Laboratory and Service Tests of

Hand Luggage

United States Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Miscellaneous Publication 193

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Charles Sawyer, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS • E. U. Condon, Director

Laboratory and Service Tests of

Hand Luggage

by Edward T. Steiner, Robert B. Hobbs, and Elizabeth R. Hosterman

National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous Publication 193

Issued July 1, 1949

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C.

Price IS cents
PREFACE

The durability of hand luggage is often a matter of serious concern for

nearly every traveler, as well as for manufacturers and distributors of luggage

and for the transportation industries. Yet when representatives of the railroads, busses, and air lines asked the National Bureau of Standards for assistance

in preparing a commercial standard for this commodity, it was found that

there existed practically no reported research on the subject. For this reason

the Bureau conducted a survey of luggage in service, in bus and railroad stations

in 10 cities, to get information needed in developing performance tests for hand

luggage.

The findings of the surveys, showing the materials and types of luggage

occurring most frequently, the general condition of luggage in service, and the

loaded weights of bags in service, are presented in this report. The three

laboratory performance tests suggested by the authors require only rather

simple apparatus and yield results of adequate precision. These tests have

been shown to correlate well with the behavior of luggage in actual service,

and therefore seem suitable for use in a commercial standard.

E. U. Condon, Director.
Contents

Pago

Preface n

I. Purpose and plan of the investigation 1

II. Survey of luggage in actual service 1

1. Frequency of types of luggage 2

2. Frequency of materials used for outer coverings 3

3. Weights of luggage in service 4

4. Condition of luggage in service 5

5.v Types of damage in service 5

III. Description of luggage used in experiments , 7

1. Types and sizes 7

2. Chipboard cases 7

3. Vulcanized fiberboard cases ._ 8

4. Lower-priced fabric-covered cases , 9

5. Higher-priced fabric-covered cases 9

6. Plastic-covered cases 11

7. Leather-covered cases 11

IV. Laboratory tests 13

1. Description of test methods 13

(a) Handle fatigue test 13

(b) Static load test 14

(c) Divided-table drop test 14

(d) Puncture test ._ 15

(e) Revolving drum test 15

2. Results and discussion 15

(a) Handle fatigue test 15

(b) Static load test 16

(c) Divided-table drop test 16

(d) Puncture test 17

V. Service tests ' 17

1. Plan of the tests 17

2. Results 18

VI. Conclusions 19

1. Correlation of laboratory and service tests 19

2. Recommended requirements 19

in
i
Laboratory and Service Tests of

Hand Luggage

By Edward T. Steiner, Robert B. Hobbs,

and Elizabeth R. Hosterman

Test methods for hand luggage are suggested as suitable for inclusion in a commercial

standard for this commodity. The methods are based on laboratory and service tests of

hand luggage, which are reported in detail. The materials and types of bags studied were chosen in accordance with the results of surveys in rail and bus baggage rooms. The

results of the surveys, showing the types and materials of construction occurring most

frequently, the general condition of luggage, and the loaded weights of bags in service, are presented. The relationship of properties of luggage to the kind and extent of damage

occurring in service is discussed.

The three test methods recommended are : A static load test, a handle fatigue test, and a repeated drop test. Minimum performance requirements for these tests are suggested. The results obtained from these methods correlated well with the behavior of

replicate pieces of luggage in service. Two other methods, a puncture test and the

hexagonal revolving drum test, showed promise, but are not recommended at this time,

because the results are insufficient to justify the high cost of the apparatus.

I. Purpose and Plan of the Investigation

This study of hand luggage was undertaken for

the purpose of developing test methods suitable

tor inclusion in a Commercial Standard for hand

luggage, and in order to obtain data sufficient to

establish minimum performance requirements for

such a standard.

A commercial standard is a recorded voluntary

standard of a trade and covers such items as types,

grades, and use characteristics. Their method of

establishment is described in a leaflet.1 The initial

request for a commodity standard for luggage

came from the American Association of Baggage

Traffic Managers, and was soon supported by similar requests from the National Bus Traffic Association and the Air Traffic Conference of America.

It soon became evident, however, that the available

data on tests and properties of hand luggage were

insufficient to serve as a basis for a commodity

standard, and the National Bureau of Standards

was therefore requested to conduct this investigation to develop the necessary technical

information.

The annual loss and damage to hand luggage

are large, but data are not available to permit an

accurate estimate of the amount. Loss and damage claims paid for luggage in the hands of common carriers total about $1,250,000 annually,

according to statistics from the Interstate Commerce Commission and from certain air lines.

This figure does not reflect loss and damage to

luggage in the hands of owners, or for which no

claims are entered, nor does it take account of the

incidental inconvenience to travelers or the cost to

carriers of processing claims.

The experiences of common carriers, confirmed

by observations in baggage rooms during this investigation, indicate that a major proportion of

the annual loss and damage is caused by the use

of luggage that either was not intended by the

manufacturer for ordinary baggage service, or which has easily remediable defects in materials

or const ruction.

The general plan of this investigation involved

three principal steps : First, a survey of luggage in

actual service to determine pertinent facts about

its treatment ; second, the development of laboratory tests, which, in a short time, would reproduce

qualitatively and quantitatively the kind of damage occurring in service ; and third, the correlation

of results of such laboratory tests with the behavior of luggage in service.

II. Survey of Luggage in Actual Service

The first step in the investigation was to obtain

information, both technical and general, concern1 Voluntary standards adopted by the trade. Commodity Standards Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington 25, D. C.

ing the materials used for, and methods of construction of luggage, as well as the treatment

accorded it while in service.

Surveys were made in railroad stations at Salt

1
Lake City, Utah; Chicago, 111.; St. Louis, Mo.;

Pittsburgh, Pa. ; Bridgeport and Hartford, Conn.

;

Washington, D. C. ; and Tampa and St. Petersburg. Fla. Baggage in intercity bus stations was

surveyed in Pittsburgh, Pa.; Washington, D. C;

and Jacksonville and Tampa, Fla. Observations were made of baggage passing through the Washington National Airport and through La Guardia

Field, N. Y., but no data were recorded. In se- lecting these cities, consideration was given to

such variables as geographical location, size of

city, and general characteristics of the traveling

public and population (industrial, "white collar",

or tourist) within the limitations of economy in

the survey. The cities ranged in population from

about 100,000 to over 3,000,000. The data obtained are regarded as sufficiently representative

to serve as a guide in the development of performance tests designed to evaluate hand luggage.

1. Frequency of Types of Luggage

Surveys have been made of 5,804 pieces of luggage in the baggage rooms of railroads in the nine

cities. The various styles of luggage in use in the

geographic localities represented occur with the

percentage frequencies shown in table 1.

Table 1. Frequency distribution of types of luggage in railroad stations

Locality and number of surveys

Type

Washington, IX C,

Bridgeport, Conn.,

Hartford, Conn.,

Salt Lake

City,

Utah.,

Pitts- burgh,

Pa.,

Chicago,

111.,

St. Louis,

Mo.,

St. Peters- burg,

Fla.,

Tampa,

Fla., All sur- veys,

9 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 20

FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE—PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL

Field bag _ _ .__ 3.0 1.3 2.5 3.2 1.2 2.5 32.1 26.7 29.8 16.1 38.8 50.4 23.8 32.

1

50.0 32.2 Overnight case . — 4.2 2.7 7.4 3.2 1.2 2.4 1.8 18.9 3.3 4.4 Gladstone bag _ 6.9 2.7 9.3 11.2 8.1 3.7 5.7 3.3 6.9 Wardrobe case --- 15.2 22.7 13.0 12.9 18.8 6.5 5.5 24.5 20.0 14.4

Hat box. _•_ _ __ 0.7 1.2 1.6 0.6 Sample case __. . _____ 2.1 4.0 1.9 3.2 1.2 6.5 29.4 4.1 Zipper bag. ___ _ _ _ _ __ 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.4 1.9 1.1 Boston bag

_

___ __ _ __ 0.7 2.7 0.6 3.2 1.6 1.9 0.9 Valise _ 2.3 2.5 1.9 10.0 1.7

"Val-a-pak"__ _____ 1.3 2.7 3.7 2.5 1.6 1.5 Hand trunk 3.4 4.0 1.9 12.9 0.9 2.6 Week-end case ___ ___ _ 13.6 22.7 19.9 19.4 11.2 3.3 5.5 12.9 Miscellaneous _ 13.3 8.0 8.7 25.8 8.8 15.5 29.4 13.2 13.3 14.3

The classifications used are those appearing on

the form used by the Washington (D. C.) Terminal for reporting loss or damage claims. The

miscellaneous classification includes such items as previously used paperboard boxes, golf bags, barracks bags, skis, etc. These results show that three types, namely,

week-end and overnight cases (considered as one

type), suitcases, and wardrobe cases, are the most

frequently used types in all the cities. They comprise 74.5 percent of all the units surveyed, ex- clusive of the miscellaneous classification.

The frequencies of occurrence of the types were

also tabulated for bus stations in Pittsburgh,

Washington, Tampa, and Jacksonville. The results, together with those obtained in the nine railroad stations, are shown in table 2. The various types appear with approximately

the same frequency in bus baggage rooms as in

rail baggage rooms except for wardrobe, zipper

bag, sample case, and miscellaneous classes. The

miscellaneous group, for bus travel, contains a

large number of sea and barracks bags, which

count appreciably toward increasing the percentage frequency of occurrence over that found in

Table 2. Frequency of occurrence of types of luggage in

bus and railroad stations {percentage of total for each

carrier)

Carrier Field bag

Suit- case

Overnight

case

Gladstone bagWardrobe

case

Hat

box Samplecase

Bus 1.9 2.5

28.1 32.2

2.6 4.46.4

6.9

9.4 14.40.9.60.9 Railroad 4.1

Carrier Zipper

bag Boston

bag Valise Val-a- pak

Hand

trunk

Weekend

case

Miscella- neous

Bus__ __ 4.9

1.

1

0.9

.9

1.1 1.7 1.5 3.4

2.6

16.5

12.9

23.1 Railroad __ _ 14.3

railroad service. Zipper bags occur about four

times as often in bus stations as in rail terminals.

On the other hand, sample cases occur about four

times more frequently in the rail terminals.

Nine surveys were made in the Washington Terminal, some on different days of the week, and

some at monthly intervals. No significant differ- ences between these surveys were found.

Unlocked bags tend to be more easily damaged

than locked ones, because of the possibility of
3

locks and catches opening when severely jarred.

It is, therefore, of interest that bus passengers

apparently do not lock their luggage as often as

rail passengers. The percentages of luggage

found locked, half locked (one of the two locks

unlocked) and unlocked, respectively, for bus

travel were 37.5, 3.4, and 59.1, whereas for railroads these percentages, in the same order, were

19.5, 6.6, and 43.9.

Because of the relatively small volume of luggage carried by air lines, it appeared unlikely that

any results of surveys would be sufficient to change

the over-all conclusions as to the types of luggage

to be studied, and complete surveys at air fields were not undertaken. It appeared probable from

the observations made that the percentage of miscellaneous items and of Gladstone bags was less

than that found on the railroads, and that the

percentages of overnight, week end, and wardrobe

cases were greater.

2. Frequency of Materials Used for Outer

Coverings

The various kinds of covering materials observed and the percentage of each found in railroad and bus stations are given in table 3. The material termed "fabric over chipboard*

and/or veneer," popularly known as "airplane

luggage," occurs more frequently than any other

type of covering. This is true for both railroads

and busses. In bus stations the next most frequently found material is "paper over chipboard

and/or veneer," which amounts to about 22 percent of the bus luggage, excluding the miscellaneous classification. The percentages of allTable 3. Material distribution (percent)

Composition

Carrier Chipboard

Paper

over

chip- board

and/or veneer

Imitation

leather over

chip- board

and/or veneer

Fabric

over

chip- board

and/or veneer

Split leather over

chip- board

and/or veneer

Fiber- board

Railroad Bus

4.3 4.6

5.0

22.1 2.5

2.3

42.9 32.6 7.2 3.58.6

1.2

Composition

Carrier Canvas Metal Leather

Plastic composition

Other

materials

Railroad . 6.3 4.3 16.5 1.1 1.1 Bus 7.0 7.0 14.0 2.3 3.5

*Commonly known as cardboard.

leather cases, mostly Gladstone bags, are approximately the same for the two kinds of carriers,

and rank second and third in occurrence, respectively, for rail and bus travel. Other kinds of

materials are found in considerably smaller quantities in both kinds of stations. Metal cases are more popular with bus patrons than with railroad

patrons. Fiberboard materials appear more frequently in the rail baggage rooms because of the

higher proportion of sample cases carried on

railroads.

The different types of materials, as found in

various localities, are shown in table 4. The distribution of materials does seem to be

affected by locality. In Eastern and Midwestern

cities people traveling by train use more fabricTable 4. Material distribution according to locality (percent)

Material

Locality Chipboard

Fiber- board

Paper or imitation

leather over chip- board and/

or veneer

Fabric over chipboard

and/or

veneer

Leather

over chip- board

and/or veneer

Canvas Metal Leather Other

RAILROAD BAGGAGE ROOMS

Washington, D. C __

_

_ Bridgeport, Conn. ... ... _ 3.1

fi. 1 9.3 8.7

5.7

10.2

5.6

26.

1

10.3

4.0

4.5

40.7

51.1

42.7

17.4

62.6

23.9

43.0

60.8 38.5

7.2

2.0

5.6

13.0 6.2

19.0 7.1

10.9

8.2

8.2

1.8

4.4

2.6

4. 1 1.8 26.0

19.6

14.3

24.

1

4.4

25.0 23.9

2.6

Hartford, Conn. ... _ Salt Lake City, Utah.

4.6

Pittsburgh, Pa _ _ _ _ . 6.2 Chicago, 111 _. ._ _ ... 9.5 35.7

14.2 9.5

St. Louis, Mo 7.1 7.1 8.7

7.6

St. Petersburg, Fla. — _ _ 6.5 3.8

4.4

3.8

6.5 7.7

2.2 Tampa, Fla... 7.7

.

... 23.2 7.7

BUS BAGGAGE ROOMS

Washington, D. C. 21.

1

30.7 35.0

16.

1

36.7

15.4 30.4

38.7

15.8 10.5

7.7

4.3

6.5

15.8

23.

1

8.7

12.9

Pittsburgh, Pa 15.4

4.3 3.2

7.7

Jacksonville, Fla .. 8.7 3.2

8.6 Tampa, Fla _ _ _ 9.7 9.7
4

covered cases than any other kind except in Chicago, where the proportions of fabric-covered

cases and of leather cases are equal. In Salt Lake

City fabric-covered bags are not the first choice

but have been replaced by metal and fiberboard

cases. In bus stations of the four cities surveyed,

the fabric cases are the predominant type, Pittsburgh offering the exception, in which locality

they are superseded in number by paper-covered

bags and equaled by heavy chipboard cases. Type of material and style are quite closely re- lated in many instances. For example, Gladstone bags are almost always leather, and of nonrigid construction. Occasionally one finds them

made of split leather over chipboard. Metal cases are generally of the suitcase size or hand-trunk

style. Zipper bags usually appear with canvas

covering, rarely in leather or oilcloth.

Table 5 shows, for the principal types of luggage, the percentage of cases of each covering

material. Data for other types are available for

persons interested in them.

3. Weights of Luggage in Service

Overloading is often the cause of damage or

failure. of a case because of the handle giving way

and adds greatly to the shock sustained by a falling case. Therefore, specimens examined during

the surveys were weighed, and the over-all volumes

of the bags were also measured. Table 6 lists the

Table 5. Covering materials for principal types of luggage

(Percentage of total for each type)

'iBtl

Type of baggage

Material

Chip- board

Paper

or imitation leather over

chip- board and / or

Fabric

over

chip- board and /or

Leather over

chip- board and /orFiber- board Metal Leather

veneer veneer

veneer

Other

RAILROAD

Suitcase 8.8 9.4 39.0 11.9 9.4 6.3 11.3 3.9 Overnight and

weekend 4.8 11.4 60.6 10.8 4.8 1.7 5.0 .9 Wardrobe 1.2 6.0 83.3 2.4 3.6 3.5

BUS

Suitcase . . 5.1 25.6 46.2 2.6 7.7 5.1 7.7 Overnight and weekend 5.0 48.3 33.3 1.3 5.0 7.1 Wardrobe 10.0 10.0 40.0 20.0 10.0 10.0

1)1 w

Stol

'6H

jjftol

t;iit»:

gs K

sjii>; Stoi

1610'

Si

mean specific weights (pounds per cubic foot) of

luggage for different volume ranges, as determined in 13 localities.

The values of the mean specific weights were

used in calculating the loads to be used in specimens undergoing test in the laboratory.

The mean specific weights, for different volume

ranges, are compared for rail and bus traffic in

table 7.

Table 6. Mean specific weight of luggage in different volume ranges

Volume range

Locality—(Mean specific weight in lb/cu ft)

Washington, D. C.Bridgeport, Conn.

Hartford, Conn.

Salt Lake

City,

Utah

Pitts- burgh,

Pa.

Chicago,

111.

St. Louis, Mo.

St. Peters- burg, Fla.

Tampa,

Fla.

Jacksonville, Fla.

RAILROAD BAGGAGE ROOMS

cu. ft. 0.26 to 0.75.. _ 23.4

17.9

16.6

15.4

15. 1 13.4 14.2

15.9

16.0

17.1 13.8 19.3

14.7 8.0

22.3

15.9 20.2

15.

1

14. 4 15.2

17.8

18.4 14.2

15.4

15.8 14.2 9.4

21.3

14.8

17.8 19.4

16.8 16.2

19.2

22.

1

17.5

13. 5 22.0

41.8

20.

1

16. 5 18.9

11.8

48.4

24.

1

22.7

20.9

18.2

43.9

21.5 24.5

18.

1

19.2

15.4

0.76 to 1.25

1.26 to 1.75 1.76 to 2.25

2.26 to 2.75 2.76 to 3.25

3.26 to 3. 75

3.76 to 4.25 23.5 15.0

4.26 to 4.75 4.76 to 5.25 2.7 16.9

BUS BAGGAGE ROOMS

0.01 to 0.25 16.7 15.4

21.3 16.4

18.3 13.7

12.9 16.8

0.26 to 0.75 35.2

18.3 18.5

12.8 18.2

15.8

18.0 19.7

16.

1

19.9

' 24.6

6.7 31.7

16.5

15.4

0.76 to 1.25

1.26 to 1.75

2.26 to 2.75 2.76 to 3.25 3.26 to 3.75 ... 15.6 14.6
5

Table 7. Comparison of mean specific weight for different volume ranges

Volume ranges, cu ft Rail Bus

D.01 to 0.25

Ib/cuft Ib/cu ft16.7

3.26 to 0.75 - 29. 7 17.3

3; 76 to 1.25 18.7 22.2

1.26 to 1.75 18.4 17.8

1.76 to 2.25 16.1 15.8

2.26 to 2.75 - 16.2 16.5

2.76 to 3.25 14:2 16.8

i.26 to.3.75 13. 2 15.9

3.76 to 4.25 19.3

4.26 to 4.75

1.76 to 5.25 9.8

4. Condition of Luggage in Service

At the time that the cases were being examined

for type, in both rail and bus terminals, appraisals

of the items were made regarding their condition

and appearance. Four grades of condition were

used, approximately as follows

:

Excellent: No damage other than soiling or abrasion which has not broken the surface

Good: Scuffs, scratches, dents or similar defects

Fair : Tears or breaks in outer covering, red rot

in leather, but no puncture completely

through walls ; hardware damaged but still operable

Poor: Failure of hardware, handle, frame, wall

;

or exposure of contents

Variations in the over-all condition of luggage

as found in stations in different localities are shown in table 8.

Table 8. Condition of luggage in rail and bus stations

Locality Excellent and good

Fair and

poor

RAILROAD STATIONS

Washington, D. C

Bridgeport, Conn

Hartford, Conn

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Pittsburgh, Pa

Chicago, 111 -. St. Louis, Mo

St. Petersburg, Fla._- Tampa, Fla

Average.

Percent Percent

57 43

56 44 58 42

61 39

60 4(1 49 51 42 58

51 49 60 40

55 45

BUS STATIONS

Washington, D. C___ __. 49 51 Pittsburgh, Pa -.- . -. . . . . 41 59 Jacksonville, Fla . . . . . 38 62 Tampa, Fla 59 41

Average-. __ 47 53

In all but two railroad stations, the number of

bags in excellent and good condition exceeds those

in fair and poor condition. The opposite seems

to be true for bus travel in three of four cities.

The comparison between railroad and bus baggage indicates that somewhat more cases of better

quality are encountered in railroad baggage rooms

than in bus baggage rooms.

5. Types of Damage in Service

A study of the types of damage occurring in

service and the experience of baggage agents show

that the majority of damages falls into these

classes

:

1. Broken or bent hardware (catches, locks,

hinges)

.

2. Broken handles.

3. Separation of frames, or of covering from

frame.

4. Punctures of surfaces (sides, ends, bottom,

t0P)-

5. Scuffing and tearing of covering or binding.

6. Damage by water, grease, oil, etc. The last item rarely leads to damage of the contents, or to permanent impairment of the functional operation of the bag, although objectionable

discoloration may result. Scuffing or tearing of

the covering, although disfiguring, does not usually

expose the contents of the bag or damage it to

such an extent as to render it useless. The first

four items are considered to be the most serious causes for damage and loss of luggage and contents, and attention was concentrated on them in

laboratory studies.

Typical examples of damage occurring in actual

service are illustrated in figures 1, 2, and 3. Types of damage to hardware are pictured in

figure 2. Four of the ways in which a handle may fail are shown in figure 3. The loss of a handle in service is serious not only

from the standpoint of inconvenience to all who

must carry the bag, but also because its detachment

may cause the whole case to be lost, as identification tags or checks are usually attached to the

handle. Loss of the handle or failure of a component part sometimes results in serious damage

to the case itself by causing a fall from a considerable height onto a hard surface, as when the

failure occurs because the handle is being used to pull the bag from a rack.

Some serious failures are caused by external

loads, from other luggage stacked on a bag, or

similar conditions. Luggage may be stacked to a height of several feet as a space-conserving measure. There is sometimes a tendency to force

830364—49-
6

a small bag into insufficient residual space in a packed compartment, with the result that a compressive force is exerted on all bags in the compartment, A much more prevalent practice is

Figure 1. Types of damage to luggage in actual service.

A, Broken frame; B, rectangular fracture of plywood; C, puncture of surface ; D, scuffing of leather.

Figuee 3. Types of damage to luggage handles in service.

Top, handle broken away from D-ring, and metal reinforce- ment in handle pulled out ; second, handle disappeared in service ; third, rivets fastening handle plate to bag pulled through top of bag ; bottom, leather handle broke across slot through which

passed metal pin fastening it to bag.

Figure 2. Types of damage to luggage hardware in service.

Right, hinge failure caused by rivets pulling out ; center, hasp of internal-type catch broken at spot-welds ; left, movable piece of exter- nal-type catch bent and pulled out at one side.

that travelers often use luggage for other than

its intended purposes, such as a seat or a stepladder

to gain access to overhead baggage racks. It is

estimated that static external loads of 100 to 200

pounds are quite frequent, and that loads up to

400 pounds may occasionally be found.
Bags may drop from various heights in service

because of handle breaks, methods of handling

and stacking, and other reasons. Luggage has

been seen to fall from a height of 6 feet after being

carelessly stacked on older style trucks. Occasionally the failure of a handle may lead to dropping a bag on a station floor; sometimes the bag

then opens and scatters the contents. One type

of impact peculiar to air lines is that caused by the

sudden rise or fall of the plane in turbulent air.

In extreme conditions a force of two to three

times gravity may be imposed.

The surfaces of bags are sometimes fractured

in service, either by falling on sharp objects, or by

sustaining a blow from a falling object, such as the corner of another bag. Damage is apt to be

more severe for a rigid type of container, such

as fiberboard or veneer construction, particularly

when the surface is not supported by full packing

within the bag.

III. Description of Luggage Used in Experiments

1. Types and Sizes

In order to obtain information on the effect

of types of materials, sizes, etc., to the maximum

extent consistent with practical limitations on the

number of bags to be studied, luggage for test was

purchased according to the following scheme.

(The figures in parentheses give the approximate

retail price, with tax, in June 1947.)

Bags about 21 inches long:

t Chipboard ($2.50).

2. Vulcanized fiberboard ($6).

3. Fabric cover:

a. Lower-priced ($12).

b. Higher-priced ($18).

4. Plastic cover ($20).

5. Leather cover ($36).

Bags about 26 inches long

:

1. Chipboard ($3.50).

2. Vulcanized fiberboard ($12).

Fabric cover

:

a. Lower-priced ($17).

b. Higher-priced ($27).

Plastic cover ($33).

Leather cover ($51).

The two sizes, 21 inches and 26 inches, were

selected because these represent the most popular

sizes used, according to surveys. The smaller size

represents approximately week-end, overnight,

and other small cases ; the larger size is similar to

wardrobe, pullman, fortnighter cases, and the like.

Three identical specimens of each group were

purchased in the open market ; two were tested in

the laboratory ; and the third was subjected to an

actual service test.

2. Chipboard Cases

The unused chipboard cases are shown in figures

4, A, and 5, A. The smaller bag was 23 inches

Figure 4. Small chipboard case. A, Unused ; B, after laboratory tests ; 0, after service test.
8

Figure 5. Large chipboard case.

A, Unused ; B, after laboratory tests ; G, after service test.

long, somewhat longer than the usual week-end

case,

2 but was sold as a week-end case in a matched

set with the larger bag. These bags, retailing for

about $2.50 and $3.50, respectively, are designed

and striped so as to resemble the fabric-covered

"airplane" luggage. They have a partial frame of

wood, about % inch thick, which extends under and

supports only about half the top, bottom, and ends

of the main body of the case, and appears to have

as its principal function the provision of an an- chorage for the hardware. The hardware was of

very light weight.

The handles of this type of bag were made of

a split leather covering over paper composition,

containing a strip of reinforcing metal that was

doubled over a D-ring at each end. The D-rings

passed under metal plates, which were attached to

the body of the bag by split rivets.

2 Simplified Tractice Recommendation R215-46 (Jan. 1, 194C).

3. Vulcanized Fiberboard Cases

Photographs of the unused vulcanized fiberboard cases are shown in figures 6, A, and 7, A.

The retail prices of these cases were approximately

$0.00 and $12.00 for the smaller and larger sizes,

respectively. These cases were made almost entirely of thick vulcanized fiberboard, treated with

a coating that seemed to be an alkyd resin. They

had black metal bindings, and the surfaces were

fastened at the edges with a large number of black

metal rivets. There was no reinforcing frame.

The hardware was moderately heavy.

The handles were formed of leather over paper

composition, reinforced by a metal wire or rod

about % inch in diameter, which passed through

steel buttons at each bend, and was flattened at the

end to prevent the buttons from becoming detached. The ends of the handle passed under sheet

metal strips, about y2 inch wide, which were riveted

to the body of the case, the rivets passing through

a sheet of reinforcing material of the same composition as the body of the case.

Figure 6. Small vulcanized fiberboard case.

A, Unused ; B, after laboratory tests ; C, after service test.
9

Figure 7. Large vulcanized fiberboard case. A, Unused ; B, after laboratory tests ; C, after service test.

4. Lower-Priced Fabric-Covered Cases

The unused lower-priced fabric-covered cases are shown in figures 8, A, and 9, A. The retail

prices were about $12.00 for the 21-inch and $17.00

for the 26-inch size. They had certain components reputed to cause trouble in service, namely,

chipboard sides under the fabric, spot-welded

hasps on the internal-type catches, and hardware

generally of light weight.

The handles were composed of a double thick- ness of heavy impregnated fabric, sewn together

at the edges, and looped at the ends over two 1-inch

D'rings. The D-rings passed under metal handle

plates, which were fastened to the body of the bag

by bent extensions of the plates themselves.

5. Higher-Priced Fabric-Covered Cases

The unused higher-priced fabric-covered cases, retailing at about $18.00 and $27.00 for the smaller

and larger sizes, respectively, are shown in figures

10, A, and 11, A. The most obvious differences

from the less expensive fabric-covered cases were

that the fabric was more closely woven, that the

bodies of the cases were Avood veneer instead of

chipboard, and that the hardware was all brass

and of heavier weight. The hasps on the catches

were not simply spot-welded, but extended through

two small holes in the hinged metal part of the

catch.

The handles were of the post type, and were

made of leather over paper composition. Through

Figuee 8. Lower-priced small fabric-covered case.

A, Unused ; B, after laboratory tests ; G, after service test.
Figure 9. Lower-priced large fabric-covered case.

A, Unused ; B, after laboratory tests ; C, after service test.
11

the ends of the handles passed a brass pin, the ends

of "which were held by hollow metal posts, projecting from a brass plate fixed to the bag by bent

metal strips that passed through the body of the

bag and then bent at right angles.

6. Plastic-Covered Cases

The plastic-covered cases were made of wood

veneer to which was bonded a surface coating of

a cellulosic plastic, probably cellulose nitrate.

The unused bags are shown in figures 12, A, and

13, A. This material has become increasingly

popular in recent years, and among baggagemen

it has a good reputation for durability. It has a

glossy brown finish, with an embossed pattern

somewhat resembling alligator leather. The

larger case was bound with metal, liberally riveted,

and the smaller with leather. The hardware on

both bags was quite heavy, the catches being of

a modified external tension type. Retail prices.

Figure 12. S>nall plastic-covered case.

A, Unused ; B, after laboratory tests ; C, after service tests.

Figure 13. Large plastic-covered case.

A, Unused ; B, after laboratory tests ; C, after service tests.

about $20.00 for the smaller and $33.00 for the

larger bag, seemed to be quite uniform at different dealers. The handle was made of rubber,

molded over a metal strip which passed around

a pin fastened to a brass plate, in turn fastened

to the case with bifurcated rivets. This fastening assembly was covered with a brass housing,

presumably to protect it from impacts.

7. Leather-Covered Cases

The unused leather-covered cases are shown in

figures 14, A, and 15, A. They cost about $36.00

and $51.00 for the 21-inch and 26-inch bags, re- spectively. They had wood veneer bodies, cov- ered and bound with grain leather splits. Their

hardware was all brass, of a moderately heavy

grade ; the hardware and handles were similar to

those of the higher-priced fabric-covered cases.
Figure 14. Small leather-covered case.

A, Unused ; B, after laboratory tests ; C, after service tests.

Figure 15. Large leather-covered case. A, Unused ; B, after laboratory tests ; G, after service tests.
13

IV. Laboratory Tests

1. Description of Test Methods

Five physical tests were used for the qualitative

and quantitative reproduction, in the laboratory,

of the damage occurring in service. These are designated the handle fatigue test, the static load

test, the divided-table drop test, the puncture test,

and the revolving drum test. The static load test

is made with the bag empty, since in this condition it does not offer the added resistance afforded

by tight packing. The puncture test is made on

segments cut from the walls of the bag. The

. other three tests are made on loaded bags, since

this condition reproduces the more severe conditions to be expected in service. The loads used

(including the weights of the bags themselves)

were calculated from the results of the surveys.

For each volume range, the mean specific weight

plus three times its standard deviation was taken

and the result multiplied by the midpoint of the

range. This figure, called, the "maximum ex-

\ pected load," represents a weight that would not

be expected to be exceeded more than three times

in a thousand in actual service. The maximum

expected loads are shown in table 9.

Table 9.

Maximum expected loads (suggested for lab- oratory tests of loaded luggage)

Volume of piece, cu ft Total load

Under 0.75

lb 22

2936

4350

57

64

717882

86

0.76 to 1.00

1.01 to 1.25 - 1.26 to 1.50

1.51 to 1.75 - 1.76 to 2.00

2.01 to 2.25

2.26 to 2.50_

2.51 to 2.75_. _ 2.76 to 3.00

3.01 to 3.25

The bags were loaded as much as possible with

clean, household rags, with from three to six common bricks, depending on the size of the bags.

The bricks were covered with cloth and located

centrally in the bags so that they could not shift

in 'position when the bags were tested.

In describing damage and other characteristics

of the bags in the laboratory, it is convenient to

identify the faces, edges, and corners of a bag by

a numerical system. The ASTM method for

shipping containers was used. In applying this

method, the bag is laid on its side, the handle

owarcl the observer and the lid at the top, in the

osition customarily used for opening or packing,

he lid is designated as face number 1 ; the handle

ace, number 2 ; the face opposite the lid, number

; and the bottom or hinge face, number 4. The

nd at the observer's left is number 5 and the one

at his right, number 6. The edges are identified

by the numbers of the two faces that intersect to

form that edge; for example, 1-2 identifies the

edge where the lid and handle side meet. The

corners are identified by the numbers of the three

faces that meet to form that corner. For ex- ample, 1-2-5 identifies the corner where the lid,

the handle side, and the left end meet. This system was used throughout the tests to record the

location of damage. It is applicable, in modified

form, to pieces of luggage that are not essentially

rectangular parallelepipeds, such as Boston bags

and hat boxes.

(a) Handle Fatigue Tests

The apparatus designed for the handle fatigue

test is shown in figure 16. It picks bags up and

sets them down repeatedly in a manner simulating the action of a person picking up a bag by

hand and setting it down. The device operates

at the rate of 37.5 pickups per minute, and exerts a peak force of approximately 1.8 times gravity,

as measured against a 50-pound weight. It is

Figure 16. Handle fatigue test apparatus.
14

equipped with an electrical relay system that stops

the operation as soon as a handle fails, and. an

automatic counter that records the number of

pickups. Intended primarily to evaluate the

durability of handles, the machine also stresses the

hardwa re and the frames. The results of this test appear to approximate closely the behavior of

handles in actual service, even though in service

they may be exposed to other types of forces.

(b) Static Load Tests

For the static load test, a weight of 150 pounds,

occupying an area 5 by 8 inches, was placed successively on the center of a side, end, and top of an empty, closed bag, and allowed to remain in

each position for 5 minutes. Permanent deformation, breakage, or tearing indicated failure of

the specimen. Permanent creasing of the cover- ing material, although disfiguring, was not considered a failure.

(c) Divided-Table Drop Test

This test is made by means of a device that permits the loaded bag to be dropped on any edge,

surface, or corner. The apparatus is illustrated in

figure 17 and meets the requirements of the ASTM

Designation D775-45T.3 The procedure consisted in dropping the loaded

bag successively on each of the surfaces, edges, and

corners from heights of iy2 , 2, 2y2 , 3, 3y2 , 4, 4y2 , and 5 feet. Thus 26 falls were made at each of the

indicated heights, or until failure occurred.

After each fall, the specimens were examined and

damages were described and recorded.

In order to provide a quantitative measure of the

performance of the bags, an arbitrary system for

assigning scores for each fall was developed.

Each bag, before starting the test, was given a rating of 1.11. As long as no damage was sus- tained, the bag was given a score of 1.11 for each

fall. When the bag received some injury, a value

commensurate with the severity of the damage

was subtracted from the starting score. The bag

was then assigned this new score for each subse*

quent drop until further damage occurred, when

an additional deduction, again proportional to the

severity of the damage, was made. This procedure was continued to the end of the test. The total score for any bag was the summation of its scores for the individual falls. Failure of the bag, or the reduction of the score to zero, at any drop,

resulted in the summation of the scores up to that

point. Thus, a bag failing at a low elevation

(early m the test) would have a low total score. A bag withstanding drops from all eight heights,

but suffering considerable damage at the lower

heights, would have a lower score than one that

also dropped from the eight positions but was

3 ASTM Methods of Standards part III, B, p. 1266 (1946).

Figure 17. Divided-table drop test apparatus.

damaged at the higher levels. Hence, the system gives due credit to a bag for its ability to withstand punishment as the test progresses. A bag

showing no damage at all would have been

dropped 208 times, and have a total score of 230.81.

The reductions in score were made in accordance

with an arbitrary schedule. The penalties ranged

from 0.01 to 0.50, depending upon the seriousness

of the damage and the probable effect on the future

performance of the bag. The complete system

for score reductions is shown in table 10.

Where a range is shown, the value selected depends on the severity of the damage. Three observers independently assigned and calculated

scores for all the test specimens and obtained good

agreement for the total numerical scores of each

bag, the root-mean-square variation averaging less

than 4 percent.

Bags were classified as failures because of handles completely pulled or broken loose, broken

frames, all latches broken or inoperative, or large

tears in the surface. With the exception of dam-
15

Table 10. Score reductions for drop test

Location

Bindings (leather). Do_

Do

Do

Bindings (metal) ._ Do

Do__

Do

Corners.. __ Do

Do _ Covering material- Do _ Do

Do

I Do__ __ Do.. Do

Edges __

Type of damage

Loose

Scuffs Tears (1 in.)'. Tears ( ^in.)

.

Bent Broken

Loose

Off

Do __ Frames (main body

material). Do

Frames (main body

material). Do

Do

Do

Do

Do

Do. Do

Do

Handles Do

Do __ Do

Do

Handle plates Hasps

Do

Hinges

Do

Do... Hinge lugs Latches and locks. Do

Do

Do

Do.

Lids or sides

.

Do

Do

Lugs, standing. Rivets..

Do.

Do.

Dented (restorable) Dented (permanent) Metal supports loose... Abrasion. Gouges

Loose from frame

Scuffs (body)

Scuffs (on edge) Tears (small) Tears (large) Separation beneath cov- ering material. Softened I Breaks (small)

Breaks (severe) Creases (disfiguring)

Dents (small). Dents (large) Distorted Misalined—

Punctures (1 in.) Punctures (2 in.)__ Punctures (greater than

2 in.) "Racking" Bent (nonrestorable) Bent (restorable) Loose...;.

Off (one side) Off (both sides) Posts bent Beginning to pull loose.

.

Broken off Bent

Other damage

Torn off Breaking through frame. Bent Dented

Inoperable

Loop type, loose (re- storable) . Opens continuously (re- storable). Bulges open slightly

Bulges open about 1 in . .

.

Bulges open more than

1 in. Off Loose or out (corner

plates)

.

Loose or out (edge binding). Loose or out (handle

plates, latches, hinges,

locks)

.

Score reduction

0.05 to 0.1. 0.01 to 0.1. 0.02.

0.01.

0.01. 0.03 to 0.05.

0.02. 0.03 to 0.05. 10.01 (for each time).

10.05 maximum.

0.05.

0.05. 0.01

0.01 to 0.1. 0.05. 0.01 to 0.03. 0.01 to 0.1. 0.01.

0.05.

0.02.

0.01. 0.05 to 0.2.

Failure.

0.01.

0.01.

0.05. 0.05 to 0.1. 0.02 to 0.1.

0.1.

0.5. Failure.

0.02 to 0.1. 0.01 to 0.1. 0.01.

0. 05.

0.5. Failure.

0.1. One fifth of total damage

l/rt&. 0.02. 0.01 to 0.1.

l/raa. 0.1.

0.1. 0.01 to 0.05. l/m a . 0.01 for each time.

0.1 maximum.

0.01 for each time.

0.1 maximum.

0.01 for each time.

0.05 maximum.

0.05 for each time.

0.1 maximum.

0.1 for each time.

0.2 maximum.

0.02. 0.02.

0.01.

0.03.

» 1/n (m=total number hasps, hinges, locks, or latches present on bag.) For example, if a bag has two hasps and one lock, the score reduction for breakage of one hasp or one lock is J4. If it has two hinges, the reduction for breakage of one binge is \<i.

age to the handle, all these resulted in exposure of

the contents, a condition that seems sufficient reason for listing the bag as a failure.

(d) Puncture Test

For this test the General Electric puncture tester

was used. This device, shown in figure 18, has

been in use for some time in testing paperboard

shipping containers.4

4 Tentative Method of Test for Puncture and Stiffness of Paperboard, Corrugated and Solid Piberboard, ASTM Designation D781-44T ASTM Methods of Standards, part III, B, p. 1238

(1946).

Figure 18. Puncture test apparatus.

In making this test, the bag is dismantled, and

the surfaces only, not the loaded bag, are used.

Sides were punctured six times, ends once, and

tops and bottoms twice. The results, in inchounces, were read from the scale. They were compared without correction for thickness.

(e) Revolving Drum Test

Preliminary tests of several specimens were

made similarly to the "Tentative method of drum

test for containers in small revolving hexagonal

drum box-testing machine.'* 5 The loaded bag was

placed in the drum, which contained a series of

baffles and hazards, so arranged that when the

drum revolves about its horizontal axis, the bag is subjected to successive falls in different positions.

The results of this test appeared to represent

well the behavior that was to be expected or had

been experienced for bags in actual service. However, since the cost of such a drum is rather large

and it requires much laboratory space, and since

substantially the same results are given by the

divided-table drop tester, it was thought unneces- sary to continue the study of the revolving drum

at this time.

2. Results and Discussion

(a) Handle Fatigue Test

The results of handle fatigue tests are given in

table 11. The tests were discontinued at 50,000

pickups if no failure appeared.

ASTM Designation D 782-44T, ASTM Methods of Standards,

part III, p. 1315 (1944).
16

Table 11. Results of handle fatigue tests

Bag N'o.

1.2

3!4.

5.

6_

7_8.

9.10

1112

Identification

Chipboard, small. . _ Chipboard, large _ Vulcanized fiberboard, small Vulcanized fiberboard, large Fabric-covered, lower-priced, small. Fabric-covered, lower-priced, large.. Fabric-covered, higher-priced, small

Fabric-covered, higher-priced, large. Plastic composition, small

Plastic composition, largo. Leather, small

Leather, large

Number of pickups

Bag not

subjected

to previous

test

37, 470

16, 180

SO, 000

50, 000

50, 000

11,230

13, 260

4, 140

50, 000

11,490

50, 000

17, 500

Bag pre- viously

subjected to drop test

17, 920

35, 120

50, 000

50, 000

50, 000

(') 11,630

5, 830

29, 150

26, 780

9, 090

(')

Type of failure

Reinforcing strip broke; D-ring spread.

Reinforcing strips broke.

Metal strip holding handle plate to case pulled out. Do. Do.

Reinforcing strip broke. Do.

Posts spread, releasing pin. Reinforcing strip broke.

"Do.

1 Handle broken in previous test.

It is notable that seven of the fourteen observed

failures were caused by fracture of the metal reinforcing strip passing through the handle. Five

were caused by bent metal strips fastening the

handle plate to the body of the bag becoming

straightened out under continued stress, and

pulling out of the bag.

The results strongly indicate that a satisfaetory

handle will withstand at least 25,000 pickups.

Twelve of the 22 handles reported here were ca- pable of this performance, and the majority of

these were found on inexpensive bags. Most of the

failures were due to causes that would not be

difficult to remedy. It may seem that 25,000

pickups far exceed the number of times that a bag will be picked up during its lifetime, but if

one considers the vertical component of the fluctuating stresses received while the bag is carried

by a pedestrian, the total number of up-and-down

stresses may well be of the order of magnitude of

25,000. Certainly the number of handle failures

occurring in actual service indicates that improvement in some bags is desirable, and this test points

out improvements that could easily be effectuated.

(b) Static Load Test

Static load tests were made on only one set of

the duplicates, as it was preferred not to strain

all the bags prior to the drop tests. Nine of the 12 bags tested were entirely satisfactory under these conditions of external loading. Even the flimsier cases vrere not complete

failures. Application of the load to three bags,

the small fiberboard and the small and large models

of the chipboard resulted in some buckling and

caving in of the structure. In this respect, these

three bags must necessarily be rated somewhere

lower than the others but not severely as the damage inflicted was not very serious. The loading

caused no tears or structural breaks but did result

in marring the appearance of the cases, through

creasing and slight distortion, which, of course,

would not seriously affect the usefulness of a bag

in service. Any bag failing to withstand this

moderate degree of external loading would cer- tainly not offer satisfactory performance in actual use where heavier loading- and greater force of

application of the load are likely to be encountered.

(c) Divided-Table Drop Test

In table 12 are listed the averages of scores of each set of duplicates for the various styles,

resulting from the divided-table drop test. It is

to be noted that in all instances except one, the

average score of the larger sizes is less than for

the corresponding smaller sizes. In the case of

the exception, the score is practically the same for

both sizes. The results indicate that large-sized

cases are much more prone to suffer damage on

dropping than are small cases. The chipboard cases received the lowest average

drop rating. The poor construction and inherently weak materials of which they were composed

were the responsible factors. The fabric-covered

bags were somewhat stronger and resisted damage

throughout the dropping slightly better than the

chipboard.

Table 12. Results of drop tests—score values

Bag No.

1.2.

3_4.

5.

6_7.

8.9.10

• 1112

Identification of bag

Chipboard, small ___ Chipboard, large Vulcanized fiberboard, small Vulcanized fiberboard, large Fabric-covered, lower-priced, small

.

Fabric-covered, lower-priced, large.. Fabric-covered, higher-priced, small

Fabric-covered, higher-priced, large. Plastic-covered, small

Plastic-covered, large Leather-covered, small

Leather-covered, large

Score

30.2

25.2

139. 4

119.6 84.5 20.0

53.2 57.6

96.7

73. 6 58.7 23.0

The factor contributing chiefly to their breakage

was failure of the hardware, particularly the

hasps, spot-welded, and the insert type. Frame

breaks probably ranked second in cause of fail- ures and low scores. On dropping, the small
17

metal fasteners, which bind the leather edge binding and protect the edges of the cases, work loose.

They are generally held by two bifurcated rivets,

which are easily loosened from the frame (pinewoocl) and in turn permit the leather binding to

be detached. The joints of the two adjoining

faces then separate, and the case is ruined. Some

more durable method of fastening the bindings is strongly recommended.

The handles of these fabric-covered cases, as well as those of the leather cases, stood up poorly

also in the drop tests. The hollow uprights, which

hold the pins supporting the handle, spread on

dropping the case on the No. 2 face (handle face)

and permit the pin to become dislodged from the

holes. The handle then tears off. In some instances the metal, which passes through the frame

and which holds the handle plate attached to the

frame, loosens because of the dropping, and pulls

loose. The metal is quite soft and can be straightened out by hand with little effort.

The highest scores were made by the vulcanized fiberboard and the plastic-coated cases. Both

types have proven themselves quite damage-resistant in actual service, according to baggage

handlers. The chief fault of the fiberboard was

one of distortion of the structure as the test progressed, which would probabty allow loss of some

small items in actual service if comparable damage were inflicted. This happened as the dropping was made from greater heights and after

the bags had been dropped a large number of

times. These bags can withstand quite a number

of drops before showing frame distortion and

are almost indestructible in this test insofar as crushing, tearing, and frame breaks are concerned.

The rivets, which form the edge seams and also

hold the hardware, are exceptionally hard and

resistant toward pulling loose.

The plastic-covered cases received lower scores mainly because of the latches and locks. Being

of a different, external-tension snap-over-type construction than the loop snap-over type of the

fiberboarcls, they were more easily misalined.

Slightly misalined, they no longer hold, and the

entire contents of the cases are spilled. Somewhat

less serious is the distortion of the cases due to the

nonfit of the tongue and groove edges of the lid

and body components caused by severe dropping.

As in the case of the fiberboarcls, this distortion

also takes place only after a large number of drops.

One peculiar difference was noted between the

large and small models. The latter had higher

standing lugs (about one-quarter inch taller), a part of the sturdy back hinge, which in several

instances caused the surrounding frame wood of

the side 4 to fracture when dropped on this face.

The damages observed by dropping the bags

seem to correspond closely to the types of damage

observed on baggage during the surveys. It is surmised that most damage is inflicted in this

manner. The determination of the resistance to

damage of a bag on dropping gives a fairly reliable estimate of how well a bag will endure the

stresses of average travel. These results on the

divided table tester indicate that a bag should be

able to amass a score of 50 in order to be classified as satisfactory for service. These points are discussed further in section V, service tests. Figures 4, B, to 15, B, show typical damage oc- curring to each test specimen during the drop test. Only the two handle failures in 9, B, and 15, B,

were due to the dropping, the others having been

damaged on the handle fatigue test.

(d) Puncture Tests

Although the results of the puncture tests indicate that this method may be useful after further

development, the data so far obtained are insufficient to justify a recommendation for its inclusion

in a commercial standard. Of the 12 bags tested,

eight had puncture resistance close to, or beyond

the capacity of the instrument, readings of 1,300

to 1,350 inch-ounces being obtained. These specimens were mostly of three-ply veneer construction.

Usually the swinging head fractured the specimen

but did not completely penetrate it. It is thought

that a modified apparatus with perhaps twice the

capacity would be useful.

Only the chipboard cases showed very low re- sistance to puncture, yielding readings of 210- and

227-inch-ounces. One of the fiberboard cases gave

a value of 667 inch-ounces, and one of the lowerpriced fabric-covered cases punctured at 1,002

inch-ounces. The behavior of these materials in

service indicates that a puncture resistance in the

neighborhood of 225 inch-ounces is too low, and

that a value of 1,300 inch-ounces is satisfactory,

but no intermediate fiducial limit can be set with

a satisfactory degree of assurance.

V. Service Tests

1. Plan of Tests from Washington, D. C, to various cities and rein order to compare and correlate laboratory

behavior with service performance, a replicate of

each of the types tested in the laboratory was sent

through regular railroad baggage checking service

turn. Eleven destinations were selected so as to

require much handling of the bags because of

transfer points en route. The samples were identified by the customary check numbers only, and

every effort was made to make the shipment ap-
i:

18

pear as normal as possible in order to prevent any

biased handling. The itinerary of the eleven trips

was repeated once. On each return, the cases were

examined carefully and records kept of their condition. They were then sent over another route.

The bags were shipped out alternately locked,

half-locked, and unlocked. Some bags had only one lock and were therefore sent locked and unlocked. The total number of miles traveled by the

bags was about 12,000, during which they sus- tained about 24 handlings per round trip. A system for scoring the bags similar to the one used

with the divided-table drop tester, was helpful

for an evaluation of the bags after the service tests had been completed.

2. Results

Twenty-two round trips resulted in severe damage to six of the 12 specimens. The damage sus- tained by the six bags was severe enough to classify

the bags as failures or as damage-claim luggage.

Table 13 lists the types of damage occurring to

the cases. In instances where several major damage items are mentioned for one bag, the first item

is the primary cause of the damage, the other damage occurring because the bag was left in service

to obtain auxiliary information. The trip numbers designate the trip on which the bag failed.

The scores represent a numerical comparing system, calculated from the data in a manner similar

to that used in the drop tests.

Table 13. Results of service tests

Bag number

1.2-

3,

4.

5.

6-

7_.

8-

9-

10

11.

12

Identification

Chipboard, small Chipboard, large Vulcanized fiberboard, small...

Vulcanized fiberboard, large..

Fabric-covered, lower-priced

small. Fabric-covered, lower-priced

large. Fabric-covered, higher-priced

small. Fabric-covered, higher-priced

large. Plastic-covered, small.

Plastic-covered, large -

Leather-covered, small

Leather-covered, large

Score

2.0

1.0 20.0

23.

1

21.0

3.0

21.8

13.6

20.5

21.9

16.2

3.9

Number

of round

trips

3

222

22

22

5

22

22

22

22

22

5

Major damage

Handle failure; large tear. Large puncture; handle failure.. None _

do.l

do

Handle failure; spot-welded hasp

broken. None

Frame break on lid edges 5 and

6; hinge side 1 broken. None

do

Puncture.-

Handle failure

Minor damage

Small tears of covering.

Softening of case; small puncture; small tears. Lock opened after each trip; abrasion marks plentiful; very slight scuffs. Lock opened frequently; considerably marked up

very slight scuffs. Leather severely scuffed; separation of edges beneath

fabric. Severe scuffing of leather binding; small dents in

sides. Separation of edges beneath fabric; moderate scuffing

of leather binding; loose rivets. Handle plate and pins damaged, loose edges beneath

fabric; leather binding scuffed. Scuffing of plastic coating; hinge lugs penetrated

coating.

Scuffing of plastic coating; temporarily misalined;

center latch inoperative. Severe overall scuffing; partial hinge break; separation

of edges beneath leather. . Severe overall scuffing; some edge separation beneath

leather.

The types of damage responsible for failures

were punctures, one; tears, one; handle failures,

three; and frame breaks, one. The additional

major types of damage mentioned were not the

primary cause of the failure. For example, the

large chipboard case failed on the trips because of

a large tear. The handle on the same bag broke

while it was being returned to the laboratory. The

small model of the same material failed primarily

because of a broken handle. Substitution of an- other handle resulted in a tearing of the surface

chipboard. The other cases suffering handle fail- ures could not be continued in the tests as the damage was not repairable.

The structurally weak bags broke early in the

tests and consequently received lower ratings.

The other bags varied in the amount of damage

they sustained throughout the tests. The fabriccovered and leather-covered cases were bruised

and scarred appreciably. They are, therefore,

intermediate between the chipboards and the plastic-covered and vulcanized fiberboards. The latter two types of bags endured the testing admirably

and therefore have high scores. Very little happened to them aside from slight scuffing and marring. The small plastic-coated bag, however, was

beginning to show the same effect from the high

hinge lug as was evidenced in the drop tests. Larger cases again, as in the drop tests, were

more vulnerable to injury than the small bags

except for the plastic-covered and vulcanized fiberboard cases. These bags were built to accommodate the heavier loads that would naturally be

placed in large size luggage.

The types and extent of damage occurring during the service tests are shown in figures 4, C, to

15, C, in the same order as they appear in table 13
19

VI. Conclusions

1. Correlation of Laboratory and Service

Tests

The data, though limited in number, indicate

that the results of the laboratory tests, especially

those pertaining to the handle fatigue and divided-table drop tests, correlate well with the

results obtained during the actual service tests. These two laboratory tests duplicate quite well

the damage observed during the survey in rail

and bus baggage rooms.

It has been shown by the laboratory drop test that the large-sized cases break more frequently

than the smaller cases. Table 12 shows this to be

true five times out of six based on the average

scores of duplicate samples. In service tests,

table 13, the same is true four times out of six

based on single replicate samples. In the handle

fatigue test, in five out of six comparisons of duplicate specimens, the handles of the small bags

held up best. The average number of pickups of

all the handles of small bags was approximately

35,000 as against approximately 23,000 pickups

for all the handles of large bags. In service, four

handle breaks were obtained, and three of them

were on the large-sized cases. If size is disregarded and the average scores for the service test samples are compared with

scores of the table drop-test method, the rank

rating is identical, as is shown in table 14.

Table 14. Correlation between results of service and labo- ratory tests

LaboServ- ra- Identification ice test Rank tory Rank

score test score

Vulcanized fiberboard _ _ _ 21.6 1 129. 5 1 Plastic-covered 21. 2 2 85.2 2

Fabric-covered, higher-priced _ . . .. 17.7 3 55.4 3 Fabric-covered, lower-priced. - 12.0 4 52.3 4 Leather-covered.. 10.0 5 40.8 5 Chipboard 1.5 6 27.7 6

The correlation, therefore, between service and

laboratory tests, insofar as material, hardware,

and construction are involved, is excellent.

No permanent incapacitating effect was produced by externally loading the bags in the laboratory. No truly crushed or flattened cases were

had through the service tests. It might be said

that the results compare similarly. Only two

severe punctures were had in the service testing, one on a bag showing high puncture resistance on

the puncture tester, and the other on a bag showing

low puncture resistance on the same instrument.

The results ai^e, therefore, inconclusive.

2. Recommended Requirements

In view of the data presented, the following rec- ommendations are offered for estimating the performance that might be expected of any given bagwhen placed in service. The recommendations

apply to bags only of the rigid type. The bags

should be loaded in accordance with the recommended weighting shown in table 9, except where

noted.

A. The empty specimen shall have placed successively on its lid side (side No. 1), its top side

(side No. 2) , and its end (side No. 5) , a 150-pound

weight for a time interval of 5 minutes in each

position. The surface area of the weight in contact with the bag shall be approximately 5 by 8

inches.

The bag shall show no. structural failure, tears,

permanent crushing, or irreparable damage.

B. The loaded specimen shall be subjected to

the action of an apparatus capable of picking up

a bag by the handle and setting it down repeatedly.

The apparatus shall pick up and set down the bag

at a rate of approximately 37.5 times per minute

and shall exert a peak force of 1.8 times gravity

when tested against a 50-pound weight.

The bag shall be capable of withstanding 25,000

pickup motions of the machine.

C. The loaded specimen shall be dropped suc- cessively on all its faces, edges, and corners from a

drop-tester, which meets the requirements outlined

in the ASTM Tentative Designation (D775-45T).

The initial height of fall shall be iy2 feet and shall

be progressively increased by 6-inch increments

until the total fall height is 5 feet or until failure

occurs. The specimen shall be dropped on each

face, edge, and corner, from each height. Records

shall be made of the effect of each fall. Each fall

shall be evaluated with a numerical score, the value

of which shall be commensurate with the damage.

The summation of the scores for all falls shall

total 50 or greater to indicate satisfactory resist- ance to dropping.

D. Some standard form of label or pocket insert

card should be placed inside new luggage, as a means of identification of the ownership to help

avoid loss of the bag if the baggage check becomes

detached along with a faulty handle.

The authors thank officials of the Pennsylvania

Railroad for making possible the service tests and

for other assistance ; the staff of the Washington

Terminal for checking out and recalling the samples in service tests ; and officials of the New York,

New Haven & Hartford Railroad, the American
20

Airlines, the Pennsylvania Greyhound and

Florida Greyhound Bus Lines, the Atlantic Coast

Line Railroad, the Seaboard Air Line Railroad,

and the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad for permission to make surveys and for their help in

conducting I hem.

The assistance of officers of the National Wooden

Box Association in the selection of test procedures

and in providing' some laboratory facilities is also

gratefully a cknowl ed ged.

The following members of the staff of the National Bureau of Standards contributed muchappreciated assistance and suggestions: A. S.

Best, John Mandel, C. E. Weir, C. W. Mann, and

Rene Oehler.

Washington, February 2, 1949.

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1949