The interaction of test methods and failure criteria

  • M. Fox
  • R. Hastings
Peer Reviewed Articles

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.

Keywords

aerosol burst pressure failure criteria test methods 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M.A. Johnsen: The Aerosol Handbook, 2nd ed., Wayne Dorland Company, Mendham, NJ, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.J. Sciarra, ed.: The Science and Technology of Aerosol Packaging, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1974.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.A. Sanders: Handbook of Aerosol Technology, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, NY, 1979.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Fox and R. Hastings: “Pressurized 3-Piece Steel Container Explosions and Failure Mechanisms,” Pract. Failure Anal., 2003, 3(3), pp. 78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Fox: “Failure Analysis of Aerosol Containers,” J. Failure Anal. Prevent., 2005, 5(3), pp. 39–47.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Code of Federal Regulations, Transportation, 49 CFR Sections 173.306, 178.33, and 178.33a.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.A. Johnsen: “D.O.T. Shipping Regulations for Aerosols, Part 2,” Aerosol Age, Aug 1990, pp. 26–29.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D.J. Wulpi: Understanding How Components Fail, 2nd ed., ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 2000, pp. 16–19.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.A. Gale: Department of Transportation letter of clarification to M. Fox, July 28, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Fox
    • 1
  • R. Hastings
    • 2
  1. 1.Chemical Accident Reconstruction Services, Inc.Tucson
  2. 2.Materials Science DepartmentUniversity of ArizonaTucson

Personalised recommendations