journal of energy systems

Journal of Energy Systems

2602-2052

Erol KURT

10.30521/jes.1859186

Energy Generation, Conversion and Storage (Excl. Chemical and Electrical)

Enerji Üretimi, Dönüşüm ve Depolama (Kimyasal ve Elektiksel hariç)

Simulation-based safety analysis of hydrogen storage tank leakage using ALOHA and PHAST

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4785-5503

Ensari Özay

Müge

ÜSKÜDAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1137-0600

Farajirad

Nafiseh

Üsküdar University

https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1244-6349

Bahcevan

Efari

USKUDAR UNIVERSITY

https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1573-8817

Mert

Nurcan

Karbonsan Pressure Vessels Industry and Trade Inc

Advanced Online Publication 80 96 01 08 2026 04 15 2026

2017

Journal of Energy Systems

Hydrogen energy systems are vital to sustainable energy infrastructure but require thorough safety assessment due to the hazardous properties of H2 gas. This study conducts a comparative simulation-based safety analysis of hydrogen storage tank leakage using two consequence modeling tools of ALOHA and PHAST. The analysis considers a cylindrical tank under various failure scenarios, including continuous leaks, jet fires, vapor cloud explosions, and catastrophic rupture. Three meteorological conditions are evaluated to examine atmospheric stability effects on hazard dispersion. According to ALOHA modeling results, the flammable vapor cloud reaches a distance of 422.5 m under Class F stability (1.5 m/s wind speed), whereas this hazard zone decreases to roughly 83.2 m under Class D conditions at an equivalent wind speed. PHAST provides more detailed results, with jet fire thermal radiation reaching approximately 16 kW/m² at 7 m from leak source and rupture scenarios producing overpressure zones up to 210 m. The comparison shows ALOHA is suitable for rapid emergency response, while PHAST delivers comprehensive engineering-focused risk evaluation essential for facility design and regulatory compliance. Integrating both tools offer a robust framework for assessing hydrogen storage risks, aiding operational safety and emergency planning. The results underscore the value of using multiple modeling tools to support hydrogen infrastructure safety and standard development.

ALOHA Consequence modeling Hydrogen storage tank PHAST Risk assessment

TÜBİTAK

3230150

[1] Khorasani M, Sarker S, Kabir G, Ali SM. Evaluating strategies to decarbonize oil and gas supply chain: Implications for energy policies in emerging economies. Energy. 2022;258:124805. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2022.124805.

[2] International Energy Agency. Global hydrogen review 2024. Paris: IEA Publications; 2024. Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2024

[3] Calabrese M, Portarapillo M, Di Nardo A, Venezia V, Turco M, Luciani G, et al. Hydrogen safety challenges: A comprehensive review on production, storage, transport, utilization, and CFD-based consequence and risk assessment. Energies. 2024;17(6):1350. doi:10.3390/en17061350.

[4] International Organization for Standardization. Hydrogen technologies - Basic considerations for the safety of hydrogen systems. ISO/TS 15916:2026. Geneva: ISO; 2026. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/89423.html

[5] Kasmani RMD, Norazhar N, Kamaroddin MFA. Numerical analysis of vapor dispersion from compressed hydrogen (H2) storage vessels. In: 10th Conference on Emerging Energy and Process Technology (CONCEPT 2023). E3S Web Conf. 2024;516:06002. doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202451606002.

[6] Cetinyokus S. Determination of possible industrial accident effects on a hydrogen storage tank in a fuel cell production facility. Emerg Manag Sci Technol. 2024;4:e001. doi: 10.48130/emst-0024-0020.

[7] European Industrial Gas Association. EIGA Database [Internet]. Brussels: EIGA; 2023 [cited 2025 Jun 30]. Available from: https://www.eiga.eu/

[8] Salehi F, Abbassi R, Asadnia M, Chan B, Chen L. Overview of safety practices in sustainable hydrogen economy–An Australian perspective. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2022;47(81):34689-703. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2022.08.041.

[9] Hansen OR. Hydrogen infrastructure—Efficient risk assessment and design optimization approach to ensure safe and practical solutions. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2020;143:164-76. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2020.06.028.

[10] Rodionov A, Wilkening H, Moretto P. Risk assessment of hydrogen explosion for private car with hydrogen-driven engine. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2011;36(3):2398-406. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.089.

[11] Lee J, Kwak H, Jung S. Quantitative risk assessment of steam reforming process by hydrogen generator, using PHAST model. Energies. 2024;17(22):5704. doi:10.3390/en17225704.

[12] Barjoee SS, Nikbakht M, Malverdi E, Zarei Mahmoud Abad S, Naghdi MR. Modeling the consequences of benzene leakage from tank using ALOHA in tar refining industrial of Kerman, Iran. Pollution. 2021;7(1):217-30. doi:10.22059/poll.2020.309283.887.

[13] Su X, Qin L, Liao Z, Han J. Numerical simulation and risk assessment of toluene tank leakage in petrochemical industries, China. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2024;31(54):62745-60. doi:10.1007/s11356-024-35340-0.

[14] Pouyakian M, Ashouri M, Eidani SH, Fallah Madvari R, Laal F. A systematic review of consequence modeling studies of process accidents in Iran from 2006 to 2022. Heliyon. 2023;9(2):e13550. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13550.

[15] Committee for the Prevention of Disasters. Guidelines for quantitative risk assessment (CPR 18E, "Purple Book"). The Hague: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM); 2005. Available from: https://content.publicatiereeksgevaarlijkestoffen.nl/documents/PGS3/PGS3-1999-v0.1-quantitative-risk-assessment.pdf

[16] Mannan S. Lees' loss prevention in the process industries: Hazard identification, assessment and control. 4th ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2012. doi:10.1016/C2009-0-24104-3.

[17] Singh AK, Pandey DK, Mishra P, Ghosh S. Risk assessment of natural gas pipeline dispersion using ALOHA modelling and remote sensing techniques. In: 2024 IEEE India Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (InGARSS); 2024 Dec 10-13; Goa, India. IEEE; 2024. p. 1-4. doi: 10.1109/InGARSS61818.2024.10984356.

[18] Haghnazarloo H, Parvini M, Lotfollahi MN. Consequence modeling of a real rupture of toluene storage tank. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2015;37:11-8. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2015.06.007.

[19] Shamizadeh H, Alinejad Shahabi R, Arjmand M. Modeling the chlorine gas dispersion in the water treatment plant. J Chem Health Risks. 2018;8(2):107-15. Available from: https://www.jchr.org/index.php/JCHR/article/view/67/66

[20] Turkish State Meteorological Service. İl ve İlçeler İstatistikleri [Provincial and District Statistics] [Internet]. Ankara: MGM; [cited 2025 Jun 30]. Available from: https://www.mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=BURSA. Turkish.