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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

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

Impact of pipelines on cooling demand

in the gaseous hydrogen refueling station

Yimei Wu, Xudong Geng, Jianye Chen**, Shuangquan Shao*

School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China

highlights

Effects of pipelines in different positions on cooling demand are investigated.

Flow resistance of all pipelines increases the total cooling demand.

Heat dissipation to pipe before heat exchanger reduce the total cooling demand.

Heat absorption from pipes after break-away endangers refueling safety.

Peak cooling demand is much higher than the average.

article info abstract

Article history: Hydrogen precooling is an effective method to realize safe, adequate, and fast filling for
Received 18 September 2022 fuel cell vehicles. Estimating cooling demand is essential for the precooling unit configu-
Received in revised form ration and energy analysis. Complex pipelines exist between the station's storage tanks
19 February 2023 and the vehicle cylinder. However, their impact on the cooling demand is often under-
Accepted 12 March 2023 estimated. In this paper, a thermodynamic model of the whole hydrogen refueling process
Available online 4 April 2023 was established to investigate the impact of pipelines in different positions. Accordingly,
the influence of pipelines on the thermodynamic parameters was analyzed. Then the ef-
Keywords: fects on the precooling performance were concluded. The results show that flow resistance
Hydrogen refueling station before the breakaway increases total cooling demand by 9.9%. Meanwhile, heat dissipation
Cooling demand through the pipe, located between the control valve and the heat exchanger, smoothens
Pipeline resistance the cooling demand curve and reduces the total cooling demand by 5.7%. After the break-
Heat transfer effect away, the flow resistance of pipelines significantly changes the mass flow rate curve and
cooling demand. Heat absorption from the pipe wall slightly influences the cooling demand
but jeopardizes refueling safety.
© 2023 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

One of the most crucial foundational infrastructures for fuel

Introduction
Hydrogen-based fuel cell electric vehicles have comparative
refueling time and driving mileage [1,2] against conventional
fossil fuel vehicles, making the fuel cell electric vehicle a
promising alternative in the clean transportation sector [3,4].
cell electric vehicles is the hydrogen refueling station (HRS) [5].
Compressed gaseous storage technology [6] is widely used to
improve the volumetric energy density of hydrogen both in
the HRS and onboard [7,8]. During a rapid refueling process,
the gas temperature inside the vehicle cylinder (VC) will in-
crease a lot [9e11] due to the reversed Joule-Thomson (J-T)

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jianye_chen@hust.edu.cn (J. Chen), shaoshq@hust.edu.cn (S. Shao).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.03.168
0360-3199/© 2023 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5 24413

Nomenclature i Inner
in Inlet
Symbols o Outer
A Area (m2) out Outlet
c Heat capacity (J=ðkg
KÞ) p Peak
Cm Mass flow parameter () up Upstream
Cq Equivalent flow coefficient () w Wall
D Diameter (m)
Greek letters
f Friction factor for pipe ()
a Convective coefficient (W=ðm2
KÞ)
h Specific enthalpy (J/kg)
d Wall thickness (mm)
KV Flow coefficient ()
r Density (kg=m3 )
L Length (m)
l Heat conductivity (W=ðm
KÞ)
m_ Mass flow rate (kg/s)
P Pressure (Pa) Abbreviations
q Heat flow rate(W) APRR Average pressure ramp rate
Q Total cooling demand (kWh) BA Break-away coupling
SG Specific gravity () CSA Cascade storage assembly
T Temperature ( C) CV Pressure control valve
t Time(s) HEX Heat exchanger
V Volume (m3) HRS Hydrogen refueling station
V_ Volume flow rate (m3/s) J-T Joule-Thomson
PCU Precooling unit
Subscripts
PL1 Pipeline 1
am Ambient
PL2 Pipeline 2
av Average
PL3 Pipeline 3
cr Critical 98state
PL4 Pipeline 4
dn Downstream
SOC State of charge
g gas
VC Vehicle cylinder
hx Heat exchanger

effect and quasi-adiabatic compression [12]. However, the
high temperature inside VC endangers the structure and
causes a low state of charge (SOC) [12,13]. Therefore, hydrogen
precooling is essential to guarantee safe, rapid, and sufficient
refueling [14,15]. For example, the cooling temperature range
between - 33  C and - 40  C at the outlet of a T40 station is
specified in SAE J2601 [16], the most recognized refueling
protocol currently.
The precooling inevitably introduces expenditure and en-
ergy consumption. A precooling unit (PCU) always consists of
two parts, a heat exchanger (HEX) and a chiller (also called a
refrigerator [17] or a condensing unit [18]). It is reported that
the capital expenditure of the PCU accounts for about 15% of
the overall cost in the HRS [19]. Meanwhile, the PCU's oper-
ating cost is also considerable. The electricity consumption for
HEX's temperature maintenance was up to 54 kWh/d, and that
for the refueling activity was 0.50e50 kWh=kg H2 [17]. There-
fore, the optimization of PCU will contribute to lower the cost
of HRS, speeding up HRS layout, and improving the fuel cell
electric vehicle's competitiveness [20].
Numerous efforts have been explored to minimize the cost
of PCU. Reducing the cooling energy consumption is the regular
method. The cooling energy consumption depends on the
cooling demand and performance of the chiller. The first
method is to eliminate cooling demand entirely by integrating
innovative techniques, such as turbo-expander [21e23], vortex
tube [24], ejector [25e27], and so on. Nevertheless, these tech-
niques are quite theoretical. The second option is to reduce the
cooling demand by decrease the inlet enthalpy, such as letting
more hydrogen discharged from low pressure tanks by opti-
mizing configuration [28] (stage [29], pressure [30], and volume
[31]) of the cascade storage assembly (CSA). The third option is
to reduce the cooling demand by increasing the outlet enthalpy
(or precooling temperature) of the HEX. Increasing the pre-
cooling temperature can also improve the chiller's perfor-
mance. Genovese et al. [32] adjusted the auxiliary closed-loop
cooling system from 15  C to 10  C, resulting in the reduc-
tion within 2.86 and 9.43% in energy consumption per refuel-
ing. Xiao et al. [33] built a neural network of the refueling
process to determining the precooling temperature, yielding a
2.5% reduction in the energy consumption. A new refueling
method called MC Multi Map was developed by Kiyoshi et al.
[34] to relax the precooling temperature to the 20  C level
while maintaining a refueling time. Cascade cooling [18,35] is
also an effective way to improve the equivalent precooling
temperature. The fourth way is to improve the performance of
chiller individually, which is not yet extensively researched in
the HRS area. In addition, optimizing the configuration (or
component capacity) can also reduce the overall cost of PCU.
Based on the total cost, an optimal PCU (per dispenser) con-
sisting of a 13 kW chiller and an HEX with 1400 kg thermal mass
was calculated by Elgowainy et al. [17]. The structure of HEX
has also been optimized by researchers. Jonas et al. [35]
examined coaxial tube evaporator based on exergoeconomic
analysis and found total cost of a two-stage HEX after the
pressure control valve (PCV) was 45% less than that for a one-
24414 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5
stage HEX. Cheng et al. [36] discovered that the printed circuit
HEX performed better than the coaxial tube HEX in terms of
volume and total cost, which were lowered by 88.0% and 4.0%
respectively. Both Jonas et al. [35] and Cheng et al. [36] used the
peak cooling demand (72 kW, referring to Ref. [37]) as a design
capacity for HEX. However, the peak cooling demand varied
between 55 kW and 85 kW for a buffer storage system ac-
cording to Ref. [37]. Literature survey shows that both the ca-
pacity selection and energy reduction for PCU are dependent
on the cooling demand, but a significant difference exists in the
cooling demand. Nonetheless, an accurate estimation on the
cooling demand is quite challenging due to the transient
characteristics of the hydrogen refueling process.
Therefore, research into the factors that impact cooling
demand is critical and essential. The refueling process might
be affected by component structure, initial conditions,
boundary conditions, control strategy, etc. Talpacci et al. [38]
evaluated the influence of CSA topology on the cooling energy
consumption, which was observed to increase significantly
with the total volume of storage tanks until saturation at a
volume of 2000 L. Bai et al. [4] investigated the effect of the
pressure switching coefficient and the cooling temperature on
the refueling process. Their studies usually neglected or
underestimated the pipelines between CSA and VC. Rothuizen
et al. studied the impact of pressure loss on board [39] and at
four different locations [28] and pointed out that the pressure
loss on board was the primary factor determining peak cool-
ing demand, which the HRS could not predict in advance [39].
Besides flow resistance, the pipe's volume, heat storage
capacity, and heat transfer characteristics could also affect the
refueling process. Elgowainy et al. [17] and Rothuizen et al. [37]
agreed that the pipe between the CV and the HEX could help
dissipate heat and reduce cooling demand. However, they did
not analyze the influence of the pipe's thermal characteristics.
Recently, Kuroki et al. studied the transient temperature rise of
hydrogen gas in the filling equipment [40] considering the heat
exchange between the gas and pipe wall. Eventually, they
simulated and validated the temperature, pressure, and mass
flow rate evolutions after break-away [41] and in the whole
refueling process [42]. Regrettably, they only focused on the
model establishment instead of energy-related analysis.
The literature review illustrates that previous studies
recognized the significance of pipelines in the refueling pro-
cess. However, a comprehensive investigation of pipelines'
impact on the cooling demand is scarce, including the flow
resistance, the pipe's volume, and thermal characteristics.
Therefore, the present study established a thermodynamic
Hydrogen refueling station (HRS)
Cascade storage
assembly
High pressure
1 2
Middle pressure
PL1 Control
Low pressure valve
Fig. 1 e Schematic diagram of hydrogen refueling process (Monitor probes: 1 Outlet of the CSA, 2 Inlet of the CV, 3 Outlet of
the CV, 4 Inlet of HEX, 5 Outlet of the nozzle, 6 Inlet of the VC, ba at the break-away, c Inside the VC).
model for the whole refueling process, from the CSA to the VC,
with particular emphasis on pipelines in four different posi-
tions. Accordingly, the effects of the flow resistance, the pipe
volume, and the thermal characteristics of pipelines on the
cooling demand were investigated. The results would lead to a
better comprehension of the influence of pipelines on the
cooling demand and the refueling process.
Process description
Fig. 1 illustrates a typical hydrogen refueling process, which
consists of a three-stage CSA, a pressure control valve, a
precooling unit (PCU), a break-away coupling (BA), a nozzle/
receptacle coupling, and a vehicle cylinder (VC). As for the
PCU, only a heat exchanger (HEX) is shown here. Pipelines in
four locations are marked: pipeline 1 (PL1) between the outlet
of the CSA and the inlet of CV (1e2), pipeline 2 (PL2) between
the outlet of CV and the inlet of HEX (3e4), pipeline 3 (PL3)
between the BA (included) and the nozzle-receptacle coupling
(ba-5), and pipeline 4 (PL4) on the vehicle (5e6). The pipe be-
tween HEX and BA is ignored because of fair small length [42].
During the refueling process, hydrogen gas from CSA flows
sequentially through the CV and HEX before being charged to
the VC with specific average pressure ramp rate (APRR) and
temperature, which are defined at the Break-Away by SAE
J2601 [16]. The APRR is adjusted by the CV, while the PCU
controls the cooling temperature. The low-pressure tanks,
middle-pressure tanks, and high-pressure tanks in CSA serve
as the hydrogen source successively. When the pressure drop
of CV reaches a set value, such as 2 MPa, a tank switch hap-
pens The refueling process terminates normally with one of
the following conditions: pressure at the BA meeting the
target pressure, SOC getting 100% or the gas temperature in-
side VC reaching 85  C.
Methodology
Model assumptions
The thermodynamic model is constructed based on the
following assumptions. Gas in tanks of CSA and VC is
assumed to be uniformly mixed. The flow along the pipe is one
dimension. The thermodynamic state of the gas is the iden-
tical in each pipe section. Heat conduction along the pipe
length is neglected.
Vehicle
PID
3 4 T ba P 5 6 c
PL2 Heat Break PL3 Nozzle / PL4 Vehicle
exchanger away Receptacle cylinder
coupling
 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5 24415

Numerical models  

vTw

 
qo ¼  lw ¼ ao Tw jr¼ro  Tam (8)
vt
r¼ro
Gas model in the control volume
Hydrogen is treated compressible, and the Redlich-Kwong-
ai d
Soave equation is used to calculate the thermodynamic Nui ¼ (9)
lg
states of hydrogen gas [21]. The distribution parameter
method is used for the straight pipes, while the lumped model where and d denote the cylinder radius and characteristic
for tank in CSA and the VC. Gas flowing out of a tank in CSA, length, respectively. lg is the heat conductivity of the gas. ao is
into the VC, or through a pipe section, can usually be treated set to 8 W=ðm2 ,KÞ for all walls. The calculations for Nui are
as a flow process through an open system without work. different for VC and pipes sections, shown in Eq. (10) and Eq.
(11) [42], respectively.
dmu h i0:25
¼ m_ in hin  m_ out hout þ qi Ai (1) 4
dt Nui ¼ 0:17Re0:67 þ ð0:104RaÞ4 (10)

dm
¼ m_ in  m_ out (2) Nui ¼ 0:022Re0:8 Pr0:5 (11)
dt
where mu and m are the total energy and mass stored inside
the system, respectively. Moreover, h and m_ denote specific
Flow models
There are two kinds of flow resistance in this study: straight
enthalpy and mass flow. qi and Ai are heat flow rate and area
pipe and valve.
of the inner surface of the wall.
(1) Straight pipe
Wall models
Walls of tanks in CSA are treated as one-dimension plates [37]. The Darcy-Weisbach equation is used to calculate pressure
The related heat transfer equations for the one-dimension losses cause by friction along a straight pipe.
plate are listed as Eqs. (3)e(5).
 _ 2
L 1 V
DP ¼ f , ,r, (12)
vTw lw v2 Tw Di 2 A
¼ (3)
vt rw cw vx2
where L denotes pipe length, f denotes friction factor, which is

related to Reynold number and relative roughness of pipe and
dTw

 
qi ¼ lw ¼ ai Tg  Tw jx¼0 (4) can be extracted from the Nikuradse harp [43].
dx
x¼0
(2) Valve


dTw

A valve model is used to account for the local pressure loss
qo ¼ lw ¼ ao ðTw jx¼d  Tam Þ (5)
dx
x¼d and the flow coefficient (Kv ) is always used in the calculation
where Tw , rw , cw , and lw are the temperature, density, specific [44].
heat, and heat conductivity of the wall. x is the wall layer's sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
location and d denotes the wall thickness. qi and qo are the _ DP 105
V ¼ Kv $ (13)
heat flow rate at the inner and outer surfaces of the wall. ai SG
and ao are the convective heat transfer coefficient at the inner where DP is pressure drop, V_ is volumetric flow rate, and SG is
and outer surfaces of the wall, which equals to 150 W=ðm2 ,KÞ specific gravity to water.
and 8 W=ðm2 ,KÞ [37,42] respectively.
(3) Mass flow rate calculation
The walls of VC and pipe sections are assumed as one-
dimension cylinders [42]. The related heat transfer equations The previous correlations are obtained in subsonic condi-
for the one-dimension cylinder are listed as Eqs. (6)e(9). tion, so the following equation can be employed to calculate
mass flow rate [30] in order to including the sonic situation.
 
vTw lw v2 Tw 1 vTw
¼ þ (6) Pup
vt rw cw vr2 r vr m_ ¼ A,Cq ,Cm ,pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (14)
Tup
 
 
vTw

where A is the effective area, Cq is equivalent flow coefficient
qi ¼  lw
¼ ai Tg  Tw jr¼ri (7)
vt r¼ri and Cm is the mass flow parameter, which is determined by
temperature and pressures of the upstream and downstream.

8 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>  2gs  1þgs  
>
> 2 rup ,Tup Pdn Pdn Pdn Pdn
>
> , ,  > ðsubsonicÞ
>
< 1  gs Pup Pup Pup Pup Pup cr
Cm ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (15)
>
>   gs  
>
> 2 rup ,Tup 2gs 1gs Pdn Pdn
>
: 1 þ g , Pup , g þ 1
>
Pup

Pup cr
ðsonicÞ
s s
24416 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5

where Pdn =Pup is pressure ratio between downstream and

Table 1 e Specifications of tanks in CSA and VC.
upstream, and the transition pressure ratio between subsonic
and sonic flow is related with isentropic calorific factor gs [45]. Units Each stage in CSA [37] VC [16]
Factors such as Cq , f ,L=Di , and Kv , can be transformed into Tank numbers e 2 1
each other according to the definition of flow resistance, V m3 1 0.174
L mm e 938
shown in equation (16).
DO mm e 600
1:9634  105 KV 1 Di mm e 513
Cq ¼ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (16) Liner
Aori f ,L=Di
d mm 3 5
As mentioned above, the flow resistance on board is usu- A m2 2 1.6
ally unknown before the refueling. Therefore, SAE J2601 sets a r kg=m3 945 945
l W=ðm ,KÞ 0.5 0.5
limitation for the highest pressure drop between BA and VC:
c J=ðkg ,KÞ 2100 2100
pressure drop of PL3 should not exceed 15 MPa, while that of Carbon wrapping
PL4 should be lower than 20 MPa for hot case and 2 MPa for d mm 22 38.3
cold case at reference condition [16]. The reference condition r kg=m3 1494 1494
is given with pressure and temperature at BA, pressure in the l W=ðm ,KÞ 0.5 0.5
VC, and a mass flow rate proportional to the nominal capacity c J=ðkg ,KÞ 1120 1120
of VC. When these parameters is substituted to Eq. (14), Cm ,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pup = Tup is constant and A,Cq is found to be proportional to
nominal capacity of VC. When nominal capacity of VC is 7 kg,
Kv for PL3 should be higher than 0.1, while that for PL4 is be-
tween 0.1 and 0.6, which will be used later. Table 2 e Default specifications of PL1 and PL2 [32].
Geometry Units DN10 DN15
HEX model Straight pipe
The transient cooling demand (or cooling demand, qhx ) is the L m 1 1
product of mass flow rate and enthalpy difference between DO mm 9.53 14.29
the inlet and outlet of HEX. The total cooling demand (Qhx ) and Di mm 5.17 7.93
r kg=m3 7900 7900
time-average cooling demand (or average cooling demand,
l W=ðm ,KÞ 16.7 16.7
qav ) are described in equations (17)e(19) respectively.
c J=ðkg ,KÞ 659 659

qhx ¼ m_  ðhin  hout Þ (17)

3) For PL3 and PL4, flow resistance and heat transfer inside
Zt
are calculated separately with a valve and a pipe model,
Qhx ¼ qhx dt (18)
respectively. Specifications for PL3 and PL4 are set ac-
0
cording to SAE J2601 [16], listed in Table 3.
Zt 4) The initial pressure of PL1 equals the pressure of the low-
qav ¼ Qhx dt (19) pressure tanks, 45 MPa, while the initial pressures for
0
PL2, HEX, PL3, and PL4 are set to equal to initial pressure of
VC (5 MPa).
The HEX model is simplified to calculate cooling demand
5) The ambient temperature and initial temperature of all
for the structure design of HEX, PCU configuration, and energy
components are assumed to be the same as 25  C.
analysis. Thus, this model cannot be used to analyze the real
6) The HRS is designated as H70-T40. The APRR is 19.9 MPa/
HEX's dynamic response.
min and the target pressure is 83.2 MPa according to SAE
J2601 for a refueling process with communication.
Parameter configuration

The following specifications for components and initial con-

ditions are employed as inputs in the simulations. Table 3 e Default specifications of PL3 and PL4 [16].
Geometry Units PL3 PL4
1) For the three-stage CSA, the tank number in each stage is
Straight pipe
set to 2, and the initial pressure for each stage is 45 MPa,
L m 4.48 5.54
65 MPa, and 95 MPa respectively. For the VC, a 7 kg capacity,
DO mm 30 10
174 L, type IV tank is assumed. The initial pressure of the Di mm 10 1.3
VC is assumed to be 5 MPa. The physic parameters of CSA m kg 10 4
and VC are listed in Table 1. r kg=m3 3694 7900
2) PL1 and PL2 are relatively long and simplified to be straight l W=ðm ,KÞ 1.5 16.7
pipes. Moreover, the default value for the total Kv after the c J=ðkg ,KÞ 558 659
Valve
BA is 0.1. Specifications of structure and materials for PL1
KV e 0.1 0.1
and PL2 are listed in Table 2.
 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5 24417

Model validation
Validation of the thermodynamic parameters
In order to verify the thermodynamic model of HRS, the pre-
dicted temperatures, pressures as well as mass flow rate are
compared with the measured values from the study of Kuroki
et al. [42]. A refueling experiment was conducted in the
hydrogen fueling line at the U.S. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory's (NREL's) Hydrogen Infrastructure Testing
Research Facility (HITRF). The HITRF consists of a single high-
pressure storage system, a pressure control valve, five valves,
a mass flow meter, a PCU, a BA, a hose, a nozzle, nine piping
sections, and three vehicle cylinders. Accordingly, the pres-
sure and temperature curves at the outlet of the high-pressure
storage system shown in Fig. 2(a) were measured and used as
input in this simulation. Total volume of vehicle cylinder is
108 L. The experiment was performed with the ambient
temperature of 23.0  C and APRR of 19.8 MPa/min. The com-
parison in Fig. 2(bed) reveals that temperatures, pressures,
and mass flow rate in are consistent satisfactorily with the
experimental ones in the main refueling process.
Validation of the total cooling demand
As the experiment conducted by Kuroki et al. [42] did not
investigate the evolution of the cooling demand, validation of
total cooling demand was carried with the prediction by
Rothuizen et al. [37]. In the referred work, the hydrogen
storage system in the HRS was one 3 m3 tank for system 1 and
three 1 m3 tanks for system 2. The configurations of VCs for
both systems were the same, with a 0.173 m3 volume and
2 MPa initial pressure. Simulations were conducted under an
ambient temperature of 25.0  C, an APRR of 28.2 MPa/min, and
a target pressure of 72 MPa. The maximum relative error of
total cooling demand between this model and the referenced
ones is within 3.1% in Table 4.
Results and discussion
The impact of pipeline before BA
The overall length of PL1 and PL2 depends on the station
layout. The CV's position affects the length of PL1 and PL2.
Therefore, extreme conditions are assumed that the length of
PL2 is set to 1 m when PL1 is studied, and vice versa.
Three modes are compared to evaluate the influence of
pipelines from different aspects. The case labeled “R” only
considers the flow resistance of the pipeline, which is first
conducted to act as a reference. Then, the case labeled “RH”
includes the heat transfer effect between hydrogen gas and
the pipe wall. Finally, the extra mass is added to the pipeline
to study the heat storage due to other fittings [40] in cases
labeled “RHE”, which is realized by increasing the outer
diameter by 4 mm.

100 100

80 80

60 60
P [MPa] / T [oC]

P [MPa] / T [oC]

P1
40 T1 40

20 20
Tc,1 ,exp
0 0
Tc,2 ,exp Pc ,exp
-20 -20 Tc ,sim Pc ,sim
-40 -40
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) (b)
100 80
T2,exp T3,exp m, exp
80
T2,sim T3,sim 60 m, sim
60
m [g/s] qc [kW]

40 40
T [oC]

20 20
0
0
-20

-40 -20
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Time [s] Time [s]
(c) (d)

Fig. 2 e Numerical results vs. experimental data [42] (a) Measured pressure and temperature as input (b) Pressure and
temperature inside the vehicle cylinder (c) Temperatures at the inlet and outlet of the pressure control valve (d) Mass flow
rate.
24418 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5

Table 4 e Total cooling demand comparison.

System Tank(s) in the hydrogen storage system in HRS Reference [37] (kWh) Present work (kWh) Relative error
1 1  3 m3 tank, initial pressure: 90 MPa 1.93 1.99 3.1%
2 3  1 m3 tanks, initial pressure:45 MPa, 65 MPa, 91 MPa 1.70 1.73 1.8%

Fig. 3 e Impacts of PL1 on refueling process with heat transfer without heat transfer (a) Pressures and temperatures in HRS
(b) Mass flow rate at BA and cooling demand.

Fig. 4 e Impacts of PL1 on refueling process in different mode (a) Pressures (b) Temperatures (c) Cooling demand (d) Heat
flow rate inside and outside the pipe.
 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5 24419

Fig. 5 e Impacts of PL2 on refueling process without heat transfer (a) Pressures and temperatures in HRS (b) Mass flow rate at
BA and cooling demand.

The impact of PL1
Fig. 3 illustrates the thermodynamic parameters’ variation in
a complete refueling process when PL1 is 30 m. In Fig. 3 (a), the
pressure drop between the CSA and BA is shared by the PL1
(green shading area) and the CV. Hydrogen temperature in-
creases after flowing through PL1 (yellow shading area) and
CV due to the reversed J-T effect. When the pressure differ-
ence across CV reaches the set switch point, the tank switches
to a higher-pressure level, leading to augments for pressures
and temperatures before HEX, and transient cooling demand
in Fig. 3 (b).
In addition, Fig. 3 (b) includes mass flow rate and cooling
demand curves for different lengths (1 m and 60 m) for com-
parison purposes. For cases with different lengths, mass flow
rate curves overlap due to the same physical and boundary
conditions after BA, while the cooling demand curves vary
significantly due to different tank switch times. When the flow
resistance coefficient (f ,L=Di ) of the pipe increases, the tank

Fig. 6 e Impacts of PL2 on refueling process on refueling process in different mode.

24420 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5

Fig. 7 e Comparison of impact of PL1 and PL2 on cooling demand (a) Peak value (b) Average value.

Fig. 8 e Impacts of flow resistance of PL3 and PL4 on refueling process (a) Pressures (b) Temperatures (c) Mass flow rate at BA
(d) Cooling demand.
 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5
switches early. If the flow resistance is too high (i.e., 60 m), an
incomplete refueling will happen.
At the tank switch, spikes are observed for the curves of T2 ,
T3;4 (Fig. 3(a)), and qhx (Fig. 3(b)), which are somewhat different
from earlier research. The compressibility of hydrogen gas
and the existence of pipe volume can explain this phenome-
non. When the inlet pressure of a pipe increases suddenly, the
mass flow rate differs along the pipe, leading to mass and
energy storage of gas inside the pipe, which influences the
outlet enthalpy and cooling demand for a while after that. The
influence time gets longer when pipe volume increase, and
vice versa.
When heat transfer between hydrogen gas and pipe wall is
considered (labeled RH), pressure distributions and mass flow
rate differ little change from the case without heat transfer
(Fig. 4 (a)). However, spikes in temperatures and cooling de-
mand at tank switches are eliminated, shown in Fig. 4 (b) and
(c). It is because the inlet gas temperature of PL1 gets higher
than the pipe wall when a tank switch happens. And gas re-
leases some heat to the pipe (qi > 0), weakening the gas energy
storage inside the pipe, depicted in Fig. 4 (d). In addition, the
heat transfer coefficient outside the pipeline is relatively
small. Thus the pipe wall is more like a heat storage compo-
nent that may absorb and release heat to gas.
Aside from the spikes, the heat transfer effect inside pipe
and heat storage of the pipe wall has relatively negligible
impact on temperatures and cooling demand. This is because
Fig. 9 e Comparisons on key parameters at different pressure loss of PL3 and PL4 (a) Peak mass flow rate (b) SOC (c) Peak
cooling demand (d) Total cooling demand.
24421
the inlet gas temperature for PL1 is near to wall temperature,
resulting in a relatively limited heat exchange even with the
addition of extra thermal mass.
The impact of PL2
Fig. 5 illustrates parameter evolutions when heat transfer in-
side PL2 is ignored. The pressure drop between the CSA and
the BA is shared by the CV and PL2 (green shading area). Be-
sides, the gas temperature at the inlet of PL2 is higher than the
ambient temperature due to the reversed J-T effect of CV,
shown in Fig. 5 (a). Compared to the same configuration in PL1
case (Fig. 4), no spike is observed in temperatures or cooling
demand at the tank switch. Nevertheless, a sharp increase in
the temperatures after CV exists at the beginning of the
refueling.
When the heat transfer effect inside PL2 is considered,
pressure distribution in the HRS and mass flow rate at BA
remain unchanged compared to the case without heat
transfer, which is similar to the PL1 situation. Therefore, the
inlet gas temperature of PL2 is identical for all modes.
Compared to mode R, the outlet temperature of PL2 becomes
more stable if the heat transfer effect is considered, espe-
cially for the cases with extra heat capacity (“PHE”). More-
over, peak cooling demand delays and the peak value also
shifts in Fig. 6 (b). The heat transfer between gas and wall
fluctuates more violently (Fig. 6 (c)) compared to the PL1
situation (Fig. 4 (d)).
24422 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5
Comparisons between PL1 and PL2
Fig. 7 provides a clear comparison of the effects of PL1 and PL2
on the peak cooling demand (qp ) and time-average cooling
demand (qav ), considering different inner diameters (DN10,
DN15), pipe lengths (1 me50 m), and flow resistance after BA.
In Fig. 7(a), there are no apparent correlations between the
peak cooling demand and the pipe length, inner diameter, or
flow resistance after BA when the heat transfer effect is
ignored (“R”). Besides, the peak cooling demand reaches an
exaggerated level in most cases for PL1, which will drop to a
reasonable range when the heat transfer effect is considered.
The peak cooling demand always occurs near the mass flow
peak or at the tank switch, which is affected by many factors.
The average cooling demand is proportional to the total
cooling demand when the refueling time is the same, so trends
analysis on the average cooling demand applies to total cooling
demand. When the heat transfer is ignored (“R”), average
cooling demand increases along with the length. Compared to
the cases with reference length (1 m), the maximum in-
crements for the average cooling demand are 9.1% and 9.9% for
PL1 and PL2 when the pipe diameter is small (DN10). However,
the increments are only about 2.5% and 3.5% if a larger pipe is
used (DN15). When the heat transfer effect is considered, the
average cooling demand increases along with the heat capacity
of the pipe for PL1 cases. The max increments in PL1 are 1.1%
for mode RH and 1.8% for mode RHE. By contrast, the trend is
Fig. 10 e Impacts of PL3 and PL4 on refueling process (a) Thermodynamic state in VC (b) Temperatures(c) Cooling demand
and mass flow rate (d) Heat transfer cross pipe wall.
the opposite for PL2. The max decrements for PL2 are 3.9% and
5.7% for mode RH and RHE, respectively.
The impact of pipelines after BA
Fig. 8 shows the impact of the flow resistance of PL3 and PL4.
When the flow resistance of PL3 and PL4 becomes higher (lower
KV ), pressure in VC will be lower (Fig. 8 (a)). The peak of mass
flow rate will decrease and delay (Fig. 8 (c)), which will affect
the tank switch time and cooling demand curve (Fig. 8 (d)) in
return. In Fig. 8 (b), the gas temperature at the inlet of VC is
higher for cases with higher flow resistance (lower KV ) due to
reversed J-T effect. However, the gas temperature inside VC
rises more rapidly at the beginning for cases with lower flow
resistance (higher KV ) as more gas is charged into VC.
The flow resistance of PL3 at a HRS is typically constant,
but that of PL4 varies among vehicles. The peak mass flow
rate (m_ p ), SOC, and average cooling demand increase rapidly
at first and then level off along with the increase of KV;4
(decrease of flow resistance), shown in Fig. 9 (a), (b) and (d)
respectively. This is because that mass flow rate curves are
quite close and thus tank switch times are also adjacent
when flow resistance of PL4 is low. When KV;4 is higher than
0.1, qav changes slightly within 1.0%. When KV;4 is low than
0.1, qav decreases as much as 8.8% with a sacrifice on SOC by
8.4%. Besides, Fig. 9 (c) illustrates that peak cooling demand
 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5
Fig. 11 e Comparisons on key parameters when considering the heat transfer of PL3 and PL4 (a) Peak of mass flow rate (b)
SOC (c) Peak cooling demand (d) Total cooling demand.
(qp ) does not change monotonously with the flow resistance
of PL3 and PL4, but within a relatively narrow range between
39.2 kW and 45.6 kW.
Fig. 10 illustrated the impact of the heat transfer effect for
PL3 and PL4. Comparing to mode R, pressure in the VC (Fig. 10
(a)) has almost no change, and mass flow rate and cooling
demand decrease slightly at the beginning of refueling process
(Fig. 10 (b)). However, gas temperatures in pipelines and VC
increase a lot. The temperature inside VC rises by 11.6  C in
the beginning and by about 5.5  C at the end (Fig. 10 (a)). This
can be explained by the heat absorption from the pipe wall in
PL3 and PL4 (Fig. 10 (d)). Similar simulations are conducted at
ambient temperature of 50  C, where temperature rise in VC at
the beginning can reach up to about 18  C, which might bring
refueling termination ahead.
In Fig. 11, a conclusive comparison on the performance
parameters is made considering different combinations of KV;3
and KV;4 . When comparing to mode R, the reductions on peak
mass flow rate (Fig. 11 (a)) and peak cooling demand (Fig. 11 (c))
are below 1.6%, while the reductions on SOC (Fig. 11 (b)) and
time-average cooling demand (Fig. 11 (d)) are below 0.6%.
24423
Therefore, the heat transfer inside PL3 and PL4 has minor
influence on the energy-related parameters.
Conclusions
The present work established a thermodynamic model of a
hydrogen refueling process to investigate the effects of pipe-
lines in four different locations on the cooling demand.
Following conclusions were made.
1. The flow resistance of all pipelines impacts the cooling
demand curve. The maximum increments for the average
cooling demand are 9.1% and 9.9% for PL1 and PL2.
2. The heat transfer inside PL1 increases the total cooling
demand by 1.8%, while the heat transfer inside PL2 can
reduce the total cooling demand by 5.7% and smoothen the
cooling demand curve. The heat transfer in PL3 and PL4 can
be neglected in energy-related research but is vital in the
study on refueling safety.
24424 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5
3. The peak cooling demand is much higher than the average.
A maximum value of peak cooling demand is hard to
obtain. A cold storage unit in the PCU will be an excellent
choice to satisfy the peak cooling demand.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial supports
from National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
52076085) and Program for HUST Academic Frontier Youth
Team (No. 2019QYTD10).
references
[1] Pramuanjaroenkij A, Kakaç S. The fuel cell electric vehicles:
the highlight review. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2023;48:9401e25.
[2] Brown T, Kisting H. Analysis of customer queuing at
hydrogen stations. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2022;47:17107e20.
[3] Ajanovic A, Haas R. Prospects and impediments for hydrogen
and fuel cell vehicles in the transport sector. Int J Hydrogen
Energ 2021;46:10049e58.
[4] Mohideen MM, Subramanian B, Sun J, Ge J, Guo H,
Radhamani AV, et al. Techno-economic analysis of different
shades of renewable and non-renewable energy-based
hydrogen for fuel cell electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2023;174:113153.
[5] Yang M, Hu S, Yang F, Fang C, Deng W, Lu Z, et al. Theoretical
analysis on energy saving of cold energy utilization system
for a liquid hydrogen heavy-duty truck. Appl Therm Eng
2023:219.
[6] Li H, Cao X, Liu Y, Shao Y, Nan Z, Teng L, et al. Safety of
hydrogen storage and transportation: an overview on
mechanisms, techniques, and challenges. Energy Rep
2022;8:6258e69.
[7] Sinigaglia T, Lewiski F, Santos Martins ME, Mairesse Siluk JC.
Production, storage, fuel stations of hydrogen and its
utilization in automotive applications-a review. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2017;42:24597e611.
[8] Abdin Z, Zafaranloo A, Rafiee A, Me rida W, Lipin
 ski W,
Khalilpour KR. Hydrogen as an energy vector. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2020;120:109620.
[9] Xiao J, Cheng J, Wang X, Benard P, Chahine R. Final hydrogen
temperature and mass estimated from refueling parameters.
Int J Hydrogen Energ 2018;43:22409e18.
[10] Xiao J, Benard P, Chahine R. Estimation of final hydrogen
temperature from refueling parameters. Int J Hydrogen Energ
2017;42:7521e8.
[11] Cheng J, Xiao J, Benard P, Chahine R. Estimation of final
hydrogen temperatures during refueling 35MPa and 70MPa
tanks. Energy Proc 2017;105:1363e9.
[12] Ortiz Cebolla R, Acosta B, de Miguel N, Moretto P. Effect of
precooled inlet gas temperature and mass flow rate on final
state of charge during hydrogen vehicle refueling. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2015;40:4698e706.
[13] Xiao J, Ma S, Wang X, Deng S, Yang T, Be nard P. Effect of
hydrogen refueling parameters on final state of charge.
Energies 2019;12:645.
[14] Deng S, Xiao J, Benard P, Chahine R. Determining
correlations between final hydrogen temperature and
refueling parameters from experimental and numerical data.
Int J Hydrogen Energ 2020;45:20525e34.
[15] Melideo D, Baraldi D. CFD analysis of fast filling strategies for
hydrogen tanks and their effects on key-parameters. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2015;40:735e45.
[16] Sae International. Fueling protocols for light duty gaseous
hydrogen surface vehicles. In: Fuel cell standards committee.
SAE International; 2020.
[17] Elgowainy A, Reddi K, Lee D, Rustagi N, Gupta E. Techno-
economic and thermodynamic analysis of pre-cooling
systems at gaseous hydrogen refueling stations. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2017;42:29067e79.
[18] Piraino F, Blekhman D, Dray M, Fragiacomo P. Empirically
verified analysis of dual pre-cooling system for hydrogen
refuelling station. Renew Energ 2021;163:1612e25.
[19] Reddi K, Elgowainy A, Rustagi N, Gupta E. Impact of hydrogen
refueling configurations and market parameters on the
refueling cost of hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energ
2017;42:21855e65.
[20] Xu Z, Dong W, Yang K, Zhao Y, He G. Development of
efficient hydrogen refueling station by process optimization
and control. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2022;47:23721e30.
[21] Chen J, Xiao L, Wu Y, Gao X, Chen H, Xie J, et al. Dynamic
simulation of the potential of integrating a turbo-expander
in a hydrogen refueling station. Appl Therm Eng
2022;202:117889.
[22] Yoshida J, Matsuo E, Takata Y, Monde M. Thermodynamic
analysis of high pressure hydrogen gas refueling system with
turbo-expanders. Mech Eng J 2019;6:18e388.
[23] Pi MP, Leighton D. Turboexpander alternative fueling
concept for fuel cell electric vehicle fast fill. 2019.
[24] Chen J, Gao X, Shao S, Hu H, Xie J, Li N, et al. Numerical
investigation of the vortex tube performance in novel
precooling methods in the hydrogen fueling station. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2021;46:5548e55.
[25] Rogie B, Wen C, Kærn MR, Rothuizen E. Optimisation of the
fuelling of hydrogen vehicles using cascade systems and
ejectors. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2021;46:9567e79.
[26] Wen C, Rogie B, Kærn MR, Rothuizen E. A first study of the
potential of integrating an ejector in hydrogen fuelling
stations for fuelling high pressure hydrogen vehicles. Appl
Energ 2020;260:113958.
[27] Rogie B, Ryhl Kærn M, Wen C, Rothuizen E. Numerical
optimization of a novel gas-gas ejector for
fuelling of hydrogen vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energ
2020;45:21905e19.
[28] Rothuizen E, Rokni M. Optimization of the overall energy
consumption in cascade fueling stations for hydrogen
vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2014;39:582e92.
[29] Caponi R, Ferrario AM, Bocci E, Bødker S, Del Zotto L. Single-
tank storage versus multi-tank cascade system in hydrogen
refueling stations for fuel cell buses. Int J Hydrogen Energ
2022;47:27633e45.
[30] Xiao L, Chen J, Wu Y, Zhang W, Ye J, Shao S, et al. Effects of
pressure levels in three-cascade storage system on the
overall energy consumption in the hydrogen refueling
station. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2021;46:31334e45.
[31] Yu Y, Lu C, Ye S, Hua Z, Gu C. Optimization on volume ratio
of three-stage cascade storage system in hydrogen refueling
stations. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2022;47:13430e41.
[32] Genovese M, Blekhman D, Dray M, Fragiacomo P. Improving
chiller performance and energy efficiency in hydrogen
 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 8 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 2 4 4 1 2 e2 4 4 2 5
station operation by tuning the auxiliary cooling. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2022;47:2532e46.
[33] nard P, Chahine R, Zong Y, Luo M, et al. Neural
Xiao J, Bi C, Be
network based optimization for cascade filling process of on-
board hydrogen tank. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2021;46:2936e51.
[34] Handa K, Oshima S, Rembutsu T. Precooling temperature
relaxation technology in hydrogen refueling for fuel-cell
vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2021;46:33511e22.
[35] Jensen JK, Rothuizen ED, Markussen WB. Exergoeconomic
optimization of coaxial tube evaporators for cooling of high
pressure gaseous hydrogen during vehicle fuelling. Energ
Convers Manage 2014;85:740e9.
[36] Cheng Y, Li Y, Wang J, Tam L, Chen Y, Wang Q, et al. Multi-
objective optimization of printed circuit heat exchanger used
for hydrogen cooler by exergoeconomic method. Energy
2022:125455.
[37] Rothuizen E, Me rida W, Rokni M, Wistoft-Ibsen M.
Optimization of hydrogen vehicle refueling via dynamic
simulation. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2013;38:4221e31.
[38] Talpacci E, Reub M, Grube T, Cilibrizzi P, Gunnella R,
Robinius M, et al. Effect of cascade storage system
topology on the cooling energy consumption in fueling
24425
stations for hydrogen vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energ
2018;43:6256e65.
[39] Rothuizen E, Elmegaard B, Rokni M. Dynamic simulation of
the effect of vehicle-side pressure loss of hydrogen fueling
process. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2020;45:9025e38.
[40] 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 Energ 2018;43:1846e54.
[41] Kuroki T, Sakoda N, Shinzato K, Monde M, Takata Y. Dynamic
simulation for optimal hydrogen refueling method to Fuel Cell
Vehicle tanks. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2018;43:5714e21.
[42] Kuroki T, Nagasawa K, Peters M, Leighton D, Kurtz J,
Sakoda N, et al. Thermodynamic modeling of hydrogen
fueling process from high-pressure storage tank to vehicle
tank. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2021;46:22004e17.
[43] Idelchik IE. Handbook of hydraulic resistance. Washington,
DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.; 1986.
[44] ISA. ISA-75.01.01-2007. Flow equations for sizing control
valves. 2007.
[45] Borel L, Favrat D. Thermodynamics and energy systems
analysis: from energy to exergy. EPFL press; 2010.