GRPE 017 17-02-03 GRPE CGH2 Experts (A sub-group of the GRPE Informal Group “Hydrogen/Fuel Cell”) JASIC Presentation At The GRPE CGH2 Experts Meeting In Munich 23-24 January 2003
Components to be Type Approved JASIC: Orange TUV: Orange+Blue (Green may be included)+Pipes Pressure Relief Device Container Non Return Valve Automatic Shut off Valve Receptacle Container Pressure Regulator 1 Manual Valve Pressure Regulator 2 PRV To FC Stack Non Return Valve Filter 1 Filter 2 Pressure Sensor 1 Pressure Sensor 2 Pressure Sensor 3 Temperature Sensor 1 Temperature Sensor 2 Temperature Sensor 3 Hydrogen Sensor1 Hydrogen Sensor 2 ECU Container Valve (Automatic Shut off Valve)
Basis of the Regulation Required design for Safety: “Single-point failure should not result in an unreasonable safety risk” Definition of “unreasonable safety risk”: (i) Leakage resulting in uncontrollable hydrogen outflow from container (ii) Burst of components at high pressure Definition of “high pressure” +JASIC: Container pressure +TUV: Class 0
Safety Cost effectiveness Scientific background ? JASIC better ? TUV better Points of the Proposals on Burst Risk The both proposals lack enough scientific background that is essential for global consensus. Definition of “high pressure” +JASIC: Container pressure +TUV: Class 0
Burst Risk Burst Energy Pressure x Volume The Way to Define Burst Risk Not only fuel pressure but also fuel volume in the component should be considered. • Necessary discussions with scientific background +In what way, the burst happen? +How often the burst occur? +What range of the (pressure x volume) cause dangerous burst? <97/23/EC Pressure Equipment Directive may be a good reference.>
Summary Scientific background is necessary for global consensus. 1. Pressure range of type approval for “burst” should be determined by technical discussions. + Volume of fuel should be considered. 2. Certification for safety systems are necessary. +It is necessary to discuss on which systems and how they are certified.
Annex 7B B13(Burst Test) “The ContainerBurst Pressure shall exceed the Working Pressure times the Burst Pressure ratio given in Paragraph A3.3 of this Annex.” The wording (including figures) in the provision on burst pressure should be harmonized based on 2001 US FMVSS related to compressed natural gas, which has been already put into force, or NGV 2000, the document based on which US FMVSS was made.
bar 10000 Ⅳ Ｐ＝１０００ 1000 Ⅲ Ｐ＝２００ 100 ＰＶ＝１０００ ＰＶ＝２００ 10 ＰＶ＝５０ ＰＶ＝２５ 1 Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ L 0.1 10 100 1 1000 10000 97/23/EC, in case of hydrogen gas V=1L Article, paragraph 3 Ｐ＝０．５
Article, paragraph 3: Pressure equipment and/or assemblies below or equal to the limits in section 1.1,1.2 and 1.3 and section 2 respectively must be designed and manufactured in accordance with the sound engineering practice of a Member State in order to ensure safe use. Pressure equipment and/or assemblies must be accompanied by adequate instructions for use and must bear marking to permit identification of the manufacturer or of his authorized representative established within the Community. Such equipment and/or assemblies must not bear the CE marking referred to in Article 15. Which conformity assessment category applies to vessels with a volume less than or equal to 0.1 litter? (See “Guidelines related to the application of the Pressure Equipment Directive (97/23/EC)”.) If pressure ≦ 200 bar, then Article 3.3 applies otherwise see paragraph 3 below, Reason: 1. 2. 3. The conformity assessment categories for vessels with a volume less than or equal to 0.1 litter can not determined Table 1,2,3 and 4 because the Tables are not specified for volumes less than 0.1 litter. However , Article 3.1 together with Article 3.3 can be used to determine which vessels must satisfy the essential safety requirements and those that must be designed and manufactured according to the Sound Engineering Practice (SEP) of a Member State. If a vessel has a volume less than or equal to 0.1 litter , and a value of pressure above the limits defined in Article 3.1, then the vessels must satisfy the essential safety requirements of Annex Ⅰ. In the absence of specific information in the Table for the conformity assessment of vessels in paragraph 2, the manufacturer may choose any module, or single combination of modules, set out in paragraph 1 of Annex Ⅱ.
Items to be Type Approved Required Design for Safety: “Single-point failure should not result in an unreasonable safety risk” (i) The components that are not protected by any systems from single-point failure resulting in unreasonable safety risk (ii) The systems to protect components from single-point failure resulting in unreasonable safety risk