Transcript ｽﾗｲﾄﾞ ﾀｲﾄﾙなし

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
Automatic Shut off Valve
To
FC Stack
Pressure Sensor 3
Temperature Sensor 3
Container
Non Return Valve
Container
Pressure Regulator 1
Pressure Regulator 2
Pressure Relief
Device
Receptacle
Manual Valve
PRV
Filter 2
Pressure Sensor 2
Temperature Sensor 2
Filter 1
Pressure Sensor 1
Temperature Sensor 1
Non Return
Valve
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
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
Safety
JASIC
TUV
Cost effectiveness
better
better
Scientific background
?
?
The Way to Define Burst Risk
Not only fuel pressure but also fuel volume in the
component should be considered.
Burst Risk
Burst Energy
Pressure x Volume
•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.
以下は予備
Annex 7B
B13(Burst Test)
“The Container Burst 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
97/23/EC, in case of hydrogen gas
10000
Ⅳ
Ｐ＝１０００
1000
Ⅲ
V=1L
Ｐ＝２００
100
10
Article, paragraph 3
1
Ⅰ
0.1
1
10
Ⅱ
100
Ⅲ
Ⅳ
1000
Ｐ＝０．５
10000
L
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. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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