l LIBRARY
1001 Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF “SMALLS” IN FEDEX NEXT DAY
AIR SHIPMENTS

presented by

K0 Chin Chiang

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of Science degree in Packagi_ng_

 

 

 

mefizz

 

Major Professor’s Signature

/z// 5/557

Date

MSU is an Affimwative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KilProlecc8-PreleIRC/DaIeDue.indd

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF “SMALLS” IN FEDEX NEXT DAY AIR SHIPMENTS

By

K0 Chin Chiang

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Packaging

2008

ABSTRACT

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF “SMALLS” IN FEDEX NEXT DAY AIR SHIPMENTS
By

K0 Chin Chiang

The objective of this study was to measure and analyze the dynamic events that
“smalls” experience when they are Shipped with larger and heavier packages. “Smalls”
are defined as any packaged product whose volume is less than 13,000 cm3 (800 in3),
whose longest dimension is 350 mm (14 in), and whose weight is 4.5 kg (10 lb) or less.
To measure this environment, tri-axial recorders (SENSRTM GPl) were placed in three
different packages: the Rigi Bag® Mailer; the Bubble Mailer, and an E-flute corrugated
box with Ethafoam cushions. The packages were shipped in the United States using
FedEx Express priority overnight. The results Showed that the packages experienced a
total of 27 combined drops, throws, and tosses. The largest near zero G travel distance
was 197.08 inches. Both the Rigi and Bubble Mailer experienced similar maximum drop
heights of 48 inches whereas the box experienced 39 inches. There were no significant
differences in the maximum G for all three package types. A lab test protocol was
developed to simulate priority overnight service. A 60 inch drop height is recommended
for the 99 percent occurrence level and 24 inches for the 95 percent occurrence level. A

total of 17 drops, 8 on various faces, 5 on edges, and 4 on corner is also recommended.

The thesis is a dedication to my family and Yi—Wen Wang for their constant support and

encouragement throughout the difficult times in the US.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A very special thanks to Dr. S Paul Singh for his guidance while acting as my major

professor and helping me throughout my pursuit of Master’s degree.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Dr. Gary Burgess and Dr. Brian Feeny for

their suggestions and for serving on my committee.

Deep appreciation for the funding from the Consortium of Distribution Packaging

Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... vii
Chapter 1 Introduction and Literature review .............................................. 1
1.1 FedEx, UPS, and DHL ................................................................ l
1.2 Distribution environment ............................................................. 3
1.3 Literature review ....................................................................... 7
Chapter 2 Materials, Instrument, and Test methods ...................................... 11
2.1 Test instrumentation and packages ................................................. 11
2.2 Experimental design .................................................................... 13
2.3 Test package shipments ................................................................ 16
Chapter 3 Data Analysis ............................................................................ 23
3.1 Drop height, near zero G, and occurrence level .................................... 23
3.2 Reliability and error estimation ....................................................... 31
3.3 Test protocol ............................................................................ 43
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion ............................................................. 44
Chapter 5 Conclusions ........................................................................... 48
Appendix I .......................................................................................... 49
Appendix II ......................................................................................... 50
References ........................................................................................... 52

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Maximum vector magnitude G from drop tester .................................... 24
Table 2. Dynamic events measured, California ................................................. 26
Table 3. Dynamic events measured, New York ................................................ 27
Table 4. Summary of dynamic events measured, Michigan to California .................. 27
Table 5. Stunmary of dynamic events measured, Michigan to New York .................. 27
Table 6. Near Zero g travel distance in ascending order ..................................... 29
Table 7. Impact orientations ...................................................................... 30

Table 8. Calibration on drop orientation with corrugated box at three drop heights...49
Table 9. Free fall count from round trip to California ......................................... 50

Table 10. Free fall count from round trip to New York ........................................ 51

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Small packages moving on conveyor ................................................ 4
Figure 2. Small packages moving on tilt trays ................................................ 4
Figure 3. Package collected into bags from a chute by a facility worker ................ 5
Figure 4. Hub sorting for small to larger Size packages .................................... 5
Figure 5. Package scanning tunnel ................................................................ 7
Figure 6. SENSR GPl tri-axial motion recorder ............................................... 12
Figure 7. GP] in Jiffylite® Bubble Mailer #1 .................................................... 15
Figure 3. GP] in Jiffy Rigi Bag® Mailer #1 ................................................... 15
Figure 9. GP] in E-flute RSC box with cushioning material ................................ 16
Figure 10. Rigi Bag® mailer with ASTRA shipping label ..................................... 17
Figure 11. FedEx national hub in Memphis, Tennessee ....................................... 18

Figure 12. Shipment routes in the US. continent to California and New York......... 21

Figure 13. Parcel movement in the distribution cycle ......................................... 22
Figure 14. LansmontTM drop tester ............................................................... 25
Figure 15A. Occurrence level versus vector magnitude G, California ...................... 28
Figure 15B. Occurrence level versus vector magnitude G, New York ..................... 28
Figure 16A. Impact orientation percentage, California ....................................... 30
Figure 16B. Impact orientation percentage, New York ...................................... 31
Figure 17A. Free fall time and shock pulse ..................................................... 32
Figure 17B. Half sine shock pulse ............................................................... 33
Figure 18. Peak G comparison under different sampling frequencies ....................... 33

vii

Figure 19. Package thrown upward at a specific height above the ground ............... 37
Figure 20. True free fall height in trajectory view ............................................. 41

Figure 21. Damages observed throughout the distribution cycle ............................ 47

viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Transporting packaged commodities from one place to another is an operation
that occurs daily. Millions of shipments ranging in different sizes, weights, and shapes
are being delivered manually and/or mechanically. Different modes of transportation
such as truck, rail, air, and sea have been employed by carrier companies to fulfill people
and companies’ need. Service commitments include rapid and efficient movement of
Shipments, reliable and cost-effective services. However, with the increasing number of

goods that are shipped and handled, the logistical networks are rather complex.

1. l FEDEX, UPS, and DHL

Federal Express (FedEx), started its business in 1971, processes approximately
3.5 million packages on a daily basis (FedEx Facts, 2008). Its worldwide headquarters is
located in Memphis, Tennessee. FedEx has been successful in the air transportation
sector, serving millions of customers in over 220 countries. It is one of the major private
US. companies offering a one-class service for door-to-door shipment of small parcel
packages (Cheema, 1995). Priority overnight service uses a global air-and-ground
network system to speed up delivery of time-sensitive shipments. FedEx has 15 global
hubs in its hub-and-spoke system: 8 in the United States, 3 in Europe, 3 in Japan and
Philippines, and 1 in the Middle East. The hubs are categorized into national hubs,
regional hubs or mini-hubs. The hub in Memphis is the only “super hub” in the network

because it sorts the most packages and has the greatest reach to various destinations

(Singh, 2007). Today, Federal Express Corporation runs a network of companies under
the FedEx name worldwide. Businesses comprise FedEx Express, FedEx Ground, FedEx
Freight, FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print Services, FedEx Custom Critical, FedEx Trade
Networks, and FedEx Services.

The name DHL was established by the three founders: Adrian Dalsey, Larry
Hillblom and Robert Lynn (D, H, and L) in 1969. So far DHL has the world's largest
and the most experienced international air express network with service to 120,000
destinations in more than 220 countries and territories (DHL History, 2008). The
company owns two-thirds of the 4,400 offices throughout the world and operates more
than 450 hubs supporting its extensive global coverage. The service around the world
provides DHL with a significant advantage over other air express carriers where others
use more third party agents in the foreign countries they serve.

United Parcel Service (UPS) was founded in 1907 with its world headquarters in
Atlanta, Georgia. Today, it has become the world’s largest private ground transportation
company and a leader in global supply chain services (UPS History, 2008). UPS
manages goods and information in more than 200 different countries and p rocesses
roughly 14 millions packages everyday. In 2005, UPS expanded its Worldport, the air
hub in Louisville, Kentucky, and the European air hub in Cologne, Germany to enhance
the international services. Besides carrier services, UPS offers other businesses including
UPS capital, consulting, express critical, logistics technology, mail innovations, and

supply chain solutions.

l. 2 DISTRIBUTION ENVIRONMENT

Many delivery services have adapted hub-and-spoke system in the complex
distribution network covering a global, national, and regional level. The hub-and-spoke
system generally consists of hubs as well as local facilities. Hubs are major sorting
facilities that act as an exchange point for packages traveling long distances. Local
facilities play a role as a bridge point to receive or deliver packages according to their
geographic area. The two are tied together to achieve a greater flexibility within the
transportation system. In each hub, the package often travels through the sorting system
in one of the three ways, depending on how the packages are categorized. Packages can
be classified as a small, regular or an irregular shipping unit. Smalls are defined as a
volume less than 13,000 cm3 (800 in3), and a longest dimension of 350 mm (14 in), $24 a
weight of 4.5 kg (10 lb) or less (Association, 2006). There are two modes of similar
sorting systems for small packages like envelopes. The packages would travel on an
automated conveyor and pass through a series of chutes (Figure 1). Another automated
sort system for very lightweight packages would be the packges moving on tilt trays and
sliding into the chutes (Figure 2). After lightweight packages traveling through the
chutes, they are usually consolidated into bags for efficient handling (Figure 3). Each
bag contains about 10 to 20 packages destined for the same geographic location (Singh,
2007). Besides smalls, other sizes of packages are often moved along with the conveyor
belt at the hub right after fresh off the airplanes and each unit slides down the wall to
employees waiting to enter them into the sorting process. Figure 4 provides a pictorial

view of the environment.

 

Figure 1. Small packages moving on conveyor

 

Figure 2. Small packages moving on tilt trays

 

Figure 3. Packages collected into bags from a chute by a facility worker

 

Figure 4. Hub sorting for small to larger size packages

During the distribution of packaged goods, the shipping environment of small
parcels is typically subject to hazards due to automated sortation and multiple manual
handlings. Automated sortation includes packages traveling on belts, chutes, rollers,
diverters, slides or more while manual handling covers loading, unloading, and sorting.
During the package transportation process, shock accounted for one of the severe hazards
results from drops, kicks, throws, and otherwise mechanized handlings. However, it was
revealed in a nationwide study that approximately 85 percent of all in-transit shocks
derive from impacts other than drops. Automated system is therefore designed to
minimize impacts to the packages (Singh, 2007). To sort packages efficiently and
minimize mis-sorts, packages pass through scanning tunnels at the hub, providing up-to-
date information to senders and recipients on its location and estimated arrival time
(Figure 5). In addition, most packages are handled manually in local facilities; whereas,
the sortation in the hub is mainly processed by automated system and generally operated

during the night to meet early next day delivery.

 

Figure 5. Package scanning tunnel

1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW

Many dynamic researches have been conducted on various transportation modes
to comprehend the potential hazards in the distribution environment. The information
collected could be used to improve packaging designs and to develop performance
testing. In April 1991, Thomas M. Voss completed a study on the effect of weight and
volume of packages on drop heights encountered in the United Parcel Service small
parcel environment within the United States. That the findings revealed 42.1 inches was
the highest drop height throughout the supply chain. Size of the package had no

significant effect on the drop heights. Lighter weight packages for the smaller size

7

experienced higher drop heights. Weight had no positive relations on the medium and
larger size packages drop heights.

Jorge A. Marcondes applied the dynamic analysis of a less than truckload (LTL)
shipment in vertical, lateral, and longitudinal direction. The study showed that the rear of
the truck is not always the worst position for acceleration magnification in LTL. As high
as 10 G’s acceleration was encountered during vibration. This is due to the fact that LTL
uses different trailer size and suspension as opposed to full truckload shipments.

M. Garcia, P. Singh, V. Cloquell, and K. Saha conducted a research on the
international air parcel shipping environment for DHL and FedEx between Europe and
the United States. The analysis was focused on whether there is a significant difference
on the drop height for packages with and without warning labels. Package size of 14.96
X 13.38 X 13.38 inches and weight of 15 lbs was air shipped roundtrip from East Lansing,
MI, USA to Valencia, Spain using DHL and FedEx. The research finding showed no
significant difference on drop heights between the two carriers with and without label at
95% occurrence level. However, at 99% occurrence level, DHL shipments with warning
label resulted in better handling, experiencing lower drop heights than packages shipped
without warning labels. The drop orientations showed approximately 47% on a face
followed by an edge and a corner.

In 2006, P. Singh, G. Burgess, J. Singh, and M. Kremer instrumented data
recorder (EDR—3C) to measure mid-sized and lightweight packages in next-day air
shipment for DHL, FedEx, and United Parcel Service. Based on a 95% occurrence level,
the findings discovered that the drop occurrence and maximum drop height had no

significant difference within FedEx and UPS between ground, second-day, and next-day.

Drop heights were all within the range of 18.11 — 33.86 inches. DHL drop heights were
higher by up to 50 percent, but were still within the limits mentioned above. From
various studies done in the past, the perception that smaller packages likely to experience
higher drop heights due to the tendency of being placed on top of larger packages seems
never change.

P. Singh, G. Burgess, and J. Singh measured the dynamics of air shipments of
lightweight packages weighing less than 5.5 lbs with and without warning labels. The
shipments conducted were from East Lansing, MI to San Francisco, CA and Orlando, FL
via FedEx second-day air shipment. The data showed that package sizes and weights had
no relationship with the package drop heights. The “Fragile-Handle with Care” warning
labels provided no significant effect on the handling of packages. The drop orientations
showed approximately 60% on a face, 30% on an edge, and 10% on a comer. The lack
of correlation between the package sizes, weights, and drop heights suggests that the
cause of the majority shock events is the outcome of automated handling operations, but

not manual drops.

Currently in the system, no studies have been conducted on the dynamics of
single packages regarded as “smalls”. The focus of this research is to measure and
analyze dynamic events that occur to packages in domestic small parcel shipments, where
the volume is less than 13,000 cm3 (800 in3), and longest dimension is 350 mm (14 in),

any! weight is 4.5 kg (10 lb) or less (Association, 2006).

This study had following two objectives:

0 To measure the dynamics of “smalls” in priority overnight service for FedEx
Express within United States.

0 To provide recommended test levels for drop testing for packages qualifying for

“smalls” in the mixed parcel shipping environment.

10

CHAPTER 2

MATERIALS, INSTRUMENT AND TEST METHODS

2.1 TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND PACKAGES

For this study, selection of the recorder has to physically fulfill the requirements
of “smalls” or small packaged products. Thus, the dynamic recorder selected was
SENSR GPl manufactured by Reference LLC, Elkader, Iowa, USA (Reference LLC,
2008). SENSR GPl is incorporated with trial-axial programmable accelerometer with
features include monitoring, recording, and evaluating motions, impacts, shocks, drop
orientations and temperature in vertical, lateral, and longitudinal directions. Figure 6
presents a pictorial view of SENSR GPl tri-axial motion recording device. The data
recording is divided into three areas: measurement, details, and notes. Measurement
specifies the parameters to record and the reporting interval. Details define the attributes
to record, recording options, and alert settings. Notes display information related to
recording time and general alerts. Data recording mode samples the data into reporting
interval which is defined by time segment called “Epoch”. It can be user defined
between 1 to 120 seconds. Choosing different epoch does not affect the sampling rate;
however, recording length and storage capacity will alter accordingly.

The measuring and reporting parameters were as follows:

Sampling rate per axis: 100 Hz

Accelerometer range: :tl 0 G

Temperature range: -20°C to +80°C

Epoch setting: 6 sec

Threshold: 0.5 G

Alerts Enabled: Vector Magnitude Max

Test Duration: 7 days

11

Alerts settings can be described from the following:

Axis Maximum Alert will be triggered when a single sampled acceleration value
achieves or exceeds the specified value.

VM Max Alert will be triggered when a single sampled acceleration value
achieves or exceeds the specified value.

Peak Duration This can be set up to trigger on any settable parameter including:
peak acceleration input, and input duration.

Temperature High Alert will trigger when the unit records a temperature equal to or
higher than the specified temperature.

Temperature Low Alert will trigger when the unit records a temperature equal to or
lower than the specified temperature.

 

Figure 6. SENSR GPl tri-axial motion recorder

12

2.2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Test packages were instrumented with recorders (SENSR GPl) to measure the
dynamic events in priority overnight by FedEx Express. The study was focused on three
types of packages and each comprised with different materials to provide protection to
the content. Packages include the Jiffylite® Bubble mailer#1 (Figure 7), Jiffy Rigi Bag®
mailer#1 (Figure 8) manufactured by Sealed Air, and single-walled E-flute regular slotted
container (RSC) corrugated board box (Figure 9) with Ethafoam 220 cushions (Dow
Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA). The first package was the Jiffylite® Bubble
mailer#1, it consists 3/ 16” Barrier Bubble® layer for air retention and acting as
cushioning (Jiffy Mailer® Products, 2008). The second package was the Jiffy Rigi Bag®
mailer#1, it comprises 90 percent recycled paper fibers. The lamination provides
stiffness while seamless bottom provides protection and strength. The Kraft-laminated
fiberboard provides advantages of preventing movement of contents and resists bending,
folding, and creasing (Jiffy Mailer® Products, 2008). The third package was the single-
walled E-flute RSC corrugated board box with Ethafoam 220 cushions. The dimension
of the box was designed to meet the requirements of small parcel. Cushions were epoxy
glued to each of the six faces inside the box to provide adequate protection. The GPl
was placed in the bubble mailer and Rigi Bag® mailer with the top facing the packing
slip, secured by using self-seal closure or cohesive self-seal. No fillers were inserted to
both mailers to restrict the movement of GP]. However, for single-walled E-flute RSC
corrugated board box, the GPl was placed at the geometric center of the box with

cushions placed on all Six sides. The cushions provided a snug fit to the recorder.

13

The packages were closed with a 2 in (50.8mm) wide general-purpose plastic box sealing

tape.

The size and weight of the instrument and packages were demonstrated as follows:

Size:

0 SENSR GPl Recorder: 3.935 X 2.560 X 1.140 in

. Jiffylite® Bubble Mailer #1: 7.25 x 10.75 in

0 Jiffy Rigi Bag® Mailer #1: 7.25 X 10.5 in

o E-flute Corrugated Box: 5.625 X 4.375 X 2.375 in
Weight:

0 SENSR GPl with 2XAA batteries: 0.4875 lb / 7.8 oz

0 Jiffylite® Kraft Bubble Mailer #1: 0.0375 lb / 0.6 oz

- Jiffy Rigi Bag® Mailer #1: 0.1375 lb / 2.2 oz

0 E-flute Corrugated Box with Cushions: 0.175 lb / 2.8 oz

14

 

Figure 7. GPl in Jiffylite® Bubble Mailer #1

 

Figure 8. GPI in Jiffy Rigi Bag® Mailer #1

15

 

Figure 9. GPl in E-flute RSC box with cushioning material

2.3 TEST PACKAGE SHIPMENTS

The data was captured from two destinations: San Louis Obispo in California and
Rochester in New York. The packages were sent via FedEx Express priority overnight
from the School of Packaging, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Six
recorders were sent simultaneously per package type (bubble, Rigi, and box) for each
round trip. With typical package movement from pickup to delivery at the recipient’s
address, packages always experience various sortation and transfer in different facilities.
Prior to the pickup, FedEx ASTRA shipping labels were created with both the ASTRA

barcode (8.5”x1 1” plain paper or customer specific) and URSA (a human readable code

utilized by FedEx manual sorting). The ASTRA barcode shown in Figure 10 contains

tracking number, service and handling, destination postal code and delivery date.

kn “(\‘IF, rum .r.
as»... ,

u . .
“Mggh
. uphuunr

 

Figure 10. Rigi Bag® mailer with ASTRA shipping label

Pickup courier scanned the ASTRA barcode in School of Packaging to indicate
package picked up. The FedEx truck would deliver the packages to the local station. At
the station, the packages were first scanned, sorted and consolidated with other packages
into an aircraft container for hub transfer. A containerized trailer vehicle (CTV) would
then deliver the aircraft container to the FedEx local ramp, also known as the local airport
facility. The closest one to East Lansing is located in Flint. Upon arrival to the local
ramp, an automated system would assist loading the aircraft container onto FedEx feeder

aircraft. FedEx feeder aircraft would then fly to its national hub in Memphis, Tennessee.

17

Figure 11 shows a portion of the FedEx fleet of aircraft begins the loading process at the
Memphis, TN, hub. Small packages unloaded from the aircraft are generally scanned at a
speed of 120 — 160 feet per minute using FedEx SuperTracker portable terminal within
the facility or out on the ramp. Small documents are scanned on the ASTRA labels using
an overhead laser scanner at 250 feet per minute before being manually consolidated into
the bag with other small packaged products. Scanner is set up for destination
station/ramp and will warn operators if mis-sort turns up. The complex system was to
meet a fast pace handling environment to rearrange packages around the nation according

to their geographic location.

 

Figure 1 1. FedEx national hub in Memphis, Tennessee

The sorting process took approximately three hours in the hub and promptly
delivered to local ramp in the destination area. Then the packages would be sorted again
to go to the local station and FedEx truck to deliver to the recipient’s door. This was a
typical hub-and-spoke system adopted by FedEx and most of the carriers to guarantee the
priority overnight service. The recipient would return the recorders in the following day
and the data were downloaded using sensware software to be stored in PC for further
analysis. Total of 36 trips were measured with three package types for both destinations.
The study was conducted from June to August 2007 for Shipments to California and
January to February 2008 for shipments to New York. A pictorial view of the delivering
routes to San Luis Obispo, CA and Rochester, NY in the US. continent is shown in
Figure 12. Package flow diagram is shown in Figure 13 to illustrate the hub-and-spoke

system. A detailed package movement to San Louis Obispo and Rochester is as follows:

School of Packaging (East Lansing, MI) —r local station (East Lansing, MI) —> FedEx

local ramp (Flint, MI) —> national hub (Memphis, TN) —> FedEx local ramp (Ontario,

CA) —> local station (San Louis Obispo, CA) —-> Destination (San Louis Obispo, CA)

School of Packaging (East Lansing, MI) ——> local station (East Lansing, MI) —-> regional

hub (Indianapolis, IN) —> local station (Rochester, NY) ——> Destination (Rochester, NY)

19

The timeline for overnight shipments stay fixed. The following describes each cycle time

in the Eastern Standard Time zone (Singh, 2007).

The package “pickup cycle” is from 15:00 - 17:00 (3:00 pm - 5:00 pm local time)
The “station pm sort” is from 17:00 - 18:30 (5:00 pm - 6:30 pm)

Ground transportation from the station to the local ramp is from 18:30 - 19:30
(6:30 — 7:30 pm)

Air transportation to FedEx hubs is from 19:30 - 1:15 (7:30 pm - 1:15 am)

The “hub night sort” is from 1:15 - 3:30 am

Air transport from the hub to FedEx destination ramps is from 3:30 - 5:30 am
Ground transportation from the ramp to the destination station is from 5:30 - 7:30
am

The “station am sort” is from 7:30 - 8:30 am

The package “delivery cycle” is from 8:30 - 10:30 am

20

M85. 262 was «Eat—mo 8 80588 .m.D 05 E 338 EoEmEm .2 SEE

 

             

.5330. Map—cite: n...”
as:

use: .83 5.5“.
cons. {cup—um

* m :2 am..." 5 . .

      

 

v iiilliiifr

M: a \ 4 u
«at: Sm

- a
a

21

PaCkage PiCkUp FedEx Truck

.............................

LocalStation Containerized TrailerVehicle

u
,o
, o
t..-.' —»~_-.-_.......-.....__.__..-..—--_.-_- ................................
.l

----------------------------------

FedEx Local Ramp

Feeder Aircraft
Natlonal HUb Feeder Aircraft
Fed EX Local Ra mp Containerized Trailer Vehicle
(CTV)

.
.
.
...............................................................
.

n.‘-

Local Station FedEx Truck

Package Delivered

Figure 13. Parcel movement in the distribution cycle

22

CHAPTER 3

DATA ANALYSIS

3.1 DROP HEIGHT, NEAR ZERO G, AND OCCURRENCE LEVEL

This chapter will discuss the various dynamic data captured from this study. The
data is analyzed from both field data and trial data in the laboratory and is summarized
into drop height, near zero G, the occurrence level, and impact orientations. The various
analytic techniques were used for predictions depending on the functions of the recorders.
GPl recorder does not have the capability like EDR—3C (Instrumented Sensor
Technology, Okemos, MI) which can calculate drop height from one of the two methods:
analyzing from shock pulse information or prediction from the free-fall time
measurement. The theory behind free-fall time measurement is that the tri-axial
accelerometer initiates the timing mechanism as soon as it experiences 1 g, the free fall
state. The duration of this acceleration is recorded until it hits the ground. If a unit is
released from rest and traveling straight down without applying additional forces, drop

height can be calculated using the following equation:

’7 = ‘8’ (1)

Where
h = free fall drop height, m or in
g = acceleration due to gravity, 386.4 in/S2 or 9.81 m/s2
= free fall duration, seconds

23

In this study, the method used to determine drop height derives from correlating
vector magnitude G based on different drop heights in the laboratory to vector magnitude
G obtained from the actual trips. Preliminary drops were done on each package type
(bubble, Rigi mailer, and corrugated box) using LansmontTM drop tester shown in Figure
14 at predetermined 12, 30, and 48 inches drop heights. The highest vector magnitude G
was recorded from each drop height based on several drops on each face, edge, and
corner. Table 1 summarizes a maximum G from predetermined drop heights for each
package type.

Note: vector magnitude is defined as the size or quantity from one place to another. The

vector direction can be referred to any direction that the recorder travels.

Table 1. Maximum vector magnitude G from drop tester

 

 

Drop height
Package type ”nu-12" ------------- 30" -------------- 4 ‘8"; -------
Rigi Bag mailer 15.96 17.43 20.85
Bubble mailer 14.97 16.78 18.03
Corrugated box 17.24 18.38 20.74

 

 

 

24

 

Figure 14. LansmontTM drop tester

The correlation between vector magnitude G recorded in the laboratory and those
obtained from the actual trips was heavily used to predict the dynamic events. This
method was utilized to determine the frequencies of near zero g travels including drops,
throws, and tosses with corresponding to the distances since most bumps and shocks that
a package experiences in supply chain are not free-fall but impacts (Singh, 2006). This
study also revealed the maximum G that each package type experienced during impacts.
Various dynamic events measured are summarized in the following tables for three

different packages. Table 2 and 3 present a conclusive result on the total number near

25

zero g’s that was recorded by the instrument and the maximum vector magnitude G
obtained from the highest reading from each of the six recorders for individual trip.
Table 4 and 5 Show the total number of drops, throws, and tosses where it was conceived
of averaging the near zero g picked up by the six recorders for each package type in
Table 2 and 3. The maximum vector magnitude G was determined by correlating field
data in Table 2 and 3 to the lab data in Table 1. The maximum vector magnitude was
calculated based on 90, 95, and 99 percent occurrence level. The graphical view of the
vector magnitude occurrence level is shown in Figure 15A — B. A 95% occurrence level
for maximum vector magnitude of 15.94 G (California, bubble, 95%) means 95% of all

Gs which were below this level.

Table 2. Dynamic events measured, California

 

 

 

 

 

 

________ One way trip to California
Total number Near Zero G Maximum vector magnitude G
Sample Rigi Bubble Box Rigi Bubble Box
1 24 32 12 16.3 18.24 15.46
2 18 29 31 16.53 15.94 19.44
3 22 28 18 18.23 18.97 17.03
4 19 16 13 16.41 16.54 16.67
5 21 29 13 20.54 18.17 17.81
6 21 29 15 18.22 17.83 17.27

 

26

 

Table 3. Dynamic events measured, New York

 

One way trip to New York

--u--------------------------—-----—---------------‘----—-------------------. -------------

Total number Near Zero G Maximum vector magnitude G

 

 

 

 

Sample Rigi Bubble Box Rigi Bubble Box
1 19 21 14 18.34 16.94 17.44
2 20 22 15 18.85 19.8 19.15
3 23 25 33 18.36 16.49 17.08
4 23 23 9 15.77 18.33 19.06
5 22 22 12 19.47 19.93 15.04
6 23 27 11 17.57 21.67 18.82

 

 

Table 4. Summary of dynamic events measured, Michigan to California

 

 

 

Drop data Rigi Bubble Box
Number of drops, throws, and tosses 21 27 17
Maximum drop height (in) 48 >48 39
Max Vector Magnitude at 99% occurrence (G) 18.22 17.83 17.62
Max Vector Magnitude at 95% occurrence (G) 15.74 15.94 16.16
Max Vector Magnitude at 90% occurrence (G) 14.55 14.25 15.46

 

Table 5. Summary of dynamic events measured: Michigan to New York

 

 

 

Drop data Rigi Bubble Box
Number of drops, throws, and tosses 21 23 16
Maximum drop height (in) 48 >48 38
Max Vector Magnitude at 99% occurrence (G) 18.36 19.8 18.82
Max Vector Magnitude at 95% occurrence (G) 16.16 15.87 16.53
Max Vector Magnitude at 90% occurrence (G) 15 14.32 14.79

 

27

 

 

 

 

 

100% ii I T l T 7 WW" “ ' ’ ' J'?mfl.—= , , ~~I

 

d) ' .
U) 90% i W : **** . ,7/
3 o I ‘ l :4": i i
8 70% 7 ~ - Vic/j, a? . . ,
. .j, 43' l“ . . .
E 60% i ~ ~ )5 t —--- ' -—-- ‘ - - ~ “ngl Mailer
i , fix? I; L, , , z. , . , .
a) 50% i if?“ ; _' , ' ; -Bubble Mailer
.2 40% .. .. . _ "3:2,“ . . . , ._ _ _ L _2-. . . _ .j
a 30V _._.' i," . l - BOX
0 .- ,7. ,,,,
3
20% i i ,
E
3 10% T '1
o 0% . — ,9
0 5 10 15 20 25

Vector Magnitude (G)

 

Figure 15A. Occurrence level versus vector magnitude G, California

 

 

—Rigi Mailer ‘
—Bubble Mailer ‘
—Box

Cumulative Percentage I

 

0 5 10 15 20 25
Vector Magnitude (G)

 

Figure 158. Occurrence level versus vector magnitude G, New York

28

 

 

Table 6 presents ten highest travel distances assorted in an ascending order under near
zero g condition. The findings are based on free fall calculation shown in Equation 1
where the durations were recorded by GP]. Impact orientation is differentiated mainly
into face, edge, and comer drops and can be valuable information for laboratory use to
simulate the shipping environment. The data shown in Table 7 is an estimation based on
the ratio between individual impact orientation and the total drops that each recorder
experienced for each package type.

Figure 16A — B provide an overview of the

distribution of the impact orientation for Rigi, bubble, and corrugated box in two

 

 

 

destinations.
Table 6. Near Zero g travel distance in ascending order

One way trip: California One way trip: New York
Distance (in) Rigi Bubble Box Rigi Bubble Box
Highest 185.55 60.59 189.36 81.63 64.99 197.08
2nd Highest 174.36 56.34 136.32 79.13 60.59 120.58
3rd Highest 136.32 52.24 117.54 76.68 56.34 94.67
4th Highest 117.54 50.25 108.68 62.77 54.27 86.73
5th Highest 114.55 48.30 69.55 60.59 48.30 81.63
6th Highest 102.96 46.39 64.99 54.27 40.88 79.13
7th Highest 76.68 44.51 62.77 50.25 39.12 74.27
8th Highest 71.89 42.68 60.59 48.30 37.40 62.77
9th Highest 58.44 40.88 50.25 46.39 35.72 58.44
10th Highest 54.27 39.12 48.30 44.51 34.08 56.34

 

 

29

 

‘ 60.00 .

. 30.00 '

Table 7. Impact orientations

 

Orientation of drops (%)

 

 

 

 

Destination Package type Face Edge Corner
Rigi 62.60 24.39 14.63
CA Bubble 25.47 55.28 20.50
Box 44.55 31.68 24.75
Rigi 56.25 25.78 19.53
NY Bubble 29.50 51.80 19.42
Box 50.27 29.95 20.32

 

70.00

50.00

40.00 .

20.00 '
1 10.00 <

0.00

Impact Orientation Percentage, CA

jIFace lEdge EICornerl

62.60

 

Figure 16A. Impact orientation percentage, California

30

 

Impact Orientation Percentage, NY

1 7 T l
l llFace IEdge ElCornerj
60.00
50.00
40.00.

30.00 .

20.00 4

10.00 .

 

0.00

Rigi Mailer Bubble Mailer Box

Figure 168. Impact orientation percentage, New York

3.2 RELIABILITY AND ERROR ESTIMATION

Different data recorder can be used according to the prefered application.
Commercial recorder like Environmental Data Recorder (EDR-3C) can be utilized to
determine drop height and generally has high accuracy on predicting it from free fall time
and area under shock pulse if the internal calibration is properly done. Figure 17A — B
give a pictorial view on a typical shock pulse and free fall duration during impact.
However, every data recorder shows some degree of error from various sampling

frequency while predicting the dynamic events. This section of the chapter provides a

31

deep analysis on package drop height estimation and the traveling speed when associated
with tosses and throws. It also describes how human error and limitation of the
instrument can affect the accuracy of a commercial data recorder. In a conventional
shock pulse, the reported peak G by a recorder is obtained from dividing the area under
half sine wave into trapezoids. If the sampling frequency is too low, less trapezoids will
be captured and the area calculation would generate error leading to lower reported peak

G. At times, it can skip over the peak entirely.

 

 

 

\/
////////

 

Figure 17A. Free fall time and shock pulse

32

>0

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dm I

Figure 178. Half sine shock pulse

actual peak 1

 

   
  
 

lerror

reported peak d €/\_ Samples —/"\9

 

 

 

 

half sine shock pulse

 

( T »

15ITIS

 

 

Figure 18. Peak G comparison under different sampling frequencies

33

In Figure 18, a half sine pulse projects two samples taken on either side and
equidistantance from the peak. The actual peak G is often deemed as the largest sampled

‘6 99
5

value. As long as the sample spacing is small compared to the shock duration “T”,
the actual peak G should not be too different from the reported one (Burgess, 1995). The
red sampling frequencies shown above demonstrates an example of GPl’s insufficient
sampling rate which could generate error and even misses predicting the real peak.
Consequently, sampling error can be accounted for the actual peak given the reported
peak. Equation 2 explains the relationship between predicted and actual peak G when
sampling frequency is known. The 3pm peak G is the value of G(t) at either one of
the two sampling points on either side of the peak. To find this, substitute the time t =
T/2 i s/2 into the equation where s is the time inteval between samples (s = l/sampling
frequency). Percentage error can be determined once reported peak and actual peak are

defined. Beside, Equation 3 points out estimating maximum percent error from different

sampling frequencies.

713
(reported peak G) = (actual peak G) X cos (5;) (2)

The percent error can be defined as 100 X (actual — reported) / (actual)

34

715‘

Maximum % error = (1 — cos (z—T‘j) X 100 (3)

Note: set the calculator for angles in “radian”, not degrees because the angles of the

cosine functions are dimensionless.

Note that an actual shock pulse does not appear as a perfect half sine wave.
Therefore, both Equation 2 — 3 should be only used as a guide because they are designed
for perfect half sine shaped shocks. From the pictorial shock pulse illustration shown in
Figure 18, it is clear that the recorded G can only be a_t the peak or beigfl it. Hence, it can
be presumed that data sampling process always underestimates the actual peak G
(Burgess, 1995). This also adds the reason :I: sign does not apply to percent error. To
provide better understanding on both equations, two exapmples with the same presumed
shock duration are shown below to compare how different sampling frequency can
influence the margin of error. From the sample calculations, it is justifiable that the
higher the sampling frequency is, the lower the error would be. Based on the conception
described in the example, error estimation on GP] for Rigi Bag mailer is determined in

the following:

35

Example 1:

Shock duration = 10 ms

Sampling frequency = 400 Hz —> Time interval between samples 3 = 2.5 ms

Resulting reported peak could be as samll as 0.924 times the actual peak G. The

maximum percent error is 7.6%.

Example 2:

Shock duration = 10 ms

Sampling frequency = 2000 Hz —-+ Time interval between samples 3 = 0.5 ms

Resulting reported peak could be as samll as 0.997 times the actual peak G. The

maximum percent error is 0.30%.
Error estimation on GPl for Rigi Bag mailer:
Typical shock duration is equivalent to 10 ms

Time interval between samples is expected to be low because mailer had less cushioning

material. Set T 2' 15 ms
7! x 10
Maximum percent error = 100 X [1- 0082—057) = 50%

The calculation presents GP] recorder could generate error as high as 50 percent when

measuring peak G. Meaning if the recorder measured 20 G, it could be as high as 40 G.

36

Another scenerio would be when a package is dropped from a carrying point.
Smaller the weight, higher the drop height likely to encounter. Similarly, packages like
mailer can be held in one hand and has a higher probability of getting tossed throughout
the distribution channel. This section explains package toss speed at a predetermined
zero g time and release height. Figure 19 shows the package located at a paticular height

“h” above the ground and thrown upward with speed “v0” from this position.

 

 

 

 

 

\/ x
// / / ///

Figure 19. Package thrown upward at a specific height above the ground

37

As soon as the package leaves the hand, its acceleration “g” is 386.4 in/s2
downward. From the law of physics, the position y and velocity v0 at any time t (t = 0
when it leaves the hand) is defined in Equations 4 while Equation 5 establishes the

relationship between velocity and duration of travel.

1 2
y=h+VOt—§gt (4)

Where

y = displacement, in or m

v0 = initial velocity, in/s or m/s

h = ininital drop height

g = acceleration due to gravity, 386.4 in/s2 or 9.81 m/s2

t = travel duration, seconds
Where

v = impact velocity, in/s or m/s

v0 = initial velocity, in/s or m/s

g = acceleration due to gravity, 386.4 in/s2 or 9.81 m/s2
t = travel duration, seconds

‘6 39

During the air travel, package acceleration stays at g until it hits the ground, so
the measured free fall time corresponds to y = 0. The relationship can be expressed in
Equation 6. If the recorder measures the free fall “zero g” time as t, then the height h and

velocity v could be any combination shown below:

38

1 2 1 2
0=h+vOt——2—gt :5 h+v0t=§gt (6)

1
Example: suppose measured t = 0.98 sec 11 + v0 (0.98 ) = 2 386 .4(0.98 )2

Height (in) Velocity (in/sec) Speed (mph)

 

185.5 0 -
100 87.2
48 140.3
0 189.3 11

Note: 1 mph = 1 7. 44 in/sec

It should be awared that all these scenarios shown above are possible if t = 0.98 s,
but it is rather difficult to tell which have happened. However, the typical toss speed in
the distribution environment is 11 mph.

Package can be tossed in either direction. The toss can happen in downward
when v0 is negative. If a mailer is tossed from 25 feet (300 inches) and v0 equals —
116.8 in/sec. The mailer is likely traveling at 6.6 mph downward. So h + v0 could be

any combination that lies on the straight line Shown below:

39

)h

 

 

Now predict what the t_r_u_§ free fall height is (Equation 7). The trajectory would be at

v
its peak when v = 0 = v0 — gt, so the time to reach peak is t = i , at which

h true — 2 g (7)

Where
v0 = velocity, in/s or m/s
g = acceleration due to gravity, 386.4 in/s2 or 9.81 m/s2
h = initial thrown height, in or m
him = actual thrown height, in or m

40

 

   

 

{TX /\
i l
- l h time
A l
I
h l
V V V

 

 

 

Figure 20. True free fall height in trajectory View

Examples of true free fall height were calculated from Equation 7 with t = 0.98 sec.

Height (inL Velocity (in/sec) Height We (in)

185.5 0 185.5
100 87.2 109.8
48 140.3 73.5

0 189.3 46.4

41

The impact duration is greatly affected by the amount of cushioning material and
the material composed of it. GPl in corrugated box with ethafoam acquired maximum of
20 G from the drop tester at 48 inches. The duration was measured based on ethafoam no
more than 1 inch thick and was estimated for its consistency using Equation 8. From the
calculation Shown below, it is presumed that 78 millisecond was the shock duration
experienced when packaged in a cushioned box. Yet this is way too long for the amount
of cushioning under a recorder. It is equivalent to 4 inch urethane to have a shock pulse

this long (Burgess, 1995).

i = 2gh = SF(§:—’-](G x g) (8)

Where
v,- = impact velocity, in/s or m/s
g = acceleration due to gravity, 386.4 in/s2 or 9.81 m/s
h = height, in or m
G = maximum g
SF = shape factor = 0.636

2

 

v, = 72 x 386.4 x 48 = 0.636[§:—')(20 x 386.4)

duration 2 0.078 sec = 78ms

42

3.3 TEST PROTOCOL

This section of the chapter describes a test protocol designed to simulate the small
package shipment in the testing laboratory. ‘Smalls’ is defined as the volume is less than
13,000 cm3 (800 in3), and longest dimension is 350 mm (14 in), an_d weight is 4.5 kg (10
lb) or less. Packages fall into this category can use the following test procedures to
evaluate its packaging integrity, durability, and performance. To have a meaningful
result, the test is only suitable for package composed of 6 faces, 12 edges, and 8 corners.
Package like envelope is not appropriately fit to this test protocol. Total number of drops
was determined by the average number of drops for box type per one-way trip to both
destinations (Table 4 — 5). Drop orientation was determined by percent impact

orientation listed in Table 7. Predictions are as follows:

47% of drops occurred on face: 0.47 X 17 = 8 drops

30% of drops occurred on edge: 0.30 X 17 = 5 drops

23% of drops occurred on corner: 0.23 X 17 = 4 drops
Drop height was determined based on 95 and 99 percent occurrence level. Referring to
Table 4 — 5, maximum vector magnitude was correlated to Table 1 where drop height of
30 and 12 inches is recommended for 95 and 95 percent occurrence level. However, due
to 50% maximum error on predicting vector magnitude, the drop heights were doubled to
simulate worse case scenario. Thus, test protocol for small priority overnight package
suggests 60 inches drop height for 99 percent occurrence level or 24 inches drop height

for 95 percent occurrence level, total of 17 drops, with orientations of 8 face, 5 edge, and

4 corner drops.

43

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data gathered are tabulated and expressed in graphical form. Table 1 shows
the calibration drops done on the drop tester for each package type at three different drop
heights. The maximum vector magnitude G for each package type was correlated with
actual trip to lab calibrations to determine drop height. Both mailers shown lower vector
magnitude Gs are compared to the box at the predetermined drop heights due to
headspace in the mailer. Air space could potentially reduce the vector magnitude when
experienced impacts. The figure shown below explains free movement of the recording
device stored in the mailer could omit partial Gs to mislead that the mailers have better
protection. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean that the mailers had better protection

than the corrugated box with cushions.

 

Headspace

iii

RECORDER

Hi

Headspace

 

 

 

 

 

44

Based on the mathematical calculation on the consistency in predicting peak G, GPl
poses potentially up to 50 percent of error. Meaning if recorder measures 20 G, it could
be as high as 40 G. Table 2 - 3 represent total number near zero gs and maximum vector
magnitude captured from one way trip to California and New York based on six samples
for each package type. Box sample number 2 to California and sample number 3 to New
York experienced significantly higher ntunber of near zero gs compared to other samples
because the packages were delayed from return shipment; where near zero g can be
associated with drops, and it can also be referred to throws and tosses. Toss speed may
vary with different travel velocity at designated drop height. Table 4 — 5 summarize the
dynamic data in number of near zero gs, maximum dr0p height, and 90%, 95%, 99%
vector magnitude G occurrence level. The data Show that bubble mailer experienced
highest combined number of drops, throws, and tosses as well as highest drop height of
greater than 48 inches in one way trip. In addition, 48 inch drop height may not be the
true height due to tossing at specific velocity. Occurrence level for maximum vector
magnitude of 15.94 G (California, bubble, 95%) means 95% of all Gs which were below
this level. Graphical representation of the vector magnitude occurrence level is shown in
Figure 15A — 15B. Table 6 presents the ten highest drop heights resulted from drops,
throws, and tosses in ascending order. The data revealed that air travel distance for small
package shipment could go as high as 197.08 inches and it could derive from long
distance thrown. Box experienced more than two times higher in near zero g travel
distance than bubble mailer in first two highest travel distances. The percentage drop
orientation that each package type experienced from each destination is used to develop a

test protocol for lab testing purpose to simulate priority overnight service for small

45

packaged products. In true free fall drops, the packages Should land on edges and corners
most of the time (Singh, 2006). Nevertheless, the test method is only suitable for package
made up of 6 faces, 12 edges, and 8 comers. Figure 21 demonstrates various damages
occurred on the packages studied which could derive from multiple manual handlings and

automated sorting system.

46

Bend damage Scuffing damage

 

Corner crush damage
7 , 1—xg, “ w. ~

      

Figure 21. Damages observed throughout the distribution cycle

47

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents the dynamic information on ‘smalls’ or small packaged
products which are handled differently than other larger parcel shipments throughout
distribution environment. For easy handling purpose, small packaged products are
consolidated in a bag during most of its transit time. The maximum number of near zero
g measured was 27 times and the maximum near zero g travel distance was 197.08
inches. The high travel distance could result from the high probability of being thrown or
tossed due to its size. Both Rigi and bubble mailer showed similar maximum drop height
at 48 inches whereas box with cushion at 39 inches. No significant difference on
maximum vector magnitude occurrence level for all three package types. The study also
disclosed that GPl utilized in this study could generate up to 50 percent error when
predicting the peak G. Based on the impact orientation, 3 test method was therefore
developed for lab testing to simulate priority overnight for packages regarded as smalls in
the system. Test protocol developed for box package type recommended a total of 17
drops, with orientations of 8 face, 5 edge, and 4 comer drops. Two drop heights were
suggested at 95 and 99 percent occurrence level: 60 inches for 99 percent occurrence
level or 24 inches for 95 percent occurrence level. Note that 95 percent occurrence level

is commonly used in industrial practice.

48

APPENDIX I

Table 8. Calibration on drop orientation with corrugated box at three drop heights

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12"
Actual drop Recorder records
Face 6 Face 6
Corner 2-3-6 Corner 2-3-6
Edge 1-6 Comer 1-2-6
Edge 4-5 Corner 1-4-5
Edge 3-5 Comer 2-3-5
Comer 1-2-5 Edge 2-5
Face 2 Corner 2-3-5
Face 3 Edge 3-4
Face 1 Edge 1-4
Comer 1-4-6 Edge 2—3
24"
Actual drop Recorder records
Comer 1-2-6 Edge 1-2
Corner 2-3-6 Face 4
Comer 3-4-5 Comer 3-4—5
Edge 1-4 Face 4
Face 2 Corner 1-2-5
Face 2 Comer 1-4-6
Face 4 Edge 4-6
Edge 1-6 Edge 1-5
Face 4 Corner 3-4—6
Edge 3-5 Edge 3-6
30"
Actual drop Recorder records
Face 3 Face 3
Face 3 Edge 3-4
Face 3 Edge 2-3
Edge 2-3 Edge 3-5
Edge 3-4 Edge 34
Corner 1-2-6 Face 3
Edge 1-5 Corner 1-2-5
Comer 1-2-5 Corner 1-2-5 (towards face 5)
Face 1 Corner 1-2-6
Comer 2—3-5 Comer 2-3-5

 

49

 

APPENDIX [1

Table 9. Free fall count from round trip to California

Bubble mailer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Number Highcs t
Near Zero G VM Max G
( Round Trip)
1 63 18.24
2 57 15.94
3 56 18.97
4 32 16.54
5 57 18.17
6 57 17.83
Rigi Bag mailer
Total Number .
Near Zero G V3132? G
(Round Trip)
1 47 16.3
2 35 16.53
3 43 18.23
4 38 16.41
S 41 20.54
6 42 18.22
Corrugated Box
Total Number .
Near Zero G Vllr‘l’lllfil'llsit G Notes
(Round Trip)
1 24 15.46
2 62 19.44 1 day delayed
3 35 17.03
4 26 16.67
5 25 17.81
6 30 17.27

 

50

 

Table 10. Free fall count from round trip to New York

Bubble mailer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Number .
Near Zero G Highest
VM Max G
( Round Trip)
1 42 16.94
2 44 19.8
3 50 16.49
4 46 18.33
5 43 19.93
6 53 21.67
Rigi Bag m_ailer
Total Number Highest
Near Zero G VM Max G
(Round Trip)
1 38 18.34
2 39 18.85
3 46 18.36
4 45 15.77
5 43 19.47
6 45 17.57
Corrugated Box
Total Number .
Near Zero G vfilfisit G Note
(Round Trip)
1 28 17.44
2 29 19.15
3 66 17.08 3 days delayed
4 18 19.06
5 24 15.04
6 22 18.82

 

51

 

REFERENCES
Association, I. S. T. (2006). Packaged-Products for Parcel Delivery System Shipment.
Okemos: Instrumented Sensor Technology Association.

Burgess, G. J. (1995). Advanced Packaging Dynamics. East Lansing: Michigan State
University, School of Packaging.

 

Cheema, S. A. (1995). A Study of Packaging Dynamics in Small Parcel Environment of
United Parcel Service and Federal Express. East Lansing: Michigan State
University, School of Packaging.

DHL History. (2008). Retrieved 9 16, 2008, from http://www.dhl-
usa.com/Company/History.asp?nav=companylnfo/History

FedEx Facts. (2008). Retrieved 2 5, 2008, from FedEx: http://news.van.fedex.com/facts

Garcia-Romeu-Martinez, M.-A., Singh, S. P., Cloquell-Ballester, V.-A., & Saha, K.
(2007). Measurement and analysis of international air parcel Shipping

environment for DHL and FedEx between Europe and United States. Packaging
Technology and Science, 20(6), 421-429.

Jiffy Mailer® Products. (1997-2008). Retrieved April 21, 2008, from Sealed Air:
http://www.sealedair.com/products/protective/protrnail/protmail.html

LLC, Reference. (2008). Retrieved 11 02, 2007, from SENSR Intelligent technology.
Measured results: http://www.sensr.com/products/

Marcondes, J. A. (1988). Dynamic Analysis of A Less Than Truckload Shipment. East
Lansing: School of Packaging, Michigan State University.

Singh, P. S. (2007, March). Packaging Machinery and Distribution. East Lansing,
Michigan, USA.

Singh, P. S., Burgess, G. (2006). Measurement and Analysis of the Next-day Air
Shipping Environment for Mid-sized and Lightweight Packages for DHL, FedEx
and United Parcel Service. Packaging Technology and Science, 227-235.

Singh, S. P., Burgess, G., & Singh, J. (2004). Measurement and analysis of the second
day air small and light-weight package shipping environment within Federal
Express. Packaging Technology and Science, 17(3), 119-127.

Voss, T. M. (1991, April 15). Drop Heights Encountered in the United Parcel Service
Small Parcel Environment in the United States. East Lansing, Michigan, USA:
School of Packaging, Michigan State University.

52