.~ .

a
.
_
r.
u.
.
3
.

 

4%

r 4‘5?”
w . Suﬁ.”

454.
_

 

 

a3 a
a “Hagar

. ...
:11 r
$5.91”.
..

, I
5“ I“
.Iﬂﬁxﬂdm.ﬁv
.0 JV

.7
. 3.1

Lllnv X.
.9.

, ¢
31:31:22.
I... . .1
1-54

   

a." 2.5.1.2»: anf,

 
 

.. . .
.IL:

      

. .

W‘Jv .11.. .’»v .

 

 

 

 

THESE

5&70237é

 

 

LIBRARY
M'Ch'ga” State This is to certify that the
UI'IIVGI'SIB’m M4 dissertation entitled

 

 

PACKAGE PERFORMANCE FOR LIQUID HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS IN HIGH ALTITUDE SHIPMENTS

presented by

JAGJIT (JAY) SINGH

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Packaging Science

 

ﬂﬂ/ﬂ

Major Profess/§ Signature
2- 0 g o 2

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

97240”; CCTO62007

 

 

' ’7 l 1; AR
1 u' x:
t

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65—p. 1 5

 

PACKAGE PERFORMANCE FOR LIQUID HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN HIGH
ALTITUDE SHIPMENTS
By

Jagjit (Jay) Singh

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
School of Packaging
2003

Major Professor: S. P. Singh

ABSTRACT

PACKAGE PERFORMANCE FOR LIQUID HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN HIGH
ALTITUDE SHIPMENTS

By
Jagjit (Jay) Singh

Packaged products transported via the feeder aircraft network (UPS,
FedEx, and USPS) are found to experience altitudes as high as 19,000 feet in
non-pressurized aircraft. Packages transported on ground may experience
altitudes as high as 12,000 feet when shipped over mountain passes (UPS
Study, RR: 010-1013). When exposed to these conditions, products and/or
packaging systems can be adversely affected by the changes in the
environment.

Several types of UN certiﬁed hazardous material combination packages
for liquid product were obtained from three US manufacturers in consultation with
FAA. Five different test methods were developed to evaluate the various types of
conditions that these packages were likely to observe in high altitude shipments.
After conducting the tests, it was evident that existing test procedures used by
US-DOT, UN and ICAO do not prevent leaks in air-Shipped HazMat packages.

Based on the new procedures developed to test liquid hazardous
packages for high-altitude shipments, it has been recommended that a simulation
of high altitude shipment Should include simultaneous vibration and low-pressure
environment. New tests and markings on packages have been recommended

for ground and air Shipments of hazardous materials.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to express my deepest gratitude to my research guidance
committee. Dr. S. P. Singh, my major professor, for being a great advisor,
teacher, and a mentor, for his guidance and unconditional support, for being a
source of inspiration, for his endless patience, and for having faith in me. I want
to express my gratitude to Dr. Gary Burgess for his tremendous contribution to
this research. His intellectual comments and suggestions were a great help. I
would also like to thank Dr. Hugh Lockhart for his good advice, support and
patience. I am thankful to Dr. Brian Feeny, of the Mechanical Engineering
Department, for being on my committee and for his help and support.

A Special thanks to the School of Packaging faculty and staff for their ever-
present help. Linda, MaryAnn and Colleen, you are the best.

I am also thankful to Federal Aviation Authority, Federal Express, and the
Consortium for Distribution Packaging at Michigan State University for
contributing with the funding and their experienced input to make this project
possible.

A ﬁnal thanks to my wonderful family for their years of love and support. I

am also grateful to Mrs. Margarette Bansod for including me in her family and for
all the support and caring. ’

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................... vii
I Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................... 1

1.1 Air Transport Incident Data and Analysis of Packaging failures 1

1.2 ValuJet DC-9, Flight 592 ...................................................... 7
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................ 14
2.1 Classiﬁcation of hazardous Materials .................................... 14
2.2 Package Design Qualiﬁcation Testing .................................... 15
2.2.1 Conditioning .............................................................. 16
2.2.2 Drop Test .................................................................. 16
2.2.3 Stack Test ................................................................. 16
2.2.4 Hydrostatic Pressure Test .......................................... 17
2.2.5 Leak Resistance Test ................................................. 17
2.2.6 Vibration Test ............................................................ 17
2.2.7 Cooperage Test ......................................................... 18
2.2.8 Periodic Retesting ...................................................... 18
2.3 Air Eligibility Package Marking ............................................. 18
2.4 Package Shipping Orientation .............................................. 21
Chapter 3: MATHEMATICAL MODELS .......................................... 22
3.1 Analysis of Closures at High Altitudes .................................. 22
3.1.1 Situation A: Closure at Ground Level ........................... 22
3.1.2 Situation B: Closure at Altitude .................................... 27
3.1.3 Situation C: Add Vibration while at Altitude ................... 29
3.1.4 Observations ............................................................. 31
Chapter 4: MATERIALS AND METHODS ....................................... 33
4.1 Package Types Tested ......................................................... 33

4.1.1 Labelmaster Inc. Packages .......................................... 34

4.1.2 HAZMATPAC,lnc. Packages ........................................ 41
4.1.3 CARGOpak Corp. Packages ......................................... ‘49
4.2 Test Equipment ................................................................... 53
4.2.1 Electra-Hydraulic Vibration Table ................................. 53
4.2.2 Vacuum Chamber ....................................................... 55
4.2.3 Closure Torque Tester ................................................ 56
4.3 Test Methods ...................................................................... 56
4.3.1 Phasel ...................................................................... 59
4.3.2 Phase II ..................................................................... 60
4.3.3 Phase III ..................................................................... 61
4.3.4 Phase IV .................................................................... 63
4.3.5 PhaseV ..................................................................... 64
Chapter 5: DATA AND RESULTS .................................................. 66
5.1 Phasel ............................................................................... 66
5.2 Phase II .............................................................................. 69
5.3 Phase III .............................................................................. 70
5.4 Phase IV ............................................................................. 71
5.5 PhaseV .............................................................................. 73
5.6 Closure Back-off and Package with Leaks .............................. 74
Chapter 6: CONCLUSIONS .......................................................... 82

6.1 Recommended Test Procedure for Liquid HazMat Shipments... 84

6.2 Air Eligibility Markings ........................................................ I . 85
Appendix A1: The Hazardous Materials Table - Subpart B ....... 87
Appendix AZ: How to read a UN Number or Marking ............... 94
Appendix A.3: Hazardous Materials Packaging Glossary ......... 100

References ................................................................................. 106

Table 1.
Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.
Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.

Table 16.

LIST OF TABLES

Packaging Failure Incidents Observed In 1998 and 1999.4
Combination Packaging failures ................................... 4

Specification Combination Packaging: Four Most
Common Failures ....................................................... 4

Factors Contributing to Specification Combination
Packaging Failures ..................................................... 5

Unknown Specification Combination Packaging: Four
Most Frequent failures ................................................ 5

Factors Contributing to Unknown Speciﬁcation

Combination Packaging Failures .................................. 6

Phase I - Test Results for Labelmaster, Inc ................... 67
Phase I - Test Results for HAZMATPAC, Inc ................. 68
Phase I - Test Results for CARGOpak, Corp. ............... 68
Phase II - Test Results for Lablemaster, Inc. ............... 69
Phase III — Test Results for Lablemaster, Inc. ............... 70
Phase IV - Test Results for Lablemaster, Inc. ............... 72
Phase V - Test Results for Lablemaster, Inc. ............... 74

“Out-of-Round” Dimensional Measurement for Bottles.. 76
Loss of Torque Due to Creep ...................................... 77

Pressure Conversion Table ........................................ 83

vi

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.

Figure 19:

Figure 20.

LIST OF FIGURES

Hazardous Materials Onboard Aircraft ......................... ' 9
Caravan Super Cargomaster Aircraft ............................ 10
F27-500 Aircraft ......................................................... 11
McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10CF ................................... 11
Boeing MD-10-10F ...................................................... 12
Free Body Diagram of Closure at Ground Level ............. 22

Free Body Diagram of Closure with Pressure Differential 27

Free Body Diagram of Bottle and Closure at Altitude

with Vibration ............................................................ 30
Truck Assurance Level II Random Vibration Test V
Proﬁle ...................................................................... 54
Truck/Air Transport Vibration Test Proﬁle ................... 54
Experimental Setup with Test Packages ....................... 55
Torque Tester ............................................................ 56
Closure Back-Off Measurement ................................... 77
Phase I, HMSOB, Labelmaster, Inc. .............................. 78
Phase I, UNHWS16, Labelmaster, Inc. ......................... 78
Phase I, UN32PPS, Labelmaster, Inc. .......................... 79
Phase I, CT-SP-0002, CARGOpak, Corp. ...................... 79
Labelmaster, Inc. Caps that Passed/Failed Phase I ........ 80

Comparison of Leakeage Failures (%) for the Five
Phases of Testing (LABELMASTER Inc.) ...................... 81

Air Eligible (proposed symbol) ...................................... 85

vii

Figure 21. Not tested for Air Shipments (proposed Symbol) ............ 86

Images in this dissertation are presented in color

viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This study investigated the effect of high altitude shipments on various
forms of packaging systems, primarily used to ship liquid hazardous materials.
Packaged products transported via the feeder aircraft network (UPS, FedEx, and
USPS) are found to experience altitudes as high as 19,000 feet in non-pressurized
aircraft. Packages transported on ground may experience altitudes as high as
12,000 feet when shipped over mountain passes (UPS Study, RR: 010-1013,
2001). When exposed to these conditions, products and/or packaging systems
can be adversely affected by the changes in the environment.

In the late 1990’s the Federal Aviation Administration started documenting
package failures in US aircraft for hazardous materials. This data was collected
based on package failure incident data that is required to be reported by shippers
or carriers. The study showed a significantincrease in the number of package
failures of hazardous materials in commercial and cargo aircraft over a two-year
period (McLaughlin, J., 2000). The results of this study are discussed in the next

secﬂon.

1.1 Air Transport Incident Data and Analysis of Packaging Failures
Incident data from the US Department Of Transportation’s Hazardous

Materials Information System was analyzed for 1998 and 1999. The analysis on

packaging failures focused on declared dangerous goods shipments. A review of

the 1998 and 1999 packaging failure data showed that a failure of inner containers

in combination packaging contributed to 1299 spills or leaks. Of the incidents
involving glass containers, 50% of the incidents were attributable to dropping of
the packaging and failure of the inner receptacle. The information for incidents
reported in air transportation were the only ones considered in this analysis. The
purpose of the analysis was to try and identify any trends that could be used to
enhance transport safety by reducing the number of incidents in air transportation.
This was attributed to the crash of the ValuJet Flight 592 in Florida in May 1996
that was found to be a result of improper packaging and placement of unmarked
oxygen canisters. The various issues involved in this incident are discussed in
Section 1.2.

The incidents reported for 1999 were reviewed for package failures and the
data compared to the 1998 data for resulting trends. The packaging failures were
reviewed from three different perspectives to determine if any particular causal
factor was skewing the results. The following issues were considered:

0 Overall packaging failures

0 Failures by commodity

e Failures by carrier

The packaging failures for 1998 were categorized into eight different causal
factors. Two additional causal factors for 1999 were added. These were the
“apparently dropped” category, which was previously counted as dropped, and the
“inner container broken” category, which (is a more speciﬁc deﬁnition than
“unknown". Neither addition of the more specific categories in 1999 analysis

signiﬁcantly affected the comparisons of the two years. The packaging failures in

1999, were considered to have been caused by the following ten different causal
factors:

. Seal/Closure

. Unknown

0 Inner Container Broken

o Punctured

o Forklift

. Seam

o Other Freight

. Chime

. Dropped

. Apparently Dropped — this includes packages, which were found to be

leaking

Table 1 shows a summary of all packaging failure incidents that were
observed in 1998 and 1999. Table 2 shows the difference of failures in
combination packaging, that met the existing DOT HazMat speciﬁcations and were
identiﬁed and those that were unmarked. Almost 50% of the speciﬁcation
combination packaging experienced failures. Table 3 describes the four most
frequent package failure types. The Plastic/4G showed the highest numbers of
package incident failures. This category also Showed the largest increase in

package failures between the two years (72%).

Table 1: Packaging Failure Incidents Observed in 1998 and 1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

Packaging Type 1998 1999 Change
Combination Packaging 597 692 +95
Single Packaging ’ 231 243 +12
Unknown 45 28 -17
Total 873 963 +90

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2: Combination Packaging

 

 

 

 

 

Packaging Type 1998 1999 Change
Speciﬁcation Combination Packaging 298 392 +94
Combination Packaging (Unknown
299 300 +1
Speciﬁcation)
Total 597 692 +95

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Speciﬁcation Combination Packagi_ng: Four Most Frequent Failures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Package Type 1998 1999 Change
Plastic/4G ‘ 100 172 +72
Metal/4G 71 67 -4
Glass/4G 46 64 +18
Unknown 1 9 30 +1 1

 

 

 

 

 

The study further analyzed the causal factors attributed to each type of package

failure. These are shown in Table 4. The results showed that the Seal/Closure

factor was the most frequent cause of failure in all package types.

Table 4: Factors Contributing to Speciﬁcation Combination Packaging

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Failures
Packaging Seal Inner Punc Fork Other Possible
Unk Seam Chime Drop Total
Type Closure Broken -tured Lift Freight Drop
I . 65% 3% 1% 2% 3% 5% 9% 12%
Plastic/4GI o o 172
111 5 2 4 6 8 16 20
66% 4% 4% 6% 4% 7% 7%
Metal/4G 0 o 0 67
44 3 3 4 3 5 5
23% 6% 17% 5% 1% 22% 25%
Glass/4G 0 o o 64
15 4 11 3 1 14 16
27% 33% 13% 7% 13% 7%
Unk/4G O 0 0 0 30
8 10 4 2 4 2

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5 shows the four most common failures in the packages that did not

meet the existing DOT HazMat specifications.

Table 5: Unknown Speciﬁcation Combination Packaging: Four Most
Frequent Failures

 

 

 

 

 

 

Package Type 1998 1999 Change
Plastic/Fib 98 85 -13
Metal/Fib 66 53 -13
Glass/Fib 73 50 -23
Unk/Fib 23 38 +15

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6 describes the data showing the various causal factors attributed to
the unknown speciﬁcation packaging failures. Again, the Seal/Closure factor was
the highest contributing cause of package failures. The highest failures were
found in Metal and Plastic primary containers that were packaged in ﬁberboard

corrugated shippers as part of the “Combination Package”.

Table 6: Factors Contributing to Unknown Speciﬁcation Combination
Packaging Failures

 

 

 

 

 

Pkg Seal 1mm Punc Fork Other Possible
Unk Seam Chime Drop Total
Type Closure Brk -tured Lift Freight Drop
P'astic 62% 18% 2% 2% 5% 3% 4% 4%
o o 85
lFib 53 15 2 2 4 3 3 3
Metal 70% 11% 2% 6% 9% 2%
o o o o 53
lFib 37 6 1 3 6 1
Glass 26% 20% 26% 2% 2% 16% 8%
o o o 50
lFib 13 10 13 1 1 8 4
Ullk 58% 37% 5%
o o o o o o o 38
lFib 22 14 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was an overall increase in the number of combination packaging
failures. Plastic inner containers failed more frequently than any other inner

packaging for both 1998 and 1999. Plastic inner packaging failed in approximately

27% of the 1999 incidents reviewed, and 23% in 1998. Closure failures were
attributed to over 50% of all the package failures (spills or leaks). When glass
inner containers were used, the inner packaging broke in over 50% of the

instances, as a result of —the container being dropped.

1.2 ValuJet DC-9, Flight 592

On May 11, 1996, at 14:13 eastern daylight time, 3 Douglas DC-9-32 crashed
into the Everglades about 10 minutes after takeoff from Miami International Airport,
Miami, Florida. As a result, the pilots, ﬂight attendants, and all 105 passengers
were killed. Visual meteorological conditions existed in the Miami area at the time
of the takeoff. Flight 592, operating under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 121, was
on an instmment ﬂight rules ﬂight plan destined for the Hartsﬁeld International
Airport, Atlanta, Georgia.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the
probable cause of the accident, which resulted from a ﬁre in the airplane’s class D
cargo compartment, was initiated by the actuation of one or more oxygen
generators that were being improperly carried as cargo
(MOI/WWW.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/AAR9706.htm). The following were the
summarized causes of the accident by the NTSB:

. The failure of SabreTech to I properly prepare, package, and identify
unexpended chemical oxygen generators before presenting them to ValuJet for

carriage

. The failure of ValuJet to properly oversee its contract maintenance program to
ensure compliance with maintenance, maintenance training, and hazardous
materials requirements and practices; and

o The failure of the FAA to require smoke detection and ﬁre suppression systems

in class D cargo compartments

Investigators believed that no action was taken on a previous incident that
occurred in an American Trans Air DC-10 plane in Chicago in 1986 that was
carrying oxygen generators improperly placed in a forward cargo compartment.
The plane was still on the ground when a ﬁre started, and the airplane was
destroyed. Fortunately no one was killed during this earlier incident.

Since the ValuJet incident, the Federal Aviation Administration is spending
more time and money ensuring that those responsible for shipping of dangerous
goods on aircraft follow the rules. This is a tough challenge since it involves
participation and responsibility between shippers, freight forwarders, and air
carriers and has many commercial airlines wondering if they should be in the
dangerous goods business at all.

Both the regulations and enforcement are tightening. The training costs are
escalating. The insurance costs are astronomical. The potential ﬁnes are
staggering. The repercussions can be devastating, even deadly. The FAA now
has ﬁve times the HAZMAT staff it did before ValuJet 592, and has collected more
than $14 million in fines between 1997 and 2000. Although the FAA's crackdown
is aimed mostly at shippers and commercial carriers, it'S important to realize that

the same HazMat rules apply to each and every individual passenger who is ﬂying

with accompanying luggage.

Since September 11, 2002 the level of threat on

commercial airlines has increased. There is an increased level of inspection in

ﬂights for unmarked/unidentiﬁed packages. Figure 1 Shows the various stowage

locations on an aircraft that are used to place packages, that may contain

hazardous

A

#0310

oo~ra>or

materials

 

Batteries, Aircraft (qty 2)

Engine Oil (waste only)

Escape SIidelelfe Rafts (all entry
doors/rafts optional)

Fire Bottles (APU, engines, lower
cargo compartment, and lavatory waste
containers)

Fire Extlngulshers (attendant stations,
closets, galleys, etc.)

Fuel

Hydraullc Fluid, reservoirs (waste
only)

Uranium (depleted, counter-balance
weights)

Ordnance Devices (off-wing escape)

1O
11
12
13

14

15
16

17

(www.ngwrc.org/Dulink/DU_Counterweights.html).

 

Figure 1: Hazardous Materials Onboard Aircraft

Oxygen Bottles, Portable,

Gaseous

Oxygen Bottles, Crew System,
Gaseous

Oxygen Bottles, Passenger
System, Gaseous (standard)
Oxygen Generators (optional: each
PSU, standard: each attendant
station and lavatory)

Rain Repellent

Refrigerant (located in each galley)
Smoke Hoods

Trltlum Slgns (aisles, emergency
door exits)

A feeder aircraft provides a service by connecting at least two ports in order
for the freight (generally containers) to be consolidated or redistributed to or from a
hub in one of the ports. The distances covered by a feeder aircraft are usually
about 500 miles. A feeder aircraft ﬂeet usually consists of propeller aircraft that do
not have pressurized cargo holds. This means that the air pressure inside a feeder
aircraft is the same as whatever altitude they ﬂy at. This has a direct impact on the
distribution environment for any packages the feeder aircraft may carry in their

cargo holds. Figures 2 and 3 are examples of the feeder aircraft used by FedEx.

 

Figure 2: Caravan Super Cargomaster Aircraft

Federal Express depends on a ﬂeet of more than 300 Caravan Super

Cargomasters to feed overnight packages to and from outlying communities.

In cargo conﬁguration, the Caravan offers 452 cubic feet of cargo space,
including the standard cargo pod. That makes it the largest cargo-dedicated

single-engine turboprop built today (http://caravan.cessna.com/)

 

Figure 3: F27-500 Aircraft

Cargo and commercial aircraft have a pressurized cargo hold, usually
maintaining pressures of 8,000 feet. Figures 4 and 5 are examples of cargo

aircraft used by Federal Express.

 

 

Figure 4: McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10CF

 

Figure 5: Boeing MD-1 0-10F

The existing HazMat package shipments are enforced by the Department of
Transportation under the CFR 49. These speciﬁcations describe the various tests
that need to be conducted on packages used to ship dangerous goods. In the
existing test methods there is no differentiation between ground and air shipments.
In a preliminary study Singh and Burgess (2001) found that certain pre-approved
HazMat packages when exposed to simultaneous low pressure and vibration
resulted in leaks. Based on this study the Consortium for Distribution Packaging
at MSU initiated a study to investigate the cause of failures in current approved
DOT packages and to develop new test methods to qualify all HazMat packages
for air shipments. The funding for this research was provided by the Federal

Aviation Authority, the Department of Transportation, and Federal Express.

At the initiation of this study, it was known that the existing DOT speciﬁcations

for liquid HazMat packages did not speciﬁcally require the vacuum test. The

existing pressure differential allowed users to Choose between a vacuum, internal
pressure test or hydrostatic test. The theoretical model developed in Chapter 3
showed a reduction in seal force based on the combined vibration and vacuum
environment. The hypothesis was based on conducting tests using the combined
vibration and vacuum method used in the models, and show the presence of leaks

based on a reduction in seal force.

The objectives of this study were:

0 Investigate current approved (DOT and UN) HazMat combination
packages for liquids when subjected to simultaneous vibration and
pressure levels found in commercial and cargo air shipments.

. To develop and validate a lab test method to simulate high altitude
air/truck shipments of Hazardous Materials.

0 To evaluate marking requirements for air-shipment of Hazardous
Materials.

9 To investigate effect of seal integrity and removal torque on current
approved (DOT and UN) HazMat packages.

9 Provide recommendations to FAA and DOT for safe shipment of

hazardous materials.

13

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

A hazardous material is defined as “a substance or material including a
hazardous waste, a hazardous substance, a material transported at an elevated
temperature (hot), a marine pollutant, or any material meeting the definition for the
hazard Classes or divisions found in part 173 of 49 CFR, which has been
determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be capable of posing an
unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce,

and which has been so designated”. (§ 171.8, 4QCFR).

A simpliﬁed deﬁnition of a “hazardous material” is any material which is
known to create a danger to any person’s health, life, or property through contact,
exposure, inhalation, ﬁre, explosion, or which could cause environmental pollution.
These materials include fuels such as gasoline, propane, and fuel oil, household
Cleansers, pesticides, herbicides, drugs, medicines, paints, inks, fertilizers, as well
as explosives, industrial chemicals and radioactive materials. Under certain
conditions, and in large quantities, even alcoholic beverages and some foodStuffs

may pose hazards in transportation and are therefore regulated.

2.1 Classiﬁcation of Hazardous Materials

The Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR Subpart B, §172.101) designates
the materials listed therein as hazardous materials for the purpose of
transportation of those materials. For each listed material, this table identifies the

hazard Class or speciﬁes that the material be forbidden in transportation, and gives

14

the proper shipping name, or directs the user to the preferred proper shipping
name. In addition, this table Speciﬁes or references requirements pertaining to
labeling, packaging, quantity limits aboard aircraft and stowage of hazardous
materials aboard vessels. The ten columns provide information on:

0 Mode of transportation restrictions/conditions

0 Proper shipping name

9 Hazard class

9 UN or NA identiﬁcation number

9 Packing group

0 Required labels

0 Special provisions

0 Packaging requirements

9 Air transportation

9 Vessel transportation

Appendix A shows the description, proper shipping names and markings for

hazardous materials.
2.2 Package Design Qualiﬁcation Testing

Currently, design qualiﬁcation testing is performed to determine the capabilities of

a packaging (CFR 49, Subpart M, §178.600). The following are the required tests

for POP (Performance Oriented Packaging) for shipment of hazardous materials:

15

2.2.1 Conditioning
Packages need to be conditioned under appropriate test requirements. The
various conditioning environments recommended include:
0 Standard conditioning: 23 i 2°C (73 i 4°F)
0 High Temperature Conditioning: 40 i 2°C (104 i 4°F)

9 Low Temperature Conditioning: -20 _+. 2°C (-4 i 4°F)

2.2.2 Drop Test

The packages are tested to prevent Hazardous Materials from leaking or
escaping if the package is dropped during conditions of transport. Packages as
prepared for transportation are dropped from the appropriate height onto a rigid,
horizontal and ﬂat surface. The number and type of drops depend on the
packaging being tested. The drop height will depend on the Packing Group and

Speciﬁc Gravity of the material for which the packaging may be used.

2.2.3 Stack Test

This test ensures the ability of the packaging to remain intact and hold its
contents under normal stacking conditions during transport. Test samples are
subjected to a force applied to the surface of the sample equivalent to the total
weight of identical packages that may be stacked on it during transport. The

minimum stack height is no less than 3 meters (10 ft.) for all packages.

16

2.2.4 Hydrostatic Pressure Test

This test ensures that the packaging will not leak under pressure.
Packaging systems to be tested are ﬁlled with water or other suitable liquids so as
to eliminate all air poCkets. The appropriate amount of pressure is applied
internally through a ﬁtting that has been installed on the packaging for this
purpose. The pressure must be maintained for 5 minutes for metal and composite
glass, porcelain, or stoneware, and for 30 minutes for plastic and composite

packagings made of plastic material.
2.2.5 Leak Resistance Test

This test ensures that the package will not leak or permit liquids to escape.
The receptacle is subjected to a low positive internal air pressure and, by

immersion or other means, the presence of any leaks is detected.

2.2.6 Vibration Test

In addition to the above tests, non-bulk packagings must be capable of
withstanding the vibration test speciﬁed under §178.601. The packaging is placed
on a vibrating platform and restrained from horizontal movement, but free to
bounce, rotate, and move vertically. The test is performed for one hour and at a
frequency that causes the package to be raised from the platform in such a
manner that a piece of material such as steel strapping or paperboard can be
passed between the bottom of the package and the platform. After the test, the

package is Checked for leaks.

l7

2.2.7 Cooperage Test

The cooperage test shall be performed on bung type wooden barr'els prior
to initial use and, where specified, at periodic intervals. The hoops of the barrel
above the bilge are removed and the tendency of the staves to straighten is

measured.
2.2.8 Periodic Retesting

Periodic retesting must be done at intervals of sufﬁcient frequency to
ensure that the packaging produced by the manufacturer is capable of passing the
design qualiﬁcation tests. For single or composite packagings, the periodic retest
is to be done no less than once each 12 months. For combination packagings the
retesting must be done no less than once each 24 months. The requirements of
the periodic retest are the drop, leak-proofness, hydrostatic pressure, and stacking

tests.

2.3 Air Eligibility Package Marking

The inability of air transport operators to discern between packaging
qualified for air transport and a lack of shipper awareness of additional air
packaging requirements is resulting in unauthorized or improper packaging being
offered and accepted for air transport. The ICAO (International Civil Aviation
Organization) Technical Instructions (lCAO-TI) includes general requirements
applicable to combination packaging that are not required by other modal

regulations (eg. the requirements in 4;1.1.4, 4;1.1.6 and 4;1.1.10). Packagings

18

prepared for road, rail or sea transport are not required to be capable of
withstanding without leakage a vacuum test, be packaged with absorbent material,
and subjected to a positive means of retaining friction-type Closures and more
stringent inner packaging quantity limitations. These additional air transport
requirements may be overlooked given that current UN packaging certiﬁcation
markings for combination packaging do not provide an indication of whether

additional air transport requirements have been met.

Investigation has Shown that packagings that are not in compliance with air
transport requirements frequently enter the air transport environment and that
some shippers are either unaware of the additional air transport requirements or
are ignoring them. Incident data Show that leaking inner receptacles of
combination packaging represent a significant percentage of the packaging
failures in air transport (http://www.iata.org/events/dg/_ﬁles/McLaughlin.pdf). Some
air mode packaging failures result from packagings that are not air eligible, but
appear so because of a lack of distinguishing marks. Without an effective means
of identifying packagings that meet the air transport requirements, air operators
and inspectors can not easily determine if a packaging is qualiﬁed and safe for air

transport.
While there is no regulatory requirement that a marking be applied to

indicate that a packaging is eligible for air transport, several packaging vendors

and military shippers are voluntarily marking packagings that meet the additional

19

air requirements through the use of an icon/symbol (l.e. an airplane Silhouette
inside a Circle) or a statement such as “Air Eligible”. Use of a marked symbol or
statement would be beneﬁcial for indicating that a package is qualiﬁed for
transport by air and could heighten shipper awareness and responsibility for

meeting air transport requirements.

The Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) is proposing to adopt a new paragraph
4;1.1.20 as follows:

“Combination packaging must be marked to indicate that the packaging
meets the applicable requirements of this part, particularly those applicable only to
air transport (eg. the relevant packing instruction requirements, pressure
differential test, requirement to provide absorbent material and closure
requirements). The marking must be durable, legible, of such a size relative to the
packaging as to be readily visible and placedadjacent to the markings prescribed

in 6;2.1.1. The marking must include the words “Air Eligible” and/or the symbol:

 

20

2.4 Package Shipping Orientation

The existing DOT speciﬁcation for shipping and handling _HazMat
containers requires that the packages be placed with the Closure facing up at all
times. While this practice can be easily followed for ground shipments, it is difﬁcult
to control in air transport. Air shipments are generally cubed out and therefore
packages are placed in the orientation most likely to provide high cube efﬁciency.
In various studies (Singh, et-al, 1996; Newsham, et-al, 1999) there is a clear
indication that single parcels get exposed to impacts and vibration in all
orientations during parcel handling, sorting, and transportation.

This study evaluated the performance of HazMat packages in the sideway

and top-down orientation.

21

3.0 MATHEMATICAL MODELS

The existing test procedures used by DOT for testing and approving
combination packages for HazMat shipments are sequentially performed. In
addition to testing for the physical forces, a pressure differential test is required.
The pressure differential test requirement can be met by either the hydrostatic
pressure test or a vacuum test and this can be a problem. This section shows the
mathematical models of packages and closures subjected to various conditions of

high altitude shipments.
3.1 Analysis of closures at high altitude:

3.1.1 Situation A: Forces on cap and liner during application torque at ground

. . A
level are shown In Figure 6. z

 

 

 

--C-..~.

 

\‘
Q
~
~
“in.“
-‘-
-——-_
----——--- _--—---
--—--——----——-—-——-----—

 

 

Figure 6: Free Body Diagram of Closure at Ground Level

22

Where,
T = application torque (in-lb)
dn,ds = continuous distribution of inﬁnitesimal contact forces on thread and

liner respectively (assumed uniform)

,uI = coefﬁcient of friction between the liner and rim of the bottle

pi = coefficient of friction between the bottle and cap threads

Since all the dry’s and ds’s are assumed to be the same, the following

equilibrium equations are automatically satisﬁed by symmetry:

ZE=0 0)
25:0 (3
ZM=0 » m
ZM=0 m

Let S be the total force exerted by the rim of the bottle up on the liner. Let
N be the total force exerted by the threads of the bottle down on the threads of

the cap. Then, since the thread pitch angle 6 is small, we get:
S = Edit (5)
N = 2dr (6)

Balancing the vertical forces and torques around the bottle axis gives

ZFz=st—Zdn=0 (7)

23

2M. = T - 20318th)— 20.18.98) = 0 (8)
where R = cap radius. Equation (7) and Equation (8) give
S = N (9)
T = —,ut.N.R + #1512 (10)

Substituting N = S and D = 2R in Equation (10), we get

S = =— 11
,u.D ( )
where, S = seal force (lb)
D = cap diameter (in)
T = application torque (in-lb)
Z = pig—ﬂ) = average coefficient of friction

As an example, consider a wide mouth bottle with a diameter D = 3 inches.
The application torque can be anything, but is usually determined by the following
industry rule (“Closure Guide”, Closure Manufacturers’ Association): the
application torque should be about half the diameter of the cap in millimeters.

Since D = 3 inches =76.2 mm, Tshould be about 76.2/2 z 38 in-lb. The average

coefﬁcient of friction will be taken as Z = 0.2 (“Model for Predicting Application

Torque and Removal Torque of a Continuous Thread Closure”, Supachai
Plsuchpen, 2000). Then, from Equation (11),

38
0.2x3

S:

 

= 63 lbs (12)

24

The seal force is important because it directly relates to the ability of the
liner to contain the contents of the bottle. It is literally the force holding the liner
down against the rim of the bottle. The larger the seal force, the greater the seal.
This is not the way the industry typically looks at seal integrity, however. It is

normally quantiﬁed by the removal torque.

In the simpliﬁed force diagram in the ﬁgure in Situation A, the torque and
friction forces will be reversed during removal. The equilibrium equations would
then give the same relationship as in Equation (11) between removal torque and
seal force. The analysis therefore predicts that the removal torque is the same as
the application torque. In reality, it is usually less. The reason is that the pitch
angle, 6 (assumed zero in the analysis) does affect the force balances somewhat.
Including it in the analysis does predict that the removal torque is somewhat less
than the application torque (“Model for Predicting Application Torque and Removal
Torque of a Continuous Thread Closure”, Supachai Plsuchpen, 2000). Regardless
of the details, there is a direct relationship between removal torque and seal force,
so there is no reason to question the industry practice of using removal torque to

evaluate seal force.

From Equation (11) it can be seen that increasing the cap diameter
decreases the seal force because less friction and therefore less seal force is
required to balance the application torque using a larger moment arm. Increasing

the coefﬁcient of friction decreases the seal force because more of the application

25

torque is spent in overcoming friction. Increasing the torque increases the seal
force. But if the application torque is Chosen according to industry practice (half the

cap diameter), then

T = 12.7 * D (13)
T = application torque (inch-lbs)
D = cap diameter (inches)

Substituting this in Equation (11) gives,

S=l——Z (14)

2.
,u
S = seal force (lbs)

,u = average coefﬁcient of friction

Equation (14) says that following the industry rule leads to a seal force
which is independent of the cap diameter. From the point of view of engineering
stress analysis (S.P. Timoshenko, History of. Strength of Materials, McGraw Hill,
New York, 1953), this practice would not be advisable because the stress on the

liner would diminish as the cap diameter increases,

 

S 12.7
stress = —— = _
77.D.t 7r.,uD.t
Z = average coefﬁcient of friction
D = cap diameter (inches)
t = thickness of rim of bottle (inches)

stress = compression stress on liner (psi)

26

A smaller stress produces a smaller strain and so the industry rule
would lead to larger liners being compressed less. The potential for leaks,

therefore, increase as the cap size gets larger.

3.1.2 Situation B: At altitude (pressure differential effects)

porrﬁi D
I

Figure 7: Free Body Diagram of Closure with Pressure Differential

 

 

 

The free-body diagram in Figure 7 shows the forces on the cap and liner
after the application torque has been removed and when the sealed container is
subjected to an air pressure differential.

There are friction forces acting on the cap that are not shown in Figure 3.
The friction forces on the liner and friction forces on the threads are equal in
magnitude but act in opposite direction, so they balance each other and therefore

do not enter any force or torque balance equations. The outside air pressure, p0,

due to transporting the container by plane decreases with increasing altitude and

the inside air pressure, ,0, remains constant at whatever the pressure was for the

27

elevation the container was sealed at. The only equilibrium equation that changes
is:
ZFz=pi.7Z'.R2+Sl-po.7r.R2—NI=O (15)
which gives, NI 4 St = 7r.R2(,a‘ - po) (16)
The thread and seal forces are therefore no longer the same. Since the

outside pressure is less than the inside pressure, the thread force is greater than

the seal force.

Assume the cap and bottle to be rigid (i.e. when the pressure differential is
applied, there is no deformation of the cap or bottle). In this case, Since the cap
and bottle do not deform, and there is no pressure change Inside the bottle, there
is no change in the spacing between the top of the cap and the rim of the bottle,
and hence no change in the compression of the liner. This means that there is no
immediate change in the seal force, although the seal force will decrease over
time because the liner material relaxes. Therefore,

SI = S = same as when application torque was removed and
NI=S+77.R2(pi-po) (17)
Hence, an increase in altitude will cause an increase in the thread contact
force of magnitude 7t.R2(pi — p0), but no change in the seal force. These

conditions persist for as long as the pressure differential does.

To get an estimate Of how large this increase is, the following general rule,

based on published pressure versus altitude Charts, will be used: for every 1000

28

feet of altitude, the pressure drops 0.5 psi. This is considered to be the normal
lapse rate in aviation. Then, _

pi — pa = 0.5A (18)
where A is the altitude above the location at which the bottle was capped, in
thousands of feet. Using this and D = 2R in Equation (17), we get

increase in thread force = 7r.D2(O.5A)/4 = 0.39A.D2 (19)

As an example, if a bottle with a 3-inch diameter cap is transported to 14,000 feet
above the location where it was capped, then A =14, D = 3, and the increase in
the thread force is,
0.39x14x9 = 49 lbs (20)
Since this is the same cap as in the example in situation A, the thread force
would increase to 63 + 49 = 112 lbs, even though the sealing force remains
unchanged. This could distort the cap and poSsibly cause the cap threads to jump

over the bottle threads.
3.1.3 Situation C: Add vibration while at altitude

In theory, the worst-case scenario would be when the bottle is tipped upside
down, so that the liquid (or powder) is always present and ready to leak out, and
the weight of the contents acts like a live load. The equivalent weight of the live

load is W(1+G), where W is the dead (static) weight of the bottle and contents

and G is the instantaneous acceleration of the bottle expressed in g'S. The

29

acceleration of the ﬂoor of the truck trailer is known to be about 0.5 g's on
average (Singh, et al., 1992), and can get as high as 20 g'S when the truck goes
over bumps, railroad tracks, and pot holes (Marcondes, et al., 1990). Vibration
further complicates the force situation on the bottle by allowing the upside down

bottle to tilt slightly off vertical as it vibrates. This has the effect of concentrating

the live load at a point as shown in Figure 8 below.

Bottle \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Contents
Live Load
[I Cap
Liner

 

 

 

 

 

Reaction Force U

Figure 8: Free Body Diagram of Bottle and Closure at Altitude with Vibration

This has the effect of squeezing the liner more on one side than the other.
The extra amount of compression depends on how large the live load is, and how

long it lasts. Truck trailers typically vibrate up and down on the order of ﬁve cycles

30

per second (Pierce, et al., 1992). Assuming an average G of 0.5 during vibration,
the live load could go from W (1 + 0.5) to W(1- 0.5) In half a cycle of vibration, or 0.1

seconds.

No matter how large the live load is, or how long it lasts, the net effect of
vibration is to compress and then uncompress the liner in rapid succession. This
can easily render the seal force temporarily zero at isolated locations. A rapid
removal of the compression force, such as occurs naturally during vibration, does
not allow the liner to recover in time. It takes several seconds, even minutes, for
the liner to spring back to its original thickness, once the cap is removed, if it even
fully springs back at all. But once the live load is removed, the cap springs back
immediately. So all during the time that the cap has sprung back, the liner Is
recovering, and there is a gap between the two. The size of the gap depends on
the specifics of the package. Regardless, however, it represents an opportunity for

a leak.

3.1.4 Observations

Based on this analysis it is Clear that both simultaneous vibration and low
pressure at high altitudes reduces the overall seal force, which can compromise
the closure integrity. The existing test procedures are performed sequentially with
each environmental hazard (drop, vibration, pressure, compression) tested once.
However in actual shipments in aircraft, vibration and low pressure occur
' simultaneously. It Is therefore expected that the packages tested using the

hydrostatic pressure will have an extra seal force, preventing contents from

31

leaking, as Opposed to packages tested using the vacuum test which are likely to

leak.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the theory discussed in

Chapter 3:

O

The shippers of these HazMat packages do appear to be following the
industry rule regarding the application torque.

The industry rule is equivalent to requiring that the seal force be the
same for all bottles, regardless of cap diameter, and this has the
consequence of compressing the liner less for larger caps, so larger
caps have greater potential for leaks.

An increase in altitude affects seal force very little, but raises thread
contact forces signiﬁcantly. This could cause distortion of the bottle neck
and cap to the point where the threads begin to jump over each other.
An increase in altitude affects larger caps much more than smaller ones
because the pressure differential acts over a greater area. The potential
for leaks is greater for larger caps.

The effect of vibration is to subject the liner to intermittent compression
loads. If the liner material is slow to recover, and most are, then
vibration produces intermittent gaps which open and close at
concentrated pressure points, in step with whatever frequency the bottle

vibrates at during transportation.

32

4.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Several types of commercially available, UN certiﬁed hazardous material
combination packages were obtained from three US manufacturers in consultation
with FAA. These packages represented the types, which were known to have shown
package incident failures in air cargo shipments. Several test methods were
developed to evaluate the performance of these types of packages. The test
methods represent the various types of conditions that these types of packages are
likely to observe in high altitude shipments. This chapter discusses the different UN
certiﬁed packages that were tested, the various types of test equipment used, and

the test methods.

4.1 Package Types Tested
The UN certiﬁed packages were obtained from three different US
manufacturers. These were:
1. LABELMASTER Inc, Chicago, IL (www.labelmaster.com)
2. CARGOpak Corporation, Raleigh, NC (www.cargopak.com)

3. HAZMATPAC Inc., Houston, TX (www.hazmatpac.com)
Each of the various combination packages obtained and tested in this study is

discussed in the next section. The descriptions provided in the following section is

information provided by the HazMat package supplier.

33

4.1.1 LABELMASTER Packages

HMS-08

Consists of a PVC plasticoated glass bottle and a plastic lid with a ﬂat liner.
The lid is sealed with PP tape and placed inside a PP bag, which is sealed with a
nylon tie. The bag is wrapped in a vermiculite pad and placed inside a steel
canister. This canister is then placed inside a double—wall ﬁberboard insert. The
whole setup is contained inside another PP bag and sealed with a nylon tie before

being boxed and sealed inside a double-wall ﬁberboard carton.

UN950PPT
Consists of a PE bottle and cap (with ﬂat liner), which is sealed with PP
tape and placed in a ﬁberboard insert. This setup after being placed inside a PP

bag and closed with a nylon tie is then placed inside a ﬁberboard box and sealed.

i
l
, .

vi" ’3 .
ma ‘-

UN9SOGPT
Consists of glass bottle and a plastic cap with a ﬂat liner, which is sealed
with PP tape and then placed in a XEBEC pouch with zip lock. The setup is then

placed in a ﬁberboard box and sealed

 

UN16FFPS

Consists of a glass bottle and plastic cap with a PE cone liner. The bottle is
sealed with PP tape and placed inside two PS end caps at the top and bottom.
This setup after being placed inside a PP bag and closed with a nylon tie is then

placed inside a ﬁberboard box and sealed.

{nu-am,
II II t”
..

- :1

UN32FFPS

Consists of a glass bottle and plastic cap with a PE cone liner. The bottle is
sealed with PP tape and placed inside an enclosure made of two molded PS
pieces. This setup after being placed inside a PP bag and closed with a nylon tie is

then placed inside a ﬁberboard box and sealed.

35

 

UNHWS16

Consists of a wide mouth glass bottle and plastic cap with a ﬂat liner. The
bottle is sealed with PP tape and placed inside two PS end caps at the top and
bottom and a central PS body piece. This setup after being placed inside a PP bag

and closed with a nylon tie is then placed inside a ﬁberboard box and sealed.

 

UN32NPVB
Consists of wide mouth Nalgene PE bottle and a liner less plastic cap,
which is sealed with PP tape and then placed in a XEBEC pouch with zip lock. The

setup is then placed in a ﬁberboard box and sealed.
‘x. '
Li

A

.1

‘mm

HMSP-32N

Consists of four Nalgene PE bottle with liner less plastic caps. These are
completely enclosed in a three-piece (two end pieces and a center-body piece) PS
setup. This setup after being placed inside a PP bag and closed with a nylon tie is

then placed inside a double-wall ﬁberboard box and sealed.

UN32PPS

Consists of a PE bottle and a cap with a cone liner, which is sealed with PP
tape and placed in a ﬁberboard insert. A PS end piece is placed on the top end of
the bottle. This setup after being placed inside a PP bag and closed with a nylon

tie is then placed inside a ﬁberboard box and sealed.

\Q

E“

I
8i.

\

‘L,

5

“

I

UN4FFPS

Consists of a glass bottle and plastic cap with a PE cone liner. The bottle is
sealed with PP tape and placed inside two PS end caps at the top and bottom and
a central PS body piece. This setup after being placed inside a PP bag and closed

with a nylon tie is then placed inside a ﬁberboard box and sealed.

. n
i ..
UAC32FPS
Consists of a glass bottle and plastic cap (with PE cone liner). The bottle is
sealed with PP tape and placed in a double-wall ﬁberboard insert and between two
double-wall ﬁberboard end cushions. This setup after being placed inside a PP
bag and closed with a nylon tie is then placed inside a double-wall ﬁberboard box

and sealed.

 

UN32FAPS

Consists of a glass bottle and plastic cap with a PE cone liner. The bottle is
sealed with PP tape and placed inside an enclosure made of two molded PS
pieces. This setup after being placed inside a PP bag and closed with a nylon tie is

then placed inside a ﬁberboard box and sealed.

 

38

HINF630

Consists of four 10ml drawtubes, which have friction rubber closures. These
are placed in a preformed cushioned encasing with a cushion top. The cushion is
then placed within an aluminum canister with a screw on aluminum lid. This setup
after being sealed in a zip lock PP bag is placed inside an enclosure made of two-

piece molded PS cushion and then put in a ﬁberboard box and sealed.

 

PACK 1

Glass test tubes with rubber closure held in place by adhesive tape. These
are not DOT approved HazMat packages but as a common practice are used by
clinics to ship human and animal blood and other specimens to test using the

single parcel wrriers.

 

39

PACK 2

Glass test tubes with rubber closure (no adhesive tape). These are not
DOT approved HazMat packages but as a common practice are used by clinics to
'ship human and animal blood and other specimens to test using the single parcel

carriers.

 

40

4.1.2 HAZMATPAC, Inc. Packages

UNE151

 

41

UN112

 

HAZMATPAC'S 4GV United Nations certiﬁed packaging system provides all of the required
components for the safe transport of hazardous materials by air, ground and water. The 4GV series
passes ISTA lntemational Safe Transit associations Project 3 testing for the overnight environment
and meets Project 1A testing. Each packaging system comes completely assembled with easy to
read instructions for effortless ﬁnal packaging. All HAZMATPAC United Nations certiﬁed packaging
systems have been third party tested by WYLE Laboratories to ensure unbiased test results. It is the
responsibility of the person offering a hazardous material for transportation to ensure that such
packagings are compatible with their lading. Stock numbers are for complete packaging systems.

4GVIX1 4ISI02IU SAI+AC1 604

 

42

UN1541

 

HAZMATPAC'S 4GV United Nations certiﬁed packaging system provides all of the required
components for the safe transport of hazardous materials by air, ground and water. The 4GV series
passes ISTA lntemational Safe Transit Associations Project 3 testing for the overnight environment
and meets Project 1A testing. This certiﬁcation includes testing requirements of 49 CFR section
173.226 for Materials Toxic by Inhalah'on Division 6.1 Packaging Group I, Hazard Zone A. Each
packaging system comes completely assembled with easy to read instructions for effortless ﬁnal
packaging. All HAZMATPAC United Nations certiﬁed packaging systems have been third party
tested by WYLE Laboratories to ensure unbiased test results. It is the responsibility of the person
offering a hazardous material for transportation to ensure that such packagings are compatible with
their lading. Stock numbers are for complete packaging systems.

4GVIX23ISI02IUSAI+AC1609

 

Caps are teﬂon lined

 

43

UN61, UN 62

     

if: d: :M‘ .. . .
r - h—wama-rwmm

HAZMATPAC'S 4GV United Nations certiﬁed packaging system provides all of the required components
for the safe transport of hazardous materials by air, ground and water. The 4GV series passes lSTA
lntemational Safe Transit Associations Project 3 testing for the overnight environment and meets Project
1A testing. Each packaging system comes completely assembled with easy to read instructions for
effortless ﬁnal packaging. All HAZMATPAC United Nations certiﬁed packaging systems have been third
party tested by WYLE Laboratories to ensure unbiased test results. It is the responsibility of the person
offering a hazardous material for transportation to ensure that such packagings are compatible with their
lading. Stock numbers are for complete packaging systems.

4GV/X4ISI02IUSAI+AC1603

”\xLH

   

HAZMATPAC'S new universal absorbent lined bagging system is designed to
provide sufﬁcient absorbent material around the container while achieving the
necessary cushioning to pass the 4GV tests requirements. The bag lining system
includes a proprietary design of universal polypropylene absorbent folded in a

unique way to provide the most layers of absorbent at the top and the bottom of

44

the bag, where it is needed most. The bag lining system is the cleanest and
easiest form of universal absorbent available. Packaging of each bottle is

accomplished with three easy steps:

1. Partially pull out the absorbent lining and insert the container.

2. Hold on to the outer bag and let the weight of the container push the
absorbent lining with the container to the bottom of the bag.

3. Fold the top ﬂaps of the absorbent lining over the top of the container and

closewithatwisttie.

The bag lining system provides a universal, clean and easy way to package your
container in the safest 4GV United Nations Certiﬁed packaging system.

Tare weight for UN-57 is only 1.46 pounds

 

Wide mouth natural HDPE

 

45

UNISBO

I

.1....-

o:

3.94 .-

“191‘.“
:9.
r

7

 

I‘I‘W.

HAZMATPAC'S Infectious Substance shipping container is designed to safely
transport Class 6.2 substances woridwide. The complete packaging system safely
ships one 802.straight sided jar or up to twelve 10ML inner receptacles.
HAZMATPAC'S Infectious Substance shipping container is tested to meet or
exceed all of the current regulations for Infectious Substances. The new
regulations include the "4GU" standard which is very similar to the "V" standard,
allowing for inner receptacles of any type to be assembled within an intermediate
(secondary) packaging. The complete packaging system includes all of the
required components for the safe transport of infectious substances by air, ground
and water.

4GUICLASS 6.2/02lUSN+AC****

UN-ISBO ONE - 8oz. STRAIGHT SIDED INFECTIOUS SUBSTANCE SHIPPER

.s

    

46

UN51, UN52

 

 

HAZMATPAC'S 4GV United Nations certiﬁed packaging system provides all of the required components
for the safe transport of hazardous materials by air, ground and water. The 4GV series passes ISTA
lntemational Safe Transit Associations Project 3 testing for the overnight environment and meets Project
1A testing. Each packaging system comes completely assembled wiﬂi easy to read instructions for
effortless ﬁnal packaging. All HAZMATPAC United Nations certiﬁed packaging systems have been third
party tested by WYLE Laboratories to ensure unbiased test results. It is the responsibility of the person
offering a hazardous material for transportation to ensure that such packagings are compatible with their
lading. Stock numbers are for complete packaging systems.

4GV/X4!SI02IUSAI+AC1 603

 

Caps are teﬂon lined
16 oz. UN-51, 32 oz. UN-52

 

47

UN78, UN79

 

HAZMATPAC'S 4GV United Nations certiﬁed packaging system provides all of the required components
for the safe transport of hazardous materials by air, ground and water. The 4GV series passes ISTA
lntemational Safe Transit Associations Project 3 testing for the overnight environment and meets Project
1A testing. Each packaging system comes completely assembled with easy to read instructions for
effortless ﬁnal packaging. All HAZMATPAC United Nations certiﬁed packaging systems have been third
party tested by WYLE Laboratories to ensure unbiased tea results. It is the responsibility of the person
offering a hazardous material for transportation to ensure that such packagings are compatible with their
lading. Stock numbers are for complete packaging systems.

4GVIX4ISI02IUSAI+AC1 603

n

UN-78: 1602., UN-79: 32 oz.

      

 

48

4.1.3 CARGOpak Corp. Packages

V1 -1 000N Glass Pax

 

This combination package consists of a glass bottle and corrugated ﬁberboard

shipper shown above.

V1 -0500N Glass Pax

 

This combination package consists of a glass bottle and corrugated ﬁberboard

shipper shown above.

49

V1-0125-N Glass Pax

 

This combination package consists of a glass bottle and corrugated ﬁberboard

shipper shown above.

V1 -0500W Glass Pax

 

This combination package consists of a wide-mouth glass bottle and corrugated

ﬁberboard shipper shown above.

50

CT-SP-0002

 

This combination package consists of a wide-mouth glass bottle and corrugated

ﬁberboard shipper shown above.

CT-1 ~92-1 000-W

 

This combination package consists of a plastic bottle and corrugated ﬁber board

shipper shown above.

51

CT-1 ~92-1 000-N

 

This combination package consists of a plastic bottle and corrugated ﬁberboard

shipper shown above.

52

4.2 TEST EQUIPMENT:

In order to conduct simultaneous low pressure and vibration on the test

packages the following equipment was used:
4.2.1 Electra-hydraulic Vibration Table

A Lansmont electro-hydraulic vibration table (Model 7000) was used. The
vibration table controller was capable of being programmed to perform sinusoidal
or random vibration tests. For this study random vibration tests were conducted.
The Power Density Spectrums used for vibration simulation were for Truck/Air
combination shipments or Truck. Only shipments. These Spectrums were based
on the recommended vibration levels. for these modes of transport as shown in
ASTM D4728 and ASTM D4169, Assurance Level II.

Figures 9 and 10, below Show the vibration test profiles used for this study.
Figure 9 is the “Truck Assurance Level II Random Vibration Test Profile” used for
testing in Phase V and Figure 10 depicts the “Truck/Air Transport Vibration Test

PrOﬁle” that was used during the testing of Phases I, II, and IV.

53

0.1

0.01

Gz.Hz

0.001

0.0001

0.00001

0.1

Gz.Hz

0.01

0.001

0.0001

Truck Assurance Level II Vibration Test Proﬁle

 

10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 9: Truck Assurance Level II Random Vibration Test Proﬁle

TruckIAir Transport Vibration Test Proﬁle

 

10 100 1000
Frequency (Hz)

Figure 10: Truck/Air Transport Vibration Test Proﬁle

54

4.2.2 Vacuum Chamber

A Tek-Vac Industries Inc. Vacuum Chamber System (Model VC-3222-SE)
was used for this study. .T his system was capable of achieving an altitude of up to
50,000 feet with an accuracy of d: 100 feet. The system allowed a maximum size
package of eight cubic feet (2’ x 2' x 2') to be tested in the chamber. The pressure
gauge was capable of a maximum vacuum readings of 30 ian (101.6 kPa). The

pressure drop based on altitude was determined from NACA Report 538(1936).

Figure 11 shows the test setup to conduct simultaneous low pressure and

vibration tests on combination packages.

 

Figure 11: Experimental Setup with Test Packages

55

In addition to the above test equipment a torque tester was used to measure both

application and removal torque on certain types of packages.
4.2.3 Closure Torque Tester

A SecurePak Digital Model Torque Tester was used to measure application
and removal torque levels on Closures for certain packages. Figure 12 shows the
torque tester used. (Calibration performed according to ASTM D-3474 by

SecurePak on 11/27/2001)

 

Figure 12: Torque Tester

4.3 Test Methods

This study was conducted over ﬁve test phases. Each test phase

represents the different conditions of low pressure and vibration that packages are

56

likely to be exposed during high altitude shipments. Based on the results of the
preliminary study presented by Singh and Burgess (2000), a new test method was
proposed to ASTM for low pressure testing of packages that undergo high altitude
shipments.

In addition to the above findings, United Parcel Service presented a study to
ASTM describing the altitude, temperature, and duration that packages undergo in
the single parcel shipping environment (ASTM, 2001). The study showed the
following key observations (ASTM 06653-01):

o Cargo air jets typically are pressurized to approximately 2,438 m (8,000
ft). Temperature is maintained to approximately 20 to 23 °C (68 to 74 °F)

0 Packages transported on ground may experience altitudes as high as
3,658 m (12,000 ft) when shipped over certain mountain passes
especially in Colorado. Temperature extremes range from -15 to 30 °C
(5 to 86 °F) with average mean temperatures of approximately —4 to 18
°C (25 to 64 °F)

9 Non-pressurized feeder aircraft typically ﬂy at approximately 3,963 m to
4,877 m (13,000 to 16,000 ft). the highest recorded altitude in a non-
pressurized feeder aircraft was 6,017 m (19,740 ft). Temperature

recordings ranged from approximately —4 to 24 °C (25 to 75 °F)

Based on the above recommendations, ASTM developed and approved a
new test method, D6653-01, in 2001 titled, “Standard Test Methods for

Determining the Effects of High Altitude on Packaging Systems by Vacuum

57

Method” (ASTM, 2002). The test method recommends the procedure to apply

vacuum to packages that undergo ground or air shipments at high altitude.

ASTM D 4169 describes three different test level intensities (Assurance
Levels I, II and III) for evaluating shipping container performance. These test
intensity levels are related to uncertainties in environmental conditions. Assurance
Level I claims a high level of intensity, but a low probability of occurring in
transport environments. This leads many people to consider Assurance Level I as
conservative, with plenty of safety factor built in. Upon consultation with FAA and
DOT, and from past experiences of various tests conducted for the Consortium of
Distribution Packaging, a decision was made to go use Assurance Level II for this
project. Assurance level II is also the most commonly and regularly used intensity
level by the testing facilities. The selection of this assurance level does not limit or
restrain a testing facility to perform the proposed procedure at a higher level

(Assurance Level I). A minimum assurance level of II must, however, be used.

The ﬁve test phases conduced are discussed in detail in this section.

58

4.3.1 Phase I (Truck/Air Simulation, 14,000 Feet Pressure Differential)

This test phase consisted of evaluation of UN approved HazMat packages

from the three US suppliers mentioned above. The test consisted of simultaneous

low pressure and vibration representing an altitude of 14,000 feet and a combined

truck/air vibration for mode of shipment.

Test Procedure:

Packages were conditioned at 73.4 3: 36°F for a minimum of 24 hours
before testing

The primary containers were ﬁlled to the ﬁll-level recommended and proper
closure torque was applied

Secondary packaging was applied, as if preparing for shipping, in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions

Two samples of each kind of SKU were used for this phase

The test specimen was placed in the top-down position in the vacuum
chamber and the vacuum chamber was placed on an electro-hydraulic
vibration table

After sealing the vacuum Chamber shut, the vacuum source was turned on
and adjusted to a rate of 305 meters in 30-60 seconds as recommended in
ASTM D6653-01. This replicates take off conditions on an airplane of 1000
— 2000 feet/minute.

A vacuum of 59.5 kPa (pressure equivalent of 14,000 feet) was achieved

with a permissible error margin of i2%

59

4.3.2

While maintaining the vacuum of 59.5 kPa, the vibration table was operated
for 30 minutes using random mode simulation of a truck/air-shipping
environment (Assurance level II, ASTM D 4169) representing shipments of
250 miles.

The chamber inlet valve was opened and the vacuum released at a rate of
305 meters (1000 feet) per 30-60 seconds

The chamber cover was removed to retrieve the test specimen

Any leakage observed was recorded

Figure 5 shows a description of the test setup. The samples were placed in ’
the vacuum chamber and the chamber was placed on an electro-hydraulic

vibration table.

Phase II (Truck/Air Simulation Vibration)

This test phase consisted of evaluation of UN approved HazMat packages

obtained from Labelmaster Inc. The test consisted of only vibration simulation

representing a truck/air mode of shipment.

Test Procedure:

Packages were conditioned at 73.4 :t 3.6°F for a minimum of 24 hours
before testing

The primary containers were ﬁlled to the ﬁll-level recommended and proper

application torque was applied and recorded

60

4.3.3

A vertical mark was applied at the meeting point of the container and
closure to monitor for Closure back offs after a pressure differential
application

Two samples of each kind of SKU were used for this phase

Secondary packaging was applied, as if preparing for shipping, in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions

The test specimen was placed in the top-down position on the vibration
table

The vibration table was operated for 30 minutes using random mode

simulation of a truck/air shipping environment (Assurance level II, ASTM D

4169)
The samples were examined after test for any leakage, closure back offs

and removal torques

Phase III (14,000 Feet, Vacuum Only)

This test phase consisted of evaluation of UN approved HazMat packages

obtained from Labelmaster Inc. The test consisted of only low pressure simulation

representing a 14,000 ft high altitude shipment.

Test Procedure:

Packages were conditioned at 73.4 3: 36°F for a minimum of 24 hours

before testing

61

The primary containers were ﬁlled to the recommended ﬁll-level and proper
application torque was applied and recorded

A vertical mark was applied at the meeting point of the container and
closure to monitor for closure back offs after a pressure differential
application

Two samples of each kind of SKU were used for this phase

Secondary packaging was applied, as If preparing for shipping, in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions

The test specimens were placed in the top-down position in the vacuum

chamber

After sealing the vacuum chamber shut, the chamber inlet valve was closed

and the outlet valve opened

The vacuum source was turned on and adjusted to a rate of 305 meters
(1000 feet) per 30-60 seconds

A vacuum of 59.5 kPa (pressure equivalent of 14,000 feet) was achieved
with a permissible error margin of 1.2%

The two identical samples were subjected to this vacuum of 59.5 kPa for 30
minutes

The Chamber inlet valve was partially opened and the vacuum released at a
rate of 305 meters (1000 feet) per 30-60 seconds

The Chamber cover was removed to retrieve the test specimen

Any leakage, closure back offs and the removal torques of the samples

were recorded

62

4.3.4 Phase IV (Truck/Air Simulation, 8,000 Feet Pressure Differential)

This test phase consisted of evaluation of UN approved HazMat packages
from all three US suppliers mentioned above. The test Consisted of simultaneous
low pressure and vibratiOn representing an altitude of 8,000 feet and a combined
truck/air vibration for mode of shipment. This represented shipments in
commercial and cargo pressurized aircraft.

Test Procedure:

. Packages were conditioned at 73.4 i 3.6°F for a minimum of 24 hours
before testing

. The primary containers were ﬁlled to the ﬁll-level recommended and proper
closure torque was applied

. Secondary packaging was applied, as if preparing for shipping, in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions

0 Two samples of each kind of SKU were used for this phase

. The test specimen was placed in the Side-ways position in the vacuum
Chamber and the vacuum chamber was placed on an electro-hydraulic
vibration table

. After sealing the vacuum chamber shut, the vacuum source was turned on
and adjusted to a rate of 305 meters (1000 feet) per 30-60 seconds as
recommended in ASTM 06653-01

o A vacuum of 75.3 kPa (pressure equivalent Of 8,000 feet) was achieved

with a permissible error margin of i2%

63

4.3.5

While maintaining the vacuum of 75.3 kPa, the vibration table was operated
for 3 hours using random mode simulation of a truck/air-shipping
environment (Assurance level II, ASTM D 4169).

The Chamber inlet valve was opened and the vacuum released at a rate of
305 meters (1000 feet) per 30-60 seconds

The chamber coVer was removed to retrieve the test specimen

Any leakage observed was recorded

Phase V (Truck Simulation, 8,000 Feet Pressure Differential)

This test phase consisted of evaluation of UN approved HazMat packages

from the three US suppliers mentioned above. The test consisted of simultaneous

low pressure and vibration representing an altitude of 8,000 feet and a truck only

random vibration for mode of shipment. This represents ground shipments in high

altitude passes.

Test Procedure:

Packages were conditioned at 73.4 i 3.6°F for a minimum of 24 hours
before testing

The primary containers were ﬁlled to the ﬁll-level recommended and proper
Closure torque was applied

Secondary packaging was applied, as if preparing for shipping, in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions

Two samples of each kind of SKU were used for this phase

64

o The test specimen was placed in the top-down position in the vacuum
chamber and the vacuum chamber was placed on an electro-hydraulic
vibration table

0 After sealing the vacuum Chamber shut, the vacuum source was turned on
and adjusted to a rate of 305 meters (1000 feet) per 30-60 seconds as
recommended in ASTM D6653-01

. A vacuum of 75.3 kPa (pressure equivalent of 8,000 feet) was achieved
with a permissible error margin of :2%

a While maintaining the vacuum of 75.3 kPa, the vibration table was operated
for 3 hours using random mode simulation of a truck-shipping environment
(Assurance level II, ASTM D 4169).

o The chamber inlet valve was opened and the vacuum released at a rate of
305 meters (1000 feet) per 30-60 seconds

. The chamber cover was removed to retrieve the test specimen

0 Any leakage observed was recorded

On completion of the above tests, all data was recorded. The results from the

above tests are discussed in the next chapter.

65

5.0 DATA AND RESULTS

This Chapter discusses the data and results from the five test'phases
conducted in this study. The various pictures describing packages that leaked and

methods to monitor cap back-off are shown at the end of this chapter.
5.1 Phase I (Truck/Air Simulation, 14,000 Feet Vacuum)

Table 7 describes the application and removal torque levels on two sets of UN
approved HazMat packages tested in accordance with Phase I procedure
described in 4.3.1. These packages were obtained from Labelmaster Inc. The
rows showing shaded regions represent containers that leaked.

Table 8 describes the application and removal torque levels on two sets of UN
approved HazMat packages tested in accordance with Phase I procedure obtained
from CARGOpak Corp. Table 9 describes the application and removal torque
levels on two sets of UN approved HazMat packages tested in accordance with
Phase I procedure obtained from HAZMATPAC Inc.

The results from these tests showed that there were a large percentage of
packages that are currently approved for both the vibration and pressure
differential tests in accordance with existing DOT requirements that showed leaks
when simultaneously tested for partial vacuum and vibration representing an un-
pressurized air shipment at 14,000 ft. It is also interesting to note that all the
screw top closures evaluated had removal torque levels, but could not maintain

package integrity.

66

Table 7: Phase I - Test Results for Labelmaster Inc.
(Truck/Air Simulation, 14,000 Feet Vacuum)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SKU PHASEI
SAMPLE A SAMPLE B
AT RT AT RT

HMS-08 21.2 19.3 21.6 16.5
IUN950PPT 20.1 15.5 20.0 16.4
hN950GPT 11.2 11.0 11.1 8.1
IUN16FI=PS 11.2 10.0 11.1 8.8
[UN32FFPS 16.3 12.8 16.3 12.9
[INst16 35.2 31.5 35.1 22.1
IUN32NPVB 56.0 35.7 56.4 32.6
[HMSP-32N 18.1 13.4 18.2 14.6
IUN32PPs 20.1 19.6 20.1 19.1
IUN4FFPS 11.1 9.9 11.3 9.2
ﬁAcstPs 16.0 15.8 16.1 14.2
DN32FAPS 11.2 9.2 11.3 7.5
[PACK 1

FACKz

 

 

 

 

 

*The shaded cells represent containers that leaked

67

Table 8: Phase I — Test Results for HAZMATPAC, Inc.
(Truck/Air Simulation, 14,000 Feet Pressure Differential)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PHASE!
SKU ’ SAMPLE A SAMPLE B
AT RT AT RT
UNE151 11.1 7.2 11.1 7.3
UN112 20.1 18.3 20.3 18.8
UN1541 11.4 6.5 11.2 7.1
UN61 20.1 17.4 20.1 18.5
UN 62 56.1 47.1 56.6 44.9
UNIS80 35.4 29.7 35.6 32.3
UN51 11.3 8.4 11.2 6.0
UN52 16.1 15.1 16.1 13.4
UN78 35.1 30.8 35.1 32.1
UN79 35.1 31.8 35.3 32.8

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9: Phase I: Test Results for CARGOpak, Corp.
(Truck/Air Simulation, 14,000 Feet Vacuum)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SKU PHASE I
SAMPLE A SAMPLE B

AT RT AT RT
CT-SP-0002 21.2 19.2 21.2 19.8
CT-1-92-1000-N 33.4 20.5 33.6 21.6
CT-1-92-1000-W I 56.2 32.3 57.1 36.7
CT-4-92-1000-N 33.1 18.1 33.2 16.7
V‘I-0125-N 11.5 9.9 11.1 9.2
V1 -0500N 11.4 9.8 11.1 9.2
V1-1000N 20.4 10.5 20.1 14.6
V1 -0500W 35.2 28.2 35.3 22.8

 

 

 

 

 

*The shaded cells represent containers that leaked

68

5.2 Phase II (Truck/Air Simulation Vibration)

Table 10 shows the application and removal torque levels on two sets of UN
approved HazMat packages tested in accordance with Phase II procedure
described In 4.3.2. These packages were obtained from Labelmaster Inc. The
rows showing shaded regions represent containers that leaked. The data shows

that only one container leaked as a result of performing the tests with vibration.

Table 10: Phase II — Test Results for Lablemaster Inc.
(TRUCK/AIR SIMULATION VIBRATION)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SKU PHASE II
SAMPLE A SAMPLE B

AT RT AT RT
|HMS-08 21.1 19.8 21.2 19.5
[UN950PPT 20.5 ‘ 18.2 20.5 18.9
IUN950GPT 11.3 10.8 11.2 10.2
IUN16FFPS 11.1 9.8 11.1 9.5
IUN32FFPS 16.1 13.8 16.0 13.5
[UNHWS16 35.3 27.7 35.1 31.1
[UN32NPVB 56.7 44.6 56.3 47.7
[HMSP-32N 18.3 16.0 18.3 14.6
IUN32PPs 20.0 17.7 20.3 17.7
lU—N4FFPS 11.1 10.3 11.5 10.1
LIA032FPS 16.0 13.2 16.1 13.7
IUN32FAPS 11.1 10.2 11.2 9.8
[PACK 1
[PACK 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

*The shaded cells represent containers that leaked

69

5.2 Phase III (14,000 feet, vacuum only)

Table 11 shows the application and removal torque levels on two sets of UN
approved HazMat packages tested in accordance with Phase III procedure
described in 4.3.3. These packages were also obtained from Labelmaster Inc.

The data shows no containers leaked.

Table 11: Phase III — Test Results for Labelmaster Inc.
(14,000 FEET - VACUUM)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SKU PHASE m
SAMPLE A SAMPLE 8

AT RT AT RT
IHMS-08 21.2 18.3 21.2 17.0
IUN950PPT 20.0 17.8 20.1 17.2
IUN950GPT 11.1 . 10.2 11.2 10.7
IUN16I=FPS 11.1 8.8 11.1 9.2
IUN32I=I=PS 16.3 14.2 16.0 14.8
ENst16 35.5 28.7 35.5 32.0
IUN32NPVB 56.1 40.3 56.3 46.1
IHMSP-32N 18.1 14.1 18.0 13.6
[UN32PPS 20.2 17.7 20.1 17.7
EN4I=I=PS ' 11.1 10.9 11.2 11.0
IUAC32FPs 16.0 15.8 16.1 15.2
IUN32I=APS 11.1 10.8 11.1 10.9
IPACK 1
IPACK 2

 

 

 

 

7O

Based on the results seen in Phase I, II, and I", it is Clear that simultaneous
testing of low pressure and vibration produces the types of leaks representative in
real life observations made by FAA. Testing packages sequentially for low
pressure and vibration-alone shows an extremely small number of package
failures. The current DOT speciﬁcation for pressure differential test requires
packages to have met the 95 kPa requirement. While this may have been
accomplished using the hydrostatic pressure test, it is clear from the results of
Phase I, II, and III, that the packages that showed leaks in Tables 7-9 were tested
at 59.5 kPa. It is evident that a vacuum level representing 95 kPa, would likely

increase the number of leaks for these packages.

5.4 Phase IV (Truck/Air Simulation, 8,000 Feet Pressure Differential)

Table 12 shows the application and removal torque levels on two sets of UN
approved HazMat packages tested in accordance with Phase IV procedure
described in 4.3.4. These tests represent conditions that packages would undergo
when traveling in pressurized commercial and cargo aircraft. These aircraft are
pressurized to represent 8000 ft altitude conditions (75.3 kPa vacuum
requirement). The vibration levels used were a combined truck/air spectrum.
These packages were of the same type tested in Phase I, II, and Ill. The rows
showing shaded regions represent containers that leaked.

The results showed that four of the UN approved packages failed this test.

71

Table 12: Phase IV — Test Results for Labelmaster Inc.
(Truck/Air Simulation, 8,000 Feet Pressure Differential)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SKU PHASE IV (TRUCK/AIR)
SAMPLE A SAMPLE B
AT RT AT RT
HMS-08 21.2 19.6 21.6 18.5
IUN950PPT 20.1 18.6 20.3 19.8
[UN950GPT 11.2 3.6 11.1 9.2
EN16FFPS 11.5 11.0 11.3 10.9
[UN32FFPS 16.1 15.8 16.4 15.4
BNHWSIG 35.2 28.2 35.6 32.0
UN32NPVB 56.2 35.6 56.0 38.4
EMSP-32N 18.1 13.4 18.0 12.2
IUN32PPS 20.3 19.8 20.0 16.8
IUN4I=FPS 11.1 10.9 11.2 10.3
IUAC32FPS 16.1 14.21 16.2 12.5
IUN32FAPS 11.2 10.9 11.3 10.8
kACKi
kACK2

 

 

 

 

*The shaded cells represent containers that leaked

72

 

5.5 Phase V (Truck Simulation, 8,000 Feet Pressure Differential)

Table 13 shows the application and removal torque levels on two sets of UN
approved HazMat packages tested in accordance with Phase V procedure
described in 4.3.5. These tests represent conditions that packages would
undergo, when traveling in trucks at high altitudes. The vibration spectrum used
was for a Composite Truck Transport. These packages were of the same type
tested in Phase I, II, and Ill. The rows showing shaded regions represent
containers that leaked. The results showed that two of the UN approved packages

failed this test.

Based on the results from Phase IV and V it is evident that the existing DOT
speciﬁcations for ground shipments at high altitude are not adequate to prevent
leaks from HazMat packages. Similarly these UN approved packages based on
ICAO requirements do not provide adequate integrity when shipped in pressurized

cargo aircraft.

73

Table 13: Phase V — Test Results for Labelmaster Inc.
(Truck Simulation, 8,000 Feet Pressure Differential)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SKU PHASE v (TRUCK ONLY)
SAMPLE A SAMPLE B
AT RT AT RT
HMS-08 21.1 17.3 21.1 15.8
UN950PPT 20.0 17.5 20.3 16.4
UN950GPT 11.1 10.8 11.0 10.2
UN16FFPS 11.1 10.2 11.2 10.5 ~
(UN32FFPS 16.0 14.8 16.1 15.2
[UNHWS16 35.1 31.5 35.2 30.1
UN32NPVB 56.1 38.9 56.4 40.2
HMSP-32N 18.0 14.3 18.3 16.8
UN32PPS 20.3 17.2 20.4 18.8
UN4FFPS 11.1 10.3 11.3 10.4
UAC32FPS 16.0 14.5 16.2 15.0
UN32FAPS 11.0 9.8 11.1 10.2
PACK1 '
PACK2

 

 

 

 

 

*The shaded cells represent containers that leaked

5.6 Closure Back-Off and Package with Leaks

This section shows various pictures of containers that leaked after the
various tests conducted in Phases I, II, III, IV, and V. In addition Figure 13 shows
the test setup to monitor closure back-off between a bottle and cap. Figures 14 —

17 show some examples of UN approved packaging that leaked during various

74

 

test phases. Figure 18 shows groups of caps that passed and failed during Phase
I testing for packages obtained from Labelmaster Inc. In addition the bottle ﬁnish
sections of Labelmaster Inc. packages were also Checked for dimensional stability
and out-of-round conditions after Phase I tests. This data is presented in Table

14.

There was no closure back-off recorded after the testing in all ﬁve phases.
This is probably attributed to the fact that a secondary tape “seal” is applied on the
Closure and bottle after applying the torque to the closure. Also there was no
signiﬁcant “out-of-round” condition in any of the Labelmaster Inc. packages used in

Phase l-V.

Table 15 shows the tests conducted on bottles and closure to measure the
loss of torque on primary containers and. Closures that were used in the
combination packaging during Phase I of the study over a period of seven days.
The results showed that all bottles maintained residual torque at the end of the

seven-day period.

75

Table 14: “Out-of-Round” Dimensional Measurement for Bottles

 

SKU

“I” DIMENSION (mm)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IReading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Reading 4 AVG.
[HMS-08 34.15 34.15 34.15 34.15 34.15
IUN950PPT 46.52 46.52 ' 46.53 46.52 46.52
IUN95OGPT 42.43 42.43 42.43 42.43 42.43
EN16I=FPS 18.47 18.47 18.47 18.47 18.47
IUN32FFPS 24.63 24.63 24.63 24.63 24.63
[INHWS16 59.22 59.22 59.22 59.22 59.22
BN32NPVB 52.03 52.03 52.03 52.03 52.03
[iMSP-32N 28.05 28.05 28.05 28.05 28.05
IUN32PPS 32.18 32.18 32.18 32.18 32.18
MMFFPS 15.38 15.38 15.38 15.38 15.38
[UAC32FPS 24.62 24.62 24.62 24.62 24.62
UN32FAPS 24.63 24.63 24.63 24.63 24.63

| “T” DIMENSION (mm)

SKU IReading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Reading 4 AVG.
|HMS-08 43.46 43.46 43.46 43.46 43.46
[UN950PPT 52.03 52.03 52.03 52.03 52.03
EN950GPT 51.02 51.02 51.02 51.02 51.02
IUN16FFPS 27.03 27.03 27.03 27.03 27.03
IUN32FFPS 31.16 31.16 “31.16 31.16 31.16
[UNHWS16 68.44 68.44 68.44 68.44 68.44
EN32NPVB 62.28 62.28 62.28 62.28 62.28
IHMSP-32N 37.29 37.29 37.29 37.29 37.29
|UN32PPs 37.29 37.29 37.29 37.29 37.29
IUN4FFPS 21.54 21 .54 21 .54 21 .54 21.54
IUAC32FPS 31.15 31.15 31.15 31.15 31.15
IUN32FAPS 31.15 31.15 31.15 31.15 31.15

 

 

 

 

 

76

 

Table 15: Loss in Torque Due to Creep

 

Figure 13: Closure Back-Off Measurement

77

 

Figure 14: Phase I, HMSO8, Labelmaster Inc.

 

Figure 15: Phase I, UNHWS16, Labelmaster Inc.

78

 

Figure 16: Phase I, UN32PPS, Labelmaster Inc.

 

Figure 17: Phase I, CT-SP-0002, CARGOpak Corp.

79

 

Figure 18: Labelmaster Inc. Caps that PassedIFailed Phase I Testing

80

Figure 19, below, shows a comparison of leakage failures, as a percentage,
for all ﬁve phases (for LABELMASTER Inc.). Clearly, phase I represented the
highest (nearly 50%) number of leakers. Phase I results are similar with the
observations of the FAA Ofﬁce of Aviation Security. Phases ll & "I show that the
current test procedures fail to show package failures as observed in real life.
Phase IV shows that pressurized air shipments of approved packages show leaks
based on the new test methods. Phase V shows that ground shipments at high

altitudes (8000 ft) also show leaks on currently approved DOT packages.

Phase I I -
Phase II

    

Phase III ' ~
Phase N

PhaseV

Figure 19: Comparison of Leakage Failures ('16) for the Five Phases of

Testing (LABELMASTER Inc.)

81

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study the following conclusions were made:

1. The existing test procedures used by US-DOT, UN, and ICAO do not
prevent leaks from high altitude shipments of liquid hazardous materials.

2. The recommended test procedure to replicate high altitude shipments
should include simultaneous vibration and low pressure environment. I

3. Separate tests should be conducted on packages that are eligible for air
and ground shipments based on the expected vibration levels and altitude
pressure conditions described in Table 16.

4. There is a difference in the amount of leaks that occur in high altitude
ground and feeder-aircraft shipments. As a result the package should be
marked to identify if they have met the “Air-Eligible” or “Not Tested for Air
Shipments” markings for safety reasons.

5. A new test procedure has been developed to test liquid hazardous
packages for high-altitude shipments. This test should be in addition to all
current tests being conducted in accordance with DOT and UN HazMat

package requirements.

82

Table 16: Pressure Conversion Table

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Altitude, m Altitude, ft mm.Hg In.Hg kPa psi

0 0 760.00 29.92 101.3 14.70
305 1 000 732.90 28.85 97.7 14.02
1524 5 000 632.30 24.89 84.3 12.23
2438 8 000 564.85 22.24 75.3 10.92
3048 10 000 522.84 20.58 69.7 10.11
3658 12 000 483.83 19.05 64.5 9.35
4267 14 000 446.33 17.57 59.5 8.63
4877 16 000 411.82 16.21 54.9 7.97
5486 18 000 379.57 14.94 50.6 7.34
6096 20 000 349.56 13.76 46.6 6.76
7925 26 000 270.05 10.63 36.0 5.22
9144 30 000 225.60 8.88 30.1 4.36
12192 40 000 140.70 5.54 18.8 2.72
15240 50 000 87.30 3.44 11.6 1.69

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

 

6.1 Recommended Test Procedure for Liquid HazMat Shipments

Test Procedure:

- Pre-conditioned package samples at 73.4 1r 3.6°F for a minimum of 24
hours before testing

a The primary containers should be ﬁlled to the ﬁll-level recommended and
proper Closure torque should be applied

0 Apply secondary packaging, as if preparing for shipping, in accordance with
the manufacturer’s instructions

0 Place the test specimen in a top-down or side-side orientation in the
vacuum Chamber and placed the vacuum chamber on an electro-hydraulic
vibration table. Fasten the Chamber to be table

0 After sealing the vacuum Chamber shut, turn the vacuum source on and
adjust it to a rate of 305 meters (1000 feet) per 30-60 seconds as
recommended in ASTM D6653-01.

0 Use a vacuum of 59.5 kPa (pressure equivalent of 14,000 feet) for air-
shipments and 69.7 kPa (pressure equivalent of 10,000) for ground

shipments with a permissible error margin of i2%

0 While maintaining the required vacuum, operate the vibration table for 1
hour using random mode simulation with the Truck/Air Power Density
Spectrum (Assurance level II, ASTM D 4169) for air shipments; or 3 hours
using the Truck Composite Spectrum for ground shipments representing

1500 miles.

84

0 At the end of the test, open the valve and release the vacuum at a rate of

305 meters (1000 feet) per 30-60 seconds

0 Retrieve the sample packages and record any leaks

6.2 Air Eligibility Markings

Based on the ﬁndings of this study two new air-eligibilty markings were proposed
to the ASTM Task-Group on pictorial markings at the 2002 ASTM Fall Meeting in
Norfolk Virginia. These are shown in Figures 11 and 12. the task group approved
these markings, which are now in Subcommittee and Main Committee ballot

process.

 

Figure 20: Air Eligible

85

 

Figure 21: Not Tested for Air Shipments

86

APPENDIX A

A.1 The Hazardous Materials Table - Subpart B
Column 2: Hazardous Materials Descriptions & Proper Shipping Names
Lists hazardous materials descriptions and proper shipping names
0 PSNs are in Roman type ONLY
. No alteration or modiﬁcation allowed
0 May use “N.O.S.” as part of PSN when HazMat does not appear
onHMT

Authorized Shipping Names

Four PSN Groups

0 Group 1: Chemical Name

Examples: acetone, sulfuric acid, nitrogen

. Group 2: General Description

Examples: adhesives, paint-related materials, compounds, cleaning liquid
0 Group 3: Generic names (Chemical Family)

Examples: alcohol, nitrates, insecticide gases

. Group 4: Hazard Class Names

Examples: ﬂammable liquids, corrosive solids, compressed gases

0 Words in Italics not part of PSN

87

o PSN can be singular/plural; CAPITALIZED or all lower case letters

a
Column 3: Hazard Class or Division
0 Contains hazard class designations that correspond to PSNS listed on HMT
Mandatory
- “Forbidden” in this column means hazmat may not be transported by any
means. It does not apply if hazmat is diluted, or incorporated in another product, or

stabilized

Hazard Classes
0 Hazard Classes Are Numbers
0 Deﬁnitions in 49 CFR 173

0 Hazard Must Be Right

CLASS 1 — EXPLOSIVES

§Explosives

o Divided into six (6) divisions

0 Means any article designed to, or inherently capable of, extremely rapid
release of gas and heat.

Examples would include Trinitrophenol (Picric Acid) and Trinitrotoluene.

88

 

 

CLASS 2 — GASES

§Compressed Gases

o Divided into three (3) divisions

0 Deﬁned by temperature (680F) and pressure (14.7 psi) at which it becomes
gas; and those additional characteristics (Corrosivity, ﬂammability, etc.) which
provide it’s hazard characteristics

Examples - oxygen, phosgene

   
     

   

(/\.
I. X
f \._
. a; t

.g’xflAM-MABLE‘”;
GAS

 

CLASS 3 - FLAMMABLE LIQUID

§Flammable Liquids

89

0 Liquid with ﬂash point of not more than 141°F

Examples - Paint thinner, Acetone, Methanol.

         

           
   

  
 
    

'~<§OMBEIIBI§:.

':._:FLAII'.‘II.IB

{i GASEIIIE

FUET OIL I

              

CLASS 4 - FLAMMABLE SOLIDS
§Flammable Solid

0 Divided into three (3) divisions

0 Division 4.1: Flammable Solids

0 Division 4.2: Spontaneously Combustible
0 Division 4.3: Dangerous When Wet

Examples - Sodium Metal.

.f \‘
.- \\
3’ \\
III .

:‘lGEiTOTS 1.25:):-

   
 

 

CLASS 5 - OXIDIZING SUBSTANCES
§Oxidizers

o Divided into two (2) divisions

90

0 Division 5.1: Oxidizers
0 Division 5.2: Organic peroxides

Examples - Benzoyl Peroxide, Sodium Nitrate.

CLASS 6 - POISOAI

 

§Poisonous Materials
0 Divided into two (2) divisions
0 Division 6.1: Poison (Other than Gas)

0 Division 6.2: Infectious substances

Examples - Cyanides

 

CLASS 7 - RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

§Radioactive Materials

0 Considered acutely hazardous substances

0 Restricted by packaging, quantity, labeling & marking, routes of transport,

means of transport

91

0 Also controlled by NRC

/..§\\ ﬂ

/' . , '
9 4,__.9 4 ‘
_. 5501:»me RADIUM": la
u‘: .__ K“ . 41 I

KC— 7 9
\\, ‘

\ '_ nu... . ‘T\'\"" 27?”

   

. '5

CLASS 8 - CORROSIVE MATERIALS

§Corrosives

o A liquid/solid that causes full thickness destruction of human skin at point of
contact

0 A liquid that has a severe corrosion rate on steel or aluminum

Examples - Acids, Bases

 

CLASS 9 - MISCELLANEOUS HM

§Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials

0 Material presents hazard during transport but doesn’t meet deﬁnition of any

other hazard class

92

 

93

A.2 How to Read a UN Number or Marking

The marking that is applied to a UN certified package indicates the type of
package and the levels to which the packaging has been approved. The following
describes the sequence of numbers and letters that appear in a UN marking and

what they designate.

Contents of UN Markings

The markings associated with performance criteria indicate the type of package
and the levels to which the package has been approved. Each set of information is
separated by a slash mark (I). The following explains each set of numbers and

letters in the sequence.

UN Indication - The package must be marked with a UN Symbol, or just the

letters UN are required on embossed metal containers.

Packaging Identiﬁcation Code - This code identiﬁes the type of packaging, the

material of construction, and a category within the type when applicable.

94

Packaging Identiﬁcation Table

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Package Material Category
1 - Drums A - Steel A, BI or H Drums-Jerricans
1 - Closed Head
2 - Barrels B - Aluminum
2 - Open Head
3 - Jerricans C - Natural Wood
A or 8 Boxes
4 - Boxes D - Plywood 1 ' Ordinary A or B
2 - A or B w/inner lining or coating
5 - Bags F - Reconstituted Wood

6 - Composite Packagings

 

G - Fiberboard

H - Plastic

L - Textile

M - Paper, Multiwall

IN - Metal other than Steel

xxx or Aluminum

P - Glass, Porcelain or

xxx Stoneware

 

 

C Boxes
1 - Ordinary

2 - w/sift proof walls

H Boxes
1 - Expanded Plastic

2 - Solid Plastic

L Bags
2 - Sift proof

3 - Water Resistant

M Bags
2 - Multi-wall, Water

xxx Resistant

 

 

 

Example: The Packaging Identification code 1H1 would indicate a drum, made of

plastic, with a closed-head conﬁguration.

95

 

Performance Standard Code - This code identiﬁes the packing group(s) that the

package has been tested and approved for.

X for Packing Groups I, II, and Ill
Y for Packing Groups II, and, Ill

2 for Packing Group III only

Relative Density (Speciﬁc Gravity) or Cross Mass - A designation of Speciﬁc
Gravity or Gross Mass for which the packaging has been successfully tested

should follow the Performance Standard Code.

a. Stand-alone packagings intended to contain liquids must be marked
with the speciﬁc gravity rounded down to the ﬁrst decimal.
b. Packagings intended for solids or that have inner packagings must

be marked with the maximum gross mass (weight) in kilograms.

Designation of 'S" for Solids or the Hydrostatic Pressure Test Rating in
Kilopascals - An "S" in upper case should follow the gross mass to designate
that the package is only intended for solids or inner packagings. Single or
Composite packagings intended for liquids should reﬂect the Hydrostatic test

pressure in kPa (kilopascals), rounded down to the nearest 10 kPa.

Year of Manufacture - The last two digits of data indicate the year the

packaging was manufactured.

96

Examples of UN Markings

Square Plastic Tighthead Pail ® 3H1IY1.8I200I94USAI+AAOO89

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 = J errican (square container) Type of Package

H = Plastic Material

1 = Closed-Head Category

Y = Packing Group (II) Performance Standard Code
1.8 = Maximum Speciﬁc Gravity of Product Relative Density

200 = Kilopascals (kPa), also referred to as PSI Hydrostatic Pressure Rating
94 = Year container was produced Year of Manufacture

USA = Marked under authority of USA

+AA0089 = Testing lab identiﬁcation and test number of container

 

 

 

 

97

 

Round Openhead Steel Pail ® UN1A2IY23IS/93USAI+AA1234

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 = Drum (round) Type of Package

A = Steel - Material

2 = Open-Head Category

Y = Packing Group (II) Performance Standard Code
23 = Weight in kilograms Gross Mass

S = Tested for Solids Solids

93 = Year container was produced Year of Manufacture

USA = Marked under authority of USA

+AA1234 = Testing lab identiﬁcation and test number of container

 

 

 

 

98

 

Combination Packaging with 2 Metal Paint Cans as Inner Packagings

® 4G/Y10.4/S/94USA/+AX 1259

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 = Box Type of Package

G = Fiberboard Material

Y = Packing Group (11) Performance Standard Code
10.4 = Weight in Kilograms Gross Mass

S = Designates Inner Packagings Solids or Inner Packagings
94 = Year package was produced Year of Manufacture

USA = Marked under authority of USA

+AX 1259 = Testing lab identiﬁcation and test number of container

 

 

 

 

99

 

A.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PACKAGING GLOSSARY

CFR-49 (Code of Federal Regulations - Transportation) A codiﬁed set of
regulations formulated by the US. Dpartment of Transportation (DOT) governing

 

the packaging and shipping of hazardous materials. Latest revision is October 1,

1996.
COMBINATION PACKAGING

One or more inner packagings used in combination with a non-bulk outer

packaging. This does not include a Composite Packaging.
COMPOSITE PACAGING

A packaging consisting of an outer packaging and an inner receptacle. It is
constructed so that the inner receptacle and outer packaging form an integral
packaging. Once assembled it remains a single unit and is ﬁlled, stored,

transported, and emptied as such.

D.O.T.

Department of Transportation.

HM-181

 

A set of the proposed new packaging and shipping regulations which since have

been incorporated into CFR-49. This document is no longer applicable.

100

HAZARD CLASSIFICATION

Materials are grouped as to the speciﬁc hazard they present. The groups are
Explosives, Gases, Flammable Liquids, Flammable Solids, Oxidizers, Poisonous

Materials, Corrosive Materials and Miscellaneous.
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL

A substance having properties capable of having adverse affects on the health or

safety of individuals.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE

An alphabetical listing of the hazardous materials found in CFR-49, section
172.101. It lists the product by proper shipping name, and its UM number. It lists
the hazard classiﬁcation, packing group, and the sections in CFR 49 that apply to

the packaging and shipping of a speciﬁc product.
INNER PACKAGING

A packaging for which an outer packaging is required. This does not include the

inner receptacle of a composite packaging.
JERRICANS

Metal or plastic containers of rectangular or polygonal cross-section.

101

LIMITED QUANTITY

The quantity of hazardous material that may be shipped in packaging that is not
UN certiﬁed. The quantity will vary depending on the speciﬁc product shipped, the

mode of transportation, and the country the shipping occurs.

MASS

The maximum combined mass (weight) of inner packagings, or single packagings

intended for solids, and the contents thereof.
MSDS

Material Safety Data Sheet. It is provided by manufacturers of hazardous

materials, and describes the properties and nature of the material.
OUTER PACKAGING

The outermost packaging or enclosure of a combination or composite packaging
along with any other cushioning or absorbent material and other components

necessary to protect and contain inner packagings or receptacles.
OVERPACK

An enclosure used to provide protection or convenience in handling of a package
or to consolidate two or more packages. The package being overpacked must be
eligible to be transported by itself, and properly prepared for shipment with the

proper markings and labeling. The marking and labeling on each of the packages

102

being overpacked must be reproduced on the outside of the overpack unless

visible from outside of the overpack.

PACKAGE

The end result of the packaging process, which includes all of the hazardous
contents, and all of the packagings properly closed and prepared for proper

marking and labeling.

PACKAGING

Containers, receptacles and all components necessary for the container or
receptacle to perform its containment function and meet the requirements of CFR
49, parts 171-180. In general, these receptacles and components and other

requirements are contained within CFR 49, part 173.

PACKING GROUP

The degree of hazard. Within each hazard classiﬁcation there are three packing
groups (I, II, and Ill). Packing Group I represents the greatest hazard, Group II a
moderate hazard, and Group III the least hazard. In the marking of packagings,
Group I corresponds to "X", Group II corresponds to "Y", and Group III

corresponds to "Z".

103

PERFORMANCE ORIENTED PACKAGING

.A set of criteria establishing the acceptability of a packaging to be used for

hazardous materials based on its performance in established test procedures.
SINGLE PACKAGING

A single receptacle into which material is loaded other than a combination or bulk

packaging. A drum is an example of a single packaging.
TOR UE TEST

A test designed to ascertain the stiffness of a material under given environmental

conditions.

UN MARKING

The marking applied to a certiﬁed packaging indicating the Packing Group, and the

severity of the testing performed.
UN PACKAGING

A packaging approved and certified for hazardous materials that has passed all

required performance tests.

104

UN RECOMMENDATIONS

A set of recommendations proposed by the UN. Panel of Experts regarding the
packaging and shipping of hazardous materials. These are only recommendations,
but have been incorporated into the regulations of most countries and carrier

organizations. They form the basis of HM-181 and the changes to CFR-49.

105

REFERENCES

UPS Study, RR: D10-1013 on Altitude and Temperature — Study of the Feeder
Aircraft Network, ASTM D6653-01, ASTM, 2001

McLaughlin, J., Package failure Analysis for HazMat Shipments for 1998-99,
Presented at the Annual Consortium of Distribution Packaging Board Meeting,
Michigan State University, Fall 2000

Aircraft Accident Report ln-Flight Fire and Impact with Terrain
ValuJet Airlines Flight 592 DC-9-32, N0904VJ Everglades, Near Miami,
Florida, May 11, 1996 http:/Iwww.ntsb.gov/publictn/1997/AAR9706.htm

What is COMAT?,_http://www.ngwrc.org/DulinleU_Counterweights.html
Code of Federal Regulations, 49 part 178.600 -178.609, 2001

Newsham, M., Pierce, SR, and Singh, P, “Parcel Labels, Distribution Pose
Challenges for Drop Orientation”, Packaging Technology and Engineering,
pp.30-33, April 1999

Singh, P. S., and Cheema, A., “Measurement and Analysis of the Overnight
Small Package Shipping Environment for Federal Express and United Parcel
Service, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, pp. 205-211, July 1996

“Closure Guide”, Closure Manufacturers’ Association, 2000

Pisuchpen, 8., “Model for Predicting Application Torque and Removal Torque
of a Continuous Thread Closure”, Master of Science Thesis, School of
Packaging, Michigan State University, 2000

SP. Timoshenko, History of Strength of Materials, McGraw Hill, New York,
1953

106

O

S. Paul Singh, John R. Antle, and Gary Burgess, “Comparison Between
Lateral, Longitudinal, and Vertical Vibration Levels in Commercial Truck
Shipments”, Packaging Technology and Science, Volume 5, pp71-75, 1992

Jorge Marcondes, S. Paul Singh, and Mark B. Snyder, “Predicting Vertical
Acceleration in Vehicles Through Road Roughness”, Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Volume 118, No. 1, 1992

Charles D. Pierce, S. Paul Singh, and Gary Burgess, “A Comparison of Leaf-
spring with Air-cushion Trailer Suspensions in the Transport Environment”,
Packaging Technology and Science, Volume 5, pp. 11-15, 1992

Marcondes, J., P. Singh, and G. Burgess, Dynamic Analysis of a Less Than
Truck Load Shipment. Paper #88-WA-EEP-17, ASME, 1988

http:/Iwww.labelmaster.com
http:/Iwww.cargopak.com
http://www.hazmatpac.com

S. Paul Singh, and Gary Burgess, Consortium for Distribution Packaging study,
School of Packaging, Michigan State University, 1999

ASTM 06653-01, “Standard Test Methods for Determining the Effects of High
Altitude on Packaging Systems by Vacuum Method”, ASTM, 2001

ASTM, Volume 15.09, 2001

Altitude-pressure tables based on the United States standard
atmosphere, Brombacher, W G NACA Report 538 NACA-TR-246 1936,
www.naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1936/naca-report-538

107

  

IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

 

IIIII II III

 

192 3 02455 3517