4.7 Article

Effect of gasoline pool fire on liquid hydrogen storage tank in hybrid hydrogen-gasoline fueling station

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 2096-2104

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.11.039

Keywords

Hydrogen fueling station; Gasoline pool fire; Thermal radiation; Liquid hydrogen storage tank; Domino effect; Safety distance

Funding

  1. Fire and Disaster Management Agency (FDMA) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication in Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15J11362] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multiple-energy-fueling stations, which can supply several types of energy such as gasoline, CNG, and hydrogen, could guarantee the efficient use of space. To guide the safety management of hybrid hydrogen gasoline fueling stations, which utilize liquid hydrogen as an energy carrier, the scale of gasoline pool fires was estimated using the hazard assessment tool Toxic Release Analysis of Chemical Emissions (TRACE). Subsequently, the temperature and the stress due to temperature distribution were estimated using ANSYS. Based on the results, the safety of liquid hydrogen storage tanks was discussed. It was inferred that the emissivity of the outer material of the tank and the safety distance between liquid hydrogen storage tanks and gasoline dispensers should be less than 0.2 and more than 8.5 m, respectively, to protect the liquid hydrogen storage tank from the gasoline pool fire. To reduce the safety distance, several measures are required, e.g. additional thermal shields such as protective intumescent paint and water sprinkler systems and an increased slope to lead gasoline off to a safe domain away from the liquid hydrogen storage tank. Copyright (C) 2015, The Authors. 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