Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (4)
- Vortrag (2)
Schlagworte
- Bubble test (6) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (2)
The objective of this experiment was to verify that in regards to the leakproofness bubble test for packagings of dangerous goods, a reduction of the air overpressure from 0.2 to 0.1 bar can be compensated for by reducing the water surface tension to a value of approximately 33.2 mN/m by adding a wetting agent. It was experimentally proven that this method will yield the same leak diameters. This is important to avoid irreversible deformations during the leaktesting of intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) while using a test overpressure of 0.2 bar.
Bubble test experiments were carried out on artificial borehole-shaped leaks manufactured of two different materials high density polyethylene (HDPE) and stainless steel by ultrashort pulse laser technology and with two different immersion test liquids (deionized water and a 0.1% Lutensol FSA fabric softener active 10 solution). The characteristic diameters of the boreholes investigated were from 11.5 to 30.3 µm in length.
Bei der Dichtheitsprüfung von Intermediate Bulk Containern (IBC) für gefährliche Güter ist gemäß den Gefahrgutvorschriften ein Prüfüberdruck von 0,2 bar anzuwenden. Hierbei ist die Verwendung von Prüfschäumen zulässig. In der Praxis kann es jedoch zu irreversiblen Verformungen des Prüflings kommen. Durch eine Reduzierung des Prüfüberdrucks auf nur 0,1 bar kann dies vermieden werden. Im Folgenden werden experimentelle Untersuchungen der Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM) vorgestellt, um die Gleichwertigkeit dieses Verfahrens mit den Gefahrgutvorschriften nachzuweisen.
This work focuses on the question if the bubble test prescribed in the Dangerous Goods Regulations has sufficient sensitivity to detect leakage rates which could result in the formation of explosive atmospheres during transport. The sensitivity of the bubble test is not directly comparable with other leak testing methods because of its different flow conditions.
Therefore, a normalized minimum detectable leakage rate under Helium test conditions is calculated for the bubble test. This sensitivity of the bubble test under reference conditions is compared with limit leakage rates for a worst-case transport scenario. The sensitivity of the bubble test is not sufficient to prove the limit leakage rates for 6-L packagings. The Formation of explosive vapour-air-mixtures cannot be excluded. Therefore, more sensitive leak testing methods should be considered for smaller packaging design types.
The Dangerous Goods Regulations currently do not include limit leakage rates or sensitivity requirements for industrial leak testing procedures that are equivalent to the bubble test, which is the prescribed test method for design type testing of dangerous goods packagings. During series production of such packagings, various methods are used which often do not reach the sensitivity of the bubble test. Based on a suitable pragmatic approach, its sensitivity under industrial conditions can be considered 10-4 Pa m³/s (SLR).
For the selection of a suitable industrial leak testing method, however, factors other than the sensitivity are also important, for example flow direction, pressure level and automatability. The following methods are in principal suitable and equally effective as the bubble test: pressure rise test (vacuum chamber), ultrasonic bubble leak detection and gas detection methods (pressure technique by accumulation and vacuum chamber technique).
To ensure a uniform test level during design type testing and production line leak testing and therefore a comparable safety level as required by the Dangerous Goods Regulations, it is necessary to include a more precise specification in these regulations. On the one hand, this requires an information about the sensitivity of the bubble test, on the other hand, the inclusion of a list of suitable, equally effective industrial test methods with their specific boundary conditions
The Dangerous Goods Regulations currently do not include limit leakage rates orsensitivity requirements for industrial leak testing procedures that are equivalent tothe bubble test, which is the prescribed test method for design type testing ofdangerous goods packagings. During series production of such packagings, variousmethods are used, which often do not meet the requirements of the bubble test withregard to important criteria.Sensitivity, flow direction, pressure level and automatability are particularly importantfactors when selecting a suitable industrial leak testing method.The following methods are in principle both suitable and equally effective as thebubble test: pressure rise test (vacuum chamber), ultrasonic bubble leak detectionand gas detection methods (pressure technique by accumulation and vacuumchamber technique).To ensure a uniform test level during design type testing and production line leaktesting and therefore a comparable safety level as required by the Dangerous GoodsRegulations, it is necessary to include a more precise specification in these regula-tions. This requires, on the one hand, information about the sensitivity of the bubbletest and, on the other hand, the inclusion of a list of suitable, equally effective indus-trial test methods with their specific boundary conditions.
This work focuses on the question if the bubble test prescribed in the Dangerous Goods Regulations has sufficient sensitivity to detect leakage rates, which could result in the formation of explosive atmospheres during transport. The sensitivity of the bubble test is not directly comparable with other leak testing methods because of its different flow conditions. Therefore, a normalized minimum detectable leakage rate under Helium test conditions is calculated for the bubble test. This sensitivity of the bubble test under reference conditions is compared with limit leakage rates for a worst‐case transport scenario. The sensitivity of the bubble test is not sufficient to prove the limit leakage rates for 6‐L packagings. The formation of explosive vapour‐air‐mixtures cannot be excluded. Therefore, more sensitive leak testing methods should be considered for smaller packaging design types.