Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (11)
- Vortrag (6)
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (1)
- Dissertation (1)
- Posterpräsentation (1)
Schlagworte
- Dangerous goods packagings (20) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Paper des Monats
- ja (1)
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (6)
Due to the high damping mechanical properties of fiberboard materials, corrugated fiberboard boxes are widely used as transport packagings of dangerous goods. Since there is risk of vertical impact within the distribution system, drop tests are performed as design type tests to assess a package’s ability to withstand damage. In this context, however, little is known regarding the transient mechanical response of a filled fiberboard box. The reason is that the nature of the packaging material presents challenges in identifying the deformation mechanisms experimentally. The aim of this work is to provide a framework for predicting the damage resistance of complete, filled corrugated fiberboard boxes which are ready for transportation. Therein, drop test finite-element simulations are used and validated by experimental results. These numerical calculation models are a valuable tool for virtual product development and contribute to the optimization of the design cycle.
For dangerous goods packagings, drop testing onto an essential unyielding target can be used to assess the mechanical resistance to impact loads. Adopted regulations like ADR/RID require that the impact surface provided shall be integral with a mass at least 50 times than that of the heaviest package to be tested. The problem is that many manufacturers do not possess impact targets that satisfy the required 50 times mass ratio for regulative drop tests during series production. The objective of this work is to verify existing and define improved criteria for impact target structures based on systematic investigations. Previous evidence highlights the relevance of other parameters in addition to the mass ratio. Therefore, in this research, a variation of drop test parameters was carried out experimentally. Furthermore, numerical vibration analysis was applied to investigate the deformability of the impact surface. The results conclude that the mass ratio of 1:50 cannot be defined as a decisive criterion. In order to determine the influence of further drop test parameters, the research findings were used to validate a parametric model which assesses impact target deflection. An approximation quality of over 90 % was achieved. As a result, new evaluation criteria are proposed. Firstly, a method for identifying critical impact target designs is provided. Secondly, a new comprehensive formula compares the approximated maximum deflection of a real impact target to the respective theoretical threshold derived from a worst-case assumption. In practice, this leads to great advantages in the evaluation of already installed impact targets for dangerous goods packagings.
For dangerous goods packagings, drop testing onto an essential unyielding target can be used to assess the mechanical resistance to impact loads. Adopted regulations like ADR/RID require that the impact surface provided shall be integral with a mass at least 50 times than that of the heaviest package to be tested. The problem is that many manufacturers do not possess impact targets that satisfy the required 50 times mass ratio for regulative drop tests during series production. The objective of this work is to verify existing and define improved criteria for impact target structures based on systematic investigations. Previous evidence highlights the relevance of other parameters in addition to the mass ratio. Therefore, in this research, a variation of drop test parameters was carried out experimentally. Furthermore, numerical vibration analysis was applied to investigate the deformability of the impact surface. The results conclude that the mass ratio of 1:50 cannot be defined as a decisive criterion. In order to determine the influence of further drop test parameters, the research findings were used to validate a parametric model which assesses impact target deflection. An approximation quality of over 90 % was achieved. As a result, new evaluation criteria are proposed. Firstly, a method for identifying critical impact target designs is provided. Secondly, a new comprehensive formula compares the approximated maximum deflection of a real impact target to the respective theoretical threshold derived from a worst-case assumption. In practice, this leads to great advantages in the evaluation of already installed impact targets for dangerous goods packagings.
Packagings for the transport of dangerous goods need to meet special requirements to get an approval. This includes free fall drop testing onto an essentially unyielding surface as a means to assess a package’s resistance to mechanical damage. A main requirement for drop tests is that the impact target’s mass shall be at least 50 times that of the heaviest package to be tested. Nevertheless, many manufacturers do not possess foundation structures with the required mass ratio. Previous evidence highlights that the mass ratio is not a decisive criterion on its own. Parameters such as the impact target foundation’s connection and the impulse experienced by the impacting object are essential as well. However, these factors are not easily verifiable since experimental measurements are not possible at most facilities. The objective of this work is to provide a detailed analysis on the interaction between impact target foundation and subgrade in dynamic impact testing using validated finite-element (FE) models. This research is highly beneficial for industrial application since it allows manufacturers to make informed predictions about the mechanical response of installed impact target foundations.
The mechanical and geometrical properties of impact targets greatly influence the outcome of a drop test. The International Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) as well as ISO 2248 describe the characteristics of impact targets for drop tests of dangerous goods packagings.
According to these regulations, the impact target’s surface needs to be unyielding, under testing conditions non-deformable, flat, and integral with a mass at least 50 times that of the heaviest packaging to be tested. The problem is that many production facilities, especially manufacturers of corrugated fibreboard boxes, do not have their own testing device with the required 50 times mass ratio of the impact target for a regulation compliant drop test during series production. Furthermore, at UN level it is considered necessary to revise these requirements.
In the present paper, the impact target requirements are examined in detail and compared with those in other technical areas (e.g., impact target for container for the transport of radioactive materials). A research method is being developed to investigate the dependency between the mass ratio of the packaging and the target as well as the damage resistance of a drop tested package in relation to specific design characteristics. The results are of high relevance for industry purposes and intended to ensure a uniform level of safety assessment for the mechanical testing of dangerous goods packagings.
Abstract: The leaks of dangerous goods from actually intact bags detected in the years 2018 to 2020 tend to be at an almost constant high level. These releases of powdery or granular dangerous goods represent violations of the sift-proofness required in the dangerous goods regulations. This article first analyzes the causes. The components of the bags that are affected by leaks are micro-perforations, joins and closures, in particular internal sleeve valves.
A distinction must be made between bags closed in conformity with or contrary to the manufacturer's instructions.
The particle release is determined by a number of influencing factors of the filling substance, the packaging and other boundary conditions. Therefore, a comprehensive test concept is developed in this work, which takes all these factors into account. The application of this test concept facilitates the planning of the test setup and the experiments. On this basis, the complex mechanisms involved in the release of solid substances can be systematically investigated in the test laboratory. To prevent releases of powdery or granular substances from intact bags, it is necessary that the user has access to the closing instructions and the relevant properties of the test substance used for the design type approval. Further experimental investigations are needed to assess whether filling substances change their properties during transport and whether this enables them to escape.
The leaks of dangerous goods from actually intact bags detected in the years 2018 to 2020 tend to be at an almost constant high level. These releases of powdery or granular dangerous goods represent violations of the sift-proofness required in the dangerous goods regulations. This article first analyzes the causes. The components of the bags that are affected by leaks are micro-perforations, joins and closures, in particular internal sleeve valves. A distinction must be made between bags closed in conformity with or contrary to the manufacturer's instructions. The particle release is determined by a number of influencing factors of the filling substance, the packaging and other boundary conditions. Therefore, a comprehensive test concept is developed in this work, which takes all these factors into account. The application of this test concept facilitates the planning of the test setup and the experiments. On this basis, the complex mechanisms involved in the release of solid substances can be systematically investigated in the test laboratory. To prevent releases of powdery or granular substances from intact bags, it is necessary that the user has access to the closing instructions and the relevant properties of the test substance used for the design type approval. Further experimental investigations are needed to assess whether filling substances change their properties during transport and whether this enables them to escape.
The leaks of dangerous goods from actually intact bags detected in the years 2018 to 2020 tend to be at an almost constant high level. These releases of powdery or granular dangerous goods represent violations of the sift-proofness required in the dangerous goods regulations. This article first analyzes the causes.
The components of the bags that are affected by leaks are micro-perforations, joins and closures, in particular internal sleeve valves. A distinction must be made between bags closed in conformity with or contrary to the manufacturer's instructions. The particle release is determined by a number of influencing factors of the filling substance, the packaging and other boundary conditions.
Therefore, a comprehensive test concept is developed in this work, which takes all these factors into account. The application of this test concept facilitates the planning of the test setup and the experiments. On this basis, the complex mechanisms involved in the release of solid substances can be systematically investigated in the test laboratory.
To prevent releases of powdery or granular substances from intact bags, it is necessary that the user has access to the closing instructions and the relevant properties of the test substance used for the design type approval. Further experimental investigations are needed to assess whether filling substances change their properties during transport and whether this enables them to escape.
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.
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.
Sift-proofness is a requirement for different types of dangerous goods packagings for solid substances according to the international Dangerous Goods Regulations. In these regulations, a sift-proof packaging is defined as a packaging that is completely impermeable to dry contents. This means indirectly that absolutely no mass transport of solid substances is allowed. Moreover, this requirement applies both to the original filling substance and to fine solid material generated during transport. Further specifications, test conditions or tolerable limit values are not given. This is in contrast to physical principles and the usual practice in other fields of technology in which sift-proofness is relevant. This paper shows the necessary steps for how the requirements for sift-proofness of dangerous goods packagings can be defined more precisely. Physical basics of the term ‘sift-proofness’ are explained. A qualitative as well as a quantitative approach is possible. In any case, it is essential to carry out appropriate vibration tests to assess the siftproofness. There is a need for systematical investigations of the sift-proofness of dangerous goods packagings.
In practice, checks on dangerous goods transports often detect leaks of powdered dangerous goods from valved bags. In this work, the influence factors of a sudden release of powdery substances from the valves of valved bags were investigated. Drop tests were carried out on paper bags of UN design type 5M2 with internal sleeve valve using two different powdery substances (Esplas H130 and zinc oxide “Rotsiegel”).
The internal sleeve valves of all test samples were not sift-proof with respect to both filling substances. For almost all test samples, the Esplas H130 powder already leaked out of pasted joints during manual filling. This is a contradiction to the requirement in UN 6.1.4.18.1, according to which closures and joints of paper bags 5M2 should be sift-proof.
In the drop tests, longer valve lengths had a greater sealing effect for both filling substances (for filling degrees of at least 95% and for test samples which had already been mechanically loaded). As an extreme example, at the drop height of 1.20 m and a filling degree of 100%, the released amount of zinc oxide powder from a 10 cm long valve was about 16 times higher than from a valve length of 12.5 cm. The valve length is therefore a safety-relevant parameter and should be specified by the manufacturer.
To ensure that only filling goods with similar physical properties in comparison to the test substance are used for valved bags, the user must be informed of the particle size of the test substance.
In practice, checks on dangerous goods transports often detect leaks of powdered dangerous goods from valved bags. In this work, the influence factors of a sudden release of powdery substances from the valves of valved bags were investigated.
Drop tests were performed on paper bags of UN design type 5M2 with internal sleeve valve using 2 different powdery substances (Esplas H130 and zinc oxide “Rotsiegel”).
The internal sleeve valves of all test samples were not sift‐proof with respect to both filling substances. For almost all test samples, the Esplas H130 powder already leaked out of pasted joints during manual filling. This is a contradiction to the requirement in UN 6.1.4.18.1, according to which closures and joints of paper bags 5M2 should be sift‐proof.
In the drop tests, longer valve lengths had a greater sealing effect for both filling substances (for filling degrees of at least 95% and for test samples which had already been mechanically loaded). As an extreme example, at the drop height of 1.20 m and a filling degree of 100%, the released amount of zinc oxide powder from a 10‐cm‐long valve was about 16 times higher than from a valve length of 12.5 cm.
The valve length is therefore a safety‐relevant parameter and should be specified by the manufacturer.
To ensure that only filling goods with similar physical properties in comparison with the test substance are used for valved bags, the user must be informed of the particle size of the test substance.
Derzeit existieren für Gefahrgutverpackungen in den internationalen Gefahrgutvorschriften keine Festlegungen für quantitative Grenzleckageraten, die sich an Sicherheitsbetrachtungen während der Beförderung orientieren. Für die Dichtheitsprüfung im Rahmen der Bauartzulassung von Gefahrgutverpackungen für flüssige Füllgüter ist das Standardprüfverfahren das Eintauchverfahren in Wasser („Bubble Test“). Hierbei handelt es sich um ein lokalisierendes Prüfverfahren. Seine Anwendung lässt keine quantitative Aussage darüber zu, ob unter Beförderungsbedingungen aufgrund von strömungsbedingter Stofffreisetzung durch Leckstellen der Gefahrgutverpackungen die Gefahr der Bildung einer explosionsfähigen Atmosphäre besteht. Zentrales Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist daher, zunächst quantitative Dichtheitsanforderungen an Gefahrgutverpackungen im Hinblick auf die Entstehung explosionsfähiger Dampf-Luft-Gemische während des Transports zu entwickeln. Im Anschluss werden strömungsbedingte Leckageraten der Verschlüsse verschiedener Bauarten von Gefahrgutverpackungen gemessen. Der Vergleich der Messwerte mit den berechneten Grenzwerten ermöglicht die Einschätzung hinsichtlich der Bildung einer explosionsfähigen Atmosphäre. Dieser quantitative Ansatz zur Beurteilung der Dichtheit ist für Gefahrgutverpackungen derzeit noch nicht etabliert. Die Grenzleckageraten werden für das Szenario des interkontinentalen Transports von Gefahrgutverpackungen in einem 20-Fuß-Frachtcontainer im Hinblick auf die untere Explosionsgrenze abgeleitet. Dies geschieht unter Annahme einer Worst-Case-Betrachtung für Beförderungsdauer, Beladung und Luftwechselrate. Als mittlere Beförderungstemperatur wird 30 °C angesetzt. Eine vollständige Durchmischung im freien Luftraum des Containers wird angenommen. Es werden drei repräsentative Baugrößen von Gefahrgutverpackungen gewählt, mit einem Volumen von ca. 6 L, ca. 60 L und ca. 220 L. Als Füllgüter werden die 23 meistbeförderten flüssigen Gefahrgüter betrachtet. Die treibende Kraft für die Strömung durch Leckstellen ist der sich in der Verpackung ausbildende Überdruck. Die Berechnung des Überdrucks erfolgt durch analytische Modellgleichungen in Abhängigkeit der spezifischen Stoffdaten, Füllgrad, Befülltemperatur, Transporttemperatur und Nachgiebigkeit der Verpackungsbauart. Die quantitative Leckageratenmessung der Gefahrgutverpackungen wird mit dem Überdruckverfahren mit Ansammlung (Akkumulationsverfahren) unter Verwendung von Helium als Prüfgas vorgenommen. Zusätzlich erfolgt die Detektion weiterer potentieller Leckstellen außerhalb des Verschlussbereiches mit dem Schnüffelverfahren. Bei allen untersuchten Bauarten, mit Ausnahme des 6 L-Feinstblechkanisters, ist der Verschluss die einzige systematische Leckstelle der Verpackung. Die Messung der Helium-Leckageraten und der anschließende Vergleich mit den berechneten Helium-Grenzleckageraten zeigt, dass folgende Bauarten hinsichtlich des Erreichens der unteren Explosionsgrenze (UEG) durch eine Leckageströmung als kritisch einzuschätzen sind: Kunststoffverpackungen mit Schraubverschlüssen mit Flachdichtung, wenn bei diesen bestimmte Schädigungsmuster im Verschlussbereich vorliegen; Feinstblechkanister, da bei ihnen nicht nur der Verschlussbereich eine Leckstelle darstellt; Kunststoffverpackungen mit Schraubverschlüssen mit Flachdichtung, wenn diese auch für Füllgüter der Verpackungsgruppe I zugelassen sind. Als Konsequenz sollten bei diesen kritischen Bauarten entweder Modifikationen in Bezug auf die Verpackung selbst oder auf die Transportbedingungen im Frachtcontainer vorgenommen werden. Bei Kunststoffverpackungen ist auch die Füllgutpermeation als Freisetzungsmechanismus relevant. Es wird der prinzipielle Rechenweg zur Berücksichtigung dieses Quellterms exemplarisch gezeigt. Diese Arbeit leistet einen grundlegenden Beitrag für die Etablierung einer systematischen quantitativen Dichtheitsbetrachtung von Gefahrgutverpackungen mit dem Ziel der Verbesserung der Sicherheit beim interkontinentalen Gefahrguttransport im Frachtcontainer.
Sift-proofness is a requirement for different types of dangerous goods packagings for solid substances according to the international Dangerous Goods Regulations. In these regulations, a siftproof packaging is defined as a packaging which is completely impermeable to dry contents. This means indirectly that absolutely no mass transport of solid substances is allowed. Moreover, this requirement applies both to the original filling substance and to fine solid material generated during transport. Further specifications, test conditions or tolerable limit values are not given. This is in contrast to physical principles and the usual practice in other fields of technology in which sift-proofness is relevant.
This article shows the necessary steps for how the requirements for sift-proofness of dangerous goods packagings can be defined more precisely. Physical basics of the term “sift-proofness” are explained. A qualitative as well as a quantitative approach are possible. In any case, it is essential to carry out appropriate vibration tests to assess the sift-proofness. There is a need for systematical investigations of the sift-proofness of dangerous goods packagings.
The International Dangerous Goods Regulations prescribe the immersion under water method (“bubble test”) as standard method for the leakproofness test of dangerous goods packagings. But this test procedure acts as a test method for leak localisation, not for quantitative leakage rates measurement. Additionally, the sensitivity in detecting leaks of small diameters is restricted, depending on the test liquid and the test pressure. The bubble test is not suitable for a comparison with quantitative limit leakage rates based on realistic transport conditions. This is especially important when estimating the risk of the formation of an explosive atmosphere during the intercontinental carriage of dangerous goods packagings in freight containers. To compare measured leakage rates with limit leakage rates, a quantitative leak testing procedure is required. Therefore a new approach for dangerous goods packagings is implemented: The pressure technique by accumulation using Helium as a tracer gas. This work presents the test equipment necessary for the quantitative measurement of Helium leakage rates through closures of different kinds of dangerous goods packagings. The essential steps to achieve good repeatable results are: A controlled Helium filling process to reach a defined test pressure in the test sample, a sufficient homogenisation of the Helium-air-mixture inside the test sample and the ensuring of a constant pressure level of the test sample during the test. The Helium loss rate of the accumulation chamber has to be measured separately to receive a correction factor for the measured leakage rates. Different constructional measures are introduced to prevent a disturbing influence of the Helium leakage rate of the filling valves on the measurement results. Methods to estimate the disturbing effect of Helium permeation through permeable parts of the test sample are also presented. As a supporting method for the experimental investigations the Helium sniffer test can be applied. This practical application-oriented advice can enable other users to establish a pressure technique by accumulation for their own technical field.
The objective of this work was to determine the maximum gauge pressure in the vapour phase above the liquid in different design types of dangerous goods packagings under normal conditions of carriage. The design types investigated were steel and plastic packagings with a volume of approximately 6 l.
Two different methods were applied. In method 1, the pressure inside the packaging filled with a certain filling substance (dichloromethane) was directly measured under simulated conditions of carriage (degree of filling: 90%; filling temperature: 15°C; temperature during storage: 31°C). The maximum measured gauge pressures were between 89 mbar for a light plastic jerrican and 336 mbar for a steel drum.
In method 2, the gauge pressure was calculated. The consideration of a rigid packaging combined with the assumption of a vapour pressure of zero during filling and sealing can serve as a worst case scenario. The calculated gauge pressure is approximately 1061 mbar. This procedure leads to the highest safety factor and does not require any experimental investigations.
For a more realistic approximation of the gauge pressure of a non-rigid packaging, a packaging-specific function of relative expansion can be used, which is determined by a hydraulic pressure test. The calculated values ranged from 105 to 347 mbar. Method 2 provides conservative results. No hazardous filling substance is needed, and it allows a prediction of gauge pressure for other temperatures, substances and filling degrees. Therefore, this method could serve as alternative to UN Model Regulations 6.1.5.5.4 (a).
The objective was to find out whether an explosive atmosphere can be created in a freight container by gaseous leakage flow of vapour-air-mixture through leaks in the closures of dangerous goods packagings filled with hazardous liquids. Because of high temperatures during intercontinental carriage, there is a gauge pressure in the free vapour phase inside the packagings which can cause a gaseous leakage flow. Two different methods were applied:
Helium limit leakage rates for 23 quantitatively important hazardous liquids concerning their lower explosion limit (LEL) were calculated for a worst case transport scenario (Method 1).
Helium leakage rates of five closure types of dangerous goods packagings with volumes of approximately 6 l were measured using the pressure technique by accumulation (Method 2).
All types of closures of steel packagings were uncritical. The maximum measured leakage was 33% of the limit leakage rate. The leakage rates of screw closures of plastic jerricans can exceed the LEL if there are production-related patterns such as non-concentricity of the closures and flashes on the neck. Especially for plastic packagings it is important to minimize gaseous leakage flow, because an explosive atmosphere can also be reached by permeation of the individual filling substance or by a combination of both effects. For the assessment of potentially explosive mixtures in freight containers, both mass transfer mechanisms have to be taken into account.