American Glass Research Consulting, Training, and Analytical Services

Transcription

1 American Glass Research Consultg, Trag, and Analytical Services March 15, 2012 Mr. Chris Campbell HJ Hez 1000 Ericsson Dr Warrendale PA RE: Design Evaluation and light-weightg of a 375 ml NR MGM Jar AGR Reference Number: C Dear Mr. Campbell: As requested, the lightweight design and evaluation of your 375 ml NR MGM Jar has been completed. American Glass Research was requested to start with the supplied prt (MGM:4002) and develop the lightest weight possible. The computer model was itially created at a blueprt glass weight of 6.17 oz. (175.0 grams) usg an assumed average vertical glass thickness distribution. Multiple iterations were then run to obta the lightest weight possible for this design, which was determed to be 4.16 oz. (118.0 grams). Mimum thickness specifications are not considered for the light weight version of this design. It was assumed that the side surface strength was 40,000 psi (276 Mpa), typical of Press and Blow ware, and the outer surface had strengths associated with a typical Sn/poly coatg. It should be noted that the current analysis does not take to consideration severe damage resultg either from handlg or created durg glass manufacture as it is assumed that the ware will be properly handled and manufactured. In addition, the affect of any decorative elements (either molded to the item or added subsequently) are not considered the analysis. The model was evaluated for a maximum cappg load of 1,000 lb f (454 kg f ), and a maximum impact velocity of 35 /sec (89 cm/sec), approximately 736 bottles/m, assumg no spacg between bottles. The results of the impact analysis correspond to filled ware strikg a rigid object, simulatg a severe trade impact. Testg, Trag, and Fracture Services: 603 Evans City Road Butler, PA Phone: Fax: Analytical Lab: 349 Tomahawk Drive Maumee OH Phone: Fax:

2 Mr. Chris Campbell Page 2 March 15, 2012 SUMMARY 1. This contaer can be light-weighted from the prt specified weight of 6.17 oz (175.0 grams) to a weight of 4.16 oz (118.0 grams), providg the thickness distribution as modeled is mataed. 2. At the light-weighted glass weight and assumed thickness distributions, the design as modeled is acceptable for the assumed vertical loadg conditions. 3. At the light-weighted glass weight and assumed thickness distribution, the correspondg shoulder and heel impact loadg stress dices are acceptable at the requested severe strikg velocity of 35 /sec (89 cm/sec). 4. Equivalent PIT velocities for a 35 /sec (89 cm/sec) severe trade impact at the shoulder and heel contacts are 25 /sec (64 cm/sec) and 23 /sec (58 cm/sec), respectively usg the standard V backstop. 5. The tip angles empty and full are 24.3 and 23.9, respectively. Tip-over should not be an issue with this contaer. 6. The tip ratio, or normalized center of percussion, full is acceptable. This means that the shoulder height is not closely aligned with the center of percussion for a rotatg filled bottle. Thus the event of tip-over of a full contaer, breakage should not be an issue with this design. 7. It is noted that the results of the analysis are theoretical and contgent upon the thickness distribution as modeled beg mataed. Thus, the fal glass weight should be determed through discussions between the user and the glass manufacturer. RESULTS Several analytical iterations were undertaken to obta the lightest weight possible for this contaer. Typically as glass is removed, the capacity creases and geometrical modifications are necessary to mata proper capacity and fill height. For the current analysis, the overall height was decreased to mata the proper capacity as shown Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the solid model of the light-weighted design. Based on the results of the analysis, this contaer can be light-weighted from the prt stated weight of 6.17 oz. (175.0 grams) to 4.16 oz. (118.0 grams), providg the thickness distribution as modeled is mataed. Mimum thickness specifications are not considered for the light-weighted version of this design. The average thickness values are listed Table I along with the predicted 1% AQL mimum thickness values. The thickness distribution, as well as the meshed model, are shown Figure 3.

3 Mr. Chris Campbell Page 3 March 15, 2012 Vertical Load The results of the stress analyses at a weight of 2.46 oz (70.0 grams) for the specified vertical loadg are suarized Table II. The failure criteria for a 1,000 lb f (454 kg f ) vertical force are 4.1 psi/lb f (62.3 kpa/ kg f ) and 4.9 psi/ lb f (74.8 kpa/ kg f ) for the contact and non-contact pots, respectively. Comparg the results for vertical loadg Table II with the above failure criteria dicates that vertical loadg should not be an issue with the light-weighted design, providg the thickness distribution as modeled is mataed. The maximum stress dice the shoulder and heel are both approachg the borderle range dicatg that no further glass can be removed. The vertical load stress dices are shown Figure 4. Impact Loadg: The stress dices at a glass weight of 4.16 oz. (118.0 grams) for impacts applied to the heel contact location are shown Figure 5. The results of the stress analyses for impacts applied at the heel contact height are also suarized Table II. The failure criteria for a 35 /sec (89 cm/sec) severe impact are 229 psi/ips (0.62 MPa/cps) and 274 psi/ips (0.74 MPa/cps) for the contact and non-contact pots, respectively. The failure criteria for the side flexure region is 914 psi/ips (2.48 MPa/cps), assumg press and blow ware. Comparg the results for heel impact loadg Table II with the above failure criteria dicates that heel impact loadg should not be an issue with this design, providg the thickness distribution as modeled is mataed. Shoulder Impact: The stress dices at a glass weight of 4.16 oz. (118.0 grams) for impacts applied to the shoulder contact locations are shown Figure 6. The results of the stress analyses for impacts applied at the shoulder contact height are also suarized Table II. Aga, the failure criteria for a 35 /sec (89 cm/sec) severe impact are 229 psi/ips (0.62 MPa/cps) and 274 psi/ips (0.74 MPa/cps) for the contact and non-contact pots, respectively. The failure criteria for the side flexure region is 914 psi/ips (2.48 MPa/cps), assumg press and blow ware. Comparg the results for shoulder impact loadg Table II with the above failure criteria dicates that shoulder impact loadg should not be an issue with this design, providg the thickness distribution as modeled is mataed. Impact Equivalence For testg purposes, listed Table III, the equivalent PIT velocities, for a 35 /sec (89 cm/sec) severe trade impact at the shoulder and heel contacts are 25 /sec (64 cm/sec) and 23 /sec (58 cm/sec), respectively usg the standard V backstop. Also listed the table are the calculated tip angles of 24.3 and 23.9 for the empty and filled ware, respectively. Tip-over should not be an issue with this contaer. The tip ratio, or normalized center of percussion, full is acceptable. This means that the shoulder height is not closely aligned with the center of percussion for a rotatg filled bottle. Thus the event of tip-over of a full contaer, breakage should not be an issue with this design.

4 Mr. Chris Campbell Page 4 March 15, 2012 CONCLUSIONS It is our opion that this design can be light-weighted to a weight of 4.16 oz. (118.0 grams) and will be acceptable for normal anticipated usage, providg the thickness distribution as modeled can be mataed. It is noted that the results of the analysis are theoretical and contgent upon the thickness distribution as modeled beg achieved. Thus, the fal glass weight should be determed through discussions between the user and manufacturer. If you have any questions, please don t hesitate contactg me. Scerely, AMERICAN GLASS RESEARCH Scott E. Pridemore Senior Design Engeer SEP/lmp enclosures

5 TABLE I THICKNESS DISTRIBUTION Location Average Thickness Expected 1% AQL Mimum Thickness 1.50 to 1.0 * 1.25 to 1.0 ~ Fish Shoulder Contact Mid Sidewall Heel Contact Lowermost Heel Bearg Surface Center Bottom LIGHT-WEIGHT = 121 GRAMS (4.27 OZ ) * Typical max-to-m ratio at the sidewall locations for Press and Blow ware ~ Typical max-to-m ratio at the bottom locations for Press and Blow ware

6 TABLE II BOTTLE DESIGN SUMMARY LIGHT WEIGHTED 375 ml NR MGM Jar TYPE OF LOADING STRESS INDEX EVALUATION VERTICAL LOADING 1 kpa/kg f psi/lb f acceptable borderle unacceptable Maximum shoulder X Shoulder contact X Heel contact X Maximum heel X IMPACT LOADING 2 MPa/cps psi/ips acceptable borderle unacceptable Shoulder Contact Flexure (side) X In-plane hge X Maximum shoulder hge X Stiffness x kg f /cm 33 lb f / Heel Contact Flexure (side) X In-plane hge X Maximum heel hge X Bearg surface X Stiffness x kg f /cm 47 lb f / 1 Assumg a maximum vertical cappg load of 1,000 lb f (454 kg f ) 2 Assumg a full bottle strikg a rigid object at 89 cps (35 ips)

7 Total Height Shoulder Height Heel Height Body Diameter Bear. Surf. Diameter TABLE III IMPACT EQUIVALENCE STANDARD V BACKSTOP Bottle Weight Specified g oz Calculated g oz % Difference 0.0% Center of Gravity (empty) Center of Gravity (full) Radius of Gyration (empty) Radius of Gyration (full) Overflow Capacity Specified ml fl oz Calculated ml fl oz % Difference 0.0% Tip angle (empty) Tip angle (full) Tip ratio (empty) Tip ratio (full) degrees degrees Fill Capacity ml Fill Height Headspace 0.0% fl oz SHOULDER CONTACT Mass Ratio (empty) Mass Ratio (full) HEEL CONTACT Mass Ratio (empty) Mass Ratio (full) Impact Index (PIT) Impact Index (trade) empty Impact Index (PIT) 0.81 severe Impact Index (trade) moderate mild empty severe moderate mild SHOULDER CONTACT HEEL CONTACT Trade PIT (ips) PIT (ips) Trade mild moderate severe mild moderate severe cps ips bpm* cps ips cps ips cps ips cps ips bpm* cps ips cps ips cps ips * Assumg no spacg between bottles no spacg no spacg

8 FIGURE 1 MODIFIED GEOMETRY

9 FIGURE 2 COMPUTER MODEL

10 FIGURE 3 COMPUTER MESH AND AVERAGE THICKNESS DISTRIBUTION

11 FIGURE 4 VERTICAL LOAD STRESS INDICES (kpa/kg f ) psi/lb f Vertical Load Stress Indices kpa/kg f (psi/lb f ) 63.8 (4.2) 54.7 (3.6) 45.6 (3.0) 36.5 (2.4) 27.4 (1.8) 18.2 (1.2) 9.1 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) Maximum Shoulder (71.4) 4.7 Shoulder Contact (56.2) 3.7 Heel Contact (28.9) 1.9 Maximum Heel (74.5) 4.9 `

12 FIGURE 5 HEEL IMPACT STRESS INDICES (MPa/cps) psi/ips HEEL IMPACT Heel Impact Stress Indices MPa/cps (psi/ips) 0.57 (210) 0.49 (180) 0.41 (150) 0.33 (120) 0.24 ( 90) 0.16 ( 60) 0.08 ( 30) 0.00 ( 0) Height Stiffness 8,444 kg f /cm 47,280 lb f / Flexure 2.42 MPa/cps 892 psi/ips In Plane (0.22) 81 Impact Pot Maximum Heel Hge (0.38) 140 Bearg Surface (0.29) 107

13 FIGURE 6 SHOULDER IMPACT STRESS INDICES (MPa/cps) psi/ips Shoulder Impact Stress Indices MPa/cps (psi/ips) 0.57 (210) 0.49 (180) 0.41 (150) 0.33 (120) 0.24 ( 90) 0.16 ( 60) 0.08 ( 30) 0.00 ( 0) Maximum Shoulder Hge (0.67) 247 SHOULDER IMPACT Height Stiffness 5,861 kg f /cm 32,814 lb f / Flexure 1.94 MPa/cps 713 psi/ips Impact Pot In Plane (0.21) 78