NBSIR 74-614

Mechanical Tests of Flammable

Liquid Containers

Nixon Halsey, Arthur F. Kirstein, and Robert E. Snyder

Engineering Mechanics Section

Mechanics Division

Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

December 1974

Final

Prepared for Consumer Product Safety Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue

Washington, D. C. 20207

NBSIR 74-614

MECHANICAL TESTS OF FLAMMABLE

LIQUID CONTAINERS

Nixon Halsey. Arthur F. Kirstein, and Robert E. Snyder

Engineering Mechanics Section

Mechanics Division

Institute for Basic Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. D. C. 20234

December 1974

Final

Prepared for Consumer Product Safety Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue

Washington. D. C 20207

U S, DEPARTMENT OF COWMERCE. Rogers C B. Morton. Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Richard W. Roberts. Director

CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 2 2.1 Stability 2 2.1.1 Tilt Test 3

2.1.2 Inclined Plane Test 3

2.1.3 Angle of Instability 4

2.2 Handle Strength 4

2.2.1 Metal Cans 6

2.2. Plastic Containers 7 2.3 Pour Spout Strength 7 2.4 Leakage 9

2.4.1 Inverted Can Tests 9

2.4.2 Hydrostatic Pressure Tests 10

2.4.3 Drop Strength Tests 11

3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 13

MECHANICAL TESTS OF FLAMMABLE LIQUID CONTAINERS

Nixon HaLsey, ArLliur F. Klrstein, and Robert E. Snyder

ABSTRACT

Because of the concern for safety in the

storage and use of gasoline and other flammable

liquids around the home, this study was made

to determine if standards can be established

to minimize the flammable liquid hazard by con- trolling or standardizing the containers. Attention was focused on performance standards for

stability, leakage, carrying handle strength,

and pour spout strength. In general, it was

found that the technology involved in existing

voluntary standards for safety cans could be

applied to flammable liquid containers for

home use for all of the above factors except

pour spout strength.

Key words: Consumer products; flammable liquid

containers; gasoline cans; mechanical tests;

product standards; safety.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has suggested

that a significant number of accidents in and around the home involving flammable liquids may be related to the faulty design or misuse of flammable liquid containers. Since there are many gasolinepowered devices used around the home, there is a need to keep gasoline

available to operate them. Therefore, this study examined the kinds

of containers available on the market to determine if reasonable

specifications, for controlling or standardizing the containers,

can be established to reduce the gasoline hazard.

Attention was primarily focused on performance standards.

This approach was believed to be one which would not hamper future

innovations in the construction and design of containers, but would

produce information useful to CPSC in their preparation of standards

and specifications for flammable liquid containers for home use. Since voluntary standards and specifications are already available

for metal gasoline safety cans [l, 2, 3j and for plastic containers

(jerrycans) for petroleum products [^J, the objective was to ascertain

whether the technology Involved In safety can standards could be

used to provide this Information. To test this hypothesis, thirtysix randomly selected gasoline containers were subjected to mechanical tests for stability, leakage, handle strength, and spout

strength in accordance with these standards. While it Is possible

Numbers in brackets Indicate references listed at the end of this

report

1
that the voluntary standards for safety cans may be too strict

for containers for home use, CPSC mdy wish to regard these standards

as an upper limit when evaluating the results from this study.

2. TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

This study was an experimental investigation into the feasibility of utilizing the technology involved in voluntary standards

for safety cans to provide information for the preparation of standard

for flammable liquid containers for home use. Basically, the experimen

tal program incorporated the testing of a random selection of thirtysix gasoline containers (described in Table 1) for stability, leakage, handle strength, and spout strength in accordance with existing

standards for metal and a safety can voluntary product standard

for plastic jerry-cans. Modifications of these tests were made

to accommodate the test specimens when, due to the geometry or design of the specimens, they could not be tested in accordance

with the available standards.

'

. . 2.1 Stabil ity

Stability is an important consideration from the standpoint

of accidental spillage. Available standards recognize the possibility

of accidental spillage and some [j, 4] require that the filled

container shall not overturn on an inclined plane, while others

[l, 2j require that the container return to a normal upright position when released from a tilted position. The following are excerpts

from these standards:

Federal Specification

3.7.2 Stabil ity . The relationship between

can height and diameter shall be such that when

the filled can is placed on a surface and inclined 30 from horizontal the can shall not

tip when tested in accordance with 4,4.3.

4.4.3 Stabil ity . To determine compliance with

the stability requirement in 3.7.2, the can

shall be filled to its rated capacity. A stability

test will be made by tipping the can to an angle

of 30° with the horizontal and releasing it.

Failure of the can to return to the normal upright

position shall constitute failure of this test.

Factory Mutual

Stabil ity

After filling the container to its rated

capacity, a stability test will be made by

2
tipping the container to an angle of 30" with

the horizontal and releasing it. It shall return

to the normal upright position.

Underwriters' Laboratories

Stability Tests

64. Safety cans shall retain their stability

when filled with liquid and placed -- facing

in any direction on an inclined plane forming

an angle of 30 degrees with the horizontal.

Voluntary Product Standard

3.5. Stabil ity - Each container shall be so designed that it shall not upset when placed

facing any direction on a plane inclined at

20" with the horizontal when filled to its nominal

capaci ty

As can be seen, the Federal Specification and the Factory

Mutual Standard require that the container return to a normal upright position when released from a tilted position. This is re- ferred to as the "tilt test" in this report. The Underwriters'

Laboratories Standard and the Voluntary Products Standard require

that the container shall not overturn on an inclined plane. This

is referred to as the "inclined plane test" in this report. An

additional test, described later, was developed to determine the

angle of instability for containers filled to capacity.

2.1.1 Tilt Test

The equipment used for the stability tests is shown in Figure

1. Figure la shows the arrangement for the tilt test. The container was filled to capacity with water, capped, and placed on the horizontal bed of the test fixture. The container was tilted to an angle of 30° to the horizontal and released. This test was performed for three orientations (long, short, and diagonal axes of

the base) of the containers having rectangular bases, and for one orientation of containers having circular bases. The data from

these tests are given in Table 2. The S indicates that the specimen returned to a stable upright position, and the U indicates

that the specimen was unstable and overturned.

2.1.2 Inclined Plane Test

Figure lb shows the stability test fixture as it was used

for the inclined plane test. For this test, the bed of the fixture was inclined to an angle of 30° from the horizontal, and coated

with an abrasive material to prevent the container from sliding

3
down the plane. The containers were filled to capacity with water,

capped, and placed on the inclined plane. As with the tilt test,

this test was also performed for three orientations of the containers having rectangular bases and one orientation for containers

having circular bases. The data from the inclined plane tests are given in Table 2. The S indicates that the specimen remained in

a stable position on the inclined plane, and the U indicates that

the specimen was unstable and overturned.

2.1.3 Angle of Instability

To develop additional information on the stability of the

specimens, a test procedure was developed to determine the angle

of instability. The stability test fixture was used in a manner

similar to that shown in Figure lb. For this test procedure, the

bed of the fixture was raised to approximately 20° with a laboratory jack. The filled containers were placed on the bed against

a 1/16-inch thick metal strip, which was attached to the bed

to restrain the container from sliding down the inclined plane.

The angle between the bed and the horizontal was increased slowly

with the jack until the container began to overturn. The angle

at this point is referred to as the angle of instability, and the

data are given in Table 2.

The results given in Table 2 apply to all thirty-six containers

of the type used in and around the home and to one specimen (SWM3GA) which is a safety can of the industrial type. Note that the same seventeen containers which failed to pass the 30 tilt test

failed to pass the 30° inclined plane test. It appears significant

that all of the specimens that failed these tests were rectangular

in shape and failed parallel to the short axis (see Table 1). The

angle of Instability, for the short axes of the containers that

failed, ranged from 20° to 29° , Note that the plastic containers

that failed these tests would have passed the less-stringent stability requirements of the Voluntary Product Standard.

2.2 Handle Strength

Carrying-handle strength has been considered in the safety

can standards and in the voluntary product standard in different

ways. Underwriters' Laboratories Standard treats the problem from

a design standpoint Instead of performance requirements as follows:

Handles

49. Each safety can shall be provided with

a handle having a comfortable hand grip arranged

for carrying the can conveniently.

50. In the absence of a support ring at

the bottom, and if the bottom is not set up

a sufficient distance to serve as a hand grip

4
in pouring, a bottom handle shall be provided

on cans having a capacity of two gallons and

over.

51. Carrying handles shall have a width

not over 1 1/2 Inches, and the hand clearance

shall be not less than 1 by 3 1/2 inches.

52. Edges of sheet-ntetal handles shall be

hemmed, rolled, or wired.

The Federal Specification, the Factory Mutual Standard, and the

Voluntary Product Standard require handle strength tests as a measure

of performance. The Federal Specification and the Factory Mutual

Standard require static test loading of the handle. Excerpts follow:

Federal Specification

3,7.3 Carrying handle strength . Carrying

handles shall withstand a test load exerting

a pull in pounds not less than the load indicated

in table I, without failure of the handle or fastenings and without loss of valve tightness

or causing any can leakage when tested in accordance with 4.4.5.

4,4.5 Carrying handle loading . To determine compliance with the carrying handle load requirement in 3.7,3,

the can shall be secured in a testing machine or Jig.

A pull load, equal to the applicable test load in table

I, shall then be applied at the center of the normal

grip position on the handle, for not less than 30 sec- onds. The direction of the applied load shall be parallel

to the center axis of the can. Failure of handle, fastenings, loss of valve tightness or leakage shall constitute

failure of this test.

Factory Mutual

The carrying handle shall withstand a testload, as specified in Table I, exerting a pull from

the center of the normal carrying grip and parallel

to the vertical axis of the container. All valves

shall be tight and no leakage is permissible in

the seams and joints of the con^^iners as a result

of this Lest.

The test loads, referred to in Table 1 of these excerpts, are given

in Table 3 of this report.

5
The Voluntary Product Standard requirement for handle strength

was a drop test as shown In the following excerpt:

Voluntary Product Standard

3,7. Handle - Each container shall be provided with a handle suitable for use in carrying

the filled container. The handle shall be an integral part of the container or shall be

securely fastened thereto. The handle shall

not crack or become loosened or detached from

the container when tested in accordance with

4.7,

4.7. Handle strength - The container shall

be filled to its nominal capacity with water,

and the closures shall be secured. One end

of a 6-foot length of 3/8-inch manila rope

shall be secured to a rigid point of suspension

and the other end of the rope to the handle.

The container shall be suspended from this

rope for 1 minute. Then it shall be raised

12 inches from the suspended position and allowed

to fall freely.

2.2.1 Metal Cans

Static strength tests on the handles were performed as shown

in Figure 2. A test fixture was used to aline and securely mount

the empty container in a universal testing machine. A pull rod was connected to the handle of the container with an S-hook to

apply the load in the manner prescribed in the Federal Specification and in the Factory Mutual Standard. During the test of the

first container having a rigid handle (EMIR-A), it was noted that

excessive bending would occur with the load concentrated at the

center of the normal grip position on the handle. Therefore, the

test procedure was modified by using a 3-inch length of 1/2-inch

diameter steel rod to distribute the load along the grip position

on the rigid handles.

During the test of the first container having a folding handle

(EM5C-A), it was noted that the wooden grip split along the metal

wire ball at a load of 157 Ibf, which was less than the required

test load of 250 Ibf. Since all of the specimens having folding

handles are constructed with wire bails an^ wooden grips, this

test procedure was also modified to distribute the load along the

grip. A 3-inch length of 3/4-lnch pipe was cut in two longitudinally,

and one half was used to cradle the grip and distribute the load.

Specimen EM5C-A was retested, and sustained the 250 Ibf test load

with no further damage noted. Conclusions based on the results

from the static load tests on handles are subjective in that the

6
observer's judgement is required to determine whether failure has

occurred. This can be seen In the Federal Specification requirement,

"Failure of handle, fastenings, loss of valve tightness or leakage

shall constitute failure of this test", and the Factory Mutual

Standard requirement, "All valves shall be tight and no leakage

is permissible in the seams and joints of the containers as a result

of this test". For evaluating the results of these tests, deformations of the handle, top, and sides of the containers were not

regarded as constituting failure. All of the containers listed

in Table 1 were subjected to this test, and none were thereby observed to leak at the seams and joints. Furthermore, none of the

pour spouts or caps appeared to suffer structural damage. One side

of the handle on specimen HMI-1/4R-B broke loose from the container

at a load of 100 Ibf, which made this specimen the only one to

fail the modified static load test for handles.

2.2.2 Plastic Containers

The plastic containers were subjected to the drop test for

handles in accordance with the Voluntary Product Standard. No fail- ures or permanent deformations were observed.

2.3 Pour Spout Strength

Static load tests of pour spout strength are required In the

Federal Specification and in the Factory Mutual Standard. Excerpts

fol low:

Federal Specification

3.7.4 Pour spout strength, styles I and II cans . The pour spout shall not deform, nor be

displaced relative to the valve cap or body

of can, as determined by the valve tightness

test when the test load specified in table I is applied to the nozzle in accordance with

4.4.6.

4.4.6 Pour nozzle loading, styles I and II cans. To determine compliance with 3,7.4, the can shall be secured in a testing machine or

jig. The applicable test load in table I shall

then be externally applied as a concentrated

load against the nozzle for not less than 15

seconds. The load shall be applied on the side

opposite the valve opening linkage, or either

side of a spout or fill fitting which has no valve opening linkage, 1/4 inch below the top

of the pour opening and perpendicular to the

center axis of the can. Deformation of pour

spout or displacement shall constitute failure

7
of this test.

Factory Mutual

A concentrated test-load, specified in

Table I, below, will be applied externally against

the pour-spout wall 1/4 in. below the opening

on the side opposite the valve opening linkage ^ and perpendicular to the vertical axis of the

container body. Spout shall remain within the

limits permitted under "Tightness of Valve".

The test Loads, referred to in Table I of these excerpts, are given

in Table 3 of this report.

Neither the Underwriters' Laboratories Standard nor the Voluntary Product Standard have con^sarable test requirements for pour

spout strength.

It is difficult to relate the spout test devised for safety cans to gisoline containers that are available on the market and

intended for home use, since the construction of safety cans is so different from that of the other containers. A photograph of

a safety can (SWM3C-A) is shown in Figure 3a and typical examples

of containers intended for home use are shown in Figure 3b. It can be seen from an examination of Figure 3a that the pour spout on the safety can is also the housing for the valve system. None

of the containers intended for home use were equipped with pour

spout valves. Since the apparent concern over pour spout strength

in the Federal Specification and the Factory Mutual Standard is

for valve tightness, direct application to containers intended

for home use has little or no significance. However, it was felt

that some sort of pour spout strength test might be useful to determine if pour spouts or caps might leak because of deformations

in the spouts resulting from handling or reasonable mishandling

of the containers.

Static load tests, similar to those required for safety cans,

were performed as shown in Figure 4. A fixture was used to aline

and securaly mount the empty circular-based containers in a universal testing machine. A 3/4-lnch square steel rod approximately

10 l/4-in2hes long was attached to the head of the testing machine

to apply i concentrated load to the spout as shown in Figure 4a.

Figure 4b shows how the containers having rectangular bases were

tested. These were alined on the platen of :he testing machine

with the spout directly under a 3/4-inch square steel rod which

was used to apply a concentrated load. The restraining clamp was used to hold the specimen in place during load application.

The five plastic containers were not tested because it was believed "zhat the plastic spouts were too flexible to yield useful

results.

8
An inverted can test was performed on all containers in the as- rtceived condition and again on the metal containers after the

pour spout tests were performed. The inverted can test was performed in accordance with the Underwriters' Laboratories Standard:

65. When the safety can is filled with liquid

and inverted, each valve or closure shall not

show leakage at a rate greater than four drops

per minute (l/lOO US fluid ounce). The rate

of leakage per minute is considered to be the

average rate of leakage over a five-minute observation.

The results of the pour spout and inverted can tests are given

in Table 4, Specimen LMIR-A was inadvertently damaged during the

pour spout test. Of the thirty remaining metal containers for home

use, nineteen sustained visible thread damage. This damage was in

the form of local flattening of the threads under the concentrated

load. However, none of the pour spouts were damaged to the extent

that the caps could not be replaced. The results of these tests

do not show a consistent relationship between visible thread damage

due to the pour spout test and leakage from the inverted can test.

Nineteen of the thirty-one metal specimens were equipped with

short spouts. These were located on the top of the containers in

such a way that the seams around the tops of the containers afforded

the threaded spouts at least partial protection from damage due

to mishandling. If containers having the above design features were equipped with suitable leak-proof caps and extension spouts, concern

over damage due to mishandling would be much reduced.

In view of the foregoing, it would appear that pour spout strength tests may not be useful for a standard pertaining to flammable

liquid containers for home use unless the CPSC deems it necessary

to require that the containers be equipped with valves similar to

those used on safety cans.

2.4 Leakage

Leak.ige from flammable liquid containers is one of the most

important considerations in this investigation. Obviously, the previous sections of this report (stability, carrying handle strength,

and pour spout strength) are all related to leakage or spillage

of flammable liquids from the containers. This section of the report covers the inverted can, hydrostatic pressure, and drop tests*

2.4.1 Inverted Can Tests

The results of the inverted can tests are presented in Table

4. These tests were performed on all containers in the as-received

condition, and in accordance with the Underwriters* Laboratories

9
Standard, The specimens were filled to capacity with water, capped,

and placed Inverted on a test stand. Those containers which were equipped with capped extension spouts were tested with the extension spout in place. These containers are identified in Table 4

by footnotes (b) and (c). The specimens were allowed to remain inverted for five minutes while they were observed for leakage. As

shown in Table 4, eleven of the thirty-six containers failed. Following the procedure of rctightening the caps on all containers that

leaked during the initial inverted can tests, it was observed that

only two of the eleven containers stopped leaking. Considerable

torque was applied to hand tighten the caps on these eleven containers. It is doubtful that a consumer would normally tighten a cap on a container to the extend used in the laboratory tests of

these eleven containers. Note that over thirty percent of the con- tainers leaked in the as-received condition. Potentially hazardous

conditions could exist if these cans were used for flammable liquid

storage around the home.

2,4.2 Hydrostatic Pressure Tests

Hydrostatic pressure leakage tests and drop strength tests

were also performed on the test specimens. Since these tests were more likely to cause serious damage or deformation in the containers,

they were the last mechanical tests to be performed in this test

series.

The hydrostatic pressure leakage tests, as related to safety

cans, are primarily concerned with the strength of seams and joints.

The tests of the metal containers were performed in a manner similar

to that required in the Factory Mutual Standard in that the containers

were air-pressure tested under water. Unlike the requirements of

this Standard, however, no special effort was made to seal the openings in the containers, and the air pressure was increased until

leakage occurred. Air pressure was applied to the containers through

valves installed in the caps or in the tops of the containers as shown in Figure 5.

The results of these tests of metal containers are given in

Table 5, and Figure 6 shows typical examples of container deformation resulting from these tests. Note that all of the specimens

tested in this fashion passed the Factory Mutual requirements of

no leakage at 10 Ibf/in . Note, also, that the five containers that

exhibited seam failures did not meet the 25 Ibf/in^ pressure requirements of the Federal Specification and the Underwriters' Laboratories

Standard. The cap and/or vent leakage shov^ in Table 5 indicates

the necessity for requiring that the openings in the containers

be sealed against leakage to provide a meaningful test of the joints

and seams. Two plastic containers, DBPIR-A and DBP2^R-A, were tested under

hydrostatic pressure in a manner similar to that required in the

10
Voluntary Product Standard except that the internal pressure^was

Increased to 27 , Ibf/ln^ Instead of the specified 20 Ibf/in«These

containers did not exhibit leakage at the prescribed test temperatures

of 75± 5 " F and 140 ^ 5 F. This same test was performed on specimen

DBP2^R-A filled to its nominal capacity with a mixture of equal

parts of glycol and water. The specimen and its contents were cooled

to 0 ±2 F, and an internal pressure of 27.5 Ibf/in was maintained

for two minutes without leakage.

2.4.3 Drop Strength Tests

Drop strength tests of safety cans are required by the Federal

Specification and the Factory Mutual Standard but not by the Underwriters' Laboratories Standard. The tests required in the Federal

Specification and the Factory Mutual Standard are essentially the

same, with only minor wording differences, as follows:

Federal Specification

4.4.7 Seams and joints . To determine compliance

with 3.7.5, the cans shall have all openings

sealed and subjected to a leakage, drop, and

hydrostatic test as specified in 4.4.7.1, 4.4.7.2

and 4.4.7.3, Any leakage shall constitute failure

of the tests.

4.4.7.2 Drop test . Cans shall be filled with

water and shall withstand a drop to a concrete

floor (landing on any part of the container

except the spout or spout mechanism) from a height of 3 feet without sufficient Injury to cause loosening of components or leakage from

any part of the container. This test may be run at any temperature in the range of -40 F. to 130°F.

Factory Mutual Standard

The container filled with liquid, shall

withstand a drop to a concrete floor (landing

on any part of the container except the spout

or spout mechanism) from a height of 3 ft without sufficient injury to cause leakage from

any part of the container. This test may be run at any temperature in the ran<?e of -40 F and 130°F.

The Irop strength test required in the Voluntary Product Standard

is far more rigorous in that the plastic containers must survive

three successive eight-foot drops instead of a single three-foot

drop. AnoLher difference may be seen in the prescribed test ten^)era11
turcs. The specific wording of the drop strength test in the Voluntary

Product Standard is as follows:

3.8. Drop strength - The container shall show

no evidence of rupture, cracks, or leakage when

tested in accordance with 4,8.

4,8. Drop strength - The container shall be

filled to its nominal capacity with water at

75 ± 5 F and the closures shall be secured. It

shall be dropped, free fall, onto a flat, solid

surface. Drops shall be made in the following

sequence: one drop on the bottom, one drop on

a bottom corner, and one drop on a side. The

distance of fall shall be 8 feet. The same tests

shall be made with another container filled with

a blend of 50 percent glycol and 50 percent water

and with both the container and its contents

cooled to 0 ± 2 F. For these latter tests, the

distance of fall shall be 4 feet.

The drop strength tests of metal containers were performed

using the following procedure. The specimen was filled to rated

capacity with water and capped. Then it was dropped from a height

of three teet onto a concrete floor in three orientations to cause

the specimen to strike the floor on its bottom, a side, and a bottom

corner noL necessarily in that order. Note that this procedure

is more severe than that required by the standards for metal safety

cans in that each container is subjected to three drops instead

of one.

The results of these tests are given in Table 6 and examples

of damage to the containers are shown in Figure 7. The results

show that only one of the specimens (HMI-1/4R-A) , out of sixteen

tested, failed on the first drop. The first drop would correspond

to the requirements of the Federal Specification and the Factory

Mutual Standard. Three other specimens (EM2R-B, EM5C-A, and SWM3CA) failed on the third drop, while twelve specimens survived all

three drops. Note that specimen SWM3C-A, which was a three-galloncapacity safety can, leaked around the pour spout flange after

a side drop in the vicinity of the pour spout.

Drop strength tests of the plastic containers were performed

in a manner similar to that required in the Voluntary Product Standard except that the drops were not performed In the prescribed

sequence of orientations. The results of these tests are given

in Table 7. Replicate specimens DBPIR-A and DBPIR-B failed the

drop tests. There was no duplicate specimen for DBP2-1/2R-A so

it was tested at both 0 and 75 "F. This specimen survived the six

drops without leakage from the body of the container, but the vent

12
cap came off upon impact in each drop. While the drop strength

tests are primarily concerned with the strength of seams and joints,

it should be required that the container survive the drop test

without leakage from any part of the container.

3. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility

of transferring the technology involved in voluntary standards

for safety cans to standards for flammable liquid containers for

home use. In general, the results of this study on the mechanical

tests for stability, leakage, and handle strength indicate that

reasonable performance standards for these characteristics can

be developed for flammable liquid containers for home use. It remains,

of course, for CPSC to establish appropriate pass-fail criteria

for the tests.

The results of the pour spout strength tests did not appear

to apply directly to containers for home use unless it is deemed

necessary or desirable to require that these containers be equipped

with valves similar to those used on safety cans. On the other

hand, the results of these tests and the associated inverted can leakage tests did accent the need for leak-proof caps and extension

spouts. Leak-proof caps and extension spouts are important not

only because of liquid leakage in an inverted or upset position,

but also because of the possibility of vapor leakage in the upright

position and liquid leakage from the cap or extension spout while

decanting

The referenced voluntary standards and specifications [l,

2, 3, and 4j provide additional considerations which may be necessary

to produce a meaningful standard for flammable liquid containers

for home use. Further studies along these lines could address features

such as air vent openings, pressure relief valves, flame arresting

screens, protective coatings, material properties, capacity, fire

exposure, color, and markings.

13
In view of present accepted practice in this technological

area, U. S. customary units of measurement have been used

throughout this report. It should be noted that the U, S.

A. is a signatory to the General Conference on Weights and

Measures which gave official status to the metric SI system

of units in 1960. Readers Interested in making use of the

coherent system of SI units will find conversion factors in

NBS Handbook 102, "ASTM Metric Practice Guide," available

from the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 20402 for 40 cents. Conversion

factors for units used in this paper are:

L in = 0.0254* meter

L in^ = 6.4516* x lo"** meter^

L Ibf = 4,448 newton

I Ibf/in^ = 6895 newton/meter^

Fahrenheit to Celsius, t - (t, - 32)/1.8 * c r -3 a

I gallon (U.S. liquid) = 3.785 x 10 meter^

Length

Area

Force

Stress

Temperature

Volume

*Exact values
c u

O OH)

«

a

•HU

0)a

(O

(0

0) H

CO

3 T) J3 O -H

C/5 -H 4) ai

00

o oo| c

1-1 -O

•H O

oc 05

a: Ce: oe: [i< (L, oe:

f-l iH 1—

rH t—

rH i-H .H r-l 1—

—

.—

r-l rH tH .-H CO «0 to flj (fl nj td CO CO CC CO m to to to CO CO 4J 4-1 4-1 4J 4.1 4-* 4J 4J 4J 4-* 4-1 4-1 4-1 4J 4J 4-) 4-t 4-1 (U (U (U (U 0) 0) 0) 9) OJ (1> (U CD 0) (U 01 x; 2: 5: s: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2: 2:

CN

-

<—{

«M

r-t

CN

rH

1 1 0

1 1

t O

I O

>i

•HO

to

(0 u

c

<us

•Hu

(U

c/)

I I I oI o vO

CM (N fM (Nl <r fH rH 1-4 rH i-H

1 On

1 1 C3^

1 1 sO1 I o

00 00 CN fM

l-r^ .H i-H

1 1 1 o\

1 I o

00 00

in

I I in

00 00 00 «n m m

1 in1 m1 m

00 00 00 00

in in in m

1 1 1 001 00

oo 00 00 00

in

I mI m

I I 00

I 00

I 00

00 00 00

iH <-\ m

1 1 1 in

00 00 00

in in in

1 so1 1 00

CM CM

I I CN CN CN «N in in

rH .-^

I I

CM CM

I I Cvl CN fN rH rH CN

< 03 <

OQ

1 <

1 oa

1 u Q

1

1 D£

1 OS <

1

1 1 <

1 CO

1 <1 CJ OS OS oi oc; 0: JC OS OS OS in rH »H rH 1—1 r-H CM fN CM i-H iH CN

2: 2: 2: u u w
0)M

to O 0) c

o

•HC O

<u a cio X U CO -H (U X OS

COa

o

COu

00Q) H,

o oc

r-l 73 -H

XI -H T3 C 00

CO -H O

oi

O

CM o

c

djs

•H

(J

CO

c

o

0)c

o OS PL. OS 05 c

o

0)c

o

05 OS oe: PiH b OS £55 05 OS D5 D£ OS

al! CJ 0 u 0 u

i—l t—

rH rH rH >H rH rH rH •H •H •H •H •H •H CO CO eo CO CO (0 CO to to to to 4J 4.1 4-1 4-1 4-> CO iJ 4-1 u 4-1 4.1 ^ 4-1 4J iJ 03 CO CO to CO .U

<y d) 0) <u (3) (U 0) S (U CO CO CO CO CO 0) s: X ac X 2: s: rH rH rH rH rH

CT3 0^ IX a.

tvi

I I O O <N CN

I o

I

00

in

I

CN (Nl CNI CN

rH rH rH rH

1 1 1 1 rH rHI I I o

CO aa

I I

m m ao

CM CN <t rH rH rH

1 01 00

I 05CN

I CN

<

I U

CN

I CN

I <

O I CN

CN CN (N N

rH rH

1 rH rH

1 <N CN

1 (N1 CM

5

CQ

I <

I D5

pa

I 05

<

< CO I

I I u

CJ U Jf

-X* JT* <N

CN CN

T. >-> cn to 3

OQ

I <

I 04rH

00Q

CQ

I OSrH

0-

COQ

rH

I CM

I £25 CN

Ch«

Q

I U

CO

33 <

I I

0 CO

00 rH C XI

•H tH t3 X

rH 01 0 rH

1 I

00 00

•H -H

OS OS

1 I OS OS

to XI
rH

CO CTJ 0) C

0

oc

CO Q Q

>l

4-1 •H

•—1 •HJ3 4J

CO CO iJ •H

CO X CM c < CD

1—

of

<v c

c 0 m

<

e-H

(T3 C

c 0

oc«^

Oh •HQ

T3

0)c

•H

1—

CJc

»—4J

CO u

dJ •H 0

01 JC

>-l in

QC

(1) Q

1 0 occ

0

kJ

1—1

njC

0

OC 00

CO •H

CO 4-1 0

4-1 09

di H

(U

(1> 4-1

1-1 CO l-l •H M •H 0

iH (U X J=

•H Q <

.0

(0 1 4-1 CO 0

u-l0 00 (0 c

CO 0 in

4-1 i-H3

(A

0) OS

1 c

CN 0)Q <

0) 1 fH u

01 cd a

CO 1—1

CO

CO 00 in

-3- 00

CN CO

CNI

-3- CM CN o o

CN

<3- CN C»

CN

T3DC

cn O o ON in CTs

cococotocococ/:toc/)tnc/5c/3c/ic/5cnt/2c/2c/3tnc/2

3 3 3 3 C/5 C/2 3 3 3 3

cn CO c/5 c/i cn cn CO CO CO cn cn 00 CO CO

COCOCOCOC/2COCOCOC/2CO CO C/2 CO CO

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

03

I Pi <

I a:CN

03

I S 5 5

CN CN

s:

< oa

I I U CJCN

< 03 < CQ <

1 CQ

1 <

1 CQ

1 u

1 Q

1

1 1 5^<

1

1 u

1 U<

1 CQ

1 <

1 CJ CJ OS DC oi: JC* oc: OS OS in in 1—

rH CN CNI CN CN 5 i
CO

cu o

0) &c 00 e>£i CO

0) •H

r\. i—

t—

•w

>,

4J

1-t 1—1 •HXi 4.) CO CO V4

4-1 •H o

CO ^ h-t

of

1—0£

&c C c O

h4

rH

CO 4>C o

(fl (—1 CO Oh •HQ

T3

OJC

•HiHU

c

4J

CO l-l CU •H o

0) >5 »^ <J

<u Q

1 o

0

(—1COc

o

00

CO •H

CO 4J Q

4J 1—

CO •H

0) H

H

(L> QJ iJ

4-1 U CO lu •H OC •H O

r-H CD ^ H Q < C/3 U3

(0 1 eo Om

o OX) a

CO o

4-1 I—

3

(0

a>

1 og cua

0) •H

1—1 O

J3 CU

flj H

CNl o 00 CO

in CO

\0

-3-

C» m

CN CM o o o CN

CO

inCO CO o o o CO CO CO

C/J<^C/5C/3C/)(/)C/101C/5C/5tOC/5CrtC/3!r)C/5C/5

3 » ^3 ;d

C/2 C/3 C/3 C/^ C/3

C/5C/5C/3C/3t/)C/lC/lCO'yiC/3C/5C/5C/5t/^C/:iC/2C/5

3 3 3 CO

00

C!

CO

CJ T>

(U

(0

CO

}^

CO3

ou

CO CO w C/> CO CO

OS jf jf u CJ eg cs in

I OS ai

(0

a>

<-i u

f-< <o c

CO CO

4-1 C Q> CO rH

00

H U C

•H

CO E> CO

(0 CJ
Table 3 - Handle and

1 and 2 Spout Strength Test Loads as Specified in References

Container Capacity

Test Load on rour-bpout

Test Load

on Handle

gal Ibf Ibf

Up to 0.5 25 75

1 50 125

2 75 150

3 100 175

5 125 250

NOTE: Intermediate sizes will be tested as the next larger capacity.
Table 4 - Results of Pour Spout and Inverted Can Leakage Tests

Pour

Spout

Inverted Can

Leakage Test

Specimen

Test

Load Initial

After

Spout Test Damage Location

(Ibf)

T Ml P—

(a) Pa^ 1 r ai X r HI 1

T Ml R-R 50 Vai 1 Threads

7 s Pass r ai 1 L HIT caUo

T M2R-R / -J Pass Pass Th r p a H Q

7 S Pass Pass 1 nrcaub

7S Pass Pass 1 III cdCJo

T MSr-A 1 2S r ai 1 rass X 1 IX cctUo

T MSP—

X1 ^?s^ r ail Pass 1 111 cdUo

HMl R-A SO Pass Vol rail1

11 U IXC HM1 R-R so Pass r ai 1 HMl R-r so P as s r ai. J. HMl R-n Pass Pass Non6

hmiVr-a 50 Pass Pass X 11 X CCtUD UMl i<R_R 50 -I 1 rail rail TViT"ia i.liXc<iaD a/1 o HM9R—

7 5 Pass Pass X 11 X CdUo

rail rail None

7 S Pass Pass TVi T-o ilk Ac

Pass P«Sfi^^^ rass None

FMl P—R Pass rail X liX caUo

5Q Pass rail Tl^i^fiaHc XllXCCtUo — OL/CUC onnti ^ V»iir*lflAH L/UC.IVXCU

FM?R—7/JS rail rail X 11 X trdClo 7S Pass Pass

7 1; Pass Pass Non^

FMSr-A 1 ?5 Pass Pass 1 IllcciUS

RMSP—

195 Pass Pass Non6

UAMl R_ A Pass Pass NoriG

WAMIR-B 50 Pass Pass None

SM2^C-A 75 Fail Threads

Continued
Table 4 - Results of Pour Spout and Inverted Can Leakage Tests

Pour

Spout

Inverted Can

Leakage Test

Specimen

Test

Load

After

Initial Spout Test Damage Location

(Ibf)

SM2i$C-B 75 Fail Fail^^^ Threads

WIM2J5C-A 28 Pass Fail Threads - elastic

buckling

of can

WIM2i5C-B 75 Fail Fail None

DBPIR-A Pass — DBPIR-B Pass

DBP2i5R-A Pass

GHPi^C-A Fail

uHr '2'-' " Pass

SWM3C-A 125 Pass Pass None

Specimen inadvertently damaged during spout test.

Inverted can tests were performed with plastic extension spouts

in place. When leakage occurred it was from between the plastic

snap cap and the end of the extension spout.

Inverted can tests were performed with flexible metal extension spouts

in place. Leakage was through the side walls of the flexible metal

extension spouts.

Container leaked during initial inverted can test. Cap was retightened and retested and did not leak.
Table 5 - Results of Hydrostatic Pressure Leakaf^e Tests of Metal Containers

Leakage Location

Specimen Pressure of Leak

Ibf/in

LMIR-B 13.5 Cap

LM2isC-B 22.0 Cap

LM5C-B 17.0 Cap and vent

HMIR-B 22.0 Top seam

HMlHiR-B 17.0 Top seam

HM2R-A 18.0 Vent

HM2i2C-B 20.0 Cap

EMIR-B 18.5 Bottom seam

EM5C-A 18.0 Cap and vent

WAMIR-A 14.0 Top seam

SM2i$C-A 21.0 Cap

WIM24C-A 18.0 Bottom seam

SWM3C-A 26.5

(a)

Pour spout valve

Vent was restrained.
Table 6 - Results of Drop Strength Tests of Metal Containers

Specimen

Orientation

of Drop

Bottom Side

Bottom

Comer

LMIR-A Pass Pass Pass

LM2R-A Pass Pass Pass

LM2H!C-A Pass Pass Pass

LM5C-A Pass Pass Pass

HMIR-A Pass Pass Pass

HMIR-C Pass Pass Pass

HMli^R-A Fail

HM2*5C-B Pass Pass Pass

EMIR-A Pass Pass Pass

EM2R-B Pass Pass Fail

Pass Pass Pass

EM5C-A Fail Pass Pass

WAMIR-B Pass Pass Pass

Pass Pass Pass

WIM2i5C-B Pass Pass Pass

SWM3C-A Pass Fall<^> Pass

(a)

^ 'Bottom seam leaked.

^^^Bottom corner seam leaked.

Pour spout flange leaked.
Table 7 - Results of Drop Strength Test of Plastic Containers

Orientation

of Drop

Specimen Bottom Side

Bottom

Corner Temperature Remarks

DBPIR-A

DBPIR-B

DBP2i$R-A

GHPi$C-A

GHPiiC-B

(a)

(a)

(a)(b)

(a)

(a)

Leak

(a) Leak

DBP2i5R-A (a)(b) (a) (b) (a) (b)

(a)(b) (a)(b)

(a) (a)

(a) (a)

75

75

75

75

Side near bottom

leaked

Side near bottom cor- ner leaked

Permanent

dent in corner

Permanent

dent in

bottom

(a) No leakage from seams or joints.

(b) Vent cap came off upon Impact.
Figure La - Tilt Test

Figure lb - Inclined Plane Test

Figure 1. - Stability Test Equipment
Figure 2 - Static Strength Tests of Handles
Figure 3a - Safety Can

Figure 3b - Containers for Home Use

Figure 3 - Typical Examples of Test Specimens
Figure 4a - Circular Based Specimen

Top arrow indicates Load application

bottom arrow indicates support fixtiii-pc

Load

Application

Restraining

CI amp

Figure 4b - Rectangular Based Specimen

Top arrow indicates load application

Bottom arrow indicates restraining clamp
Valve

Figure 5 - Equipment Used in Hydrostatic Pressure Leakage

Tests

Arrows indicate air valves
Figure 6 - Deformation of Containers Caused by Hydrostatic

Pressure Leakage Tests.


References

[L] Safety Can, Sp ring Closing Type, Federal Specification RRS-3 0E, November 2, 1971.

[2j Approval Standards, Safety Containers and Filling and Supply

Containers, Associated Factory Mutual Fire Insurance Companies,

Class 6051 and 6052, February 10, 1966.

[3 J Standards for Safety, Metal Safety Cans, Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. UL 30, Approved as ANSI Z21S. 1-1971, March 9,

1971.

[4j Plastic Containers (Jerry-Cans) for Petroleum Products, Voluntary

Product Standard 6174, May 1, 1974.

USCOMM NBS-DC
' " 1 1 :iu J( A 1 ION OI: Ki- i^OK 1 NO.

HlfU . -CRAfHU.

' T j N3SIR /^-614

N,i. 3. Rccipirnt'.s Accession No.

4. , . ...Mi M H 1 ! 1 I.IMECHANICAL TESTS OF FLAMMABLE LIQUID CONTAINERS

5. Publication Date January 1975

6. Performing Organization ( ode

7. AUTHOR(S)

Nixon Halsey, Arthur F, Kirstein, and Robert E. Snyder

8. Performing Organ. Report No. NBSIR 74-614

9. PKRFORMING OR(i AN IZAT ION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U t rAK 1 mcrl 1 Ur LUMMcKCc

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 2130449

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Addrcs.s (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Consumer Product Safety Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue

WashinRton, D. C. 20207

13, Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less (actual summary of most sigfiidcant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

Because of the concern for safety in the storage and use of gasoline and other

flammable liquids around the home, this study was made to determine if standards

can be established to minimize the flammable liquid hazard by controlling or standardizing the containers. Attention was focused on performance standards for

stability, leakage, carrying handle strength, and pour sgout strength. In general,

it was found that the technology involved in existing voluntary standards for

safety cans could be applied to flammable liquid containers for home use for all

of the above factors except pour spout strength.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons

Consumer products; flammable liquid containers; gasoline cans; mechanical tests;

product standards; safety.

18. AVAILABILITY 1X1 Unlimited

1 ! For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

1

1 Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. C13

[y~~I Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

39

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

$3-75

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74