Accepted Manuscript

Title: Effects of particle size, dust concentration and

dust-dispersion-air pressure on rock dust inertant requirement
for coal dust explosion suppression in underground coal mines

Authors: Sikandar Azam, Devi Prasad Mishra

PII: S0957-5820(18)31053-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.03.030
Reference: PSEP 1713

To appear in: Process Safety and Environment Protection

Received date: 19 October 2018

Revised date: 30 January 2019
Accepted date: 25 March 2019

Please cite this article as: Azam S, Mishra DP, Effects of particle size, dust concentration
and dust-dispersion-air pressure on rock dust inertant requirement for coal dust
explosion suppression in underground coal mines, Process Safety and Environmental
Protection (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.03.030

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Effects of particle size, dust concentration and dust-dispersion-air pressure on rock dust

inertant requirement for coal dust explosion suppression in underground coal mines

Sikandar Azam1 and Devi Prasad Mishra2*

PT
1
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad – 826 005, India

RI
2
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines),

Dhanbad – 826 004, India

SC

Corresponding Author: Dr. Devi Prasad Mishra, Ph.D.
E-mail: dpmishra@iitism.ac.in U
N
Tel.:+91-6299882610
Fax : +91-326-2296563/2296628
A
Graphical abstract
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

Research Highlights:

 Investigated rock dust inertant requirement for coal dust explosion suppression.

 Particle size of coal and rock dusts greatly influenced the inertant requirement.

1
  Inertant requirement increased with decrease in coal and increase in rock dust size.

 Optimal coal dust concentration that causes violent explosion determined 427 g/m3.

 Inertant requirement increased with increase in dust dispersion pressure up to 62 kPa.

Abstract: Coal dust explosion constitutes an ever-present hazard in underground coal mines

PT
worldwide. This study examines the effects of important parameters, such as, dust particle

size, dust concentration and dust-dispersion-air pressure on rock dust inertant requirement for

RI
suppressing coal dust explosion using a Godbert-Greenwald (GG) furnace. It also elucidates

SC
the underlying mechanism involved in the coal dust explosion and its propagation. The study

revealed that the proportion of rock dust required to inert the coal dust explosion increases

U
with the decrease in the coal dust size and increase in the rock dust size. The finest size coal
N
dust (<38 µm) and the coarsest mine size coal dust (<850 µm) required 90% and 72% rock
A
dust inertant respectively for suppressing the coal dust explosion. The optimal coal dust
M

concentration that causes a violent explosion and requires maximum proportion of rock dust

inertant for explosion suppression was determined to be 427 g/m3. The inertant requirement
ED

increased with the increase in dust-dispersion-air pressure up to 62 kPa.

E PT

Keywords: Rock dust inertant; coal dust explosion suppression; particle size; dust
CC

concentration; dust-dispersion-air pressure.

A

1. Introduction

The coal dust produced during coal mining operations is regarded as a hazardous material. It

causes explosion hazard in underground coal mines and leads to the loss of valuable lives.

Some notable global incidences of coal mine explosions are presented elsewhere (Mishra et

2
al., 2018). Methane and coal dust explosions contributed about 40% of the disasters that took

place in Indian coal mines between 1908 and 1995 resulting in 839 fatalities (Singh et al.,

1999). The large quantity of fine coal dust produced due to heavy mechanization leads to

violent coal dust explosions in underground coal mines (Kundu et al., 2018).

Dust explosions, generally arise from the reaction between combustible dust (fuel)

PT
and oxygen, generate oxides and heat (Eckhoff, 2003). Commonly, rock dust is used as inert

RI
material to suppress coal dust explosions in underground coal mines. The reason being,

mixing of inert material with coal dust cloud increases the minimum ignition energy [MIE]

SC
and minimum ignition temperature[MIT] of the coal dust, and beyond a certain concentration

of inert material, explosion does not occur (Addai et al., 2016).

U
N
The dusts already made up of stable oxides, such as silicates and carbonates, do not
A

undergo explosions. Thus, limestone or CaCO3 dusts do not explode even if subjected to high
M

temperature, rather they act as heat sink by thermally decomposing into CaO and CO2
ED

according to the equation (Amyotte, 2006)

PT

CaCO3 + Heat CaO + CO2 (1)

E
CC

The above reaction being endothermic, decomposition of limestone dust in the atmosphere

consumes heat from the surrounding. This reduces the overall temperature of the surrounding
A

to such an extent that ignition of combustible dusts does occur, provided there is enough rock

dust present in the atmosphere. Therefore, limestone dust is most widely used as rock dust

inertant for suppressing coal dust explosions in underground coal mines.

3
 Another important reason for using limestone dust as explosion inertant is due to its

higher thermal conductivity (k) value (varying in the range 1.26-1.33 W/m.°C) as compared

to the coal (varying in the range 0.2-0.3 W/m.°C) (Engineering ToolBox, 2003). Its

application in rock dusting increases the total incombustible content (TIC) of the dust cloud,

which effectively quenches the explosion flame and prevents the explosion propagation by

acting as a thermal inhibitor or heat sink (Rice, 1914; Amyotte et al., 1995; Man and

PT
Teacoach, 2009; Cashdollar et al., 2010). The experimental demonstration regarding this heat

RI
sink effect can be referred elsewhere (Luo et al., 2017).

SC
The mining regulations in different countries have made rock dusting mandatory in

underground coal mines. Rock dusting is a comprehensive and systematic process of applying
U
optimum amount of rock dust at essential locations inside the mines to catch up with the coal
N
dust explosions. Rock dust can be applied either in dry or wet form (Snell, 1956). Dry rock
A

dusting has certain adverse effects on the miners’ health such as causing silicosis and other
M

kinds of pneumoconiosis. Hence, wet rock dusting is a better alternative if the caking
ED

tendency of rock dust can be controlled by adding certain chemicals like sodium oleate

(Huang and Honaker, 2016). Application of greater amount of rock dust results in more heat
PT

absorption from explosion and better cooling effect, however, it may create more health

problem for the miners. Therefore, it is necessary to optimize the rock dust quantity, which
E
CC

can be achieved by improving the inerting efficiency of rock dust by understanding the

underlying mechanism of coal dust explosion, inerting process and its governing parameters.
A

The present study, a continuation of authors earlier research work (Mishra et al., 2017;

Mishra and Azam, 2018), comprehensively assesses the rock dust inertant requirement for

suppressing coal dust explosion in underground coal mines under different experimental

4
conditions using a 0.234 litre G-G furnace. It also elucidates the underlying mechanism

involving the effects of various important parameters on rock dust inertant requirement. The

outcome of this study can form a guide for predicting the rock duct inertant requirement for

suppressing coal dust explosions in other mines by knowing the coal dust characteristics and

mining conditions.

PT
2. Related Literature

RI
The requirement of rock dust inertant for suppressing coal dust explosions in underground

SC
coal mines depends on various parameters, such as coal dust characteristics, type of rock dust

used and its properties, atmospheric conditions of the mine, etc. The quantity of rock dust
U
required in a naturally wet mine with high relative humidity is comparatively less than a dry
N
mine. Methane and other inflammable gases present in mine atmosphere form more explosive
A

coal dust-gas hybrid mixture and considerably enhances the inertant requirement (Amyotte et
M

al., 1991). Literatures on gas explosion suppression using inert dust are available elsewhere
ED

(Song and Zhang, 2018).

PT

The effect of dust particle size on the dust explosibility has been widely studied (Callé

et al., 2005; Di Benedetto et al., 2010; Luo et al., 2017; Fumagalli et al., 2017, 2018). The
E
CC

particle size of coal and rock dusts is the vital parameter that affects the rock dust inertant

requirement. The finely crushed coal dusts produced in coal mines are more hazardous due to
A

exposure of greater surface area for oxygen diffusion and dust explosion propagation (Kuai et

al., 2011). Moreover, the fine coal dust particles require less energy for devolatilization and

hence, more explosive. Therefore, the extremely fine coal dust particles taking part in

explosion require greater amount of fine rock dust for retarding the explosion propagation.

5
This is because, the half-life of CO2 generated from the coal itself (Eq. 1) is smaller by one-

fourth that of the volatiles generated (Hertzberg et al., 1984). Moreover, owing to less weight,

the finer coal dust particles remain suspended in the atmosphere for a longer time and undergo

complete combustion. Until the inerting rock dusts absorb enough heat to suppress explosion,

the explosion already progresses. Furthermore, the finer rock dusts possessing greater specific

surface area (SSA) absorb more heat from the surrounding; hence, a lower concentration of

PT
finer rock dust is required to inert the coal dust clouds as compared to the coarser one.

RI
In contrast, owing to greater weight and shorter residence time in the reaction zone,

SC
the coarser rock dust particles do not undergo thermal decomposition due to absorption of

insufficient amount of heat. Hertzberg et al. (1984) interpreted this effect as ‘less than
U
thermal’. The rock dusts just increase the solid heat capacity of the dust cloud to some extent,
N
i.e. just do the minimum job for explosion inerting, which is less manifested as the size of
A

rock dust increases beyond 100 µm. Hence, the coarser rock dust particles are less effective
M

for inerting the coal dust explosions. Stone dusts (specific gravity range 2.3-2.7) are also
ED

inherently heavier than the coal dusts (specific gravity 1.1-1.4). Hence, they do not remain

suspended in the air for a longer time. Moreover, the decomposition induction time of
PT

limestone is smaller by one-tenth of the devolatilization induction time of coal dust

(Hertzberg et al., 1984). Hence, the rock dust particles are required to be fine enough to
E
CC

remain suspended in large quantity in the atmosphere for a longer time to absorb enough heat

energy from the surrounding owing to their large SSA and inert the rapid combustion of coal
A

dust cloud.

The factors chiefly affecting the progress of inertant decomposition are specific heat

(which determines the overall heat capacity of the reaction), heat of reaction (decomposition),

6
decomposition temperature and rate of decomposition. All these relate to the likelihood of an

endothermic decomposition reaction involving the inertant. Predominantly, rock dusts act

both as heat sink (by increasing solid heat capacity of the mixture) (Dastidar et al., 1997) and

thermal inhibitor (by undergoing endothermic decomposition) (Man and Teacoach, 2009).

Therefore, both the heat sinking and thermal inhibiting effects of fine rock dust particles play

a role in inerting coal dust explosion. Besides, the mixture of coal and rock dusts having

PT
greater specific heat capacity requires more energy to propagate ignition throughout the dust

RI
cloud as compared to the cloud containing coal dust only.

SC
The triggering pressure for lifting the coal and rock dust particles in the air also plays

an important role on coal dust explosion as it leads to differential dispersibility depending on

U
the size constituent of the mixture (Mishra and Azam, 2018). At greater dust-dispersion-air
N
pressure, the coarser particles are thrown off the reaction zone and thereby, the explosion
A

cloud comprises only fine dust particles. In such case, the relative composition of fine coal
M

and rock dust particles in the dust cloud controls the inerting requirement. Hence, the
ED

explosions triggered by a high-energy source require more amounts of fine rock dust inertant

for suppression as compared to the coarser rock dust particles, which are less effective in
PT

suppressing the explosion.

E
CC

3. Materials and Methods

3.1 Sample collection and characterization

A

The coal sample for experimentation was collected from Digwadih Colliery located in Jharia

Coalfield, India. Digwadih Colliery is a part of the Jharia Division of Tata Steel Ltd. The

colliery is categorized as a Degree II gassy mine as per the Coal Mines Regulations, India

7
(CMR, 2017). The coal sample was collected from VIII Seam lying at a depth of about 440 m

from the surface, where the mine development work was going on. The collected coal sample

was crushed and sieved to different sizes for experimentation.

The general marketed limestone was crushed to different sizes for the laboratory

PT
study. Limestone dust, stone dust and rock dust are interchangeably used in this paper, but all

will mean the same limestone dust.

RI
SC
The volatile matter, ash, fixed carbon and moisture content of coal sample determined

by proximate analysis as per IS: 1350 (Part 1) are presented in Table 1. The elemental

U
composition analysis (EDAX) of coal dust and rock dust samples was done using FE-SEM
N
Supra 55 (Carl Zeiss, Germany) and the results are presented in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.
A
The samples were heated at 50 ºC for 2 h prior to the aforementioned analyses for removing
M

extra moisture that might have added during crushing or exposure of the samples to
ED

environment. Proximate analysis results revealed that the coal sample contains 0.97%

moisture, 24.3% ash, 17.73% volatile matter and 57% fixed carbon. The elemental analysis
PT

showed that the major constituents of coal sample are C (68.78%), O (18.4%), H (4.28%) and

Si (3.52%), and the limestone dust mainly constituted of O (46.79%), Ca (44.07%), C (5.91%)
E

and Mg (3.23%).
CC

Table 1

Table 2
A

Table 3

3.2 Sample preparation for experiments

8
The collected coal sample was crushed and sieved to different sizes: <38 µm, 38-74 µm, 74-

212 µm and mine size coal dust using a standard wire mesh sieve as per ASTM E 11:87. The

mine size coal dust is the dust that passes through a U.S. standard 20 sieve (850 μm) with

20% passing through a 200-mesh sieve (74 μm) (Rice and Greenwald, 1929).

Figure 1 shows the powdered coal dust samples and their SEM pictographs at 1000X

PT
magnification except the mine size coal dust sample which was taken at 500X magnification

to accommodate the whole range of particles (<850 μm). The SEM images depict that the coal

RI
dust particles are irregular in shape with angular outlines and sharp edges.

SC
Figure 1

U
Likewise, limestone was crushed and segregated into different size fractions, viz. <25
N
µm, 25-38 µm, 38-74 µm, 74-212 µm and 212-425 µm. Since, the coarser rock dust particles
A

do not significantly contribute towards the suppression of coal dust explosion, the maximum
M

size of limestone dust was restricted to <425 µm. The SEM pictographs of limestone dusts of
ED

different size fractions at 2500X magnification (Figure 2) clearly show the agglomeration of

dust particles.
PT

Figure 2
E

3.3 Experimental set up

CC

The experiments were performed in a 0.234 litre Godbert-Greenwald (GG) furnace shown in
A

Figure 3. The furnace incorporated with a temperature controller and transformer allows the

determination of minimum ignition temperature (MIT) and inertant requirement for

combustible dust clouds at various temperatures, dust concentrations and dust-dispersion-air

pressures. The equipment is designed as per the BS EN 50281-2-1:1999 standard.

9
Figure 3

The major part of the GG furnace is cylindrical vertical silica furnace of 23 cm long

and 3.6 cm internal diameter. The bottom of the furnace is open. The outer surface of the

furnace is made of stainless steel and the internal wall is made of refractory silica that can

sustain a temperature up to 1000 ºC. The inside wall of the furnace is wound with heating

PT
wire in such a manner that it is sparse in the middle but dense at both the ends in order to

RI
ensure uniform temperature distribution throughout the furnace. A mirror is placed beneath

the furnace to observe the appearance of any explosion flame during the experiments. The

SC
powdered sample is loaded in the sample holder for dispersion into the furnace under timed

pneumatic control.
U
N
3.4 Experimental procedures
A
M

The effects of different parameters on rock dust inertant requirement for suppressing coal dust
ED

explosion were studied by preheating the GG furnace at a temperature of 800 ºC, which is

used for testing the inflammability of coal dust.

PT

The effect of particle size on rock dust requirement was studied with different sizes of
E
CC

coal dust (<38 µm, 38-74 µm, 74-212 µm and mine size dust) and rock dust (<25 µm, 25-38

µm, 38-74 µm, 74-212 µm and 212-425 µm) samples. Initially the coal dust (<38 µm) and
A

rock dust (<25 µm) were thoroughly mixed at certain proportions and the mixture was put in

the sample holder. The dust concentration and dust-dispersion-air pressure of 3000 g/m3 and

60 kPa, respectively, at which the ignition temperature was found to be minimum (MIT) or

explosion was most violent determined in our previous work (Mishra and Azam, 2018), were

10
considered for the experiments. The mixture was dispersed into the furnace at the fixed dust-

dispersion-air pressure and bottom of the furnace was seen for any explosion flame. If

explosion flame was noticed, the proportion of rock dust (<25 µm) in the mixture was

increased progressively and the tests were repeated until no explosion flame was noticed. The

proportion of rock dust in the coal dust-rock dust mixture at which no explosion flame noticed

was considered as the inertant requirement for that particular size of coal dust. Likewise, the

PT
inertant requirement for the coal dust (<38 µm) was determined with the rock dust of other

RI
size ranges. The same procedure was followed for determining the inertant requirement for

other coal dust size ranges (38-74 µm, 74-212 µm and mine size dust) with different sizes of

SC
rock dusts.

U
The effect of coal dust concentration on inertant requirement was studied by varying
N
the coal dust concentrations in the range of 213-1282 g/m3 for all the aforementioned coal
A

dust sizes using a fixed rock dust of size of <38 µm. Initially, a pre-determined weight of coal
M

dust of <38 µm size was mixed with the rock dust (<38 µm). The mixture was dispersed via
ED

the sample holder at a dust-dispersion-air pressure of 60 kPa and observed for any explosion

flame. If explosion occurred, the experiment was repeated by progressively increasing the
PT

proportion of rock dust in the mixture until no explosion flame was noticed. The proportion of

rock dust in the mixture that rendered the coal and rock dust mixture non-inflammable was
E
CC

considered as the inertant requirement for that particular coal dust concentration.

Subsequently, the weight of coal dust (<38 µm) was increased and the percentage of rock dust
A

required to inert that higher concentration of coal dust was determined following the same

procedure. Similarly, the inertant requirements for other concentrations of different coal dust

particle sizes (38-74 µm, 74-212 µm and mine size dust) were determined.

11
 The effect of dust-dispersion-air pressure on inertant requirement was studied for all

the coal dust sizes (viz. <38 µm, 38-74 µm, 74-212 µm and mine size dust) at discharge

pressures of 21, 35, 48, 62 and 76 kPa using a fixed rock dust size of 25-38 µm. Amount of

coal dust considered for these experiments is 3000 g/m3. Initially, the coal dust (<38 µm) was

mixed with the rock dust (25-38 µm) and the mixture was dispersed into the furnace at a

pressure of 21 kPa, and observed for any explosion flame. If explosion flame was noticed, the

PT
proportion of rock dust in the mixture was progressively increased and the experiments were

RI
repeated. The rock dust concentration, which did not result any explosion flame was

considered as the inertant percentage for the coal dust. Likewise, the inertant requirement for

SC
<38 µm size coal dust was determined at 35 kPa and other higher discharge pressures. The

inertant requirements for other coal dust particle sizes (38-74 µm, 74-212 µm and mine size
U
dust) were also determined at different discharge pressures following the above procedure.
N
A

All the aforementioned tests were repeated 3 to 5 times at each experimental condition
M

to confirm the accuracy of the test results.

ED
PT

4. Results and Discussion

E
CC

4.1 Effect of coal and rock dusts particle size on inertant requirement
A

The variations of rock dust inertant requirement with the coal and rock dusts particle size have

been shown in Figure 4. The figure shows that the inertant requirement steadily increases with

the increase in the rock dust particle size as well as decrease in the coal dust particle size. In

case of the finest rock dust (<25 µm), while the finest size coal dust (<38 µm) required 90%

12
rock dust inertant, the mine size coal dust required 72% inertant for suppressing the coal dust

explosion. In contrast, in the case of the coarsest rock dust (212-425 µm), while the

requirement of inertant for suppressing coal dust explosion was determined 95% for the finest

coal dust (<38µm), it was determined 90% for the coarsest mine size coal dust. This shows

that the particle size of coal dust and rock dust greatly influence the inertant requirement for

suppressing the coal dust explosion. Though the rock dust is very fine in size (<25 µm), the

PT
coal dust of <38 µm size still required a large proportion of the rock dust (up to 90%) for

RI
inerting the explosion. In no case, the requirement of rock dust to suppress the coal dust

explosion was determined to be less than 72%.

SC
Figure 4

U
N
Another observation made from Figure 4 is that in case of <25 µm size rock dust, the
A
variation of rock dust requirement for inerting the explosion is comparatively wider, which
M

varies in the range of 72-90% with decrease in coal dust particle size from mine size dust to

<38 µm. Nonetheless, the variation narrowed down as the rock dust particle size increased
ED

and for the coarsest rock dust size of 212-425 µm, it terminated in the range of 90-95% with

the decrease in coal dust size.

E PT

From the observed trend, it is apparent that the effectiveness of rock dust for
CC

suppressing coal dust explosion diminishes with the increase in rock dust particle size and

thereby, needing more amount of inertant. Reason being, the coarser rock dust particles owing
A

to greater weight unable to remain suspended in the atmosphere for a longer time for

decomposition and they simply act as a heat sink. Further, their exoneration from the dust

cloud decreases the inertant concentration and thereby enhances the coal dust combustion rate

due to less heat absorption by the rock dust. The present study therefore corroborates the

13
earlier finding that the fine rock dust particles (<20 µm) in a broad size distribution

significantly contribute in the explosion inerting (Amyotte et al., 1995). This finding also

establishes the fact that a smaller quantity of sufficiently fine rock dust is required for the

suppression of coal dust explosion (Cashdollar and Hertzberg, 1989; Dastidar et al., 1997).

The coarser coal dust particles were found to be less susceptible to explosion due to

PT
their inability to sustain in the dust cloud for a longer burning time, thus leading to their non-

RI
combustion or partial combustion. In addition, the coal dust itself has low thermal

conductivity (k) and since, k is inversely proportional to the surface area of dust particle, the

SC
thermal conductivity of coal dust further reduces with the increase in its particle size.

U
Moreover, with the increase in particle size, the inter-particle distance between the coal dusts
N
increases in the cloud (Fig. 5). The joint effect of decrease in the thermal conductivity and
A
increase in the inter-particle distance hinders the heat transfer among the dust particles and
M

thereby, reducing the explosibility of the coarser coal dust particles. As a result, the partially

burnt coal dust particles act as a heat sink and the applied rock dust only enriches the total
ED

inertant composition of the dust cloud. Therefore, the coarsest mine size coal dust required a

minimum amount of rock dust inertant for explosion suppression, which varied from 72 to
PT

90% with the variation in rock dust size from <25 to 212-425 µm. Li et al. (2016) observed
E

that in the case of mine size coal dust, the proportion of fine coal dusts present in the cloud
CC

plays an important role in explosion process.

Figure 5
A

The coarser rock dust particles were found to be less effective in arresting the

explosions as they drove out from the dust cloud (Fig. 6). As a result, the requirement of rock

dust increased with the increase in rock dust size. From Figure 4, it can be observed that the

rock dust size 212-425 µm required a maximum amount of inertant for the explosion

14
suppression, which increased from 90 to 95% with the decrease in coal dust size from mine

size to <38 µm.

Figure 6

4.2 Effect of coal dust concentration on inertant requirement

PT
The variations of inertant requirement with the variation of coal dust concentration from 213

to 1282 g/m3 for different coal dust particle sizes shown in Figure 7 generally follow a

RI
common trend. The inertant requirement for suppressing coal dust explosion initially

SC
increased with the increase in coal dust concentration up to 427 g/m3 and subsequently

decreased followed by slight leveling up for coal dust concentrations beyond 1000 g/m 3 for all

U
the sizes of coal dust. For all the coal dust samples tested, the inertant requirements were
N
found to be highest at coal dust concentration of 427 g/m3, which were determined 86, 80, 77
A
and 76 % for the coal dust sizes <38, 38-74, 74-212 µm and mine size dust, respectively.
M

Hence, the coal dust concentration of 427 g/m3 is considered as the optimal concentration of

the tested coal dusts that will cause violent explosion.

ED

Figure 7
PT

The optimal coal dust concentration of 427 g/m3 determined in the present study lies in

the range of 400-500 g/m3 reported for bituminous coals that causes most violent explosions
E

in underground coal mines (Ramlu, 1991). Dastidar et al. (2001) determined the optimal
CC

concentration of coal dust as 500 g/m3 for Pittsburgh Pulverized Coal (PPC) dust both in a 20-
A

L Siwek chamber and 1m3 Fike corporation chamber that required the maximum rock dust

inertant of 59% and 73% respectively in the above setups. This suggests that the results of the

present study corroborate the earlier research findings.

15
 The coal dust concentrations other than the optimal one needed lesser amounts of

inertant for explosion suppression. Because, below the optimal dust concentration, efficient

heat transfer from one coal dust particle to the other does not take place due to greater inter-

particle distance. Besides, at lower coal dust concentrations, a large number of heat absorbing

rock dust particles surrounding the coal dust particles as shown in Figure 8(a) absorb the heat

and hinder the explosion potential of the coal dust cloud. At optimal concentration of 427

PT
g/m3, the inter-particle distance of the coal dusts decreased and SSA of the coal dust cloud

RI
increased resulting in diffusion of more oxygen on the coal dust surfaces (Figure 8(b)).

Consequently, the explosion became more vigorous and the inertant required for suppressing

SC
the explosion increased. At optimal concentration, the finest coal dust size (<38 µm) required

86% rock dust inertant for explosion suppression.

Figure 8 U
N
A
After attaining the peak value at optimal coal dust concentration of 427 g/m3, the
M

inertant requirement decreased with increase in the coal dust concentration up to 855 g/m3

(Figure 7). This may be due to decrease in the inter-particle distance between the rock and
ED

coal dusts, consequently leading to efficient heat absorption by the rock dust particles. Cao et

al. (2012) also observed maximum explosion index (kst) at coal dust concentration of around
PT

500 g/m3, beyond which, the explosion tendency decreased as observed in the present study.
E

Here, it can be argued that the inter-particle distance of coal dusts also decreases at higher
CC

coal dust concentrations. But in the present situation, the required proportion of rock dust in

the cloud is much more than that of the coal dust itself (more than thrice) as can be seen from
A

Figure 7 in all cases. At such higher dust concentrations, the ratio of oxygen to coal dusts

decreases and as a result, the availability of oxygen for diffusion over the coal dust surfaces

decreases. Moreover, due to crowding of a large number of dust particles in a limited

combustion zone, the availability of oxygen near the coal dust particles diminishes for their

16
complete combustion. Consequently, a large number of coal dust particles are left half-burnt

or un-burnt, which act as thermal sink. Although, it appears that the total incombustible

content (TIC) in the dust cloud is same for all the dust concentrations, the actual TIC is higher

in the case of the coal dust concentrations greater than the optimal one. These un-reacted

components effectively increase the incombustible content of the mixture (Amyotte et al.,

1997) and thereby, requiring lesser amount of inertant to render the coal dust cloud non-

PT
explosive.

RI
Beyond coal dust concentration of 855 g/m3, the inertant requirement more or less

SC
stabilized because of the limit to the closeness of the dust particles in the GG furnace.

Moreover, the concentrations became so high that even the turbulence caused by the dust-
U
dispersion-air pressure could not bring the coal dust particles closer. So, except some minor
N
fluctuations that are trivial, no remarkable change in the inertant requirement was observed
A

beyond the coal dust concentration of 855 g/m3.

M
ED
PT

4.3 Effect of dust-dispersion-air pressure on inertant requirement

E

Figure 9 shows the variations of inertant requirement with dust-dispersion-air pressure for
CC

different coal dust sizes tested with a fixed rock dust particle size of 25-38 µm. The results

show that with increase in the dust-dispersion-air pressure from 21 to 62 kPa, the inertant
A

requirement increased from 78 to 85%, 76 to 84%, 74 to 83% and 77 to 83% for coal dust

sizes <38 µm, 38-74 µm, 74-212 µm and mine size dust, respectively. Beyond 62 kPa, the

inertant requirements stabilized in case of smaller coal dust sizes (<38 and 38-74 µm) and got

17
skewed for 74-212 µm and mine size coal dust particles. As usual, the finer coal dust particles

needed greater amounts of rock dust inertant for all the discharge pressures.

Figure 9

The increase in inertant requirement with dust-dispersion-air pressure is due to the fact

that dust-dispersion-air pressure has direct effect on the dispersibility of dust cloud as well as

PT
on the volume and velocity of oxygen rushing into the combustion zone. The increase in dust-

dispersion-air pressure eases the devolatilization of coal dust particles due to increase in the

RI
oxygen content per unit SSA of dust. Therefore, the inertant required to contain the explosion

SC
increases with increase in the discharge pressure.

U
Here, since the rock dust size is fixed, the effect of dust-dispersion-air pressure on
N
inertant requirement is more dependent on the coal dust particle size. For all the discharge
A
pressures, the coarser coal dusts required lesser amounts of inertant for explosion suppression
M

and vice versa. Moreover, at pressures beyond 62 kPa, the inertant requirement decreased

with increase in the coal dust particle size as observed especially in the case of 74-212 µm
ED

and mine size dusts (<850 µm).

PT

The force exerted on the coal dust particles due to dust-dispersion-air pressure shown
E

in Figure 10 illustrates that the coarser particles experience more downward force than the
CC

finer ones. As a result, they shoved off from the combustion zone due to their premature

discharge from the furnace. Due to lesser residence time, the coarser coal dust particles unable
A

to completely burn and propagate explosion, thereby requiring lesser amount of rock dust for

suppressing the explosion. Moreover, early sweeping away of coarser particles reduces the

coal dust concentration in the combustion zone and thereby increases the inter-particle

distance of the dusts. In the meantime, only partial devolatilization of the finest particles

18
occurs and the remaining un-burnt or half-burnt particles act as a heat sink, thereby enhancing

the inerting efficiency. Hence, at greater discharge pressures, the requirement of inertant

initially levels off and subsequently decreases with increase in the coal dust size.

Figure 10

PT
Finally, it is pertinent to mention here that all the experiments were carried out very

carefully in this study. Also, the tests were repeated 3 to 5 times at each experimental

RI
condition to confirm the accuracy of the results. Despite, there may be possibility of

SC
experimental error of 5% in the results produced in this paper.

5. Concluding Remarks U
N
A

This study unveils some important facts regarding the rock dust inertant requirement for
M

suppression of coal dust explosion under different experimental conditions in a GG furnace

ED

and analyzes the underlying mechanism of all the trends observed therein. The main

conclusions of this study are outlined as follows:

PT

1. The rock dust inertant required to suppress the coal dust explosion is greatly influenced
E

by the particle size of both coal and rock dusts. The inertant requirement generally
CC

increased with decrease in the coal dust size and increase in the rock dust particle size.

2. The minimum proportion of rock dust required to inert the mine size coal dust was
A

determined 72%. The inertant requirement in the case of finest coal dust size (<38 μm)

was found to be as high as 90% and 95% with the finest (<25 μm) and coarsest (212-

425 μm) rock dusts respectively.

19
 3. The optimal coal dust concentration that causes violent explosion was determined to be

427 g/m3. At this concentration, the inertant requirements for suppressing coal dust

explosion were found to be maximum 86, 80, 77 and 76% for the coal dust sizes <38,

38-74, 74-212 μm and mine size dust, respectively.

4. The requirement of inertant to contain the coal dust explosion increased with increase in

the dust-dispersion-air pressure. With increase in pressure from 21 to 62 kPa, the

PT
inertant requirement increased from 78 to 85%, 76 to 84%, 74 to 83% and 77 to 83% for

RI
coal dust sizes <38 μm, 38-74 μm, 74-212 μm and mine size dust, respectively.

SC
The GG furnace used in this study for investigating the effects of various parameters

U
on the inerting requirement bears significance to a number of situations encountered in
N
underground coal mines leading to the coal dust explosion. For example, the furnace
A
temperature is a good representative of the temperatures of the hot surfaces encountered in
M

coal mines. However, there is a difference in the dynamic states of the dust cloud studied in a

GG furnace and in other apparatus. Such differences arise because of the difference in scales
ED

and geometry of the experimental set up and the real-life mine situation, residence time of

dusts in the hot surrounding, presence of inflammable gases in mine environment, relative
PT

coal and rock dust concentrations, etc. Hence, there is a need for investigating the studied
E

parameters using other sophisticated equipment like 20 L sphere, comparing the experimental
CC

results and correlating with the actual field situations.

A

Furthermore, in view of the increasing dust generation level in underground coal

mines due to heavy mechanization, it is pertinent to enhance the efficacy of inertant for

suppressing coal dust explosion. Researches should focus more on the synthesis of inerting

rock dust with suitable chemical inhibitors for achieving better inerting effects with lesser

20
quantity of inertant without distracting the mine working and posing any health hazard to the

miners.

Appendix A

Supplementary data.

PT
RI
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

21
References

[1] Addai EK, Gabel D, Krause U, Experimental investigations of the minimum ignition

energy and the minimum ignition temperature of inert and combustible dust cloud

mixtures. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2016; 307: 302–311.

[2] Amyotte PR, Dastidar AG, Pegg MJ. Factors influencing the suppression of coal dust

PT
explosions”, Fuel 1997; 76:663-670.

[3] Amyotte PR, Mintz KJ, Pegg MJ, Sun YH, Wilkie KI. Effects of methane admixture,

RI
particle size and volatile content on the dolomite inerting requirements of coal dust,

SC
Journal of Hazardous Materials 1991; 27: 187–203.

[4] Amyotte PR, Mintz KJ, Pegg MJ. Effect of rock dust particle size on suppression of coal
U
dust explosions, Process Safety Environment Protection 1995; 73 (2): 89-100.
N
A
[5] Amyotte PR. Solid inertants and their use in dust explosion prevention and mitigation,
M

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2006; 19:161–173.

[6] ASTM E 11:87, “Aperture size of U.S. standard wire mesh sieves”
ED

[7] BS EN 50281-2-1, Test methods for determining Minimum Ignition Temperature, 1999.
PT

[8] Callé S, Klaba L, Thomas D, Perrin L, Dufaud O. Influence of the size distribution and

concentration on wood dust explosion: Experiments and reaction modeling, Powder

E

Technology 2005; 157 (1-3):144-148.

CC

[9] Cao WG, Huang LY, Zhang JX, Xu S, Qiu SS, Pan F. Research on characteristic
A

parameters of coal-dust explosion, Procedia Eng. 2012; 45: 442–447.

[10] Cashdollar KL, Hertzberg M, Proceedings on the Twenty-third International Conference

of Safety of Mines Research Institute (Safety in Mines Research Institutes,

Washington DC.) 1989: 965-975.

22
[11] Cashdollar KL, Sapko MJ, Weiss ES, Harris ML, Man CK, Harteis SP, Green GM.

Recommendations for a New Rock Dusting Standard to Prevent Coal Dust

Explosions in Intake Airways. Report of Investigations (NIOSH), RI 9679 2010: p.

60.

[12] Dastidar A, Amyotte PR, Going J, Chatrathi K. Inerting of coal dust explosions in

laboratory and intermediate scale chambers, Fuel 2001; 80: 1593-1602.

PT
[13] Dastidar AG, Amyotte PR, Pegg MJ. Factors influencing the suppression of coal dust

RI
explosions, Fuel 1997: 663-670.

SC
[14] Di Benedetto A, Russo P, Amyotte P, Marchand N. Modelling the effect of particle size

on dust explosions Chemical Engineering Science 2010; 65 (2): 772-779.

U
[15] Eckhoff RK, Dust explosions in the process industries, 3rd ed. Elsevier 2003.
N
A
[16] Engineering ToolBox, (2003). Thermal Conductivity of common Materials and Gases.
M

[online] Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-

d_429.html [Accessed on 27.01.2019].

ED

[17] Fumagalli A, Derudi M, Rota R, Snoeys J, Copelli S. Prediction of the deflagration index

for organic dusts as a function of the mean particle diameter Journal of Loss Prevention
PT

in the Process Industries 2017; 50: 67-74.

E

[18] Fumagalli A, Derudi M, Rota R, Snoeys J, Copelli S. A kinetic free mathematical model
CC

for the prediction of the Kst reduction with the particle size increase Journal of Loss

Prevention in the Process Industries 2018; 52: 93-98.

A

[19] Hertzberg M, Cashdollar KL, Zlochower I, Ng DL. Inhibition and extinction of

explosions in heterogeneous mixtures 20th Symposium (international) on combustion.

Pittsburgh, USA, The Combustion Institute 1984: 1691–1700.

23
[20] Huang Q, Honaker R. Optimized reagent dosage effect on rock dust to enhance rock dust

dispersion and explosion mitigation in underground coal mines, Powder Technology

2016; 301 :1193–1200.

[21] IS: 1350 (Part1), "Indian Standards. Methods for testing of coal and coke: Proximate

Analysis (Second Revision), 1984.

PT
[22] Kuai N, Huang W, Yuan J, Du B, Li Z, Wu Y. Experimental investigations of coal

dust-inertant mixture explosion behaviors, First International Symposium on Mine

RI
Safety Science and Engineering, Proc. Eng., 2011; 26: 1337–1345.

SC
[23] Kundu SK, Zanganeh J, Eschebach D, Moghtaderi B. Explosion severity of methane–

coal dust hybrid mixtures in a ducted spherical vessel. Powder Technology2018;

323:95–102. U
N
[24] Li Q, Wang K, Zheng Y, Ruan M, Mei X, Lin B. Experimental research of particle size
A

and size dispersity on the explosibility characteristics of coal dust, Powder Technology
M

2016: doi: 10.1016/j.powtec.2016.01.03

ED

[25] Luo Y, Wang D, Cheng J. Effects of rock dusting in preventing and reducing intensity of

coal mine explosions, International Journal of Coal Science and Technology 2017; 4(2):
PT

102–109.
E

[26] Man CK, Teacoach KA. How does limestone rock dust prevent coal dust explosions in
CC

coal mines?, Mining Engineering 2009; 61 (9): p. 69.

[27] Mishra DP, Ashraf A, Azam S. “Rock dust requirement for suppression of coal dust
A

explosion in underground coal mines in India-An investigation”, In: Singh, P.K., Singh,

V.K., Singh, A.K., Kumbhakar, D. and Roy, M.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of International

Conference on NexGen Technologies for Mining and Fuel Industries (NxGnMiFu-

2017), New Delhi, 15-17, February, 2017; Vol. I: 425-432.

24
[28] Mishra DP, Azam S. Experimental investigation on effects of particle size, dust

concentration and dust-dispersion-air pressure on minimum ignition temperature and

combustion process of coal dust clouds in a G-G furnace. Fuel 2018; 227: 424-433.

[29] Mishra DP, Panigrahi DC, Kumar P. Computational investigation on effects of geo-

mining parameters on layering and dispersion of methane in underground coal mines- A

case study of Moonidih Colliery. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2018;

PT
53:110–124.

RI
[30] Ramlu MA. Mine Disasters and Mine Rescue, Taylor & Francis, 1991.

SC
[31] Rice GS, Greenwald HP. “Coal-dust explosibility factors indicated by experimental

mine investigations 1911 to 1929. USBM Technical Paper 1929; 464: P. 45.

U
[32] Rice GS, Investigations of coal dust explosions, Trans. A.I.M.E. 1914; 60:552-587.
N
A
[33] Singh AK, Kispotta J, Singh H, and Mendhe VA. Indian scenario of coal bed
M

methane, Proc. of Int. Symp. on Clean Coal Initiatives 1999: 729-737.

[34] Snell WD. Wet Rock dusting in Continuous Mining Cycle, Coal Age 1956: p. 4.
ED

[35] Song Y, Zhang Q. The quantitative studies on gas explosion suppression by an inert rock
PT

dust deposit, Journal of Hazardous Materials 2018; 353: 62-69.

[36] The Coal Mines Regulations, India, CMR 2017.

E
CC
A

25
Table 1. Results of proximate analysis of coal sample

Component Component % (by mass)

Moisture 0.97

Ash 24.30

Volatile matter 17.73

Fixedcarbon 57.00

PT
RI
Table 2. Results of elemental analysis of coal dust

SC
Component Component % (by mass)

Nitrogen (N) 1.25

Sulfur (S) 0.72

U
N
Hydrogen (H) 4.28
A
Carbon (C) 68.78
M

Oxygen (O) 18.40

Aluminium (Al) 1.81

ED

Silicon (Si) 3.52

Calcium (Ca) 1.24

E PT

Table 3. Results of elemental analysis of limestone dust

CC

Element Weight (%)

A

Carbon (C) 5.91

Oxygen (O) 46.79

Magnesium (Mg) 3.23

Calcium (Ca) 44.07

26
 (c)
(a)

(b)
A
CC
EPT
ED

27
M
A
N
U
SC
RI
PT
 PT
(d)

RI
Fig. 1. Coal dust samples and their SEM pictographs at different sizes: (a) <38 µm, (b) 38 to

SC
<74 µm, (c) 74 to <212 µm, (d) Mine size coal dust

U
N
A
M
ED
PT

(a)
E
CC
A

(b)

28
 PT
(c)

RI
SC
U
N
A
M

(d)
ED
E PT
CC
A

(e)

Fig. 2. Stone dust samples and their SEM pictographs at different sizes: (a) <25 µm, (b) 25 to

<38 µm, (c) 38 to <74 µm, (d) 74 to <212 µm, (e) 212 to <425 µm

29
 Transformer
Temperature controller
G-G Furnace

PT
RI
Fig. 3. Godbert-Greenwald furnace with temperature control unit and transformer

SC
Coal dust <38 µm Coal dust 38-74 µm

100
Coal dust 74-212 µm Mine size coal dust

U
N
95
A
90
Rock dust, %

85
M

80

75
ED

70

65
< 25 25-38 38-74 74-212 212-425
PT

Rock dust size, µm

Fig. 4. Variation of rock dust inertant requirement with particle size of coal and rock
E
CC

dusts
A

30
 (a) (b) (c)
Rock dust particle Coal dust particle Distance between coal dust particles

Fig. 5. Effect of increase in coal dust particle size on explosibility of rock dust-coal dust

PT
cloud: (a) small size, (b) medium size, (c) large size

RI
SC
(a) (b) U (c)
N
Rock dust particle Coal dust particle
A

Fig. 6. Effect of increase in rock dust particle size on explosibility of rock dust-coal dust
M

cloud: (a) small size, (b) medium size, (c) large size
ED

Coal dust <38 µm Coal dust 38-74 µm

Coal dust 74-212 µm Mine size coal dust
PT

90

85

80
E
Rock dust, %

75
CC

70

65
A

60
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Coal dust concentration, g/m³

Fig. 7. Variation of rock dust inertant requirement with concentration of coal dust of different

sizes
31
 (a) (b) (c)
Rock dust particle Coal dust particle

Fig. 8. Effect of increase in coal dust concentration on explosibility of rock dust-coal dust

PT
cloud: (a) low concentration, (b) medium concentration, (c) high concentration

RI
Coal dust <38 µm Coal dust 38-74 µm

SC
Coal dust 74-212 µm Mine size coal dust
88
86
84

U
Rock dust, %

82
N
80
78
A
76
M

74
72
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
ED

Discharge pressure, kPa

Fig. 9. Variation of rock dust inertant requirement with dust-dispersion-air pressure for
PT

different coal dust sizes

E
CC

Dust-dispersion-air pressure Dust-dispersion-air pressure

A

850 µm 750 µm 550 µm 400 µm 250 µm 100 µm 25 µm <10 µm

Coarser dust particles Finer dust particles

Fig. 10. Forces acting on different coal dust particle sizes due to dust-dispersion-air pressure
32