Journal of the Korean Institute of Gas (한국가스학회지)

The Korean Institute of GAS (한국가스학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Consequence Analysis of Hydrogen Blended Natural Gas(HCNG) using 3D CFD Simulation

CFD를 활용한 수소-천연가스 혼합연료에 대한 피해영향 분석

  • Kang, Seung-Kyu (Safety Research Division, Korea Gas Safety Corporation) ;
  • Bang, Hyo-Jung (Safety Research Division, Korea Gas Safety Corporation) ;
  • Jo, Young-Do (Safety Research Division, Korea Gas Safety Corporation)
  • 강승규 (한국가스안전공사 가스안전연구원 안전연구실) ;
  • 방효중 (한국가스안전공사 가스안전연구원 안전연구실) ;
  • 조영도 (한국가스안전공사 가스안전연구원 안전연구실)
  • Received : 2013.08.02
  • Accepted : 2013.09.27
  • Published : 2013.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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.

본 연구는 3차원 위험성평가 시뮬레이션 툴(FLACS)을 활용하여 연료의 종류에 따른 위험성을 비교 평가하였다. 일반적인 고압가스 충전소 레이아웃을 활용하여 연료를 CNG, 수소, 30%HCNG로 하였을 경우 충전소에서 가스누출에 의한 화재 폭발 상황을 모사하여 피해영향을 비교 분석하였다. 그리고 가스별 누출제트에 의한 피해영향을 평가하였다. 동일한 조건에서 수소, CNG, HCNG가 누출되어 화재폭발이 발생할 경우 수소는 최대과압이 30kPa, HCNG는 3.5kPa 그리고 CNG는 0.4kPa의 과압이 측정되었다. HCNG의 과압이 CNG에 비해 7.75배 높게 측정되었으나, 수소에 비해서는 11.7%에 불과했다. 화염 전파에 있어서 수소는 매우 빠른 화염전파 특성을 가지는 반면 HCNG와 CNG는 수소에 비해 전파속도 및 전파거리에서 비교적 안전한 경향을 보였다. 제트화염에 의한 화염경계거리는 수소가 5.5m, CNG가 3.4m이고 HCNG는 CNG보다 약간 확장된 3.9m로 예측되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ko, Jae-Sun and Kim, Hyo, "The Fire Risk Assessment in Compressed Natural Gas Buses & Gas Station", T. of Korean Institute of Fire Sci. & Eng., 18(2), 57-67, (2004)
  2. Sang-Hwa Jin, Tea-Woo Kim, In-Tae Kim, In-Won Kim and Yeong-Koo Yeo, "A Study on Reliability Analysis and Quantitative Risk Analysis for Liquefied Petroleum Gas Station", KIGAS, 5(4), 40-48, (2001)
  3. Leem, Sa-Hwan and Huh, Yong-Jeong, "A Study on the Estimation of Human Damage Caused by Vapor Cloud Explosion(VCE) in LPG Filling Station", KIGAS, 14(2), 15-21, (2010)
  4. Dal-Jae Park and Young-Soon Lee, "Consequence Analysis by Different DME-LPG Mixture Fuels", KIGAS, 15(2), 57-62, (2011) https://doi.org/10.7842/kigas.2011.15.2.057
  5. Seungkyu Dan, Kyungjun Park, Tae-Ok Kim and Dongil Shin, "Explosion Simulations for the Quantitative Risk Analysis of New Energy Filling Stations", KIGAS, 15(1), 60-67, (2011) https://doi.org/10.7842/kigas.2011.15.1.060
  6. Prankul Middha, Derek Engel and Olav R. Hansen, "Can the addition of hydrogen to natural gas reduce the explosion risk?", Int. J. of Hydrogen Energy, 36(3), 2628-2636, (2011)
  7. Chang-Bong Jang, Hyang Jik Lee, Min-Ho Lee, Dong-Chul Min, Jong-Bae Back, Jae Wook Ko and Hyuck-Myun Kwon, "CFD Simulation Study to analyze the Dispersion and Explosion of Combustible Gas", KIGAS, 16(5), 58-65, (2012) https://doi.org/10.7842/kigas.2012.16.5.58
  8. Safety Regulations for Automobile Pressure Vessels, Notice 2013-287, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, (2013)