1. S. Kashkarov, Z. Li, V. Molkov
ICHS 2017
September 11-13, Hamburg, Germany
Hazard distance nomograms for a blast wave from a compressed hydrogen tank rupture in a fire
S. Kashkarov, Z. Li, V. Molkov

2. Persistent issue: explosions continue
Some reported accident links
Hydrogen Safety Panel (USA) is worrying of accidents with CNG cylinders with TPRD:
USA: “A garbage truck exploded after catching fire …A total of four houses were damaged in the explosion… ” (
USA: “Car explosion in gas station” (
USA: St. Louis Gas Cylinders Disaster (
China: “Power of Liquid Natural Gas Explosion Accident” (
Pakistan: “CNG cylinders killed more people than US drones” (
CNG on-board vessels failures (Scheffler et al., 2011)

3. Harm criteria for people

4. Harm criteria for people
Thresholds defined in the study
“No harm” - temporal loss of hearing (∆𝑃>1.35 kPa and 𝐼>1 Pa·s)*;
“Injury” – 1% eardrum rupture probability (∆𝑃=16.5 kPa)**;
“Fatality” – 1% fatality probability - lung haemorrhage (∆𝑃=100 kPa)**.
References: *
Baker, W. E., Cox, P. A., Westine, P. S., Kulesz, J. J., and Strehlow, R. A., Explosion hazards and evaluation. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1983. **
Fugelso, L. E., Weiner, L. M., and Schiffman, T. H., “Explosion effects computation aids,” Gen. Am. Div., Gen. Am. Transportation Co., US, GARD Prog. 1540, 1972.
HSE, “Methods of approximation and determination of human vulnerability for offshore major accident hazard assessment.” Supporting document to SPC (SPC/Tech/OSD/30, v. 3), 2010.

5. Damage criteria for structures
Note: * – “No damage” does not fully exclude the damage of building parts. Slight damage may occur, e.g. glass or window frames breakage.

6. Damage criteria for structures
Thresholds defined in the study
“Minor damage” - house structures (∆𝑃=4.8 kPa)*;
“Partial demolition” - house non-habitable (∆𝑃=6.9 kPa)**;
“Total destruction” - almost total destruction (∆𝑃=34.5kPa)**.
References:
Mannan, S., Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 3rd ed., vol. 1. Elsevier Butterworth- Heinemann, 2005.
Clancey, V. J., “Diagnostic features of explosion damage,” presented at the Sixth Int. Mtg of Forensic Sciences, Edinburgh, UK, 1972.
HSE, “The Peterborough Explosion. A report of the investigation by the Health and Safety Executive into the explosion of a vehicle carrying explosives at Fengate Industrial Estate, Peterborough on 22 March 1989.,” 1990.

7. Rupture of a stand-alone tank
Blast wave nomograms were built based on the model:
Molkov, V. and Kashkarov, S., “Blast wave from a high-pressure gas tank rupture in a fire: stand-alone and under-vehicle hydrogen tanks,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 40, no. 36, 2015, pp –12603.

8. Rupture of stand-alone tank
Overpressure
Nomograms for hydrogen safety engineers

9. Rupture of stand-alone tank
Impulse
Nomograms for hydrogen safety engineers

10. Rupture of stand-alone tank
Nomograms for first responders

11. Rupture of stand-alone tank
Nomograms for first responders

12. Rupture of an onboard tank
Blast wave nomograms were built based on the model:
Molkov, V. and Kashkarov, S., “Blast wave from a high-pressure gas tank rupture in a fire: stand-alone and under-vehicle hydrogen tanks,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 40, no. 36, 2015, pp –12603.

13. Rupture of onboard tank
Nomogram for hydrogen safety engineers
Overpressure
nomogram
Onboard application:
60 L and 700 bar onboard tank*
*Reference: Yamashita, A., Kondo, M., Goto, S., and Ogami, N., “Development of High-Pressure Hydrogen Storage System for the Toyota ‘Mirai,’” SAE Tech. Pap., 2015.

14. Rupture of onboard tank
Nomogram for hydrogen safety engineers
Impulse nomogram

15. Rupture of onboard tank
Nomograms for first responders

16. Rupture of onboard tank
Nomograms for first responders

17. Harm criteria in different countries
Eardrum rupture
Fatality
Hazard distance deviation 44.5%
Hazard distance deviation 60.3%
References:
USA:
NFPA, “NFPA® 2, Hydrogen Technologies Code”, 2011.
AIChE, “Guidance for Consequence Analysis of Chemical Releases”, 1999.
CCPS, “Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapour Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires and BLEVEs”, 1994.
France:
Ministère de l’Interieur, “NIO Risque hydrogène”, interieur.gouv.fr, 2013.
UK:
HSE, “Derivation of fatality of probability function for occupant buildings subject to blast loads,” 1997

18. Damage criteria in different countries
Minor damage to structures
Total destruction
Hazard distance deviation 4.2%
Hazard distance deviation 22.4%
References:
France:
Ministère de l’Interieur, “NIO Risque hydrogène”, interieur.gouv.fr, 2013.
UK:
Mannan, S., Lees’ Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 3rd ed., vol. 1. , 2005.
Clancey, V. J., “Diagnostic features of explosion damage”, 1972.
HSE, “The Peterborough Explosion. A report of the investigation by the Health and Safety Executive into the explosion of a vehicle carrying explosives at Fengate Industrial Estate, Peterborough on 22 March 1989”, 1990.

19. Concluding remarks
The nomograms to assess hazard distances from a blast wave from rupture of stand-alone (stationary) and onboard compressed hydrogen vessels in a fire were developed.
The nomograms for first responders are easy to use as they include pre-selected by the authors harm criteria.
The nomograms for hydrogen safety engineering give an engineer more flexibility for the more advanced choice of harm/damage thresholds to further apply them for finding a hazard distance.
Harm and damage criteria in different countries result in the high dependence (up to 60%) of hazard distances on selected thresholds.

20. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to:
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK) for funding the study through The Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Supergen Hub project (
Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking for funding through HyResponse project (

21. Thank you for your attention