Thermal History Resulting in the Failure of Lightweight Fully-Wrapped Composite Pressure Vessel for Hydrogen in a Fire Experimental Facility

Fire tests carried out in FCH JU Firecomp project, recommendations and application to safety of gas storage systems

“…No burst was observed during tests at lower pressures, but break of slopes after 400 and 490 s respectively indicate the moment when the body of the cylinder starts to leak sufficiently to observe a pressure decrease. This behavior of type IV cylinders has also been reported on completely different cylinders [2] and is attributed to the melting of the polymeric liner. Figure 9.…”

“…Bonfire tests are typically performed using a hydrocarbon pool, where the quantity of liquid is regulated to ensure a constant flame regime [2,14]. The drawbacks of this type of test are that a large quantity of heptane mist is generated, which may lead to secondary explosion after cylinder burst and the necessity to extract fumes to allow visibility during the test.…”

“…(1) with (2) It is then possible to estimate the average temperature of the internal wall of the cylinder, provided the areal transfer coefficient does not vary appreciably during the test. This coefficient can be estimated at about 4.4 kW/m²/K.…”

“…The degradation of the composite material can lead directly to a burst, or the melting of the plastic liner can lead to a leakage through the vessel's body. Whichever happens first depends on fire conditions, materials properties and tank geometry [1,2]. Due to the high energy content, the burst must be avoided, and the cylinders are protected with thermally activated pressure relief devices (TPRD), which must be placed in a way that ensures they detect the fire and vent the gas as required [3].…”

Special Issue in Fire Hazards in Energy Systems

“…Chen et al [9] and Wang et al [10] present findings on the fire characteristics and suppression of lithium battery fires. Gas storage cylinders and the thermal behavior of their lining is the focus of the papers of Dao et al [11] and Bustamante et al [12]. Finally, Worrell and Rochon [13], Beji and Merci [14], and Pretrel et al [15] quantify risk and model fire scenarios of interest in Nuclear Plant safety.…”