Benchmark exercise on risk assessment methods applied to a virtual hydrogen refuelling station

Koos Ham, Alessia Marangon, Prankul Middha, Nico Versloot, Nils Rosmuller, Marco Carcassi, Olav Roald Hansen, Martino Schiavetti, Efi Papanikolaou, Alexandros Venetsanos, Engebø Angunn, Saw Ju Lynne, Jean-Bernard Saffers, Flores Alain, Serbanescu Dan

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    21 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    A benchmarking exercise on quantitative risk assessment (QRA) methodologies forhydrogen safety has been conducted within the project HyQRA, under the framework ofthe European Network of Excellence (NoE), HySafe. The aim of the exercise was twofold: (i)to identify the differences and similarities in approaches in a QRA and their results fora hydrogen installation and (ii) to identify knowledge gaps in the various steps andparameters underlying the risk quantification of hydrogen safety.First, a reference case was defined for the benchmark: a virtual hydrogen refuelling station(HRS) in virtual surroundings comprising housing, school, shops and other vulnerableobjects. For the study, a two phase approach was followed.In phase 1, all nine partners were requested to conduct a QRA according to their usualapproach and experience. Basically, participants were free to define representative releasecases, to apply models and frequency assessments according their own methodology, andto present risk according to their usual format. To enable inter-comparison, a required setof results data was prescribed, like distances to specific thermal radiation levels from firesand distances to specific overpressure levels. Moreover, complete documentation ofassumptions, base data and references was to be reported.It was not surprising that a wide range of results was obtained, both in the appliedapproaches as well as in the quantitative outcomes and conclusions. This made it difficult to identify exactly which assumptions and parameters were responsible for the differencesin results.These results provided the basis for a more guided QRA, the second phase. This phase 2was defined in which the QRA was determined by a more limited number of release cases(scenarios). The partners in the project agreed to assess specific scenarios in order toidentify the differences in consequence assessment approaches. The results of this phaseprovide a better understanding of the influence of modelling assumptions and limitationson the eventual conclusions with regard to risk to on-site people and to the off-site public.
    LanguageEnglish
    Pages2666-2677
    JournalInternational Journal of Hydrogen Energy
    Volume36
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2011

    Fingerprint

    risk assessment
    refueling
    physical exercise
    Risk assessment
    stations
    Hydrogen
    hydrogen
    safety
    methodology
    shops
    documentation
    overpressure
    Heat radiation
    thermal radiation
    Benchmarking
    installing
    format

    Cite this

    Ham, K., Marangon, A., Middha, P., Versloot, N., Rosmuller, N., Carcassi, M., ... Dan, S. (2011). Benchmark exercise on risk assessment methods applied to a virtual hydrogen refuelling station. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36(3), 2666-2677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.118
    Ham, Koos ; Marangon, Alessia ; Middha, Prankul ; Versloot, Nico ; Rosmuller, Nils ; Carcassi, Marco ; Hansen, Olav Roald ; Schiavetti, Martino ; Papanikolaou, Efi ; Venetsanos, Alexandros ; Angunn, Engebø ; Ju Lynne, Saw ; Saffers, Jean-Bernard ; Alain, Flores ; Dan, Serbanescu. / Benchmark exercise on risk assessment methods applied to a virtual hydrogen refuelling station. In: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 2011 ; Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 2666-2677.
    @article{47526e7cadbd4ee3a8b7b83d345095de,
    title = "Benchmark exercise on risk assessment methods applied to a virtual hydrogen refuelling station",
    abstract = "A benchmarking exercise on quantitative risk assessment (QRA) methodologies forhydrogen safety has been conducted within the project HyQRA, under the framework ofthe European Network of Excellence (NoE), HySafe. The aim of the exercise was twofold: (i)to identify the differences and similarities in approaches in a QRA and their results fora hydrogen installation and (ii) to identify knowledge gaps in the various steps andparameters underlying the risk quantification of hydrogen safety.First, a reference case was defined for the benchmark: a virtual hydrogen refuelling station(HRS) in virtual surroundings comprising housing, school, shops and other vulnerableobjects. For the study, a two phase approach was followed.In phase 1, all nine partners were requested to conduct a QRA according to their usualapproach and experience. Basically, participants were free to define representative releasecases, to apply models and frequency assessments according their own methodology, andto present risk according to their usual format. To enable inter-comparison, a required setof results data was prescribed, like distances to specific thermal radiation levels from firesand distances to specific overpressure levels. Moreover, complete documentation ofassumptions, base data and references was to be reported.It was not surprising that a wide range of results was obtained, both in the appliedapproaches as well as in the quantitative outcomes and conclusions. This made it difficult to identify exactly which assumptions and parameters were responsible for the differencesin results.These results provided the basis for a more guided QRA, the second phase. This phase 2was defined in which the QRA was determined by a more limited number of release cases(scenarios). The partners in the project agreed to assess specific scenarios in order toidentify the differences in consequence assessment approaches. The results of this phaseprovide a better understanding of the influence of modelling assumptions and limitationson the eventual conclusions with regard to risk to on-site people and to the off-site public.",
    author = "Koos Ham and Alessia Marangon and Prankul Middha and Nico Versloot and Nils Rosmuller and Marco Carcassi and Hansen, {Olav Roald} and Martino Schiavetti and Efi Papanikolaou and Alexandros Venetsanos and Engeb{\o} Angunn and {Ju Lynne}, Saw and Jean-Bernard Saffers and Flores Alain and Serbanescu Dan",
    year = "2011",
    doi = "10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.118",
    language = "English",
    volume = "36",
    pages = "2666--2677",
    journal = "International Journal of Hydrogen Energy",
    issn = "0360-3199",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "3",

    }

    Ham, K, Marangon, A, Middha, P, Versloot, N, Rosmuller, N, Carcassi, M, Hansen, OR, Schiavetti, M, Papanikolaou, E, Venetsanos, A, Angunn, E, Ju Lynne, S, Saffers, J-B, Alain, F & Dan, S 2011, 'Benchmark exercise on risk assessment methods applied to a virtual hydrogen refuelling station', International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 2666-2677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.118

    Benchmark exercise on risk assessment methods applied to a virtual hydrogen refuelling station. / Ham, Koos; Marangon, Alessia; Middha, Prankul; Versloot, Nico; Rosmuller, Nils; Carcassi, Marco; Hansen, Olav Roald; Schiavetti, Martino; Papanikolaou, Efi; Venetsanos, Alexandros; Angunn, Engebø; Ju Lynne, Saw; Saffers, Jean-Bernard; Alain, Flores; Dan, Serbanescu.

    In: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2011, p. 2666-2677.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Benchmark exercise on risk assessment methods applied to a virtual hydrogen refuelling station

    AU - Ham, Koos

    AU - Marangon, Alessia

    AU - Middha, Prankul

    AU - Versloot, Nico

    AU - Rosmuller, Nils

    AU - Carcassi, Marco

    AU - Hansen, Olav Roald

    AU - Schiavetti, Martino

    AU - Papanikolaou, Efi

    AU - Venetsanos, Alexandros

    AU - Angunn, Engebø

    AU - Ju Lynne, Saw

    AU - Saffers, Jean-Bernard

    AU - Alain, Flores

    AU - Dan, Serbanescu

    PY - 2011

    Y1 - 2011

    N2 - A benchmarking exercise on quantitative risk assessment (QRA) methodologies forhydrogen safety has been conducted within the project HyQRA, under the framework ofthe European Network of Excellence (NoE), HySafe. The aim of the exercise was twofold: (i)to identify the differences and similarities in approaches in a QRA and their results fora hydrogen installation and (ii) to identify knowledge gaps in the various steps andparameters underlying the risk quantification of hydrogen safety.First, a reference case was defined for the benchmark: a virtual hydrogen refuelling station(HRS) in virtual surroundings comprising housing, school, shops and other vulnerableobjects. For the study, a two phase approach was followed.In phase 1, all nine partners were requested to conduct a QRA according to their usualapproach and experience. Basically, participants were free to define representative releasecases, to apply models and frequency assessments according their own methodology, andto present risk according to their usual format. To enable inter-comparison, a required setof results data was prescribed, like distances to specific thermal radiation levels from firesand distances to specific overpressure levels. Moreover, complete documentation ofassumptions, base data and references was to be reported.It was not surprising that a wide range of results was obtained, both in the appliedapproaches as well as in the quantitative outcomes and conclusions. This made it difficult to identify exactly which assumptions and parameters were responsible for the differencesin results.These results provided the basis for a more guided QRA, the second phase. This phase 2was defined in which the QRA was determined by a more limited number of release cases(scenarios). The partners in the project agreed to assess specific scenarios in order toidentify the differences in consequence assessment approaches. The results of this phaseprovide a better understanding of the influence of modelling assumptions and limitationson the eventual conclusions with regard to risk to on-site people and to the off-site public.

    AB - A benchmarking exercise on quantitative risk assessment (QRA) methodologies forhydrogen safety has been conducted within the project HyQRA, under the framework ofthe European Network of Excellence (NoE), HySafe. The aim of the exercise was twofold: (i)to identify the differences and similarities in approaches in a QRA and their results fora hydrogen installation and (ii) to identify knowledge gaps in the various steps andparameters underlying the risk quantification of hydrogen safety.First, a reference case was defined for the benchmark: a virtual hydrogen refuelling station(HRS) in virtual surroundings comprising housing, school, shops and other vulnerableobjects. For the study, a two phase approach was followed.In phase 1, all nine partners were requested to conduct a QRA according to their usualapproach and experience. Basically, participants were free to define representative releasecases, to apply models and frequency assessments according their own methodology, andto present risk according to their usual format. To enable inter-comparison, a required setof results data was prescribed, like distances to specific thermal radiation levels from firesand distances to specific overpressure levels. Moreover, complete documentation ofassumptions, base data and references was to be reported.It was not surprising that a wide range of results was obtained, both in the appliedapproaches as well as in the quantitative outcomes and conclusions. This made it difficult to identify exactly which assumptions and parameters were responsible for the differencesin results.These results provided the basis for a more guided QRA, the second phase. This phase 2was defined in which the QRA was determined by a more limited number of release cases(scenarios). The partners in the project agreed to assess specific scenarios in order toidentify the differences in consequence assessment approaches. The results of this phaseprovide a better understanding of the influence of modelling assumptions and limitationson the eventual conclusions with regard to risk to on-site people and to the off-site public.

    U2 - 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.118

    DO - 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.118

    M3 - Article

    VL - 36

    SP - 2666

    EP - 2677

    JO - International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

    T2 - International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

    JF - International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

    SN - 0360-3199

    IS - 3

    ER -