ll ll will mct'z'ifi'ifm 3 1293 00302 4337 University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECT OF OUTER PACKAGE ON SHOCK ABSORBING CHARACTERISTICS presented by TAKESHI INAGAKI has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Dr. James off Majogrofessor Date ARIEL]. 3, 1987 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution __——— - __¥7 7 , _ —.—_ 777 7* (Q. A. Mac-1 4&3, 1%;qu 3 We MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from Ln 5 LIBRARIES _—:—_ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 3""), THE EFFECT OF OUTER PACKAGE ON SHOCK ABSORBING CHARACTERISTICS By Takeshi Inagaki A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Packaging 1987 ABSTRACT THE EFFECT OF OUTER PACKAGE ON SHOCK ABSORBING CHARACTERISTICS By Takeshi Inagaki This study investigated the effect of an outer container on the shock transmissibility in a cushioned packaging system. Three factors, trapped air, box side panel friction and the corrugated paperboard, which were thought to influence the dynamic performance of the cushioning system were studied. Five different product-cushion-package configurations, three of which provided each of the individual factors acting alone, one which provided all of the factors acting together and one without any of the factors, were used to study the effects. A regular slotted container was used as the outer package, and the cushioning material was 2.2 pcf polyethylene foam. The simulated product was a rigid wood block. It was found that each factor had an effect on the shock transmitted to the product individually, and collectively they caused a decrease in the peak acceleration and an increase in the shock pulse duration seen by the product. To Nobuko, Naoko and Saki ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation for the guidance and support given in this research by Dr. James W. Goff, professor, School of Packaging, Michigan State University. He also wishes to extend his appreciation for the assistance with experimental work given by Fanfu Li, graduate student, for the assistance with material preparation given by Alan B. Adams, specialist and for the special assistance with choosing committee members given by Diana Twede, senior research assistant, School of Packaging, Michigan State University. Finally, he wishes to express his special appreciation for the support given by TOSHIBA CORPORATION in Japan. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................ vii LIST OF SYMBOLS ................................................ ix INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1 EVALUATION OF OUTER PACKAGE PERFORMANCE ........................ 7 TEST MATERIALS ................................................. 13 FIVE PRODUCT-PACKAGE TEST SPECIMENS ............................ 27 TEST INSTRUMENTATION ........................................... 35 TEST PROCEDURE ................................................. 39 TEST DATA IN PART I TESTS ...................................... 47 DATA ANALYSIS IN PART I TESTS .................................. 75 Peak g And Pulse Duration 1 ............................... 76 Trend Of Difference Between No Effect Specimen And ....... 85 The Other Effect Specimens On Peak g And Pulse Duration 1 TEST RESULTS IN PART I TESTS ................................... 95 TEST DATA IN PART II TESTS .................................... 98 DATA ANALYSIS IN PART II TESTS ................................. 114 Peak g And Pulse Duration 1 ............................... 115 Significance Of The Levels Of Difference Between ......... 120 No Effect Specimen And The Other Effect Specimens On Peak g And Pulse Duration 1 TEST RESULTS IN PART II TESTS .................................. 121 CONCLUSIONS .................................................... 123 APPENDICES ..................................................... 124 APPENDIX A. Waveform Parameters ............................. 125 APPENDIX B. Peak To Peak Delay Time ......................... 127 APPENDIX C. A Paired Comparison ............................. 135 APPENDIX D. Paired Comparisons Calculation .................. 137 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................... 161 Table 10 LIST OF TABLES TEST SPECIMENS IN PART I TESTS ................. TEST SPECIMENS IN PART II TESTS ................ TEST DATA IN PART I TESTS ...................... TREND OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NO EFFECT .......... SPECIMEN AND THE OTHER EFFECT SPECIMENS ON PEAK g AND PULSE DURATION r CLASSIFICATION OF THE 34 DROPS IN PART I ....... TESTS TEST DATA IN PART II TESTS ..................... SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ...... NO EFFECT SPECIMEN AND THE OTHER EFFECT SPECIMENS ON PEAK 3 AND PULSE DURATION r PEAK TO PEAK DELAY TIME BETWEEN INPUT SHOCK .... PULSE AND TRANSMITTED lst DROP SHOCK PULSE WITH TYPE B CUSHION AT 1.16 psi PEAK TO PEAK DELAY TIME BETWEEN INPUT SHOCK .... PULSE AND TRANSMITTED 5th DROP SHOCK PULSE WITH TYPE B CUSHION AT 1.16 psi A PAIRED COMPARISON CALCULATION ................ vi Page 40-41 43-44 48-74 85-94 96 99-113 120 128 129 137-160 Figure 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LIST OF FIGURES Elements of Product-Package System ..................... Major Factors Influencing Outer Package's ............. Transmissibility Elementary Spring Mass Model ........................... Two Springs Acting in Parallel ......................... Two Springs Acting in Series ........................... Instrumented Wood Block ................................ Steel Weight ........................................... Aluminum Weight ........................................ Bolt-Nuts Weight ....................................... Type A Cushion ......................................... Type B Cushion ......................................... Type C Cushion ......................................... Dimensions of Type A Cushion ........................... Dimensions of Type B Cushion ........................... Dimensions of Type C Cushion ........................... Dimensions of Corrugated Paperboard Blank .............. vii Page 2 6 8 9 11 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26-34 35-39 40 41-45 No Effect Specimen ..................................... 28 Air Trap Effect Specimen ............................... 29 Side Panel Effect Specimen ............................. 31 Corrugated Board Effect Specimen ....................... 32 A11 Effects Specimen ................................... 34 Total View of Test Instrumentation ..................... 36 Shock Pulse Measuring System Diagram ................... 37 Support on The Shock Table ......................... 46 Peak g and Pulse Dulation r ........................ 76-84 Peak g and Pulse Duration 7 ........................ 115-119 Sample Waveform and Waveform Parameters ............ 126 Shock Pulses In Block 2 ............................ 130-134 viii AV LIST OF SYMBOLS Weight of Mass Spring Rate of Linear Cushion Height of Drop Displacement of Mass The Absolute magnitude of The Maximum Acceleration Pulse Duration Gravitational Acceleration Spring Rate of Spring 1 Spring Rate of Spring 2 Equivalent Spring Rate Spring Rate of Cushion with Friction Maximum Deflection of x if Initial Spring Rate were maintained A Friction Force Velocity Change Peak displacement Experienced by An Accelerometer during Impact ix INTRODUCTION Protecting products from damage due to distribution hazards is a major function of packaging (1). The most commonly used product-package system for relatively fragile products is composed of product,cushion and an outer package as shown in Figure 1. While both static forces and dynamic forces can be exerted on the product-package system, most damage results from the dynamic forces which result from handling. The most effective way to prevent shock damage is to provide a cushion between the product and the outer package. Much research has been done on the dynamic performance of the product-package system. Some of the research papers are concerned with the dynamic performance of each element, and others cover the dynamic performance of the entire system. Mindlin (2) explained the dynamics of package cushioning by using the mathematical models. In his paper, the outer package was assumed to be rigid. Newton (3) established a fragility assessment theory and test procedures. Goff and Pierce (4) developed a fragility testing procedure for products. Figure 1. \ \\\ \Q R\\‘ PRODUCT CUSH IO N SN RV "/ Elements of Product-Package System Testing techniques for assessing the dynamic behavior of cushioning material have been established (5,6). A method of designing packages has been developed (7). Some research relating to the cushion-outer package relationship has been done by individuals in the School of Packaging at Michigan State University. Palmreuter (8) derived cushion curves for different kinds of built-up corrugated material. McCall (9) investigated the shocks which cause the corrugated board itself to become damaged. From his observations, he found that a large number of package drops will result in a collapse of the flute structure, and subsequent shocks will be amplified. Willson (10) tested relative energy absorption properties of free and enclosed cushions and found that the enclosed cushion is definitely stiffer. In his tests, he used rubberized hair cushions and plywood enclosures. The cushion was put between two 12 inch square platens, and static forces and dynamic forces were exerted on it in both free and enclosed conditions. Goff and Blake (11) compared shock level values measured in an 8" x 8" x 8" dummy wooden block with an 8" x 8" cushion area at the bottom using two sizes of regular slotted containers having dimensions, 8” x 8" x 8” and 8 1/4" x 8 1/4" x 8 1/4". They reported that the shock level values predicted from cushion curves of the test package having inside dimensions of 8 1/4" x 8 1/4" x 8 1/4" were closer to the actual shock level values. McGinnis (12) followed Willson. He tested cushion performance with different amounts of lateral restraint. He used expanded bead polystyrene and bonded animal hair as cushioning materials and boxes made from A-flute corrugated board as the enclosure. In his paper, he suggested that the greatest effect of lateral restraint on a package cushion is the restriction of air movement in and around the cushion during dynamic shocks. On the other hand, Mindlin (2) mathematically derived the influence of friction developed by rubbing against the side and and pads in a package on acceleration and displacement. In order to clarify the effect of the outer package on shock absorbing characteristics, it is required to combine their concepts investigated in the previous work, test the prduct-package system as closely to the actual situation as possible and evaluate the test results. No work of this kind is reported in the literature. The concern of each of the previous researches was a single aspect of the product-package system. Only Newton (3) addressed the effect of the outer package. Based on the above discussion, the following three factors can be considered in a flat drop situation as the major factors which influence the effect of the outer package on shock transmissibility. [1] air trapped inside the outer package [2] side panel friction of the outer package [3] corrugated flaps (box bottom) of the outer package The following three effects which are derived from the three factors can be considered as shown in Figure 2. [1] air trap effect [2] side panel effect [3] corrugated board effect Consequently, the purposes of this research are [1] to determine if these effects exist. [2] to determine the extent to which each effect influences the shock transmissibility in an actual product-package system. 7 1 I/// a w—AIR -SIDE PANEL _, CORRU GATED PAPERBOARD Figure 2. Major Factors Influencing Outer Package's Shock Transmissibility EVALUATION OF OUTER PACKAGE PERFORMANCE In a product-package system composed of product, cushion and an outer package, each element dissipates a part of shock energy. An instrumented wood block was used as the product. Because the block is very rigid when compared with the cushion and the outer package, it is considered that the total shock energy is absorbed by the cushion and the outer package. In an elementary spring mass model under free fall situation, as shown in Figure 3, the absolute magnitude of the maximum acceleration, Gm, and pulse duration, 7, of the transmitted shock pulse through the product-package system are derived as follows. 2hk Gm - w n f - ks w In this situation, the combination of springs can be considered. When two springs are placed in parallel, as shown in Figure 4, the equivalent spring rate increases, which results in increasing Gm and decreasing r. 3 W ,X h T k K 7//////, 7//////, 7// // , (a) (b) (C) Free Fall Spring in Contact Spring Deformation at a Drop Height h with the Floor Figure 3. Elementary Spring Mass Model k e 7////// Equivalent Spring Rate Figure 4. Two Springs Acting in Parallel 10 When the springs are placed in series, as shown in Figure 5, the equivalent spring rate decreases, which results in decreasing Gm and increasing r(13). In addition, Mindlin (2) shows that the maximum acceleration is reduced by the addition of dry friction for the same maximum displacement. Mindlin also shows that this may be done by decreasing the spring rate in the cushioning with friction to 2wh Considering the above, the conclusion can be reached that each factor influences the effective total spring rate of the whole product- package system. As a result, both Gm and 7 will be changed. Actually, free fall shock pulses are different from this model. However, since the first few peaks are very close to this linear undamped model, the approach described can be used. 11 kl 2 ///////, 7/7//// Equivalent Spring Rate Figure 5. Two Springs Acting in Series 12 In this paper, the following evaluation criteria were used. [1] When Gm increases, and 1 decreases, the effect exists. It acts by increasing the effective spring rate of the cushion. [2] When Gm decreases, and 7 increases, the effect exists. It acts by reducing the effective spring rate of the cushion. [3] Otherwise, no significant effect exists. TEST MATERIALS Materials used in the tests consist of the following. 1. An instrumented wood block as the product 2. Polyethylene foam as the cushion 3 200 pound C-flute corrugated paperboard as the outer package [1] An instrunented wood block An instrumented wood block was used as the product. This block was constructed of maple dieboard. The layers were glued together. A KISTLER Model 818 accelerometer was amounted in the center of the block to pick up shock signals. Steel weights, Aluminum weights, and Bolt- nuts weights was bolted individually to change the static loadings. The built-up dimensions of the instrumented wood block were 8" x 8" x 8" (Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). 13 11+ Dimensions : 8" x 8" x 8" Weight : 10 9/16 lbs Figure 6. Instrumented Wood Block 15 Figure 7. Structure of Instrumented Wood Block 16 Dimensions : 1 7/8" diameter, 6 1/8" long Weight : 5 2/16 lbs/each Figure 8. Steel Weight 17 Dimensions : 1 7/8" diameter, 6 1/8" long Weight : 1 15/16 lbs/each Figure 9. Aluminum Weight 18 Dimension : 5 1/8" long Weight : 5/16 lbs/each Figure 10. Bolt-Nuts Weight 19 [2] Polyethylene foam * ETHAFOAM 220 brand polyethylene foam (2.2 pcf) was used as the cushion. Three different shapes of cushion, type A cushion, type B cushion and type C cushion, were cut with a band saw and a table saw so that each cushion had the same one inch thickness. Each type of cushion provides the same bearing area of 16 square inches per face (Figures 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16). [3] corrugated paperboard blank 200 pound C-flute corrugated paperboard blanks were cut with the sample making machine in the School of Packaging. The blanks were preconditioned at 73 degrees fahrenheit and 35 % relative humidity. When the blank was built up, the box had inside dimensions of 10" x 10" x 10" (Figure 17). * Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company 20 Figure 11. Type A Cushion 21 Figure 12. Type B Cushion 22 Figure 13. Type C Cushion 23 of Type A Cushion Figure 14. Dimensions 21+ 2,, 2 II Figure 15. Dimensions of Type B Cushion 25 / \,/ For 8” Side Cushion III fln I” For T0p and Bottom Cushion I” 67" "A Figure 16. Dimensions of Type C Cushion 26 i_4c__ ..._4._. i_4 e Illlilnlu-m l_8e --—-—---T- - E O L) inches unit : Figure 17. Dimensions of Corrugated Paperboard Blank FIVE PRODUCT-PACKAGE TEST SPECIMENS In order to detect each effect of the outer package, the following five product-package test specimens were made. [1] no effect specimen [2] air trap effect specimen [3] side panel effect specimen [4] corrugated board effect specimen [5] all effects specimen [1] no effect specimen Cushioning material was attached to the instrumented wood block with double faced tape (Figure 18). [2] air trap effect specimen Cushioning material was attached to the instrumented wood block with double faced tape. Mobil 70 gauge LLDPE stretch film was wrapped horizontally and.vertically at O % elongation around the wood block with cushion. The end and edge of the film was sealed with pressure sensitive tape (Figure 19). 27 28 AFTER MAKING READY TO DROP Figure 18. No Effect Specimen (type B cushion) 29 AFTER MAKING READY TO DROP Figure 19. Air Trap Effect Specimen (type B cushion) 30 [3] side panel effect specimen Cushioning material was attached to the instrumented wood block with double faced tape. The manufacturer's joint of the blank was glued on the outside of the box with hot melt adhensive. The wood block with cushion was placed in the outer package. Both top and bottom flaps were kept open (Figure 20). [4] corrugated board effect specimen Cushioning material was attached to the instrumented wood block with double faced tape. The manufacturer's joint of the blank was glued on the outside of the box with hot melt adhensive, and bottom flaps were sealed with pressure sensitive tape. The wood block with cushion was inserted into the box. Side corners were cut along the vertical scores with a cutter. The inside and outside flaps of the bottom were secured to each other with pressure sensitive tape. The contact area of the cushion was marked with a pencil to keep the contact area the same as in the other tests (Figure 21). 31 AFTER MAKING READY TO DROP Figure 20. Side Panel Effect Specimen (type B cushion) AFTER MAKING READY TO DROP Figure 21. Corrugated Board Effect Specimen (type B cushion) 33 [5] all effects specimen Cushioning material was attached to the instrumented wood block with double faced tape. The manufacturer's joint of the blank was glued on the outside of the box with hot melt adhesive, and bottom flaps was sealed with pressure sensitive tape. The wood block with cushion was inserted into the box, and top flaps were sealed with pressure sensitive tape (Figure 22). 31+ READY TO DROP Figure 22. All Effects Specimen (type B cushion) TEST INSTRUMENTATION The instrumentation used for measuring and recording the shock pulses consisted of the following. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] MTS IMPAC II 2424 shock test machine MTS velocity sensor KISTLER Model 587D piezotron couplers MTS 466.10 wave analyzer TEXTRONIX 2213A 6O mhz oscilloscope HEWLETT PACKARD 7470A plotter KISTLER Model 815Al accelerometer KISTLER Model 818 accelerometer A block diagram of instrumentation is shown in Figures 23 and 24. The two accelerometers were connected to the couplers, which serve as a power supply for the internal amplifier of the accelerometers. The KISTLER Model 815Al accelerometer was used for picking up the shock pulses generated on the shock table, and the KISTLER Model 818 instrumented in the wood block was used for those transmitted through the each test specimen. The couplers were connected to the wave analyzer. 35 36 Figure 23. Total View of Test Instrumentation 3? Emwmmaa Eoumhm mafia—ammo: smash 3095 .«u unawam o_Lmo:_ i meow :02m> wee immw_te miwLwEoLmEuuU .w 4 nvmw_4 nvnu mz_Io + Peak g or pulse duration 1 value for the specimen increased compared with that for the no effect-specimen. - Peak g or pulse duration 7 value for the specimen decreased compared with that for the no effect-specimen. - Peak g or pulse duration 1 value for the specimen equalled to that for the no effect-specimen. NA Not available + Impact velocity value for the specimen increased compared with that for the no effect-specimen. - Impact velocity value for the specimen decreased compared with that for the no effect-specimen. Table 4 (cont'd.). 8? Trend of Difference between No Effect Specimen and The Other Effect Specimens on Peak g and Pulse Duration 1 4-2 with Type A Cushion at 1.16 psi lst 3rd 4th 5th drop Peak g NA NA NA NA air trap effect specimen Dur. 1 NA NA NA NA Impact velocity +3.3 +4.7 +5.8 +5.1 change Peak g - - - - side panel effect specimen Dur. r + + + - Impact velocity +.7 -1.2 +.4 —.5 change Peak g NA + + + corrugated board effect specimen Dur. r NA - - - Impact velocity +2.0 +.2 +1.3 +.7 change Peak g NA - NA + all effects specimen Dur. r NA + NA - Impact velocity +2.1 +.9 +1.7 +.8 change Table 4 (cont'd.). 88 Trend of Difference between No Effect Specimen and The Other Effect Specimens on Peak g and Pulse Duration r 4-3 lst 3rd 4th with Type A Cushion at 1.95 psi 5th drop Peak g air trap effect specimen Dur. 7 Impact velocity change Peak g side panel effect specimen Dur. 7 Impact celocity change NA NA +2.4 +1.1 Peak g corrugated board effect specimen Dur. 7 Impact velocity change Peak g all effects specimen Dur. 7 Impact velocity change +1.5 +1.3 NA NA +1.7 NA NA +1.7 89 Table 4 (cont'd.). Trend of Difference between No Effect Specimen and The Other Effect Specimens on Peak g and Pulse Duration r 4-4 with Type B Cushion at .77 psi lst 3rd 4th 5th drop Peak g + - - - air trap effect specimen Dur. r - + - + Impact velocity -.7 -.2 -.5 -.3 change Peak g - - - - side panel effect specimen Dur. r + + + + Impact velocity -.1 +.3 +.2 +.2 change Peak g - - - - corrugated board effect specimen Dur. r + + + + Impact velocity -.5 .0 +.1 +.1 change Peak g - - - - all effects specimen Dur. r + + + + Impact velocity .0 +.5 +.5 +.5 change 90 Table 4 (cont'd.). Trend of Difference between No Effect Specimen and The Other Effect Specimens on Peak g and Pulse Duration 1 4-5 with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi lst 3rd 4th 5th drop Peak g + - - - air trap effect specimen Dur. r - + + + Impact velocity +1.5 +.2 +.5 +.9 change Peak g NA - - - side panel effect specimen Dur. r NA + + + Impact velocity +1.8 +.2 .0 +.3 change Peak g - - - - corrugated board effect specimen Dur. r + + + + Impact velocity +.3 -.1 -.5 -.5 change Peak g NA - - - all effects specimen Dur. r NA + + + Impact velocity +1.7 +1.2 +1.1 +1.4 change 91 Table 4 (cont'd.). Trend of Difference between No Effect Specimen and The Other Effect Specimens on Peak g and Pulse Duration 1 4-6 with Type B Cushion at 1.95 psi lst 3rd 4th 5th drop Peak g - - + + air trap effect specimen Dar. 1' + - - - Impact velocity -.5 -.1 +.1 +.2 change Peak g - - NA NA side panel effect specimen Dur. r + + NA NA Impact velocity .0 -1.4 -3.0 -2.6 change Peak g NA - - - corrugated board effect specimen Dur. r NA + + + Impact velocity -2.0 -1.2 -.7 -.7 change Peak g - - - - all effects specimen Dur. r + + + + Impact velocity +.4 +.8 +.7 +.6 change Table 4 (cont'd.). 92 Trend of Difference between No Effect Specimen and The Other Effect Specimens on Peak g and Pulse Duration 1 4-7 with Type C Cushion at .77 psi lst 3rd 4th 5th drop Peak g air trap effect specimen Dur. 1 Impact velocity change Peak g side panel effect specimen Dur. 7 Impact velocity change Peak g corrugated board effect specimen Dur. r Impact velocity change Peak g all effects specimen Dur. 7 Impact velocity change +.5 Table 4 (cont'd.). 93 Trend of Difference between No Effect Specimen and The Other Effect Specimens on Peak g and Pulse Duration 1 4-8 with Type C Cushion at 1.16 psi lst 3rd 4th 5th drop Peak g NA + + + air trap effect specimen Dur. 7 NA - - - Impact velocity +2.0 +.3 +.5 +.7 change Peak g NA + NA NA side panel effect specimen Dur. 7 NA - NA NA Impact velocity +3.7 +1.5 +1.9 +1.7 change Peak g NA - + + corrugated board effect specimen Dur. 7 NA - - - Impact velocity +2.4 -.1 +.4 +.5 change Peak g NA - - - all effects specimen Dur. 1 NA + - - Impact velocity +2.6 +.8 +1.2 +1.1 change 94 Table 4 (cont'd). Trend of Difference between No Effect Specimen and The Other Effect Specimens on Peak g and Pulse Duration 7 4-9 with Type C Cushion at 1.95 psi lst 3rd 4th 5th drop Peak g NA NA NA NA air trap effect specimen Dur. 7 NA NA NA NA Impact velocity -5.6 -4.1 -3.7 -3.6 change Peak g - NA NA NA side panel effect specimen Dur. r + NA NA NA Impact velocity —.2 -2.5 -2.8 -2.6 change Peak g - - - - corrugated board effect specimen Dur. r + + - - Impact velocity +.1 +.1 -.2 +.1 change Peak g - - - - all effects specimen Dur. r + + - - Impact velocity -1.1 -.4 -.3 -.2 change TEST RESULTS IN PART I TESTS Peak g and pulse duration change with impact velocity, and the impact velocity changes drop by drop. This impact velocity difference should be taken into account when detecting the trend of differences between the no-effect specimen and the other-effect specimens. Of the 115 drops analyzed, 20 drops resulted in increasing peak g and decreasing pulse duration. Seventeen of these 20 drops were conducted for the other-effect specimens at a higher impact velocity than the impact velocity for the no-effect specimens. Higher impact velocity results in a higher peak g. Therefore, the data for these drops can be considered to be affected by the higher impact velocity as well as by the effect of the outer package. On the other hand, of the 115 drops analyzed, 76 drops resulted in decreasing peak g and increasing pulse duration. Thirty-four of these 76 drops were conducted for the other-effect specimens at a higher impact velocity than the impact velocity for the no-effect specimens. Therefore, the data for these drops can be considered to be affected only by the effect being investigated in the particular test. Classification of the 34 drops is shown in Table 5. 95 96 Table 5. Classification of The 34 Drops static loading [ psi ] Specimen .77 1.16 1.95 total type A 0 0 0 0 air trap cushin type B O 3 0 3 effect specimen cushion type C 0 0 0 O cushion type A 0 2 0 2 side panel cushin type B 3 2 0 5 effect specimen cushion type C 1 0 0 l cushion type A 0 0 1 1 corrugated board cushin type B 2 1 0 3 effect specimen cushion type C 0 0 2 2 cushion type A 0 1 1 2 all effects cushin type B 3 3 4 10 specimen cushion type C 4 l 0 5 cushion 97 From the above, it is considered that all of the effects exist and tend to decrease peak g and increasing pulse duration. Concerning the cushion type, it was not recognized that there was any significant difference between the three different shapes of cushion. However, it was observed that the test specimens with type B cushions showed the three effects of the outer package most clearly. Concerning the static loadings, it was not recognized that there was any significant difference between the three static loadings with respect to the effects of the outer package. Finally, it was recognized that the difference between the input shock pulse measured at the 2nd drop and that at the 6th drop was very slight. TEST DATA IN PART II TESTS 98 99 Table 6. Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-1 Test Data for All Effects Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 1 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 210.3 68.0 16.02 .37 77.4 2nd 217.9 168.0 8.20 .37 77.4 3rd 183.9 191.5 5.81 .28 77.1 4th 184.7 199.4 5.28 .25 77.6 5th 186.9 210.3 5.08 .25 77.8 6th 161.1 392.6 1.77 .05 78.0 input shock 6-2 Test Data for Corrugated Board Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 1 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 217.3 68.0 16.71 .36 77.3 2nd 217.1 179.1 8.13 .37 77.5 3rd 186.6 191.5 5.97 .28 77.6 4th 193.3 198.9 5.89 .27 77.9 5th 198.2 199.4 5.97 .27 78.0 6th 158.8 392.6 1.77 .04 78.2 input shock 100 Table 6 (cont'd.). Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-3 Test Data for No Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 1 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] 1st 233.2 124.2 12.36 .34 77.3 2nd 239.2 190.5 7.47 .33 77.2 3rd 214.6 212.3 5.89 .27 77.4 4th 211.7 220.3 5.51 .25 77.7 5th 213.3 241.2 5.12 .23 77.6 6th 156.1 387.5 1.77 .04 77.6 input shock 6-4 Test Data for Side Panel Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 1 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 225.1 114.8 12.48 .33 75.5 2nd 235.2 172.3 8.16 .33 76.2 3rd 221.1 195.5 6.70 .31 76.4 4th 203.3 206.8 5.55 .24 76.5 5th 204.9 213.4 5.47 .24 76.2 6th 157.8 380.9 1.81 .05 76.3 input shock 101 Table 6 (cont'd.). Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-5 Test Data for Air Trap Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 1 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 229.5 119.5 12.40 .34 76.3 2nd 236.4 177.5 7.93 .33 76.5 3rd 217.8 216.0 5.89 .27 78.2 4th 221.2 225.3 5.78 .27 78.1 5th 216.8 232.3 5.39 .25 77.5 6th 159.2 392.6 1.77 .05 77.4 input shock 1102 Table 6 (cont'd.). Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-6 Test Data for Side Panel Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 2 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 221.4 104.3 13.05 .33 75.2 2nd 232.6 155.9 8.82 .33 75.6 3rd 236.1 182.2 7.74 .33 75.9 4th 230.6 194.3 7.05 .31 75.8 5th 222.4 198.3 6.58 .30 75.7 6th 153.2 375.0 1.77 .05 75.7 input shock 6-7 Test Data for Corrugated Board Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 2 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 203.6 57.4 17.64 .34 73.6 2nd 216.9 140.0 10.40 .37 74.2 3rd 211.4 169.1 8.16 .35 74.5 4th 186.1 169.7 6.62 .30 74.9 5th 186.1 176.3 6.32 .28 75.0 6th 152.1 369.1 1.77 .04 75.3 input shock 10:} Table 6 (cont'd.). Test Data in Part II Tests 6-8 Test Data for No Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 2 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 221.9 104.3 13.40 .33 73.9 2nd 232.2 160.5 8.63 .33 74.4 3rd 231.7 185.9 7.35 .32 74.3 4th 229.9 195.1 7.01 .30 74.2 5th 225.1 199.3 6.70 .29 74.2 6th 153.5 369.1 1.81 .05 74.2 input shock 6-9 Test Data for Air Trap Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 2 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 221.3 103.1 13.29 .33 74.3 2nd 229.4 154.1 8.82 .33 74.4 3rd 232.3 178.6 7.78 .32 74.4 4th 230.4 190.3 7.28 .30 74.4 5th 231.0 196.6 7.09 .30 74.6 6th 154.0 369.1 1.77 .05 74.7 input shock Table 6 (cont'd.). 104 Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-10 Test Data for All Effects Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 2 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity [in/sec] [g's] [mszc] [in] [in/sec] 1st 199.2 57.4 17.02 .34 73.2 2nd 215.6 123.0 11.48 .37 74.6 3rd 174.9 169.9 6.62 .30 74.4 4th 178.5 173.3 6.35 .29 74.5 5th 180.9 172.8 6.32 .28 74.3 6th 152.3 363.3 1.73 .04 74.3 input shock 1(15 Table 6 (cont'd.). Test Data in Part II Tests 6-11 Test Data for Air Trap Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 3 Drop AV Peak 3 Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] 1st 214.5 92.6 13.67 .32 72.7 2nd 225.5 138.3 9.63 .32 73.0 3rd 229.8 165.2 8.24 .31 73.4 4th 231.1 176.9 7.74 .31 73.5 5th 231.1 186.1 7.35 .30 73.6 6th 150.9 365.8 1.81 .04 73.8 input shock 6-12 Test Data for No Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 3 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration. Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 217.2 102.0 13.32 .33 72.8 2nd 226.6 152.9 8.63 .33 72.9 3rd 231.5 188.3 7.32 .31 73.8 4th 222.8 195.6 6.70 .29 73.3 5th 217.8 204.1 6.28 .27 73.5 6th 152.0 363.3 1.77 .04 72.9 input shock 106 Table 6 (cont'd.). Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-13 Test Data for Corrugated Board Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 3 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 201.7 55.1 17.56 .34 72.7 2nd 213.6 126.6 10.94 .36 72.8 3rd 215.1 158.0 8.78 .36 73.0 4th 196.6 167.4 7.39 .32 73.0 5th 194.6 169.6 7.09 .30 73.1 6th 150.6 363.3 1.77 .04 73.2 input shock 6-14 Test Data for All Effects Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 3 Drop AV Peak 3 Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity 7 [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 196.4 58.6 16.64 .34 72.6 2nd 210.7 134.8 10.36 .35 73.0 3rd 206.4 170.7 7.93 .34 73.3 4th 180.7 171.3 6.32 .28 73.4 5th 183.0 175.9 6.24 .27 73.7 6th 151.3 357.4 1.77 .04 73.3 input shock Table 6 (cont'd.). 107’ Test Data in Part II Tests 6-15 Test Data for Side Panel Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 3 Drop AV Peak 3 Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 212.5 96. 13.48 .33 72.3 2nd 222.2 142. 9.05 .33 72.2 3rd 224.4 161. 8.32 .32 72.2 4th 224.7 172. 7.78 .32 72.0 5th 224.7 181. 7.47 .31 72.0 6th 151.1 363. 1.81 .04 71.9 input shock 108 Table 6 (cont'd.). Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-16 Test Data for Corrugated board Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 4 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 200.1 58.6 17.06 .34 72.1 2nd 212.3 114.3 11.63 .36 72.3 3rd 212.8 159.2 8.90 .36 72.2 4th 208.0 162.9 8.20 .35 72.5 5th 188.0 163.7 7.05 .30 72.3 6th 153.9 363.3 1.73 .05 72.6 input shock 6-17 Test Data for All Effects Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 4 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 196.8 56.8 16.98 .33 72.6 2nd 209.9 98.4 13.40 .35 72.6 3rd 212. 151.2 9.47 .35 72.5 4th 209. 161.8 8.20 .34 72.4 5th 209. 165.6 8.05 .33 72.4 6th 151. 353.8 1.73 .05 72.4 input shock 109? Table 6 (cont'd.). Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-18 Test Data for No Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 4 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity 1’ [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 211.2 85.5 14.36 .32 70.9 2nd 218.6 126.0 10.01 .32 70.9 3rd 222.9 144.1 9.20 .31 70.9 4th 221.5 146.5 8.97 .31 70.6 5th 223.3 151.8 8.86 .31 70.7 6th 149.9 345.7 1.73 .04 70.2 input shock 6-19 Test Data for Air Trap Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 4 Dr0p AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration ‘ Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 201.9 75.6 14.98 .31 68.8 2nd 215.1 112.5 11.01 .32 70.1 3rd 217.6 130.1 9.74 .31 70.3 4th 220.3 140.0 9.40 .31 70.3 5th 219.6 143.6 9.01 .31 70.3 6th 150.4 351.6 1.77 .05 70.6 input shock Table 6 (cont'd.). 11C) Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-20 Test Data for Dide Panel Effect Specimen with Type B Tushion at 1.16 psi Block 4 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 201. 73. 15.10 .30 68.7 2nd 213. 107. 11.17 .32 69.9 3rd 217. 123. 10.09 .31 70.0 4th 219. 131. 9.63 .31 70.0 5th 221. 138. 9.36 .31 69.9 6th 150. 351. 1.73 .05 70.0 input shock 111 Table 6 (cont'd.). Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-21 Test Data for All Effects Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 5 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 190.0 50.4 17.60 .33 70.3 2nd 206.9 93.2 13.63 .35 70.7 3rd 208.9 133.6 10.40 .35 70.7 4th 210.8 148.2 9.28 .35 70.9 5th 210.1 154.0 8.74 .34 70.7 6th 151.9 357.4 1.81 .05 71.1 input shock 6-22 Test Data for Air Trap Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 5 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] 1st 200.6 74.4 14.98 .30 67.8 2nd 208.7 106.1 11.32 .31 69.0 3rd 212.1 123.1 10.17 .30 69.2 4th 214.6 132.5 9.59 .30 69.2 5th 219.4 143.6 9.13 .30 69.7 6th 146.5 345.7 1.77 .04 69.4 input shock 112 Table 6 (cont'd.). Test Data in Part II Tests 6—23 Test Data for Corrugated Board Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 5 Drop AV Peak g Pulse I AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 187.6 50.4 18.10 .32 67.8 2nd 203.5 78.5 14.25 .35 69.6 3rd 207.3 144.1 9.74 .36 70.1 4th 206.7 153.9 8.90 .35 69.9 5th 206.6 160.3 8.51 .34 70.2 6th 147.5 351.6 1.73 .04 70.4 input shock 6-24 Test Data for Side Panel Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi Block 5 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity r [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 195.4 68.0 15.40 .30 67.8 2nd 210.5 102.0 12.48 .32 68.8 3rd 211.9 118.4 10.24 .31 69.1 4th 215.1 128.3 9.82 .31 69.5 5th 215.8 132.4 9.63 .31 69.4 6th 150.0 351.6 1.77 .05 69.7 input shock Table 6 (cont'd). Test Data in Part 11 Tests 6-25 Test Data for No Effect Specimen with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi 113 Block 5 Drop AV Peak g Pulse AX Impact Remark No. Duration Velocity [in/sec] [g's] [msec] [in] [in/sec] lst 206.3 83. 14.48 .32 69.3 2nd 216.4 123. 10.20 .32 69.7 3rd 220.1 141. 9.09 .31 69.8 4th 220.8 148. 8.86 .31 69.6 5th 221.1 155. 8.39 .31 69.8 6th 144.5 345. 1.73 .04 69.8 input shock DATA ANALYSIS IN PART II TESTS Measured peak gs and pulse durations are shown in Figures 35 to 39. A paired comparison analysis was applied to the peak g and pulse duration values in the five blocks. The significance of the levels of difference between the no-effect specimens and the other-effect specimens is shown in Table 7. In applying a paired comparison analysis, the drop data in which the impact velocity exceeded the impact velocity for the no-effect specimens by $1.5 in/sec within the same block were omitted from the analysis. (APPENDIX C, D) 114 1115 AH xooanv a cowumusa madam paw w zoom .mm ouswam GwaHOQQm CQEHUQQm wowmmw CwEHUGQm COEHOGQm Egg—”005m muoommo Ham Uumon pouowauuoo uooumo Hocom ovum uomumo mmuu uflo uoomuo oc o 0 com 0.00_ cod. 006. 0.08. mommé m xomd Ag: N 0 0.00m 116 Am xooanv e :oHumusa mmadm can w xoom .om madman Seawomam coauooam uoommo CoEHooam Cosaooam coanoam muoommo Haw whoop poumwauuoo uommmo Honda moan uoouuo ammo Hum uoomuo oc o o OO.m 0.00. 00.0. 00m. QOON OOON Th”— mommEH— w xoma x n :0 0.00m 117 Am xooanv e coHumusa madam can m xmom .nm ouSmwm cosaooam :oEHooam uoommo seaflooam seafloonm Cmswooam muoowmo Ham canon pouowauuoo uommmo Hocma opHm uoommo menu was uoomwo o: 00m 0.00_ 00.0. OO.m _ CON Gems; w xomn. u .50 .OOM 118 Ac zooanv e Coauousa madam paw w xoom .wm ouswam seafloonm seafloodm uoomuo :mBHoodm CoEHoon Coaaooam muooumo Ham .vuuon pouowzuuoo uoommo Honda Oven uommmo now» was. uoommo o: o 0 com odo _ 00 .o _ oom _ 0.08 00.8 WE mommE... w xoma a so 119 Am xooanv e newuauan madam cam m xmom .om ouswam coaguomm CoEHooam uoommo CoEHooam :oEwooam coEHooam muoomuo Ham pumon poumwauuoo uoommo Hocwa spam uoommo menu was uoomwo o: O O OQfi .09 000. 00m_ OOON 003 Pm. 9me w xomd ”:2“ QOOM 120 Table 7. Significance of The Levels of Difference between No Effect Specimen and The Other Effect Specimens on Peak g and Pulse Duration 7 [g's] [msec] lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th drop Peak g * ** * ns ** air trap Est. of D. ~6 ~13 ~12 ~8 ~10 effect specimen Dur. 7 ns ** * * * Est. of D. .2 4.2 3.1 3.6 3.1 Peak g ns * ** ** * side panel Est. of D. ~7 ~3 ~20 ~18 ~18 effect specimen Dur. 1 ns * ** * * Est of D. .2 1.0 1.0 .7 .6 Peak g ** ** ns ns ns corrugated board Est. of D. ~42 ~23 ~10 ~18 ~24 effect specimen Dur. r ** * ns ns ns Est. of D. 3.8 2.1 .5 .2 .4 Peak g ** ** ** * * all effects Est. of D. ~45 ~27 ~16 ~17 ~22 specimen Dur. r ** * ns ns ns Est. of D. 3.4 2.2 .3 ~.2 ~.0 * Each effect results in decreasing peak g or increasing pulse duration r at 5 % level of significance. ** Each effect results in decreasing peak g or increasing pulse duration 1 at 1 % level of significance. ns No significance at 5 % level of significance. TEST RESULTS IN PART II TESTS As shown in Table 7, the air trap effect was recognized at the 2nd, 3rd and 5th drops at l %, 5 % and 5 % levels of significance. The side panel effect was recognized at the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th drops at 5 %, 1 %, S % and 5 % levels of significance. The corrugated board effect was recognized at the lst and 2nd drops at 1 % and 5 % levels of significance. At the other drops, it was observed that each effect tended to decrease peak g and increase pulse duration, but the level of significance was not determined. It was observed that the corrugated board effect was larger than the air trap effect and the side panel effect at the lst and 2nd drops. While the corrugated board effect is large at the lst and 2nd drops, the air trap effect and the side panel effect are considered to be small at those drops. Since the shock absorbing characteristics of the cushion itself vary greately at those drops, the variability of the shock absorbing characteristics of the cushion is larger than that caused by the two effects. 121 122 On the other hand, it was observed that the corrugated board effect tended to decrease at the 3rd, 4th and 5th drops, while the air trap effect and the side panel effect did not change very much. In addition to this, the shock absorbing characteristics of the cushion itself still vary greatly at those drops, and those of the corrugated paperboard also vary drastically at those drops. It was also observed that the all-effects specimens had the closest values to the corrugated board-effect specimens values. CONCLUSIONS Through Part I tests and Part II tests, it was found that the air trap effect, the side panel effect and the corrugated board effect of the outer package do exist. All of the effects act to decrease peak g and increase pulse duration. However, each of the effects was different in magnitude. The corrugated board effect was the largest at the lst and 2nd drops. It is considered that corrugated paperboard absorbs a large amount of shock energy at the lst and 2nd drops, while the air trap effect and the side panel effect combine to absorb shock energy by relatively small amount. 0n the other hand, while the corrugated board effect decreased at subsequent drops, that is, the 3rd, 4th and 5th drops, the air trap effect and the side panel effect took a more important role to decrease peak g and increase pulse duration. While the side panel effect acted at those drops equally with the corrugated board effect, the air trap effect was smaller. It was measurable, however. 123 APPENDICES 124 APPENDIX A WAVEFORM PARAMETERS Figure 40 shows an example of collected data and the waveform parameters measured in this research (15). Trigger Pulse Zero g Reference Peak g Pulse Duration 7 AV Impact Velocity Developed by the trigger flag through the velocity sensor. The time required for the trigger flag to pass through the velocity sensor. Tv is used to calculate the impact velocity. Calculated by wave analyzer routine. This value is used as 0 g level for g measurements. The most positive waveform peak value in the data field. The time between T1 and T2. T1 is located at the point where the waveform crosses the .1 Peak g level prior to the Peak g point. T2 is located at the point where the waveform crosses the .1 Peak g level after the Peak g point. Integrated value of the waveform between points I and F. I is located at .4 1 prior to T1. F is located at .l 1 after T2. The peak displacement experienced by the accelerometer during impact. Calculated from Tv by the waveform analyzer. 1255 muouoeoumm Euowo>m3 can Euomo>m3 oHaEMm .oq ousmfim 3me Och :30... mucoummzzE mam: \ 9 £050.50 www.30— Rmocmrmemm m EoN/ 126 e a x . 57 .n. A? , _ CT. ms 4 i n W XOMQ . _.o M mmEd Emmi... IV— Ll m xooa _A| Pr m ”—3Q xUO£m APPENDIX B PEAK TO PEAK DELAY TIME In Part II tests, an input shock pulse and the transmitted lst and 5th drop shock pulses were plotted on the same data sheet. From the plotted shock pulses, peak to peak delay time was calculated (Tables 8, 9). Shock pulses in Block 2 are shown in Figures 41 to 45. X s marked on the shock pulses denote the same data sampling point in the same total data field. It was found that shock pulses at the 5th drops were transmitted earlier than those at the lst drops, and the corrugated board-effect specimens and the all-effects specimens had almost equal longer delay times than the air trap-effect specimens and the side panel—effect specimens did. 127' 128 Table 8. Peak to Peak Delay Time between Input Shock Pulse and Transmitted lst Drop Shock Pulse with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi [msec] Specimen Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 no effect specimen 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 9.0 air trap effect specimen 8.3 8.3 8.3 9.3 9.0 side panel effect specimen 8.0 8.0 8.3 9.3 7.7 corrugated board effect specimen 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.7 10.3 all effects specimen 10.0 10.0 9.7 9.7 10.3 129 Table 9. Peak to Peak Delay Time between Input Shock Pulse and Transmitted 5th Drop Shock Pulse with Type B Cushion at 1.16 psi [msec] Specimen Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 Block 5 no effect specimen 6.3 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.0 air trap effect specimen 6.3 6.3 6.7 7.0 7.0 side panel effect specimen 6.3 6.7 6.7 7.3 5.7 corrugated board effect specimen 7.3 7.7 7.7 8.0 8.0 all effects specimen 7.3 7.7 7.7 7.7 8.0 13o me.. nxg-. AV Au ow OO_ . Om OON . ON_ 00m . 0m: GOV . OON 00m . as 1.... 5 “033529;. Asoeuoomm uoommo ocv N xooam ca momasm xoofim m>_Q\Umm2mH_ . ”152.... .He muswsm .... 1// y F; M +3Qc_ , a V. .d .— u . wr?.T../§a . l .00_ a .00. .OON .OOM 60¢ .OOm 13a:— uoumamaav [s .8] 131 0.? 00... 0 0 04 00. 00 00m. 0m. 00m. 00. 00¢. 00m 000 . 3.32 £0 81:222. AGoEHommm uoommo may» Macy N xooam a“ momaam xoonm 9.0 0%.:ng .uq «sawsa .5. u’vv #2:... .oo_.. 0 V fig 3 .0. 00. w w .00m m 1 00m 8. tag. B 00¢ .00m H30c_ 1;}2 AcoEHoodm uommmo Hound opamv N xooam CH momaam xuonm .mc ouswwm 0v- 00... 0 0 Q 00.. 00 00m 0m. 00m 00_ 08. 000 000. 02.0 1m. 5m 00: 1:10:99 Sax 0mm: 00. 0.2:. 1* 111 .00_- I’vv‘ 0:0:_ .00. .08 uouDJaIaaav ’h—w 00m [3 .3] . 00¢ .000 .58. 133 ACoEfiooam uoowwo chaos pmumwsuuoov N xooam CH momdam xoozm .eq muzwwm 3 .0 0.002 B - 02.; . 0N- 0¢-. .00.- 0 0 0 Om ow. .OO_ 0¢ Om . .000. 00 8.. .00m 0m 02. 00¢ 00. 00m. .000 083$ 16 Se... 03:56; , , - , uolwxagaoav [9.8] 131+ ON-O¢-. ON 0? 0w 0m 00 ON. . 0m 09 00. CON . 8% E 50 002.590.? ACoENooam muoommo HHmv N xooam CH momHSm xoonm .mQ madman . - m>_.0\ummz&- mi; . .007. s ‘1 . gwwmaé.‘ 5:»‘wpm 4» O V f q- a 3.; 0T... . D .... m .nxu_ mu \ w. ,1 .. 0 m. 0 OON u . a J m s . an 8 1 _ , 0 .000 a“ . L 0:Q:_ rL :5 00¢ 1. .mXum #:mc_ APPENDIX C A PAIRED COMPARISON X and Y denote the responses to treatment 1 (specimen 1) and t:::eatment 2 (specimen 2) respectively. The structure of data for a paired comparison is the following (16). Block Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Difference (specimen 1) (specimen 2) l X Y D = X ~Y l 1 l l 1 2 X Y D - X ~Y 2 2 2 2 2 n X Y D = X -Y n n n n n UChe paires (X , Y ), (X , Y ), ..., (X , Y ) are independent. 1 l 2 2 n n Assume that the differences D - X ~ Y are independent with a i i i 19 (6, a ) distribution. Summary statistics are the following. D 135 136 - n D - 2 D / n i-l i 2 n ~ 2 S - E (D ~ D) / (n - l) D i-l i From the test results in Part I tests, because the investigation was being made to determine if each effect decreases peak 3 and increases pulse duration, the parameter values under H lie to one side 1 of the range of values specified by H as followed. 0 A test of H ; 6-0 v.s. H ; 6>0 is based on the following 0 1 statistic. APPENDIX D PAIRED COMPARISONS CALCULATION Table 10. A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~l A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Air Trap Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at lst Drop Block No. air trap no Diff. D S t effect effect D Peak g Peak g [8'5] 1 119.5 124.2 -4.7 2 103.1 104.3 -1.2 * 3 92.6 102.0 -9.4 ~6.03 3.84 -3.14 4 -- 85.5 -- 5 74.4 83.2 ~8.8 137 138 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10-2 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Air Trap Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 2nd Drop Block No. air trap no Diff. D S t effect effect D Peak g Peak g {5's} 1 177.5 190.5 ~13.0 2 154.1 l60.5 - 6.4 ** 3 138.3 152.9 ~14.6 ~12.9 3.92 ~7.35 4 112.5 126.0 ~13.5 5 106.1 123.0 ~l6.9 10~3 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Air Trap Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 3rd Drop Block No. air trap no Diff. D S t effect effect D Peak g Peak g [3'8] 1 216.0 212.3 3.7 2 178.6 185.9 - 7.3 * 3 165.2 188.3 -23.1 -11.9 10.5 -2.53 a 130.1 144.1 -14.0 5 123.1 141.8 ~18.7 139 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10-4 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Air Trap Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 4th Drop Block No. air trap no Diff. D S t effect effect D Peak g Peak g [3's] 1 225.3 220.3 5.0 2 190.3 195.1 - 4.8 3 176.9 195.6 ~18.7 ~8.26 9.55 ~l.93 4 140.0 146.5 ~ 6.5 5 132.5 148.8 ~16.3 10~5 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Air Trap Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 5th Drop Block No. air trap no Diff. D S t effect effect D Peak g Peak g [3'8] 1 232.3 241.2 - 8 9 2 196.6 199.3 - 2 7 ** 3 186.1 204.1 ~18 o -1o.o 5.64 -3.97 4 143.6 151.8 - 8 2 5 143.6 155.9 -12 3 Table 10 (cont'd.). 10~6 14&) A Paired Comparison Calculation A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 7 between Air Trap Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at lst Drop Block No. air trap no Diff. D S t effect effect D Dur. r Dur. f [msec] 1 12.40 12.36 .04 2 13.29 13.40 ~.11 3 13.67 13.32 .35 .279 1.40 4 -~ 14.36 ~- 5 14.98 14.48 .50 10~7 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 1 between Air Trap Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 2nd Drop Block No. air trap no Diff. D S t effect effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] 1 7.93 7.47 .46 2 8.82 8.63 .19 ** 3 9.63 8.63 1.00 .406 4.15 4 11.01 10.01 1.00 5 11.32 10.20 1.12 141 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~8 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 1 between Air Trap Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 3rd Drop Block No. air trap no Diff. D S t effect effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] l 5.89 5.89 .00 2 7.78 7.35 .43 * 3 8.24 7.32 .92 .594 .426 3.12 4 9.74 9.20 .54 5 10.17 9.09 1.08 10~9 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 1 between Air Trap Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 4th Drop Block No. air trap no Diff. D S t effect effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] l 5.78 5.51 .27 2 7.28 7.01 .27 * 3 7.74 6.70 1.04 .548 .333 3.68 4 9.40 8.97 .43 5 9.59 8.86 .73 142 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~10 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration r between Air Trap Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 5th Drop Block No. air trap no Diff. D S t effect effect D [msec] l 5.39 5.12 .27 2 7.09 6.70 .39 * 3 7.35 6.28 1.07 .524 .377 3.11 4 9.01 8.86 .15 5 9.13 8.39 .74 143 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~11 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Side Panel Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at lst Drop Block No. side panel no Diff. D S t effect effect D Peak g Peak g [g'SJ l ~~ 124.2 ~- 2 104.3 104.3 .0 3 96.1 102.0 ~ 5.9 ~7.03 7.66 ~.159 4 ~~ 85.5 ~- 5 68.0 83.2 -15.2 10~12 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Side Panel Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 2nd Dr0p Block No. side panel no Diff. D S t effect effect D Peak g Peak g [3'8] 1 172.3 190.5 ~18.2 2 155.9 160.5 - 4.6 * 3 142.4 152.9 -10.5 -12.7 10.4 -2.72 4 107.8 126.0 ~18.2 s 102.0 123.0 -21.0 144 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~13 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Side Panel Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 3rd Drop Block No. side panel no Diff. D S t effect effect D Peak g Peak g [3'8] 1 199.5 212.3 ~16.8 2 -~ 185.9 ~~ ** 3 ~~ 188.3 ~~ ~20.2 3.31 ~10.6 4 123.6 144.1 ~20.5 5 118.4 141.8 ~23.4 10~14 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Side Panel Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 4th Drop Block No. side panel no Diff. D S t effect effect D Peak g Peak g [3'8] 1 206.8 220.3 ~13.5 2 ~- 195.1 -- ** 3 172.1 195.6 ~23.5 ~18.1 4.75 ~7.60 4 131.8 146.5 ~14.7 5 128.3 148.8 ~20.5 1145 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~15 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Side Panel Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 5th Drop Block No. side panel no Diff. D S t effect effect D Peak g Peak g {3's} 1 213.4 241.2 ~27.8 2 198.3 199.3 - 1.0 * 3 181.8 204.1 -22.3 -17.5 10.7 ~3.65 4 138.9 151.8 -12.9 5 132.4 155.9 -23.5 Table 10 (cont'd.). 10~16 146 A Paired Comparison Calculation A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 7 between Side Panel Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at lst Drop Block No. side panel no Diff. D S t effect effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] 1 ~~ 12.36 ~- 2 13.05 13.40 ~.35 3 13.48 13.32 .16 .243 .639 .659 4 -~ 14.36 ~- 5 15.40 14.48 .92 10~l7 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 1 between Side Panel Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 2nd Drop Block No. side panel no Diff. D S t effect effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] l 8.16 7.47 .69 2 8.82 8.63 .19 * 3 9.05 8.63 .42 .948 .828 2.56 4 11.17 10.01 1.16 5 12.48 10.20 2.28 147 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~l8 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 1 between Side Panel Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 3rd Drop Block No. side panel no Diff. D S t effect effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] 1 6.70 5.89 .81 2 ~- 7.35 ~~ ** 3 ~- 7.32 ~~ .950 .178 9.25 4 10.09 9.20 .89 5 10.24 9.09 1.15 10~l9 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration r between Side Panel Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 4th Drop Block No. side panel no Diff. D S t effect effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] 1 5.55 5.51 .04 2 ~~ 7.01 ~~ * 3 7.78 6.70 1.08 .685 .465 2.95 4 9.63 8.97 .66 5 9.82 8.86 .96 148 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~20 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 7 between Side Panel Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 5th Drop Block No. side panel no Diff. D S t effect effect D [msec] l 5.47 5.12 .35 2 6.58 6.70 ~.12 * 3 7.47 6.28 1.19 .632 .580 2.44 4 9.36 8.86 .50 5 9.63 8.39 1.24 11+9 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10-21 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Corrugated Board Effect specimen and No Effect Specimen at lst Drop Block No. corrugated no Diff. D S t board effect , D effect Peak g Peak g [5'8] 1 68.0 124.2 ~56.2 2 57.4 104.3 ~46.9 ** 3 55.1 102.0 ~46.9 ~41.9 11.9 ~7.91 4 58.6 85.5 ~26.9 5 50.4 83.2 ~32.8 10~22 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Corrugated Board Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 2nd Drop Block No. corrugated no Diff. D S t board effect D effect Peak g Peak g {3's} 1 179.1 190.5 -11.4 2 140.0 160.5 -20.5 ** 3 126.6 152.9 ~26.3 -22.9 13.6 -3.76 4 114 3 126.0 -11.7 5 78.5 123.0 -44.5 150 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10-23 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Corrugated Board Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 3rd Drop Block No. corrugated no Diff. D S t board effect D effect Peak g Peak g [5'8] 1 191.5 212.3 ~20.8 2 169.1 185.9 ~16.8 3 158.0 188.3 ~30.3 ~10.l 18.4 ~l.23 4 159.2 144.1 15.1 5 144.1 141.8 2.3 10~24 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Corrugated Board Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 4th Drop Block No. corrugated no Diff. D S t board effect D effect Peak g Peak g {3's} 1 198.9 220.3 ~21.4 2 169.7 195.1 ~25.4 3 167.4 195.6 ~28.2 -l7.5 15.3 ~2.28 4 ~~ 146.5 ~- 5 153.9 148.8 5.1 151 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~25 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between Corrugated Board Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 5th Drop Block No. corrugated no Diff. D S t board effect D effect Peak g Peak g {3's} 199.4 241.2 -41.8 176.3 199.3 -23.0 169.6 204.1 -34.5 -23.7 20.3 -2.34 ~~ 151.8 ~- 160.3 155.9 4.4 mwaH Table 10 (cont'd.). 10~26 152 A Paired Comparison Calculation A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 7 between Corrugated Board Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at lst Drop Block No. corrugated no Diff. D S t board effect D effect Dur. r Dur. r [msec] l 16.71 12.36 4.35 2 17.64 13.40 4.24 ** 3 17.56 13.32 4.24 3.83 .694 12.3 4 17.06 14.36 2.70 5 18.10 14.48 3.62 10~27 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 1 between Corrugated Board Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 2nd Drop Block No. corrugated no Diff. D S t board effect D effect Dur. r Dur. r [msec] 1 8.13 7.47 .66 2 10.40 8.63 1.77 * 3 10.94 8.63 2.31 2.08 1.25 3.72 4 11.63 10.01 1.62 5 14.25 10.20 4.05 153 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~28 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 1 between Corrugated Board Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 3rd Drop Block No. corrugated no Diff. D S t board effect D effect Dur. r Dur. r [msec] 1 5.97 5.89 .08 2 8.16 7.35 .81 3 8.78 7.32 1.46 .540 .680 1.78 4 8.90 9.20 ~.30 5 9.74 9.09 .65 10~29 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration r between Corrugated Board Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 4th Drop Block No. corrugated no Diff. D S t board effect D effect Dur. r Dur. r [msec] l 5.89 5.51 .38 2 6.62 7.01 ~.39 3 7.39 6.70 .69 .180 .464 .867 4 ~- 8.97 ~- 5 8.90 8.86 .04 154 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~30 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 7 between Corrugated Board Effect Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 5th Drop Block No. corrugated no Diff. D S t board effect D effect Dur. r Dur. 7 [msec] 1 5.97 5.12 .85 2 6.32 6.70 ~.38 3 7.09 6.28 .81 .350 .591 1.18 4 ~~ 8.86 ~- 5 8.51 8.39 .12 155 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~3l A Paired Comparison on Peak g between All Effects Specimen and No Effect Specimen at lst Drop Block No. all no Diff. D S t effects effect D Peak g Peak g [3'8] 1 68.0 124.2 ~56.2 2 57.4 104.3 ~46.9 ** 3 58.6 102.0 ~43.4 ~44.8 9.67 ~9.27 4 -~ 85.5 ~- 5 50.4 83.2 ~32.8 10~32 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between All Effects Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 2nd Drop Block No. all no Diff. D S t effects effect D Peak g Peak g [8'3] 1 168.0 190.5 ~22.5 2 123.0 160.5 ~37.5 ** 3 134.8 152.9 ~18.1 ~27.0 8.52 ~6.33 4 ~~ 126.0 ~- 5 93.2 123.0 ~29.8 156 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~33 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between All Effects Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 3rd Drop Block No. all no Diff. D S t effects effect D Peak g Peak g [g'SJ 1 191.5 212.3 ~20.8 2 169.9 185.9 ~16.0 ** 3 170.7 188.3 ~17.6 ~15.7 5.35 ~5.85 4 ~~ 144.1 -- 5 133.6 141.8 ~ 8.2 10~34 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between All Effects Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 4th Drop Block No. all no Diff. D S t effects effect D Peak g Peak g [3'8] 1 199.4 220.3 ~20.9 2 173.3 195.1 ~21.8 * 3 171.3 195.6 ~24.3 ~l6.9 10.96 ~3.08 4 -~ 146.5 ~- 5 148.2 148.8 ~ .60 157 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~35 A Paired Comparison on Peak g between All Effects Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 5th Drop Block No. all no‘ Diff. D S t effects effect D Peak g Peak g [8's] 1 210.3 241.2 -30.9 2 172.8 199.3 ~26.5 * 3 175.9 204.1 ~28.2 -21 9 13.4 -3.26 4 -- 151.8 -- s 154.0 155.9 - 1.9 158 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~36 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 1 between All Effects Specimen and No Effect Specimen at lst Drop Block No. all no Diff. D S t effects effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] 1 16.02 12.36 3.66 2 17.02 13.40 3.62 ** 3 16.64 13.32 3.32 3.43 .256 26.8 4 ~~ 14.36 ~- 5 17.60 14.45 3.12 10-37 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 7 between All Effects Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 2nd Drop Block No. all no Diff. D S t effects effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] 1 8.20 7.47 .73 2 11.48 8.63 2.85 * 3 10.36 8.63 1.73 2.19 1.20 3.64 4 ~~ 10.01 ~- 5 13.63 10.20 3.43 159 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10-38 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 1 between All Effects Specimen and No effect Specimen at 3rd Drop Block No. all no Diff. D S t effects effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] l 5.81 5.89 ~.08 2 6.62 7.35 ~.73 3 7.93 7.32 .61 .278 .879 .631 4 ~~ 9.20 ~- 5 10.40 9.09 1.31 10-39 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 1 between All Effects Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 4th Drop Block No. all no Diff. D S t effects effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] 1 5.28 5.51 ~.23 2 6.35 7.01 ~.66 3 6.32 6.70 ~.38 ~.213 .458 ~.928 4 ~~ 8.97 ~- 5 9.28 8.86 .42 160 Table 10 (cont'd.). A Paired Comparison Calculation 10~40 A Paired Comparison on Pulse Duration 7 between A11 Effects Specimen and No Effect Specimen at 5th Drop Block No. all no Diff. D S t effects effect D Dur. r Dur. r [msec] l 5.08 5.12 -.04 2 6.32 6.70 -.38 3 6.24 6.28 -.04 ~.O275 .298 ~.185 4 -- 8.86 -- 5 8.74 8.39 .35 * Significant at level 5 % ** Significant at level 1 % BIBLIOGRAPHY Goff, J.W. and Twede, D., 1984. "Functions of Intermediate Packages," School of Packaging, Michigan State University. . Mindlin, R.D., 1945. "Dynamics of Package Cushioning," Bell Telephone System Technical Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 353-461. Newton, R.E., 1968. 'Fragility Assessmnt Theory and Test Procedure." Monterey Research Laboratory, Monterey, California. Goff, J.W. and Pierce, S.R., 1970. "A Fragility Assessment Theory and Test Procedure Demonstrated on Real Test Items." Technical Report No.18, Multi-sponsor Research Program, Project 1, Control of Damage in Shipment, School of Packaging, Michigan State University. . Stern, R.K., 1965. ”Military standardization Handbook ~ Package Cushioning Design.'MIL-HDBK-304, Department of Defence, Washington, D.C.. "Standard Test Method for Shock Absorbing Characteristics of Package Cushioning Materials," American Society For Testing And Materials D1596~78a, 1983. . "Five Step Packaging Development.“ MTS System Corporation, 1971. . Palmreuter, G.L., 1968. ”An Evaluation of The Cushioning Properties of Corrugated Paperboard." M.S. Thesis, School of Packaging, Michigan State University. 161 9. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 162 McCall, D.C.. 1969. "The Application of The Shock Spectrum Derived Damage Boundary Theory to The Evaluation of The Shock Transmissibility of Corrugated Board," M.S. Thesis, School of Packaging, Michigan State University. Willson, K.S., 1958. "Relative Energy Absorption Properties of Free and Enclosed Cushions," M.S. Thesis, School of Packaging, Michigan State University. Goff, J.W. and Blake, H.C., 1965. "Some Package Drop Tests Utilizing The Package Cushion Design Method," Technical Report No.8, Multi-sponsor Research Program, Project 1, Control of Damage in Shipment, School of Packaging, Michigan State University. McGinnis, M.A., 1965. ”A Study of The Transmissibility of Short Duration Shock Pulses by Package Cushioning Materials." M.S. Thesis, School of Packaging, Michigan State University. Brandenburg,R.X. and Lee, J.L., 1985. "Fundamentals of Packaging Dynamics," MTS Systems Corporation, Minneapolis, Minnesota. "Product Design Data for ETHAFOAM brand polyethylene foam," DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A., March 1985. "Model 466.10 Waveform Analyzer,” Hardware Product Mannual, MTS Systems Corporation. Bhattacharyya, G.K. and Johnson, R.A., 1977. "Statical Concepts and Methods," John Wiley & Sons. ”11111111111711.1114“