Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 79 (2022) 104839

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

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

Influence of inlet duct turning on dust-collector explosion

Lei Pang a, b, Xiao Jin a, Shengnan Ou b, Siheng Sun a, *
a
School of Safety Engineering, Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology, Beijing, 102617, China
b
Research Institute of Macro-Safety Science, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, 100083, China

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

Keywords: A 12-L dust-explosion model was designed to conduct a corn-starch explosion experiment to investigate the
Dust explosion influence of the turning structure of the inlet duct on the dust-explosion propagation process. The development in
Turning of inlet duct the dust explosion in the dust collector and the propagation process of the explosive flame in the inlet duct were
Dust collector
examined. Additionally, the influence of the turning distance of the inlet duct on the dust-collector explosion was
Secondary explosion
Corn starch
analyzed. By changing the distance from the turning position of the inlet duct to the dust collector, the distance
had a negative correlation with the maximum explosion pressure of dust in the vessel and a positive correlation
with the explosion duration. The pressure curve in the duct exhibited a bimodal structure, and the secondary
explosion phenomenon was relatively pronounced in the middle of the turning inlet duct. Owing to the
obstruction of the turning inlet duct, the decay rate of the explosion pressure decreased before turning and
increased after turning. In addition, with an increase in the turning distance, the decay rate of the explosion
pressure in the duct decreased, whereas the secondary explosion in the duct became more intense.

1. Introduction detail. Dong et al. (2019) conducted a dust-explosion experiment and

With the continuous development of modern industry, a large
amount of combustible dust is generated in the production of many
products. Combustible dust in the production workshop enters the dust
collector through the inlet duct and easily forms a dust cloud. Explosive
accidents are likely to occur under dust explosion conditions (Eckhoff
and Li, 2021; Sanchirico et al., 2015; Skjold et al., 2005). An explosion
can propagate along the inlet duct and lead to production hazards,
causing personal injury and property damage (Yuan et al., 2015).
Therefore, studying dust-explosion propagation process and its influ­
encing factors is beneficial to explosion risk assessment and is important
for understanding the dust-explosion mechanism (Rani et al., 2015;
Yang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021).
To enhance the process safety of dust collectors in industrial pro­
duction (Amyotte, 2014) and reduce the risk of dust explosions in
powder-related enterprises (Tascón et al., 2016; Kundu et al., 2018;
Paltrinieri et al., 2014), scholars have analyzed the factors influencing
dust-collector explosion, such as the explosion location (Eckhoff et al.,
1988; Xing et al., 2020), duct length (Yu et al., 2012; Yan et al., 2013),
duct diameter (Kordylewski and Wach, 1988; Yan and Yu, 2013; Chen
et al., 2019), and opening pressure (Tascón and Aguado, 2017; Gao
et al., 2016; Yan et al., 2015), for investigating the dust-explosion law in
found that with the increasing dust concentration, the pressure ampli­
tude and average pressure rise rate of the vent duct increased and then
decreased. The shockwave of the dust explosion in the vessel brought a
part of the unburned dust into the duct that can easily cause the sec­
ondary explosion (Taveau et al., 2019). Yan et al. (2012) conducted
aluminum dust-explosion venting experiments and found that the sec­
ondary explosion occurred when the length of dust duct was not less
than 1500 mm and the dust concentration was not less than 500 g/m3;
the likelihood of the secondary explosion ranged from 17% to 50%. Song
et al. (2017) conducted numerical simulations of the process of dust
rising and participating in the gas explosion and found that the tem­
perature–time curve of the flame had a bimodal structure. Yan et al.
(2014) believed that the secondary explosion in the duct caused the
maximum explosion pressure in the vessel and increased the rate of the
pressure rise. A smaller duct diameter corresponds to the more evident
secondary explosion pressure peak, easier pressure accumulation, and
lower pressure decay rate.
Scholars have designed explosive devices to study the dust-explosion
parameters (Kuracina et al., 2021). The dust explosion spread to the
turning of the specially shaped vent duct, and the flame speed and
pressure value fluctuated violently, affecting the dust explosion venting
in the vessel and causing a high risk of failure (Emami et al., 2013; Jia

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sunsiheng@bipt.edu.cn (S. Sun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2022.104839
Received 28 March 2022; Received in revised form 10 June 2022; Accepted 4 July 2022
Available online 10 July 2022
0950-4230/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Pang et al.
et al., 2010; Pang et al., 2022). Zhang et al. (2019) conducted an
experiment about deposited dust explosion induced by a gas explosion
and found that the decay rate of the maximum explosion pressure and
the increase rate of the flame propagation speed increased with the
turning angle. The flame front area exhibited a V-shaped change and
increased significantly after the tnrning angle. Kordylewski and Wach
(1988) conducted experiments and found that the maximum explosion
pressure in a vessel was slightly higher than the pressure in the duct. If
the turning position was closer to the vent of the vessel, the maximum
explosion pressure in the vessel was higher. Lunn et al. (1988) used coal
powder and aspirin powder as explosive media and found that the
maximum explosion pressure in a vessel was negatively correlated with
the turning distance, whereas the size of the secondary explosion in the
duct was positively correlated with the turning distance. According to
the 1-m3 dust-explosion test system, Li et al. (2020) built four structures:
S-shaped, U-shaped, 90◦ elbow, and long straight duct. Their results has
indicated that the peak pressure in the vent duct gradually decreased,
but the attenuation at the turning duct was slow.
At present, scholars around the world mainly study the explosion
propagation law of long and straight ducts; however, in practice, a
curved inlet duct is generally used in powder-related enterprises. Pre­
vious experimental research lacked influence analysis of the turning
inlet duct on the explosive propagation law of the dust collector and the
secondary explosion phenomenon in the inlet duct. In this study, the
features of dust explosions in the turning duct and explosion in the vessel
were analyzed by designing a 12-L explosion vessel and inlet duct with
different turning distances; in addition, the development law of sec­
ondary explosion in the turning inlet duct was studied. Our findings
provided a reference for the safe production design of dust collectors and
the study of dust-explosion characteristics.
2. Experimental apparatus and measurement method
2.1. Experimental material
The selected dust—Gufu corn starch—was purchased from Beijing
Minsong Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. The particle-size distribution of
the samples was analyzed using a laser diffraction particle-size analyzer
(BT-9300LD). The median diameter of the samples is 16.24 μm (Fig. 1).
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed, and the surface
morphology and geometric dimensions of the samples were analyzed
using Quanta 600. Fig. 2 presents the particle-size distribution (PSD)
and SEM characterization results. As shown, the lengths and diameters
of the dust samples are relatively small. Their shapes are different, and
their surfaces are rough. Before the experiment, the corn starch was
Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of samples.
2
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 79 (2022) 104839
dried in an oven at 50 ◦ C for 12 h and stored in an airtight bag.
2.2. Experimental equipment and experimental scheme
Fig. 3 shows a schematic of the experimental system. The system
comprised an explosion vessel, turning rigid ducts, duster system, high-
speed camera, and data-collection system. The length and inner diam­
eter of the explosion vessel were 24.8 cm, and the transparent window
on the front was 3.5 cm thick. The inlet duct was turned with an inner
diameter of 4 cm, and an inlet duct of 80 cm was connected to one side of
the vessel. The turning distances were 15, 32, 48, and 63 cm, and the
turning angle was 90◦ . The duster system was composed of a compressed
gas cylinder, solenoid valve, 0.6-L dust chamber, and pneumatic valve.
The data-acquisition system comprised a computer, three PMC131
pressure-group-type pressure sensors (maximum range: 3 MPa; sampling
interval: 0.2 ms), a data-transmission device, and a data-processing
device. The positions of the three sensors were adjusted according to
the experimental requirements. When a dust explosion occurred in the
vessel, the data-transmission device received the pressure signal
collected by the pressure sensor, and the computer generated an
instantaneous pressure–time curve. The frame rate and pixel resolution
of the high-speed camera system was 2500 fps and 1280 × 800,
respectively; the video exposure time was set as 390 μs (Pang et al.,
2020). In the experiment, a 20-J chemical ignition head was used for
ignition, the ignition delay time was set as 60 ms, and the powder
spraying pressure was set as 0.7 MPa. As it was an open explosive device,
the pressure and temperature in the explosion vessel were set to ambient
conditions.
Fig. 4 shows a schematic of the inlet duct with different turning
distances. The duct was composed of four short rigid ducts connected by
flanges with a total effective length of 80 cm. In the experiment, pressure
sensor 1 (S1) was located in the explosion vessel, sensor 2 (S2) was
14–15 cm from the outlet of the vessel, sensor 3 (S3) was 42–48 cm from
the outlet, and sensor 4 (S4) was 78 cm from the outlet. The maximum
explosion pressures for different dust concentrations were tested under
closed vessel conditions. With an increase in the dust concentration, the
maximum explosion pressure in the vessel first increased and then
decreased. When the dust concentration was 750 g/m3 (optimal value),
dust explosion was the most violent, and the maximum explosion
pressure in the vessel reached 0.81 MPa (Pang et al., 2021). In subse­
quent experiments, the dust-explosion concentration will be fixed.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Influence of turning distance on pressure change of dust explosion in
vessel
Fig. 5 presents the curve of the explosion pressure in the vessel
changing with time for different turning distances. As shown, there was
a slight pressure fluctuation in the vessel after powder spraying, and the
explosion pressure in the vessel started to increase rapidly 60 ms after
ignition. When the rate of pressure rise was equal to the rate of pressure
decay, the dust explosion in the vessel reached the maximum pressure,
and the maximum explosion pressure in the vessel and explosion pres­
sure release time were significantly affected by the turning distance.
When the turning distance was 15 cm, the maximum explosion
pressure in the vessel was 0.255 MPa, the pressure release time was 104
ms, and the average rate of the pressure rise was 6.5 MPa s− 1, and the
time of maximum explosion pressure was 155.4 ms. Among the four
turning types, the inlet duct with a turning distance of 15 cm was the
duct structure with the highest peak pressure inside the vessel, highest
average pressure rise rate, and shortest explosion pressure release time.
Compared with a turning distance of 63 cm, the maximum explosion
pressure increased by 30.7%, the average rate of pressure rise increased
by 49.2%, the pressure release time reduced by 14 ms, and the time of
the maximum explosion pressure in the vessel increased by 32.2 ms.
L. Pang et al.
Fig. 2. SEM images of corn starch dust samples.
Fig. 3. Experimental device.
The reason for this phenomenon is that the turning obstruction of the
inlet duct led to a partial backflow of the pressure wave and flame when
the flame and pressure waves propagated along the duct. Before turning
position of the duct, the pressure in the explosion equipment accumu­
lated, the dust cloud burned more fully under high pressure, and the
reaction was more complete. When the turning distance was reduced,
the duration of pressure release in the vessel decreased, the average rate
of pressure rise and the maximum explosion pressure in the vessel
increased, and the time for the maximum explosion pressure was
advanced.
3.2. Influence of turning distance on flame development of dust explosion
in vessel
Fig. 6 shows the entire process from ignition to extinction of the
flame in the explosion vessel when the vessel was connected to the inlet
duct with different turning distances. As shown in Table 1, the time of
brightest flame burning and the duration of flame burning increased
with the turning distance. Compared with the duct structure with a
turning distance of 63 cm, the duration of flame burning about turning
distance of 15 cm reduced by 21.7%. From the time when the dust cloud
was ignited to when the flame expanded the entire vessel, a duct
structure with a turning distance of 15 cm took 145 ms, the inner radius
3
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 79 (2022) 104839
of the vessel was 12.4 cm, so the speed of the generated flame shock­
waves was 0.15 m/s. The duct structure with the turning distance of 15
cm had the fastest speed of the generated flame shockwaves in four duct
structure, and had been increased in 33.3% than that with the turning
distance of 63 cm. The speed of the generated flame shockwaves reduced
with the turning distance.
After the ignition head ignited the dust cloud in the vessel, the ex­
plosion in the vessel expanded rapidly. It can be seen from the flame
image that when the flame in the vessel reached the brightest state, the
dust explosion was at the most intense moment. Due to the obstruction
of the turning duct, the explosion shock wave flowed back, and a greater
pressure environment was formed inside the vessel, which accelerated
the dust explosion. Smaller turning distance led to smaller reflux time,
faster speed of the generated flame and less the duration of flame
burning.
As indicated by Table 1, in the duct structure with a turning distance
of 15 cm, the vessel reached the brightest flame burning state at 145 ms
and the maximum explosion pressure at 155.4 ms. The moment of the
most intense flame was earlier than the moment of the maximum ex­
plosion pressure in the vessel—also observed for the other three ducts.
When the flame reached the brightest state, the pressure generation rate
of flame combustion in the vessel exceeded the rate of pressure decay in
the duct, and dust explosion continued for some time. Thus, the vessel
L. Pang et al.
Fig. 4. Configuration of the inlet duct.
Fig. 5. Pressure changes in the vessel for different turning distances.
was in a state of pressure accumulation, and it took more time for the
pressure to reach its maximum value.
3.3. Pressure variation characteristics in turning inlet duct
Fig. 7 shows the variation in the peak pressure inside the duct for
different turning distances. Table 2 presents the pressure decay at
different positions in the inlet duct. The flame and pressure of the dust
explosions were constantly consumed by the friction, collision, and air
resistance of the duct wall during propagation, and the explosion pres­
sure generally exhibited a decreasing trend. Owing to the different duct
structures, the explosion propagation exhibited different explosion laws
at different locations. The peak pressure in the straight duct decreased
with an increase in the duct length, and the rate of decay gradually
decreased with an increase in the duct length, with a total decay of 0.23
4
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 79 (2022) 104839
MPa. For the inlet ducts with turning distances of 15, 32, 48, and 63 cm,
the decay of the explosion pressure decreased with an increase in the
turning distance, but it was smaller than that for the straight duct.
During the explosive propagation, the explosion shockwave
constantly attenuated. When the explosion shockwave reached the
turning position at a low propagation rate, it broke, the oxygen supply
increased, the flame combustion intensified, and the explosion-pressure
decay caused was reduced. The flame propagated too fast and hit the
turning duct wall, causing it to exit. Therefore, a longer turning distance
corresponded to a smaller explosion-pressure decay in the duct. There
was no flame rupture or pressure accumulation in the straight duct,
exhibiting a large explosion-pressure decay.
In the duct structures with turning distances of 15 and 32 cm,
measuring point 3 was in front of the turning position; for those with
turning distances of 48 and 63 cm, it was behind the turning position.
The peak pressure decay between the 14 and 42 cm of the inlet ducts
with turning distances of 15 and 32 cm exceeded that for the straight
duct. The peak pressure decay of the bend at 63 cm was significantly
smaller than those for the other three duct structures. However, The
peak pressure of the bend at 48 cm increased by 0.012 MPa. Between
duct points 3 and 4, the inlet ducts with turning distances of 15 and 32
cm had smaller peak pressure decays than those with turning distances
of 48 and 63 cm.
The shockwave generated by dust explosion in the vessel was prone
to flame rupture and flame backflow at the turning position, which
affected the release of explosive pressure and the flame propagation in
the duct, so the pressure at the turning position increased significantly.
The flame rupture increased the air contact area for dust combustion,
increased the oxygen supply, and intensified the flame combustion.
Before the turning, the pressure peak decreased slowly and tended to
increase. After the turning, the pressure peak decreased rapidly.
Therefore, the propagation law of the dust explosion along the duct was
significantly affected by the turning distance, and the turning position of
L. Pang et al. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 79 (2022) 104839

Fig. 6. Dust-explosion flame development process.

Table 1 Table 2
Flame development parameter for different turning distances. Pressure-peak comparisons between different positions in the duct.
Time Turning Turning Turning Turning Points 2 and 3 Points 3 and 4 Points 1 and 4
distance of distance of distance of distance of (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
15 cm 32 cm 48 cm 63 cm
Turning distance of − 0.151 − 0.031 0.203
Maximum 155.4 167.2 173.4 187.6 15 cm
pressure time Turning distance of − 0.143 − 0.022 0.198
(ms) 32 cm
Maximum flame 145 158 175 190 Turning distance of +0.012 − 0.155 0.192
time (ms) 48 cm
Speed of the 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.1 Turning distance of − 0.025 − 0.101 0.182
generated 63 cm
flame (m/s)
The duration of 252 275 289 322
flame burning
(ms) Table 3
Decay rates before and after turning.
Pressure at 17 cm Pressure at 15 cm Rate of
before turning (MPa) after turning (MPa) decay

Turning distance 0.205 0.062 69.8%

of 32 cm
Turning distance 0.154 0.077 50.0%
of 48 cm
Turning distance 0.128 0.034 73.4%
of 63 cm

pressure peak decay rate decreased with an increase in the duct length.
However, the pressure data for the 90◦ turning duct indicated that the
turning distance of 63 cm had the highest decay rate of pressure peak
before and after the turning position. When the turning distance was 48
cm, the decay rate of peak pressure was the lowest before and after the
turning position. Part of the flame hit the duct wall at the turning po­
sition, causing the flame to rupture and extinguished. Owing to the
inflow of supplementary air, part of the flame burned intensely. The
intensity of flame combustion was affected by the propagation speed of
shockwave and the degree of flame rupture.

3.4. The secondary explosion phenomenon in the turning inlet duct

Fig. 7. Pressure peaks for different turning positions.

the duct had a high explosion pressure.
Table 3 presents a comparison of the pressure peaks of the ducts with
different turning distances before and after turning. The measuring
points were taken as 17 cm before the turning position and 15 cm after
the turning position for a pressure analysis. For the straight duct, the
Fig. 8 shows the pressure change curves measured at different po­
sitions in the different turning ducts. The first explosion occurred after
the dust cloud in the explosion vessel reached the dust explosion con­
centration. Explosive flames expanded inside the vessel, and large
amounts of gas and heat caused pressure to rapid increase and propagate
along the inlet duct. Part of the unburned dust was brought to the inlet
duct with the explosion pressure wave, and was ignited again by the

5
L. Pang et al.
Fig. 8. Pressure changes in the duct for different turning distances.
spread explosion flame. We defined unburned dust explosions in inlet
duct as the secondary explosion. The secondary explosion caused short-
duration peak in the pressure curve. This peak and the peak of the
maximum explosion pressure formed a bimodal structure (Kordylewski
and Wach, 1988), and the first pressure peak was smaller than the sec­
ond pressure peak. The reason for this phenomenon is that the dust
explosion in the duct and vessel continued after the second explosion,
the pressure accumulated until the explosion was not carried out and the
pressure reached the maximum value.
As shown in Fig. 8(b), a pressure fluctuation difference of 0.034 MPa
and 0.013 MPa was observed at measuring points 3 (47 cm) and 4 (79
cm), respectively. No small pressure fluctuation was found during
pressure rise at measuring point 2 As shown in Fig. 8(a)–(c), the first
peak pressure fluctuation measured in the measuring point 3 exceeded
those measuring points, so the middle of the duct exhibited a larger
secondary explosion pressure. Considering the high explosion shock­
wave propagation speed, it was difficult to reach the dust-explosion
concentration at the front of the duct. As a large amount of dust was
consumed during the propagation process, there was less dust at the end
of the duct. The propagation speed was lower in the middle of the duct,
and dust cloud with appropriate concentration was prone to the sec­
ondary explosion. Therefore, when the dust concentration in the vessel
was 750 g/m3 and the duct was 80 cm long, the secondary explosion was
more intense in the middle of the inlet duct.
When the turning distances were 15, 32, and 63 cm, the peaks of the
first pressure fluctuation difference measured in the middle of the duct
were 0.023, 0.034, and 0.038 MPa, respectively. The secondary explo­
sion intensity increased with the increase of turning distance. The reason
6
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 79 (2022) 104839
for this phenomenon is that a high explosion pressure and large flame
rupture occurred at the turning position of the duct, intensifying the
combustion of dust during the explosion propagation process. When the
turning position was close to the vessel outlet, unburned dust was
consumed at the turning position, which reduced the dust concentration
in the duct and reduced the intensity of the secondary explosion.
4. Conclusions
A corn-starch explosion experiment was performed using a physical
model of a 12-L vessel and an inlet duct, and the influence of the turning
distance on the dust-collector explosion was studied. The following
conclusions were drawn.
(1) As the distance between the turning position and the vessel
decreased, the time taken to reach the maximum explosion
pressure in the vessel and the duration of pressure release
decreased. When the turning distance was smaller, the maximum
explosion pressure, average rate of pressure rise, and duct outlet
pressure were higher, leading to more severe accidents and in­
juries. When installing the inlet duct of the dust collector, the
turning duct should be designed far from the dust-collector to
reduce the harmful effects of dust-collector explosions.
(2) The duration of flame burning and the time to reach the brightest
state of flame were positively correlated with turning distance,
and the flame development rate was negative correlation with the
turning distance. The time of flame reaching the brightest state
was less than the time of pressure reaching the maximum.
(3) The turning position exhibited a relatively large pressure peak;
the pressure decay slowed before the turning and accelerated
after the turning, and the total pressure decay in the inlet duct
decreased with an increase in the turning distance. A rigid ma­
terial with good explosion-proof performance should be selected
to avoid explosive flame leakage from the weak turning position.
(4) Under the same turning distance, the secondary explosion closer
to the middle of the inlet duct was more evident. With an increase
in the turning distance, the secondary explosion became more
intense, and the bimodal structure of the pressure curve became
more apparent. To ensure the safety of the dust collector, the
turning position should not be installed at the middle of the inlet
duct.
Author contribution statement
Lei Pang: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Supervision,
Funding acquisition. Xiao Jin: Data curation, Writing – original draft,
Investigation. Shengnan Ou: Methodology, Investigation, Writing – re­
view & editing, Project administration. Siheng Sun:Writing – original
draft, Data curation, Validation, Project administration, Writing – re­
view & editing.
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.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the financial support from the Beijing Science
and Technology Nova Program (No. Z181100006218092), and the
Training Funded Project of the Beijing Youth Top-Notch Talents of China
L. Pang et al.
(No. 2016000026833ZK05).
References
Amyotte, P., 2014. Some myths and realities about dust explosions. Process Saf. Environ.
Protect. 92, 292–299.
Chen, X.K., Wang, J.Y., Cheng, F.M., He, C.X., 2019. Simulated analysis of effect of the
length of vent duct on the vented explosion of bag filter. Ind Saf Environ 45 (4),
59–62.
Dong, S., Zhao, J.P., Zhao, T.F., Liu, X.L., 2019. Study on explosion pressure propagation
law of wood dust in dust removal pipeline. China work Safety Science and
Technology(Chinese) 15 (12), 128–134.
Eckhoff, R.K., Li, G., 2021. Industrial dust explosions. a brief review. Appl. Sci. 11 (4),
1669.
Eckhoff, R.K., Alfert, F., Fuhre, K., Pedersen, G.H., 1988. Maize starch explosions in a
236m3 experimental silo with vents in the silo wall. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 1 (1),
16–24.
Emami, S.D., Rajabi, M., Che Hassan, C.R., Hamid, M.D., Kasmani, R.M., Mazangi, M.,
2013. Experimental study on premixed hydrogen/air and hydrogen–methane/air
mixtures explosion in 90 degree bend pipeline. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 38 (32),
14115–14120.
Gao, W., Yu, J.L., Li, J., Zhang, Q., Xie, Q.F., Zhang, X.Y., Hu, D.P., 2016. Experimental
investigation on micro- and nano-PMMA dust explosion venting at elevated static
activation overpressures. Powder Technol. 301, 713–722.
Jia, Z.W., Yang, M., Jing, G.X., 2010. Propagation characteristics numerical experiment
of gas explosion shock wave under the pipe bend. Prog. Saf. Sci. Technol., Int. Symp.
Saf. Sci. Technol. 2nd (8), 1193–1197.
Kordylewski, W., Wach, J., 1988. Influence of ducting on explosion pressure: small scale
experiments. Combust. Flame 71 (1), 51–61.
Kundu, S.K., Zanganeh, J., Eschebach, D., Moghtaderi, B., 2018. Explosion severity of
methane–coal dust hybrid mixtures in a ducted spherical vessel. Powder Technol.
323, 95–102.
Kuracina, R., Szabová, Z., Škvarka, M., 2021. Study into parameters of the dust explosion
ignited by an improvised explosion device filled with organic peroxide. Process Saf.
Environ. Protect. 155, 98–107.
Li, G., Hu, P., Zhang, Y.Y., Ni, L., 2020. Explosion propagation law of dust in different
curved pipes. J. Northeast. Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 41 (9), 1316–1320.
Lunn, G., Crowhurst, D., Hey, H., 1988. The effect of vent ducts on the reduced explosion
pressures of vented dust explosions. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 1 (4), 182–196.
Paltrinieri, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., Cozzani, V., 2014. Dynamic approach to risk
management: application to the hoeganaes metal dust accidents. Process Saf.
Environ. Protect. 92, 669–679.
Pang, L., Cao, J.J., Xiao, Q.P., Yang, K., Shi, L., 2022. Explosion propagation in a dust
removal pipeline under dust collector explosion. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 74,
104662.
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,
104144.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 79 (2022) 104839
Pang, L., Zhang, Z.W., Cui, S.Q., Yuan, C.M., Zhu, X.R., Yin, J.X., Sun, S.H., 2021.
Experimental study on dust explosion vented through a bent duct. Process Saf. Prog.
40 (1), e12174.
Rani, S.I., Aziz, B.A., Gimbun, J., 2015. Analysis of dust distribution in silo during axial
filling using computational fluid dynamics: assessment on dust explosion likelihood.
Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 96, 14–21.
Sanchirico, R., Russo, P., Di Sarli, V., Di Benedetto, A., 2015. On the explosion and
flammability behavior of mixtures of combustible dusts. Process Saf. Environ.
Protect. 94, 410–419.
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.
Song, Y.F., Zhang, Q., Wu, W.W., 2017. Interaction between gas explosion flame and
deposited dust. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 111, 775–784.
Tascón, A., Aguado, P.J., 2017. Simulations of vented dust explosions in a 5m3 vessel.
Powder Technol. 321, 409–418.
Tascón, A., Gómez, Á.R., 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.
Taveau, J., Lemkowitz, S., Hochgreb, S., Roekaerts, D., 2019. Dust explosion propagation
in small diameter pipes. Process Saf. Prog. 38 (3), e12033.
Xing, H.D., Xu, Q.M., Song, X.Z., Wang, Y.X., Li, B., Xie, L.F., 2020. The effects of vent
area and ignition position on pressure oscillations in a large L/D ratio duct. Process
Saf. Environ. Protect. 135, 166–170.
Yan, X.Q., Yu, J.L., 2013. Overpressure characteristics of aluminium dust explosion
vented through a relief pipe. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 26 (4), 676–682.
Yan, X.Q., Li, D., Yu, J.L., 2012. Secondary explosions in relief duct during aluminum
dust explosion venting. Procedia Eng. 45, 431–434.
Yan, X.Q., Yu, J.L., Li, D., 2013. Secondary explosion during aluminum dust. J. Saf.
Environ. 13 (2), 219–222.
Yan, X.Q., Yu, J.L., Gao, W., 2014. Duct-venting of dust explosions in a 20 L sphere at
elevated static activation overpressures. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 32, 63–69.
Yan, X.Q., Yu, J.L., Gao, W., 2015. Flame behaviors and pressure characteristics of
vented dust explosions at elevated static activation overpressures. J. Loss Prev.
Process. Ind. 33, 101–108.
Yang, M., Jiang, H., Chen, X., Gao, W., 2021. Characteristic evaluation of aluminum dust
explosion venting with high static activation pressure. Process Saf. Environ. Protect.
152, 83–96.
Yu, J.L., Yan, X.Q., Li, D., 2012. Pressure characteristics in dust explosion relief process
by using a relief pipe. Explos. Shock Waves 32 (6), 669–672.
Yuan, Z., Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., 2015. Dust explosions: a threat to the
process industries. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 98, 57–71.
Zhang, L.L., Yang, Q.Y., Shi, B.M., Niu, Y.H., Zhong, Z., 2019. Influences of a pipeline’s
bending angle on the propagation law of coal dust explosion induced by gas
explosion. Combust. Sci. Technol. 193 (5), 798–811.
Zhang, L., Wang, H., Chen, C., Wang, P., Xu, L., 2021. Experimental study to assess the
explosion hazard of CH4/coal dust mixtures induced by high-temperature source
surface. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 154, 60–71.