report of the kai-eric jensen, jensen oven company, inc

Report of the

Technical Committee on Ovens and Furnaces

Algirdas Underys, ChairA. Finkl & Sons Inc., IL [U]

Rep. Forging Industry Association

J. William Sheppard, SecretaryGeneral Motors Corporation, MI [U]

Rep. NFPA Industrial Fire Protection Section

Gary S. Andress, LMG Property Engineering, WI [I]John J. Barron, Vacuum Furnace Systems Corp., PA [M]David Collier, Eclipse Combustion, Inc., IL [M]Bruce R. Deeds, Maxon Corporation, IN [M]Leo P. Donovan, FM Global, MA [I] Rep. FM Global/FM ResearchJohn D. Eley, GN Electronics Inc., IL [SE]John C. Herron, Electric Furnace Company, OH [M]James A. Huber, JSH Associates, Ltd., OH [SE]Jeffrey M. Hunt, ALCOA, VA [U]Ted Jablkowski, P. E., North American Manufacturing Co., CT [M] Rep. Industrial Heating Equipment AssociationJerry D. Jablonski, Delphi Automotive Systems, MI [U]J. D. Jackson, Crycorp, LLC, CT [IM]Fred K. Jensen, Jensen Industries, Inc., MI [M]Gary D. Keil, Caterpillar Incorporated, IL [U]William M. Keough, AFC-Holcroft, MI [M]Richard J. Martin, Exponent Incorporated, CA [SE]Peter B. Matthews, Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Co., CT [I]Paul Mattiola, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., PA [IM]Glen R. Mortensen, Kemper Insurance Companies, IL [I]Raymond Ostrowski, Consultant-Industrial Safety, AZ [SE]John R. Puskar, Combustion Safety, Inc., OH [SE]Mircea Stefan Stanescu, BOC Gases, NC [IM]Mark V. Stender, Surface Combustion, Inc., OH [M]Grant F. Tiefenbruck, 3M Company, MN [U]Jay D. Tindall, Royal & SunAlliance, PA [I] Rep. Amerian Insurance Services GroupLynn K. Underwood, CNA Risk Management Property, IL [I]Jacques van Heijningen, Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., IL [M]W. H. White, White Consulting Services, OH [SE]Peter J. Willse, GE Global Asset Proection Services, CT [I]

Alternates

Randall Conklen, Caterpillar Incorporated, IL [U] (Alt. to G. D. Keil)Richard A. Gallagher, Industrial Risk Insurers, PA [I] (Alt. to P. J. Willse)James J. Garmaker, 3M Company, MN [U] (Alt. to G. F. Tiefenbruck)Brent D. Hill, LMG Property, TX [I] (Alt. to G. S. Andress)

Kai-Eric Jensen, Jensen Oven Company, Inc., MI [M] (Alt. to F. K. Jensen)Michael C. Polagye, FM Global, MA [I] (Alt. to L. P. Donovan)Jeff Rafter, Maxon Corporation, IN [M] (Alt. to B. R. Deeds)David S. Rohrbaugh, Drever Company, PA [M] (Alt. to T. Jablkowski)Raymond E. Serafini, Jr., BOC Gases, PA [U] (Alt. to M. S. Stanescu)

Staff Liasion: Theodore C. Lemoff

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this report. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of the document.

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on control of fire and explosion hazards in drying ovens for japan, enamel, and other finishes, bakery ovens, core ovens, annealing and heat treating furnaces, and other special atmosphere furnaces, including equipment for other special atmospheres.

The Technical Committee on Ovens and Furnaces is presenting three Reports for adoption, as follows:

Report I: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, a complete revision to NFPA 86, Standard for Ovens and Furnaces, 1999 edition. NFPA 86-1999 is published in Volume 4 of the 2001 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

NFPA 86 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Ovens and Furnaces, which consists of 31 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

Report II: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, the withdrawal of NFPA 86C, Standard for Industrial Furnaces Using a Special Processing Atmosphere, 1999 edition. NFPA 86C-1999 is published in Volume 4 of the 2001 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

NFPA 86C has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Ovens and Furnaces, which consists of 31 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

Report III: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, a withdrawal of NFPA 86D-1999, Standard for Industrial Furnaces Using Vacuum as an Atmosphere, 1999 edition. NFPA 86D is published in Volume 4 of the 2001 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

NFPA 86D has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Ovens and Furnaces, which consists of 31 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

447

NFPA 86D — May 2003 ROP — Copyright, NFPA

NFPA 86D

(Log #CP1)86D-1-(Entire Document) : Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Ovens and Furnaces, RECOMMENDATION: Withdraw NFPA 86D. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 86D is being combined into NFPA 86.COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:AcceptNUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29 NOT RETURNED: 2 Mattiola, vanHeijningen

————————————————-

(Log #8)86D-2-(3-3.1 Exception No. 1) : Reject SUBMITTER: Algirdas Underys, A Finkl & Sons Co.RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: Exception No. 1: Explosion relief shall not be required on furnaces with non-combustible shell construction having 3/16 in. (4.8 mm) or heavier steel having 3/16 in. (4.8 mm) or heavier steel plate shells reinforced with structural steel beams and buckstays that support plate shells reinforced with structural steel beams and buckstays that support and retain refractory or insulating materials required for temperature endur-and retain refractory or insulating materials required for temperature endur-ance, which make them unsuitable for the installation of explosion relief ance, which make them unsuitable for the installation of explosion relief de-signed to support a uniformly distributed load of 100 pounds per square foot. This calculation shall be based on the yield strength of the materials used in the construction of the furnace shell. A-3-3.1 Exception 1: Furnaces with shell construction designed to support a uniformly distributed load of 100 pounds per square foot that support and retain refractory or insulating materials required for temperature endurance, have been shown to be explosion resistant. This type of shell construction typically weights more than 8 pounds per square foot (not including the in-sulation), making this type of construction unsuitable for the installation of explosion relief. SUBSTANTIATION: The current exception mandates a certain type of construction and material instead of considering the engineering concepts that the prescribed construction is trying to achieve. It is possible to build a shell out of other materials than steel (such as aluminum, titanium, and stainless steel) and meet the conceptual requirements of the exception. It is also pos-sible to fail to meet the conceptual requirements for this exception using the construction specified in the exception by having too little shell reinforcement or having too large of an unsupported span between buckstays. Typical construction of a furnace shell using 3/16 in. plate would be with a 48 in. wide x 96 in. high plate attached to columns on 50 in. centers with stiffeners at the top and bottom of the plate. This arrangement is equivalent to a 48 in. x 96 in. rectangular plate with all edges fixed and a uniformly distributed load over the surface of the plate. The minimum yield strength of Grade A carbon steel plate per ASTM A283, Standard Specification of Low and Intermediate Tensile Strength Carbon Steel Plates, is 24000 psi and the ultimate strength is between 45000 and 60000 psi. The formula to calculate uniform load on a 48 in. x 96 in. rectangular plate with all edges fixed when limiting the maximum stress to 24000 psi is:

Total load is 3408 pounds over 32 square feet or 106.5 pounds per square foot. Since the ultimate strength of the plate is approximately twice the yield strength, it is safe to round the uniform load to 100 pounds per square foot.COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The practice of not allowing explosion relief was based on the use of heavy refractories. Accepting the proposal would extend the elimination of explosion relief to those that do not use re-fractory linings.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29 NOT RETURNED: 2 Mattiola, vanHeijningen

————————————————-(Log #9)

86D-3-(3-10.3.1.2) : Reject SUBMITTER: Craig Moller, Ipsen InternationalRECOMMENDATION: This paragraph states that motor windings ex-posed to argon gas need to have the voltage stepped down to 260 volts or under. Ipsen has experience using motors in argon at as high as 480 volts without problems, however, two conditions must be met. The motors need to be interlocked so they do not energize below -5”Hg pressure (approximately 12 psia) and the motor windings need to be manufactured using the VPI (Vacuum Pressure Impregnation Process). I am proposing an exception to this paragraph stated as follows: Exception: When motor energization is interlocked at or above 12 psia and when motor windings are constructed using the VPI process. SUBSTANTIATION: IPSEN HAS USED MOTORS IN AN ARGON ENVIRONMENT AS HIGH AS 480 VOLTS. These MOTORS WERE CONSTRUCTED USING THE VPI INSULATING PROCESS FOR THE WINDINGS. THE VPI PROCESS HAS THE EFFECT OF FILLING ALL VOIDS IN THE WINDINGS WHEN THE VARNISH IS APPLIED. IPSEN WILL BE DOING FURTHER TESTING IN 2002 IN ORDER TO RE-QUALIFY THE FINDINGS OF EARLIER YEARS. THERE IS ALSO PUBLISHED DATA ON THE VPI PROCESS AND SOME DATA IS AVAILABLE FROM MOTOR MANUFACTURERS REGARDING AR-GON AND MOTORS. I DO NOT HAVE THESE PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.quariesCOMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: Insufficient substantiation is provided to support the proposal. The committee invites the submitter to submit a thor-ough substantiation, including standards for the VPI insulating process. NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29 NOT RETURNED: 2 Mattiola, vanHeijningen

————————————————-(Log #1)

86D-4-(A-5-7.2.3(a)) : Reject NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 86D-26 (Log #16) which was held from the May 1999 ROC on Proposal N/A.SUBMITTER: Christopher B. Fink, Honeywell Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise Figure A-5-7.2.3(a) as shown below:

NFPA 86D/Log #8/Sub/A2003ROP

Total load = 24000 * .18752� � � � ��

��

��

��* ( / ) ( . * ( ) / ( )

.

96 48 0 623 48 96

0 5

5 5

448


SUBSTANTIATION: Updated schematic.COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The drawing proposed in proposal 86-59 (Log #38) provides a better view of the leak test connection.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29 NOT RETURNED: 2 Mattiola, vanHeijningen

————————————————-

(Log #2)86D-5-(A-5-7.2.3(b)) : Reject NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 86D-27 (Log #17) which was held from the May 1999 ROC on Proposal 86D-34.SUBMITTER: Christopher B. Fink, Honeywell Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise Figure A-5-7.2.3(b) as shown:

Figure A-5-7.2.3(b) Partial system schematic showing the application of a programmable controller to monitor safety interlocks and provide burner control functions in series with hard-wired safety interlocks.

SUBSTANTIATION: Updating schematic.COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The proposed drawing provides an unnec-essary level of detail which makes it difficult to understand its intent.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29 NOT RETURNED: 2 Mattiola and vanHeijningen

————————————————-

(Log #3)86D-6-(Figure A-5-9.2.2(a)) : Reject NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 86D-29 (Log #18) which was held from the May 1999 ROC on Proposal 86D-34.SUBMITTER: Christopher B. Fink, Honeywell Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise Figure A-5-9.2.2(a) as shown below:SUBSTANTIATION: Updated schematic.COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The drawing proposed in proposal 89-62 (Log #39) is preferred because it only shows the components essential to the illustration.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29 NOT RETURNED: 2 Mattiola, vanHeijningen

————————————————-

Figure A-5-9.2.2(a) Example of an approved combustion safeguard supervising a pilot for continuous line burner during light-off and the main flame alone during firing.

449


(Log #4)86D-7-(Figure A-5-9.2.2(b)) : Reject NOTE: This Proposal appeared as Comment 86D-28 (Log #19) which was held from the May 1999 ROC on Proposal N/A.SUBMITTER: Christopher B. Fink, Honeywell Inc.RECOMMENDATION: Revise Figure A-5-7.2.3(a) as shown:

SUBSTANTIATION: Updating schematic.COMMITTEE MEETING ACTION:RejectCOMMITTEE STATEMENT: The drawing proposed in proposal 89-62 (Log #39) is preferred because it only shows the components essential to the illustration.NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE:31VOTE ON COMMITTEE ACTION: AFFIRMATIVE: 29 NOT RETURNED: 2 Mattiola, vanHeijningen

————————————————-

Figure A-5-9.2.2(b) Example of an approved combustion safeguard supervising a group of radiant-cup burners having reliable flame-propagation characteristics from one to the other by means of flame-propagation devices.

report of the kai-eric jensen, jensen oven company, inc

Documents