Risk Assessment of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles in Tunnels

Abstract

The need to understand the risks and implications of traffic incidents involving hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles in tunnels is increasing in importance with higher numbers of these vehicles being deployed. A risk analysis was performed to capture potential scenarios that could occur in the event of a crash and provide a quantitative calculation for the probability of each scenario occurring, with a qualitative categorization of possible consequences. The risk analysis was structured using an event sequence diagram with probability distributions on each event in the tree and random sampling was used to estimate resulting probability distributions for each end-state scenario. The most likely consequence of a crash is no additional hazard from the hydrogen fuel (98.1–99.9% probability) beyond the existing hazards in a vehicle crash, although some factors need additional data and study to validate. These scenarios include minor crashes with no release or ignition of hydrogen. When the hydrogen does ignite, it is most likely a jet flame from the pressure relief device release due to a hydrocarbon fire (0.03–1.8% probability). This work represents a detailed assessment of the state-of-knowledge of the likelihood associated with various vehicle crash scenarios. This is used in an event sequence framework with uncertainty propagation to estimate uncertainty around the probability of each scenario occurring.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11

References

  1. 1.

    California Fuel Cell Partnership (2019) How It Works. https://cafcp.org/sites/default/files/HowItWorks-Fuel-Cell-Booklet.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2019

  2. 2.

    Tchouvelev A, Hay D, Bénard P (2006) Quantitative risk comparison of hydrogen and CNG refuelling options. Final technical report to Natural Resources Canada

  3. 3.

    United Nations (2013) Global technical regulation on hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles. ECE/TRANS/180/Add.13 http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-180a13e.pdf

  4. 4.

    National Fire Protection Association (2010) NFPA 502, standard for road tunnels, bridges, and other limited access highways

  5. 5.

    Code of Federal Regulations. Standard No. 304; Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity. 49 CFR 571.304

  6. 6.

    Zalosh R, Pilette Y, Wang W (1994) Hazard analysis of alternative fueled vehicles in CA/T tunnels, part 1: CNG fueled vehicles. Center for Firesafety Studies, Worcester Polytechnic Institute report prepared for Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff Massachusetts Highway Department

  7. 7.

    Pasman H (2011) Challenges to improve confidence level of risk assessment of hydrogen technologies. Int J Hydrog Energy 36:2407–2413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.05.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rodionov A, Wilkening H, Moretto P (2011) Risk assessment of hydrogen explosion for private car with hydrogen-driven engine. Int J Hydrog Energy 36 (3):2398–2406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Dadashzadeh M, Kashkarov S, Makarov D, Molkov V (2018) Risk assessment methodology for onboard hydrogen storage. Int J Hydrog Energy 43 (12):6462–6475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.01.195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    LI Zhiyong, PAN Xiangmin, MA Jianxin (2011) Quantitative risk assessment on 2010 expo hydrogen station. Int J Hydrog Energy 36 (6):4079–4086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.12.068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Middha P, Hansen OR (2009) CFD simulation study to investigate the risk from hydrogen vehicles in tunnels. Int J Hydrog Energy 34 (14):5875–5886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kaplan S, Garrick BJ, Apostolakis G (1981) Advances in quantitative risk assessment—the maturing of a discipline. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 28 (1):944–946. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1981.4331310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Hall JR, Watts JM (2008) Fire risk analysis. In: Fire protection handbook, 20th edn. National Fire Protection Administration (NFPA): 3-135 to 3-143

  14. 14.

    California Fuel Cell Partnership (2019) FCEV Sales, FCEB, & Hydrogen Station Data. https://cafcp.org/by_the_number. Accessed 10 Apr 2019

  15. 15.

    Bassan S (2016) Overview of traffic safety aspects and design in road tunnels. IATSS Res 40 (1):35–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2016.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Caliendo C, De Guglielmo ML, Guida M (2013) A crash-prediction model for road tunnels. Accid Anal Prev 55:107–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.02.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Nathan O, Siu DLK (1998) Bayesian parameter estimation in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 62 (1–2):89–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00159-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Pape D, Cox A (2015) Compressed hydrogen container fueling options for crash testing. DOT HS 812 133. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Batelle Memorial Institute (2015) Crashworthiness research of prototype hydrogen fuel cell vehicles: task order 7 project report. DOT HS 812 112. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report, Washington, DC

  20. 20.

    Yamazaki K, Tamura Y (2017) Study of a post-fire verification method for the activation status of hydrogen cylinder pressure relief devices. Int J Hydrog Energy 42 (11):7716–7720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Suzuki J, Tamura Y, Watanabe S, Takabayashi M, Sato K (2006) Fire safety evaluation of a vehicle equipped with hydrogen fuel cylinders: comparison with gasoline and CNG vehicles. Paper presented at the 2006 SAE World Congress, Detroit, Michigan, 4/3/2006–4/6/2006

  22. 22.

    Zheng J, Bie H, Xu P, Chen H, Liu P, Li X, Liu Y (2010) Experimental and numerical studies on the bonfire test of high-pressure hydrogen storage vessels. Int J Hydrog Energy 35 (15):8191–8198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.12.092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Weyandt N (2009) Compressed hydrogen cylinder research and testing in accordance with FMVSS 304.  DOT HS 811 150, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Seike M, Ejiri Y, Kawabata N, Hasegawa M, Tanaka H (2014) Fire experiments of carrier loaded FCV in full-scale model tunnel: estimation of heat release rate and smoke generation rate. Paper presented at the third international conference on fire in vehicles, Berlin, Germany, 10/1/2014–10/2/2014

  25. 25.

    LaChance J, Houf W, Middleton B, Fluer L (2009) Analyses to support development of risk-informed separation distances for hydrogen codes and standards. SAND2009-0874, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    National Fire Protection Association (2016) NFPA 55, Compressed gases and cryogenic fluids code

  27. 27.

    Groth KM, LaChance JL, Harris AP (2012) Early-stage quantitative risk assessment to support development of codes and standard requirements for indoor fueling of hydrogen vehicles. SAND2012-10150, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies Program. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the U.S. Government. The authors wish to thank Paul LaFleur of the Federal Highway Safety Administration for his help in identifying vehicle crash data. The authors also wish to thank Joe Rigney of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for his help in providing tunnel information and feedback on the analysis. Finally, the authors with to thank Will James and Laura Hill of FCTO for their leadership in this analysis, as well as Jay Keller (consultant), Nick Barilo (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory), and Carl Rivkin (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) who provided very useful feedback on the analysis and report. Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris B. LaFleur.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ehrhart, B.D., Brooks, D.M., Muna, A.B. et al. Risk Assessment of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles in Tunnels. Fire Technol 56, 891–912 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-019-00910-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Hydrogen
  • Risk
  • Fuel cell electric vehicle
  • Event sequence diagram