On the sensitivity of the maximum explosion pressure of

a dust deflagration to turbulence t

A. E. Dahoe 1•2 •4 , K. van der Nat1 ,

M. Braithwaite3 and B. Scarlett1
1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Delft University
of Technology
2
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge
3 Royal Military College of Science, Cranfield University
4
University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering

Abstract
The maximum explosion pressure of a deflagration is often regarded as a thermodynamic quantity
and it is believed to be insensitive to the flow conditions of the combustible mixture involved. While
this is true for premixed gases, the present work demonstrates that the opposite is the case when pow-
der-air mixtures are ignited to deflagration. In order to illustrate this disparate behavior, experi-
ments were conducted with methane-air and cornstarch-air mixtures of a fixed fuel to air ratio, at
varying turbulence levels. The maximum explosion pressure of cornstarch-air mixtures was observed
to increase by a factor of 1. 5 when the turbulence level of the dust cloud was varied. An explanation
for this behavior is proposed by considering the effect of turbulence on the liberation of volatile matter
from the particles.

behavior of the pressure in the explosion chamber

1 Introduction
when a combustible mixture is ignited to deflagra-
The assessment of the severity of an accidental tion. At the beginning of the explosion the pressure is
dust explosion is of crucial importance when it con- equal to the atmospheric pressure and increases up to
cerns the safe operation of industrial processes in- a maximum value of about 7 bar. During this process
volving combustible particles. Due to the absence of the pressure increases progressively until the rate of
a comprehensive description of the transient com- pressure rise achieves a maximum, after which the
bustion behavior of any particular dust-air mixture pressure continues to increase with a progressively
under arbitrary conditions (pressure, temperature, decreasing rate of pressure rise. For the assessment
flow properties), it is common practice to measure
the explosion severity in laboratory test vessels (1 m3-
vessel, 20-liter sphere) and to predict what would hap-
pen if a similar mixture exploded in an industrial plant
unit. A typical result of a laboratory explosion sever- ~B Pmax ------- ---;..:.-~----~-~--=--'-"-~--:..:_-;:_:--c.:_--::..:__ _ __j
ity test is shown by Figure 1. The figure shows the e6
1:: ' ( dP'
04
" ___ -)
dt max
1::
0.2
1
Delft, The Netherlands
2 0,_-.-,--.-,--,-,--,-,--,-,--,~
Cambridge, United Kingdom
3 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Shrivenham, Swindon, United Kingdom
4
Trumpington Street, CB2 1PZ, Cambridge, United Kingdom time (milliseconds)
Telephone: +44-1223-332603. FAX: +44-1223-332662.
Email: aed23@eng.cam.ac.uk Fig.l Explosion curve of a 500 gm- 3 cornstarch-air mixture in a
t Accepted: September 17,2001 standard 20-liter sphere.

178 KONA No.19 (2001)

of the severity of a dust explosion, two quantities are
extracted from the explosion curve, namely, the maxi-
mum explosion pressure, Pmax. and the maximum rate
of pressure rise, (dPI dt) max· The reasons for choosing
these quantities to characterize dust explosion sever-
ity are evident: the maximum explosion pressure
gives an indication of the magnitude of the damaging
pressures that may be caused by accidental deflagra-
tions and the maximum rate of pressure rise indicates
how fast these damaging pressures can develop.
From a practical point of view, the maximum explo-
sion pressure can be used to determine the design
strength of industrial equipment so that it can with-
stand damaging explosion pressures. The maximum
rate of pressure rise can be used to size pressure
relief systems to counteract the development of
damaging pressures so that they do not exceed a
particular design strength. Since the containment of
explosion pressures requires equipment to be capable
of withstanding pressures of up to 7-10 times the
operating pressure, this approach is financially pro-
hibitive and therefore applied to small industrial
equipment only. Whilst explosion relief venting is the
most commonly used protection method against
explosion hazards because of its convenience and
economical attractiveness, there are circumstances
where it may not be applied. Such circumstances are
those where the siting is such that spreading of burn-
ing material to other plant units may occur, or where
highly toxic combustibles and combustion products
will be released in the environment, or that the inter-
nal geometry of the industrial equipment is such that
a transition from deflagration to detonation will occur
due to the enhancement of turbulence in the pres-
ence of a vent relief area. When this is the case, con-
tainment becomes an important safety measure and
accurate determination of the maximum explosion
pressure becomes of great importance.
Knowing that the rule of the thumb in the case of
containment is to design industrial equipment at a
strength which is such that it can withstand at least
1.5 times the expected explosion pressure, the impor-
tance of accurate knowledge of the maximum explo-
sion pressure becomes even greater when industrial
processes are carried out at elevated pressures. For
example, when the maximum explosion pressure is
known with an inaccuracy of 10%, and the ratio be-
tween the maximum explosion pressure and the ini-
tial pressure is assumed to be 10, then this inaccuracy
would result in an error margin of 3 bar in the design
strength of the equipment. In other words, if the ex-
pected maximum explosion pressure is expected to
KONA No.19 (2001)
be 10 bar, it can be anywhere between 9 and 11 bar,
and when this is multiplied by a factor of 1.5 then one
finds a design strength which is anywhere between
13.5 and 16.5 bar. When the industrial operating con-
ditions are such that an explosion may occur at an
initial pressure of 10 bar then one finds a design
strength between 135 and 165 bar along the same
lines of reasoning; a difference of 30 bar. It is there-
fore not only important to know the maximum explo-
sion pressure of a combustible mixture with great
accuracy, but it also important to know which factors
influence this quantity, and, to which extent these fac-
tors may affect the maximum explosion pressure.
When a fuel-air mixture burns adiabatically in a
closed vessel, with the additional assumptions that
kinetic and potential energy changes are negligible
and that there is no shaft work, the first law of ther-
modynamics requires that the internal energy of the
reactants at the initial state equals the internal energy
of the products at the final state. In the final state, the
entire vessel is filled with combustion products whose
temperature is equal to the constant volume adiabatic
flame temperature, rr, and the pressure is at its
maximum attainable value, Pmax· This final state is
independent of the path followed from the initial state
and the ideal gas law may be used to express it as
(1)
where P0 denotes the initial pressure, T0 the initial
temperature, n0 the moles of gas present before the
explosion, and ne the moles of gas present after the
explosion. This equation implies that the maximum
explosion pressure is determined by the initial state
of the reactant mixture (T0,P0 ), variations in the num-
ber of moles of gas due to the chemical conversion
process and the value of the adiabatic flame tempera-
ture due to the release of chemical energy by the
reactants. Since both nelno and rr are determined by
chemical equilibria and caloric properties of the spe-
cies involved (e.g. heats of formation, specific heats),
the maximum explosion pressure is regarded as a
thermodynamic property of the reactant mixture.
And, owing to the fact that kinetic energy changes are
negligible with respect to the heat release by the reac-
tants, the maximum explosion pressure is considered
to be insensitive to the flow conditions of the reac-
tant mixture. While this expectation is confirmed by
experiments with gaseous fuel-air mixtures (see
Figure 2), the opposite appears to be true for dust-air
mixtures (see Figure 3).
Leuckel et al. [1] ignited turbulent stoichiometric
179
 10
8 8
'k
e"' 6 6
"'"
....
00
00
...."' 4 4
0.
2 2
0
0 20 40 60 80
time (milliseconds)
Fig. 2 Explosion curves of stoichiometric methane-air mixtures
ignited at various turbulence levels: v',m,=2.40 ms- 1, 1.92
ms-1, 1.44 ms- 1, 1.20 ms-1, 0.96 ms-1, and 0.72 ms- 1 [1].
methane-air mixtures to deflagration in a 65-liter fan-
stirred spherical bomb and the resulting pressure-
time curves are shown in Figure 2. The turbulence
level of the reactive mixtures was varied by means
of four symmetrically opposed ventilation fans and
ranged from v'rms = 0.72 ms- 1 to v'rms = 2.40 ms- 1• In
all cases, an increase of the turbulence level resulted
in a faster explosion, while the maximum explosion
pressure remained at a constant value of about 8.2
bar.
Kauffman et al. [2] used a 950-liter jet-stirred spher-
ical bomb to measure the explosion characteristics of
turbulent cornstarch-air mixtures. Experiments were
conducted at two different turbulence levels, namely,
v'rms = 1.5 ms- 1 and v'rms = 4.2 ms-I, while the dust
concentration was varied between 100 and 900 gm- 3.
Conditions of turbulence were established by flush-
ing the sphere continuously with air through a mani-
fold of six inlet ports, located in the lower hemi-
spherical wall, and a manifold of eight exhaust ports,
located in the upper hemispherical wall. The dust was
supplied continuously by means of a dust feeder with
an adjustable feed rate so that the dust concentration
and the turbulence level could be varied indepen-
dently. These researchers found that, unlike in the
case of gaseous fuel-air mixtures, the maximum
explosion pressure of dust-air mixtures was sensitive
to the turbulence level. Their findings are plotted in
Figure 3 and it is seen that the sensitivity of the max-
imum explosion pressure to turbulence increases
with increasing dust concentration. When the dust
concentration is below 200 gm- 3, turbulence seems to
have little to no effect. At the optimum concentration
180
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
dust concentration (gm - 3)
Fig. 3 The maximum explosion pressure of cornstarch-air mix-
tures ignited at two different turbulence levels: v',m,=4.2
ms- 1 ( o) and v',m,=l.5 ms- 1 (!:>) [2].
of about 700 gm- 3 the maximum explosion pressure
increases by a factor of 1.5 when the turbulence level
is increased by a factor of about 3. At a dust concen-
tration 900 gm- 3, the maximum explosion pressure
was found to increase by a factor of 1.8 when the tur-
bulence level was changed from v'rms = 1.5 ms- 1 to
v'rms = 4.2 ms- 1. This sensitivity of the maximum
explosion pressure of dust-air mixtures to the turbu-
lence level may result in serious shortcomings in the
current practice of applying laboratory explosion
severity data to industrial circumstances, as will be
discussed below.
Taking the observed sensitivity of the maximum
explosion pressure of dust-air mixtures to turbulence
into consideration, it is evident that laboratory test
data are only applicable to industrial circumstances
when the laboratory test conditions are such that the
turbulence levels are higher than those which may be
encountered in industrial equipment under both nor-
mal operating conditions as well as during the occur-
rence of an accidental explosion. Currently accepted
technical guidelines for protection methods against
dust explosion hazards [3, 4] prescribe the use of the
so called standard 20-liter explosion sphere and the 1
m3-explosion vessel as laboratory test devices for dust
explosion severity testing. Unlike the test methods
used by Leuckel et al. and Kauffman et al., which
maintain quasi-steady conditions of turbulence at the
moment of ignition, these devices generate turbu-
lence by means of an air blast. This air blast is neces-
sary to suspend the dust and to ensure that the dust
particles remain airborne in the explosion chamber
and that they do not settle out due to gravity. How-
KONA No.19 (2001)
ever, as soon as the air blast is completed, the in-
tensity of the turbulence decreases with time. Test
procedures therefore stipulate precise time values at
which certain operations must occur. In the 1 m3-
vessel, for example, ignition must occur at 600 mil-
liseconds after the injection air blast has started (i.e.
ignition delay time= 600 milliseconds), while in the
20-liter cell, ignition must occur after an ignition delay
time of 60 milliseconds. The use of these ignition
delay times was based on the belief that by adhering
to the specified procedure, unknown, but reproduc-
ible turbulence levels could be established at the
moment of ignition. It was furthermore assumed that
when the air blast was vigorous enough, the turbu-
lence level at the moment of ignition would supersede
those which may be encountered under industrial
operating conditions. With the standard 20-liter explo-
sion sphere, for example, the explosion chamber is
partially evacuated to a pressure 0.4 bar and com-
pressed air at a pressure of 21 bar is injected into it so
that a turbulent flow field at conditions of atmos-
pheric pressure and room temperature exists at the
moment of ignition.
This conservative approach, which was initially
adopted because the maximum rate of pressure rise
was generally known to increase with increasing tur-
bulence, is obviously not the most optimal design
basis for explosion protection methods. It may lead to
unacceptable over-estimations of the required design
strength of plant units in situations where turbulence
levels are much lower than those created in labora-
tory test vessels. It may also lead to dangerous under-
estimations of the required design strength under
circumstances where additional turbulence is gener-
ated by the explosion itself. These shortcomings are
not only due to the application of laboratory test data,
obtained under conditions of unknown turbulence, to
industrial situations where the turbulence levels are
unknown. Even if the conditions of turbulence in the
laboratory tests vessels and in the industrial equip-
ment would be known quantitatively, there appears to
be a lack of quantitative relationships between the
maximum explosion pressure and turbulence. Hence
it is the purpose of this work to investigate the sensi-
tivity of the maximum explosion pressure to turbu-
lence.
In the present work methane and cornstarch were
used as test fuels because of their use by previous
researchers, and the constant composition and nar-
row size distribution of the latter. In order to verify
the observations of previous researchers, namely,
that the maximum explosion pressure of a gaseous
KONA No.19 (2001)
fuel is insensitive to turbulence while that of a particu-
late solid fuel is a function of turbulence, experiments
were done by igniting both methane-air mixtures and
cornstarch-air mixtures to deflagration at various tur-
bulence levels. The experiments were performed by
means of a standard 20-liter sphere since it is the rec-
ommended laboratory test equipment, prescribed by
the technical guidelines for dust explosion severity
testing [3, 4].
2 Experimental
The experiments reported in this work were con-
ducted by means of the standard 20-liter sphere,
shown in Figure 4. In essence the equipment con-
sists of three major components, namely, an explosion
chamber, a storage canister and an injection valve.
The explosion chamber is a hollow sphere made of
stainless steel, with a volume of 20-liters, and is sur-
rounded by a cooling jacket, which allows the circula-
tion of a cooling liquid. It is designed to house a
removable top cover, a port for evacuation and admis-
sion of gases, an outlet port for combustion products,
two flanges so that sensors can be placed, and a port
to allow the inflow of compressed air and to hold a
dust dispersion device. The top cover contains the
holes for introducing the electrodes for the ignition
system. With these electrodes it is possible to ignite
the combustible mixtures by means of a spark or a
chemical igniter at the center of the sphere with an
inaccuracy of only a few millimeters. In order to mea-
sure the pressure two piezo-electric pressure sensors
were installed in one of the flanges mounted in the
wall of the explosion chamber. A temperature-con-
trolled heat transfer fluid was circulated through the
cooling jacket so that the combustible mixtures inves-
tigated were at an initial temperature of 20°C in all
experiments.
The storage canister has a volume of 0.6 liter and is
connected to the explosion chamber by means of a
duct which can be opened and closed very quickly by
means of a pneumatically driven injection valve. The
dust must be placed in the storage canister and be
dispersed via the duct which leads to the explosion
chamber, with a dispersion device attached to the out-
flow end of the duct. The dispersion device used in
this work is the so called rebound nozzle.
As mentioned in the Introduction, according to the
guidelines for dust explosion severity testing, the
explosion chamber must be partially evacuated to 0.4
bar and the storage canister has to be filled with pres-
surized air of 21 bar, prior to dispersing the dust. This
181
 a --------n

(a) inlet for cooling fluid (b) port to evacuate the explosion chamber or to admit gases (c) explosion chamber (d) flange which holds pressure
sensors (e) storage canister (f) powder (g) duct which connects the storage canister to the explosion chamber (h) injection valve (i) outlet for
cooling fluid G) cooling jacket (k) rebound nozzle (I) outlet valve for combustion products (m) removable top cover (n) electrode

Fig. 4 A schematic overview of the standard 20-liter sphere (left) and a photograph of the equipment (right).

pressure difference between the storage canister and
the explosion chamber forms the driving force of the
air blast which disperses the dust into the explosion
chamber. When the injection valve is opened, the
compressed air within the storage canister develops
an expansion flow, which drags the dust particles into
the explosion chamber. Turbulence is generated by
friction with the wall of the duct and the dispersion
device, and this process continues until the pressure
in the storage canister and the explosion chamber
have become equaL When this occurs there is no
longer a driving force present which leads to the gen-
eration of additional turbulence and the existing tur-
bulence level starts to decay. In case of the standard
20-liter sphere, standardized guidelines prescribe a
precise time value for ignition to occur during this
turbulence decay process, namely, at 60 milliseconds
after the very beginning of the injection process_ In
the present work this so called ignition delay time
was varied so that combustible mixtures were ignited
at various turbulence levels.
chiometric methane-air mixture would be present
after completion of the injection process_ The meth-
ane-air mixtures were ignited by means of a spark and
the cornstarch-air mixtures were ignited by means of
a chemical igniter with an energy of 180 J. The mea-
sured pressure-time curves of the mixtures investi-
gated are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
The behavior of the turbulence characteristics of
the transient flow field generated by the injection
process were also investigated [5]_ Since a detailed
account of this investigation falls beyond the scope of
this paper, only the results and conclusions relevant
to this work are presented here. The transient flow
field during and after the injection process, without
8 60ms
80ms
lOOms
120ms
140ms
160ms
180ms

The turbulent cornstarch-air mixtures were gener-

2
ated according the procedure described above and
ignited to deflagration at various ignition delay times_ o+=~==~~~--~-,~--,-~~
The turbulent methane-air mixtures were also created 0 100 200 300 400 500
time (milliseconds)
following this procedure by injecting compressed air
into the explosion chamber containing a pre-mixture Fig. 5 Pressure-time traces of turbulent stoichiometric methane-
of methane and air of such a composition that a stoi- air mixtures ignited at different ignition delay times.

182 KONA No.19 (2001)

 10
log (time)
10 -1

-;::;- 8
e"' ~

....'"'
:::>
6
:g'"' 1 0
§
::::-
w 4 120ms § 0.5 tlll
w
-., ~'rm~ =(.!._)-1.61
....
'"'
0.
2
140ms
160ms V rms to f
0 0.1 +-..----.,---,.---,--,-------,----'- -1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 50 100 200
time (milliseconds) time (10- 3 s)

Fig. 6 Pressure-time traces of 625 gm - 3 cornstarch-air dust Fig. 7 Decay of the root-mean-square velocity in the 20-liter
explosions ignited at different ignition delay times. sphere with the rebound nozzle.
to=60 ms and v'rms 0 = 3.75 ms- 1.

dust, was investigated by means of laser Doppler 0.014 .,----,,---,.----,---,-----,,----,----,

anemometry. Two instantaneous velocity components 0.012
were measured simultaneously in order to quantify :§ 0.01
the turbulence characteristics of the flow field as a '"'
"'0.008
iil
function of time. From this information the root-mean
square value of the velocity fluctuations, v' rms• and the
~ 0.006
0: 0.004
.. ..
turbulence macro length scale, €1, could be deter-
~
0.002
0+--.--,---,--,---.--.--~
..
mined. The spatial homogeneity of the turbulence 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2 0.225
was investigated by performing measurements at var- time (s)
ious locations in the explosion chamber. Directional
isotropy of the turbulence was investigated by com- Fig. 8 The behavior of the length scales of the macro structure
in the period of 60 to 200 milliseconds.
paring the root-mean-square values of the velocity
C? =12.845·10- 3 m, a 1 =-3.542, a 2 =1.321 and t0 =58.8
fluctuations measured simultaneously in two indepen- ·10- 3 s.
dent directions. This research showed that conditions
of spatially homogeneous and directionally isotropic
turbulence exist in the explosion chamber, after an
initial period of about 40 milliseconds with inhomo-
geneous and non-isotropic turbulence present. The
value of the root-mean-square of the velocity fluctua- ~ 0.8
tions and the length scale of the turbulence macro e
structure as a function of the time are respectively ~ 0.6
w
shown in Figures 7 and 8. It appeared to be possible ~ 0.4
to correlate the temporal behavior of these quantities
0.2
by means of the decay-law expressions presented in
these figures.
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Knowing that a 20-liter sphere at a pressure of 1 bar
time (milliseconds)
contains about 21 grams of air, while explosion sever-
ity testing involves dust loadings ranging from 2.5 to Fig. 9 Behavior of the pressure in the explosion chamber during
25.0 grams, one may reasonably ask whether the the injection of various quantities of dust.
decay of turbulence of a dust cloud will deviate signifi-
cantly from the behavior shown in Figures 7 and 8.
To shed some light on this issue injection experi- systematic effect on the behavior of the pressure,
ments were conducted with different loadings of namely, that increasing amounts of dust tend to
cornstarch dust [5). For safety reasons nitrogen was decrease the curvature of the pressure curves during
used instead of air. The results of this investigation the injection process. In order to get an impression of
are shown in Figures 9 to 11. The pressure curves what this means for the turbulence conditions in the
in the first two figures indicate that the presence of explosion chamber, it was attempted to measure the
dusts at the bottom of the storage canister has a vertical velocity component at the center and to de-

KONA No.19 (2001) 183

 25 jected. From these results it is concluded that the tur-
bulent fluctuations of the gas phase behave more or
20 less independently of the presence of a solid phase
--;::;-
e"' 15
(apart from the larger scatter in the presence of corn-
"::l.... starch dust) and that the decay law expressions dis-
"'"'.... 10 cussed previously may be used as an approximation
"
0.
for their behavior.
5 It is worth noting that this observation is consistent
with the implication of the Hinze-Tchen equation [6].
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 This equation states that the turbulent kinetic energy
time (milliseconds) per mass unit of the particulate phase, kp, relates to
that of the gas phase, k, as
Fig. 10 Behavior of the pressure in the storage canister during

~ +;;I r2.
the injection of various quantities of dust.
= [1 (2)

where r 1 denotes the time scale of the turbulent fluc-

tuations and rp denotes the response time of a particle
-nocomst to a change in the velocity or the magnitude of the
• lOg
• 7.5g
• 5.0g
gas velocity. Since the response time of the corn-
7.5g
!O.Ot-----"--------i~~--------1
J:
• 2.5 g starch particles is much larger than the time scale of
~ 12.5g
§
+
· lQOg the gas-phase fluctuations, the particles pick up little
(J) kinetic energy from the gas phase. Owing to the larger
~ response time of the particles, the local velocity of the
10 gas phase will have changed its direction many times
before the particles can pick up a significant amount
O.!L-.-----------~--=---_j
of momentum in one preferential direction.
Time (ms)

Fig. 11 Root-mean-square values of the vertical velocity compo-
nent during the injection of cornstarch dust.
termine the root-mean-square value of the velocity
fluctuations as a function of time. Although these
measurements were conducted under conditions that
are beyond the range of applicability of laser Doppler
anemometry, the authors believe that these measure-
ments may give a qualitative idea of the effect of the
particulate phase on the gas phase fluctuations. As in
the case of the gas injection experiments discussed
previously, small particles, capable of following the
gas phase fluctuations, were added to the flow field
and the settings of the laser Doppler anemometer
were optimized so that the signals arising from the
larger, and hence slower, cornstarch particles would
be rejected. The results obtained with various corn-
starch dust loadings are presented in Figure 11. The
thick line in this figure shows the behavior of the
root-mean-square value of the velocity fluctuations
generated by the injection of nitrogen only. The thin
lines indicate the deviation from the thick line when
different amounts of cornstarch dust are being in-
3 Effect of turbulence on the maximum
explosion pressure of dust-air mixtures
The pressure-time curves shown by Figures 5 and
6 indicate that the maximum explosion pressure of
methane-air mixtures is insensitive to turbulence (it
remains at a constant value of about 8.4 bar) while
that of cornstarch-air mixtures appears to be a func-
tion of turbulence. This result is consistent with the
observation made by other researchers, as mentioned
in the Introduction. According to Figure 13, the max-
imum explosion pressure of the investigated corn-
starch-air mixtures increases from 5.3 bar to 8.5 bar
when the turbulence level is increased from 0.75 ms- 1
to 3.75 ms- 1. In other words, the maximum explosion
pressure increases by a factor of 1.6 when the turbu-
lence level increases by a factor of about five. This
change is less drastic than that observed with the
equipment used by Kauffman et a!. [2], namely, an
increase of the maximum explosion pressure by a fac-
tor of 1.5 when the turbulence intensity is increased
by a factor of about three. This difference may be
attributed to the existence of turbulence with a differ-
ent length scale in the equipment used by Kauffman
eta!.

184 KONA No.19 (2001)


60 80 100 120 140 160
ignition delay time (ms)
Fig. 12 The maximum explosion pressure of cornstarch-air mix-
tures ignited at various turbulence levels (data are taken
from Figure 6).
10
8 flame these reactants are being heated at the down-
'i:' 6
e"'
~ ecular scale and the partial pressures of the reactant
~ 4
2
0 fuel and oxidizer on a macroscopic scale, the heat
0 2 3 4
v',m, (ms- 1)
Fig. 13 The maximum explosion pressure of cornstarch-air mix-
tures as a function of the turbulence level at the moment
of ignition. This figure is essentiaiiy the same as Figure
12 with the horizontal axis rescaled according to the cor-
relation presented in Figure 7.
In our work, as well as in the work of Kauffman et
at., the maximum explosion pressure was observed to
increase with more than 3 bar when turbulence was
varied. Since this is a significant difference when it
concerns the assessment of the design strength of
industrial equipment, and since laboratory test data
are being applied to industrial circumstances where
the conditions of turbulence are different from those
existing in laboratory test vessels, it is of great impor-
tance to know why and how turbulence affects the
maximum explosion pressure.
It was mentioned in the Introduction that the maxi-
mum explosion pressure of premixed gases of fuel
and air may be regarded as a thermodynamic prop-
erty which is a function of the initial pressure, the ini-
tial temperature, and the chemical composition only.
It is insensitive to flow conditions because the kinetic
energy of the fluid motions is negligible in compari-
son with the heat effects associated with the combus-
tion reactions, and flow conditions do not affect the
chemical composition of the reactant mixture which
is consumed by the flame. In the case of dust-air mix-
tures, turbulence does have an effect on the max-
imum explosion pressure because it affects the
liberation of volatile components from the particles,
as will be discussed below.
When a combustible mixture is ignited to deflagra-
tion in a spherical enclosure, an initially spherical
flame is created which propagates radially into the
surrounding reactant mixture. During this flame
propagation process reactants enter the flame at the
downstream side in order to be burned in the flame
zone, and expanding hot combustion products are left
behind in the wake of the flame. Prior to entering the
stream side. In case of a gaseous fuel-air mixture the
chemical composition is established down to the mol-
gases that compose it remains the same during this
heating process. In the case of a dust-air mixture,
which may be regarded as a homogeneous mixture of
released by the flame affects the chemical composi-
tion of the reactants that are actually being con-
sumed. As the particle temperature increases in the
preheat zone of the flame, volatile components begin
to be emitted and mix with the surrounding oxidizer.
This leads to the formation of a primary reaction zone
which is largely sustained by gaseous combustion [7].
The emission of volatile components and the mix-
ing process continues into the reaction zone and is
largely completed before the end of the reaction zone.
Hence, in comparison with premixed gases, the flame
temperature of a dust cloud additionally depends on
the rate of evolution of volatile components, and the
residence time of the particles in the preheat zone
and the flame zone.
With lignites, bituminous coals, vegetable grains
and powdered foodstuffs, remaining char burns in the
hot oxygen beyond the preheat zone. Particles of less
than 1 Jlm can be oxidized entirely in the primary
reaction zone and the effect of the chemical heat re-
lease of the oxidation of these particles on the flame
temperature is additive to that of the volatile species.
For particle sizes greater than 10 Jlm, the oxidation of
char in the primary reaction zone is slow in compari-

KONA No.19 (2001) 185

son with the gaseous combustion process. In this T
case the oxidation of char within the primary reaction
zone hardly affects the flame temperature. Since the
cornstarch particles used in this work have a narrow
size distribution with a modal diameter of 15 J.lm, the
combustion of char will not be considered here.
The liberation of volatiles can be considered by
means of a simplified analysis of particle devolatiliza-
tion with the following assumptions:
• The particle is surrounded by a infinite quiescent
medium with a constant temperature, denoted by
Tg.
• The particle has a uniform temperature, and the Fig. 14 Temperature profile around a spherical particle accord-
heat resistance is located at the gas side of the ing to equation (5).
interface between the particle and the medium
that surrounds it.
• The devolatilization process is steady, and all
physical properties, such as the density, thermal
conductivity and specific heat, are constant. dT Cpgm
(7)
• During the devolatilization process, the particle dr Ir= ;;= 4 1tAgTF
has a constant devolatilization temperature, de-
noted by Td.
The objective of this analysis is to find a relationship Insertion of this expression into equation (6) leads to
between the volatile production rate, m, and the tem- the following relationship,
perature to which the particles are being exposed.
This is done by means of a gas-phase energy and a m. = -
41tAgTp
,-- n 1rl + Cpg (Tg-Td)
---'c"--'-~--=-'-- (8)
surface energy balance [8]. In spherical coordinates,
Cpg !'1.dH 1
the gas phase-energy balance reads,
4
= 1t~grp ln [l+Sp], (9)
d ( dT) . dT
A
(3) Cpg
dr 41tA.grpdr -mCpgdr=O
which describes the influence of the preheat tempera-
and can be solved with the boundary conditions ture on the devolatilization rate. The quantity denoted
by Sp is known as the Spalding number.
r~oo: T=Tg and r=rp: T=Td (4)
It will now be shown how turbulence affects the
to give the temperature profile of the gas phase (see amount of volatile components released from the par-
Figure 14): ticles. In the case of the preheat zone this is done by
considering the enthalpy equation of a multi-compo-
nent reacting mixture consisting of N species,

J~~ ~ • N
Jt+'V·~vh)=Ji+v·'VP+r:Vv-'V-Jh- ~pY;Ji- (!D;VY; ).

(10)

The surface energy balance may be stated as The heat flux vector,

1 zdT
4 1tr.grp-d . H (6)
I =m!'1.d ,
r r=rp
where !'1.dH denotes the required enthalpy per unit
mass to devolatilize the solid fuel. The temperature is the sum of four contributions, namely, thermal dif-
gradient at the gas phase side of the particle surface fusion, the radiant energy flux, the Soret flux and a
is found by differentiating equation (5) and setting r Dufour flux, of which the last two phenomena make
equal to rp: very small contributions.
With turbulence present, in the absence of external

186 KONA No.19 (2001)

body forces, and on the assumption of a negligible
effect of turbulence on the radiant energy flux, the
Favre-averaged form of this equation becomes,
"Jp Jvi'
+v·-+r··--
1 dXj
11
dXj
- ~- (ph"v;}
J
(12)
which contains three additional terms, namely,
(13)
These additional terms are respectively identified as
i. pressure work due to turbulence,
ii. dissipation due to molecular friction,
iii. and turbulent diffusion of fluid enthalpy.
If the turbulence would disappear suddenly in a mys-
terious way, these terms would reduce to zero, and
the Favre-averaged equation would become identical
to the instantaneous equation. If, on the other hand,
the turbulence is intensified, then the magnitude of
these terms increases. Since it is evident that one or
more of these terms must be responsible for the influ-
ence of turbulence on the maximum explosion pres-
sure, their relative importance will be considered.
Since the spatial pressure distribution in the 20-liter
sphere is almost uniform during the course of a defla-
gration, the contribution of the pressure work term,
v'j (Jp I Jx1), to the microscopic enthalpy balance is
negligible. The dissipation due to molecular friction,
v'j (Jp I Jx1), may also be neglected because of the low
viscosity of air. Moreover, the spatial derivatives of
the velocity fluctuations in this term are small due to
the spatial homogeneity of the turbulent flow field.
These considerations leave Jph"v'jl Jx1 as the only
remaining possibility to account for the effect of tur-
bulence on the maximum explosion pressure.
It is indeed possible to deduce a mechanism for the
effect of turbulence on the release of volatile compo-
nents in the preheat zone by treating the turbulent
flux of enthalpy by analogy with the molecular flux of
heat. In an ideal gas the following relationship exists
between the heat flux and the driving force that gov-
erns it [9, Chapter 26],
jh·= -'A JT
1 (14)
dX;'
where
'A= (3l32n) 112fv'k.N. (15)
KONA No.19 (2001)
Here 'A denotes the thermal conductivity, k the Boltz-
mann constant, .N the number density, C the mean
v'
free path and the root mean square velocity of the
molecules. By analogy with equations (14) and (15)
the turbulent diffusion of fluid enthalpy is modelled
here as
~ JT
-h"
P
,
Vj = -1\,t--=;-- = -1-t{) V,rms-=;--'
JT (16)
UXj UXj
where the turbulent thermal conductivity, 'At, is
expressed as the product of the turbulence length
scale, Ct, and the root mean square of the fluid veloc-
ity fluctuations, v'rms· The product At= Ct v'rms simply
implies that turbulent heat conduction is enhanced as
v'rms and Ct are being increased.
During an explosion, the system pressure and the
mean quantities in the Favre-averaged energy equa-
tion change slowly in comparison with the localized
process of turbulent fluid enthalpy diffusion from the
flame into the unburnt mixture. The Favre-averaged
energy equation may therefore be simplified to
For a fixed planar flame which is sustained by a
steady, isotropic turbulent flow of a combustible mix-
ture, the convective velocity iJ1 may be replaced by the
turbulent burning velocity, Sur. at which the unburnt
mixture enters the flame. Together with the assump-
tion of a constant Cpm, equation (17) may be simpli-
fied to
d 2T + pCpmSur dT =O (18)
tJx2 ftV'rms dx .
When this equation is solved with the boundary con-
ditionsx= 0: T= T1 andx= co: T= T~, one obtains
T- L exp (- {5Cp7Sur x). (19)
Tt- T~ ft V rms
This solution is plotted in Figure 15 to illustrate how
the width of the preheat zone depends on the tur-
bulence characteristics of the dust cloud. The tur-
bulence measurements discussed in the previous
section indicate that both v'rms and Ct are increasing
when the ignition delay time is decreased (see Fig-
ures 7 and 8). If the turbulent burning velocity, Su,
were constant, shortening the ignition delay time
would always increase the width of the preheat zone.
The turbulent burning velocity of premixed gases and
dust-air mixtures, however, is known to be a function
of the turbulence level and the turbulence length
scale. Since the turbulent burning velocity and the
187

Fig. 15 The effect of turbulence on the temperature profile of the
preheat zone.
product £1v'rms have opposite effects on PCPmSurl
f 1v'rms it is necessary to know the precise dependence
of the former quantity on turbulence.
Trautwein et at. [10] measured the turbulent burn-
ing velocity of several gaseous fuels in a single stroke
compression-expansion machine. Reactive mixtures
were ignited at various turbulence intensities and the
measured turbulent burning velocities were corre-
lated by (see Figure 16)
Sur= 1+C (V'rms)n.
SuL SuL
Tezok et at. [11] measured the turbulent burning
velocity of cornstarch-air mixtures in the 950-liter
explosion vessel mentioned in the Introduction and
the results are shown in Figure 17. The turbulence
intensity of the reactant mixture was varied between
1.0 and 4.2 ms- 1 and experiments were done at two
dust concentrations, namely, 300 gm- 3 and 700 gm- 3•
The ratio of turbulent to laminar burning velocities
was found to correlate to the ratio of the turbulence
intensity to the laminar burning velocity according to
equation (20). The laminar burning velocities that
were used in this correlation were derived from the
turbulent burning velocities by means of extrapola-
tion to zero turbulence. In all cases the turbulent
burning velocity was found to increase with increas-
ing turbulence levels. With the gaseous fuels inves-
tigated, the exponent n appears to have a value
between 0.48 and 0.71. The ratio of the turbulent
to the laminar burning velocity of cornstarch-air
mixtures appears to have a linear dependence on
v'rmsiSuL· Owing to this linear dependence, the first
term on the right hand side of equation (20) is made
negligible by the second term for high values of
v'rmsiSuL and hence, Sur oc v'rms· When this result is
substituted into the expression for the temperature
profile of the preheat zone (19) it is seen that the
width of the preheat zone principally depends on the
behavior of the turbulence length scale, £1• Figure 8
then implies that a shorter ignition delay time leads to
a wider preheat zone. As a result the amount of
volatiles released from the particles is increased as
follows:
• As the preheat zone extends further into the
(20) unburnt mixture, the fuel particles are longer
exposed to a higher temperature and conse-
quently release more volatiles.
• A greater amount of volatiles increases the
flame temperature, which in turn enhances the
devolatilization rate.
The residence time of the particles in the preheat
zone does depend on the turbulence intensity since it
is equal to the ratio between the width of this zone
and the turbulent burning velocity. The mass change,

6 6

5 ... 5
......
•
CJ)
4 <.D 4 "-
... 0
"-'
0
~ 3
II II
" rJ) "
~
rJ) ~~
-~ rJ) @
~
rJ)
3
~~
-; rJ) ~

"'
~N ~N
2 2 (..) N
(..)+ N + oi
II II
II II (..) (..)
i0
>

0
=
u "I" ~
....
C/) IJ'j~
"I"
(/);'! rJf il
·~

0 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1.5 2 2.5

v'rmsfSuL v'rmsfSuL v'rmsfSuL

Fig. 16 The turbulent burning velocity of various gaseous fuels. The data in this figure were taken from Trautwein et al. [10].

188 KONA No.19 (2001)

 6 tion process, the departure of the burning velocity
5 from its laminar value, Sur- SuL• can be expressed as
4 T • a function of the laminar burning velocity at the actual
""'
03 • pressure and temperature, SuL. the laminar flame
~
02 thickness at the actual pressure and temperature, 8L.
Sur =
SuL
1+C(V'cms)"
SuL
the root-mean-square value of the velocity fluctua-
C= 0.46 and n= 1.0
tions, v' rms and the macro length scale of the turbu-
0 lence, et. as
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Sur-SuL = f(SuL. 8 L. v'rms. Ct) (23)
= (SuJa (8 L)b (v'rmsY (Ct)d. (24)
Fig. 17 The turbulent burning velocity of cornstarch-air mix-
tures. The data in this figure were taken from Tezok et al. Substitution of the dimensions of the quantities
[11). involved leads to

m = (m)a
--; --; (m)b (m)c
--; (m)d (25)
t.m, of a particle may thus be expressed as
--.- x* <==>I m: 1= a+b+c+d, (26)
t.m=m- , (21) s: 1= a+c
5uT
where the average release rate of volatiles, and the m, which can be solved to give
width of the preheat zone where the temperature
a=1-c, b=b, c=c, d=-b. (27)
exceeds the particle devolatilization temperature, x*,
principally depend on the turbulence length scale. Substitution of equation (27) into equation (24)
When the release of volatiles from the particles con- results into
tinues in the reaction zone, it is also necessary to con-
sider the residence time of the particles in the flame (28)
zone. In this case the release of volatiles in the flame
zone is additive to that in the preheat zone and may
be described by extending equation (21) to (29)

--.- x* . 8r
t.m=m- +m- , (22) Similarly, the turbulent flame thickness, 8r, can be
5 uT 5 uT
expressed as
where 8r denotes the turbulent flame thickness.
Tezok et al. [11] performed some indicative measure- 8r-8L=f(SuL. 8L, v'rms. Ct) (30)
ments of the turbulent flame thickness of cornstarch- = (SuL)a (8L)b (V'rms)c (Ct)d (31)
air mixtures. These researchers observed that the
turbulence intensity has a significant effect on the (32)
turbulent flame thickness. At a dust concentration of
300 gm- 3 the turbulent flame thickness increased <==>I m: 1= a+b+c+d (33)
from 13 em to 21 em when the turbulence intensity s: 0= a+c
was changed from 1.5 to 4.2 ms- 1. At a dust concen-
tration of 700 gm- 3 an increase from 34 em to 44 em ===> a=-c, b=1-d, c=c, d=-d (34)
was observed when the turbulence intensity was
changed from 1.5 to 4.2 ms- 1• This emphasizes the 8r-8L -( v'rms!Ct )c(li_)d+c
an d h ence 8L - Sud8L 8L (35)
necessity for a correlation between the turbulent
flame thickness and the turbulence characteristics of
the dust cloud. Due to the absence of such a correla- <==> 8r = 1+( v'rmsl e )a" (!J_)b". (36)
8L Sud8L 8L
tion, an attempt will be undertaken here to derive
one. In fact, a set of correlations will be derived here Thus, the turbulent burning velocity and the turbu-
for both the turbulent burning velocity and the turbu- lent flame thickness are related to the laminar burn-
lent flame thickness. ing velocity and the laminar flame thickness by
At every instant of time during the flame propaga- means of the following two equations,

KONA No.19 (2001) 189


Sur = 1+ Daa'( v' rms )b' (37)
SuL SuL
~
OL
= 1+ D aa"(iJ__
oL '
)b" (38)
of which the independent variables, v' rmsl SuL and
C1/ oL. are the same as the ordinates of the Borghi dia-
gram [12, 13], and in which the Damkohler number,
Da = (C 1Sudv'rmsoJ, serves as an indicator for the
combustion regime in which the flame propagation
process occurs. Notice that Sur~ SuL and or~ OL if
v'rms ~ 0, and that equation (37) is a generalized form
of expression (20) for the turbulent burning velocity.
Although the exponents in equations (37) and (38)
are still unknown, one may get an impression of the
magnitude of a' and b' by inspecting Figures 16 and
17, and from the work reported by Leuckel et at. [1].
Leuckel et at. investigated the dependency of the
inclination of equation (20) on the laminar burning
velocity using methane-air, hydrogen-air, and methane-
hydrogen-air mixtures. With all mixtures C was found
to correlate with the laminar burning velocity as
1/4
C rx S uL · (39)
This result implies that a' has a value of 1/4 and
owing to this weak dependence of C on the turbu-
lence characteristics of the flow field, Figures 16
and 17 indicate that b' ranges between 1/2 and 1.
Since the Damkohler number is a measure of the
coupling between the flame and the flow field, it is
reasonable to expect that the exponent a" has the
same value as the exponent a'.
The estimation of a value for b" is more difficult
since Tezok et at. reported turbulent flame thick-
nesses, but did not mention anything about the length
scales of the turbulence in their equipment. Leuckel
et at., on the other hand, state that the turbulence
length scales associated with various turbulence
intensities were found to be independent of the venti-
lator speed which sustained the turbulent flow field in
their equipment. These turbulence length scales were
observed to have a size of about 20 mm. Since Tezok
et at. also worked with non-decaying turbulent flow
fields it is assumed here that there was no large varia-
tion in the turbulence length scales present in their
equipment. Due to the fact that the diameter of the
vessel used by Tezok et at. was 2.4 times that of the
vessel used by Leuckel et at. it is assumed here that
the turbulence length scale is also greater by the
same factor. With the turbulence length scale being
about 50 mm and the laminar flame thickness of corn-
190
starch-air mixtures being about 3 mm [14], insertion
of the turbulent the flame thicknesses reported by
Tezok et at. into equation (38) reveals that the of b"
ranges between 1.6 and 2.0 (the quantity Daa" is
taken to be equal to 0.51; see Figure 17).
Equations (9) and (22) will now be used to derive
an expression for the effect of turbulence on release
of volatile matter from the particles. For this purpose
the average release rate of volatiles,m, is defined as
rr
m= 1
T. T. jmdT= 4 n?-·grp -f-[(l+Sp1)ln(l+Sp1)-Sp1],
1- drd CPg Pt
(40)
and, based on equation (19), the width of the region
inside the preheat zone where the temperature
exceeds the devolatilization temperature of the parti-
cles is approximated by
*- Ctv'rmsCTt-Td) (41)
X - ' .
pCpmSur
The quantity denoted by Sp1 is the Spalding number
based on the flame temperature. A final expression
may then be obtained by combining equations (9),
(22), (40) and (41) into
(42)
This expression unveils the various factors that affect
the release of volatiles from the particles, and hence
the maximum explosion pressure of a dust-air mix-
ture. These factors include flow properties of the
mixture (turbulence level and length scale), physical
properties of the mixture (specific heat, density),
properties of the flame (flame temperature, burning
velocity, flame thickness), physical properties of the
particles (particle size, devolatilization temperature,
devolatilization enthalpy), and physical properties of
the gas phase (specific heat, thermal conductivity).
Notice that this equation would also be valid for
flames propagating through laminar dust clouds
since, according to equations (37) and (38), the turbu-
lent burning velocity and the turbulent flame thick-
ness would reduce to the laminar burning velocity
and the laminar flame thickness, and, by the analogy
between equations (14) and (15), the product, C1v'rms•
would transform into the thermal conductivity of the
KONA No.19 (2001)
mixture.
Owing to the simplifying assumptions made earlier,
equation (42) may only be used for a qualitative expla-
nation of observed trends in the behavior of the maxi-
mum explosion pressure of dust-air mixtures. Hence,
equation (42) is reduced into a scaling relationship,
8 In order to achieve a better consistency between
+ S T ln(1 +Sp1) (43)
uT
(44)
which can be used for a qualitative explanation for the
effect of turbulence on the maximum explosion pres-
sure and to assess the relative importance of the
release of volatiles from the particles in the preheat
zone and in the flame zone. With CPm = 103 Jkg- 1 K- \
Cpg=103 Jkg- 1 K-1, !J.dH=10 7 Jkg-1, j5=1 kgm- 3,
and an assumed temperature difference of 1000 K
between the particles and the surrounding medium,
one finds that Sp1 = 0.1, and that the quantities A and
B have a value of about 0.1. When the temperature
difference between the particles and the surrounding
gas is assumed to be 2000 K then one finds that A =
0.16 and 8=0.18. With an assumed !J.dH of 106 Jkg- 1
and a temperature difference of 2000 K one finds that
Spt= 2 and that A= 0.3 and B = 1.1. Since f 1 v'rmsiS~r
and 8 rl Sur are in the same order of magnitude, these
values indicate that with increasing Spalding numbers
the release of volatiles in the preheat zone becomes
less important than in the flame zone.
Figure 18 shows the solution of equation (44) at
various ignition delay times, together with the maxi-
mum explosion pressure of cornstarch-air mixtures.
Equal values were assigned to A and B, and the val-
ues of v'rms and f 1 were calculated by means of the
correlations presented in Figures 7 and 8. The
turbulent burning velocity and flame thickness were
calculated by means of equations (37) and (38). The
laminar burning velocity and the laminar flame thick-
ness in these correlations were respectively assumed
to have a value of 20 cms- 1 and 3 mm. In all cases the
turbulent flame thickness was calculated with Daa"=
0.51 and b" = 2. The upper-left part of Figure 18 was
obtained with Daa' = 0.51 and b' = 1 in the turbulent
burning velocity correlation, like the work of Tezok et
al. suggests (see Figure 17). The amount of volatiles
released from the particles is seen to decrease up to
an ignition delay time of 120 milliseconds and in-
KONA No.19 (2001)
creases slightly thereafter. This behavior is inconsis-
tent with the monotonously decreasing trend of the
maximum explosion pressure. According to the up-
per-right part of Figure 18 this inconsistency arises
from the behavior of the residence time of the parti-
cles in the flame zone, 8r!Sur· Hence, its cause must
be sought in the accuracy of the correlations which
describe the turbulent burning velocity and the turbu-
lent flame thickness.
the trends of the maximum explosion pressure and
the release of volatiles from the particles, the turbu-
lent burning velocity correlation (37) was re-evalu-
ated as shown by Figure 19. The solid lines in this
figure depict the behavior of equation (20) when it is
fitted to the experimental data in two distinct regions,
namely, when v' rmsl SuL :::::: 5 and when v' rmsl SuL > 5.
Since the turbulent cornstarch-air mixtures investi-
gated in this work were ignited at a turbulence level
of 3.75 ms- 1 while the laminar burning velocity is in
the order of 20 cms-1, the solution of equation (44)
was calculated again with Daa'=0.68 and b'=0.79.
This solution is shown in the lower-left part of Figure
18 and its monotonously decreasing behavior is
found to be more consistent with that of the maxi-
mum explosion pressure.
For a number of reasons equation (42) can not be
used as a correlation which predicts the effect of tur-
bulence on the maximum explosion pressure in a
quantitative sense, but only as one which explains the
global trend in a qualitative manner. This is partly due
to the simplifying assumptions on which its derivation
rests, and partly due to deficiencies in our knowledge
of the turbulent flow field and its interaction with the
flame.
It was assumed that a particle in the preheat zone is
surrounded by a quiescent medium, that the particle
size does not change (notice that equation (40) relies
on this assumption), and that all physical properties,
including the temperature at which devolatilization
occurs, are constant. In reality there is a relative
velocity between the particle and the surrounding
medium and the particle size may change consider-
ably during the devolatilization process. Since the
temperature in the preheat zone varies from that of
the cold unburnt mixture to the high temperature of
the flame zone, the particles are continuously ex-
posed to a greatly varying temperature during their
passage through this region. The physical properties
of the particles and the surrounding medium are
known to vary greatly over such a wide temperature
range. The devolatilization temperature is further-
191
 1.2 1.2 14 14

12 12
~
--.x 10 10

--
0.8 )t-- 0.8 'til
~ "iii.. I 5;.. 'til
~ 8
~
E x - _x 0;: ?/)
8 5
0.6 X 0.6 h
&..
-
<1 ), r)j
·.,e
'-. '-. 6 6 ";::
~ ;: '<:>
~ 0.4 0.4 <1
~
4 4

0.2 0.2 2 2

0 0 0 0
60 80 100 120 140 160 60 80 100 120 140 160
ignition delay time (ms) ignition delay time (ms)

1.2 1.2 18 18
16 16
14 14
~
-{ ___
0.8 0.8 'til 12 12
I ~iii..._ I
~
5;.. 'til
~
X X 0;: 10 10 5
E
0.6 x 0.6 ?;) h
&.. <1 '-. r)j
'-. '-. § 8 8

-
";::
~ ;: ·., '<:>
~ 0.4 0.4 <1
~ 6 6
4 4
0.2 0.2
2 2
0 0 0 0
60 80 100 120 140 160 60 80 100 120 140 160
ignition delay time (ms) ignition delay time (ms)

Fig. 18 The solution of (44) and the behavior of e,v'rmsiS'f.T and oTISuT as a function of the ignition delay time. The upper-left and the upper-
right figure were obtained with Da""=0.51 and b'=l. The lower-left and the lower-right figure were obtained with Da""=0.68 and
b'=0.79.

6~~.--.--r--r--~-.-----.--~--.---~
()r/ Sur. are of crucial importance in the estimation of
5 the amount of volatiles released from the particles. In
4 order to have good estimates of these quantities, it is
c;f not only important to have accurate knowledge of
";::3
r)j
2
the flow properties. Accurate relationships are also
needed which express the turbulent burning velocity
and the turbulent flame thickness in terms of the flow
properties. In this work two such relationships have
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
been developed (equations (37) and (38)) and the
v'rmsiSuL
constants in these expressions were evaluated on the
Fig.19 The turbulent burning velocity of cornstarch-air mix- basis of experimental data reported by Tezok et al. A
tures. The data points in this figure are the same as those comparison between the graphs presented in Figure
in Figure 17.
18, in conjunction with Figures 17 and 19, shows
that accurate knowledge of these constants is of great
importance. An additional source of inaccuracy is due
more not constant, like in the case of a pure com- to the fact that the magnitudes of the turbulence prop-
pound, but may vary over a temperature trajectory. erties (v'rms and €1) which were used to calculate the
The residence time in the preheat zone and the residence times are those at the moment of ignition.
flame zone, respectively denoted by C 1 v'rms1S~r and Hence, their values are no more than a crude esti-

192 KONA No.19 (2001)

mate of the values we are supposed to know during
the course of the flame propagation process.
4 Conclusions
The effect of turbulence on the maximum explosion
pressure of dust-air mixtures was investigated by
igniting turbulent cornstarch-air mixtures to deflagra-
tion at various turbulence levels in the standard 20-
liter sphere. Turbulence was created by means of a
blast of compressed air and the turbulence level was
varied by changing the ignition delay time. A com-
parative study was also undertaken by deflagrating
stoichiometric methane-air mixtures at different
turbulence levels. The conclusions arising from this
investigation are summarized as follows.
• The maximum explosion pressure of a dust-air
mixture is sensitive to flow properties. It was
observed to increase by a factor of 1.6 when the
turbulence level was increased by a factor of
about five (see Figure 13). This observation is
consistent with the findings of Kauffman et al.,
namely, that the maximum explosion pressure of
cornstarch-air mixtures increases with increasing
turbulence levels (see Figure 3).
• The comparative experiments with stoichiometric
methane-air mixtures show that the maximum
explosion pressure of gaseous fuel-air mixtures is
not being affected by turbulence. This observa-
tion is consistent with the findings of Leuckel et
al. (see Figure 2) and with the general view that
the maximum explosion pressure of a gas mix-
ture may be regarded as a thermodynamic prop-
erty which is insensitive to flow properties.
• The controversy between the previous two items
has important consequences for the safe design
of industrial equipment. It is common practice to
assess the maximum explosion pressure of com-
bustible mixtures experimentally by means of
laboratory test vessels, or, theoretically by calcu-
lating the product mixtures composition, temper-
ature and pressure. In the experimental approach
combustible mixtures are ignited to deflagration
in laboratory test vessels and the resulting max-
imum explosion pressure is used as a design
basis for industrial equipment. In the theoretical
approach the final explosion pressure is calcu-
lated on the basis of the chemical composition of
the reactants, the chemical composition of the
products, and the chemical and thermodynamic
properties of the species involved. When the
effect of turbulence is not taken into account,
KONA No.19 (2001)
these approaches may lead to underestimations
or over estimations of the design strength of
industrial equipment.
• The availability of quantitative correlations be-
tween the experimental maximum explosion pres-
sure or the product mixture composition on one
hand, and the flow properties of a dust cloud on
the other hand, would greatly enhance our capa-
bility to predict what would happen if a dust-air
mixture exploded under industrial circumstances.
This would lead to a more optimal design basis
for industrial equipment. In case of the experi-
mental approach, the maximum explosion pres-
sure can be measured at a particular turbulence
level and such correlations could be used to ex-
trapolate this result to the flow conditions which
exist under industrial circumstances. The accu-
racy of the theoretical approach can be improved
by such correlations since they enable one make
a better estimate of the reactant mixture composi-
tion and the resulting product mixture composi-
tion.
• In this work an explanation is proposed for the
effect of turbulence on the maximum explosion
pressure of dust-air mixtures by considering the
release of volatiles from the particles. Although
this explanation rests on a picture which is too
simplified to yield an accurate quantitative rela-
tionship between the maximum explosion pres-
sure, the release of volatiles from the particles,
and the effect of turbulence on the latter, a
number of important issues which require fur-
ther improvement have been singled out by this
analysis.
• A relationship was established between the
instantaneous release rate of volatiles from the
particles, the physical properties of the particles,
and the physical properties of the gas that sur-
rounds them (see equation (9). Its derivation is
based on the assumption that the gas which sur-
rounds the particles is quiescent. Since there is a
velocity difference between the particles and the
surrounding gas, an improved expression ought
to be derived by describing the heat transfer from
the latter to the former by means of the Ranz-
Marshall equation.
• In order to estimate the total amount of volatiles
released from the particles, it is necessary to
know their residence time in the preheat zone
and the flame zone. It is shown that these resi-
dence times depend entirely on the flow proper-
ties of the dust cloud. In this work, experimental
193
 values of the turbulence level and the turbulence Pmax maximum explosion pressure Pa
length scale at the moment of ignition were pre- no moles of gas present before explosion [-]
sented and used. Since the release of volatiles ne moles of gas present after explosion [-]
occurs after the ignition has occurred, it is neces- q radiant flux wm- 2
sary to extrapolate these flow properties to what r radial coordinate m
they would be during the flame propagation R universal gas constant Jmol- 1 K- 1
process. Ideally, turbulence measurements would Yp particle radius m
have to be performed in the unburnt mixture at SuL laminar burning velocity ms- 1
the downstream side of the advancing flame Sur turbulent burning velocity ms- 1
front. T temperature K
• The residence time of the particles in the preheat Td devolatilization temperature K
zone and the flame zone were found to depend Tt flame temperature K
also on the turbulent burning velocity and the tur- yad flame temperature K
f
bulent flame thickness. A set of generalized cor- Tg gas phase temperature K
relations (see (37) and (38)) have been derived v velocity vector ms- 1
for these quantities and the mixture specific con- V; diffusion velocity vector of the
stants in these correlations were estimated on i-th species ms- 1
the basis of experimental burning velocities and v'rrns root-mean-square value of the
flame thicknesses, using turbulence levels and velocity fluctuations ms- 1
length scales at the moment of ignition. The con- X; i-th species mole fraction [-]
stants in these correlations would have to be re- Y; i-th species mass fraction [-]
evaluated on the basis of flow properties as they
exist during the course of the flame propagation
GREEK SYMBOLS
process.
a; interaction parameter of the
i-th species kgm- 2s- 1
5 list of symbols
8L laminar flame thickness m
The symbols used throughout this work are ex- 8r turbulent flame thickness m
plained below. When a symbol represents something t-.dH devolatilization enthalpy Jkg-1
else than stated here, or when a symbol in the text is "A thermal conductivity Wm- 1K- 1
not explained here, or when a symbol represents Ag thermal conductivity of the
more than one quantity, its precise meaning is clari- gas phase Wm- 1 K- 1
fied by the text. p density kgm- 3
'r shear stress tensor Nm- 2
Tp response time of a particle s
LATIN SYMBOLS
Tt turbulence macro time scale s
gas phase specific heat Jkg-1 K-1
mixture specific heat Jkg-1 K-1
OTHER SYMBOLS
sum of body forces per unit
mass acting on the i-th species Nkg- 1 !D; diffusion coefficient of the i-th
h microscopic enthalpy per unit species
mass Jkg- 1 binary diffusion coefficient between
heat transfer coefficient Wm- 2 K- 1 the i-th and the j-th species
enthalpy flux vector wm- 2 maximum rate of pressure rise
turbulent kinetic energy per unit turbulence macro length scale
volume of the gas phase Jm- 3 molecular mass of the i-th
turbulent kinetic energy per unit species kgmol- 1
volume of the particulate phase Jm-3
m release rate of volatiles kgs- 1
DIMENSIONLESS GROUPS
m average release rate of volatiles kgs- 1
p microscopic pressure Nm- 2 Sp Spalding number [-]
p macroscopic pressure Pa Sp1 Spalding number based on the

194 KONA No.19 (2001)

 flame temperature [-]
Da Damkohler number [-]
References
[1] Leuckel W., Nastoll W., and Zarzalis N. Experimental
investigation of the influence of turbulence on the tran-
sient premixed flame propagation inside closed ves-
sels. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Symposium
(International) on Combustion, pages 729-734. The
Combustion Institute, 1990.
[2] Kauffman C.W., Srinath S.R., Tezok F.I., Nicholls ].A.,
and Sichel M. Turbulent and accelerating dust flames.
In Proceedings of the Twentieth Symposium (Interna-
tional) on Combustion, pages 1701-1708. The Com-
bustion Institute, 1984.
[3] National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Venting
of deflagrations, 1988. NFPA 68, 1988 edition.
[4] Verein Deutcher Ingenieure (VDI). Pressure venting of
dust explosions, 1995. VDI 3673.
[5] Dahoe A.E. Dust Explosions: a Study of Flame Propaga-
tion. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, May
2000.
[6] Zhou Lixing. Theory and numerical modeling of turbu-
lent gas-particle flows and combustion. Science Press,
16 Donghuangchenggen North Street, Beijing 100717,
China, 1993. Distributed by CRC Press outside China.
KONA No.19 (2001)
[7] Bradley D. and Lee J.H.S. Proceedings of the first
international colloquium on the explosibility of indus-
trial dusts. volume 2, pages 220-223, 1984.
[8] Turns S.R. An Introduction to Combustion. McGraw-
Hill Series in Mechanical Engineering. McGraw-Hill,
1996.
[9] Atkins P.W. Physical Chemistry. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, third edition, 1987.
[10] Trautwein S.E., Grudno A, and Adomeit G. The influ-
ence of turbulence intensity and laminar flame speed
on turbulent flame propagation under engine like con-
ditions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Symposium
(International) on Combustion, pages 723-728. The
Combustion Institute, 1990.
[11] Tezak F.I., Kauffman C.W., Sichel M., and NichollsJ.A.
Turbulent burning velocity measurements for dust/air
mixtures in a constant volume spherical bomb. In
Dynamics of Reactive Systems, Part II: Modeling and
Heterogeneous Combustion, volume 105 of Progress in
Astronautics and Aeronautics, pages 184-195, 1986.
[12] Borghi R. Turbulent combustion modelling. Progress in
Energy and Combustion Science, 14: 245-292, 1988.
[13] Peters N. Length scales in laminar and turbulent
flames, volume 135 of Progress in Astronautics and
Aeronautics, chapter 6, pages 155-182, 1991.
[14] Proust C. and Veyssiere B. Fundamental properties of
flames propagating in starch dust-air mixtures. Com-
bustion Science and Technology, 62: 149-172, 1988.
195
 I Author's short biography I

A.E. Dahoe
Arief Dahoe is a postdoc at Delft University of Technology and an invited scholar at
the University of Cambridge.

K. van der Nat

Koen van der Nat is a chemical engineering student at Delft University of technol-
ogy.

M. Braithwaite
Martin Braithwaite is a Professor at the Royal Military College of Science, Cran-
field University.

B. Scarlett
Brian Scarlett is a Research Professor at the Engineering Research Center for Par-
ticle Science and Technology at the University of Florida.
He is currently Chairman of ISO TC24/SC4, the committee for particle size mea-
surement. He is also the Series Editor of the Kluwer Powder Technology Series of
books and an editor of the journal Particle and Particle Systems Characterisation.

196 KONA No.19 (2001)