Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explosion Risks of Hydrogen/Methane Blends

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Enriched Methane

Part of the book series: Green Energy and Technology ((GREEN))

Abstract

Hydrogen is the next frontier and there is a concerted push to include hydrogen as an energy carrier. The main benefit is emissions reduction—eventually by 100 %. When used as a fuel, hydrogen supplies more energy per unit mass than the popular fuels used today. However, in the near term, there is a very significant cost differential between fossil fuels and hydrogen. Therefore, proposals have been made for the use of hydrogen as an additive to hydrocarbon fuels as a practical approach to the introduction of hydrogen in the energy mix. Enriched Methane (EM, a blend of hydrogen and natural gas) can presage a gradual transition to an eventual hydrogen economy. Besides the techno-commercial challenges for introducing hydrogen (or for that matter a hydrogen–methane blend), another key issue is that of the comparative safety between natural gas and hydrogen concerning the application, storage, transport, etc. Due to prior experience with, e.g. the process or petrochemical industries, it is well known that accidental releases of flammable substances are one of the largest contributors to the hazards of most industrial, domestic, and infrastructure facilities. Assessing the consequences and risks of such accidental releases is thus crucial. The consequences of a release such as cloud size and subsequent explosion like overpressure are dependent on several parameters such as fuel type, concentration, leak rate/direction, environmental conditions, cloud size, ignition location, and presence of any mitigation measures. More importantly, geometrical effects—including congestion and confinement, as well as layout of objects and walls—plays a key role in determining the magnitudes of gas cloud size (following a release) and overpressure/drag loads (following an explosion). Therefore, simple analysis techniques are generally not applicable as these may provide inaccurate results. 3D modelling based on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) needs to be used. The current chapter describes the safety aspects of EM. In general, it can be expected that EM is relatively safer to handle (compared to hydrogen), thus significantly reducing the risk of fire and explosion. This chapter also seeks to evaluate whether EM may be safer than both hydrogen and methane under certain conditions. This is due to the fact EM combines the positive safety properties of hydrogen (strong buoyancy, high diffusivity) and methane (much lower flame speeds and narrower flammability limits as compared to hydrogen). Nonetheless, the explosion risk is by no means insignificant. The work is performed using the CFD software FLACS that has been well validated for safety studies of both natural gas/methane and hydrogen systems. Validation for EM–air explosions is also demonstrated. Practical systems such as vehicular tunnels, garages, etc., are used to demonstrate positive safety benefits of EM with comparisons to similar simulations for both hydrogen and methane.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

BFETS:

Blast and Fire Engineering for Topside Structures

BLEVE:

Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion

CEA:

Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (English: Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission)

CFD:

Computational Fluid Dynamics

CMR:

Christian Michelsen Research

DDT:

Deflagration to Detonation Transition

EN:

European Norm

ER:

Equivalence Ratio

EU:

European Union

FhICT:

Fraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology

FLACS:

CFD tool for ventilation, dispersion, explosion, and fire modelling (by Gexcon)

FZK:

Research Centre Karlsruhe (now KIT)

HSE:

Health and Safety Executive

HSL:

Health and Safety Laboratory

EM:

Natural gas–hydrogen blend

ISO:

International Standardisation Organisation

KIT:

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

LFL:

Lower Flammability Limit

LNG:

Liquefied Natural Gas

LPG:

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

PRD:

Pressure Relief Device

QRA:

Quantitaitive Risk Assessment/Analysis

TNO:

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek (English: Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research)

TNT:

Tri-Nitro Toluene (Explosive)

UFL:

Upper Flammability Limit

ε:

Turbulent dissipation

k:

Turbulent kinetic energy

λ:

Detonation cell size

References

  1. Bjerketvedt D, Bakke JR, van Wingerden K (1997) Gas explosion handbook. J Hazard Mat 52:1–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dobashi R, Kawamura S, Kuwana K, Nakayama Y (2011) Consequence analysis of blast wave from accidental gas explosions. Proc Comb Inst 33:2295–2301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lobato J, Cañizares P, Rodrigo MA, Sáez C, Linares JJ (2006) A comparison of hydrogen cloud explosion models and the study of the vulnerability of the damage caused by an explosion of H2. Intl J Hyd Ener 31(12):1780–1790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dorofeev SB (2007) Evaluation of safety distances related to unconfined hydrogen explosions. Intl J Hyd Ener 32:2118–2124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ilbas M, Crayford AP, Yilmaz I, Bowen PJ, Syred N (2006) Laminar-burning velocities of hydrogen-air and hydrogen-methane-air mixtures: an experimental study. Intl J Hyd Ener 31:1768–1779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Di Sarli V, Di Benedetto A (2007) Laminar burning velocity of hydrogen-methane/air premixed flames. Intl J Hyd Ener 32:637–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gersen S, Anikin NB, Mokhov AV, Levinsky HB (2008) Ignition properties of methane/hydrogen mixtures in rapid compression machine. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33(7):1957–1964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang J, Bushe W K, Hill P G, et al. (2006) Experimental and kinetic study of shock initiated ignition in homogeneous methane-hydrogen-air mixtures at engine-relevant conditions. Int J Chem Kinet 38 221–233

    Google Scholar 

  9. El-Ghafour SAA, El-dein AHE, Aref AAR (2010) Combustion characteristics of natural as-hydrogen hybrid fuel turbulent diffusion flame. Intl J Hyd Ener 35(6):2556–2565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yon S, Sautet JC (2012) Flame lift off height, velocity flow and mixing of EM in oxy-combustion in a burner with two separated jets. Appl Therm Eng 32(1):83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eder A, F Pingten, Mayinger F (2001) Propagation of fast deflagrations and marginal detonations in hydrogen–air-additive mixtures. In: Proceedings of 18th international colloquium on the dynamics of explosions and reactive systems, Seattle, Washington, vol 181

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hansen OR, Middha P (2008) CFD-based risk assessment for hydrogen applications. Proc Saf Prog 27(1):29–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Patankar SV (1980) Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. Hemisphere Publishing, ISBN: 0070487405

    Google Scholar 

  14. Launder BE, Spalding DP (1974) The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Comp Meth Appl Mech Eng 3(2):269–289

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Arntzen BJ (1998) Modelling of turbulence and combustion for simulation of gas explosions in complex geometries. Dr. Ing. Thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

    Google Scholar 

  16. Abdel-Gayed RG, Bradley D, Lawes M (1987) Turbulent burning velocities: a general correlation in terms of straining rates. Proc R Soc Lond A 414:389–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hansen OR, Storvik I, van Wingerden K (1999) Validation of CFD-models for gas explosions, FLACS is used as example. Model description, experiences and recommendations for model evaluation. Presented at the ‘European meeting on chemical Industry and Environment’, Krakow, Poland, pp 1–3

    Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson DM, Cleaver RP, Puttock JS, van Wingerden CJM (2002) Investigation of Gas Dispersion and Explosions in Offshore Modules, Offshore Technology Conference, Paper 14134. Houston, TX

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hansen OR, Gavelli F, Davis SG, Middha P (2011/2013) Equivalent cloud methods used for explosion risk and consequence studies, Mary Kay O’Connor process safety center 2011 international symposium, College Station, TX, USA, 25–27 October 2011. J Loss Prev Process Ind, 26(3), 511–527

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hansen OR, Renoult J, Bakke JR (2001) Explosion risk assessment: how the results vary with the approach chosen. fall symposium proceedings, Mary Kay O’ Connor Process Safety Centre, Department of Chemical Engineering, Texas A&M University, 3122 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843–3122, pp 395–410

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hansen OR, Gavelli F, Ichard M, Davis SG (2010) Validation of FLACS against experimental data sets from the model evaluation database for LNG vapour dispersion. J Loss Prev Process Ind 23:857–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Catlin C, Gregory CAJ, Johnson DM, Walker DG (1993) Explosion mitigation in offshore modules by general area deluge, Trans. IChemE, 71, Part B

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hjertager BH, Bjørkhaug M, Fuhre K (1988) Gas explosion experiments in 1:33 scale and 1:5 scale; offshore separator and compressor modules using stoichiometric homogeneous fuel–air clouds. J Loss Prev Process Ind 1:197–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hjertager BH, Bjørkhaug M, Fuhre K (1988) Explosion propagation of non- homogeneous methane-air clouds inside an obstructed 50 m3 vented vessel. J Haz Mater 19:139–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mercx WPM (1996) Extended modelling and experimental research into gas explosions, CEC EMERGE project final summary report, EV5VCT930274 (TNO)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Selby C, Burgan B (1998) Blast and fire engineering for topside structures, phase 2, final summary report, SCI Publication 253, Steel Construction Institute, UK

    Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Hassan T, Johnson DM (1998) Gas explosions in large-scale offshore module geometries: overpressures, mitigation and repeatability, presented at OMAE-98. Lisbon, Portugal

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schneider H, Pförtner H (1983) PNP-Sichcrheitssofortprogramm, Prozebgasfreisetzung- Explosion in der gasfabrik und auswirkungen von Druckwellen auf das Containment

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sherman MP, Tieszen SR, Benedick WB (1989) FLAME facility, the effect of obstacles and transverse venting on flame acceleration and transition to detonation for hydrogen- air mixtures at large scale, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM 87185, NUREG/CR-5275, SAND85–1264, R3, USA

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shirvill LC, Royle M, Roberts TA (2007) Hydrogen releases ignited in a simulated vehicle refuelling environment. In: Proceeding of the 2nd international conference for hydrogen safety, San Sebastian, Spain, pp 11–13

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pförtner H, Schneider H (1984) Tests with jet ignition of partially confined hydrogen air mixtures in view of the scaling of the transition from deflagration to detonation. Final Report for Interatom GmbH, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany, (Fraunhofer ICT Internal Report)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Groethe M, Merilo E, Colton J, Chiba S, Sato Y, Iwabuchi H (2007) Large-scale hydrogen deflagrations and detonations. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32, 2125–2133

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lacome JM, Dagba Y, Jamois D, Perrette L Proust Ch. (2007). Large-scale hydrogen release in an isothermal confined area. In: 2nd International conference on hydrogen safety, 11–13 September 2007, San Sebastian, Spain

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gupta S, Brinster J, Studer E, Tkatschenko I (2007) Hydrogen related risks within a private garage: concentration measurements in a realistic full-scale experimental facility. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on hydrogen safety, San Sebastian, Spain

    Google Scholar 

  35. Friedrich A, Grune J, Kotchourko N, Kotchourko A, Sempert K, Stern G, Kuznetsov M (2007) Experimental study of jet-formed hydrogen-air mixtures and pressure loads from their deflagrations in low confined surroundings. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference on hydrogen safety, San Sebastian, Spain

    Google Scholar 

  36. Shirvill LC, Roberts PT, Roberts T A, Butler CJ Royle M (2006) Dispersion of hydrogen from high-pressure sources. In: Proceedings of hazards XIX conference. Manchester, UK, pp 27–30

    Google Scholar 

  37. Middha P, Hansen OR, Grune J, Kotchourko A (2010) CFD calculations of gas leak dispersion and subsequent gas explosions: validation against ignited impinging hydrogen jet experiments. J Hazard Mater 179:84–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Houf WG, Evans GH, Merilo E, Groethe M, James SC (2012) Releases from hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in tunnels. Intl J Hyd Ener 37(1):715–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Houf WG, Evans GH, Ekoto IW, Merilo E, Groethe M (2013) Hydrogen fuel-cell forklift vehicle releases in enclosed spaces. Intl J Hyd Ener 38(19):8179–8189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Houf WG, Evans GH, Schefer RW, Merilo E, Groethe M (2011) A study of barrier walls for mitigation of unintended releases of hydrogen. Intl J Hyd Ener 36(3):2520–2529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Middha P (2010) Development, use and validation of the CFD tool FLACS for hydrogen safety studies. PhD Thesis, Institute of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Google Scholar 

  42. Royle M, Shirvill LC, Roberts TA (2007) Vapour cloud explosions from the ignition of methane/hydrogen/air mixtures in a congested region. In: Proceedings of 2nd international conference of hydrogen safety, San Sebastian, Spain, pp 11–13

    Google Scholar 

  43. Middha P, Engel D, Hansen OR (2011) Can the addition of hydrogen to natural gas reduce the explosion risk? Intl J Hyd Ener 36(3):2628–2636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rosas C, Nayak S, Munoz F, Mannan MS (2011) Simulation and validation of methane and hydrogen mixtures explosion using CFD models. In: Mary Kay O´Connor process safety centre 2011 international symposium, College Station, TX, USA

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kang S-K, Bang H-J, Jo H-J (2013) Consequence analysis of hydrogen blended natural gas (HCNG) using 3D CFD Simulation. J Korean Inst Gas, 17(5)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dan S-K, Moon D-J, Yoon E-S, Shin D-I (2013) Analysis of gas explosion consequence models for the explosion risk control in the new gas energy filling stations. Ind Eng Chem Res 52(22):7265–7273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dan S-K, Park K-J, Kim T-O, Shin D-I (2011) Explosion simulations for the quantitative risk analysis of new energy filling stations. J Korean Institute Gas 15(1):60–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Groethe M, Merilo E, Colton J, Chiba S, Sato Y, Iwabuchi H (2005) Large-scale hydrogen deflagrations and detonations. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on hydrogen safety, Pisa, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  49. www.edenenergy.com.au/pdfs/20061101%20EM%20presentation.pdf

  50. www.EM.com/system.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gexcon UK, Wembley, Greater London, HA9 9NP, UK

    Prankul Middha

Authors
  1. Prankul Middha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prankul Middha .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Marcello De Falco

  2. ITM-CNR, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

    Angelo Basile

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Middha, P. (2016). Explosion Risks of Hydrogen/Methane Blends. In: De Falco, M., Basile, A. (eds) Enriched Methane. Green Energy and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22192-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22192-2_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22191-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22192-2

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation