,b i 1...: 3.. 9. I .5? Ln. , «4|. g «.3 _ 13:1": a... §§§ c v e. $9.99, .... xi 9. 5‘ p . «.52.. ...-u‘ z 2 e In J ”a.“ §m1.£%%m . LL H :1 x , v. .. a: 9N»;- xi‘:‘. .0-! p.1‘l.lv(.p I: ‘5. r‘ u u 40..-} X..!.ll.ya . ( III... ...\ fig». It... .372... J ,n acwflu...;PS.a-nuv(;¢.vl. F 9 3.22.592, Ill 8 . 2% an (flu..- pix.» 1.64 . in it muss 'l H'CH'GANSYATEUB 11mm; *3 11;: l w y H rm: ”l H" *1 1 ll ;.l.. .‘.l 1w; ll MM a law. It. 3 1293 01771 5420 LIBRARY “‘ Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled EVALUATING PERFORMANCE OF INTERNAL PACKAGING FOR DAMAGE TO GLASSWARE presented by JAGJIT(JAY) SINGH has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for .MASIER_ degree in EACKAGINL axe/dz! Major profesl Date MAY 7, 1998 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE QCI 012003 .i L. E , .tt Magma: ma chIRCIDuIeDu.pG§-p.14 EVALUATING PERFORMANCE OF INTERNAL PACKAGING FOR DAMAGE TO GLASSWARE . By Jagjit (Jay) Singh A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Packaging 1 998 ABSTRACT EVALUATING PERFORMANCE OF INTERNAL PACKAGING FOR DAMAGE TO GLASSWARE 3)! Jagjit (Jay) Singh This study compared five types of separators used to protect glassware relating to the package-distribution hazards. Tests were conducted according to protocols recommended by ASTM D4169 and lSTA Project 1A 0f the three kinds of glassware tested, the two piece stemware was the most fragile, followed by the one piece stemware and the tumblers. The packages with the C-flute dividers had the least number of glassware damage when tested using both the protocols. The damage levels, when using the lSTA Project 1A protocol, were much higher as compared to ASTM D4169 protocol. The most damage occurred in the perimeter cell locations in the packages, followed by the immediate inner cells to the perimeter. The results also indicated that thereiwas no requirement for any headspace in the packages, since the partitions were almost four times stronger in compression than the boxes. Overall, the die-cut inserts proved to be much more economical and provide better protection than the fabricated partitions. Copyright by Jagjlt (Jay) Singh 1 998 ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to express sincere thanks and gratitude to Dr. 8. Paul Singh for all the encouragement and support throughout my years at the School of Packaging at Michigan State University. I would also like to acknowledge my appreciation to the other members of my graduate committee. Dr. Gary Burgess and Dr. Julian Lee. Their assistance throughout my research and analysis is greatly appreciated. I would like to thank Libbey Glass Co. for the materials. supplies and funding which made this research possible. lwould liketotl'lankalltl'lefacultyandstaffoftl'leScl'loolofPackagingand all those who helped me during the course of my graduate studies. I would like to extend my special thanks to my colleagues, with whom I worked on various projects. Finally, I am thankful to my parents for bearing with me and for their love and support I would also like to thank my best friend for the everlasting intellectual and personal support TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 12 3.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN .................................................... 19 3.1 TEST PROTOCOL (PHASE I) ................ , ................... 19 3.2 TEST PROTOCOL (PHASE II) .................................. 21 3.3 TEST PROTOCOL (PHASE III) .................................. 24 4.0 DATA AND RESULTS .......................................................... 25 4.1 RESULTS OF PHASE I ............................................. 25 4.2 RESULTS OF PHASE II ............................................ 27 4.3 RESULTS OF PHASE III ........................................... 29 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 31 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................. 32 APPENDIX A. .................................................................................. 34 APPENDIX B ................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX C ................................................................................... 59 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. The Number of Glasses Damaged in Each Category in Phase I ................................................................................ 26 2. Total Number of Glasses Damaged in Phase II ................. 28 3. Maximum Compression Strength of the Partitions and Boxes ................................................................................. 30 4. Zonal Analysis of Damage with Reference to Glassware... 46 5. Zonal Analysis of Damage with Reference to the Package. 47 6. Compression Test Data for Item 135, Package A ............... 49 7. Compression Test Data for Item 135, Package B ............... 49 8. Compression Test Data for Item 135, Package C ................ 50 9. Compression Test Data for Item 135, Package D ............... 50 10. Compression Test Data for Item 135, Package E ................ 51 11. Compression Test Data for Item 3769, Package A ............. 51 12. Compression Test Data for Item 3769. Package B .............. 52 13. Compression Test Data for Item 3769, Package C .............. 52 14. Compression Test Data for Item 3769, Package D .............. 53 15. Compression Test Data for Item 3769, Package E .............. 53 16. Compression Test Data for Item 8756. Package A. ............. 54 17. Compression Test Data for Item 8756, Package B .............. 54 LIST OF TABLES (cont) Table Page 18. Compression Test Data for Item 8756, Package C .............. 55 19. Compression Test Data for Item 8756, Package D .............. 55 20. Compression Test Data for Item 8756, Package E .............. 56 21. Summarized Compression Test Data with Reference to the Glassware .................................................................. 57 22. Summarized Compression Test Data with Reference to the Package ..................................................................... 58 LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1. Typical Tray-Pack Stack in a Shipping Container .............. 4 2. Typical Expanded Paper Honeycomb Cell Pack ............... 4 3. Two Styles of lntemal Partitions in Master Containers A Two Layer, T-Shaped Dividers 8. Vertical Dividers ............................................................. 5 4. A Few Examples of Different Kinds of Die-Cut Inner Packing Pieces ................................................................... 5 5. The Die—Cut Insert ............................................................. 7 6. The Fabricated Insert ......................................................... 7 7 Package A: Existing Box with Dividers ............................. 9 8. Package B : Existing Box with 114/ 1" Runner ................... 9 9. Package C : New Box with B-F lute Divider ........................ 10 10. Package D : New Box with C-Flute Divider ........................ 10 11. Package E : New Box with E-F lute Divider ........................ 11 12. Load Distribution on Perimeter of Top-Loaded Corrugated Container, and Specimen Configuration for TAPPI Standard Edgewise Compression Test ............................. 15 13. Average Force Deflection Curves of 12 x 3 Bag Master Containers, Comparing Effect of Vertical v. T-Shaped Dividers and No Dividers ................................................... 18 LIST OF FIGURES (cont) Figure Page D1. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package A, Item 3769 ............................................................................. 34 oz. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package 8, Item 3769 ............................................................................. 34 D3. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package C, Item 3769 ............................................................................. 35 D4. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package D, Item 3769 ............................................................................. 35 05. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package E, Item 3769 ............................................................................. 36 06. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package A, Item 8756 ............................................................................. 37 D7. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package 8, Item 8756 ............................................................................. 37 D8. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package C, Item 8756 ............................................................................. 38 D9. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package D, Item 8756 ............................................................................. 38 010. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package E, Item 8756 ............................................................................ 39 011. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package A, Item 3769 ............................................................................ 40 LIST OF FIGURES (cont) Table Page D12. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package 8, Item 3769 ............................................................................... 40 D13. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package C, Item 3769 ............................................................................... 41 D14. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package D, Item 3769 ............................................................................... 41 D15. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package E, Item 3769 ............................................................................... 42 D16. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package A, Item 8756 ............................................................................... 43 D17. Damage Lomtion for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package 8, Item 8756 ............................................................................... 43 D18. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package C, Item 8756 ............................................................................... 44 D19. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package D, Item 8756 ............................................................................... 44 D20. Damage Location for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package E, Item 8756 ............................................................................... 45 14. Force-Deflection Plot for Partition A ..................................... 59 15. Force-Deflection Plot for Partition 8 ...................................... 60 16. Force-Deflection Plot for Box A ............................................ 61 17. Force-Deflection Plot for Box 8 ............................................. 62 1.0 INTRODUCTION Corrugated board serves a multitude of purposes in the modern day packaging industry. Serving as a cushioning medium, slip sheet, or most commonly as a shipping container, the packaging industry relies heavily on the protective aspects of corrugated board. In 1903, the first corrugated box was approved as an alternate to wooden crates for use as a shipping container in the United States. It was not until the end of World War II, that the majority of all shipments were packaged in corrugated fiberboard boxes (Hanlon, 1992). In 1994, the amount of corrugated fiberboard manufactured and shipped was approximately $21 billion. This amounts to an average increase of 4.9% between the years 1989 and 1994, and is a greater increase than any other paperboard or molded pulp product used for packaging in the last few years (Rauch Associates, 1994). Since its introduction, corrugated board has been the subject of many scientific studies to improve its effectiveness in the transportation, handling, and storage environments. Whether the studies are related to the process of bonding the liners and medium, container design, or environmental factors encountered during transportation and storage, these factors, individually and collectively, play a role in the overall box compression strength and its performance. Studies of material properties, the box-making process, design criteria, and compression criteria, and compression reduction relative to the transportation and storage environments have been conducted in detail (Maltenfort, 1989). ‘ The purpose of this project was to evaluate the effect of secondary packaging (corrugated separators) for glassware in Libbey Glass’s Foodservice line. Specifically this study compared the protective performance of the present partition to four additional types of internal partitions. The study evaluated the performance of the five types of partitions in three different carton sizes containing three different types of glassware. A considerable amount of mechanical damage would be sustained by most glass products in the distribution chain, if the internal dividers or partitions were not used. Attempts to reduce damage to the glass products has prompted development of various internal partitions in shipping containers, aiming at improving product protection by isolating and cushioning the individual product There are two main categories of internal dividers or partitions : A. TRAY PACKS : Mainly used for various produce varieties, in this construction, every individual produce is isolated in its own pocket formed by two consecutive trays placed on top of each other by means of specially constructed supporting pegs. This prevents the produce from bearing any compressive force due to stacking loads in container piles. Rather, the force is transmitted by the trays, as shown by the arrows in Figure 1.(Kalman Peleg, 1985) B. CELL PACKS : There arethree main types ofcell packs: The hexagonal shaped honeycomb cell pack (Figure 2), the triangularly shaped honeycombcell packandthesquareshapedcell pack. Thecellsofthefirsttwo types are formed from expanded paper honeycomb stock and plain paper sheets, placed in between each of the two consecutive layers. The square- shaped cell packs are usually die cut to position and support irregular products from below, or lock them into position from above. The various kinds of cell packs mentioned above are illustrated in Figure 3 and 4.(Kalman Peleg, 1985) There are three basic functions that are provided by various types of internal dividers and separators: a. Separation : The individual glass product may be very delicate, and if packed in direct contact with each other, might suffer damage while being shipped or handled. The separators provide a valuable isolation function in separating individual products from each other. suap r PEAD SPACES BETWEEN OR NG PEGS 5 Am T FRLlT Figure 2 - Typical Expanded Paper Honeycomb Cell Pack Figure 3 - Two Styles of Internal Partitions in Master Containers A Two Layer, T-Shaped Dividers B. Vertical Dividers Figure 4 - A Few Examples of Different Kinds of Fabricated Inner Packing Pieces b. Eliminate pressure of the stacking load : If the panels of the corrugated fiberboard box are weakened by absorbing moisture, the paper of the internal packaging, i.e., separators, will not be significantly affected and will retain most of its strength. Thus partitions are ideal forprolongedhighrisestacking glassproduct,eveninhighhumidity environments. These internal dividers or partitions can often increase the overall compressionstrengthofthetotalpackagebyafactorofhvotothree. c. Reduce pressure on the product : By immobilizing the individual product on the sides (similar to the case of the die-cut separator tested), the bottom area is also cushioned. (Figure 5 and 6) The packaging systems and the three different fragility levels of glassware studied are described below. 0 Two Piece Stemware (most fragile), Item #8756 - Carton #3376 e One Piece Stemware (medium fragile), Item #3769 - Carton #3302 e Tumblers (least fragile), Item#135 - Carton #3297 The five types of internal partitions/dividers, inside each package type were identified as follows: 0 Package A - Existing box with partitions Figure 6 - The fabricated insert (existing package) 0 Package B - Existing boxwith 1I4I1' runner . Package C - New box with B-flute divider 0 Package D - New box with C-flute divider a Package E - New box with Eoflute divider These are illustrated in Figures 7, 8, 9,10 and 11. The shipping environment used by Libbey Glass consists of shipping both full and mixed loads that are floor loaded The transportation systems used includes trucks and/or piggyback. The cartons undergo manual handling during the distribution processes while being shipped from Toledo, Ohio, to all regions of the country. The main reason to test these new separators is to allow automated assembly of partitions made from a flatsneet of corrugated that is die-cut and scored. The new process allows for automated positioning of the partition in the box and packing the glassware. This replaces the manual packing process that is slow and very expensive due to high labor wages. The new design of the divider and the packaging machinery developed has been patented by Libbey Glass. The objectives of this study were: 1. To compare five types of separators used to protect glassware. 2. Evaluate the ASTM D4169 Versus lSTA Project 1A for glassware packaging shipping tests. rng box with partitions t e 0 Figure 7 - Package A box with 1I4l 1" runner mg Exist Figure 8 - Package B 10 Figure 10 - Package D : New box with C-flute divider F‘ Figure 11 - Package E : New box with E-flute divider 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW Today, corrugated containers are used to package a majority of products in the United States and account for over 90% of the industrial and consumer goods shipped (Fiedler, 1995). The packaging design requirements that are critical for one type of product, may not be suitable for another application, since factors such as storage time, humidity, stacking pattern, package weight, and transportation all contribute to the overall performance of the product-package system. It is therefore necessary to evaluate the effect of these various factors on the total package performance. The compression strength of a box depends on various factors such as board properties, construction, style, as well as its size and shape. The compression strength measured during laboratory testing generally determines a load at which the box collapses. This value is considerably higher than actual use conditions since it does not account for creep (long term storage) or effects of the climatic environment Thus a safety factor is generally used in real life applications. The safety factor will depend on the effect of moisture, storage time, effect of stacking, the handling methods and distance and type of transportation (Wright etal., 1992). The McKee formula (1963), developed at the Institute of Paper Chemistry, provides corrugated box designers with an empirical formula for predicting top- 12 13 to-bottom compression strength (CS) of corrugated boxes using the following equation: ‘ cs = 5.8745 Pm hm" 2““ (2-1)" Where, Pm = column crush (Ibfln) h caliper of board (in) 2 box perimeter (in) This formula applies to standard conditions (73 °F, 50% RH) and RSC style boxesofauniform shapewherethedepthofthe box isat least 1” ofthe box perimeter. There is no factor to account for the effect of climatic, storage, and shipping environments. (McKee et. al.1963). This adaptation of a well known semiempiricel formula, commonly used in prediction of failure in. shell-type structures, for prediction of maximal top-to- bottom strength of corrugated shipping containers was based on observations of side panel failure in quasi-static compression tests on RSC type corrugated containers. It was observed that as the applied load is progressively increased, a level is reached where the initially vertical side panels become unstable (buckle) and deflect laterally inwards or outwards. The largest lateral deflection appears at the central region offl'le panel, while the regions near the corners and edges of each panel are constrained to remain essentially vertical because ofthemutualsupportoftheadjamntpanels.Thustheboardnearthevertical edges may continue to accept additional loading even after budding in the l4 center of the panel began. Figure 12 presents an idealized profile of load distribution on the perimeter of the container at this stage. The failure crease is triggered at and progresses from one of the comers to the’center section of the panel. Just before failure the deflected region of the panel carries the relatively small portion of the load, primarily by bending, while the board at the corners and edges remains essentially vertically flat, and carries the bulk of the load, by edgewise compression (McKee etal.,1963). Another method to predict compression strength of corrugated shippers uses the Mullen Burst Test It determines the compression strength based on the perimeter of the box, burst strength value, and type of flute (Hanlon,1985). However, this method also does not account for the effects of creep and humidity. A recent study done at the Institute of Paper Chemistry uses a better representation of compression performance by actually testing the entire pallet load and evaluating the relative contribution of each component in terms of total package strength (box and its contents). They express the total load supported by each package in terms of the number of layers in the stack above the bottom box. It also shows the contribution of internal cell partitions and inserts and column or interstacking pattern on the total load support strength (Society of Plastics Industry, Inc, 1993). ~ The investigation into the effect of humidity on corrugated box performance has been carried out by many studies. Maltenfort (1989) l4 a ‘CT‘ L—e—J W- / ENDS SPECIEN a...“ as ‘ COLIAIN CRUSH TEST e figi EMU/4 l leases are - 7 .. Prrl Figure 12 - Load distribution on perimeter of top-loaded corrugated container, and specimen configuration for TAPPI standard edgewise compression test (McKee et al., 1963) 16 documents various studies that have studied this interaction. However, though all studies show a reduction in compression strength on exposure to humidity, different levels of reduction were found among various investigators. This is attributed to the variation in the corrugated board manufacturing process, the consistency of the quality of paper used for the medium and liner, and the adhesive used to bond the various layers of paper to form corrugated board. The results from various studies show that tear strength and puncture strength on combined board are known to decrease and the stretch on liners will increase on exposure to higher humidities. The porosity of paper decreases at higher humidities since the paper becomes saturated quicker. Typical compression failures reported by Kellicutt (1963), state that the size and shape of the box not only determines how it will fail in compression but also the maximum load it will attain. For shallow boxes that are compressed in the top—to-bottom direction, failure results almost entirely by crushing along the top and bottom horizontal score lines. As box height increases, compressive failure results from a combination of crushing along the score lines and budding of the side panels of the box An increase in the length and width of the box will generally increase the compression strength. However, an increase in depth of the box generally reduces the compression strength. Finally, after reaching a specific height, the failure is almost entirely due to the result of buckling. Peleg (1985), in his study of the Container Specification by Compression Testing, discusses the effect of internal dividers used by bagmaster containers. 17 A ‘Bagmaster’ container is a corrugated box that contains fresh produce (apples, pears, etc.) in bags. Figure 13 represents the average force deflection curves of 12 x 3 bag master containers, comparing effect of vertical versus T-shaped dividers and no dividers. Each curve represents compression tests run on a sample of five containers. The vertical dividers show a compression strength of over 56% higher than the containers with no dividers and 21% higher than the T-shaped dividers. It is evident from the plot that the vertical dividers provide greater suength than the T-shaped dividers both at normal and humid conditions. Itwasalsoshownfromthedatathatbothtypesofinternal dividers more than double the strength of the total package. Some additional advantages of vertical dividers that Peleg mentions are: - The container with vertical dividers is smaller and contains the same amount of product. - With vertical dividers, there is no room for mistakes in placing the dividers inside the container. Even when properly placed, the T-shaped dividers may shift, causing misalignment of the upper and lower dividers. 18 i i i g _ roe ro eorrou meson FORCE. N i C Figure 13 - Average force deflection curves of 12 x 3 bag master containers, comparing effect of vertical versus T-shaped dividers and no dividers (Kalman ' Peleg,1985) 3.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN In order to accomplish the objectives of this study, three different test protocols were used. Each individual protocol has been identified as “Phase I”, ‘Phase II’ and ‘Phase lll’. The respective test material and methods used for each experiment are discussed in this chapter. 3.1 TEST PROTOCOL ( Phase I ) : The various boxes and internal packaging were tested for the expected hazards that occur during transportation and handling. The boxes were subjected to conditioning, compression,drop, and vibration tests as described in this section. A total often box samples were tested for each type of glassware and internal packaging combination. 3.1.1. Conditioning : All ten box samples were conditioned at 72 °F and 50% Relative Humidity for at least 24 hours prior to any tests in accordance with ASTM D-4332. After conditioning, these boxes were subjected to the following tests : l9 20 3.1.2. Compression Testing : The ten boxes of each type and packing configuration were subjected to a compression test in accordance with ASTM D-642, fixed platen method. The boxes were subjected to a compression load determined based on the Warehouse and Vehicle Stacking requirement from Element C and D in accordance with ASTM D-4169. This was determined based on data in Table 1 and a F-factor of 4.5. 3.1.3. Vibration Testing : After the compression tests, the boxes were subjected to a vibration test using ASTM 0-999 in a column stacked configuration. The resonant frequency of the column was determined using an input acceleration of 0.56. A vibration dwell was performed for ten minutes. The entire column was also subjected to a random vibration test in accordance with ASTM D4728 using a composite truck and piggy back power density spectrum based on data collected with Michigan State University transportation studies. This test was performed for 180 minutes. 21 3.1.4. Drop Testing : The ten boxes from the vibration test were subjected to drop tests in accordance with ASTM D-5276. The drop height, number of impacts and drop sequence were determined based on the size and weight of the packages in accordance with ASTM D-4169, Assurance level II. The boxes were subjected to the following of drops sequence : 0 One drop on top face e Two drops on adjacent bottom edges 0 Two drops on diagonally opposite bottom comers 0 One drop on bottom face The first five drops were performed from 15 inches ( package weight being less than 20 lbs.). The last drop was perfom'led from 30 inches. On completion of the tests the packages were inspected for product damage and its location within a package. 3.2 TEST PROTOCOL ( Phase II ): Based on the results of the tests in Phase I, an additional set of three boxes for each category of carton type were tested for the two of the fragile . glassware types (Item #3769 and #8756) using the following test protocol. The preliminary results from Phase I did not show significant levels of damage as observed in actual shipments, therefore in Phase II, the lSTA vibration and drop sequence were used. 3.2.1 Conditioning: All three box samples were conditioned at 72 “F and 50% Relative Humidity for at least 24 hours prior to any tests in accordance with ASTM D- 4332. After conditioning, these boxes were subjected to the following sequence. 3.2.2 Compression Testing: The three boxes of each type and packing configuration were subjected to a compression test in accordance with ASTM 0-642, fixed platen method. The boxes were subjected to a compression load determined based on the Warehouse and Vehicle Stacking requirement from Element C and D in accordance with ASTM 0-4169. 3.2.3 Vibration Testing: After the compression tests, the boxes were subjected to a vibration test The boxes were subjected to a random vibration test for a total duration of 60 minutes. The random vibration spectrum described in lSTA Procedure 1A was used. The boxes were vibrated in the bottom down orientation for 30 minutes. Following this, the boxes were vibrated in the top down orientation for an additional 10 minutes. The boxes were tested in both the remaining side orientations for an additional 10 minutes each. 3.2.4 Drop Testing : The three boxes from the vibration test were subjected to drop tests in accordance with ASTM D-5276 using the lSTA Procedure 1A The drop height, number of impacts, and drop sequences were determined based on the size and weight of the packages. The boxes were subjected to the following sequence of drops: ' Drop on bottom (2-3—5) corner Drop on the shortest edge radiating from the corner tested Drop on the next longest edge radiating from the corner tested Drop on the longest edge radiating from the corner tested Drop flat on one of the smallest faces Drop flat on the opposite small face Drop flat on one of the medium faces Drop flat on the opposite medium face Drop flat on one of the largest faces Drop flat on the opposite large face 24 All the above drops were performed from a drop height of 30 inches, since package weight was less than 21 pounds. 3.3 TEST PROTOCOL (Phase III) : In addition to the above shipping and handling tests, two cartons with the new partitions were tested. Four separate compression tests were performed. The tests were conducted using ASTM D-642. A fixed platen was used and the load was applied at a rate of 0.5 inch I minute. Initially the two inside partitions were tested to determine maximum compression strength and deflection. In the second test, the two empty shippers were tested. These tests were conducted to determine what percentage of the compression strength was contrlbuted by the partition as compared to the shipper in the overall package compression strength. 4.0 DATA AND RESULTS The data collected and the results of the various experiments are discussed in this chapter. The packages and the glassware were inspected after the completion of each phase of testing. 4.1 Results of Phase I : The various packages tested and the corresponding glassware damaged in each package type is described in Table 1. The data in this table shows very little damage in glasses for all ten boxes inspected in the three categories. The tumbler type of glass (Item # 135) had virtually no damage in all fifty eases tested. The die-cut separators ( Packages C, D, and E) showed very little damage as compared to the existing package (Package A) and the package having one inch runners (Package B). Package 8 showed the maximum damage amongst all categories. The overall damage in the test protocol for Phase I was considerably low. This very low damage was attributed to no side face drops or vibration in this sequence. The lSTA test protocol was evaluated in Phase II that had both side face drops and vibration. 25 26 Table 1 - The Number of Glasses Damaged in Each Category in Phase I A 2 B 6 3769 C 1 D 0 E O - A O B . 0 1 35 C 0 D O E O A 4 B 1 1 c . D 2 E O 27 4.2 Results of Phase II : “repackageswereinspectedaftercompletionofallthetestsusingthis protocol.Thenumberofglassesdamagedineachcategorywastabulated. Table 2 summarizes these test results. TheresultsshowthattheC-flute partitions usingthenewstyle inserts showed the least amount of damage. Very similar damage levels were observed in the package with the B-flute inserts (Package C). The next level of damage was observed using the E-flute inserts (Package E). The existing cartons showed the highest level of damage. The 1I4 I 1 inch runner style (Package B) showed damage levels between the two extreme levels. The data for damaged glassware was used to compare the test severity fortl'letwophases.Basedonthisdataahigherpercentageofdamage is attributedtodropsconductedonallfoursidefacesoftheboxes.Alsothis protocol used vibration of cases in the side orientation that would cause the corrugated board to compress and result in lesser cushioning before being drop tested. The last factor is attributed to using ten drops versus six in Phase I, and conducting all drops at 30 inches (higher severity level) than most at 15 inches for Phase I. The data provides a good comparison of the internal package performance. The mode of damage in the glassware tested was shattering of the cup (most common), chipping of the stem (rare) and dripping of the base (negligible). 28 Table 2 - Total Number of Glasses Damaged in Phase II A . B 17 3769 c 2 o 1 E 14 A 45 B 29 8756 c 11 o E 38 29 4.3 Results for Phase III : This test protocol was used to compare the maximum compression strengths offered by the new partitions and the shippers. Table3 summarizes the results of these tests. The compression strength (pounds) of the partition was almost four times as compared to the compression strength of the boxes. Also the deflection (inches) for the partitions was almost twice as that for the boxes alone. Therefore, any headspace between the partition and the box is not required and hence, is not recommended. Based on the data collected for compression strength and insert compression strength, the McKee formula was investigated to determine if it can effectively predictcompression strength ofthe insert The compression strength ofthe boxwas found to be 652.1 lbs with a perimeter of 78 inches. The insert had a cempression strength of 2603.1 lbs with a total 'support length" of 195 inches. The predicted strength for the insert would have been 652.1 x I 195/78) “‘2‘ = 1031.1 lbs. This is significantly lowerthan 2603.1 lbs determined experimentally. This shows that the McKee’s' formula significantly underestimates the strength of the die-cut insert These new type of partitions offer the following key advantages to the overall package performance : 0 Additional cushioning on the bottom surface 0 Automated assembly (lower costs) 30 o Faster packing time as compared to manual labor e More controlled process (die-cut) versus fabricated partitions'(slittinglslotting tables) Table 3 - Maximum Compression Strength of the Partitions and Boxes BOX 674.8 0.30 2584.0 0.61 PARTITION 2622.2 0.54 31 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 1. The two piece stemware was the most fragile, the one piece stemware exhibited medium fragility and the tumblers proved to have the least fragility when compared afterthetestsfor Phase I and Phase II. 2. Phasel: PackageBshowedthemaximumdamagefollowedbypackage Aandthenewseparators(packagesC, D, andE)showedtheleastdamage. Phase II : In the one piece stemware category, the fragility exhibited by the packages in decreasing order was : PadrageA>PackageB>PackageE>PackageC>PackageD In the two piece stemware category, the fragility exhibited by the packages in decreasing order was : Package A > Package E > Package B > Package C > Package D Overall, the new partitions (packages C, D, and E) sustained lower damage levels thantheexisting partitions ( packagesAand B) 3. The damage levels, when applying the lSTA Project 1A protocol were much higher as compared to the protocol for ASTM 04169. The ASTM D4169 did not truly represent all types of damage levels that occur in real life shipments, whereas, lSTA Project 1A produced more representative damage type due to the presence of side face drops and vibration in the test protocol. ' 4. McKee’s formula significantly underestimates the strength of the die-cut insert 32 LIST OF REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials, 1994. , Standard Practice for Performance Testing of Shipping Containers and Systems. D 4169 - 94 Standard Test Method for Determining Compression Resistance of Shipping Containers, Components, and Unit Loads. D 642 - 94 Standard Practice for Conditioning Containers, Packages, or Packaging Components for Testing. D 4332 - 89 (Reproved 94) Standard Methods for Vibration Testing of Shipping Containers. D 999 - 91 Standard Test Method for Random Vibration Testing of Shipping Containers. D 4728 - 91 Standard Test Method for Drop Test of Loaded Containers by Free Fall. D 5276 - 94 Fiedler, Robert M., Distribution Pagaging Iggznolggy, 481 Carlisle Drive, Herndon Virginia: Institution of Packaging Professionals, 1995, p. 139-157 Hanlon, J.F.. WW” MGGI’BW Hi". Inc., 1984. Chap.14. International Safe Transit Association, Preshipment Test Procedures, Procedure 1A For Testing Packaged Products Weighing Under 100 Pounds, April 1996 Kellicutt, KO, ' Effect of Contents and Load Bearing Surface o'n Compressive Strength and Stacking Life of Corrugated Containers', TAPPI, vol. 46, Jan. 1963 Maltenfort, George G., Qgflgatgg Shipping Qontaineg, Plainview, NY: Jelmar Publishing Co., Inc., 1989, p. 62-83. McKee, RC, J.W. Gander, and JR. Wachuta, “Compression Strength Formula for Corrugated Board', The Institute of Paper Technology, Sept 1963. Peleg, Kalrnan, Emgug Hangling, Packaging am Qi§t_n'gl._rtjm, The Avi Publishing Co., Inc, 1985, Chap. 9,12 and 15 Singh, S.P., Private Communication, Michigan State University, School of Packaging, East Lansing, MI. 33 SPI, “Stacking Performance of Plastic Bottles in Corrugated Boxes”, New York, N.Y.: The Society Of Plastics Industry, Inc., 1993 Wright, P.G., PR McIGnIay, E.Y.N. Shaw, Corrugated Fiberboard Boxes, Victoria, Australia: Arncor Fiber Packaging, 1992, p. 46-64. Rauch Associates, Industry Economics, Table 1-1, 'Actual and Forecast Shipments ofthe U.S. Packaging Industly1985, 1987, 1989 and 1994', 1994 Appendix A Raw Data and Analysis of Damage Location Charts Phase I and Phase II 34 Figure D1 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package A, Item 3769 Figure 02 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package B, Item 3769 35 1 Figure 03 - Damage Locations for Tea Protocol (Phase I), Package C, Item 3769 Figure D4 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package D, Item 3769 36 Figure 05;- Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package E, Item 3789 37 1 Figure cs - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package A, Item 8756 Figure D7 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package B, Item 8756 38 Figure 08- Damage LocationsforTea Protocol (Phase I), Package C, Item 8756 Figure 09 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase I), Package 0, Item 8756 39 Figure 010 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase I), Paolage E, Item 8756 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 Figure 011- Damage LocationsforTest Protocol (Phase II), PackageA. Item 3769 11 2 1 2 112 2 1 1 1 Figure 012 - Damage Locations forTest Protocol (Phase II), Package 8, Item 3769 41 1 Figure 013 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package C, Item 3789 1 1 Figure 014 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package 0. Item 3789 42 Figure 015 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package E, Item 3769 43 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 N—A—‘N N on —x is N 1 2 2 2 1 Figure 018 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package A, Item 8756 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 Figure 017 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package 8, Item 8758 1 1 Figure 018 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package C, Item 8756 1 1 Flgure D19 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package 0, Item 8756 45 1 ANA—LN 3 1 1 1 3 Figure 020 - Damage Locations for Test Protocol (Phase II), Package E, Item 8756 46 N PR TA'I10N FTH DAMA E A R The damage location chart is divided into three" zones for the interpretation of the data : 1. Perimeterzone (P) :20 cells 2. MiddleZone (M) : 12 cells 3. InnerZone (I) : 4ceIls The raw data can be compared in reference to the product (glasses) and the package itself. When analyzing the raw data, Item 135 (tumblers) were not compared since they showed no damage. Table 4 - Zonal Analysis of Damage with Reference to Glassware 3769 10x5 1 3 5 9 I 8755 10x5 3 s 3 19 3739 3x5 4'2 18 4 52 Il 8756 3X5 75 41 14 129 47 AccordingtoTabIe4, in Phaselthemajorityofdamagewas caused in the “Inner Zone” (8%) followed by the 'Middle Zone” (1.83%). The least damage was observed in the 'Perimeter Zone” Of 0.9%. Based on the data for Phase II, the maximum damage occured in the 'Perimeter Zone” (39%) followed by the “Middle Zone” (31.7%). The least damage was observed in the 'Inner Zone“ of 30%. Thepackagedatacanbeanalyzedasfollows: Table 5 - Zonal Analysis of Damage with Reference to the Package A 8 H 3 3 0 B 17 2 7 8 I - ASTM C 3 2 1 0 D 4180 D 2 2 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 A 73 41 28 8 B 45 24 18 5 II - lSTA C 13 8 1 4 PROJECT 1A D 8 8 2 0 E 43 28 12 3 The total damage level, when the protocol for lSTA - Project 1A was used, is considerably higher ( about 87%) than the results obtained when the ASTM D 4169 was used. This is because ASTM D4169 did not show all types of damage that is present in real life shipments, whereas, lSTA Project 1{\ produced more representativedamagetypeduetothepresencaofsidefacadropsand vibration. 8 Though Package E did not have any kind of damage under Phase I testing, the damage displayed by it in Phase II was considerably high. Of all the packages tested, Package D exhibited the least amount of product damage and henceitissafetosaythatPadtageDwasflwabestpmdud-padtagesystemof all the different kindsthatweretested. Package D isthe newboxwiththe C-flute divider. Overall, the die-cut inserts (new packages) proved to provide better protedion to the glassware relating to the package-distribution hazard, than the fabricated partitions (present packages). Appendix B Raw Data Results of Compression Tests on Different Glassware and Package Combinations 49. ’ Table .6 - Compression Test Data for Item 135, Package A ‘3 FORCE (lb.) no. DEFLEcfiON (in) 1 3097 0.31 2 3119 0.29 3 3072 0.29 4 . 3078 0.28 5 3064 0.30 6 3070 0.30 7 ‘ 3082 0.27 8 3064 0.29 9 3064 0.30 10 - 3085. 0.29 AVERAGE 3079.50 0.29 STD.DEV. 17.55 0.01 Table 7 - Compression Test Data for Item 135, Package B NO. FORCE (lb.) DEFLECTION (in) 1 3081 0.32 2 3116 0.32 3 3028 0.31 4 3078 0.27 5 3065 0.30 6 3010 ‘ 0.31 7 3073 0.28 8 3062- 0.31 9 3055 0.30 10 3065 0.29 AVERAGE 3063.30 0.30 STD.DEV. 28.99 0.02 Table 8 - Compression Test Data for Item 135, Package C NO. FORCE (lb.) DEFLECTION (in) 1.00 2149 0.26 2.00 2176 0.24 3.00 2146 0.26 4.00 2182 0.25 5.00 2149 0.27 6.00 2152 0.24 7.00 2148 0.25 8.00 . 2151 0.24 9.00 2159 0.29 10.00 2148 0.24 AVERAGE 2156.00 0.25 STD.DEV. 12.70.. 0.02 Table .9 - Compression'Test Data for Item 135, Package D NO. FORCE '(lb.) DEFLECTION (in) 1 2165 0.27 2 $179 0.28 3 2180 0.27 4 2162 0.26 5 2168 0.28 6 2165 0.25 7 2155 0.29 8 2148 0.29 9 2149 . 0.28 10 2179 T 0.29 AVERAGE 2165.00 0.28 STD.DEV. 11.93 0.01 51 Table 10 - Compression Test Data for Item 135, Package E NO. F6RCE(Ib.) DEFLECTION (in) 1.00 2168 0.27 2.00 2168 0.27 3.00 2148 0.28 4.00 2173 0.25 5.00 2148 0.25 6.00 2149 0.26 7.00 2188 0.29 8.00 2149 0.26 9.00 2164 0.29 10.00 2165 0.29 AVERAGE 2162.00 0.27 STD.DEV. 13.38 0.02 Table 11 - Compression Test Data for Item 3769, Package A NO. ' FORCE (lb.) DEFLECTION (in) 1 1758 0.23 2 1768 0.28 3 1765 0.24. 4 1782 0.24 5 1746‘ 0.24 6 1755 0.27 7 1788 0.24 8 1761 0.28 9 1784 0.24 10 1746 0.25 AVERAGE 1763.30 ‘ 0.25 STD.DEV. 13.02 0.02 52 Table 12 - Compression Test Data for Item 3769, Package B NO. FORCE (lb.) DEFLECTION (in) 1 1759 0.27 2 1747 0.26 3 1753 0.24 4 1746 0.27 5 1762 0.28 6 1758 0.28 7 1756 0.30 8 1752 0.27 9 1750 0.28 10 1756 0.27 AVERAGE 1753.90 0.27 STD.DEV. 5.24 0.02 Table 13 - Compression Test Data for Item 3769, Package C N0. FORCE (lb.) DEFLECTION (in) 1 1768 0.26 2 1778 0.25 3 1770 0.28 4 1780 0.25 5 1759 0.25 6 1768 0.23 7 1759 0.26 8 1764 0.28 9 1747‘ 0.23 10 1761 0.25 AVERAGE 1765.40 ' 0.25 STD.DEV. 9.71 0.02 53 Table 14 - Compression Test Data for Item 3769, Package D. NO. FORCE (lb.) DEFLECTION (in) 1 1782 0.23 2 1761 0.20 3 1771 0.20 4 1771 0.24 5 1750 0.22 6 1749 0.22 7 1783 0.21 8 1783 0.20 9 1773 0.23 10 1759 0.21 AVERAGE 1768.20 0.22 STD.DEV. ' 12.93 ' 0.01 Table 15 - Compression Test Data for Item 3769, Package E NO. FORCE (lb.) DEFLECTION (In) 1 1754 0.22 2 1747 0.23 3 1759 0.22 4 1 751 0.27 5 1765 0.19 6 1776 0.19 7 1768 0.21 8 1768 0.21 9 1 747 0.23 10 . 1774 0.22 AVERAGE 1760.90 ' 0.22 STD.DEV. 10.82 0.02 Table 16 - Compression Test Data for Item 8756. Package A 9 1 0 AVERAGE STD.DEV. DEFLECTION 0.31 0.34 0.29 0.25 0.3 0.29 0.3 0.38 0.30 0.04 I Table 17 - Compression Test caterer Item 8756. Package B NO. FORCE (lb.) DEFLECTION (In) 1 1459 0.22 2 1458 0.21 3 1459 0.22 4 1484 0.21 5 1462 0.21 6 1461 ‘ 0.20 7 '1462 0.20 8 1459 0.21 9 1468 0.22 10 1462 0.23 AVERAGE 1461.40 ' 0.21 STD.DEV. 2.99 0.01 55 Table 18 - Compression Test Data for Item 8756, Package C NO. FORCE (lb.) DEFLECTION (in) 1 1453 0.34 2 1453 0.30 3 1464 0.36 4 1455 0.26 5 1458 0.33 6 1459 0.35 7 1462 0.31 8 1459 0.37 9 1458 0.37 10 1459 0.36 AVERAGE 1458.00 0.34 STD.DEV. 3.56 0.04 . Table 19 - Compression Test Data for Item 8756, Package D NO. FORCE (lb.) DEFLECTION (in) 1 1468 0.28 2 1459 0.25 3 1474 0.27 4 1459 0.27 5 1465 0.28 6 1448 0.29 7 - 1464 0.27 8 1459 0.26 9 1473 0.30 10 1464 0.28 - AVERAGE 1463.30 4 0.28 STDDEV. 7.63 0.01 Table 20 - Compression Test Data for Item 8756, Package E NO. FORCE DEFLECTION 1 ' 1458 0.25 ‘ 1 0.26 0.29 ' 0.25 0.26 9 10 AVERAGE - STD.DEV. $7 §QMMARY QF THE VARIOQS CQMPRESSIQN TEST RE§QLT§ The following table summarizes the raw data presented in Appendix B. Table 21 - Summarized Compression Test Data with Reference to the Glassware use. «\VNIJA\'A‘-W$I°:‘J(h A. B 3063.3 0.30 135 C 2156.0 0.25 D 2165.0 0.28 E 2162.0 0.27 A 1763.3 0.25 B 1753.9 0.27 3769 C 1765.4 0.25 0 1768.2 0.22 E 1760.9 0.22 A 1461.4 0.21 8 1458.0 0.34 8756 C 1463.3 0.28 0 1462.7 0.26 E 1460.1 0.30 58 The previous table is further analysed with reference to the product (glassware) and the package itself. The product data is represented as : Avg. Force (lb) Avg.Deflection (in) Item 135 (tumblers) : 2525.16 0.28 Item 3769 (one piece) : 1762.34 0.24 Item 8756 (two piece) : 1461.10 0.28 Table 22 - Summarized Compression Test Data with Reference to Package Appendix C Force-Deflection Plots for Partitions and Boxes Phase III S9 l! . . . {mating umo..o.i¢m=ot©tnr >16}... 295...... ...g .. .. .. i 2 q 4 2 a . _ II.) 2 q o 2.... - cow 000— .2 camp i Gena -- 00mm ., cow? 80m sun—.098 09:6. - Ie.ll.-'|.o 1 1. 2....» Sci «0.: to 0.65 1 .06 .3 0...: u 3.. e26“. ( E»:; .3 >3..- . o u--. 6 II. . 8'... .II. 6 -eee'll--- .10 :5. a...» t0.&.-l.8§.§i .18 6.158 l 3.. .-..“.ml_ . . -. o e on 6....I3II.X....... . T: I. . < coffin.“ so. «OE :ozoocooéeou .. ”N 03¢... '— efiJ-aw V310.» I And- ’/, “‘5'. ‘ -: 60 a . . mum... “a," D -. u.-. . -. . n. "' "-WM1-.—o-v -v~e "q“ ....o en...- . . —....-... .._...—. .. - ..... ”o- -.. . 0 e . . sgydnmo 83% .8 228.6 5.858 O 8o .. 08p . 82: OOON 83 on”: .. 000m 88 80v 1 com? 086 8.3.: .33... 2.2.2 5... .e 2:. . 5.2.5.3323... .22.: .22.... 2.: .tese 33...... 432.....- . ..-..--i.---..i-i..é..............m ._. :22 r. JPN-M. . m coats.“ .3 «or. cozoo=eo.oo..on_ .. en 039—. 61 8.2% .8 68.6 8.6.me 2 u . . _ . . . . c 2. S p 8. 8n 2» 8.. 22 GS 22 82. 2.2 one .2 8R 32.3.3 :22": Sci 0!: so 2.2 e. and a3 v.0”. — .20 .( x8 .850 id . , .6. ...1IIII.I lll-I.l."|lnllnlltll"llle.'llll III-I15 O I :8 2.: :38. e...» < 26m .2 .6... 26.86.28.862. . mu geek 62 fair».v.6.2r.......rh..lnuri1.351.145»:....“..r.n.r...§.¥§£.§§flir .. ..m..r,.......4.............. ink; ....E. ...z. . .. . “.... ... .. 5:5: 5.22.. .2. 95.0 cozoozeo . _ 2 . 2 - 2 5113......:........ 1...: 66.35.15! . ....O . I 27!. . .I.l.l.l|'.}l.&ot..0nle 0000000 .5. c... 2 32 con GB 3.. 38”. Se .32.. com who Och son. 6500 non-.2: 22* «7.3 5. Gods :- 8.0 2: 0.:0 _ «use .a x00 .am(d6 >892. 3.0 05:. 21* 3E.» :3 ° .00 0205 seem u GEE-w na. 0.6:...” E32522: mmfim 26210.22 m xom sob «or... eczema—09820... .. mm 032. .... . ...: .4 ...: . .2... 1.1.. t..l.....||1'3!8!....2. "‘filfiiflfflfljflflivfifliwuflififl‘iflfi“