A Full-Scale Experimental and
Modeling Investigation of Dust
Explosions in a Roller Mill
Kees van Wingerden,a Geir Pedersen,a Brian Wilkins,a Mogens Berg,b
and Niels Otto Findsen Nielsenc
a
GexCon AS, Fantoftvegen 38, 5072 Bergen, Norway
b
Vattenfall A/S, Støberigade 14, DK-2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark
c
DONG Energy AS, Kraftvaerksvej 53, Skaerbaek, Fredericia 7000, Denmark
Published online 22 December 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/prs.10434
Combustion of biomass is becoming an increas-
ingly important energy source. This is especially true
for wood pellets, as several power companies have
decided to use this fuel instead of coal. In this pro-
cess, the wood pellets are ground in big mills and,
from there, pneumatically transported to the burners
in the boiler where they are consumed. The grinding
of biomass and coal represents an explosion hazard,
which can potentially result in considerable damage
to the power plant upon propagation of the explosion
from the mill into other parts of the installation.
An experimental investigation was performed aim-
ing at understanding explosion loads that can occur
due to an accidental dust explosion in a mill under
realistic operating conditions. The tests were per-
formed in a roller mill (capacity 36 metric tons coal/
h; internal volume 23.2 m3) connected to a coal
feeder located on top of the mill.
Test conditions were predefined using the compu-
tational fluid dynamic-based dust explosion simula-
tion tool DESC. DESC was used to estimate the flow
conditions inside the roller mill during normal oper-
ating conditions. In the full-scale tests, these flow con-
ditions have been simulated injecting the dust pneu-
matically.
In total, 25 tests were performed, and a number of
parameters were varied, including dust type (wood
dust and coal dust), dust concentration, and dust
cloud location. Ó 2010 American Institute of Chemi-
cal Engineers Process Saf Prog 30: 87–96, 2011
Keywords: dust explosions; experiments; modeling;
roller mill; explosion effects
Ó 2010 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1)
INTRODUCTION
Combustion of biomass is becoming a more and
more important energy source. Power companies are
using biomass as a fuel and especially straw and
wood pellets replacing coal. Before the combustion
process, biomass (and formerly coal) is ground in a
roller mill and from there pneumatically transported
directly to the burners in the boiler.
The grinding of biomass (and coal) represents an
explosion hazard, which can potentially result in con-
siderable damage to the power plant upon propaga-
tion of the explosion from the mill into other parts of
the installation. Energy supplied to the coal and bio-
mass by the grinding process in the mill itself will
apart from the crushing of the biomass also result in
a heating of the material. This may eventually lead to
smoldering combustion in the mill. The smoldering
combustion may cause ignition of a dust cloud of
fine powder in the mill volume. Alternatively, foreign
metal objects (either present in the coal or the bio-
mass or parts of the plant upstream of the mill that
have come loose) entering the mill may due to over-
heating and generation of mechanical sparks cause
ignition of the fuel.
Hence, the grinding of coal and biomass repre-
sents a significant explosion hazard potentially result-
ing in considerable explosion overpressures.
The overall objective of the present experimental
project is to understand the potential damage that
can occur due to an accidental dust explosion in a
roller mill under realistic conditions. Experiments
similar to those presented in this article have never
been performed at this scale.
The actual roller mill (a ‘‘Loesche LM 18’’ roller
mill, grinding capacity 36 tons coal/h) was part of a
March 2011 87
Figure 1. Picture showing the coal mill as erected at the test site. [Color figure can be viewed in the online
issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
power plant and was made available by DONG
Energy and Vattenfall. A ‘‘dummy’’ coal feeder was
attached to the roller mill to improve the realism of
the experiments.
The experimental program aimed at reproducing
realistic conditions as closely as possible. As normal
operation of the mill during the experiments was not
possible, realistic operating conditions were simulated
by pneumatic injection of the dust from pressurized
vessels. The delay time between start of injection and
moment of ignition was used as a parameter to
obtain realistic turbulence conditions. The choice of
the delay time was based on simulations performed
using the computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based
dust explosion simulation code DESC [1].
First, DESC was used to describe the flow condi-
tions inside the mill during normal operation. Second,
DESC was used to determine the most appropriate
delay time between injection and ignition when using
pneumatic injection of the dust using the turbulence
intensity as the main parameter.
This article describes both the experiments and
numerical simulations performed.
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
Roller mill
The experiments were performed at the GexCon
explosion test site at the island of Sotra, close to the
city of Bergen, Norway. The actual roller mill is a dis-
88 March 2011 Published on behalf of the AIChE
carded ‘‘Loesche LM 18’’ roller mill from a Danish
power plant. The grinding capacity of the mill was 36
tons coal/h.
The mill was dismantled and transported to the
test site. The basic parts of the mill are shown in Fig-
ure 1 and consist of a mill foundation, the mill cham-
ber, the sieve, and ‘‘the top’’ with coal feeder pipe
and coal dust pipes.
The internal volume of the mill is formed by the
lower, cylindrical part of the mill (the mill chamber,
volume 8.4 m3) and the upper conical part (con-
taining the classifier, volume 12.0 m3). The coal
feeder pipe and the coal dust pipes mounted at the
top of the mill represent an additional volume of 2.8
m3 resulting in a total internal volume of the mill of
23.2 m3.
In the bottom of the mill chamber, the mill table is
located (see Figure 2). Under normal operating con-
ditions of a coal mill, the mill table is rotating, but in
this investigation, the mill table was fixed. The mill
table forms the bottom of the internal volume of the
mill. The mill table has a diameter of 2,000 mm.
There is an open clearance (referred to as throat in
this document) of 70 mm between the table and
the surrounding wall (see Figure 2). Inside the throat,
several small flow straighteners are mounted. The net
cross-section of the throat is 0.42 m2.
In the centre of the top of the mill, a vertical coal
feed pipe is mounted. This pipe connects the coal
feeder with the mill.
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1)
Figure 2. Pictures of the mill. Left top: Inside of the mill with the two rollers. The ignition source can be seen
between the rollers. Right top: The mill table and the throat. Bottom left: The six coal dust pipes with adjustable
dampers. Bottom right: The ‘‘coal feeder’’ with the ‘‘opening to the coal silo.’’ One of the dust dispersion systems
can be seen in the far end of the feeder. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at
wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

In the top of the mill there are three coal dust out-
lets of 550 mm diameter. After a 908 bend, each of
these outlets end up in two pipes of smaller diameter
(coal dust pipes with diameter d 5 384 mm; see Fig-
ures 1 and 2). The length of the 384 mm pipes were
2 m. In real power plants, the pipes lead the fine
dust produced in the mill to the burners and could
be up to 60 m long. To simulate the resistance of the
pipes a diaphragm was installed at the end of the
pipe blocking the cross-section by 80%.
To simulate the effect of a coal feeder, a ‘‘dummy
feeder’’ was installed at the top of the mill (see Figure
2). The dummy feeder was a rectangular vessel of 5.1
m3 capacity (5.2 m long, 1.1 m wide, and 0.9 m
high). The dummy feeder was connected to the mill
via the coal feed pipe. At the top of the opposite end
of the feeder, an opening (0.27 m2) was installed to
simulate the connection to a coal silo. The opening
size could be varied to simulate the effect of a com-
pletely or partly filled coal silo.
Also parts of the original pair of primary air ducts
were fixed to the mill foundation underneath the mill
table. The ducts had a cross-section of 0.85 m 3 0.85
m and had a length of 6 m. The ends of the ducts
could be partly blocked and provided with polyethyl-
ene plastic sheets as venting devices.
Dust Dispersion System
To generate a well-defined explosive dust atmos-
pheres parts of a traditional explosion suppression
system were used. The parts were provided by
INCOM Explosionsschutz AG, Switzerland.
Two to six 20-l suppression containers were used
in parallel during each test [a maximum of five of
them mounted onto the mill (three in the top part
and two in the cylindrical part (milling room)] and
one to inject dust into the coal feeder). Figure 1
shows some of the suppressor containers as mounted
and installed on the coal mill. The flammable dust to

Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs March 2011 89
Figure 3. Implemented model of the coal mill with monitor points applied. [Color figure can be viewed in the
online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
be used in a test was added, equally distributed
between the containers. The containers were charged
with pressurized air to 20 barg. In most of the experi-
ments, 1–3 kg of dust was filled into the containers.
These amounts of dust correspond to dust concentra-
tions varying from 250–500 g/m3.
Diagnostics
The main parameter measured was the overpres-
sures generated within mill and coal feeder during
the explosion tests. A total of 10 piezoelectric pres-
sure transducers were installed. The transducers were
located as follows: two transducers in the primary air
ducts (transducers 2 and 3), one in the room below
the milling table (transducer 1), two in the cylindrical
part of the mill (mill chamber; transducers 4 and 5),
two in the top part of the mill (transducers 6 and 7),
one transducer in the coal outlet (transducer 8), and
finally two in the dummy coal feeder (transducers 9
and 10). The exact locations of these transducers
coincide with the monitoring points M1, M2, M3, M6,
M8, M12, M14, M15, M16, and M19 in Figure 3.
In addition to pressure measurements, video
recordings were made for each test.
Dusts Used in the Experiments
The dust explosion experiments in the roller mill
were performed with coal and wood dust. The prop-
erties of the coal dust used are presented in Table 1.
Several coal dust samples were tested during the test
program regarding particle size, moisture content,
and explosion effect properties showing some varia-
90 March 2011 Published on behalf of the AIChE
Table 1. Properties of coal dust.
Coal dust
Property Value
Median particle size diameter (lm) 55–90
Moisture content (% w/w) 2.1–2.3
Maximum explosion pressure (barg) 7.0–7.8
KSt-value (bar m/s)* 118–145
*The KSt-values and maximum explosion pressure val-
ues are based on a limited number of experiments
performed for each sample. A full test according to
European standards [2,3] can give different values.
tion throughout the course of the project due to in-
herent reproducibility of the laboratory tests and vari-
ation in the raw material itself. Hence, the properties
in Table 1 are presented as a range. It is emphasized
that the dust concentration at which the maximum
explosion pressure and KSt-value occurred, varied
between 500 and 750 g/m3. The particle size is deter-
mined by sieving.
Several wood dust samples were used during the
tests with wood dust. The wood dusts involved in the
experimental campaign had two main sources of ori-
gin. The properties of the wood dust of the first
source are given in Table 2. The properties of the
wood dust of the second source appeared to vary
considerably from packaging unit to packaging unit,
and hence, the properties of the dust were deter-
mined for each test performed. On the basis of the
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1)
Table 2. Properties of wood dust.

Wood dust sample Wood dust Wood dust Wood dust Wood dust
from first from second from second from second
Property source source (class I) source (class II) source (class III)
Median particle size diameter (lm) 110 60–90 95–105 160–250
Moisture content (% w/w) 5.4 5.6–6.0 5.5–5.8 6.3–6.7
Maximum explosion pressure (barg) 7.3 7.6–7–7 7.3–7.6 6.5–7.2
KSt-value (bar m/s) 77 112–122 88–92 31–55

Table 3. Summary of experiments performed.

Dust cloud location

Maximum
Test Dust cloud concentration (g/m3) KSt-value pressure
no. Milling room Upper mill part Coal feeder Dust type (bar m/s) observed (barg)
1 119 – – Wood dust (source 1) 77 –
2 119 – – Wood dust (source 1) 77 –
3 238 – – Wood dust (source 1) 77 –
4 119 127 – Wood dust (source 1) 77 –
5 119 84 – Wood dust (source 1) 77 0.08
6 238 – – Wood dust (source 1) 77 0.11
7 119 127 257 Wood dust (source 1) 77 0.11
8 238 – – Coal dust 118–145 0.04
9 238 253 – Coal dust 118–145 0.08
10 238 169 333 Coal dust 118–145 1.46
11 238 253 – Wood dust (source 2, class I) 112–122 1.76
12 238 253 – Wood dust (source 2, class I) 112–122 1.90
13 238 84 – Wood dust (source 2, class III) 31–55 –
14 238 253 – Wood dust (source 2, class III) 31–55 1.08
15 238 253 – Wood dust (source 2, class III) 31–55 0.5
16 238 169 – Wood dust (source 2, class III) 31–55 0.39
17 238 253 – Wood dust (source 2, class II) 88–92 1.14
18 238 253 – Wood dust (source 2, class II) 88–92 1.58
19 238 253 – Wood dust (source 2, class II) 88–92 1.68
20 238 253 – Coal dust 118–145 0.19
21 357 380 – Coal dust 118–145 0.20
22 119 84 – Coal dust 118–145 0.18
23 238 253 303 Coal dust 118–145 1.65
24 238 253 303 Wood dust (source 2, class I) 112–122 1.87
25 119 169 303 Wood dust (source 2, class I) 112–122 1.59

properties found, three subclasses of the wood dust
from the second source were defined class I, II, and
III. Also these properties have been summarized in
Table 2. As for the coal dust, it is emphasized that
the wood dust concentration at which the maximum
explosion pressure and KSt-value occurred varied
between 1,000 and 1,500 g/m3.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The overall aim of the experimental program was
to determine the maximum possible explosion load
due to a biomass dust explosion in the mill. The
wood dusts investigated are expected to be represen-
tative for biomass dusts encountered in practice. The
tests with coal dust were performed as a reference as
coal is still applied as a fuel in power plants. Ignition
was always effected at the most likely position for
ignition sources in the roller mill, viz. at the milling
table (the ignition source was located 0.65 m above
the center of the milling table). The ignition source
itself was a pair of 5-kJ chemical igniters (producer:
Frau Sobbe). A constant delay time of 900 ms
between dust injection and ignition was applied. The
delay time was based on DESC simulations as
reported below. The turbulence intensity after a delay
time 900 ms is a representative for the turbulence
intensity prevailing under normal maximum load
operating conditions.
The most important parameters that were varied
include, dust type (wood dust and coal dust), wood
dust reactivity, dust cloud size, and dust cloud loca-
tion. Also the size of the (vent) opening on top of

Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs March 2011 91
Figure 4. Turbulence intensity in the roller mill under realistic conditions shown for different cross-sections
through the mill. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.
com.]
the coal feeder (see Figure 2) was varied. Dust con-
centrations were limited to concentrations below 400
g/m3 due to the explosion effects seen at these very
dust concentrations during the experiments. At higher
concentrations, the explosion loads were expected to
cause damage to the mill.
A total of 25 tests were performed. A summary of
the test parameters in each of these tests is given in
Table 3.
EXPLOSION SIMULATIONS PERFORMED WITH THE CFD-TOOL DESC
DESC is a simulation tool based on CFD that can
predict the potential consequences of industrial dust
explosions in complex geometries. The DESC code is
based on the existing CFD code FLACS (FLame
ACceleration Simulator) for gas explosions. The mod-
eling approach adopted entails the extraction of
combustion parameters from pressure–time histories
measured in standardized 20-l explosion vessels. A
detailed description of the DESC code has been given
by Skjold [1].
DESC simulations were performed to select experi-
mental conditions. Simulations were performed both
before the experiments were performed and during
the experimental program.
92 March 2011 Published on behalf of the AIChE
Geometry
A model of the coal mill was implemented into
DESC shown in Figure 3. Monitor points were
included to monitor pressure at different locations.
Among the chosen, monitor points were those loca-
tions where pressure transducers were installed in the
actual experiments, the positions of the dust disper-
sion nozzles, and the ignition source.
Simulations Performed to Determine an
Ignition Delay Time Simulating Realistic
Operating Conditions
The explosion experiments could not be per-
formed under realistic conditions with the mill pro-
ducing fine biomass dust or coal dust with air enter-
ing the mill via the primary air ducts to transport the
ground dust up via the classifier in the upper part of
the mill and next into the pipes running toward the
burner. The DESC code was used to run simulations
to determine the flow conditions in the mill. Accord-
ing to information on the mill, a total flow rate of
70,000 m3/h through the mill prevails when produc-
ing 36 tons/h of fine coal dust. The flow conditions
prevailing in the mill were investigated for these
operating conditions. The results are shown in Figure
4. Turbulence intensities during operational flow con-
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1)
Figure 5. Turbulence intensity in the coal mill with dust dispersed from six 20-l containers at t 5 900 ms, same
cross-sections as in Figure 4. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonline-
library.com.]
ditions vary between 0.5 and 2.0 m/s. Higher turbu-
lence intensities prevail in the primary air ducts (3.0–
3.5 m/s) and considerably lower in the coal feeder
(0 m/s).
Simulations using dust injection were performed
using the injection points as applied in the experi-
ments. The simulations involved different delay times.
On the basis of these simulations, a 900-ms delay
time was chosen for the experiments. Figure 5
presents the turbulence intensity fields after 900 ms.
In the upper part of the mill (classifier), in the pri-
mary air ducts as well as in the outlet pipes turbu-
lence intensities are somewhat lower than when
applying realistic flow conditions. The turbulence in-
tensity in the coal feeder is considerably higher than
seen during operational flow conditions.
Explosion Simulations Performed
Explosion simulations were performed using the
DESC simulator. These explosion simulations were
performed before the performance of the experi-
ments and concerned coal dust only. Combustion
data were extracted from 20-l sphere tests for a coal
dust with a maximum explosion pressure of 7.4 barg
and a KSt-value of 119 bar m/s. Dust concentrations
Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1) Published on behalf of the AIChE
of 400 and 700 g/m3 were applied (compared to the
coal dust concentration of 514 g/m3 when running
under full load conditions).
Figure 6 shows an example of pressure–time his-
tories obtained when dispersing coal dust in the mill-
ing room and the upper part of the mill (classifier)
only. The simulations concern effect of length of the
burner pipes (2–10 m) and effect of partial blockage
of these pipes (varied from 100% open to completely
closed for 2-m long burner pipes). Direct comparison
between the blind code predictions and experiments
performed is in general not possible, because the
experiments were performed with leaner coal dust
mixtures. However, simulation number 010203 can be
compared with the results of test number 21, where
conditions are very close. The maximum pressure in
the experiment was 0.2 barg. The simulation predicts
slightly higher pressure (0.22 barg).
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A summary of the maximum pressures obtained in
each of the tests is included in Table 3. For those
tests, where no pressure value is indicated, the test
failed.
DOI 10.1002/prs March 2011 93
Figure 6. Pressure development as simulated with DESC for a coal dust cloud (dust concentration 400 g/m3)
present in the milling room and upper part of the mill (classifier area). Simulation 011000 concerns burner
pipes of 10 m (fully open). Simulations 010200 to 010204 concern burner pipes with a length of 2 m where the
opening of the burner pipe end is gradually blocked from 0 to 100% in steps of 25%. [Color figure can be
viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Effect of Dust Cloud Location

The effect of dust cloud location was investigated
effectively as an investigation of dust cloud size. An
example is given in Figure 7 for three tests (test nos.
8, 9, and 10) and involving coal dust. The dust cloud
was gradually increased from being present in the
milling room only (test 8), via being present in the
entire mill (test 9) up to filling both the mill and the
coal feeder in test 10. Pressure time histories meas-
ured in the mill show a very big difference between
the cloud being present only in the mill (tests 8 and Figure 7. Effect of cloud size on explosion pressure
9) and also being present in the coal feeder. In the development in roller mill. Measurement at pressure
latter experiment, the pressure in the mill is more location in mill (P4). Test 8: cloud in milling room,
than 20 times higher than in experiments 8 and 9. An test 9: cloud in entire mill, and test 10: cloud in mill
explanation for this behavior can be given by study- and coal feeder. [Color figure can be viewed in the
ing the pressure–time histories of the same experi- online issue, which is available at wileyonline
ments measured in the coal feeder (see Figure 8). library.com.]
The pressure rise in the coal feeder occurs much
faster, and a maximum pressure is reached much ear-
lier than in the mill. When the explosion in the coal
feeder is completed, the explosion in the mill starts again due to the explosion pressure generated in the
becoming more violent and reaches a maximum pres- mill and communicated to the coal feeder.
sure considerably later than reached in the coal The ignition point in the mill is directly under-
feeder. The pressure in the coal feeder increases neath the coal feeder pipe. As a result, the flame

94 March 2011 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1)
Figure 8. Effect of cloud size on explosion develop-
ment in roller mill. Measurement at pressure location
in coal feeder (P10). Test 8: cloud in milling room,
test 9: cloud in entire mill, and test 10: cloud in mill
and coal feeder. [Color figure can be viewed in the
online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.
com.]
Figure 9. Effect of dust reactivity of wood dust
clouds filling the entire mill on the maximum over-
pressure generated in the mill. [Color figure can be
viewed in the online issue, which is available at
wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
shoots into the coal feeder causing a strong second-
ary explosion there. The explosion pressure is flow-
ing back into the mill causing turbulence in the mill
and thereby enhancing the combustion rate in the
mill.
Effect of Dust Reactivity
In tests nos. 11–17, dust clouds of different wood
dust reactivities (described as wood classes I, II, and
III) were generated filling the entire mill (not the coal
feeder) and ignited. Figure 9 shows that, as expected,
the maximum pressure generated increases with the
reactivity of the dust described by the KSt-value
(taken as an average from each class; see Table 2).
Effect of Dust Type
A direct comparison of coal and wood dust is diffi-
cult on the basis of the experiments performed. How-
ever, tests 9 and 11 were performed under similar
Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1) Published on behalf of the AIChE
Figure 10. Effect of dust type: Maximum overpressure
in the mill due to ignition of clouds of coal dust (test
9) and wood dust type class I (test 11) filling the
entire mill.
conditions. In these tests, the mill is entirely filled
with similar concentrations of respectively coal dust
or wood dust (class I; second source). Figure 10
shows that these dust clouds behave very differently:
whereas wood dust causes a very strong explosion,
coal dust causes a low pressure generating mild
explosion. The different behavior may be due to dif-
ferent combustion characteristics at the dust concen-
tration investigated or different dust cloud dispersion
properties.
Venting Parameters
In tests nos. 17–19, the size of the opening on top
of the coal feeder (see Figure 2) was varied from
100% open in test 17, via 50% in test 18 to 13.5% in
test 19 (all tests using wood dust, source 2, class II).
The tests performed show a strong effect when
reducing the opening from 100 to 13.5% (causing a
peak pressure increase from 1.14 barg to 1.68 barg).
This indicates that the influence of restricted venting
as a result of the coal silo upstream of the coal feeder
needs to be taken into account when determining the
maximum dust explosion load on the roller mill. A
similar trend can be seen in the DESC simulations
reported in Figure 6.
Figure 11 shows two plots of the pressure distribu-
tion in the mill in an experiment where a high explo-
sion pressure was generated (test 10) and one where
the explosion was weak (test 9). The pressures are
more or less similar throughout the entire mill for the
weak explosion of test 9. Only slightly lower pres-
sures are seen in the primary air ducts (P2, P3) and
the room underneath the milling table (P1). However,
in test 10, pressures in the primary air ducts and the
room underneath the milling table are considerably
lower than in the area above the milling table. This
feature is seen in all weak and strong explosions.
The reason is the throat between the milling table
and the walls of the mill limiting flow from the upper
part of the mill.
CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive set of experiments was per-
formed in a roller mill aiming at determining the
DOI 10.1002/prs March 2011 95
Figure 11. Pressure distribution in the mill in tests 9 and 10. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue,
which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
maximum explosion load due to biomass and coal
dust explosions under realistic operating conditions.
Dust clouds were generated by pneumatic injec-
tion of dust. To obtain realistic operating conditions
simulations were performed using a CFD-based dust
explosion code. A delay time between the moment
of starting dust injection and ignition of 900 ms was
found to be adequate in this respect. The ignition
source position (close to the milling table) was held
constant throughout the test program.
Parameters investigated included dust cloud loca-
tion and size, dust cloud reactivity and dust type, and
venting parameters.
Explosions with coal dust resulted in low pressures
(max. 0.20 barg) when the dust cloud was filling the
mill partially or entirely (dust concentrations < 400 g/
m3). If a dust cloud was generated in the coal feeder
as well considerably higher pressures (1.65 barg)
were seen. The reason for the much higher pressures
is the explosion propagation between two intercon-
nected vessels. When dust explosions propagate
between items of equipment the peak pressure can
be significantly higher than would occur in a single
enclosure.
As expected, an increase of dust cloud reactivity
results in an increase of explosion loads.
High explosion loads in the mill using wood dust
as a fuel also when no dust cloud is generated in the
coal feeder when indicate that wood dust behaves
differently compared with coal dust. This is most
likely related to differences in the dust dispersion
properties of the two dusts.
The tests performed show a strong effect of reduc-
tion of the vent opening in the coal feeder on the
96 March 2011 Published on behalf of the AIChE
maximum explosion pressure in the mill. This indi-
cates that the influence of restricted venting of the
coal feeder needs to be taken into account when
determining the maximum dust explosion load on
the roller mill.
The maximum pressure seen in all experiments
performed was 1.9 barg. In this test, a wood dust
cloud (KSt-value 112–122 bar m/s; dust concentration
250 g/m3) filling the entire mill was ignited (no
dust cloud in coal feeder). The mill withstood this
pressure load without significant damage.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The assistance of Matthijs van Wingerden, Cathrine
Andersen, Knut Sømoe during the experiments, and
Jon-Thøger Hagen performing the DESC simulations
is gratefully noted.
LITERATURE CITED
1. T. Skjold, Review of the DESC project, J Loss Prev
Process Indust 20 (2007), 291–302.
2. CEN, European Standard EN 14034-1, Determina-
tion of explosion characteristics of dust clouds—
Part 1: Determination of the maximum explosion
pressure pmax of dust clouds, 2004.
3. CEN, European Standard EN 14034-2, Determina-
tion of explosion characteristics of dust clouds—
Part 2: Determination of the maximum rate of
explosion pressure rise (dp/dt)max of dust clouds,
2006.
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.30, No.1)