GRPE 017 17-02-03

1
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
2
Components to be Type Approved
JASIC Orange TUV OrangeBlue (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)
3
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
4
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
5
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? lt97/23/EC
Pressure Equipment Directive may be a good
reference.gt
6
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.
7
?????
8
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.
9
97/23/EC, in case of hydrogen gas
V1L
Article, paragraph 3
P0.5
10
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 ?.
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 ?.
11
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