4.5 Article

Minimum Ignition Temperature of layer and cloud dust mixtures

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2015.04.003

关键词

Minimum Ignition Temperature; Dust mixture; Explosion prevention

资金

  1. Politecnico di Torino
  2. INAIL Regione Piemonte

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevention of dust explosions is still a challenge for the process industry. Ignition, in particular, is a phenomenon that is still not completely understood. As a consequence, safety conditions pertaining to ignition suppression are rarely identified to an adequate level. It is well known that, in general, the ignition attitude of a dust depends on several factors, such as the nature of the chemical, the particle size, moisture content, etc., but there is still a lack of knowledge on the effect of the single variables. This paper has the aim of providing data on the Minimum Ignition Temperatures of dust mixtures obtained from a mixing of a combustible dust (flour, lactose, sucrose, sulphur) and an inert dust (limestone, extinguishing powders) as well as from the mixing of two different combustible dusts. Various mixtures with different weight ratios have been tested in a Godbert Greenwald (GG) furnace and on a hot plate in order to measure the effect of mixture composition on the Minimum Ignition Temperature (MITL) of the layer and on the Minimum Ignition Temperature (MITc) of the cloud. In order to further verify the effects of inert dust particle size, inerts sieved to different size ranges have been tested separately. Generally, both MITL and MITc increase as the inert content is increased. MITc is poorly affected by inert particle size when limestone is used. The MITL of pure flour is higher than the MITL of mixtures containing up to 40% of 32-75 gin of limestone. This was probably due to the behaviour of pure flour during the test, which demonstrated strong tendency to produce char, cracks in the layer and detachment from the hot plate. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据