Refine Your Search

Search Results

Viewing 1 to 3 of 3
Technical Paper

Intentional Failure of a 5000 psig Hydrogen Cylinder Installed in an SUV Without Standard Required Safety Devices

2007-04-16
2007-01-0431
A vehicle's gasoline fuel tank was removed and replaced with a 5,000-psig, Type-III, aluminum-lined hydrogen cylinder. High-pressure cylinders are typically installed with a thermally-activated pressure relief device (PRD) designed to safely vent the contents of the cylinder in the event of accidental exposure to fire. The objective of this research was to assess the results of a catastrophic failure in the event that a PRD were ineffective. Therefore, no PRD was installed on the vehicle to ensure cylinder failure would occur. The cylinder was pressurized and exposed to a propane bonfire in order to simulate the occurrence of a gasoline pool fire on the underside of the vehicle. Measurements included temperature and carbon monoxide concentration inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle to evaluate tenability. Measurements on the exterior of the vehicle included blast wave pressures. Documentation included standard, infrared, and high-speed video.
Technical Paper

Ignition of Underbody and Engine Compartment Hydrogen Releases

2006-04-03
2006-01-0127
Various fire scenarios involving a hydrogen fuel system were simulated to evaluate their associated safety hazards. Scenarios included finite releases of hydrogen with delayed ignition as well as small hydrogen jet-fire releases. The scenarios tested resulted in minimal damage to the vehicle, minimal hazards to the vehicle's surroundings, and no observable damage or hazards within the passenger compartment.
Technical Paper

Comparative Abuse Testing of 36 V and 12 V Battery Designs

2006-04-03
2006-01-1272
Comparative abuse tests were performed on commercially available 12 V and 36 V battery designs. Four methods were chosen from SAE J2464 standard, Electrical Vehicle Battery Abuse Testing, March 1999, and modified to apply them to typical-sized automotive batteries. The four tests included a Penetration Test, Crush Test, Radiant Heat Test, and Short Circuit Test. Both the 12 V and 36 V batteries showed minimal reactions to the tests, and there was no significant difference between results of the two designs with respect to the abuse tests performed. It should be stressed however, that this project was limited in scope and was not intended to be a thorough investigation in the batteries safety hazards.
X