Validation and Sensitivity Studies for SAE J2601, the Light Duty Vehicle Hydrogen Fueling Standard

Physical model of onboard hydrogen storage tank thermal behaviour during fuelling

“…It was concluded in Refs. [6,33] that pressure inside the tank, , and pressure at inlet, , are very close. Hence, is used to calculate the density of Fig.…”

Effect of precooled inlet gas temperature and mass flow rate on final state of charge during hydrogen vehicle refueling

“…According to [9], in the case of a refueling station without communication between tank and dispenser, the minimum SoC value considered acceptable by the SAE J2601 is 90%. Under the conditions adopted in this study, all the fillings performed with the type 3 tank showed a final SoC higher than 90%.…”

“…This model and the protocol tables were validated through experimental tests [9]. No safety limits were exceeded during these tests and the states of charge (SoC) reached were in an acceptable range (90e100% for noncommunications fueling and 95e100% for communications fueling).…”

Overall efficiency comparison between the fueling methods of SAEJ2601 using dynamic simulations

“…The fueling methods have also been studied, albeit in a lesser amount of publications, with Maus et al studying the effects of different parameters that led to the protocol development in 2010 [18] and Schneider et al in 2010 talking about the table-based method implementation, and in 2014, its validation [19,20]. The MC formula fueling method has not been thoroughly studied since its proposal in 2010 by Harty et al (funded by Honda) [21], its implementation in the J2601 protocol in 2012 [22] and its field validation study later in 2015 by the same group of people, Mathison et al [23].…”