.13.: I... 12......) a... 3‘5 9, 5: ’70:! 3...... . x. 35:5. 1 .u 7: as...» I {:23 ‘47.! If! . . r. it... .2 [til-3.3 .11.»... 1r 5;. 1:15... . aim VE MICHIGAN STATE UNI RSIT 3 1293 00 74 5 TW12509175V Michigan State University LIBRARY Th is is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF SIMULATED HANDLING ON THE COMPRESSION PERFORMANCE OF CORRUGATED FIBERBOARD has been CONTAINERS presented by Bruce W. Crofts accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. S . degree in Packaging Date Ma 11 1989 0-7 639 Sinah. Maior professor S Paul MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE -._ a $2995 MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution THE EFFECT OF SIMULATED HANDLING ON THE COMPRESSION PERFORMANCE OF CORRUGATED FIBERBOARD CONTAINERS BY Bruce William Crofts A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Packaging 1989 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF SIMULATED HANDLING ON THE COMPRESSION PERFORMANCE OF CORRUGATED FIBERBOARD CONTAINERS BY Bruce William Crofts The ability of a corrugated fiberboard box to protect the contents within it is a function of the overall compression strength of the box. The corrugated container industry has been manufacturing corrugated fiberboard using bursting strength and basis weight specifications. These specifications do not accurately predict the ability of a box to meet performance requirements in a normal distribution environment. This study describes the effect of package weight and the handling environment on the reduction of compression strength of corrugated containers. The mean compression strength and corresponding deflection values for three box sizes were evaluated as a function of package weight and drop height during handling. All tests performed were based on ASTM standards. The mean overall box compression strength decreased as the package weights increased. The mean overall box compression strength decreased as the drop heights increased. The mean edge crush, flat crush and burst strength values did not decrease as the test conditions became more severe. DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Joseph W. Crofts and Hazel M. Crofts, for their support and belief in me. Also, to my loving wife, Janice L. Crofts, for all she has given me, including our son Adam Joseph Crofts. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my major advisor Dr. S. Paul Singh for his support and guidance through the graduate program. I would also like to express my gratitude to the members of my graduate committee, Dr. Gary Burgess and Dr. George Mase. I am also indebted to Darren Pepple from Classic Container, Detroit MI, and John Michels from Frito Lay, Inc., Irving TX, for donating testing materials. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 3 2.1 COMPRESSION STRENGTH TEST METHODS ....................... 6 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 9 3.1 SAMPLE CONTAINERS 9 3.2 CONDITIONING 10 3.3 TESTING PROCEDURE 10 3.4 DROP TESTING SEQUENCE 1 l_ 3.5 DROP TEST EQUIPMENT 15 3.6 COMPRESSION TESTING 15 3.7 EDGE CRUSH TESTING 15 3.8 FLAT CRUSH TESTING 16 3.9 BURSTING STRENGTH TESTING 16 4.0 DATA AND RESULTS 18 4.1 BOX A 18 4.2 BOX B 27 4.3 BOX C 34 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX A: COMPRESSION AND DEFLECTION DATA ...................... BOX A BOXB BOXC APPENDIX B: EDGE CRUSH DATA BOX A BOXB BOXC APPENDIX C: BURST STRENGTH DATA BOX A BOXB APPENDIX D: FLAT CRUSH DATA BOX A BOXB LIST OF REFERENCES V1 Page 44 44 46 46 50 54 57 57 6 1 65 68 68 72 76 76 80 84 Table NT‘QEOQ’NQ‘WrAWNT‘ osogslp‘mewro LIST OF TABLES Experimental Design Compression Strength of Box A Deflection Analysis of Box A Short Column Test of Box A Bursting Strength of Box A Flat Crush of Box A Compression Strength of Box B Deflection Analysis of Box B Short Column Test of Box B Bursting Strength of Box B Flat Crush of Box B Compression Strength of Box C Deflection Analysis of Box C Short Column Test of Box C Compression Reduction Compression and Deflection Data for Box A ...................... Compression and Deflection Data for Box B ....................... Compression and Deflection Data for Box C ....................... Edge Crush Data for Box A Edge Crush Data for Box B Edge Crush Data for Box C Burst Strength Data for Box A vii Page 1 9 20 23 24 25 26 28 30 3 1 32 33 35 37 38 39 46 50 54 57 6 l 65 68 Table Page 23. Burst Strength Data for Box B 72 24. Flat Crush Data for Box A 76 25. Flat Crush Data for Box B 80 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure _ . Page I. Cushion and Weight Placement Box A ........................................ 12 2. Cushion and Weight Placement Box B ........................................ I3 3. Cushion and Weight Placement Box C ......................................... 14 4. Compression Strength of Box A 21 5. Compression Strength of Box B 29 6. Compression Strength of Box C 36 7. Compression Strength Reduction of Box A ................................ 41 8. Compression Strength Reduction of Box B ................................. 42 9. Compression Strength Reduction of Box C ................................. 43 LQJNIRQDLLQTJQN One of the primary functions of a package is to offer product protection. The compressive strength of a corrugated container is a means of predicting the performance of that package during stacking. Many studies have been done to develop empirical relationships that will predict the compression strength of corrugated fiberboard boxes. Most of these studies try to relate the compression strength of the box to the material properties of the corrugated fiberboard that was used to fabricate the box. Other factors that influence compression strength are the perimeter of the box (McKee, l 963), fatigue over the expected storage period and the humidity that the box is expected to encounter during distribution (Hanlon,1984). All these methods use the material properties of the fiberboard used to manufacture the box and the static storage environment. There is a great need to develop an understanding of the effects of handling on compression strength of a regular slotted container (RSC). The compression strength after handling will also be a function of the package weight. The objectives of this study were: 1) To evaluate the change in compression strength of corrugated containers as a function of drop height during handling. 2) To evaluate the change in compression strength of corrugated containers as a function of product-package gross weight for given drop heights. 3) 4) 2 To evaluate corrugated material performance (edge crush, flat crush and burst strength) for control boxes and those subjected to handling and determine if a correlation exists between material and package performance. To test different container systems and see if general patterns exist between material properties and corrugated fiberboard box compression performance after handling. W The corrugated fiberboard box is the primary package used by American manufacturers to contain and transport their product to the final consumer. The performance requirements for the corrugated fiberboard box are mostly dictated by the railroad and motor carrier industry of the United States. Godshall ( l 98 5) stated: "The corrugated container industry has been making board specifications that have little if any correlation with compression properties. These specifications are those set by the carrier classifications board which, in the absence of other standards for grade classifications, have become the defacto standards for grade classifications of corrugated fiberboard. The corrugating industry in the United States has continued to manufacture corrugated fiberboard using bursting strength and basis weight specifications, as set forth by the carrier industries, because it has been to their economic advantage to support these specifications. They have ignored the findings of the research community and the needs of the shippers for compression strength. However, corrugated users are becoming more knowledgeable about the performance requirements of the transportation environment and are making stronger demands on their suppliers to meet their needs for greater box compressive strength." Uniform Freight Classification Rule 41 (1978) and National Motor Freight Classification Item 222 ( l 978) require that single-wall, corrugated fiberboard boxes have a minimum bursting strength ranging from 1 25 psi. to 350 psi, with required minimum combined weight of facings ranging from 52 lbs. to 180 lbs. allowing for a contents weight of 20 lbs. to 120 lbs. Compression strength is not 3 mentioned in the standards. There have been many formulas developed to estimate the compression strength of corrugated fiberboard boxes. McKee ( 1963) devised a formula that uses the box perimeter, the caliper of the board and the short column crush value to determine compressive strength of the fiberboard box described by, l /2 P = 5.87 Pm (hZ) (2-1) where: P = The maximum top-to-bottom compressive force of an RSC. Pm = The edgewise compressive strength of the board (lbs /in). h = The board caliper (inches). 2 = The box perimeter (inches). This formula applies only to standard conditions (23 degrees C, 50% relative humidity). There are no factors that account for box height, product weight, or the dynamic effects of the distribution environment. Hanlon (1984 ) states that a rule of thumb for long-term storage is to use one-fourth of the compressive strength of a corrugated box as a safe load when predicting stacking strength. He also states that a more accurate method would be to calculate the fatigue factor for the length of time in storage. In addition a factor for moisture can be used depending on the climate and the season. 5 The perimeter of the box, the Mullen burst test, and the type of flute are the primary factors used with his method for predicting the compression strength of the corrugated fiberboard box. Again, there is no consideration given to the dynamic loading that occurs during normal distribution and product handling before a container is usually stored under static conditions. Also, with the recent trends toward just-in-time delivery and lower inventory levels the fatigue factor becomes less of a reality. Adams ( 1987) states that the mean top-to-bottom compressive strength of corrugated boxes increased after subjection to vibration. In his study he claims that the height of each support corner becomes more similar after the box has been exposed to resonant vibration. This equating of support heights allows each corner to offer equal strength and he reported an 8 percent increase in top -to-bottom compressive strength. Singh (1987) investigated the effect of mechanical shocks on the compressive strength of corrugated containers. The results show that as much as 75 % of the original compressive strength can be lost in multiple handling. The more severe Drop Treatment yielded lower compression strength values for the same box style. Langlois (1989) studied the effect of using a fixed versus floating platen when testing the compression strength of corrugated fiberboard boxes. There was a significant difference in the compression strength of the containers measured using fixed and floating platens. The floating platen gave a compression value 3.6% higher than the fixed platen. 6 W The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (D l 68 5-73) Standard Method of Conditioning Paper and Paper Products for Testing lists two steps in the conditioning process for knocked down shipping containers. The samples must first be preconditioned in an atmosphere of 10 to 35% relative humidity at a temperature of 22 to 40 degrees C for a period of 12 to 16 hours. After this the boxes should be conditioned in an atmosphere of 50 i 2.0% RH. and 23.0 1 1.0 degrees C for at least 16 hours prior to testing. The ASTM (D 775-80) Standard Method for Drop Test for Loaded Boxes provides an indication of the ability of a box to withstand the damage caused by the sudden shock of dropping a package. All the surfaces of the box are identified as follows: Top as one, side as two, bottom as three, left side as four, near end as five, far end as six. The manufacturers joint should be identified by the numbers of the two surfaces that form that edge. The National Safe Transit Association (NSTA) project 1A recommends drop sequences and drop heights to simulate handling. The procedures are basic performance tests for the product and package. Their severity should be increased to adapt to unusual distribution situations. Project 1A requires the test equipment to comply with ASTM D-775 and TAPPI T-801 standards. 7 The drop heights chosen are as follows: (1 ) Packaged Products less than 61 pounds. N0 ALTERNATIVE l Thru 20.99 (lbs) - 30 (in) 21 Thru 40.99 (lbs) - 24 (in) 41 Thru 60.99 (lbs) - 18 (in) The ASTM standard (D 642-76) is the Standard Method of Compression Testing for Shipping Containers. The method suggests testing containers without contents, sealing the box to avoid distortions that may affect its load-bearing ability, and applying a preload of 50 1b force with the load being applied at a constant rate of 0.5 i 0.1 in/min. The ASTM standard (D 122 5-66) is the Standard Method for Flat Crush of Corrugated Fiberboard. This method is used to determine the resistance of the flutes in corrugated board to a crushing force applied perpendicular to the surface of the board when tested under prescribed conditions. This test may be used on single-wall or single-face corrugated board. It is not suitable for measuring the crushing resistance of double-wall or triple-wall board. The specimen cutter is used to cut samples without crushing areas at the cut edges to form a circular specimen, either 5 sq. in. or 1 0 sq. in. The ASTM standard (D 2808-69) includes Compressive Strength of Corrugated Fiberboard (Short Column Test). This method is used to determine the edgewise compressive strength, parallel to the flutes, of single-wall, double-wall or triple-wall corrugated fiberboard. 8 The Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) standard T 810 om-80 is the standard for Bursting Strength of Corrugated Fiberboard. This method describes the procedure for measuring the bursting strength of single-wall and double-wall corrugated and solid fiberboard. Testing of double-wall board is not recommended since it is difficult to get sufficiently simultaneous bursts of the multiple facings. W W Three sets of regular slotted containers (RSC.) were used in this study. Box Types A and B had shortened flaps because they were not taped but tucked during distribution. W Corrugation - C flute, double faced, single-wall. Dimensions - 20.5" x 16"x 14" (L x W x D) Bursting Test - 200 psi. Minimum Combined Weight of Facings - 84 lbs. per 1000 square feet. Size Limit - 75 inches Gross Weight Limit - 65 lbs. Manufactured by Stone Container Corporation of Detroit, Michigan forFrito Lay, Inc, Texas. E I E S If I . . Corrugation - C flute, double faced, single-wall. Dimensions - 20.5" x 16" x 8" (I. x W x D) Bursting Test - 200 psi. Minimum Combined Weight of Facings - 84 lbs. per 1000 square feet. Size Limit - 75 inches. Gross Weight Limit - 65 lbs. Manufactured by Stone Container Corporation of Detroit, Michigan for Frito Lay, Inc. IO E I C S 'I' !' , Corrugation - C flute, double-wall. Dimensions - 12" x 12“ x 12" (L x W x D) Bursting Test - 200 psi. Minimum Combined Weight of Facings - 92 lbs. per 1000 square feet. Size Limit - 75 inches. Gross Weight Limit - 65 lbs. Manufactured by Classic Container Corporation of Detroit, Michigan. 3.2mm Boxes were received knocked-down from Frito Lay and Classic Container. A glued manufacturer's joint (glued by the corrugated box manufacturer) was used on box type A and B. Box type C was stitched with 1/2" metal staples. All the box samples were conditioned at 72 degrees F, at 50.0 5; 2.0 % R>H> for at least I 6 hours. Temperature and relative humidity were monitored using a Bendix recording Hygro-thermograph (model 594). After conditioning, empty boxes were sealed top and bottom as outlined in ASTM standard D 642 with 3M brand Scotch Brand Tape - Core Series 2-3300 plastic sealing tape. W 33: I' IEZ'I!E! E !' Each box type was measured and 2 inch HB-45 Ethafoam (Dow l 1 Chemical Co.) cut to fit the interior (Figures 1, 2 and 3). A 45 degree angle was chosen for the lateral support corners so that a full face cushion would be present on all four lateral sides. This was considered important so as to keep the drop effects as uniform as possible on all four corrugated sides. Concrete bricks were used to increase weight for all three gross weights of box type A (Figure l ). The concrete bricks were also used for the lower weight of box type B (Figure 2). Because of box size restrictions steel weights were used for the two higher gross weights of box type B and both gross weights of box type C (Figure 2, 3). The Ethafoam was cut to provide a tight fit so the weight would not move within the cushion fixture. All the weights were evenly balanced so as not to produce bias results (Figure l , 2, 3 ). White: The box faces were marked according to ASTM standard D 775-80 before testing. After they were marked, and packed, each box was sealed with 3M Scotch Brand Tape (core series 2-3300) according to ASTM standard D 642-76. Every sample was subjected to the following drop sequence: First Drop - Flat (on the bottom face). Second Drop - Edge (on the 3-6 bottom edge). Third Drop - Edge (on the 3-4 bottom edge). Fourth Drop - Flat (on the small 6 face). Fifth Drop - Flat (on the opposite 5 face). Sixth Drop - Flat (on the large 4 face). [:1 Ethafoam Urethane E Brick E Top View 155 lbs. Front View 15.5 lbs Top View 29.5 lbs Front View 29.5 lbs Top View 46 lbs Front View 46 lbs ure 1 Cushion and Weight placement Box A CI Ethafoam E Brick " Urethane \\\\\\ Steel EE Top View 15.75 lbs Front View 15.75 lbs Top View 31.5 lbs Front View 31.5 lbs Top View 443 lbs Front View 44.3 lbs Figure 2 Cushion and Weight placement Box B I: Ethafoam Top View 30 lbs Front View 30 lbs Top View 42.5 lbs Front View 42.5 lbs Figure 3 Cushion and Weight placement Box C 15 Seventh Drop - Flat (on the opposite 2 face). The 3-6 and 3-4 edges were chosen because they were the two non-adjacent edges to the 5-2 manufacture's joint. The flat drops were chosen in the hopes of increasing the consistency between box samples and to note the effect of flute crush on the overall box compression strength. Corner drops were not included so as to minimize the amount of variance between box test samples. 352W All drop test were done using a Lansmont Corporation Drop Tester (Model No. PDT-56E). All drops were done on a surface that conforms to ASTM standard D 77 5-80. Wag: After each sample had been through Drop Sequence A the contents were removed and the boxes were resealed. All samples were compression tested using a Lansmont Corporation Compression Tester (Model No. 76-5K). This machine had digital readout of force 1 3% accuracy and deflection j; l % linearity. With an after test readout of peak force and corresponding deflection (lbs. & in.) This machine was designed to test in accordance with ASTM D 642 and TAPPI T-804. The compression test speed was 0.5 inches per minute. W112; The compressive strength of corrugated fiberboard (short 16 column test) was performed for each grouping of test samples. Specimens were cut and tested in accordance with ASTM standard D 2808-69. Specimens were cut from a new control set, as well as, the control set that had been subjected to the compression test. The only deviation from the ASTM standard was that each specimen was not dipped in molten paraffin to a depth of 1/4 inch on each loading edge. The specimens were tested on a Series 400 Crush Tester (Model No. 17-36) manufactured by Test Machines Incorporated (TMI). W The Flat Crush of corrugated fiberboard test was performed for each grouping of test samples. Specimens were cut and tested in accordance with ASTM standard D 122 5-66. Specimens were cut from the same new control set as the edge crush specimens and from the control set that had been subjected to the box compression test. The specimens were tested on a Series 400 Crush Tester (Model No. 17-36) manufactured by Test Machines Inc. (TMI ). 39E !' S! III !.. The Bursting Strength of corrugated fiberboard test was performed for each grouping of test samples. Specimens were cut and tested in accordance with TAPPI standard T 81 O om-80. Again, specimens were cut from the same new control set as the edge and flat crush specimens and from the control set that had been subjected to the box compression test. The specimens were tested on (Drive I * Son, Inc. W One hundred twenty corrugated fiberboard boxes were put through the drop sequence to determine the change in compression strength as a function of package Weight and drop height during handling. Table I shows the experimental design for box types A, B and C. Acontrol set of ten boxes were tested for each box type. After the boxes were tested specimens were cut from random boxes to evaluate material properties after handling for each group. These were compared against a control set of samples. A total of three hundred specimens were tested for edge crush compressive strength. A total of two hundred twenty specimens were tested each for flat crush and bursting strength. All testing was done at 23 degrees C, and 50 % RH. {LLBQILAL Table 2 contains the average compression strength values for this box for the various weights and drop heights. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table l 6 (Appendix A). Ten samples were compression tested as a control. The mean compression strength value for the control boxes was 805.6 lbs.. As the gross weight increased, the compressive strength decreased. Also, as the drop height increased there was a decrease in the compressive strength. The compressive strength reduced as much as 41 % for the package weight of 46 lbs. and a 30 inch drop height. Figure 4 is a graphical representation of the data in Table 2. Based on this data, 18 19 TABLE 1 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Package Type Gross Weight (lbs) Drop Height (in) 18 A 15.5 24 30 18 A 29.5 24 30 18 A 46.0 24 30 18 B 15.75 24 30 18 B 31.50 24 3O 18 B 44.30 24 3O 18 C 30.00 24 30 18 C 42.50 24 30 20 TABLE 2 COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF BOX A Drop Height Gross Weight Mean Compression (in) (lbs) Strength (lbs) Std.Dev. C.O.V. control control 805.6 66.170 .082 18 15.5 734.6 25.958 .035 18 29.5 608.6 34.639 .057 18 46.0 523.6 45.416 .087 24 15.5 695.4 73.550 .106 24 29.5 558.2 19.773 .035 24 46.0 497.6 45.863 .092 30 15.5 634.0 83.917 .132 30 29.5 507.6 21.887 .043 30 46.0 472.4 30.051 .064 MEAN COMPRESSION STRENGTH (LBS) 21 900 —u— 18 inch drop ‘ —O-— 24 inch drop 800 q —-I-— 30 inch drop —0— control 700 - 600 - 500 - 400 I I - I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 GROSS WEIGHT (LBS) FIGURE 4: COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF BOX A 22 box A shows a clear trend that as the gross weight and drop height increase there is a decrease in overall box compression strength. Table 3 contains the deflection results for box A for the same weight and drop height conditions described above. The mean deflection value for the control box was 0.357 inches. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table 16 (Appendix A). The coefficient of variation (C.O.V.) is also listed for the various deflection values. Due to high values of C.O.V. no trends can be predicted for box A over the various weights and drop heights. After the boxes were subjected to the drop sequence, specimens were cut from each test group for material tests. These specimens were used to determine the edge crush (short column test) of the corrugated fiberboard subjected to handling. Table 4 contains the mean edge crush results for box A at the various weights and drop heights. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table 19 (Appendix B). Specimens were cut from the same boxes to evaluate bursting strength for each of the test groups. The specimens were taken at random from each of the boxes used in the edge crush test. Table 5 contains the mean bursting strength results for box A at the various weights and drop heights. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table 22 (Appendix C). Lastly, specimens were cut from the remaining corrugated fiberboard to determine the flat crush values at the various weights and drop heights. Table 6 contains the mean flat crush results for box A at the various weights and drop heights. The individual values for 23 TABLE 3 DEFLECTION ANALYSIS OF BOX A Drop Height Gross Weight Mean Deflection (in) (lbs) (in) Std.ng. C.O.V. control control .357 .029 .082 18 15.5 .524 .092 .175 18 29.5 .622 .185 .297 18 46.0 .380 .030 .078 24 15.5 .542 .047 .087 24 29.5 .494 .182 .368 24 46.0 .438 .099 .227 30 15.5 .600 .065 .108 30 29.5 .388 .022 .057 30 46.0 .420 .086 .205 24 TABLE 4 SHORT COLUMN TEST OF BOX A Drop Gross Mean MQQQ_LQQQ Height Weight Load Unit Width (in) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs/in) Std.Dev. C.O.V. control control 52.26 26.13 2.13 0.082 control-post compr. 41.99 20.99 1.87 0.089 18 15.5 45.76 22.88 2.46 0.108 18 29.5 49.03 24.51 1.50 0.061 18 46.0 53.39 26.69 2.12 0.080 24 15.5 51.73 25.86 2.45 0.096 24 29.5 53.42 26.71 2.06 0.077 24 46.0 51.05 25.52 2.71 0.106 30 15.5 52.40 26.20 1.47 0.056 30 29.5 54.70 27.35 1.77 0.065 30 46.0 50.29 25.14 1.39 0.055 25 TABLE 5 BURSTING STRENGTH OF BOX A Drop Height Gross Weight Avg.Burst (in) (lbs) (psi) Std.Dev. C.O.V. control control 177.5 17.36 0.098 control-post compression 140.5 24.84 0.177 18 15.5 169.5 27.06 0.160 18 29.5 161.5 16.13 0.100 18 46.0 174.0 13.93 0.080 24 15.5 166.5 24.80 0.149 24 29.5 165.5 23.92 0.144 24 46.0 176.5 20.01 0.113 30 15.5 156.0 23.85 0.153 30 29.5 151.0 16.70 0.111 30 46.0 173.5 14.15 0.082 26 TABLE 6 ELAT_§BH§E_QE_§QX_A Drop Height Gross Weight Mean Load (in) (lbs) (psi) Std.Dev. C.O.V. control control 29.61 2.85 0.096 control-post compression 33.45 2.40 0.072 18 15.5 27.57 5.02 0.182 18 29.5 30.66 5.28 0.172 18 46.0 30.41 5.09 0.167 24 15.5 30.42 4.26 0.140 24 29.5 31.41 4.46 0.142 24 46.0 28.83 4.99 0.173 30 15.5 30.37 5.44 0.179 30 29.5 28.86 4.60 0.159 30 46.0 31.13 3.91 0.126 27 each five samples are listed in Table 24 (Appendix D). 3.2.5915; Table 7 contains the average compression strength results for this box for the various weights and drop heights. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table 17 (Appendix A). Ten samples were compression tested as a control. The mean compression strength value for the control boxes was 617.1 lbs. As the gross weight increased, the compressive strength decreased. Also, as the drop height increased there was a decrease in the compressive strength. The compressive strength reduced as much as 27.6% for the package weight of 44.3 lbs. and a 30 inch drop height. Figure 5 is a graphical representation of the data in Table 7. Based on this data, box B shows a clear trend that as the gross weight and drop height increase there is a decrease in overall box compression strength. Table 8 contains the deflection results for box B for the same weight and drop height conditions described above. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table 17 (Appendix A). Due to high values of C.O.V. no trends can be predicted for box B over the various weights and drop heights. Table 9 contains the mean edge crush results for box B at the various weights and drop heights. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table 20 (Appendix B). Table 10 contains the mean bursting strength results for box B at the various weights and drop heights. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table 23 (Appendix C) . Table 1 1 contains the mean flat crush results for box B at the Drop Height Gross Weight Mean Compression 28 TABLE 7 COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF BOX B (in) (lbs) Strength (lbs) Std.Dev. C.O.V. control control 617.1 42.326 .069 18 15.75 556.6 13.691 .025 18 31.5 527.2 62.789 .119 18 44.3 479.4 29.214 .061 24 15.75 511.8 48.873 .095 24 31.5 491.2 18.988 .039 24 44.3 459.6 23.320 .051 30 15.75 483.8 29.559 .061 30 31.5 449.2 64.232 .143 30 44.3 447.0 18.044 .040 700 —EI— 18 inch drop —.— 24inch drop —I-— 30 inch drop g ‘ —°— control :1 E 600 - CD E (I: Z 2 m m Lu 4 O 0 Z _ :é 500 400 I l T r o lo 20 3o 40 50 GROSS WEIGHT (LBS) FIGURE 5: COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF BOX B 30 TABLE 8 DEFLECTION ANALYSIS OF BOX B Drop Height Gross Weight Mean Deflection (in) (lbs) (in) Std.Dev. C.O.V. control control .321 .044 .138 18 15.75 .416 .068 .163 18 31.5 .396 .111 .279 18 44.3 .386 .051 .132 24 15.75 .404 .070 .174 24 31.5 .370 .018 .048 24 44.3 .368 .025 .067 30 ‘ 15.75 .368 .057 .156 30 31.5 .350 .051 .147 30 44.3 .322 .041 .128 31 TABLE 9 SHORT COLUMN TEST OF BOX B Drop _ Gross Mean Mgan_ngd Height Weight Load Unit Width (in) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs/in) Std.Dev. C.O.V. control control 49.32 24.66 1.72 0.070 control-post compr. 53.30 26.65 2.33 0.087 18 15.75 55.94 27.97 1.15 0.041 18 31.50 55.75 27.87 1.33 0.048 18 44.30 57.52 28.76 1.34 0.047 24 15.75 54.38 27.19 1.41 0.052 24 31.50 58.89 29.44 1.02 0.035 24 44.30 56.31 28.15 1.04 0.037 30 15.75 54.49 27.24 1.35 0.049 30 31.50 53.83 26.91 1.02 0.038 30 44.30 58.61 29.15 1.23 0.042 32 TABLE 10 BURSTING STRENGTH OF BOX B Drop Gross Height Weight Mean Burst (in) (lbs) (psi) Std.Dev. .O.V. control control 153.5 12.66 0.082 control-post compression 154.0 27.18 0.176 18 15.75 174.0 20.22 0.116 18 31.50 220.5 21.96 0.099 18 44.30 210.5 36.36 0.173 24 15.75 195.5 22.19 0.113 24 31.50 214.0 26.15 0.122 24 44.30 232.0 28.21 0.122 30 15.75 210.5 18.63 0.088 30 31.50 219.0 26.34 0.120 30 44.30 227.0 29.60 0.130 33 TABLE 11 FLAT CRUSH OF BOX B Drop Height Gross Weight Mean Load (in) (lbs) (psi) Std.Dev. C.O.V. control control 22 . 0'6 4 . 20 o . 19o control-post compression 27.35 6.52 0.238 18 15.75 24.37 5.07 0.208 18 31.50 22.96 4.83 0.211 18 44.30 25.42 5.64 0.222 24 15.75 24.83 4.18 0.168 24 31.50 23.44 6.19 0.264 24 44.30 23.85 5.13 0.215 30 15.75 22.38 7.28 0.325 30 31.50 23.72 6.05 0.255 30 44.30 20.28 4.48 0.221 34 various weights and drop heights. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table 25 (Appendix D). 4.3.8910; Table 1 2 contains the average compression strength results for this box for the various weights and drop heights. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table 18 (Appendix A). Ten samples were compression tested as a control. The mean compression strength value for the control boxes was 1231.5 lbs. As the gross weight increased, the compressive strength decreased. Also, as the drop height increased there was a decrease in compressive strength. The compressive strength reduced as much as 24.2% for the package weight of 42.5 lbs. and a 30 inch drop height. Figure 6 is a graphical representation of the data in Table 12. Based on this data, box C shows a clear trend that as the gross weight and drop height increase there is a decrease in overall box compression strength. Table 1 3 contains the deflection results for box B for the same weight and drop height conditions described above. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table l 8 (Appendix A). Due to high values of C.O.V. no trends can be predicted for box C over the various weights and drop heights. Table 1 4 contains the mean edge crush results for box C at the various weights and drop heights. The individual values for each five samples are listed in Table 21 (Appendix B). Table 1 5 contains the compression strength reduction results for box A, B and C. There is a decrease in compression strength for all three box types as the weight and drop height were increased. TABLE 12 COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF BOX C Drop Height Gross Weight Mean Compression (in) (lbs) Strength (lbs) Std.Dev. .O.V. control control 1231.5 56.339 .046 18 30 1076.6 113.526 .105 18 42.5 960.8 94.101 .098 24 30 976.4 137.134 .140 24 42.5 944.4 56.602 .060 30 30 948.0 106.401 .112 30 42.5 933.0 64.647 .069 COMPRESSION STRENGTH (LBS) 1300 1200 -' 1100- 1000 - 18 inch drop 24 inch drop 30 inch drop control 900 FIGURE 6: COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF BOX C GROSS WEIGHT (LBS) 37 TABLE 13 DEFLECTION ANALYSIS OF BOX C Drop Height Gross weight Mean Deflection (in) (lbs) (1n) Std.Dev. C.O.V. control control .537 .050 .094 18 30 .588 .083 .142 18 42.5 .558 .064 .115 24 30 .566 .081 .143 24 42.5 .600 .064 .107 30 30 .586 .078 .133 30 42.5 .614 .039 .064 38 TABLE 14 SHORT COLUMN TEST OF BOX C Drop Gross Mean Mean Load Height Weight Load Unit Width (in) (lbsL, (lb (lbs/in) Std.Dev. C.O.V. control control 101.98 50.99 2.29 0.045 control-post compr. 103.69 51.84 1.32 0.025 18 30.0 105.09 52.54 1.58 0.030 18 42.5 102.03 51.01 1.79 0.035 24 30.0 102.80 51.40 1.52 0.029 24 42.5 107.10 53.55 1.47 0.027 30 30.0 103.06 51.53 1.84 0.036 30 42.5 104.20 52.10 1.58 0.030 39 TABLE 15 COMPRESSION REDUCTION Package Drop Gross Compression % Reduction Type Height Weight Strength After Drop (in) (lbs) Untested(lbs) Qomionce 15.50 805.6 8.8 A 18 29.50 805.6 24.4 46.00 805.6 35.0 15.50 805.6 13.7 A 24 29.50 805.6 30.7 46.00 805.6 38.2 15.50 805.6 21.3 A 30 29.50 805.6 37.0 46.00 805.6 41.4 15.75 617.1 9.8 B 18 31.50 617.1 14.6 44.30 617.1 22.3 15.75 617.1 17.1 B 24 31.50 617.1 20.4 44.30 617.1 25.5 15.75 617.1 21.6 B 30 31.50 617.1 27.2 44.30 617.1 27.6 30.00 1231.5 12.6 C 18 42.50 1231.5 22.0 30.00 1231.5 20.7 C 24 42.50 1231.5 23.3 30.00 1231.5 23.0 C 30 42.50 1231.5 24.2 REDUCTION IN COMPRESSION STRENGTH (%) 41 50 —n— leinch drop --0— 24inch drop 40‘ —I— 301nch drop 30" 20“ GROSS WEIGHT (LBS) FIGURE 7: COMPRESSION STRENGTH REDUCTION OF BOX A REDUCTION IN COMPRESION STRENGTH (%) 30 20 —n— 18 inch drop —0— 24 inch drop -—I-- 30 inch drop GROSS WEIGHT (LBS) FIGURE 8: COMPRESSION STRENGTH REDUCTION OF BOX B REDUCTION IN COMPRESSION STRENGTH (%) 30 N O I O l 7 ——a— 18 inch drop —e— 24 inch drop ——I— 30 inch drop 20 30 GROSS WEIGHT (LBS) FIGURE 9: COMPRESSION STRENGTH REDUCTION OF BOX C 50 W Following are the conclusions of this study: 1. The mean overall box compression strength decreased as the drop heights increased for all three box types. The mean overall box compression strength decreased as the gross weights increased for all three box types. The corrugated material properties, namely, edge crush, flat crushand burst strength did not show any significant changes as a result of handling for all three box types. WW Environmental considerations: All testing was performed at standard conditions ASTM D 68 5-73, temperature and relative humidity were not evaluated. Testing should be done to see if these trends are the same in severe conditions. Box style variation: All testing was performed on regular slotted containers (RSC.). More corrugated box sizes and styles should be tested to see if these trends are valid. 44 45 Edge crush testing: Because the edge crush values are used to predict box compression strength, materials from the same lot should be tested before and after performance testing. Field environment testing: With recent advances in environmental data recording, an effort should be made to more closely define the hazards of distribution. Accurate handling simulation can only result from an acute understanding of the actual handling environment. APPENDICES 46 APPENDIX A COMPRESSION AND DEFLECTION DATA TABLE 16 Compression and Deflection Data BOX A (20.5" x 16" x 14") Box A Control Test fl Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) l 741 .37 2 779 .35 3 795 .37 4 779 .33 5 779 .33 6 836 .39 7 898 .34 8 944 .42 9 713 .32 10 792 .35 2 805.600 .357 std.dev. 66.170 .029 C.O.V. 0.082 .082 Box A Drop height = 18 in. ; Gross weight = 15.5 lbs. Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in 1 718 .52 2 721 .69 3 765 .53 4 703 .43 5 766 .45 2 734.600 .524 std.dev. 25.960 .092 C.O.V. 0.035 .175 Box A Drop height = 24 in. ; Gross weight = 15.5 lbs. Test fl Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 680 .51 2 688 .48 3 789 .55 4 572 .62 5 748 .55 2 695.400 .542 std.dev. 73.550 .047 c.o.v. 0.106 .087 Box A Drop height = 30 in. Test # Compression Strengph (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 732 .63 2 541 .68 3 535 .63 4 718 .57 5 644 .49 x 634.000 .600 std.dev. 83.917 .065 c.o.v. 0.132 .108 47 ; Gross weight = 15.5 lbs. Box A Drop height = 18 in. ; Gross weight = 29.5 lbs. Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in l 636 .61 2 628 .54 3 547 .33 4 638 .86 5 594 .77 2 608.600 .622 std.dev. 34.639 .185 C.O.V. 0.057 .297 48 Box A Drop height = 24 in. ; Gross weight = 29.5 lbs. Test fl Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) l 566 .47 2 533 .36 3 589 .85 * 4 562 .41 5 541 .38 w/out X 558.200 .494 .405 std.dev. 19.773 .182 .041 C.O.V. 0.035 .368 .102 Box A Drop height = 30 in. ; Gross weight = 29.5 lbs. Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in l 521 .41 2 519 .38 3 524 .41 4 509 .39 5 465 .35 2 507.600 .388 std.dev. 21.887 .022 C.O.V. 0.043 .057 Box A Drop height = 18 in. ; Gross weight = 46 lbs. Test # Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 588 .35 2 521 .38 3 477 .39 4 560 .43 5 472 .35 2 523.600 .380 std.dev. 45.416 .030 c.o.v. 0.087 .078 49 Box A Drop height = 24 in. ; Gross weight = 46 lbs. Test fl Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 462 .31 2 551 .60 3 556 .38 4 466 .41 5 453 .49 2 497.600 .438 std.dev. 45.863 .099 C.O.V. 0.092 .227 Box A Drop height = 30 in. ; Gross weight = 46 lbs. Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in 1 445 .37 2 503 .40 3 495 .59 4 428 .38 5 491 .36 2 472.400 .420 std.dev. 30.051 .086 C.O.V. 0.064 .205 50 TABLE 17 Compression and Deflection Data BOX B (20.5" x 16" x 8") Box B Control Test fl Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 677 .32 2‘ 531 .26 3 672 .34 4 572 .27 5 654 .27 6 600 .39 7 622 .38 8 613 .35 9 606 .34 10 624 .29 2 617.100 .321 std.dev. 42.326 .044 c.o.v. 0.069 .138 Box B Drop height = 18 in. ; Gross weight = 15.75 lbs. Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in 1 536 .35 2 551 .47 3 575 .49 4 553 .32 5 568 .45 2 556.600 .416 std.dev. 13.691 .068 C.O.V. 0.025 .163 51 Box B Drop height = 24 in. ; Gross weight = 15.75 lbs. Test fl Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 506 .49 2 607 .35 3 483 .49 4 472 .35 5 491 .34 2 511.800 .404 std.dev. 48.873 .070 C.O.V. 0.095 .174 Box B Drop height = 30 in. ; Gross weight = 15.75 lbs. Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in 1 519 .28 2 504 .36 3 498 .36 4 456 .38 5 442 .46 2 483.800 .368 std.dev. 29.559 .057 C.O.V. 0.061 .156 Box B Drop height = 18 in. ; Gross weight = 31.5 lbs. Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in 1 477 .41 2 469 .27 3 545 .59 4 641 .40 5 504 .31 2 527.200 .396 std.dev. 62.789 .111 C.O.V. 0.119 .279 52 Box B Drop height = 24 in. ; Gross weight = 31.5 lbs. Test fl Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 494 .35 2 527 .35 3 475 .39 4 480 .39 5 480 .37 2 502.400 .370 std.dev. 18.988 .018 c.o.v. 0.039 .048 Box B Drop height = 30 in. ; Gross weight = 31.5 lbs. Test i Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 336 .35 2 441 .44 3 533 .34 4 465 .28 5 471 .34 2 449.200 .350 std.dev. 64.232 .051 C.O.V. 0.143 .147 Box B Drop height = 18 in. ; Gross weight = 44.3 lbs. Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in 1 462 .33 2 512 .36 3 431 .48 4 494 .37 5 498 .39 2 479.400 .386 std.dev. 29.214 .051 C.O.V. 0.061 .132 53 Box B Drop height = 24 in. ; Gross weight = 44.3 lbs. Test # Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 486 .35 2 459 .38 3 481 .34 4 421 .36 5 451 .41 2 459.600 .368 std.dev. 23.320 .025 C.O.V. 0.051 .067 Box B Drop height = 30 in. ; Gross weight = 44.3 lbs. Test # Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 454 .33 2 436 .31 3 472 .37 4 419 .25 5 454 .35 8 447.000 .322 std.dev. 18.044 .041 C.O.V. 0.040 .128 54 TABLE 18 Compression and Deflection Data BOX C (12" x 12" X 12") double-wall Box C Control Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in 1 1192 .47 2 1326 .55 3 1170 .53 4 1174 .53 5 1176 .51 6 1197 .48 7 1236 .64 8 1256 .60 9 1267 .50 10 1321 .56 2 1231.500 .537 std.dev. 56.339 .050 C.O.V. 0.046 .094 Box C Drop height = 18 in. ; Gross weight = 30 lbs. Test fl Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 1160 .62 2 1245 .72 3 948 .54 4 965 .47 5 1065 .59 2 1076.600 .588 std.dev. 113.526 .083 C.O.V. 0.105 .142 55 Box C Drop height = 24 in. ; Gross weight = 30 lbs. Test fl Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 1109 .56 2 780 .50 3 866 .47 4 1136 .70 5 991 .60 2 976.400 .566 std.dev. 137.134 .081 C.O.V. 0.140 .143 Box C Drop height = 30 in. ; Gross weight = 30 lbs. Test 5 Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 1006 .64 2 903 .53 3 791 .48 4 1110 .70 5 930 .58 2 948.000 .586 std.dev. 106.401 .078 C.O.V. 0.112 .133 Box C Drop height = 18 in. ; Gross weight = 42.5 lbs. Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in 1 956 .53 2 919 .60 3 1020 .55 4 815 .46 5 1094 .65 2 960.800 .558 std.dev. 94.101 .064 C.O.V. 0.098 .115 56 Box C Drop height = 24 in. ; Gross weight = 42.5 lbs. Test f Compression Strength (lbs) Deflection (in) 1 980 .65 2 1030 _ .67 3 876 .49 4 944 .57 5 892 .62 2 944.400 .600 std.dev. 56.602 .064 C.O.V. 0.060 .107 Box C Drop height = 30 in. ; Gross weight = 42.5 lbs. Test Com ression Stren th lbs Deflection in 1 935 .55 2 826 .64 3 1000 .59 4 906 .63 5 998 .66 2 933.000 .614 std.dev. 64.647 .039 C.O.V. 0.069 .064 57 APPENDIX B COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CORRUGATED FIBERBOARD SHORT COLUMN TEST DATA TABLE 19 Edge Crush Data BOX A (20.5" x 16" x 14") Box A Control Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test fl Load at Fai1(lbs) 1 51.9 6 60.4 2 45.9 7 48.9 3 47.9 8 55.9 4 56.0 9 52.6 5 48.7 10 54.4 x 52.260 std.dev. 4.263 C.O.V. 0.082 Box A Control - Post Compression Test Test Load at Fail lbs Test Load at Fail lbs 1 39.3 6 46.1 2 40.8 7 44.6 3 40.3 8 47.5 4 47.2 9 37.6 5 38.2 10 38.3 _ 41.990 std.dev. 3.741 C.O.V. 0.089 58 Box A Drop Height = 18 in. ; Gross Weight = 15.5 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 46.9 6 48.3 2 51.4 7 36.9 3 50.1 8 44.9 4 46.6 9 52.2 5 40.3 10 40.0 2 45.760 std.dev. 4.927 c.o.v. 0.108 Box A Drop Height = 24 in. ; Gross Weight = 15.5 lbs. Test fl Load at Fail (lbs) Test fl Load at Fail(lbs) 1 48.3 6 44.7 2 60.8 7 59.8 3 52.0 8 50.3 4 49.9 9 49.0 5 47.6 10 54.9 2 51.730 std.dev. 4.990 c.o.v. 0.096 Box A Drop Height = 30 in. ; Gross Weight = 15.5 lbs. Test Load at Fail lbs Test Load at Fail lbs 1 54.9 6 56.0 2 50.5 7 50.5 3 53.0 8 55.8 4 56.0 9 48.7 5 50.4 10 48.2 _ 52.400 std.dev. 2.940 C.O.V. 0.056 59 Box A Drop Height = 18 in. ; Gross Weight = 29.5 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 48.6 6 46.3 2 47.2 7 53.3 3 49.4 8 43.4 4 47.6 9 49.3 5 53.5 10 51.7 2 49.030 std.dev. 3.00 c.o.v. 0.061 Box A Drop Height = 24 in. ; Gross Weight = 29.5 lbs. Test fl Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 58.7 6 51.9 2 52.9 7 55.6 ,3 49.2 8 59.7 4 51.0 9 48.6 5 48.4 10 58.2 7 53.420 std.dev. 4.12 c.o.v. 0.077 Box A Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 29.5 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 58.0 6 57.7 2 54.6 7 57.6 3 49.7 8 51.1 4 52.6 9 57.2 5 59.2 10 49.3 54.700 std.dev. 3.55 c.o.v. 0.065 60 Box A Drop Height = 18 in. ; Gross Weight = 46 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 56.1 6 46.7 2 58.5 7 48.4 3 48.3 8 56.3 4 56.9 9 49.9 5 57.1 10 55.7 2 53.390 std.dev. 4.25 c.o.v. 0.080 Box A Drop Height = 24 in. ; Gross Weight = 46 lbs. Test fl Load at Fail (lbs) Test i Load at Fail(lbs) 1 57.8 6 47.6 2 46.2 7 44.8 3 47.0 8 55.2 4 60.9 9 53.7 5 52.2 10 45.1 2 51.050 std.dev. 5.426 c.o.v. 0.106 Box A Drop Height = 30 in. ; Gross Weight = 46 lbs. Test Load at Fail lbs Test Load at Fail lbs 1 49.3 6 50.5 2 56.0 7 51.4 3 46.0 8 49.5 4 48.1 9 53.7 5 50.7 10 47.7 _ 50.290 std.dev. 2.78 C.O.V. 0.055 61 TABLE 20 Edge Crush Data BOX # 2 (20.5" X 16" X 8") Box B Control Test fl Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 50.6 6 50.3 2 47.6 7 46.8 3 45.4 8 54.1 4 46.6 9 56.1 5 50.2 10 45.5 2 49.320 std.dev. 3.447 c.o.v. 0.070 Box B Control - Post Compression Test Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 53.3 6 57.4 2 57.4 7 58.3 3 50.5 8 44.4 4 47.9 9 56.1 5 58.0 10 49.7 x 53.300 std.dev. 4.666 c.o.v. 0.087 62 Box B Drop Height = 18 in. ; Gross Weight = 15.75 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 58.2 6 54.3 2 56.0 7 57.6 3 53.7 8 55.1 4 51.3 9 55.9 5 59.1 10 58.2 E 55.94 std.dev. 2.300 C.O.V. 0.041 Box B Drop Height = 24 in. ; Gross Weight = 15.75 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test fl Load at Fail(lbs) 1 51.0 6 55.2 2 52.5 7 56.2 3 53.9 8 58.1 4 59.9 9 53.5 5 52.9 10 50.9 2 54.380 std.dev. 2.820 c.o.v. 0.052 Box B Drop Height = 30 in. ; Gross Weight = 15.75 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 59.1 6 53.6 2 52.7 7 57.8 3 53.0 8 53.2 4 52.8 9 49.8 5 56.1 10 56.8 x 54.49 std.dev. 2.699 c.o.v. ' 0.049 63 Box B Drop Height = 18 in. ; Gross Weight = 31.5 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 56.2 6 54.6 2 54.1 7 54.2 3 56.8 8 52.3 4 58.2 9 52.3 5 57.6 10 61.2 2 55.750 std.dev. 2.659 c.o.v. 0.048 Box B Drop Height = 24 in. ; Gross Weight = 31.5 lbs. Test fl Load at Fail (lbs) Test fl Load at Fail(lbs) 1 59.8 6 61.3 2 60.4 7 59.6 3 55.7 8 61.4 4 56.5 9 56.1 5 57.9 10 60.2 2 58.890 std.dev. 2.052 c.o.v. 0.035 Box B Drop Height = 30 in. ; Gross Weight = 31.5 lbs. Test Load at Fail lbs Test Load at Fail lbs 1 55.5 6 51.3 2 55.0 7 51.8 3 56.3 8 51.2 4 54.4 9 56.6 5 54.7 10 51.5 _ 53.83 std.dev. 2.046 c.o.v. 0.038 64 Box B Drop Height = 18 in. ; Gross Weight = 44.3 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 57.9 6 57.6 2 56.5 7 59.9 3 57.7 8 60.2 4 57.5 9 55.8 5 51.0 10 61.1 x 57.520 std.dev. 2.690 C.O.V. 0.047 Box B Drop Height = 24 in. ; Gross Weight = 44.3 lbs. Test fi Load at Fail (lbs) Test fl Load at Fail(lbs) 1 56.0 6 56.8 2 55.6 7 55.4 3 58.4 8 56.2 4 56.5 9 54.3 5 52.9 10 61.0 7 56.310 std.dev. 2.092 c.o.v. 0.037 Box B Drop Height = 30 in. ; Gross Weight = 44.3 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail(lbs) 1 57.2 6 61.4 2 56.7 7 61.7 3 59.0 8 61.9 4 54.0 9 58.1 5 56.5 10 59.6 _ 58.610 std.dev. 2.468 C.O.V. 0.042 65 TABLE 21 Edge Crush Data BOX C double-wall (12" x 12" x 12") Box C Control Test Load at Fail lbs Test Load at Fail lbs 1 101.1 6 101.3 2 108.3 7 96.2 3 103.4 8 110.1 4 95.2 9 104.2 5 102.2 10 97.8 § 101.980 std.dev. 4.593 c.o.v. 0.045 Box C Control - Post Compression Test Test fl Load at Fail (lbs) Test fi Load at Fail (lbs) 1 104.4 6 105.1 2 102.8 7 108.9 3 107.1 8 100.4 4 104.1 9 101.7 5 101.5 10 100.9 103.690 std.dev. 2.638 C.O.V. 0.025 Box C Drop Height = 18 in. 66 ; Gross Weight 30 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail (lbs) 1 100.7 6 110.1 2 105.6 7 101.8 3 105.3 8 107.9 4 109.6 9 104.3 5 101.2 10 104.4 2 105.090 std.dev. 3.162 C.O.V. 0.030 Box C Drop Height = 24 in. ; Gross Weight 30 lbs. Test fl Load at Fail (lbs) Test fl Load at Fail (lbs) Ulhtdk)H x1 C.O.V. 101.5 105.3 103.6 102.2 97.7 102.800 0.029 Box C Drop Height = O\003\lm H std.dev. ; Gross Weight 101.8 102.4 105.0 99.4 109.1 3.036 30 lbs. Test 3 Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail (lbs) U1btdk3H x1 C.O.V. 97.2 105.7 101.8 106.4 104.2 103.060 0.036 O\003\1m H std.dev. 109.2 97.6 100.3 105.5 102.7 3.695 67 Box C Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 42.5 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail (lbs) 1 104.5 6 99.4 2 100.3 7 96.7 3 101.5 8 97.2 4 101.8 9 106.7 5 107.7 10 104.5 2 102.030 std.dev. 3.580 c.o.v. 0.035 Box C Drop Height = 24 in. ; Gross Weight = 42.5 lbs. Test Load at Fail lbs Test Load at Fail lbs 1 101.6 6 102.2 2 109.2 7 105.2 3 110.3 8 108.3 4 109.0 9 108.9 5 106.8 10 109.5 _ 107.100 std.dev. 2.944 C.O.V. 0.027 Box C Drop Height = 30 in. ; Gross Weight = 42.5 lbs. Test # Load at Fail (lbs) Test # Load at Fail (lbs) 1 103.4 6 100.0 2 102.9 7 108.9 3 102.3 8 107.3 4 103.7 9 99.9 5 109.3 10 104.3 104.200 std.dev. 3.163 C.O.V. 0.030 68 APPENDIX C BURSTING STRENGTH 0F CORRUGATED BOARD DATA TABLE 22 Burst Strength Data BOX A (20.5" x 16" x 14") Box A Control Burst Strength Burst Strength Test lbs 5 .in. Test lbs 5 .in. 1 170 6 160 2 180 7 180 3 160 8 210 4 205 9 160 5 185 10 165 2 177.500 std.dev. 17.356 C.O.V. 0.098 Box A Control - Post Compression Test Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test (lbs/sq.in.) 1 105 6 145 2 135 7 155 3 185 8 110 4 165 9 130 5 115 10 160 _ 140.500 std.dev. 24.844 C.O.V. 0.177 Box A Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 15.5 lbs. 69 Burst strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 130 6 205 2 155 7 195 3 205 8 150 4 130 9 190 5 170 10 165 2 169.500 std.dev. 27.06 c.o.v. 0.160 Box A Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Burst Strength Weight = 15.5 lbs. Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 155 6 180 2 170 7 170 3 220 8 185 4 170 9 135 5 130 10 150 § 166.500 std.dev. 24.80 c.o.v. 0.149 Box A Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Burst Strength Weight = 15.5 lbs. Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 175 6 130 2 145 7 170 3 140 8 190 4 155 9 195 5 135 10 125 I 156.000 std.dev. 23.85 c.o.v. 0.153 70 Box A Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 29.5 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 175 6 155 2 160 7 185 3 155 8 170 4 175 9 140 5 130 10 170 2 161.500 std.dev. 16.13 C.O.V. 0.100 Box A Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 29.5 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 130 6 190 2 185 7 155 3 185 8 150 4 180 9 195 5 125 10 160 2 165.500 std.dev. 23.92 C.O.V. 0.144 Box A Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 29.5 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sq.in.) Test # (lbs/sq.in.) 1 125 6 125 2 175 7 170 3 165 8 165 4 145 9 145 5 150 10 145 2 151.000 std.dev. 16.70 C.O.V. 0.111 71 Box A Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 46 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 190 6 175 2 180 7 200 3 155 8 160 4 170 9 155 5 180 10 175 2 174.000 std.dev. 13.93 C.O.V. 0.080 Box A Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 46 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sa.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 195 6 180 2 190 7 200 3 145 8 195 4 190 9 160 5 165 10 145 2 176.500 std.dev. 20.01 c.o.v. 0.113 Box A Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 46 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 190 6 180 2 180 7 175 3 145 8 185 4 170 9 150 5 185 10 175 2 173.500 std.dev. 14.15 c.o.v. 0.082 72 TABLE 23 Burst Strength Data BOX B (20.5" X 16" X 8") Box B Control Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 145 6 150 2 165 7 155 3 160 8 165 4 135 9 170 5 130 10 160 2 153.500 std.dev. 12.659 c.o.v. 0.082 Box B Control - Post Compression Test Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sq.in.) 1 140 6 115 2 185 7 125 3 180 8 180 4 115 9 185 5 160 10 155 2 154.000 std.dev. 27.184 c.o.v. 0.176 73 Box B Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 15.75 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbszsg.in.) Test i (lszsg.in.) 1 175 6 165 2 195 7 195 3 140 8 165 4 180 9 190 5 140 10 195 § 174.000 std.dev. 20.224 c.o.v. 0.116 Box B Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 15.75 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 230 6 160 2 220 7 195 3 215 8 200 4 175 9 190 5 205 10 165 § 195.500 std.dev. 22.187 c.o.v. 0.113 Box B Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 15.75 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (1bs/sg.in.) 1 210 6 235 2 210 7 210 3 180 8 215 4 205 9 220 5 240 10 180 _ 210.500 std.dev. 18.635 c.o.v. 0.088 74 Box B Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 31.5 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sa.in.) 1 230 6 185 2 250 7 205 3 225 8 225 4 190 9 210 5 230 10 255 2 220.500 std.dev. 21.960 c.o.v. 0.099 Box B Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 31.5 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 235 _6 220 2 165 7 195 3 225 8 220 4 255 9 225 5 175 10 225 i 214.000 std.dev. 26.153 c.o.v. 0.122 Box B Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 31.5 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sq3in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) l 255 6 165 2 210 7 215 3 240 8 235 4 195 9 200 5 225 10 250 2 219.000 std.dev. 26.344 c.o.v. 0.120 75 Box B Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 44.3 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test lbs 5 .in. Test lbs 5 .in. 1 155 6 230 2 220 7 200 3 245 8 225 4 160 9 250 5 165 10 255 2 210.500 std.dev. 36.363 c.o.v. 0.173 Box B Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 44.3 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sq.in.) l 205 6 260 2 240 7 200 3 200 8 205 4 230 9 285 5 235 10 260 § 232.000 std.dev. 28.213 c.o.v. 0.122 Box B Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 44.3 lbs. Burst Strength Burst Strength Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 230 6 180 2 240 7 225 3 245 8 245 4 175 9 265 5 205 10 260 7 227.000 std.dev. 29.597 C.O.V. 0.130 76 APPENDIX D FLAT CRUSH OF CORRUGATED FIBERBOARD DATA TABLE 24 Flat Crush Data BOX A (20.5" X 16" X 14") Box A Control Load at Fail Load at Fail Test fl (lbsgsg.in.) Test fl (lbszsg.in.) 1 28.95 6 31.52 2 25.94 7 29.95 3 26.79 8 33.21 4 27.84 9 34.31 5 31.64 10 25.94 § 29.609 std.dev. 2.853 C.O.V. 0.096 Box A Control - Post Compression Test Load at Fail Load at Fail Test lbs 5 .in. Test lbs 5 .in. l 34.18 6 28.85 2 33.21 7 35.12 3 36.10 8 32.83 4 35.43 9 33.59 5 35.78 10 29.40 _ 33.449 std.dev. 2.402 C.O.V. 0.072 77 Box A Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 15.5 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test lbs 5 .in. Test lbs 5 .in. 1 33.75 6 21.42 2 22.35 7 33.13 3 35.70 8 30.14 4 28.03 9 23.43 5 23.31 10 24.46 2 27.572 std.dev. 5.020 C.O.V. 0.182 Box A Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 15.5 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 32.29 6 34.63 2 36.08 7 34.22 3 29.63 8 31.93 4 21.90 9 30.06 5 29.10 10 24.35 2 30.419 std.dev. 4.265 c.o.v. 0.140 Box A Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 15.5 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sq.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) l 35.84 6 25.36 2 24.54 7 28.62 3 20.87 8 33.52 4 28.42 9 38.19 5 36.42 10 31.96 2 30.374 std.dev. 5.444 c.o.v. 0.179 78 Box A Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 29.5 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test lbs 5 .in. Test lbs 5 .in. 1 35.09 6 35.47 2 22.85 7 22.87 3 35.55 8 32.59 4 30.40 9 23.05 5 33.49 10 35.23 2 30.659 std.dev. 5.282 c.o.v. 0.172 Box A Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 29.5 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 29.94 6 35.03 2 31.71 7 23.91 3 35.56 8 34.19 4 35.69 9 32.30 5 22.49 10 33.32 - 31.414 std.dev. 4.460 c.o.v. 0.142 Box A Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 29.5 lbs Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sq.in.) Test # (1bs/sg.in.) 1 35.26 6 28.30 2 24.47 7 30.91 3 22.61 8 25.28 4 35.17 9 33.34 5 23.06 10 30.17 _ 28.857 std.dev. 4.603 c.o.v. 0.159 79 Box A Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 46 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) l 35.80 6 30.38 2 35.65 7 28.74 3 33.47 8 23.73 4 36.36 9 23.74 5 33.33 10 22.86 § 30.406 std.dev. 5.086 c.o.v. 0.167 Box A Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 46 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 31.70 6 24.18 2 23.00 7 33.53 3 30.79 8 32.44 4 33.53 9 34.79 5 22.50 10 21.88 2 28.834 std.dev. 4.988 c.o.v. 0.173 Box A Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 46 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sq.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 25.44 6 30.88 2 34.58 7 25.43 3 37.32 8 33.00 4 35.00 9 32.92 5 27.78 10 28.91 — 31.126 std.dev. 3.911 c.o.v. 0.126 80 TABLE 25 Flat Crush Data BOX B (20.5" X 16" X 8") Box B Control Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) l 25.63 6 18.74 2 27.38 7 23.00 3 16.76 8 15.04 4 20.69 9 20.33 5 25.89 10 27.19 2 22.065 std.dev. 4.197 C.O.V. 0.190 Box B Control - Post Compression Test Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/5g.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 26.07 6 33.76 2 23.10 7 19.83 3 35.86 8 34.35 4 21.85 9 18.13 5 35.46 10 25.14 _ 27.355 std.dev. 6.517 C.O.V. 0.238 81 Box B Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 15.75 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 19.88 6 24.50 2 15.53 7 23.71 3 27.88 8 32.90 4 20.35 9 31.67 5 22.36 10 24.90 § 24.368 std.dev. 5.075 C.O.V. 0.208 Box B Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 15.75 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) ~1 21.51 6 25.23 2 25.75 7 23.81 3 34.83 8 22.81 4 19.00 9 21.66 5 28.57 10 25.06 2 24.828 std.dev. 4.184 C.O.V. 0.168 Box B Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 15.75 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test fl (lbslsg.in.) Test fl (lbszsg.in.) 1 14.75 6 30.59 2 33.48 7 24.70 3 21.71 8 17.09 4 15.69 9 15.87 5 33.56 10 16.40 7 22.384 std.dev. 7.284 C.O.V. 0.325 82 Box B Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 31.5 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 16.64 6 34.15 2 27.62 7 23.40 3 22.86 8 16.84 4 22.13 9 20.80 5 23.87 10 21.25 2 22.956 std.dev. 4.834 C.O.V. 0.211 Box B Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 31.5 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 22.85 6 18.65 2 34.67 7 23.25 3 26.02 8 18.43 4 19.96 9 16.80 5 19.06 10 34.71 _ 23.440 std.dev. 6.194 c.o.v. 0.264 Box B Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 31.5 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test fir (lbs/sq.in.) 1 22.76 6 29.60 2 28.41 7 27.09 3 35.96 8 16.47 4 20.25 9 19.24 5 21.23 10 16.24 ' 23.725 std.dev. 6.046 c.o.v. 0.255 83 Box B Drop Height = 18 in. 7 Gross Weight = 44.3 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sg.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 18.08 6 19.93 2 23.89 7 34.81 3 36.52 8 22.84 4 27.33 9 23.19 5 23.53 10 24.11 7 25.423 std.dev. 5.642 c.o.v. 0.222 Box B Drop Height = 24 in. 7 Gross Weight = 44.3 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/sq.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 27.12 6 20.16 2 24.19 7 30.47 3 16.53 8 34.16 4 24.19 9 21.85 5 19.92 10 19.87 7 23.846 std.dev. 5.134 c.o.v. 0.215 Box B Drop Height = 30 in. 7 Gross Weight = 44.3 lbs. Load at Fail Load at Fail Test # (lbs/SQ.in.) Test # (lbs/sg.in.) 1 18.02 6 24.20 2 16.22 7 25.74 3 15.74 8 18.52 4 29.43 9 20.08 5 19.69 10 15.20 7 20.284 std.dev. 4.476 c.o.v. 0.221 84 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, A.R. 1987. "The Effect of Transient Vibration on the Top-to-Bottom Compressive Strength of Unitized Corrugated Shipping Containers". Thesis for M.S. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 1987. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1983. Standard Method of Compression Test for Shipping Containers. D 642-76. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1980. standard Method of Conditioning Paper and Paper Products for Testing. D 685-73. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1986. Standard Method for Drop Test for Loaded Boxes. D 775-80. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1971. Standard Test Method for Flat Crush of Corrugated Fiberboard. D 1225-66. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1984. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Corrugated Fiberboard (Short Column Test). D 2808-69. Burgess, G. 1989. Private Communication. Michigan State University. School of Packaging. East Lansing,MI. Godshall, W.D. 1985. The Importance of Compression for Box Performance. presented at the Compression Symposium. Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin, October 1-3. Hanlon, J.F. 1984. "Handbook of Package Engineering." 2nd. ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York, New York. Langlois, M.M. 1989. "Compression Performance of Corrugated Fiberboard Shipping Containers Having Fabrication Defects: Fixed Versus Floating Platens" Thesis for M.S. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 1989. McKee, R.C., J.W. Grander, and J.R. Wachuta. 1963. Compression Strength Formula for Corrugated Boxes. The Institute of Paper Technology, Sept. National Motor Freight Classification 1978. Item 222, Fiber Box Handbook, Fiber Box Association, Chicago, 85 Illinois, 1979. National Safe Transit Association 1973. P r e - Shipment Test Procedures, Project 1A. Chicago, Illinois, 1984. Singh, S.P. 1987. "The Effect of Mechanical Shocks on Compressive Strength of 'Corrugated Containers" School of Packaging, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 1987. Singh, S.P. 1989. Private Communication. Michigan State University. School of Packaging. East Lansing, MI. Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry. 1980. Standard Test Method for Bursting Strength of Corrugated and Solid Fiberboard. T 810 om-80. Uniform Freight Classification 1978. Rule 41, Fiber Box Handbook, Fiber Box Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1979. .:......: 1.... «and... Prawn”... _ r) . . E I, . . R 1 . . . B 1 . I: 1 . . . v 1114 . 1.14/17: N M Ma . . . U111!) 5 . . . E VHM. O . T .MWH O . n 1 11 _. . . T I'M} 3 _ . 8",.19 n . N 1W 2 : _ 9 CW 1 . mm 117.111 3 . C1'1. . . T. m