Technical Bulletin Cutting Pipe Insulation sections with ESCO CNC wire saw Overview This technical bulletin is designed to assist fabricators with the proper set-up and operation to cut Owens Corning ™ FOAMULAR ® XPS fabrication billets into pipe insulation sections. It will assist in helping to determine a starting point. Each fabricator will need to find the best set-up for their specific needs. Owens Corning does not warrant any specific results or performance. This information was derived with ESCO, the manufacturer of the CNC wire saw. There are different models of saws available and this information will be helpful as a starting point when working with most of the available models. Adjustment for the specific model WILL be required. NOTE: Owens Corning ™ FOAMULAR ® XPS Fabrication Billets are laminated with glue joints every 4”. This technical bulletin will only be useful for those saws with software that takes this into account. Please contact ESCO if you are unsure if your machine is so equipped. Machine Set-up There are numerous variables that can impact the quality, yield and throughput of cutting pipe sections on the ESCO CNC wire saw. In this technical bulletin we will review: • Wire Type • Wire Speed • Wire Feed • Joint Feed All of these variables are adjustable and with different combinations contributing to the quality of the finished pipe insulation section. A fractional factorial trial was conducted at the ESCO factory using a new Model 1530 ProfileMatic III CNC Horizontal Cutter (figure 1, table 1). Table 1: Set Point Cut Time Blade Blade Diameter Blade Speed Blade Speed FPM Machine Feed IPM Joint Speed IPM 1 5.5 Fine (ESP) 1.3mm 60% 11,400 120 15 2 9.8 Fine (ESP) 1.3mm 60% 11,400 50 6 3 8.7 Medium (PUR) 1.4mm 60% 11,400 50 6 4 4.3 Medium (PUR) 1.4mm 100% 19,000 120 15 5 5.4 Coarse (ESTR) 1.5mm 60% 11,400 120 15 6 8.4 Coarse (ESTR) 1.5mm 100% 19,000 50 6 7 7.3 Foamglas (Glas) 1.5mm 60% 11,400 50 6 8 5.4 Foamglas (Glas) 1.5mm 100% 19,000 120 15 Finished Sections Rankings A total of five (5) samples were cut for each trial set point. Two nested parts (1½ ” x 1½ ”; 4½ ” x 1½ ”) were cut from each sample. Sample #3 from each set point was used for comparison to establish the rankings. The rankings were based on: • Surface Quality and Consistency • Dimensional Conformance • Nesting Fit • Joint Quality Figure 1