 |
|
EV WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE |
Which car would you rather be in? This gasoline fire, which had been burning for over two minutes, contrasts sharply with a hydrogen fuel fire in a similar vehicle.
|
Video documents results of hydrogen and gasoline car fires.
Open Access Article Originally Published: January 18, 2003
On a dark Florida night in 2001 an unusual and revealing experiment took place. Dr. Michael Swain with the University of Miami at Coral Gables attempted to simulate two car fires, one created by a 1/16th inch puncture in a gasoline fuel line, the other by a leaking hydrogen connector. He video taped the experiment to document what would happen if the leaks ignited. As the photos below clearly demonstrate, consumer fears about hydrogen as a transportation fuel would seem to be pretty much unfounded.
While the gasoline-fed fire eventually consumed the second test vehicle, leaving it a smoldering heap of charred steel and melted glass, the hydrogen fire was over in less than two minutes and left the hydrogen-tank equipped test car virtually undamaged. In fact, the heat inside the car never got above 67 degrees.
Dr. Swain points out in Fuel Leak Simulation [pdf] that while the gasoline fire started as the result of a simple, small hole in the fuel line, for the hydrogen fire to occur, it would have taken the catastrophic failure of four separate safety systems, all at the same time, a highly unlikely occurrence.
Yet to be tested is what happens in a typical collision. Will the hydrogen tank(s) explode? While EV World is unaware of this type of crash simulation in a hydrogen-fueled car, we suspect that given current design trends that mount the high pressure (5-10,000 psi) tank nearer the center of the vehicle rather than behind the rear axle, which is where most gasoline (petrol) tanks are placed, that there is less likelihood of the tanks being ruptured.
In addition, modern automotive hydrogen tanks are encased in cocoons of carbon fiber and Kelvar, whereas gasoline tanks are simple steel containers. Still, we anticipate as research moves forward that we'll see a similar video of a hydrogen car crash in the not too distant future. If and when we do, we'll be sure to present it here on EVWorld.Com.
Photo 1 - Time: 0 min, 0 sec - Hydrogen powered vehicle on the
left. Gasoline powered vehicle on the right.
|
Photo 2 - Time 0 min, 3 seconds - Ignition of both fuels occur.
Hydrogen flow rate 2100 SCFM. Gasoline flow rate 680 cc/min.
|
Photo 3 - Time: 1 min, 0 sec - Hydrogen flow is subsiding, view
of gasoline vehicle begins to enlarge
|
Photo 4 - Time: 1 min, 30 sec - Hydrogen flow almost finished.
View of gasoline powered vehicle has been expanded to nearly
full screen
|
Photo 6 - Time: 2 min, 20 sec - Deflagration in the interior,
following frame shows flames exiting around edges of trunk lid.
|
|
END STORY
|
| Times Article Viewed: 18253 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
20 comments so far...
20-Sep-2006
33387
| |
You all have forgotten one thing hydrogen is VERY LIGHT. It Raises and Disperses EXTREMELY fast. If there was a leak and no fire and you showed up 2 min. later there would be no Hydrogen rich environment it would have raised into the air and disappated. Hydrogen is 10 times lighter than helium, and how fast does a helium ballon rise? now make the stuff 10 times lighter and remove the ballon. ITS GONE.
Posted by: Dan Jumper
|
|
20-Sep-2006
33387
| |
You all have forgotten one thing hydrogen is VERY LIGHT. It Raises and Disperses EXTREMELY fast. If there was a leak and no fire and you showed up 2 min. later there would be no Hydrogen rich environment it would have raised into the air and disappated. Hydrogen is 10 times lighter than helium, and how fast does a helium ballon rise? now make the stuff 10 times lighter and remove the ballon. ITS GONE.
Posted by: Dan Jumper
|
|
20-Sep-2006
33387
| |
You all have forgotten one thing hydrogen is VERY LIGHT. It Raises and Disperses EXTREMELY fast. If there was a leak and no fire and you showed up 2 min. later there would be no Hydrogen rich environment it would have raised into the air and disappated. Hydrogen is 10 times lighter than helium, and how fast does a helium ballon rise? now make the stuff 10 times lighter and remove the ballon. ITS GONE.
Posted by: Dan Jumper
|
|
03-Nov-2006
36191
| |
i like hydrogen
Posted by: Bob McGeorge poop
|
|
03-Nov-2006
36192
| |
I AGREE BOB U R SOOO KEWL!!!1!!!one!!!!1
Posted by: George McBob
|
|
16-Jul-2006
28361
| |
A hydrogen tank is dangerous in closed quarters not in the great outdoors. If you had this leak in your home garage or an underground parking the results would be drastically different for the hydrogen car. A replay of the WTC when you have a full parking lot. Electric cars take 3 times less energy, batteries can be reused and energy can be totally clean.
Posted by: John Scolla
|
|
01-Aug-2004
4135
| |
what i'm interested in is what would happen in an explosion with hydrogen oppose to a fire?"
Posted by: mary pallares
|
|
19-Jan-2003
1149
| |
One should read the linked PDF by Dr. Swain.
It says that several sets of high and low-resolution spectra were obtained
and this involved relighting the flame several times.
Its jetting up clear of the car, and not
destroying it, would therefore seem not
to have been much of a surprise to Swain,
however much of one it was to EV World's
headline writer.
Posted by: Graham Cowan
|
|
20-Jan-2003
834
| |
From the pictures, the results aren't surprising. Gasoline pools, hydrogen under pressure jets away. What I want to see is another test where the hydrogen-powered vehicle suffers a pinhole puncture in a hydrogen line underneath the vehicle and set aflame. I could forsee that the damage would still be less, but there would be damage, I'm sure.
Posted by: Andrew Netherton
|
|
21-Jan-2003
838
| |
Hi Bill,
>
> Good article on hydrogen. When I asked Frank Lynch
> about the safety of high pressure hydrogen tanks he
> said there are two things to consider. You are just as
> dead in an explosion of a 150psi propane tank as a
> 10,000psi hydrogen tank. More importantly, in order to
> hold 10,000psi the hydrogen tank is the strogest
> component in the vehicle and is practically damage
> proof under the conditions of an automobile accident.
> In other words you could use the tanks as front and
> rear bumpers.
> Like the Hindenburg, selling the public on a car
> with a 10,000 psi tank will be public perception
> saftey problem and not an actual issue.
> Steve
Posted by: Steve Clark
|
|
21-Jan-2003
840
| |
Hydrogen Car Fire Surprise
It looks like the test was biased. What would happen if the hydrogen fire was started under the car? Or the flames pointing toward the interior instead of up?
I do not think hydrogen is any more dangerous than gasoline, though experiments like this do not seem like good science.
Thank you for sharing this article. It helps us to know what needs to be done in order to get the general public behind EVs.
Regards,
Dave McCormick
Posted by: Dave McCormick
|
|
22-Jan-2003
841
| |
This was not an impact test but a well-planned, staged test that seems more like propaganda than engineering. How many cars have you seen burning on the road due to a punctured fuel line near the engine? None that I've seen. Most have been in severe collisions where the tank has ruptured. What would happen to a hydrogen car if it was in a severe collision and the hydrogen tank ruptured? Everyone who has taken high school Physics or Chemistery has seen their teacher bring an open flame near a small beaker of gaseous hydrogen and witnessed a controlled explosion.
Hybrids are practical, there is no major change in infrastructure, we can eliminate our need for oil imports, it will boost the battery industry, could spur car sales and it will continue to reduce pollution and global warming. And it is current technology. What more could we ask for?
Posted by: Victor R. Nittolo, M.S.
|
|
22-Jan-2003
842
| |
Clearly a biased test. Dr. Swain is doing a dis-service to the Fuel Cell/Hydrogen power industry by any attempt to promote such an obvious fraud. As a fireman, I can attest that there are many car-fires without any collision. In fact, most collisions simply do not involve any fire. It is faulty equipment that causes most car fires, hot brakes, oil or fuel leaks, electrial shorts, cigarettes, even overheated, hi-power speakers can toast your BMW!
First, By venting the hydrogen above the car all of the hot gases will simply rise above the vehicle. A comparable test would be to break a fuel line under the vehicle, as was done to the gasoline test vehicle.
Secondly, Hydrogen will present a new safety hazard to fireman, because igniting a hydrogen vapor cloud could be explosive, where gasoline is less volotile, less vaporous. In regards to similar familiar 'incidents' at hydrogen tank storage facilities, we're asked to approach the scene holding a piece of paper, as the only way to locate an unpreassurized burning hydrogen vapor cloud, since it burns nearly invisibly in daylight. The hydrogen fire will ignite the paper. It would be rare to respond to an accident within 2 minutes, which this test shows all of the hydrogen venting. Without an ignition source, this would mean that units are responding unaware of the hydrogen saturated environment where a spark from rescue tools, radios, or clothing could result in disaster. H2 cars should be placarded with the 'unusual' fuel, until rescue crews are trained in new proceedures such as using gas detectors at MVA's, hydrogen properties, and system failures experienced.
I can even forsee situations where drivers are overcome by hydrogen saturation in the passenger compartment, which is then an additional risk for rescuers INSIDE the vehicle, not outside.
Posted by: Sim H
|
|
24-Jan-2003
845
| |
Accolades to Sim H. I just hope someone with decision-making powers listens. So far most everything is falling on deaf ears.
Posted by: Vic Nittolo
|
|
24-Jan-2003
847
| |
That has got to be one of the most worthless test
i have seen in my entire life!!!!!!!!!!
The emergency fuel vent system is designed to vent
the fuel safely if it's burning or not.
All they did was test what
a leaking valve would do.
(ie) They opened it.
What did it do.
Vent the fuel safely.
All they did was verify
the design of the fuel venting system.
Dis information like that is a disservice
to the RE community.
Anyone that has a brain
can tell that it's stupidity.
And.
People that don't have a brain
will think it's safer that it
really is, so they will probably
BBQ themselves by doing something
totally stupid.
If someone is going to burn up
some more cars in another fire test,
please tell them to actually test
something that will provide some useful data.
(ie)Disable one of the emergency fuel
shut off valves and sever a H2 hose
under the hood of the care.
Something like that could happen
if the impact of the crash
jammed the valve and the hose
was severed in the crash.
But the test they preformed is totally worthless.
Posted by: Bennett Hatchett
|
|
21-Mar-2004
2045
| |
If you use HYDROGEN RICH GASOLINE OR HYDROGEN RICH DIESEL with an onboard electronic catalytic convertor widely in use now in China,Philippines,India and notified for patent in 95 countries,you do'nt need to carry the hydrogen gas but still will get zero emission in all gasoline cars,much reduced particulates and NOx in the diesel along with improved fuel economy and extremely smooth engine,excellant pick up.What more you need?.Please see web sites:
http://www.hydrodrive.8k.com/toc.htm
http://www.hydrodrive.8k.com/ELECTRONIC%20CATALYTIC%20CONVERTOR.htm
"
Posted by: GOPALAKRISHNAN SRINIVASAN
|
|
12-May-2004
2872
| |
In theory, the results look good, but your pictures completely differ from the story. In the article you explained that the gas tank in a hydrogen car is in the middle of the car, while the gasoline tank is is behind the rear axle. It seemed to me that the car that the fire clearly started in the middle of the car, the car you called a gasoline car, went up in flames. now, which car is what? Where is the gas tank in either car? Thank you for your time."
Posted by: Sean ...
|
|
12-May-2004
2873
| |
In theory, the results look good, but your pictures completely differ from the story. In the article you explained that the gas tank in a hydrogen car is in the middle of the car, while the gasoline tank is is behind the rear axle. It seemed to me that the car that the fire clearly started in the middle of the car, the car you called a gasoline car, went up in flames. now, which car is what? Where is the gas tank in either car? Thank you for your time."
Posted by: Sean ...
|
|
22-Sep-2004
4789
| |
I am a debator, and our resolution this yearsays we need to change the energy policy so that our dependence on foreign oil is reduced. hydrogen is a case many people are picking. however, aren't hydrogen fires invisible?
I read an article that said NASA used broom handles to detect hydrogen fires because the light in them was so bright it could not be seen by the naked eye, they have since developed other equiptment, but my point is wouldn't a hydrogen fire be completely invisible if you were in the car? "
Posted by: Colleen Mulholland
|
|
28-Nov-2004
5493
| |
To Those Lambasting This Report:
I've followed Dr. Swain's work very closely. I too have been researching hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Firstly, even in a collision, the hydrogen tank would/could never explode. Hydrogen will only combust when mixed with air, and since the tank contains pure hydrogen, it could never explode. Perhaps something could puncutre it, you ask? Commercial tanks are made with quarter-inch-thick steel. The only vulerable point is the valve, which is exactly what was opened/punctured in this test.
As for the hydrogen economy, the only way we can suvive on fossil fuels and have a sustained energy economy is with carbon sequestration, which is farther off than the hydrogen economy (from Prof. Lackner of Columbia Univeristy). And yes, onboard reformation of hydrocarbons does let the engine run on hydrogen, allowing the engine to run clean. The reformation process, however, creates carbon dioxide in the process (CH4+2H2O=CO2+4H2). So essentially, you are left with the same problems, accomplishing nothing. You meerely get to brag that your engine runs on hydrogen."
Posted by: Tim G
|
|
|
|
|
