Scaling of dust explosion violence from laboratory scale to full industrial scale – A challenging case history from the past

Abstract

The standardized KSt parameter still seems to be widely used as a universal criterion for ranking explosion violence to be expected from various dusts in given industrial situations. However, this may not be a generally valid approach. In the case of dust explosion venting, the maximum pressure Pmax generated in a given vented industrial enclosure is not only influenced by inherent dust parameters (dust chemistry including moisture, and sizes and shapes of individual dust particles). Process-related parameters (degree of dust dispersion, cloud turbulence, and dust concentration) also play key roles. This view seems to be confirmed by some results from a series of large scale vented dust explosion experiments in a 500 m3 silo conducted in Norway by CMI, (now GexCon AS) during 1980–1982. Therefore, these results have been brought forward again in the present paper. The original purpose of the 500 m3 silo experiments was to obtain correlations between Pmax in the vented silo and the vent area in the silo top surface, for two different dusts, viz. a wheat grain dust collected in a Norwegian grain import silo facility, and a soya meal used for production of fish farming food. Both dusts were tested in the standard 20-L-sphere in two independent laboratories, and also in the Hartmann bomb in two independent laboratories. Pmax and (dP/dt)max were significantly lower for the soya meal than for the wheat grain dust in all laboratory tests. Because the available amount of wheat grain dust was much larger than the quite limited amount of available soya meal, a complete series of 16 vented silo experiments was first performed with the wheat grain dust, starting with the largest vent area and ending with the smallest one. Then, to avoid unnecessary laborious changes of vent areas, the first experiment with soya dust was performed with the smallest area. The dust cloud in the silo was produced in exactly the same way as with the wheat grain dust. However, contrary to expectations based on the laboratory-scale tests, the soya meal exploded more violently in the large silo than the wheat grain dust, and the silo was blown apart in the very first experiment with this material. The probable reason is that the two dusts responded differently to the dust cloud formation process in the silo on the one hand and in the laboratory-scale apparatuses on the other. This re-confirms that a differentiated philosophy for design of dust explosion vents is indeed needed. Appropriate attention must be paid to the influence of the actual dust cloud generation process on the required vent area. The location and type of the ignition source also play important roles. It may seem that tailored design has to become the future solution for tackling this complex reality, not least for large storage silos. It is the view of the present author that the ongoing development of CFD-based computer codes offers the most promising line of attack. This also applies to design of systems for dust explosion isolation and suppression.