4.7 Article

Improved safety by crossanalyzing quantitative risk assessment of hydrogen refueling stations

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 47, Issue 19, Pages 10788-10798

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.12.211

Keywords

Hydrogen; Hydrogen refueling station; Quantitative risk assessment; Hy-KoRAM; Phast; safeti; Crossanalysis

Funding

  1. Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy under the subject of Feasibility study of multi energy Hub based on Intelligent Energy Platform [20193510100040]
  2. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation & Planning (KETEP) [20193510100040] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to enhance the technology and safety of hydrogen refueling stations in Korea. By using quantitative risk assessment programs, potential risks and impacts are determined, and the safety and reliability of the facilities and results are improved.
With the goal of building 310 hydrogen refueling stations (HRSs) in Korea by 2022, restrictions, such as location restrictions and separation distances, are being eased, so developing ways to improve technology and safety. As HRSs contain major facilities such as compressors, storage tanks, dispenser, and priority control panels, and a leakage could result in a large fire or explosion caused by an ignition source. To perform quantitative risk assessment, programs, namely, Hy-KoRAM and Phast/Safeti were used in this study. It could determine the damage range and effect on radiant heat and flame length, as well as personal and societal risks, using these programs. The crossanalysis of the two programs also improves the facility's safety and the reliability of the results.(c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available