Package performance testing and modeling

According to Innventia Confidentiality Policy this Report is confidential until 2013-09-15
Package performance - BCT and point loading of paperboard packages

Innventia Report No.: 441
Package performance
BCT and point loading of paperboard packages
Carl-Magnus Everitt, Gustav Marin, Philip Ekfeldt,
Hui Huang and Mikael Nygårds

September 2013
Public report
Acknowledgements
This project has been run as a cooperation between Innventia and BiMaC Innovation at
KTH. Innventia had the objective to utilize knowledge and the numerical finite element
models that had been developed within BiMaC Innovation to study a neighbouring but
still different problem than what had been studied at KTH. As a part of Innventia’s in-
kind contribution we wanted to develop a deeper understanding of package
performance, which included making and testing of packages. Thereafter the testing was
evaluated by analytical models, and finally simulated by the finite element method. In
order to establish the cooperation and exchange of ideas and knowledge Innvenita
performed the making, testing and analysis of packages, while KTH at the same time
performed the finite element analysis.
At Innventia this has been run within two SK-founded projects, Power of Packaging and
FO Material for packaging. The financial support from these projects is gratefully
acknowledged.
For BiMaC Innovation this project has shown that the knowledge generated within the
centre can be transferred to the partner companies, and it has also verified that the
models and experimental techniques developed are stable and can be used for other
purposed than they were originally made for. This contributes greatly to the impact
BiMaC Innovation can have in product development within the paper based industry.
1
Table of contents
Page
1 Summary ............................................................................................................... 3
2 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4
3 Materials ................................................................................................................ 5
4 Experimental characterization ................................................................................ 6

4.1 Tensile Test.................................................................................................................. 6
4.2 SCT – Short Span Compression Test ......................................................................... 7
4.3 Bending Test ................................................................................................................ 8
4.3.1 Bending stiffness .......................................................................................... 8
4.3.2 Bending resistance ...................................................................................... 10
4.4 Shear tests ................................................................................................................. 13
5 Experimental setup .............................................................................................. 14

5.1 BCT ............................................................................................................................ 15
5.2 Point loading .............................................................................................................. 17
6 Theoretical models .............................................................................................. 19

6.1 McKee’s equation....................................................................................................... 19
6.1.1 Cigarette package ....................................................................................... 19
6.1.2 Milk package .............................................................................................. 19
6.2 Grangård’s equation .................................................................................................. 20
6.2.2 Milk package .............................................................................................. 20
6.3 Ristinmaa’s equation .................................................................................................. 21
6.3.2 Milk package .............................................................................................. 22
6.4 Kirchhoff’s plate theory .............................................................................................. 23
7 Results ................................................................................................................ 27
7.1 Box compression testing ............................................................................................ 27
7.1.1 Cigarette packages ...................................................................................... 27
7.1.2 Milk packages ............................................................................................. 41
7.2 Point loading .............................................................................................................. 53
7.2.1 Cigarette packages ...................................................................................... 53
7.2.2 Milk packages ............................................................................................. 60
7.3 Analytical results ........................................................................................................ 64
2
7.3.1 McKee’s equation ....................................................................................... 64

7.3.2 Grangård’s formula..................................................................................... 67
7.3.3 Ristinmaa’s equation .................................................................................. 69
7.3.4 Kirchhoff’s plate theory.............................................................................. 72
8 Finite element model ........................................................................................... 76
9 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 84
9.1 BCT ............................................................................................................................ 84
9.2 Point loads ................................................................................................................. 84
10 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 86
11 References .......................................................................................................... 87
Appendix A – Tensile test plots ................................................................................... 88
Appendix B – Results from folding using the L&W creasability tester .......................... 90
Appendix C – Data from shear tests. ........................................................................ 102
Appendix D – Drawings of cigarette package ............................................................ 112
Appendix E – Drawings of milk package ................................................................... 114
Appendix F – Coordinate systems for the point loads ............................................... 116
Innventia Database information ................................................................................ 117

3
1 Summary
In this report different means of estimating the quality of packages from some basic
material tests have been investigated. By looking at data from tensile tests, short span
compression tests and bending tests, the quality of milk and cigarette packages has been
estimated with McKee’s, Grangård’s and Ristinmaa’s equation and with Kirchhoff’s
plate theory.
It was found that Ristinmaa’s equation gave a rough estimation of the BCT strength of
the packages. However, the quality can be better estimated with McKee’s equation after
adjusting the geometric constants of the equations to the measured data. The conclusion
was drawn that if the goal is to estimate the quality of previously not built packages,
Ristinmaa’s equation gives a good idea of the BCT strength. The estimation will be
better for simpler designs of packages. By testing the package design with other
materials a better estimation can be achieved with McKee’s equation.
To test the handle ability, the packages were subjected to point loads. Here it was found
that a simple approximation with a Kirchhoff plate was not enough. A finite element
was therefore made in order to simulate point loads of the package. It was shown that
realistic deformations could be captured by the model when continuum elements were
used to represent the paperboard.
4
2 Introduction
There are many ways to evaluate package performance. There are situation where
package performance relates the load that packages need to withstand during
transportation or order to accurately protect the goods. It can also relate to the behaviour
during consumer contact. The term package performance is therefore very wide, and
relates to the fact that the package should be design such that it performs well.
The objective in this study is to test two different packages, one potential milk package
and one cigarette package, as seen in Figure 1. Both packages will be produced and
tested by the Box Compression Test (BCT) and a point load test. The BCT test is
adequate when the package strength is considered, e.g. during storage or transportation.
The point load test should simulation consumer contact since it can mimic a finger that
is pushed into the package.
Figure 1. The milk and cigarette packages used in this study.
To get increase the understanding of how different paperboard properties contribute to

the package performance, then several different paperboards has been used to make the
packages. In addition, the mechanical properties of the paperboards have been evaluated
using in-plane tensile tests, short compression test (SCT) and bending tests.
5
3 Materials
The packages were built from several different paperboards with different properties.
The cigarette packages were made by using 7 different paperboards, as listed in Table 1.
As seen in the table these paperboard had fairly similar grammages, ranging from 211 to
248 g/m2. Paperboard Ac was a duplex board, while Paperboards Bc-Gc were solid
bleached boards. It should be mentioned that Gc is the same paperboard as Fc, but to
form the package it was folded with the bottom surface facing outside.
Table 1. Material properties for the cigarette paperboards.
Cardboard Grammage [g/m2] Measured grammage [g/m2] Thickness [µm]
AC 240 248 316

BC 240 244 305
CC 220 224 276
DC 220 222 320
EC 215 213 334
FC 205 211 320
GC 205 211 320
To make the milk packages 5 different paperboards were used, as listed in Table 2.
Among these paperboards the grammage differed more, ranging from 200 to 300 g/m2.
Table 2. Material properties for the milk paperboards.
Cardboard Grammage [g/m2] Measured grammage [g/m2] Thickness [µm]
AM 200 200 272

BM 220 218 302
CM 300 293 449
DM 315 301 465
EM 275 277 437
6
4 Experimental characterization
To evaluate the properties of the paperboards, three kinds of tests were used: Tensile
test in MD and CD, short span compression test (SCT) and bending test. These test
results were then used to predict the results of the BCT and point load tests. All the
collected data is also presented in Table 3 at the end of this chapter.
4.1 Tensile Test

To evaluate the tensile strengths of the different paperboards specimens with a width of
15 mm was used. They were fixed with clamps with a testing length of 100 mm. The
sample was then subjected to an increasing elongation of 100%/min, while the
elongation of the sample and the applied force were recorded, until the sample broke.
The Young’s modulus for the paperboards was obtained from the results by a linear fit
to the slope of the stress-strain plot calculated from the test; see an example in Figure 2.
A linear fit was made between 0.05% and 0.2% strain where the slope coefficient equals
the Young’s modulus. The evaluated Young’s moduli in MD and CD for the different
paperboards are plotted in Figure 3 and 4. The tensile test data is the average of at least
10 tests. Stress-strain plots for all paperboards can be found in Appendix A.
Figure 2. Example of stress-strain curves in MD (green) and CD (red) from the tensile testing.
7
Figure 3. Young’s modulus obtained from tensile testing for the cigarette package boards.
Figure 4. Young’s modulus obtained from tensile testing for the milk package boards.
4.2 SCT – Short Span Compression Test

Short span compression testing evaluates the short span compression properties of the
paperboard. A 15 mm wide sample is compressed in the length direction, by two clamps
0.7 mm apart, until it breaks. The maximum force is then recorded and divided by the
width of the sample. The testing results can be found in Figure 5 and 6. The SCT test
data is the average of 10 tests in both MD and CD.
8
Figure 5. SCT results for the cigarette package paperboards.
Figure 6. SCT results for the milk package paperboards.
4.3 Bending Test

Another characteristic property of paperboards is how easily it’s bending. Two different
tests were performed to measure this for all paperboards in the report. Both tests use
samples with a width w= 38 mm. These samples were, at one end, fixed in a rotating
fixture and on the other side the displacement was prohibited and the force required to
do so, recorded. The bending tests data is the average of five tests. All the data can be
found in Appendix B but the most important are displayed in graphs below and in Table
3.
4.3.1 Bending stiffness

First the bending stiffness, Sb, was measured. Here the distance, l, between the rotating
fixture and the load cell was positioned 10 mm from the center of rotataion. The
rotation angel, ϴ, of the fixture was gradually increased from 0 to 90 degrees with the
9
speed 90 degrees/s. From the test data, the slope of the linear part for each paperboard
was extracted; see Figure 7-9 for data from the tests. To convert the data to SI units,
P  l 2
Sb  (1)
3  tan     w
which is based on elementary beam theory.
Figure 7. Example of bending test results.
Figure 8. Bending stiffness of cigarette package paperboards.

10
Figure 9. Bending stiffness of milk package paperboards.
4.3.2 Bending resistance

In the second test the distance l was increased to 50 mm and the maximum angle of
bending was decreased to 15° to adjust the test to the standardized test of [SS-ISO 2493-
1:2010]. Here the maximum value of the force was extracted. These values are referred
to as the bending resistance, BR, of the paper and are visualized in Figure 10-12.
Figure 10. Example of bending resistance test results.

11
Figure 11. The bending resistance, BR, of the cigarette paperboards.
Figure 12. The bending resistance, BR, of the milk paperboards.

12
Bending
Young’s Bending
SCT / resistance
Paperboard modulus stiffness
N/m (15°)
/ MPa / Nm
/ mN
Ac 6031/2539 6988/4730 0.068/0.033 191.8/83.0
Bc 5281/2596 5862/4085 0.065/0.035 175.8/83.8
Cc 4858/2472 4923/3726 0.046/0.026 118.6/60.6
Dc 4828/1756 5343/3031 0.072/0.030 183.8/73.2
Ec 4374/1754 5091/3208 0.074/0.029 184.2/78.8
Fc 5055/1999 5690/3517 0.083/0.039 187.2/79.6
Gc 5055/1999 5690/3517 0.089/0.038 184.4/89.8
Am 4714/2007 4128/2628 0.045/0.024 111.6/63.4
Bm 4816/1809 4659/2741 0.059/0,030 165.0/64.6
Cm 5112/1914 6806/4328 0.179/0.086 498.4/194.2
Dm 4812/1709 6027/3770 0.181/0.089 540.0/193.6
Em 5771/1882 6673/4291 0.178/0.077 456.4/145.6
Table 3. Values from the plots above. Results are in MD/CD format.
13
4.4 Shear tests

The ability to resist shear stresses was evaluated for the cigarette paperboards at 13
different depths by using the Notched Shear Test. To perform this test, test pieces with a
width of just above 200 mm in CD was cut out from the paperboards. On these, two cuts
were made from opposite sides on the paperboard with varying depth parallel to CD.
The cuts were made with a short distance (5 mm) between them and so that on one side,
this first cut was shallow and the other one deep. The cut had a slope so that on the
other side, the first cut was deep and the second one shallow. The paperboards were
reinforced with plastic laminate to secure the deformation pattern. After the lamination,
the ends of the test pieces were cut off and then they were cut into 13 specimens, each
with a width of 15 mm. Finally they were all tested in the same machine with the same
setup as for the tensile tests. These tests give the shear strength profiles of the
paperboard in the out-of-plane direction; see Figure 13 for an example of the results and
Appendix C for all collected data.
Figure 13 Shear strength profile and all rawdata from shear testing for Paperboard Ac
14
5 Experimental setup
Two types of packages were tested. One classical cigarette package and one design of a
milk package. The cigarette package was manufactured using the rotary die cutter at
Innventia. In this case all blanks had the same direction, where MD is defined in Figure
12. The milk packages were manufactured by the flat bed die cutter at Innventia. Then
sheets could be rotated in two different directions, 1 and 2; see Figure 15 and 16 for
definitions. The package in Figure 15 has direction 1.
Figure 14. The fiber direction for the cigarette packages.
Figure 15. The milk packages with direction 1.

15
Figure 16. The milk packages with direction 2.
5.1 BCT
When stacking the products for transport or storage, they get subjected to compression
loads. To evaluate how much load the different packages can carry, BCT tests were
performed, using a loading rate of 1 mm/s and a prescribed loading of 15 mm. The load
cases for the BCT are defined in Figure 17 - 21. After the tests were performed they
were analyzed in Matlab to extract the BCT load. The load was defined as the maximum
load before a great enough dip in the curve. This, since the dip was thought to indicate
damages of the structure. To avoid noise and dips due to imperfections the peak force
was defined as the force for which the force of the next deformation step and the force
at 0.3 mm more deformation both were lower.
Figure 17. BCT for load case 1 for the cigarette package.
16
Figure 20. BCT for load case 1 for the milk package.
17
Figure 21. BCT for load case 2 for the milk package.
5.2 Point loading

When a customer picks up a product, it is important that it feels robust enough. To test
this stiffness, a point load was used instead of a plate as in the BCT to simulate the
thumb of a hand lifting up the package. The point load was applied at several different
locations according to Figure 22-23. Except from the plate being switched out for a
point load everything else was setup as for the BCT tests, i.e. the loading rate was 1
mm/s and the prescribed deformation was 15 mm.
Figure 22. The loading points for the cigarette package.

18
Figure 23. The loading points for the milk package.
From the measured force-displacement curves the initial elastic part of the curves was
used to calculate the stiffness. This was done using a linear fitting between two points in
Matlab. The value of this slope [N/mm] was then compared to the calculated values
from analytical models.
19
6 Theoretical models
To estimate the strength of the packages four theoretical models were used to compare
their predictions with the experimental studies of the deformation of the packages in the
different load cases. Three analytical models were evaluated by comparison to the
critical loading during BCT, and one theory was evaluated by comparison to the point
loading tests.
6.1 McKee’s equation

McKee’s equation (McKee et al. 1963) if often used to predict the critical load during a
BCT test for corrugated boxed. The critical loading, P, is formulated as,

P  C  FCb   SbMD  SbCD 0.5  
1b
 Z 2b 1 , (2)
where Fc depends on SCT values for both MD and CD and the load direction. The
constant Fc will be calculated for each box design. Z is the circumference of the
package. C and b are constants which normally are about 375 and 0.75 respectively. Fc
should be expressed in kN/m, and Sb in Nm and Z in m. The constants have been
estimated through optimization of different boxes since they are geometry dependent.
6.1.1 Cigarette package

The expressions for Fc and Z of the package for each load case can be found in Table 4.
Table 4. Expression for Fc and the value of Z, for cigarette package.
Load case Expression for FC Z [m]

1 8.8  SCTMD  5.5  SCTCD 0.286
FC 
14.3
2 FC  SCTMD 0.22
3 FC  SCTCD 0.154
6.1.2 Milk package

For the milk package, CD and MD were changed in both load cases, which gave four
different values of Fc, see Table 5.
Table 5. Expression for Fc and the value of Z, for milk package.
1.1 7  SCTMD  28  SCTCD 0.35
FC 
35
1.2 7  SCTCD  28  SCTMD 0.35

FC 
35
2.1 FC  SCTCD 0.27
2.2 FC  SCTMD 0.27

20
6.2 Grangård’s equation

Grangård’s (Grangård, 1972, Grangård and Kubat, 1973) equation is often used to
predict the BCT strength of paperboards boxes. It is similar to McKee’s formula. The
critical loading is defined as
P  k   FC  Sb  ,
0.5
(3)
where Fc depends on SCT values for both MD and CD depending on which direction
the fibres are oriented in the load carrying walls and k is a constant which depends on
the geometry. The idea is that each package has its own constant k to account for the
stability of the geometry.

The expressions for Fc for each load case for the cigarette packages can be seen in Table
6.
Table 6. Expression for Fc for the cigarette package.
1 8.8  SCTMD  5.5  SCTCD 0.286
FC 
14.3
2 FC  SCTMD 0.22
3 FC  SCTCD 0.154
6.2.2 Milk package

The milk packages have panels in both CD and MD, which gave two expressions for Fc
for each package. Hence, four different values of Fc can be found in Table 7.
Table 7. Expression for FC and the value of Z, c and k, for milk package.

1.1 7  SCTMD  28  SCTCD 0.35
FC 
35
1.2 7  SCTCD  28  SCTMD 0.35
FC 
35
2.1 FC  SCTCD 0.27
2.2 FC  SCTMD 0.27

21
6.3 Ristinmaa’s equation

Ristinmaa et al. (2012) have derived an expression for BCT testing of panels, which
also can be used to predict the behaviour of flatter boxes. In this method, the packages
are divided into different panels and flaps. Each panel will contribute to the critical
compression force
P  PP  PC  PF (4)
where , Pp is the critical load for a regular panel. The expression for the critical force in
a regular panel is given by
W  t  BR
PP  a1 (5)
BR
a2 t  H2
SCT
where a1 and a2 are dimensionless parameters which value depends on if the panel is
loaded in MD or CD. BR is the force that is required for bending the sample 15°, W is
the width and H is the height of the package. The thickness, t, vary with respect to
which cardboard that is analysed.
PC is the critical load for a corner panel. The expression for this load is defined as
PCP  PCP,P  PCP,C , (6)
where the extra index P is for panel region and C is for corner region.
PCP,C is calculated as
  a4
B b

PCP,C  a3  SCT  t 1  e t  , (7)
 
where a3 and a4 are constants which values depends on which sides that is carrying
loads and B and b are parameters defined in (Ristinmaa et al., 2012).
PCP,P is calculated according to
B  t  BR
PCP,P  a5 , (8)
BR
a6 t  H2
SCT
where, a5 and a5 also are dimensionless parameters.
PF is the critical load for flaps. This is calculated in the same way as Eq. (6), but is
multiplied with a dimensionless Flap factor which is set to 0.3. All the dimensionless
parameters are defined in Table8.
Table 8. Values of the dimensionless constants.
Constants a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6
MD 1792 13870 8,865 0,0921 2506 57820
CD 1397 10920 10,44 0,0753 2453 85180
22

Values of the parameters that are used in the different load cases can be found in Table
9-11. The different lengths are defined in Appendix D, where also the numerical values
of the parameters can be observed. For each load case, different sides are carrying load,
and the side numbers are defined in Appendix D.
Table 9. The parameters for load case 1.
Side H [m] Width [m] b [m] Load direction
3 0.023 W3 - CD
1 0.023 B1 0.0382 MD
2 0.023 B2 0.00975 MD
4 0.023 F4 0.011 MD

3 0.054 B3 0.00575 MD
5 0.054 B5 0.013 MD
6 0.054 B6 0.027281 MD
7 0.054 B7 0.02175 MD

2 0.026 B2 0.0055 CD
5 0.026 B5 0.013325 MD
8 0.026 B8 0.013325 MD
6.3.2 Milk package

Values of the parameters that were used in the different load cases can be found in
Table 12-13. The different lengths and numerical values are found in Appendix E. Since
the milk packages were cut out in both directions of the paper, all sides in the tables was
carrying load in both MD and CD separately, which can be found in Appendix E.
Side H [m] Width [m] b [m]
1 0.071 B1 0.025
2 0.071 B2 0.00975
5 0.071 B5 0.008
3 0.071 F4 0.018
23

Side H [m] Width [m] b [m]
4 0.071 B4 0.025
5 0.071 B5 0.018
6.4 Kirchhoff’s plate theory

To predict the packages stiffness’s with respect to point loads 1 – 3, Kirchhoff’s pate
theory was used. This theory makes, among others, the assumptions that the
deformation of the plate can be described with only the displacement of the plate’s
middle plane, which is the plane in the middle of the plate’s two surfaces. It also
assumes that all shearing forces and membrane forces are too small to affect the
deformation of the plate.
The deformations of the plates where calculated through the potential energy, U, of the
system
( ) ( ) ( ) (9)
where, W is the elastic energy of the deformed plate, P is the applied force, w is the
shape of the deformation and xi and yi are the coordinates of the applied load. The shape
of w was chosen to fulfil the kinematic boundary conditions according to Table 14-16.
The definition of the coordinate systems can be seen in Appendix F. To keep the
calculations on a reasonable level, the boundary conditions used corresponds to either a
freely supported plate or a fixed supported plate. The real case would be somewhere in
between. This since the corners of the packages should give more support than none, as
in the freely supported case, but not as much as a fixed support. The coordinates for the
point loads can be found in Table 17. The shape of the deflection w was assumed to
follow the expressions in Tables 18-20.
Table 14. Boundary conditions for point load 1 and 2 on the cigarette packages.
Assumption Boundary At
condition
1 w=0 y=0 x=0.062 y=0.055
w’= 0 x=0
2 w=0 y=0 x=0.062 y=0.055
w’’= 0 x=0
3 w=0 y=0 x=0.062 y=0.055
w’’= 0 x=0 y=0 x=0.062 y=0.055
Table 15. Boundary conditions for point load 3 on the cigarette packages.
condition
24
1 w=0 x=0 y=0 x=0.023 y=0.055

3 w=0 x=0 y=0 x=0.023 y=0.055
w’’= 0 x=0 y=0 x=0.023 y=0.055
Table 16. Boundary conditions for point load 1 and 2 on the milk packages.
condition
1 w=0 x=0 y=0 x=0.10 y=0.071
2 w=0 x=0 y=0 x=0.10 y=0.071
3 w=0 x=0 y=0 x=0.10 y=0.071
w’’= 0 x=0 y=0 x=0.10 y=0.071
Table 17. Coordinates for the point loads.

Point load x y
Cigarette point 1 0.031 0.028
Cigarette point 2 0.01 0.028
Cigarette point 3 0.012 0..028
Milk point 1 0.05 0.036
Milk point 2 0.05 0.036
Table 18. The assumed shape of w for point load 1 and 2 on the cigarette packages.
w1 =
 0.055    cos  x 0.124  
C  sin y
C  sin  y
0.055   
w2 =
 cos  x  0.062 
C  sin  y
0.055   
 cos  x
0.124   
w3 = 2 2
Table 19. The assumed shape of w for point load 3 on the cigarette packages.
w1
 0.055    sin  x 0.023 
C  sin y
C  sin  y
0.055   
 sin  x
0.023   
w3 2 2
Table 20. The assumed shape of w for point load 1 and 2 on the milk packages.
25
w1

C  sin y
0.071    sin  x 0.10  
w2 C  y   y  0.036  x   x  0.10
w3

C  sin 2 y
0.071    sin  x 0.10  
2
When the assumptions have been made, the elastic energy of the plates are calculated as
( ) ∬ [( ) ( )[ ( ) ]] (10)
where D is the bending resistance of the plate, which was calculated as
( )
(11)
where an assumption of isotropic homogenous material was used, and t is the thickness
of the paper and v is Poisons ration, which was set to 0,293 since the calculations where
done for isotropic materials.
To calculate the constant C in the assumptions for w, the expression in Eq (10) was
derived with respect to C to find the minimum potential energy of the system with
respect to C. This yielded the results of Table 21-23. With these constants and with P
set to unity load, the deflections were calculated. The calculated values where then
inverted to achieve the stiffness of the whole plate as the force required [N] per
deflection [mm].
Table 21. The constant C for point load 1 and 2 on the cigarette packages.
Assumption C=
P  cos  i 
1 x
  
  0.124 
1.42829 10  2  D   v  4.54982 1013 
10
2 P   xi  0.062 
5,56287  2  D   v  3, 09029 
P  cos 2  i 
3 x
  
  0.124 
15924.6  2  D
Table 22. The constant C for point load 3 on the cigarette packages.
Assumpti C=
on
26
1 P

75975  4  2  D
3 P

3  08013 109  2  D   v  6.14989 1013 
Table 23. The constant C for point load 1 and 2 on the Milk packages.
Assumption C=
1 P
2.18354 10 10
 2  D   v  3.52474 1013 
2 P  0.0362  0.052
1.6 1020  2  D   v  6.19559 1012 
3 P

5.48784 10 10
 2  D   v  2,95734 1013 
27
7 Results
After the empirical tests were performed, the constants referring to the geometry in
McKee’s equation and Grangård’s equation were adjusted. In this chapter, the analytical
results are plotted against the empirical test results. Since the geometry constants are
adjusted the part of interest is how similar the shapes are since that’s what the paper
quality affects.
7.1 Box compression testing

Both the cigarette and milk packages where tested by the BCT, deformed packages at
peak load can be seen in Figure 24 and 25.
Figure 24. BCT load of the cigarette packages in load case 4 at fully deformed state.
Figure 25. BCT load of the milk packages in load case 1 at fully deformed state.
7.1.1 Cigarette packages

The force-displacement curves from the BCT testing for load cases 1-3 can be found in
the Figures 26-50. A detailed description of what can be found in each figure can be
28
found in the table below. In addition, the maximum BCT forces and the stiffnesses for
all packages have been evaluated.
Load case Number of Rawdata plots for Evaluated BCT strength
packages Paperboards Ac-Gc and stiffneses
1 6 Figures 26-32 Figures 33-34
Figure 24. The BCT results for cigarette package A, load case 1.
29
Figure 27 The BCT results for cigarette package B, load case 1.
Figure 25. The BCT results for cigarette package C, load case 1.
30
Figure 26. The BCT results for cigarette package D, load case 1.
Figure 30. The BCT results for cigarette package E, load case 1
31
Figure 31. The BCT results for cigarette package F, load case 1.
Figure 27. The BCT results for cigarette package G, load case 1.
32
Figure 28. Measured BCT forces and BCT stiffness for all cigarette package tests from load
case 1.The BCT stiffness recorded for each test on load case 1.
33
Figure 30. The BCT results for cigarette package B, load case 2.
34
Figure 33. The BCT results for cigarette package E, load case 2.
35
36
Figure 35. Measured BCT forces and BCT stiffness for all tests from load case 2.The BCT
stiffness recorded for each test on load case 1.
37
Figure 37. The BCT results for cigarette package B, load case 3.
38
Figure 40. The BCT results for cigarette package E, load case 3.
39
40
Figure 43. The BCT force recorded for each test on load case 3, in N.
Figure 44. The BCT stiffness recorded for each test on load case 3, in N/mm.
41
7.1.2 Milk packages

The force-displacement curves from the BCT testing for load cases 1-3 can be found in
the Figures 26-50. A detailed description of what can be found in each figure can be
found in the table below. In addition, the maximum BCT forces and the stiffnesses for
all packages have been evaluated.
Load case Number of Rawdata plots for Evaluated BCT strength
packages Paperboards Am- and stiffneses
Gm
2 2 or 6 Figures 63-72 Figures 73-74
Figure 45. The BCT results for milk package A1, load case 1.
42
Figure 47. The BCT results for milk package B1, load case 1.
43
Figure 49. The BCT results for milk package C1, load case 1.
44
Figure 51. The BCT results for milk package D1, load case 1.
45
Figure 53. The BCT results for milk package E1, load case 1.
46
47
Figure 56. The BCT stiffness recorded for each test on load case 1, in N.
48
49
50
51
52
Figur2 66. The BCT results for milk package E2, load case 2.
53
Figure 68. The BCT stiffness recorded for each test on load case 2, in N.
7.2 Point loading

7.2.1 Cigarette packages
Both the cigarette and milk packages where tested by point loading according to load
cases 1, 3 and 4.
The force-displacement curves from the point loading for load cases 1, 3 and 4 can be
found in the Figures 78-84. During testing some loading-unloading cycles were tested,
which can be seen in the figures. A detailed description of what can be found in each
figure can be found in the table below.
Load case Number of Rawdata plots for
packages Paperboards Ac-Gc
1 1 Figures 78-81
2 4 Figures 82-88
3 1 Figures 89-95
54
Figure 75. Load case 1 in fully deformed state and after unloading.
55
Figure 69. The recorded force and displacement for point load 01 on cigarette packages A and
B.
Figure 70. The recorded force and displacement for point load 01 on cigarette package C and
D.
Figure 80. The recorded force and displacement for point load 01 on cigarette package E and F.
56
Figure 71. The recorded force and displacement for point load 01 on cigarette package G.
Figure 72. The recorded force and displacement for point load 02 on cigarette package A and B.
Figure 83. The recorded force and displacement for point load 02 on cigarette package C and
D.
57
58
Figure 87. The recorded force and displacement for point load 03 on cigarette package C abd
D.
59
Figure 73 The recorded force and displacement for point load 04 on cigarette package C and D.
60
Figure 93 The recorded force and displacement for point load 04 on cigarette package G.
7.2.2 Milk packages

The force-displacement curves from the point loading for load cases 1, 3 and 4 can be
found in the Figures 78-84. During testing some loading-unloading cycles were tested,
which can be seen in the figures. A detailed description of what can be found in each
figure can be found in the table below.
Load case Number of Rawdata plots for
packages Paperboards Ac-Gc
1 1 Figures 94-98
2 1 Figures 99-103
Figure 74. The recorded force and displacement for point load 01 on milk package A1 and A2.
61
Figure 95. The recorded force and displacement for point load 01 on milk package B1 and B2.
Figure 75. The recorded force and displacement for point load 01 on milk package C1 and C2.
Figure 97. The recorded force and displacement for point load 01 on milk package D1 and D2.
62
Figure 76. The recorded force and displacement for point load 01 on milk package E1 and E3.
Figure 77. The recorded force and displacement for point load 02 on milk package A1 and A2.
Figure 100. The recorded force and displacement for point load 02 on milk package B1 and B2.
63
Figure 101. The recorded force and displacement for point load 02 on milk package C1 and C3.
Figure 102. The recorded force and displacement for point load 02 on milk package D1 and D2.
Figure 78. The recorded force and displacement for point load 02 on milk package E1 and E2.
64
7.3 Analytical results

7.3.1 McKee’s equation
The results here display the correctness of the estimations for BCT results made by
McKee’s formula. The constants C and b have been optimized compared to the
measured results, with the mean square errors minimized.
7.3.1.1 Cigarette package

Due to limitations in the amount of packages available only five tests were performed
for load case 1. For load case 2 four tests were made while only one test was made for
load case 3. The average values are plotted in Figure 104-106 with error bars which
display the maximum and minimum recorded value.
Figure 79. McKee estimation of load case 1, C = 155.57, b = 1.014.

65
7.3.1.2 Milk package

Three tests were performed for each of the packages Cm,2, Dm,2, Em,2, while only one test
each were performed for the rest of the packages. See Figure 107-110 for the average
values, with error bars indication the maximum and minimum recorded value, for each
test.

66

67
7.3.2 Grangård’s formula

The results in this chapter display the correctness of the prediction of BCT results made
by Grangård’s formula. The constant k has been optimized compared to the measured
results.

For the cigarette packages the results of Figure 111-113 was obtained.
Figure 82. Grangård estimation of load case 1, k = 14.60.

68

For the milk packages the results of Figure 114-117 was obtained.

69
Figure116. Grangård estimation of load case 2, k = 8.40.
7.3.3 Ristinmaa’s equation

With help of Ristinmaa’s equation, the following predictions were made.

Se Figure 118-120 for the predictions of the BCT strength of cigarette packages.
Figure 85. Ristinmaa prediction for load case 1.

70

In Figure 121-124, the results of Ristinmaa’s predictions are displayed.

71

72
7.3.4 Kirchhoff’s plate theory

The results from the plate theory calculations can be viewed in Figure 125-132.
Figure 125 The results of point load 1 on cigarette packages with E = Eaverage.
Figure 126. Optimized results for point load 1 on cigarette packages.

73
Figure127. The results of point load 2 on cigarette packages with E = Eaverage.
Figure 128. Optimized results for point load 2 on cigarette packages.

74
Figure 129. The results of point load 3 on cigarette packages with E = Eaverage.
Figure130. Optimized results for point load 3 on cigarette packages.

75
Figure 131. The results of point loads on milk packages, with E = Eaverage.
Figure 132. Optimized results for point loads on milk packages.

76
8 Finite element model

A finite element model of the cigarette package was created and simulated using
Abaqus/Standard. The model was used to simulate three loading cases, as seen in Figure
133. In order to build the package in the Abaqus a creased and cut blank was
considered. The blank was considered to consist of a number of panels, as illustrated in
Figure 153. Each of these panels were then positioned into the folded package, as also
seen in Figure 134. Each panel was in the model considered to have a thickness of 0.3
mm, and only one element was used to represent the paperboard in the thickness
direction. Two simulation approaches were used to create models:
 Continuum model, where C3D3 elements were used
 Shell model, where SC8R elements were used.
Hence, no delamination was accounted for in the models. In order to form the package
the panels were attached to each other. This was done with a row of elements in the 45
degree direction compared to the two panels, see Figure 135. This element row would
represent the creases in the package. Since the creases have had a damage evolution
during the creasing and folding history, then the in-plane material parameters were
assumed to be 50% of material parameters used for the panels, and the out-of-plane
parameters were assumed to be 10% of material parameters used for the panel.
Load case 1 Load case 4
Figure 133. Load cases 1 and 4 tested in the finite element model.
77
Figure 134. The panels from the blank were used to form the package.
78
Figurinsättning (enkelt radavstånd, centrerad)

Figure 135. The corners in the package was represented by elements in the 45 degrees
direction in relation to the two panels it connected.
An anistropic elastic model, with Hill’s yield criteria and isotropic hardening was used
to represent the paperboard material in the package. This model has previously been
used by Huang (2013). When the continuum elements were used, then the full 3D
behaviour was considered. However, when the shell elements were used, then only the
in-plane components were considered. The material constants can be found in Table 24.
Table 24. Material constant used to represent the paperboard material.

Parameter Value
Exx / MPa 5281
Eyy / MPa 2596
E45 / MPa 3529.4
Ezz / MPa 100
Gxz / MPa 72.1
xy 0.418
𝝈 / MPa 30.33
𝝈 / MPa 13.1
𝝈 / MPa 13.1
𝝈 / MPa 0.68
𝝈 / MPa 13.92
𝝈 / MPa 0.68
H 1387
79
Simulation was performed by a constrained displacement of the rigid surface that

represented the point load. For load cases 1, 2 and 3, both the continuum and shell
elements were used in the simulations. In Figure 135-138 the deformed packages at
peak load can be seen.
Figure 136. Simulations of load case 1 using continuum and shell models.
80
Figure 137. Simulations of load case 4 using continuum models.
Figure 138. Simulations of load case 4 using shell models.

81
Figure 139. Deformed packages at peak load for load case 1 and 4.
In the contour plots it can be observed that load cases 1 and 2 for the continuum and
shell response look quite similar. This is since it is mainly deflections of the panels that
dominate the behaviour. However, for load case 3 the deformed contour plots look
different. When the continuum elements were used the simulations managed to capture
localized damage as the panels formed local folding damages. When the shell elements
were use the deformation of the panels was only due to panel deflection. Therefore, the
continuum elements were able to capture a more realistic deformation pattern. This can
be verified by studies of the deformed packages at peak load in Figure 140. The use of
continuum elements were also judge to be much better when the force-displacements
curves from the simulations using continuum and shell elements were compared to
experimental curves. The shell elements gave a stiffer response than the continuum
elements, as seen in Figures 140 and 141. This was because the continuum element
could deform in out-of-plane shear, which is weak. Since the continuum elements
would deform plastically in the out of plane directions, the deformed packages from the
simulations and testing had similar shape after unloading, as seen in Figure 142.
82
Figure 140. Verification of force-displacement curves for load case 1.
Figure 141. Verification of force-displacement curves for load case 4.

83
Figure 142. Comparison of the simulation and tested packages after unloading from load case
4.
84
9 Discussion
The quality of different estimation methods was evaluated. However, no effort was put
to quantify the uncertainties of the results. All packages test were performed for rather
small series which makes the empirical results uncertain. Larger amounts of package
tests would ensure more reliable results. Also, no estimations of the uncertainties in the
calculated estimations were performed. This could prove to be valuable information to
see if the difference between the estimated values and the measured ones are within the
range of uncertainty.
9.1 BCT
The optimization of the geometry constants was based on minimizing the mean square
errors between the estimations and the measured loads (McKee et al. 1963). This
procedure worked better for McKee’s equation than for Grangård’s which shows that
adjustments of the power constant b improve the results. Grangård’s equation is similar
to McKee’s with b kept constant at 0.5.
Regarding Ristinmaa’s equation, it did not yield as good results in this test series as it
did in the original paper where the maximum deviation was +/- 20%. This probably
depends on how the panels were defined. In Ristinmaa’s equation, all load carrying
panels have to be a corner panel, a panel or a flap. For the packages in this report that
had and opening in the cigarette package and gable top in the milk package, perhaps
new expression have to be defined to account for other panel deformation patterns to
improve the results.
The constants used in the Ristinmaa method were calculated using different materials
by the authors of the report (Ristinmaa et al. 2012). This could have impacted the test
results since they were not derived from the materials used in this project.
Also the BCT values can be defined in different ways. Here, the maximum value before
a big enough dip in the graph was used since it was assumed that these dips indicated
that the packages were damaged. The question here is how big the dip should be to not
count as noise but instead as damage of the package. Another approach would be to take
the total maximum value of each test, since this is the maximum load the package can
carry before being too deformed.
9.2 Point loads

Regarding the assumptions made in Kirchhoff’s plate theory. This won’t be the case for
the experiments performed for this report since here; the deformations are much greater
than the thickness of the plate. Already after the deformation reaches half the height of
the plate, the membrane forces starts to contribute to the stiffening of the plate. This is
probably the reason to why the calculated stiffness for the milk packages is much lower
than the measured one. But since the deformation has a linear part, calculations which
includes membrane forces should yield better results.
For the cigarette packages on the other hand the results are better. For point load 1 and
2, the results are close, which might be due to that the surface has one free boundary
which lowers the membrane forces. Another explanation is that the vertical walls of the
85
cigarette packages deform more than the walls of the milk packages, making the upper
surface look softer.
For point load 3, the deformation was much smaller than for the other test results which
should give rise to lesser membrane forces and therefore more accurate results.
However, the structure for this test is less stable which makes the results less reliable.
The boundary conditions can also be improved by taking into account the stiffness of
the creases instead of viewing them as infinitely soft or stiff.
To better capture the deformation mechanisms activated during point loading a FEM
model was developed and simulations were performed. By using the FEM model more
realistic boundary conditions of the panels could be accounted for, since each panel then
is connected to the corners. However, in the model one needs to define the properties of
the corners that has been deformed and damaged during the creasing and folding
operation. Here, we assumed that the properties could be reduced by 50% or 10%.
When the continuum model was used this gave good simulation data compared to the
experimental data. However, the properties of the corners are still large unknown, and
much more attention can be put on characterizing the properties better. Our
approximations were based on reductions during folding for creases, which are about
50%. While we assumed that the out-of-plane properties would be reduced even more.
When the shell model the global response could not be captured as well as with the
continuum model. This is because out-of-plane properties have not been accounted for.
In the experiments we could see that the out-of-plane deformations are activated, since
local damage normally occurs during folding. Therefore, continuum elements should be
used to better capture the observed and known deformation and damage mechanisms. If
even a more accurate model should be used, then also delamination can be accounted
for. However, here it was judged to cost more in computations efficiency, compared to
what it would give in identifying important paperboard behaviours.
86
10 Conclusions
The strength of packages is affected by many factors, such as the geometry, paperboard
properties and imperfect. However, the BCT strength could be well predicted by the
McKee and Grangård formulas. But, McKee’s and Grangård’s equations require
adaptation of the geometrical constants. When this fitting had been done the predictions
fitted the experiments well. Further on it would be interesting to see how good the
predictions would be for new packages.
Regarding Ristinmaa’s equation, no adaptation should be needed. However, the results

were not as accurate as with the McKee and Grangård formulas. The conclusion was
that even Ristinmaa’s equation requires some mapping to test results of the package, at
least for the more complex packages when it is not clear how to classify the panels. On
the other hand, Ristinmaa’s equation offers much better estimations of previously
untested geometries since it’s built on deformation patterns.
During point loading of the packages the membrane forces and boundary conditions
affected the results to much, therefore Kirchoff’s plate theory could not predict the
results very well.
However, FEM simulations using continuum elements could capture the deformations
well. It was also concluded that continuum elements was better to use than shell
elements. This was since the out-of-plane behaviour contributes to the deformation
activated during point loading of the packages. This is not accounted for by shell
elements.
87
11 References
Grangård H (1972)
Some aspects of the compressive strength of cartons
Svensk Papperstidning,
Grangård H and Kubat J (1973)

Compression of board cartons
Svensk Papperstidning,
McKee, R.C., Gander, J.W. and Wachuta, J.R. (1963).

Compression strength formula for corrugated boxes,
Paperboard Packaging, (48), 149-159.
Ristinmaa M, Saabye Ottosen N, Korin C (2012)

Analytical Prediction of Package Collapse Loads – Basic considerations
Nordic Pulp and Paper Research Journal Vol no.4/2012
88
Appendix A – Tensile test plots
Figure A1. Stress-strain curves for Paperboard Ac-Fc that was used to make cigarette
packages.
89
Figure A2. Stress-strain curves for Paperboard Am-Em that was used to make milk packages.
90
Appendix B – Results from folding using the L&W creasability

tester
Figure B1. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Am.
Figure B2. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Bm.
91
Figure B3. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Cm.
Figure B4. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Cm.
92
Figure B5. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Em.
Figure B6. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Cc.
93
Figure B7. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Bc.
Figure B8. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Cc.
94
Figure B9. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Dc.
Figure B10. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Ec.
95
Figure B11. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Fc.
Figure B12. Moment-angle plots in MD and CD for creased samples of Paperboard Gc.
96
Figure B13. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Am.
Figure B14. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Bm.

97
Figure B15. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Cm.
Figure B16. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Dm.

98
Figure B17. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Em.
Figure B18. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Ac.

99
Figure B19. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Bc.
Figure B20. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Cc.

100
Figure B21. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Dc.
Figure B22. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Ec.

101
Figure B23. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Fc.
Figure B24. Bending resistance calculation in MD and CD for Paperboard Gc.

102
Appendix C – Data from shear tests.
Figure C1. Rawdata from shear testing in MD of Paperbaord Ac using the DNS test.
103
For paperboard B
Figure C2. Rawdata from shear testing in MD of Paperbaord Bc using the DNS test.
104
Figure C3. Rawdata from shear testing in MD of Paperbaord Cc using the DNS test.
105
Figure C4. Rawdata from shear testing in MD of Paperbaord Dc using DNS test.
106
Figure C1. Rawdata from shear testing in MD of Paperbaord Ec using DNS test.
107
Figure C6. Rawdata from shear testing in MD of Paperbaord Fc using DNS test.
108
All this data put together
Figure C7. Shear strength profile of Paperboard Ac.
Figure C8. Shear strength profile of Paperboard Bc.

109
Figure C9. Shear strength profile of Paperboard Cc.
Figure C10. Shear strength profile of Paperboard Dc.

110
Figure C11. Shear strength profile of Paperboard Ec.
Figure C12. Shear strength profile of Paperboard Fc.

111
Figure C12. Shear strength profile of Paperboard Ac-Fc.

112
Appendix D – Drawings of cigarette package
Figure D1. Side numbers for BCT 1 on cigarette packages.

113
Figure D4. The dimensions of the cigarette package.
Figure D5. The names of the cigarette packages sides for BCT.
114
Appendix E – Drawings of milk package
Figure E1. Side numbers for BCT 1 on cigarette packages.
Figure E2. Side numbers for BCT 2 on cigarette packages.

115
Figure E4. The dimensions of the cigarette package.
Figure E5. The names of the cigarette packages sides for BCT.
116
Appendix F – Coordinate systems for the point loads
Figure F1. Coordinate system, for pint load 1 and 2 on cigarette packages.
Figure F2. Coordinate system, for pint load 3 on cigarette packages.
Figure F3. Coordinate system, for pint load 1(left) and 2 (right) on milk packages.
117
Innventia Database information

Title
Author
Carl-Magnus Everitt, Gustav Marin, Philip Ekfeldt, Hui Huang, Mikael Nygårds
Abstract
In this report different means of estimating the quality of packages from some basic
material tests have been investigated. By looking at data from tensile tests, short span
compression tests and bending tests, the quality of milk and cigarette packages has been
estimated with McKee’s, Grangård’s and Ristinmaa’s equation and with Kirchhoff’s
plate theory.It was found that Ristinmaa’s equation gave a rough estimation of the BCT
strength of the packages. However, the quality can be better estimated with McKee’s
equation after adjusting the geometric constants of the equations to the measured data.
The conclusion was drawn that if the goal is to estimate the quality of previously not
built packages, Ristinmaa’s equation gives a good idea of the BCT strength. The
estimation will be better for simpler designs of packages. By testing the package design
with other materials a better estimation can be achieved with McKee’s equation.To test
the handle ability, the packages were subjected to point loads. Here it was found that a
simple approximation with a Kirchhoff plate was not enough. A finite element was
therefore made in order to simulate point loads of the package. It was shown that
realistic deformations could be captured by the model when continuum elements were
used to represent the paperboard.
Keywords
Mechanical properties, BCT, cigarette, packaging, point load, FEM
Classification
1240
Type of publication
Public report
Report number
441
Publication year
September 2013
Language
English
INNVENTIA AB is a world leader in research and development relating to pulp,
paper, graphic media, packaging and biorefining. Our unique ability to translate
research into innovative products and processes generates enhanced value for our
industry partners. We call our approach boosting business with science. Innventia is
based in Stockholm, Bäckhammar and in Norway and the U.K. through our
subsidiaries PFI and Edge respectively.
INNVENTIA AB Tel +46 8 676 7000

Drottning Kristinas väg 61, BOX 5604 Fax +46 8 411 55 18 info@innventia.com
SE-114 86 Stockholm Sweden VATno 556603110901 www.innventia.com

Package performance testing and modeling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Package performance testing and modeling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

According to Innventia Confidentiality Policy this Report is confidential until 2013-09-15

Package performance - BCT and point loading of paperboard packages

Innventia Report No.: 441

4 Experimental characterization ................................................................................ 6

5 Experimental setup .............................................................................................. 14

6 Theoretical models .............................................................................................. 19

7.3.1 McKee’s equation ....................................................................................... 64

8 Finite element model ........................................................................................... 76

Appendix A – Tensile test plots ................................................................................... 88

Appendix C – Data from shear tests. ........................................................................ 102

Appendix D – Drawings of cigarette package ............................................................ 112

Appendix E – Drawings of milk package ................................................................... 114

Appendix F – Coordinate systems for the point loads ............................................... 116

Innventia Database information ................................................................................ 117

Figure 1. The milk and cigarette packages used in this study.

To get increase the understanding of how different paperboard properties contribute to

AC 240 248 316

AM 200 200 272

4.1 Tensile Test

4.2 SCT – Short Span Compression Test

Figure 5. SCT results for the cigarette package paperboards.

Figure 6. SCT results for the milk package paperboards.

4.3 Bending Test

4.3.1 Bending stiffness

which is based on elementary beam theory.

Figure 7. Example of bending test results.

Figure 8. Bending stiffness of cigarette package paperboards.

Figure 9. Bending stiffness of milk package paperboards.

4.3.2 Bending resistance

Figure 10. Example of bending resistance test results.

Figure 11. The bending resistance, BR, of the cigarette paperboards.

Figure 12. The bending resistance, BR, of the milk paperboards.

Ac 6031/2539 6988/4730 0.068/0.033 191.8/83.0

Bc 5281/2596 5862/4085 0.065/0.035 175.8/83.8

Cc 4858/2472 4923/3726 0.046/0.026 118.6/60.6

Dc 4828/1756 5343/3031 0.072/0.030 183.8/73.2

Ec 4374/1754 5091/3208 0.074/0.029 184.2/78.8

Fc 5055/1999 5690/3517 0.083/0.039 187.2/79.6

Gc 5055/1999 5690/3517 0.089/0.038 184.4/89.8

Am 4714/2007 4128/2628 0.045/0.024 111.6/63.4

Bm 4816/1809 4659/2741 0.059/0,030 165.0/64.6

Cm 5112/1914 6806/4328 0.179/0.086 498.4/194.2

Dm 4812/1709 6027/3770 0.181/0.089 540.0/193.6

Em 5771/1882 6673/4291 0.178/0.077 456.4/145.6

4.4 Shear tests

Figure 14. The fiber direction for the cigarette packages.

Figure 15. The milk packages with direction 1.

Figure 16. The milk packages with direction 2.

5.2 Point loading

Figure 22. The loading points for the cigarette package.

Figure 23. The loading points for the milk package.

6.1 McKee’s equation

6.1.1 Cigarette package

Load case Expression for FC Z [m]

6.1.2 Milk package

1.2 7  SCTCD  28  SCTMD 0.35

2.2 FC  SCTMD 0.27

6.2 Grangård’s equation

6.2.1 Cigarette package

6.2.2 Milk package

Load case Expression for FC Z [m]

2.2 FC  SCTMD 0.27

6.3 Ristinmaa’s equation