Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

[Masich]

In September of 1862, just as the battle of Antietam raged, a spark ignited barrels of musket powder at the Allegheny Arsenal cartridge laboratories in Pittsburgh. Seventy-six people (mostly women, girls, and boys) were blown to pieces, burned to death, or succumbed to injuries (burns and traumatic amputations). While inquiries that followed the blast never determined with certainty the cause of the accident (rebel sabotage was pretty well ruled out), theories focused on sparks caused either by iron-shod horses or wagon tires on cobbled streets. Another theory identified the possibility of a static charge linked to silk dresses or crinolines.
I have two questions that have been raised during the preparation of an exhibit on Allegheny Arsenal (scheduled to open at the Heinz History Center in November):

1. Could any amount of friction applied to Civil War era women's clothing (silk or otherwise) have produced a spark sufficient to ignite gunpowder, powder dust, or any other flammable material found at an arsenal?

2. Newspapers reported witnesses seeing steel dress hoops in the charred and still-smoldering ruins of the laboratory. What in tarnation would women cartridge rollers be doing wearing steel hoops to work? Wouldn't they have worn more sensible/comfortable clothing when working at an arsenal? Did the Civil War "Rosie the Riveter" equivalents go to work looking like Godey's fashion plates, or were hoops worn in everyday work attire?

Please let me know your thoughts on these history mysteries. Are there any history myth busters out there?

[McKim]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

1. Could any amount of friction applied to Civil War era women's clothing (silk or otherwise) have produced a spark sufficient to ignite gunpowder, powder dust, or any other flammable material found at an arsenal?

Following the link below will show you the fun static electricity can create.

http://lafd.blogspot.com/2006/11/inv...ry-to-gas.html

And I will let this link explain why that would be a real possibility, note the 20,000-25,000 volts.

http://www.livescience.com/environme...ectricity.html

[Elaine Kessinger]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

Let me do a bit more specific research on this incident and I'll try to answer your questions about why a woman would choose to wear hoops to work in an amunition factory. :)

[Carolann Schmitt]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

I'd be interested in the research behind these theories. The women who worked in factories were usually from the lower socio-economic classes. If they had a silk dress in their wardrobe, it was most likely reserved for better occasions. Working in a factory is not one of them. :) Has anyone researched the company records or newspaper announcements for any evidence of a dress code for the workers' clothing? Science will have to determine whether the explosion could have been caused by a silk dress, but I think the odds are rather high that this was the cause of the explosion.

Steel crinolines were commonly worn as part of everyday working attire, including some factories. It's a topic that is discussed in a number of period newspapers, magazines, journals and company records. Some manufacturers prohibited it, some tried to prevent them being worn (with varying success), some just issued repeated reminders and lived with the problem.

Wearing a crinoline does not equate to being uncomfortable. :) They were a standard part of a woman's wardrobe and the vast majority of women were perfectly comfortable and could perform almost any task while wearing one. More importantly, discarding a crinoline is not as easy as it sounds. The garments in a woman' wardrobe have been sewn at a length to accommodate wearing one. Eliminate the crinoline and the skirt is too long - causing even more of a safety hazard. If the factory required the women workers to discard their steel crinolines, the workers would need to:
- have different garment(s) worn solely for work, which may not be economically feasible for working class women; or
- re-hem all their skirts to a shorter length, making them too short to wear with a crinoline for non-working hours; or
- shorten their skirts via tape ties or by pinning them up once they arrived at the factory. This would be an easy and logical solution, but it doesn't mean it was done as common practice.
Unless they were specifically prohibited, I would not be surprised to find factory workers wearing a modest crinoline under their dresses.

I'm more interested in how the "witnesses" determined there were hoops in the debris. When a cage crinoline is burned, you're left with several concentric rings of very narrow steel. How would a witness determine these were the remnants of a crinoline and not debris from another part of the machinery, containers or structure? Without additional documentation, I'd be a bit skeptical about these comments also.

Anything is possible, but theories are just speculation without supporting documentation.

[Masich]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion: the Shocking truth

Wow, that static spark igniting volatile gasoline fumes is pretty scary. Thanks for sharing it.

I suppose we shouldn't assume that just the women's/girl's dresses were made of silk--isn't it true that all kinds of accessories and even undergarments might have been made partially or entirely of silk. Then again, it's probable that wool could have generated almost as potent a spark as silk under the right conditions.

The Daily Post, one of Pittsburgh's newspapers, reported on fleeing victims covered in flames or blood. As a result of the explosions "the ground was strewn with charred wood, torn clothing, grape shot [also 125,000 .54 and .71 minie balls], exploded shells [125 10-pounder shells and 12-pounder spherical case], fragments of dinner baskets, steel springs from girls' hoop skirts and melted lead." The detail in this eyewitness account rings true. A coroner's jury and subsequent military investigation corroborated that in some cases bodies had been reduced to ash but tempered steel hoop springs could be seen.

Though the juries never agreed on the cause, it was widely believed that the women workers routinely swept spilled powder out the door of the laboratories into the stone-paved streets. An iron horse shoe or iron tire may have caused the fatal spark. Still, inquiring minds want to know: could a cloud of finely ground gunpowder sweepings have been ignited by a static charge touched off by a woman war worker resulting in the worst industrial accident of the Civil War?

[Carolann Schmitt]

With all due respect, sir, and sincere apologies if I am incorrect, I get the sense that you are enamored with this particulary theory that has no foundation in science or fashion history, and are grasping for any justification that it might be correct. Please permit me to address the fashion history first.

I suppose we shouldn't assume that just the women's/girl's dresses were made of silk--isn't it true that all kinds of accessories and even undergarments might have been made partially or entirely of silk.

This statement is only partially correct, and assumptions are never wise. :) The vast majority of women’s undergarments c.1860-1865 – chemises, drawers, corsets, petticoats – are made from cotton. Exceptions include petticoats worn for warmth: those made from wool flannel and quilted petticoats that could have an outer layer of silk, or could also be made with outer layers of wool or cotton. The wool or quilted petticoats would be covered by other cotton petticoat(s) and the skirt of the dress – probably cotton or wool. The various layers preclude an adequate atmosphere for any sort of heat or ignition.

Some accessories, including mantles, bonnets and parasols, could be made from silk, but they could also be made from other fibers. More importantly, and as I mentioned in my previous post, would they have been part of a factory worker’s wardrobe and worn to work? What women (or men) wore must be placed in context: time, location-general, location-specific, task, function, social class, economic status, prevailing fashion, availability of goods, ethnic status, religion, etc. You must look at the entire picture to determine when and where a garment would be worn.

Then again, it's probable that wool could have generated almost as potent a spark as silk under the right conditions.

Personally, I usually experience static electricity when I am wearing synthetic fibers. And wool fabric is naturally spark resistent. But that isn't documented evidence, so I looked for more information on the static properties of various fabric. Physics and chemistry texts are not included in my reference library, but textile textbooks are. Before I could dig into those, an answer appeared from another source.

My husband and I are members of the North-South Skirmish Association, and skirmishers are always interested in experiments involving black powder. He was able to provide the following reference: http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_...ks/sparks.html
Please read the article carefully, especially the last paragraph.

Still, inquiring minds want to know: could a cloud of finely ground gunpowder sweepings have been ignited by a static charge touched off by a woman war worker resulting in the worst industrial accident of the Civil War?

As this article in the link clearly states, static electricity is not sufficient to ignite black powder. You must have sufficient heat/current to create ignition. In the very unlikely possibility that a woman’s garments created a spark of static electricity, it would NOT have created enough heat/current to ignite black powder. However, it is remotely possible that friction caused by metal wheels or horseshoes could generate a spark and that was sufficent to cause the explosion. Or it could have been caused by another factor.

A coroner's jury and subsequent military investigation corroborated that in some cases bodies had been reduced to ash but tempered steel hoop springs could be seen.

That’s very interesting; thank you for sharing the information.

Again, my intention is not to offend but to assist in providing an accurate reflection of what may or may not have occurred.

Respectfully,

[McKim]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

Still, inquiring minds want to know: could a cloud of finely ground gunpowder sweepings have been ignited by a static charge touched off by a woman war worker resulting in the worst industrial accident of the Civil War?

Boy, you can put a lot into one question. We have a dust cloud, "civil war" black powder and static incidents. It's late so I'll be brief, yes!

Civil war black powder would ignite, by design, by a spark or flame and was susceptable (not by design) to static electricity.

If I were investigating the accident I would focus on the manufacturing process, I'd add why tomorrow.

[john.vansickle]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

All,
While I am loathe to introduce anything from other than the WBTS period in this forum, more recent events may prove useful. During World War II, in my hometown of Rochester, Michigan a hand grenade factory was destroyed by an explosion caused by static electricity generated by a female worker's hose. At least these were the findings of the government investigation. It is reasonable that given the right conditions, this may have been the case in the Powder Plant. An additional "modern case" of things going wrong with ammunition was the case of Camp Doha, Kuwait. A heater left on in a self-propelled howitzer caused a spark, igniting stored ammunition. This ultimately destroyed more military equipment than was ever destroyed by Saddam's army. If these things are possible now in our age of "enlightened" thinking and industrial safety, than is it not infathomable to consider that they were possible 146 years ago? The point is that it doesn't take much to cause a catastrophic event with ammunition and it's most often caused by very mundane factors which were unforeseen. Just something to ruminate over.

John Van Sickle
NCOIC Safety and Environmental Compliance (Northern Camps)
Camp Buehring, Kuwait

[Carolann Schmitt]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

Interesting comments, John. Static electricity can generate a spark, but you still need heat/current to ignite a fire or explosion.

If I remember my physics correctly, static electricity is a 'cold' current. It can have very high voltage, but is very low amperage (heat). As shown in the the article in the link I posted, a direct contact with 10,000 volts of static electricity failed to ignite the black powder. Some may say,"Well, lightning is static electricity and it causes fires and explosions." No, lightning is lightning - it has very high voltage and very high amperage. You can experience a static charge of several thousand volts. It can make you jump and give you a major tingle, but the low amperage prevents it from setting you on fire. :) Conversely, exposure to a charge of lower voltage and higher amperage can be fatal in many ways.

In the example of the World War II grenade factory, the static electricity was reported to have been generated by a nylon (synthetic fiber) stocking. That may be true, but that static charge alone would not have generated enough heat to cause the explosion. Do you know if it started another fire which became the source of ignition for the resulting explosion?

In the example in Kuwait, the heater that was left on either exploded or ignited another substance which generated enough heat for the ammunition to explode. I don't know if storage and atmospheric conditions may have also played a role.

Circumstances can combine to create very unusual situations and the realm of possibility is very large. However, the possibilty that a typical factory worker was wearing a silk dress that would not usually be found in her wardrobe, in a setting where a silk dress would not normally be worn, and said dress sustained enough friction to make natural fiber generate a static charge, which then created another source of heat that was sufficient to ignite the explosion is infinitesimal. I think it it is much more likely that the source of the ignition of the explosion at the Allegheny Arsenal was something else - somewhere in the manufacturing process, a source brought into the building from outside, or a source that began outside the building and extended into the structure.

[Carolann Schmitt]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

Additional thoughts while doing some quick research on this topic:

Textile references note that silk is a poor conductor of electricity. This low conductivity makes it a good insulator - it keeps warm air close to the skin. It also makes it susceptible to static cling, but it does not generate static except under extreme circumstances. One of its uses - artillery gunpowder bags. :)

[McKim]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

Well...hmm,

Let's stat here, Static electricity is different than regular electricity that flows through metal wires. Most of the time the materials involved in static electricity are nonconductors of electricity.

The idea that temperature applies much to static electricity...that ctmuzzle loaders thing is embarrassing for them. Merely heating black powder will not ignite it, and again, the idea of temperature and static electricity in relation to "civil war" black powder...we are not talking about flash point. And also, Scottish rifle powder with heavy graphite glazing was not used in 1861-1865.

What we should be looking at are static incidents and combustible particulate solids.

Some recent OSHA information.

Static electricity as a potential source of ignition is probably
the single greatest concern for facilities and blast sites containing
explosives. The Petition (Ex. 2-1) recommends new requirements for
static electricity protection that would require any new static
electricity protection system to comply with NFPA 77, Static
Electricity (Ex. 2-7). However, it recommended limiting the application
of the requirements only to systems installed after the effective date
of the new standard and would not require an existing manufacturing
facility to install a new system or modify an existing system to meet
the requirements of NFPA 77. IME informed OSHA that certain explosives
are not static-sensitive and do not require protection. IME further
argues that, since explosives manufacturing is subject to the
requirements of OSHA's PSM standard at Sec. 1910.119, areas in an
explosives manufacturing facility where static electricity protection
systems may be needed should already have been identified through the
process hazard analysis requirements of the PSM standard, and adequate
safeguards should have been instituted in accordance with the PSM
standard.
OSHA believes that static electricity protection systems can be
important safety features for facilities containing explosives. The
Agency considered proposing a requirement in paragraph (c) that would
require the employer to ensure that all facilities containing
explosives have appropriate and effective static electricity protection
systems, with suggested methods of compliance found in NFPA 77. The
Agency decided not to propose such language because it lacked
sufficient data and information on the types and effectiveness of
static electricity protection systems. OSHA is seeking additional
information on these issues through public comments.

Static electricity as a potential source of ignition is probably
the single greatest concern for facilities and blast sites containing
explosives. The Petition (Ex. 2-1) recommends new requirements for
static electricity protection that would require any new static
electricity protection system to comply with NFPA 77, Static
Electricity (Ex. 2-7). However, it recommended limiting the application
of the requirements only to systems installed after the effective date
of the new standard and would not require an existing manufacturing
facility to install a new system or modify an existing system to meet
the requirements of NFPA 77. IME informed OSHA that certain explosives
are not static-sensitive and do not require protection. IME further
argues that, since explosives manufacturing is subject to the
requirements of OSHA's PSM standard at Sec. 1910.119, areas in an
explosives manufacturing facility where static electricity protection
systems may be needed should already have been identified through the
process hazard analysis requirements of the PSM standard, and adequate
safeguards should have been instituted in accordance with the PSM
standard.
OSHA believes that static electricity protection systems can be
important safety features for facilities containing explosives. The
Agency considered proposing a requirement in paragraph (c) that would
require the employer to ensure that all facilities containing
explosives have appropriate and effective static electricity protection
systems, with suggested methods of compliance found in NFPA 77. The
Agency decided not to propose such language because it lacked
sufficient data and information on the types and effectiveness of
static electricity protection systems. OSHA is seeking additional
information on these issues through public comments.[/QUOTE]

Women's Work Experiences in the Swansea Valley Study

NOT FULLY CATALOGUED. Interview of an unknown woman who researched into the effects of static electricity, during minor explosions at the ammunitions factory.
Covers period : 1939-1945 (c).

The writer of this article carries more weight with me than that ctmuzzleloaders thing.
[URL="http://www.civilwarartillery.com/disarm/blackpowder.htm"]http://www.civilwarartillery.com/disarm/blackpowder.htm[/URL

Still, inquiring minds want to know: could a cloud of finely ground gunpowder sweepings have been ignited by a static charge touched off by a woman war worker resulting in the worst industrial accident of the Civil War?

Yes absolutely, as could a spark or error in the manufacturing process.

[McKim]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

Well...hmm,

Let's stat here, Static electricity is different than regular electricity that flows through metal wires. Most of the time the materials involved in static electricity are nonconductors of electricity.

The idea that temperature applies much to static electricity...that ctmuzzle loaders thing is embarrassing for them. Merely heating black powder will not ignite it, and again, the idea of temperature and static electricity in relation to "civil war" black powder...we are not talking about flash point. And also, Scottish rifle powder with heavy graphite glazing was not used in 1861-1865.

What we should be looking at are static incidents and combustible particulate solids.

Some recent OSHA information.

Static electricity as a potential source of ignition is probably
the single greatest concern for facilities and blast sites containing
explosives. The Petition (Ex. 2-1) recommends new requirements for
static electricity protection that would require any new static
electricity protection system to comply with NFPA 77, Static
Electricity (Ex. 2-7). However, it recommended limiting the application
of the requirements only to systems installed after the effective date
of the new standard and would not require an existing manufacturing
facility to install a new system or modify an existing system to meet
the requirements of NFPA 77. IME informed OSHA that certain explosives
are not static-sensitive and do not require protection. IME further
argues that, since explosives manufacturing is subject to the
requirements of OSHA's PSM standard at Sec. 1910.119, areas in an
explosives manufacturing facility where static electricity protection
systems may be needed should already have been identified through the
process hazard analysis requirements of the PSM standard, and adequate
safeguards should have been instituted in accordance with the PSM
standard.
OSHA believes that static electricity protection systems can be
important safety features for facilities containing explosives. The
Agency considered proposing a requirement in paragraph (c) that would
require the employer to ensure that all facilities containing
explosives have appropriate and effective static electricity protection
systems, with suggested methods of compliance found in NFPA 77. The
Agency decided not to propose such language because it lacked
sufficient data and information on the types and effectiveness of
static electricity protection systems. OSHA is seeking additional
information on these issues through public comments.

The writer of this article carries more weight with me than that ctmuzzleloaders thing.

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/disarm/blackpowder.htm

Still, inquiring minds want to know: could a cloud of finely ground gunpowder sweepings have been ignited by a static charge touched off by a woman war worker resulting in the worst industrial accident of the Civil War?

Yes absolutely, as could a spark or error in the manufacturing process.

[Jefferson Guards]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

The official determination as to the cause of the explosion reads: "the cause of the explosion could not be satisfactorily ascertained"

I believe that there are several items in the testimony of the surviving arsenal employees which point to a source other than static cause by women's skirts:

Barrels of black powder were delivered from the powder magazine to two covered porches by wagon. The wagons transporting the powder were "supposed" to have a tarpaulin covering the bed to catch any spilled powder and prevent it from spilling through the cracks in the wagon floor. The use of this tarpaulin was neglected by teamster Joseph Frick (working the day of the explosion). There was a dispute with the powder supplier Dupont & Co. that the powder was delivered in faulty barrels as the tops were loose and spilled powder easily. Also, at the close of the work day, boys were tasked with sweeping clean the floors. They were instructed to take clean swept powder to the magazine and to take powder mixed with dirt to a small pond on the arsenal grounds. Arsenal employee Rachael Dunlap testified that she had regularly seen powder swept into the street.

The road from the powder magazine was new, being completed in the spring of 1862 and was macadamized (constructed of broken pieces of stone pressed together.) While this road was being constructed, Alexander McBride (lab superintendent) noticed that as the workmen broke stone for the road a shower of sparks would occur. Realizing that the wagon tires were iron and the horses shod with iron, McBride objected to the road based on this fact, and his objections were noted, but construction on the macadamized road was completed. The usual practice was to wet down this road since it would be more difficult to generate a spark with wet powder on a wet road surface. However, the region was experiencing a drought in the summer/fall of 1862 and the wetting of the roads were discontinued to conserved water.

Teamster Robert Frick was delivering powder to the porches and the tiring shed and returned to porch no. 1 to retrieve some empty cylinder boxes. As he backed up to the porch he noticed an orange fire on the ground beneath the wheels of his wagon. Rachael Dunlap testified that she also saw fire on the ground as she watched (through a door in workroom no. 12) the wagon back up . Arsenal employee John Ryder was packing cartridges in a room adjacent to one of the porches when he saw a flash of powder outside of an open door and several of the powder barrels explode. The teamster, Robert Frick was blown 200 feet and landed with his head through a fence. Robert Smith (working the porch) was blown apart.

All available evidence suggests that the only two people at the porch where the first explosion occurred were Frick and Smith. Iron shoes and tires on a dry macadamized road can easily create a spark, which has enough heat to start the deflagration of black powder.

With all evidence suggesting the explosion began in the area of the porch, the fact that spilled powder was a common occurrence at the porches, and the concern for iron on macadamized roads, I believe the only historically supportable conclusion one may make is that an iron spark ignited spilled powder and traveled to the opened barrels which were recently delivered to the porch. There is no evidence to suggest that women were in the vicinity of the initial explosion, so I see no basis to support the "static from dresses" theory of ignition.

[CeeBeeRebel]

Here is a little project I'm planning on working on next winter that links to this thread. I have all of the staves, the hickory hoops, and the head for a powder keg. The only thing missing is one of the heads so I will need to either remake one or just display the final product with what I have. The parts were all found by my great grandfather in the early forties when he was tearing down an old hotel. He kept them and now I have them and hopefully will be able to piece it all together. Here are a few pictures of the head of the keg. If you look at the first one you will see part of an old nail sticking out at about the one o'clock position. I can not figure out why there would be an iron nail used in a powder keg but it is what it is. Does anyone have a copy of the specifications which the government would have had on the construction of powder kegs or a modern image of an original that is fully assembled?

[CeeBeeRebel]

Re: Allegheny Arsenal Explosion Mysteries

For some reason it will not display the images. Perhaps they are too large.