Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS Omega logoLink to ACS Omega
. 2026 Feb 27;11(9):15071–15078. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.5c12085

Experimental Study on the Temperature Characteristics of Cryogenic Hydrogen Jet Flames

Shishuai Nie †,‡, Longchi Zhao §, Peng Cai †,‡, Huan Liu †,‡, Hangyu Guo ∥, Xuefang Li ∥, Xiaobo Shen §, Anfeng Yu †,‡,*, Zhe Yang †,‡,*
PMCID: PMC12980433  PMID: 41835533

Abstract

Cryogenic compressed hydrogen combines the characteristics of cryogenics and compression, which can significantly enhance hydrogen storage density, thereby enabling more efficient and economical large-scale storage and transportation. Once cryogenic compressed hydrogen leaks during storage and transportation, it may cause accidents such as fires, posing severe threats to personnel and facilities. This study investigated the temperature distribution of cryogenic compressed hydrogen jet flames under different leakage pressures and temperatures and quantitatively analyzed the flame characteristics and safety distances under various working conditions. The results indicate that leakage pressure is the core factor affecting the flame temperature field distribution and hazard range. When hydrogen leaks at high pressure, it exhibits a higher temperature in the hot zone and a wider coverage area, requiring a significantly increased safety distance. In contrast, the leakage temperature has a smaller impact on the flame temperature field and safety distance; at low temperatures, the regularity of the temperature distribution is far weaker than that under high-temperature conditions, and the required protective distance shows little difference from that under normal-temperature conditions.

graphic file with name ao5c12085_0009.jpg

graphic file with name ao5c12085_0007.jpg

1. Introduction

With increasingly severe global climate change and continuous growth in greenhouse gas emissions, countries around the world are actively responding to climate change and vigorously promoting energy transition to support sustainable development. Hydrogen is regarded as a highly promising clean energy carrier due to its diverse sources and high combustion calorific value. In the practical application of hydrogen energy, its safety has always been the primary concern of the public and the industry. Owing to the characteristics of hydrogen, such as small molecular size and low viscosity, it is highly prone to escaping from connections of equipment like pipe joints, flanges, and valves. If high-pressure hydrogen leaks and is immediately ignited or autoignites, it may cause fire and explosion accidents, among which hydrogen jet fire is a typical type of fire accident.

Early studies on hydrogen jet flames mainly focused on normal-temperature and high-pressure hydrogen, focusing on the hazard range of hydrogen jet flames such as parameters including flame length, width, temperature, and radiant heat flux. For example, Houf and Schefer et al. − compared high-pressure hydrogen with hydrocarbon fuels, verified the correlation between the dimensionless flame length and the flame Froude number, and established the relationship between the flame length and the radiant heat flux of jet flames.

Mogi et al. further studied the relationship between the characteristics of hydrogen jet flames and the aspect ratio of slit nozzles under a similar pressure range, and the results showed that the radiation of hydrogen jet flames could be predicted by the gas flow rate and the distance from the flame. Proust et al. conducted a series of hydrogen jet fire experiments using nozzles with three diameters (1–3 mm) under a leakage pressure of 0.1–90 MPa. The measured flame lengths were compared with the research results of Schefer et al. − and other scholars, and it was found that the experimental results with nozzle diameters of 1 mm and 2 mm were more consistent. Based on the experimental conditions of Mogi et al., Molkov et al. used numerical simulation methods to well reproduce the shapes of jet flames from circular and rectangular nozzles. Compared with experimental research, the simulation of hydrogen jet flames does not require actual facilities or a large amount of consumables, which can significantly reduce costs and safety risks. Moreover, it can obtain detailed data inside the flame under a wider range of working conditions and deeply analyze the combustion mechanism. −

Compared with the existing research on normal-temperature hydrogen jet flames, there are relatively few literature reports on cryogenic compressed hydrogen jet flames. In recent years, countries such as the United States, Japan, and China have begun to conduct research on cryogenic compressed hydrogen. For the early experimental studies on cryogenic hydrogen jets, the work of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (Germany) and Sandia National Laboratories (United States) is the most representative. For example, Friedrich et al. specially built a small-nozzle ICESAFE experimental platform and carried out release and combustion experiments of cryogenic hydrogen jets at temperatures of 34–65 K and pressures of 0.7–3.5 MPa. The results showed that the overpressure and sound level generated during the ignition process did not cause harm to exposed personnel.

Panda et al. experimentally measured the flame length and thermal radiation of cryogenic compressed hydrogen jet flames under release pressures of 0.2–0.6 MPa and temperatures of 37–295 K. The results indicated that compared with normal-temperature hydrogen, cryogenic hydrogen jet flames have a longer length and higher radiant heat flux, and the flame length has a linear relationship with the square root of the Reynolds number. In subsequent studies, Molkov et al. investigated the influence of the Froude number, Reynolds number, and Mach number on the correlation of dimensionless flame length under experimental conditions of pressures of 0.1–90.0 MPa, temperatures of 80–300 K, and leakage diameters of 0.4–51.7 mm and determined three jet flame states according to the different influence degrees of buoyancy and momentum. Kobayashi et al. studied cryogenic hydrogen jet flames at temperatures as low as 50 K under similar experimental pressure conditions to Molkov et al. The results showed that the flame length of cryogenic hydrogen could be expressed by the hydrogen mass flow rate and that the flame length increased with the decrease in temperature. Gong et al., based on the three-stage distribution theory of flames proposed by McCaffrey et al., further verified that the temperature distribution of cryogenic hydrogen jet flames has similarity with this theory.

The distribution characteristics of the flame temperature field are the core topics of jet flame research. It is not only an important parameter describing axial turbulent diffusion flames but also a key thermal and physical parameter determining the hazard degree of external fires to humans and the surrounding environment. Regions with steep temperature gradients (such as shear layers) will intensify turbulent pulsation, leading to flame flicker or flashback, which threatens the safety of storage and transportation facilities. Quantifying the characteristics of the temperature distribution can provide a theoretical basis for determining safety distances and emergency response strategies.

In this study, a cryogenic hydrogen jet flame experimental system was established to analyze the temperature field distribution characteristics of cryogenic hydrogen jet flames under different leakage temperatures and pressures, further explore the laws during the propagation of cryogenic hydrogen jet flames, and conduct a safety assessment of potential hazards during ignition. The aim is to provide important experimental data and a theoretical basis for evaluating the fire risk of cryogenic hydrogen systems and optimizing safety protection measures.

2. Experimental System

This experimental study was conducted by establishing a cryogenic hydrogen jet flame experimental system, which mainly consists of two parts: the cryogenic hydrogen supply and heat exchange system and the ignition and data acquisition system. The schematic diagram of the system is shown in Figure . This experimental system has the capability to carry out experiments within the temperature range 80–300 K and pressure range 2–10 MPa. Under the set working conditions, the system can generate a continuous and stable cryogenic hydrogen jet through the nozzle and form a controllable cryogenic hydrogen jet flame after ignition.

1.

1

Open in a new tab

Schematic diagram of the cryogenic hydrogen jet flame experimental system.

2.1. Cryogenic Hydrogen Supply and Heat Exchange System

As shown on the left side of Figure , the cryogenic hydrogen supply and heat exchange system mainly includes hydrogen storage cylinders, nitrogen cylinders, a buffer tank (integrated with a heat exchanger and vacuum-insulated pipelines), a liquid nitrogen dewar, a solenoid valve, a booster pump, and corresponding control and monitoring instruments. During the experiment, first, nitrogen was used to purge the heat exchanger and vacuum-insulated pipelines to ensure no residual air remained inside the pipelines, followed by purging with hydrogen to ensure no residual nitrogen was left in the pipelines. Second, liquid nitrogen was used to precool the heat exchanger and pipelines, and hydrogen was introduced into the coil-type heat exchanger immersed in liquid nitrogen for cooling. Finally, hydrogen was introduced into the buffer tank immersed in liquid nitrogen for further cooling, and pressure and temperature sensors were used to measure the pressure and temperature inside the buffer tank to reach the required temperature under the set pressure. To improve heat transfer efficiency, the exterior of the entire cryogenic heat exchanger is designed with a vacuum layer, and the outlet pipeline is wrapped with insulation cotton to reduce heat exchange between cryogenic hydrogen and the atmosphere. When cryogenic hydrogen is released, a solenoid valve is used to ensure a constant pressure release at the nozzle outlet, thereby providing a continuous and stable cryogenic hydrogen jet. Each experimental condition was repeated at least three times to ensure the reproducibility of the results. The data presented in this study are the average values of repeated tests, and the error bars in Figures – represent the standard deviations of the measured temperature, verifying the stability and reliability of the experimental system.

3.

3

Open in a new tab

Temperature field distribution of cryogenic hydrogen jet flames.

5.

5

Open in a new tab

Influence of different leakage pressures on axial flame temperature.

2.2. Ignition and Data Acquisition System

As shown on the right side of Figure , cryogenic high-pressure hydrogen is horizontally released through a circular nozzle with a diameter of 1.0 mm and ignited by using an electric spark igniter. The igniter is activated before the start of the jet and is immediately turned off after the jet is ignited. The ignition head is placed along the jet centerline, 0.3 m away from the nozzle outlet, with an ignition energy of 2 J and an ignition frequency of 10 fps. The data acquisition system mainly collects parameters such as flame length and flame temperature. For the measurement of the flame temperature field, considering that the peak temperature of the cryogenic compressed hydrogen jet flame exceeds 1600 K, Type S thermocouples (with a maximum measurable temperature of 2000 K) with a wire diameter of 0.3 mm were used at the front end of the experiment, and Type K thermocouples (with a maximum measurable temperature of 1600 K) with a wire diameter of 0.5 mm were used at the rear end. During the experiment, the thermocouples were fixed on a specially made experimental frame and protected with tin foil for thermal insulation after installation. When arranging the thermocouples around the flame, the spatial distribution characteristics of the flame were fully considered: 15 thermocouples were arranged at intervals of 20 cm along the jet axis, among which the 5 closest to the nozzle were Type S thermocouples, and the rest were Type K thermocouples. The details of flame length photography have been described in detail in ref .

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Analysis of Cryogenic Hydrogen Jet Flame Characteristics

In this study, a nozzle with a diameter of 1.0 mm was used to conduct cryogenic hydrogen jet fire experiments under leakage temperatures of 80, 100, 140, 180, 220, and 300 K and leakage pressures of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 MPa, aiming to explore the influence of the leakage pressure and temperature of cryogenic hydrogen on the characteristics of jet flames.

Figure shows the flame lengths of cryogenic hydrogen jet flames with a leakage aperture of 1 mm under different experimental conditions, and the right side is the comparison between the model simulation results and the experimental results. The results show a good matching degree, and the error is within 10%. Under the same leakage pressure, the length of the cryogenic hydrogen jet flame decreases with an increase in leakage temperature. Both the increase in leakage temperature and the decrease in leakage pressure lead to a reduction in the density of cryogenic hydrogen and a decrease in the mass flow rate, thereby reducing the total momentum of the jet and resulting in a shorter length of the cryogenic hydrogen jet flame.

2.

2

Open in a new tab

Flame lengths under different experimental conditions.

Figure shows the axial temperatures of cryogenic hydrogen jet flames under different experimental conditions, where the error bars represent the measurement errors in the experimental data. From the distribution of the error bars, it can be seen that the error bars of most data points are short, indicating that the experimental measurement results have high stability and reliability. The results show that when the leakage temperature is 300 K (Figure a): under a pressure of 10 MPa, the axial flame temperature reaches its peak (1334 K) at a distance of 0.4 m from the nozzle, and the temperature fluctuates slightly in the range of 0.4–0.8 m and then gradually decreases; under a pressure of 2 MPa, the temperature peak (883 K) appears at a distance of 0.6 m from the nozzle and then decreases. The peak temperature difference between the two working conditions is 451 K. When the leakage temperature is 220 K (Figure b): under the five pressure conditions, the temperature shows a similar decreasing trend after reaching the peak. Under pressures of 10 and 2 MPa, the temperature reaches peaks at a distance of 0.6 m from the nozzle, with peak temperatures of 1340 and 851 K, respectively, and the peak temperature difference is 489 K. When the leakage temperature is 180 K (Figure c): under a pressure of 10 MPa, the axial flame temperature rises rapidly near the nozzle, reaches the peak (1741 K) at a distance of 1 m from the nozzle, then decreases rapidly; under a pressure of 2 MPa, the axial temperature reaches the peak (1167 K) at a distance of 0.4 m from the nozzle, maintains a high temperature before 0.8 m, then begins to decrease, with a gentler decreasing trend than that under the high-pressure condition. The peak temperature difference between the two working conditions is 574 K. When the leakage temperature is 140 K (Figure d): under pressures of 10 and 2 MPa, the axial temperature reaches peaks at a distance of 0.6 m from the nozzle, with peak temperatures of 1480 and 833 K, respectively. Compared with the working conditions of 300, 220, and 180 K, the peak temperature difference increases significantly to 647 K. When the leakage temperature is 100 K (Figure e): Under a pressure of 10 MPa, compared with the working conditions of 180 and 140 K, the axial flame temperature rises more rapidly near the nozzle, reaches the peak temperature (1917 K) at a distance of 0.8 m from the nozzle, and then decreases rapidly; under a pressure of 2 MPa, the axial temperature rises relatively slowly near the nozzle and reaches the peak (928 K) at a distance of 0.6 m from the nozzle. The peak temperature difference between the high-pressure and low-pressure working conditions is as high as 989 K. When the leakage temperature is 80 K (Figure f): under pressures of 10 and 2 MPa, the temperature rises relatively rapidly near the nozzle and decreases rapidly after reaching the peak temperature. The peak temperature difference between the two working conditions is 750 K.

As shown in Figure , by selecting leakage temperatures of 300 K (normal temperature) and 80 K (cryogenic) as representatives and leakage pressures of 10 and 2 MPa as representatives, the distribution of axial temperatures of cryogenic hydrogen jet flames under different leakage temperatures was analyzed. At any leakage temperature, the axial flame temperature rises rapidly near the nozzle and gradually decreases with the increase in axial distance after reaching the peak. Meanwhile, at the same position, the flame temperature increases with the increase in leakage pressure.

4.

4

Open in a new tab

Influence of different leakage temperatures on axial flame temperature.

For cryogenic hydrogen jet flames under normal-temperature conditions (300 K), the combustion process is relatively stable with a gentle temperature rise. Due to the absence of a significant low-temperature heat exchange process, the temperature of the flame core area and its peak value are relatively low, but the temperature remains relatively stable over a long distance. Under cryogenic conditions (80 K), the peak flame temperature exceeds 47.1% at room temperature and reaches the peak rapidly. This is because the gas density is high at low temperatures, and a large amount of heat needs to be absorbed for a temperature increase at the initial stage of jetting, leading to a rapid temperature rise near the nozzle and a high temperature in the core area. However, with the increase in axial distance, both the stability of hydrogen-air mixing and the heat retention capacity become poor, resulting in a sharp decrease in the temperature.

In addition, with the decrease in leakage temperature, the peak flame temperature and overall temperature show an increasing trend and the temperature difference under different pressure conditions increases significantly while the regularity weakens. Analysis of the error bars shows that the temperature data fluctuate in the peak area (0.6–1.2 m), which is particularly significant under the 80 K working condition. This fluctuation may result from the combined effects of turbulence, jet mixing, and combustion instability. In contrast, the error under the 300 K working conditions is smaller, reflecting a higher stability of the combustion process. This indicates that under cryogenic conditions, significant changes in gas thermodynamic properties lead to more prominent differences in combustion processes under different pressures, and incomplete combustion reactions or reduced reaction rates make the regularity of temperature distribution far weaker than that under high-temperature conditions.

The influence of different leakage pressures on the axial flame temperature is shown in Figure . Under higher leakage pressure, the momentum and flow rate of the gas jet are greater, leading to an increase in its expansion rate, so that the flame can maintain a high temperature even at a longer distance. In addition, the mixing of hydrogen and air is more sufficient under high-pressure conditions, which also helps to maintain the flame temperature. In contrast, under lower leakage pressure, the gas flow rate decreases, and the mixing efficiency of fuel and air declines, resulting in a faster temperature attenuation. This is mainly because under higher leakage pressure and temperature, the jet has a stronger air entrainment capacity. When the air entrainment rate is high, more air participates in the reaction, thereby improving the mixing efficiency, making the combustion more complete, and thus maintaining a higher temperature. Conversely, under lower leakage pressure, the air entrainment capacity is weak, the mixing is incomplete, and the combustion efficiency is also low, leading to a rapid decrease in flame temperature.

In addition, both the increase in leakage pressure and the decrease in leakage temperature lead to an increase in the gas density. Under high-density conditions, the jet needs to entrain more air to reach the stoichiometric hydrogen/air ratio, which makes the peak temperature last longer.

3.2. Safety Assessment of the Hazard Range of Cryogenic Hydrogen Jet Flames

Compared with normal-temperature hydrogen, cryogenic hydrogen has a higher density and a larger mass flow rate, so the hazard range of its jet flame is significantly different from that of normal-temperature hydrogen. Moreover, there are relatively few studies on the flame hazard range in cryogenic hydrogen jet fire accidents at home and abroad. Referring to the critical temperature thresholds for personnel tolerance in jet fire accidents, three temperature limits characterize the degree of harm of jet fires to the human body, namely, the no-harm limit (70 °C), the pain limit (115 °C), and the fatality limit (309 °C). − No-harm limit (70 °C): when the jet flame temperature is lower than this threshold, it does not pose a fatal risk to the human body. Pain limit (115 °C): at this temperature, personnel will feel an obvious pain but may still escape from the dangerous area. Fatality limit (309 °C): when the temperature reaches this threshold, personnel will suffer third-degree burns and severe throat injuries and escape is no longer possible.

Figure shows the relationship between the axial temperature of the cryogenic hydrogen jet flame and the normalized flame length z/Lf (where z is the distance from the nozzle and Lf is the jet flame length). The horizontal dashed lines represent the three harmful temperature thresholds (red, blue, and green lines, respectively), and the intersection points between the threshold dashed lines and the axial flame temperature are the critical distances. In this study, the axial temperatures under three groups of working conditions (normal temperature of 300 K, cryogenic temperatures of 140 and 80 K) were compared to evaluate the hazard range of hydrogen jet flames under different leakage temperatures.

6.

6

Open in a new tab

Assessment of temperature hazard range of cryogenic hydrogen jet flames.

When the leakage temperature is 80 K (cryogenic): under a leakage pressure of 10 MPa, the overall axial temperature is relatively high, and there is no hazard risk after a distance of 1.4Lf (3.37 m) from the nozzle; under a pressure of 2 MPa, there is no fatality risk after 1.7Lf (1.50 m) from the nozzle, no pain risk after 2.2Lf (1.94 m), and no harm risk after 2.5Lf (2.20 m). When the leakage temperature is 140 K (cryogenic): under a leakage pressure of 10 MPa, there is no fatality risk after 1.3Lf (2.61 m) from the nozzle and no harm risk after 1.7Lf (3.42 m); under a pressure of 2 MPa, there is no fatality risk after 2.1Lf (1.79 m) from the nozzle, no pain risk after 2.9Lf (2.47 m), and no harm risk after 3.7Lf (3.15 m). When the leakage temperature is 300 K (normal temperature): under a leakage pressure of 10 MPa, there is no fatality risk after 1.7Lf (2.13 m) from the nozzle and no harm risk after 2.4Lf (3.00 m); under a pressure of 2 MPa, there is no fatality risk after 2.8Lf (1.40 m) from the nozzle, no pain risk after 4.0Lf (2.00 m), and no harm risk after 4.4Lf (2.20 m). Under the same temperature condition, the safety distance required for high-pressure (10 MPa) leakage is significantly longer than that for low-pressure (2 MPa) leakage. For example, at a leakage temperature of 80 K, the distance required to avoid harm risk is reduced from 3.37 m under 10 MPa to 2.20 m under 2 MPa. However, under the same pressure condition, the protective distance required for cryogenic leakage shows little difference from that for normal-temperature leakage.

In summary, when gas leakage risks are evaluated, leakage pressure is a more important determining factor than leakage temperature. High-pressure leakage is more hazardous than low-pressure leakage and requires a longer isolation distance. Therefore, when formulating emergency response plans and safety specifications, leakage pressure should be taken as the core consideration, while the synergistic effect of temperature and pressure should be fully considered to accurately assess risks and ensure the safety of personnel lives.

4. Conclusions

In this study, a cryogenic hydrogen jet flame experimental system was established to investigate the temperature field distribution characteristics of cryogenic hydrogen jet flames under different leakage temperatures and pressures and quantify the safety distances under various working conditions. The results show that leakage pressure is the core factor affecting the flame temperature field distribution and hazard range. Flames generated by high-pressure leakage have a wider temperature field and a larger high-temperature area. This is because a higher leakage pressure enables hydrogen to be ejected at a faster speed and with greater kinetic energy, promoting more sufficient mixing of hydrogen and oxygen and violent chemical reactions, thereby releasing more heat, leading to a significant extension of the high-temperature area of the flame and requiring a longer safety distance.

In contrast, the leakage temperature has a smaller impact on the flame temperature field and safety distance. Under cryogenic conditions, significant changes in gas thermodynamic properties lead to more prominent differences in combustion processes under different pressures, making the regularity of the temperature distribution far weaker than that under high-temperature conditions. Under the same pressure conditions, there is little difference in the required protective distance between cryogenic and normal-temperature leakage.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supporting Information, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conceptualization: S.N., H.L., and A.Y. Investigation: S.N. and P.C. Formal analysis: S.N., P.C., and H.G. Validation: S.N. Writingoriginal draft: S.N. and L.Z. Writingreview and editing: H.L., X.S., X.L., A.Y., and Z.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by The National Key Research and Development Program of China under contract No. 2023YFE0199100, the Taishan Industrial Experts Program, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52176191).

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. Anand C., Chandraja B., Nithiya P.. et al. Green hydrogen for a sustainable future: A review of production methods, innovations, and applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2025;111:319–341. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.02.257. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bhuiyan M. M. H., Siddique Z.. Hydrogen as an Alternative Fuel: A Comprehensive Review of Challenges and Opportunities in Production, Storage, and Transportation. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2025;102:1026–1044. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.01.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Molkov, V. Fundamentals of hydrogen safety engineering II; Bookboon Com, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Cermelli D., Curro F., Vairo T.. et al. Hydrogen Jet-Fire: Accident Investigation and Implementation of Safety Measures for the Design of a Downstream Oil Plant. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2018;67:415–420. doi: 10.3303/CET1867070. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Schefer R., Houf W. G., Bourne B.. et al. Spatial and radiative properties of an open-flame hydrogen plume. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2006;31(10):1332–1340. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Houf W., Schefer R.. Predicting radiative heat fluxes and flammability envelopes from unintended releases of hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2007;32(1):136–151. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.04.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Schefer R. W., Houf W. G., Williams T. C.. et al. Characterization of high-pressure, underexpanded hydrogen-jet flames. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2007;32(12):2081–2093. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.08.037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mogi T., Horiguchi S.. Experimental study on the hazards of high-pressure hydrogen jet diffusion flames. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2009;22(1):45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2008.08.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Proust C., Jamois D., Studer E.. High pressure hydrogen fires. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2011;36(3):2367–2373. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.055. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Makarov D., Molkov V.. Plane hydrogen jets. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2013;38(19):8068–8083. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.03.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cirrone D. M. C., Makarov D., Molkov V.. THERMAL RADIATION FROM CRYOGENIC HYDROGEN JET FIRES. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2019;44(17):8874–8885. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.107. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cirrone D., Makarov D., Kuznetsov M.. et al. Effect of heat transfer through the release pipe on simulations of cryogenic hydrogen jet fires and hazard distances. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2022;47(50):21596–21611. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.04.276. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brennan S. L., Makarov D. V., Molkov V.. LES of high pressure hydrogen jet fire. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2009;22(3):353–359. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2008.12.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Taileb S., Millán-Merino A., Zhao S.. et al. Lattice-Boltzmann modeling of lifted hydrogen jet flames: A new model for hazardous ignition prediction. Combust. Flame. 2022;245:112317. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2022.112317. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Sun H., Sheng Z., Yang G.. et al. Large eddy simulation of hydrogen explosion with different blocking rate and side vents. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2025;106:499–510. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.01.315. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cirrone D. M. C., Makarov D., Molkov V.. Simulation of thermal hazards from hydrogen under-expanded jet fire. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2019;44(17):8886–8892. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.106. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Friedrich A., Breitung W., Stern G.. et al. Ignition and heat radiation of cryogenic hydrogen jets. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2012;37(22):17589–17598. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.07.070. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Panda P., Hecht E.. Ignition and flame characteristics of cryogenic hydrogen releases. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2017;42(1):775–785. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.08.051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Molkov V., Saffers J. B.. Hydrogen jet flames. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2013;38(19):8141–8158. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.08.106. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kobayashi H., Muto D., Daimon Y.. et al. Experimental study on cryo-compressed hydrogen ignition and flame. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2020;45(7):5098–5109. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.091. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gong L., Mo T., Han Y.. et al. Experimental investigation on the behaviors and temperature distribution of cryogenic hydrogen jet flames. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. 2024;50(A):1062–1074. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.09.031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. McCaffrey, B. J. Purely buoyant diffusion flames: some experimental results. National Bureau of Standards: Washington D.C, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  23. Nie S., Cai P., Liu H.. et al. Experimental Study on Cryogenic Compressed Hydrogen Jet Flames. Fire. 2024;7(11):406. doi: 10.3390/fire7110406. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lachance, J. Progress in risk assessment methodologies for emerging hydrogen applications. Progress in Hydrogen Safety–Regulations Codes and Standards 2010, pp 25–29. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bsi, P. The application of fire safety engineering principles to fire safety design of buildings. Part 6: human factors: life safety strategiesoccupant evacuation, behaviour and conditions [M]; British Standards Institute: London, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hundseid, H. ; Ingebrigtsen, K. . Human resistance against thermal effects, explosion effects, toxic effects and obscuration of vision. DNV Technica and Scandpower: Norway, 2001. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supporting Information, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES