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."