The simulation and analysis of leakage and explosion at a renewable hydrogen refuelling station

被引：121

作者：

Liang, Yang ^{[1
]}

Pan, Xiangmin ^{[1
,2
]}

Zhang, Cunman ^{[1
]}

Xie, Bin ^{[3
]}

Liu, Shaojun ^{[4
]}

机构：

[1] Tongji Univ, Clean Energy Automot Engn Ctr, Caoan Rd 4800, Shanghai 201804, Peoples R China

[2] Shanghai Motor Vehicle Inspect Certificat & Techn, 68 Yutian South Rd, Shanghai, Peoples R China

[3] GexCon China, 18 Taolin Rd, Shanghai 200135, Peoples R China

[4] Shanghai Sunwise New Energy Syst Co Ltd, 88 Henyong Rd, Shanghai 201806, Peoples R China

来源：

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY | 2019年 / 44卷 / 40期

关键词：

Hydrogen refuelling station; Explosion; Safety distance; QUANTITATIVE RISK-ASSESSMENT; FUELING STATION; SAFETY;

D O I：

10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.05.140

中图分类号：

O64 [物理化学（理论化学）、化学物理学];

学科分类号：

070304 ; 081704 ;

摘要：

The number of hydrogen refuelling stations (HRSs) is steadily growing worldwide. In China, the first renewable hydrogen refuelling station has been built in Dalian for nearly 3 years. FLACS software based on computational fluid dynamics approach is used in this paper for simulation and analysis on the leakage and explosion of hydrogen storage system in this renewable hydrogen refuelling station. The effects of wind speed, leakage direction and wind direction on the consequences of the accident are analyzed. The harmful area, lethal area, the farthest harmful distance and the longest lethal distance in explosion accident of different accident scenarios are calculated. Harmful areas after explosion of different equipments in hydrogen storage system are compared. The results show that leakage accident of the 90 MPa hydrogen storage tank cause the greatest harm in hydrogen explosion. The farthest harmful distance caused by explosion is 35.7 m and the farthest lethal distance is 18.8 m in case of the same direction of wind and leakage. Moreover, it is recommended that the hydrogen tube trailer should not be parked in the hydrogen refuelling station when the amount of hydrogen is sufficient. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：22608 / 22619

页数：12

共 25 条

[1]

[Anonymous], GERM HAD HIGH INCR H

[2]

[Anonymous], 2012, Fundamentals of hydrogen safety engineering

[3]

[Anonymous], 7507EREV ICG

[4]

[Anonymous], 2011, 4 INT C HYDR SAF SAN

[5] CFD modeling and consequence analysis of an accidental hydrogen release in a large scale facility [J].

Bauwens, C. R. ;

Dorofeev, S. B. .

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2014, 39 (35) :20447-20454

[6] Safety studies of a hydrogen refuelling station: Determination of the occurrence frequency of the accidental scenarios [J].

Casamirra, M. ;

Castiglia, F. ;

Giardina, M. ;

Lombardo, C. .

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2009, 34 (14) :5846-5854

[7] Benchmark exercise on risk assessment methods applied to a virtual hydrogen refuelling station [J].

Ham, Koos ;

Marangon, Alessia ;

Middha, Prankul ;

Versloot, Nico ;

Rosmuller, Nils ;

Carcassi, Marco ;

Hansen, Olav Roald ;

Schiavetti, Martino ;

Papanikolaou, Efi ;

Venetsanos, Alexandros ;

Engebo, Angunn ;

Saw, Ju Lynne ;

Saffers, Jean-Bernard ;

Flores, Alain ;

Serbanescu, Dan .

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2011, 36 (03) :2666-2677

[8] Comparative risk study of hydrogen and gasoline dispensers for vehicles [J].

Hirayama, Makoto ;

Shinozaki, Hiroki ;

Kasai, Naoya ;

Otaki, Tsutomu .

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2018, 43 (27) :12584-12594

[9] The quantitative risk assessment of a hydrogen generation unit [J].

Jafari, Mohammad Javad ;

Zarei, Esmaeil ;

Badri, Naser .

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2012, 37 (24) :19241-19249

[10] The qualitative risk assessment of an electrolytic hydrogen generation system [J].

Kasai, Naoya ;

Fujimoto, Yuki ;

Yamashita, Ikuya ;

Nagaoka, Hisashi .

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY, 2016, 41 (30) :13308-13314

← 1 2 3 →