International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

The effect of natural ventilation through roof vents following hydrogen

leaks in confined spaces
Joonsik Kim a, b, Yangkyun Kim a, *, Byungjik Park a, Unggi Yoon a, Chankyu Kang b, **
a
Hydrogen-infra Research Cluster (HiRC), Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, 64 182 Beon-Gil Mado-Myeon, Hwaseong, 18544, South Korea
b
School of Social Safety System Engineering, Research Center for Safety and Health, Hankyong National University, Anseong, 17579, South Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Dr S Nanda Hydrogen has a high diffusion rate and a wide range of combustion, making it essential to take safety precautions
against leakage during storage. We investigate the change in hydrogen concentration in confined spaces due to
Keywords: hydrogen leakage through experimental and numerical methods assuming the worst-case scenario. The vent area
Hydrogen consists of 12 %, 24 %, and 36 % of the floor area and is installed in the ceiling of the concrete enclosure. We
Leakage
confirm that the improvement of ventilation performance is insignificant just by increasing the ventilation area
Natural ventilation
above a certain standard during emergency ventilation. Moreover, the improvement of ventilation performance
Forced ventilation
Performance by forced ventilation is more effective as the natural ventilation area is smaller. Still, the effect decreases as the
natural ventilation area becomes larger. In conclusion, we confirm that ventilation efficiency is determined by
the natural ventilation area rather than forced ventilation.

software, assuming a hydrogen refueling station accident. They

1. Introduction
As the world is moving toward carbon neutrality to reduce green­
house gas emissions, hydrogen energy is gaining attention as a new eco-
friendly energy source to replace fossil fuels, while its global use is
gradually increasing [1–3]. Consequently, hydrogen energy technology
is rapidly developing, and related industries are being revitalized [4].
However, since hydrogen is highly flammable and poses an explosion
hazard, it is necessary to consider the factors that hinder the safe use of
hydrogen energy along with guidelines promoting the successful
development of the hydrogen economy [5]. Hydrogen gas has a wide
combustion range at concentrations of approximately 4 %–75 % in the
air. Its density at standard state conditions is about 14 times lower than
that of air [6], and hydrogen explosions include a high-pressure increase
rate due to the high laminar flow flame propagation rate [7]. It is also
the lightest substance, with atomic number 1, so it disperses quickly in
the event of an accidental leak and burns easily in the presence of an
ignition source [8,9]. Because of these dangerous properties, many
scholars are interested in evaluating the risk of hydrogen fires and ex­
plosions [10]. For example, Park et al. [11] examined the risks of
compressed hydrogen release, jet fire, and heat flux using HyRAM
compared the modeled results with experimental data and compiled F–N
curves and safety distances for risk assessments in planning hydrogen
refueling station installations in urban areas. In another study, re­
searchers combined LOPA and RISKCURVES software to identify the risk
that hydrogen refueling stations pose in urban areas and to assess how to
minimize damage in the event of a jet fire or explosion caused by gas
leakage [12]. However, for hydrogen-related fires and explosions to
occur, hydrogen leakage must precede and accumulate an appropriate
concentration [13]. In this process, fundamental safety designs must
prevent hydrogen gas buildup leading to an explosive atmosphere if
accidents are to be avoided [14].
Over the past few years, plentiful research has investigated the
hazards posed by hydrogen and the role of ventilation in hydrogen leak
accidents. Since conducting empirical experiments with hydrogen is not
feasible due to safety and cost issues, many studies use computational
fluid dynamic (CFD) simulations or helium gas [15–17]. Yassine et al.
[18] studied hydrogen behavior concerning the shape and height of
explosion vents in case of a leak inside a residential garage through CFD
simulation. Their results highlighted the importance of vent geometry,
with rectangular and square shapes being more effective than round and
triangular shapes. Further, they reported that the closer the vent is to the

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kkpp9810@kict.re.kr (J. Kim), yangkyunkim@kict.re.kr (Y. Kim), templer83@kict.re.kr (B. Park), yoonunggi@kict.re.kr (U. Yoon), safetyfirst@
hknu.ac.kr (C. Kang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.11.048
Received 23 August 2023; Received in revised form 17 October 2023; Accepted 4 November 2023
Available online 15 November 2023
0360-3199/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Kim et al.
Nomenclature
LOPA layer of protection analysis
CFD computational fluid dynamic
SLM standard liter per minutes
LFL lower flammable limit
RANS Reynolds averaged navier stokes
SST shear-stress transport
GCI grid convergence index
p order of convergence
f i average hydrogen volume fraction
γ grid refinement ratio
Av0 minimum vent area(m2)
As enclosure internal surface area(m2)
Pred maximum pressure developed in vented enclosure(bar-g)
Su fundamental burning velocity (m/s)
ρu mass density of unburned gas (kg/m3)
ceiling, the more effectively it prevents hydrogen buildup. Lee et al. [19]
conducted a CFD simulation of the hydrogen pressure regulation in
Ulsan City’s hydrogen town in South Korea to investigate small-scale
leakage scenarios. They suggested an optimal vent location configura­
tion and compared different ventilation capacities by vent size relative
to floor area. Additionally, a hydrogen leakage management strategy
was proposed using forced-nitrogen purging. Barley et al. [20] investi­
gated the relationship between leakage rate, vent design, and hydrogen
concentration through laboratory tests and CFD modeling. Their setup
consisted of two vents, a lower and an upper one, while the degree of
ventilation varied according to the opening of the vents; their experi­
mental results were compared to computational data to validate their
model. Matsuura [21] also used CFD simulations to study hydrogen
dispersion and accumulation in a semi-confined space with natural and
forced ventilation. Various combinations of roof vents and door vents
were considered by changing their size and location, and their effec­
tiveness was compared with that of natural and forced ventilation. Ji
et al. [22] investigated hydrogen leakage and diffusion characteristics
by installing a 1.8 m × 2.2 m × 2.9 m room with 0.12 m3 of vents on
three sides of the room and ventilation fans on the remaining side.
Hydrogen concentrations were measured as the vent, ventilation fans,
and supply shut-off valves operated. Moreover, Xie et al. [23] compared
the effectiveness of different ventilation fan geometries on hydrogen
leakage in a garage with vehicles based on CFD simulations.
Studies comparing natural and forced ventilation have also been
actively conducted. Cerchiara et al. [24] evaluated the effect of natural
ventilation based on the leakage rate to maintain hydrogen concentra­
tion within 2 vol% inside a 25 m3 enclosure, including a fuel cell, and
reported an increase in ventilation efficiency with additional forced
ventilation. Prasad [25] compared the natural ventilation and forced
ventilation effects of compartmentalized spaces during the blowdown
situation of high-pressure hydrogen tanks, investigating the volume flow
and behavior of released hydrogen. Merilo et al. [26] compared the
natural ventilation and forced ventilation effects in a hydrogen fuel cell
vehicle garage concerning hydrogen leakage. They reported that me­
chanical ventilation was efficient in reducing hydrogen concentration in
the garage in terms of hydrogen emission rate and ventilation rate.
Additionally, Huang et al. [27] compared the ventilation effects of
hydrogen leakage from fuel cell vehicles in an underground parking lot
using three modes (natural ventilation, forced ventilation after 300 s of
leakage, continuous forced ventilation) and various ventilation layout
configurations. Matsuura et al. [28] investigated the impact of different
roof ventilation locations and areas on hydrogen accumulation and
dispersion in partially open spaces from a natural ventilation perspec­
tive. They highlighted the effectiveness of selectively opening roof vents
1396
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405
λ ratio of gas-air mixture burning velocity
Gu sonic flow mass flux of unburned gas-air mixture (kg/m3)
Cd vent flow discharge coefficient
Pmax maximum pressure (bar-g)
γb ratio of enclosure pressure before ignition (bar-g)
P0 enclosure pressure prior to ignition (bar-g)
Pstat nominal vent deployment or burst pressure(bar-g)
Rj production rate of chemical species j
Sj generation term of chemical species j
Jj mass diffusion velocity term of chemical species j
Dj,m mass diffusion velocity coefficient
DT,j thermal diffusion coefficient of chemical species j
SCt turbulent Schmidt number
Kv venting coefficient
V internal volume of enclosure
Av vent area (m2)
close to the leakage source for hydrogen removal. In addition, studies on
hydrogen dispersion and removal based on ventilation types were con­
ducted for hydrogen refueling stations [29], nuclear facilities [30], and
hydrogen-powered ship fuel cell rooms [31].
The aforementioned studies confirmed that hydrogen behavior and
ventilation performance vary depending on the location and shape of the
vent when a hydrogen leak occurs. Additionally, these studies analyzed
the ventilation effect in scenarios where natural ventilation is always
present, with variables comprising only vent shape and location and the
presence or absence of forced ventilation. However, it is equally
important to consider the possibility of mechanical defects in the safety
measures set in advance. From a safety perspective, installing appro­
priate protective devices and buffers in any system is essential to reduce
the likelihood of an accident or damage caused by one [32]. James
Reason’s Swiss cheese model describes deficiencies in safeguards as the
cause of accidents by analogizing them to randomly punctured cheese.
In these terms, accidents occur when safeguards deficiencies fall in a
straight line. This analogy applies equally well to mitigating damage
after an accident has occurred and is compounded to produce results
[33,34]. Ultimately, no single safeguard can completely prevent an ac­
cident, so safeguards should be layered as much as possible to ensure
safety [35]. Indeed, it is possible scenarios for natural and forced
ventilation systems to develop defects and fail to provide adequate
ventilation. Due to the low minimum ignition energy of hydrogen
(mixed with air) (approximately 0.019 mJ), any ventilation method that
has the potential to release electrical energy, such as forced ventilation
with fans, could result in an explosion [19,36].
Studies so far have been conducted to create designs in which the
concentration of hydrogen does not exceed the allowable value in the
event of hydrogen leakage through continuous ventilation. However, as
described above, consideration should be given to contingency plans to
safely eliminate leaks in situations where ventilation is restricted (e.g.,
in the event of ventilation system failure) and concentrations have
already built up. This study aims to experimentally investigate ventila­
tion effectiveness using natural ventilation by deploying a vent that can
serve as an explosion panel in the event of an emergency; a scenario is
assumed in which a hydrogen leak occurs (due to, for example, irre­
versible damage to a storage container) that results in an accumulating
hydrogen concentration. As a result, the ventilation efficiency by size of
the upper vent was compared to derive the appropriate ventilation size
for accident situations. This provides practical new designs and pa­
rameters to prevent and mitigate damage caused by hydrogen leakage
when designing enclosed spaces where hydrogen can exist. It can also
contribute to the development of a safer hydrogen infrastructure by
proposing new safety measures that are different from previous views.
J. Kim et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405

Fig. 1. (a) Images of the experimental setup, and (b) Schematic of the experimental setup.

rectangular concrete structure with an internal volume of 20.3 m3

Table 1
(Fig. 1). The hydrogen supply system possessed a flow rate range of
Specifications of the experimental setup.
2000–5000 slm (standard liter per minute), a power supply of +15 VDC
Equipment Characteristics to +24 VDC, an operating temperature of 5–50 ◦ C, and a hydrogen
Hydrogen supply system (microbial fuel - Company: MKP, Hwaseong, South concentration sensor (2 V/175 mA); the details are listed in Table 1. A
cell) Korea total of six hydrogen concentration sensors were installed to measure
- Model: TSM-D260 gas concentration at the system’s top, middle, and bottom. The locations
- Flow rate: 2000–5000 slm
- Working pressure: 800 kPa
of these sensors are shown in Table 2.
Hydrogen concentration sensor - Company: SGX Sensortech, Katowice, Three 0.75 m × 1.5 m vents for natural ventilation were installed on
Poland the top of the concrete structure, corresponding to the required mini­
- Model: VQ600 mum vent area (Av0), as shown in Eq. (1)~(2) of NFPA 68 (2013). This
equation is used to calculate explosion protection (deflagration venting),
and this minimum vent area was used as the one vent area in the current
Table 2 experiment. This reason, as mentioned in the introduction, is to consider
Locations of six hydrogen concentration sensors (S1–S6) along three dimensions the vent area that can simultaneously serve as an explosion vent and a
(X, Y, and Z) within a 4.2 × 2.8 × 2.8 m rectangular concrete structure. ventilation vent.
X (m) Y (m) Z (m) [ ( ) ] 1/γb
Pred +1
S1 1.05 1.4 1.95 1− Pmax +1
S2 1.05 1.4 1.1 S u ρu λ
Av0 = As [( )1/γb ] (1)
S3 1.05 1.4 0.25 G u Cd
Pred +1
S4 2.4 1.4 1.95 Pmax +1
− δ
S5 2.4 1.4 1.1
S6 2.4 1.4 0.25
( )γ1
b
PStat +1
P0 +1
− 1
2. Experimental and method section δ= ( )γ1 (2)
b
Pmax +1
− 1
2.1. Experimental setup P0 +1

This experiment aimed to determine the extent to which an internal
hydrogen concentration could reach below a reference value in the
event of a hydrogen leak in a confined space that is mitigated via the
deployment of an upper natural vent. The average temperature on the
day of the experiment was 23.5 ◦ C, and the average wind speed was 1.6
m/s. The experimental setup consisted of a 4.2 × 2.8 × 2.8 m
where Av0 is the vent area calculated in m2, As is the enclosure internal
surface area in m2, Pred is the maximum pressure developed in a vented
enclosure during a vented deflagration in barg, Su is the fundamental
burning velocity of gas-air mixture in m/s, ρu is the mass density of
unburned gas-air mixture in kg/m3, λ is the ratio of gas-air mixture
burning velocity, Gu is the unburned gas-air mixture sonic flow mass flux

1397
J. Kim et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405

Table 3
Investigated cases in the experiment (Cases E1-E9) and numerical analysis (Cases N1–N4).
Vents in the open position Total natural vent Vent area as a ratio of the Size of leakage hole Leak flow rate Ventilation fan flow rate
area (m2) floor area (%) (inches) (L/min) (m3/min)

Case Center only 1.125 12 1/2 600 –

E1
Case 1/4 200
E2
Case 3/8 400
E3
Case Both sides 2.25 24 1/2 600
E4
Case 1/4 200
E5
Case 3/8 400
E6
Case All 3.375 36 1/2 600
E7
Case 1/4 200
E8
Case 3/8 400
E9
Case Both sides open, and center fan installed 2.25 24 (natural vent) – – 22
N1
Case 44
N2
Case One side was open, a fan was installed on 1.125 12 (natural vent) 22
N3 one vent (center vent closed)
Case 44
N4

in kg/m2-s, Cd is the vent flow discharge coefficient, Pmax is the
maximum pressure in bar-g, and γb is the ratio of enclosure pressure
before ignition in bar-g, P0 is the enclosure pressure prior to ignition in
barg, Pstat is the nominal vent deployment or burst pressure in barg.
The internal space was completely sealed off until the hydrogen
reached the target concentration. The size of each vent comprised 12 %
of the floor area. The experiment was conducted by varying the open
vent area (two and three times the base area, Case E1~E9). Four cases
were selected for the computational analysis. In Cases N1 and N2, both
vents were opened, a ventilation fan was installed in the center vent, and
the capacity of the ventilation fan was set to different parameters. In
Cases N3 and N4, the center vent was closed, a ventilation fan was
installed on one vent, and the capacity of the ventilation fan was set to
different parameters. The overall setup for the thirteen cases is sum­
marized in Table 3.
2.2. Conditions for computational analysis
2.2.1. Governing equations
A nonlinear simultaneous differential equation was used to analyze
the fluid and energy movements obtained after applying the laws of
conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.
As there are variations in velocity and pressure at each point in a
general turbulent flow situation, Reynolds Average Navier-Stokes
(RANS) equation was utilized to analyze the momentum. In this study,
the k-ω model considering two equations among RANS-based models

Fig. 2. Grid information: (a) overall grid domain, (b) number of volume grid on the vent surface, and (c) size of volume grid on the vent surface.

1398
J. Kim et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405

2.2.2. Boundary conditions and grid for numerical analysis

ANSYS FLUENT, a finite volume method-based commercial CFD
software, was employed to conduct a numerical analysis of hydrogen
leaks. Since the equation of chemical species transport is intended to
analyze the leaks, reactions were not considered; however, the con­
vection current and diffusion of chemical species were considered. Since
hydrogen leaks are a time-dependent transient phenomenon, the first-
order implicit was utilized for this purpose, while the coupled tech­
nique was applied to handle the pressure-velocity coupling of the
pressure-based solver. The initial conditions for the analysis were set as
follows: a hydrogen concentration of 0 %, an oxygen volume fraction
(the atmospheric pressure condition) of 21 % and a nitrogen volume
fraction of 79 %, and the size of the time step was set to 0.2 s, the same as
the size of the hydrogen concentration sensor used in the experiment.
An enclosure structure was modeled to analyze the hydrogen leaks
numerically, while a grid was created for the CFD analysis. The structure
was built with the same dimensions as in Fig. 1. Since the structure and
conditions for the analysis were symmetrical, half of the structure was
reflected in the analysis grid. Approximately 440,000 grids were utilized
for the analysis, while tetrahedral lattices were created for utilization.
Here, maximum size of grid in vent is about 9.8e-5 m3, while minimum
Fig. 3. Hydrogen concentration along the centerline of computational domain size of it is about 3.7e-6 m3. Maximum number of volume grid attached
with deferent number of grids. on the surface of vent is about 302, whereas minimum number is about
94. Overall grid information is shown in Fig. 2. As for the numerical
was employed; the Shear-Stress Transport (SST) k-ω model, which has analysis, at the start of the analysis, hydrogen gas flowed in as the ceiling
combined strengths from the k-ω model with an advantage of analyzing vent was blocked entirely for 283 s (when the leak was completed); the
near walls, and the k-ε model with strength in free flow, was employed. inflow of hydrogen gas was completed from 283 s to 900 s; the top vent
As for the hydrogen leaks, chemical species should be additionally was opened to allow ventilation to the exterior; by analyzing this situ­
considered, as well as general flow. The equation of chemical species ation, hydrogen concentrations over time at the exact location as in the
transport can be found in Eqs. (3) and (4). experiment were compared.
∂( ) ( )
ρYj +∇• ρuYj = − ∇ • Jj + Rj + Sj (3) 2.2.3. Grid convergence analysis
∂t
Grid independence analysis was conducted using GCI (Grid
( )
μt ∇T Convergence Index) as has been done by several previous researchers
Jj = − ρDj,m + ∇Yj − DT,j (4) [37–39]. To derive the GCI for the grid ratio of r = 1.5, analysis was
SCt T
performed on 440,000 Medium grids, 293,000 Coarse grids, and 660,
where, Rj, and Sj refer to the production rate and generation term of 000 Fine grids. Analysis was performed under the same conditions for
chemical species j, respectively; Jj is the mass diffusion velocity term of each grid, and the average hydrogen volume fraction data was acquired
chemical species j; Dj,m and DT,j refer to the mass diffusion velocity co­ at 21 points at a height of 2.1 m (Fig. 3), and the order of convergence, p,
efficient and the thermal diffusion coefficient of the chemical species j in was obtained through the average value as Eq. (5).
a mixture, respectively; and Sct represents the turbulent Schmidt
number.

Fig. 4. Hydrogen concentration change over time for a vent area corresponding to 12 % of the floor are: (a) Case E1, (b) Case E2, and (c) Case E3.

1399
J. Kim et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405

Table 4
Time to reach the target concentration by case (s).
12 % 24 % 36 %

Case E1 Case E2 Case E3 Case E4 Case E5 Case E6 Case E7 Case E8 Case E9

4% 108.8 297.6 228.4 43.2 83.8 65.6 47.8 58.8 42

1% 266.6 510.4 434 139.8 156.6 157.6 161.2 134.4 141.2

Fig. 5. Hydrogen concentration change over time for a vent area corresponding to 24 % of the floor size: (a) Case E4, (b) Case E5, and (c) Case E6.
( ) ( )
⃒ ⃒
ln f3 − f2/f − f ln 1.36724 − 1.36676/1.36676 − 1.34769 ⃒1.36724 − 1.36676⃒/
2 1 = ⃒⃒ ⃒ ( −
⃒ 1.5 9.069
)
− 1 ×100% = − 0.036% (6)
p= = = − 9.069 1.36676
ln r ln 1.5
(5) ⃒ ⃒
⃒f2 − f1 ⃒⃒/
GCI1,2 = ⃒⃒ ⃒ (rp − 1) ×100%
Where f 1, f 2, f 3 is average hydrogen volume fraction by location (coarse, f1
medium, fine) respectively. Through the r and p value obtained in
⃒ ⃒
equation (5), the GCI was obtained as follows Eqs. (6) and (7). ⃒1.36676 − 1.34769⃒/
= ⃒⃒ ⃒ ( −
⃒ 1.5 9.069
)
− 1 ×100% = − 1.452% (7)
⃒ ⃒ 1.34769
⃒f3 − f2 ⃒/
GCI2,3 = ⃒⃒ ⃒ p ×100%
f2 ⃒ (r − 1) Grid dependence shown in equation (8) is 0.986, which is approxi­
mately 1. Therefore, it was concluded that results obtained with current
grid structure are within the asymptotic range of convergence.

Fig. 6. Hydrogen concentration change over time for a vent area corresponding to 36 % of the floor size: (a) Case 3, (b) Case 6, and (c) Case 9.

1400
J. Kim et al.
Fig. 7. Time to target concentration based on the venting coefficient (Kv).
GCI2,3
= 0.986 ≅ 1
rp × GCI1,2
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characteristics of natural ventilation
Venting experiments were conducted with different vent areas to
measure the time required to reduce explosive hydrogen concentrations.
The vent areas deployed were 1.125 m2, 2.25 m2, and 3.375 m2, which
accounted for 12 %, 24 %, and 36 % of the floor area, respectively. For
these experiments, we selected two target hydrogen concentrations to be
reached via ventilation: 4 vol% (LFL) and 1 vol% (safety ventilation
concentration according to NFPA 86, which is 25 % of LFL). The
ventilation time measurement was initiated when the vent was opened,
and the concentration values indicated by the topmost sensors (S1 and
S4) were uniform at 15 ± 0.5 %. Taking a conservative stance, from a
safety point of view, ventilation ceased only when the detectable
hydrogen concentration had dropped below the critical threshold
throughout the confined space. In other words, ventilation was deemed
adequate when all sensors indicated gas levels below the desired con­
centration, while the time measurement was terminated when the last
sensor provided this reading. Based on the data from that sensor, a non-
linear curve fit the LFL.
Fig. 8. Comparison of hydrogen concentrations per monitoring location (a) Left side of enclosure (S1, S2, S3) and (b) Center side of enclosure (S4, S5, S6).
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405
The change in hydrogen concentration for a vent size corresponding
to 12 % of the floor area (the smallest area used in our tests) is shown in
Fig. 4. The times to reach a concentration of LFL were 108.8 s, 297.6 s,
and 228.4 s across three cases, while the times to reach a concentration
of 1 vol% were 266.6 s, 510.4 s, and 434 s (Table 4). This showed a large
variation. The time to mitigate hazardous gas levels in natural ventila­
tion is highly influenced by environmental factors such as external cli­
matic conditions, temperature, humidity, and wind direction. In this
case, the ventilation time cannot be predicted consistently, and the time
to reach LFL and 1 vol% is quite lengthy. This may be because if the area
of the vent is small, it causes ventilation concentrated at a specific point,
and the flow is formed in only one direction, resulting in uneven
ventilation. Thus, we assessed that this vent size would not have
adequate ventilation performance in an emergency.
A plot of the indoor hydrogen concentration changes for a vent size
corresponding to 24 % of the floor area is shown in Fig. 5. In this sce­
nario, the times to reach a concentration of LFL were 43.2, 83.8, and
65.6 s across three cases, and the times to reach a concentration of 1 vol
% were 139.8 s, 156.6 s, and 157.6 s (Table 4). For Case E4, the venti­
lation time was faster or similar to those of Cases E7, E8, and E9, which
had larger vent areas. This may be due to the difficulty in controlling the
(8)
ambient environment of the test site, which was located outdoors and
exposed to the effect of sudden wind or airflow changes. However,
compared to our previous results for the 12 % vent size, the ventilation
time here was significantly reduced with a slight deviation. This is
because a larger vent area has a more significant effect on constant
fluidity (caused by principles such as the buoyant release of hydrogen
and the difference in air pressure between the interior and exterior
environment), increasing the flow at the roof vent rather than the effect
caused by the external environment alone [40].
Fig. 6 displays the results for the largest vent area (36 % of the floor
area). The times to reach a LFL concentration in this scenario were 47.8
s, 58.8 s, and 42 s, whereas it took 161.2 s, 134.4 s, and 141.2 s to reach a
concentration of 1 vol% (Table 4). Compared to the aforementioned two
scenarios, the ventilation time in this scenario was the shortest on
average and the deviation tended to be smaller. However, Case E7 took
up to 21.4 s longer to reach 1 vol%, compared with Cases E4, E5, and E6,
with a 24 % vent area. This was due to the sudden decrease in con­
centration at S3 and an increase in concentration at S1, which co-
occurred at approximately 334 s (Fig. 6a); the hydrogen in the vicinity
of S3 stayed near S1 and the wall due to an unstable interior flow. These
results corroborate those of previous studies. It is known that hydrogen
inside a naturally ventilated enclosure is subject to large concentration
instabilities due to shear layers generated near the vent edges and that
1401
J. Kim et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405

Table 5 3.2. Validation of numerical simulation

Conditions influencing ventilation and ventilation time per case.
Case N1 Case N2 Case N3 Case N4 The numerical analysis and experiment results were compared by
performing the analysis for a total analysis time of 900 s. Fig. 8 indicates
Opened (natural) vent size (%) 24 24 12 12
Fan capacity (m3/min) 22 44 22 44 the hydrogen concentrations over time in the center cross-section of the
Ventilation Time (s) 46.2 44.8 102.6 63.4 enclosure. After 283 s, when the hydrogen leaks stopped, the hydrogen
concentrations were found to continuously decrease after the opening of
the center vent. The same monitoring points as in the experiment were
this possibility increases with the use of larger vents [41]. selected to verify the numerical analysis; hydrogen concentrations over
To compare the ventilation times of all cases, a venting coefficient time are shown in Fig. 8. The changes in the hydrogen concentrations
value was calculated according to the vent size (Fig. 7). The venting showed similar tendencies in the experiment and the numerical analysis.
coefficient (Kv) is one of the design parameters of an explosion panel. It At the calculation time of 283 s, when the leaks were completed,
is a dimensionless value calculated using the outlet area (for pressure or hydrogen concentrations in CFD and the experiment were quantitatively
smoke generated by an explosion or fire) and the internal volume of the compared at each monitoring point; it was found that each hydrogen
enclosed space using the formula Kv = V2/3/Av, where V is the internal concentration showed differences of 1.14 % and 1.52 %, respectively, at
volume of enclosure, and Av is the vent area [42]. the left and center monitoring points at the top, and of 2.25 % and 3.38
Overall, as the vent size increased, the required ventilation time % at the center, indicating that the difference between the numerical
decreased and showed less deviation. Notably, the Kv was 2.21 in the analysis results and the experiment results was relatively significant at
case with the largest vent size, in which a 4 vol% LFL was reached in less the left and center monitoring points at the bottom, rather than those at
than 1 min. Here, even a concentration of 1 vol% was reached relatively the top. There was a deviation in hydrogen concentration of the center
quickly (145.6 s). However, there was no significant difference when bottom between the result of experiment and CFD. This is because all
comparing these results to those obtained at Kv = 3.31. This suggests monitoring points in the CFD simulation are located in the path through
that ventilation performance improves as the vent area increases, but which hydrogen passes. Still, in actual experiments, the sensor’s location
this difference will decrease after a certain point. Thus, we established is not in the path through which hydrogen leaks directly, and the con­
that the size of explosion panels should represent a Kv of 3.31 or less centration of hydrogen is measured through diffusion. However, the
when considering the contribution of natural ventilation in the emer­ monitoring points on the upper parts are only considered in the analysis,
gency use of such a panel. so the hydrogen concentration of the center bottom can be ignored.

Fig. 9. Comparison of hydrogen concentrations per monitoring location for Case N1 and Case N2. (a) Left side of enclosure (S1, S2, S3 of Case N1), (b) Center side of
enclosure (S4, S5, S6 of Case N1), (c) Left side of enclosure (S1, S2, S3 of Case N2), and (d) Center side of enclosure (S4, S5, S6 of Case N2).

1402
J. Kim et al. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405

Fig. 10. Comparison of hydrogen concentrations per monitoring location for Case N3 and Case N4. (a) Left side of enclosure (S1, S2, S3 of Case N3), (b) Center side
of enclosure (S4, S5, S6 of Case N3), (c) Left side of enclosure (S1, S2, S3 of Case N4), and (d) Center side of enclosure (S4, S5, S6 of Case N4).

3.3. Characteristics of forced ventilation
Based on the simulation that confirmed validity, the results of the
simultaneous application of natural and forced ventilation were shown
below. The final target concentration was set as 4 vol% which is the LFL
of hydrogen, in the computational analysis. To measure the target
concentration, like the method used in the previous experiment, the
time when all monitoring points were below the target concentration
was measured, as shown in Table 5.
In the case in which a fan with a capacity of 22 m3/min (Case N1)
was installed in the center vent within a natural ventilation area cor­
responding to 24 % of the floor area, it took 46.2 s to reach the target

Fig. 11. Overall comparison. (a) Concentration changes of the sensor [C-top] that fell below 4 % at the latest per case, and (b) Comparison of ventilation time below
4 % per case.

1403
J. Kim et al.
concentration (LFL) (Table 5, Fig. 9). This finding is close (only 3 s
difference) to the fastest ventilation time (43.2 s) in cases E4, E5, and E6,
in which only natural ventilation (24 % of the floor area) was applied in
the previous experiment. Considering that the simulation was analyzed
conservatively, it is judged that the internal ventilation pattern (intake
and exhaust) formed under the influence of forced ventilation increased
ventilation efficiency. The formation of such a ventilation pattern can be
expected to maintain a constant ventilation efficiency, unlike natural
ventilation, which varies depending on the surrounding environment
[43,44]. However, there was no considerable decrease in ventilation
time due to the addition of forced ventilation.
Under Case N2, similar to Case N1, in which a fan with a capacity of
44 m3/min was installed in the center vent within a natural ventilation
area corresponding to 24 % of the floor area, it required 44.8 s to reach
the LFL (Table 5, Fig. 9). Compared to this result with Case N1 with the
capacity of 22 m3/min, a slight difference of 1.4s was found. This may be
due to the saturation of ventilation efficiency. In the previous experi­
mental part, the ventilation efficiency of natural vents, which have an
area equivalent to 24 % and 36 % of the floor area, was similar. This
indicates that when an appropriate natural ventilation area is secured in
forced ventilation, the natural ventilation area is dominant in deter­
mining ventilation efficiency rather than forced ventilation factors such
as fan capacity. Therefore, if natural ventilation area had already pro­
vided optimal ventilation efficiency, further increases in forced venti­
lation capacity may not have a real effect.
Under Case N3, in which there was a fan with a capacity of 22 m3/
min within a natural ventilation area corresponding to 12 % of the floor
area, it took 102.6 s to reach the LFL (Table 5, Fig. 10). Compared with
Case N1, with the fan with the same capacity, and the difference in the
natural ventilation area by 12 %, two cases showed a difference of 56.4
s; this finding is close (6.2 s difference) to the fastest ventilation time
(108.8 s) in Cases E1, E2, and E3, in which only natural ventilation (12
% of the floor area) was applied in the previous experiment. Compared
to the results of 297.6 s and 228.4 s, it was 2.9 times smaller. It was also
confirmed that the ventilation time, compared to Case N1, was more
influenced by the natural ventilation area than the fan capacity.
Case N4, similar to Case N3, in which there was a fan with a capacity
of 44 m3/min within the natural ventilation area corresponding to the
floor area, required 63.4 s to reach the LFL (Table 5, Fig. 10). Compared
to the difference between Cases N1 and N2 with 12 % additional natural
ventilation areas, the difference between Cases N3 and N4 significantly
increased by approximately 37.8 s. This finding confirms that depen­
dence on forced ventilation via fan increased in a smaller natural
ventilation area. If the area of the natural ventilation where air is being
drawn in is small, hydrogen tends to move downward due to the pro­
motion of global circulation within the confined space, making it diffi­
cult for the hydrogen to be discharged through the roof vent [41]. This
directly affects the ventilation rate, and the more stringent these re­
strictions become, the more efficient it is to apply forced ventilation.
Therefore, if the vent size was 12 % of the floor area, forced ventilation
(fan capacity) greatly affected the ventilation efficiency.
Fig. 11 indicates the comparison of entire cases. We found that the
last point falling below 4 % among six monitoring points in all cases was
the center-top point (C-top), which is revealed in Fig. 11 (a), while the
total ventilation time can be found in Fig. 11 (b). As for the overall
comparison, there was a tendency in which ventilation efficiency
increased as fan capacity increased; however, the impact of the fan
considerably decreased as the natural ventilation area increased.
Furthermore, applying forced ventilation can reduce the overall venti­
lation time compared to the application of natural ventilation only.
However, as mentioned above, ventilation performance tends to vary
depending on the natural ventilation area. Therefore, it is ideal to secure
the area of the natural vent when applying the emergency vent in case of
hydrogen leakage. Still, it is reasonable to use additional forced vent if
only a small area can be secured.
1404
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405
4. Conclusions
This study experimentally investigated the efficiency of natural
ventilation in mitigating the effects of a hydrogen concentration buildup
in a confined space with limited ventilation by deploying a vent that
serves as an explosion panel. We reached the following conclusions.
i) As for experimental ventilation time, it was difficult to predict the
general ventilation time required to reach safe conditions in the
case of the smallest vent area (Kv = 6.62) because it was highly
affected by the external environment.
ii) The required ventilation time tended to decrease as the vent area
increased. But the ventilation time (to LFL) for the medium and
large vents was similar. These results revealed that selecting an
area below Kv = 3.31 is reasonable when designing a roof vent.
iii) As a result of the numeric analysis, the time required for venti­
lation decreased as fan capacity increased. We found that this
effect was larger when the natural ventilation area was smaller.
This implies that the ventilation performance depended on forced
ventilation factors like the capacity of fans as the natural venti­
lation area decreased.
iv) Higher ventilation efficiency can be expected with forced venti­
lation under the condition that the vent area is larger than Kv =
3.31; however, in the case where it is smaller than Kv = 3.31, the
ventilation time will be dominated by natural ventilation area,
which would make it difficult to expect a higher ventilation ef­
ficiency after adding forced ventilation.
This study proposed a practical and novel method to design safety
measures for areas where hydrogen is stored. This method can be
applied as an emergency measure when designing a ventilation system
for a confined space. However, it may be challenging to maximize
ventilation efficiency by using only the method proposed in this study as
an emergency ventilation system. Designs such as the addition of forced
ventilation with nitrogen proposed in Ref. [19] can help design safer
hydrogen facilities. Therefore, further research is needed to increase
ventilation efficiency by applying additional methods.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety
(20018517). The funding agency had no role in study design; in the
collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the
report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
References
[1] Derwent RG. Global warming potential (GWP) for hydrogen: sensitivities,
uncertainties and meta-analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2023;48(22):8328–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.11.219.
[2] Momirlan M, Veziroglu TN. Current status of hydrogen energy. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2002;6(1–2):141–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-0321(02)00004-
7.
[3] Rosen MA, Koohi-Fayegh S. The prospects for hydrogen as an energy carrier: an
overview of hydrogen energy and hydrogen energy systems. Energ Ecol Environ
2006;1:10–29.
[4] International Energy Agency. The future of hydrogen. Seizing today’s
opportunities. 2019. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/9e3a3493-b9a6-
4b7d-b499-7ca48e357561/The_Future_of_Hydrogen.pdf. [Accessed 18 June 2021].
[5] Scovell MD. Explaining hydrogen energy technology acceptance: a critical review.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2022;47(19):10441–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2022.01.099.
J. Kim et al.
[6] Barbir F. Safety issues of hydrogen in vehicles. Energy Partners; 1999. p. 1–5.
Available from: https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/npre470/sp2019/web/readings/
Hydrogen%20safety%20issues.pdf.
[7] Molnarne M, Schroeder V. Hazardous properties of hydrogen and hydrogen
containing fuel gases. Process Saf Environ Protect 2019;130:1–5. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psep.2019.07.012.
[8] Swain MR, Filoso P, Grilliot ES, Swain MN. Hydrogen leakage into simple
geometric enclosures. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2003;28(2):229–48. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0360-3199(02)00048-4.
[9] Denkevits A. Explosibility of hydrogen–graphite dust hybrid mixtures. J Loss Prev
Process Ind 2007;20(4–6):698–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2007.04.033.
[10] Wei R, Lan J, Lian L, Huang S, Zhao C, Dong Z, Weng J. A bibliometric study on
research trends in hydrogen safety. Process Saf Environ Protect 2022;159:1064–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2022.01.078.
[11] Park B, Kim Y, Hwang I. An experimental study on the explosion hazards in the fuel
cell room of residential house. J Korean Surg Soc 2021;36(4):71–9. https://doi.
org/10.14346/JKOSOS.2021.36.4.71.
[12] Park B, Kim Y, Paik S, Kang C. Numerical and experimental analysis of jet release
and jet flame length for qualitative risk analysis at hydrogen refueling station.
Process Saf Environ Protect 2021;155:145–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psep.2021.09.016.
[13] Baraldi D, Papanikolaou E, Heitsch M, Moretto P, Cant RS, Roekaerts D,
Dorofeev S, Koutchourko A, Middha P, Tchouvelev AV, Ledin S, Wen J,
Venetsanos A, Molkov V. Gap analysis of CFD modelling of accidental hydrogen
release and combustion. 2010. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reposit
ory/bitstream/JRC58011/jrc58011_new_jrc58011.pdf.
[14] Park B, Kim Y, Lee K, Paik S, Kang C. Risk assessment method combining
independent protection layers (IPL) of layer of protection analysis (LOPA) and
RISKCURVES software: case study of hydrogen refueling stations in urban areas.
Energies 2021;14(13):4043. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14134043.
[15] Swain MR, Grilliot ES, Swain MN. The application of a hydrogen risk assessment
method to vented spaces. Adv Hydrogen Energy 2002:163–73. https://doi.org/
10.1007/0-306-46922-7_13.
[16] Pitts WM, Yang JC, Fernandez MG. Helium dispersion following release in a 1/4-
scale two-car residential garage. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(6):5286–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.12.008.
[17] Gupta S, Brinster J, Studer E, Tkatschenko I. Hydrogen related risks within a
private garage: concentration measurements in a realistic full scale experimental
facility. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(14):5902–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2009.03.026.
[18] Hajji Y, Bouteraa M, ElCafsi A, Belghith A, Bournot P, Kallel F. Natural ventilation
of hydrogen during a leak in a residential garage. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;
50:810–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.060.
[19] Lee J, Cho S, Cho H, Cho S, Lee I, Moon I, Kim J. CFD modeling on natural and
forced ventilation during hydrogen leaks in a pressure regulator process of a
residential area. Process Saf Environ Protect 2022;161:436–46. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psep.2022.03.065.
[20] Barley CD, Gawlik K. Buoyancy-driven ventilation of hydrogen from buildings:
laboratory test and model validation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(13):
5592–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.04.078.
[21] Matsuura K. Effects of the geometrical configuration of a ventilation system on
leaking hydrogen dispersion and accumulation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34
(24):9869–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.09.044.
[22] Ji HW, Lee H, Hwang I, Jang H. Safe ventilation methods against leaks in hydrogen
fuel cell rooms in homes. Energies 2022;15(15):5434. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en15155434.
[23] Xie H, Li X, Christopher DM. Emergency blower ventilation to disperse hydrogen
leaking from a hydrogen-fueled vehicle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(25):
8230–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.03.14.
[24] Cerchiara GM, Mattei N, Schiavetti M, Carcassi MN. Natural and forced ventilation
study in an enclosure hosting a fuel cell. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:2478–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.03.124.
[25] Prasad K. High-pressure release and dispersion of hydrogen in a partially enclosed
compartment: effect of natural and forced ventilation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2014;
39:6518–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.01.189.
1405
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 50 (2024) 1395–1405
[26] Merilo EG, Groethe MA, Colton JD, Chiba S. Experimental study of hydrogen
release accidents in a vehicle garage. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36:2436–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.056.
[27] Huang T, Zhao M, Ba Q, Christopher DM, Li X. Modeling of hydrogen dispersion
from hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in an underground parking garage. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2022;47:686–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.08.196.
[28] Matsuura K, Nakano M, Ishimoto J. The sensing-based adaptive risk mitigation of
leaking hydrogen in a partially open space. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:
8770–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.08.013.
[29] Agranat V, Cheng Z, Tchouvelev A. CFD modeling of hydrogen releases and
dispersion in hydrogen energy station. In: Proceedings of the 15th world hydrogen
energy conference: citeseer; 2004. Available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doc
ument?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=b656610f4eeda9027e58ea43fe7855a73f5b
484f.
[30] Taveau J. Explosion hazards related to hydrogen releases in nuclear facilities.
J Loss Prev Process Ind 2011;24:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2010.08.002.
[31] Gitushi K, Blaylock M, Klebanoff L. Hydrogen gas dispersion studies for hydrogen
fuel cell vessels II: fuel cell room releases and the influence of ventilation. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2022;47:21492–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2022.04.263.
[32] Duijm NJ, Markert F. Safety-barrier diagrams as a tool for modelling safety of
hydrogen applications. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34(14):5862–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.02.002.
[33] Hosseinian SS, Torghabeh ZJ. Major theories of construction accident causation
models: a literature review. Int J Adv Eng Technol 2012;4(2):53. Available at: http
s://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seyyed-Shahab-Hosseinian/publication/2684
39084_Major_theories_of_construction_accident_causation_models_A_literature_re
view/links/59ea640ba6fdccef8b08d4b2/Major-theories-of-construction-accident
-causation-models-A-literature-review.pdf.
[34] Reason J, Hollnagel E, Paries J. Revisiting the Swiss cheese model of accidents.
J Clin Eng 2006;27(4):110–5. https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/li
brary/017_Swiss_Cheese_Model.pdf.
[35] Hollnagel E. Is safety a subject for science? Saf Sci 2014;67:21–4. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.025.
[36] Ono R, Nifuku M, Fujiwara S, Horiguchi S, Oda T. Minimum ignition energy of
hydrogen–air mixture: effects of humidity and spark duration. J Electrost 2007;65
(2):87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elstat.2006.07.004.
[37] Roache PJ. Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annu
Rev Fluid Mech 1997;29:123–6. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.29.1.123.
[38] Zhong H-Y, Sun J, Lin C, Wu S-H, Shang J, Kikumoto H, et al. CFD simulation of
pumping ventilation in a three-story isolated building with internal partitioning:
effects of partition widths, heights and locations. Building Simulation. Springer;
2023. p. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-023-1068-3.
[39] Zhang X, Weerasuriya AU, Wang J, Li CY, Chen Z, Tse KT, Hang J. Cross-ventilation
of a generic building with various configurations of external and internal openings.
Build Environ 2022;207:108447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2021.108447.
[40] Swain M, Swain M. Passive ventilation systems for the safe use of hydrogen. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 1996;21:823–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199(96)
00002-X.
[41] Matsuura K. Effects of the geometrical configuration of a ventilation system on
leaking hydrogen dispersion and accumulation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34
(24):9869–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.09.044.
[42] Wang Q, Luo X, Wang C, Liu Y, Zhou P, Li B. Experimental study on external
explosion for vented hydrogen deflagration in a rectangular tube with different
vent coefficients. Process Saf Environ Protect 2022;158:331–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.psep.2021.12.002.
[43] Chu C-R, Su Z-Y. Natural ventilation design for underground parking garages. Build
Environ 2023;227:109784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109784.
[44] Flores-Velazquez J, Montero JI, Baeza EJ, Lopez JC. Mechanical and natural
ventilation systems in a greenhouse designed using computational fluid dynamics.
Int J Agric Biol Eng 2014;7:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3965/j.ijabe.20140701.001.