• Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.41-48
• /
• 2020

This study performed a quantitative risk assessment for hydrogen-CNG complex refueling stations. Individual and societal risks were calculated by deriving accident scenarios that could occur at hydrogen and CNG refueling stations and by considering the frequency of accidents occurring for each scenario. As a result of the risk assessment, societal risk levels were within the acceptable range. However, individual risk has occurred outside the allowable range in some areas. To identify and manage risk components, high risk components were discovered through risk contribution analysis. High risks at the hydrogen-CNG complex refueling station were large leakage from CNG storage containers, compressors, and control panels. The sum of these risks contributed to approximately 88% of the overall risk of the fueling station. Therefore, periodic and intensive safety management should be performed for these high-risk elements.

• Fire Science and Engineering
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.57-67
• /
• 2004

The results of the risk assessing on general buses, consisting mainly of diesel-fueled buses, show that the frequency of the instantaneous release is 1.4${\times}$10$^{-3}$ /bus/year, from which the probability of the formation of fireball as a sub event becomes 1.7${\times}$104, and show that the leakage from the CNG-fueled buses is 0.002 event/year. Also, the frequency of gradual release due to a crack is estimated at 3.7${\times}$10$^{-3}$ /buses/year, and a subsequent probability at which this could lead to a jet flame as a sub event is 1.2${\times}$10$^{-3}$ This corresponds to 0.04event/year for the CNG-fueled buses. Dividing all the fired casualties by the running distance of diesel-fueled buses, the risk is 0.091 fire fatalities per 100-million miles. And the total fire risk fur CNG buses is approximately 0.17 per 100-million miles of travel. This means that CNG buses is twice or more dangerous than diesel buses. After all CNG buses are more susceptible to the major fires. In the aspect of the reliability of this study, generic models and the failure data used in assessing the risks of CNG buses are appropriate. However, more accurate physics-based models and databases should be supplemented with this study to provide the better results.

• 한국연소학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2014.11a
• /
• pp.113-113
• /
• 2014

This study has been conducted for evaluation of qualitative/quantitative risk of HCNG filling station. In case of fire explosion occurred because of hydrogen, CNG, and HCNG leaking on same conditions, maximum overpressure was measured as 30kPa for hydrogen, 3.5kPa for HCNG, and 0.4kPa for CNG. The overpressure of HCNG was measured 7.75 times higher than that of CNG, but it was only 11.7% compared with hydrogen. When the explosion was occurred, in case of hydrogen, the measured influential distance of overpressure was 59m and radiant heat was 75m. In case of CNG, influential distance of overpressure was 89m and radiant heat was 144m would be estimated. In case of 30% HCNG that was blended with hydrogen and CNG, influential distance of overpressure was 81m and radiant heat was 130m were measured. As the explosion occurred with the same sized container that had 350bar for hydrogen and 250bar of CNG and HCNG, the damage distance that explosive overpressure and radiant heat influenced CNG was seen as the highest. HCNG that was placed between CNG and hydrogen tended to be seen as more similar with CNG.

• Journal of the Korean Professional Engineers Association
• /
• v.45 no.6
• /
• pp.20-27
• /
• 2012

World has become interested in the development of new dean energy because of oil prices rise and global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions. This study evaluated the safety of the refueling infrastructure for hydrogen, CNG and HCNG(hydrogen blended natural gas) which recently take center stage as a clean fuel. The risk of fuel was evaluated by 3D computational fluid dynamics program for gas dispersion and explosion. Hydrogen is higher than the CNG explosion overpressure and shows rapid spread. On the other hand, CNG and 30% HCNG showed quite similar characteristics. HCNG slightly rises in risk than the CNG, but HCNG is safe compared to hydrogen.

• Journal of Energy Engineering
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.223-229
• /
• 2014

This study investigated the explosion characteristics of HCNG fuel using a simulation tool. The damage caused by the storage container explosion and vapor cloud explosion in a gas station was predicted. In case of an vapor cloud explosion in the HCNG station, 50~200kPa explosion pressure was predicted inside the station. When the cylinder explosion was occurred, in case of hydrogen, the measured influential distance of overpressure was 59m and radiant heat was 75m. In case of CNG, influential distance of overpressure was 89m and radiant heat was 144m would be estimated. In case of 30% HCNG that was blended with hydrogen and CNG, influential distance of overpressure was 81m and radiant heat was 130m were measured. The damage distance that explosive overpressure and radiant heat influenced CNG was seen as the highest. HCNG that was placed between CNG and hydrogen tended to be seen as more similar with CNG.

• 한국가스학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1998.09a
• /
• pp.109-114
• /
• 1998

• Proceedings of the Korea Institute of Fire Science and Engineering Conference
• /
• 2000.11a
• /
• pp.125-130
• /
• 2000

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas
• /
• v.17 no.5
• /
• pp.15-21
• /
• 2013

This study evaluated comparison of the risk according to the type of fuel by three-dimensional simulation tool(FLACS). The consequence analysis of fire explosion and jet-fire was carried out in the layout of a typical high-pressure gas filling stations using CNG, hydrogen and 30%HCNG. Under the same conditions, hydrogen had a 30kPa maximum overpressure, CNG had a 0.4kPa and HCNG had a 3.5kPa. HCNG overpressure was 7.75 times higher than the CNG measurement, but HCNG overpressure was only 11.7% compared to hydrogen. In case of flame propagation, hydrogen had a very fast propagation characteristics. On the other hand, CNG and HCNG flame propagation velocity and distance tended to be relatively safe in comparison to hydrogen. The estimated flame boundary distance by jet-fire of hydrogen was a 5.5m, CNG was a 3.4m and HCNG was a 3.9m.

• 한국가스학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1999.09a
• /
• pp.14-19
• /
• 1999

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.61-67
• /
• 2009

There are lots of energy facilities using gas(storage facility, compressed gas pipe, station, tank lorry) on the domestic. These major gas facilities cause major accidents associated with fire, explosion, toxic and etc. With the increased interest in reducing air pollution, supply of natural gas for gas vehicles is increasing. Thus, the number of establishments of LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) and CNG(Compressed Natural Gas) stations is increasing as well. However, due to major gas accidents such as the fire and explosion accident of a Buchen LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) station, it is difficult to establish a new station. In this research, we present quantitative risk assessment for LCNG;LNG multi-station and compare it result against individual risk criteria of HSE.