Liquid Hydrogen Spills on Water—Risk and Consequences of Rapid Phase Transition

Lars H. Odsæter, Hans L. Skarsvåg, Eskil Aursand, Federico Ustolin, Gunhild A. Reigstad and Nicola Paltrinieri
Additional contact information
Lars H. Odsæter: SINTEF Energy Research, Postboks 4761 Torgarden, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
Hans L. Skarsvåg: SINTEF Energy Research, Postboks 4761 Torgarden, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
Eskil Aursand: SINTEF Energy Research, Postboks 4761 Torgarden, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
Federico Ustolin: Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
Gunhild A. Reigstad: SINTEF Energy Research, Postboks 4761 Torgarden, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
Nicola Paltrinieri: Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU, 7491 Trondheim, Norway

Energies, 2021, vol. 14, issue 16, 1-15

Abstract: Liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ) spills share many of the characteristics of liquefied natural gas (LNG) spills. LNG spills on water sometimes result in localized vapor explosions known as rapid phase transitions (RPTs), and are a concern in the LNG industry. LH 2 RPT is not well understood, and its relevance to hydrogen safety is to be determined. Based on established theory from LNG research, we present a theoretical assessment of an accidental spill of a cryogen on water, including models for pool spreading, RPT triggering, and consequence quantification. The triggering model is built upon film-boiling theory, and predicts that the mechanism for RPT is a collapse of the gas film separating the two liquids (cryogen and water). The consequence model is based on thermodynamical analysis of the physical processes following a film-boiling collapse, and is able to predict peak pressure and energy yield. The models are applied both to LNG and LH 2 , and the results reveal that (i) an LNG pool will be larger than an LH 2 pool given similar sized constant rate spills, (ii) triggering of an LH 2 RPT event as a consequence of a spill on water is very unlikely or even impossible, and (iii) the consequences of a hypothetical LH 2 RPT are small compared to LNG RPT. Hence, we conclude that LH 2 RPT seems to be an issue of only minor concern.

Keywords: liquid hydrogen; liquefied natural gas; spill accidents; loss of containment; film boiling; risk assessment; explosion; rapid phase transition (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/16/4789/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/16/4789/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:16:p:4789-:d:610050

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().