I have a hypothesis about why Burnham IN boilers rust out above the water line.

Hap_Hazzard

I've seen a few posts here that mention Burnham IN series boilers that have failed after 10–15 years due to rust perforation above the water line and I think I may have noticed something that might help people get a little more life out of them if I'm right.

First of all, the castings are too thin, but I understand they're trying to improve heat transfer.

Second, I don't have a huge sample size to draw on, and please speak up if you have evidence to the contrary, but they tend to develop these leaks in one of the end sections.

Finally—and this is where I'm on the shakiest ground, but I'm hoping some of you who have replaced these boilers might be able to confirm or disprove my hunch—I think the damage is occurring near the supply tapping. Below is a picture of a failed section that someone posted. I've labeled what I believe is the supply tapping, but the person who posted it wasn't able to confirm this.

So, what I think is happening is that, for some reason, too much condensate is dripping down the supply riser after every heating cycle, and, in combination with the thin casting, it creates a perfect storm for rust perforation to occur.

Condensate is, essentially, distilled water. It doesn't contain any minerals or buffers or additives that might be added to the boiler water. It's just plain water—purer than any tap water that might be used to fill the boiler. Also, if the condensate is just trickling down from the riser, it would form a thin layer as it flows over the surface of the casting, where oxygen is readily available to promote oxidation.

If my hunch is correct, a couple of possible recommendations follow.

1. When replacing a boiler that has failed in this manner, installers should be sure to correct any piping that might allow condensate to drip back into the boiler between cycles. There will always be some carryover in the supply risers, even with a drop header. It's unavoidable but also unproblematic, as carryover is just boiler water, not distilled water.
   
2. Burnham should make their end section casting thicker in the area where these failures are occurring. They can keep making the inner sections thin to promote heat transfer, but the end sections are more vulnerable to corrosion because of the availability of oxygen and the possibility of exposure to condensate.
   

clammy

I think that’s hard to nail down ,I believe most fail due to make up water and the contents of said water ,neglect and other mis adventurers including deferred maintenance and or no bicentennial flushing of boiler water side but I would not rule out over fired bad draft or high draft and impingement . I once heard that it’s because there kids need to go to college too . On a side note I’m not a burnham fan there on the top 5 of death by mis piping usually super common mistakes . Peace and good luck clammy

Hap_Hazzard

@clammy,

Thanks for your input.

Wouldn't bad make-up water have more of an effect below the water line? The boiler water spends a lot more time in contact with the vessel below the water line than above it.

There might be something to your bad draft idea. If cold air is coming down the flue while the boiler is sitting idle, it might make the casting cold enough to cause the water vapor in the boiler to condense on the inner surfaces of the boiler sections. While this would tend to affect all sections equally, the end sections are still more exposed to oxygen because the risers are ultimately open to the atmosphere, at least in one-pipe systems.

clammy

I ve really heard it’s chlorides building up on the inside walls of the sections above the water line the pins absorb the heat and the transfer is hindered until it expand and finally pops off the build up taking a little cast with it over time getting thinner and thinner . Add to that make up water w fresh O2 and more tds and chlorides,chlorine n who knows what else. I believe some where in the literature for the mega steam they discuss something possibly similar and that there rear flue outlet design and the smoother no pin 3 pass design avoids completely . I know I ve seen a service bulletin by some manufacture most likely speaking of the holes being formed by high chlorides for sure and the evil of excessive muw and no water testing or treatment especially on cast residential steamers .peace and good luck clammy

clammy

Usually from what i have section that fail below the water line mid boiler are usually due the water side passage being block and the section dry fires or just gets stressed from not get proper water circulation while firing and over time they give up the ghost . Loads of make up always seems to be above the water line from the short lived got a hole syndrome I have seen.

Charlie from wmass

I think it simply comes down to thin cast iron and a blend of metal that leans heavy on recycled non virgin iron. Cast iron is not all created equal. I wish I understood specific metallurgy enough to be more specific.

ChrisJ

When we bought our house in 2011 it had a Burnham V83 that was rotted in the rear section above the water line. I believe it was also the section the return was piped into.

The records kept by the previous owner had shown the first V83 was installed in 2003 and 3 years later the block was replaced under warranty. 5 years later and it was rotted again.

The system had some leaks, nothing terrible.

What bothers me is our neighbor and friend, using the same water chlorine and all, and with far more leaks had a Redflash 3 pass boiler from what, the 1920s? And it still wasn't rotted out. Every one of his packing nuts was leaking, half the vents were stuck open. The boiler simply didn't seem to care.

No, it's efficiency wasn't quite what the V8's was, but 2 boilers in 8 years?!? That's not efficient. That's the exact opposite of efficient.

The thin castings theory bothers me because the way they seem to rott it seems like it would rott through anything given enough time while the older boilers didn't. What am I missing?

I assume if it was easy to solve the manufacturers would have already fixed the problem. No?

EBEBRATT-Ed

I don't think it's just the thinness of the castings. If that were true, any casting would rot regardless of it's thickness...it would just take longer if it was thicker, but 100 years longer??

Not sure I agree with water quality being an issue unless added chlorine is doing it. Why did the old boilers last for 100 years?

To me smaller boilers for a given rating........their being pushed harder. If you took any boiler and installed two of them at the same job, same water and down fired one of them would the down fired one last longer???

Hap_Hazzard

ChrisJ said:

I assume if it was easy to solve the manufacturers would have already fixed the problem. No?

As long as they make it through the first year, they don't have to replace it under warranty, and by the time their reputation takes a hit, the responsible parties will be dead, retired, or working somewhere else.

Gee, that sounds cynical, doesn't it?

Hap_Hazzard

Charlie from wmass said:

I think it simply comes down to thin cast iron and a blend of metal that leans heavy on recycled non virgin iron. Cast iron is not all created equal. I wish I understood specific metallurgy enough to be more specific.

You could know a lot more about metallurgy and still not be more specific, because cast iron is kind of a grab bag of different iron-carbon alloys. About all they have in common is that they're at least 2% carbon. Some of the different alloys have different names, mostly depending on how much carbon, silicon and various other elements they contain, but within these types there's a lot of variation, and contaminants like sulfur can drastically alter the properties of a given alloy.

So you're definitely right in saying the quality of the material could be part of the problem.

Charlie from wmass

@EBEBRATT-Ed that would mean that when I installed my weil-mclain EG series boilers the eg65 would last longer than the EG60. Also all cast iron boilers do rot. Even the 100 year old snowmen. it's just that when the cast iron is 3/4 of an inch to an inch and a quarter thick it takes a long time.

EBEBRATT-Ed

@Charlie from wmass

No, I am thinking say a boiler rated to fire at 1.00 gph on oil take the same boiler and fire it at .75 or .85, will it last longer not being pushed as hard

ChrisJ

Charlie from wmass said:

@EBEBRATT-Ed that would mean that when I installed my weil-mclain EG series boilers the eg65 would last longer than the EG60. Also all cast iron boilers do rot. Even the 100 year old snowmen. it's just that when the cast iron is 3/4 of an inch to an inch and a quarter thick it takes a long time.

You mean the EG 60 would last longer than the 65.
This was also my thinking and another reason I wanted to drop down to a 40 from my 45.

As far as the 3/4 to 1" thick, like I said before the boilers seem to actually rott. It's not just surface rust like you see on man hole covers and storm drains. Look how those handle all of the salt they get dumped on them.

ChrisJ

EBEBRATT-Ed said:

@Charlie from wmass

No, I am thinking say a boiler rated to fire at 1.00 gph on oil take the same boiler and fire it at .75 or .85, will it last longer not being pushed as hard

The problem with this, though, is the iron it self can't get any hotter, can it? The water boils at a certain temperature and that's that. You can't exceed the water's boiling point. So what changes other than you convert more water to steam, faster?

Hap_Hazzard

ChrisJ said:

The problem with this, though, is the iron it self can't get any hotter, can it? The water boils at a certain temperature and that's that.

Ah! But it can get hotter above the water line, where's there's no water to absorb the heat.

Mark N

https://heatinghelp.com/systems-help-center/what-makes-a-steam-boiler-fail/

Dan has written about this before

Hap_Hazzard

Mark N said:

https://heatinghelp.com/systems-help-center/what-makes-a-steam-boiler-fail/

Dan has written about this before

I guess that figures. Still, I think the most important take-away from that artcle is the last paragraph:

Steam heating is a lost art, and we continue to learn as we go. Keep asking questions.

That's all I'm really trying to do here. I always learn a lot from you all when I can ask questions or propose answers that stimulate a discussion. I think that's worthwhile. You guys are wicked smart.

The Steam Whisperer

I've thought about the reason too for IN boilers sections failing and I suspect it is related to the fact that these boilers are unique in one particular way from all others out there. They combine rather narrow sections along with a large steam chest above. I also know that the stack temperatures on these boilers are quite high. The results of our testing is backed up with the thermal efficiency numbers for the larger none AFUE models... only 77.5% ( which is about the lowest of any boiler, except maybe the Dunkirk D247,248, 249).. You are getting a lot of heat on the pins at the upper part of the section, however, since the steam chest is large, the water is not moving nearly as violently to scrub the heat from the upper part of the sections. In the shorter narrow section boilers like a residential Dunkirks or Uticas, there is no steam chest, so the water is moving very violently at the tops of the sections scrubbing the heat from the cast iron keeping the heat exchanger cooler, and interesting enough, making the boiler more efficient with lower stack temperatures. I find old 40 to 60 year Utica steamers all the time here in Chicago. Yes, they produce lots of wet steam and deliver it through 2 inch tappings, so the supply piping is absolutely critical, but the boilers hold up even with smaller castings.
I am pretty sure the IN series is based on the old American Standard boiler from the 60's. Its sort of sad that these older AS boilers held up so long and test more efficiently compared to the new IN models. The pinning on the heat exchanger was much less dense, but the cast iron burners operated cleanly at only 20 to 30% excess air, where the IN's are about 50% excess air. They burnt the gas more efficiently but transfered the heat a little less efficiently, making for a long life boiler.

Just writing this is making me think I may drop the Burnham casting based boilers ( Crown) for my economy installations and start using Utica or Dunkirk again. Only problem is that Dunkirk is about the most disreputable company I've ever dealt with.....though it seems that nearly all the manufacturer's are becoming about equally dishonest and unwilling to properly back thier products, especially when there are defects.

Hap_Hazzard

@The Steam Whisperer How do you feel about Peerless?

The Steam Whisperer

I think the 63/64 series boiler are the best of the smaller atmospherics, but the I've been hung out to dry on over $1500.0 in labor costs on 2 casting defects in the same boiler in the past. We recently had another casting defect and its now been about 3 months and still no reimbusement for all the extra Labor. We just had another a couple weeks ago with a brand new defective Honeywell commercial control and have over 10 hours of wasted time in trying to triple check everything, having the control tested twice by a local control rebuilding shop, talking to the factory tech line, and still not getting it to work in the application. I am not holding my breath on getting paid for that work either. I used to install Peerless about 95% of the time, its now down to maybe 35%. You'd be hard pressed to find a better wholesaler than my Local Peerless dealer (Kurt at WL Engler) but moving above that, the rep won't even answer repeated phone calls. I brought the problems to the manufacturer twice and was told it would be looked into and never heard anything back.

I still wish Slant Fin would get properly established here in Chicago so I could use thier boilers. They treated me first rate when we had 3 steamers that had defective machining of the castings some years back. They truly back thier products, rather than forcing contractors eat the cost of thier mistakes.

ChrisJ

> @The Steam Whisperer said:
> I think the 63/64 series boiler are the best of the smaller atmospherics, but the I've been hung out to dry on over $1500.0 in labor costs on 2 casting defects in the same boiler in the past. We recently had another casting defect and its now been about 3 months and still no reimbusement for all the extra Labor. We just had another a couple weeks ago with a brand new defective Honeywell commercial control and have over 10 hours of wasted time in trying to triple check everything, having the control tested twice by a local control rebuilding shop, talking to the factory tech line, and still not getting it to work in the application. I am not holding my breath on getting paid for that work either. I used to install Peerless about 95% of the time, its now down to maybe 35%. You'd be hard pressed to find a better wholesaler than my Local Peerless dealer (Kurt at WL Engler) but moving above that, the rep won't even answer repeated phone calls. I brought the problems to the manufacturer twice and was told it would be looked into and never heard anything back.
>
> I still wish Slant Fin would get properly established here in Chicago so I could use thier boilers. They treated me first rate when we had 3 steamers that had defective machining of the castings some years back. They truly back thier products, rather than forcing contractors eat the cost of thier mistakes.

How do the EG series compare to the others you mentioned? They have a similar design to the IN no?

The Steam Whisperer

I think the EG is similiar to the Peerless. The sections are wider like the peerless

EBEBRATT-Ed

Something has changed for boiler to fail in only a few years. Should be able to get 20 years out of them

I am sure the thickness of the iron has something to do with it but i don't think that's the only reason

Steamhead

The only Burnham steamer I'd install is the MegaSteam.

EBEBRATT-Ed

just read Dan's article, makes sense

Hap_Hazzard

EBEBRATT-Ed said:

Something has changed for boiler to fail in only a few years. Should be able to get 20 years out of them

I've gotten 20 years out of my Peerless, and it was already at least 17 or 18 years old when I moved in.

STEAM DOCTOR

FWIW, I find that many Slantfin gas steamers, dont make it past 15 years. Nyc area

SlamDunk

If my IN5 dies, I Think i will replace with a Pennco.

The Steam Whisperer

The slant fin Galaxy looks like a well thought out design. Using a real wide end section that introduces 2 90 degrees turns and low velocity to dry out the steam before hitting the exit is sharp thinking. Looking into the tapping it looks like there is an inclined plane that probably helps dry the steam by causing the water to hit the plane and then shoot into the back of the casting. Sort of like an air scoop, but with water. I've had 180,000 input steamer making pure steam with the 2 1/2 inch tapping. The header drip was ice cold. The built in about 5 inch wide skimmer dam is also very effective. Stack temps are high, however.

STEAM DOCTOR

Slant fin galaxy on provides a single 2.5" steam tapping and a single return tapping. Could make installation a pain. There is a return tapping on the front, inside the jacket if I remember correctly. 1.5" if memory is correct.

The Steam Whisperer

Yes, I think you are right. I suppose they could put 2 large end sections on bigger boilers so you can have two tappings. However, the boiler seems to make quite dry steam internally , so I suspect there isn't much need to use multiple large tappings. The Galaxy seem to be a completely different animal in that it really doesn't need to relie on external piping as much to dry out the steam. Having only 1 large end section is much less costly than having them on both ends, so I suspect that is why there is only one tapping. Plus the boiler input never gets very high.

Hap_Hazzard

Having only one tapping prevents knuckleheads from putting a header between them without swing arms.

SuperTech

I can't comment on steam applications, but as far as hydronic heating systems go I've seen more Burnham boilers fail before they reach 12-15 years old than all others combined. I've seen one Peerless and one Weil McLain fail early, both were neglected. As far as single pass cast iron boilers go I would recommend either of those two.

My opinion on the early failures is that it's likely due to poor quality control and low quality cast iron.

STEAM DOCTOR

> @Hap_Hazzard said:
> Having only one tapping prevents knuckleheads from putting a header between them without swing arms.

No excuse for single return tapping.

Jamie Hall

Just for the sake of information -- I have no reason to suppose I'll have to in the near future (I hope!) -- what do you think of Cedric? A Weil-McClain 580. And what would you replace it with, if you had to?

The Steam Whisperer

From my experience with the LGB model I figure well maintained, properly installed steam boilers using Elastomer gaskets have about a 25 year life. If you are getting near that age and have kept the boiler from getting crusty inside and/or rotting out, I suspect it might be worth pulling the boiler apart and regasketing it. I don't think we have ever seen any LGB go over 24 years. We had one about 18 months ago which we were maintaining recently and was in decent shape. We serviced it before the winter and everything was good ( we replaced the secondary low water cut off as a proper service interval measure a couple years before) and at the end of the season annual service every gasket was leaking. The boiler was about 24 years old. This seems typical for the smaller single riser models that aren't dealing with the stress caused by 2 risers prying the boiler apart. The 2 riser LGB models, which are essentially never installed with threaded swing joints only last a about 14 years. Maybe the 80 series protects the gaskets better, so they might last longer than the LGB models.

Charlie from wmass

I move my own boilers in and out. I'm not sure why this is acting like a mystery, it's not. They weigh less which means they are thinner. If you take the shipping weight of each boiler compared to the btu input load they weigh significantly less and we are only talking boilers under half a million BTUs. @EBEBRATT-Ed pocket size for you.

EBEBRATT-Ed

Too bad the manufacturers can't come up with something decent that will last. Maybe they don't care about steam......it's strictly a replacement market......but there's a lot of steam heated buildings that will always be steam.

People get sick of boilers rotting out will only turn them towards scorched air.

Hap_Hazzard

Maybe we could help the manufacturers by compiling photodocumentary evidence from every boiler that suffers a premature failure, including the make, model, location, age at failure and photos of the failed casting and the near boiler piping. I know a lot of you have posted picture and related details here, but it's difficult to locate them because they're not organized in any systematic way.

ethicalpaul

My peerless 63-03L, the smallest one they make, is I think still over 400 pounds on its pallet so I feel good about that.

But...no manufacturer really cares about steam. They care about shareholder value (which they are also legally mandated to, at least if they are public).

So they will eventually do everything they can reasonably do to maximize that shareholder value. Making a boiler last for 50 years does not do that I’m afraid. (Making one so thin that it rots out while the replacing homeowner still remembers recently installing and paying for it doesn't do that either, so companies can definitely go too far, maybe we're seeing that). In Burnham's case, I would love to know what communication goes on between the IN team and the MegaSteam team, or if they are even separate teams.

Probably the technology available at the time of old boilers helped make them last forever--thinner castings may not have been able to be reliably producible back then, or the engineering philosophy of the time made them nice and thick.

Just some thoughts. No answers.

SlamDunk

Charlie from wmass said:

I move my own boilers in and out. I'm not sure why this is acting like a mystery, it's not. They weigh less which means they are thinner. If you take the shipping weight of each boiler compared to the btu input load they weigh significantly less and we are only talking boilers under half a million BTUs. @EBEBRATT-Ed pocket size for you.

Good point.

When I removed my 1930 American Standard, I swear one section (I think there were five sections) weighed as much as my IN5!

I had a rough time shattering each section with a sledge hammer. My co-worker's son was trying to earn extra money so I paid him to haul the pieces to a scrap yard with his 1500 Silverado. Two trips, both had the back of the truck squatting. IN5 is just under 500 pounds.