SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Comparison of experimental dust and gas
explosion measurements with published vent
sizing correlations
Christopher Bell
- 2 -
1 Introduction
An explosion may occur if a flammable gas or vapour, or a finely divided
combustible dust is dispersed into the atmosphere in the presence of an energy
source that has sufficient energy to cause ignition. The flame front will then travel
through the flammable gas or dust cloud. If the flammable gas or dust is present
within an enclosure, such as an item of process plant equipment i.e. a vessel, the
flame propagation will generate pressure, due to expansion of the burned fuel within
the enclosure. This may result in the catastrophic equipment failure producing an
external explosion when the pressure is released to atmosphere. Hence, it is
important that process plant that is a risk of an internal deflagration has a developed
basis of safety. The basis of safety may comprise control and/or mitigation
measures, and often equipment basis of safety is a combination of both
preventative and mitigation measures.
Examples of preventative measures are:-
• Avoidance of flammable atmospheres
• Control of ignition sources
However, an adequate basis of safety may not be achieved by the reliance of the
above preventative measures alone. Hence, the preventative measures are often
supplemented by additional mitigation measures, which include:
• Explosion containment, where the equipment design pressure, or shock
resistant strength, exceed the maximum explosion over-pressure generated
based on the fuel and the likely initial conditions;
• Explosion suppression; and
• Explosion venting.
Explosion venting is often relied on within industry as the basis of safety for process
plant equipment. The basic premise of explosion venting is to provide a vent of
sufficient area that upon opening will release unburnt gas or dust, and products of
combustion to escape from the vessel. The size of the vent should be capable of
limiting the developed explosion pressure to within the safe limits of the equipment,
such that rupture does not occur.
The sizing of the explosion vents is the subject of several industry guides and
international standards. However, the various methods are typically correlations
based on experimental data, and hence their use outside the published limits of
applicability may lead to either impractically large or conversely inadequate vent
sizes that comprise the selected equipment basis of safety.
This report aims to review some published experimental explosion data for both
gases and dusts and compare the results obtained with several of the currently
available vent sizing methods.
- 3 -
2 Explosion Vent Sizing
2.1 Gases
2.1.1 NFPA 68 1994 Edition
The 1994 edition of the NFPA 68 standard provided the following equation for the
estimation of explosion vent area for high strength enclosures (i.e. capable of
withstanding greater that 100 mbarg)
d
red
cPb
v PeaVA stat
=
Where V is the vessel volume, m3
e is the base of natural logarithm
Pstat is the vent opening pressure, barg
Pred is the maximum pressure developed during venting within the enclosure, or the
reduced explosion pressure, barg
a, b, and c are constants that are dependant on the fuels reactivity, and are shown
in the table below:
Table 1: Constants for use in explosion vent sizing [3]
a b c d
Methane 0.105 0.770 1.230 -0.823
Propane 0.148 0.703 0.942 -0.671
Hydrogen 0.279 0.680 0.755 -0.393
Coke Gas 0.150 0.695 1.380 -0.707
This equation was developed based on the explosion nomographs that were
published within the standard, with the use of the equation limited to enclosures
having a length to diameter ratio of less than 5. For fuels other than those listed in
the above table if the fundamental burning velocity is less than 60 cm/sec i.e. 1.3
times that of propane, then the propane constants are used. If the fundamental
burning velocity is greater than 60 cm/secs then the hydrogen equation is used.
However, it should be noted that this method is no longer considered appropriate as
it does not take sufficient account of the fuels reactivity, for example hydrogen is ten
times as reactive as methane yet use of the NFPA 68:1994 edition nomographs, on
which the above equation is based, will yield similar results.
2.1.2 NFPA 68: 2007 Edition
Subsequent revisions of the NFPA 68 standard used correlations based on VDI
guidelines [10] and [11], which also remains unaltered in the latest 2007 edition of
the standard.
For explosion vent sizing of enclosures having a length to diameter ratio of less
than 2, the vent size can be estimated from the equation:-
( ) ( ) ( )[ ]{ } ( ) ( )[ ] 3
2
572.03
2
582.0
10 1.0175.00567.0log127.0 VPPVPKA statredredGv −+−= −−
Where KG is the gas deflagration index, = (dP/dt)max V(1/3)
- 4 -
(dP/dt)max is the maximum rate of pressure rise obtained from standardised
experimental test equipment, bar/s
For enclosures having length to diameter ratios between 2 and 5 an additional vent
area should be added to the vent area estimated from the above equation.
750
2
2






−
=∆
D
L
KA
A
Gv
The limits of applicability for the above method are:-
KG ≤ 550 bar.m/sec
Pred ≤ 2 bar and at least 0.05 bar > Pstat
Pstat ≤ 0.5 bar
V ≤ 1000 m³
2.1.3 BS EN 14994:2006
The harmonised European norm standard EN 14994 also utilises the VDI
correlation
( ) ( ) ( )[ ]{ } ( ) ( )[ ] 3
2
5722.03
2
5817.0
10 1.01754.00567.0log1265.0 VPPVPKA statredredGv −+−= −−
However, this standard also provides an alternative simple vent sizing method,
which is based on the turbulent Bradley number:-
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
25.0
5.25.2
5.2
5.25.2
8.59.7:1if
65.5:1if
t
i
istat
i
red
i
istat
i
red
t
i
istat
i
red
i
istat
i
red
Br
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
Br
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
−=





 +
≥





 +
=





 +
<





 +
−
The turbulent Bradley number is subsequently used to solve the following equation:-
Where cui is the speed of sound at initial conditions of explosion, m/s
Ei is the expansion ratio of the combustion products
A is the vent area, m²
Pi is the initial enclosure pressure, bar
Sui is the burning velocity at the initial conditions, m/s
β is an empirical constant = 0.5 for hydrocarbons, and 0.8 for hydrogen
- 5 -
α is an empirical constant = 1.75 for hydrocarbons and 1 for hydrogen
γu is the ratio of specific heats of the unburned mixture
πv = (Pstat + Pi)/ Pi
π0 = 3.14
πi# is initial pressure expressed in bar i.e. (Pi/ 1, bar)
The quoted limits of applicability for the above simple method are:-
L/D ≤ 3
V ≤ 8000 m³
0.09 < A/V2/3
< 1.23
0 ≤ Pstat ≤ several bar
0 ≤ Pi ≤ 6 bar overpressure
2.2 Dusts
2.2.1 NFPA 68: 1994
The NFPA 68 1994 edition provided two methods for the estimation of dust
explosion vent sizes. The Radandt methodology is based on the use of
nomographs, with equations provided as an alternative. The Radandt method did
not require the use of the dust deflagration index or KST value, (KST = (dP/dt)max
V(1/3)
), but used the St grouping of the dust instead, which is a classification of the
dusts reactivity based on the KST value. The Radandt nomograph equations are:-
For St-1 dusts
Log Av = 0.77957 log V – 0.42945 log Pred – 1.24669
For St-2 dusts
For V= 1 to 10 m³
Log Av = 0.64256 log V – 0.46527 log Pred – 0.99241
For V = 10 to 1000m³
Log Av = 0.74461 log V – 0.50017 log (Pred + 0.18522) – 1.02406
In addition to the Radandt methodology NFPA provided the Simpson nomographs
and an equation developed to reproduce values obtained from their use. The
Simpson equation is:-
Av = a V2/3
KST
b
Pred
c
Where a = 0.000571 e(2 Pstat)
b = 0.978 e (-0.105 Pstat)
c = -0.687 e (0.226 Pstat)
The Radandt method will give different results to those obtained using Simpson's
correlation above. However, for all practical purposes they are sufficiently close. If
the KST value is known, then the Simpson correlation is preferable to Radandt
method.
2.2.2 VDI 3673 Part 1: 1995
The German VDI 3673:1995 [10] standard published the correlation developed by
Scholl for cubic enclosures:-
- 6 -
[ ][ ] 753.05.0
max,
569.0
max,max
5
1.027.010264.3 VPPPKPxA redstatredST
−−−
−+=
The Scholl equation is valid for:-
Vessel volumes between 0.1m³ and 10000m³
Static opening pressure, Pstat of between 0.1 and 1 barg
Maximum reduced explosion over-pressure of between 0.1 and 2 barg
Maximum explosion over-pressure, Pmax, of between 5 and 10 barg for a dust with a
deflagration index (KST) between 10 bar.m/s and 300 bar.m/s, or a Pmax of 5 to 12
barg for a KST value between 300 bar.m/s and 800 bar.m/s.
For enclosures that were elongated the VDI guideline modified the Scholl equation:-
( )( ) )/log(758.0log305.4 max, DLPAA redL +−=∆
Where the additional vent area is added to that vent area estimated for an
enclosure with an L/D ratio of below 2. The use of this equation results in a step
change in vent area for vessels with an L/D ratio of greater than 2. The above
equations were retained in the 2002 edition of the VDI 3673 guide [11].
2.2.3 NFPA 68:2002
Editions of the NFPA 68 standard after 1994 incorporated the Scholl equation from
the VDI guidelines. However, the NFPA 68 guide ceased to use the Scholl equation
in the 2002 edition, which published a vent sizing equation that removed the vent
sizing step change that was inherent in the use of the Scholl equation for elongated
vessels. The NFPA 68 2002 correlation was:-
( )( )























 −
+= −
max
max75.05
1
75.1110535.8
P
P
P
P
VKPxA
red
red
STstatv
For L/D ratios greater than 2 and less than 6 the vent area estimated by the above
equation is increased by adding the incremental vent area estimated by:-






−





−=∆ 1log
11
56.1
65.0
max D
L
PP
AA
red
v
2.2.4 NFPA 68:2007
The latest edition of the NFPA 68, which has now changed from a guide to a
standard, uses the following equation for dust explosion vent sizing:-
154.11101 max4
3
5
4
4
0, −



 += −
red
STstatv
P
P
VKPxA
For enclosures with an L/D ratio greater than 2 and less than 6 the vent area is
again increased by adding an incremental area estimated by:-
( )








−





−+= 2
75.0
01 95.0exp26.01 redvv P
D
L
AA
The limits of the above equation are:-
5 ≤ Pmax ≤ 12 bar
10 bar.m/sec≤ KST ≤ 800 bar.m/sec
- 7 -
0.1 m³ ≤ V ≤ 10000 m³
Pstat ≤ 0.75 bar
2.2.5 BS EN 14491:2006
The current harmonised European standard EN 14491 retains the use of the Scholl
equation used by the VDI 3673 guidelines [10] and [11].
- 8 -
3 Experimental data
3.1 Gases
The experimental data for gas explosions have been taken from G A Lunn –
Venting Gas and Dust Explosions – A review [1].
3.1.1 Methane
The table below summarises methane vented explosion experimental results from
Buckland, taken from Table 10 [1]
Table 2: Methane vented explosion test results [1]
Enclosure
Volume
Vent
coefficient Vent area
Vent
opening
pressure
Reduced
explosion
pressure
V K Av Pstat Pred
m3
V^(2/3)/Av m2
barg barg
26.64 8.04 1.11 0.007 0.083
26.64 8.04 1.11 0.004 0.055
26.64 2.00 4.46 0.017 0.066
26.64 2.00 4.46 0.066 0.062
26.64 2.00 4.46 0.057 0.109
26.64 2.00 4.46 0.063 0.05
26.64 4.00 2.23 0.019 0.109
26.64 4.00 2.23 0.076 0.101
26.64 4.00 2.23 0.079 0.102
26.64 2.50 3.57 0.072 0.11
26.64 2.50 3.57 0.039 0.11
26.64 5.01 1.78 0.115 0.219
26.64 5.01 1.78 0.086 0.221
26.64 4.00 2.23 0.017 0.098
26.64 4.00 2.23 0.09 0.066
26.64 4.00 2.23 0.07 0.07
26.64 4.00 2.23 0.075 0.13
3.1.2 Propane
The table below summarises propane explosion data results from Bromma, taken
from Table 8 [1]
Table 3: Propane vented explosion test results [1]
Enclosure
Volume
Vent
coefficient Vent area
Vent opening
pressure
Reduced
explosion
pressure
V K Av Pstat Pred
m3
V^(2/3)/Av m2
barg barg
200 1.11 30.81 0.0549 0.0588
200 1.11 30.81 0.0294 0.0333
200 1.11 30.81 0.0098 0.0181
200 1.11 30.81 0.0289 0.0343
200 1.11 30.81 0.0549 0.0588
200 1.38 24.78 0.049 0.0637
200 1.38 24.78 0.0137 0.0299
200 1.38 24.78 0.0196 0.0295
200 1.38 24.78 0.0196 0.0348
3.1.3 Pentane
The table below summarises pentane vented explosion experimental results from
Harris and Briscoe, taken from Table 4 [1]. Note that the vent opening pressure is 0
barg.
- 3 -
2 Explosion Vent Sizing
2.1 Gases
2.1.1 NFPA 68 1994 Edition
The 1994 edition of the NFPA 68 standard provided the following equation for the
estimation of explosion vent area for high strength enclosures (i.e. capable of
withstanding greater that 100 mbarg)
d
red
cPb
v PeaVA stat
=
Where V is the vessel volume, m3
e is the base of natural logarithm
Pstat is the vent opening pressure, barg
Pred is the maximum pressure developed during venting within the enclosure, or the
reduced explosion pressure, barg
a, b, and c are constants that are dependant on the fuels reactivity, and are shown
in the table below:
Table 1: Constants for use in explosion vent sizing [3]
a b c d
Methane 0.105 0.770 1.230 -0.823
Propane 0.148 0.703 0.942 -0.671
Hydrogen 0.279 0.680 0.755 -0.393
Coke Gas 0.150 0.695 1.380 -0.707
This equation was developed based on the explosion nomographs that were
published within the standard, with the use of the equation limited to enclosures
having a length to diameter ratio of less than 5. For fuels other than those listed in
the above table if the fundamental burning velocity is less than 60 cm/sec i.e. 1.3
times that of propane, then the propane constants are used. If the fundamental
burning velocity is greater than 60 cm/secs then the hydrogen equation is used.
However, it should be noted that this method is no longer considered appropriate as
it does not take sufficient account of the fuels reactivity, for example hydrogen is ten
times as reactive as methane yet use of the NFPA 68:1994 edition nomographs, on
which the above equation is based, will yield similar results.
2.1.2 NFPA 68: 2007 Edition
Subsequent revisions of the NFPA 68 standard used correlations based on VDI
guidelines [10] and [11], which also remains unaltered in the latest 2007 edition of
the standard.
For explosion vent sizing of enclosures having a length to diameter ratio of less
than 2, the vent size can be estimated from the equation:-
( ) ( ) ( )[ ]{ } ( ) ( )[ ] 3
2
572.03
2
582.0
10 1.0175.00567.0log127.0 VPPVPKA statredredGv −+−= −−
Where KG is the gas deflagration index, = (dP/dt)max V(1/3)
- 10 -
3.3 Factory Mutual Standard 7-76
The Factory Mutual Global standard 7-76 includes the paper published by Tamanini
and Valiulis [2], and includes the experimental test results from a 10m³ vessel
containing powders with a deflagration index, KST, of 190 bar.m/s and 290 bar.m/s.
The vent opening pressure was 0.2 barg. The test results are detailed below:-
Table 6: FM Global vented explosion test results [2]
Enclosure
Volume Vent coefficient Vent area
Vent opening
pressure
Reduced
explosion
pressure
Deflagration
index
V K Av Pstat Pred KST
m
3
V^(2/3)/Av m
2
barg barg bar.m/s
10 7.25 0.64 0.2 0.45 190
12.21 0.38 0.2 1.4 190
16.58 0.28 0.2 2.1 190
12.21 0.38 1.86 3 190
7.25 0.64 0.2 0.75 290
12.21 0.38 0.2 2.2 290
16.58 0.28 0.2 3.6 290
7.25 0.64 1.4 1.65 290
7.25 0.64 2.5 3 290
3.3.1 Wheat dust
The table below summarises the wheat dust vented explosion results from vented
explosions within a 500m³ silo at Boge, Norway, and are taken from Figure 49 [1].
Additional data for vented wheat dust explosions within a 20m³ elongated silo (L/D
ratio of 6.25) obtained by Radandt, were taken from Figure 50 [1].
Table 7: Wheat grain dust vented explosion test results [1]
Enclosure
Volume
Vent
coefficient Vent area
Reduced
explosion
pressure
V K Av Pred
m
3
V^(2/3)/Av m
2
barg
500 7.87 8 0.025
7.87 8 0.03
7.87 8 0.05
7.87 8 0.06
7.87 8 0.12
4.44 14.2 0.015
4.44 14.2 0.03
12.60 5 0.3
31.50 2 0.4
20 4.91 1.5 0.3
6.41 1.15 0.4
9.82 0.75 0.7
14.74 0.5 1.1
24.56 0.3 1.8
36.84 0.2 1.9
3.3.2 Dextrin
The table below summarises the dextrin dust vented explosion results from Donat,
Figure 40 [1].
- 11 -
Table 8: Dextrin vented explosion test results [1]
Enclosure
Volume
Vent
coefficient Vent area
Reduced
explosion
pressure
V K Av Pred
m
3
V^(2/3)/Av m
2
barg
30 2.54 3.8 0.1
3.22 3 0.15
4.83 2 0.3
6.44 1.5 0.5
9.65 1 1
12.87 0.75 1.3
19.31 0.5 2
32.18 0.3 2.8
1 2.50 0.4 0.1
3.33 0.3 0.15
5.00 0.2 0.3
6.67 0.15 0.4
10.00 0.1 0.6
2.00 0.5 1.1
3.33 0.3 2
- 12 -
4 Comparison of experimental results with vent sizing correlations
A spreadsheet was used to calculate and compare the results obtained for the
reduced explosion pressures predicted by the various vent sizing correlation. An
example output from the spreadsheet is shown in Appendix A.
4.1 Gases
4.1.1 NFPA 68:1994 Calculation:-
For methane and propane, the constants used in the correlation are listed within the
standard. For Pentane, table C.1 of the NFPA 68:1994 [3] edition gives the
fundamental burning velocity of pentane as 46 cm/s, which is the same as the
burning velocity for propane, based on the NFPA 68 quoted data. Therefore, for
pentane the vent sizing calculation used the propane constants.
4.1.2 NFPA 68:2007 Calculation:-
To enable vent sizing using this standard it is necessary to know the deflagration
index, KG, the vent opening pressure, and the length to diameter ratio. The values
for the deflagration index, KG, where obtained from the NFPA 68 Standard 2007
edition table E.1 [6] and are 55, 100, and 104 bar.m/sec for methane, propane, and
pentane respectively. For the purpose of the calculation it is assumed that the vent
opening pressure is 0.1 barg and that the enclosure has a length to diameter ratio
of less than 2. It should be noted that for methane and propane the majority of the
test results were obtained using a vent panel that opened at pressures less than 0.1
barg, and the L/D ratio was not stated. For pentane, the vent panel had a negligible
opening pressure.
4.1.3 BS EN 14994:2006 Calculation:-
The alternative simple vent sizing method detailed in the above standard requires
knowledge of various thermodynamic, and combustion properties of the fuels. This
information was obtained from table A.1 of the above standard [8], and is detailed
below:-
Table 9:- Thermodynamic data and burning velocity for some fuel-air mixtures [8]
Ratio of
specific heats,
γu
Expansion
ratio of
combustion
products, Ei
Speed of
sound at initial
conditions, cui,
m/s
Fundamental
burning
velocity, Sui,
cm/s
Methane 1.39 7.52 353 43
Propane 1.37 7.98 339 45
Pentane 1.36 8.07 335 43
- 13 -
4.2 Dusts
To enable use of the dust explosion vent sizing correlations the following data was
used:-
Table 10: Explosion data for selected combustible dusts [2], [6], and [7]
Deflagration index, KST,
bar.m/sec
Maximum explosion
pressure, Pmax, barg
Aluminium 415 12.4
Cork dust 202 9.6
FM Global dust 1 190 8.5
FM Global dust 2 290 8.5
Wheat dust 112 9.3
Dextrin 106 8.8
The above data was taken from the NFPA 68: 2007 edition Tables E.1 (a) to (e) [6],
with the exception of the data from the Factory Mutual Global tests, which were
taken from Tamanini and Valiulis [2], and wheat grain dust data which is taken from
Table A.1 R K Eckhoff Dust explosions in the process industries, 2nd
Edition [7].
Data for the deflagration index and maximum explosion pressure is also available in
the G A Lunn Venting Gas and Explosions – A review [1]. However, this data was
not used as it was obtained on the Hartmann apparatus, which will not yield similar
results to explosion data obtained from the 20 litre sphere or 1m³ iso standard test
vessel. The published explosion correlations are based on data not obtained from
the Hartmann apparatus, and hence values published by Lunn [1] have not been
used.
For the purpose of this report all vent opening pressures, Pstat, were assumed to be
0.1 barg, and the length to diameter ratio is assumed to be less than 2, with the
exception of the wheat dust 20m³ enclosure comparison.
4.3 Results
The graphs below show the experimental test results for the reduced explosion
pressure within particular test equipment equipped with a defined vent area. In
addition, the graphs show the results of the various vent sizing correlations, using
information related to the enclosure, and data either obtained from referenced texts
or assumed as detailed above.
- 14 -
4.3.1 Gases
Figure 1: Methane gas explosion vent sizing results
Comparison of methane experimental data with published
vent sizing methods (vessel volume = 26.64m
3
, Pstat below 0.1
barg)
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 1 10
Vent area, Av, m2
Reducedpressure,Pred,bar
NFPA 68:2002 prEN14994 prEN14994 alt Table 10 Page 46 Buckland NFPA 68:1994
Figure 2: Propane gas explosion vent sizing results
Comparison of propane experimental data with published vent
sizing methods (vessel volume= 200m
3
, Pstat under 0.1 barg)
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100
Vent area, Av , m2
Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar
NFPA 68:2002 prEN14994 prEN14994 alt
Table 8 Page 42 Bromma NFPA 68:1994
- 15 -
Figure 3: Pentane gas explosion vent sizing results
Comparison of experimental data for Pentane with published
vent sizing methods (vessel volume 1.7m
3
)
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.01 0.1 1 10
Vent area, Av, m
2
Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar
NFPA 68:2002 prEN14994 prEN14994 alt Table 4 Page 33 Harris & Briscoe NFPA 68:1994
4.3.2 Dusts
Figure 4: Aluminium dust explosion vent sizing results
Comparison of experimental cork dust explosion with
published vent sizing methods (vessel volume 1.21m
3
)
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.01 0.1 1
Vent area, Av, m2
Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar
Simpson Radandt Scholl NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 Exp. Data Fig 46 Lunn
- 4 -
(dP/dt)max is the maximum rate of pressure rise obtained from standardised
experimental test equipment, bar/s
For enclosures having length to diameter ratios between 2 and 5 an additional vent
area should be added to the vent area estimated from the above equation.
750
2
2






−
=∆
D
L
KA
A
Gv
The limits of applicability for the above method are:-
KG ≤ 550 bar.m/sec
Pred ≤ 2 bar and at least 0.05 bar > Pstat
Pstat ≤ 0.5 bar
V ≤ 1000 m³
2.1.3 BS EN 14994:2006
The harmonised European norm standard EN 14994 also utilises the VDI
correlation
( ) ( ) ( )[ ]{ } ( ) ( )[ ] 3
2
5722.03
2
5817.0
10 1.01754.00567.0log1265.0 VPPVPKA statredredGv −+−= −−
However, this standard also provides an alternative simple vent sizing method,
which is based on the turbulent Bradley number:-
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
25.0
5.25.2
5.2
5.25.2
8.59.7:1if
65.5:1if
t
i
istat
i
red
i
istat
i
red
t
i
istat
i
red
i
istat
i
red
Br
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
Br
P
PP
P
P
P
PP
P
P
−=





 +
≥





 +
=





 +
<





 +
−
The turbulent Bradley number is subsequently used to solve the following equation:-
Where cui is the speed of sound at initial conditions of explosion, m/s
Ei is the expansion ratio of the combustion products
A is the vent area, m²
Pi is the initial enclosure pressure, bar
Sui is the burning velocity at the initial conditions, m/s
β is an empirical constant = 0.5 for hydrocarbons, and 0.8 for hydrogen
- 17 -
Figure 7: FM Global vented explosion test data and comparative vent sizing
results
Comparison of FM Global test data from FM std 7-76 with published vent sizing
methods (vessel volume 10m3
, Kst=290 bar.m/s, Pstat = 0.2 barg)
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.01 0.1 1 10
Vent area, Av, m2
Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar
Simpson Radandt Scholl NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 FM Global Std 7-76
Figure 8: Wheat dust vent sizing results in an elongated 20m3
silo
Comparison of wheat dust experimental data with vent sizing
methods (vessel volume 20m
3
and L/D = 6.25)
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 1 10
Vent area, Av, m2
Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar
Simpson Radandt Scholl NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 Wheat grain dust Elongated
- 18 -
Figure 9: Wheat dust vented explosion sizing results
Comparison of wheat dust experimental data with vent sizing
methods (vessel volume 500m
3
)
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1 10 100
Vent area, Av, m2
Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar
Simpson Radandt Scholl NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 Wheat grain dust
Figure 10: Dextrin vented explosion and vent sizing results
Comparison of dextrin experimental data with published vent sizing
methods (vessel volume = 1m3
)
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.01 0.1 1
Vent area, Av, m2
Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar
Simpson Radandt Scholl
NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 Dextrin Figure 40 Page 117
- 19 -
Figure 11: Dextrin vented explosion test and vent sizing results
Comparison of dextrin experimental data with published
vent sizing methods (vessel volume = 30m
3
)
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 1 10
Vent area, Av , m2
Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred
,bar
Simpson Radandt Scholl
NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 Dextrin Figure 40 Page 117
- 20 -
5 Conclusions
For methane it is apparent that all the vent sizing correlations will provide sufficient
area to adequately an internal deflagration. The current NFPA 68 and European
standard utilise the same correlation and offer an improvement in accuracy when
compared to the NFPA 68 1994 methodology. The current European standard
‘simple’ calculation will significantly over-estimate the required vent area for a given
enclosure configuration. This situation is also apparent when considering the vent
sizing results obtained for the propane vented explosion data.
For pentane, the European standard simple calculation yields vent sizing results
lower than those obtained from NFPA 68 and the preferred method in EN 14994.
However, the pentane vented explosion test results are enveloped by the NFPA
and EN standard methods, whilst half of the test data points lie outside of the
published correlations limits of applicability, i.e. reduced explosion pressure greater
than 2 barg. Hence, based on the test results assessed, the current industry
standards (NFPA and BS EN 14994) will over-estimate the required vent area that
limits the reduced explosion over-pressure to within acceptable limits. Therefore,
the current gas vent sizing correlation offers a margin of safety when estimating
required vent areas.
For dust explosion vent sizing the results obtained show a greater degree of
variation when compared to actual test results, than the gas explosion venting
correlations. For aluminium, the published maximum explosion pressure, Pmax, is
outside the limits of applicability of both the Scholl and NFPA correlations. However,
it is the Scholl equation that provides better results as the degree of under-
estimation of the required vent area is less than that of the NFPA 68 equations. For
cork dust, all the correlations significantly over-estimate the required vent area.
However, the current correlations provide an improvement in vent sizing when
compared to the previous Simpson and Radandt equations.
For the dusts used in the FM Global tests, the Scholl equation correlates very well,
whereas the current NFPA standard consistently under-estimates the required vent
area. For the elongated enclosure with vented wheat dust explosions both the
elongated correlations published in the harmonised European standard and the
current NFPA 68 standard provide good agreement. For the larger volume vented
explosion of 500m3 all the correlations over-estimate the required vent area. This
over-estimate is considered to be attributable to the reduced degree of turbulence
likely to be present within the large silo, when compared to smaller enclosure
volumes. The degree of turbulence would be reflected in a reduced deflagration
index, or KST value. However, in the standard laboratory equipment (20litre sphere)
for measuring KST, there is a high degree of turbulence, and hence the test yields a
higher deflagration index than that which would be obtained if there was a reduced
degree of turbulence within the enclosure.
The results obtained for the dextrin vented explosions show poor correlation with
the test data. However, without exact explosion property data for the dextrin i.e. KST
and Pmax, or enclosure and vent information it is difficult to attribute the reasons for
the poor correlation. For this reason, it is important that when vent sizing, that the
vent is calculated using actual dust explosion test parameters. This is because the
deflagration index will vary with various factors such as particle size, and moisture
content, which may be altered by the actual processing being undertaken e.g.
attrition of particles due to pneumatic conveying. Hence, the reliance on published
explosion data for KST and other parameters is not recommended.
- 21 -
However, it is evident from the above graphs that the current NFPA 68 correlations
will yield a smaller vent size that that obtained from the Scholl equation adopted by
the EU standard. From the above graphs, it is evident that the NFPA 68 standard
correlation may not be conservative when compared to actual vented explosion
results. Hence, it is considered that the Scholl equation represents a more
appropriate correlation on which to base equipment safety.
References
1. Venting Gas and Dust Explosions – A review, G A Lunn
2. FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets – Prevention and mitigation of
combustible dust explosions and fire 7-76 May 2006
3. NFPA 68 Guide for venting of deflagrations 1994 edition
4. NFPA 68 Guide for venting of deflagrations 1998 edition
5. NFPA 68 Guide for venting of deflagrations 2002 edition
6. NFPA 68 Standard on explosion protection by deflagration venting 2007 edition
7. Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, R K Eckhoff, 2nd
Edition
8. BS EN 14994:2006 Gas explosion venting protective systems
9. BS EN 14491:2006 Dust explosion venting protective systems
10.VDI 3673 Part 1:July 1995 Pressure venting of dust explosions
11.VDI 3673 Part 1:November 2002 Pressure venting of dust explosions
Appendix A
Typical spreadsheet output for gas and dust vent sizing
- 24 -
REF REV
1 Gas
2 KG Parameter KG 55 bar.m/s
3 Maximum Pressure Pmax 7.1 barg
4 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1.00
5 Vessel Volume V 26.64 m³
6 Vessel Surface Area As 53.52 m²
7 Initial Pressure Pinit 0 barg
8 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg
9 Reduced pressure Pred 0.35 barg OR Av 0.178396 m²
10
11
12 m² valid barg Valid
13 2.700 OK 37.23 ERR
14 2.700 ERR 42.04 ERR
15 2.685 OK 36.96 ERR
16 3.166 ERR
17 3.572 OK 4.74 OK
18 3.528 13.12
19
20
21 Limits: lower upper
22
23 KG Parameter KG 55 bar.m/s KG 0 550 bar.m/s OK
24 Maximum Pressure Pmax 7.1 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK
25 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 2 OK
26 Vessel Volume V 26.63981 m³ V 0.1 1000 m³ OK
27 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg Pstat 0.1 0.5 barg OK
28 Pred 0.15 2 barg OK
29
30 Reduced pressure Pred 0.35 barg Av 2.700 m²
31
32 OR
33
34 Reduced pressure Pred 37.22826 barg 0.000 Av 0.179 m² ERR
35 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av
36
37 Limits: lower upper
38
39 KG Parameter KG 55 bar.m/s KG 0 550 bar.m/s OK
40 Maximum Pressure Pmax 7.1 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK
41 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 2 5 ERR
42 Vessel Volume V 26.63981 m³ V 0.1 1000 m³ OK
43 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK
44 Pred 0.15 2 barg OK
45
46 Reduced pressure Pred 0.35 barg Av 2.700 m²
47 delta A 0.000 m²
48
49 OR Av 2.700 m²
50
51 Reduced pressure Pred 42.0418 barg 0.000 Av + dA 0.179 m² ERR
52 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av
53
54
55
56 KG Parameter KG 55 bar.m/s KG 0 550 bar.m/s OK
57 Maximum Pressure Pmax 7.1 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK
58 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 10 OK
59 Vessel Volume V 26.63981 m³ V 0.1 1000 m³ OK
60 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK
61 Pred 0.15 0.1 barg ERR
62
63
64 C 0.035
65 Av 3.166 m² Using NFPA 68 2002 constants
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76 KG Parameter KG 55 bar.m/s KG 0 550 bar.m/s OK
77 Maximum Pressure Pmax 7.1 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK
78 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 3 OK
79 Vessel Volume V 26.63981 m³ V 0.1 1000 m³ OK
80 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg Pstat 0.1 0.5 barg OK
81 Pred 0.15 2 barg OK
82
83 Reduced pressure Pred 0.35 barg Av 2.685 m²
84
85 OR
86
87 Reduced pressure Pred 36.95866 barg 0.000176 Av 0.179 m² ERR
88 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av Pred adj 36.959 barg for high initial P
89
90
91
92
93
94
Methane
0.045
Gases with Su<1.3Su
propane
prEN 14994 Gas Explosion Venting Protective systems 2004 (Same method as NFPA 68 2002)
0.013
Methane 0.035
Fuel
C (bar½
) mixtures in
air only
Anhydrous NH3
Approved by
Checked by
Prepared by
Date
NFPA 68:2002 Low Strength Enclosures
ELONGATED NFPA 68 2007 Edition)
Revision A B C D E F
Fuel Characteristic Constant for Venting
Equation
pr14994:2004 Alternative
NFPA 68:1994
NFPA 68: 2007 (same as 2002, and 1998 editions)
NFPA 68:2007
NFPA 68:2007 ELONGATED
pr14994:2004
NFPA 68 Low Strength
INPUT DATA
Gas Explosion Calculation
Calculation Sheet
RESULTS
Vent Area (Av) Red Pressure
Table 6.2.2 from NFPA
68:2002
No dimesional limit to
the size. However,
panels should be
evenly spaced for
elongated enclosures
ie for L/D>3
Note that data on
which this correlation
is based gives a
maximum L/D of 2.
For high initial Pressure (up to 3
barg) adjust Pred guess until
adjusted Pred is within required
limits
Calculate
- 25 -
REF REV
1 Pred 4.735262 Limits
2 Dimensionless Reduced Pressure πred 0.35 4.735262 Lower Upper
3 Dimensionless Static Pressure πv 1.1 Av/V^(2/3) 0.400513 0.09 1.23 OK
4 Dimensionless pressure complex 0.275795 3.731318 Pinit 0 0 6 OK
5 Turbulent Bradley Number Brt 3.346454 0.26686 Pstat 0.1 0 3 OK
6 Specific heat ratio for unburned mixture kui 1.39 V 26.63981 0 8000 OK
7 Expansion ratio of combustion products Ei 7.52 L/D 1 0 3 OK
8 Speed of sound at initial conditions cui 353 m/s
9 Burning velocity at initial conditions sui 43 cm/s
10 Empirical constant α 1.75
11 Empirical constant β 0.5
12
13 Vent area Av 3.572488 0.178396 m²
14
15 RHS of Transcendental equation 0.175811 0.01402
16 LHS of transcendental equation 0.176634 0.013071
17 Error 0.0008 -0.0009
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 Vessel Volume V 26.63981 m³
60 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg
61 Reduced pressure Pred 0.35 barg a b c d
62 Burning velocity at initial conditions sui 43 cm/s Methane 0.105 0.77 1.23 -0.823
63 Constant a 0.105 Propane 0.148 0.703 0.942 -0.671
64 Constant b 0.77 Hydrogen 0.279 0.68 0.755 -0.393
65 Constant c 1.23 Coke gas 0.15 0.695 1.38 -0.707
66 Constant d -0.823
67
68 Av 3.528 m²
69
70
71 Reduced pressure Pred 13.11597 barg 0.000 Av 0.179 m²
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Alternative Vent Sizing pr14994:2004 Annex A Method
Calculation Sheet
Gas Explosion Calculation
NFPA 68:1994
If burning velocity is greater than 60 cm/s i.e. greater than 1.3 x that of propane,
then hydrogen constants are used. Otherwise propane data is used.
- 26 -
REF REV
1 Combustible Dust
2 Dust Explosion Class St 2
3 Kst Parameter Kst 290 bar.m/s
4 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg
5 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1.00
6 Vessel Volume V 10.00 m³
7 Vessel Surface Area As 27.85 m²
8 Duct Length LD 0.00 m
9 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg
10 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg OR Av 1 m²
11
12
13
14 m² valid m² valid barg Valid
15 1.000 OK 2.537 OK 0.866 OK
16 0.475 ERR - - 0.175 ERR
17 0.659 OK 1.149 OK 0.406445 OK
18 0.659 ERR 1.149 ERR 0.406445 ERR
19 0.558 OK 0.648 OK 0.289662 OK
20 0.571 OK 0.303356 OK
21 0.659 OK 0.701 OK 0.406445 OK
22 0.898 ERR - -
23 1.287 ERR - -
24
25 Limits: lower upper
26 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK
27 Kst Parameter Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 600 bar.m/s OK
28 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 0 10 barg OK
29 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 5 OK
30 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 1 1000 m³ OK
31 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 0.5 barg OK
32 Pred 0.3 2 barg OK
33
34 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 1.000 m² OK
35 a 0.00085183
36 OR b 0.95767615
37 c -0.71876488
38 Vent Area Av 1 m² Pred 0.866 barg OK
39 EFFECT OF DUCT
40 Limits: lower upper
41 Duct Length LD 0.00 m LD 0 6 m OK
42
43 Reduced pressure P'red 0.2371986 barg Av 2.537 m² OK
44 Note : Simpson equation published in NFPA 68 1994 ed section 7-1.1.1
45
46 Limits: lower upper
47 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 2 OK
48 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 0 300 bar.m/s OK
49 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 0 9 barg OK
50 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 5 OK
51 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 1 1000 m³ OK
52 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 0.1 barg ERR
53 Pred 0.25 2 barg OK
54
55 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.475 m² OK
56 St 1 0.36282
57 OR St 2 0.47534
58
59 Vent Area Av 1 m² Pred 0.175 barg ERR
60 St 1 0.08170
61 St 2 0.17511
62 Note : Radandt equation published in NFPA 68 1994 ed section 7-2.3.1
63
64 Limits: lower upper
65 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK
66 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 800 bar.m/s OK
67 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK
68 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 2 OK
69 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK
70 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK
71 Pred 0.1 2 barg OK
72
73 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.659 m²
74
75 OR
76
77 Reduced pressure Pred 0.406445 barg 0.000 Av 1.000 m² OK
78 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av
79 EFFECT OF DUCT
80 Limits: lower upper
81 Duct Length LD 0.00 m LD 0 6 m OK
82
83 Reduced pressure P'red 0.3161994 barg Av 1.149 m²
84 Note: Scholl equation published in NFPA 68 1998 ed section 7-2.2
85
86
87
88
89
FM Global dust 2
NFPA 68:2007
Approved by
Checked by
Prepared by
Revision A B C D E F
NFPA 68:2002
NFPA 68:1998 Low Strength
Date
BS EN 14491:2006
Modified Swift eqn
SIMPSON (VDI 3673:1979 & NFPA 68 1994 Section 7-1.1.1)
RADANDT (NFPA 68:1988)
SCHOLL (VDI 3673:1995 & NFPA 68 1998 Edition)
Simpson (VDI 3673:1979)
Radandt (NFPA 68:1988)
Scholl (VDI 3673:1995)
Elongated (VDI 3673:1995)
RESULTS
Red Pressure
Vent Area (Av) with
duct
Vent Area (Av)
INPUT DATA
Dust Explosion Calculation
Calculation Sheet
Pmax upper limit is
11 bara for St1 and 2
13 bara for St 3
ref Dust Explosion Prevention and
Protection Part 1 page 73
This is a correlation to the Radandt
nomographs, which are dependent
only on the St group, and not the Kst
parameter. This method will give
different results to those obtained
using Simpson's correlation above.
However, for all practical purposes
they are sufficiently close. If the Kst
value is known, then Simpson is
preferable to Radandt.
Straight duct of
maximum length 6m
Equations are derived from the
Figure 5-4(b) in NFPA 68 1994
page 68-18
Upper limit assumed to be 6m based
on subsequent NFPA 68 issues
Calculate Pred
- 27 -
REF REV
1
2 Limits: lower upper
3 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK
4 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 800 bar.m/s OK
5 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK
6 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 2 6 ERR
7 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK
8 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK
9 Pred 0.1 1.5 barg OK
10
11 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.659 m²
12 delta A 0.000 m²
13
14 OR Av 0.659 m²
15
16 Reduced pressure Pred 0.406445 barg 0.000 Av + dA 1.000 m² OK
17 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av
18
19 EFFECT OF DUCT
20 Limits: lower upper
21 Duct Length LD 0.00 m LD 0 6 m OK
22
23 Reduced pressure P'red 0.3161994 barg Av 1.149 m²
24 delta A 0.000 m²
25
26 OR Av 1.149 m²
27 Note: Elongated Scholl equation published in NFPA 68 1998 ed section 7-2.3, for homgenous dust clouds only
28
29 Limits: lower upper
30 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK
31 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 800 bar.m/s OK
32 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 12 barg OK
33 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 6 OK
34 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK
35 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK
36 Pred 0.1 2 barg OK
37
38 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.558 m²
39 delta A 0.000 m²
40
41 OR Av 0.558 m²
42
43 Reduced pressure Pred 0.2896624 barg 0.000 Av + dA 1.000 m² OK
44 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av
45 EFFECT OF DUCT
46 Limits: lower upper
47 Duct Length LD 0.00 m LD 0 6 m OK
48
49 Reduced pressure P'red 0.6591674 barg Av 0.648 m²
50 delta A 0.000 m²
51
52 OR Av 0.648 m²
53
54
55 Limits: lower upper
56 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK
57 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 800 bar.m/s OK
58 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 12 barg OK
59 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 6 OK
60 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK
61 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0 0.75 barg OK
62
63 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.571 m²
64 delta A 0.000 m²
65
66 OR Av 0.571 m²
67
68 Reduced pressure Pred 0.3033561 barg 0.000 Av + dA 1.000 m²
69
70 EFFECT OF DUCT
71 1 Limits: lower upper
72 Duct Length LD 0.00 m LD 0 6 m E1
73 E2
74 Reduced pressure P'red 0.659167 barg Av 0.648 m²
75 delta A #NUM! m²
76
77 OR Av 0.648 m²
78
79
80 Limits: lower upper
81 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK
82 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 800 bar.m/s OK
83 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK
84 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 6 OK
85 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK
86 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK
87 Pred 0.1 2 barg OK
88
89 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.659 m²
90 OR
91
92 Reduced pressure Pred 0.406445 barg 0.000176 Av 1.000 m²
93
94 EFFECT OF DUCT
95 Max duct length that needs to be considered Ls 5.0020351 m
96 1 0.06489196
97 Pred max with duct and an L/D ratio = 1 P'red max 1.24 barg Av for L/D=1 0.087 m²
98 Pred max without duct and an L/D ratio = 1 Pred max 0.7727633 barg
99 Pred max for a L/D ratio = 6 P'red max 0.866 barg Av for L/D=6 1.227 m²
100 Pred max 0.8438026 barg
101
102 Pred max for a L/D ratio between 1 and 6 Pred max 0.7727633 barg Av for 1 ≤L/D ≤ 6 0.701 m²
103
104
105
106
107
NFPA 68:2007
ELONGATED (VDI 3673:1995 & NFPA 68 1998 Edition)
BS EN 14491:2006
Checked by
NFPA 68:2002
Approved by
Prepared by
D E F
Date
Revision A B C
Dust Explosion Calculation
Calculation Sheet
This equation is sensitive to Pred.
For low values of Pred the additional
area is relatively large.
For Pred values of 1.5 bar and above
the dAv equation should not be used,
and only use the eqn for Av.
This equation is sensitive to Pred.
For low values of Pred the additional
area is relatively large.
For Pred values of 1.5 bar and above
the dAv equation should not be used,
and only use the eqn for Av.
Vent pipes with a length of L>Ls have no
additional effect upon the pressure
increase, as flow reaches sonic velocity
NOT VALID FOR METAL DUSTS
Pmax upper limit is
10 barg for St1 and 2
12 barg for St 3
ref WinmVent Handbook April 2001
page 42
Calculate for L/D =1
- 28 -
REF REV
1
2 Limits: lower upper
3 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK
4 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 600 bar.m/s OK
5 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 12 barg OK
6 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 6 OK
7 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK
8 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK
9 Pred 0.1 0.2 barg ERR
10
11
12 Av 0.898 m² Using NFPA 68 1998 constants
13
14 C 0.043 bar½
15 Av 1.287 m² Using Lunn data for C
16
17
18
19
20 C (psi½
) C (bar½
)
21
22 10 0.005 0.001
23 20 0.01 0.003
24 30 0.015 0.004
25 40 0.021 0.006
26 50 0.027 0.007
27 75 0.041 0.011
28 100 0.055 0.014
29 150 0.084 0.022
30 200 0.105 0.028
31 250 0.127 0.033
32 300 0.163 0.043
33 400 0.21 0.055
34 500 0.248 0.065
35 600 0.3 0.079
36
37
38
39 Limits: lower upper For flame length equations
40 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 2 OK
41 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 0 300 bar.m/s OK
42 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 0 10 barg OK
43 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 2 OK
44 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK
45 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 0.2 barg OK
46 Reduced explosion pressure Pred 0.406445 Pred 0.1 2 barg OK
47 Vent area Av 1 m²
48 Method of evaluating Pred Elongated
49 Pressure venting orientation Horizontal
50 For Horizontal pressure venting Limits: lower upper For VDI 3673 Pmax,a and Pr (at distance) equations
51 Flame Length LF 21.544 m St 1 1 ERR
52 For Vertical pressure venting Kst 0 200 bar.m/s ERR
53 Flame Length LF 17.235 m Pmax 0 9 barg OK
54 Flame Width WF 6.034 m L/D 0 2 OK
55 Maximum external peak overpressure Pmax,a 0.123 barg V 0 250 m³ OK
56 Distance to peak external overpressure RS 5.386 m Pstat 0 0.1 barg ERR
57 Distance to peak external overpressure RS 4.309 m Pred 0.1 1 barg OK
58
59 barg psig barg psig Barg psig Limits: lower upper For EU CREDIT FORMULAS
60 5.386 0.123 1.784 4.3088 0.123 1.784 1 0.690243 10.011 St 1 1 ERR
61 6 0.105 1.518 5 0.106 1.538 2 0.345121 5.006 Kst 10 200 bar.m/s ERR
62 7 0.083 1.204 6 0.088 1.282 3 0.230081 3.337 Pmax 5 10 barg OK
63 8 0.068 0.986 7 0.076 1.098 4 0.172561 2.503 L/D 0 6 OK
64 9 0.057 0.826 8 0.066 0.961 5 0.138049 2.002 V 0 1000 m³ OK
65 10 0.049 0.705 9 0.059 0.854 6 0.11504 1.669 Pstat 0.1 0.2 barg OK
66 11 0.042 0.611 10 0.053 0.769 8 0.08628 1.251 Pred 0.1 2 barg OK
67 12 0.037 0.537 11 0.048 0.699 10 0.069024 1.001
68 13 0.033 0.476 12 0.044 0.641 12 0.05752 0.834 Distance to struc./obstacle 15.36 m
69 14 0.029 0.426 13 0.041 0.591 14 0.049303 0.715 Maximum pressure at robs 0.069028 barg
70 15 0.026 0.384 14 0.038 0.549 16 0.04314 0.626 Lateral flame spread 6.378725 m
71 16 0.024 0.349 15 0.035 0.513 18 0.038347 0.556
72 17 0.022 0.318 16 0.033 0.481 20 0.034512 0.501
73 18 0.020 0.292 17 0.031 0.452 22 0.031375 0.455
74 19 0.019 0.269 18 0.029 0.427 24 0.02876 0.417
75 21.544 0.015 0.223 21.544 0.025 0.357 26 0.026548 0.385
76
77
78
79
80
81
Distance,
m
Distance,
m
Distance,
m
Pressure HattwigPressure EU CREDITPressure VDI 2002
mixtures in air only
Fuel Characteristic Constant for Venting
Equation
Fuel Characteristic Constant for Venting
Equation
Fuel
St-2 dusts
St-3 dusts
NFPA 68:1998 LOW STRENGTH ENCLOSURE (SWIFT EQUATION)
Dust Explosion Calculation
Calculation Sheet
Checked by
FLAME PROPAGATION - VDI 3673 Part 1 2002
Approved by
Prepared by
Date
Revision A B C D E F
0.026
0.03
0.051
Fuel
C (bar½
) mixtures in
air only
St-1 dusts
Table 4 from Venting Gas
and Dust Explosions 2nd
Edition GA Lunn
Table 4-3.1 from NFPA
68:1998
Taken from the EU CREDIT project. The equation
is only valid if Kst<= 200 bar.m/s
EU Credit report formula:-
For venting directed vertically
Rs = 0.25 LF ,
For venting directed horizontally
Rs = 0.2 LF
Hattwig method uses equation:-
Pblast = Pred C1 C2 / r
log C1 = -0.26/Av + 0.49
VDI and CREDIT eqns
Psmax = 0.2 Predmax A0.1
V0.18
HATTWIG FOR COMPARISON ONLY
Venting towards an obstruction
Method uses EU CREDIT project equations only and not VDI for
estimation of distance to peak external overpressure, Rs.
Pr,obs = 2 (Rs / robs) Ps,max
For CURRENT VDI Guidelines
2002 use Scholl ONLY
VDI 3673 Part 1 2002
Max external peak
pressure occurs at a
distance,
Rs = 0.25 LF

More Related Content

What's hot

Impact of No. of Pipe Segments on the flow rate calculated by Pipe Model (Pag...
Impact of No. of Pipe Segments on the flow rate calculated by Pipe Model (Pag...Impact of No. of Pipe Segments on the flow rate calculated by Pipe Model (Pag...
Impact of No. of Pipe Segments on the flow rate calculated by Pipe Model (Pag...
Waqas Manzoor
 
110 fluid mechanics
110 fluid mechanics110 fluid mechanics
110 fluid mechanics
Zakaria Masud
 
Hazop Study
Hazop StudyHazop Study
Hazop Study
Martin Shija
 
Use of nitrogen purge in flare and vent systems
Use of nitrogen purge in flare and vent systemsUse of nitrogen purge in flare and vent systems
Use of nitrogen purge in flare and vent systemsLanphuong Pham
 
PSV Sizing.pdf
PSV Sizing.pdfPSV Sizing.pdf
PSV Sizing.pdf
KAhmedRehman
 
Ammonia plant material balance
Ammonia plant material balanceAmmonia plant material balance
Ammonia plant material balance
Prem Baboo
 
Astm method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressure
Astm  method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressureAstm  method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressure
Astm method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressure
Student
 
Relief Systems.pdf
Relief Systems.pdfRelief Systems.pdf
Relief Systems.pdf
KAhmedRehman
 
Flue gas analysis
Flue gas analysisFlue gas analysis
Flue gas analysis
NIT MEGHALAYA
 
Control of Continuous Distillation Columns
Control of Continuous Distillation ColumnsControl of Continuous Distillation Columns
Control of Continuous Distillation Columns
Gerard B. Hawkins
 
Fluidized cataltic cracking.
Fluidized cataltic cracking.Fluidized cataltic cracking.
Fluidized cataltic cracking.
vivek bhargude
 
Design Calculation of Venting for Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage Tanks
Design Calculation of Venting for Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage TanksDesign Calculation of Venting for Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage Tanks
Design Calculation of Venting for Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage Tanks
Kushagra Saxena
 
Gas Absorption & Stripping in Chemical Engineering (Part 2/4)
Gas Absorption & Stripping in Chemical Engineering (Part 2/4)Gas Absorption & Stripping in Chemical Engineering (Part 2/4)
Gas Absorption & Stripping in Chemical Engineering (Part 2/4)
Chemical Engineering Guy
 
Compressor fundamentals
Compressor fundamentalsCompressor fundamentals
Compressor fundamentals
Prem Baboo
 
Cengel cimbala solutions_chap04
Cengel cimbala solutions_chap04Cengel cimbala solutions_chap04
Cengel cimbala solutions_chap04
luisbello67
 
Types of trays in distillation tower
Types of trays in distillation towerTypes of trays in distillation tower
Types of trays in distillation tower
www.thepetrosolutions.com
 
Tutorial hysys
Tutorial hysysTutorial hysys
Tutorial hysys
Justiciero61
 
Distillation column internals.pptx
Distillation column internals.pptxDistillation column internals.pptx
Distillation column internals.pptx
JOMON M.C
 
Pressure Relief Valve Sizing for Single Phase Flow
Pressure Relief Valve Sizing for Single Phase FlowPressure Relief Valve Sizing for Single Phase Flow
Pressure Relief Valve Sizing for Single Phase Flow
Vikram Sharma
 
Aspen Plus - Physical Properties (1 of 2) (Slideshare)
Aspen Plus - Physical Properties (1 of 2) (Slideshare)Aspen Plus - Physical Properties (1 of 2) (Slideshare)
Aspen Plus - Physical Properties (1 of 2) (Slideshare)
Chemical Engineering Guy
 

What's hot (20)

Impact of No. of Pipe Segments on the flow rate calculated by Pipe Model (Pag...
Impact of No. of Pipe Segments on the flow rate calculated by Pipe Model (Pag...Impact of No. of Pipe Segments on the flow rate calculated by Pipe Model (Pag...
Impact of No. of Pipe Segments on the flow rate calculated by Pipe Model (Pag...
 
110 fluid mechanics
110 fluid mechanics110 fluid mechanics
110 fluid mechanics
 
Hazop Study
Hazop StudyHazop Study
Hazop Study
 
Use of nitrogen purge in flare and vent systems
Use of nitrogen purge in flare and vent systemsUse of nitrogen purge in flare and vent systems
Use of nitrogen purge in flare and vent systems
 
PSV Sizing.pdf
PSV Sizing.pdfPSV Sizing.pdf
PSV Sizing.pdf
 
Ammonia plant material balance
Ammonia plant material balanceAmmonia plant material balance
Ammonia plant material balance
 
Astm method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressure
Astm  method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressureAstm  method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressure
Astm method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressure
 
Relief Systems.pdf
Relief Systems.pdfRelief Systems.pdf
Relief Systems.pdf
 
Flue gas analysis
Flue gas analysisFlue gas analysis
Flue gas analysis
 
Control of Continuous Distillation Columns
Control of Continuous Distillation ColumnsControl of Continuous Distillation Columns
Control of Continuous Distillation Columns
 
Fluidized cataltic cracking.
Fluidized cataltic cracking.Fluidized cataltic cracking.
Fluidized cataltic cracking.
 
Design Calculation of Venting for Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage Tanks
Design Calculation of Venting for Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage TanksDesign Calculation of Venting for Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage Tanks
Design Calculation of Venting for Atmospheric & Low Pressure Storage Tanks
 
Gas Absorption & Stripping in Chemical Engineering (Part 2/4)
Gas Absorption & Stripping in Chemical Engineering (Part 2/4)Gas Absorption & Stripping in Chemical Engineering (Part 2/4)
Gas Absorption & Stripping in Chemical Engineering (Part 2/4)
 
Compressor fundamentals
Compressor fundamentalsCompressor fundamentals
Compressor fundamentals
 
Cengel cimbala solutions_chap04
Cengel cimbala solutions_chap04Cengel cimbala solutions_chap04
Cengel cimbala solutions_chap04
 
Types of trays in distillation tower
Types of trays in distillation towerTypes of trays in distillation tower
Types of trays in distillation tower
 
Tutorial hysys
Tutorial hysysTutorial hysys
Tutorial hysys
 
Distillation column internals.pptx
Distillation column internals.pptxDistillation column internals.pptx
Distillation column internals.pptx
 
Pressure Relief Valve Sizing for Single Phase Flow
Pressure Relief Valve Sizing for Single Phase FlowPressure Relief Valve Sizing for Single Phase Flow
Pressure Relief Valve Sizing for Single Phase Flow
 
Aspen Plus - Physical Properties (1 of 2) (Slideshare)
Aspen Plus - Physical Properties (1 of 2) (Slideshare)Aspen Plus - Physical Properties (1 of 2) (Slideshare)
Aspen Plus - Physical Properties (1 of 2) (Slideshare)
 

Viewers also liked

Drager Fixed Gas Detector - Explosion Protection Brochure
Drager Fixed Gas Detector - Explosion Protection BrochureDrager Fixed Gas Detector - Explosion Protection Brochure
Drager Fixed Gas Detector - Explosion Protection BrochureThorne & Derrick UK
 
SMART Explosion Venting
SMART Explosion VentingSMART Explosion Venting
SMART Explosion Venting
UBMCanon
 
2010 Sfpe Cpd On Explosion Venting
2010 Sfpe Cpd On Explosion Venting2010 Sfpe Cpd On Explosion Venting
2010 Sfpe Cpd On Explosion Ventingandrewwcwong
 
Combustible Dust Hazards
Combustible Dust HazardsCombustible Dust Hazards
Combustible Dust Hazards
Albert V. Condello III CSP CHMM
 
Hazardous location protection methods e book by pepperl+ fuchs
Hazardous location protection methods e book by pepperl+ fuchsHazardous location protection methods e book by pepperl+ fuchs
Hazardous location protection methods e book by pepperl+ fuchs
Kristen_Barbour_PF
 
Industrial hazards and prevention systems
Industrial hazards and prevention systems Industrial hazards and prevention systems
Industrial hazards and prevention systems
Dr. Raja Abhilash
 

Viewers also liked (6)

Drager Fixed Gas Detector - Explosion Protection Brochure
Drager Fixed Gas Detector - Explosion Protection BrochureDrager Fixed Gas Detector - Explosion Protection Brochure
Drager Fixed Gas Detector - Explosion Protection Brochure
 
SMART Explosion Venting
SMART Explosion VentingSMART Explosion Venting
SMART Explosion Venting
 
2010 Sfpe Cpd On Explosion Venting
2010 Sfpe Cpd On Explosion Venting2010 Sfpe Cpd On Explosion Venting
2010 Sfpe Cpd On Explosion Venting
 
Combustible Dust Hazards
Combustible Dust HazardsCombustible Dust Hazards
Combustible Dust Hazards
 
Hazardous location protection methods e book by pepperl+ fuchs
Hazardous location protection methods e book by pepperl+ fuchsHazardous location protection methods e book by pepperl+ fuchs
Hazardous location protection methods e book by pepperl+ fuchs
 
Industrial hazards and prevention systems
Industrial hazards and prevention systems Industrial hazards and prevention systems
Industrial hazards and prevention systems
 

Similar to Dust explosion sizing comparison

Performing Safety Modeling Analysis To Comply With LNG Facility Siting Requi...
 Performing Safety Modeling Analysis To Comply With LNG Facility Siting Requi... Performing Safety Modeling Analysis To Comply With LNG Facility Siting Requi...
Performing Safety Modeling Analysis To Comply With LNG Facility Siting Requi...
BREEZE Software
 
Boiler doc 04 flowmetering
Boiler doc 04   flowmeteringBoiler doc 04   flowmetering
Boiler doc 04 flowmeteringMars Tsani
 
Eurovent 4.21 calculation method for the energy use 14186506522
Eurovent 4.21 calculation method for the energy use 14186506522Eurovent 4.21 calculation method for the energy use 14186506522
Eurovent 4.21 calculation method for the energy use 14186506522
Januário Esteves
 
Fgd general norms
Fgd general normsFgd general norms
Fgd general norms
Udhayakumar Venkataraman
 
CO2 Effect on Ultrasonic Flow Measurement for Flare Gas
CO2 Effect on Ultrasonic Flow Measurement for Flare GasCO2 Effect on Ultrasonic Flow Measurement for Flare Gas
CO2 Effect on Ultrasonic Flow Measurement for Flare Gas
Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo - UFES
 
1 s2.0-s1876610217320210-main
1 s2.0-s1876610217320210-main1 s2.0-s1876610217320210-main
1 s2.0-s1876610217320210-main
Heri Faisandra
 
UBD Husky Oil with Umberto Micheli
UBD Husky Oil with Umberto MicheliUBD Husky Oil with Umberto Micheli
UBD Husky Oil with Umberto MicheliUmberto Micheli
 
Pages From Egu Mact Proposal 3 16 11
Pages From Egu Mact Proposal 3 16 11Pages From Egu Mact Proposal 3 16 11
Pages From Egu Mact Proposal 3 16 11
bigglenno
 
PyTeCK: A Python-based automatic testing package for chemical kinetic models
PyTeCK: A Python-based automatic testing package for chemical kinetic modelsPyTeCK: A Python-based automatic testing package for chemical kinetic models
PyTeCK: A Python-based automatic testing package for chemical kinetic models
Oregon State University
 
Paper id 36201531
Paper id 36201531Paper id 36201531
Paper id 36201531IJRAT
 
How to compute safe purge rates
How to compute safe purge ratesHow to compute safe purge rates
How to compute safe purge rates
Raja Dhanasekaran
 
Numerical Experiments of Hydrogen-Air Premixed Flames
Numerical Experiments of Hydrogen-Air Premixed FlamesNumerical Experiments of Hydrogen-Air Premixed Flames
Numerical Experiments of Hydrogen-Air Premixed Flames
IJRES Journal
 
Dilute Phase Conveying
Dilute Phase ConveyingDilute Phase Conveying
Dilute Phase Conveying
Process Systems & Design
 
Dahle2015
Dahle2015Dahle2015
Dahle2015
zibaabdollahi1
 
Flare radiation-mitigation-analysis-of-onshore-oil-gas-production-refining-fa...
Flare radiation-mitigation-analysis-of-onshore-oil-gas-production-refining-fa...Flare radiation-mitigation-analysis-of-onshore-oil-gas-production-refining-fa...
Flare radiation-mitigation-analysis-of-onshore-oil-gas-production-refining-fa...
Anchal Soni
 
Dewatering Waste Activated Sludge Using Greenhouse-Gas Flotation followed by ...
Dewatering Waste Activated Sludge Using Greenhouse-Gas Flotation followed by ...Dewatering Waste Activated Sludge Using Greenhouse-Gas Flotation followed by ...
Dewatering Waste Activated Sludge Using Greenhouse-Gas Flotation followed by ...
Medhat Elzahar
 
Pressurized CF 3 I-CO Gas Mixture under Lightning Impulse and its Solid By-P...
Pressurized CF 3 I-CO  Gas Mixture under Lightning Impulse and its Solid By-P...Pressurized CF 3 I-CO  Gas Mixture under Lightning Impulse and its Solid By-P...
Pressurized CF 3 I-CO Gas Mixture under Lightning Impulse and its Solid By-P...
IJECEIAES
 
Tracer Cert technical note no 1 ppb & sub ppb water vapour standards, revised...
Tracer Cert technical note no 1 ppb & sub ppb water vapour standards, revised...Tracer Cert technical note no 1 ppb & sub ppb water vapour standards, revised...
Tracer Cert technical note no 1 ppb & sub ppb water vapour standards, revised...John Thompson
 
Multi cyclone dust collector
Multi cyclone dust collectorMulti cyclone dust collector
Multi cyclone dust collector
Jignesh Raiyani
 

Similar to Dust explosion sizing comparison (20)

Performing Safety Modeling Analysis To Comply With LNG Facility Siting Requi...
 Performing Safety Modeling Analysis To Comply With LNG Facility Siting Requi... Performing Safety Modeling Analysis To Comply With LNG Facility Siting Requi...
Performing Safety Modeling Analysis To Comply With LNG Facility Siting Requi...
 
MEM 540 Midterm
MEM 540 MidtermMEM 540 Midterm
MEM 540 Midterm
 
Boiler doc 04 flowmetering
Boiler doc 04   flowmeteringBoiler doc 04   flowmetering
Boiler doc 04 flowmetering
 
Eurovent 4.21 calculation method for the energy use 14186506522
Eurovent 4.21 calculation method for the energy use 14186506522Eurovent 4.21 calculation method for the energy use 14186506522
Eurovent 4.21 calculation method for the energy use 14186506522
 
Fgd general norms
Fgd general normsFgd general norms
Fgd general norms
 
CO2 Effect on Ultrasonic Flow Measurement for Flare Gas
CO2 Effect on Ultrasonic Flow Measurement for Flare GasCO2 Effect on Ultrasonic Flow Measurement for Flare Gas
CO2 Effect on Ultrasonic Flow Measurement for Flare Gas
 
1 s2.0-s1876610217320210-main
1 s2.0-s1876610217320210-main1 s2.0-s1876610217320210-main
1 s2.0-s1876610217320210-main
 
UBD Husky Oil with Umberto Micheli
UBD Husky Oil with Umberto MicheliUBD Husky Oil with Umberto Micheli
UBD Husky Oil with Umberto Micheli
 
Pages From Egu Mact Proposal 3 16 11
Pages From Egu Mact Proposal 3 16 11Pages From Egu Mact Proposal 3 16 11
Pages From Egu Mact Proposal 3 16 11
 
PyTeCK: A Python-based automatic testing package for chemical kinetic models
PyTeCK: A Python-based automatic testing package for chemical kinetic modelsPyTeCK: A Python-based automatic testing package for chemical kinetic models
PyTeCK: A Python-based automatic testing package for chemical kinetic models
 
Paper id 36201531
Paper id 36201531Paper id 36201531
Paper id 36201531
 
How to compute safe purge rates
How to compute safe purge ratesHow to compute safe purge rates
How to compute safe purge rates
 
Numerical Experiments of Hydrogen-Air Premixed Flames
Numerical Experiments of Hydrogen-Air Premixed FlamesNumerical Experiments of Hydrogen-Air Premixed Flames
Numerical Experiments of Hydrogen-Air Premixed Flames
 
Dilute Phase Conveying
Dilute Phase ConveyingDilute Phase Conveying
Dilute Phase Conveying
 
Dahle2015
Dahle2015Dahle2015
Dahle2015
 
Flare radiation-mitigation-analysis-of-onshore-oil-gas-production-refining-fa...
Flare radiation-mitigation-analysis-of-onshore-oil-gas-production-refining-fa...Flare radiation-mitigation-analysis-of-onshore-oil-gas-production-refining-fa...
Flare radiation-mitigation-analysis-of-onshore-oil-gas-production-refining-fa...
 
Dewatering Waste Activated Sludge Using Greenhouse-Gas Flotation followed by ...
Dewatering Waste Activated Sludge Using Greenhouse-Gas Flotation followed by ...Dewatering Waste Activated Sludge Using Greenhouse-Gas Flotation followed by ...
Dewatering Waste Activated Sludge Using Greenhouse-Gas Flotation followed by ...
 
Pressurized CF 3 I-CO Gas Mixture under Lightning Impulse and its Solid By-P...
Pressurized CF 3 I-CO  Gas Mixture under Lightning Impulse and its Solid By-P...Pressurized CF 3 I-CO  Gas Mixture under Lightning Impulse and its Solid By-P...
Pressurized CF 3 I-CO Gas Mixture under Lightning Impulse and its Solid By-P...
 
Tracer Cert technical note no 1 ppb & sub ppb water vapour standards, revised...
Tracer Cert technical note no 1 ppb & sub ppb water vapour standards, revised...Tracer Cert technical note no 1 ppb & sub ppb water vapour standards, revised...
Tracer Cert technical note no 1 ppb & sub ppb water vapour standards, revised...
 
Multi cyclone dust collector
Multi cyclone dust collectorMulti cyclone dust collector
Multi cyclone dust collector
 

Dust explosion sizing comparison

  • 1. Comparison of experimental dust and gas explosion measurements with published vent sizing correlations Christopher Bell
  • 2. - 2 - 1 Introduction An explosion may occur if a flammable gas or vapour, or a finely divided combustible dust is dispersed into the atmosphere in the presence of an energy source that has sufficient energy to cause ignition. The flame front will then travel through the flammable gas or dust cloud. If the flammable gas or dust is present within an enclosure, such as an item of process plant equipment i.e. a vessel, the flame propagation will generate pressure, due to expansion of the burned fuel within the enclosure. This may result in the catastrophic equipment failure producing an external explosion when the pressure is released to atmosphere. Hence, it is important that process plant that is a risk of an internal deflagration has a developed basis of safety. The basis of safety may comprise control and/or mitigation measures, and often equipment basis of safety is a combination of both preventative and mitigation measures. Examples of preventative measures are:- • Avoidance of flammable atmospheres • Control of ignition sources However, an adequate basis of safety may not be achieved by the reliance of the above preventative measures alone. Hence, the preventative measures are often supplemented by additional mitigation measures, which include: • Explosion containment, where the equipment design pressure, or shock resistant strength, exceed the maximum explosion over-pressure generated based on the fuel and the likely initial conditions; • Explosion suppression; and • Explosion venting. Explosion venting is often relied on within industry as the basis of safety for process plant equipment. The basic premise of explosion venting is to provide a vent of sufficient area that upon opening will release unburnt gas or dust, and products of combustion to escape from the vessel. The size of the vent should be capable of limiting the developed explosion pressure to within the safe limits of the equipment, such that rupture does not occur. The sizing of the explosion vents is the subject of several industry guides and international standards. However, the various methods are typically correlations based on experimental data, and hence their use outside the published limits of applicability may lead to either impractically large or conversely inadequate vent sizes that comprise the selected equipment basis of safety. This report aims to review some published experimental explosion data for both gases and dusts and compare the results obtained with several of the currently available vent sizing methods.
  • 3. - 3 - 2 Explosion Vent Sizing 2.1 Gases 2.1.1 NFPA 68 1994 Edition The 1994 edition of the NFPA 68 standard provided the following equation for the estimation of explosion vent area for high strength enclosures (i.e. capable of withstanding greater that 100 mbarg) d red cPb v PeaVA stat = Where V is the vessel volume, m3 e is the base of natural logarithm Pstat is the vent opening pressure, barg Pred is the maximum pressure developed during venting within the enclosure, or the reduced explosion pressure, barg a, b, and c are constants that are dependant on the fuels reactivity, and are shown in the table below: Table 1: Constants for use in explosion vent sizing [3] a b c d Methane 0.105 0.770 1.230 -0.823 Propane 0.148 0.703 0.942 -0.671 Hydrogen 0.279 0.680 0.755 -0.393 Coke Gas 0.150 0.695 1.380 -0.707 This equation was developed based on the explosion nomographs that were published within the standard, with the use of the equation limited to enclosures having a length to diameter ratio of less than 5. For fuels other than those listed in the above table if the fundamental burning velocity is less than 60 cm/sec i.e. 1.3 times that of propane, then the propane constants are used. If the fundamental burning velocity is greater than 60 cm/secs then the hydrogen equation is used. However, it should be noted that this method is no longer considered appropriate as it does not take sufficient account of the fuels reactivity, for example hydrogen is ten times as reactive as methane yet use of the NFPA 68:1994 edition nomographs, on which the above equation is based, will yield similar results. 2.1.2 NFPA 68: 2007 Edition Subsequent revisions of the NFPA 68 standard used correlations based on VDI guidelines [10] and [11], which also remains unaltered in the latest 2007 edition of the standard. For explosion vent sizing of enclosures having a length to diameter ratio of less than 2, the vent size can be estimated from the equation:- ( ) ( ) ( )[ ]{ } ( ) ( )[ ] 3 2 572.03 2 582.0 10 1.0175.00567.0log127.0 VPPVPKA statredredGv −+−= −− Where KG is the gas deflagration index, = (dP/dt)max V(1/3)
  • 4. - 4 - (dP/dt)max is the maximum rate of pressure rise obtained from standardised experimental test equipment, bar/s For enclosures having length to diameter ratios between 2 and 5 an additional vent area should be added to the vent area estimated from the above equation. 750 2 2       − =∆ D L KA A Gv The limits of applicability for the above method are:- KG ≤ 550 bar.m/sec Pred ≤ 2 bar and at least 0.05 bar > Pstat Pstat ≤ 0.5 bar V ≤ 1000 m³ 2.1.3 BS EN 14994:2006 The harmonised European norm standard EN 14994 also utilises the VDI correlation ( ) ( ) ( )[ ]{ } ( ) ( )[ ] 3 2 5722.03 2 5817.0 10 1.01754.00567.0log1265.0 VPPVPKA statredredGv −+−= −− However, this standard also provides an alternative simple vent sizing method, which is based on the turbulent Bradley number:- ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 25.0 5.25.2 5.2 5.25.2 8.59.7:1if 65.5:1if t i istat i red i istat i red t i istat i red i istat i red Br P PP P P P PP P P Br P PP P P P PP P P −=       + ≥       + =       + <       + − The turbulent Bradley number is subsequently used to solve the following equation:- Where cui is the speed of sound at initial conditions of explosion, m/s Ei is the expansion ratio of the combustion products A is the vent area, m² Pi is the initial enclosure pressure, bar Sui is the burning velocity at the initial conditions, m/s β is an empirical constant = 0.5 for hydrocarbons, and 0.8 for hydrogen
  • 5. - 5 - α is an empirical constant = 1.75 for hydrocarbons and 1 for hydrogen γu is the ratio of specific heats of the unburned mixture πv = (Pstat + Pi)/ Pi π0 = 3.14 πi# is initial pressure expressed in bar i.e. (Pi/ 1, bar) The quoted limits of applicability for the above simple method are:- L/D ≤ 3 V ≤ 8000 m³ 0.09 < A/V2/3 < 1.23 0 ≤ Pstat ≤ several bar 0 ≤ Pi ≤ 6 bar overpressure 2.2 Dusts 2.2.1 NFPA 68: 1994 The NFPA 68 1994 edition provided two methods for the estimation of dust explosion vent sizes. The Radandt methodology is based on the use of nomographs, with equations provided as an alternative. The Radandt method did not require the use of the dust deflagration index or KST value, (KST = (dP/dt)max V(1/3) ), but used the St grouping of the dust instead, which is a classification of the dusts reactivity based on the KST value. The Radandt nomograph equations are:- For St-1 dusts Log Av = 0.77957 log V – 0.42945 log Pred – 1.24669 For St-2 dusts For V= 1 to 10 m³ Log Av = 0.64256 log V – 0.46527 log Pred – 0.99241 For V = 10 to 1000m³ Log Av = 0.74461 log V – 0.50017 log (Pred + 0.18522) – 1.02406 In addition to the Radandt methodology NFPA provided the Simpson nomographs and an equation developed to reproduce values obtained from their use. The Simpson equation is:- Av = a V2/3 KST b Pred c Where a = 0.000571 e(2 Pstat) b = 0.978 e (-0.105 Pstat) c = -0.687 e (0.226 Pstat) The Radandt method will give different results to those obtained using Simpson's correlation above. However, for all practical purposes they are sufficiently close. If the KST value is known, then the Simpson correlation is preferable to Radandt method. 2.2.2 VDI 3673 Part 1: 1995 The German VDI 3673:1995 [10] standard published the correlation developed by Scholl for cubic enclosures:-
  • 6. - 6 - [ ][ ] 753.05.0 max, 569.0 max,max 5 1.027.010264.3 VPPPKPxA redstatredST −−− −+= The Scholl equation is valid for:- Vessel volumes between 0.1m³ and 10000m³ Static opening pressure, Pstat of between 0.1 and 1 barg Maximum reduced explosion over-pressure of between 0.1 and 2 barg Maximum explosion over-pressure, Pmax, of between 5 and 10 barg for a dust with a deflagration index (KST) between 10 bar.m/s and 300 bar.m/s, or a Pmax of 5 to 12 barg for a KST value between 300 bar.m/s and 800 bar.m/s. For enclosures that were elongated the VDI guideline modified the Scholl equation:- ( )( ) )/log(758.0log305.4 max, DLPAA redL +−=∆ Where the additional vent area is added to that vent area estimated for an enclosure with an L/D ratio of below 2. The use of this equation results in a step change in vent area for vessels with an L/D ratio of greater than 2. The above equations were retained in the 2002 edition of the VDI 3673 guide [11]. 2.2.3 NFPA 68:2002 Editions of the NFPA 68 standard after 1994 incorporated the Scholl equation from the VDI guidelines. However, the NFPA 68 guide ceased to use the Scholl equation in the 2002 edition, which published a vent sizing equation that removed the vent sizing step change that was inherent in the use of the Scholl equation for elongated vessels. The NFPA 68 2002 correlation was:- ( )( )                         − += − max max75.05 1 75.1110535.8 P P P P VKPxA red red STstatv For L/D ratios greater than 2 and less than 6 the vent area estimated by the above equation is increased by adding the incremental vent area estimated by:-       −      −=∆ 1log 11 56.1 65.0 max D L PP AA red v 2.2.4 NFPA 68:2007 The latest edition of the NFPA 68, which has now changed from a guide to a standard, uses the following equation for dust explosion vent sizing:- 154.11101 max4 3 5 4 4 0, −     += − red STstatv P P VKPxA For enclosures with an L/D ratio greater than 2 and less than 6 the vent area is again increased by adding an incremental area estimated by:- ( )         −      −+= 2 75.0 01 95.0exp26.01 redvv P D L AA The limits of the above equation are:- 5 ≤ Pmax ≤ 12 bar 10 bar.m/sec≤ KST ≤ 800 bar.m/sec
  • 7. - 7 - 0.1 m³ ≤ V ≤ 10000 m³ Pstat ≤ 0.75 bar 2.2.5 BS EN 14491:2006 The current harmonised European standard EN 14491 retains the use of the Scholl equation used by the VDI 3673 guidelines [10] and [11].
  • 8. - 8 - 3 Experimental data 3.1 Gases The experimental data for gas explosions have been taken from G A Lunn – Venting Gas and Dust Explosions – A review [1]. 3.1.1 Methane The table below summarises methane vented explosion experimental results from Buckland, taken from Table 10 [1] Table 2: Methane vented explosion test results [1] Enclosure Volume Vent coefficient Vent area Vent opening pressure Reduced explosion pressure V K Av Pstat Pred m3 V^(2/3)/Av m2 barg barg 26.64 8.04 1.11 0.007 0.083 26.64 8.04 1.11 0.004 0.055 26.64 2.00 4.46 0.017 0.066 26.64 2.00 4.46 0.066 0.062 26.64 2.00 4.46 0.057 0.109 26.64 2.00 4.46 0.063 0.05 26.64 4.00 2.23 0.019 0.109 26.64 4.00 2.23 0.076 0.101 26.64 4.00 2.23 0.079 0.102 26.64 2.50 3.57 0.072 0.11 26.64 2.50 3.57 0.039 0.11 26.64 5.01 1.78 0.115 0.219 26.64 5.01 1.78 0.086 0.221 26.64 4.00 2.23 0.017 0.098 26.64 4.00 2.23 0.09 0.066 26.64 4.00 2.23 0.07 0.07 26.64 4.00 2.23 0.075 0.13 3.1.2 Propane The table below summarises propane explosion data results from Bromma, taken from Table 8 [1] Table 3: Propane vented explosion test results [1] Enclosure Volume Vent coefficient Vent area Vent opening pressure Reduced explosion pressure V K Av Pstat Pred m3 V^(2/3)/Av m2 barg barg 200 1.11 30.81 0.0549 0.0588 200 1.11 30.81 0.0294 0.0333 200 1.11 30.81 0.0098 0.0181 200 1.11 30.81 0.0289 0.0343 200 1.11 30.81 0.0549 0.0588 200 1.38 24.78 0.049 0.0637 200 1.38 24.78 0.0137 0.0299 200 1.38 24.78 0.0196 0.0295 200 1.38 24.78 0.0196 0.0348 3.1.3 Pentane The table below summarises pentane vented explosion experimental results from Harris and Briscoe, taken from Table 4 [1]. Note that the vent opening pressure is 0 barg.
  • 9. - 3 - 2 Explosion Vent Sizing 2.1 Gases 2.1.1 NFPA 68 1994 Edition The 1994 edition of the NFPA 68 standard provided the following equation for the estimation of explosion vent area for high strength enclosures (i.e. capable of withstanding greater that 100 mbarg) d red cPb v PeaVA stat = Where V is the vessel volume, m3 e is the base of natural logarithm Pstat is the vent opening pressure, barg Pred is the maximum pressure developed during venting within the enclosure, or the reduced explosion pressure, barg a, b, and c are constants that are dependant on the fuels reactivity, and are shown in the table below: Table 1: Constants for use in explosion vent sizing [3] a b c d Methane 0.105 0.770 1.230 -0.823 Propane 0.148 0.703 0.942 -0.671 Hydrogen 0.279 0.680 0.755 -0.393 Coke Gas 0.150 0.695 1.380 -0.707 This equation was developed based on the explosion nomographs that were published within the standard, with the use of the equation limited to enclosures having a length to diameter ratio of less than 5. For fuels other than those listed in the above table if the fundamental burning velocity is less than 60 cm/sec i.e. 1.3 times that of propane, then the propane constants are used. If the fundamental burning velocity is greater than 60 cm/secs then the hydrogen equation is used. However, it should be noted that this method is no longer considered appropriate as it does not take sufficient account of the fuels reactivity, for example hydrogen is ten times as reactive as methane yet use of the NFPA 68:1994 edition nomographs, on which the above equation is based, will yield similar results. 2.1.2 NFPA 68: 2007 Edition Subsequent revisions of the NFPA 68 standard used correlations based on VDI guidelines [10] and [11], which also remains unaltered in the latest 2007 edition of the standard. For explosion vent sizing of enclosures having a length to diameter ratio of less than 2, the vent size can be estimated from the equation:- ( ) ( ) ( )[ ]{ } ( ) ( )[ ] 3 2 572.03 2 582.0 10 1.0175.00567.0log127.0 VPPVPKA statredredGv −+−= −− Where KG is the gas deflagration index, = (dP/dt)max V(1/3)
  • 10. - 10 - 3.3 Factory Mutual Standard 7-76 The Factory Mutual Global standard 7-76 includes the paper published by Tamanini and Valiulis [2], and includes the experimental test results from a 10m³ vessel containing powders with a deflagration index, KST, of 190 bar.m/s and 290 bar.m/s. The vent opening pressure was 0.2 barg. The test results are detailed below:- Table 6: FM Global vented explosion test results [2] Enclosure Volume Vent coefficient Vent area Vent opening pressure Reduced explosion pressure Deflagration index V K Av Pstat Pred KST m 3 V^(2/3)/Av m 2 barg barg bar.m/s 10 7.25 0.64 0.2 0.45 190 12.21 0.38 0.2 1.4 190 16.58 0.28 0.2 2.1 190 12.21 0.38 1.86 3 190 7.25 0.64 0.2 0.75 290 12.21 0.38 0.2 2.2 290 16.58 0.28 0.2 3.6 290 7.25 0.64 1.4 1.65 290 7.25 0.64 2.5 3 290 3.3.1 Wheat dust The table below summarises the wheat dust vented explosion results from vented explosions within a 500m³ silo at Boge, Norway, and are taken from Figure 49 [1]. Additional data for vented wheat dust explosions within a 20m³ elongated silo (L/D ratio of 6.25) obtained by Radandt, were taken from Figure 50 [1]. Table 7: Wheat grain dust vented explosion test results [1] Enclosure Volume Vent coefficient Vent area Reduced explosion pressure V K Av Pred m 3 V^(2/3)/Av m 2 barg 500 7.87 8 0.025 7.87 8 0.03 7.87 8 0.05 7.87 8 0.06 7.87 8 0.12 4.44 14.2 0.015 4.44 14.2 0.03 12.60 5 0.3 31.50 2 0.4 20 4.91 1.5 0.3 6.41 1.15 0.4 9.82 0.75 0.7 14.74 0.5 1.1 24.56 0.3 1.8 36.84 0.2 1.9 3.3.2 Dextrin The table below summarises the dextrin dust vented explosion results from Donat, Figure 40 [1].
  • 11. - 11 - Table 8: Dextrin vented explosion test results [1] Enclosure Volume Vent coefficient Vent area Reduced explosion pressure V K Av Pred m 3 V^(2/3)/Av m 2 barg 30 2.54 3.8 0.1 3.22 3 0.15 4.83 2 0.3 6.44 1.5 0.5 9.65 1 1 12.87 0.75 1.3 19.31 0.5 2 32.18 0.3 2.8 1 2.50 0.4 0.1 3.33 0.3 0.15 5.00 0.2 0.3 6.67 0.15 0.4 10.00 0.1 0.6 2.00 0.5 1.1 3.33 0.3 2
  • 12. - 12 - 4 Comparison of experimental results with vent sizing correlations A spreadsheet was used to calculate and compare the results obtained for the reduced explosion pressures predicted by the various vent sizing correlation. An example output from the spreadsheet is shown in Appendix A. 4.1 Gases 4.1.1 NFPA 68:1994 Calculation:- For methane and propane, the constants used in the correlation are listed within the standard. For Pentane, table C.1 of the NFPA 68:1994 [3] edition gives the fundamental burning velocity of pentane as 46 cm/s, which is the same as the burning velocity for propane, based on the NFPA 68 quoted data. Therefore, for pentane the vent sizing calculation used the propane constants. 4.1.2 NFPA 68:2007 Calculation:- To enable vent sizing using this standard it is necessary to know the deflagration index, KG, the vent opening pressure, and the length to diameter ratio. The values for the deflagration index, KG, where obtained from the NFPA 68 Standard 2007 edition table E.1 [6] and are 55, 100, and 104 bar.m/sec for methane, propane, and pentane respectively. For the purpose of the calculation it is assumed that the vent opening pressure is 0.1 barg and that the enclosure has a length to diameter ratio of less than 2. It should be noted that for methane and propane the majority of the test results were obtained using a vent panel that opened at pressures less than 0.1 barg, and the L/D ratio was not stated. For pentane, the vent panel had a negligible opening pressure. 4.1.3 BS EN 14994:2006 Calculation:- The alternative simple vent sizing method detailed in the above standard requires knowledge of various thermodynamic, and combustion properties of the fuels. This information was obtained from table A.1 of the above standard [8], and is detailed below:- Table 9:- Thermodynamic data and burning velocity for some fuel-air mixtures [8] Ratio of specific heats, γu Expansion ratio of combustion products, Ei Speed of sound at initial conditions, cui, m/s Fundamental burning velocity, Sui, cm/s Methane 1.39 7.52 353 43 Propane 1.37 7.98 339 45 Pentane 1.36 8.07 335 43
  • 13. - 13 - 4.2 Dusts To enable use of the dust explosion vent sizing correlations the following data was used:- Table 10: Explosion data for selected combustible dusts [2], [6], and [7] Deflagration index, KST, bar.m/sec Maximum explosion pressure, Pmax, barg Aluminium 415 12.4 Cork dust 202 9.6 FM Global dust 1 190 8.5 FM Global dust 2 290 8.5 Wheat dust 112 9.3 Dextrin 106 8.8 The above data was taken from the NFPA 68: 2007 edition Tables E.1 (a) to (e) [6], with the exception of the data from the Factory Mutual Global tests, which were taken from Tamanini and Valiulis [2], and wheat grain dust data which is taken from Table A.1 R K Eckhoff Dust explosions in the process industries, 2nd Edition [7]. Data for the deflagration index and maximum explosion pressure is also available in the G A Lunn Venting Gas and Explosions – A review [1]. However, this data was not used as it was obtained on the Hartmann apparatus, which will not yield similar results to explosion data obtained from the 20 litre sphere or 1m³ iso standard test vessel. The published explosion correlations are based on data not obtained from the Hartmann apparatus, and hence values published by Lunn [1] have not been used. For the purpose of this report all vent opening pressures, Pstat, were assumed to be 0.1 barg, and the length to diameter ratio is assumed to be less than 2, with the exception of the wheat dust 20m³ enclosure comparison. 4.3 Results The graphs below show the experimental test results for the reduced explosion pressure within particular test equipment equipped with a defined vent area. In addition, the graphs show the results of the various vent sizing correlations, using information related to the enclosure, and data either obtained from referenced texts or assumed as detailed above.
  • 14. - 14 - 4.3.1 Gases Figure 1: Methane gas explosion vent sizing results Comparison of methane experimental data with published vent sizing methods (vessel volume = 26.64m 3 , Pstat below 0.1 barg) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 Vent area, Av, m2 Reducedpressure,Pred,bar NFPA 68:2002 prEN14994 prEN14994 alt Table 10 Page 46 Buckland NFPA 68:1994 Figure 2: Propane gas explosion vent sizing results Comparison of propane experimental data with published vent sizing methods (vessel volume= 200m 3 , Pstat under 0.1 barg) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100 Vent area, Av , m2 Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar NFPA 68:2002 prEN14994 prEN14994 alt Table 8 Page 42 Bromma NFPA 68:1994
  • 15. - 15 - Figure 3: Pentane gas explosion vent sizing results Comparison of experimental data for Pentane with published vent sizing methods (vessel volume 1.7m 3 ) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 Vent area, Av, m 2 Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar NFPA 68:2002 prEN14994 prEN14994 alt Table 4 Page 33 Harris & Briscoe NFPA 68:1994 4.3.2 Dusts Figure 4: Aluminium dust explosion vent sizing results Comparison of experimental cork dust explosion with published vent sizing methods (vessel volume 1.21m 3 ) 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 Vent area, Av, m2 Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar Simpson Radandt Scholl NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 Exp. Data Fig 46 Lunn
  • 16. - 4 - (dP/dt)max is the maximum rate of pressure rise obtained from standardised experimental test equipment, bar/s For enclosures having length to diameter ratios between 2 and 5 an additional vent area should be added to the vent area estimated from the above equation. 750 2 2       − =∆ D L KA A Gv The limits of applicability for the above method are:- KG ≤ 550 bar.m/sec Pred ≤ 2 bar and at least 0.05 bar > Pstat Pstat ≤ 0.5 bar V ≤ 1000 m³ 2.1.3 BS EN 14994:2006 The harmonised European norm standard EN 14994 also utilises the VDI correlation ( ) ( ) ( )[ ]{ } ( ) ( )[ ] 3 2 5722.03 2 5817.0 10 1.01754.00567.0log1265.0 VPPVPKA statredredGv −+−= −− However, this standard also provides an alternative simple vent sizing method, which is based on the turbulent Bradley number:- ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 25.0 5.25.2 5.2 5.25.2 8.59.7:1if 65.5:1if t i istat i red i istat i red t i istat i red i istat i red Br P PP P P P PP P P Br P PP P P P PP P P −=       + ≥       + =       + <       + − The turbulent Bradley number is subsequently used to solve the following equation:- Where cui is the speed of sound at initial conditions of explosion, m/s Ei is the expansion ratio of the combustion products A is the vent area, m² Pi is the initial enclosure pressure, bar Sui is the burning velocity at the initial conditions, m/s β is an empirical constant = 0.5 for hydrocarbons, and 0.8 for hydrogen
  • 17. - 17 - Figure 7: FM Global vented explosion test data and comparative vent sizing results Comparison of FM Global test data from FM std 7-76 with published vent sizing methods (vessel volume 10m3 , Kst=290 bar.m/s, Pstat = 0.2 barg) 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 Vent area, Av, m2 Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar Simpson Radandt Scholl NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 FM Global Std 7-76 Figure 8: Wheat dust vent sizing results in an elongated 20m3 silo Comparison of wheat dust experimental data with vent sizing methods (vessel volume 20m 3 and L/D = 6.25) 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 Vent area, Av, m2 Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar Simpson Radandt Scholl NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 Wheat grain dust Elongated
  • 18. - 18 - Figure 9: Wheat dust vented explosion sizing results Comparison of wheat dust experimental data with vent sizing methods (vessel volume 500m 3 ) 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1 10 100 Vent area, Av, m2 Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar Simpson Radandt Scholl NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 Wheat grain dust Figure 10: Dextrin vented explosion and vent sizing results Comparison of dextrin experimental data with published vent sizing methods (vessel volume = 1m3 ) 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 Vent area, Av, m2 Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred,bar Simpson Radandt Scholl NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 Dextrin Figure 40 Page 117
  • 19. - 19 - Figure 11: Dextrin vented explosion test and vent sizing results Comparison of dextrin experimental data with published vent sizing methods (vessel volume = 30m 3 ) 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 Vent area, Av , m2 Reducedexplosionpressure,Pred ,bar Simpson Radandt Scholl NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:2007 Dextrin Figure 40 Page 117
  • 20. - 20 - 5 Conclusions For methane it is apparent that all the vent sizing correlations will provide sufficient area to adequately an internal deflagration. The current NFPA 68 and European standard utilise the same correlation and offer an improvement in accuracy when compared to the NFPA 68 1994 methodology. The current European standard ‘simple’ calculation will significantly over-estimate the required vent area for a given enclosure configuration. This situation is also apparent when considering the vent sizing results obtained for the propane vented explosion data. For pentane, the European standard simple calculation yields vent sizing results lower than those obtained from NFPA 68 and the preferred method in EN 14994. However, the pentane vented explosion test results are enveloped by the NFPA and EN standard methods, whilst half of the test data points lie outside of the published correlations limits of applicability, i.e. reduced explosion pressure greater than 2 barg. Hence, based on the test results assessed, the current industry standards (NFPA and BS EN 14994) will over-estimate the required vent area that limits the reduced explosion over-pressure to within acceptable limits. Therefore, the current gas vent sizing correlation offers a margin of safety when estimating required vent areas. For dust explosion vent sizing the results obtained show a greater degree of variation when compared to actual test results, than the gas explosion venting correlations. For aluminium, the published maximum explosion pressure, Pmax, is outside the limits of applicability of both the Scholl and NFPA correlations. However, it is the Scholl equation that provides better results as the degree of under- estimation of the required vent area is less than that of the NFPA 68 equations. For cork dust, all the correlations significantly over-estimate the required vent area. However, the current correlations provide an improvement in vent sizing when compared to the previous Simpson and Radandt equations. For the dusts used in the FM Global tests, the Scholl equation correlates very well, whereas the current NFPA standard consistently under-estimates the required vent area. For the elongated enclosure with vented wheat dust explosions both the elongated correlations published in the harmonised European standard and the current NFPA 68 standard provide good agreement. For the larger volume vented explosion of 500m3 all the correlations over-estimate the required vent area. This over-estimate is considered to be attributable to the reduced degree of turbulence likely to be present within the large silo, when compared to smaller enclosure volumes. The degree of turbulence would be reflected in a reduced deflagration index, or KST value. However, in the standard laboratory equipment (20litre sphere) for measuring KST, there is a high degree of turbulence, and hence the test yields a higher deflagration index than that which would be obtained if there was a reduced degree of turbulence within the enclosure. The results obtained for the dextrin vented explosions show poor correlation with the test data. However, without exact explosion property data for the dextrin i.e. KST and Pmax, or enclosure and vent information it is difficult to attribute the reasons for the poor correlation. For this reason, it is important that when vent sizing, that the vent is calculated using actual dust explosion test parameters. This is because the deflagration index will vary with various factors such as particle size, and moisture content, which may be altered by the actual processing being undertaken e.g. attrition of particles due to pneumatic conveying. Hence, the reliance on published explosion data for KST and other parameters is not recommended.
  • 21. - 21 - However, it is evident from the above graphs that the current NFPA 68 correlations will yield a smaller vent size that that obtained from the Scholl equation adopted by the EU standard. From the above graphs, it is evident that the NFPA 68 standard correlation may not be conservative when compared to actual vented explosion results. Hence, it is considered that the Scholl equation represents a more appropriate correlation on which to base equipment safety.
  • 22. References 1. Venting Gas and Dust Explosions – A review, G A Lunn 2. FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheets – Prevention and mitigation of combustible dust explosions and fire 7-76 May 2006 3. NFPA 68 Guide for venting of deflagrations 1994 edition 4. NFPA 68 Guide for venting of deflagrations 1998 edition 5. NFPA 68 Guide for venting of deflagrations 2002 edition 6. NFPA 68 Standard on explosion protection by deflagration venting 2007 edition 7. Dust Explosions in the Process Industries, R K Eckhoff, 2nd Edition 8. BS EN 14994:2006 Gas explosion venting protective systems 9. BS EN 14491:2006 Dust explosion venting protective systems 10.VDI 3673 Part 1:July 1995 Pressure venting of dust explosions 11.VDI 3673 Part 1:November 2002 Pressure venting of dust explosions
  • 23. Appendix A Typical spreadsheet output for gas and dust vent sizing
  • 24. - 24 - REF REV 1 Gas 2 KG Parameter KG 55 bar.m/s 3 Maximum Pressure Pmax 7.1 barg 4 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1.00 5 Vessel Volume V 26.64 m³ 6 Vessel Surface Area As 53.52 m² 7 Initial Pressure Pinit 0 barg 8 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg 9 Reduced pressure Pred 0.35 barg OR Av 0.178396 m² 10 11 12 m² valid barg Valid 13 2.700 OK 37.23 ERR 14 2.700 ERR 42.04 ERR 15 2.685 OK 36.96 ERR 16 3.166 ERR 17 3.572 OK 4.74 OK 18 3.528 13.12 19 20 21 Limits: lower upper 22 23 KG Parameter KG 55 bar.m/s KG 0 550 bar.m/s OK 24 Maximum Pressure Pmax 7.1 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK 25 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 2 OK 26 Vessel Volume V 26.63981 m³ V 0.1 1000 m³ OK 27 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg Pstat 0.1 0.5 barg OK 28 Pred 0.15 2 barg OK 29 30 Reduced pressure Pred 0.35 barg Av 2.700 m² 31 32 OR 33 34 Reduced pressure Pred 37.22826 barg 0.000 Av 0.179 m² ERR 35 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av 36 37 Limits: lower upper 38 39 KG Parameter KG 55 bar.m/s KG 0 550 bar.m/s OK 40 Maximum Pressure Pmax 7.1 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK 41 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 2 5 ERR 42 Vessel Volume V 26.63981 m³ V 0.1 1000 m³ OK 43 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK 44 Pred 0.15 2 barg OK 45 46 Reduced pressure Pred 0.35 barg Av 2.700 m² 47 delta A 0.000 m² 48 49 OR Av 2.700 m² 50 51 Reduced pressure Pred 42.0418 barg 0.000 Av + dA 0.179 m² ERR 52 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av 53 54 55 56 KG Parameter KG 55 bar.m/s KG 0 550 bar.m/s OK 57 Maximum Pressure Pmax 7.1 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK 58 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 10 OK 59 Vessel Volume V 26.63981 m³ V 0.1 1000 m³ OK 60 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK 61 Pred 0.15 0.1 barg ERR 62 63 64 C 0.035 65 Av 3.166 m² Using NFPA 68 2002 constants 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 KG Parameter KG 55 bar.m/s KG 0 550 bar.m/s OK 77 Maximum Pressure Pmax 7.1 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK 78 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 3 OK 79 Vessel Volume V 26.63981 m³ V 0.1 1000 m³ OK 80 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg Pstat 0.1 0.5 barg OK 81 Pred 0.15 2 barg OK 82 83 Reduced pressure Pred 0.35 barg Av 2.685 m² 84 85 OR 86 87 Reduced pressure Pred 36.95866 barg 0.000176 Av 0.179 m² ERR 88 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av Pred adj 36.959 barg for high initial P 89 90 91 92 93 94 Methane 0.045 Gases with Su<1.3Su propane prEN 14994 Gas Explosion Venting Protective systems 2004 (Same method as NFPA 68 2002) 0.013 Methane 0.035 Fuel C (bar½ ) mixtures in air only Anhydrous NH3 Approved by Checked by Prepared by Date NFPA 68:2002 Low Strength Enclosures ELONGATED NFPA 68 2007 Edition) Revision A B C D E F Fuel Characteristic Constant for Venting Equation pr14994:2004 Alternative NFPA 68:1994 NFPA 68: 2007 (same as 2002, and 1998 editions) NFPA 68:2007 NFPA 68:2007 ELONGATED pr14994:2004 NFPA 68 Low Strength INPUT DATA Gas Explosion Calculation Calculation Sheet RESULTS Vent Area (Av) Red Pressure Table 6.2.2 from NFPA 68:2002 No dimesional limit to the size. However, panels should be evenly spaced for elongated enclosures ie for L/D>3 Note that data on which this correlation is based gives a maximum L/D of 2. For high initial Pressure (up to 3 barg) adjust Pred guess until adjusted Pred is within required limits Calculate
  • 25. - 25 - REF REV 1 Pred 4.735262 Limits 2 Dimensionless Reduced Pressure πred 0.35 4.735262 Lower Upper 3 Dimensionless Static Pressure πv 1.1 Av/V^(2/3) 0.400513 0.09 1.23 OK 4 Dimensionless pressure complex 0.275795 3.731318 Pinit 0 0 6 OK 5 Turbulent Bradley Number Brt 3.346454 0.26686 Pstat 0.1 0 3 OK 6 Specific heat ratio for unburned mixture kui 1.39 V 26.63981 0 8000 OK 7 Expansion ratio of combustion products Ei 7.52 L/D 1 0 3 OK 8 Speed of sound at initial conditions cui 353 m/s 9 Burning velocity at initial conditions sui 43 cm/s 10 Empirical constant α 1.75 11 Empirical constant β 0.5 12 13 Vent area Av 3.572488 0.178396 m² 14 15 RHS of Transcendental equation 0.175811 0.01402 16 LHS of transcendental equation 0.176634 0.013071 17 Error 0.0008 -0.0009 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Vessel Volume V 26.63981 m³ 60 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.1 barg 61 Reduced pressure Pred 0.35 barg a b c d 62 Burning velocity at initial conditions sui 43 cm/s Methane 0.105 0.77 1.23 -0.823 63 Constant a 0.105 Propane 0.148 0.703 0.942 -0.671 64 Constant b 0.77 Hydrogen 0.279 0.68 0.755 -0.393 65 Constant c 1.23 Coke gas 0.15 0.695 1.38 -0.707 66 Constant d -0.823 67 68 Av 3.528 m² 69 70 71 Reduced pressure Pred 13.11597 barg 0.000 Av 0.179 m² 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Alternative Vent Sizing pr14994:2004 Annex A Method Calculation Sheet Gas Explosion Calculation NFPA 68:1994 If burning velocity is greater than 60 cm/s i.e. greater than 1.3 x that of propane, then hydrogen constants are used. Otherwise propane data is used.
  • 26. - 26 - REF REV 1 Combustible Dust 2 Dust Explosion Class St 2 3 Kst Parameter Kst 290 bar.m/s 4 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg 5 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1.00 6 Vessel Volume V 10.00 m³ 7 Vessel Surface Area As 27.85 m² 8 Duct Length LD 0.00 m 9 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg 10 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg OR Av 1 m² 11 12 13 14 m² valid m² valid barg Valid 15 1.000 OK 2.537 OK 0.866 OK 16 0.475 ERR - - 0.175 ERR 17 0.659 OK 1.149 OK 0.406445 OK 18 0.659 ERR 1.149 ERR 0.406445 ERR 19 0.558 OK 0.648 OK 0.289662 OK 20 0.571 OK 0.303356 OK 21 0.659 OK 0.701 OK 0.406445 OK 22 0.898 ERR - - 23 1.287 ERR - - 24 25 Limits: lower upper 26 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK 27 Kst Parameter Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 600 bar.m/s OK 28 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 0 10 barg OK 29 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 5 OK 30 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 1 1000 m³ OK 31 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 0.5 barg OK 32 Pred 0.3 2 barg OK 33 34 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 1.000 m² OK 35 a 0.00085183 36 OR b 0.95767615 37 c -0.71876488 38 Vent Area Av 1 m² Pred 0.866 barg OK 39 EFFECT OF DUCT 40 Limits: lower upper 41 Duct Length LD 0.00 m LD 0 6 m OK 42 43 Reduced pressure P'red 0.2371986 barg Av 2.537 m² OK 44 Note : Simpson equation published in NFPA 68 1994 ed section 7-1.1.1 45 46 Limits: lower upper 47 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 2 OK 48 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 0 300 bar.m/s OK 49 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 0 9 barg OK 50 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 5 OK 51 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 1 1000 m³ OK 52 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 0.1 barg ERR 53 Pred 0.25 2 barg OK 54 55 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.475 m² OK 56 St 1 0.36282 57 OR St 2 0.47534 58 59 Vent Area Av 1 m² Pred 0.175 barg ERR 60 St 1 0.08170 61 St 2 0.17511 62 Note : Radandt equation published in NFPA 68 1994 ed section 7-2.3.1 63 64 Limits: lower upper 65 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK 66 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 800 bar.m/s OK 67 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK 68 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 2 OK 69 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK 70 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK 71 Pred 0.1 2 barg OK 72 73 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.659 m² 74 75 OR 76 77 Reduced pressure Pred 0.406445 barg 0.000 Av 1.000 m² OK 78 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av 79 EFFECT OF DUCT 80 Limits: lower upper 81 Duct Length LD 0.00 m LD 0 6 m OK 82 83 Reduced pressure P'red 0.3161994 barg Av 1.149 m² 84 Note: Scholl equation published in NFPA 68 1998 ed section 7-2.2 85 86 87 88 89 FM Global dust 2 NFPA 68:2007 Approved by Checked by Prepared by Revision A B C D E F NFPA 68:2002 NFPA 68:1998 Low Strength Date BS EN 14491:2006 Modified Swift eqn SIMPSON (VDI 3673:1979 & NFPA 68 1994 Section 7-1.1.1) RADANDT (NFPA 68:1988) SCHOLL (VDI 3673:1995 & NFPA 68 1998 Edition) Simpson (VDI 3673:1979) Radandt (NFPA 68:1988) Scholl (VDI 3673:1995) Elongated (VDI 3673:1995) RESULTS Red Pressure Vent Area (Av) with duct Vent Area (Av) INPUT DATA Dust Explosion Calculation Calculation Sheet Pmax upper limit is 11 bara for St1 and 2 13 bara for St 3 ref Dust Explosion Prevention and Protection Part 1 page 73 This is a correlation to the Radandt nomographs, which are dependent only on the St group, and not the Kst parameter. This method will give different results to those obtained using Simpson's correlation above. However, for all practical purposes they are sufficiently close. If the Kst value is known, then Simpson is preferable to Radandt. Straight duct of maximum length 6m Equations are derived from the Figure 5-4(b) in NFPA 68 1994 page 68-18 Upper limit assumed to be 6m based on subsequent NFPA 68 issues Calculate Pred
  • 27. - 27 - REF REV 1 2 Limits: lower upper 3 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK 4 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 800 bar.m/s OK 5 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK 6 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 2 6 ERR 7 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK 8 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK 9 Pred 0.1 1.5 barg OK 10 11 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.659 m² 12 delta A 0.000 m² 13 14 OR Av 0.659 m² 15 16 Reduced pressure Pred 0.406445 barg 0.000 Av + dA 1.000 m² OK 17 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av 18 19 EFFECT OF DUCT 20 Limits: lower upper 21 Duct Length LD 0.00 m LD 0 6 m OK 22 23 Reduced pressure P'red 0.3161994 barg Av 1.149 m² 24 delta A 0.000 m² 25 26 OR Av 1.149 m² 27 Note: Elongated Scholl equation published in NFPA 68 1998 ed section 7-2.3, for homgenous dust clouds only 28 29 Limits: lower upper 30 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK 31 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 800 bar.m/s OK 32 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 12 barg OK 33 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 6 OK 34 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK 35 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK 36 Pred 0.1 2 barg OK 37 38 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.558 m² 39 delta A 0.000 m² 40 41 OR Av 0.558 m² 42 43 Reduced pressure Pred 0.2896624 barg 0.000 Av + dA 1.000 m² OK 44 Note:- alter Pred to obtain desired Av 45 EFFECT OF DUCT 46 Limits: lower upper 47 Duct Length LD 0.00 m LD 0 6 m OK 48 49 Reduced pressure P'red 0.6591674 barg Av 0.648 m² 50 delta A 0.000 m² 51 52 OR Av 0.648 m² 53 54 55 Limits: lower upper 56 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK 57 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 800 bar.m/s OK 58 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 12 barg OK 59 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 6 OK 60 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK 61 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0 0.75 barg OK 62 63 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.571 m² 64 delta A 0.000 m² 65 66 OR Av 0.571 m² 67 68 Reduced pressure Pred 0.3033561 barg 0.000 Av + dA 1.000 m² 69 70 EFFECT OF DUCT 71 1 Limits: lower upper 72 Duct Length LD 0.00 m LD 0 6 m E1 73 E2 74 Reduced pressure P'red 0.659167 barg Av 0.648 m² 75 delta A #NUM! m² 76 77 OR Av 0.648 m² 78 79 80 Limits: lower upper 81 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK 82 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 800 bar.m/s OK 83 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 10 barg OK 84 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 6 OK 85 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK 86 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK 87 Pred 0.1 2 barg OK 88 89 Reduced pressure Pred 0.866 barg Av 0.659 m² 90 OR 91 92 Reduced pressure Pred 0.406445 barg 0.000176 Av 1.000 m² 93 94 EFFECT OF DUCT 95 Max duct length that needs to be considered Ls 5.0020351 m 96 1 0.06489196 97 Pred max with duct and an L/D ratio = 1 P'red max 1.24 barg Av for L/D=1 0.087 m² 98 Pred max without duct and an L/D ratio = 1 Pred max 0.7727633 barg 99 Pred max for a L/D ratio = 6 P'red max 0.866 barg Av for L/D=6 1.227 m² 100 Pred max 0.8438026 barg 101 102 Pred max for a L/D ratio between 1 and 6 Pred max 0.7727633 barg Av for 1 ≤L/D ≤ 6 0.701 m² 103 104 105 106 107 NFPA 68:2007 ELONGATED (VDI 3673:1995 & NFPA 68 1998 Edition) BS EN 14491:2006 Checked by NFPA 68:2002 Approved by Prepared by D E F Date Revision A B C Dust Explosion Calculation Calculation Sheet This equation is sensitive to Pred. For low values of Pred the additional area is relatively large. For Pred values of 1.5 bar and above the dAv equation should not be used, and only use the eqn for Av. This equation is sensitive to Pred. For low values of Pred the additional area is relatively large. For Pred values of 1.5 bar and above the dAv equation should not be used, and only use the eqn for Av. Vent pipes with a length of L>Ls have no additional effect upon the pressure increase, as flow reaches sonic velocity NOT VALID FOR METAL DUSTS Pmax upper limit is 10 barg for St1 and 2 12 barg for St 3 ref WinmVent Handbook April 2001 page 42 Calculate for L/D =1
  • 28. - 28 - REF REV 1 2 Limits: lower upper 3 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 3 OK 4 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 10 600 bar.m/s OK 5 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 5 12 barg OK 6 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 6 OK 7 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK 8 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 1 barg OK 9 Pred 0.1 0.2 barg ERR 10 11 12 Av 0.898 m² Using NFPA 68 1998 constants 13 14 C 0.043 bar½ 15 Av 1.287 m² Using Lunn data for C 16 17 18 19 20 C (psi½ ) C (bar½ ) 21 22 10 0.005 0.001 23 20 0.01 0.003 24 30 0.015 0.004 25 40 0.021 0.006 26 50 0.027 0.007 27 75 0.041 0.011 28 100 0.055 0.014 29 150 0.084 0.022 30 200 0.105 0.028 31 250 0.127 0.033 32 300 0.163 0.043 33 400 0.21 0.055 34 500 0.248 0.065 35 600 0.3 0.079 36 37 38 39 Limits: lower upper For flame length equations 40 Dust Explosion Class St 2 St 1 2 OK 41 Rate pressure rise Kst 290 bar.m/s Kst 0 300 bar.m/s OK 42 Maximum Pressure Pmax 8.5 barg Pmax 0 10 barg OK 43 Vessel L/D ratio L/D 1 L/D 0 2 OK 44 Vessel Volume V 9.999517 m³ V 0.1 10000 m³ OK 45 Vent open pressure Pstat 0.2 barg Pstat 0.1 0.2 barg OK 46 Reduced explosion pressure Pred 0.406445 Pred 0.1 2 barg OK 47 Vent area Av 1 m² 48 Method of evaluating Pred Elongated 49 Pressure venting orientation Horizontal 50 For Horizontal pressure venting Limits: lower upper For VDI 3673 Pmax,a and Pr (at distance) equations 51 Flame Length LF 21.544 m St 1 1 ERR 52 For Vertical pressure venting Kst 0 200 bar.m/s ERR 53 Flame Length LF 17.235 m Pmax 0 9 barg OK 54 Flame Width WF 6.034 m L/D 0 2 OK 55 Maximum external peak overpressure Pmax,a 0.123 barg V 0 250 m³ OK 56 Distance to peak external overpressure RS 5.386 m Pstat 0 0.1 barg ERR 57 Distance to peak external overpressure RS 4.309 m Pred 0.1 1 barg OK 58 59 barg psig barg psig Barg psig Limits: lower upper For EU CREDIT FORMULAS 60 5.386 0.123 1.784 4.3088 0.123 1.784 1 0.690243 10.011 St 1 1 ERR 61 6 0.105 1.518 5 0.106 1.538 2 0.345121 5.006 Kst 10 200 bar.m/s ERR 62 7 0.083 1.204 6 0.088 1.282 3 0.230081 3.337 Pmax 5 10 barg OK 63 8 0.068 0.986 7 0.076 1.098 4 0.172561 2.503 L/D 0 6 OK 64 9 0.057 0.826 8 0.066 0.961 5 0.138049 2.002 V 0 1000 m³ OK 65 10 0.049 0.705 9 0.059 0.854 6 0.11504 1.669 Pstat 0.1 0.2 barg OK 66 11 0.042 0.611 10 0.053 0.769 8 0.08628 1.251 Pred 0.1 2 barg OK 67 12 0.037 0.537 11 0.048 0.699 10 0.069024 1.001 68 13 0.033 0.476 12 0.044 0.641 12 0.05752 0.834 Distance to struc./obstacle 15.36 m 69 14 0.029 0.426 13 0.041 0.591 14 0.049303 0.715 Maximum pressure at robs 0.069028 barg 70 15 0.026 0.384 14 0.038 0.549 16 0.04314 0.626 Lateral flame spread 6.378725 m 71 16 0.024 0.349 15 0.035 0.513 18 0.038347 0.556 72 17 0.022 0.318 16 0.033 0.481 20 0.034512 0.501 73 18 0.020 0.292 17 0.031 0.452 22 0.031375 0.455 74 19 0.019 0.269 18 0.029 0.427 24 0.02876 0.417 75 21.544 0.015 0.223 21.544 0.025 0.357 26 0.026548 0.385 76 77 78 79 80 81 Distance, m Distance, m Distance, m Pressure HattwigPressure EU CREDITPressure VDI 2002 mixtures in air only Fuel Characteristic Constant for Venting Equation Fuel Characteristic Constant for Venting Equation Fuel St-2 dusts St-3 dusts NFPA 68:1998 LOW STRENGTH ENCLOSURE (SWIFT EQUATION) Dust Explosion Calculation Calculation Sheet Checked by FLAME PROPAGATION - VDI 3673 Part 1 2002 Approved by Prepared by Date Revision A B C D E F 0.026 0.03 0.051 Fuel C (bar½ ) mixtures in air only St-1 dusts Table 4 from Venting Gas and Dust Explosions 2nd Edition GA Lunn Table 4-3.1 from NFPA 68:1998 Taken from the EU CREDIT project. The equation is only valid if Kst<= 200 bar.m/s EU Credit report formula:- For venting directed vertically Rs = 0.25 LF , For venting directed horizontally Rs = 0.2 LF Hattwig method uses equation:- Pblast = Pred C1 C2 / r log C1 = -0.26/Av + 0.49 VDI and CREDIT eqns Psmax = 0.2 Predmax A0.1 V0.18 HATTWIG FOR COMPARISON ONLY Venting towards an obstruction Method uses EU CREDIT project equations only and not VDI for estimation of distance to peak external overpressure, Rs. Pr,obs = 2 (Rs / robs) Ps,max For CURRENT VDI Guidelines 2002 use Scholl ONLY VDI 3673 Part 1 2002 Max external peak pressure occurs at a distance, Rs = 0.25 LF