Process Safety

News
Spring 2023 - Vol. 30 - Issue 2

In this Issue: Upcoming Events:

The Potential Hazards of Hydrogen pg 3 ASTM E27 Meeting on Hazard Potential of Chemicals
Elizabeth Meegan, Principal Engineer May 17 - 18

Explosions in the Grain Industry - Why? pg 7 AIHcE EXP 2023 - Association of Industrial Hygiene,
Ashok G. Dastidar, PhD MBA, Vice President, Booth 1219
Dust & Flammability Testing and Consulting Services May 22 - 24, Phoenix Convention Center, Phoenix, AZ

Heat of Combustion Testing NFPA 652 - An Introduction to Dust Hazard Analysis

Patrick Wojcik, Manager, pg 9 June 14 - 15, Fauske & Associates, Burr Ridge, IL
Flammability Testing and Consulting Services

3rd Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

Evaluating the Flammability Hazards Conference and 9th V4 Thermoanalytical Conference
of Liquid Vapors pg 13
June 20 - 23, Balatonfured, Hungary / Danubius Hotel Annabella
The Fauske Flammability Team

2023 Mary Kay O’Connor Safety & Risk Conference

How to Choose the Right VSP2 October 11-13, Hilton Hotel College Station, Texas
Test Cell for your Experiment
PDF available for download Free Vent Sizing Basic Course and Calorimeter Users
on pg 12 Group Forum (more info on page
October 17 - 19, Fauske & Associates, Burr Ridge, IL
Water Hammer Solutions & Testing pg 16

FAUSKE
www.fauske.com
info@fauske.com
& A S S O C I A T E S
+1 630 323 8750
 LUNCH & LEARN

Lunch & learns provide our employees with a forum for personal and professional
growth by encouraging interaction and collaboration between groups, providing
training on new technology or methodologies, and emphasizing professional skills
such as public speaking and technical writing.

Some examples of lunch & learn topics include:

Applications of combustible dust experiments

Experimentally identifying reactive hazards and

assessing their consequences

Design considerations for active and passive

ventilation systems

Experiences from supporting a plant outage

It was great connecting with so many

new and familiar faces this Spring!

{
Jim Burelbach, Chief Commercial Officer
Sara Townsend, Manager,
Thermal Hazards/Reaction Calorimetry
Elizabeth Meegan, Principal Engineer
Ken Kurko, Sr. Vice President
Zach Hachmeister, President
pictured left to right

Mark Yukich, Manager,r,

OnSite Safety Servicess
{
2
 The Potential Hazards of Hydrogen
Elizabeth Meegan, Principal Engineer, Fauske & Associates

Why Hydrogen?
Growing interest in hydrogen revolves around the
recognition that clean hydrogen could play a crucial role in
global decarbonization. Currently 40% of all carbon dioxide
emissions come from power plants burning fossil fuels for
energy. Other high pollution fields include transportation and
industrial factories. Consumption of hydrogen for energy
produces only water, and hydrogen carries a high energy
density by mass, which makes it an interesting low carbon
alternative. The demand for hydrogen has increased threefold
since 1975 and is expected to continue this trajectory with the
demand for clean hydrogen anticipated to be a crucial component of Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE) with a
potential demand of 150 to 500 million metric tonnes of hydrogen a year. To try and meet this demand, there is a global
push for financial investment in clean hydrogen at scale in both commercial and industrial applications.

Where Does Hydrogen Come From?

Not all hydrogen is considered “clean” as its production can be carbon intensive, and so while hydrogen is a
colorless gas, it is typically described by color to represent its source. Green hydrogen is of particular interest to combat
global warming, because it is produced in a “climate-neutral manner.” Table 1 provides a comparison of the commonly
discussed hydrogen production methods.

Green Hydrogen is produced by electrolyzing (splitting) water molecules from surplus renewable energy
sources (e.g. solar or wind). This process is carbon free, but currently only makes up 0.1% of overall
Hydrogen
hydrogen production because it’s very expensive.

Hydrogen is produced by steam methane reforming (SMR, brings together steam and natural gas to
Blue generate hydrogen). This process does generate carbon dioxide as a product, but it utilizes a carbon
Hydrogen capture and storage system to trap and store it. This process is often referred to as low-carbon
hydrogen, because only 85-95% of the carbon is typically captured.

Turquoise Hydrogen is generated by methane pyrolysis, which is the thermal decomposition of methane into
Hydrogen hydrogen and solid carbon, but this process seems primarily experimental currently.

Pink
Hydrogen Analogous to green hydrogen production, except the source of energy is from nuclear power.

Yellow
Primarily considered the production of hydrogen from electrolyzing water using solar energy.
Hydrogen

Grey/Black/Brown Hydrogen production from biomass. Grey hydrogen is currently the most common form of hydrogen
production where hydrogen is generated from natural gas through SMR, but without carbon capture
Hydrogen
system.

www.fauske.com continued on page 4

3
continued from page 3

Hydrogen Properties & Potential Hazards

Hydrogen has many properties that make it attractive as a source of energy, and many of which are inherently safe
features, however there are potential hazards associated with any fuel source. Here are some of hydrogen’s properties,
and how they might relate to potential hazards to consider depending on the application:

▪ Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless non-toxic gas typically in the form of a diatomic molecule
(H2). While rare, hydrogen is a potential asphyxiation hazard in confined spaces. In addition to the
gaseous form, hydrogen flames are also nearly colorless, and the low radiant heat and low emissivity of
the flame can make it difficult for early identification.

▪ Hydrogen is non-corrosive, however it can cause embrittlement leading to unexpected failures or leaks.
Properly selected materials and system layout, periodic visual checks, adequate passive or active
ventilation systems, and safety systems (e.g. leak or hydrogen detection sensors) are important aspects of
a safe design.

▪ Hydrogen has excellent energy density, however its vapor density is incredibly low (around 1/15th of air).
This is excellent when considering the dissipation of a buoyant vapor cloud following a leak, however this
can make it difficult to store large quantities of hydrogen. In the gaseous form, high pressure vessels can
be employed. Alternatively, hydrogen can be compressed, and stored at cryogenic conditions. Both
options should be considered for potential overpressure hazards, and unignited releases (e.g. loss of
temperature control in cryogenic storage or fire exposure in gaseous storage, both of which can lead to
rapid pressurization and a loss of containment).

▪ Hydrogen has a very large flammable range

(typically considered 4% to 75% by volume
in air) and a very high burning velocity when
compared to other typical fuel types. This
increases the likelihood and potential
consequences of combustion (via fire or
explosion). Despite hydrogens propensity
to diffuse quickly in air, high-pressure leaks
can lead to unconfined jet fires or
explosions, and the low minimum ignition
energy of hydrogen makes it difficult to
eliminate all potential ignition sources.
Confined vapor cloud explosions (i.e.
deflagrations or deflagrations that transition
to detonations) are also a hazard to consider
with potentially severe consequences.
Proper siting and barriers can help to protect
against this hazard.
Expansion of Initially Choked Jet and Entrainment
after Depressurization

www.fauske.com 4
continued on page 5
continued from page 4

Hydrogen Safety
Developing a safe process to harvest or utilize hydrogen is much like developing any other safe process involving
chemical hazards:

1. Identify Potential Hazards (via HAZOP, FMEA, or other tools)

2. Evaluate the Hazard Risk Level in Terms of Likelihood and Severity
3. Identify Preventative, Mitigative, or Elimination Techniques
4. Document the Findings, Employ the Techniques, and Train Personnel
5. Ensure Safety Systems and Facility Meet Relevant Regulations, Codes, and Standards
6. Periodically Review System and Monitor for Changes, and Repeat Process if Change Occurs

References: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen
https://www.iea.org/reports/hydrogen
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition
https://www.energy.gov/articles/how-were-moving-net-zero-2050
https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/hydrogen
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/
https://chfcc.org/hydrogen-fuel-cells/about-hydrogen/hydrogen-properties
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/safe-use-hydrogen
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/christian-tae/hydrogen-safety-lets-clear-air
https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/safety-codes-standards.html

www.fauske.com 5
continued from page 9

NFPA 652
continued from page 5

An Introduction to Dust Hazards Analysis

Presented by Fauske
s & Associates
ske

Location: 16W070 83rd

3 Street,
3rd Stree
et,
Burr Ridge,
e IL 60527
e, 7

Date: June 14-15, 2023

0
023
Time: 8 AM - 4:30 PM M CDT
Price: Day 1 only - $500
5
500
Days 1 and 2 - $950

Day 1

This course will ensure all participants are aware of

important issues associated with NFPA 652 and
describe how this standard interacts with other relevant Day 2
NFPA codes and guidelines. A special emphasis will be
placed on explaining the requirements for a Dust The Advanced DHA Workshop will focus on how to
Hazard Analysis (DHA) and an overview of the organize, lead, and implement the DHA study. This
methodologies that can be employed to perform a will include how to utilize appropriate test methods
DHA. The course will also include a logical approach to to determine potential dust hazards; as well as how
characterizing a powder's hazardous dust properties, as to apply appropriate mitigation techniques to
well as a description of various techniques used to prevent or control combustible dust hazards. During
control and/or avoid dust explosions in a safe and the workshop, participants will have the opportunity
compliant manner. to apply DHA methodologies to realistic combustible
dust scenarios.
Scheduled Agenda
Outcomes
▪ Introduction
▪ Overview of NFPA 652 ▪ Protection Options
▪ Fundamentals of Dust Explosions ▪ Daily Learning Assessment
▪ Introduction to DHA methodology ▪ Questions and Answers
▪ Mock DHA on a Small Blending Operation ▪ Course Evaluation Instruction
▪ Introduction to NFPA 660

Register
Figure 5: 20221213-Battery Scoping Test 1 –
Containment Pressure vs. Time (0 min to 70 min)
www.fauske.com
f k
Info@fauske.com 12
www.fauske.com
www.fauske.com
www.fauske.com 10
6
 Explosions in the Grain Industry - Why?
One of the first recorded and studied dust explosions occurred in a bakery in Turin, Italy in 1785
Ashok G. Dastidar, PhD MBA, Vice President, Dust & Flammability Testing and Consulting Services,
Fauske & Associates

Count Morozzo from the Academy of Science in Turin

investigated the incident to conclude that the explosion was caused
by the flour dust suspended in the air and not gases generated by
mold or fungus eating the flour. Dust explosions are very common
in industry. They occur in all industries from wood working,
sawmills, pharmaceutical plants, chemical plants and more
importantly for this discussion at agricultural facilities.

In April of 1980 there was a large explosion at a grain terminal

in Saint Joseph, MO. One person was killed and four were injured. An
electric arc from a damaged level indicator initiated an explosion in
one of the silos. The explosion traveled through the headhouse to
the other silos and caused over two million dollars in damages.
Later, in June of that same year an explosion occurred at a river grain
terminal in Saint Paul, MN. Luckily there were no fatalities but 13
workers were injured. An electrician was working on live electrical
circuitry while grain loading operations were taking place. The arc
from the electrical work initiated an explosion that traveled along
the tunnel to the headhouse and through the bucket elevator to the
other tunnels resulting in $300,000 in damages. A month later in
Fonda, IA an explosion occurred at a train-loading country grain
terminal where electrical welding on a bucket elevator initiated an
1980 Grain Silo Explosion, Saint Joseph, MO
event. No one was killed or injured in that event. Photo by Tim Hynds, Sioux City Journal

Nine months later in April 1981 a large explosion at an export grain silo plant in Corpus Christi, TX killed nine people
and injured 30. Smoldering lumps of grain entered a bucket elevator and initiated a dust cloud explosion. The resulting
explosion propagated to other elevators, and then onto the headhouse, tunnels, conveyers and silos, resulting in thirty
million dollars of damage.

It was after this last event that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released the "grain
handling standard" 29CFR1910.272 in 1987. This standard is the backbone of the government's safety program to protect
grain elevators, feed mills, flour mills, rice mills, dust pelletizing plants, dry corn mills, soybean flaking operations, and the
dry grinding operations of soy cake from violent dust explosions. Some of the key requirements of the standard are that
employers develop an emergency plan to deal with dust explosions, train their employees and contractors to recognize
dust explosion hazards and safely work in that environment, establish a hot work permit system to minimize potential
ignition sources, keep fugitive dust at bay with a documented housekeeping program, and requirements for emergency
escape. Additionally, it provides requirements for the safe use of driers, bucket elevators and air filtrations systems.

www.fauske.com continued on page 8 7

continued from page 7

This standard, according to OSHA's figures, has been effective. The average number of grain elevator explosions
has decreased from 20 per year in the 7O's and 80's to 13 per year in the 90's and to less than 8 per year in the 21st
century. However, that still amounts to 503 incidents between 1976 and 2011 with 677 injuries and 184 fatalities in that
time. A relatively recent incident occurred at the Andersen Farms Inc. grain elevator explosion in South Sioux City,
Nebraska, on Tuesday, May 29, 2018. The accident resulted in one fatality and one injury.

Compounding this great tragedy is that the OSHA standard that would have kept the employees safe does not
apply to family-farm owned facilities with less than 11 non-family employees. As a result they cannot enforce the
29CFR1910.272 at the facility or investigate the incident.

What potentially could have kept the employees safe and avoided the
accident is enforcement of the Nebraska Fire Code, Title 153 and the Grain
Elevator Fees and Guidelines, Title 161. Both these documents have adopted
NFPA 61 "Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Dust Explosions in
Agricultural and Food Processing Facilities" and reference it for safety
inspections. Compliance with NFPA 61, a document that greatly influenced
the OSHA standard, would have reduced the risk of a catastrophic explosion.
NFPA 61 is one of the oldest NFPA standards dating back to 1923 and was
initially developed to prevent dust explosions in grain terminals and flour
mills. Gradually, over time, the standard was combined with other NFPA
documents to become a universal fire and dust explosion prevention and
protection standard for agricultural and food facilities. The document has a
long history and is adopted by most state and local fire codes. Therefore,
state/ local building inspectors and state fire marshals should be very familiar
with the document and on how it should be enforced.

Additionally, many insurance carriers require agricultural facilities to comply with NFPA 61 for property loss and
business interruption protection. These companies have engineers and inspectors who are trained in the NFPA 61
requirements and frequently audit facilities for compliance before offering them insurance coverage. They can spot
deficient housekeeping, or bad hot work/electrical work practices or building/machinery construction without
explosion/fire protection. Their enforcement of NFPA 61 as an authority having jurisdiction can greatly reduce the risk
of an explosion or fire.

With these three layers of protection; the OSHA Grain Handling Standard, State Fire Codes that adopt NFPA 61 and
insurance companies that require NFPA 61 compliance for coverage to be offered, why do we still have explosions in the
grain industry? Even if one of these three layers were to fail; for example, the OSHA standard not being enforceable on
small family-farm facilities, the other two layers of protection should be able to catch any deficiencies and protect
workers and the surrounding community.

Need help evaluating the safety of your facility? We can help. Contact us at dust@fauske.com to learn more.

www.fauske.com 8
 Heat of Combustion Testing
Patrick Wojcik, Manager, Flammability Testing and Consulting Services, Fauske & Associates

Introduction
With the growing global demand for more efficient and sustainable energy sources, determination of the heat of
combustion of substances is expected to continue to play a critical role in the development of new fuels and the
optimization of existing fuels.

The heat of combustion (also referred to as the calorific value, fuel value, or energy value) is the amount of energy
released as heat when a material undergoes complete combustion in a pure oxygen environment at constant volume.
In this article, we will explore the concept of heat of combustion testing and its significance in various industries.

What is Heat of Combustion Testing?

Heat of combustion testing is
carried out using an isoperibol oxygen
bomb calorimeter, which consists of a
high-pressure rated vessel (bomb) that is
immersed in a water bath inside of a
calorimeter (Figure 1). Prior to immersing
the vessel into the water bath, a
measured amount of solid or liquid
sample that is being tested is transferred
into a sample cup which in turn is placed
inside of the bomb. Afterwards, the
bomb is pressurized with a measured
quantity of pure oxygen, and then the
entire vessel is sealed and immersed in
Figure 1: Heat of Combustion Apparatus
the water bath inside of the calorimeter.
After the temperature of the water bath stabilizes, a fuse wire is used to ignite the sample, causing it to combust in the
oxygen. The heat generated by the combustion reaction inside the bomb is transferred to the water in the surrounding
bath, and the resulting temperature rise is measured. This temperature rise is then used to calculate the heat of
combustion of the sample.

Why is Heat of Combustion Testing Important?

Heat of combustion testing provides valuable information about the energy content of a substance which is
critical for a wide range of applications, including fuel development, reaction analysis, and classification of aerosol
products (see the following page for details). Heat of combustion testing can also be used to determine the number of
calories per gram of food and it is also currently one of the chemical property requirements for the development of
commercial and military turbine fuels (ASTM D240).

www.fauske.com continued on page 10 9

continued from page 9

What are Examples of Applications for Heat of Combustion Testing?

Various industries use heat of combustion testing for

different objectives and applications. Some examples
include: Spray
1. Fuel Development & Optimization: Heat of combustion aerosol

testing is used considerably in the development of

new fuels and in optimization of existing fuels.
Scientists and engineers can use this method to NO In the YES
Does it
determine the energy value as well as quantify the have a heat of ignition distance
Extremely
combustion test, does ignition occur
amount of waste heat that is generated during flammable
<20 kJ/g? at a distance
>75 cm?
combustion of different substances, such as metal
fuels, biofuels, and renewable fuels. These data are
then used to optimize fuel composition and YES
Y NO Flammable
production processes, as well as minimize emissions, to
create fuels that are more cost-effective, efficient, and
In the
environmentally friendly. ignition distance
test, does ignition occur
YES Extremely
2. Reaction Analysis: Determination of material energy flammable
at a distance
>75 cm?
content is essential for research and development of
new chemistries, as it allows researchers to assess the
heats of formation of raw materials prior to a NO
synthesizing into the final product to understand the
total energy consumption/generation of the reaction. In the
Before scaling up a reaction, it is important to fully ignition distance YES
test, does ignition occur Flammable
understand the reactivity and energetic potential of at a distance
>15 cm?
the materials involved. This way the reaction can be
optimized to achieve high yields and avoid any
unwanted reactions, some of which can be extremely NO
violent.
In the
3. Aerosol Classification: In conjunction with ignition enclosed space
distance and enclosed space ignition tests using ignition test, is the time YES
equivalent < 300 s/m3 Flammable
methods outlined in the United Nations Chemical deflagration density
<300 g/m3?
Classification Manual, the results of heat of combustion
tests can be used to characterize an aerosol product as NO Not classified
as flammable
non-flammable, flammable, or extremely flammable aerosol
(see Figure 2). The classification of aerosols is essential
in determining proper packaging and shipping groups
Figure 2: UN Classification of Spray Aerosols
for transportation purposes to avoid any accidents.

www.fauske.com continued on page 11 10

continued from page 10

Summary
Heat of combustion testing is a vital method for evaluating the energy value of a material and is critical in a wide
variety of applications. An accurate and precise analytical measurement of a material’s energy content is crucial in
research, development, optimization, and safety.

References

ASTM D240. (2017). Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter.
Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.

United Nations. (2019). Recommendations of the Transport of Dangerous Goods: Manual of Tests and Criteria.
New York: United Nations.

If you are interested in receiving a quote for heat of combustion

testing or would like to learn more, please do not hesitate to
contact us at flammability@fauske.com.

www.fauske.com 11
 Join Fauske & Associates (FAI) for our Fall 2023
Free Vent Sizing Basic Course and Calorimeter Users Group Forum

Location:
Fauske & Associates
16W070 83rd Street, Burr Ridge, IL 60527

Date:
Tuesday, October 17 - Thursday, October 19, 2023
Time:
8:30 AM - 4:30 PM on Tuesday and Wednesday
8:30 AM - Noon on Thursday
Contact Us
to Learn More
Seminar Objectives
FAI’s Free Users Group Forum provides users with tips and techniques for obtaining high quality data and
discussions on analyzing and applying the collected data for important safety parameters. Detailed
classroom style presentations and meaningful, customized “hands-on” lab training will enable users to
understand the full capabilities of their own equipment. Users will be given a crash course in vent sizing
basics, and example vent sizing problems will be discussed. Network with other uses and leverage their
experience with similar applications as found in your facility.

Seminar Topics
▪ Overview of VSP2 and ARSST ▪ Instrument trouble-shooting ▪ FERST software basics
equipment techniques training & demonstration
▪ Equipment demonstratons ▪ Test design and advanced ▪ DIERS vent sizing
testing techniques methodology
▪ Daily “hand-on” lab sessions ▪ Safety and sensibility in ▪ Data interpretation and
chemical testing application for crucial safety
parameters

Please contact us if you have any questions: thermalhazardsgroup@fauske.com

Lunch will be provided Tuesday and Wednesday. Participants are responsible for their travel & accommodations.

How to Choose the Right VSP2 Test Cell

Download our graphic with key information
to consider when choosing
g a test cell for y
your
experiment

Download PDF

12
 Evaluating the Flammability Hazards of Liquid Vapors
The Flammability Team, Fauske & Associates

With the increased number of reported fires and explosions, it is evident that there is an unacceptable absence of
proper preventative measures and mitigative safeguards in place to reduce the number of fire-related incidents. Prior
to scaling up a chemical process or working with a new chemical, it is critical to fully characterize the flammable
properties of the chemical to get a strong understanding of the flammability potential and to set up the appropriate
safeguards.

Before discussing flammable properties further, it is

important to first understand the three general elements that
are required for a fire or an explosion to occur: a fuel, an
oxidizer, and an ignition source (Figure 1). Through removal of
one of these elements, a fire/explosion will not occur (in most
cases1). Eliminating the ignition source is often not a practical
method of prevention due to flammable vapors typically
having very low minimum ignition energies (meaning they are
very easy to ignite) as well as the likely existence of numerous
different potential ignition sources (known and unknown).
Therefore, moderating the fuel and oxidizer concentrations to
avoid a flammable concentration of gases/vapors, otherwise
known as the flammable region, is necessary for reducing the
risk of a fire/explosion. Figure 1: Fire Triangle

In the chemical industry, processing and

handling of chemicals could result in the formation of a
flammable or explosive atmosphere. For liquid
chemicals, this may occur at temperatures other than at
ambient conditions. Figure 2 shows the relationship
between the flammable properties of a material and
how they are related to temperature.

As temperature increases, the vapor pressure of a

material exponentially increases, and there becomes a
point where the concentration of the vapor is sufficient
to create a flammable atmosphere in air. This
temperature is commonly known as the flash point
(FP). In theory, the lower flammability limit (LFL)
Figure 2: Temperature Effects on a Flammable Mixture (Crowl, 2003)
should intersect the vapor pressure curve at the
1
There are some unstable chemicals, like acetylene, which do not require an oxidizer to exothermally decompose.

www.fauske.com 13
continued on page 14
continued from page 13

flash point temperature. As a result, this temperature is also referred to as the lower temperature limit of flammability
(LTL). However, in reality, these two temperatures (FP and LTL), may not always be the same. Knowledge of the disparity
between these two points will help better assess the flammability hazards of a specific chemical as well as help
implement the proper safety precautions during handling.

To understand the variation between the lower temperature limit Table 1: Flash Point and Lower Temperature Limit
of Flammability Results
of flammability and flash point, tests were performed to compare the
results. The lower temperature limit of flammability tests were Flash Point LTL
Chemical
(oC)
C) (oC)
C)
conducted using ASTM E1232 “Standard Test Method for Temperature
Limit of Flammability of Chemicals” modified to be conducted in a 5.3-L Organosulfur
89.5 81
Compound
stainless steel spherical vessel using a fuse wire ignition source for
safety and environmental purposes. The criterion for a positive ignition Lactam Ring
81.5 79
Compound
was a 7% pressure rise above the starting pressure. The flash point tests
Pyridine
were performed using ASTM D3278 “Standard Test Methods for Flash 100 92
Compound 1
Point of Liquids by Small Scale Closed-Cup Apparatus”. These tests were
Pyridine
performed on four different chemicals and the results are summarized 137 119
Compound 2
in Table 1.

The deviation between the values determined by these two tests is a result of differences in the test apparatus and
methodology used in each of these experiments. It is important to understand that flammable properties are
influenced by numerous factors. Below are a few factors that may provide an explanation for the differences between
the two test results:

1. Vessel Size and Geometry – As the size of a vessel increases, the heat losses to the vessel wall become
negligible. Through minimizing heat losses to the vessel wall, more heat is transferred to the combustion
reaction, promoting flame propagation. This results in a widening of the flammable region and potentially
allowing for combustion to occur at lower temperatures. Furthermore, a study performed by Takahashi, Urano,
Takuhashi, and Kondo (2003) determined that flammability properties should be determined using either a
spherical vessel or a cylindrical vessel with a diameter of at least 30 cm and a height of at least 60 cm to
minimize the effect of flame quenching which may artificially result in a narrower flammable region.

2. Ignition Source Location – A lower ignition source elevation in a vessel has been shown to widen the
flammable region as compared to a central ignition source location (Van den Schoor, Norman & Verplaetsen,
2006). With a lower placed ignition source, a larger percentage of the combustible mixture participates in the
upward moving combustion reaction with minimal heat losses to the wall, thereby, causing more heat being
transferred to the combustion reaction resulting in a wider flammable region.

www.fauske.com 14
continued on page 15
continued from page 14

3. Homogeneity of Mixture – Slight changes in the vapor concentration could result in a mixture becoming
flammable or not flammable. In the LTL tests, the vapor mixture is stirred to provide a homogenous mixture
of the fuel in air, unlike the flash point tests where the vapor space is not stirred and thus allows
concentration gradients to form. Furthermore, the LTL tests provide more uniform heating of the vessel as
well as a longer mixing time to allow the vapor and the liquid to reach equilibrium. All of these factors will
impact the concentration of the fuel in the vapor space and may influence the flammability results.

4. Flame Propagation – Generally, the flammable region is wider for upward flame propagation compared to
downward flame propagation due to flame buoyancy (EU-Project SAFEKINEX, 2006). Tests performed in the
5.3L vessel measure upward flame propagation as compared to the flash point tester which measures
downward flame propagation. This wider range means that the LTL will generally occur at a lower
temperature than the FP.

These example results demonstrate that it is imperative to fully characterize the flammability hazards of chemicals.
Determination of the flash point by itself may not always be sufficient in providing data that is used to implement
proper safety measures to avoid flammable temperatures when assessing the hazards of flammable liquids. As shown
from the LTL and FP tests, there can be potentially large deviations between the two values. Therefore, the use of a
safety margin with the flash point value may not always be adequate. The safest approach would be to conduct an LTL
test to assess the temperature at which there is sufficient vapor for flame propagation.

If you are interested in receiving a quote for flash point or lower temperature limit of flammability testing, or would
like to learn more, please do not hesitate to contact us at flammability@fauske.com.

References
Crowl, D.A. (2003). Understanding Explosions. New York: American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

EU-Project SAFEKINEX (2003-2006). Report on the experimental factors influencing explosion indices determination.
Programme “Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development”, Contract No: EVG1-CT-2002-00072.

Takahashi, Urano, Tokuhashi, Kondo (2003). Effect of vessel size and shape on experimental flammability limits of gases,
Journal of Hazardous Materials.

Van den Schoor, F., Norman, F., & Verplaetsen, F. (2006). Influence of the ignition source location on the determination of the
explosion pressure at elevated initial pressure. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries.

Flame propagation venting of a flammable event

in a 5-L glass sphere

www.fauske.com 15
continued from page 15

Water Hammer Solutions

and Testing
When fluid flow is suddenly subjected to a stop or
change in direction, a pressure surge commonly
referred to as a water hammer event will occur. The
momentum of the fluid abruptly stopping creates
a pressure wave that travels through the media
within the pipe system. This same principle is
also applicable when the flowing medium is
steam rather than water. In the case of steam,
the pressure surge is known as a steam
hammer event. Both water and steam
hammer events have the potential to cause
catastrophic damage. This phenomenon
can also occur in non-aqueous systems.

A structured approach to addressing water hammer issues provides an efficient, cost

effective, and safe solution to address your water hammer issues.

Our expert team of engineers has extensive experience addressing and resolving various
types of water hammer issues utilizing the following:

• Analysis using key industry recognized transient analysis software

• Experimental testing simulating water hammer events
• Equipment qualification to meet industry standards

To learn more, please contact us!

info@fauske.com
 Process Safety News
Spring 2023 - Vol. 30 - Issue 2

FAI Contributors

Ashok Ghose Dastidar, PhD MBA, Vice President, Dust & Flammability Testing and Consulting Services

Elizabeth Meegan, MS, Principal Engineer

Patrick Wojcik, Manager, Flammability Testing and Consulting Services

Editorial Staff

James P. Burelbach, PhD, Chief Commercial Officer

Carol Raines, Graphic Illustrator

Statement of Purpose:
"Process Safety News" is offered as a way to
Learn More
share our decades of experience in chemical
and nuclear process safety and to present
advances in our related products and services.
We aim to facilitate better understanding of
current process safety issues, standards, and
practices, including hazard identification, lab
testing, accident prevention and mitigation. Contact Us

FAUSKE
www.fauske.com
info@fauske.com
+1 630 323 8750 & A S S O C I A T E S