4.7 Article

Comparison between a numerical model and the classic thermal explosion theories for the calculation of the minimum ignition temperature of dust clouds

Journal

PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Volume 166, Issue -, Pages 222-231

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2022.08.022

Keywords

Minimum ignition temperature; Dust clouds; Numerical model

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council [201806030181]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The numerical model for the calculation of minimum ignition temperature of dust clouds is compared with classic thermal explosion theories, showing good agreement. This study can provide reference for theoretical prediction of MIT of dust clouds.
A numerical model for the calculation of the minimum ignition temperature (MIT) of dust clouds is compared with the classic Semenov and Frank-Kamenetskii thermal explosion theories. The numerical model is developed based on the MIT testing equipment: Godbert-Greenwald furnace. The Semenov theory for uniform temperature system is exploited for the MIT calculation of a single dust particle (MITP). The Frank-Kamenetskii theory for a uniform system with temperature gradient is modified for the MIT calculation of a dust cloud (MITC). At stoichiometric dust concentration with infinite dust cloud residence time, two horizontal asymptotes are discovered along with the variation trend of the numerical ignition temperature against ignition delay time. The higher asymptotic temperature is only discovered for metal dusts. This temperature is almost identical to the MITP value with the Semenov theory. On the other hand, the lower asymptotic temperature for both metal and organic dusts almost equals the calculated MITC value with the Frank-Kamenetskii theory. Thus, there is good agreement between the numerical model and the classic thermal explosion theories. This study can provide reference for the theoretical prediction of the MIT of dust clouds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available