A New Approach to Explosion
Suppression
Frank Theré, A. Harmanny, P. Van Gelder
Stuvex International, Heiveldekens 8, B-2550, Kontich, Belgium
One of the most widely applied protective systems, to
reduce the effects of an explosion, is explosion pre s s u re
release (venting). There is a disadvantage to venting in
that, with an explosion, there is considerable (fire) damage
which can result in major repair costs and production losses.
In addition there is a growing resistance against the venting
of large flame jets and combustion products, because of
environmental and safety issues.
A good alternative to explosion venting is explosion sup-
pression. If designed, installed and maintained properly,
explosion venting is a reliable protective technique. The
main obstacle to the widespread acceptance of suppression
technology, apart from the initial investments, is the inten-
s i ve maintenance, which can have considerable impact
both on production costs and efficiency.
INTRODUCTION
In response to the requirements of their customers
and based on more than 20 years of experience in
installing and maintaining explosion protection sys-
tems, Stuvex embarked on developing a revolutionary
explosion protection system. The result is the Stuvex
Flash explosion suppression system. In this paper,
after a short review of the principle of explosion sup-
pression, this new system is discussed in detail.
PRINCIPLE OF EXPLOSION SUPPRESSION
When a cloud of gas or fine combustible particles
(dust) is ignited, a very rapid combustion ensues. The
speed at which the flame spreads through the fuel
cloud is dependent on a number of factors, including
the type of fuel, the geometry of the cloud and the ini-
tial conditions (pre s s u re, temperature, turbulence).
The deflagration speed can range from less than 10
m/s to over 100 m/s. Compared with high explosives,
w h e re the flame speed is measured in km/s, this is
relatively slow. This offers the possibility of extin-
guishing the explosion before it assumes catastrophic
p roportions, provided that it is detected at an early
stage and the extinguishing agent is injected quickly.
Depending on the fuel characteristics and the size of
the vessel, the explosion can generate a maximum
74 Summer 2000
explosion pre s s u re of up to 10 barg, in tens of mil-
liseconds. By using effective explosion suppression
techniques the maximum explosion pressure can be
reduced to a fraction of its expected intensity.
Although there are differences between the explo-
sion suppression systems of the various manufactur-
ers, the basic principles of virtually all such systems
are identical. All systems use detectors (usually pres-
sure but sometimes optical), suppression devices and
a control unit to perform power control and process
interface functions. The working principle of explo-
sion suppression is illustrated in Figure. 1.
The majority of explosion detectors are membrane
detectors: the increasing explosion pressure deforms
the membrane until an electrical contact is closed. The
disadvantage of these membrane detectors is that they
a re exceptionally sensitive and their settings can
change very quickly. Any small deformation in the
membrane can bring about significant changes in the
settings. It is there f o re necessary to inspect these
detectors at regular intervals.
Sometimes “dynamic detectors” are used: these
detectors continuously measure the acting pressure
and activate the system when either a pre-set static
p re s s u re level or a pre-set rate-of-pre s s u re-rise is
recorded. Sometimes a combined dynamic
pressure/optical detector is used for certain applica-
tions. The reliability of the diff e rent components
requires close attention especially for these advanced
detectors. The suppressors are usually pressure ves-
sels, filled with a suppressant agent and pressurized,
usually with nitrogen. In order to open the suppres-
sors within milliseconds high explosives are used.
These classical suppressors have a number of dis-
advantages:
• Regular inspection is required, in order to detect
leaking suppressors in time.
• The suppressors must be handled and stored as
pressure vessels: all regulations with respect to testing
and certification have to be followed.
• High explosives are sensitive to ageing and
therefore have to be replaced frequently, before they
become unreliable.
• Depending on the country, the application of
Process Safety Progress (Vol.19, No.2)

FIGURE 1. Principle of explosion suppression.
high explosives means a lot of paperwork, in order to
obtain the proper licenses for transport, storage and
installation.
In summary: If traditional systems are to function
reliably, the detectors and suppressors need to be
inspected regularly. As a result maintenance costs are
relatively high, possibly leading to a reduction in pro-
ductivity. The use of pressure vessels and explosive
substances means that proper certification and licens-
ing are inevitable, for each individual application. The
relatively short life expectancy of explosive sub-
stances causes high replacement costs.
FLASH EXPLOSION SUPPRESSION
In order to overcome the disadvantages of the clas-
sical explosion suppression systems, the target for the
FLASH explosion suppression systems is to develop a
suppression system without:
• Drifting detectors
• Pressurized vessels
• High explosives
• Maintenance
The outcome of the development is the new Stuvex
FLASH explosion suppression system that use detec-
tors with a fixed setting and non-pressurised suppres-
sors. The suppressant is expelled with the help of gas
generators. When an explosion is detected the gas
generator produces large amounts of gas, which are
blown into the suppressor and subsequently, disperse
the suppressant into the vessel to be protected. High-
quality (mil-spec) plug-in connectors aid electrical
connections to detectors and gas generators. This way
faulty connections or crossover of wires is avoided
and, at the same time, maintenance has been simpli-
fied considerably.
Because the detection and firing system are differ-
ent from the classical systems, a new control unit had
to be developed. Much attention needed to be given
to the user friendliness and reliability of the new con-
trol unit. As a suppressant FLASH uses sodium bicar-
bonate. This food compatible powder is used in most
explosion suppression systems. In addition new sup-
pressing agents are under investigation, which seem
to be very promising. In the next sections the detector
and the gas generator, together with the different test-
ing, are discussed in more detail.
Process Safety Progress (Vol.19, No.2)
DETECTION
Frequent calibration of detectors can often be the
cause of high maintenance costs. It was, there f o re ,
decided to develop a detector with fixed calibration.
Once the detector is installed there is no need (or no
way) to check the calibration level. Maintenance is
limited to checking for excessive powder accumula-
tion or hard deposits on the sensing face.
On activation the detector sensing membrane is
p e rmanently deformed, providing conclusive evi-
dence of over-pressure. The detector is then removed
and replaced with a new unit. In order to pre v e n t
false activations detectors are always used in pairs,
where both units are required to respond in order to
cause activation.
GAS GENERATORS
If propellants, such as black powder or other
pyrotechnical mixtures, are burned, large amounts of
gas are produced. This principle is used in gas gener-
ators. Gas generators are widely used for aerospace
applications. A better known, more or less similar,
application is then used in cartridges for airbags,
much as they are used in the automobile industry. By
choosing the proper igniter, pyrotechnical mixture
and combustion chamber very fast gas generators can
be obtained.
The main re q u i rements for the gas generator for
the FLASH system were:
• Very fast acting
• Non-toxic combustion products
• Non-corrosive combustion products
Again specialist help was sought: a company at the
leading edge of rocket motor development and gas
generators for aerospace applications developed and
produced the FLASH gas generators.
The final result is a range of gas generators that
are very fast: time between ignition pulse and maxi-
mum pre s s u re in the suppressor ranges from less
than 5 ms to about 8 ms for the different gas genera-
tors. A typical example of the pressure inside a sup-
p re s s o r, pressurised by a gas generator is given in
Figure 2.
Remark: the point of ignition of the gas generator
was not at time 0.00 seconds!
FIGURE 2. Typical pressure-time curve inside suppresser
Summer 2000 75
 It turned out to be possible to produce very clean
combustion products: they are non-corrosive and the
only toxic substance that is produced is a small quan-
tity of CO, which was judged to be acceptable. Like
the detectors, the gas generators are submitted to
thorough testing, in order to determine the reliability
at extreme temperature, moisture and vibration con-
ditions. In order to prove that the gas generators are
harmless during transport, they are exposed to a long
lasting, very fierce bonfire. The result is gas genera-
tors that can be stored and transported in a simple
cardboard box without the need for special licenses.

CONTROL SYSTEM
Because a suppression system is a safety system,
very high demands are required regarding the relia-
bility of these systems. At the moment a not yet pub-
lished European guideline on explosion suppression
is consulted and followed. This upcoming guideline
is more detailed than the existing NFPA 69 or the ISO
6184/4. The guideline stresses particular attention to
reliability and the development of the FLASH system
is already based on these future guidelines. As far as
we know the FLASH control unit (and of course the
cabling) are the only system that has fully been EMC
tested and approved. Apart from all important control
functions the control unit is also equipped with a
memory which stores all data on alarms and faults.

MODELLING
For several years Stuvex has been working on the
FIGURE 3. FLASH suppresser and faults. development of a numerical code in order to simulate

FIGURE 4. Measured pressure-time curves, during a successful suppression test

76 Summer 2000 Process Safety Progress (Vol.19, No.2)

the course of (dust) explosions. The model enables to
study both the pressure-time-course and the external
flame jet of a vented dust explosion. This model was
further elaborated into a tool that could be used to
p redict the reduced explosion pre s s u re of a sup-
p ressed explosion. Many tests were necessary to
determine the different parameters that are required
as input data for the model: response time of the sup-
pressor, mass flow rate of the suppressant, throw and
shape of the suppressant cloud.
VALIDATION TESTING
The (draft) guidelines re q u i re validation testing.
Therefore Stuvex set up a test program together with
FSA in Mannheim (Germany), chosen to be the third
party test house for the explosion suppression testing.
During the development stage of the FLASH suppression
system a number of explosion suppression trials were
executed. These tests provided much additional insight
into the characteristics of the system, which resulted into
modifications and optimisations of the different compo-
nents. From the tests it was also concluded that the con-
tribution of the gas pressure to the reduced explosion
pressure is much less than for the classical systems. This
is because with the FASH system a major part of the gas
pressure is caused by the temperature of the gas from
the gas generator. The cooling of this gas, due to gas
Process Safety Progress (Vol.19, No.2)
expansion and by contact with the “cold” suppressor
and suppressant, results in a rather low gas pressure.
After completion of the different components many
tests were executed. The tests were with St1 dusts, in
vessels of 4.5 and 9.4 m3. The tests were used to validate
the calculation model and to determine the limits of the
suppression system. A typical example of the pressure-
time-curves, as these were registered during a successful
suppression test, is given in Figure 4.
CONCLUSION
In close co-operation with specialists in diff e re n t
domains, Stuvex has been able to develop a new
explosion suppression system that is user friendly and
requires very little maintenance. The system does not
use pre s s u re vessels nor high explosives, meaning
that no special licenses are re q u i red. Although the
system is very new, several hundreds of suppressors
have already been installed at a wide variety of
processes in various countries all over the world: Aus-
tralia, Belarus, Belgium, France, Germany, Gre e c e ,
Israel, Netherlands and United Kingdom. A number of
explosions occurred in equipment protected by the
FLASH-system, which responded very well to kill the
explosion without further damage, human suffering
and protecting large investments.
Summer 2000 77