Hazard distances from hydrogen

flames and fire fighting

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Content

1. Types of hydrogen fires

2. Microflames
3. Hydrogen jet fires and the flame length
4. Radiation heat flux from hydrogen jet fires
5. Jet fires of hydrogen compared to CNG and LPG
6. Hydrogen fireballs
7. Pressure effects of hydrogen jet fires
8. Detection of hydrogen fires
9. Mitigation and extinction of hydrogen fires

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Objectives of the lecture

1. Distinguish between different types of hydrogen fires: from microflames to jet fires and fireballs
2. Evaluate hydrogen flame lengths with the aid of nomograms, dimensional and dimensionless correlations
3. Assess the average location of jet flame tip
4. Predict the hazard distances to protect people and structures
5. Explain the effect of different factors on the flame length of jet fire: nozzle size and shape, jet attachment,
buoyancy, barriers or walls
6. Compare the flame lengths and heat fluxes of jet fires of hydrogen and other common fuels (CNG and LPG)
7. Explain the pressure effects of hydrogen jet fires
8. Identify the main hydrogen fires detection methods
9. Recognise the mitigation techniques for hydrogen fires
10. Implement the hydrogen fires extinction practices

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Dimensionless numbers

❖ The Froude number, Fr=U2/gd, where U - velocity, d –

characteristic size, g – acceleration due to gravity, is a ratio of
inertial to gravity force (multiplied by the product of density by
area A).
❖ The Reynolds number, Re=Ud /, where  – density,  –
viscosity, is a ratio of inertial to viscous force.
❖ The Mach number, M=U/C, where C – speed of sound, is a
ratio of inertial force to inertial force at sonic flow.
RT
❖ The speed of sound in ideal gas is: C = 
M

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Types of hydrogen flames/fires

• From microflames (10-9 kg/s) to high debit flames (10 kg/s).

• Laminar diffusion and turbulent non-premixed flames.
• Buoyancy- and momentum-controlled jets.
• Subsonic, sonic and under-expanded supersonic jet flames.
• Fireballs during storage tank failure in a fire.
• Liquefied hydrogen (LH2) fires - little knowledge.
• Impinging flames.
• Jet flames in the presence of obstacles, surfaces and in enclosures.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Quenching limits and blow-off
1000

100 • Tube burner is used.

• Quenching limits are nearly
Mass Flow Rate (mg/s)

H2 CH4 C3H8
10
Present ●
Matta et al.
Cheng et al.  independent of diameter.
1 Kalghatgi et al. ○ ⃟ 

0.1
• Hydrogen has the lowest
quenching limit and the highest
0.01
blow-off limit.
0.001
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Tube Diameter (mm)

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Quenching diameter
100
For hydrogen at 690 bar,
any hole larger than
Quenching Diameter (m)

10 Methane 0.4 m will support a

stable flame.
Propane

1 Hydrogen

0.1
1 10 100 1000
Pressure (bar)

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Leaky fittings
0.4

• Quenching limits for a 6 mm

Quenching Mass Flow Rate (mg/s)

0.3
0.378 mg/s compression fitting are shown.
0.336 mg/s
Hydrogen
• Limits are independent of
Methane
0.2 Propane pressure.
h
m
p
Linear (h)
• Limits are about 10 times of
0.1 0.028 mg/s Linear (m)
Linear (p) those of tube burners.
• Hydrogen limits are the lowest.
0
1 10 100 1000
Pressure (bar)

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
The length of microflames (1/2)

4 mm Test shown
LF=1 mm,
m=7.5 mg/s,
D=0.36 mm
Stand-off height
is 0.25 mm

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
The length of microflames (2/2)

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Laminar and turbulent jet flames
• The classic theoretical consideration of mixing and combustion in turbulent gas jets are given by Hottel and Hawthorne (1949).
• “The process of mixing is the controlling factor in determining progress of the combustion”.
• For the release of hydrogen into the still air transition from laminar diffusion to turbulent flames commences at Re ~ 2000.

Source: Hottel, HC and Hawthorne, WR (1949).

Diffusion in laminar flame jets. Proceedings of the
Combustion Institute. Vol. 3, pp. 254-266.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Flame length to diameter LF/d=f (Re)

• Dependence of the flame length to diameter ratio (LF/d) on Reynolds number Re

for different nozzle diameters
• Turbulent flame length limit Lt

1 – 1.45 mm; 9 – 51.7 mm

Source: Baev et al (1974) Source: Shevyakov and Komov (1977)

Can all these scattered data be correlated by one curve?

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Fr-based flame length correlations

• Dimensionless flame length correlations suggested previously are based on the

use of the Froude number (Fr) only, in one form or another.
• Recently Fr-based correlations were expanded to high pressure hydrogen jet fires
(under-expanded jets). The general idea of this technique is to correlate
experimental data with the modified Fr number that is built on so-called notional
or effective nozzle diameter instead of real nozzle diameter. However, the size
of the notional nozzle diameter and the velocity in the notional nozzle are
dependent on the theory applied, including a number of simplifying assumptions.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Fr-based correlation example
Momentum-

+50%
Scattering for
momentum jets
with high Re
is an issue
Under-expanded
jets are included!

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
The dimensional correlation (2009)

Good
prediction for
high and poor
for small debit
jets

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
The nomogram Flame L=5 m

Derived from the dimensional

correlation (best fit curve; please
multiply by 1.5 for a conservative
estimate).

Special feature: No flame

No stable flames (“non-combustible”
hydrogen) were observed for nozzle P=350 bar
diameters 0.1-0.2 mm – flame blew off
although the spouting pressure D=3 mm
increased up to 400 bar.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
The under-expanded jet scheme

1- High pressure vessel

2- Nozzle entrance The notional nozzle exit, 4, parameters correspond to
3- Nozzle exit (= notional nozzle entrance) fully expanded jet with the pressure equal to ambient
4- Notional (effective) nozzle exit (3-4: no and uniform flow velocity equal to local speed of sound.
entrainment) In some cases, there can be essential minor and friction
P1 Storage pressure losses in the flow pathway 2-3 that cannot be neglected,
P2 Atmospheric pressure (after jet expansion) e.g. the case of very narrow crack.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
A dimensionless correlation?

• The dimensional correlation for flame length is LF ~ (ṁ.d)1/3

• Mass flow rate is proportional to the actual nozzle diameter squared ṁ ~ d2
• This implies that dimensionless flame length LF/d is an exponent function of
only density, N, and velocity, UN, in the nozzle
• The dimensionless density and velocity
  RH 2  TN
can be introduced: N /S and UN /CN, CN =
(1 − b   N )
• The correlation (next slide) is validated:
- hydrogen storage pressures up to 90 MPa;
- nozzle diameters from 0.4 to 51.7 mm.
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
The dimensionless correlation (2011)
Kalghatgi, subsonic
Kalghatgi
Mogi et al. Validation:
Schefer et al., subsonic

1000
Schefer et al.
Proust et al. P =0.1-90 MPa
Studer et al.
Imamura et al.
Chevyakov et al., subsonic
d=0.4-51.7 mm
Hawthorne, subsonic
LF /dN

100 Line M = 1 (choked flow)

M (M < 1) -> (Re, Fr)
3
N U  g  N
M=1   N  =  Re Fr
10 S  CN   S  CN
3

1E-009 1E-007 1E-005 0.001 0.1 10

.
(N/S) (UN/CN)3

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Change of Fr, Re, M
9 3
Froude number
Reynolds number
8
U 2
 N  d N U N U
Mach number
Fr
Fr = N
Re = M= N
dN  g N CN 7

Fr=106 2

Log (Fr) and Log (Re)

6

Mach number
Re=2000: Laminar to turbulent 5
Re
Fr=106: Buoyancy to momentum 4
1

3
3 Re=2000
N UN  g  N M
   =  Re Fr 2
S  CN   S  CN
3
M=1
1 0

1E-009 1E-007 1E-005 0.001 0.1 10

.
(N/S) (UN/CN)3

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
How to determine the flame length?
❖ Y axis: Lf /dn where Lf - flame length, dn - nozzle diameter
❖ X axis: (ρN/ρS)(UN/CN)3 where
❖ ρN - density at the nozzle exit, = 0.0838 kg/m3 at normal temperature and pressure (NTP) for sub-
sonic and expanded sonic jets, calculated in the same way as with similarity law for unignited jets.
If the jet is under expanded, then the density is calculated by an under-expanded jet theory (UU)
❖ ρS - density of the surroundings = 1.205 kg/m 3 for air
P RT
❖ CN - is the speed of sound in hydrogen at the nozzle exit, C N =  = 
 M

❖ UN - the velocity of the hydrogen at the jet exit P

UN = 2
UN = CN for sonic and supersonic jets, 
for subsonic jets:
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Where is a jet flame tip location?
❖ Flammable envelope = 4 vol. % (LFL)
❖ Flame tip location = 11 vol. % in unignited jet (8-16 vol.%)
Kalghatgi sonic, 1984
Mogi et al. 0.4 mm, 2005
Mogi et al. 0.8 mm, 2005
Mogi et al. 2 mm, 2005
Mogi et al. 4 mm, 2005
Flame is 2.2 times (16%) or 4.7
8% Schefer et al. 5.08 mm, 2007
times (8%) longer than the
Proust et al. 1 mm, 2008
x/D and LF /D

1000
Proust et al. 2 mm, 2008
Proust et al. 3mm, 2008
distance to axial concentration
Studer et al. 4 mm, 2008
16% Studer et al. 7 mm, 2008
29.5% (stoichiometric hydrogen-air
Studer et al. 10 mm, 2008
Imamura et al. 1 mm, 2008 mixture)!
Imamura et al. 2 mm, 2008
11% Imamura et al. 3 mm, 2008
Imamura et al. 4 mm, 2008
100 HySAFER model - 16% by vol
HySAFER model - 11% by vol
1 10 100 1000
pcont, bar HySAFER model - 8% by vol
Best fit 70 points

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Hazard and separation distances
• Hazard distance is a recently introduced term.
• In early publications (before 2015) you may find terms such as separation distance =
safety distance = setback distance.
• As per draft definition, ISO TC197 hazard distance is a distance from the (source of)
hazard to a determined (by physical or numerical modelling, or by a regulation) physical
effect value (normally, thermal or pressure) that may lead to a harm condition (ranging
from “no harm” to “max harm”) to people, equipment or environment.
• The hazard distance will be different for:
➢ Unignited releases;
➢ Fires;
➢ Blast wave;
➢ Fireball
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Harm criteria

• In the case of free fires this would be temperature, heat flux and overpressure (in
the case of enclosure fires - asphyxiation may also be relevant).
• For people direct flame contact as a result of a jet fire is generally assumed to
result in third degree burns.
• For people not in the flame, there is still potential for exposure to high radiation
heat fluxes.
• Harmful heat flux criteria are presented in the Lecture ‘Harm criteria for people and
damage criteria for structures.
• 70 oC - “no harm” limit; 115 oC - pain limit for 5 min exposure; 309 oC - third degree
burns for 20 s (“fatality” limit).
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Temperature decay along jet fire axis

• Momentum-dominated leak
• Jet fires (three hazard
distances):
x = 3.5LF for “no harm” (70 oC)
x = 3LF for pain limit (115 oC, 5
min)
x = 2LF for third degree burns
(309oC, 20 s)
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Unignited versus ignited jets x4% = 1708   N  D

• The ratios of a hazard distance to LFL (non-reacting jet) to three hazard distances based on the choice of
harm criteria for jet fire are (average flame tip location 11 vol. % in non-reacting jet):
➢ x4%/xT=70C = x4%/(3.5.x11%) = 2.95/3.5 = 0.84 (“no harm”);
➢ x4%/xT=115C = 2.95/3 = 0.98 (“pain limit”);
➢ x4%/xT=309C = 2.95/2 = 1.48 (“fatality limit” – unprotected).
• In the conservative case (flame tip location 8 vol. %) these ratios:
➢ x4%/xT=70C(8%) = 2.08/3.5 = 0.59 (“no harm”);
➢ x4%/xT=115C(8%) = 2.08/3 = 0.69 (“pain limit”);
➢ x4%/xT=309C(8%) = 2.08/2 = 1.04 (“fatality limit” – unprotected).
• “Unexpected” conclusion - in the conservative case all three distances for jet fire are either longer
or equal to the hazard distance based on LFL (non-reacting release).

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Flame length & hazard distance calculation – e-Laboratory
URL:https://elab.hysafer.ulster.ac.uk/
Login: HyResponderTrainer
Password: safetyfirst

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Similarity law for hydrogen concentration decay– e-Laboratory

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Unattached and attached jets

Unattached Attached

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGEEFgShQhQ&lis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyj95QElNCc&list=
t=PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=9 PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=16
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Attachment effect on jet flame length
• 205 bar (20.5 MPa), ignition delay 800 ms.
• Attached jets – 0.11 m above the ground.
• Unattached jets – 1.2 m above the ground.
• Release along the ground or walls in proximity to them can increase the flame length.

Orifice diameter, Flame length, m Flame length, m Flame length

mm Attached jets Unattached jets increase, times

1.5 5.5 3 x1.83

3.2 9 6 x1.50
6.4 11 9 x1.22
9.5 13 11 x1.18

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Round nozzles (p =35 MPa)
1m 1m

(a) d = 0.0004 m

(b) d = 0.0008 m

(c) d = 0.002 m
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Round and plane nozzles
p=40 MPa (constant nozzle area 0.8 mm 2) (A=constant)
Nozzle Side view Front view

d = 0.001 m

0.0004×0.002 m
(AF = 5)

0.00025×0.0032 m
(AF = 12.8)

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Nozzle shape effect on flame length
3.0 1.5
d =0.001m d = 0.001m
AR =5 AF = 5

Maximum flame widthWf [m]

2.5 AF = 12.8 d = 0.0032m
AR =12.8 1.2
Flame length Lf [m]

2.0
0.9 d = 0.002m
1.5
0.6
1.0
d =0.0004m
0.3
0.5 d =0.00025m

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Release pressure p0 [MPa] Release pressure p0 [MPa]

Length Width
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Effect of a barrier wall on delayed ignition of hydrogen

Barrier 90o: 9.5 mm, 800 ms Barrier 60o: 9.5 mm, 800 ms
(42 kPa; free jet only 16 kPa) (57 kPa; free jet only 16 kPa)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCIdzIjqxkQ&list= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SeqGHpTkzc&list
PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=2 =PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=3
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Effect of an orifice diameter on overpressure

Orifice diameter, mm Ignition delay, ms Max overpressure, kPa

1.5 800 Not recordable
1.5 400 Not recordable
3.2 800 3.5
3.2 400 2.1
6.4 800 15.2
6.4 400 2.7-3.7
9.5 800 16.5
9.5 400 3.3-5.4

Conclusion:
❖ Reduce orifice diameter ALARP to reduce overpressure following delayed ignition

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Effect of ignition source location on overpressure

Orifice d = 6.4 mm. Fixed ignition delay: 800 ms.

The ignition position (pyrotechnic system) was varied from 3 m to 10 m (h=1.2 m).

Ignition position, m Max overpressure, kPa

3 5.0
4 2.1
5 2.1
6 Not recordable
8 Not recordable
10 No ignition
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Delayed ignition: Test conditions (HSL)

• Storage pressure: 205 bar (two 50 litre cylinders).

• Stainless steel tubing ID=11.9 mm, a series of ball valves with internal bore of 9.5 mm.
Restrictors of 2 mm length and diameter: 1.5, 3.2, 6.4 mm.
• Ignition by a match head with small amount of pyrotechnic material. Ignition 1.2 m above
the ground.
• The release point is 1.2 m above the ground.
• Ignition point is located 2-10 m from the release point.
• Piezo-resistive transducers pointed out upwards (except for wall mounted). Sensors are
located at axial distance 2.8 m from the nozzle, 1.5 m (then +1.1 m and +1.1 m)
perpendicular to the axis, at height 0.5 m.
• 260 ms to fully open the valve, 140 ms for hydrogen to reach 2 m, i.e. 400 ms is shortest
ignition delay.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Free jet fire: 9.5 mm, 800 ms (16.5 kPa)

Daytime fire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txNANqq7rJ4&list=PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=13
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Infrared 4.1-5.3 microns (16.5 kPa)

Nighttime fire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myOTYcPCw0I&list=PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=12
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Effect of ignition delay on overpressure
Orifice d=6.4 mm. Ignition 2 m from the orifice.
Ignition delay, ms Max overpressure, kPa
400 3.7
500 18.4
600 19.4
800 15.2
1000 11.7
1200 12.5
2000 9.5

Spontaneous ignition should reduce overpressure of self-ignited release (no SI observed with a valve use).

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Visibility of hydrogen flames

• Hydrogen burns with invisible in the daylight flame.

• Real jet flame can be visible due to combustion of entrained particulates.
• Radiation emitted from hydrogen flames is very low.
The emissivity1 < 0.1 (ADL,1960).
Sandia National Laboratory (US) research: emissivity < 0.3.

1Emissivity is defined as the ratio of the energy radiated from a material's surface to that radiated from a perfect emitter, known
as a blackbody, at the same temperature and wavelength and under the same viewing conditions.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Heat flux prediction (1/2)

1. Evaluation of the radiant fraction 𝝌: fraction of total chemical energy release converted into energy
radiated to the surroundings.
The expression of radiant fraction used in the model was derived by Molina:
4
𝜒 = 0.08916 ∙ 𝑙𝑜𝑔10 𝑡𝑓 ∙ 𝛼𝑓 ∙ 𝑇𝑎𝑑 − 1.2172
𝜋 𝜌𝑓 ∙ 𝑊𝑓2 ∙ 𝐿𝑓 ∙ 𝑌𝑠
Turns and Myhr’s equation for residence time evaluation: 𝑡𝑓 =
12 𝑚ሶ
𝑃𝑎𝑚𝑏 ∙ 𝑀𝑊𝑠𝑡
𝜌𝑓 is the flame density and it is evaluated through the following expression: 𝜌𝑓 =
𝑅𝑢 ∙ 𝑇𝑎𝑑

𝑡𝑓 : flame residence time (milliseconds); 𝛼𝑓 : Plank’s mean absorption coefficient for the product species (𝛼𝑓,𝐻2𝑂 =0.23
𝑚−1 ); 𝑇𝑎𝑑 : adiabatic flame temperature; 𝑌𝑠 : hydrogen stoichiometric mass fraction (𝑌𝑠 =0.0281); 𝐿𝑓 : visible flame
length; 𝑊𝑓 : visible flame width; 𝑚:ሶ mass flow rate; 𝑃𝑎𝑚𝑏 : ambient pressure;
𝑀𝑊𝑠𝑡 : stoichiometric molecular weight of the hydrogen combustion products in air (𝑀𝑊𝑠𝑡 =24.52 g/mol);
𝑅𝑢 : universal gas constant (𝑅𝑢 =8314.47 g/(kmol·K).

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Heat flux prediction (2/2)

2. Evaluation of surface emissive power S: 𝑆 = 𝜒 ∙ 𝑚ሶ ∙ ∆𝐻𝑐

∆𝐻𝑐 : gas heat of combustion (∆𝐻𝑐,𝐻20 = −119 𝑀𝐽/𝑘𝑔); 𝑚:

ሶ mass flow rate

3. Evaluation of the radiative heat flux at the observer location q is a product of the surface
emissive power, of the view factor VF and the atmospheric transmissivity 𝜏: 𝑞 = 𝑉𝐹 ∙ 𝑆 ∙ 𝜏

The view factor VF and the atmospheric transmissivity 𝜏 are function of the model chosen to represent the
flame:

• single source emitter: the source is considered as a point located at the middle point of the predicted flame
length.

• weighted multi-source model: decomposition of the jet flame axis in N points, with N decided accordingly to
the characteristics of the problem. Afterwards, each point is considered as a radiation emitter and it has a
different contribution on the final balance of the heat flux.
Sources: Houf et al (2013). International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 38 8092-8099; Ekoto et al (2014), International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 39 39 , 20570-20577

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Comparison of hydrogen jets to common fuels

• Jet fires: Thermal effects

Jet fires: Flame length

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Fireballs (rupture of a storage tank in a fire)

Hydrogen fireball about 70 ms after tank rupture (under the vehicle) Hydrogen fireball about 170 ms after tank rupture (under the vehicle)

Two tests:
1) stand alone hydrogen tank. Catastrophic rupture after 6 min 27 s. Diameter 𝐷𝑓𝑏 = 7.7 𝑚; time 𝑡𝑓𝑏 = 4.5 𝑠
2) hydrogen tank installed on a typical SUV. Catastrophic rupture after 12 min 18 s. Diameter 𝐷𝑓𝑏 = 24 𝑚; time
𝑡𝑓𝑏 = 4.5 𝑠 (please see two images above)
Source: Zalosh, 2007

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Hydrogen fire sensors

Type Pluses Minuses

UV/IR Moderate speed. False alarms possible in
Moderate sensitivity. case of combination of IR
Low false alarm rate. and UV sources.
Not blinded by CO2 fire Blinded by thick smoke and
protections discharges. vapours.
Automatic self-test. Price.

Triple IR Very high sensitivity. Price

Very high speed.
IR/vis imaging Images the flame. Price
Used by NASA.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
UV/IR Hydrogen fire detectors
• The detection range of a hydrogen-specific flame detector for a plume 15–20 cm (6–8 inches) high
and 15 cm (6 inches) in diameter. This flame detector can detect the on-axis range of 4.6 m (15 ft)
up to ± 55°, providing broad angular coverage.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Overview of vehicle fires
Statistics:
According to Fire statistics (2011-2012) in
• UK - 28,800 road vehicle fires in 2011-12
• USA - 172,500 automobile fires in 2012 Great Britain:
• Types of vehicles: motor cars, heavy goods ➢ The majority (65%) of fires occurred in
vehicles, light goods vehicles, public transport cars, 10% were in vans, 4% were in
vehicles etc. lorries and 2% in buses or minibuses.
➢ Fire causes: accidental, deliberate or
unknown
➢ The majority of deliberate fires (43%)
involved road vehicles – 13,900 fires.
➢ The number of fatalities in road vehicle
fires in 2011-12 was 37.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Risks and statistics

• Recent data shows that about 10% of vessel failure is catastrophic! This means that catastrophic
failure cannot be ruled out of the risk assessment [1].

• People/customers would not be happy to know that they might die with a probability of 10-4 or 10-6.
They wish to know that everything is done for safety.

• During 2000-2006: 20 documented CNG tank failures, 11 have been attributed to vehicle fires [2]. Of
these 11 incidents, the evidence suggests that the majority of the TPRDs failed to activate (localized
fire).

• CNG and hydrogen storage tanks: “testing has shown that all fuel tanks regardless of working
pressure are highly susceptible to rapid degradation due to localized fires” [2].

Sources:
[1] The relative frequency of failure modes. http://www.h2safe.com/case_safety.html [2] Gambone, L.R. and Wong, J.Y., Fire Protection Strategy for Compressed Hydrogen-Powered Vehicles, ICHS2, 2007).

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Upward release from a TPRD
A vehicle equipped with two cylinders (34 L capacity, at 35 MPa) fitted with a TPRD, 5 mm in diameter.
TPRD was actuated after 14 min 36 sec (Watanabe et al, 2007).

Is 10-15 m flame length from a car acceptable?

“No harm” distance is 25-40 m and a high-pitched noise from the jet!
What if a car parked in a garage or in a multi-storey parking facility (“domino” effect)?
Source: Watanabe, S, Tamura, Y, Suzuki, J (2007). The new facility for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicle safety evaluation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. Vol. 32 (13), pp. 2154-2161.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
TPRD release directed downwards
• A fire was initiated on the instrumentation panel ashtrays. The TPRD was actuated in 16 min 16 sec
(downward). Blow-down in less than 5 min (no catastrophic tank failure, but…).

Current size of TPRD does not allow self-evacuation and rescue operations.
What if a car is indoors?
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Flame length: 10.9 m down to 5.2 m
• Release 0o (flame temperature 1300oC)
Flame length 10.9 m (correlation), 5.2 m by CFD (longest in 2 s)

length of free jet fire from 4.2 mm release (350 bar): 10.9 m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPT7KePqMrs&list=PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=20
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
No harm distance: 38 m down to 6 m
• Release 0o (temperature 70oC envelope)
No harm (horizontal!) 10.9x3.5=38 m (correlation), 6 m (CFD)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBi9GEZUEa8&list=PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=10
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Flame length: 10.9 m down to 9.7 m

• Release 30o (evacuation route still blocked)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VflBVfK8Tc&list=PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=21

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Flame length: 10.9 m “down” to 10.5 m

• Release 45o (evacuation and rescue possible)

No-harm distance decreases from 38 m (correlation) to 23 m (CFD)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lf_zBhgjCg&list=PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=22

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Hazard distances (1/2)

Hazard distance from visible hydrogen fire (1300 oC flame) - Release 0o

35 MPa 70 MPa

8.4 m
5.2 m

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Hazard distances (2/2)

Hazard distance for people standing on the ground (below 2m) - Release 0o

35 MPa 70 MPa

6.0 m 9.5 m

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
70 C envelope (70 MPa)

Release 0o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Hq6lXzHKE&list=PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=11
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Jet fire prevention and mitigation

• Direction of the jet flow

The flow shall be directed so that it will not reach people or equipment. For example, flanges
(components where leaks are likely) should be placed and directed in such way that a potential leak
would not cause any domino effects.
• Shielding or barriers
It will reduce the rate of heat transfer to the potential targets in the vicinity of a hydrogen fire. Flame
shields are specifically intended to reduce the radiant heat flux by preventing direct flame impingement on
systems or equipment. The correct choice of materials for shields or barriers is very important.
• Reduction of flame length
For example through the use of innovative PRDs with decreased diameter and use of plane nozzles (see
next slide).
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Innovative TPRD (350 bar)

Flame length reduction: 7.5 –> 1.8 m Flame length reduction: 6.1 –> 1.8 m

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKVVSBX- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chamCusodSk&list
3As&list=PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=15 =PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=14
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Innovative PRD: shorter flame

Current PRD Current PRD

Back view Side view

Short flame TPRD Short flame TPRD

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Use of thermal insulation

• The purpose of thermal insulation is to reduce the rate of heat transfer to potential
targets, e.g. hydrogen tanks located near hydrogen jet fire
• The equipment is usually protected with the materials which:
• Have relatively low heat conductivity
• Are non-combustible and do not produce smoke or toxic gases when subjected to high
temperatures
• Provide uniform protection
• Allow efficient and uniform application
• Durable and have sufficient bond strength
• Weather-resistant

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Fire protection coatings
Fire protection coatings (e.g. intumescent) for hydrogen storage tanks (research on-going at Ulster)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW33J-Yr3Qo&list=PLlphoM9ggM3Rf-Npmdq0S3WrCSpx0U4SL&index=19
European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders
 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Extinction of hydrogen fires
The recommendations from the US National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Emergency Response Training, 2014

Responders should:
• listen for venting gas, and watch for thermal waves that would signal hydrogen flames
• if only one FC vehicle is involved, approach from a 45° angle as per standard procedures, and from a
downhill and upwind position
• if a hydrogen fire is present:
➢ Allow the hydrogen supply to burn out if safe to do so and protect adjacent exposures; then approach and
extinguish.
➢ If a hydrocarbon fire is also present, attack the fire with a straight water stream from a distance, but avoid
directing the water stream into the hydrogen tank’s pressure-relief-device vent line. Control fire spread and
cool exposures.
➢ If possible, direct venting hydrogen that is not burning away from ignition sources and dissipate if necessary
with fog nozzle streams.
➢ Spray foam on petrol or diesel leaks near FC vehicle.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Reference (1/5)
1. Molkov, V (2012). Fundamentals of hydrogen safety engineering, Part I and Part II. Available from: www.bookboon.com, free download e-book.
2. Cheng, TS, Chiou, CR (1998). Experimental investigation of the characteristics of turbulent hydrogen jet flames. Combustion Science and Technology. Col. 136, p. 81-84.
3. Dorofeev, SB (2009). Evaluation of hydrogen explosion hazards: phenomenology and potential flame acceleration and DDT. 4th European Summer School on Hydrogen Safety.
4. Birch, AD, Brown, MG, Dodson, MG, Swaffield, F (1984). The structure and concentration decay of high pressure jets of natural gas. Combustion Science and Technology. Vol. 36, p.
249-261.
5. NFPA (2009). Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicular Fuel Systems Code, 52.
6. LaChance, J, Tchouvelev, A and Engebo, A (2011). Development of uniform harm criteria for use in quantitative risk analysis of the hydrogen infrastructure. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy. Vol. 36 p. 2381-2388.
7. Saffers, JB (2010). Principles of hydrogen safety engineering. PhD thesis. University of Ulster.
8. BRHS, Biannual Report on Hydrogen Safety (2007). Network of Excellence HySAFE. Available from: http://www.hysafe.org/BRHS [accessed on 25.11.20].
9. Kanury, AM (1975). Introduction to combustion phenomena: (for fire, incineration, pollution and energy applications). New York; London: Gordon and Breach.
10. Teodorczyk, A (2006). Fast deflagration, deflagration to detonation transition (DDT) and direct detonation of hydrogen-air mixtures. Teaching Materials of European Summer School
on Hydrogen Safety, 2006.
11. Kalghatgi, GT (1981). Blow-out stability of gaseous jet diffusion flames. Part I: in still air. Combustion Science and Technology. Vol. 26(5), pp. 233-239.
12. Matta, LM, Neumeier, Y, Lemon, B and Zinn, BT (2002). Characteristics of microscale diffusion flames. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, vol. 29, pp. 933-938.
13. Cheng, TS, Chen, CP, Chen, CS, Li, YH, Wu, CY and Chao, YC (2006). Characteristics of microjet methane diffusion flames. Combustion Theory and Modelling, 10, pp. 861-881.
14. Butler, MS, Moran, CW, Suderland, PB and Axelbaum, RL (2009). Limits for hydrogen leaks that can support stable flames. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Vol. 34. pp.
5174-5182.
15. Sunderland, PB (2010). Hydrogen microflame hazards, Proceedings of the 8th International Short Course and Advanced Research Workshop in the series “Progress in Hydrogen
Safety”, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Early Market Applications, 11 - 15 October 2010, University of Ulster, Belfast.
16. Hawthorne, WR, Weddell, DS and Hottel HC (1949). Mixing and combustion in turbulent gas jets, Third International Symposium on Combustion, Flame and Explosion Phenomena,
pp. 266-288, Baltimore, USA.
17. Hottel, HC and Hawthorne, WR (1949). Diffusion in laminar flame jets. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute. Vol. 3, pp. 254-266.
18. Brennan, S, Makarov, D and Molkov, V (2009). LES of high pressure hydrogen jet fire. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. Vol. 22 (3), pp.353-359.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Reference (2/5)
19. Baev, VK and Yasakov, VA (1974). Effect of lifting forces on the length of diffusion flames. Combustion, Explosion and Shock Waves. Vol. 10, pp. 752-758.
20. Shevyakov, GG and Komov, VF (1977). Effect of non-combustible admixtures on length of an axisymmetric on-port turbulent diffusion flame. Combustion, Explosion and Shock
Waves. Vol. 13, pp. 563-566.
21. HyFacts Project. Chapter F. Hydrogen fires. Available from: https://www.h2euro.org/hyfacts/2014/06/26/training-material/ [accessed on 25.11.20].
22. Kalghatgi, GT (1984). Lift-off heights and visible lengths of vertical turbulent jet diffusion flames in still air. Combustion Science and Technology. Vol. 41, pp. 17-29.
23. Schefer, RW, Houf, WG, Bourne, B and Colton, J (2006). Spatial and radiative properties of an open-flame hydrogen plume. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Vol. 31, pp.
1332-1340.
24. Schefer, RW, Houf, WG, Williams, TC, Bourne, B and Colton, J (2007). Characterization of high pressure, underexpanded hydrogen-jet flames. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy. Vol. 32, pp. 2081-2093.
25. Molkov, V and Saffers, J-B (2013). Hydrogen jet flames. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Vol. 38, pp. 8141-8158.
26. Proust, C, Jamois, D and Studer, E (2009). High pressure hydrogen fires. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Hydrogen Safety. 16-18 September 2009, Ajaccio,
France, paper 214.
27. LaChance, J, Tchouvelev, A and Engebo, A (2011). Development of uniform harm criteria for use in quantitative risk analysis of the hydrogen infrastructure. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy. Vol. 36 pp. 2381-2388.
28. EIGA, European Industrial Gases Association (2007). Determination of safety distances. IGC Doc 75/07/E.
29. BSI British Standards Institution (2004). Published Document PD 7974-6:2004. The application of fire safety engineering principles to fire safety design of buildings - Part 6: Human
factors: Life safety strategies - Occupants evacuation, behaviour and condition (Sub-system 6).
30. DNV Technica (2001). Human resistance against thermal effects, explosion effects, toxic effects and obscuration of vision. DNV Technica, Scandpower A/S, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo,
Norway.
31. BSI British Standards Institution (1997). British Standard 7899:1997. Code of practice for assessment of hazard to life and health from fire. Guidance on methods for the quantification
of hazards to life and health and estimation of time to incapacitation and death in fires.
32. Barlow, RS and Carter, CD (1996.) Relationships among Nitric Oxide, Temperature, and Mixture Fraction in Hydrogen Jet Flames. Combustion and Flame. Vol. 104, pp. 288-299.
33. Imamura, T, Hamada, S, Mogi, T, Wada, Y, Horiguchi, S, Miyake, A and Ogawa, T (2008). Experimental investigation on the thermal properties of hydrogen jet flame and hot currents
in the downstream region. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Vol. 33, pp. 3426-3435.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Reference (3/5)
34. Royle, M and Willoughby, DB (2009). Consequences of catastrophic releases of ignited and unignited hydrogen jet releases. 3rd International Conference on Hydrogen Safety,
Ajaccio, France.
35. Mogi, T and Horiguchi, S (2009). Experimental study on the hazards of high-pressure hydrogen jet diffusion flames. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. Vol. 22, pp.
45-51.
36. Makarov, D and Molkov, V. (2013). Plane hydrogen jets. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Vol. 38 (19), pp. 8068–8083.
37. Shevyakov, GG and Savelieva, NI (2004). Dispersion and combustion of hydrogen jet in the open atmosphere. International Scientific Journal for Alternative Energy and Ecology. Vol.
1(9), pp. 23-27 (in Russian).
38. HYPER (2008) FP6 STREP project “Installation Permitting Guidance for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Stationary Applications”. Deliverable 4.3 Releases, Fires and Explosions. WP4
Final Report.
39. Houf, WG and Schefer, RW (2007). Predicting radiative heat fluxes and flammability envelopes from unintended releases of hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Vol.
32, pp. 136-151.
40. Molina, A, Schefer, RW and Houf, WG (2007). Radiative fraction and optical thickness in large-scale hydrogen-jet fires. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute. Vol. 31, pp. 2565-
2572.
41. Case for safety. Relative frequency of failure modes. Available from: http://h2safe.net/case_safety.html [accessed on 25.11.20].
42. Zalosh, R (2007). Blast waves and fireballs generated by hydrogen fuel tank rupture during fire exposure. Proceedings on the 5th Seminar on Fire and Explosion Hazard, Edinburgh,
UK, 23-27 April 2007, pp. 2154-2161.
43. Fire statistics, Great Britain, 2011-2012. Department of Communities and Local Government.
44. Gambone, LR and Wong, JY (2007). Fire protection strategy for compressed hydrogen-powered vehicles. 2nd International Conference on Hydrogen Safety, San Sebastian, Spain,
11-13 September, 2007.
45. Swain, MR (2001). Fuel leak simulation. Proceedings of the 2001 DOE Hydrogen Program Review. Available from:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/30535be.pdf [Accessed 25.11.20].
46. Tamura, Y, Takabayashi, M, Takeuchi, M and Mitsuishi, H (2011). The spread of fire from adjoining vehicles to a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Hydrogen Safety, 12-14 September 2011, San Francisco, USA.
47. Stephenson, RR (2005) Fire safety of hydrogen-fuelled vehicles: system-level bonfire test. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Hydrogen Safety, Pisa, Italy, 2005.
Available from: http://conference.ing.unipi.it/ichs2005. [Accessed 25.11.20].

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Reference (4/5)
48. Watanabe, S, Tamura, Y, Suzuki, J (2007). The new facility for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicle safety evaluation. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Vol. 32 (13), pp. 2154-
2161.
49. Li, Z, Makarov, D, Keenan, J, Molkov, V (2015). CFD study of the unignited and ignited hydrogen releases from TPRD under a fuel cell car. 6th International Conference on Hydrogen
Safety, 19-21 October 2015, Yokohama, Japan.
50. NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2007 Edition. National Fire Prevention Association, 2007, Boston,
Massachusetts.
51. HyIndoor Deliverable D4.2 – First intermediate report on analytical, numerical and experimental studies (2014).
52. Yamazaki, K and Tamura, Y (2015). Study of a Post-fire Verification Method for the Activation Status of Hydrogen Cylinder Pressure Relief Devices. 6th International Conference on
Hydrogen Safety, 19-21 October 2015, Yokohama, Japan.
53. US DoE, US Department of Energy (2008). Hydrogen safety training for first responders. Available from: http://hydrogen.pnl.gov/FirstResponders/ [accessed on 25.11.20].
54. Cirrone DMC, Makarov D, Molkov V. Simulation of thermal hazards from hydrogen under-expanded jet fire. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019,44:8886-8892.
55. ANSYS Fluent. Theory guide. 2016.
56. Schefer R, Houf B, Bourne B, Colton J. Experimental measurements to characterize the thermal and radiation properties of an open-flame hydrogen plume. In: Proceedings of the
15th annual hydrogen conference and hydrogen expo; 2004.
57. Molkov, V., Makarov, D. and Bragin, M., ‘Physics and modeling of under-expanded jets and hydrogen dispersion in atmosphere’, in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference
on Interaction of Intense Energy Fluxes with Matter, 1st - 6th March, 2009, Elbrus, Russia, 2009, p. 146.
58. Molkov, V. and Saffers, J.-B., ‘The correlation for non-premixed hydrogen jet flame length in still air’, in 10th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science, June 19, 2011 - June
24, 2011, 2011, pp. 933–943.
59. LaChance, J.L., ‘Progress in risk assessment methodologies for emerging hydrogen applications’, presented at the Sixth International Short Course and Advanced Research
Workshop ‘Progress in Hydrogen Safety - Regulations, Codes and Standards’ 25th - 29th January, 2010, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 2010.
60. Wang H., Duncan I.J. Likelihood, causes, and consequences of focused leakage and rupture of U.S. natural transmission pipelines. J. Loss Prevent. Proc. 2014, 30: 177-187.
61. U.S. Department of Tranportation. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. (2010). https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/publications/PIPA/PIPA-PipelineRiskReport-
Final-20101021.pdf
62. Lowesmith B.J., Hankinson G. Large scale high pressure jet fires involving natural gas and natural gas/hydrogen mixtures. Process Saf. Environ. 2012, 90: 108-120.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

 Hazard distances from hydrogen flames and fire fighting
Reference (5/5)
63. EGIG, Gas pipeline incidents 8th Report of the European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group, EGIG 14.R.0403 (2011).
64. Casal J., Gomez-Mares M., Munoz M., Palacios A. Jet fires: a “minor” fire hazard? Chem. Eng. Trans. 2012, 26: 13-20.
65. Houf W., Schefer R. Predicting radiative heat fluxes and flammability envelopes from unintended releases of hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 2007, 32: 136-151.
66. Lin CL, Chien CF. Systems thinking in a gas explosion accident e lessons learned from Taiwan. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2019, 62:103987.
67. EIGA. Determination of safety distances (IGC Doc 75/07/E). 2007. https://www.eiga.eu/publications/eiga-documents/doc-7507-determination-of-safety-distances/ [Accessed
12.02.2020].
68. Gomez-Mares M., Zarate L., Casal J. Jet fires and the domino effect. Fire Saf J. 2008, 43: 583-588.
69. Cirrone DMC, Makarov D, Molkov V. Simulation of thermal hazards from hydrogen under-expanded jet fire. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019, 44: 8886-8892.
70. Wang Z, Shui K, You F, Dederichs AS, Markert F, Jiang J, Zhang Y, Li D, Fu Z, Xu J, He L, Huangfu W. Prediction of the failure probability of the overhead power line exposed to
large-scale jet fires induced by high-pressure gas leakage. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46: 2413-2431.
71. Coccorullo I, Russo P. Jet fire consequence modeling for high-pressure gas pipelines, International conference of computational methods in sciences and engineering 2016 (iccmse
2016).
72. Molkov VV, Cirrone DMC, Shentsov VV, Dery W, Kim W, Makarov DV. Dynamics of blast wave and fireball after hydrogen tank rupture in a fire in the open atmosphere. Int J
Hydrogen Energy, 2021, 46: 4644-4665.

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders

This project has received funding from the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking (JU) under grant agreement No
875089. The JU receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and
United Kingdom, France, Austria, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Italy, Czechia, Switzerland, Norway

European Hydrogen Train the Trainer Programme for Responders