5h" '
{u‘

1

5

I411}? A It}?
.I.(A‘.VL.V¢. .Vl
.v‘.»|!».v (.Ii.

 

is
2-1“

i=1 1»

 

 

IBRARI 8

”ii Illllllllllllfilllllllfllllllllllllll

" 31293018 002

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

MEASUREMENT OF THE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE GROUND
SHIPPING ENVIRONMENT FOR LARGE AND HEAVY
PACKAGES (UP TO 150 POUNDS)

presented by

Zachary Grant Hays

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S . degree in Packaging

 

Major

Date jI/lsl/i?

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

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

 

DATE DUE I DATE DUE DATE DUE

NOV 1 2 2003'

lmgAi iiiiom

ELI—848%—
FEB ] 7 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

-i
4 \\ "-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me animus-m4

MEASUREMENT OF THE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
GROUND SHIPPING ENVIRONMENT FOR LARGE AND
HEAVY PACKAGES (UP TO 150 POUNDS)

By

Zachary Grant Hays

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Packaging

1999

ABSTRACT

MEASUREMENT OF THE UPS GROUND SHIPPING ENVIRONMENT FOR
LARGE AND HEAVY PACKAGES (UP TO 150 POUNDS)

By

Zachary Grant Hays

This study evaluated the UPS Ground shipping environment for large and
heavy packages weighing up to 150 pounds. Four packages, identified as A, B, C,
and D, (with A and B identical) were fitted with triaxial data recorders. The
recorded data was processed to determine the equivalent drop height and velocity
change of the impacts. The four packages originated from East Lansing, MI and
were shipped the equivalent of 24 one-way trips via UPS Ground Service to
destinations in Sunnyvale, CA, Duluth, GA, and Rochester, NY. Packages A and
B weighed 46 pounds each, and received 370 drops greater than 3.0 inches and
274 impacts greater than 72.2 in.ls. Resulting in an average of 8 drops and 7
impacts per shipment with 95% of the total drops occurring below 34 inches and
95% of the impacts below 210 in.ls. Package C, weighing 72 pounds,
encountered 173 drops and 147 impacts, 95% of the drops occurred below 32
inches and 95% of the impacts were below 180 in.ls. It averaged 7 drops and 5
impacts per shipment. Package D, a palletized package weighing 140 pounds,
was subjected to 112 drops and 91 impacts, averaging 5 drops and 3 impacts per
shipment. Of the 112 drops, 95% were below a height of 22 inches and 95% of
the impacts occurred below 220 in.ls. The dominant impact surface of all four

packages was an edge with approximately 50% of all the recorded events.

Dedicated To My Family, For All Their Support

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my major advisor Dr.
S. Paul Singh for his expert guidance and assistance. His suggestions and
constructive criticism throughout this study has proven invaluable.

I would also like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Gary Burgess for his
suggestions and contributions toward the completion of this study. My thanks are
also due to Dr. Brian Feeny for his input and critique of the manuscript

A special thanks is also due to Jennifer Thomas for her incredible support
and to my friends for supporting me in this endeavor and helping me get
organized.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
1.1 UPS Ground Shipping System ........................................................... 3
1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................... 7
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN .......................................................................... 8
2.1 Test Instrumentation and Packages ................................................... 9
2.2 SAVER Operation ............................................................................ 22
2.3 Zero-G Drop Height Calculation ....................................................... 28
2.4 Interpretation of Drop Height Zero-G Data ........................................ 29
2.5 Instrument Configuration and Calibration ......................................... 30
2.6 Channel and Axis Identification ........................................................ 30
2.7 Data Collection.......................... ....................................................... 33
3.0 DATA AND RESULTS ............................................................................... 40
4.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 82
5.0 TEST PROTOCOL .................................................................................... 84
6.0 TEST SEQUENCE .................................................................................... 89
APPENDIX A - Samples of Damaged Packages ................................................ 93
APPENDIX B - Individual Drop Heights for All Shipments .................................. 103
APPENDIX C - Individual Velocity Changes for All Summary Events ................. 112
APPENDIX D - Individual Velocity Changes for All Non-Summary Events ......... 126
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 144

9"

9’9”!"

.‘1

10.
11.

B1.

82.

B3.

C1.

CZ.

LIST OF TABLES

Package/SAVER Weights and Sizes ........................................................... 10
Summary of All Recorded Drops ................................................................. 42
Summary of Recorded Drops for All Shipments ........................................... 44
Cumulative Percent as a Function of Drop Height for All Shipments ............ 47
Drop Orientation Frequency for All Shipments ............................................. 51
Number and Frequency of Impact Occurrences per Package Face

for All Shipments ......................................................................................... 55
Summary of Velocity Change for All Summary Events ................................. 60
Summary of All Impacts for All Summary Events ......................................... 62
Cumulative Percent as a Function of Velocity Change

for All Summary Events .............................................................................. 66
Impact Orientation Frequency for All Summary Events ................................ 75

Number and Frequency of Impact Occurrences per Package Face
of All Summary Events ............................................................................... 79

Individual Drop Events greater than 3.00 Inches for Shipments
to Sunnyvale, CA ...................................................................................... 104

Individual Drop Events greater than 3.00 Inches for Shipments
to Duluth, GA ............................................................................................ 107

Individual Drop Events greater than 3.00 Inches for Shipments
to Rochester, NY ...................................................................................... 1 10

Individual Velocity Changes for All Summary Events for Shipments
to Sunnyvale, CA ...................................................................................... 1 13

Individual Velocity Changes for All Summary Events for Shipments
to Duluth, GA ............................................................................................ 117

vi

03.

DI.

DZ.

D3.

Individual Velocity Changes for All Summary Events for Shipments
to Rochester, NY ...................................................................................... 122

Individual Velocity Changes for All Non-Summary Events
for Shipments to Sunnyvale, CA ............................................................... 127

Individual Velocity Changes for All Non-Summary Events
for Shipments to Duluth, GA ..................................................................... 133

Individual Velocity Changes for All Non-Summary Events
for Shipments to Rochester, NY ................................................................ 139

vii

159’.”

5090519.“

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

LIST OF FIGURES

Package Configuration for Packages A and B ............................................. 11
Product Display and SAVER Placement for Packages A and B ................... 12
SAVER and Cushion Placement for Packages A and B .............................. 13
Package Configuration for Package C ......................................................... 15
Product Display and SAVER Placement for Package c ............................... 16
SAVER and Cushion Placement for Package C .......................................... 17
Exterior Shipping Unit for Package C ........................................................... 18
Display and SAVER Placement for Package D ............................................ 19
Exterior Shipping Unit for Package D ........................................................... 20
SAVER and Cushion Placement for Package D .......................................... 21
SAVER Testing Parameters ........................................................................ 31
SAVER Triaxial Orientation ......................................................................... 32
Face Orientation for Packages A and B ....................................................... 34
Face Orientation for Package C .................................................................. 35
Face Orientation for Package D .................................................................. 36
UPS Ground Destinations and Hubs in the US. .......................................... 37
Overview of the UPS Ground Shipping Environment ................................... 39
Number of Drops versus Drop Height for All Shipments .............................. 49
Cumulative Percent versus Drop Height for All Shipments ........................... 50
Distribution of Impact Orientation for All Shipments ..................................... 53
Distribution of Impact Faces for All Shipments ............................................. 57

viii

22. Number of Impacts versus Velocity Change for Packages A and B ............. 68
23. Number of Impacts versus Velocity Change for Package C ......................... 69
24. Number of Impacts versus Velocity Change for Package D ......................... 70
25. Cumulative Percent versus Impact Velocity Change of All Summary

Events for Packages A and B ..................................................................... 71
26. Cumulative Percent versus Impact Velocity Change of All Summary

Events for Package C ................................................................................ 72
27. Cumulative Percent versus Impact Velocity Change of All Summary

Events for Package D ................................................................................. 73
28. Distribution of Impact Orientation for All Summary Events ........................... 77
29. Distribution of Impact Occurrences per Package Face

for All Summary Events .............................................................................. 81
A1. Shipping Damage to Edges of Packages A and B ....................................... 94
A2. Oil Spill Damage to Package A .................................................................... 95
A3. Damage to Face 1 of Package C ................................................................. 96
A4. Interior Damage to Package C .................................................................... 97
A5. Interior Damage to Package C (without top cushions) ................................. 98
A6. State of Returned Package D ...................................................................... 99
A7. Shipping Damage to Package D ................................................................ 100
A8. Shipping Damage to Package D (side view) .............................................. 101
A9. Package D Not Attached to the Pallet ........................................................ 102

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Recently, the commercial shipping industry in the United States has
become an extremely competitive business. What was once an industry
dominated by the federal government's vision of package transit, there are now
dozens of shipping options for individuals as well as for businesses. Private
companies compete very successfully in the shipping industry, frequently offering
customers better service and faster delivery than the federal solution to parcel
delivery. In today's consumer and business worlds, individuals demand prompt
guaranteed service at competitive prices. To accomplish these demands, new
distribution systems have been created, and consequently, new logistical
problems have evolved. Distribution systems are constantly evaluated and
revised in order to expedite shipping deadlines and to ensure overall package
protection. These newer distribution systems are composed of quite complex
networks that focus on maximizing consumer convenience, while concurrently
minimizing overall consumer cost.

The greatest competitor of the United States Postal Service is United
Parcel Service (UPS), a private company driven to satisfy the ever changing
needs of its customers. UPS has consistently been the front-runner of the
shipping industry. Having been named America's most admired mail, package,
and freight delivery company for the fifteenth consecutive year by Fortune”
magazine (Fortune, 1997). Founded in 1907 under the name American

Messenger Company, the company shipped solely in the Seattle, Washington

area. (UPS, 1998). The company purchased its first delivery vehicles, the Model
T Ford, in 1913, sparking a new concentration on consolidated delivery service.
After several mergers, United Parcel Service was established in 1919 and
relocated its home offices to Oakland, California. The major revolution for UPS
came in the 1953 when the company acquired common carrier service
authorization for the United Sates in order to compete more directly with the US.
Postal Service. This initiative enabled UPS to serve all points within and
between every state in the US. In 1975, UPS became the first private company
to serve every address within the 48 contiguous United States, and its first
international operation was established in Ontario, Canada. By the late 1980's
UPS had developed into an international company serving over 185 countries
worldwide (UPS, 1997). Despite all of the initiatives to introduce overnight and
international flight shipments UPS has remained mated in the ground shipping
business. Today, UPS employs over 157,000 vehicles to transport shipments for
its customers, and maintains 1,713 operating facilities around the world (UPS,

1 998).

One of the most reliable forms of shipment for UPS is the UPS Ground
Service. In an independent study conducted by Consumer Reports magazine,
UPS Ground shipments reached their intended destinations on time with a
success rate of 78%, compared to that of the US. Postal Service with only 72%

for the same category of shipments (Consumer Reports, 1998).

1.1 UPS GROUND SHIPMENT SYSTEM

Similar to its many other parcel delivery services, UPS Ground shipment is
based on a "Hub—and—Spoke" system. Originally created by UPS engineers in
order to confront the problem of broad delivery areas while still maintaining fast
and predictable transit times, this system has become the industry standard for
ground and express delivery operations. The major UPS sorting facilities -
"Hubs" - serve as the package exchange points for volumes of parcels moving to
a broad area. The hubs are designed to sort tens of thousands of packages per
hour permitting the quick exchange and redirection of parcels. Each hub is in
turn connected to a number of operating centers - "Spokes" - which serve as the
home base for the individual delivery vehicles. These vehicles provide all pickup
and delivery service within a specified geographic area serving each spoke. The
boundaries of the operating centers are contiguous to one another so that all
addresses are covered. Next-day ground delivery occurs routinely between all
operating center areas that are connected to the same hub, making it possible for
shipments to reach their destinations up to 400 miles away.

The system works as follows: A route driver picks up a package from the
customer and returns to the regional operating center. The package is then put
aboard a tractor-trailer (“Feeder") that departs for the major hub later that day. At
the major hub, the customer's package, as well as the many others, are unloaded
and put through a "sort" at the hub. This major hub receives and sorts all the
packages shipped from the connected operating centers. Typically, packages

heavier than 50-70 pounds are handled on separate conveying equipment as

part of the sorting process in the hubs. The package is then sorted into the
feeder that originated from the final destination's hub. After the sort has been
completed, the feeder bound for the package's ultimate destination departs for its
operating center. When the package reaches the operating center, it is promptly
loaded onto a delivery vehicle that serves the end customer’s address and the
parcel is delivered. For ground shipments covering vast distances, the packages
move from hub to hub before reaching the operating center in the end delivery
area (UPS, 1997). The distribution system for UPS Ground shipments is a
tremendously complex system designed to facilitate the sorting of potentially
millions of packages a day. Guaranteeing the correct destination and
promptness in delivery with minimal damage or errors is a continuous logistical
challenge.

It is an inevitable fact of shipping that damage to parcels in distribution
systems will occur. The packages are continually subjected to various hazards
that may literally destroy the shipping containers or worse yet, the internal
product. Along with assorted drops, impacts and compressive forces, the
packages also fall victim to climatic and pressure changes as well as vibration
hazards from the delivery vehicles in transit.

Although common, one of the most severe hazards in the ground shipping
environment are shocks. These shocks to the package result from impacts with
stationary objects in me sorting facilities or even other packages in transit. Many
studies have focused on determining the underlying causes of the shocks and

vibrations that parcels are subjected to during transportation. Shipping damage

is usually separated into two categories, the handling environment and the in-
transit environment. Damage from the handling environment is primarily the
result of loading and unloading operation, or the stacking, lifting and conveying of
the packages. In the case of heavier packages, similar to those used in this
study, the packages may often be tipped end over end in order to position them
within the pick-up/delivery vehicles. ln-transit damage, however, is due to the
performance of the shipping vehicle and varies widely in severity with the overall
shipping distance and the ground transportation surface.

One particular study designed to monitor the dynamics of individual
packages in the sorting and handling environment conducted by Ostrem and
Goodshall (1979), showed that most packages receive numerous shocks while
passing through the distribution system. The data collected suggested the
occurrence of low-level drops was significantly larger than that of higher-level
drops. Further, it was determined that unitized loads or larger and heavier
packages experienced drops from significantly lower heights. The data also
indicated that over half of the recorded impacts typically occurred on the bottom
face of the packages.

In a related study by Weigel (1996) the overnight shipping environment
was evaluated for both corrugated and plywood shipping containers. The data
was collected by using drop height recorders and was evaluated to determine the
drop height and impact velocity change of each dynamic event measured during
the test shipments. The shock environment was analyzed in terms of the number

of shocks experienced and the level of the shocks as measured by the drop

height, as well as the velocity change for the events classified as impacts. It was
found that almost twice as many dynamic events occurred for the corrugated
containers and were more severe than those experienced by the plywood
containers. Which would suggest that overall package weight was indeed a
factor in estimating the amount and level of shocks to a package in transit.

Another study conducted by Singh and Voss (1992), explored the effect of
package size and weight in the handling of shipments sent via UPS. The weights
of the test packages ranged from 20 to 45 pounds and a maximum drop height of
77.8 inches was recorded from the 150 one-way test shipments. It was also
found that the maximum lateral impacts encountered exhibited a velocity change
of 250 in.ls. The data indicated that 99.5% of the drops encountered occurred
below 27.5 inches and 99.5% of the lateral impacts had a velocity change less
than 165 in.ls. for the UPS shipping environment. One of the conclusions from
this study, however, was that package size did not significantly affect the drop
height, and weight was a significant factor only for the smaller lightweight
packages used in the study.

Although the UPS Ground shipping environment has remained consistent
in nature, there have been dramatic increases in package quantities within the
distribution system. By focusing on minimizing damage to both package and
product, it has become important to identify and characterize the dynamics of this
transportation mode to assist in the design and testing of more effective

packaging methods.

1.2 OBJECTIVES
The following objectives were proposed for this study:
A. To measure the dynamics of the ground shipping
environment for large and heavy packages (up to 150
pounds) shipped by UPS within the United States.
B. To develop a test protocol to test packages of similar nature

for the UPS Ground shipping environment.

2.0 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

This study was proposed to evaluate the ground shipping environment for
large and heavy packages up to 150 pounds, within the UPS distribution system.
In order to achieve these goals, test shipments were designed to obtain and
collect dynamic data that could be used to develop laboratory test methods to
simulate the characteristics of this shipping environment. The accumulated data
will then be proposed for the creation of a laboratory test standard for similar
shipping conditions. This is of particular interest in that such a test may obviate
test shipments for the purpose of determining the associated drop height and
shock impacts for packages of this classification. A detailed description of the
testing instrumentation and packaging materials and methods employed is
presented later in this chapter.

Of the various methods that can be utilized to document and measure
dynamic events that parcels experience during a typical distribution cycle, the
most effective is a triaxial recorder. Unlike the more simple single-drop recorders
that only record impacts above a pre-set threshold, triaxial recorders give the
user an exact time and severity level of the impacts as they occur. Since the
single-drop mechanisms only indicate if the impact has occurred and not the
severity beyond the specified threshold, they are greatly restricted in their
applications to this particular type of study. The more sophisticated recorders,
like the ones used in this study, measure and record impacts in the three axes of

the package. These types of data recorders measure all impacts and save the

acceleration-time history of the dynamic event. The impact pulses can then be
used to estimate the actual drop height and impact orientation as well as the

velocity change of each axis associated with the recorded impacts.

2.1 TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND PACKAGES

The triaxial data recorder used for this study was the "SAVER" - Shock
and Vibration Environment Recorder, manufactured by Dallas Instruments a
division of the Lansmont Company. This triaxial accelerometer unit is parh'cularly
useful in the evaluation of the shock and/or vibration environment of an existing
package or potential prototype packaging system within a given distribution
system.

The battery powered SAVER unit is small enough to be placed in virtually
any size package. The device stores the impacts that the internal triaxial
accelerometers sense in their order of occurrence and saves the acceleration-
time history of the individual events. The SAVER also interprets the impact
orientation from the triggered events, which indicates to the user not only the
impacts severity, but the surfaces involved in the event as well.

For the transportation tests, there were a total of four packages involved.
Two of the packages, A and B, were iden’a'cal in size and weight. Package C
was both heavier and larger than the first two packages, and package D was a
palletized package, which weighed the most. The following table contains the

approximate size and weight of the four packages and the SAVER units used in

the study, the weight of the SAVER units are included in the individual package

weights.

TABLE 1. Package/SAVER Weights and Sizes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Package Weight Size
48.2 lbs. 34.75 x 19.50 x 8.75 in
A (21.87 kg) (0.88 x 0.50 x 0.22 m)
48.2 lbs. 34.75 x 19.50 x 8.75 in
B (21.87 kg) (0.88 x 0.50 x 0.22 m)
74.2 lbs. 47.00 x 30.00 x 10.50 in
C (33.57 kg) (1.19 x 0.75 x 0.27 m)
142.2 lbs. 31.75 x 23.25 x 15.50 in
D (54.52 kg) (0.81 x 0.59 x 0.39 m)
2.2 lbs. 4.90 x 3.80 x 2.20 in
SAVER (1.00 kg) (0.125 x 0.097 x 0.055 m)

 

The four packages used for the test shipments consisted of varying

components. Packages A and B each contained a set of four wooden folding

chairs, which served as the weight for the shipment. See Figures 1 and 2. The

SAVER's were mounted on wooden blocks measuring 7.00 x 6.00 x 0.75 inches

(0.18 x 0.15 x 0.02 meters) and positioned as close to the geometric center of the

packages as possible. In packages A and B, they were located in the lower

portion of the chairs, below the legs, with the X-axis of the SAVER in line with the

orientation of the shipping labels. See Figure 3. The SAVER's were surrounded

by a polyethylene static shielding pouch for protection from electrostatic

discharge buildups as well as loose particles and were then encased with several

polyethylene cushions. For package C, the weight was supplied by an

10

 

 

Figure 1. Package Configuration for Packages A and B

11

 

Figure 2. Product Display and SAVER Placement for Packages A and B

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. SAVER and Cushion Placement for Packages A and B

exercise machine. Because of the bulk of the apparatus, the position of the
SAVER was restricted to slightly above, in the Y-axis, the geometric center of the
package. Again, for impact surface identification purposes, the X-axis of the
SAVER was in line with the shipping labels. Similarly, the SAVER was mounted
onto the same wooden blocks as packages A and B and was surrounded by a
polyethylene pouch and polyethylene cushions. See Figures 4-7. Packages A,
B, and C were supplied by the QVC home-shopping network. Package D was a
palletized dummy package supplied by the Eastman Kodak Company. For this
package, the Saver was positioned in the exact geometric center of the package.
The SAVER was protected in a polyethylene pouch and mounted onto a wooden
box, which contained the ballast weight. Polyethylene cushions were used to
isolate the wooden box from the exterior corrugated package. Refer to Figures
8-10.

Although the SAVER units are durable by design, the cushions were
included to prevent damage to the instrumentation as well as from structural
damages or abrasions when exposed to the severe shocks in the distribution
environment. The polyethylene pouches serve to prevent static discharges
during handling, as these may be potentially harmful the SAVER units. All of the
exterior shipping boxes were constructed from single-wall C-fiute corrugated

board.

14

 

Figure 4. Package Configuration for Package C

 

Figure 5. Product Display and SAVER Placement for Package C

 

 

 

 

 

.4/ //

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. SAVER and Cushion Placement for Package C

O 35.28 .8 2:: 9.32.5 Loteaxm .5 952“.

 

 

 

18

 

Figure 8. Display and SAVER Placement for Package D

 

 

 

Figure 9. Exterior Shipping Unit for Package D

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

./ a: /

l=e

Figure 10. SAVER and Cushion Placement for Package D

 

21

2.2 SAVER OPERATION

This section provides a brief review of the SAVER operation and also
describes the parameters used to program the devices and to analyze the
collected data. The SAVER unit utilizes an internal triaxial accelerometer and
includes an extra port for an additional external accelerometer. The unit also
includes four programmable charge amplifiers, four gain stages, and four low-
pass filters. There are also two 8—channel multiplexers, an analog-to—digital
converter, and a temperature/humidity port. The unit is powered by four C-cell
alkaline batteries, which are used to store the recorded data. However, there is
also an internal memory back-up battery capable of storing recorded data for up
to one year after the life of the exhausted or removed external batteries.

All SAVER parameters, as well as communication and data analysis are
performed by a host computer with the installed Microsoft WlndowsTM -based
"SaverWare" software. The accompanying program is used to set the data
collection parameters, retrieve the collected data, and analyze the individual
results. "SaverWare" utilizes the concept of system gateways, by selecting one
of the standard gateways the automated instrument setup process is activated.
The user may also select a "User Defined" option in which all of the SAVER's
setup parameters can be adjusted separately. The setup parameters can be
saved and loaded for analyses of additional similar shipments. The versatility of
instrument setup makes the SAVER an ideal drop/shock analysis tool for users of

all skill levels.

In order to fully understand the operation and application of the SAVER, it
is helpful to know the basics of the system architecture and functions, both
hardware and firmware/software.

Hardware

The SAVER contains a single analog-to-digital (AID) converter, with its
input connected to two 8-channel multiplexers (MUX's). One multiplexer is
assigned to the 8 "dynamic" (rapidly changing signals) waveform channels, and
the other is assigned to the 8 "static" (slowly changing signals) channels.
Dynamic (waveform) channels 1-4 have built-in charge amplifiers, gain stages,
and filters, which allow piezoelectric (charge-type) accelerometers to be
connected directly. The standard SAVER incorporates an internal triaxial
accelerometer, which is connected internally to channels 1—3. Leaving channel 4
available for an external accelerometer. The unit is also available for use without
the internal accelerometer, in which case, all 4 channels (1-4) are available for
the direct connection of external piezoelectric accelerometers.

Optional dynamic channels 5-8 have straight connections to the
multiplexer and from the output of the multiplexer to the AID converter. The
SAVER unit can be configured (by the manufacturer) for the direct (DC) 0-5 volt
input of the ND, or a decoupling capacitor and resistor can be installed to
change the input to :l: 2.5 volts alternating current (AC). These channels may be
configured to measure acceleration or nearly any other parameter since the

transducers and signal conditioning are all external to the SAVER.

23

' Optional accelerometer/cable setups are available for channels 1-4, and
optional accelerometer/couplerlcable setups are also available for channels 5-8.
The latter configuration has battery-powered couples with a 6-day battery life and
allows many other possible configurations.

Two of the static channels are assigned to the internal temperature!
humidity sensor, and two more are assigned to the optional external
temperature/humidity sensor. One pair of static channels is needed for internal
circuit voltage measurements, leaving the optional channels available for any
type of measurement. These channels exhibit the same multiplexer-to-AID
connection as described above. As such, they can be either 0—5 volts DC
coupled, or :I: 2.5 volts AC coupled.

The microcontroller unit (MCU) controls the basic configuration of the
SAVER; the AID and MUX's, the communications port, the real-time clock (for the
time- and date-stamping of data, and other timekeeping functions), the internal
and external triggering operations, the indicator LED, and the static RAM
memory array.

Four C-size alkaline cells power the SAVER. They are connected in a
series-parallel arrangement such that the nominal output voltage from the battery
pack is 3 volts of direct current (VDC). The LED on the face of the SAVER
flashes on initial system power-up to indicate the condition of the main battery.
There is also a separate memory back-up battery, which retains data in memory

for typically one year after the main batteries are removed or exhausted.

24

FirmwareISoftware
2211917110 (Waveform) and Static Channels

The SAVER is an example of a "sampled" data system, in that it takes
periodic readings from its input signals, digitizes the data, and stores it in
electronic memory. Readings may be taken as fast as thousands of times per
second, or as slowly as once every 12 hours. Data is taken whenever pre-
programrned "trigger" conditions are met. The trigger condition may be based on
signal levels, combinations of signals, elapsed time intervals, or external events.
The SAVER defines two basic types of data, which are treated differently.
”Dynamic" data is that which changes rapidly with time; an example would be
accelerations due to shock and vibration. In order to characterize dynamic data,
many samples must be taken at a rapid rate - so that the waveform, or the time
signature, of the data may be determined. "Static" data, on the other hand, is
ascertained by only one sample per channel (examples would be temperature
and humidity, where single readings are sufficient to determine the present
values). When the'pre—programmed trigger conditions are met, the SAVER
typically takes a large number of high-speed samples of the active waveform
channels, but only samples the active static channels. ‘ ' .
Memogz Partitioning

The Saver divides its memory into two partitions, a "Tlme Triggered"
partition and a "Signal Triggered" partition, and data is stored according to the
trigger conditions, which caused them to be taken. The amount of Tlme

Triggered events to be sampled is easily determined from the total trip length, the

25

programmed time interval, and the number of active channels. Signal Triggered
data, however, is not as easily controlled. For example, if a threshold is set too
low, a large amount of Signal Triggered data may be created very quickly.
Wlthout memory partitioning, this data would overrun the Time Triggered data,
and the entire measurement project might be degraded or ruined. Memory
partitioning eliminates this problem; each type of data is confined to its own
partition, and cannot corrupt the other partition.

Nearly all of the SAVER's setup parameters - active channels, sampling
rate, number of samples, memory mode, etc. may be set differently in the two
different memory partitions. This provides enormous flexibility for setting up
special measurements and meeting special experimental requirements. The
user may determine the amount of total memory assigned to each partition.
Memory Modes

The objective of a measurement program is generally to obtain data from
the entire trip. Because the amount of data cannot be precisely controlled, some
allowance must be made for exceeding the capacity of available instrumented
memory. The SAVER has three different, selectable ways of treating data when
the memory partition becomes full. The first, called "Stop when Full", simply
ignores any additional data taken. 'Wrap and Overwrite when Full” replaces the
oldest event with the most recently taken event. Finally, ”Max Overwrite Min
when Full", replaces an event already in memory with just-taken data, provided

the just-taken event is larger than an event previously recorded. Individual

channels may be included or excluded from the "Max" mode calculations, and
memory modes may be set differently in the two partitions.
T ' erin

The SAVER takes data whenever "trigger" conditions are met. Often, this
is as simple as exceeding either a threshold level or when time interval has
elapsed. The SAVER also has the capability of triggering from more complex
conditions: individual channels may be included or excluded from the triggering.
equation; asymmetrical thresholds (different for + and - signals) may be set for
each channel, triggering may be set to occur if the data is outside the thresholds
or between the thresholds, and single channels or groups of channels may be
combined with Boolean operations (AND, OR, NOT, etc.) for triggering purposes.
Ranges and Filters

Dynamic channels 1-4 are designed for the measurement of acceleration
and as such have charge amplifiers with programmable ranges and filters.
Acceleration levels may be selected from SG full-scale to 2006 full-scale, and
may be different for different channels. This programmability of ranges and filters
means that the SAVER can be set to measure a wide variety of signals - shock,
vibration, and other dynamic events - without any changes of hardware or basic
configuration.
EM

SaverWare introduces the concept of software "Gateways", application-
specific dialogs that automate instrument setup, which are linked to the

corresponding analyses. By entering one of the Gateways (shock, vibration,

27

drop height, etc), a user can configure the instrument by simply answering
several data analysis questions. Once the data is taken and uploaded to a host
computer, the Gateway directs a number of automatic analyses specifically
tailored to the data type. A "User Defined" Gateway allows complete access to
all of SAVER's setup capabilities, for special measurement situations and

advanced or extended applications.

2.3 ZERO-G DROP HEIGHT CALCULATION

The SAVER and accompanying "SaverWare" software incorporate a
proprietary algorithm to determine the drop height and drop type. In order to
calculate these values per individual drop/Impact, the algorithm analyzes the
”Zero-G" time and the characteristics of the impact as well as the pre-impact
data. However, the user is not restricted to the use of this algorithm for
determining drop height and is free to override the automatic analysis. The
analysis of the Zero-G drop height calculation includes the duration of free fall,
which is measured by sensing the difference of the SAVER between a
motionless state (Zero-G) and a free fall (around 16), or a shock state (which
can be up to several G's). The free fall duration is defined as the onset of the
Zero-G state of the recorder and the moment of impact. Using this known
quantity, which is specific to each individual event, the free fall drop height can

be calculated using the following relafionship:

h,=}§gr2 ..................... (2—1)

28

Where: h2 = free fall drop height, expressed in inches
9 = acceleration due to gravity, 386.4 in.ls.2

t = free fall duration, expressed in seconds

2.4 INTERPRETATION OF DROP HEIGHT ZERO-G DATA

Because the computer calculation of drop height is not infallible, the user
has the freedom to override the automatic analysis. To do so requires a general
understanding of what the "Event Analysis" data means and the principles
involved.

The Event Analysis read-out for a _Er_e_e-_fafl drop appears as a relatively
flat, straight line before the release. When the package (with the SAVER inside)
begins to fall, the data rises by at least several tenths of a G. The steepness of
this rise depends upon the quickness of the release. The data remains
essentially at this new level (sloping downward slightly) until impact. The drop
time is taken from release to impact and drop height is calculated using the drop
time.

The Event Analysis for an Impact - Not a Drog also appears as a relatively
flat, straight line all the way until the moment of impact. Since there was no
release and no drop (typically, the package was stationary and something hit it),
the pre-impact data remains flat.

Event Analysis for Ig§s_e_s is the most difficult type of event to assess.
Tosses may involve both horizontal and vertical motion, as in the case of a

package tumbling around in transit or sorting. The data appears as an initial rise

29

during the toss, peaking at the moment the package is released. The package
continues to travel upward for some period of time to its maximum height, during
which the data resembles that due to a free-fall drop. The time period of the toss
and the continued upward motion is subtracted from the apparent free-fall time
resulting in the actual free-fall time. Drop height is then calculated from this

actual free-fall time. (Dallas Instruments, 1998)

2.5 INSTRUMENT CONFIGURATION AND CALIBRATION

Calibration of the SAVER units was performed by Lansmont prior to the
beginning of the study. Additionally, in order to test the reliability of the recorded
data and the orientation of the impacts, several tests were performed in the
laboratory. The packages were dropped from a known height onto a specified
face and then compared to the data obtained from the SAVER's analysis of the
impact. The results validated the accuracy of the reported drop heights and the
impact faces. Refer to Figure 11 for the SAVER parameters used in the test

shipments.

2.6 CHANNEL AND AXIS IDENTIFICATION

The typical SAVER unit has an internal triaxial accelerometer connected
to dynamic (waveform) channels 1, 2, and 3. For ease of impact orientation
identification these channels are also designated as X, Y, and Z respectively.
The orientation of these axes is indicated on the unit's casing and is identified in

Figure 12.

Advanced Saver Setup

SIGNAL TRIGGEFIED DATA

 

 

" RecordT'rn:

 

 

 

‘. -‘ 'J~ 9. we. .nre ,: ,‘IV-filtd

fl Record Waveform . Eric;

1

g
'8
I
‘ i5

         
   

I‘ RacordTJl'iandStabcIZhumah

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

ugfur;is..t"-1-_—tcf’5. - a" ' r '5} ~31.

assemble

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

.c_
-...‘

 

Event Viewer - No Analysis

 

       
   
  
 

’5' nebula TM acetate M
Analysis

 

- W ‘ . :a-j

Daafiotmhmfldetm:

   

 

 

 

     
 
 

    

 

 

 
 

Figure 11. SAVER Testing Parameters

. . A
' . ,J. 'rM-. d. .4 3.}...—

 
 

...’. .A.-'-~S'.uso~.:. A--.A.‘-AJ w“.b~.-.'u_...‘t -é‘firqg

31

 

 

so:
«E35 .3qu... mm><m
.~.. 959“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2+

2.7 DATA COLLECTION

The intent of this study was to measure the shock impact levels in terms of
drop height and impact velocity change of the UPS Ground shipping
environment. The data was collected and analyzed for round-trip shipments but
is presented as series of one way shipments. For the study, the shipping labels
were kept in the same orientation as face 1 of the SAVER units to assist in the
identification of the impact surfaces. The orientation of the box faces is based on
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard 05176 and also
on the placement of the shipping labels. Because there were no manufacturer's
joints on most of the packages (or in the case of the palletized package D, there
were two manufacturers joints) face 1 was identified as the face with the shipping
label. From this orientation, face 3 is the opposite side (bottom) of the package,
with faces 2 and 4 corresponding to the right and left sides respectively. The
front was identified as face 5 and the opposite side (back) was face 6. For
package orientations please refer to Figures 13-15.

Three round-trip destinations were chosen to represent varying distances
throughout the United States. Refer to Figure 16 for a detailed map of the
destinations as well as the hubs and spokes involved in the test shipments. The

following round-trip shipments were performed:

Trip #1: East Lansing, MI - Sunnyvale, CA
Trip #2: East Lansing, MI - Sunnyvale, CA
Trip #3: East Lansing, MI - Sunnyvale, CA
Trip #4: East Lansing, MI - Sunnyvale, CA

33

 

m use < accuses...— 3. 5355.5 can".

.9. 2:2“.

 

 

 

 

 

---..----..-..--...-.J

 

 

 

o ouuxoao so. coaficoto one". .2. 952“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o once—oak. Lo. cow-aceto cos“. .2. 2:2“.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F
..-_------_-_-__---_---—..-..|

 

.m.: 85 a. 2...: can 2332530 359.0 mm: .2. 2:2".

,0

.

 

 

<0 .2530

 

 

10.828 .

 

 

 

>2 .Lofiocoom

 

 

<

 

as: O
5.55.36 0
59.5 NV

 

 

fl

 

<0 .o_m>>cc:m

 

 

 

.= .2298:

 

 

I“

 

 

=2 .ecacfi .m

 

 

/

 

 

37

 

Trip #5: East Lansing, MI - Duluth, GA
Trip #6: East Lansing, MI - Duluth, GA
Trip #7: East Lansing, MI - Duluth, GA
Trip #8: East Lansing, MI - Duluth, GA
Trip #9: East Lansing, MI - Rochester, NY
Trip #10: East Lansing, MI - Rochester, NY

Trip #11: East Lansing, MI - Rochester, NY
Trip #12: East Lansing, MI - Rochester, NY

The four packages, (A through D) were all shipped from each destination
on the same day, and were shipped back to East Lansing, MI together. All of the
test shipments originated in East Lansing, MI and multiple shipments to each
destination were performed in order to increase the reliability of the collected
data. Four round-trips were made to each of the three destinations for a total of
48 one-way trips for packages A and B (24 apiece) and 24 one-way trips for both
package C and package D.

For the shipments to Sunnyvale, CA, the packages passed through hubs
in Lansing, MI, Hodgkins, IL, and finally San Bruno, CA before reaching the
operating center in San Francisco, CA. The shipments to Duluth, GA began in
the Lansing, MI hub, were transferred to the Toledo, OH hub, then to the Atlanta,
GA hub, and finally the Roswell, GA spoke. The Rochester, NY shipments also
passed through Toledo, OH, then were sent to the Buffalo, NY hub and finally the
Rochester, NY spoke. Figure 17 shows the flow path of the test shipments

through the UPS Ground shipping distribution system.

 

[ Originating Addressj

% l‘Pick—up Vehicle”
-—' I Regional Operating Center?

.';if- i “Feeder Truck”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ Major Regional Hub ]

N 49.

Destination Major Hub ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l “Feeder Truck”

-——> [Destination Operating Center]

5 1 “Delivery Vehicle”

[ Destination Address ]

 

 

 

 

Figure 17. Overview of the UPS Ground Shipping Environment

39

3.0 DATA AND RESULTS

The acquired impact data from the SAVER units was uploaded into the
computer and analyzed using the SaverWare analysis software version 1.33.
The data was then processed by the software program and displayed in a
spreadsheet format, separating the "Summary Events" from those that were not
significant enough to register on the triaxial accelerometers (Non-Summary
Events). The calculated drop heights from the summary events were further
reduced to include only those impacts exhibiting a drop height of 3.00 inches
(0.07 m) or higher. Since the recommended maximum weight limit by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for manually handling
packages is 40 pounds, it is very unlikely that any of the test packages would be
tossed. Therefore, the only impacts interpreted by the SAVER units were
classified as either "Free-Fall Drops" or "Impact-Not a Drop".

In analyzing the velocity change of the impacts, the data was presented
for both the summary events and the non-summary events. Although the non-
summary events were not significant enough for analysis and consideration in
the suggested test plan they are presented in Appendix D. The registered drop
heights and impact velocity changes were then analyzed in order to determine
the average values experienced for those impacts that were recorded by the
SAVER's. Although all of the shipments are unique trials and there can be no
separate similarities or inferences drawn from them, the data has been presented

by destination merely for the sake of interest. All of the conclusions drawn from

40

this study were based on the total shipments and are not intended to specify any
relationship with shipping distance.

During the course of this study there were many instances when the test
packages were damaged upon returning to the School of Packaging. While none
of the damaged packages were reused for the study, evidence of some of the
typical hazards encountered can be found in Appendix A.

Table 2 shows the amount and level of the dynamic events of all the round
trip shipments for the three selected destinations. The recorded drops have
been summarized to indicate the number of drops per round trip shipment as well
as the maximum, minimum, and average drops heights for each roundtrip
shipment to the three destinations. The data from the individual shipments is
then further summarized to display the total amount of drops per destination and
additionally, the total drops experienced by each package type for all three
shipping destinations combined. Since packages A and B contain identical
products and exhibit identical packaging methods, the accumulated data for the
two packages have been combined and analyzed as 48 one-way shipments
rather than as two sets of 24 one-way shipments like packages C and D. The
data in Table 3 has been presented as round trip shipments as well as the
corresponding one-way shipments in order to portray the data as possible one-
way shipments from vendor to customer. Consequently, the average drops per
shipment have been calculated as an average for both roundtrip shipments and
one-way shipments. The average drop height for each package type has been

calculated from the actual raw recorded drop heights and not by simply

41

TABLE 2. Summary of All Recorded Drops

Package Destination Trip #

 

42

TABLE 2. (cont'd)

Package Destination Trip) #

(
3

4

 

'Note: The average drop height and standard deviation of the drop height calculated for the
Subtotal and Total summaries was determined from the raw data (Appendix B).

43

.cfio nonraEEzm 2.4.3385 05 E2. .0: can Son 39
on. E9. 85.52% was 95:52» __o .o EoEEzm .2 35:28 £99. no... on. .o 5.53% Ponce.» can 399. aocu 3885 on... “202.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m N: Mmd alt: . 3.: mom” a
E. 3 n: and We. r r «IQ: 3.5 o
e 3 on: E.: «m. i 3.: 2.6.? m can < 8:oEa...m =<
m 0 mm We 8.? Wu. U 3.2.. o
o N. 0v 5... 6.? e R: mva o
n 2 mo. No.9 3.9 3.: 8.8 m can < >2 .5328”.
m 3 av mics mm... no. : media 0
or i W. mm... 2.9 No. : 8.3 o
m 3 E otmw cm? 8.: mfiE m can < <0 .5230
c 3 av Wm. w an... 8.: Ewan o
c E 5 wins; m“: 2.: Kim 0
: r :5 and 9.3 3.: v awn m can < <0 .o.o>>:c:w
JJIJI I . 1? Ji
Es: Em .c E 253. .2. 2.55 .83 5.538 NH. . e. . 5 3.8.9.8.. 5.5588
35.5 ounco>< noose oa2o>< Econ—3m ou2o>< E=E_:.E 83:58.2

 

seeeazm __< can. 2.55 .8283. .5 5855 .n mam:

 

averaging the average values previously calculated in Table 2. These averages
as well as the maximum and minimum drop heights for each package are
presented in Table 3. The raw data used to determine the average drop height
can be found in Appendix B; Tables B1, 82, and B3.

For packages A and B there was a combined total of 370 recorded
dynamic events for the 48 one-way shipments, with an associated average of 8
drops per shipment. Package C recorded 173 dynamic events for all three
destinations combined and had an average of 7 drops per shipment. Finally,
package D experienced 112 dynamic events averaging only 5 drops per
shipment. It was found that packages A and B had a maximum drop height of
100.15 inches and an average drop height 'of 11.51 inches. Package C had a
maximum drop height of 51.94 inches and an average drop height of 11.49
inches for the 173 recorded events. Package D had a maximum drop height of
38.43 inches with an average drop height of 10.19 inches for the 112 recorded
dynamic events.

The drop height information as well as the velocity change data, presented
later in the chapter. is particularly useful in developing laboratory simulation tests
in accordance with ASTM package testing methods. Drop height testing up to
95% of the maximum drop height experienced per package type is largely
regarded as a standard test level used by the packaging industry in the
development of simulated laboratory testing procedures.

The cumulative number of drop occurrences expressed as a percent was

plotted against the associated drop height for each of the three package types.

These levels as well as the actual number of drops corresponding to each drop
height are shown in Table 4. The accompanying Figure 18, is a histogram which
shows the number of drops occurring at a given drop height for all three package
types. The data presented in Figure 19 shows that 95% of the drops occur below
34, 32, and 22 inches for packages A and 8, package C, and package D
respectively.

The dynamic events were also analyzed in order to examine the impact
orientation of the drops and the combined faces involved in the recorded drops.
Table 5 shows the drop orientation frequency of the recorded events for all three
destinations and indicates the total number of drops experienced by each
package type on a given round trip. In addition, this table shows the number of
drops occurring on a face, edge, or corner and the frequency of each orientation. '
For all three package types, the most common impact surface was on an edge.
Packages A and B had 52.16% of the 370 recorded drops impacting on an edge.
Package C experienced 56.65% of the 173 recorded drops resulting on an edge
impact, and 51.79% of the 112 recorded drops for package D were edge
impacts. The second most common impact surface was a face impact, with
35.68% of the total impacts experienced by packages A and B, 42.20% of the
recorded impacts for package C, and 28.57% of the impacts for package D.
Lastly, corner impacts with only 12.16%, 1.16%, and 19.64% of the total
recorded impacts for packages A and 8, package C, and package 0 respectively.
Since there are 6 faces, 8 corners and 12 edges for a total of 26 possible impact

surfaces, it can be statistically predicted that 46% (12 edges + 26 surfaces) of the

TABLE 4. Cumulative Percent as a Function of Drop Height

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for All Shipments
Drops Packages A and B Package C Package D
(in.) Cumulative Number Cumulative Number Cumulative Number
Percent Percent Percent

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 19.19% 71 19.65% 34 16.07% 18
4 39.19% 74 33. 53% 24 33.93% 20
6 55.95% 62 49.13% 27 45.54% 13
8 63.78% 29 62.43% 23 57.14% 13
10 71 62% 29 67.05% 8 74.1 1% 19
12 76.49% 18 73.41% 11 78.57% 5
14 80.81% 16 78.61% 9 83.93% 6
16 82.16% 5 84. 39% 10 87.50% 4
18 84.32% 8 85.55% 2 90.18% 3
20 86.49% 8 87.86% 4 94.64% 5
22 88.65% 8 89.02% 2 95.54% 1
24 90.81% 8 91.91% 5 96.43% 1
26 92.16% 5 92.49% 1 97.32% 1
28 92.97% 3 93.06% 1 97.32% 0
30 93.51% 2 94.80% 3 98.21% 1
32 94.86% 5 95.38% 1 99.1 1% 1
34 95.41% 2 97.11% 3 99.11% 0
36 97.03% 6 97.11% 0 99.11% 0
38 97.84% 3 97.11% 0 100.00% 1
40 97.84% 0 97.1 1% 0

42 98.38% 2 98.27% 2

44 98.38% 0 98.27% 0

46 98.38% 0 98.27% 0

48 98.38% 0 98.84% 1

50 98.38% 0 100.00% 2

52 98.38% 0

54 98.38% 0

56 98.92% 2

58 98.92% 0

60 98.92% 0

62 99.19% 1

64 99.19% 0

66 99.46% 1

68 99.46% 0

70 99.46% 0

72 99.46% 0

74 99.46% 0

76 99.46% 0

78 99.46% 0

80 99.46% 0

82 99.73% 1

84 99.73% 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

47

 

TABLE 4. (cont'd)

Drops Packages A and B Package C Package D

('11-) Cumulative Number Cumulative Number Cumulative Number

99.
88 99.73%

99.73%

94

96 99.73%

98 99.73%
100.

 

cormmwowmvwommnwnwwvwoommmmmvvwovwmwmwwvmowmwNP

8583.5 =< .6. 22¢: no.5 2.9.3 «no.5 “.o .3552 .3 2:9“.

0 ommxomn. D m can < ommxomn. I J

h . D mmmxowalfl.

:5 29¢: .35

.... . l .. TllTLlTT Llirxq‘wn‘iil—_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

or

ON

ov

om

co

ON.

on

sdora ,ro JeqwnN

49

85535 ..< con 22¢: no.5 382, «cannon 3:2:an .2. 232....

 

 

_ - num.9.u.mm....-.......; 0 0953 no... ,.m:a§-< 838“. ll.
E... 222.. 85
2: 8 9 8 8 8 8 fl 8 8 8 8 N... a. 3 ow 8 mm. mm 8 cm 2 N. o v o
F p nr _ L n p p n b p _ n P h n P p p b n _ b P p _ p _ n n p P F p p n L p p p P _ P p n p .l n o
.2
.8
- on
s
.. ,8
.3
.... . on
.4 .8
.2
. «2.. . 8
I I -I I “.‘c T om
. . . . . . ......«.o.<.¢.¢.<. .2:

 

 

 

o:

(34,) wowed angeInurno

TABLE 5. Drop Orientation Frequency for All Shipments

Impact Orientation and Number

Package Destination Trip # Drops

Face Corner
A and
12 2
17 2
1

52.16% 12.16%

Sunnyvale, CA

 

51

TABLE 5. (cont'd)

Impact Orientation and Number

Package Destination Trip # Drops

Face
( 4
14
Subtotal 49

16
5
11

 

o wmmxomn

 

 

 

 

 

7

obmnem

 

 

35695 __< .8 5:53:25 335. .o 5:38:35 .8 2:9".

o\o~.m.wm

 

Tamas .95 83E

 

on»... ems—own
o ommxomn m can 4. mmmxomn

$9,—

.xbmwv

 

 

7

o\omo . cm

 

 

 

 

 

$0

$9

$ou

exoom

. $o¢

oxoom

$om

execs

(94,) Aouanbng

drops will occur on an edge, 31% (8 corners + 26 surfaces) will occur on a
corner, and 23% (6 faces + 26 surfaces) will occur on a face. The data collected
for the surfaces of the impacts support this statistical relationship which justifies
that the highest frequency of drops occurred on an edge. The impact orientation
frequencies are displayed graphically in Figure 20.

Table 6 expands on the impact orientation to include the faces involved in
each dynamic event registered by the SAVER units. The discrepancy between
the total number of recorded impacts in Table 6 and the total drops presented in
the previous tables can be attributed to the fact that many of the impacts involved
more than one face (as in edge or corner drops) and were displayed in Table 6
as a summary of all faces involved. For packages A and B, the most frequent
face involved in an impact was face 3 (the bottom face) with 31.70% of the
recorded drops. Likewise, package D had most of the impacts involving face 3
as well, with 28.97% of the drops. Most of the drops experienced by package C,
however, were found to involve face 6 (the back face) with 26.91% of the total
recorded drops. This variance can be attributed to the size and shape of
package C and the fact that the most conventional package orientation during
shipment was either on its side or an end rather than on the bottom face which
was the largest surface. The results presented in Table 6 as well as the
breakdown of the faces involved in the drops are displayed graphically in Figure
21.

By applying the previous condition of including only drop heights greater

than 3.00 inches, a similar restriction for analyzing the velocity change data an

TABLE 6. Number and Frequency of Impact Occurrences per Package
Face for All Shipments

Number and Frequencies of occurancea
Package Destination 0 surface
2 3 4 5
1
19 13
12 7
15 13

.1

23
13

33.20%
1 1
16 6
16 11 5
11 11 4

13.61 25.65% 13.61 1
1

2.45% 11.49% 31.70% 22.51% 15.62% 1

 

5.45% 24.00% 2.55% 25.09% 16.00% 26.01

TABLE 6. (cont'd)

Round Number Number and Frequencies of occurences

Package Destination Trip # of surface

Impacts
1
26
24

Subtotal 93

26
9
23

 

,9. r.

.0 woman

0 098.05

 

 

$nwdm

88535 .2 .8 88". 62.... .o 5:355 .E 2:2".

 

moomuzu vwomnz mmomu—E Nmomnm Fwomnl

 

on»... omaxoan
o mmmxomn m ucm < 3865

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$8 .VN
{amohw

 

 

 

$5.0N

 

 

 

$0

$m

$9

. $2.

$ow

. $m~

$00

$3

(%) Aouanbng

57

be derived. The justification is as follows and can be expressed using the

following equation:

Av = (1+ e),/Zgh ..................... (3 - 1)
Where: v = the change in velocity in in.ls.

e = the coefficient of restitution, in this case 0.5
g = the acceleration due to gravity, 386.4 in.ls.2

h = the drop height in inches

An average value of 0.5 was chosen to represent the coefficient of restitution in
order to evaluate the data for an average cushion type. By inserting the drop
height restriction of 3.00 inches into the previous equation, the cut off level for the

velocity change can be calculated as follows:

 

Av = (1+ 0.5)‘K2 - 366.4 - 3.00)

= 72.22 in.ls.

Similar to drop height of the impacts, it is also important to analyze the
velocity change of the impacts recorded by the SAVER units. The data has been
limited to velocity changes greater than the aforementioned 72.22 in.ls. in that
they correspond to the previous requirement of drop heights greater than 3.00
inches. Also, the smaller values for impact velocity change are very difficult to

re-create through testing on a shock table.

Table 7 presents the summary of the velocity changes experienced by the
three different package types. The data is further summarized to indicate the
maximum, minimum, and average velocity change as well as the associated
standard deviation per impact face for each destination. The velocity change
data has been presented as a separate summary for all three destinations with
an additional summary of all three destinations combined (Table 8). It should,
however, be noted that there can be no practical correlation between the
distance of the shipments with the number and severity of impact velocity
changes in that all shipments are considered unique. Table 7 also shows the
number of impacts that each face experiences for the total shipments. The
difference in the amount of impacts versus the previously presented drops (Table
2) lies in the fact that some of the calculated velocity changes that were
significant enough to be measured (those greater than 72.22 in.ls.) may
correspond to actual drop heights less than the 3.00 inch cut-off for the first set of
data or involve more than one face in the impact. Table 8 presents the velocity
change data including the maximum, minimum, average and standard deviation
of the events per package face involved. The table also includes data relating to
the average number of impacts experienced per round trip as well as the average
number of impacts per one way shipment.

The cumulative number of occurrences expressed in percent was plotted
against the impact velocity change recorded for all three package types. For this
analysis, impact data for faces 2 and 4 were combined to represent impacts

along the X-axis. Likewise, faces 5 and 6 were combined to represent impacts

59

TABLE 7. Summary of Velocity Change for All Summary Events

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number =
Package Destination ":93“ of .ng iMlIN A1./[G S.D.
ace Impacts (in a: ( n. s.) (In a.)
A and B Sunnyvale, CA 1 2 196.47 93.19 144.83 73.02
2 12 211.47 73.15 135.67 50.80
3 22 167.67 72.76 96.47 24.74
4 9 222.72 79.50 133.87 51.53
5 12 268.72 77.99 117.85 51.51
6 23 169.22 73.45 105.69 28.36
Subtotal 80 268.72 72.76
Duluth, GA 1 3 99.68 74.05 82.96 14.49
2 13 182.16 73.87 110.05 33.88
3 51 214.87 72.36 105.44 33.81
4 18 195.61 74.21 133.67 43.10
5 13 211.50 72.30 111.22 43.02
6 7 220.39 80.89 132.26 52.15
__ Subtotal 105 220.39 73.82
Rochester, NY 1 0 - - - -
2 9 203.40 74.30 127.85 49.35
3 48 ‘ 246.17 72.71 111.86 36.84
4 19 242.41 91.58 152.97 48.79
5 6 125.13 74.81 91.88 20.77
6 7 170.94 73.17 107.24 38.61
fl Subtotal 89 242.41 72.71
Total 274 268.72 7277?
C Sunnyvale, CA 1 0 - - - -
2 8 164.64 73.05 105.35 37.66
3 1 105.10 105.10 105.10 -
4 14 200.01 72.84 115.08 37.57
5 6 116.24 83.52 103.39 14.93
6 10 135.38 81.01 98.15 19.68
Subtotal 39 200.01 72.84
__Duluth, GA 1 6 163.61 75.30 96.93 34.01
2 19 183.88 73.61 107.78 31.22
3 3 101.37 72.43 86.24 14.51
4 9 140.87 74.92 95.04 21.69
5 18 193.71 74.60 119.07 42.06
6 13 167.09 73.46 101.33 28.38
Subtotal 68 193.71 72.43
'TRochester. NY 1 o - - - -
2 4 134.81 80.58 101.01 23.53
3 0 - - - -
4 11 169.65 75.15 111.51 36.49
5 9 197.28 72.91 102.48 38.44
6 16 214.66 73.52 115.98 37.42

 

 

TABLE 7. (cont'd)

 

Number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact MAX MIN AVG
P‘ck‘” _°”“"‘"°" IFace mg” nus.) (in.ls.) (ian.) 5.0.
c (con't) Rocgsster, NY Subtotal 40 214.66 37291
Total 147 214.66 72.43
D Sunnyvale, CA 1 3 131.46 96.44 111.06 18.21
2 2 93.39 91.81 92.60 1.12
3 12 191.97 73.24 108.85 39.97
4 5 124.69 78.02 90.84 19.25
5 7 152.74 75.50 116.98 29.62
6 8 162.53 75.19 112.46 33.29
Subtotal 37 191.97 73.24
Duluth. GA 1 3 228.82 74.32 131.65 84.60
2 4 102.92 77.36 88.83 10.95
3 9 142.95 77.00 96.03 19.46
4 5 132.39 79.62 96.14 21.08
5 7 194.75 86.29 127.95 41.26
6 7 143.41 75.51 105.12 27.12
Subtotal 35 228.82 74.32
'TRochester, NY 1 2 82.69 81.78 82.24 0.64
2 3 126.95 101.02 117.33 14.20
3 7 172.12 73.15 103.68 35.53
4 1 123.93 123.93 123.93 -
5 3 165.51 85.86 126.18 39.83
6 3 157.59 95.86 125.85 30.90
Subtotal 19 172.12 73.15
Tot_a_l 91 228.82 737—15

 

61

 

osmoé 5.3.25 .62.. .62... .62... SE

222.5. 822.5. .36... 22:86 ouooo>< E3555. £25.85. goons.

Eon-3.2:. cozaczooo

 

seem. 555% __< .o. 8866. ..< .o 3558 .o 39:

202:...

803E.

302.5.
.83.

5.3.50
2.3.66

3...... 3...... ..u......
oqu>< E2555 E25382

.928. .o mum:

boom
«23E.

5658.06...

Eozaczg

 

63

6.66 63:95:36 $2636... 6... ES. .9. 6:6 666 .56. 6... So:
665.5266 m6; mng. =6 .0 E6EE3 o... .6. 696.3260 69.650 2.8.? o... 3 5.6.56 266:6.» 9.6 69.65 2.8.? 36.65 6...... .202.

88...... 5.5.66 ..u...... ..u...._. ..u...... 8....
.63... 9.66.53 oafio>< £38.55 25:..on «66......

annE. 86665. 365656.. 526.5660

 

6.2.8. .o 365

along the Y-axis. The four faces are combined in this arrangement because the
packages can be easily tested on either face to the recommended 95% of the
maximum impact velocity change. Faces 1 and 3 remained isolated and were
consequently analyzed separately because they are unique faces: being the top
and bottom of the package respectively. Because of the Shipping label
placement, it iS naturally assumed that the face bearing the label (top) would
receive far less impacts than the side directly opposite it (bottom). The impact
levels as well as the actual number of impacts recorded are Shown in Table 9.
The accompanying Figures 22-24 are histograms, which Show the number of
impacts occurring over a given range of velocity change. The data in Figures 25-
27 show that 95% of the of the maximum velocity changes experienced by
packages A and B occurred below 180 in.ls. for face 1, 160 in.ls. for face 3, 210
in.ls. for faces 2 & 4, and below 170 in.ls. for faces 5 & 6 combined. Package C
experienced the 95% level below 160 in.ls. for face 1, 100 in.ls. for face 3, 160
in.ls. for faces 2 8. 4 and below 180 in.ls. for faces 5 & 6. Package D was below
95% of the maximum velocity change at 220 in.ls. for face 1, 170 in.ls. for face 3,
120 in.ls. for faces 2 & 4, and 170 in.ls. as well for faces 5 & 6.

Similarly, the velocity changes of the dynamic events were again analyzed
to examine the impact orientation and the combined faces involved. Table 10
shows the drop orientation frequency of the recorded events for all three package
types to the three destinations. The data indicates the number of drops

experienced by each package type as face/edge/comer impacts on a given

65

 

   

TABLE 9. Cumulative Percent as a Function of Velocity Change for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

All Summary Events
'% Involved Impact Faces
Av 1 3 2 and 4 5 and 6
(in.ls.) Cumulative Impact Cumulative lmpact Cumulative Impact Cumulative impact
Percent #‘a Percent fa Percent is Percent Re
70 40.00% 2 24.79% 30 11.25% 9 23.53% 16
80 40.00% 0 41.32% 20 18.75% 6 36.76% 9
90 80.00% 2 54.55% 16 31.25% 10 51.47% 10
100 80.00% 0 67.77% 16 40.00% 7 63.24% 8 g
110 80.00% 0 74.38% 8 45.00% 4 72.06% 6
120 80.00% 0 79.34% 6 55.00% 8 77.94% 4
130 80.00% 0 85.12% 7 61.25% 5 80.68% 2
140 80.00% 0 88.43% 4 67.50% 5 85.29% 3
150 80.00% 0 92.56% 5 70.00% 2 88.24% 2
160 80.00% 0 95.87% 4 73.75% 3 91.18% 2
170 80.00% 0 95.87% 0 77.50% 3 95.59% 3 I
180 100.00% 1 95.87% 0 81.25% 3 95.59% 0 |
190 97.52% 2 90.00% 7 95.59% 0
200 98.35% 1 93.75% 3 95.59% 0
210 99.17% 1 95.00% 1 97.06% 1
220 99.17% 0 97.50% 2 98.53% 1
230 99.17% 0 97.50% 0 98.53% 0
240 100.00% 1 100.00% 2 98.53% 0
250 98.53% 0
fl 100.00% 1
- Total Drops: 5 121 80 68
ll
' ‘70 50.00% 3 25.00% 1 23.08% 1? 22.22% 16
, 80 66.67% 1 50.00% 1 40.00% 11 41.67% 14
j 90 66.67% 0 50.00% 0 53.85% 9 51.39% 7
| 100 83.33% 1 100.00% 2 63.08% 6 59.72% 6
l 110 83.33% 0 69.23% 4 68.06% 6
i 120 83.33% 0 73.85% 3 76.39% 6
. 130 83.33% 0 83.08% 6 83.33% 5
l 140 83.33% 0 87.69% 3 86.11% 2
1 150 83.33% 0 87.69% 0 91.67% 4
l 160 100.00% 1 96.92% 6 94.44% 2
g 170 96.92% 0 94.44% 0
i , 180 , 98.46% 1 95.83% 1
1 98.46% 0 98.61% 2
l 200 100.00% 1 98.61% 0
t 210 100.00% 1
$ Total Drops: 6 4 65 W
D L70 | 12.50% 1 | 21.43% 6 l 15.00% 3 | 8.57% l 3
| 80 | 37.50% 2 | 42.86% 6 | 45.00% 6 | 28.57% | 7
| 90 | 62.50% 2 | 71.43% 8 1 65.00% 4 [ 37.14% | 3

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 9. (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: ‘=
Involved Impact Faces
Av 1 3 2 and 4 5 and 6
Package
(in-[SJ Cumulative Impact Cumulative Impact Cumulative Impact Cumulative Impact
Percent is Percent 4‘s Percent 4's Percent fa

ficon't) 100 75.00% 1 75.00% 1 75.00% 2 51.43% 5
1 10 75.00% 0 78.57% 1 75.00% 0 54.29% 1
120 75.00% 0 78.57% 0 95.00% 4 62.86% 3
130 87.50% 1 82.14% 1 100.00% 1 74.29% 4
140 87.50% 0 85.71 % 1 80.00% 2
150 87.50% 0 89.29% 1 88.57% 3
160 87. 50% 0 92.86% 1 94.29% 2
170 87.50% 0 96.43% 1 97.14% 1
180 87.50% 0 96.43% 0 97.14% 0
190 87.50% 0 100.00% 1 100.00% 1
200 87.50% 0
210 87.50% 0
220 100.00% 1

‘ Total Drops: 3 25 20 3F

 

 

67

 

 

 

 

J
l“\\“\\‘

 

 

I

L

 

IO
N

steedull to .laqtunN

220 240 260
In Faces 5 & 6

200

160 180
Velocity Change (in.ls.)
E Faces 2 & 4

140
a Face 3

 

120

100

 

 

 

 

 

TI Face 1

Figure 22. Number of Impacts versus Velocity Change for Packages A and B

 

 

80

 

 

 

 

mm
_.
fl

 

 

'-

m.
llllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

WW‘

:llllllllllllllllllll

 

lllIl|IIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

mm

.m-
lllllllllllllllllllll

 

Mfiflfi‘nfléfl’W
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

4-'

lllllllllll|Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
k\\\

 

W I W a
IlllllllllllIlllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

I=::i=.=:=‘-!a'.¥ all" at. .-. u”- .4 ~_ ‘1 " ' ‘

llllllIllllllllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
L“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.4: r"? :3 wrww-W.P;.wavwr ._...- WW? W
Illllllllllllllllllllllllll Ill|llllllllllllllIIIllllllllIlHIl|llllllIlllllllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllll
h."
. I' l i ' I
m (D V N O Q to V” N C
v- 1— v- 1- 1-
stoedull to .lequlnN

69

220

200

 

180
E Faces 5 & 6

160

Velocity Change (i .Is.)

140
E Faces 2 & 4

120

ZFace3

100

IFace1

 

 

 

Figure 23. Number of Impacts versus Velocity Change for Package C

80

60

 

 

      
 
 
 
   

'4‘; '-'-n
‘llIIHHHHIIIHHIHIIH

   

 

 

.. -t..~..‘a"-Ir.u-?;Lla- ; . '

T

—r

fl

 

 

HHHHHHT
:\\\

 

  

 
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

L\\V
\\\\\ \\\“\
\\\\\ \\\
CO V N O
steedull to .lequlnN

70

100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Velocity Change (in.ls.)

80

60

 

 

EFacesS&6

nFace3 EFaceS28t4

IFace1

 

 

Figure 24. Number of Impacts versus Velocity Change for Package D

 

m 6:6 < 639.66.. .o.
3:65 EaEEam =< no 69.6.5 b.eo.o> «oooE. 2.86.. 2.626... 6.56.:Eso .6" 6.52m

 

 

.owmmoo6n. l¢l vwmmoo6u...1: moo6u.l-cl -Foo6ulol-
.62... once... a.oo.o>
8m 26 cum 8m 8. 8. 9: cm. 8. 8

l— b b _ F _ p _ F F p p p h h p L p h b

2.12
1.2. 0 T
totI.

 

.o\\..q.
\ b‘

\btttbt

21..
Qi¢l¢flfi$vflm~l$$WH®fl 1.0.3.20.

 

- o2

 

 

o:

(93) tuemed engelnulna

71

CNN

 

 

0 6563.06... 6..
3co>m b6EEam ..< uo 69.2.0 b.6o.o> «oooE. 6:83 269.6... 62.6.:an .3 65a...

 

M 6,6 m 6868..., 8-..... .,.;m,w N boom”. . . 4 .. m 86“. I 6...... flag; __

 

..o...... 66.6.6 362.3
68 o... 2.: o: 8. 8. 8 8

h b r . p _ p h _ r b h L, p

 

 

 

 

- cow

o:

(93) tuemed eagelntuno

72

 

CNN

0 698.66.. 3..
8c6>m E6EEsw ..< co 69.6.5 b.6o.6> .o6oE. 6:26.. «E6266 62.6.:an KN 6.56.“.

- m w m 6606... .lxw- .V .6 N 6866...“:

 

 

moo6n.l91 P6Im6n.|o|§ .

..u...... 3.6.6 a.oo_o>
ooN om. owe o1. our co? on

p h b _ IF r b P [ b — h _ b F

 

 

 

 

Tcop

 

 

opp

W.) tuemed engelnulna

73

round trip and the orientation frequency of each type of impact. It was found that
for all three package types, the most common impact surface was an edge
impact. Again, the statistical analysis of the possible impact surfaces yields the
following predictions, 46% of the impacts will occur on an edge, 31% on a comer,
and 23% on a face. Packages A and B encountered 50.81% of the 248 recorded
drops impacting an edge. Of the 126 recorded impacts for package C, 61.90% of
them were edge impacts as well. Package D experienced 55.00% of the 80
recorded impacts occurring on an edge. The second most common impact
surface for the three package types was a face impact, with 37.10% of the total
impacts for packages A and B, 36.51% of the recorded impacts for package C,
and 23.75% of the recorded impacts for package D. Finally, packages A and B
experienced only 12.10% of the total recorded impacts on a comer, package C
received a meager 1.59% of its impacts on a corner, and package D expen'enced
almost as many comer impacts as edge impacts with 21.25% of the total impacts
occurring on a corner. For several of the data points, there was more than one
face involved in the impacts. The raw data displayed in Appendix C shows those
events and the total faces registered per impact. Packages A and B had 24
events with more than one face involved in the impacts. Package C had 21
impacts that registered in more than one face, and package D had 11 events that
occurred on more than one face. These differences are included in Table 10 and
are consequently carried over into the data displayed in Table 11. Figure 28

displays the percentage of impact surfaces graphically.

74

TABLE 10. Impact Orientation Frequency for All Summary Events

Package Destination Trip # Impacts Impact Orientation and Number

Face

17 8
17 7
11

42. 1

Sunnyvale, CA

Sunnyvale, CA

 

75

TABLE 10. (cont'd)

Impact Orientation and Number

Package Destination Trip # Impacts
ace

( 1

 

76

3:65 EmEEam ..< .o. :o.u6E6.:O uo6aE. ho cos-5.365 .3 6.52”.

n. 6m6xo6n.

 

 

 

{omN—N

 

 

6:50 B 6m6m M. 606.. I?

6...»... 6m6xo6n.

0 698.66..

{omNNN

 

 

m. 6:6 < 6m6xo6n.

 

161.! ..(..—1“
.8... : . _ . .2

 

 

$93.

 

7

 

o\o_.m.om

$9.5m

 

..x.o

$2

. $ON

o\oom

o\oov

(°/.) Kouanbalg

o\oom

$om

oxoon

Table 11 continues the impact orientation analysis to include the individual
faces involved in each dynamic event as summarized by velocity change. Of the
impacts recorded for packages A and B, the most frequent face involved in an
impact was face 3 (the bottom face) with 29.95% of the recorded impacts.
Package D also had the majority of impacts involving face 3 with 24.84% of the
total impacts. Package C, again experienced the majority of its impacts involving
face 6 (the back face) with 26.24% of the total recorded impacts. Due to the
dimensions of package C, the most conventional placement of the package was
not on face 3, the largest face. It was consequently positioned on a side to better
conform to the shipping standards of the UPS Ground shipping environment. For
the velocity change analysis, there is also a difference between the number of
impacts observed in Table 11 and those previously presented in Tables 7-10.
Which can be attributed to the fact that many of the impacts involved more than
one face (edge or corner drops) and were displayed in Table 11 as a summary of
all faces involved. The results presented in Table 11 as well as the breakdown of

the faces involved in the impacts are displayed graphically in Figure 29.

78

TABLE 11. Number and Frequency of Impact Occurrences per
Package Face of All Summary Events

Number and Frequencies of occurences

Package Destination 0 surface
5

and

aunts»

4
3
8

.3
N
32

(case's

10
10

8.43% 34.34% 24. 16.87% 11
1 4
7 17 13 7
7 14 9 4
2

1 25.1
30 1
F 2.76% 11.98% 29.95%

C Sunnyvale, CA

 

79

TABLE 11. (cont'd)

Number and Frequencies of occurences
Package Destination 0 surface

2 3 4 5

2 5 2 3
0 4 3 1
2 5 4 5
1 1
10.34% 27 20.69% 1

2 3

2 3 4
3 1 2 O 1
1 3 3

3 4

1
13.79% 13.79% 18.97% 13.79% 17.24% 22.41
1

1
2
2

 

*NNNN

8co>m BaEfisw =< .8 sown. amazon“. .2. 32.2530 «can—:— mo cos—5:35 .3 2:2".

goofing magma vacuum. «.8qu mlooflm 38$:

 

 

 

2;... ouuxoan.
0 39.03 0 $9.8m m ucm < momxomm

$w~.vm fimném

 

$0

$9

$o~

$0M

$ov

(%) Kouenbeig

81

4.0 coucwsrous

Packages A and B received a total of 370 drops for all the shipments
combined with an average drop height of 11.5 inches. Package C
experienced 173 drops with an average drop height of 11.5 inches.
Package D received the fewest amounts of drops with 112 for all

shipments and an average drop height on 10.2 inches.

For all shipments, packages A and B experienced most drops, 52.2%,
occurring on an edge. Similarly, 56.7% of the total drops for package C
occurred on an edge. Package D also experienced the most impacts on
an edge with 51.8% of the total recorded drops. The data supports the
assumed probability distribution that most of the drops will occur on an
edge. There are 6 faces, 8 comers and 12 edges for a total of 26 possible
impact surfaces. Since 12 of the 26 surfaces are edges, it is reasonable

that approximately 50% of the total drops would occur on an edge.

It was evidenced that the large and heavy packages utilized in this study
saw higher drop heights than the conventional test methods suggested in
both ASTM D4169 and in the lntemational Safe Transit Association (ISTA)
Project 1A. It was also observed that these large and heavy packages

shipped by the small parcel environment received more severe handling

82

resulting in cases of significant damage to the exterior shipping package.

Examples of some of the typical shipping damage are displayed in

Appendix A.

Based on the results of this investigation, a test protocol has been
developed to test packages for the UPS Ground shipping environment for
large and heavy packages. The package test sequence that has also

been defined should be followed using the appropriate suggestions.

5.0 TEST PROTOCOL

Packages A and 8
Drop Height Data:

Average Number of Drops per Round Trip: 15
Average Number of Drops per One Way Trip: 8

From Tables 3 and 5, the following impact orientation predictions can be

made:

Predicted Number of Face Drops per One Way Trip: 0.36 x 8 = 3
Predicted Number of Edge Drops per One Way Trip: 0.52 x 8 = 4
Predicted Number of Comer Drops per One Way Trip: 0.12 x 8 = 1

Using Table 4 and Figure 19, measure at the 95% drop height level to
determine the severity level of the drop height. For packages A and B, a
free fall drop height of 34 inches will be used.

Velocity Change Date:
Average Number of Impacts per Round Trip: 11

Average Number of Impacts per One Way Trip: 7

From Tables 8 and 10, the following impact orientation predictions

can be made:

Predicted Number of Face Impacts per One Way Trip: 0.37 x 7 = 3
Predicted Number of Edge Impacts per One Way Trip: 0.51 x 7 = 4
Predicted Number of Corner Impacts per One Way Trip: 0.12 x 7 = 1*

*Note: Due to the constraints of typical impact testing machines, corner

impacts will not be evaluated.

Using Table 9 and Figure 25, measure at the 95% velocity change level to
determine the severity level of the impact. For packages A and B, a velocity
change of 180 in.ls. for face 1, 160 in.ls. for face 3, 210 in.ls. for faces 2 and
4, and 170 in.ls. for faces 5 and 6 will be used.

Package C
Drop Height Data:

Average Number of Drops per Round Trip: 14
Average Number of Drops per One Way Trip: 7

From Tables 3 and 5, the following impact orientation predictions can be

made:

II
(.0

Predicted Number of Face Drops per One Way Trip: 0.42 x 7

II
.5

Predicted Number of Edge Drops per One Way Trip: 0.57 x 7

Predicted Number of Corner Drops per One Way Trip: 0.01 x 7 1*
*Note: Even though mathematically the corner drop is not necessary, it is

recommended.

Using Table 4 and Figure 19, measure at the 95% drop height level to
determine the severity level of the drop height. For package C, a free fall
drop height of 32 inches will be used.

Velocity Change Date:
Average Number of Impacts per Round Trip: 13
Average Number of Impacts per One Way Trip: 5

From Tables 8 and 10, the following impact orientation predictions

can be made:

Predicted Number of Face Impacts per One Way Trip: 0.37 x 5 = 2
Predicted Number of Edge Impacts per One Way Trip: 0.62 x 5 = 3
Predicted Number of Corner Impacts per One Way Trip: 0.02 x 5 = 1*

*Note: Due to the constraints of typical impact testing machines, comer

impacts will not be evaluated.

Using Table 9 and Figure 26, measure at the 95% velocity change level to
determine the severity level of the impact. For package C, a velocity
change of 160 in.ls. for face 1, 100 in.ls. for face 3, 160 in.ls. for faces 2 and
4, and 180 in.ls. for faces 5 and 6 will be used.

Package D
Drop Height Data:

Average Number of Drops per Round Trip: 9

Average Number of Drops per One Way Trip: 5

From Tables 3 and 5, the following impact orientation predictions can be

made:

Predicted Number of Face Drops per One Way Trip: 0.29 x 5 = 1
Predicted Number of Edge Drops per One Way Trip: 0.52 x 5 = 3
Predicted Number of Comer Drops per One Way Trip: 0.20 x 5 = 1

Using Table 4 and Figure 19, measure at the 95% drop height level to
determine the severity level of the drop height. For package D, a free fall
drop height of 22 inches will be used.

87

Velocity Change Data:
Average Number of Impacts per Round Trip: 8

Average Number of Impacts per One Way Trip: 3

From Tables 8 and 10, the following impact orientation predictions

can be made:

II
A

Predicted Number of Face Impacts per One Way Trip: 0.24 x 3

II
N

Predicted Number of Edge Impacts per One Way Trip: 0.55 x 3

Predicted Number of Corner Impacts per One Way Trip: 0.21 x 3 1"
*Note: Due to the constraints of typical impact testing machines, corner

impacts will not be evaluated.

Using Table 9 and Figure 27, measure at the 95% velocity change level to
determine the severity level of the impact. For package D, a velocity
change of 220 in.ls. for face 1, 170 in.ls. for face 3, 120 in.ls. for faces 2 and

4, and 170 in.ls. for faces 5 and 6 will be used.

6.0 TEST SEQUENCE

Packages A and B
1. Perform 8 drops from a height of 34 inches. The orientation of the drop

is determined from Table 6 and Figure 21.

3 drops on randomly selected flat faces, preferably 2 on the
bottom face and 1 on a side face, either face 2 or 4.

4 drops on randomly selected edges, preferably 2 bottom
edges, 2-3 or 3-4 and 3-5 or 3-6, and 2 side edges, 2-5 or 2-6
and 4-5 or 4—6.

1 drop on a randomly selected comer, preferably a bottom

comer, 3-4-6.

2. Perform 7 impacts with the designated impact velocity changes

expressed in inches per second (in.ls.). The orientation of the impacts is

determined from Table 11 and Figure 29.

3 impacts on randomly selected flat faces, preferably 1 on face
3 with an impact velocity change of 160 in.ls., 1 on either face 2
or 4 with an impact velocity change of 210 in.ls., and 1 on either
face 5 or 6 with an impact velocity change of 170 in.ls.

4 impacts on randomly selected edges, preferably 1 on edge 2-
3 or 3-4 with a velocity change of 210 in.ls., 1 on edge 35 or 3-

6 with an impact velocity change of 170 in.ls., 2 on edges 2-5 or

89

2-6 and edges 4-5 and 4-6 with an impact velocity change of

210 in.ls.

Package C
1. Perform 7 drops from a height of 32 inches. The orientation of the drop

is determined from Table 6 and Figure 21.
- 3 drops on randomly selected flat faces, preferably 1 on the
bottom face and 2 on side faces, face 2 or 4 and face 5 or 6.
- 4 drops on randomly selected edges, preferably 2 bottom
edges, 2-3 or 3-4 and 3-5 or 3-6, and 2 side edges, 2-5 or 2-6
and 4-5 or 4—6.
- 1 drop on a randomly selected corner, preferably a bottom

corner, 3-4-6.

2. Perform 5 impacts with the designated impact velocity changes
expressed in in.ls. The orientation of the impacts is determined from
Table 11 and Figure 29.

- 2 impacts on randomly selected flat faces, preferably 1 on either
face 2 or 4 with an impact velocity change of 160 in.ls., and 1 on
either face 5 or 6 with an impact velocity change of 180 in.ls.

- 3 impacts on randomly selected edges, preferably 1 on edge 2-
3 or 3-4 with a velocity change of 160 in.ls., 1 on edge 3-5 or

3-6 with an impact velocity change of 180 in.ls., and 1 on edge

2-5 or 2-6 with an impact velocity change of 180 in.ls.

Package D
1. Perform 5 drops from a height of 22 inches. The orientation of the drop

is determined from Table 6 and Figure 21.
- 1 drop on a randomly selected flat face, preferably the bottom
face.
- 3 drops on any 2 bottom edges, preferably 2-3 or 3-4 and 3-5 or
3.6, and 1 on a side edge, 2-5 or 2-6 and 4-5 or 4-6.
- 1 drop on a randomly selected comer, preferably a bottom

corner, 3-4—6.

2. Perform 3 impacts with the designated impact velocity changes
expressed in in.ls. The orientation of the impacts is determined from
Table 11 and Figure 29.

- 1 impact on randomly selected flat faces, preferably 1 on face 3
with an impact velocity change of 170 in.ls.

- 2 impacts on randomly selected edges, preferably 1 on edge 2-
3 or 3-4 with a velocity change of 170 in.ls. and 1 on edge 3-5

or 3-6 with an impact velocity change of 170 in.ls.

91

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Samples of Damaged Packages

93

 

Figure A1. Shipping Damage to Edges of Packages A and B

94

 

Figure A2. Oil Spill Damage to Package A

95

 

Figure A3. Damage to Face 1 of Package C

96

 

Figure A4. Interior Damage to Package C

97

 

Figure A5. Interior Damage to Package C (without top cushions)

98

 

Figure A6. State of Returned Package D

99

 

Figure A7. Shipping Damage to Package D

100

 

a?!“ .7,

 

f —, .‘
himskhh.‘

Figure A8. Shipping Damage to Package D (side view)

101

 

Figure A9. Package D Not Attached to the Pallet

102

APPENDIX B

Individual Drop Heights
for All Shipments

103

TABLE B1. Individual Drop Events greater than 3.00 inches for
Shipments to Sunnyvale, CA

Round Trip fl Event #
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1O

11

 

104

TABLE B1 . (cont'd)

Event #

MIN
AVG
STD. DEV.

1

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

 

105

TABLE B1 . (cont'd)

Event #

25

 

106

TABLE B2. Individual Drop Events greater than 3.00 inches for
Shipments to Duluth, GA

Event #

 

107

TABLE 82. (cont'd)

Event #

18
19
20
21

MIN
AVG
STD. DEV.

1
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

 

108

TABLE 32. (cont'd)

Event #

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

31

 

109

TABLE B3. Individual Drop Events greater than 3.00 inches for
Shipments to Rochester, NY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trip # Event # A Package Drop Heighés (in) D
1 1 €72 13.41 13.62 7.09
2 3.50 5.72 5.36 9.91
3 3. 22 3.50 7.57 11.22
4 4. 03 6.40 7.31 9.65
5 6. 02 29.84 24.21 17.04
6 7. 01 6.19 7.09 14.56
7 7.61 32.24 42.95 14.24
8 12.81 7.09 3.37 -
9 34.32 13.06 3.98 -
10 15.69 5.52 - -
11 3.98 6.19 - -
12 - 23.46 - - 1
13 - 7.54 - - ll
14 - 10.85 - - [I
15 - 3.65 - -
16 - 9.87 - .-
17 - 5.10 - -
m 34.32 32.24 42.95 17.04
MIN 3. 22 3.50 3.37 7. 09
AVG 9. 54 11.15 12.83 11.96
STD. DEV 9.11 8.91 13.00 3.45
2 1 9. 96 23.60 8.93 3. 68
2 13. 01 3.55 10.58 6. 97
3 56.23 24.90 21.81 10.00
4 20.28 12.27 16.36 12.96
5 83.90 11.46 3.79 6.54
6 7. 46 9.39 5. 29 4.41
7 15.58 24.97 3. 65 21.94
8 8. 24 15.47 9. 74 11.83
9 4. 35 4.85 12.66 -
10 5. 52 20.66 7.73 - H
11 14.61 6.05 22. 93 -
12 38.95 5.98 8.08 - I
13 4. 55 36.64 8. 89 -
14 3. 95 3.84 18.27 - ll
15 15.64 20.47 12.07 - 4]
16 8. 22 30.14 35.06 -
17 8. 97 - 9.39 -
18 - - 6.97 -
MM 83. 90 36. 84 35. 06 21.94
MIN 3. 95 3. 55 3. 65 3.68
AVG 18.67 15.89 12.34 9.79
STD. DEV 21.65 10.30 7.96 5.94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

110

TABLE B3. (cont'd)

Event #

comsimanwN-s

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
11

 

111

APPENDIX C

Individual Velocity Changes
for All Summary Events

112

TABLE C1. Individual Velocity Changes for All Summary Events
for Shipments to Sunnyvale, CA

+Av, -Av, +Avy 'AVy ““1 'AV' Impact

Package Trip Event Orientation

Face 4 Face 2 Face 5 Face 6 Face 1 Face 3
1 - - - - . - 4
- 142.39 - 98.96 - Comer - 1
- - - 104.13 - Flat - 6
- - 93.25 - - - 4 5
111.37 - - - Flat - 2
- - - 72.76 - 5
- - 97.92 - 3 6
- 268.72 - Flat - 5
- - 114.56 - 4

- 4
-46

Flat-4

Flat-1

~35

- 4 5
Corner -
- 4 6
103.79 Flat - 3
- Flat - 2

75.33 Corner - 4
- - 4.5
- Flat - 5

- - 4 5

81.91

80.94

124.07

cocosrmousooro-s

1 13.60

1
MIN 79.50 82.40 77.99 98.96 93.19 72.76
AVG 1 1 1 .62 149.37 1 21 .00 1 36.28 93.1 9 1 05.1 3
8.0. 24.83 47.08 58.39 29.77 - 31.34

 

113

TABLE C1. (cont'd)

+Av, -Av, +Av, -Avy +Av, -Avz
Package Trip Event .13, 04:31:30"
Face 4 F F F 1 F
- 81.69 - - - 6
- 81.92 - Flat - 5
- - 104.96 Flat - 3

#wN-t

93.06 - 3 5

- Corner - 3 4

- - 4 5

80.22 - 3 6
78.49 Flat - 3
- Flat - 2
Flat - 4

Nam-500N4-

Flat-6
Flat-2
Flat-3
-45
Comer-
-34

- 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

-45

- - 3 4
80.02

107.89
84.77
73.45
90.36
88.60
73.69
78.00
107.67
102.18
121.31

38336§33mmwmmswna

1 1 .45 1 1
MIN 80.48 73.1 5 81 .92 73.45 1 96.47 75.23
AVG 1 51 .67 1 1 6.49 1 08.37 92.31 1 96.47 87.82

 

114

TABLE C1 . (cont'd)

+Av, -Av,I +Av, -Av, +sz -Av,
Package Trip Event .13, .13.
F 4 Face Face 5 F 6 F 1 F

Impact
Orientation

4

1

3000401015st4

N—I

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

OQVQOI-hUN-h

76.23
167.62
200.01

81.50
89.96

81.52

132.22
130.94
119.83

118.48

81.14
134.59
72.84

124.17

72.84

74.59

131.89

73.05

1 1 5.08 1 05.35

37.57

37.66

83.52
1 03.39
14.93

152.74
103.10

115

14.07

83.80
92.85

11.

1
105.10
105.10

95.23

73.24

- 5
-46
-16
Flat-4
-4 '
Flat-4
- 6
Flat-3
~45
Flat-4

-4
Flat-6

- 6
-45
-46
-45
-46

Flat-2
-4

Hm-z

Flat-2

-4
-45

-46
-46

-46
- 5

Flat-3
Flat-5

Corner - 1

 

TABLE 01. (cont'd)

+Av, -Av,, +Av, -Av, -Avz "mm“

Orientation

1 . -

Package Trip # Event

2 Comer -
- 5
Comer - 4
- 1 4
Flat - 6
Flat - 6
Comer -

-35

ccsraxurth-s

-46

-46

-36
Comer- 4
-16

- 5
Flat-3

NGU-fibflN-fi

Flat-3

- 4
Flat-1
Comer-1
Comer-14
- 3
Flat-5

- 5
Comer- 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

75.50
1 1 6.98
29.62

1
72.84 73.05 75.50 73.45
116.79 120.73 114.13 105.17
41.77 46.02 38.99 27.33

 

116

TABLE C2. Individual Velocity Changes for All Summary Events
for Shipments to Duluth, GA

+Av, -Avll +Av, -Av, -I-Avz -Avz
Package Trip # Event .Is.
F 1 F

76.37 Corner - 4
156.33 - 3 4
95.82 - 6
96.79 Flat - 3

- Comer - 3 4
105.77 Comer - 3 4
77.14 Comer - 4
83.91 - 4
133.40 Flat - 3

- - 4 5

- Flat - 4

Impact
Orientation

fijgrocoxrmmasz-a

accoumorast-n

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1O
11

 

mummth—n

117

TABLE C2. (cont'd)

Package Trip Event Orlentation

Face 2 F F
- - 1 14 -1
10 96.44 211.50 - - 2.

A(

74.28 73.82 80.89
1 08.45 1 37.25 1 31 .62
29.61 59.87 54.98

78.66

- 95.15

- 97.21
94.01 -

coooxroaoith-s

129.42
109.91

- - 4 6
214.87 Flat - 3
110.38 Flat - 3

- Comer - 1 4

- Comer - 1 4
- - 6
- - 1 5
102.99 Flat - 3
78.10 - 6
199.58 - 3 4
- - 4 5
72.36 - 5
88.45 - 4
107.04 - 4
109.93 - 3 4
- Flat - 4

fijaomummth-s

76.10 Corner - 3 4
145.59 Flat - 3

- - 4 6
76.81 Flat - 3

- Flat - 1

- Flat - 6
73.15 - 4

 

Marianne-H04

118

TABLE C2. (cont'd)

+Av, -Av,, +Av, -Av, +sz -Av,
Package Trip Event .Is. .Is. .Is. in.ls. n.ls. .Is.
Face4 Face2 Face 5 Face6 Face 1 Face 3
- - - 103. 1 -
72.30 - - 5
203.16 - 4
114.95 - 5
84.00 - 3 4
106.45 - 3 5
76.43 Flat - 3
- - 5
- Flat - 4
115.72 - 3 6
- Corner - 3 4

Impact
Orientation

4

3.300040312113983»

87.94 74.05 72.36
1 33.87 82.96 1 1 1 .77
64.95 14.49 40.24

126.67
98.09

101.37 -3
- Comer-14
- -45
- Flat-1
- -15
- Flat-1
- Flat-1

72.43 Comer -
- Flat - 1
84.93 Flat - 3
104.53 - - - - 4 5
- 87.97 155.19 - -

 

119

TABLE C2. (cont'd)

+Av,, -Av,, +Av, -Av,

Package Trip # Event in.ls. .Is. n.ls. Ian.
Face 4 Face 2 Face 5 Face 6

( ) - - - .25
- - 134.90
89.55
101 .03

139.56

73.61 74.60 73.46
1 07.78 1 1 9.07 1 01 .33
31 .22 42.06 28.38

 

120

Package Trip # Event

A

fijacoooxioaousoo

1
2
3
4
5

0301-th4

TABLE C2. (cont'd)

+Av, -Av,I +Av, -Avy -I-Avz -Avz
Js. .Is.

Face4 Face2 Face5 Face6 Face1 Face3

85.89 -

- 90.97
95.94 -
91.37
90.06

142.95
93.21

75.51
1 05.1 2

77.00
96.03

74.21 73.61 72.30 72.36

116.94 106.49 118.02

73.46
1 1 0.33

121

103.18

Impact

Orientation

Flat-4
Flat-5
Flat-3
Flat-4
- 6
-14
Flat-5
-36
Flat-5
-45
- 5

~15
Flat-3

-36
Flat-1

Comer-1

Flat-6
-1
-46

Comer-

-46

Comer -

9 I

 

TABLE C3. Individual Velocity Changes for All Summary Events
for Shipments to Rochester, NY

Package Trip # Event

O’U’Ith—t

(DmVQO’I-th-fi

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

mewa—t

+Av,

96.01

'AV‘ +AVy .Av’ +AV1

F 1

74.52 74.81 73.17

122

-Av,I
Face 3
81 .66
84.-78
150549

102.85

157.05
116.56
92.46

106.99
91.65

89.01
139.88

78.85
145.40
89.19
80.97

107.79

75.29

85.87
167.01

75.29

Impact
Orientation

- 4
Flat-3
- 5
-35
Flat-4
Flat-3

-45
-46
-45

- 3
Flat-4
Flat-3
Flat-3
-34
Flat-4
-46
Comer-34
Flat-3
Flat-2

- 6
Flat-3
Comer-34
- 5
Flat-4
Flat-3
-34
-2.3

- 3
~46
-35
Flat-4

Flat-2
Flat-2
-45
-34
Flat-6
-34
Flat-3

 

TABLE C3. (cont'd)

+Av, -Av,. +Av, -Av, 4»sz -Avz
Package Trip Event .13. .13.
F 4 F 2 F F 1 Face 3
(can't) 1 1 1
8D. 49.28 59.19 24.64 29.12

Impact
Orientation

134.45
79.25

75.42
191.57

138.60

OGVO’O#QNA

Flat-5

168.50 Comer -

- Flat - 2
95.03 Flat - 3
150.37

246.17

101.23 Flat - 3
108.75 - 6
94.24 Comer - 3 4
79.33 - 4
161.01 - 3
75.65 - 3 4
99.30 Flat - 6
123.40

75.84
137.29
124.97
114.88

91.77 Flat - 3
73.90 - 3 5
104.00 Comer —
72.71 Flat - 4

somummswma

- Ha-4
75.17 - 4

 

123

Package Trip # Event

(

4

(”AUN-l»

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

OJOIufiOON-fi

VOW-500104

TABLE C3. (cont'd)

+AV. 'AVx +Av, 'AVy TAV! -Av, Impact
.Is. .Is. J" Orientation

r: 4 F F F F 1

- .13 ‘

- - 149.34 Flat - 3

136.86 86. - ‘4
1

91.58 74.30

140.84 109.77

48.04 32.25

80.58

 

124

 

TABLE C3. (cont'd)

+Av, -Av,l +Av, -Av, -I-Avz
Package Trip # 5V9!“ .Is. in.ls. .Is.
Face 4 Face 2 Face 5 Face F 1

MIN 75.1 5 80.58 72.91 73.52
AVG 1 1 1 .51 101 .01 1 02.48 11 5.98
8.0. 36.49 23.53 38.44 37.42

- 85.86
123.93

0301450070—4

- Flat-2

— -36

- Comer- 4
131.58 Comer-

- -15

1
2
3
4
5
6

- - 1

- Flat - 2

- Comer - 1
87.98 - 6

#wN-I

- 85.18 - 6
165.51 - - 5

N-t

1 1

1 01 .02 85.86

1 1 7.33 1 26.1 8
14.20 39.83

1 1
75.1 5 74.30
1 37.32 1 19.1 7
47.72 39.63

 

125

APPENDIX D

Individual Velocity Changes for
All Non-Summary Events

126

TABLE D1. Individual Velocity Changes for All Non-Summary
Events for Shipments to Sunnyvale, CA

+ Av,I - Av,I + Av, — Av, + Avz — Av,
Package Trip Event .Is. in.ls. .Is.
Face 4 Face 2 Face 5 Face 6 Face 1 Face 3
A 1 - 86.18 - - -
- 106.90 - - 4 6
133.75 - - Flat - 5
75.77 - - - 1 5
- 93.40 Flat - 3
- - - 1 4
- 186.47 - 5
- Flat - 5
111.32 Flat - 3

Impact
Orientation

A
OD

- 5
-46
-46
- 5
Flat-5
-45
Flat-5
Flat-6

—L

OQVQGAOO

Flat-6
- 5

-3

Flat-3
-46
-46
~45
Comer- 4

- Comer-
74.95 Flat-3
- Comer-34
115.62 Flat-3
- -35
- -45
-46

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

 

127

TABLE D1. (cont'd)

Package Trip # Event .Is. . . .Is. .Is. . .
F 4 F F F 6 F 1 F

Impact
Orientation

(con't)

4

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

MIN
AVG
5.0.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

i
J

(DONGU'I-fiwN-F

84.07

74.63
1 02.06
44.90

91 .69
1 1 2.38
22.78

230.89

114.03

128

158.
118.92

85.79
1 15.49
24.72

105.56

98.76

91 .59
95.1 8
5.07

107.92
86.17

90.58

74.24
1 05.26
29.37

98.51

112.55

113.59

72.47

149.90

150.60
72.67

82.57
105.13

4

-46
-35

-46
-46

Flat-3

Flat-3

5

-36

Flat-4
Flat-3

Flat - 5
Flat - 5
Flat-4

Flat-3

Comer - 3 4

5

 

Package Trip Event

( )

3§33coco~raicnh

tomVQOIAwN-s

MIN
AVG
3.0.

jammsiounbwro-s

TABLE 01. (cont'd)

+ Avll - Av,‘ + Av, - Avy
in.ls. . . .
F 4 F F 5 F F 3

116.

‘8' AV; — AV;

- 123.13
104.73

127.61
119.56

99.12

Impact
Orientation

Comer - 1 4

Flat-5
-34

Comer - 3 4
Comer - 3 4

Flat-5

Flat-5
Flat-1
Flat-3
Flat-3
Flat-2
- 5
Flat-2
-15
-16

101.18 Corner - 3 4

103.48

72.49
82.85
14.65

73.89 82.99
145.14 1 1 5.72
62.66 28.57

76.63 1 20.40 72.47
112.95 120.40 103.17
22.09 - 28.99

77.87 - -
- 156.43 77.47
100.67 - -

73.96

72.32

129

Flat-5
-46
-46
- 5

82.06 Comer- 4

Flat-4
- 5
Flat-4
Flat-1
- 5
-46
Flat-4
- 6
Flat-3
- 8

 

Package Trip # Event

)

COVQG¥QN

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

TABLE D1 . (cont'd)

- AV‘

F

80.01

116.90

+ Avy

F

85.70
77.98

151.83

156.57
73.33

114.49

130

Impact
Orientation

E -45
Flat-2
Flat-5
-45
Flat-2
-45
Flat-4
Flat-5
-45
- 5
Flat-5
Flat-5

-45
-46
-46

 

Package Trip # Event

(

)

1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

MIN
AVG
8.0.

1
2
3
4
5
6

mVO’U‘IhQN-fi

somwmmhwma

+ Av,

in.ls.
F 4

150.72
143.73

97.18

96.30
130.52

74.23
1 09.90
28.81

- Av,l
in.ls.
F 2

108.55
81.51

75.35
103.58

+ Av,

.Is.
F
111.

117.77
122.22

79.79
137.07

90.12

72.32
102.26

TABLE D1 . (cont'd)

— Av,

81 .41
1 08.25

22.25 27.13 23.81

131

77.53
111.54

1 10.67

92.83

129.45

Impact
Orientation

-4
Flat-2
Flat-2
- 5
-46
-46
- 5
- 5
-45
-45
Flat-2
-46
-45

Flat-1
Flat-3
Flat-3
— 6
-15
-34

- - 1 5
- Flat — 4
83.97 - 4
- Flat - 6
162.53 Corner -
- - 1 5
- - 1 6
90.40 - 3 4
- - 3
- Comer - 3,4
- - 1 5
83.60 - 3 6
- Flat - 1
89.55 Flat - 3
114.24 Corner - 3 4
74.28 - 3 6
86.42 - 3
- Flat - 1

 

TABLE D1 . (cont'd)

+ Av, — Av, + Av,
Package Trip # Event .13. .Is.
F 4 F
11 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

— Av, + Av, - Av,

6F F

78.03

80.43

92.74

86.23
82.66
72.76
85.52

157.04

74.73 83.89 124.15 73.12 75.79 72.76
113.90 83.89 144.04 86.97 101.55 94.36

72.49 73.89 72.32

1
73.12 75.79 72.47

107.80 110.83 110.47 110.44 101.45 99.82

132

Impact
Orientation

~ 4

~35

Comer-34.

~36

~15

Comer-14

~16

~35

~15

~36

Comer- 4

~35
Comer~

~15

Flat-3

 

TABLE D2. Individual Velocity Changes for All Non-Summary

Package Trip # Event

1

jaomummAwN—s

(DAWN-I»

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

COGNOJCJlnfiwN-K

Events for Shipments to Duluth, GA

+ Av,
.Is.
Face 4

107.79

103.33

Face 2 Face 5

133

- Av,

+ Av,

- Av, Impact

"3' Orientation

Face 6 Face 1 Face 3

91.97

~ 4

~ 6
Comer-14
Flat-2
Comer-34
~ 4

- 5
Flat-3
~45
Flat-2
Flat-4

- 4
- 5
-4
Flat-6
Flat-2

- 3 6
Flat ~ 5
Flat ~ 5
Flat ~ 2
- Comer - 1 4
- ~1 5
114.89 Flat - 5
90.87 Comer ~ 3 4
95.89 ~ 4

~ - 5
72.33 - 6
180.54 Flat - 3
116.87 ~ 5
149.91 ~ 4
84.07 ~ 3 4

~ Comer ~ 1

- Flat ~ 6

~ ~ 3 6

- Flat ~ 6

- Flat ~ 6

- Flat ~ 2
83.97 ~ 5

- Comer ~ 4

~ ~ 5

- ~ 4 6

 

TABLE DZ. (cont'd)

+ Av, — Av, + Av, — Av, + Av, - Av,
Package Trip 5V9!“ ian. .Is. . . .ls.
F 4 F F 1 F
( ) 4 1 . ~ ~
18 ~ 75.01
1 ~ 76.13 ~ 3,4.
81 228.1

87.00 72.42 81 .00 72.33

131.49 125.57 81.00 106.41

42.09 71.86 - 42.04

Impact
Orientation

-4

~ 122.61 Comer ~ 3 4
75.03 76.76 Comer - 3 4
72.74 - 4

~ Flat ~ 2

~ Flat ~ 3

138.66 Flat ~ 3

- Flat ~ 2
88.06 ~ 3 4

106.93 Flat ~ 3

- Flat ~ 1

112.16 Flat ~ 3
~ - 4 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

1 12.28

92.43
76.75 ~ 3 4
80.47
92.54 ~ 3 6
94.01 - 4

(”#03015de

78.14 ~34
~ Flat-2
~ Flat-5
110.62 ~3 5
85.07 Flat-3
117.13 Comer-34
~ Flat-5
- Comer-34
119.74 ~ 3
~14
~15
~ 3

fijsroccsiaimtsz-s

 

134

TABLE 02. (cont'd)

+ Av, - Av, + Av, -— Av, + Av, - Av,
Package Trip # Event in.ls. .Is.
Face4 Face2 Face5 FaceG Face1 Face3

Impact
Orientation

4 -
78.63 Flat ~ 3
84.75 Flat ~ 3
76.88 ~ 3 4
144.66 ~ 3 4
87.13 ~ 6

~ Flat - 2
81.74 Flat ~ 3

~ ~ 4 6
92.97 Flat ~ 3
~ ~ Flat ~ 4
116.04 - E ~ 4 6

~ 92.46 ~ 4

CDQVOJUI-bODN-l

87.21 88.56 75.03 1 02.48 72.74
1 37.1 7 1 46.82 1 07.47 144.14 95.42
56.1 7 48.48 29.29 66.03 1 9.83

124.78 ~ 3

~ Flat ~ 2
~ ~ 4 6
98.29 Flat ~ 3
93.98 ~ 3
80.01 Comer - 3 4
- - 1.4

- Flat ~ 2
82.55 - 3
- ~ 1 5

81 .22 Flat ~ 3

~ Flat ~ 6
Corner ~ 1 4

Flat ~ 2

Flat ~ 2

Flat ~ 1

Flat ~ 2

~ 1

Flat ~ 2

Flat ~ 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Flat-3
~34
- 6
~46
Flat-1
Flat-2

 

135

Package Trip # Event

(

l

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

”NA-3.3.3.3444;
‘OCOQ‘IODUIAODN-l

fijammummawwa

TABLE DZ. (cont'd)

- Av‘

Face4 Face2

129.10

121.84

120.26
84.85

104.76

- Av,
.Is.

110.06

- Av,
.Is.
Face 6 Face 1 Face 3

Impact
Orientation

~14
~46
Flat-2
~14
~45
Flat-2
~45
~ 5
Flat-2
Flat-2

Flat-5

~ 5
~ 6
Flat-2
Flat-2

~45
Flat-5
Flat-5

 

Package Trip Event

(con't)

4

3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

MIN
AVG
8.0.

(II-boalQ-Ib

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

NO’U’I#QN-fi

«103014509704

+ Av,
in.ls.
Face 4

92.91
109.38
96.96
109.15

1
72.84

108.21
25.73

- Av,
.Is.
Face 2

85.65

122.07

93.88
52.14
76.64

1 08.48
21 .65

81.89

+ Av,

TABLE D2. (cont'd)

.Is. in.ls.

- AV;

Im act
in.ls. p

Orlentation

Face 5 Face 6 Face 1 Face 3

.12

166.21
73.44
98.1 2
26.74

137

76.32 -
113.98

1

73.02 73.59
105.09 1 27.63
29.77 80.65

-2
~26
Flat-6
~ 5
Flat-2
Flat-4
Flat-4
~ 5
Flat-4
~46
~2,6

 

TABLE DZ. (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I +Av, —Av, +Av, —Av, +Av, -Av, Impact
Package Trip# Event# (in.ls.) (in.ls.) (111.15.) in.ls.) (in.ls.) (In.ls.) Orientation
Face4 Face2 Face5 FaceG Face1 Face3
D(con‘t) 4 8 - - - - - 92.18 Flat-3
9 84.55 - - - - - Flat-4
10 ~ 99.88 ~ ~ - ~ Edje~ 1,2
11 - - - - - 75.39 Ed e~3,5
12 102.16 - - - - - Edge-4.5 l'
MAx 102.16 99.88 119.75 214.15 74.04 213.37
MIN 73.33 78.22 76.63 84.57 74.04 75.39
AVG 86.68 87.55 98.19 131.45 74.04 102.26
5.0. 14.53 9.63 30.49 58.61 - 34.77
MAx 1213.47 235.29 | 198.29 308.24 220.34 228.16
MIN | 72.87 76.64 | 73.44 72.42 73.59 72.33
OVERALL AVG |112.90 116.17|110.73 116.43 121.30 100.30
5.0. 34.18 37.50 36.84 51.51 62.42 30.79

 

 

 

 

 

 

138

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE D3. Individual Velocity Changes for All Non-Summary
Events for Shipments to Rochester, NY

+ Av, — Av, + Av, — Av, + Av, - Av,

Package Trip Event in.ls.
Face 4 Face 2 Face 5 Face 6 Face 1 Face 3
.21

Impact
Orientation

- - 4
116.93 Flat ~ 3
86.04 ~ 3
81.87 ~ 3 5
190.79 Flat - 3

~ Comer -

0501-th

97.55 Corner ~ 4
101.68 Flat ~ 3
125.63 Flat ~ 3

~ Comer ~ 4

~ Flat ~ 5
85.19 Comer ~ 3 4
90.09 - 3 4
76.63

QNQUI-hUN-t

79.93

83.43
76.82
120.49
146.18
82.39
92.47
72.33

1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

103.44
77.15

109.62
83.79 Corner ~
82.19 Comer - 4
- Flat ~ 6
~ Comer - 1
~ ~ 1 6
188.32 Flat ~ 3
Flat - 2
Comer - 1
Flat ~ 3
Flat ~ 3

fijaomummawma

 

139

 

Package Trip # Event .Is. .ls.

(

)

4

TABLE 03. (cont'd)

- Av, + Av, - Av, 1» Av, - Av, Impact
Ori ion
Face2 Face5 Face6 Face1 Face3 ”at
1 . - - - - -
14 75.10 - - ~ - - 2.
1 .
80.27 75.10 85.06 81.78 72.33
124.32 120.71 95.34 107.68 101.56
70.99 39.49 17.38 32.11 32.00

95.56
88.29

167.95
155.25
80.56
98.67
87.01

COGNO’UIéuODN—l

117.90
79.02

100.45
73.17
88.01
85.84

112.97

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

89.10 Corner ~ 3 4
81.72 Comer ~ 3 4
~ ~ 6
88.87 Corner ~
98.43 Flat ~ 3

- ~ 4 5
77.80 Flat ~ 3

~ Flat ~ 2
81.75 - 4

BCOQNODOIAOJN-b

116.24 Comer ~ 4
118.64 Flat ~ 3
94.25 ~ 3 5
~ ~ 5
106.65 Comer - 4
~ ~ 4
123.45 ~

 

VGUIbOON-l

140

Package Trip # Event

(cont)

4

CGNQG~5QNH~

30mumm5wn—s

UthOJN-b

+ Av,

Face4

TABLE D3. (cont'd)

- Av,
.Is.
Face 2

178.70

+ Av,

Face 5 Face 6

80.

141

1

— Av,

+ Av, - Av,
in.ls. .Is.
Face 1 Face 3
- 77.
150.99 -

- 1 15.60

73.1 7
1 00.04

Impact
Orientation

Flat-2
~46

Flat-3

Flat-

Flat-2
- 6
~45
~46
~ 5
~46

Flat-2

Flat-2
~ 5
~46

Flat-6

Comer ~ 1

Flat-4
-45

Flat-4
-45
-45
~46

Flat-2

~46

~ 5
Flat-5
Flat-5
Flat-2
Flat-6
Flat-6

~46
Flat-2

Flat-6
Flat-4
Flat-2
-4
-4

 

TABLE D3. (cont'd)

+Av, -Av, +Av,
Package Trip Event .Is.

Impact
Orientation

(con't)

3,3000%

§=8®m~lmm15w~d

MIN
AVG
5.0.

VODUIafiwN-F

OGNOM‘WN-fi

Face 4 Face 2

~ 114.62
141.20 -

98.93 ~
~ 127.93

119.25
92.34
87.64
93.72

107.39

96.71 ~
74.24 ~
1

72.55 72.48
1 12.33 1 02.1 6
33.63 18.10

80.30

Face5 Face6 Face1 Face3

142

4
72.92 98.74
1 23.26 98.74
46.40 ~

Hm-z
-45
~46
-4

Hm-z

Hm-s
Hm-s
Hm-z
Ha-z
Ha-z
Hm-z
Ha-z

-45
Hm-z

-4
Ha-4

 

TABLE D3. (cont'd)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143

 

 

 

 

 

+ Av, — Av, + Av, - Av, + Av, — Av, Impact
Packase Trip # Event in.ls.) (in.ls.) (II‘IJSJ (in.ls.) (in.ls.) (in.ls.) ommuon
Face4 Face2 Face5 Face6 Face1 Face3 1
D (con't) 3 3 ~ ~ - ~ 82.66 ~ Eclge— 1,6Jl
4 ~ - ~ - - 72.97 Comer ~ 3,4,6
5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 105.71 Edge
6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 73.15 Edge ~ 3.6
7 ~ - 94.40 ~ - ~ Ed
8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 103.79 Corner ~ 2 3.5
. ll
4 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 82.49 Edge - 3L“
2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 78.75 Comer ~ 3,4,6
3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 77.53 Edge ~ 3,5 ll
4 ~ ~ 83.14 ~ ~ ~ Flat ~ 5
5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 79.20 E -e ~ 3.6
MAX 159.31 127.18 153.11 ~ 93.66 105.71
MIN 159.31 76.87 83.14 ~ 73.73 72.97
AVG 159.31 95.41 108.87 ~ 82.05 83.57
SD. ~ 27.64 30.79 - 8.56 9.93
MAX 206.21 182.41] 195.17 248.70 153.45 190.79
MIN 72.55 72.48 I 72.64 72.92 73.73 72.33
OVERALL AVG 116.28 112.25I 105.08 119.18 94.69 96.28
SD. 37.93: 31.59 I 32.64 40.37 22.79 25.07

REFERENCES

144

REFERENCES

Consumer Reports. 1998. Mailing
options test. December, Vol. 63,
No. 12, 12-16.

Dallas Instruments. 1998. Instruction
manual for SAVER - Shock and
vibration environment recorder.
Lansmont Corporation. Monterey,
California.

Davis, Joyce E. 1997. Americans are
more finicky than ever. Fortune
Magazine, 3 February, Vol. 135,
No.2, 108.

Ostrem, F. E., and W. D. Goodshall.
1979. An assessment of the
common carrier shipping

. environ ment. Gen. Tech. Rep.
FPL22, Madison, Wisconsin:
USDA, Forest Service, Forest
Products Laboratory.

Singh, S. P. and T. Voss. 1992. Drop
heights encountered in the UPS.
small parcel environment in the
United States. Journal of Testing
and Evaluation, 20(5), 382-387.

145

United Parcel Service. 1997.
Celebrating the past - A chronicle
of the times. U.P.S. of America,
Inc.

United Parcel Service. 1997. How
UPS works: The hub and spoke.
U.P.S. ofAmerica, Inc. March.

United Parcel Service. 1998. United
Parcel Service fact sheet U.P.S.
of America, Inc. August

Weigel, T. G. 1996. Handling
differences between plywood and
corrugated containers with and
without fragile labels in overnight
shipment. Masters thesis,
Michigan State University.

     

I‘IICHIGQ

1111111111111“