A Methodology to Evaluate Industrial

Vapor and Dust Explosion Hazards

C. James Dahn, BernadetteN. Reyes, and Andrew Kusmierz
Safety Consulting Engineers, Inc., 2131 Hammond Drive, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173

A methodology was developed to evaluate the otential of vapor, dust and hybrid mixtures (combustib e dusts
and flammable gas in air) explosions in small to medium
size industrial operations. Also, a protocol to conduct
analysis and evaluation of explosionpotentialfor industrial
operations ispresented
Elementsfor thorough site inspections are defined
based on uncoveringpotentialfiiluresand hmurd. The best
ways to review applicable standard and codespertaining to
the spec@ operations and occupancies are also covered
The engineering hazard analysis (HA) method selection is critical to achieve the most com lete evaluation of
hazard in the operations. Method ana$ydelinesfor their
use will be discussed. Guidelines will a o be presentedfor
best selection of tests to evaluate the hazards. Extensive
investigation to identi5 hazardous materials present in the
industrial operations will be conducted
Criteriafor successfilfire and explosion hazards analysis
are also ident$ed.
INTRODUCTION

Numerous operations in the USA and those now

transported to foreign countries utilize bulk powders
that have dust and vapor explosion hazards. In many
applications, the powders are ground to a very small
size for efficiency in mixing with other powders and
liquids, or consolidation into solids. As environmental
concerns increase, much more emphasis is placed on
recovery of dusts in processes. Dusts also get generated while handling and forming of solids.
How does one go about evaluating the dudvapor
explosion hazards in such a wide range of applications? Where does one start?
One logical approach is that of evaluating the inprocess powder/liquid to determine its reactivity,
ignitability and energy output. Once this is completed, a process evaluation would be conducted to determine the methods of handling and processing. From
these steps, engineering hazard analysis can be conducted to determine the level of hazard and potential

REACTIVITYEVALUATIONSOF IN-PROCESS DUSTS/POWDERS/HYBRIDS

In this step, one needs to answer the following

material reactivity questions:
I. Is the material reactive (fire or explosion potential) and under what condition(s)?
11. How reactive is material?
111. How easy is to ignite material?
Combustible dusts and flammable gas in the air
mixtures are considered hybrids.
POTENTIALREACTION

In the first part, the materials must be characterized

relative to their potential reactions as follows:
a) Is the material in particle size, less than 100 mesh
(150(m) present in the operations?
b) Can dust be lofted into cloud form?
c) Does the material have vapors in/or on it?
d) Can vapors mix with air or other oxidizer gas to
develop into an explosive mixture?
e) Is the material in a layer a fire hazard?
f) Will the material propagate a sustained burn?
Some of the above questions may only be answered
by testing and evaluation, if no information is available.
MATERIAL REACTIVITY

The next step is to determine how reactive the

material can be from a fire or explosion standpoint,
which can be characterized as follows:
Fire
Explosion
- Smolder
- Flame/Fireball
- Self-Extinguishes
- Intense Flame/Pop
- Intensive Burning
- Explosion in Cloud
- Sustained Burn
- Detonation in Cloud
- Intense Flame
- High Pressure in Cloud
- High Heat Flux
- High dp/dt in Cloud
- Accelerated Flame
This is usually very difficult to evaluate unless one
has information from literature or from testing. Some
examples of types of materials and their characteristics
are as follows:

risk.
86 Summer 2000

Process Safety Progress (Vol.19, N0.2)

Explosion
Characteristic
-Intense Flame
-Fireball
Propellants
Explosion
-High Heat Flux
-Detonation in
large Quantity
Explosives
-Accelerating Flame -Detonation
Metal Powders -Smolder
-Explosion in
-High Heat Flux
Cloud
Cellulose
-Smolder
-Explosion in
Powder
Cloud
Plastic Powder -Self-Extinguish
-Explosion in
-Sustained Burn
Cloud
Chemical
-Self-Extinguish
-Explosion in
Powder
-Sustained Burn
Cloud
Chemical
-Self-Extinguish
-Explosion in
Powder
-Sustained Burn
Cloud
-Accelerated Burn
If no information is available on some or all of the
reactivity characteristics, testing and analysis will be

Material

Fire
Characteristic

necessary. A few screening tests that could be used

are as follows:
- Dust Cloud Explosion Potential in a Lucite Dust
Chamber
- Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC) or Differential
- Thermal Analysis (DTA) Test to determine ignition
temperature
- Trough or Pile Burn Test per DOT Requirements
EASE OF IGNITION

Once the materials are determined to be reactive in

various conditions (cloud, layer, etc.), and their reactivity (output) has been characterized, one needs to
determine how easily ignitable they are. The materials can be initiated by the following stimuli:
- Thermal (Heat)
- Electrostatic Discharge
- Impact
- Friction
- Adiabatic Compression
- Chemical Reaction
Unfortunately, no one set of initiation thresholds
exist for any specific material. because physical parameters, such as the following, will make major

TABLE 1. Ignition (Initiation) Ease Criteria

Stimdi

Ease of Ignition

Levels of S t i m u l i

mermal (Heat)

Low Temperature
Medium Temperature
High Temperature

< l0O0C
100C - 30OoC
> 30OoC

Powder
< 5mJ

Electrostatic Discharge
Easy
Moderate
Difficult
Hard to Ignite

5-30 mJ
30-200 mJ
> 200 mJ

Vapor
< 0.25 mJ
0.25-5 mJ
5-160 mJ
> l50mJ

~~

Impact

Low Energy
Moderate Energy
High Energy

0.5 Kg-m
0.5-5 Kg-m
> Kg-m

Friction

Easy
Moderate
Hard to Ignite

100-2,000 psi @ 7fps

2,000-15,000 psi @ 7 fps
>15,000 psi @ 7 fps

Adiabatic Compress

Easy to Ignite
Moderate
Difficult to Ignite
Hard to Ignite

<0.10 Kg-dml
0.10-0.3 k g - d d
>O. 3-3.0 kg-dml
>3Kg-dd

Chemical Reaction
Other Material

High Temp. Rise

Moderate Temp. Rise
Low Temp. Rise
No Temp. Rise

>loooc

Low
Moderate
Higher
Highest

< 100 cal/gm

100-500 caVgm
500-1,500 cal/gm
>1,500 cal/gm

Chemical Decomposition
Release

Process Safety Progress (Vo1.19, No.2)

20 - 99OC

5 - 2O0C
< 1.0

Summer2000 87

changes in the initiation threshold:

- Particle Size
- Particle Shape
- Bulk Density
- Surface Coatings
- Moisture and Volatiles
- Quantity of Material (Thermal)
The relative hazard for each dust o r vapor-laden
material is determined by its ease of ignition, its output and how easy it is to propagate a fire or explosion.
One cannot look at a material safety data sheet, as
presently designed, to determine the dust/flammable
material fire and explosion hazard from a dust/vapor
cloud standpoint. The form does not address the
dudvapor explosion hazard.
If the material is well known to be a dust/vapor
cloud explosion hazard, one must then look at its
physical and chemical characteristics and compare
them to existing data. For example, cornstarch may
be used in processes with particle size less than 5
micron, which would be considerably finer than material previously tested. In this type of situation, tests
would be required to characterize the specific materials fire/explosion output and ease of ignition.
The criteria for ease of ignition used in dust fire
and explosion engineering hazards analysis are
shown in Table 1.
STANDARDSFOR EmNG IGNlllONAND EXPLOSIONOUTPUT

Dust explosibility tests were designed to study the

necessary conditions for a dust cloud explosion to
occur and to study the potential pressure output for
such an explosion.
Standards for explosibility testing were written to
determine the parameters such as:
-Minimum Explosible Concentration

Per ASTM E1515-96 using a 20-liter spherical

chamber.
Will determine the minimum concentration of
dust-air mixture needed for an explosion.
-Minimum Ignition Energy
Per ASTM proposed standard using a 1.2-liter
cylindrical Hartmann Chamber.
Will determine the minimum (electrostatic spark)
energy required to ignite the material in a dust
cloud form and measuring energy in the spark
gap.
-Minimum Autoignition Temperature - Dust Cloud Form

Per ASTM E 1491-97 standard.

Will determine the minimum autoignition temperature needed to ignite the material in the dust
cloud form.
-Minimum Autoignition Temperature - Dust Layer Form

Per Bureau of Mines Procedure.

Will determine the minimum autoignition temperature needed to ignite the material in the dust
layer form.

88 Summer 2000

-ExplosionS m @ Test

Per ASTM E1226-94 using a 20-liter spherical

chamber.
Will determine the dust deflagration index, Kst,
the maximum pressure output and maximum pressure
rise rate of the material.
-Limiting (Minimum) Oxygen Content

Per ASTM proposed standard.

Will determine how much inert gas is needed to
prevent explosion in case dust concentration is in the
explosive range.
PROCESS/FACIUTYFIRE/EXPLOSION HAZARDS

Analysis
Once the powder/dust/hybrid materials are characterized, an engineering hazards analysis or safety audit
can be started in many situations. The materials reactivities may not be well defined prior to the hazard analysis or safety audit. In these cases, process/facility evaluations can begin, but cannot be concluded until appropriate material reactivity and ignition ease is determined. A list of steps which can be taken to evaluate
the fire/explosion hazards in process are listed as follows:
1. Collect data on materials, processes and facilities
- Material(s1 Reactivity
- Material Ignitability
- Process and Instrumentation Diagrams
- Material and Energy Flow Rates
- Process Flow Diagram
- Facilities and Equipment Layout
- Dust Collectors and Equipment Designs and Specifications
- Standard Operating Procedures as required
- Utilities and Locations
2. Conduct facility/process walk-through, noting the following:
Personnel Interactions with the Process/Facility
Personnel and Equipment
Traffic Patterns
Unusual Situations and Conditions
Utility Locations
Material Upsets
Dust Accumulations
Equipment Conditions
Fire/Explosion Suppression or Protection
Document via Photos or Notes
Dust Cloud or Layer Hazards
Research and Development Areas
Solvent Usage in Processes
3. Start Hazard Evaluation
- Review Applicable Safety Codes
- Formulate Potential Process Upsets and Failure
Modes
- Postulate Possible Effects after all Failure Modes are
identified
- Identlfy Ignition Sources
- Use Process Evaluation Protocol shown in Figure 1
4. Conduct risk assessment by evaluating the following
parameters:
Process Safety Progress (Vo1.19, No.2)

Process Evaluation

Material

Is It A Dust Explosion

No Dust Cloud Hazard

Hazard?
I

No

Yes

Process

Is It Ground
Up?

Conveyed?
I

Yes

Hazard?

Is It Near
Autoignition

Will It
Spontaneously
Ignite?

-IsParticle
Powder Mixed
Size?
Bulk
Discharge

FIGURE 1. Protocol

Probability of Initiation
Probability that Hazardous Material is Present
Probability of Failure Event
Cost of the Failure Mode Event Human Losses
Facility Losses
Calculate Risk Values for each Hazard Event
(Failure Mode with EXplosiodFire Potential)
5. Devise corrective actions:
- Re-evaluate Risk Assessment for Changes
Dust explosion hazards can be identified according
to a specific process and equipment. A summary of
explosion propagation, and initiation potential for various processes/equipment are shown in Table 2.
A number of safety codes now address the
dusthapor explosion potential depending on the type
of industry or operations. Codes of a general nature are
-

listed as follows:

Process Safety Progress (Vo1.19,No.2)

NFPAl Codes:
Combustible Metals and Metal Dusts
i.e., NFPA 65, 480, 481
Explosion Protection Systems
i.e., NFPA 68, 69
Handling and Conveying of Dusts, Vapors, and
Gases, i.e., NFPA 91,650,654,655
BOCA2 (Uniform Building Codes):
Requirements for Group H
Occupancy, Section 307.1

NFPA - 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101

* BOCA - 5630 Workman Mill Rd., Whiner, CA 90601-2298 Ph. (310)

699-0541

Summer 2000 89

TABLE 2. Processand Equipment Dust Explosion Hazards

~~

Process Equipment

Explosion
Potential

Propagation
Potential

Initiation Sources

High
Low
High

High
Moderate
Very High

ESD, Metal Sparks, Friction

ESD, Metal Sparks, Friction, Heat
ESD, Metal Sparks, Friction

High
Very High

Moderate
Very High

Heat, Friction, ESD

ESD, Metal Spark

High
High
Very High
Moderate
Very High
Verv High

Moderate
Moderate
Very High
Moderate
Very High
High

ESD, Heat, Metal Spark, Hot Embers

ESD, Heat, Metal Spark, Hot Embers
ESD, Heat, Metal Spark, Hot Embers
ESD, Metal Spark, Hot Embers
Metal Spark, Heat
ESD. Metal %ark. Heat

Very High
Very High
Very High
Moderate
Moderate
High
Very High
Very High
High
High

High
High
High
Moderate
Very High
Moderate
Very High
Very High
High
High

Heat, ESD, Hot Ember

Heat, ESD, Hot Ember
Heat, ESD, Hot Ember
Heat, Friction, Hot Embers
ESD, Friction, Hot Embers, Metal Spark
ESD, Friction, Heat, Hot Embers
ESD, Heat, Hot Embers, Metal Spark
ESD, Metal Spark, Heat
ESD, Hot Embers, Metal Spark, Heat
ESD, Hot Embers, Metal Spark, Heat

I. Transport

Air Conveying
Belt Conveyors
Elevators
II. Transfer
Separators
Cyclones
Receivers
Baghouse
Cartridge
Silos & Bins
FIBCs*

m. Grinding
IV.Blending
V. Dryers

Fluid Bed
spray
Flash
Belt
VI. Screening
VII. Granulating

WI.Dust collecting& Receivem

IX.Mixing Into Reactors
=Bagging& FillingFIBCs
XI. Emptying Bags/FIBCs

*Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container

CRITERIA FOR A SUCCESSFUL HAZARDS ANALYSIS

What constitutes a successful hazards analysis? Of

course, the simple answer is as follows:
hazards have been identified.
So the next question is, How do we know that we
have identified all the hazards? Certainly the level of
effort, knowledge and experience of hazards analysts
will dictate the level of hazard identification. Another
factor is related to the ease of getting process information and the level of openness or availability of plant
personnel. This also relates to the conceived degree of
hazard by management and plant personnel.
To be successful, the hazard analysis should include
hazards associated with the following:
- Mechanical Items
- Each equipment item
- Electrical or Electro Mechanical Items
- Electronic and Computer Control Items
- Hydraulics and Pneumatics
- Chemical reactions, or lack of them
- Sequences of Operations
- Procedures, or lack of such procedures
- Utility Losses
- Facility Conditions
- Process Conditions

90 Summer 2000

- Startup Sequences
- Shutdown Sequences
Emergency Shutdown
Maintenance Functions
The success of the hazards analysis can also be measured by whether the identified hazards are realistic and
credible and the consequences are realistic. Many times,
plant personnel do not understand or accept the identified consequences. Good video or visual demonstrations help point out the level of hazard associated with
dust explosions and fires.
-

SUMMARY

Methods have been presented to evaluate the

dusthapor explosion hazards in plant and process
operations. Ways to evaluate hazards have been presented relative to material reactivity, ignitability and
explosion output. Criteria for in-plant safety reviews
and engineering hazards analysis have been defined.
Criteria for successful hazards analysis have been
identified. In powder operations, dusthapor fires and
explosions can be minimized so that the potential is
never near the operational conditions including startup,

shutdown and emergency shutdown. Safety codes and

testing standards have also been presented.

Process Safety Progress (Vo1.19, No.2)