THE INFLUENCE ‘05" VIBRATION oN THE COMPRESSNl
STRENGTH AND DEMC‘IION AT MAXIMUM
COMPRESSKON or u. 5 AND JAPANESE a-mm

CORRUGATED CONTAINERS '

Thais for it» Deg?“ d M. S.-
M1CHK3AN ' STATE UNNERSWY
Sukehisa Nada

1961 '

 

THE INFLUENCE OF VIBRATION OR THE CONPRESSIVE
STRENGTH AXD DEFLECTION AT YAKIMUM COMPRESSION OF U. 8.
AND JAPANESE B-FLUTE CORRUGATED COKTAINERS

By

Sukehisa Nada

AN AD ST R [LC T
Submitted to the College of Agriculture, Michigan State
University of Agriculture and Applied Science in
partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIEKCE

Department of Forest Products

School of Packaging

1961

Approved:

 

AN ABSTRACT

This investigation was made to determine the effect
of vibration on the compressive strength of corrugated con—
tainers and on the degree of deflection at maximum compres-
sion. Another purpose was to compare the strength of U. S.
and Japanese containers.

The factors studied consisted of seven vibration
periods: no vibration, 0.5 hour, 1.0 hour, 1.5 hours, 2.0
hours, 2.5 hours, and 3.0 hours. Four types of B—flute board
were used: U. S. Kraft board, U. S. Jute board, and two
kinds of Japanese Jute boards.

The test results indicated that a vibration period of
three hours affected the compressive strength the most. In
the case of deflection, the three hours vibration period
again showed the most effect.

Of the containers tested, the Japanese Jute board con—
tainers appeared to be stronger than the U. S. Jute and
Kraft containers. However, due to the small number of samples
tested and the wide degree of variation in test results with
the Japanese containers, the validity of these results is

questionable.

THE INFLUENCE OF VIBRATION ON THE COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH AND DEFLECTION AT MAXIMUM COMPRESSION OF U.S.
AhD JAPANESE B-FLUTE CORRUGATED CONTAINERS

By

Sukehisa Nada

A THESIS

Submitted to the College of Agriculture, Michigan State
University of Agriculture and Applied Science in
partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Forest Products
School of Packaging
1961

AN ABSTRACT

This investigation was made to determine the effect
of vibration on the compressive strength of corrugated con—
tainers and on the degree of deflection at maximum compres-
sion. Another purpose was to compare the strength of U. S.
and Japanese containers.

The factors studied consisted of seven vibration
periods: no vibration, 0.5 hour, 1.0 hour, 1.5 hours, 2.0
hours, 2.5 hours, and 3.0 hours. Four types of B-flute board
were used: U. S. Kraft board, U. S. Jute board, and two
kinds of Japanese Jute boards.

The test results indicated that a vibration period of
three hours affected the compressive strength the most. In
the case of deflection, the three hours vibration period
again showed the most effect.

Of the containers tested, the Japanese Jute board
containers appeared to be stronger than the U. S. Jute and
Kraft containers. However, due to the small number of samples
tested and the wide degree of variation in test results with
the Japanese containers, the validity of these results is

questionable.

-11..

ACKNOhLEDGEXEhTS

This study was undertaken while the auther was attend—
ing the School of Packaging, Michigan State University, for
his further study in Packaging. He was sponsored by hiyoda
Paper Industrial Company in Osaka, Japan. At this time he
would like to extend his sincere gratitude to Mr. Zenichi
Kawaguchi, President of the company, and to all members of
that organization for all the help and consideration received.

The author's appreciation is also given to Dr. Harold
J. Raphael, Dr. James W. Goff, and Mr. Hugh E. Lockhart of
the School of Packaging, Michigan State University for their
valuable suggestions and guidance throughout the preparation
of this study. Thanks are due to Dr. Aubrey E. Wylie for his
assistance in the statistical interpretation and to Mr.
Edward H. Graft for his help in writing the paper.

This paper would not have been possible without the
cooperation and guidance of Mr. Kenneth F. Hodge, Research
and Development Coordinator of the Packaging Corporation of
America in Grand Rapids, Michigan and Mr. George C. Baron,
Plant Manager of Consolidated Paper Company in Monroe, Michi-
gan who supplied the samples used in this test.

Finally, the author would like to thank his parents
and Mr. Kanichi Sekiguchi for their understanding and en-

couragement throughout the preparation of this study.

— iii —

TABLE OF CON SETS

Page

AN ABSTRACT O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMER TS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o i i 1

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Chapter
I.
II.

III.
IV.

VI.
VII.

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

THE PROBLEMS AND TESTS USED . . . . . . . . .

3

PrOblems O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 8
Tests Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PREVIOUS STUDIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Structure of the Containers. . . . . . . . 7
Test Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Vibration Test
The Compression Test

ATIIXLYSIS OF DATA. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 29

Vibration. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 32

Compressive Strength
Deflection

U. S. and Japanese Containers. . . . . . . 32
CONCLUSIONS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 36
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER WORKS . . . . . . . . 38

L I TISRJAXTURIE C I TED O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 39

..j_v_

Table

I.

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

XI.

XII.
XIII.

XIV.

LIST OF TABLES

The Number of Samples From Each Product
For Vibration Test . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compressive Strength and Deflection, No
Vibration O O O O O O O I O C O O C O 0 O

Compressive Strength and Deflection, 0.5
Hour Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compressive Strength and Deflection, 1.0
Hour Vibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compressive Strength and Deflection, 1.5
Hours Vibration. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compressive Strength and Deflection, 2.0
Hours Vibration. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compressive Strength and Deflection, 2.5
Hours Vibration. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compressive Strength and Deflection, 3.0
Hours Vibration. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Test Results Showing Average
Compressive Strength by Main Effects . . .

Summary of Test Results Showing Average
Deflection by Main Effects . . . . . . . .

Final Analysis of Variance for Compressive
Str engtil O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0

Final Analysis of Variance for Deflection

The Reduction in Compressive Strength due
to Vibration, Explained in Percent . . . .

Variation of the Value in Compressive Strength

by Main Effects. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
I. Vibration Test Machine (I) . . . . . . . . . . 10

II. Vibration Test Machine (II). . . . . . . . . . 11
III. Structure and Dimensions of Container. . . . . 12
IV. Compression Test Machine (I) . . . . . . . . . 15

V. Compression Test Machine (II). . . . . . . . . 16

VI. A Sample from Automatic Stress and Strain
LilaChine Record c o o o o~ o o o o o o o c o o o 17

VII. Graph of Average Compressive Strength Vs.
Vibration Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

VIII. Graph of Average Deflection Vs. Vibration
EffeCtSo . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 28

...vi...

I. NTRODUCTION

The use of corrugated fiberboard shipping containers
is increasing tremendously all over the world. For example,
the production of corrugated board in the United States in
1960 was over 107 billion square feet, which is twice as much
as that produced in 19411. In Japan, whose production rate
before World War II was limited, 10 billion square feet were
produced in 19602. This is almost twenty times the amount
produced in 1952. This means that more and more corrugated
containers are handled today than ever before. At the same
time, the seriousness of damage to the products packed in
corrugated containers, by transportational hazards and by
storage period loading, becomes more important.

In the regular shipment and handling of commodities,
the compressive strength of the container is important be—
cause it may be required to sustain the load of several con—
.ainers placed on the top of it. Also, it may be required to
protect the contents from the endthrust of other containers
in a truck that stops suddenly or from the force resulting
when freight cars are humped and handled in switching opera-
tions.

Vibration shocks caused by resonance, flat car wheels,
rail joints, rough road beds, or roadways give the product
a shaky, jarring, damaging ride. A container for the product
also loses its inherent compressive strength due to these

-1-

shocks. In other words, the strength of corrugated containers
shows fatigue by vibration.

"Today, more and more manufacturing plants throughout
the country are using vibration test equipment to investigate
the damaging vibrations of transportation and how they affect
packages and their products."3

In this study the author.concentrated his efforts on
the compressive strength and deflection of corrugated contain-
ers. A comparison of the containers made in the United States
and Japan was done because of the Author's interest.

The author hopes that this study will be helpful to
those who design or plan to utilize corrugated containers,
by presenting them with certain ideas on the degree of re-
duction of the compressive strength of a corrugated contain-

er caused by the hazard of vibration.

II. THE PROBLEMS AED r‘lSSTS USED

PROBLEMS

It was the purpose of this study: (1) to determine the
effects of vibration on the top-to—bottom compressive strength
of a corrugated container; (2) to point out the degree of
deflection from the original dimension at the point of maxi—
mum compression; and (3) possibly to find any difference in
the strength of containers which were made in the United

States and Japan.

ESTS USED

The test methods used in this study were a combination
of the vibration test and the top—to—bottom compression test.

The vibration test, ASTM Standard D 999-48T4, simulates
the steady pounding and vibration that occurs in most methods
of transportation. The standard test requires that the test
be continued for a pre-determined period of time, or until
failure occurs. This test determines that strength of a
corrugated container necessary to provide sufficient protec-
tion of the contents when subjected to the vibration. In
order to determine this, containers are vibrated for various
periods of time with a constant frequency.

The compression test, ASTM Standard D 642-475, sub—
jects the container to the load that it will encounter while

being stacked in warehouses, freight cars, and other types of

transportation. The standard trst requires that the load be
applied with a continuous motion of the movable head of the
testing machine at a speed of %{1i inch per minute until
failure and the maximum load or either has been reached. In
order to find the maximum compressive strength of a contain-
er, a gradually increasing load is applied. This static load-
ing measures the resistance of-the container which is requir—
ed for compressive loads of longer periods. The data abtained
from such a test are the points of compression strength and
deflection from initial load to failure of the container.
Therefore, for a specific load and period of vibration, the
compressive strength and degree of deflection of the contain-
er are obtained. This was used as the criteria for judging
the strength of the container. A high degree of reduction of
compressive strength would show a container to have been
vibrated for a longer period and a lesser amount of reduction
would show a container to have been vibrated for a shorter

period.

III. PREVIOUS STUDIES

Some related studies concerning the compressive
strength of a corrugated container have been made by a few
packaging engineers.

A study involving a dead load, various controlled
atmospheres and two different kinds of corrugated containers,
has been done at the Forest Products Laboratory. In the report
two significant conclusions were made:

1. For the conditions considered in the study, in—
crease of moisture content reduced the time a box
could sustain a dead load; and

2. The influence of moisture content on the compres—
sive strength of corrugated fiberboard boxes was
found to be about the same for the different kinds
of board included in this study.

In attempting to explain the top—load compression be-
havior of a corrugated container in terms of its several
structural elements, i.e., flaps, flap score-line, panels,
and panel score-line. McKee and Gander7 found that: (1) the
evaluation of the suitability of a container for use with a
specific commodity may require a consideration of the entire
compression load-deformation curve, not solely the maximum
load and corresponding deflection and (2) the top—load com-
pression behavior of a filled container may be expected to
depend upon the initial clearance between commodities and

flaps, and flap assembly.

"It may be shown that corrugated containers have the

most resistance and exhibit the greatest amount of stiffness
when their moisture content is at the lowest level."8 This
idea was comfirmed by Bjornse h at the School of Packaging,
Michigan State University in 1959.9

These three studies which pointed out the effects on
compressive strength of a corrugated container from the
various factors which cause ‘he reduction, should give the
reader an idea of the characteristics of the compressive
strength of a corrugated container.

Because of the difficulty involved in summarizing the
test results, any summary concerning the reduction of the
compressive strength of a corrugated container as a result
of vibration hazard has not previously appeared. This study
which does summarize the test results, is entirely new for

this reason.

IV. EKPERIhEhTAL PROCEDURE

As previously mentioned, the test procedures used were
a combination of the Vibration test and the Compression test.
A total of 112 corrugated containers were tested. The tests
were run in seven series; each series representing a vibra-
tion period. Each series consisted of four groups containing
four samples each of: (l) the U. S. Kraft board; (2) the U. S.
Jute board; (3) Japanese Jute board I; and (4) Japanese Jute
board II. Kraft board is made from 100 % virgin sulphate
pulp; Jute board consists of a combination of waste papers,
including old corrugated containers and newprint, and a small
amount of virging Kraft pulp. The exact amount of these mate-
rials varies widely from mill to mill. Thus it is extremely
difficult to compare one Jute board with another. The seven
series consisted of tweleve samples at (A) no vibration; (B)
0.5 hour; (C) 1.0 hour; (D) 1.5 hours; (E) 2.0 hours; (F)

2.5 hours; and (G) 3.0 hours of vibration.

STRUCTURE OF THE CONTAINERS

The containers used for the test were regular slotted
containers made of B-flute board. The inside dimensions were
7" x 7" x 7“. There was a practical reason for using a con-
tainer of this size. A corrugated box of shallow depth shows
a high structural strengthlo, and therefore the difference

between the test variables would be less.

_ 7 _

These corrugated containerd were made from hoards con-
sisting of 50 lb. liners and 26 lb. corrugated medium. They
were of balanced construction; that is a liner of the same
weight was used on both sides.

The horizontal and the vertical scores for all contain—
ers were made on a sample table.

A three inch asphalt laminated, reinforced gummed
tape was used for the manufacturer's joint. A tow inch 60 lb.
gummed tape was used for sealing the flaps.

The U. S. Kraft board was obtained from Packaging Cor-
poration of America in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The U. S. Jute
board was obtained from Consolidated Paper Company in Monroe,
Michigan. Two kinds of Japanese Jute boards were supulied by

Chiyoda Paper Industrial Company of Osaka, Japan.

TEST PROCEDURES

All the samples were kept in a conditioning room* for
72 hours or more before testing. After proper conditioning
they were subjected to vibration. After the vibration test
the samples were placed in the compression tester and load
was applied. The maximum load sustained by each sample was
recorded for later analysis.
The Vibration IEEE

The standard ASTM D 999-48T, Vibration Test for Ship-

ping Containers (Tentative), was followed. The apparatus

 

* Conditioning Room: A room accurately controlled to

a Relative Humidity of 50 2 per cent and a Temparature of
73.4: 3.601? (23:: 2 c)

used for the test was Vibrating Table and Strobotac (see
Figures I and II). The amount of vibration to which each
container was subjected, is contained in Table I. The reason
for the variation in the amount of vibration was to show the
relationship of damage recieved as a function of the vibra—
tion period. The frequency was held constant at 3.5 cycles
per second which falls within the range11 predominantly
responsible for damage in real shipment.

The samples were placed on the vibrating table (see
Figure I) without fastening. Two fences were fastened to the
table with 7% inches between them, which left the sample free
to move % inch. The two fences represented the sides of con-
tainers placed next to the sample in a practical shipping
situation.

The machine was operated for a pre—determined time as
Table I shows. This test was performed immediately after re—
moving the sample from the conditioning room.

Four fruit juice cans (308 x 700), weighing 2.5 pounds
each, were used as the packaged product. The total weight of
product for each container was 10 pounds.

The containers were stapled on the bottom and sealed

with gummed tape on the top as Figure III shows.

FIGURE I

VIBRATION TEST MACHINE (I)

VIBRATIKG TABLE
PACKAGE TESTER SELVMCH 35
Type No. 400, Serial 3600 - 27

-10..

 

FIGURE II

VIBRATION TEST MACHINE (II)

 

 

STROBOTAC
Type No. 631—BL, Serial No. 15947

_ 11 _

FIGURE III

STRUCTURE AND DIMENSIONS OF
CONTAINERS

 

 

Size of Container
Inside Dimensions
7" x 7" x 7"

 

 

  
  

     
    

 

     

Methods of Sealing 3'“
"I - 4"
Container ///' “S
P,

flu

0Q

     

Gummed Tape

   

 

.v
's'sY.‘

   

v

   

C.

    

‘

Manufacturer‘s
Joint Tape

 
 
 

Regular Slotted Container Blank

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-12..

I

TABLE

THE NUMBER OF SAMPLES
FROM EACH PRODUCT FOR VIBRATION

TEST

 

. G
(_No)é(O.5):(1.O):(1.5):(2.O):12.5):(3.01_

F

E

1 HOURII_

D

E
O

C

B

V I B. R A T I O N

A

 

j

P R O D U c T s;
s

4.

.0 no 00 00A

Kraft

U. S.
Board

1

 

4

Jute

S.
oard

UB
2

 

4.

0.. O. 0.4

apanese Jute
card I

J
B

3

 

4

 

Japanese Jute
Board II

T on on on

.0 O. O. O. O. O. O. O. O. .0 I. O. O. O. O. C.

 

16 16 16 16 l6 16

16

Total

112

Grand Total

14

The Compression Test

The standard ASTM D 642-47, Compression Test for Ship-
ping Containers, was followed. The apparatus used for the
top-to-bottom compression test was the Baldwin Emery SR—4
Testing Machine and attached stress—strain recorder. This
equipment is shown in Figures IV and V.

In order to have a precise record of vibrational influ-
ence on the compressive strength of the container, the com—
pression test was run immediately after the container had
been subjected to the pre-determined amount of vibration.

The machine setting used for the test was as follows:

Load Range . . . . . . . . . 0—2500 1b./unit area
Platen Speed . . . . . . . . 0.4 in./min.

Deflectometer
and Magnifier . . . . . . . 200 Magnification.

Recording Range . . . . . . Half Range

The sample was placed between the two auxiliary wooden
platens. An initial load of 50 pounds was applied to insure a
definite area of contace between the specimen and the platen.
The distance between the platens at this time was recorded
as zero deflection. With this 50 pounds load on the sample,
the automatic stress and strain recorder pen was set at zero
deflection. The machine was operated at a speed of 0.4 inch
per minute until failure occured. This procedure was repeated
for all the samples. The machine recorded the load and the

deflection (see Figure VI).

FIGURE IV

COMPRESSION TEST MACHINE (I)

- _' ' w’ - J-- _,- 9.... .‘_, ‘ F
-1" '2‘ ; 3. “ . --- a J TL“? “a: ! ..- q?";:fi

‘ g" f' 1‘ —-1_ ‘ a .- quou- -¢» 3....-.

COI‘IPRESSICX TEST MACHINE
BALDW IN .~E:='.ERY SR—4
Testing Machine (Model PCT)

-15..

 

 

FIGURE V

COMPRESSION TEST MACHINE (II)

 

 

 

BALDWIN Stress-Strain
Recorder (Model MAlB)

-16...

 

TABLE II

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND DEFLECTION

No Vibration

 

 

 

 

 

 

f . ‘ COMPRESSIVE STREx’GTH: DEFLECTION ;
: PRODUCTS 3 (lb./unit area) : (inch) 3
2 ° VALUE 'AVERAGE ‘ VALUE 3 AVERAGE ,
o —*: ' I ' .
3 1 3 7 4 5 . 3 O. 6 3 ' z
: 3 3 : 3 .
‘ 2 ° 7 6 0 ° 0 5 7 :
U.S. ° ' 7 - - v z
‘ = . . 4 8 7: , O. 7 5.
: Kraft 3 : 7 2 5 , g 0, 5 6 3 3
: 3 3 : 3 Z
= 4 : 7 4 5 . : O. 5 4 , 3
- f 3 : . I
3 1 : 6 0 0 , : O. 6 3 ' :
: , 3 : 3 I
3 U S 2 : 5 9 O , : O. 5 9 , :
= Jét; : . 6 0 3. 7: . O. 6 2 0;
= 3 : 6 2 O . : O. 6 4 , 3
z , 3 : 3 :
‘ 4 : 6 0 5 . : O. 6 2 , 3
3 f 3 ; ' :
3 1 : 6 8 5 , : o, 6 8 , 3
: Jaoanese2 : 6 5 5 ' : 0° 6 O ' I
331% I : .681.2: , 0.680:
: u e 3 , 7 1 O , : O. 7 6 , 3
: , 3 : 3 I
: 4 : 6 7 5 . : O. 6 8 , 3
1 , ; ' '

3 1 : 9 6 O . : o, 7 8 ' f
: : I 3 v :
: 2 3 8 0 O : : O. 7 1 , 3
:gagwfie : . 81 3. 7; , o. 6 9 O3
: u e 3: 7 5 O ' : O. 6 4 ' .
3 : , : , 5
= 4: 7 4 5 , : o, e 3 , 3

 

-18...

TABLE III

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND DEFLECTION

0.5 Hour Vibration

 

 

 

 

 

 

. f,COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH: DEFLECTION :
PRODLCTS .. (1b./unit area) 3 (inch) 3
I VALUE ' AVERAGE 3 VALUE . AVERAGE .

o ' . '

1 ‘ 6 7 5 . : O. 4 9 .

: c 3 '

U S 2 ‘ 7 2 0 3 = O. 5 2 .

Kéth ‘ ' 7 1 3. 73 . O. 5 3

. 3 : 7 4 O . , O3 5 8 3

3 a 3 '

z 4 : 7 2 O i : O. 5 8 j

l : 6 2 5 g 3 O. 6 9 |

: 1 3 '

U s 2 3 5 7 O . : O. 6 7 .

Jdte ‘ 3 5 9 6o 2: . O. 6 O

3 3 5 9 O . : O. 5 6 .

3 ' 3 '

4 = 6 O O . : O. 5 O .

i u a IT

1 : 6 5 5 I : O. 6 6 '

3 1 3 '

2 : 6 2 5 : O. 6 3 .
ifiiineie ‘ : 5 3 8o 7= . O. 6 5
3 : 6 4 O , : O. 6 7 .

: ' , ‘

4 : 6 4 O ' : 00 6 6 '

: r , r

1 : 7 4 5 . : O. 7 O .

3 I 3 '

Ja anese2 : 8 1 O ' O. 6 5 .
J E II : I 8 O 1. 20 c O. 6 2

u e 3 : d 3 O . : O. 4 8 .

3 c 3 '

4 : 8 2 O I : O. 6 6 '

 

-19-

TABLE IV

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AID DEFLECTIOL

1.0 Hour Vibration

 

 

 

 

 

 

f COMP ESSIVE STRENGTH: DEFLECTION =

PRODUCTS : (1b./unit area) I Linch) f
I VALUE ' AVERAGE ' VALUE ' AVERAGE ;

TI ' ‘ c .

1 f 7 2 O ' f O. 4 9 ' f

. ' o ' .

U S 2 f 7 1 5 ' f O. 5 2 ' f
o o : ' 7 l O. O: I O. 3 O.
Kraft 3 I 6 7 0 ' I O. 5 8 ' I
o ' . ' .

4 f 7 1 5 ' f O. 5 8 ' f

. ' ' I .

1 f 5 6 5 ' f O" 5 6 . 5

. . . ' .

2 f 5 6 0 ' f O. 5 8 ' f

36:; 3 ' 5 7 6. 2; ' O. 5 7;
3 I 6 0 0 ' I O. 5 8 ' z

O . . ' o

4 f 5 8 O ' f O. 5 l t 3

. l c j .

1 I 5 8 0 ' I O. 6 1 ' f

. ' o ' o

2 f 6 4 5 ' f O. 6 2 ' =
33452“? I ' 5 9 1. 2: ' o. 4 s:
3 3 5 6 0 ' I O. 6 9 ' I

. ' o ' .

4 i 5 8 O ' f O. 6 6 ' 3

° I . ‘ .

1 E 7 4 0 ' f O. 6 O ' f

. I o ' o

3 c 3 3

Japanese2 : 7 5 O ' 7 9 3 7: 0. 7 O : :
Jute II : - . O. 3 5,
3 . 8 5 O ' ‘ 0. 6 5 7 .

o ' z ' :

I1

 

-20-

TABLE V

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AkD DEFLECTION

1.5 Hours Vibration

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 E COMPRESS VE STRENGTH: DEFLECTION

: PRODUCTS 3 (1b. unit area : inch)

: : VALUE ' AVERAGE 4; VALUE ' AVERAGE

, . 1 . ' .
3 1: 680' 30049. :
o I . I .
: 2: 670' :O.57' :
: g§§§t : ' 6 4 5. O: ' O. 5 O :
: “ 3 : 7 2 5 I : .O. 4 9 ' z
o o o 3 .
: 4: 505' :O.48' :
o -_ ' -_ ' o
: l : 5 6 O ' : O. 5 4 ' :
o c ' o ' .
: 2: 570' :0.57' :
: g‘f' : ' 5 4 7. 5: ' O. 5 3 .
: u e 3 : 5 2 5 ‘ : O. 5 2 ' :
o o ' o ' .
z 4: 5354' :O.50' :
o 4‘ A. I .
: 1 : 6 O O ' : O. 7 3 ' :
o . ' . t .
: Ja ane e2 : 5 8 O ' : O. 6 O ' -
: Juge f : ' 5 8 O. O: ' O. 6 4 :
: 3 : 5 6 O ' : O. 6 O ' :
: z ' : ' :
: 4 : 5 8 O ' : O. 6 6 ' .
. L 1 A L .
: 1: 520' :O.61' :
o o ' o '

o 00" :1" o ’3' o
E Japanesez ;° ‘ 7 5 ' 7 7 O. 0; 0° U 0 ' O. O 8 §
: Jute II 8 : 7 4 O ' : O. 7 O '

o o | o I

: : 7 4 5 ' : O. 6 2 '

L L I A l

 

-21—

COMPRESSIVE

TABLE VI

STRELGTH ALD DEFLECTION

2.0 Hours Vibration

 

 

 

 

 

 

: f COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH: DEFLECTION f
: PRODUCTS 2 g;5./unit area) : (inch) :
I I VELUE ' AVERAGE ' VALUE ' AVERAGE -
. . ' : v 3
f 1 f 6 9 5 ' f o. 4 4 . 3
° ' n . r .
f U S 2 f 6 4 5 ' E O . 4 2 t 3
I Kiait 3 ' G 7 8- 72 ' O. 4 4 7;
: 3 Z 6 7 O ' : Q . 4 7 I :
O . ' . ' .
f 4 f 7 O 5 ' E Q . 4 6 v 3
° ' 1 . ' .
f 1 f 5 8 O ' f O. 5 4 . f
' ' 1 . ' .
: 2 ‘ 4 7 O ' = 0. 5 7 . :
3-3.3. 3 ' 5 1 6o 22 ' O. 5 8 2;
I u e 8 3 5 8 O * 3 o. 5 2 . :
° ' c . ' .
E 4 f 5 3 5 ' E O . 5 0 c 3
° ' - 1 o . .
E 1 f 5 3 O ' E O . 5 7 I 3
. . ' ' t .
f Jannese2 E 5 O O ' f 0- 5 8 ' f
3 Jui; 1 3 ' 5 2 5. 2; . O. 5 a o;
I 3 3 5 4 5 ' ; 0. 5 2 . I
' ‘ v . ' .
E 4 E 5 2 5 ' i 0 . 5 5 u E
O o I o ' o
f 1 f 7 8 O ' E Q . 4 8 3 3
° ' I . ' .
3 Japanese2 3 7 7 O ' f 0- 5 9 ' f
I Z ' 7 4 0- 02 ' O. 5 9 7;
: Jute I I 3 Z 7 5 5 I : O . 6 1 ' :
. ' t . ' .
E 4 E 6 5 5 ' 3 Q . 7 O t 3
O . ' z ‘ :

 

-22..

COMPRESSIVE STREhGTH ARD DEFLECTION

2.5 Hours Vibration

TABLE

VII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-23..

f f COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH: DEFLECTION f
; PRODUCTS ; (lb./unit area) : (inch)

2 I VALUE ' AVERAGE ;_ VALUE ' AVERAGE .
o O ' o .
: 1 : 7 l O , : O. 4 7 : :
3 3 , 3 , :
: U.S. 2 3 6 4 O , r 3 O. 4 4 , :
: Kraft : , 6 5 d. 7: , O. 4 4 2:
: 3 : 6 2 O , : O. 4 1 , :
: : , : , :
: 4 : 6 6 5 , : O. 4 5 , :
: 3 , : 1 :
: 1 : 5 3 O , : O. 4 0 , :
: : . : :
: U.S. 2 : 4 7 O , : O. 4 2 : :
: Jute : , 4 8 8. 7: , O. 4 2 O:
: 3 : 4 8 O . : O. 4 3 , :
: : . : , :
: 4 : 4 7 5 , : O. 4 3 , :
: T c 3 ' ‘
: 1 : 5 l 5 . : O. 5 6 , :
: : , : , :
: 2 : 4 9 O , : O. 4 8 . :
: gflfignefe : , 4 9 6. 2: . O. 4 9 2:
: 3 : 5 O 5 , : O. 4 9 . :
3 3 v 3 | :
: 4 : 4 7 5 , : O. 4 4 , :
: 3 . 3 , :
: 1 : 7 7 O . : O. 5 O . :
3 3 . 3 , :
: Japanesez : 6 4 5 , : O. 4 9 , :
: Jute II : . 6 9 8. 7: . O. 5 O 7:
: 3 : 7 4 5 , : O. 5 2 , :
: : . : . 3
: 4 : 6 3 O . : O. 5 2 , :
L, . 4 _r
' ' 7 ° fi fi

TABLE VIII
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND DEFLECTION

3.0 Hours Vibration

 

 

 

 

 

 

f 3 COMPRESSIVE STRRRGTHE DEFLECTION f
I PRODUCTS 3 (lb./unit area) j (inchl I
: : VALUE ' AVERAGE 4; VALUE ' AVERAGE :
o '— ' . ' 0
f 1 f 6 8 5 ' 3 O. 8 7 ' I
o ' ' . . 0
= 2 ‘ 6 8 O ' O. 4 6 ' ‘
3 E323t 3 ' 6 7. 5‘ ' O. 8 O 3
3 8 3 5 8 O ' 0- 4 6 ' I
o 0 I 7 °
I 4 f 5 8 5 . O. 4 8 ' I
o 0 L l '
f 1 3 4 4 O ' o. 8 5 ' I
o I I I '
3 2 f 4 9 O 1 3 O. 4 2 ' 3
I 352; I ' 4 1. 2: ' O. 1 5 3
3 3 3 4 6 O ' ' O. 4 6 ' I
O O ' : ' O
I 4 : 4 5 5 ' E O. 4 3 ' I
3 1 f 4 9 O 1 f O. 416 ' 3
O C ' I ' 9
3 2 f 4 8 5 ' E O. 5 6 ' ‘
3 gflgznese 3 ' 4 1. 23 ' O. 8 5 3
3 8 3 4 7 O . 3 O. 4 8 ' 3
o o I . ' .
I 4 ‘ 4 8 O . ‘ 0. 4 4 ' I
o 3 I L I

E 1 i 6 1 O ‘ f O. 5 O '

o O U ° '

f Ja anese2 E 6 9 O ' i O. 4 4 '

I J I I ' 6 0- OI ' 0° 4 7

: u e z 6 8 O ' : O. 4 3 I

o ' ' . '

f f 6 2 O ' I 0. 4 2 '

o 0 1 0 l

 

-24...

TABLE IX

SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

 

 

SHOEIAG AVERAGE COMPRLSSIVE STRLAGTH
BY MAIN EFFECTS

I 1 I 6 7 9
I 2 . 5 4 O
3 PRODUCTS
2 8 5 7 1
4 . 751
A : 710.6
I B I 6 8 7. 5
I c I 6 6 8. 4
I VIBRATIONS D I 6 8 2. 5
I E I 6 1 5. 8
I F I 5 8 5. 7
I G I 5 5 O. O

 

TABLE X

SIMHARI OF TEST RESULTS
SHOWING AVERAGE DEFLECTION BY MAIN
EFFECTS

 

H
O
03
O
00

PRODUCTS

vb GD [\3
O
U]
(.0
H

 

VIBRATIOAS

mwmuow»

 

—26—

FIGURE VII

GRAPH OF AVERAGE COI‘JPRESSIVE
STRENGTH VS. VIBRATION EFFECTS

 
 
   
  

 

 

900v
V o U.S. Kraft
b U.S. Jute
U Japanese Jute I
V Japanese Jute II
BOWL
C
O
M
P 700‘-
R
E
S
6
3 00+ .
I ”-S, a.
O ”775
N I I
500- U
(1b./ _ A 0
unit ‘6
area)
400%
r—r v y f l T 3
O 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

VIBRATION-(Hour)
-27..

ZOHh-JOtrJF'IJFJU

(in.)

0.4“

0.84

0.2

 

FIGURE VIII

GRAPH OF AVERAGE DEFLECTIOX
vs.

VIBRATION EFFECTS

U.S. Kraft

U.S. Jute
Japanese Jute I
Japanese Jute II

 

 

 

\Ma
\ \
”4% \.
Q o A A
4%
‘5
g 0
.4
‘Sr
0
O
a ‘
L
O 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
V I B R A T I 0 N ( Hour )

-28..

V. ANALYSIS OF DATA

Tables II through VIII show the test results of com—
pressive strength in pounds per unit area and of deflection
in inches at the point of maximum compressive strength.

The data present two factors: Products ( l, 2, 3, and 4 )
and Vibrations ( A, B, C, D, E, F, and G ). The techniques
and procedures used in this statistical analysis were taken
from Duncan 12. The results of the analysis are shown in
Tables XI and XII.

The analysis of variance revealed that the two-way
interaction, product x vibration, was significantly differ-
ent from the error term. This led to making independent
estimates of variance and then running a variance ratio F

test.

As a result of this test it was found that the vari-

ance of product and vibration had a significant effect on the

compressive strength and deflection.

VIBRATION
Compressive Strength
Of the seven periods of vibration tested, all prod-

ucts showed more reduction for longer periods of vibration.

In other words, at 3 hours Vibration a container lost trenty—

nine percent of its inherent compressive strength as compared

to fifteen per cent loss at 1.5 hours vibration (see Table

TABLE XI

FINAL ANALYSIS OF VARIAKCE
FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

 

 

 

Sum of : Mean
: : Square : d' f': Square : F‘ :
I PRODUCT I 541,212.5I 3 I 108,404.1 I 110.6 -
I VIBRATION I 187,257.4I 6 I 22,876.2 I 14.0 I
I PRODUCT x I I I I I
I VIBRATION I 807,889.1I 18 : 17,077.1 I 10.4 I
I EXPERIMENTALI I I . I
I ERROR I 188,587.5: 85 , 1,680.4 , I
3 TOTAL 3 1,124,446.53 112 3 3 3

 

* F Test Value

- I

F.05 = 2.72 with 111: 3 and n2:- 85.
F.05 ==. 2.24 with nl=I6 and n2: 8”.
F.05 == 1.76 with nl=18 and n2: 85.

- 30 _

FINAL

TABLE

XII

FOR DEFLECT I ON

ANALYSI 8 OF VARI AN CE

 

 

 

 

3 PRODUCT 3 0.2064 3 3 0.0688 3 17.2 3
3 VIBRATION 3 0.4676 3 3 0.0779 3 19.4 3
3 PRODUCT x 3 3 3 3 3
3 VIBRATION 3 0.0549 3 18 3 0.0081 3 0.7753
3 EXPERIMENTAL: 3 3 3 f
3 ERROR 3 0.8868 3 85 3 0.0040 3 3
I TOTAL I 1.0657 I 112 I I I
* F Test Value:
F.05== 2.27 with nl== 8 and n2=: 85.

F
F

.05: 2.24 with n
.05- 1.76 with n

1.: 6 and n2:

1;

-31-

85.

18 and 112:. 85.

XIII).

Table IX shows the average compressive strength of
all test results by main effects. Figure VII describes
average compressive strength of each product by different
periods of vibration in graph.

Deflection

 

Stiffness or the ability of a container to sustain a
load shows the lowest value for the longest period of vibra—
tion. This means that the longer vibration periods have more
effect on compressive strength of a container. In other
words, a container which showed failure at 0.641 inch at no
vibration, showed failure when it was composed only 0.444
inch after 3 hours vibration. Each product showed a little
different behavior as Table X describes. There appeared to
be a difference between Kraft board containers and Jute board

containers (see Figure VIII).

U. S. AKD JAPAKESE COETAINERS

On the basis of the limited number of samples tested,
one group of the Japanese Jute board containers appeared to
have the highest average compressive strength of all con—
tainers used. The other group of Japanese Jute board con—
tainers appeared to have a higher compressive strength than
U. S. Jute board containers (see Table IX).

The Japanese Jute board containers, which showed the
highest compressive strength, had the greatest amount of

-32-

TABLE

THE REDUCTION

XIII

IN COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
DUE TO VIBRATION, EXPLAINED IN PERCENT

P R 0 D U C T S

 

VIBRATION
(Hour

 

A ( No)
B (0.5)
C (1.0)
D (1.5)
E (2.0)
F (2.5)

G (3.0)

00 o. o. no oo co 00 o. o. o. 00 o. oo o. oo o. oo o. o. o. 00 o. WOO 00 00

 

t

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 I

U. S. : U. S. : Japanese: Japanese:
Kraft : Jute “;_Jute I 4 Jutpgllg:
I O O: l O O: I O O: 1 O O:

9 G; 9 9: 9 4: 9 8;

95I 95I 87I 98I
87: 91I 85: 95I

9 1: 8 6: 7 7: 9 1:

86; 81I 73I 86I
82I 76: 71; 8OI

 

* The Compressive Strength
regarded as 100 percent.

_ 33 _

at No

Vibration is

variation in this property as Table XIII shows.

CD

TABLE

XIV

VARIATION OF THE VALUE IN

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH BY MAIN

“TJUTF
1.1.1. .1." 1-1

CTS

 

VIBRATION

A

B

(Hour)

(NO)

(0.5)

(1.0)

(1.5)

(2.0)

(2.5)

(3.0)

P R O D U C T S

 

l
U. S.
Kraft

U]

U.
Ju

OI
Of
53

2
S.
te

3

O. O. L. O. O.

3

Japanese

Jute

5

I

6

O. .0 O. O. .0 .0 I. .0 .0 O. .0 I. O. .0 .0 O. O. O. .0 O. .01). I. 0.

Japanese

4

Jute II

2

1

5

to no 00 on o- oo .3

 

-35...

VI. CONCLUSIONS

The amount of reduction of the compressive strength of
a corrugated containers is considerably greater at 3.0
hours vibration than at 2.5 hours vibration and, also,
at 2.5 hours vibration it is greater than at 2.0 hours
vibration. Less difference was found in the reduction
of strength between 2.0 hours vibration and 1.5 hours
vibration, than was found between 3.0 hours vibration
and 2.5 hours vibration. Little difference was noticed
between 1.0 hour vibration and 0.5 hour vibration.
Therefore, at longer periods of vibration, the compres-
sive strength of corrugated containers becomes consid—
erably less.

At longer periods of vibration, corrugated containers
show greater fatigue in both stiffness and in ability
to sustain loading. The degree of deflection at the
point of the maximum compressive strength of a contain—
er decreases with increase in the period of vibration.
At 3.0 hours vibration a container shows the most
fatigue, failing with smallest deflection. At 2.5 hours
vibration, the degree of deflection sustained by the
container is greater than at 3.0 hours vibration, and
at 2.0 hours vibration it is greater than at 2.5 hours
vibration.

As noted before, the number of samples used and the

87

number of mills involved was too small to definitely
compare the U. S. and Japanese containers. However,

the results indicated that the Japanese Jute board con—
tainers tested were stronger than the U. S. Jute board
containers. Also, although one group of Japanese Jute
board containers had a higher average strength than

the U. S. Kraft containers, the data obtained from

the Japanese Jute board containes varied too much to

draw definite conclusions on these two groups.

VII. SUG E TIONS FOR FURTHER WORK

Conduct a similar series of tests to investigate the
severity of damage on the compressive strength of
different kinds of containers such as A-flute and
C—flute boards and compare them with the results of
this test.

Investigate the severity of damage caused by different
frequencies of vibration on the compressive strength of
corrugated containers.

A detailed investigation of the merits of the U. S. and
Japanese containers should be made, involving a large n
number of samples from many representative mills in both

countries.

- 88 —

10.

11.

12.

LITERATURE CITED

Fiber Box Association. 1961. Statistics 1960.

Japanese Corrugated Box Association. 1961. Statistics
1960.

Gaynes, S. 1961. What makes the package jump. Package
Engineering ll6(8):54-57.

American Society for Testing Materials. 1957. ASTM D
999-48T, Standard methods of vibration test for
shipping containers. ASTM Standard on paper and
paper products and shipping containers.

. 1957. ASTM
D 642-47, Standard methods of compression test
for shipping containers. ASTM Standard on paper
and paper products and shipping containers.

 

Kellicutt, K. 9., and E. F. Landt. 1951. Safety Stack-
ing life of corrugated boxes. Technical report of
Forest Products Laboratory.

McKee, R. C., and J. V. Gander. 1957. Top-load compres—
sion. TAPPI 40(1):57-64.

Kellicutt, K. Q. 1960. Compressive strength of boxes.
Part III Note No. 13, Structure Design Series.
Package Engineering. 6(2):94-96.

Bjornseth, R. G. 1959. Topto bottom compressive
strength of a corrugated container as a function
of flute size and relative humidity determined
by a dead load. Thesis for M. S. degree, Michigan
State University.

Maltenfort, G. G. 1956. Com ression strength of cor-
rugated containers. 41 7):48-54.

Guins, S. G., and J. A. Kell. 1951. Vibration 1n
railroad freight cars. ASTM Bulletin. no. 138.

Duncan, A. J. 1959. Quality control and industrial
statistics. 30:1.

-39—

“Tillli‘lllfilfnfllWIIItifliilfi“

31293102214545