×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Refueling fires Why?

Refueling fires Why?

Refueling fires Why?

(OP)
Has anyone seen the news on refueling fires? Does anyone have any ideas on what solid measures can be taken to mitigate this problem? and Why isn't anyone asking " What's wrong with the gasoline?"
http://www.esdjournal.com/static/refuelfr.htm

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Replace the gasoline with diesel, and the problem will go away.

RE: Refueling fires Why?

1) I support Ivymike.  It's less flammable and would instantly increase our CAFE numbers at least 25%.

Back to the question;

1) Pumping gas is inherently a dangerous undertaking, like driving, etc, that many people take for granted and become careless/distracted/stupid.  No need to be afraid, but they should show some care and respect and ensure the nozzle is grounded to the vehicle, not try to squeeze 12.5 gallons into a 12 gallon tank, ensure the nozzle is off before removing it from the vehicle, etc.

2) The internet/news media, etc. providing complete and exacting stories on every incident, making it appear to be an epidemic, without normalizing it against number of cars on the road today, billions of gallons pumped, etc.

Blacksmith

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Some people will try to muddle your head with physics equations and talking about "static discharge" and "vapor pressure" interactions, but those in the know will admit that these are merely the latest proof of an epidemic of Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC) sweeping our country!  Write your congressman today!

(With toungue firmly in cheek)

RE: Refueling fires Why?

(OP)
I was hoping to get a more informative dialog going here? This problem has been on the increase since 1995. What changed in 1995? Could it be that EPA fuel policy could be wrong? How will ethanol affect this problem? Warning people with dramatic news stories via television may help a little?But long run? Where in the clean Air act amendments of 1990 is safety mentioned or even considered?

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Perhaps one possibility is the increased availability of low rolling resistance tires, which (I'm told) contain less carbon/graphite than standard tires, and thus don't conduct electricity as well.  Less conduction -> more static charge -> more zaps per mile.

RE: Refueling fires Why?

I'm curious what your source of info is for the claim that the problem has been on the rise since 1995...  was there a lack of reporting prior to 1995?  Maybe the increase in ESD reports is partially due to the increased popularity of the internet?

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Okay, possible causes, which would require extensive research to validate -

1) The low rolling resistance tires increasing static buildup.  I remember one OEM low resistance/low carbon tire being recalled due to excessive static buildup.

2) Increasing efforts to reduce air pollution from fuel evaporization may have concentrated vapors and resulted in an increase in vapors during refueling when the tank is unsealed by removng the cap.

3) Reformulated fuel may exhibit lower ignition requirements.

4) I still like carelessness - alot of the articles I've seen involved getting in and out of the car during fueling (door switches and static), talking on cell phones (are the buttons explosion proof?) and other activities.  I have seen people in the car or on the pump smoking, but are they going to take responsibility and admit it?

Blacksmith

RE: Refueling fires Why?

(OP)
Ivymike , Your point on tires is very good , But that is only part of the problem , A further point is there was prior reporting on this in 1988 . The CAS Center for Automotive Safety , Clerance Ditlow's group put of D.C. published a document on the need to control gasoline/Alcohol blend volatility. I am no fan of the CAS, But that document points out very serious issues with respect to blending alcohol and gasoline. In 1994 we enacted the 1990 CAA and the fires started , the people investigating these fires have found out that many of thes fires were not reported as static ignitions. Fall , Winter and Spring is when most these fires occur. It is my opinion we need to re-examine the fuel formulations?

RE: Refueling fires Why?

OK fuelstat, sorry to be flippant.  I guess it's evident that I'm not overly alarmed at this 'problem', but it certainly is possible.

Why so quick to implicate the gasoline?? Like ivymike, I have heard attributions to increased use of silicones in tires making them more insulating, and that seems a plausible factor to me.

Any time low dielectric liquids are pumped through transfer lines they can build up static charge.  Folks who handle flammable chemicals in industry are quite familiar with simple "grounding and bonding" procedures that prevent the types of accidents you describe. Such countermeasures could be offered to consumers, although ensuring consumer education and compliance would be a challenge. Some states such as New Jersey outlaw self-serve pumping, and maybe that's not a bad thing.

There are also antistatic additives that can be put in the fuel that may reduce buildup. If the consumer were willing to pay the one- or two- cent premium for it, that could form part of a solution that would certainly please the additive manufacturers.  

Ethanol has a much higher dielectric constant than gasoline, so it seems like using it for an oxygenate could also reduce static buildup.  But gasahol is a whole other can of worms . . .

RE: Refueling fires Why?

(OP)
Blacksmith , Your point regarding carelessnes is well taken , but fuel policy with respect to fuel formulation and who is filling the cars needs to be taken into account . EPA needs to be taken to task on their fuel policies. They are not very well thought out...

RE: Refueling fires Why?

If it is a big deal why not fit an earthing strap to the nozzle, that contacts the car's body before the nozzle itself, or rather better, why not have whippy earthing straps sticking up from the forecourt, which would ground the car as you drive over them (OK I've thought of one reason why that might not be so good). Incidentally do those funny little earthing straps that dangle from the bumper prevent these accidents?

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Refueling fires Why?

(OP)
Drwebb , I do  not think your flippant ,And I don't want you to think that I am implicating the gasoline. I happen to think it's the best stuff dollar for dollar one can use to propel their transportation. I am pointing out that the Idiots at EPA who tell the refiners how to blend fuel need to be taken to task. Dare I say "They know not what they do."

You are correct that the people in the business are very aware of the problem and take appropriate measures. It is also true that educating the public sufficiently would be a daunting task. Todays society is in far too much of a hurry to properly get the message. Which is exactly my point. Outlawing self service might be an idea but I don't think the motoring public would appreciate the additional cost.

Refueling fires are on the rise and unless you know someone who has ben a victim of this problem where you personally effected by it , well...Further grounding and bonding are not enough in these cases . The fact is they need to lower the RVP of the fall , Winter and Spring fuels. This could significantly reduce the vapor clouds that develop outside the vehicle filler tube during refueling. Vapor recovery is no panacea either. Some companies are removing the auto-locks from the fuel nozzles to keep the person refueling in contact with the refueling process and hopefully they will not re-enter their vehicle until the process is completed, This still is no assurance to prevent the problem. The anti-static additives you mention are interesting can you name one that is approved for use in ground transportation fuel? I only am aware of their use in jet fuel and how well they work is suspect. In the case of alcohol improving fuels conductivity , this is true . However it raises the RVP of the fuel and thus increases the vapor cloud problem. One point further , simply improving the conductivity of the fuel is not the way you deal with static electricity , you have to have some place to conduct to . Todays modern fuel systems are in short supply of areas of conductivity.
Please see
http://www.esdjournal.com/static/refuelfr.htm  ;

Kind Regards Mike

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Lotts of things have changed, from continual increases in the amount of synthetic fibre in clothes, to the use of plastic fuel tanks. Tyre formulations, paint formulations, average vehicle speeds prior to refueling, reduced time between highway speed and refueling, expotential increase in electronic and electrical devices, tank venting systems, increased reporting, increased # of refueling events, self serve fuel, familiararity with, and therefore, dimminishing respect for the hazzardous chemical that fuel is.

I expect the real answer would take a very long and detailed study.

Regards
pat

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Pat---"---familiarity with, and therefore, diminishing respect for the hazardous chemical that fuel is."

How about the clowns that tried to syphon gasoline from their car with an electric vacuum cleaner (Lakewood, California c.1983)?  Need I expand on the results?

Question Fuelstat---Do the refueling fires seem to be spread equally around the globe or, are they restricted primarily to one or two areas?  I saw a clip on the ABC news just the other night about this phenomenon(?) and it was the first I had heard of it.

Rod

RE: Refueling fires Why?

(OP)
Rod , I have documentation on problems in Europe and Australia ..... It's a shared problem. To much thinking about clean air and not enough thinking on safety. It also doesn't help that Detroit has remained silent on this issue.

RE: Refueling fires Why?

I wouldn't expect any auto manufactures to be in a hurry to recognise the problem. As I understand it, in most western countries, if you are unaware of a problem and do nothing, you are not nearly so negligent as when you are aware of a problem and do nothing. ie Tobacco company execs and the dangers of smokeing, and the airlines with "deep vein thrombosis".

Regards
pat

RE: Refueling fires Why?

(OP)
They are aware of it , See SAE J1645

RE: Refueling fires Why?

One thing that you don't need to be stupid to do
is to fill a plastic fuel can that has been sliding
around in a bed liner, without removing it from the
truck. Bed liners now come with a warning, but what
about when someone purchases a used truck?

RE: Refueling fires Why?

(OP)
Warnings are going up on the pumps if there not already there, and a public awarness program is under way , good luck

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Good posts, glad to see everyone staying even keel. I work in Automotive Fuel Handling. Quite involved in understanding/resolving this issue along with others in the Automotive field, now with you folks.
New to forums, so bear with.

Do a little research, you'll find every industry that comes in contact with "Gas" is interested in fuel pump fires, and have been for years. Root cause is next to impossible to determine due to variants in the relatively few investigated cases. As well, everyone still has to produce their individual component within the fuel fire equation.

?Fuelstat - proper fuel/air mix ignites @ .2mJ, what else should I know? Do you measure conductivity of fuel?

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Fuelstat-
Aren't fuel formulations different in Europe and Australia than in the US?  So doesn't your claim that they are experiencing similar problems argue against the gasoline formulations being causative?

We have identified static discharges and fuel volatility as possible root causes, yet you seem to advocate addressing only fuel volatility.  Doesn't that cut your chances for solving the "epidemic" in half?  Do I hear an axe grinding?

I would not defend EPA's fuel policy competence- especially after the MTBE fiasco- but if you are trying to persuade the inherently skeptical folks in this forum there's a problem, then evidence speaks louder than the emotional sensationalism that is the popular medias stock-in-trade.

RE: Refueling fires Why?

OK.  I have spent the last few weeks looking at pumps here in SoCal area and so far the only ones that have VERY prominant warnings about fire are the Sunoco leaded racing fuel pumps where, presumably and by law, ALL fuel is dispensed into portable containers.  No one I have talked to about this problem had heard of it.  Most of my fellow racers were aware that they should not fill their cans while still in the vehicle but, most did it anyway, myself included!!!  I guess that makes me worse than the average 'Joe' since I know better.  (I'll try to do better, mom. I promise)
With the vapor recovery systems mandated in California it would seem to me that the "vapor cloud around the filler neck" would be non existant or nearly so in most cases.  Perhaps that is why I have heard nothing of this "problem" around my neck of the woods.  Believe me, the local press would be all over it if it occured around here.  So far, nothing.

Rod

RE: Refueling fires Why?

When I get out of my truck in the winter, I have generated a spark at least 250 mm long.  I am just thankfull I own a diesel fueled vehicle.  I was told, while operating with a refueling team on the deck of a naval war ship that the AVGAS will generate a large amount of static electricity just moving through the hose.  therefore we ALWAYS grounded the hose as well as the aircraft....

RE: Refueling fires Why?

two things about the "epidemic",
#1 if it is true that most of the fires happen in fall winter and spring then it does not make sense for increased static being the cause (although it stll could be) the reason is that the lower the humidity the greater the static problem and vice versa, so if static is the variable that is changing then the problem shoud be worst in the summer time.

#2 maybe the vapor recovery systems are part of the problem, instead of the vapor disapating into a large area it is concentrated in the tubes at a presumably more flamable ratio.

all that said I have a great solution, use a static disapative rubber boot for the vapor recovery, and make sure the pump and handle are propperly grounded.

also don't they use differant mixtures in gasoline in the winter than in summer?

RE: Refueling fires Why?

carnage,

Reading #1 of your post, if we assume static is the problem, shouldn't summer be the safest time of the year?  

low humidity = static problem, high humidity = summer?

If the incidents happen more frequently in the drier, colder months of fall-winter-spring, then that's in support of the static theory.

RE: Refueling fires Why?

I think it depends on the region. Temperate regions typically have wet winters and dry summers, but sub tropical and tropical regions typically have wet summers and dry winters, but this also depends on ocean currents, landforms, and prevailing winds.

As I posted earlier, I think a long and detailed study, useing good scientific method, might be required to accurately explain the problem.

I wonder how many injuries per year there are compared to say slipping in the shower or falling down the stairs. Would the resources be better spent somewhere were a much higher injury rate occurs

Regards
pat

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Weather humidity is "relative" to saturated air at the ambient temperature, while absolute humidity is relative to dry air.  I'm not a EE but doesn't static buildup depend on absolute humidity?  The cooler the air the lower the absolute humidity and so more static in winter, whereas relative humidity may change from climate to climate but doesn't affect static.

I'm pretty sure this is accurate because I get the snot shocked out of myself, but only between Nov.-Feb.!

RE: Refueling fires Why?

It's not clear from the discussion whether the fires start at the instant contact is made between the nozzle and the vehicle?

If it doesn't occur at that instant, then there are other factors involved, since the design of the nozzle should(?) include grounding that dissipates any charges prior to fueling?

In California, cold dry weather is the time of highest static build-up, since the absolute humidity is lowest then.

Southern California is further complicated by Santa Ana winds, which are winds that come westward after being dried out over the desert. so we can also get 70+ temperatures and static.

TTFN

TTFN

RE: Refueling fires Why?

IRstuff, the Santa Ana's are blowing here the last couple of days and it's been dryer than  hell and in the mid 80f and I haven't noted any significant buildup in static electricity as it relates to me 'getting shocked'. Is it not true that some people seem to suffer from this little 'phenomenon' more than others?
Aside this thread and the one 'blurb' on the telly last year, I still have seen nothing in the press or have I talked to anyone who has even heard of the "problem".
My guess is that more people die from asperating food and choking than by fueling fires.  Just a guess, mind you.

Rod

RE: Refueling fires Why?

I guess it's just what you rub against.  Last couple of days in the same Santa Ana's, I've had to ground myself as I get out of the car because I was getting zapped.  It's a new car, so maybe there's special static buildup on the fabric.

Then again, maybe you're just a better grounded person

TTFN

RE: Refueling fires Why?

10-4    It's the "---special static buildup on the FABRIC (my highlite)".    I am not allowed to buy cars that have fabric seats, wife  won't allow it.  We had vinyl until we got old and now she gets leather.  The Model A I drive everyday has 100% wool seats and no static buildup so far.

Rod

PS---I am on the EAST side of the Santa Ana mountains. Why should MY wind be a Santana wind?  Shouldn't it be a Temecula wind, or a Pendleton wind?

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Interestingly, I had thought that they were "santana" as in devil winds and not necessarily associated with a locale.

May be Santa Ana doesn't have anything else that's famous...

TTFN

TTFN

RE: Refueling fires Why?

In spanish the name Santa Ana is pronounced "Santana".
Dallas Raines said they are called that because they come down the Cajon Pass on their way to Santa Ana and who am I to argue with Dallas (He is the ONLY meteorologist on the tube, you know. All other are 'weather people').

Rod

RE: Refueling fires Why?

I'm not really sure if that's the genesis, because the Mexican general that won at the Alamo was Santa Anna, likewise I believe that Santa Ana is a reference to a saint, while "santana" clearly refers to a devil or the Devil.

TTFN

TTFN

RE: Refueling fires Why?

I live in oregon, the only time humidity drops below 99.5% is in the summer, most years the weatherman announces sometime in early october that it has started raining, and to expect sunshine in about 9 months.



RE: Refueling fires Why?

Automotive is not really my field but I would have thought that a concerted effort to standardize fuel caps and nozzles would allow a design which can be locked in place before there's any flow.  I've worked on very hot furnaces with naphtha (believe me, that's a lot worse than gasoline for flash fires) and interlocking the valve works just fine.  Also, nozzle re-design worked to separate diesel from gasoline.

Now, all we need is someone who has already set himself on fire to be elected to Washington in a position of power and things will be cleared up in no time.

David

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Good suggestion, but I think it already exists. Doesn't California already mandate a sealed/locked system to reduce evaporative emissions?

My feeling (in the absence of evidence) is that this is a great deal of fuss being made about a problem that statistically is down there in the weeds.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Not exactly... the seal and lock is essentially procedural in that there is a gasket and boot that is supposed to mate against the fill inlet when the nozzle is properly positioned.  As all California cars still need to be compatible with nozzles in other states, there's a limit to how different the California nozzles can be, which, as it turns out, not very different at all.

In essence, if I drive to another state and fill up, I see a bare metal nozzle with the usual handle and valve control.  In California, it's the exact same structure, except that there's an open-ended boot around the tip of the nozzle.  When you insert the nozzle into the fill tube, you compress the boot against the lip of the fill tube.  It's not a complete seal by any stretch of the imagination.  Couple that with wear and tear, etc., most of the time, it's got at least 1/8" or more opening somewhere on the circumference of the boot.

I'd have to agree anecdotally with the statistics, since you'd think that would be relatively spectacular news at 11 and I don't remember ever seeing such a story.

TTFN

RE: Refueling fires Why?

I should have known that, you are right. Is there a vacuum extract system in there to return vapour to the service station's tank or am I telling tales out of school?

I suppose it is obvious to everyone that if you put 10 gallons of fuel into the tank you have to push 10 gallons of vapour out of the tank!

 

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Refueling fires Why?

"vacuum retract system? Hmmmmm.  That's what they tell us!
Also they (the AQMD) blame the higher cost of fuel in California on the need for these systems that , according to them, have removed XXXX tons of hydrocarbons from the air we chew---I'm sorry---breath.  Actually the air quality is greatly improved from the 60's here in the L.A. basin.  To the point that we are no longer #1 on the EPA's hit list.


Rod

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Whenever people grizzle about the greenies I am always uncomfortably aware that the greenies were right about LA's smog. It has also done the rest of us a favour - CAFE and smog drove us to multi point fuel injection, and that has been the best thing for engines in a long time. Although it has removed a lot of black magic from the game.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Supposedly, the boot seal is to allow the vapor recovery system to work properly.  But even in California, particularly outside of metropolitan areas, there is not necessarily the full-up configuration.  That might be something that's allowed by the Air Resources Board.

TTFN

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Greg
It MIGHT NOT be obvious to everyone, take politicians for example.
Flareman, I expect the main problems, as already aluded to by IRstuff, is the existing infrastructure, existing cars, various regulating bodies, portability of cars, and compatibility of existing and proposed systems over a very long interim period, would make the solution very expensive, especially when it appears that this problem occurs much less often than lightning strike.
Maybee that is one off the causes? (Just kidding).

Regards
pat

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Just an addenda to Rod's comments.

When I was going to school in Pasadena in the 70's, we had trouble seeing the San Gabriel mountains during the summertime.  The catch was that Pasadena is essentially in the foothills of the mountains and peaks are less than 10 miles away.

After school, I worked in Huntington Beach in a 4 story building.  We left work by an outside stairway.  We had a guy from CMU who started work immediately after graduating in June.  One day, in October, while leaving work via those outside stairs, he shouts, "are those mountains out there?  How come I haven't seen them before this?"

The air here is definitely better than it was 30 years ago.  Can't even remember when the last smog alert occurred.  Can't remember much else, but that's another story...

TTFN

RE: Refueling fires Why?

Yes, EFI has turned out a good thing, but let us not forget it wasn't a seamless transition- remember the clogging problems of the early '80's and the old mechanics excuse "that's the best we can do because of the emissions controls." And as with air bags, I can't believe that the government gets all the credit and market forces had nothing to do with it. Nevertheless your point is well taken. But even the ARBs acknowledge that the root cause is too many people in the geography, and they are only holding fingers in the dike with increasingly restrictive legislation.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources