Comparative risk assessment of gaseous and liquid hydrogen fuel gas supply systems for hydrogen-fueled vessels

• Comparative risk assessment for gaseous and liquid hydrogen fuel gas supply systems. • Gaseous hydrogen requires enhanced protection against high-pressure leaks. • Liquid hydrogen emphasizes management of thermal contraction and pipe damage risks. • Provides safety guidelines for eco-friendly hydrogen adoption in maritime industry. This study compares qualitative risk analyses of compressed hydrogen gas (GH 2 ) and liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ) fuel gas supply systems (FGSSs) for eco-friendly marine vessels. Using hazard identification (HAZID) and hazard and operability (HAZOP) methodologies, the study systematically identifies and compares the unique risks and safety strategies for GH 2 and LH 2 FGSS. For GH 2 -FGSS, HAZID identifies 22 hazards, with one unacceptable risk related to potential explosions from high-pressure hydrogen accumulation due to ventilation failure. HAZOP identifies 27 hazards, all categorized as acceptable or ALARP. Recommended safety measures include pressure protection devices, real-time alarms, and enhanced piping durability. For LH 2 -FGSS, HAZID identifies 38 hazards without any unacceptable risks, though cryogenic icing and overpressure remain significant concerns. HAZOP reveals 43 hazards, with one unacceptable risk involving thermal contraction and piping damage from repeated operations, posing fire hazards. Suggested mitigations include improved cooling and purge gas procedures, along with rigorous insulation management. Primary differences in safety management focus on high explosion risk of GH 2 -FGSS from high-pressure storage and the piping damage risk of LH 2 -FGSS from icing and thermal contraction. To enhance risk management for each system, future research implements an operational simulation-based quantitative risk assessment. This study provides foundational safety strategies and guidelines for future vessels, supporting the adoption of eco-friendly fuels in the maritime industry.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science
Published
2025-08-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joes.2025.08.004
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Combustion and Detonation Processes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
9.99
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative risk assessment of gaseous and liquid hydrogen fuel gas supply systems for hydrogen-fueled vessels

Jinyeong Jeong, Hwalong You, Daejun Chang, Minsoo Choi
2 citations
Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science
Combustion and Detonation Processes
9.99
article

Comparative risk assessment of gaseous and liquid hydrogen fuel gas supply systems for hydrogen-fueled vessels

Jinyeong Jeong, Hwalong You, Daejun Chang, Minsoo Choi
article en
2 citations

Abstract

• Comparative risk assessment for gaseous and liquid hydrogen fuel gas supply systems. • Gaseous hydrogen requires enhanced protection against high-pressure leaks. • Liquid hydrogen emphasizes management of thermal contraction and pipe damage risks. • Provides safety guidelines for eco-friendly hydrogen adoption in maritime industry. This study compares qualitative risk analyses of compressed hydrogen gas (GH 2 ) and liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ) fuel gas supply systems (FGSSs) for eco-friendly marine vessels. Using hazard identification (HAZID) and hazard and operability (HAZOP) methodologies, the study systematically identifies and compares the unique risks and safety strategies for GH 2 and LH 2 FGSS. For GH 2 -FGSS, HAZID identifies 22 hazards, with one unacceptable risk related to potential explosions from high-pressure hydrogen accumulation due to ventilation failure. HAZOP identifies 27 hazards, all categorized as acceptable or ALARP. Recommended safety measures include pressure protection devices, real-time alarms, and enhanced piping durability. For LH 2 -FGSS, HAZID identifies 38 hazards without any unacceptable risks, though cryogenic icing and overpressure remain significant concerns. HAZOP reveals 43 hazards, with one unacceptable risk involving thermal contraction and piping damage from repeated operations, posing fire hazards. Suggested mitigations include improved cooling and purge gas procedures, along with rigorous insulation management. Primary differences in safety management focus on high explosion risk of GH 2 -FGSS from high-pressure storage and the piping damage risk of LH 2 -FGSS from icing and thermal contraction. To enhance risk management for each system, future research implements an operational simulation-based quantitative risk assessment. This study provides foundational safety strategies and guidelines for future vessels, supporting the adoption of eco-friendly fuels in the maritime industry.

Journal of Ocean Engineering and ScienceVol. 10(6)
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR), Korea Institute of Machinery & Materials (KR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Combustion and Detonation Processes
9.99
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.