NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Hydrogen Monitoring 

Requirements in the Global 

Technical Regulation on 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles

Preprint

William Buttner, Carl Rivkin, Robert Burgess, 

Kevin Hartmann, Max Bubar, and Matthew Post

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Lois Boon-Brett, Eveline Weidner, 

and Pietro Moretto

European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre

Presented at the International Conference on Hydrogen Safety

Yokohama, Japan

October 19–21, 2015

Conference Paper

NREL/CP-5400-64074

July 2016
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC 

(Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US 

Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at SciTech Connect http:/www.osti.gov/scitech

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

OSTI http://www.osti.gov

Phone: 865.576.8401

Fax: 865.576.5728

Email: reports@osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

NTIS http://www.ntis.gov

Phone: 800.553.6847 or 703.605.6000

Fax: 703.605.6900

Email: orders@ntis.gov

Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (left to right) NREL 26173, NREL 18302, NREL 19758, NREL 29642, NREL 19795.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.
1

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

HYDROGEN MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN THE GLOBAL 

TECHNICAL REGULATION ON HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELL VEHICLES

W. Buttner1, C. Rivkin1, R. Burgess1, K. Hartmann1, I. Bloomfield1, M. Bubar1, M. Post1, 

L. Boon-Brett2

, E. Weidner2, and P. Moretto2

1 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Systems Engineering 

Group, Hydrogen Safety Codes and Standards Group, Golden, CO (USA).

(william.buttner@nrel.gov)

2 European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy and Transport –

Energy Conversion and Storage Technologies Unit, P.O. Box 2, 1755 ZG Petten, The 

Netherlands.

(eveline.weidner@.ec.europa.eu)

ABSTRACT

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Global Technical Regulation (GTR) Number 13 

(Global Technical Regulation on Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles) is the defining document regulating 

safety requirements in hydrogen vehicles, and in particular, fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). GTR 

Number 13 has been formally adopted and will serve as the basis for the national regulatory standards for 

FCEV safety in North America (led by the United States), Japan, Korea, and the European Union. The 

GTR defines safety requirements for these vehicles, including specifications on the allowable hydrogen 

levels in vehicle enclosures during in-use and post-crash conditions and on the allowable hydrogen 

emissions levels in vehicle exhaust during certain modes of normal operation. However, in order to be 

incorporated into national regulations, that is, to be legally binding, methods to verify compliance with

the specific requirements must exist. In a collaborative program, the Sensor Laboratories at the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory in the United States and the Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy 

and Transport in the Netherlands have been evaluating and developing analytical methods that can be 

used to verify compliance with the hydrogen release requirements as specified in the GTR.

Key Words: Global Technical Regulation; hydrogen sensors; fuel cell vehicle; safety

1. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office has taken the lead to support the

development and deployment of hydrogen as an alternative energy source in the United States [1]. It

supports DOE’s mission to ensure the United States’ security and prosperity by addressing energy and

environmental challenges through transformative science and technology solutions [2]. Similarly, the

European Commission identified the potential of hydrogen and fuel cells in the 2011 Technologies Map of 

the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan [3]. Hydrogen infrastructure and vehicles must be 

developed safely if hydrogen is to be used successfully as a fuel. One element of a hydrogen safety system 

is the use of sensors to detect and monitor unexpected hydrogen releases. Accordingly, sensor test facilities 

were independently established by the European Joint Research Centre (JRC) at the Institute for Energy and 

Transport [4] and by DOE at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [5] to ensure that 

hydrogen sensors are available to meet the needs of the hydrogen infrastructure and to educate the hydrogen 

community on the proper use of hydrogen sensors. These laboratories have ongoing collaborative sensor 

research programs formalized by a Memorandum of Agreement, and more recently under an agreement 

between DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Office and the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH-JU) 

of the European Union, in which it was agreed to collaborate on hydrogen sensor research. This agreement 

was the first formal international collaboration with common objectives between the hydrogen programs 

within the United States DOE and FCH-JU. The goals were to identify gaps in current sensor technologies 

and to identify pathways to make available effective, cost efficient sensors. The EU activity was performed 
2

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

under the auspices of H2Sense [6], a FCH-JU–funded consortium of European sensor manufacturers and 

research laboratories. The U.S. activity was headed by the NREL Sensor Test Laboratory.

1.1 Global Technical Regulation Number 13

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Global Technical Regulation (GTR) Number 13 

(Global Technical Regulation on Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles) [7] is the defining document 

regulating the safety requirements for light-duty hydrogen vehicles, and in particular fuel cell electric 

vehicles (FCEV). GTR Number 13 has been formally adopted and thus is to serve as the basis for the 

national regulations for FCEV safety in North America, Japan, Korea, and the European Union. Vehicle 

safety regulations are implemented and enforced by national authorities. A goal of the GTR is to provide 

a framework to internationally harmonize FCEV safety requirements to facilitate hydrogen vehicle market 

development and trade. Accordingly, national authorities overseeing development and enforcement of 

vehicle regulations in their respective jurisdictions shall endeavor to harmonize their national regulations 

with the GTR. Within the United States, the national authority for vehicle safety is the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the prevailing 

regulatory code is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Under the terms of the agreement for the 

implementation of the GTR, national authorities overseeing vehicle safety regulations are required to 

make a “good-faith” effort to harmonize their respective regulations with the GTR by either complying 

with the terms as they currently exist or by appealing to change specific terms or requirements within the 

GTR deemed unacceptable. Therefore, compliance with the GTR is not absolutely mandatory, and 

national regulations are able to deviate from the GTR requirements provided an attempt for harmonization 

was made by the respective national authority. An opportunity to formally recommend revisions to the 

current version of the regulation is tentatively scheduled for late 2016.

The GTR covers electrical, mechanical, pressure, and other safety requirements for FCEVs. Included 

within the GTR are safety requirements on allowable hydrogen emission levels in vehicle enclosures 

during in-use and post-crash test conditions and on the allowable hydrogen content in vehicle exhaust 

during certain modes of normal operation. However, in order to be incorporated into national regulations, 

that is, to be binding, methods to verify compliance with the specific requirements must exist. In a 

collaborative program, the sensor laboratories at NREL in the United States and the JRC in the 

Netherlands have been developing analytical methods that can be used to verify compliance with the 

hydrogen emission requirement as specified in the GTR. There are two specific requirements defining 

allowable hydrogen releases specified in the GTR. These are presented in in Section 5 (Performance 

Requirements). The specific hydrogen release requirements are:

Section 5.2.1.3.2 – Vehicle Exhaust System

At the vehicle exhaust system’s point of discharge, the hydrogen concentration level shall:

(a) Not exceed 4 percent average by volume during any moving three-second time interval during 

normal operation including start-up and shutdown;

(b) And not exceed 8 percent at any time.

Section 5.2.2.2. Concentration limit in enclosed spaces (Post Crash Test Integrity)

Hydrogen gas leakage shall not result in a hydrogen concentration in the air greater than 3 ± 1.0 percent 

by volume in the passenger, luggage and cargo compartments.

The NREL and JRC sensor laboratories have ongoing activities to address both released hydrogen 

detection requirements as listed in the GTR and summarized above. This information has been shared 

with the DOT to provide DOT with tools to verify compliance with the GTR requirement or to supply 

normative data to support recommendations to modify the current requirements. The results of this 

research are presented below.
3

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2. VEHICLE CRASH TEST REQUIREMENTS

2.1 Sensors and Methods for Monitoring Hydrogen/Helium in FCEV Crash Tests

The NREL and JRC sensor laboratories completed two studies pertaining to the hydrogen monitoring 

requirements specified in Section 5.2 of the GTR for fuel system integrity following vehicle crash tests. In 

the first study, NREL had the opportunity to instrument a demonstration FCEV with hydrogen sensors in 

an actual crash test. This was performed in cooperation with the DOT NHTSA. The goals of the project 

were to identify a sensor or sensor method that could respond to either hydrogen or helium releases, 

identify a technology that could survive the impacts of vehicle crash tests and still meet the metrological

requirements for verification of the FCEV fuel system integrity as per the GTR requirements, and to 

develop a method for on-board monitoring of the sensor either in real time or extractable for post-crash 

test analysis. The results of this study are briefly summarized in the next section, and a comprehensive 

summary was published as an NREL report [8]. All project requirements were successfully completed.

A second study by NREL and the JRC assessed the GTR recommendation that hydrogen determinations 

can be made by measuring the displacement (decrease) of oxygen in vehicle compartments [9].

2.2 Sensors for Verification of Fuel System Integrity Following Crash Tests

Although there are a variety of hydrogen sensor platforms that can respond to hydrogen, most will not 

respond to helium. This is a concern in that the GTR allows helium to be used as a surrogate for hydrogen 

in vehicle crash tests. In the demonstration crash test, the vehicle fuel system was pressurized with helium 

[9]. One specific requirement for post-crash test conditions is that hydrogen shall not build up to a 

concentration greater than 4 vol% in any vehicle compartment (e.g., passenger compartment, trunk, fuel 

cell enclosure) within 1 hour following crash test impact or, if helium is used as a surrogate, no greater 

than 3 vol%.

One sensor platform that is sensitive to hydrogen as well as helium is the thermal conductivity (TC) 

sensor, which is commercially available from numerous suppliers, including models configured in 

physically robust packages. Although the TC sensor shows different sensitivity to hydrogen versus 

helium, as shown in Figure 1, this is not a problem because in a crash test it will be known whether 

helium or hydrogen is used. Of course, hydrogen will always be used in normal vehicle operation. For the 

study reported in [9], the vehicle fuel system was pressurized with helium.

Five units of a commercial TC sensor configured in a physically robust package were obtained for 

deployment in vehicle crash tests. The identified sensor proved to be very robust and compatible with the 

impacts and shocks associated with crash test. Indeed, individual units of the selected sensor were

subjected up to five vehicle crash tests without a single incident of device failure or even alteration of 

measurement accuracy as confirmed by pre- and post-crash test laboratory calibrations.

In collaboration with engineers at Karco Engineering [10], an engineering firm certified to perform 

vehicle crash tests, a mechanical fixture was designed for securing the TC sensor at the desired locations

within the vehicle. The fixture was demonstrated and used in FCEV crash tests. Two FCEVs were 

available and were subjected to the side impact test and to the rear impact test. Although the sensors were 

mounted in the vehicle, monitoring was performed external to the vehicle via an umbilical that interfaced 

the sensor output to a remote data acquisition system.

1 The sensors successfully monitored the integrity of 

the fuel system within the vehicle passenger compartment and underneath the vehicle near the fuel tanks. 

Although small helium releases were detected, these were deemed to be primarily an artifact of the crash-

 1 Data acquisition systems compatible with both crash tests and the sensor output exist that could operate on-board 

the vehicle, but these were not available in time for the actual crash test.
4

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

test procedure, and the vehicle was shown to be in compliance with the GTR. The main conclusions from 

this study included:

- TC sensors are compatible for both hydrogen and helium measurements.

- Appropriately packaged TC sensors are compatible with vehicle crash tests and have the 

metrological performance specifications as required in the GTR.

- Access to the sensor output in real time during the vehicle crash test and the subsequent 1-hour 

hold period following impact is recommended (via, for example, telemetry) in the event unsafe 

levels of hydrogen are building up in the vehicle compartment.

Figure 1: (Left) Response of a commercial TC sensor to 0.2, 1.0, and 2.0 vol% H2 and He. (Right) The 

corresponding final indication of the sensor to hydrogen and helium. The sensor was factory calibrated to output a 

response equivalent to vol% H2. Details in [8].

2.3 Measurement of Oxygen Displacement to Quantify Hydrogen Releases

The GTR also has a recommendation that following crash tests, hydrogen releases could be measured via 

reduction in oxygen (due to displacement of air by leaking hydrogen/helium). The use of oxygen sensors 

to quantify hydrogen releases has been used by several groups, especially for modelling studies of 

hydrogen releases (e.g., [11, 12]). The viability of this approach was critiqued by the NREL and JRC 

sensor laboratories, and the results have also been previously reported [9, 13]. Using oxygen sensors to 

measure oxygen displacement to quantify hydrogen has several apparent advantages. These include the 

low cost and ease of use of oxygen sensors and the fact that displacement measurements should be 

compatible with either hydrogen or helium and thus would seem ideal for modeling studies using helium 

as a hydrogen surrogate. After a thorough investigation by the NREL and JRC sensor laboratories, it was 

shown that this approach should be avoided. The fundamental electronic signal noise of oxygen sensors 

renders this method of hydrogen detection inadequate for safety applications. Normal drift in the oxygen 

sensor could lead to hydrogen false positive alarms, or even worse, false negative alarms.

The oxygen sensor is also sensitive to the partial pressure of oxygen (PO2) and not vol% O2, and thus 

would not respond to hydrogen releases in a closed environment, such as for example a sealed vehicle 

compartment. In a closed environment, a hydrogen release may lower the vol% O2, but would not affect 

PO2. It was explicitly shown that no change in the oxygen sensor signal was observed even when up to 20 

vol% He was added to a sealed air chamber [9] whereas a TC sensor installed in the same test chamber 

responded to the helium. Furthermore, the oxygen sensor would not accurately respond when the release 

induced a pressure gradient (e.g., as would be the case when a release into a room induces remote 

venting). The oxygen sensor signal is also very much dependent upon fluctuations in environmental 

parameters, especially temperature and pressure. Although pressure variations are typically small, 

temperature changes can be significant, especially, for example, in a closed vehicle parked in the sun

prior to and during the crash test. Although the temperature dependence of many oxygen sensors is 
5

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

minimized by the incorporation of a compensating temperature sensor (typically a thermistor or resistance 

temperature device--RTD), a measurable temperature dependence of the sensor signal is still observed 

[9]. The impact of temperature dependence can be to some extent corrected, typically using steady-state 

measurements at various fixed temperatures to develop temperature-dependent correction factors. 

However, the effect of temperature transients can be complex. This is due in part to different thermal 

inertia associated with the oxygen sensing element and the compensating thermistor or RTD that is often 

integrated into the oxygen sensor. An example of sensor responses from a commercial oxygen sensor 

during temperature changes is shown in Figure 2. The sensor response is monitored for a constant oxygen 

concentration, and it is shown that change in its response due to temperature does not exactly follow the 

temperature change within the test chamber; in fact, the sensor response shows a well-defined minimum 

during monotonic cooling of the test chamber from 40°C to 25°C. The actual behavior of a particular 

oxygen sensor model during temperature variation is very much dependent upon its specific design and 

different behavior can be observed with a different sensor design.

Finally, if relying on displacement to quantify a specific diluent, it must be kept in mind that the oxygen 

sensor readout cannot differentiate between different diluents. This makes it easy to substitute helium for 

hydrogen in crash tests. However, in a vehicle crash test, the displacement gas may come from the vehicle 

fuel system or from other sources, such as the venting of air bags. It was concluded that the use of oxygen 

sensors to (indirectly) quantify hydrogen or helium releases should be avoided [9, 13]. Furthermore, it is 

not necessary since, as was shown in the vehicle crash test study described in [9], the TC sensor can be 

used to measure either hydrogen or helium and can do so with better measuring range, detection limits, 

and accuracy than the oxygen sensor.

It was strongly recommended to DOT, the U.S. regulatory agency for vehicle safety and the U.S. 

representative on the GTR, that the text endorsing oxygen displacement as a means for quantifying 

hydrogen releases into vehicle compartments be removed from the GTR.

Figure 2: Response of a commercial oxygen sensor in air to transient temperature changes from 40°C to 25°C. 

Although a well-defined steady-state oxygen sensor signal was achieved once the chamber temperature stabilized, 

the sensor response to transient temperature changes was more complicated.
6

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3. ANALYZER FOR THE VERIFICATION OF FCEV TAIL PIPE EMISSION

A second hydrogen release scenario addressed in GTR Number 13 strives to ensure that the exhaust from 

an FCEV is non-hazardous. The GTR imposes restrictions on allowable hydrogen releases in normal 

operation. A performance-based test was developed to verify that the exhaust is non-ignitable. The test 

requires that the average hydrogen concentration of the exhaust gas remains below the commonly 

accepted lower flammable limit of 4 vol%. The average concentration is to be calculated as a 3-second 

rolling average so as to accommodate extremely short, non-hazardous transients that cannot exceed 8 

vol% H2. This value was deemed acceptable based on an investigation quoted in GTR Number 13 that 

demonstrated that hydrogen flame propagation will not occur below 8 vol% H2 [14]. To verify 

compliance with the discharge requirement, a hydrogen detector with a response time of 300 ms was 

recommended so as to detect hydrogen pulses up to 8 vol% of one second duration. The criterion defining 

the response time was specified as the time to reach 90% of the sensor final indication.

The availability of hydrogen sensors with response times less than 1 second was identified by DOE as a 

critical metric and a performance gap [15]. To date this metric remains an elusive target. No sensor has 

been shown to have a 1-second response time using a validated response time apparatus and protocols

[16]. Even as recently as 2013, the fastest measured hydrogen sensor response time was 4 seconds [13]. 

However, sensors with improved performance metrics, including response times, are continually being 

developed, often through miniaturization and improved mode of operation. Recently, a microfabricated 

thermal conductivity hydrogen sensor was identified as potentially meeting the response time 

requirements, if operated in a dynamic flowing gas stream. An image of the sensor is shown in Figure 3. 

This sensor is a thermal conductivity sensor (model XEN-TCG3880, Xensor Corporation, the 

Netherlands)2 and was identified through collaboration of the NREL sensor test laboratory with the FCHJU-funded project H2Sense [6]. Although not yet independently verified, the manufacturer reported a 

response time of less than 250 ms. Test results described below substantiate the fast response time. The 

sensor was made available in the standard package and in “fast” and “ultra-fast” configurations.

Figure 3: The “fast configuration” of the Xensor TC Sensor. 

Photo used by permission [http://www.xensor.com/]

Sensor models for the standard, fast, and ultra-fast configurations were obtained, along with software for 

monitoring and logging of the sensor signal. At the same time, a means of generating gas pulses having 

well-defined compositions and durations was developed. This was achieved by means of a gas sample 

loop using a gas pulser acquired from Custom Sensors Solutions (Model 1050 Gas Pulser, Oro Valley, 

AZ), shown in Figure 4. Sample loops are routinely used for injecting precisely known volumes of a test 

 2 Other sensor models could be used provided they meet the required response time and measuring range as 

specified in GTR Number 13.
7

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

gas into a gas chromatograph or other analyzer. In the results described below, the test gas pulse duration 

was set by the ratio of the sample loop volume divided by the flow rate of the background gas. Details on 

the operation of a sample loop are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4: Front panel of the Model 1050 Gas Pulser used to generate 

test gas pulses of precisely known duration. (Photo used with 

permission)

Figure 5: Gas sample loop used to control test gas concentration and gas pulse duration. Sample loops consist of two 

independent gas flow paths. A: One path purges the sample loop with the test gas while the second line continuously 

flows the background gas to the analyzer or sensor. B: Upon activation of the solenoid valves (S1 through S4), the 

background gas flow passes through the sample loop before reaching the sensor. The exposure time of the test gas 

on the sensor is the ratio of the sample loop volume to the background gas flow rate. Gas pulses of less than 1 

second duration are readily achieved.

With the gas pulser, the performance of the sensor to transient gas pulses and composition could be 

characterized. Results to date are presented below. A variety of test procedures were performed, including 

determination of the sensor measuring range, the ability of the sensor to accurately measure gas exposures 

of less than 1 second, effect of the background gas on sensor response (e.g., air vs. nitrogen), and the 

impact of flow rate. Initial testing was performed with the TC sensor in the standard configuration.

Measuring Range: The TC sensor response was measured for hydrogen concentrations ranging from 0 to 

2.5 vol% in air. For safety reasons, higher concentrations of hydrogen were in nitrogen. Accordingly, the 

sensor was also exposed to 0 to 10 vol% H2 in nitrogen. The results are shown in Figure 6, which also 

indicates the actual test gas concentration. The test gas flow rate was 1 standard liter per minute (SLPM),

which corresponded to a pulse width of 1.4 seconds. The sensor was subjected to six sequential hydrogen 

exposures for each test gas concentration. The test results indicate excellent repeatability of the sensor 

(see left side of Figure 6). The sensor, which was calibrated to read in vol% H2, was also very accurate.

The right side of Figure 6 shows an expanded view of one exposure at the indicated time window. The 

sensor response was logged at a rate of 1 point every 250 ms. As indicated in Figure 6, the sensor was 

able to reach a stable steady-state response level within the short duration of the hydrogen pulse. Results 

for hydrogen in air up to 2.5 vol% are plotted in curves 6A and 6B, while the results for hydrogen in 

nitrogen up to 10 vol% are plotted in curves 6C and 6D. The sensor responses were found to be linear, 

repeatable, and fast.

S1 S2

S3 S4
8

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 6: Response to TC sensor (normal configuration) with gas flow rates of 1 SLPM as maintained by a mass 

flow controller. Curves A and B were with hydrogen in air at the indicated concentration, while curves C and D 

were with hydrogen in nitrogen at the indicated concentration. The pulse duration was approximately 1.4 s.

Sensor Response Time and Flow Rate Dependence: The TC sensor in the standard configuration was also 

evaluated at different test gas flow rates and pulse widths. Although one means to change the pulse width 

would be to vary the sample loop volume, in the tests described here the sample loop volume remained 

fixed and the flow rate was adjusted. The actual flow rate set points were 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, and 

2.0 SLPM, which corresponded to gas pulse widths of 14.1, 7.1, 2.8, 1.4, 1.1, 0.94, and 0.76 s, 

respectively. The tests were performed in a manner identical to that shown in Figure 6 in that the sensor 

was subjected to six sequential exposures. Expanded data for pulse widths durations of 1.4 to 0.76 s are 

shown in Figure 7A. This clearly shows that the sensor is readily able to detect transient hydrogen 

transients faster than 1 s, a critical requirement for the GTR specifications on allowable tail pipe 

emissions from FCEVs. The sensor indication was also shown to be independent of flow rate from 0.5 to 

2.0 SLPM, but below 0.5 SLPM the sensor output tended to decrease, an indication of less heat transport 

from the TC sensing element to the external environment at lower flow rates.

Future Work on the FCEV Exhaust Gas Analyzer: The goal of this investigation is to develop a hydrogen 

vehicle exhaust analyzer to verify compliance with the GTR. The preliminary testing of the Xensor TC 

hydrogen sensor discussed here indicates that it meets the critical response time requirement as 

established in GTR Number 13. However, only a few of the metrological performance specifications of 

the sensor have been characterized, and further evaluations are necessary, including quantification of the 

impact of variations in temperature and humidity of the test gas on sensor response. Once this is 

completed, the sensor is to be configured into a field-usable analyzer compatible with the tailpipe 

environment. Towards this goal, the NREL sensor laboratory is working closely with the DOT to 

demonstrate that this technology can be used to verify compliance with the requirements of the GTR. 

Also, information on the development of the tailpipe analyzer is regularly shared within the SAE Fuel 

Cell Task Force as an avenue to communicate the findings to the FCEV original equipment 

A B

C D
9

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

manufacturers, several of which have expressed an interest in this approach for their own internal use to 

measure tailpipe emissions of FCEVs under various operation modes. The original equipment 

manufacturers have also provided feedback on the tailpipe environments.

Figure 7: A: Dependence of the TC sensor in the normal configuration to respond to transient exposures of 

hydrogen. Pulse widths varied from 1.4 to 0.76 s, but data shown for the expanded region are for pulse widths less 

than 1.4 s. The sensor is able to accurately quantify hydrogen pulses less than 1 s. B: A plot of the sensor response 

to gas flow rates and the corresponding gas pulse widths.

4. CONCLUSIONS

GTR Number 13 has several hydrogen monitoring requirements. Work at the NREL and JRC sensor 

laboratories demonstrates that commercially available sensor technology can be used to verify compliance 

with the GTR requirements. These findings are made available to DOT, and hence to the GTR committee 

and the hydrogen community. A means of verifying fuel system integrity following crash tests has been 

demonstrated, while the development of an FCEV exhaust gas analyzer is presently under development. 

A low-cost sensor for the analyzer has been identified.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The NREL Sensor Test Laboratory was supported by the Department of Energy, Hydrogen Safety Codes 

and Standards Program, Program Manager, Will James. The authors also acknowledge feedback and 

information provided by NHTSA on the relationship between the GTR and the Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard. DOT/NHTSA also facilitated our collaboration in the vehicle crash test. The SAE Fuel 

Cell Safety Task Group (Mr. Glenn Scheffler, Chair) and vehicle original equipment manufacturers are 

also acknowledged for providing proprietary details of the tailpipe environment and the requirements for 

analyzer for applications other than those prescribed in the GTR.

REFERENCES

1. DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Program, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/.

2 U.S. Department of Energy, http://energy.gov/mission.

3. http://setis.ec.europa.eu/about-setis/technology-map/2011_Technology_Map1.pdf/view.

4. Boon-Brett, L., Bousek, J., Castello, P., Salyk, O., Harskamp, F., Aldea, L., and Tinaut, F., Reliability 

of Commercially Available Hydrogen Sensors for Detection of Hydrogen at Critical Concentrations:

Part I - Testing Facility and Methodologies, Int J Hydrogen Energy 33, 2008, pp. 7648-7657.

5. NREL Sensor Testing Laboratory, see: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/facilities_hsl.html.

6. H2Sense – Hydrogen Sensors for the Safe Use of Hydrogen 

(http://www.h2sense.bam.de/en/home/index.htm).

7. Global Technical Regulation: Hydrogen Fueled Vehicle: Proposal to develop a global technical

regulation concerning Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (ECE/TRANS/WP.29/AC.3/17).

A B
10

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

8. Post, M.B., Burgess, R., Rivkin, C., Buttner, W.J., O’Malley, K., and Ruiz, A., Onboard

Hydrogen/Helium Sensors in Support of the Global Technical Regulation: An Assessment of

Performance in Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Crash Tests, (September 2012) National Renewable

Energy Laboratory, Report NREL/TP-5600-56177. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/56177.pdf.

9. Buttner, W.J., Burgess, R., Rivkin, C., Post, M.B, Boon-Brett, L., Palmisano, V., and Moretto, P., An 

Assessment on the Quantification of Hydrogen Releases through Oxygen Displacement Using 

Oxygen Sensors, Int J Hydrogen Energy 39 (2014) 20484-20490.

10. Karco Engineering, http://www.karco.com/.

11. Willoughby, D.B., Royle, M., Nilsen, S., and Gautier, T., Hydrogen venting under variable flow 

conditions, 4th International Conference on Hydrogen Safety (ICHS), San Francisco, California, 

USA, 12-14 September 2011.

12. Ekoto, I.W., Merilo, E.G., Dedrick, D.E., and Groethe, M.A., Performance-Based Testing for 

Hydrogen Leakage into Passenger Vehicle Compartments, Int J Hydrogen Energy, 36, 2011, pp. 

10169-10178.

13. Buttner, W.J., Burgess, R., Rivkin, C., Post, M.B. Boon-Brett, L., Palmisano, V. Moretto, P., An 

Assessment on the Quantification of Hydrogen Releases through Oxygen Displacement Using 

Oxygen Sensors, presented at the 5th International Conference on Hydrogen Safety September 9-13, 

(2013) Brussels, Belgium.

14. Corfu, R., DeVaal, J., Scheffler, G., "Development of Safety Criteria for Potentially Flammable 

Discharges from Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles," (2007) SAE Technical Report 2007-01-437.

15. Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Multi-Year Research, Development and 

Demonstration Plan, Planned program activities for 2005-2015, U.S. DOE Office of Renewable 

Energy and Efficiency (EERE), 2005 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/39146.pdf

16. Boon-Brett, L., Black, G., Moretto, P., and Bousek, J., A comparison of test methods for the 

measurement of hydrogen sensor response and recovery times, Int J Hydrogen Energy 139 (2010) 

7652-7663.