RNA Consulting, Incorporated - MAPP Gas Cylinder and Torch

Transcription

Consulting,
RNA
Incorporated
Specializing in forensic materials engineering and sciences
Robert N. Anderson,. Ph.d.,. P.E., President
Bus: 650·<)49-1092
Fax: 650.9495641
email: [email protected]
27820 Saddle Court
Los Altos Hills. CA
94022·]810
USA
June 25,2008
Mark D. Epstein
Alborg, Veiluva & Epstein LLP
200 Pringle Avenue, Suite 410
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-7380
Re: Shalaby v. Irwin, et al.
Dear Mr. Epstein:
At your request, I have examined the 4/21106 incident where Mr. Andrew Shalaby was
injured while using a 16 oz cylinder Bernzomatic MAPP gas torch. MAPP gas is a
trademark of the Dow Chemical Co. and is composed of extremely flammable
methylacetylene-propadiene-propane.
It is my understanding that Mr. Shalaby was in the process of igniting logs in a fire pit,
using a TS4000 torch head and Bernzomatic MG9 MAPP gas cylinder when the cylinder
vented and he was burned. In the incident, the center valve housing, attached to the
canister by brazing material, ruptured.
Materials Reviewed:
I have reviewed the following documents:
I. Deposition of Michael Ridley, Senior engineering manager, Irwin Industrial Tool
Co., taken 11113/07.
2. Deposition of Steven T. Gentry, Quality Control Department Worthington
Cylinder Corp., 11114/07.
3. Deposition of Andrew W. Shalaby volume I and II, Plaintiff, 10/24/07 and
10/25/07.
4. Deposition of Warren L. Ratliff, Jr., Park ranger supervisor, Campland, 4/17/07.
5. Deposition of Randy T. Stephens, Ranger at Campland, 4117/07.
6. Deposition of Joe Russo, Paramedic, 4/18/07.
7. Miscellaneous manufacturing drawings of torch parts.
8. Health & Safety Laboratory report 2006/121.
9. Bernzomatic instruction manuals 96001, 97090
10. Bernzomatic catalog.
11. Investigative Report with reference to interview of Anne Carrol and David Borger
by Howard Felder 10/6/07.
12. Consumer Product Safety Commission Release # 78-088.
13. Transcribed statement of Andrew Shalaby by Joe Tancredy, 6/1/06
14. Material Safety Data Sheet for MAPP Gas.
15. Supplemental Response to Request for Production of Documents (Set No. One).
16. Worthington Industries Expert Witness Disclosures.
Epstein_ShalabLRNAreport.doc
- 1-
17. Third-Party Defendant/Cross Claimant Western Industries, List of Expert
Witnesses.
18. Disclosure of Experts by Defendants, Bernzomatic.
19. Protective Order.
20. Defendants' Initial Disclosures.
21. Drawing 304432.
22. MAPP gas cylinder specifications.
Analysis:
The failure of the Bernzomatic MAPP gas torch Mr. Shalaby was using appears to be at
the collar or threaded area between the center valve housing and the cylinder. The center
valve housing is fastened to the cylinder by a copper-nickel brazing material. The Rangers
in the park that examined the gas torch confirm that the fuilure was in that location.
• Park Ranger Supervisor Warren Ratliff, in his deposition, comments were that there
"appeared to be a crack in the cylinder at the bottom thread level of the cylinder" page
25, lines 21-25; page 26, lines 24-25.
• Ranger Randy Stephens comments on the f~lure in his deposition on page 42, linesl525; page 43, lines 1-11; page 73, lines 9-25; page 741ines 1-15.
• Also, the recollection of Andrew Shalaby in his transcribed statement to Joe Tancredy
on 611106.
Mr. Shalaby was using the torch to ignite firewood in a fire pit and his torch would have
been partially inverted in that situation. Health & Safety Laboratory report 2006/121
(report included in test results CD) determined that the torch orientation was important
and confirmed that when the cylinder was inverted, explosion could occur. The directions
do indicate "Use upright to prevent flare-ups or flashes" caused by the liquid entering the
torch. However, this orientation is impossible in some situations.
CPSC Release # 78-088 issued a notice of a recall for fuel cylinders from another
manufacture (Cleanweld Products) that separated "where the threaded connector meets the
cylinder". A flaw in this area is very serious.
A review of other MAPP gas torch failures involving lawsuits fIled since January 2002
and supplied by the Defendant in their Supplemental response to request for production of
documents (Set One) had listed 7 lawsuits identified below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Thomas Segrest, Jr. v. Bernzomatic. (Date of injury 2/9/04)
Richard Gleen v. Newell Operating Co. (Date of injury 113/06)
Andrew Gelzer v. Thermadyne (Date of injury 2/13/04)
Melvin Wilfredo Bonilla Carranza v. Bernzomatic. (Date of injury 6/13/05)
Ross Pelz v. Worthington Industries. (Date ofinjury 5/29/05)
Mark Loewes v. Worthington Industries. (Date of injury 3/27/05)
Timothy Welch v. Newell Rubbermaid (Date of injury 7/3/06)
The Glenn v. Newall is a Ventura California case in which a Bernzomatic cylinder failed
at the braze material (Photographs 1,2).
In addition, I have reviewed photographs for a Minnesota case called Venderlinde v. Ace
Hardware Corp., where a ''TurboTorch'' failed in the braze material between the center
Epstei"_ShalabLRNAreport.doc
-2-
valve housing and the cylinder. There are two Lenox cylinders (John Barrett v. Lenox and
Lemaralejo) that also failed in the same location.
Tests Conducted:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Metallography of the brazing material in MAPP gas cylinders.
Microhardness of the brazing material in MAPP gas cylinders.
Energy Dispersive Spectrum (EDS) ofMAPP brazing material.
Metallography of corrosion test of the MAPP brazing material.
Metallography of brazing material inMAPP PRO gas cylinder.
Microhardnes ofthe brazing material in MAPP PRO gas cylinders.
EDS of brazing material in MAPP PRO gas cylinders.
Test data are contained in a compact disc (CD) included with this report.
The braze material is a copper nickel alloy. The composition was determined to be
approximately 61 % (atomic) Cu and 39 % Ni by Energy Dispersive X ray. This is 63%
Cu by weight and the specifications on Drawing 32600-23 call for a maximum of 60% by
weight Cu. It is possible that the brazing material is off specifications.
Steven Gentry in his deposition (page 89, line 7) states that the brazing temperatnre is
between 2000 and 2100 degrees Fahrenheit, which is 1093 -1149 degrees centigrade.
According to the Cu-Ni phase diagram (See Figure 1) from the reference "Hansen,
Constitution of Binary Alloys", that temperature is too low to melt the brazing alloy.
It should be noted that the brazing material used in the Bemzomatic MAPP PRO cylinders
has been changed to all copper without the addition of nickel. Metallography of the MAPP
PRO brazing material is shown on the CD.
Conclusions/Findings:
Based on the facts of failure in the brazed area, I have examined three exemplar MAPP
gas cylinders, (WIOG57E, WIIG152W and W8G230E), with respect to the Cu-Ni braze
between the center valve housing and the cylinder. Microhardness testing of the brazing
metal gave values of23 HRC for WIOG57E; 33 HRC for WllG152W, and 97 HRB for
W8G230E.
The cylinders have been sectioned in half and four sections have been cut from each
cylinder to show a portion of the neck piece and cylinder wall and the brazing material
between. These sections have been mounted in plastic and polished and photographically
documented. Representative examples of the microphotographs from each cylinder are
shown in Photographs 3, 4, and 5. The brazing materials have large voids in the bulk
and smaller voids in the interface between the cylinder walls and the center valve housing
as shown in Microphotographs 6, 7, and 8. The brazing on the outer surface of the
cylinder is undercut in all three cylinders rather than forming a meniscus. The
undercutting is a sign oflack of wetting and penetration of the brazing material with the
cylinder and valve. A good meniscus shows that wetting has occurred. The brazing defects
shown in photographs 3-8 reduce the strength of the joint and make it more likely that the
valve will partially separate from the cylinder and release gas when the torch is used as
intended.
-3-
The outside surface of the brazing material that is undercut represents a lack of wetting
and penetration of the brazing material with the cylinder and valve housing. 1bis flaw is
sufficient to reject the cylinder. This flaw should have been picked up by the manufacturer
with a simple visual inspection of the cylinders.
The Bernzomatic one pound MAPP gas cylinder is manufactured per Federal specification
published in 49 CFR 178.65 (D.O.T. 39). The specification for non-reusable (nonrefillable) cylinders states "brazed seams must be assembled with proper fit to ensure
complete penetration of the razing material throughout the brazed joint." The brazed joints
shown in microphotographs 6, 7, and 8 lack complete penetration.
Corrosion tests show that the brazing material is strongly cathodic to the cylinder and
valve and will cause the steel to corrode in a suitable moist atmosphere. The interior walls,
of the sectioned cylinders, also showed signs of corrosion. See Photograph 9, Interior
View of Cylinder WlOG57E Showing Corrosion.
In my opinion, the braze material between the center valve housing and the cylinder is the
weak element in the assembly, and subject to failure when the torch is attached to the
cylinder. The brazing material has voids and lacks sufficient fusion to the cylinder wall
and valve housing to resist stresses placed on it when used in a normal manner. This
problem with the brazing material is due to a combination of poor cleaning of the brazing
area, contamination of the brazing material and improper process parameters such as
furnace temperature and time. For these three cylinders that were examined to be offered
on the market clearly establishes the failure of Bernzomatic inspection and quality control
procedures.
The MAPP gas torch and cylinder is unsafe and unreasonably dangerous as designed and
manufactured.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~;ij:~
Robert N. Anderson, Ph.D., P.E.
-4-
Photo 1: Overall view of Glenn v. NewaU;.eern~Qm~t'c Torch.
- 5-
Photo 2: Close up of Glenn v. Newall c<ylinder.aHhevalve housing,
.
showing a brazing material failure.
Epstein_ShalabLRNAreportdoc
- 6-
Figure 1: Copper - Nickel Phase DiagrCim from Hansen.
10
20
,
30
'flOG"T PEt! 'CENT tH£I<El
40
,
!
,
60
,
SO
90
70
I
-
145)0
--
.. 140 0
---- -
----------- --,..-/ ----------
0
110o~
/"
__
10830
v_
~
~ -~
f--~
1000
....
1
I
(CV~ Nil
,/
/
/
0
/
,
100
/
..MAGN. TRft.NSF.
0
/
/
-100
,/
,
-200
-273
/
//
o
c.
10
30
40
50
6G
ATOMIC PER CENT HltKEl
Fig.
;~47.
Cn-Ni
-7-
70
80
90
100
H;'
Photo 3: W10G57E. @ 13X. Valve housing on the top and cylinder on
the bottom with brazing material inbetwe.en.
Epstein_Shalaby-RNAreport.doc
-8-
(a)
50X
(b)
100X
Figure 3
Representative micrographs of the braze at section 1 (Figure 2b).
Photo 5: W11G152W. @ 13X. Valve hous,ing on the top and cylinder on
the bottom with brazing material inbetween.
- 10-
Photo 6: W11G152W. @ 100X.
- 11 -
Photo 7: W8G20E. @ 13X. Valve housing on top. and cylinder on the
bottom with brazing material
.
Epstein_ShalabLRNAreporl.doc
-12 -
Photo 8: W8G20E. @ 200X.
Epstei"_ShalabLRNAreport.doc
- 13-
Photo #9: Interior View of Cylinder W110Cli51ES,hOlwin1Q
Epstein_ Shalaby-RNAreport.doc
- 14-
(a)
(b)
Figure 1
Photographs of the MAPP gas cylinder W10G57E in (a) the as-received
condition, and (b) prior to sectioning for metallography.
Outside
Surface of
Cylinder
Inside
Surface of
Cylinder
(a)
(b)
Figure 2
Box in 2(a)
13X
Section 1 images of (a) overall mounted cross section, and (b) braze cross
section.
(a)
200X
(b)
500X
Figure 4
Representative micrographs of the braze at of section 1 (Figure 2b).
Outside
Surface of
Cylinder
Inside Surface
of Cylinder
(a)
(b)
Figure 5
Box in 5(a)
16X
section.
(a)
50X
(b)
100X
Figure 6
(a)
200X
(b)
500X
Figure 7
Outside
Surface
of
Cylinder
Inside
Surface of
Cylinder
(a)
(b)
Figure 8
Box in 8(a)
13X
section.
(a)
50X
(b)
100X
Figure 9
(a)
200X
(b)
500X
Figure 10 Representative micrographs of the braze at of section 3 (Figure 8b).
Outside
Surface of
Cylinder
Outside
Surface of
Cylinder
(a)
(b)
Box in 11(a)
13X
Figure 11 Section 4 images of (a) overall mounted cross section, and (b) braze cross
section.
(a)
50X
(b)
100X
(a)
200X
(b)
500X
EDS OF BRAZING MATERIAL IN
MAPP GAS CYLINDERS
·'
. SEMQuant results. Listed at I I :30:50 AM on 6i12/200S
Operator: Ryan
Client: none
Job: MAPP Gas Cylinders
Spectrum label: Mapp Gas
System resolution = 135 eV
Quantitative method: ZAF ( 3 iterations).
Analysed all elements and nOffilalised results.
1 peak possibly omitted: 0.04 keY
Standards:
P K
GaP 29/11193
Fe K
Fe 01112/93
Ni K
Ni OU12/93
Cu K
Cu 01112/93
Elmt Spec!. Element Atomic
Type %
%
P K ED 4.27 7.93
Fe K ED 29.31 30.19
Ni K ED 23.77 23.28
Cu K ED 42.65 3S.60
Total
100.00 100.00
* =<2 Sigma
SEMQuant results. Listed at !l :31 :56 AM on 6il2!2008
Operator: Ryan
Client: none
Job: MAPP Gas Cylinders
Spectrum label: Mapp Gas
System resolution = 135 eV
Quantitative method: ZAF ( 2 iterations).
Anal ysed all elements and normalised results.
3 peaks possibly omitted: 0.04, 2.00, 6.40 keV
Standards:
Ni K
Ni 01112/93
Cu K
Cu 01112/93
Elmt Spect. Element Atomic
Type %
%
Ni K ED 36.68 38.53
eu K ED 63.32 61.47
Total
100.00 100.00
•
=<2 Sigma
HEALTH & SAFETY LABORATORY REPORT
HSLl2006/121
Harpur Hill, Buxton
Derbyshire, SK17 9JN
T: +44 (0)1298 218000
F: +44 (0)1298 218590
W: www.hsl.gov.uk
The Behaviour of 'Bernzomatic' MAPP and
Propane Cartridges When Exposed to Heat and
Flame
HSL/2006/121
Project Leader: J E Fletcher
Author(s): J E Fletcher
Science Group: Hazard Reduction
© Crown copyright (2006)
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION................................................................ 2
3 EXPERIMENTAL ........................................................................................ 5
3.1
Test Program ........................................................................................... 5
3.2
Test Cartridges ........................................................................................ 5
3.3
Test series A, Non-uniform heating, diffuse flame ................................... 6
3.4
Test series B, Uniform heating in a Waterbath ........................................ 7
3.5
Test series C, Non-uniform intense heating, pre-mixed flame ................. 8
3.6
Test series D, Single cylinders in the open.............................................. 8
3.7
Test series E, Multiple cylinders, pool fire................................................ 8
4 RESULTS ................................................................................................. 10
4.1
Test series A, Non-uniform heating, diffuse flame ................................. 10
4.2
Test series B, Uniform heating in a waterbath ....................................... 11
4.3
Test series C, Non-uniform intense heating, pre-mixed flame ............... 12
4.4
Test series D, Single cylinders in the open............................................ 12
4.5
Test series E, Multiple cylinders, pool fire.............................................. 15
5
DISCUSSION............................................................................................ 17
6
CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................ 19
7
FURTHER WORK..................................................................................... 20
8
REFERENCES.......................................................................................... 21
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A number of concerns were raised by HSE following an application to store large quantities of
MAPP gas in 450 g cartridges. The fire risk and mitigation control measures appear based on
the assumption that cartridges of MAPP behaved in a similar way to propane and comparable to
aerosols. It has been reported that MAPP can spontaneously detonate when heated. HSE
therefore commissioned a programme of work, comprising a series of experiments on both
single and multiple cartridges of MAPP and propane to establish the hazards.
Objectives
a) Determine if MAPP detonates on heating,
b) Develop an understanding of the failure temperature/pressure of cartridges under
uniform and non-uniform heating.
c) Direct comparison of fireball diameters between LPG and MAPP cartridges,
d) Projection distances for ejected cartridges, and
e) Knowledge as to whether spontaneous failure of multiple cartridges is induced under
fire engulfment.
Main Findings
Based on the evidence of the tests undertaken, it was concluded that:
a) MAPP gas contained within a ‘Bernzomatic’ cartridge does not detonate upon heating
under the conditions of the tests carried out here.
b) When heated uniformly, cartridges vent at 80±2°C.
c) Similar MAPP and propane gas cartridges behave in the same way.
d) Intensely heated cartridges present an explosion hazard by a pressure burst failure.
e) The likelihood of explosion depends upon cartridge orientation.
f) Projection distances for ejected cartridges and fragments were a maximum of 13.9m
and 26.4m respectively.
g) No fireballs were seen, but flame heights of 1-2 m are achievable from venting
cartridges.
h) There was no evidence of induced or spontaneous failure of multiple cartridges.
Recommendations
There is the potential to extend the scope of this work to include:
•
Multiple cartridge tests with increased confinement to ensure cartridges stay in close
proximity to each other
•
Scale up to several transport packs
•
Cartridge systems other than Bernzomatic.
•
Aerosols containing flammable propellants.
ii
1
INTRODUCTION
A number of concerns were raised by HIDCI2G following an application for a warehouse
occupier to store 48 tonnes of propane, including 9.5 tonnes of methyl acetylene-propadienepropane mixture (MAPP gas) in 450 g cartridges. The company’s fire risk and mitigation
control measures appear based on the assumption that the behaviour of cartridges of these gases
is repeatable and comparable to aerosols containing propane. However, it has been reported (see
Section 2) that Methyl Acetylene can spontaneously detonate when heated. HSE therefore has
an urgent need to address this issue to establish the hazards of MAPP gas in storage.
Large-scale test data on the fire behaviour of such cartridges are not available. Consequently,
HIDCI2G requested that HSL undertake a series of experiments on both single and multiple
cartridges containing both gases to identify the hazards. The main objectives/deliverables of this
work were to:
a) Determine if MAPP detonates on heating.
b) Develop an understanding of the failure temperature/pressure of cartridges under
uniform and non-uniform heating.
c) Provide a comparison of fireball diameters with propane and MAPP cartridges.
d) Measure projection distances for ejected cartridges.
e) Determine if spontaneous failure of multiple cartridges can occur under fire engulfment.
f) Take a video record of all tests.
1
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
MAPP gas is a complex mixture, comprising mainly methyl acetylene (35 mol%), propadiene
(27 mol%) and propane (18 mol%) with other trace stabilising compounds. Taken individually
these first two components are considered flammable and reactive. The most important
properties of these constituents are parameterised in Table 1.
Methyl acetylene (also known as propyne) is a flammable, colourless liquefied gas with a
boiling point of –23.1°C and a freezing point of -101.5°C. It is self-reactive and can decompose
explosively at 4.5 to 5.6 atmospheres pressure. It has the chemical structure CH3C≡CH [1].
Propadiene is also flammable with a critical temperature and pressure of 120°C and 54 bar. It is
an isomer of propyne but is not acetylenic, containing instead, a carbon atom carrying two
double bonds. Like propyne, it decomposes explosively when a hot-spot is created inside it. It
has the chemical structure CH2=C=CH2 [2].
Table 1: Properties of MAPP gas constituents [3,4].
Constituent Gas
Property
Methyl Acetylene
Propadiene
Propane
40
40
44
Boiling Point (°C)
-23.2
-34.5 to -32.0
-40
Melting Point (°C)
-102.7
-146 to –136
-190
Flammable limits (vol%)
1.7 to 11.7
1.7 – 12.0
2.1 to 9.5
Critical Temperature (°C)
127.8
120
96.8
Critical pressure (kPa)
5349
4417
4255
Vapour pressure (kPa)
517 (at 20°C)
873 (at 21.1°C)
853 (at 21.1°C)
Specific gravity (water = 1)
0.70 (at -50°C)
1.787
0.5853 (at -45°C)
1.4
1.4
1.55
Molecular weight
Vapour density (air = 1)
Mixtures of methyl acetylene, propadiene and propane are produced as a C3 fraction during
steam cracking treatments of heavier hydrocarbons at oil refineries. Other trace stabilising
compounds are then added to produce the commercially available MAPP.
Unlike acetylene, commercial MAPP is not distributed in pressurised cylinders, dissolved in
acetone in a porous mass, but as complex mixtures stored in the liquid state in gas cylinders.
Components added to stabilise the propyne-propadiene mixtures are typically C3 and C4 alkanes
and alkenes. By changing the relative proportions of each component, a wide range of mixtures
is produced. The levels of stability of these mixtures vary - a diagram given by Medard [2] and
shown in Figure 1 explores this and gives a limit line for stability.
2
Figure 1: Stability diagram for MAPP, according to Medard.
An example MAPP gas composition given by Stull [5], is shown in Table 2, and includes some
thermodynamic data. One of the principle uses for MAPP gas is for blowtorches or for welding,
when used in conjunction with oxygen, as a safer alternative to acetylene. The flame
temperature data highlight this, as MAPP provides a (lower) flame temperature close to that of
acetylene, yet is significantly hotter than that of propane.
Table 2: Decomposition of MAPP gas.
Mole%
Gas
Heat decomp.
J.g-1
Flame Temp.
K
Peak pressure
kPa.m-1
35.4
Methyl acetylene
-4628
1816
1236
27.4
Propadiene
-4791
1864
1266
0.7
1,3 – butadiene
-2213
1086
1043
1.5
Cyclopropane
-1958
936
831
3.3
Propylene
-1628
866
689
1.9
Iso-butane
-1331
800
760
18.0
Propane
-795
628
456
11.8
Iso-butane
-762
623
567
100
MAPP
-2259
1034
932
100
Ethylene
-2259
1005
1074
Evidence for the detonation of methyl acetylene is given by Bretherick [6] who states that the
liquid material in cylinders is not shock sensitive, but a wall temperature of 95°C accompanied
by pressures of about 3.5 bar, will cause a detonation to propagate from a hot-spot. Induced
decomposition of the endothermic hydrocarbon leads to flame propagation in the absence of air
above minimum pressures of 3.4 and 2.1 bar at 20 and 120°C, respectively.
3
Both Stull and Bretherick present the opinion that although pure methyl acetylene is highly
endothermic (∆Hf = +185.4 kJ.mol-1) the diluted MAPP gas can be handled safely by treating it
in the same way as ethylene.
Previous work has been undertaken at HSL on cartridges of MAPP gas. In 1984, flame
impingement tests were conducted on several gas brazing and welding kits [7]. Of relevance
here, one of the kits, under the ‘Bernzomatic’ trade name, comprised steel cylinders of oxygen
and fuel. The cylinders were fitted with a pressure relief device and contained either 400g of
propane or 450g of MAPP gas. Photographs in the report show that these cylinders are very
similar to the cartridges tested in this work (see Section 3.2 for a description).
In these tests the flame from a torch (powered by MAPP/oxygen) impinged on the steel cylinder
under test, held lightly upright. Tests were performed on single full MAPP cylinders with flame
impingement below liquid level and on single almost empty cylinders, so that impingement was
above liquid level.
A range of effects was observed including gas escaping from the pressure relief device and
small jets of flame/gas released from the sidewall at the point of impingement. During testing,
the cylinders bulged 4-16mm at the point of observed impingement. No cylinders were seen to
fail.
4
3
3.1
EXPERIMENTAL
TEST PROGRAM
All tests involved heating either 400 g propane cartridges or 450 g MAPP cartridges with a
propane flame until they burst. Tests performed were:
a) Non-uniform heating of single cylinders in a protective bunker with a diffuse flame, to
establish if MAPP could be made to detonate on heating.
b) Uniform heating of single cylinders in a water bath to measure cylinder failure
temperatures.
c) Repeat of a) using a pre-mixed flame from several burners to give more intense heating.
d) Heating single cylinders in the open air to study the projection distance of cylinders and
fragments and fireball diameter/lift-off.
e) Heating multiple cylinders: 1 box (12 cartridges).
Multiple cylinder tests were intended to provide information on fireball diameter; projection
distances and whether failure of one cylinder induced failure in neighbouring cylinders. All tests
were repeated for both gas types to allow a qualitative comparison. Tests were recorded to
videotape for subsequent review.
3.2
TEST CARTRIDGES
Cartridges for test were sourced from two suppliers. Two boxes of each gas were supplied by
the company concerned, whilst a further two boxes of each were obtained from an independent
supplier. Each box contained 12 cartridges of gas. Cartridges from both sources carried the
‘Bernzomatic’ trade name/branding. Cartridges of both gases appeared identical in construction
but were readily identifiable/separable by their colour: yellow for MAPP and blue for propane.
The cartridges were of pressed steel construction, in two parts with a central circumferential
crimp or weld, and complied with the U.S. DOT 39 standard for non-refillable gas cylinders.
The upper section of the cartridge contained the main filling or ‘end use’ valve and a pressure
relief valve (PRV). A white plastic cap covered the main valve. Some measurements of the
cylinders are given in Table 3 and example photographs of the cartridges are shown in Figure 2.
Cartridges were labelled in compliance with DOT-39 with the following information:
•
•
Bernzomatic Propane
PW 16 PH 25 bar 0.4 kg 1.0 L .7 mm
EN12205 0035/2005/11
UN1978 Propane –20°C + 50 °C
DOT-39 NRC228/286 M1003
USA Chiltern SN W11E22E
5
Bernzomatic MAPP
PW 13 PH 22 bar 0.45 kg 1.0 L .7 mm
EN12205 0035/2005/11
UN1060 Methyl acetylene and propadiene
mixture, stabilised –20°C + 50 °C
DOT-39 NRC188/235 M1003-E6686
USA Chiltern SN W11E55E
Where: PW is the normal service pressure, PH is pressure at which the PRV operates, 0.4/0.45
kg is the nominal weight of the contents and L is the wall thickness.
EN provides cylinder type/batch/manufacture date information.
UN is the United Nations designation for the article.
DOT-39 NRC gives the normal working pressure and test pressure (in psi). M is the
manufacturers registration number.
The final line gives additional manufacturer information.
Table 3: Measurements of test cartridges.
Measurement
MAPP
Propane
Height to shoulder
250 mm
Height to top
275 mm
Diameter
75 mm
Gross weight
900 g
850 g
Mass of gas
450 g
400 g
Figure 2: Photographs of the test cartridges.
3.3
TEST SERIES A, NON-UNIFORM HEATING, DIFFUSE FLAME
In this test series, single cartridges were placed horizontally on a stand, unclamped, and heated
by the impingement of a diffuse flame from the open end of a propane hose. Figure 3 shows a
schematic diagram of the test arrangement while Figure 4 shows a photograph of the apparatus.
Tests were conducted in an enclosed bunker and the gas flow to the heating flame controlled
remotely via a solenoid valve, with a small tray of solvent providing the ignition source (for
convenience, this was later changed to a gas pilot flame). Cartridges containing both gas types
were tested.
6
Sandwich of corrugated iron sheets
and plywood fastened to stakes
Gas Cartridge
Small tray (5 cm diameter) of
solvent as pilot flame
10 m
1m
Open ended
propane hose
Solenoid valve
10 kg
propane
cylinder
with flame
arrestor
Flame
arrestor
Figure 3: Schematic diagram of test apparatus for non-uniform heating - Test
Series A.
Figure 4: Photographs of the set-up for Test Series A.
3.4
TEST SERIES B, UNIFORM HEATING IN A WATERBATH
In this test series, cartridges were heated using a water bath. The water bath comprised a steel
tank with dimensions 425mm width x 740mm length x 295mm height, fitted with four electric
heating elements with a power rating of 2.2 kW. The bath was filled with water to a depth of
200mm (approximately 60 litres).
Test cartridges were submerged under the water and held in a horizontal position by steel wire
wrapped loosely around a retort stand. The water and cartridge temperatures were monitored
using 1.5 mm diameter, stainless steel sheathed type K thermocouples. The latter was fixed to
the cartridge body, positioned against the central seam, using steel wire. Temperature data were
recorded to computer via a Microlink data logging system at one second intervals.
7
3.5
TEST SERIES C, NON-UNIFORM INTENSE HEATING, PRE-MIXED
FLAME
The test apparatus used was as in Test Series A. However, for these tests, a twin burner
arrangement was connected to the previously open-ended hose. This allowed for pre-mixing of
the propane fuel with air producing a significantly hotter, bluer and more intense flame.
The burners were simply placed on the floor underneath the metal stand, approximately
symmetric either side of the test cartridge and directed upwards, to impinge on to the central
seam of the cartridge. Again, cartridges containing both gases were tested.
3.6
TEST SERIES D, SINGLE CYLINDERS IN THE OPEN
The burner system and stand used for Test Series B were modified to incorporate three burners
instead of two, with the aim of giving a greater coverage of flame around the circumference of
the test cartridges. Test cartridges were placed on the stand in either upright or inverted
orientations, supported loosely by a retort ring and then heated rapidly by the burners, see
Figure 5. In total, 12 cartridges of both gas types were tested with 6 in the upright and 6 in the
inverted positions.
Figure 5: Burner assembly for Test Series D.
3.7
TEST SERIES E, MULTIPLE CYLINDERS, POOL FIRE
Complete boxes of cartridges were subjected to a pool fire for a sustained time period and
observations recorded.
The test boxes were standard supply/transport cardboard cartons, as received from the supplier,
containing 12 cartridges of gas in a 2 x 6, upright arrangement, see Figure 2. These boxes were
8
placed on a stand in the centre of a steel tray with a base 1 m square and a wall height of
approximately 300 mm. The tray was partially filled with 50 litres of n-heptane, to a depth of 50
mm and then ignited, remotely, using a hot wire ignition source.
The resulting pool fire lasted for approximately 10-20 minutes.
One box of MAPP cartridges was subjected to the first trial, E1, and one box of propane
cartridges was used in the second trial. Both tests were recorded for subsequent review.
9
4
4.1
RESULTS
TEST SERIES A, NON-UNIFORM HEATING, DIFFUSE FLAME
Two MAPP cartridges and one propane cartridge were tested in this manner. The same
behaviour was observed for all three cartridges:
After a short period of time, venting of gas was heard. The heating flame ignited this release and
a large jet of flame was observed issuing from the top of the cartridge. Due to the relative
orientation of the cartridge and video camera it was not possible to distinguish from which of
the cartridge orifices the gas was being released. The venting/jetting continued until all gas in
the cartridge had been consumed. No cartridges were seen to fail. It was noted that the flame
from MAPP appeared hotter, more intense and yellower in colour compared to that from the
propane flame, which was orange in appearance.
Due to a technical fault, no video footage of Test 1 was recorded. Masses of recovered
cartridges were recorded. Some results are summarised in Table 4, while Figure 6 shows the
recovered cartridges.
Table 4: Results of Test Series A, non-uniform heating, diffuse flame.
Test
Gas
Time to jetting,
Duration of jetting
Mass After
(g)
A1
MAPP
N/a
437.0
Cartridge remained intact and complete. Not
bulged, contracted or cracked. Entire surface
covered in black deposits.
A2
MAPP
2 mins, 3mins
438.7
As A1
A3
Propane
2 mins, 4 mins
436.5
As A1
Observations
Figure 6: Photograph of cartridges post Test Series A.
10
4.2
TEST SERIES B, UNIFORM HEATING IN A WATERBATH
Three tests were performed in total. The first test was discounted because an electrical fault
caused a malfunction in three of the heating elements part way through the test, but some useful
data were still obtained. In all three tests, gas was observed venting from the PRVs, which
formed a fog/mist on the water surface. Venting was observed between 78 to 82°C and continue
up to the point the water began to boil. Actual heating rates were calculated from the collected
temperature data, see Table 5. The recovered cartridges were intact, but some of the labels were
peeled back. Cartridges appeared to be slightly bulged below the central join. Vernier calliper
measurements gave the diameter of each cartridge tested as 76 mm below the join and 75 mm
above.
Table 5: Results of Test Series C, uniform heating in a waterbath.
Test
Gas type
Temperature for start
of venting
(°C)
Overall heating rate
(K.min-1)
B1
MAPP
79-81
1.3
B2
MAPP
82
1.8
B3
Propane
78-80
1.6
Figure 7: Photographs of cartridges post Test Series B.
11
4.3
TEST SERIES C, NON-UNIFORM INTENSE HEATING, PRE-MIXED
FLAME
A total of five cartridges were tested, three MAPP and two propane. The observations recorded
are given in Table 6. In summary, cartridges behaved in a similar manner to those in the
previous Test Series A, with jetting from the top of the cylinder. In this instance, it was possible
to identify from where the gas was venting and that the PRV had failed.
In these trials one cartridge failed catastrophically, with an audible bang, bursting into several
large pieces. Three pieces were retrieved, one comprising the top section of the cartridge with
the valves. Photographs of the test cartridges are shown in Figure 8.
Table 6: Results of Test Series C, non-uniform intense heating, premixed flame.
Time to
Venting
(s)
Time to
Explosion
(s)
Gas released from cartridge PRV after a short period
of heating. Visible as ignited jet. Subsequently, with
further heating the cartridge failed.
28
56
Propane
Gas released from cartridge PRV after a short period
of heating. Visible as ignited jet.
35
N/a
C3
MAPP
As C2.
39
N/a
C4
Propane
As C2.
29
N/a
C5
MAPP
As C2.
34
N/a
Test
Gas
Observations
C1
MAPP
C2
Figure 8: Photographs of cartridges post test series C.
4.4
TEST SERIES D, SINGLE CYLINDERS IN THE OPEN
Following on from Test Series C, a further 24 cartridges were tested by exposure to an intense
flame. The effect of cartridge orientation and retaining the white plastic cap or otherwise was
examined. Initially, all cartridges behaved in a similar manner. As in previous tests, after a short
period of heating, gas was released from the test cartridge PRV. This was visible as an ignited
12
jet. Subsequently, with further heating, some cartridges were seen to fail with an audible bang
and ejection of fragments, while other cartridges were either ejected from the test burner
assembly or continued venting until the gas was exhausted. Details are given in Table 7,
including the time to start of venting (or failure/explosion) and cartridge masses before and after
testing. Additional data for tests where cartridges either exploded or were ejected are given in
Table 8; this includes fragment projection distances.
Table 7: Results of Test Series D, intense heating of single cylinders in the open.
Test
Gas
Orientation
Cap
Observations
Time to
venting
(s)
Time to
explosion or
ejection
(s)
Mass
before
(g)
Mass
after
(g)
D1
MAPP
Upright
Off
Venting
N/a
-
909.3
439.9
D2
MAPP
Upright
Off
Venting
N/a
-
900.7
439.2
D3
MAPP
Upright
Off
Venting
21
-
901.6
438.6
D4
MAPP
Upright
On
Venting
21
-
890.3
437.8
D5
MAPP
Upright
On
Venting
19
-
912.6
437.5
D6
MAPP
Upright
On
Venting
25
-
919.8
439.9
D7
MAPP
Inverted
Off
Vent then
explosion
29
98
914.8
-
D8
MAPP
Inverted
Off
Venting
28
-
902.5
436.8
D9
MAPP
Inverted
Off
Vent then
ejection
18
40
901.0
442.4
D10
MAPP
Inverted
On
Vent then
ejection
21
33
912.8
441.9
D11
MAPP
Inverted
On
Venting
19
-
885.6
440.3
D12
MAPP
Inverted
On
Vent then
explosion
20
57
906.2
-
D13
Propane
Inverted
Off
Venting
24
-
881.2
455.3
D14
Propane
Inverted
Off
Venting then
explosion
22
54
849.8
-
D15
Propane
Inverted
Off
Venting
21
-
845.1
434.2
D16
Propane
Inverted
On
Venting then
ejection
16
31
867.7
457.3
D17
Propane
Inverted
On
Venting then
explosion
20
70
868.0
-
D18
Propane
Inverted
On
Venting
21
-
860.5
436.5
D19
Propane
Upright
Off
Venting
13
-
878.0
451.4
D20
Propane
Upright
Off
Venting
17
-
877.2
451.8
D21
Propane
Upright
Off
Venting
16
-
869.1
451.4
D22
Propane
Upright
On
Venting
15
-
863.6
447.4
D23
Propane
Upright
On
Venting
12
-
863.2
446.6
D24
Propane
Upright
On
Venting
16
-
871.3
440.7
13
Table 8: Additional data for failed or ejected cartridges from Test Series D.
Test
Effect
D7
Exploded, into 3 pieces
D9
Ejected
Fragment mass
(g)
382.9
17.7
7.7
Distance
(m)
5.2
3.8
1.7
Sound Level
(dBa, LcpKmax)
155.9
7.5
D10
Ejected
D12
Exploded, into 3 pieces
344.0
47.6
48.1
1.0
26.4
19.7
3.8
144.7
D14
Exploded, 2 pieces recovered, valve
assembly missing
222.3
74.6
13.0
2.5
153.4
D16
Ejected
D17
Exploded, into 1 piece
13.9
398.0
1.0
153.4
Figure 9: Photographs of failed cartridges from Test Series D.
14
4.5
TEST SERIES E, MULTIPLE CYLINDERS, POOL FIRE
A timeline of observed events is given for the MAPP cartridge trial in Table 9 and for the
propane cartridge in Table 10, with photographs of the retrieved cartridges in Figure 10 and
Figure 11, respectively.
In the MAPP trial, a total of three cartridges failed explosively with one cartridge ejected from
the fire. Retrieved cartridges were weighed and all those intact were found to be empty/spent.
One cylinder and one large fragment were retrieved from outside the tray at distances of 3.7m
In the propane trial, a total of four cartridges failed explosively. No cartridges were ejected from
the fire.
The average heptane fuel consumption rate was calculated as 3.5 ± 0.2 mm.min-1.
Table 9: Timeline of events for Test E1, MAPP pool fire.
Time
(Min:Second)
Observations
00:00
Fire started.
00:00 – 00:37
Cardboard box is consumed by fire and contents fall into metal tray.
00:55
First venting of gas heard.
01:00 onwards
Venting witnessed from cartridges as a jet of flame varying in height from 1 to 2 m.
01:33
Audible report from cartridge failure.
01:34
08:45 – 09:02
More jetting increasing in intensity, culminating in explosive failure of a cartridge. At
the same time a single cartridge or large fragment is ejected from the fire.
11:53
More jetting, decreasing in intensity
13:10
Pool fire extinguished
Table 10: Timeline of events for Test E2, propane pool fire.
Time
(Min:Second)
Observations
00:00
Fire started.
00:30 – 0:39
Cardboard box is consumed by fire and contents fall into metal tray.
00:58
First jetting heard and seen.
01:43
04:01
11:39
12:37
15:00
Pool fire extinguished.
15
Figure 10: Photograph of retrieved cartridges from Test E1.
Figure 11: Photograph of retrieved cartridges from Test E2.
16
5
DISCUSSION
Test Series A and B provided an initial opportunity to assess the hazards posed by these
cylinders when heated or exposed to flame. All cylinders behaved in a similar manner; i.e.
venting after a short heating period. All cartridges remained intact, no detonation of contents
was observed and it was considered viable to proceed with the subsequent intense heating test
series. In early tests (Series A and B) the only observed difference between propane and MAPP
was the colour of the jetting flame: orange for propane and (more) yellow for MAPP.
It was not possible to see the origin of venting in Test Series A and B, but in Test Series C it
was evident that venting was occurring from the pressure relief valve, indicating either a PRV
failure or deliberate operation/release due to elevated internal pressure. The first apparent
difference in the behaviour of MAPP and propane was observed in this test series with one of
the three MAPP cylinders tested failing (exploding), while neither of the two propane cartridges
failed. From a review of the video footage it was noted that the failed cartridge had a lower PRV
than all the other cartridges, possibly below the liquid level in the cartridge. This may have
caused a cartridge failure due to a ‘liquid locked’ PRV or a PRV unable to control the rate of
internal pressure rise due to passing liquid rather than gas. With the cartridges positioned
horizontally, the PRV from the failed cartridge was at ‘2 o’clock’ compared to ‘12-1 o’clock’
for the other cartridges. In view of this and to give a wider understanding, Test Series D was
conducted with more cartridges, orientated vertically, both upright and inverted.
The results from Test Series D confirmed a dependence of cartridge orientation on probability
of cartridge failure but cartridges of propane and MAPP behaved in a similar manner. In these
trials, two cartridges of each gas failed when in an inverted position, a failure rate of 33%, yet
no cartridges failed when in an upright position.
Besides the failed cartridges, a number of cartridges were ejected from the test apparatus – two
MAPP and one propane. These cartridges were self-propelled by venting gas and travelled
distances of up to 13.9m. A good example of this is Test D16 where video footage shows the
venting cartridge being propelled randomly around the test area, before leaving the view.
Failed cartridges comprised a single large section with two or three ejected fragments.
Generally, the large section comprised both the base and top shoulder linked by the main body
that was burst or split, typically of mass 200 to 400g. The ejected fragments typically weighed
around 50g (measured range 7.7 to 74.6g) and were retrieved at distances up to 26.4m. The
edges of the retrieved fragments were smooth indicating a pressure burst rather than a
detonation. If the contents had detonated then it would be expected that many small fragments
would be found with torn or jagged edges.
No fireballs were observed during testing. However, flame heights from venting cartridges were
estimated at between 1 and 2 m in length.
Following on from Test Series D, the multiple cylinder pool fire trials (Series E) provided an
opportunity to examine the behaviour of cartridges in a more realistic fire scenario 1 . As in Test
Series D and previous tests, cartridges were observed to vent and several were seen to fail.
Three MAPP and four propane cartridges failed, a failure probability of 25% and 33%
respectively. Cartridges and fragments were again ejected and were retrieved at distances up to
3.7m from the fire. There was no mass explosion, and no evidence of induced or spontaneous
cartridge failure, with cartridges venting and/or failing linearly in sequence, although in the E1
1
While Test Series E gives a reasonable simulation of an engulfing fire, the intense heating from Series D can be
likened to the scenario where the flame from a jetting cartridges impinges on to another neighbouring cartridge.
17
MAPP test there were two failure events in close succession (1s apart). In these tests, the
cardboard box burned away early on in the test and cartridges fell away from each other into the
fire pool. It is likely therefore that the cartridges would not be in close enough proximity to each
other for an induced failure to occur.
18
6
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the evidence of the tests undertaken, it was concluded that:
a) MAPP gas contained within a ‘Bernzomatic’ cartridge does not detonate on heating,
under the conditions of tests performed here.
b) When heated uniformly, cartridges vent at 80±2°C.
c) Similar MAPP and propane gas cartridges behave in the same way.
d) Intensely heated cartridges present an explosion hazard by a pressure burst failure.
e) The likelihood of explosion depends upon cartridge orientation.
f) Projection distances for ejected cartridges and fragments were a maximum of 13.9m
g) No fireballs were witnessed, but flame heights of 1-2 m are achievable from venting
cartridges.
h) There was no evidence of induced or spontaneous failure of multiple cartridges.
19
7
FURTHER WORK
There is the potential to extend the scope of the tests carried out here:
•
Multiple cartridge tests with increased confinement to ensure cartridges stay in close
proximity to each other.
•
Scale up to several transport packs.
•
Cartridge systems other than Bernzomatic, including aerosols containing flammable
propellants.
Further work could seek to expand upon the multiple cartridge tests performed here. Video
footage showed the carton containing the cartridges disintegrating and the cartridges falling
away from each other into the fire. Additional tests could be designed to prevent this happening,
holding cartridges with increased confinement in close proximity to each other. Such a test
would be better able to determine if a failed cartridge can induce failure in neighbouring
cartridges. One method of increasing confinement would be to scale-up to include several
transport packs, perhaps even to a pallet-sized scale.
This work has focused solely on the ‘Bernzomatic’ cartridge system. It could be extended to
other similar systems, perhaps containing other gases, either fuel or oxygen. For example,
aerosols are similar in design, incorporating a fuel gas (propane) used as a propellant confined
in a thin walled steel canister. A comparative study between these and the Bernzomatic
cartridges would confirm the validity of assuming these behave similarly for risk assessment
purposes.
20
8
REFERENCES
1
T F Rutledge, “Acetylenic Compounds.” Reinhold, NY, (1968).
2
L A. Medard, “Accidental Explosions: Volume 2: types of explosive substances.” Ellis
Horwood Ltd., Chichester, UK (1989), pages 698-700.
3
Material Safety Datasheets, Matheson Tri Gas. http://www.matheson-trigas.com
4
R C Weast, “CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.” CRC Press Inc., Cleveland,
Ohio, 58th edition, (1977).
5
D R Stull, “Fundamentals of Fire and Explosion.” Dow Chemical Company, (1976),
pages 14-16.
6
L Bretherick; “Bretherick’s Handbook of Reactive Chemical Hazards.” Butterworth’s,
London, UK, 4th Edition, page 354.
7
D K Pritchard and A M Nicol, “ Flame Impingement Tests on Bernzomatic, Clean welder
and Solidox Gas Brazing and Welding Kits.” HSL Internal Report IR/L/FL/84/16 (1984).
21
,
VITA: Robert N. Anderson, Ph.D., P.E., P.J.
President, RNA Consulting, Inc.
Name:
Robert Neil Anderson, Ph.D., PE, P.1.
Consultant, expert witness in materials failures, accident analysis
Address:
27820 Saddle Court, los Altos Hills, CA 94022-1810
Office: 650-949-1092
Fax: 650.949.5641
CeIlNM: 650-464-1620
Education:
Ph.D., Metallurgy, Stanford University
M.S., Chemical Engineering; Minor: Petroleum Engineering, U.C. Berkeley
B.S., Chemical Engineering, U.C. Berkeley
B.S., Chemistry, University of San FranciSCO
Post Doctoral Research Associate in Metallurgy: Stanford University.
Patents in high temperature reprocessing of nuclear fuels, nuclear reactor, and extraction
of reactive metals from their ores.
Licenses:
Registered Metallurgical Engineer, California No. 1490
Registered Nuclear Engineer, California No. 91
Private Investigators license, CA No. 14033
Consultant and Expert WItness:
More than 20 years experience in forensic materials and metallurgical consulting in
accident analyses, industrial materials applications, including asbestos, thermodynamics,
and design failures.
Consultant to legallirms, including plaintiff and defendant, and court appointed expert.
Extensive deposition and courtroom experience in U.S. and Canada.
Expert in electrical lire source determination, using Auger arc residue analysis.
Published in professional journals.
Designed and led workshops for attorneys, and other experts in the presentation of
evidence and findings.
led teams and presented professional papers on unique archee-materials investigations.
Leader of 1995 of scientific team that performed research on the cause of the 1913 fire
that destroyed Jack London's famed Wolfhouse. "
Expert in firearms and ballistics.
Experienced in multiple engineering disciplines and in the potential impacts of materials,
such as metals, composites, polymers, and ceramics.
Past Academic Positions:
SJSU, Emeritus Professor, Department of Materials Engineering.
FOlmer depariment chair, full professor.
Stanford University, Associate Professor.
Past Industrial Positions:
U.S. Naval Radiological Defense laboratory, San Francisco
Operations Research Analyst, Research Engineer
Arabian American Oil Company, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Chemist
Prior Consulting, Industrial:
FMC, accident simulation. EPRI, nuclear reprocessing. SRI, materials research.
IBM, intellectual property. Memorex, hard disk technology.
Prior Consulting, Government:
Brookhaven National lab
California State Energy, Resources & Development Commission
Executive Office of the President of the United States,
Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Science & Technology Policy
United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment
Lawrence Livermore Lab
Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.
Suffolk County, New York, consulting in nuclear plant failure
Center for Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India,
Consultant in the surface degradation of Taj Mahal. At request of the government
of India, investigated, advised on procedures to slow the surface degradation.
Professional Associations: Offices:
American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS): Fellow. Director.
Chairman (2004-2005; 1996-97) of the Engineering Sciences Section.
Awarded 2005 Founders Award by the ESS Section.
National Academy of Forensic Engineers (NAFE): Fellow. Past President 1998.
Intemationallnstitute of Forensic Engineering Sciences: Diplomate and Director.
Society of Forensic Engineers and Scientists (SFES):
Founding member, Past PreSident; Past Secretary/Treasurer.
Forensic Expert Witness Association (FEWA), San Francisco Chapter.
American Institute of Metallurgical Engineers: Past Chairman, Northern California Section.
American Nuclear Society: Past Student Affairs Chairman.
Other Professional Affiliations:
National Society for Professional Engineers
National Associate of Corrosion Engineers
Society of Plastics Engineers
Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering
Society of Automotive Engineers
Society of Wood Science and Technology
American Society for Metals
American Chemical Society
American Instijute of Chemical Engineering
American Ceramic Society
American Welding Society
American Insmute of Archaeology
The Materials Research Society
Professional Honor Organizations: Alpha Chi Sigma, Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi
Special Interests:
Archeo-materials: Developed university courses.
Presented resealCh on archeological investigation and materials study.
F'irearms, ballistics, and arson investigation: Published professional papers.
Detennine cause of fires through analysis of electrical arc residues,
using Auger spectroscopy.
High temperature research and consultant on nuclear fuels.
2005: Hong Kong. Presented paper on Bullet Design at
International Association of Forensic Sciences (IAFS)
2002: Montpelier, France. IAFS. Presented paper and poster session.
1996: Tokyo, Japan. Conference chairman at IAFS. Presented and published paper.
Speaker:
•
•
Rotary Clubs International chapters: Topic - forensic science
and its relationship to business and industrial materials conditions.
High schools, elementary schools: Topic - the profession offorensic
engineering and sciences.
Community volunteer: Current service.
Member: Los Altos Hills - Emergency Communications & Emergency Planning
Member: Board of Directors - Purissima Hills Water District.
RNAINCcv_fee2008.doc
Page 2
612512008
Consulting Fee Schedu,leSummary ~ Updated 912712007
~NA Consulting, Inc.
Corporate Tax 10#: 77-0428512
27820 Saddle Court, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022-1810
Office: 650-949-1092. FAX: 650.949.5641. Cell:·650464-1620. Email: [email protected]
Robert N. Anderson, Ph.D., P.E., P .1.
Professional Time:
$420.00/hour, including travel.
Depositions:"
$420.00/hour
"Consistent with the Code of Civil Procedure, pre-payment will be
required.
-The retaining attorney shall be responsible for notifying the attorney
requesting the deposition of these policies.
Trial:
$420.00/hour, to include courtroom standby.
All outstanding invoices are to be paid before trial.
Retainer:
$3,360.00 (8 hours) to be paid at the initiation of a case.
- No listing as an expert without advance payment of the retainer and
completion of Professional Services Agreement.
(See Professional Service Agreement stipulations)
Travel Expenses:
Reimbursement for related travel expenses. Charge for professional time
as per case need
Automobile/Air Travel:
Associated expenses, including bridge tolls and parking. Allocated time
included as part of professional fee.
Support Team Expenses:
Engineering Associate - Range: $175.00 - $250.00/hour
Research, Photo-documentation, Technical Associate - $160.00/hour.
Lab and other technical and related support - as billed.
Storage Charges:
$50/month, or by arrangement.
Professional Services
Agreement:
RNAINCcv_fee2ooB.doc
Commences with completion of RNA Consulting, Inc. Services
Agreement and submittal of retainer.
Page 3
6/2512008
Consulting,
RNA
Incorporated
RolJert N. Anderson. Pb.d., P.E., President
Sus: 650-949-1092
Fax: 650.949.5641
27820 Saddle Coun
Los Altos Hills. {"..A
94022-J810
email: robenNA@aoLcom
USA
1/09/08
2127/08
2115107
Chris Rice V Genentech. et al
Edward Harrison/Carol Harrison v
3113107
Jack Zhao, a minor, and
Guardians v American XTAL
3123107
Candy Negrete-Schwinn v Costco
415107
Jack Zhao, a minor, and
Guardians v American XTAL
4/9/07
4126107
Roberto
v Harris Rebar.
eta!
6/21/07
Blair v Shin Yea
9/05107
Campbell v Polyguard
11/05107
Allstate Ins. V Heil
12118107
1110/06
DomvBNSF
1117106
Mitchell v Rick Case Cycle, et. at
5117106
Tagoai v SMG Moscone Center,
·.1·
8/15/06
Antelope Assoc. v louisiana
10102106
Megison v GM et al
11121/06
liu v KB Homes
4111105
San
Court
4120105
Fifth Circuit State of Hawaii
No. 02-1
Morales v. Delaurentis
Furushima v. Suzuki
91
5123/05
Court
6121/05
San Diego Superior Court
7122105
Sutter County Superior Court
7/27/05
Judicial District
Division K,
Court for the Parish of Jefferson,
State of louisiana
9/14/05
Contra Costa Superior Court
No. C01-05111
Morton v. EBMUD
9126/05
Third Circuit, State of Hawaii
Cox v. Pacific States Cast Iron
10110/05
1
10/26/05
Kellner v True Temper
11129105
Marin Superior Court
12120/05
Calfee Design
Bridge
Common v
Mitchell v Rick Case Cycle, et. at
May-Carmen v Wal-Mart
Silveira v Burlington Northern
RNA
Consulting,
Incorporated
Robert N. AnderSon, Ph.d . ., P..E.t President
Bus: 650-949~1092
27820 SaddJe Court
I...os AJtos Hins. CA
94022-1810
Fax: 650.9495641
email: robenNA@aotcom
USA
COURT APPEARANCES: Robert N. Anderson, Ph.D., P.E., P.I.
514107&
519/07
Santa Cruz Superior Court
No. CV150825
Megison v GM et al
9111/07
Stanislaus Superior Court
No. 343650
White v Back
5/4/05&
616105
Sacramento Superior Court
519/05
11/16/05
Amador County Superior Court,
CA. No. OHCR 5952
Bunch v Fischer
No. OOAS03600
Morales v Delaurentis
No. GIC 821322
People v Shoemaker
1219/05 &
12116/05
Marin Superior Court
Case CIV-050622
7130104
6/9-10
OSHA Hearing Testimony,
D.C.
Santa Clara County Superior Court
4/14/04
Alameda County Superior Court
2124-25/04
Los Angeles Superior Court,
May-Carmen v Wal-Mart
Docket S025A
lick Mill Creek Apts. v
et. at
(Criminal case)
vloidaCruz
Griggs v. Caterpillar, BC
216425.
10/02103
Fifth Judicial District Court of Idaho,
MorriS v. Renegade, CV 0300274
04/11/03
San Francisco
Sisk v.
COURT APPEARANCES_update-04-07-Q8.doc -1-
01128-29/03
Industries, No. 321538.
Morgan Hill Unified School
District v. Minter & Fahy
Construction, et at. No. CV
772368.
Santa Clara Superior Court,
COURT APPEARANCES_UpdatEKl4-07-08.doc
- 2-

RNA Consulting, Incorporated - MAPP Gas Cylinder and Torch

Transcription

Similar documents

new flexite t-val

View PDF

for personal household use only

MacCoupler instructions

read more - Another Choice

Manual - The Unofficial P

Needle craft - Simply Audio

Greater Cincinnati Water Works Filter Distribution

Far Ahead of his Time

0158_Panasonic Panafax UF