Abstract
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. 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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
