Skip to main content
Log in

The interaction of test methods and failure criteria

  • Peer Reviewed Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A specific example is given in which test methods influence the ability of a component to meet a failure criterion. The example is for self-pressurized products such as aerosol containers. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates aerosol containers with respect to acceptable temperatures and pressures of their contents as well as the minimum burst pressures of the containers. Experiments have shown that the burst pressures of the containers are a function of the test methods used to measure the burst pressures. The paper also presents a method to determine the temperature at which a two-piece aerosol container burst, provided that the bottom of the container can be found and it is not severely deformed by impact. While focusing on the specific examples of aerosols, the broader issue is the relationship between test methods and the results achieved, with the ultimate goal of safer engineering outcomes. The nature of various test methods and their relationships to how a mechanical system is likely to stop functioning properly and safely are also discussed. Aerosols present an interesting case study because they involve several disciplines and concepts and are very familiar to most people.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M.A. Johnsen: The Aerosol Handbook, 2nd ed., Wayne Dorland Company, Mendham, NJ, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J.J. Sciarra, ed.: The Science and Technology of Aerosol Packaging, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P.A. Sanders: Handbook of Aerosol Technology, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Fox and R. Hastings: “Pressurized 3-Piece Steel Container Explosions and Failure Mechanisms,” Pract. Failure Anal., 2003, 3(3), pp. 78–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. M. Fox: “Failure Analysis of Aerosol Containers,” J. Failure Anal. Prevent., 2005, 5(3), pp. 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Fox, P. Zhao, and J.C. Heinrich: “Computer Stress Analysis of Self-Pressurized Container Bottom,” invited paper, On-Line Packaging Conference, www.industryids.com, Feb 2005.

  7. Code of Federal Regulations, Transportation, 49 CFR Sections 173.306, 178.33, and 178.33a.

  8. M.A. Johnsen: “D.O.T. Shipping Regulations for Aerosols, Part 2,” Aerosol Age, Aug 1990, pp. 26–29.

  9. D.J. Wulpi: Understanding How Components Fail, 2nd ed., ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 2000, pp. 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J.A. Gale: Department of Transportation letter of clarification to M. Fox, July 28, 2005.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fox, M., Hastings, R. The interaction of test methods and failure criteria. J Fail. Anal. and Preven. 6, 50–56 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1361/154770206X99316

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1361/154770206X99316

Keywords

Navigation