Microsoft Word - 1.docx
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS
VOL. 77, 2019
A publication of
The Italian Association
of Chemical Engineering
Online at www.aidic.it/cet
Guest Editors: Genserik Reniers, Bruno Fabiano
Copyright © 2019, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.
ISBN 978-88-95608-74-7; ISSN 2283-9216
Mechanical Sparks as an Ignition Source of Gas and Dust
Explosions
Kees van Wingerden
Gexcon AS. Fantoftvegen 38, 5072 Bergen, Norway
kees@gexcon.com
Mechanical sparks and friction are one of the most common causes of ignition of flammable gas and dust
clouds. Mechanical sparks can arise due to processes involving friction, grinding or impact and can occur e.g.
in case of disturbances in rotating equipment causing the rotating parts of the machinery (repeatedly) to come
into contact with each other at relative high speeds. Also, application of hand tools such as drills, grinding
machines, welding and cutting torches and hammers can lead to the generation of mechanical sparks. Single
impact sparks may arise due to collisions between two objects.
Accident statistics concerning dust explosions occurring in Germany indicate mechanical sparks and friction
as the ignition source in 32.7 % of the incidents (Jeske and Beck, 1997). Billinge (1979) presented an
overview of 66 incidents where gases or vapours were ignited by something referred to as frictional ignition.
68 % of the reported incidents were caused by impact, 20 % by friction and 12 % by cutting and grinding
operations. Generally, speaking it is unclear whether the ignition occurred by mechanical sparks or by a hot
surface generated by the impact/friction. The fraction of gas and vapour explosions ignited by mechanical
sparks and frictional heat is unknown.
Mechanical sparks are caused by friction, rubbing or single or multiple impacts of objects of similar or
dissimilar materials causing small parts of this material to be torn loose. These small pieces of material are
due to the energy absorbed hot and may during their flight start burning resulting in very high temperatures.
Melting and evaporation of this mechanical spark may cause it to burst increasing its surface area and thereby
its incendivity. This article reviews work performed addressing ignition of gas and dust clouds by mechanical
sparks and friction. The review starts from the work performed in connection with coal mine explosions
performed in the 1950’s and 1960’s and works published since then. The majority of the reviewed literature
concerns experimental work but also theoretical studies have been included in the review.
1. Mechanisms
Mechanical sparks are small particles, which due to the impact between two objects are torn loose from the
surface of one of the two colliding objects. The kinetic energy is turned into heat and deformation work. The
heating of the particle may cause the particles to become visible. If the material of the particle is flammable the
heating of the particle may cause the formation of an oxide layer around the particle whereas the inner part of
the particle will melt. The melted kernel may ignite and burn causing also the oxide layer to melt. The
combustion may cause the temperature to be that high that the oxide layer evaporates (Ritter, 1984).
Mechanical spark generation is dependent on the pressure with which the one object is working against the
other, the relative speed between the objects, the friction coefficient and the hardness of the materials
involved. The particle size of mechanical sparks depends on the hardness of the material. High hardness
results in small particles but if the temperature of the material increases the hardness decreases causing
particle sizes to increase.
There is a minimum speed for generation of sparks depending on the pressure with which one object is
working against the other, the materials of the objects and the relative speed. Figure 1 shows an example for
different steel objects being ground and rubbing against each other. The Figure also shows the relative speed
at which the steel objects start glowing.
DOI: 10.3303/CET1977023
Paper Received: 30 October 2018; Revised: 7 May 2019; Accepted: 18 June 2019
Please cite this article as: van Wingerden K., 2019, Mechanical sparks as an ignition source of gas and dust explosions, Chemical Engineering
Transactions, 77, 133-138 DOI:10.3303/CET1977023
133
Figure 1: Relative velocity of steel pins being ground or rubbing needed to generate grinding sparks, friction
sparks or glowing of one of the objects as a function of the pressure with which one object is working against
the other (Bartknecht, 1982)
Apart from the oxidation and combustion of the particles the heat transfer to the surroundings per unit of
distance travelled increases with decrease of the speed of the particle and due to bursting of particles (e.g.
due to evaporation) causing the surface area of the particle to increase.
The temperature of mechanical sparks vary depending on the forces involved generating the sparks, the
relative speed between the contacting objects and the size and material of the sparks. Ritter (1984) reported
temperatures above the boiling point of the material in question (e.g. for iron ~3200 °C). Boczek et al. (1983)
using a grinding wheel measured mechanical spark temperatures in the range of 1727 – 2127 °C for steel
(above the melting point but far below the boiling point). The shape of the particles was either spherical or
those of shavings. Comparable temperatures were reported by (Hardt, 1954) for a big number of steel types.
The maximum temperature of shavings was approximately 350 °C.
Mechanical sparks may also involve conditions where the contacting surfaces react together. An example of
such a reaction is one between aluminium and an oxide such as rusty steel which is referred to as the thermite
reaction:
Fe2O3 (s) + 2 Al (s) → Al2O3 (s) + 2 Fe (s)
This reaction is exothermic, releasing heat, making such mechanical sparks more incendive.
134
According to Rogers et al. (2006) rubbing produces long duration hot surfaces and generally none or only a
few sparks. Grinding also produces long duration hot surfaces, generally with large numbers of sparks
depending on the material. Tests performed indicate that hot material around the frictional hot surface (e.g.
trailing edge burr) is a much more potent ignition source than sparks. The efficacy of the ignition source
produced depends on the power, load, speed, size and coefficient of friction associated with the friction
process and the confinement of the equipment in which the hot surface is produced. Hawksworth et al. (2004)
investigated especially the hot surfaces generated by rubbing. A wheel constructed from duplex stainless
steel, which was chosen for its hardness, high melting point and low thermal conductivity could operate
achieving circumferential velocities between 0.4 m/s and 20 m/s. Sliders of different materials are brought into
contact with the edge of the spinning disc with a controlled force of up to 5000 N.
The temperature of the contact zone between the disc and the slide as a function of the rubbing speed and the
contact pressure was measured showing that ignition at a hot surface would theoretically be possible at
relatively low speeds depending on the auto-ignition temperature of the fuel. Temperatures > 1000 ºC were
measured for speeds exceeding 6 m/s or contact pressures exceeding 1.5 N/mm
2. Where the materials are
dissimilar, the softer lower melting material will produce a lubricating layer and limit the temperature generated
in the contact zone. Several possible ignition mechanisms were identified:
• Exposure of the contact region to the explosive atmosphere.
• Spark production where hot particles are thrown some distance from the contact zone at high speed;
• Production of larger hot chunks which are thrown from the contact zone at lower speed but in many
ways represent a more potent ignition source because of their size;
• Hot burrs formed on the trailing edge of the contact zone, which remain attached to the stationary
surface and progressively become larger as the rubbing continues
• Conduction of heat from the contact region to adjacent surfaces to produce high temperatures
Lorenz et al. (2015) showed that during experiments investigating the effects of friction between two steel
surfaces that approx. 20 % of the energy put into the steel surfaces is used for heating, 3 % in generation of
metal sparks 20 % in loss of energy by radiation, 33 % in loss by convection and 25 % in loss by conduction.
Still, extrapolation of the experimental results using a model it could be shown that incendive hot surfaces can
be generated also at relative speeds of < 1 m/s.
2. Ignition tests
There are numerous articles addressing ignition of gas, vapour and dusts by mechanical sparks. Early
investigations were devoted to safety in coal mines. Below some investigations have been described briefly.
(Dittmar 1965) describes experiments reported by K. Gaulrapp and Feber (Zündung brennbarer Gas/bzw.
Dampf/Luft-Gemische, Arbeitsschutz, 7, 97, 1944) presenting a systematic investigation of the incendivity of
steel sparks generated by grinding. The sparks were generated by pressing hardened carbon steel rods
against an aluminium oxide wheel with a force of 2.105 N/m2. The outer velocity of the wheel was 10 m/s. The
incendivity of the steel sparks was investigated for a number of fuels: ammonia, acetylene, ethylene, carbon
monoxide, methane, hydrogen, butane, butylene, propane, propylene, acetaldehyde, acetone, ethyl alcohol,
ethyl ether, benzene, petrol, n-hexane, methanol, n-pentane and carbon disulphide. The various gases and
vapour were investigated over a wide range of concentrations. The steel sparks appeared incendive for
acetylene, ethylene, carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbon disulphide. For these gases the lowest ignitable
concentration often coincided with the lower explosion limit. The upper flammable limit was however far below
the upper explosion limit of these respective gases and vapours with the exception of carbon disulphide, which
could still be ignited by the steel sparks at a concentration of 50 % carbon disulphide and air. The upper
explosion limit of carbon disulphide is 50 % v/v (Kuchta 1985).
(Dittmar 1965) also report on experiments performed by Voigtsberger, P. (Zündfähigkeit von Schleiffunken
gegenüber explosiblen Gas/ und Dampf/Luft-Gemischen, Arbeitsschutz, 191, 1955). He performed
mechanical spark incendivity experiments with different steel types. He used an aluminium oxide wheel with
an outer velocity of 22 m/s pressing the steel with a pressure of 105 N/m2. The tests were performed using
hydrogen-air mixtures. The concentration range over which the mechanical sparks were able to ignite the
hydrogen-air mixtures were used as a measure of incendivity. The lower explosion limit was similar for all steel
types whereas the upper explosion limit where the mechanical sparks still were able to ignite varied.
(Dittmar 1965) reports a direct relationship between the size of the mechanical spark particles generated and
the range of concentrations that can be ignited. The size of the particles was at its turn shown to be related to
the crystalline structure of the steel. When the hardness of the various parts of the crystalline structure varies
considerably, the size of the particles appears directly related to the size of the harder parts of the structure.
135
(Schulz F. 1963) report on single impact sparks and their incendivity against hydrogen-air mixtures. The
impact sparks concern low angle impacts (streaking) with an energy of 3.4 J. The impact occurred against an
anvil of rusty steel and one made out of granite.
The tests performed with the combination steel-rusty steel resulted in ignition in the concentration range of
4.9-5.0 – 13.7-13.8 % v/v for two steel qualities with differing hardness. It was concluded that for this
combination pieces of the anvil were torn loose and not from the impacting materials explaining the result of
the test. For the steel-granite combination the mechanical sparks were torn loose from the impacting steel and
the concentration range over which the sparks appeared incendive was 5.0-43 % v/v hydrogen-air indicating
that hot burning steel particles were generated.
Powell (1969) in his review of gas and vapour ignitions, has produced tables showing the incendivity of ignition
sources (metal, stones) produced by a range of impact and rubbing situations for a number of gases and
vapours.
Ritter (1984) and Bartknecht (1982) report on experiments performed with three types of mechanical sparks:
frictional sparks, grinding sparks and single impact sparks.
The frictional sparks were generated by moving a small part of a fine file against a piece of flint over a
distance of 10 mm. During the movement the fine file was pressed with a force of 88.3 N against the flint using
a spring. The speed of the fine file was 1 m/s resulting in a duration of the spark generation of 10 ms. The
tests revealed that the frictional sparks (flint) could ignite several gases (butane, propylene, propane,
hydrogen, methane) over a large range of concentrations. They also showed that using the respective ignition
energies necessary to ignite the boundary concentrations for the range of concentrations where flint sparks
are incendive and plotting those as a function of the auto-ignition temperature of the fuels (in °C) single
relationships were found which indicated a borderline between gases and vapour which can be ignited by flint
and which cannot. According to Bartknecht (1982) and Ritter (1984) similar relationships could be defined for
grinding sparks and single impact sparks. For generation of the grinding sparks a grinding wheel with an outer
velocity of 35.3 m/s was applied. 4 mm diameter rods of different materials could be pressed against the
grinding wheel with a force that was varied between 2.46 N and 88.3 N. The tests showed that the most
optimal conditions to obtain ignition were found when the outer velocity of the grinding wheel was chosen to
be 8.8 m/s and with a force pressing the rods against the grinding wheel of 36.8 N. To avoid hot surfaces from
being generated the grinding duration was limited to 20 ms.
For the flammable gases the results show that the lower concentration ignition limit of grinding sparks of flint
are very similar to those seen for frictional sparks of flint. Again, it was shown that single relationships
between minimum ignition energy and auto-ignition temperature could be defined indicating a borderline
between gases and vapours which can be ignited by flint and which cannot. Ritter (1984) showed this for
grinding sparks of different materials: iron, titanium, zirconium and flint. Similar tests performed with stainless
steel (type V2A) did not lead to any ignition event. Ritter (1984) also showed that the relationships obtained for
the various grinding sparks could be used directly for assessing the incendivity of mechanical sparks of dust-
air mixtures.
For single impact sparks 6 mm diameter rods of different materials were mounted onto a rotating wheel. The
speed of the tip end of the rods was 35.3 m/s at a maximum impacting onto a plate of which the angle could
be varied. The material of the rods and plate could be varied.
The combination steel-steel (hardened steels) did lead to sparks but not to any ignitions. This was different for
the combination aluminium or titanium and rusty steel which led to ignitions. Ignitions were also obtained for
single impact sparks of titanium rods impacting on plates of steel types St 37 and 1.2842.
Using the results of early studies (Konschak and Voigtsberger, 1957; Schulz and Dittmar, 1963) some of the
relationships suggested by Ritter (1984) were verified. For this verification published data on the minimum
ignition energy of gases and vapours was used. Figure 2 shows the incendivity of grinding sparks of steel
(from Konschak and Voigtsberger, 1957) versus the relationship suggested by Ritter (1984). The agreement
can be described as satisfactory. This is however not the case for single impact sparks involving aluminium
and rusty steel (termite reactions). The relationship suggested by Ritter (1984) does not seem to be
conservative when comparing to the results obtained by Schulz and Dittmar (1963) as is presented in Figure
3.
Ritter (1984) also states that the same relationships can be used to assess the incendivity of dust-air mixtures.
There is unfortunately very little data (no information on minimum ignition energy as a function of
concentration of published data) available to verify the relationships for dusts. In his review Lunn (2000)
expressed his doubts wrt the appropriateness of the suggested relationship for thermite sparks igniting dust
clouds based on experiments reported by Gibson et al (1967).
136
Figure 2: Relationship distinguishing between fuels that can be ignited by steel grinding sparks and those that
cannot as suggested by Ritter (1984) compared to results by Konschak and Voigtsberger (1957).
Figure 3: Relationship distinguishing between fuels that can be ignited by steel grinding sparks as suggested
by Ritter (1984) compared to results by Schulz and Dittmar (1963).
According to Meyer et al (2015) the occurrence of mechanical sparks due to friction processes cannot occur
without the generation of hot surfaces. Prior to the occurrence of mechanical sparks, hot surfaces are always
developed. As a result and supporting the work reported by Rogers et al. (2006) and Hawksworth et al. (2004)
conclusions regarding the incendivity of mechanical sparks need to be made with care. This in spite of the fact
that many authors made efforts to prevent hot surfaces from occurring. Meyer et al (2015) developed limiting
power densities (surface pressure (N/mm2) vs relative velocity) for the ignition of hydrogen, ethylene, diethyl
ether, propane and pentane/air mixtures for friction processes with stainless steel showing that also at relative
velocities < 1 m/s ignition at hot surfaces are possible. Holländer et al (2016) showed that also impact sparks
generate hot surfaces. The authors investigated impacts between stainless steel components showing that
hydrogen-air mixtures were mainly ignited by the hot surfaces not the mechanical sparks. Acetylene-air
137
mixture on the other hand were more often ignited by mechanical sparks. The probability of ignition increases
with increasing kinetic energy.
3. Conclusions
Mechanical sparks have been indicated to be the cause of many explosion incidents. The current review tried
to give an impression on the large number of investigations available. A comparison of studies performed in
the 1950’s and 1960’s with criteria suggested by Ritter (1984) show that the criterion suggested for steel
grinding sparks is satisfactory whereas the one suggested for aluminium-rusty steel impact sparks tends to
underpredict the incendivity of such sparks.
More recent research indicates that ignition due to friction or single impacts may have occurred to hot surfaces
instead of mechanical sparks.
References
Bartknecht, W., 1982, Untersuchung über das Zündverhalten von mechanischen Funken in Staub-
Luftgemischen. Report no. 01 VD 022 0, Ciba Geigy AG, Zentraler Sicherheitsdients, Fachgruppe
Explosionstechnik
Boczek, B., Glinka, W. and Wolanski, P., 1983, Ignition of a combustible mixture by a burning metal particle,
Oxidation Communications, 5 (1-2), 157-173
Billinge, K., 1979, The frictional ignition hazard in industry a survey of reported incidents from 1958 to 1978,
Fire Prevention Science and Technology, 24, 13-19
Dittmar. “Reib- und Schlagfunken als Zündquelle.” In Handbuch der Raumexplosionen, by H.-H. Freytag.
Chemie Verlag, 1965
Gibson N., Lloyd F.C., Perry G.R., 1967, Fire Hazards in Chemical Plant from Friction Sparks Involving the
Thermite Reaction, IChemE Symposium series 25, 26-35
Hardt, L. , 1954, Temperaturmessungen an Schleiffunken.” Arbeitsschutz, 15, 430-436
Hartmann, I., 1955, Frictional ignition of gas by mining machines. Information Circular no. 7727, Bureau of
Mines
Hawksworth, S., Rogers, R., Proust, C., Beyer, M., Schenk, S., Gummer, j. and Raveau, D., 2004, Ignition of
explosive atmospheres by mechanical equipment, IChemE Symposium Series no. 150
Holländer, L., Grunewald, T. and Grätz, R., 2016, Influence of Material Properties of Stainless Steel on the
Ignition Probability of Flammable Gas Mixtures due to Mechanical Impacts, Chemical Engineering
Transactions, 48, 307-312
Jeske, A. and Beck, H., 1979, Dokumentation Staubexplosionen, Analyse und Einzelfalldarstellung,
Berufsgenossenschaftliches Institut für Arbeitssicherheit, BIA-report no. 11-97, HVBG
Konschak, M., Voigtsberger, P. “Mechanisch erzeugte Funken als Zündquelle für Azetylen/Luft-Gemische.”
Arbeitsschutz, 1957: 11, 214-220
Lorenz, D., Chupin, P. and Seithel, M., 2015, Untersuchung der Entstehung heißer Oberflächen durch
Reibvorgänge, Report Forschungsgesellschaft für angewandte Systemsicherheit und Arbeitsmedizin,
project no. F-05-0804
Lunn, G.A., 2000, Frictional ignition of powders: a review, Health and Safety Laboratory (downloaded from
www.explosionsolutions.co.uk, October 2018)
Meyer, L., Beyer, M., and Krause, U., 2015, Hot surfaces generated by sliding metal contacts and their
effectiveness as an ignition source, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 36, 532-538
Powell, F. ,1969, Ignition of gases and vapours, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 61 (12), 29-37
Ritter, K., 1984, Mechanisch erzeugte Funken als Zündquellen, VDI-Berichte, 494, 129-144
Rogers, R.l., Hawksworth, S., Beyer, M., Proust, C., Lakic, D.,Gummer, J. and Raveau, D., 2006, Ignition of
dust clouds and dust deposits by friction sparks and hotspots, IChemE Symposium Series no. 151
Schulz F., Dittmar, P. “Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Zündfähigkeit von Schlagfunken gegenüber
explosiblen gasförmigen Gemischen.” Arbeitsschutz, 1963: 19, 259-266
138