Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Explosion propagation in a dust removal pipeline under dust

collector explosion
Lei Pang a, b, Jiaojiao Cao a, Qiuping Xiao c, Kai Yang a, b, *, Long Shi d, **
a
School of Safety Engineering, Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, Beijing, 102617, China
b
Beijing Academy of Safety Engineering and Technology, Beijing, 102617, China
c
Shanghai Research Institute of Chemical Industry, Shanghai, 200062, China
d
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3004, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The shockwave and high-temperature flame of dust explosion in the dust collector are often transmitted through
Dust explosion the dust removal pipeline, and then cause secondary harm. In this study, the dust explosion propagation in a
Dust collector typical dry dust collector connected with dust removal pipelines was studied by CFD. The impacts of static
Venting
activation pressure of the pressure relief panels on the explosion propagation were also addressed. The dust
Dust removal pipeline
Explosion shockwave
explosion propagation in the dust removal pipeline showed multiple accelerated combustion processes and se­
Flame propagation vere pressure shocks. The explosion pressure and temperature first increase and then decrease along with the
pipeline. Under a higher static activation pressure, the maximum explosion pressure along with the pipeline
increases by 144%, where the average velocity of the dust propagation, dust consumption, pressure shock wave,
and flame propagation increase by 82.2%, 32.1%, 25.3%, and 70.1%, respectively. When the static activation
pressure increases from 0.01 MPa by more than 25%, the changes of the dust explosion pressure and flame
propagation in the pipeline are observed limited. The explosion-proof valve should be set between 5 m and 10 m
in the dust removal pipeline. And the lower the static activation pressure, the closer the explosion-proof valve.
This research provides a scientific basis for the effective control of dust explosion disasters in dust removal
systems.

1. Introduction have a complete explosion venting and explosion-proof device, the

Dust explosions in industrial dust collectors often show serious
consequences (Taveau, 2010), which account for more than 40% of the
total dust explosion accidents (CSB, 2006; Zalosh et al., 2005). Dust
explosions spread through the dust removal pipeline, which is one of the
main hazards for casualties. During the operation, one side of a dry dust
collector is connected to the dust removal pipeline that receives the dust,
while the other side is equipped with a pressure relief panel to reduce
the explosion risk. Although an explosion venting device can reduce the
risk to a certain degree, the aerodynamic conditions in the
dust-conveying pipeline can accelerate the dust explosion propagation,
which may cause serious brisance (Proust, 1996). In 2014, a cata­
strophic aluminum dust explosion occurred in a polishing workshop in
Jiangsu Province of China. This accident is a typical case induced by a
dust explosion in the dust collector. As the dust removal pipeline did not
high-temperature gas and combustion products generated by the ex­
plosion were ejected from the dust suction ports through the pipeline,
endangering all the operators in the workshop (Li et al., 2016). There­
fore, it is necessary to choose proper explosion venting restraints and
explosion-proof measures (Taveau et al., 2019).
The installation position of the explosion protection facility on the
dust removal pipeline is affected by the explosion flame and shock wave
propagation. At the same time, the explosion flame and shock wave
propagation are related to the characteristics of the explosion vent on
the dust collector. The installation of pressure relief panels in powder-
related equipment is one of the most economical and reliable mea­
sures (Song et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2020). The size, configuration,
static activation pressure and material properties of the pressure relief
panels affect the propagation of explosion venting (Wang et al., 2020;
Tascón et al., 2016; Yan and Yu, 2014). Among them, the static

* Corresponding author. School of Safety Engineering, Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, Beijing, 102617, China.
** Corresponding author. Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, 3004, Australia.
E-mail addresses: ycyangk@bipt.edu.cn (K. Yang), long.shi@rmit.edu.au (L. Shi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2021.104662
Received 14 August 2021; Received in revised form 10 October 2021; Accepted 12 October 2021
Available online 15 October 2021
0950-4230/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Pang et al. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662

activation pressure of the pressure relief panel is an important influ­ due to sub-grid obstructions in the i-direction; and ρ0 is the initial
encing factor. Lunn, Crowhurst and Hey (1988) found that the vent density.
pressure along the pipeline continued to increase with the increase in The energy transfer equation is:
the vent opening pressure. A higher static activation pressure will cause ( )
∂ ∂ ( ) ∂ μeff ∂h Dp Q̇
a strong jet flame at the explosion vent, and cause higher turbulence, (βυ ρh) + βj ρuj h = βj + βυ + (3)
which is likely to increase the possibility of a second explosion (Taveau, ∂t ∂xj ∂xi σ h ∂xj Dt V
2010). A static activation pressure of up to several bars can be selected
where h is the specific enthalpy; μeff is the effective viscosity; σ h is the
for small containers with high pressure resistance, while a smaller static
Prandtl–Schmidt number of enthalpy; Dp is the diffusion coefficient of
activation pressure should be selected for large-scale equipment such as
dust collectors, silos, and hoppers. When the static activation pressure particle; Dt is the diffusion coefficient of turbulence; and Q̇ is the heat
increases to a certain degree, the explosion overpressure could no longer rate.
increase significantly (Yan and Yu, 2014). However, there are few Fuel mass transfer equation:
studies on the effect of the static activation pressure of the explosion ∂ ( ) ∂ ( ) ∂
(
μeff ∂Yfuel
)
vent of the dust collector on the explosion propagation in the dust βυ ρYfuel + βj ρuj Yfuel = βj + Rfuel (4)
∂t ∂xj ∂xi σfuel ∂xj
removal pipeline. Taveau et al. (2019) established a relatively real dust
collector explosion scene, but its volume is relatively small, and the where Yfuel is the mass fraction of the fuel; σfuel is the Prandtl–Schmidt
research content is relatively shallow, which cannot meet the re­ number of the fuel; and Rfuel is the reaction rate of the fuel.
quirements of modern industrial explosion-proof and controlled explo­ Turbulence energy transfer equation is given by:
sion technology. Therefore, it is of great significance to further study the ( )
∂ ∂ ( ) ∂ μeff ∂k
influence of explosion venting restrictions of dust collectors on the (βυ ρk) + βj ρuj k = βj + βυ Pk − βυ ρε (5)
spread of dust explosion disasters in dust removal pipeline. ∂t ∂xj ∂xi σk ∂xj
The aforementioned analysis shows that research on the propagation
where k is the turbulent kinetic energy; σ k is the Prandtl–Schmidt
of dust explosion hazards in dust removal pipeline of typical dust
number of turbulent kinetic energy; Pk is the turbulent kinetic energy
removal equipment is very limited. Therefore, this study addressed the
production; and ε is the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation.
influences of the static activation pressure of pressure relief panels on
Turbulent flow energy dissipation rate transmission equation is:
the dust explosions propagation in dust removal pipelines by computa­
( )
tional fluid dynamics (CFD). It pioneered a practical research based on ∂ ∂ ( ) ∂ μeff ∂ε ε2
the structure of a typical dust collector and provided a scientific basis for (βυ ρε) + βj ρuj ε = βj + β υ Pε − C 2 ε β υ ρ (6)
∂t ∂xj ∂xi σε ∂xj k
the design of explosion-proof and controlled explosions in the dust
removal pipeline. where σ ε is the Prandtl-Schmidt number of the turbulent kinetic energy
dissipation; Pε is the production of dissipation of turbulent kinetic en­
2. Numerical methodologies ergy; and C2ε is the constant in the k-ε equation, typically C2ε = 1.92.
A key feature of FLACS is the distributed porosity concept to repre­
2.1. FLACS-DustEx model sent complex geometric figures on a relatively coarse computational
grid. The large simulation objects and walls are represented on the grid
FLame ACceleration Simulator (FLACS) is a numerical tool using this method, while smaller objects are represented on the sub-grid.
frequently used to deal with industrial safety issues. The FLACS-DustEx The processor analyses the volume distribution and area porosity of each
is a toolkit for dust explosion and impact dynamics in FLACS, which rectangular grid cell. During the simulation processes, the porosity
shows a great potential to deal with severe losses caused by major in­ represents the local congestion and limitation, which helps the sub-mesh
dustrial and social disasters (Skjold, 2014; Gexcon, 2018). FLACS uses object forming strong flow resistance, turbulence generation, and flame
the finite volume method to solve compressible conservation equations folding (Tascón and Aguado, 2017; Gexcon, 2018).
on the three-dimensional Descartes grid, including the conservation of
mass, momentum, energy, and mass fraction equations of each compo­ 2.2. Combustion model
nent defined by the ideal gas law. The FLACS relies on the turbulence
model of the Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equation, such The premixed fuel and oxidant are ignited in a static state to create a
as the k-ε model (Launder and Spalding, 1974). This eddy viscosity laminar flame at the initial stage. The flame propagation is entirely
model solves the two transport equations of the turbulent kinetic energy controlled by the thermal diffusion and molecular diffusion process, and
and the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation (Skjold, 2007). These the flame front is smooth. Subsequently, the flame wrinkles, the flame
equations are shown as follow. speed increases, and a turbulent flame are formed through the transition
The mass conservation equation can be given by: zone under the action of fluid dynamics and Rayleigh–Taylor flame
∂ ∂ ( ) ṁ instability (Skjold, 2007; Gexcon, 2018).
(β ρ) + β ρu = (1) The flame combustion process in FLACS-DustEx is calculated by
∂t v ∂xj j j V
combining the classic β-flame model shown in Eq. (7) (Abdel-Gayed
where uj is the velocity component in the xj coordinate direction; p is the et al., 1987) and the experimental results of the basic explosion of a 20 L
pressure; ρ is the density; βv is volume porosity, a dimensionless ball. Assuming that the kinematic viscosity is constant and the turbu­
parameter; βj is the area porosity in the j direction; ṁ is the mass rate; lence integral length scale (lI) is introduced, Eq. (7) can be simplified to
and V is the volume. Eq. (8) (Popat et al., 1996),
The momentum transfer equation is expressed as follows: ′
ST 0.392 urms
= 0.875K − (7)
∂ ∂ ( ) ∂p ∂ ( ) SL SL
(β ρu ) + β ρu u = − β υ + β σ + Fo,i + Fw,i + βυ (ρ − ρ0 )gi
∂t υ i ∂xj j i j ∂xi ∂xj j ij
(2) (8)
0.412
ST = 15.1SL0.784 u′ rms l0.196
I

where ui is the mean velocity in the i-direction; gi is the gravitational where ST is the turbulent burning velocity, SL is the laminar burning
acceleration in the xi direction; σ ij is the turbulent momentum flux at the velocity, u′rms is the root-mean square of turbulent velocity fluctuations,
cell surfaces; Fw,i is flow resistance due to walls; Fo,i is the flow resistance and K is the Karlovitz stretch factor (Arntzen, 1998).

2
L. Pang et al.
To establish different combustible dust combustion models, it is
necessary to have explosion experiments using a typical 20 L spherical
explosion tank that determines the explosion pressure and pressure peak
time point for a series of dust concentrations. The experimental data in
the 20 L sphere was analyzed and calculated, and the turbulent com­
bustion thin flame velocity was obtained (Dahoe et al., 1996; Dahoe
et al., 2001). Then, Eq. (8) was substituted for the inverse calculation to
obtain the estimated laminar combustion velocity (Skjold et al., 2005,
2006).
In the modelling processes, the dust cloud is defined as a dense gas
with a high molecular weight. The simplified two-phase fluid is a ho­
mogeneous equilibrium model. It was assumed that the two-phase flows
are in thermal and kinetic equilibrium with the continuous phase; that
is, the heat and mass transport between the phases were infinitely fast.
For the modelling settings, only the particle volume fraction is required,
not the particle diameter and velocity (Ichard, 2012; Tascón and
Aguado, 2017).
2.3. Geometry and scenario
A simplified geometry model of the dust collector was established
based on the typical dry precipitator structure, as illustrated in Fig. 1(a).
The model includes a 4 × 4 × 5 m3 dust collector, where one side is
connected to a dust removal pipeline with a cross-sectional diameter of
0.4 m and a length of 15 m. The dust removal pipeline and the dust
collector are in a connected state without any obstacles. As illustrated in
Fig. 1(b), an explosion vent is on the other side of the dust collector,
along with pressure relief panels. As illustrated in Fig. 1(c), the moni­
toring points were set at the center of the dust collector with an interval
of 1 m along with the pipeline. All monitoring points were used data
recordings, such as the pressure, flame, and dust concentration calcu­
lated by the model.
According to ISO 6184-1 (1985), NFPA 68 (2018), VDI 3673 (2002)
and GB 15605 (2008), the explosion venting area of the geometry model
is about 1.5 m2. A popout explosion vent was set up, and its mass per unit
Fig. 1. Geometry model of a typical industrial dust collector.
3
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662
area is 5 kg/m2. Different static activation pressures were then adopted.
When the pressure in the dust collector reaches the pre-set static acti­
vation pressure, the porosity of the pressure relief panel increases from
0 to 1 immediately. The base static activation pressure was set as 0.01
MPa, and the other static activation pressures were set to fluctuate
within 25%–75% up and down. The experimental static activation
pressures (Pstat) were 0.005, 0.0075, 0.01, 0.0125, 0.015, and 0.0175
MPa.
Regular corn starch was selected as the dust fuel, with a particle
density of 1180 kg/m3 and dust median diameter of 15 μm. The defla­
gration index (Kst) was 15 MPa m/s, and the maximum explosion pres­
sure (Pmax) was 0.86 MPa. The dust concentrations were set as 750 g/m3
and 1000 g/m3, evenly arranged inside the dust collector. Table 1 lists
the variables.
The ignition position was set at the center of the dust collector, and
the ignition energy was 10 kJ. The initial temperature and pressure were
set at 20 ◦ C and 0.1 MPa, respectively. A previous study (Gexcon, 2018)
showed that the Euler boundary is suitable for the numerical simulation
of most explosion scenarios; hence, each model in this study adopted
Euler boundary conditions.
2.4. Grid independence
In those previous studies, FLACS-DustEx was adopted to simulate the
dust explosion in large-scale geometry models, and the grid was set at
0.1 m (Castellanos et al., 2013; Tascón and Aguado, 2015, 2017). The
grid resolution should be chosen to obtain a sufficiently accurate
simulation result within an acceptable time frame. The pipes and con­
tainers must always be resolved by a minimum of five to six grid cells in
smallest direction, while the explosion vent should contain at least six to
eight grids (Skjold, 2014; Gexcon, 2018). Therefore, a 0.1 × 0.1 × 0.1
m3 grid was selected as the main grid of the calculation model. Different
numbers of grids were set at the explosion vents and pipelines for the
analysis, as shown in Table 2. At the same time, Yang et al. (2020b)
found that the range of the external flow field would have an impact on
the explosion venting, so three types of simulation domains outside the
vent were selected to study their impact on the propagation of explosion
hazards.
The nine sets of simulation conditions were divided into four error
analysis blocks (A, B, C, and D), as illustrated in Fig. 2. The appropriate
simulation conditions were selected through average relative error
analysis and comparison of the simulation results to save the time and
economic cost of large-scale explosion experiments. After calculating the
physical model under nine sets of simulation conditions, the five typical
locations, including the center of the dust collector, pipe interface, 4 m
in the pipe, 1 m in the explosion vent, and 5 m in the explosion vent were
selected as the maximum explosion pressure dataset. According to the
error formula group (Eqs. (9-12)), the error analysis of the four blocks
was determined by,
Table 1
Analyzed variables of this study.
Parameter Variable
Dust concentration (g/ 750 1000
m3)
Static activation 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125 0.015 0.0175
pressure (MPa)
L. Pang et al. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662

Table 2 and D represent the same.

Simulation conditions for different grid scenarios. The minimum value between A, B, C, and D was calculated as D. That
Simulation scenario The number of cells in smallest direction of the is, the smallest difference between four calculation scenarios (S22, S23,
dust removal pipeline and vent (Fine mesh S32, and S33). Hence, the most suitable calculation conditions were
size/m) selected among these four scenarios. Based on the principle of high ef­
Cn = 4 and Cn = 8 and Cn = 12 and ficiency, scene S22 with a small simulation domain and a large grid size
5 (0.1) 10 (0.05) 15 (0.033) was selected as the basis of the simulation in this research. This is in line
Simulation domain (X 29 × S11 S12 S13 with the condition that the simulation domain should be three to four
× Y × Z/m3) 10 × 10 times that of the main explosion container (Gexcon, 2018). A fine grid of
34 × S21 S22 S23 0.05 m was adopted to refine the calculation model locally.
14 × 12
39 × S31 S32 S33
18 × 14 2.5. Experimental validation

The corn dust experiment conducted by Tascón et al. (2016) in a

16.3 m3 silo was selected for the experimental validation. The reduced
explosion overpressure (Pred) was chosen for the comparison. Table 3
lists the simulation results obtained under different simulation condi­
tions. The experimental validation under 12 different grids and laminar
burning velocity conditions are denoted as N1 to N12.
A comparison between the numerical and experimental results was
undertaken at a burning rate of 1.5, a grid of 0.1 m. The local fine grid
showed an error of approximately 4%, which is within the acceptable
range (Pang et al., 2019). The results showed that the local fine grids
slightly increase the predicted pressure, but they were still within the
error range. Therefore, the laminar burning velocity enhancement factor
of 1.5 was confirmed as the simulation condition.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Explosion parameter analysis method

Fig. 3 shows the time curve of the explosion parameters at 6 m in the

pipeline. The suddenly increased dust concentration is the moment
when the dust spreads to that location. The suddenly dropped dust
concentration is the moment when the dust starts being consumed. The
suddenly increased burning rate is the moment when the flame arrives
and this is consistent with the incubation period with sudden tempera­
ture rise and the instantaneous consumption of dust. The velocities at
various measuring points along the pipeline were obtained according to
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of block division of simulation results error analysis. the relationship between arrival time and the distance (Jiang et al.,
2013; Ma et al., 2015). When the dust concentration is stable at 0.5 s,
⎧
⎪ dust concentration decreases rapidly after the pressure shock wave
⎪ |PS11 − PS12 |
⎪
⎪ ai =
⎪ sweeps. Then the flame reaches the dust, and it burns and consumes
⎪ Max(PS11 , PS12 )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ quickly. The period between the dust consumption and flame arrival is
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ … determined by the airflow disturbance at the front of the flame.
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Fig. 4 shows the curve of the dust cloud distribution velocity in the
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
… dust removal pipeline after the dust explosion in the dust collector under
(i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (9) different dust concentrations. It was found that the dust cloud distri­
⎪ |PS21 − PS11 |
⎪
⎪
⎪ ci = bution after the dust cloud explodes in the dust removal pipeline shows a
⎪ Max(P S21 , PS11 )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ similar pattern under different concentrations. However, both the
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ … propagation velocity and consumption velocity of the dust cloud at a
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ dust concentration of 750 g/m3 are greater than those at a dust con­
centration of 1000 g/m3. This is because the dust and air content reach
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ …
the optimal explosive reaction ratio at a dust concentration of 750 g/m3.
The rapid spread and consumption of the dust reflect the severity of the
ai + ci + di + f i explosion, which is consistent with the most dangerous corn dust ex­
Ai = (10)
4 plosion concentration of 750 g/m3 (Pang et al., 2020). And the air
∑5 mixture with lower dust concentration has lower inertia, which makes
A= i=1 Ai
(11) the explosion spread easier (Taveau, 2017). Therefore, the dust con­
5 centration of 750 g/m3 was selected as the control or the basic scenario
for further analysis. Table 4 lists the related scenario parameters.
δ = min{A, B, C, D} (12)
The ai is the relative error of the maximum pressure of the selected 3.2. The propagation of dust explosion
measuring point under the two sets of simulation conditions, namely S11
and S12. A represents the average error between the calculation results of The explosion processes in a typical dry dust collector were simu­
the five measuring points in four scenarios (S11, S12, S21, and S22); B, C, lated under the basic scenario. Fig. 5 shows explosion images of the

4
L. Pang et al. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662

Table 3
Error between experiment and simulation results.
Experimental validation Simulated conditions Simulation result Experiment result Relative error

Cell size/m Modified laminar burning velocity Pred/MPa Pred/MPa

N1 0.05 1 0.0611 0.09 32.1%

N2 0.1 1 0.0391 56.6%
N3 0.2 1 0.0380 57.8%
N4 0.1 (Fine grid: 0.05) 1 0.0397 55.9%
N5 0.05 1.25 0.0970 7.78%
N6 0.1 1.25 0.0652 27.6%
N7 0.2 1.25 0.0684 24.0%
N8 0.1 (Fine grid: 0.05) 1.25 0.0654 27.3%
N9 0.05 1.5 0.1238 27.3%
N10 0.1 1.5 0.0935 3.89%
N11 0.2 1.5 0.1050 14.3%
N12 0.1 (Fine grid: 0.05) 1.5 0.0937 3.95%

Table 4
Basic scenario parameters.
Simulation parameters Value

Explosion vent size 1.5 m2

Static activation pressure 0.01 MPa
Ignition position Dust collector center
Ignition energy 10 kJ
Dust concentration 750 g/m3
Modified laminar burning velocity 1.5

Fig. 3. Explosion curve of a monitoring point at 6 m of the dust
removal pipeline.
Fig. 4. Distribution velocity of dust cloud in pipeline after explosion under
different dust concentrations.
flame (PROD), dust concentration (DUST), and pressure (P) changes in
the dust explosion. These three factors interact and communicate with
each other (Abbasi and Abbasi, 2007; Zhang et al., 2017; Yang et al.,
2019). And Fig. 6 shows the explosion pressure propagation curve and
temperature change curve at every 2 m in the dust removal pipeline. It
was observed that the peak pressure of the explosion relief (Pb) first
appeared in the dust removal pipeline. As the flame propagated into the
dust removal pipeline, the dust cloud within 6 m of the dust removal
pipeline is rapidly consumed, and a jet flame is formed. At the same
time, the pressure piling effect caused by the shrinkage of the container
joint diameter pre-compresses the unburned dust medium (Reding and
Shiflett, 2020; Bjerketvedt et al., 1997; Zalosh, 2009; Eckhoff, 2003).
Thus, the first pressure shock wave (P1) was formed, which quickly
propagated toward the end of the pipeline. The pressure at 10 m, where
P1 propagates toward the pipeline, increases significantly because the
waves that are generated later will always catch up with the waves
generated earlier. And the P1 has spread to 10 m, while the flame has
spread to 5 m, indicating that the pressure wave is always faster than the
flame. The sweeping area of P1 formed a negative pressure zone under
the action of the expansion wave. Under the action of the negative
pressure vacuum, the explosion medium in the dust collector was sucked
into the dust removal pipeline, creating a small pressure fluctuation (P2).
The unburned dust that accumulated at the end of the pipeline was
ignited under the action of the jet flame. After 10 m, it is in the sec­
ondary flame acceleration stage, and the second strong pressure wave
(P3) is formed. After the strong compression wave P3 is swept, a large
negative pressure peak (P4) appears, and the maximum negative pres­
sure appears near 6 m of the pipeline. The negative pressure of explosion
propagation in the dust removal pipeline is lower than the positive
pressure, so there is no need to worry about the equipment failure
caused by the negative pressure. After the explosion at 0.66 s propagated
to the end of the pipeline, the pressure fluctuation gradually stabilised
(Rocourt, 2014). It only takes 0.11 s for the accelerate propagation of
explosion flame in the dust removal pipeline. This provides a reasonable
basis for the reaction time between the spark detector and the sprinkler
system in the pipeline.
At 0.512 s, the explosion reaches the static activation pressure of the
pressure relief panels and begins to propagate in one direction from the
explosion vent. The Pb in the dust collector is 0.0102 MPa; at 0.525 s, the
Pb decreases to 0.0051 MPa at 2 m in the dust removal pipeline, and the
explosion begin to propagate to both sides. The high pressure of the
explosion in the dust collector has a short propagation distance in the
dust removal pipeline, and the pressure potential energy is quickly
consumed. This is caused by the rapid shrinkage of the dust removal
pipeline connection. Based on this, it is believed that adding a blocking
device between the dust collector and the dust removal pipeline can
reduce the propagation of explosive kinetic energy into the pipeline.
The time at which the temperature suddenly increases is considered

5
L. Pang et al.
Fig. 5. Explosion propagation flame (PROD), dust concentration (DUST) and pressure (P) changes in the dust removal pipeline (Pstat: 0.01 MPa; Dust concentration:
750 g/m3).
as the flame arrival time (Jiang et al., 2013). The temperature in the
pipeline stays above 2000 K until the flame reached the end of the
pipeline. The material of the dust removal pipeline should be designed
based on the high temperature of the explosion to prevent the flame
from spraying out through the flange gasket. The temperature of the dust
explosion along the pipeline showed a trend of increasing first and then
decreasing. The temperature reached the maximum value at 10 m in the
pipeline. This is caused by the secondary accelerated combustion at the
end of the pipeline.
Fig. 7 shows the arrival time and velocity changes of the dust ex­
plosion propagation. According to the above analysis, the flame and
fluid media influence each other during the dust explosion propagation.
At 0.293 s, the explosion airflow first carried dust into the dust removal
pipeline at a low speed, forming an initial explosion environment, and
the dust cloud started to spread before the flame entered the pipeline.
After the dust propagation experienced 0.232 s, compared with the
pressure shock wave, the flame first was transmitted into the pipeline to
ignite the explosive environment, and the P1 was formed and quickly
spread to the end of the pipeline with an interval of 0.0297 s. When the
explosion reaches 5 m at the pipeline, the flame propagation lagged
behind the pressure shock significantly. This is because the initial stage
of the explosion is in the laminar combustion stage, so the explosion
pressure accumulates slower than the flame propagation. Then the ex­
plosion develops to a turbulent combustion state and quickly forms an
explosion shock wave that surpasses the flame. Therefore, the explosion-
6
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662
proof valve should be installed 5 m after the pipeline to effectively block
the flame under high-pressure start. The arrival time of the pressure
shock wave between 5 m and 9 m is the same as the dust consumption
time. The pressure shock is the main driving force that drives the dust
dispersion. The high-speed dust consumption stage involves the accu­
mulation of energy after 10 m of pressure waves and dust propagation.
The flame velocity peaks were observed at 4 m and 9 m, confirming the
pressure accumulation effect caused by the sudden contraction of the
pipe and secondary combustion at the end of the pipe. Therefore, in
order to prevent the secondary acceleration of explosion propagation in
the pipeline, the explosion-proof valve should be set 10 m in front of the
pipeline.
3.3. Static activation pressures
The turbulent flow energy in the dust collector represents the tur­
bulent mixing capacity of different explosion media. The higher the
mixing capacity of air and dust is the larger the contact surface of air,
dust, and flame will be (Zhang et al., 2019, 2020; Yang et al., 2020a).
Therefore, it results in a more complete explosion reaction. Thus, high
turbulence energy can promote the spread of dust explosions in dust
removal pipelines.
Fig. 8 shows the trend of the turbulent flow energy in the dust col­
lector over time following a dust explosion at different static activation
pressures. It was found that the greater the static activation pressure is,
L. Pang et al. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662

Fig. 6. Explosion overpressure and temperature changes at different positions along with the pipeline (Pstat: 0.01 MPa; Dust concentration: 750 g/m3).

Fig. 7. Dust explosion behaviors along the dust removal pipeline (Pstat: 0.01
MPa; Dust concentration: 750 g/m3).
the greater the turbulent kinetic energy after the explosion in the dust
collector will be. And it increases by up to 2.66 times with the static
activation pressure from 0.005 MPa to 0.0175 MPa. The moment of the
sudden increase of turbulent kinetic energy advances with the increase
of static activation pressure. The lower static activation pressure can
ensure the explosion vent in the early stage of deflagration (Taveau
et al., 2019). This is because the static activation pressure is small, and
explosion venting occurs first before the violent explosion reaction, so
the sudden increase of turbulent kinetic energy is delayed and the peak
value is small. The greater the static activation pressure, the sufficient
time to complete the dust explosion in the dust collector, so a more vi­
olent explosion occurred earlier. At the same time, there will be more
unburned dust in the dust collector at a lower static activation pressure
to participate in the secondary explosion, resulting in a second peak of
turbulent energy.
Combined with the explosion propagation stage division shown in
Fig. 11, the peak turbulent kinetic energy occurs in the two-way prop­
agation process of the dust collector explosion when the static activation
pressure is less than 0.015 MPa. When the static activation pressure is
0.0175 MPa, the peak turbulent kinetic energy occurs before the

7
L. Pang et al. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662

Fig. 8. The turbulent kinetic energy of dust explosion in the dust collector
under different static activation pressures.

explosion venting. And when the static activation pressure reaches

0.0125 MPa, the trend in the turbulent kinetic energy changes is almost
the same. Therefore, the explosion venting effect is considered reaching
the limit.
The greater the turbulence kinetic energy in the dust collector after
the explosion is, the more severe the impact of the explosion in dust
removal pipeline will be. Fig. 9(a) shows the distribution of the
maximum explosion pressure at each monitoring point of the dust ex­
plosion spreading in the dust removal pipeline at different static acti­
vation pressures of explosion venting. The maximum explosion pressure
at each monitoring point showed a trend of first increasing and then
decreasing. The maximum explosion pressure appeared at 3–4 m in the
dust removal pipeline, which is the weak position of the dust removal
equipment explosion.
Fig. 9(b) shows the average maximum explosion pressure and pres­
sure distribution range at each monitoring point in the dust removal
pipeline. As the static activation pressure increases, the average
Fig. 9. The maximum explosion pressure in the pipeline under different static
maximum explosion pressure at each monitoring point in the dust
activation pressures.
removal pipeline increases. And the maximum explosion pressure dis­
tribution floating range also increases. In addition, the average
should be installed before 10 m. Fig. 10(b) compares the average
maximum explosion pressure increases by 144% with the static activa­
propagation velocities of the two fluids at different static activation
tion pressure from 0.005 MPa to 0.0175 MPa, and the maximum pres­
pressures. It is found that the average propagation velocity of the P1 is
sure fluctuation range of each monitoring point in the dust removal
between 370 and 480 m/s; the average velocity of dust cloud propaga­
pipeline expands by 2.82 times. However, when the static activation
tion is between 40 and 90 m/s; and both increase with the increase in
pressure reaches 0.0125 MPa, there is almost no change of the maximum
static activation pressure. Based on this, it is believed that a smaller
explosion pressure distribution at various positions in the pipeline. The
static activation pressure should be selected. And it is found that the
maximum explosion pressure in the pipeline is lower than 1.5 MPa,
static activation pressure of 0.0125 MPa is the dust explosion venting
which has met the requirements of the mechanical explosion-proof valve
limit of the dust collector model, and the explosion indicators will no
to isolate the explosion separately, and there is no need to add chemical
longer change.
explosion-proof technology (Taveau et al., 2018).
After a dust explosion occurs in the dust collector, the explosion fluid
propagation can be classified into two types: pressure wave propagation 3.4. Flame propagation
and dust cloud propagation. Fig. 10(a) shows the propagation velocity of
the explosion shock wave P1 and dust diffusion along the dust removal Fig. 11 shows the time nodes of the dust explosion propagation in the
pipeline at different static activation pressures. It was observed that the dust collector at different static activation pressures. It was found that
pressure shock wave P1 first enters the dust removal pipeline at a low the increase in the static activation pressure increases the time it takes to
speed, reaches a peak velocity at 2 m, and then decreases and propagates open the vent. Therefore, the larger static activation pressure allows
4–8 m in the pipeline at an almost uniform velocity. After 10 m, the sufficient time for the explosion reaction in the dust collector, which
pressure wave velocity gradually increases and exceeds the peak ve­ causes a more violent explosion flame to quickly enter the dust removal
locity at 2 m. The dust diffusion velocity shows a rapidly increasing pipeline and shorten the propagation time. Among them, the time
trend after 11 m. After the explosion spreads to 10 m, the explosion required for flame propagation is reduced by up to 38.3% with the static
propagation speed is obviously accelerated. In order to reduce the dy­ activation pressure from 0.005 MPa to 0.0175 MPa. The shorter the
namic impact caused by the increase speed, an explosion-proof valve flame propagation time, the more violent the explosion. Therefore, the
reaction time of spark detection and sprinkler system should be shorter.

8
L. Pang et al. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662

In addition, since the flame spreads slowly when the static activation
pressure is lower, the installation distance of the explosion-proof valve
in the dust removal pipeline should be a little forward. When the static
activation pressure increases to 0.0125 MPa, the explosion flame first
enters the dust removal pipeline before it is released from the explosion
vent. The accelerated propagation time of the explosion flame in the
pipeline hardly changed, indicating that the explosion reaction inside
the dust collector is fully completed.
Combustion velocity is an attribute of dust, while the flame propa­
gation velocity is a practical parameter for explosion prevention and
control. The flame propagation velocity is relative to a static pipe, which
depends on the disturbance of the airflow in front of the flame array (Bi
et al., 2017). Flame propagation velocities under different static acti­
vation pressures are shown in Fig. 12(a). It was found that the flame
propagated at a fluctuating speed. The flame combustion speed fluctu­
ates more frequently at a lower explosion vent opening pressure. When
the explosion pressure release occurs at a lower static activation pres­
sure, the unburned dust in the dust collector is relatively large, while the
turbulence velocity in the pipeline is relatively low. Therefore, the

Fig. 10. Velocity of pressure shock wave (P1) and dust diffusion under different
static activation pressures.

Fig. 11. The dust explosion propagation stage in the dust collector under
different static activation pressures.
Fig. 12. Velocity of flame propagation and dust consumption under different
static activation pressures.

9
L. Pang et al.
accumulated dust in the dust removal pipeline can achieve multiple
accelerated combustion and form an unstable flame within the same
propagation distance. It is consistent with the fact that the flame prop­
agation velocity fluctuates in the experiment (Pang et al., 2021). As the
static activation pressure increases, the number of flame velocity peaks
decreases from three to two. Multiple combustion accelerations are not
good for explosion propagation, and based on this, the static activation
pressure should not be too small. When the static activation pressure
increases to 0.0125 MPa, the flame propagation velocity at the front
section of the pipeline is almost the same, and there is a slight difference
in the propagation to the end of the pipeline.
Fig. 12(a) also shows a rapid change in the dust consumption rate
when the explosion spreads along the dust removal pipeline at different
static activation pressures. The greater the dust consumption rate is, the
greater the degree of disturbance of the explosion fluid at the front edge
of the flame will be. The dust explosion spreads along the dust removal
pipeline, and the dust consumption velocity showed the three stages of
increasing, decreasing, and then increasing again. The dust consumption
velocity is at a relatively high level between 6 m and 9 m, indicating that
the explosion disturbance is the most severe in the middle section of the
dust removal pipeline.
The average flame propagation velocity and average dust con­
sumption velocity at different static activation pressures are compared,
as illustrated in Fig. 12(b). Both increase with a higher static activation
pressure. The flame propagation and dust consumption velocity increase
by 70.1% and 32.1%, respectively, with the static activation pressure
from 0.005 MPa to 0.0175 MPa. The airflow disturbance zone at the
front edge of the flame has a faster propagation velocity than the flame,
resulting in an increase in the average dust consumption velocity of
approximately 80 m/s compared with the average velocity of flame
propagation.
4. Conclusions
The effects of static activation pressure on the dust explosion prop­
agation were investigated in a dust collector by CFD under the coupling
effects of the explosion venting constraint and the dust removal pipeline.
The explosion flame enters the dust removal pipeline to achieve multiple
accelerations and generate multiple explosion shockwaves. The explo­
sion pressure and temperature at various locations in the pipeline show a
trend of first increasing and then decreasing. And the maximum explo­
sion pressure and temperature occurred at 4 m and 10 m of the dust
removal pipeline, respectively.
The greater the static activation pressure of the dust collector is, the
more violent the dust explosion spread in the dust removal pipeline will
be. With a higher static activation pressure, the maximum explosion
pressure at each position in the dust removal pipeline increases, and the
propagation velocities of the explosion shock wave and dust cloud both
rise. At the same time, the average maximum explosion pressure in­
creases by 144%, and the pressure fluctuation range also expands by
2.82 times. When the static activation pressure increases by 25% from
0.01 MPa to 0.0125 MPa, the explosion propagation velocity and in­
tensity hardly change. The static activation pressure of the pressure
relief panels for industrial dust explosions should not be greater than
0.0125 MPa.
The increase in the static activation pressure promoted the explosion
flame propagation in the dust removal pipeline. When the static acti­
vation pressure increases, the explosion reaction in the dust collector is
more complete and violent. The time required for flame propagation in
the dust removal pipeline is reduced by 38.3%. At a relatively low static
activation pressure, the flame propagation velocity fluctuates more
frequently. The fluid turbulence at the flame front causes the dust cloud
disappearance velocity to be faster than the flame propagation velocity
by about 80 m/s.
According to the relative position of the flame and the pressure shock
wave, the arrangement point of the explosion-proof valve can be
10
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662
determined between 5 m and 10 m of the dust removal pipeline. And
when the static activation pressure is lower, the explosion-proof valve
should be installed closer to the dust collector. The larger static acti­
vation pressure causes the explosion to spread more violently, so the
reaction time between the spark detector and the sprinkler system
should be reduced. In the process of explosion disaster propagation
control involving typical dry dust collectors, attention should be paid to
the characteristics of explosion propagation inside the dust removal
pipeline.
Author statement
Lei Pang: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Project
administration, Funding acquisition. Jiaojiao Cao: Formal analysis,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization,
Investigation. Qiuping Xiao: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investiga­
tion. Kai Yang: Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Long Shi: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Visualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Elsevier for their English translation service. The
authors appreciate the financial support from the Beijing Science and
Technology Nova Program (No. Z181100006218092), the Shanghai
Science and Technology Development Funds (No. 19QB1402800), the
Training Funded Project of the Beijing Youth Top-Notch Talents of China
(No. 2016000026833ZK05), and Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Project of China Occupational Safety and Health Association (No. CXCY-
2021-04).
References
Abdel-Gayed, R.G., Bradley, D., Lawes, M., 1987. Turbulent burning velocities: a general
correlation in terms of straining rates. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. 414, 389–413.
Arntzen, B.J., 1998. Modelling of turbulence and combustion for simulation of gas
explosions in complex geometries. Dr. Ing. Thesis. NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
Abbasi, T., Abbasi, S.A., 2007. Dust explosions–Cases, causes, consequences, and control.
J. Hazard Mater. 140 (1–2), 7–44.
Bjerketvedt, D., Bakke, J.R., Wingerden, K.V., 1997. Gas explosion handbook. J. Hazard
Mater. 52 (1), 1–150.
Bi, M.S., Li, G., Chen, X.F., Yang, G.G., 2017. Gas and Dust Explosion Prevention
Engineering, second ed. Chemical Industry Press, Beijing.
CSB, 2006. Investigation Report. Combustible dust hazard study. No. 2006-H-1.
Castellanos, D., Skjold, T., Wingerden, K.V., Eckhoff, R.F., Mannan, M.S., 2013.
Validation of the DESC code in simulating the effect of vent ducts on dust explosions.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 52, 6057–6067.
Dahoe, A.E., Zavenbergen, J.F., Lemkowitz, S.M., Scarlett, B., 1996. Dust explosions in
spherical vessels: the role of flame thickness in the validity of the ‘cuberoot law.
J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 9 (1), 33–44.
Dahoe, A.E., Cant, R.S., Scarlett, B., 2001. On the decay of turbulence in the 20-litre
explosion sphere. Flow, Turbul. Combust. 67, 159–184.
Eckhoff, R.K., 2003. Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, third ed. Gulf Professional
Publishing, Amsterdam.
GB 15605, 2008. Guide for Pressure Venting of Dust Explosions. Standardization
Administration of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing.
Gexcon, A.S., 2018. FLACS v10.7 User’s Manual, Bergen, Norway.
ISO 6184-1, 1985. Explosion Protection Systems-Part I: Determination of Explosion
Indices of Combustible Dusts in Air. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva.
Ichard, M., 2012. Numerical Computations of Pressurized Liquefied Gas Releases into the
Atmosphere. PhD thesis. Department of Physics and Technology, University of
Bergen. February 2012. ISBN978-82-308-2010-0.
Jiang, B.Y., Lin, B.Q., Zhu, C.J., Zhai, C., Liu, Q., 2013. Premixed methane-air
deflagrations in a completely adiabatic pipe and the effect of the condition of the
pipe wall. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 26 (4), 782–791.
Jiang, Z.Y., Li, W., Liu, X.M., Jiang, F., Li, B.B., 2020. Research on different venting
performance between flat and curved bursting panels. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 65
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104134.
L. Pang et al.
Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.P., 1974. The numerical computation of turbulent flows.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 3, 269–289.
Lunn, G., Crowhurst, D., Hey, M., 1988. The effect of vent ducts on the reduced explosion
pressures of vented dust explosions. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 1, 182–196.
Li, G., Yang, H.X., Yuan, C.M., Eckhoff, R.K., 2016. A catastrophic aluminium-alloy dust
explosion in China. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 39, 121–130.
Ma, Q.J., Zhang, Q., Li, D., Chen, J.C., Ren, S.Y., Shen, S.L., 2015. Effects of premixed
methane concentration on distribution of flame region and hazard effects in a tube
and a tunnel gas explosion. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 34, 30–38.
NFPA 68, 2018. Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting. National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy.
Popat, N.R., Catlin, C.A., Arntzen, B.J., Lindstedt, R.P., Hjertager, B.H., Solberg, T.,
Saeter, T., Van den Berg, A.C., 1996. Investigation to improve and assess the
accuracy of computational fluid dynamics based explosion models. J. Hazard Mater.
45 (1), 1–25.
Proust, C., 1996. Dust explosions in pipes: a review. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 9,
267–277.
Pang, L., Hu, Q.R., Zhao, J.J., Lv, P.F., Sun, S.H., Yang, K., 2019. Numerical study of the
effects of vent opening time on hydrogen explosions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44,
15689–15701.
Pang, L., Zhang, Z.W., Cui, S.Q., Sun, S.H., 2020. Experimental study of the venting
characteristics of dust explosion through a vent duct. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 65
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104144.
Pang, L., Cao, J.J., Zhao, Y., Yuan, C.M., Yang, K., Zhang, Z.W., 2021. Flame propagation
behaviours and overpressure characteristics of LDPE dust/ethylene hybrid mixture
explosions. Combust. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00102202.2021.1909006.
Rocourt, X., Awamat, S., Sochet, I., Jallais, S., 2014. Vented hydrogeneair deflagration in
a small enclosed volume. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 39, 20462–20466.
Reding, N.S., Shiflett, M.B., 2020. Consequence prediction for dust explosions involving
interconnected vessels using computational fluid dynamics modeling. J. Loss Prev.
Process. Ind. 65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104149.
Skjold, T., Arntzen, B.J., Hansen, O.R., Taraldset, O.J., Storvik, I.E., Eckhoff, R.K., 2005.
Simulating dust explosions with the first version of DESC. Process Saf. Environ.
Protect. 83, 151–160.
Skjold, T., Arntzen, B.J., Hansen, O.R., Storvik, I.E., Eckhoff, R.K., 2006. Simulation of
dust explosions in complex geometries with experimental input from standardized
tests. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 19, 210–217.
Skjold, T., 2007. Review of the DESC project. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 20, 291–302.
Skjold, T., 2014. Flame Propagation in Dust Clouds: Numerical Simulation and
Experimental Investigation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Bergen, Norway.
Song, Y.F., Zhang, Q., Wang, B., Li, J.C., 2019. Numerical study on the internal and
external flow field of dust explosion venting. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 145 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2019.106008.
11
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 74 (2022) 104662
Taveau, J., 2010. Correlations for blast effects from vented dust explosions. J. Loss Prev.
Process. Ind. 23, 15–29.
Tascón, A., Aguado, P.J., 2015. CFD simulations to study parameters affecting dust
explosion venting in silos. Powder Technol. 272, 132–141.
Tascón, A., Ramírez-Gómez, Á., Aguado, P.J., 2016. Dust explosions in an experimental
test silo: influence of length/diameter ratio on vent area sizes. Biosyst. Eng. 148,
18–33.
Tascón, A., Aguado, P.J., 2017. Simulations of vented dust explosions in a 5 m3 vessel.
Powder Technol. 321, 409–418.
Taveau, J., 2017. Dust explosion propagation and isolation. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 48,
320–330.
Taveau, J., Hochgreb, S., Lemkowitz, S., Roekaerts, D., 2018. Explosion hazards of
aluminum finishing operations. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 51, 84–93.
Taveau, J., Lemkowitz, S., Hochgreb, S., Roekaerts, D., 2019. Metal dusts explosion
hazards and protection. Chem. Eng. Trans. 77, 7–12.
VDI 3673, 2002. Pressure Venting of Dust Explosions, Part. 1. Verein Deutscher
Ingenieure, Berlin.
Wang, S.M., Li, G.Q., Guo, H., Li, X.D., Pu, X.Y., Ren, H.Y., Wu, D.J., 2020. Experimental
study on vented deflagration of hydrocarbon fuel-air mixtures in a 20-L semi-
confined cylindrical vessel with a slight static activation pressure. J. Loss Prev.
Process. Ind. 64 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104091.
Yan, X.Q., Yu, J.L., 2014. Dust explosion venting of small vessels at the elevated static
activation overpressure. Powder Technol. 261, 250–256.
Yang, K., Hu, Q.R., Sun, S.H., Lv, P.F., Pang, L., 2019. Research progress on multi-
overpressure peak structures of vented gas explosions in confined spaces. J. Loss
Prev. Process. Ind. 62 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2019.103969.
Yang, K., Liu, W.S., Ren, J.Q., Li, S.G., Zhao, Y., Hu, Q.R., Pang, L., 2020a. Effects of
multiple annular obstacles on flame propagation of local corn starch dust in a
vertical pipe. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 64 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jlp.2020.104077.
Yang, K., Lv, P.F., Gao, J.C., Pang, L., 2020b. Influence of the region outside a vent on the
explosion of an indoor gas. J. Eng. Phys. Thermophys. 93 (2), 466–473.
Zalosh, R., Grossel, S., Kahn, R., Sliva, D., 2005. Dust Explosion Scenarios and Case
Histories in the CCPS Guidelines for Safe Handling of Powders and Bulk Solids. 39th
AIChE. Loss Prevention Symposium Session on Dust Explosions. Atlanta, April 2005.
Zalosh, R., 2009. Dust Explosion Fundamentals: Ignition Criteria and Pressure
Development. The Fire Protection Research Foundation, Wellesley, MA.
Zhang, X.Y., Yu, J.L., Gao, W., Zhang, D.W., Sun, J.H., Guo, S., Dobashi, R., 2017. Effects
of particle size distributions on PMMA dust flame propagation behaviors. Powder
Technol. 317, 197–208.
Zhang, Q., Yan, Q., 2019. Experimental study on explosion process of flour deposits/air
mixture in horizontal pipelines. Powder Technol. 346, 273–282.
Zhang, S.L., Bi, M.S., Yang, M.R., Gan, B., Jiang, H.P., Gao, W., 2020. Flame propagation
characteristics and explosion behaviors of aluminum dust explosions in a horizontal
pipeline. Powder Technol. 359, 172–180.