advertisement

Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works Theses 1995 A Study of F-flute's feasibility as a substitute for folding carton Oranuch Khlangkamhaengdech Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses Recommended Citation Khlangkamhaengdech, Oranuch, "A Study of F-flute's feasibility as a substitute for folding carton" (1995). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact ritscholarworks@rit.edu. A as Study of F-flute's Feasibility A Substitute for Folding Carton By Oranuch Khlangkamhaengdech A Thesis Submitted to the Department College in of partial of Packaging Applied Science fulfillment of and Science Technology the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Rochester Institute 1995 of Technology Department ofPackaging Science College of Applied Science and Technology Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, New York CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE The Master of Science degree thesis of Oranuch Khlangkamhaengdech has been examined and approved by the thesis committee as satisfactory for the thesis requirements for the Master of Science Degree Daniel L. Goodwin Deanna Jacobs Date: October 17, 1995 ii Thesis Release Permission Rochester Institute of Applied College Title A as Study of of Technology Science and Technology of Thesis F-flute's Feasibility A Substitute for Folding Carton I, Oranuch Khlangkamhaengdech, hereby grant permission to the Walllace Memorial to Library, reproduce of the Rochester Institute my thesis in whole or in of Technology part. Any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit. Date: October 17, 1995 Ul Acknowledgments Upon the completion of this thesis, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the people who have been a great support to me in this project. Special thanks to Professor Deanna M. to read and comment Also I would like to on to Tom express appreciation of who coordinated all experiment possible. to my thesis committee members, Dr. Daniel L. Packaging Science, support and assistance. Ujfalussy my thesis advisor, for taking time this thesis and for her patient guidance throughout the project. Goodwin, Director Department Canada, for their Jacobs, and Tom Ujfalussy I especially want to extend my of Image Pac, sincere gratitude the necessary arrangements to make this He Extended tremendous help with the experiment and data collection. I data also wish analysis. people, to thank Doris Ou for guiding me through the statistical methods and Last, but not least, I would like to thank the without whose assistance and cooperation this project would to complete: Russell Division, USA for providing testing assistance with experiment and This materials and Image Pac, a division equipment. of MacMillan In addition for her data collection., Janet Vandercraats. acknowledgments would not numerous unnamed people who contributed have been impossible Leavitt, Stone Container Corporation, Corrugated Container Bathurst, Canada for providing the necessary materials and have following organizations and be complete without also have been helpful, all the supportive and encouraging. to the success of this thesis. Thank you. IV thanking They too, ABSTRACT In the attractive potential paperboard package, F-flute is printing of two and structural design There provides are few performance with data heavyweight The market growth. and an F-flute has the folding cartons. It is the that provide the stiffness, F-flute is gaining unique characteristics widespread attention as an folding cartons. quantitative studies on F-flute to support the arguments that attributes and applications and a comprehensive than folding carton. capabilities to provide quantitative understanding F-flute of F-flute in order box to compare it folding cartons. purpose of this box study was to compare the structural compression strength two types of heavyweight folding cartons. provides stronger structural compression strength. heavyweight folding carton, study investigates F-flute material stiffness and box of the better packaging Consequently, this for increased high quality graphics the strength of corrugated combined with the quality weight and alternative to paperboard which requires corrugated containers and technologies, stacking strength, low box well positioned for revolutionizing both merger of these industry, packaging integrity in terms of between two types From the experiment, it of F-flute was boxes and found that F-flute integrity than heavyweight paperboard in term of stiffness and As a result, it is feasible to folding cartons in packaging application. substitute F-flute boxes for Table of Contents Page LIST OF TABLES xi - LIST OF FIGURES xii CHAPTER 1 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 4 Laminated Corrugated Board 8 Direct 9 Printing Preprinting-liners 10 Litho-laminating 10 F-flute Structure 11 Properties of F-flute 14 Compression Strength 15 Stiffness 17 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Limitation and 19 Delimitation 19 Assumption Equipment and 20 Materials 20 VI Page Test Methods 21 Experimental Procedure 23 Preconditioning 24 Material Evaluation 24 Stiffness 24 Testing Box Compression Strength 25 Testing Data Analysis 26 CHAPTER 4 THE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 31 Stiffness 31 Box Compression Strength 37 Discussion 43 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS 44 Conclusion on stiffness 44 Conclusion on Box Compression Strength 45 Summary 46 Discussion 46 CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 47 vii Page APPENDICES Appendix A-l: Laminating Market Growth of Appendix A-2: Appendix B: 48 E\B\C\ Laminated Laminating Market Growth of 1993-2000 E \B \ C\ Laminated 1993-2000 with 49 F-flute Laminated 50 Drawing Dimension of the Test Box C- 1 : Material Evaluation Results on Basis Weight 51 Appendix C-2: Material Evaluation Results on Thickness 52 Appendix 53 Appendix C-3: Board Analysis AppendixD: Actual Data Appendix E-l: F-test in both Appendix E-2: F-test of results Stiffness for for in both vertical Appendix E-3: F-test results in both Appendix F-l: t-test results for A and Board D 56 B and Board C horizontal directions 57 B and Board D horizontal directions stiffness comparison of Board vertical and Board C horizontal directions variances comparison of Board vertical and results in both for and 55 variances comparison of Board and A horizontal directions variances comparison of Board and for in both vertical Appendix E-4: F-test variances comparison of Board vertical and results 54 horizontal directions vm 58 A and Board C 59 Page Appendix F-2: t-test results for in both vertical Appendix F-3 : t-test results in both Appendix F-4: t-test Appendix G: Actual in for and Board D 60 B and Board C 61 horizontal directions stiffness comparison of Board vertical and A horizontal directions stiffness comparison of Board vertical and B and Board D horizontal directions 62 Top to Bottom Compression Strength vertical Appendix H: Actual and for results in both stiffness comparison of Board direction 63 Top to Bottom Compression Strength in horizontal direction Appendix I- 1: F-test results in both Appendix 1-2: F-test Appendix 1-3: F-test Appendix 1-4: F-test for for results for in both vertical Appendix J-l 1 : t-test . of Box results A and Box C 65 A and Box D 66 B and Box C horizontal directions variances comparison of Box and and horizontal directions variances comparison of Box vertical and A horizontal directions variances comparison of Box vertical and results in both variances comparison of Box vertical and results in both for 64 67 B and Box D horizontal directions for box Box C in IX 68 compression strength comparison vertical directions 69 Page Appendix J- 1.2: t-test results for box compression of Box Appendix J-2: t-test Box A and of Box Appendix J-3. 2: t-test of Box Box B and results Appendix J-3. 1 : t-test Appendix J-4: t-test A Box C in horizontal direction for box and B and results and SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY for box Box C in results for box and horizontal directions 71 compression strength comparison vertical direction 72 compression strength comparison Box C in horizontal direction for box 70 compression strength comparison of Box D in both vertical results B strength comparison 73 compression strength comparison of Box D in both vertical and horizontal directions 74 75 List of Tables Page Table 1 Standard Corrugated Flutes 12 Table 2 F-flute 13 Table 3 Standard Test Methods Used in This Table 4 Summary of Material Evaluation 33 Table 5 Board Analysis 34 Table 6 Summary of the Stiffness Values 35 Table 7.1 t-test of stiffness values for vertical direction 36 Table 7.2 t-test of stiffness values for horizontal direction 36 Table 8 profiles specifications Summary of Box Compression 23 Study Strength Values and Deflection in vertical direction testing Table 9 38 Summary of Box Compression Strength Values and Deflection in horizontal direction testing 39 for vertical direction Table 10.1 t-test of box compression Table 10.2 t-test of box compression strength for horizontal strength XI direction 42 42 List of Figures Page Figure 1 Manufacturing Process Flowchart Figure 2 The Structure Figure 3 Drawing of the sample box Figure 4 Box Compression Strength of the Fiber Direction in Stiffness 22 Testing 28 29 Testing xn 30 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In recent art of rigid paperboard years, the protect and contain goods, but communication of the product. superior box structure. Up way to also a Today's assist market the until now F-flute technology, the rigid higher lower weight. In addition, reduction packaging F-flute in bulge, increased In system. as the provides for response high-end F-flute is the mission. folding cartons. Folding two quality printing improved reduction, but For the cartons supplied the basic, heavy duty technologies, F-flute and structural high design combines quality with and a better design, a economic industry has introduced innovative design. package with corrugated but with the package industry. The application still with continued performance. past several years, between folding cartons and two distinct industries and each of these groups corrugated containers supplied merger of the an the packaging in the content desire source to more value-added graphics and gained widespread attention as the transitional medium corrugated containers were defined users demands, newest growth segment corrugated containers and a tool advertisement and demands high-impact lower fiber only paperboard package provides contents, to these graphics and packages with F-flute has recently recycled in the not folding carton fulfilled this demand, advance of a new strength at packaging was graphics on precision shipping containers. As had a cartons, clearly whereas a result of the the strength of corrugated with the option available only from folding cartons. Due to its heavyweight packaging structural including plastics and areas of development, F-flute introduced F-flute is quickly gaining stiffness, insulation and shock of applying graphics litho-laminating flexibility. The is on a single advances Currently, in the there are better packaging quantitative performance to compare it The flute boxes with on areas where It container. Also, data The an attractive process of same time packaging labeling onto high speeds give for carton quantitative studies and a comprehensive a excellent methods and of efficiency and F-flute the ability to gain industry. to support the arguments that F-flute Therefore, this understanding research provides of F-flute box in order folding carton. study is to compare the structural stiffness value is a useful two types of F- integrity of folding cartons in terms of indicator the stacking ability of the containers Compression of its for doubleface of the stiffness and quality serves as a measurement of the potential performance of the because other innovative being developed for a higher degree two types of heavyweight stiffness of the wall. performance The material of choice few in with a smooth surface At the properties. automation and heavyweight compression strength. container. absorbing face is as well as for its stacking strength, low weight, attributes and applications. purpose of this versus recognition improving as well. widespread attention as provides impact expanded polystyrene. to box board yet structurally superior similar graphics. an folding cartons and rigid boxes were originally used, During its period material integrity, F-flute has had strength is most is of a finished determined, in great part, by the widely used relationship to the box stacking as a measure of final performance. It box also can be used as an indicator manufacturing This of the overall of the materials and the efficiency of the box process. endeavor will weight corrugated aware of their quality board packaging optimal package. increase the knowledge applications. choices and of manufacturers Furthermore, be users and in the area of light buyers will become able to maximize their efforts more in providing the CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The of F-flute. more The market requirements are important for focused flute following developments in the packaging industry have led to the introduction on the is F-flute is a very informative salesman small corrugated foot. This is 43 % inch high used and and about for primary is presently E-flute shorter can be in height 95 flutes containers per Jim F-flute.2 Curley, "F-flute 1993: 38. 2 Curley 40. from the E-flute.1 Success," a is a special manufacturers to the retailers' with facings more shelves. the smallest caliper combined and has about flutes per foot than E-flute (0.053 originated 128 flutes per in Europe in 1987. It has been point-of -purchase displays Anything presently being produced with F-flute has F-flute is becoming at the moment product on the for glassware, specialty packaging, number of packaging applications. 1 50% foot). F-flute being used more than converted to for the without and with interest graphics are F-flute is establishing itself as flute design board. It is typically 0.030 inch in height high quality market capable of protecting the contents as an acting and The fastest growing value-added aspect of products. profile which retailers and packaging. changing emerged as further the preferred grade for a progression toward the invasion of International Paper Board Industry October corrugated open a lot into the market.3 of avenues industry.4 The folding carton F-flute is for sharp operators on either side viewed as an As the demand for this product to be in the traditional grew, the could corrugated containers between what is has been corrugated application. corrugated producers 3 Therefore, no be successfully joined in the 4 May Jackie box seem to be more with a corrugated folding carton application and what Folding carton converters an cartons and integration has been interested than F-flute.6 opportunities with Tricia Hyland, "F-flute Inches Its Packaging market segmentation of longer clearly defined. There is going to be historically folding small folding carton industry began to identify product.5 to produce a container board is going to by both sides of the board converting fence. opportunity printing technology market segments where advent of microflute Way into Folding Carton Market," Paperboard 1993: 28 Schultz, "A World of Change is ahaed for Carton Converters." Paperboard Packaging August 1995: 20. 5 Robert L. Nebeling, "Is F flute in future?" your Paperbox World Presentation September 10. 1994 New Orleans. LA 1994: 2. 6 Jim 1993: 38. Curley, "F-flute Success," International Paper Board Industry October From lows standpoint, litho-laminating and for F-flute. F-flute has process printing and a graphic which gives a much smoother much smoother look for flute lines have less Over the lamination, will either flutes printing laminating or per surface running five years for direct products will good it has fewer highs printing. because the Also it has glue and a the board.7 preprint and single industry segment as printing and linerboard improves in the future. This both are therefore decorated corrugated, especially be the fastest growing board foot, preprint effect on the overall surface of the next grades of container more direct printing surface face coating of likely lead to the development of additional which, like F-flute will be easily adapted to current applications.8 processing technologies and printing According to the presentation 1993-2000 to the " made by Mr. Robert L. on information gathered 7 presented Susan M information Laminating & F-flute Market Projections the best information available that relates is tied to the informally and survey, the information is helpful in However, Litho Nebeling, growth and potential of F-flute is based " laminating not market.9 Though his study to be treated as a definitive market demonstrating the market potential of F-flute. showed Clites, "Corrugated the following: Containers take Tappi Journal value," on added October 1993: 17. 8 9 Gary L Stanley, "Forecast'95," Boxboard Containers December 1994: .28. Robert L Nebeling, Litho Laminated&F-flute Market Projection 1993-2000 The folding laminating optimistic projections last three to four been favored 3% The potential "F" 4% that recent for are the supported for E, for the C flute B excess of by and 10% is of total per year. actual results in the C flute laminated has The past several years. product of F-flute laminating projected to (Appendix application. level annual out to A-2) has increased the There are projections that including fast food application) will be between 20 to laminating market by the end of this the laminated market currently an decade annual that a major portion of F-flute 25% of and will add around growth rate. growth will come It is from also product being packaged in folding cartons. East Coast box maker, " small product structural support which folding 10 and introduction corrugated According to boxes for for E, B, per year to predicted market in for by the end of the decade. flute (not the total The years. with vigorous growth rate of growth around have been A-l) approximately 3% at a rate growing feet (Appendix square carton and corrugated producers are corrugated shipments and are These billion shipments of a Customers want more E-and F-flute has been predominantly the domain of 10 carton." Charles Huck, "Corrugating roll: Containers. September 1994: 34. lifeline to running quality board." Boxboard However, it is very likely that the development techniques to produce high quality cartons from lightweight design for lightweight F-flute packaging in package potential in many development. laminated F-flute (other than fast corrugated board aspect of high face quality which can The laminator a to the There one time. a a water single machinery, there web. be laminator unit, moisture liner of kraft paper with graphics with strength and recyclability. a machine used to attach a printed sheet or preprinted applied in both consists of roll stand laminators have an outer (replacing doubleface lamination). The purpose is to combine the best The laminator is knife, food) is in litho- board Theoretically, laminated board is the replacing of single state of market product. Laminated a printed F-flute has the other markets. production manufacturing influence the papers will It is presently in the early growth areas of packaging. Today the majority of of equipment and are are also belt press, for face. Also, in-line a sheet to web process or web to web process. single package spray unit to face, feeder slitter, the warp of the the advanced productions of single die-cutters inline a sheet a glue delivery and a control panel. control with liner to laminated technology in face web with and with special unit, a Some sheet by adding equipment and lamination equipment, two of sheets or webs can be run at The printed corrugated decorated advantage of The package. applied board is board can be can board. This is also be printed "pre-printing" board This is the after offset liner. The liner (70%) (25%) of F-flute and others Direct boards in the applied refers to the in terms printed sheet can a corrugated be attached to a called market are options are possible; however, the litho-laminates followed printing. of direct Direct printing is of print quality. improved in recent printing of corrugated by preprinted board that has already been by box-making machines in corrugated plants, More than 80% letterpress A printing." (5%). machines.11 other be Printing Direct printing formed. It is "direct can "litho-laminating." printing is For the F-flute market, these three printing majority called The overall appearance of the by flexographic printing prior to making called a singleface corrugated board." corrugated decorated in many ways. Ink printed or directly onto the flat corrugated sheet. linerboard "decorated board is that it improves the corrugated corrugated also called However, a printing is practical, great strides and flexography, printer-slotters or the remainder is inexpensive process, but it is limited have been made and the quality has been years. V Nelson REldred, Package Printing (New York: Jelmar, 1993) 38 Preprinting-liners The liner is surface for printing, need printing. preprinted before it is fed into the With the development liners become printing process used. For area. provides a smooth technology and flexographic litho-laminated. However, there is preprinted However, This corrugator. of paper surface comparable to for further improvement in this most common the printed gravure still a liner, flexography is by far the printing can also be used to print linerboard. Litho-laminating Litho-laminating is the lamination of corrugated liners board. Laminates which are printed corrugated and commonly preprint single in used are folding carton technology in continuously 12 by sheetfed industries' s such as board.12 offset printing on corrugated and then F-flute. In manufacturing the and corrugated medium being increased possible offset, complete the unlike preprinted fastest growing technologies. It lithography on the lightweight paperboard face board printing is printed board to by flexographic printing. Litho-laminating is one of the linerboard from 23 lb. to 42 lb. are usually printed paper or including full and decreased color laminate is the process most is to printed sheets to a face board, F-flute uses from 23 lb. to 26 lb. Liner weights so these halftone designs. Gunilla Jonson, Corrugated Board single The also figures can vary. Top quality Litho-laminating of corrugated Packaging UK:Pira International 1993: 87. 10 container process is essentially before printing a short run operation which and low cost for takes advantage of quick make-ready jobs.13 short-run F-flute Structure: Corrugated board is of the individual flutings weight in g/m2 of the categorized of the corrugated C, E, and most widely F. Dimensions Box Association 0. 1 14 medium centimeters. divided used of flutes quoted per ways: feet or fluting medium, and third by different and second spacing by the by the quality of the paper industry are known simply as A, B, sources vary slightly, but the Fibre follows (Table 1). The F-flute 315 flutes The take up factor first, by the thickness and the forms in the packaging gives these guidelines as approximately 96 flutes or layer facing layers and the liner, used.14 The in three per meter. structure has The flute height is 0.045 inches (T.U.F.) which is the ratio of the length of by the length of singleface liner board for a given length of combined board is 1.23. 13 14 Nelson Ran REldred, Package Printing (New York: Jelmar, 1993) 39. Coddard, Packaging Materials (UK: Pira International, 1990) 45. 11 Table 1: Standard Corrugated Flutes Flutes/Length Type A-flute Approx. Height T.U.F. 0.184 in. 1.54 (33+/-3)/ft. (110+/-10)/m. B-flute 0.467 (47+/-3)/ ft. 0.097 in (155+/-10)/m. 0.246 (39+/-3)/ ft C-flute 0.361 (90+/-4)/ ft cm. 1.43 cm 0.062 in. (295+/-15)/m. 0.157 (96+/-4)/ ft F-flute 1.32 0.142 in (130+/-10)/m.. E-flute cm. 1.27 cm. 0.045 in. (315+/-15)/m. 0.114 1.23 cm. Source: Fibre Box Association. Specifications for these flutes The height can designation.15 the vary The as much as actual value corrugator roll wear. 15 Howard A Displays. (New York: are not standardized are approximate values. 10% from the lowest to the highest depends on These variables Bessen, but Design Jelmar, 1990) the result and 138 12 flute contour, within each corrugator roll in wide take-up factor Production of flute profiles, and variations. Corrugated Packaging and In addition, rolls can be as much as six mm. to As noted from bare metal or be chrome the flute height and slightly effect earlier, the following information specifications. made profile of F-flute varies with shows different F-flute profiles plated, which could also add ratio.16 on take-up different The manufacturers. from different manufacturers (Table 2) Table 2: F-flute profiles specification Manufacturer Flutes/ft. Roll Type Height T.U.F. Bobst 128.1 Unchromed Roll 0.0295 in. 1.2348 Chromed Roll 0.0305 in. 1.2513 Unchromed Roll 0.030 in. - Chromed Roll 0.035 in. - Agnati 128 MHI 135 Source: Bobst 16 Howard A Displays. (New York: Group Inc. Bessen, 0.030 in. - and Fibre Box Association Design Jelmar, 1990) 1.256 and 138 13 Production of Corrugated Packaging and Properties of F-flute The many uses displays is trend. in high-end of E-flute well proven around the world. Compared to paperboard stacking ability, low weight and graphic packaging and point-of-purchase the smaller F-flute is continuing that Now, folding cartons, the new flute has been praised for its stiffness, as well as for its insulating and shock absorbing properties.17 F-flute has corrugated. all F-flute the benefits of a folding carton combined with the strength of provides greater protection since the corrugated structure of F-flute offers a stiffer and more rigid In terms package. offers superior compression strength in addition of box to performance, F-flute packaging greater bulge resistance. This means even greater product protection. In a range of high-end graphics, F-flute board's printing capability is approaching that of folding carton. Because the medium carton stock, it is specialty features capabilities and 17 Folding capable of 80-90% of available with and Carton Industry 18 Tricia Paperboard almost as smooth and folding flat as the The printing moisture 1993: 49. Hyland, "F-flute Inches Its Way into Folding Carton Packaging May barrier of printable substrates are available such as Michael Brunton, "Litho laminator development July-August folding capabilities.18 carton's F-flute include: windows, hanger tabs, handles. A large variety Ted Vilardi is 1993: 28. 14 Market," kraft, discussed," uncoated, mottled white, varnish, ultra carton be and spot to the corrugated new aspect need to violet, and erected and filled clay coated. (matte The coating finishes high speed include: aqueous, F-flute is going to and gloss coating). industry because customers on a available are bring a whole going to look cartoning line typically served at cartons that by the folding industry. The F-flute weigh while converts into a package with good performance. maintaining less fiber content and structure that is easily recyclable. less material lower fiber content, Thereby, it volume, but also it is not an only with reduced creates a box rigid box with environmentally friendly Compression Strength The container. compression strength It also can be is a direct measure of the stacking strength of the said that the compression strength constitutes a general measure of the performance potential of a compression strength is finished considered box.19 There are two reasons why the to be the most prominent indicator of the final box performance.20 19 Hakan Markstrom, Testing Methods (Stockholm: Lorentzen & 20 R. C. of Corrugated Wettre, 1992) McKee, J.W. Gander, Board." and and Instruments for Corrugated Board. 9 J.R. Wachuta, "Edgewise Compression Strength Paperboard Packaging November 1961: 70 15 (1) Compression strength is directly related to the (2) Box materials and the testing compression strength values represent quality are several methods of the empty box has been widely used to The box "all-around" TAPPI which corresponds standard: compressive test is to practical performance a pure top strength of and The the box. The test is It is acknowledged in the stacking of the final box. of Fiberboard maximum carried out in parallel plates which are recorded force Shipping Containers), attained is continuously is fixed platen Gorge G. Maltenfort, Approach. (New York: reported as the compression a standardized atmosphere, 23.0+/-1.0 Corrugated Shipping Containers: An Engineering Jelmar, 1988) 269 16 in until a 50+/-2 % RH. 21 to be to bottom compression test. In accordance with tester. The force and the strain occurs. Compression quality.21 the box compression test is T804 OM-89 (Compression Test failure of the measure compression strength. the empty sealed boxes are compressed between flat a compression quality strength. for evaluating the final box method compression overall to evaluate box compression According to Markstrom (1992), the best test the performance. of its manufacture. There probably the best stacking C Stiffness (Flexural Stiffness, The applied stiffness or flexural Bending Stiffness) rigidity of paper and paperboard is its ability to bending force like the one used in relationship between the applied region.23 Stiffness is measured packaging.22 Stiffness is defined resist an as the bending moment and the deflection within the elastic by the force required to bend a strip of paper through a specified angle. A physical characteristic of paperboard which greater stiffness. applications, containers. Stiffness is extremely important in the Packages must resist Folding cartons deformation criterion methods of 22 in specifications and stacked above packaging Hakan Markstrom, H. W. Verseput, and corrugated testing.24 acceptance Most 1995) "Precision There of the stiffness is and available for Paper. (Pensylvania: Instruments for Corrugated Board. 26 of the Taber Stiffness 1969: 1136 17 Test," an are several instruments about bending 126 Testing Methods Wettre, 1992) Therefore, them. William H. Bureau. What the Printer Should Know (Stockholm: Lorentzen & 24 in is its bulging when being filled and when the determining bending stiffness properties. Graphic Arts Technical Foundation, 23 or paper and corrugated containers must also withstand buckling when loaded by the containers important paperboard including products such as rigid boxes, folding cartons, contents settle. and differentiates it from Tappi Journal June measuring bending stiffness in the laboratory are the Clark stiffness Paper and stiffness tester measures the Taber, Gurley and testers. In accordance with TAPPI standard T489 OM-92, Paperboard (Taber-Type Stiffness Tester), the Taber moment required to bend the free from the The vertical. end of a paper specimen Stiffness of through an angle of usually bending moment is measured in Taber units (grams force centimeter). 18 bending - 15 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The objective of this research was to compare and integrity of two types of F-flute boxes and investigate the two types of heavy terms of material stiffness and box compression strength. To weight structural folding cartons in obtain quantitative data for this comparison the materials to be tested must first be evaluated to verify their specifications. Limitations and Delimitations This study Test would test only the specific types of board identified. materials would atmosphere be conditioned before the test to equilibrium state as prescribed in ASTM in a standard standard conditioning procedure. The testing would which would be be conducted at ambient temperature and relative controlled. Influencing factors which were not included in this study were the printing, coating, humidity and the different adhesives used. 19 effect of Assumptions 1. The first assumption was that laboratory testing was representative of field testing. 2. The second assumption was that the moisture content of all specimens approximately reach Equipment equal. Sufficient time conditioning temperature and would allowed of heavyweight paperboard 2. Two types of F-flute combined weight board Tester: Mettler, model # AE163. 4. Thickness Tester: Micrometer, 5. Taber-Stiffhess Tester: Teledyne Taber 6. Compression Strength Tester: Model TM 49005 Corporation description 1 . samples to humidity to reduce variability. 1. Two types The test for the Materials and 3. Basis be is materials used (USA) of the and in this study were the Image Pac, a supplied division model # 549 V-5, by The of MacMillan model # 150-B Stone Container Bathurst (Canada). A test materials as follows: Two types of F-flute combined board with lightweight liners identified as the following. Board A: Printed linerboard medium and with a inner liner thickness of 10 pt. are 20 127 g/m2 and (Basis weights 161 g/m2, of respectively). Board B: Printed linerboard medium and 2. Two types with a inner liner thickness are of heavyweight paperboard 127 identified thickness of 28 pt. Board D: Paperboard with a thickness of 34 pt. die cut and formed at the Image the F-flute laminated laminator to F-flute boards. Then the F-flute made paperboards were then moved no. laboratory to be 20545). The set process up F-flute respectively). following. and heavyweight single faces by the Asitrade combined boards and to a Bobst die-cutter. Once die-cut the and glued weights of folding PAC, Toronto, Canada. The light weight paperboards were onto the boxes (Basis 161 g/m2, as the with a cartons were pt. and Paperboard were converted and 15 g/m2 Board C: The F-flute boards to the of single face heavyweight sheets were moved by hand with hot melt glue (Swift Adhesive serial flowchart is depicted in Figure 1. Test Methods The testing following of Pulp which was conducted American and Paper in this study was performed according to the Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and Technical Association Industry (TAPPI) standards. 21 (Table 2) Figure 1: Manufacturing Process Flowchart Light Weight Paperboard _ Asitrade Singleface Laminator Heavy Weight Paperboard Tl I Bobst Die-Cutter Die-Cut Board \] | Set-up & Glued in the laboratory Source: Image Pac, a division of MacMillan 22 Bathurst, Toronto, Canada. I Table 3: Standard Test Methods Used in This Test Method Study Title Standard Practice for Conditioning Paper and Paper ASTM: D685-93 Products for Testing Standard Test Method for Grammage of Paper and ASTM: D646-92 Paperboard (Weight Per Unit Standard Test Method for Thickness Area) of Paper and ASTM: D645-92 Paperboard Stiffness of Paper and Paperboard TAPPI: T489-OM92 (Taber-Type Stiffness Compression Test TAPPI: T804-OM89 of Fiberboard Tester) Shipping Containers Experimental Procedure This research was performed were conditioned and then evaluated in the for their the materials evaluation, the two types paperboards were evaluated the two types for of heavyweight laboratory at standard of F-flute stiffness values. Image Pac. All test basis boards weight and 23 thickness. After and the two types of heavyweight Then the two types folding cartons were evaluated to compression strength values. materials of F-flute boxes determine their box and Preconditioning All test atmosphere was materials and 10 to 35 % C. The conditioning relative boxes humidity (% RH) atmosphere was 1.0 C for 48 hours. The testing were conditioned. and 50.0 +/-2.0 %RH atmosphere was the The preconditioning the temperature was 22 to 40 and the temperature was 23.0+/- same as the conditioning atmosphere. Material Evaluation Five for their sheets each of the conditioned standard Stiffness weight and component materials were examined thickness properties. Testing A total Board basis individual often samples from D) were tested for stiffness. samples were sample and (horizontal) each board type The boards tested with the grain of the liner five were ( Board A, Board B, Board C, tested in two parallel to the length samples were tested with the grain of the of the sample. ( Figure 2) 24 fiber liner and directions; five (vertical) of the parallel to the width Board Identification 1. Board A : 10 pt. board/ 127 161 g/m2 g/m2/ 2. Board B : 15 pt. board/ 127 161 g/m2 g/m2/ 3. Board C : Heavyweight paperboard 28 pt. 4. Board D : Heavyweight paperboard 34 pt. The F-flute boxes and the heavyweight folding cartons were made with the following specification. Container design : Box Dimension : 256 : 10.08 : Die-Cut is shown (O.D.) (L*W*D) Box Style The drawing of this container Box Compression Strength Ten for the box samples of each compression directions for F-flute orientation - flutes 193 mm.* in.* mm.* 7.60 in. and * 222 ml. "AT2" bottle. mm. 8.74 in. End Load Container. in Figure 3. Testing box type (Box A, test (BCT). The box Box B, Box C compression and Box D) were tested test was performed in two flute box; flutes running parallel to the length of the box (normal box horizontal) and flutes running parallel to the depth of the box (box in an upright orientation-flutes vertical). with grain parallel Molson Breweries, 12-341 to the length And two of the carton grain directions for folding carton; (normal box 25 orientation - grain one horizontal)) and one with grain parallel vertical). to the depth of the box (box in an upright orientation-grain See Figure 4. Box Identification 1. Box A : F-flute box made from 10 pt. board/ 127 g/m2/ 161 2. Box B : F-flute box made from 15 pt. board/ 127 g/m2/ 161 3. BoxC : Heavyweight folding carton made from 28 pt. board. 4. Box D : Heavyweight folding carton made from 34 pt. board. Box used compression testing was performed because only the difference in the quality If the compression test value will also reflect The testing one strength using the performed the variations of the room was conditioned at to 50 pounds manually testing, is box tester, a after which it was fixed platen. g/m2 The fixed of box material were examined floating platen, quality 23.0+/-1.0 of the C, box fabrication each sample centrally between the loaded to failure. The platen was in this study. the compression strength process. 50+/-2 % RH. Force by the machine operator prior to at a time was placed that were attained using g/m2 was pre-loaded tested. During plates of the compression maximum force and deflection were recorded. Data Analysis The A statistical analysis confidence level The t-test values and box for this study used Microsoft Excel (Version 4) software. of 95% was chosen. analysis was applied to test for the significant compression strength values between two types 26 difference of stiffness of F-flute and two types of heavyweight data, folding cartons. In order to select the type oft-test needed to analyze the the F-test was applied to determined the equity of variance in each pair in the comparison. If the F-test showed significantly different variance, the Two-Samples Assuming Unequal Variances t-test would be used. On the other hand, Two-Samples Assuming Equal Variances t-test would be used when the result of the F-test was not found to be different in variances. 27 Figure 2: The Structure of the Fiber Direction in Stiffness Testing F-flute Board F-flute Board Fiber Direction: Vertical Fiber Direction: Horizontal Heavy Weight Paper Board Heavy Weight Paper Board Fiber Direction: Vertical Fiber Direction: Horizontal 28 Figure 3: Drawing 29 of the sample box Figure 4: Box Compression Strenght Testimg F-flute box Vertical Horizontal Heavy weight folding carton Vertical Horizontal 30 CHAPTER 4 THE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this study the stiffness value of two types of F-flute boards were compared to two types of heavyweight paperboards and the compression of boxes made from F-flute boards were compared to The summary and boxes of the made basis from heavyweight weight and 15 pt.) paperboard, the heavyweight (28 board components Table 4. The (inner liner actual data is thickness pt. and and corrugated shown paperboards. of the materials; lightweight (10 34 pt.) paperboard, the medium) used in this study in Appendix C-l for basis weight and pt. corrugated are shown in Appendix C-2 for thickness. Board analysis of each component types of heavyweight paperboard is for the two types shown in Table 5. The of F-flute board actual data is and the shown two in Appendix C-3. Stiffness (Flexural Stiffness, The average and standard heavyweight The Bending Stiffness) deviation paperboard are summarized of stiffness values of the F-flute boards in Table 6. stiffness values which were recorded Appendix D. 31 from the experiment are shown in and Based on the F-test: two-samples for variances, the Two-Samples Unequal Variances t-test The : variances comparison of Board in both vertical The : variances : variances : variances in both vertical The directions), : Board C showed significantly different A and Board D significantly different showed B and Board C showed significantly different horizontal directions. (Appendix B and Board D showed E-2) E-3) significantly different horizontal directions. (Appendix E-4) then applied to test for the significant difference of stiffness values. analysis are shown in appendices F-l - F-4 ( vertical and horizontal respectively. a confidence C in both Since horizontal was and and horizontal directions. (Appendix comparison of Board from the At than Board : vertical and in both vertical results and A because horizontal directions. (Appendix E-l) comparison of Board in both The and comparison of Board The t-test The was selected level vertical of and 95%, Board A experienced significantly higher ^calculated) from vertical corrugation = 13.0470 The results from the both directions testing in : stiffness horizontal directions. (Appendix F-l) were corrugation = 5.9593 larger than t(critical) = and ^calculated) from 2. 1318, it that Board A and Board D had significantly different stiffness values. : Assuming analysis showed the comparison of Board B Significant differences between Board B directions testing. (Appendix F-4) 32 be concluded (Appendix F-2) significantly different and can stiffness values Board C. (Appendix F-3) and Board D were found in both in Table 4: Summary of Material Physical Properties Evaluation Testing for Basis Weight Basis Material Type 10 Thickness* (Pt-) 215.2 10.06 282.8 15.56 heavy weight paperboard folding carton) 539.0 28.88 heavy weight paperboard (board for folding carton) 635.8 34.30 128.2 8.90 158.4 8.42 light pt. weight paperboard light pt. pt. board) weight paperboard (outer liner for F-flute 28 Weight* Thickness (g/m2) (outer liner for F-flute 15 and board) (board for 34 pt. 127 g/m2 Kraft paper (corrugated medium) 161 g/m2 Kraft paper (inner liner for F-flute * An board) average of 5 test samples. 33 Table 5: Board Analysis F-flute board: Basis Weight Components * Board B Board A Outer liner 215.2 g/m2 282.8 Corrugated Medium 128.2 g/m2 128.2 g/m2 Inner Liner 158.4 g/m2 158.4 g/m2 Total Total of weight from 3 layers weight of combined Thickness of combined board board * g/m2 501.8 g/m2 569.4 g/m2 546.0 g/m2 617.8 g/m2 * 0.055 in. 0.050 in. Board A: F-flute board made from 10 pt. board/ 127 g/m2/ 161 Board B: F-flute board made from 15 pt. board/ 127 g/m2/ 161 g/m2 g/m2 Heavyweight Paperboard Board C Basis Weight Thickness * 539.0 * 0.029 in. Board C: 28 pt. heavyweight paperboard Board D: 34 pt. heavyweight paperboard * An average of 5 test g/m2 samples. 34 Board D 635.8 g/m2 0.034 in. Table 6: Summary of the Stiffness values. STIFFNESS Fiber Direction (G-CM) Horizontal Vertical Board Type Avg* s** Avg* s** 1808 133.12 1458 186.06 2200 386.78 1722 307.28 1004 34.35 261 11.70 1446 27.02 370 12.25 Board A F-flute board : 10 pt. outer liner Board B F-flute board : 15 pt. outer liner Board C Heavy weight paperboard : 28 pt. 34 pt. Board D Heavy weight paperboard : Avg.* S** NOTE: = - Average of 5 samples Standard Deviation The F-flute the 15 of 5 samples samples were deflected to due to the fact that at the samples would buckle at the clamp jaws. The Range Weight used for 2000 7.5 all materials for the test was the unit weight. Therefore the actual were multiplied and the actual instrument readings by a factor of 40 to reading for the samples were multiplied 35 for the F-flute accommodate for thickness heavy weight paperboard by 20. samples The significant results difference in paperboards were directions from the and average stiffness found in all types vertical between F-flute boards of comparisons Table 7.2 for horizontal Table 7.1: t-test For analysis showed that at the confidence directions, shown level and of 95 %, heavy weight in Table 7. 1 for vertical respectively. of stiffness values. direction Board Board Board Board A&C A&D B&C B&D t-calculated 13.0771 5.9593 6.8872 4.3484 t-critical 2.1318 2.1318 2.1318 2.1318 Significantly Different Yes Yes Yes Yes Board Board Board Board A&C A&D B&C B&D t-calculated 14.3617 13.0407 10.6269 9.8307 t-critical 2.1318 2.1318 2.1318 2.1318 Significantly Different Yes Yes Yes Yes t-test for Two- Sample Table 7.2: t-test of stiffness values. For horizontal direction t-test for Two-Sample 36 Box Compression Strength The corrugation and The box deviation Table 9 for the Based on the F-flute boxes and summary of the variance analysis flute box and heavyweight maximum -samples for the force and deflection of the folding cartons are summarized in vertical corrugation and the F-test: two vertical corrugation. of average and standard and in Appendix G for the are shown Appendix H for the horizontal compression strength of the Table 8 data compression strength horizontal corrugation, for variances, appendix I- 1 - 1-4 respectively. the showed comparison of box compression strength of F- folding carton in both vertical and horizontal directions as follow: The : F(calculated) = comparison of Box 2. 1018 Assuming Equal was not Variances larger than be F^-tcai) be would 6.3882 : other hand, be horizontal used (Appendix for vertical = directions, and direction 6.3882 so in horizontal that t-test: Two-Samples of difference direction, F(caicuiated) = in 10.00 was Assuming Unequal Variances would 1-1) Box D showed no significantly difference in both then t-test: Two Samples determining the showed to determine the significant so t-test: Two- Samples From the results, Box A vertical and Box C in used to analyze the data. (Appendix used would = and larger than F(critical) On the compression strength. A significant of difference 1-2) 37 Assuming Equal Variances in compression strength. Table 8: Summary of Box Compression Vertical Direction : pt. board + F-flute (Box 15 pt. board + and Deflection Testing Box Type 10 Strength Value Maximum Force Deflection (lbs) (inch) Avg* s** Avg* s** single face 139.8 4.76 0.17 0.03 single face 168.2 3.63 0.17 0.03 A) F-flute (BoxB) 28 pt. Folding Carton (BoxC) 103.60 3.29 0.14 0.02 34 pt. Folding Carton (BoxD) 142.80 2.28 0.20 0.04 Note: Avg*. S Pre load ** was Average = = 50 of 5 samples Standard Deviation of 5 samples pounds. 38 Table 9: Summary of Box Compression : Horizontal direction board pt. + F-flute and Deflection Testing Box Type 10 Strength Value Maximum Force Deflection (lbs) (inch) Avg* s** Avg* s** single face 180.0 5.66 0.20 0.00 single face 224.0 18.22 0.17 0.03 103.2 1.79 0.22 0.03 146.4 11.26 0.30 0.00 (Box A) 15 pt. board + F-flute (BoxB) 28 pt. Folding Carton (BoxC) 34 Note: pt. Folding Carton (BoxD) Avg*. S Pre load ** was Average = = 50 of 5 samples Standard Deviation of pounds. 39 5 samples Significant differences : Box B and Variances would Two Samples vertical and would be used for be so comparison in horizontal t-test: Two Samples used for variances of Assuming Equal direction, Significant differences was found Assuming Unequal Variances would be used. horizontal between determining the significant of difference in compression From the results, Box B : found in the Box C in vertical direction testing However, strength. were not and Box D showed no so t-test: (Appendix 1-3) significantly different in both direction, then t-test: Two Samples Assuming Equal Variances determining the significant of difference in compression strength. (Appendix 1-4) Then the student's t-test was applied to test compression strength. direction vertical : of results from the significant analysis are shown in appendices result from the F-test so t-test revealed Box A vertical : was experienced directions The shown for two sample significantly J-l - J-4 for in Table 10.1 C equal variance was used assuming At greater compression strength a confidence than Box C level in ( Refer to Appendix J-l 1) . average compression strength of Box compared, using t-test: Two-Sample A and Box C in horizontal direction Assuming Unequal Variance. the analysis showed that Box A and Box C had significantly strength as showed of box that variance between Box A and Box determining the significant of difference in compression strength. 95%, different horizontal direction. found to be different was not for As the and The for the in Table 10.2. (Refer to Appendix J-1.2) different The result compression from Since t : = ^critical) (calculated) m vertical direction 1-8595, it can in compression strength Table 10. 1. On the ~ (critical) other (Refer to Appendix hand, t (calculated) direction The result as shown as shown For the vertical and in vertical in Table 10.1. (Refer from t-test: Two-Sample significantly different shown that the box compression strength had compression strength comparison of compression : and horizontal direction m larger than significantly different in = Box D 5.9621 as shown in exceeded t significant different in Table 10.2. Using t-test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances, vertical : =1.27 was not J-2) significantly different in C in 1 direction testing between Box A Box D, in horizontal direction and -1.27 concluded that the test was not vertical 1-8596, it shows between Box A : be I = the result oft-test was direction between Box b also to Appendix comparison in Table 10.2. (Refer between Box B and also to and Table 10.2, J-3.1) respectively. Box D, the 41 (Refer and Box C had Appendix J-3 .2) result showed horizontal directions testing had significantly different in Table 10.1 Box Assuming Unequal Variances found that in horizontal direction between Box B as shown and also to in both compression strength as Appendix J-4) The summary of the results of the t-test are shown Table 10.1: t-test For vertical of in Table 10 below. Box Compression Strength direction t-test for Two-Sample Box Box Box Box A&C A&D B&C B&D 29.4857 13.2407 | | t-calculated 13.9853 t-critical 1.8595 1.8595 1.8595 1.8595 Significantly Different Yes No Yes Yes Table 10.2: t-test of -1.2700 Box Compression Strength For horizontal direction Box Box Box Box A&C A&D B&C B&D t-calculated 28.9451 5.9621 14.7537 8.1009 t-critical 2.1318 1.8595 2.1318 1.8595 Significantly Different Yes Yes Yes Yes t-test for Two-Sample 42 Discussion From the value experiment than horizontal could not be comparison. in vertical testing testing due to compared between vertical This box design has from horizontal direction to the design of the direction a zipper vertical provided the strip direction, and on this strength. 43 test the lower box, compression strength compression strength values horizontal direction in top zipper of the strip box. reduced each pair of When the switched compression CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Conclusion Stiffness on From this study, it stiffness values can be concluded that there was significant between two types of F-flute board As the results, Board A was 804 paperboard. than Board C in vertical testing and 1 197 and two types of g.cm g.cm. (approximately 458%) g.cm Board D in vertical testing (approximately 294%) 1088 g.cm. testing Board B testing Board B The results was 754 stiffness in was 1461 comparison g.cm. g.cm. g.cm. (approximately 560%) in vertical paperboard is and and C, and 1352 higher Board D g.cm. analysis, the was also concluded stiffness advantage over stiffness than also shown the provides respectively. Board C. same, Board B Therefore, significantly higher result indicated that in the fiber (basis weight), the F-flute board is substantially thicker It in the horizontal stiffness than accepted. According to the board weight paperboard. and (approximately 365%) higher horizontal testings, that F-flute board higher in horizontal the results shown that in the (approximately 1 19%) between Board B one which stated heavyweight 1 196 (approximately 52%) than Board D hypothesis was higher in (approximately 25%) higher stiffness than testing. In the comparison between Board B and Board vertical heavy weight (approximately 80%) higher stiffness horizontal testing. Also Board A was 362 and difference in the that the F-flute heavy weight paperboard 44 and more boards have same amount of rigid than the heavy a considerable at the same amount of fiber. Conclusion on Over heavyweight horizontal, all Box Compression Strength the comparison of the compression strength folding cartons was found to be different, under difference in box box with the 10 paperboard the conditions in both pt. outer liner (Box between Box B 1 17%) higher and significant between the F-flute A) and heavyweight folding carton made from 34 pt. same Box D. from the horizontal direction testing, Box A was 76.8 lbs (approximately 74%) higher compression strength than Box C (approximately 23%) and vertical and Only one comparison had no Statistically the data indicates Box A provided the compression strength value as results boxes directions; compression strength and that was the comparison (Box D). As the of this study. of F-flute higher Box C, compression strength Box D found that Box B was Box A was 33.6 lbs than Box D. In the comparison the result showed that Box B compression strength and was 120.8 lbs. than Box C. Also the comparison 77.6 lbs. (approximately between Box B and (approximately 53%) higher compression strength than Box D. The results from the (approximately 35%) higher vertical direction testing compression strength showed than Box that Box A C (approximately 62%) higher compression strength than Box C. between Box B and Box D, the 18%) higher compression Box D was result showed that strength than Box found that Box A was 3 lbs. D. Box B Only .the was and was Box B In the was 64.6 lbs comparison 25.4 lbs. comparison 36.2 lbs (approximately between Box A (approximately 1.4%) lower compression 45 and strength than Box D. However, in statistical analysis can concluded that Box A provided the same compression strength value as Box D. Therefore, significantly It can be the second hypothesis which stated stronger compression strength than concluded that heavyweight folding F-flute boxes have cartons in term that F-flute box provides heavyweight folding carton is accepted. a considerable advantage over the of compression strength. Summary From the heavyweight finding, experimental F-flute provides stronger structural integrity than folding carton in term of stiffness and box compression strength. it is feasible to substitute heavyweight As a result, folding cartons with F-flute boxes in the packaging industry. Discussion Also from the liners provided cartons made flute made from 28 experimental higher from 28 from 10 pt. and pt. outer which mean corrugated but 34 pt. paperboard. liner also can for be substituted for not less raw materials board, so it can only used, be easily than with 15 pt. outer both the folding concluded that F- folding cartons made folding cartons made from 34 environmental view pt. and Therefore, it can be that F-flute boxes provide better performance From the 10 stiffness and stronger compression strength pt. paperboard result means findings, F-flute made from pt. paperboard. lower fiber This content. point, F-flute requires less fiber to manufacture and less fiber entering the recycled. 46 waste stream. F-flute is a CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS As F-flute box than a made from 10 folding carton made from 28 F-flute can be decreased to pt. outer pt. an even liner provides lighter weight weight combinations of F-flute and folding cartons. F-flute board the structural liner of correlation between the different integrity between F-flute boxes and of percentage of the recycled content integrity of the box. 47 outer integrity paperboard. the structural Also may be investigate in term and structural paperboard, it is feasible that the Therefore, future research may be investigate the basis better in Appendix A- 1 LAMINATING MARKET GROWTH 1993 OF E\B\C\ LAMINATED 48 - 2000 o o o ^_ 2 L_- d CD m CO z o __ z ;1;V^.:ii:iy: ; ; ; Appendix A-2 LAMINATING MARKET GROWTH 1993 OF E\B\C\ LAMINATED WITH F -FLUTE LAMINATED 49 - 2000 o o o CM CO o m _Q '*- ''.-* -~- '""- Appendix B: Drawing Dimension of the Test Box 50 r- 478- /\ . -> no l Xl C\j A -258 re r\i , (ti ki i -I ' rir7TwnJ; J_i =* i i r i u-i _i Ui * nr" U 5 sf ( a P-lJXi I ;^ -s-^rLill _ _ _ <K_ ^-- (Liu _ CL 3 . tu ki __! < < ^ 1 : a c \J c X t l-H Q c u - GO -j c71 U r- l_l \/ 1 < CL __ o ca n _l LU t- ,-2 f cc cr cn o r U- a. Q LU Ol lu \ * 1 1 1 i i t -z. o LU * LU T < c3 __: Li 1 (\l UJ J -1 r cn i n tr? / <\J 1. 1 o y t ^ < T Ol 'D X K in r. Q (o J._i_L T O __L c o Uj c0 Q 2 X UJ X. X __ LU \ CD -J j Ui C 0 u c CL 00 IU to - LU > O CC CL CL < cn UJ A _i i o i A A z o CD o c\i CO o i I 1 X ^r h- S cn < Z k fc fc Hi CD V CJ _i b. >T m T CO CD _j > T-1 _j T _ J Ol c3 Ol _l o t= i- - z si _E >} m i OJ >l k Q i m c_> ru Q < n < __ U_ 111 DC \, cr LU O I n z t- LJ o u I 3.- LENGTH AND WIDTH DIMENSIONS OF STEEL RULE DIE SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5mm (+ OR -) WHEN COMPARED TO ACTUALS C_) LU U) n cn rr 3 UJ Q i-* h- Ll O L_j n w 4.- MANUFACTURER'S JOINT MIS-ALIGNMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.5mm. 5. - THIS CONTAINER MUST BE DIE CUT FROM THE INSIDE. . LU 1 1 1- > n r- cn q . M LU o LJ .. t-- LU DC : 1- 1 J LL < _ (f^\ 8^ i 1 __ POSITION OF DIE RULE SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.25mm FROM THAT SHOWN ON DIMENSIONAL DRAWING. ( LJ _J 2.- OJ l-H UJ THIS CONTAINER TO BE MANUFACTURED ON FLAT-BEO DIE-EQUIPPED MACHINERY ONLY. T-l 1 O 1.- r\ __: Lj ***SPECIAL NOTES*** O m o _i i V cD o T-1 i o *i O cn S O I c_s -- 5 a _s n eg C/_ 00 tN O r~ r- ir> cn r- r- >n CN rr CN tN O eN oo o 00 CN rr OS * in CO tN oo ir> CN CN 00 tN VO rr 00 Q D 00 CO ha * m r- i 00 CO CO VO tN 00 >n tN m VO ~ ^ VO o ON CN Ov +* op '53 VI & a rr \ ^ "3 VO <N t ? cn m 00 rr m ' tN in CO LO vo m CO ' m oo co o m rr tN tN rr tN m vo ** in oo in r m CO t- r- "S 00 00 CN < CO CO CO in cd tN tN in VO rT VO 00 tN rr rr m vo i__i CQ 'S ea 3 * ' tN 73 O OS ^-s b -o O CO Xi o co t: Oh U ea tt T3 is 2 O ca <- O WD H "3 z -c__ CL, V cl, ca ea o ea tt <tS oo _- o> I 71 *-* o o T_ u *- CQ c_ O-1 1 GO ___ & Ov m Ui "O O O ON tN CO CO ^ _= & *-> O oo _r ops e3 /"~s 1 |*_ 8 a, <s ea o w __ &g o--o Jit' ^-> J3 .S op2 o '53 "o *t *t '53 "O ___ O ^ * s e ea ea c__ -C a *J 4-! S.13 w-> sS < S- CJ O . ea -c _a o o s.e tee oo rr tN CO a> *^ 3 *J eg C3 ^^ 00 ob P ,i <2 8,5 1? .SP c 1 vo ^H T! 0> g " O u rt 5 5 CO Q CO , , CO f- "-1 tN vo co VO 00 00 o in in 00 rr tN CO r- VO tN tN OS tN rr o <u 00 ea vo o 4) 3 o 00 in in OS tN T"H ^* o CO CO vq On CO oo -** 73 X N 00 in 00 -1 '' tN o r- m o in VO 00 CO U> c_ S3 Ul 0) vq rf CL, tN CO vq O On in os tN rr ON ea U 73 > o in CO CN o os 00 CO "H ^^ 7a CO rr rr tN "C o n On rr 1 11 tN CO ti T ea -o 93 CL, >> V <N i u e _* o ^-. u. *o ea is "o rt u, O rt O rt JD O -O O 03 *2 *T5 oo cl, a> tt 53 tt ^7 " "~' te oo _. 1) 7^ _! o * T_ & ___ ._ ~" u u, "> "&*. <-; 0,3 n w _ o u ___ O ^ 1 It: 8 Cu M * J3 ' <2 +j a cu u, & tt ___ c ,-. CL, H <L> o b rt Rt rt O SP2 _u> _=. SP2 '53 "o '53 "o ^ *f I52 1^ JS rt X rt O o tie Ui fe CLT3 oo .S "3 O /7> 1 |ti 8 o,e 00 rr tN CO * e -__ C ^ rt " W rt <D 3 rt * u a* 00 ob P vo > | s_^ r-H T! (U c CO CO CO CO r~ rf CN tN rr O o VO VO O o <u oo 00 rt Ui vd rr 3 in vo 00 OS CO n in in in CO rr in VO tN rr in Os tN rr CO o CO vo rr 00 rr in r- rr co in CO rr in tN in in >n OS tN rr CO vo tN VO CO in CO in vo On CO 1 rr rr VO in vo r- r-- co in co in rr rr CO CO VO in VO VO OS r- rr rr oo in tN o CO CO p rt tN Q "3 in rr 3 in < n rT tN in VO in in " vo 7a c < u ea CQ Q. >. H *2 'C 1 i tN "1 VO "s 3 u u c3 a O o e e <L> a ~ob CL, o, rt CO r- O. a. tN -m op '53 +-> +-> u rt ca O o X> x> <a d *j 3 33 i 3 oo rr in >n in 00 00 rr in in " VO VO 1 tN i r- Cu oo '53 Cu 'm rt CQ OS tN rr CO 00 +- CO tN rT CO 3 "3 u u, ct rt O O e e ii to a, a. rt CL 00 '53 OS rr o .3 '53 a. 2 op '53 o, .3 +j Q. 1 r -3 Q, 00 rr tN CO "3 3 L_ Ui CO a O o X> Xl ii a 4- 3 3 CP 33 fci Lt, i cn IT o On tN tN -* ts ss tN rr - i LL, 00 in r 3 u n n _3 CL, 3 tN in O m rt u 3 _e Q, vo in ii c O 12 H O 3 1H CD CL, r u a. 00 rr tN CO o o CO rr VO 00 "-* ' O o tN VO OS < oo tN rr tN 00 CN CO CO oo tN CN rr rT CO ' CO *-> c o N rr vo rr in tN On VO OS T-^ 1 ^ ^h *-H rr rr VO CO tN ON 00 , T^H TH 1-^ 00 CO CO VO VO ' ,"H *-- , oo 00 tN H ^M OO tN c O X T , VO tN tN rr CO tN OO rr VO CO tN tN CO 00 CO tN oo CO tN tN tN rr 00 VO rr 3 _g o Ui o F ' 1 3 u Xl CO tN r"H H i o rr CO s +J _s <p oo a P u X 00 a o __. rt o > 3 o vo rr in VO '-H ,-H <P tl ^^ tN OS *-* r_l o o tN rr rr rr VO CN * ^H ^H ' VO tN , tN o o 00 r- VO tN vo 0\ 11 VO NO VO VO r- 1 < CO 1 tN tN OO VO tN 1, CO tN tN *-> <_0) ea rr rr CN r- t *R ,"1 00 rr T3 ' VO 1H CN o On O m ^ tN tN b CN OS ^~l > o rr rr VO ON ' V o vo 11 VO OS u_ X o tN o 5 00 a o o VO tN 2 rr o u Vl Vl 2 , 00 ttt 00 00 "p o ii X tN On rr "--1 > ' <P a ?J ii X 00 VO ' CN * 00 M X oo rr rr <P a 1 H +2 eK X 00 a 2 ** ea Ui O 73 u S3 4__ CJ 3 O < Q, H CL, 00 rr Ui tN CO 3 "3 u u rt O rt 3 O CQ "3 3 CL, in U 3 u, rt rt rt rt O O O o CQ CQ 3 u, CQ -3 u rt a O X o X ii a. CQ e CL, i 3 CP Q T3 rt Q, _3 00 '53 *- 3 35 CL, J--H i u < CL u -3 CU cu < 4-* 4-J 3 ** S C S3 rt ii X o X H o S ON 00 | S o o CN u, ii Q. rt CL, o 4- CQ X 8 !. in op '53 it r cu 03 ii 3 u a u. rt Q, 3 cn 3 O "3 cu o o u o Pv U Appendix E-l: : For Board C in F-test: Two-Sample for Variances determining difference in variances vertical and Result of and horizontal directions. F-test: Two- Sample for Variance Vertical Direction Board A (Variable P between Board A 1) Horizontal Direction Board C (Variable 2) Board A (Variable 1) Board C (Variable Mean 1808 1004 1458 260.6 Variance 17720 1180 34620 136.8 Observations 5 5 5 5 df 4 4 4 4 F 15.0170 253.0702 0.0112 4.64E-05 6.3882 6.3882 (F<=t) one-tail F Critical one-tail : Level of significance a = 55 0.05 2) Appendix E-2: : For F-test: Two-Sample for Variances determining difference in variances Board D in both Result of vertical and F-test: Two- Board A P 1) and horizontal directions. Sample for Variance Vertical Direction (Variable between Board A Horizontal Direction Board D (Variable 2) Board A (Variable 1) Board D (Variable 2) Mean 1808 1446 1458 370 Variance 17720 730 34620 150 Observations 5 5 5 5 df 4 4 4 4 F 24.2740 230.8 one-tail 0.0046 5.57E-05 one-tail 6.3882 6.3882 (F<=t) F Critical Level of significance : a 56 = 0.05 Appendix -3: : For F-test: Two-Sample for Variances difference in determining Board C in both Result of vertical and F-test: Two- variances (Variable Sample for Variance Horizontal Direction Board C 1) (Variable 2) Board C Board B (Variable 1) (Variable Mean 2200 1004 1722 260.6 Variance 149600 1180 94420 136.8 Observations 5 5 5 5 df 4 4 4 4 F 126.7797 690.2047 (F<=t) one-tail 0.0002 6.27E-06 F Critical one-tail 6.3882 6.3882 P and horizontal directions. Vertical Direction Board B between Board B : Level of significance a 57 = 0.05 2) Appendix E-4: : For F-test: Two-Sample for Variances determining difference in variances Board D in both Result of vertical and F-test: Two- (Variable Sample for Variance P Horizontal Direction Board D 1) and horizontal directions. Vertical Direction Board B between Board B (Variable 2) Board D Board B (Variable 1) (Variable Mean 2200 1446 1722 371 Variance 149600 730 94420 150 Observations 5 5 5 5 df 4 4 4 4 F 204.9315 629.4667 one-tail 7.05E-05 7.54E-06 one-tail 6.3882 6.3882 (F<=t) F Critical : Level of significance : a 58 = 0.05 2) Appendix F-l: A t-test analysis: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances For determining the significance of the difference in stiffness values between Board A and Board C. The results show in both vertical and horizontal directions. Student's t-test Analysis Table Vertical Direction Board A (Variable 1) Board C (Variable 2) Horizontal Direction Board A (Variable 1) Board C (Variable Mean 1808 1004 1458 260.6 Variance 17720 1180 34620 136.8 Observations 5 5 5 5 Pearson Correlation 0.2099 0.2982 3.5 3.5 4.5304 4.0316 13.0771 14.3617 9.87E-05 6.83E-05 2.1318 2.1318 Pooled Variance df t P (t<=t) t Critical one-tail one-tail : Confidence interval is 95% The results are statistically significant. 59 2) Appendix F-2: A t-test analysis: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances For determining the significance of the difference in stiffness values between Board A and Board D. The results show in both vertical and horizontal directions. Student's t-test Analysis Table Vertical Direction Horizontal Direction Board A Board D (Variable 1) (Variable 2) Mean 1808 1446 1458 370 Variance 17720 730 34620 150 Observations 5 5 5 5 Pearson Correlation -0.0028 -0.6802 3.5 3.5 Pooled Variance P Board A (Variable 1) df 4.3290 4.0347 t 5.9593 13.0470 one-tail 0.0020 9.96E-05 one-tail 2.1318 2.1318 (t<=t) t Critical : Confidence interval is 95% The results are statistically significant. 60 Board D (Variable 2) Appendix F-3: A t-test analysis: Two-Sample For Assuming Unequal Variances determining the significance of the difference in stiffness values between Board B and Board C. The results show in both vertical and horizontal directions. Student's t-test Analysis Table Horizontal Direction Vertical Direction Board B (Variable Board C 1) (Variable 2) Board B (Variable 1) Board C (Variable Mean 2200 1446 1722 260.6 Variance 14900 730 94420 136.8 Observations 5 5 5 5 Pearson Correlation -0.3247 0.3850 3.5 3.5 Pooled Variance df 4.0631 4.0116 t 6.8872 10.6269 one-tail 0.0012 0.0002 t Critical one-tail 2.1318 2.1318 P (t<=t) : Confidence interval is 95% The results are statistically significant. 61 2) Appendix F-4: A t-test analysis: Two-Sample For Assuming Unequal Variances determining the significance of the difference in stiffness values between Board B and Board D. The results show in both vertical and horizontal directions. Student's t-test Analysis Table Horizontal Direction Vertical Direction Board B (Variable 1) Board D (Variable 2) Board B (Variable 1) Board D (Variable Mean 2200 1446 1722 370 Variance 149600 730 94420 150 Observations 5 5 5 5 Pearson Correlation 0.6698 -0.0797 Pooled Variance 3.5 3.5 df 4.0390 4.0127 t 4.3484 9.8307 0.0061 0.0003 2.1318 2.1318 P (t<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail : Confidence interval is 95% The results are statistically significant. 62 2) Appendix G: Actual : Top to Bottom Compression Strength. Vertical Direction. Peak Force Box A Box B Box C Box D F-flute box: 10 : : : : pt. outer liner. + Deflection (lbs.) F-flute single face. sample #1 144.0 0.15 sample #2 133.0 0.15 sample #3 137.0 0.20 sample #4 144.0 0.20 sample #5 141.0 0.15 F-flute box: 15 pt. outer liner. + F-flute single face. sample #1 162.0 0.15 sample #2 171.0 0.20 sample #3 170.0 0.20 sample #4 170.0 0.15 sample #5 168.00 0.15 Heavy weight folding carton: 28 (in.) pt. sample #1 104.0 0.15 sample #2 104.0 0.15 sample #3 106.0 0.15 sample #4 106.0 0.15 sample #5 98.0 0.10 Heavy weight folding carton: 34 pt. sample # 1 142.0 0.20 sample #2 146.0 0.25 sample #3 144.0 0.20 sample #4 140.0 0.15 sample # 5 142.0 0.20 63 Appendix H: Actual : Top to Bottom Compression Strength Horizontal Direction Peak Force Box A Box B Box C Box D F-flute box: 10 : : : liner. + F-flute single (in.) face. sample # 1 174.0 0.20 sample #2 182.0 0.20 sample #3 186.0 0.20 sample #4 184.0 0.20 sample #5 174.0 0.20 F-flute box: : pt. outer Deflection (lbs.) 15 pt. outer liner. + F-flute single face. sample #1 230.0 0.15 sample #2 200.0 0.20 sample #3 250.0 0.20 sample #4 218.0 0.15 sample #5 222.0 0.15 Heavy weight folding carton: 28 pt. sample #1 106.0 0.20 sample #2 104.0 0.25 sample #3 102.0 0.20 sample #4 102.0 0.25 sample #5 102.0. 0.20 Heavy weight folding carton: 34 pt. sample # 1 140 0.30 sample #2 150 0.30 sample #3 162 0.30 sample #4 148 0.30 sample #5 132 0.30 64 Appendix 1-1: - F-test: For Two-Sample for Variances determining difference in variances in both vertical and Result of F-test: (Variable 1) P and Box C horizontal directions Two- Sample for Variance Vertical Corrugation Box A between Box A Horizontal Corrugation BoxC (Variable 2) Box A BoxC (Variable 1) (Variable 2) Mean 139.8 103.6 180 103.2 Variance 22.7 10.8 32 3.2 Observations 5 5 5 5 df 4 4 4 4 F 2.1018 10 one-tail 0.2449 0.0233 one-tail 6.3882 6.3882 (F<=t) F Critical Level of significance a 65 = 0.05 Appendix 1-2: - F-test: For Two-Sample for Variances determining difference in variances in both vertical and Result of F-test: Box A P 1) and Box D horizontal directions Two- Sample for Variance Vertical Corrugation (Variable between Box A Horizontal Corrugation BoxD Box A (Variable 2) (Variable 1) BoxD (Variable Mean 139.8 142.8 180 146.4 Variance 22.7 5.2 32 126.8 Observations 5 5 5 5 df 4 4 4 4 F 4.3654 3.9625 0.0913 0.1055 6.3882 6.3882 (F<=t) one-tail F Critical one-tail Level of significance a 66 = 0.05 2) Appendix 1-3: F-test: For Two-Sample for Variances determining difference in variances in both vertical and Result of F-test: Two- BoxB P and Box C horizontal directions Sample for Variance Vertical Direction (Variable between Box B BoxC (Variable 2) 1) Horizontal Direction BoxC BoxB (Variable 1) (Variable Mean 168.2 103.6 224 103.2 Variance 13.2 10.8 332 3.2 Observations 5 5 5 5 df 4 4 4 4 F 1.2222 103.75 (F<=t) one-tail 0.4252 0.0003 F Critical one-tail 6.3882 6.3882 Level of significance a = 0.05 67 2) Appendix 1-4: - F-test: For Two-Sample for Variances determining difference in variances in both vertical and Result of F-test: and Box D horizontal directions Two- Sample for Variance Vertical Directionn P between Box B Horizontal Direction BoxB BoxD (Variable 1) (Variable 2) Mean 168.2 142.8 224 146.4 Variance 13.2 5.2 332 126.8 Observations 5 5 5 5 df 4 4 4 4 F 2.5385 2.6183 0.1945 0.1869 6.3882 6.3882 (F<=t) one-tail F Critical one-tail : Level of significance : a 68 = 0.05 BoxD BoxB (Variable 1) (Variable 2) Appendix J-l.l : A t-test analysis Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances For determining the significance of the difference in compression strength between Box A and Box C in vertical direction. Student's t-test Analysis Table Box A (Variable 1) (Variable Mean 139.8 103.6 Variance 22.7 10.8 Observations 5 5 Pooled Variance 16.75 Hypothesized Mean 0 df 8 13.9853 t P BoxC (t<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail : 3.31E-07 1.8595 Confidence interval is 95% The results are statistically significant. 69 2) Appendix J-1.2: : A t-test analysis Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances For determining the significance of the difference in compression strength between Box A Box C in horizontal direction and Student's t-test Analysis Table Box A (Variable 1) (Variable Mean 180 103.2 Variance 32 3.2 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation Pooled Variance df t P BoxC (t<=t) one-tail -0.4941 3.5 4.7921 28.9451 4.24E-06 2.1318 t Critical one-tail Confidence interval is 95% The results are statistically significant. 70 2) Appendix J-2: : analysis for both Using t-test: Two-Sample Vertical horizontal directions for comparing Box A & Box D For strength A t-test and determining the between Box A and Assuming Equal Variances significance of the Box D. The difference in results show compression in both vertical and horizontal directions. Student's t-test Analysis Table Vertical Direction Box A (Variable 1) Horizontal Direction BoxD Box A BoxD (Variable (Variable (Variable 2) Mean 139.8 142.8 180 146.4 Variance 22.7 5.2 32 126.8 Observations 5 5 5 5 13.95 79.4 Hypothesized Mean 0 0 df 8 8 Pooled Variance t -1.27 5.9621 (t<=t) one-tail 0.1199 0.0002 t Critical one-tail 1.8595 1.8595 P 1) : Confidence interval is 95% 71 2) Appendix J-3. 1 : A t-test : analysis Two-Sample For Assuming Equal Variances determining the strength significance of the between Box B difference in Box C in vertical and compression corrugation Student's t-test Analysis Table BoxB (Variable 1) (Variable Mean 168.2 103.6 Variance 22.713.2 10.8 Observations 5 5 Pooled Variance 12 Hypothesized Mean 0 df 8 t P BoxC (t<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail : 29.4857 9.48E-10 1.8595 Confidence interval is 95% The results are statistically significant. 72 2) Appendix J-3.2 : A t-test : analysis Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances For determining the strength significance of the between Box B and difference in compression Box C in horizontal direction Student's t-test Analysis Table BoxB (Variable 1) (Variable Mean 224 103.2 Variance 332 3.2 Observations 5 5 Pearson Correlation Pooled Variance df -0.1841 3.5 4.0771 14.7537 t P BoxC (t<=t) t Critical one-tail : 6.14E-05 one-tail 2.1318 Confidence interval is 95% The results are statistically significant. 73 2) Appendix J-4: : analysis for both Using t-test: Two-Sample Vertical horizontal directions for comparing Box B & Box D For strength A t-test and Assuming Equal Variances determining the significance of the difference in compression between Box B and Box D. The results show in both vertical and horizontal directions Student's t-test Analysis Table Vertical Direction BoxB (Variable BoxD 1) (Variable 2) Horizontal Direction BoxB BoxD (Variable (Variable 1) Mean 168.2 142.8 224 146.4 Variance 13.2 5.2 332 126.8 Observations 5 5 5 5 9.2 229.4 Hypothesized Mean 0 0 df 8 8 13.2407 8.1009 Pooled Variance t (t<=t) one-tail 5.05E-07 1.99E-05 t Critical one-tail 1.8595 1.8595 P : Confidence interval is 95% 74 2) SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Aster, Bart. "Corrugating Process is automated, OEMs , predict." certain to become faster Paperboard Packaging. August 1993: 24-26. "NJ Folding Carton Plant Cornners Litho-laminating Packaging. January easier and more Market." Paperboard 1994: 28-30. "A Strategic Alliance for the Future." presentation especially prepared for Kodak. Jamestown/Lithotech. Backker, Marilyn. The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology USA: Braun-Brumfield. Bessen, Howard. A. Design Displays. New York: Bristaw, Anthony. J. and New York: Marcel and Production Jelmar, of Corrugated Packaging and 1990. Petter Kolseth. Paper Structure and Properties Deckker, 1986. Burerau, William H. What the Printers Should Know about Paper. Pensyvania: GATF, Clites, 1995 Susan. M. "Corrugated Containers take Tappi Journal value." on added October 1993: 16-18. Coddard, Curley, Ran Packaging Materials UK: Jim. "F-flute Success." Pira International, 1990. International Paper Board 1993:38,40-41. 75 Industry October Davey, Keith. "Changing the face of corrugated" Boxboard Containers November 1994: 30-33. "Dopaco orchestrates F-flute clamshells for Big Mac." 1994: 76+. February Dowdy, Shirley, and Wiley & Sons, Stanley Wearden. Statistic for Research New York: John 1991. Edwards, John. C. "Mc Donald's Big Mac F-flute Journal September 1994: 32-13 Eldred, Nelson. "Flute goes - for Norway." Container." corrugated Tappi 32-15. R Package Printing New York: "F-flute board from "F-flute Packaging Digest Jelmar, 1993. Corrugated Carton Bulletin Vol.4 cartons." no. 10 1989: 4-5. June 1994: 45. Packaging News Fibre Box Association. profile-F-flute." Fibre Box Association Fibre Box Handbook Freund, John E., and Gary A. Box Association 1992. _L:Fibre Simon. Modern Elementary Statistics New Jersey: Prentice Hall: 1992. Heslop, Tony and Howard Neft. "Litho Laminating Update Report." Folding Carton Industry July/August 1994: 42+. "High quality -high strength F-flute board." Packaging News. May 1991 : 1. Highton, Peter. Development in Corrugated Technology. UKPira International, 1992. Howes, Chris "Single-face laminated cartons a new market Boxboard Containers March 1989: 29-32. 76 for maker." carton Huck, Charles. "Corrugating roll: lifeline to running quality board." Boxboard Containers. September 1994: 34-37. Huck, Charles. "Plant's "reinforced" Boxboard Containers folding carton a growing January business." 1988. Hyland, Tricia. "Converts Studying F-flute Feasibility in Folding Food , Markets." "Converters Paperboard Packaging July Taking A Closer Look At F-flute." Carton and Fast 1993: 41. Board Market 69 3 July 1993: 4. , "F-flute Inches Its "Preprint Gaining Momentum in Corrugated Printing Paperboard , Paperboard promise Packaging Market." April 1993: 26-27. Packaging "Specialty Flutes Have Box/Carton Makers Looking for New Paperboard "Its Market." 1993: 28-29. May , Way into Folding Carton June 1994: 34-36. Packaging for AD. 2000." Markets." Tappi Journal December 1987: 43. Jonson, Gunilla. Corrugated Board Packaging UKPira International, 1993. Kline, James. E. Paper and Paperboard Manufacturing Fundamental New York: Miller Kwartler, Eli. "Miniflute: The and Converting Freeman, 1991. wave of The Future." Board Converter News 27 March 1995: 31-32. "Laminator joins quality face." graphic with single 1989. 77 Boxboard Containers July Maltenfort, Gorge. G. Corrugated Shipping Containers: An Engineering Approach. New York: Jelmar, 1988 Markstrom, Hakan. Testing Methods and Instruments for Corrugated Board Stockholm: Lorentzen & Wettre, 1992 McKee, R. C, Gander, of Corrugated Nebeling, R.L. , "Norwich and Board." Wachuta, J.R. "Edgewise Compression Paperboard Packaging November Strength 1961: 70 Litho Laminated & F-flute Market Projection 1993-2000 1994. "Is F flute in New J.W. future?" your Orleans, LA corrugated Paperbox World September 10, 1994 1994. board launches F-flute." Board Converter News. November 15 1993: 1-2. Performance spec, lighter weights, 21 st. century box be." will recycles Packaging "Redesigned Litho-lamination Ideal For Packaging February Santelli, fiber content are changing what the Strategies November 30, 1993: 4-5. Specialty Packaging." Paperboard 1994: 40. Tom. 'End Users Requirements for Board Grades." 1994 Papermaker Conference/Tappi Proceeding. USA:Tappi 1994: 583-587. Schultz, Jackie. "A World of Change is ahaed for Carton Converters." Paperboard Packaging August 1995: 19-21. Stanley, Gary. L. "The corrugated "Forecast' 95." box that print Boxboard Containers December 1994: 24-31. like Paperboard carton." a 1986: 24-26. 78 Packaging February Verseput, H.W. "Precision of the Taber Stiffness Test." Tappi Journal June 1969: 1136-1141. Vilardi, Ted. and Folding Michael Brunton. "Litho laminator development Carton Industry July/August 1993: 6-51. 79 discussed."