The Single Package Test

The UN classification of explosive packages consists of three kinds of tests i.e. the single package test, the stack test and the external fire test 

O Explosion or burning x Neither explosion nor burning Position of detonator 

The results are shown in Fig.5.8. In three tests, only 5 or 6 small cases exploded or burned and others were left unchanged. The burning was not propagated to the surroundings. 

---

A package of five large cases containing sporting paper caps was placed in a hole in the ground,and the stack test was carried out similarily to the single package test. 

If there is no effect of the Neumann jet, the results are similar to those of the single package test no propagation of explosion or burning was observed. The situations after the tests are shown in Fig.5.11 and Fig.5.12. 

Tests should be conducted on the final packaged product. The protocol applied should be one that leads to minimal interruption of the standard manufacturing operations of the facility. Intermediate pilot plant studies should be carried out to simulate large-scale industrial sterilization cycles. The EtO cycle documentation should be integrated into a single protocol. An example of one protocol is as follows ... 

Table 5.6(c) Data for the propagating explosion test in sand using explosives in a single package. 

There are other characteristics that are also due entirely to being a sprayed product. Although some of these attributes are part of the testing of the actual packaging itself, they should also be done with the formulation. It is desirable to test the area covered by a single spray, and the volume of product delivered. 

Because many food packages must be shelf-stable for many months to years, package testing becomes both expensive and time-consuming. It is necessary to make some estimate of the performance of various candidate structures to assess their barrier potential over the expected shelf life of the product. There have been numerous studies on the retortable food packages (1.-8.) however, a single consistent theory has yet to emerge and experimental details are limited. 

However, a single statistical test is not adequate to verify the randomness of a sequence, because typical MCMC applications can be sensitive to various types of correlations. However, if the generator passes a wide variety of tests, then our confidence in its randomness increases. The tests suggested by Knuth [7] and those implemented in the DIEHARD package by Marsaglia [36] are a standard. Since there are many generators that pass these tests, there is no reason to consider one that is known to fail. (Of course, any generator will eventually fail most tests, so we always must state how many numbers were used in the test level of accuracy). 

---