel cell. Appl Energy 2016;164:220e7.
[90] Sutharssan T, Montalvao D, Chen YK, Wang W-C, Pisac C,
Elemara H. A review on prognostics and health monitoring
of proton exchange membrane fuel cell. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2017;75:440e50.
[91] Jouin M, Gouriveau R, Hissel D, Pe ra M-C, Zerhouni N.
Prognostics of pem fuel cell in a particle filtering
framework. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(1):481e94.
[92] K. M. Groth, J. L. LaChance, A. P. Harris, Early-stage
quantitative risk assessment to support development of
codes and standard requirements for indoor fueling of
hydrogen vehicles, SAND2012-10150, Sandia National
Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
[93] Zhiyong L, Xiangmin P, Jianxin M. Quantitative risk
assessment on a gaseous hydrogen refueling station in
shanghai. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(13):6822e9.
[94] Jafari MJ, Zarei E, Badri N. The quantitative risk assessment
of a hydrogen generation unit. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2012;37(24):19241e9.
[95] Kikukawa S, Mitsuhashi H, Miyake A. Risk assessment for
liquid hydrogen fueling stations. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2009;34(2):1135e41.
[96] Pasman HJ. Challenges to improve confidence level of risk
assessment of hydrogen technologies. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2011;36(3):2407e13.
[97] Lowesmith B, Hankinson G, Chynoweth S. Safety issues of
the liquefaction, storage and transportation of liquid
hydrogen: an analysis of incidents and hazids. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2014;39(35):20516e21.
[98] Galassi MC, Papanikolaou E, Baraldi D, Funnemark E,
Håland E, Engebø A, Haugom GP, Jordan T, Tchouvelev AV.
HIADehydrogen incident and accident database. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(22):17351e7.
[99] Accidentology involving hydrogen la re fe
rence du retour
d’exprience sur accidents technologiques, Tech. rep.,
Ministry of ecology, energy, sustainable development, and
town and country planning. URL https://www.aria.
developpement-durable.gouv.fr/synthese/analyses-and-
feedback/accidentology-involving-hydrogen/?lang¼en.
[100] Groth KM, Hecht ES. Hyram: a methodology and toolkit for
quantitative risk assessment of hydrogen systems. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(11):7485e93.
[101] LaFleur AC, Muna AB, Groth KM. Application of quantitative
risk assessment for performance-based permitting of
hydrogen fueling stations. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(11):7529e35.
[102] Weber P, Medina-Oliva G, Simon C, Iung B. Overview on
Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk
analysis and maintenance areas. Eng Appl Artif Intell
2012;25(4):671e82.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 4 ( 2 0 1 9 ) 1 2 2 5 4 e1 2 2 6 9
[103] Pasman H, Rogers W. Bayesian networks make lopa more
effective, qra more transparent and flexible, and thus safety
more definable! J Loss Prev Process Ind 2013;26(3):434e42.
[104] J. Pearl, Bayesian netwcrks: a model cf self-activated
memory for evidential reasoning.
[105] Barlow RE. Using influence diagrams accelerated life testing
and experts opinions in reliability, Tech. rep.. Berkeley:
Operations Research Center at the University of California;
1987.
[106] Tosun A, Bener AB, Akbarinasaji S. A systematic literature
review on the applications of Bayesian networks to predict
software quality. Software Qual J 2017;25(1):273e305.
[107] Ferreiro S, Arnaiz A, Sierra B, Irigoien I. Application of
Bayesian networks in prognostics for a new integrated
vehicle health management concept. Expert Syst Appl
2012;39(7):6402e18.
[108] Groth KM, Mosleh A. Deriving causal Bayesian networks
from human reliability analysis data: a methodology and
example model. Proc Inst Mech Eng O J Risk Reliab
2012;226(4):361e79.
[109] Mkrtchyan L, Podofillini L, Dang VN. Bayesian belief
networks for human reliability analysis: a review of
applications and gaps. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2015;139:1e16.
[110] Mohaghegh Z, Kazemi R, Mosleh A. Incorporating
organizational factors into probabilistic risk assessment
(PRA) of complex socio-technical systems: a hybrid
technique formalization. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
2009;94(5):1000e18.
~ o A, Grande Z, Sa
[111] Castillo E, Calvin  nchez-Cambronero S,
Gallego I, Rivas A, Mene ndez JM. A markovianeBayesian
network for risk analysis of high speed and conventional
12269
railway lines integrating human errors. Comput Aided Civ
Infrastruct Eng 2016;31(3):193e218.
[112] Hamada M. Bayesian reliability. Springer; 2011.
[113] Kelly DL, Smith CL. Bayesian inference in probabilistic risk
assessment ethe current state of the art. Reliab Eng Syst Saf
2009;94(2):628e43.
[114] Khakzad N, Khan F, Amyotte P. Safety analysis in process
facilities: comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network
approaches. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2011;96(8):925e32.
[115] Zarei E, Azadeh A, Khakzad N, Aliabadi MM,
Mohammadfam I. Dynamic safety assessment of natural
gas stations using Bayesian network. J Hazard Mater
2017;321:830e40.
[116] Xin P, Khan F, Ahmed S. Dynamic hazard identification and
scenario mapping using Bayesian network. Process Saf
Environ Protect 2017;105:143e55.
[117] Haugom G, Friis-Hansen P. Risk modelling of a hydrogen
refuelling station using Bayesian network. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2011;36(3):2389e97.
[118] Pasman HJ, Rogers WJ. Risk assessment by means of
Bayesian networks: a comparative study of compressed and
liquefied h2 transportation and tank station risks. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(22):17415e25.
[119] Tien I, Der Kiureghian A. Algorithms for Bayesian network
modeling and reliability assessment of infrastructure
systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2016;156:134e47.
[120] Moen C, LaFleur CB, San Marchi CW. Hydrogen safety, risk
assessment, and material compatibility R&D, Tech. rep.,
Sandia National Lab.(SNL-CA), Livermore, CA (United
States). Albuquerque, NM (United States): Sandia National
Lab.(SNL-NM); 2017.