Final Report Summary - DELIVERHY (Optimisation of Transport Solutions for Compressed Hydrogen) Executive Summary:DeliverHy has assessed the effects that can be achieved by the introduction of high capacity trailers composed of composite tanks. The maximum use of these trailers on public roads will require changes to existing Regulations, Codes and Standards (RCS) in particular for proof pressures higher than 65 MPa (working pressure greater than 43.3 MPa) and tubes larger than 3,000 litres. Having these changes adopted is a time consuming process, and will only eventually happen if authorities are convinced that the necessary safety precautions are taken care of to achieve a level of safety which is at least as high as the one observed with today’s distribution technologies for hydrogen. DeliverHy has addressed these challenges by means of a detailed assessment of safety, environmental and techno-economic impacts of the use of higher capacity trailers and subsequently by the development of first elements of a preliminary action plan leading to a Roadmap for the required RCS amendments, which will be communicated to the authorities in charge. The methodology of the project was based on a thorough comparison of the impact of higher capacity compressed hydrogen distribution solutions benchmarked against what is common practice on European roads today (based on existing RCS) in WP2. A systematic evaluation of the potential achievements by the use of alternative materials and higher capacities (pressure and volume) equipment was performed and the impact on payload, economy, energy efficiency and related emissions was analysed, also taking into consideration the transfer of hydrogen into and from the transport unit (WP3). Existing barriers in RCS were identified using information from WP2 and a preliminary action plan was developed to overcome these barriers (WP4). A study of the safety issues related to the introduction of higher capacity composite material equipment was performed within WP5. The optimum transport capacity of compressed hydrogen was elaborated in WP6, including a Roadmap addressing the necessary RCS changes and by whom and how these changes can be achieved. In WP7, the basic first steps in order to change the RCS framework were initiated by approaching of and discussion with first relevant represent-tatives/ authorities.Main tasks of DeliverHy were:– Evaluation of the effect of the introduction of advanced technology for the transport of Compressed Hydrogen (CGH2) on European roads– Justification of safety related to introduction of new materials/ technology– Identification and proposal of changes in European Regulations, Codes & Standards (RCS)– Documentation of the effect of the introduction of new materials/technology facilitating high capacity trailers – Motivation of and exchange with Stakeholders involved in CGH2 transport (incl. relevant Regulatory Bodies)– Suggesting relevant test methods and acceptance criteria to be prepared for transfer into RCS workProject Context and Objectives:Compressed hydrogen trailers are cost efficient for near term distribution. However, with the currently used 20 MPa trailers the supply of larger refueling stations would result in multiple truck deliveries per day, which is often not acceptable. In order to increase the transported quantities, lighter materials and higher pressures must be adopted. The cost increase of the hydrogen trailers resulting from advanced technology can be offset by the distribution cost savings from increased truck capacity.State-of-the-art:Transport of compressed hydrogen today is strictly regulated by international and regional regulations such as the UN‐Model Regulation, the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) and the European Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive (1999/36/EC – “TPED”).Below are listed current RCS limitations that are to be taken into account:• Current design standards: Safety factor (Burst pressure/nominal fill pressure at 15°C) = 3.0 for transportable pressure vessels in composite material• ADR : Maximum size of cylinders constituting a bundle = 450 L. • Transportable packages made up of larger containers are classified as Multi-Element Gas Container (MEGC) not well covered by standards.• Maximum size of tubes constituting a transportable package = 3,000 L• No pressure limitation in ADR 2013Project Importance:DeliverHy has assessed the effects that can be achieved by the introduction of high capacity trailers composed of composite tanks. The maximum use of these trailers on public roads will require changes to existing Regulations, Codes and Standards (RCS) in particular for proof pressures higher than 65 MPa (working pressure greater than 43.3 MPa) and tubes larger than 3,000 litres. Having these changes adopted is a time consuming process, and will only eventually happen if authorities are convinced that the necessary safety precautions are taken care of to achieve a level of safety which is at least as high as the one observed with today’s distribution technologies for hydrogen. DeliverHy has addressed these challenges by means of a detailed assessment of safety, environmental and techno-economic impacts of the use of higher capacity trailers and subsequently by the development of first elements of a preliminary action plan leading to a Roadmap for the required RCS amendments, which will be communicated to the authorities in charge. Objectives:Compressed hydrogen trailers are cost efficient for near term distribution. However, with the currently used 20 MPa trailers the supply of larger refuelling stations would result in multiple truck deliveries per day, which is often not acceptable. In order to increase the transported quantities, lighter materials and higher pressure must be adopted. The cost increase of the hydrogen trailers resulting from advanced technology can be off-set by the distribution cost savings from increased truck capacity.DeliverHy assessed the effects that can be achieved by the introduction of high capacity trailers composed of composite tanks with respect to weight, safety, energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. New materials and product capacities available today have the potential to increase the payload of a single trailer from about 350 kg hydrogen today to more than 1,000 kg.It was taken into consideration that the distribution system must be capable of serving an on‐site infrastructure for 70 MPa refuelling stations for fuel cell vehicles complying with applicable standards and fulfilling capacity requirements of fuelling stations.The following topics were to be addressed to advance the transportation and distribution of compressed hydrogen beyond the state of the art:- volume limitations- maximum stress levels- pressure limitations and- material limitations.For these topics, changes in the existing RCS had to be identified and proposed with justification, where the changes could be proven to lead to at least equal or higher safety levels than the present state of the art in transport of compressed hydrogen with metal cylinders.Issues to be addressed had to be identified and a way forward to facilitate the use of high capacity trailers with regard to Regulations, Codes and Standards (RCS) had to be outlined.Methodology: The methodology of the project was based on a thorough comparison of the impact of higher capacity compressed hydrogen distribution solutions benchmarked against what is common practice on European roads today (based on existing RCS) in WP2. A systematic evaluation of the potential achievements by the use of alternative materials and higher capacities (pressure and volume) equipment was performed and the impact on payload, economy, energy efficiency and related emissions was analysed, also taking into consideration the transfer of hydrogen into and from the transport unit (WP3). Existing barriers in RCS were identified using information from WP2 and a preliminary action plan was developed to overcome these barriers (WP4). A study of the safety issues related to the introduction of higher capacity composite material equipment was performed within WP5. The optimum transport capacity of compressed hydrogen was elaborated in WP6, including a Roadmap addressing the necessary RCS changes and by whom and how these changes can be achieved. In WP7, the basic first steps in order to change the RCS framework were initiated by approaching of and discussion with first relevant represent-tatives/ authorities.Main tasks were:− Evaluate the effect of the introduction of advanced technology for the transport of Compressed Hydrogen (CGH2) on European roads− Justify safety related to introduction of new materials/ technology− Identify and propose changes in European Regulations, Codes & Standards (RCS)− Document the effect of the introduction of new materials/technology facilitating high capacity trailers − Motivate and work together with Stakeholders involved in CGH2 transport (incl. relevant Regulatory Bodies)− Suggest relevant test methods and acceptance criteria to be prepared for transfer into RCS workProject Results:Limitations of current solution with regard to future needs (WP2)For the delivery of compressed hydrogen to the customer originally two types of containment (bulk containers or trailers) were foreseen. For practicality reason in the later simulation only trailers were maintained. Furthermore, two types of delivery modes (swap of trailers or dump-off from trailers) have been considered. For the dump-off case two different onsite storage pressures were assumed: 5 MPa (for industrial customers and for HRS’s) and 50 MPa (for HRS’s only – assuming a suction compressor for emptying the trailer). Figure 1: Description of delivery pathways to HRS The trucked-in hydrogen quantities needed to supply an HRS in function vary depending on HRS size and the delivery period (inverse of delivery frequency). A range of HRS sizes has been defined and the associated hydrogen quantities to be delivered depending on delivery periods, as shown Table 1 below.Table 1: Quantities to be delivered for various HRS sizes Passenger vehicle HRS sizes are based on H2Mobility Germany specifications (2010). Bus HRS sizes are theoretical ones based on 20, 50 or 120 busses/day each requiring 35 kg refuelling.Maximum storage inventory may be greater than delivery amount, for instance to be able to operate without delivery during weekends. Also the empty level in terms of pressure level either in the HRS storage or trailer/bulk storage before a new delivery, will also add to the storage inventory at the HRS. This is illustrated in Figure 2 that also provides a definition of empty level and useable hydrogenHRS costs or capacity are affected by the inlet pressure of the supplied hydrogen. Generally a higher inlet pressure either enables the compressor to have a higher capacity or the compressor can be downsized thus enabling cost savings. For the supply side (truck) the need is the opposite of the HRS. The lowest possible empty level of the trailer or bulk, means that more of the transported hydrogen has been delivered to the HRS. For the DeliverHy analysis an empty level in terms of pressure level has been defined for each delivery method:• Swap of bulks/trailer: 2 MPa• Dump-off hydrogen: o Scenario A: 5 MPa o Scenario B: 25% of tube trailer (only considered in the sensitivity analysis)Figure 2 illustrates the empty level and usable hydrogen definition when applied to a Very Small HRS (56kg/day). Pressure levels are anticipated to be the same for the other defined HRS sizes. Figure 2: Definition: Empty pressure levels & useable hydrogen Based on these assumptions, WP2 has conducted a number of extensive analyses:• To ensure a uniform analysis basis throughout the DeliverHy project a joint definition of trucked-in CGH2 concepts has been developed • Analysis if trucked-in hydrogen quantities needed for a defined range of HRS sizes for both buses and cars• Analysis of motivation and means for capacity increase of trucked-in CGH2 by use of composite vessels• Detailed calculation of capacity increase potential with composite vessels for a defined range of distribution means in terms of bulk and trailer concepts• Analysis of limitations of a single truck in meeting capacity needs for various HRS sizesIn total the analysis has helped to provide a consistent definition basis for the efforts in the other WPs.Techno-economic analyses (WP3)A detailed techno-economic well to tank (WtT) analysis with respect to process efficiencies (specific energy use in kWh/kgH2), delivery economics (specific hydrogen delivery costs in €/kgH2) and environmental effects (specific GHG-emissions in gCO2eq/kgH2 and delivery frequency) was carried out in WP3. The analysis is based on results and definitions from WP2. To be able to thoroughly identify the impact of advanced technology trailers, 4 trailer concepts with different pressure levels (52.5 MPa and 70 MPa), pressure vessel volumes (150l to 10,000l), safety factors (2.25 and 3) and trailer dimensions (ISO-Container and max. allowable trailer dimension) have been designed. The gross transport capacity of the newly designed trailers ranges from 882 kg to 1,370 kg. All advanced technology trailers use type 4 composite pressure vessels with carbon fiber wrapping. As benchmark systems two state-of-the-art trailer concepts with 368kg and 555kg gross transport capacity have been selected. In addition to different trailer concepts, various different delivery scenarios have been calculated. The main differences between the scenarios are− the delivery distance (between 25 km and 500 km one-way),− the size of the hydrogen refueling station (HRS) (between 56 kgH2/day and 700 kgH2/day),− the hydrogen production method (central electrolysis and steam methane reforming),− the electricity mix (100% renewable and German2011mix)− and the delivery mode.The two delivery modes used for the scenarios are “hydrogen dump-off” in which the hydrogen is transferred from the trailer into an onsite hydrogen storage and “Swap trailer” in which an empty parked trailer is exchanges with a filled hydrogen trailer. Following the key results of the analysis are described.Process efficiencies/energy use:The WtT process efficiencies are dominated by hydrogen production. Energy use that is directly linked to the hydrogen delivery only accounts for about 6% to 24%. This percentage includes electricity for compression for trailer filling at the H2 plant, fuel for hydrogen transport and electricity for compression at the refueling station. The advanced technology trailer concepts utilize a higher pressure for transport compared to the state-of-the-art trailers. This results in a shift of needed electricity for compression from the refueling station to the trailer filling station. The total energy use for compression stays about the same for all analyzed trailer concepts. Minor differences exist but are very small in comparison of the total WtT energy use. Relevant differences exist for the amount of truck fuel used for transport. Here the increased transport capacity of the advanced technology trailers results in significantly less truck fuel used to deliver an equal amount of hydrogen (e.g. over a one year period). The advanced technology trailer concepts use 41% to 64% less truck fuel compared to the best state-of-the-art trailer.Delivery economics:For the calculation of the economics the investment and operational costs have been calculated. Advanced technology trailers show an increase in absolute and specific investment costs (between 541 €/kg and 772 €/kg) compared to state-of-the-art trailers (between 317 €/kg and 511 €/kg)(without the rolling platform).The WtT economics have been calculated and analyzed for the year 2012 and 2030 taking into account expected changes in cost components (e.g. reduced costs for type 4 carbon fiber pressure vessels, higher fuel and electricity prices and lower costs for hydrogen refueling stations). Costs for hydrogen production and the HRS have a significant share of total WtT costs. Both are not influenced by the type of trailer concepts used for transport. Cost reductions at the HRS due to optimized dimensioning of the compressor might be achievable when using trailers with high pressure tanks. This cost reduction potential was not further analyzed since optimization of the HRS was not within the scope of the project.The detailed calculations of the WtT economics showed that delivery related costs shift from operational costs to capital costs when using advanced technology trailers for transport. Especially fuel and labor costs are reduced and costs for the trailer (depreciation) are increased. Also the costs for the storage infrastructure at the HRS are increased. When considering point to point delivery, trailer concepts with high payloads require large onsite storages at the HRS in order to transfer the entire payload from the trailer.Onsite storage infrastructure and costs of operation basically lead to two overlying effects. On the one hand advanced technology trailers have an advantage over state-of-the-art trailers in terms of operational costs. This advantage becomes more relevant the larger the delivery distance between H2 plant and HRS is. On the other hand advanced technology trailers have a disadvantage in terms of investment costs for the trailer and the onsite storage infrastructure at the HRS. This becomes more important the smaller the refueling station is. The investment for the required onsite storage is influenced by the payload of the truck but not as much by the size of the HRS. The smaller the hydrogen sales of the HRS are, the larger is the cost share from the required onsite storage on top of each kg of sold hydrogen.The result is that today advanced technology trailers have an economic advantage when delivering hydrogen to either medium or large refuelling stations (> 200 kg/day) over medium and long distances (> 100 km); or to small refueling stations over long distances (> 250 km). The sensitivity analysis showed that the disadvantage for short distances and small HRSs can significantly be reduced when using point to multipoint delivery instead of point to point. This however requires other customers in the same region.Due to an increase in electricity and fuel prices and due to an expected reduction of the investment costs for advanced technology trailers (e.g. through mass production) competiveness is expected to improve in the future. WtT calculations for 2030 show that advanced technology trailers are then also price competitive for very short distances of 25 km when supplying hydrogen to medium and large stations. Medium and large sized refueling stations will probably account for the majority of the HRSs in the future. Here advanced technology trailers are at least on par or significantly better than state-of-the-art trailers in terms of delivery economics.Environmental effects:WtT GHG-emissions have been calculated on a gCO2/kgH2 basis for a delivery distance of 100km (one-way). The hydrogen production method has the biggest influence on the total WtT GHG-emissions accounting for up to 98% of the emissions if hydrogen is produced from natural gas. This percentage depends on the electricity mix used for compression and on the trailer concept used for transport. Producing hydrogen from water in a central electrolyzer plant and only using renewable electricity along the supply chain, leaves the truck fuel as only source of GHG-emissions. Trucks pulling an advanced technology trailer emit significantly less GHG-emission per kg of delivered hydrogen. With state-of-the-art trailers the specific emissions are in this case about 460 to 850 gCO2eq./ kgH2 compared to 175 to 290 gCO2eq./kgH2 for the advanced technology trailers (depending on trailer concept and supply mode). GHG-emission savings can be as high as 64% corresponding to possible truck fuel saving of 64%). Using advanced technology trailers enables a significant reduction in hydrogen deliveries. This becomes especially important as soon as a larger number of fuel cell vehicles are on the roads. With an increasing number of fuel cell vehicles the number of HRSs as well as their size will increase. For HRSs which use trucked in hydrogen this automatically leads to an increase number of deliveries. For large HRS (700 kg/d) this means about 1.5 deliveries per day on average when using the best state-of-the-art trailer. The larger payload of advanced technology trailers reduces the number of daily deliveries to 0.8 to 0.5. Figure 3: Sensitivity analysis of GHG-emissions - Results show that additional GHG-emissions from electricity for hydrogen compression are compensated by less GHG-emissions from transport already for distances below 100km.Significant results achieved• Delivery costs are less sensitive to changes in labour and fuel costs if high capacity CGH2 trailers are used for transport. (Deliverable 3.2)• WtT H2 costs are very sensitive to the investment costs of the H2 onsite storage if hydrogen is dispensed from very small and small HRS. (Deliverable 3.2)• Using a cascade of low, medium and high pressure vessels to store large amounts of H2 at the HRS instead of using only low pressure vessels decreases electricity consumption for compression which results in reduced energy costs. The additional CAPEX for the medium and high pressure storage vessels however counterbalances those cost savings. (Deliverable 3.2)• Using high capacity CGH2 trailers for supplying very small and small HRS drastically increases costs for HRS onsite storage infrastructure. Utilizing point to multipoint delivery instead of point to point delivery can significantly reduce those costs. (Deliverable 3.3)• Using non-renewable electricity (e.g. mix Germany 2011) for trailer filling increases related GHG-emissions for high pressure CGH2 trailers compared to conventional (low pressure) trailers. Those emission gains are already offset by GHG emission savings from reduced transport emissions at distances below 100km. (Deliverable 3.3)• The achievable cost reductions from future mass production of fittings, manifolds and other casing equipment needed for high pressure CGH2 trailers can decrease the trailer investment costs by 2.2 to 3.1 %. (Deliverable 3.2)• Trailer investment costs can be reduced by additional 17 % if expected cost reductions of carbon fibres materialize. (Deliverable 3.3)• By 2030 high capacity CGH2 trailers are competitive to today’s best state-of-art trailers in almost all relevant hydrogen delivery scenarios. Figure 4: Advantages of high capacity CGH2-trailers for the example of supplying a large HRS over a 175 km delivery distanceRCS barriers/gaps and preliminary action plan (WP4)The objective of this WP was to summarize the RCS gaps in order to develop a trailer composed of Cylinders or Tubes in composite Type IV. In this endeavor an intermediate report on RCS barriers a./o. gaps was prepared in the first project year. A final report on the RCS situation and an action plan was prepared at the end of the 2nd and last project year.The scope of RCS requirements is mainly defined by reference to the − Type of assembly (e.g. bundle, trailer also called battery-vehicle)− Category of pressure vessel (cylinder, tube) − Construction type of pressure vessel (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, Type 4)− Pressure vessel water capacity− Pressure vessel working pressure – this is the pressure at which the pressure vessel is intended to be filled, assuming a settled gas temperature of 15°C. Consequently, the RCS limitations in terms of gaps or barriers to the implementation of technically relevant innovative solutions will appear in accordance with these characteristics. For instance, for a given type of assembly, only certain types of pressure vessels may be considered. Or there may be no reference for pressure vessels exceeding a certain water capacity limit.The implementation of composite material technology, i.e. Type 3 and Type 4 constructions has led to the following evolution in pressure vessel characteristics: − increase of water capacity, as these constructions are not subject to the limitations on diameter inherent to Type 1 and Type 2 constructions− increase of design pressure, as these constructions are not subject to the manufacturability limitations on wall thickness inherent to Type 1 and Type 2 constructions.This has resulted in the implementation of assemblies having a set of characteristics not previously considered by the regulators, such as − Tubes with a capacity greater than the upper limit of 3,000 l included in the regulatory definition of tubes.− Pressure vessels with a capacity greater than 150 l intended for constituting a standard cylinder assembly (called bundle) where the regulation only allows use of “cylinders” having by definition a capacity not greater than 150 l− Working pressure of 50 MPa or moreThe regulatory requirements for bringing into circulation on public roads and vessels containing hydrogen is regulated by the European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR). The Agreement itself is short and simple. The key article is the second, which says that apart from some excessively dangerous goods, other dangerous goods may be carried internationally in road vehicles subject to compliance with:- the conditions laid down in Annex A for the goods in question, in particular as regards their packaging and labelling; and- the conditions laid down in Annex B, in particular as regards the construction, equipment and operation of the vehicle carrying the goods in question.Annexes A and B have been regularly amended and updated since the entry into force of ADR. The last adaptation was performed in 2013.The international standardisation providing the technical requirements applicable to the trans¬portable units implemented for the transport of compressed hydrogen are developed by ISO/TC 58 Gas cylinders - SC3 Cylinder design.There are a number of standards addressing the different types of pressure vessels used and their assemblies.The set of assemblies used for hydrogen covered by the ADR and that are allowed to be transported on the roads of the participating countries are therefore in practice those covered by referenced standards.Referenced standards and their applicable scope in ADR were identified:The main gaps identified are:• To implement 10,000 L “Tube”, necessity to implement a new category• Need to have inspection requirements for composite vessels determined only from requirements specified through ADR, • Need to have service life for composite vessels determined only on the basis of requirements included in the applicable standard covering design and manufacturing, • Need to develop and have ADR adopt standards providing adequate requirements for periodic inspection and testing for cylinders and tubesSafety Factor (SF)– The ADR specifies a burst pressure ratio only for non-UN pressure receptacles not designed, constructed and tested according to referenced standards covered by section 6.2.5. as specified in 6.2.5.5 : • 6.2.5.5 Pressure receptacles in composite materials – For composite cylinders, tubes, pressure drums and bundles of cylinders which make use of composite materials, the construction shall be such that a minimum burst ratio (burst pressure divided by test pressure) is: – 1.67 for hoop wrapped pressure receptacles; – 2.00 for fully wrapped pressure receptacles. --> As test pressure = 1.5*Service pressure --> Burst pressure = 2 * 1,5 * Service pressure = 3 * Service pressureAction plan to overcome barriers/ to close gaps :• Request a new category in ADR (Tubes from 3,000 to 10,000 L) – Necessity to develop an argumentation based on a Risk & Consequence Analysis – main risk identified is a valve or equipment failure generation of Cloud + explosion• Safety Factor = currently fixed value: – The goal is to obtain an unfixed value based on: • Cylinder or Tube characteristics (data coming from the supplier) • Qualification tests performed • Service Life & inspection: – Need to develop and qualify a method for cylinder test & requalificationJustification of RCS Changes (WP5)This WP analysed the particular risks of transporting hydrogen in composite pressure vessels by road transport.The main challenge for any quantitative risk analysis related to transport is the uncertainty in the chosen scenario, because an accident on a road in an open field is much less severe than the same accident in the middle of a densely populated city. Pressure vessels for road transport should be designed for events where an annual probability of failure is 10-6 if the expected worst consequence of failure is about 10 fatalities. If the number of fatalities could increase to 100 an annual probability of 10-7 to 10-8 should be used. Using these annual probabilities of failure will give risk levels comparable to other engineering applications accepted by society. If larger amounts of gas shall be transported than what is acceptable today for composite or steel cylinders, the design annual probability of failure should be reduced by the cube of the change in mass in case of sparsely populated areas. Large transport vessels should be restricted from densely populated areas.The calibration of safety factors should be based on the annual probabilities of failure that correlate to acceptable risk levels considering the expected fatalities in the worst-case scenario. Accidental loads from the accident should be part of the design calculations and considerations. Their effect should not be hidden in the safety factors.The failure modes and mechanisms of pressure vessels were identified, methods for lifetime analysis were extensively discussed in the project and agreement for the best approach was reached.New safety factors are suggested for composite pressure vessels used for transporting hydrogen on roads. The suggestions are based on a probabilistic approach for the failure mechanism burst of laminates. Short-term static and fatigue conditions are addressed. The factors are dependent on the acceptable probability of failure and are very dependent on the variability of the burst strength of a group of pressure vessels from the same batch. The variability is expressed by the Coefficient of Variation (COV). For COVs less than 6% the safety factors are not very sensitive to the probability of failure. The higher the COV, the more the safety factors change. Different safety factors are calculated for static burst and long-term cyclic fatigue and stress rupture. Long-term factors are dependent on the actual or expected service conditions. Special cases are compared with the requirements of the currently used ISO standard 11119-3. This ISO standard uses the same safety factor regardless of COV or lifetime of the pressure vessel. For pressure vessels made of typical carbon fibre laminates with a COV of 6% and a lifetime of 20 years (11,000 loading cycles), the safety factor can be reduced to 1.5 compared to the ISO factor of 2. Static strength and fatigue properties of the pressure vessel need to be measured experimentally to use the lower factor and methods to do this are suggested. Should the COV increase to 11%, the safety factors should be increased compared to ISO. An example of static and long-term safety factors vs. COV is shown in Figure 5: Figure 5: Example of static and long term safety factors and their dependence on the coefficient of variation. Factors are given for a typical set of material properties and service conditions.Obtaining the required statistical information of the properties of the pressure vessels requires extensive testing. Testing many large pressure vessels is practically not feasible and sub-scale testing would be preferred. Acceptance criteria are suggested for testing on sub-scale specimens instead of full-scale pressure vessels.Recommendations and Roadmap for RCS (WP6)This WP summarises the findings and recommendations from work packages 2 to 5 concerning the safe storage of compressed hydrogen in composite cylinders for the fuel cell and hydrogen community and to extract and prioritize them. Furthermore, it provides a roadmap of how the RCS recommendations will be brought to the appropriate RCS bodies. A variety of findings have resulted from the work of these tasks. Up-to-date lists of active and published RCS were prepared and gaps identified which resulted in several RCS recommendations, such as revisions to ISO 11119, ISO 11515 and ISO 17519, impact of replacing steel trailers by fibre reinforced composite materials (CF) trailers was studied and reported, a probabilistic approach to safety factor (SF) calculation was considered result¬ing in a new proposed approach for a range of SF rather than a fixed number, some clear recommendations for industry were developed which ties into the other work of this project and suggests using the existing ADR to gain experience with high pressure hydrogen CF trailers while taking the time to revise standards referred to by the ADR, and finally, a roadmap on how to proceed with the RCS recommendations to international bodies has been described. The key achievements and recommendations are:• Up-to-date list of existing active and published RCS has been created and maintained up-to-date during the project duration. • Changes in ISO 11119, ISO 11515 and ISO 17519 have been identified. Specifically to increase volume to 10,000 L and to increase pressure from 20 to 50+ MPa. Also, it was noted that inspection and service life requirements for composite vessels need to be included in the applicable standards.• A roadmap describing a two-step approach for proceeding with international RCS bodies was recommended. Revise ISO standards first and then get these revised standards referred to in the ADR (see WP4 results above). • The main field of application of CF high capacity trailers in the future is the supply of hydrogen for medium and large refuelling stations with a delivery distance of 100 km and above. For this target market, relevant cost advantages exist compared to today’s state-of-art hydrogen trailers. • Results show that going from low pressure steel to high pressure CF tanks has the biggest impact while a reduction of SF adds to that improvement.• Using probabilistic methods, factoring in risk level, COV (i.e. coefficient of variation for e.g. manufacturing process, materials etc.), application, volume, pressure, testing and other components such as valves, piping etc. there is a suggestion to reduce SF to unfixed range of 2.0 – 2.9 assuming a COV of less-equal 10%. • The deployment of a new trailer is a long process. It requires also development of filling centres and changes in customer installation, as well as the validation of all new high pressure equipment (according to TPED). • An important conclusion is that development of high pressure type IV cylinders should start now within the current ADR limits so as to prove safety of operations and operational benefits while initiating discussions with ADR authorities to prepare the necessary changes. Interaction with Authorities (WP7)The objectives of this work package were to identify relevant authorities and RCS-bodies of importance when proposing changes in European regulations and relevant international standards and a strategy forward. Doing any change in any RCS takes time, and safety-related issues need even more discussion, considerations and documentation, and consensus between countries and within interest organisations has to be achieved. The work done in WP7 describes the mechanisms to be followed for such changes. Meeting frequency in relevant organisations might be as low 1-2 times a year, and the proposal has to pass several levels before the change will come into force. As an example, a proposal for a change in an ISO-standard (revision) must be approved by the relevant Technical Committee and then forwarded to relevant Working Group of experts. This initial phase can take from half a year to more than one year. Thereafter the real technical discussions starts and it can take years before consensus is reached among the experts. Thereafter comes the implementation of the new versions (references) into the regulation (can take year(s)). The project has therefor focused on describing the processes and the active parties that is or in most cases has to be involved before a regulatory change can take place and put into force in Europe.Further, DeliverHy has identified and described alternative methodologies for documen-tation and verification of composite cylinders in general, which might become essential when discussing relevant safety margins for transport of larger amounts of hydrogen on the roads. The methodology is already in use in the industry, but has so far not been implemented into any RCS-relevant for transport of dangerous goods (ADR/TPED). This new methodology represents a change in the way RCS are built up today, and this will by itself take time to change (years), and once again this is an activity that is far beyond what is realistic to have implemented within the timeframe of DeliverHy.Processes identified + Partners to be involved:In general RCS-work is an iterative process based on consensus between key stakeholders and in most cases the initiative comes from the industry and in some cases based on new technology that has become available. Larger composite cylinders (more than 450L) represent products still in an early introduction phase with limited field experience compared to e.g. cylinders and tubes made of metallic materials. The intro-duction of composite cylinders and tubes for transport of compressed gas at higher pressure and in larger cylinders than what is in use today easily creates some concerns among regulators, in particular as the consequences of a catastrophic failure will increase. This can only be controlled by reducing the risk for the catastrophic failure to happen. The challenge is to build up enough confidence in the technology, by theory based on scientific research and practical testing of the material under realistic conditions and relevant stress ratios with respect to static and cyclic load in a probabilistic approval methodology. A probabilistic risk based type approval process seems to be the only way to go.Methodologies for documentation and verification of composite cylinders:DeliverHy has identified two representatives for national authorities that are already well into the probabilistic approach methodology. These are BAM, Berlin, and DNV, Oslo, well supported by NTNU as partner in DeliverHy. Furthermore DeliverHy has identified EC JRC-Petten as a key organisation when coming to recommendations on the regulatory issues to the European Commission. The work package therefore focused on these 3 organisations, organized workshops and an extended joint workshop with HyCOMP. The conclusion is that the key players most likely will be able to create a harmonized methodology for a probabilistic risk-based type approval process for composite cylinders, but will need guidance on what an acceptable risk level will be. Following key messages should be communicated >> Participants see a possibility that SF margin can be reduced o NTNU recommends probabilistic approach using Normal distribution o BAM is proposing probabilistic approach based on Weibull distributionSample size needs to be included into the determination of the scatter>> Big hurdle: uncertainty of allowable risk level o Needs to be defined by EU/EC for a European wide usage>> Uncertainty of safety of current cylinders in terms of probabilistic approach>> Additional research on determination of several design type properties and their distribution density function neededFollow-up should contain following levels:>> 1st Level: Proposal to EU to investigate further into the potential to use probabilistic approach>> 2nd Level: Research for improved statistical basic understanding>> 3rd Level: Maybe methodology and some key numbersAs a first level activity, a meeting with representatives from the Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy (JRC-IE) shall be planned to present the new probabilistic approach. The mission of the JRC-IE is to provide support to European Union policy makers and to advance technology innovation to ensure sustainable, safe, secure and efficient energy production, distribution and use. Hence, the meeting should be also a good starting point for the introduction of the improved design methods and for the necessary changes in RCS from deterministic to probabilistic requirements.Potential Impact:Socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the projectThe potential techno-economic impact of advanced technology hydrogen trailers has been analyzed in detail. To cover all relevant aspects from hydrogen production to hydrogen use a Well-to-Tank (WtT) analysis has been performed. In order to respect different possible hydrogen delivery scenarios a wide set of parameters has been used for the WtT analysis (e.g. different delivery distances, delivery modes, hydrogen sources and refueling station sizes). Also four different advanced technology trailer concepts have been analyzed and benchmarked against state-of-the-art trailers. The difference between the four advanced trailer concepts lies in different pressure levels, pressure vessel volumes, safety factors and trailer dimensions.The techno-economic WtT analysis showed a relevant impact on all four considered aspects when using advanced technology hydrogen trailers instead of state-of-the-art trailers.The four considered aspects were:o WtT energy useo WtT GHG emissionso WtT economicso Delivery frequencyCalculations show that the impact is not the same for all delivery scenarios considered but varies strongly mainly depending on the refueling station size, delivery distance and trailer concept.In the future large hydrogen refueling stations with a daily output capacity of around 700 kg of hydrogen are estimated to be more common than station sizes with considerably less output capacity. Today the average hydrogen delivery distance in Europe is about 175 km. To estimate the potential overall techno-economic impact of advance technology trailers the delivery of hydrogen to a large refueling station over a one-way distance of 175 km has been simulated.Using today’s state-of-the-art compressed gas hydrogen trailer with a gross payload of about 550 kg for the delivery scenario defined above, results in a diesel fuel usage of 68,900 L/a and GHG-emissions of 760 t/a (CO2-equivalent). The specific cost (without taxes) of the hydrogen delivered amounts to 6.68 €/kg for hydrogen from central steam methane reforming (in 2012) and to 8.61 for hydrogen from central renewable electrolysis (in 2030). A total of 563 delivery trips are necessary to supply sufficient hydrogen.The largest improvement on all considered aspects was identified for an advanced technology hydrogen trailer with an increased delivery pressure of 52.5 MPa, larger pressure tanks of almost 10.000 L and an adapted safety factor of 2.25. This trailer concept is capable of transporting 1,370 kg (gross) of hydrogen. This results in significant reductions in used diesel fuel, GHG-emissions, costs and the number of delivery trips.The diesel fuel usage can be reduced from 68,900 L/a to about 25,100 L/a (-64%). Total GHG-emission can be reduced from 760 t/a to 684 t/a (-10%). Transport related GHG-emission alone can be reduced by 64%. The specific hydrogen costs can be reduced by about 8% in 2012 (-0.55 €/kg) as well as in 2030 (-0.69 €/kg). The number of required deliveries can be reduced by 388 trips per year (-64%).This shows the potential impact of advanced technology trailers. The simulation results of the other advanced trailer concepts lie in between the state-of-the-art trailer and the best advanced technology trailer concept. Though it has to be noted that the results for all other advanced trailer concepts are clearly closer to the results of the best advanced trailer concept than to the state-of-the-art trailer.Advanced trailer concepts thus help increase the acceptance of hydrogen transport through reducing the frequency of delivery significantly by almost a factor of 3 compared to state-of-the-art conventional trailers. Practically in the same order also the directly transport related GHG-emissions are reduced. Only liquid hydrogen (LH2) trailers with a transport capacity of about 3.5 t of H2 are better in these aspects. LH2 trailers improve the frequency of delivery compared to best advanced technology trailers again by 2 ½ times, or more than 6 times compared to state-of-the-art trailers. Although the LH2 trailer improves economics and transport-related GHG-emissions substantially, energy use is not improved proportionately due to the comparatively high energy demand for liquefaction compared to compression of H2 only. Further detailed information on the potential impact of advanced technology trailers can be found in the public deliverable D6.2.RCS-work is an iterative process based on consensus between key stakeholders where in most cases the initiative comes from the industry and in some cases is based on new technology that has become available recently. Larger composite cylinders (more than 450L) investigated in this project represent products still in an early introduction phase with limited field experience and with no regulatory practice compared to e.g. cylinders and tubes made of metallic materials. Consequently, the intro¬duction of composite cylinders and tubes for transport of compressed gas at higher pressures and in larger cylinders than what is in use today easily can create some concerns among regulators, in particular as the consequences of a catastrophic failure will increase. This can only be controlled by reducing the risk for the catastrophic failure to happen. The challenge is to build up enough confidence in the new technology. Theory based scientific research and practical testing of the material under realistic conditions applying relevant stress ratios with respect to static and cyclic load in a probabilistic approval methodology can build up credibility and trust in the new technology among experts. Discussion among experts in workshops held indicated that the key players most likely will be able to create a harmonized methodology for a probabilistic risk-based type approval process for composite cylinders as well as that such an approach seems to be the only way to go.As it is the mission of the JRC-IE is to provide support to European Union policy makers and to advance technology innovation to ensure sustainable, safe, secure and efficient energy production, distribution and use, it was decided to get in contact with the management of the Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy to present the main recommendations and to get advices on how to take the case further forward.Main dissemination activitiesThe only public dissemination activities performed during the project duration were participation in FCH JU Annual Review Meetings in Brussels in 2012 and 2013.After the project duration, at the WHEC2014, a paper will be submitted and a presentation be given in Korea in June 2014.A major dissemination activity, although not public, was the joint HyComp & DeliverHy meeting organized on December 13th, 2013 to discuss conditions for lower safety margins of composite cylinders for transport applications. Representatives from NTNU (Norwegian University of Science and Technology), LBST (Ludwig-Bölkow Systemtechnik), out of the industry (Air Liquide, Hexagon Composite) and institutes supporting legislative organizations (BAM, JRC-IE), participated in the meeting. The experts present in the meeting concluded that additional work will be necessary for the determination of several design type properties and their distribution density function. Another uncertainty is the sample size required to determine the scatter of the static and fatigue load performance of the product, also with respect to the desired respectively required confidence level. More discussions about acceptable risk levels involving appropriate stakeholder are required. There has been a common agreement among the participants to continue with the initiative also after the end of the HyCOMP and DeliveryHy project phases. The project partners, mainly Air Liquide and Hexagon, will use the information for committee work with standardization and regulatory bodies in Europe and globally (ISO, UNECE).Exploitation resultsExploitation of the results achieved in DeliverHy will in first line not occur in a commercial perspective but rather in facilitating a better uptake in the market and in exploring a better understanding of the advantages of advanced composite materials trailers. Future testing (RTD) will back up the scientific principles described by DeliverHy and could be the subject of further study. Continued interaction with authorities in all EU member states will be required in order to implement the identified necessary RCS changes beyond project lifetime.The DeliverHy project information and public results can be found at: http://www.DeliverHy.eu The DeliverHy logo: Beneficiaries of DeliverHy: Beneficiary Number Beneficiary name Beneficiary short name Country Contact1 (coordi-nator) Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH LBST DE www.lbst.de2 Air Liquide Advanced Business ALAB FR www.airliquideadvancedbusiness.com3 The CCS Global Group CCS GB www.ccsglobalgroup.com4 H2 Logic A/S H2L DK www.h2logic.com5 Hexagon/ Raufoss Fuel Systems HEX NO www.hexagon.no6 Norwegian University of Science and Technology NTNU NO www.ntnu.noList of Websites:The DeliverHy project information and public results can be found at: http://www.DeliverHy.eu Related documents final1-deliverhy-finalreport-v05.pdf
