DSM launches the first hydrolysis-resistant Arnite A polyester for dimension-critical auto parts
U-Mich, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Li-ion battery projects win funding

SAE CRP1234-4 finds refrigerant R-1234yf low risk in automotive applications

SAE’s Cooperative Research Project (CRP) team has wrapped up its latest study of the low global warming potential refrigerant R-1234yf and concluded again that risks of fire resulting from its use are still very small compared to the risks of a vehicle fire from all causes and well below risks that are commonly viewed as acceptable by the general public. (Earlier post.)

Based on the updated analysis, the estimated overall risk of vehicle fire exposure attributed to use of R-1234yf is conservatively estimated at 3 x 10-12 events per vehicle operating hour. This is nearly six orders of magnitude less than the current risk of vehicle fires due to all causes (approximately 1 x 10-6 per vehicle operating hour) and also well below other risks accepted by the general public.

The current overall risk of occupant exposure to adverse events based on R-1234yf usage is on the same order of magnitude as that estimated in the prior work of CRP1234. Therefore, the conclusions of the former CRP risk assessment are still valid, the team concluded.

Click to enlarge.

All OEMs in the new CRP have indicated agreement with these conclusions. The members are European, North American and Asian OEMs: Chrysler/Fiat, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, PSA, Renault and Toyota. Daimler, BMW and Audi initially participated in the new CRP but eventually chose to withdraw.

Background. From 2006 to 2009 SAE International administered a cooperative research project (CRP1234) which evaluated R-1234yf, a new low global warming potential (GWP) automotive refrigerant. Using fault tree analysis (FTA) the results of the CRP1234 assessment showed that the risk associated with the use of R-1234yf in automotive vehicles is well below those commonly considered acceptable by the general public and regulatory agencies. The risk assessment was submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) as part of the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) approval process, and the US EPA subsequently approved R-1234yf for use in US vehicles.

On 25 September 2012, Daimler issued a press release suggesting that new testing conducted by the company had shown R-1234yf to pose a greater risk of vehicle fire than was estimated by the CRP1234 analysis. To address the Daimler claims, a new CRP (CRP1234-4) was organized in October of 2012. All OEMs were invited to attend.

After extensive testing and analysis, the new CRP concluded that the refrigerant release testing completed by Daimler was unrealistic. Their testing created extreme conditions that favored ignition while ignoring many mitigating factors that would be present in an actual real-world collision.

With this in mind, the new CRP, with input from Daimler, initiated two new fault tree scenarios to realistically address these claims. The new CRP also reviewed and analyzed extensive new OEM test data which was used to complete the new FTA.

The two new fault tree scenarios consider the possibility of an individual being unable to exit the vehicle due to a collision or a non-collision event that involves a refrigerant/oil release, the refrigerant/oil being ignited and the fire propagating. The FTA examined average risks across the entire global fleet and used a number of conservative assumptions to ensure that the final risk estimate would be more likely to overestimate rather than underestimate actual risks.



Be still, my heart!

And of course, about this time in 2017, they'll declare it to be the cause of all global warming and causing cancers in baby kangaroos. LOL


ICEVs catch fire every one million hours of operation? That is bad news for all ICEVs supporters?

With 250 million ICEVs in USA, used an average of 450 hours each a year, as many as 112,500 will catch fire every year (for all causes).

No wonder insurance premiums are so high?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)