Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Subscribed

Author Fox, Michael ♦ Hastings, Richard ♦ Lovald, Scott ♦ Heinrich, Juan
Source SpringerLink
Content type Text
Publisher Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
File Format PDF
Copyright Year ©2007
Language English
Subject Domain (in DDC) Natural sciences & mathematics ♦ Chemistry & allied sciences
Subject Keyword Aerosol container ♦ Burst pressure ♦ Failure analysis ♦ FEA ♦ Predictive method ♦ Quality Control, Reliability, Safety and Risk ♦ Structural Mechanics ♦ Mechanics ♦ Characterization and Evaluation of Materials ♦ Tribology, Corrosion and Coatings ♦ Materials Science
Abstract A failure analysis case study is presented for a two-piece aerosol containing tetrafluoroethane, commonly referred to as Refrigerant 134a. A gentleman was preparing to recharge the air conditioning system of an automobile when the bottom exploded off the aerosol container, propelling the body of the aerosol container like a rocket, which hit the man in the eye and blinded him in that eye. The aerosol was never connected to the air conditioner, therefore backpressure from the air conditioner (AC) compressor was ruled out as a cause for the explosion. The objective of the study was to determine why the aerosol exploded. Several recently developed test methods were used, including two types of heat-to-burst tests and a puncture chamber to measure the pressure-versus-temperature behavior of aerosols. More common test methods were also used, such as water bath pressure tests, hydro pressure burst tests, pneumatic pressure burst tests, hardness measurements, weight measurements, metallography, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), and an accident scenario recreation. A semi-empirical correlation between the hardness and weights of the container bottoms was used to determine the explosion temperature and/or pressure. This semi-empirical correlation agrees in principle with an analysis of the explosion pressures using finite-element analysis (FEA). The root cause for the explosion was determined to be a lack of strength of the bottom of the two-piece aerosol coupled with heating the aerosol to temperatures significantly above room temperature.
ISSN 15477029
Age Range 18 to 22 years ♦ above 22 year
Educational Use Research
Education Level UG and PG
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2007-06-26
Publisher Place New York
e-ISSN 18641245
Journal Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention
Volume Number 7
Issue Number 3
Page Count 10
Starting Page 165
Ending Page 174


Open content in new tab

   Open content in new tab
Source: SpringerLink